1. HOPE VI Forum: National Perspective from the HOPE VI Cross-site Report Larry Buron March 16, 2011

2. 2 Study objective: To explore the impact of the HOPE VI program on residents, developments and neighborhoods shortly after sites are reoccupied. 15 early HOPE VI sites that were the subject of a baseline assessment in 1996 – 1993 or 1994 grantees – 11 of 15 had full or substantial reoccupancy by end of data collection in 2002 Overview of HOPE VI Cross-Site Study

3. 3 Study Sites: 100% Public Housing Developments Camden – McGuire Gardens Cleveland – Outhwaite/King Kennedy Milwaukee – Hillside Terrace Oakland – Lockwood Gardens San Francisco – Bernal Dwellings/Plaza East Baltimore – Pleasant View Gardens

4. 4 Boston – Mission Main New Haven – Monterey Place Charlotte – First Ward Place/Autumn Place Washington DC – Townhomes on Capitol Hill Atlanta – Centennial Place Study Sites: Mixed-Income Developments

5. 5 HOPE VI Residents Compared to Original Residents CharacteristicPre-HOPE VIPost HOPE VI Returning Residents --41% Black/African- American 84%73% Median Income ($2002) $7,500$15,323 Earned Income 16%59%

6. 6 What drives the difference in characteristics? Characteristic Pre-H6Returning PH Residents New PH Residents Non-PH Residents Black/African- American 84%74%82%53% Median Income ($2002) $7,500$10,362$11,881$42,428

7. 7 Share of non-Public Housing Households: – Boston: 17% – New Haven: 18% – Charlotte: 43% – Washington DC: 50% – Atlanta: 60% How “Mixed” are the Mixed-Income Sites?

8. 8 Median Income at Mixed-Income Sites $2002 BostonNew Haven CharlotteDCAtlanta Public Housing $12,190$7,619$10,029$12,171$10,447 Tax Credit --$25,395$23,820--$26,118 Market- Rate $63,488--$64,772$47,012$35,565

9. 9 8 of 11 are privately managed Indicators pointed to good management – High occupancy rates – Rent collections at 90% or more – Evictions low after reoccupancy – Turnover typically around 10 percent Management of HOPE VI Developments

10. 10 Limited measurable effect, but early after reoccupancy – Crime rate declined, but only declined faster than rest of city and other PH neighborhoods at 3 of 6 sites. – Census data showed mixed results – Property value analysis at 2 sites did not find significant effect after H6 announcement, start of demolition, start of construction (too early for post re- occupancy) – Clear visible changes and returning PH residents reported improvement HOPE VI Impact on Neighborhood

11. 11 Early HOPE VI sites took a long time to complete Study had a few mixed-finance sites that became more common as HOPE VI evolved Implicit assumption in early days of HOPE VI was that original residents would return without concerted effort Supportive service plans did not reflect the fact that residents would be dispersed during relocation and many would not return Emphasis of many early grants was to replace worst public housing rather than long-term, sustainable improvement of the neighborhood Observations from Study on the Evolution of HOPE VI