Atlanta Housing - Georgia Institute of Technology

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A Cox Hazard Model with Time-Dependent Covariance was used to examine the exit pattern (between 2004 and 2010) of all 18,838 householders who were registered with AHA in 2004. The results were as follows: Householders who ported out had odds of exiting housing assistance that was 1.5 times greater than householders who did not Port. The odds of women exiting housing assistance was 23% lower than they were for men. Disability status was not statistically significant in regards to the odds of an individual exiting housing assistance. Each additional year of age decreased the odds of exiting housing assistance by 3%. An additional bedroom in a rental apartment decreased the odds of exiting by 17%. The marital status of a householder was not statistically significant in influencing the odds of exiting. The employment status of the householder was not significantly related to the odds of exiting housing assistance. Six variables recorded the impact of the type of housing assistance on the odds of exiting. The first three variables were not influenced by time while the latter three variables were. The results indicate that the odds of exiting housing assistance were greatest for families who lived in LIPH developments. The exit rate was measured before demolition had occurred. Initially, householders who lived in mixedincome developments had 74% lower odds of exiting than householders who lived in LIPH. Likewise, voucher holders experienced 55% lower odds of exiting than did individuals who lived in LIPH. However, when families relocated from LIPH to vouchers and mixed-income communities, they achieved greater levels of self-sufficiency and their exit odds increased significantly. Over time, the exit odds were 1.3 times greater for individuals in mixed-income housing than for individuals in LIPH. Similarly, householders 8 | P a g e
who received housing vouchers had odds that were 1.12 times greater than were the exit odds of families in LIPH. Finding 5 Evidence In 2007 there were 97 HOHs who participated in focus groups, in 2008 there were 94 participants and in 2009, 84 persons participated. About 30% of still active Grady HOHs participated each year. Focus group interviews indicated that when householders relocated from Grady Homes they rated their new environments superior to the environment they left at Grady Homes. Participants were asked whether or not AHA made a promise to assist householders during the relocation process and whether AHA fulfilled its promise. The response indicated that 80.5% of householders felt that AHA made a promise to provide assistance and lived up to its promise while 19.5% felt that it did not. Averaging across the years, about two thirds (65.3%) of householders felt a lot better or a little better as a result of having moved away from Grady Homes. Only 14.3% said that they felt a little worse or a lot worse and the remainder (20%) felt no different. Sixty percent (60.0%) indicated that their children felt better today than when they lived at Grady Homes. Only 11.8% said that their children felt today worse than when they lived at Grady; 60.0% of householders felt healthier today than when they lived at Grady Homes. Only 10.5% said that they did not feel as healthy today in comparison to when they lived at Grady Homes; 72% felt a lot better or a little better in regards to their personal safety after having moved away from Grady and 17.3% felt worse about the move in this regard. Finally, 65.2% felt better about their children's safety while only 10.9% felt worse about their children’s safety. Participants were asked whether or not the household had difficulty in identifying a landlord who was willing to rent. In 2007, 64% of householders indicated that this was not a problem at all. The respective figures for 2008 in 2009 were 55% and 59%. 9 | 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: Finding 4 Evidence Average rent pai
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?