United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives February 1997 PUBLIC HOUSING Status of the HOPE VI Demonstration Program GAO/RCED-97-44 United States GAO General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-275785 February 25, 1997 The Honorable Jerry Lewis Chairman The Honorable Louis Stokes Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives In its final report dated August 1992, the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing found that severely distressed public housing was a national problem.1 According to the Commission, 86,000 (or 6 percent) of the nation’s public housing units, located primarily in deteriorating neighborhoods of large urban communities, were plagued by crime, unemployment, and deteriorated physical conditions. Moreover, the Commission maintained, the traditional approaches to address these problems were not working. Responding to the Commission’s findings, the Congress created the HOPE VI-Urban Revitalization Demonstration Program2 in October 1992 to help public housing authorities revitalize severely distressed housing developments. As a demonstration program, HOPE VI was to foster innovative approaches to revitalization and to encourage housing authorities, residents, and local communities to work together with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in transforming distressed areas into productive residential and commercial centers. For fiscal years 1993-95, the Congress appropriated $1.58 billion3 for the HOPE VI program. Because of this significant level of funding, the Subcommittee asked us, in its June 18, 1996, report accompanying the fiscal year 1997 VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill, and as agreed with Subcommittee staff, to 1 The Final Report of the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing (Washington, D.C., Aug. 1992). 2 HOPE VI is the most recent of a series of Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere (HOPE) programs created by the Congress and administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to address specific housing needs. 3 Although the Congress appropriated funds for the HOPE VI program for fiscal years 1996 and 1997, fiscal year 1996 funds were not available to public housing authorities until October 1996, and HUD does not expect to make fiscal year 1997 funds available until March 1997. Because we limited our review to the expenditures received through the end of fiscal year 1996, this report focuses primarily on the uses of the funds appropriated for the program for fiscal years 1993-95. Page 1 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration B-275785 • provide information on the expenditures and activities for HOPE VI projects funded with appropriations for fiscal years 1993-95, • determine whether HUD has identified innovative or successful approaches taken by housing authorities to implement their HOPE VI projects, and • describe HUD’s strategy for evaluating the HOPE VI program’s outcomes. To answer these questions, we relied heavily on data from HUD, public housing authorities, and HUD contractors. We also obtained detailed information about HOPE VI projects at five housing authorities. Of the $1.58 billion that the Congress appropriated for the HOPE VI Results in Brief program for fiscal years 1993-95, HUD had awarded $1.54 billion for capital improvements and community and supportive services as of September 30, 1996. In addition, the Congress earmarked $5 million of the appropriation for HUD to provide technical assistance to housing authorities. The awards, which fund 39 HOPE VI projects at 32 public housing authorities (7 housing authorities received two grants), range in size from $7.5 million to $50 million and averaging about $39 million.4 These funds have been used primarily for capital improvements to the housing stock, for which housing authorities have budgeted an average of 87 percent of their grants. The participating authorities, as of September 30, 1996, had • demolished 6,538 housing units out of a planned total of 22,573 units, • rehabilitated 705 units out of a planned total of 5,407 units, • constructed 419 new units out of a planned 15,299 units, and • provided housing vouchers to 1,639 families displaced by the demolition or rehabilitation. HUD has identified several innovative approaches used by HOPE VI grantees to implement their projects. These approaches, which could serve as models for other housing authorities, include Cleveland’s concept of centralizing its social services, Milwaukee’s street layout to reduce density and enhance the neighborhood’s security and cohesiveness, and Atlanta’s use of private investors to help finance its improvements. To assist other HOPE VI grantees, HUD has disseminated information about these and other approaches. 4 In addition to the $1.54 billion awarded to fund 39 projects and the $5 million in technical assistance, HUD set aside, per congressional mandate, $20 million for youth training and apprenticeship programs in the construction field and awarded $14.45 million for 35 planning grants. Planning grants could be used to plan for the revitalization projects and could not be more than $500,000 each. HUD carried over into fiscal year 1996 approximately $1.4 million that was not awarded in previous years. Page 2 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration B-275785 To evaluate the long-term effectiveness of the HOPE VI program, HUD is conducting a phased 10-year evaluation. In August 1996, HUD completed a baseline study of 15 HOPE VI grantees’ distressed housing and early revitalization activities. HUD plans 5- and 10-year follow-up evaluations of these activities. According to HUD, an evaluation at this time of the HOPE VI program’s progress to date could be premature because several significant housing policies and regulatory ground rules changed after the program started. These changes resulted, in turn, in changes to the implementation plans for many HOPE VI projects and in delays in meeting initial milestones. In 1989, the Congress established the National Commission on Severely Background Distressed Public Housing to identify the nation’s worst public housing and propose a national action plan to eradicate this housing by the year 2000. In 1992, the Commission reported that approximately 86,000 units, or 6 percent, of public housing could be considered severely distressed and that the traditional approaches to revitalizing this housing had not been effective. Physically deteriorated buildings were but one aspect of severely distressed public housing; the Commission also observed two other conditions: (1) the residents were living in despair and needed high levels of social and support services and (2) the surrounding communities were economically and socially distressed. The symptoms of these conditions include the absence of economic resources, high rates of crime and unemployment, lack of opportunity for training and education, and barriers to effective management, such as high vacancy rates. The Commission recommended that funds be made available to address all three conditions and that these funds be added to the amounts traditionally appropriated for modernizing public housing. In response to the Commission’s report, the Congress created the HOPE VI program to address these three conditions and incorporated many of the Commission’s recommendations. By making HOPE VI a demonstration program, the Congress made the program more comprehensive and flexible than previous approaches to revitalizing public housing. The program’s flexibility enabled public housing authorities (PHA) to take advantage of the developments in national public housing policy, such as the suspension of the one-for-one replacement requirement5 and the 5 In place since 1988, this requirement provided that PHAs must replace every housing unit that they take out of service with another unit of public housing or housing assistance under HUD’s project- or tenant-based housing assistance program. The HOPE VI appropriations acts permitted PHAs with HOPE VI awards to request section 8 certificates for up to one-third of the one-for-one replacements. The Congress suspended this requirement in July 1995. Page 3 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration B-275785 introduction of private-public financing for constructing public housing units. To obtain HOPE VI grants, PHAs must submit competitive applications to HUD’s Office of Urban Revitalization. The Congress stipulated that the PHAs applying for these funds during the first 3 years must be located in the 40 most populous U.S. cities, based on 1990 Census data, or included on HUD’s list of troubled housing authorities6 as of March 31, 1992.7 HUD awarded successful applicants grants of up to $50 million for each HOPE VI project, and some PHAs have received more than one grant. HUD withholds most of the grant from the PHA until it approves the authority’s “revitalization plan,” which includes the budget to implement HOPE VI. The revitalization plan is the housing authority’s blueprint and schedule for implementing its HOPE VI project and specifies its goals and budget.8 Once HUD approves the plan, it authorizes, or makes available, funding in accounts corresponding to the amounts that the housing authority has budgeted for the project. HUD disburses funds from the accounts at the request of the PHAs and allows them to draw down no more than 5 percent of their authorized amounts per month to pay for goods and services received. The withholding of funds may also occur after the funds are authorized as a result of concerns, such as whether a PHA has the ability to successfully manage a HOPE VI project, that HUD may have about the HOPE VI project. Thirty-two housing authorities have budgeted an average of 87 percent of Most HOPE VI the $1.54 billion they have received in awards, or $1.33 billion, to fund Funding Is for Capital capital activities for the 39 HOPE VI projects,9 according to an analysis Improvements conducted by HUD. The awards fund 39 HOPE VI projects ranging in size from $7.5 million to $50 million and averaging about $39 million. Capital activities include demolition, rehabilitation, and new construction as well as the expenses associated with relocating residents who have been 6 HUD maintains a list of troubled PHAs based on their annual performance score in the Public Housing Management Assessment Program. HUD uses the assessment program to measure PHAs’ compliance against standard property management criteria. PHAs receiving scores under 60 out of a possible 100 are designated as “troubled.” 7 The Congress removed this criterion in the fiscal year 1996 appropriations for HOPE VI. 8 In addition to the budget, HUD requires that the revitalization plan include a community service plan that outlines how residents and local service agencies will contribute to the revitalization of their neighborhood. The revitalization plan may also consist of plans for other major activities as appropriate, such as demolition, replacement housing, resident relocation, and management. 9 As of December 13, 1996, HUD had approved 31 of the 39 budgets received from PHAs for their revitalization plans. HUD does not anticipate significant changes in the budgeted amounts for capital activities for the remaining eight HOPE VI projects. Thus, our summary includes the plans of all 39 HOPE VI projects. Page 4 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration B-275785 displaced to accommodate capital activities. While no PHA has completed its capital improvements, construction is under way at 20 of the 39 sites. As figure 1 shows, the PHAs have budgeted the remaining $200 million, or 13 percent, for community and supportive services. Figure 1: Planned Expenditures for the 39 HOPE VI Projects Community and supportive services—$200 million • 13% 87% • Capital activities and resident relocation—$1.33 billion Note: This analysis does not include $5.2 million that, in late 1996, HUD awarded as additional, or amendment, funds to six HOPE VI projects. Therefore, these funds have not been factored into the projects’ budgets. Source: HUD’s analysis of the budgets for the 39 HOPEVI projects’ revitalization plans. Capital Improvements The HOPE VI program allows a PHA to determine through a revitalization Under HOPE VI plan which capital improvements would be the most effective for its community and in the best interests of its residents. The PHA must work with its residents and local government to ensure that their concerns are addressed by the proposed capital improvements. Most projects fund demolition, rehabilitation, and/or new construction. The PHA may also use section 8 certificates10 to house displaced residents. 10 HUD’s section 8 certificate and voucher programs are designed to allow lower-income households to live in decent and affordable private rental housing of their choice. Page 5 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration B-275785 Capital improvement activities are time-consuming and complex, as the experience of other public housing programs has shown. In the HOPE VI program, the authority must consult with its residents before the project can move forward. However, at several project sites, disagreement between the residents and the authority has impeded the decision-making on which activities to fund. In addition, the PHAs must obtain HUD’s approval of their plans and comply with the program’s requirements and many other applicable regulations, such as those dealing with environmental reviews, historic preservation, and the federal procurement process. Only then can ground-breaking activities occur. Funding status. As of the end of fiscal year 1996, HUD had authorized $653 million for HOPE VI capital improvement activities and disbursed $127 million to the PHAs. This authorization is about half of the $1.33 billion that is budgeted for activities associated with capital improvements. HUD has not authorized more funds because only about two-thirds of the projects have begun or are ready to begin capital activities. As of December 13, 1996, HUD had not approved the revitalization plans for eight HOPE VI projects. Nevertheless, HUD does not anticipate that there will be significant changes in the average percentages for funding capital activities and community and supportive services once the other eight budgets are approved. Activities completed or under way. Officials in HUD’s Office of Urban Revitalization told us that HUD does not currently maintain a centralized database to track all HOPE VI activities, including those associated with improving the housing stock. However, HUD recently contracted with the Housing Research Foundation (HRF), a nonprofit organization, to conduct a survey, the results of which are entered into a database that can be updated. According to the survey, as of September 30, 1996, the 32 PHAs, in accomplishing their capital improvement activities, had • demolished 6,538 units, or 29 percent of the 22,573 units currently planned for demolition; • rehabilitated 705 units, or 13 percent of the 5,407 units that are scheduled for rehabilitation or reconfiguration; and • constructed 419 new units, or 3 percent of the 15,299 proposed new units. Using data from the HRF survey, figure 2 compares the 39 HOPE VI projects’ completed and planned capital activities. Because some PHAs are using their HOPE VI funding as leverage to attract funds from other investors, they may be accomplishing more than they could with HOPE VI Page 6 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration B-275785 funds alone. According to the HRF survey, 15,004 of the 20,706 planned rehabilitated and newly constructed units reported are HOPE VI units, meaning that they are to be funded solely with HOPE VI funds. Furthermore, because of the flexibility of the HOPE VI program, the PHAs’ plans for capital activities are subject to change. Figure 2: Status of HOPE VI Projects’ Capital Improvements as of Number of units September 30, 1996 24000 22573 22000 20000 18000 16000 15299 14000 12000 10000 8000 6538 6000 5407 4000 2000 705 419 0 Demolished Rehabilitated Newly constructed Capital improvements Planned units Completed units Source: HRF’s September 1996 survey. In addition, HUD had provided 3,194 certificates and vouchers to the housing authorities to be used to house relocated residents. However, HUD’s section 8 certificate and voucher program funds this housing assistance, not the HOPE VI program. The PHAs have reported to HUD that 1,639 families have been assisted through the section 8 program. According to HUD, no HOPE VI project had completed all of its capital Page 7 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration B-275785 activities as of the end of calendar year 1996. However, 26 HOPE VI projects had started demolition and 20 projects had begun construction by the end of 1996. Technical Assistance During the first 3 years of HOPE VI, the Congress appropriated $5 million Supports Revitalization for HUD to use in providing technical assistance to HOPE VI projects. The Congress appropriated an additional $3.22 million for HUD’s use during fiscal year 1996, bringing the total for fiscal years 1993 through 1996 to $8.22 million, or about 0.4 percent of the total HOPE VI appropriations for that time period.11 In providing technical assistance, HUD’s contractors have assisted the PHAs and their residents by, for example, assessing the needs for resident services and planning for community and economic development. On the local level, HUD, when concerned about the housing authorities’ management capability, has planned for contractors to assist the PHAs in planning and managing their projects and is planning for contractors to assist as needed in managing revitalized properties. HUD staff also assist PHAs and residents as part of their responsibility for managing HOPE VI grants. Funding status. As table 1 shows, for each year except fiscal year 1993, the Congress has set aside from the HOPE VI appropriation an amount for technical assistance. The services that HUD has procured with these funds have assisted the PHAs in establishing their HOPE VI project community and supportive service activities, among others. As of the end of fiscal year 1996, HUD had contracted for technical assistance costing approximately $4.35 million (53 percent of technical assistance appropriations), and of that amount, HUD had paid out nearly $2.02 million (25 percent) to contractors. Approximately 39 percent, or $3.22 million, of the total funding set aside for technical assistance through fiscal year 1996 was not available to HUD to use until May 1996 because of the delayed enactment and signing of the fiscal year 1996 appropriations act. (App. II contains a breakdown of total funds set aside for each HUD contractor, the services provided, and the funds paid out to these contractors as of September 30, 1996.) 11 While this report focuses primarily on the activities funded with fiscal years 1993-95 HOPE VI program appropriations, it also includes a discussion of fiscal year 1996 appropriations set aside for HUD-contracted technical assistance. These funds were made available for use by HUD in May 1996. Page 8 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration B-275785 Table 1: HOPE VI Appropriations Designated for Technical Assistance, Technical Fiscal Years 1993-96 Total HOPE VI assistance Percent of total Fiscal year appropriations appropriations appropriation 1993 $300,000,000 $0 0 1994 778,240,000 2,500,000 0.3 1995 500,000,000 2,500,000 0.5 1996 480,000,000 3,216,000 0.6 Total $2,058,240,000 $8,216,000 0.4 Assistance completed or under way. As defined broadly by HOPE VI program officials, technical assistance is any kind of support that helps a housing authority carry out its project. At the national level, HUD has procured the following kinds of services from contractors with the funds set aside from the HOPE VI appropriation: • Developing and approving community service plans: The Corporation for National Service (CNS) provided assistance with community and supportive service planning and plan approvals for implementation grants.12 • Project assessment: Through on-site visits to HOPE VI projects, HRF is assessing the capability and performance of HOPE VI grantees. It is also assessing technical assistance needs as well as recommending corrective action and technical assistance contractors. HRF is also providing appropriate training for PHA and HOPE VI project staff. To date, HRF has completed formal assessments for 11 HOPE VI projects and expects to complete additional assessments in the future. • Information exchange: HRF established a computerized communication system that is available to all HOPE VI PHAs. Twenty-seven PHAs have chosen to participate, of which 21 are currently on-line and another 6 are in the process of getting on-line. Furthermore, HRF provides informational services to HOPE VI PHAs, including (1) an extensive library of program documents both in printed and electronic formats and (2) a monthly newsletter distributed to all grantees, consultants, and interested parties, and has assisted HUD to provide three national technical assistance conferences. To make HOPE VI information more widely available, HRF recently integrated its Lotus Notes system with the Internet. • Community building/Campus of Learners technical assistance: Two HUD contractors, Aspen Systems and the Urban Institute, will provide 18 months of technical assistance in developing community-building 12 The Congress mandated that CNS define the community service programs allowable in the HOPE VI program and approve all projects’ community service plans. CNS is a congressionally established organization that administers national service programs that provide community services. Page 9 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration B-275785 programs, including a Campus of Learners educational component, to nine HOPE VI projects selected to date. • HOPE VI database: HRF is developing a HOPE VI database to track and store information on all aspects of the program. Under contract to HUD, HRF continues to collect these data and will keep them current for monitoring, reporting, and policy development purposes. As discussed earlier, HRF provided HUD with program data as of the end of September 1996. Locally, contractors also provide technical assistance, including project management, to HOPE VI PHAs. HUD has required 11 PHAs to hire private-sector management professionals to manage their HOPE VI projects. Eight other PHAs either have decided on their own to hire such managers or were advised by HUD to do so. Like other revitalization efforts, HOPE VI projects also procure technical design assistance from architectural and engineering firms. Furthermore, HUD recognizes the importance of effectively managing a development after it has been revitalized. The director of HUD’s Office of Urban Revitalization told us that HUD looks closely at a PHA’s HOPE VI management plans and, after assessing the PHA’s management capability, often requires or recommends management reforms. As a result, HUD has required one PHA to hire a private contractor to manage the revitalized property. Four other PHAs plan to do so as a result of HUD’s advice. In total, HRF’s database shows that 16 HOPE VI projects will have private property managers. The PHAs use HOPE VI grant funds or other resources to pay for project and property management contractors. HUD’s field and headquarters staff also provide technical assistance to PHAs and their residents, according to HUD’s program guidelines. HOPE VI grantees told us that both HUD headquarters and field staff have provided helpful assistance, including useful advice about project design, allowable expenses, HUD’s regulations, and cutting the Department’s red tape, when appropriate. The costs for these services are not identified separately within HUD’s overall personnel expenditures. Community and By funding community and supportive services, HOPE VI is addressing the Supportive Services conditions prevalent in public housing, such as severely dysfunctional Address Residents’ Needs families, residents’ distrust of PHAs, a lack of employment opportunities, limited economic development in the local community, and generational cycles of poverty. Community services are defined as services that public housing residents provide voluntarily. Residents may, for example, Page 10 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration B-275785 volunteer with the Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA),13 in battered women’s shelters, on community newsletters, and with residents’ organizations and recreational centers for community youth. In contrast, supportive services are provided by social service agencies and nonprofit groups to help residents become more self-sufficient. The supportive services currently offered include day care, basic education in areas such as mathematics and verbal skills, health care services, and counseling on family coping skills or substance abuse prevention. For the most part, HOPE VI projects—with their dual focus on addressing capital and human needs—resemble successful community development programs that we reviewed in an earlier 1995 study.14 In that study, we reported that significant neighborhood revitalization may take a generation or longer to achieve. We found that programs with the greatest chances for success are generally community-based, focusing on a specific geographic area and actively involving the residents. Successful programs also confront the multiple needs facing communities and are frequently initiated and sustained through collaboration with many organizations. Funding status. The HOPE VI guidelines allow PHAs to spend up to 20 percent of their grant on community and supportive services. But obtaining expenditure data is difficult because HUD does not collect or centrally maintain the data on expenditures by HOPE VI projects for community and supportive services. Budget data are available, however, from the projects’ plans, and according to an analysis done by HUD in December 1996, housing authorities have budgeted an average of 13 percent of their HOPE VI grants, or about $5.1 million, for community and supportive services. Currently, 11 of the 39 HOPE VI projects have budgeted 19 percent or more of their implementation grant for these services, while 3 projects have budgeted less than 4 percent of their grants. Activities completed or under way. In September 1996, HRF surveyed the HOPE VI projects to determine the extent and type of community and supportive services planned or provided and whether the plans for such services had been approved so that activities could begin. The survey reported that since January 1996, an overall increase had occurred in the delivery of community and supportive services, as well as an increase in the number and variety of the partners and existing community resources 13 The VISTA program, administered by CNS, recruits volunteers to serve full time for 1 to 5 years in poverty and poverty-related projects. 14 Comprehensive Approaches Address Multiple Needs but Are Challenging to Implement (GAO/RCED/HEHS-95-69, Feb. 8, 1995). Page 11 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration B-275785 now being used to provide support for the residents. HRF also reported that nearly 76 percent of the plans for community and supportive services had been approved, 81 percent of the sites were delivering supportive services, and 73 percent of the sites were providing community services (some service activities had been on-going long before the HOPE VI project was proposed). (See app. III for a list of the community and supportive services planned for selected HOPE VI projects.) In general, community and supportive services promote self- sufficiency through education, training, mentoring, and counseling. As the following examples show, PHAs can adopt varying approaches, depending on the services deemed best for their residents, to providing community and supportive services. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority (Cleveland). At its HOPE VI project located at the Outhwaite Homes/King Kennedy development, Cuyahoga provides community and supportive services through a “village concept” where services are centrally located. Cuyahoga budgeted $8 million of its $50 million HOPE VI award for this project’s community and supportive service activities. In a converted high-rise, senior-citizens building, Cuyahoga has opened a multistoried social services mall that features a variety of community and supportive services. Its supportive services include a Montessori school and day care facility, health care services, and family self-sufficiency programs, such as employment and vocational training. Also available are leadership and entrepreneurship training programs, transitional housing services for homeless men, and a drug rehabilitation residence for mothers in public housing. The community services include the Boys and Girls Club, which is staffed by both professionals and resident volunteers and offers a variety of services and activities for children, and a mentorship program offered through Cleveland State University. Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee. Milwaukee has budgeted $3.8 million of its $45 million award for the community and supportive services for its HOPE VI project at Hillside Terrace. Milwaukee has used its HOPE VI funds to reinforce and expand existing partnerships, such as a Boys and Girls Club. The supportive services include on-site health care and alcohol/drug prevention services, day care, and classes in child development, parenting, and nutrition. Some of the public housing residents are being trained for future jobs by rehabilitating vacant units and working in the construction trades. In the community services area, Page 12 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration B-275785 Milwaukee has a micro-neighborhood mentoring program, a block watch program, and volunteer opportunities, including the Boys and Girls Club. Community partnerships are critical to the effective delivery and continued viability of services. HOPE VI project officials told us that their partnerships with social service and nonprofit agencies are keys to effectively delivering services to their residents. The partners include local elected officials, colleges and universities, social service providers, nonprofit groups, and national groups such as CNS and the Child Welfare League of America. By partnering with the local social service agencies and nonprofit foundations, some HOPE VI projects are able to provide early expanded job readiness programs, educational programs, and family self-sufficiency programs, such as health clinics for the residents. The existing community partners provide services to supplement the HOPE VI efforts. As part of the HOPE VI program, HUD is identifying the innovative or PHAs’ HOPE VI particularly promising approaches used by PHAs to implement the Approaches Are Being components of their HOPE VI projects. These approaches, if proven Identified and successful, could become models for use in other distressed housing redevelopment efforts across the entire public housing program. HUD and Disseminated, but HRF are providing information to PHAs on potentially effective approaches They May Take Time through conferences, newsletters, and an electronic communication system. HUD officials caution, however, that such housing redevelopment to Be Proven methods may not be proven to be fully successful for 7 to 10 years. Successful Success of Identified Table 2 shows four examples of approaches that HUD, HRF, and other Approaches May Take officials identified as being potentially successful and applicable to other PHAs’ redevelopment efforts. Time to Prove Page 13 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration B-275785 Table 2: Potentially Successful HOPE VI Redevelopment Approaches Location of PHA Description of approacha Atlanta, GA Leverage HOPE VI grant with low-income (Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta) housing tax credits and funds from private and other investors to demolish and construct over 1,000 units—twice what could have been accomplished with HOPE VI funds alone—of assisted and affordable housing. Cleveland, OH (Cuyahoga Metropolitan Create a “social service mall” in a Housing Authority) converted mid-rise building. Twenty different social service agencies offer services that range from graduate- equivalent diploma classes to AIDS counseling and day care. Milwaukee Create less dense and less isolated (Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee) “micro-neighborhoods” by demolishing deteriorated housing and constructing streets that cross through the development. In addition, the housing authority created early and strong partnerships with the local social service agencies and nonprofit foundations to bring apprenticeship programs, job readiness programs, and a family health clinic to its residents. Seattle, WA Redevelop the community to end the (Seattle Housing Authority) separation of residents from the surrounding neighborhood and to involve a variety of cultures represented by the residents. Develop housing to match the appearance of the neighborhood and connect the development’s streets to community roads. Since nine major languages are spoken at the HOPE VI project, the PHA provides translations for meetings, training, and surveys to increase participation and serve the entire population. a HUD, CNS, and/or HRF identified these approaches. Officials from HUD and other organizations associated with HOPE VI agree that proving that an approach is successful and determining the sustainability of its outcome could take years—as long as 7 to 10 years, according to HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Housing Investments, who oversees the HOPE VI program. Yet HUD’s Director of the Office of Urban Revitalization, CNS’ HOPE VI Director, and HRF’s HOPE VI Director stated that aspects of a redevelopment effort’s success may be Page 14 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration B-275785 proved before this time passes. According to CNS’ HOPE VI Director, the amount of time needed to demonstrate the success of an approach depends on the goal the PHA is trying to accomplish. He said, for example, that if a PHA’s approach involves improving the lives of children, 7 to 10 years may be necessary to demonstrate the approach’s impact on the children. Alternatively, if a PHA’s goal is to develop neighborhood watches, this approach’s success can be measured in a few months by counting the number of watches established. HRF and HUD Provide HRF provides information to HOPE VI PHAs on potentially successful Information on approaches by publishing a monthly newsletter, managing an electronic Approaches communication system, and giving the PHAs access to documents such as the contracts used by PHAs, the PHAs’ HOPE VI plans, and HUD’s guidance. HRF’s monthly newsletter contains descriptions of the PHAs’ approaches to implementing the HOPE VI program, contacts at the PHAs for more information, updates on the status of regulations and other issues affecting the HOPE VI program, and information on events such as conferences and training sessions. HRF’s electronic communication system provides information and allows the PHAs to send messages to each other and discuss such issues as real estate development and finance, economic development, services, and general housing topics. HRF also maintains a collection of contracts used by HOPE VI PHAs, HUD documents and guidance, and profiles of PHAs and descriptions of their HOPE VI programs that can be accessed via the electronic system. With conferences and samples of the documents that PHAs are currently using, HUD informs other PHAs of potentially successful HOPE VI redevelopment approaches. Since the program’s inception, HUD has held nine conferences on implementing the HOPE VI program and operating newly revitalized housing developments. During these conferences, HOPE VI managers presented information on the approaches they have used at their developments. In addition, on request HUD provides PHAs with examples and documents detailing how other housing authorities have successfully implemented the components of the program. To assess the long-term effectiveness of the HOPE VI program, HUD has HUD Is Conducting a completed the initial phase of a multistage evaluation. HUD officials told us Phased, Long-Term that short-term evaluations of HOPE VI projects may be premature Evaluation of the because time is needed for the projects to achieve their intended outcomes on revitalized physical structures, PHAs’ management HOPE VI Program Page 15 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration B-275785 improvements, and the well-being of residents, including job training and family self-sufficiency. HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research is conducting a three-phase, 10-year evaluation of the conditions at HOPE VI sites. The first phase, completed in August 1996, was a baseline study of 15 HOPE VI grantees. The second and third phases will be 5- and 10-year evaluations of the activities and outcomes of the HOPE VI projects at the 15 sites. The baseline study contained historical descriptions of the distressed housing and planned revitalization activities of the 15 HOPE VI grantees that were chosen on the basis of their location, development type, types of distress, and proposed approaches. The study documented that although most of 23 sampled developments (within the 15 PHAs) were rated as having “poor” or “very poor” physical conditions and overall maintenance, their vacancy rates were nevertheless very low. In addition, most of the 15 sampled PHAs planned to reduce the number of units in their HOPE VI project portfolio and create mixed-income communities. According to HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Housing Investments, it may take 7 to 10 years before revitalization efforts at a HOPE VI development could be determined as successful. He told us that short-term evaluations may be premature because the measurable outcomes have been limited in part because of several factors, including delays in PHAs’ development of approvable plans. According to HUD, many PHAs revised their revitalization plans to take advantage of the expanded opportunities that became available as the HOPE VI program evolved. As a demonstration program, HOPE VI offered new opportunities, both to the PHAs and their communities, and these opportunities have expanded since the program began. For example, in mid-1994, HUD began encouraging the PHAs to demolish rather than attempt to repair obsolete housing, leverage HOPE VI dollars with other funding sources such as low-income housing tax credits and state funds, and partner with the private sector to develop mixed-income housing and encourage neighborhood development. HUD also encouraged the PHAs to partner with organizations such as social service agencies and nonprofit corporations to provide services to the residents of HOPE VI communities. In 1995, the Congress suspended the one-for-one replacement rule for demolished units, thereby further expanding the PHAs’ revitalization options by allowing the PHAs to remove housing units without replacing them. Reacting to these opportunities, many PHAs changed their plans and thus delayed the implementation of their HOPE VI projects to incorporate these Page 16 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration B-275785 new opportunities into their plans. Meanwhile, some PHAs encountered delays while attempting to reach agreement with their residents or local communities on their revitalization plans. In fact, the HOPE VI program’s guidelines urged the PHAs to involve residents and local communities in the planning process. Also, HOPE VI legislation prohibited the PHAs from receiving funds until CNS approved their community and social services plans. HUD expects the implementation of HOPE VI projects to last an average of 4 to 5 years, but to date no project has reached this milestone. In addition to HUD’s evaluation, some PHAs are evaluating their own HOPE VI programs. For instance, four of the five PHAs—Cuyahoga, Kansas City, Milwaukee, and Oakland—we spoke with already have contracted with local groups to conduct evaluations of their HOPE VI projects. We provided a draft of this report to HUD and the Housing Research Agency Comments Foundation (HRF) for their review and comment. We discussed the draft report with HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Housing Investments, the Director of the Office of Urban Revitalization, and HRF’s HOPE VI Project Director. HUD officials found the report to be a good, fair, and useful summary of the HOPE VI program. Other comments by HUD and HRF pertained primarily to the data that were cited in our report. HUD and HRF had conflicting data pertaining to the number of demolished units as of September 30, 1996, and the number of HOPE VI projects that had started demolition and construction in calendar year 1996. After discussions with both HUD and HRF, we agreed to use HRF’s data for total demolished units and HUD’s data for demolition and construction start dates. We incorporated these and other clarifying comments into the report, as appropriate. For information on the HOPE VI program and the expenditures and Scope and activities of the grants, we collected data from many sources. We reviewed Methodology HUD’s program guidelines, project files for the grants, and status reports. We also reviewed the correspondence and the required quarterly reports from the participating PHAs. We interviewed officials from HUD, CNS, and HUD contractors, including HRF and the Urban Institute. Our work also benefitted from HRF’s September 1996 survey of HOPE VI grantees to collect detailed information about the status and accomplishments of their projects. At our request, HRF incorporated a number of our suggestions and Page 17 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration B-275785 questions into their survey, the results of which were released in November 1996. We also contacted five HOPE VI projects that are at varying stages of implementation: (1) the Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee, (2) the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, (3) the Kansas City Housing Authority, (4) the Oakland Housing Authority, and (5) the Chicago Housing Authority. We obtained information about the results and status of their HOPE VI projects to determine the details of their progress and the uniqueness of their implementation approach. We did not, however, verify the accuracy of this information as it was provided by HUD, its contractors, or the PHAs we contacted. We also did not evaluate the pace at which these PHAs are implementing their projects nor compare their results with each other. We conducted our work from July 1996 through December 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 14 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to appropriate Senate and House committees; the Secretary of HUD; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will make copies available to others on request. Please call me at (202) 512-7631 if you or your staff have any questions about the material in this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV. Judy A. England-Joseph Director, Housing and Community Development Issues Page 18 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration Page 19 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration Contents Letter 1 Appendix I 22 Capital Improvements to Distressed Housing in HOPE VI Developments Appendix II 26 Summary of the HOPE VI Program’s Technical Assistance Budget Activity Appendix III 27 Selected HOPE VI Projects’ Community and Supportive Services Appendix IV 32 Major Contributors to This Report Tables Table 1: HOPE VI Appropriations Designated for Technical 9 Assistance, Fiscal Years 1993-96 Table 2: Potentially Successful HOPE VI Redevelopment 14 Approaches Figures Figure 1: Planned Expenditures for the 39 HOPE VI Projects 5 Figure 2: Status of HOPE VI Projects’ Capital Improvements as of 7 September 30, 1996 Page 20 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration Contents Abbreviations CNS Corporation for National Service GED general equivalency diploma HAKC Housing Authority for Kansas City HRF Housing Research Foundation HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development PHA public housing authority TA technical assistance VISTA Volunteers in Service to America Page 21 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration Appendix I Capital Improvements to Distressed Housing in HOPE VI Developments Data as of September 30, 1996 PHA HOPE VI project Fiscal year Award amount Atlanta Techwood/Clark Howell 1993 $42,562,635 b Baltimore Lafayette Courts 1994 $49,663,600 Baltimore Lexington Terracea 1995 $22,702,000 Boston Mission Main 1993 $49,992,350 Boston Orchard Parka 1995 $30,000,000 Camden McGuire Gardens 1994 $42,177,229 Charlotte Earle Village 1993 $41,740,155b Chicago Cabrini Homes Extension 1994 $50,000,000 Cuyahoga/ Ouithwaite/King Kennedy 1993 $50,000,000 Cleveland Cuyahoga/ Carver Parka 1995 $21,000,000 Cleveland Columbus Windsor Terrace 1994 $42,053,408b Dallas Lakewest 1994 $26,600,000 Denver Quigg Newton Homes 1994 $26,489,288b Detroit Jeffries Homes 1994 $39,807,342 Detroit Parkside Homes 1995 $47,620,227 El Paso Kennedy Brothers Memorial 1995 $36,224,644b Apts. Houston Allen Parkway Village 1993 $36,602,761 Indianapolis Concord Village/Eagle 1995 $29,999,010 Creek Kansas City Guinotte Manor 1993 $47,579,800 Los Angeles Pico Gardens/Aliso North & 1993 $50,000,000 South Memphis LeMoyne Gardens 1995 $47,281,182 Milwaukee Hillside Terrace 1993 $45,689,446b Newark Walsh Homes 1994 $49,996,000 New Haven Elm Haven 1993 $45,331,593 New Orleans Desire 1994 $44,255,908 New York City Beach 41st Street Houses 1995 $47,700,952 Oakland Lockwood/Coliseum/Lower 1994 $26,510,020b Fruitvale Philadelphia Richard Allen Homes 1993 $50,000,000 Pittsburgh Allequippa Terrace 1993 $31,564,190 a Pittsburgh Manchester 1995 $7,500,000 Page 22 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration Appendix I Capital Improvements to Distressed Housing in HOPE VI Developments Total Units Units Total rehabbed rehabbed & Units demol.c Units demol.c rehabbedc rehabbedc New unitsc New unitsc & new unitsc new unitsc (Planned) (Actual) (Planned) (Actual) (Planned) (Actual) (Planned) (Actual) 1,067 747 14 0 1,166 233 1,180 233 807 771 0 0 771 0 771 0 677 677 0 0 591 0 591 0 822 90 0 0 585 0 585 0 585 0 126 26 509 0 635 26 0 0 367 0 0 0 367 0 386 0 23 0 239 155 262 155 660 330 65 0 493 0 558 0 0 0 693 312 0 0 693 312 TBDd 0 TBDd 0 TBDd 0 TBDd 0 442 265 0 0 372 0 372 0 3,462 2,112 0 0 1,285 0 1,285 0 20 0 380 11 20 0 400 11 1,438 0 480 0 370 0 850 0 565 424 501 0 162 0 663 0 124 42 240 7 174 0 414 7 677 12 286 0 314 0 600 0 310 140 14 0 206 0 220 0 196 0 216 0 232 0 448 0 577 0 0 0 440 0 440 0 758 0 84 8 556 0 640 8 119 119 477 239 79 24 556 263 630 0 0 0 498 0 498 0 462 0 0 0 395 0 395 0 1,832 256 0 0 800 0 800 0 TBDd 0 TBDd 0 TBDd 0 TBDd 0 21 8 417 0 21 0 438 0 129 0 562 0 149 0 711 0 1,652 0 102 102 1,235 0 1,337 102 102 51 0 0 144 7 144 7 (continued) Page 23 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration Appendix I Capital Improvements to Distressed Housing in HOPE VI Developments Data as of September 30, 1996 PHA HOPE VI project Fiscal year Award amount Puerto Rico Crisantemos I/Manual A. 1994 $50,000,000 Perez St. Louis Darst-Webbe 1995 $46,771,000 San Antonio Spring View Apts. 1994 $48,810,294 San Antonio Mirasol Homes 1995 $48,285,500 San Francisco Bernal Dwellings/Yerba 1993 $49,992,377 Buena Homes San Francisco Hayes Valleya 1995 $22,055,000 Seattle Holly Park Apts. 1995 $48,116,503b Springfield John Hay Homes 1994 $19,775,000 Washington, DC Ellen Wilson Dwellings 1993 $25,075,956b Page 24 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration Appendix I Capital Improvements to Distressed Housing in HOPE VI Developments Total Units Units Total rehabbed rehabbed & Units demol.c Units demol.c rehabbedc rehabbedc New unitsc New unitsc & new unitsc new unitsc (Planned) (Actual) (Planned) (Actual) (Planned) (Actual) (Planned) (Actual) 264 224 360 0 120 0 480 0 758 0 0 0 525 0 525 0 421 97 0 0 545 0 545 0 500 0 0 0 596 0 596 0 484 0 0 0 353 0 353 0 e e e e e e e e 893 0 0 0 1,200 0 1,200 0 d d d 599 39 TBD 0 TBD 0 TBD 0 134 134 0 0 154 0 154 0 a These HOPE VI projects include leveraged financing. b These HOPE VI projects received additional funding, known as amendment funds, subsequent to their original awards. The amendment funds are included in these figures. c Data reported may also include units funded with funds other than HOPE VI. d TBD = To be determined by PHA. e Did not respond to HRF’s survey. Source: HUD and HRF’s survey. Page 25 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration Appendix II Summary of the HOPE VI Program’s Technical Assistance Budget Activity Technical assistance Funds disbursed Fiscal year Contractor (TA) activity Funds reserved as of 9/30/96 1994 Corporation for National Community service $150,000 $150,000 Service (CNS) planning TA and plan approvalsa 1994 Travel 126,000 126,000 1995 Corporation for National Community service 540,811 540,811 Service planning TA and plan approvalsa 1995 Housing Research Needs assessment and 1,500,000 780,000 Foundation information sharing network 1995 Aspen Systems Resident initiatives 30,000 30,000 Corporation information dissemination 1995 Aspen Systems Community building and 984,492 148,078 Corporation Campus of Learners TA 1995 Travel 126,000 126,000 1996 Innovative Technologies Satellite TV training 36,660 28,567 1996 Center for Community For Houston Housing 56,000 5,600 Change Authority, Resident Council TA 1996 Video Software Satellite training 7,428 7,428 Associates 1996 Aspen Systems Community building and 46,324 • Corporation Campus of Learners TA 1996 Abt Associates TA for Springfield Housing 277,007 • Authority 1996 Abt Associates Economic Lift Program 300,000 • 1996 Travel 73,000 73,000 1996 SOZA International, Ltd HOPE VI conference 100,000 • Total $4,353,722 $2,015,484 a In the fiscal year 1993 appropriations act, the Congress stipulated that CNS define community service programs and approve such plans for all HOPE VI projects. Page 26 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration Appendix III Selected HOPE VI Projects’ Community and Supportive Services Housing authority Community services Supportive services Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority (Cleveland) Cuyahoga’s plan for community and Over the next 3 years, residents will have Residents will be provided with business supportive services, called Central Vision: opportunities to earn stipends as full time training to operate a food cooperative in Community Is Action, is intended to address VISTA community service volunteers. the Carl B. Stokes Social Service Mall. unmet needs for human services, public safety, education, and environmental care. The Cleveland Conservation Corps will The Youth Enhancement Service will train employ 56 young men and women in a residents to operate family day care homes Cuyahoga provides its community and “work-earn-learn” program for 6 months to provide respite care for public housing supportive services through a “village” where before they become apprentices in the parents. services are centrally located. The village Laborers International Union. center model will assist residents in More than 20 social service agencies and obtaining their general equivalency diploma Through a pilot project with the Department programs will be housed in the Carl B. (GED), starting a business, or owning a of Social Work at Cleveland State Stokes Social Service Mall to provide a home. University, 12 undergraduate and graduate range of services and opportunities for students will provide mentoring, tutoring, residents. Cuyahoga’s community and supportive and case management services to services are directly linked. For example, residents. Through HUD’s Supportive Housing Cuyahoga asked all supportive service Program, 40 homeless men will receive providers to hire resident volunteers. The Health Services Corps, in partnership transitional housing services at the social with Case Western Reserve University, will service mall. provide opportunities for medical students to provide a variety of services to residents. Cleveland State University will link 160 residents electronically with local To be reintegrated into the community, community and support service providers ex-offenders will act as escorts for seniors, for a 1-year demonstration. On-line disabled residents, and single women in services may include job postings for youth the community. and adults, information on family services and senior events, and games for the Intergenerational programs will link young. elementary aged youth in two schools with tutoring by 10 senior citizens working Twenty youth will participate in Stock through the RSVP program. Market Clubs to learn about the economy and compete with other stock market investment clubs in the state. Youth will select their stocks and be evaluated on the stocks’ returns on investment. Cuyahoga is developing a foster home and daycare homes at the developments for child care. (continued) Page 27 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration Appendix III Selected HOPE VI Projects’ Community and Supportive Services Housing authority Community services Supportive services Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri The Guinotte Manor development of the Residents will be trained as Senior HAKC has partnered with the Kansas City Housing Authority of Kansas City (HAKC) Companions to assist frail, homebound Full Employment Council and the Missouri spans 25 acres of land and contains 412 row seniors to maintain independent living. Department of Family Services to provide dwelling units of public housing. The residents access to GED classes, job development and the surrounding HAKC has partnered with the Kansas City readiness, training, and placement neighborhood are characterized by poor Police Department to set up a public safety services. physical conditions, densely concentrated program aimed at increasing the level of residences, lack of open space, insufficient community policing services to Guinotte A Family Self Sufficiency program is street and security lighting, and isolation and supporting residents’ involvement in established to help residents identify and from commercial and retail services. High crime prevention. achieve self-sufficiency goals. rates of crime and unemployment also characterize the area. The community is An AmeriCorps VISTA volunteer worked A Family Development and Learning currently comprised of 45 percent with the authority and the Guinotte Manor Center is under development; it will have African-American, 43 percent Asian, and 12 Tenants Association on outreach and conference and training rooms, a computer percent Hispanic residents. A 13-member educational activities, including providing lab, child care facilities, a resource room, task force consisting of community residents information on welfare reform and other and other facilities. actively participates in the HOPE VI process relevant issues. and provides input on all proposed services The Full Employment Council is providing to HAKC’s court-appointed Receiver. Residents received training to encourage construction training to young adult the development of small businesses and residents so that they can participate in the to build expertise in the creation of construction jobs generated by the HOPE business plans. VI project. The Francis Child Development Center trained residents to qualify them to be child care workers. A revolving loan fund is under development to provide start-up and expansion capital for neighborhood-based small businesses. The University of Kansas will provide reading literacy training for up to 45 Guinotte residents as part of an overall job readiness strategy. HAKC has partnered with the Child Welfare League of America to increase health services on site, explore the feasibility of establishing a primary health care facility, and increase resident access to entry level health care jobs. (continued) Page 28 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration Appendix III Selected HOPE VI Projects’ Community and Supportive Services Housing authority Community services Supportive services Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee The HOPE VI site in Milwaukee is a 496-unit The Youth Scholarship Fund will create On-site health care services are provided family development named Hillside Terrace opportunities for community service and by the Black Health Coalition. that is located within the city’s Community scholarships for youth between the ages of Development Block Grant area and 14 and 21. The scholarships would be The on-site Boys and Girls Club includes a Enterprise Community. The community’s awarded annually to 10 to 15 Hillside full-size gym, game room, and computer HOPE VI service plan is designed to Terrace residents who had completed 500 center and offers recreation, education, promote self-sufficiency by linking hours of community service. The fund will employment, and social service programs. opportunities for service to job training, be administered by the Boys and Girls permanent jobs, and educational awards. Club of Greater Milwaukee and Child care and Head Start are provided compliments the Milwaukee Guarantee, on-site. According to the Executive Director of the which provides up to $3,250 per year in Milwaukee Housing Authority, Wisconsin’s college expenses for low-income high The University of Wisconsin extension Welfare Reform Initiative is stricter than the school graduates who graduate from high offers classes on-site in child development, recently passed federal welfare reform school with at least a 2.5 grade point nutrition and parenting. legislation. Milwaukee had to curtail some of average, demonstrate financial need, and its plans for community and supportive are interested in attending a local college, Milwaukee Area Technical College services. At least half of the residents are not university, or technical school. provided GED classes. available during the day due to required attendance at job training or jobs. Services The Community Enrichment Program will Students from two nursing schools offer are now offered primarily on the weekend or create opportunities for adult residents to on-site health screening, home visits, and in the evening. earn 1 or 2 months’ rent by performing health classes. community service. Interested residents will sign a partnership agreement identifying The Housing Authority Board approved a the agencies at which they will perform contract with the University of service. Residents can earn (a) 1 month’s Wisconsin-Extension to coordinate an rent by completing 240 hours of service educational enrichment center for the and attending 6 resident council meetings residents of Hillside Terrace. The Hillside and (b) 2 month’s rent by completing 400 Educational Enrichment Center is a hours of service and attending all resident year-round site for enrichment classes council meetings. The program is intended where the entire family can develop to build the capacity of the Hillside life-long learning skills. This center includes Resident Council, develop future leaders, computers for residents’ use and and broaden residents’ representation in classrooms where staff will coordinate job decision-making. readiness and world-of-work classes. There will also be a small community-based Under the Micro-Neighborhood Program, reference library on personal enrichment new residents moving into the development and employment topics. will be mentored by families currently living in the area. Mentors, who also serve as neighborhood leaders, will receive stipends for their services. (continued) Page 29 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration Appendix III Selected HOPE VI Projects’ Community and Supportive Services Housing authority Community services Supportive services Oakland Housing Authority The Oakland Housing Authority has targeted La Clinica de la Raza is implementing an “It A community center is under construction two locations, East Oakland and Lower Starts Now” program, which is designed to in Lockwood Gardens to house a wide Fruitvale, for revitalization. The authority has offer the youth of the Fruitvale area the range of support services for residents. The broad-based community support, including opportunity to become directly involved in authority is also forming a Youth Advisory the support of the Mayor’s office as well as the renovation of their neighborhoods. Board to encourage youth to become numerous local and community-based involved in the various programs offered organizations. The Fruitvale Community Collaborative is through HOPE VI. conducting community organizing in the Fruitvale area. Several partners currently provide small business development training, technical The Spanish Speaking Unity Council is assistance, job and entrepreneurship facilitating conflict resolution workshops for training, and health services. They include residents and nonresidents. the following: The Bay Area Urban League has hired one East Bay Conservation Corps for basic resident to assist with community literary and numeracy services, GED organizing in Coliseum Gardens. The preparation, and pre-vocational skills League is conducting door-to-door training. outreach in the community and assisting the residents in identifying projects for the East Bay Small Business Development utilization of resident-designated funds. Center for providing technical assistance and training in self-employment and small business development. Spanish Speaking Unity Council for providing self-employment and business development assistance in the Fruitvale area. Asian Community Mental Health Services for providing outreach, education and citizenship classes, translation services, and assistance with employment opportunities. Boys and Girls Club for recreational activities, academic services, and antidrug education. (continued) Page 30 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration Appendix III Selected HOPE VI Projects’ Community and Supportive Services Housing authority Community services Supportive services Chicago Housing Authority Chicago’s HOPE VI plan relies on citywide Cabrini Alive: Resident volunteers will Substance abuse prevention is part of all collaboration to revitalize the renovate vacant units in one building and HOPE VI program orientations and is community. The plan focuses on families, not determine what social services would be included as part of the Family Assessments just individuals. The mayor’s office has most appropriate for them. This program, process. brought schools, parks, the Chicago which the authority hopes to expand to Housing Authority, the Department of other buildings affected by HOPE VI, is The Chicago Works program is the primary Housing, and planners together to develop a designed to help residents adjust and placement program for residents in both comprehensive plan to leverage other prepare for all the redevelopment activities construction and nonconstruction job resources and integrate public housing that are occurring as a result of HOPE VI. areas, with emphasis on skill assessment residents into the community. and job linkages with area industrial Project Peace: This is a peer mentoring businesses. program that will train students in violence prevention and conflict resolution through Job opportunities in child care will be peer mediation. provided. Subsidized child care services will be available for those residents Cabrini Green Youth Corps: A local service enrolled in training and job provider has been contracted to work with development/placement programs. the youth and help them identify their social needs and get involved in serving their Alternative education is provided to “at-risk” community. youth and “potential drop-outs.” Each youth will be matched with a “career mentor.” Tenant Patrol: This project helps to train and engage residents in anticrime The authority will provide small grants to strategies. The project’s goals include the help groups of residents implement development of a tenant patrol in each small-scale activities that would improve building. their quality of life. Also, an entrepreneurship revolving loan fund will be made available to residents. Page 31 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration Appendix IV Major Contributors to This Report Larry Dyckman, Associate Director Resources, Eric A. Marts, Assistant Director Community, and Martha Chow, Evaluator-in-Charge Economic Gwenetta Blackwell, Chicago/Detroit Field Office Angela Crump-Volcy Development Division Stephen Jones William Sparling (385642) Page 32 GAO/RCED-97-44 HOPE VI Demonstration Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 or visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to: email@example.com or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at: http://www.gao.gov PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER United States Bulk Rate General Accounting Office Postage & Fees Paid Washington, D.C. 20548-0001 GAO Permit No. G100 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Correction Requested
Public Housing: Status of the HOPE VI Demonstration Program
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1997-02-25.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)