DOCSLIB.ORG

Hope Vi and Mixed-Finance Redevelopments: a Catalyst for Neighborhood Renewal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hope Vi and Mixed-Finance Redevelopments: a Catalyst for Neighborhood Renewal ______________________________________________________________________________ HOPE VI AND MIXED-FINANCE REDEVELOPMENTS: A CATALYST FOR NEIGHBORHOOD RENEWAL Mindy Turbov Turbov Associates Valerie Piper Piper Advisory Services A Discussion Paper Prepared for the The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program September 2005 ______________________________________________________________________________ THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM SUMMARY OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS * 2005 DISCUSSION PAPERS/RESEARCH BRIEFS The Electoral College Moves to the Sun Belt Credit Where It Counts: Maintaining a Strong Community Reinvestment Act Using Information Resources to Enhance Urban Markets Market-Based Community Economic Development Using the U.S. and U.K. Censuses for Comparative Research Public Housing Reform and Voucher Success: Progress and Challenges Space Available: The Realities of Convention Centers as Economic Development Strategy TREND SURVEYS Leaving Money (and Food) on the Table Step in the Right Direction: Recent Declines in Refund Loan Usage Among Low-Income Taxpayers ¿Tienes EITC? A Study of the Earned Income Tax Credit in Immigrant Communities The Price is Wrong: Getting the Market Right for Working Families in Philadelphia Job Sprawl and the Spatial Mismatch between Blacks and Jobs TRANSPORTATION REFORM SERIES On the Ground: Protecting America's Roads and Transit Against Terrorism Today’s Roads with Tomorrow’s Dollars: Using GARVEE Bonds to Finance Transportation Projects BROOKINGS/LSE COMPARATIVE URBAN ANALYSIS SERIES Americans and Britons: Key Population Data from the Last Three U.S. and U.K. Censuses * Copies of these and previous Brookings metro program publications are available on the web site, www.brookings.edu/METRO, or by calling the program at (202) 797-6414. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program would like to thank the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for its support of this research project. Brookings would also like to thank the Fannie Mae Foundation for its founding support of the program and its work. The authors are grateful to the more than 60 practitioners, colleagues, and friends who shared their insight, data, and experiences. In particular, they would like to recognize the following people who gave generously of their time, opened their organizations to numerous queries and provided connections to other valuable resources: Mayor Jerry Abramson, Richard Baron, Tim Barry, Rhonda Brandon, Claudia Brodie, Renee Glover, Jennifer Head, Marlene Hodges, Willie Jones, Polly Kinslowe, Stanley Lowe, Jan Muckensturm, Dovie Newell, Egbert Perry, Michele Schauf, Christopher Shea, and Rick White. Their help proved invaluable to completing this project. The authors would also like to recognize the practioners and academics that participated in the July 23, 2003 conference to review and discuss the first draft of this paper and the case studies. The discussion proved extremely helpful and hopefully this paper accurately reflects the notable input of so many talented people. The authors are grateful to Tim Barry, Paul Brophy, Mike Goeke, Renee Glover, Jennifer Head, Stanley Lowe, Egbert Perry, and Christopher Shea for their willingness to read, fact check, and correct the various drafts of this report and the case studies. Thanks to Meg Sowell for providing maps and other support. Additional gratitude goes to Carol Bell for her early review and editing of this project. Very special thanks is due to Jonathan T. Schmidt, without whose help this project would have been impossible. He provided invaluable research and analysis of census data, tax assessments, and other indicators of neighborhood recovery. He skillfully created the charts and graphs for the case studies. His writing and editorial skills were so thoroughly tested that the authors wish to acknowledge Jonathan as a co-author of the case studies. Finally, the authors acknowledge their friends and colleagues at Brookings: Bruce Katz who identified the need for this report, and provided the guidance and leadership to turn it into a reality; Karen Brown assisted with the literature review and coordinated the team through the twists and turns of this endeavor; and Amy Liu whose focus, clarity, wisdom and leadership—especially in the final hours—have improved this report immensely. iii ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mindy Turbov is the president of Turbov Associates, a community development consulting firm. In this capacity she has worked on a number of HOPE VI projects as a developer and a consultant. Turbov has over 25 years of experience in the community development field as a developer, in local and federal government and with non profit organizations. Prior to creating her firm, she was a special assistant to HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros with primary responsibility for creating the mixed-finance HOPE VI program. Valerie Piper is the president of Piper Advisory Services, a redevelopment consulting firm and the executive director of the Center for Urban Redevelopment Excellence at the University of Pennsylvania. Piper was a member of the Chicago Housing Authority’s senior management team that developed CHA’s Plan for Transformation and set in motion numerous mixed-income public housing redevelopments. She also assisted with creation of the mixed-finance development program under HUD Secretary Cisneros. Comments on this paper can be sent directly to the authors at [email protected] or [email protected]. The views expressed in this discussion paper are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the trustees, officers, or staff members of The Brookings Institution. Copyright © 2005 The Brookings Institution iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Across the United States, attractive mixed-income developments and revitalized neighborhoods are being created where distressed public housing once stood. One of the drivers of this transformation has been the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s HOPE VI program. By leveraging other public and private dollars, the HOPE VI program has converted the nation’s worst public housing projects into the foundations of healthy neighborhoods, providing quality affordable housing while attracting new market activities and radically changing the urban landscape. Despite the program’s progress, however, it is under assault. The ten-year HOPE VI program was set to expire in 2003. In the subsequent two fiscal years, the Bush administration proposed to eliminate HOPE VI, but Congress restored funding at extremely reduced levels. This year seems to be a repeat: The program was once again slated for termination but with funding projected to be approved at an historic low. The future of HOPE VI remains tenuous. This report aims to inform these federal deliberations while also setting the broader discussions about public housing reforms in a neighborhood context. Specifically, this study examines the HOPE VI program’s effectiveness in jump-starting wholesale neighborhood improvements, with HOPE VI funding as the catalyst for attracting other capital to financing large- scale neighborhood redevelopment. Using four case studies—redevelopment projects in Atlanta, Louisville, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis—this paper explores the role and impact HOPE VI has had in rebuilding neighborhood economies. Overall, the authors find that: • HOPE VI and mixed-finance redevelopments have been able to bring market activity and quality of life back to long-neglected neighborhoods. Early evidence shows that there have been discernible market improvements in these formerly distressed neighborhoods, from the time of pre-redevelopment to as late as 2004. Household incomes in each of these case study projects grew at a faster pace than that of their city or region, after redevelopment. Unemployment and workforce participation rates have improved. Crime levels have dropped dramatically, as much as 93 percent in Atlanta’s Centennial Place. Where revitalization efforts focused on school quality, student test scores dramatically improved. Finally, these redevelopments were able to attract and retain residents with a broad range of income levels while still serving public housing families. With market-rate renters and homebuyers getting a foothold in these renewing neighborhoods, property values and new investments have also soared in these more viable, mixed-income communities. v • Improvements in HOPE VI developments and the surrounding neighborhoods were the result of well-planned and coordinated urban revitalization plans. While the specifics of each project may vary, lessons learned from the case studies show that there are consistent themes that ensure a successful project. Among other things, sustained leadership to shape the vision for the revitalization effort, and for the larger neighborhood, was critical. Coordination between housing authorities, city governments, and other public agencies is also crucial, as well as continuous engagement with existing public housing residents. New stakeholders also helped to sustain and enhance community improvements over time. Additionally, and notedly in St. Louis, public housing redevelopments that respond to marketplace realities within a holistic neighborhood plan attract and boost credibility with private sector partners, investors, and philanthropies, facilitating the leveraging of public dollars. Beyond bricks and mortar, providing the integration of services the middle class expects, and low-income families need, into the revitalization effort is key. Such
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ETA Handbook No. 408 Third Edition, November 2002
    U.S. Employment Service/ALMIS U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration ETA Handbook No. 408 Third Edition, November 2002 for the: Work Opportunity Tax Credit Program & the Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit USES/ALMIS Office of Workforce Investment Rm. C-4514 - FPB Washington, D.C. WOTC - P.L. 107-147 ETA HANDBOOK 408 C O N T E N T S F O R E W O R D...........................................vi I. THE WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT PROGRAM.............I-1 BACKGROUND..........................................I-1 A. General........................................I-1 B. Legislative Authority WOTC/WtWTC...............I-2 C. Legislative Intent.............................I-3 D. WOTC/WtWTC and Employment and Training Objectives.....................................I-4 E. Effective Date.................................I-4 II. WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT PROVISIONS.............II-1 A. Target Groups At-A-Glance.....................II-1 Qualified IV-A Recipient......................II-2 Qualified Veteran.............................II-3 Qualified Ex-Felon............................II-5 High-Risk Youth...............................II-7 Vocational Rehabilitation Referral............II-8 Qualified Summer Youth Employee..............II-10 Qualified Food Stamp Recipient...............II-12 Qualified Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Recipient...............................II-14 New York Liberty Zone Business Employee (NYLZBE)................................II-15 B. Essential Terms..............................II-16 Agency Declaration of
    [Show full text]
  • Housing Trust Funds: Barriers and Opportunities
    CitizensCitizens ResearResearchch CCouncilouncil ofof MichiganMichigan HousingHousing TrustTrust Funds:Funds: BarriersBarriers andand OppOpporortunitiestunities DecemberDecember 20092009 RepReporortt 358358 CCELEBRELEBRAATINGTING 9393 YYEARSEARS OFOF IINDEPENDENTNDEPENDENT,, NNONPONPARARTISANTISAN PPUBLICUBLIC PPOLICOLICYY RRESEARCHESEARCH ININ MMICHIGANICHIGAN Board of Directors Chairman Vice Chairman Treasurer Eugene A. Gargaro, Jr. Jeffrey D. Bergeron Nick A. Khouri Joseph R. Angileri Eugene A. Gargaro, Jr. Bryan Roosa Deloitte. Masco Corporation General Motors Corporation Jeffrey D. Bergeron Ingrid A. Gregg Lynda Rossi Ernst & Young LLP Earhart Foundation Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan John T. Bozzella Marybeth S. Howe Jerry E. Rush Chrysler Group LLC Wells Fargo Bank ArvinMeritor, Inc. Beth Chappell Nick A. Khouri Michael A. Semanco Detroit Economic Club DTE Energy Company Hennessey Capital LLC Rick DiBartolomeo Daniel T. Lis Terence A. Thomas, Sr. Rehmann Kelly Services, Inc. St. John Health Terence M. Donnelly Aleksandra A. Miziolek Amanda Van Dusen Dickinson Wright PLLC Dykema Gossett PLLC Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Randall W. Eberts Cathy H. Nash Stone PLC W. E. Upjohn Institute Citizens Bank Kent J. Vana David O. Egner Paul R. Obermeyer Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt & Hudson-Webber Foundation Comerica Bank Howlett LLP Advisory Director Louis Betanzos Board of Trustees Chairman Vice Chairman Patrick J. Ledwidge Mark A. Murray Terence E. Adderley Roderick D. Gillum William L. Matthews Irving Rose Kelly Services, Inc. General Motors Corporation Plante & Moran PLLC Edward Rose & Sons Jeffrey D. Bergeron Allan D. Gilmour Kenneth J. Matzick Gary D. Russi Ernst & Young LLP Alfred R. Glancy III Beaumont Hospitals Oakland University Stephanie W. Bergeron Unico Investment Group LLC Sarah L. McClelland Nancy M. Schlichting Walsh College Thomas J. Haas Chase Henry Ford Health System David P.
    [Show full text]
  • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Status of Urban Empowerment Zones
    United States General Accounting Office Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee GAO on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives December 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Status of Urban Empowerment Zones GOA years 1921 - 1996 GAO/RCED-97-21 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-275112 December 20, 1996 The Honorable Christopher Shays Chairman Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Committee on Government Reform and Oversight House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: For over 30 years, the nation has faced the challenge of revitalizing its deteriorating urban and rural communities. In the past, the federal government has tried to revive distressed areas by providing grants for activities ranging from job training and social services to the repair and replacement of aging infrastructure. The most recent effort to help distressed communities is called the Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community (EZ/EC) program. This 10-year program targets federal grants to distressed urban and rural communities for social services and community redevelopment and provides tax and regulatory relief to attract or retain businesses in distressed communities. In general, the same eligibility criteria and selection process apply to the EZs and the ECs. However, the EZs receive much larger grants than the ECs, and businesses located in the EZs are eligible for more tax incentives than businesses in the ECs. The enacting legislation designated 104 communities as either EZs or ECs. Federal funding for the EZs and ECs was made available through the title XX Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) program, which is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
    [Show full text]
  • Sustaining Supportive Services Beyond HOPE VI
    Successful Transitions Sustaining Supportive Services beyond HOPE VI HOPE VI is a unique program that has Overview of HOPE VI Program provided practitioners with a flexible tool In 1989, Congress authorized the for revitalizing distressed communities and establishment of a National Commission on improving the lives of public housing Severely Distressed Public Housing with a residents. A time -limited program, HOPE mandate to 1) identify those public housing VI may ultimately be judged more on how developments that are severely distressed; 2) successfully it helps to improve the lives of assess strategies to improve their conditions; public housing residents and less on its and 3) develop a National Action Plan. ability to construct and rehabilitate houses. Based on the Commission’s findings that As its “sunset” approaches in 2002, the about seven percent of the nation’s housing question of its sustainability looms large. In stock had to be replaced, HOPE VI was both theory and practice, HOPE VI grants created in 1993 through an Appropriations were intended to be seed funds and were Act, and with extensive bipartisan support. meant to act as a catalyst for change. This was a major HUD initiative with no Grantees must not only sustain the new real implementing regulations and with a focus estate portfolio that results from HOPE VI, on comprehensive and holistic approaches to they must also develop strategies for physical improvements, resident self- sustaining the innovative and successful sufficiency, management improvements and supportive services that are critical to local decision making. At the time, funding helping residents move toward greater self- for HOPE VI was roughly equivalent to sufficiency.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary of Hope Vi Terms
    HOPE VI Guidance November 2001 GLOSSARY OF HOPE VI TERMS ACC: Annual Contributions Contract. A contract between HUD and the PHA whereby HUD agrees to provide financial assistance, and the PHA agrees to comply with HUD requirements (including long-term low- income use restrictions) for the development, operation, and modernization of public housing units in a development. Accessibility: HOPE VI developments are subject to the accessibility requirements contained in several Federal laws. All applicable laws must be read together and followed. PIH Notice 99-52, available through HUDCLIPS (see below) provides an overview of all pertinent laws and implementing regulations pertaining to HOPE VI. Under the Fair Housing Act of 1988, all new construction of covered multifamily buildings must include certain features of accessible and adaptable design. Units covered are all those in buildings with four or more units and one or more elevators, and all ground floor units with living area located entirely on the ground floor in buildings without elevators. The accessible design requirements are: 1. Accessible entrance on an accessible route 2. Accessible public and common use areas 3. Accessible doorways 4. Accessible routes into and through the unit 5. Accessible light switches, electrical outlets, and environmental controls 6. Reinforced walls in bathrooms 7. Usable kitchens and bathrooms HUD encourages accessibility in for-sale units (5 percent for mobility impaired and 2 percent for hearing or vision disabilities). Accessibility at 5 percent/2 percent is required in multifamily rental units. More information on accessibility may be obtained from HUD's Fair Housing website: www.hud.gov/groups/fairhousing.cfm.
    [Show full text]
  • Knoxville/Knox County, Tennessee Empowerment Zone Empowerment
    Knoxville/Knox County, Tennessee Empowerment Zone Empowerment Zones / Enterprise Communities Annual Report July 1, 2009 – July 2, 2010 Submitted September 20, 2010 Community Development Department Madeline Rogero, Director Prepared by Gwen Winfrey, Project Specialist Table of Contents Page Part I NARRATIVE REPORTS Executive Summary 4 Community Based Partnerships G2 C1 P1 Governance Board of EZ 4 G2 C2 P1 Transforming Neighborhoods Together – Round III 6 G2 C2 P2 EZ Administration 6 G2 C2 P3 Zone Advisory Councils 7 G2 C2 P4 EZ Administration Program Income 8 Economic Opportunity G3 C1 P1 Career Center 8 G3 C1 P2 CAC Beardsley Urban Farm S.E.E.D. 9 G3 C1 P3 Knox Area Urban League Workforce Technology Training 9 G3 C1 P4 CAC Workforce Connections 9 G3 C2 P1 Brownfields Redevelopment Revolving Fund 10 G3 C2 P2 Knoxville Convention Center Construction Project 11 G3 C2 P4 Digital Crossing 11 G3 C2 P5 Internet 11 G3 C2 P6 Stephens Square – Property Acquisition and Development 11 G3 C2 P7 Cultural Heritage Tourism 12 G3 C2 P8 Inner City Ventures Program 12 G3 C2 P9 CCBN (Mechanicsville) Supermarket 12 G3 C2 P10 Five Points Retail and Grocery 13 G3 C2 P11 Commercial Façade Program 13 G3 C2 P12 Lonsdale Commercial Development 14 G3 C2 P13 Vestal Commercial Redevelopment 15 G3 C2 P14 Business Expansion Loan Program (BELP) 15 C3 C2 P15 BELP Program Income 16 G3 C3 P1 Empowerment Bank Investment Shop 16 G3 C3 P2 Stephens Square – Expansion of Existing Businesses 17 G3 C3 P3 Empowerment Bank Investment Shop Program Income 17 G3 C3 P4 Small Business
    [Show full text]
  • New Schools on the Block Understanding and Expanding Community Developer Participation in Early Childhood Care and Education
    New Schools on the Block Understanding and Expanding Community Developer Participation in Early Childhood Care and Education Matthew Singh Edward M. Gramlich Fellow, 2012 NeighborWorks America / Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies Working Together for Strong Communities NEIGHBORWORKS AMERICA Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation dba NeighborWorks America was established by an Act of Congress in 1978 (Public Law 95-557). A primary objective of the Corporation is to increase the capacity of local, community-based organizations to revitalize their communities, particularly by expanding and improving housing opportunities. These local organizations, known as NeighborWorks organizations, are independent, resident-led, nonprofit partnerships that include business leaders and government officials. All together they make up the NeighborWorks network. JOINT CENTER FOR HOUSING STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY The Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies advances understanding of housing issues and informs policy. Through its research, education, and public outreach programs, the center helps leaders in government, business, and the civic sectors make decisions that effectively address the needs of cities and communities. Through graduate and executive courses, as well as fellowships and internship opportunities, the Joint Center also trains and inspires the next generation of housing leaders. This paper was written with the support of the NeighborWorks’ America Edward M. Gramlich Fellowship in Community and Economic Development which provides
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-06-727 Empowerment Zone And
    United States Government Accountability Office GAO Report to Congressional Committees September 2006 EMPOWERMENT ZONE AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY PROGRAM Improvements Occurred in Communities, but the Effect of the Program Is Unclear a GAO-06-727 September 2006 EMPOWERMENT ZONE AND Accountability Integrity Reliability Highlights ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY PROGRAM Highlights of GAO-06-727, a report to Improvements Occurred in Communities, but congressional committees the Effect of the Program Is Unclear Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found The EZ/EC program is one of the Round I Empowerment Zones (EZ) and Enterprise Communities (EC) most recent large-scale federal implemented a variety of activities using $1 billion in federal grant funding effort intended to revitalize from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and as of March impoverished urban and rural 2006, the designated communities had expended all but 15 percent of this communities. There have been funding. Most of the activities that the grant recipients put in place were three rounds of EZs and two rounds of ECs, all of which are community development projects, such as projects supporting education and scheduled to end no later than housing. Other activities included economic opportunity initiatives such as December 2009. job training and loan programs. Although all EZs and ECs also reported using the program grants to leverage funds from other sources, reliable data The Community Renewal Tax on the extent of leveraging were not available. Relief Act of 2000 mandated that GAO audit and report in 2004, 2007, According to federal standards, agencies should oversee the use of public and 2010 on the EZ/EC program resources and ensure that ongoing monitoring occurs.
    [Show full text]
  • CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS 2014 Summary Statement and Initiatives (Dollars in Thousands)
    PUBLIC AND INDIAN HOUSING CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS 2014 Summary Statement and Initiatives (Dollars in Thousands) Enacted/ Supplemental/ Total CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS Request Carryover Rescission Resources Obligations Outlays 2012 Appropriation ................ $120,000 ... ... $120,000 $500 ... 2013 Annualized CR ................ 120,734 $119,500 ... 240,234 240,234 $8,000 2014 Request ...................... 400,000 ... ... 400,000 a 400,000 36,000 Program Improvements/Offsets ...... +279,266 -119,500 ... +159,766 +159,766 +28,000 a/ This number includes an estimated Transformation Initiative (TI) transfer that may be up to 0.5 percent of Budget Authority. 1. What is this request? The Department requests $400 million for the Choice Neighborhoods program for fiscal year 2014. Choice Neighborhoods grants will primarily fund the transformation, rehabilitation and replacement of distressed public and/or HUD-assisted housing and will support communities working to revitalize neighborhoods of concentrated poverty. Choice Neighborhoods will support a range of transformative interventions in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty. Grants will be targeted to assist neighborhoods with both concentrations of poverty or households with extremely low-incomes and severely distressed public and/or HUD-assisted housing. Additionally, Choice Neighborhoods will build on the successes of the HOPE VI, Homeownership Zone, and Empowerment Zone programs by preserving affordable housing and creating safe streets, high quality schools and other amenities typically associated with desirable neighborhoods. This request is comprised of up to $395 million to award Planning Grants and Implementation Grants and $5 million for program evaluation and technical assistance. Based on historic job creation data, funding at the $400 million level is projected to generate 8,650 new jobs within targeted communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Housing Relocation and Utilization of the Food Safety Net: the Role of Social Capital and Cultural Capital Marcie Hambrick
    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Sociology Dissertations Department of Sociology Fall 12-15-2016 Public Housing Relocation and Utilization of the Food Safety Net: The Role of Social Capital and Cultural Capital Marcie Hambrick Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/sociology_diss Recommended Citation Hambrick, Marcie, "Public Housing Relocation and Utilization of the Food Safety Net: The Role of Social Capital and Cultural Capital." Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2016. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/sociology_diss/88 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Sociology at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sociology Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PUBLIC HOUSING RELOCATION AND UTILIZATION OF THE FOOD SAFETY NET: THE ROLE OF SOCIAL CAPITAL AND CULTURAL CAPITAL by MARCIE HAMBRICK Under the Direction of Deirdre Oakley, PhD ABSTRACT HOPE VI, instituted in 1993 and subsequent related policies, resulted in the demolition of traditional public housing and the relocation of former residents. For former residents living on low incomes, combining housing subsidy and other social services is important to survival. One crucial type of social services support provides food supplements. Research indicates that among low-income families, many do not receive necessary food social services. For example, among eligibles, food stamp utilization is at 50 to 60%, and for Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women Infants and Children (WIC) rates vary from 38 to 73%. Research indicates that 35% of food insecure older adults are ineligible for the Elder Nutrition Program, and approximately 60% of eligibles are wait-listed upon application.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2010 HOPE VI Revitalization NOFA
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5415-N-07] HUD’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 NOFA for the HOPE VI Revitalization Grants Program AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD. ACTION: Notice of HUD’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Notice of Funding Availability for HUD’s HOPE VI Revitalization Grants Program. SUMMARY: Today’s publication is governed by the information and instructions found in the Notice of HUD’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), Policy Requirements and General Section (General Section) to HUD’s FY 2010 NOFAs for Discretionary Programs, posted to Grants.gov on June 7, 2010, followed by a notice of web availability on Grants.gov published in the Federal Register (FR-5415-N-01). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding specific program requirements should be directed to the agency contact identified in this program NOFA. Questions regarding the 2010 General Section should be directed to the Office of Departmental Grants Management and Oversight at (202) 708-0667 (this is not a toll-free number) or the NOFA Information Center at (800) HUD-8929 (toll-free). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access these numbers via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. The NOFA Information Center is open between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Through today’s publication, HUD is making available approximately $124 million in assistance through the FY2010 HOPE VI Revitalization grant program.
    [Show full text]
  • Affordable-Housing-Acronyms
    ACRONYMS: Affordable Housing Development ACA Affordable Care Act United States federal statute representing a significant regulatory overhaul of the country’s healthcare system ACC Annual Contribution Contract Annual contracts with Public Housing Authorities for payments toward rent, financing debt service, and financing for modernization ADA Americans with Disabilities Act Federal civil rights law prohibiting discrimination based on disability ADU Accessory Dwelling Unit Mother-in-law apartment ADWAS Abused & Deaf Women’s’ Advocacy Services Service provider for deaf women fleeing abusive homes in King County but serving a state wide client group AFR Applicable Federal Rate Rate set by U.S. Treasury for imputing interest AHAB Affordable Housing Advisory Board Board appointed by governor to advise on state housing policy AHMA Affordable Housing Management Association Trade group of property managers AHP Affordable Housing Program Financing program of FHLB AHW AIDS Housing of Washington Non-profit housing and services providers (Seattle); changed name to Building Changes AI Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Document HUD requires of block grant recipients that Choice identifies fair housing barriers in the community AMI Area Median Income HUD’s income tables adjusted for family size ARCH A Regional Coalition for Housing Funding coalition of East King County Cities ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act An economic stimulus package enacted in February 2009. AWHA Association of Washington Housing Authorities Trade association of
    [Show full text]