Atlanta Housing - Georgia Institute of Technology

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
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 and 34: the city. The development was also
Page 35: Section 4 Methodology and Definitio
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?