Program on Neighborhoods and Youth Development

Overview, August 2010

CHA Families The CHA’s Plan for and the Plan for Transformation Transformation How Have Residents Fared?

Susan J. Popkin, Diane K. Levy, Larry Buron, Megan Gallagher, and David J. Price

This series presents findings from the tious effort to transform the agency’s dis- Chicago Panel Study, a follow up to the tressed public housing developments, “The goal of the Plan Urban Institute’s five-site HOPE VI Panel replacing most with mixed-income com- for Transformation Study, the only national study of outcomes munities and comprehensively rehabilitat- for families affected by HOPE VI revitaliza- ing the remaining properties. The ultimate was to convert tion (Popkin et al. 2002). The HOPE VI goal of the Plan for Transformation was to distressed public Panel Study tracked resident outcomes demonstrate that it was possible to convert across a broad range of domains from 2001 distressed public housing into healthy com- housing into healthy to 2005.1 The Chicago Panel Study is con- munities that would provide residents with communities.” tinuing to track the 198 sample households opportunities for a better life.2 from the Chicago Housing Authority’s The challenges the CHA faced in (CHA) Madden/Wells Homes. attempting to transform its public housing The CHA’s Plan for Transformation, were immense. The agency was one of the launched in October 1999, was an ambi- largest housing authorities in the country and had an extraordinary number of dis- tressed units—its plans called for demol- HOPE VI stands for Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere. Created by ishing or rehabilitating 25,000 units in all. Congress in 1992, the HOPE VI program was designed to address not only the The CHA’s troubles were the result of bricks-and-mortar problems in severely distressed public housing developments, but the social and economic needs of the residents and the health of surround- decades of neglect, poor management, and ing neighborhoods. The program was reauthorized in 2009 as part of the Choice overwhelming crime and violence. Further, Neighborhoods Initiative Act. Between 1993 and 2008, 247 distressed public CHA’s residents were especially disadvan- housing developments located in 130 communities in 34 states, the District of taged: because of the terrible conditions in Columbia, and Puerto Rico have received HOPE VI grants to effect redevelop- CHA’s family developments, many tenants ment. Chicago is the largest recipient of HOPE VI funds. who had better options had left long ago, The Chicago Panel Study research was supported with a grant from the John D. leaving behind a population dominated by and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Information on crime rates was used by extremely vulnerable families (Popkin et al. permission from Professor Wesley Skogan of Northwestern University. 2000). And, like most housing authorities, when the CHA began implementing its

Urban Institute a nonpartisan economic and social policy research organization 1 Program on Neighborhoods and Youth Development

revitalization plans, the agency had little Further, despite their improved quality of experience in providing case management life, most CHA families continue to live in or relocation counseling and struggled poor, predominantly African-American with developing adequate services. The communities that offer limited access to agency negotiated a Relocation Rights economic and educational opportunity. Contract with its resident leadership in 2000 that formally spelled out the CHA’s Chicago Panel Study obligations to leaseholders during the The Chicago Panel Study tracks the living transformation, including the services to be conditions and well-being of residents offered to residents while they waited for from Chicago’s Madden/Wells homes. permanent housing. By the time the CHA Built between 1941 and 1970, Madden/ moved into the later phases of relocation in Wells was one of the CHA’s largest public Madden/Wells, the agency’s relocation housing complexes, made up of 3,000 pub- and supportive service system had evolved lic housing units in four developments: the to become unusually comprehensive, and Ida B. Wells Homes, a low-rise develop- included both relocation counseling and ment first opened in 1941 to house black case management (Popkin 2010). war workers; the Wells Extensions; In October 2009, the CHA marked the Madden Homes; and the high-rise Darrow 10th anniversary of the Plan for Transfor- Homes (Bowly 1978). The complex was mation. The changes that the plan has located on the near south side of the city, wrought over the past decade have been dramatic and have changed the city’s land- close to Lake Michigan on the east and to “After 10 years, the scape. Most striking is the absence of the the sites of the former Robert Taylor and Stateway Gardens Homes on the west. story for CHA families massive high-rises that dominated some of the city’s poorest neighborhoods for half a The U.S. Department of Housing and is far more positive century. These developments have been Urban Development (HUD) awarded the CHA a $35 million HOPE VI grant in 2000 than we would have replaced with new mixed-income commu- nities that represent the best current think- to convert the Madden/Wells site into a predicted in 2001.” ing on how to create affordable housing mixed-income community. The CHA used without creating pockets of concentrated a staged relocation process for the develop- poverty. But while the physical impact of ment, closing sections as new units came the CHA’s transformation is evident, the on line; in 2005, 40 percent of the Chicago impact on the families that had lived in Panel Study sample were still living in the CHA’s distressed developments—and partially demolished site. Over the next endured its worst days—has been less several years, rapidly deteriorating condi- visible (Popkin 2010). tions led the agency to accelerate the relo- The purpose of the Chicago Panel cation process and close the development Study is to track the circumstances of CHA in August 2008. All of the public housing residents to assess how they are faring as on the site is now demolished and a new the Plan for Transformation progresses. mixed-income community called Oakwood Overall, as this series of briefs documents, Shores is gradually rising in its place. we find that, after 10 years, the story for For the HOPE VI Panel Study baseline CHA families is far more positive than in summer 2001, we surveyed a random many observers—including ourselves— sample of 198 Madden/Wells heads of would have predicted at the outset.3 household and conducted in-depth, quali- Regardless of where they have moved, tative interviews with seven adults and most families in our study are living in seven children. We followed up the sample considerably better circumstances. in 2003 (24 months after the baseline), sur- However, the study also highlights the veying 174 heads of household (88 percent serious challenges that remain, most signif- response rate) and interviewing six adults icantly, residents’ extremely poor health and six children. At the second follow-up and persistently low rates of employment. in 2005 (48 months after the baseline), we 2 Program on Neighborhoods and Youth Development

surveyed 165 heads of household (83 per- eight years. The majority of former resi- cent response rate) and interviewed eight dents were using vouchers to rent a unit in adults and seven children. For the Chicago the private market (54 percent), nearly a Panel Study, we conducted a third follow third were living in public housing (29 per- up in 2009, completing surveys with cent), and the rest were no longer receiving 136 Madden/Wells heads of household housing assistance (17 percent). More than (69 percent response rate) and interviews half the residents that relocated to public with nine adults and nine children. The housing (18 percent of all respondents) largest source of attrition between 2005 were living in one of the CHA’s new and 2009 was mortality; we were able to mixed-income developments, mostly in locate, if not survey, nearly all sample Oakwood Shores. Less than 1 percent had members.4 become homeless. The biggest and most striking change 2005: A Glass Half Empty? since 2005 is that residents’ circumstances have improved, regardless of the type of hous- At the final round of the HOPE VI Panel ing assistance they have. In 2005, we found Study in 2005, we concluded that in that residents who were living in the pri- Chicago, as in the other four sites, the rede- vate market were faring far better than velopment effort had had some important those who were still living in public hous- successes—most residents living in the pri- ing. But in 2009, those differences have dis- vate market with vouchers were living in appeared, and nearly all Madden/Wells better housing in safer neighborhoods. respondents—even those who have moved Relatively few had returned to live in the to one of CHA’s remaining traditional pub- “Residents’ new mixed-income housing development, lic housing developments—report living circumstances have but those who had were faring well. in better quality housing in safer However, there were reasons for concern: neighborhoods. improved across residents’ health was extremely poor, mor- the board.” tality rates were worryingly high, and Ⅵ More than three-quarters of many former residents living in the private Madden/Wells respondents now say market were experiencing material hard- that their housing is in excellent or good ship, particularly difficulty in paying their condition and, in sharp contrast to 2005, utilities. Further, 40 percent of the respon- no public housing residents rate their dents were still living on-site in housing as “poor.” 5 Nearly all (84 per- Madden/Wells and enduring rapidly dete- cent) rate their housing as better than riorating conditions as building systems where they lived in Madden/Wells. The failed and drug dealers and gangs moved proportion reporting two or more seri- into the vacant units. Many of those left ous housing-quality problems has behind were among the most vulnerable declined from nearly 80 percent in 2001 families—those with serious physical and to 19 percent in 2009. Stunningly, those mental health issues and complex family who relocated to a traditional public problems. The children in these house- housing development report almost no holds appeared to be struggling, with par- problems with their units, while resi- ents’ reports indicating rising rates of dents who are renting in the private delinquency and risky behavior, especially sector with a voucher report the most for girls (Popkin 2010). problems overall, though the level is still substantially lower than when they lived in Madden/Wells. Four Years Later, an Improved Ⅵ Madden/Wells families live in consider- Quality of Life for Most Families ably lower-crime neighborhoods where By 2009, all of the original respondents had they no longer constantly fear for their been out of Madden/Wells for at least a own and their children’s safety. year, and some had been out for as long as Respondents’ perceptions of violence 3 Program on Neighborhoods and Youth Development

and disorder in their neighborhoods Significant Challenges Remain have decreased significantly across The 2009 Chicago Panel Study shows that every measure we tracked. For example, CHA families’ well-being has improved in in 2001, more than 70 percent of the important ways—they now live in substan- respondents rated each of four indica- tially higher-quality housing and in dra- tors of social disorder (drug trafficking, matically safer neighborhoods than the sales, loitering, and gangs) a big prob- Madden/Wells development. At the same lem; in 2009, fewer than 25 percent time, the study also highlights the signifi- viewed these issues as a major problem cant challenges that remain—particularly in their community. Likewise, the pro- CHA residents’ shockingly poor health and portion of respondents who rated three persistently low levels of employment— indicators of violence (shootings and problems that will require more intensive, violence, attacks, and sexual assault) as focused interventions. a big problem decreased by more than half. Finally, complaints of big problems Ⅵ Since 2005, respondents’ health has con- with physical disorder (trash and graf- tinued to deteriorate rapidly; the levels fiti) in 2009 were 40 percentage points of reported health problems in 2009 are lower than they were in 2001. Official stunning and the mortality rate is shock- crime statistics support respondents’ ingly high. At each wave of the Panel perceptions; on average, they now live Study, we asked respondents to rate in communities where the crime rate is their health on a five-point scale from half the level reported in Madden/Wells “excellent” to “poor.” In 2009, "Significant in 2001. Madden/Wells respondents’ ratings of Ⅵ In 2005, we raised serious concerns challenges remain: their overall health were significantly about the youth whose families were worse than the already-bad ratings of CHA residents’ still living in Madden/Wells. But in previous years. In 2009, more than half (51 2009, we find a more hopeful picture shockingly poor health percent) of respondents identified their overall, especially for young adults health as “fair” or “poor,” up from 37 and persistently low (ages 18 to 22), many of whom appear to percent in 2001 and four times as high as employment." have aged out of many of the problems their parents reported in 2005. In gen- the rate for the general population. More eral, young women appear to be faring than half suffer from two or more seri- better than young men, and, surpris- ous chronic conditions (e.g., diabetes, ingly, there are no longer any differences hypertension, obesity), and respondents between those whose families are living report severe difficulty in carrying out in traditional public housing and those activities of daily living (e.g., walking up whose families are in the private mar- a flight of stairs) at rates well above ket. However, our data also indicate that national averages. They also suffer high a worrying proportion of these young rates of serious mental health problems, people have faced the prospect of par- with 17 percent reporting poor overall enting: 8 percent of school-age youth mental health and 8 percent reporting and 28 percent of young adults have major depression. The one bright spot in gotten pregnant or gotten someone else all of this bad news is that respondents pregnant. in 2009 reported a reduction in anxiety Ⅵ Finally, although their quality of life has issues after relocation—possibly because improved substantially, and just over 25 of improved safety: 17 percent reported percent now live in low-poverty com- having anxiety episodes in the 2009 munities where the poverty rate is less follow-up, a significant decrease from than 15 percent, most Madden/Wells the 2001 baseline, when 28 percent families still live in neighborhoods that reported experiencing anxiety. are poor and predominantly African- Ⅵ The CHA has increased efforts to pro- American. mote self-sufficiency for its residents 4 Program on Neighborhoods and Youth Development

through its FamilyWorks case manage- mer residents who had received vouchers ment services and Opportunity Chicago, or succeeded in moving into mixed-income whose goal is to connect CHA residents housing far better off, and those left behind to the labor force.6 In its boldest move, in traditional public housing still living in the agency introduced a work require- unacceptably poor conditions (Popkin ment for all residents of its traditional 2010). In light of those earlier findings, the public housing properties in January findings from the 2009 eight-year follow- 2009. Our findings in 2009 indicate that up are truly stunning; there is no question employment rates for Madden/Wells that, regardless of where they live, CHA respondents remain persistently low, relocatees’ quality of life has improved although these rates reflect considerable dramatically. The CHA’s transformation cycling in and out of the labor market. efforts have achieved the goal of making Not surprisingly, poor health remains sure that CHA families no longer have to the biggest barrier to employment. endure deplorable housing conditions and However, although employment rates constant fear from living with overwhelm- have not increased, there has been some ing levels of violent crime and disorder. increase in household income. Finally, The fact that significant challenges remain we find that the work requirement may does not undermine the magnitude of this have begun influencing residents’ achievement. behavior, as respondents report having However, to build on these accom- enrolled in job training or work readi- plishments and make sure these gains are ness classes. not lost, the CHA will need to continue its Ⅵ Madden/Wells respondents continue to aggressive focus on improving manage- report experiencing considerable eco- ment and resident services. nomic hardship, particularly difficulty in paying utilities and worrying about Ⅵ The CHA must recognize that these running out of food. As in 2005, it gains, however impressive, are fragile. appears that respondents might be mak- To sustain these improvements, the ing trade-offs, choosing to pay their rent CHA must remain vigilant about moni- on time to remain lease compliant and toring the private companies that now delaying utility payments. manage its mixed-income and tradi- Ⅵ Finally, although no former residents tional public housing developments. currently live in a community where the Further, the CHA must continue to work poverty rate approaches that of with the Chicago Police Department to Madden/Wells (72 percent), more than ensure that CHA properties remain safe half live in a census tract with a poverty and decent places for its residents to rate greater than 25 percent, and virtu- live. Finally, the housing authority ally none live in racially diverse com- should continue funding its comprehen- munities. While certainly an sive resident service programs to ensure improvement over distressed public that troubled residents receive the sup- housing, these racially and economically port they need to reduce the chance that segregated neighborhoods still offer lit- they could create serious problems that tle opportunity for residents to improve threaten overall conditions in their their economic circumstances. developments or put them at risk of los- ing their housing. Ⅵ The CHA should ensure that its sup- Implications for Policy portive services and relocation pro- and Practice grams include a focus on youth. In After the four-year HOPE VI Panel Study particular, services should help children follow-up of 2005, we questioned whether and youth transition to new neighbor- CHA’s Plan for Transformation would hoods and schools. In addition to help- have a mixed legacy for residents, with for- ing youth adjust to their new 5 Program on Neighborhoods and Youth Development

communities, this strategy will help ilies to move into low-poverty opportu- support management and reduce prob- nity areas and continue reducing the lems with crime and disorder. barriers that prevent its residents from Ⅵ The CHA should also make an aggres- accessing the opportunities and services sive effort to address the health crisis that these communities provide. among its families. The agency should explore partnerships with the Depart- Notes ment of Public Health and local health 1. For a full description of the HOPE VI Panel Study care providers, as well as other options, research and final results, see Popkin, Levy, and such as public health interventions, that Buron (2009). For more detail, see the baseline train residents to be community health report (Popkin et al. 2002) and the previous two workers. The CHA should also work to series of Urban Institute policy briefs (http://www. urban.org/projects/hopevi/index.cfm and promote healthy living and physical http://www.urban.org/toolkit/policybriefs/ activity, acknowledging that residents subjectbriefs.cfm?documenttypeid=122). will not be physically active unless they 2. Chicago Housing Authority, “The Plan for feel safe being outside in their commu- Transformation,” http://www.thecha.org/pages/ housing_choice_voucher_program/pages/the_ nity. Therefore, one critical thing the plan_for_transformation/22.php. CHA can do is to sustain the safety 3. See, for example, Bennett et al. (2006); Venkatesh et improvements that have so improved al. (2004); and Popkin and Cunningham (2005). the overall quality of life for residents of 4. We used weights for all statistical analyses to its public housing and mixed-income account for differences in baseline characteristics among those who remained in the sample and developments. The agency should also those who had dropped out for reasons other than look for resources or partnerships to cre- mortality. Of the 37 nonrespondents who are not ate recreation centers in or near its deceased, 10 were contacted but not surveyed for developments or potentially to provide reasons ranging from incapacitation to broken appointments. Among the other 27 people, 13 “scholarships” for gym membership for could not be found, 6 were receiving housing assis- CHA residents. tance according to CHA records, 4 had moved out Ⅵ The CHA should continue its efforts to of state, 1 was incarcerated, 1 refused to answer the connect residents to the workforce. door, and 2 were listed in CHA data as having an illness. Although we did not see a significant 5. All reported differences in means and proportions are shift, our results make clear that even significant at the p < .10 level unless otherwise noted. CHA residents who work often find it 6. Opportunity Chicago, http://www.opportunity difficult to stay employed. Particularly chicago.org/ during these tough economic times, these residents need support and incen- References

tives to continue to keep trying to Bennett, Larry, Janet L. Smith and Patricia A. Wright, achieve regular employment. The CHA eds. 2006. Where Are Poor People to Live? should also consider alternative defini- Transforming Public Housing Developments. Armonk, tions of self-sufficiency for residents NY: M.E. Sharpe. Bowly, Devereaux. 1978. The Poorhouse: Subsidized whose health or personal challenges Housing in Chicago 1895–1976. Carobondale, IL: make achieving regular employment Southern Illinois University Press. unlikely. Popkin, Susan J. 2010. “A Glass Half Empty? New Ⅵ Finally, while conditions for CHA fami- Evidence from the HOPE VI Panel Study.” Housing lies have improved substantially as a Policy Debate 20(1): 42–62. Popkin, Susan J., and Mary K. Cunningham. 2005. result of relocation, the reality is that “Demolition and Struggle: Public Housing they continue to live in moderately poor, Transformation in Chicago and the Challenges for moderately high-crime, racially segre- Residents.” In Housing Race and Regionalism: Re- gated neighborhoods that offer few real thinking the Geography of Race in America, edited by Xavier De Souza Briggs (176–96). Washington, DC: opportunities for themselves or their Brookings Institution Press. children. The CHA needs to continue Popkin, Susan J., Diane K. Levy, and Larry Buron. exploring strategies that encourage fam- 2009. “Has HOPE VI Transformed Residents’ 6 Program on Neighborhoods and Youth Development

Lives? New Evidence from the HOPE VI Panel Megan Gallagher is a Study.” Housing Studies 24(4): 477–502. research associate in the Popkin, Susan J., Victoria E. Gwiasda, Lynn M. Olson, Urban Institute’s Dennis P. Rosenbaum, and Larry Buron. 2000. The Metropolitan Housing and Hidden War: Crime and the Tragedy of Public Housing Communities Policy Center. in Chicago. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Popkin, Susan J., Diane K. Levy, Laura E. Harris, Diane K. Levy is a senior Jennifer Comey, Mary K. Cunningham, and Larry research associate in the F. Buron. 2002. “HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Urban Institute’s Report.” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Metropolitan Housing and http://www.urban.org/publications/410590.html. Communities Policy Center. Venkatesh, Sudhir A., Isil Celimli, Douglas Miller, Alexandra Murphy, and Beauty Turner. 2004. “Chicago Public Housing Transformation: A Susan J. Popkin is director Research Report.” Center for Urban Research and of the Urban Institute’s Policy Working Paper. New York: Columbia Program on Neighborhoods University. and Youth Development and a senior fellow in the Metropolitan Housing and About the Authors Communities Policy Center. Larry Buron is a senior David J. Price is a research associate in Abt Associates’ assistant in the Urban Housing and Community Institute’s Metropolitan Revitalization Area. Housing and Communities Policy Center.

7 THE URBAN INSTITUTE 2100 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037

The Chicago Panel Study The Chicago Panel Study is a follow-up to the five-site HOPE VI Panel Study, which tracked resident outcomes from 2001 to 2005. The Chicago Panel Study continues to track the residents from the Chicago Housing Authority’s Ida B. Wells Homes/Wells Extension and Madden Park Homes who were part of the original HOPE VI Panel sample. In October 2009, the CHA marked the 10th anniversary of the Plan for Transformation; the purpose of the Chicago Panel Study is to track the circumstances of the families in the Chicago HOPE VI Panel Study sample to assess how they are faring as the Plan for Transformation progresses.

Revitalization activities began in Madden/Wells in mid- to late 2001, and the last residents were relocated in August 2008. At the baseline in summer 2001, we surveyed a random sample of 198 heads of household and conducted in-depth, qualitative interviews with seven adults and seven children. We conducted follow-up surveys and interviews for the HOPE VI Panel Study in 2003 (n = 174, response rate 88 percent) and 2005 (n = 165, response rate 83 percent). In 2009, when we attempted to track the original Madden/Wells sample for the Chicago Panel Study, we surveyed 136 heads of household (response rate 69 percent) and conducted in-depth interviews with 9 adults and 9 chil- dren. The largest source of attrition between 2001 and 2009 was mortality; we were able to locate, if not survey, nearly all original sample members in the 2009 follow-up.

The principal investigator for the Chicago Panel Study is Susan J. Popkin, Ph.D., director of the Urban Institute’s Program on Neighborhoods and Youth Development. Funding for this research was provided by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Finally, we wish to thank the CHA, the many colleagues who have assisted with and commented on this research, and most of all, the Chicago Panel Study respondents, who have so gen- erously shared their stories with us for so many years.

The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Permission is granted for reproduction of this document, with attribution to the Urban Institute.