HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Susan J. Popkin
Diane K. Levy
Laura E. Harris
Jennifer Comey
Mary K. Cunningham
Larry Buron (Abt Associates)
with
William Woodley
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Final Report
September 2002
Prepared By:
Susan J. Popkin
Diane K. Levy
Laura E. Harris
Jennifer Comey
Mary K. Cunningham
Larry Buron (Abt Associates)
With
William Woodley
The Urban Institute
Metropolitan Housing and Communities
Policy Center
2100 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Submitted To:
The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation,
The Rockefeller Foundation and
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
UI No. 07032
The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics
worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and
should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or it funders.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The HOPE VI Panel Study is a large and complex project and we wish to thank the
many people who have made significant contributions to the completion of this Baseline Report.
Daryl Dyer, Claudia Aranda, Davis Kim, Michael Baker, and Rhiannon Patterson all participated
in the initial reconnaissance visits to the study sites. Skip Camp and Dennese Neal of Abt
Associates Survey Research Group directed the survey data collection, as well as making
contributions to the design of the survey instrument. Lynn Reneau managed the field data
collection. We want to acknowledge the survey interviewers’ outstanding work, which is
reflected in the high quality of the data and the impressive response rates they achieved. In
addition to the authors, Aaron Graham, Elizabeth Cove, Carla Herbig, Sherri Lawson-Clark,
and Ken Williamson all conducted in-depth interviews for this project, doing an exceptional job
of getting both adults and children to talk openly about their experiences . We particularly want
to thank all of the survey and in-depth interviewers for their enthusiasm and their willingness to
conduct interviews in what were sometimes dangerous and unpleasant conditions.
William Woodley conducted most of the quantitative data analysis for this report. His
attention to detail and cheerful willingness to run—and rerun—seemingly endless data analyses
is much appreciated. Shawnise Thompson and Elizabeth Cove have provided much assistance
with a range of tasks including literature and internet searches, creating tables, and qualitative
analysis . Erin Godfrey and Carla Herbig also made substantial contributions to the analysis of
the qualitative data. Jessica Cigna and Sandy Padilla assisted with the development of the
maps for this report. Diane Hendricks did an outstanding job formatting and producing the final
report. Finally, Tim Ware provided invaluable administrative support along the way.
We wish to thank Margery Turner, Tom Kingsley, and Jill Khadduri for their consistent
help and support throughout the project, from the initial development stages through the
preparation of the Baseline Report. Art Naperstek helped initiate the project and has remained
an enthusiastic supporter and advisor. Our advisory panel, Lynn Olson, Megan Sandel, Mary
Joel Holin, Janet Smith, Tama Leventhal, John Goering, Jo Anne Schneider, Greg Acs, Christy
Visher, Greg Duncan, Martha Burt, and Mike Puma provided much helpful guidance during the
design phase of the project and careful review of the Baseline report. Wendell Johnson, Brett
Williams, Adelle Harrell, David Connell, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Tony Earls, Robert Santos, and
Robert Sampson all provided valuable feedback and support during the early phases of the
project.
We also wish to thank our funders, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Annie E. Casey
Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Fannie Mae Foundation. Our project officers,
Ronald Ashford, Tony Hebert, and Robert Leonard of HUD; Susan Lloyd of MacArthur; Cindy
Guy of Casey; Julia Lopez and Darren Walker of Rockefeller; and Amy Bogdan of Fannie Mae
have all provided enthusiastic support for this ambitious project. We also wish to thank Todd
Richardson, Kevin Neary, and Bob Gray of HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research
for their assistance.
HOPE VI staff from the five housing authorities in this study (Atlantic City, Chicago,
Durham, Richmond, and Washington, D.C.) have been generous with their time and assistance,
providing us with the information we needed to carry out the project.
Finally, we wish to thank the many residents at the five sites who generously shared
their personal experiences with us in surveys and in-depth interviews.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................i
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1-1
The HOPE VI Program ............................................................................................... 1-1
Research on Public Housing Transformation............................................................. 1-3
Overview of Research Objectives and Methods ........................................................ 1-6
Research Questions .............................................................................................. 1-7
Site Selection ......................................................................................................... 1-9
Data Collection....................................................................................................... 1-9
Benchmarks ......................................................................................................... 1-10
CHAPTER 2: SAMPLE AND STUDY SITES................................................................ 2-1
Respondent Characteristics ....................................................................................... 2-1
Site Profiles ................................................................................................................. 2-3
CHAPTER 3: HOUSING CONDITIONS AT BASELINE............................................... 3-1
Housing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 3-1
Resident Reports ................................................................................................... 3-2
Multiple Problems .................................................................................................. 3-3
Maintenance .......................................................................................................... 3-4
Comparison to American Housing Survey ............................................................ 3-6
Housing Satisfaction ................................................................................................... 3-6
Summary..................................................................................................................... 3-8
CHAPTER 4: NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS AT BASELINE ................................. 4-1
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Neighborhood Effects ................................................................................................. 4-1
Characteristics of Neighborhood Housing and Residents ......................................... 4-2
Neighborhood Amenities ............................................................................................ 4-4
Crime and Disorder..................................................................................................... 4-4
Physical Disorder................................................................................................... 4-4
Social Disorder....................................................................................................... 4-5
Violent Crime ......................................................................................................... 4-7
Personal Safety and Victimization.............................................................................. 4-9
Differences Between Older and Younger Adults' Perceptions of Crime
and Safety ............................................................................................................ 4-10
Neighborhood Social Environment ........................................................................... 4-11
Social Networks ................................................................................................... 4-14
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................... 4-15
CHAPTER 5: HEALTH................................................................................................... 5-1
Housing, Neighborhoods, and Health ........................................................................ 5-1
Physical Health ........................................................................................................... 5-2
Chronic Illness ....................................................................................................... 5-3
Asthma........................................................................................................................ 5-4
Mental Health .............................................................................................................. 5-5
Self-efficacy ........................................................................................................... 5-7
Overall Mental Health ............................................................................................ 5-7
Major Depressive Episodes................................................................................... 5-8
Stress and Mental Health in the HOPE VI Sample ............................................... 5-9
Multiple Health Problems.......................................................................................... 5-10
Older Adults in the HOPE VI Panel Study Sample .................................................. 5-12
Summary................................................................................................................... 5-14
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
CHAPTER 6: CHILDREN IN THE HOPE VI SAMPLE ................................................. 6-1
Children in Poverty...................................................................................................... 6-1
Neighborhood Effects ............................................................................................ 6-2
Children in the HOPE VI Panel Study Sample........................................................... 6-4
Growing up in Distressed Public Housing .................................................................. 6-4
Attending Distressed Public Schools.......................................................................... 6-5
School Experiences .................................................................................................... 6-7
School Quality ........................................................................................................ 6-8
School Safety ....................................................................................................... 6-10
Racial Tension ..................................................................................................... 6-11
School Performance................................................................................................. 6-12
School Mobility ..................................................................................................... 6-13
Special Education ..................................................................................................... 6-15
Children's Physical and Mental Health ..................................................................... 6-18
Emergency Care.................................................................................................. 6-18
Asthma................................................................................................................. 6-19
Behavior ............................................................................................................... 6-21
Summary................................................................................................................... 6-27
CHAPTER 7: EMPLOYMENT, WELFARE, AND HARDSHIP ..................................... 7-1
Employment, Mixed-Income, and Dispersal Strategies ............................................. 7-1
Employment and Income............................................................................................ 7-3
Income from Employment...................................................................................... 7-4
Barriers to Employment .............................................................................................. 7-4
Factors that Make it Hard to Find or Keep a Job .................................................. 7-9
Public Assistance...................................................................................................... 7-10
Material Hardship ...................................................................................................... 7-11
Summary................................................................................................................... 7-16
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
CHAPTER 8: HOUSING CHOICE AND OUTLOOK FOR REDEVELOPMENT
AT BASELINE ................................................................................................................. 8-1
HOPE VI and Relocation ............................................................................................ 8-1
Plans for Revitalization and Relocation...................................................................... 8-3
Revitalization Plans ............................................................................................... 8-3
Relocation Services ............................................................................................... 8-4
Preferences for Relocation ......................................................................................... 8-5
Factors Associated with Relocation Preferences.................................................. 8-6
Perspectives on Relocation Options .......................................................................... 8-7
Moving Away from the Site ....................................................................................... 8-10
Concerns about Redevelopment......................................................................... 8-12
Summary................................................................................................................... 8-15
CHAPTER 9: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................................... 9-1
Summary of Major Findings ........................................................................................ 9-1
Physical Environment ............................................................................................ 9-1
Adult Physical and Mental Health.......................................................................... 9-3
Children .................................................................................................................. 9-4
Economic Status.................................................................................................... 9-6
Housing Choice and Outlook for Relocation ......................................................... 9-7
New Areas for Research............................................................................................. 9-7
Older Adults ........................................................................................................... 9-7
Physical and Mental Health................................................................................... 9-8
Resiliency............................................................................................................... 9-8
Lessons from the HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline..................................................... 9-9
Next Steps................................................................................................................. 9-10
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX B: HOPE VI BASELINE SURVEY
APPENDIX C: BASELINE INTERVIEW GUIDES
APPENDIX D: SITE TABLES
APPENDIX E: ADDITIONAL ANALYSES
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The HOPE VI program is the major federal initiative driving the transformation of
distressed public housing developments nationwide. Under HOPE VI, distressed developments
are being demolished and replaced with mixed-income housing. Like welfare reform, this
transformation offers both the potential to improve the quality of life for low-income households
and the risk that an unknown proportion of families may be unable to make a successful
transition. In particular, HOPE VI has the potential to have a major impact—positive or
negative—on the lives of the many poor children who live in distressed public housing.
Congress commissioned the HOPE VI Panel Study in 1999 to address the question of
how this transformation affects the lives of original residents of HOPE VI developments—those
living in the developments prior to the grant award. 1 The study involves tracking the living
conditions and well-being of residents from five developments where revitalization activities
began in mid- to late 2001. This report describes the status of these residents at baseline, prior
to relocation.
The HOPE VI Program
Created by Congress in 1992, the HOPE VI Program represents the federal
government’s most ambitious effort to date to address the problems of severely distressed
public housing. Its major objectives are
•
to improve the living environment for residents of severely distressed public housing
through the demolition, rehabilitation, reconfiguration, or replacement of obsolete
projects (or portions thereof);
•
to revitalize sites on which such public housing projects are located and contribute to
the improvement of the surrounding neighborhood;
•
to provide housing that will avoid or decrease the concentration of very-low-income
families; and
•
to build sustainable communities.2
Between 1993 and 2001, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) funded a total of 165 HOPE VI revitalization grants, representing $4.5 billion for
redevelopment and supportive services activities. In addition, HUD awarded 35 planning grants
and $293 million for demolition activities. According to HUD, the efforts represented by these
grants will result in the demolition of some 78,000 units of distressed public housing and the
development of a roughly equal number of new housing units. This figure includes
approximately 62,000 units of rental housing (80 percent new construction) and 21,000
homeownership units of various types, for a total of 83,000 units of all types, both on and off the
i
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
ii
original HOPE VI sites.3 In addition, housing authorities that receive HOPE VI grants are
required to develop supportive services to assist both original and new residents in attaining
self-sufficiency.
Research Objectives and Methods
The HOPE VI Panel Study focuses on the longer-term location, neighborhood
conditions, physical and mental health, and socioeconomic outcomes for original residents of
five HOPE VI developments where redevelopment activities began in mid- to late 2001. The
specific research questions the study addresses fall into seven issue areas: housing outcomes;
neighborhood outcomes; social integration; health outcomes; child education and behavior
outcomes; socioeconomic outcomes; and experiences with relocation and supportive services.
The study is structured as a pre- and post-intervention study, with the intervention being the
changes brought about by HOPE VI activities.
Study Sites
The five sites included in the study were purposively selected to represent a range of
HOPE VI programs. The sites are:
•
Shore Park/Shore Terrace (Atlantic City, NJ);
•
Ida B. Wells Homes/Wells Extension/Madden Park Homes(Chicago, IL); 4
•
Few Gardens (Durham, NC);
•
Easter Hill (Richmond, CA); and
•
East Capitol Dwellings (Washington, D.C.).
Data Collection
Site Visits
We conducted two-day reconnaissance visits to all five sites in spring 2001. The purpose
of this visit was to gather information from housing staff and resident leaders about the plans for
redevelopment, including any changes that had occurred since the initial proposal was
submitted to HUD.
Resident Survey
We administered the baseline survey to a sample of 887 heads of households across
the five sites during summer 2001, and will conduct follow-up surveys at 24 and 48 months after
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
iii
baseline. The response rate for the baseline survey was 86 percent overall. 5 The survey was
administered in person and covered basic demographics; housing and neighborhood conditions;
health; employment and public assistance receipt; financial stability; material hardship;
education; access to social and community services; and outlook for relocation. We also asked
specific questions about up to two randomly selected focal children per household, one under
age 6 and one between the ages of 6 and 14. The questions about children concerned child
health and well-being, schooling, special education, and behavior.
In-Depth Interviews
We conducted in-depth interviews with a small sample of parent and child dyads from
each site in August and September 2001. We attempted to interview eight dyads at each site,
and succeeded in every site except Wells, where we completed seven. Our final sample
consists of 39 adults and 39 youth between the ages of 10 and 14. At baseline, we used these
semi-structured interviews to focus on topics that are more amenable to the interview format,
especially interactions with neighbors and mechanisms of neighborhood influence. The
interviews also covered many of the topics addressed in the survey. The same respondents will
be interviewed again at each subsequent wave of data collection.
Benchmarks
To provide context for the baseline findings described in this report, we make
comparisons to findings from other major studies on housing interventions, neighborhood
effects, and welfare reform. These studies include studies of the Gautreaux Program, the
Moving To Opportunity Demonstration (MTO), the Jobs Plus Demonstration, the Three-City
Study, The New Hope Project, and the National Survey of American Families (NSAF). In
addition to these studies, we draw on other national data sources, including HUD’s Multifamily
Tenant Characteristics database (MTCS), the U.S. Census, the American Housing Survey, and
the National Health Interview Survey.
Summary of Major Findings
Our summary of the findings from the baseline data collection focuses on the key study
domains.
Physical Environment
Our findings on housing and neighborhood conditions provide a context for the
employment, education, and health findings at baseline, just prior to the start of relocation at
these five sites.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
iv
Housing
HOPE VI targets the worst public housing in the nation, developments that have major,
systemic problems that cannot be addressed through standard rehabilitation efforts. Not
surprisingly, all five of the developments in our sample were severely distressed according to
both HUD administrative data and resident reports.
§
A large percentage of our respondents reported multiple problems with the condition of
their housing. About one-third reported two or three housing problems (e.g., peeling
paint, water leaks), and one in five reported more than three problems.
§
Despite these poor conditions, more than two-thirds of HOPE VI respondents reported
that they were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their housing. Older adults were
more satisfied with their housing than younger adults.
Neighborhood
HOPE VI developments are typically located in extremely poor, segregated, high-crime
neighborhoods. The communities surrounding the five study sites fit this profile; all are located
in high-poverty, predominantly minority neighborhoods. These five communities lack adequate
public services and have serious problems with crime.
•
Residents reported that there are few retail stores in their neighborhoods; those
that exist are small and expensive. However, they reported convenient access to
public transportation.
•
Overall, about three-fourths of the HOPE VI Panel Study respondents reported
serious problems with drug trafficking and criminal activity in their communities.
Two-thirds of respondents reported major problems with shootings and violence
in their neighborhoods.
•
Surprisingly, across the sites, older adults (age 62 or older) in our sample were
less likely to report problems with crime and reported feeling safer than the
younger respondents.
•
Respondents reported low levels of collective efficacy, a factor associated with
neighborhood safety, in their communities. Collective efficacy consists of social
control (i.e., willingness of neighbors to intervene if children are misbehaving)
and social cohesion (i.e., neighbors trust and feel connected to each other) in
their neighborhoods. Fewer than half reported having friends in their community.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
v
Adult Physical and Mental Health
The HOPE VI families in the sample live in extremely distressed environments that pose
many threats to their health and well-being. Our results indicate that poor health is a major
problem for the households in our sample, with many experiencing multiple chronic problems.
§
Adult respondents reported dramatically lower overall health status than national
averages. Further, more than one-third of adult respondents reported having a chronic
illness or health condition such as high blood pressure, diabetes, or arthritis.
§
Asthma is a serious problem for the respondents in our sample. More than one in five
adults has been diagnosed with asthma.
§
Poor mental health among adults is a widespread problem. Nearly one-third of our
respondents (29 percent) reported poor mental health, a level that is almost 50 percent
higher than the national average. Further, nearly one in six adult respondents has
experienced a major depressive episode within the past 12 months.
§
Our findings suggest special concerns for the older adults in the HOPE VI panel. The
majority reported poor health, much worse than national averages for those over age 62.
Children in the HOPE VI Sample
Across the nation, HOPE VI is affecting the lives of tens of thousands of children who
live in distressed public housing developments. For this reason, children are a special focus of
this study. At baseline, our findings suggest that these children are starting from extreme
disadvantage, facing the challenges of dangerous neighborhoods and inadequate schools.
Many are already behind academically and others are experiencing serious health and
emotional problems. Still, some appear to be remarkably resilient, thriving despite the
challenges of their environment.
•
The children in the HOPE VI Panel Study sample attend schools that are
extraordinarily segregated, both racially and economically. School test scores
indicate that many of these schools are low-performing relative to other schools in
the same district and substantially worse off than other schools in the same state.
•
Fewer than half of the respondents in our sample say they view school quality in their
neighborhood as a big problem. Still, across the sites, parents describe poor
teachers and chaotic school environments; children complain about problems with
fights, gang activity, and shootings.
•
Although in-depth interview respondents generally reported that their children were
doing well in school, a substantial proportion appeared to be experiencing serious
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
vi
problems. Still, some children—even those from the worst developments—showed
striking resiliency, doing well and enjoying school.
•
HOPE VI children are highly mobile, despite the potential stability of living in public
housing. Across the sites, one in five children has already attended three or more
schools; at some sites, the figures are even higher.
•
Many very young children (under age 6) have already been placed in special
education—one in ten is reportedly already receiving services. The proportion of
older children (age 6 to 14) who are in special education classes is considerably
higher; one in four is in special education for learning problems and one in ten is in
classes for behavior problems.
•
Like the adults in the sample, children in the HOPE VI Panel Study are in worse
health than other children their age: Their parents reported substantially lower health
ratings than for children in national samples. Asthma is a serious problem. One in
five children between the ages of 6 and 14 has been diagnosed with asthma; the
figure for younger children is one in four, more than three times the national average.
•
Parental reports about children’s behavior suggest that mental health is also an
issue. About two-thirds of the older children (age 6 to 14) have one or more reported
behavior problems; about half have two or more. Further, a quarter of the older
children have been suspended or expelled from school.
Economic Status
Promoting self-sufficiency and increasing residents’ economic status is one of the central
goals of the HOPE VI program. Our findings at baseline suggest that achieving complete selfsufficiency may be unrealistic for the substantial proportion of residents who have serious health
concerns or complex family situations.
The overall key findings about employment, income, and material hardship at baseline
are:
•
Fewer than half of the respondents in the HOPE VI Panel Study sample were employed
at baseline. Most had at least some employment experience in the past. Health
problems and a lack of adequate child care were major barriers to employment for
respondents in our sample.
•
Nearly 80 percent of respondents reported a yearly household income of $15,000 or
less; two-thirds reported an income of $10,000 or less—well below the poverty
thresholds for families of three and four.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
•
Approximately one-third of working-age respondents reported receiving Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits in the past six months. Just over half
were long-term recipients. Another quarter reported receiving Supplemental Security
Income (SSI), and many said they received food stamps.
•
Levels of reported food hardship were high. About half of the respondents reported
worrying about running out of food because they did not have enough money.
vii
Housing Choice and Outlook for Relocation
At baseline, the majority of respondents said that they would like to return to the
revitalized development. Those who preferred to leave permanently generally said they wanted
improved housing quality or a safer neighborhood.
•
Residents who have been living in the development longer, are receiving disability
benefits, or are older are more likely to say they want to return to the new site than
other residents.
•
Most respondents would like to move (either temporarily or permanently) to a
neighborhood within city limits; only a small percentage would like to move to the
suburbs.
•
Confusion, suspicion, and mistrust of the housing authorities appear to be a major
relocation challenge at all sites.
•
A surprising number of respondents in two sites appeared to be very poorly informed
about the plans for their developments. Respondents at the other three sites
indicated that they had received adequate information from the housing authority.
New Areas for Research
In addition to highlighting the issues in each of the study domains that will be important
to track over time, our baseline results suggest three areas for special investigation in
subsequent waves of the study: issues of older adults, physical and mental health, and the
factors that are connected to resiliency.
Older Adults
One of the surprising findings from the baseline study is the unexpectedly high number
of older adults who live in these five family developments—nearly a quarter of the sample is age
50 or older; 12 percent are 62 years old or older. These residents may be at risk for health
problems due to relocation and may require special assistance in moving. In addition to creating
stress, relocation may disrupt their networks of social support. Further, many of these older
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
viii
respondents, even those who are very frail, are assisting younger family members: about onefourth of the households headed by older adults have children under 18. Finally, a surprising
finding from our baseline study is that the older adults were less likely to report problems with
crime in their communities and reported feeling safer than younger residents. Together, these
findings suggest a special focus on older adults in subsequent waves of the study.
Physical and Mental Health
Health issues were even more important in the HOPE VI Panel Study baseline than we
had anticipated. Both adults and children were in poor health overall. In addition, many of our
respondents suffered from multiple chronic conditions that required ongoing care and created
significant barriers to employment. These findings on health suggest the need for more detailed
and comprehensive measures of health status for all respondents—adults and children. Finally,
we should explore the relationship between physical and mental health problems and ability to
make a successful transition out of public housing.
Resiliency
At baseline, our respondents live in substandard housing in poor, dangerous
communities. Even so, we found evidence of remarkable resiliency, especially in our qualitative
interviews with adults and children. Some families seemed to cope amazingly well with the
challenges they faced. Researchers understand a great deal about what causes poor outcomes
for children. However, we know less about why others in the same circumstances manage to
thrive. This question of resiliency seems particularly suited to qualitative analysis and should be
a focus of subsequent rounds of interviews for this study. It may also be an issue we can
explore quantitatively by looking at the factors (e.g., physical and mental health status, parental
employment) associated with children’s educational achievement.
Lessons from the HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline
These baseline findings offer some short-term lessons for the HOPE VI program,
particularly on the supportive services that are offered to residents as part of the relocation and
revitalization initiative.
•
•
Service programs that emphasize self-sufficiency will not meet the special needs
many residents have.
•
Health should be a focus of any supportive service package.
•
Housing authorities and service planners need to pay attention to the needs of older
adults.
Relocation plans should try to minimize disruption for school children.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
•
ix
Housing authorities should make sure that residents have adequate information to make
informed choices about relocation.
Next Steps
This baseline study has provided the groundwork for a longitudinal exploration of how
the lives of original residents of HOPE VI developments changed after relocation. The HOPE VI
panel study will track this sample of residents over a four-year period, conducting rounds of data
collection at two-year intervals. The first follow-up wave will occur in spring 2003, with the final
wave to occur in 2005.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
1-1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCT ION
The HOPE VI program is the major federal initiative driving the transformation of
distressed public housing developments nationwide. Under HOPE VI, distressed developments
are being demolished and replaced with mixed-income housing. Like welfare reform, this
transformation offers both the potential to improve the quality of life for low-income households
and the risk that an unknown proportion of families may be unable to make a successful
transition. In particular, HOPE VI has the potential to have a major impact on the lives of the
many poor children who live in distressed public housing.
Congress commissioned the HOPE VI Panel Study in 1999 to address the question of
how this transformation affects the lives of original residents of HOPE VI developments—those
living in the developments prior to the grant award. 6 The study involves tracking the living
conditions and well-being of residents from five developments where revitalization activities
began in mid- to late 2001. We completed initial surveys with 887 residents in the spring of
2001, asking questions both about the head of household and up to two focal children (one
under age 6 and one between the ages of 6 and 14). In addition, we completed qualitative
interviews with a small sample of adults and children from each site in the summer of 2001.
These data form the baseline for a longitudinal assessment that will track a variety of indicators:
housing (type and quality); neighborhood; quality of life; employment; mental and physical
health for adults and children; and education and behavioral outcomes for children.
This report describes the status of these residents at baseline, prior to relocation. This
introductory chapter presents background information on the HOPE VI program and public
housing transformation, and an overview of the research design. 7 In chapter 2, we provide a
brief overview of the study sites and sample. Chapters 3 and 4 provide information about
residents’ reports on housing and neighborhood conditions at baseline. Chapter 5 describes the
physical and mental health status of the sample at baseline, including overall health, asthma,
depression, and special issues for older adults. Chapter 6 describes the status of children in the
HOPE VI Panel Study sample at baseline, including school environment, school performance,
health, and behavior. In chapter 7 we discuss employment, welfare receipt, and material
hardship for the HOPE VI households. In chapter 8 we turn to a discussion of the respondents’
outlook for relocation. Finally, chapter 9 presents our conclusions, a discussion of the
implications for the follow-up research, and policy implications of these baseline findings.
The HOPE VI Program
Created by Congress in 1992, the HOPE VI Program represents the federal
government’s most ambitious effort to date to address the problems of severely distressed
public housing. Its major objectives are
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
1-2
•
to improve the living environment for residents of severely distressed public housing
through the demolition, rehabilitation, reconfiguration, or replacement of obsolete
projects (or portions thereof);
•
to revitalize sites on which such public housing projects are located and contribute to
the improvement of the surrounding neighborhood;
•
to provide housing that will avoid or decrease the concentration of very-low-income
families; and
•
to build sustainable communities.8
HOPE VI was a direct outgrowth of the work of the National Commission on Severely
Distressed Public Housing. Congress established the commission in 1989 and charged it with
identifying “severely distressed” public housing developments, assessing strategies to improve
conditions at those developments, and preparing a national action plan for dealing with this
problem. Based on its investigation, the commission concluded that roughly 86,000 of the 1.3
million public housing units in the nation qualified as severely distressed and that a new and
comprehensive approach would be required to address the range of problems existing at these
developments.
The HOPE VI program combined physical revitalization with management improvements
and supportive services to promote resident self-sufficiency. Initially, housing authorities were
allowed to propose a plan covering up to 500 units with grant awards of up to $50 million.
Options for physical improvements included rehabilitation, reconfiguration, demolition with some
type of replacement housing (on-site, off-site, or tenant-based Section 8), or use of grant money
to leverage private capital to build additional low-income or market-rate housing. To achieve the
goal of simultaneously investing in sites, buildings, and people, housing authorities could
allocate up to 20 percent of the grant funds awarded in 1993 to supportive services, such as
literacy training, job training, day care, or youth activities.
Over time, the HOPE VI program evolved significantly. For example, a number of the
early round projects focused essentially on rehabilitation of public housing units. Beginning in
1996, the emphasis began to shift to the use of mixed-finance tools and the development of
mixed-income communities that blended public housing units with tax credit and market rate
units.9 An emphasis on “new urbanism” and broader neighborhood-wide redevelopment
strategies began in 1996, followed by increased emphasis on partnerships, leveraging
resources, and the provision of affordable homeownership opportunities. Grant amounts have
become smaller, leveraging has increased, and the program has been opened up to smaller
housing authorities and developments.10 Three of the sites in the HOPE VI Panel Study are
relatively small developments in small cities.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
1-3
There have also been substantial changes on the supportive services side. Initially,
HOPE VI involved a partnership with the Corporation for National Service, which was to manage
the community supportive services. After 1996, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) took over this component of the program and instituted a number of
changes, including dedicating HUD staff to overseeing service implementation; recognizing the
need to carefully manage relocation—and to track service provision to former residents;
focusing on detailed implementation planning; and coordinating case management and selfsufficiency programs. The scope of supportive services also expanded to require that services
follow original residents wherever they move and to encourage sustainability of supportive
services beyond the life of the grant. Finally, the emphasis on leveraging outside resources has
increased, while the maximum amount allowable for community and supportive services has
decreased from 20 percent to 15 percent, consistent with the overall expected increase in
locally leverage funds and partnerships.
Between 1993 and 2001, HUD funded a total of 165 revitalization grants, representing
$4.5 billion for redevelopment and supportive services activities. In addition, HUD awarded 35
planning grants and $293 million for demolition activities. According to HUD, the efforts
represented by these grants will result in the demolition of some 78,000 units of distressed
public housing and the development of a roughly equal number of new housing units. This figure
includes approximately 62,000 units of rental housing (80 percent new construction) and 21,000
homeownership units of various types, for a total of 83,000 units of all types both on and off the
original HOPE VI sites.11 Some of these new and rehabilitated units continue to be part of the
public housing program, while others have rents or sales prices at various levels of affordability.
All originally occupied public housing units have been replaced, either by physical units that
remain in the public housing program or by additional housing vouchers allocated to the housing
authority receiving the HOPE VI award.
Research on Public Housing Transformation
Because it targets developments with extremely low-income populations, the HOPE VI
program affects some of the nation’s most disadvantaged families, including large numbers of
single female–headed families with young children. Many residents lack formal education, work
experience, or marketable skills. In addition, there is evidence that a significant proportion of
residents in the worst developments suffer from ills such as substance abuse, mental illness,
domestic violence, and trauma from long-term exposure to violent crime (Popkin et al. 2000).
The neighborhoods withHOPE VI developments are often isolated central-city communities with
poor schools and inadequate city services. Because of their complex situations, many of these
families may face special challenges in making a transition to a new development or the private
market.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
1-4
While the effects of welfare reform are being studied extensively, we know relatively little
about the impact of the transformation of public housing, including basic information about
where former residents of HOPE VI developments—and their children—have moved. Research
evidence has shown that the effects of welfare reform are mixed, with some households making
a relatively easy transition to employment and others facing more serious barriers (Allen and
Kirby 2000). The effects of public housing transformation may follow a similar pattern. Some
families may welcome the opportunity to relocate to the private market or a better public housing
unit; a smaller number may use the opportunity to enter homeownership programs. However,
other families facing complex problems and significant barriers to self-sufficiency may have a
more difficult transition. Given the significant potential benefits and risks for original residents, it
is critical to understand more about what happens to these families after their developments are
targeted for revitalization.
Since 1995, HUD has sponsored research on the transformation that is taking place at
HOPE VI sites across the country. The focus of this ongoing research (Holin et al. 2002) is on
the physical, social, and economic changes that have occurred at the sites and in the
surrounding neighborhoods. While this research has documented many positive changes at
HOPE VI sites, this research does not address outcomes for original residents who do not
return to the site. Knowing that the sites have improved offers relatively little information about
how original residents might be faring. Several studies, including this site-based research, have
found that relatively few original residents have actually returned to the revitalized sites (Buron
et al. 2002; Keating 2000; Kingsley, Johnson, and Pettit 2000; Wexler 2000). However, many of
the sites in the studies are only partially reoccupied, so the number of original residents who will
ultimately return to the revitalized sites is unknown.
The largest and most systematic study of outcomes for original residents was the HOPE
VI Resident Tracking Study (Buron et al. 2002), a retrospective survey of former residents from
eight HOPE VI sites where redevelopment activities began between 1993 and 1998. The
findings from this research suggest that many, but not all, new housing environments for these
relocated residents are an improvement over their original distressed public housing. A majority
of the original residents in the study sample reported living in decent housing in neighborhoods
that had lower poverty rates than their original public housing developments. Nevertheless, a
substantial proportion of those who were living in public housing or had vouchers reported
problems with drug trafficking and violent crime in their neighborhoods, and about half of those
in the private market—voucher users and unsubsidized households—reported having problems
meeting housing expenses.
However, the Resident Tracking Study has some significant limitations. Because it is
retrospective, there is no information on resident perceptions of their living conditions or
economic struggles prior to HOPE VI, so we cannot compare their pre–HOPE VI perceptions to
their current reports. Further, because of the retrospective design, the sample underrepresents
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
1-5
unsubsidized tenants and others who were more difficult to locate. In general, those who are
difficult to find are those who move frequently, double up with another family, are homeless, or
have moved out of the area; these former residents are likely to have experienced more
problems than those we were able to survey.
An early assessment of the revitalization of the Henry Horner Homes in Chicago (Popkin
et al. 1998; Popkin et al. 2000) raised concerns about potential outcomes for original residents.
The Horner Revitalization Initiative began as a result of litigation settled in 1995; the
development became a HOPE VI site in 1996. The study found that the revitalization effort had
brought about positive short-term social and physical changes, but the prospects for creating a
viable, mixed-income community were unclear. Crime and poor management threatened the
revitalized development. Evidence also indicated that the outcomes for the original tenants were
likely to be mixed. Staff reported that some Horner residents were having difficulty complying
with the terms of their leases. Even more of a concern, relatively few of the original tenants had
even tried to return to the development; many had been declared ineligible or left on their own
without assistance.
More recent findings from Chicago (Popkin and Cunningham 2000, and 2002; Popkin,
Cunningham, and Godfrey2001; Turner, Popkin, and Cunningham 2000) indicate that many
residents of distressed public housing face significant challenges in transitioning to private
market housing using Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8). We tracked a sample of 190
residents as they went through the relocation process. After one year, only 40 percent of our
sample had successfully moved to a unit in the private market; the rest remained in temporary
units in public housing. Those who did move reported living in better housing in safer
neighborhoods, even though these communities were generally still high poverty and racially
segregated. However, the majority faced barriers such as lack of experience with private market
housing, and complex personal problems—substance abuse, depression, domestic violence,
and gang affiliation—that made it difficult for them to search effectively for housing and made
them less appealing to landlords. Others reported problems finding landlords willing to rent to
public housing families with children, limiting their choices of housing and neighborhoods.
An analysis of HUD administrative data for former residents at 73 HOPE VI sites in 48
cities (Kingsley, Johnson, and Pettit 2000) found that overall, about one-third of former residents
have received vouchers, half have relocated to other public housing developments, and the
remainder have left subsidized housing. The majority of those who have received vouchers
have moved to lower-poverty neighborhoods than their original HOPE VI developments. The
average census tract poverty rate for those who had received vouchers dropped from 61
percent to 27 percent. 12 About 40 percent were living in high-poverty tracts (greater than 30
percent poor); in contrast, 13 percent had moved to truly low-poverty neighborhoods, with
poverty rates of less than 10 percent. The study found less change in racial segregation, with
the majority of households still living in tracts that were predominantly minority. Finally, there
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
1-6
was evidence of clustering—large numbers of relocatee households living in the same census
tracts—in only a few sites. Other studies including the HOPE VI Retrospective Tracking Study
(Buron et al. 2002) and single-site studies in Chicago and Washington, D.C. (Cunningham,
Sylvester, and Turner 2000; Popkin and Cunningham 2002), have found similar results.
A related study (Smith 2002) used qualitative methods (focus groups and administrative
interviews) to examine how relocatees in four HOPE VI sites made choices about replacement
housing. This study found that former residents perceived availability of housing and time
constraints as the main influences on housing choice. Relocatees reported seeking
neighborhoods they perceived as safer and which offered amenities such as transportation and
shopping. However, respondents’ comments suggested that relocatees sometimes make
choices without having adequate information about Housing Choice Vouchers, HOPE VI moveback criteria, and the availability of relocation services. Further, many fear moving to unfamiliar
areas; and those who do look elsewhere often report encountering discrimination or difficulty in
finding affordable units.
In sum, the existing research on public housing transformation raises more questions
than it answers about how original residents are faring after relocation. There are suggestions
that residents who have received vouchers are living in better housing in at least somewhat
better neighborhoods. At the same time, a substantial proportion of former residents appears to
be experiencing hardship, living in neighborhoods that are still very poor and have problems
with crime. The Chicago research implies that a subgroup of residents—those with the most
complex personal problems—may have great difficulty making successful transitions to either
the private market or revitalized developments. The HOPE VI Panel Study addresses these
important questions by starting systematic tracking of a sample of residents at five HOPE VI
sites prior to relocation.
Overview of Research Objectives and Methods
The HOPE VI Panel Study focuses on the longer-term location, neighborhood
conditions, physical and mental health, and socioeconomic outcomes for original residents of
five HOPE VI developments where redevelopment activities began in mid- to late 2001. The
study is structured as a pre- and post-intervention study, with the intervention being the changes
resulting from HOPE VI activities. The HOPE VI Panel Study includes two interrelated research
methods: a three-wave household survey and three waves of in-depth interviews. In addition,
we will make periodic contact with each of the study sites and conduct a content analysis of
local newspapers from each site to track major events affecting the revitalization over time.
Together, these data will provide a rich understanding of the impact of HOPE VI on residents
that has both breadth and depth (Marshall and Rossman 1989). Given the small number of
sites, the study results are not statistically generalizable to the entire HOPE VI population, but
are representative of the five sites and suggestive of what is happening in the broader program.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
1-7
Research Questions
The specific research questions the study addresses fall into seven issue areas: housing
outcomes; neighborhood outcomes; social integration; health outcomes; child education and
behavior outcomes; socioeconomic outcomes; and experiences with relocation and supportive
services. Many of the overall study questions pertain to long-term outcomes for the sample. We
have indicated with italics those that apply only to the baseline report.
Housing Outcomes
•
What proportion of original residents end up in the new development, in other public
housing, on Section 8, or leaving assisted housing altogether? Of those who leave
assisted housing, what proportion lose their assistance through lease termination or
eviction?
•
How do outcomes differ for those original residents living in traditional public
housing, new or rehabilitated public housing, and housing subsidized by Section 8?
How do these groups compare with families living in non-assisted housing? Is the
new housing of equal or superior quality to the original public housing unit?
Neighborhood Outcomes
•
What types of neighborhoods do residents move to initially? Do they move to other
types of neighborhoods over time?
•
Do residents who choose Section 8 or leave assisted housing cluster in other highpoverty communities?
•
Do residents end up in communities with lower rates of crime and disorder? In
neighborhoods with high rates of violent crime?
•
Do residents end up in neighborhoods with higher levels of social control and
cohesion?
•
How does relocation affect residents’ access to services and amenities in their
community (e.g., transportation, health care providers, stores, and restaurants)?
Social Integration
•
What are residents’ levels of interaction with neighbors? Do the levels change as a
result of the move?
•
Do residents develop effective support systems in their new communities? What
institutional supports are available to residents?
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
•
1-8
Do residents experience discrimination or harassment in their new communities?
Health Outcomes
•
What is the impact on residents’ exposure to environmental health hazards, including
lead, allergens (roaches, molds, dust), or exposed radiators?
•
How does relocation affect adults’ mental and physical health?
Child Outcomes
•
How does the change in housing and neighborhood affect children’s mental and
physical health (e.g., hospitalizations for asthma, risk of injury, exposure to
violence)?
•
How does relocation affect educational outcomes for children? Do children who
relocate enroll in better quality schools?
•
Are children more likely to be held back or placed in special education after
relocating? How does relocation affect delinquency?
Socioeconomic Outcomes
•
What is the longer-term impact on employment and education for adults? How do the
employment status and source of income of residents who return to the revitalized
development compare with those who do not return?
•
How does relocation affect child care arrangements and parenting behavior?
•
What proportion of households experience economic hardship at baseline (difficulty
affording food, paying rent or utilities) as a result of the move? What are the
characteristics of households that encounter hardship? What facilitates their ability to
overcome the hardship?
Relocation
•
What are residents’ initial preferences for relocation? How do these choices affect
longer-term outcomes?
•
What are residents’ experiences with relocation? What challenges do residents who
receive vouchers encounter in searching for private market housing (e.g., lack of
available units, discrimination, lack of information about how to search effectively,
and overcoming reluctance to move to unfamiliar communities)?
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
•
1-9
What supportive services do residents receive as part of the HOPE VI initiative? How
do residents perceive these services?
Site Selection
The five sites included in the study were purposively selected to represent a range of
HOPE VI programs. The sampling strategy balanced a number of selection factors to ensure
variation among the selected sites: geographic diversity; percent of public housing out of total
revitalized housing planned; 13 diversity of city size; and HUD Public Housing Management and
Administration (PHMAP) scores, which rank housing authorities on a range of management
indicators.14
As described in detail in appendix A, HUD staff provided us with a list of all FY 1999 and
FY 2000 HOPE VI grantees. Using information about the individual sites gathered from HUD
and HOPE VI technical assistance providers, we identified the sites where relocation of original
residents had not begun and in which there were enough occupied units (at least 188) to ensure
that we could complete baseline interviews with at least 150 households at each site. Eighteen
sites met these requirements and were put on a short list for possible inclusion in the study.
We contacted the 18 housing authorities on the short list to gather more detailed
information about the status of the redevelopment initiative and the housing authority’s
willingness to cooperate with the research. 15 Sites which had already relocated most or all of
their residents were excluded from the sample.16 At the end of the process, we selected a
sample of five sites:
•
Shore Park/Shore Terrace (Atlantic City, NJ);
•
Ida B. Wells Homes/Wells Extension/Madden Park Homes(Chicago, IL); 17
•
Few Gardens (Durham, NC);
•
Easter Hill (Richmond, CA); and
•
East Capitol Dwellings (Washington, D.C.).
Detailed descriptions of the five study sites appear in chapter 2.
Data Collection
In this section, we briefly summarize our primary data collection activities; detailed
descriptions appear in appendix A.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
1-10
Site Visits
We conducted two-day reconnaissance visits to all five sites in spring 2001. The purpose
of these visits was to gather information from housing staff and resident leaders about the plans
for redevelopment, including any changes that had occurred since the initial proposal was
submitted to HUD. We asked about the status of plans for redevelopment; the total funding
package for the redevelopment; plans for relocation; and plans and funding for supportive
services. In addition, we discussed plans for further data collection at the site. The information
from these site visits forms the basis for the profiles in chapter 2.
Resident Survey
We administered the baseline survey to a sample of 887 heads of household across the
five sites during summer 2001 and will conduct follow-up surveys at 24 and 48 months after
baseline. 18 The response rate for the baseline survey was 86 percent overall. 19 The survey was
administered in person and covered basic demographics; housing and neighborhood conditions;
health; employment and public assistance receipt; financial stability; material hardship;
education; access to social and community services; and outlook for relocation. We also asked
specific questions about up to two randomly selected focal children per household, one under
age 6 and one between the ages of 6 and 14. The questions about children concerned child
health and well-being, schooling, special education, and behavior.
In-Depth Interviews
We conducted in-depth interviews with a small sample of parent and child dyads from
each site in August and September 2001. We attempted to interview eight dyads at each site,
and succeeded at every site except Wells.20 Our final sample consists of 39 adults and 39 youth
between the ages of 10 and 14. At baseline, we used these semi-structured interviews to focus
on topics that are more amenable to the interview format, especially interactions with neighbors
and mechanisms of neighborhood influence. The interviews also covered many of the topics
addressed in the survey. We audio-recorded the interviews, with the permission of the
interviewees. The same respondents will be interviewed again at each subsequent wave of data
collection.
Benchmarks
To provide context for the baseline findings described in this report, we make
comparisons to findings from other major studies on housing interventions, neighborhood
effects, and welfare reform. These studies include the following:
The Gautreaux Program. Gautreaux was a housing desegregation program that
involved providing former public housing residents with vouchers that could only be used
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
1-11
in areas that were less than 30 percent minority or in revitalizing inner-city
neighborhoods. Research on Gautreaux involved comparisons of outcomes for
participants who moved to predominantly white suburbs with those who moved to
revitalizing African-American neighborhoods in the city.
Moving To Opportunity Demonstration (MTO). MTO involved randomly assigning
volunteers, who were public housing residents from developments in five different cities,
to an experimental group that received Section 8 vouchers that could only be used in
neighborhoods with less than 10 percent of residents living in poverty, or to one of two
control groups (regular Section 8 or remaining in public housing).
Jobs Plus Demonstration. The Jobs Plus Demonstration is an experiment examining
the effects of providing intensive employment-related services to urban public housing
residents.
Three-City Study. The Three-City Study is an intensive, longitudinal study designed to
help understand the effects of welfare reform on the well-being of children and families.
New Hope. The New Hope Project operated in two low-income areas in Milwaukee, WI,
in the late 1990s. The study tested the effect of providing economic support to lowincome working families.
National Survey of American Families (NSAF). The NSAF provides a comprehensive
look at the well-being of a national sample of adults and children, focusing particularly on
low-income families.
In addition to these studies, we draw on other national data sources, including HUD’s
Multifamily Tenant Characteristics database (MTCS), the U.S. Census, the American Housing
Survey, and the National Health Interview Survey.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
2-1
CHAPTER 2: SAMPLE AN D STUDY SITES
In this chapter, we provide background information to create a context for the baseline
results discussed in subsequent chapters. We first describe the characteristics of the
respondents in the HOPE VI Panel Study sample, discussing variation across the study sites. In
addition, to assess how representative these sites are of HOPE VI sites in general, we compare
HUD administrative data on the resident populations of these sites to the overall population of
HOPE VI developments. Finally, we draw on data from site visits and housing authority
documents to provide brief descriptions of the five distressed public housing developments
where our sample of residents lived at baseline. We discuss details about the housing
authorities’ plans for relocation and revitalization in chapter 8.
Respondent Characteristics
As table 2.1 shows, the majority of the respondents in the HOPE VI Panel Study are
African-American, single, female heads of household with children. 21 Almost two-thirds of the
households have children under 18; of those, about one-third (34 percent) have three or more
children. Most of our respondents are over 30 years old (only 10 percent are less than 25 years
old); about a quarter are 50 years old or older (14 percent are between the ages of 50 and 61
and 12 percent are 62 years old or older). Approximately 10 percent of the total sample has
grandchildren living in the household, and 4 percent of the total sample has a grandparent as
the head of household. In 13 percent of the households with children, the grandparent is the
sole adult caregiver.
About one-third of all respondents (41 percent of working-age adults) reported working
for pay at baseline. However, the majority report receiving cash assistance: approximately onethird reported receiving TANF and approximately one-quarter receive Supplemental Security
Income (SSI). More than half of all respondents receive food stamps.
The majority of respondents in our sample were long-term public housing residents.
More than half (53 percent) had lived in public housing for 10 or more years and nearly threefourths (72 percent) had lived in public housing for five or more years.
There are some differences among the sites, especially between the population of
Richmond’s Easter Hill and that of the other study sites. While 89 percent of the total sample is
African American, only 58 percent of Easter Hill residents are, and 40 percent are Hispanic.
Hispanic Easter Hill residents are more likely to be married and have more children than
African-American residents: 51 percent are married compared to only 10 percent overall, and 56
percent have three or more children, compared to 34 percent overall.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
2-2
Table 2.1. Characteristics of HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Residents
Shore
Park/Shore
Terrace
Atlantic City,
NJ
Wells/
Madden
Chicago, IL
Few Gardens
Durham, NC
Easter Hill
Richmond,
CA
East Capitol
Dwellings
Capitol Plaza
Washington,
D.C.
Total
Across
Sites
2
5
93
11
28
62
9
16
74
4
16
79
16
22
62
9
18
73
9
91
6
94
6
94
26
74
4
96
10
90
3
16
50
31
24
26
31
18
21
28
39
12
11
22
39
28
27
14
29
30
18
21
37
23
7
24
19
49
39
16
18
27
26
26
26
21
21
21
21
38
38
12
12
38
28
20
19
34
5
42
21
32
55
22
12
10
56
23
10
11
30
29
16
26
19
42
12
27
35
31
14
21
53
10
15
12
44
32
35
30
11
67
41
27
20
4
68
40
46
21
7
48
25
36
40
4
63
37
32
26
7
59
4
38
43
7
7
11
22
36
16
14
24
31
26
10
9
9
33
41
12
5
3
15
41
22
19
10
27
37
14
11
Household type
Elderly, no children
Non-elderly, no children
Family with children
Marital status of
families with children
Married
Single female head
Household size
1 person
2 people
3–4 people
= 5 people
Number of
children in household
0
1
2
=3
Household income
< $5,000
$5,000–$10,000
$10,001–$15,000
> $15,000
Sources of
incomea
Work
Welfare
SSI
SSDI
Food stamps
Age of head of
household
18–24 years
25–34 years
35–49 years
50–61 years
= 62 years
Race of head of
household
White, non-Hispanic
Black, non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Other
Length of time
in public housing
< 1 year
1–4 years
5–9 years
= 10 years
0
90
10
0
0
99
1
0
1
98
1
1
0
58
40
2
1
98
1
1
1
89
10
1
0
22
17
61
0
9
7
85
5
39
27
29
5
25
28
42
10
25
17
48
5
24
19
53
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
2-3
Source: HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (Summer 2001).
Notes: Figures may not total 100 percent due to rounding.
SSI = Supplemental Security Income.
SSDI = Social Security Disability Income
a. More than one answer allowed.
East Capitol Dwellings in Washington, D.C., has more elderly respondents than the
other sites, especially compared with Easter Hill and Shore Park in Atlantic City. This difference
is mainly due to the fact that the East Capitol HOPE VI site includes Capitol View Plaza, a
senior building. In contrast, Shore Park has a relatively small percentage of elderly residents,
likely because the HOPE VI grant—and our sampling—excluded a senior high-rise building in
the development. Because of the exclusion of the senior building, our sample from Shore Park
has larger households with more children than the overall average, and also a greater
percentage of household heads that work for pay. Finally, Wells in Chicago has more long-term
residents than any other site and a large proportion of childless households, and Few Gardens
has a greater percentage of very young heads of household compared with the other sites.
To assess how representative our study sites are of HOPE VI developments in general,
we used HUD administrative data to compare the socioeconomic characteristics of the resident
population of the HOPE VI Panel Study sites to the figures for all HOPE VI grantees.22 Our
comparison shows that the residents at the five study sites are economically similar to other
HOPE VI sites: mean and median incomes are similar, and the vast majority have incomes 30
percent or less than the area median income.23 On the other hand, our study sites have a
greater proportion of residents who are African American, elderly, and single. They have fewer
children and have lived in public housing a longer period of time than the larger population of
HOPE VI grantees.24 These differences may be due to the inclusion of Chicago’s Wells, which
has a large population of older, long-term residents. However, despite these differences, our
sample is relatively typical of the extremely low-income, minority households who live in
distressed public housing nationwide.
Site Profiles
In this section, we describe the physical characteristics of each of the five public housing
developments in the HOPE VI Panel Study. In addition, we provide information about any
characteristics of the neighborhood that might affect living conditions in the development. Table
2.2 provides an overview of the five HOPE VI sites.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
2-4
Table 2.2. Housing Characteristics
Year built
Original number
of units (entire
site)
Development
type
Building
description
Shore Park/
Shore
Terrace
Atlantic City,
NJ
Wells/Madden
Chicago, IL
Few Gardens
Durham, NC
Easter Hill
Richmond, CA
East Capitol
Dwellings/
Capitol Plaza
Washington,
D.C.
1970s
1941, 1955,
1961, 1970
1953
1954
1955, 1971
212
3,200
240
273
717
Family
Family
Family
Family, senior
High-rise, midrise, row
houses
Row houses
Row houses
Row houses,
high-rise
Family
c
Row houses
a
b
Notes:
a. The Wells/Madden site consists of four developments: Ida B. Wells, Wells Extension, Clarence Darrow Homes,
and Madden Park Homes.
b. The East Capitol site also includes a vacant Federal Housing Authority high-rise, which is being demolished, and
Capitol View Townhomes, which are being revitalized, bringing the total units to 1,199.
c. Shore Park also includes a senior high-rise; however, it is not part of the HOPE VI grant and is not included in this
study.
Shore Park/Shore Terrace
Atlantic City, New Jersey
At the time of the HOPE VI award, the Atlantic City Housing Authority and
Redevelopment Agency (ACHA) had approximately 2,000 public housing units in developments
and scattered-site locations. In 1999, the housing authority received a HOPE VI grant to
revitalize its Shore Park and Shore Terrace developments. Built in the 1970s, Shore Park and
Shore Terrace were located several blocks from each other, but for the purposes of the HOPE
VI grant were considered one site. At the time of the HOPE VI award, Shore Park consisted of
144 three-bedroom townhouses.25 Shore Terrace consisted of 62 two-bedroom and eight threebedroom townhouses. In both developments, the housing was arranged in three-story “family
courts.” Units at Shore Terrace were renovated in 1994 to create smaller apartments out of the
mainly five- and six-bedroom units. While neither of the developments suffered from extreme
neglect, the ACHA sought to change the poor site and unit design. According to the agency’s
HOPE VI application, the fortress-like brick buildings surrounded by a walled periphery gave the
impression of a hostile presence in the neighborhood. In addition, ACHA’s application provided
evidence of some structural decay caused by severe weather conditions and indicated that
there was asbestos in floor tiles, piping, and water tanks.
The area around the HOPE VI site was composed mostly of dilapidated or abandoned
buildings and vacant lots. The developments were located in the middle of the Atlantic Heights
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
2-5
neighborhood in the Midtown area of Atlantic City, near the city’s famous boardwalk and the
casinos that dominate the local economy (Map 2.1). There was widespread redevelopment
occurring in this area of Atlantic City, largely due to the city’s Casino Reinvestment
Development Authority (CRDA).26 Shore Park and Shore Terrace were in the middle of CRDA’s
target area and the HOPE VI grant was part of this larger revitalization effort. No new housing
will be built on the current site. Instead, the units built as part of the HOPE VI plan will be
scattered throughout the neighborhood.
Ida B. Wells/Madden Park/Darrow Homes
Chicago, Illinois
In 2001, the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) was in the midst of a massive
transformation, with all of its 19,000 units of family high-rise housing slated for demolition and
revitalization (Popkin and Cunningham 2002). The CHA is the third largest housing authority in
the nation, and it has a lengthy history of poor management that left its developments in a state
of advanced decay (Popkin et al. 2000). Because of its management problems, HUD took over
the housing authority in 1995. The agency was returned to city control in 1999 and initiated its
ambitious Plan for Transformation (Chicago Housing Authority 2001).
As part of the transformation effort, the agency received a total of eight HOPE VI
implementation awards 27 and in 2000 received a grant to revitalize a site comprised of four
adjacent public housing developments that covered 72 acres—Ida B. Wells, Wells Extension,
Clarence Darrow Homes, and Madden Park Homes.28 The HOPE VI site was located in the
historic Mid-South-Bronzeville neighborhood on Chicago’s South Side (Map 2.2). The
community was just east of the city’s infamous State Street corridor, the five-mile stretch of
public housing that included the Robert Taylor Homes, the largest public housing development
in the world.
Built in 1941, Wells was one of the CHA’s oldest public housing developments. Wells
Extension was built in 1955, followed by Clarence Darrow, constructed in 1961. Madden Park
Homes, built in 1970, was one of the last large family projects constructed in Chicago (Bowly
1978). The buildings in Wells included both row houses and mid-rise buildings; Wells Extension
had 10 seven-story high-rises; Darrow originally was four 14-story high-rises, of which only one
was still standing; and Madden consisted of three-story low-rises and two nine-story high-rises.
Together, the four developments included about 3,200 units of public housing. In 2001, because
of a high vacancy rate and some demolition in Darrow, the CHA estimated the occupancy at
approximately 1,500 residents (a 53 percent occupancy rate).
According to the CHA’s HOPE VI application, the developments’ obsolete mechanical,
plumbing, electrical, sanitary, and water supply systems were seriously deficient. For instance,
the CHA had been cited for not providing consistent supplies of hot and cold water or heat. The
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
2-6
developments also had problems with inadequate lighting in walkways and stairways, poorly
insulated walls and windows, and lead paint and asbestos in units at all four sites. Some of the
units were visibly in disrepair; many were empty and boarded up. A substantial number of these
boarded-up units were occupied by squatters.29
The HOPE VI site was bordered by the public housing in the State Street corridor on one
side and by historic brownstones on the other. Large areas around the site consisted of nothing
but vacant lots. There was little retail or commercial activity in the immediate area. The
neighborhood was notorious for crime, drug dealing, and gang activity. Despite these problems,
the Bronzeville area a few blocks away was experiencing a resurgence. In this area, developers
were constructing new single-family homes and condominiums, and some abandoned houses
were undergoing renovation.
Few Gardens
Durham, North Carolina
In 2001, the Durham Housing Authority (DHA) had 2,106 units of public housing in 15
developments. The DHA received its only HOPE VI grant in 2000 for Few Gardens. Few
Gardens was located near downtown Durham, an area with many government and banking
offices. Few Gardens was less than 10 miles away from Duke University Hospital and the
Research Triangle Park, a high-tech business magnet accessible via light rail (2.3).
Few Gardens was built in 1953 during the segregation era and was originally a complex
for white residents. The development included 240 apartments in 31 buildings situated on 16
acres. The majority of the brick, barrack-style apartments were in two-story buildings, most of
which faced each another across grass courtyards. Iron security fences, installed to prevent
outsiders from gaining easy access to the development, bordered the grounds.
According to the housing authority’s HOPE VI application, the development suffered
from cracked floors and walls, leaking roofs, and inadequate ventilation. In addition, the
electrical, plumbing, and heating systems were inadequate and required constant attention.
Both the development and the surrounding neighborhood were reported to have high crime
rates.
The surrounding neighborhood was mostly made up of single-family rental houses,
some of which had been renovated. There reportedly had been some effort to encourage new
housing and homeownership in the area; however, it had not been very successful by the time
the study began. There was a grocery store located not far from the development as well as a
number of churches, a relatively new elementary school, and a city park. The HOPE VI
application also indicated that the city had plans to develop a transportation node on the future
light rail system between the airport and Duke University.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
2-7
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
2-8
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
2-9
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
2-10
The Few Gardens HOPE VI revitalization plan called for the construction of 260 housing
units in the Northeast Central Durham neighborhood. The housing authority intended to target
parcels in the neighborhood based on their level of distress and their role in defining community
edges and gateways. According to the DHA’s application, this plan was to be the first step in the
creation of a high-quality, economically diverse community with access to downtown Durham,
major transportation nodes, and several booming job markets. The City of Durham also had
agreed to relocate overhead utility lines and install new streetlights and sidewalks in the
neighborhood.
Easter Hill
Richmond, California
The Richmond Housing Authority was the smallest of the five housing authorities in this
study, with only 830 units of public housing in three senior and three family developments. The
HOPE VI grant for Easter Hill was the first award received by the housing authority.
Easter Hill is located near downtown Richmond in an area of the city called “the Southside (Map
2.4).” The development was built in 1954 and includes 273 units in one- and two-story row
houses. The development was built on hilly terrain with trees and large boulders left in place as
part of the landscape. The architecture and layout was considered innovative at the time of
construction, but the buildings have suffered neglect over the years and by 2001 were very run
down. There were only two entrances to Easter Hill; both along the development’s north side.
Other streets approaching the project had been blocked off over the years, creating dead ends. An
interstate highway ran along the southern border of the development.
According to the HOPE VI application, the development had numerous systems and
physical plant problems. The mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems were not compliant
with current building codes. The units also had serious problems such as exposed electrical
wires, lead-based paint, and cracks in the building foundations due to settlement. The site was
inaccessible for disabled persons because of narrow and steep sidewalks. There was
inadequate drainage, and the sewer and water mains had deteriorated. Easter Hill had also
suffered from serious crime problems over the years, including drug- and gang-related activities.
Because of these problems, the police department established an on-site substation in Easter
Hill in spring 2001.
The community immediately surrounding the development, Cortez-Stege, was
considered the most crime-ridden area in Richmond. Cutting Boulevard, a four-lane street that
borders Easter Hill, was the area's main commercial district, although in 2001, most of the
businesses in the area were reportedly struggling.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
2-11
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
2-12
Located about 15 miles from San Francisco, Richmond was one of the few remaining
affordable regions in the Bay Area in 2001. The city had some areas of concentrated poverty
and urban blight, as did the neighboring unincorporated area of North Richmond. Richmond’s
economic base was heavy industry, with major petro-chemical, fertilizer, and steel plants
located in the city, including one across the highway from the Easter Hill development. Hightech companies from the Bay Area had recently started moving to Richmond because of the
lower property costs.
East Capitol Dwellings and Capitol View Plaza
Washington, D.C.
The D.C. Housing Authority (DCHA) is a large housing authority with approximately
11,000 units of public housing. The DCHA, formerly known as The Housing Authority of the
District of Columbia, has a long history of poor management that left its developments in a state
of severe decay in the mid-1990s. Because of its problems, the agency was placed in
receivership in 1995. After five years, the housing authority was considered well-managed and
was returned to city control. By 2001, DHCA had received five HOPE VI implementation grants,
as well as four demolition-only and one planning grant.
East Capitol Dwellings and Capitol View Plaza were located on the outskirts of
Washington, D.C., bordering Prince George’s County, MD (Map 2.5). The HOPE VI site
included a vacant FHA building, Capitol View Plaza II, which was to be demolished along with
the public housing. The adjacent East Capitol Townhomes had already been revitalized as
affordable homeownership units using non-HOPE VI funding.
East Capitol Dwellings was built in 1955 and remodeled in the early 1980s. The
buildings were mainly two- and three-story red brick townhomes, each of which had an
individual entrance and small front yard. East Capitol Street, a major artery, divided the
development into north and south sides. A section of East Capitol Dwellings (180 units) was
demolished in 1999 using an earlier HOPE VI demolition grant. As of June 2001, there were 397
units in East Capitol, the majority of which (91 percent) were occupied. Capitol View Plaza, a
high-rise for senior citizens, was built in 1971 and had approximately 320 units.
The developments were in extremely poor condition at the time of the HOPE VI award.
The housing authority reported groundwater filtration problems, leaking roofs, sewers that
backed up into basements, electrical problems, and unit design and site layout problems. In the
senior building, the elevators were frequently inoperable and the mechanical systems were old
and in need of replacement. The development experienced very high crime rates; a labyrinth of
alleys, cul-de-sacs, and winding roads provided an ideal environment for drug trafficking. A hill
on the edge of the development had so many heroin users congregating on it that it was known
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
2-13
as “Heroin Hill.” In 1999, a 50-year-old grandmother was shot and killed just outside her East
Capitol apartment, a victim of a stray bullet. This event received widespread publicity and lead
to a crackdown on crime in the development.
A bus line and a Metro stop were located a few blocks from the development, providing
easy access to downtown Washington, D.C. There were several social service agencies on-site
that were to become part of the supportive service package for the revitalized development. At
one time there were stores on-site located on the first level of the FHA building; however, the
storefronts were vacant by 2001. Just across the Prince George’s County line, there was a
small shopping center with a liquor store and beauty salon; another liquor store was located
nearby on the D.C. side of the border. The closest grocery store was about a mile away in
Prince George’s County, MD.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
2-14
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
3-1
CHAPTER 3: HOUSING CONDITIONS AT BASELINE
HOPE VI grants are intended to address the problems of the most severely distressed
public housing. In general, developments targeted under HOPE VI are in extremely poor
physical condition (Fosburg, Popkin, and Locke 1996). Substandard conditions in public housing
have a significant impact on residents’ daily life. Studies of “distressed” public housing have
documented such problems as broken elevators that force arthritic or asthmatic residents to
climb flights of stairs; trash piling up in broken incinerators; infestations of cockroaches, mice,
and rats; and broken plumbing and other major building systems (National Commission 1992;
Popkin, Harris, and Cunningham 2002; Popkin et al. 2000). Substandard housing can also have
serious repercussions for residents’ health, especially for children (Scharfstein and Sandel
1998).
Because of the importance of housing quality for residents’ well-being, we asked
respondents in the HOPE VI Panel Study a series of detailed questions from the national
American Housing Survey that asked them to rate their current housing conditions. We
compared their responses to national averages and the figures for all low-income renters. We
also asked respondents about their satisfaction with their housing. Finally, we used HUD
administrative data to document the overall conditions of the five developments at baseline. In
this chapter, we use these three sources of data to paint a comprehensive picture of the
physical conditions at the five study sites at baseline.
Housing Conditions
As described in chapter 2, the five developments in this study were quite old—the
newest site (Shore Park) was constructed in the early 1970s, and the rest were built before
1960. Chicago’s Wells was the only site that had family high- and mid-rise buildings; East
Capitol had one elderly high-rise. The remaining housing at all sites consisted of two-story row
houses. All five housing authorities described major structural problems in their initial HOPE VI
applications, including outdated plumbing, heating, and electrical systems, as well as problems
such as poor drainage and inadequate physical design.
HUD administrative data from 2001 supported the housing authorities’ claims. HUD’s
Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) assigns each HUD-assisted property a score based on
the conditions of the site, building exterior, building systems, common areas, and units.30 The
REAC scores for the five study sites were very low. In order to pass, a development must
receive a score of 60 or above; the national median score in 2001 was 81. Easter Hill and
Wells31 barely missed sub-standard status (both had scores of 61). Few Gardens and Shore
Park were rated slightly higher, but still had below-average scores of 70 and 73. East Capitol
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
3-2
had the extremely low score of 19. All five of the sites had what REAC staff categorized as “lifethreatening health and safety hazards” (HUD n.d.)
Resident Reports
Our resident survey included items from the American Housing Survey (AHS) on
housing problems that relate to residents’ health and overall well-being. These questions asked
respondents about their heating and plumbing systems, the condition of the paint and plaster on
the walls, and the presence of cockroaches, rats, or mice in the past several months or year. As
figure 3.1 shows, HOPE VI residents’ responses were consistent with the low REAC scores,
providing further evidence that these five developments were plagued with many serious
physical problems.
Figure 3.1. Housing Conditions
Water leaks
Peeling paint or plaster
Cold unit
Mold
Nonfunctioning toilet
Cockroaches
Rats
Radiators without covers
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent reporting problem
Across the sites, approximately one-third of respondents reported that during the past
winter their unit was so cold that it caused discomfort. Of those who experienced problems with
heat, more than one-third reported it was because of faulty heating systems and not because
they could not pay utility bills or were trying to reduce their costs.32 For example, an Easter Hill
respondent in Richmond, CA, told the interviewer that her unit was cold because of poor
insulation.
Just under half of all survey respondents (42 percent) reported water leaks in the past
year. One quarter of the respondents reported broken toilets. The in-depth interviews provide
evidence of the severity of many of these plumbing problems, with respondents describing
problems such as overflowing toilets, water damage from leaks in neighboring units, stopped-up
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
3-3
plumbing, and backed-up sewer systems. One resident from Wells described the effect of water
damage from an upstairs neighbor’s leaking toilet:
Like there's a person upstairs, the toilet leaks . . . and this infects the walls. Water
was coming all up the side of the wall, see how the wall is broke all off? It's
dangerous to your health because there [is] an odor to it. You wake up in the
morning and it smells so bad you have to open doors. You have to open the
doors and windows in the morningtime. [Wells 052A]
About one-third of our survey respondents reported peeling paint or plaster in their
units—problems that potentially placed them and their families at risk of lead poisoning. One
grandmother living in Wells described the damage her two grandchildren had suffered as a
result of lead poisoning acquired while living in another Chicago Housing Authority
development:
Now, I have one that's a little slow. That's my baby here, because they had lead,
all of them, all of them had lead, and overdoses from living [in another housing
development]. . . . [My grandson] will have to go into a special education classes.
And the little girl, she slobbers all the time. And she's five, and she shouldn't be
doing that. [Wells 148A]
A Shore Park resident described a problem in her unit that posed another health risk to
children: her unit’s screen windows were not fastened in the window and could easily pop out.
This was an issue of utmost importance to her because her 2-year-old nephew died the year
before after falling through an unsecured screen window in another Atlantic City housing
development.
Finally, approximately one quarter of all respondents reported problems with cockroach
infestations and excessive mold in their units, and another 16 percent reported problems with
rats and mice—all factors that increase the risk of asthma. As we will discuss in chapter 5, many
respondents reported health problems that might be housing related.
While the conditions in all five developments were poor, there was variation among sites.
Respondents from Wells and Shore Park reported the most severe problems; in some cases,
their reports of problems were 20 percentage points or more higher than responses from the
other three sites. Almost half of Shore Park respondents reported water leaks, heating
problems, and cockroach infestation. In Wells, nearly half reported water leaks, peeling paint or
plaster, and exposed radiators. Chicago’s public housing is notoriously deteriorated (Popkin et
al. 2000); thus, it is not surprising that Wells’s residents reported so many serious problems.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
3-4
Multiple Problems
Another indicator of the extremely poor conditions in these five developments is the fact
that the majority of HOPE VI residents in our sample reported multiple housing problems.
Approximately one-third reported two or three problems in the past year, and one-fifth reported
more than three problems (see figure 3.2). One Few Gardens respondent we interviewed
described the many problems in her unit: the toilet backs up and water overflows, leaking onto
the bathroom floor, causing the ceiling below to buckle. At the same time, the backed up sewer
line—the cause of the overflowing toilet—seeps into the kitchen plumbing and leaks into the
kitchen sink cabinet.
% Reporting two or more problems
Figure 3.2. Multiple Housing Problems by Site
100
80
60
40
20
0
Shore Park
Wells
Few Gardens
Easter Hill
East Capitol
Maintenance
The in-depth interviews provide some evidence of residents’ perspective on the
timeliness and effectiveness of building maintenance. Respondents from three sites, particularly
Wells and East Capitol, complained that maintenance staff were unresponsive. Some
respondents also said they thought that housing problems were not being fixed because the
developments were slated for demolition; others said that they thought that the housing
authority was addressing emergencies but ignoring smaller problems. This East Capitol resident
shared her view:
The kitchen floor . . . need repairs for over a year, and since they claim they're
going to tear the property down . . . I guess they're not going to do that. But the
hot water spigots, they need to be replaced for about four months and . . . they
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
said they can't order anything new because they're going to tear the unit down.
But they claim they going to go into one of the old abandoned units and get one
and repair it, but that hasn't happened either. They're pretty slow about taking
care of things sometimes. If I call them and say that we had a flood last week,
they, they responded on a timely basis, you know. . . . But something like regular
maintenance, they ain't really concerned about it. [East Capitol 214A]
In contrast, interview respondents from Easter Hill and Shore Park did not report
problems with maintenance, with some respondents stating that maintenance was adequate
and not affected by pending HOPE VI plans.
3-5
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
3-6
Deteriorating Housing: Ida B. Wells Homes, Chicago
Dorothy lives with her daughter, Angela, and her three grandchildren in Chicago’s Ida B. Wells
public housing development. Dorothy moved in to Wells when she was young and has lived in the same
apartment for more than 30 years. Her children and grandchildren have all been raised in public housing.
Dorothy reminisces about how things used to be back in 1970 when she first moved to Ida B. Wells.
“Oh, I loved it. It was pretty. We had a good time. We’d sit out on the porch all night. But you can’t even sit
on the porch now.” The shootings and gang wars force Dorothy and her family to stay inside much of the
time. “About two weeks ago the kids were outside, at about 7 o’clock. Good thing that my kids are usually
on the porch . . . they did a drive-by [shooting],” Angela says. Her 14-year-old daughter, Nicole, says the
violence is nonstop—there was a shooting just three nights ago.
Dorothy says the development is not fit to live in, not only because of the violence, but also because
of the poor condition of her unit. The apartment has a large plastic bag taped to its ceiling covering a large
hole. Dorothy says the plastic bag is the housing authority’s answer to a water leak that caused the plaster
from her ceiling living room to cave in. “The whole ceiling fell out. The drywall, everything. Under that
plastic it’s just wood, there’s no drywall there, and that’s why there’s so many flies,” says Angela. Dorothy
says the housing authority’s maintenance consists of “quick fixes.” The problems usually return just days
after they have been “repaired.”
Dorothy describes her unit as a health hazard. Every morning, she opens all of the windows and
doors to air out the apartment because of the stench. The stench comes from mildew in the ceiling and the
apartment’s lack of proper ventilation. In addition, she says her unit is poorly insulated. In the winter,
Dorothy and Angela resort to hanging bed sheets in the windows to keep the cold air out.
Still, Dorothy says she is glad her granddaughter Nic ole manages to thrive despite Wells’s
hazardous living conditions. Nicole works hard and is doing well in school. She was an honor roll student
throughout elementary school and junior high. Both Dorothy and Angela are very proud of Nicole’s
accomplishments. The grandmother says she often wonders how Nicole is able to do so well living with the
area’s violence and the dilapidated conditions. Nicole’s success may be due to her grandmother’s support.
Dorothy says a child’s responsibilities are to “eat and go to school.” She says there is no excuse for a schoolaged child not doing well in school. Nicole recently received an IBM computer for tutoring at an area afterschool program. Although she, too, says the neighborhood is not the safest, Nicole enjoys school and looks
forward to the new school year. She plans to become a computer technician and believes her new school’s
computer program will steer her in the right direction.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
3-7
Comparison to American Housing Survey
To put these results in context, we compared our survey results to national averages
from the American Housing Survey. As figure 3.3 shows, the HOPE VI residents in our sample
reported substantially worse housing conditions than renters nationwide. Further, they were
more likely to report problems than other low-income households. For example, more than half
(58 percent) of our respondents reported problems with water leaks, compared with 13 percent
of renters and 11 percent of poor households nationally. Likewise, more than one-third (36
percent) of HOPE VI respondents reported problems with peeling paint or broken plaster, while
the figure for renters and poor households nationally is just 5 percent.
Percent reporting problem
Figure 3.3. Comparative Data for Housing Conditions
100
80
60
40
20
0
Cold unit
All renters
Water leaks Peeling paint
Poor households
Rats
HOPE VI sites
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1999) and the HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey.
Housing Satisfaction
Housing satisfaction can be an additional indicator of overall well-being. On this
dimension, HOPE VI residents score surprisingly high: while the majority reported extremely
poor housing conditions, most indicated high levels of satisfaction with their housing. At least
two-thirds of all respondents reported being very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their
housing (see figure 3.4). Consistent with the reports of housing problems, respondents from
Richmond’s Easter Hill were the most satisfied—three quarters reported being very satisfied or
somewhat satisfied with their housing—while Shore Park respondents were the least satisfied at
43 percent.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
3-8
Percent reporting feeling "very
satisfied" or "somewhat
satisfied"
Figure 3.4. Housing Satisfaction by Site and Age
100
80
60
40
20
0
Shore Park
Wells
Few
Gardens
Adults 18-62 years old
Easter Hill East Capitol
Adults > 62 years old
Older respondents reported higher rates of satisfaction with their housing than the those
under age 62. As figure 3.4 shows, almost half of all elderly respondents (45 percent) reported
being very satisfied, compared with 25 percent of all other adults. However, this difference was
primarily the result of variation across sites: elderly residents from Wells and Few Gardens
reported the highest levels of housing satisfaction (approximately 20 percentage points higher
than respondents from the other three sites).
Given that respondents reported extremely poor housing conditions, the high rates of
satisfaction seem contradictory. However, other studies have also found high rates of housing
satisfaction among public housing residents. For instance, the baseline assessment of the first
HOPE VI implementation sites found high levels of resident satisfaction (Fosburg, Popkin, and
Locke 1996). Likewise, in a study of five distressed Boston public housing developments, 72
percent of residents reported being very or somewhat satisfied with their development (Vale
1997). Even a study of Chicago’s extraordinarily distressed public housing found high levels of
satisfaction among residents (Popkin et al. 1998).
Understanding this discrepancy between resident perceptions and reports of objective
conditions is not simple. Measuring housing satisfaction is a challenge because satisfaction is a
relative concept and is dependent on each individual’s experiences. Further, housing
satisfaction measures may actually reflect an assessment of the overall quality of life in the
public housing development rather than housing conditions alone (Vale 1997).
Like Vale, we found that demographic characteristics such as income and education
were unrelated to housing satisfaction; however, older residents were significantly more likely to
be satisfied than younger adults.33 Likewise, those who perceived a higher level of social
cohesion in their neighborhood were statistically more likely to be satisfied. In contrast,
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
3-9
respondents who had used housing vouchers before and who reported a larger number of
housing problems were statistically less likely to be satisfied with their housing, as were
residents from Shore Park, Few Gardens, and East Capitol less likely to be satisfied with their
housing.34
While our statistical analysis offers only limited insight into why large percentages of
HOPE VI respondents were so satisfied with their housing, the qualitative interviews suggested
other possibilities. Many of the interview respondents, particularly from Easter Hill, Few
Gardens, and Shore Park, reported that they liked their housing because they thought it
spacious and it had many rooms. Easter Hill residents also reported that they liked their front
and backyards and the fact that their area was quiet. Others described the effort and money
they put into making their housing unit comfortable—by painting, adding curtains, and generally
doing their own maintenance. Further, it was clear that some residents were satisfied because
they were familiar with the development and the neighborhood and, while the neighborhood
may have negative attributes (described fully in chapter 4), it was convenient to public
transportation, health clinics, schools, and stores.
Other research suggests further possible explanations for these high levels of
satisfaction. Residents may feel they lack realistic housing options, may fear losing their current
housing, or may be comparing their current housing to previous housing that was even worse
(Fosburg, Popkin, and Locke 1996; Popkin and Cunningham 2001, 2002; Smith 2002).
Residents who have lived in distressed public housing for long periods of time may simply have
low expectations. Finally, residents may generally fear the unknown and leaving public housing
altogether (Popkin and Cunningham 2000; Smith 2002).
Summary
The key findings regarding baseline housing conditions for the HOPE VI Panel Study are
listed below:
•
All five of the public housing developments in our study were in extremely poor
physical condition at baseline. Conditions for HOPE VI Panel Study respondents were
considerably worse than national averages for poor renters.
§
A large percentage of our respondents reported multiple housing problems. About
one-third reported between two and three housing problems, and one in five reported
having more than three.
§
Despite these poor conditions, more than two-thirds of HOPE VI respondents
reported that they were satisfied with their housing. Older adults were more satisfied
with their housing than younger residents.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
4--1
CHAPTER 4: NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS AT BASELINE
As the HOPE VI program has evolved over time, there has been increasing recognition
that problems in the neighborhoods surrounding HOPE VI sites need to be addressed in order
for the on-site revitalization effort to succeed. Consistent with this recognition, the 1998 program
legislation explicitly stated that a goal of the HOPE VI program is to “contribute to the
improvement of the surrounding neighborhood.” 35 All five of the sites in this study include
neighborhood revitalization activities in their HOPE VI plans.
In this chapter we document the neighborhood conditions at the five study developments
in the spring and summer of 2001, prior to the implementation of the HOPE VI revitalization
effort. The chapter begins with a brief overview of the literature on neighborhood effects, and
then describes the socioeconomic characteristics of the study neighborhoods followed by
resident perceptions of physical disorder, crime, and safety in their neighborhood. The final
section reports resident perceptions of the social environments and social networks in the
neighborhood. Together with the housing conditions discussed in chapter 3, this information
provides context for the health, education, and employment findings discussed in subsequent
chapters.
Neighborhood Effects
An underlying premise of the HOPE VI program is that it is possible to improve residents’
lives either by helping them to relocate to better neighborhoods or by creating a new, healthier
community on-site. This premise is based on a belief among many policymakers and scholars
that high concentrations of very-low-income households in housing developments lead to
negative social and behavioral outcomes. (Wilson 1987) described the rise of what he calls an
“underclass culture” in many inner-city neighborhoods characterized by weak labor force
attachment, and high rates of welfare receipt, teen pregnancy, single female–headed
households, drug use, and violent crime. He attributed this phenomenon to the increasing
isolation of the poor in inner-city communities with limited employment opportunities, inadequate
municipal services, and a lack of middle- and working-class residents to serve as role models
and to support local institutions (e.g., schools and stores). Structural factors such as racial
discrimination and the lack of jobs for unskilled workers both helped to create these isolated
communities and feed their “pathologies.”
Other researchers have associated neighborhood conditions with a range of outcomes
for residents, including educational attainment, labor market success, juvenile crime rates,
parenting styles, and physical and mental health. However, the mechanisms through which
neighborhood conditions affect these outcomes are not well understood and researchers have
not been able to disentangle the role of neighborhood conditions from the role of the
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
4--2
characteristics of individuals and families that lead to living in that neighborhood (Leventhal and
Brooks-Gunn 2000, 2001a).
One neighborhood factor that appears to have major implications for residents is the
prevalence of crime and disorder. Social disorganization theory suggests that the high level of
crime in poor, isolated neighborhoods is attributable to lower social sanctions for crime, a lower
probability of being caught, and high rates of unemployment (Cook and Goss 1996; Reiss 1988;
Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls 1997). Regardless of the causes, high levels of crime can
have negative consequences for residents, who may be victims or witnesses to violence.
Researchers have documented that living with constant fear and anxiety due to crime can have
negative health and developmental consequences for both adults and children (Garbarino,
Kostelny, and Dubrow 1991; Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn 2000). Finally, a recent study linked
high homicide rates to other problems such as low birth weight (Morenoff 2001).
Research on the Gautreaux program and the early phases of the Moving To Opportunity
(MTO) demonstration provide some empirical evidence of neighborhood effects on well-being.
The Gautreaux research (Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum 2000) involved comparisons of outcomes
for a sample of participants who moved to predominantly white suburbs of Chicago with those
who moved to revitalizing black neighborhoods in the city. 36 Participants who moved to
suburban communities were more likely to report having had a job after they moved, although
they did not work more hours or earn higher wages. Findings from a longitudinal study of 69
Gautreaux participants indicated that children of suburban movers were more likely to stay in
school, be employed after graduation, and go on to four-year colleges or universities.37 Finally,
although the MTO research is preliminary, it has documented positive gains in health outcomes
for participants who moved to low-poverty neighborhoods (Katz, Kling, and Liebman 2001). 38
Characteristics of Neighborhood Housing and Residents
All five HOPE VI developments in this study were located in high-poverty, predominantly
minority neighborhoods.39 The poverty rate in these sites ranged from a low of 32 percent in the
Easter Hill neighborhood to a high of 72 percent in the Wells neighborhood (see table 4.1). Each
of the developments was surrounded by densely populated residential areas that contained a
majority of renter-occupied, often multifamily, housing. The Few Gardens neighborhood was the
only site with more single-family than multifamily housing, but even there only 28 percent of the
housing in the neighborhood was owner-occupied. The East Capitol neighborhood had the most
owner-occupied housing, making up 40 percent of the neighborhood housing stock. Both the
Few Gardens and East Capitol neighborhoods also contained a core of older homeowners who
had lived in the neighborhood for many years.
According to the 1990 Census, despite the high level of poverty, at least two-thirds of the
neighborhood households at four of the sites report income from employment and only about
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
4--3
one quarter receive welfare benefits.40 Overall, these appear to be working-class
neighborhoods, but with a core group dependent on welfare. The only exception is the Wells
neighborhood in Chicago, where less than half the households reported employment income
and slightly more than half reported welfare income.
Table 4.1. Neighborhood Characteristics
Below Poverty Level
(1990)
Sources of Income for
household (1990)
Employment
Welfare
SS/Pensions
Other
Single -family homes
(1990)
Owner-occupied
homes (2000)
Race/ethnicity (2000)
Black
Hispanic
White
Other
Number of households
(2000)
Easter Hill
Richmond, CA
32
East Capitol
Dwellings/
Capitol Plaza
Washington D.C.
36
Average
43
71
19
43
27
85
20
20
34
67
21
53
22
67
28
38
24
11
58
25
47
36
17
2
28
35
40
24
81
3
13
3
98
0
1
1
74
9
15
2
31
29
19
21
98
0
1
1
77
8
10
6
2,399
2,528
1,616
2,653
2,213
2,282
Shore Park/
Shore Terrace
Atlantic City, NJ
42
Wells/Madden
Chicago, IL
72
Few Gardens
Durham, NC
35
66
27
50
19
46
53
25
15
37
Because of the enormous size of the Wells HOPE VI site (3,200 units)—and its location
near other very large developments—the Wells neighborhood has very low employment levels,
extreme poverty, and a preponderance of multi-family housing (89 percent).41 None of the other
sites is located close to other family public housing developments, although there is a 160-unit
elderly high-rise development adjacent to Shore Park. 42
The racial and ethnic composition of the neighborhood residents is the same as the public
housing developments in four of the five sites. In these four sites, almost all of residents of both
the public housing and surrounding neighborhood residents are African American. At the fifth
site, Easter Hill, the development population is split between African Americans and Hispanics,
but the neighborhood is more diverse, with substantial numbers of African Americans,
Hispanics, Asians, and whites.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
4--4
Neighborhood Amenities
Although the five developments are located in poor, older, inner-city neighborhoods,
survey respondents indicated that they were close to many amenities and social service
providers. Respondents from all five sites reported convenient access to public transportation in
their neighborhood. Public transportation is important to most respondents in our sample
because only 30 percent reported owning or having access to a car. Across the sites, 95
percent of the residents reported the nearest bus or train stop was within 15 minutes of their
house. Approximately half of the residents reported convenient access to a grocery store, and
38 percent reported that a health clinic or hospital was nearby. However, our site visits indicated
that the few retail stores in these neighborhoods are typically small and expensive.
From the in-depth interviews and site visits, we learned that the developments were close to
public schools, free or inexpensive recreational facilities (e.g., a community center or park),
social services, and downtown employment centers. For example, East Capitol had outdoor
basketball courts, a community center, and several housing units were turned over to supportive
service providers, including a youth employment agency. Shore Park residents reported a Boys
and Girls Club nearby and housing authority–run summer camps, while Easter Hill residents
reported frequenting a local YMCA. Several children in Atlantic City’s Shore Park also reported
going to a nearby beach in the summer. All five sites are either near downtown or have
convenient access to the downtown employment centers via public transportation. 43
Crime and Disorder
We asked survey respondents several questions about crime and disorder because they are
key attributes of a neighborhood. These problems included physical disorder (e.g., trash and
junk in common areas), social disorder (e.g., drug trafficking and gang activity), and violent
crime. The level of physical disorder in a community is an indicator of the degree of community
pride and is often associated with crime levels (Kelling and Coles 1996). Crime levels have a
profound influence on the desirability of a neighborhood as a place to live—affecting both the
quality of life of residents and the value of property in the neighborhood. As we mentioned
earlier, high crime levels are associated with a number of negative physical and mental health
consequences for both adults and children. Physical disorder and crime also influence
outsiders’ perceptions of the neighborhood and thus their willingness to visit friends and
relatives, work, shop, or use recreational facilities in the area.
Physical Disorder
HOPE VI Panel Study respondents reported relatively high levels of physical disorder in
their neighborhoods. Across the sites, more than a quarter of the respondents reported big
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
4--5
problems with graffiti and nearly half reported big problems with trash and junk in common
areas.44
Physical disorder is not just an aesthetic problem. It can also be a potential health
hazard and an indicator of neighborhood decline. For example, in-depth interview respondents
raised concerns about children getting hurt playing with trash (such as broken bottles) and
about the trash attracting rodents and stray animals to the area. One respondent’s comment
about physical disorder reflects some of the larger social problems in the community.
The kids walk around restless and when the adults drink beer outside of their
yards and leave the bottles, the children pick them up and throw them in the
streets. That’s not good for the cars either because you have to keep buying rims
and rims are very expensive. [Easter Hill 025A]
Social Disorder
Overall, about three-quarters of survey respondents reported serious problems with drug
trafficking and drug sales (see figure 4.1). 45 Respondents from Chicago’s Wells and Durham’s
Few Gardens reported the most severe problems with drug trafficking. In both sites,
approximately 85 percent of residents reported drug selling and drug use as big problems. East
Capitol residents in Washington, D.C., were least likely to report serious problems with drug
trafficking in their neighborhood, but even there, 66 percent of the respondents said it was a big
problem.
Respondents’ reasons for wanting to leave public housing reflect the their concerns about
crime and disorder. The most common response to an open-ended survey question on why they
wanted to leave public housing was to get away from drugs and gangs (29 percent).
In-depth interview respondents from all five sites described blatant and widespread drug
dealing in their development. They spoke of crack houses a few doors away, dealers hiding
drugs in and around their cars, a stream of outsiders coming through the development to
purchase drugs, and open-air drug markets. A Shore Park respondent complained that the drug
dealers did not even make an effort to disguise their transactions.
They just stand right out on the corner or right here doing drug transactions. You
know, they have no consideration, not discreet about it or anything. [Shore Park
044A]
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
4--6
Figure 4.1. Neighborhood Social Disorder
People using drugs
People selling drugs
Groups of people hanging out
Gangs
Police not coming when called
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent reporting as a "big problem"
This respondent from Few Gardens said that the drug dealers in her development usually timed
their transactions around the police patrols.
They come out more at night. You have them during the day, but they know what
time the office closes and opens. They know what time the officer is gonna come
around and sometimes they don’t care. It can be the first of the month and they
know people getting their check and they gonna sell drugs. They’d rather run
from ‘em and if they catch ‘em, they catch ‘em, and if they don’t, then you know
they gonna make their money. [Few Gardens 025A]
Respondents also complained that the pervasive drug dealing attracted addicts, many of
whom did not live in the development, to the areas right outside their homes. Respondents
blame the drug addicts and dealers for some of the trash and vandalism as well as for the more
serious crime in the neighborhood. This woman from Wells in Chicago said that drug dealers
were responsible for some of the damage to her building.
This place used to be real beautiful; we had flowerpots on the windowsills,
shutters on the side till they started tearing them down, making their fires and
selling their drugs outside when it was cold. [Wells 116A]
This respondent from Shore Park described the unspoken boundaries she established
with the dealers near her apartment.
You mind your business. You try to make it through. If they [drug dealers] come
into your little territory, then you kind of have some say. . . . I know my
boundaries, I know my limits. Because you know some of these people have
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
4--7
guns and they will shoot you, you know? And they are not afraid to shoot you. So
you have your boundaries where they know they can go this far with you and you
can go this far with them. [Shore Park 110A]
Particularly disconcerting to some respondents was that children were regularly exposed
to the drug trade. With drug dealing all around them, they worried that children would view it as
normal. A few respondents reported that drug dealers enlisted children to help them as lookouts
or runners, and sometimes they hid drugs on them believing the police would not think to check
the youngest children. Further, children were aware that drug dealers had large amounts of
money, unlike the rest of the residents. One woman described how children in her development
were lured into the drug trade:
now some of them at a younger age may not be doing drugs but they may be
selling drugs. That’s a part of living here in the development. Some of them get to
see it, and they see the money that some of them make and it really fascinates
them. And they think, “oh, well I can make some money.” [Shore Park 078A]
Violent Crime
As figure 4.2 shows, across the sites a majority (two-thirds) of survey respondents reported
that shootings and violence were big problems in their neighborhood. 46 Surprisingly,
respondents from Durham’s Few Gardens reported the highest levels of problems, higher even
than respondents from Wells, which is one of the Chicago Housing Authority’s notoriously
dangerous family developments. Over 80 percent of Few Gardens’ respondents reported big
problems with shootings and violence, and 31 percent reported big problems with people being
attacked and robbed. Respondents from Washington’s East Capitol reported the fewest
problems, yet more than half (54 percent) still reported that shootings and violence were big
problems in their neighborhood.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
4--8
Neighborhood Dangers: Few Gardens, Durham, North Carolina
Sylvia and her two grandchildren, ages 10 and 3, live in Durham’s Few Gardens public
housing complex. Sylvia has custody of her son’s two children because of his drinking problem.
Sylvia did not mention the children’s mother except to say that the kids spend time with her during
holidays and summer vacations.
Sylvia’s youngest grandchild, Anthony, was born prematurely. Anthony has a speech
impediment and other developmental problems. His grandmother had to take off work after he was
born to care for him, and has not been employed since.
Sylvia has lived in Few Gardens for more than 25 years. She is not interested in moving
because she feels at home in the neighborhood. Most of her friends and family live either in the same
development or nearby. Sylvia says the area is safe and that she hardly ever witnesses any crime,
although her neighbors tell her about it later.
Sylvia’s granddaughter, Antoinette, views the neighborhood differently. She says the
neighborhood “is bad and they do a lot of shooting. And the police have to chase people and I don’t
have a lot of friends.” Antoinette says she is not allowed to play with a group of kids who used to be
her friends because they act too mature for their age. She is also teased a lot because of her weight.
Antoinette recalls what happened when a shooting took place when she and Anthony were
playing outside. “One time I was riding my bike and they started shooting and my little brother, he
was outside up there on the hill that’s where they were shooting at and then my granddaddy had to go
up there and get him.” Antoinette does not feel safe even when in her apartment. She says a bullet
came inside the apartment and slightly missed hitting her younger brother while they were playing in
the living room.
In-depth interview respondents—both adults and children—frequently mentioned their
personal encounters with violence. They spoke of either knowing someone who was shot,
having a family member nearby when someone was shot or assaulted, or having to run and
hide during a shoot-out. During the in-depth interviews, respondents pointed to bullets lodged in
their radiators, bullets that came through the front door and landed in a child’s bedroom, and
bullet holes in their doors or exterior walls. This woman from Richmond’s Easter Hill described a
terrifying incident in her development:
We had a shooting right out here in front of our apartment. . . . And the bullet
went up through the wall into my son’s bedroom. . . . And then all my neighbors
on this side, the neighbors caught bullets in their apartments. . . . The boy got
shot right there. Right out there in front of the house. [Easter Hill 084A]
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
4--9
A respondent from Few Gardens recounted a recent close call for a new mother and her
baby:
Two doors down, the building next to my building, the girl just had a baby. She
[was] sitting in her living room, a bullet came straight through the living room
while she was sitting there watching TV with her baby. [Few Gardens 025A]
Figure 4.2. Neighborhood Violence
Shootings and
violence
People being
attacked or robbed
Rape or other
sexual assaults
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent Reporting "Big Problem"
Personal Safety and Victimization
Respondents expressed high levels of concern about their safety in their neighborhood.
As figure 4.3 shows, across the sites, residents were fairly evenly split between those who said
they felt safe alone, right outside their building at night (54 percent) and those who reported they
did not feel safe even right outside their building (46 percent). With nearly half the residents
feeling unsafe even right outside their building, these are extremely low perceptions of safety. 47
Furthermore, approximately one-fourth of the respondents reported that they or one of their
household members had been a crime victim in the past six months.48 An attempted home
break-in was the most commonly reported crime (11 percent) followed by being caught in a
shoot-out (6 percent).
Chicago’s Wells respondents were most likely to report feeling safe outside their building
at night (68 percent). This finding is surprising, because Wells’s respondents reported some of
the highest levels of problems with gangs, shootings, and violence in their neighborhood: 75
percent reported gangs were a big problem, and 69 percent reported shootings and violence
were a big problem. In contrast, respondents from Durham’s Few Gardens and Atlantic City’s
Shore Park residents were least likely to report feeling safe outside their building at night. Few
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
4--10
Gardens’ respondents reported the most problems with violence in their neighborhood, so it is
not surprising that they do not feel safe in their neighborhood.
% reporting feeling "very safe" or
"somewhat safe"
Figure 4.3. Perceptions of Neighborhood Safety by Site
100
80
60
40
20
0
Shore Park
Wells
Few
Gardens
Easter Hill East Capitol
The level of violence in and around these developments creates an atmosphere of fear
and vulnerability for residents. Prior research has shown that the stress created by this type of
living environment is detrimental to residents’ mental health, children’s development, and the
child-rearing behavior of parents.49 Comments of the in-depth interview respondents reflect the
stress of having to cope with the ever-present threat of violence that residents face. A mother
from Wells described her fearful reaction when she hears shooting:
It’s like a lot of times, you be in the house, your kid’s outside and you hear gun
shots and you drop everything and you run to make sure it’s not your child.
[Wells 157A]
Differences Between Older and Younger Adults’ Perceptions of Crime and Safety
Elderly respondents (age 62 and older) in our sample are less likely than younger
respondents to report big problems with crimes than the younger respondents. Research on
crime generally shows that older adults are more sensitive to crime than younger adults, even
though they are less likely to be victims of crime. We expected to find this pattern in our sample.
However, our results indicate that non-elderly respondents perceive more severe problems with
crime than the elderly respondents in our sample. For example, in East Capitol, 69 percent of
non-elderly respondents reported drug selling was a big problem in the neighborhood compared
with just 42 percent of elderly respondents. Likewise, in Few Gardens, 88 percent of the nonelderly respondents, but only 55 percent of the elderly respondents, reported these problems.50
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
4--11
It is not clear why elderly respondents in the HOPE VI Panel Study sample are less likely
to report problems with crime, but possible explanations include (1) elderly people may not
venture outside as much and thus may have lower exposure to crime; (2) elderly people may
have lived in the development longer and are more accustomed to whatever level of crime is
present; and (3) elderly people may be targeted less for crime, either out of respect or because
they do not participate in activities that make them targets.51 In East Capitol, another factor may
be that many of the elderly respondents live in a senior high-rise, so they may not be aware of
or affected as much by crime in the larger development.
Some in-depth interview respondents indicated that they are regarded as “community
elders,” which may afford them a measure of protection. One older woman from Wells said she
did not fear for herself because she was a mother figure:
I ain’t worried about it myself, everybody call me “mamma.” I got more children
than I done had. . . . I don’t fear for myself, I just fear for my sons and for the
ones that care about me and love me that are in the neighborhood. [Wells 116A]
Consistent with lower perceptions of crime, elderly respondents (age 62 and older) also
reported feeling safer than younger residents. For example, 63 percent of elderly respondents
felt safe alone outside their building at night compared to only 53 percent of non-elderly
residents. The lower perceptions of crime and higher perceptions of safety among the elderly
suggest the need for additional research to understand the roles and experiences of older adults
in public housing communities.
Neighborhood Social Environment
Social control (willingness of neighbors to intervene if children are misbehaving) and
social cohesion and trust (neighbors trust and feel connected to each other) are measures of
neighborhood social environment. Together, the measures are known as collective efficacy.52
Communities where residents report low levels of social cohesion and trust tend to be high in
crime (Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls.) Not surprisingly, the respondents in the HOPE VI
Panel Study sample reported low levels of both social control and social cohesion. Just over half
the respondents thought it was likely that a neighbor would intervene if they saw children spraypainting graffiti or fighting, and only 44 percent thought a neighbor would intervene if they saw
children skipping school and hanging out on the corner (see table 4.2). Perceptions of social
cohesion and trust are even lower, ranging from only 25 percent of respondents who agreed
that “people in the neighborhood could be trusted,” to 56 percent who thought their neighbors
were willing to help each other out.
Generally, the overall low levels of reported collective efficacy are consistent with the
high levels of crime reported in these neighborhoods. However, the pattern for Chicago’s Wells
is surprising. Despite the fact that Wells’s respondents reported some of the highest levels of
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
4--12
crime, they also reported the highest levels of collective efficacy in the study. One likely
explanation is that Wells has a high proportion of long-term and older residents,53 hence many
of the residents may know each other well. This fact may also help explain why Chicago
residents feel safer outside their building than residents at the other sites.
“Everyone Calls Me ‘Granny’ ”: Chicago, Illinois
Barbara has lived in Chicago’s Ida B. Wells public housing development for the past 13 years.
She is a second-generation public housing resident; her mother also lived in Wells. At 74 years old,
Barbara has lived a full life. She worked as a Chicago Transit Authority bus driver and had nine
children, three of whom have died. She also has 44 grandchildren and 60 great-grandchildren. She
currently has custody of two of her grandchildren, ages 18 and 16, and six of her great-grandchildren,
ranging in age from 3 to 14. Many of Barbara’s children, grandchildren, and great-grand children live in
the area.
Barbara says she was recently awarded a three-bedroom apartment to accommodate her
household. She adds that she has always taken care of her grandchildren. Barbara says she likes her
neighborhood and feels safe because everyone knows and respects her. In fact, most people in the
neighborhood know her as “Granny.” She is also a member of the development’s senior citizen club.
Barbara spends most of her time playing cards with her friends and attending day-long trips sponsored
by her seniors club.
Barbara’s only complaints about living in Wells are poor maintenance, uncaring police officers,
and neighbors reprimanding her grandchildren and great-grandchildren. She has complained to housing
and submitted several work orders requesting screen doors for both the front and back entrances.
Barbara had to buy her own screen doors, which cost $87 apiece, when her requests were not answered.
The screen doors have since been stolen and she has not been reimbursed by the housing authority.
Barbara says one of the women in her seniors group created a petition to have her and her
grandchildren kicked out of Wells. The woman claimed that some of Barbara’s grandchildren and greatgrandchildren were not on the lease; but Barbara says this was not true. Barbara says that every child in
the area that calls her Granny is not related to her.
Barbara also complains that the local police officers are very callous. She says they
shoot innocent bystanders, nearly run over young children, and treat residents disrespectfully. One
police officer broke up a party by shooting in a crowd, injuring a 17-year-old boy. Barbara says the boy
was paralyzed from his neck down. She also cites an incident where the police drove their squad cars
over the development’s grassy area, nearly striking a few children. When one of the children’s mothers
approached the officers about the incident, he told her to “get her motherf---ing babies out of the way.”
Barbara knows very little about the housing authority’s redevelopment plan. She simply knows
that she will have to move. Although she does not know when she will have to move, Barbara says she
would prefer to receive Section 8. She would like to find a large house in the suburbs where she can
raise her family, plant flowers, and decorate it how she pleases.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
4--13
Table 4.2. Collective Efficacy in Neighborhood
Shore
East Capitol
Park/Shore
Few
Easter Hill
Dwellings/Capitol
Terrace
Atlantic City, Wells/Madden
Gardens
Richmond,
Plaza
Chicago, IL
Washington D.C.
NJ
Durham, NC
CA
Social Control: Percent reporting that neighbors are very likely or likely to do something if they saw . . .
Children
showing
51
62
50
56
55
disrespect to
an adult.
Children spraypainting graffiti
51
59
50
56
54
on local
building.
A fight break
out in front of
49
57
47
58
56
their house.
Children
skipping
43
56
36
41
42
school and
hanging out on
street corner.
Social Cohesion and Trust: Percent strongly or somewhat agree with statement
People around
here are willing
33
66
49
57
67
to help their
neighbors.
People in this
neighborhood
26
53
39
61
60
generally get
along with
each other
This is a closeknit
18
50
37
42
40
neighborhood.
People in this
neighborhood
12
42
27
35
36
share the
same values.
People in this
neighborhood
14
32
21
26
27
can be trusted.
Source : HOPE VI Panel Baseline Survey (Summer 2001).
All
55
54
54
44
56
49
39
32
25
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
4--14
Most in-depth interview respondents—both adults and children—who were asked said
that neighbors did look out for the children in the neighborhood. For example, most children said
they could go to a neighbor’s house if they were locked out of their house or otherwise needed
help. However, overall, adults reported a high level of mistrust of people in the neighborhood
and a fear of getting involved because of the risks of a violent reaction. This respondent from
Shore Park summed up the difficulty of addressing neighborhood problems in such an
environment:
So, what happens then is that the children get into little spats and disputes with
each other. You may go knock on [the other parent’s] door. There’s a possibility
you may get a positive response, but there’s also that chance that you may get
cursed out and they call you everything but a [inaudible] and they want to fight
you. [Shore Park 078A]
Social Networks
The traditional image of poor neighborhoods is one of tight-knit communities where
residents have large social networks that provide mutual support (Venkatesh 2000) paints a
picture of the Chicago’s Robert Taylor Homes as a cohesive community struggling with its many
problems. Studies of public housing have documented communities where residents know each
other well and help each other with things such as child care, and public housing residents who
have been relocated with vouchers sometimes complain about isolation (Popkin, Harris, and
Cunningham 2002). However, this research also highlights the complexity of the social worlds in
dangerous neighborhoods where residents live in fear. While they may know their neighbors,
they trust only a small circle of close friends and relatives (Popkin et al. 2000). Some residents
who have moved away say they have deliberately moved far enough to cut off what they viewed
as destructive relationships with relatives or friends (Popkin, Harris, and Cunningham 2002;
Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum 2000).
Our findings present a mixed picture. Across the sites, just under half the respondents
reported having friends who live in their neighborhood and a third report having family who live
in the neighborhood. On one hand, Wells’s respondents were most likely to report having both
friends (73 percent) and relatives (46 percent) who lived in the neighborhood. This finding is
consistent with earlier findings that show Wells respondents have the longest tenure in their
community and reported the highest levels of social cohesion. In contrast, East Capitol residents
were least likely to report having both friends (40 percent) and relatives (17 percent) in the
neighborhood. This finding may be because 38 percent of East Capitol residents have lived in
their current residence for less than two years. Across the five sites, approximately two-thirds of
the respondents reported they had friends or family who live in the neighborhood.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
4--15
In-depth interview respondents in each of the sites pointed to extended families as
significant sources of social support, especially child care after school and while the parent is
working. 54 A few parents spoke of their attempts to keep their children away from bad influences
in the development, and that spending time with extended family members was a way to do
that.
Children reported having more friends in the neighborhood than the adults did in the indepth interviews. Children often responded “friends” to a question about what they liked best
about where they lived. Adults tended to have more cursory interactions with neighbors in
contrast to the friendships reported by children. The adults indicated that the bulk of their
interactions in the development consisted of exchanging pleasantries with neighbors on their
way into and out of their homes. Adults also spoke of minding their own business, only sharing
more than small talk with one or two people. A woman from Few Gardens explained that she
learned to keep to herself.
I’m just not a person that socialize with people. I stay to myself. I found that when
I first moved in the project, you keep to yourself and you have less problems.
[Few Gardens 040A]
Nevertheless, several respondents did report giving or receiving help from their
immediate neighbors. For example, one respondent mentioned letting her neighbor use her
washing machine after the neighbor’s machine broke. Another reported letting her neighbor use
her phone after the neighbor’s phone was disconnected. A respondent from Few Gardens
reported a mutually beneficial baby-sitting arrangement with her neighbor.
My next-door neighbor, she bring her children in the morning. Then I sometimes
rotate shifts to work from 4:00 to 9:00, so she have my kids [in the evening]. [Few
Gardens 184A]
Summary of Findings
•
All five of the HOPE VI study developments are in high-poverty,
predominantly minority neighborhoods. The poverty rate ranges from a low of
32 percent in the Easter Hill neighborhood to a high of 72 percent in the Wells
neighborhood.
•
The neighborhoods are typically in convenient locations for access to public
transportation, downtown employment centers, recreational facilities, and
supportive services. However, the neighborhoods still lack major grocery stores
and other retail stores commensurate with the dense residential populations.
•
In both the survey and in-depth interviews, the high levels of crime and the
accompanying fear stood out as major themes. Across the five sites, more
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
4--16
than three-fourths of survey respondents reported big problems with drug
trafficking, and two-thirds reported big problems with shootings and violence in
their neighborhood.
•
Respondents report low levels of social control (i.e., willingness of neighbors
to intervene if children are misbehaving) and social cohesion (i.e., neighbors trust
and feel connected to each other) in their neighborhoods.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
5--1
CHAPTER 5: HEALTH
The previous chapters describe the level of distress in these five public housing sites.
The housing is substandard and the communities plagued with drug trafficking and violent
crime. These extreme environments pose threats to residents’ health and well-being, placing
them at risk of injury or illness from exposure to the many physical hazards—and at risk for
mental problems from the stress of having to cope with violence and decay. The very-lowincome families who live in distressed public housing—many of whom have few resources—
may be particularly vulnerable to these ill effects.
Because their current situation is so dire, HOPE VI has the potential to dramatically
affect residents’ health and overall well-being. In particular, moving to better housing could
reduce the risk or severity of asthma, and living in a safer neighborhood could improve mental
health. On the other hand, if residents experience difficulties after relocation and end up in even
less stable situations, their risk for physical or psychological problems could increase. To be
able to track potential changes in health and well-being over time, the HOPE VI Baseline survey
included a number of items on physical and mental health for both adults and children.
In this chapter, we first discuss the evidence on connections between housing,
neighborhoods, and health, and then describe the health status of the adults in the HOPE VI
Panel Study at baseline. We place our results in context by comparing the respondents in our
sample to other low-income populations. Finally, we end with a consideration of the special
problems for the many older adults in the HOPE VI Panel Study sample. We present results on
the baseline status of the children in the sample in chapter 6.
Housing, Neighborhoods, and Health
The physical conditions in substandard housing create risks for both children and adults,
but children are particularly vulnerable to adverse effects. Deteriorated conditions in distressed
public housing can lead to asthma, lead poisoning, and impaired physical and mental health.
Exposure to violence can lead to psychological and developmental problems. These distressed
conditions can have indirect effects as well, such as the educational deficits that are often seen
in residents of neighborhoods where public housing is located (Sandel and Zotter 2000).
In general, the evidence suggests that residents of neighborhoods with high levels of
concentrated poverty tend to have poor health. Researchers have found that a variety of health
outcomes are associated with stressful social environments, even after controlling for individual
characteristics. These outcomes include low birth weight (Morenoff 2001) and self-reported poor
health (Jones and Duncan 1995).
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
5--2
Neighborhood environments may influence health in two ways: short-term influences on
behavior, attitudes, and health care utilization; or, through a process of “weathering” (Geronimus
1992; Ellen, Mijanovich, and Dillman 2001) describe the consequences of weathering:
The accumulated stress, lower environmental quality, and limited resources of poorer
communities, experienced over many years, [erode] the health of residents in ways that
make them more vulnerable to mortality from any given disease (2000: 391).
Studies of families participating in the Moving To Opportunity Demonstration (MTO)
suggest that residents’ health can be improved by relocating to less poor communities. An early
study of MTO families in Boston found that children who moved to low-poverty areas reported a
significantly lower incidence of asthma attacks than those who remained in higher-poverty
neighborhoods. Adults in low-poverty neighborhoods also reported lower levels of anxiety and
depression (Katz, Kling, and Liebman 2001). Likewise, in qualitative interviews with MTO
families at all five sites, participants who had moved from public housing commented on their
reduced stress and improved mental and physical health (Popkin, Harris, and Cunningham
2002).
It is not clear whether all HOPE VI families will experience the same dramatic gains in
health and well-being. If residents move to other public housing or into substandard private
market housing, their exposure to hazards may remain unchanged or possibly increase.
Further, some may already suffer some long-term effects —for example, from lead poisoning or
trauma from long-term exposure to violence—so that even if relocation leads to an improved
quality of life, it may have little impact on their overall health status. On the other hand, some
residents will relocate to higher-quality housing in better neighborhoods and may experience
substantial improvements in health and well-being.
Physical Health
The survey asked respondents a series of questions about physical health, including
standard questions about overall health status. Results indicate that the portion of the sample
that reports excellent or very good health is dramatically lower than the national average. 55 Just
over one-third (38 percent) of respondents in the HOPE VI Panel Study sample reported
excellent or very good health (see figure 7.1). In comparison, in national samples of adults in the
United States, more than two-thirds (68 percent) of the respondents reported excellent or very
good health (NHIS 2001). The national figures for minorities are slightly lower (60 percent), but
still substantially higher than those for respondents in the HOPE VI Panel Study sample.
While lower than national averages, the proportion of respondents in the HOPE VI Panel
Study sample reporting excellent or very good health is similar to those from other studies of
public housing residents. The HOPE VI Resident Tracking Study found that 34 percent of the
sample reported excellent or very good health (Buron et al. 2002). Likewise, the figures for the
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
5--3
public housing control groups from the MTO Boston and New York studies were similar (Katz,
Kling, and Liebman 2001; Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn 2001b). 56
Figure 5.1.
Adults Reporting "Excellent" or "Very Good" Health
100
Percent
75
50
25
0
Shore Park
Wells
Few Gardens
Easter Hill
East Capitol
Our analysis indicates some variation across the five study sites in respondents’
reported overall health status (figure 7.1). At the high end, almost half of the respondents from
Durham’s Few Gardens reported excellent or very good health, although this level is still below
the national figures, which exceed 60 percent. At the other extreme, only about one-third of the
residents at Richmond’s Easter Hill reported excellent or very good health. 57
Chronic Illness
Chronic illness can affect a person’s life in a variety of ways. An ongoing illness can be
painful and tiring, causing inconvenience or limiting the individual’s ability to perform regular
activities. People living with a chronic illness often suffer from depression as a result of the pain
or limitations that the illness imposes on their lives. For HOPE VI families, persistent health
problems may potentially make the relocation process more stressful and complicate their
transitions to new housing.
At baseline, 39 percent of adults in the sample reported that they have an illness or
chronic condition that requires ongoing care. 58 The survey data for this study do not include
detailed information about the types of chronic illnesses the respondents may have; however,
such issues were explored in the in-depth interviews with adults and children at each of the
study sites. Most interview respondents who reported some type of chronic illness talked about
problems with high blood pressure, diabetes, and arthritis. While these problems were often
mentioned by older respondents, as we will discuss below, several of the respondents were only
in their 40s and 50s, and were coping with multiple, serious health problems.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
5--4
Asthma
The prevalence of asthma in the United States has increased dramatically over the past
two decades (American Lung Association 2000). Episodes of asthma range in severity from
inconvenient to attacks that are potentially fatal (Public Health Advisory Board 2002).
Uncontrolled asthma may cause serious limitations in daily life, both for adults—who may miss
work—and children. According to the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease,
asthma has significant costs to society, causing “more than 18 million days of restricted activity
each year, and millions of visits to physicians' offices and emergency rooms” (NIAID 2001b). 59
The factors that cause asthma are not well understood, but likely involve an inherited
tendency to develop the disease combined with exposures to environmental triggers (Public
Health Advisory Board 2002). The types of factors that trigger asthma—cockroaches, dust
mites, furry pets, mold, tobacco smoke, and chemicals (Centers for Disease Control 2002)—are
prevalent in the types of distressed housing and neighborhoods where respondents live. Stress
is also associated with asthma, as is exercise, cold air, and air pollution (American Lung
Association 2000). Finally, substandard housing, lack of education, inadequate access to health
care, and the failure to take appropriate prescribed medications may all increase the risk of
having a severe asthma attack or, more tragically, of dying from asthma (Abt Associates 1998;
NIAID 2001b).
Because of the importance of asthma as a health issue for low-income, inner-city
residents, we asked a series of questions about asthma for both adults and children. We used
three standard measures of asthma severity, which are also used in the National Health
Interview Survey:
Prevalence:
Has a doctor or health care professional ever told you that you
have asthma?
Incidence:
During the past 12 months, have you had an episode of asthma or
an asthma attack?
Emergency care: During the past 12 months, did you have to visit an emergency
room or urgent care center because of asthma?
Across the sites, adult respondents reported having been diagnosed with asthma at a
rate (22 percent) that is more than twice as high as the national average. 60 As with the figures
for overall health status, we compared the findings from our study with those from the National
Health Interview Survey (NHIS). According to the NHIS (2001), 10 percent of people in the
United States have been told by a doctor or health professional that they had asthma. Asthma is
more prevalent among children than adults; African Americans are slightly more likely to report
having been diagnosed with asthma than whites; and men are slightly more likely to report
having asthma than women (NHIS 2001).
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
5--5
The reported incidence of asthma in our sample is also very high: across the sites, our
respondents report experiencing episodes of asthma, or asthma attacks, at a rate that is more
than three times the national average. Overall, 13 percent of our sample reported that they had
experienced an asthma attack in the past year. In contrast, only 4 percent of adults nationally
reported that they had experienced an asthma attack in the past 12 months (NHIS 2001).
Further, 9 percent of our respondents reported visiting an emergency room in the past year
because of their asthma.
The fact that HOPE VI respondents reported such a high incidence of asthma is not
surprising for four reasons. First, health problems are generally more prevalent among lowerincome households. Second, the environmental conditions in which HOPE residents live can
cause or exacerbate asthma problems. As discussed in chapter 3, many households reported
problems with their housing, including mold, rats, and cockroach infestations, all of which are
known asthma triggers. Additionally, these distressed developments are located in central cities
where there are often significant problems with air quality. Third, it is likely that many
respondents receive substandard medical care and often cannot afford the medication that
might control the disease. Finally, lower-income individuals are more likely to smoke—or to live
with someone who smokes—placing them at greater risk for asthma (Giovino, Schooley, and
Zhu 1994; Kiefe et al. 2001).
Some in-depth interview respondents from Richmond’s Easter Hill volunteered that they
thought there was a connection between their environment and their health problems. In
addition to the reported problems with housing quality, Easter Hill is located near an oil refinery
and a major highway. For example, one woman reported that she had developed asthma after
moving to the development:
I never had this problem before, but once I came here. After two years of being
here, they told me that I had asthma. But I’ve never suffered from that before.
[Easter Hill 025A]
Mental Health
Living in distressed, high-crime communities can also have serious effects on residents’
mental health and well-being, causing stress, anxiety, and depression for both adults and
children (Aneshensel 1992; Fitzpatrick and La Gory 2000). These mental health problems can
also be exacerbated by—or contribute to—alcohol and substance abuse. For adults, poverty is
associated with depression, poor functioning, and inability to work (Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn
2000). Several studies have found that single mothers on welfare are at considerable risk of
developing depression (Ehrle and Moore 1999). As discussed in chapter 6, parental mental
health problems can contribute to behavior problems and poor school performance for children.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
5--6
Health and Environment: Easter Hill , Richmond, California
Ramona and her two children moved to the Easter Hill development two years ago after
having been on the housing authority’s waiting list for four years. Ramona says her son Nathan’s
health has deteriorated since moving to Easter Hill. She says his asthma was undiagnosed before they
moved in, but since then his asthma has been so severe that he has missed many days of school.
Ramona blames her son’s illness on the area’s bad air quality. Both Chevron and Texaco have plants
near their development. According to Ramona, there have been two “chemical releases” in the past
year. Ramona, as well as other tenants, also got sick after one of the plants caught fire and burned
throughout the night.
In addition to the stress of Nathan’ illness, living in Easter Hill has brought other challenges.
Ramona says all the negative things she heard about the development before she moved in turned out
to be true. Ramona recalls a recent shooting outside of her house a few weeks ago. “I had just called
my son in the house. It was like 20 minutes after he was in the house when he heard the sound like
firecrackers. And I said. “What are these kids out here doing with these firecrackers this time of
night?” They was out there shooting.”
Ramona’s 17-year-old daughter, Stacey, has had many behavioral problems. Currently
expecting her second child, Stacey gave birth to a little boy just over a year ago. Ramona says that
before her grandson was born, Stacey had become disrespectful and unruly. She became so difficult
that Ramona called Child Protective Services and asked that they remove her daughter from her home.
The agency instead chose to enroll Stacey into a special program for at-risk girls. Ramona says her
daughter’s behavior has improved since being involved in the program, but is very unhappy about her
having become pregnant again so soon.
Ramona is not working currently because she took time off to help care for her grandson and
because she was in a car accident. Ramona receives Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF), but was sanctioned by the state when she left work, so she receives benefits only for her
children. Ramona is looking forward to the redevelopment in Easter Hill and hopes it will bring
opportunities for herself and her children.
HOPE VI has the potential to affect residents’ mental health, both positively and
negatively. As discussed above, research on MTO participants has shown that levels of anxiety
and depression are lower for women who moved to lower-poverty areas than for those who
remained in public housing (Katz et al. 2001; Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn 2001b). However,
more recent studies of MTO and of residents relocated from HOPE VI developments have found
that a substantial proportion experience housing instability and financial problems once they are
in the private market (Buron et al. 2002; Popkin and Cunningham 2002; Popkin, Harris, and
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
5--7
Cunningham 2002). Poor families who pay a large share of their income for housing often make
a trade-off between housing and food expenses, which may lead to malnutrition, particularly
among younger children (Sharfstein and Sandel 1998). Further, not all households will move to
neighborhoods that are substantially better than their current public housing developments.
Finally, the disruption of established social networks may leave some individuals without
adequate social support. Therefore, it is also possible that HOPE VI families may experience no
change in mental health—or even become worse off after relocation.
The baseline survey included three measures of adult mental health: self-efficacy,
general anxiety, and depression.
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is the ability to control one’s life circumstances; people who have high selfefficacy tend to have more positive views about the future and their ability to control their own
fate (Bandura 1994; McDaniel and Lewis 2002). Low self-efficacy has also been found to be
associated with long-term welfare dependency (Popkin 1990). The implication for this study is
that respondents who have low self-efficacy at baseline may also have more difficulty making a
successful transition to either private market or new mixed-income housing.
The baseline survey included four standard measures of self-efficacy.61 Overall, the
respondents in the HOPE VI Panel Study sample scored relatively low at baseline (see figure
7.2), consistent with the fact that many are long-term welfare recipients and public housing
residents (Popkin 1990). Respondents from Few Gardens and Easter Hill reported the highest
levels of self-efficacy, while those from Wells and Shore Park reported much lower levels; the
figures from Wells were comparable to those found in our study of relocation in Chicago (Popkin
and Cunningham 2002). These relatively low self-efficacy scores indicate that, at baseline,
these residents had little expectation that they would be able to take action to improve their
situations.
Overall Mental Health
To assess overall mental health status, we asked respondents a series of questions
called the Mental Health Inventory five-item scale (MHI-5). 62 This scale assesses mental health
on four dimensions: anxiety, depression, loss of behavioral or emotional control, and
psychological well-being (Ehrle and Moore 1999). The five questions ask how often respondents
have experienced the following mental states during the past month: nervous, “calm and
peaceful,” “downhearted and blue,” happy, and “so down in the dumps that nothing could cheer
you up.” Respondents are considered to have poor mental health if they fall in the lowest
quintile for a national sample (Ehrle and Moore 1999).
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
5--8
Figure 5.2. Self-Efficacy
0
20
40
60
80
100
Good luck is more important than hard
work.
Every time I try to get ahead something
stops me.
Planning only makes people unhappy
because plans do not usually work out.
When I make plans, I usually carry them
out.
Results indicate that mental health problems are widespread in the HOPE VI Panel
Study sample. Twenty-nine percent of respondents had scores that indicated poor mental health
(table 7.2 63), a level that is almost 50 percent higher than the national average of 20 percent
(NSAF 1999). Other studies of low-income households have found high rates of mental health
problems. The National Survey of Am erica’s Families (NSAF) looked at the proportion of poor
children who live with a parent suffering from poor mental health. Among children in families
with only one parent and incomes below 50 percent of the poverty level, 39 percent have a
parent with poor mental health. Conversely, among children in families with two parents and
incomes above 200 percent of the poverty level, only 9 percent have a parent with poor mental
health (Ehrle and Moore 1999).
Major Depressive Episodes
In addition to measuring overall mental health, we used a scale to measure the
incidence of serious depression in the HOPE VI sample. This series of questions is part of a
larger tool designed to be used by trained interviewers who are not clinicians (Kessler et al.
1994); however, we limited our questions to the series that measures major depressive
episodes, or MDEs.64
Across the sites,16 percent of respondents scored three or above on the depression
index. In a national survey conducted to assess a range of psychiatric disorders, using the same
series of questions, approximately 10 percent of the population reported a major depressive
episode in the past year (Kessler et al. 1994). Thus, the figures for the HOPE VI Panel Study
sample indicate a prevalence rate for depression that is 60 percent higher than the national
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
5--9
population overall. At two of our study sites, the figures were even higher: residents from Easter
Hill and East Capitol reported much higher incidence—20 percent and 18 percent, respectively.
Stress and Mental Health in the HOPE VI Sample
In-depth interview respondents from all five sites talked about the substantial stresses in
their lives. Many mentioned how the violent crime in their developments left them in a state of
constant fear and anxiety. For example, this woman from Shore Park talked about how she felt
she was always in danger:
I feel that there’s always impending danger because of the activity. . . . And if the
activity was less, then we would be in a more suitable environment for living. So,
it’s like, if you got shipwrecked and you’re hoping no one bleeds at any point
because the sharks will come. It’s that feeling of the unknown. . . . When I first
came here I didn’t feel that way. . . . I don’t know if it was happening. I didn’t see
it. I just never noticed all this nonsense was going on. [Shore Park 110A]
Similarly, this woman from East Capitol said that her fear kept her from sleeping:
It’s worrying that somebody’s going to kick my door through at night. That’s the
only problem I have. I think about that all [the] time. I wake up sometimes in the
middle of the night checking the door three times. Then if you’re in the bed
asleep and you hear gun shots, you want to jump up and check all the kids and
then I lay back down. But that’s the only pressure I have right now. . . . I don’t
sleep at all since I moved here. [East Capitol 183A]
Respondents who had been directly affected by the violence around them reported
severe anxiety. For example, this woman from Easter Hill described herself as a “nervous
wreck.” A bullet had once come into her apartment and now she—and her children—lived in
constant fear that it would happen again:
I mean, from day to day, you don’t never know what’s gonna happen. I mean,
they up here shootin’ and if it’s not one thing, it’s something else. All the time. . . .
My nerves, I’m just a nervous wreck. . . . I’ve only lived here two years. I don’t
see how the people that’s been here for like 10 or 15, I don’t see how they can
take it. I’d probably be in the nuthouse by now if I had to live here any longer than
I did, than I’ve had to already. . . .
All that shootin’ and stuff. It’s got my nerves so bad. I mean you could be sittin’
up in here . . . and all of a sudden [somebody] just drives in and starts shootin’.
What are you supposed to do? My son, he was scared half to death. He was all
down on the floor. That’s not good. That part right there is the biggest part that
really keeps my nerves on edge all the time. [Easter Hill 084A]
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
5--10
In addition to having to cope with the dangerous environment, most of these interview
respondents were all very-low-income women with children. The stress of having to try to make
ends meet with very little money was clearly a burden for many. A 28-year-old woman from Few
Gardens put it like this:
[I was stressed] during the time about my rent. The times that I had to go scrape
some money up to get some food. [Few Gardens 050A]
Finally, pressures in respondents’ personal lives can cause stress and anxiety. This
woman from Few Gardens said that she had ended up in the development after fleeing an
abusive husband:
I had just left my children’s father and I was going to leave after a short period of
time, but after I got the apartment and I began to like it. I didn’t go back because I
was in a battered situation and the children got so they enjoyed it so I made the
best out of it. [Few Gardens 076A]
Multiple Health Problems
Although we did not measure a wide range of health problems, we were able to assess
the relationship between overall health status and the two specific health concerns we asked
about in detail, asthma and depression. Not surprisingly, respondents who reported having
asthma also reported worse overall health and were more likely to report having a chronic
health problem. Moreover, there was also a strong relationship between depression and
reported health status. Among respondents who scored as depressed, just 21 percent reported
excellent or very good health, compared with 38 percent of the sample overall. Further, 23
percent of those who reported a chronic health problem were depressed, compared with just 9
percent of respondents who did not have chronic health concerns.
Several in-depth interview respondents described having to cope with their own and their
family member’s physical and mental health problems. For example, this grandmother from
Chicago’s Wells had custody of her granddaughter because her daughter (the child’s mother)
had serious substance abuse and mental health problems, and the child’s father, also an addict,
had been imprisoned for raping a 13-year-old girl. In addition, her adult son was slightly mentally
retarded. Although she was only in her early 50s, she had serious health problems and could no
longer work.
My daughter, she got on drugs, so I put her in a drug rehab for like two
years, . . . I know, the oldest one, you know, she lost everything, like rights and
everything. . . . So, now we going to court for her baby. And I don’t know, they
might let her go back, but, see, my daughter been there, you know, with the
drugs and all that, she be having, like, mental, like, let’s just say a chemical
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
5--11
imbalance, so I don’t know if they going to give her back to her. . . . She’s staying
clean, you know. We went to see her yesterday. She’s doing real good, just
gaining too much weight. She’s 32. . . . I had a stroke about two years ago, so
I’m on SSI [Supplemental Security Income]. . . . I been back to the hospital. I’m
diabetic again. [Wells 111A]
Similarly, this grandmother from Shore Park talked about having to cope with her
grandchildren’s health needs, as well as her own serious health problems. In particular, one of
the children has developmental problems and requires ongoing medical attention. Further, her
youngest sister had died recently from complications from diabetes, at the age of 42. She
described the toll of coping with all of the problems.
It’s rough. It’s rough raising four grandchildren at my age. I don’t have too much
time for myself, except that if I’m not taking them to the doctor, I’m running back
and forth. I have to go now because my blood pressure and my cholesterol is up.
[Shore Park 161A]
A woman from Few Gardens described all of the problems in her extended family. Her
father, who lives several hundred miles away, has an enlarged heart; her mother is diabetic; and
her daughter is pregnant. She described the stress of coping with it all:
It’s been stressful. My mom’s [broke her] hipbone. She’s sitting here, she’s a
diabetic and didn’t even know. And [my father] is still smoking and she can’t
hardly breathe because of the room, and I’m the oldest and everything falls back
on me. Anything happens down in Maryland, I got to jump up and pack and run.
And I got to sign stuff cause they never finished school so I got to look at all this
insurance and everything along with them. And then my own household
problems, my daughter’s pregnant. [Few Gardens 025A]
Several respondents from East Capitol described complex family situations. One talked
about the stress in her life in the past year, which included the shooting death of her 22-year-old
son. She had a drug problem and said she hoped to start treatment in the fall. Another woman
from East Capitol talked about her hospitalizations for severe depression. In addition, she was
frequently hospitalized for treatment of her acute asthma, was partially deaf in both ears, and
had nerve damage in both of her hands as a result of being assaulted 10 years ago. Her brother
died in the past year of a heart attack at age 40, and her father had recently passed away. Her
elderly mother required frequent assistance. In addition, her son had severe learning disabilities
and had to attend a special school. A third woman from East Capitol described another complex
situation, saying that three of her five teenage children had serious health problems—one was a
severe asthmatic, another had a bone disease, and the third had an eye disease.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
5--12
Multiple Health Problems: East Capitol Dwellings, Washington, D.C.
Danita moved into public housing in 1997, when things did not work out with the father of her
14-year-old son, Jason. She has an older son from an earlier marriage, who is married and expecting his
first child. Danita lived with her parents for several years before moving to public housing. Both of them
had serious health problems—her father had heart disease, diabetes, and was blind and an amputee. Her
mother had a stroke. Danita herself has multiple health problems. She said she had recently gone to the
hospital for a severe asthma attack. She has also had several “nervous breakdowns.” Danita says she had
suffered from a severe case of depression after her brother’s untimely death. Her condition was so
severe that Jason’s father had the police come to her home, break down her door, and take her to the
hospital.
Danita’s poor health and what she calls “female problems” have kept her from having a
permanent job. She says her monthly menstrual cycle is sometimes so unbearable that she has to be
hospitalized and sedated. She is also partially deaf in both ears and has nerve damage in her hands, the
result of an assault that occurred about 10 years ago.
Jason is severely learning disabled. He is dyslexic and has mirror vision. Danita says he has
trouble even writing his name. Jason was enrolled in a private special education school until he finished
the eighth grade. He will be attending a public high school with a special education program this fall.
Danita says she registered him in the public high school because he wants to play football. She says
Jason’s father is very involved and frequently spends time with him.
Despite her many health problems, Danita is determined to live a normal and productive life.
Danita describes her life up until she moved to public housing as middle class and says no one else in
her family has ever needed assistance. She was raised in a two-parent home, with both of her parents
working. After her relationship broke up, she lived in a Section 8 development that she described as
even more high-crime than East Capitol. Danita originally lived in an apartment on the other side of the
development, but after five months, she and Jason were able to move to a row house. According to
Danita, the development’s property manager allowed her to move into the unit because she was
impressed with her housekeeping. She is currently working as a file clerk through a welfare-to-work
program and says she will continue participating in the program and plans to go back to school. At the
same time, because of her fragile condition, her caseworker is helping her to apply for SSI.
Older Adults in the HOPE VI Panel Study Sample
As discussed in chapter 2, about a quarter of the sample is 50 years old or older (14
percent are between 50 and 61 years old and 12 percent are 62 years old or older). Our
analysis indicates that these older adults may face special challenges because of their frail
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
5--13
health. Among respondents over 62, less than 10 percent reported excellent or very good
health, as did just 19 percent of those ages 51 to 61. Nationally, 39 percent of adults over 65
reported excellent or very good health (NHIS 2002). Further, two-thirds of respondents 51 to 61
years old and those age 62 or older reported having an illness or ongoing medical condition.
These findings mean that many elderly and middle-aged respondents in the HOPE VI panel
study sample are in worse health than elderly adults in general.
There are two health outcomes investigated in this study where older adults reported
lower incidence than younger groups of adults—asthma and depression (figure 7.3). Prevalence
rates of MDEs are typically highest among the younger age groups and decline with age
(Kessler et al. 1994). However, when examining this sample in the three age categories, the
highest rates are seen among those ages 50 to 61. Adults between the ages of 50 and 61
reported higher levels of depression (22 percent) than did the adults under 50 and those
between 50 and 61 years old (14 percent and 6 percent, respectively). There is a similar trend
with asthma rates, where the 50- to 61-year-olds report the highest prevalence rate.
Figure 5.3.
Percent reporting problem
Health Problems by Age Group
100
80
Under 50
60
50–61
40
62 and
older
20
0
Excellent or
very good
health
Chronic
illness
Asthma
Major
depressive
episode
These findings about the health status of older adults have implications for relocation.
These residents may be at risk for health problems due to relocation and may require special
assistance in moving. In addition to creating stress, relocation may disrupt their networks of
social support, making it more difficult for them to cope with their health problems. Further,
many of these older respondents, even those who experience chronic health problems, are
assisting younger family members: about one-fourth of the households headed by older adults
have children under 18 in them, and in 13 percent of these households, the respondent is the
sole caregiver.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
5--14
The disruption of the HOPE VI intervention may prove especially challenging for these
older adults. For example, a 74-year-old grandmother from Chicago’s Wells described a variety
of serious health problems that limited her daily activities:
I have sugar. Diabetes. I’m diabetic. And I have an enlarged heart, high blood
[pressure]. That’s about it. That’s enough. . . . I’m overweight. I’m changing
hospitals [because] they wasn’t doing anything for me. I had an ulcer on my leg
here, and my feet were so swollen, the circulation was so poor, and they didn’t
even—my doctor didn’t tell me what to do. . . . I’ve got bronchitis. I’m shortwinded. I don’t know if it’s being too fat and it’s my heart, but I can’t walk, see.
And anytime I go grocery shopping or whatever I go and do, I have to carry my
wheelchair. I keep it in the back of my car. [Wells 148A]
Summary
The key findings on physical and mental health for the HOPE VI Panel Study sample are
listed below:
§
Adult respondents reported substantially lower overall health status than national
averages.
§
More than a third of adult respondents reported having an “illness or recurring
health condition that requires regular, ongoing care.” In-depth interview
respondents cited chronic problems with high blood pressure, diabetes, and arthritis.
§
Asthma is a serious problem for the respondents in our sample. More than one in
five adults has been diagnosed with asthma, almost twice the national average.
§
Poor mental health among adults is a widespread problem. Nearly one-third of our
respondents (29 percent) reported poor mental health, a level that is 50 percent higher
than the national average. Nearly one in six adult respondents has experienced a major
depressive episode within the past 12 months.
§
Our findings suggest special concerns for the older adults in the HOPE VI Panel
Study. The majority report poor health, much higher than national averages for those
between 50 and 61 years old, and for those over 62.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--1
CHAPTER 6: CHILDREN IN THE HOPE VI SAMPLE
Because the majority of households in distressed public housing have children under
age 18, HOPE VI will likely affect the lives of tens of thousands of children. At the five study
sites, we know that children are living in substandard housing in violent, high-crime
neighborhoods. We also know that these children likely face special challenges: poor schools;
the dangers of their physical environment; a social world dominated by the drug economy; and
the likelihood that the adults in their households may have their own personal challenges that
prevent them from parenting effectively.
Because of the large numbers of children affected by HOPE VI, children are a special
focus of this study. As described in chapter 1, in each household with children, we picked up to
two focal children at random, one under the age of 6, and the other between the ages of 6 and
14.65 We asked parents 66 a series of detailed questions about each selected child, including
quality and access to schools; special education; behavior (both positive and negative); and
delinquency (for older children only). In addition, our in-depth interviews with adults and children
asked extensive questions about children’s experiences, especially their school environment,
school performance, and any social or behavioral problems.
In this chapter, we first review the research on children in poverty. Then, drawing on the
parents’ reports in the survey and the in-depth interviews with 39 children, we paint a picture of
the status of these children at baseline. In the first section, we provide an overview of the
demographic characteristics of the children in our sample. Then we use our qualitative data to
describe what it is like for these children to grow up in such distressed communities, and draw
on school administrative data to describe the schools they attend. Next, we discuss their
experiences in school, including parental views on school quality and school environment.
Finally, we discuss children’s physical health and behavior problems—a proxy for mental
health—drawing on data from other studies of poor children to place our findings about the
HOPE VI children in context.
Children in Poverty
There is substantial research evidence that living in poverty has serious implications for
children’s development. In particular, poor children are more likely to live in dangerous, innercity neighborhoods with weak institutions and inadequate public services. The schools in these
neighborhoods are often inadequate, with few resources, poor teachers, overcrowded
classrooms, and low achievement scores. Inner-city schools often have high rates of mobility,
creating additional challenges for teachers and a chaotic learning environment (Hartman 2002).
According to a detailed review of the literature on the relationship between family income
and outcomes for children (Brooks-Gunn and Duncan 1997), poor children are more likely to
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--2
experience academic and developmental delays, and learning disabilities. Poor children are
also at greater risk for a range of serious health problems, including accident or injury; asthma;
low birth weight; lead poisoning; and stunted growth. Poor children generally do less well in
school overall, and are more likely than higher-income children to be held back in school, to be
suspended or expelled, and to fail to graduate from high school. Poverty has long-term
consequences; children who grow up in poverty are more likely to become teen parents, to be
unemployed, and to experience material hardship as adults. Children in distressed public
housing are at even greater risk for such problems—research evidence shows that children who
live in extreme poverty during early childhood appear to suffer the worst outcomes.
Researchers have investigated the factors that place poor children at risk for cognitive
and developmental delays. Family influences appear to have the greatest impact on outcomes
for children (Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn 2000). Welfare receipt, in particular, is associated with
cognitive delays and behavior problems. A study of low-income families in three cities found that
adolescents whose mothers were on welfare scored lower on measures of cognitive
achievement and had higher levels of reported emotional and behavioral problems than those
whose mothers had either left welfare or had never received assistance (Chase-Lansdale et al.
2002). 67
Another factor related to poor educational outcomes for low-income children is mobility—
poor households tend to move more frequently than higher-income families. Researchers have
documented that changing schools, particularly mid-year, can cause children to lose as much as
six months of academic achievement (Hartman 2002). Moving is especially disruptive for
adolescents (Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn 2001a). Further, attending schools with highly mobile
populations can create problems for both students and teachers, as teachers are obligated to
repeat material for new students rather than moving ahead with the curriculum (Hartman 2002).
This research on the effects of mobility may have special implications for children in HOPE VI
families, who are all experiencing involuntary relocation.
Neighborhood Effects
A major focus of research on outcomes for poor children has been how living in a lowincome neighborhood may affect outcomes for children. (Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn’s 2000,
2001a) reviews of the literature on neighborhood effects on child development state that
neighborhood environments affect academic achievement; educational attainment (particularly
whether youth finish school); teen pregnancy; and, to a lesser extent, behavioral and emotional
problems. The authors suggest that these neighborhood effects may be modest, but still very
important in determining outcomes for children and adolescents.
Researchers are investigating how these neighborhood effects are transmitted
(Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn 2000; Popkin, Harris, and Cunningham 2002). Access to services
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--3
such as schools and health care—and the quality of those services—may affect outcomes for
children. Peer networks may also contribute to outcomes, influencing children in higher income
neighborhoods to perform well in school, and influencing children in concentrated poverty
neighborhoods to engage in delinquent behavior. Social norms in higher income neighborhoods
may promote educational achievement and employment, while in low-income neighborhoods,
norms may favor acceptance of teen pregnancy and gang involvement.
High-crime neighborhoods have particularly adverse consequences for children’s
outcomes. Children growing up in these dangerous communities almost certainly will be
exposed to violence and may become victims themselves (Popkin et al. 2000). Living amidst
violence severely affects children’s cognitive and emotional development (Garbarino, Kostelny,
and Dubrow 1991). Further, parents in poor, dangerous neighborhoods are more likely to use
the harsh parenting styles that have negative consequences on children’s development
(Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn 2001a; McLoyd 1990).
Research on the Gautreaux and Moving To Opportunity (MTO) programs offers the best
evidence of neighborhood effects on outcomes for children. Research on Gautreaux program
participants (Kaufman and Rosenbaum 1992; Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum 2000) suggested
that, despite some initial difficulties, children who moved to white, suburban areas seemed to do
somewhat better in school than those whose families moved within the city. 68
Early findings on educational outcomes for children in the MTO demonstration show
mixed results thus far, with some indications of both positive and negative effects for movers. A
study of the Baltimore MTO program suggests that moving to lower-poverty neighborhoods
might have helped to prevent the kinds of dramatic decline in test scores often found in innercity schools. However, teens who had moved to lower-poverty areas were more likely to
experience grade retention and to be suspended or expelled (Ludwig, Ladd, and Duncan 2001).
Research in Boston found that boys who moved to lower-poverty areas had lower levels of
reported behavior problems than those who remained in public housing (Katz, Kling, and
Liebman 2001). A study in Chicago that looked only at movers suggests some gains for movers.
However, children who moved to low-poverty areas were more likely to be suspended
(Rosenbaum and Harris 2001). Research on the New York MTO program finds that moving out
of public housing had a beneficial impact on parenting behavior and involvement in school
activities (Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn 2001b). 69
Finally, a recent study (Jacob 2002) has used administrative data to assess educational
outcomes for children in households relocated with vouchers as a result of the demolition of
public housing in Chicago. The study showed no effect of relocation on achievement, either
positive or negative. The lack of change may be because the schools in children’s new
neighborhoods are very similar to the ones near their public housing developments. These
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--4
findings suggest that if the HOPE VI Panel Study children end up in other high-poverty
neighborhoods, relocation may have little impact on their educational achievement.
Children in the HOPE VI Panel Study Sample
As discussed in chapter 2, about three-quarters of the households in our sample have
children under age 18. However, there is considerable variation across sites; nearly all of the
households from Atlantic City’s Shore Park have children living in them, but only about twothirds of the households in Chicago’s Wells and Washington’s East Capitol have children.
Among households with children, the average number of children is 1.9. However, these
averages do not convey the full picture. While the average number of children for East Capitol
households is 2.0, our sample includes about 10 very large households with as many as 10
children each. Chicago’s Wells has a similar profile: the mean number of children per household
is 1.7, but there are several very large families with between 7 and 10 children.
Our sample of focal children is about evenly split between boys (51 percent) and girls
(49 percent). Across the sites, nearly all children (88 percent of younger children [age 5 and
under] and 85 percent of older children [ages 6 to 14]) are African American, and just over 10
percent are Hispanic. Most of the Hispanic children in the sample live in Richmond’s Easter Hill,
with a small number living in Atlantic City’s Shore Park. The mean age for the children under
age 6 is 2.9, and the mean age for older children (ages 6 to 14) is 9.8.
Growing up in Distressed Public Housing
As discussed in the previous chapters, children in the HOPE VI Panel Study sites lived
in substandard housing in developments where they were exposed to extraordinary levels of
drug trafficking and violent crime. As the in-depth interviews made clear, even inside their
homes, these children never felt completely safe.
Many children spoke poignantly about the ways the violence constrained their lives. For
example, this boy from Durham’s Few Gardens described how witnessing a shooting made him
feel scared even inside his own home:
[One] time I got shocked cause there was a man standing by the fence and they
was shooting at him, and then the fence was blocking him ’cause they was in a
fight and the man got shot in the leg. So that’s why I got scared. [Few Gardens
044C]
Another boy from Few Gardens described a close call for his little brother:
They was shooting one night . . . and they shot into our door and my little brother,
he was by the door but he didn’t get shot. [Few Gardens 057C]
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--5
Adult respondents also spoke sadly about the impact of pervasive violence on children in
their developments. Respondents told stories about seeing children carrying guns and of
frequent shoot-outs involving teens. A woman from Wells spoke about the senseless violence
and how it had destroyed the children in her community:
It’s sad, ’cause all the children that grew up under me, went to school with my
children, they killing each other like never know each other, like they done come
from another world. [Wells 116A]
This grandmother from Few Gardens worried that her grandsons might get caught up in
gang activity:
Well, I got two grandsons that go there and it’s gangs in the school. . . . I feel that the
kids nowadays, they want to belong. Why, I don’t know. It’s hard to put in words that I don’t want
him to get in no gang or nothin’. I [am] fearful of that. They said those boys will beat ’em up and
stuff like that if they don’t join and stuff like that, so . . . that’s the onliest part I be worried about.
[Few Gardens 040A]
Parents described their efforts to protect their children from the dangerous environment,
many reporting that they severely restricted their children’s freedom to ensure their safety. Many
parents said that they kept their children inside in the evening and sometimes even during the
day; tried to find off-site activities; and made sure they were escorted wherever they went. This
mother from East Capitol said she did not let her children go outside:
People get killed around here. Like when I first moved around here there was a
man over there dead. They’ve also found bodies over there dead. That’s the
reason why I don’t let my kids go out. If they do go out, we go out of the
neighborhood and we’ll be back by dark. [East Capitol 183A]
This mother from Chicago’s Ida Wells said that her children thought she was being mean
by keeping them inside:
They love to go outside. They like to go, they play sports, the baseball and stuff.
When I make them come in, they don’t understand. They think I’m being a mean
momma. They don’t know it’s for their safety. Because I love them, I don’t want
nothing to happen to them. [Wells 157A]
Attending Distressed Public Schools
In addition to the challenges of their dangerous living environment, most of the children
in the HOPE VI Panel Study sample attend low-achieving, racially and economically segregated
schools. We used national administrative data to paint a broad picture of the school districts and
individual schools the children in the HOPE VI panel study attend. 70 Across the sites, the
districts overall are nearly 60 percent African American and 21 percent Hispanic; 59 percent of
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--6
the children qualify for free school lunches. Even within in these school districts, the schools that
the children in our sample attend stand out as particularly disadvantaged; they are even more
racially isolated than district averages and have a higher-than-average proportion of low-income
students. On average, HOPE VI children attend schools that are 79 percent African American
and 14 percent Hispanic; 83 percent of the children qualify for free school lunches. Children
from Easter Hill and Shore Park attend schools that are somewhat more diverse, while at the
other extreme, children from Wells and East Capitol attend schools that are 100 percent African
American.
Standardized test scores available from the individual school districts indicate that most
of these schools are low-performing.71 Unfortunately, since each school district uses a different
test and reporting format, there is no way to make comparisons across sites; we can use these
scores only to get a sense of how these schools compare to other schools in the same district or
state.
Two of the school districts—Washington, D.C., and Richmond—use the Stanford 9, a
nationally normed achievement test, to track performance. In both sites, the scores for the
schools that the HOPE VI children attend are low. At the elementary school that the largest
number of children from East Capitol attend, about two-thirds of the children received scores of
“below basic proficiency” on the Stanford 9 reading and math tests, and fewer than 10 percent
scored as either “proficient” or “advanced.” At the local middle school, 71 percent of the
students were below basic proficiency on math, 35 percent were below basic proficiency in
reading, and fewer than 10 percent were either advanced or proficient. 72 In the school district
that serves Easter Hill, children at both the local elementary and middle school also scored very
low on the Stanford 9. Because of these low scores, they were ranked as among the lowestachieving schools in the State of California. 73
The school districts in Atlantic City, Chicago, and Durham all report data on individual
state tests rather than nationally normed achievement tests. These test scores indicate that
most of these schools are low-performing relative to other schools in their districts. In Atlantic
City, the two elementary schools that Shore Park children attend have substantially larger
proportions of children scoring “partially proficient” than other schools in the same district.74 In
Chicago, at one of the two elementary schools serving most of the children from Wells, the
“percentage of overall performance” is 14 percent, considerably lower than for the district (38
percent) or the state (63 percent); at the other local school, the average is 25 percent. However,
some children attend a nearby “preparatory academy,” which has test scores in line with the rest
of the district.75 Finally, the local elementary school that serves Durham’s Few Gardens reports
substantially lower scores on the statewide reading and math achievement tests than other
schools in the same district. Likewise, test scores for the middle school attended by most of the
children from Few Gardens are considerably lower—15 to 20 percentage points—than those for
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--7
the district as a whole.76 As in Chicago, a few children attend a nearby magnet school where the
test scores are comparable to those for the district as a whole.
School Experiences
The majority of both the younger and older focal children in our sample are attending
school. The younger children are enrolled in either preschool (often Headstart) or kindergarten;
most attend school within walking distance of their homes. However, even very young children
from Richmond’s Easter Hill apparently have to travel relatively long distances; just half of those
who are enrolled in preschool or kindergarten attend a school that is within walking distance.
Among the older children, just less than half are in the primary grades (first through
third); about one-third are in fourth through sixth grades; and the remainder are in junior high
(seventh through ninth grades). As with the younger children, most attend school within walking
distance of their developments. However, there is considerable variation across sites. While 90
percent of the children from Wells and 80 percent of the children from Shore Park attend nearby
schools, only 43 percent of the children from Easter Hill and 53 percent of the children from Few
Gardens are able to walk to school—several Few Gardens parents commented that they were
unhappy about their children being sent so far away. 77 In Washington’s East Capitol, a number
of parents had enrolled their children in charter schools, which were often quite far away from
the development. A few were sending their children across the state line to schools in Maryland,
using grandparents’ or other relatives’ addresses to enroll them.
In the interviews, some respondents talked about the hardship created by having their
children attend schools far from home. This mother from Few Gardens said that she had no way
to get to the school to pick up her son if he became ill during the day:
And now, the kids, they go so far off. I don’t drive, I don’t have any transportation. If he is
sick at school, I have no way of getting him. . . . the last time, it cost me $28 there and $28 back
here to get a taxi to get to him, so I don’t really think that was fair, because they have schools
right here. . . . All the kids . . . they go to schools far out. I don’t know why. They just kind of split
up the district, or population or something, to clean it up. But it’s not convenient for me, because
if he misses the bus, he gotta stay out of school. [Few Gardens 184A]
In one extreme case, a grandmother from Atlantic City’s Shore Park reported that the
school district had placed her autistic granddaughter in a special school that required her to
travel two and a half hours from their home:
I’ve spoke with different therapists, they were saying the child has slight autism, she
likes to rock, and they want to take her and strap her on the bus and riding two and a half hours
to school and two and a half hours back. I mean, I could have someone drive me to
Philadelphia!
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--8
I tried [to get her changed to a nearby school] . . . I’ve been down to the Board of
Education, I’ve talked with everybody down there and [the official] says that he’s afraid that if
she has a tantrum, she might run out of the school. . . . If she was to be at the [nearby school],
they have traffic and she might get hit by a car. [Shore Park 161A]
School Quality
Still, as shown in figure 6.1, most of the heads of household in our sample appear to be
relatively satisfied with local schools—just 19 percent said that they think school quality is a “big
problem” in their neighborhood. But the differences among sites are striking: 41 percent of
Easter Hill respondents said that school quality was a big problem, but just 5 percent of Shore
Park residents thought it was.78 The figures for the other three sites were between 15 percent
and 20 percent. As with housing satisfaction (see chapter 3), it is unclear what the apparent
satisfaction with the local schools means. It may mean that respondents are simply comfortable
with the schools because they are familiar—they know the teachers, administrators, and other
parents. Since the question was asked as part of a list of questions about concerns about their
neighborhood (see chapter 4), respondents may not have viewed school quality as a major
problem relative to drug trafficking and violent crime. Finally, as this quote from a Wells
respondent illustrates, some respondents may simply have extremely low expectations:
It’s a great school, because it’s the only school around here that’s not on probation.
[Wells 157A]
Percent reporting school quality a "big
problem"
Figure 6.1. Parental Reports of Poor School Quality by Site
100
80
60
40
20
0
Shore Park
Wells
Few Gardens
Easter Hill
East Capitol
Although relatively few survey respondents said school quality was a major problem, our
qualitative data indicate that many parents—and children—have serious concerns about the
school environment. The types of problems cited by our interview respondents included
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--9
inadequate physical environments (classrooms without walls in Atlantic City); bad teachers; lack
of school supplies; chaotic social environments; safety; and racial conflict.
Many East Capitol parents seem to have acted on their dissatisfaction with local schools
by putting their children in charter schools outside their neighborhood. This mother described
her reasons for taking her son out of public school:
Basically, I would say that a lot of the dislikes don’t come from the school performing as
pretty much as well as they can. It’s just the fact that a lot of kids there come from areas like
this, and . . . they’re not trained. . . . And violence, they have a little more violence than
normal. . . . Recognize that a lot of kids around here . . . I would say one quarter of the
kids . . . were born to drug-addicted parents . . . and that makes a big difference in their
temperaments, how they perform. The fact that some of them are violent for no reason. I
wouldn’t always say that it’s the school. It has a lot to do with the kids that come through the
school and how they have to deal with that problem. [East Capitol 214A]
Across the sites, many other parents had complaints about inadequate local schools,
including bad teachers, not having enough textbooks, and promoting children who had not
mastered the material. Several parents, like this mother from Wells, told stories about uncaring
or abusive teachers:
I think [his school] is terrible. . . . Because of the teachers. They provoke the kids to do
things. They curse at them. They beat them. . . . That’s not right. . . . [My other son], when he
was 10 . . . the music teacher over there . . . grabbed his shirt and choking him so he had a
mark around his neck where he was choking him. . . . [Wells 148A]
Still, a few interview respondents—especially those from Shore Park—were very
pleased with their local school. Most of the children from Shore Park attended a single local
school that went all the way up to eighth grade. The only complaint interview respondents raised
was about the “open classroom” design and the fact that the school was about to be closed
temporarily for rehabilitation. This girl talked about how much she liked the teachers at the
school:
I was struggling, like something that I wouldn’t get, and they would sit next to me and
break it down. [Shore Park 044C]
Hispanic interview respondents from Easter Hill also were happy with their children’s
schools, although most African-American respondents from this site were not. As this father
said,
The teachers at my son’s school are very good. A few years ago, they had an initiative to
bring Latino teachers here to the U.S. His teacher was one of the ones chosen to come here
from Mexico. Honestly, my son improved a great deal last year. He did a lot better in terms of
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--10
studying and learning to respect others. He also received a lot of cultural education. [Easter Hill
025A]
School Safety
Across the sites, interview respondents frequently mentioned safety as a major problem
at their local schools, describing fights, gang activity, and shootings. Parents from Few Gardens
and Wells worried about problems with gangs in their children’s schools. Even in Shore Park,
where most respondents thought the schools were generally good, one mother talked about
feeling obligated to teach her daughter how to defend herself in a fight to protect herself from
other students. Others described problems with fighting and violence.
Children’s perspectives about the safety of their schools were often different from their
parents’. For example, one mother from Easter Hill told the interviewer that her daughter’s
school was safe and provided a good education. In contrast, her daughter described a
dangerous and frightening environment:
Because there’s a lot of people that come on the school, they do drugs and they try to
get us to do stuff. Some people come on the school, and then they follow girls into the bathroom
and do all kind of stuff, so that’s why they have a lot of teachers and . . . yard supervisors.
[Easter Hill 024C]
The interviews highlight how the dangerous school environments affect these children’s
lives. Living with the fear of violence creates great stress and anxiety. In one instance, a mother
from Easter Hill reported that her son had become so stressed by his school environment that
he had begun having panic attacks and she had to take him out of school:
He’s been stressed out, having headaches and chest pains, and he started having
asthma, having like panic attacks, so we had to take him out of school, and he’s seeing a
therapist.
Q: What do you think was the cause of the panic attacks?
A: Stress. Because I tell my children, “I don’t want you to go to school acting like a fool, I
don’t want you going to school fighting and cursing the kids.” Some of the kids carry weapons to
school and I don’t want my son to wind up in the hospital. [Easter Hill 116A]
A boy from Few Gardens said he was afraid of being shot at school because of gang
rivalries—his school was dominated by the Crips, but his friends in his development were all
Bloods:
It’s not good [at school] because I heard about some school, they was shooting over, I
think Bloods and Crips, they thugs, one don’t like each other, and then that’s what is in my
school. It’s Blood, that’s all my friends. There is Crips I do not know. . . .
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--11
Q: So you are friends with the Bloods?
A: They represent. That’s what they say.
Q: How do they represent?
A: Like throw signs and write down notes and pass it through the whole middle school
and a couple of ’em got caught doing that and they got suspended.
Q: Do you throw signs?
A: Not really, ’cause I think that the Crips gonna shoot at me because I hang around with
the Bloods, they’ll think I’m one too.
Q: So you’re not in the gang?
A: Yeah, so I get away from them. When we get home, that’s who I hang out with. [Few
Gardens 044C]
Racial Tension
Children from Shore Park and Easter Hill were the only ones in the sample who attended
schools that were not exclusively African American. Children’s reports about racial tension were
mixed—some indicated that they got along with children of other races, while others described
serious racial conflict. For example, this Hispanic girl described fights between Mexican,
African-American, and Asian students at her school:
Like they take guns. Like in [my school] there was a fight that it was about the Mexicans
and the black people so they started beating up every Mexican and we were scared. We just
stay inside our classrooms and we never came out for lunch, our teachers just went and get us
our lunch because even a black boy took a gun and another black girl took a knife . . . and they
beat up two of my friends, and they were boys and they beat them up because they were
wearing red. Sometimes it’s because of the colors, they have different colors for Asian and
black and Mexicans, so sometimes that’s why they beat up people, so it’s better for the
Mexicans to not wear red. . . . The black people, they just beat up Mexicans in our school just to
get revenge that all the black people are tougher than the Mexicans, sometimes it’s for that or
sometimes in the morning . . . it’s almost like if the school is divided, black on this side,
Mexicans on this side, Asians on this side. . . . [Easter Hill 235C]
In contrast, no Shore Park respondents reported problems with racial conflict, with both parents
and children saying that all the different groups seemed to get along.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--12
School Performance
We did not ask parents about school performance in the survey, because responses to
such questions tend to be unreliable. 79 However, we did ask general questions about
achievement in the in-depth interviews. These data cannot be used to truly assess
performance—schools use different standards for rating students, and parents tend to want to
say good things about their children. So, for example, it is difficult to know what it means when a
respondent says her child is on the honor roll or is getting good grades. However, the interviews
do provide a sense of how children are doing in general and, even more, of how engaged the
parents are with their children’s education.
The majority of interview respondents, both adults and children, indicated that the
children were doing well in school. Many reported that the children got A’s and B’s, were on the
honor roll, and had received awards for things like attendance or participating in spelling bees.
In particular, nearly all of the children from Shore Park were reported to be getting good grades,
liking school, and doing well.
Some children appeared to be remarkably resilient, truly managing to thrive despite
attending inadequate schools and living in dangerous developments. For example, this 10-yearold girl from Chicago’s Wells—the most deteriorated and dangerous of the five developments—
told the interviewer how much she loved to read—especially Harry Potter. She said that she
loved school, but that she was afraid of “bad things” happening there:
[I’m] kind of [looking forward to going back to school], but, like, I love going to school. I
ain’t never missed no days. A Honor Roll student and stuff, but it’s just like something
good is fixing to happen, but then it’s gonna turn around and go bad. [Wells 164C]
Most children from East Capitol who were attending charter schools appeared to be
thriving, with both parents and children talking at length about the special programs their
schools provided. This mother said both of her daughters were doing much better in the charter
school:
She’s [my younger daughter] doing great. In public school, she used to goof off a lot and
stayed in a lot of trouble and her grades wasn’t all that good, but since she’s been in that
[charter school], she has improved . . . both kids. [My younger daughter] had straight A’s and
[my older daughter] had A’s and B’s . . . they got one C, but they’re doing real good. In the
mornings, they’re ready to go. [East Capitol 069A]
Still, across the sites, at least one-third of the children appeared to be struggling in
school. Children from Richmond’s Easter Hill and Durham’s Few Gardens were particularly
likely to be having problems, with many reportedly being held back. For example, this mother
from Easter Hill said she had decided to have her 12-year-old son held back a grade because
she felt he was not doing well:
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--13
He didn’t do too well [in school last year]. Which I know he could have done much better.
He didn’t do very well at all. I mean he passed to the seventh grade, just barely. And I said well,
I wasn’t gonna have them just pass him on to the seventh grade, if he didn’t get what he was
supposed to have gotten from sixth grade. [Easter Hill 084A]
Most of the parents we interviewed appeared to be engaged in their children’s
education, paying attention to their performance and trying to intervene when needed. In
general, parents from Shore Park seemed to be the most involved with their children’s
education, while parents from Wells seemed to be the least. Some parents, particularly from
Wells and East Capitol, appeared either to be ill-informed about their children’s progress or
simply to have very low expectations—Wells parents in particular were likely to make
statements like “he’s doing okay; he passed.”
School Mobility
As discussed above, frequent school transfers have major implications for children’s
educational outcomes, with the risk of falling behind increasing with each move. National
studies have shown that 17 percent of children change schools more than three times by the
end of third grade (Hartman 2002). As figure 6.2 indicates, the children in our sample—most of
whom are still in elementary school—are already relatively mobile. Across the sites, one in five
children has already attended three or more schools; for Few Gardens and East Capitol, the
numbers are even higher (nearly one in three). In contrast, children from Shore Park rarely
change schools—just 5 percent have changed schools three or more times.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--14
Resiliency: Shore Park, Atlantic City, New Jersey
Belinda and her four children, ages 18, 14, 8, and 7, have lived in Atlantic City’s Shore Park
development for the past six years. Belinda is now pregnant with her fifth child. Ashley and Raymond
are from her previous marriage and the youngest two are her current boyfriend’s children. Belinda
says it has been difficult for her older children to see their father because his second wife creates
obstacles to visitation.
Belinda was in the military and has a college degree; thus, she never thought she would live in
either a shelter or public housing. Belinda first moved to Atlantic City in 1987 with her husband and
their two children. She and her husband divorced in 1992. After her divorce, she and her children had
difficulty finding stable housing. A city inspector declared the last house they rented uninhabitable
because of a gas leak and flood. The family then had to live in a shelter and eventually ended up in
Shore Park.
Belinda is a schoolteacher, but although she teaches in the local public school system, she
prefers her children to be home-schooled. She says public education is Eurocentric and has a limited
world view. “I don’t believe in presenting half a point of view to a person. In a sense, that is what
public education does.”
Belinda wanted to grant her children the opportunity to learn a host of different subjects not
taught in public school. She says the education they received at home was so challenging that Ashley
later opted to go back to public school. Belinda says Ashley did exceptionally well upon her return to
school. Yet, Ashley’s grades fell from all A’s and B’s to C’s once she started running track and
playing basketball. Belinda was not pleased with Ashley’s grades, so she took her out of school and
helped her get her GED. Ashley did well and is now in her second year of college. Belinda’s oldest
son, Raymond, has been home-schooled since the fifth grade. At age 14, he is currently preparing to
take the GED exam.
Belinda is actively involved in her community and the HOPE VI revitalization effort. She says
the community’s biggest problem is drug use and drug dealing. In an effort to target this problem, the
tenant association recently hosted a “National Night Out Against Violence” and created their version
of a “Say No To Drugs” campaign.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--15
Figure 6.2. Share of Children Who Have Attended Three or More Schools,
by Site
100
Percent
80
60
40
20
0
Shore Park
Wells
Few Gardens
Easter Hill
East Capitol
Although some children—like those from East Capitol who move to charter schools—
may benefit by ending up in a better school, most children who change schools experience at
least some difficulties. This mother from Few Gardens described the problems that frequent
school changes had created for her son, who is two years behind in school. At age 11, he is just
now starting fourth grade:
When he stayed with his dad and came back here, he lost a lot and he didn’t know
enough and it wasn’t good enough for me. They wanted to pass him, but I ain’t for that. I knew
at home when he was reading and doing his writing, unh-uh. [Few Gardens 025A]
Special Education
We asked parents in the survey whether their children were in any special education
classes for learning or behavior problems. As figure 6.3 shows, parents’ reports indicate that
even some of the very young children have already been placed in special education. Across
the sites, 11 percent of parents report that their children are receiving services for learning
problems, and 9 percent say they are receiving services for behavior problems. Few Gardens
has the largest proportion of young children in special education for learning problems (17
percent), and Shore Park has the largest proportion in classes for behavior problems (18
percent).
Not surprisingly, the proportion of older children (ages 6 to 14) who are in special
education classes is considerably higher: 23 percent are in special education for learning
problems and 12 percent are in classes for behavior problems. Children from Few Gardens are
almost twice as likely to be in special education than children at the other sites.80
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--16
Figure 6.3 Special Education
Special class for learning problems
Special class for behavior problems
Special class for gifted or advanced work
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent of children attending special classes
Under age 6
Age 6 to 14
To place these results in context, we attempted to locate school and/or district level
statistics on special education placement at each of the five sites. We were only able to obtain
school-level data for the East Capitol and Shore Park schools. In these two cases, the
percentage of respondents in the HOPE VI sample reporting that their children were in special
education was slightly higher than for the school overall, but similar enough to provide
confidence in these parental reports. For example, in Shore Park, 19 percent of the HOPE VI
respondents reported that their children were in special education for learning problems, as
compared to the official school-wide figure of 13 percent. 81
To get a sense of how the HOPE VI Panel Study children compared to children from
other, similar populations, we compared our sample to children in the MTO baseline sample. 82
Like the HOPE VI children, MTO children were also living in public housing in high-poverty
neighborhoods at baseline. Our comparison indicates that children in the HOPE VI sample were
somewhat more likely to be in special education classes for learning problems than the MTO
children (23 percent and 17 percent, respectively), and slightly more likely than MTO children to
be in classes for behavior problems (12 percent and 10 percent, respectively). 83
Even controlling for a number of child and parent characteristics, children from Durham’s
Few Gardens were significantly more likely to be in special education than children from other
sites.84 Overall, boys were more likely to be in special education than girls, and AfricanAmerican children were more likely to be in special education than Hispanics. Children who
scored high on a behavior problems scale were also more likely to be in special education.
Finally, the only parental characteristic associated with special education placement was the
total number of years in public housing—the longer a respondent had lived in public housing,
the more likely she was to have a child in special education. This last finding is consistent with
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--17
research that shows that children who live in persistent poverty are the most likely to experience
academic and cognitive delays (Brooks-Gunn and Duncan 1997).
The qualitative data highlight the range of academic and behavioral problems that HOPE
VI children have and, in some cases, the ways in which the schools’ lack of resources had
exacerbated their situations. This mother from Few Gardens described how her son’s learning
disability had affected his school performance, leading him to act up in school. Her son, now a
preteen, had had problems in school since second grade and had been held back a year. Only
recently was she able to get the school to address his needs:
Well, [my son] was having discipline problems because I had been telling them [the
school] ever since second grade that he had a learning disability. He didn’t want to read and
take part in what he was supposed to be doing because he didn’t want the other kids to know
that he couldn’t do the work and stuff, so he was coming to be a bother. So we finally found it
out in school this year and they finally got it together. . . . He was held back one year…. [Few
Gardens 076A]
Across the sites, several parents said that their children had been diagnosed with
Attention Deficit Disorder. This mother from East Capitol said that she had to take her son for
therapy outside the school to get adequate help for his problems. She had managed to get him
into a private school and he was now doing well:
It’s kind of hard, because he was diagnosed as Attention Deficit Disorder. . . . He started
in fourth grade, and was always out of his seat, messing with other kids. He just wanted to play
with them. Come to find out, when I took him to therapy up here on [name of street], the
psychology doctors said it’s real mild. . . . And it was his position that it would just go away as he
grows and learns different techniques how to take care of his responsibilities, and not always
trying to put it off. . . . He’s not on no medication, and basically I need to get him back into
therapy, but it’s just a couple of mornings. [East Capitol 069A]
Finally, several children had problems that required them to attend special schools.
These included the autistic child from Shore Park who was bused to a school over two hours
from her home, a child from Easter Village who was in an alternative school for delinquent girls,
and a child from East Capitol who had severe learning disabilities.
We did not specifically ask whether or not children had been held back a grade, but our
qualitative data indicate that grade retention is an issue we should investigate in the next wave.
Most of the parents we interviewed from Few Gardens and a number from the other sites
indicated that their children had been held back. One child from Few Gardens had been held
back twice; he was now 14 years old, six feet tall, and just beginning the sixth grade.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--18
I had him held back a year because I didn’t think he was where he was supposed to be,
so I told the principal to hold him back. And . . . another year ’cause he suppose to be like in
eighth grade ’cause he didn’t start school on time. Two grades. [Few Gardens 040A]
Finally, figure 6.3 also indicates that about 16 percent of the older children were in gifted
or advanced classes. This figure is comparable to the MTO baseline (15 percent). However, our
qualitative data indicate that respondents may not have truly understood this question and,
because of variations between schools, it may be as problematic to interpret as asking about
grades. Only a few children whom we interviewed provided enough information to tell whether
or not they were truly in advanced classes of some kind. Again, the fact that these children have
managed to be such high achievers despite the challenges they face highlights the importance
of resiliency. For example, this girl from Shore Park said she had been in Gifted and Talented
classes since first grade:
They just call our name by our grade average and our test scores, and I had above
average, so they put me in Gifted and Talented. I been in there since I started school. [Shore
Park 124C]
Children’s Physical and Mental Health
We asked parents a series of questions about their children’s health. Like the adults in
our sample (chapter 5), the HOPE VI Panel Study children are less likely to be in “excellent” or
“very good” health than national samples of children in similar age groups. As shown in figure
6.4, parents reported that the majority (69 percent) of children under age 6 were in excellent or
very good health. Parental reports on the health status for their older children were slightly
lower, with 62 percent saying that their children ages 6 to 14 had excellent or very good health.
These figures are lower than those reported in national samples (NHIS 2002), but comparable
to figures for other poor children (Brooks-Gunn and Duncan 1997).
Emergency Care
We asked parents whether their children had visited the emergency room in the past
year because of accident or injury. Across the sites, 13 percent of reported that their younger
children visited the emergency room in the past year. The proportion of older children who had
made emergency room visits was similar (11 percent ). These figures are comparable to those
from national samples of poor and non-poor children (Brooks-Gunn and Duncan 1997). Parents
in the HOPE VI sample attributed the majority of the accidents for both younger and older
children to playing or sports injuries (80 percent and 70 percent, respectively).
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--19
Figure 6.4.
Share Reporting "Excellent" or "Very Good" Health
100
75
50
25
0
Shore Park
Wells
Few Gardens
Children under age 6
Easter Hill
East Capitol
Youth 6–14 years old
Asthma85
As with the adults, the proportion of children in our sample who are reported to have
asthma is substantially higher than the national average. For the younger children, the
proportion who have been diagnosed with asthma (25 percent) is more than three times higher
than the national level (NHIS 2001). As figure 6.5 indicates, the reported prevalence of asthma
is lowest in Atlantic City’s Shore Park (only 14 percent) and highest in Durham’s Few Gardens
(32 percent) and Richmond’s Easter Hill (30 percent). 86
The prevalence of asthma is slightly lower among the older children (20 percent) in the
HOPE VI Panel Study sample. However, while lower than the rate for younger children, this
figure is still considerably higher than that for children nationwide.
The incidence of asthma among children in our sample is higher than for children in
general. Nationally, parents reported that only 5 percent of children under 18 had experienced
an asthma attack in the past 12 months, with the older children in the group having slightly
higher incidence rates than the children under age 6 (NHIS 2002). In contrast, 14 percent of the
children under age 6 in the HOPE VI Panel Study sample reported having an asthma attack in
the past year. A slightly smaller share of the older children (12 percent) in the sample were
reported to have had an asthma attack in the past year, but this figure was still higher than
national averages.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--20
Figure 6.5.
Asthma Prevalence
% diagnosed
100
80
60
40
20
0
Shore Park
Wells
Few Gardens
Children under age 6
Easter Hill
East Capitol
Youth 6–14 years old
Perhaps because of the environmental factors (proximity to petrochemical plants and
major highways), youth from Easter Hill were the most likely to experience episodes of asthma.
This mother explained why she thought her son’s asthma had been so bad:
They had those chemical releases here. Two chemical releases. I was sick
myself for like about three weeks after the last one they had. . . . They got all that
chemical stuff around here. And they had that release. . . . I know one was back
in March. Then they had another one not too long ago. Once was a chemical
plant down here that caught on fire and the thing burned from one in the morning
until like eight the next day. It was really bad.
I was sick and he had got a flare-up and quite a few other people got sick too.
But see, a lot of people they don’t pay attention. They think it’s sinuses. [Easter
Hill 084A]
A parent from Shore Park described how the air quality in her neighborhood made her
daughter’s asthma worse:
My daughter was diagnosed with bronchitis asthma a few years back. . . . She
was about 12. [A linen company was] right across the street. . . . It was a
Laundromat [that] cleans for all the casinos and all of that. The screen [in my
windows] would be built up with a lot of lint from the Laundromat and
everything. . . . It was making it worser for her. [Shore Park 044A]
The linen company had relocated recently, and the woman thought that her daughter’s health
had improved as well.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--21
Overall, among children under age 6, 12 percent—or one in every eight children—had
visited an emergency room because of asthma in the past 12 months. Among children ages 6 to
17, 9 percent had visited an emergency room due to asthma.87
Asthma and School Attendance
Asthma can have a serious impact on children’s school performance. Severe or poorly
managed asthma may cause children to miss school, be unable to participate in activities, make
frequent emergency room trips, and experience sometimes -lengthy hospitalizations. Our data
indicate that youth ages 6 to 17 in the HOPE VI Panel Study sample who have asthma miss
more days of school than other children (see table 6.1).
Table 6.1 Asthma and School Absences
Has
Does not
TOTAL
Days missed:
asthma
have asthma
61.9
Fewer than 5 days
43.5
66.8
21.6
5 to 9 days
26.1
20.5
16.4
10 days or more
30.4
12.8
Note: Columns may not total 100 percent due to rounding.
A mother from Richmond’s Easter Hill described how her son’s asthma has affected his
school performance:
He has asthma, but actually [he] is good in school. They said his academics was
good and it was no problem. It’s just he misses a lot of days behind asthma and
I’m scared that might affect them. When he gets it (asthma), he misses days. He
gets [asthma] in June, then he gets it as the beginning of the year. I know he gets
it constantly and I have to take off work and stay home with him. That’s the only
problem we have and we try to go up there and get his homework and stuff for
him so he can still do it and catch up and keep up with the other students. Other
than that, he does good in school. [Easter Hill 007A]
Behavior
Children’s behavior is an indicator of their emotional well-being and overall mental
health; when children are stressed or unhappy, they tend to act out. As discussed above,
research has shown that poor children and children who live in low-income neighborhoods are
more likely to have behavior problems than other children (Brooks-Gunn and Duncan 1997;
Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn 2000). The children in the HOPE VI sample, who live in extreme
poverty in dangerous environments, are at very high risk for mental health problems. Research
on the early outcomes for children in the MTO demonstration suggests that behavior is one of
the first things that may be affected by relocation—boys whose families relocated to lower
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--22
poverty areas through MTO were reported to have fewer behavior problems than children in the
control group who remained in public housing (Katz, Kling, and Liebman 2001).
For both younger and older children, we asked parents a series of questions that rated
their children on a number of behaviors including whether their child was usually in a good
mood, admired and well-liked, showed concern for others, showed pride when she did
something well, calmed down easily after being upset, and was helpful and cooperative. 88 As
figure 6.6 shows, in general, parents tended to rate their young children relatively high on most
measures of behavior, with more than two-thirds saying that the statement was “a lot” or
“completely” like their child. The only exceptions were that slightly fewer said that their child
showed concern for others and that their child calmed down easily after being upset. Figure 6.6
also shows the positive behavior ratings for older children. Again, parents tended to rate their
children relatively high on these measures, although they were again less likely to say that their
child calmed down easily after being upset. The overall mean for the scale is 4.1 out of a
possible 5.0, comparable to low-income children in the three-city study (Chase-Lansdale et al.
2002). 89
Figure 6.6. Positive Behaviors
Child is usually in a good mood
Child is admired and well-liked
Child shows concern for others
Child shows pride when he/she does something well
Child easily calms down after being angry or upset
Child is helpful and cooperative
0
Youth 6–14 years old
20
40
60
80
100
% Responding their child is "a lot" or "completely" like this child
Child under age 6
(Note: Excludes Shore Park for data quality reasons.)
Behavior Problems
We measured behavior problems only for the older children. We used a scale which
asks parents to indicate how often their children exhibited a series of six specific behaviors:
trouble getting along with teachers; being disobedient in school; hanging around with kids who
get in trouble; bullying; being restless or overly active; and being unhappy or depressed.90
Across the sites, about two-thirds of the children have one or more reported behavior problems,
and about half have two or more. The overall scores are high relative to other low-income
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--23
populations; 57 percent of poor children in the National Health Interview Survey had one or
more behavior problems (Brooks-Gunn and Duncan 1997). 91
The Boston MTO study found that boys were much more likely to have behavior
problems than girls (Katz, Kling, and Liebman 2001). As figure 6.7 shows, our analysis found
similar results: nearly 60 percent of the boys in our sample have two or more behavior
problems, compared with 42 percent of the girls.92
Figure 6.7 Behavior Problems, by Sex
Has trouble getting along w/teachers
Is disobedient in school
Hangs around with kids who get in trouble
Bullies or is cruel or mean to others
Is restless or overly active, can't sit still
Is unhappy, sad, or depressed
Share of children with 2 or more problems
Girls
Boys
0
20
40
60
80
100
% Reporting "Often True" or Sometimes True"
Even with the child and parental characteristics controlled, children from Few Gardens,
Easter Hill, and East Capitol were significantly more likely to have behavior problems than
children from Shore Park or Wells.93 Boys were more likely to have behavior problems than
girls, as were children whose parents had poor mental health. 94
Across the sample, parents’ reports indicate that 24 percent of the HOPE VI children had
been suspended or expelled from school.95 The survey also asked about a series of other
delinquent behaviors including contact with juvenile court; problems with alcohol or drugs;
trouble with police; and doing something illegal to get money. Fewer than 2 percent of the
respondents reported that their children had had any of these problems. This low rate of
reported incidents likely reflects the fact that these children are relatively young.
The in-depth interviews illustrate the ways in which children’s behavior—of both the focal
children we asked about in the survey and other children in the household—affects these
families. About half of the children we interviewed had been suspended, including all but two of
the children from Few Gardens and half of the children from Easter Hill. One boy had been
arrested and several had teenaged siblings who were either pregnant or who already had
children.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--24
Behavior Problems: Few Gardens, Durham, North Carolina
Lynette and her two children, ages 13 and 11, moved into the Few Gardens development
three years ago. Lynette says she cannot wait to move because these three years have been very
difficult. Olivia, her oldest daughter, has been beaten and sexually assaulted. Olivia was also home
alone when someone tried to force his way into their home. Because of these traumas, Olivia
currently lives in a group home, which is supposed to provide her with treatment for her mental
health and behavioral problems.
Lynette says that prior to the assault, Olivia had become involved with drugs and gangs. She
says that Olivia’s behavior problems began after she started “hanging with the wrong crowd.”
Olivia’s grades dropped, her attitude worsened and she was expelled from school. A mental health
worker was assigned to come to their home to help the family with disciplinary issues.
Lynette’s son, Joshua, also has behavior problems. Like his sister, he has been a victim of
the violence in Few Gardens: Lynette says that he was jumped on by a group of boys in their
development. Lynette says he was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
(ADHD) several years ago, and is in a special class in school for children with behavior problems.
Until recently, he was taking medication to treat the ADHD. Lynette says this will be the first year
he will not have to take his medication because his behavior has begun to improve.
Lynette does not have anyone to turn to for help. She is currently unemployed, in part
because of her children’s problems. Her family’s income comes from her disability checks as well
as from her children’s Supplemental Security Income payments. Her daughter’s father is not around,
but Joshua’s father lives nearby.
Lynette was enrolled in a job training program before her children were assaulted. She is
currently looking for a job suitable for the skills she acquired from the job training program. The
housing authority is also working with Lynette to provide her with a Section 8 voucher. Both
Lynette and the housing authority think it would be best for her family if she and her children could
move elsewhere.
The interviews also highlight the range of problems that these children have had, from
getting punished for small infractions like talking back to fights with teachers and security
guards. One mother from Easter Hill said her son had been suspended “six or seven times” in
one year for fighting with other children, but that his behavior improved after a caring teacher
intervened:
So I got a few phone calls [from the school] then, but this year, it’s like the littlest thing, if
a kid would so much as step on his foot, just kind of brush him and won’t say excuse me, the
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--25
fight was on. And then it’s like once he gets mad, it’s hard to calm him down. So I’m working on
that with him. . . . So, I said, “well, maybe I’ll take him to a psychiatrist.” The psychiatrist said
there’s nothing wrong with him. . . . So I guess it’s just one of those childhood things that kind of
has to work itself out.
The one teacher with [son’s name] . . . I mean she was just so patient, she would just try
everything in her power to keep him in school, because she seen the potential. She said, “He’s
a great kid, never any academic problems, always gets his work done, get it on time and it’s
accurate.” She and I, we talked quite a bit . . . and there was one program that one of the men
[administrators] felt like he needed to be in, and she kind of didn’t push, and I got a little upset
about it, her not pushing it. But then, I didn’t understand why she didn’t push it. Because this
particular program is for children that are kind of not academically settled, that are just kind of
big troublemakers or problem children. She said she didn’t see him as being that way. . . . So
once I understood that, I felt more comfortable, because what happened was that he had just
gotten suspended from school, went back to school, I think the next day he got in trouble again.
[Easter Hill 024A]
Often, children were more open about their problems than their parents. For example,
one mother from Shore Park asserted confidently that her son did not get in trouble at school.
However, her son told us about several incidents at school, including one that resulted in him
being suspended:
It was at school, when he [another student] kept messing with me, he was beating me
up, he kicked me, talking about my family. . . [I] got outside and pushed him in the face. And my
teacher wasn’t there and she couldn’t say nothing, but [this girl who didn’t like me], she used to
smoke and stuff, sell dope and stuff, and she put that I cussed at them and punched him and
kept calling them B’s and H’s, which I didn’t do, and the teacher said, “take him down to the
office and get him suspended,” because the teacher didn’t like me either. [Shore Park 050C]
Some children had gotten into much more serious trouble. One child we interviewed
from Easter Hill had an older sister who already had a baby and was pregnant again. Her
mother said that after she had her first child, her older daughter had a breakdown and became
so “out of control” that the mother called Child Protective Services for help.
Well, see she was doing independent studies because of the baby and then she done
got her a job. She was doing pretty good. I don’t know what happened. She just flipped out. She
was wanting to fight me and she was just out of control. I called the CPS [Child Protective
Services] worker and I told her “look, I need some help.” I wanted her removed from the home,
but . . . that’s when she found the program [special program for troubled teens]. She’s doing
much better now. Thank God for that. She ended up getting herself pregnant again, but she is
much better now than she was before. [Easter Hill 084A]
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--26
Another family we interviewed from Easter Hill had a son who had gotten into a fight with
the school security guard and ended up being expelled. One 11-year-old boy from Chicago’s
Wells had been arrested for fighting with his teacher and making her fall down the stairs:
My teacher was trying to break up the fight. I was fighting a boy, and then his sister
came and hit me and I pushed her. Then the teacher was grabbing me, and she tried to pull me
down the stairs. I yanked away from her and she fell down the stairs. She came and grabbed
me and hurt me and started pushing me and stuff. And then the security guard came and he
took me to the office, and then the police came and got me and took me to the police station.
[Wells 148C]
It is important to remember that it is not just the neighborhood environment or the poor
schools that affects these children, causing them to act out. Many of the HOPE VI children
come from very troubled families. Although we did not directly measure parenting, parental
harshness is known to be related to poverty and hardship, as well as outcomes for children
(Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn 2001a). As discussed in chapter 5, a substantial proportion of
these parents have serious mental health problems, especially depression. Not surprisingly, our
multivariate analysis indicated that parents who scored poorly on mental health also had
children who had high numbers of behavior problems.
One mother from Shore Park who was a teacher talked about the challenges that the
children at her school faced every day:
They are dealing with a lot of stuff out here. There’s a lot of drug activity going on. The
children, they confide in me. Some have been molested by people in their own family. They say
mommy is an addict or an alcoholic and sometimes they don’t eat. . . . [Shore Park 110A]
A young teenager from Few Gardens described how he coped with his difficult situation,
especially his problems with his mother:
My mom. She gets drunk too much and I don’t like it. She don’t hit us or anything. Well,
she hit us when we get in trouble but then I just go to him and tell him about what I want to do
and then when somebody get in a fight and then we’re in it, I’ll speak to him. Or, like if I’m sad.
[Few Gardens 044C]
Summary
The key findings about children in the HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline are listed below:
§
The children in our sample attend schools that are highly segregated, both racially
and economically. However, less than half of the respondents in our overall sample
view school quality in their neighborhood as a big problem. But in the qualitative
interviews, parents complained about poor teachers and chaotic school environments;
children complained about problems with fights, gang activity, and shootings.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6--27
§
Despite the challenges they face in their environment, some children seemed to
be remarkably resilient, doing well and enjoying school. Still, a substantial
proportion were struggling in school.
§
HOPE VI children are relatively mobile, despite the potential stability of living in
public housing. Across the sites, one in five children has already attended three or
more schools; for Few Gardens and East Capitol, the numbers are even higher (nearly
one in three).
§
Many very young children have already been placed in special education. Across
the sites, 11 percent are receiving services for learning problems and 9 percent are
receiving services for behavior problems. The proportion of older children who are in
special education classes is considerably higher: about 23 percent of the older children
are in special education for learning problems and about 12 percent are in classes for
behavior problems.
§
Children in the HOPE VI Panel Study are in worse health than other children their
age. Their parents report substantially lower health ratings than for children in national
samples. A substantial proportion have been diagnosed with asthma.
§
A considerable number of the older children have behavior problems. About twothirds of the children have one or more reported behavior problems, and about half have
two or more. Further, across the sample, 24 percent of the older children have been
suspended or expelled from school. Many of these children live in troubled families,
which contributes to their behavior problems.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
7--1
CHAPTER 7: EMPLOYMENT, WELFARE, AND HARDSHIP
Public housing residents, overall, are very poor. 96 Indeed, recent research has found that
they are significantly more disadvantaged than other low-income households (Zedlewski 2002).
Public housing residents’ employment rates are very low and many face significant barriers to
finding or keeping employment, especially health problems and the lack of adequate childcare
(Buron et al. 2002; Loprest 2001; Martinez 2001). Like other poor households, many public
housing residents experience material hardship, including difficulty paying for rent or other bills
and affording sufficient food.
The Panel Study will explore changes in HOPE VI residents’ socioeconomic status over
time as they relocate from their public housing developments. At baseline, we asked
respondents a series of detailed questions about employment and income, barriers to work,
receipt of public assistance, and material hardship. In this chapter, we first describe current
research on the relationships between economic opportunities and neighborhood
characteristics. Then we discuss the socioeconomic status of working-aged (18 to 61) HOPE VI
Panel Study respondents at baseline, including employment, income, barriers to employment,
and public assistance receipt.97 In the last section, we present results on material hardship for
all adult respondents.
Employment, Mixed-Income, and Dispersal Strategies
Concern over the concentration of extremely poor households in public housing
underlies the current emphasis in federal housing policy on mixed-income and dispersal
strategies. As discussed in chapter 1, HOPE VI is part of a package of policy initiatives intended
to foster economic opportunity for low-income households (Popkin et al. 2000). The theory
behind these policies is that the conditions and personal circumstances of poor households will
improve if people of little economic means live among people with relatively higher incomes. In
particular, policymakers hope that living in low-poverty or mixed-income communities will offer
low-income households access to better employment networks and thereby greater access to
higher-paying jobs. HOPE VI is intended to increase opportunities by bringing investment to
poor neighborhoods and by providing vouchers so that poor public housing residents can
search for housing in a variety of areas. The mechanisms through which employment-related
improvements are to flow to low-income households, however, are unclear (Popkin, Harris, and
Cunningham 2002; Schwartz and Tajbakhsh 2001).
The evidence on whether the dispersal approach of moving to higher-income
neighborhoods leads to improved employment and income for poor people is mixed. Research
on the Gautreaux program suggests that participants who moved to higher-income suburbs
experienced some gains in employment (Popkin, Rosenbaum, and Meaden 1993; Rubinowitz
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
7--2
and Rosenbaum 2000).98 However, preliminary studies conducted on the Moving To
Opportunity (MTO) demonstration found little positive impact on welfare receipt, employment,
and earnings. Early evidence from MTO showed that employment rates increased for people
who moved, regardless of whether they moved to low- or high-poverty areas; only one singlesite study found impacts on welfare receipt (Ludwig 2001). This lack of impact suggests that the
strong economy at the time of the studies and changes to welfare that affected employment
requirements might have been more significant than residential location in affecting employment
outcomes (Del Conte and Kling 2001; Rosenbaum and Harris 2001).
While Gautreaux and MTO participants may have experienced some gains, HOPE VI
relocation may not have even these modest impacts. HOPE VI differs from these mobility
programs in fairly significant ways. Gautreaux and MTO participants volunteered for the
programs and agreed to move to either low-minority or low-poverty areas. HOPE VI households
are moving because their developments are being demolished. Some may use vouchers to
move to lower-poverty areas and others may end up in the new, mixed-income developments.
Some may move to other public housing developments or use their vouchers to relocate near
their original development. In these cases, residents’ new communities may offer little in the
way of new opportunities.
Even if HOPE VI residents move to mixed-income developments, there is little evidence
of whether living among higher-income residents affects the employment and income of lowincome tenants (Brophy and Smith 1997; Schwartz and Tajbakhsh 1997). Most mixed-income
developments do not have very-low-income tenants; rather, they have a mix of low, moderate,
and market rate households. A few developments have a mix of very-low-income and lowincome (working poor) tenants, but research on these communities has not shown any effects
on employment for the poorest households (Rosenbaum, Stroh, and Flynn 1998). Because of
the lack of research evidence, it is difficult to predict whether living in mixed-income
developments—or neighborhoods—will improve employment outcomes for HOPE VI residents
(Popkin et al. 2000; Schwartz and Tajbakhsh 2001).
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires housing
authorities that have received HOPE VI grants to offer supportive services, many of which are
intended to help residents achieve self-sufficiency. However, the evidence on the effectiveness
of such services for public housing residents is limited. The literature on mixed-income housing
suggests that offering quality counseling and access to other social services could potentially
increase the likelihood that locational, social, and economic goals are met (Brophy and Smith
1997), but there is little hard evidence on the effectiveness of such services.
Changing neighborhoods through relocation might lead to better outcomes for
households who move to lower-poverty areas with better access to services. As we show in this
chapter, however, histories of short job tenure, poor health, and lack of child care, along with
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
7--3
other factors, complicate respondents’ employment experiences and possibilities. Without
attention to these issues, changes in location alone are unlikely to lead to significantly improved
employment and income situations over time.
Employment and Income
As figure 7.1 shows, more than half (59 percent) of the survey respondents under age
62 said that they were not employed at the time of the survey. Shore Park was the only study
site where a majority of respondents (54 percent) were employed, likely due to the availability of
jobs in the casino industry in Atlantic City. Across the sites, the majority of employed
respondents reported working full-time. Shore Park again stands out: nearly all of the employed
respondents from that site, 91 percent, were working full-time.
Figure 7.1. Employment Status
27%
Employed, full-time
59%
14%
Employed, part-time
Not employed
Because our sample includes Shore Park and its unusually high employment rate, the
overall proportion of employed respondents in our sample (41 percent) is higher than the rate
among all residents in all HOPE VI sites awarded grants in 2000 (34 percent). It is, however,
comparable to the rate of employment among residents in all public housing in metropolitan
areas (40 percent).99 Still, only 27 percent of our survey respondents were full-time employees,
slightly lower than the 33 percent full-time employment rate found in MDRC’s Jobs Plus
study.100
The majority of employed respondents indicated they had been in their current job for at
lease one year (58 percent). There was considerable variation in job tenure by site. At three of
the sites (Wells, Shore Park, and East Capitol), at least 60 percent of the employed respondents
had held their job for more than one year, while at the other two sites (Easter Hill and Few
Gardens), most respondents had had their job for less than one year.
Employed respondents reported finding their current jobs mostly through family and
friends (44 percent overall). More than one-third of respondents in each site (from 35 percent to
58 percent) said that they obtained information or encouragement that led to their current
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
7--4
position through personal networks. Interview respondents’ comments were similar. One woman
from Easter Hill recounted how she found a job through a personal connection:
Well, one of my church members works out there. She’s been there for about 10 years
now. And they were in need of a substitute, and so I went in as a substitute. . . . But then pretty
soon, somebody else would drop off a day, and then I would pick up another day. . . . So then I
got full-time. [Easter Hill 024A]
Income from Employment
Overall, 95 percent of employed respondents earned an hourly rate above the federal
minimum wage of $5.15 an hour, the majority of them reporting earning more than $7.00 an
hour. Easter Hill is notable in that 20 percent of employed respondents reported an hourly salary
above $13. Only 1 to 6 percent of respondents from the other sites earned above that rate. The
majority of respondents in each site, however, earned wages below the national median wage
of $11.87 an hour (1999 median wage). 101
While the hourly wage for most employed respondents fell between the national
minimum and median wage levels, household income was very low. As figure 7.2 indicates, the
majority (about 80 percent) of respondents overall reported household earnings of $15,000 or
less a year, with most (66 percent) reporting income of $10,000 or less.102 Most of the families in
the study were living well below the 2001 poverty thresholds of $14,269 for a family of three and
$18,022 for a family of four. 103
Though we did not include a survey question on the types of jobs respondents held, we
did ask in-depth interview respondents to describe their work. Low household income is not
surprising in light of the jobs people held and their relatively short job tenures. The type of jobs
interview respondents mentioned most frequently were low-wage, low-skill jobs such as home
health care aides, food service workers, janitors, or positions with the housing authority. Other
positions included bus drivers, teachers, office clerks, and retailers. A number of respondents
also reported earning income on the side through odd jobs, baby-sitting, and hairdressing.
Barriers to Employment
Even though a substantial proportion of respondents were not working at the time of the
survey, most of these nonworking respondents (87 percent) indicated that they had been
employed previously. Still, less than one-third (29 percent) had worked within the previous year.
Many respondents reported that they were not working because of poor health and family care
responsibilities. Across the sites, just over one-third (37 percent) of respondents said that health
reasons kept them from working (figure 7.3). 104 This finding is not surprising given the poor
health of many HOPE VI families (see chapter 5).
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
7--5
Figure 7.2. Annual Household Income
% Below $10,000
100
80
60
40
20
0
Shore Park
Wells
Few Gardens
Easter Hill
East Capitol
The most common reason respondents cited for not working was having a disability. For
example, this woman from Wells said that her back problems had forced her to quit her job
working for a delivery company.
A: Then my finger got hurt and then my back and I couldn’t lift them boxes.
Q: How long did you work for [the delivery company]?
A: I worked for them like two and a half months. It was a nice job but it just that [I was
the] one person in the trailer and doing all them boxes. The only woman . . . , then like I’m forty.
If I was younger, I could throw them boxes, but I done had four caesareans. I got back problems
from the spinals and my back was messing up so I couldn’t do that. [Wells 164A].
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
7--6
Figure 7.3. Barriers to Employment
Poor health
Family care
Unable to find a job
Transportation
0
20
40
60
80
100
% Reporting Specific Barriers
We examined the relationship between employment and health by calculating
employment status for respondents reporting very good or excellent health and comparing them
with the employment status for persons reporting fair or poor health. The majority of
respondents employed full-time indicated their health was very good to excellent (53 percent),
while 17 percent reported fair or poor health. Among people working part-time, 48 percent
reported very good to excellent health, while 27 percent reported fair to poor health.
Respondents not employed reported a lower overall rate of very good or excellent health (35
percent), and higher rates of fair or poor health compared with employed respondents (44
percent compared with 17 percent and 27 percent of full- and part-time employees).
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
7--7
Barriers to Employment: East Capitol Dwellings, Washington, D.C.
Irene moved her family to East Capitol Dwellings a little over a year ago, after she and her
husband separated. She says she moved into East Capitol, knowing it was about to be demolished,
because of the possibility of receiving a Section 8 voucher. She says she has never lived in public
housing before, and was told that her chances of getting Section 8 would be greater if she and her
children lived in East Capitol Dwellings.
In the past, Irene has worked as a food service worker for a local hotel and university.
Eighteen-year-old Calvin and 15-year-old Cason receive Social Security payments, and Irene receives
public assistance for her two youngest children. Irene recalls her and her children having to stretch
their monthly checks to cover their household bills and necessities. “With my check that I get on the
first, I might pay half of those bills. And then when my sons get their checks I make sure they have
everything and then pay the rest.” She admits that things would be easier if she worked, but she is
afraid to leave her children home alone. “If I was working I wouldn’t have that problem but by me
living here in this neighborhood, I’m scared. I’m not going to leave my kids here by themselves. So if
we have to struggle a little bit to make it better for us, I don’t mind doing it.”
Irene’s oldest son, Calvin, suffers from severe asthma, which flares up during the summer.
Her 16-year-old son, Corey, is blind in one eye, and 12-year-old Courtney has a bone disease. Irene
says she is so stressed that she has not been able to sleep since moving to East Capitol Dwellings.
Despite their problems, Irene’s children excel in school. Cason, who is a straight-A student,
and Corey attend a high school in Maryland. Irene transferred her sons out of the District’s school
system because she feels the environment in Maryland is more conducive to learning. The youngest
children are enrolled in an area public school. Irene does not like their school because it is
overcrowded and she says her children sometimes come home hungry because there is not enough
cafeteria food to go around. Despite that, they still manage to make all A’s and B’s.
Irene has been ready to move out of public housing since the day she arrived. She says the
development and neighborhood are extremely dangerous. Irene discovered a dead man’s body the day
she moved into her apartment. “When I first moved around here there was a man over there dead.
They've found bodies over there dead. That’s the reason why I don’t let my kids go out. If they do go
out, we go out of the neighborhood and we’ll be back here before dark.” Irene says the development is
plagued with drug dealing and violent crime. She says young men hang around the development,
argue, fight, and sell drugs at all hours of the day and night. Irene’s children, Calvin, Corey, Cason,
Clavell, and Courtney, spend their weekends and summer vacations at their grandmother’s house in
Maryland.
After a year of waiting, Irene recently found out that she will receive her Section 8 certificate.
The housing authority will pay up to $700 of her moving costs, her security deposit, and reimburse her
for any bills she paid in the week before moving. Irene plans to find a house in the District and live
there for a year before becoming eligible to use her voucher in Maryland. She ultimately wants to
move back to Maryland where her children can peacefully play outside and attend better schools.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
7--8
Respondents who were not employed also reported higher rates of chronic health
problems requiring ongoing care than did those who were employed (44 percent compared to
14 percent of full-time and 29 percent of part-time employed respondents). Within the group of
respondents who were not working at the time of the survey, the majority of those with a work
history, but who had not worked in the past year, reported having a chronic health condition (57
percent), while 49 percent of the people who have never worked for pay reported a chronic
condition.
The findings for the relationship between employment and mental health were similar.
Employed respondents reported better overall mental health than those who are not working—
25 percent of respondents who were employed full-time reported poor mental health compared
with 49 percent of those who had never worked for pay. Likewise, 5 percent of employed
respondents had experienced a major depressive episode during the past 12 months, compared
with 11 percent of those who had never been employed. Respondents who had worked
previously, but not during the previous year, reported the highest rates of depression (19
percent). These findings on health and employment for working-age respondents suggest that
many of these individuals may be unable to hold down most conventional jobs unless their
health problems are addressed.
Another factor that respondents cited as an important barrier to employment was child
care. Over a quarter of unemployed respondents (28 percent) indicated that taking care of their
home or family was a main reason they were unable to work. 105 Our in-depth interviews offer
greater detail about the challenges HOPE VI families face trying to balance family and work.
Many respondents stressed the challenges of finding adequate—and trustworthy—care for their
children. A number of parents talked about not wanting to leave young children with someone
else, or not having a reliable source of child care, in a neighborhood environment they
perceived as unsafe. Both of these women from East Capitol said they had stopped working
because they were afraid to leave their children home alone:
I worked for Marriott. I worked at [the] University . . . the college [cafeteria] where you
feed the students and everything. But I took off until I moved because of the neighborhood and I
was scared to leave my kids home by themselves, so I quit for right now. But when I move I’m
gonna go back to Marriott. [East Capitol 183A]
At first it was like the kids and I didn’t want to leave them home by themselves for long
’cause the jobs that I was getting were like crazy hours late at night and I have girls . . . they
need someone at home. There was really no one to watch them that I could trust. . . . Then I
had somebody to watch them but I would come about 11 o’clock at night from work and the kids
were running up and down the sidewalk . . . no, ’cause I don’t do that. When I’m home they
don’t do that so I couldn’t work with that. [East Capitol 162A]
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
7--9
This respondent from Few Gardens said she was concerned about being able to trust others to
care for her son, and did not want to leave her son with a child care provider until he was old
enough to talk:
I’m takin’ care of my youngest child. I’m not going to work until he can tell me, “Mom, I
don’t like these people ’cause they hit me.” I want him to be able to talk and express his self
without whinin’ and crying and I also want him potty trained. [Few Gardens 044A]
Factors that Make it Hard to Find or Keep a Job
We asked all respondents about factors that might have made it difficult to find or keep a
job during the previous year. Overall, 34 percent of respondents cited a lack of jobs as a key
barrier to employment. Nearly half of the respondents from Easter Hill said this had been a
problem for them (49 percent), while Shore Park respondents, who had the highest rates of
employment, were the least likely to mention lack of jobs (4 percent). It is striking that such a
high percentage of respondents overall cited a lack of jobs during a time when the economy
was still strong. Three other key factors were lack of child care (29 percent); lack of work
experience (25 percent); and lack of transportation (25 percent). While not key factors across
sites, 24 percent of Shore Park respondents cited discrimination as a problem, and 23 percent
of Easter Hill respondents cited inability to speak English well.
Transportation may be a factor that affects future employment for HOPE VI respondents.
Relocation from their current locations could affect, positively or negatively, respondents’ access
to transit routes and carpool arrangements. More employed respondents take public
transportation to work than any other means (44 percent). Although only a minority of
respondents cited transportation needs as a main reason for current unemployment, as noted
above, respondents did say that the lack of transportation was a factor in their ability to look for,
acquire, or keep a job during the previous year.
Education also appeared to be related to employment status. The majority of employed
respondents had either graduated from high school or received their GED: the figure for full-time
workers was 72 percent and for part-time workers, 58 percent. In contrast, fewer than half (47
percent) of those who were not working at the time of the survey had graduated or received a
GED.
The in-depth interviews suggested that access to benefits may also have affected
respondents’ ability to hold a job. Many of the low-wage jobs held by respondents provide no
benefits. In the in-depth interviews, employed respondents often reported challenges in trying to
balance the multiple demands of child care and work. Additional problems, such as a child’s
health problem that required multiple doctor visits, could have major implications for the family
and cause a parent to lose her job. The experiences of two women from Easter Hill highlight the
contrast between employment with and without benefits and the effect on job tenure and health.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
7--10
The first respondent, a home health care provider, had to quit her job for three months to care
for her asthmatic daughter. In contrast, the second respondent reported that she had serious
health problems, but that her job offered ample sick and disability leave. She was able to keep
her job—and her income—while receiving treatment:
Oh, yeah, we get vacation, sick leave, personal, and we have a floating holiday. We
have a . . . 403(b) for our retirement plan. . . . Well, over the past year, health-wise, it's been
difficult. But before, I would work two or three jobs at a time, and I just really had to give that up.
Because I found that although it was providing the material or the natural things that we needed,
it was taking away so much time from my children. You know, somebody else had to raise them,
of course, because I was usually at work most of the time. And then it began to take a toll on me
physically. And so over this last year, I've been off quite a bit. I've injured my back. I've had two
surgeries. . . . In fact, I have to have two more surgeries. I have to have another one on my
throat, and I have to have my hand done this year. And so I was just off quite a bit. . . . I can
take the time off, but I've kind of used up all my vacation and sick leave, because I was off, like I
said, I injured my back. . . . So I don't know what's really gonna happen when I have my hand
done. But I think I'll be able to draw my short-term disability for at least five weeks maybe.
[Easter Hill 024A]
Public Assistance
About one-third of respondents reported receiving income from public assistance
(Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF]) during the six months prior to the survey
(figure 7.4). Easter Hill had the highest rate of welfare receipt (48 percent), while Shore Park
had the lowest (10 percent). The majority of respondents who had received assistance in the
past six months were long-term welfare recipients: overall, 56 percent indicated that they had
received assistance for six years or more. A higher percentage of respondents—just over half
overall—indicated that they had received public assistance at some point in their lives. Of this
group, only 9 percent said that they had received assistance for less than one year, and only
another third had received assistance for between one and five years. Finally, as figure 7.4
shows, across the sites, nearly two-thirds of the respondents reported receiving food stamps.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
7--11
% Reporting assistance in past
6 months
Figure 7.4. Public Assistance by Site
100
80
60
40
20
0
Shore
Park
Wells
Welfare
Few
Easter Hill
Gardens
East
Capitol
Food stamps
Finally, 22 percent of the respondents age 62 or younger in our sample said that they or
someone in their household received Supplemental Security Income (SSI).106 Respondents from
East Capitol, who were the least likely to report receiving TANF, were the most likely to say that
they received SSI—34 percent said that they or someone in their household was on SSI.
Finally, only 6 percent of respondents indicated that they or someone in their household
received disability (SSDI) pay. 107
To put these findings into context, we compared our data on public assistance receipt to
the Jobs Plus study and to HUD administrative data. This comparison showed that the
proportion of HOPE VI Panel Study respondents who reported receiving TANF was
considerably lower than the rate from the Jobs Plus study (55 percent overall), 108 though higher
than the rate of welfare receipt among residents in all public housing located in metropolitan
areas (24 percent) (Martinez 2001)). Respondents in the HOPE VI Panel Study sample were
slightly less likely to receive SSI than residents in all public housing developments in
metropolitan areas (24 percent) and in other HOPE VI sites awarded grants in 2000 (26
percent).
Material Hardship
We measured material hardship at baseline by asking questions on home heating,
phone service, and food sufficiency.109 Because heating costs are included in rent in public
housing, lack of heat was not a problem overall. Of respondents who reported experiencing a
cold apartment for a day or longer, most indicated it was due to a system breakdown rather than
inability to pay their heating bill (less than 1 percent of respondents said they could not pay their
utility bill).
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
7--12
Although paying for telephone services was not a problem for the majority of
respondents, a substantial portion of respondents did report experiencing problems. Among
respondents aged 62 or older, 14 percent reported lack of telephone service for more than 24
hours due to inability to pay. Telephone service was more of a problem for working-age
respondents. More than one-third (36 percent) said they had lost telephone service for more
than 24 hours due to cost.
At baseline, the area of greatest concern was food. Overall, about half of the workingage respondents said they had worried about running out of food during the previous year. The
rate of respondents who worried often about having enough food was highest in Easter Hill,
where a quarter of respondents indicated such a concern. Older adults were less likely to worry
about being able to afford food—about one-third of the respondents aged 62 or older reported
this concern.
Some in-depth interview respondents provided vivid descriptions of having to stretch
food and money when things were tight. For example, this woman from East Capitol said her
family sometimes runs short:
A: Well, we've been short on a lot of stuff, but I stretch dollars. “Okay, you can eat now
but we have to eat and save this for later” . . . and I don't do the junk thing.
Q: So has there ever been a time when you just didn't have enough to get through the
month?
A: Yeah, there have been times where we run short.
Q: What do you do when that happens?
A: Well, we run short but we don't run out. We just have to cut it and narrow it down.
[East Capitol 162A]
This woman from Few Gardens provided specific details about the food she had and how long it
needed to last, poignantly illustrating the implications of “narrowing it down.”
A: As of now, I'm down to a pack of steak, two packs of chicken, and I budget and I use
coupons, you're talking about today is the 28th, I have the 29th, the 30th, 31st, 1st, 2nd, and the
3rd to go so I have five, six days to go off of two packs of chicken and a pack of steak, a few
potatoes and onions and some canned goods and some frozen vegetables, and I have to weigh
that out and probably some bologna and I have some eggs so I have to cut down, like last night
I had, I used fresh ground beef so I patted out into burgers and put individual meat into bags
and I fixed them burgers and I didn't eat ’cause there was only four and there was only eight
slices of bread and that was enough for them to get a burger apiece.
Q: So you didn't eat dinner last night?
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
7--13
A: I nibbled on something. I mean, I had something I thawed out I could fix, but . . . but
the chicken was for my lunch for today to go to work. I couldn't fry that and have dinner and take
lunch today, and I gotta take lunch tomorrow. So you gotta weigh stuff out. [Few Gardens 025A]
Another woman from Few Gardens explained how she makes ends meet by turning to a pantry
for food and doing without certain things.
Q: Are there times now when things get so tight that it is hard to have enough food?
A: Yes.
Q: How often does that happen?
A: At the end of the month, every month.
Q: What do you do when that happens?
A: Go to the food locker. . . .
Q: What about other bills that you have to pay or other times when it is hard to pay rent?
A: When I pay rent that includes my lights, my gas, and my water. So basically I take my
child support check and buy food and clothes, personal hygiene items, and stuff like that. . . . I
don't have a phone. I don't have cable. I don't have those luxuries. [Few Gardens 044A]
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
7--14
Financial Hardship: Easter Hill, Richmond, California
Maria Silva, her husband, Manuel, and their three children, Rosa, Veronica, and Eduardo,
have lived in Easter Hill for the past seven years. Manuel says his family is very close and does
everything together. They do not socialize with their African-American neighbors, rarely visit their
Mexican American neighbors, and do not participate community activities. He also says they do not
visit their relatives who live in Los Angeles nor allow their daughters to sleep over at their friends’
homes.
The Silvas have their share of financial and medical hardships. Maria says money is always
tight, even though Manuel recently received a promotion. The Silvas are ineligible for medical
benefits because of their immigration status. Their lack of medical insurance is a serious problem for
Maria because she has asthma, kidney stones, and knee problems. She has to go to the hospital often
for treatment for her kidneys. She also has a hard time walking up and down the apartment’s stairs
because she recently fell outside of her home, tearing some ligaments in her knee.
Maria also says their rent recently increased, making budgeting even more difficult. She
thinks her family should at least get what they pay for. “We’re paying all this money and the house
falls apart and they [the housing authority] don’t want to fix it. It’s not fair. It’s not fair for them to
treat us this way.” Maria says the apartment is infested with ants and spiders. The windows leak water
and the handle to their kitchen faucet is broken. Maria says the housing authority also had to replace
their stove. She now has problems with the new stove. “I had to demand that they change the stove
because it wasn’t working. I said that one day they would find me dead here with my children because
the gas leaks from the stove. So they fixed the problem. Now the faucet doesn’t work again.”
In addition to the family’s financial, medical, and hous ing problems, Maria says the area is
very unsafe and she never knows what is going to happen. Manuel says his daughter once found drugs
hidden behind their car’s license plate. He flushed the drugs down the toilet and says he is fearful that
the person who stashed the drugs will come back to reclaim them. Maria says she once had to call the
police because someone hid a rifle underneath their car.
Manuel works full-time as a cook and says his job does not allow him to socialize as much as
he would like to. Despite their tight finances, the Silvas plan to rent a small house with or without
Section 8. They say their new home will most likely be near the housing development, where the rent
is cheap.
Respondents who faced shortfalls of money or food spoke of other ways they have
stretched their resources. Many of the people we interviewed said they have turned to a family
member or a friend for assistance, some only when absolutely necessary, and others on a
regular basis. Others said they will do something like work a double shift to earn extra money. A
few respondents described arrangements they have made to pay for rent or bills in increments.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
7--15
Interview respondents also mentioned other types of financial hardship. For example, a
few respondents mentioned experiencing hardship when their earnings increased, causing an
increase in their rent and a reduction in other benefits. The woman from Few Gardens who so
carefully budgeted her food talked about how angry she was when she reported her increased
wages to the housing authority and experienced a dramatic rent increase:
A: ’Cause they took my rent up to $501 and I couldn't see in no way in hell, $501 for this
apartment. You have no swimming pool, I have no wall-to-wall carpet, I have no air condition, I
have nowhere for my child to go play at and you take my rent up from $48 to $501.
Q: When did that happen?
A: That happened when I was making $10.10 and so . . . my point is if you try to get
ahead and get a job and get off welfare, they take you sky high with the rent as soon as you get
a job. And then they cut your food stamps off, so you got rent that goes from $48 to $501, you're
used to getting two or three hundred dollars for food stamps so you're used to having three
hundred dollars for food stamps in your refrigerator that would last you almost . . . all the way
through the whole month. . . . As soon as I reported it, my rent for that following month [went up]
to $501, food stamps was cut off, check was cut off, I wasn't getting nothing but medical
assistance and then I still had this couch to pay on, I still had the bill to pay on at the other
apartment, I still had to buy household needs, school was starting, they needed school clothes,
their books and supplies. . . . That's a big jump and then to pay that type of money for where
you live, to hear shooting, cussin’, fussin’, drinkin’ all night, every night and you got to get up at
5:40 in the morning to be ready by 6:00 for your ride and get your kids and stuff together and
you got to hear this all night long, got to get up in the morning, right at your door and you pay
them $501, my kids ain't got no where to play and this is all the entertainment they get is
cussin’, fussin’, arguing, drinkin’ and drugs, no wall-to-wall carpet, no air condition, rodents
running across your feet and you're paying them $501 for what? Tree stumps coming up out
your floor but you want $501 from me for what? What am I paying you $501, this place ain't
worth but $48 if you ask me. [Few Gardens 025A]
Unanticipated accidents also affected a couple of households, leaving the heads of household
out of work as costs, and worries, mounted. This woman from Shore Park described her
experiences:
I stayed in the hospital three days [following the car accident]. . . . Yah, I had a neck
brace on. Oh, it was awful, I was in pain. But anyway, you know. . . . So I have all these bills to
pay. And I am trying to get my insurance company to pay their portion or whatever, but it's like
thousands of dollars in bills. And I had thousands of dollars saved up and all my thousands of
dollars are down to like almost zilch. [Shore Park 110A]
A woman from Easter Hill had a similar experience:
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
7--16
Somebody ran into me on the Bay Bridge. The guy ran into the back of my car and that
put me in a bad position because I wasn't able to keep up with my work. That was when I was
doing my janitorial contract. I wasn't able to keep up and then all my bills got behind. I was like,
“Ooh, what am I gonna do, what am I gonna do? I don't know what I'm gonna do.” Well after I
got well and I healed up from all of my bangs and aches and pains, I said, “Well, I can always
go back to doing the in-home care,” so I called the registry and told them that I was available for
work so I been doing okay since then. [Easter Hill 084A]
These last few quotes demonstrate how rent increases and expensive medical costs can
undermine respondents’ efforts to get ahead financially.
Summary
The overall key findings about employment, income, and material hardship at baseline
are listed below:
•
Less than half of the respondents in the HOPE VI Panel Study sample were
employed at baseline. Most had had at least some employment experience in the past.
Health problems and lack of adequate child care are major barriers to employment for
respondents in our sample.
•
Nearly 80 percent of respondents reported a yearly household income of $15,000
or less; two-thirds reported an income of $10,000 or less—well below the poverty
thresholds for families of three and four. Hourly wage rates for the majority of
employed respondents fell between the federal minimum wage and the national median
wage.
•
Approximately one-third of working-age respondents have received TANF benefits
in the past six months. Just over half are longer-term recipients. Another quarter
receive SSI, and many receive food stamps.
•
Levels of reported food hardship were high. About half of the respondents report
worrying about running out of food. Slightly more than one-third of survey respondents
younger than 62 reported a lack of phone service for a period of time due to cost.
•
Health and child care affected employment for respondents who were working and
not working. More than one-third of the unemployed respondents cited health reasons
as an employment barrier. Nearly one-third of all respondents cited child care as a factor
affecting employment.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
8--1
CHAPTER 8: HOUSING CHOICE AND OUTLOOK FOR REDEVELOPMENT AT BASELINE
As discussed in chapter 1, the overall goals of the HOPE VI program include “improving
the living environment for residents of severely distressed public housing” by “providing housing
that will avoid or decrease the concentration of very low-income families” (U. S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development 2000). HOPE VI aims to achieve these goals by providing
support to housing authorities to create mixed-income communities which offer aesthetically
pleasing buildings, open recreation spaces, and a rich array of on-site social services. In
addition, for residents who opt not to return to the site, the program offers the opportunity to
move to a better neighborhood with a Housing Choice Voucher (formerly known as Section 8) or
to a different—presumably less distressed—public housing development. HOPE VI requires
residents to make these important choices about relocation early in the revitalization process,
often based on preliminary information about the plans for their development. In particular, they
have no way of knowing when they make their choice whether the housing authority will
ultimately succeed in creating a viable mixed-income community at the HOPE VI site nor how
long it will take to complete the project.
This chapter describes respondents’ outlook for redevelopment at baseline. We begin by
discussing the existing research on relocation. Next, we examine the differences in relocation
plans for each of our five study sites, including the number of residents to be relocated, service
plans, and the status of redevelopment at the baseline. In the following section, we describe
respondents’ preferences for replacement housing, and the factors that drive them to make
different types of choices. Finally, we discuss respondents’ views of the relocation process,
including their concerns about the plans for their development and the relocation options which
face them.
HOPE VI and Relocation
Since 1993, when HOPE VI was first implemented, the program has received mixed
reviews. The program was awarded a Ford Foundation Innovations grant in 2000, and individual
HOPE VI sites have received numerous accolades, largely for encouraging public-private
partnerships, mixed-income residency, and innovative architectural design. 110 However, in
recent years, many observers have raised concerns about relocation and displacement; the
question of what has happened to original residents has become a focus of many media
accounts.111
As discussed in chapter 1, the research on what is happening to original residents is
relatively limited. The Urban Institute’s analysis of HUD administrative data from 73 HOPE VI
sites found that former residents who move with vouchers generally end up in neighborhoods
that are lower poverty than their original developments (Kingsley, Johnson, and Pettit 2000).
However, most of these new neighborhoods are still poor and highly racially segregated.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
8--2
Our retrospective study of housing outcomes for former residents of eight HOPE VI sites
(Buron et al. 2002) suggests a mixed picture for relocatees. As in the national analysis, former
residents were generally living in communities that were lower-poverty than their original
developments, but there was less im provement in racial segregation. The majority of
respondents reported good housing conditions; however, many complained of drug trafficking
and violent crime in their new neighborhoods. Further, there was evidence that residents who
had moved to the private market, with or without housing assistance, were facing new
challenges, particularly unstable housing and difficulty paying rent and utilities. Our research in
Chicago and our qualitative research on MTO participants also suggested that instability was a
problem for original residents who moved to the private market (Popkin and Cunningham 2002;
Popkin, Harris, and Cunningham 2002).
Where residents relocate is affected by a number of variables: effective relocation
services, local housing options, relocatee preferences, private-market constraints for relocatees
searching for housing with vouchers, and trust between relocatees and the housing authority.
While HUD offers a number of “best practices and lessons learned” from existing HOPE VI
projects (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2002), there are few studies that
focus on evaluating relocation programs and identifying what makes relocation effective.
Urban Institute research in Chicago has documented the enormous challenges of
mounting a large-scale relocation effort and tracking outcomes for residents (Popkin and
Cunningham 2002). The issue of effective relocation has been particularly salient in Chicago,
where nearly 20,000 units are being demolished and thousands of families are being relocated
to the private market. Residents may not receive consistent or effective counseling that would
enable them to make informed choices about their relocation options. Further, many residents
have complex problems—including lease compliance—that may make them ineligible for
replacement housing or simply inappropriate for the voucher program.
A recent study of the housing choices of HOPE VI relocatees found that availability of
housing and time constraints were major influences on housing choice (Smith 2002). However,
the study suggested that relocatees often made choices about relocation without having
adequate information about vouchers, HOPE VI move-back criteria, and the availability of
relocation services. Many who did opt for vouchers feared moving to unfamiliar areas. Those
who have tried to find housing often reported encountering discrimination or difficulty in finding
affordable units.
Further, as our research in Chicago and a recent study by the GAO have found, for
many public housing residents, the relocation process is fraught with anxiety (GAO 1998;
Popkin and Cunningham 2000, 2002; Smith 2002). Many residents are suspicious of the
motives behind the relocation effort and fear permanent displacement. By definition, HOPE VI
families are involuntary movers; they are relocating because their homes are being demolished.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
8--3
Where they move—either temporarily or permanently—depends not only on the housing
choices offered, but also on the barriers that constrain their housing options. In many cases,
these options—vouchers, public housing, returning to revitalized HOPE VI sites—have the
potential to provide residents with new opportunities. However, these options can also present
overwhelming challenges for residents unfamiliar with the private market.
Plans for Revitalization and Relocation
As discussed in chapter 2, we conducted site visits to all five study sites in the spring of
2001 to assess the status of plans for revitalization and relocation. We draw on the information
gathered during these visits to provide contextual information to help interpret residents’ choices
about relocation at baseline.
Although some sites had started relocation before we began data collection, all were in
the early phases, and, with the exception of Chicago’s Wells, had high occupancy rates.112 The
Durham Housing Authority planned on starting relocation at Few Gardens in early summer
2001, 113 and the Richmond Housing Authority scheduled relocation for early 2002. The Chicago
Housing Authority had already demolished the Darrow Homes section of the HOPE VI site, so
some residents had been relocated previously 114; relocation in the remaining sections of the site
did not begin until late 2001. In East Capitol, the District of Columbia Housing Authority had
demolished 180 units with a previous HOPE demolition VI grant; relocation in the remaining
sections did not begin until just prior to data collection. The Atlantic City Housing Authority
relocated a few households from Shore Park just prior to data collection.
Revitalization Plans
As figure 8.1 illustrates, there was considerable variation among the study sites in
development size and occupancy prior to revitalization and the number of planned replacement
units. There was also considerable variation in the planned income mix for the new
development. The HOPE VI plans for the two larger sites, Wells and East Capitol, called for
relatively few public housing units to be constructed on the site, with an emphasis on affordable
and market-rate housing. The plans at smaller sites called for enough replacement public
housing units for all of the residents living in the development, although some of this housing
may be located off-site.
As discussed in chapter 2, Chicago’s Wells is the largest site in our study. When Wells
was originally built, the site (including Ida B. Wells Homes, Wells Extension, Madden Park, and
Darrow Homes) comprised more than 3,200 public housing units. By the time of the HOPE VI
award, many of the buildings had been demolished or were entirely vacant. When the
construction and rehabilitation are completed at Wells, an estimated 1,000 units will be available
for original residents, representing a significant reduction in the number of units available for
public housing residents. Likewise, the HOPE VI plan for East Capitol called for construction of
only 196 public housing units, 96 of which are reserved for seniors. Due to the unusually high
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
8--4
occupancy rate in public housing in Washington, D.C., the housing authority expected that most
residents who do not come back to the site will receive vouchers.
Figure 8.1. Revitalization Plans by Site
HOPE VI Site
Shore Park/
Shore
Terrace
Atla
ntic City, NJ
Original units
Wells/Madden
Chica
go, IL
4
30
Occupied units at
baseline
b
3,20
0
3
14
Planned public
housing units c
90
Planned rental
market rate units
A
Planned rental
affordable units d
A
Planned
homeownership
4
1,40
2
1
870
N
1,00
0
N
1,00
0
2
Total planned units
130
2
14
3,00
0
Few Gardens
Durha
m, NC
240
228
160
27
46
115
348
a
Easter Hill
Ric
hmond, CA
2
73
2
43
2
27
4
5
1
39
1
19
5
30
East Capitol
Dwellings/
Capitol Plaza
Washi
ngton, D.C.
821
196
16
592
145
949
949
Notes: NA = not applicable
a. We used data from HUD’s A Picture of Subsidized Housing (APSH 1998) to more accurately portray the number of
original units.
b. Data from APSH 1998 calculated by dividing total number of original units and percent occupied.
c. Includes family and senior public housing.
d. Includes tax credit units.
Shore Park was the smallest development in the sample; however, the site had the
highest occupancy rate. The Atlantic City Housing Authority’s HOPE VI plan called for more
public housing replacement units—although all will be scattered site—than the number of
residents living at the site, thus all original residents will have the option of moving to a new
HOPE VI unit if they meet the screening criteria. The HOPE VI plan for Easter Hill called for
enough replacement housing to adequately house the residents living at the development. In
addition, the plan called for a significant expansion of affordable units available for low- to
moderate-income households. Finally, the revitalized Few Gardens will have enough
replacement public housing and almost one-third of the development’s final unit count will be
homeownership.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
8--5
Relocation Services
HUD requires all HOPE VI sites to submit a relocation plan for approval before beginning
relocation. HUD has developed guidelines for relocation which generally include three stages of
notification: general information notice (to occur during the HOPE VI proposal process); notice
of displacement (immediately following HUD approval of the housing authority’s demolition
schedule); and a 90-day notice prior to actual relocation. HUD requires that relocation “advisory”
or counseling services “must include one or more personal interviews with each household,”
and administration of a survey that would identify each household’s housing choice. HUD also
requires some type of counseling to guide the resident into replacement housing. Finally, the
housing authority must pay related moving expenses, including security deposits (U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development 2000).
Housing authorities are not required to provide specific housing options. They are,
however, required to provide residents who are in good standing with a comparable unit
(Housing Research Foundation 2000). Through our field visits, we found that all of the sites
planned offer similar housing choices during relocation—a voucher, a move to another public
housing development, or a return to the redeveloped site—provided the resident meets the
screening criteria and there is a unit available. At Wells, East Capitol, and Few Gardens some
qualified residents will also have an opportunity to become homeowners at the revitalized site.
At all of the sites except Shore Park, residents who are interested in returning to HOPE VI units
will move temporarily, either with vouchers or to another public housing unit. At Shore Park
demolition will occur in stages and scattered-site units will be constructed simultaneously.
Therefore, some units will be ready for occupancy before others and households that want to
return to the site will move from their old unit to the newly revitalized unit without having to move
temporarily off-site.
Preferences for Relocation
We asked survey respondents about their preferences for relocation—whether they
wanted to return to the revitalized site or leave public housing and move with a voucher. As
figure 8.2 shows, at baseline the majority of respondents in our sample—almost 70 percent—
said they would like to move back to the development after it “is fixed up or rebuilt.”
There are a number of reasons why residents might prefer to come back to the
revitalized HOPE VI site. Residents—particularly those who are older or who have lived in the
development for many years—may want to return because of strong connections to community.
Residents may also want to return to the site because they value the stability public housing
offers, or think the new site is going to offer quality housing and supportive services. Others who
are less motivated or who have mental or physical health problems may want to remain in public
housing because they find the prospect of searching for housing in the private market
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
8--6
overwhelming. Finally, some may be fearful about the challenges of finding—and sustaining—
housing in the private market.
Most respondents who said they wanted to remain in public housing cited financial concerns.
When asked, “What is the main reason you would want to stay in public housing?” almost all
respondents reported “low rent” and “can’t afford to move out” as the main reason why they
would want to stay in public housing.
As figure 8.2 shows, our baseline data indicate that the number of respondents who want to
move back to the revitalized development varies considerably across sites. In Wells, East
Capitol, and Easter Hill, the percentage of respondents who report interest in returning to the
site is about 80 percent. The percentage of respondents interested in returning to the site is
significantly smaller for Shore Park (60 percent) and Few Gardens (40 percent).
Factors Associated with Relocation Preferences
We found that a number of respondent characteristics were highly correlated with preferences for
returning to the HOPE VI site. Households headed by older adults (older than 62 years old) were
more likely to report wanting to return to the site. More specifically, about 17 percent of
respondents who reported wanting to return to the site were elderly heads of household,
compared with only 7 percent of respondents who reported not wanting to return. Further,
households who reported receiving disability benefits were more likely to want to return; 31
percent of respondents who reported wanting to return, compared with 21 percent of respondents
who do not want to return, reported receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Finally,
respondents who were interested in returning to the site also had a higher receipt of disability pay
(figure 8.3).
Not surprisingly, respondents’ perceptions of their housing conditions and neighborhood quality
affected whether or not they were interested in returning to the revitalized site. Respondents who
reported higher levels of satisfaction with their housing conditions were more likely to want to
return to the site. About one-third (33 percent) of respondents who want to return to the site are
very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their housing, while only 15 percent of respondents
who do not want to return reported the same levels of satisfaction (see figure 8.4).
As figure 8.5 shows, on almost all measures of social cohesion, there are statistically significant
differences between respondents who reported wanting to return to the site and respondents who
reported not wanting to return to the site. Further, the longer a resident has lived in public
housing, the more likely they are to want to return. Almost half of respondents who want to
return to the site have been living in public housing for more than five years, compared with only
33 percent of respondents who reported not wanting to return to the site (figure 8.5). These
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
8--7
findings are not surprising. Respondents who get along with their neighbors, feel connected to
the neighborhood, and have been living there a long time are probably also more likely to report
wanting to return.
Finally, respondents who reported feeling safer in the development were more likely to want to
return. Almost all of the respondents (87 percent) who reported wanting to return to the site
reported feeling safe “alone inside your house or apartment at night,” while only 65 percent of
respondents who do not want to return reported feeling safe. Similarly, 63 percent of respondents
interested in returning reported feeling “safe out alone right outside your building,” while only
39 percent of respondents who reported not wanting to return to the site feel as safe (figure 8.6).
Correspondingly, respondents who reported “big problems” or “some problems” with measures
of violence (people being attacked or robbed, rape or other sexual attacks, and shootings and
violence) and measures of social disorder (people selling drugs, people using drugs, groups of
people just hanging out, and gang activity) are less likely to want to return to the development
(figure 8.7).
Even after controlling for respondent characteristics,115 our results indicated that
respondents from Shore Park and Few Gardens were significantly less likely than the
respondents from the other three sites to want to return to the site. In contrast, older adults and
households receiving disability were more likely to want to return. Respondents who felt safer in
the development were more likely to want to return, as were those who reported higher levels of
social cohesion and satisfaction with their current housing.
Our findings are somewhat consistent with Vale’s 1997 116 study of Boston Housing Authority
residents, which found that residents who want to remain in public housing are those who are
long-time residents with strong social attachments to their development, report higher levels of
satisfaction with site management and maintenance, and report less concern about safety and
exposure to violence. However, Vale’s research suggests that the reasons residents are interested
in remaining in public housing are “independent of demographic factors suc h as respondents’
race and ethnicity, level of education, age, or employment status.” In contrast, our results
indicate that disability status and age do affect residents’ preferences. Another recent study of
HOPE VI sites suggests that elderly and disabled residents are more likely to return to new sites
(Buron et al. 2002; Holin et al. 2002).
Perspectives on Relocation Options
Our in-depth interviews help illuminate residents’ reasons for making particular housing
choices. We spoke to respondents about their interest in coming back to the site and about their
outlook for redevelopment. It is clear from our in-depth interviews that many respondents want
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
8--8
to return to the site because they have lived in the neighborhood for their entire lifetime and
cannot imagine living anywhere else. One long-time resident from the Wells development in
Chicago explained her attachment to the neighborhood:
I probably would [like to return to the site], because I grew up in this neighborhood . . . by
me thinking about leaving, it’s kind of sad because everything I already know about this. Well, I
been here since I born so it’s, like, this is my life around here. And that’s just like me saying “I’m
leaving my life, I’m going somewhere new,” like that’s it. If I had a chance, I would come back
over here. [Wells 052A]
Relocation: Few Gardens, Durham, North Carolina
In 1997, Deborah, her husband, and their four sons moved from California to North Carolina.
However, her marriage ended shortly thereafter and she and her sons had no choice but to move into
public housing. Deborah now has five sons: Emmanuel, Elijah, Isaiah, James, and Paul, ages 19, 16,
12, 10, and 2.
Deborah last worked as a janitorial assistant in 1997. She has not worked since then
because she stays at home with her youngest son, Paul. Paul recently had surgery and suffers from
asthma. Deborah’s staying at home has been a financial blow for her family. She has a tough time
making ends meet because her only income is child support payments and food stamps. She relies on
food pantries when she runs out of food near the end of each month. She always pays her rent on time,
but does not have a telephone or cable television.
Deborah says because of the rampant drug dealing and gang activity, Few Gardens is
extremely dangerous. She says there are shootings at least once a week—even more during the
summer. Just two months ago, there was a shooting behind her apartment. “It was scary. I didn’t even
know, I was upstairs cleaning up the room and when I came downstairs he and my son was running in
the house and they said, ‘did you hear them shooting?’ and I said no. They said they was shooting in
the back right here in the back and I was standing right next to the person. That was scary.” Deborah
and her family are cautious even when inside their home. She and her children have to be careful
when watching television in the living room, because the shootings often occur right outside of their
living room window.
Deborah recently received her relocation notice. She and her children will be moving into
Some interview respondents were interested in returning to the site because they were
hopeful that the new site would be substantially better than the current development and they
wanted to reap the benefits a new development would bring. A few respondents hoped that
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
8--9
screening and preventing “bad apples” from returning would mean a safer community. One
woman from Atlantic City’s Shore Park explained her hope that the new management would
weed out problem residents.
And why would that be, to move back to one of the new ones: do you know why?
Because I know the drug dealers won’t be here. And the crack people, they won’t
be here. They know the people they don’t want here. They’re not coming back.
[Shore Park 155A]
The future availability of community services appeals to a few respondents, some of
whom expressed a desire to improve their families’ circumstances. As this man from Easter Hill
said,
They [the Housing Authority] really want to build services also. They really want
to have services for the community, employment training, and programs for kids.
That really would help out. I’m really looking forward to it. [Easter Hill 034A]
One common theme that emerged from our interviews was a very real fear about moving
to unfamiliar neighborhoods. Further, a number of respondents expressed mistrust of the
Housing Choice Voucher program, which was described as “less permanent,” “less flexible,”
and “more expensive” than living in public housing.
Interview respondents cited common misunderstandings about vouchers: vouchers are
only good for a short amount of time and then they expire (typical reports are one year to three
years); and if participants increase their income, they will be terminated from the program. This
woman from Wells was typical:
Q: What do you think of Section 8?
A: I don’t know if it only lasts for three years, I don’t know.
Q: How did you find out it only lasts for three years?
A: Two to four years they tell you. Said I should come back because it should last
for three years. [Wells 111A]
Likewise, this respondent from East Capitol explained why she wanted to remain in
public housing:
I’m going to stay in public housing until I’m able to buy my own. I know for a fact,
they’re fixing to cut Section 8 out completely. They are. I’m nobody’s fool. [East
Capitol 157A]
Further, there is widespread misunderstanding of the voucher program regulations and
requirements among public housing residents. This woman from Shore Park described her
understanding of the program this way:
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
8--10
They’ve told us about [how] HOPE VI is positive for us. I’m pretty sure there’s
some kinks in there somewhere. With public housing, they don’t have a ceiling
rent as far as how much you can pay to live here . . . but if I make a dollar more
than the income guidelines, they won’t kick you out. You know, I may not be able
to afford the market rate of $800 a month plus utilities . . . at this age things
change and I feel more secure trying to stick with something that gives me a little
more security. [Shore Park 078A]
Some of respondents’ concerns about vouchers are more grounded in reality—the
voucher program does require participants to deal with the realities of the private market, which
means findings units, negotiating relationships with landlords, and managing utility payments.
This Shore Park resident described her view of the challenges:
Vouchers, you have to have a landlord that’s willing to accept it . . . the other
thing is even though a landlord accepts it, they don’t have to continue after your
term or whatever. I don’t like any of that. They last for . . . I don’t know if it’s
indefinitely, but I know that they’re talking about them in a limited fashion. I want
something I feel I have more control over. . . . I have my lease for a year, and
then okay, now it’s up to the landlord. Even if I kept my unit up . . . it’s still up to
him. He might change his mind. [Shore Park 110A]
It is not uncommon for public housing residents to avoid the voucher program because
they believe landlords will not accept them:
A lot of people don’t want to rent to people with Section 8. That’s the only
concern that I’m kinda skeptical of. [Easter Hill 084A]
Other respondents cited their belief that vouchers are less stable than public housing.
For example, this woman from Easter Hill said,
Landlord come and say they want their place back, they want their house to sell it
and you have to move and you’re constantly moving and I don’t want that either. I
would rather have something permanent. [Easter Hill 007A]
Moving Away from the Site
As indicated above, some respondents, especially in Few Gardens and Shore Park, had
no interest in returning to the new site. Residents who prefer not to return typically have two
options: move to another public housing development or use a voucher. Our survey did not
specifically ask respondents which of these options they would prefer, but the in-depth
interviews indicate that most respondents who prefer not to return would like to receive a
voucher. Their comments indicated that most viewed the housing authority’s other
developments as little different from their current situation.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
8--11
We asked survey respondents to explain their reasons for not wanting to return to the new site.
As figure 8.2 indicates, wanting improved housing conditions or a safer neighborhood are the
most common reasons respondents cited for wanting to move out of public housing. Overall,
approximately 21 percent reported they wanted to move out of public housing to “find a bigger
and better apartment,” and about the same proportion said they wanted to leave public housing
“to get away from drugs and gangs.” Other reasons cited for wanting to move out of public
housing included moving to a better environment, homeownership, and finding better schools for
their children. Studies with other public housing residents who are moving from public
housing—for example, MTO familiesalso find that safety is often the main reason why
residents would like to move from public housing (Goering et al. 1999).
The in-depth interviews also reflected the key importance of safety. A few of the children
we interviewed said that they wanted to move away from their developments because of the
pervasive crime and drug trafficking. One boy from Few Gardens in Durham described his
vision of an ideal neighborhood:
They have a place where you can ride dirt bikes and stuff . . . don’t have to worry
about shooting and drugs and stuff. [Few Gardens 184C]
Likewise, this girl from Wells said she wanted to move to the suburbs to get away from
shootings in her public housing neighborhood:
A: I want to move . . . they shoot too much.
Q: Where do you want to move?
A: The suburbs . . . ’cause it’s far down and I don’t think they shoot. [Wells 157C]
Most survey respondents who say they are interested in moving say they want to remain
in the same city. Almost half (42 percent) want to live “somewhere else in the neighborhood,”
and another 39 percent want to move to another neighborhood in the same city. Only a small
proportion (10 percent) say they want to move to “a neighborhood in the suburbs” (see figure
8.3).
Our in-depth interview data highlight the reasons why these respondents prefer to
remain in the same area. Access to transportation is an issue for many of the HOPE VI families
(only 30 percent of our survey respondents have access to a car that runs), and many interview
respondents talked about the convenience of shopping, churches, and access to public
transportation in their current community. Other respondents said they want to remain close to
their family. Recent research studies conducted on MTO families have shown similar
resultspublic housing residents report a strong connection to the neighborhood because of
existing support systems and social networks (Popkin et al. 2002). Staying close to social
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
8--12
networks may be particularly important for the large number of older adults in the HOPE VI
Panel Study sample.
Respondents from several sites—notably Shore Park in Atlantic City and Wells in
Chicagoexpressed clear disdain for the suburbs. Some said that they believed they are being
“pushed out” of their current communities so that the “white people can move back to the city.”
Again, rumors about Housing Choice Vouchers and relocation were a common theme. Shore
Park residents may have been particularly sensitive because of the very visible casino
development in their area, while Wells residents’ views likely reflect suspicion about the massive
transformation of public housing in Chicago (Popkin and Cunningham 2002; Popkin,
Cunningham, and Godfrey 2001).
One respondent from Shore Park explained that she did not want to move to the suburbs
because of lack of transportation and potential isolation. She also was clearly suspicious of the
motives behind the HOPE VI revitalization:
They take us around and help us find them [apartments]. . . . I know where
they’re trying to put us. They want everybody going to the suburbs. You go out
there and you ain’t got a car, you stranded. I know a girl right now, she trying to
move back this way. She says in the suburb she ain’t got no way to get around.
She’s out in the boondocks somewhere. I’m not going out there. Why do you
think they are trying to get people out to the suburbs? Because they want this
place. [Shore Park 016A]
This child from Shore Park directly referred to the ongoing casino development:
A: Tearing down houses just for a casino is bad.
Q: They are tearing down the houses for casinos?
A: Yes . . . they are taking someone’s home away. That’s like stealing someone’s
money. [Shore Park 078C]
This Wells resident was even more explicit about her suspicions:
I think they [white people] want this place. And when they build these things, I bet
you doctors are gonna move in. [Wells 052A]
There were, however, a few respondents who said that they wanted to move far away
from the original site and saw the redevelopment as an opportunity:
I would love to move to the suburbs because that’s where my kids were brought
up and raised. Right now, If you get a Section 8 in D.C. you have to look for a
place in D.C. and there are a lot of nice homes in D.C.. But I’ll stay in D.C. for a
year and then move to the suburbs. [East Capitol 183A]
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
8--13
Concerns about Redevelopment
Our in-depth interviews reflected a great deal of confusion about the HOPE VI revitalization
efforts, and mistrust of the housing authorities’ motivations. Some respondents expressed
excitement about HOPE VI, but many expressed concern about whether they would be allowed
to return to the new site. This woman from Shore Park questioned the sincerity of promises to
return to the site:
At one of the meetings, they said that there was a hundred and something houses, and
there’s a hundred and something tenants, and there’s enough for each person to get a house
and still some left over. They’ve already built some of the houses, but none of the tenants
moved in any of them. [Shore Park 155A]
This woman from East Capitol was skeptical about the promises she had heard from the
housing authority:
They showed us plans on how this property is going to be turned over to a better
place. I’m hoping that what they’re saying if you want to come back that you are
able to. You know things change over the years, so I’m just watching to see if this
is a reality to me. [East Capitol 069A]
Likewise, this woman from Easter Hill said she was suspicious about HOPE VI because
of her experience with the Richmond Housing Authority’s long history of broken promises:
I’ve been hearing so much for so long. I’ve been up here since ’84, so I mean
you go to the meeting, you go to the tenant meetings, and they promise you they
going to do this, and they promise you they gonna do that. For years I’ve been
hearing they going to do this. [Easter Hill 116A]
Further, respondents frequently were confused about their housing options. Generally,
respondents appeared to know at least something about plans for HOPE VI in their
development, but the depth of their understanding was unclear. We asked both survey and
interview respondents about their knowledge about the HOPE VI plans for their site.
Specifically, we asked, “How did you find out about HOPE VI or plans to rebuild or fix up your
development?” Almost half of all survey respondents (42 percent) said they learned about the
plans for their development from a meeting with officials; approximately 17 percent found out
through the site manager at the development; and 10 percent found out through a friend or
family.
The in-depth interviews, however, indicated that while residents were familiar with HOPE
VI, many respondents were confused about their housing options. This confusion may
undermine their ability to make good decisions about relocation. This woman from Few Gardens
said she really “didn’t know much” about the plans for her development::
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
8--14
I really don’t know too much about the plans or what they’re doing. Like I said, um, I’m
confused. I don’t know what’s going to happen. Hopefully, we’re not gonna just be thrown
anywhere and things like that. But from what I hear, they are building nice homes for us to move
into. . . . So right now I don’t know what’s going on. And I haven’t been attending any other
meetings. I started going in the beginning, but I haven’t been to any recently. [Few Gardens
044A]
Poorly Informed about Relocation: East Capitol Dwellings, Washington, D.C.
Tracy, a single mother with four children ages 14, 10, 8, and 4, has lived in East
Capitol Dwellings for nearly 10 years. Tracy originally lived on the other side of the development,
but she had to move about a year and a half ago when her building was demolished during an earlier
phase of redevelopment. Tracy says the housing authority offered her family three choices: another
unit in East Capitol, also slated for eventual demolition; a Section 8 voucher; or a unit in another
public housing development. Tracy opted to stay in East Capitol, both because it was familiar and
because there was a four-bedroom unit available.
Tracy’s current unit has multiple maintenance problems. The unusual unit configuration
means that the kitchen is on the second floor; an underground drain pipe to the washing machine
burst, causing the first floor to flood. Tracy says her unit continues to have flooding problems
because the housing authority only temporarily patched the problem instead of fixing it. In addition
to the flooding, her steps have split in the middle. Instead of fixing the steps, the housing authority
covered the splits with plywood, which makes them uneven and causes her children to trip. The
ceiling in her daughter’s bedroom leaks. She also says the unit is poorly insulated, leaving her
family cold in the winter. “My windows are not even. In the wintertime, the air comes in. There’s no
insulation whatsoever in this house.” Moreover, it is hard to keep flies out of her apartment because
her windows and back door have no screens.
Tracy is a drug addict who has not worked for a number of years. Her drug addiction, steady
unemployment, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) sanctions have meant that
she and her family struggle to get by, often relying on food bank donations and church giveaways. A
year ago, Tracy’s 22-year-old son was shot and killed in another of the District’s public housing
developments. Her oldest daughter, Lea, spends most of her time with her father, who lives in
Maryland, both because of Tracy’s drug habit and because of the dangers in the neighborhood.
Tracy is not concerned about where she and her family will end up after East Capitol is
demolished. She is not well-informed about the housing authority’s redevelopment efforts and does
not understand what her housing choices are. Tracy simply believes someone will look out for her
and her family by making the decision for them.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
8--15
This woman from Shore Park said she thought the housing authority officials did not
know any more than the residents:
But, you know, when you ask questions, I don’t think sometimes, they know any
more than I know. To be honest. And HUD turning everything over to HOPE VI,
and I guess HOPE VI will be making new restrictions, and rules and regulations.
[Shore Park 161A]
A few survey respondents across the sites indicated that they had just heard about
HOPE VI from the survey interviewer. However, the proportion of Wells respondents who
indicated that they knew nothing about plans for their development prior to the interview was
striking—nearly a quarter (24 percent) said that they learned about the plans from the
interviewer. Only a few respondents from other sites said they had learned about HOPE VI from
the interviewer. This woman from Wells described how she how learned about HOPE VI from a
survey interviewer.
I found out about HOPE VI, a woman knocked on my door and she was doing a survey and she
was . . . asking me questions about the development and how I like it and she explained to me that’s how I
basically knew until the first time she came to my house, I was not familiar with it at all. [Wells 157A]
It is unclear if Wells respondents’ confusion was caused by the Chicago Housing
Authority’s failure to communicate effectively or if some residents had become disengaged from
the process. Residents in Chicago are particularly troubled—most are unemployed, long-term
residents, with extremely low incomes and low education levels.
Summary
§
A majority of residents are interested in returning to the site. At baseline, the
majority of respondents (70 percent) said they were interested in returning to the new
site after revitalization was complete. However, there was considerable variation across
sites.
§
Those who prefer to leave generally say they want improved housing quality or a
safer neighborhood.
§
Residents who have been living in the development longer, are receiving disability
benefits, and are older are more likely to want to return to the new site. Further,
residents who reported higher levels of housing satisfaction, higher levels of social
cohesion, and lower levels of exposure to violence are more likely to want to return.
§
Most respondents would like to move (either temporarily or permanently) to a
neighborhood within city limits; only a small percentage would like to move to the
suburbs.
§
Confusion, suspicion, and mistrust of the housing authorities appear to be major
relocation challenges at all sites.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
§
8--16
A surprising number of respondents in two sites appeared to be very poorly
informed about the plans for their developments. Respondents at the other sites said
that they had received information from the housing authority.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
9--1
CHAPTER 9: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Over the next four years, the HOPE VI Panel Study will address the question of how the
transformation of public housing affects the lives of original residents from five HOPE VI
developments. The study will track a variety of outcomes for these households, including
housing (type and quality); neighborhood; quality of life; employment; mental and physical
health for adults and children; and education and behavioral outcomes for children. The
Baseline Report provides a detailed picture of the living conditions and well-being of these
residents in mid-2001, just prior to the beginning of revitalization activities at these sites. The
report is based on surveys with 887 residents, which included questions about the head of
household and up to two focal children (one under age 6 and one between the ages of 6 and
14). In addition, it draws on in-depth interviews with 39 parent-child dyads from across the sites
and information gathered from site visits and review of administrative data.
In this final chapter, we present the key findings from this baseline research and discuss
the important questions for the follow-up waves of the study. In addition, we highlight new areas
for research suggested by our baseline findings. Finally, we examine the short-term lessons
from these baseline findings for the HOPE VI program.
Summary of Major Findings
In this section, we summarize the findings from the baseline data collection, focusing on
the key study domains: housing and neighborhood conditions; children’s education and
behavior; employment and overall economic status; and physical and mental health. We also
discuss the potential positive and negative effects on residents’ well-being as a result of
relocation and revitalization. Finally, we describe the respondents’ outlook for relocation,
including their initial choices for replacement housing and their concerns about the
redevelopment process.
Physical Environment
Our findings on housing and neighborhood conditions provide a context for the
employment, education, and health findings at baseline, just prior to the start of relocation at
these five sites.
Housing
HOPE VI targets the worst public housing in the nation, developments that have major,
systemic problems that cannot be addressed through standard rehabilitation efforts. Not
surprisingly, all five of the developments in our sample were severely distressed according to
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
9--2
both U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administrative data and
resident reports.
§
A large percentage of our respondents reported multiple problems with the condition
of their housing. About one-third reported two or three housing problems (e.g.,
peeling paint, water leaks), and one in five reported more than three problems.
§
Despite these poor conditions, more than two-thirds of HOPE VI respondents
reported that they were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their housing. Older
adults were more satisfied with their housing than younger adults.
The physical conditions in these five developments were bad enough at baseline to
potentially put residents’ health at risk. Indeed, reported conditions were so poor—substantially
worse than for other poor renters—that it would be surprising if these residents did not
experience at least some improvement in their housing units as a result of relocation. Our
preliminary, retrospective study of eight HOPE VI sites suggests that we should expect some
overall improvement; the majority of former residents we were able to locate were living in
adequate housing (Buron et al. 2002). Still, former residents who were living in the private
market—either with vouchers or without assistance—tended to report more housing problems
than those in public housing developments. HUD has increased its emphasis on relocation
services over time; improved counseling may mean that the respondents in our sample
experience better results that those who moved during earlier phases of the program.
A major limitation of the retrospective study was the fact that we were less likely to be
able to contact residents who had left assisted housing, and thus may have missed those who
were experiencing the most problems. In particular, we likely did not locate households who had
become homeless or were doubled up with other families. The HOPE VI Panel Study will track
the full population of these five sites over time, and provide a more comprehensive picture of
housing outcomes for HOPE VI families.
Neighborhood
HOPE VI developments are typically located in extremely poor, segregated, high-crime
neighborhoods. The communities surrounding the five study sites fit this profile; all are located
in high-poverty, predominantly minority neighborhoods. These five communities lack adequate
public services and have serious problems with crime.
§
Residents report that there are few retail stores in their neighborhoods; those that
exist are small and expensive. However, they report convenient access to public
transportation.
§
Overall, about three-fourths of the HOPE VI Panel Study respondents report extreme
problems with drug trafficking and criminal activity in their communities.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
9--3
§
The majority (two-thirds) of respondents report major problems with shootings and
violence in their neighborhoods.
§
Surprisingly, across the sites, older adults (age 62 and older) in our sample are less
likely to report problems with crime and report feeling safer than the younger
respondents.
§
Respondents report low levels of collective efficacy, a factor associated with
neighborhood safety, in their communities. Collective efficacy consists of social
control (i.e., willingness of neighbors to intervene if children are misbehaving) and
social cohesion (i.e., neighbors trust and feel connected to each other) in their
neighborhoods. Fewer than half report having friends in their community.
Over time, the goals of the HOPE VI program have expanded to include contributing to
the improvement of the surrounding neighborhood, in recognition of the fact that neighborhood
conditions affect the success of any revitalization effort. If these efforts succeed, residents who
return to the revitalized development will be moving to a safer, healthier community. Those who
receive vouchers will also likely end up in neighborhoods that are at least somewhat less poor
than their current public housing developments. If these residents do move to better—or
revitalized—neighborhoods, they may experience a range of benefits. Even a modest reduction
in poverty could mean a noticeable reduction in exposure to crime and disorder, which could
reduce their stress and improve overall well-being, educational outcomes for children, and labor
market participation. However, it is also possible that former residents who move to other highpoverty communities may end up little better-off than they were at baseline. Effective relocation
counseling could help these residents to choose housing in areas that would offer them—and
their children—greater opportunities.
Adult Physical and Mental Health
The HOPE VI families in the sample live in extremely distressed environments that pose
many threats to their health and well-being. Our results indicate that poor health is a major
problem for the households in our sample, with many experiencing multiple chronic problems.
§
Adult respondents report dramatically lower overall health status than national
averages. Further, more than one-third of adult respondents report having a chronic
illness or health condition such as high blood pressure, diabetes, or arthritis.
§
Asthma is a serious problem for the respondents in our sample. More than one in
five adults has been diagnosed with asthma.
§
Poor mental health among adults is a widespread problem. Nearly one-third of our
respondents (29 percent) reported poor mental health, a level that is almost 50
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
9--4
percent higher than the national average. Further, nearly one in six adult
respondents has experienced a major depressive episode within the past 12 months.
§
Our findings suggest special concerns for the older adults in the HOPE VI Panel
Study. The majority report poor health, much worse than national averages for those
over age 62.
The relocation and revitalization brought about by HOPE VI has the potential to
dramatically affect residents’ health and overall well-being. A reduction in exposure to health
hazards could mean reduced incidence of asthma and fewer injuries. Even a modest reduction
in poverty concentration may mean a noticeable reduction in exposure to crime and disorder,
which could reduce stress, improve general well-being, and reduce the incidence of depression.
If residents move to areas that offer greater opportunity for themselves and their children—or
receive services that help them become self-sufficient—they may also experience
improvements in mental health.
On the other hand, those current residents who are in frail health may have difficulty
coping with the stresses of relocation. Housing authorities must think creatively about how to
provide services to these residents that will help support them during relocation. Further, not all
original residents will end up in better neighborhoods. Some will move to other public housing
and others to private-market housing, some of which may be in equally poor neighborhoods. At
the extreme, those who lose their assistance for whatever reason—stricter lease enforcement or
“one-strike” rules—may end up homeless or in substandard housing.
Children
HOPE VI is affecting the lives of tens of thousands of children who live in these
distressed public housing developments. Because of the large numbers of children affected by
HOPE VI, children are a special focus of this study. At baseline, our findings suggest that these
children are starting from extreme disadvantage, with many already behind academically and
others already experiencing behavioral and emotional problems.
§
The children in the HOPE VI Panel Study sample attend schools that are
extraordinarily segregated, both racially and economically. School test scores
indicate that many of these schools are more troubled than other schools in the
same district and substantially worse-off than other schools in the same state.
§
Fewer than half of the respondents in our sample view school quality in their
neighborhood as a big problem. Still, across the sites, parents describe poor
teachers and chaotic school environments; children complain about problems with
fights, gang activity, and shootings.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
9--5
§
Although in-depth interview respondents generally report that their children are doing
well in school, a substantial proportion of the children appear to be experiencing
serious problems. Still, some children—even those from the worst developments—
seem to be remarkably resilient, doing well and enjoying school.
§
HOPE VI children are highly mobile, despite the potential stability of living in public
housing. Across the sites, one in five children has already attended three or more
schools; at some sites, the figures are even higher.
§
Many very young children (under age 6) have already been placed in special
education—one in ten is reportedly already receiving services. The proportion of
older children (ages 6 to 14) who are in special education classes is considerably
higher: one in four is in special education for learning problems and one in ten is in
classes for behavior problems.
§
Like the adults in the sample, children in the HOPE VI Panel Study are in worse
health than other children their age: their parents report substantially lower health
ratings than for children in national samples. Asthma is a serious problem: one in five
children between ages of 6 and 14 has been diagnosed with asthma; the figure for
the younger children (under age 6) is one in four, more than three times the national
average.
§
Parental reports about children’s behavior suggest that mental health is also an issue
for the children in our sample. About two-thirds of the older children have one or
more reported behavior problems, and about half have two or more. Further, a
quarter of the older children have been suspended or expelled from school.
HOPE VI may benefit these children if they end up living in better housing in safer
neighborhoods that offer more opportunities for them and their parents. However, if they end up
in neighborhoods that are little different than their current public housing developments, or lose
the stability of assisted housing, these children may continue to fall behind. If HOPE VI families
do end up in higher-income neighborhoods, they may gain access to better schools that offer
students more resources. Children’s school performance may improve as a result of the overall
improvement in their environment. Specifically, children who feel safe in their physical
environments are more likely to flourish academically and personally. The safer environment
may also lead to changes in parenting behavior—or improved parental mental health—that
could lead to better outcomes for children from HOPE VI families. Changes in peer groups,
positive influences from adult neighbors, greater community resources, and greater
neighborhood safety may all act to increase involvement in positive activities and decrease the
likelihood that youth will engage in risky behavior.
However, even if the HOPE VI children do end up in somewhat better neighborhoods,
evidence suggests that growing up in persistent poverty creates deficits that are very difficult to
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
9--6
overcome. Further, HOPE VI movers are involuntary movers by definition—even if they are not
unhappy about moving, they are leaving their homes because their developments are being
demolished. They may not experience the same kinds of benefits as the MTO families who
moved voluntarily. Supportive services aimed at enhancing parenting skills and services such
as tutoring programs and quality child care programs might also help these children overcome
their deficits.
Economic Status
Promoting self-sufficiency and increasing residents’ economic status is one of the central
goals of the HOPE VI program. Our findings at baseline suggest that achieving complete selfsufficiency may be unrealistic for the substantial proportion of residents who have serious health
concerns or complex family situations.
§
Fewer than half of the respondents in the HOPE VI Panel Study sample were
employed at baseline; however, most have had at least some employment
experience in the past.
§
Health problems and lack of adequate child care were major barriers to employment
for many respondents in our sample.
§
Overall, 95 percent of employed working-age residents reported earning an hourly
rate above the federal minimum wage.
§
Less than half of working-age respondents reported receiving Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) benefits; however, another quarter reported receiving
Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
§
Levels of reported material hardship were high: about half of the respondents
reported worrying about running out of food.
If these former residents move to lower-poverty neighborhoods with greater opportunity,
their overall levels of labor force participation may increase. Further, improvements in safety
may lead more of these residents to seek employment. Given that most of employed
respondents said they found their jobs through social networks, friendships with new neighbors
may gain them access to improved employment opportunities.
However, some proportion of our sample seems unlikely to experience any changes in
employment or overall economic status. Long-term welfare recipients and respondents who
have not been in the labor force for a year or longer are likely to have a very difficult time
achieving self-sufficiency. Even more important, a substantial proportion of working-age
respondents have health problems that are severe enough to keep them out of the labor force.
Housing authorities should consider that supportive service packages that only emphasize selfsufficiency will not meet the needs of these residents.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
9--7
Housing Choice and Outlook for Relocation
At baseline, the majority of respondents say that they would like to return to the
revitalized development. Those who prefer to leave permanently generally say they want
improved housing quality or a safer neighborhood.
§
Residents who have been living in the development longer, are receiving disability
benefits, and are older are more likely to say they want to return to the new site than
other residents.
§
Most respondents would like to move (either temporarily or permanently) to a
neighborhood within city limits; only a small percentage would like to move to the
suburbs.
§
Confusion, suspicion, and mistrust of the housing authorities appear to be major
relocation challenges at all sites.
§
A surprising number of respondents in two sites appeared to be very poorly informed
about the plans for their developments. Respondents at the other three sites
indicated that they had received adequate information from the housing authority.
New Areas for Research
In addition to highlighting the issues in each of the study domains that will be important
to track over time, our baseline results suggest three areas for special investigation in
subsequent waves of the study: issues for older adults, physical and mental health, and the
factors that are related to resiliency.
Older Adults
One of the surprising findings from the baseline study is the unexpectedly high number
of older adults who live in these five family developments—nearly a quarter of the sample is age
50 or older; 12 percent are 62 years old or older. Our findings indicate that these older adults
may face special challenges because of their poor health—many of both the elderly and middleaged respondents in the HOPE VI Panel Study sample are in worse health than elderly adults in
the general population.
These residents may be at risk for suffering health problems due to relocation and may
require special assistance in moving. In addition to creating stress, relocation may disrupt their
networks of social support. Further, many of these older respondents, even those who are very
frail, are assisting younger family members: about one-fourth of the households headed by older
adults have children under 18 in them, and in 13 percent of these households, the respondent is
the only adult in the household. In cases where the older adult has sole responsibility for young
children, the household may end up in family housing that does not offer services for the aged.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
9--8
A surprising finding from our baseline study is that the older adults are less likely to
report problems with crime in their communities and report feeling safer than younger residents.
Generally, older adults are thought to be more fearful of crime, even though they are also less
likely to be victimized than younger adults. However, in the extremely high-crime communities
where these respondents live, older adults may have a special status that offers them a
measure of protection from the violence around them.
Together, these findings suggest a special focus on older adults in subsequent waves of
the study. Certainly, to gain a better understanding of the needs of these respondents, we
should use a more detailed and comprehensive measure of health status, and a measure that
assesses ability to carry out activities of daily living. We may also want to qualitatively explore
the role of grandparents, particularly custodial grandparents, in the HOPE VI Panel Study
households. Finally, our results on perceptions of crime and safety suggest a need for
qualitative work that explores the role that older adults have in distressed communities and their
ties to support systems that may be disrupted by relocation and revitalization.
Physical and Mental Health
Health issues were even more important in the HOPE VI Panel Study baseline than we
had anticipated. Both adults and children were in poor health overall. In addition, many of our
respondents suffer from multiple chronic conditions that require ongoing care and create
significant barriers to employment.
These findings about health suggest the need for more detailed and comprehensive
measures of health status for all respondents—adults and children. Given that even many
middle-aged adults in our sample appear to be very debilitated, we should use a measure that
assesses ability to carry out activities of daily living for all adults, not just those over age 62. We
should also include a better measure of disability. Further, our findings on mental health for
adults and children suggest that we should consider adding measures of substance abuse for
adults and broader mental health measures for children. Finally, we should explore the
relationship between physical and mental health problems and ability to make a successful
transition out of public housing.
Resiliency
At baseline, our respondents live in substandard housing in poor, dangerous
communities. Although the levels of reported problems are very high, the fact that many have
serious problems with physical and mental health and that many are unemployed is not
unexpected. Nor was it unexpected that we would find that children were having difficulty in
school and that a substantial proportion would have behavior problems. More surprising is the
fact that we found evidence of remarkable resiliency, especially in our qualitative interviews with
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
9--9
adults and children. Some families seemed to cope amazingly well with the challenges they
faced. Some children were clearly thriving, happy and doing well in school, even as they spoke
about their fears of the dangers that surrounded them. Researchers understand a great deal
about what causes poor outcomes for children. However, we know less about why others in the
same circumstances manage to thrive. This question of resiliency seems particularly suited to
qualitative analysis and should be a focus of subsequent rounds of interviews for this study. It
may also be an issue we can explore quantitatively by looking at the factors (e.g., physical and
mental health status, parental employment) associated with children’s educational achievement.
Lessons from the HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline
These baseline findings offer some short-term lessons for the HOPE VI program,
particularly for the supportive services that are offered to residents as part of the relocation and
the revitalization initiative.
§
Service programs that emphasize self-sufficiency will not meet the special
needs that many residents have. As discussed above, many residents have
serious health problems and are so disabled that they are essentially out of the
workforce. Supportive service packages that only emphasize self-sufficiency will not
meet the needs of these residents. Housing authorities should ensure that their
supportive service packages include a broad range of programs that can meet the
needs of their resident population.
§
Health should be a focus of any supportive service package. Many residents
have serious, complex health problems that require ongoing management. However,
residents are unlikely to have access to the kind of care that might help control their
problems over the long run. Further, because of the widespread prevalence of health
problems, health services might be a way to attract residents to supportive service
programs that address a broader range of social service needs, for example,
substance abuse and domestic violence. One pilot program in Chicago has already
found that offering eye exams and free glasses was a way to get even very troubled
residents to come to a service center.117 Housing authorities should consider making
these types of public health initiatives part of their community supportive service
plans.
§
Housing authorities and service planners need to pay attention to the needs of
older adults. There are a surprising number of older adults living in some of the
developments in our sample. These residents have different needs and may require
specialized relocation services to minimize the stress and disruption they may
experience as a result of relocation. Housing authorities should pay special attention
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
9--10
to the needs of multi-generation households, especially those where the older adult
is responsible for the care of children under 18.
§
Relocation plans should try to minimize disruption for school children.
Frequent school changes, especially mid-year, can cause children to experience
serious academic delays. The children in the HOPE VI sample are already highly
mobile, with many having already changed schools more than three times. Housing
authorities should take care to minimize further disruption, for example, ensuring that
relocation is complete before the beginning of the school year.
§
Housing authorities should make sure that residents have adequate
information to make informed choices about relocation. Our findings indicate
that residents are often confused about their housing choices and have little
understanding of requirements for returning to the revitalized site. Indeed, some
residents appear to have almost no information about the HOPE VI initiative at their
site, and even those that are aware of the plans for their developments are often very
suspicious and mistrustful. Relocation is inherently stressful; housing authorities
should make every effort to ensure that residents truly understand their choices. In
particular, criteria for returning to the revitalized site should be clear before residents
have to make decisions about replacement housing.
Next Steps
This baseline study has provided the groundwork for a longitudinal exploration of how
the lives of original residents of HOPE VI developments change after relocation. The HOPE VI
Panel Study will track this sample of residents over a four-year period, conducting rounds of
data collection at two-year intervals. The first follow-up wave will occur in spring 2003, with the
final wave to occur in 2005.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
REFERENCES
Abt Associates. 1998. Development and Implementation of Educational Strategies and
Interventions for Controlling Asthma in Inner-City Populations. Report prepared by Abt
Associates for National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Bethesda: National Institutes of
Health.
American Lung Association. 2000. “Minority Lung Disease Data 2000.”
http://www.lungusa.org/pub/minority/asthma_00.html. (Accessed March 15, 2002.)
Allen, Katherine and Maria Kirby. 2000. Unfinished Business; Why Cities Matter to Welfare
Reform. The Brookings Institution Survey Series. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings
Institution.
Aneshensel, C.S. 1992. "Social Stress: Theory and Research." Annual Review of Sociology
18:15-38.
Bandura, Albert. 1982 ”Self-Efficacy in Human Agency.” American Psychologist, 37: 122–47.
Bandura, Albert. 1982. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.
Bliss, Steven and James Riccio. 2001. Promoting Employment in Public Housing
Communities: Learning from the Jobs-Plus Demonstration. Manpower Demonstration
Research Corporation Policy Brief. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation.
Bos, Hans, Aletha Huston, Robert Granger, Greg Duncan, Tom Brock, and Vonnie McLoyd,
with Danielle Crosby, Christina Gibson, Veronica Fellerath, Katherine Magnuson,
Rashmita Mistry, Susan Poglinco, Jennifer Romich, and Ana Ventura. 1999. New Hope
for People with Low Income: Two Year Results of a Program to Reduce Poverty and
Reform Welfare. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Bowly, D. 1978. The Poorhouse: Subsidized Housing in Chicago 1895-1976. Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Briggs, Xavier de Souza. 1997. “Moving Up Versus Moving Out: Neighborhood Effects,
Housing Mobility Programs.” Housing Policy Debate, 8(1): 195–234.
Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne, and Greg J. Duncan. 1997. “The Effects of Poverty on Children.” The
Future of Children: Children and Poverty, 7(2): 55–71.
Brophy, Paul C., and Rhonda N. Smith. 1997. “Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success.”
Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 3(2): 3–31.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Buron, Larry, Susan Popkin, Diane Levy, Laura Harris, and Jill Khadurri. 2002. The HOPE VI
Resident Tracking Study: A Snapshot of the Current Living Situation of Original
Residents from Eight Sites. Report prepared by Abt Associates, Inc. and the Urban
Institute for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington, D.C.:
The Urban Institute.
Centers for Disease Control. 2002. “Asthma’s Impact on Children and Adolescents.”
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/airpollution/asthma/children.htm. (Accessed February 20,
2002.)
Chase-Lansdale, Rebekah Levine Coley, Brenda J. Lohman, and Laura D. Pittman. 2002.
“Welfare Reform: W hat about the Children?” Welfare, Children and Families: A ThreeCity Study Policy Brief. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
Chicago Housing Authority. 2001. Plan for Transformation Year 3. Moving To Work (MTW).
Draft Annual Plan FY2002.
Cook, Philip J., and Kristin A. Goss. 1996. A Selective Review of the Social-Contagion
Literature. Durham: Sanford Institute for Public Policy Studies, Duke University.
Cunningham, Mary K., David J. Sylvester, and Margery A. Turner. 2000. “Section 8 Families in
the Washington Region: Neighborhood Choices and Constraints.” A Report for the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
Del Conte, Alessandra, and Jeffrey Kling. 2001. “Synthesis of MTO Research on SelfSufficiency, Safety and Health, and Behavior and Delinquency.” Poverty Research
News, 5.
Ehrle, Jennifer, and Kristen Anderson Moore. 1999. 1997 NSAF Benchmarking Measures of
Child and Family Well-Being. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Assessing the
New Federalism NSAF Report No. 6.
Ellen, Ingrid G., Tod Mijanovich, and Keri-Nicole Dillman. 2001. “Neighborhood Effects on
Health: Exploring the Links and Assessing the Evidence.” Journal of Urban Affairs, 23
(3–4): 391–408.
Fitzpatrick, Kevin M., and Mark LaGory. 2000. Unhealthy Places: The Ecology of Risk in the
Urban Landscape. New York: Routledge.
Fosburg, Linda, Susan Popkin, and Gretchen Locke. 1996. A Historical and Baseline
Assessment of HOPE VI: Volume I Cross-site Report. Prepared for U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Garbarino, James, Kathleen Kostelny, and Nancy Dubrow. 1991. No Place to Be a Child:
Growing Up in a War Zone. Lexington: Lexington Books.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Geronimus, A. T. 1992. “The Weathering Hypothesis and the Health of African-American
Women and Infants.” Ethnicity and Disease. 2:207–21.
Giovino, G.A., M.W. Schooley, and B.P. Zhu. 1994. “Surveillance for Selected Tobacco Use
Behaviors—United States, 1900–1994.” MMWR CDC Surveillance Summary 43: 1–43.
Goering, John, Joan Kraft, Judith Feins, Debra McInnis, Mary Joel Holin, and Huda Elhassan.
1999. Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration Program: Current Status
and Initial Findings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Goetz, Edward G. 2002. “Forced Relocation vs. Voluntary Mobility: The Effects of Dispersal
Programs on Households.” Housing Studies: 17(1): 107–23.
Government Accounting Office. 1998. HOPE VI: Progress and Problems in Revitalizing
Distressed Public Housing. Washington, D.C.: Government Accounting Office.
Hartman, Chester. 2002. “High Classroom Turnover: How Children Get Left Behind.” In
Rights at Risk: Equality in an Age of Terrorism, edited by Dianne M. Piche, William L.
Taylor, and Robin A. Reed. Washington, D.C.: Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights.
Hanratty Maria, Sara McLannahan, and Becky Petit. 1998. The Impact of the Los Angeles
Moving to Opportunity Program on Residential Mobility, Neighborhood Characteristics,
and Early Child and Parent Outcomes. Unpublished paper. Princeton: Office of
Population Research, Princeton University.
Holin, Mary J., Larry F. Buron, and Michael Baker. 2002. Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI
Program: Case Studies. Reports prepared by Abt Associates Inc. for U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research.
Bethesda: Abt Associates Inc.
Housing Research Foundation. 2000. Relocation Guidance for the HOPE VI Program.
Washington, D.C.: Housing Research Foundation.
Jacob, Brian A. 2002. Public Housing, Housing Vouchers and Student Achievement: Evidence
from Public Housing Demolitions in Chicago. Cambridge: Harvard University.
Jones, Kelvyn, and Craig Duncan. 1995. “Individuals and Their Ecologies: Analyzing the
Geography of Chronic Illness within a Multilevel Modeling Framework.” Health and
Place 1(1): 27–40.
Katz, Lawrence F., Jeffrey R. Kling, and Jeffrey B. Liebman. 2001. “Moving to Opportunity in
Boston: Early Results of a Randomized Mobility Experiment.” The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 116(2): 607–54.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Kaufman, Julie E. and James E. Rosenbaum. 1992. “The Education and Employment of LowIncome Black Youth in White Suburbs.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
14(3): 229-240.
Keating, Larry. 2000. “Redeveloping Public Housing.” Journal of the American Planning
Association. Vol.66, No.4. Chicago: American Planning Association.
Kelling, G.L., and C.M. Coles. 1996. Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing
Crime in Our Communities. New York: Free Press.
Kessler, R.C., K.A. McGonagle, S. Zhao, C.B. Nelson, M. Hughes, S. Eshleman, H.U. Witchen,
and K.S. Kendler. 1994. “Lifetime and 12-month Prevalence of DSM-III-R Psychiatric
Disorders in the United States: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey.” Archives
of General Psychiatry, 51:8–19.
Kiefe, C.I., O.D. Williams, C.E. Lewis, J.J. Allison, P. Sekar, and L.E. Wagenknecht. 2001.
“Ten-Year Changes in Smoking Among Young Adults: Are Racial Differences Explained
by Socioeconomic Factors in the CARDIA Study?” American Journal of Public Health
91(2): 213–18.
Kingsley, G. Thomas, Jennifer Johnson, and Kathryn Pettit. 2000. HOPE VI and Section 8:
Spatial Patterns in Relocation. Report prepared by the Urban Institute for the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
Leventhal, Tama, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. 2000. ““Entrances” and “Exits” in Children’s Lives:
Associations between Household Events and Test Scores.” In Household Events,1-58.
New York: Columbia University.
. 2001a. “Changing Neighborhoods and Child Well-Being: Understanding How
Children May Be Affected in the Coming Century.” Children at the Millennium: Where
Have We Come From? Where Are We Going?, 6: 259–97.
. 2001b. “Moving to Opportunity: What About the Kids?” In Choosing a Better
Life: How Public Housing Tenants Selected a HUD Experiment to Improve Their Lives
and Those of Their Children: The Moving to Opportunity Demonstration Program, edited
by John Goerrng. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Loprest, Pamela. 2001. “How Are Families That Left Welfare Doing? A Comparison of Early
and Recent Welfare Leavers.” Assessing the New Federalism Policy Brief B-36.
Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
Ludwig, Jens. 2001. Neighborhood Effects and Self-Selection. Paper presented at the
Association for Policy Analysis and Management conference, Washington, D.C.
Ludwig, Jens, Helen F. Ladd, and Greg J. Duncan. 2001. "Urban Poverty and Educational
Outcomes." Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 147-201.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Marshall, Catherine and Gretchen B. Rossman. 1989. Designing Qualitative Research.
Newbury Park: Sage Publishers, Inc.
Martinez, John. 2001. Employment and Public Housing: Findings from the Jobs-Plus Baseline
Survey. Draft paper presented at the Association for Policy Analysis and Management
conference, Washington, D.C.
McDaniel, Marla, and Dan A. Lewis. 2002. “Welfare Reform, Work, and Hope: Can TANF
Make a Difference?” Under review by Social Problems.
McLoyd, Vonnie C. 1990. “The Impact of Economic Hardship on Black Families and
Development.” Child Development, 61, 311-346.
Morenoff, Jeffrey D. 2001. Place, Race, and Health: Neighborhood Sources of Group
Disparities in Birthweight. Report No. 01-482. Report prepared by Population Studies
Center at the Institute for Social Research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
National Commission on Severely Distressed and Troubled Public Housing. 1992. The Final
Report of the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Health Interview Survey. 2001. “Trends in Asthma Morbidity and Mortality.”
http://www.lungusa.org/data/asthma/asthmach_1.html. (Accessed February 20, 2002.)
. 2002. “Early Release of Selected Estimates from the National Health Interview
Survey (NHIS).”
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhis/released200202/figures11_1-11_4.htm.
(Accessed February 20, 2002.)
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. 2001a. “Asthma: A Concern for Minority
Populations.” http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/asthma.htm . (Accessed March 15,
2002.)
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. 2001b. “Focus on Asthma.”
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/newsroom/focuson/asthma01/default.htm. (Accessed March
15, 2002.)
National Survey of American Families. 1999. “Assessing the New Federalism Data
Resources.” http://anfdataurban.org/drsurvey/login.cfm. (Accessed September 16,
2002.)
Pearlin, Leonard, and Carmi Schooler. 1978. “The Structure of Coping.” Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 19: 2–21.
Popkin, Susan J. 1990. “Welfare: Views from the Bottom.” Social Problems, 37: 64–78.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Popkin, Susan J., and Mary K. Cunningham. 2000. Searching for Rental Housing with Section
8 in Chicago. Report prepared by Urban Institute for the Metropolitan Planning Council.
Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
. 2002. CHA Relocation and Mobility Counseling Assessment Final Report. Report
prepared by the Urban Institute for the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
Popkin, Susan J., Mary Cunningham, and Erin Godfrey. 2001. CHA Relocation and Mobility
Counseling Assessment Interim Report. Report prepared by the Urban Institute for the
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Washington, D.C.: The Urban
Institute.
Popkin, Susan J., Laura Harris, and Mary Cunningham. 2002. Families in Transition: A
Qualitative Analysis of the MTO Experience, Final Report. Report prepared by the
Urban Institute for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Popkin, Susan J., James E. Rosenbaum, and Patricia M. Meaden. 1993. “Labor Market
Experiences of Low-Income Black Women in Middle-Class Suburbs: Evidence from a
Survey of Gautreaux Program Participants.” Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 12(3): 556–73.
Popkin, Susan J., Larry Buron, Diane Levy, and Mary Cunningham. 2000. “The Gautreaux
Legacy: What Might Mixed-Income and Dispersal Strategies Me an for the Poorest
Public Housing Tenants?” Housing Policy Debate, 11(4): 911–42.
Popkin, Susan J., Victoria E. Gwiasda, Jean M. Amendolia, Larry Buron, and Lynn Olson.
1998. Gauging the Effects of Public Housing Redesign: Final Report on the Early
Stages of the Horner Revitalization Initiative. Report prepared for the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research and the
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
Popkin, Susan J., Victoria E. Gwiasda, Lynn M. Olson, Dennis P. Rosenbaum, and Larry Buron.
2000. The Hidden War: Crime and the Tragedy of Public Housing in Chicago. New
Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
Public Health Advisory Board. 2002. “Asthma Epidemic Increase: Cause Unknown.”
http://www.phpab.org/asthma%20report/asthma%20web%20version5.html. (Accessed
March 18, 2002.)
Reiss, Albert J. 1988. “Co-Offending and Criminal Careers.” In Crime and Justice: Annual
Review of Research, edited by Michael Tonry and Norval Morris. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Report of the Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights. 2002. ”High Classroom Turnover: How
Children Get Left Behind.” In Rights at Risk: Equality in an Age of Terrorism, edited by
Dianne M. Piche, William L. Taylor, and Robin A. Reed 227-44. Washington, D.C.:
Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights.
Rosenbaum, James E. and Stephanie DeLuca. 2000. Is Housing Mobility the Key to Welfare
Reform? Lessons from Chicago’s Gautreaux Program. The Brookings Institution
Survey Series. Washington, D.C: The Brookings Insitute.
Rosenbaum, Emily, and Laura E. Harris. 2001. “Residential Mobility and Opportunities: Early
Impacts of the Moving to Opportunity Demonstration Program in Chicago.” Housing
Policy Debate, 12(2): 321–46.
Rosenbaum, Emily, Laura Harris, and Nancy A. Denton. 1999. “New Places, New Faces: An
Analysis of Neighborhoods and Social Ties among MTO Movers in Chicago.” In
Choosing a Better Life; Evaluating the Moving to Opportunity Experiment, edited by John
Goering and Judith Feins. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
Rosenbaum, James E., Linda K. Stroh, and Cathy A. Flynn. 1998. “Lake Parc Place: A Study
of Mixed-Income Housing.” Housing Policy Debate, 9(4): 703–40.
Rubinowitz, Leonard S., and James E. Rosenbaum. 2000. Crossing the Class and Color Lines:
From Public Housing to White Suburbia. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Sampson, Ralph, S.W. Raudenbush, and F. Earls. 1997. “Neighborhoods and Violent Crime:
A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.” Science, 277: 918–24.
Sandel, Megan, and Jean Zotter. 2000. “How Substandard Housing Affects Children’s Health.”
Contemporary Pediatrics. 17: 10
Scharfstein, Joshua, and Megan Sandel. 1998. Not Safe at Home: How America's Housing
Crisis Threatens the Health of Its Children. Boston: The Doc4Kids Project, Boston
Medical Center.
Schwartz, Alex, and Kian Tajbakhsh. 1997. “Mixed-Income Housing: Unanswered Questions.”
Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 3(2): 71–92.
. 2001. “Mixed-Income Housing as Social Policy: The Case for Diminished
Expectations.” Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Association for Collegiate
Schools of Planning conference, Cleveland, O.H.
Smith, Janet L. 1998. “Cleaning Up Public Housing by Sweeping Out the Poor.” Habitat
International, 23: 49–62.
Smith, Robin E. 2002. Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees. Washington, D.C.: The
Urban Institute.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Stack, Carol B. 1975. All Our Kin Strategies for Survival in a Black Community. New York:
Harper & Row.
Turner, Margery, A., Susan J. Popkin and Mary K. Cunningham. 2000. Section 8 Mobility and
Neighborhood Health: Emerging Issues and Policy Challenges. Washington, D.C.: The
Urban Institute.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1999. American Housing Survey for the United States. Current Housing
Reports, series H150/99. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2000. Relocation and Expanding
Opportunities for Public Housing Residents: Draft Recommendations on Relocation
Guidance for the HOPE VI Program. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Real Estate Assessment Center. 2002.
“Assessing Physical Condition: An Overview of the Scoring Process.”
http://www.hud.gov/reac/pdf/simplified.pdf. (Accessed March 11, 2002.)
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2002. HOPE VI: Best Practices and
Lessons Learned 1992-2000. A Report prepared for the U.S. Congress.
Vale, Lawrence J. 1997. “Empathological Places: Residents’ Ambivalence Remaining in Public
Housing.” Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16: 159–75.
Venkatesh, Sudhir Alladi. 2000. American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto.:
Cambridge: Harvard Press.
Wexler, Harry J. 2000. " HOPE VI: Market Means/Public Ends." Working Paper Series PM
Politics of Management New Haven, Connecticut : Yale University.
Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zedlewski, Sheila. 2002. The Importance of Housing Benefits to Welfare Success. Urban
Institute Policy Brief. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY
The Urban Institute’s HOPE VI Panel Study uses multiple methods to assess the effects
of public housing transformation on families, including three waves of surveys, in-depth,
qualitative interviews with adults and children, analysis of administrative records, and
comparisons to other similar populations. This appendix provides information about the
following:
§
the selection HOPE VI study sites;
§
a description of the information gathered during the site visits;
§
the methodology for the resident survey and in-depth interviews; and
§
an overview of analytic strategy.
Site Selection
Our sample of five sites reflects the diversity of HOPE VI grants awarded in FY 2000.
The sample was drawn purposively, intentionally balancing a number of selection factors,
identified below, to ensure variation among the selected sites. We obtained from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) a list of all FY 1999 and FY 2000 HOPE
VI grantees. Using information gathered from HUD and HOPE VI technical assistance
providers, we identified the sites where relocation of original residents had not begun and in
which there were at least 188 occupied units. Our goal was to ensure that we had completed
interviews with at least 150 households at each site. Eighteen sites met these requirements and
were put on a short list for possible inclusion in the study.
Urban Institute and Abt Associates staff gathered information from housing authority
(HA) staff and technical assistance providers about the status of the redevelopment initiative
and relocation plans for each of the 18 sites on our short list, and about the HA’s willingness to
cooperate with the research. Sites which had already relocated most or all of their residents
were excluded from the sample.118 When making the final selections, we used the following
criteria: geographic diversity; percentage of public housing out of total revitalized housing
planned 119; diversity of city size; and HUD Public Housing Management and Administration
Program (PHMAP) scores, which rank housing authorities on a range of management
indicators. Another consideration was the languages spoken by residents; we were prepared to
survey speakers of Spanish and English in each site, but for logistical reasons, could not include
a site with speakers of other languages.
The five selected sites are
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
§
Shore Park and Shore Terrace in Atlantic City, New Jersey
§
Ida B. Wells Homes, Wells Extension, Madden Park Homes, and Darrow Homes
in Chicago, Illinois
§
Few Gardens in Durham, North Carolina
§
Easter Hill in Richmond, California
§
East Capitol Dwellings and Capitol View Plaza in Washington, D.C.
The Chicago site is the largest, with approximately 3,200 units. A portion of the
development was demolished earlier, but nearly 2,000 units remained and about 1,300 of them
were still occupied at the beginning of our study. The Washington, D.C., site had approximately
1,100 units; about 180 had been demolished, but nearly 600 were still occupied. The other three
sites each had approximately 200 units and were nearly fully occupied. The tenants at four sites
were predominantly African American; Richmond was approximately 50 percent Hispanic. All
five sites intend to completely demolish the original development and to replace them with
mixed-income housing. Shore Park is the only site where the housing authority expects to
replace all of the original public housing units.
The sample includes five diverse HOPE VI sites in different types of cities. While all five
site plans call for demolition and relocation, the housing authorities’ strategies for carrying out
these plans are very different. Two sites are large, distressed developments in big cities that
have received multiple HOPE VI awards, while the other three are much smaller developments
in smaller cities. The Chicago site is located in an area already undergoing rapid gentrification,
while the D.C., Richmond, and Durham sites are in neighborhoods where the city is hoping the
HOPE VI revitalization will stimulate neighborhood improvements. The Atlantic City site is
located in an area where the local casino industry is investing heavily in neighborhood
revitalization. This cross-site variation will allow us to explore how outcomes for families vary
across a range of site characteristics and redevelopment strategies.
Site Visits
In order to learn more about the study sites and facilitate data collection, we reviewed
each site’s HOPE VI application and site plans. Urban Institute and Abt Associates staff
conducted the site visits jointly in summer 2001. During these two-day visits, field staff
discussed the study with site staff and informed resident leaders about the study to gain their
support for the data collection effort. We conducted interviews with housing authority staff to
learn more about their HOPE VI project, relocation plans, and supportive service package. We
also gathered lists of names and addresses of residents from which to draw the survey sample.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Data Collection
Data collection included in-person surveys and in-person interviews with residents at
each of the HOPE VI sites. Subsequent rounds of the HOPE VI Panel Study will follow similar
procedures.
Resident Survey
Survey Respondents
Data collection began in April 2001 and was completed in August 2001. We drew a
stratified random sample of households from lists of units occupied prior to the baseline survey,
where the strata were households that had at least one child under 15 years of age and
households without children. 120 In the Washington, D.C., and Chicago sites, where the share of
households without children was large, we oversampled households with children to ensure that
the sample was large enough that we could address our child-related research questions for
children in the specified age categories. In the three smaller sites, we conducted a census in
order to have a sufficient sample size.
In surveys conducted with households with children, we selected up to two focal children
for reference in responding to child-related questions. The focal children were selected at
random from among the children who were reported by the respondent on a household roster
included in the survey. Children were eligible for selection if they lived in the household all of the
time or for a greater percentage of time than they resided elsewhere. If possible, given the ages
and residency of children, one child was selected who was younger than 6 years of age and one
child was selected who was between 6 and 14 years of age. The first age group allows us to
conduct analyses on issues of relevance for preschool-age children. To maintain our focus on
children, we chose the age of 14 as the cut-off in the baseline so that the oldest focal child will
be no older than 17 at the time of the final wave of data collection. We plan to survey these
same households at waves 2 and 3.
Survey Procedures
Data were collected using interviewer-administered paper instruments in face-to-face
interviews. A telephone survey was only allowed under certain circumstances, when the
interviewer, after multiple attempts, was unable to meet the respondent in person or because of
safety reasons it was safer to conduct the survey over the telephone. 121 The survey took about
45 minutes to complete. Respondents were paid a $20 incentive upon successful completion of
the interview.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Survey Sample Size
Of the 1,115 sample cases across all five developments, 890 respondents completed
interviews, of which 887 were considered eligible and complete. 122 The response rate of 87
percent exceeded our goal of 80 percent. For each follow-up wave, we will attempt to contact all
respondents to the baseline survey, with the goal of achieving a 75 percent response rate of
baseline respondents in each wave. We expect to administer approximately 2,190 surveys in all
(887 at baseline and 656 in each of the follow-up waves).
In-Depth Resident Interviews
We drew a random sample of respondents for the in-depth interviews from among those
baseline survey respondents in households with children. We conducted interviews with one
head of household and one child between the ages of 10 and 14. We chose to set the lower age
limit at 10 to increase the likelihood that the children interviewed would be able to reflect upon
their experiences and express their thoughts clearly in an interview format. The upper age limit
of 14 was set so that older children could remain within the overall age limit of 17 during the
course of this study.
Interviews were conducted in the respondents’ homes and tape-recorded. In-depth
interview respondents received a reimbursement payment separate from that received for
survey participation. The head of household received $40 and the child received $25. Overall,
we conducted a total of 78 interviews, with 39 adults and 39 children. We plan to interview these
same adults and children at waves 2 and 3.
Analytic Strategy
We used survey data and interview data to examine baseline characteristics of
residents, as well as their housing and neighborhoods.
Survey Analysis
We created a SAS database with all responses to the survey questions and analysis variables created from
the survey variables. Each record has a unique ID but does not have the name, address, or any other
personal identification information. This file, along with a separate file that has a crosswalk between the
unique ID and personal-identifying information of the respondent, is kept in a password-protected account
accessible only by project staff. The crosswalk is needed to make sure we can correctly identify the same
respondent in multiple waves of the survey. At the end of the study, the file with the name, address, and
other personal identification information will be destroyed.
One of the main purposes of the HOPE VI Panel Study is to understand where and in
what conditions original residents end up living over a four-year period when they are displaced
due to the HOPE VI revitalization. Data for this report come from the Baseline surveys and
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
interviews conducted with residents at HOPE VI developments before relocation has begun.
The study is structured as a pre- and post-intervention study, with the intervention being the
changes brought about by HOPE VI activities. The project design does not include a formal
control or matched comparison group because there are no satisfactory options for such a
group. Most of the severely distressed public housing developments are targeted for either
demolition or revitalization efforts. Also, given the diversity of HOPE VI plans for revitalization, it
would be difficult to identify a group to serve as true counterpoint for the selected study sites.
There are, however, data from existing research and evaluation projects on similar populations
that we will use to benchmark our results.
Survey Benchmarks
To place the changes over time in context, we make cautious comparisons between the
survey results for the HOPE VI panel sample and four groups on common measures. The first
group is all public housing residents in non–HOPE VI developments in the cities from which our
sample of HOPE VI residents will be drawn. Basic demographic and income data for public
housing residents and Section 8 recipients in a particular year are available from HUD’s
Multifamily Tenant Characteristics System (MTCS) data system. We compared trends for this
population to the HOPE VI Panel Study data. One limitation of MTCS data is that the
composition of the population changes over time as families enter and leave the housing
assistance rolls. However, MTCS data will indicate how many of the public housing residents
are still receiving public housing, how many are receiving Section 8 assistance, and how many
are no longer receiving assistance at the same time periods we are collecting data for the
HOPE VI panel. In addition, we use historical MTCS data for our sample developments to look
at employment, income, and household composition trends prior to the beginning of the HOPE
VI redevelopment.
The second group will be from HUD’s Moving To Opportunity (MTO) demonstration program.
As discussed above, in the MTO demonstration, there are three experimental groups of residents,
all of whom originally lived in public housing: one group received a restricted Section 8
certificate valid in low-poverty areas, a second group received a regular Section 8 certificate
valid anywhere, and a third group did not receive a Section 8 certificate (but could remain in
their public housing unit or receive a Section 8 certificate through the normal channels available
to public housing residents). This last group, public housing residents who did not receive any
special assistance, is the best benchmark for the experiences the HOPE VI panel would have had
in the absence of the HOPE VI program. Many of the survey questions for the HOPE VI Panel
Study are the same as or similar to those that will be used in the MTO study. Hence, comparisons
of neighborhood characteristics, social integration, crime and victimization experiences,
children’s supervision, employment, and income can be made.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
The third group is from the Urban Institute’s National Survey of America’s Families
(NSAF). This study selected a nationally representative sample of low-income households to
explore the effects of welfare reform. A subsample from this study—all urban households that
are potentially eligible for public housing (i.e., household income below 80 percent of the local
median income) at the baseline period—will form another benchmark group. The measures in
common with this group include employment and training activities, welfare use, and hardships
encountered (e.g., food insecurity).
Finally, we benchmark results from the Panel Study to the results from the Urban
Institute’s Chicago Housing Authority Relocation and Counseling Assessment (Popkin,
Cunningham, and Godfrey 2001). While the Chicago study is smaller and short term, it uses
many of the same survey measures on neighborhoods, housing conditions, self-efficacy, and
health, and allows us to make comparisons to another distressed public housing population. It
also allows us to examine differences between the HOPE VI Panel Study respondents and the
traditional Section 8 participants who are included in the Chicago study.
In-Depth Interview Analysis
The in-depth interviews were transcribed into basic text files,123 then entered into
NUD*IST,124 a software application for qualitative data management and analysis. Each
transcript retained its unique ID and basic demographic information (program group, sample
strata, age, race, and site), but personal identification information including last names and
street numbers were removed, to ensure protection of interview respondents’ identities.
Once transcribed and entered into NUD*IST, we divided the transcripts by site and
prepared detailed site memos that addressed the key issue areas of the study. These memos
provided site-specific overviews of the interview data and allowed for comparisons among the
sites.
We developed a coding “dictionary” to use in the second stage of data analysis. The
codes consist of major themes identified prior to analysis (e.g., housing quality, interactions with
neighbors) and analytically useful themes that emerged from the data. A small team of
researchers read each transcript and marked segments with appropriate codes.
After coding was completed, NUD*IST reports were created that included all output from
the interviews that included the coded segments on particular topics from all of the transcripts.
We systematically analyzed the output for key themes for each of the key issues, comparing
responses across sites and with survey data.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
APPENDIX B
CASE ID
#_____________
HOPE VI BASELINE SURVEY
PANEL STUDY
SITE
________________
SCREENER
TIME INTERVIEW BEGAN: ______ ______ : ______ ______ (24-hour clock)
Hello, my name is _______________ and I am with Abt Associates, an independent
research firm located in Washington D.C. We are conducting a survey about the HOPE 6
project in this development. We do not work for the [NAME OF HOUSING AUTHORITY].
S1. Are you the head of this household?
Yes .......................................1
No.........................................2
S2. Are you the leaseholder?
Yes .......................................1
No.........................................2
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
[INTERVIEWER IF S1 OR S2 = 1 CONTINUE, otherwise ask to speak with
head of household or leaseholder]
S3. Are you at least 18 years or age or older?
Yes .......................................1
No.........................................2
à (THANK & EXIT – Sorry you are not
eligible for the survey. We can only interview head of households 18 years or older.)
You are eligible for the survey!
We are currently conducting a research study about the HOPE VI program, and the
families who live in [NAME OF DEVELOPMENT] and other developments affected by HOPE VI.
HOPE VI is a program where housing authorities receive money to help them fix up or rebuild
units in their developments. We are interested in what is happening in people’s lives as their
housing developments start to be fixed up or rebuilt.
The survey includes questions about your apartment/house, your neighborhood, as well
as some questions about you and your family. Taking this survey has no effect on your housing
subsidy. Any information you provide me will remain confidential; your answers will never be
linked with your name or anything that could identify you.
Your participation in this survey is voluntary, but very important to our work. Your
participation will in no way affect any housing benefits you receive. The interview takes about 45
minutes. When we are done, you will receive a $20 gift card to thank you for your time.
[GO OVER CONSENT FORM, AND SIGN]
Do you have any questions before we begin? May we begin now?
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
YES à Continue
No à Set appointment
Appointment Date: __________________________
Time: __________________________
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
A. CURRENT HOUSING
I’m going to start off the survey with questions about the (apartment/townhouse) where you live
now.
1.
How many years have you lived at your current address?
(RECORD AND CIRCLE)
(Number of years__________).............. 1-96
à (SKIP TO Q2)
LESS THAN ONE YEAR ...........................97
a.
DON’T KNOW............................................98
à (SKIP TO Q2)
REFUSED..................................................99
à (SKIP TO Q2)
How many months have you lived at your current address?
(RECORD AND CIRCLE)
(Number of months__________)1-11
DON’T KNOW................................98
REFUSED......................................99
2.
How many years have you lived in public housing altogether?
(RECORD AND CIRCLE)
(Number of years__________).......................... 1-96
Less than one year ....................................97
DON’T KNOW............................................98
REFUSED..................................................99
3.
Since you were 18, have you ever lived in an apartment/house that was not public
housing?
....................................................................................
Yes
1
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
2
à (SKIP TO Q4)
....................................................................................
No
DON’T KNOW............................................................8
à (SKIP TO Q4)
REFUSED..................................................................9
à (SKIP TO Q4)
a. Had you ever held a Section 8 voucher before you moved to public
housing?
YES ..................................................1
NO ....................................................2
DON’T KNOW..................................8
REFUSED........................................9
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
B. HOUSING QUALITY AND HAZARDS
4.
Overall, how satisfied are you with the apartment/house where you live now?
Would you say that you are:
Very satisfied, ..........................................................1
Somewhat satisfied, ................................................2
Somewhat dissatisfied, or........................................3
Very dissatisfied?.....................................................4
NEITHER SATISFIED NOR DISSATISFIED ..........5
DON’T KNOW..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
I am going to ask you some questions about specific conditions of your apartment/house.
5.
During this past winter, was there any time when the house/apartment was so cold for 24 hours or more that it caused
anyone in your household discomfort?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
à (SKIP TO Q6)
DID NOT LIVE HERE LAST WINTER.....................3
à (SKIP TO Q6)
DON’T KNOW..........................................................8
à (SKIP TO Q6)
REFUSED................................................................9
à (SKIP TO Q6)
a.
Was that because the he ating system broke down, you could not pay your
utility bill, or some other reason?
HEATING SYSTEM BROKE DOWN........1
COULD NOT PAY UTILITY BILL .............2
SOME OTHER REASON .........................3
KEEP COSTS DOWN...............................4
DON’T KNOW...........................................8
REFUSED.................................................9
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
6.
In the last 3 months, was there any time when all the toilets in the home were not working? (while household was living
here if less than 3 months)
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
7.
Have there been water leaks in the house/apartment in the last 3 months? (while household was living here if less than 3
months)
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
8.
Does the house/apartment have any area of peeling paint or broken plaster bigger than 8 inches by 11 inches? (the size of
a standard letter)
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
9.
Does your house/apartment have an exposed radiator without a cover?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
10.
Is your house/apartment infested with cockroaches?
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
11.
Is your house/apartment infested with rats or mice?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON’T KNOW..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
12.
Does your house/apartment have significant problems with mold on walls or ceilings, for example in your bathroom?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
C. NEIGHBORHOOD
13.
These questions ask about what it’s like to live in your current neighborhood. Think about the area that you consider
your neighborhood when you tell me how much you agree or disagree with the following statements.
Question
Str
ongly
So
mewhat
Ag
ree
a. People around here are
willing to help their neighbors.
Ag
ree
N
either
Agree or
disagree
So
mewhat
St
rongly
Dis
agree
K
Di
sagree
EF
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
b. People in this
neighborhood share the same
values.
c. This is a close-knit
neighborhood.
d. People in this
neighborhood can be trusted.
e. People in this
neighborhood generally get along
with each other.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
How many of your friends live in the same neighborhood as you? Would you say none, a few or many . . .
NONE, ..........................................................1
A FEW, OR ..................................................2
MANY ...........................................................3
DON'T KNOW ..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
14.
How many of your family members live in the same neighborhood as you?
Would you say none, a few or many . . .
NONE ...........................................................1
A FEW ..........................................................2
MANY ...........................................................3
DON'T KNOW ..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
15.
How likely is it that your neighbors would do something if they saw . . .
Neither
Likely
REF
Likely
Unlikely
Very
Unlikely Unlikely
DK
a. …children skipping school and
hanging out on a street corner?
Would you say . . . .....................1
.............................................................9
b. …children spray-painting
2
3
4
5
8
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
graffiti on a local building? ....... 1
............................................... 9
2
3
4
5
8
2
3
4
5
8
2
3
4
5
8
c. …children showing
disrespect to an adult? ..............1
.............................................................9
d. …a fight break out in front of
their home? ...............................1
.............................................................9
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
16.
Now, please think about the area that you consider your neighborhood and tell me if the following items are - a big
problem, some problem, or no problem at all.
Big
Some
Problem
No problem
problem
at all
DK
REFUSED
In your neighborhood, is
a.
Unemployment
1
2
3
8
9
b.
Groups of people just hanging out
1
2
3
8
9
c.
The number of teenage mothers
1
2
3
8
9
d.
Lack of public transportation
1
2
3
8
9
e.
Quality of schools
1
2
3
8
9
f.
Graffiti, that is, writing or painting
1
2
3
8
9
1
2
3
8
9
on the walls of the buildings
g.
Trash and junk in the parking lots,
streets, lawns, and sidewalks
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
17.
Now, still thinking about the area that you consider your neighborhood, please tell me if the following items are - a big
problem, some problem, or no problem at all
Big
Some
problem
No problem
problem
at all
DK
REFUSED
In your neighborhood, is
h.
Police not coming when called
1
2
3
8
9
i.
People being attacked or robbed
1
2
3
8
9
j.
People selling drugs
1
2
3
8
9
k.
People using drugs
1
2
3
8
9
l.
Gangs
1
2
3
8
9
m. Rape or other sexual attacks
1
2
3
8
9
n.
1
2
3
8
9
Shootings and violence
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
The next questions ask about services in your neighborhood. We would like to know how long it
takes you to get to certain places in your neighborhood.
18.
How long does it take you to get to the nearest bus or train stop? Would you
say …
Less than 15 minutes,..................................1
16 to 30 minutes, .........................................2
31 to 45 minutes, .........................................3
46 minutes to one hour, or ...........................4
More than one hour......................................5
NOT APPLICABLE ......................................7
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED……………………………………………..9
19.
How long does it take you to get to the grocery store you use most of the
time?
Less than 15 minutes...................................1
16 to 30 minutes...........................................2
31 to 45 minutes...........................................3
46 minutes to one hour ................................4
More than one hour......................................5
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
20.
How long does it take you to get to the doctor, health clinic, or hospital you use
most of the time?
Less than 15 minutes...................................1
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
16 to 30 minutes...........................................2
31 to 45 minutes...........................................3
46 minutes to one hour ................................4
More than one hour......................................5
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
D. PUBLIC HOUSING
Now we have a few questions about your thoughts on public housing and the
HOPE VI program.
21.
What is the main reason you would want to move out of public housing?
BETTER SCHOOLS FOR MY CHILDREN .........................1
TO BE NEAR MY JOB.........................................................2
TO HAVE BETTER TRANSPORTATION ...........................3
TO GET A JOB ....................................................................4
TO GET AWAY FROM DRUGS AND GANGS ...................5
TO GET A BIGGER OR BETTER APARTMENT/HOUSE .6
TO BE NEAR MY FAMILY...................................................7
DON’T WANT TO MOVE ...................................................10
OTHER (SPECIFY) ............................................................96
__________________________
DON’T KNOW....................................................................98
REFUSED..........................................................................99
22. What is the main reason you would want to stay in public housing?
TO STAY CLOSE TO MY FAMILY / FRIENDS ......................... 1
TO KEEP MY CHILDREN IN THE SAME SCHOOL ..........2
TO KEEP MY CHILDREN IN CHILDCARE.........................3
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
TO STAY NEAR MY JOB ....................................................4
TO STAY NEAR TRANSPORTATION................................5
AFRAID OF ENCOUNTERING DISCRIMINATION............6
LONG TERM RESIDENT ....................................................7
SAFETY / VIOLENCE IN NEW NEIGHBORHOOD............8
CAN’T AFFORD TO MOVE OUT……………….………...…9
DO NOT WANT TO STAY IN PUBLIC HOUSING….……10
LOW RENT……………………………………………………11
OTHER (SPECIFY) ............................................................96
____________________
DON’T KNOW....................................................................98
REFUSED..........................................................................99
23. If you move, would you want to move …
Somewhere else in your neighborhood, ................................1
A different neighborhood in [CITY], .......................................2
A different neighborhood in the suburbs, or ..........................3
A different city outside the [CITY] area..................................4
OTHER...................................................................................5
___________________
DON’T KNOW........................................................................8
REFUSED..............................................................................9
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
E. OUTLOOK FOR MOVE AND REDEVELOPMENT
As we discussed earlier, the HOPE VI program may require residents of [NAME OF
DEVELOPMENT] to be temporarily or permanently relocated.
24. When did you find out about the Housing Authority’s plans for fixing up your
development or building as part of HOPE VI?
In the last month.........................................................1
....................................................................................Between one and six months
ago 2
....................................................................................More than six months ago
3
4
....................................................................................DURING THIS INTERVIEW
→ SKIP TO Q27
....................................................................................DON’T KNOW 8
→
....................................................................................REFUSED
→
SKIP TO Q27
9
SKIP TO Q27
25. How did you find out about these plans?
From the site manager at the development .........................................1
...............................................................................................................From a
friend or relative ............................................................................................................2
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
...............................................................................................................From a
meeting with [NAME OF HOUSING AUTHORITY] officials.........................................3
...............................................................................................................From the
tenant organization (?) or building president ...............................................................4
...............................................................................................................From the
newspaper or on TV......................................................................................................5
_______________________________________________________ Some other
way (SPECIFY) _____________________________________________________ 6
...............................................................................................................FROM
INTERVIEWER.............................................................................................................7
KNOW
...............................................................................................................DON’T
8
...............................................................................................................REFUSED
9
26. Do you want to live in the development after it is fixed up or rebuilt?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
F. CRIME & VICTIMIZATION
27.
Now, I’m going to ask you some questions about safety and crime. How safe do
you feel or would you feel being out alone in the parking lots, the lawns, the street
or sidewalks right outside your building at night? Do you feel . . .
Very safe, .....................................................1
Somewhat safe ............................................2
Somewhat unsafe, or...................................3
Very unsafe ..................................................4
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
28.
How safe do you feel being alone inside your apartment/house at night? Do you feel . . .
Very safe, .....................................................1
Somewhat safe ............................................2
Somewhat unsafe, or...................................3
Very unsafe ..................................................4
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
Please tell me if any of the following have happened to you or anyone who lives
with you in the past six months, that is, since [INSERT MONTH SIX MONTHS PRIOR].
29.
Was anyone’s purse, wallet, or jewelry snatched from them in the past six
months?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ................................................................2
à (SKIP TO Q31)
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
.................................................................. REFUSED
a.
à (SKIP TO Q31)
9
à (SKIP TO Q31)
Who did this happen to – you, another adult in the household, or a child? (MARK ALL THAT APPLY)
Self ...............................................................1
Another adult ................................................2
A child...........................................................3
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
30.
Was anyone threatened with a knife or gun in the last six months?
YES ..............................................................1
a.
NO ................................................................2
à (SKIP TO Q32)
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
à (SKIP TO Q32)
REFUSED....................................................9
à (SKIP TO Q32)
Who did this happen to – you, another adult in the household, or a child? (MARK ALL THAT APPLY)
Self ...............................................................1
Another adult ................................................2
A child...........................................................3
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
31.
Was anyone beaten or assaulted in the last six months?
YES ..............................................................1
a.
NO ................................................................2
à (SKIP TO Q33)
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
à (SKIP TO Q33)
REFUSED....................................................9
à (SKIP TO Q33)
Who did this happen to – you, another adult in the household, or a child? (MARK ALL THAT APPLY)
Self ...............................................................1
Another adult ................................................2
A child...........................................................3
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
32.
Was anyone stabbed or shot in the last six months?
YES ..............................................................1
a.
NO ................................................................2
à (SKIP TO Q34)
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
à (SKIP TO Q34)
REFUSED....................................................9
à (SKIP TO Q34)
Who did this happen to – you, another adult in the household, or a child? (MARK ALL THAT APPLY)
Self ..................................................................1
Another adult ...................................................2
A child..............................................................3
DON’T KNOW.................................................8
REFUSED.......................................................9
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
33.
Was anyone caught in a shootout in the last six months?
YES ..............................................................1
a.
NO ................................................................2
à (SKIP TO Q35)
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
à (SKIP TO Q35)
REFUSED....................................................9
à (SKIP TO Q35)
Who did this happen to – you, another adult in the household, or a child? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)
Self ......................................................1
Another adult .......................................2
A child..................................................3
DON’T KNOW.....................................8
REFUSED...........................................9
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
34.
Did bullets come into your apartment/house in the last six months?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ................................................................2
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
35.
Did anyone try to break into your home in the last six months?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ................................................................2
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
G. HOUSEHOLD ROSTER
In order to understand a little about your household, I would like to ask you about each of the people who are currently living in
this household.
As I said before, the information you give me will not affect your housing status. We are asking for names just to help us keep track
during our survey. As we said earlier, we will never connect your name with your answers. Please tell me how many people live in
your household –
37A. How many adults ___________ ADULTS
37B. How many children _______ CHILDREN.
Please tell me just the first name of each person in your household, starting with yourself.
INTERVIEWER: FOR EACH PERSON IN THE HOUSEHOLD. IF THE ANSWER IS
DON’T KNOW CODE “DK” OR REFUSED, CODE “RF”.
37C. What
is their:
First
Name?
37D. What is their:
37E.
What is
their:
37F.
What
is
their:
37H. What is
their:
ONLY ASK IF 18 OR
OLDER
37I. What is their:
Birthday?
Relationship to
you?
Marital Status?
Sex?
mm/dd/yyyy
INSERT
NAME
37G. What
is their:
Ethnicity?
spouse/partner
Male
son
Female
daughter
Race?
Married
Not married, living with partner
Hispanic
African-American
Not Hispanic
White
grandchild
American Indian or
other relative
Not married, not living with
partner
SEPARATED/WIDOWED/DIVO
RCED
Alaskan Native
other non-relative
Asian
Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander
Other
1
Self
M F
H NH
AA W AN AS
PI
M NMP NM S/W/D
2
S/P S D GC OR
ONR
M F
H NH
AA W AN AS
PI
M NMP NM S/W/D
3
S/P S D GC OR
ONR
M F
H NH
AA W AN AS
PI
M NMP NM S/W/D
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
4
S/P S D GC OR
ONR
M F
H NH
AA W AN AS
PI
M NMP NM S/W/D
5
S/P S D GC OR
ONR
M F
H NH
AA W AN AS
PI
M NMP NM S/W/D
6
S/P S D GC OR
ONR
M F
H NH
AA W AN AS
PI
M NMP NM S/W/D
7
S/P S D GC OR
ONR
M F
H NH
AA W AN AS
PI
M NMP NM S/W/D
8
S/P S D GC OR
ONR
M F
H NH
AA W AN AS
PI
M NMP NM S/W/D
9
S/P S D GC OR
ONR
M F
H NH
AA W AN AS
PI
M NMP NM S/W/D
10
S/P S D GC OR
ONR
M F
H NH
AA W AN AS
PI
M NMP NM S/W/D
INTERVIEWER: FOR EACH PERSON NAMED IN 37C ASK 37J-L. IF THE ANSWER
IS DON’T KNOW CODE “DK”, OR REFUSED CODE “RF”.
ASK ONLY FOR 18
AND OLDER
ASK ONLY FOR 18
AND OLDER
37J. What is their
37K. Did they
Graduate high school or
receive a GED?
Employment
Status
ASK ONLY FOR AGES 617
37L. Are they Enrolled in
School?
FULL-TIME
PART-TIME
NOT WORKING
FT
PT NW
HS
GED NO
YES
NO
FT
PT NW
HS
GED NO
YES
NO
FT
PT NW
HS
GED NO
YES
NO
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
0
FT
PT NW
HS
GED NO
YES
NO
FT
PT NW
HS
GED NO
YES
NO
FT
PT NW
HS
GED NO
YES
NO
FT
PT NW
HS
GED NO
YES
NO
FT
PT NW
HS
GED NO
YES
NO
FT
PT NW
HS
GED NO
YES
NO
FT
PT NW
HS
GED NO
YES
NO
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
H. EMPLOYMENT AND JOB TRAINING
Next, I have a few questions about work.
38a
Do you currently work for pay?
Yes.................................................................1
No ..................................................................2
à (SKIP TO Q45)
DON’T KNOW ...............................................8
à (SKIP TO Q45)
REFUSED......................................................9
à (SKIP TO Q45)
38b. Do you currently have more than one job?
YES................................................................1
NO..................................................................2
DON’T KNOW ...............................................8
REFUSED......................................................9
39.
On average, about how many hours a week do you work at your main job?
Less than 20 hours a week ...........................1
Between 20 and 35 hours a week.................2
More than 35 hours a week...........................3
DON’T KNOW ...............................................8
REFUSED......................................................9
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
40.
What is your hourly wage at your main job?
$
.
/ hour
$
.
/ day
$
.
/ week
$
.
/ month
DON’T KNOW..................................................................................8
REFUSED........................................................................................9
41. How long have you been working at your main job?
LESS THAN 3 MONTHS .................................................................1
FROM 3 MONTHS TO JUST UNDER 6 MONTHS.........................2
FROM 6 MONTHS TO JUST UNDER ONE YEAR.........................3
FROM ONE YEAR TO JUST UNDER THREE YEARS..................4
THREE YEARS OR MORE .............................................................5
DON’T KNOW..................................................................................8
REFUSED........................................................................................9
42.
Generally, how long does it take you to get to work?
LESS THAN 15 MINUTES...........................1
16 TO 30 MINUTES.....................................2
31 TO 45 MINUTES.....................................3
46 MINUTES TO ONE HOUR .....................4
MORE THAN ONE HOUR ...........................5
DON’T KNOW..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
43.
How do you get to work?
BUS OR OTHER PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.....1
CAR (OWN CAR).....................................................2
CAR (BORROWED CAR)........................................3
CAB……………………………………………………. 4
WALK .......................................................................5
WORK AT HOME ....................................................6
RIDE WITH A FRIEND (CARPOOL).......................7
OTHER (SPECIFY) ………………………………… 8
DON’T KNOW........................................................98
REFUSED..............................................................99
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
44.
45.
Please tell me how you found your current job. Did you find it…
Through a friend or relative who lives in your neighborhood, .........1
à (SKIP TO Q49)
Through a friend or relative who lives someplace else,..................2
à (SKIP TO Q49)
Through the newspaper or radio, ...................................................3
à (SKIP TO Q49)
By visiting employers to see if they had openings, .........................4
à (SKIP TO Q49)
Through a private employment agency, .........................................5
à (SKIP TO Q49)
Through the welfare office, ..............................................................6
à (SKIP TO Q49)
Through an unemployment office, ..................................................7
à (SKIP TO Q49)
Through a neighborhood agency, or ...............................................8
à (SKIP TO Q49)
Something else ................................................................................9
à (SKIP TO Q49)
DON’T KNOW................................................................................98
à (SKIP TO Q49)
REFUSED......................................................................................99
à (SKIP TO Q49)
Have you ever worked for pay?
YES ..............................................................1
46.
NO ................................................................2
à (SKIP TO Q47)
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
à (SKIP TO Q47)
REFUSED....................................................9
à (SKIP TO Q47)
How many years has it been since you were last employed full or part time?
(RECORD AND CIRCLE)
(Number of years__________).............. 1-96
à (SKIP TO Q47)
LESS THAN ONE YEAR ...........................97
DON’T KNOW............................................98
REFUSED
99
à (SKIP TO Q47)
à (SKIP TO Q47)
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
a.
How many months has it been since you were last employed full or
part time?
(RECORD AND CIRCLE)
(Number of months___________)1-11
47.
Have you looked for a job in the last 12 months?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ................................................................2
DON’T KNOW..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
48.
What is the main reason you are not working?
ILL.........................................................................................1
DISABLED AND UNABLE TO WORK ................................2
RETIRED..............................................................................3
TAKING CARE OF HOME OR FAMILY..............................4
GOING TO SCHOOL...........................................................5
CANNOT FIND WORK........................................................6
TEMPORARILY NOT WORKING BECAUSE OF SICK LEAVE
A STRIKE, BAD WEATHER, OR A TEMPORARY LAY-OFF
7
OTHER (SPECIFY) ..............................................................8
DON’T KNOW................................................................................98
REFUSED......................................................................................99
[ASK REMAINING EMPLOYMENT QUESTIONS FOR EVERYONE]
49.
In the last twelve months, have you completed any job training classes or
education programs (GED classes, courses for college credit, apprentice
programs, or other classes)?
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
YES ..............................................................1
NO ................................................................2
DON’T KNOW..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
50.
Think about your own experience with looking for a job or working during
the last twelve months. Please tell me whether any of the following factors
have made it difficult for you to look for a job, get a job, or keep a job.
Y
ES
Not having work
experience
Not having child care
N
O
1
D
K
2
N
A
8
1
0
1
2
8
1
0
Lack of transportation
1
2
8
1
0
Not speaking English well
1
2
8
1
0
Having a disability
1
2
8
1
0
Discrimination
1
2
8
1
0
Lack of jobs in the
neighborhood
1
Having a drug or alcohol
problem
1
Having a criminal record
1
2
8
1
0
2
8
1
0
2
8
1
0
I. WELFARE USE
The next few questions ask about different kinds of public assistance, or welfare.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
51.
In the past 6 months, have you or anyone in your household received Supplemental
Security Income or SSI?
Yes ...............................................................1
a.
No.................................................................2
à (SKIP TO Q52)
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
à (SKIP TO Q52)
REFUSED....................................................9
à (SKIP TO Q52)
Is/Was this SSI for you, another adult in the household, or a child in the
household? (MARK ALL THAT APPLY)
Self ...............................................................1
Another adult ................................................2
A child in the household...............................3
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
52.
In the past 6 months, have you or anyone in your household received other disability pay such as SSDI (Social Security
Disability Insurance), a veteran’s disability benefit or workers compensation for a work-related injury?
Yes ...............................................................1
a.
No.................................................................2
à (SKIP TO Q53)
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
à (SKIP TO Q53)
REFUSED....................................................9
à (SKIP TO Q53)
Is/Was this SSDI, veteran’s disability benefit or workers compensation for
you or another adult in the household? (MARK ALL THAT APPLY)
Self ...............................................................1
Another adult ................................................2
Both self and another adult ..........................3
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
53.
In the past 6 months, have you or anyone in your household received food
stamps or money for food on the EBT card (the Electronic Benefits Transfer
card)?
Yes ...............................................................1
a.
No.................................................................2
à (SKIP TO Q54)
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
à (SKIP TO Q54)
REFUSED....................................................9
à (SKIP TO Q54)
What year did you (or, this person) first receive food stamps/EBT?
_________ (year)
54.
In the past 6 months, have you or anyone in your household received cash from
public assistance like AFDC/TANF (or, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families)?
Yes ...............................................................1
a.
No.................................................................2
à (SKIP TO Q55)
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
à (SKIP TO Q55)
REFUSED....................................................9
à (SKIP TO Q55)
What year did you (or, this person) first receive AFDC/TANF?
___________ (year)
55.
à (SKIP TO Q56)
Have you ever received cash from [NAME OF STATE WELFARE PROGRAM]
including AFDC or TANF as an adult?
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Yes ...............................................................1
a.
No.................................................................2
à (SKIP TO Q57)
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
à (SKIP TO Q57)
REFUSED....................................................9
à (SKIP TO Q57)
What year did you first receive cash from [NAME OF STATE WELFARE
PROGRAM] including AFDC or TANF as an adult?
___________ (year)
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
56.
How many years in total have you (or this person) received TANF (or AFDC)?
(RECORD AND CIRCLE)
(Number of years__________)........ 1-96
à (SKIP TO Q57)
LESS THAN ONE YEAR .....................97
DON’T KNOW......................................98
à (SKIP TO Q57)
REFUSED............................................99
à (SKIP TO Q57)
a.
How many months in total have you (or this person) received TANF
(or AFDC)?
(RECORD AND CIRCLE)
(Number of months_________). 1-11
DON’T KNOW................................98
REFUSED.......................................99
J. HARDSHIP
Now I’m going to read you some statements that people have made about their
food situation and their housing situation. For these statements, please tell me whether
the statement was often, sometimes, or never true for your family in the last 12 months,
that is, since (name of current month) of last year.
57.
The first statement is “We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more.” Was that often,
sometimes, or never true for your family in the last 12 months (IF IN PUBLIC HOUSING LESS THAN ONE YEAR:
Since you moved into public housing)
OFTEN TRUE ..............................................1
SOMETIMES TRUE .....................................2
NEVER TRUE ..............................................3
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
58.
During the last 12 months, has your household ever been without telephone service for more than 24 hours because you
could not afford to pay the telephone bill? (IF IN PUBLIC HOUSING LESS THAN ONE YEAR: Since you moved into
public housing)
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
K. ADULT HEALTH
59.
Now, I’d like to ask you some questions about yourself. Please tell me how
strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements. (READ EACH
STATEMENT.)
Strongly Somewhat
agree,
agree,
Somewhat Strongly
disagree, or disagree
DK
REF
a. Good luck is more important than
......................................................hard work for success. Do you.
1
2
34
1
2
3
4
8
9
4
8
b. Every time I try to get ahead,
......................................................something stops me. Do you..
4 ...........................................................8
9
c.
When I make plans, I can
usually carry them out.............................1
2
3
d. Planning only makes people unhappy
........................................................................................
ever work out
......................................................anyway...
1
because plans hardly
2
9
The next few questions ask about your health and healthcare.
3
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
60.
In general, would you say your health is:
Excellent.......................................................1
Very good .....................................................2
Good.............................................................3
Fair ...............................................................4
Poor..............................................................5
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
61.
Do you have any illness or recurring health condition that requires regular, ongoing
care?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
62.
Has a doctor or other health professional ever told you that you have
asthma?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
à (SKIP TO Q63)
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
à (SKIP TO Q63)
REFUSED................................................................9
à (SKIP TO Q63)
a.
Do you still have symptoms? (coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath)
YES ..................................................1
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
NO ....................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..................................8
REFUSED........................................9
63.
During the past 12 months, have you had an episode of asthma or an asthma
attack?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
64.
During the past 12 months, did you have to visit an emergency room or
urgent care center because of asthma?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Now I’m going to change topics and ask you some questions about some of the
ways you might have felt in the past month. For each question, please indicate whether
you have felt this way all of the time, most of the time, some of the time, or none of the
time. How much of the time during the past month have you ...
1.
All of the
time
2.
Most of
the time
3.
Some of
the time
4.
None of
the time
8.
DK
9.
REF
65. Felt nervous?
66. Felt calm and peaceful?
67. Felt downhearted and
blue?
68. Felt Happy?
69. Felt so down in the
dumps that nothing
could cheer you up?
70. During the past 12 months, was there ever a time when you felt sad, blue or
depressed for two weeks or more in a row?
YES ..........................................................................1
à (SKIP TO Q72)
NO ............................................................................2
(IF VOLUNTEERED)
I WAS ON MEDICATION/ANTI-DEPRESSANTS .......... 3
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
à (SKIP TO Q83)
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
71.
During the past 12 months, was there ever a time lasting two weeks or more when you
lost interest in most things like hobbies, work, or activities that usually give you
pleasure?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ................................................................2
à (SKIP TO Q83)
(IF VOLUNTEERED)
I WAS ON MEDICATION/ANTI-DEPRESSANTS .......... 3
à (SKIP TO Q83)
DON'T KNOW ..............................................8
à (SKIP TO Q83)
REFUSED................................................................9
à (SKIP TO Q83)
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
72. For the next few questions, please think of the two-week period during the past 12
months when these feelings were worst. During that time did the feelings of (being
sad, blue, or depressed/losing interest in things) usually last all day long, most of
the day, about half the day, or less than half the day?
ALL DAY LONG .....................................1
MOST OF THE DAY..............................2
ABOUT HALF THE DAY........................3
LESS THAN HALF THE DAY............................4
à (SKIP TO Q83)
DON’T KNOW....................................................8
à (SKIP TO Q83)
REFUSED..........................................................9
à (SKIP TO Q83)
73. During those two weeks, did you feel this way every day, almost every day, or less
often?
EVERY DAY.......................................................1
ALMOST EVERY DAY ..................................... 2
LESS OFTEN ........................................3
à (SKIP TO Q83)
DON’T KNOW........................................8
REFUSED..............................................9
(IF QUESTION 71=1, SKIP TO QUESTION 75 OTHERWISE ASK QUESTION 74)
74.
During those two weeks, did you lose interest in most things like hobbies, work, or activities that usually give you
pleasure?
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
75. Thinking about those same two weeks, did you feel more tired or low on energy than
is usual for you?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
76. Did you gain or lose weight without trying, or did you stay about the same?
GAIN .................................................................1
LOSE ................................................................2
(IF VOLUNTEERED) BOTH GAINED AND LOST
3
STAYED ABOUT THE SAME ..........................4 à (SKIP TO QUESTION 78)
(IF VOLUNTEERED) WAS ON A DIET ...........5 à (SKIP TO QUESTION 78)
DON’T KNOW .................................................... 8
à (SKIP TO QUESTION 78)
REFUSED.........................................................9 à (SKIP TO QUESTION 78)
77. About how much did (you gain / you lose / your weight change)?
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
(RECORD IN ONE ANSWER CATEGORY)
_____ TO _____ POUNDS OR
_____________POUNDS
DON’T KNOW = 98
REFUSED
= 99
a. INTERVIEWER CHECKS: Did Respondent’s weight change by 10 pounds or more?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
78. During those two weeks did you have more trouble falling asleep than usual?
YES…...........................................................1
NO ........................................................ …………….2
à (SKIP TO Q80)
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
à (SKIP TO Q80)
REFUSED................................................................9
à (SKIP TO Q80)
79. Did that happen every night, nearly every night, or less often during those two
weeks?
EVERY NIGHT .............................................1
NEARLY EVERY NIGHT .............................2
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
LESS OFTEN...............................................3
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
80.
During those two weeks, did you have a lot more trouble concentrating than usual?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
81. People sometimes feel down on themselves, no good, or worthless. During that two
week period, did you feel this way?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
82. Did you think a lot about death -- either your own, someone else’s, or death in general
during those two weeks?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
83.
During the past 12 months, have you ever had a period lasting one month or longer
when most of the time you felt worried, tense, or anxious?
YES ..............................................................1
à (SKIP TO SECTION L)
NO ................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
84.
People differ a lot in how much they worry about things. Did you have a time in
the past 12 months when you worried a lot more than most people would in your
situation?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
L. YOUNGER CHILD
L1. This next set of questions asks about issues relevant to young children.
How many children in this household are younger than 6 years of age?
_________
[ IF NO CHILD UNDER 6 YEARS OF AGE, SKIP TO SECTION M
L2. Please tell me the first name only and age of each child in the household under the age of
six, starting with the youngest:
LIST NAME
AGE
SELECTED
PLACE AN “x” NEXT TO THE SELECTION
L2a. ___________________
L2b. ___________________
L2c. ___________________
L2d. ___________________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
L2e. ___________________
L2f. ___________________
L2g. ___________________
L2h. ___________________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
L2i. ___________________
L2j. ___________________
___________
___________
___________
___________
IF ONE CHILD UNDER AGE SIX, SELECT THIS CHILD.
[IF MORE THAN ONE CHILD UNDER AGE SIX, RANDOMLY
SELECT ONE CHILD BY CHOOSING THE CHILD WHOSE FIRST
NAME STARTS WITH A LETTER CLOSEST TO THE LETTER “M”
ABCDEFGHIJKL
MNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
L3.
The next set of questions will be asked about _<insert selected child’s name>__
experiences.
INSERT CHILD 1: _______________________
NAME
85.
_____________
AGE
How many days per week does [CHILD1] live in your home?
(RECORD AND CIRCLE)
[ENTER NUMBER OF DAYS_______] ... 1-7
REFUSED ……………………………..…………….9
86.
Now I’d like you to rate how much each of the following statements
describes CHILD1. [HAND RESPONDENT CARD]
Not at all like this child .................................1
A little like this child......................................2
Somewhat like this child ..............................3
A lot like this child ........................................4
Completely like this child .............................5
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
SHOW CARD A
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
a.
(CHILD1) is usually in a good mood. Would you say this is…
________
b.
(CHILD1) is admired and well liked by other children. Would you say this…
________
c.
(CHILD1) shows concern for other people’s feelings.
________
d.
e.
f.
(CHILD1) shows pride when he/she does something well or learns something new.
________
(CHILD1) easily calms down after being angry or upset.
________
(CHILD1) is helpful and cooperative.
________
INSERT CHILD 1: _______________________
NAME
_____________
AGE
[Ask for CHILD1 if 4 or 5 years old. Otherwise, SKIP TO Q91.]
87.
Does [CHILD1] go to school?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
a.
What grade level is the child in at school?
NURSERY SCHOOL...................................1
KINDERGARTEN ....................................................2
FIRST GRADE .........................................................3
OTHER.....................................................................7
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
88.
Is (CHILD1)’s school within walking distance from your home?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
89.
During the past two years, has (CHILD1) gone to a special class or gotten special help in school for learning problems?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
INSERT CHILD 1: _______________________
NAME
_____________
AGE
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
90.
During the past two years, has this child gone to a special class or gotten special help in school for behavioral or
emotional problems?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
Now, I’d like to ask about (CHILD1’s) health status.
91.
In general, would you say (CHILD1’s) health is…
Excellent,......................................................1
Very good, ....................................................2
Good,............................................................3
Fair, or ..........................................................4
Poor..............................................................5
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
92.
During the past 12 months, that is, since (12-month ref. date), about how many days did [CHILD1] miss school
because of illness or injury?
(RECORD AND CIRCLE)
NONE ...........................................................1
1-240 (Number of days__________) ..........2
DID NOT GO TO SCHOOL.........................3
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
INSERT CHILD 1: _______________________
NAME
93.
_____________
AGE
Where does [CHILD1] usually go for routine medical care? [DO NOT READ]
DOCTOR’S OFFICE OR PRIVATE CLINIC (INCLUDING HMO’S)1
HOSPITAL OUTPATIENT CLINIC ..................................................2
HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM ..................................................3
PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT...............................................................4
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER ...............................................................5
MIGRANT CLINIC ........................................................................................6
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES ......................................................................7
OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) …………………………………………………8
NO ROUTINE MEDICAL CARE ..................................................................9
DON'T KNOW ............................................................................................98
REFUSED..................................................................................................99
94.
Has a doctor or other health professional ever said (CHILD1) has asthma?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
à (SKIP TO Q95)
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
à (SKIP TO Q95)
REFUSED................................................................9
à (SKIP TO Q95)
a.
Does he/she still have symptoms? (coughing, wheezing, shortness of
breath)
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
YES ..................................................1
NO ....................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..................................8
REFUSED........................................9
95.
During the past 12 months, has [CHILD1] had an episode of asthma or an
asthma attack?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
INSERT CHILD 1: _______________________
NAME
96.
_____________
AGE
During the past 12 months, did [CHILD1] have to visit an emergency room
or urgent care center because of asthma?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
97.
During the past 12 months, did [CHILD1] have to visit an emergency room
or urgent care center because of an accident or injury?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
à (SKIP TO Q98)
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
à (SKIP TO Q98)
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
REFUSED................................................................9
a.
à (SKIP TO Q98)
Did the accident or injury occur from . . ..[CHECK ALL THAT APPLY]
Playing or sports injury...........................1
Fighting or another violent incident........2
OTHER...................................................7
DON'T KNOW ........................................8
REFUSED..............................................9
RECORD OTHER RESPONSE HERE
_____________________________
____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
M. OLDER CHILDREN
This next set of questions asks about issues relevant to children ages 6 to 14.
M1. How many children in this household are between the ages of 6 and 14?
_________
IF NO CHILD BETWEEN 6 AND 14 YEARS OF AGE, SKIP TO FINAL SECTION
M2. Please tell me the first name only and age of each child in the household between the ages 6
and 14, starting with the youngest:
LIST NAME
AGE
SELECTED
PLACE AN “x” NEXT TO THE SELECTION
M2a. ___________________
___________
___________
M2b.
M2c.
M2d.
M2e.
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
M2f. ___________________
M2g. ___________________
M2h. ___________________
M2i. ___________________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
___________
M2j.
___________
___________
___________________
IF ONLY ONE CHILD BETWEEN 6 AND 14, SELECT THIS CHILD.
IF MORE THAN ONE CHILD BETWEEN AGES 6 AND 14,
RANDOMLY SELECT ONE CHILD BY CHOOSING THE CHILD
WHOSE FIRST NAME STARTS WITH A LETTER CLOSEST TO THE
LETTER “M”
ABCDEFGHIJKL
MNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
M3.
The next set of questions will be asked about _<insert selected child’s name>__
experiences.
INSERT CHILD 2: _______________________
NAME
98.
_____________
AGE
How many days per week does [CHILD2] live in your home?
(RECORD AND CIRCLE)
[ENTER NUMBER OF DAYS__________]1-7
REFUSED....................................................9
99.
Now I’d like you to rate how much each of the following statements
describes [CHILD2]. [HAND RESPONDENT CARD A]
Not at all like this child .................................1
A little like this child......................................2
Somewhat like this child ..............................3
A lot like this child ........................................4
Completely like this child .............................5
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
a. (CHILD2) is usually in a good mood. Would you say this is…
_______
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
b. (CHILD2) is admired and well liked by other children. Would you say this…
_______
c. (CHILD2) shows concern for other people’s feelings.
_______
d. (CHILD2) shows pride when he/she does something well or learns something new. _______
e. (CHILD2) easily calms down after being angry or upset.
f.
_______
(CHILD2) is helpful and cooperative.
_______
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
M4. The following questions concern (CHILD2)'s school situation. Is [CHILD2] currently
enrolled in school?
YES…………..1
NO…………2
[ASK Q100 & 100A IF CHILD2 IS NOT ENROLLED IN SCHOOL.
IF ENROLLED IN SCHOOL, SKIP TO Q101]
INSERT CHILD 2: _______________________
_____________
NAME
100.
AGE
Why is (CHILD2) not attending school? (DO NOT READ LIST. RECORD UP
TO 3 MENTIONS)
A
B
C
FRIENDS NOT GOING) ............................................................................1
1
1
DOES POORLY IN SCHOOL (POOR GRADES).......................................2
2
2
WASN’T PROMOTED TO THE NEXT GRADE ..........................................3
3
3
DOESN’T GET ALONG WELL WITH TEACHERS/FACULTY/STAFF ...4
4
4
WANTS OR NEEDS TO WORK/ EARN MONEY.......................................6
6
6
IS PREGNANT/GOT SOME ONE PREGNANT...........................................8
8
8
9
9
PHYSICAL DISABILITY OR PROBLEM ....................................................10
10
10
MENTAL DISABILITY OR PROBLEM........................................................11
11
11
GRADUATED EARLY ...................................................................................12
12
12
GOT GED ........................................................................................................13
13
13
OTHER (SPECIFY): _____________________________..................... 14
14
14
DON’T KNOW.................................................................................................15
15
15
REFUSED........................................................................................................16
16
16
DISLIKES SCHOOL (DOESN’T WANT TO GO / NO INTEREST/
HAS HAD DISCIPLINARY TROUBLE IN SCHOOL (SUSPENSIONS/
EXPELLED/ FIGHTING)............................................................................9
a.
When did (he/she) last attend school?
(98 = Don’t Know; 99 = Refused)
Q108)
___ ___
_______MM
___ ___
YYYY à (SKIP TO
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
101.
What grade level is the [CHILD2] in at school?
KINDERGARTE N ........................................... 1
FIRST GRADE ........................................................... 2
SECOND GRADE ....................................................... 3
THIRD GRADE ........................................................... 4
FOURTH GRADE ....................................................... 5
FIFTH GRADE ........................................................... 6
SIXTH GRADE ........................................................... 7
SEVENTH GRADE ..................................................... 8
EIGHTH GRADE ........................................................ 9
NINTH GRADE ......................................................... 10
TENTH GRADE ........................................................ 11
DON'T KNOW .......................................................... 98
REFUSED............................................................... 99
INSERT CHILD 2: _______________________
_____________
102.
What is the name of [CHILD2’S]
school?
NAME
AGE
______________________________________
103.
What is the address of this school? [If they do not know address, prompt
for approximate location – street name, neighborhood, etc.]
Street number
______________________________
Street name
______________________________
Neighborhood name ______________________________
104.
City
______________________________
State
______________________________
Zip Code
______________________________
Is (CHILD2)’s school within walking distance from your home?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
105.
Does (CHILD2) go to a special class for gifted students or do advanced work in any subject?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
106.
During the past two years, has (CHILD2) gone to a special class or gotten special help in school for learning problems?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
INSERT CHILD 2: _______________________
NAME
107.
_____________
AGE
During the past two years, has this child gone to a special class or gotten special help in school for behavioral or
emotional problems?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
108.
Now I am going to read some statements that describe behavior problems that many children have. Please tell me
whether each statement has been often true, sometimes, or not true of (CHILD2) during the past 3 months.
REFUSED
Often
Sometimes
Not
DON’T
True
True
True
KNOW
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
[SKIP a. AND b. IF NOT ENROLLED]
a. Has trouble getting along
with teachers
1
9
2
3
8
b.
Is disobedient at school
9
1
2
3
8
c.
Is disobedient at home
9
1
2
3
8
d.
Hangs around with kids
1
9
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
2
3
8
1
9
2
3
8
who get in trouble
e.
Bullies or is cruel or
mean to others
9
f.
Is restless or overly active,
can’t sit still
9
g.
Is unhappy, sad,
or depressed
INSERT CHILD 2: _______________________
NAME
_____________
AGE
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
109.
Raising children can be difficult these days. Have there ever been any of the
following problems with (CHILD2)?
YES
a.
b.
2
8
9
2
8
9
8
9
8
9
Has [CHILD2] gotten into trouble with the police?
2
Has [CHILD2] done something illegal to get money?
1
110.
2
How many different schools has [CHILD2] attended since kindergarten?
(RECORD AND CIRCLE)
(Enter number________)....................... 1-97
DON'T KNOW ........................................................98
REFUSED..............................................................99
111.
9
Has [CHILD2] had a problem with alcohol or drugs?
1
e.
REF
Has [CHILD2] gone to juvenile court?
1
d.
DK
Has [CHILD2] been suspended, excluded, or expelled from school?
1
2
8
1
c.
NO
Now, I’d like to ask about [CHILD2’s] health status. In general, would you say [CHILD2’s] health is…
Excellent,......................................................1
Very good, ....................................................2
Good,............................................................3
Fair, or ..........................................................4
Poor..............................................................5
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
INSERT CHILD 2: _______________________
NAME
112.
_____________
AGE
During the past 12 months, that is, since (12-month ref. date), about how many days did [CHILD2] miss school
because of illness or injury?
(RECORD AND CIRCLE)
None .............................................................0
(Number of days__________) ............. 1-240
DID NOT GO TO SCHOOL.....................997
DON’T KNOW............................................98
REFUSED..................................................99
113.
Where does [CHILD2] usually go for routine medical care? [DO NOT READ]
DOCTOR’S OFFICE OR PRIVATE CLINIC (INCLUDING HMO’S)1
HOSPITAL OUTPATIENT CLINIC ..................................................2
HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM ..................................................3
PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT...............................................................4
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER ...............................................................5
MIGRANT CLINIC ........................................................................................6
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES ......................................................................7
OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) __________ ................................................8
NO ROUTINE MEDICAL CARE ..................................................................9
DON'T KNOW ............................................................................................98
REFUSED..................................................................................................99
114.
Has a doctor or other health professional ever said [CHILD2] has asthma?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
à (SKIP TO Q115)
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
à (SKIP TO Q115)
REFUSED................................................................9
à (SKIP TO Q115)
a.
Does he/she still have symptoms? (coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath)
YES ..................................................1
NO ....................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..................................8
REFUSED........................................9
INSERT CHILD 2: _______________________
NAME
115.
_____________
AGE
During the past 12 months, has [CHILD2] had an episode of asthma or an
asthma attack?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
116.
During the past 12 months, did [CHILD2] have to visit an emergency room
or urgent care center because of asthma?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
117.
During the past 12 months, did [CHILD2] have to visit an emergency room
or urgent care center because of an accident or injury?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
SECTION)
à (SKIP TO FINAL
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
SECTION)
à (SKIP TO FINAL
REFUSED................................................................9
SECTION)
à (SKIP TO FINAL
a.
APPLY]
Did the accident or injury occur from ...... [CHECK ALL THAT
Playing or sports injury.....................1
Fighting or another violent incident..2
OTHER.............................................7
DON'T KNOW ..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
RECORD OTHER RESPONSE HERE
_____________________________
____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
___
FINAL SECTION
These are the last few questions.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
118.
Do you have a valid driver’s license?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
119.
Do you own or have access to a car that runs?
YES ..............................................................1
NO ............................................................................2
DON'T KNOW ..........................................................8
REFUSED................................................................9
120.
I’d like you to tell me which category best estimates your total household income for 2000. Please include all income
including money earned from jobs, public assistance, or social security. In the year 2000, what was your household
income, before taxes?
Less than $5,000 .........................................1
$5,000 to $9,999 ..........................................2
$10,000 to $14,999 ......................................3
$15,000 to $19,999 ......................................4
$20,000 to $29,999 ......................................5
$30,000 to $39,999 ......................................6
$40,000 or more...........................................7
DON’T KNOW..............................................8
REFUSED....................................................9
Thank you for participating in our survey.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Interviewer:
Before you leave the house please review your work and make sure
you have recorded your answers to each question in the correct location.
Also, make sure you can read any of your notes or responses to open end
questions.
Finally, make sure you have recorded below the Case ID, respondent
name, and a telephone number to reach the person you interviewed. Also,
please record the serial number of the incentive received by the respondent.
After you have edited your work, using a blue pencil for corrections
and a red pencil to indicate the corrected response, return this workbook to
CASE ID:______________
NAME:_________________________________
TEL#: __________________________________
INCENTIVE PAID:
Y
N
INCENTIVE NUMBER:_____________________
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
CONTACT INFORMATION SHEET (INSERT INSIDE FRONT COVER NO PAGE NO.)
Part of this study involves returning to conduct another survey in the future, in about 18
months. That survey will ask similar questions. Like this survey, the next one is completely
voluntary, and you will be reimbursed for your time, as you will be today. Therefore, before we
begin, I would like to get some contact information to help us contact you in about 18 months.
This information is completely confidential and will not be shared with anyone outside of our
research staff.
a. What is your first name?
_______________________________________
b. What is your last name? _______________________________________
c.
What is your street address?
_______________________________________
d. City __________________________
e.
State _________________________
f.
Zip code ______________________
g. What is your telephone number? (
h.
) ______________
Is this number listed under your name?
Yes .....................................................1
No (SPECIFY NAME) ........................2
i.
Do you have a cell or beeper number? (
) ______________
Yes (SPECIFY) ..................................1
No.......................................................2
j.
What is your Social Security Number? ___ ___ ___ / ___ ___ / ___ ___ ___ ___
Can you provide us with the name of a relative who does not live with you, whom we
could contact in order to get in touch with you if your address and phone number change?
a. Relative’s first name………………………………………………
b. Relative’s last name……………………………………………….
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
c. Relative’s street
address______________________________________________
ADDRESS
d. City……………………………………………………………………
e. State………………………………………………………………….
f.
Zip code………………………………………………………………
g. Relative’s telephone number
(
) ______________
h. Relative’s cell or beeper number
(
) ______________
Can you provide us with the name of a friend who does not live with you, whom we could
contact in order to get in touch with you if your address and phone number change?
a.
Friend’s first name……………………………………………………..
b.
Friend’s last name………………………………………………………
c. Friend’s street
address_________________________________________________
ADDRESS
d.
City…………………………………………………
e.
State……………………………………………….
f.
Zip code…………………………………………..
g.
Friend’s telephone number (
h.
Friend’s cell or beeper number
) ______________
(
) _____________
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
APPENDIX C: BASELINE INTERVIEW GUIDES
Introduction and Consent
INTRODUCTION:
Hello. My name is (interviewer name) . I work at the Urban Institute in Washington,
D.C. The Urban Institute is an independent research organization. I do not work for the [city
name] housing authority or for HUD.
The Urban Institute is conducting a study to understand the effects the HOPE VI
program has on families. HOPE VI is the program that involves tearing down older public
housing developments and building new housing. The purpose of this interview is to
understand more about what it is like for families who live in developments that are now part of
the HOPE VI program. During the first part of the interview, I’ll ask you questions that cover
several topics about you and your family, including questions about your home and
neighborhood, jobs, health, and your children’s schools. Then, I’ll ask you a few questions
about the HOPE VI program.
This interview is part of the same study that you participated in recently when you were
surveyed by a person from Abt Associates. We’re conducting the study in three phases, with
the survey and this interview being part of the first phase. We hope to be able to talk with you
again about a year and a half from now.
During the interview please remember that we are interested in your experiences and
opinions; there are no right or wrong answers. I hope you’ll feel comfortable talking with me. If
at any time I ask you a question and you don’t feel comfortable talking about the topic, feel free
to say so. The interview should last about an hour and a half, and we will pay $40 (adult) and
$25 (child) for your time and participation.
With your permission, I would like to tape the interview to make sure I have your
thoughts and experiences recorded accurately. No one outside the research team will be
allowed to listen to the tapes and they will be destroyed at the end of the study.
CONSENT FORM :
Before we begin, I need to go over this consent form with you. It gives you more
information about the study and a telephone number you can call if you have questions later. I
will give you a copy to keep.
[Consent Form]
Do you have any questions or comments before we continue?
I am going to turn on the tape recorder now, and we will get started.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Adult Interview Guide
HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION
I’d like to start by asking about your household so that I can only ask the questions that are relevant
to your family.
*
Who lives in your home (children and adults)? How old are your
children?
*
Do your children spend time living elsewhere?
WHERE; WITH WHOM; WHEN; WHY
HOUSING
*
How long have you lived in this apartment?
*
What do you like about your apartment?
SPECIFIC LIKES; DISLIKES; MAINTENANCE ISSUES
NEIGHBORHOOD
*
What do you like about living in this neighborhood?
DESCRIBE AREA; LIKES; DISLIKES
*
Is the neighborhood convenient for what you need to do on a regular
basis?
WORK; SHOP; CATCH A BUS; GO TO DOCTOR; ETC.
*
How safe do you think the neighborhood is? Do you know of any
problems that there have been here?
GANGS; DRUGS; POLICE PRESENCE
*
Do you feel safe in the neighborhood? Are there times you don’t feel
safe? Places?
DAYTIME; NIGHTTIME
*
INSIDE; OUTSIDE
Have you or your family ever experienced any harassment or
discrimination in your neighborhood?
DESCRIBE; BY NEIGHBORS; BY NON-NEIGHBORS; BY POLICE
INTERACTION WITH NEIGHBORS
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
*
How well do people in this neighborhood know each other? Do you
talk much with anyone who lives nearby?
*
Do people do things together? Do you ever do things with neighbors?
DESCRIBE INTERACTIONS; COOKOUTS; VISIT
*
Do people here help each other out, watch out for other’s children?
EXAMPLES
*
Do you have friends or family who live nearby?
EMPLOYMENT & INCOME
I’d like to ask some questions about employment and income.
*
Are you employed now? What is your job?
LENGTH OF TIME AT JOB; LIKES; DISLIKES; Full-time OR Parttime; REASONS NOT WORKING
*
Have you had other jobs in the past?
TYPES OF JOBS; REASONS FOR NOT WORKING
*
Are you participating in any kind of job training or education program?
DESCRIBE; HOW GOT INVOLVED
* Do you receive TANF? Disability checks/SSI?
CHANGES IN BENEFITS; TIME LIMITS; SANCTIONS
*
In the last year, has there ever been a time when things were tight
and you didn’t have enough money to buy enough food for you and
your family?
WHAT HAPPENED; HOW OFTEN; HOW RECENTLY
*
In the last year, has there ever been a time when you didn’t have
enough money to pay rent or the telephone bill?
WHAT HAPPENED; HOW OFTEN; HOW RECENTLY
HEALTH
*
Have you or any of your family members had any health problems or
concerns in the last year?
DESCRIBE; ASTHMA; INJURIES; DEPRESSION
*
Has there been much stress in your life this past year?
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
DESCRIBE; MAJOR LIFE EVENTS: JOB/INCOME CHANGE;
ILLNESS; CHANGE IN HOUSEHOLD; ETC.
*
Have you missed work / school because of any health concerns?
*
Has your child missed any school because of any health concerns?
*
Has any health issue affected your child’s learning or behavior in
school?
ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder); LEARNING DISABILITY
EDUCATION
*
What school does your child go to? Where is it located?
PUBLIC; PRIVATE; CHARTER; HOW SELECTED
*
Has your child ever switched schools?
[if yes] WHY
*
How is your child doing in school?
CLASS GRADES; GETTING ALONG WITH OTHERS; SPECIAL
RECOGNITION/ AWARDS
*
What are some of the things you like about your child’s school?
TEACHERS; SCHOOL QUALITY; SAFETY; PROGRAMS;
PROXIMITY; DISCRIMINATION; OTHER STUDENTS; DISLIKE
*
Is your child in special classes, such as special ed or gifted classes?
DESCRIBE
*
Does your child participate in any type of programs during school
hours or after school, such as music or art programs, sports, etc.?
*
How is your child’s behavior in school?
EVER IN TROUBLE; SUSPENDED; EXPELLED
OUTLOOK FOR REDEVELOPMENT
Under the HOPE VI program, residents here will be relocated to other housing and
(development name) will be rebuilt. I’d like to ask a few questions about the plans
for (development) and your thoughts about them.
*
How did you learn about the plans for relocation? What have you
learned about the relocation process?
*
What types of services, if any, have you heard will be offered to people
during relocation?
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
*
What would you like to happen in terms of relocation? Where do you
think you would like to move?
NEIGHBORHOOD; HOUSING TYPE; SCHOOLS
*
What do you think about the HOPE VI plans for the development?
*
Do you have any concerns about the plans?
*
Do you hope to return to the development once it’s reopened?
WHY; WHY NOT
*
Where would you like to be in five years?
Is there anything you would like to add about anything we have talked about?
___________________________________________
Thank you for your time and for sharing your experiences with me.
Have respondent sign receipt.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Child Interview Guide
HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION
I’d like to start by asking about your family.
*
Who lives in this apartment with you?
*
Do any of you spend time living somewhere else, with a relative or
friend?
WHERE; WITH WHOM; WHEN
HOUSING
*
What kinds of things do you like about your apartment?
LIKES; DISLIKES ; MAINTENANCE ISSUES
NEIGHBORHOOD
*
What kinds of things do you like about living in this neighborhood?
DESCRIBE AREA; LIKES; DISLIKES
*
Are there things to do around here for people your age?
PARKS; MOVIES; ACTIVITY PROGRAMS
*
How safe do you feel in the neighborhood? Do you know of any
problems that there have been here?
GANGS; DRUGS; POLICE PRESENCE
*
Are there times you don’t feel safe? Places?
DAYTIME; NIGHTTIME
*
OUTSIDE; IN APARTMENT
Have you or your family ever experienced any problems with other
people in your neighborhood?
DESCRIBE; BY WHOM
INTERACTION WITH NEIGHBORS
*
Do you have friends or family who live nearby?
DESCRIBE INTERACTIONS; VISIT; PLAY
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
*
Do people in the neighborhood do things together? Do you ever do
things with neighbors?
DESCRIBE INTERACTIONS; VISIT; PLAY
*
Do people here help each other out, such as adults watching out for
other children?
EXAMPLES
EDUCATION
*
What school do you go to? Where is it? Have you always gone to this
school?
PUBLIC; PRIVATE; CHARTER; OTHER SCHOOLS ATTENDED
*
How are you doing in school?
CLASS GRADES; GETTING ALONG WITH OTHERS; SPECIAL
RECOGNITION/ AWARDS
*
What are some of the things you like about your school?
TEACHERS; SCHOOL QUALITY; SAFETY; PROGRAMS;
PROXIMITY; DISLIKES
*
Are you absent from school much? Ever?
WHY
*
Are you in any type of special classes, such as special ed or gifted
classes?
DESCRIBE
*
Do you participate in any type of programs during school hours or
after school, such as music or art programs, sports, etc.?
*
Have you ever gotten in trouble at school?
SUSPENDED; EXPELLED
HEALTH
*
Have you been sick or had any other health problems in the last year?
ASTHMA; FREQUENT COLDS; INJURIES
*
Have you missed school because of any health problems?
*
Have you felt stressed much this past year, at home, school, with
friends?
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
DESCRIBE; ILLNESS; CHANGE IN HOUSEHOLD; SCHOOL
RELATED; ETC.
OUTLOOK FOR REDEVELOPMENT
Under the HOPE VI program, families here will be moved to other housing and
(development name) will be rebuilt. I’d like to ask a few questions about the plans
for (development) and your thoughts about them.
*
Have you heard much about HOPE VI or about moving from here?
What have you learned about it?
*
What would you like to happen in terms of moving? Where do you
think you would like to move?
*
How do you feel about moving from here?
*
Do you think you would want to return to the development once it’s
rebuilt?
WHY; WHY NOT
Is there anything you would like to add about anything we have talked about?
____________________________________________________
Thank you for your time and for sharing your experiences with me.
Have respondent sign receipt.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Appendix D
Site Tables
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
TABLE D.1. HOUSING
Shore Park/
Shore Terrace
Atlantic City, NJ
Wells/Madden
Few Gardens
Easter Hill
Chicago, IL
Durham, NC
Richmond, CA
HOUSING PROBLEMS
Heating broken
Toilets not working
Water leaks
Peeling paint/broken plaster
Exposed radiator
Cockroaches
Rats/mice
Mold on walls and ceilings
Two or more problems
Housing satisfaction
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfied with housing conditions
(very or somewhat satisfied)
Sample size (number of respondents)
Source:
Notes:
54.4 c,d,r,w
41.7 c,d,r,w
48.9 w
35.3 c,r
17.4 c,d,r,w
49.6 c,d,r,w
40.3 c,d,r,w
20.1 c,r
31.8 a,d
28.3 a
54.3 d,r,w
53.5 a,r,w
49.0 a,d,r,w
33.0 a,r,w
24.8 a,d,r,w
35.9 a,d,w
17.2 a,c,r,w
20.4 a
35.2 c
42.3 r
0.0 a,c
25.3 a,r
3.3 a,c
16.5 c,r
33.5 a,d
17.1 a
37.7 c
16.5 a,c,d
3.0 a,c
5.3 a,c,d
5.3 a,c
39.0 a,d,w
61.9 d,r,w
76.3 d,r,w
45.1 a,c
37.1 a,c
c,d,r,w
a,r
a,r
3.6
39.6
30.2
0.0
34.3
32.8
13.1
18.2
19.2
46.2
17.6
17.0
41.8
35.9
14.1
8.2
43.2 c,d,r,w
67.2 a
65.4 a
77.7 a,w
139
198
182
a,c,d,w
170
HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Superscript letters indicate significant differences across sites. (The superscript letter is the first
letter of the city name.) Differences are significant at p < .05.
East Ca
Dwellin
Capitol
Washing
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
TABLE D.2. NEIGHBORHOOD
Shore Park/
Shore Terrace
Atlantic City, NJ
Wells/Madden
Few Gardens
Easter Hill
Chicago, IL
Durham, NC
Richmond, CA
Own or have access to car
13.8 d,r,w
21.9 d,r
34.6 a,c,r
48.2 a,c,d,w
AMENITIES WITHIN 15 MINUTES
Public transit
Grocery store
Clinic/hospital
97.1 d,r
87.8 d,r,w
71.9 c,d,r,w
94.0 d,r
77.3 d,r,w
52.3 a,d,r,w
90.1 a,c,w
56.6 a,c
29.1 a,c,w
84.0 a,c,w
47.3 a,c
32.3 a,c,w
NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS
Graffiti
Trash
People using drugs
People selling drugs
Groups of people hanging out
Gangs
Police not coming when called
Physical disorder
Social disorder
Violent crime
17.4 c,r
46.8
77.4
77.0 w
66.9
51.6 c,w
6.6
48.2 c,r
86.3 w
64.0 d
47.7 a,d,w
59.0
85.3 w
84.1 w
73.6 r,w
75.0 a,r,w
15.7
68.4 a,w
87.7 w
68.7 d,w
15.3 c,r
54.4 w
85.6 w
86.2 w
69.1 w
62.7 r,w
35.8 a,c,w
56.9 w
85.5 w
83.7 a,c,r,w
41.6 a,d,w
59.3 w
73.7
75.3
58.9 c
42.9 c,d,w
27.3 a
67.3 a,w
80.4
65.5 d
68.2 a,d,r
44.0 c,w
52.1 c
87.9 a,d
72.4 c,w
81.8 a
198
182
170
SAFETY
Feels very safe being alone right
45.3 c
outside of apartment/house
Feels very safe being alone inside
62.6 c,r,w
apartment at night
Sample size (number of respondents)
139
Source: HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Notes:
Superscript letters indicate significant differences across sites. (The superscript letter is the first
letter of the city name.) Differences are significant at p < .05.
East Ca
Dwellin
Capitol
Washing
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
TABLE D.3 COLLECTIVE EFFICACY AND SOCIAL INTEGRATION
Shore Park/
Shore Terrace
Wells/Madden
Atlantic City, NJ
Chicago, IL
Few
Gardens
Durham, NC
Easter Hill
Richmond, CA
SOCIAL CONTROL
How likely is it that your neighbors would do something if they saw:
(percent answering very or somewhat likely)
Children showing disrespect to an adult
50.8
Children spray-painting graffiti on a local
51.2
building
A fight break out in front of their home
48.8
Children skipping school and hanging out
43.2
on a street corner
61.7
50.3
55.8
59.3
50.3
55.8
57.4
47.4
58.5
c
55.7
35.5
41.1
32.8 c,d,r,w
65.8 a,d
48.6 a,c,w
56.6 a
26.2 c,r,w
53.1 a
39.3 r,w
61.1 a,d
18.2 c,d,r,w
50.3 a
37.0 a
41.6 a
11.6 c,d,r,w
42.4 a,d
27.0 a,c
35.2 a
14.4 c
31.6 a
20.9
25.9
SOCIAL COHESION
People around here are willing to help their
neighbors
People in this neighborhood generally get
along with each other
This is a close-knit neighborhood
People in this neighborhood share the same
values
People in this neighborhood can be trusted
Social Control Index
Social Cohesion and Trust Index
Friends in neighborhood
Family in neighborhood
Sample size (number of respondents)
Source:
Notes:
1.8
1.0 c,d,r,w
51.8 c
38.9 w
139
2.3 d
2.3 a,d
72.7 a,r,w
46.7 r,w
198
1.7 c
1.7 a,c,w,
59.3 r,w
35.2 w
182
2.0
2.1 a
44.7 c,d
31.2 c,w
170
HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Superscript letters indicate significant differences across sites. (The superscript letter is the first
letter of the city name.) Differences are significant at p < .05.
East C
Dwell
Capitol
Washin
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
TABLE D.4. ADULT PHYSICAL HEALTH STATUS
Shore Park/
Shore Terrace
Atlantic City, NJ
Wells/Madden
Few Gardens
Easter Hill
Chicago, IL
Durham, NC
Richmond, CA
a,r,w
d
d
Overall health status
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
2.2
33.1
34.5
16.6
13.7
24.8
14.1
19.7
32.3
9.1
27.8
20.6
23.9
21.7
6.1
17.1
14.1
27.1
31.8
10.0
Health is excellent or very good
Health is excellent, v. good, or good
35.3
69.8 c
38.9
58.6 a
48.3
72.2
31.2
58.2
Chronic health condition
35.3
41.4
33.0 w
32.4 w
ASTHMA
Prevalence
Incidence
Emergency care
21.6
19.4
17.8
23.9
12.2
9.1
22.0
12.6
8.2 a
20.6
11.8
6.5 a
c,d,r,w
a,d,r,w
a,c,w
a,c,w
71.9
24.5
3.6
52.3
33.0
14.7
29.1
45.1
25.7
32.3
40.1
27.6
ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE
Less than 15 minutes
15–30 minutes
30 minutes or longer
Sample size (number of respondents)
Source:
Notes:
139
198
182
170
HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Superscript letters indicate significant differences across sites. (The superscript letter is the first
letter of the city name.) Differences are significant at p < .05.
East Ca
Dwellin
Capitol
Washing
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
TABLE D.5. ADULT MENTAL HEALTH STATUS
Shore Park/
Shore Terrace
Atlantic City, NJ
SELF-EFFICACY INDICATORS
(percent reporting strongly or
somewhat agree)
Good luck is more important than
hard work.
Every time I try to get ahead,
something stops me.
When I make plans, I can usually carry
them out. (inverse wording)
Planning only makes people unhappy
anyway because plans hardly ever
work out.
Wells/Madden
Few Gardens
Easter Hill
Chicago, IL
Durham, NC
Richmond, CA
East Ca
Dwellin
Capitol
Washing
NA
22.4
33.1
22.1
26.8
NA
54.9
61.8
58.2
59.7
NA
88.7
83.6
72.9
88.2
NA
26.3 d,r,w
39.9 c
40.9 c
43.3
Low self-efficacy score1
NA
33.8
46.2
45.3
43.4
Poor General Mental Health
(scored less than 67 on MOS)
NA
23.2 a
29.1 a
33.5a
29.3
Major Depressive Episode
(CIDI score = 3 or higher)
NA
12.1 a
15.5 a
20.3 a
17.7
Sample size (number of respondents)
Source:
Notes:
139
198
182
170
198
HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
NA=not available; Superscript letters indicate significant differences across sites. (The
superscript letter is the first letter of the city name.) Differences are significant at p < .05.
TABLE D.6. CHILD (UNDER AGE 6) PHYSICAL HEALTH STATUS
Shore Park/
Shore Terrace
Atlantic City, NJ
Overall health status
Excellent
1
c,d,r,w
8.6
Wells/Madden
Few Gardens
Easter Hill
Chicago, IL
Durham, NC
Richmond, CA
a
a.
a
64.6
54.8
35.8
Low score represents the percent reporting that they “strongly agree” with two or more statements, using reverse
coding for the statement about making plans. (Note that for each of the four statements listed in the table, we report
the share responding “strongly” and “somewhat agree.”)
East Ca
Dwellin
Capitol
Washing
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
36.2
48.3
6.9
0.0
15.4
15.4
4.6
0.0
20.4
16.1
8.6
0.0
29.9
28.4
6.0
0.0
Health is excellent, v. good, or good
93.1
95.4
91.4
94.0
ASTHMA
Prevalence
Incidence
Emergency care
14.0
12.1
12.1
18.8
13.9
10.8
32.3
17.2
14.0
29.9
13.4
9.0
5.2
7.7
18.3
20.9
r,w
d
Visited ER for accident or injury
Site for routine medical care
Doctor’s office or private clinic
Community health center
Hospital outpatient clinic
Other
29.3
67.2
0.0
3.5
47.7
24.6
20.0
7.7
28.0
37.6
32.3
2.2
64.2
16.4
7.5
11.9
School missed because of illness
Less than 5 days
5–10 days
More than 10 days
58.8
23.8
17.5
71.0
20.4
8.6
59.2
22.5
18.3
55.0
26.0
19.0
Sample size (number of children)
Share of households represented
58
41.7
65
32.8
93
51.1
67
39.4
Source:
Notes:
HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Superscript letters indicate significant differences across sites. (The superscript letter is the first
letter of the city name.) Differences are significant at p < .05.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
TABLE D.7. YOUTH (AG ES 6–14) PHYSICAL HEALTH STATUS
Shore Park/
Shore Terrace
Atlantic City, NJ
c,d,r,w
Easter Hill
Wells/Madden
Few Gardens
Chicago, IL
Durham, NC
Richmond,
CA
a,r
a
a,c
East Cap
Dwellin
Capitol P
Washingto
Overall health status
Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
7.1
32.3
52.5
5.1
3.0
61.7
16.0
14.9
7.5
0.0
37.0
30.1
20.6
12.3
0.0
39.4
18.3
26.9
11.5
3.9
44.7
27.2
22.3
Health is excellent, v. good, or good
92.0
92.6
87.7
85.0
94.2
ASTHMA
Prevalence
Incidence
Emergency care
8.0 d,r
6.0 r
6.1
17.2
6.4 r
4.3
26.0 a
15.1
13.7
31.7 a
21.2 a,c
11.7
19.6
12.8
Visited ER for accident or injury
5.0
11.7
13.7
16.4
10.7
w
Site for routine medical care
Doctor’s office or private clinic
Community health center
Hospital outpatient clinic
Other
30.0
68.0
0.0
2.0
41.9
36.6
17.2
4.3
31.5
38.4
27.4
2.7
57.7
20.2
6.7
15.4
54.4
27.2
18.5
School days missed in the past year
because of illness or injury
Less than 5 days
5–9 days
10 or more days
58.8
23.8
17.5
71.0
20.4
8.6
59.2
22.5
18.3
55.0
26.0
19.0
63.7
17.7
18.6
99
94
73
104
Sample size (number of children)
71.2
47.5
40.1
61.2
Share of households represented
Source: HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Notes:
Superscript letters indicate significant differences across sites. (The superscript letter is the first
letter of the city name.) Differences are significant at p < .05.
103
52.0
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
TABLE D.8. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILDREN
Shore Park/
Shore Terrace
Atlantic City, NJ
Percent of households with children
under 18
92.8
Average number of children in
household
2.4 c,d
Gender (among children under 6)
Female
Male
Mean age (among children under 6)
Gender (among children 6–14)
Female
Male
c,d,w
Wells/Madden
Few Gardens
Chicago, IL
Durham, NC
a,d,r
a,c,r
61.1
1.7 a
74.2
1.6 d
Easter Hill
Richmond,
CA
79.4
a,c,w
Washingto
62.1
2.1
64.8
35.2
47.5
52.5
42.7
57.3
45.5
54.6
2.8
2.7
2.8
3.2
52.1
47.9
51.1
48.9
47.1
52.9
52.5
47.5
Mean age (among children 6–14)
10.3 d
9.5
9a,w
9.7
Sample size (number of children)
Share of households represented
99
71.2%
94
47.5%
73
40.1%
104
61.2%
Source:
Notes:
East Cap
Dwellin
Capitol P
HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Superscript letters indicate significant differences across sites. (The superscript letter is the first
letter of the city name.) Differences are significant at p < .05.
50.9
49.1
51.5
48.5
10.1
103
52.0%
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
TABLE D.9. CHILD SCHOOL AND BEHAVIOR (AG ES 6 AND UNDER)
Shore
Park/
Shore
Terrace
Enrolled in school
School within walking distance
In special education for learning problems
In special education for behavior problems
Atlantic
City, NJ
90.5
95.0 r
14.3
18.2
Wells/Madden
Few Gardens
Easter Hill
Chicago, IL
Durham, NC
Richmond, CA
80.0
100.0 r
4.4
9.1
72.7
69.0
17.2
6.5
80.0
50.0 a,c
12.5
12.5
84.0
88.8
68.4
91.3
51.9 c
80.0
79.1
82.8
64.6
89.4
50.8 c
70.8
POSITIVE BEHAVIORS
(percent reporting a lot or completely)
Is usually in a good mood
Is well liked and admired by other children
Shows concerns for other people’s feelings
Shows pride when they do something well
Is easily calmed down after being angry
Is helpful and cooperative
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Mean of positive behaviors
NA
87.7
93.8
76.7
96.8
75.0 d,r,w
85.5
4.5 d,r,w
4.1 c
99
94
73
Sample size (number of children)
71.2%
47.5%
40.1%
Share of households represented
Source: HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Notes:
NA = not available; Superscript letters indicate significant differences across sites. (The
superscript letter is the first letter of the city name.) Differences are significant at p < .05.
3.9 c
104
61.2%
East Ca
Dwellin
Capitol
Washing
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
TABLE D.10. YOUTH SCHOOL AND BEHAVIOR (AGES 6 –14)
Shore Park/
Shore
Terrace
Atlantic City,
NJ
Wells/Madde
n
Chicago, IL
Few Gardens
Easter Hill
Durham, NC
Richmond, CA
w
Grade in school (3 categories)
Kindergarten–third
Fourth–sixth
Seventh–tenth
41.4
35.4
23.2
54.3
26.6
19.2
58.9
30.1
11.0
45.2
32.7
22.1
School within walking distance
School quality is a big problem
79.9 c,d,r
5.3 d,r
90.4 ad,r,w
14.5 r
53.4 a,c,w
20.1 a,r
43.3 a,c,w
41.4 a,d,r,w
Number of schools attended
One
Two
Three or more
d,r,w
a
a
62.9
32.0
5.2
48.4
33.3
17.2
41.1
28.8
30.1
47.5
32.7
19.8
Enrolled in gifted or advanced classes
In special classes for learning problems
In special classes for behavior problems
14.3
19.2 d
14.4
20.2
14.9 d
11.7
19.2
38.4 a,c,r
19.2
10.9
18.3 d
5.8
POSITIVE BEHAVIORS
Is usually in a good mood
Is well liked and admired by other children
Shows concerns for other people’s feelings
Shows pride when they do something well
Is easily calmed down after being angry
Is helpful and cooperative
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
76.6
89.4
80.9
97.9
62.8
85.1 d
Mean of positive behaviors
NA
4.5 d,r,w
63.0
79.5
72.6
93.2
43.8
67.1 c
59.6
78.9
78.6 a
88.5
57.7
79.8
4.2 c
4.1 c
99
94
73
Sample size (number of children)
71.2%
47.5%
40.1%
Share of households represented
Source: HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Notes:
NA = not available ; Superscript letters indicate significant differences across sites. (The
superscript letter is the first letter of the city name.) Differences are significant at p < .05.
104
61.2%
East C
Dwelli
Capitol
Washin
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
TABLE D.11. YOUTH (AGES 6–14), BEHAVIOR
Shore Park/
Shore
Terrace
Atlantic City,
NJ
BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS
Has trouble getting along with teachers
Is disobedient at school
Has been suspended, excluded, or
expelled from school
79.8
82.0
Wells/Madde
n
Chicago, IL
91.5
94.7
11.5
Easter Hill
Durham, NC
Richmond, CA
87.7
91.8
Washin
71.2
92.3
21.3
28.8
d
c,a
33.3
Is disobedient at home
Hangs around with kids who get in trouble
Bullies or is cruel or mean to others
Is restless or overly active, can’t sit still
Is unhappy, sad, or depressed
72.7
72.0
55.6 d,r
65.3 d,r,w
31.4 d
93.6
98.9 d
67.0
92.6d,r,w
53.2 d,r
91.8
95.9 c
60.3 a
97.3 a,c
75.2 a,c
91.4 a
91.4
71.2 a
93.3 a,c
58.2 c
One or more negative behaviors
Two or more negative behaviors
27.3 r
23.7
23.2 r,w
17.7 r,w
31.9 r
24.7
50.0 a,c,d
36.5 c
11.5 r
21.3
28.8
33.3 a
2.1
0.0
2.1
0.0
1.1
0.0
14.3
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.9
0.0
DELINQUIENT BEHAVIOR
Suspended, excluded, or expelled from
school
Gone to juvenile court
Had a problem with alcohol or drugs
Gotten into trouble with the police
Done something illegal to get money
d,r
Few Gardens
East C
Dwelli
Capitol
99
94
73
104
Sample size (number of children)
71.2%
47.5%
40.1%
61.2%
Share of households represented
Source: HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Notes:
Superscript letters indicate significant differences across sites. (The superscript letter is the first
letter of the city name.) Differences are significant at p < .05.
103
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
TABLE D.12. EMPLOYMENT STATUS, PUBLIC AS SISTANCE, AND HARDSHIP
Shore Park/
Shore Terrace
Atlantic City, NJ
Currently work for pay
53.2 c,w
Few Gardens
Easter Hill
Chicago, IL
Durham, NC
Richmond, CA
32.3 a
41.2 w
40.0 w
a
a
a
45.3
5.8
48.9
18.7
13.6
67.7
23.1
17.6
59.3
22.4
18.2
59.4
Currently receiving public
assistance
10.2 c,d,r,w
35.2 a,r
27.5 a,r
45.9 a,d
If no, ever received public
assistance
53.7 c,w
68.5 a,d,r,w
48.9 c
48.9 c
Employment status
Full-time
Part-time
Not employed
Length of time receiving public
assistance
c,d,r,w
Wells/Madden
d,r
d
2.7
20.3
77.0
2.0
25.3
72.7
17.1
47.6
35.2
17.2
39.6
43.1
Currently receiving food stamps
44.2 c,d,w
67.0 a,r
68.1 a,r
47.7 c,d,w
Currently receiving SSI
12.2 d,w
10.6
Worried about running out of food
in the past 6 months
60.4 c,w
39.4 ar
Less than one year
1–5 years
More than 5 years
a,c
3.9 a
51.1
a
6.6
62.9 c,w
Sample size (number of respondents)
Source:
Notes:
HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
SSI = Supplemental Security Income.
Superscript letters indicate significant differences across sites. (The superscript letter is the first
letter of the city name.) Differences are significant at p < .05.
East Ca
Dwellin
Capitol
Washing
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
TABLE D.13. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EMPLOYED
Shore Park/
Shore Terrace
Atlantic City, NJ
Time at current job
Less than one year
1–3 years
More than 3 years
Wells/Madden
Few Gardens
Easter Hill
Chicago, IL
Durham, NC
Richmond, CA
c,d,r
a
a
a
27.0
14.9
58.1
35.9
35.9
28.1
53.3
29.3
17.3
50.0
26.5
23.5
27.0
13.5
12.2
9.5
5.4
13.5
8.1
4.1
6.8
23.4
14.1
3.1
21.8
3.1
6.3
0.0
15.6
12.5
17.3
30.7
16.0
13.3
5.3
0.0
1.3
1.3
14.7
19.1
38.2
2.9
2.9
1.5
4.4
1.5
0.0
29.4
East Ca
Dwellin
Capitol
Washing
How did you find your current job?
Neighborhood friend or relative
Friend/relative
Newspaper or radio
Personal visit inquiring about openings
Private employment agency
Welfare office
Unemployment office
Neighborhood agency
Other
Average hourly rate ($)
Household income < $10,000
How do you get to work?
Public transportation
Car (own)
Car (borrowed)
Cab
Walk
Work at home
Carpool
Other
Source:
Notes:
8.69
47.3 c,d,w
7.83r
8.38
9.5 c
78.7 a,r,w
79.9 a,r,w
59.0 c,d
d
d
a,c.w
59.5
13.5
0.0
0.0
25.7
1.4
0.0
0.0
54.7
18.8
3.1
0.0
18.8
3.1
1.6
0.0
24.0
34.7
5.3
1.33
5.3
1.3
22.7
5.3
25.0
36.8
11.8
0.0
20.6
1.5
4.4
0.0
HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Superscript letters indicate significant differences across sites. (The superscript letter is the first
letter of the city name.) Differences are significant at p < .05.
TABLE D.14. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE UNEMPLOYED
Shore Park/
Shore Terrace
Atlantic City, NJ
Ever employed
Worked in the past year
BARRIERS TO WORK
70.8 c,d,r,w
25.0
Wells/Madden
Few Gardens
Easter Hill
Chicago, IL
Durham, NC
Richmond, CA
85.1 a
22.3
94.4 a
33.3 w
85.3 a
38.4 w
East Ca
Dwellin
Capitol
Washing
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Not having work experience
Not having child care
Lack of transportation
Not speaking English well
Having a disability
Discrimination
Lack of jobs in the neighborhood
Having a drug or alcohol problem
Having a criminal record
Source:
Notes:
33.3 d
25.7
1.9 d,r,w
4.2 r
9.6
22.1 c,d,r,w
4.8 c,d,r,w
2.9
2.9
27.8
20.0 d
8.6 d,r
0.0 r
20.4
2.7 a
41.7 a
1.3
2.0
15.6 a
36.1 c
45.9 a,c,w
0.0 r
9..8
4.9 a
28.1 a,r
0.8
4.1
27.3
32.3
39.4 a,c,w
23.7 a,c,d,w
14.7
9.8 a
48.9 a,d
0.8
1.5
HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Superscript letters indicate significant differences across sites. (The superscript letter is the first
letter of the city name.) Differences are significant at p < .05.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
TABLE D.15. RELOCATION
Shore Park/
Shore Terrace
Atlantic City, NJ
Want to live in development after it
is fixed up or rebuilt
If moves, desires to live
In the neighborhood
In a different neighborhood
In a suburban neighborhood
In a different city
Other
Reasons to leave public housing
Better schools
Employment opportunities
Get away from drugs and gangs
Bigger/better apartment or house
Move near family
Does not want to move
Better environment
Better housing/maintenance conditions
Homeownership
Personal reasons
Other
Continued
59.6 c,d,r,w
c,d,r
Wells/Madden
Few Gardens
Easter Hill
Chicago, IL
Durham, NC
Richmond, CA
81.0 a,d
a,d,r,w
28.5
47.5
8.0
16.1
0.0
50.8
38.6
5.1
5.6
0.0
r
r
2.9
0.0
54.7
23.7
0.0
10.8
3.6
0.0
3.6
0.0
0.7
4.1
1.5
22.3
32.0
0.5
20.8
9.1
3.1
0.0
6.1
0.5
41.3 a,c,r,w
a,c,w
6.9
53.7
13.7
25.1
0.6
78.1 a,d
a,c,w
27.1
27.7
19.4
23.9
1.9
a,c
2.8
0.0
30.7
10.6
0.0
11.7
19.0
3.4
7.3
14.0
0.6
3.0
0.0
28.6
9.5
0.6
22.0
15.5
2.4
10.7
5.7
2.4
East Ca
Dwellin
Capitol
Washing
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
TABLE D.15. RELOCATION (CONTINUED)
Shore Park/
Shore Terrace
Atlantic City, N.J.
Reasons to stay in public housing
To be close to family and friends
To keep children in the same school
To stay near my job
To stay near accessible transportation
Afraid of encountering discrimination
Long-term resident
Safety/violence in the neighborhood
Cannot afford to move out
Do not want to stay in public housing
Low rent
Convenience
Good housing and maintenance
conditions
Likes area or development
No reason
Other
Wells/Madden
Few Gardens
Chicago
Durham, N.C.
a,c,r,w
Easter Hill
Richmond,
Calif.
d
d
d
0.7
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.7
0.7
3.7
70.8
12.4
5.8
0.7
5.6
2.5
1.5
4.6
0.5
16.8
0.5
9.1
11.2
35.5
4.1
1.1
1.1
0.6
0.6
0.0
3.4
0.0
7.9
42.1
24.7
2.3
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
3.0
9.5
7.7
68.1
0.6
0.7
1.0
2.3
0.6
0.0
0.7
1.5
4.6
1.5
1.0
1.7
1.7
10.7
3.0
0.6
4.1
East Ca
Dwellin
Capitol
Washing
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
TABLE D.15. RELOCATION (CONTINUED)
Shore Park/
Shore Terrace
Atlantic City, NJ
How did you find out about these
plans?
Development site manager
Friend or relative
At a meeting with PHA officials
Tenant organization or building
president
Newspaper or television
Other
Does not know
Letter or flyer
Word of mouth
During this interview
c,r
Wells/Madden
Few Gardens
Easter Hill
Chicago, IL
Durham, NC
Richmond, CA
a,d
c,r
a,d,w
23.3
7.8
45.7
27.0
14.9
47.3
20.2
12.4
40.5
7.1
5.3
47.9
17.8
2.7
2.3
7.1
1.6
0.0
0.0
3.9
0.0
7.2
1.4
6.1
0.7
0.0
0.0
24.1
9.6
1.7
1.1
11.2
1.1
0.0
2.4
1.8
0.0
26.0
2.4
.6
Sample size (number of respondents)
Source:
Notes:
HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Superscript letters indicate significant differences across sites. (The superscript letter is the first
letter of the city name.) Differences are significant at p < .05.
East Ca
Dwellin
Capitol
Washing
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
APPENDIX E
ADDITIONAL ANALYSES
Table E.1. Neighborhood Conditions and Elderly Status
(in percent)
Elderly head
Non-elderly head
of household
of household
People selling drugs is a big problem*
59.1
79.2
People using drugs is a big problem*
57.1
80.2
Feel safe alone outside apartment at night
63.1
53.1
Sample size (number of respondents)
Source: HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Note:
* indicates that group differences are significant at p < .05.
103
772
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Table E.2. Depression, Asthma, and Overall Health
(in percent)
Depressed
Not Depressed
29.9
20.3
Excellent
8.6
19.3
Very good
12.8
21.1
Good
18.8
24.9
Fair
42.7
26.3
Poor
17.1
8.3
Has been diagnosed with asthma*
Overall health*
Sample size (number of respondents)
Source: HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Note:
* indicates that group differences are significant at p < .05.
117
719
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Table E.3. Race/Ethnicity and Health (Richmond only)
(in percent)
African American
Hispanic
Excellent
21.2
10.3
Very good
17.2
8.8
Overall health*
Good
26.3
27.9
Fair
23.2
45.6
Poor
12.1
7.4
Has a chronic health problem*
39.4
23.5
Has been diagnosed with asthma*
33.3
1.5
Sample size (number of respondents)
Source: HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Note:
* indicates that group differences are significant at p < .05.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Table E.4. Behavior Problems, Violence, and Parental Mental Health (children 6–14 years old)
(in percent)
Exhibits two or more
behavior problems
Exhibits one or no
behavior problems
Shootings and violence*
73.0
63.1
Poor mental health of parent
37.0
31.4
In class for learning problem*
38.5
14.7
Male
57.5
40.4
Female
42.5
59.7
Gender*
Sample size (number of respondents)
Source: HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Note:
* indicates that group differences are significant at p < .05.
234
238
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Table E.5. Employment Status, Health, and Education
(in percent)
Currently employed
Not currently employed
Excellent
21.2
15.9
Very good
28.8
14.6
Good
29.1
20.9
Fair
19.1
34.1
Poor
1.8
14.6
Chronic health problem*
19.9
49.7
Poor mental health*
25.4
37.4
8.2
17.4
65.6
44.1
Overall health*
Depressed*
Has GED or graduated high school*
Sample size (number of respondents)
Source: HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Note:
* indicates that group differences are significant at p < .05.
330
555
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Table E.6. Chronic Health Problems and Employment in the Past Year (For Those Not
Currently Employed)
(in percent)
Employed in the past year
Not employed in the
past year
27.1
57.5
Chronic health problem*
Sample size (number of respondents)
Source: HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Note:
* indicates that group differences are significant at p < .05.
118
358
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Table E.7. Relocation
(in percent)
Wants to return to
site
Does not want to
return to site
Age of head of household*
62 years or older
16.8
6.6
Less than 62 years old
83.1
93.3
Receives disability pay*
8.5
3.4
Receives SSI*
31.2
21.7
Housing conditions (“very satisfied” and “somewhat satisfied”)*
32.7
14.7
People in this neighborhood generally get along w/ each other*
57.7
35.7
People in this neighborhood can be trusted*
29.3
17.2
This is a close-knit neighborhood*
46.1
26.9
People in this neighborhood share the same values*
38.5
18.7
People are willing to help their neighbors*
62.4
43.3
1–2 years
25.5
30.8
2–5 years
27.3
36.0
5–15 years
47.0
33.0
Feel “safe” or “very safe” being out alone right outside your building*
62.5
38.7
Feel “safe” or “very safe” being alone inside house or apartment*
87.3
65.2
People selling drugs*
73.6
81.8
People using drugs*
75.4
81.3
Groups of people just hanging out*
59.7
74.3
Gangs*
46.4
60.3
People being attacked or robbed*
18.3
27.9
Rape or other sexual attacks
14.2
15.9
Shootings and violence*
59.9
76.5
Length of time in public housing*
Neighborhood problems
Sample size (number of respondents)
Source: HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Notes:
SSI = Supplemental Security Income.
* indicates that group differences are significant at p < .05.
516
230
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Table E.8. Logit Regression Model Predicting Housing Satisfactiona
Independent variables
Unstandardized
coefficients
Site effects (Chicago is reference site)
Shore Park/Shore Terrace
Few Gardens
Easter Hill
East Capitol
-2.025*
(0.538)
-1.011*
(0.310)
-0.127
(0.276)
-1.248**
(0.294)
Resident characteristics
Age of resident
Years lived in public housing
Annual income $5,000–$9,999
Annual income $10,000–$14,999
Annual income > $15,000
High school graduate
Had lived in private housing
Had lived in Section 8
Number of housing problems
0.024*
(0.008)
0.009
(0.014)
-0.316
(0.232)
-0.283
(0.304)
-0.387
(0.285)
-0.046
(0.193)
0.288
(0.226)
-0.960*
(0.480)
-0.338**
(0.067)
Household composition
Number of adults in household
Number of kids in household
0.308*
(0.141)
0.030
(0.060)
Development characteristics
Perceived violence in neighborhood
Perceived social cohesion in neighborhood
Constant
-0.039
(0.118)
0.278**
(0.056)
-1.866
(0.538)
Source: HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Notes: n = 800; Standard errors are in parentheses.
a. The category for housing satisfaction, the dependent variable, was “very satisfied” (represented as 1) and the
categories “somewhat dissatisfied,” “very dissatisfied,” and “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied” were collapsed
(represented as 0).
* p < .05; ** p < .001; Log likelihood = 180.7.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Table E.9. OLS Regression Model Predicting Children’s Behavior Problems
Independent variables
Unstandardized
coefficients
Site effects
Shore Park/Shore Terrace
Few Gardens
Easter Hill
East Capitol
-0.230
(0.323)
1.314**
(0.323)
0.814*
(0.336)
0.575*
(0.286)
Characteristics of focal child
Gender
Age
Hispanic
Number of schools attended
0.679**
(0.181)
-6.85E-4
(0.038)
-0.017
(0.334)
0.289
(0.243)
Characteristics of household head
Poor mental health
Received public assistance in past 6
months
High school graduate
Head of household health
Single
-0.841**
(0.211)
0.107
(0.198)
-0.207
(0.189)
-0.140
(0.190)
-0.216
(0.296)
Characteristics of household
Total number of years in public housing
Source: HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses.
* p < .05; ** p < .001; R squared = .1496.
0.012
(0.010)
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Table E.10. OLS Regression Model Predicting Children’s Enrollment in Special Education
for Learning or Emotional Problems
Independent variables
Site effects
Shore Park/Shore Terrace
Few Gardens
Easter Hill
East Capitol
Unstandardized
coefficients
.
0.253**
(0.076)
0.149
(0.081)
0.102
(0.066)
Characteristics of focal child
Gender
Age
Hispanic
Number of schools attended
Negative behavior scale
0.067
(0.047)
0.008
(0.010)
-0.234*
(0.088)
-0.012
(0.059)
0.048**
(0.013)
Characteristics of household head
Poor mental health
High school graduate
Excellent or very good health
Married or living with partner
-0.035
(0.058)
0.003
(0.049)
-0.022
(0.052)
0.057
(0.068)
Characteristics of household
Total number of years in public housing
Source: HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Notes: n = 350; Standard errors are in parentheses.
* p < .05; ** p < .001; R squared = .1419.
0.006*
(0.003)
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
Table E.11. Regression Model Predicting Relocation Choice a
Independent variables
Unstandardized
coefficients
Site effects
Shore Park/Shore Terrace
Few Gardens
Easter Hill
East Capitol
-1.2251**
(0.3953)
-1.7951***
(0.3113)
-0.3664
(.3464)
-.3754
(0.3323)
Resident characteristics
Employed
SSI receipt (disability)
Age of resident
Years lived in public housing
Annual income $5,000–$9,999
Annual income $10,000–$14,999
Annual income > $15,000
High school graduate
Housing satisfaction
-.0836
(0.2193
0.8857**
(.2578)
0.0168*
(0.0101)
-.0157
(.0174)
0.4031
(0.2521)
0.6446*
(0.3410)
0.4977
(0.3114)
-0.2574
(0.2065)
-0.1717*
(1037)
Household composition
Number of kids in household
0.1682
(0.1919)
Development characteristics
Feelings of safety in the neighborhood
Perceived social cohesion in neighborhood
Perceived violence in the neighborhood
Constant
0.6972**
(.2578)
0.1737**
0.0683
0.1449
(0.1220)
0.0528
(0.6878)
Source: HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001).
Notes: n = 671; Standard errors are in parentheses.
a. The category for housing choice, the dependent variable, was “wants to return to site” (represented as 1) and
“does not want to return to site” (represented as 0).
•
p < .10; ** p < .05; *** p < .001; Log likelihood = 158.52.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
NOTES
1
The study is now supported by a consortium of funders, including the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Annie E.
Casey Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Fannie Mae Foundation, and the Ford Foundation.
2
Section 24 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 as amended by Section 535 of the Quality
Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-276).
3
HOPE VI Quarterly Progress Report, September 30, 2001, and National Fact Sheet FY 2001
HOPE VI Revitalization Grant Awards.
4
This site also includes the site of the former Darrow Homes, three of which were demolished in
2000. Only residents who lived in the development in the spring of 2001 were included in the survey
sample.
5
Response rates for the individual sites ranged between 84 percent and 90 percent. At all sites,
the response rate was higher than our original goal of 80 percent. Between 139 and 198 residents from
each of the study sites completed the survey.
6
The study is now supported by a consortium of funders, including the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Annie E.
Casey Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Fannie Mae Foundation, and the Ford Foundation.
7
Details on the research methodology are provided in appendix A.
8
Section 24 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 as amended by Section 535 of the Quality
Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-276)
9
HUD states that the majority of units will be for public housing–eligible families (0 to 80 percent
of area median income); some developments will have a mix of low-income and very-low-income
residents (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2002).
10
The original funding round in FY 1993 was open only to public housing authorities serving the
40 largest U.S. cities or housing authorities designated “troubled” by HUD.
11
HOPE VI Quarterly Progress Report, 9/30/2001 and National Fact Sheet FY 2001 HOPE VI
Revitalization Grant Awards.
12
HUD is currently working on an analysis of the locations of all voucher holders nationwide.
13
Many HOPE VI plans call for the development of a mix of public housing and market-rate units.
14
Another consideration was the language spoken by residents; we were prepared to survey
speakers of Spanish and English in each site, but for logistical reasons, could not include a site with non–
English- or non–Spanish-speaking residents.
15
Generally, gaining cooperation from housing authorities was not a problem; indeed, we had
several sites that inquired whether they could volunteer to participate.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
16
We attempted to determine the relocation status before placing sites on the short list, but in
some cases, we did not have reliable information. Thus, we asked staff at each HOPE VI site about the
current status and plans for relocation.
17
This site also includes the site of the former Darrow Homes, three of which were demolished in
2000. Only residents who lived in the development in spring 2001 were included in the survey sample.
18
This represents a change from the original design, which called for collecting data at 18-month
intervals. The longer interval will allow us to collect data at the same time each year, controlling for
seasonal effects. In addition, the HOPE VI Resident Tracking Study (Buron et al. 2002) indicated that
implementation can take many years. Extending the study period increases the odds that the
revitalization will be complete by the third wave of the data collection.
19
Response rates for the individual sites ranged from 84 percent to 90 percent. At all sites, the
response rate was higher than our original goal of 80 percent. Between 139 and 198 residents from each
of the study sites completed the survey.
20
Interviewers were unable to complete the eighth interview in Wells because the respondent’s
building was too dangerous to enter.
21
We refer to the “sample” of HOPE VI Panel Study households; however, it should be noted that
we surveyed virtually the entire population of Shore Park, Few Gardens, and Easter Hill. Wells and East
Capitol were the only sites where we interviewed a randomly selected sample of residents (see appendix
A for a description of survey methodology).
22
See appendix A for specific results. We used HUD’s Multifamily Tenant Characteristics
database (MTCS) data to compare our study sites against the national population of HOPE VI awardees
rather than our survey results because we wanted to compare data that were measured in the same way.
23
Household incomes include money earned from jobs, public assistance, or social security.
24
These differences may be an artifact of our sampling strategy. See appendix A.
25
Shore Park also includes a senior high-rise, which is not part of the HOPE VI grant.
26
CRDA is an independent authority that was created under New Jersey State statutes in 1984,
just after casinos first arrived in Atlantic City. The casinos initially received a five-year period when they
did not have to pay the casino tax (i.e., obligation). After five years, the casino taxes are set aside as the
funding for CRDA. The tax is a share of their profits, and there are some ways it can be paid off early or
traded with other casinos. Some casinos are nearing the end of their 20-year obligation but new casinos
are under construction.
27
In addition, the Chicago Housing Authority has received 24 demolition-only HOPE VI grants, as
well as one planning grant. In some instances, the same public housing development received multiple
grants.
28
We collectively refer to the site as “Wells.”
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
29
We are exploring the issue of illegal residents in a related study funded by a grant from the
Ford Foundation.
30
REAC staff create physical property scores from the inspections taking into account size, type
of development, and existence and severity of health and safety deficiencies (e.g., broken plumbing,
holes in walls, electrical hazards) (HUD n.d.).
31
The Madden Park development, part of the HOPE VI site, had an extremely low score of 26.
32
Of those households that had cold units, 41 percent of residents reported it was because the
heating system broke down, 39 percent gave some other reason, 1 percent said to keep costs down, and
18 percent did not know. None reported it was because they could not pay their heating bills. Of the 39
percent that answered “some other reason,” 74 percent were Easter Hill residents. Reasons for the high
proportion of Easter Hill residents reporting problems were not clear, but may reflect California’s energy
crisis during 2001.
33
In order to help interpret the high resident satisfaction ratings, we ran exploratory logistic
regressions. For this model, we controlled for income, education, age, number of children, number of
housing problems, social cohesion in the neighborhood, violent criminal activity in the neighborhood,
previous use of Section 8 housing vouchers, history of living in non-subsidized housing, and site variation
(see appendix table 3.1a).
34
The only independent variables that were statistically significant and had more than a marginal
effect were the site differences. The probability of being very satisfied was 7 percentage points lower for
those respondents from Shore Park/Shore Terrace and East Capitol compared to Wells/Madden, the
omitted site. The remainder of the statistically significant independent variables had a negligible effect
(see appendix table 3.1b).
35
Section 24 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 as amended by Section 535 of the Quality
Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-276).
36
The Gautreaux program was a desegregation effort in Chicago that offered public housing
residents the option of receiving a Section 8 voucher that they could use only in areas that were less than
30 percent black. The only exception was that participants could also move to minority areas in the city
that were designated as “revitalizing.”
37
Research on the Gautreaux program has several limitations including small sample sizes;
underrepresentation of participants who moved to the suburbs, but then either returned to the city or lost
their Section 8 assistance; and the lack of baseline information to control for differences in suburban and
city movers.
38
In the MTO demonstration, volunteers from public housing developments in five cities were
randomly assigned to receive a special voucher that could only be used in low-poverty areas; receive a
regular Section 8 voucher; or remain in public housing (Goering et al. 1999).
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
39
“Neighborhood” is defined as the census tract or tracts where the public housing development
is located. Hence, the neighborhood characteristics include the residents who live in the public housing
development.
40
We used 1990 Census data whenever 2000 Census data were not available at the census tract
level. Table 4.1 indicates whether the data are from 1990 or 2000.
41
The Wells neighborhood is also located a few blocks from the “State Street Corridor,” the
largest stretch of public housing (four miles) in the United States. The neighborhood also includes the
Chicago Housing Authority’s Lake Park Plaza. Much of the public housing in this corridor has been
demolished or will be demolished as part of other HOPE VI revitalization efforts.
42
In Washington, D.C., a 302-unit Federal Housing Administration—financed high-rise building
was located adjacent to East Capitol. It closed several years before the HOPE VI revitalization and the
site will be demolished as part of the revitalization effort.
43
Few Gardens is near downtown Durham, but the downtown is not a major employment center.
The major employment center is in Research Triangle Park, which cannot be accessed easily from Few
Gardens using public transportation. This is consistent with the survey responses of Few Gardens’
residents, who indicated convenient access to public transportation, yet few employed adults used public
transportation to get to work, and 46 percent listed “lack of public transportation” as a barrier to work. See
chapter 7 for a discussion of employment issues.
44
These rates of physical disorder are higher than those found in other studies of public and
assisted housing. Big problems with graffiti in the neighborhood are eight times higher than at HOPE VI
revitalized sites (Holin et al. 2002), and four times higher than the current neighborhoods of residents
relocated from HOPE VI sites (Buron et al. 2002). They are also slightly higher than found in a 1998 study
of Chicago low-rise public housing, but lower than found in Chicago high-rise public housing in the same
study (Popkin et al. 1998). Big problems with trash and junk have a similar pattern, except that the
residents in the study sites report more problems than even the 1998 Chicago high-rise residents.
45
Residents reported problems with drug dealing in their neighborhood are much higher in this
study than in other studies. The average share of residents reporting big problems with drug dealing at
these five sites (78 percent) is typically one-third higher than eight of ten sites in a late 1990s study of
Chicago Public Housing (Popkin et al 1998); nearly twice as high as the average level reported by
residents relocated from eight HOPE VI sites in various cities (Buron et al. 2002); and three or more times
higher than most sites in a study of current residents of nine revitalized HOPE VI sites (Holin et al. 2002).
46
Resident-reported problems with shootings and violence in their neighborhood are generally
much higher in this study than in other studies. The share of respondents reporting big problems with
shootings and violence in this study is comparable or higher to a late 1990s study of residents of Chicago
public housing high-rises, and two times higher than residents of Chicago low-rises (Popkin et al. 1998).
The share of respondents reporting big problems with shootings and violence in this study is roughly four
times as high as that reported by residents relocated from eight HOPE VI sites in five cities (Buron et al.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
2002), and 10 times higher than most sites in a study of current residents of nine revitalized HOPE VI
sites (Holin et al. 2002).
47
The average share of respondents in this study that report feeling safe at night outside their
building (54 percent) is slightly lower than that found in a late 1990s study of residents of Chicago Public
Housing high-rises and low-rises (Popkin et al. 1998), but only two-thirds as high as current residents of a
nine-site study of revitalized HOPE VI developments (Holin et al. 2002).
48
These are likely overestimates of the actual number of victims, because respondents tend to
misreport crimes occurring more than six months ago as having occurred in the past six months.
49
The high level of mental and physical health problems reported by survey respondents is
consistent with prior research. Health is discussed in chapter 5.
50
Examining perceptions of crime for non-elderly households separately leads to higher overall
perceptions of crime, but does not change the ranking of sites in terms of perceptions of crime in their
neighborhood.
51
We do not have any insights from our in-depth interviews on why people over age 62 perceive
fewer problems with crime than non-elderly people. We only conducted in-depth follow-up interviews with
household heads that had children in their household, thus we did not interview many people over age
62.
52
The levels of social cohesion and social control reported by the survey respondents in this
study are consistent with those found in a study of households living in Chicago Henry Horner Homes
during the early phases of revitalization, but are much lower than the levels reported by residents living in
the community surrounding Horner (Popkin et al. 1998). The level of social cohesion and social control
are substantially lower than that reported by respondents two to seven years after they relocated from
public housing developments as part of the HOPE VI revitalization effort in five developments (Buron et
al. 2002).
53
Fifty-eight percent of Wells’s respondents have lived in the development for more than five
years compared to between 23 and 46 percent of respondents at other sites.
54
Some of the extended family members who provide support do not live in the neighborhood,
which may help explain the emphasis on support from extended family in the in-depth interviews even
though two-thirds of survey respondents reported they did not have family members living in the
neighborhood.
55
The standard for reporting overall health status from the National Health Interview Survey is to
combine those reporting “excellent” and “very good.” Obviously, those reporting “good” health may not
experience severe health problems; thus, we could include them among those reporting more positive
health. However, we used only the top two responses to be consistent with NHIS reports. Either way,
there are dramatic differences in the share of individuals reporting such levels of health. Data for all five
response categories are included in the tables in this report.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
56
In their papers, they report the share of the three groups who report “good,” “very good,” or
“excellent” health (69 percent, 76 percent, and 58 percent for MTO, Section 8, and control groups,
respectively). The comparable number for this HOPE VI sample is 62 percent for those reporting “good,”
“very good,” or “excellent” health.
57
Interestingly, there is a big difference in reported health status between black and Hispanic
respondents from Easter Hill. While 38 percent of blacks reported excellent or good health, only 19
percent of Hispanics reported similar levels. Without further information, it is not clear what might be
driving this difference, but it does suggest ethnic group differences in health as an area for future
investigation.
58
Respondents from East Capitol were more likely to report chronic health problems, likely
because of the large number of older and disabled respondents at that site. The comparatively low rate at
Easter Hill (32 percent) reveals another interesting difference between blacks and Hispanics: while a
larger share of black respondents reported excellent or very good health, blacks were also far more likely
to report a chronic condition than Hispanics (39 percent and 24 percent, respectively).
59
“One study found that children with asthma lose an extra 10 million school days each year; this
problem is compounded by an estimated $1 billion in lost productivity for their working parents. Asthmarelated health care cost our nation approximately $10.7 billion in 1994, including a direct health care cost
of $6.1 billion. Indirect costs, such as lost work days, added up to $4.6 billion” (NIAID 2001a).
60
While there were no significant differences across sites, there were notable differences
between African Americans and Hispanics from Richmond’s Easter Hill. At Easter Hill, 33 percent of the
African-American respondents reported having asthma, but only 3 percent of Hispanic respondents
reported having asthma. Thus, the overall average for asthma prevalence at Easter Hill (21 percent)
masks substantial variation between subgroups.
61
The measures we use are from the Pearlin Mastery Scale (Pearlin and Schooler 1978), used in
the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and the National Longitudinal Study of Youth.
62
This short series of questions was constructed as a summary score for the more extensive 38item Mental Health Inventory. The series is used in the National Survey of America’s Families and in the
Medical Outcomes Study.
63
Because of interviewer problems at this site for this series of questions, Atlantic City was
omitted from the discussions for the three measures of mental health.
64
This scale is called the CIDI-12, or Composite International Diagnostic Interview instrument.
The series includes two types of screener questions that assess the degree of depression and the length
of time it has lasted. The index is then created by summing how many of the seven items respondents
reported feeling for a large share of the past two weeks. If a respondent scores three or higher, their
score indicates a major depressive episode.
65
We set the age limit of 14 to maximize the probability that the child would remain within the
household after relocation so we could gather information in subsequent waves.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
66
For ease of discussion in this chapter, we refer to the “heads of household” collectively as
parents, although we recognize that some respondents are grandparents or other relatives.
67
Preschool children of recent welfare leavers had the highest incidence of problem behavior.
Finally, children in families who left welfare involuntarily because the household was sanctioned—that is,
had benefits cut because they did not comply with program regulations—were the most likely to
experience emotional and behavioral problems (Chase-Lansdale et al. 2002).
68
It should be noted that these findings are based on a very small sample (69) of households and
that the studies only included those families that remained in their new, suburban communities. For a
discussion of the limitations of the Gautreaux research, (Popkin et al. 2000).
69
The early research on MTO has documented substantial effects on children’s health outcomes
(Katz, Kling, and Liebman 2001). We discuss this research evidence in detail in chapter 7.
70
NCES Common Core of Data database, 2001.
71
We obtained data on test scores from the individual school district web sites. In sites where the
children in the sample attended only a small number of schools (e.g., Atlantic City, Richmond), we were
able to gather information on almost all of the individual schools (except special education schools).
However, in sites such as Washington, D.C., where children attended a large number of different schools,
we gathered information only on those schools attended by 10 or more children. The information available
on these web sites varies widely, but all include some standardized test scores, often with information
comparing these scores to national or state-level data.
72
http://www.k12.dc.us/dcps/schools/schools_frame.html reports scores on the Stanford 9 by
school; no district-level data are available.
73
http://www.wccusd.k12.ca.us/sarc2000/index.htm. Scores for the school district are reported in
percentiles and cannot be directly compared to the scores for Washington, D.C.
74
http://www.acboe.org reports school-level test scores on the New Jersey Schools Elementary
School Proficiency Assessment.
75
http://206.166.105.128/ReportCard/rchome.asp reports school-level test scores for the Illinois
Standards Achievement Test
76
http://www.dpsnc.com/DPS/schools.html reports school-level test scores on the North Carolina
Schools End of Grade Test
77
The proportion of children in Easter Hill and Few Gardens who travel to school is significantly
higher (p < .05) than for the other three sites.
78
The difference between Easter Hill and the other four sites was statistically significant at p <
.05.
79
The most widely accepted method of measuring achievement is to use a standardized test
such as the Woodcock-Johnson. However, resource constraints prevented us from being able to survey
children directly for this study.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
80
The proportion of children reported to be in special education in Few Gardens is significantly
higher (p < .05) than in Shore Park, Wells, or Easter Hill.
81
Figures for East Capitol students are from
http://www.k12.dc.us/dcps/schools/schools_frame.html. Figures for Shore Park are from
http://www.acboe.org.
82
To allow for comparisons, the HOPE VI Panel Study survey used the measures of special
education from the MTO Baseline Survey.
83
Preliminary research on how MTO children have fared since leaving public housing has shown
mixed results to date. A study in Chicago (Rosenbaum and Harris 2001) found that children who had
moved were more likely to be in special education, while a study in Baltimore found that the number
remained at about 17 percent (Ludwig et al. 2000).
84
We conducted a logistic regression analysis to look at the factors associated with being placed
in special education classes. The model included dummy variables for each site; child characteristics
(race, gender, age, and whether or not the child had attended three or more schools); a scale indicating
behavior problems; and selected parental characteristics (education, health, mental health, and total
number of years in public housing).
85
See chapter 5 for a discussion of the definitions of asthma incidence and prevalence.
86
Among Easter Hill respondents, the reported rates are more than twice as high among AfricanAmerican children than Hispanic children (41 percent compared with 17 percent).
87
Again, we found evidence of differences between Hispanic and African-American children in
Easter Hill, with African-American children experiencing substantially more emergency room visits than
Hispanic children. Further, the number of emergency room visits among African-American children from
Easter Hill—which is located near serious environmental hazards—is actually slightly higher than for the
overall sample in the five sites.
88
These measures are from the three-city version of the PSID Positive Behavior Index. The scale
measures three dimensions of behavior: compliance, social competence, and autonomy.
89
We omitted scores for Shore Park respondents on these items because of data quality
problems.
90
The scale is the NHIS CHS 1988 (cited in Brooks-Gunn and Duncan 1997); it was also used in
the Boston MTO study (Katz, Kling, and Liebman 2001).
91
However, the figures for the HOPE VI children are similar to those for the MTO control group in
the Boston MTO study, but substantially higher than for the two treatment groups (Katz, Kling, and
Liebman 2001).
92
Both the Boston MTO (Katz, Kling, and Liebman 2001) and the New Hope study (Bos et al.
1999) found that the interventions they were studying reduced behavior problems among boys, but not
among girls.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
93
We conducted a multivariate analysis looking at the factors associated with high levels of
reported behavior problems. As with the analysis of factors associated with placement in special
education, this model included dummy variables for each site; child characteristics (race, gender, age,
and whether or not the child had attended three or more schools); and selected parental characteristics
(education, health, mental health, and total number of years in public housing).
94
The Three-City Study (Chase-Lansdale et al. 2002) also found that negative behavior among
their sample of low-income children was associated with maternal anxiety.
95
We attempted to find school-level administrative data on suspensions for all sites, but were
only able to obtain it for Richmond and Atlantic City. In Richmond, Fewer than 1 percent of students were
expelled in the 2000–2001 school year[; 12.3 percent were suspended
(http://www.wccusd.k12.ca.us/sarc2000/index.htm). In Atlantic City, the suspension rate for the district
was 4.8 percent (http://www.acboe.org).
96
According to HUD administrative data, the average household income for working-age public
housing residents nationwide was $10,178 in 2001; nearly 80 percent have an income that is 30 percent
or less of the area median income. Fewer than half (40 percent) are employed, while nearly a quarter
receive income from welfare and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) (HUD MTCS database , May
2001).
97
We do not include separate responses of people 62 and over because only nine respondents in
this age group reported being employed at baseline.
98
These studies had a number of limitations, including small sample sizes and retrospective
designs, which may also limit the generalizability of the results (Popkin et al. 2000).
99
Employment rates from other 2000 sites and metro-area developments are drawn from MTCS
data on all non-elderly households, sources of income/work.
100
The Jobs Plus baseline survey was conducted with working-age heads of household during
the spring and summer of 1998, in seven public housing developments located in six cities (Bliss and
Riccio 2001).
101
From http://www.epinet.org: Hourly wage decile cutoffs for all workers, 1973–99.
102
HOPE VI respondents as a group are similar to the respondents in the Jobs Plus study, in
which 80 percent of respondents reported household income at or below $15,000 (Martinez 2001).
103
The overall average household size was 3.5 persons.
104
Other responses to the question “What is the main reason you are not working?” were illness
(5 percent) and disabled and unable to work (32 percent).
105
The presence of children in and of itself was not a barrier to employment. Among working-age
respondents, 40 percent of full-time, 34 percent of part -time, and 37 percent of those not working said
they have three or more children. Only 12 percent of people employed full-time had no children, while a
quarter of persons not employed have no children.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
106
SSI is for people with limited income if 65 years of age or older, or for persons blind or
disabled with sufficiently low income; SSI can be issued for a child with a severe impairment as well.
Benefits are based on financial need.
107
To receive SSDI, one has to have worked in jobs covered by Social Security, have a medical
condition that meets the Social Security definition of a disability, and have been unable to work for one
year or more because of the disability. Once a recipient is past the age of 65, SSDI converts to retirement
benefits. SSDI benefits are based upon length of time worked and Social Security taxes paid.
108
The Jobs Plus survey question read “In the last 12 months, did you or anyone else in the
household receive cash aid from welfare such as AFDC or general assistance, not counting any child
support money or child care payments received from the welfare department?”
109
The survey did not include questions on hardship related to utility bills or rent because most
residents were not responsible for utility costs, and rent in public housing should be closely pegged to
income. We will add questions on these components of hardship in the follow-up waves of data collection.
110
See http://www.housingresearch.org for best practices.
111
See, for example, “Rehab Refugees,” Governing Magazine, May 2001.
112
For more information on relocation and revitalization plans by site, please see chapter 2.
113
However, the relocation plan for Few Gardens was not approved until spring 2002.
114
Residents who were relocated in spring and fall 2001 were not included in the survey sample.
115
We used exploratory logistic regression analysis to verify if the differences between
respondents who reported wanting to return to the site and respondents who are not interested in
returning to the site hold true after controlling for respondent differences.
116
In Vale’s study, respondents were residents currently living in public housing. The sites the
author included in the study were not HOPE VI sites and, therefore, if residents were planning to move,
they were moving voluntarily.
117
2002.
This reference is to a small program in Stateway Gardens cited in Popkin and Cunningham.
HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report
118
We attempted to determine the relocation status before placing sites on the short list, but in
some cases, we did not have reliable information. Thus, we asked staff at each HOPE VI site the current
status and plans for relocation.
119
Many HOPE VI plans call for the development of a mix of public housing and market-rate
120
A small proportion of “families without children” may have children between the ages of 15 and
units.
17.
121
Only nine of the surveys were conducted over the telephone. In these occurrences, the
interviewer was unable to contact the respondent after numerous attempts because of his or her work
schedule.
122
Three interviews were deleted due to inconsistent data. Two cases were considered ineligible and one was a
break-off.
123
For interviews that were conducted in Spanish, we hired bilingual transcribers, who translated
the interviews as they transcribed them.
124
NUD*IST stands for Non-numerical Unstructured Data * Indexing Searching and Theorizing.