Atlanta Housing - Georgia Institute of Technology

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: FINAL REPORT Impact of the Mixed-In
Page 3 and 4: Executive Summary Public housing in
Page 5 and 6: Finding 2 Evidence Finding 3 Eviden
Page 7 and 8: Finding 4 Evidence Average rent pai
Page 9 and 10: who received housing vouchers had o
Page 11 and 12: them much more flexibility to choos
Page 13 and 14: Comparing Grady to other communitie
Page 15: Section 1 Purpose and Background Pu
Page 19 and 20: Total 48 48 71 These radical change
Page 21 and 22: Section 2 AHA’s Rationale for Rev
Page 23 and 24: During focus group interviews, long
Page 25 and 26: AHA’s Mixed-income Revitalization
Page 27 and 28: Figure 6 Veranda at Auburn Pointe,
Page 29 and 30: To be eligible to move back into a
Page 31 and 32: Section 3 Grady Revitalization Mast
Page 33 and 34: the city. The development was also
Page 35 and 36: Section 4 Methodology and Definitio
Page 37 and 38: Antoine Graves Annex (Graves Annex)
Page 39 and 40: 39 | P a g e repeated measurements
Page 41 and 42: Section 5 2004 Baseline Characteris
Page 43 and 44: Figure 9 Number of Householders and
Page 45 and 46: G2 consisted of Antoine Graves and
Page 47 and 48: Figure 13 Number of Householders an
Page 49 and 50: Figure 16 Household income characte
Page 51 and 52: Figure 19 Household Employment Char
Page 53 and 54: single-family home was $193,095 and
Page 55 and 56: Section 6 Change in the Type of Hou
Page 57 and 58: Figure 27 Figure 28 57 | P a g e
Page 59 and 60: Figure 30b CHANGE IN TYPE OF ASSIST
Page 61 and 62: Section 7 Change in the Indicators
Page 63 and 64: Figure 34 HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR ALL
Page 65 and 66: Figure 37 AVERAGE RENT PAYMENTS FOR
Page 67 and 68:
Figure 40 Figure 41 AVERAGE PUBLIC
Page 69 and 70:
Section 8 Impact of CATALYST on Emp
Page 71 and 72:
Figure 44 Figure 44 EMPLOYMENT RATE
Page 73 and 74:
Figure 46 AVERAGE HOURS WORKED PER
Page 75 and 76:
public assistance have a much lower
Page 77 and 78:
Correlated Data Summary Number of L
Page 79 and 80:
Tests of Model Effects Type III Wal
Page 81 and 82:
Figure 51 EARNINGS OF HOUSEHOLDERS
Page 83 and 84:
Other Services Rehabilitation and C
Page 85 and 86:
Figure 51 Figure 52 NEIGHBORHOOD PO
Page 87 and 88:
percent of the population with only
Page 89 and 90:
89 | P a g e Map 1: Location of Ori
Page 91 and 92:
Poverty Deconcentration One effecti
Page 93 and 94:
Figure 58 POVERTY RATE OF ORIGIN AN
Page 95 and 96:
clearly how these families made a s
Page 97 and 98:
MAP 6 Map 7 illustrates that in 201
Page 99 and 100:
the CAI scores at the point of orig
Page 101 and 102:
Householders who are in a Port Out
Page 103 and 104:
Case Processing Summary N Percent C
Page 105 and 106:
o In 2009 there were 84 HOHs who pa
Page 107 and 108:
A minority of householders moved in
Page 109 and 110:
A majority of persons moved out of
Page 111 and 112:
Total Participants 97 94 69 Partici
Page 113 and 114:
Figure 63 Number of Years since Mov
Page 115 and 116:
Regarding the difficulty of finding
Page 117 and 118:
Figures 68, 69 and 70 record indivi
Page 119 and 120:
Figures 71, 72, and 73 record respo
Page 121 and 122:
Figures 74 and 75 record responses
Page 123 and 124:
Figure 77 Feeling about Children's
Page 125 and 126:
4. When you first heard you had to
Page 127 and 128:
4. What other kind of help did you
Page 129 and 130:
participants who have moved multipl
Page 131 and 132:
• Apartments: too small, mold/mil
Page 133 and 134:
o Assigned counselor Housing enviro
Page 135 and 136:
11.20.08 13h Demolition and mov
Page 137 and 138:
Most of the participants reported r
Page 139 and 140:
environment. However, householders
show all

Atlanta Housing - Georgia Institute of Technology

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?