Atlanta Housing - Georgia Institute of Technology

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Juniper & 10th 148 150 Marian Apartments 237 283 Marietta Road 130 132 Palmer House 245 253 Peachtree Road 196 211 Roosevelt House 256 261 Piedmont Road 209 241 Martin Luther King Tower 152 156 East Lake Tower 148 150 Two additional Comparison groups were used to highlight the differences between Grady Revitalization at the baseline and families who lived in different environments. These two groups included families who used housing choice vouchers (C 3) and those who lived in mixedincome developments (C 4). In 2004, householders in C3 number 10,441 and a total of 32,571 persons lived in those households. C 4, mixed-income communities, had 1212 householders and 2991 persons, Figure 13. 46 | P a g e
Figure 13 Number of Householders and Persons in C2, 2004 C 3 and C4 C 4 Total Mixed-income 1,212 2,991 C 3 Total HCVs 10,441 32,571 Household Income Characteristics at the Baseline In 2004, families who lived at Grady and University had average household incomes of $8634. The household income was very similar when compared to the average household incomes of persons who lived in other LIPH family developments, $8573. Families who lived in mixedincome developments had the highest household income, $13,646, followed by families who received housing choice vouchers, $12,807, Figure 14. Figure 15 reports median household income analogously. Median income was $7014 for Grady and University homes and it was $7181 for families who lived in other LIPH developments. Median income was $12,781 for families in mixed-income developments and it was $11,317 for families who used housing choice vouchers, Figure 15. Administrative records indicates that in 2004, roughly 94% of Grady and University homes families reported having positive incomes doing the year and this is compared to 88.7% of families in other LIPH developments. Among families in mixed-income developments and those using housing choice vouchers, 96.2% and 90.3% reported having positive incomes, Figure 16. 47 | 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 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: G2 consisted of Antoine Graves and
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?