Metropolitan Housing and Communities Center Brief No. 9, June 2005 A Roof Over Their Heads: Public Housing Transformation Changes and Challenges for Public Housing Residents and the “Hard to House” Mary K. Cunningham, Susan J. Popkin, and Martha R. Burt The transformation of public housing will ideal, housing. According to recent research necessarily have profound effects on the by the Urban Institute, a substantial propor- lives of thousands of very vulnerable fam- tion of these residents may not fit easily into ilies.1 For three decades, public housing existing relocation options for HOPE VI served as the housing of last resort, with households, particularly vouchers or new federal regulations increasingly favoring mixed-income communities that may the neediest households. But during the require the household to pass strict screen- The challenge facing 1990s, the federal government dramatically ing requirements (i.e., criminal background changed its policy for housing the poor. checks, drug tests, or work requirements).4 policymakers and Under the new approach, largely driven by Further, many families awaiting relocation housing authority the $5 billion HOPE VI program begun in will need special assistance beyond the typi- 1992, the U.S. Department of Housing and cal relocation package to help them move administrators is how Urban Development (HUD) began promot- from their current units into safe and stable ing mixed-income housing and relocating housing. to address the needs of families through housing vouchers to pre- The hard to house include a range of vent the concentration of troubled, low- high-need households, such as grandparents the hard to house in a income households (see page 7).2 caring for grandchildren, families with dis- time of shrinking The goals of the HOPE VI program abled members, very large households, and include “improving the living environment multiple-barrier families coping with an resources. for residents of severely distressed public array of difficult problems. For these vulner- housing” and “providing housing that will able families, the same public housing trans- avoid or decrease the concentration of very formation that may offer better housing and low income families.” Our most recent new opportunities for other tenants can be research shows that the majority of HOPE just one more blow—leaving families in VI relocatees have received vouchers, with their distressed communities, facing the most of the remainder moving to other tra- specter of losing their assistance altogether. ditional public housing developments Because housing continues to become (Cunningham 2004). For many residents, increasingly unaffordable for low-income this relocation means that HOPE VI has families, these families are left with few met its basic goals; most HOPE VI re- good alternatives outside of public housing.5 locatees report living in better housing in In this brief, we lay out a strategy for dramatically safer, less poor neighborhoods effectively serving “hard-to-house” resi- (Comey 2004; Buron 2004).3 dents who remain in distressed public Despite these successes, however, public housing or who are experiencing hardship housing transformation has largely failed to as a result of HOPE VI–related relocation. address the more complex needs of “hard- Using evidence from our research on HOPE to-house” residents who have relied on pub- VI families, we identify the different needs lic housing as a source of stable, if less than that make it difficult for some residents to Urban Institute a nonpartisan economic and social policy research organization 1 Metropolitan Housing and Communities successfully transition to mixed-income or Ⅵ Multiple-barrier households. These private-market housing. Next, we use this households are long-term public housing evidence to find out how many residents residents (lived in public housing for living in HOPE VI developments fall into more than 10 years) who are unemployed these categories and require special assis- but of working age, and who do not have tance or support during and after reloca- a high school diploma. They may also tion. We conclude with recommended have a drug or alcohol problem, a mental strategies that can meet the needs of these health problem, or a criminal record. vulnerable families and help ensure better Multiple-barrier households may have outcomes for all original residents. trouble finding a unit with vouchers and will most likely not meet the screening Defining “Hard-to-House” Tenants requirements to return to a new mixed- income development. Families that may need additional services Ⅵ Disabled households. These house- or alternative housing models are often holds identify themselves as disabled in referred to as “hard to house.”6 It is un- the survey, identify someone living in clear, however, how many residents of their household as disabled, or report severely distressed public housing fit into receiving SSI. Public housing residents this category, largely because the term has who are mentally or physically disabled never been defined or quantified. Cate- will require more intensive relocation gorizing specific groups of residents as services. They may require accessible hard to house runs the risk of gross over- units, which are difficult to find in the generalization. Some may even find the private market and may not exist in label “hard to house” pejorative. We new, mixed-income developments. should be clear that we are talking about Disabled individuals may qualify for only a subset of residents of distressed pub- special disabled housing, but families are lic housing. However, without understand- excluded from these developments; ing the factors that make residents “hard to those with disabled members may well house,” policymakers and practitioners require accessible units with multiple cannot develop strategies to address their bedrooms, which are extremely difficult needs. Likewise, without knowing the to find. Residents moving temporarily magnitude of the problem, housing author- or permanently with vouchers may ities and city agencies cannot effectively need assistance identifying new medical plan services for these residents. facilities or transportation to care. Sometimes when researchers or practi- Ⅵ Elderly households. These households tioners think of the term “hard to house,” are age 65 or older and do not include they are referring to truly homeless fami- children. Many older residents living in lies or individuals. We use it here instead public housing have aged in place and to refer to families that have been relying are living in family units. Given the on public housing as the housing of last poor health of many distressed public resort and are at risk of losing this housing housing residents (Popkin et al. 2002; because of public housing transformation. Harris and Kaye 2004), these residents For the purposes of this analysis, we define are likely frail and require housing that “hard-to-house” tenants as public housing offers on-site supportive services. At residents who are at risk of losing their hous- many public housing developments, ing for reasons that go beyond affordability. seniors have been provided their own These residents have personal or family buildings (senior housing) or other circumstances that make it difficult for project-based assistance, but service- them to fit into standard relocation options enriched housing, such as independent and they require or are best served by living with care and assisted living with alternative housing models. services on site, is rare. To understand how many residents Ⅵ “Grandfamilies.” These households may face special challenges in relocation, consist of a single elderly adult (older we have identified different sets of charac- than 65 years) who is the primary care- teristics that could place residents at risk giver for one or more children. A grow- for housing problems. Our categories are ing number of families in public housing neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive, are nontraditional households, such as but provide a useful tool for assessing the custodial grandparents or persons caring magnitude of the problem: for related foster children. Some may 2 Metropolitan Housing and Communities even be children caring for their aging Estimating the Size of the Hard- grandparents. These households, partic- to-House Population ularly custodial grandparents who are ready for senior housing, need more To estimate the proportion of residents liv- supportive living environments than are ing in distressed public housing who meet available in traditional public housing or our definition of hard to house, we used the private market. Senior housing is data from two large-scale Urban Institute studies of HOPE VI residents awaiting likely inappropriate for grandparents relocation: the HOPE VI Panel Study, taking care of grandchildren; like fami- which includes five different public hous- lies with disabled members, these house- ing sites (see page 7); and the Residents at holds may require accessible units with Risk study, which focuses on Chicago multiple bedrooms. They may also (Popkin, Cunningham, and Woodley 2003). require supportive housing that links Although each survey used slightly dif- housing to other types of assistance. ferent measures, we were able to identify Ⅵ Large households. These households residents in each sample who fall into our need four or more bedrooms to meet categories and likely will require either HUD standards for adequate housing.7 additional relocation assistance or alterna-