HOUSING CHOICE FOR HOPE VI RELOCATEES
Robin E. Smith
with Arthur Naparstek Susan Popkin Lesley Bartlett Lisa Bates Jessica Cigna Russell Crane Elisa Vinson
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees
Final Report
April 2002
Prepared by: Robin E. Smith
with
Arthur Naparstek Susan Popkin Lesley Bartlett Lisa Bates Jessica Cigna Russell Crane Elisa Vinson
The Urban Institute Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center 2100 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037
Prepared for: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20410
HUD Cooperative Agreement K-PIH-99155 UI No. 07032-000-02
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.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Robin Smith served as Principal Investigator and was responsible for all aspects of the conduct and management of this study. Ms. Smith developed the research design, designed the data collection instruments, conducted field work, and wrote the final report. Dr. Susan Popkin acted as Project Director contributing to the design and analysis phases of the work. Dr. Popkin coordinated this study as part of the Urban Institute’s body of work on the HOPE VI and Section 8 programs. A driving force behind the original concept, Dr. Arthur Naparstek, conceived of the project, participated in field data collection, and established working relationships with the housing authorities profiled in the study.
A qualitative study relies on the efforts of a dedicated data collection team. Field data collection activities were organized in each city by Dr. Lesley Bartlett (Seattle), Lisa Bates (Louisville), Russell Crane (San Antonio), and Elisa Vinson (Baltimore). These researchers identified local respondents, conducted interviews, and assisted in focus group facilitation. The dedication of each of these individuals made this work happen.
Several Urban Institute staff were involved in completing this study. Jessica Cigna prepared the maps included in this report. She was assisted by Noah Sawyer and Kathy Pettit. Aaron Graham provided data collection support in Baltimore. Diane Hendricks was in charge of report formatting and Allen Turner was responsible for report production.
The author wishes to thank the staff at the housing authorities of Baltimore, Maryland; Louisville, Kentucky; San Antonio, Texas; and Seattle, Washington. This study could not have been completed without their willingness to participate and the gracious cooperation of many individuals. In addition, people from numerous community groups and social service organizations agreed to speak with us, providing valuable information on housing, social and economic conditions in each city.
Finally, sincere thanks go to the many focus group participants who openly shared with us their experiences and opinions. The contributions of each of these individuals are the basis of this study.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees
HOUSING CHOICE FOR HOPE VI RELOCATEES SUMMARY
In 1993, Congress authorized $300 million to create the HOPE VI program, intended to rebuild the most physically distressed public housing in the country. Growing over six years to a $4.2 billion dollar effort, HOPE VI reshapes distressed properties and their surrounding neighborhoods by significantly changing both the physical environment and the related social context. In most cases, altering the built environment requires demolition or substantial renovation during which residents are moved to other buildings within their development, relocated to other public and assisted housing or provided with housing assistance vouchers. Many of the families which are facing the effects of HOPE VI’s transformation of public housing are also experiencing the effects of welfare reform. Four years after welfare reform, there is growing evidence that the group of recipients having the most difficulty making the transition from welfare to work are troubled families living in the nation’s largest cities (Allen and Kirby 2000). But while the effects of welfare reform are being studied extensively, relatively little is known about the impact of the transformation of public housing, including basic information about where residents of HOPE VI developments have moved, why they moved there, and what their lives are like. This study, Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees, highlights the housing choices made by former residents in four cities (Baltimore, MD; Louisville, KY; San Antonio, TX; and Seattle, WA) who used housing vouchers to move from developments reconstructed under the HOPE VI program. The issues addressed in this study include: decision-making strategies; search processes; neighborhood selection criteria; available housing choices; the effects of relocation on the respondents and the affected communities; and any difficulties related to the relocation experience. Focus groups were held with different segments of the relocatee respondent population at each of the four sites including persons who stayed close to their public housing developments and those who moved to neighborhoods away from their original developments. We used these focus groups to examine various aspects of the relocation process including where residents chose to live and influences and constraints on their housing choices. This report presents comments from relocatee respondents about their strategies, decisions, and destinations. Because this study focuses on four cities, it is not a representative picture of the relocation experience and cannot be used to generalize the experiences of all residents who are relocated because of a HOPE VI award. However, the comments from the focus group participants provide important insights about the HOPE VI relocation process that have both practical and policy relevance.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees
Respondent Findings This study reports on the housing choices of selected HOPE VI relocatees. Our findings suggest: · Availability of housing and time constraints were the main influences on housing choice for both those families who stayed close to their original public housing developments and those who moved farther away. · Most respondents were more concerned about finding an available and acceptable unit in a place that met their minimum community standards for safety and basic amenities than about moving to a neighborhood that might offer increased economic opportunity. · The proximity of social services does not appear to be an important determinant. · After moving to a new location, respondents continue to be more concerned about basic services (schools, shopping, transportation) than the availability of social services.1 · Relocatees make choices based on significant misinformation about Section 8 procedures, HOPE VI move-back criteria, and availability of relocation services. · Some relocatees are troubled by negative neighborhood influences they attribute to a growing number of persons using housing assistance to move to their new neighborhoods. · Respondents who move to neighborhoods away from their public housing communities are more likely to report increased job and school opportunity.
1 This study focuses on households that used Section 8 to relocate. Persons opting for Section 8 may be more entrepreneurial and comfortable with local housing markets than those who decide to stay in public housing.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY ...... 1 The Urban Institute’s Program of HOPE VI Research...... 2 Study Methodology ...... 3 Respondent Findings ...... 5 Report Structure...... 6
CHAPTER 2 - RELOCATION DECISIONS...... 8 Choosing Section 8...... 8 Choosing Public Housing...... 10 Concerns About Returning to the HOPE VI Development...... 14 Summary...... 15
CHAPTER 3 - RELOCATING WITH SECT ION 8...... 17 Destination Neighborhoods ...... 17 Search Criteria ...... 17 Search Strategies ...... 19 Search Experiences...... 21 Summary...... 24
CHAPTER 4 - RELOCATION NEIGHBORHOODS...... 25 Where Do Relocatees Move?...... 25 Why Do People Stay Close to Their Old Developments?...... 31 Why Do People Move Away from the Neighborhood of Their Old Developments?...... 37 Are People Considering Subsequent Moves? ...... 39 Do Respondents Think Relocatees are Clustered?...... 40 Summary...... 42
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees
CHAPTER 5 - RELOCATION SERVICES...... 43 Service Use...... 43 Service Needs ...... 44 Summary...... 45
CHAPTER 6 - THE RELOCATION EXPERIENCE ...... 47 New Homes and Neighborhoods...... 47 Changed Lives ...... 50 Conclusion ...... 51
REFERENCES...... 53
APPENDIX: FOCUS GROUP GUIDE
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND MET HODOLOGY
Introduction In 1993, Congress authorized $300 million in HOPE VI Urban Revitalization Demonstration Funding to rebuild the most physically distressed public housing in the country. Growing over 6 years to a $4.2 billion dollar effort, HOPE VI reshapes distressed properties and their surrounding neighborhoods by significantly changing both the physical environment and the related social context. In most cases, altering the built environment requires demolition or substantial renovation during which residents are moved to other buildings within their development, relocated to other public and assisted housing or provided with housing assistance vouchers. Many of the families that are facing the effects of HOPE VI’s transformation of public housing are also experiencing the effects of welfare reform. Four years after welfare reform, there is growing evidence that the group of recipients having the most difficulty making the transition from welfare to work are troubled families living in the nation’s largest cities (Allen and Kirby 2000). But while the effects of welfare reform are being studied extensively, relatively little is known about the impact of the transformation of public housing, including basic information about where residents of HOPE VI developments have moved, why they moved there, and what their lives are like. This study, Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees, highlights the housing choices made by persons in four cities who used housing vouchers to move from developments reconstructed under the HOPE VI program. The issues addressed in this study include decision-making strategies, search processes, neighborhood selection criteria, and available housing choices as well as effects of relocation on the respondents and the affected communities, and difficulties related to the relocation experience. Focus groups with relocatees were used to examine various aspects of the relocation process including where residents chose to live and influences and constraints on their housing choices. Interviews with housing authority staff and service providers provided background on the relocation process and local information on neighborhood characteristics. Focus groups were held with different segments of the relocatee respondent population at each of the four sites including persons who stayed close to their public housing developments and those who moved to neighborhoods away from their original developments. This report presents comments from relocatee respondents about their strategies, decisions, and destinations. Because this study focuses on four cities, it is not a representative picture of the relocation experience and cannot be used to generalize the experiences of all residents who are relocated because of a HOPE VI award. However, the comments from the
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 2 focus group participants provide important insights about the HOPE VI relocation process that have both practical and policy relevance.
The Urban Institute’s Program of HOPE VI Research The entire resident population of HOPE VI developments will be affected by the public housing transformation initiative; virtually all will be displaced, at least temporarily. Some of the original residents may eventually be able to return to the redeveloped site, depending on the availability of public housing units and whether they meet the site’s re-entry criteria. Some will move to other public housing, others will receive housing assistance vouchers, and still others will leave assisted housing altogether either voluntarily or through eviction. But all residents will experience the effects of relocation and of living in a different unit and perhaps a different neighborhood. The Urban Institute has undertaken a program of research to explore the effects of public housing transformation on original residents. This work includes: HOPE VI Panel Study: A major longitudinal assessment tracking a variety of outcomes for original residents of HOPE VI properties, including: housing type and quality, neighborhood, quality of life, employment, and mental and physical health. The research includes multiple methods to assess the effects of public housing transformation on families, including three waves of surveys over a 36 month period with a sample of 875 residents from developments in five cities; in-depth, qualitative interviews with adults and children; analysis of administrative records; and comparisons to other similar populations. HOPE VI Retrospective Study: A retrospective study of eight HOPE VI sites which received grants between 1993 and 1998. This study involves surveys with approximately 100 former residents from each site as well as in-depth interviews with five households from each of the four newer sites. Chicago Housing Authority Relocation Study: An assessment of the relocation and counseling services provided to Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) residents who selected Section 8 as their first choice for replacement housing when leaving HOPE VI developments. This research includes three waves of surveys and in-depth interviews with a sample of relocatees. HOPE VI and Section 8: Spatial Patterns in Relocation: An analysis of data from 73 HOPE VI projects using a HUD data system containing information on persons receiving housing assistance. Report examines overall spatial trends in housing outcomes for original residents.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 3
This report, Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees, offers early insight into the decision-making process and relocation destinations of original residents in distressed public housing reconstructed under HOPE VI. It explores housing choices made by original residents of HOPE VI developments who used tenant-based rental assistance1 to relocate to different kinds of neighborhoods.
Study Methodology Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees explores where relocatees chose to live based on focus groups and interviews with persons who left public housing communities closed during HOPE VI construction in four cities. The cities selected for this research represent different regions of the country. They include: Baltimore, Maryland; Louisville, Kentucky; San Antonio, Texas; and Seattle, Washington. Sites were selected because (1) Section 8 was a significant relocation vehicle for HOPE VI households and (2) some relocatee households congregated in similar areas. It was also important for local housing authorities to be willing to participate in the study because housing authority staff provided contact information for relocatees. One of the surprising findings from the spatial analysis of relocatee housing location destinations was the relative spread of relocatees and the different types of neighborhoods they chose to live in. This study uses focus groups with former residents who relocated from public housing communities demolished or renovated under HOPE VI to investigate the reasoning behind the neighborhood choices of residents (the focus group discussion guide is included in an appendix). To convene focus groups, we needed to select cities where a group of residents could be identified who (1) used Section 8 to relocate and (2) chose a similar destination neighborhood. The need to find clusters2 of relocatees who made similar neighborhood choices greatly reduced the number of cities where the focus group methodology could be employed. On average, cities with HOPE VI relocation programs did not have multiple clusters of HOPE VI relocatees across their metropolitan area. Cities with potential focus group clusters tended to use Section 8 to a greater degree than other cities implementing HOPE VI relocation programs because an increased number of relocatees using Section 8 meant a greater chance of a group of residents moving to the same area on the private market. In each of four study cities, two to four focus groups were conducted with people who moved to distinctly different parts of their metropolitan area (detailed below for each city). Each
1 Housing assistance in the form of vouchers are currently known as Housing Choice Vouchers. However, this report will use the phrase “Section 8” to refer to Housing Choice Vouchers because that is how our respondents refer to the assistance. 2 In this report “cluster” and “clustering” does not refer to a specific number of relocatees but refers more generally to a group, or cluster, of relocatees. For the purposes of focus group recruitment, we wanted to find at least ten potential respondents and viewed more favorably areas with additional potential respondents.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 4 focus group was anchored to a neighborhood (or several contiguous neighborhoods) where multiple relocatees moved and approximately six to eight persons were recruited for each group. Focus groups in each city covered neighborhoods near the public housing development and at least one area away from the original public housing site. Focus groups and interviews were conducted primarily with relocatees who used Section 8 to move. However, the Baltimore focus groups include a discussion with persons who relocated to a public housing development away from the original HOPE VI property. Interviews in Louisville were also held with people who moved to another public housing property after an unsuccessful Section 8 search. Field data collection in Louisville, San Antonio, and Seattle took place in July and August of 2000. Baltimore focus groups were held in April and May of 2001. The relocatee focus groups and interviews held in each city include: Baltimore: Close group 1—Downtown, central neighborhood Away group 1—Northwest area near county line Away group 2—Baltimore County movers Public Housing—Moved to Cherry Hill Public Housing
Louisville: Close group 1—Area around developments Cotter and Lang Away group 1—In and near Beecher Terrace Public Housing
San Antonio: Close group 1—Area around Spring View development Close group 2—Area around Mirasol development Away group 1—Southern area near city edge
Seattle: Close group 1—Area around Holly Park Away interviews—Western area near city edge
Former residents contacted as possible respondents for this study moved from public housing communities during HOPE VI relocation. Potential respondents were identified through a HUD data system on persons receiving housing assistance.3 Local housing authority records were used for contact information. Given that these respondents were able to be found in administrative records and were willing to come to a focus group, they may be different than those who can not be located or who are unwilling or unable to attend a focus group. Focus groups were held in the early evening at a well-known community location served by public transportation as well as available parking. In several cities we used the meeting rooms available in public libraries.
3 HUD provided information for this project from their Multi-Tenant Characteristics System (MTCS).
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 5
The relocatee respondents in this study were chosen because of the location of their replacement housing and were not selected in a manner to be representative of the universe of HOPE VI relocatees. No information is available on how representative the focus group respondents were of the overall relocatee community. Respondents included both family households as well as elderly singles. Most of the households were female-headed. While not representative, the comments from focus group participants suggest possible outcomes and patterns in the relocation experience. The information gathered during these focus groups provides early insights helpful to administrators and policymakers attempting to understand and influence housing choice decisions. Interviews were also conducted with housing authority administrators in each city to gather background information on HOPE VI relocation as well as information on local neighborhoods. Additional interviews took place with service providers who offered programs in the neighborhoods where relocatees settle. These interviews provided information on the housing market, neighborhood characteristics, and service availability. Moreover, service provider interviews helped researchers gauge local knowledge of HOPE VI relocation, including the provision of services to relocatees in different areas.
Respondent Findings This study reports on the housing choices of selected HOPE VI relocatees. Our findings suggest: · Availability of housing and time constraints are the main influences on housing choice, not neighborhood location or characteristics. This was true for both those families who stayed close to their original public housing developments and those who moved farther away. · Most respondents were more concerned about finding an available and acceptable unit in a place that met their minimum community standards than in moving to a neighborhood targeted for increased opportunity and amenities. · To the extent that relocatees choose a location, they emphasize safety and amenities such as schools, shopping, and transportation. The proximity of social services does not appear to be an important determinant.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 6
· After moving to a new location, respondents continue to be more concerned about basic services (schools, shopping, transportation) rather than highlight a need for social services.4 · Relocatees make choices based on significant misinformation about Section 8 procedures, HOPE VI move-back criteria, and availability of relocation services. · Some relocatees are troubled by negative neighborhood influences they attribute to a growing number of persons using housing assistance to move to their new neighborhoods. · Respondents who move to neighborhoods away from their public housing communities are more likely to report increased job and school opportunity.
Report Structure The report is divided into six chapters. They are:
Chapter 1: Introduction and Methodology Covers the background of HOPE VI, the Urban Institute’s program of research to document public housing transformation, the motivation and methodology of this study, and what this report includes.
Chapter 2: Relocation Decisions Reviews how the decision between different types of housing assistance influences the range of housing and neighborhood options available to relocatees. Respondents provide their thoughts on why they chose Section 8 or public housing. Also includes initial thoughts on returning to communities redeveloped under HOPE VI. Chapter 3: Relocating with Section 8 Presents how housing search criteria and strategies can influence housing and neighborhood choice. It also reviews how local market forces (such as location and availability) can greatly affect where relocatees choose to move.
Chapter 4: Relocation Neighborhoods Looks at how study respondents came to be in their destination neighborhoods including those who live close to their original neighborhood and those who moved farther away. Specific relocation patterns are mapped for relocatees from three HOPE VI public housing developments in Baltimore, Maryland.
4 This study focuses on households that used Section 8 to relocate. Persons opting for Section 8 may be more entrepreneurial and comfortable with local housing markets than those who decide to stay in public housing.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 7
Chapter 5: Relocation Services Reviews the services respondents’ report using during their relocation. It also documents their suggestions for additional services as well as information they feel relocatees need.
Chapter 6: The Relocation Experience Presents what respondents think of their new homes and neighborhoods. These reflections focus on how relocation has changed people’s housing environment and their lives.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 8
CHAPTER 2 RELOCATION DECISIONS
Introduction Through March 2000, close to one-half of all HOPE VI relocatees moved to other public housing and one third moved to the private rental market with Section 8.5 While the options available to relocatees are directly related to the policy decisions and resources of the local housing authority, personal choice plays a role for some families. In the four communities highlighted in this report, relocatees had the option of moving to other public housing, applying for Section 8, returning to the redeveloped HOPE VI site, or leaving housing assistance.6 Because of the way we selected our sample, most of our sites used Section 8 for relocation to a greater extent than the average city receiving HOPE VI. Before making decisions on where to live, these relocatees had to choose the type of replacement housing they wanted. These initial choices greatly influence the range of housing and neighborhood options available. In theory, Section 8 movers have the widest set of housing and neighborhood options. However, not all relocatees who have the option of Section 8, choose it. This chapter reviews the factors influencing the decision-making process of respondents deciding between different types of housing assistance. We discuss the views of respondents who chose Section 8 and public housing. The decisions made by respondents are based on the knowledge they had, their understanding of the different options, and their personal preferences. The chapter also presents early thoughts from our respondents on returning to the HOPE VI development.7
Choosing Section 8 Relocatees who selected Section 8 tenant-based assistance as their first choice for replacement housing had to make decisions about where to move and what type of housing they wanted. Our respondents reported choosing to use Section 8 for a variety of reasons including greater housing and neighborhood choice, anonymity, portability, and status. For many respondents, the high desirability of the program and the relative undesirability of public
5 Kingsley, Johnson, and Pettit 2000, p. 7.
6 These choices were operationalized differently across cities but the relocatees contacted discussed this collection of options.
7 Most of our respondents did not have the option of returning to the HOPE VI development because they had already turned down the opportunity by choosing Section 8 or the new communities were not yet built.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 9 housing prompted a quick decision to jump at the opportunity of Section 8 when it was presented. Grabbing the Gold Ring. Many respondents viewed Section 8 as a highly desirable commodity; indeed, many reported being on the Section 8 waiting list prior to relocation. It was common for our respondents to describe the possibility of getting Section 8 as a “miracle.” To them, the choice was obvious. When [the housing authority] brought up the idea that you could get Section 8, the people ran for it. The ones I know, went for that. Cause their dreams, just like mine, we could find us a house. (Seattle relocatee)
Overwhelmingly, our respondents noted that Section 8 gave people choice both in housing and neighborhood as well as took away the stigma of living in “the projects.” Choice, portability, and anonymity were important motivations for some families to relocate with Section 8. You could move where you want to move. (Baltimore relocatee)
I accepted Section 8 because of there being a voucher because…my family lives in so many different states and in case I wanted to move out of Washington. (Seattle relocatee)
Now my neighbors, they don’t know I’m on Section 8 because I don’t tell them. It’s not their business and to me as long as I’m there, that’s my house. (Baltimore relocatee)
For some of our respondents, the decision to apply for Section 8 was viewed as an opportunity to “move up” in life and improve opportunity and circumstances. For others, choosing Section 8 showed that you were “a cut above” and wanted to make something of your life. This group of respondents viewed Section 8 as a symbol of overall life progress. You have to be working, Section 8 is for working. (San Antonio relocatee)
You’re coming from public housing, and you’re moving to like a Section 8, which is a long step above…its more independency. (Baltimore relocatee)
Several respondents said Section 8 gave them the opportunity to get away from dilapidated buildings and violence in public housing. They were unsure of the benefits of the program when making their choice, but felt anywhere was better than public housing. I wouldn’t want to be in public housing because I seen the other ones that was terrible, run down. (Baltimore relocatee)
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 10
It was either move to another development or take a Section 8 voucher. And I didn’t want to move into another development and so I took the voucher and moved. (San Antonio relocatee)
These respondents said that they could not wait to leave public housing and felt that any other housing situation would be better. They often discussed the old neighborhood in derogatory terms and were less likely to express nostalgic sentiments about it.
Choosing Public Housing This study targets people who used Section 8 to relocate from HOPE VI public housing communities in four cities; however, in two of those cities, Louisville and Baltimore, we also interviewed a small number of people who did not use Section 8 but instead moved to other public housing. Respondents who relocated to other public housing can be divided into four main groups: those who had no choice (including people who did not qualify for Section 8 or failed to find a Section 8 unit); those who were too scared to leave public housing; those who wanted to stay; and those with language barriers or other issues that made it impractical to leave. Comments from each group offer interesting insights into both the decision-making process as well as the situation of people who do not have a Section 8 option. Some of our respondents who chose to move to other public housing said they were not qualified for Section 8. Decisions about eligibility could be based on a denied application for Section 8, a personal review of written standards for Section 8, or a general feeling that they would not be viewed favorably by private landlords. Respondents were particularly concerned about how their credit history would be viewed by potential landlords. I wasn’t qualified for much else but to move to one of the other properties. I wasn’t really physically or mentally ready to do too much of working it out, you know, trying to move anywhere else. (Louisville relocatee)
They [Section 8 landlords] would do background checks and all that and that you had to have a really good record. (Baltimore relocatee)
The really good ones [housing options], the ones I really wanted, those were the ones I couldn’t get in because they wanted good credit. (Louisville relocatee)
While some respondents did not attempt to access the Section 8 program, others considered relocating using Section 8 but were unsuccessful in their housing search and ended
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 11 up in public housing. Respondents in this situation talked about both the time pressure to find a unit and the lack of available housing.8 I really felt rushed…Well, I saw one, two different houses and it was like a whole gang of us looking at just 2 houses…after that things stopped. It seemed like you had to make up your mind. (Baltimore relocatee)
Well, at that time it was very hard cause it was so many people looking at the same time that the prospects of what was available…I did go through a period of time looking for a place. (Louisville relocatee)
My first choice wasn’t Cherry Hill it was Section 8. But the house didn’t do the repairs you know, so that’s when I asked for Cherry Hill…I was the last one on the floor and so I was like, I can’t wait for this house to be fixed cause I’m the last one and it’s just me and my children here you know. We actually had to stay over my sister’s house at night, then we would come back home and get dressed in the morning. (Baltimore relocatee)
Some respondents felt their limited budgets could not absorb the increased costs associated with the Section 8 program. Chief among these concerns was apprehension about increased utility costs. Some public housing residents paid low or no utility bills while in their developments. When using Section 8 to relocate to a unit on the private market, these residents would be responsible for utility costs. Section 8 utility allowances were not viewed as substantial enough to cover the increased costs.9 My friend she chose another public housing because she didn’t think she could afford the gas and electric bill, at Hollander Ridge we only got one every 3 months and it was low most of the time. (Baltimore relocatee)
Like for example, my godkid’s grandmother, she went from Hollander Ridge to Somerset, and that’s like another project, you know what I’m saying. She wanted to come to the county. She wanted to bring her teenage son out to a different environment. She wanted to so bad, but she knew she wouldn’t have been able to afford it. You know, so a lot of people had to take what they could…get, so they went from one public
8 It is unclear whether extensions to the 60-120 day search times would have enabled these families to find housing. For some of the respondents, the concept of moving was overwhelming. Coupled with few resources and a limited view of surrounding areas, finding a new unit was a paralyzing challenge. 9 Not only did some persons who elected to stay in public housing do so in part because of concerns about increased costs but some respondents who moved with Section 8 talked about their difficulty in meeting the increased costs of their private market housing.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 12
housing to another. So basically, a lot of people didn’t have a choice. (Baltimore relocatee)
Several of the respondents who moved to other public housing expressed frustration at the challenges of finding housing on the private market. Some of these respondents felt unprepared and overwhelmed in their search. This respondent from Baltimore felt she was ill- equipped to navigate the private rental market, including sorting through various locations and units. I was born and raised in Baltimore, Maryland but I don’t know my way around that much you know and for you to hand me a book this thick with these locations and houses, beautiful houses, fireplaces, this and that all written up in there, beautiful, charming but I still don’t know where I’m going. (Baltimore relocatee)
She also wanted more assistance in her housing search. I was under the impression that it was gonna be like a personal thing sort of like…I thought maybe like a certain amount of people would be assigned to one counselor…and she was gonna make sure each individual was satisfied with where they were at before she moved on to the next person. (Baltimore relocatee)
Some of our respondents who moved to other public housing did so because they had a negative view of Section 8. Relocatees in our focus groups expressed similar opinions to those expressed in other research on relocatees and Section 8 movers that found rumors about Section 8 are common and often discourage relocatees from actively searching for housing (Popkin et al 2000; Popkin and Cunningham 1999, 2000). Some relocatees were concerned about paying utility bills and possible increased costs; others felt the program might be disbanded and they would be left without housing. Still others were confused about how the program worked. I heard a lot of rumors about if you take that Section 8, girl don’t you take that Section 8, all these rumors about what, it’s a trap and all this stuff. (Baltimore relocatee)
After two years the vouchers would run out. (Baltimore relocatee) Even people who chose Section 8 were concerned about the stability and long-term availability of the program. Rumors were rampant that Section 8 was temporary assistance and the program was in imminent danger of ending.10
10 It is unclear why respondents felt the Section 8 program would soon end. The closing of project-based Section 8 could have influenced their opinions as well as the new tim e limits on other public assistance (such as cash payments) under welfare reform.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 13
I’m really concerned about the fact that Section 8 is not gonna last too much longer. I know that, you know that, everybody know that. (Seattle relocatee)
In contrast, some respondents had positive reasons for choosing public housing, saying it was a better choice for them and their families. They liked the flexibility and familiarity of the public housing environment and felt the housing authority was more likely to work with them if they had a difficult time paying rent. Some people weren’t able to afford to pay their rent monthly because of certain in and out of finances like jobs, their jobs shut down or they moved and they couldn’t make it to the job so they had to seek more employment, so that means there was a hold on their income whereas there on Flag they would work with you. But you can’t go on somewhere else telling them you don’t have the rent to pay coming in can you wait till I get a job and start paying. (Baltimore relocatee)
Other respondents felt public housing communities were more tolerant and accepting of themselves and persons they might associate with. They said about the company that you keep…if you have drug related friends that they [Section 8 landlords] could look at and say indulge, that was like a nuisance thing to the neighborhood and…if somebody arrested…coming from your location, that you would be evicted. Actually, it was zero tolerance of no, nothing on that Section 8 lease. (Baltimore relocatee)
Some of these respondents mentioned that public housing communities were putting in tougher policies (one strike, criminal records) on admissions and lease standards, but the majority view was that Section 8 would be more strict and less negotiable. Some relocatees felt that language barriers could influence a person’s decision to stay in public housing. In San Antonio and Seattle, relocatees felt that a person’s low comfort level with English and lack of experience in Anglo-American culture could encourage a decision to remain in public housing.11 Respondents speculated that those less proficient with the language or knowledgeable of private systems might choose to stay in public housing rather than negotiate the confusing rental market. These thoughts correspond with comments made by public housing administrators and service providers during our interviews with them. Administrators said that nationality and foreign-born status influenced residents’ housing choices. In Seattle, several administrators felt that US natives, particularly African Americans overwhelmingly chose
11 Respondents did not address whether a decision to remain in public housing by a non-English speaker was also influenced by anticipated discrimination in the local housing m arket.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 14
Section 8 while more recent immigrants, particularly Southeast Asians and East Africans tended to remain in public housing.
Concerns About Returning to the HOPE VI Development For most of our respondents, the main decision they faced in terms of housing assistance was a choice between Section 8 and public housing. However, some also had to consider whether they wanted to return to the HOPE VI development after construction was complete. For some families, these choices had to be made at the start of relocation. Others had the option of returning to their developments at a later date. Some respondents were concerned about what the new HOPE VI development would be like and whether they would be able to return if they wanted to do so. Others felt the pressure to make a decision before the development was built required too much trust. Still others were upset that their communities might be losing public housing units as HOPE VI developments became mixed income. Respondents made decisions about their housing assistance options early in the relocation process. In some sites, that early decision locked in the resident’s choice. They gave me the choice of Section 8 or public housing…But they were like, once you sign the form either way, if they were to rebuild your community, you would not be able to come back to this community, even if you wanted to. So I’m like, what are you just signing, “Basically that you’re gone, and you’re gone for good.” (Baltimore relocatee)
When families relocated from their public housing developments, the new HOPE VI communities were visions on drawing boards. Some respondents wondered how they could be expected to choose whether or not to move back to the development before it was built and they could see what kind of community they were committing to live in. They [housing authority] weren’t even sure what was gonna happen. They just know they were building these places. They were not even sure about when we could get back in. (Seattle relocatee)
These concerns were exacerbated by general distrust of housing authorities and specific concerns about the “real” plans for the new development and who would be welcome there. Housing authority staff who seek to create mixed income developments hope to improve the living conditions and community standards for all residents. To achieve this end, the number of units affordable to persons previously in public housing is often reduced. Some relocatees were very concerned about the loss of low-income housing in their communities brought about by HOPE VI reconstruction. This situation increased feelings of distrust toward the housing authority and local government.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 15
They put a different class of people in there and they will keep doing it unless somebody brings about a change and stop them from doing it. They gonna do it with the new ones they’re building in the other section. They gonna make them nice and have people in there who’s a higher class. (Seattle relocatee)
A lot of people was still upset about the fact that they couldn’t move back, once they fixed it up nice. (Louisville relocatee)
Some relocatees were concerned about the requirements they would need to meet to be able to return. Can’t move back in unless you have a job. (San Antonio relocatee)
Some former residents discussed the conditions under which they would consider returning to the revitalized developments. Ironically, they often expressed concerns about the type of people who would be allowed back but in this context their desire was that “good tenants” who did not cause trouble would populate the new developments. Depends on the screening of the residents…if you gonna go and put the same people in there that stole, that killed. (San Antonio relocatee)
Clearly, the neighborhood standards and typical behaviors of fellow residents were important to relocatees who considered returning to their original developments. Some respondents were excited about the changes, both in the built environment and in behavior standards. Other respondents were concerned that the new developments might not welcome them back.
Summary By choosing a type of housing assistance, relocatees directly affect the neighborhood options open to them. Those that choose Section 8 have a variety of neighborhood options while those that choose public housing have only a few. This chapter describes the influences that can lead to these two divergent choices.12 For Section 8, the mystique, choice, anonymity, portability, and status of the program make it a very desirable option for some relocatees. Others want the flexibility and familiarity of public housing. In contrast, some respondents end- up in public housing because they do not qualify or cannot overcome the challenges of Section 8, and others opt to stay because of the perceived benefits.
12 As noted earlier, our respondents were more likely to have a choice between Section 8 and public housing because the housing authorities sampled used Section 8 for relocation to a high degree. Relocatees in other cities may not have the same level of choice as our respondents.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 16
Relocation decisions are made by individuals who respond to information, guidelines, and regulations in different ways. In addition, each household has it’s own set of constraints and desires for where and how they live. Even with these idiosyncratic features driving housing choice, we can glean ideas on how to make relocation decisions easier for future movers by exploring the experiences of relocatees. Although the former residents contacted for this study are not representative, their experiences suggest potential themes of the relocation process. Our respondents felt: · They did not have enough information to make informed decisions; · They report their choices were constrained both by inability to find housing and program rules and regulations (specifically time constraints and waiting for inspections); · They have fears about the private market; · They are concerned about increased costs and longevity of the Section 8 Program; and · They do not have enough information to decide whether or not to return to the revitalized public housing development.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 17
CHAPTER 3 RELOCATING WITH SECT ION 8
Destination Neighborhoods The vast majority of census tracts in American cities have no or few households who moved from HOPE VI public housing.13 Across the country, HOPE VI relocatees typically move to neighborhoods where few other relocatees have moved. In the limited number of tracts where HOPE VI relocatees are found, there are an average of only two relocatee families per census tract.14 However, this general trend is not true for some cities where large numbers of relocatees move to a handful of census tracts. Both the relative spread and isolated clustering of relocatees raises questions about how relocatees who chose Section 8 searched for housing. It quickly became apparent in our focus groups that the “neighborhood decision” was tied to factors other than an affinity for a specific area. We have grouped these other factors into two categories: search criteria and search strategies. Search criteria are factors that were important to residents as they thought about where they wanted to live. Search strategies are the techniques and activities people used to find their new unit. Some of the elements in each category were in the control of the relocatee (such as looking for a single-family home) and others were not (such as the Section 8 time limits).
Search Criteria One of the perceived benefits of Section 8 was the ability to access a wider array of neighborhoods than the set available to public housing residents. However, the relocatees we spoke to were often driven as much or more by unit characteristics than by neighborhood selection. Questions asked about neighborhood were answered with comments that mixed house characteristics and availability with general neighborhood standards. We were looking for a [single-family] home. First home I saw, big back yard and okay front yard. I said there are possibilities here with this yard and you know, just the perfect location, it was a cul-de-sac, not much traffic and you know, this is it, we are moving here. (San Antonio relocatee)
13 From the spatial analysis conducted by Kingsley, Johnson, and Pettit on the relocation destinations of HOPE VI movers using Section 8 to relocate from 73 HOPE VI developments in 48 cities. 14 Kingsley, Johnson, and Pettit 2000, p. 3.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 18
Well, basically I was just looking for a [single-family] house and as my time was running out, I stopped looking for that and got the first thing that I could get. (Seattle relocatee)
Instead of targeting a specific neighborhood, many respondents would discuss a part of town (“the west side”) or dismiss a part of town (“nothing downtown”). These sweeping generalizations would place much of the city and its environs within consideration. Well, I really wanted to stay pretty much in the East End around in that area. I was willing to go take something else go to that part of town. It was really the places that were available, that were left. (Louisville relocatee)
Question: Was there any particular neighborhood you wa nted to be in? Answer: No, not really. Long as I stayed on the south side. Because it is easier for me. I don’t drive, easier for me to get the bus route to get to my job, get my kids to school. (Seattle relocatee)
While most respondents focused on finding acceptable units in a broad range of areas, a few said they selected a neighborhood first and then worked to find a unit in that area. I picked up an apartment shopper guide…in the areas that I wanted…I called and either they took Section 8 or they didn’t take Section 8 so the ones that did I went out and looked at the community and stuff like that before I would actually go in. (Baltimore relocatee)
I’m riding through the neighborhoods, a lot of them signs that you see outside…like Long & Foster Realty or Lucky homes…I would stop and say…’does the person who owns this house still live here, or is there a number you can get in contact with them, or is that sign out there for a reason’. (Baltimore relocatee)
When relocatees discussed what they wanted in a new neighborhood their requirements for an area often emphasized the importance of safety. This finding is consistent with other research on Section 8 search and public housing relocation (Popkin and Cunningham 1999, 2000; Cunningham, Sylvester, and Turner 1999). Relocatees were looking for places where they could live without fear for their well-being or that of their children. They were coming from severely troubled public housing communities and discussed experiences in public housing such as shootings, break-ins, and “guys dropping dead in the yard.” Most respondents sought a neighborhood that was comparably safe and “quiet.” I was really just looking for a house that was quiet you know. (San Antonio relocatee)
That’s like in any place you go, any state you go you have certain areas that are more quieter, that are better. (Baltimore relocatee)
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 19
We spoke with relocatees at length about the types of services they were looking for in their new neighborhoods. Rarely did social services (public or private) emerge. Our respondents were much more vocal about the availability of shopping, transportation and the quality of local schools. Some respondents also discussed the need for convenient access to doctors and hospitals. The tenor of conversations was similar to discussions one might have with the average middle class homebuyer rather than the stereotypical image of the service- dependent public housing resident.15 Question: “What are you looking for in a new neighborhood?”
Answer: “Good schools, safety.” (San Antonio relocatee)
I was kind of like, well, I don’t want to move too far out in the county, because that may be an inconvenience as far as transportation…and I kind of looked at an area that would be bus-wise, subway-wise, and just something easy to get to public transportation. (Baltimore relocatee)
A limited number of our respondents put some areas as “off-limits” for consideration because they did not feel they, or their children, would feel welcome or comfortable. Although rare, these comments showed that boundaries exist when relocatees considered available neighborhoods. But I didn’t want to go out of bounds. I didn’t want to go too far out in the country or something like that…Because I know where I belong. I mean, I’m not going up there with y’all (referring to interviewer’s race which was white)… I feel much better when I see them in a mixed environment, than when it’s one of me and a million of them. I’m not prejudice but it just made me feel, I don’t belong here. (Seattle relocatee)
Search Strategies We asked respondents in our focus groups about their experiences in searching for housing. Many discussed using the resources of the housing authority and Section 8 to find their new unit. However, they also talked about other information sources such as the newspaper, apartment guides, family, friends, and their own reconnaissance of different areas.
15 As for all responses, it is not clear if our respondents offer a picture of the “average” HOPE VI relocatee. The data compiled in the retrospective HOPE VI survey and HOPE VI Panel Study will provide more systematic information for a larger s ample of residents touched by HOPE VI across more cities.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 20
Few provided examples of strategic information gathering on the amenities or quality of services in neighborhoods while making decisions on where to move.16 Many of our respondents used “the Section 8 list” as the basis for their housing search.17 The housing authority generates a list of properties and/or landlords who accept Section 8 and makes the list available to persons in the Section 8 program. A reliance on this list as the primary vehicle for housing search is compatible with the focus on units rather than neighborhoods discussed above. While the list may display properties in different areas, respondents talked about starting at the top of the list and calling until they found an available unit. I got it off the Section 8 list and it sounded real good. (Seattle relocatee)
Question: How did you find the house where you live? Answer 1: Section 8. Answer 2: I looked on the list Answer 3: I got mine on the list too. Question: Did you have to work your way through [the list]? Answer: Yes. Question: Did you just do this one time, you got the list one time and went through it or you got the list every week for a certain period of time? Answer: I did it twice. (San Antonio relocatees)
Respondents also discussed using other listings of available housing such as newspapers and apartment guides. Again, their descriptions indicate that most called any listing meeting their cost and size needs until they identified those open to Section 8. [I went] through the apartment magazine. I sit down one day and I just called different apartments and asked them would they accept Section 8 for 1-bedroom and I finally lucked up on this one. (Baltimore relocatee)
Relocatees differed in the amount of knowledge they had about their destination neighborhood prior to moving. Some had direct experience with an area through previous housing arrangements, job location, or the presence of family or friends. Others had never been to their new neighborhood.
16 These responses are similar to findings from Popkin and Cunningham 2000. 17 This list is compiled and updated differently across localities with substantial differences in the volume and freshness of listings. In this discussion, we use the term “Section 8 list” generically to mean a list of potential Section 8 rental housing provided by the housing authority.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 21
A number of respondents said they walked through a given area looking for rental signs. This strategy was common for persons who stayed near their original developments. It is not clear whether a lack of transportation prompted this strategy, a desire to stay in the original neighborhood, or a combination of both.
Search Experiences Respondents reported encountering many barriers when they actually tried to search for housing. A good portion of our respondents felt pressures outside their control had more of an impact on where they settled than a rational decision-making process. Difficulties in using Section 8 (such as finding landlords willing to accept the program within the time frame allowed) were common experiences for relocatees. These pressures further emphasized the focus on unit availability over neighborhood. The first hurdle for relocatees in finding housing was locating an available unit where the landlord would accept Section 8. Respondents expressed much frustration and reported trying multiple places with no success. Many were concerned that the program had a bad reputation among landlords and they were battling against stereotypes and prejudice. I thought you could move where you wanted to move. It seems as though you’re discriminated against because those who already have it kinda, I’m not sayin everyone but it’s like, they look at you and they say, well you have Section 8 and they think of whoever they had in the past that you’re gonna do the same thing that they did.” (Baltimore relocatee).
Well, it’s not many places for Section 8 cause so many people done messed that up. So it’s really hard to really find me a place that accepts Section 8 cause so many people done messed it up. So it’s really hard. (Seattle relocatee)
Landlords who would accept Section 8 were difficult to locate, and in many areas an already inadequate supply of affordable housing lessened availability. Furthermore, the flood of relocatees on the market at the same time increased the competition for units. Relocatees were very aware of the local pressures in their housing market and anxious about their ability to find a place to live. Some respondents felt their choices were limited both by the limited supply of housing and the competition from other movers. There was just too many people that was looking at the same time. (Louisville relocatee)
They were doing that [relocation] by a building list thing you know, up from the top down and then over to the next building from the top down. So by the time got to the last high- rise it wasn’t many choice left, which was none of mine. (Baltimore relocatee)
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 22
Every time you find a place, somebody already had it. (San Antonio relocatee)
The location of affordable housing plays a role in where relocatees can live. Respondents noted that they had to (1) find an available place for rent, (2) make sure it was of the appropriate size and price, and that (3) the landlord took Section 8. All of those criteria were difficult to meet in each city and became increasingly more difficult in areas with tight local housing markets (such as Seattle). Moreover, these requirements limited the choice of replacement housing and neighborhood. These themes were emphasized in our relocatee focus groups and interviews with administrators and service providers. Every open Section 8 place gets 30 to 40 applicants because only a few places where voucher can be used…In Northern section of city, as market tightens up they no longer accept Section 8 vouchers and everyone moves to poorer south side. (San Antonio Service Provider)
In some communities, there is not a lot of housing in terms of if you get a Section 8…people just can’t use it and have to turn them back in. (San Antonio relocatee)
The focus on availability was heightened by the time limits of the Section 8 program. The overwhelming concern of respondents using Section 8 to relocate was that they find a place within the time limit. The housing search process was described as a battle against the clock. Do you know when we went to Section 8 they were pressuring people. You better find a place or you’re going to [other public housing]. And it made it [other public housing] sound like nuh uh. (Seattle relocatee)
When they told me it was the option of you either find it on your own, get out because it’s only a limited amount of time, well I was forced into mine. (Baltimore relocatee)
The first one I looked at, that’s the one I grabbed. (Baltimore relocatee)
I know a couple of people that lost their Section 8 because they was looking so deep down for a [single family] house, you know, they lost their Section 8…They had to find a place to pay full rent. (Seattle relocatee)18
Many factors contribute to a lengthy search process for relocatees. Persons relocating from public housing often have complicated childcare arrangements, tenuous transportation,
18 Respondents were quite concerned that they would run out of time and lose their Section 8. Some respondents indicated that this meant they would be without housing assistance including public housing. It is not clear that relocatees realized that they were guaranteed replacement housing as movers under HOPE VI.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 23 and limited financial resources. Their search process may be hindered by their family circumstances such as multiple or small children who have opinions, are resistant to moving, or whose care slows the search process. The process is further complicated for some relocatees by incomplete knowledge of area neighborhoods and feeling intimidated by private housing managers. None of the relocation programs in the four sites included search times of less than 90 days and administrators discussed extended periods for movers who requested additional help. It is not clear whether the ability to receive an extension was comforting to relocatees who felt that eventually they had to find a unit. Given the tight local markets in some areas, the idea of finding a unit (even within 3-4 months) was disconcerting. The longer a person searched without satisfactory results, the more nervous they became and the more willing they were to settle for any available unit. Not only was it difficult to find a place in the allotted period of time, some respondents felt the Section 8 program requirements complicated their search. When you call, the people [landlords] want you to be able to move in like right then and there. But there is stipulations, whereas though you have to give your rental office notice. Then you have to wait for Section 8 to approve you…I think you should have enough time to be able to search ahead of time, but it doesn’t work like that. (Baltimore relocatee)
The whole time your three months, your time is just a clicking, and you’re sitting there waiting like, okay, are they gonna give me the go ahead? What if they don’t give me the go ahead, then I’m wasting time…’Why don’t you just go ahead and put in for a couple of places.’... but the deposit, you’ve got to pay deposits for all of them…and it’s not refundable. (Baltimore relocatee)
Many respondents said that they could not conduct a housing search because of associated costs, primarily transportation, application deposits and fees. This lack of income could hamper a person’s ability to extend their housing search and influence where they decide to move. If a person does not have transportation to other locations, they may be more likely to stay close to their current home. I didn’t want to go looking elsewhere cause I really didn’t have the transportation at that time and I had to pay for the transportation to take me to look for houses. And during that time I was just getting food stamps and Medicaid and as far as money wise the only thing I was getting was child support, so you know it kinda put me in a bind. (San Antonio relocatee)
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 24
Summary The constraints of the Section 8 program and the pressures in the private market dictated housing decisions for many relocatees. Respondents had thoughts on the type of unit that would be acceptable and general ideas on minimum neighborhood standards or boundaries. Some relocatees even had specific neighborhoods they wanted to move to. However, the time pressure of identifying a unit before losing Section 8 had a great deal to do with what respondents ultimately chose as their relocation destination. The pressures and concerns associated with moving may immobilize some relocatees. When they begin their search, the availability and location of affordable housing constrains where they can go in the private market. Even within the affordable housing market, unwillingness to rent to persons with Section 8 further reduces available options for households using tenant-based assistance. When making neighborhood and housing choices, our respondents report: · They want safe neighborhoods with good schools and access to transportation and shopping; · They often rely on the Section 8 list to find their new home; · They looked for housing at the same time as many other relocatees; · They felt it was difficult to find a place to live in the allotted period of time; and · They said their search was hampered because of costs associated with transportation, application fees, and deposits.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 25
CHAPTER 4 RELOCATION NEIGHBORHOODS
Introduction The variety of destination neighborhoods selected by HOPE VI relocatees reflects the different search criteria and strategies of individual households as well as the market forces and outside pressures that influence the housing decision. The previous two chapters reviewed some of these factors that influence where people move. This chapter looks at the housing decisions of a small group of relocatees in four cities who chose different types of neighborhoods to see what motivated their choices. It also explores relocatee thoughts on both additional moves and the possibility of clustering in their neighborhoods. For one city,19 Baltimore, a geographic analysis of relocation destinations is presented to illustrate the results of housing choices.
Where Do Relocatees Move? The spectrum of neighborhoods where HOPE VI relocatees live includes places close to the HOPE VI development, areas far from the original neighborhood, and a variety of locations in-between. Although this report focuses on decision-making, it is helpful to review the results of the decision. To better understand the variety of neighborhood types selected by relocatees, we include an example of local relocation patterns in one site, Baltimore, and present the destinations of relocatees in light of area poverty rates and percent Black.20 Figures 4.1A-D display the relocation destinations in the City of Baltimore for households moving from three communities demolished under HOPE VI: Lexington Terrace, Hollander Ridge, and Flag House. Movers in the wider metro area are included in Figure 4.2. These maps include those who moved with Section 8 and those who moved to other public housing.
19 The data needed to conduct the geographic analysis was only collected in Baltimore. Baltimore was not selected because of specific aspects of their program or their relocation outcomes. 20 We obtained data on relocation outcomes for residents from Housing Authority of Baltimore City. HABC provided a datafile with destination locations for HOPE VI movers who used Section 8 and other public housing to relocate from Lexington Terrace, Hollander Ridge, and Flag House.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 26
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 27
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 28
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 29
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 30
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 31
Within a city there is often both spread of relocatees from an original site and concentration in a few census tracts. Both patterns are evident in Baltimore. While relocatees can be found across many more neighborhoods than where they originated, there are several areas where groups of households relocated. We find that some of the grouping of relocatees seen in Figures 4.1A-D and Figure 4.2 reflects people who moved to other public housing (see Figure 4.3). However, other groups of relocatees who appear to have moved to the same area are not in other public housing. The location of public housing does not explain all of the concentration in Baltimore. Kingsley, Johnson, and Pettit (2000) in their analysis of national relocation patterns of HOPE VI movers using Section 8 found that when concentration occurs, it is more likely in high- poverty/high-minority neighborhoods.21 In Baltimore City and the surrounding county, concentration in several high minority areas is clear (see Figures 4.4 and 4.6). However, while these neighborhoods are still high poverty, they are substantially less poor than the originating communities (see Figures 4.5 and 4.6).22 While these maps show that many movers went to high-poverty/high-minority census tracts, they also indicate that some did not. In all four of our cities, we held focus groups with relocatees who moved to different neighborhoods to find out more about how these relocatees wound-up in different areas. In each city, we targeted areas where ten or more relocatees moved to an area near the HOPE VI property, and another where they moved farther away from the original development.
Why Do People Stay Close to Their Old Developments? As discussed previously, the main influences on people’s housing choices were the availability of housing and time constraints. These factors drove most housing decisions for both those families who stayed close to their original public housing developments and those who moved farther away. Moreover, many respondents in both groups reported using the Section 8 list as a primary source of possible housing options. Moving patterns may reflect the extent to which the list included housing options near the development as well as neighborhoods farther away.
21 There are multiple reasons why groups of relocatees move to high-poverty/high-minority neighborhoods including the location of affordable housing stock in these areas. This report describes relocatee decision-making processes that could also influence where households move. 22 Other research has found that the same pattern is evident in Chicago (Popkin and Cunningham 2000).
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 32
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 33
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 34
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 35
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 36
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 37
Connections. In addition to these overarching influences, our respondents talked about the personal preferences that strengthened their decision to stay close or move away from their public housing neighborhood. As expected, those who stayed close to their developments talked about their long-standing connections to people and places. These included the presence of family, friends, and institutions. When asked why they stayed in the area, some respondents offered simply, “This is my home.” I’ve been in this area all my life. (San Antonio relocatee)
I didn’t want to move way out because I have grandkids around here and I found something up the street and I just took it. (Seattle relocatee)
Some respondents wanted to stay in their neighborhoods to be close to medical services they depended on. I’m a diabetic. Wanted to be close to the clinic. (San Antonio relocatee)
Fear and Lack of Knowledge. While some respondents deliberately chose to remain in their old neighborhoods, others stayed partially out of fear, misinformation, or a lack of knowledge about other areas. These respondents voiced concerns about the dangers of suburban living. These included rumors that bad weather such as floods were more prevalent in the suburbs as well as other dangers. I’m paranoid about dogs…I wouldn’t even trust them even though the yard is fenced in, I wouldn’t trust them to go there because people have huge dogs…so that would be a problem where I would see where the children wouldn’t have down at Lexington Terrace. (Baltimore relocatee)
They also did not know much about other areas of the city.
I don’t know my way around that much you know. (Baltimore relocatee)
These relocatees were making decisions without much information on options. The time pressure to find Section 8 coupled with nervousness about unknown areas produced strong incentives to stay close to their current neighborhoods.
Why Do People Move Away from the Neighborhood of Their Old Developments? The strong link between relocation destinations and the location of available affordable housing works differently in local housing markets. In cities where the housing stock around a HOPE VI development is affordable, relocatees may be more likely to reconcentrate in these familiar areas. In areas where rents around former public housing communities have increased,
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 38 relocatees may need to move farther away to find affordable housing. In our cities, respondents had a variety of housing search experiences. However, some respondents in two cities, Seattle and Baltimore23, said people moved away from their old neighborhoods in part because rents were too high or housing was unavailable. Location and availability of affordable housing notwithstanding, respondents who relocated to areas away from their former public housing communities offered information on how they made their choices. They described deliberate attempts to get away from the people in public housing as well as to move closer to friends and family who lived in different parts of town. Some relocatees who moved away from their public housing neighborhoods wanted the better amenities and services they felt they could get in other areas. Breaking Ties. Multiple respondents across cities voiced their desire to move away from the people who lived in public housing. Respondents were tired of neighbors who they perceived as wanting things from them and who did not work to acquire things for themselves. Respondents were trying to get away from specific friends and family as well as a general attitude. I don’t want to be around a lot of people that’s borrowing and when I told people where I was moving, it was like, you moving way over there? I’m like uh huh, they were like I’m never coming and visit you and they never came to visit me, it was too far. [I] wanted to have distance [so that they] stay away from my house. [It was] Can I borrow this, can I have this or can you give me this? (San Antonio relocatee)
It had got to the point where people was just getting on my nerves, knock on my door 24 hours a day. I knew too many people out there. Loan me this or give me this. Can I use your phone? (Baltimore relocatee)
Some respondents were trying to leave public housing developments because of worn buildings and violence. However, most expressed a desire for a different type of neighborhood. Making Connections. While some respondents said they were moving away from bad influences, others moved to be closer to family or friends. I was raised up in this area. My sister lived in this area. (San Antonio relocatee)
23 Residents of Hollander Ridge in Baltimore mentioned the high cost of housing near their development which was near the county line. Baltimore respondents from Flag House and Lexington Terrace did not find themselves priced out of the local market.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 39
Respondents also moved to be closer to a current job or potential employer. One respondent in San Antonio spoke of moving closer to the airport for her job. Another in Baltimore was closer to the mall where she could work in retail. Better Amenities and Quality of Life. Some respondents wanted a higher level of public services and better quality of life than what they had access to in their public housing neighborhood. These respondents may not have started with a specific neighborhood in mind when they received their Section 8 certificate but they knew they wanted to get away from the current neighborhood and find something better. Because to me, it [moving away] was going to bring them [my children] to a better environment, a more stable, more quieter environment. And I was trying to show them the two sides of life, you know, that you’ve seen growing up out here [in public housing], and quote unquote, the ghetto, you know what I mean. I’m not going to take you somewhere where you’re not going to be comfortable, I’m going to take you somewhere where you can live in peace, and have a better state of mind, maybe a better education. Because I definitely wanted to get them away from the city schools. (Baltimore relocatee)
Are People Considering Subsequent Moves? Nationwide, relocatees using Section 8 move to areas that are racially isolated with high poverty rates and minority concentrations, however, these neighborhoods are less poor and segregated than their original communities.24 Some people have argued that the modest improvements in the neighborhoods where relocates live will be increased as HOPE VI relocatees make a series of moves. In this scenario, the initial relocation is a first step on a path to neighborhoods that have yet lower poverty rates and are more racially diverse.25 Respondents were divided on whether or not they would move again. What was striking was the number of people who dismissed the idea. Several respondents in Baltimore, San Antonio, and Seattle were interested in buying their current homes or homes in the area. This apathy toward moving and affinity for the current neighborhood was heard from both people who stayed close to their developments and those who moved farther away. Moving with Section 8 may enable relocatees to move to communities much improved from their public housing developments. These improvements may be enough to encourage some relocatees to stay. I never want to move again. (San Antonio relocatee)
24 Kingsley, Johnson, and Pettit 2000 p. 2.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 40
I would like to buy that home where I live now. (San Antonio relocatee)
Other respondents did not consider moving because they did not think they were able to move again. But they told me when the lady from the rent office over here came to my house one time, I said well we bout to get a second move and I wanna go back over East where I’m used to everybody and my daughter used to them people around there in that area, [she said] ‘well, from my understanding this is a permanent move for you cause you took that money’ [relocation assistance]. (Baltimore relocatee)
Some respondents had already moved again or were seriously considering another move. These respondents can be divided into two groups: those who liked their current areas but wanted a different unit and those who had concerns about their new neighborhood, neighbors, or landlord. I would describe it [the new neighborhood] as being safe, clean, friendly. Because the people around me are friendly. I mean, there’s a block watch and all that kind of stuff in the different neighborhoods…but next time I’m moving for a bigger unit. (Baltimore relocatee)
When I moved out of Holly Park, I moved into the first place that came up and that was a little bitty house…I stayed there a year because it was way too small for me and my two boys. (Seattle relocatee)
I got this place where I’m at…where it’s so noisy, drugs, and the landlord doesn’t do what she’s supposed to do, I’m paying more money. I got it in a hurry because I didn’t want to be stuck looking for a place when I had already made the decision to move. (Seattle relocatee)
These relocatees are considering moves but it is unclear where their moves will take them. These respondents often expressed dissatisfaction with their units (size) and buildings (noise). It cannot be assumed they will move to areas of lower poverty or reduced minority concentration without interventions that encourage these options.
Do Respondents Think Relocatees are Clustered? Numeric information on clustering cannot determine whether relocation patterns are problematic in a given neighborhood. Numbers are a helpful indicator that can highlight areas
25 Kingsley, Johnson, and Pettit 2000; Cunningham, Sylvester, and Turner, 1999.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 41 where potential problems may exist but they cannot tell a neighborhood’s story. One area may have fifteen relocatees with no change in community standards whereas another can have only five and a surplus of trouble. A respondent in San Antonio gave a poignant example of how only one family can change a neighborhood. I really don’t want to move, nobody bothers me…And it’s like, I like the area, it’s quiet, the only person, there’s one family that moved in, it’s gonna be two years now and they sell drugs and it’s the only one…but it’s just that one family that makes the whole area deteriorate. (San Antonio relocatee)
Our respondents were concerned about how their neighbors and the general public viewed persons on Section 8. Some respondents clearly felt they were anonymous on Section 8 and did not see changes in the neighborhood because they (or other relocatees) had moved to the area. It’s not right for them to stereotype us, saying because we have Section 8, we just gonna come in and bring down their neighborhood. I’m not bringing down their neighborhood…No one knows I’m on Section 8. I have not brought down their neighborhood. If anything I have tried to improve their neighborhood. (Baltimore relocatee)
In another Baltimore City neighborhood, relocatees felt their new neighborhood was a destination for former public housing residents. However, they also felt that the neighborhood was in decline before they arrived. “That is why we can come” was a sentiment they expressed. These relocatees were adamant that they were bolstering the declining area by engaging in community activities and keeping high housekeeping standards. Other relocatees were concerned about the number of other persons on Section 8 who lived in their neighborhood and felt that negative activity occurred as a result. Respondents who had moved away from their original neighborhoods in San Antonio and Baltimore talked about an influx of relocatees and persons on Section 8 in their new neighborhoods. Basically the people did move out of these areas, which are all of us, part of them [bad public housing residents] are over here too. They are over here doing the same damages. (San Antonio far relocatee)
Come to find out my building’s full of Section 8’s. They moved most of them out because they tore up the place, oh it’s horrible. (Baltimore far relocatee)
The concerns expressed by these relocatees are troubling because they indicate that unwanted neighborhood changes may be occurring in some areas. It is not clear that a specific
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 42 number of relocatees or persons on Section 8 adversely affect an area but monitoring and careful oversight of the program are needed to mitigate potential negative outcomes.
Summary Relocatees move to many different types of neighborhoods. Some of these areas are close to their original public housing developments and allow people to maintain connections with people and places. Close moves also allow relocatees to stay where they feel safe, comfortable, and knowledgeable. Other relocatees move a good distance from their former neighborhoods in hopes of breaking ties with specific individuals as well as adopting a new attitude and taking advantage of increased opportunity and better amenities. Some relocatees in each type of area have no intention of moving again while others are open to the idea. Our respondents were also aware of the perceived and actual impact of multiple persons on housing assistance moving to their new neighborhoods. Their unease about concentration and negative neighborhood changes raise concerns about adverse impacts on some local markets. Relocatees are faced with the daunting task of moving their households with the myriad implied changes to work, school, transportation, daycare, shopping, medical services, recreation, and other family activities. When discussing their neighborhood choices, our respondent’s experiences highlight potential themes of interest to program managers and policy makers. Some of our respondents: · Have strong connections to their current neighborhoods; · Do not have accurate information on life in neighborhoods outside their own; · Are unsure about their options for future moves; and · Have concerns about the number of other relocatees (and Section 8 participants) in their new neighborhoods.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 43
CHAPTER 5 RELOCATION SERVICES
Introduction This chapter presents service use and service need from the respondent’s perspective. Different housing authorities offer different sets of relocation services to their HOPE VI relocatees. This study does not document and evaluate the services offered to relocatees but instead describes what services relocatees report using.26 In addition to service use, respondents provided information on what services they would liked to have received as well as what information and tips they would offer future movers.
Service Use Respondents reported using a variety of services during relocation. These included search assistance (Section 8 list, counseling, transportation) and moving assistance (vans, money). In all sites, some respondents did not know what services were available to them as relocatees and within focus groups there was a wide disparity in knowledge from person to person. This discrepancy points to the difficulty in effective communication during an undertaking as complicated as relocation. During the focus groups, it was common for a respondent to report using a service and another respondent to be surprised that it was available. In one San Antonio group several respondents reported being puzzled that specific services were available and another respondent said “Actually all the help was there, all you had to do was just ask them [the housing authority].” Some respondents knew of services and assistance but did not use them. They did not feel they needed the help, did not want the bother of going to the housing authority, or did not think the services would help them. I really didn’t get no help…I was going by the Section 8 listing to find me a place…they [The Housing Authority] didn’t help me find a place, cause I didn’t go to, I guess I didn’t go to them.” (Seattle relocatee)
26 Relocation services differed by city. Within a city, the services offered could also differ by development. As an authority gained more experience with the relocation process through different HOPE VI projects (or different stages of one project) they could change their package of services. This study was not intended to document the services offered or service change over time.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 44
Many respondents reported using search assistance. The most common form was using a housing authority generated list of Section 8 properties as a means of searching for housing. In addition, some respondents took advantage of housing authority-sponsored transportation to view Section 8 units. I didn’t have transportation at that time and they assigned me a young lady. She was very good about coming and getting me and taking me. (Louisville relocatee)
One respondent in Baltimore mentioned going to an organization hired by the housing authority to help relocatees find housing.
[There was] some kind of center that takes you around and shows you different places…It was on St. Paul Street. Was it Baltimore Neighborhoods? It take you out to different places. (Baltimore relocatee)
Many respondents said they received money from the housing authority because they had to relocate. Respondents reported receiving funds to help with moving expenses and some used their payments to help with housing and utility deposits. If you lived in a one-bedroom, you had so much money, if you lived in a two-bedroom, you had so much money, and if you lived in a three-bedroom you had so much amount. And you got a check and you could use that money however you wanted. (San Antonio relocatee)
Some respondents had negative comments about the amount of money they received versus the volume of expenses they incurred.
They gave me money too, but with the money I had to pay the deposit, the moving fees, transfer utilities. (San Antonio relocatee)
Service Needs Respondents listed the type of services helpful to relocatees. Some of the services they requested were provided to some relocatees but not to others (even within the same city). Some respondents wanted more upfront assistance from Section 8, others hoped for more search assistance, and others needed moving help. Overwhelmingly, relocatees wanted more information. Many respondents wanted Section 8 to do a better job at landlord outreach (especially to counter the large volume of movers during relocation) and screening of Section 8 units. Only thing else I would have appreciated them doing is whoever they had checking the places out would have really been more firm in [standards] and not letting them
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 45
[landlords] just say what they had and letting them list it, without them going out and saying well I have this and walking in and saying this is not a three-bedroom, you cannot write that down, this is not a three-bedroom. (Louisville relocatee)
Some respondents had ideas on types of information that would have been helpful to them as they navigated the private rental market. These included tips on dealing with landlords and information on area utility and related costs. Dealing with landlords and how do you do that, what’s appropriate and what’s not appropriate. And what you can do. (San Antonio relocatee)
They [relocatees] need to know how, like utilities, how high are utilities in this area and know whether it’s good for you or if it’s too much. (San Antonio relocatee)
Transportation was often cited as a service need. Some respondents reported using housing authority sponsored transportation to view Section 8 properties. Others did not know assistance was available or did not have the option of such assistance. I didn’t want to go looking elsewhere cause I really didn’t have transportation at that time and I had to pay for the transportation to take me to look for houses. (San Antonio relocatee)
Relocatees wanted help with the actual task of moving. In addition to supplies such as boxes and packing materials, respondents had ideas for other kinds of helpful assistance such as physical help loading household goods and the need for temporary childcare. If you have small children, get someone to watch them for you. (San Antonio relocatee)
Summary The most striking finding in the discussion with relocatees about service use is their lack of knowledge of available services. Clearly, communication is difficult during relocation but must be improved if relocatees are to be made aware of the options available to them. This is particularly important given the strained financial circumstances and life situations of many relocatees. Although it is not this report’s intent to assess the adequacy of services provided to HOPE VI relocatees, suggestions can be made on the types of services relocatees said movers need when making housing decisions. The actual moving experience uncovered needs for
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 46 transportation, financial aid, packing supplies, childcare, and moving help.27 Relocatees also felt that more upfront information and preparation would improve the process. They asked for: · Better HQS inspections of properties before added to Section 8 list; · Tips on how to deal with landlords and the private rental market; · Information on utility costs and their responsibilities for those costs; and · Increased transportation opportunities to view properties and neighborhoods.
27 It is not clear how many of these options were available to relocatees but they were not aware of them.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 47
CHAPTER 6 THE RELOCATION EXPERIENCE
Introduction Resident satisfaction is an important indicator of the overall success or failure of HOPE VI relocation efforts. This study does not evaluate the relocation programs of individual housing authorities but offers instead, the self-reported experiences of relocatees who chose different types of destinations. Our respondents provide information on a small slice of possible experiences with relocation. Their views are not purported to be representative of a larger group but instead, suggest possible outcomes. This chapter reviews how respondents felt about their new homes and neighborhoods including a comparison with their previous communities. Information is also provided on how relocatees said their lives had changed because they moved to new communities.
New Homes and Neighborhoods Respondents offer mixed reviews of their new homes and neighborhoods but most say their current situation is better or at least the same as living in their previous development. This finding is consistent among our respondents who moved away from their original neighborhood and those who stayed close-by. The lack of striking differences in the responses of the two types of movers may reflect their relief at leaving the public housing developments regardless of the level of services and opportunity in the neighborhood. Getting out of “the projects” may eclipse any relative neighborhood differences perceived by those who stayed close-by and those who moved farther away.28 The one focus group where a majority of respondents had a negative view of their new living environment was the group of relocatees who moved to other public housing in Baltimore. Question: How long do you think you’ll stay where you’re at now? Answer: As soon as I can get out, I'm gone. Answer: As soon as possible. Answer: Same here.
28 The HOPE VI Panel study will provide a longitudinal assessment of outcomes for residents and can compare potential differences in outcomes linked to neighborhood location. This study relies on self-reported satisfaction. Both close and far movers report incremental improvement from the original public housing neighborhood. As noted previously, our respondents (for the most part) used Section 8 assistance to move to their new housing situations. This gives them substantially more options in neighborhood location and housing types than persons moving to other public housing and could increase their satisfaction.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 48
Respondents who wistfully remembered their public housing development or lamented their move were often longtime residents who remembered a time when the neighborhood was solid. These respondents spoke of the loss of connections to neighbors and increased loneliness when they moved from public housing. Even respondents who were more satisfied with their new homes and communities talked about some of the positive aspects of public housing that they missed including the availability of activities for youth. Respondents who moved to single-family detached or town homes were particularly pleased with the change in their living situations. For them, Section 8 had dramatically improved their housing options. It’s real nice, I mean I like it, you know. I really like having my own house, my own yard. (San Antonio relocatee)
I have a house now. Which is what I wanted all along. (Seattle relocatee)
In addition to opening up new types of housing, Section 8 enabled people to move to new communities and away from public housing developments. For the most part, the communities torn down under the HOPE VI program were physically, economically, and socially troubled. Respondents spoke of the difficult conditions. I really didn’t talk to anybody, I didn’t even recognize the ones here that lived there. Just never, I would never go anywhere, just to the office, you know when I needed something…[it was] overcrowded and a lot of violence. (San Antonio relocatee)
You would just probably pray to get out if you could, you know what I’m saying, because it wasn’t safe anymore. I mean, the killings had started coming down around you. (Baltimore relocatee)
I’ve had overall incidents where guys would just drop in front of the lawn, either they were overdosed or guys had been stabbed or killed. (San Antonio relocatee)
Many respondents compared their former public housing developments with their new neighborhoods and said they were in better places. They liked the lower levels of crime, improved schools, and increased shopping and amenities. I know there is crime everywhere, but to me it was just getting too close to home, and I just didn’t want my boys around it…I know they’re probably not gonna be able to run from it, but so far, we’ve been blessed that it’s not here in the community where we are right now. (Baltimore relocatee)
The school that he’s in now does seem that it’s a lot better school he was in when I was on Hollander Ridge. The people which I thought would be snobby actin’…they’re very
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 49
nice. I was really surprised. [They are] willing to do whatever they can to help you and your child if you have any problems with him in school. And I really enjoy that school and the people that work there. (Baltimore relocatee)
Some respondents felt more comfortable around their new neighbors than they had in public housing. They were less fearful of bad elements. It is a quiet, peaceful neighborhood and everybody knows everybody. (San Antonio relocatee)
On the other hand, some respondents liked their new living situations but missed the connections they had in public housing. They had trouble making new friends and felt lonely in their new communities. I miss some of the residents because I feel that [when] we was at Flags even if you didn’t know people per se, like I knew a lot of people by faces and some of them I got to know, to me it was a closeness. (Baltimore relocatee)
It’s a little lonesome sometimes. They [public housing] had bus trips…bingo…I had more associates out there than where I am now. (Baltimore relocatee)
Other respondents were concerned that children and youth did not have the same kind of activities available to them as they did in public housing. The activities, the happenings in the [public housing] neighborhood, they thought these things up to make our neighborhood you know worth living in. (Baltimore relocatee)
These rich children always got these exclusive neighborhoods but have nothin’ to do. Children just hang out. They have to find their own activities. But when they were in Hollander Ridge, there was constant organizations, constantly organized. (Baltimore relocatee)
For some respondents, their moves put them in places that made living without a car more difficult. This lack of transportation was more likely to be a concern for persons who moved away from the public housing development. There’s a lot of stuff around my house, there is a park and everything, but I wish there was some place close to take my kids…like McDonald’s…I mean for people that don’t have a car. (San Antonio relocatee)
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 50
Changed Lives The demolition of longstanding public housing developments dramatically changed the physical environment of the related neighborhoods. Similarly, the relocation of public housing residents spurred significant changes in people’s daily lives because their homes, neighbors, and neighborhood were all different. Even people who stayed close to their original neighborhoods said that life as they knew it was different. This section presents life changes reported by relocatees that involve increased opportunity. It does not focus on changes such as altered social networks and changed housing units because we can assume that all relocatees experienced these changes as a fact of moving. The two areas where respondents expressed increased opportunity involve jobs and schools. Persons who moved to neighborhoods away from their public housing neighborhoods provided all such comments. Some respondents who moved away from their original neighborhoods said their new addresses made them less identifiable and put them closer to better jobs. Several respondents credited moving with increasing their job opportunities. Easier to get a job because they don’t recognize your address…[There were] jobs but they wasn’t hiring people from Spring View, see what I’m saying. When I moved in my new place, I got a job just like that. (San Antonio relocatee)
Now that I’m out here, I found a better job…I was working downtown in like one of the little stores downtown as just a regular sales associate. But when I moved out here, with the training I had, it allowed me to come out here as a sales associate and be promoted to a supervisor…so that’s something that I probably would never have gotten down there. (Baltimore relocatee)
Some respondents noted the increased opportunity of better schools. Opportunity came in the form of better academic standards and teaching but expanded programs also offered students a chance to broaden their personal experience. The schools offer teams…like they’ve never played lacrosse and stuff like that. They were like, what in the world is this sport with a stick? You know, now they come home and my son’s got the equipment…it’s like broadening them on different things that they never even knew of, and if they would have attended city schools, a lot of times they probably wouldn’t have never even come across…just things that might would help them. Like my middle son, he’s now applying for early college, you know, because he’s out here, you know, he’s getting good grades. (Baltimore relocatee)
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 51
Conclusion It is important to highlight that most of our respondents were more satisfied with their current living situations than they had been in public housing.29 They felt their situations were better because of their move and this increased satisfaction was true for both those who stayed close to their original developments and those who moved farther away. Although our respondents are not representative of the larger pool of HOPE VI relocatees, their experiences suggest how relocation programs and services can be improved to facilitate easier moves for households using Section 8 to relocate from public housing. Comments from our respondents indicate that relocatees often made decisions based on inadequate information on both housing programs and neighborhood choices. This theme indicates a need for additional information and is a signal that the accessibility of current information resources needs to be reviewed. While moving is a life changing experience for all relocatees, respondents who moved farther away from their developments were more likely to discuss increased opportunity as a by- product of their move. Some respondents who moved to new neighborhoods said improved job and school situations were a result of their new locations. These comments support the view that neighborhood choice can positively influence economic and educational opportunities for families using housing assistance. However, few respondents targeted a new neighborhood to take advantage of increased opportunities. Neighborhood decisions were directly tied to the availability of housing and time constraints. Most respondents were more concerned about finding an available and acceptable unit in a place that met minimum community standards than in moving to a specific new neighborhood targeted for increased opportunity and amenities. This finding suggests that while more information about neighborhoods and increased search assistance are necessary, these additions may not dramatically alter housing choice decisions if housing is not available. Given the reliance on the Section 8 list to locate housing, efforts to expand the neighborhoods on the list along with increasing the number and freshness of unit listings could have a direct impact on neighborhood choice outcomes. Respondents reported numerous barriers when they tried to search for housing. Resistance to Section 8, a flood of relocatees on the market, and limited affordable housing, all increased the pressure on relocatees while reducing the number of units available to them. These pressures and constraints direct much of the housing “choice” exhibited by relocatees.
29 The one focus group where respondents expressed dissatisfaction with their new locations was the Baltimore group who moved to other public housing. Households who moved to other public housing were not the focus of this study, however, this finding is troubling given the large number of HOPE VI relocatees across the country who relocated to other public housing and implications about their housing satisfaction.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 52
Programmatic efforts to mitigate these pressures such as staging relocation plus outreach attempts to cultivate landlord relationships could help alleviate some of these concerns. Despite the difficulty experienced in housing search, relocatees move to many different types of neighborhoods. As stated previously, the cities profiled in this work are atypical because they have significant clusters of relocatees. Even in the four cities covered in this report, some residents move to neighborhoods near their public housing developments but others relocate in areas away from the old neighborhood. Close moves allow relocatees to maintain ties and stay where they feel comfortable. Close moves are also easier for relocatees who do not have transportation and know little about other areas. Our respondents who relocated with Section 8 away from the neighborhoods of their old developments say their moves took them away from public housing, closer to family and friends, and near better amenities and services. Many of our respondents did not report an intention to move to other areas after their initial relocation. Nationally, HOPE VI relocatees who move with Section 8, live in areas substantially less poor and segregated than public housing communities. However, destination locations are often in census tracts with high poverty rates and a significant minority population. Our respondents’ lack of interest in subsequent moves makes it unclear whether we can expect many relocatees to make future moves to areas substantially better than their original destination neighborhoods. Whether or not the volume and timing of HOPE VI relocation contributes to negative changes in neighborhoods is a serious concern for both local housing authorities and the national HOPE VI program. A limited number of respondents were concerned about the impact of multiple persons on housing assistance moving to their new neighborhoods. Their concerns about the effect of concentration and potential for negative neighborhood changes indicate problems in some areas and a need for more follow-up and monitoring. Although our findings do not indicate this is a sweeping problem, it reminds managers and policymakers of the need for careful implementation and rigorous supervision of relocation programs. The HOPE VI relocation effort is a massive undertaking with the potential to improve the quality of life for low-income households and the risk that vulnerable families may experience extreme hardship. Relocatee experiences provide helpful insights into the process as it continues in cities across the country. Comments from movers also help policymakers and administrators understand the mechanisms, strategies, and criteria Section 8 relocatees use when searching for housing. This is particularly helpful as a means of increasing our knowledge of how relocatees decide upon their destination neighborhoods. Incorporating early findings from relocatee experiences into future relocation plans may help mitigate the risks to vulnerable families and neighborhoods.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees 53
REFERENCES 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. Cunningham, Mary, David Sylvester, and Margery Austin Turner. 1999. Section 8 Families in the Washington Region: Neighborhood Choices and Constraints. Washington, D.C.: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Kingsley, G. Thomas, Jennifer Johnson, and Kathy Pettit. 2000. Hope VI and Section 8: Spatial Patterns in Relocation. Urban Institute Report for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Naparstek, Arthur, Dennis Dooley, and Robin Smith. 1997. Community Building in Public Housing: Ties that Bind People and Their Communities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Popkin, Susan and Mary Cunningham. 2000. Searching for Rental Housing With Section 8 in Chicago. Urban Institute Report. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. ——————. 1999. CHAC Inc. Section 8 Program: Barriers to Successful Leasing Up. Report prepared for CHAC, Inc. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Turner, Margery Austin, Susan Popkin, and Mary Cunningham. 2000. Section 8 Mobility and Neighborhood Health. Washington, D.C. The Urban Institute.
Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees
APPENDIX
FOCUS GROUP GUIDE
HOPE VI Neighborhood Relocation Focus Group Discussion Guide Final
WARM-UP AND EXPLANATION [10 minutes]
A. Introduction
Please help yourselves to some refreshments.
1. Thanks for coming and agreeing to participate in this group discussion today.
2. I’m [name of Facilitator], a researcher with the Urban Institute, and I will be your moderator for the session. My associate [name of Recorder] will be helping with the report. She/he will take some notes during the discussion and may have a few questions to ask you toward the end of our session. The Urban Institute is a non-profit research organization, and we have been asked by the federal government to arrange these discussions and report the results.
3. Your presence and opinion are important. Describe focus group - a way to find out what people think through group discussion. We are interested in learning about your ideas, feelings, and opinions. Please understand that nothing you say today will be attributed to you or linked with information that could identify you like your address. Nothing you say will affect any assistance or benefits you receive including your housing.
4. Before we begin the focus group, we will discuss the purpose of this meeting and the related research project of which it is a part. We will ask you to sign a release saying that we informed you about the study and you are freely participating.
5. The session today should last about two hours. At the end of this session, we will ask you to complete a short, anonymous survey. We will also be giving you $40 for your participation today and will ask that you sign a receipt saying you have received this payment.
Before we jump in to the main discussion, please help yourselves to some refreshments. Feel free to eat and drink during our discussion.
B. Purpose
You have been asked to join this group because you were a resident of [NAME OF DEVELOPMENT]. The Urban Institute is talking to people like you in several cities who were residents of public housing but moved because of construction in their building under the HOPE VI Program. Policymakers
are interested in finding out the local perspective on finding a new place to live. We will be holding several discussion groups like this, and the information we learn will be used to write a report on how people feel about relocation and their new neighborhoods.
1. In a group interview like this it is very important that you express yourself openly. There are no right or wrong answers. We want to know what you think. We are interested in all of your ideas and comments, both positive and negative. You should also feel free to disagree with each other-we want to hear as many points of view as we can.
C. Procedure
1. Use of recorder: we would like to tape record the session in order to ensure accuracy in writing up our report. Let me remind you that your responses will not be linked with your name or address in any way and the tapes will not be released to any other person or agency outside the Urban Institute. Everything will be anonymous. At any time if you would like us to turn off the tape recorder, please let us know and we will do so. Does anyone have a concern at this time about the use of the tape recorder?
2. I may remind you occasionally to speak one at a time so that we can all hear your comments. I am your guide, but this is a group discussion and so everyone should feel free to speak up. To keep us on schedule, I may change the subject or move ahead. Please stop me if you have something to add.
3. Again, we are very pleased that you have taken the time today to share your ideas with us. Before we begin, I would like to pass out the informed consent forms for your signature and answer any questions you may have about the focus group or the study.
Distribute the informed consent forms. Read the consent form out loud and answer any questions. Have participants sign the form and return before beginning the session.
D. Introductions
1. Please tell us your first name and how long you lived at [NAME OF DEVELOPMENT]?
2. Did any of you know each other before today?
I. RELOCATION
Think back to when you lived at [NAME OF DEVELOPMENT]…
1. HOW did you find out that your building was closing and you would have to move? [Probes: Did you receive a letter, flyer, meeting. Or did someone tell you about the move? Who spoke to you? What did they say?]
2. Did you or any other residents object to having to move? [Probes: If yes, what were the reasons you/others objected? What did you/others do about your objections?]
3. What options for moving did the housing authority offer you? [Probe: Did they tell you about Section 8? Other public housing? Any other options?]
4. Why did you choose to take a Section 8 housing voucher?
II. HOUSING SEARCH
1. When you were moving from [NAME OF DEVELOPMENT], what did you look for in a new neighborhood?
2. What were the biggest challenges you faced in searching for a new place to live? [Probe for financial, unit availability, transportation]
3. What kind of help did you receive from the housing authority in finding a new place to live?
4. Did you receive other kinds of help from the housing authority to help you make your move from [NAME OF DEVELOPMENT] such as help with moving expenses?
5. Did any organization other than the housing authority help you find a new place to live? If yes, who helped you and how did they help you?
6. Did your family, friends, or other people you know help you find a new place to live? If yes, who helped you and how did they help you?
7. How did you find the place where you live now?
8. Why did you choose the neighborhood where you live now?
9. If you had the opportunity to make your housing decision over, would you choose Section 8? If no, what would you choose and why?
III. CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD
1. How would you describe your current neighborhood to someone who isn’t familiar with it?
2. Do you consider yourself to be living in the same neighborhood as you did before? Do you consider yourself to be near or far from your previous neighborhood?
3. Do you feel comfortable in this new neighborhood? Why or Why not?
4. In what ways is this new neighborhood better than the old one for you? For children?
5. In what ways is this new neighborhood worse than the old one for you? For children?
6. How long do you intend to stay in this neighborhood?
7. What do you think people need to know or to have when they move from public housing to a neighborhood like where you live now?
IV. CONNECTIONS (services/institutions)
1. What kind of assets and services are available in your new neighborhood?
2. Do you have any organizations that you use in this new neighborhood for things you need?
3. Who helped you to connect with the services you need in this new place?
4. Are there organizations, institutions, or people that draw people together in your new community? If yes, what or who are they?
5. What kind of help do you think people may need that is not available in this neighborhood?
6. What have been the biggest challenges to getting the help or services that you need in this new place?
THANK YOU!
DON’T FORGET RECEIPTS