Metropolitan Housing and Communities Center

Brief No. 9, June 2005

A Roof Over Their Heads: Public Housing Transformation Changes and Challenges for Public Housing Residents and the “Hard to House” Mary K. Cunningham, Susan J. Popkin, and Martha R. Burt

The transformation of public housing will ideal, housing. According to recent research necessarily have profound effects on the by the Urban Institute, a substantial propor- lives of thousands of very vulnerable fam- tion of these residents may not fit easily into ilies.1 For three decades, public housing existing relocation options for HOPE VI served as the housing of last resort, with households, particularly vouchers or new federal regulations increasingly favoring mixed-income communities that may the neediest households. But during the require the household to pass strict screen- The challenge facing 1990s, the federal government dramatically ing requirements (i.e., criminal background changed its policy for housing the poor. checks, drug tests, or work requirements).4 policymakers and Under the new approach, largely driven by Further, many families awaiting relocation housing authority the $5 billion HOPE VI program begun in will need special assistance beyond the typi- 1992, the U.S. Department of Housing and cal relocation package to help them move administrators is how Urban Development (HUD) began promot- from their current units into safe and stable ing mixed-income housing and relocating housing. to address the needs of families through housing vouchers to pre- The hard to house include a range of vent the concentration of troubled, low- high-need households, such as grandparents the hard to house in a income households (see page 7).2 caring for grandchildren, families with dis- time of shrinking The goals of the HOPE VI program abled members, very large households, and include “improving the living environment multiple-barrier families coping with an resources. for residents of severely distressed public array of difficult problems. For these vulner- housing” and “providing housing that will able families, the same public housing trans- avoid or decrease the concentration of very formation that may offer better housing and low income families.” Our most recent new opportunities for other tenants can be research shows that the majority of HOPE just one more blow—leaving families in VI relocatees have received vouchers, with their distressed communities, facing the most of the remainder moving to other tra- specter of losing their assistance altogether. ditional public housing developments Because housing continues to become (Cunningham 2004). For many residents, increasingly unaffordable for low-income this relocation means that HOPE VI has families, these families are left with few met its basic goals; most HOPE VI re- good alternatives outside of public housing.5 locatees report living in better housing in In this brief, we lay out a strategy for dramatically safer, less poor neighborhoods effectively serving “hard-to-house” resi- (Comey 2004; Buron 2004).3 dents who remain in distressed public Despite these successes, however, public housing or who are experiencing hardship housing transformation has largely failed to as a result of HOPE VI–related relocation. address the more complex needs of “hard- Using evidence from our research on HOPE to-house” residents who have relied on pub- VI families, we identify the different needs lic housing as a source of stable, if less than that make it difficult for some residents to

Urban Institute a nonpartisan economic and social policy research organization 1 Metropolitan Housing and Communities

successfully transition to mixed-income or Multiple-barrier households. These private-market housing. Next, we use this households are long-term public housing evidence to find out how many residents residents (lived in public housing for living in HOPE VI developments fall into more than 10 years) who are unemployed these categories and require special assis- but of working age, and who do not have tance or support during and after reloca- a high school diploma. They may also tion. We conclude with recommended have a drug or alcohol problem, a mental strategies that can meet the needs of these health problem, or a criminal record. vulnerable families and help ensure better Multiple-barrier households may have outcomes for all original residents. trouble finding a unit with vouchers and will most likely not meet the screening Defining “Hard-to-House” Tenants requirements to return to a new mixed- income development. Families that may need additional services Disabled households. These house- or alternative housing models are often holds identify themselves as disabled in referred to as “hard to house.”6 It is un- the survey, identify someone living in clear, however, how many residents of their household as disabled, or report severely distressed public housing fit into receiving SSI. Public housing residents this category, largely because the term has who are mentally or physically disabled never been defined or quantified. Cate- will require more intensive relocation gorizing specific groups of residents as services. They may require accessible hard to house runs the risk of gross over- units, which are difficult to find in the generalization. Some may even find the private market and may not exist in label “hard to house” pejorative. We new, mixed-income developments. should be clear that we are talking about Disabled individuals may qualify for only a subset of residents of distressed pub- special disabled housing, but families are lic housing. However, without understand- excluded from these developments; ing the factors that make residents “hard to those with disabled members may well house,” policymakers and practitioners require accessible units with multiple cannot develop strategies to address their bedrooms, which are extremely difficult needs. Likewise, without knowing the to find. Residents moving temporarily magnitude of the problem, housing author- or permanently with vouchers may ities and city agencies cannot effectively need assistance identifying new medical plan services for these residents. facilities or transportation to care. Sometimes when researchers or practi- Elderly households. These households tioners think of the term “hard to house,” are age 65 or older and do not include they are referring to truly homeless fami- children. Many older residents living in lies or individuals. We use it here instead public housing have aged in place and to refer to families that have been relying are living in family units. Given the on public housing as the housing of last poor health of many distressed public resort and are at risk of losing this housing housing residents (Popkin et al. 2002; because of public housing transformation. Harris and Kaye 2004), these residents For the purposes of this analysis, we define are likely frail and require housing that “hard-to-house” tenants as public housing offers on-site supportive services. At residents who are at risk of losing their hous- many public housing developments, ing for reasons that go beyond affordability. seniors have been provided their own These residents have personal or family buildings (senior housing) or other circumstances that make it difficult for project-based assistance, but service- them to fit into standard relocation options enriched housing, such as independent and they require or are best served by living with care and assisted living with alternative housing models. services on site, is rare. To understand how many residents “Grandfamilies.” These households may face special challenges in relocation, consist of a single elderly adult (older we have identified different sets of charac- than 65 years) who is the primary care- teristics that could place residents at risk giver for one or more children. A grow- for housing problems. Our categories are ing number of families in public housing neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive, are nontraditional households, such as but provide a useful tool for assessing the custodial grandparents or persons caring magnitude of the problem: for related foster children. Some may 2 Metropolitan Housing and Communities

even be children caring for their aging Estimating the Size of the Hard- grandparents. These households, partic- to-House Population ularly custodial grandparents who are ready for senior housing, need more To estimate the proportion of residents liv- supportive living environments than are ing in distressed public housing who meet available in traditional public housing or our definition of hard to house, we used the private market. Senior housing is data from two large-scale Urban Institute studies of HOPE VI residents awaiting likely inappropriate for grandparents relocation: the HOPE VI Panel Study, taking care of grandchildren; like fami- which includes five different public hous- lies with disabled members, these house- ing sites (see page 7); and the Residents at holds may require accessible units with Risk study, which focuses on Chicago multiple bedrooms. They may also (Popkin, Cunningham, and Woodley 2003). require supportive housing that links Although each survey used slightly dif- housing to other types of assistance. ferent measures, we were able to identify Large households. These households residents in each sample who fall into our need four or more bedrooms to meet categories and likely will require either HUD standards for adequate housing.7 additional relocation assistance or alterna- Large families often have difficulty find- tive housing options. ing stable housing with vouchers, par- ticularly in tight rental markets. Public housing has long been one of the few The Problem of Hard-to-House reliable sources of affordable large apartments. Residents Is Widespread across Sites Households with one-strike problems. Table 1 shows that the proportion of resi- These households have a family mem- dents who face special challenges varies ber with an arrest record or other drug- considerably across the five sites, from related criminal history that could place nearly two-thirds in Chicago’s Ida Wells the family at risk of eviction. Left with- and Washington’s East Capitol to just over out options, most ex-offenders return to a third in the three smaller sites (Shore the communities they came from, which Park, Few Gardens, and Easter Hill). Still, in many cases is public housing (La the fact that at least 40 percent of the resi- Vigne et al. 2003). Ex-offenders and their dents at all five sites fall into one or more families are particularly at risk owing to of our “hard-to-house” categories demon- changes in public housing regulations. strates that the problem of hard-to-house Strict enforcement of the one-strike rule residents in HOPE VI sites is widespread may exclude them from even traditional and the need for alternative relocation public housing (Popkin et al. 2000). options is significant.

TABLE 1. Hard-to-House Residents in the HOPE VI Panel Study

Shore Few Easter East Park Wells Gardens Hill Capitol Hard-to-house category N = 139 N = 198 N = 182 N = 170 N = 198

Total “hard-to-house” residents on sitea 37% 62% 42% 39% 62% Multiple-barrier householdsb 17% 16% 10% 10% 5% Grandfamilies and disabled householdsc 22% 37% 22% 24% 43% Elderly householdsd 2% 10% 9% 4% 16% Large householdse 4% 7% 1% 2% 9%

Source: HOPE VI Panel Study Baseline Survey (2001). a Residents who fall into at least one alternative housing model. b Households with multiple barriers (living in public housing for more than 10 years, no high school degree, not employed, and less than 50 years old) or potential one-strike issues. c Grandfamilies have a single elderly (older than 65) adult who is the primary caregiver for one or more children (younger than 18) because the children’s parents do not live in the household. Disabled households identify themselves as disabled, have a disabled member of the household, or receive SSI. d Elderly-headed households (65 or older) with no children. e We used HUD standards to determine the number of bedrooms needed by each household. They are as follows: one bedroom for one to two people, two bedrooms for two to four people, three bedrooms for three to six people, four bedrooms for four to eight people, and five bedrooms for five to ten people. 3 Metropolitan Housing and Communities

Table 1 also shows that a single alter- could put the family at risk of eviction. native will be insufficient; clearly, housing These data provide more details on the programs need a range of options to serve scope of Chicago’s “hard-to-house” resi- families with different needs. Across sites, dents problem—which, as the Panel Study the largest groups needing special assis- data indicate, may be very similar to the tance with relocation are grandfamilies and situation in other large, central cities with disabled households—in Wells and East multiple developments. Capitol, these households make up more The Residents at Risk survey occurred than a third of the sample. These families almost exactly one year after the Panel need accessible units with multiple bed- Study survey in Wells. As table 2 shows, a rooms. Multiple-barrier households need- slightly higher proportion of Wells resi- ing some sort of service-enriched housing dents were hard to house and required make up the third-largest group, ranging alternative relocation options, compared from about 16 percent of the sample in with residents of the other sites (72 versus Shore Park and Wells to just 5 percent in 62 percent). The increase is not surprising, East Capitol, perhaps because of the large given that relocation had progressed over proportion of older residents. The propor- the 12-month period and the residents who tion of elderly households varies similarly remained were likely those who were diffi- across the sites, from 16 percent in East cult to relocate or had chosen to stay. As Capitol to just 2 percent in Shore Park. The with the Panel Study, about a third of the proportion of large families ranges from 9 residents with special housing needs are percent in East Capitol to just 1 percent in grandfamilies and disabled households. Few Gardens. However, the proportion of large families is substantially bigger than in the Panel Study, perhaps because they are more diffi- The Need for Alternatives in Chicago cult to relocate. This variation could also be Is Especially Urgent the result of an important difference in the The Residents at Risk study is a component of the HOPE VI Panel Study (Popkin et al. 2003). Because of the size and scope of TABLE 2. Hard-to-House Residents in the transformation of public housing in Residents at Risk Study Chicago, we received special funding to conduct a census of Ida B. Wells and Hard-to-house category Madden Park (the Panel Study site) to identify how many residents were at risk Total “hard-to-house” residents for falling out of the relocation process and on sitea 72% b losing their housing assistance.8 Multiple-barrier households 10% The plans for Ida Wells and Madden Grandfamilies and disabled Park called for replacing the original householdsc 32% 3,200 public housing units with a 3,000-unit Elderly householdsd 19% mixed-income development. A thousand of Large householdse 34% the new units were to be set aside for public Households with one-strike housing residents, including 750 units of problemsf 15% rental family housing, 150 units of senior Source: Popkin et al. (2003). housing, and 100 for-sale units (Urban a Residents who fall into at least one alternative housing Design Associates 2000). The master plan model. b called for redevelopment to take place in Households with multiple barriers (living in public housing for more than 10 years, no high school degree, not employed, five phases over several years. and less than 50 years old). As with the Panel Study, we used the c Grandfamilies have a single elderly (older than 65) adult who is the primary caregiver for one or more children data from the Residents at Risk survey to (younger than 18) because the children’s parents do not live determine the proportion of residents who in the household. Disabled households identify themselves as disabled, have a disabled member of the household, or fell into one or more of our “hard-to- receive SSI. house” categories. Because the surveys d Elderly-headed households (65 or older) with no children. were not identical, we have somewhat dif- e We used HUD standards to determine the number of bedrooms needed by each household. They are as follows: one bedroom ferent information about the Residents at for one to two people, two bedrooms for two to four people, Risk respondents, particularly whether the three bedrooms for three to six people, four bedrooms for four to eight people, and five bedrooms for five to ten people. respondent reported that someone in the f Households that reported the property manager had talked to household had a “one-strike” problem that them about problems with a felony, drug arrest, or conviction. 4 Metropolitan Housing and Communities

surveys: unlike the Panel Study, the Res- lies are the most vulnerable residents and idents at Risk survey specifically asked the most in need of additional services and about all members of the household, support to make a successful transition to including those not on the lease. The pro- safe, stable housing. While these types of portion of multiple-barrier households is interventions are more expensive than tra- slightly lower than in the Panel Study, but ditional public housing, they could have adding a new category (households with important long-term benefits for families, one-strike problems) means that the pro- improving outcomes for children and portion of families with serious problems reducing homelessness and the need for may actually be higher. Again, these find- other costly public services. ings clearly show that Chicago has an Table 3 summarizes our categories of especially urgent need for alternative relo- hard-to-house residents and the alternative cation options to meet the complex needs housing options we believe are most ap- of different hard-to-house residents. propriate for each group. Housing authori- ties should consider assorted housing options for residents relocating from public Serving the Hard to House housing. Depending on the needs of the resident population, which will vary by The challenge facing policymakers and site, housing alternatives could include housing authority administrators is how to these elements: address the needs of the hard to house in a time of shrinking resources for housing Search assistance/post-move support. assistance. Funding for HOPE VI, the pub- These services should include, but cer- lic housing capital fund, and Section 8 tainly not be limited to, helping hard-to- vouchers has declined over the past year house tenants locate appropriate units, (Popkin et al. 2004). Yet, a primary goal of move into them, get settled, meet their the HOPE VI program—and public hous- neighbors and new landlord, and adjust ing transformation more broadly—is to to their new surroundings. Health, men- ensure an improved living environment for tal health, substance abuse, and child all original residents. Hard-to-house fami- care services may also be important in

TABLE 3. Alternative Housing Options for Hard-to-House Residents

Hard-to-house category Description Alternative housing options

Multiple-barrier Long-term public housing res- Transitional supportive housing, idents, unemployed, have SROs less than a high school diploma; may have drug or alcohol problems

Disabled Self-identified or receiving Permanent supportive housing or SSI accessible units in the private mar- ket or redeveloped housing

Elderly Households headed by adult Permanent supportive housing for 65 or older without children seniors

Grandfamilies Elderly-headed households Permanent supportive housing or with children living with them, accessible units with multiple bed- mother or father absent rooms in the private market or redeveloped housing

Large More than four bedrooms Search assistance and post-move (HUD standards) support, construction of new units in redeveloped housing

One-strike Ex-offenders or drug users Transitional supportive housing, among family members counseling and support to “cure” one-strike problems

5 Metropolitan Housing and Communities

assuring a stable transition. few programs provide any kind of efforts eventually benefit from the pro- Serving these tenants may mean services for ex-felons, and there is gram and end up in safe and stable using HOPE VI dollars to fund certainly no coherent housing plan. housing that meets their needs. “enhanced vouchers” that would Addressing the needs of ex-felons include long-term intensive coun- will help not only public housing Notes seling to families to help them sta- residents, who face the risk of hav- bilize in their new communities. This brief is based on an article of the same title ing their families destabilized and that will appear in a forthcoming issue of Transitional supportive housing. their rights to housing assistance Housing Policy Debate. Transitional housing is usually jeopardized, but also the larger 1. See Susan J. Popkin, Larry Buron, Diane K. appropriate for households that, community; without help, these Levy, and Mary K. Cunningham, “The with (sometimes substantial) sup- ex-felons are likely to commit other Gautreaux Legacy: What Might Mixed- port, could ultimately sustain Income and Dispersal Strategies Mean for offenses (La Vigne et al. 2003). the Poorest Public Housing Tenants?” themselves in housing without Housing Policy Debate 11, no. 4 (2000): 911–42 supportive services (but not neces- We cannot tell from this research for an overview of the policies that gave pri- sarily without rental subsidies). whether the results from the HOPE VI ority to the lowest-income households. Panel and Residents at Risk studies 2. The HOPE VI program was the largest and Supportive services in transitional most visible component of the transforma- housing could include parenting can be generalized to the entire public tion of public housing. HOPE VI specifically and child care, educational com- housing population. However, the targeted the worst public housing, combin- pletion, budgeting and life skills, fact that we find similar problems in ing grants for physical revitalization with Panel Study samples from large, funding for management improvements and or training for employment. They supportive services to promote resident self- also frequently include assistance central-city housing authorities and sufficiency (Popkin et al. 2004). Since 1992, in achieving and maintaining from smaller city housing authorities HUD has awarded 446 HOPE VI revitaliza- recovery from substance abuse, suggests that these problems are tion and demolition grants in 166 cities. To date, 63,100 severely distressed units have mental health services, and case likely widespread—and are certainly been demolished and another 20,300 units management to ensure that tenants not limited to the worst public hous- are slated for redevelopment (HUD 2003). As continue to work toward their ing developments. Housing authori- of the end of 2002, 15 of 165 funded HOPE stated goals and receive the assis- ties should be required to identify the VI programs were completed (GAO 2002). 3. For a complete review of the history and tance to which they are entitled. proportion of their population that impact of public housing transformation Permanent supportive housing. might be hard to house and needs and HOPE VI, see Popkin et al. (2004). Permanent supportive housing has special housing or support as part of 4. See Susan J. Popkin, Mary K. Cunningham, no limit on length of stay and no their HOPE VI application. and Martha Burt, “Public Housing Trans- formation and the Hard to House” Housing requirement that tenants move out Without question, these services Policy Debate 16, no. 4 (2005). if their service needs change. It is are costly and will require considerable 5. See The National Low Income Housing usually reserved for people with a investment by housing authorities and Coalition, Out of Reach 2003: America’s federal and local governments. Housing Wage Climbs, at http://www.nlihc. history of housing instability cou- org/oor2003/. pled with disabilities that make However, HOPE VI provides large, 6. Venkatesh et al. (2004) call these residents finding or keeping stable housing multimillion dollar grants to local “hardship cases.” unlikely. This type of housing housing authorities; the bulk of these 7. HUD standards are as follows: a one-bed- room unit must have a minimum of one occu- would meet the needs of single funds is used to underwrite the con- pant and a maximum of two; a two-bedroom elderly and disabled adults. It is struction of new, mixed-income de- unit must have a minimum of two occupants also increasingly recognized as an velopments, including units for and a maximum of four; a three-bedroom unit option for families. higher-income households. While must have a minimum of three occupants and a maximum of six; a four-bedroom unit must Large units/accessible units. these investments are justifiable as a have a minimum of four occupants and a Housing authorities should require way to create sustainable develop- maximum of eight; and a five-bedroom unit HOPE VI developers to create ments, it is also reasonable to require must have a minimum of five occupants and accessible units with multiple bed- housing authorities to set aside a a maximum of ten. 8. The Residents at Risk study is funded by the rooms as part of any new devel- meaningful portion of their HOPE VI Ford Foundation. See Popkin et al. (2003) for opment. Such units are nearly awards to serve tenants who have a complete description of the study and impossible to find in the private relied on public housing as the hous- methods. market, and private developers are ing of last resort. These tenants cannot unlikely to meet the growing need be easily accommodated in the private References for such options, leaving public market, and local social service agen- Buron, Larry. 2004. “An Improved Living housing as the most appropriate cies in most cities are already strug- Environment? Neighborhood Outcomes for option to serve these families. gling to meet the needs of existing HOPE VI Relocatees.” A Roof Over Their Counseling and support to “cure” clients. The federal government and Heads Policy Brief 3. Washington, DC: The one-strike problems. The housing local housing authorities have an Urban Institute. Comey, Jennifer. 2004. “An Improved Living problem for ex-offenders will not be obligation to ensure that all families Environment? Housing Quality Outcomes resolved on its own. Currently, very displaced by HOPE VI redevelopment for HOPE VI Relocatees.” A Roof Over Their 6 Metropolitan Housing and Communities

Heads Policy Brief 2. Washington, DC: The Gustafson, and Margery Austin Turner. research focuses on housing and self- Urban Institute. 2004. ADecade of HOPE VI: Research sufficiency programs for low-income Cunningham, Mary. 2004. “An Improved Liv- Findings and Policy Challenges. Washington, ing Environment? Relocation Outcomes for DC: The Urban Institute. families. HOPE VI Relocatees.” A Roof Over Their Urban Design Associates. 2000. Chicago Housing Heads Policy Brief 1. Washington, DC: The Authority HOPE VI Application. Pittsburgh, PA: Urban Design Associates. Urban Institute. Susan J. Popkin is a Harris, Laura, and Deborah Kaye. 2004. “How U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Are HOPE VI Families Faring? Health.” Development (HUD). 2003. HOPE VI principal research ARoof Over Their Heads Policy Brief 5. Quarterly Management Report for September associate in the Urban Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 30, 2003. Washington, DC: HUD. U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 2002. Institute’s Metropol- La Vigne, Nancy G., Cynthia A. Mamalian, itan Housing and Jeremy Travis, and Christy Visher. 2003. A “Public Housing: HOPE VI Leveraging Has Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Illinois. Urban Increased, but HUD Has Not Met Annual Communities policy Institute Report. Washington, DC: The Reporting Requirement.” GAO 03-91. center and directs the Urban Institute. Washington, DC: GAO. Venkatesh, Sudhir A., Isil Celimli, Douglas “A Roof Over Their Heads” research Popkin, Susan J., Larry Buron, Diane K. Levy, Miller, Alexandra Murphy, and Beauty and Mary K. Cunningham. 2000. “The initiative. Turner. 2004. “Chicago Public Housing Gautreaux Legacy: What Might Mixed- Transformation: A Research Report.” New Income and Dispersal Strategies Mean for York: Center for Urban Research and Policy, the Poorest Public Housing Tenants?” Columbia University. Martha R. Burt is a Housing Policy Debate 11(4): 911–42. Popkin, Susan J., Diane Levy, Laura E. Harris, principal research Jennifer Comey, Mary K. Cunningham, and About the Authors associate in the Urban Larry Buron. 2002. HOPE VI Panel Study: Institute’s Center Baseline Report. Final Report. Washington, Mary K. Cunningham on Labor, Human DC: The Urban Institute. is a research associate Popkin, Susan J., Mary K. Cunningham, and Services, and William Woodley. 2003. Residents at Risk: in the Urban Population. AProfile of Ida B. Wells and Madden Park. Institute’s Center on Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Metropolitan Housing Popkin, Susan J., Bruce Katz, Mary K. and Communities. Her Cunningham, Karen D. Brown, Jeremy

HOPE VI Program HOPE VI Panel Study Created by Congress in 1992, the HOPE VI program was The HOPE VI Panel Study tracks the living conditions and designed to address not only the bricks-and-mortar problems well-being of residents from five public housing develop- in severely distressed public housing developments, but also ments where revitalization activities began in mid- to late the social and economic needs of the residents and the 2001. At baseline in summer 2001, we conducted close- health of surrounding neighborhoods. This extremely ambi- ended surveys with a sample of 887 heads of households tious strategy targets developments identified as the worst across five sites and conducted in-depth interviews with public housing in the nation, with problems deemed too 39 adult-child dyads. The second wave of surveys was con- ingrained to yield to standard housing rehabilitation efforts. ducted in 2003, 24 months after baseline. We conducted fol- The program’s major objectives are low-up surveys with 736 households and interviews with 29 adults and 27 children. We also interviewed local HOPE VI to improve the living environment for residents of severely staff on relocation and redevelopment progress, analyzed distressed public housing by demolishing, rehabilitating, administrative data, and identified data on similar populations reconfiguring, or replacing obsolete projects in part or for comparative purposes. whole; to revitalize the sites of public housing projects and help The panel study sites are Shore Park/Shore Terrace (Atlantic improve the surrounding neighborhood; City, NJ); Ida B. Wells Homes/Wells Extension/Madden Park to provide housing in ways that avoid or decrease the con- Homes (Chicago, IL); Few Gardens (Durham, NC); Easter Hill centration of very low income families; and (Richmond, CA); and East Capitol Dwellings (Washington, to build sustainable communities. DC). Under the $5 billion HOPE VI program, HUD has awarded 446 HOPE VI grants in 166 cities. To date, 63,100 severely The principal investigator for the HOPE VI Panel Study is distressed units have been demolished and another 20,300 Susan J. Popkin, Ph.D., director of the Urban Institute’s “A units are slated for redevelopment. Housing authorities that Roof Over Their Heads” research initiative. Funding for this receive HOPE VI grants must also develop supportive ser- research is provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and vices to help both original and new residents attain self-suffi- Urban Development, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur ciency. HOPE VI funds will support the construction of 95,100 Foundation, The Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Rockefeller replacement units, but just 48,800 will be deeply subsidized Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the public housing units. The rest will receive shallower subsidies Fannie Mae Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the or serve market-rate tenants or homebuyers. Chicago Community Trust.

7 THE URBAN INSTITUTE Nonprofit Org. 2100 M Street, NW U.S. Postage Washington, DC 20037 PAID Permit No. 8098 Ridgely, MD

Address Service Requested

For more information, call Public Affairs: The Urban Institute’s Center on Metropolitan Housing and Communities believes that 202-261-5709 place matters in public policy. We bring local perspectives on economic development, or visit our web site, neighborhood revitalization, housing, discrimination, and arts and culture to our study of http://www.urban.org. policies and programs. Our research pioneers diverse and innovative methods for assess- To order additional copies ing community change and program performance and builds the capacity of policymakers of this publication, call 202-261-5687 and practitioners to make more informed decisions at local, state, and federal levels. or visit our online bookstore, http://www.uipress.org.

A Roof Over Their Heads: Changes and Challenges for Public Housing Residents The Urban Institute’s “A Roof Over Their Heads: Changes and Challenges for Public Housing Residents” research initiative examines the impact of the radical changes in public housing policy over the past decade. A major focus is how large-scale public housing demolition and revitalization has affected the lives of original residents. A second key area of interest is the impact of neighborhood environments on outcomes for public housing families. A third focus is evaluating strategies for promoting mobility and choice for assisted housing residents.

THE URBAN INSTITUTE 2100 M Street, NW The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Urban Washington, DC 20037 Institute, its board, its sponsors, or other authors in the series. Copyright © 2005 Permission is granted for reproduction of this document, with attribution to the Urban Institute. Phone: 202-833-7200 Fax: 202-467-5775 Support for this research was provided by the Fannie Mae Foundation and the Ford Foundation.