Atlanta Housing - Georgia Institute of Technology

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
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 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: the city. The development was also
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?