Atlanta Housing - Georgia Institute of Technology

FINAL REPORT
Impact of the Mixed-Income Revitalization of Grady Homes:
Atlanta Housing Authority, 2011
Submitted to:
Submitted by:
The Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta
Thomas D. Boston, PhD
Professor of Economics
School of Economics
Date: July, 2011
In Fulfillment of Grant Final Report #5126656 (R8881)
School of Economics
221 Bobby Dodd Way
Atlanta, GA 30339
Thomas.boston@econ.gatech.edu
1 | P a g e

Researchers
Dr Thomas D Boston is a Prof. of Economics at Georgia Institute of technology (Georgia Tech).
He served as the principal investigator on this research project. The co-principle investigator
was Dr. Catherine L Ross, the Harry West Professor of City and Regional Planning and Director
of the Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development (CQGRD) at Georgia Tech. Major
research support was also provided by Jason Barringer and Dr. Myungje Woo, research scientist
at CQGRD; Mr. Linje Boston, a statistician and COO of EuQuant; and numerous graduate
research assistants. Ms. Elke Davidson facilitated the 2007 focus group sessions and Dr.
Thomas D Boston facilitated the 2008 in 2009 focus group sessions. All focus groups were
facilitated with the assistance of the staff at CQGRD.
Acknowledgments
The research team wishes to thank the staff at the Atlanta Housing Authority for the
tremendous support and assistance provided during the conduct of this research. We
particularly thank Ms. Renée Glover, President and Chief Executive Officer of AHA; Mr. Lenny
Koltochnik, Policy Research Director; and Dr. E. Mike Proctor, Chief Operating Officer and Chief
Policy Officer. We also thank the many staff persons who facilitated our numerous requests for
data and information. This report would not have been possible without their assistance. While
their assistance was indispensable, the research team takes full responsibility for all errors and
omissions.
2 | P a g e

Executive Summary
Public housing in Atlanta no longer exists, as we once knew it. Only two of AHA’s original 25 low
income public housing family projects were not demolished between 1995 and 2010. LIPH
developments have been replaced by public housing eligible units in mixed-income
communities, tenant-based housing choice vouchers (HCVs), and project based rental
assistance (PBRA). The Grady Homes Revitalization Master Plan involved the demolition and
revitalization of Grady Homes and University Homes (LIPH family developments) as well as
Antoine Graves and Antoine Graves Annex (LIPH senior developments). This evaluation
examined the impact of Grady Homes Revitalization.
To accurately assess the impact of Grady Revitalization, the report examined major aspects of
AHA's CATALYST Plan -which is the authority’s blueprint for transforming all low income
housing in Atlanta.
Research Objectives
The evaluation sought to determine whether or not the revitalization of Grady helped AHA
achieve the goals of CATALYST which are as Follows:
3 | P a g e
1. End the practice of concentrating the poor in distressed neighborhoods
2. Create healthy sustainable communities
3. Create market competitive mixed-income communities with affordable housing
opportunities seamlessly integrated.
4. Create new housing developments through public/private partnerships
5. Assist residents in attaining their life goals and in achieving self-sufficiency
The report first established the baseline socioeconomic conditions and neighborhood
characteristics of families who lived at Grady Homes, University Homes, Antoine Graves Annex
and Antoine Graves in 2004. For convenience, these four properties are referred to as the
Grady Revitalization. Several advanced econometric models were used to evaluate the impact
of the revitalization. The data analysis framework included all households that received housing

assistance between 2004 and 2010. The quantitative analysis was supplemented with focus
group interviews.
The research found that the impact of Grady revitalization enhanced the attainment of AHA’s
CATALYST goal. The empirical evidence of this was documented by the following outcomes:
Finding 1
Evidence
AHA significantly expanded and improved the housing choices and quality of
neighborhoods that low income families had access to by replacing LIPH
developments (such as Grady Homes, University Homes, Antoine Graves, and
Antoine Graves Annex) with affordable units in mixed-income developments,
Project Based Rental Assistance (PBRA), Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV), and
Supportive Housing opportunities.
In 2004, the baseline for this evaluation, AHA had in its inventory 18 low income
public housing family developments (LIPH), 9 mixed-income revitalized
developments and 5 project based rental assistance properties (PBRA). By 2010
all but 2 LIPH family developments were demolished, 20 mixed-income
developments existed and PBRA was provided at 25 different properties.
In 2004, 4,527 AHA householders lived in LIPH family developments and 2,754
lived in LIPH senior developments. By 2010, only 90 householders lived in LIPH
family developments and 1,875 lived in LIPH senior developments.
In 2004, 457 householders lived at Grady Homes. By 2010 those same
householders had relocated as follows: 75.6% used tenant based vouchers, 9.6%
lived in PBRA family developments, 8.9% lived in mixed-income family
developments, 3.0% lived in PBRA elderly developments, and 2.2% lived in
mixed-income elderly developments
In 2004, there were 1,262 householders who lived in all four properties affected
by Grady Revitalization, 75.4% of those householders lived in LIPH family
developments and 24.6% lived in LIPH elderly developments. By 2010, only .3%
lived in LIPH family developments and 1.9% in LIPH elderly developments. In
contrast, 68.4% used tenant-based housing vouchers, 7.3% lived in mixedincome
family developments, 6.6% used project based vouchers in family
4 | P a g e

Finding 2
Evidence
Finding 3
Evidence
properties, 3.2% lived in mixed-income elderly developments, 9.0% used project
based vouchers in elderly properties and 3.3% lived in special-needs properties.
When public housing projects were demolished, families relocated to
neighborhoods that were significantly lower in poverty and had much better
housing options.
By tracking all families longitudinally and coding their physical relocation with
GIS software, it was determined that between 2004 and 2010, 86.3% of
householders affected by Grady revitalization relocated to neighborhoods that
had lower poverty rates than where they lived in 2004, 4.2% relocated to
neighborhoods that had the same poverty rate in 2010 and 2004, and 9.5%
relocated to neighborhoods where the poverty rate was higher in 2010 than in
2004.
The self-sufficiency of families increased because they had access to better
housing options and because of the work compliance policy. Better housing
opportunities and the CATALYST work compliance policy increased adult
employment significantly and thereby improved the earnings, household
income, tenant rent payments, and other indicators of upward mobility. The
opportunity to live in a mixed-income development or to use a housing voucher
(as opposed to living in a public housing project) was the single most important
factor in improving employment outcomes and as a result, family selfsufficiency.
In 2004, prior to the implementation of the work compliance policy, 44.1% of
householders affected by Grady Revitalization were employed full-time or parttime.
The work compliance policy was fully implemented in 2005. By 2007, the
HOH employment rate reached 61.8%. In 2010, it decreased to 47.5%,
presumably as a result of the severe recession.
5 | P a g e

A similar pattern was recorded for all AHA householders who were in the target
population. Specifically, 52.1% were employed in 2004 and that percentage
reach 63.6% in 2007. However, by 2010, the percentage had decreased to
55.6%.
In 2010 the 4,055 HOHs in the target population who were employed worked on
average 32 hours per week. The hours worked per week decreased slightly between
2007 and 2010, from 34 hours to 32 hours.
A Generalized Estimation Equation was used to examine the factors that
influenced employment. The model included observations on all heads of
households who were in the target population between 2004 and 2010 (33,051
householders). Repeated observations were taken on the same household and
as such the modeling procedure controlled for selectivity effects. The results
were as follows:
The work compliance policy increased the odds of a householder working by
17%.
However, living in a mixed-income development as opposed to a LIPH raised
the odds of being employed by 400%. Likewise, using a housing choice
voucher as opposed to living in a LIPH raised the odds of employment by
76%.
Women were 1.7 times more likely to be employed than were men.
Receiving public assistance lowered the odds of working by 87%.
As individuals aged, their odds of working lowered, i.e. by 3% each year.
Every additional bedroom that a family required raised the odds of the
householder working by 7%.
Median household income of families affected by Grady revitalization increased
from $7,080 in 2004 to $9,186 in 2010, or by 28%. Over the same timeframe,
Atlanta Area Median Income increased by only 13.1%. Nevertheless, the average
AHA householder was still extremely poor in 2010. Over one half had household
incomes that were less than or equal to only 12.7% of the AMI in Atlanta, which
was $71,800 in 2010.
6 | P a g e

Finding 4
Evidence
Average rent paid by householders affected by Grady revitalization increased
from $177 to $256, or by 44%.
Householders’ dependency on public assistance decreased from 12.7% to 2.8%.
Prior to the implementation of the QLI initiative in 2005, which abolished all
remaining LIPH family developments by 2010, householders who lived in LIPH
had the highest probability of exiting housing assistance. Their exits were not
associated with the achieving higher levels of self-sufficiency because families in
LIPH had the lowest self-sufficiency levels. Over time, as families relocated to
mixed-income developments or used housing choice vouchers, they achieved
much higher levels of self-sufficiency. They also experience the greatest
likelihood of exiting housing assistance and becoming self-sufficient.
The self-sufficiency of householders improved significantly as a result of their
relocation from public housing developments to mixed-income communities or
by using housing choice vouchers. Among householders affected by Grady
revitalization, the highest rates of employment in 2010 occurred among those
who relocated with project-based vouchers 71.4%; followed by householders
who lived in mixed-income housing, 53.8%.
In 2004, householders affected by Grady revitalization had annual earnings of
$11,958. In 2010, earnings increased to $14,462. Earnings were highest among
individuals from Grady who relocated to mixed-income developments ($18,195)
and secondly for families who used tenant based vouchers ($14,381). Overall,
earnings increased by 21% over the seven-year evaluation time frame.
For all persons who were registered with AHA between 2004 and 2010, earnings
increased from $13,429 to $16,311, or by 21%. The highest earnings in 2010
were achieved by persons who lived in mixed-income developments ($18,612).
The second highest earnings were attained by families who received projectbased
vouchers ($16,224) and thirdly by families who received tenant based
vouchers ($16,117).
7 | P a g e

A Cox Hazard Model with Time-Dependent Covariance was used to examine the
exit pattern (between 2004 and 2010) of all 18,838 householders who were
registered with AHA in 2004. The results were as follows:
Householders who ported out had odds of exiting housing assistance that
was 1.5 times greater than householders who did not Port.
The odds of women exiting housing assistance was 23% lower than they
were for men.
Disability status was not statistically significant in regards to the odds of an
individual exiting housing assistance.
Each additional year of age decreased the odds of exiting housing assistance
by 3%.
An additional bedroom in a rental apartment decreased the odds of exiting
by 17%.
The marital status of a householder was not statistically significant in
influencing the odds of exiting.
The employment status of the householder was not significantly related to
the odds of exiting housing assistance.
Six variables recorded the impact of the type of housing assistance on the
odds of exiting. The first three variables were not influenced by time while
the latter three variables were.
The results indicate that the odds of exiting housing assistance were greatest
for families who lived in LIPH developments. The exit rate was measured
before demolition had occurred. Initially, householders who lived in mixedincome
developments had 74% lower odds of exiting than householders who
lived in LIPH. Likewise, voucher holders experienced 55% lower odds of
exiting than did individuals who lived in LIPH. However, when families
relocated from LIPH to vouchers and mixed-income communities, they
achieved greater levels of self-sufficiency and their exit odds increased
significantly. Over time, the exit odds were 1.3 times greater for individuals
in mixed-income housing than for individuals in LIPH. Similarly, householders
8 | P a g e

who received housing vouchers had odds that were 1.12 times greater than
were the exit odds of families in LIPH.
Finding 5
Evidence
In 2007 there were 97 HOHs who participated in focus groups, in 2008 there
were 94 participants and in 2009, 84 persons participated. About 30% of still
active Grady HOHs participated each year. Focus group interviews indicated that
when householders relocated from Grady Homes they rated their new
environments superior to the environment they left at Grady Homes.
Participants were asked whether or not AHA made a promise to assist
householders during the relocation process and whether AHA fulfilled its
promise. The response indicated that 80.5% of householders felt that AHA made
a promise to provide assistance and lived up to its promise while 19.5% felt that
it did not.
Averaging across the years, about two thirds (65.3%) of householders felt a lot
better or a little better as a result of having moved away from Grady Homes.
Only 14.3% said that they felt a little worse or a lot worse and the remainder
(20%) felt no different.
Sixty percent (60.0%) indicated that their children felt better today than when
they lived at Grady Homes. Only 11.8% said that their children felt today worse
than when they lived at Grady; 60.0% of householders felt healthier today than
when they lived at Grady Homes. Only 10.5% said that they did not feel as
healthy today in comparison to when they lived at Grady Homes; 72% felt a lot
better or a little better in regards to their personal safety after having moved
away from Grady and 17.3% felt worse about the move in this regard. Finally,
65.2% felt better about their children's safety while only 10.9% felt worse about
their children’s safety.
Participants were asked whether or not the household had difficulty in
identifying a landlord who was willing to rent. In 2007, 64% of householders
indicated that this was not a problem at all. The respective figures for 2008 in
2009 were 55% and 59%.
9 | P a g e

In 2008 and 2009, respondents were asked if they encountered a problem in
getting assistance from AHA to relocate; 70% and 69% respectively said that this
was not a problem.
Regarding the difficulty in finding an apartment that was affordable, 56%, 61%,
and 67% in the respective years said that this was not a problem.
Regarding the difficulty of finding an apartment in a safe neighborhood the
respective responses indicating that this is not a problem were 34%, 40%, and
51%. The responses to this question indicated that householders had the
greatest difficulty in this area.
Finding an apartment that was big enough to accommodate the household size
was one of the least difficult challenges: 70%, 64%, and 72% indicated that this
was not a problem.
The general feeling was that the requirement to relocate from the Grady was
initially stressful and challenging. In the beginning only a very small percentage
openly embraced the opportunity to move; those persons who did felt that the
revitalization of Grady afforded them an option to relocate to a safer, quieter
and more wholesome environment for their kids. But the overwhelming majority
of householders were initially uncertain about the future as a result of the
demolition of Grady Homes.
Residents who lived at Grady for some time indicated that they enjoyed the
sense of community and the convenience, i.e. living within walking distance to
the hospital, stores, work, and/or MARTA. However, by 2004 Grady had become
a very dangerous environment in which to live. The environment was usually
very noisy and there were regular shootouts among drug dealers.
Householders indicated that AHA gave them an option regarding the type of
housing assistance they received upon leaving Grady and about 90% chose
housing vouchers. More than one half of the householders indicated that when
they initially relocated from Grady, they wanted to return once the property was
revitalized. However, as time passed and they had the experience of using
housing vouchers, about two thirds of the householders no longer wanted to
move back to the revitalized property. They felt that housing vouchers gave
10 | P a g e

them much more flexibility to choose where they wanted to live and about 2-in-
10 had secured a rental house, which they liked a great deal.
Most householders indicated that they had very good and committed relocation
advisors and family support specialist.
A minority of householders moved into properties that that were foreclosed
within months - they noted that the landlords tried to hide, from AHA
inspectors, the physical and financial condition of the property. As a result, a
surprising number of interviewees had to make multiple moves, which proved to
be more challenging because they did not have the same resources and
assistance available to them as during the first move out of Grady.
While most participants greatly missed the strong sense of community they had
at Grady, overall they felt that the environments of the new rental were much
better than the environment at Grady Homes and they were glad that they made
the move.
11 | P a g e

Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Section 1 Purpose and Background ...................................................................................................... 15
Purpose of the Grady Homes Revitalization Evaluation ......................................................................... 15
Grady Revitalization as part of AHA’s MTW Program ............................................................................. 16
Section 2 AHA’s Rationale for Revitalizing Grady Homes .................................................................... 21
Historical Background ............................................................................................................................. 21
AHA’s Mixed-income Revitalization Progress ......................................................................................... 25
Grady Re-occupancy Policy and Resident’s Right of Return ................................................................... 29
Section 3 Grady Revitalization Master Plan ......................................................................................... 31
Revitalization Master Plan ...................................................................................................................... 32
The CSS program Component ................................................................................................................. 33
Section 4 Methodology and Definition of Terms ................................................................................. 35
Monitoring and Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 35
Households vs. Families .......................................................................................................................... 35
Types of Housing Assistance ................................................................................................................... 36
Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 36
Research Data ......................................................................................................................................... 39
Section 5 2004 Baseline Characteristics for Grady Revitalization ........................................................ 41
2004 characteristics of Grady Homes ................................................................................... 41
12 | P a g e

Comparing Grady to other communities .............................................................................. 42
Household Income Characteristics at the Baseline .............................................................. 47
Household Employment Characteristics at the Baseline ...................................................... 51
Neighborhood Characteristics That the Baseline ................................................................. 52
Section 6 Change in the Type of Housing Assistance, 2004 - 2010 ....................................................... 55
Section 7 Change in the Indicators of Upward Mobility, 2004 - 2010 .................................................. 61
Household Income .................................................................................................................................. 61
Average Tenant Rent .............................................................................................................................. 63
Dependency on Public Assistance ........................................................................................................... 66
Section 8 Impact of CATALYST on Employment, Education and Upward Mobility .............................. 69
CATALYST Work/Program Requirement Policy ....................................................................................... 69
Employment Assistance and Training Outcomes ................................................................................... 70
Average Hours Worked per Week .......................................................................................................... 72
Factors That Influence Employment Outcomes ..................................................................................... 73
Earnings Profile ....................................................................................................................................... 79
Education Services .................................................................................................................................. 81
Other Services ......................................................................................................................................... 83
Section 9: Family Relocation Outcomes and Neighborhood Characteristics2004 - 2010 ..................... 84
Spatial Mapping of Relocation Outcomes .............................................................................................. 88
The Community Attribute Index Score for Grady Revitalization ............................................................ 98
Section 10 Factors that Influence Exits from AHA Housing Assistance ................................................ 100
Section 11 Focus Group Survey Responses .......................................................................................... 104
13 | P a g e

Overall Summary of Focus Group Discussions.................................................................... 105
Overall summary of Focus Group Survey Results ............................................................... 108
Focus Group Response Rate ............................................................................................... 109
Detailed Summary of Focus Group Qualitative Responses 2007, 2008 and 2009 ............................... 123
Formal on-site meetings: ...................................................................................................................... 124
Relocation and Housing Search ............................................................................................................ 126
Current Neighborhood .......................................................................................................................... 129
Grady Homes......................................................................................................................................... 129
Volatility in the Section 8 Rental Market .............................................................................................. 131
2008 Group by the Group Responses ................................................................................................... 131
2009 High-Level Focus Group Summary ............................................................................................... 136
14 | P a g e

Section 1
Purpose and Background
Purpose of the Grady Homes Revitalization Evaluation
The Grady Homes Revitalization Master Plan included the transformation of the four low
income public housing projects into a mixed-income/mixed-use community known as Auburn
Point. Grady was constructed in 1942 and, until it was demolished in 2005, it provided
subsidized rental housing to 457 householders and 1051 persons. The master plan for the
revitalization of Grady also included the demolition and revitalization of the following
developments: University Homes – a low income public housing family development that was
constructed in 1937. University provided housing assistance to 495 householders and 1192
persons; Antoine Graves, a LIPH senior development that was constructed in 1965 and housed
210 householders and 214 persons; and Antoine Graves Annex, a LIPH senior development that
was constructed in 1974. In 2004 it housed 100 householders and 101 persons. The Grady
revitalization included all four public housing developments. Therefore, when the phrase
“Grady Revitalization” is used in this report hereinafter, it refers collectively to the revitalization
of Grady Homes, University Homes, Antoine Graves, and Antoine Graves Annex.
The evaluation seeks to determine whether or not the revitalization of Grady helped AHA
achieve the goals of the Catalyst Plan which are as Follows:
a. End the practice of concentrating the poor in distressed, isolated
neighborhoods.
b. Create healthy sustainable communities using a comprehensive approach that
supports positive outcomes for families and especially children.
c. Create mixed-income communities that are competitive in the marketplace
and have affordable housing opportunities seamlessly integrated.
15 | P a g e

d. Create new housing developments and subsidize housing opportunities
through public/private partnerships using mixed funding sources and market
rate principles.
e. Assist residents in attaining their life goals and in achieving self-sufficiency and
educational advancement.
The report also provides answers to the following questions: When public housing projects
were demolished, did families relocate to better neighborhoods? Did mandatory work
compliance policies increase employment, household income and other indicators of
household mobility? Did access to better housing options in higher quality neighborhoods
improve upward mobility? Finally, did the demolition of Grady and other public housing
developments increase the risk to families of losing housing assistance?
Grady Revitalization as part of AHA’s MTW Program
Grady revitalization was not an isolated event. Instead it was part of an all-encompassing
strategy AHA refers to as The CATALYST Plan, or more simply CATALYST. It is the blueprint for
AHA’s Moving to Work (MTW) Demonstration Program.
Congress enacted the MTW program in 1996 and HUD implemented the program in 1999.
Today, only 33 of the nation's 3,300 Housing Authorities have been selected to participate in
the MTW program. The 33 PHAs however managed over 11% and 13% of all public housing
units and housing vouchers respectively. Together they account for $2.7 billion in voucher
funding, $730 million in public housing operating fund and $180 million in capital funds 1 . MTW
status gives public housing authorities exemptions and waivers that allow them to the flexibility
to use their funding to design and test innovative approaches to delivering housing assistance
to low-income families; approaches that are tied more closely to local conditions and
circumstances. A caveat of MTW selection is that housing authorities must provide, "assistance
to substantially the same total number of eligible low-income families as would have been
served had the funding amounts not been combined.” 2
1 Emily Cadik and A. Nogic, Report to Congress. Moving to Work: Interim Policy Applications and the
Future of the Demonstration (HUD, Office of Policy Research and Development: August 2010). 3
2 US HUD, Moving to Work (MTW) FAQ
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/mtw/faq
16 | P a g e

In exchange for MTW designation, HUD expects agencies to design a range of "Activities" that
will help them achieve the mutually agreed upon goals (of HUD and PHAs) and the statutory
objectives of the MTW program, which are as follows: 1. “To reduce cost and achieve greater
cost effectiveness in federal expenditures; 2. To give incentives to families with children where
the head of household is working, seeking work, or is preparing for work by participating in job
training, educational programs, or programs that assist people to obtain employment and
become economically self-sufficient; 3. To increase housing choices for low-income families.”
Each MTW HA is required to develop an "Annual Plan”, which outlines the strategies and
activities that will be used to achieve its MTW goals. They must also evaluate the effectiveness
and impact of the activities on the attainment of the MTW goals.
The Moving-To-Work (MTW) Demonstration Program was authorized by Congress for the
purpose of providing a framework for high performing local housing authorities to explore
more effective and efficient ways of delivering housing assistance. In June 2004, AHA
submitted to HUD an MTW plan entitled CATALYST: Rethinking Community Building. CATALYST
was approved by HUD in September 2004 and the plan’s major focus was on de-concentrating
poverty, revitalizing neighborhoods through the use of public/private partnerships and real
estate market principles, and creating self-sufficient families who live in healthy affordable
communities.
The MTW agreement provided the Authority significant financial, legal, and regulatory flexibility
to implement local solutions in providing affordable housing. Under the agreement, AHA is
obligated to make measurable progress towards achieving the previously stated goals of the
Catalyst Plan.
One major component of the Plan’s objective (referred to as QLI or the Quality of Life Initiative)
was to demolish all public housing family developments in AHA’s inventory and relocate
families using a combination of mixed-income rental units as well as project based and tenant
based rental assistance. CATALYST also aimed at streamlining AHA’s administrative operations.
In reality, AHA’s mixed-income revitalization strategy began in 1994 and was then referred to
as the Olympic Legacy Program. Prior to implementation of that program, AHA operated 44 low
income public housing projects; 25 were family developments and 19 were reserved for elderly
householders. By 2004, seven of the original 25 public housing family developments had been
demolished and replaced with nine new mixed-income revitalized communities.
17 | P a g e

Still, there remained 18 fully occupied low income public housing family properties within
AHA’s inventory in 2004. To fully accomplish its objectives, AHA introduced the Quality of Life
Initiative (QLI) in 2005. QLI was a new CATALYST activity designed to demolish the remaining
public housing developments. As a result, by 2010 only two of the original 25 LIPH family
developments were still operating, as were only 12 of the original 19 senior developments.
By demolishing all public housing developments within a relatively short period of time (i.e.
2004 - 2010) the Quality of Life Initiative (QLI) had a profound effect on public housing assisted
families and the communities where they lived. In 2004 there were nine mixed-income
revitalized developments, by 2010 there were 20. In 2004 there were 18 low income public
housing family developments – by 2010 only two remained. In 2004 AHA provided project
based rental assistance (PBRA) in five different developments. By 2010, project based
assistance was available in 25 different properties. Finally, in 2010 AHA provided assistance to
householders with special needs in seven developments, where no such assistance was
available in 2004, see Figure 1.
Figure 1 Number of Different Developments by Type of AHA Assistance, 2004 -2010
2004 2007 2010
Number Number Number
MIXED-INCOME COMMUNITIES: FAMILY 9 13 20
PROJECT BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE: FAMILY 3 3 16
AFFORDABLE PUBLIC HOUSING: FAMILY 18 15 2
HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS: TENANT BASED 1 1 1
MIXED-INCOME COMMUNITIES: ELDERLY 0 0 3
PROJECT BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE: ELDERLY 2 2 9
HIGHRISE DEVELOPMENTS: ELDERLY 15 14 13
SPECIAL NEEDS PROPERTIES: MAJOR FOCUS 0 0 7
18 | P a g e

Total 48 48 71
These radical changes in the type of housing assistance affected large numbers of households
and persons. In 2004, 1212 householders received assistance in mixed-income developments,
which represented 6.5% of all assisted householders. By 2010 the number had increased to
2,286 householders, or 13.0% of the total. Even more dramatic changes occurred for the 4,527
householders who lived in low income public housing developments in 2004. By 2010 this
number had been reduced to 90. The reduction represented a change from 23.9% of all
householders to only.5%. During the same timeframe, the share of families receiving project
based rental assistance increased from 1.0% to 11.3%, see Figure 2.
The families who lived at Grady Homes were among those affected by the policy changes AHA
implemented between 2004 and 2010. For this reason, examining the full scope of the
transformation that occurred is indispensable to effectively evaluating how the policy changes
impacted families who were part of the revitalization of Grady Homes.
Figure 2. Change in the Type of AHA Housing Assistance, 2004 - 2010
2004 2010
TYPE OF ASSISTANCE Number % Number %
Mixed-income: Family Housing 1,212 6.4% 2,286 13.0%
PBRA: Family Housing 48 .3% 950 5.4%
LIPH: Family Housing 4527 23.9% 90 .5%
HCV: Tenant-based 10,263 54.2% 10,498 59.5%
19 | P a g e

Family Assistance Subtotal 16,050 84.8% 13,824 78.4%
Mixed-income: Elderly 0 .0% 301 1.7%
PBRA: Elderly 130 .7% 1,036 5.9%
LIPH: Elderly 2,754 14.5% 1,936 11.0%
Elderly Assistance Subtotal 2,884 15.2% 3,273 18.6%
Special Needs Properties 0 .0% 532 3.0%
Total 18,934 100.0% 17,629 100.0%
20 | P a g e

Section 2
AHA’s Rationale for Revitalizing Grady Homes
Historical Background
In 1934, land was appropriated to build the nation’s first public housing projects. There were
several objectives of public housing. These included helping to clear away some of the nation’s
worst slums, providing temporary housing to low income and unemployed workers, and
helping to stimulate job creation and economic growth in the nation’s ailing economy - which
had by 1933 entered the depths of the Great depression.
Grady Homes was built in 1942 to accommodate low income African American families.
Located at 100 Bell Street immediately East of the heart of downtown Atlanta, the
development was originally constructed on 22.8 acres of land in three contiguous parcels (a
main parcel of 20.2 acres, a triangular shaped site of 2.1 acres and a smaller parcel containing
.5 acres. Figure 3 depicts houses that were demolished to clear the way for the construction of
Grady Homes. Figure 4 depicts land that was cleared for the construction of Grady Homes. 3
Grady consisted of 52 barracks style buildings and 495 units. Each building had one to two
floors and the exterior walls were made of brick on concrete block, and stucco on masonry.
Techwood Homes, built by AHA in 1936, was the nation’s first public housing project.
Techwood was part of a slum clearance initiative promoted by prominent Atlanta business
persons. Its occupancy was reserved for whites exclusively. University Homes, built in 1937,
followed the construction of Techwood. University was constructed as a companion project to
Techwood and was reserved exclusively for black residents of the City. It was located
immediately adjacent to Clark- Atlanta University and Spelman College, from which it derived
its name. Techwood Homes derived its names from Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia
Tech's), the university to which it was immediately adjacent. Techwood Drive began on Georgia
Tech’s campus and intersected the heart of the housing project. Techwood was not racially
integrated until 1968.
3 The picture is part of the historical and digital archives of AHA. It is dated circa 1940, Date Digital 2005, digital
format JPEG Catalogue Number VIS 96.03.07 Collection Atlanta Housing Authority Photographs Publisher Kenan
Research Center, Atlanta History Center. Source ahc096003007a.jpg. Catalogue No. VIS 96.03.02, Source
ahc096003002a.jpg.
21 | P a g e

Figure 3. Typical Slum Homes, Gilmer Street Looking West, Circa 1940
Demolished to Construct Grady Homes
Figure 4. Slum Property East of Atlanta cleared to construct Grady Homes, Circa 1942
22 | P a g e

During focus group interviews, long-time residents of Grady indicated that the development
was once a vibrant and friendly community that sponsored many adult and youth oriented
activities. Administrative records indicate that in 1994, adults who lived at Grady were more
upwardly mobile than were adults who lived at most of AHA's other large public housing
developments—at least as measured by their employment rate and household income.
Focus group participants indicated that they loved the neighborly atmosphere and children
especially enjoyed participating in the social events that were organized by management and
the tenant Association on a regular basis. However, by the mid-to late 1980’s the quality of life
in all AHA’s housing development began deteriorating rapidly. The residents and external
research attributed the decline (which was a national phenomenon) to a number of factors.
Among the most significant was the escalation in crimes associated with the influx of crack
cocaine in urban areas and especially at large, densely populated housing projects.
This escalation occurred during the same period in which the City of Atlanta experienced
declining crime rates. In 1992, the Atlanta Police Department logged 5,654 crime incident
reports and rolling dispatches to the footprint of Techwood Homes and Clark Howell Homes –
AHA’s two most severely distressed public housing projects (AHA, 1993: 82-83). That same
year, Atlanta's violent crime rate was five times the national average and ranked first in the
nation.
AHA’s 25 public housing projects alone accounted for 20 percent of the City of Atlanta's violent
crimes and 28 percent of its aggravated assaults. By 1994, the average crime rate at AHA’s 25
public housing projects was 15 times the national average – at Techwood Homes and Clark
Howell Homes the violent crime rate was 37 times the national average. In 1992 the Atlanta
Police Department also reported that 276 crimes classified as Type I crimes occurred on the
footprint of Grady Homes and 206 occurred at University Homes. In 2001, Grady homes
recorded 375 Type I crimes, which represented an increase of 36%. The head of households at
most public housing projects were unmarried women. They were a particularly vulnerable
population.
The aging and deteriorating apartments units were poorly maintained by AHA. Broken hallway
doors, blown-out hallway lights and street lights, inoperable elevators, and poor security
allowed these developments to become bases of operation for drug lords who usually did not
live at the development. Additionally, playgrounds were unsafe and unsanitary, apartments
were infested with rodents, heating and plumbing were in disrepair, and hundreds of
maintenance work orders were backlogged. The physical structures were also plagued by
23 | P a g e

structural flaws, outdated plumbing, and they were not built to accommodate persons with
disabilities.
The poor maintenance, crime, and social disorganization of the projects caused excessive
vacancies. In March of 1993, the apartment vacancy rates at Techwood Homes and Clark
Howell Homes were 49.7% and 22.4% respectively (AHA, 1993:85). The uninhabitable units and
high vacancy rates meant that the real number of on-site rental units was significantly less than
the number of units originally constructed. A June 30, 1994 Federal audit of AHA’s performance
gave the agency a score of just 37% out of a possible 100%. If further indicated that unless
drastic changes were made, the housing authority would be placed in federal receivership.
In Atlanta, public housing revitalization began in 1994, when a newly appointed housing
director took charge. That year AHA began relocating 2,170 families from the adjoining
Techwood Homes and Clark Howell Homes public housing projects; in preparation for
demolishing them. By the time they were demolished these two developments were the most
severely distressed in AHA's inventory and rivaled some of the worst projects in the nation.
Techwood Homes was demolished in 1995, but its adjoining housing project, Clark Howell still
operated. Clark Howell housed 478 families; 96% of household heads were black, 95% were
single-parents and 85% were women. Only 18.3% of nondisabled adults between the ages of
18 to 61 years of age were employed at some point during the year, median household income
was $4,420 per year, and 49% of the households received public assistance (Boston, 2005).
Hallways and exterior walkways were dimly lit or not lit at all. The conditions were conducive
to drug pushers who preyed upon the adults, solicited youth to help in trafficking, and used
vacant apartment units as a base of operation to serve clients, many of whom who lived
outside of the housing project.
Grady focus participants also indicated that the socioeconomic profile of Grady declined
significantly when families relocated there following the demolition of Techwood Homes, Clark
Howell Homes, The Villages of East Lake, and Capital Homes. All were severely distressed public
housing projects that were demolished several years before the demolition of Grady. Usually
when projects were demolished, the most upwardly mobile families relocated to voucher or
moved to mixed-income communities. The least upwardly mobile typically relocated to a
different public housing project, and the relocation lowered the socio-economic profile of the
development.
24 | P a g e

AHA’s Mixed-income Revitalization Progress
Congress established the HOPE VI Program in October 1992 with the objective of giving
agencies the ability to introduce new and creative approaches to providing housing services.
PHAs were encouraged to implement policies that would improve the living environment for
families, revitalize sites where public housing projects were located, decrease the
concentration of poverty, and create more sustainable communities. Several years following
the creation of the HOPE VI Program HUD secured legislative approval for the Moving to Work
Demonstration Program (MTW).
In 1994 AHA operated 44 low income public housing developments. In 1995 AHA provided
housing assistance to 16,345 families; 47% of the families lived in a public housing
development, 20 percent lived in properties reserved for seniors and 33 percent used Housing
Choice Vouchers. By 2007, AHA provided housing assistance to 17,111 families; 9% lived in
mixed-income developments, 15% lived in public housing developments to families, 18% in
public housing development reserved for seniors, 2% lived in project based rental assistance
properties, and 57% of families used Housing Choice Vouchers. By 2010 is an AHA assisted
17,629 families; 13% were in mixed-income family developments, 1.7% lived in mixed-income
developments for the elderly, 5.4% lived in PBRA family housing and 5.9% lived in PBRA housing
for the elderly. Only .5% lived in low income public housing family developments; see Figure 5.
Using the authority provided under the HOPE VI and MTW programs, AHA had so demolished
and revitalized its public housing inventory that by 2010 only 1% of the households it served
lived in public housing developments for families and only 11% lived in comparable elderly
developments. The housing developments had been replaced with a combination of public
housing eligible units in mixed-income communities, Project Based Rental Assistance Vouchers
(PBRAs) and Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs). Finally, households that were forced to relocate
because of demolition and revitalization were awarded housing choice vouchers with which to
move out into the private rental market. In 2010 AHA announced that, it was the first PHA in
the nation to build public housing projects during the Great Depression Era and it would now
be the first to demolish them altogether.
25 | P a g e

Figure 5 Type of AHA Housing Assistance in 2010
Number %
Mixed-income: Family Housing 2,286 13.0%
PBRA: Family Housing 950 5.4%
LIPH: Family Housing 90 .5%
HCV: Tenant-based 10,498 59.5%
Family Assistance Subtotal 13,824 78.4%
Mixed-income: Elderly 301 1.7%
PBRA: Elderly 1,036 5.9%
LIPH: Elderly 1,936 11.0%
Elderly Assistance Subtotal 3,273 18.6%
Special Needs Properties 532 3.0%
Total 17,629 100.0%
On October 25, 2005, the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta (AHA) was selected by the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to receive a $20 million award out of
funds appropriated under the Urban Revitalization Demonstration Program (better known as
the HOPE VI). The award was designed to assist AHA’s plan to demolish Grady Homes and
create a mixed-income/mixed-use community in its place.
Figure 6 is a 2010 depiction of the Veranda at Auburn Pointe; the mixed-income revitalized
community that replaced Grady Homes and University Homes. Figure 7 depicts Techwood
homes shortly before it was demolished in 1995, and Figure 9 is a picture of Centennial Place -
Atlanta's first mixed-income revitalized communities which replaced Techwood Homes and
Clark Howell.
26 | P a g e

Figure 6
Veranda at Auburn Pointe, Replaced Grady Homes and University Homes
Source: The Intergral Group
Figure 7. Techwood Homes Pictured Just before it was demolished in 1995
(Atlanta Housing Authority Archives) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87964901
27 | P a g e

Figure 8. Centennial Place, AHA's first Mixed-income/Mixed Use Revitalize Community
(Atlanta Housing Authority Archives) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87964901
accessed March 26, 2011, 9:35 PM
During the demolition of Techwood Homes, Clark Howell Homes and East Lake Meadows, AHA
negotiated a “Further Assurances Agreement” and a “Redevelopment Cooperative
Agreement.” These guaranteed that housing assistance would continue to be offered to
families affected by revitalization. The agreements stipulated that families who were forced to
relocate because of revitalization would be provided a voucher upon request or guaranteed a
voucher in the future by virtue of being placed in front of everyone on the waiting list (at the
end of 2003, there were 21,387 families on AHA's waiting list for vouchers and 10,870 families
on the waiting list for public housing). Families who elected to move into another public
housing project would be accommodated immediately or placed ahead of all families on the
waiting list. Finally, families who elected to move into the mixed-income community once it
was completed would be given first priority. Relocated families were placed ahead of all
waitlisted families.
28 | P a g e

To be eligible to move back into a mixed-income community, families had to comply with a
work requirement. It stipulated that all able-bodies adults in the household (18 years to 61
years of age) who were not enrolled in school full-time must work 30 hours each week or
participate in a management approved training or economic self-sufficiency program for 30
hours each week. Also, as part of the lease agreement, children of public housing assisted
families in mixed-income communities could not have unexcused absences from school.
Grady Re-occupancy Policy and Resident’s Right of Return
The continued occupancy rights of families who were affected by the Grady revitalization were
covered by AHA’s “Re-occupancy Policy”. The policy stated that any householder who had a
valid lease at Grady homes on June 17, 2004 was eligible to return to the revitalize
communities after being relocated from Grady and subject to the fulfillment of the following
conditions:
Execute a signed document waiving their right to return to the revitalized community
because they have located in another revitalize community for received project based
rental assistance
Appropriate units must be available that meet Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards
Remain lease compliant during the relocation process and in compliance with AHA's
CATALYST work compliance requirement
Remain compliant with CATALYST work compliance program
Pass Criminal History Screening Criteria
Have an acceptable rental and credit history
Pass income verification eligibility criteria and comply with good housekeeping
requirements
Furthermore the policy required residents to complete and submit the “Acceptance of
Invitation to Return.” The specific policy reads as follows, "The Affected Resident head of
household must complete and return the Invitation to Return letter indicating his or her
preference to return or not to return to the revitalized community in the time and manner
specified in the Invitation to Return letter. If the Affected Resident head of household fails to
complete and return the Invitation to Return letter in the time and manner specified, AHA will
send a second letter. The Affected Resident household will be deemed to have permanently
waived the priority right to return afforded to Affected Residents if the head of household fails
29 | P a g e

to complete and return the Invitation to Return letters in the time and manner specified in the
Invitation to Return letters or if the Affected Resident indicates his or her preference not to
return to the Revitalized Grady Homes Community.” (see Appendix 1).
30 | P a g e

Section 3
Grady Revitalization Master Plan
MTW status has resulting in AHA having significant financial, legal, and regulatory flexibility. But
it also obligated the organization to make measurable progress towards achieving the specific
goals of its MTW Plan, which it referred to as the CATALYST Plan. The CATALYST Plan
established dozens of activities and initiatives that AHA used to help achieve its goals.
To achieve the goals of CATALYST, AHA invested in resources to assist households by providing
human development opportunities through community-based service providers. The goal was
to enhance the economic independence of families, educate children more effectively, and
assist in building greater self-sufficiency among seniors and persons with disabilities.
It also implemented a Human Development and Support Services Programs that provided a
family counselor to each household for 27 months following the relocation. The family support
specialist was responsible for working with the family to help remove barriers that impede success
and to make sure the family is connected to a network of services, counselors, educational and
training programs, and to provide them services that would improve their work and social skills and
quality of life. The Community and Supportive Services (CSS) program had four components:
Ongoing Life Counseling and Coaching, Individual Family Support, a Connection to Quality Programs
and Resources; and the Promotion of Personal Responsibility.
Along with providing support services, AHA raised the requirements and expectations of
residents. In October of 2004, AHA began implementing of the CATALYST Work/Program Policy.
The program was designed to reinforce among adults the importance and necessity of working
to achieve economic independence and self-sufficiency.
Finally, The Quality of Life Initiatives (QLI) was implemented by AHA to demolish public housing
projects and to relocate families who lived in 12 AHA-owned public housing developments that
had not been revitalized. These developments included 10 public housing family developments
and 2 public housing senior developments. Together, these properties housed 3,920
households in 2004. The developments were scheduled to be demolished and every family who
lived there had to be resettled. Coaching and counseling services were provided to families for
a period of for 27 months following their initial relocation.
31 | P a g e

Revitalization Master Plan
To relocate families successfully, AHA had concluded that three principles are essential: all
families affected by revitalization must be provided access to Community and Supportive
Services Programs (CSS), especially during relocation; families must have comprehensive and
hands-on support to successfully reconnect to mainstream society and new opportunities; and
CSS must be driven by outcomes and high expectations of family achievement.
AHA selected development partners on the basis of their national experience in constructing
affordable housing in better understanding of and commitment to the of AHA’s CATALYSTS
Plan. The Grady Redevelopment, LLC consisted of a joint venture of three prominent real estate
development firms; Trammell Crow Residential, The Integral Group, and Urban Realty Partners.
The original master plan for Grady's revitalization was based on PATH Technologies (Partnership
for Advancing Technology and Housing) and Principles of New Urbanism. The Plan included the
construction of 545 mixed-income units in total to include the following: 352 multi-family rental
apartments, a 124 unit senior housing development, 48 for sale townhomes on-site, and 21 for
sale single family homes located in off-site neighborhoods within the City of Atlanta.
Approximately 66% of the total units constructed on- and off-site were planned to be
affordable. In total, the master plan called for approximately 715 residents who lived in 141
public housing assisted rental units, 70 low income housing tax credit units, 112 project-based
rental assistance units, 151 market-rate rental units, 35 affordable homeownership units that
would be available to families who earned up to 80% of area median income, and 34 detached
single-family homes to be sold at market-rates to families who earn more than 80% of the area
median income; 21 of the for-sale single-family homes were planned to be developed off-site
on AHA owned property. Construction was planned around ENERGY STAR specifications which
encouraged the use of green building materials and environmentally sustainable resources.
Sixty percent of the multi-family rental units (housing approximately 380) and 14 of the
townhomes were planned to be affordable, i.e. reserved for families earning less than
$41,558. Additionally, 90% of the senior rental units were planned to accommodate
approximately 134 elderly persons living on fixed incomes of under $23,000. Along with
reconnecting the new community to the historic Auburn Avenue District, the plans call for
designing the development around both green principles and New Urbanism concepts that
included the following: a reconfiguration of the Grady Homes commons as a $1.45 million
2.3 acre ‘Great Lawn’ with green spaces that would include a “Memorial Lawn”, an
"Intergenerational Plaza", a "Senior Green", and a renovated Butler Park which is owned by
32 | P a g e

the city. The development was also plan to include a 6000 sq. ft. community center and
swimming pool, a 20,000 sq. ft. structure that would house and an early childhood
development center, and 8000 sq. ft. of commercial space. The new development would also
provide convenient access to the King Memorial MARTA Station, Georgia State University, the
regional health center at Grady Hospital, and the central business district in downtown
Atlanta. In June of 2004, HUD awarded AHA a HOPE VI demolition grant of $4.8 million.
The CSS program Component
The CSS program component of the master plan was centered on a commitment of $7.4 million
to provide families ongoing life counseling and coaching, connecting them to quality resources,
and at the same time emphasizing the importance of personal responsibility. The program was
planned to be housed in one of the new facilities and supported by a $775,000 investment of the
development partners. The program would include an on-site business center (Neighborhood
Network Center) that would give residents access to computers and the Internet as well as to
computer training.
The CSS is based on the "Humans Services Delivery Strategy" (HSDS). The objective of this strategy
is to stay in touch with families, keep families connected to educational and training programs and
provide them services to improve their quality of life. The four components of the program are as
follows: Ongoing Life Counseling and Coaching, Individual Family Support, a Connection to Quality
Programs and Resources; and the Promotion of Personal Responsibility.
Through HSDS, each family was assigned a Human Services Case Manager who had the
responsibility of working with the family to help remove barriers that impeded success. It also
sought to ensure a seamless continuum of care was provided to families from pre-revitalization
through completion and beyond. The strategy was implemented by human services professionals in
cooperation with development partners and the AHA. IMS Human Services Management was
selected to provide case management services to Grady homes residents through the revitalization
grant period.
Current Status of Grady Revitalization
Auburn Point includes the revitalization of Grady Homes, Antoine Graves, Graves Annex and
University Homes. During FY 2011 a number of construction activities were underway and the
environmental remediation activities to address issues such as asbestos were being
concluded. As part of the Grady Homes revitalization, the following sites were under
construction: Ashley I, a multifamily rental complex with 54 public housing assisted units,
33 | P a g e

eight PBRA units, 31 LIHTC units, and 61 market-rate rental units; and it was anticipated that
construction would start on Veranda II, a senior rental development with 88 PBRA units and
10 market-rate units; and construction was also planned for Veranda III, a senior
development with 91 PBRA units and 11 market-rate units. Additionally, eighteen (18) of 21
off-site homeownership units were completed in Phase I. The University Homes part of Grady
revitalization program is being conducted in conjunction with the Atlanta University Center
Consortium (Clark Atlanta University, Morehouse School of Medicine, and Spelman College).
The Consortium is partnering with AHA to create a master plan for the use of the site that is
consistent with market conditions.
Financing revitalization
Using $20 million in HOPE VI funding, AHA planned to leverage $70.3 million in private-sector
funds through a combination of tax-exempt bond financed first mortgages, LIHTC equity,
conventional debt, homebuyer mortgages, city infrastructure improvements, and other
funds. The Atlanta Development Authority and the State of Georgia committed to providing
$22 million in construction financing through tax-exempt housing bonds. Additionally,
Paramount Financial Inc. committed to investing approximately 11.2 million new federal and
state tax credit equity in the multifamily units and 5.8 million in the senior units. Finally, AHA
secured $10 million in commitments through housing tax exempt bonds. The project based
rental assisted units are intended to support the senior housing development for a period of
ten years. The market rate units were planned to account for 35% of the HOPE VI
revitalization.
34 | P a g e

Section 4
Methodology and Definition of Terms
The following concepts will help the reader better understand several important evaluation
concepts.
Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring allows agencies to measure their annual accomplishments relative to their
benchmarks (i.e. interim targets. By creating metrics and collecting data to measure the
impacts and outcomes of activities, PHAs can improve the design of programs and policies and
achieve greater effectiveness and efficiency.
In contrast to monitoring, evaluations establishes the link between activities and outcomes and
quantifies the relative influence of activities on individuals, household and neighborhoods. In
short, evaluations establish cause and effect relationships. A key to conducting an evaluation is
the establishment of the initial conditions, i.e. the environment that existed prior to the policy
being implemented. This condition is referred to as the baseline. The baseline served as the
reference point against which subsequent changes are evaluated. The baseline for the Grady
revitalization evaluation is 2004. The baseline developed a profile of all 2004 householders at
Grady as well as all persons who received housing assistance from AHA in 2004, 2007 and 2010.
Each household that received assistance in 2004 was followed longitudinally through 2010.
This was done by linking the administrative records of the head of household from one year to
the next. The longitudinal analysis determined how much AHA activities affected the original
2004 housing assisted population and it established the cause and effect relationship. For
simplicity, the 2004 assisted population, which was followed longitudinally, is referred to as the
"baseline cohort ".
Households vs. Families
The primary unit of analysis was the household, which was further broken down into the
householders and household members. A “household” consists of all people who occupy the
housing unit; the unit may be an apartment, a single room, or a group of rooms – as long as it is
intended as separate living quarters. A householder is a person who holds the title or lease to a
house or rental unit. In this report, the “householder” is synonymous with the "head of
household". A household member is any person who lives in the household. The household
member does not have to be married to the householder, of the same bloodline as the
35 | P a g e

householder or adopted by the householder. For example, a live-in aide is classified as a
household member.
Families consist of two or more persons related by birth, marriage or adoption and who reside
together. A family may comprise an entire household, or it may be a subset of a household.
That is, every household member is not necessarily a member of the householder’s family.
Technically, this report did not examine families. Instead, the report examined households (all
persons living in the housing unit), householders (the head of the households) and household
members (the individual persons who live in the household). The report also did not track the
total number of housing units, except where those units were occupied by householders.
Vacant housing units are not measured.
Types of Housing Assistance
Low Income Public Housing (LIPH) are units that are typically located in traditional public
housing developments and are generally reserved for non-elderly, non-disabled families. T
Mixed-income Households: Mixed-income Family Developments provide housing services in
newly revitalized mixed-income communities that contain public housing eligible rental units,
rent subsidized units via tax credits, and market rate rental units.
Housing Choice Vouchers -Tenant Based: Householders supported in this manner receive a
regular voucher to offset the market cost of rental housing.
Project Based Rental Assistance (PBRA) or Project Based Vouchers: These vouchers allow AHA
to leverage a broader array of housing opportunities in the private market and provide longterm
housing assistance to low-income families. Project based assistance may be attached to
housing developments that are located in more favorable neighborhoods; this gives
householders access to better housing options.
Supportive Housing Households: AHA’s supportive housing units support householders with
intensive special needs including homelessness.
Methodology
To accomplish the research objectives, the following steps were taken:
a. Established the baseline socioeconomic conditions and neighborhood
characteristics of families who lived at Grady, University Homes (University),
36 | P a g e

Antoine Graves Annex (Graves Annex), and Antoine Graves (Graves) in 2004.
Compared the baseline conditions of these families (who will be referred to as the
treatment group) to the baseline conditions to a control group consisting of
families who lived in similarly situated housing developments in 2004. Descriptive
statistics and a variety of econometric models were used to evaluate the impact of
revitalization on this population and on the broader AHA assisted population.
b. Examined the reasons why families exited housing assistance. Determined whether
or not the demolition of public housing units and the relocation of families
increased the risk (hazard) of losing housing assistance. Cox Proportional Hazards
Models and Time-Dependent Cox Regression procedures were used to establish the
baseline hazard function (i.e. attrition rate) for all AHA families. Controlled for
relevant factors and determined whether or not there were statistically significant
differences in the baseline hazard function between families who lived in public
housing developments that were demolished vs. those who received other types of
housing assistance.
c. Examined longitudinally (2004-2010) the families who lived at Grady, University,
Graves, and Graves Annex in 2004 to determine whether mixed-income
revitalization was associated with improvements in family self-sufficiency by 2010.
Gains in self-sufficiency were measured by improvements in the following metrics:
the employment rate among work eligible adults, earnings of employed persons,
total household income, tenant rent contribution as a percentage of Fair Market
Rent (FMR) after controlling for family size, household income as a percentage of
Area Median Income (AMI) and reductions in household income deficit. Household
income deficit is measured as the gap between the poverty line defined for the
number of persons in the household and total household income. Other measures
of self-sufficiency included voluntary exits from public housing assistance to secure
housing in the private sector, improvements in educational attainment, increases in
job training and employment readiness, enhancements of life skills of youth and
adults, and various qualitative outcomes that were the expected results of
participating in the Community and Supportive Services Programs (CSS). Descriptive
statistics and Linear Mixed Models with repeated measurements to control for
selectivity effects were used to measure the impact of mixed-income revitalization
and CSS programs on family self-sufficiency.
37 | P a g e

d. Examined the impact of the work/compliance requirements on employment and
earnings.
e. Linked family records longitudinally between 2004 — 2010. Use GIS software to
geocode the addresses of families and to overly measures of community
characteristics to census tracts. Spatially examined the characteristics of
neighborhoods where Grady and University families lived in 2004. Compared the
characteristics of neighborhoods where families lived in 2004 the characteristics of
neighborhoods where they relocated by 2010. Used the CAI (Community Attribute
Index) to spatially examine neighborhood quality. The CAI is a multidimensional
index that measures community characteristics. It is analogous in design and
application to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Human
Development Index (HDI). The HDI is a composite score derived for each country by
averaging separate index measures of the country’s population. The measures
include life expectancy at birth, per capita household income, and educational
attainment. Each index value is rescaled so that its ranges from 0 — 1, where 1
represents higher attainment of the human potential. Analogously, the CAI is a
multidimensional index that is based on 16 separate index measures of community
characteristics at the census tract level. The value of each index ranges from 0 — 1
and the average value of the 16 indexes is the CAI. Principal Component Analysis
was used to reduce dozens of community measures to the 16 most essential ones
that help define the characteristics of neighborhoods. Some of the index measures
included in the CAI are the average price of a single-family home in the
neighborhood, the national percentile ranking of elementary schools on
standardized tests (where the school attendance zone is overlaid to a census tract),
the rate of violent crime in the neighborhood (where the address of the crime
incident is overlaid to a census tract), median family income (from 2005 midterm
census estimates), educational attainment of the population, etc. This procedure
allowed a CAI score to be developed for every census tract in the Atlanta
Metropolitan Area. More importantly, because the CAI score and the address of a
public housing family are assigned to census tract, the procedure allowed a
measurement to be taken of the difference in neighborhood quality between origin
and destination neighborhoods.
f. Determine whether families, who relocated to better neighborhoods, experienced
statistically significant gains in self-sufficiency in comparison to families who lived in
less selective neighborhoods. Descriptive statistics and Linear Mixed Models with
38 | P a g e

39 | P a g e
repeated measurements were used to control for selectivity effects and determine
the effect that relocating to a better neighborhood had on resident self-sufficiency.
g. Using three successive annual waves of focus group interviews (2007, 2008 and
2009), the research team gathered information on the perceptions of Grady
families regarding the relocation process and relocation outcomes. The perceptions
that families had of destination neighborhoods were compared to their perceptions
of the Grady Homes community. Each focus group wave consisted of 10 different
focus groups and each group contained approximately 10 participants. The focus
groups allowed the research team to gather resident perceptions based on survey
data and oral/anecdotal information and discussions/responses to focus group
questions.
h. Evaluated whether economic development has occurred in the neighborhood
surrounding the mixed-income revitalization.
i. Evaluated the net social benefit to society of revitalizing Grady and University
Homes. Specifically, evaluated the financial/investment costs relative to
income/social benefits such as rental revenue, contribution to total income from
increased employment, and increases in social welfare resulting from a reduction in
crime.
Research Data
This research is distinguished by its use of the full population of administrative records on every
family that received housing assistance from the AHA between 1995 and 2010. Administrative
records were linked longitudinally and snapshots were taken every three years (1995, 1998,
2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010). The primary range of investigation from the Grady revitalization is
2004 — 2010. Records for other years were analyzed to shed greater insight into the long-run
housing assistance dynamics that revitalization of Grady was a part of. Observations on the
characteristics and status of families were recorded in dozens of variables that were relevant to
assessing their housing and socioeconomic status over time.
Using the full population of data provided several unique advantages. First, it allowed a
broader range of research questions to be answered and research methodologies to be
employed that were not restrained by sample size. Second, it allowed more flexibility in the use
of quasi-experimental research designs. This flexibility was very important because the AHA
demolished all public housing developments during the timeframe of this research. Therefore,

the standard framework for analyzing the differences in outcomes between a treatment group
(that experiences a policy impact) and a control group (that does not) could not be applied
because all families receive the treatment during the timeframe of the evaluation. Third, the
procedure allowed specific MTW activities related to CSS to be measured more precisely.
Data on the characteristics of communities were collected from the following sources: the
Decennial Census of 2000 and the Atlanta Regional Commission's 2005 midterm census update;
the Atlanta Public School System and the Georgia Department of Education (GDOE) Annual
Report Cards on K-12 Public Schools; the Atlanta Police Department Crime Incident Reports;
IMS Human Services Management data on family support services; Metro Atlanta real estate
information on property values and home sales; and business license data the City of Atlanta.
Using three successive waves of focus group interviews (each conducted in November of 2007,
2008 and 2009), the research team gathered information on the perceptions of Grady families
regarding their quality of life at Grady Homes in comparison to their quality of life following the
relocation. Each focus group wave consisted of approximately 10 different focus groups and
each group contained approximately 10 participants.
40 | P a g e

Section 5
2004 Baseline Characteristics for Grady
Revitalization
This section identifies the 2004 baseline characteristics of families who lived at the
developments that were part of the Grady Revitalization. It compares the baseline
characteristics to those of other communities. To facilitate the examination of the baseline
characteristics, we start by comparing Grady, University, Antoine Graves and Antoine Graves
Annex to other LIPH family and senior developments that did not undergo revitalization at the
same time as did Grady. Appendix I
2004 characteristics of Grady Homes
The management office of Grady Homes was located at 100 Bell St. SE. 30312. In 2004, Grady’s
rental apartments contained 457 householders and 1050 individuals; the average age of the
head of household was 47.1 years and youth (seventeen & under) comprised 46% of the
housing assisted population. The target population is defined as persons who are employment
eligible, meaning adults 18 to 61 years of age who were not disabled - - 372 or 35.6% of all
persons at Grady were in the target population. Elderly persons and disabled persons
represented 9.5% and 10.2% respectively of Grady’s total population and 84.7% of all
households were headed by women.
The average monthly rent paid by householders in 2004 was $193. The percentage of employed
persons in the target population was 37.1% while the average earned income of employed
persons was $13,347. Median household income was $9,155, which placed 78.3% of families
below the poverty line. The average household income deficit (that is the difference between
household incomes and the poverty line or the average amount it would have taken to raise
families out of poverty) was $7361.
The census tracts that encompassed Grady had the following characteristics: 2005 poverty rate
was 58%; 2005 median family income was $12,633; 2004 average price of a single family home
was $193,055; 2000 unemployment rate was 30.9%; the national percentile test score of the
elementary school in whose attendance zone Grady was located was 43 (i.e. the composite
score on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills); percentage of the total population that was black was
96.5%; there were 26 non-profit organizations in the census tracts where Grady was located
that had $100,000 or more annual income; there were 294 total number of business
establishments within the census tract; and employment-to-population ratio was 35.5%.
Combined, these neighborhood characteristics produced a Community Attribute Index (CAI)
41 | P a g e

score of .24. The CAI is a multidimensional index of community characteristics. This research
used the Community Attribute Index (CAI) to compare the attributes of neighborhoods where
families lived while at Grade to the attributes of communities where they relocated to.
Comparing Grady to other communities
To compare Grady to other communities we established several comparison groups:
G 1
C 1
G 2
C 2
C 3
C 4
Grady Homes and University Homes
All other 2004 LIPH family developments: Bankhead Courts, Bowen Homes,
Englewood Manor, Gilbert Gardens, Herndon Apartments, Hollywood Court,
Jonesboro North, Jonesboro South, Leila Valley, Martin Street Plaza, McDaniel
Glenn, Thomasville Heights, U Rescue Villa, and Westminster Apartments.
Antoine Graves and Antoine Graves Annex
All other 2004 LIPH senior developments: Barge Road, Cheshire Bridge Road,
Cosby Spear Memorial, Georgia Avenue, Hightower Manor, John O. Chiles,
Juniper & 10th, Marian Apartments, Marietta Rd., Palmer House, Piedmont
Road, Martin Luther King Power, and East Lake Towers
All HCV householders
All householders in mixed-income developments
In 2004, Grady and University (G1) had 952 householders and 2,243 persons while C1, which
consisted of 14 public housing developments, had 3,265 householders and 10,918 persons,
Figures 9 and 10.
42 | P a g e

Figure 9 Number of Householders and Persons in Group 1, 2004
No.
Households
No. Persons
G1 Grady/University 952 2,243
Grady Apartments 457 1,051
University Homes 495 1,192
43 | P a g e

Figure 10 Householders and Persons in at Individual Properties of Comparison Group C1
C1 : Other LIPH 3,265 10,918
Bankhead Courts 378 1530
Bowen Homes 617 2006
Englewood Manner 297 969
Gilbert Gardens 180 626
Herndon Apartments 280 685
Hollywood Court 202 629
Jonesboro North 98 406
Jonesboro South 148 606
Leila Valley 123 392
Martin Street Plaza 60 255
McDaniel Glenn 431 1154
Thomasville Heights 349 1282
U Rescue Villa 70 299
Westminster Apartments 32 79
44 | P a g e

G2 consisted of Antoine Graves and Antoine Graves Annex, both were senior LIPH
developments. In 2004 they had 310 householders and 315 persons. C 2 is used as a
comparison for this group. It consisted of 15 LIPH senior public housing developments. In 2004
this group had 2754 householders and 2914 persons, Figures 11 and 12.
Figure 11 Number of Householders and Persons in G2, 2004
G2 Senior Revitalized Developments 310 315
Antoine Graves 210 214
Antoine Graves Annex 100 101
Figure 12 Number of Householders and Persons in C2, 2004
C2 (LIPH Seniors) 2,754 2,914
Barge Road 130 132
Cheshire Bridge Road 161 182
Cosby Spear Memorial 282 287
Georgia Avenue 81 84
Hightower Manor 129 135
John O. Chiles 250 257
45 | P a g e

Juniper & 10th 148 150
Marian Apartments 237 283
Marietta Road 130 132
Palmer House 245 253
Peachtree Road 196 211
Roosevelt House 256 261
Piedmont Road 209 241
Martin Luther King Tower 152 156
East Lake Tower 148 150
Two additional Comparison groups were used to highlight the differences between Grady
Revitalization at the baseline and families who lived in different environments. These two
groups included families who used housing choice vouchers (C 3) and those who lived in mixedincome
developments (C 4). In 2004, householders in C3 number 10,441 and a total of 32,571
persons lived in those households. C 4, mixed-income communities, had 1212 householders
and 2991 persons, Figure 13.
46 | P a g e

Figure 13 Number of Householders and Persons in C2, 2004
C 3 and C4
C 4 Total Mixed-income 1,212 2,991
C 3 Total HCVs 10,441 32,571
Household Income Characteristics at the Baseline
In 2004, families who lived at Grady and University had average household incomes of $8634.
The household income was very similar when compared to the average household incomes of
persons who lived in other LIPH family developments, $8573. Families who lived in mixedincome
developments had the highest household income, $13,646, followed by families who
received housing choice vouchers, $12,807, Figure 14. Figure 15 reports median household
income analogously. Median income was $7014 for Grady and University homes and it was
$7181 for families who lived in other LIPH developments. Median income was $12,781 for
families in mixed-income developments and it was $11,317 for families who used housing
choice vouchers, Figure 15. Administrative records indicates that in 2004, roughly 94% of Grady
and University homes families reported having positive incomes doing the year and this is
compared to 88.7% of families in other LIPH developments. Among families in mixed-income
developments and those using housing choice vouchers, 96.2% and 90.3% reported having
positive incomes, Figure 16.
47 | P a g e

Figure 14
Figure 15
48 | P a g e

Figure 16
Household income characteristics meant that they have percent of families lived at a below the
poverty line, when the poverty line was adjusted for the size of the household. In particular,
83.2% of households at Grady and University were at a below the poverty line in 2004 while
this was true for 87.3% of families who lived in other LIPH developments. In comparison, 56.7%
of families in mixed-income development and 70.4% of families who used housing choice
vouchers had incomes that place them at a below the poverty line, Figure 17. When adjusted
for the size of household, the poverty line for families who lived at Grady and University was
$13,606 while it was $17,116 for households who lived at other LIPH developments. The
poverty line was $13,709 for households in mixed-income development and it was $16,183 for
families who used housing choice vouchers. In this report, the poverty line was adjusted
according to the number of persons living in the household, Figure 18. The income deficit is the
average amount of household income it would take to bring the average family's household
income equal to or above the poverty line. In 2004, the average income deficit for Grady and
University families was $7752, while it was $11,498 for families who lived in other LIPH
developments, Figure 19.
49 | P a g e

Figure 17
Figure 18
50 | P a g e

Figure 19
Household Employment Characteristics at the Baseline
In 2004, persons who lived in mixed-income housing developments had the highest rate of
employment among individuals in the target population, 61.3%. Employment in mixed-income
was followed in respective order by persons with housing choice vouchers, 44.8%; persons who
lived at Grady and University Homes, 33.7%; and persons who lived in other LIPH
developments, 24.6%, Figure 20. Figure 21 records information on the average earnings of
individuals in 2004. That the average earnings of persons with vouchers was greatest among all
groups, $16,104. This is followed in respective order by persons who lived in mixed-income
developments, $15,470; persons who lived in Grady and University Homes, $12,294 and
persons who lived that other LIPH, $12,095.
51 | P a g e

Figure 20
Figure 21
Neighborhood Characteristics That the Baseline
Householders who lived in senior developments stayed in neighborhoods that had the highest
property values. For example, in 2000 for individuals who lived at Antoine Graves and Antoine
Graves Annex state in neighborhoods where the average price of a single-family home was
$245,897. For families who lived in other LIPH senior developments, the average price of
single-family homes was the highest among all comparison groups, $269,795. Families who
lived at Grady and University Homes lived in neighborhoods where the average price of a
52 | P a g e

single-family home was $193,095 and families who stayed in other LIPH developments lived in
neighborhoods where the average price of a single-family home was $189,213. In 2004, families
who lived in mixed-income developments resided in neighborhoods that had the lowest price
of single-family homes, $177,608, and families who used housing choice voucher state in
neighborhoods where the average home price was $189,742. The comparatively low price of
home values in neighborhoods where mixed-income developments were located was likely
caused by the fact that the neighborhoods where formerly were the most distressed public
housing developments were located.
Figure 22
53 | P a g e

54 | P a g e
Figure 23

Section 6 Change in the Type of Housing Assistance, 2004 -
2010
Number of Householders and Type of Housing Assistance
The characteristics of AHA housing assistance changed drastically over time. In 2004, all families
at Grady and University Homes lived in LIPH family developments. They were among the 23.9%
of all householders assisted by AHA who lived at L IPH family developments. During the same
year, 14.5% of householders lived in LIPH senior developments; included among this number
were householders who lived at Graves and Graves Annex. In Addition, 54.2% of householders
received tenant-based housing vouchers and 6.4% lived in mixed-income family developments.
Only .3% of householders lived in PBRA family units and only .7% lived in PBRA senior units,
Figure 25 and 29. By 2010, only .5% of householders lived in LIPH family developments and
only 10.5% lived in LIPH elderly developments. In contrast, 13.0% of householders lived in
mixed-income developments, 5.4% lived in PBRA family developments, 6.3% lived in PBRA
senior developments, and 1.7% lived in mixed-income senior developments, Figure 26 and 29.
In 2004, 457 householders lived at Grady homes. By 2010 those same householders had
relocated as follows: 75.6% tenant based vouchers, 9.6% lived in PBRA family developments,
8.9% lived in mixed-income developments, 3.0% lived in PBRA elderly developments, and 2.2%
lived in mixed-income elderly developments, Figure 27 and 30a. Among all householders who
were continuously active between 2004 and 2010, 57.2% received tenant based vouchers in
2004 as compared to 75.8% in 2010; 20.2% lived in LIPH family developments in 2004 as
compared to .3% in 2010; 6.0% lived in mixed-income family developments in 2004 as
compared to 8.7% in 2010; and 15.5% lived in LIPH senior developments in 2004 as compared
to 10.2% in 2010, Figure 31.
In 2004, there were 1,262 who lived in all four properties affected by Grady revitalization,
75.4% of these householders lived in LIPH family developments and 24.6% in LIPH elderly
developments. By 2010, only .3% lived in LIPH family developments and 1.9% in LIPH elderly
55 | P a g e

developments. In contrast, 68.4% used tenant-based housing vouchers, 7.3% lived in mixedincome
family developments, 6.6% used project based vouchers in family properties, 3.2% lived
in mixed-income elderly developments, 9.0% used project based vouchers in elderly properties
and 3.3% lived in special-needs properties, see Figure 30b.
Figure 25
Figure 26
56 | P a g e

Figure 27
Figure 28
57 | P a g e

Figure 29
DETAILED TYPE OF AHA ASSISTANCE, 2004 - 2010
YEAR
2004 2007 2010
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Mixed-Income Family 1212 6.4% 1522 8.9% 2286 13.0%
Project Based Vouchers Family 48 .3% 104 .6% 950 5.4%
Public Housing Family 4527 23.9% 3151 18.4% 90 .5%
Vouchers Tenant Based 10263 54.2% 9651 56.4% 10498 59.5%
Mixed-Income Elderly .0% .0% 301 1.7%
Project Based Vouchers Elderly 130 .7% 213 1.2% 1115 6.3%
Public Housing Elderly 2754 14.5% 2470 14.4% 1857 10.5%
Special Needs Properties .0% .0% 532 3.0%
Total 18934 100.0% 17111 100.0% 17629 100.0%
Figure 30a
CHANGE IN TYPE OF ASSISTANCE FOR FAMILIES WHO LIVED AT GRADY HOMES IN 2004
YEAR
2004 2007 2010
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Mixed-Income Family . .% 9 2.8% 24 8.9%
Project Based Vouchers Family . .% 2 .6% 26 9.6%
Public Housing Family 457 100.0% 41 12.7% . .%
Vouchers Tenant Based . .% 262 81.4% 204 75.6%
Mixed-Income Elderly . .0% . .0% 6 2.2%
Project Based Vouchers Elderly . .% 4 1.2% 8 3.0%
Public Housing Elderly . .% 4 1.2% 1 .4%
Special Needs Properties . .0% . .0% 1 .4%
Total 457 100.0% 322 100.0% 270 100.0%
58 | P a g e

Figure 30b
CHANGE IN TYPE OF ASSISTANCE FOR ALL FAMALIES AFFECTED BY GRADY REVITALIZATION, 2004 - 2010
YEAR
2004 2007 2010
NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT
Mixed-Income Family . .0% 27 3.5% 46 7.3%
Project Based Vouchers Family . .0% 4 .5% 42 6.6%
Public Housing Family 952 75.4% 390 50.6% 2 .3%
Vouchers Tenant Based . .0% 331 43.0% 432 68.4%
Mixed-income Elderly . .0% . .0% 20 3.2%
Project Based Vouchers
. .0% 6 .8% 57 9.0%
Elderly
Public Housing Elderly 310 24.6% 12 1.6% 12 1.9%
Special Needs Properties . .0% . .0% 21 3.3%
Total 1262 100.0% 770 100.0% 632 100.0%
59 | P a g e

Figure 31
CHANGE IN TYPE OF ASSISTANCE FOR ALL FAMILIES CONTINUOUSLY REGISTERED 2004 - 2010
YEAR
2004 2007 2010
CONTINUALLY ACTIVE (all
HOH)
CONTINUALLY ACTIVE (all
HOH)
CONTINUALLY ACTIVE (all
HOH)
NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT
Mixed-Income Family 534.00 6.0% 582.00 6.5% 778.00 8.7%
Project Based Vouchers Family 26.00 .3% 27.00 .3% 129.00 1.4%
Public Housing Family 1812.00 20.2% 1324.00 14.8% 28.00 .3%
Vouchers Tenant Based 5131.00 57.2% 5746.00 64.1% 6796.00 75.8%
Mixed-income Elderly . .0% . .0% 57.00 .6%
Project Based Vouchers Elderly 76.00 .8% 84.00 .9% 217.00 2.4%
Public Housing Elderly 1387.00 15.5% 1202.00 13.4% 915.00 10.2%
Special Needs Properties . .0% . .0% 45.00 .5%
Total 8966.00 100.0% 8965.00 100.0% 8965.00 100.0%
60 | P a g e

Section 7
Change in the Indicators of Upward Mobility,
2004 - 2010
There are many indicators of upward mobility. Among the most important are household
income, employment status and earnings. Other indicators include the amount of rent paid by
the household, and the extent to which individuals are receiving public assistance. Income is
important because it allows one to evaluate the extent to which families have moved beyond
poverty. Therefore, we start by examining household income.
Household Income
The average household income of families who were affected by Grady revitalization was
$8,444 in 2004 and $11,487 in 2010, see Figure 32. This means that over the seven years,
average household income increased by 36%. When measuring the change in income over
time, a different gauge is median household income. The results indicate that median
household income for AHA families affected by revitalization of Grady and for all families
increased significantly greater than did the median income in the Atlanta Metropolitan Area.
Specifically, median household income of families affected by Grady revitalization increased
from $7080 in 2004 to $9186 in 2010, or by 28%. Similarly, the change in median family income
for all AHA families who were active in 2004 was 43.3% (i.e. from $7848-$11,246). In the
Atlanta Metro as a whole, area median income increased from $63,448 to $71,800, or by
13.1%. Therefore, as measured by the change in household income, AHA families and Grady
families experienced a significant improvement in upward mobility between 2004 and 2010.
61 | P a g e

Figure 32
Figure 33
HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR FAMILIES AFFECTED BY GRADY REVITALIZATION, 2004 - 2010
YEAR
2004 2010
Mean
NUMBER
HH
Mean
NUMBER
HH
Mixed-Income Family . $11,441 46
Project Based Vouchers
. $11,114 42
Family
Public Housing Family $8,637 893 $11,584 2
Vouchers Tenant Based . $12,044 420
Mixed-income Elderly . $10,041 20
Project Based Vouchers
. $9,683 57
Elderly
Public Housing Elderly $7,886 309 $8,110 12
Special Needs Properties . $9,269 20
AVERAGE $8,444 1202 $11,487 619
62 | P a g e

Figure 34
HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR ALL FAMILIES REGISTERED IN 2004
YEAR
2004 2010
Mean
NUMBER
HH
Mean
NUMBER
HH
Mixed-Income Family $12,907 515 $14,665 771
Project Based Vouchers Family $11,852 24 $12,458 129
Public Housing Family $8,217 1688 $15,737 28
Vouchers Tenant Based $10,730 4834 $14,178 6515
Mixed-income Elderly . $9,741 57
Project Based Vouchers Elderly $9,627 76 $10,508 217
Public Housing Elderly $8,295 1376 $10,155 913
Special Needs Properties . $10,533 44
AVERAGE $9,963 8513 $13,638 8674
Average Tenant Rent
Figure 35 indicates that the average rent paid by AHA householders affected by Grady
revitalization increased from $177 to $256, or by 44%; among all AHA families the increase was
41.4%. The percentage increase in rent greatly exceeded the percent increase in area median
income in Atlanta (13.1%) and it exceeded the increase in the median family income of Grady
householders (29.7%). See Figures 35 through 38. Overall, the amount of rent paid varied
significantly by the type of housing assistance. For example, families who received tenant based
vouchers paid the highest rent, $314, Figure 38. In this case, we do not consider the small
number of people who continue to live in LIPH.
63 | P a g e

Figure 35
Figure 36
64 | P a g e

Figure 37
AVERAGE RENT PAYMENTS FOR HOUSEHOLDERS AFFECTED BY GRADY REVITALIZATION
Mean
YEAR
2004 2010
RENT
NUMBER
HH
Mean
RENT
NUMBER
HH
Mixed-Income Family . $124.06 34
Public Housing Family $173.94 947 $230.50 2
Vouchers Tenant Based . $271.20 432
Mixed-income Elderly . $13.75 4
Public Housing Elderly $184.52 310 $180.73 11
AVERAGE $176.55 1257 $256.48 483
Figure 38
AVERAGE RENT PAYMENTS FOR ALL AHA HOUSEHOLDERS REGISTERED IN 2004
Mean
YEAR
2004 2010
RENT
NUMBER
HH
Mean
RENT
NUMBER
HH
Mixed-Income Family $276.94 533 $220.32 695
Project Based Vouchers Family $260.77 26 $207.00 1
Public Housing Family $157.15 1811 $335.46 28
Vouchers Tenant Based $225.57 5131 $314.32 6796
Mixed-income Elderly . $27.13 8
Project Based Vouchers Elderly $223.71 76 $.
Public Housing Elderly $190.97 1387 $227.47 901
Special Needs Properties . $.
AVERAGE $209.53 8964 $297.07 8429
65 | P a g e

Dependency on Public Assistance
In 2004, among families affected by Grady revitalization, 160 received public assistance. By
2010 the number receiving public assistance was only 18, Householders dependent on public
assistance decreased from 12.7% to 2.8%.
Over the same timeframe, average public assistance decrease from $2929 to $2609. Similar
changes occur for all AHA families were registered in 2004. The number receiving public
assistance decreased from 1,334 to 337 and average value of public assistance decreased from
$3053-$2288, Figures he 39 through 42
Figure 39
66 | P a g e

Figure 40
Figure 41
AVERAGE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE INCOME OF HOUSEHOLDS AFFECTED BY GRADY
REVITALIZATION
YEAR
2004 2010
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
INCOME
Mean
NUMBER
HH
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
INCOME
Mean
Mixed-Income Family . $2,280.0 1
Project Based Vouchers Family . $7,260.0 1
Public Housing Family $2,935.1 159 .
NUMBER
HH
Vouchers Tenant Based . $2,338.5 16
Public Housing Elderly $2,088.0 1 .
AVERAGE $2,929.8 160 $2,608.7 18
67 | P a g e

Figure 42
AVERAGE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE INCOME OF ALL HOUSEHOLDS REGISTERED WITH AHA IN
2004
YEAR
2004 2010
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
INCOME
Mean
NUMBER
HH
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
INCOME
Mean
NUMBER
HH
Mixed-Income Family $2,945.9 52 $3,011.9 19
Project Based Vouchers Family $2,456.0 3 $3,940.0 3
Public Housing Family $3,189.9 413 .
Vouchers Tenant Based $3,022.3 858 $2,763.8 315
Public Housing Elderly $1,818.0 8 .
AVERAGE $3,062.7 1334 $2,788.2 337
68 | P a g e

Section 8
Impact of CATALYST on Employment, Education
and Upward Mobility
CATALYST Work/Program Requirement Policy
In October of 2004, AHA began implementing of the CATALYST Work/Program Policy on an
incremental basis. The program was designed to reinforce among adults the importance and
necessity of working to achieve economic independence and self-sufficiency. Today, this
requirement is fully implemented. Under the current standards, at least one adult in each
assisted household (18 years to 61 years of age and not disabled) must be gainfully employed
for 30 hours or more a week. Elderly persons, age 62 or older, and persons with disabilities are
excluded from the requirement. All other adults in the household must either be gainfully
employed for 30 hours each week or devote an equivalent amount of time to a combination of
school attendance, job training and/or part-time employment. These conditions are criteria
upon which the eligibility for a housing subsidy is based.
The CSS was based on the "Humans Services Delivery Strategy" (HSDS). The objective of this
strategy is to stay in touch with families, keep families connected to educational and training
programs and provide them services to improve their quality of life. The four components of the
program were as follows: Ongoing Life Counseling and Coaching, Individual Family Support, a
Connection to Quality Programs and Resources; and the Promotion of Personal Responsibility.
Through HSDS, each family was assigned a Human Services Case Manager who has the
responsibility of working with the family to help remove various that impede success and to make
sure that he seamless continuum of care is provided to families from pre-revitalization through
completion and beyond. The strategy was implemented by human services professionals in
cooperation with development partners and the AHA. IMS Human Services Management was
selected to provide case management services to Grady homes residents through the revitalization
grant period.
69 | P a g e

Employment Assistance and Training Outcomes
Grady residents began receiving relocation assistance until April of 2004. A preliminary (2004)
report on the status of support services indicated that residents of Grady Homes utilized the
employment assistance and training services more frequently than other types of supportive
services. In 2004, there were 194 referrals and two out of every three enrollees completed the
program and nine were placed in employment. In 2007, 40 residents enrolled and graduated
from the program, and 14 residents successfully gained employment.
Figures 43 through 45 provide information on employment outcomes for Grady householders
as well as all AHA adults in the target population. In 2004, among persons who were affected
by Grady revitalization, 44.1% were employed full-time or part-time during 2004. AHA's work
compliance policy was implemented in 2005 and by 2007, employment among household
heads affected by Grady revitalization reach 61.8%. In 2010, the employment rate decreased to
47.5%, presumably as a result of the severe recession. A similar pattern was recorded for all
AHA householders who were in the target population. Specifically, 52.1% were employed in
2004 and that percentage reach 63.6% in 2007. However, by 2010, the percentage had
decreased to 55.6%.
The rate of employment varied significantly by the type of housing assistance. For example
among those affected by Grady revitalization, the highest rates of employment occurred among
families who received project-based vouchers 71.4%; followed by families in mixed-income
housing, 53.8%.
Figure 43
70 | P a g e

Figure 44
Figure 44
EMPLOYMENT RATE OF HOUSEHOLDERS AFFECTED BY GRADY REVITALIZATION
(PERSONS IN TARGET POPULATION)
NOT
EMPLOYED
YEAR
2004 2007 2010
EMPLOYED
NOT
EMPLOYED
EMPLOYED
NOT
EMPLOYED
EMPLOYED
PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT
Mixed-Income Family .0% .0% 27.3% 72.7% 46.2% 53.8%
Project Based Vouchers Family .0% .0% 50.0% 50.0% 28.6% 71.4%
Public Housing Family 54.4% 45.6% 31.7% 68.3% .0% 100.0%
Vouchers Tenant Based .0% .0% 41.8% 58.2% 54.0% 46.0%
Public Housing Elderly 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0% .0% .0%
AVERAGE 55.9% 44.1% 38.2% 61.8% 52.5% 47.5%
71 | P a g e

Figure 45
EMPLOYMENT RATE OF ALL HOUSEHOLDERS REGISTERED WITH AHA IN 2004
(PERSONS IN TARGET POPULATION)
NOT
EMPLOYED
YEAR
2004 2007 2010
EMPLOYED
NOT
EMPLOYED
EMPLOYED
NOT
EMPLOYED
EMPLOYED
PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT
Mixed-Income Family 22.3% 77.7% 21.1% 78.9% 23.7% 76.3%
Project Based Vouchers Family 31.3% 68.8% 52.2% 47.8% 26.0% 74.0%
Public Housing Family 59.8% 40.2% 46.4% 53.6% .0% 100.0%
Vouchers Tenant Based 44.8% 55.2% 35.7% 64.3% 46.1% 53.9%
Public Housing Elderly 83.1% 16.9% 73.3% 26.7% 42.9% 57.1%
Special Needs Properties .0% .0% .0% .0% 28.6% 71.4%
AVERAGE 47.9% 52.1% 36.4% 63.6% 44.4% 55.6%
Average Hours Worked per Week
The average hours worked per week among employed individuals indicate that the effort to move
families to employment achieved enormous success. For example, in 2010 the 4,055 persons in the
target population who were employed worked on average 32 hours per week. Overall, hours
worked per week decreased slightly between 2007 and 2010 from 34 hours to 32 hours. The
records regarding training outcomes indicated that in 2007 there were 276 adults enrolled in
workforce training programs and in 2010 the comparable number was 118. The average number of
hours spent in workforce training was 29 and 24 respectively, Figure 46 and 47.
72 | P a g e

Figure 46
AVERAGE HOURS WORKED PER WEEK FOR PERSONS REPORTING
2007 2010
Mean Number Mean Number
Mixed-income: Family NA. NA. . NA. NA.
PBRA: Family 35 60 .
LIPH: family 33 1979 34 69
HCV:: Tenant 34 4298 32 4055
Elderly, Special Needs 32 91 33 72
Total 34 6428 32 4196
Figure 47. Average Hours in Training Per Week
AVERAGE HOURS IN TRAINING PER WEEK FOR PERSONS REPORTING
TRAINING HOURS
2007 2010
Mean Number Mean Number
LIPH: family 29 201 30 3
HCV:: Tenant 27 75 23 115
Total 29 276 24 118
Factors That Influence Employment Outcomes
To examine the relationship between the rate of employment, the type of housing assistance
and other socioeconomic characteristics of householders, the research team used a
Generalized Estimation Equations model, Figure 46. The model examined all householders in
73 | P a g e

the target population between 2004 and 2010. Repeated observations were taken on the same
householder in 2004, 2007 and 2010. There were 33,051 observations included in the analysis
and 1656, or 4.8% were excluded because of missing data. The binomial distributed function
was used. The model controlled for the following attributes: the type of housing assistance
received by the householder i.e. LIPH, mixed-income or received vouchers; whether the
householder was male or female; the work compliance policy was not an effect in 2004 but was
enforced in 2007 and 2010; whether the household received public assistance; the age of the
householder; the median income of the census track were the householder lived; and the
number of bedrooms.
The primary results are given in panel 2 of Figure 48. The results are as follows: when families
lived in mixed-income developments as opposed to LIPH, the odds of them becoming employed
are five times greater (e.g. the ExpB = 5.056). The Exponent B (or ExpB is the value derived by
exponentiating the coefficient value. ExpB gives the odds of an event happening, in this case
the odds of an adult in the target population being employed. Even on equal 1. Values of ExpB
that are greater than 1 indicate an increase in the odds while values less than 1 indicate a
decrease in odds relative to a reference category. The reference category for the type of
housing assistance is LIPH. Therefore, as compared to LIPH the odds of employment for families
who received housing choice vouchers are 1.76 times greater. It should also be noted that the
use of a repeated observation framework controls for the influence of the selectivity of
householders because attributes are held constant in observing employment outcomes.
The results also revealed the following outcomes: the odds of women working in comparison to
men are 1.7 times greater; families who received public assistance experienced odds of working
that were 87% lower in comparison to families who were not on public assistance (i.e. the ExpB
was .126); every additional year of age lowers the odds of work by 3%; the number of
bedrooms that a family has influenced the odds by 7% for every additional room; and the
median income of the census tract where the family is located did not influence the odds of
work. More precisely, the value of the coefficient was marginally insignificant (.061) and the
ExpB value was 1.0. Most importantly, the work compliance policy increased the odds of
working out 1.17 or 17%.
In summary, we conclude that the type of housing assistance significantly influenced the odds
of being employed, with mixed-income housing having the greatest influence followed by
housing choice vouchers; women were more likely to be employed than men; the work
compliance policy significantly influence the likelihood of being employed; householders on
74 | P a g e

public assistance have a much lower probability of being employed; and the odds of working
increase for families that need a larger number of rooms.
Figure 48. Generalized Estimation Equations: Factors that Influence the Probability of HOH
Employment where three observations are made on HOHs, 2004, 2007 and 2010
Panel 1
Model Information
Dependent Variable
Probability Distribution
Link Function
EMPLOYMENT STATUS FOR HOH a
Binomial
Logit
Subject Effect 1 Head Of Household I.D.
Within-Subject Effect 1
Working Correlation Matrix Structure
YEAR
Independent
Panel 2
95% Wald Confidence
Interval
Hypothesis Test
Wald Chi-
Parameter B Std. Error
Lower
Upper
Square df Sig.
Exp(B)
(Intercept) .286 .0931 .103 .468 9.425 1 .002 1.331
HCV=2 .563 .0356 .493 .633 250.711 1 .000 1.756
MIXED-INCOME1 1.620 .0583 1.506 1.735 773.453 1 .000 5.056
LIPH.=0 REFERENCE 0 a . . . . . . 1
[GENDER STATUS (1 = FEMALE) .525 .0630 .402 .649 69.446 1 .000 1.691
WORK COMP POLICY IN EFFECT = 1 .154 .0253 .105 .204 37.346 1 .000 1.167
PUBLIC ASST RECEIVED = 1 -2.072 .0613 -2.192 -1.952 1142.863 1 .000 .126
AGE -.030 .0014 -.033 -.027 443.165 1 .000 .970
MEDIAN INCOME OF CENSUS TRACT .000 .0000 .000 .000 3.507 1 .061 1.000
NUMBER BEDROOMS .068 .0146 .039 .096 21.461 1 .000 1.070
(Scale) 1
75 | P a g e

95% Wald Confidence
Interval
Hypothesis Test
Wald Chi-
Parameter B Std. Error
Lower
Upper
Square df Sig.
Exp(B)
(Intercept) .286 .0931 .103 .468 9.425 1 .002 1.331
HCV=2 .563 .0356 .493 .633 250.711 1 .000 1.756
MIXED-INCOME1 1.620 .0583 1.506 1.735 773.453 1 .000 5.056
LIPH.=0 REFERENCE 0 a . . . . . . 1
[GENDER STATUS (1 = FEMALE) .525 .0630 .402 .649 69.446 1 .000 1.691
WORK COMP POLICY IN EFFECT = 1 .154 .0253 .105 .204 37.346 1 .000 1.167
PUBLIC ASST RECEIVED = 1 -2.072 .0613 -2.192 -1.952 1142.863 1 .000 .126
AGE -.030 .0014 -.033 -.027 443.165 1 .000 .970
MEDIAN INCOME OF CENSUS TRACT .000 .0000 .000 .000 3.507 1 .061 1.000
NUMBER BEDROOMS .068 .0146 .039 .096 21.461 1 .000 1.070
(Scale) 1
Dependent Variable: EMPLOYMENT STATUS FOR HOH
a. Set to zero because this parameter is
redundant.
Case Processing Summary
N
Percent
Included 33051 95.2%
Excluded 1656 4.8%
Total 34707 100.0%
76 | P a g e

Correlated Data Summary
Number of Levels Subject Effect Head Of Household
I.D.
18861
Within-Subject Effect YEAR 3
Number of Subjects 18861
Number of
Minimum 1
Measurements per
Subject
Maximum
3
Correlation Matrix Dimension 3
Categorical Variable Information
N
Percent
Dependent Variable
EMPLOYMENT
STATUS FOR HOH
NOT EMPLOYED 13802 41.8%
EMPOYED 19249 58.2%
Total 33051 100.0%
Factor
TYPE HOUSING
ASST.
HOUSING
VOUCHERS
24108 72.9%
MIXED-INCOME 3326 10.1%
LOW INCOME
PUBLIC HOUSING
5617 17.0%
Total 33051 100.0%
GENDER FEMALE 31451 95.2%
MALE 1600 4.8%
Total 33051 100.0%
WORK
COMPLIANCE
Work Compliance in
Force
21118 63.9%
POLICY
No Work Compliance 11933 36.1%
Total 33051 100.0%
PUBLIC PUBLIC ASST 2934 8.9%
77 | P a g e

ASSISTANCE
STATUS for HOH
NO PUBLIC ASST 30117 91.1%
Total 33051 100.0%
Continuous Variable Information
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Covariate AGE 33051 19 60 38.34 9.878
BEDROOMS 33051 0 8 2.44 .919
MEDIAN INC. TRACT 33051 $4,705 $138,568 $27,264.93 $13,512.489
Goodness of Fit b
Value
Quasi Likelihood
under
Independence
40638.213
Model Criterion
(QIC) a
Corrected Quasi
Likelihood under
Independence
40634.764
Model Criterion
(QICC) a
Dependent Variable: EMPLOYMENT STATUS FOR HOH
Model: (Intercept), TYPE HOUSING ASST., GENDER, WORK COMPLIANCE
POLICY, PUBLIC ASST, AGE, MEDIAN INCOME, NUMBER BEDROOMS
a. Computed using the full log quasi-likelihood function.
b. Information criteria are in small-is-better form.
78 | P a g e

Tests of Model Effects
Type III
Wald Chi-
Source
Square df Sig.
(Intercept) 16.674 1 .000
TYPE HOUSING ASST. 788.450 2 .000
GENDER 69.446 1 .000
WORK COMPLIANCE POLICY 37.346 1 .000
PUBLIC ASST 1142.863 1 .000
AGE 443.165 1 .000
MEDIAN INCOME TRACT 3.507 1 .061
NUMBER BEDROOMS 21.461 1 .000
Dependent Variable: EMPLOYMENT STATUS FOR HOH
Earnings Profile
In 2004, householders affected by Grady revitalization had annual earnings of $11,958. In 2010,
earnings increased to $14,462. Earnings were highest among individuals from Grady who
relocated to mixed-income developments ($18,195) and secondly for families who used tenant
based vouchers ($14,381) see Figure 51. Overall, earnings increased by 21% over the sevenyear
evaluation time frame, see Figure 49. For persons who were registered with AHA between
2004 and 2010, earnings increased from $13,429 to $16,311, see Figure 50. This also
represented a 21% increase in earnings. The highest earnings were achieved by persons who
lived in in mixed-income developments ($18,612). The second highest earnings were attained
by families who received project-based vouchers ($16,224) and thirdly by families who received
tenant based vouchers ($16,117). Note, while persons in special needs properties had earnings
of $18,455, we do not include them in this ranking because there were only five observations,
Figure 52.
79 | P a g e

Figure 49
Figure 50
80 | P a g e

Figure 51
EARNINGS OF HOUSEHOLDERS FOR FAMILIES AFFECTED BY GRADY REVITALIZATION
YEAR
2004 2010
EARNINGS for HOH
Mean
NUMBER
HH
EARNINGS for HOH
Mean
Mixed-Income Family . $18,195 7
NUMBER
HH
Project Based Vouchers Family . $12,962 10
Public Housing Family $11,958 256 $15,080 1
Vouchers Tenant Based . $14,381 144
AVERAGE $11,958 256 $14,462 162
Figure 52
EARNINGS OF ALL HOUSEHOLDERS REGISTERED WITH AHA IN 2004
YEAR
2004 2010
EARNINGS for HOH
Mean
NUMBER
HH
EARNINGS for HOH
Mean
NUMBER
HH
Mixed-Income Family $15,263 269 $18,612 270
Project Based Vouchers Family $15,681 11 $16,224 37
Public Housing Family $10,730 520 $14,242 19
Vouchers Tenant Based $13,899 2079 $16,117 2932
Public Housing Elderly $10,203 28 $11,162 4
Special Needs Properties . $18,455 5
AVERAGE $13,429 2907 $16,311 3267
Education Services
Figure 53 records the number of individuals in the target population who enrolled in school fulltime
in 2007 and 2010. The results indicate that full-time school enrollment in 2007 number
81 | P a g e

298 householders and part-time enrollment number 108. In total, 3.5% of householders were
enrolled either full-time or part-time in school. In 2010 there were 265 householders enrolled
full-time and 20 enrolled part-time for a total of 285, or 2.6% of householders who were in the
target population.
Figure 48. Persons in School Full-time
NUMBER TARGET POPULATION REPORTING FULL TIME/PART TIME
SCHOOLING
2007 2010
NO PERSONS
NO PERSONS
Full-time 297 265
Part time 108 20
Total 405 285
82 | P a g e

Other Services
Rehabilitation and Counseling
This category includes mental health and family and domestic violence as indicators of the
social and psychological needs. In 2004 there was one enrollment for every two referrals and
by 2007, this number decreased to one enrollment for every 35 referrals.
Childcare Services
In 2004, 16 Grady residents were referred to childcare services and two were assisted with
childcare. In 2007 nine residents were referred, but none enrolled in the program. As
measured against the youth population, in 2004 5.7% received childcare and 3.3% did so in
2007.
Transportation Services
In Grady Homes, 1.4% of the population in 2004 and 2.9% of the population in 2007 received
assistance related to transportation services. Less than a quarter of all residents who were
referred to transportation services in 2004 actually enrolled. In 2007, 100% of all referrals
enrolled.
Youth Services
Approximately 48% of all residents at Grady Homes were under 18 years of age. This increases
the importance of the effectiveness of educational and after-school programs offered to young
Grady residents. In the nine months in 2004, there were four referrals to youth services, by
2007, 5% of youth were referred to youth services.
83 | P a g e

Section 9:
Family Relocation Outcomes and Neighborhood
Characteristics2004 - 2010
Perhaps the most significant issue regarding family relocation outcomes is whether or not
relocated families moved to lower poverty neighborhoods. The poverty rate was 57% in the
census tracts where Grady Homes was located in 2004. Following householders longitudinally
between 2004 and 2010, the results showed that the poverty rate in neighborhoods where
Grady families relocated was 31%, Figure 49. One additional way of looking at this outcome is
to compare the poverty rates in origin and destination neighborhoods to determine whether
individuals who moved to lower poverty areas, higher poverty areas, or areas where the
poverty rate was no different. The results for Grady householders indicate that 86.3% relocated
to neighborhoods that had lower poverty rates, see Figure 50. When the same analysis was
conducted for all householders who are registered with Grady in 2004 and 2010, it was found
that 48.5% of householders relocated to neighborhoods that had lower poverty rates, 21.6%
relocated to neighborhoods with higher poverty rates, and 29.9% lived in neighborhoods in
2010 where the poverty rate was no different than it was in 2004, Figure 51.
Figure 49
84 | P a g e

Figure 51
Figure 52
NEIGHBORHOOD POVERTY RATE COMPARISON FOR GRADY REVITALIZATION
HOUSEHOLDERS
2004 RATE COMPARED TO 2010 RATE
NUMBER PERCENT
Rate 2010 same as Rate 2004 26 4.2%
Rate 2010 Greater than 2004 59 9.5%
Rate 2010 less than Rate 2004 536 86.3%
85 | P a g e

Figure 53
Following the Grady Revitalization Master Plan, AHA implemented QLI. It sought to demolish all
remaining 10 remaining LIPH developments and relocate families. It also targeted 2 public
housing senior developments. Together the 12 developments that housed 3,920 households in
2004 were targeted for demolition. When the developments were demolished, every family
had to be temporarily or permanently relocated. To help families with the adjustment,
coaching and counseling services were provided for a period of for 27 months following their
initial relocation.
The figures below provide information on relocation outcomes for Grady families and for all
householders registered with AHA between 2004 and 2007. In particular, the provide
information on the characteristics of the neighborhoods where families lived in 2004 and 2010.
The figures show that families affected by Grady revitalization relocated to lower poverty
neighborhoods (57% versus 31%); they moved to neighborhoods where the performance of
elementary schools on nationally standardized tests was slightly lower (45% versus 43%);
median household income in the census tract was more than twice as large ($10,551 versus
$24,784); they moved to neighborhoods where the median price of a single-family home was
slightly lower ($190,866 versus $180,255); the neighborhoods were slightly less racially
concentrated (97% percent black versus 88% black); the neighborhoods had a higher
percentage of employees in managerial and administrative occupations (33% versus 44%); the
86 | P a g e

percent of the population with only a high school degree was slightly lower (33% versus 31%);
and percent of individuals with bachelor's degrees was higher (4% versus 9%). Similar changes
occurred among the entire population that received housing assistance in 2004 and 2010,
however the outcomes were not as strongly positive as they were for the population that
experienced the Grady revitalization.
Figure 54
AVERAGE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS FOR GRADY REVITALIZATION
HOUSEHOLDERS IN 2004 AND 2010
YEAR
2004 2010
Mean
Mean
Poverty rate in census tract .57 .31
Fifth grade ITBS composite score for fifth grade 44.84 42.92
Medium household income in census tract $10,551 $24,784
Mean price single-family home in census tract $198,866 $188,255
Percent of population that is black .97 .88
Percent employed in admin and management/professional occup. .33 .44
Percent of adults with HS degree only .33 .31
Percent of pop with Bachelor’s degree .04 .09
Figure 55
87 | P a g e

Figure 56
AVERAGE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS FOR ALL HOUSEHOLDERS REGISTERED IN 2004 AND 2010
YEAR
2004 2010
Mean
Mean
PPOVERTY RATE IN CENSUS TRACT .32 .25
FIFTH GRADE ITBS COMPOSITE SCORE FOR SCHOOL 45.14 46.79
FIFTH GRADE ITBS COMPOSITE SCORE FOR SCHOOL $26,788 $31,103
MEAN PRICE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IN CENSUS TRACT $196,964 $194,356
PERCENT OF POPULATION THAT IS BLACK .82 .81
PERCENT EMPLOYED IN ADMIN AND MGT OCCUP .47 .50
PERCENT OF ADULTS WITH HS DEGREE ONLY .29 .29
PERCENT OF POP WITH BACHELORS DEGREE .11 .12
Spatial Mapping of Relocation Outcomes
The address of every assisted family who lived at Grady homes prior to its demolition was
been geocoded and projected as a dot on the three maps below. These maps provide a
visual of the relocation of families over time based on the address provided in
administrative data. Demographic characteristics were merged with spatial characteristics
and the final report will provide a visual analysis of socioeconomic attributes of families as
they relocated from the Grady.
The three maps below are based on spatially tracking the residents of Grady Homes
longitudinally over three time periods – April 2004, September 2004 and June 2007. The
dots on the map indicate the areas in the city were residents lived at the given time. We
observed that while the location of residents was more clustered in April of 2004, with time
the families spread out even to areas outside the perimeter. The red circle is roughly
indicative of the radius of the spread of families as they relocated, Maps 1 through 3.
88 | P a g e

89 | P a g e
Map 1: Location of Original Grady Families as of 4/1/04

Map 2: Location of original Grady Families as of 9/1/04
Map 3: Location of original Grady Families as of 6/1/07
90 | P a g e

Poverty Deconcentration
One effective way of isolating the influence of AHA’s MTW initiatives on poverty
deconcentration is to follow longitudinally the 4224 households that lived in public housing
developments in 2004 and relocated afterwards as a result of the demolition of those
developments. The average poverty rate of census tracts where public housing properties were
located in 2004 was 56%. The average poverty rate in neighborhoods where the same families
relocated to by 2010 was 29%.
The relocation outcomes of families were examined by following a special group of 4224
households who were continually active over the time horizon 2004 to 2007-- they numbered
1797 (see Figure 57). Of this group of continually active families all lived in public housing
developments in 2004 where the average poverty rate was 56%. By 2010, 81% (or 1452
families) had relocated with housing choice vouchers and the average poverty rate of
neighborhoods where they relocated was 19%. A second group of these families, accounting for
47.0% of the total, relocated to mixed-income developments where the average poverty rate
was 40%. The third largest group of these families relocated to PBRA elderly properties (4%),
where the average poverty rate was 36%. The fourth largest group of these families relocated
to PBRA elderly family properties (3%) where the average poverty rate was 48%. Overall, the
average poverty rate for all of the continually active families by 2010 was 29%, Figure 58.
Secondly, each group of families (based on the type of housing assistance) relocated to
neighborhoods whose poverty rates were lower than was the poverty rate in their origin
neighborhood, which was 56%. The conclusion is that families who relocated as a result of the
MTW Quality of Life Initiative moved to neighborhoods with much lower poverty rates.
91 | P a g e

Figure 57
NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE FAMILIES WHO LIVED IN LIPH 2004 RELOCATED TO
(CONTINUALLY ACTIVE AFFORDABLE HOUSEHOLDS, 2004 TO 2010)
2004 2007 2010
MIXED-INCOME: FAMILY 46 118
PBRA: FAMILY 0 5 54
LIPH: FAMILY 1,797 1,236 26
HCV: TENANT BASED 0 473 1,452
MIXED-INCOME: ELDERLY 0 0 21
PBRA: ELDERLY 0 12 73
LIPH: ELDERLY 0 19 25
SPECIAL NEEDS PROPERTIES: MAJOR FOCUS 0 0 26
92 | P a g e

Figure 58
POVERTY RATE OF ORIGIN AND DESTINATION NEIGHBORHOODS FOR
FAMILIES WHO RELOCATED FROM AFFORDABLE COMMUNITIES IN 2004
(CONTINUALLY ACTIVE FAMILIES 2004 TO 2010)
Poverty Rate
2004 2007 2010
MIXED-INCOME COMMUNITIES: FAMILY . .37 .40
PROJECT BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE: FAMILY . .41 .48
AFFORDABLE PUBLIC HOUSING: FAMILY .56 .58 .19
HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS: TENANT BASED . .31 .27
ELDERLY AND SPECIAL NEEDS COMMUNITIES . .26 .36
Total .56 .50 .29
To further illustrate this five additional spatial maps were prepared to examine the
deconcentration of poverty that accompanied the Quality of Life Initiative. Map 5 is a spatial
representation of census tracts within the Atlanta Metro area. Census tracts are color-coded
according to poverty thresholds. In the map below the red line represents the boundaries of
93 | P a g e

the City of Atlanta. The blue line represents the interstate system and the oval-shaped blue
line, which surrounds the City, is the Interstate 285 Highway. The gray lines represent county
boundaries. Each census tract in the Metro was classified according to its standard deviation
around the mean poverty rate. The specific results are demonstrated in the map 4 where the
dark green areas represent census tracts whose poverty rates are 1.5 (or greater) standard
deviations above the mean poverty rate. Poverty rates falling within this category range from
29.1% to 75.7%. The dark green areas represent census tracts that have the highest rates of
poverty in Metro Atlanta. The light green area represents census tracts whose poverty rates
vary from .52 to 1.49 standard deviations of the mean. The actual poverty rates range from
17.5% to 29.0%. The light yellow region corresponds to census tracts whose values are 5.8% to
17.4% (-.52 through .5 standard deviations). The lightest area represents census tracts that
have the lowest rates of poverty and have values that range from .0% to 5.8% (these rates are
less than .5 standard deviations of the mean).
94 | P a g e
Darkest green areas poverty rates range from 29% to 76%
Light Green Areas: poverty rates range from 17.5% to 29.1%
Yellow Areas: poverty rate ranges from 5.8% to 17.5%
White Area poverty: poverty rate is less than 5.8%
Map 4 illustrates that the highest concentrations of poverty in Atlanta (the darkest green areas)
correspond to neighborhoods that are situated in a band that runs from South East Atlanta to
North West Atlanta. The neighborhoods run through the city's central business district which is
centered immediately north of the four way intersection of interstate system I-20 which runs
east and west through the city and interstates I -75 and I- 85 which join together north of the
city.
The highest poverty rates are located in neighborhoods that are concentrated in a corridor that
runs from North West Atlanta to South East Atlanta. South of these areas, the poverty rate
decreases more gradually. Map 5 displays the spatial location of the 1797 continually active
AHA families in 2004. Each family lived in a public housing development and with one
exception; those developments were all located in the highest poverty areas of the City. We
have found that 81% of these families used housing choice vouchers by 2010. Map 6 spatially
displays the location of families in 2007. We see that by 2007 families had started gradually
relocating from the highest poverty areas of the City of Atlanta. Map 7 illustrates where the
same families resided in 2010. By following the movement of families longitudinally, we see

clearly how these families made a significant movement away from the highest poverty
concentrations and relocated to other neighborhoods in and around the City of Atlanta where
poverty rates were lower. We also see that a significant percentage of families ported out of
the City (16.6% of all continually active families).
MAP 4
In 2004, there were 1797 households that received housing assistance from AHA in one of its
traditional public housing developments. The location of the developments is plotted on Map 5
and illustrated in dark brown. It is easy to see that with only one exception, all of the
developments were located in the highest poverty census tracts of the City, Map 5.
95 | P a g e

MAP 5
In 2007, there were 524 of the households that had relocated from public housing
developments mainly by using housing choice vouchers. Spatially, one can see how the families
were spreading out both more broadly across high poverty areas but also slowly into the light
green areas which represent neighborhoods with poverty rates of 18% to 29% (Map 6 and
Figure 57). By 2007, a very small number of households moved to neighborhoods classified
among those having the lowest rates of poverty.
96 | P a g e

MAP 6
Map 7 illustrates that in 2010 only 26 of the original 1797 families still live in the last two
remaining traditional public housing developments. The other families had relocated even
more broadly throughout the metro area and especially to neighborhoods within the second
highest poverty classification where poverty rates range from 6% to 18%.
97 | P a g e

MAP 7
The Community Attribute Index Score for Grady Revitalization
To evaluate the quality of neighborhoods where families resided, we used the Community
Attribute Index (CAI). This is a multi-dimensional index which consists of 16 variables that are
used to score neighborhoods in the Atlanta Metro Area. The variables were identified through
applying Principal Component Analysis to dozens of variables defined at the census tract level.
Variable values were converted to a scale that ranged from 0 to 1 and the average of all
variables comprised the CAI score. A CAI score was generated for each census tract and
aggregated to neighborhoods in Atlanta. Derivation of the CAI has been discussed extensively in
related research; see AHA MTW Evaluation Reports for 2004, 2007 and 2010. Figure 59 record
98 | P a g e

the CAI scores at the point of origin and destination for families affected by Grady revitalization.
The average CAI score in 2004 was .21. In 2010, the average score was .31, which reflected the
fact that families had relocated to higher quality neighborhoods during the intervening years.
Figure 59
COMMUNITY ATTRIBUTE INDEX SCORE FOR FAMILIES AFFECTED BY
GRADY REVITALIZATION
YEAR
2004 2010
CAI
Mean
CAI
Mean
Mixed-Income Family . .25
Project Based Vouchers Family . .24
Public Housing Family .20 .34
Vouchers Tenant Based . .34
Mixed-income Elderly . .29
Project Based Vouchers Elderly . .22
Public Housing Elderly .23 .39
Special Needs Properties . .23
Total .21 .31
99 | P a g e

Section 10
Factors that Influence Exits from AHA Housing
Assistance
The results in this section are best interpreted as follows. Initially, families who lived in low
income public housing prior to demolition had the highest odds of exiting housing assistance
when compared to householders who live in mixed-income developments and those who
received housing choice vouchers. However, over time as householders relocated to mixedincome
developments and used housing choice vouchers, the experience the highest
probability of exiting public housing assistance in becoming fully self-sufficient.
The results do not support the review that less upwardly mobile families exited housing
assistance at a higher rate than was the case for more upwardly mobile families because of the
demolition of public housing projects. In fact, prior to QLI, exit rates for householders in LIPH
developments were higher than where the rate for families in mixed-income developments and
those who used housing vouchers. As families relocated from public housing and achieve
greater levels of self-sufficiency, the exit AHA housing assistance at a higher rate.
Findings
The results in this section are derived by using a Cox Hazard Model with Time-Dependent
Covariance. In this section, we report the results of the time-dependent covariance model
without going into a detailed technical discussion. The results are present in Figure 60.
The survival model is based on observing the exit pattern of all householders (18,838) who
were registered with AHA in 2004. Their attrition patterns are examined through 2010. The Cox
model adjusts for the fact that 9355 of these householders had not exited AHA housing
assistance by 2010. Therefore the amount of time that they will continue to receive housing
assistance is unknown and must be predicted through the hazard model. The dependent
variable is the length of time that a household received housing assistance and the outcome of
the predictors are reported as odds ratios. That is, the coefficient value when converted to an
exponent gives the odds of an individual exiting housing assistance given a one unit change in
the value of the predictor variable. The results are as follows:
100 | P a g e

Householders who are in a Port Out status experienced odds of exiting housing
assistance that were 1.5 times greater than householders who are not in a PORT OUT
status, (ExpB = 1.5). Recall that the value of even odds is ExpB =1.0.
The odds of women exiting housing assistance was 23% lower than are the odds for
men.
Disability status is not statistically significant relative to the odds of an individual
exiting housing assistance (ExpB = .78).
Every additional year of age decreased the odds of exiting housing assistance by 3%.
An additional bedroom in a rental apartment decreased the odds of exiting by 17%.
The marital status of a householder is not statistically significant in regards to the odds
of exiting.
The employment status of the householder was not significantly related to the odds of
exiting housing assistance.
Six variables recorded the influence of the type of housing assistance on the odds of
exiting. The first three variables were not influenced by time while the latter three
variables were.
The results indicate that the odds of exiting housing assistance were greatest for
families who lived in LIPH developments prior to the demolition. During this time
frame, families who lived in mixed-income developments had 74% lower odds of
exiting than was the case for LIPH. Likewise, voucher holders experienced 55% lower
odds of exiting than did individuals who lived in LIPH. However, when families
relocated from LIPH to vouchers and mixed-income communities, the achieved greater
levels of self-sufficiency and as a result their exit odds increased significantly. Over
time, the exit odds were 1.3 times greater for individuals in mixed-income housing than
for individuals in LIPH. Similarly, householders who received housing vouchers have
odds over time that was 1.12 times greater than were the exit odds of families in LIPH,
see Figure 60.
101 | P a g e

Figure 60
Variables in the Equation
B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
PORT .420 .026 254.661 1 .000 1.522
Gender -.252 .038 44.559 1 .000 .777
DISABILITY .050 .027 3.495 1 .062 1.052
AGE -.032 .001 1465.496 1 .000 .968
NUMBER BEDROOMS -.188 .013 218.603 1 .000 .828
MARRIED -.122 .069 3.151 1 .076 .885
EMPLOYED -.042 .024 2.921 1 .087 .959
LIPH 188.307 2 .000
MIXED-INCOME -1.349 .204 43.856 1 .000 .260
HCV -.780 .060 168.522 1 .000 .458
LIPH*T_COV_ 605.479 2 .000
MIXED-INCOME (1)*T_COV_ .270 .022 152.125 1 .000 1.310
HCV(2)*T_COV_ .109 .005 515.335 1 .000 1.115
Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients a,b
-2 Log Likelihood Overall (score) Change From Previous Step Change From Previous Block
Chisquare
df Sig. Chi-square df Sig. Chi-square df Sig.
159861.266 4138.879 11 .000 3808.215 11 .000 3808.215 11 .000
a. Beginning Block Number 0, initial Log Likelihood function: -2 Log likelihood: 163669.481
b. Beginning Block Number 1. Method = Enter
102 | P a g e

Case Processing Summary
N
Percent
Cases available in Event a 9483 50.1%
analysis
Censored 9355 49.4%
Total 18838 99.5%
Cases dropped Cases with missing values 1 .0%
Cases with negative time 95 .5%
Censored cases before the earliest event in a
0 .0%
stratum
Total 96 .5%
Total 18934 100.0%
a. Dependent Variable: Tenure on Housing Assistance
The distributions of all variables were examined for skewness and the influence of outliers and
a logarithmic transformation was made when necessary. The Cox proportional hazard model
was found to have time-dependent co-variation and as such, the Cox time-dependent
procedure was used.
103 | P a g e

Section 11
Focus Group Survey Responses
During the month of November, for three successive years starting in 2007, focus groups of
Grady residents were conducted. The groups consisted of individuals who were heads of
households at Grady Homes just before it was demolished. Each focus group had between
seven and ten participants and attention was given to creating representative samples based
on participant characteristics. A focus group guide was developed alone with a list of questions
that were used by the discussion leader. Additionally, at the end of each focus group a survey
questionnaire was administered to participants. This allowed the research team to better
calibrate the qualitative responses. The identities of participants were not be revealed.
Focus Group Protocol
1. All groups were conducted at Georgia Tech’s Center for Quality Growth and Regional
Development.
2. The most recent address of Grady HOHs was obtained from the administrative records at
AHA.
o In 2004 there were 457 heads of households who formerly lived at Grady.
o In 2007 there were 322 heads of households who formerly lived at Grady
o In 2007 there were 270 heads of households who formerly lived at Grady
3. The Focus Group Guide was developed along with the talking points for facilitators.
4. Letters on invitation were sent to all registered HOHs with RSVP forms attached.
5. Respondents were assigned to one of nine sessions held during the month of November
2007 (wave 1), November 2008 (wave 2) and November 2009 (wave 3).
o In 2007 there were 97 HOHs who participated, which represented 30.1% of all
Grady HOHs who were still registered with AHA.
o In 2008 there were 94 HOHs who participated, which represented 29.2% of all
Grady HOHs who were still registered with AHA.
104 | P a g e

o In 2009 there were 84 HOHs who participated, which represented 31.1% of all
Grady HOHs who were registered with AHA in 2010.
6. Letters were sent to each prospective participant with the date and time of their assigned
session and directions to Georgia Tech. Among other reasons, Tech was chosen because it
was within convenient walking distance of two MARTA stations. The exact location was at
760 Spring Street, Suite 213 Atlanta, GA.
7. Each participant was telephoned a day or two before their session to remind them of date,
time and location.
8. Each session lasted approximately 1 ½ hours and was concluded with a four-page survey
(Appendix 1). Completion of the survey was not a requirement per IRB protocol. At the end
of the session, participants signed a form acknowledging the receipt of $125 for their time
and travel.
Overall Summary of Focus Group Discussions
About two-thirds of householders who formerly lived at Grady felt that the relocation made
them better off. Only 14% indicated that they felt worse off as a result of the relocation. The
general feeling was that the requirement to relocate from the Grady was initially stressful and
challenging. In the beginning a very small percentage openly embraced the opportunity to
move; those persons felt that the revitalization of Grady afforded them an option to relocate to
a safer, quieter and more wholesome environment for their kids. But the overwhelming
majority of householders were initially uncertain about the future as a result of the demolition
of Grady Homes.
Most residents, especially those who lived at Grady for a decade or more, indicated that they
enjoyed the sense of community and the convenience, i.e. living within walking distance to the
hospital, stores, work, and/or MARTA. However, by 2004 Grady became a very dangerous
environment in which to live. The environment was usually very noisy and there were regular
shootouts among drug dealers. Householders also felt that as the revitalization of public
housing projects progressed, the worst social elements of each demolished project (for
example Techwood Homes, Capitol Homes, etc.) relocated to a different housing project rather
than taking a voucher to move out into the community. Grady residents observed that this
practice led to an influx of residents with severe social problems and that exacerbated
problems in the environment at Grady. With very few exceptions however, residents observed
that the drug traffic was organized and run by persons who did not live at Grady officially; even
105 | P a g e

though a small percentage of the male drug dealers lived with and dated women householders
and some drug dealers were identified as individuals who had grown up at Grady. All residents
felt that their rental apartments have become outdated and outmoded and needed a great
deal of repair and rehabilitation.
Householders indicated that AHA gave them an option in regards to the type of housing
assistance they received upon leaving Grady and about 90% chose housing choice vouchers.
More than one half of the householders indicated that when they initially relocated from
Grady, they wanted to return once the property was revitalized. However, as time passed and
they had the experience of using housing vouchers, about two thirds of the householders no
longer wanted to move back to the revitalized property. They felt that housing vouchers gave
them much more flexibility to choose where they wanted to live and about 2-in-10 had secured
a rental house, which they liked a great deal.
The relocation and voucher process was very well communicated by representatives of AHA;
residents acknowledged and appreciated the meetings and information campaigns that the
AHA organized, although rumors of the impending demolition preceded the actual meetings
and the room was exacerbated the uncertainty. After being told about the demolition,
residents were given 90 days to move, a time period that many felt was too short. Advisors
helped to whelming majority of families find new place to rent. Some householders did not use
the advisors because they felt they could best identify a place to live or rely on the assistance of
family members.
Most householders indicated that they had very good and committed relocation advisors and
family support specialist. The assistance made them feel more informed, supported, and
comfortable with the process. Once the new accommodations were secured, other kinds of
problems surfaced. Nevertheless, the relocation advisors assisted them with the move and
residents appreciated the financial support and moving support provided by the AHA.
A majority of householders were able to secure reliable and affordable accommodations and
have been able to settle into their new communities. Overall, the way in which AHA carried out
the notification and relocation process was viewed very positively, and the interviewees felt
that the AHA had handled the transition well. In fact, 80.5% of householders felt that AHA
made a promise to provide assistance and that the organization lived up to its promise, only
19.5% felt that AHA did not live up to its promise.
106 | P a g e

A minority of householders moved into properties that that would be foreclosed on within
months - and they noted that they were unaware of the pending foreclosure when they
selected the rental property. They noted that the landlords actively tried to hide from AHA
inspectors, the physical and financial condition of the property. As a result, a surprising number
of interviewees had to make multiple moves, which proved to be more challenging because
they did not have the same resources and assistance available to them as during the first move
out of Grady.
The environment of Grady Homes was often dangerous, but the property was, in many ways,
home sweet home. Former residents indicated that the severe drug problems and criminal
activities were usually confined to specific streets are areas of the housing project. Ironically,
some residents did not feel threatened to live at Grady because they had a great familiarity
with the neighborhood and they could avoid trouble spots. All residents also indicated that they
were not assaulted or disrespected by the drug dealers and they frequently chastised them for
things they were doing wrong. One person even indicated that the dealers took her trash out to
the curb on a regular basis for garbage collection pick up. Interestingly, no one indicated that
Grady residents reported drug activity to the police. A common theme throughout all focus
groups was that the crime and safety problems were caused by people who did not live at
Grady. As such, they wished AHA had improved the security of the property by installing
security systems and gates.
The conditions of Grady apartments were a common source of complaint; nearly all focus
group participants acknowledged that the apartments needed renovation. On the other hand,
the negative aspects of living at Grady were offset in part by many positive aspects of Grady
Homes. During focus group sessions, residents who had moved away and not seen former
neighbors for some time, reminisced about the area and pondered a return. Clearly there was
a strong sense of community among residents at Grady. In contrast, at the new place of living,
the interviewees often felt isolated. The convenient location of Grady Homes and access to
public transportation were positive aspects; if you householders are now having trouble
commuting downtown to work after having moved further from the area. While a very small
minority wanted to move out of Grady at the onset of the revitalization program, as time
passed by very few wanted to return, even though they had not formally conveyed to AHA their
desire to maintain the housing voucher rather than move back into the mixed-income
community.
The quality of the environment of the new rental accommodations depended on where it was
located. Some have found safer environments with good schools. Overall, 72.3% of
107 | P a g e

householders indicated that they felt a little or a lot safer in the current environment in
comparison to Grady Homes while 65.2% felt that the new environment was a little safer or a
lot safer for their children. A minority of householders relocated to neighborhoods that were
characterized by high crime rates. As expected, these individuals were much less pleased with
their relocation outcome. In comparison, householders who relocated to better neighborhoods
tended to be more satisfied and were less likely to want to move back. Many indicated that
they enjoyed the independence that the voucher program permitted. While some interviewees
missed the community feeling that Grady provided, the predominant feeling was that
householders enjoy enjoyed the privacy and calm of the new neighborhoods more so than the
social networks they left at Grady. Overall, the environments of the new rental
accommodations tended to be much better than the environment at Grady Homes.
Householders liked the new housing vouchers they received. In fact one of their greatest
sources of concern was the requirement to give up the voucher if they decided to move back
into the mixed-income community. Another less common concern was voiced by those who
had problems with their landlords. For example, business interactions between landlord and
tenant were a source of frustration for some householders. They felt the process lacked
transparency. During 2008, a rather surprising percentage of families encounter problems with
rental housing and apartment complexes going into foreclosure. All interviewees appeared to
be aware of the progress of the Grady revitalization and continued to weigh their options; even
though the majority expressed a preference for keeping their vouchers. Finally, most
householders with kids indicated that the children like the new environments that are within
their environment at Grady Homes, even though at the latter they had been able to participate
in many community organized activities such as scouting.
Overall summary of Focus Group Survey Results
At the conclusion of each focus group session a survey instrument was issued to participants.
The survey results, for the most part, reflected and even more positive relocation experience
than was affected in the focus group discussions. No doubt this reflects the fact that during
open discussions, participants’ comments generally gravitate towards complaint or issues they
have wanting to bring someone's attention to.
Basic demographics of the respondents are as follows:
On average households had 1.2 adults and 1.2 children
108 | P a g e

A majority of persons moved out of Grady Homes approximately 4 years prior to the
initial session which was held in in November of 2007.
Eighty four percent of households had only one adult
Forty three percent of householders had no children
Ninety percent of respondents chose housing choice vouchers the form of assistance
used in to find new accommodations.
According to the surveys, AHA did a good job of moving people out of the Grady into new
accommodations. On a scale that identified no as -1 and yes as +1, the average score for
whether AHA lived up to its promise to provide relocation assistance was 0.9. The average
response on most metrics in the questionnaire, which included topics related to AHA
assistance, ease of finding new properties, ease of living/working in the new place, and
community metrics, was between ‘not a problem’ and ‘a small problem’. The toughest
challenge facing respondents was finding a safe neighborhood in which to move. Otherwise,
the moving process worked relatively well. The focus group discussions, however, indicated
that the biggest challenges came after the first move when representatives of AHA were less
involved; specifically the numerous instances of foreclosed properties that were rented to
former Grady residents.
The new living environments were viewed much more positively than the environment at
Grady. The one exception was that the new environments like the sense of community and
residents felt that it was more difficult to integrate into the community social network.
Children appeared to benefit most from the move. The average responses to the following
categories indicated "very positive improvements": child safety, child happiness, school
quality, access to parks, and job opportunities. Areas where moderate improvements were
noted include the following: neighborhood safety, happiness, health, access to stores, access to
medical services, financial capacity for rent, financial capacity for utilities, and fear of eviction.
As noted earlier, the biggest challenge was the absence of a sense of being integrated into the
new community.
Focus Group Response Rate
Grady revitalization began in 2005 and by 2007 there were 322 still active householders of the
original 457 who lived at Grady in 2004. Three hundred ten had complete and current address
information in the administrative records. Each household with the current address was mailed
a solicitation to participate in the focus groups for 2007, 2008 and 2009. In the last two years
109 | P a g e

there were 299 householders who were still active and had valid addresses (see Figure 61). In
2007, 2008 and 2009 the number of mail solicitations that were returned "undeliverable" was
16, 36 and 46 respectively. Therefore, in each of those years the number of householders who
were actually reached and solicited to participate was 306, 263 and 253 respectively. In each of
those respective years, 97, 116 and 84 householders responded positively to the solicitation
and the number that exit participated in 2007, 2008 and 2009 was 97, 94 and 69 respectively.
In 2007, only 74 of the 97 participants completed the survey instrument that was administered
at the end of the focus group session. In 2008 in 2009 all persons who participated completed
the survey instrument. Among all persons contacted by mail, focus group participation rate in
2007 was 32% (97 ÷ 306), in 2008 it was 36% (94 ÷ 263), and in 2009 it was 27% (69 ÷ 253).
Among the still active heads of households the participation rate in respective years was 30%,
30%, and 23%.
Figure 61. Response Rate to Baseline (2007) Focus Group Invitation
Category 2007 2008 2009
HOH Still Active by solicitation time 322 310 299
HOH with Good Addresses 310 299 299
Undeliverable Addresses 16 36 46
Returned to sender with new address; resent 9 0 0
Heads of Households Reached by Letter 306 263 253
Total RSVPs 97 116 84
110 | P a g e

Total Participants 97 94 69
Participants who completed survey instrument 74 94 69
Participation Rate of Persons Contacted 32% 36% 27%
Survey Completion Rate of Participants 76% 100% 100%
Participant Response Rate of Active HOHs 30% 30% 23%
111 | P a g e

Figure 62 provides information on the demographic profile of the focus group participants
during each of the three waves. Roughly 90% of the participants were women; 13% was 65
years of age or older and 91% elected to use housing choice vouchers when they initially moved
away from Grady Homes, see Figure 62.
Figure 62. Characteristics of the Baseline (2007) Focus Group
Category 2007 2008 2009 %
Female 68 85 60 90%
Male 6 9 9 10%
Under 65 65 84 87%
65+ 9 10 13%
HCV 69 87 60 91%
LIPH 5 7 9 9%
In 2007, the focus group participants were asked to indicate the number of years that has since
they moved away from Grady; 56 of the 73 respondents indicated that three years have passed
since they moved away. This represented 77% of the total, which also indicates that most
households were relocated during the last several months of 2004 and early 2005, Figure 63.
112 | P a g e

Figure 63 Number of Years since Moving from Grady (2007)
A second question asked whether or not AHA made a promise to assist householders during the
relocation process and whether or not householders believe that AHA fulfilled its promise. The
unadjusted response rates indicated that 50.7% felt that AHA made a promise and lived up to it
while 12.3% believe that it did not live up to its promise. The remaining respondents were
either unaware that AHA made such a promise or did not believe that it did so. Consider the
fact that AHA did promise to provide assistance during relocation, we omit the final two
response categories and rescaled the responses in categories one and two. The rescaled
response rate indicates that 80.5% of householders felt that AHA made a promise to provide
assistance and that the organization lived up to its promise. 19.5% felt that it did not live up to
its promise, Figure 64.
113 | P a g e

Figure 64. Perception of AHA Relocation Assistance during Relocation, 2007
RESPONSE CATEGORIES %
AHA Promised Assistance and Kept Promise 50.7%
AHA Promised Assistance but did not Keep it 12.3%
AHA did NOT Promise Assistance 19.2%
Do not know if AHA Promised Assistance 17.8%
N = 74
The response rate of persons regarding the level of difficulty involved in relocating different
each year. For example in 2007, 30.6% of respondents felt that the relocation process was easy
while 25% felt that it was very difficult. In 2008, 43.8% felt that the relocation process was easy
while only 16.9% felt that it was very difficult. Finally in 2009, 29.2% of respondents felt that
the relocation process was easy and 10.8% felt that it was very difficult. Overall, we can
conclude that slightly more than one third of householders (34.5%) felt that the relocation
process was easy while 17.5% of householders felt that the process was very difficult. This also
means that about one half of householders were in the neutral position feeling that it was
neither too difficult nor too easy (raw the tabulations are available upon request).
Figures 65, 66 and 67 have multi-category responses that are centered on the relative ease or
difficulty in finding an apartment. The first response indicates whether or not the household
had difficulty in identifying a landlord who was willing to rent. In 2007, 64% of householders
indicated that this was not a problem at all. The respective figures for 2008 in 2009 were 55%
and 59%.
In 2008 in 2009, respondents were asked if they encountered a problem in getting assistance
from AHA to relocate; % and 69% respectively said that this was not a problem.
Regarding the difficulty in finding an apartment that was affordable, 56%, 61%, and 67% in the
respective years said that this was not a problem.
114 | P a g e

Regarding the difficulty of finding an apartment in a safe neighborhood the respective
responses indicating that this is not a problem were 34%, 40%, and 51% over the respective
three years. The low percentages indicate that householders had the greatest difficulty in this
area.
Responses related to the difficulty in finding an apartment that was close to their current job
were as follows: 49%, 52%, and 51% in the respective three years indicated that this is not a
problem.
Finding an apartment close to family and friends generated response rates of 58%, 54%, and
60% for the respective three years.
Finding an apartment that was big enough to accommodate the household size was one of the
least difficult challenges: 70%, 64%, and 72% indicated that this was not a problem.
Figure 65 Relative Difficulty in Relocating, 2007
115 | P a g e

Figure 66 Relative Difficulty in Relocating, 2008
Figure 67 Relative Difficulty in Relocating, 2009
116 | P a g e

Figures 68, 69 and 70 record individual responses based on a description of householders’
feelings after having relocated from Grady Homes. In 2007, 31.9% indicated that they felt a lot
better today and 29.2% felt a little better today. In total therefore, 61.2% felt better today than
when they lived at Grady Homes. Only 12.5% said that they felt worse than when they lived at
Grady Homes. In 2008, 51.1% indicated that they felt a lot better today and 21.3% felt a little
better today. Overall, 72.4% felt better today than when they lived at Grady Homes. Only 12.8%
said that they felt worse than when they lived at Grady Homes. Finally, in 2009, 33.3% indicated
that they felt a lot better today and 28.9% felt a little better today. Therefore, 62.2% felt better
today than when they lived at Grady Homes. Seventeen and 8/10 percent (17.8%) said that
they felt worse than when they lived at Grady Homes. Averaging across the years, the results
indicated that about two thirds (65.3%) of householders felt a lot better or a little better as a
result of having moved away from Grady Homes. Only 14.3% said that they felt a little worse or
a lot worse as a result of the move and the remainder (20%) felt no different.
117 | P a g e

Figure 68. Personal Feelings today compared to Grady Homes, 2007
Figure 69. Personal Feelings today compared to Grady Homes, 2008
Figure 70. Personal Feelings today compared to Grady Homes (2009)
118 | P a g e

Figures 71, 72, and 73 record responses regarding how the children of householders felt as a
result of their relocation from Grady Homes. In 2007, 52.1% indicated that the children felt a lot
better today and 22.4% felt a little better today. In total therefore, 74.5% indicated their
children felt better today than when they lived at Grady Homes. Only 13.9% said that their
children felt worse than when they lived at Grady Homes. In 2008, 32.3% indicated that their
children felt a lot better today and 26.5% felt a little better today. Overall, 58.8% indicated that
their children felt better today than when they lived at Grady Homes. Only 15.8% said that the
children felt worse today than when they lived at Grady Homes. Finally, in 2009, 32.4%
indicated that their children felt a lot better today and 27.6% felt a little better today.
Therefore, 60.0% indicated that their children felt better today than when they lived at Grady
Homes. Only 11.8% said that their children felt worse than when they lived at Grady Homes.
Figure 71.
Children's Happiness Today as Compared to Grady, 2007
13.9%
11.7%
22.4%
52.1%
A lot better today
A little better today
No different today
A little worse today
119 | P a g e

Figure 72.
Figure 73.
Children's Happiness Today Compared to Grady Homes, 2009
11.8%
13.3%
14.9%
32.4%
A lot better today
A little better today
No different today
A little worst today
A lot worse today
27.6%
120 | P a g e

Figures 74 and 75 record responses regarding how householders feel about their personal
health and comparison to their feeling of helplessness at Grady homes. In 2007, 29.5%
indicated that they felt a lot better today and 29.5% felt a little better today. In total therefore,
60% indicated they felt better than when they lived at Grady Homes. Only 10.5% said that they
felt worse than when they lived at Grady Homes. Finally, in 2009, 29.5% indicated that their
children felt a lot better today and 29.5% felt a little better today. Therefore, 60.0% felt
healthier today than when they lived at Grady Homes. Only 10.5% said that they felt worse
than when they lived at Grady Homes and only 10.5% felt worse.
Figure74.
Personal Health Today Compared to Grady Homes, 2007
6.3% 4.2%
30.7%
29.5%
29.5%
A lot better today
A little better today
No different today
A little worst today
A lot worse today
121 | P a g e

Figure 75
Personal Health Today Compared to Grady Homes, 2009
7.0%
13.0%
23.6%
37.3%
A lot better today
A little better today
No different today
A little worst today
A lot worse today
19.1%
Figure 76 records householders feeling of safety after having moved away from Grady Homes.
The results indicate that 72% felt a lot better are a little better in regards to safety after having
moved away from Grady homes and 17.3% felt worse about the move in regards to their
personal safety. Similarly, 65.2% felt better about their children's safety while only 10.9% felt
worse about this issue.
Figure 76
Feeling About Safety, After the Move 2007
4.3%
10.6%
12.8%
21.3%
51.0%
A lot better today
A little better today
No different today
A little worst today
A lot worse today
122 | P a g e

Figure 77
Feeling about Children's Safety, After Move 2007
2.2%
8.7%
23.9%
34.8%
A lot better today
A little better today
No different today
A little worst today
A lot worse today
30.4%
Detailed Summary of Focus Group Qualitative Responses 2007, 2008 and
2009
The focus group discussions were centered on the following issues (see Appendix II for
Discussion Guide):
• Announcement: How was the redevelopment of Grady Homes announced (letter, word
of mouth, meetings, etc.)? What was communicated to residents about the
revitalization master plan? What where the options householders were provided?
What on their experience during the relocation process?
• Relocation Process: What housing options were available to residents? What kind of
relocation assistance did they receive? What was the character of the relocation
assistance? What were participants looking for in a new neighborhood? How did they
find their new residence?
• New Neighborhood: How do participants feel about their new neighborhoods?
• Grady Homes: How did participants feel about Grady Homes when they were living
there, in comparison to the new arrangement?
123 | P a g e

RELOCATION ANNOUNCEMENT:
1. How did you find out that your building was closing and you would have to move?
All of the groups reported a similar process: rumors/word-of-mouth, followed by a letter
inviting/requiring attendance at an on-site meeting, followed by a series of meetings.
Rumors/word of mouth: All the groups reported that there were “community conversations”
about the impending demolition/relocation/redevelopment of Grady Homes. According to
participants, these rumors circulated for 1 month to 3 years before the formal announcement.
Reported sources included new Grady residents who had relocated from other HOPE VI sites
(East Lake, Techwood, etc.), on-site AHA staff, and Tenant Association leadership. The rumors
aligned with the formal information presented at subsequent AHA meetings. Participants felt
some frustration regarding the rumors and those frustrations were somewhat mitigated once a
clear sense of what relocation would entail and when it would start.
Formal on-site meetings:
General responses: Most residents reported that at least the first meeting was mandatory.
There was a wide range of opinion on the quality/usefulness of these meetings. Many
participants stated that they thought the time-frame given for relocation (90-120 days, with
some remembering a 60 day grace period) was unrealistic given the challenges of finding a new
place, getting it inspected and approved by AHA, dealing with job and school transitions, etc.
They stated that this speed contributed to high stress levels among residents, particularly
among seniors.
2. What options for relocating did the Housing Authority give you?
In general, the meetings confirmed the options as moving to another AHA project, taking a
Section 8 voucher, or going out on their own. One or two participants mentioned that Project-
Based Section 8 was presented as an option, but stated that “you wouldn’t be able to move
back in to the new Grady if you took the Project-Based Section 8 option.”
3. Were you allowed any input or comment on the plans?
The majority of residents do remember being shown the plans for the new revitalization of
Grady, and many reported being asked their opinion. The residents noted that their suggestions
were not usually taken.
124 | P a g e

4. When you first heard you had to move, what were your feelings?
Participants had a wide range of reactions to being told about the relocation/ redevelopment,
including the following general categories:
• Fear about transition: the time was too short, stress of moving, challenge of looking for
an apartment while working, etc.
• Excitement about transition: Excited about the opportunity to ”better myself” (and
have access to better neighborhood, schools, option of moving into a house,
homeownership, not being identified as poor and subsidized, becoming self-sufficient)
• Sadness at leaving Grady: Although it had its faults, Grady was largely perceived as
strong, family-like community with great access to work, school, shopping, medical and
other services
• Suspicion: a small percentage felt that AHA was colluding with developers to relocate
blacks out of downtown in advance of gentrification
5. How have your feelings changed about moving from Grady Homes?
Most residents loved their new neighborhoods or situations (citing “peace and quiet,” larger
living quarters, the benefit of living in a single-family house, the benefits of self-sufficiency for
themselves and their children, etc.), and they expressed excitement and contentment about
the move. A minority of participants relocated to neighborhoods or situations they did not like
(still had high crime levels, frustration in working with private sector landlords, little social
cohesion, less access to MARTA, multiple moves caused by foreclosures, inability of landlords to
meet AHA inspection standards).
6. When you were first told you had to relocate, how many wanted to return to Grady when it
was relocated?
About one half wanted to return initially and the percentage wanting to return over time
decreased significantly. Perhaps only about 20% wanted to return as time went on.
125 | P a g e

Relocation and Housing Search
1. What kind of assistance did you receive from AHA during the relocation process?
The range of assistance reported was fairly consistent over the groups and included the
following:
• List of potential houses/apartments (both hard copy and on-line)
• Relocation advisors, family support specialist and individual caseworkers were assigned
to assist Grady residents with their move. In some cases they drove participants to see
properties, provided assistance with AHA, and with the new landlords, etc. Some
continued to check-in on participants for at least a year after the move.
• Financial assistance with the move: moving supplies, moving expenses, deposit, utility
hook-up, etc. Respondents indicated that they had “No out of pocket expenses”
• Private landlords came to Grady Homes to pass out fliers about properties, drive groups
to see potential properties
• Real estate agents assisted some residents
2. If you didn’t receive any help, was it because none was available or because you just didn’t
use it?
There were only 3 participants in all focus groups who stated they did not receive assistance;
and this is because they did not want or need any.
3. How would you rate the assistance you received?
The range of responses to this question was wide. Those groups that answered with specific
numerical assessments (1 to 10, with 1 being the lowest) had averages of 7-8. There was a lot
of discussion about the Relocation Advisors in particular, with the following perceptions:
126 | P a g e

4. What other kind of help did you receive when you were relocating?
The overwhelming majority of participants did not pursue additional assistance regarding job
search and school transitions for children. The overall group response was mixed as to whether
the school transition was difficult or easy.
Other consistent messages about the relocation assistance and the relocation process in
general solicited the following responses:
• The transition time period too short: 90-120 days, 60 day grace, some residents felt
they needed more time.
• Health impacts of stress, particularly among seniors: elevated blood pressure, stroke,
heart issues. The elderly found relocating to be particularly challenging.
• Too many people being relocated at one time increased competition for desirable
rentals.
• Interaction between landlords and AHA inspectors was sometimes frustrating and
forced a small number of householders to miss relocation deadlines.
5. When you were moving from Grady Homes, what were you looking for in a new
neighborhood?
Participants were fairly consistent about what they were seeking in a new neighborhood :
- Quality housing
- Peace and quiet
- Access to bus/MARTA, good schools, shopping, medical services, jobs
- Safe and secure neighborhood environments that are free of crime
- Good neighbors
- Programs/activities/play-space for kids
- Single-family house
6. What were the biggest problems you faced in searching for a new place to live?
127 | P a g e

While the participants in one focus group stated that they had no difficulty at all finding a place
to live, most participants reported some challenges, listed by order of frequency mentioned
below:
1. Inspection process time-consuming and sometimes pushed people beyond the 120 day
limit.
2. Background checks cover too many years in the past.
3. General challenge of moving: purging, packing, getting kids settled, etc.
4. Poor communication with landlords and no “Tenant Association to advocate on our
behalf.”
5. Landlords put new rules on participants after the lease was signed: for example limits
on guests.
6. Seniors expressed concern over having to move to different senior high-rise properties
that they felt were located in neighborhoods that were unsafe.
7. For those who chose vouchers, why did you make this choice instead of an AHA project?
The overwhelming majority of participants chose Section 8. Reasons included:
A desire to explore self-sufficiency
A desire to live in housing that doesn’t label you as being subsidized
A desire to live in a single-family house
A desire to live in a safer environment
9. Would you choose vouchers again?
Many participants said they would choose Section 8, even with all its problems. A
significant minority said they would, but would “be choosier about the neighborhood they
selected next time!” The participants who ended up in single-family homes were
unanimously positive and would choose the program again, and several were excited about
the possibility of getting involved in a homeownership program. A small minority of
128 | P a g e

participants who have moved multiple times due to foreclosure, sale or their property
failing AHA inspection were frustrated and would not do so again.
10. For those who choose a housing project, why did you make this choice instead of
vouchers?
The only participants in the focus groups who selected to move to another AHA housing
project were seniors who were required to move into senior high-rise properties. Most of
the participants in senior high-rises expressed frustration that they did not have more
choices.
Current Neighborhood
2. What are some of the things you like best about your new neighborhood?
Participants gave a range of responses to this question, including the following general
categories.
• Quiet and peaceful
• Good access to bus-lines, MARTA, schools
• Bigger apartment/house – larger rooms
• Living in a more mixed-income community where I can’t be labeled
3. What are some of the things you don’t like about your new neighborhood?
• Less convenient to transit, shopping, medical services, etc. than when at Grady
• Fewer parks/play spaces for kids
• Fewer social connection than at Grady – no Tenants Association, folks not much
involved in neighborhood, with neighbors
• Poor communication with landlord – feel vulnerable, they can do whatever they want.
Grady Homes
1. How would you describe Grady Homes when you lived there and What are some of the
things that you liked the most about living at Grady?
129 | P a g e

The range of responses to this question was fairly consistent across all the groups, and included
the following:
• Low rent
• Convenient to MARTA, buses, schools, Grady Hospital, Sweet Auburn Curb Market,
downtown, etc.
• Great programs for kids: good play space, community/recreation center, sports, on-site
pre-K
• Strong sense of community/family feeling: everyone knew each other, holiday
celebrations, barbecues, etc.
• Strong Tenants Association
• Good/quick maintenance responses
• “Mutual aid, “ by residents, AHA and outside organizations: food, toys at holidays, backto-school
items, traveling dental/healthcare, church programs, senior programs, etc.
• Close to fire and police stations – felt safe
• Washer/dryer in apartments
• Able to hang laundry out in yard/porch to dry
3. What are some of the things that you didn’t like about living at Grady?
• This is Crime: participants stated that crime was worse in certain “neighborhoods” (i.e.
areas of Grady), while others were fairly calm. They also claimed that much of the
crime stemmed from drug traffic, and that these “dope boys” were often not residents
of Grady, but were occasionally children and grandchildren of residents or boyfriends of
householders.
• Loud, partying atmosphere
• Maintenance: some reported slow response turnaround time
130 | P a g e

• Apartments: too small, mold/mildew, pests, poor storage,– “not for people with
asthma!”
Volatility in the Section 8 Rental Market
The volatility of the Section 8 rental market and the negative impact of this volatility on
participants came up in every group we conducted. In each group there was between one and
four participants who had moved two to four times since the original relocation, and almost
every participant knew of someone who had been similarly affected. The issue was an
emotional one for affected participants, many of whom were overwhelmed with the stress of
these unforeseen transitions, some multiple times. These involuntary moves happened for
three reasons: foreclosure, sale of property, or property failing AHA inspection and landlord
refusing to make necessary repairs. While many participants reported receiving a letter from
AHA about foreclosures, and a smaller group remembered that AHA had held a meeting on the
subject, few were clear about what AHA’s policy was on this issue.
2008 Group by the Group Responses
The following is a very high-level summary of focus group responses on a group by group basis.
This allows the reader to have a sense of the similarities and variations in the sponsors received
from each group.
11.12.08 13h
Demolition and move
o Challenging because of repeated moves
o First move was assisted, second is where it became troublesome
o No one moved into another public housing project
Information flow
o Consistent meetings with AHA
o Assigned counselor
Housing environment
o Many missed Grady homes, convenience, social aspects; 6 out of 10 wanted to go back
o Grady had lots of crime, residents blamed outsiders
o Grady was convenient because of access to city and transportation
o Few constructive opinions on how to improve Grady Homes
o Those that don’t want to go back enjoy the freedom
Individual
131 | P a g e

o Health no change, just more stress from constantly moving
o Safer, quieter
Improvements that can be made to the relocation process
o Continue to keep people informed
o Clearly identify obstacles up front
o Reduce worry about costs of utilities, rent, etc.
11.15.08 8:30h
Demolition and move
o Condo, apartment (4), townhouse (3), and house (2)
o Move experience mostly positive
o Originally 5 wanted to return whereas 3 do now
Information flow
o Bi-monthly meetings
o Can be hard if you don’t have a good case worker
Voucher
o Like freedom
o But doesn’t cover all of the rent
Housing environment
o Neutral to positive response on first move
o Continue to have problems with standard of housing
o Another notification that some of Grady problems were from outsiders
Individual
o Mixed emotions when first moved
o Felt that Grady was sufficiently safe to raise kids
11.15.08 11h
Demolition and move
o 5 moved to an apartment and 3 to a house
o Challenge being able to move where they wanted to
Information flow
o Flyers and meetings, up to 4-6 month
o Helped with first move and getting things shifted, like deposit and school transfer
132 | P a g e

o Assigned counselor
Housing environment
o Initially 6 wanted to move back to Grady after they were presented with the options, today 4
want to move back
o Problem with condition of house and landlords trying to keep it hidden from Housing Authority
o Social aspects and community dimension of Grady homes preferred
Improvements
o More screening of the homeowners
AHA
o Held up their end of the bargain
o Problem is with new landlords
11.18.08 8:30h
Demolition and move
o Mostly positive with new living situation
o 5 of 8 actually wanted to move when given the opportunity
o 9 of 10 prefer where they are now; one is mixed
o 6 said theyd like to go back once mixed development is completed
Information flow
o Well informed, meetings etc
o Case worker/family advisor; same problem where a bad advisor can lead to trouble
Housing environment
o Noticeably safer environment
o Noted that the problem at Grady was mostly people who didn’t live there
o Went so far as to distinguish between different sectors within the area
o Major problem with new place is transportation, foreclosure issues; cannot trust rental people
or landlord
Voucher
o Enjoy the freedom
o But need to have some kind of program to prevent foreclosures
Improvements
o AHA should put pressure on management and leasing offices where drugs are around to clean it
up
11.18.08 18h
Information flow
o Meetings, flyers, information flow
133 | P a g e

o Not as actively involved with counselor as others
o Good Counselors are quite helpful
Housing environment
o Most did not want to go back to Grady Homes
o Few switched into Fulton county district and got 110% of voucher
11.19.08 13h
Demolition and move
o 5 apts, 3 houses, and one condo
o 7 of 10 wanted to go back initially
o Now 6 of 10 want to go back after the completion
Information flow
o Consistent meetings and AHA/legal reps
o Explained process
Housing environment
o Many missed Grady homes, social aspects
o Description of drug dealers taking trash out for people, strangely symbiotic relationship
o Grady was convenient because of access to city and transportation
Improvements
o Overall most feel like AHA kept up their end of the deal
o Need to see who owns the properties that are rented to voucher recipients, too many
foreclosure cases
11.19.09 18h
Demolition and move
o Mix of apartments and homes
o Received financial support for move…deposit, app fee, transfer for utilities
o 4 of 8 want to go back to Grady when done
Information flow
o Consistent meetings and info
o Given 3 months to move, many felt too short
o Advisors are good, some busy
Housing environment
o Many missed Grady homes, convenience, social aspects;
o New places are not well kept by landlords and many have had to move on multiple occasions
134 | P a g e

11.20.08 13h
Demolition and move
o Split move into apts and homes
o Originally 8 of 11 wanted to return
Information flow
o First word of mouth, then letter, and then meetings
o Advisors mostly good
Housing environment
o Many missed Grady homes, convenience, social aspects
o Symbiotic relationship with the drug dealers
o Many problems with new place, crime, living etc
Improvements
o Need to figure out solution to foreclosure problem of houses being moved into
11.20.08 18h
Demolition and move
o Provided cash, trucks, assistance, deposit for first move
o 8 of 9 wanted to move back when first moved
o 3 of 9 now want to go back
Information flow
o Meetings, letters
o Assigned counselor
Individual
o Mixed emotions about move
o Safer, quieter in new places
o More independence, confidence because surviving on own
Improvements
o Housing authority lived up to their promises
11.21.08 13h
Demolition and move
o Mix of houses and apts
135 | P a g e

o One multiple move because of foreclosure
o 6 of 9 wanted to stay
o Moving assistance
o Mixed opinions on the demolition
Housing environment
o Many missed Grady homes, convenience, social aspects;
o Grady had sectors that were bad and ok
o Not as central
o Foreclosure problem
2009 High-Level Focus Group Summary
This summarizes the discussion findings of seven focus groups that were conducted in 2009.
The discussions were focused broadly on the following issues:
Assistance:
What type of assistance did each resident receive (Section 8, Project-Based
Vouchers, etc.)?
Porting: How many residents are Porting Out?
Relocation Process: How many times have you moved since your initial move from Grady?
When residents first moved away from Grady Homes, how many wanted to return once the
renovation was complete? Currently how many residents want to move back to Grady now?
Current Neighborhood: Do residents feel happier or healthier since their relocation?
Did
residents find that the move away from Grady was beneficial to their children?
Services: How many residents have a family support specialist? Have residents found the
support specialist helpful? Did residents participate in other services provided through AHA?
Were those services helpful?
Assistance
1. What type of assistance do you currently receive?
136 | P a g e

Most of the participants reported receiving Section 8 housing voucher. There were only a
few participants that reported receiving Project Based housing assistance. The discussions
revealed that most residents preferred Section 8 housing assistance over other types of
assistance.
Porting
2. Is there anyone porting?
The majority of residents were not porting. However, each focus group had one or two
individuals that were porting out, mainly to DeKalb or Fulton Counties. In almost all cases
AHA still provided administrative services to the porting individual.
Relocation
3. Since your move from Grady, how many times have you moved?
Most residents reported moving an average of 2-3 times since their initial move from Grady
Homes. In one focus group, a resident moved five times since leaving Grady Homes. Some
residents were forced to move out of their homes due to the foreclosure crisis. In one
session two individuals were told they had to move because the homes they were renting
were being foreclosed. Both residents stated that AHA continued to pay the landlord rent,
even after the received a notice telling them they had to relocate. The foreclosure was a
reoccurring theme in many of the focus group sessions.
4. How many years did you live at Grady before moving?
In most focus groups residents lived at Grady for approximately 2 to 3 years before moving.
There were three residents that lived in Grady Homes for over 30 years. Most residents
used the housing choice voucher to rent apartments, while a significant minority of
participants rented single family dwellings.
5. How many of you want to come back to Grady?
137 | P a g e

Initially respondents wanted to return to Grady once revitalization was completed.
However, over time their desires changed. In one focus group, eight residents wanted to
return to Grady once it was completed but when asked if they would come back now, only
four want to return while one was still undecided. In another focus group discussion, 10
out of 11 residents initially wanted to move back. When asked if they would return now,
only 3 people would and 2 were undecided. The number of residents stating that they
would return to Grady dropped significantly as more time elapsed. Those that want to
return to Grady typically point to the fact that it has to the convenient location. Those that
responded that they would not return also felt that the current neighborhoods are safer
and feel happier in their new communities. Others said that their decision will be
contingent upon whether the renovations made to Grady Homes will be equivalent or
better than their current place of residence. Residents that are content with their move
stated that their current residence is more spacious and they feel safer in their community.
Many respondents expressed nostalgia for Grady Homes because when living there they
felt a strong sense of community. Residents stated that everyone knew each other and
people looked out for one another.
6. Those that have children, was the move better for your children?
Overall, residents found that the move was better for their children.
reported that their current neighborhoods seemed safer.
Most residents
One resident felt that her
children were in a better school system since the relocation. Parents of teenage children
found the move especially beneficial because it allowed their children “to get away from
certain people they were hanging out with.” While the move was characterized overall as
being beneficial to children, parents also noted that initially children were unhappy about
the move and it took some time for them to get adjusted to their new environment. A
minority of residents reported that their new communities did not provide ample space for
children to play; there were no playgrounds, and very few children. Most residents felt that
Grady offered more programs and activities for children to participate in than their current
138 | P a g e

environment. However, householders who were living in rental homes were much more
satisfied with the children's environment.
7. Do you feel better off since moving from Grady Homes?
Those that stated they feel better since moving away from Grady attributed it the
neighborhood, most stated they liked their current neighbors, they feel safer, and like the
spacious rooms. One participant said she feels more independence since moving from
Grady and feels healthier since as a result of her move. She said while living at Grady she
felt more dependent, i.e. someone was taking care of her. Now she feels more
independent. Another respondent also stated that she felt a sense of freedom because she
is now in a home.
Services
8. Do you all still have a family support specialist?
All residents were assigned family support specialist. Most participants found that their
family support specialist was useful especially when they first relocated. In one focus group
one participant never met her family support specialist because she felt she did not need
one. Other participants did not find the family support specialist helpful. Each focus group
complained that the family support specialist changed to frequently over time.
9. What about different types of support program? Have any of you participated in the other
programs that AHA offers, for example work training programs?
A majority of residents had not participated in supportive services programs. The small
number of individuals who did participate in the programs found them to be very effective.
10. How many of you are in the homeownership program?
139 | P a g e

Respondents noted that AHA had placed a freeze on the program, however, there was
interest among participants and they wanted to know how to take advantage of this
service.
11. Has anyone at Grady started their own business? Are there programs on how to start your
own business?
Respondents stated that they knew of no one who has started their own business nor does
AHA provide programs that foster entrepreneurship; however there seemed to be some
interest. Respondents stated that the programs offered by AHA are designed to assistance
residents in returning to school.
140 | P a g e