HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

Home , Got Money

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 i

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

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.

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report vii

· 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.

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 one- fourth 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.

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.

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 self- sufficiency 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 move- back 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 high- poverty 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.

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 low- income 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 one- third 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 three- fourths (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 East Capitol Wells/ Easter Hill Total Park/Shore Few Gardens Dwellings Terrace Madden Richmond, Capitol Plaza Across Durham, NC Atlantic City, Chicago, IL CA Washington, Sites NJ D.C. Household type 2 11 9 4 16 9 Elderly, no children 5 28 16 16 22 18 Non-elderly, no children 93 62 74 79 62 73 Family with children Marital status of families with children 9 6 6 26 4 10 Married 91 94 94 74 96 90 Single female head Household size 1 person 3 24 21 11 27 18 2 people 16 26 28 22 14 21 3–4 people 50 31 39 39 29 37 = 5 people 31 18 12 28 30 23 Number of children in household 7 39 26 21 38 28 0 24 16 26 21 12 20 1 19 18 26 21 12 19 49 27 21 38 38 34 2 = 3 Household income < $5,000 5 55 56 30 19 35 $5,000–$10,000 42 22 23 29 42 31 $10,001–$15,000 21 12 10 16 12 14 > $15,000 32 10 11 26 27 21 Sources of incomea 53 32 41 40 25 37 10 35 27 46 36 32 Work 15 30 20 21 40 26 Welfare 12 11 4 7 4 7 SSI 44 67 68 48 63 59 SSDI Food stamps Age of head of household 18–24 years 4 11 24 9 3 10 25–34 years 38 22 31 33 15 27 35–49 years 43 36 26 41 41 37 50–61 years 7 16 10 12 22 14 = 62 years 7 14 9 5 19 11 Race of head of household 0 0 1 0 1 1 White, non-Hispanic 90 99 98 58 98 89 Black, non-Hispanic 10 1 1 40 1 10 Hispanic 0 0 1 2 1 1 Other Length of time in public housing 0 0 5 5 10 5 < 1 year 22 9 39 25 25 24 1–4 years 17 7 27 28 17 19 5–9 years 61 85 29 42 48 53 = 10 years

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 Shore Park/ East Capitol Shore a Dwellings/ Wells/Madden Few Gardens Easter Hill Terrace Capitol Plaza Chicago, IL Durham, NC Richmond, CA Atlantic City, Washington, NJ D.C. 1941, 1955, Year built 1970s 1953 1954 1955, 1971 1961, 1970 Original number of units (entire 212 3,200 240 273 717b site) Development c Family Family Family Family Family, senior type High-rise, mid- Building Row houses, Row houses rise, row Row houses Row houses description high-rise houses 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 three- bedroom 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 awards27 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. High- tech 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 “life- threatening 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.

Figure 3.2. Multiple Housing Problems by Site

100

0 Shore Park Wells Few Gardens Easter Hill East Capitol % Reporting two or more problems

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 3-5

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.

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 school- aged child not doing well in school. Nicole recently received an IBM computer for tutoring at an area after- school 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.

Figure 3.3. Comparative Data for Housing Conditions

100 80 60 40 20 0 Cold unit Water leaks Peeling paint Rats Percent reporting problem

All renters Poor households 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

Figure 3.4. Housing Satisfaction by Site and Age

100

40 satisfied" 20

satisfied" or "somewhat 0

Percent reporting feeling "very Shore Park Wells Few Easter Hill East Capitol Gardens

Adults 18-62 years old 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 East Capitol Shore Park/ Dwellings/ Shore Terrace Wells/Madden Few Gardens Easter Hill Capitol Plaza Atlantic City, NJ Chicago, IL Durham, NC Richmond, CA Washington D.C. Average Below Poverty Level 42 72 35 32 36 43 (1990) Sources of Income for household (1990) Employment 66 46 71 85 67 67 Welfare 27 53 19 20 21 28 SS/Pensions 50 25 43 20 53 38 Other 19 15 27 34 22 24 Single -family homes (1990) 37 11 58 25 47 36 Owner-occupied homes (2000) 17 2 28 35 40 24 Race/ethnicity (2000) Black 81 98 74 31 98 77 Hispanic 3 0 9 29 0 8 White 13 1 15 19 1 10 Other 3 1 2 21 1 6 Number of households (2000) 2,399 2,528 1,616 2,653 2,213 2,282

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.

Figure 4.3. Perceptions of Neighborhood Safety by Site

100

20 "somewhat safe" 0 Shore Park Wells Few Easter Hill East Capitol

% reporting feeling "very safe" or Gardens

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 non- elderly 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 spray- painting 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 great- grandchildren 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 Park/Shore East Capitol Terrace Few Easter Hill Dwellings/Capitol Atlantic City, Wells/Madden Gardens Richmond, Plaza NJ Chicago, IL Durham, NC CA Washington D.C. All Social Control: Percent reporting that neighbors are very likely or likely to do something if they saw . . . Children showing 51 62 50 56 55 55 disrespect to an adult. Children spray- painting graffiti 51 59 50 56 54 54 on local building. A fight break out in front of 49 57 47 58 56 54 their house. Children skipping 43 56 36 41 42 44 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 56 to help their neighbors. People in this neighborhood 26 53 39 61 60 49 generally get along with each other This is a close- knit 18 50 37 42 40 39 neighborhood. People in this neighborhood 12 42 27 35 36 32 share the same values. People in this neighborhood 14 32 21 26 27 25 can be trusted. Source : HOPE VI Panel Baseline Survey (Summer 2001).

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 in- depth 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-low- income 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

50 Percent 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 lower- income 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 self- efficacy 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 7.263), 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. Health Problems by Age Group

100

80 Under 50 60 50–61 40 20 62 and older 0 Percent reporting problem Excellent or Chronic Asthma Major very good illness depressive health 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 short- winded. 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 parents66 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, inner- city 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 low- income 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 inner- city 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 two- thirds 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 lowest- achieving 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]

Figure 6.1. Parental Reports of Poor School Quality by Site

100

40 problem"

0 Shore Park Wells Few Gardens Easter Hill East Capitol Percent reporting school quality a "big

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-year- old 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

40 Percent

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 African- American 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

0 Shore Park Wells Few Gardens Easter Hill East Capitol Children under age 6 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

100 80 60 40

% diagnosed 20 0 Shore Park Wells Few Gardens Easter Hill East Capitol

Children under age 6 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 Fewer than 5 days 43.5 66.8 61.9 5 to 9 days 26.1 20.5 21.6 10 days or more 30.4 12.8 16.4 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 20 40 60 80 100 Youth 6–14 years old % 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

0 20 40 60 80 100 Girls % Reporting "Often True" or Sometimes True" Boys

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 two- thirds 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 single- site 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 low- income 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 low- income (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%

59% Employed, full-time 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

100

20 % Below $10,000

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

Figure 7.4. Public Assistance by Site

100

40 6 months 20

0 Shore Wells Few Easter Hill East % Reporting assistance in past Park Gardens Capitol

Welfare 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 working- age 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 previously114; 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 a

Shore Park/ East Capitol Shore Wells/Madden Few Gardens Easter Hill Dwellings/ Terrace Chica Durha Ric Capitol Plaza HOPE VI Site Atla go, IL m, NC hmond, CA Washi ntic City, NJ ngton, D.C.

Original units 4 3,20 2 240 821 30 0 73 Occupied units at 3 1,40 2 228 196 baselineb 14 2 43 Planned public 1 2 870 160 16 housing unitsc 90 27 Planned rental N 1,00 4 27 592 market rate units A 0 5 Planned rental N 1,00 1 46 145 affordable units d A 0 39 Planned 2 1 130 115 949 homeownership 4 19 Total planned units 2 3,00 5 348 949 14 0 30 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 1997116 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 such 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 families¾also 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 results¾public 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 Chicago¾expressed 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.

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 high- poverty 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 self- sufficiency 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 self- sufficiency 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 middle- aged 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 Three- City 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 Self- Sufficiency, 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 Low- Income 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 planned119; 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 DON’T KNOW...... 98 à (SKIP TO Q2) REFUSED...... 99 à (SKIP TO Q2)

a. 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

...... No 2 à (SKIP TO Q4)

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 So N So St ongly mewhat either mewhat rongly K EF Ag Ag Agree or Dis Di ree ree disagree agree sagree a. People around here are willing to help their neighbors.

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 Very Likely Likely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely DK REF

a. …children skipping school and hanging out on a street corner? Would you say ...... 1 2 3 4 5 8 ...... 9

b. …children spray-painting

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

graffiti on a local building? ...... 1 2 3 4 5 8 ...... 9

c. …children showing disrespect to an adult? ...... 1 2 3 4 5 8 ...... 9

d. …a fight break out in front of their home? ...... 1 2 3 4 5 8 ...... 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 No problem 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 on the walls of the buildings 1 2 3 8 9

g. Trash and junk in the parking lots, streets, lawns, and sidewalks 1 2 3 8 9

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 No problem 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. Shootings and violence 1 2 3 8 9

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

...... DURING THIS INTERVIEW 4 ® SKIP TO Q27

...... DON’T KNOW 8 ® SKIP TO Q27

...... REFUSED 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

...... DON’T KNOW 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 à (SKIP TO Q31) ...... REFUSED 9 à (SKIP TO Q31)

a. 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 NO ...... 2 à (SKIP TO Q32) DON’T KNOW...... 8 à (SKIP TO Q32) REFUSED...... 9 à (SKIP TO Q32)

a. 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 NO ...... 2 à (SKIP TO Q33) DON’T KNOW...... 8 à (SKIP TO Q33) REFUSED...... 9 à (SKIP TO Q33)

a. 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 NO ...... 2 à (SKIP TO Q34) DON’T KNOW...... 8 à (SKIP TO Q34) REFUSED...... 9 à (SKIP TO Q34)

a. 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 NO ...... 2 à (SKIP TO Q35) DON’T KNOW...... 8 à (SKIP TO Q35) REFUSED...... 9 à (SKIP TO Q35)

a. 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 37D. What is their: 37E. 37F. 37G. What ONLY ASK IF 18 OR is their: What is is their: 37H. What is OLDER What their: their: is 37I. What is their:

their:

Birthday? First Marital Status? Relationship to Name? Sex? you? mm/dd/yyyy Ethnicity? Race? Married Male INSERT spouse/partner Not married, living with partner NAME Female son Hispanic African-American Not married, not living with partner daughter Not Hispanic White SEPARATED/WIDOWED/DIVO grandchild American Indian or RCED other relative Alaskan Native other non-relative Asian

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Other 1 Self M F H NH AA W AN AS M NMP NM S/W/D PI

2 S/P S D GC OR M F H NH AA W AN AS M NMP NM S/W/D ONR PI 3 S/P S D GC OR M F H NH AA W AN AS M NMP NM S/W/D ONR PI

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

4 S/P S D GC OR M F H NH AA W AN AS M NMP NM S/W/D ONR PI 5 S/P S D GC OR M F H NH AA W AN AS M NMP NM S/W/D ONR PI

6 S/P S D GC OR M F H NH AA W AN AS M NMP NM S/W/D ONR PI 7 S/P S D GC OR M F H NH AA W AN AS M NMP NM S/W/D ONR PI 8 S/P S D GC OR M F H NH AA W AN AS M NMP NM S/W/D ONR PI

9 S/P S D GC OR M F H NH AA W AN AS M NMP NM S/W/D ONR PI 10 S/P S D GC OR M F H NH AA W AN AS M NMP NM S/W/D ONR PI

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 ASK ONLY FOR 18 ASK ONLY FOR AGES 6- AND OLDER AND OLDER 17

37J. What is their 37K. Did they Graduate high school or Employment 37L. Are they Enrolled in receive a GED? Status School?

FULL-TIME PART-TIME NOT WORKING

FT PT NW HS GED NO YES NO

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

FT PT NW HS GED NO YES NO

FT PT NW HS GED NO YES NO 0

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. 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)

45. Have you ever worked for pay?

YES ...... 1 NO ...... 2 à (SKIP TO Q47) DON’T KNOW...... 8 à (SKIP TO Q47) REFUSED...... 9 à (SKIP TO Q47)

46. 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 à (SKIP TO Q47) REFUSED 99 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 N D N ES O K A Not having work 1 2 8 1 experience 0 Not having child care 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 1 2 8 1 neighborhood 0 Having a drug or alcohol 1 2 8 1 problem 0 Having a criminal record 1 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 No ...... 2 à (SKIP TO Q52) DON’T KNOW...... 8 à (SKIP TO Q52) REFUSED...... 9 à (SKIP TO Q52)

a. 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 No ...... 2 à (SKIP TO Q53) DON’T KNOW...... 8 à (SKIP TO Q53) REFUSED...... 9 à (SKIP TO Q53)

a. 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 No ...... 2 à (SKIP TO Q54) DON’T KNOW...... 8 à (SKIP TO Q54) REFUSED...... 9 à (SKIP TO Q54)

a. 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 No ...... 2 à (SKIP TO Q55) DON’T KNOW...... 8 à (SKIP TO Q55) REFUSED...... 9 à (SKIP TO Q55)

a. What year did you (or, this person) first receive AFDC/TANF? ______(year) à (SKIP TO Q56)

55. 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 No ...... 2 à (SKIP TO Q57) DON’T KNOW...... 8 à (SKIP TO Q57) REFUSED...... 9 à (SKIP TO Q57) a. 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 Somewhat Strongly agree, agree, disagree, or disagree DK REF a. Good luck is more important than ...... hard work for success. Do you. 1 2 3 4

b. Every time I try to get ahead, ...... something stops me. Do you.. 1 2 3 4 ...... 8 9

c. When I make plans, I can usually carry them out...... 1 2 3 4 8 9

d. Planning only makes people unhappy ...... because plans hardly ever work out ...... anyway... 1 2 3 4 8 9

The next few questions ask about your health and healthcare.

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. 2. 3. 4. 8. 9. All of the Most of Some of None of DK REF time the time the time the time

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 à (SKIP TO Q83) DON'T KNOW ...... 8 REFUSED...... 9

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”

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

L3. The next set of questions will be asked about ___ experiences.

INSERT CHILD 1: ______NAME AGE

85. 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. (CHILD1) shows pride when he/she does something well or learns something new. ______

e. (CHILD1) easily calms down after being angry or upset. ______

f. (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 AGE

93. 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 AGE

96. 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 à (SKIP TO Q98)

a. 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”

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

M3. The next set of questions will be asked about ___ experiences.

INSERT CHILD 2: ______NAME AGE

98. 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]

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 AGE

100. Why is (CHILD2) not attending school? (DO NOT READ LIST. RECORD UP TO 3 MENTIONS) A B C DISLIKES SCHOOL (DOESN’T WANT TO GO / NO INTEREST/ 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 HAS HAD DISCIPLINARY TROUBLE IN SCHOOL (SUSPENSIONS/ EXPELLED/ FIGHTING)...... 9 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

a. When did (he/she) last attend school? ______(98 = Don’t Know; 99 = Refused) ______MM YYYY à (SKIP TO Q108)

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

101. What grade level is the [CHILD2] in at school?

KINDERGARTEN...... 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]NAME school? 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 ______City ______State ______Zip Code ______

104. 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 AGE

107. 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.

Often Sometimes Not DON’T True True True KNOW REFUSED

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

[SKIP a. AND b. IF NOT ENROLLED] a. Has trouble getting along with teachers 1 2 3 8 9 b. Is disobedient at school 1 2 3 8 9 c. Is disobedient at home 1 2 3 8 9 d. Hangs around with kids who get in trouble 1 2 3 8 9 e. Bullies or is cruel or mean to others 1 2 3 8 9 f. Is restless or overly active, can’t sit still 1 2 3 8 9 g. Is unhappy, sad, or depressed 1 2 3 8 9

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 NO DK REF

a. Has [CHILD2] been suspended, excluded, or expelled from school? 1 2 8 9

b. Has [CHILD2] gone to juvenile court? 1 2 8 9

c. Has [CHILD2] had a problem with alcohol or drugs? 1 2 8 9

d. Has [CHILD2] gotten into trouble with the police? 1 2 8 9

e. Has [CHILD2] done something illegal to get money? 1 2 8 9

110. How many different schools has [CHILD2] attended since kindergarten? (RECORD AND CIRCLE) (Enter number______)...... 1-97 DON'T KNOW ...... 98 REFUSED...... 99

111. 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 AGE

112. 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 AGE

115. 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 à (SKIP TO FINAL SECTION) DON'T KNOW ...... 8 à (SKIP TO FINAL SECTION) REFUSED...... 9 à (SKIP TO FINAL SECTION)

a. 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 ______

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 Part- time; 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

East Capitol Shore Park/ Dwellings/ Wells/Madden Few Gardens Easter Hill Shore Terrace Chicago, IL Durham, NC Richmond, CA Capitol Plaza Atlantic City, NJ Washington,

HOUSING PROBLEMS c,d,r,w a,d a,c,r,w a,d Heating broken 54.4 31.8 17.2 33.5 c,d,r,w a a a Toilets not working 41.7 28.3 20.4 17.1 w d,r,w c c Water leaks 48.9 54.3 35.2 37.7 c,r a,r,w r a,c,d Peeling paint/broken plaster 35.3 53.5 42.3 16.5 c,d,r,w a,d,r,w a,c a,c Exposed radiator 17.4 49.0 0.0 3.0 c,d,r,w a,r,w a,r a,c,d Cockroaches 49.6 33.0 25.3 5.3 c,d,r,w a,d,r,w a,c a,c Rats/mice 40.3 24.8 3.3 5.3 c,r a,d,w c,r a,d,w Mold on walls and ceilings 20.1 35.9 16.5 39.0

d,r,w d,r,w a,c a,c Two or more problems 61.9 76.3 45.1 37.1

c,d,r,w a,r a,r a,c,d,w Housing satisfaction Very satisfied 3.6 34.3 19.2 41.8 Somewhat satisfied 39.6 32.8 46.2 35.9 Somewhat dissatisfied 30.2 13.1 17.6 14.1 Very dissatisfied 0.0 18.2 17.0 8.2

Satisfied with housing conditions 43.2c,d,r,w 67.2a 65.4a 77.7a,w (very or somewhat satisfied)

Sample size (number of respondents) 139 198 182 170 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.

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

TABLE D.2. NEIGHBORHOOD

East Capitol Shore Park/ Wells/Madden Few Gardens Easter Hill Dwellings/ Shore Terrace Chicago, IL Durham, NC Richmond, CA Capitol Plaza Atlantic City, NJ Washington,

Own or have access to car 13.8d,r,w 21.9d,r 34.6a,c,r 48.2a,c,d,w

AMENITIES WITHIN 15 MINUTES Public transit 97.1d,r 94.0d,r 90.1a,c,w 84.0a,c,w Grocery store 87.8d,r,w 77.3d,r,w 56.6a,c 47.3a,c Clinic/hospital 71.9c,d,r,w 52.3a,d,r,w 29.1a,c,w 32.3a,c,w

NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS Graffiti 17.4c,r 47.7a,d,w 15.3c,r 41.6a,d,w Trash 46.8 59.0 54.4w 59.3w People using drugs 77.4 85.3w 85.6w 73.7 People selling drugs 77.0w 84.1w 86.2w 75.3 Groups of people hanging out 66.9 73.6r,w 69.1w 58.9c Gangs 51.6c,w 75.0a,r,w 62.7r,w 42.9c,d,w Police not coming when called 6.6 15.7 35.8a,c,w 27.3a Physical disorder 48.2c,r 68.4a,w 56.9w 67.3a,w Social disorder 86.3w 87.7w 85.5w 80.4 Violent crime 64.0d 68.7d,w 83.7a,c,r,w 65.5d

SAFETY Feels very safe being alone right 45.3c 68.2a,d,r 44.0c,w 52.1c outside of apartment/house Feels very safe being alone inside 62.6c,r,w 87.9a,d 72.4c,w 81.8a apartment at night Sample size (number of respondents) 139 198 182 170 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.

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

TABLE D.3 COLLECTIVE EFFICACY AND SOCIAL INTEGRATION

East Capitol Shore Park/ Few Dwellings/ Wells/Madden Easter Hill Shore Terrace Chicago, IL Gardens Richmond, CA Capitol Plaza Atlantic City, NJ Durham, NC Washington,

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 61.7 50.3 55.8 Children spray-painting graffiti on a local 51.2 59.3 50.3 55.8 building A fight break out in front of their home 48.8 57.4 47.4 58.5 Children skipping school and hanging out 43.2 55.7 35.5c 41.1 on a street corner

SOCIAL COHESION People around here are willing to help their 32.8c,d,r,w 65.8a,d 48.6a,c,w 56.6a neighbors People in this neighborhood generally get 26.2c,r,w 53.1a 39.3r,w 61.1a,d along with each other This is a close-knit neighborhood 18.2c,d,r,w 50.3a 37.0a 41.6a People in this neighborhood share the same 11.6c,d,r,w 42.4a,d 27.0a,c 35.2a values People in this neighborhood can be trusted 14.4c 31.6a 20.9 25.9

Social Control Index 1.8 2.3d 1.7c 2.0 Social Cohesion and Trust Index 1.0c,d,r,w 2.3a,d 1.7a,c,w, 2.1a

Friends in neighborhood 51.8c 72.7a,r,w 59.3r,w 44.7c,d Family in neighborhood 38.9w 46.7r,w 35.2w 31.2c,w

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

TABLE D.4. ADULT PHYSICAL HEALTH STATUS

East Capitol Shore Park/ Dwellings/ Wells/Madden Few Gardens Easter Hill Shore Terrace Chicago, IL Durham, NC Richmond, CA Capitol Plaza Atlantic City, NJ Washington,

Overall health status d a,r,w d Excellent 2.2 24.8 27.8 17.1 Very good 33.1 14.1 20.6 14.1 Good 34.5 19.7 23.9 27.1 Fair 16.6 32.3 21.7 31.8 Poor 13.7 9.1 6.1 10.0

Health is excellent or very good 35.3 38.9 48.3 31.2 Health is excellent, v. good, or good 69.8c 58.6a 72.2 58.2

Chronic health condition 35.3 41.4 33.0w 32.4w

ASTHMA Prevalence 21.6 23.9 22.0 20.6 Incidence 19.4 12.2 12.6 11.8 Emergency care 17.8 9.1 8.2a 6.5a

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE c,d,r,w a,d,r,w a,c,w a,c,w Less than 15 minutes 71.9 52.3 29.1 32.3 15–30 minutes 24.5 33.0 45.1 40.1 30 minutes or longer 3.6 14.7 25.7 27.6

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

TABLE D.5. ADULT MENTAL HEALTH STATUS

East Capitol Shore Park/ Wells/Madden Few Gardens Easter Hill Dwellings/ Shore Terrace Chicago, IL Durham, NC Richmond, CA Capitol Plaza Atlantic City, NJ Washington,

SELF-EFFICACY INDICATORS (percent reporting strongly or somewhat agree) Good luck is more important than NA 22.4 33.1 22.1 26.8 hard work. Every time I try to get ahead, NA 54.9 61.8 58.2 59.7 something stops me. When I make plans, I can usually carry NA 88.7 83.6 72.9 88.2 them out. (inverse wording) Planning only makes people unhappy anyway because plans hardly ever NA 26.3d,r,w 39.9c 40.9c 43.3 work out.

Low self-efficacy score1 NA 33.8 46.2 45.3 43.4

Poor General Mental Health NA 23.2a 29.1a 33.5a 29.3 (scored less than 67 on MOS)

Major Depressive Episode NA 12.1a 15.5a 20.3a 17.7 (CIDI score = 3 or higher)

Sample size (number of respondents) 139 198 182 170 198 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.

TABLE D.6. CHILD (UNDER AGE 6) PHYSICAL HEALTH STATUS

East Capitol Shore Park/ Dwellings/ Wells/Madden Few Gardens Easter Hill Shore Terrace Chicago, IL Durham, NC Richmond, CA Capitol Plaza Atlantic City, NJ Washington,

Overall health status c,d,r,w a a. a Excellent 8.6 64.6 54.8 35.8

1 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.”)

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

Very good 36.2 15.4 20.4 29.9 Good 48.3 15.4 16.1 28.4 Fair 6.9 4.6 8.6 6.0 Poor 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Health is excellent, v. good, or good 93.1 95.4 91.4 94.0

ASTHMA Prevalence 14.0 18.8 32.3 29.9 Incidence 12.1 13.9 17.2 13.4 Emergency care 12.1 10.8 14.0 9.0

Visited ER for accident or injury 5.2 7.7 18.3 20.9

Site for routine medical care r,w d Doctor’s office or private clinic 29.3 47.7 28.0 64.2 Community health center 67.2 24.6 37.6 16.4 Hospital outpatient clinic 0.0 20.0 32.3 7.5 Other 3.5 7.7 2.2 11.9

School missed because of illness Less than 5 days 58.8 71.0 59.2 55.0 5–10 days 23.8 20.4 22.5 26.0 More than 10 days 17.5 8.6 18.3 19.0

Sample size (number of children) 58 65 93 67 Share of households represented 41.7 32.8 51.1 39.4 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.

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

TABLE D.7. YOUTH (AG ES 6–14) PHYSICAL HEALTH STATUS

East Capitol Shore Park/ Easter Hill Wells/Madden Few Gardens Richmond, Dwellings/ Shore Terrace Chicago, IL Durham, NC Atlantic City, NJ CA Capitol Plaza Washington, DC Overall health status c,d,r,w a,r a a,c Excellent 7.1 61.7 37.0 39.4 44.7 Very good 32.3 16.0 30.1 18.3 27.2 Good 52.5 14.9 20.6 26.9 22.3 Fair 5.1 7.5 12.3 11.5 Poor 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.9

Health is excellent, v. good, or good 92.0 92.6 87.7 85.0 94.2

ASTHMA Prevalence 8.0d,r 17.2 26.0a 31.7a 19.6 Incidence 6.0r 6.4r 15.1 21.2a,c 12.8 Emergency care 6.1 4.3 13.7 11.7

Visited ER for accident or injury 5.0 11.7 13.7 16.4 10.7

Site for routine medical care w Doctor’s office or private clinic 30.0 41.9 31.5 57.7 54.4 Community health center 68.0 36.6 38.4 20.2 27.2 Hospital outpatient clinic 0.0 17.2 27.4 6.7 18.5 Other 2.0 4.3 2.7 15.4

School days missed in the past year because of illness or injury Less than 5 days 58.8 71.0 59.2 55.0 63.7 5–9 days 23.8 20.4 22.5 26.0 17.7 10 or more days 17.5 8.6 18.3 19.0 18.6

Sample size (number of children) 99 94 73 104 103 Share of households represented 71.2 47.5 40.1 61.2 52.0 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.

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

TABLE D.8. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILDREN

East Capitol Shore Park/ Easter Hill Wells/Madden Few Gardens Richmond, Dwellings/ Shore Terrace Chicago, IL Durham, NC Atlantic City, NJ CA Capitol Plaza Washington, DC Percent of households with children 92.8c,d,w 61.1a,d,r 74.2a,c,r 79.4a,c,w 62.1 under 18

Average number of children in 2.4c,d 1.7a 1.6d 2.1 household

Gender (among children under 6) Female 64.8 47.5 42.7 45.5 50.9 Male 35.2 52.5 57.3 54.6 49.1

Mean age (among children under 6) 2.8 2.7 2.8 3.2

Gender (among children 6–14) Female 52.1 51.1 47.1 52.5 51.5 Male 47.9 48.9 52.9 47.5 48.5

Mean age (among children 6–14) 10.3d 9.5 9a,w 9.7 10.1

Sample size (number of children) 99 94 73 104 103 Share of households represented 71.2% 47.5% 40.1% 61.2% 52.0% 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.

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

TABLE D.9. CHILD SCHOOL AND BEHAVIOR (AG ES 6 AND UNDER)

Shore East Capitol Park/ Dwellin Shore Wells/Madden Few Gardens Easter Hill Chicago, IL Durham, NC Richmond, CA Capitol Plaza Terrace Washington, Atlantic City, NJ Enrolled in school 90.5 80.0 72.7 80.0 School within walking distance 95.0r 100.0r 69.0 50.0a,c In special education for learning problems 14.3 4.4 17.2 12.5 In special education for behavior problems 18.2 9.1 6.5 12.5

POSITIVE BEHAVIORS (percent reporting a lot or completely) Is usually in a good mood NA 87.7 84.0 79.1 Is well liked and admired by other children NA 93.8 88.8 82.8 Shows concerns for other people’s feelings NA 76.7 68.4 64.6 Shows pride when they do something well NA 96.8 91.3 89.4 Is easily calmed down after being angry NA 75.0d,r,w 51.9c 50.8c Is helpful and cooperative NA 85.5 80.0 70.8

Mean of positive behaviors NA 4.5 d,r,w 4.1 c 3.9 c

Sample size (number of children) 99 94 73 104 Share of households represented 71.2% 47.5% 40.1% 61.2% 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.

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

TABLE D.10. YOUTH SCHOOL AND BEHAVIOR (AGES 6 –14)

Shore Park/ East Capitol Wells/Madde Shore Few Gardens Easter Hill Dwellings/ Terrace n Durham, NC Richmond, CA Capitol Plaza Atlantic City, Chicago, IL Washington, NJ Grade in school (3 categories) w Kindergarten–third 41.4 54.3 58.9 45.2 Fourth–sixth 35.4 26.6 30.1 32.7 Seventh–tenth 23.2 19.2 11.0 22.1

School within walking distance 79.9c,d,r 90.4ad,r,w 53.4a,c,w 43.3a,c,w School quality is a big problem 5.3d,r 14.5r 20.1a,r 41.4a,d,r,w

Number of schools attended d,r,w a a One 62.9 48.4 41.1 47.5 Two 32.0 33.3 28.8 32.7 Three or more 5.2 17.2 30.1 19.8

Enrolled in gifted or advanced classes 14.3 20.2 19.2 10.9 In special classes for learning problems 19.2d 14.9d 38.4a,c,r 18.3d In special classes for behavior problems 14.4 11.7 19.2 5.8

POSITIVE BEHAVIORS Is usually in a good mood NA 76.6 63.0 59.6 Is well liked and admired by other children NA 89.4 79.5 78.9 Shows concerns for other people’s feelings NA 80.9 72.6 78.6a Shows pride when they do something well NA 97.9 93.2 88.5 Is easily calmed down after being angry NA 62.8 43.8 57.7 Is helpful and cooperative NA 85.1d 67.1c 79.8

Mean of positive behaviors NA 4.5 d,r,w 4.2 c 4.1 c

Sample size (number of children) 99 94 73 104 Share of households represented 71.2% 47.5% 40.1% 61.2% 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.

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

TABLE D.11. YOUTH (AGES 6–14), BEHAVIOR

Shore Park/ East Capitol Wells/Madde Shore Few Gardens Easter Hill Dwellings/ Terrace n Durham, NC Richmond, CA Capitol Plaza Atlantic City, Chicago, IL Washington, NJ BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS Has trouble getting along with teachers 79.8 91.5 87.7 71.2 Is disobedient at school 82.0 94.7 91.8 92.3 Has been suspended, excluded, or expelled from school 11.5 21.3 28.8 33.3

Is disobedient at home 72.7d,r 93.6d 91.8c,a 91.4a Hangs around with kids who get in trouble 72.0 98.9d 95.9c 91.4 Bullies or is cruel or mean to others 55.6d,r 67.0 60.3a 71.2a Is restless or overly active, can’t sit still 65.3d,r,w 92.6d,r,w 97.3a,c 93.3a,c Is unhappy, sad, or depressed 31.4d 53.2d,r 75.2a,c 58.2c

One or more negative behaviors 27.3r 23.2r,w 31.9r 50.0a,c,d Two or more negative behaviors 23.7 17.7r,w 24.7 36.5c

DELINQUIENT BEHAVIOR Suspended, excluded, or expelled from 11.5r 21.3 28.8 33.3 a school Gone to juvenile court 2.1 1.1 2.7 0.0 Had a problem with alcohol or drugs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gotten into trouble with the police 2.1 14.3 0.0 3.9 Done something illegal to get money 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sample size (number of children) 99 94 73 104 103 Share of households represented 71.2% 47.5% 40.1% 61.2% 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.

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

TABLE D.12. EMPLOYMENT STATUS, PUBLIC AS SISTANCE, AND HARDSHIP

East Capitol Shore Park/ Dwellings/ Wells/Madden Few Gardens Easter Hill Shore Terrace Chicago, IL Durham, NC Richmond, CA Capitol Plaza Atlantic City, NJ Washington,

c,w a w w Currently work for pay 53.2 32.3 41.2 40.0

c,d,r,w a a a Employment status Full-time 45.3 18.7 23.1 22.4 Part-time 5.8 13.6 17.6 18.2 Not employed 48.9 67.7 59.3 59.4

Currently receiving public 10.2c,d,r,w 35.2a,r 27.5a,r 45.9a,d assistance

If no, ever received public 53.7c,w 68.5a,d,r,w 48.9c 48.9c assistance

Length of time receiving public d,r d a,c a assistance Less than one year 2.7 2.0 17.1 17.2 1–5 years 20.3 25.3 47.6 39.6 More than 5 years 77.0 72.7 35.2 43.1

Currently receiving food stamps 44.2c,d,w 67.0a,r 68.1a,r 47.7c,d,w

d,w a Currently receiving SSI 12.2 10.6 3.9 6.6

Worried about running out of food 60.4c,w 39.4ar 51.1 62.9c,w in the past 6 months

Sample size (number of respondents) Source: HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001). Notes: 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.

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

TABLE D.13. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EMPLOYED

East Capitol Shore Park/ Dwellings/ Wells/Madden Few Gardens Easter Hill Shore Terrace Chicago, IL Durham, NC Richmond, CA Capitol Plaza Atlantic City, NJ Washington,

c,d,r a a a Time at current job Less than one year 27.0 35.9 53.3 50.0 1–3 years 14.9 35.9 29.3 26.5 More than 3 years 58.1 28.1 17.3 23.5

How did you find your current job? Neighborhood friend or relative 27.0 23.4 17.3 19.1 Friend/relative 13.5 14.1 30.7 38.2 Newspaper or radio 12.2 3.1 16.0 2.9 Personal visit inquiring about openings 9.5 21.8 13.3 2.9 Private employment agency 5.4 3.1 5.3 1.5 Welfare office 13.5 6.3 0.0 4.4 Unemployment office 8.1 0.0 1.3 1.5 Neighborhood agency 4.1 15.6 1.3 0.0 Other 6.8 12.5 14.7 29.4

r c Average hourly rate ($) 8.69 7.83 8.38 9.5

c,d,w a,r,w a,r,w c,d Household income < $10,000 47.3 78.7 79.9 59.0

d d a,c.w How do you get to work? Public transportation 59.5 54.7 24.0 25.0 Car (own) 13.5 18.8 34.7 36.8 Car (borrowed) 0.0 3.1 5.3 11.8 Cab 0.0 0.0 1.33 0.0 Walk 25.7 18.8 5.3 20.6 Work at home 1.4 3.1 1.3 1.5 Carpool 0.0 1.6 22.7 4.4 Other 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 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.

TABLE D.14. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE UNEMPLOYED

East Capitol Shore Park/ Dwellings/ Wells/Madden Few Gardens Easter Hill Shore Terrace Chicago, IL Durham, NC Richmond, CA Capitol Plaza Atlantic City, NJ Washington,

c,d,r,w a a a Ever employed 70.8 85.1 94.4 85.3 w w Worked in the past year 25.0 22.3 33.3 38.4

BARRIERS TO WORK

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

Not having work experience 33.3d 27.8 15.6 a 27.3 Not having child care 25.7 20.0 d 36.1 c 32.3 Lack of transportation 1.9 d,r,w 8.6 d,r 45.9 a,c,w 39.4 a,c,w Not speaking English well 4.2 r 0.0 r 0.0 r 23.7 a,c,d,w Having a disability 9.6 20.4 9..8 14.7 Discrimination 22.1 c,d,r,w 2.7 a 4.9 a 9.8 a Lack of jobs in the neighborhood 4.8 c,d,r,w 41.7 a 28.1 a,r 48.9 a,d Having a drug or alcohol problem 2.9 1.3 0.8 0.8 Having a criminal record 2.9 2.0 4.1 1.5

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.

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

TABLE D.15. RELOCATION

East Capitol Shore Park/ Dwellings/ Wells/Madden Few Gardens Easter Hill Shore Terrace Chicago, IL Durham, NC Richmond, CA Capitol Plaza Atlantic City, NJ Washington,

Want to live in development after it 59.6c,d,r,w 81.0a,d 41.3a,c,r,w 78.1a,d is fixed up or rebuilt

c,d,r a,d,r,w a,c,w a,c,w If moves, desires to live In the neighborhood 28.5 50.8 6.9 27.1 In a different neighborhood 47.5 38.6 53.7 27.7 In a suburban neighborhood 8.0 5.1 13.7 19.4 In a different city 16.1 5.6 25.1 23.9 Other 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.9

r r a,c Reasons to leave public housing Better schools 2.9 4.1 2.8 3.0 Employment opportunities 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 Get away from drugs and gangs 54.7 22.3 30.7 28.6 Bigger/better apartment or house 23.7 32.0 10.6 9.5 Move near family 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 Does not want to move 10.8 20.8 11.7 22.0 Better environment 3.6 9.1 19.0 15.5 Better housing/maintenance conditions 0.0 3.1 3.4 2.4 Homeownership 3.6 0.0 7.3 10.7 Personal reasons 0.0 6.1 14.0 5.7 Other 0.7 0.5 0.6 2.4

Continued

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

TABLE D.15. RELOCATION (CONTINUED)

East Capitol Shore Park/ Easter Hill Dwellings/ Wells/Madden Few Gardens Richmond, Shore Terrace Chicago Durham, N.C. Capitol Plaza Atlantic City, N.J. Calif. Washington,

d d a,c,r,w d Reasons to stay in public housing To be close to family and friends 0.7 5.6 1.1 1.2 To keep children in the same school 0.0 2.5 1.1 0.0 To stay near my job 1.5 1.5 0.6 0.0 To stay near accessible transportation 0.0 4.6 0.6 0.0 Afraid of encountering discrimination 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 Long-term resident 0.7 16.8 3.4 1.8 Safety/violence in the neighborhood 3.7 0.5 0.0 3.0 Cannot afford to move out 70.8 9.1 7.9 9.5 Do not want to stay in public housing 12.4 11.2 42.1 7.7 Low rent 5.8 35.5 24.7 68.1 Convenience 0.7 4.1 2.3 0.6 Good housing and maintenance 0.7 1.0 2.3 0.6 conditions Likes area or development 0.0 4.6 1.7 3.0 No reason 0.7 1.5 1.7 0.6 Other 1.5 1.0 10.7 4.1

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

TABLE D.15. RELOCATION (CONTINUED)

East Capitol Shore Park/ Wells/Madden Few Gardens Easter Hill Dwellings/ Shore Terrace Chicago, IL Durham, NC Richmond, CA Capitol Plaza Atlantic City, NJ Washingto

How did you find out about these c,r a,d c,r a,d,w plans? Development site manager 23.3 27.0 20.2 7.1 Friend or relative 7.8 14.9 12.4 5.3 At a meeting with PHA officials 45.7 47.3 40.5 47.9 Tenant organization or building 17.8 2.7 2.3 7.1 president Newspaper or television 1.6 1.4 9.6 2.4 Other 0.0 6.1 1.7 1.8 Does not know 0.0 0.7 1.1 0.0 Letter or flyer 3.9 0.0 11.2 26.0 Word of mouth 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.4 During this interview 7.2 24.1 0.0 .6

Sample size (number of respondents) 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.

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) 103 772 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.2. Depression, Asthma, and Overall Health (in percent) Depressed Not Depressed Has been diagnosed with asthma* 29.9 20.3

Overall health* 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

Sample size (number of respondents) 117 719 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.3. Race/Ethnicity and Health (Richmond only) (in percent) African American Hispanic Overall health* Excellent 21.2 10.3 Very good 17.2 8.8 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 Exhibits one or no

behavior problems 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

Gender* Male 57.5 40.4 Female 42.5 59.7

Sample size (number of respondents) 234 238 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.5. Employment Status, Health, and Education (in percent) Currently employed Not currently employed Overall health* 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 Depressed* 8.2 17.4

Has GED or graduated high school* 65.6 44.1

Sample size (number of respondents) 330 555 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.6. Chronic Health Problems and Employment in the Past Year (For Those Not Currently Employed) (in percent) Not employed in the Employed in the past year past year Chronic health problem* 27.1 57.5

Sample size (number of respondents) 118 358 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.7. Relocation (in percent) Wants to return to Does not want to site 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

Length of time in public housing* 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

Neighborhood problems 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

Sample size (number of respondents) 516 230 Source: HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001). Notes: SSI = Supplemental Security Income. * indicates that group differences are significant at p < .05.

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) -2.025* Shore Park/Shore Terrace (0.538) -1.011* Few Gardens (0.310) -0.127 Easter Hill (0.276) -1.248** East Capitol (0.294) Resident characteristics 0.024* Age of resident (0.008) 0.009 Years lived in public housing (0.014) -0.316 Annual income $5,000–$9,999 (0.232) -0.283 Annual income $10,000–$14,999 (0.304) -0.387 Annual income > $15,000 (0.285) -0.046 High school graduate (0.193) 0.288 Had lived in private housing (0.226) -0.960* Had lived in Section 8 (0.480) -0.338** Number of housing problems (0.067) Household composition 0.308* Number of adults in household (0.141) 0.030 Number of kids in household (0.060) Development characteristics -0.039 Perceived violence in neighborhood (0.118) 0.278** Perceived social cohesion in neighborhood (0.056) -1.866 Constant (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 -0.230 Shore Park/Shore Terrace (0.323) 1.314** Few Gardens (0.323) 0.814* Easter Hill (0.336) 0.575* East Capitol (0.286) Characteristics of focal child 0.679** Gender (0.181) -6.85E-4 Age (0.038) -0.017 Hispanic (0.334) 0.289 Number of schools attended (0.243) Characteristics of household head -0.841** Poor mental health (0.211) Received public assistance in past 6 0.107 months (0.198) -0.207 High school graduate (0.189) Head of household health -0.140 (0.190) -0.216 Single (0.296) Characteristics of household 0.012 Total number of years in public housing (0.010) Source: HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001). Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses. * p < .05; ** p < .001; R squared = .1496.

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 Unstandardized coefficients Site effects Shore Park/Shore Terrace . 0.253** Few Gardens (0.076) 0.149 Easter Hill (0.081) 0.102 East Capitol (0.066) Characteristics of focal child 0.067 Gender (0.047) 0.008 Age (0.010) -0.234* Hispanic (0.088) -0.012 Number of schools attended (0.059) 0.048** Negative behavior scale (0.013) Characteristics of household head -0.035 Poor mental health (0.058) 0.003 High school graduate (0.049) -0.022 Excellent or very good health (0.052) 0.057 Married or living with partner (0.068) Characteristics of household 0.006* Total number of years in public housing (0.003) Source: HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001). Notes: n = 350; Standard errors are in parentheses. * p < .05; ** p < .001; R squared = .1419.

HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report

Table E.11. Regression Model Predicting Relocation Choice a

Unstandardized Independent variables coefficients Site effects -1.2251** Shore Park/Shore Terrace (0.3953) -1.7951*** Few Gardens (0.3113) -0.3664 Easter Hill (.3464) -.3754 East Capitol (0.3323) Resident characteristics -.0836 Employed (0.2193 0.8857** SSI receipt (disability) (.2578) 0.0168* Age of resident (0.0101) -.0157 Years lived in public housing (.0174) 0.4031 Annual income $5,000–$9,999 (0.2521) 0.6446* Annual income $10,000–$14,999 (0.3410) 0.4977 Annual income > $15,000 (0.3114) -0.2574 High school graduate (0.2065) -0.1717* Housing satisfaction (1037) Household composition 0.1682 Number of kids in household (0.1919) Development characteristics 0.6972** Feelings of safety in the neighborhood (.2578) 0.1737** Perceived social cohesion in neighborhood 0.0683 0.1449 Perceived violence in the neighborhood (0.1220) 0.0528 Constant (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. Asthma- related 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 38- item 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 African- American 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 This reference is to a small program in Stateway Gardens cited in Popkin and Cunningham. 2002.

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 units.

120 A small proportion of “families without children” may have children between the ages of 15 and 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.