1 / 11

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

This report provides an overview of the HOPE VI Cross-Site Study, exploring the impact of the program on residents, developments, and neighborhoods shortly after sites are reoccupied. It analyzes data from 15 early HOPE VI sites and discusses the characteristics of HOPE VI residents, the mixed-income nature of the sites, management of developments, and the program's impact on neighborhoods. The report also highlights observations on the evolution of HOPE VI.

mcristobal
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. Overview of HOPE VI Cross-Site Study • 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

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

  5. HOPE VI Residents Compared to Original Residents

  6. What drives the difference in characteristics?

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

  8. Median Income at Mixed-Income Sites

  9. Management of HOPE VI Developments • 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

  10. HOPE VI Impact on Neighborhood • 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

  11. Observations from Study on the Evolution of HOPE VI • 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

More Related