Atlanta Housing - Georgia Institute of Technology

More documents

Recommendations

Info

structural flaws, outdated plumbing, and they were not built to accommodate persons with disabilities.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
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 and 16: Section 1 Purpose and Background Pu
Page 17 and 18: In exchange for MTW designation, HU
Page 19 and 20: Total 48 48 71 These radical change
Page 21 and 22: Section 2 AHA’s Rationale for Rev
Page 23: During focus group interviews, long
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?