Atlanta Housing - Georgia Institute of Technology

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: FINAL REPORT Impact of the Mixed-In
Page 3: Executive Summary Public housing in
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 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?