Clear all

10 results found

reorder grid_view

CHA Residents and the Plan for Transformation

January 1, 2013

This series of policy briefs presents findings from more than a decade of research on the people who lived in Chicago Housing Authority properties when the agencylaunched its Plan for Transformation in October 1999. The ongoing, multiyear effort sought to improve resident well-being by renovating or demolishing decaying public housing properties and replacing them with new, mixed-income development.

An Improved Living Environment, But...

January 1, 2013

In 2000, the CHA received a HOPE VI grant to revitalize the Madden/Wells community by demolishing the nearly 3,000-unit dilapidated development and replacing it with a new mixed-income community named Oakwood Shores. Another development, Dearborn Homes, was slated for revitalization a few years later and was often used to house residents from other CHA developments targeted for demolition who were reluctant to leave CHA housing or had not qualified for mixed-income housing or vouchers.The plan for Dearborn Homes was to substantially rehabilitate its buildings.For over 10 years, the Urban Institute has been researching the outcomes of residents from these developments. This brief examines whether and to what extent the original residents of these distressed developments ended up in an improved living environment 3 to 10 years after relocating from Madden/Wells (the Panel Study sample) or 1 to 3 years after relocating from either Madden/Wells or the Dearborn Homes (the Demonstration sample).In general, these CHA families live in better housing in substantially safer, but still very poor, neighborhoods. Yet these gains are fragile; relocatees experience significant material hardship, and too many of those who have moved with vouchers live in neighborhoods where drug traf?cking and violent crime remain significant problems.

After Wells: Where Are the Residents Now?

August 10, 2010

Examines the types of housing residents of distressed public housing relocated to -- the private market, mixed-income or traditional public housing, or unassisted -- and neighborhood crime, poverty, and joblessness data, as well as satisfaction.

The CHA's Plan for Transformation: How Have Residents Fared?

August 10, 2010

Summarizes findings from studies on how relocation from distressed public housing changed former residents' quality of life, including living conditions, safety, poverty, employment, health, well-being of children, and satisfaction. Outlines implications.

Transformed Housing: Major Improvements in CHA Residents' Quality of Life

August 10, 2010

Examines changes in living conditions for distressed public housing residents who moved to mixed-income or rehabilitated developments or the private market. Recommends vigilant monitoring by the housing authority to prevent deterioration over time.

Are HOPE VI Families at Greater Risk for Homelessness?

June 1, 2007

Examines whether federal HOPE VI relocation initiatives increase the chances that original residents will be at greater risk of homelessness. Based on surveys of residents at five Hope VI public housing sites.

Housing Choice Vouchers: How HOPE VI Families Fared in the Private Market

June 1, 2007

Examines the relocation experiences of HOPE VI housing program residents who used a voucher to find new homes, both in and out of public housing. Based on surveys of residents at five Hope VI public housing sites.

Seven Strategies for Successfully Marketing and Stabilizing the Occupancy of Mixed-Income/Mixed-Race Properties - Summary Report

June 16, 2006

Mixed-Income rental properties that include extremely low-income households (below 30 percent of AMI) are a valuable strategy for community health. They simultaneously address two critical challenges: housing for those most in need and desegregating poverty. Understanding how to operate mixed-income apartments profitably is important to increase the development and underwriting of these properties.With the generous support of the Ford Foundation, NeighborWorks America undertook this study of management and marketing practices of successful mixed-income properties that have served extremely low-income families while maintaining positive cash flow for at least five years.This report describes seven strategies used by these properties to stabilize and maintain high occupancy rates with healthy operating budgets. For each strategy, we provide concrete implementation examples.

Strategies for Successfully Marketing and Stabilizing the Occupancy of Mixed-Income/Mixed-Race Properties: A Case Study of Montevista in Milpitas, California

November 30, 2005

Montevista was built in 1998 and is a 306-unit mixed-income, mixed-race property in Milpitas, California. Milpitas is a small city outside San Jose that boomed along with the rest of Silicon Valley in the 1990s and then cooled off in the early 2000s. It remains a relatively prosperous, low crime, and low unemployment city.Montevista contains a nearly even mix of affordable tax credit and market-rate units. The residents are economically diverse with household incomes that range from below $10,000 to over $200,000. The residents are also racially diverse with substantial shares of Asians, Hispanics, and whites.

Strategies for Successfully Marketing and Stabilizing the Occupancy of Mixed-Income/Mixed-Race Properties: A Case Study of Peters Colony in Carrollton, Texas

November 30, 2005

Peters Colony is a 160-unit mixed-income, mixed-race development located in Carrollton, Texas, a relatively prosperous suburb north of Dallas. The property is nearly evenly split between households with income (1) less than 30 percent of the family-sized adjusted area median income (AMI), (2) households between 30 and 50 percent of AMI, and (3) households between 50 and 80 percent of AMI. One-third of the units have no income limits, but the owner voluntarily limits occupancy to households with income below 80 percent of the median at initial occupancy. The property was purchased and modestly rehabbed by Foundation Communities in 1995.