CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS:

Baseline Conditions and

Early Progress

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS:

Baseline Conditions and

Early Progress

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Prepared by

Urban Institute and MDRC

September 2015

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

AUTHORS

This report represents the work of many contributing authors from the Urban Institute and its partner

organizations (MDRC, Case Western Reserve University, and LFA Group): Rolf Pendall, Leah Hendey,

David Greenberg, Kathryn L.S. Pettit, Diane Levy, Amy Khare, Megan Gallagher, Mark Joseph, Alexandra

Curley, Aesha Rasheed, Nancy Latham, Audra Brecher, and Chantal Hailey.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Alexandra Derian, Brianna Losoya, Reed Jordan, and Jasmine Simington at the Urban

Institute; Tojuana Riley, Stephanie Rubino, and Rebecca Trupin at MDRC; Taryn Gress and April Hirsh at

Case Western Reserve University; and Monica Getahun at LFA Group for their invaluable research

assistance with this study.

The authors also acknowledge Dena Belzer, Amanda Gehrke, and Derek W. Braun from Strategic

Economics, Inc., for their analysis of the financial feasibility of the proposed developments; Emily Talen of GeoDa Group for her analysis of the built environment in these Choice Neighborhoods Initiative

(Choice) neighborhoods; and Jen McGraw and Rachel Scheu of CNT Energy for their energy assessment

of the target developments.

A number of individuals contributed helpful feedback on this report along the way, including Martin D.

Abravanel, G. Thomas Kingsley, Susan J. Popkin, Margery Austin Turner, and Nancy La Vigne from the

Urban Institute; James Riccio and Nandita Verma from MDRC; and Ingrid Gould El en, Ann Forsyth,

George Galster, and Deborah McKoy.

In addition to thanking the research team, the authors thank Paul Joice, Sarah Schaefer, Carol Star, and others from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and

Research; Choice staff in the Office of Public and Indian Housing, including Alexa Rosenberg, Jessica

Rosenberg, Pamela Lawrence, and Mindy Turbov; and the Choice implementation grantees and their

staff for their thoughtful review of and comments on the report.

DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report are the views of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. Government.

ii

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

FOREWORD

Amid continued economic recovery since the first Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (Choice) grants were

awarded in 2011, the national conversation has shifted to an issue perhaps made more apparent by the

recession and recovery: the widening gap in income and opportunity among Americans and the role of

place in perpetuating disadvantage. Access to quality educational opportunities, jobs, affordable homes, and safe streets remains elusive in many neighborhoods. These chal enges are endemic in disinvested

neighborhoods, and they have lasting impacts on residents—children who grow up in high-poverty

neighborhoods are less likely to attend college and have significantly lower earnings as adults than

children who grow up in low-poverty neighborhoods, according to recent research.

Choice intends to help communities address long-term neighborhood disinvestment comprehensively,

through connected strategies to rebuild housing, offer supportive services to housing residents,

create quality educational and economic opportunities in the surrounding neighborhood, and improve

public safety. Grantees receive a modest investment from HUD and rely on local partnerships and

substantial leveraged funds to implement community-driven plans to transform distressed

neighborhoods into places with quality, mixed-income housing; good schools; safe streets; jobs; and

amenities.

This report documents the experience of the first five Choice grantees as they implement these plans

in neighborhoods in Boston, Chicago, New Orleans, San Francisco, and Seattle. It records the baseline

conditions in the neighborhoods and tracks progress through the first 2 years of the grant, from

September 2011 through September 2013. Although the program effects of these long-term efforts

will not be apparent for years, the grantees’ early experiences offer insights useful for federal and

local policymakers and practitioners. Such insights include the importance of strong local leadership

committed to the neighborhood revitalization effort, the chal enges of addressing serious public

safety issues, and the relevance of local housing markets to neighborhood transformation plans.

At the end of the report’s data col ection period, new housing construction was under way in al five

neighborhoods. The grantees were also providing case management to residents, and two grantees

had started implementing “critical community improvements”—investments to improve the

neighborhood. Public safety created hurdles for the revitalization efforts, but funding and technical

assistance provided to four of the sites through a partnership with the Department of Justice proved

promising.

In the 2 years since data col ection for this study ended, grantees have continued to make progress. In Boston, the city and its partners converted an abandoned factory into a food production facility that will sustain more than 50 smal businesses and create 150 jobs. In Seattle, the housing authority, Seattle

University, the school district, and their partners have served more than 280 children through their

cradle-to-career pipeline, which includes home visits for toddlers and col ege preparation for high school students.

iii

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative reflects the Obama Administration’s locally driven, place-based

approach to addressing entrenched poverty and inequality in communities. Along with HUD, the

Departments of Education and Justice have their own place-based programs, and the recent Promise

Zones initiative seeks to bring these approaches together into a cohesive whole. This report helps to

inform program development across these efforts.

Most important, the report finds that despite the considerable chal enges, communities are aggressively planning, organizing, and implementing plans to return investment and opportunity to Choice

neighborhoods.

Katherine M. O’Regan

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development & Research

Department of Housing and Urban Development

iv

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

CONTENTS

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... viii

Overview of Implementation Findings ..................................................................................................... ix

Understanding Early Progress and Chal enges in Choice Implementation ............................................... x

Overview of Baseline Conditions in the Five Choice Neighborhoods ..................................................... xvi

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. xvi

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1

The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative and Its Evolution ............................................................................ 7

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 12

The FY 2010–11 Choice Neighborhoods at Baseline .............................................................................. 12

Structure of the Baseline Report ............................................................................................................ 16

2. Rebuilding the Housing ........................................................................................................................... 17

Findings ................................................................................................................................................... 17

Introduction and Overview of Plans and Implementation Activities ...................................................... 17

Design ...................................................................................................................................................... 21

Housing Quality ....................................................................................................................................... 27

Housing Financing for Redevelopment ................................................................................................... 31

Property Management and Community Building ................................................................................... 32

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 34

3. Supporting the Residents and Community ............................................................................................. 35

Findings ................................................................................................................................................... 35

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 35

Choice People Domain Framework ......................................................................................................... 36

Resident and Community Engagement .................................................................................................. 43

Service Coordination ............................................................................................................................... 44

Relocation and Reoccupancy .................................................................................................................. 50

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 56

4. Revitalizing the Neighborhoods .............................................................................................................. 58

Findings ................................................................................................................................................... 58

Neighborhood Context ........................................................................................................................... 59

Public Safety ............................................................................................................................................ 61

Critical Community Improvements ......................................................................................................... 67

Economic Development .......................................................................................................................... 71

Built Environment ................................................................................................................................... 73

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 77

5. Coordinating Action and Leveraging New Resources ............................................................................. 79

Findings ................................................................................................................................................... 79

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 80

Coordination and Systems Reform Through Choice ............................................................................... 81

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 92

v

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

6. Conclusions and Reflections: Choice As a Vehicle for Neighborhood Transformation ......................... 93

Early Implementation in the First Five Choice Neighborhoods .............................................................. 93

Issues and Opportunities: Maximizing the Benefits of Choice ............................................................... 97

Areas for Future Research .................................................................................................................... 100

Concluding Thoughts ............................................................................................................................ 103

References ................................................................................................................................................ 104

Additional Reading .................................................................................................................................... 107

Appendix A: Methodology ........................................................................................................................ A-1

Appendix B: The Five Choice Neighborhoods ............................................................................................ B-1

Appendix C: Analysis of the Built Environment ......................................................................................... C-1

Appendix D: Energy Scorecard Report ...................................................................................................... D-1

Appendix E: Analysis of Financial Feasibility .............................................................................................. E-1

Appendix F: Performance Measurement Indicators for the Choice Neighborhoods Implementation

Grants ......................................................................................................................................................... F-1

Appendix G: Detailed Crime Statistics ...................................................................................................... G-1

Appendix H: Questions for Future Research and Evaluation .................................................................... H-1

vi

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit ES.1. Baseline Conditions in FY 2010–11 Implementation Choice Neighborhoods and Target

Developments ........................................................................................................................................... xviii

Exhibit 1.1. Quincy Corridor Choice Neighborhood, Boston, Massachusetts ............................................... 2

Exhibit 1.2. Woodlawn Choice Neighborhood, Chicago, Illinois ................................................................... 3

Exhibit 1.3. Ibervil e-Tremé Choice Neighborhood, New Orleans, Louisiana ............................................... 4

Exhibit 1.4. Eastern Bayview Choice Neighborhood, San Francisco, California ............................................ 5

Exhibit 1.5. Yesler Choice Neighborhood, Seattle, Washington ................................................................... 6

Exhibit 1.6. Characteristics of Choice Target Developments, December 2010 .......................................... 13

Exhibit 1.7. Characteristics of Residents of Choice Target Developments, 2013–2014 ............................. 14

Exhibit 1.8. Characteristics of Choice Neighborhoods at Baseline ............................................................. 15

Exhibit 2.1. Overview of Choice Housing Plans ........................................................................................... 19

Exhibit 2.2. Status of Target Housing Redevelopment, September 2013 ................................................... 20

Exhibit 2.3. Planned Number of Units by Number of Bedrooms and Sizes and Preredevelopment

Household Size ............................................................................................................................................ 24

Exhibit 2.4. Target Development Housing Conditions Before Choice Redevelopment .............................. 28

Exhibit 2.5. Average EUI and Energy Costs, 2011 ....................................................................................... 28

Exhibit 2.6. Percentage of Residential-Only Street Segments With Specified Problems ............................ 29

Exhibit 2.7. Choice Neighborhood Housing Conditions .............................................................................. 30

Exhibit 2.8. Property Management Entities ................................................................................................ 33

Exhibit 3.1. Characteristics of Residents of Choice Target Developments, May 2011 ............................... 37

Exhibit 3.2. Program Type and Community Support Activities for Choice Neighborhoods ....................... 39

Exhibit 3.3. Resident and Community Support Activities for Choice Neighborhoods ................................ 41

Exhibit 3.4. Employment Status and Reported Reasons for Not Working ................................................. 47

Exhibit 3.5. Housing Assistance Status as of September 2013 for Households Living in Target

Development at the Time of the First Round Application .......................................................................... 52

Exhibit 4.1. Choice Neighborhood Baseline Characteristics ....................................................................... 59

Exhibit 4.2. Violent Crime Rates (per 1,000 people) in Choice Neighborhoods and Cities, 2012 .............. 62

Exhibit 4.3. Choice Critical Community Improvement Funds and Activities, as of September 30, 2013 ... 69

Exhibit 4.4. Selected Indicators on the Quality of the Public Realm ........................................................... 76

Exhibit 5.1. Examples of Leverage Claimed as Having Been Catalyzed by the Choice Grant ..................... 91

vii

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (Choice) of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) aims to transform distressed, high-poverty rate neighborhoods into revitalized

mixed-income neighborhoods. Its primary vehicle to catalyze this transformation is the rebuilding of

distressed public and assisted housing into energy-efficient, mixed-income housing that is physical y and financially viable. Although 60 to 80 percent of funding is directed toward housing redevelopment,

Choice also seeks to support the people who live in the target developments and the surrounding

neighborhoods through programs that facilitate positive health, safety, employment, mobility, and

education outcomes. Finally, the initiative aims to improve the neighborhoods surrounding the

revitalized housing by improving access to well-functioning services, high-quality public schools and

early education programs, public assets, public transportation, and jobs.

Since 2010, HUD has made 56 Choice planning grant awards and 13 implementation grant awards.

Planning grantees receive a maximum of $500,000 for 2 years of work to prepare transformation plans;

implementation grantees receive up to $30.5 million for 5 years. HUD has issued three notices of

funding availability (NOFAs) for implementation grants since the beginning of the program, making

incremental adjustments that capitalize on early experience. 1

HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research contracted with the Urban Institute and MDRC to

study the first 2 years of activity under the first five Choice implementation grants, which were awarded out of fiscal year (FY) 2010–11 funds by HUD in September 2011, and to col ect baseline data in the five neighborhoods. The baseline data col ection, including a survey of residents of Choice developments and the surrounding neighborhoods, will al ow for the tracking of conditions over time. The first five Choice implementation grant neighborhoods are diverse in many respects:

• Quincy Corridor (Boston) is a 0.5-square-mile neighborhood of 9,700 residents and is home to the 129-unit Woodledge-Morrant Bay scattered-site HUD-assisted² development. The grantee team, led by the City of Boston’s Department of Neighborhood Development and Dorchester

Bay Economic Development Corporation, is rehabilitating the existing structures and adding new

structures on nearby parcels. The net number of units wil not change, but the rebuilt

development will meet current standards for interior and common-area space and quality.

1 For a description of the evolution of NOFA, see chapter 1.

2 The Choice Neighborhoods FY 2010 NOFA defines assisted housing as “housing assisted under sections 8 or 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f and 42 U.S.C 1437g) (excluding tenant-based vouchers), section 221(d)(3) or section 236 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715 and 12 U.S.C 1715z-1), section 202 of Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q), and section 811 of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C

8013)” (HUD, 2010a: 10).

viii

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

• Woodlawn (Chicago) is a 2.0-square-mile neighborhood of 23,700 residents in which the 378-

unit Grove Parc HUD-assisted development was located. 3 The grantee team, led by Preservation of Affordable Housing, Inc., and the City of Chicago, has demolished the Grove Parc structures

and wil build or acquire and rehabilitate 995 units on site at Grove Parc and in the surrounding

neighborhood.

• Iberville-Tremé (New Orleans) is a 1.7-square-mile neighborhood of 11,600 residents

surrounding the 821-unit Iberville public housing development. The grantee team, led by the

Housing Authority of New Orleans and the City of New Orleans, wil demolish most and

rehabilitate the rest of the extant Iberville buildings. The team plans to build about 1,500 units

on the Ibervil e site and elsewhere in the neighborhood.

• Eastern Bayview (San Francisco) is a 1.6-square-mile neighborhood of 17,600 residents around

the 256-unit Alice Griffith public housing development. The grantee team, led by McCormack

Baron Salazar and the San Francisco Housing Authority, will demolish the existing development

and build 1,210 units on and adjacent to the Alice Griffith site.

• Yesler (Seattle) is a 0.2-square-mile neighborhood of 2,100 residents in which the 561-unit

Yesler Terrace public housing development is located. The grantee team, led by the Seattle

Housing Authority, will eventually demolish the entirety of the Yesler Terrace development, but

only the first phase of the project was included in the FY 2010–11 grant. This phase includes the

rehabilitation and development of 238 units.

This report documents the state of Choice in the first five cities where applicants won implementation

grants through their second year of implementation (September 2013). It builds on and complements

Developing Choice Neighborhoods: An Early Look at Implementation in Five Sites, the first report prepared under this contract (published in September 2013), which described the grantees and their

transformation plans and offered an early look at challenges and successes in implementation of Choice.

The present report draws on analysis of data from interviews with stakeholders, the baseline household

survey, focus groups, surveys of block and pedestrian conditions, energy audits, financial pro forma

reviews, administrative data, and other sources.

OVERVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION FINDINGS

Research for this report covered the first two implementation years of a new and ambitious program for

HUD and grantees. Grantees had made progress on a number of fronts after 2 years of operation.

1. Housing redevelopment is under way in al five Choice neighborhoods, marking a core

accomplishment and indicator of early progress, but ambitious efforts to build housing off site

have been more chal enging. As of September 2013, housing redevelopment was under way or

had definite start dates among al first-round grants. Demolition was complete or under way in

most developments, and construction had begun in two locations. In Iberville-Tremé, however,

3 Grove Parc original y included 504 units, 126 of which were demolished before the Choice application had been submitted.

ix

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

ambitious offsite housing development has been complicated by site control issues that arose

after HUD awarded the grant and by market competition for neighborhood properties. In

Chicago, a weak housing market in Woodlawn has dimmed near-term prospects for planned

offsite housing intended to attract middle-income households.

2. Grantees with HOPE VI experience were able to launch case management more quickly with

residents of the development, although providing services to relocated households was

challenging for all grantees. Of the array of social services that could be supported through

Choice, grantees have emphasized relocation and case management to residents of the target

development, with services launched more quickly by public housing authorities (PHAs). An

innovation of Choice was that it allowed HUD-assisted housing providers⁴ to take part in redevelopment, whereas its predecessor program, HOPE VI, targeted only public housing. HUD-assisted grantees, however, generally had less experience with providing social services than did

PHAs, al of which had worked on HOPE VI projects.

3. Four grantees had proposed Choice-funded neighborhood investments and two had made

very good progress on implementation. Choice goes beyond HOPE VI by al owing grantees to

devote up to 15 percent of their Choice funding on neighborhood projects, termed Critical

Community Improvements (CCIs), to extend the program’s impacts into the neighborhood

beyond the target development. In the first 2 years of implementation, the grantees had made

mixed progress on CCIs. The Boston and Seattle grantees had taken advantage of the flexibility

of the CCI funding to select and begin to implement projects that aligned with local priorities. In

the other three cities, progress was slowed by lack of agreement between the grantees and HUD

on how the CCIs could be used or by grantees’ focusing their energy on housing redevelopment

and supportive services.

4. Active support from local elected officials helped grantees coordinate and implement Choice’s

multipronged strategies for neighborhood improvement and attract substantial additional

investments. Choice’s design anticipates that its investment wil encourage additional public

and private investments related to infrastructure, transportation, housing, business creation,

and other services and amenities. Varied public agencies often needed to work together to

coordinate investments and service strategies with Choice implementers, and they did so more

easily when commitment from high-level local officials helped cement partnerships among

them. Although mayoral authority often helped city agencies work together, in the case of

Yesler, it was strong engagement by the Seattle City Council that helped this coordination to

occur.

UNDERSTANDING EARLY PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES IN CHOICE IMPLEMENTATION

This report understands implementation progress in two ways. Its primary focus, given the time covered

in the research (the first 2 years of implementation among first-wave grantees), is to describe progress and challenges related to housing financing and redevelopment, social support services for residents, 4 HUD-assisted housing refers to the units constructed or rehabilitated with financial support from HUD in exchange for affordability guarantees. Unlike public housing, private for-profit or not-for-profit organizations own HUD-assisted housing.

x

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

and the implementation of CCIs in the neighborhoods surrounding the development. These goals are the

ones most directly in the control of grantees and HUD. The second set of themes involves issues and opportunities related to the program’s longer term ambitions: to transform high-poverty neighborhoods into mixed-income neighborhoods of choice and opportunity. Although any assessment of progress

should be based on HUD’s expectations and actions in the reasonable control of implementers, the

research can also point toward challenges that may need to be addressed as critical components of the

initiatives’ longer term theory of change or as opportunities for the program to have a greater impact.

These longer term issues—which apply at least to these implementation grants and may also be at play

in others—include such topics as Choice’s ability to leverage new and improved social services,

infrastructure, and private-sector development in the neighborhood; sustain a mixed-income

population; improve local schools; and change local policies to promote coordinated community

improvement efforts.

HOUSING

Progress in Choice related to housing at the end of September 2013 includes establishing viable

financing and moving forward on demolition and construction of the target development and

replacement housing.

1. Housing redevelopment is under way in al five Choice neighborhoods, marking a core

accomplishment and indicator of early progress. As of September 2013, housing

redevelopment was under way or had definite start dates among all first-round grants.

Demolition was complete or under way in most developments, and construction had begun in

Quincy Corridor and Woodlawn. Al grantees experienced complications typical of housing

development, such as those involving environmental impacts, archaeological findings, and

infrastructure coordination. Some also encountered delays related to implementation of Choice

as a new program, such as new policies and processes that needed to be put in place to

redevelop HUD-assisted properties.

2. Housing quality will improve markedly and is likely to be financially sustainable at all target developments after housing redevelopment is complete. The housing developments will be

transformed through substantial investment. In addition, improvements to the structure and

performance of the redeveloped properties wil result from the energy efficiency plans and

designs and use of materials expected to support resident health. Resident input about unit and

building designs also are expected to contribute to the improvements. An independent analysis

of the four operating pro formas that were available to the evaluators found the plans to be

feasible. The planned unit sizes appear to meet the housing needs of most established

households.

3. In two Choice neighborhoods, Iberville-Tremé and Woodlawn, offsite housing plans have been

affected by local housing market dynamics. In Iberville-Tremé, private-sector interest in real

estate acquisition increased, eliminating some opportunities for site acquisition for affordable

housing development. When it received Choice funding, the New Orleans grantee had options

on enough property beyond Iberville to complete its plan for more than 1,500 housing units on

and off the Ibervil e footprint. Within days after one critical option lapsed, however, another

xi

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

party picked up that option, forcing a redefinition in the grantee’s offsite housing plan. In

Woodlawn, the grantee had initially planned offsite housing intended to attract middle-income

households, but these plans in the short term were impeded by a weak housing demand and

lingering foreclosures.

4. Income mixing wil develop in different ways across the five developments. Among the four

grantees developing mixed-income housing, two plan to integrate subsidized and unsubsidized

units within buildings and two plan to have buildings in which al units have some type of

subsidy. By contrast, the grantee in Boston is developing exclusively very low- and low-income

units.

Issues and opportunities

• Buildout amid neighborhood transformation. With tens of millions of dollars in federal

investment and hundreds of mil ions in private-sector expenditure, the new housing in these

neighborhoods will help redefine blocks, districts, and even the entire neighborhood. Buildout in

Eastern Bayview, Yesler, Woodlawn, and Iberville-Tremé will take years and involve many deals

and partnerships. Each phase of each project represents an opportunity to learn and improve in

the next phase so that these investments maximize the quality of the new developments and

their neighborhoods.

• Community building. Interactions among the residents of the redeveloped housing wil affect

whether Choice reaches its goals. Trust and community cohesion are critical drivers of positive

individual and neighborhood outcomes (Klinenberg, 2003; Mohnen et al., 2014; Wallace and

Wallace, 2008). Trust does not emerge automatically or easily, however, especially in distressed

communities (Letki, 2008). The grantees and HUD will therefore improve outcomes if they

develop management plans that build positive relations among residents as soon as possible

after they move in (Joseph and Gress, 2013).

PEOPLE

Grantees’ supportive services (“people”) teams concentrated most of their early efforts (up to

September 2013) on case management and relocation supports for residents of the target

developments.

1. Grantee teams with experience implementing HOPE VI projects launched services more

rapidly than grantees with HUD-assisted developments. Grantees had broad latitude to design

their teams, decide on case management approaches, set priorities for service enrichment, and

engage with residents to accomplish Choice’s far-reaching goals for resident outcomes. For each

of these functions, experience from HOPE VI enabled the New Orleans, San Francisco, and

Seattle Choice grantees to make more progress in the people domain than Boston or Chicago

grantees did by September 2013.

2. The urgency to demolish units and relocate residents complicated the initiation of case

management services in al three target developments with significant relocation activity. In

Woodledge-Morrant Bay and Grove Parc, delays in case management resulted in residents being

relocated before engagement with a social service provider who could assist in lease

xii

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

compliance, moving preparation, and eventual housing placement. At Iberville, early progress

was made on case management before relocation began, but progress slowed when relocation

commenced.

3. All five grantees facilitated access to services for residents of the target development in at

least one of the fol owing areas: health, early childhood supports, education, and workforce

development. Choice has not yet led to system-level coordination, however, among local

human development organizations, schools, health providers, and other entities in ways that

changed access to services or the quality of services for neighborhood residents overall.

Issues and opportunities

• Supportive services during relocation. Past research has demonstrated that providing services consistently during the relocation process is critical, especially for the most vulnerable residents,

who may be at greater risk of health problems, setbacks in employment searches, and even

premature mortality (Comey, 2007). A stress point in each of the three target developments

during the relocation process was to provide supportive services to most of the families who

had been relocated by September 2013. HUD and the grantees should redouble efforts to

coordinate case management with relocation to avoid these problems and careful y monitor the

status of relocated families as they settle into their temporary and permanent housing.

• Attrition from assisted housing. Overall, housing assistance loss rates in the 3 years after the first five Choice implementation grants were awarded were comparable to those in HOPE VI,

which included fewer provisions than Choice to enable residents to return to rebuilt

developments if they wished. By September 2013, between 14 and 19 percent of Choice

households no longer had housing assistance. In HOPE VI, a panel study found that 14 percent of

residents no longer had housing assistance after 5 years. Considering that households that left

assistance as their projects were transformed in HOPE VI experienced greater levels of housing

and financial distress than those who maintained it, loss rates within Choice are an issue to

watch in coming years.

NEIGHBORHOOD

Progress in the neighborhood domain up to September 2013 involved developing an approach to select

CCI projects, which are Choice-funded investments to improve the surrounding neighborhood, and

developing strategies to address important local priorities, such as violent crime, economic

development, and the built environment.

1. CCI projects, the core of the neighborhood domain, are new under Choice and were only

partial y settled by September 2013. CCIs are locally selected neighborhood investments that

use Choice funding for community facilities or economic development. The Boston and Seattle

grantees had proposed and were implementing several CCIs that were approved by HUD and

advanced local priorities. The Boston grantee’s redevelopment of the shuttered Pearl Meat site

as a business incubator is one project that HUD cited as a good use of CCI funds. Most of the

other CCI projects aimed to improve the built environment, including recreational space,

community facilities, and walkability improvements. For example, the Hill Climb in Seattle will

xiii

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

connect Yesler with an adjacent neighborhood. At the end of the study period, HUD and the

grantees in Chicago and San Francisco were stil in discussion about the proposed CCI projects.

The New Orleans grantee focused on housing and services during the first 2 years and planned

to rethink their CCI strategy with the assistance of HUD and technical assistance providers.

2. The grantees’ approaches to high levels of violent crime varied across the Choice

neighborhoods, with the most progress on programming occurring in Quincy Corridor and

Woodlawn. The promising public safety-related activities in these two neighborhoods benefited

from having entities on the grantee teams that focused attention on the issue. Given the many

demands on Choice funds, all grantees need to leverage other federal and local sources of

funding and expertise to carry out public safety strategies.

3. HUD and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) demonstrated interagency coordination by

providing additional funding and technical assistance to the five Choice grantees through

Public Safety Enhancement (PSE) grants awarded in 2011. The PSE grants are intended to

enhance place-based public safety activities already happening in the neighborhoods. Local

activities funded through PSE grants had not begun as of September 2013 because federal staff

needed to draft program guidelines and provide Choice grantees technical assistance on project

design. The program was not extended to later implementation grantees.

Issues and opportunities

• Critical Community Improvements. HUD needs to continue to refine its criteria about types and characteristics of eligible projects to facilitate the project identification process and minimize

time needed for negotiation with HUD. The refined criteria will be useful for current grantees

that have not yet finalized their CCI plans and for future grantees. For the first five Choice

neighborhoods, HUD wil need to monitor implementation of the plans and support grantees in

overcoming any unexpected hurdles.

• Public safety activities. A high violent crime rate is among the selection criteria for Choice, and these first grantees’ activities to address crime within and beyond the PSE grants offer important

learning opportunities. How grantees are able use Choice funding, coordinate safety activities with

other Choice investments, and leverage additional resources from the local police departments

and nonprofit organizations wil provide lessons for the field. HUD and DOJ should also continue to

provide technical assistance to grantees, promote local coordination, and monitor whether

grantees are able to meet their objectives and leverage goals for the PSE grants.

COORDINATION AND LEVERAGE

Choice is an ambitious community improvement initiative that required HUD to develop new systems,

including ones to support the redevelopment of HUD-assisted multifamily properties. Early Choice

implementation needed to be supported by strong working relationships within grantee teams, between

grantees and other local agencies, and between grantees and HUD.

1. Histories of col aboration and the presence of an active, dedicated manager supported greater

coordination among stakeholders. The New Orleans, San Francisco, and Seattle grantees, all of

which had previous team experience on HOPE VI projects, began implementation with clear and

xiv

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

effective management structures. By September 2013, the Boston grantee had also established

good internal coordination and a set of working relations among the people, housing, and

neighborhood leads.

2. The greatest amount of collaboration with external agencies and leverage of additional

resources beyond the Choice grant occurred with housing redevelopment. Redevelopment

required coordination on review and approval processes and acquisition of additional financing.

External coordination was also stronger in places where Choice had a major role in driving

neighborhood-scale redevelopment, as in Yesler, or where Choice was deeply embedded within

existing redevelopment commitments, as in Eastern Bayview.

3. Active mayoral or political support for Choice was key in supporting coordination between the

project and external stakeholders, especially with other city agencies. Mayoral or political

support was particularly critical when more limited funding and additional leverage in the

neighborhood and people domains made it more difficult to influence transportation or

infrastructure planning processes or to leverage funding or investments from hospitals and

universities. Making progress in the broad goal of Choice—creating mixed-income

neighborhoods of choice and opportunity using direct and leveraged investments—appears to

be promoted best when HUD has a local partner with the ability to coordinate and control local

action at a significant scale and to hold other partners accountable for meeting their

commitments to the transformation. This authority to control action best occurred in Yesler and

Eastern Bayview, where Choice’s integration into a broader neighborhood plan seems to

enhance grantees’ authority and the accountability of local partners.

4. Among providers with previous HOPE VI experiences, HUD and grantees established good

working relations that contributed to smoother project implementation. HUD needed to

develop new systems and protocols with the HUD-assisted developments, which contributed to

some delays in implementation but which have since been resolved.

5. Even in its early implementation, Choice was credited by many of the grantees as helping to set in motion or put in place some systemic changes or improvements in local interagency

functioning. At the same time, other aspects of local or federal policy made it more difficult for Choice efforts to extend their reach beyond the target development into the Choice

neighborhood as a whole. For example, the absence of neighborhood schools among al the

Choice neighborhoods except Yesler made Choice’s goal of coordination with education reform

more difficult, although grantees did develop tools to engage with school improvement efforts.

Issues and opportunities

• Federal coordination. Coordinating additional federal resources to Choice neighborhoods is an opportunity that HUD has already started to realize with early grantees. HUD’s partnership with

DOJ—expanding opportunities for Choice grantees to receive technical assistance and additional

federal funding for public safety interventions—stands out as an important effort to fol ow over

time. The PSE grants offer a model of strong coordination among federal agencies that could be

expanded to other topic areas.

xv

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

• Leverage. The extent to which public and private investments in infrastructure, safety, and

other neighborhood amenities grow over time is an issue to watch. Although colocated

investments previously committed to Choice neighborhoods are significant, examples of the

Choice grant catalyzing additional resources outside of housing finance were infrequent at this

early point in Choice implementation. Given ongoing challenges stemming from the financial

crisis, federal spending retrenchment after the wind-down of the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act of 2009, and strains in the public and private sector, it is not surprising that

obtaining significant additional leverage has been challenging for grantees.

• System change. Some aspects of local policy not in control of Choice grantees are an issue to watch, because they make it harder for Choice grantees to coordinate community

improvements. Although grantees made progress in some policy reforms, coordinating with

school districts will need continued effort.

OVERVIEW OF BASELINE CONDITIONS IN THE FIVE CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS

The second key purpose of this study was to col ect baseline data on the five Choice neighborhoods.

Survey research and administrative data collected in the first 2 years of implementation will help future evaluators, HUD, and the grantees track progress in the target developments and neighborhoods on

various dimensions.

• Housing. Before receiving Choice grants, target housing developments in all five Choice

neighborhoods had uniformly low-income occupancy and their compelling need for either

extensive physical upgrading or outright replacement. In a baseline survey, residents reported

between 2.1 and 3.4 average problems per unit—in every case, a higher number than

reported in the surrounding neighborhood. This measure is almost certain to improve with

redevelopment. None of the buildings were highrises, and most were two- or three-story

walkup apartments. As shown in exhibit ES.1, the increase in the planned overall number of

units in Woodlawn, Eastern Bayview, and Iberville-Tremé is substantial.

• People. Given the fact that the percentage of households reporting wage income in the

developments at baseline ranged from only 31 percent (in the Alice Griffith development) to a

high of 54 percent (in the Woodledge-Morrant Bay development), strategies on the part of

grantees to achieve well-being, employment, and income gains are an important component of

Choice’s overall strategy.

• Neighborhood. At baseline, the five Choice neighborhoods al shared considerable economic

and social challenges (exhibit ES.1). To qualify for Choice, a neighborhood had to exhibit high

levels of poverty and distress. All of the five Choice neighborhoods had poverty rates higher

than 25 percent and unemployment rates at or higher than 10 percent. The first five Choice

neighborhoods also have significant problems with violent crime, because program designers

intentionally targeted places where safety might be improved. In 2012, violent crime rates in the

five neighborhoods ranged from 17.1 crimes per 1,000 residents in Iberville-Tremé to 22.8 in

Woodlawn. During each year of the application and early implementation period from 2010 to

2012, violent crime rates in all five Choice neighborhoods were at least 200 percent more than

violent crime rates in their respective cities.

xvi

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

CONCLUSION

The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative represents a noteworthy evolution of housing and community

development policy. Building on lessons from HOPE VI and other place-based initiatives, Choice has the potential to accelerate the development of revitalized, mixed-income neighborhoods. At the same time,

Choice’s long-term goals are ambitious, and an investment of up to $30.5 million, while significant for a federal initiative, is not enough to transform neighborhoods immediately. As Choice’s important policy

goals will take time to achieve, it will be necessary to continue tracking the implementation processes and the outcomes related to housing, people, and neighborhoods in the communities in which Choice

operates.

xvi

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit ES.1. Baseline Conditions in FY 2010–11 Implementation Choice Neighborhoods and Target Developments Quincy

Iberville-

Eastern

Corridor

Woodlawn

Tremé (New Bayview (San

Yesler

Target neighborhood

(Boston)

(Chicago)

Orleans)

Francisco)

(Seattle)

Average number of housing problems in neighborhooda

1.5

1.4

1.8

0.7

1.1

Unemployment rate in neighborhood, 2006–2010b

21%

17%

20%

16%

10%

Poverty rate in neighborhood, 2006–2010b

38%

29%

42%

26%

36%

Number of violent crimes in neighborhood per 1,000

population, 2012c

19.9

22.8

17.1

17.6

19.9

Woodledge-

Yesler

Target development

Morrant Bay

Grove Parc

Iberville

Alice Griffith

Terrace

Number of units

129

378

821

256

561

Total number of units planned

129

995

1,500

1,210

238f

Average number of housing problems before

redevelopmenta

2.2

3.1

NAe

3.4

2.1

Percent of households with wage incomed

53%

34%

37%

31%

39%

a Note: Respondents were asked whether they had any of 14 housing problems related to utilities and plumbing, structural elements, pests and rodents, and mold or mildew. Source: Choice Neighborhoods Baseline Survey 2013–14

b Source: 2010 Decennial Census and 2006–2010 American Community Survey

c Source: Urban Institute analysis of crime data obtained from each jurisdiction.

d Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Public and Indian Housing Information Center, or PIC; Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System, or TRACS, databases (2010 data)

e Note: Data for Ibervil e are not reported here; only four survey respondents were stil living in their original unit in the Ibervil e development during data collection.

f First phase only.

xviii

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

1. INTRODUCTION

In 2010, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) created the Choice

Neighborhoods Initiative (Choice) as a successor to the long-running HOPE VI program. Like HOPE VI,

Choice aims to replace distressed assisted-housing developments with new mixed-income housing while

providing supportive services for residents. Unlike HOPE VI, Choice allows the revitalization of HUD-

subsidized multifamily housing developments (assisted housing)⁵ as well as public housing developments. Also unlike HOPE VI, Choice requires the housing redevelopment to be accompanied by

actions to improve conditions in the high-poverty neighborhood surrounding the distressed housing.

Choice backs this requirement with flexible funding for neighborhood projects and activities to

complement and leverage investments by other private-market actors, public agencies, and anchor

institutions. HUD intends for local actions in the three domains—housing, people, and neighborhood—

to create the type of community in which people of a variety of income levels would choose to live.

Since 2010, HUD has made 56 Choice planning grant awards and 13 implementation grant awards.

Planning grantees receive a maximum of $500,000 for 2 years of work to prepare transformation plans;

implementation grantees receive up to $30.5 million for 5 years. HUD has issued three notices of

funding availability (NOFAs) for implementation grants since the beginning of the program, making

incremental adjustments that capitalize on early experience.

This report concerns the first five implementation Choice neighborhoods that received awards in the

fiscal year (FY) 2010–11 funding round. The Choice neighborhoods, with their lead grantee and

cograntee, were—

• Quincy Corridor neighborhood: the City of Boston’s Department of Neighborhood Development

and Dorchester Bay Economic Development Corporation (exhibit 1.1).

• Woodlawn neighborhood: Preservation of Affordable Housing, Inc., or POAH, and the City of

Chicago (exhibit 1.2).

• Iberville-Tremé neighborhood: The Housing Authority of New Orleans, or HANO, and the City of

New Orleans (exhibit 1.3).

• Eastern Bayview neighborhood: McCormack Baron Salazar (MBS) and the San Francisco

Housing Authority (exhibit 1.4).

• Yesler neighborhood: The Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) (exhibit 1.5).

5The FY 2010 NOFA defines assisted housing as “housing assisted under sections 8 or 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f and 42 U.S.C 1437g) (excluding tenant-based vouchers), section 221(d)(3) or section 236

of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715 and 12 U.S.C 1715z-1), section 202 of Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C.

1701q), and section 811 of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C 8013)” (HUD, 2010a: 10).

1

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit 1.1. Quincy Corridor Choice Neighborhood, Boston, Massachusetts

2

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit 1.2. Woodlawn Choice Neighborhood, Chicago, Illinois

CTA = Chicago Transit Authority.

3

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit 1.3. Iberville-Tremé Choice Neighborhood, New Orleans, Louisiana

4

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit 1.4. Eastern Bayview Choice Neighborhood, San Francisco, California

Muni = San Francisco Municipal Railway.

5

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit 1.5. Yesler Choice Neighborhood, Seattle, Washington

6

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research contracted with the Urban Institute and MDRC to

evaluate the early progress of the first five implementation grantees and to col ect extensive data to

document baseline conditions that would inform this early evaluation and evaluations after

implementation is complete. The evaluation began in September 2011; data col ection concluded in

September 2013. 6

This report complements and updates Developing Choice Neighborhoods: An Early Look at Implementation in Five Sites (hereafter, Developing Choice Neighborhoods; Pendall et al., 2013), which provides information about al five neighborhoods, the grantee teams, their transformation plans, and progress in implementation through late 2012. Like Developing Choice Neighborhoods, this report records the Choice grantees’ accomplishments, successes, and challenges, focusing on activities between mid-2012 and

September 2013. It also offers research questions to orient ongoing monitoring and future evaluation of the grantees’ activities and the ultimate outcomes of the program. The report rounds out the description of baseline conditions in the five neighborhoods using data col ected since the drafting of Developing Choice Neighborhoods: a household survey of residents, resident focus groups, new stakeholder

interviews, additional analyses of crime data, and surveys of pedestrian and physical block conditions.

THE CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS INITIATIVE AND ITS EVOLUTION

As described by HUD (2010d: 1) in the prenotice to the first Choice NOFA, Choice is “a comprehensive

approach to community development centered on housing transformation” whose goal is “to transform

neighborhoods of poverty into viable mixed-income neighborhoods with access to economic

opportunities.” HUD envisioned that such transformation would occur by “revitalizing severely

distressed public and assisted housing and investing and leveraging investments in well-functioning

services, effective schools and education programs, public assets, public transportation, and improved

access to jobs” (HUD 2010d: 1). HUD structured the program into three domains of housing, people, and

neighborhood. The corresponding goals were as fol ows:

• Housing. Transform distressed public and assisted housing into energy-efficient, mixed-income housing that is physical y and financial y viable over the long term.

• People. Support positive outcomes for families who live in the target development and the

surrounding neighborhood, particularly outcomes related to residents’ health, safety,

employment, and education.

• Neighborhood. Transform neighborhoods of poverty into viable, mixed-income neighborhoods

with access to well-functioning services, effective schools and educational programs, public

assets, public transportation, and improved access to jobs.

Congress first appropriated funds for Choice in FY 2010. 7 Choice is administered by HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing; additional staff from other HUD offices, such as Housing (multifamily

6 After September 2013, a few interviews were conducted to fil gaps in the data col ection and the Choice Neighborhoods Baseline Survey concluded data col ection in May 2014.

7 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010. Public Law 117.

7

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

programs) and Community Planning and Development, are assigned to grantee management teams.

These teams are staffed with individuals at HUD Headquarters and in the field offices.

Choice, along with the U.S. Department of Education’s Promise Neighborhoods initiative and the Byrne

Criminal Justice Innovation Program, is part of the White House’s Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative (NRI). NRI strives for alignment among key institutions at the city and neighborhood levels and across

domains. NRI also fosters cross-agency collaboration at the federal level, which resulted in additional funding for and guidance on activities related to public safety for the FY 2010–11 Choice implementation grantees through an interagency agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice.

Choice builds on lessons learned during HOPE VI, HUD’s long-running program to replace or rehabilitate

distressed public housing, and extends the scope of the intervention beyond housing to incorporate

people- and neighborhood-related interventions and goals. Choice introduced several programmatic

innovations related to housing revitalization, resident opportunities, and neighborhood development

beyond what was possible under HOPE VI.

Choice maintains the emphasis of HOPE VI regarding public-private partnerships and mixed financing

for replacing or rehabilitating assisted housing, but it extends grant eligibility to privately owned,

federally subsidized developments. Eligible Choice grantees therefore include not only public housing

authorities (PHAs) but also local governments and nonprofit organizations. For-profit developers are

eligible if they apply jointly with a public entity like the housing authority (as in Eastern Bayview) or a local government. Under most conditions, Choice requires grantees to build at least one subsidized

replacement housing unit for every assisted unit demolished in the target development. Unlike HOPE VI

funding, Choice funding may be used directly to develop affordable housing for households with income

up to 120 percent of Area Median Income, or AMI. These units are not considered replacement housing

for the purposes of the one-for-one replacement requirement (HUD, 2010a). 8

Choice also continues the emphasis of HOPE VI regarding the support of tenants during the

redevelopment process. One-for-one replacement and restrictions on modifying lease agreements to

include restrictive screening criteria give existing tenants the opportunity to live in the redeveloped project. Choice also aims to improve educational opportunities for residents of the target developments and Choice neighborhoods and improve connections to supportive and community services for all

residents.

In addition, Choice differs from HOPE VI by providing funding for projects that create synergy between

renovation of the target development and revitalization efforts within the surrounding neighborhood.

Beyond providing funding for neighborhood investments, Choice is intended to foster partnerships

among organizations, agencies, and institutions working throughout the neighborhood to build

affordable housing, provide social services, care for and educate children and youth, ensure public

safety, and revitalize the neighborhood’s commercial opportunities and infrastructure. 9 Choice is also 8 HUD (2010a), as clarified by HUD (2010b).

9 For more detail about NOFA requirements, see Pendall et al. (2013).

8

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

explicitly focused on improving public safety and reducing the level of violence in the neighborhood.

Choice grantees are expected to partner with law enforcement officials and community organizations to

decrease crime rates in the neighborhood during and after redevelopment.

The program requires grantees to conduct certain activities in each of the three domains:

Housing

• Transforming housing through rehabilitation, preservation, or demolition and replacement of

severely distressed housing.

• Providing one-for-one replacement of all public and assisted dwellings “unless otherwise

permitted.” 10

• Preserving affordable housing in the neighborhood.

• Meeting fair housing and accessibility requirements.

People

• Involving residents in planning and implementing the transformation plan.

• Promoting economic self-sufficiency of residents in the revitalized target development housing

and the neighborhood.

• Establishing partnerships with educators and engagement in community planning to increase

access to programs and services improving developmental and academic outcomes for resident

children and youth.

• Providing service coordination, supportive services, mobility counseling, and housing search

assistance for residents displaced because of the housing revitalization.

• Conducting activities demonstrating that each tenant wishing to return to replacement housing

could do so if the tenant were lease compliant at and after the time of departure.

• Tracking tenants who are relocated during redevelopment during the life of the grant or until

ful occupancy of the replacement housing.

10 According to HUD (2010a: 25–26), A grantee can apply for a waiver to this requirement if the fol owing conditions are met: “a) be located in a county with a currently and historically soft rental housing market for low-income renters. HUD has defined these counties as those where the county rental vacancy rates for units affordable to low-income households were greater than 7.3 percent in 2000 and greater than 9.2 percent in 2005-2007; b) be located in a Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) or non-CBSA County where vouchers currently in use are primarily in lower poverty neighborhoods. Data from PIC shows the location of current housing choice voucher holders in the CBSA (or county outside of CBSA). To qualify on this standard, the median neighborhood poverty rate for a voucher holder in the CBSA (or county outside of a CBSA) must be 20 percent or less. In other words, at least 50 percent of voucher holders must be in neighborhoods with 20 percent poverty rate or less. An applicant may request that this standard only be applied for the agency proposed to operate the voucher program as opposed to al agencies in the CBSA; and c) High voucher success rate. The applicant wil be required to provide data to HUD that shows that the agency that would administer the replacement vouchers has a success rate of 80 percent or higher. That is, a minimum of 80 percent of households that are issued vouchers are successful at leasing units within 120 days. To meet this requirement you will need to provide a file to HUD from an agency that shows all vouchers issued in the prior 18 months and the outcome associated with that issuance. In addition, you wil need to provide a narrative (preferably with data if available) on success rates for the population comparable to the current population of the Choice Neighborhoods target development.”

9

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Neighborhood

• Ensuring the economic, educational, and environmental viability of the neighborhood.

In addition to these required activities, Choice also makes funds eligible for a host of other activities, many of which are an important part of extending the program’s reach into the

surrounding neighborhood, promoting safety, ensuring positive outcomes for residents, and

covering needed construction or development fees.

• Constructing, acquiring, or rehabilitating public, assisted, and privately owned housing (that is,

in the surrounding neighborhood as well).

• Acquiring, demolishing, or disposing of properties.

• Providing supportive services focused on case management, service coordination, and

assistance.

• Partnering with employers to create jobs and job training opportunities.

• Providing relocation assistance.

• Conducting activities to promote sustainable neighborhoods.

• Providing Critical Community Improvements (CCIs; discussed in sections 4 through 6).

• Establishing endowments (up to 15 percent of Choice grants) to provide supportive services.

• Converting vacant and foreclosed properties to affordable housing.

• Providing architectural and engineering work.

• Demolition, sale, lease of the site.

• Administrative costs.

• Legal fees.

• Management improvements.

• Leveraging other resources.

• Replacement housing.

• Transitional security activities.

Although this report describes the early experiences of Choice’s first five implementation grantees, it is important to note that the initiative continues to evolve over time. This evolution can be seen in the

ways that subsequent versions of the NOFA (1) shifted program goals for the most recent round of

grantees in FY 2013; (2) developed a growing connection with the Rental Assistance Demonstration

(RAD); and (3) required stronger evidence of commitment by partners to provide matching funding, or

“leverage,” to Choice activities.

Although goals for FYs 2010 and 2012 did not substantial y differ, program goals for FY 2013 had a

different emphasis. Some of these changes are significant, developing greater focus on certain types of social services and educational outcomes and setting more tempered goals for neighborhood change.

• In terms of housing, in FYs 2010 and 2012 the program sought to transform distressed public

and assisted housing into physically and financially viable energy-efficient properties. Although

the emphasis on mixed-income housing continued into FY 2013, the NOFA adds emphasis on

management, indicating that it should be “high-quality mixed-income housing that is wel -

managed and responsive to the needs of the surrounding neighborhood” (HUD, 2013b: 2).

10

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

• In terms of people, FYs 2010 and 2012 outcomes were defined broadly in terms of employment,

health, and safety. In FY 2013, special emphasis was placed on youth and especial y on their

educational outcomes and intergenerational mobility.

• The goals at the neighborhood level are framed very differently for FY 2013 compared with

previous years; they focus activities and temper ambitions for neighborhood transformation.

Although neighborhood goals for FYs 2010 and 2012 were to “transform the neighborhoods into

viable mixed-income neighborhoods,” (HUD, 2010a: 2) by contrast, for FY 2013 these goals were

to “Create the conditions necessary for public and private reinvestment in distressed

neighborhoods to offer the kinds of amenities and assets, including safety, good schools, and

commercial activity, that are important to families’ choices about their community” (HUD,

2013a: 2). The FY 2013 NOFA also focuses activities on safety, schools, and commercial activity

from a broader scope that previously also included early learning programs, public assets,

transportation, and job access.

In FY 2012, grantees were eligible to apply to RAD, which allows public housing capital and operating

subsidies, or certain expiring subsidies, to be converted to long-term Section 8 contracts to facilitate additional debt and equity financing. In FY 2013, grantees were encouraged to apply to RAD, signaling

an increased intertwining of these two important HUD programs.

Another main change from the first round of Choice funding (FY 2010) to subsequent years (FYs 2012

and 2013) is the requirement for committed matching funds. Although the FY 2010 NOFA set the

expectation of grantees to leverage additional funds (at least 5 percent), it did not establish a

requirement that the funds had to be “firmly committed.” In FYs 2012 and 2013, the NOFA explicitly

required that applicants enlist other stakeholders to provide financial assistance for the proposed

project and that specific amounts be established through written commitments.

Other changes to the NOFA include expansion of eligibility to tribal entities, a focus on “well-managed”

housing in program metrics, and a shift in language related to fair housing compliance, so that FY 2013

grantees must “overcome the effects of impediments to fair housing,” rather than “comply with fair

housing requirements” (HUD, 2013b: 29), although program metrics in al cases required housing to be

“free from discrimination” (HUD, 2013b: 3).

Another way HUD responded to emerging grantee needs during the program was to provide technical

assistance (TA). TA included convening subject-specific forums for grantees, producing webinars and

promising practice guides, and fostering connections to topical experts. These TA activities were

especially focused on grant implementation activities that were newer to HUD and the grantees, such as

action to support neighborhood change and coordination with schools. These functions are described in

more detail in chapter 5.

11

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

METHODOLOGY

This report includes analyses of data col ected between September 2011 and September 2013. 11 The research team col ected data from a wide array of sources, as described in the following list:

• Key documents, including the grantees’ transformation plans (Choice funding applications),

quarterly reports, and budgets submitted to HUD.

• Interviews of HUD staff, grantee staff, and key community stakeholders.

• Observations of key meetings, including grantee team meetings and public meetings about

Choice.

• A household survey of residents of the target developments and the Choice neighborhoods

outside the target developments.

• Administrative data on characteristics of the residents of the target development and the

neighborhood from federal and local agencies.

• Focus groups of residents of the neighborhood and residents of the target development.

• Observation of neighborhood conditions, including analysis of pedestrian conditions along key

walking routes and a block-front survey of general physical conditions in the surrounding

neighborhood.

In addition to using staff at the Urban Institute and MDRC headquarters to conduct interviews and focus groups during site visits, the Urban Institute added staff (and one subcontractor) to the research team to work in each city with a Choice implementation grantee. These individuals contributed enormously to

the breadth of the col ected data that made this report possible. They attended grantee working team

meetings, public meetings, and neighborhood association meetings; listened to phone cal s between the

grantees and HUD; conducted interviews with grantee team members and local stakeholders; and

general y remained informed about these changing neighborhoods and cities. Additional subcontractors

were engaged to study the grantees’ pro formas (available for four of the five housing redevelopments)

and the past and projected energy performance of the target housing developments. (The methodology

for data col ection is described in more detail in appendix A.)

THE FY 2010–11 CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS AT BASELINE

This section provides context for the evaluation by describing the housing, people, and neighborhoods

of the first five Choice implementation grants.

HOUSING

Before receiving Choice grants, target housing developments in al five Choice neighborhoods had in

common their uniformly low-income occupancy and their compelling need for either extensive physical

upgrading or outright replacement. The two developments in Quincy Corridor and Woodlawn were

HUD-assisted housing developments, specifically project-based Section 8, and were owned and

managed by private entities (exhibit 1.6). The other three developments in Iberville-Tremé, Eastern

Bayview, and Yesler were public housing, owned and managed by PHAs.

11 One exception to this timeline was the household survey, which was fielded from July 2013 through May 2014.

12

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit 1.6. Characteristics of Choice Target Developments, December 2010

Choice

Neighborhood

Target

Type of Federal

Number of Number

(City)

Development

Subsidy

Year Built

Buildings

of Units

Quincy Corridor

Woodledge-

Project-based

1920s

11

129

(Boston)

Morrant Bay

Section 8

Woodlawn

Project-based

Grove Parc

1969

24

504

(Chicago)

Section 8

Iberville-Tremé

Iberville

Public housing

1940

74

821

(New Orleans)

Eastern Bayview

Alice Griffith

Public housing

1962

33

256

(San Francisco)

Yesler (Seattle)

Yesler Terrace

Public housing

1941

69

561

Choice = Choice Neighborhoods Initiative.

Note: Of the original 504 Grove Parc units, 378 were standing at the time of the second round of Choice grant applications.

Source: Choice first and second rounds of implementation grant applications

None of the buildings were highrises. Most were two- or three-story walkup apartments; Grove Parc

also had two four-story elevator buildings. The size and configuration of the buildings varied. The 11

buildings at Woodledge-Morrant Bay, the smallest development, were scattered across three blocks and

were relatively well integrated with the surrounding housing. The 74 buildings at Ibervil e, the largest development, were cut off from the street grid to form a superblock, and the uniform brick buildings

contrasted markedly with the variety of styles in the surrounding area. Likewise, the two-story

townhouse buildings of Alice Griffith had no design similarities to the surrounding single-family homes; sidewalks and parking areas were also incongruent with and had no connection to the surrounding

neighborhood. Glaring visual differences existed between Grove Parc’s unornamented, minimal y

fenestrated brick buildings, placed within expanses of parking lots along both sides of a one-third-mile stretch of Cottage Grove Avenue, and the surrounding housing, which consists of attractive and varied

prewar masonry buildings with smal private front and rear yards.

PEOPLE

The residents of the Choice target developments differed considerably in household composition, race

and ethnicity, and education levels (exhibit 1.7). Most households in Grove Parc, Alice Griffith, and

Woodledge-Morrant Bay had children. Only 36 percent of households in Iberville and 42 percent in

Yesler Terrace had children, however, with more elderly adults in Yesler Terrace, where 41 percent of

the heads of household were age 62 or older. A number of households (ranging from 23 percent in

Woodledge-Morrant Bay to 53 percent in Yesler Terrace) had a member receiving disability-based

Supplemental Security Income benefits.

13

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit 1.7. Characteristics of Residents of Choice Target Developments, 2013–2014

Heads of Household

Percent Who Were or Had—

Non-

Some

Choice

Households

Hispanic

Col ege or

Neighborhood

Target

Total

With

African-

Foreign

More

(City)

Development Households Children (%) Americana Hispanic

Born

Education

Quincy Corridor

Woodledge-

128

73

41

55

56

18

(Boston)

Morrant Bay

Woodlawn

Grove Parc

344

60

98

1

1

32

(Chicago)

Iberville-Tremé

Iberville

440

36

94

2

1

10

(New Orleans)

Eastern Bayview

Alice Griffith

216

58

65

14

19

21

(San Francisco)

Yesler

Yesler (Seattle)

504

42

31

3

74

24

Terrace

Choice = Choice Neighborhoods Initiative.

a This figure also includes heads of household of non-Hispanic African descent.

Sources: Choice first and second rounds of implementation grant applications; Choice Neighborhoods Baseline Survey 2013–14

Residents of Iberville and Grove Parc were almost exclusively non-Hispanic African-Americans. Most

heads of household in Alice Griffith were also non-Hispanic African-American; however, about 13

percent were Pacific Islander, about 1 percent were White, and 14 percent were Hispanic. By contrast,

the Woodledge-Morrant Bay resident population was more ethnically diverse—41 percent were non-

Hispanic African-American and 55 percent were Hispanic. Yesler Terrace was the most diverse, with a

substantial population of refugee families; nearly 74 percent of householders were foreign born. About

31 percent of Yesler Terrace householders were non-Hispanic African or African-American, 47 percent

were non-Hispanic Asian, 6 percent were non-Hispanic White, and 3 percent were Hispanic.

The Alice Griffith, Woodledge-Morrant Bay, and Yesler Terrace developments also had considerable

linguistic diversity. 12 Although most Alice Griffith residents (84 percent) reported English as their primary language, other primary languages included Samoan, Spanish, and Cantonese. More than one-third of

Woodledge-Morrant Bay householders were non-English speakers; their primary languages included

Spanish, Haitian Creole, and Cape Verdean Creole. Yesler Terrace is the most linguistically diverse

development among the five grantees because of its substantial immigrant and refugee population.

According to a 2012 needs assessment conducted by SHA, about one-third of households spoke

Vietnamese as their primary language, one-fourth spoke an East African language (such as Somali,

Tigrinya, Amharic, or Oromo), and one-fifth spoke English as their primary language.

12 Data on languages spoken are from the Choice first- and second-round applications and needs assessment conducted by the grantees.

14

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

NEIGHBORHOOD

With 9,700 people in 0.5 square miles, Quincy Corridor had the highest population density of the five

neighborhoods (exhibit 1.8). The Choice neighborhoods did not uniformly fit the stereotype of population flight from distressed inner-city areas. The population increased between 2000 and 2010 in the Quincy

Corridor, and, although Ibervil e-Tremé lost residents after Hurricane Katrina, the neighborhood was

growing again by the end of the decade (Pendal et al., 2013). Population loss between 2000 and 2010

occurred at a modest rate in Yesler and Eastern Bayview but fel by 12 percent in Woodlawn.

Exhibit 1.8. Characteristics of Choice Neighborhoods at Baseline

Heads of Household

Percent Who Were or Had—

Non-

Some

Choice

Total

Single-

Hispanic

Col ege or

Neighborhood

Square Population

Family

Vacancy

African-

Foreign

More

(City)

Miles

(thousands) Units (%) Rate (%) Americana Hispanic

Born

Education

Quincy Corridor

0.5

9.7

12

10

53

36

37

39

(Boston)

Woodlawn

2.0

23.7

11

22

88

2

4

56

(Chicago)

Iberville-Tremé

1.7

11.6

42

38

77

4

4

40

(New Orleans)

Eastern Bayview

1.6

17.6

56

7

49

24

23

30

(San Francisco)

Yesler (Seattle)

0.2

2.1

9

10

34

8

46

52

Choice = Choice Neighborhoods Initiative.

a This figure also includes heads of household of non-Hispanic African descent. Data on population and vacancy are for 2010, single-family unit data are from 2006–2010, and head-of-household characteristics are from 2013–2014.

Sources: 2010 Decennial Census; 2006–2010 American Community Survey; Choice Neighborhoods Baseline Survey 2013–14

Different types of housing dominated the neighborhoods, with more single-family housing units in

Iberville-Tremé and Eastern Bayview; two- to four-unit buildings in Quincy Corridor; and a mix of

smal , medium, and large multifamily buildings in Woodlawn and Yesler. Among the Choice

neighborhoods, Woodlawn and Ibervil e-Tremé exhibited alarming rates of vacancy, consistent with the

population loss described previously. In Woodlawn, 22 percent of the housing units were vacant in 2010, up 8 percentage points from 2000 and nearly twice the rate for the city of Chicago. In Ibervil e-Tremé, 38 percent of the units were vacant in 2010, but, even before Hurricane Katrina, the neighborhood had

very high vacancy rates. These neighborhoods all have high poverty rates and struggle with violent

crime, with crime rates being more than double those of their cities (chapter 4).

The racial and ethnic composition of the Choice neighborhoods did not differ dramatical y from that of the target developments. Ibervil e-Tremé and Woodlawn had more diverse residents than their respective

Choice target developments, with lower shares of African-American heads of households. Heads of

households in the neighborhoods overal were likely to have at least some col ege or technical education.

15

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

STRUCTURE OF THE BASELINE REPORT

The next four chapters address the baseline conditions and implementation progress of the Choice

neighborhoods. Each chapter begins with key findings and ends with suggestions for future research and

evaluation. Chapters 2, 3, and 4 describe the grantees’ activities in each of the program’s three domains.

Chapter 2 assesses Choice housing activities, including the redevelopment of the target developments and other housing in the surrounding neighborhoods. The chapter reviews the grantees’ plans for and progress toward revitalizing the distressed public and assisted housing developments and analyzes several key

housing issues (design, quality, financing for redevelopment, and property management) across al five

Choice neighborhoods. Chapter 3 describes how the grantee teams are engaging residents (people) in the Choice process, how case management efforts have proceeded, and how the relocation process has

unfolded. This chapter also considers the supportive services and programming offered to residents to

improve their self-sufficiency, health, and education. Chapter 4, on neighborhoods, describes the grantees’

CCIs, HUD’s budget category to provide flexible funding to catalyze neighborhood interventions in

economic development, open and public spaces, infrastructure, and neighborhood housing. This chapter

also documents the public safety and violence issues in these communities and how HUD and the Choice

grantees are addressing these important concerns. In addition, chapter 4 addresses the major Choice

activities and activities cited as leverage in the application that relate to neighborhood economic

development and the built environment and infrastructure.

The final two chapters synthesize findings from throughout the report. Chapter 5 analyzes how HUD and

the grantees have coordinated activity and leveraged new resources for neighborhood transformation. It

considers four areas of coordination and systems reform: (1) HUD and other federal agencies, (2) Choice grantees and HUD, (3) the internal dynamics of the grantee teams, and (4) coordination between the

grantees and other local actors. This chapter also considers whether Choice helped leverage additional

funding and program resources and what strategies were effective for inducing leverage. 13

Finally, chapter 6 summarizes the baseline of conditions in the targeted development and surrounding

neighborhood and describes key issues and opportunities for ongoing implementation. It also

summarizes areas for future research that would enable HUD and the field of community development

to learn how implementation has evolved and how outcomes related to these conditions may change

over time. (More details on important topics for future research are presented in appendix H.)

Appendix B includes sections on each of the five Choice neighborhoods. Each section describes baseline

conditions, drawing from data featured in Developing Choice Neighborhoods and newly available data.

The appendix addresses implementation progress on major interventions and identifies the grantee

teams’ successes and challenges. The five sections review the key implementation partners described in

Developing Choice Neighborhoods and discuss the housing, people, and neighborhood components of Choice. Each section also summarizes the progress the grantee team has made on internal and external

coordination and leverage of investments and services for the neighborhood.

13 HUD characterizes leverage as additional, non-Choice investments that were part of grantees’ original proposals in their grant application. This report characterizes leverage more strictly. Leverage is defined as additional programs or investments that were induced by Choice investments or implementation—that is, investments that occurred after the Choice grant was received, and the implementation process began.

16

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

2. REBUILDING THE HOUSING

FINDINGS

• Housing redevelopment is under way in all five Choice neighborhoods, marking a core

accomplishment and an indicator of early progress. As of September 2013, housing

redevelopment was under way or had definite start dates among all first-round grants.

Demolition was complete or under way in most developments, and construction had begun in

Quincy Corridor and Woodlawn. Al grantees experienced complications typical of housing

development, such as those involving environmental impacts, archaeological findings, and

infrastructure coordination. Some also encountered delays related to implementation of Choice

as a new program, such as new policies and processes that needed to be put in place to

redevelop HUD-assisted properties.

• Housing quality will improve markedly and is likely to be financially sustainable at all target developments after housing redevelopment is complete. The housing developments will be

transformed through substantial investment. In addition, improvements to the structure and

performance of the redeveloped properties will result from the plans and designs for energy

efficiency and the use of materials expected to support resident health. Resident input into unit

and building designs also is expected to contribute to the improvements. An independent

analysis of the four operating pro formas that were available to the evaluators found the plans

to be feasible. The planned unit sizes appear to meet the housing needs of most established

households.

• In two Choice neighborhoods, Iberville-Tremé and Woodlawn, offsite housing plans have been

affected by local housing market dynamics. In Iberville-Tremé, private-sector interest in real

estate acquisition increased, eliminating some opportunities for site acquisition for affordable

housing development. When it received Choice funding, the New Orleans grantee had options

on enough property beyond Ibervil e to complete its plan for more than 1,500 housing units on

and off the Ibervil e footprint. Within days after one critical option lapsed, however, another

party picked up that option, forcing a redefinition in the grantee’s offsite housing plan. In

Woodlawn, the grantee had initially planned offsite housing intended to attract middle-income

households, but these plans, in the short term, were impeded by a weak housing demand and

lingering foreclosures.

• Income mixing wil develop in different ways across the five developments. Among the four

grantees developing mixed-income housing, two plan to integrate subsidized and unsubsidized

units within buildings and two plan to have buildings in which al units have some type of

subsidy. By contrast, the grantee in Boston is developing exclusively very low- and low-income

units.

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF PLANS AND IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES

As one of the three pillars of the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, housing revitalization is expected to support broad improvement in neighborhoods through the replacement of substandard or otherwise

17

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

poor-quality housing with healthy, mixed-income residences. Choice-supported housing ideally should

be financially feasible to build and maintain, be energy efficient, be safe, and meet residents’ housing needs. This chapter examines housing implementation across the five Choice neighborhoods through

consideration of site designs, housing quality, redevelopment finance, and property management and

concludes with recommendations for HUD to consider for future Choice grantees. The housing plans of

the five Choice grantees differ in development type, budget and financing, number and type of original

and planned housing units, and planned income diversity. Key elements of the Choice developments and

plans for housing are shown in exhibit 2.1. (For additional information and detailed descriptions, see

appendix B and Pendal et al., 2013.)

Al existing housing units in the Grove Parc and Alice Griffith target developments will be demolished

and redeveloped; those in Woodledge-Morrant Bay, Iberville, and Yesler Terrace will be replaced with a

mix of newly constructed and rehabilitated units. Woodledge-Morrant Bay wil have significantly fewer

housing units (129) than any other target development and wil be the only development consisting

entirely of subsidized rental units. By contrast, Yesler Terrace, once fully realized, will include up to 8,000 units, including subsidized and market-rate rental units and units for sale. Plans for Grove Parc and Iberville also include homeownership units.

RESIDENT INCOME MIX IN TARGET DEVELOPMENT HOUSING AND CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS

The far-right column in exhibit 2.1 presents an overview of the expected Area Median Income (AMI) mix.

Redeveloped housing in Grove Parc, Iberville, Alice Griffith, and Yesler Terrace will include low- and

moderate-income units along with market-rate housing. Grantees are al owed to use Choice funds to

support the development of housing for middle-income households (housing up to 120 percent of AMI).

Preservation of Affordable Housing, Inc. (POAH); the Grove Parc development) is planning to use Choice

funds to support development of rental and for-sale housing for households up to and including 120

percent of AMI, but it is the only grantee to exercise that option. Woodledge-Morrant Bay is the only

plan that does not include housing at price points targeting moderate-income and higher income

households. In Woodledge-Morrant Bay, households that wil occupy the renovated and newly

constructed units wil mostly have incomes that qualify for HUD-assisted housing. In addition, the City of Boston requires that 10 percent of the units be targeted to homeless households with extremely low

incomes.

Where Choice neighborhoods are in or near areas with considerable housing investment activities or

potential, such as Iberville-Tremé, Eastern Bayview, and Yesler, grantees discussed mixed-income

housing as a way to ensure lower income households will be able to live in the neighborhood into the

future. The affordable units wil protect the housing stability of their lower income residents. In Yesler, the Choice grantee is using its leverage during land sales to extract commitments for affordable units

from private developers. The first developer to purchase a parcel from the grantee committed to making

one-fourth of the units workforce housing.

18

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit 2.1. Overview of Choice Housing Plans

Target Housing

Estimated

Total Planned Unitsb

Target

Cost/Cost as %

Housing

Development

Pre-Choice

of Choice Grant

Budgeta

Original

Planned Income Mix

(City)

Housing Type

(millions/%)

(millions)

Units

Rental

For Sale

(number of units and AMI or housing cost)

Woodledge-

Morrant Bay

$12.3/60

$56.4

129

129

0

116 at 50% AMI, 13 at 30% AMI

(Boston)

Project-based

Section 8

558 very low-income rentals, 51 moderate-

Grove Parc

$19.7/65

$224.9

378d

795

200

income rentals, 186 market-rate rentals, 200

(Chicago)

affordable units for sale

Iberville (New

304 public housing units, 300 affordable

$23.7/78

$588.8

821

913e

15

Orleans)

units, 300 market rate units

Alice Griffith

Public housing

0

504 at 50% AMI, 43 at 120% AMI, 281 at

$21.3/70

$272.3

256

1,210

(San Francisco) developments

160% AMI, 382 at market rate

Yesler Terrace

5,001

1,200–

661 (98)f: < 30% AMI, 290 (20) 30–60% AMI,

$18.5/62

$95.2c

561

(Seattle) h

(238)f

3,200

~850 < 80% AMI, ~ 3,200 (120) market rate

AMI = Area Median Income. Choice = Choice Neighborhoods Initiative.

a Includes the total budget (Choice funds and private financing) for housing to be built or renovated within the Choice neighborhood as part of Choice plans.

b Includes housing to be built or renovated within the Choice neighborhood, replacement and nonreplacement units.

c The total estimated budget for Yesler Terrace reflects the first phase only.

d Of the original 504 Grove Parc units, 378 were standing at the time of the second round of Choice neighborhoods Initiative grant application.

e This information reflects onsite housing plans rather than overall plans because offsite plans were not yet finalized; as reported in appendix B, the total number of units envisioned is 1,500.

f Numbers in parentheses reflect plans from the first phase.

g Information on percent AMI was not available.

h Seattle Housing Authority initial y was awarded a Choice grant for $10.27 mil ion and received another grant for $19.7 mil ion in December 2012.

19

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Neighborhoods in and around low-income areas with minimal market-led development, such as Quincy

Corridor and Woodlawn, offer little evidence, as of September 2013, of Choice’s likely effect on the

areas’ income mixes. Non-Choice efforts could affect the future, however. For example, the lead housing partner in Quincy Corridor indicated that it could develop other properties it owns in the neighborhood to attract relatively higher income households, although no such plans exist. The City of Boston initiated the Middle Income Housing Initiative, a program to convey vacant lots to developers to build

moderately affordable housing. The program was unable to include lots in the Choice neighborhood, but

lots just outside the neighborhood boundary were to be included. Using funds from the federal

Neighborhood Stabilization Program and other sources, the city also rehabilitated 24 homeowner and

rental units in the Choice neighborhood that were rented or sold to households with incomes up to 120

percent of AMI. The number of properties targeted for redevelopment in Woodlawn could also lead to

broader changes over time. It is too early in the redevelopment process in either place, however, to

project changes in income mix.

TARGET DEVELOPMENT HOUSING STATUS

The five Choice target developments were in different stages of the redevelopment process as of

September 2013 (exhibit 2.2). In Quincy Heights, the necessary demolition was complete. The grantee

closed on financing in June 2013; the renovation of existing buildings and construction of the 49 new

units were under way. The grantee and housing lead anticipated completion of al Woodledge-Morrant

Bay housing redevelopment activities by late 2014.

Exhibit 2.2. Status of Target Housing Redevelopment, September 2013

New

Units

Target Development (City)

Demolition

Renovation

Construction

Reoccupied

Woodledge-Morrant Bay (Boston)

Complete

Under way

Under way

0

Grove Parc (Chicago)

Under way

Under way

Under way

197

Iberville (New Orleans)

Under way

Not started

Not started

0

Alice Griffith (San Francisco)

Not started None planned

Not started

0

Yesler Terrace, first phase

Complete

Not started

Not started

0

(Seattle)

Non-Choice funds were used in Grove Parc to develop replacement units before and during the first

2 years of the Choice award. Funding from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, the HOME

Investment Partnerships Program, and low-income housing tax credits (LIHTCs) supported the

redevelopment of 197 replacement units and 152 nonreplacement units. These units, some of which are

on the original development footprint, and others nearby have been fully occupied. Non-Choice funds

were used to cover Choice housing implementation costs for these first units because the financing was

in hand and the grantee did not yet have access to the Choice grant because of closing delays. Choice

funding supported predevelopment activities for 202 of these units in three buildings. The Grove Parc

grantee planned to start construction in 2014 on buildings using Choice funds. In Woodlawn, demolition

and site preparation were under way for the Woodlawn Park Senior building.

20

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Demolition was under way in Ibervil e. Onsite construction had not yet begun, and the grantee and

developers were still working to identify development sites within the Choice neighborhood but outside

the target development footprint. Housing development activities in Alice Griffith were delayed because of the dissolution of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA), which was the Choice

neighborhood partner and an important funding source for Choice. The neighborhood partner was

replaced and the City of San Francisco did provide funding, but the delay affected the construction

schedule. Environmental litigation and delays with the transfer of land also affected the Choice schedule for housing redevelopment. (For additional details, see appendix B.) During the first phase of the Yesler Terrace redevelopment, demolition and site preparation were complete, paving the way for renovation

and new construction of two buildings. Construction was delayed because of issues with a required

environmental waiver and finance closing, but the grantee had accessed Choice grant funds. 14

Completion of the first phase was anticipated for the spring of 2015.

DESIGN

SITE DESIGN

Choice is supporting significant change to the existing design and layout of the five target developments.

For the most part, grantees were moving forward with the site designs presented in their applications

(described in Pendall et al., 2013). Local land and housing markets and construction financing wil

influence whether site design outcomes conform overall to early plans; it is too early to tell in locations where site control, financing, and land disposition remain unsettled. (For a detailed overview of plan

elements related to resident and neighborhood connectivity and safety, see appendix C.)

Grantees are using site design to support community-oriented goals of resident interactions and housing and neighborhood integration. Al the housing and neighborhood design plans include at least one

design element intended to encourage interaction among residents of the target development housing

and the surrounding neighborhood. These elements include inclusion of a community meeting room or

center, parks, gardens, and other types of open spaces. Integration of the developments with the

surrounding neighborhoods is an explicit goal in Ibervil e-Tremé, where the design will restore the street grid, and in Eastern Bayview and Yesler.

Design is being used to create safe spaces for pedestrians in public spaces and residents inside and

immediately outside of units. As one example, the design in Yesler encompasses sidewalk widths,

building setbacks, and spatial relationships among new buildings so that development throughout the

Choice neighborhood will create a positive environment for pedestrians. Resident safety and security

have been integrated in designs in at least two target developments. The Yesler design includes small

outdoor areas, such as courtyards, within the overall neighborhood to allow for the development of

defensible spaces. In Woodlawn, housing plans include front windows that al ow for street surveillance

and enclosed rear yards that provide secure outdoor space (appendix C).

14 Renovation of one building, the Baldwin Apartments, began in October 2013, shortly after the end of data collection.

21

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Choice will increase the density of housing in at least three of the five neighborhoods. Plans for the

Iberville-Tremé, Eastern Bayview, and Yesler neighborhoods anticipate increased density on and

adjacent to the original target development locations. In Eastern Bayview near Alice Griffith, plans call for increased density by developing midrise housing. In Yesler, the planned densification aligns well with broader city and regional goals for compact development. The housing density increase will be realized

by significant increases to building height. In Ibervil e, site plan options were under consideration until the summer of 2013, when final decisions were made regarding the total number of onsite units,

building locations, and open space. Historic preservation goals and the presence of historic burial sites in the Choice neighborhood had affected plans.

It is too early to assess the impact of the Woodlawn plan on neighborhood density. The plan cal s for the development of 995 units. Grove Parc originally had 504 units, but when POAH applied for Choice, only

378 units remained, with 325 occupied. POAH ultimately will rebuild 420 units on the Grove Parc

footprint, meaning that the new development will have lower site density than the original site but

higher household density than the project had when POAH made its application. POAH also plans to

build or acquire and rehabilitate 575 units beyond the Grove Parc footprint. If most of these units are acquired and rehabilitated, then Choice may result in little or no net increase in the number of housing units in Woodlawn.

The grantee for Woodledge-Morrant Bay, the only development in which the number of housing units

will not increase, plans to reduce unit density in the target development and construct new housing on

vacant or underused lots within the Choice neighborhood while maintaining the same total number of

units. Here, community preference for retaining existing density levels prevailed. The plan to redevelop housing primarily by renovating existing structures also has contributed to the lack of change in density.

The integration of buildings by income wil vary across the target developments. Many factors, from past experience to local requirements, have influenced decisions about the degree of mixed-income housing

integration. For example, in Alice Griffith, lessons from HOPE VI experience factored into the grantee’s decision to group subsidized housing together by mixing public housing replacement units and tax credit units to avoid the possibility of vacant lots interspersed throughout the Choice neighborhood in the

event that private-market housing development lags. Developers wil build the subsidized housing

together to prevent buildings from being scattered among empty parcels that wil see construction in

the future. The grantee also believes that clustering subsidized housing wil lead to property

management efficiencies. By contrast, the Seattle grantee will disperse replacement units across the

Yesler neighborhood to achieve integrated housing at the building level. The grantee also plans for some integration of units within buildings. Grove Parc designs include clustered buildings. 15 Plans were not yet finalized for Iberville, although the intent is to integrate buildings and units within buildings.

15 Redevelopment of the target property in Woodlawn wil include multiple projects at buildout with names other than Grove Parc. Grove Parc is used in this report to denote the cluster of properties.

22

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

UNIT DESIGN

Evidence suggests that grantees and housing partners have made design decisions based on their past

housing development experiences, resident interests and needs, and analysis of the deficiencies in the

original target housing. 16 In Woodledge-Morrant Bay, the grantee reduced the number of units within existing buildings to address cramped living spaces. Based on resident input, the grantee for Yesler

Terrace revised initial plans to accommodate residents’ preference for in-unit washers and dryers and

will include some units with space and design sufficient for home-based childcare businesses. Yesler

Terrace and Alice Griffith grantees plan to locate larger units on or near the ground floor to reduce

children’s use of building stairs, a lesson learned from other projects. The Grove Parc design took safety concerns into account for the Woodlawn Park building by creating secure, glass double-door entrances

and raising buildings 2 feet above street level, with landscaped gardens along the streetscape.

Designing building interiors and units to support a range of household sizes can be a chal enge, as noted by the developer for Alice Griffith when commenting on the need for careful design layouts when

including a mix of unit sizes in a given building. Most households living in the Choice developments

before redevelopment occupied units with two or fewer bedrooms, but each development also had

households in units with three or more bedrooms. A comparison of data on household composition,

collected as part of the household survey, with grantees’ housing development plans, suggests that the

planned housing units should meet the needs of most but not al households that resided in the target developments before redevelopment. Exhibit 2.3 shows the planned distribution of unit sizes along with

an estimate of the number of households that would need a particular unit size, assuming future

occupants wil be similar to survey respondents from the target development, which might not be the

case, 17 and assuming an occupancy standard of two people per bedroom. 18

The data in exhibit 2.3 are suggestive but not conclusive. Some households that appear to need a studio or one-bedroom unit might qualify for a two-bedroom unit, based on local occupancy standards. The

number of two-bedroom units planned appears to be sufficient to meet the needs of smal er

households even if there are not enough studios or one-bedroom units. The number of planned units for

Yesler Terrace includes only those to be constructed during the first phase, which could explain the

apparent insufficiency of units with one bedroom and three-plus bedrooms. It is unclear how the

number of units in each category will change as later phases are completed.

16 Interview discussions about design with the grantee, developers, and other Choice partners in Ibervil e-Tremé focused on site design chal enges rather than unit design considerations.

17 Survey data do not indicate lease compliance. Any returning household that previously had not been in compliance would need to lease a new unit based on actual household size, which could lead to a larger or a smaller unit.

18 Local occupancy standards vary, and HUD has recommended that occupancy policies consider the square

footage of bedrooms and unit, the age of children, unit configuration, and other relevant factors.

23

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit 2.3. Planned Number of Units by Number of Bedrooms and Preredevelopment Household Size

Total

Planned/Number of Households

Target

Number Zero and One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Development (City)

of Units

Bedroom

Bedrooms

Bedrooms

Bedrooms

Bedrooms

Woodledge-Morrant

129

11/26

62/41

48/11

8/0

0/0

Bay (Boston)

Grove Parc

504

129/93

126/83

252/17

0/4

0/0

(Chicago)

Iberville, first phase

(New Orleans)

227

138/128

70/38

19/12

0/0

0/0

Alice Griffith

504

81/97

161/68

151/32

95/13

16/0

(San Francisco)

Yesler Terrace, first

118

68/106

37/35

7/13

6/9

0/4

phase (Seattle)

Note: Quincy Heights wil be the name of the Woodledge-Morrant Bay development after redevelopment.

Source: Data drawn from housing plans and household survey data for current and former residents of the target developments.

Discussions of unit and building designs indicate that grantees are working to balance many

considerations, including property management effectiveness, resident health and well-being, and

building and resident security. Four developments (Grove Parc, Iberville, Alice Griffith, and Yesler

Terrace) will have onsite management offices. A number of design decisions for Yesler Terrace were

made with property management and maintenance concerns in mind. For example, the grantee

selected flooring material for replacement units that is expected to wear well over time and that will

reduce costs associated with unit turnover. Plans also include a focus on respiratory health. Building and unit features will include enhanced moisture-proofing of the structure, a ventilation system with air

filtration, and use of finishes and materials that wil minimize off-gassing. Woodledge-Morrant Bay and Yesler Terrace grantees have responded to grantee and resident concerns about children’s safety and

the general physical safety of residents by configuring interior unit spaces to allow for clear sight lines and the safe flow of movement among occupants. Building designs for Grove Parc and Yesler Terrace

include controlled access to promote a safe living environment.

RESIDENT INVOLVEMENT IN DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

All Choice grantees have offered opportunities for resident involvement in the development of housing

design, as required. At a minimum, residents were invited to meetings early in the design phase to

discuss broad parameters for housing design and other components of Choice and invited to periodic

meetings to hear updates and weigh in on plans as they developed over time. This minimal required

level of resident involvement has been the case in Quincy Corridor. 19 In other Choice neighborhoods, residents have had opportunities for more engaged involvement. For example, in Woodlawn, a

community engagement process lasting more than 1 year solicited resident input on plans for housing

19 Before Choice, a number of resident meetings were held to discuss housing and neighborhood change ideas.

Information presented in this chapter refers to involvement as part of Choice grant implementation.

24

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

subsidy mix in the Choice neighborhood. In Ibervil e-Tremé and Yesler, residents have had extensive

opportunities to provide their input onsite plans, building design elements, and apartment floor plans.

Eastern Bayview residents participated in design charettes and site tours. In Yesler, resident and

community members also have been able to attend and offer public comments during Seattle City

Council legislative hearings on Yesler Terrace, which included review of plan amendments that would

affect design.

The resident engagement process has been chal enging in some Choice neighborhoods. In Woodlawn,

early decisions reached with then-active residents have been questioned by latecomers who wanted to

revisit decisions. In Yesler, an exercise meant to solicit input on building design was not well understood by all residents, which led to confusion. Overall, grantees that gathered and incorporated detailed

design input from residents and drew lessons from past experience appear to be making sound design

decisions that should serve residents and management well.

IMPLEMENTATION OF DESIGN PLANS

One or more of four factors have affected implementation of housing plans: (1) site control, (2) strength of the local housing market, (3) city and HUD influence, and (4) construction finance.

Where the grantee had control over most or all of the land to be redeveloped or where the housing

market was relatively weak, these factors have smoothed the way for implementation. In Quincy

Corridor, Woodlawn, and Eastern Bayview, land transfers to the grantee had taken place already or

were anticipated to happen without incident. In these Choice neighborhoods, the city (or in the case of Alice Griffith, the U.S. Navy) deeded the land, or there was sufficient land available and limited

competition for it. In Yesler, the Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) was able to sell land to private

developers and had no need to gain control over additional parcels.

By contrast, the strong housing market in New Orleans and increased competition among developers for

available parcels complicated site control. The Ibervil e-Tremé grantee lost control over a land parcel identified as a replacement-housing site after the option on it lapsed. A developer external to Choice

purchased the property and it was unclear whether the developer would include affordable units on the

site. The Choice developer ultimately was able to negotiate an agreement with the external developer

to include public housing and affordable units in its plans, although the details regarding the number of units and site design were not finalized by September 2013. Beyond this one parcel, the Choice grantee, developer, and HUD were concerned about gaining site control for the construction of offsite units

within the Choice neighborhood. The grantee and housing partners were finding it difficult to identify

available offsite parcels in Iberville-Tremé for replacement housing, and HUD stepped in to demand a

detailed plan for identifying and acquiring sufficient land. Site control challenges could still affect the final design plans.

The diversity of markets across the Choice neighborhoods highlights the influence neighborhood

trajectory has on whether the market supports, slows, or undermines redevelopment plans. 20 In 20 For a description of housing demand in each Choice neighborhood, see chapter 2 of Pendal et al. (2013).

25

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Chicago, Woodlawn was experiencing a stal ed housing market. Grantee partners were concerned that

the weak market might not support the development and absorption of the planned market-rate units.

Many factors led to the weak market, including a significant number of foreclosed properties, area

blight, and high levels of crime. These problems wil be hard to turn around in the near future.

In New Orleans, private developers responded to overal neighborhood change by buying properties in

and around Iberville-Tremé. The Choice co-lead at the city talked about the “land grabs” that were

taking place as private-market developers hurried to stake a claim. This chal enging hot market was a

factor affecting Choice partners’ ability to gain control over a sufficient number of parcels for scattered-site replacement housing. 21

The Eastern Bayview and Yesler neighborhoods are located in what could be characterized as supportive

hot markets. The current and anticipated strong housing markets in and around these Choice

neighborhoods were expected to support the broad redevelopment plans. In San Francisco, prices for

residential and commercial properties were increasing, which grantees viewed as a condition that will

support the buildout of mixed-income housing. Eastern Bayview was described as “white hot” with

considerable city and private development efforts happening distinct from Choice. Yesler is attractive

and proximate to downtown, transit and major roadways, and major league sports venues. The strong

city and regional housing markets are expected to create demand in two ways: (1) among developers for

parcels that the grantee will sell to finance the full redevelopment plan and (2) among higher income

households for relatively affordable units in a tight and increasingly expensive housing market.

City governments and HUD Choice staff have influenced site and housing plans in ways active and

passive. Government officials exerted active influence by imposing requirements on the Choice

grantees. For example, the Seattle City Council added amendments to the legislative package that were

under review and would al ow Choice to proceed. Some of the amendments affected site and unit

design, such as one that required a minimum number of moderately affordable units to be within the

Choice neighborhood. The city council’s intent was to prevent the neighborhood from shifting to

market-rate housing over time at the exclusion of affordable housing. Another amendment required

that a mix of unit sizes be available throughout the redeveloped housing to ensure households with a

need for larger units wil not have to wait for any particular building to be constructed. Other

amendments addressed the income range of residents that must be served and the staging of

redevelopment activities. Although the Seattle City Council hearing and approval process was time

consuming, it established a new model for development review by including the plans for the total

project rather than reviewing plans parcel by parcel. This approach should lead to time savings later, and it enabled the city to consider the overall vision for redevelopment. The considerable input by external government bodies on site or housing designs in Yesler Terrace and Alice Griffith is not unusual in

Seattle and San Francisco, both of which have strong comprehensive city planning.

21 “Not in My Back Yard,” or NIMBYism, is another factor affecting partners’ ability to acquire land for offsite development in Tremé. In response to pressure from Tremé residents, the city council stopped a land transfer that would have provided parcels for replacement housing in the neighborhood.

26

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

In Iberville-Tremé, where the grantee and housing partners had made little headway in identifying and

securing control over offsite parcels for replacement housing, HUD attempted to get things moving by

demanding a plan. After much time passed without a clear plan for acquiring offsite parcels and the near loss of a key site to a non-Choice developer, HUD required the grantee to develop and submit a detailed plan. The grantee delivered the plan to HUD in the summer of 2013. The slow pace of acquiring parcels

for offsite replacement housing was on the verge of placing Choice housing and the broader

redevelopment effort at risk. The grantee and partners responded in part by working with other

developers involved in smal projects within the Choice neighborhood. The developer for offsite housing reached out to the city for assistance in identifying parcels for acquisition and development.

More passive means of influencing design have involved HUD or state or local governments requiring

Choice grantees to follow existing rules and processes. For example, SHA requested permission to follow American National Standards Institute (ANSI) guidelines for elements of design, such as the door swing

on apartment bathrooms and parking garage ceiling heights. ANSI reflects current standards for

accessibility whereas the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) do not. HUD denied the

request and required that the grantee abide by the UFAS. City of Seattle and regional goals for compact, dense development in select areas influenced plans to limit the carbon footprint of the Yesler Terrace

redevelopment and to increase site density. In Eastern Bayview, the city influenced plans for site

infrastructure by adhering to the existing review process. The grantee sought approval for the entire site plan so that an integrated stormwater and sewer system could be put in place across the entire area.

The timetable for review and approval did not support a single-review approach, which meant the

developer has had to seek approval for each phase. In contrast with the Seattle City Council review of

the entire Yesler site plan, San Francisco’s piecemeal review process led the developer to drop plans for an integrated system.

HOUSING QUALITY

TARGET HOUSING

As discussed in Developing Choice Neighborhoods and confirmed by household survey data, housing conditions in the target units before redevelopment were poor overall. 22 Residents of the target development who responded to the household survey reported nearly three housing condition

problems, on average, across the developments. 23 Respondents from Grove Parc and Alice Griffith reported more than three problems, on average. The most frequently cited problem in each

development was vermin—either mice and rats or cockroaches (exhibit 2.4). Water leaks into the

housing unit either from inside or outside the building were the second or third most frequently

reported problem in three developments (everywhere but Yesler Terrace). Respondents from Alice

Griffith and Yesler Terrace also reported mildew and mold. The percentage of respondents reporting

problems was highest in Grove Parc, followed by Alice Griffith.

22 The results for Iberville are not discussed in this section because of small sample sizes for respondents remaining in the Iberville development.

23 Respondents were asked whether they had any of 14 housing problems related to utilities, plumbing, structural elements, pests and rodents, or mold or mildew.

27

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit 2.4. Target Development Housing Conditions Before Choice Redevelopment

Target Development Average Number of

Frequently Reported Problems

(City)

Housing Problems

Problem 1

Problem 2

Problem 3

Woodledge-Morrant

Mice and rats

Water leaking into unit Water leaking into unit

2.2

Bay (Boston)

(59%)

from outside (44%)

from inside (35%)

Grove Parc

Mice and rats

Water leaking into unit

3.1

Cockroaches (71%)

(Chicago)

(77%)

from inside (51%)

Alice Griffith

Cockroaches

Water leaking into unit

Mildew and mold

3.4

(San Francisco)

(62%)

from inside (50%)

(48%)

Yesler Terrace

Mice and rats

Peeling paint and

Mildew and mold

2.1

(Seattle)

(49%)

plaster (35%)

(32%)

Choice = Choice Neighborhoods Initiative.

Notes: Data for Iberville are not reported here. Only four survey respondents were still living in their original unit at Iberville during data collection.

Source: Choice Neighborhoods Baseline Survey 2013–14

In addition to poor housing conditions, energy use was high in most developments. An energy scorecard

analysis conducted by CNT Energy (recently renamed Elevate Energy) and included in Developing Choice Neighborhoods established energy benchmarks for an average building in each Choice development.

The analysis found that before redevelopment, each target development except Yesler Terrace had an

average energy use intensity (EUI) score higher than the average score for the area. 24 The difference between the target development and area scores was quite large for Woodledge-Morrant Bay and

Grove Parc. Woodledge-Morrant Bay, Grove Parc, and Alice Griffith also had an average EUI score higher

than the national average and a higher average energy cost per housing unit. Exhibit 2.5 provides an

overview of the energy scorecard findings. (For the ful CNT Energy report, see appendix D.)

Exhibit 2.5. Average EUI and Energy Costs, 2011

Average EUI per Year

Average Energy Cost per

Target Development (City)

Target Development

Area

Housing Unit per Month

Woodledge-Morrant Bay (Boston)

168

102

$152a

Grove Parc (Chicago)

150

89

$109

Iberville (New Orleans)

57

27

$58

Alice Griffith (San Francisco)

98

90

$145

Yesler Terrace (Seattle)

38b

38

$62

National

59

$86

EUI = energy use intensity.

a Average monthly energy cost for Quincy Heights is an estimate based on average energy prices in the surrounding region.

b Average EUI is based on 2010 data.

Source: Analysis by CNT Energy

24 EUI is a standard measurement unit of buildings’ energy efficiency. EUI is measured in thousand British thermal units per square foot per year. Area average scores were developed with data from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey of units in multifamily buildings located within the target development’s Census Division.

28

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

EUI wil probably improve across the board because housing plans for each target development are

designed to meet either the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental

Design, or (LEED, standards or Enterprise’s Green Communities standards. Improvements should result

from building envelopes engineered to increase energy efficiency and from the installation of energy-

efficient heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems, or HVACs; appliances; and fixtures.

NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING

Information on the conditions of existing housing in the Choice neighborhoods comes from a block-front

survey and the survey of neighborhood residents. The block-front survey visually assessed structures on randomly selected street segments throughout the area. Exhibit 2.6 shows the percentage of

residential-only street segments with buildings marked by certain problems. 25 Housing conditions were found to be worst in Woodlawn and Ibervil e-Tremé, where more than one-half the surveyed street

segments had buildings with major wal cracks or missing wal material and more than 40 percent had

some or many abandoned buildings or lots. Nearly two-thirds of street segments in Iberville-Tremé had

buildings with broken or boarded windows. In Quincy Corridor, 33 percent of the street segments had

buildings with broken or boarded windows.

Exhibit 2.6. Percentage of Residential-Only Street Segments With Specified Problems

Residential Street Segments

Buildings With Major Cracks

Buildings With

Streets With Some

Choice

Street Segments

in Wal s or Missing Bricks,

Broken or

or Many

Neighborhood

for Residential

Siding, or Other Outside

Boarded

Abandoned

(City)

Use Only (%)

Wal Material (%)

Windows (%)

Buildings or Lots (%)

Quincy Corridor

51

16

33

18

(Boston)

Woodlawn

47

56

19

43

(Chicago)

Iberville-Tremé

29

72

63

46

(New Orleans)

Eastern Bayview

48

11

10

4

(San Francisco)

Yesler (Seattle)

35

8

12

0

Choice = Choice Neighborhoods Initiative.

Source: Choice Neighborhoods block front survey, 2011

The survey of neighborhood residents provides detailed information about conditions within housing

units. As shown in exhibit 2.7, problems reported by neighborhood residents were similar to those

reported by residents of the target developments. Vermin and water leaking into the housing unit from

outside were the most frequently cited problems across the neighborhoods. Interior water leaks and

25 Randomly selected street segments for the block-front survey included a small portion of segments with target development buildings. (For maps of surveyed blocks, see appendix C.) It is possible that percentages would be slightly different if al target development structures were excluded.

29

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

mildew and mold were other frequently reported problems. Residents of four Choice neighborhoods

who responded to the household survey reported more than one housing condition problem, on

average; only respondents in Eastern Bayview reported less than one average number of problems. The

percentage of respondents reporting problems was highest in Ibervil e-Tremé.

Exhibit 2.7. Choice Neighborhood Housing Conditions

Choice

Average Number of

Frequently Reported Problems

Neighborhood (City)

Housing Problems

Problem 1

Problem 2

Problem 3

Water leaking into

Water leaking into

Quincy Corridor

1.5

Mice and rats (37%)

unit from outside

unit from inside

(Boston)

(28%)

(25%)

Water leaking into

Water leaking into

Mice and rats

Woodlawn (Chicago)

1.4

unit from outside

unit from inside

(25%)

(27%)

(27%)

Water leaking into

Iberville-Tremé

Mice and rats

1.8

Cockroaches (49%)

unit from outside

(New Orleans)

(26%)

(37%)

Water leaking into

Eastern Bayview

Mildew and mold

0.7

unit from outside

Mice and rats (13%)

(San Francisco)

(10%)

(23%)

Water leaking into

Mildew and mold

Yesler (Seattle)

1.1

Mice and rats (24%)

unit from inside

(17%)

(20%)

Choice = Choice Neighborhoods Initiative.

Source: Choice Neighborhoods Baseline Survey 2013–14

Some mix of new subsidized and unsubsidized housing was planned in each of the five Choice

neighborhoods in addition to the Choice grant-funded replacement housing. The non-Choice-funded

housing projects in most locations include housing for low-income, moderate-income, and market-rate

units. Housing for seniors was planned or under way in Quincy Corridor, Ibervil e-Tremé, and Eastern

Bayview. Mixed-use buildings were planned in Quincy Corridor and Eastern Bayview. It was too early in

September 2013 to assess the quality of this new housing. POAH had also used non-Choice funds to

rehabilitate enough housing in Woodlawn to accommodate 197 relocating Grove Parc households

before receiving its Choice award.

Grantees and housing partners said little about possible spillover effects from Choice on other housing in and near the Choice neighborhoods. In Quincy Corridor, the grantee and partners hoped that Choice

housing activities would motivate area homeowners to invest in their homes, but no one we

interviewed had seen evidence of such activity. In Eastern Bayview, respondents anticipated a spillover effect of higher housing prices.

30

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

HOUSING FINANCING FOR REDEVELOPMENT

Each grantee had been able to secure financing by September 2013 for at least the initial phase, if not all phases, of the planned replacement housing construction. 26 LIHTCs were a significant source of funds for each grantee. Other funding sources varied across the target developments (appendix B) and included a

diversity of funders, both public (federal, state, and local) and private.

Urban Institute’s subcontractor for this evaluation, Strategic Economics (SE), Inc., assessed financial feasibility by analyzing the operating pro formas of the four Choice plans for which grantees provided

the necessary documents. The pro formas were compared with local trends and regional benchmarking

data. SE concluded that existing conditions and trends in the four Choice neighborhoods supported the

projected operating revenues and operating costs outlined in the pro formas. SE found that costs

outside the typical range were reasonable, given the local plans or compensatory offsets in other costs or in revenues. In short, the financial plans were feasible. (For the full SE report, see appendix E.)

The first grantees to close on financing had chal enges accessing Choice grant funds, which slowed

implementation (appendix B). The Boston grantee postponed closing a number of times because of delays

resulting, in part, from changes to the development design. The housing partner was able to borrow more money than anticipated because of a favorable tax-credit market, which enabled the partner to include a number of building and housing unit upgrades. HUD needed several months to review the additional

expenditures. The Chicago grantee, also redeveloping a Federal Housing Administration, or FHA,

multifamily property, used non-Choice grant funds for constructing two buildings because of the delay

experienced accessing the grant. HUD had to modify funding processes for the multifamily developments

from those used for the three public housing target developments, which were similar to past HOPE VI

grantees. HUD’s experiences with the first five Choice developments, particularly lessons related to type of development, compliance reviews, escrow processes, and the first closing experience, should ensure that subsequent grantees experience a smoother and less uncertain process.

Other financing chal enges might yet be faced by grantees that had not secured al financing needed to

implement the full housing plan as of September 2013. Respondents from Ibervil e-Tremé pointed to the

negative regional investment climate since Hurricane Katrina that could affect the grantee’s and developers’

ability to secure financing to support the entire housing plan. Redevelopment in Yesler depends on the

grantee realizing sufficient return on land sales over time. In these two Choice neighborhoods in particular, implementation could be slower than planned, or housing plans might need to be changed if the grantee or developer is unable to obtain sufficient financing. In Eastern Bayview, developers determined that they need large investors who can provide financing for more than a few blocks of construction at a time and who can support the ful housing plan. Although an early deal with a large investor fell through, the developer indicated that it was not concerned about the ability to attract large investors.

The financing arrangements associated with Choice have posed chal enges and served purposes in addition to funding housing redevelopment. Respondents in two Choice neighborhoods spoke of the Choice grant

as a “stabilizing factor” that helped increase the confidence of other funders. For Grove Parc, the Choice 26 In Yesler Terrace, funding was in place for development of the first phase.

31

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

grant was a significant factor affecting the grantee’s ability to attract local and state grants to fund implementation of the new homeownership strategy. For Alice Griffith, the grant requirement for

matching funds motivated city departments to replace funds lost when SFRA closed. SFRA had committed

to providing funds for redevelopment, but not al the obligations were enforceable. In the absence of the Choice grant requirements, it was possible that the lost funding might not have been replaced.

In Woodledge-Morrant Bay, the additional funds from LIHTCs were used to upgrade housing finishes,

such as more efficient lighting and better quality flooring material. Tax credits also served to motivate implementation. The time requirement associated with tax credits pressured the Quincy Heights

housing partner to push hard in the face of external delays to meet the project construction deadline

and realize the full benefit of the credits.

For two other developments, financing presented challenges that affected plans but were not

insurmountable. The Chicago grantee ran up against federal limits on the use of Choice grant funds to

build housing targeted to households above a certain income threshold. The limits worked against the

grantee’s mixed-income plan, which included market-rate, for-sale housing units. Rather than changing

plans, the grantee sought other sources of financing and successful y layered Choice grant funds with

city and state funding with the plan to rehabilitate and sell the formerly abandoned and foreclosed

properties to middle-income homebuyers. In Yesler, the reduction in the initial Choice grant’s Critical Community Improvement, or CCI, funds to be used to promote affordable retail outlets had a relatively

minor effect on the placement of two buildings. SHA’s initial design for its first new building included ground-floor affordable retail outlets. Zoning for the parcel requires storefront-level nonresidential uses, which SHA had to drop from the building design after the reduction in funds. SHA swapped adjacent

parcels with the private developer who had ground-floor retail businesses in its building design. This

funding-related change was not anticipated to affect the overall redevelopment plan in light of

subsequent Choice grant and land-sales expectations.

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNITY BUILDING

CHANGES IN HOUSING MANAGEMENT

The Choice notices of funding availability stressed the importance of well-managed properties but did

not establish management-specific requirements to be addressed in grant applications nor goals to

guide post-redevelopment management practices. Nevertheless, the research team asked about

management plans, including any changes to the management provider, resident rules, and guiding

visions for managing the redeveloped target developments. Management entities were involved in

various Choice-related meetings and engaged in the redevelopment process. Based on this involvement

and the body of research on property and community management issues in HOPE VI developments, the

research team thought it likely that grantees would have focused attention on management, which they

have done to an extent (Abravanel, Levy, and McFarland, 2011a, 2011b).

Woodledge-Morrant Bay, Grove Parc, and Yesler Terrace plan to retain the pre-Choice property

management entity; management will change in Iberville and Alice Griffith (exhibit 2.8). Yesler Terrace will be the only property managed by a housing authority. Private, for-profit companies wil manage the replacement housing in the other target developments.

32

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

One of the most significant changes to management discussed by grantees and housing managers

involved the structure for management provision. Yesler Terrace and Alice Griffith plan to decentralize management offices by locating them on site. Yesler Terrace already had onsite management, but

offices will be in each building post-redevelopment to support the goal to increase management‘s

availability and responsiveness. Grove Parc and Ibervil e already had onsite offices and plan to maintain this approach, but they wil not include an office in each building. In Woodledge-Morrant Bay, past

property management chal enges had been addressed in part by placing management on site. Although

this move led to improvements, the management office will not be on site after redevelopment.

Discussion among Choice housing partners and managers about management plans and concerns for

the redeveloped housing focused on issues stemming from current or past problems. For example,

respondents talked about the need for responsive property maintenance and enforcement of rules and

lease-compliance requirements. They voiced concerns about residents’ care for their units, timely rent

payments, and safety and resident behavior.

Exhibit 2.8. Property Management Entities

Target Development

(City)

Pre-Choice

Post-Redevelopment

Model

Notes

Woodledge-Morrant United Housing

United Housing

Bay (Boston)

Management

Management

Preservation Housing Preservation Housing

Colocated partner of

Grove Parc (Chicago) Management

Management

Private,

POAH

Iberville

Housing Authority of

for profit

HRI Properties

(New Orleans)

New Orleans

Alice Griffith

San Francisco

McCormack Baron Ragan

Affiliate of McCormack

(San Francisco)

Housing Authority

Management Services

Baron Salazar

Yesler Terrace

Seattle Housing

Seattle Housing

Public,

(Seattle)

Authority

Authority

nonprofit

Choice = Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. POAH = Preservation of Affordable Housing, Inc.

Source: Choice Neighborhoods application, second round

COMMUNITY BUILDING

All but one of the Choice target developments will include mixed-income housing. Studies of mixed-

income developments have addressed the importance of healthy resident interactions and community-

building efforts to successful properties (Chaskin and Joseph, 2011; Chaskin, Khare, and Joseph, 2012).

Site plans have been developed by grantees with an eye toward supporting resident engagement, as

discussed previously. When asked about specific plans related to community-building efforts within the

future mixed-income housing, grantees and managers indicated their intentions to engage residents and

support resident interactions, but, as of September 2013, they did not yet have detailed plans. 27

27 Since September 2013, Yesler has begun planning for community-building activities among residents living in the buildings constructed during the first phase.

33

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

CONCLUSION

Housing redevelopment was under way or soon would be in al target developments as of September

2013. As evidenced by the site and housing design plans, the five grantees are striving to balance a

number of concerns through housing improvements. Resident health and safety, building and resident

security, energy efficiency, and property management and maintenance al stand to improve from the

design and construction choices grantees have made with input from residents and the broader

communities. A review of the financial plans found them to be feasible; barring unforeseen

circumstances, the redevelopment plans should be achievable.

Grantees have faced a number of challenges that have affected housing and site plans in the first 2 years of implementation, including delays accessing funding; site problems, including how to design around

burials; and numerous other chal enges that have been documented in the interim report (Pendall et al., 2013) and appendix B of this report. Although schedules were delayed and, in some cases, grantees had

to modify plans, no chal enge has halted implementation.

Two issues to watch as Choice implementation continues are (1) the way that housing buildout occurs

within the context of a changing neighborhood and how the redeveloped housing, once complete,

influences resident well-being and the surrounding neighborhood, and (2) the development of social

communities among residents of the redeveloped housing and chal enges property managers face with

supporting positive interactions and realizing a mixed-income resident base.

ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

• Buildout amid neighborhood transformation. With tens of millions of dollars in federal investment and hundreds of mil ions in private-sector expenditure, the new housing in these neighborhoods wil

help redefine blocks, districts, and even the entire neighborhood. Buildout in Eastern Bayview,

Yesler, Woodlawn, and Ibervil e-Tremé wil take years and involve many deals and partnerships. Each

phase of each project represents an opportunity to learn and improve in the next phase so that

these investments maximize the quality of the new developments and their neighborhoods.

• Community building. Interactions among the residents of the redeveloped housing wil affect

whether Choice reaches its goals. Trust and community cohesion are critical drivers of positive

individual and neighborhood outcomes (Klinenberg, 2003; Mohnen et al., 2014; Wallace and

Wal ace, 2008). Trust does not emerge automatically or easily, however, especially in distressed

communities (Letki, 2008). The grantees and HUD therefore will improve outcomes if they

develop management plans that build positive relations among residents as soon as possible

after they move in. 28

The investment in housing redevelopment already has begun to improve the housing stock, but it is too

early to know the extent to which other housing-related aims will be achieved. Future research on the

five initial and subsequent Choice grantees can take up questions related to factors supporting healthy mixed-income developments, changes to the composition of the resident base, improvements in energy

consumption, and whether investments in housing lead to positive spil over effects among nearby

homeowners. (For an overview of suggested research topics, see appendix H.)

28 Joseph and Gress (2013).

34

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

3. SUPPORTING THE RESIDENTS AND COMMUNITY

FINDINGS

• Grantee teams with experience implementing HOPE VI projects launched services more

rapidly than grantees with HUD-assisted developments. Grantees had broad latitude to design

their teams, decide on case management approaches, set priorities for service enrichment, and

engage with residents to accomplish Choice’s far-reaching goals for resident outcomes. For each

of these functions, experience from HOPE VI enabled the New Orleans, San Francisco, and

Seattle Choice grantees to make more progress in the people domain than Boston or Chicago

grantees did by September 2013.

• The urgency to demolish units and relocate residents complicated the initiation of case

management services in all three target developments with significant relocation activity. In

Woodledge-Morrant Bay and Grove Parc, delays in case management resulted in residents being

relocated before engagement with a social service provider who could assist in lease

compliance, moving preparation, and eventual housing placement. At Iberville, early progress

was made on case management before relocation began, but progress slowed when relocation

commenced.

• All five grantees facilitated access to services for residents of the target development in at

least one of the fol owing areas: health, early childhood supports, education, and workforce

development. Choice, however, has not yet led to system-level coordination among local

human development organizations, schools, health providers, and other entities in ways that

changed access or quality of services for neighborhood residents overall.

INTRODUCTION

The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative aims to support positive social and economic outcomes related to

residents’ health, safety, employment, and education. Choice implementation grantees have the

flexibility to al ocate up to 15 percent of the total Choice award toward community-based interventions that aim to improve residents’ quality of life. HUD classifies these supports as the people domain and

requires that Choice grantees establish services that increase the likelihood that residents who live in the target development experience improvements relative to their preredevelopment circumstances. In

addition, Choice aims to affect the quality of life of all residents who live in the surrounding Choice neighborhood by improving educational resources, health services, public systems, and the capacity of

local organizations. Considering that many lease-compliant residents may return to the redeveloped

projects, significant funding, coordination, and new leverage will be necessary to meet these high

aspirations.

The early implementation experience of the first five Choice grantees led to subsequent changes to the

Choice model for community-based interventions aimed at improving residents’ quality of life. In the

first FY 2010 HUD notice of funding availability (NOFA) and applications, the resident and community

support activities aimed to serve all neighborhood residents by reforming human services infrastructure across the workforce development, mental and physical health, and education domains. Within the first

2 years, the focus on coordinating services, leveraging existing resources, and reforming systems needed 35

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

to be balanced with the immediate needs facing assisted households undergoing relocation. HUD’s work

with grantees through monthly coordination cal s, site visits, onsite technical assistance, and refinement of the performance measurement system communicated that Choice funds should deliver high-quality

case management services and relocation supports to assisted households. Choice grantees were also

encouraged to develop service coordination models that leverage existing supportive services from area

hospitals, universities, city agencies and private institutions so that all low-income neighborhood

residents would benefit from Choice.

In Developing Choice Neighborhoods, Pendall et al. (2013) detailed aspects of the Choice grantees’

applications and initial progress, including supportive services strategies and program budgets. This

chapter builds on that report by highlighting the early implementation of resident and community

support activities. The HUD-defined people domain framework, which includes intended beneficiaries

and program types, coordination expectations, funding arrangements, and performance measurement

requirements, is summarized. The chapter then examines progress toward implementation in four

program areas: (1) resident and community engagement, (2) service coordination, (3) relocation and

reoccupancy, and (4) case management. The chapter concludes with recommendations for further

research and evaluation.

CHOICE PEOPLE DOMAIN FRAMEWORK

DEFINING RESIDENTS’ NEEDS

Although diversity exists within and across Choice neighborhoods, residents of the target development

typically have experienced living in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and a high rate of

violence. As such, residents face the need for an array of basic supports, including a safe environment, adequate nutrition, health-promoting routines, consistent living-wage jobs, and access to high-quality

educational opportunities. Children and youth living in the target developments also face challenges

with school engagement and early exposure to community violence. Across all five neighborhoods, the

residents of the Choice target development have very low incomes, with between 68 and 87 percent of

households earning less than $15,000 per year, according to the Choice Neighborhoods Baseline Survey

2013–14. Employment rates are also low, with the highest rate of employment of 53 percent at

Woodledge-Morrant Bay (exhibit 3.1). A substantial portion of residents reported disabilities, with the highest rate of 30 percent of household heads in Iberville. Residents’ race and ethnicity, primary

language, health status, income sources, and other characteristics range within and across

developments. The diversity of resident demographics is summarized in Developing Choice

Neighborhoods, Pendall et al. (2013). 29

29 For more detail on characteristics of residents of the target development, see Developing Choice Neighborhoods, Pendal et al. (2013), section 2-2.

36

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit 3.1. Characteristics of Residents of Choice Target Developments, May 2011

Woodledge-

Alice

Yesler

Morrant Bay Grove Parc

Iberville

Griffith

Terrace

Number of residents

328

834

1,370

670

1,239

Number of households

126

325

441

228

508

Resident race and ethnicity

(percent of total)

White

32

2

0

16

10

Black

36

98

100

51

46

Hispanic

12

1

0

11

0

Asian and Pacific

11

0

0

21

41

Islander

Percentage of residents who

47

44

40

42

39

are children*

Percentage of residents who

2

4

6

7

18

are seniors*

Percentage of households

with English as the primary

39

100

100

84

4

language

Percentage of households

53

34

37

31

39

with wage income

Choice = Choice Neighborhoods Initiative.

* Variation exists in the definition of children and seniors across the sites.

Sources: Choice second-round applications, results reported from resident needs assessments; race and

ethnicity data for Alice Griffith are from LFA Group (2012); wage data are from the U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development’s Public and Indian Housing Information Center, or PIC, and Tenant

Rental Assistance Certification System, or TRACS, databases (2010 data)

DEFINING THE RESIDENT AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

Choice provides grantees some flexibility in determining the types of programs offered and which

demographic the programs are intended to benefit within the HUD-defined people framework.

Residents are not required to participate in services of any kind. Rather, they have the choice to take advantage of these interventions.

The evaluation team’s analysis of the NOFAs and observations of the grantees’ activities suggest division of the many supportive services activities into four main program areas (exhibit 3.2).

37

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

1. Resident and community engagement. Activities to increase the levels of leadership and

participation by al community members in the Choice transformation planning and throughout

the implementation process. 30

2. Service coordination. The 2010 second-round NOFA defines service coordination as “a systems-

centered approach to coordinating multiple services across agencies within a community, based

on the needs of the target resident population, in order to increase accessibility, utilization, and

quality of services and to reduce fragmentation in service delivery systems” (HUD, 2010c: 6).

Grantees are expected to develop this systems approach by building partnerships and networks

with community-based supportive and social service agencies and by creating new services in

neighborhoods where they are lacking. Service coordination is required to reform community-

based services to “increase accessibility, utilization, and quality of services and to reduce

fragmentation in service delivery systems” leading to benefits for “HUD-assisted as wel as other

low-income residents in the neighborhood” (HUD 2010a: 17). Required activities also include

“partnering with local educators, and engaging in local community planning” to improve

outcomes for resident children and youth (HUD, 2010a: 17).

3. Relocation and reoccupancy. Activities such as mobility counseling and relocation supports to facilitate the return of residents of the target development to the redeveloped housing or to

other housing opportunities.

4. Case management. Activities that include “an individual- or family-centered approach to

assisting people of all ages with accessing the services they want and need.” 31 The second-round NOFA suggests that “The intensity and frequency of case management services should be

tailored to the level of an individual’s or family’s needs” (HUD, 2010c: 5). Further discussion in

the NOFA of the “hard to house” population suggests that special emphasis in case management

should be placed on working with this “special population of residents who face multiple,

persistent barriers to move toward self-sufficiency or maintain stable housing for reasons that

go beyond affordability, such as long-term unemployment, substance use or mental health

problems, and/or a criminal record,” because “these vulnerable households may have trouble

finding a unit in the private market and may face significant chal enges meeting the screening

requirements to return to a new mixed-income development” (HUD, 2010c: 5).

30 In the second-round application, HUD scored applicants based on the demonstration that they “involved and wil continue to involve neighborhood residents (including residents of the targeted public and/or assisted housing), local businesses, and community organizations in a sustained, informed and substantive way in the development and implementation of the Transformation Plan” and “the impact of their involvement in shaping the vision for the neighborhood” (HUD, 2010c: 42).

Although not explicitly a people intervention, these types of activities were included as activities that HUD requires (HUD, 2010c: 42).

31 HUD defines case management as “an individual- or family-centered approach to assisting people of all ages with accessing the services they want and need. It includes screening/assessment/risk management, individualized service planning based on resident needs and choices, provision of options and information, linkage/referral to formal and informal services and supports, service coordination at the client-level, crisis intervention, fol owup, advocacy, monitoring/evaluation of resident progress as wel as timeliness and effectiveness of service delivery, and maintenance of records” (HUD, 2010c: 5).

38

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit 3.2. Program Type and Community Support Activities for Choice Neighborhoods

Resident and community

engagement

Households, businesses, and

community organizations in the

Choice neighborhood

Service

coordination

Organizations and agencies

providing supportive services,

including health, education, and

employment in the Choice

neighborhood

Relocation and

reoccupancy

Case management

Households in the target

development

Choice = Choice Neighborhoods Initiative.

COORDINATING RESIDENT AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

In the application process, Choice grantees specified how they planned to implement HUD-defined

people activities. Grantee teams that included public housing authorities (PHAs) built on their previous experience implementing services as part of their HOPE VI grants. PHAs were able to leverage existing

systems for providing case management and supportive services. For example, the Seattle Housing

Authority (SHA) had a robust resident services department with culturally competent service providers.

Choice grantees in San Francisco and New Orleans contracted with Urban Strategies, a national

nonprofit organization, to be their provider based on previous successful partnerships on HOPE VI

redevelopment efforts.

39

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

The Chicago and Boston Choice grantees, on the other hand, had to build an infrastructure to effectively engage residents because resident-driven planning and partnerships did not exist before the Choice

award. HUD-assisted grantees also did not have experience overseeing service provision, but they made

progress toward launching strong programs by the end of our data col ection. In addition, residents

living in the target developments had not necessarily experienced onsite social services provision and, thus, were hesitant to establish relationships with providers. By the end of our data collection, residents from Grove Parc were engaged in services, and residents in Woodledge/Morrant Bay were engaged with

the relocation provider, who was making plans for more long-term service engagement.

Different types of partner organizations served as the lead implementation entities and were

accountable for overseeing the delivery of services (exhibit 3.3). The lead entities were selected by the Choice grantees and, in some cases, were the lead grantees themselves. In addition, each grantee

subcontracted with nonprofit organizations to offer specialized interventions to address the diverse

needs of residents in Choice neighborhoods. The Boston grantee planned to have as many as eight

subcontracts with local providers. On the other hand, SHA subcontracted with only two local

organizations that focused primarily on health and education services.

Communication between grantees and their providers was seamless in Yesler Terrace, where case

management and property management were housed in the same agency and staff shared access to

data. The Iberville relocation specialists and property managers consistently facilitated face-to-face

meetings between residents and case managers. By contrast, the teams of relocation specialists,

property managers, and case management providers in Woodledge-Morrant Bay and Grove Parc did not

have the same advantage of established communication between property managers and service

providers. Several grantees, including those in Iberville-Tremé and Woodlawn, planned to colocate the

social services, housing relocation, and property management teams with the goal of improved

communication.

The services were in various stages of implementation at the conclusion of fieldwork in September 2013.

Most grantees had begun some activities before the Choice grant award; for example, the Chicago

Choice grantee team had begun to provide relocation counseling but had not started case management.

The grantee teams in San Francisco and New Orleans benefited from a strong organizational history of

working on HOPE VI developments and, thus, were more easily able to launch services within months of

receiving the Choice award.

The three PHA-based grantee teams were able to build their outreach efforts using established tenant

councils that were already receiving technical assistance from HUD to help coordinate resident

engagement. In addition, SHA hired service providers who were already trusted in the community. HUD-

assisted housing grantees in Quincy Corridor and Woodlawn, by contrast, had to establish new

relationships with contracted service providers who, in turn, had to conduct outreach and establish

relationships with residents during the period of observation.

40

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit 3.3. Resident and Community Support Activities for Choice Neighborhoods

Number of

Choice

Households To

Funding

Choice

Lead People

Be Served From Al ocation per

Timing of Case

Neighborhood

Type of

Implementation

Planned Service

Target

Household for

Management

(City)

Housing

Entity

Provision Partnerships

Development

5 Yearsa

Services Offeredb

City Department of

128

Services offered

Quincy Corridor HUD-assisted

Contracts with local public

Jobs and

(Woodledge-

$24,023

1.5 years into

(Boston)

housing

and nonprofit providers

Community Services

Morrant Bay)

grant

Woodlawn

HUD-assisted Local human

Contracts with local

344

Services offered

$13,299

(Chicago)

housing

services nonprofit

nonprofit providers

(Grove Parc)

1 year into grant c

Joint venture

National human services

Services offered

Iberville-Tremé Public

company created

nonprofit organization with 440

$10,397

at the time of

(New Orleans)

housing

for revitalization of

local offices and contracts

(Iberville)

grant award

Iberville-Tremé

with local providers

Eastern

National human

Partnerships and some

Services offered

Public

216

Bayview

services nonprofit

contracts with public and

$21,180

at the time of

housing

(Alice Griffith)

(San Francisco)

with local offices

nonprofit providers

grant award

PHA staff provide case

Services offered

Public

PHA

management services;

504

Yesler (Seattle)

$8,912

at the time of

housing

partnership with university (Yesler Terrace)

grant award

and nonprofit provider

Choice = Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. PHA = public housing authority.

a These figures were determined by dividing the number of households in the target development at the time of second-round application by the total amount of the Choice grant budgeted for people activities in the second-round application. These budgeted amounts may have been real ocated during grant implementation if the Grantee petitioned to HUD to request budget changes.

b The HUD grant agreement requires that grantees start service coordination and case management services within 30 days of the notification of grant award.

c Services for Grove Parc residents were delayed when the selected service partner ceased operations. Services began within a month after a contract was executed with the new service partner in June 2012.

Source: Choice applications, second round; budgets; other grantee-provided information

41

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

FUNDING FOR RESIDENT AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

HUD regulations for Choice resident and community support activities are based on Section 24 of the

U.S. Housing Act of 1937, which allows for up to 15 percent of the total Choice grant to be used for

people activities. 32 This amount translates to between $3 million and $4.5 million over the 5-year grant.

A separate line item in the housing development budget is provided for activities directly related to

paying for the cost to relocate residents. 33

To understand how the funding level affects service delivery, it is important to consider the number of households living in the target developments at the time of the Choice applications and whether, and

how much, additional funding for service delivery the grantees were able to leverage from other

sources. At the time of grant application, the number of households living in the target developments

ranged from just 128 in Woodledge-Morrant Bay to 504 in Yesler Terrace (exhibit 3.3). The amount of

direct Choice funding per household in the target development varied considerably, from $8,912 per

household in Yesler Terrace to $24,023 per household in Woodledge-Morrant Bay. 34 Grantees with fewer households at the time of application could potentially provide more services than those with a

larger number of residents because they had more funds available.

To supplement Choice funding and to sustain service provision after the grant period, HUD requires

grantees to leverage existing programs and funding by developing partnerships with other service

providers. The amount and type of leveraged resources in the Choice applications from partners varied

across the Choice neighborhoods; grantee teams with PHA involvement demonstrated a greater

capacity to access leveraged resources. In particular, grantees in Eastern Bayview and Yesler partnered with municipal and state government offices to have existing public services delivered in the Choice

neighborhoods.

MEASURING OUTCOMES OF THE RESIDENT AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

Choice seeks to improve household outcomes and track progress through an extensive performance

measurement system. HUD established nine overarching outcomes for residents living in the target

32 HUD sets a limit on the proportion of the grant that can be used for supportive services: “Consistent with sections 24(d)(1)(L) and 24(j)(3) of the 1937 Act, you may use up to 15 percent of the total Choice Neighborhoods grant to pay the costs of Supportive Services activities. You may spend additional sums on Supportive Services activities using donations; other HUD funds made available for that purpose; and other federal, state, local, PHA, or private-sector donations (leverage)” (HUD, 2010a: 32).

33 Activities that involve relocation include the cost of pay for temporary apartment units and moving companies that physically move residents’ personal items. These activities do not include the services related to preparing residents to relocate, such as mobility counseling that involves helping residents to determine housing options and prepare for the screening and eligibility criteria.

34 The funding-per-household formula was generated by dividing the number of households in the target

development at the time of the second-round application by the total amount of the Choice grant budgeted for people activities in the second-round application. This formula assumes that the budget allocates funding to serve target development households rather than al residents living in the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, this formula does not take into consideration any leveraged services or additional non-Choice funding the grantee may have secured.

42

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

development and those residents who would move into the new revitalized housing. In addition, HUD

required grantees to track al residents who relocated during redevelopment—including those who moved

out of the development—starting in December 2010 through the life of the grant. 35 Grantees were responsible for col ecting data and submitting quarterly and annual reports tracking progress toward these outcomes and on outcomes related to housing and neighborhood activities (appendix F). 36 These reports include metrics that measure residents’ quality of life, such as the number of accredited early learning and childcare slots offered in the neighborhood and the utilization rates of neighborhood health clinics.

To meet the data col ection requirements for the quarterly and annual reports to HUD, the grantees had to develop data-sharing agreements and procedures to control the quality of data col ection and train staff to directly enter data into new software systems. Management staff expressed concerns about having to

balance the need to launch quality services with the need to develop the performance measurement

system. Further, grantees expressed different levels of comfort col ecting data and reporting outcomes.

Health- and education-related data were particularly difficult to access. In addition, to produce some of the indicators, grantees had to survey residents, which the grantees perceived as invasive, potential y interrupting critical early engagement with residents when direct service providers needed to establish trust. Staff worried that asking residents for personal information for reporting purposes would undermine their ability to build trust that leads to more genuine and lasting service provision.

By the end of our data collection period, HUD officials and grantee teams were working together to

streamline the data collection requirements to reduce inefficiencies. Grantee teams benefited from

HUD-delivered technical assistance and from better definitions of required data. New management

tools helped front-line staff col ect data, and progress could be seen in the quarterly reports that

grantees submitted to HUD.

The remainder of this chapter summarizes the four program areas that were in early stages of

implementation: (1) resident and community engagement, (2) service coordination, (3) relocation and

reoccupancy, and (4) case management.

RESIDENT AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

HUD requires Choice grantees to undertake activities that encourage the participation and involvement

of neighborhood households, local businesses, and community organizations in Choice planning and

implementation. Grantees developed a range of strategies for resident engagement, reflecting the

history of resident leadership in the neighborhood and the capacity of local organizations. Grantees

prioritized residents of the target development over other groups in their engagement efforts.

35 In the NOFA, HUD specified that residents not returning to the redeveloped site by their own choice were expected to enjoy housing and neighborhood opportunities equal to or better than those experienced by people returning to the redeveloped site.

36HUD outcomes include the fol owing: (1) children, youth, and adults are physical y and mental y healthy; (2) children enter kindergarten ready to learn; (3) children are proficient in academic subjects; (4) youth graduate from high school and col ege and are career ready; (5) households are economical y stable and self-sufficient; (6) residents feel safe in their neighborhood; (7) residents have choices about where to live; (8) vulnerable populations are supported during relocation; and (9) residents are stably housed during relocation (HUD, 2010c: 31; 35).

43

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Grantees reported that their ability to engage residents of the target development was essential for

understanding resident perspectives, tailoring their interventions to resident interests and needs, and supporting residents throughout redevelopment. All grantees encouraged residents in target

developments to participate in unit design, program planning, and other neighborhood events.

Grantee teams that included PHAs had the benefit of at least a decade of resident-driven engagement

before Choice. The grantees in Seattle, New Orleans, and San Francisco consistently used community-

building or resident leadership strategies to engage residents in Choice. In Ibervil e, resident leaders on the Ibervil e Resident Working Team joined the monthly implementation team meetings, creating regular

opportunities for the grantee team to communicate and receive input from resident leaders. At Alice

Griffith, strong tenant leadership was the goal of Urban Strategies’ peer model, in which resident leaders engaged their peers in conversations in their own homes to discuss issues that affect their community.

SHA’s Citizen Review Committee demonstrated the role that residents can play in redevelopment

projects. 37 For example, the committee developed guiding principles for the redevelopment and offered a forum for stakeholders to disseminate information, communicate, and coordinate.

The two Choice grantees with HUD-assisted developments faced the challenge of not having HUD-

required resident organizations that are typical in developments governed by the public housing

program. Thus, residents living in these two housing developments lacked a strong history of established partnerships with housing and service providers. In Woodlawn, a tenant council existed, although

inconsistent leadership resulted in chal enges by the grantee to effectively partner with resident leaders.

In Quincy Corridor, a resident organization was not established before the Choice grant and the grantee had yet to establish a formal mechanism for residents to provide ongoing input into the grant

implementation.

Grantees in all five Choice neighborhoods struggled to engage residents from the surrounding

neighborhood in Choice activities and plans, particularly if neighborhood residents did not share a

common identity or no active community partner engaged with the Choice team. Data from the baseline

household survey indicate that residents of the target development had attended a meeting about

redevelopment in the previous 2 years and were far more likely than residents from the surrounding

neighborhood to attend a meeting or report that they “strongly agree” that they have a say in plans for how the new development wil look.

SERVICE COORDINATION

Choice aims to expand access to “activities that will promote upward mobility, self-sufficiency, or

improved quality of life” for all residents of the neighborhoods (HUD, 2010a: 13). These activities

primarily address needs in the areas of health, early childhood supports and education, and

employment and workforce development. Required activities also include “partnering with local

37 The Citizen Review Committee was required as a result of a 2002 settlement secured by the Seattle

Displacement Coalition in their fight against the redevelopment of Rainier Vista, a HOPE VI redevelopment. Begun in 2006, the committee comprises approximately 30 residents, members of the surrounding communities, and other key stakeholders.

44

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

educators, and engaging in local community planning, to help increase access to programs that combine

a continuum of effective community services, strong family supports, and comprehensive education

reforms to improve the academic and developmental outcomes for resident children and youth” (HUD,

2010a: 17). Grantees are encouraged to design interventions based on the needs of the local

community. 38 To deliver services to residents, grantees have worked on two fronts. First, improvements are under way in the number and quality of services available to neighborhood residents. Second,

grantees are working to coordinate established and new service providers in health, early childhood

supports, education, and workforce development.

ENRICHING SERVICES FOR RESIDENTS

Early Childhood and Education

One of Choice’s goals is for the transformation efforts to be connected with educational improvement

efforts, using the theory that local, high-quality schools are an important component of creating and

maintaining a mixed-income neighborhood. 39 Choice performance metrics set out expectations for improvement in the schools attended by most children in the target developments, access to higher

quality schools, and greater quality and availability of early childhood programming (appendix F). Choice grantees are required to document changes in early childhood and educational outcomes of youth from

the target development. Grantees were working to implement a range of interventions related to these

outcomes.

Plans to engage with neighborhood schools and establish programming designed to boost student

achievement were slow to emerge in these Choice neighborhoods. A major issue to emerge was the

difficulty of engaging city school districts that had not necessarily been part of the design and launch of the Choice initiatives. Also, without formal data agreements, privacy rules generally prevented school

districts form sharing individual student records with grantees, meaning that grantees were unable to

collect education-related data for performance measures.

Another chal enge to Choice’s ability to coordinate with and influence activities at neighborhood schools was the level of school choice, because children and youth in the target developments and the

neighborhoods attended schools in all parts of their cities. Some measure of parental choice in school

enrollment was available in all locations except Yesler (Pendall et al., 2013). The integration of school-based reform interventions into neighborhood planning processes would not directly affect youth

because many youth from the Choice neighborhoods and target developments did not attend local

schools. In addition, in Woodlawn, lower enrollment in nearby schools resulted in school closings during in the first 2 years of Choice, creating disruptions for families and teachers in Woodlawn.

38 HUD defines these supportive services as “all activities that will promote upward mobility, self-sufficiency, or improved quality of life, including such activities as literacy training, activities that promote early learning and the continuum of educational supports, remedial and continuing education, job training, financial literacy instruction, day care, youth services, aging-in-place, public transportation, physical and mental health services, economic development activities, and other programs for which the community demonstrates need” (HUD, 2010a: 13).

39 The Choice NOFA even specifies that eligible neighborhoods can be considered distressed, and thus eligible to apply for Choice funding, by indication of having a low-performing school or where at least 20 children or 20

percent of children in the target development attend a low-performing school.

45

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

The need for higher quality and better access to early childhood supports, such as home-based infant

and parenting services and ful -day early childhood education, was a priority in Yesler, Iberville-Tremé, and Eastern Bayview. SHA and a local nonprofit organization launched a partnership to provide a parent-child home visit program. Families with young children who live in Yesler Terrace receive home-based

supports from qualified health and parenting educators during a 10-week period with followup supports

for more than 2 years. In Iberville-Tremé, efforts were made to develop stronger referral networks with high-quality early childhood centers. In Eastern Bayview, the grantee proposed using $2.3 mil ion in

Choice funds to develop an early childhood education center. 40

Several Choice grantees sought to develop programs using a two-generation model. Urban Strategies in

Iberville-Tremé, in partnership with Success Prep charter school, established a program to support

parent literacy while also providing afterschool programming for youth. In Eastern Bayview, Urban

Strategies is partnering with a clinic that provides trauma-informed care for children and their families.

The Woodlawn Children’s Promise Community created child-parent centers within two of the local

neighborhood schools where the entire family could access educational supports. SHA targeted most of

its Choice funding to developing a robust model of services offered across developmental stages from

birth to high school graduation, in partnership with Seattle University, the Seattle Department of

Education, and other local partners. In addition to providing the parent-child home visit program, which is specifically designed as a two-generation model, SHA also addressed educational chal enges by hiring a family education engagement specialist who focused on building relationships with schools attended

by most Choice children, working with schools and families to develop educational plans for students,

and working with students not attending school to develop educational plans for reentry or general

equivalency diploma, or GED, programs. 41

Choice funds for these types of services averaged approximately $600,000. (For details, see program

activities included in appendix B.) In all five Choice neighborhoods, the need for early childhood and

educational supports eclipsed the grant and other committed resources. Grantees sought to address

these gaps by leveraging additional funding from state, local, and philanthropic sources to sustain early childhood and educational programming over time. Only in Boston, through the Promise Neighborhoods

implementation grant that overlaps with the Quincy Corridor neighborhood, was the grantee able to

capture new federal funding sources. Ibervil e-Tremé and Woodlawn education partners applied for

Promise Neighborhoods grants without success.

Employment and Workforce Development

Another goal of Choice is to increase economic self-sufficiency among residents and increase

neighborhood employment rates so they are similar to or better than those in other neighborhoods in the city. The baseline survey indicated that the proportion of residents reporting paid employment ranged

from 43 percent in Quincy Corridor and Woodlawn to 55 percent in Eastern Bayview (exhibit 3.4).

40 Choice funds for the early childhood center were budgeted as a part of the Critical Community Investments.

(See chapter 10.)

41 For more information about the model in Seattle, see Blank, Jacobson, and Minerve (2014).

46

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit 3.4. Employment Status and Reported Reasons for Not Working

Quincy

Iberville-

Eastern

Corridor

Woodlawn

Tremé

Bayview

Yesler

Heads of households in the Choice neighborhood (%)

Working for pay

43

43

46

55

49

Not working for pay

57

57

54

45

51

Heads of households not working for pay by main reason (%)

Permanent disability

30

27

26

27

29

Taking care of home or family

11

4

4

6

4

Health problem

9

16

8

7

18

Retirement or age

12

17

20

17

11

Choice = Choice Neighborhoods Initiative.

Source: Choice Neighborhood Baseline Survey 2013–14

Of those employed, between 11 and 19 percent had multiple jobs. Residents of the target development

most commonly gave the following reasons for not working: permanent disability, home and childcare

responsibilities, poor health, and retirement or old age.

According to interviews with service providers, residents across all five Choice neighborhoods most

often seek employment in the surrounding local area because of a range of factors, including

transportation barriers, the need to be near childcare, and unfamiliarity with navigating job

opportunities in the broader city or region. Very few residents of Choice neighborhoods, however,

end up working within the exact boundaries of their neighborhood. 42

Choice grantees developed a range of workforce development opportunities for residents seeking

employment. Woodledge-Morrant Bay and Yesler Terrace had many residents who were unemployed,

had long histories of unemployment, and lacked credentials that would enable them to obtain

employment. For this population, employment services included job search resources, resume writing,

and job application supports. Providers also referred residents to job programs that provided temporary work placements so that residents developed work histories to move into permanent employment. In

Alice Griffith, Urban Strategies employed a similar model that uses their service connection staff to link residents to workforce supports and jobs. The Family Rewards Program motivates behavioral change by

providing monetary rewards in the range of $20 to $100 for activities such as the completion of an adult literacy seminar series, obtaining a job, and completing a physical health exam. In Woodlawn, the

Center for Working Families model resulted in an increased number of job placements for residents of

the target development. In addition, residents received financial counseling, tax preparation services, and eligibility screening for state and federal financial assistance. 43

42 About 2 to 3 percent of neighborhood residents in Woodlawn and Ibervil e-Tremé worked within the boundaries of the Choice neighborhoods. Slightly more Eastern Bayview residents (7.9 percent) and Yesler residents (12.4

percent) worked in the Choice neighborhoods. For more information about employment trends, refer to

Developing Choice Neighborhoods, section 2.3.4.2.

43 The Center for Working Families model is a national model led by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. (See

http://www.aecf.org/work/economic-opportunity/center-for-working-families/.)

47

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Iberville residents were able to access various training programs aimed at developing their skills in

industries where local jobs are available, such as construction or customer service. According to

providers, it appeared that residents who lived outside the Iberville target development were more

likely to engage in these services, in part because of stringent eligibility requirements such as drug

testing. Urban Strategies was in the process of developing job training in the areas of health care, film, and culinary arts.

Grantees reported difficulties integrating their efforts with existing workforce initiatives. For example, grantees described major obstacles to aligning public services, such as ensuring that residents of the

target developments could access slots in specialized job training and family support programs.

According to a grantee representative in Quincy Corridor, “Changing workforce development in the

neighborhood involves changing a huge system. This requires a lot of vision and effort [beyond Choice].”

Mental and Physical Health

Choice sets clear expectations for the positive effects of redevelopment on health-related outcomes.

Grantees were in the early stages of developing strategies that would lead to improved physical health

outcomes, including making linkages to healthcare centers. For example, the grantee team in Seattle

partnered with a nonprofit provider, Neighborcare Health, to open a health clinic at the local

elementary school. In Alice Griffith, the grantee team implemented a healthy food initiative in which

residents volunteered to deliver food to seniors who require nutritional support. In addition, two

grantees developed programs to ensure residents were enrolled in health insurance to comply with the

Affordable Care Act. In Chicago, a Choice partner received funding to hire outreach counselors to

identify the 8,000 residents in Woodlawn without health insurance, provide in-person enrol ment

support, and train other providers in the neighborhood. SHA launched a new initiative in partnership

with NeighborCare Health to hire two neighborhood health educators to help households navigate the

health insurance system.

In Quincy Corridor, Choice grantees identified a need for intensive clinical therapy based on reports

from providers who had been assisting the population. When the Choice grant was obtained, not

enough providers were within or near the neighborhood. Grantees used the Choice grant to fund a

trauma coordinator position, which the Grove Hall Violence Intervention and Prevention program

operated in partnership with the Boston Public Health Commission, to facilitate training and build a

network of trauma-informed responders whom neighborhood residents can access.

Across the Choice neighborhoods, grantees reported the need for more outpatient counseling services

for adults and children with histories of trauma, neglect, and violent abuse. Mental health care and

substance abuse services, however, appeared to be inadequate to meet the need in all five Choice

neighborhoods. The grantee team in San Francisco partnered with the Center for Youth Wellness to

create a “trauma aware zone” that provides training for frontline service providers to build awareness of how to recognize the signs of trauma and to encourage families to access services. Many residents of

Iberville-Tremé, where 43 percent of residents report symptoms of a mental health disorder and 32

percent report symptoms of anxiety, suffer as a result of long-term trauma associated with living in

poverty and the post-stress response to Hurricane Katrina. City leaders across sectors (education,

48

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

criminal justice, and housing) discussed this issue often, agreeing that services had not yet been

restored to pre-hurricane levels, despite an increased need. (According to one service provider in

Iberville-Tremé, “people don’t want to admit that they are depressed,” suggesting that making more

services available is only part of the solution.) In Quincy Corridor, where comparable rates of mental

health and anxiety symptoms are reported, the Choice grant addresses mental health needs by funding

a ful -time clinician at a local high school to provide mental health services for youth and families and by expanding the Grove Hal Violence Intervention and Prevention program with an additional trauma

coordinator.

IMPROVING SERVICE COORDINATION

Service coordination is an approach to reforming and integrating the complex community-based social

services system based on the needs and desires of local residents. On national and local levels, services span education, employment, health, safety, and child and youth supports and are funded and delivered

through separate administrative agencies. As a result, low-income families who face chal enges may

receive services from multiple agencies and social services providers that are not connected to each

other. This service disconnection results in families having to navigate numerous systems and processes to meet basic needs. The goal of Choice’s service coordination is to encourage grantees to develop

strategies to “increase accessibility, utilization, and quality of services and to reduce fragmentation in service delivery systems” (HUD, 2010c: 6). The hope is that local service coordination would benefit all low-income residents in the neighborhood.

Most grantees were in the early stages of implementing service coordination reforms in September

2013. In al five Choice neighborhoods, lead implementation entities had mapped out the range of

available community-based services and had begun to identify services that were not available.

Grantees or their subcontracted providers were at varying stages of outreach to nonprofit organizations, school districts, and other public service entities (such as workforce development boards and public

health departments) to coordinate services.

In all five Choice neighborhoods, providers cited the following services as most difficult to access: high-quality, full-day, educational-based preschool programs (such as Early Start and Head Start); job training that leads to temporary or long-term paid employment; clinical trauma-informed mental health and

substance abuse services; and resources for youth education, after-school activities, and violence

prevention.

Even when services were available elsewhere in the city, providers across all Choice neighborhoods

reported that state-funded and federally funded human services programs were not reaching residents

living in subsidized housing. In Yesler, Eastern Bayview, and Quincy Corridor, grantees reported that it was particularly difficult to access public services that were language accessible and culturally

appropriate. To address these challenges, Choice grantees developed new relationships with providers

outside the neighborhood and increased access to services by creating enrollment and participation

opportunities at the target developments.

49

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Grantees also sought to enhance the quality of neighborhood-based services by providing training and

encouraging providers with similar goals to work together. For example, the Network of Woodlawn, or

NOW, created a Health and Human Services Consortium that brought together local providers to work

on enrol ment in Affordable Care Act health programs. Al grantees devoted some portions of their

grants to subcontracting with local service providers and, to some extent, made attempts to coordinate

these services.

SHA stands out for being able to leverage partnerships to provide educational, job training, and

placement opportunities with hospitals, a community col ege, and a university within walking distance

of Yesler Terrace.

RELOCATION AND REOCCUPANCY

Choice grantees’ housing redevelopment plans require residents of the target development to relocate

to revitalized replacement units, to temporary units before moving to replacement housing, or to

private housing using a housing choice voucher (HCV). Al Choice grantees must abide by the Uniform

Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. 44 HUD guarantees the right to return to replacement units to all lease-compliant residents with the requirement for one-for-one

replacement of all target development units, ensuring al existing households will have a place in the

new development. Unlike HOPE VI managers, Choice grantees are not permitted to modify lease

agreements by adding screening requirements on employment, education, or drug testing for

reoccupancy in replacement housing.

In addition to following federal relocation regulations, some cities with active public housing advocacy groups had to adhere to site-specific guidelines that placed more strenuous requirements on the

grantee. For example, San Francisco’s HOPE SF relocation guidelines mandated that a portion of

redeveloped Alice Griffith units be available for leasing before any relocation or demolition began,

ensuring that residents could remain in their current unit until their replacement unit was complete.

SHA, in coordination with the site’s Citizens Review Committee, committed to al owing all residents to

stay in onsite units at Yesler Terrace during construction if they desired.

With the exception of Alice Griffith, demolition of at least some of the target development housing was necessary before onsite construction could commence, creating more complicated relocation plans and

housing options for residents. 45 Grantees offered two categories of housing options: (1) temporary housing, where residents live only during construction, and (2) permanent housing, where residents

remain even after the development’s completion. SHA and the Housing Authority of New Orleans gave

residents three options to temporarily relocate to (1) other unoccupied housing within Yesler Terrace or 44 This act, governing al HUD programs that displace tenants and owner occupants, requires grantees to provide resident relocation counseling, notify residents at least 90 days before required vacancy, reimburse moving costs, and provide payments for additional replacement housing costs. Less rigorous requirements govern temporary relocation lasting less than 12 months. Grantees must notify residents of relocation 30 days in advance, reimburse moving costs, and provide temporary housing, but they do not have to provide relocation counseling.

45 Yesler Terrace’s first phase also did not require demolishing occupied public housing units.

50

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Iberville, (2) another public housing development, or (3) the private housing market with an HCV. After construction, residents can remain in their temporary offsite housing or return to the new development.

The two HUD-assisted housing grantees in Quincy Corridor and Woodlawn had similar relocation plans:

a portion of residents were to relocate directly to replacement units or relocate to housing units near the neighborhood with temporary passthrough vouchers until a replacement unit was available.

Grantees in both cities requested permanent HCVs for resident relocation, which would allow residents

to move outside of the Choice neighborhood. HUD delays in issuing these vouchers led to confusion and

uncertainty, especial y for the Boston grantee and residents of Woodledge-Morrant Bay. 46

Relocation services are coordinated through the grantee and case management entity with city and

advocacy group oversight at Alice Griffith and Yesler Terrace and through Urban Relocation Services, a

relocation counseling agency, at Grove Parc and Iberville. 47 These relocation entities provide residents with relocation notifications and counseling to help them make temporary and permanent housing

decisions. Because all Woodledge-Morrant Bay residents had to move off site for less than 1 year, an

independent relocation consultant coordinated residents’ moves but was not required to provide

relocation counseling. 48

The initiation of relocation and case management depended on the demolition and construction

timeline and the entities’ relationship and roles. When case management preceded relocation, as

happened at Alice Griffith, case managers focused on ensuring that residents would be lease compliant

and ready to enter the new development. Although relocation can create an opportunity to meet and

work with families in advance of a potentially stressful move, it can also undermine broader case

management goals. If relocation and case management are implemented simultaneously, as happened

at Woodledge-Morrant Bay, then residents’ worries about relocation, such as handling utility payments,

can override case management’s ability to address other family needs, such as job training. (See the

section on case management that follows.)

Relocation can have a substantial impact on vulnerable populations. In particular, it has been associated with high mortality and decreased quality of health for seniors and can have mixed effects on youth,

who may be forced to change schools during the school year and endure the stress of relocation

(Gallagher, 2010; Manjarrez, Popkin, and Guernsey, 2007). Woodledge-Morrant Bay and Yesler Terrace

relocation entities coordinated with the public school systems to minimize disruption in children’s

schooling and support relocated students by providing transportation to their original schools.

46 HUD clarified rules regarding the use of HCVs by HUD-assisted grantees after data collection ended in September 2013.

47 The Chicago Housing Authority, which administers the HCVs, will provide relocation counseling for families who are issued HCVs.

48 Grantees with relocations of less than 1 year are required by the Uniform Relocation Act to only notify residents of relocation 30 days in advance, reimburse moving costs, and provide temporary housing. They are not required to provide relocation counseling.

51

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

As of September 2013, relocation was under way at Woodledge-Morrant Bay, Grove Parc, Iberville, and

Yesler Terrace and wil begin at Alice Griffith in 2015 (exhibit 3.5). HUD approved the Grove Parc

relocation plan, and Preservation of Affordable Housing, Inc. (POAH) began relocation in 2010, before

the Choice grant, and the relocation has progressed without major delays. By contrast, relocation in

Eastern Bayview is delayed because of infrastructure delays that affected construction and demolition

schedules; in the other target developments, relocation was delayed because of postponement of the

housing closing date in Quincy Heights and a lengthy historic review process at Iberville. Relocation

efforts in Yesler were still in the planning stages.

Exhibit 3.5. Housing Assistance Status as of September 2013 for Households Living in Target

Development at the Time of the First Round Application

Grove

Yesler

Woodledge-

Alice

Parc

Iberville Terrace Morrant Bay Griffith

Winter

Winter

Summer

Relocation start date

2010

2015

2013

2013

2013

Households in the target development (%)

Original target development unit

26

6

75

39

71

Target development replacement unit

41

0

0

0

0

Temporary relocation unit

8

0

2

44

0

Temporary or permanent tenant-based

3

65

1

1

1

voucher

Other public or assisted-housing

3

11

7

4

10

development

No longer on HUD assistance

19

18

16

14

18

Total

100

100

100

100

100

Note: The first-round applications for the Choice implementation grants were submitted to HUD in December 2010.

Sources: September 2013 HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center, or PIC, and Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System, or TRACS, data; 2013 third quarter grantee reports; other grantee-provided information Exhibit 3.5 also shows the percentage of original households that relocated and their current location by housing type. When these data were gathered (September 2013), 2 years into implementation, a

significant share of households in al five target developments (ranging from 14 to 19 percent) were no longer on HUD assistance. 49 We do not know whether these proportions differ from those in other developments in the same cities.

Our focus group research indicates that the quality of the temporary and replacement units across the

five Choice neighborhoods varied considerably. Woodledge-Morrant Bay residents who participated in

the focus group were pleased with their temporary housing, citing better quality units in safer

49 In the HOPE VI Panel Study, 14 percent of original residents of the target development were unassisted 4 years after relocation began. (See McInnis, Buron, and Popkin, 2007).

52

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

neighborhoods, and many did not want to return to onsite housing. Grove Parc residents, by contrast,

complained about isolation from the development and poor housing conditions in their temporary units.

Although many Iberville and Yesler Terrace residents requested HCVs to use within the neighborhood,

some reported struggling to find high-quality and affordable housing nearby.

The experiences of the five Choice neighborhoods during these early phases of relocation suggest four

key lessons for relocation. First, complete and open communication between grantees and residents on

the relocation timeline and options increases confidence and trust. Where resident engagement began

during the planning for relocation, grantees were able to obtain initial buy-in from residents and design the relocation schedule to fit residents’ needs and desires. POAH’s communication plan aimed to

provide information to residents using a variety of strategies, including mandated meetings, followup

letters, and in-person interviews with each family. 50 Open communication also enabled grantees to directly respond to and amend relocation plans based on resident concerns, such as the constraints of

Chicago’s opposing gang territories.

Second, initiating case management services before relocation is critical for ensuring housing stability.

When relocation must happen before initiating case management services, as happened in Grove Parc,

households may be at greater risk for losing HUD assistance in the process of relocation. Although POAH

staff communicated proactively about relocation, the team did not deliver services during the initial

phases of relocation, which started in 2010 (before the Choice award). Case management services were

initiated in June 2012 after a significant portion of households had been relocated.

Third, the feasibility of using HCVs in relocation depended on when vouchers were made available to

grantees and on the neighborhood housing market. Delays in HUD’s administration of HCVs to the two

HUD-assisted development grantees generated mistrust between grantees and residents, because

grantees were not able to give residents full relocation options at the onset of relocation. 51 In addition, the delay resulted in residents needing to move three times because of redevelopment—to a temporary

unit, to replacement housing, and to the private market with an HCV—all in the short grant period.

Finally, temporary vouchers may not be practical options for some grantees with tight-knit residents

who wish to remain in the neighborhood during relocation. In tight housing markets, like the Yesler and Iberville-Tremé neighborhoods, some residents were not able to find an affordable unit with their HCV.

To address the difficulty of using an HCV in the tight rental market, families relocating from Yesler had the first priority to choose from any HCV-eligible unit or any other available subsidized unit in SHA’s entire housing stock.

50 As described in Pendal et al. (2013), POAH original y partnered with the Grove Park Tenants Association (GPTA) to ensure communication about relocation. The GPTA experienced leadership transitions and internal chal enges during the data col ection period, however, which disrupted coordination between relocation efforts and resident leadership.

51 HUD clarified rules regarding the use of HCVs by HUD-assisted grantees after data col ection ended in September 2013.

53

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Fourth, the relocation of residents into the surrounding neighborhood using temporary and permanent

offsite housing may exacerbate existing neighborhood class tensions. This problem was particularly

pronounced in Woodlawn. Despite POAH’s attempts to integrate Grove Parc residents into

neighborhood block clubs and increase the opportunity for resident interactions through sponsoring

communitywide events, neighborhood stakeholders reported that neighborhood residents were still

apprehensive about the arrival of Grove Parc residents.

CASE MANAGEMENT

HUD requires grantees to provide case management services to residents of the target development,

although residents are not mandated to engage with service providers to receive housing or other

assistance. 52 Choice grantees in Boston, Chicago, and Seattle targeted case management services to the adult leaseholder. By contrast, the grantees in San Francisco and New Orleans sought engagement from

al family members. This whole-family approach involved linking families to support programs, helping

parents to create a positive home environment, and facilitating access to early educational

enhancement for youth.

The Choice grantee teams that included PHAs had the advantage of being able to build on previous

experience in providing social services at HOPE VI developments and thus were able to begin their case

management services more rapidly. Urban Strategies, with decades of such experience, implemented

their tested service connection model that focused on relocation supports and linkages to community-

and public-based services at Iberville and Alice Griffith. Providers built on Urban Strategies’ earlier work to develop a triage system to slot residents into different levels of support; at Iberville, for example, high-crisis families received weekly contact and low-crisis families received monthly contact. The Urban Strategies teams also focused on relaxed social connections with residents before starting the more

formal needs assessment process. SHA devoted an existing HUD-funded Resident Opportunities and

Self-Sufficiency grant to Yesler Terrace and offered an economic opportunities program that provided

referral coordination. Their standard case management program, Family Self-Sufficiency, provided

monthly support to households with the goal of achieving longer term outcomes.

The two grantees in HUD-assisted developments had a more difficult time launching case management

services and in reaching households before relocation. Neither grantee had the kind of previous

experience in operating and contracting for social services that the three PHA-based grantees had,

which meant they faced a steep learning curve. As a result, they encountered early challenges; for

example, the case management provider at Grove Parc, Metropolitan Family Services, emphasized

employment and job training services using group workshops that were not consistently wel attended.

The Institute for Health and Recovery at Woodledge-Morrant Bay focused on incremental outreach

52 HUD defines case management as “an individual- or family-centered approach to assisting people of all ages with accessing the services they want and need. It includes screening/assessment/risk management, individualized service planning based on resident needs and choices, provision of options and information, linkage/referral to formal and informal services and supports, service coordination at the client-level, crisis intervention, follow-up, advocacy, monitoring/evaluation of resident progress as well as timeliness and effectiveness of service delivery, and maintenance of records” (HUD, 2010c: 5).

54

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

efforts to cohorts of households preparing to relocate, coordination with the relocation provider, and

resolution of high utility debts. Over time, the Institute case managers planned to shift from relocation concerns to address longer term household needs, including a focus on providing clinical trauma-based

supports, job search assistance, and youth activities.

Across the target developments, the case management providers faced three major challenges during

early implementation. The first major chal enge was the voluntary nature of the service model.

Providers across the five developments noted that the lack of Choice-mandated or programmatic

incentives for case management was a barrier to engaging residents in services and maintaining contact

over time. Residents tended to contact providers when they faced a particular need for support or faced a mounting crisis, such as when they needed assistance with paying off debt, had trouble accessing

childcare, were the victim of crime, or were diagnosed with a serious illness. Providers for the three

PHA-based grantees reported more consistent engagement, possibly because those residents were

more accustomed to having access to onsite providers.

Programs that offered financial incentives and in which residents had a voice in influencing the service design proved most successful in engaging residents. The Family Rewards Program at Alice Griffith

provided monetary rewards in the range of $20 to $100 to encourage participation. Yesler Terrace

residents who committed to a specialized and more intensive Family Self-Sufficiency program gained

access to an escrow savings account. Providers in these two developments also sought resident input

into the program design and outcomes on a consistent basis.

The second major chal enge, particularly at Iberville and Woodledge-Morrant Bay, was the

implementation of case management while residents were in the midst of relocation. According to one

provider, “On site we had a focused audience and we don’t really have that anymore,” making service

delivery more difficult during the relocation period. As residents moved out of the target developments, case managers had to be more mobile, frequently driving to temporary housing units scattered

throughout the Choice neighborhood and the city. In addition, providers primarily focused on providing

relocation supports, such as resolving outstanding debt, facilitating the transfer of children to new

schools, immediate crisis intervention, ensuring lease compliance, and addressing any barriers that

would prevent them from having a successful move. Providers at these two target developments hope

to be able to focus on longer term family stability and self-sufficiency issues after families are beyond the immediate crisis of relocation.

The two HUD-assisted developments faced a third major challenge related to their grantees’ capacity to

contract with case management providers and thus faced delays in launching services during the

required period outlined in the grant agreement. 53 The City of Boston required a competitive contract 53 The Choice grant agreement states: “The Grantee must have started these services within 30 days of the date of the award letter (August 31, 2011). It is imperative that case management services begin immediately so that residents who will be relocated have time to participate in and benefit from Supportive Services activities before leaving the site; and that residents who have already been relocated are able to participate in and benefit from Supportive Services activities” (HUD 2011: 6).

55

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

bidding process, which resulted in a change in the relocation schedule and delayed startup of case

management services. 54 The Boston grantee also had difficulty initially obtaining the contact information for the residents from the property manager, so providers were not able to initiate services before relocation. At Grove Parc, POAH had not previously contracted with providers for onsite social

services and needed to develop this expertise at the start of the grant award. Case management started

in Woodlawn in June 2012 using a partnership with a local, multiservice agency. 55 As of September 2013, grantees were stil structuring contract agreements with providers, attempting to track residents, and

developing internal systems for assessment, referrals, and supports.

CONCLUSION

This chapter suggested the division of the many supportive-service activities into four main program

areas: (1) resident and community engagement, (2) service coordination, (3) relocation and

reoccupancy, and (4) case management. Grantees prioritized case management and relocation supports

for residents of the target development and also demonstrated progress in coordinating local health,

early childhood, education, and workforce development services.

ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

• Supportive services during relocation. Past research has demonstrated that providing services consistently through the relocation process is critical, especially for the most vulnerable

residents, who may be at greater risk of experiencing health problems, setbacks in employment

searches, and even premature mortality (Comey, 2007). Provision of supportive services during

the relocation process was a stress point in al three target developments where most of the

families had been relocated by September 2013. HUD and the grantees should redouble efforts

to coordinate case management with relocation to avoid these problems and careful y monitor

the status of relocated families as they settle into their temporary and permanent housing.

• Attrition from assisted housing. Overall, housing assistance loss rates in the 3 years after the first five Choice implementation grant awards were comparable with those in HOPE VI, which

included fewer provisions than Choice to allow residents to return to rebuilt developments if

they wished. By September 2013, between 14 and 19 percent of Choice households no longer

had housing assistance. In HOPE VI, a panel study found that 14 percent of residents no longer

had housing assistance after 5 years. Considering that households that left assistance as their

projects were transformed in HOPE VI experienced greater levels of housing and financial

distress than those who maintained it, housing assistance loss rates within Choice are an issue

to watch in coming years.

These findings convey that future implementation efforts should continue to provide mobility

counseling, relocation supports, and intensive case management services to residents before relocation.

54 As of September 30, 2013, the case managers in Woodledge-Morrant Bay had reached out to 56 households that were in the process of relocating and had 39 of 129 households enrolled in case management services.

55 The service contract subsequently ended after approximately 1.5 years. POAH contracted with a new provider after the period of data collection.

56

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Given the limited resources for resident services and the great need among households living in the

target developments, it is most important for grantees to target case management services to the

hardest-to-house households that face the greatest vulnerability during and after relocation. A triage

model that assesses needs and targets more intensive supports to households with the greatest risk of

long-term housing instability would be useful (Theodos et al., 2012).

Furthermore, grantees wil need to pursue additional funding from other public and private initiatives to fill remaining gaps in funding for resident and community services. The grantees in Eastern Bayview and Yesler provide good examples of grantee teams that partnered with municipal and state government

offices to gain access to existing public services and have those services delivered in the Choice

neighborhoods.

57

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

4. REVITALIZING THE NEIGHBORHOODS

FINDINGS

• Critical Community Improvement (CCI) projects, the core of the neighborhood domain, are new

under Choice and were only partial y settled by September 2013. CCIs are locally selected

neighborhood investments that use Choice funding for community facilities or economic

development. The Boston and Seattle grantees had proposed and were implementing several CCIs

that were approved by HUD and advanced local priorities. The Boston grantee’s redevelopment of

the shuttered Pearl Meat site as a business incubator is one project that HUD cites as a good use

of CCI funds. Most other CCI projects aimed to improve the built environment, including

recreational space, community facilities, and walkability improvements. For example, the Hill

Climb in Seattle will connect Yesler with an adjacent neighborhood. At the end of the study period,

HUD and the grantees in Chicago and San Francisco were stil discussing the proposed CCI projects.

The New Orleans grantee focused on housing and services during the first 2 years and planned to

rethink its CCI strategy with the assistance of HUD and technical assistance providers.

• The grantees’ approaches to high levels of violent crime varied across the Choice

neighborhoods, with the most progress on programming occurring in Quincy Corridor and

Woodlawn. The promising public safety-related activities in these two neighborhoods benefited

from having entities on the grantee teams that focused attention on the issue. Given the many

demands on Choice funds, all grantees need to leverage other federal and local sources of

funding and expertise to carry out public safety strategies.

• HUD and the U.S. Department of Justice demonstrated interagency coordination by providing

additional funding and technical assistance to the five Choice grantees through Public Safety

Enhancement (PSE) grants awarded in 2011. The PSE grants, as their name implies, are

intended to enhance place-based public safety activities already happening in the neighborhoods.

Local activities funded through PSE grants had not begun as of September 2013 because federal

staff needed to draft program guidelines and provide technical assistance on project design to

the Choice grantees. The program was not extended to later implementation grantees.

HUD’s ambitions for transforming areas surrounding target housing developments distinguish the

Choice Neighborhoods Initiative from other HUD efforts focusing on capital improvements or

redevelopment of public or assisted housing. This chapter focuses on the plans for interventions in the Choice neighborhoods and documents progress that local grantees have made. It starts with a brief

review of neighborhood contextual factors that wil affect Choice interventions and discusses public

safety, an important component in the success of any neighborhood revitalization effort. It then

describes CCIs, Choice’s interventions in the surrounding neighborhood. The chapter continues with a

description of Choice and leverage plans for developing the neighborhood economy and improving the

built environment. Finally, it offers ideas for future research and evaluation related to the Choice

activities and resulting neighborhood outcomes.

58

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT

Neighborhood context is one of the important factors that will influence whether the neighborhoods

will experience measurable improvement in the coming years and what role the Choice investment can

play. Chapter 2 of Developing Choice Neighborhoods (Pendall et al., 2013) contains detailed descriptions of baseline neighborhood conditions and trends. Exhibit 4.1 draws from the previous report and

provides a few key neighborhood characteristics.

Exhibit 4.1. Choice Neighborhood Baseline Characteristics

Public and

Choice

Size

Population,

Poverty

Assisted Housing

Neighborhood

(square

2010

Rate,

Unemployment

as a Percent of

(City)

miles)

(thousands)

2006–2010 Rate, 2006–2010

Rental, 2010

Quincy Corridor

0.5

9.7

38%

21%

47%

(Boston)

Woodlawn

2.0

23.7

29%

17%

36%

(Chicago)

Iberville-Tremé

1.7

11.6

42%

20%

28%

(New Orleans)

Eastern Bayview

1.6

17.6

26%

16%

70%

(San Francisco)

Yesler

0.2

2.1

36%

10%

57%

(Seattle)

Choice = Choice Neighborhoods Initiative.

Notes: Data from the American Community Survey are for tract-based definitions of neighborhoods. (See Pendall et al., 2013.)

Sources: 2010 Decennial Census; 2006–2010 American Community Survey; the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Public and Indian Housing Information Center, or PIC, database; Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System, or TRACS, database

One important characteristic related to the Choice plans for the neighborhood is the size of the target area chosen by the grantee (exhibit 4.1). The neighborhoods selected were less than 0.5 square miles in Seattle and Boston. The other three Choice neighborhoods were quite a bit larger, ranging from 1.6 to

2.0 square miles. In Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle, grantees chose their areas to coincide with

boundaries already used in local planning processes, which could facilitate alignment of Choice and non-Choice activities.

Although the neighborhoods vary in size, they all share considerable economic and social challenges.

To qualify for Choice, a neighborhood had to have at least 20 percent of neighborhood residents either

living in poverty or earning extremely low incomes based on the most recent data col ected by the

U.S. Census Bureau. It also had to exhibit one or more of three indicators of neighborhood distress:

(1) disproportionately high violent crime rates, (2) disproportionately high long-term residential vacancy rates, or (3) a low-performing public school. Al neighborhoods had poverty rates more than 25 percent

59

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

and unemployment rates in the double digits. Exacerbating factors like the foreclosure crisis and

Hurricane Katrina contributed to problems with vacancy and blight in Quincy Corridor, Woodlawn, and

Iberville-Tremé. As described in the following section, violent crime was a serious issue at baseline and during early implementation. In addition, public or assisted housing made up about one-half or more of

the neighborhood’s rental housing stock in Quincy Corridor, Yesler, and Eastern Bayview. Choice

neighborhood residents recognized their neighborhoods need improvement. According to the baseline

survey, respondents in Quincy Corridor, Woodlawn, and Eastern Bayview rated their neighborhood from

6.5 to 6.8 on a scale from 1 to 10, with Yesler residents averaging 7.1. Ibervil e-Tremé residents reported a rating of 7.4, closer to the 7.7 rating reported by households in U.S. central cities in 2011. 56

In addition to high levels of distress, HUD’s selection criteria included evidence of momentum in the

neighborhood using preexisting neighborhood development and alignment with other neighborhood

plans. The Choice neighborhoods in San Francisco, Seattle, and New Orleans are experiencing

extraordinary levels of public and private investment. In the first two cities, strong regional housing markets described in the design plans section of chapter 2 will reinforce the positive effects of the

investments.

Both the Eastern Bayview and Yesler Choice initiatives benefit from being nested in comprehensive,

publicly vetted plans for redevelopment of the neighborhoods. Eastern Bayview is part of the much

larger Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point redevelopment plan. When complete, the area will

include more than 12,000 new residential units, a research and development campus for emerging

technologies, retail business, arts and community spaces, and more than 350 acres of parks and open

space. Appendix B.4 notes how being part of the larger plan has led to delays in timing and complex

decisionmaking processes, but a location with such significant non-Choice investments offers a positive environment to advance Choice’s ultimate revitalization goals. The Seattle Housing Authority (SHA)

envisions a major transformation of Yesler into a highrise mixed-income, mixed-use neighborhood. The

plan has considerable community buy-in because of intense review by the general public and city council and a formal cooperative agreement between the city and SHA. The city is contributing approximately

$35 mil ion to the redevelopment, mostly for infrastructure improvements.

Non-Choice investments also play a role in Ibervil e-Tremé and Woodlawn, but less so in Quincy Corridor.

Ibervil e-Tremé was a focus of various planning efforts after Hurricane Katrina and is now fortunate to have large-scale activities related to transportation, built environment, and economic development. The Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO) claimed $43.4 mil ion in committed funds for the neighborhood, nearly

twice that claimed in Woodlawn, which had the second highest amount. The New Orleans Choice team’s

programmatic plans do not appear explicitly integrated with external redevelopment activities (described in chapter 5 on coordination and leverage). In the northeast section of Woodlawn, the University of Chicago has been implementing a $2 bil ion redevelopment plan in Woodlawn including new dorms and mixed-use

buildings in its South Campus. The investments outside of Choice funding in Quincy Corridor discussed in the sections that fol ow do not reach the scale of the other Choice neighborhoods.

56 American Housing Survey 2011.

60

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

PUBLIC SAFETY

Choice focuses on improving public safety and reducing violent crime, not only within and around the

target development, but also throughout the Choice neighborhood. One qualifying criterion for

neighborhood distress included a Part I violent crime rate more than 1.5 times that of the city rate

between 2007 and 2009. 57 Quincy Corridor, Woodlawn, Eastern Bayview, and Yesler qualified as distressed using this criterion. 58 HUD has ambitious goals for Choice to improve safety for residents in the target development and the neighborhood. In coordination with local police departments and

community organizations, the notice of funding availability (NOFA) stated that the grantees should aim

to dramatically lower crime rates in the revitalized neighborhoods. 59 HUD requires grantees to monitor and report on violent crime rates throughout their grant.

Beyond improving the quality of life for residents, neighborhood safety wil affect the success of Choice’s implementation. As described in appendix B, the level of violence in Woodlawn caused the grantee team

to speed up the demolition process. A few residents of the target development in Boston who had been

temporarily relocated expressed concerns about returning to the redeveloped Quincy Heights housing

development because of safety issues in Quincy Corridor. Interviews with stakeholders also reflect

concerns that crime could hinder commercial development and discourage middle-income residents

from moving to or staying in the neighborhood.

The following sections describe the level of violent crime in the Choice neighborhoods, including

reported crime rates and residents’ perceptions of crime; funding for public safety activities and

coordination across federal agencies; and the grantees’ plans and progress on implementing efforts

related to reducing the level of violence and increasing public safety in the target developments and

Choice neighborhoods.

VIOLENT CRIME IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS

All of the first five implementation grantees have significant problems with violent crime (exhibit 4.2). In 2012, violent crime rates ranged from 17.1 crimes per 1,000 population in Ibervil e-Tremé to 22.8 in

Woodlawn. During the 2010 to 2012 application and early implementation period, all five Choice

neighborhoods had violent crime rates at least 200 percent higher than their respective cities. In 2012, these rates ranged from 2.2 times higher in Woodlawn (Chicago) and Eastern Bayview (San Francisco) to

3.6 times higher in Yesler (Seattle). 60 Qualitative data on concerns around violent crime from interviews and focus groups largely reflect these rates.

57 Part I violent crime as defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports classification system includes homicide, aggravated assault, robbery, and rape.

58 From 2007 to 2009, the New Orleans Police Department calculated that Ibervil e-Tremé’s violent crime rate was 1.35 times greater than the rate for the city of New Orleans.

59 HUD (2010a).

60 Although these five neighborhoods had relatively comparable violent crime rates, differences in population size across neighborhoods indicate considerable variation in the total count of violent crimes in 2012: 43 in Yesler, 199

in Quincy Corridor, 213 in Ibervil e-Tremé, 317 in Eastern Bayview, and 546 in Woodlawn.

61

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit 4.2. Violent Crime Rates (per 1,000 people) in Choice Neighborhoods and Cities, 2012

Target Development

Neighborhood to

Change in Number of Crimes per

and City

Rate

City Ratio

1,000 People, 2010–2012

Quincy Corridor

19.9

2.4

0.0

Boston

8.3

(1.0)

Woodlawn

22.8

2.2

(3.8)

Chicago

10.4

(1.0)

Iberville-Tremé

17.1

2.5

1.4

New Orleans

6.7

0.1

Eastern Bayview

17.6

2.2

(1.2)

San Francisco

8.1

0.3

Yesler

19.9

3.6

6.4

Seattle

5.5

0.2

Choice = Choice Neighborhoods Initiative.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of crime data obtained from each jurisdiction

Neighborhood crime rates tend to fluctuate from year to year, so ideally one should examine several

years of data to make firm conclusions. 61 Nonetheless, early evidence indicates that crime in Woodlawn has fallen somewhat; violent crime decreased 3.8 crimes per 1,000 people between 2010 and 2012. 62

Crime was also falling citywide in Chicago between 2010 and 2012. Violent crime rates were more

volatile in Quincy Corridor and Eastern Bayview, decreasing between 2010 and 2011 and increasing

again in 2012. Violent crime rates appeared to be increasing in Iberville-Tremé and Yesler, compared

with fairly flat rates in the respective cities.

Particularly troubling are the 2012 homicide rates in Woodlawn (0.8 per 1,000 people), Iberville-Tremé

(0.8 per 1,000 people), and Eastern Bayview (0.4 per 1,000 people). Eastern Bayview’s rate was 5.3

times that for the City of San Francisco and this neighborhood accounted for 12 percent of all homicides in San Francisco in 2012. Woodlawn’s homicide rate was 4.4 times the rate for the City of Chicago and

Iberville-Tremé’s was 1.9 times the rate for the City of New Orleans. Quincy Corridor’s rate was not

disproportionate and Yesler had no homicides in 2012. (For a detailed look at crime statistics between

2010 and 2012 for the FY 2010–11 Choice Neighborhoods, see appendix G.)

Consistent with the reported crime statistics, residents reported in the baseline survey that they thought violent crime was a problem in their communities. Although 80 percent or more of the respondents in

the Choice neighborhoods felt safe outside their homes during the day, safety was a bigger perceived

problem at night, ranging from 50 percent who felt safe in Eastern Bayview to 67 percent in Iberville-

Tremé. More than one-third of respondents in Quincy Corridor and Woodlawn thought that violent

61 Crime rates in small areas can experience wide swings from year to year even with small changes in the number of crimes (Osgood, 2000).

62 Evidence indicates this trend continued in 2013. In Woodlawn during the first two quarters of 2013, substantially fewer violent crimes were reported (215), compared with the same period in 2012 (282).

62

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

crime, including attacks, robberies, and shootings, was a big problem, and more than two-thirds thought violent crime was at least somewhat problematic. Gangs were considered a problem in Woodlawn (67

percent) and Quincy Corridor (52 percent). Residents had lower perceptions of crime in Iberville-Tremé

and Yesler than might have been expected given their neighborhoods’ reported crime rates. Residents

of Iberville-Tremé also perceived their neighborhood to have higher levels of collective efficacy than in other Choice neighborhoods, which might mitigate their fear of crime in the area.

Across the five Choice locations, the residents of the Choice target developments did not consistently

feel more or less safe than their surrounding neighbors. In Woodlawn and Quincy Corridor, residents of

the target developments were less likely to feel safe at night in their neighborhood than residents of the rest of the Choice neighborhood. Residents living in Iberville, however, were more likely to feel safe than other residents of the neighborhood. In Eastern Bayview and Yesler, residents who lived inside and

those who lived outside of the target development reported no significant difference in nighttime safety perceptions.

FUNDING AND FEDERAL COORDINATION

As of September 2013, investments to address violent crime and public safety in Choice Neighborhoods

came mostly from the PSE grants and funds committed from other federal and local programs. Limited

Choice funds are devoted to public safety because these funds largely draw from the already

constrained people supportive services budget. Funding from the housing budget wil also improve

safety, because most of the housing revitalization included planned built environment design features

and enhancements to improve public safety (chapter 2). These improvements include reconnecting the

target development to the street grid (Alice Griffith and Iberville), creating defensible spaces (Grove Parc, Iberville, and Yesler), speeding up demolition of vacant target development buildings (Grove Parc), or adding space for onsite security personnel (Quincy Heights).

Public safety is one area in which the coordination of federal agencies through the White House-led

Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative was evident. Shortly after the FY 2010–11 Choice implementation

grants were awarded, it was announced that combined they would also receive $2 mil ion in PSE grant

funding via an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and HUD. (These

grants are described in greater detail in the following section.) The City of San Francisco was also

awarded a $1 million Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation (Byrne) grant in September 2013, with an explicit focus on Eastern Bayview. 63 Federal stakeholders also demonstrated leadership by creating the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention in 2010. Developed at the direction of the White House, the

initiative includes six federal agencies and seeks to foster broad collaboration regarding youth

violence. 64 The cities of Boston and Chicago (along with four others) were invited to participate in the 63 Planned activities under the Byrne grant include improving service delivery for trauma exposed children and youth and adult victims of crimes and along with a neighborhood-engagement and community-building

component. (For more detail, see the press announcement at

http://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/index.aspx?page=285.)

64 For more information about the forum, see http://findyouthinfo.gov/youth-topics/preventing-youth-

violence/about-national-forum.

63

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

forum in October 2010. The City of New Orleans was added to the forum in 2012. All three cities

developed citywide comprehensive plans to reduce youth violence, including programs that address

prevention, intervention, enforcement, and reentry.

The Choice grant applications (May 2011) and qualitative data show that all five Choice grantees and

their partners are using resources other than the Choice and PSE funds to address public safety concerns in Choice neighborhoods. The level of additional funding varies, with a considerable amount of

committed funds in Woodlawn to relatively little in Iberville-Tremé. 65 In the Woodlawn application, the grantee provided documentation for several mil ion dol ars in committed funds during the 5 years of the Choice grant, including investments of $2.55 mil ion by the University of Chicago and nearly $1.5 mil ion by the Chicago Police Department.

ONGOING AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES

Most of the grantee teams’ activities related to public safety focused on community organizing,

community policing, or youth education and violence prevention. The extent to which early progress has

been made on implementing public safety activities (outside of the PSE-funded activities) was largely

driven by whether there was an entity in the neighborhood focused on public safety. The Network of

Woodlawn (NOW), the neighborhood lead in Woodlawn, dedicated staff to operating the Woodlawn

Public Safety Alliance (WPSA) after the Choice grant was awarded. Project RIGHT is part of the Choice

team in Quincy Corridor and does community engagement and organizing with a particular focus on

preventing violence by addressing crime in the neighborhood.

WPSA is the coordinator for the Woodlawn CARE (Chicago Antiviolence and Restoration Effort)

col aborative, which involves the Safe Passages program (to get children safely to school) and the Youth Summer Employment Program. WPSA has also implemented an Incident Response Plan that organizes the

community to pray with victims’ families after a murder or gang violence and to draw attention to the

violence problem. WPSA returns to the block several times after the incident to pray and facilitate any helpful social supports. WSPA also plays a role in training and supporting block clubs and provides youth activities and mentoring through their PlayStreets program, which is targeted to Grove Parc and Parkway Gardens (another assisted-housing development just outside the Choice boundary on South Martin Luther

King Drive). In coordination with Preservation of Affordable Housing, Inc., and NOW, WPSA also persuaded the Chicago Police Department’s 3rd District to expand foot patrols and police cars in the area between 60th and 63rd Streets and South Martin Luther King Drive and South Cottage Grove Avenue, which has led

to reductions in reported crime in 2013. These public safety measures did not rely directly on Choice funds.

In Boston, Project RIGHT has been focused on crime in the Quincy Corridor for some time and is an

active member of the Blue Hill Avenue Neighborhood Response Team, which addresses crime and blight

in the neighborhood. Choice funds provided for the hiring of a trauma coordinator in 2012 for the Grove Hall Violence Intervention Program, which is funded by the Boston Public Health Commission and

operated by Project RIGHT.

65 Most committed funds related to public safety were documented as leverage in the second-round applications for the people component of Choice.

64

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Limited evidence indicated that the grantee team leadership were focused on public safety or were

actively coordinating with local police departments in Ibervil e-Tremé and Eastern Bayview. Some

progress has been made in Eastern Bayview by Urban Strategies in their role as the lead on supportive

services for residents. Using Choice funds, Urban Strategies has implemented a small Man-Up Safety

Initiative to support and organize men in Alice Griffith and get youth involved in the Green Streets

program to provide job training and prevent gang activity. 66 Alice Griffith had 24 residents who participated in the Hunter’s Point Family’s Peacekeepers program, which employs a violence

interruption model. In addition, the San Francisco Police Department regularly attends and provides

updates at the Alice Griffith community meetings.

The New Orleans Police Department appears not to be actively involved with the Choice planning.

Although the crime statistics may indicate otherwise for the whole Iberville-Tremé community, residents did not perceive violent crime as a significant issue in Iberville after HANO’s police department installed security cameras several years ago. (Only 19 percent of Iberville baseline survey respondents feel unsafe at night compared with 34 percent of respondents from the surrounding Choice neighborhood.) The City

of New Orleans also developed a strategic plan with their participation in the National Forum on Youth

Violence Prevention, the “NOLA for LIFE PLAYbook,” which takes a public health approach to reducing

youth violence and homicides. 67 Based on observations of grantee meetings and interviews with stakeholders, it did not appear that the New Orleans Choice team was actively coordinating with

agencies or organizations responsible for implementing this strategic plan.

In Yesler, SHA has been implementing community policing practices for a number of years and contracts

with the Seattle Police Department to provide a dedicated community police team officer to the Yesler

Terrace community. SHA dedicated Choice funding to an annual survey of 911 cal ers (conducted in

English) in the Yesler area, but it is unclear how they wil be used to inform the work of the community officer.

Public Safety Enhancement Grants

Shortly after the grantees were notified about the Choice awards in the fall of 2011, they were awarded $2 million collectively (through a noncompetitive process) in PSE grants to enhance their public safety efforts. The PSE grants were made possible by an interagency agreement between HUD and DOJ. HUD’s

Office of Public and Indian Housing staff received support from and worked closely with DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) in the design of the program and review of the grantee proposals.

HUD is responsible for disbursing and monitoring the PSE funds. Initial y, each site was expected to

receive $400,000 in implementation support after submitting a proposal on their planned activities. SHA 66 The Man-UP Initiative, developed by Urban Strategies, is designed to engage male residents and support them in their efforts to ensure that Alice Griffith is a safe place for children. The Green Streets program is a recycling and composting venture of public housing residents that began at three public housing properties in San Francisco with the support of Urban Strategies and McCormack Baron Ragan. Residents who participate have barriers to work, such as gang affiliation. For more information, see ourgreenstreets.org.

67 National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention (2013).

65

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

declined the funds, and it was decided to split their $400,000 into $80,000 for each Choice

neighborhood (including Yesler) for technical assistance. 68 Grantees receiving implementation support were required to demonstrate an initial match of leveraged funds of 10 percent. 69

The PSE grants, as their name implies, are intended to enhance place-based public safety activities

already going on in the Choice neighborhoods. For example, the enhancement might be used to increase

the number of residents served by a program. The program has two goals:

1. Support evidence-based strategies designed to reduce violent crime, gang activity, and illegal

drug activity in distressed communities

2. Increase the use of place-based, evidence-based strategies focused on stabilizing and revitalizing

distressed communities⁷⁰

The PSE grants also have a clear focus on obtaining results—grantees are required to establish interim

and final outcome measures. HUD will hold one-half the implementation funding ($200,000) until the

grantees demonstrate they have met their interim objectives and documented an additional 20 percent

leverage or match (beyond the original match requirement).

It has taken time for HUD to draft program guidelines after the funding was announced, and the

grantees struggled to conform to these guidelines as they were developing their proposals. HUD and BJA

had to spend time after the funding announcement to develop the program parameters and guidance

for the grantees. Grantees were required to submit several rounds of proposals. Based on review of

comments from HUD and BJA on the grantees’ proposals, grantees had difficulty demonstrating an

evidence base for their initiatives, establishing baseline data, and setting reasonable goals given their specified interventions. HUD and BJA provided feedback to the grantees on the proposals, and grantees

also received help from the Local Supportive Initiatives Corporation, the technical assistance provider for the Byrne grant recipients. Several grantees and their partner organizations, particularly in Quincy Corridor, expressed frustration with the drawn-out process given the immediate safety challenges their

neighborhoods were facing. As of September 2013, the grantees were finalizing their technical

assistance plans and were not expected to finalize their implementation plans until early 2014. Early PSE

proposals indicated the fol owing use of funds:

• In Quincy Corridor, funds would support a Youth Connects program social worker who would be

stationed in a local police station to make confidential referrals for at-risk youth

68 After engaging with Yesler Terrace residents who requested police patrols at night to monitor gang activity and violence, SHA met with the Seattle Police Department to discuss using the PSE grant for this purpose. The police department determined that not enough Part I violent crime existed to warrant use of the PSE grant for hot-spot patrolling in the Yesler area.

69 Leverage or committed funds documented in the second-round Choice application could be applied to this requirement.

70 These goals are taken from the Public Safety Enhancement Supplemental Funding to the FY 2010 and FY 2011

Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grantees Comprehensive Project Guide. (HUD 2013b).

66

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

• In Woodlawn, POAH, the City of Chicago, NOW, and WPSA would implement the Prevention and

Intervention Pipeline, which would include expanding several preexisting programs for Grove

Parc residents and youth (PlayStreets and assistance to block clubs); a pilot neighborhood

security camera initiative with the University of Chicago Police Department; and Becoming a

Man Sports Edition in Hyde Park High School. 71

• Urban Strategies in Eastern Bayview would incorporate comprehensive case management,

particularly for reoffenders; enhance their Green Streets program; and focus on col aborating

with other organizations such as Hunter’s Point Family, the 3rd Street Youth Center and

Transitions Clinic, the San Francisco Housing Authority, and the San Francisco Police

Department.

• HANO and the City of New Orleans would implement a program cal ed Fight Crime and Blight

that would focus on newly released parolees and would adapt the Green Streets program from

San Francisco and the Cleanslate program.

CRITICAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENTS

CCIs are neighborhood projects funded by Choice. They are intended to spur other public and private

investments that will benefit current residents and improve the attractiveness to potential in-movers.

CCI funding is the most direct mechanism for contributing to the revitalization of the neighborhood. As stated in the 2010 NOFA, CCIs can include—

1. Development or improvement of community facilities to promote upward mobility, self-

sufficiency, or improved quality of life for residents of the neighborhood, such as construction or

rehabilitation of parks and community gardens, or environmental improvements.

2. Activities to promote economic development, such as development or improvement of transit,

retail, community financial institutions, public services, facilities, assets, or other community

resources.

CCI projects are intended as new investments in the neighborhood; grantees were not expected to use CCI funds for projects that could be funded by external sources or for traditional neighborhood infrastructure.

Other than the broad intention of the CCI funds, HUD had not specified detailed criteria for CCI project selection in the NOFA or at the beginning of the grant period. Stakeholders in three of the Choice locations reported confusion about what types of projects were al owed. Grantees had to negotiate with HUD

regarding some of the proposed projects because restrictions were not wel defined, a process that

frustrated grantees in Quincy Corridor and Woodlawn. HUD has already recognized the need for CCI

process improvements and has made changes for later rounds of grantees. Specifical y, they refined the

NOFA language, developed a detailed written guidance document and promising practices guide, and

established a panel of Choice staff to review the CCI proposals. One criterion for approval is whether the project is likely to contribute to the neighborhood transformation effort.

71 Randomized trials of Becoming a Man Sports Edition conducted by the University of Chicago Crime Lab have demonstrated impressive reductions in violence and increases in engagement with school. See

http://crimelab.uchicago.edu/page/becoming-man-bam-sports-edition-findings for more information.

67

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

The exact amount dedicated to CCIs was determined by the grantees, but it could not exceed 15 percent

of the grant according to the NOFA (exhibit 4.3). The Boston, San Francisco, and Seattle Choice grantees chose to spend the maximum al owed, which equaled about $3 mil ion in Quincy Corridor and about

$4.5 mil ion each in Eastern Bayview and Yesler. 72 The Chicago Choice grantee committed about 7 percent of the grant to CCIs ($2.1 mil ion), and the New Orleans grantee committed the lowest share at 4 percent of its funds ($1.2 million). 73 In addition to these funds, investments classified under the housing budget in Woodlawn and Ibervil e-Tremé wil also improve the neighborhood, such as the offsite housing

planned in Woodlawn and Iberville-Tremé, POAH’s housing loan fund (described in the following

section), and a communitywide senior center that is part of a renovated Grove Parc building.

Each grantee team determined its own process and criteria for selecting CCIs. In Seattle, a collaborative process had already established goals and some design choices for redeveloping the Yesler

neighborhood. The grantee team selected projects that fit into these goals, were feasible to implement

with current partners, and were projected to have a notable impact on the area. The Boston and San

Francisco grantee teams selected CCI projects by leading Choice-specific collaborative processes that

included Choice grantees, residents, and government representatives. The Boston Choice approach was

based on perceived impact of the proposed intervention and its financial viability, and was bolstered by mayoral leadership. The San Francisco grantee cited community need as the driver for their choices. In

Woodlawn and Iberville-Tremé, the process appears to be in the hands of the lead grantee, and the

selection of projects was stil pending in September 2013.

The grantees are taking advantage of the flexibility of the CCI funding and have proposed many different types of projects aligned with local priorities. Exhibit 4.3 represents the grantees’ plans as of September 2013; plans may have changed in some Choice neighborhoods since that time. The Seattle and Boston

Choice teams chose to spread the money across several investments. In Yesler, CCIs are funding key

components of the comprehensive plan for the rebuilt neighborhood, including a park, a community

center, and projects related to pedestrian access and the new street layout. The Boston Choice team

planned projects are relatively concentrated in its smaller Choice neighborhood. They plan to improve

two play areas and upgrade the physical conditions of nonprofit and commercial buildings. They also

coinvested in a previously planned business incubator in the former Pearl Meat building. HUD has

promoted the Boston team’s decisionmaking process and project selection as a model for other

grantees. Despite some delays in individual projects, the Seattle and Boston Choice teams were making

progress in some of the CCI projects as of the fall of 2013. Comments from stakeholders in the two cities indicate that the CCIs chosen were ones that the residents considered important and believed would

enhance the neighborhood.

72 The Yesler amount reflects the sum of the grants from 2011 and 2012.

73 The Woodlawn figure reflects the Chicago grantee’s budget request as of December 2013.

68

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit 4.3. Choice Critical Community Improvement Funds and Activities, as of September 30, 2013

Choice

No Longer

Neighborhood

Part of

Funding

(City)

Description of Activity

CCI Plans

Category

Amount

Renovating Martin Luther King School playground and park

Recreational space

$825,000

Renovating Haynes Elementary School play Lot

Recreational space

$450,000

Economic

Redeveloping Pearl Meat as business incubator

$500,000

development

Improving residences for homeowners in Quincy Street area

X

Property conditions

$0

Funding Open Air Boston, a program providing Wi-Fi for Grove Hall

Quincy

Other services

$300,000

neighborhood

Corridor

Funding capital improvements to nonprofit organizations within the

Property conditions

$200,000

(Boston)

neighborhood using Enhanced Partners for Non-Profits Program

Funding business façade improvements using the ReStore program

and nonprofit capital improvements using the Partners for Non-Profits

Property conditions

$300,000

program

Supporting additional commercial redevelopment and infrastructure

Economic

$500,000

projects

development

Total funds for Quincy Corridor

$2,575,000

Funding for nonhousing capital projects al ocated to specific projects

Unclassified

$1,960,000

with HUD approval

X

Creating the Renew Woodlawn Fund (revolving housing fund)

X

Property conditions

$0

Improving the 63rd and Cottage transit stop (repainting and instal ing

Pedestrian conditions

$140,000

better lighting and security cameras)

Woodlawn

Developing a hotel, including a ful -service restaurant and potentially

Economic

(Chicago)

Unknown

other ground-floor retail businesses (proposed)

development

Developing a site for a pharmacy or small-scale grocery store

Retail services

Unknown

(proposed)

Expanding broadband access

Other services

Unknown

Total funds for Woodlawn

$2,100,000

69

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Choice

No Longer

Neighborhood

Part of

Funding

(City)

Description of Activity

CCI Plans

Category

Amount

Iberville-Tremé Neighborhood Chal enge Grants

X

Unclassified

$1,184,000

(New Orleans)

Total funds for Iberville-Tremé

$1,184,000

Eastern

Funding early childhood education center in Alice Griffith

Community facilities

$ 2,287,500

Bayview

Funding Alice Griffith Opportunity Center (a community center)

X

Community facilities

$ 2,287,500

(San Francisco) Total funds for Eastern Bayview

$ 4,575,000

Subsidizing affordable retail businesses in the ground floor of

Spectrum Development Solution’s apartment building (to be

Retail services

$750,000

reallocated to other affordable retail subsidies)

X

Creating pedestrian hil climb along 10th Avenue

Pedestrian conditions

$650,000

Creating community garden in Horiuchi Park

Recreational space

$100,000

Yesler

Rehabilitating Washington Hall (building available for community

Community facilities

$300,000

(Seattle)

meetings, classes, and cultural performances)

Constructing South Washington Street (southern portion of Our

Pedestrian conditions

$2,059,500

Greenstreet, an initiative to make the neighborhood more ecofriendly)

Building a pedestrian connection between Main Street and the

Pedestrian conditions

$590,500

neighborhood park

Total funds for Yesler

$4,450,000

CCI = Critical Community Improvement. Choice = Choice Neighborhoods Initiative.

Sources: FY 2010–11 second-round application for Choice; Yesler’s FY 2012 application; observations of Choice grantee team meetings and interviews with key staff; review of grantees’ quarterly and annual reports to HUD

70

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

The CCI projects in the other three Choice neighborhoods were not settled as of September 2013. In

Woodlawn, POAH designated their CCI funds to support the Renew Woodlawn Fund, an investment pool

to be used to acquire, finance, rehabilitate, and sell vacant homes on blocks in need of housing stability.

HUD determined that the proposed fund would be more appropriate as part of the housing plan, so

POAH al ocated $1.75 mil ion of its housing spending to create the fund. As of September 2013, POAH

had submitted a proposal to build a hotel and a smal grocery store or pharmacy but had not yet

received approval from HUD. HANO had initial y proposed CCI funds for Neighborhood Chal enge Grants

to support “efforts that contribute directly to infrastructure, retail and jobs, and increasing cultural prominence.” HANO had never moved to detailed planning of their smal grants program, however, and

decided to rethink their CCI strategy with the assistance of HUD and technical assistance providers. In Eastern Bayview, one-half the CCI funds were freed up in 2013 when funding from another source

became available to pay for the building of a new community center, and HUD asked the grantee to

review their request for the other proposed project, an early childhood center, before moving forward.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

In the framework of Choice, economic development is an important part of transforming distressed

neighborhoods and indicators related to economic development are included in the grantees’ annual

performance metrics. Economic development goals in Choice include attracting retail amenities to serve

the residents and increasing the number of jobs in these distressed areas. The Quincy Corridor team’s

investment in the Pearl Meat project (described in the following section) is a good example of how

Choice can advance goals in this area. Other grantees’ efforts related to employment opportunities have focused on workforce development (described in chapter 3) and federal hiring requirements related to

Choice funding.

Choice has a direct impact on employment opportunities through construction and other jobs needed to

implement the Choice plan. Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 requires that

wherever HUD financial assistance is expended for housing or community development, to the greatest

extent feasible, economic opportunities wil be given to residents and businesses in the area in which

the funding is expended. 74 Some Choice neighborhoods are in cities that have even more stringent hiring criteria for projects in the city, and some grantees went beyond those requirements for the

Choice redevelopment. Grantees report the number of neighborhood residents assisted through Section

3 as one of their annual performance indicators, so progress can be monitored over time. The

construction and trade jobs created by Choice redevelopment often have requirements (for example,

education, training, union trade membership) that many local residents cannot meet in a short period of 74 A resident qualifies under Section 3 if he/she is: “(1) a public housing resident; or (2) a low- or very low-income person residing in the Choice neighborhood metropolitan area in which the Section 3 covered assistance is expended. … Section 3 business concerns are businesses meeting one of the fol owing criteria (a) 51 percent or more owned by Section 3

residents; or (b) at least 30 percent of its ful -time employees include persons that are currently Section 3 residents, or within 3 years of the date of first employment with the business concern were Section 3 residents; or (c) provides evidence, as required, of a commitment to subcontract in excess of 25 percent of the dollar award of al subcontracts to be awarded to business concerns that meet the qualifications in the above two” criteria. (HUD 2014: 1–2).

71

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

time. This problem underscores the importance of the workforce development programs described

previously.

Outside of jobs generated from the redevelopment of the target developments, at this early stage

Choice grantees appear to be focused on attracting retail businesses to the neighborhood that would

fulfill unmet needs for goods and services, such as grocery stores. According to the baseline survey, the share of neighborhood households that did their regular shopping for food inside the neighborhood

ranged from about one-half of households living in Iberville-Tremé to more than three-fourths of

households in Quincy Corridor. New retail business can also send an important market signal to attract

more businesses and other retail outlets to these distressed areas. The efforts in the Choice areas have had mixed success, with a large grocery store opening and then closing in Eastern Bayview and plans for one fal ing through in Woodlawn. If approved and successful, POAH’s proposal for a smal grocery store

or pharmacy in Woodlawn would provide an example of Choice directly improving retail services for

Woodlawn residents. SHA’s unspecified activities related to affordable retail ventures may also bear

fruit in the future.

Iberville-Tremé and Eastern Bayview have experienced some retail growth through non-Choice

investments. Iberville-Tremé looked forward to the planned opening of two grocery stores to serve the

neighborhood and make the area more attractive to prospective residents. Some planned retail efforts

in Eastern Bayview were stalled or delayed because of the dissolution of the San Francisco

Redevelopment Authority, but new stores and restaurants have opened on Third Street. Pedestrian

access to the new outlets is not ideal. A portion of the route from Alice Griffith to Third Street is

industrial, the route lacks a permanent buffer between the sidewalk and street, and the sidewalk is

missing in portions where driveways are present. 75 Beyond Eastern Bayview, the development at Candlestick Point slated for 206-17 should lead to additional retail businesses in the nearby area in the longer term.

In Quincy Corridor, the redevelopment of the former Pearl Meat facility into a business incubator will

create long-term jobs in the neighborhood and nurture entrepreneurs and smal businesses. The

planning for the Pearl Meat redevelopment was well under way before the Choice grant application, but

the addition of Choice funding sped up the financing (HUD, 2013). This large-scale neighborhood

economic development required organizations with expertise in this area, such as the Boston team’s

cograntee, the Dorchester Bay Economic Development Corporation, and committed public and private

partners. The hotel in Woodlawn proposed as a CCI could be another example of Choice-funded

economic development, but it still needed to attract outside investors as of September 2013. POAH’s

completed feasibility study should improve its chances for success. Iberville-Tremé may gain from the

leveraged economic development activities nearby, in particular the new biomedical district adjacent to the neighborhood that is expected to create thousands of jobs. As of the fall of 2013, the stakeholder

75 The research team observed conditions along the walking route west on Fitzgerald Avenue to Third Street in August 2013. For a description of the pedestrian survey in the five Choice neighborhoods, see appendix C.

72

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

interviews in New Orleans did not mention any Choice-related programs to connect workers living in the

neighborhood to these new jobs.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Improving the built environment of the neighborhoods is explicitly part of HUD’s goals for Choice

neighborhoods. As detailed in the analysis of built environment in appendix C, three interrelated

principles implicitly guide the grantees’ plans regarding the design of the target development and hopes for the Choice neighborhood: connectivity, services, and the quality of the public realm. The connectivity principle means that the target development is well connected to the neighborhood and the

neighborhood to the rest of the city. The services principle refers to neighborhood amenities, especially services and facilities that meet the needs of residents. These services include educational services, such as daycare and schools (discussed in chapter 3), and retail services, like the grocery stores described in the economic development section. Neighborhoods should also al ow residents easy access to transit,

park space, and recreational space. Finally, the principle of quality of the public realm considers the quantity and quality of spaces outside the home. The adequacy of the public realm depends on the type,

amount, and spatial distribution of public space. Having a vibrant pedestrian environment is important

because a significant portion of the public realm is in the form of streets and sidewalks.

CONNECTIVITY

The first principle of built environment interventions focuses on connectivity. The site designs for the target developments should improve integration between the buildings of public or HUD-assisted

housing and the rest of the neighborhood. For example, the Ibervil e plan includes recreating the historic street grid to improve pedestrian-based connectivity. In the plan for Alice Griffith, midblock crossings and pedestrian paths wil provide public access through the middle of a privately developed block, and a continuous network of public spaces will help to integrate the development with the surrounding

community.

The Seattle grantee team in particular is using their CCI investments to better integrate the pathways

within Yesler and to other parts of the city. A new pedestrian path wil connect Main Street to a

neighborhood park, and the 10th Avenue hill climb will safely connect Yesler Terrace with the Little

Saigon area south of it. In addition, the creation of South Washington Street wil implement the

southern portion of the Seattle Department of Transportation’s Green Street plans. A green street has specific design requirements and aims to attract pedestrians and strengthen connections between

residential enclaves and other downtown amenities. 76 These investments are facilitated by SHA’s control of much of the land in the neighborhood.

Observations of the built environment showed that Ibervil e-Tremé had the worst sidewalk connectivity of the Choice neighborhoods. Twelve percent of the street segments did not have sidewalks, and 14 percent

76 City of Seattle (2012).

73

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

had significant barriers to walking. 77 In addition, nearly one-half of the residents in Ibervil e-Tremé thought that poorly maintained sidewalks were a problem, compared with about one-third in the other four Choice neighborhoods. No specific investments address the sidewalk issues, but investments outside of Choice

are likely to improve neighborhood connectivity in other ways. As part of New Orleans’s ongoing street

repair program, new bicycle lanes were added to Esplanade and St. Bernard Avenues. The new Lafitte

Greenway Bicycle and Pedestrian Path, a 2.6-mile multiuse trail and linear park, runs through the Choice neighborhood and wil connect the French Quarter to other neighborhoods in New Orleans.

SERVICES

The second aspect of built environment is services and amenities. Being well served by public transit is closely related to connectivity goals. Well-developed public transit can be a draw for new households to move in and can improve current residents’ ability to access jobs and services outside the neighborhood.

Transit is particularly critical for residents without access to a car for at least a few hours a day, which ranged from 21 percent in Eastern Bayview to 33 percent in Quincy Corridor in the baseline survey. HUD

recognized transit’s importance by including the goal as one of the rating factors in the Choice NOFA and listing the number of transit stops within 0.5 miles of the target development as an annual performance metric for the grantees.

New transit options are planned for all the Choice neighborhoods except Woodlawn. The investments

should increase the current share of residents who regularly use public transit, which ranged from a low of 20 percent in Iberville-Tremé to up to 37 percent in Quincy Corridor. The projects include lines under construction in 2014, such as a streetcar expansion along North Rampart Street in Iberville-Tremé and

the First Hill Streetcar line near Yesler. A stop on the new bus rapid transit line will be located at the entrance to the new Alice Griffith site in Eastern Bayview. Choice funding reportedly helped the local

team make the case to advance the timetable for the line 5 years earlier than originally planned. In

these three neighborhoods, the improvements can help mitigate the additional traffic that will result

from the planned increase in housing density. Other projects are stil in the planning stage, such as the Boston’s Fairmount Initiative, which is seeking funding for a light rail station adjacent to Quincy Corridor.

In addition to connections outside the neighborhood, improving parks and play spaces in the

neighborhoods could enhance residents’ quality of life by promoting outdoor activity, enhancing the

neighborhood aesthetics, and offering safe gathering areas open to the whole community. In choosing

their CCIs, the Boston and Seattle grantees prioritized greater access to park space for al neighborhood residents. Their col aborative decision processes led to the commitment of CCI funds for a community

garden in Horiuchi Park in Yesler and the two play areas connected to elementary schools in Quincy

Corridor. In Iberville-Tremé, the revitalized Louis Armstrong Park, which was planned and funded

outside of Choice, is expected to draw in people from outside the neighborhood through special events.

The condition of the sidewalks, occasional lack of marked pedestrian crossings, buildings in deteriorating 77 To assess the built environment of the Choice neighborhoods, the research team collected information of a random sample of blocks in each neighborhood through Google Street View. (For more detail, see appendix C.) For the other four Choice neighborhoods, the corresponding share of segments without sidewalks ranged from 1 to 6

percent, and 4 to 8 percent of the segments had significant barriers to walking.

74

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

condition or with broken or boarded-up windows, and road-oriented lighting from Iberville-Tremé to the

park were not ideal for walking, however. 78

Another category of neighborhood investments relates to rehabilitating buildings that house cultural,

recreational, and educational programming. HUD asks that grantees track their progress in these

amenities in their annual report. Yesler’s Washington Hall, which houses community meetings, classes,

and performances, is the one approved example directly covered by CCI funds, but the early childhood

center in Eastern Bayview may be another if those plans move forward. All five Choice neighborhoods

have other civic buildings funded by non-Choice streams. For example, a separate federal grant paid for the conversion of the former steam plant in Yesler to a lifelong learning center. In partnership with

POAH in Chicago, METROsquash raised funds for the education and recreation center that will be on site

at Grove Parc. Eastern Bayview’s opera house, public library, and Col ege Track building al house

community, educational, and cultural programs open to neighborhood residents. Millions of dollars

renovated the Saenger and Carver Theaters in Iberville-Tremé. On a smaller scale, Boston Community

Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds assisted Prince Hall Grand Masonic Lodge, claimed to be the

oldest African-American fraternal organization in North America, with signage and façade repairs.

In addition to funding physical projects, the Boston and Chicago Choice grantees also planned to invest in wireless and broadband improvements for the neighborhood. Faster and more reliable Internet

access should serve several purposes. Better connecting the current residents to technology could help

students doing homework, adults searching and applying for jobs, and residents seeking out other

services they need.

QUALITY OF THE PUBLIC REALM

The final principle of a supportive built environment is the quality of the public realm. Appendix B

describes some aspects of the public realm, noting the prevalence of abandonment and rundown

housing in Woodlawn and Iberville-Tremé. A high-quality public realm promotes the safety and comfort

of pedestrians by methods such as permanent buffers between the sidewalks and the street.

Deficiencies in the public realm are caused by lack of investment or upkeep, as signaled by graffiti, litter, abandoned lots, or buildings in disrepair. Exhibit 4.4 shows that all the Choice neighborhoods had room for improvement in the quality of the public realm. Indicators reflecting neglect of property and public spaces were worst in Woodlawn and Iberville-Tremé, consistent with the findings in appendix B. Quincy

Corridor indicators were also high, with 39 percent of street segments with buildings in poor condition and 34 percent with abandonment, graffiti, or trash. Quincy Corridor also had no streets with a

continuous buffer. Although Yesler has relatively lower indicators of disinvestment, about one-fifth of its street segments still reflect disrepair or neglect, and more than one-half the street segments lack a

permanent buffer.

Some of the interventions for better connectivity and park space will enhance the public realm, but the Choice grantees and other city stakeholders also have efforts under way to specifically improve this

78 The research team observed conditions along the walking route from Ibervil e to the park entrance on N. Villere Street in June 2013.

75

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

aspect of the built environment. The most prominent example is the $3 mil ion Quincy Street Public

Realm Improvement Project’s planned changes to sidewalks, parking, and lighting along Quincy Street in

Boston. Although not directly funded by Choice, stakeholders believe that Choice had an important role

in accelerating this project’s timetable. The consultation process, which was supported by $25,000 of

Choice funds related to the improvement project, ensured that residents’ could voice their opinions

about the future streetscapes to the government agencies leading the effort. Several sources of

information other than the block survey confirmed that quality of the public realm is a serious issue in Quincy Corridor. Observations of pedestrian conditions along Quincy Street revealed several design

chal enges, including no permanent buffer and some narrow sidewalks. 79 Neighborhood stakeholders in the focus group and other meetings expressed a great deal of concern over pedestrian safety in Quincy

Corridor, and more than one-half the baseline survey respondents reported traffic safety as a problem in the neighborhood.

Exhibit 4.4. Selected Indicators on the Quality of the Public Realm

Iberville-

Eastern

Quincy

Tremé

Bayview

Corridor

Woodlawn

(New

(San

Yesler

(Boston)

(Chicago)

Orleans) Francisco) (Seattle)

Street segments with buildings in disrepair (%)

39

51

59

26

22

Street segments with some or a lot of abandoned

34

50

47

25

20

buildings and lots, graffiti, or litter (%)

Street segments without a continuous

100

41

75

89

53

permanent buffer (%)

Source: Choice Neighborhoods Block Front Survey conducted using Google Street View, August–October 2013

In Woodlawn, the Chicago Transit Authority has partnered with Choice grantees for infrastructure

improvements, such as better lighting and security cameras, at the transit stop at 63rd Street and

Cottage Grove Avenue. These improvements aim to provide a safer environment for residents to take

advantage of their physical proximity to the train. The Renew Woodlawn Fund could be applied to

improve the vibrancy of the street through the rehabilitation and reoccupancy of vacant homes.

Although less visible than other parts of the neighborhood plan, the quality of the infrastructure will also affect the public’s experience of the neighborhood environment. In Quincy Corridor, infrastructure is a concern for stakeholders who report chronic issues with utility breakdowns on Quincy Street, including

gas leaks and sewer flooding. The city will need to spend time with utility companies and Boston Water

and Sewer Commission to upgrade systems to meet the increased demand expected from the planned

neighborhood improvements. Eastern Bayview and Yesler, the two Choice neighborhoods that are part

of a broader revitalization plan, were part of comprehensive planning for infrastructure that preceded

the redevelopment of the public housing and surrounding neighborhood. Before Alice Griffith

construction could begin in Eastern Bayview, plans had to be approved for the ful 770 acres of

79 The research team observed conditions along the walking route on Quincy Street from Blue Hill Avenue to Columbia Road in August 2013.

76

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Candlestick Point/Hunters Point Shipyard project pertaining to utilities, streetscapes, and water

management. Although this process delayed development, Choice is credited with keeping the pressure

on local stakeholders to move the approval process forward. SHA finished a similar process, planning for utilities such as water and electricity for the additional housing units. The careful review process in both locations added time, but should help minimize unforeseen problems later in the development cycle.

CONCLUSION

Whether related to public safety, economic development, or the built environment, strategic

investments in neighborhood activities are positioned to further the goals for the Choice neighborhoods and residents. In the short term, these neighborhood activities can support revitalization by serving the people already living in the area and contributing to the momentum expected from redeveloping the

target development. Early signs indicate that the CCI projects in Quincy Corridor and Yesler will provide quality of life improvements for residents. They will be very visible signals of the neighborhood benefits Choice may bring and help to earn community buy-in for the initiative.

Over the first years of implementation, HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing has improved the

agency’s capacity to manage the neighborhood activities and to assist the grantees in this area. The

Choice staff improved their guidelines and procedures related to managing CCIs, which should minimize

delays and miscommunication going forward for these and future grantees. They also supplemented

their housing experience with the know-how of their DOJ colleagues to review the PSE grants. HUD has

also focused technical assistance on building the capacity of the current grantees to plan and implement their neighborhood work.

HUD required later rounds of Choice grantees to describe the feasibility and expected results of their

neighborhood plans early on. In the FY 2013 NOFA, HUD asked for more extensive discussion of the

relationship between neighborhood need, interventions, and likely impact. It also asked for the explicit role of the CCIs, non-Choice neighborhood leverage, and nonmonetary strategies in achieving the

Transformation Plan. In addition, FYs 2012 and 2013 grantees were required to describe their overall

public safety strategy and how community groups and criminal justice entities would coordinate

activities to improve safety outcomes. The step of setting baseline and program target goals for the PSE

grants was also incorporated into the FY 2013 Choice NOFA, which awards more points to applicants

who can identify these goals and describe a public safety strategy that aligns with those outcomes.

Progress has been made in the Choice-funded neighborhood plans by the grantees and HUD has

improved their capacity to manage this work. HUD can ensure success by continuing to monitor

developments as grantees select and implement the CCIs and public safety activities.

ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

• Critical Community Improvements. HUD needs to continue to refine its criteria about types and characteristics of eligible projects to facilitate the project identification process and minimize

time needed for negotiation with HUD. These refinements will be useful for current grantees

that have not yet finalized their CCI plans and future grantees. For all the first five Choice

neighborhoods, HUD wil need to monitor implementation of the plans and support grantees in

77

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

overcoming any unexpected hurdles. Finally, grantees should look for opportunities to take ful

advantage of the new projects to support Choice goals, such as promoting physical activity in

the new parks or connecting workforce development plans with the business incubator.

• Public safety activities. A high violent crime rate is among the selection criteria for Choice, and these first grantees’ activities to address crime within and beyond the PSE grants offer

important learning opportunities. How grantees are able use Choice funding, coordinate safety

activities with other Choice investments, and leverage additional resources from the local police

departments and nonprofit organizations wil provide lessons for the field. HUD and DOJ should

also continue to provide technical assistance to grantees, promote local coordination, and

monitor whether grantees are able to meet their objectives and leverage goals for the PSE

grants.

Choice moves beyond HOPE VI in asking grantees to address key neighborhood issues that wil affect the

housing redevelopment, quality of life, and access to opportunity. Given the level of neighborhood

distress, expectations for Choice’s ability to directly shift the trajectory of the neighborhood during the grant period need to be realistic. The grantees chose neighborhoods with high poverty rates and

extreme distress and were awarded more points by HUD on their application for having higher levels of

distress. The limited amount of Choice funding alone cannot be expected to turn around high crime

rates, vacant housing, poor schools, and inadequate services. Nonetheless, Choice investments that are

well implemented and suited to the local context can make a difference in the neighborhood. Future

research can investigate the benefits of the inclusion of neighborhood goals in Choice and provide

lessons for other neighborhood revitalization efforts. (For further discussion, see appendix H.)

78

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

5. COORDINATING ACTION AND LEVERAGING NEW RESOURCES

FINDINGS

• Histories of col aboration and the presence of an active, dedicated manager supported greater

coordination among stakeholders. The New Orleans, San Francisco, and Seattle grantees, all of

which had previous team experience on HOPE VI projects, began implementation with clear and

effective management structures. By September 2013, the Boston grantee had also established

good internal coordination and a set of working relations among the people, housing, and

neighborhood leads.

• The greatest amount of col aboration with external agencies and leverage of additional

resources beyond the Choice grant occurred with housing redevelopment, which required

coordinating review and approval processes and acquiring additional financing. External

coordination was also stronger in places where Choice had a major role in driving neighborhood-

scale redevelopment, like Yesler, or where Choice was deeply embedded within existing

redevelopment commitments, like Eastern Bayview.

• Active mayoral or political support for Choice was key in supporting coordination between the

project and external stakeholders, especial y with other city agencies. Mayoral or political

support was particularly critical, as more limited funding and/or additional leverage in the

neighborhood and people domains made it more difficult to influence transportation or

infrastructure planning processes, or leverage funding or investments from hospitals and

universities. Making progress in the broad goal of Choice—creating mixed-income neighborhoods

of choice and opportunity through direct and leveraged investments—appears to be promoted

best when HUD has a local partner with the ability to coordinate and control local action at a

significant scale, and to hold partners accountable for meeting their commitments. This authority

to control action best occurred in Yesler and Eastern Bayview, where Choice’s integration into a

broader neighborhood plan seems to enhance grantees’ authority and the accountability of local

partners.

• Among providers with previous HOPE VI experiences, HUD and grantees established good

working relations that contributed to smoother project implementation. HUD needed to

develop new systems and protocols with the HUD-assisted developments, which contributed to

some delays in implementation that have since been resolved.

• Even in its early implementation, Choice was credited by many of the grantees as helping to set in motion or put in place some systemic changes or improvements in local interagency

functioning. At the same time, other aspects of local or federal policy made it more difficult for Choice efforts to extend their reach beyond the target development into the Choice

neighborhood as a whole. For example, the absence of neighborhood schools among al the

Choice neighborhoods except Yesler made Choice’s goal of coordination with education reform

more difficult, although grantees did develop tools to engage with school improvement efforts.

79

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

INTRODUCTION

The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative seeks to reach beyond the redevelopment of distressed public and

assisted housing to promote comprehensive community improvements in the neighborhood as a whole.

As such, the design of the initiative emphasizes planning and coordination among different domains

beyond housing, including education, safety, economic development, and workforce development. Part

of the policymaking rationale for coordination is that, although significant, Choice grants that provide $30.5 million over 5 years are not likely to transform neighborhoods into mixed-income communities of

choice and opportunity. Instead, Choice was meant (1) to support effective col aborations among

partners to better coordinate existing efforts on behalf of residents and to make them more effective

and (2) to enlist their help in attracting additional investments, or leverage, that might more reasonably be expected to reach a scale to achieve these ambitious outcomes. 80

Choice neighborhoods were also selected, in part, because significant, colocated investments were

already under way in the neighborhood. Many of these investments have their own planning or

governance structures; for example, land use decisions are often proposed by city planning departments

and confirmed by votes of city councils. Paral el planning and governance pose real chal enges to

coordination, especially because Choice implementers do not inherently possess the authority to direct

these efforts, and Choice has relatively limited funding in its people and neighborhood domains to be

able to claim priority or control of them. For all these reasons, it is important to understand Choice’s efforts to promote coordination, if and how these efforts appear to add value to already-planned

programs, and if and how coordination efforts bring additional resources into neighborhoods. These

findings are relevant not only to Choice implementation but also for the portfolio of federal programs

within the White House Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative (NRI) that relies on coordination within

urban policy.

Accordingly, this chapter describes HUD’s role in supporting local and federal interagency coordination, HUD’s relationship with grantees, and coordination within grantee teams and between grantees and

other local stakeholders. It reviews common themes associated with more successful coordination

among the five first implementation Choice neighborhoods and reports on impediments to coordination

that were outside the control of HUD or grantees but that may need greater attention as Choice evolves.

Final y, it describes how Choice implementers have brought additional funding to neighborhoods and

the strategies they employed to attract them.

80 The terms coordination and leverage are used differently within the field. This report defines coordination as the active management of processes to ensure (1) day-to-day functioning of the initiative, (2) the identification of opportunities for multiple programs to take advantage of each other in concrete ways for the benefit of neighborhood residents, and (3) the assurance that planning and community development initiatives are aligned so as to produce Choice’s broadest objective: creating mixed-income neighborhoods of choice and opportunity.

Although leverage is often difficult to track and define, and HUD has characterized additional investments that were part of grantees’ original proposal as funds leveraged by Choice, this report characterizes leverage more strictly, as additional programs or investments that occurred after Choice started to operate and were induced by Choice investments and/or implementation.

80

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

COORDINATION AND SYSTEMS REFORM THROUGH CHOICE

HUD’S COORDINATING ROLE

Choice’s status as an ambitious new initiative for HUD makes exploring its own coordination role

important for several reasons. First, its comprehensive approach to neighborhood revitalization requires HUD to fund and support local implementers’ work outside its traditional areas of expertise, moving

beyond public housing redevelopment to areas such as schools and safety, and engaging the

Departments of Education and Justice accordingly. Second, Choice is run within HUD’s Office of Public

and Indian Housing, which had experience through the HOPE VI program in redeveloping public

housing. 81 Choice, however, intentionally targets HUD-assisted housing developments in addition to public housing, which means that Choice requires interaction between Public and Indian Housing and the Federal Housing Administration’s Office of Multifamily Housing Programs.

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

Choice is part of NRI, an effort to break down “silos” among federal agencies, build local capacity, and support the efficiency and effectiveness of existing programs. 82 Agencies involved with NRI include HUD

and the U.S. Departments of Education, Justice, Treasury, and Health and Human Services. From HUD’s

perspective, participation within NRI working groups allowed for greater access to partners at Education and Justice who could provide HUD with subject-area expertise, give advice about how to craft the

Choice notice of funding availability, or NOFA, and review education- and safety-related aspects of

applications. In this light, the coordination of DOJ Public Safety Enhancement grants to Choice

neighborhoods (described in chapter 4) is an important example of the potential benefits of federal

interagency coordination.

Only one of the first five Choice neighborhoods (Quincy Corridor) had also received a Promise

Neighborhoods implementation grant that overlaps with Choice boundaries, although others had

applied. 83 The experience of Choice grantees suggests the need for better coordination between the Choice and Promise Neighborhoods programs, as NRI has acknowledged in identifying such coordination

as one of its goals in the development of Promise Zones, a program that takes on this goal explicitly.

Later grantees, such as San Antonio, received both Choice and Promise Neighborhoods grants and also a

Promise Zone designation. For places that received multiple federal grants, NRI’s Program Integration

Working Group, which meets biweekly, helps monitor initiatives, align performance indicators,

streamline programs, and identify additional projects from saved resources. HUD also worked with DOJ

and the Department of Education to develop training curriculum and technical assistance for Choice

grantees, related to school improvements, described in the following section.

81 Each of the grant management teams also includes a CPD team member.

82 See “Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/oua/initiatives/neighborhood-revitalization (White House Office of Urban Affairs, 2012).

83 San Antonio’s Eastside neighborhood, in the second round of implementation grantees, is the location of both a Promise Neighborhoods implementation grant and a Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Grant; it is also one of the first recently designated Promise Zones.

81

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

COORDINATION WITHIN HUD

An important innovation of Choice was its expansion to include HUD-assisted housing developments as

part of its portfolio. Consequently, new processes needed to be put into place to redevelop and provide social services to grantees in Quincy Corridor and Woodlawn. For example, closing on Quincy Heights

required creating an intra-agency working group comprising the public housing expert at the HUD

central office and the multifamily experts in the regional office. Although it was a major accomplishment on HUD’s part to develop these systems, the time-consuming negotiations within HUD and between

HUD and the Boston grantee were said by more than one Boston stakeholder to have caused a

burdensome delay. Future grantees’ Choice experiences may be helped by the HUD systems and

processes that were put into place during the early years of Choice implementation.

HUD conducted other forms of intra-agency coordination to support local grantees’ progress. For

example, HUD grantee management teams were interdisciplinary by design, bringing in a multifamily

specialist when the property involved HUD-assisted housing, and also engaged local offices and HUD

central. Choice also brought in technical assistance providers from within HUD who were engaged in the

Sustainable Communities program (a federal interagency initiative that brought together HUD, the U.S.

Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) to discuss how best to

coordinate investments with local transportation projects. Another important innovation of Choice was

the inclusion of a neighborhood component. Another important internal partner was HUD’s Office of

Community Planning and Development (CPD), which administers the Community Development Block

Grant (CDBG) program. CDBG funds initiatives might be targeted to Choice neighborhoods, so HUD

identified the potential to coordinate between Choice and CPD, bringing CPD staff members onto the

Choice teams and providing preference to grantees that promised to commit CDBG funds to the Choice

project. Finally, HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research was consulted as HUD’s performance

metrics were developed.

HUD’S INTERACTIONS WITH THE GRANTEES

HUD’s Roles

Although federal agencies have statutory and regulatory obligations that dictate their oversight of local initiatives, in practice agency management can take different forms depending on the program and the

agencies involved. Among the first five grantees, HUD’s oversight of Choice had several important

emphases with implications for implementation progress: (1) enforcing broad, local accountability to the Transformation Plan and the integrity of its core partnerships; (2) managing grantees’ progress,

especial y according to defined performance metrics; and (3) providing technical assistance, largely by convening grantees for subject-area discussions.

Among the first five implementation grantees, HUD has acted to keep local implementers accountable

to their Transformation Plans and overal Choice objectives. (As described in chapter 4 about

negotiations related to Critical Community Improvements, this process could be iterative and sometimes

lengthy.) In general, HUD has sought to promote progress according to the plans’ overarching

objectives, even if some specific aspects of the initial proposal had shifted. For example, HUD acted in Iberville-Tremé to articulate the need for offsite housing development by tying these efforts to the

82

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

approved Transformation Plan and holding grantees accountable not only for the redevelopment of the

Iberville housing development but also for the total unit count proposed in the application. This

emphasis on the part of HUD enabled the Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO) to help focus local

stakeholders on offsite housing.

In Woodlawn, HUD has acted on several occasions to promote accountability to the broad goals of the

plan. HUD’s actions included focusing on the engagement of the City of Chicago to meet its

responsibilities as colead and emphasizing the importance of participation of Grove Parc tenants in

planning. HUD also encouraged developing a grocery store, instead of a hotel, within Woodlawn,

although the final CCI choices were not settled as of September 2013. Focusing the city’s efforts on a

single neighborhood with a challenging political history has been difficult (appendix B), but HUD’s

involvement has provided Preservation of Affordable Housing, Inc., with additional leverage to involve

the city and external stakeholders. In Quincy Corridor, HUD was active in promoting and directing

funding to Pearl Meat, the economic development project, which it considered to be an important part

of its neighborhood agenda.

In addition to these commitments to the broad success of the grantees’ Transformation Plans, HUD also

provides ongoing project management, including regular cal s to grantees, monitoring of progress, and

response to reporting. One especial y important component of Choice project management involves

establishing and reviewing performance metrics. As part of Choice’s general outcome and accountability

framework, metrics are a potential y important way to establish goals and monitor progress. These

metrics are often numerous and expansive, and involve not only activities directly within grantee

control, such as case management activities with residents of the target development, but also those

aspects of neighborhood change that may be outside the direct control of grantees, such as local safety outcomes.

Although promoting a sense of local accountability toward these aspects of neighborhood change may

spark grantees to seek to influence these conditions, without adequate funding or the policy tools to

accomplish them, reporting on performance metrics was seen by grantees as time consuming,

challenging to collect the data required (although HUD provided some administrative data), and

sometimes extraneous to implementation goals within their control. HUD’s work to revise program

metrics has been responsive to these concerns.

A final area of HUD support is to provide technical assistance by convening subject-specific forums for grantees, producing webinars and promising practice guides, and by fostering connections to topical

experts. HUD has contracted with BCT partners and the Center for the Study of Social Policy to provide

technical assistance within Choice. Together with HUD, TA providers identified areas of shared needs

among grantees, and accomplishments that could be lifted up as smart practice among grantees—such

as coordinating with schools in Yesler or identifying CCIs in Quincy Corridor. HUD has also focused on

ways for grantees to learn from each other’s work, and to support areas of practice, which are newer to the grantees. For example, convenings of grantees have often focused on neighborhood-based

activities, because this domain has been a newer area of work for HUD and the grantees, and have

involved sessions about how to link local economic development to regional development strategies.

83

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Although the previously listed efforts focused on building capacity across all grantees’ work, HUD has

also helped facilitate more individualized TA, such as around case management to housing-assisted

populations in Woodlawn. 84 HUD saw these efforts as important ways to promote performance among Choice grantees.

HUD-Grantee Relations

As described throughout this report, three of the lead grantees—HANO, the Seattle Housing Authority

(SHA), and McCormack Baron Salazar (MBS) in Eastern Bayview—were al experienced HOPE VI

providers and had a working relationship with the Office of Public and Indian Housing and experience

with HOPE VI housing redevelopment processes that were the administrative templates for

implementing Choice. In Choice neighborhoods with HUD-assisted housing, by contrast, grantees and

partners (at least among the housing providers themselves) did not always have the same experience in

delivering case management services to tenants or in interacting with neighborhood stakeholders as a

whole.

Where grantees had previous HOPE VI experience, HUD and grantees agreed that they had good

working relations, which contributed to project implementation, especially in the people and housing

domains. For example, in Eastern Bayview, interaction with HUD is managed by MBS, a developer with

extensive experience working with HUD in several HOPE VI projects. Local interviewees across the board

consistently referred to a productive working relationship, flexibility on the part of HUD, and good and regular communication with the agency. In Ibervil e-Tremé, grantees reported flexibility and

responsiveness on HUD’s part. For example, after HANO’s voucher experts and attorneys alerted them

that they were required to compete for project-based vouchers and that the deadline had already

passed, HANO approached HUD directly and asked about other options; HANO then requested and HUD

granted a waiver that allowed for the designation of 112 vouchers to its senior housing site.

Implementers in Yesler, where the grantee also had HOPE VI experience, also reported good relations

with HUD, although they reported unexpected chal enges and needed to seek a waiver after they sought

to engage a private developer regarding offsite housing.

Where HUD-assisted housing developments were the target, early administrative chal enges and the

presence of less experienced actors produced more tensions. Within Woodlawn, the local grantee was

not the Chicago Housing Authority, with which HUD had worked extensively on its Plan for

Transformation. Instead, the grantees were the City of Chicago’s Department of Planning and

Development and the Preservation of Affordable Housing (POAH), a nonprofit developer. For Quincy

Corridor, the Boston Housing Authority had significant experiences redeveloping HOPE VI housing, but

the grantee, the Boston Department of Neighborhood Development, had less experience. From the

perspective of local implementers in Quincy Corridor, delays in obtaining relocation vouchers, in closing on the property, and in receiving PSE grants were seen as significant problems that fed uncertainties

about early implementation.

84 Although not the focus of this report, individualized TA has been provided to grantees other than the first five implementation grantees, and to planning grantees.

84

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Summary and Reflections

It is not surprising that less-experienced grantees might experience delays in implementation or

chal enges in working with HUD. As one of the innovations of Choice, the inclusion of HUD-assisted

housing developments required learning by HUD and the grantees, and in the case of Quincy Corridor

these challenges were eventually overcome. In general, however, within the first years of Choice

implementation, some implementation challenges have been beyond HUD’s control, either because of

the scale of the problem or because the grantee was not positioned to influence the issue in question.

For example, in Eastern Bayview, infrastructure financing challenges and the sunsetting of the San

Francisco Redevelopment Authority (along with al other redevelopment authorities throughout the

state) were not within HUD’s control. Similarly, although HUD has expressed concern about the

possibility for gentrification and displacement within the Choice neighborhood in New Orleans, HANO

and the City of New Orleans are limited in their ability to control rising housing prices. As a result, HUD’s actions to control development outside Iberville have been limited to upholding the ambitious, offsite

affordable housing unit count.

Making progress in the broad goals of Choice (that is, in creating conditions that support mixed-income neighborhoods) appears to be promoted best when HUD has a local partner with the ability to

coordinate and control local action at a significant scale. Among the first Choice neighborhoods, the

relatively small area targeted in Seattle, its proximity to downtown, and SHA’s close coordination with transportation, zoning, and other infrastructure investments make them perhaps closest to this ideal

partner, given Choice’s broadest ambitions.

COORDINATION WITHIN GRANTEE TEAMS

Choice’s implementation structure created a specialized division of labor. The lead grantee is accountable for progress across the three domains of housing, people, and neighborhood, but

different organizations were general y designated to lead each of these areas of work. During the

early years of Choice, coordination among these partners was important to allow for smooth internal

implementation of the grant. For example, coordination between the people and housing

implementation entities could ensure better delivery of case management services to vulnerable

residents in the process of relocation.

By September 2013, four of the five grantees appeared to have good internal coordination and a set of

working relations among the people, housing, and neighborhood leads that resulted in progress on

housing (for example, financing, demolition, and construction), as described in appendix B. Factors that promoted this coordination are described at the end of this section. The following list describes the

state of grantees’ internal coordination in the five Choice neighborhoods as of September 2013:

• Quincy Corridor. An earlier report (Pendall et al., 2013) noted internal coordination chal enges in Quincy Corridor, which had limited regular face-to-face meetings among lead partners and

insufficient meetings of all partners. These dynamics slowed the selection of providers for

people-related strategies. Starting in 2013, increased attention from the mayor’s office and the

designation of a lead within the Department of Neighborhood Development with good relations

to other city agencies accounted for significant advances in internal administration of the Choice

85

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

grant, and monthly meetings served to improve communication. The delay in designating a case

management provider and communication chal enges meant, however, that not al Woodledge-

Morrant Bay residents had been assessed as of September 2013.

• Woodlawn. A year into implementation, core implementing partners in Woodlawn, including

POAH, the City of Chicago, and Network of Woodlawn (NOW), were not always communicating

actively in the administration of the Choice grant. By September 2013, this dynamic did not

appear to have improved significantly, although HUD has reported progress since 2013. For

example, HUD had major questions about the city’s engagement in the Choice grant, and POAH

and NOW had not been able to agree on a community engagement strategy.

• Iberville-Tremé. Regular working meetings among critical partners continued in Iberville-Tremé, and HANO, the city, and private developers reported good relations. Although some tensions

emerged regarding permitting and approval processes between the city and HANO and between

HANO and private developers about offsite units, several challenging functional hurdles were

still overcome—a major accomplishment given the complex and ambitious nature of the

Transformation Plan. Most important of these accomplishments were the coordination of

environmental review, the approval of zoning and streetscape changes, and the early

assessment of al residents through case management.

• Eastern Bayview. Core partners in Eastern Bayview reported continued coordination among the

housing, people, and neighborhood leads. Semiweekly meetings of core partners and additional

working meetings have helped create a productive relationship among partners. For example,

the property manager of Alice Griffith and a social services director meet regularly to discuss

cases of residents in need of help with eviction prevention and also discuss communitywide

developments that have implications for their work.

• Yesler. SHA, which is the lead for al three domains (housing, people, and neighborhood), has a strong working relationship with Seattle University, the education implementation entity. Given

the diverse language and cultural backgrounds of the residents of Yesler Terrace, strong

coordination of case management with Neighborhood House staff has been an important aid to

early implementation.

These common factors emerge among the first five grantees that helped facilitate coordination:

(1) histories of col aboration among the grantees and (2) the presence of an active, dedicated

manager with the authority to facilitate regular communication among numerous stakeholders .

Choice grantee teams with solid working relations—for example, like MBS has with Urban Strategies

in Eastern Bayview and Iberville-Tremé or like SHA has with Neighborhood House—were better able

to coordinate case management or relocation services in the context of Choice. Conversely, in Quincy

Corridor, where partners did not at first have defined histories of collaboration as a collective, or in Woodlawn, where histories of conflict regarding Grove Parc remained, internal coordination has been

more chal enging.

Even in cities where partners benefited from a history of col aboration, active project management

could help internal dynamics. The grantees in San Francisco and New Orleans hired or designated a

project manager for Choice, whose responsibilities included facilitating communication among

86

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

implementers and promoting regular (sometimes biweekly), engaged, and transparent implementation

meetings. These grantees often reflected on the importance of this role, given the wide range of actors involved in Choice.

COORDINATION BETWEEN GRANTEE TEAMS AND OTHER ACTORS

Among the first five grantees, the extent of coordination varied by Choice neighborhood and by domain.

Housing generated the greatest amount of external collaboration, because grantees needed to

coordinate financing and development approval processes. External coordination was also greatest in

places where Choice had a major role in driving neighborhood redevelopment, like Yesler, or where

Choice was deeply embedded within existing redevelopment commitments, like Eastern Bayview.

• Quincy Corridor. Sparked by engagement from the mayor’s office, coordination among city

agencies has improved significantly. For example, interagency coordination helped identify local

vacant properties that had become hotspots for prostitution and drug use, resulting in their

being sealed off. Simultaneously, the limited reach of housing investment (replacing 129 units

and not creating new ones) made neighborhood change ambitions more limited in Quincy

Corridor and may reduce the ability of Choice alone to claim visibility or influence in the

neighborhood. Implementers reported challenges in engaging small business owners and local

nonprofit organizations, even when funds were allocated to these activities from CCI funds.

Major transit improvement efforts are largely uncoordinated with Choice, and nearby local

hospitals have not been engaged in Choice efforts.

• Woodlawn. Choice implementers in Woodlawn have found few ways to coordinate Grove Parc

redevelopment with other public and private initiatives to address foreclosures, vacant lots, and

safety. The City of Chicago is formal y a partner in the plan, but it has not placed high priority on

the Choice intervention, and instead has provided other forms of resources to the neighborhood

that have not been extensively coordinated with Choice. Observations as of 2013 suggest that

NOW (the neighborhood lead) had not created an effective, collaborative process with other

local stakeholders.

• Iberville-Tremé. Choice has helped convene and coordinate housing investments throughout

the Iberville-Tremé neighborhood. This leadership is important given the ambitious number of

units (1,500) in its Transformation Plan and the increased interest in outside developers in the

neighborhood. Site control has sometimes been chal enging (for example, the loss of control of

the eastern adjacent Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. property at auction), but such difficulties might be

expected given the number of offsite properties that were part of the plan. Beyond housing, city

engagement has helped the Choice grantee communicate informal y with leads in other

colocated planning processes, such as the Lafitte Greenway and the Claiborne Corridor

Transportation study, but Choice itself is not the driver of these activities. New Orleans’s

BioDistrict has not been engaged in Choice work to date; its potential to deliver jobs and

workforce housing to the neighborhood makes it a key opportunity for the Choice grantee to

explore in coming years. Simultaneously, given the histories of contention regarding HOPE VI

public housing redevelopment efforts in New Orleans, it is remarkable that Choice has not

sparked more conflict.

87

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

• Eastern Bayview. In Eastern Bayview, San Francisco’s Office of Community Investment and

Infrastructure and the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development communicate

regularly. Coordinated by Urban Strategies, local social service providers in Alice Griffith also

engage regularly with one another. Although HOPE SF—in many ways a predecessor initiative to

Choice, anticipating its goals of one-for-one replacement and its focus on resident services—

helped set up these coordination structures, communication has also been helped by a

designated services coordinator within the project. The San Francisco United School District has

not been involved, however, and interviewees report that work on education has lagged.

• Yesler. Seattle’s transformative ambitions for the Yesler neighborhood have required and been facilitated by the engagement of numerous city agencies, nonprofit organizations, and Seattle

University. Rezoning of the targeted area, transportation and infrastructure improvements,

relocation agreements, a community workforce agreement, and other aspects of coordinated

programming have been facilitated by institutions focused on public housing transformation—

such as the Citizen Review Committee—which have brought together redevelopment

stakeholders. Agreements that ended contention over HOPE VI in the 1990s established the

framework for today’s smoother relationships.

As described in the previous section, several contextual issues that were generally not in the control of HUD or the grantees impeded external coordination across Choice neighborhoods. First, the presence of

paral el transportation or infrastructure planning processes for non-Choice investments often made it

difficult to influence these activities. In Choice neighborhoods where the greatest leverage was claimed as part of Choice—such as Iberville-Tremé, which claimed more than $1 billion in leveraged

investments—coordination with external actors was sometimes the most chal enging. For example, the

Claiborne Corridor transportation planning processes in Iberville-Tremé, the infrastructure

commitments of Lennar in Eastern Bayview, and Boston’s Fairmount Corridor were all fairly

disconnected from Choice activities. (An exception to this pattern was the acceleration of bus service

and bus rapid transit to the Eastern Bayview area.)

Second, a lack of engagement from anchor institutions made it difficult to leverage funding or

investments from hospitals and universities. Seattle University’s exceptional engagement of more than

$3 mil ion to Choice notwithstanding, hospitals and universities were not extensively engaged in Choice.

The New Orleans BioDistrict remained disengaged in Iberville-Tremé, and despite commitments from

Boston area universities in the Choice application, they were not involved in early implementation. The University of Chicago kept a low profile in the Woodlawn redevelopment, perhaps anticipating

opposition by residents (who remain suspicious of the university) to more active involvement.

Third, limited funding and leverage in the neighborhood and people domains made it difficult to claim

the attention of external agencies. As might be expected, the more direct funding provided by Choice,

the greater the “hook” for other agencies to see the need to coordinate their efforts with the initiative.

The relative lack of engagement of city agencies and private institutions in neighborhood planning, as

described in chapter 4, may be explained in part by the fact that Choice does not provide funds as

generously in this domain.

88

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Finally, leadership transitions at the local or city levels produced uncertainty and coordination

chal enges. The dissolution of the San Francisco Redevelopment Authority and the uncertainty about

whether its funding commitments would continue to be met and the transition associated with the end

of Mayor Thomas Menino’s 21-year term in Boston were each described by local observers as making it

difficult to coordinate progress. Transitions in community leadership could also produce uncertainties.

For example, Woodlawn experienced the departure of Dr. Leon Finney from leadership of the powerful

Woodlawn Organization and saw a transition of NOW leadership from Bishop Arthur Brazier to his son,

Dr. Byron Brazier.

Some of these contextual challenges could be partially overcome by Choice grantees, using two major

means. First, active mayoral or city council support for the Choice project was important to support

coordination between Choice and external stakeholders, especial y other city agencies. Mayoral

engagement provided additional political capital and authority to Choice implementers. Interviewees

in Boston attributed better internal and external coordination from 2012 to 2013 to this increased

level of engagement from the mayor’s office. In New Orleans, the division of labor between the city

and HANO has facilitated smoother coordination of housing redevelopment, especial y in rezoning

and approval of the new Ibervil e street grid. San Francisco’s mayor was also described as engaged

with Choice and HOPE SF processes. In Seattle, active city council engagement in the future of Yesler

has helped drive the more transformative efforts in that neighborhood. By contrast, a lack of deep

engagement from the City of Chicago has made it more difficult to coordinate among local Woodlawn

initiatives.

Second, grantees with a history of coordinating redevelopment in consultation with varied stakeholders

could smooth coordination in Choice. For example, the Citizen Review Committee in Yesler has

facilitated broader stakeholder engagement with Yesler Terrace redevelopment, and the city council’s

concern for resident well being has resulted in additional requirements for the project, but also deeper commitments to it from the council. In San Francisco, the HOPE SF framework brought consensus to

public housing redevelopment approaches, like the decades-long planning did within the Choice Eastern

Bayview area. Although New Orleans does not have this history of varied stakeholder consultation

regarding public housing redevelopment, Choice has marked an intentional y different path for HANO

and a new mayoral administration. By contrast, in Woodlawn, a history of opposition to redevelopment

conducted by the University of Chicago has resulted in little consensus about large-scale transformation activities in the neighborhood.

POLICY OR SYSTEMS CHANGE AND CHOICE

Related to the issues of coordination discussed previously, an important question is the extent to which Choice’s comprehensive approach might spark opportunities for systems reform at the local level. These

opportunities relate especially to “silo busting” or other changes that would allow for more efficient and more effective comprehensive neighborhood development that would essentially enact in Choice

neighborhoods some of the goals of the federal NRI.

In fact, Choice was credited by many of the grantees as helping to set in motion or put in place some

systemic changes or improvements in interagency functioning. Although it is too soon to understand the

89

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

potential implications of these reforms for the success of community improvement efforts, it is notable that Choice has sparked some of the policy reforms that its designers hoped would promote greater

coordination or otherwise improve redevelopment processes.

For example, in New Orleans, City Hall launched an effort early in the Choice process to improve public participation in setting redevelopment priorities. This well-attended process invited residents and

organizational representatives to develop working groups on safety, housing, and education. Although

the advisory process disbanded, these working groups were initially seen as a template that could

change the way that local individuals and organizations collaborated with city agencies.

In Seattle, the redevelopment of Yesler Terrace set into motion extensive action on the part of

numerous city agencies and the Seattle City Council, which generated or approved several innovative

aspects of the redevelopment process. These innovations included labor standards for housing

reconstruction, guidelines on the number of times a resident was required to move, expanded notice to

residents surrounding redevelopment, rules enforcing one-for-one replacement, a community

workforce agreement to ensure local hiring, a mixed-finance model that al ows the same unit to be

occupied by a moderate- or low-income tenant, and a resident-friendly street grid.

Outside of legislative or administrative changes, other grantees described ways that Choice was sparking some agencies to rethink their strategic approach to neighborhood planning and investment. For

example, in Boston, interviewees described a decision by the Department of Neighborhood

Development to focus on coordinated outreach within the Choice neighborhood rather than on the

stand-alone implementation of smal business and homeowner programs. Boston interviewees also

suggested that Choice led to the ability to use CDBG funds more flexibly.

LEVERAGE

An intentional part of Choice neighborhood selection was the extent to which neighborhoods had

already committed substantial colocated investments. This commitment to implement Choice to places

with committed leverage can be seen in the scale of neighborhood commitments, such as $166 million

claimed in Eastern Bayview and more than $1 billion in Iberville-Tremé. Activities represented by this

leverage were generally planned and under way before the Choice announcement, and the first five

Choice target developments were designated for redevelopment before the FY 2010–11 awards were

made. Accordingly, to understand the value-added of Choice, it is important to understand how Choice

designation and HUD funds sustain or leverage additional investments. Tracking which programs or investments leverage which others is difficult, and opinions often vary among actors depending on their role in each Choice project.

In early implementation, as a necessary component of the financing of redevelopment, housing was the

area for which additional funds were most likely to be committed after Choice designation. Grantees were most likely to describe the designation of tax credits, loans, or state funds when attributing

leverage to Choice. For example, this leverage included infill infrastructure from the state of California for Alice Griffith and $16 million in low-income housing tax credits from the City of Chicago for the

Grove Parc redevelopment. These successful commitments were important components of Choice

making progress in its early housing redevelopment goals, and are described in chapter 2.

90

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Beyond the more direct leverage of housing, the evidence of grantees leveraging additional funds or

services because of the Choice investment is less clear, and grantees generally reported that most

activities were planned or were under way before the Choice announcement. That is, in part because

local commitments influenced site selection, Choice seems less catalytic than additive. In addition, as described previously, results were mixed in colocating federal initiatives within Choice neighborhoods.

As a successful example, all Choice neighborhoods received DOJ PSE grants, and San Francisco received

a Byrne grant from the DOJ for Eastern Bayview. By contrast, only the Boston Choice neighborhood was

awarded a Promise Neighborhoods implementation grant.

Grantees did, however, report cases beyond housing in which additional investments were attributed to

Choice designation (exhibit 5.1). In the people domain, grantees reported that educational investments

were especially likely to have been sparked by Choice. For example, various initiatives in Yesler,

including Gates Foundation and United Way funding, were attributed to the redevelopment of Yesler

Terrace. In the neighborhood domain, new leverage included the accelerated development of San

Francisco’s bus rapid transit to the neighborhood and additional financing for certain infrastructure

projects. Foreclosure relief from the State Attorney General of Illinois was also described as being

targeted to Woodlawn as a result of Choice. Although local actors attributed these additional

investments to Choice, their dollar amounts are modest compared with the dol ar amounts of the

original commitments that were part of the application.

Exhibit 5.1. Examples of Leverage Claimed as Having Been Catalyzed by the Choice Grant

Choice

Neighborhood

Description of Leverage

Choice Domain

Funding Amount

Neighborhood

Infil infrastructure grant

$5.6 million

and housing

Eastern Bayview Acceleration of bus rapid transit line to Neighborhood Not applicable

Alice Griffith

Early childhood services committed to

In-kind

Iberville-Tremé

People

Iberville after redevelopment

commitment

Approximately

Pearl Meat community business

$14.5 million,

Quincy Corridor

Neighborhood

incubator

some committed

before Choice

Grant to acquire foreclosed and

Neighborhood

Woodlawn

abandoned property from the State

$750,000

and housing

of Illinois

Funding to conduct an economic

Neighborhood

$60,000

Yesler

development study

Summer youth employment grant

$70,000

Choice = Choice Neighborhoods Initiative.

Note: The examples given exclude housing financing directly associated with Choice redevelopment.

Source: Interviews and Program Documentation

91

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Considering ongoing chal enges stemming from the financial crisis and strains in the public and private sector, it is not surprising that obtaining significant additional leverage has been chal enging for

grantees. Furthermore, implementation of Choice is still in its very early phases, and financing obtained to reconstruct new housing and commercial facilities will undoubtedly help Choice implementation in

the future. Final y, Choice’s most significant effects in the neighborhood, if they are to occur, are likely to be caused by the leverage of private investors—from homeowners to larger developers and

institutions—that wil see progress related to onsite transformation as making additional investments

worthwhile. These types of investments must be observed over time, after other forms of

implementation progress take place, and as such constitute an area for future research.

CONCLUSION

Making progress in the broad goals of Choice—creating mixed-income neighborhoods of choice and

opportunity using direct and leveraged investments—appears to be promoted best when HUD has a

local partner with the ability to coordinate and control local action at a significant scale, and to hold partners accountable for meeting their commitments. Political support helped move Choice toward

scale, and may help engage local schools, and anchor institutions such as hospitals, col ege, and

universities, in the future.

ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

• Federal coordination. Coordinating additional federal resources to Choice neighborhoods is an opportunity, which HUD has already started to realize with early grantees. HUD’s partnership

with DOJ, expanding opportunities for Choice grantees to receive technical assistance and

additional federal funding for public safety interventions, stands out as an important effort to

follow over time. The PSE grants offer a model of strong coordination among federal agencies

that could be expanded to other topic areas.

• Leverage. The extent to which public and private investments in infrastructure, safety, and

other neighborhood amenities grow over time is an issue to watch. Although colocated

investments previously committed to Choice neighborhoods are significant, examples of the

Choice grant catalyzing additional resources outside of housing finance were infrequent at this

early point in Choice implementation. Given ongoing chal enges stemming from the financial

crisis, federal spending retrenchment after the wind-down of the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act of 2009, and strains in the public and private sector, it is not surprising that

obtaining significant additional leverage has been challenging for grantees.

• System change. Some aspects of local policy, not in control of Choice grantees, are an issue to watch because they make it harder for Choice grantees to coordinate community

improvements. Although grantees made progress in some policy reforms, coordinating with

school districts will need continued effort.

Although expectations for early implementation progress should be based on HUD’s requirements and

those in the reasonable control of implementers, future research can monitor how the initiatives’ longer term theory of change plays out. Suggestions for such research appear in appendix H.

92

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

6. CONCLUSIONS AND REFLECTIONS:

CHOICE AS A VEHICLE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSFORMATION

The overarching goal of the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative, stated in the 2010 notice of funding

availability (NOFA), is to transform distressed neighborhoods into revitalized mixed-income

neighborhoods. This primary goal is supported by housing, people, and neighborhood objectives that

are logically interrelated and mutual y supportive. The 2013 NOFA tempered the program’s ambitions,

instead asking grantees to spark investments that wil ultimately lead to the types of amenities and

services that will attract a range of income groups. 85 Even so, Choice still aims to help targeted neighborhoods transition to a stable mixed-income future.

This chapter recapitulates the report’s key findings about accomplishments to date in housing, people,

and neighborhood domains and in overal coordination and leverage. It also reiterates key emerging or

potential issues that wil need to be monitored and addressed so that these five grantees and others

meet the program’s goals and maximize opportunities for accelerating and deepening the impact of

Choice. Finally, it summarizes important areas for future research to draw lessons from Choice and to

evaluate its impacts.

EARLY IMPLEMENTATION IN THE FIRST FIVE CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS

This report has shown that the first five Choice implementation grant neighborhoods share high rates of poverty and crime, chal enged schools, and distressed subsidized housing developments. The report also

shows the many ways in which they vary, however. The Yesler neighborhood, at two-tenths of a square

mile, is only one-tenth the size of Woodlawn and Iberville-Tremé. Among the target developments,

Woodledge-Morrant Bay, with 129 units, is only one-sixth the size of Iberville and consists of scattered-site buildings that are as hard to distinguish from their unsubsidized neighbors as the buildings of Alice Griffith, Iberville, Yesler Terrace, and Grove Parc are easy. Only 1 out of every 20 households in Yesler Terrace, many of whose adult members are refugees, speaks English as its first language. Also, social

cohesion and trust were high among residents of Yesler Terrace and Ibervil e, but they were lower in the other three developments.

This report also shows that the institutional and city-level contexts for the implementation of Choice

differ at baseline among the five Choice neighborhoods. Three of the projects are being carried out by

teams that include public housing authorities, all of which have HOPE VI experience; the other two aim

to transform HUD-assisted developments and do not include experienced HOPE VI team members. The

Yesler team has a limited number of key partners; the Quincy Corridor and Woodlawn teams are much

larger. The neighborhoods’ housing markets also differ. In Chicago and Boston, local Choice

implementers described chal enges attracting middle-income households to Quincy Corridor and

85 The 2013 NOFA states that the program’s goal is to “Create the conditions necessary for public and private reinvestment in distressed neighborhoods to offer the kinds of amenities and assets, including safety, good schools, and commercial activity, that are important to families’ choices about their community.” (HUD 2013a: 2).

93

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Woodlawn given the continuing disadvantages of those neighborhoods and the availability of housing

and neighborhood choices elsewhere. In the other three Choice neighborhoods, housing markets in the

city and region may set the stage for longer term risks to neighborhood affordability.

As a consequence of the variation in neighborhoods, in partnership structures, and in city contexts, each team has developed a different strategy to lay the foundation for a mixed-income neighborhood. Over

the first 2 years of implementation, all five of the FY 2010–11 grantees worked to begin housing

reconstruction as soon as possible, while stil attending to their tenants’ needs for support using case management and relocation assistance. In addition, two of the five grantees forged extensive new

relationships and delivered new funds to investments in neighborhood amenities and quality of life and

two others made progress in specifying their neighborhood programs.

HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT

The target developments were in various stages of demolition, rehabilitation, and reconstruction in

September 2013 (chapter 2). By that point, all five grantee teams had shown progress in redeveloping

the target housing. Grantees have not focused as intensively on the offsite components of their housing programs as on the actual target developments. Woodlawn and Iberville-Tremé—the two Choice

neighborhoods with the largest components of housing beyond the target development—have had to

recalibrate their ideas about offsite housing because of market shifts.

After completion, these projects will include significant improvements in housing design, unit quality, and energy efficiency. Furthermore, all four of the target developments assessed appear to be

financially feasible, given current market conditions and reasonable expectations about rents and

occupancy in the near future. 86 The projects wil deliver a wide range of unit types and subsidy levels, suggesting that the target developments will generally be more diverse than the housing they replace.

Local conditions might still lead to a range of income mixing outcomes. Yesler, Eastern Bayview, and

Iberville-Tremé have comparatively strong markets and a broad range of unit subsidies, including

market-rate housing in Yesler and Eastern Bayview. The grantees’ plans and actions in Quincy Corridor

and Woodlawn, influenced by neighborhood housing markets, safety concerns, and community

preferences, might result in fewer new middle and upper income households in those neighborhoods, at

least in the short term.

SUPPORTING THE RESIDENTS OF TARGET DEVELOPMENTS

Actions to support residents of target developments involve professionals whose specialties include

property management, compliance, relocation, service connection, and family support. Supports for

tenant self-sufficiency require a services team that works well together and with the development team.

As described at length in chapter 3, Yesler and Eastern Bayview provide excellent examples of teams

that work wel together and with the housing lead to ensure that tenants receive the support they need

throughout the process. At Iberville, a strong people team laid a good foundation for ongoing work with families before relocation began.

86 The research team was unable to obtain a pro forma for the redevelopment of the Alice Griffith development.

94

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

The Chicago and Boston Choice grantees did not begin case management provision within 30 days of

receipt of their awards, a NOFA requirement, but rather needed 1.5 years and 1 year, respectively, to

begin offering case management. This lengthy delay can be attributed at root to their status as HUD-

assisted properties with comparatively limited experience in social services. In both cities, the people teams involve many organizations, most of which had not worked together in this capacity before

receiving the award. Leadership of the people teams needs to be stronger under these conditions and it

was not strong enough during the first 2 years of implementation, nor did the lead grantees

demonstrate that they had the authority to improve the coordination. Preservation of Affordable

Housing, Inc. had to find a new people lead immediately after receiving the award; this new entity also struggled to make progress. Choice funding came when Grove Parc was already under reconstruction,

with some tenants already relocated. The onset of case management was complicated in Woodledge-

Morrant Bay by city procurement rules requiring writing an RFP, securing bids, and identifying the

appropriate provider from among the applicants. Differences of opinion among participants in the RFP

process over how case management should be conducted played a role in lengthy time required to issue

the RFP and select a provider.

The complications of providing supports for tenants multiply when relocation is involved, even for those grantees with HOPE VI experience. By late 2013, most tenants in Iberville, Grove Parc, and Woodledge-Morrant Bay were relocated using housing choice vouchers (HCVs) or to other assisted housing. The

process has been complicated in Grove Parc and Woodledge-Morrant Bay by now-resolved questions

about access to HCVs for residents of HUD-assisted properties. HUD’s progress in providing these

grantees HCVs is important for future redevelopments involving HUD-assisted multifamily projects.

According to some reports, the relocation experience of Iberville’s widely dispersed population has also disrupted the delivery of case management and supportive services. In part because of local regulations that require grantees to minimize disruption for residents during the redevelopment process, few

tenants will have to be relocated from Alice Griffith or Yesler Terrace. Instead, both grantee teams are starting redevelopment with a first round of housing rehabilitation or offsite construction.

Beyond working directly to support residents, al the grantees are committed to enriching and

expanding the services available for their tenants and for the broader neighborhood. Most of the service enrichment promised in these five Choice neighborhoods is expected to come about thanks to leverage

commitments, not as a result of direct Choice expenditures, most of which is aimed at tenant supports

and service connections for residents of the target developments. Service enrichment will meet

expectations if the grantee team has the time, attention, and authority to sustain and strengthen the

commitments of leverage partners. This outcome appears to be most readily achievable with

employment support; several of the case management providers specialize in workforce support

connections.

Enrichment of K–12 education and health services made little progress by the end of September 2013.

The strong partnerships needed with local school systems have not yet materialized, despite the

nominal presence of school districts as education implementation entities in some of the grantee teams.

School choice complicates the development of such partnerships; except in Yesler, children living in the target developments attend many different schools, and children in neighborhood schools live in many

95

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

neighborhoods. The Seattle Housing Authority has taken advantage of having a neighborhood school

and has made progress on early childhood and education initiatives via a strong partnership with Seattle University. The examples of progress in enriching health services directly through Choice are limited.

Two examples are the Center for Youth Wellness in Eastern Bayview and the mental health clinician at

Burke High School in Quincy Corridor.

NEIGHBORHOOD INVESTMENTS

Choice is also meant to result in direct, leveraged, and spillover investments in neighborhood

infrastructure, facilities, and amenities (chapter 4). The direct investments come from CCIs, which were settled in mid-2013 for Quincy Corridor and Yesler. The approved CCIs conform to goals to improve

residents’ quality of life and upward mobility and promote economic development in the

neighborhoods. Such interventions wil be important for these and future Choice neighborhoods whose

physical fabric suffers from the same levels of disconnection and disrepair that are documented in

appendix C and chapter 4.

Concrete proposals were under consideration by that date in Woodlawn and Eastern Bayview, but no

firm proposals had emerged in Ibervil e-Tremé. Unlike target housing redevelopment, this investment

program was new terrain for the grantees and HUD. CCIs were broadly defined when these grantees

received their awards, and several grantees were unclear about what CCIs they would undertake. As

HUD’s Choice team and these grantees have grappled with definitions for the first round of CCIs, HUD

has developed new technical assistance, changed the criteria for CCIs in the NOFAs, and issued new

guidelines for CCIs that should make future identification of CCIs more straightforward.

Public safety is an issue that crosses all three Choice domains, and safety goals have received significant attention in the first 2 years. Planning in this area has been fostered by HUD and the U.S. Department of Justice’s efforts to provide the grantees with Public Safety Enhancement (PSE) grants. In some ways, the PSE grant process has resembled the CCI process: an innovation that has taken the grantees and HUD

time to work out and that should be followed closely to identify lessons for future federal programs. In Woodlawn and Quincy Corridor, grantees have coordinated their efforts to reduce violent crime with

other community engagement efforts. These initiatives are as complex as any other aspect of

neighborhood transformation and should be fol owed closely.

THE COORDINATION AND LEVERAGE CHALLENGES

Choice aspires to comprehensive neighborhood development because low-income neighborhoods face

chal enges that go well beyond the conditions of subsidized housing, and because it assumes that varied improvements, when wel -coordinated, can provide additional benefits to residents. The early

implementation grantees made progress toward integrating and coordinating their programs by the end

of September 2013, but further progress was stil needed. Chapter 5, on coordination and leverage,

identifies some of the reasons for the barriers to coordination. HUD and the local grantees needed time to work out this new program’s many details, test and sometimes change partners, and respond to local

opportunities and crises. As grantees overcome these chal enges, they can make greater progress on the

physical and social actions needed to achieve Choice’s goals. Three features associate with greater early progress toward coordinated action in the Choice neighborhoods:

96

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

• Implementation teams appear to be better positioned when the lead grantee has enough

authority to coordinate with external actors, the ability to manage the social and the physical

processes of neighborhood transformation, and the capacity to coordinate their own teams.

When acting as lead grantees, HUD-assisted housing developers may face serious difficulties

mustering the political and institutional support and credibility necessary to sustain the leverage

commitments that are required for Choice to meet its goals.

• Even with strong lead grantees, actions within the housing, people, and neighborhood

categories are also emerging with most synergy and potential when experienced teams have

strong leaders who have the authority and mandate to coordinate with one another.

• Local controls and oversight like the provisions of HOPE SF guiding housing redevelopment and

the engagement of the Seattle City Council in many aspects of the Yesler Terrace

redevelopment, which go beyond the provisions of Choice, appear to help promote coordination

and balancing between housing redevelopment and providing resident supports. Such specific

provisions about housing redevelopment as those in San Francisco and Seattle reflect broader

city institutions and political cultures supporting planning, coordination, comprehensiveness,

and accountability.

Progress in creating mixed-income neighborhoods appears to be promoted most effectively when HUD

has a local partner with the ability to coordinate and control local action at a significant scale. Having a local partner like this generally has meant strong leadership from city hall or other political institutions.

Only the mayor, the city manager, or the county administrator has the authority to direct departments

and agencies to take necessary actions and to coordinate with one another in comprehensive

redevelopment of distressed neighborhoods. Local government executives might also have the political

weight to negotiate with independent boards, especial y school boards and transit districts, and with

neighboring cities and counties, state government, and federal agencies. They also have unmatched

ability to gain and keep the attention of business and philanthropy. As a consequence, city or county

government executives are well-positioned to integrate the Choice transformation into other planning

and redevelopment efforts.

Choice is also meant to generate additional investment in the neighborhoods by government, anchor

institutions, and the private sector. Two categories of additional (nongrantee) investment are available.

The first category includes investments described by the grantees as commitments made by partners as

part of the application process. The second includes investment that happens after (and possibly

because of) the Choice investment and commitments by partners. Although expecting visible results in

the latter category is unrealistic at this early stage of the program, HUD can reasonably expect grantees to have made efforts to sustain the commitment of leverage partners. During early implementation

experiences, leverage appears to be most successful y committed when city government plays a role.

ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES: MAXIMIZING THE BENEFITS OF CHOICE

Choice seeks to transform housing and neighborhoods and to provide a stable platform for family success.

Our observations of the first 2 years of this new program suggest that it has the potential to meet those goals in al five of the communities examined in this study. As the product of a formative evaluation and 97

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

baseline data col ection effort, this report cannot offer firm conclusions about the program’s impacts. We did find sufficient evidence, however, to identify stress points and opportunity spaces that are likely to affect the extent of Choice’s success in each of the five cases and possibly in others.

NEAR-TERM ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

The main physical interventions in Choice involve housing redevelopment and CCIs. With tens of millions of dol ars in federal investment and hundreds of mil ions in private-sector expenditure, the new housing in these neighborhoods will help redefine blocks, districts, and even (in Yesler) the entire neighborhood.

Buildout in Eastern Bayview, Yesler, Woodlawn, and Iberville-Tremé wil take years and involve many

deals and partnerships. Each phase of each project represents an opportunity to learn and improve in

the next phase so that these investments maximize the quality of the new developments and their

neighborhoods. The experience of the housing leads in each of these cases is likely to yield innovation in housing-unit layout, site design, energy efficiency, and other areas that could inform future grantees

and other housing builders well before any followup evaluation is conducted. In addition, the two HUD-

assisted developments will provide lessons about how to incorporate privately owned affordable

housing into a redevelopment framework that has solely embraced public housing until now.

The most serious points of stress thus far for Choice concern how established tenants fare during the

process of redevelopment. Past research has demonstrated that providing services consistently during the relocation process is critical, especial y for the most vulnerable residents, who may be at greater risk of health problems, setbacks in employment searches, and even premature mortality (Popkin, 2010). They

also stand at greater risk of losing their housing assistance during relocation. Provision of supportive services during the relocation process was a stress point in al three of the target developments where most families had been relocated by September 2013. HUD and the grantees should redouble efforts to

coordinate case management with relocation to avoid these problems and careful y monitor the status of

relocated families as they settle into their temporary and permanent housing.

A second issue that merits further attention in the near term is the rate of attrition from the target

developments. Overall, housing assistance loss rates in the 3 years after the first five implementation grantees’ initial application (December 2010–September 2013) were comparable with those in HOPE VI,

which included fewer provisions than Choice to allow residents to return to rebuilt developments if they wished. By September 2013, between 14 percent and 19 percent of Choice residents no longer had

housing assistance. In HOPE VI, a panel study found that 14 percent of residents no longer had housing

assistance after 4 years (Comey, 2007). Considering that households that left assistance as their projects were transformed in HOPE VI experienced greater levels of housing and financial distress than those

who maintained it, housing assistance loss rates within Choice are an issue to watch in coming years.

Recent research on Moving to Opportunity households that left housing assistance also underscores

that assistance leavers often experience a high level of stress associated with the loss of their housing subsidies (Smith et al., 2014).

In the neighborhood domain, the CCIs represent an innovation of Choice and, therefore, an area around

which HUD needed to develop new policies and practices. HUD intends to work with the grantees that

have not finalized their CCIs to determine their plans. The flexibility of the CCI funds enables grantees to 98

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

choose projects suited to local context and priorities, but HUD needs to continue to refine its criteria about types and characteristics of eligible projects to facilitate the project identification process for the grantees and minimize time needed for negotiation with HUD. For all the first five Choice

neighborhoods, HUD wil need to monitor implementation of the plans and support grantees in

overcoming any unexpected hurdles. Final y, grantees should look for opportunities to take ful

advantage of the new projects to support Choice goals, such as promoting physical activity in the new

parks or connecting workforce development plans with the business incubator.

MEDIUM- TO LONG-TERM ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

As the new developments gradual y come to fruition, the grantees and their city-government partners

wil have new opportunities to build thriving mixed-income neighborhoods. This research has explored

several areas that could make a difference in the medium to longer term in reaching that goal, at

ascending levels of scale: the target development, the whole neighborhood, citywide, and among

federal agencies.

At the level of the target development, the redeveloped sites will fill in the next few years with new

households and some previous residents. Their interactions will help define the sense of community in

the new development for years to come and could have a material impact on whether Choice reaches its

goals. A wide array of studies suggests that trust and community cohesion improve outcomes for

individuals and communities. Neighborhoods with high levels of trust, which arise from positive

everyday interactions, can be more resilient in the face of disasters and other shocks than those where residents distrust one another (Klinenberg, 2003; Wallace and Wallace, 2008), and high levels of

neighborhood trust may improve individual outcomes independently of their personal characteristics

(Mohnen et al., 2014). As redevelopment goes on, if it is successful, average neighborhood incomes

should rise and social deprivation should fall. Higher incomes and less deprivation generally reinforce trust and community cohesion (Letki, 2008). Rebuilding these developments with mixed-income housing

may also result in strains that arise from interactions between subsidized and nonsubsidized tenants,

however (Chaskin and Joseph, 2011). Managing the transition sensitively may hasten the development

of positive relations among new residents (Joseph and Gress, 2013). More broadly, the grantees and

HUD would do well to treat the occupancy process as an opportunity to build (or rebuild) a sense of

trust and social cohesion in formerly distressed developments.

At the neighborhood level, the grantees have made important progress in addressing the high level of

violent crime that is among the more important selection criteria for Choice. HUD has the opportunity to learn from these first grantees’ safety-related activities within and beyond the Public Safety

Enhancement (PSE) grants. Their use of Choice funding, coordination with safety activities with other

Choice investments, and leveraging of additional resources from the local police departments and

nonprofit organizations wil provide important lessons for the field. HUD and the Department of Justice should also continue to provide technical assistance to grantees, promote local coordination, and

monitor whether grantees are able to meet their interim and final objectives and leverage goals for the PSE grants, which do not extend to later implementation grantees.

99

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

A second issue at the neighborhood level will be the extent to which public and private investments in

infrastructure, safety, and other neighborhood amenities grow over time. Although colocated

investments previously committed to Choice neighborhoods are significant, examples of the Choice

grant catalyzing additional resources outside of housing finance were infrequent at this early point in Choice implementation. Given ongoing chal enges stemming from the financial crisis, federal spending

retrenchment after the wind-down of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and strains

in the public and private sector, it is not surprising that obtaining significant additional leverage has been challenging for grantees, but leverage is likely to grow over time and should be watched.

At the city level, early Choice experiences point to the importance of system change for achieving Choice goals. Choice grantees do not have control over a variety of policy realms that are included in the

program’s goals. Even in its early implementation, Choice was credited by many of the grantees as helping to set in motion or put in place some systemic changes or improvements in local interagency

functioning. At the same time, other aspects of local or federal policy made it more difficult for Choice efforts to extend their reach beyond the target development into the Choice neighborhood as a whole.

For example, the presence of school choice among al the Choice neighborhoods except Yesler made

grantees’ coordination with education reform more difficult, although some did engage with school

improvement efforts.

At the federal level, finally, a medium- to long-term opportunity lies in coordination between HUD and

other agencies. HUD has already started to realize this opportunity with early grantees. HUD’s

partnership with DOJ, expanding opportunities for Choice grantees to receive technical assistance and

additional federal funding for public safety interventions, stands out as an important effort to fol ow over time. The PSE grants offer a model of strong coordination among federal agencies that could be

expanded to other topic areas.

AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Choice represents an important evolution of housing and community development policy. Building on

lessons from HOPE VI and other place-based initiatives, Choice has the potential to accelerate the development of revitalized, mixed-income neighborhoods. Simultaneously, Choice’s long-term goals are

ambitious, and an investment of up to $30.5 million, while significant for a federal initiative, still will not transform neighborhoods immediately. Beyond tracking the process of implementation, outcomes

research can identify changes related to housing, people, and neighborhoods, while impact research

establishes a rigorous counterfactual that would help policymakers understand how Choice or

associated programs resulted in these improvements.

Around housing, several outcomes and impact questions emerge, including—

1. How energy efficiency and use changes, and which design, technological, and management

approaches lead to the most significant improvements. Housing designs for buildings and units

should lead to significant improvements in energy consumption, but research on post-

100

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

occupancy consumption can use CNT Energy’s baseline analysis⁸⁷ to gauge the extent of energy efficiency and energy use improvements. Approaches to energy efficiency improvements and

energy use reductions can be assessed comparatively to identify those with the greatest returns.

2. The association between design decisions about housing unit size and the composition of the

tenant base after redevelopment. After replacement housing is built and occupied, research

can reconsider a number of questions related to household size and housing outcomes. Post-

redevelopment occupants’ household size and composition can be compared with those of

preredevelopment occupants to understand how the resident base changes. The household

tracking study could support a future survey of pre-Choice households to understand how they

fare after relocation in terms of housing adequacy, and survey data could be used to assess

whether post-redevelopment unit sizes affect households’ decisions to return, to restructure

their household, or to seek subsidized or nonsubsidized housing elsewhere.

3. The extent to which neighborhoodwide housing improvements and investments are sparked

by Choice, including the impact Choice has on nearby property owners. As redevelopment of

the target housing properties and offsite housing proceeds, research can assess the impact

Choice has on nearby property owners, using difference-in-difference approaches or by

comparing investment trajectories in Choice with other places that did not receive its

investment. Studies could also attempt to identify the features of redevelopment and the

neighborhood characteristics most closely associated with positive spillover effects.

Around people, future outcomes and impact research can assess—

1. How relocation and case management services help tenants retain housing assistance.

Initiating and sustaining case management before relocation may be critical for ensuring

housing stability. Future research might identify the components of case management that most

minimize disruption for relocating households, enabling them to maintain housing assistance

and return to the new development if desired. 88 Early rates of housing assistance loss may make this an especially important issue.

2. The extent to which Choice helped leverage additional resources to schools and social services

to the neighborhood as a whole. Early research suggests that providing and coordinating

services beyond the development received less early attention among grantees, largely because

of the prioritization of case management and relocation support, and also because of the

amount of resources that remained after these activities occurred. Future research might

identify how grantees leverage additional resources for services, including other federal efforts

like Promise Neighborhoods.

87 See appendix B.

88 One experimental method to assess transitional support strategies would be to compare outcomes for residents who received a boosted set of case management and relocation interventions with residents of a control group who received the current standard of care, so as to allow for a greater understanding of how enhanced strategies may impact program retention.

101

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

3. How different employment and educational initiatives produce better outcomes for residents

of the development and broader neighborhood. To date, case management has been the focus

of grantees’ efforts, but over time different social services may become more prominent,

especially given Choice’s growing emphasis on dual-generation antipoverty approaches. These

types of strategies, especially when they extend to neighborhood residents, may be particularly

amenable to testing using randomized, control ed trials, or RCTs.

Around neighborhoods, outcomes and impact research can help assess—

1. The extent to which public and private investments in infrastructure, safety, and other

neighborhood amenities grow over time. Although colocated investments previously

committed to Choice neighborhoods are significant, examples of the Choice grant catalyzing

additional resources outside of housing finance were infrequent at this early point in Choice

implementation. Given ongoing chal enges stemming from the financial crisis, federal spending

retrenchment after the wind-down of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,

and strains in the public and private sector, it is not surprising that obtaining significant

additional leverage has been challenging for grantees, but leverage is likely to grow over time

and should be understood. The issue of leveraged investments can be studied in different ways,

including the quantitative comparison of neighborhood investment trajectories in Choice

relative to similar areas.

2. How Choice grantees enact systemic changes or improvements in local interagency function.

Choice was credited by many of the grantees as helping to set in motion or put in place some

systemic changes or improvements in local interagency functioning. Simultaneously, other

aspects of local or federal policy made it more difficult for Choice efforts to extend their reach

beyond the target development into the Choice neighborhood as a whole.

3. How Choice contributes to successful neighborhood outcomes and catalyzes external

investments. Choice provides a variety of tools to help transform neighborhoods, from housing

redevelopment, to efforts to change schools and social services in the surrounding

neighborhood, to CCIs to improve facilities or promote economic development. Related to the

CCIs, a better understanding about how choices on project types, targeting, and staging of

investments affect neighborhood outcomes will inform future federal and local efforts. Choice

also operates in a variety of different contexts. The five Choice neighborhoods vary in

characteristics such as proximity to job centers, access to transit, and anchor institutions and

their cities vary in the strength of local housing and job markets. Some neighborhoods were

nested in a larger comprehensive plan, and others were not. Future evaluation will need to view

the apt selection and successful implementation of Choice housing, people and neighborhood

investments within an understanding of how each place’s broader environment contributed to

the neighborhood trajectory.

102

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative represents an important evolution of housing and community

development policy. Building on lessons from HOPE VI and other place-based initiatives, Choice has the potential to accelerate the development of revitalized, mixed-income neighborhoods. Simultaneously,

Choice’s long-term goals are ambitious, and an investment of up to $30.5 million, while significant for a federal initiative, will not transform neighborhoods immediately. As Choice’s important policy goals wil take time to achieve, it wil be necessary to continue tracking the implementation processes and the

outcomes related to housing, people, and neighborhoods in the communities in which Choice operates.

103

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

REFERENCES

Abravanel, Martin D., Diane K. Levy, and Margaret McFarland. 2011a. “The Uncharted, Uncertain Future

of HOPE VI Redevelopments: Part I,” Real Estate Review 40 (3): 17–39.

———. 2011b. “The Uncharted, Uncertain Future of HOPE VI Redevelopments: Part II,” Real Estate

Review 40 (4): 25–40.

Blank, Martin, Linda Jacobson, and Devon Minerve. 2014. “Choice Neighborhoods: Placing School

Improvements and Student Achievement at the Center of Neighborhood Revitalization.” Choice

Neighborhoods Promising Practice Guides, Issue Brief 2. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=cssp_hud_seattle.pdf.

Chaskin, Robert J., and Mark L. Joseph. 2011. “Relational Expectations and Emerging Reality: The Nature of Social Interaction in Mixed-Income Developments,” Journal of Urban Affairs 32 (2): 209–237 .

Chaskin, Robert J., Amy T. Khare, and Mark L. Joseph. 2012. “Participation, Deliberation, and Decision

Making: The Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion in Mixed-Income Developments,” Urban Affairs Review 48 (6): 863–906.

City of Seattle. 2012. “Chapter 6: Streetscape Design Guidelines.” Seattle Right-Of-Way Improvements Manual. Seattle, WA: City of Seattle.

Comey, Jennifer. 2007. HOPE VI’d and On the Move. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Gal agher, Megan. 2010. CHA Transformation: Children and Youth. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Joseph, Mark L., and Taryn H. Gress. 2013. Scan of the Field #1: Social Dynamics in Mixed-Income

Developments. Cleveland: National Initiative on Mixed-Income Communities.

Klinenberg, Eric. 2003 . Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Letki, Natalia. 2008. “Does Diversity Erode Social Cohesion? Social Capital and Race in British

Neighbourhoods,” Political Studies 5 (1): 99–126.

Manjarrez, Carlos A., Susan J. Popkin, and Elizabeth Guernsey. 2007. Poor Health: Adding Insult to Injury for HOPE VI Families. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

McInnis, Debi, Larry Buron, and Susan J. Popkin. 2007. Are HOPE VI Families at Greater Risk for

Homelessness? Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

104

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Mohnen, Sigrid M., Beate Völker, Henk Flap, S.V. Subramanian, and Peter P. Groenewegen. 2014. “The

Influence of Social Capital on Individual Health: Is It the Neighbourhood or the Network?” Social

Indicators Research: 1–20.

National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention. 2013. The NOLA FOR LIFE PLAYbook: Promoting Life for

All Youth. National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention.

http://www.nola.gov/getattachment/Health/Data-and-Publications/FINAL_The-NOLA-FOR-LIFE-

PLAYbook-9-19-2013.pdf/.

Osgood, D. Wayne. 2000. “Poisson-Based Regression Analysis of Aggregate Crime Rates,” Journal of

Quantitative Criminology 16: 21–43.

Pendall, Rolf, Leah Hendey, David Greenberg, Diane Levy, Megan Gallagher, and Kathryn L.S. Pettit.

2013. Developing Choice Neighborhoods: An Early Look at Implementation in Five Sites. Report to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/choice_neighborhoods_interim_rpt.pdf.

Popkin, Susan J. 2010. “A Glass Half Empty? New Evidence From the HOPE VI Panel Study,” Housing

Policy Debate 20 (1): 43–63.

Smith, Robin E., Susan J. Popkin, Taz George, and Jennifer Comey. 2014. What Happens to Housing

Assistance Leavers? Washington, DC: Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/publications/413163.html.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2010a. “HUD’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 NOFA

for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative—Round 1 NOFA.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development, Office of Public and Indian Housing.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=DOC_9823.pdf.

———. 2010b. “HUD’s Fiscal Year (FY) NOFA for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative—Round 1 NOFA:

Grant Program; Second Technical Correction and Extension of Deadline Date.” Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian

Housing and Office of Multifamily Programs.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=DOC_9821.pdf.

———. 2010c. “HUD’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 NOFA for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative—Round 2

NOFA (for Implementation Grant Finalists Only).” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development, Office of Public and Indian Housing.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=cnround2nofa.pdf.

———. 2010d. Choice Neighborhoods FY 2010 NOFA Pre-Notice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development.

———. 2011. “FY 2010 and FY 2011 Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grant Agreement.”

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=cn_grant_agreement.pdf.

105

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

———. 2013a. “HUD’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 NOFA for the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative—

Implementation Grants.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office

of Public and Indian Housing.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=fy13cnimplemnofafinal.pdf

———. 2013b. “Public Safety Enhancement Supplemental Funding to the FY 2010 and FY 2011 Choice

Neighborhoods Implementation Grantees Comprehensive Project Guide. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development.

———. 2014. “Frequently Asked Questions and Answers about Section 3 of the Housing & Urban

Development Act of 1968.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,

Office of Public and Indian Housing. http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/section3/FAQ08.pdf

Wallace, Deborah, and Rodrick Wal ace. 2008. “Urban Systems During Disasters: Factors for Resilience,”

Ecology and Society 13 (1): 18.

Weinheimer, Mark and Roger Wil iams. 2014. “Creating Choice Neighborhoods: Boston’s Critical

Community Improvements.” C hoice Neighborhoods Promising Practice Guides, Issue Brief 1.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=cnppguide-boston.pdf.

White House Office of Urban Affairs. 2012. “Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative.”

https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/oua/initiatives/neighborhood-revitalization

106

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

ADDITIONAL READING

Coulton, Claudia, and Mol y Irwin. 2008. Neighborhood Perceptions in a Community Initiative: How Do Alternative Boundary Definitions Affect Aggregate Measures? Cleveland: Case Western Reserve

University, Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change.

Galster, George C., Peter Tatian, and John Accordino. 2006. “Targeting Investments for Neighborhood

Revitalization,” Journal of the American Planning Association 27 (4): 457–474.

Galster, George C., Christopher Walker, Christopher Hayes, Patrick Boxall, and Jennifer Johnson. 2004.

“Measuring the Impact of Community Development Block Grant Spending on Urban Neighborhoods,”

Housing Policy Debate 15 (4): 903–934.

Graves, Erin M. 2010. “The Structuring of Urban Life in a Mixed-Income Housing ‘Community,’” City & Community 9 (1): 109–131.

Greater New Orleans Community Data Center (GNOCDC). 2005. “Orleans Parish Sept 11th Flood Extent

With Neighborhoods & Major Roads.” https://gnocdc.s3.amazonaws.com/maps/PDFs/flood_extent.pdf.

———. 2012. “Neighborhood Statistical Area Data Profiles.”

http://www.gnocdc.org/NeighborhoodData/Orleans.html.

Joseph, Mark L., and Robert J. Chaskin. 2010. “Living in a Mixed-Income Development: Resident

Perceptions of the Benefits and Disadvantages of Two Developments in Chicago,” Urban Studies 47 (11): 2347–2366.

Kleit, Rachel Garshick. 2005. “HOPE VI New Communities: Neighborhood Relationships in Mixed-Income

Housing,” Environment and Planning A 37 (8): 1413–1441.

Levy, Diane K., Zach McDade, and Kassie Bertumen. 2013. “Mixed-Income Living: Anticipated and

Realized Benefits for Low-Income Households,” Cityscape 15 (2): 15–28.

McCormick, Naomi J., Mark L. Joseph, and Robert J. Chaskin. 2012. “The New Stigma of Relocated Public

Housing Residents: Challenges to Social Identity in Mixed-Income Developments,” City and Community

11 (3): 285–308 .

Tach, Laura M. 2009. “More Than Bricks and Mortar: Neighborhood Frames, Social Processes, and the

Mixed-Income Redevelopment of a Public Housing Project,” City and Community 8 (3): 269–299.

Theodos, Brett, Susan J. Popkin, Joe Paril a, and Liza Getsinger. 2012. “The Chal enge of Targeting

Services: A Typology of Public Housing Residents,” Social Service Review 86 (3): 517–544.

Urban Institute. 2009. Social Connections. Making Connections Cross-Site Survey. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

107

Appendix A: Methodology

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

INTRODUCTION

The US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Office of Policy Development and

Research contracted with the Urban Institute and MDRC to evaluate the early progress of the Choice

Neighborhoods Initiative (Choice) for the first five implementation grantees (those awarded with funds

for FY 2010 and FY 2011) and to col ect extensive data to document baseline conditions that would both

inform this early evaluation and evaluations after implementation is completed. The evaluation began in September 2011 and data collection concluded in September 2013. 89 This appendix discusses the staffing of the research team for the evaluation and each of the primary data col ection methods used in the evaluation: key document review, interviews, meeting observations, administrative data, focus

groups, block front survey, pedestrian routes survey, and the baseline household survey.

STAFFING OVERVIEW

A central team of Urban Institute and MDRC staff contributed to data col ection for this report. In

addition, the Urban Institute (Urban) added four individual staff and one subcontractor to the research team who were located in each city with a Choice implementation grantee. These site-based employees

contributed enormously to the breadth of the col ected data that made this report possible. They

attended grantee working team meetings, public meetings, neighborhood association meetings, and

phone calls between the grantees and HUD; conducted interviews with grantee team members and

local stakeholders; and general y remained informed about these changing neighborhoods and cities.

Additional subcontractors were engaged to complete specialized tasks. The firm Strategic Economics

studied the grantees’ pro formas, and their methodology and findings are available for four of the five housing redevelopments in Appendix E. CNT Energy studied the past and projected energy performance

of the target housing developments, and their findings and methodology are described in Appendix D.

Finally, the GeoDa group was subcontracted to review the implications of the Choice intervention for

the built environment through review of the target development plans and the block survey results

described below (see appendix C).

KEY DOCUMENT REVIEW

Document review played an important role in our data col ection efforts. One key set of documents was

the Transformation Plans from the round 1 and round 2 Choice Neighborhoods Initiative

Implementation grant application materials. These documents included information on: the needs of the

focal development, the residents, and the neighborhood; the goals, activities, and vision of the grantees; the housing investments and site plans; the stated capacity of the grantees and their partners to

implement Choice; and documentation of committed leverage funds. In addition to the Implementation

89 After September 2013, a few interviews were conducted to fil gaps in the data col ection and the Choice Neighborhoods Baseline Survey concluded data col ection in May 2014.

A-1

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

grant applications, the research team assembled and reviewed other key reference materials, drawing

from a variety of sources such as budgets and quarterly reports submitted by the grantees to HUD.

INTERVIEWS

The research team designed protocols and conducted key informant interviews to better understand the

implementation of the Choice Neighborhood program, including the grant activities, the status of the

residents, and the conditions in surrounding neighborhoods. The protocols were tailored for each

Choice team and for individual actors including: the lead grantee, implementation leads for housing,

people, education, and neighborhood, case managers, property managers, relocation specialists,

resident leaders, service providers, local developers, city agency officials and staff, local police precinct commanders, elected officials, and influential community leaders. In addition, protocols were designed

for interviews of the lead grant managers at HUD and directors of the Choice Neighborhoods program.

Topics included: internal and external coordination, policy reform, leverage, and framing and income-

mixing goals of the Choice program, details about plans and activities to address major redevelopment

goals (e.g., demolition, construction, ensuring energy efficiency); progress on housing including

demolition, design, income-mixing, and financing; relocation and mobility programs for assisted

residents; resident turnover; case management efforts; service connection; neighborhood context;

public safety; critical community improvements; and new businesses or other development in the

surrounding neighborhood.

Interviews of grantees and other local organizations were conducted in three ways— by formal field

visits by the central research team (with the inclusion of subcontracted researchers from Case Western

Reserve University on the Eastern Bayview site visits), occasional telephone interviews of Choice

stakeholders by staff from the Urban-MDRC team in Washington and New York, and ongoing updates

from site-based Urban staff. The ful range of key informants described above was interviewed in each

Choice Neighborhood.

Key informant interviews took place during two site visits: the initial visit in March to April 2012 for Quincy Corridor, Woodlawn, and Ibervil e/Tremé and in July to August 2012 for Eastern Bayview and

Yesler; and a follow-up visit during June-August 2013. In addition, the part-time site-based employees

conducted interviews with key participants in the transformation process throughout the study. In-

person interviews were conducted in the offices of participants or another local location and lasted

approximately 1.5 hours. Interviewers took comprehensive notes on each interview and recorded

selected interviews when the respondent consented. Over the course of the two years of data collection

project, more than 190 interviews were conducted. To assist in the analysis for the cross-site chapters in the main text of this report, research staff then coded the text according to a list of key words using the online Dedoose qualitative data analysis software.

A-2

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

MEETING OBSERVATIONS

Site-based research staff in each Choice Neighborhood attended and took notes at key neighborhood

and community meetings, public meetings that discussed Choice, Choice grantee team working

meetings, and grantee conference calls with HUD. This direct observation of the Choice implementation

process provided another perspective to supplement the key informant interviews and the baseline

survey.

Potential meetings were identified through Choice grantee staff and email lists, and newsletters related to Choice Neighborhoods. Data col ection was guided by a specific set of priority topics, and recorded

information about the content, participants, interactions, and other observable dynamics of meetings.

The site-based Urban employee sent field notes from key meetings to designated members of the

Urban-MDRC team and debriefed with the central team members at Urban-MDRC. Field notes were

coded in Dedoose by site-based Urban research staff and under a subcontract with research staff at

Case Western Reserve University. In total more than 100 meeting observations were conducted over the

course of the evaluation.

ADMINISTRATIVE DATA

The interim report for this evaluation, Developing Choice Neighborhoods (Pendall, et al. 2013) contained much of the administrative data used in this report, including the data from the decennial census in

2000 and 2010 used to describe the neighborhood context. Appendix C of the interim report contains a

detailed description of those data sources.

This report took advantage of two other sets of administrative data sources. First, Urban obtained crime records from the local jurisdictions, which are described in more detail in appendix G. Second, Urban

obtained HUD data on public and subsidized housing for use in drawing the baseline survey sample and

analyzing the characteristics of target development residents.

HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing is responsible for maintaining and gathering data about the

inventories of developments, buildings, and units through the Inventory Management System (IMS)/ PIH

Information Center (PIC). Housing Authorities submit their tenant data through the IMS/PIC system from

the HUD-50058 forms used during tenant certification.

Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS) is a HUD computer system developed to improve

financial controls over assisted housing programs by automating manual procedures and incorporating

automated controls. HUD-assisted development owners are required to enter tenant data into TRACS

from the HUD-50059 forms used during certification.

The PIC and TRACS databases can be used to calculate the number of HUD-assisted households by

location, to identify the characteristics of those households, and to track those households

longitudinal y.

A-3

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

FOCUS GROUPS

To complement the data col ected through other methods, the research team conducted two focus

groups at each Choice Neighborhood, one with residents of the target development and one with

residents of the surrounding neighborhood. Focus groups are an excellent and relatively low-cost way to gather information on community perceptions of problems and of the changes in the community over

time. The focus groups covered a range of topics, including: perceptions of neighborhood conditions;

challenges, adequacy of services and amenities; perceptions of the target development; resident

turnover; new residents moving into the community; views about the Choice Neighborhoods

redevelopment; and opportunities and value of resident participation in redevelopment planning

meetings.

Except in Yesler and Yesler Terrace, focus groups were conducted during the second site visit in the

summer of 2013. To recruit participants for the resident groups, the research team distributed letters

and post fliers in the target development and other public places in the neighborhood. Interested

individuals were asked to contact the research team and participate in a screening to confirm their

eligibility. Criteria for eligibility were based on age (al participants had to be at least 18 year olds), address at the time of screening and availability on the date of the focus group, and age. Participants in the target development residents’ groups included individuals who lived in the development for at least one year at the time of screening. Participants in the neighborhood residents’ groups were recruited

from within the Choice Neighborhood boundary. Focus group participants were encouraged to speak

openly about the issues which were raised during the focus group and were asked not to share any

information discussed with others. Participants were given $40 to thank them for their participation and drinks were provided to those participating in the focus group.

Despite extensive outreach efforts in Yesler Terrace and Yesler, the research team had difficulty

recruiting participants, in part due to cultural differences and language barriers. To ensure that the

resident perspective was represented in the qualitative data, the site-based Urban researcher worked

with a translator from Neighborhood House to conduct one group interview/focus group with Yesler

Terrace residents in Amharic and one with residents in Tigrinya. With the chal enges in recruiting and

because the population in Yesler outside of Yesler Terrace is small, a focus group with surrounding

neighborhood residents was not conducted.

BLOCK FRONT AND PEDESTRIAN ROUTES SURVEYS

HUD’s goals for neighborhood transformation include improving the built environment in the Choice

Neighborhoods. This evaluation used multiple data col ection methods to establish baseline conditions

of the physical conditions and quality of the pedestrian environment, including the household survey, a survey of block fronts, and a survey of an important pedestrian route in each Choice Neighborhood. This section of appendix A focuses on describing the methodology of the block front survey and the

pedestrian routes survey.

A-4

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

PROTOCOL DESIGN:

The Block Front and Pedestrian Routes surveys were designed to capture observations of the built

environment related to traffic and pedestrian conditions including connectivity; services and amenities; quality of the public realm and physical conditions of the Choice Neighborhoods. The protocols were

designed with input from Dr. Ann Forsyth, a consultant to the Urban Institute research team and one of

the authors of the Irvine Minnesota Inventory. Questions were drawn or adapted from three sources:

• The Irvine Minnesota Inventory (The Irvine Minnesota Inventory, Kristen Day, et. al., Instrument

and Protocol: http://www.activelivingresearch.org/node/10634)

• PEDS – Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (The Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (PEDS) Tool,

Dr. Kelley Clifton, University of Maryland. Instruments and Protocols

http://planningandactivity.unc.edu/RP1.htm)

• NYC HVS – The New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey (New York City Housing and Vacancy

Survey, Conducted by the US Census Bureau. Instruments and Protocols:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/nychvs/nychvs.html)

The protocols were designed to allow observers with modest levels of training to document a variety of

features of the built environment. Most of the questions included in the block front and pedestrian

routes survey protocols were identical. (A copy of the protocol is included at the end of Appendix C.)

Eight additional questions more suited to in-person observation were included in the pedestrian routes

protocol. The additional questions included information on parked cars, sidewalk conditions, and the

presence of other pedestrians.

TRAINING OF OBSERVERS

Two sessions were held in June 2013 to train the Urban Institute staff and subcontractors who would be

conducting the block front or pedestrian routes surveys. Both training sessions were conducted by Dr.

Forsyth via conference call with PowerPoint materials provided to all participants. In the first session, the protocols were discussed and the PowerPoint provided descriptions and images on various

questions to help trainees distinguish between response choices (e.g. between road-oriented and

pedestrian-oriented lighting or between a little and a lot of graffiti). Between the first and second

training sessions all trainees were asked to test the protocol on a few blocks in their own

neighborhoods, noting where they had questions or difficulty. During the second training session (held

three days later) the trainees had the opportunity to ask questions and discuss the protocols with Dr.

Forsyth.

In addition to this training, observers conducting the block front survey had their first ten observations reviewed by a supervisor before continuing on to additional blocks. Any inconsistencies or issues of

concern were identified and discussed. In addition, periodic reviews of randomly-selected completed

observations were conducted and inconsistencies flagged and corrected.

A-5

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

BLOCK FRONT SURVEY

SAMPLING

Street segments were selected for the observation sample using the Census Bureau’s 2010 Tiger Line

Edges shapefiles, available for all counties in the US. Using ArcMap GIS software, the edges shapefiles were clipped by the Choice Neighborhood boundary files that had been developed by the research team

using the grantee’s applications (see Appendix B “Geographies for Choice Neighborhoods Analyses” in

Pendall et al. 2013). Once the shapefiles were clipped, the attribute tables were converted to SAS

datasets. Street segments included in the sampling frame were those with MAF/TIGER Feature

Classification Codes (MTFCC) of S1100 (primary road), S1200 (secondary road), S1400 (local

neighborhood road, rural road, city street), or S1710 (Walkway/Pedestrian Trail). 90 Excluded features include highway ramps, al eys, road medians, etc. Using simple random sampling and the surveyselect

procedure in the SAS software, the research team drew random samples of street segments for each

Choice Neighborhood with the goal of having estimates with 90 percent confidence intervals and 5

percent margins of error (see exhibit A.1). Larger samples were drawn to accommodate the fact that

Google Street View did not have 100 percent coverage in all of the Choice Neighborhoods and some

segments might be features like highways which did not need to be assessed.

Exhibit A.1: Choice Neighborhoods Block Front Survey Sample

Number

of Street

Segments in Sample

Segments in Sample

Segments

Could not be

Margin of

Choice Neighborhood

Number

Number

Percent

surveyed

Valid

Error (%)

Quincy Corridor

293

154

53

11

143

4.9

Woodlawn

690

215

31

24

191

5.1

Iberville/Tremé

1279

256

20

39

217

5.1

Eastern Bayview

505

195

39

30

165

5.3

Yesler

119

91

76

15

76

5.7

DATA COLLECTION

To complete the block front survey observations, trained observers worked with two computer screens,

one with an Access Database entry form to record observations for each question and the other to

display Google Street View (available at http://maps.google.com). Each observer was given the coordinates for latitude and longitude of the mid-point of the street segment to enter into Google Street View. The observers recorded the date that the image was taken, which appeared on the bottom of

each image. Ninety-eight percent of all Google Street View observations had images that were taken in

2011. The remaining two percent of images were from 2007, 2009, 2012 or 2013. Starting at one end of

the street segments, observers panned down the street, looking at the block fronts on either side and

recorded their responses before moving on to the next segment. The observations were conducted

90 Please see http://www.census.gov/rdo/pdf/AttD_MAF_TIGER_Feature_Classification_Codes.pdf for a list of MTFCC codes.

A-6

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

between July 2013 and October 2013 by seven trained observers at the Urban Institute. Observers were

encouraged to do more than an hour or two of observations at any one time to avoid fatigue.

PEDESTRIAN ROUTES SURVEY

SELECTION OF ROUTES

During the first site visits (conducted in March 2012 to August 2012), the Urban Institute and MDRC

research team consulted with the Choice grantees and made their own observations about what

pedestrian routes would be best surveyed. The routes were to begin at the target development and go

to a key destination (e.g., schools, commercial areas, or transit hubs). Final routes were identified in June 2013 by the Urban Institute staff and subcontractors on the research team who were living in the

cities with the Choice Neighborhoods. Routes were roughly one-half to one mile long. Before the

surveys were conducted, the research team prepared maps of each street segment on the route with

landmarks available on Google Maps. The routes selected were:

Quincy Corridor: As Woodledge/Morrant Bay was a scattered-site development, the route did not begin at the development. However, it did focus on a street where a portion of the target development was

located and where other Choice investments were being made. The route ran along Quincy Street from

Blue Hill Ave to Columbia Road.

Woodlawn: The Woodlawn route was designed to explore the pedestrian conditions from Grove Parc to the CTA transit stop and along the commercial corridor East 63rd Street. The route began at Grove Parc

on South Cottage Grove Ave at East 62nd Street then the observers headed south on South Cottage

Grove and then east on East 63rd Street to South Ellis Avenue. The observers also made some

observations along South Cottage Grove between East 63rd and East 64th Streets.

Iberville/Tremé: This route was designed to explore the pedestrian conditions from the Ibervil e to the New Orleans Tremé Center located in Louis Armstrong Park. The route began at the corner of St. Louis

Street and Tremé Streets, went along St. Louis and then left on Crozat Street. From Crozat the route

turned left onto Basin Street and then to Basin to North Villere Street where there was an entrance to

the park and Tremé Center.

Eastern Bayview: The route selected ran west on Fitzgerald Avenue from the entrance of Alice Griffith to the main retail corridor at the edge of the Choice Neighborhood 3rd Street.

Yesler: The route selected went from Yesler Terrace to the retail available on South Jackson Street. The route started at East Yesler Way and Broadway and went east on Yesler Way and then right down Boren

Avenue South and right on 12th Avenue South, then right again on South Jackson Street and ending at

10th Avenue South.

DATA COLLECTION

Due to concerns for the safety of the research team, the observations were conducted during the day

and recorded on paper without the use of laptops, tablets, smart phones or other electronic recording

devices. With the exception of Quincy Corridor, the observations were made by the research team

A-7

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

(including the Urban Institute employees and subcontractors based in those areas) during the second

site visit to the Choice Neighborhoods. The Iberville/Tremé observation was completed in June 2013 and

the Woodlawn, Eastern Bayview and Yesler observations were completed in July 2013. For Quincy

Corridor, the observation was conducted by Dr. Forsyth and the Urban Institute researcher in Boston in

August 2013, two months fol owing the site visit. The original protocols were returned back to the Urban Institute’s Washington DC office and entered into an Access database (modeled after the one for the

block front survey). In addition to completing the protocol for each street segment along the route,

Urban Institute staff in Washington D.C. measured the width of the sidewalks along the route using

aerial images from Pictometry.

BASELINE HOUSEHOLD SURVEY

HUD’s goals for neighborhood transformation include improvements in housing and neighborhood

livability and supports of vulnerable residents. In an effort to assess the perspectives of residents, both those who live in the target development and those who live outside of it, the evaluation team fielded a household survey. This section of appendix A focuses on describing the methodology of the household

survey.

INSTRUMENT DESIGN

UI designed the survey instrument with input from Making Connections, Moving to Opportunity, and the

Long Term Outcomes Study (or HOST), and National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) surveys. Original

items were designed to cover topics unique to Choice Neighborhoods, related to engagement in site

design and perceptions of neighborhood change.

The baseline resident survey was intended to form the basis for a long-term panel study that documents

how Choice affects residents across a range of domains and compares the experiences of target

development residents to those who reside in the larger neighborhood. Domains include:

• Housing Mobility: In order to ascertain the length of time that the respondent has been in their current unit or in the neighborhood, a short series of housing mobility questions were asked.

• Housing Conditions and Utility Costs: These questions focus on interior housing conditions (adapted from the American Housing Survey and used in the Moving To Opportunity Final Evaluation) and

housing assistance status and rent/utility hardship (used in HOPE VI Panel Study and the Chicago

Family Case Management Demonstration).

• Neighborhood Conditions, Safety and Social Cohesion: These questions will help researchers

measure the level of neighborhood cohesion at baseline, residents’ formal and informal social

networks, as well as their level of involvement in community activities.

• Neighborhood Services and Amenities: These questions ask about the availability and quality of services in the neighborhood, institutional supports (such as case management services, classes, and

job training), and perceptions of and access to neighborhood services and amenities. Neighborhood

residents wil not be asked about Choice-funded services.

A-8

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

• Household Composition: Survey respondents were asked to supply basic information about al

members of the household, including names, ages, employment status (if appropriate), and

educational attainment.

• Physical and Mental Health: Items adapted from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) will help researchers document residents’ overall health and specific health conditions, access to

medical and dental care, and ability to carry out activities of daily living.

• Employment, Education, and Public Assistance: Information was col ected on educational

attainment, employment status, earnings, barriers to work (e.g., child care, health, transportation,

literacy), and receipt of benefits (TANF, SSI, SSD, Food Stamps). Survey also includes questions about

economic hardship, such as trouble paying bil s and food insecurity.

• Child Wel -Being: The interview respondent (the head of household) was asked to answer a short series of items about one focal child in the household. Respondents with a younger (age 5 or under)

child were asked about childcare arrangement or grade level. Respondents with older child (age 6 to

14) were asked about grade level, behavior, extracurricular activities, school engagement, school

performance, and health. Children were not interviewed.

DIR prepared Spanish, Vietnamese, Cantonese, and Somali versions of the survey.

PRETEST

Prior to the pretest, DIR reviewed the skip logic, language, order, timing and flow of the draft instrument and worked with Urban to address issues. DIR conducted the pretest in May and June 2013, which

resulted in 12 completed surveys– five from the neighborhood sample and seven from the target

development sample.

DIR project staff monitored pretest interviews and debriefed with interviewers to determine whether

any substantial changes were needed to the questionnaire design or question flow. DIR summarized the

pretest results and provided Urban with recommendations for changes to the questionnaire and data

collection procedures. Results indicated that the survey was running about 15 minutes over the

budgeted time and DIR recommended reducing the length of the survey. There were no other major

issues observed with the delivery or the respondents’ reaction to the content, comprehension, or

duration of the survey. Urban adjusted the length of the instrument so that administration did not

exceed 45 minutes on average.

Once the survey instrument was final, DIR developed the computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI)

programs and extensive internal testing of the system was conducted, including review by project staff, interview staff, data preparation staff, and by the programmers themselves to ensure that the CATI

program was working properly.

DIR also tested the Spanish, Vietnamese, Cantonese, and Somali translations using translation team

consensus methodology to ensure that the individual questions were conceptual y the same in al

languages. DIR utilized bilingual interviewers and CATI supervisors during the internal testing to review the language and summarize problems. Language issues were addressed through minor revisions to the

instruments.

A-9

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

HIRING AND TRAINING STAFF

Training is essential to ensure the collection of high-quality data and the protection of respondent

confidentiality. All DIR staff were certified by DIR before beginning data col ection. Two distinct roles included interviewers that worked at the CATI center in Houston (“CATI Staff”) and staff that worked in the five study sites to recruit survey respondents (“Field Staff”).

CATI STAFF

CATI staff were responsible for communicating with sample members over the telephone from DIR’s

Houston-based CATI center. CATI staff assess eligibility, obtain consent, and administer the survey.

DIR employed experienced CATI that worked on previous DIR surveys. Telephone interviewer training

for this survey included an overview of the purpose of the study and the study design, a refresher of

standard interviewing practices, specific training on how to gather consent before beginning the survey, and a review of the frequently asked questions and other supplemental materials. DIR managers

conducted a walk-through of the CATI instruments with al trainees using screen shots from the

computerized instrument. Interviewers received laminated reference sheets that cover topics such as

frequently asked questions, handling soft refusals, and phone center or field procedures. The training

also included opportunities for mock interviews and practice exercises. Upon successful completion of

training, interviewers were certified by DIR floor supervisors. DIR recruited staff with language

competencies to reflect the sample.

FIELD STAFF

Field staff work on site in the Choice neighborhood, interacting with sample members and their

neighbors in person. Field staff were responsible for contacting sample members, inviting them to

participate in the survey, answering their questions, and connecting them with the CATI staff for the

interview.

DIR used resources and contacts in the study sites —for example, community-based organizations,

community colleges, and other entities – to supplement its extensive national roster of field

interviewers. Background searches were conducted for all field staff candidates as part of the hiring

process. Training was conducted on site and included frequently asked questions, handling soft refusals, and phone center or field procedures. Field staff became certified by DIR through role play exercises

during training. They needed to be comfortable working in low-income, high-crime areas and working

with underserved populations. They must be flexible enough to interact with al members of the

community.

SAMPLING

RESIDENTS OF TARGET DEVELOPMENT

In order to sample residents who lived in the target development at the time of the Round 1 Choice

Neighborhoods Initiative Implementation application (December 2010), Urban researchers obtained

administrative data from HUD’s PIC/TRAC system, including residents’ names and addresses and basic

demographic information. Urban used these files to select a random sample of target development

A-10

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

residents for each Choice Neighborhood. Urban provided the sample to DIR to contact the head of

household, which was already determined by HUD.

OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS

In order to sample residents who live in the neighborhood but not in the target development, DIR used a database developed by Survey Sampling, Inc. (SSI) that has near universal coverage of residential home

addresses. Urban provided the boundaries of the Choice Neighborhoods and DIR randomly selected

addresses.

It was necessary to select a sufficient number of housing units in each neighborhood to obtain the

enough residents who lived within the neighborhood boundary but outside of the target development,

taking into account housing vacancies and other non-response. CATI staff had to identify an adult

member of the household who was responsible for financial matters and knowledgeable about the

household (i.e., the equivalent of the head of household).

The total number of households in the universes and proposed samples are presented in exhibit A.2.

Exhibit A.2. Universe and Sample Size for the Choice Neighborhoods Baseline Survey

Target Development

Neighborhood

Sample

Choice

Universe

Target

Universe

Target

Neighborhood

Size

Sample

Sample

Size

Size

Size

Iberville/Tremé

439

200

8,201

250

Woodlawn

338

200

12,114

250

Quincy

Corridor

126

80

3,547

250

Yesler

503

200

965

200

Eastern

Bayview

216

150

5,590

250

Total

1,622

830

30,417

1,700

RECRUITMENT

Sample members were sent an advance letter one week prior to the start of data collection. The letter

informed sample members about the nature of the study, advising them of the incentive, and assuring

them of confidentiality. Follow-up to the letter and flyer took one of the following three forms:

1. Sample members completed the interview in one of the following Residents interested in

participating in the interview cal ed DIR’s Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI)

center directly to complete a CATI-based interview conducted by DIR staff.

2. CATI staff used available phone number to cal residents to complete the interview.

A-11

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

3. Field staff made direct contact with residents to facilitate their participation in a CATI-based

interview.

In Woodlawn only, sample members received an invitation to update their information by cal ing a tol -

free number. Sixty cal ed in to provide this information. The addresses and phone numbers provided

were used by DIR to contact sample members.

Results from all interactions and attempted contacts were coded in the CATI system. DIR supervisory

staff carefully reviewed refusals to determine whether the refusal was a soft refusal (requiring follow-up), a gatekeeper refusal (requiring direct contact with the respondent) or a hard refusal. DIR attempted to convert al refusal dispositions by CATI or field contact. The CATI manager and/or CATI floor

supervisors periodically reviewed verbatim comments for all three refusal dispositions to determine the viability of a refusal conversion attempt and to verify refusal disposition coding. If a case was deemed eligible for re-contact, it was assigned to a CATI interviewer.

To reach more sample members and improve response rates, DIR increased field staff personnel hours,

sent additional reminder post-cards, and conducted two survey blitzes in each Choice Neighborhood

targeting the target development and neighborhood samples. Survey blitzes were events held by DIR at

each site to increase the visibility of the survey effort and assure skeptical sample members of the

legitimacy of the effort.

TRACKING

DIR used a variety of tracking methods throughout the study period to update contact information and

achieve the study’s response-rate goals. Tracking-related activities began as soon as the sample was

received from Urban Institute. DIR reviewed the sample to identify any anomalies or patterns of missing information and then submitted the sample to the National Change of Address (NCOA) database to

obtain any available updated contact information prior to contacting sample members.

Field-based locating was an essential component of the process because relocation from the target

development had begun in several sites. The locators used original contact information and any

available updated information for the sample members in order to conduct in-person home visits. To

uncover further leads to the sample members’ whereabouts, field locators also used standard field

methods, such as communicating with gatekeepers and neighbors, postal delivery persons, and other

residents in the area to help identify local gathering places where sample members may be found. DIR

requested address updates from community organizations for sample members from the target

development. DIR tried to locate sample members until all available leads were exhausted.

DATA COLLECTION

Respondents in any of the four dominant non-English-speaking groups (Spanish, Cantonese,

Vietnamese, and Somali) were given the choice of being interviewed in English or in their native

languages. English and Spanish language surveys were administered by CATI. A smal number of

Vietnamese, Cantonese, and Somali interviews in Yesler and Yesler Terrace were conducted in person.

A-12

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

ENGLISH AND SPANISH LANGUAGE INTERVIEWS

First, respondents were asked for their consent to participate in the survey. The consent script was

written in clear, simple language. The CATI Staff read the script to the sample member and allowed time for the respondent to ask questions. The script explained the study and its goals, the data security plan, the staff confidentiality agreement, and our methods for safeguarding anonymity in our reports and

publications. Respondents were informed that no information provided during the interview would be

shared with their property manager, the local housing authority, or anyone responsible for managing

their rental subsidy. However, information/data would be shared with HUD. Individuals were also

informed of the risks and benefits of participating in the survey. In addition, DIR stressed the voluntary nature of their participation and made clear to al parties that there would be no negative consequences should they choose to not participate.

Once their verbal consent was received, CATI Staff proceeded with the survey. The instrument consisted

of approximately 300 (multiple choice and yes/no) questions and respondents were routed to questions

based on their responses to previous questions. DIR was responsible for al field data col ection. For

most respondents, the survey took approximately 45 minutes to complete.

Sample members used a tol -free phone number to reach the CATI center. Landlines were the preferred

choice for conducting field-initiated CATI interviews. If no landline was available, then the field staff was prepared with a DIR-provided cell phone for the respondent to use to call into the CATI center. Field

locators were trained to determine whether the potential respondent had an available landline before

attempting to initiate a call from a cell phone.

NON-ENGLISH AND NON-SPANISH LANGUAGE INTERVIEWS

For sample members that preferred to be interviewed in Cantonese, Vietnamese, or Somali, a trained

interviewer conducted that interview in person, in the preferred language of the sample member. For

the staff assigned to these cases, the responsibilities of the field staff and the CATI staff were merged into one.

INCENTIVES

A $50 gift card was issued to each household that completed the survey. DIR mailed the gift card once

the completed interview was logged into the CATI system, within 3 – 4 weeks of survey completion.

Toward the end of survey administration, DIR occasional y gave out gift cards in the field immediately

after respondents complete the interview as an added incentive.

TIMELINE

The survey was fielded with sample members from the target development and other neighborhood

residents simultaneously in each Choice Neighborhood. The proposed schedule cal ed for a 12-week

data collection period in each Choice Neighborhood but it was extended in Iberville/Tremé, Quincy

Corridor, and Eastern Bayview to allow DIR to recruit and administer the survey to more sample

members. The start and end dates for active field recruitment at each Choice Neighborhood is shown in

exhibit A.3. Some phone cal s may have been received by the CATI center after the date shown.

A-13

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit A.3. Start and End Dates for Active Field Recruitment

Choice

Start Date

End Date

Neighborhood

Woodlawn

July 2013

October 2013

Iberville/Tremé

August 2013

March 2014

Quincy Corridor

October 2013

April 2014

Eastern Bayview

November 2013

April 2014

Yesler

January 2014

May 2014

Overal

July 2013

May 2014

QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES

To ensure that data col ected met criteria for good and valid data, DIR used the fol owing quality control procedures: the first two interviews were monitored for each interviewer; after the first two interviews, 10 percent of all interviews were monitored; ongoing training occurred each time a feedback session

was conducted with comments from monitoring; and the floor supervisors were an in-person resource

for the interviewers. DIR also conducted ongoing interviewer debriefs and spot check trainings to

monitor and address any study issues.

DATA ANALYSIS

RESPONSE RATES

Overal 1,713 heads of households in both the Target Development and Neighborhood samples across

all five Choice Neighborhoods completed the Choice Neighborhood Baseline survey, resulting in a 50

percent response rate (exhibit A.4). For the whole Target Development sample the response rate was 82

percent, with rates ranging from 79 percent in Eastern Bayview to 87 percent in Woodlawn. The overal

neighborhood sample response rate was 39 percent; the highest response rate was in Ibervil e/Tremé

(52 percent) and the lowest was in Quincy Corridor (35 percent).

Exhibit A.4. Key sample information for Choice Neighborhoods Baseline Survey

Focal Development Households

Neighborhood Households

Choice

Universe

Target

Total

Response

Universe

Target

Total

Response

Neighborhood

Size

Sample

Sample

Size

Completes

Rate (%)

Size

Size

Completes

Rate (%)

Iberville/Tremé

439

200

179

80.6

8,201

250

204

51.8

Woodlawn

338

200

199

86.6

12,114

250

227

35.2

Quincy

Corridor

126

80

79

81.8

3,547

250

187

34.5

Yesler

503

200

167

79.5

965

200

130

37.1

Eastern

Bayview

216

150

129

78.6

5,590

250

212

39.2

Total

1,622

830

753

81.6

30,417

1,700

960

39.1

A-14

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

WEIGHTS AND DESIGN EFFECTS

Typical variance calculations (on which our t-tests are based) are applicable for simple random sampling, where units are selected independently and with equal probability. Although our sample was intended

to represent the population, it turned out that some Yesler and Eastern Bayview households in the

target development and neighborhood sample were more likely than others to participate. As a result,

survey weights were used to make the sample more representative of the Yesler and Eastern Bayview

target developments and neighborhoods.

While survey weights reduces the potential survey bias from having a less representative sample, their

use reduces the overall effective sample size since some participants responses are weighted up to

account for the non-participants. The impact of this reduction in the effective sample size can be

estimated by calculating the design effect of the survey weights. The design effect adjustment inflates the variance of parameter estimates, and therefore their standard errors, which in turn broadens the

confidence intervals and lessens the likelihood that one would observe statistically significant

differences. The design effect for Yesler is 1.379579825and for Eastern Bayview is 2.088370212.

A-15

Appendix B: The Five Choice

Neighborhoods

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

INTRODUCTION

This appendix provides more detailed descriptions of the five FY 2010–11 Choice Neighborhoods

implementation plans, progress, and partners than was covered in the main body of the report. Each

section of this appendix begins with a description of baseline conditions in the five Choice

Neighborhoods that draws from data featured in Pendal et al. 2013, Developing Choice Neighborhoods in addition to newly available data from the household survey of residents. The rest of each section

turns to the implementation of Choice in that neighborhood. Progress on implementing major

interventions is described, and the successes of and challenges for the grantee teams are identified.

These sections review the key implementation partners described in Developing Choice Neighborhoods

and then discuss each component of Choice: housing, people, and neighborhoods. Each section

concludes with a summary of progress the grantee team has made on internal and external coordination

and leverage of investments and services for the neighborhood. A table summarizing major activities in

the Choice Neighborhoods is also included at the end of each section.

B.1. BOSTON: WOODLEDGE/MORRANT BAY AND THE QUINCY

CORRIDOR NEIGHBORHOOD

Quincy Corridor is located along the western section of the north Dorchester area and includes a portion of the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston, about four miles south of downtown. Few Bostonians would

know “Quincy Corridor” as a place. It includes al or part of the neighborhoods recognized as Dorchester and Roxbury, including Grove Hal (a section of Dorchester located in the southern Choice

Neighborhood), Uphams Corner (a section in the eastern part of the Choice Neighborhood), and Dudley

Square/Dudley Triangle (a section to the north that goes into Roxbury). The Choice Neighborhood

includes several main roads and landmarks, including Blue Hil Avenue, Columbia Road, Geneva Avenue,

West Cottage Street, Quincy Street (around which much of the target development is centered), and the

former Pearl Meats factory (exhibit B.1).

B-1

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit B.1. Map of Quincy Corridor Neighborhood

BASELINE CONDITIONS

As defined by the grantee, this Choice Neighborhood had about 9,700 people in an area of one-half

square mile and was the densest of the first five neighborhoods with Choice implementation grants.

Quincy Corridor has a higher share of families with children than the other four Choice Neighborhoods

B-2

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

and a diverse mix of residents: 37 percent were foreign born, 53 percent were non-Hispanic

African/African-American, and 35 percent were Hispanic (exhibit B.2). As reported in the baseline

survey, about 39 percent of the heads of households had at least some col ege or technical schooling,

but 32 percent had not graduated from high school. Residents of Quincy Corridor were struggling to get

by; 57 percent of households had annual incomes below $15,000, and 73 percent had incomes under

$30,000. Only 46 percent of the heads of household were employed at baseline. About 37 percent of the

heads of households used public transportation regularly (about the same level as Woodlawn and Yesler

and a higher share than in Iberville/Tremé or Eastern Bayview).

Exhibit B.2. Resident and Household Characteristics in Quincy Corridor

Head of Household Characteristics

Percent Household Characteristics

Percent

Female

77

Households with children

59

Race and Ethnicity

Three-generation household

9

Non-Hispanic African-American

53

Household's annual income

Non-Hispanic White

1

Under $15,000

57

Non-Hispanic other

10

$15,000 to $29,999

16

Hispanic

36

$30,000 to $49,999

16

Born in the US

63

$50,000 to $69,999

3

Education

$70,000 or more

7

12th grade or less

31

Public assistance

GED or high school diploma

30

Supplemental Security Income

29

Some technical or col ege or higher

39

Disability

11

HH is currently employed

46

Cash assistance

16

Ratings of Well-Being

Percent

Mode of Transportation

Respondent in good health

71

Has a car to use

67

Child well-being

Takes public transit regularly

37

Focal child in good health

90

Focal child positive behavior scale (score)

4.5

Focal child 2 or more negative behaviors

36

Ratings of Housing Quality

Percent Ratings of Neighborhood Quality and Safety

Percent

Number of housing quality problems

Rates the neighborhood as at least an 8 of 10

41

0

35

Feels safe alone outside of home during the day

88

1

25

Feels safe alone outside of home at night

58

2 to 3

28

Thinks the ngh. is a good place to raise children

56

4 or more

12

Collective efficacy scale score

3.2

Source: Choice Neighborhoods Baseline Survey 2013–14.

Nearly one-half of the rental housing is subsidized, although no public housing developments are

located in the area. Much of the housing stock is in two- to four-unit structures and single-family houses.

Empty land parcels throughout the area mark locations of buildings lost to arson in the 1960s and 1970s.

In addition to vacant land, there are abandoned and foreclosed properties in the area. Four in 10

households reported at least two or more housing quality problems.

B-3

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

The five Choice Neighborhoods were very similar on measures of resident and child well-being. In

Quincy Corridor most respondents (71 percent) reported good health, and 90 percent reported that

their child was in good health. The baseline survey also asked about the behaviors of children and youth.

In reference to positive behaviors, such as the ability to regulate emotions and get along with others, youth in Quincy Corridor averaged 4.5 positive behaviors out of a possible 6. Thirty-six percent of

respondents reported that their child aged 6 to 14 had two or more negative behaviors, such as

disobedience at school or home, and restlessness or overactivity.

Survey respondents in Quincy Corridor (41 percent) were less likely to rate their neighborhood highly

(an 8 or higher out of 10) than residents living in central cities nationwide (62 percent). This

neighborhood rating level was lower than that of Iberville/Tremé (53 percent) but similar to the other

Choice Neighborhoods. Fifty-six percent of respondents believed that Quincy Corridor is a good place to raise children, lower than in Ibervil e/Tremé and Yesler (about 70 percent) but comparable to the

proportion of residents in Woodlawn and Eastern Bayview. Most respondents felt safe outside their

homes during the day (88 percent), but fewer felt safe at night (58 percent). Quincy Corridor had lower average ratings of collective efficacy (3.2 out of 5) than all the other Choice neighborhoods. 91

The Choice target development in Boston is Woodledge/Morrant Bay, a project-based Section 8 HUD-

assisted housing development, located in the center of the Quincy Corridor neighborhood. It wil be

renamed Quincy Heights when redevelopment is complete. At the time of the application it was owned

by United Housing Management (UHM) and wil be sold as part of the Choice Transformation Plan to the

Dorchester Bay Economic Development Corporation (DBEDC) and the Quincy Geneva Housing

Corporation (QGHC) as a joint venture. Built in the 1920s, Woodledge/Morrant Bay consisted of 129

units scattered over 11 three-story walk-up buildings within a three-block radius around Quincy Street.

Of the 11 buildings, 2 wil be demolished and replaced with newly constructed buildings on site and on

adjacent parcels of land. The remaining 9 buildings wil be rehabilitated. The units in Woodledge/

Morrant Bay account for only 4 percent of the neighborhood’s 3,500 housing units, 88 percent of which

are in multifamily buildings.

At the time of the baseline survey, 43 percent of the households were still in their original unit and 10

percent lived elsewhere in Quincy Corridor (exhibit B.3). The composition of the households in

Woodledge/Morrant Bay largely reflected that of the broader Quincy Corridor neighborhood. Forty-one

percent of the heads of households were non-Hispanic African/African-American and 55 percent were

Hispanic, with 44 percent born outside of the United States. Only 18 percent had some col ege or

technical schooling; 51 percent did not have a col ege degree. About 48 percent of the heads of

households were working at baseline.

91 Collective efficacy includes how cohesive the residents feel the neighborhood is, with shared trust and values, as well as how likely neighbors are to exhibit social control and do something to address concerns in their neighborhood, from children fighting to doing something to address cuts to services in their neighborhood.

B-4

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit B.3. Resident and Household Characteristics in Woodledge/Morrant Bay

Head of Household Characteristics

Percent Household Characteristics

Percent

Female

87

Household size (average number of people)

3.1

Race and Ethnicity

Households with children

73

Non-Hispanic African-American

41

Three-generation household

10

Non-Hispanic White

0

Household's annual income

Non-Hispanic other

4

Under $15,000

68

Hispanic

55

$15,000 to $29,999

23

Born in the US

44

$30,000 to $49,999

9

Education

$50,000 to $69,999

0

12th grade or less

51

$70,000 or more

0

GED or high school diploma

31

Public assistance

Some technical or college or

higher

18

Supplemental Security Income

23

HH is currently employed

48

Disability

6

Mode of Transportation

Cash assistance

23

Has a car to use

77

Ratings of Well-Being

Takes public transit regularly

30

Respondent in good health

82

Child wel -being

Currently lives in the neighborhood

52

Focal child in good health

95

Lives in original housing unit

43

Focal child positive behavior scale (score)

4.4

Desire to return after redevelopment

85

Focal child 2 or more negative behaviors

36

Source: Choice Neighborhoods Baseline Survey 2013–14.

Most households had children under the age of 18 (73 percent). The average household size was 3.1

people, higher than in the other four Choice target developments. Household incomes were very low in

Woodledge/Morrant Bay, with 68 percent under $15,000 and 91 percent under $30,000. Twenty-three

percent of households received cash assistance, and 23 percent received supplemental security income

payments. About 30 percent of households reported two or more housing quality problems, but nearly

85 percent expressed a desire to live in Quincy Heights after redevelopment is completed. In terms of

well-being, 82 percent of heads of households reported being in good health, as were 95 percent of

focal children in the survey. Thirty-six percent of focal children had 2 or more negative behaviors but averaged 4.4 positive behaviors (out of 6).

IMPLEMENTATION OF CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS

KEY ACTORS AND RELATIONSHIPS

The Boston Department of Neighborhood Development (DND), a city agency, is Boston’s lead grantee,

working with other city departments, community partners, and stakeholders to coordinate and carry out

the program. DND facilitates two large monthly Choice implementation meetings. One meeting is with

city government departments and agencies, including the Boston Redevelopment Agency; the Mayor’s

Offices of Jobs and Community Services (JCS) and Intergovernmental Relations; and the city

departments of public works, transportation, neighborhood services, and police. The second meeting

B-5

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

includes the two departments from the mayor’s office mentioned above, Boston Public Schools, and

community partners leading the housing and neighborhood efforts. The Boston grantee team

communicates with HUD staff through monthly HUD cal s attended by DND and the organizations with

key Choice responsibilities.

Dorchester Bay Economic Development Corporation is the Choice housing lead and developer for

Quincy Heights as well as the owner and developer of the Pearl Meats project, described in greater

detail below. It was founded in 1979 by local civic associations to address the problems of economic

disinvestment, unemployment, crime, community tensions, and the shortage of quality affordable

housing undermining Boston's Dorchester neighborhoods. DBEDC formed a partnership with QGHC,

which together purchased Woodledge/Morrant Bay from UHM. UHM joined as the third member of the

development team and continues managing the property as a contractor. DBEDC facilitates weekly

renovation and new construction meetings with the development team and field representatives from

DND and MassHousing, the state Housing Finance Agency. DBEDC also facilitates weekly construction

jobs meetings on site. In addition to joining the monthly meeting, DBEDC has frequent phone and email

contact with DND and city partners.

Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI) is the neighborhood lead; Project RIGHT, which covers a

different catchment area within the Choice neighborhood, col aborates on the neighborhood team.

DSNI and Project RIGHT carry out citizen engagement activities and work with the police department

and other city agencies on safety issues. DND and DBEDC also apply their experience in neighborhood

development projects to plan and implement some of the Critical Community Improvements (CCIs)

discussed in the neighborhood section below.

JCS leads the people activities and attends the two Choice monthly coordination meetings. The Institute for Health and Recovery (IHR) is the Choice case management entity. IHR facilitates monthly in-person

Choice service provider meetings, which are attended by DBEDC and QGHC services and JCS staff. IHR

also facilitates a monthly in-person meeting with Choice service providers and city agencies.

HOUSING

The development: Plan summary

Units and buildings. As a scattered site project-based Section 8 development, Woodledge/Morrant Bay included 129 units located in 11 buildings scattered over a 30-acre area (exhibit B.4). Quincy Heights, the new development, includes a gut rehab of Woodledge/Morrant Bay that wil reduce the unit count in

the overcrowded existing buildings from 129 to 80 units. The other 49 units wil be replaced in four new buildings on both sides of Quincy Street (the Quincy-Magnolia units in exhibit B.4): a 12-unit building and a 6-unit building on one side of the street, and a 10-unit building and a 9-unit building with a

multipurpose community room on the other side.

B-6

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit B.4. Site Plan, Quincy Heights

Source: Urban Institute rendering of Choice Neighborhoods round 2 application, attachment 26.

Income mixing. In response to the community’s desire to avoid increasing density in the area, the Choice plan does not include units for moderate- or high-income households. The original 129

Woodledge/Morrant Bay units will be replaced with the same number of income-restricted units for

households earning up to 50 percent of area median income (AMI). The units financed through the Low-

Income Housing Tax Credit program are targeted at 60 percent of AMI. In addition, the city requires that 10 percent of the units be made available to homeless households below 30 percent of AMI. 92 The 92 Please see https://dnd.cityofboston.gov/#page/HomelessHousingSetAside11a for more information.

B-7

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

bedroom mix of the Quincy Heights units wil be the same as the Woodledge/Morrant Bay units. Of the

129 units, 7 wil be handicapped-accessible and 12 will be built to provide easier access for visitors. As severe housing cost burden is an issue for extremely low-income residents, instead of creating a more

mixed-income neighborhood through the addition of new middle-income residents, they wanted to

focus on approach that would improve current residents economic status.

Design. The new construction will be wood-framed, three-story buildings, in keeping with the

architectural character of the neighborhood. The renovated buildings wil maintain their brick and wood exterior. The development wil include 28 off-street parking spaces, highly visible interior courts and play areas, and walkways that link to the surrounding neighborhood. Many green design elements are

being integrated into Quincy Heights, including mechanical systems, building envelope improvements,

environmental y friendly lighting, appliances, plumbing fixtures, paint, flooring, photovoltaic systems for electricity in common areas, and solar hot-water heating. These features will help Quincy Heights meet

the Enterprise Green Communities standards and perhaps even LEED Silver certification.

Exhibit B.5. Funding Sources for Quincy Heights

MassHousing permanent loan

$16,915,000

Finance. Of the $20.5 mil ion Choice grant,

MassHousing construction loan

16,615,000

$12.3 million (60 percent) is allocated for

MassHousing bridge loan

13,545,000

housing. Exhibit B.5 outlines the sources of

Mass development

500,000

funding for the ful $56.4 mil ion Quincy

Equity: tax credit

20,200,556

Heights project. Quincy Heights will also

DND/Choice Neighborhoods

12,300,000

receive project-based subsidies through a

DND/HOME

129,000

Section 8 Housing Assistance Payment

MassHousing – AHT

1,500,000

contract.

Sponsor loan – DND/National Housing Trust

1,371,000

Sponsor loan – Federal Home Loan Bank

400,000

Management. The Woodledge/Morrant

Const. Period Interest Reserve (operating)

323,210

Bay property changed hands from UHM to

Cash from MBLP (interim)

1,000,000

a new partnership between DBEDC (51

Other interim loan

593,600

percent) and QGHC (49 percent). UHM will

Assumed Flexible Subsidy Debt

2,801,688

remain the property manager and operate

Subtotal

$88,494,054

on a contract basis with the new

Repayment: construction loan

16,915,000

ownership entity. Property management

Repayment: bridge loan

13,545,000

rules will remain the same, but there will

Repayment: MBLP cash to HUD

1,000,000

be a new process for discussing rules with

Repayment: Short-term flex sub assumed

593,600

returning residents and supporting them

Total sources (net)

$56,440,454

in complying with the lease terms. UHM is

Notes: AHT: Affordable Housing Trust; MBLP: Morrant

working with DBEDC/QGHC to establish

Bay Limited Partnership.

new processes to facilitate supportive

Source: DBEDC September 2013.

services for residents who may be at risk

of violating their lease postoccupancy.

Offsite housing. In addition to the Woodledge/Morrant Bay property, development of additional

affordable housing in the neighborhood is in process, funded outside of Choice. Quincy Commons, a 40-

B-8

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

unit affordable elderly housing (HUD Section 202) project with commercial space on the corner of

Quincy Street and Blue Hil Avenue, is under construction and expected to be completed in 2014.

Construction on Quincy Commons began just prior to Quincy Heights, providing the first sign of

redevelopment on Quincy Street. Uphams West, a rehabilitation project involving nine rental units for

residents at or below 60 percent of AMI, was completed in January 2013 and occupied by June 2013.

Progress on the housing redevelopment

Demolition and site work began in July 2012, starting with four buildings located on city and privately owned lots adjacent to the Woodledge/Morrant Bay target development. Several factors delayed the

beginning of redevelopment:

• Access for permanent vouchers to facilitate relocation. As discussed in detail in Developing Choice Neighborhoods, the Boston grantee team requested relocation vouchers in early 2012. In

August 2012, the team received HUD’s verbal approval of 105 housing choice vouchers (HCVs)

and was promised written confirmation shortly thereafter. However, written approval of the

vouchers had not been received as of September 2013. This issue has since been resolved in

favor of allowing relocation vouchers to be al ocated not only in Boston but more broadly in

HUD-assisted housing developments under Choice. Even so, it delayed the planning for

construction phasing and timing and led to the setbacks in tenant engagement and relocation

described in the next section.

• Financing. An unexpectedly favorable tax-credit market increased DBEDC’s borrowing capacity

by $1 mil ion, which enabled DBEDC to propose several upgrades to the development’s design.

These included upgrades in the green building features and enhancements in areas of durability

and security. It also included aesthetic upgrades, including hardwood flooring, upgrades to

lighting, replacing doorways, upgrading vanities, and bike racks. HUD needed several months to

review this additional expenditure, however, resulting in costs that partially offset the gains

conferred by the tax-credit market.

• Utility upgrades. HUD requested approval of potential future utility upgrades.

The complexity of multilayered project finance has also created uncertainty and delay. Enterprise, the

tax credit syndicator, did not allow the development team to use their construction reserve toward their operating reserve, leading to the need to raise an additional $1.8 million. In addition, Enterprise

required a liquidity reserve $500,000 greater than the development team had counted on. DBEDC

secured the additional funding despite the short time frame allotted. Enterprise also required additional Phase I environmental assessments that cost the project financial y and in time. DBEDC estimates that it lost $4 million over the six-month delay due to the loss of half a year in the tax credit calendar, reducing their final loan from $12 million to $8 million.

After the issues described above were resolved, DBEDC closed on the property in June 2013, about 18

months later than DBEDC had initial y expected. Renovation and construction of Quincy Heights were

well underway as of September 2013. Pressured by potential penalties for missing deadlines to finish

construction by the end of 2014, DBEDC incentivized the construction contractors to hasten building

renovations by making only one building available at a time to the contractors. The next building is not B-9

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

made available until the previous one is ready for reoccupancy. These adjustments should al ow the

team to meet the target completion date.

Another unresolved issue relates to layered project financing: the project’s affordability period. The

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and HOME programs require 20 to 30 years of affordability, but city

requirements stated that the replacement units must be affordable in perpetuity. HUD requirements for

Choice-funded units stipulated that the units only need to remain affordable for 40 years. The most

restrictive requirement would prevail.

PEOPLE

To date, the Boston grantee “people” plan has focused on case management, early childhood education

supports, afterschool programming, and mental health and violence intervention. JCS, DBEDC, QGHC,

DSNI, and Project RIGHT have made progress in implementing the people component of Choice in 2013,

but not without two main areas of chal enge: relocation and case management startup.

The delays in receiving written approval for HCVs caused three outcomes:

• Tenant engagement suffered. While they waited for a decision from HUD, the grantee team

became cautious in their statements, held fewer tenant meetings, and postponed some of those

that were scheduled. Residents from focus groups reported being anxious in light of the scarce

information and infrequent meetings.

• Relocation of Woodledge/Morrant Bay residents became complex and more costly. As the

housing team sought to advance rehabilitation to meet critical construction deadlines, the

relocation entity placed all residents in temporary relocation units. These were difficult and

costly to secure in Boston’s hot rental-housing market. The team paid brokers up to $1,000 per

unit in finder fees for about half the units, most of which had rents well above the Boston Fair

Market Rent limit. HUD’s verbal commitment to vouchers came through only after many tenants

had been relocated to these expensive units, implying that they might need to move again if

they wished to use a voucher. As the grantee continued to wait for written approval, it became

increasingly likely that the tenants might end up relocating up to three times: first, to the

temporary offsite unit; second, back to a new unit at Quincy Heights; and third, relocation off

site with a permanent voucher. This lack of resolution and increase in potential number of

moves have increased the cost of relocation to a still-undocumented level.

• Preparation for lease-up of Quincy Heights became fraught. With lease-up of the new units

expected to begin in early 2014, the development team became concerned that approval for

permanent vouchers could coincide with reoccupancy. This would complicate the process and

budget, as tax credit units must be occupied by a particular date. If any original residents were

going to take HCVs and not return to Quincy Heights, then UHM needed to certify new residents

to occupy those units long in advance to avoid vacancies.

The process for procuring case management services as wel as coordination challenges in the people

team delayed the onset of case management and service connection. It took time for partners to

negotiate an agreement about the scope of Choice services, approaches to case management, and a

B-10

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

contract with a case management provider (Pendall et al. 2013). Part of this delay reflected tension in the Boston Choice team about the case management approach. Most Choice partners, including the

people lead (JCS), supported a clinical approach that would offer intensive case management when

necessary (especially when residents suffered from trauma related to violence) and connect residents to existing and new services, such as job training, continuing education, and mental health services. Other partners perceive this approach as focusing inappropriately on the problems (“deficits”) of individual

tenants and prefer instead to concentrate on community building and empowering residents. This

debate was settled in favor of a clinical approach to case management. (See the sections below on

resident engagement and case management for more detail on these developments.) Despite this

resolution, case managers were unable to obtain resident contact information until relocation began,

because the management company wanted to avoid the confusion and disruption that tenants might

feel by being contacted by both relocation specialists and case managers. This delay further slowed the rol out of case management.

Social dynamics and resident engagement

The social dynamics among residents at Woodledge/Morrant Bay and in the broader Quincy Corridor

neighborhood are shaped by the physical structure of scattered site housing, significant problems with

crime and violence in and around the buildings and elsewhere in the neighborhood (see the section on

public safety), and a diverse population. The buildings are located on different streets, and there is no community center or other shared spaces where residents can interact. As explained in the section

below on education and early childhood, most local children do not attend neighborhood schools, which

might otherwise provide a locus for community building. Social dynamics are further complicated by the

area’s rich ethnic diversity, which contributes to both strong mutual support along ethnic and religious lines and contention due to gangs and turf issues.

Unlike many traditional public housing developments, residents do not share a strong collective identity as being members of a “Woodledge/Morrant Bay” community. Social relations among residents are

general y weak, with the exception of stronger relationships among some Latino residents. Residents

describe a culture of disrespect and distrust and a heightened sense of fear that contribute to low

collective efficacy and social cohesion. Some residents reported not wanting anything to do with their

neighbors, but others reported a sense of loss in not being able to interact more civilly with neighbors and rely on one another to watch out for each other’s children on the streets.

The social dynamics in the broader neighborhood, particularly tensions between homeowners and

subsidized renters, are complicated. About 44 percent of the renter households receive subsidies

through project-based Section 8 or HCVs. Homeowners have deep concerns about this concentration of

subsidized housing and believe many of the social problems in the area are a consequence of neglect by

absentee landlords and a lack of services and supports for the subsidized renters. Woodledge/Morrant

Bay residents report being stigmatized for living in the development even though the buildings are

integrated into the neighborhood. Residents from the target development report disputes with

homeowners over who deserves to claim on-street parking spaces and having been shamed at public

meetings where homeowners argue for less subsidized housing for people like “them” (referring to

subsidized tenants). Renters do not typical y attend neighborhood association meetings.

B-11

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Engaging residents and building cohesion have been, and wil continue to be, important chal enges for

the grantee team. The uncertainty over relocation has dampened the ability of the team to build social

cohesion. The team required all residents to attend meetings about every three months to meet the

Choice partners and service providers and to learn about available services and relocation (and to be

informed that no decision had yet been reached on vouchers). Some residents made smal talk with one

another during these meetings, but most appeared anxious and focused on learning when and where

they would be relocated. Residents who attended focus groups in summer 2013 reported wanting more

frequent updates on the housing and relocation, as well as more details on other aspects of the

community, including security, services, and opportunities for residents. They reported that Project

RIGHT provided some information on these issues.

Once Quincy Heights is occupied and the neighborhood improvements are at least underway, however,

the grantee team’s ability to build social cohesion should improve. DBEDC and QGHC have planned a

building captains system at Quincy Heights to bring residents to the table and build resident leadership, as well as broader community events to build social cohesion within Quincy Heights and in the

surrounding neighborhood. DBEDC has one ful -time staff person (not funded by Choice) who spends 30

percent of his time as a community organizer for the target development; QGHC has one staff person for

resident services who spends 70 percent of her time working with Woodledge/Morrant Bay residents.

Project RIGHT has facilitated several neighborhood association meetings of homeowners and renters.

Although residents value these meetings, they have noted the agendas focus on neighborhood crime

and violence rather than other important issues and opportunities they would like to learn about. These neighborhood meetings are regularly attended by some homeowners, but the catchment area for

Project RIGHT covers only part of the neighborhood. The remainder of the neighborhood is covered by

multiple smaller neighborhood associations.

The significant physical improvements to the immediate area on Quincy Street (discussed below) may

provide important opportunities to bring the community together and establish more inclusive

governance structures. Any new tenants’ organization and the various neighborhood associations could

work together to reduce tensions and build community between renters and owners as the

redevelopment proceeds.

Case management

In February 2013, the Choice team chose the Institute for Health and Recovery as the case management

provider for residents of the target development. IHR is a highly qualified provider based in Cambridge with 95 clinics and satellite offices around the state. The contract term is for up to five years and

includes funding for two ful -time case managers. As this wil be IHR’s fourth time operating a program in the neighborhood, many Choice partners were familiar with their work and pleased with the contract.

The two ful -time case managers assigned to the program have a long history of working in the

neighborhood, and one is bilingual in English and Spanish.

As of September 2013, the case managers had reached out to 56 households that were in the process of

relocating and had enrolled 39 residents in case management services. Although working with relocating

B-12

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

households was chal enging, it nonetheless created opportunities to gain a foot in the door with many

residents. Case managers found most residents very open to meeting with them, in part due to the

urgency of the relocation period approaching. Case managers assist residents with a variety of issues,

from finding job search assistance to childcare to summer jobs for youth; however, the bulk of their

work has focused on issues related to relocation (e.g., unpaid utility bil s, asset mapping to help

relocated residents find services in their areas, changing relocated children’s school bus stops,

troubleshooting other relocation issues). Case managers plan to leverage the trust and rapport they

built with residents during the relocation period to move to other issues in the future.

In addition to providing case management services, IHR took the lead in coordinating monthly Choice

service provider meetings. This role was not defined in their contract, but IHR saw the need to facilitate these meetings and stepped in to do so. IHR now convenes two monthly meetings: one with Choice

service providers and community partners (the development and relocation teams, the police

department, and Youth Connect) and one with this same group in addition to the Choice lead agencies

and other city officials from the mayor’s office departments. Although these meetings were held before

IHR’s involvement, they lacked a clear leader and struggled with accountability. With IHR as coordinator, the group became more focused and larger, with invitations extended to other key partners that had

not previously participated, including Project RIGHT, the police department, and Youth Connect.

When IHR began their case management contract, the city and service providers had already been

engaged in a city-led process to establish a consistent data management system. The city was offered

Efforts to Outcomes software at no cost and held training sessions that providers attended. However,

the Efforts to Outcomes system was not operational as of September 2013, and Choice service providers

were frustrated with the slow pace at which the process was proceeding.

Additional y, as redevelopment progressed, the Choice team had questions about the extent to which

services would be provided to households that chose not to return to Quincy Heights. The team sought

prepare for the likely possibility that at least some households would chose to remain permanently

relocated. As of September 2013, the Choice team was seeking clarity and guidance from HUD on the

expectations around providing services such residents (e.g. the length of time the Grantee would be

responsible for serving those households and how best to serve households if they moved out of the

City or state).

Services and programming

Boston’s Choice application included $1.03 million for unspecified “additional services.” City partners held off on procuring services for this line item until case managers had a chance to conduct an updated needs assessment with Woodledge/Morrant Bay residents. Because case management was delayed and

had occurred with less than half the residents, a ful needs assessment was never conducted after the

Choice grant was awarded. However, case mangers informed the process for defining the “additional

services” based on their outreach and engagement with the more than 50 relocating households in the

first six months of 2013. JCS issued requests for qualifications (RFQs) for adult basic education, English as a second language, asset building, and afterschool programs in September 2013. In addition to requiring respondents to have a record of providing specific services, each RFQ required respondent organizations B-13

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

either to be located in the neighborhood or to partner with a neighborhood-based organization in an

effort to build capacity local y. Although the types of services chosen were informed by engagement

with residents of the target development, these services are intended for al residents in the Quincy

Corridor area. 93 JCS also contracted with the Boston Public Health Commission to add a mental health clinician to its Burke High School Health Center, which was over capacity with just one clinician.

Although a complicated contracting process led to some delays, a multilingual male clinician was hired in September 2013.

Education and early childhood. A key challenge to improving educational services in the Choice

neighborhood is the lack of neighborhood-based schools. Although Choice is a place-based strategy, the

combination of court-ordered busing and school choice policies required the Boston team to implement

a more complicated hybrid people- and place-based Choice strategy. One of the schools in the Choice

Neighborhood experienced declining performance, dropping from a level 3 in 2012 to a level 4

underperforming school in 2013. Principal turnover has been another chal enge for the Choice team

(three of five schools in Quincy Corridor have new principals in 2013). Communication and coordination

among Choice partners and Boston Public School (BPS) officials have improved in the second year of

implementation compared to the first year. There have been more frequent face-to-face meetings

among partners and more deliberate efforts to integrate BPS into Choice. For example, JCS staff met

with high-level BPS staff from three of the five schools in the Choice neighborhood to explain the Choice funding for the afterschool programs and establish a direct line of communication with the schools.

Choice funding has been al ocated to provide or expand existing afterschool services at five BPS schools within the Choice Neighborhood boundary. These services, which are meant to support youth from the

Choice target development, will not reach the majority of these students because they attend schools

outside the Choice Neighborhood. To address this group, JCS issued an RFQ for afterschool services for

children living in Woodledge/Morrant Bay.

Boston’s Choice plan includes funding to expand the work of Read Boston, a citywide early literacy

program, to two schools in Quincy Corridor. Read Boston plans to use non-Choice funds to expand its

programming to the three other schools. With Choice funds, Read Boston also expanded its work and

developed professional development workshops for early education and day care center staff. Read

Boston worked on literacy strategies with eight early education programs in the area and implemented

an Environmental Literacy Project at two schools in the Choice Neighborhood, a Reading is Fundamental

initiative at one school, and a Reading Trail Program for childcare programs in the area. Read Boston’s Storymobile has also saturated the neighborhood with events, distributed books, and run programs at

the Grove Hall Library.

Other education initiatives in the Quincy Corridor area share the Choice goals for school improvement

and better services for children. The Circle of Promise, an initiative begun under Mayor Thomas Menino, 93 It remains unclear how much funding wil be available for residents of the surrounding neighborhood because voucher-assisted relocation to other neighborhoods would raise the total number of eligible families. Dispersal of Woodledge/Morrant Bay residents to other neighborhoods would also raise the cost of service delivery.

B-14

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

focuses on improving the resources provided to students and families in 10 underperforming schools,

including those in Quincy Corridor. The US Department of Education announced in late 2012 that DSNI

won the Promise Neighborhoods implementation grant, with a service area overlapping the Choice

catchment area. These programs have not been explicitly connected with Choice activities to date, but

they should provide additional supports for some Choice Neighborhood families.

Relocation

A total of 56 households had been relocated with pass-through vouchers as of September 2013. Even

with the complications resulting from the voucher delay, the relocation process went remarkably well

due to the experienced relocation team and their successful coordination with the property

management team and other development and case management partners. The relocation team

worked closely with residents to place them in suitable temporary units, most of which were located

within Dorchester in areas many deemed safer than Woodledge/Morrant Bay. The relocation team

recognized residents’ safety concerns and social support networks. For example, the team relocated two

neighbors together to side-by-side units after learning how much one relied on the other for childcare.

The team also left three leased units vacant for one year after learning of residents’ heightened safety concerns in the area. Many residents have been extremely happy with their relocation units; some

reported in Urban Institute focus groups that they would like to remain in these units, which are newer and larger than their Woodledge/Morrant Bay units. Case managers worked with the relocation

specialist to troubleshoot utility problems some residents experienced in their temporary relocation

units. This work involved coordinating energy audits with landlords, Mass Saves, and the electric

companies to ascertain why some electric bills were so high.

NEIGHBORHOOD

Critical Community Improvements

Projects were selected for Critical Community Improvements based on their greatest likely impact in the neighborhood and their financial feasibility. Mayor Menino needed to approve the CCIs before they

could be proposed to HUD, but he was hospitalized, slowing the submission process until he recovered.

Once the CCIs were approved, the process then involved negotiations between the city and HUD.

The redevelopment of the Bornstein & Pearl Food Production Center (the former Pearl Meats facility) is Boston’s signature CCI project. The project has gained attention and holds much promise for the

neighborhood. DBEDC purchased the property in 2009 and worked with the community to plan a smal

business food production incubator. DND, Project RIGHT, and DSNI have also been involved in the

planning process. The dilapidated former hot dog factory, which had been vacant for eight years,

includes a 36,000-square-foot building on a two-acre site centrally located on Quincy Street, highly

visible and convenient to Quincy Heights. The site is being rehabbed into a center for smal -scale food production, with a modern commercial kitchen rental space and business training for new food

businesses; private rental kitchen space for established food businesses; and food storage rental space for businesses at different stages of growth. In addition to receiving $500,000 in Choice CCI funds,

DBEDC received high-level support from state politicians and successful y leveraged public and private

funds to launch the $14.0 mil ion initiative.

B-15

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

The other CCI projects are the Martin Luther King School playground renovation and park, Haynes Early

Learning Center play lot renovation, Grove Hall Wi-Fi expansion, enhanced Partners with Non-Profits,

and expanding programs for business and nonprofit property improvements. (Several of these projects

are discussed in greater detail below.) In addition, Boston’s approved CCI budget includes a reserve fund for “additional commercial redevelopment and infrastructure projects,” which is intended as a

contingency fund for the Pearl Meats project or to be used for other qualifying projects.

Public safety

As discussed in chapter 4, high violent crime was one of the qualifying criteria of neighborhood distress for Choice and public safety remains persistent problem in this Choice neighborhood. Violent crime, gun violence, drug trafficking, and gang activity are very high in the area. Residents in the target

development and the surrounding neighborhood remain fearful and extremely concerned about the

gang violence and number of daytime and evening shootings.

Choice funds and coordination among the Boston Police Department (BPD), community partners, service

providers, and other city departments are helping to enhance crime prevention and intervention efforts

in the area. Project RIGHT is well known in the Choice Neighborhood for its work on public safety issues.

Project RIGHT works closely with residents and BPD and convenes monthly meetings for two

neighborhood associations that overlap with the Choice Neighborhood and facilitates or participates in a large number of other neighborhood meetings in which safety is a central focus (e.g., Neighborhood

School Safety Meetings, Youth Workers Meetings, Peace Walks).

Part of the Choice team’s strategy for enhancing public safety includes the expansion of the Boston

Public Health Commission’s Grove Hall Violence Intervention and Prevention program (VIP). With Choice

funds, the Grove Hall VIP program hired a three-quarter time trauma coordinator in October 2012.

Working in conjunction with Project RIGHT, the trauma coordinator responds to incidences of violence

and trauma in the area (e.g., providing guidance to parents of children who witness homicides and

violence on how to help their children process the events). Because of the high levels of violence,

however, as of September 2013 the trauma coordinator had not yet developed larger community

trainings, as planned in the Choice application.

The Boston grantee team proposed using the Public Safety Enhancement (PSE) grant to enhance the

BPD’s Youth Connect program by adding a social worker in the local police station to work with at-risk

youth. (PSE grants are discussed further in chapter 4.) The Boston team sought to ful y integrate the PSE

grant into the Choice people initiatives, particularly because public safety issues are affecting residents’

desire to return to Quincy Heights. In an effort to enhance coordination and inform service providers

that have contact with residents about the new public safety initiatives in the area (e.g., the PSE grant), BPD and Youth Connects staff began attending the Choice service provider meetings in August 2013.

Choice has also enhanced the coordination and response of the city’s Blue Hill Avenue Neighborhood

Response Team, which involves various city departments working with Project RIGHT, residents, and

other community-based organizations to provide targeted response to disorder in the neighborhood.

The response team has made significant progress in improving the response to public safety issues and

B-16

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

hot spots for public drinking, drug dealing, prostitution, and loitering in front of liquor stores in the Choice Neighborhood. The team remains diligent, knowing that once hot spots are addressed they tend

to migrate to new areas.

Although reducing crime in the Choice Neighborhood remains a chal enge, Choice partners are hopeful

that the housing redevelopment wil help ease crime around the target development through changes

to the built environment. The redevelopment of Quincy Heights, Pearl Meats, the addition of Quincy

Commons, streetscape improvements, and new security cameras should send a clear signal to the

broader community that this is no longer a neglected area with an abundance of vacant and abandoned

properties.

Neighborhood economic development

The Pearl Meats project is the central neighborhood economic development initiative in the Quincy

Corridor. Construction began in July 2013, and the facility is expected to open in April 2014. DBEDC

partnered with CropCircle Kitchen, Inc. to be the anchor tenant and future property manager of Pearl

Meats. CropCircle Kitchen/Pearl is expected to create space for up to 50 food entrepreneurs and create

150 new jobs in the first five years of operation by nurturing the growth of new local food businesses

and encouraging new businesses to expand their workforce by hiring local y.

Another ongoing economic development initiative in Quincy Corridor, Grove Hall Main Streets, is

designed to facilitate business district revitalization. The organization will receive some Community

Development Block Grant funding, but funding has been delayed due to a change in leadership.

Built environment and infrastructure

ReStore Boston, a program of the DND’s Office of Business Development, provides one-for-one matched

funds to reimburse property owners for façade improvements. The first expenditure of the planned

$300,000 in CCI spending on ReStore has reimbursed property owners for façade improvements to six

storefronts on the corner of Warren Street and Blue Hill Avenue. It has been challenging to reach small business owners beyond this group of businesses, however, because many Quincy Corridor business

owners do not own their buildings, business owners have too little capital to front the costs, and

ReStore requires costly and complicated removal of metal roll down grates on their store fronts.

Partners with Non-Profits (PNP) ($200,000 in CCI funds) is a capital improvement program run by the

city’s Office of Business Development that provides nonprofits with up to $25,000 with a 20 percent

match requirement. Eligible improvements include repairs of code violations, handicap accessibility

upgrades, new boilers, and roof work. Although the Choice team was hopeful that this program could

boost nonprofits in Quincy Corridor, the outreach team found that the smal number of nonprofits in the area did not need such improvements. The city is exploring whether this funding stream should be

folded into other CCI or Choice-related improvement projects.

Two CCI projects led by DND with the support of Project RIGHT and DSNI involve the renovation of two

school playgrounds in the community (the Martin Luther King School playground and park and the

Haynes Elementary School play lot). These renovations are designed to enhance the community’s use of

B-17

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

these facilities during afterschool hours. The design phase began in July 2013, and construction is

expected to begin in the spring or summer of 2014.

Under the direction of Boston Department of Innovation and Technology, the Grove Hal Wi-Fi project

($300,000 in CCI funds), which wil provide low-cost broadband internet coverage for the entire Choice

Neighborhood, is going smoothly and was about halfway completed by September 2013. In addition to

Choice funds, the nonprofit Open Air Boston was using a $500,000 grant to complete the project. DND

was exploring a potential partnership with other nonprofits to ensure Choice families have access to

computers so they can take advantage of the new Internet service.

Choice has clearly been the catalyst for physical improvement plans to Quincy Street supported by

funding outside of Choice. In early 2013, DND established the Quincy Corridor Public Realm

Improvement Project to create a cohesive vision for strategic improvements on Quincy Street between

Columbia Avenue and Blue Hil Avenue. Integrating the process into the ongoing Fairmount Indigo

Planning Initiative (described in more detail below), DND provided funds for the Boston Redevelopment

Authority (BRA) to lead a six-month community and planning process for the Quincy Corridor Public

Realm Improvement Project. BRA facilitated two strategic community visioning sessions and several

stakeholder meetings to obtain resident and stakeholder input. Pedestrian safety, traffic and speeding

problems, accessibility issues, parking, lighting, and transforming the streetscape from its industrial character to that of a residential street were key issues identified through this process. Incorporating community input, BRA worked with a planning and design firm to develop plans and with DND, the

Public Works Department, the Transportation Department, and the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood

Services to obtain approval. The city estimated it would spend up to $3 mil ion on the improvement

project, but there was uncertainty over whether the next mayor would support that expenditure.

Quincy Street has suffered from chronic issues with utility breakdowns, including gas leaks and sewer

flooding due to aging infrastructure and drainage issues. With the major construction and improvement

projects underway on the street and the subsequent increase in demand on utilities once these

buildings are occupied, there is a greater sense of urgency among partners to push for major systems

upgrades. Though these issues are beyond the scope of Choice funding, the city was working with utility companies and Boston Water and Sewer (an independent agency) to discuss infrastructure upgrades on

the street. The city hoped to resolve this issue and have any upgrades to systems be coordinated with

streetscape improvements completed as part of the Quincy Corridor Public Realm Improvement Project.

The Fairmount Initiative, begun in 2004, involves the conversion of a commuter rail to a subway/light-

rail line with more regular and frequent stops in the low-income neighborhoods that the commuter line

has bypassed for years. Two of the four planned stations have opened (Talbot Avenue and Four

Corners). The proposed location for the Columbia Road Station is located in Quincy Corridor but is not

yet funded. The city was awarded a $1.86 million federal Community Challenge Planning Grant to

acquire land along the line and facilitate mixed-use and transit-oriented development. BRA is leading the Fairmount/Indigo Planning Initiative to assess strategies for commercial and residential development

along the line. Several members of the Choice grantee team have been involved with the

Fairmont/Indigo Planning Initiative.

B-18

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Future of the neighborhood

The Quincy Corridor neighborhood is marked by high concentrations of poverty and subsidized housing

and struggles with instability, persistent crime, poor-quality schools, limited social services, and

struggling low-income businesses. Choice has brought an influx of funding to the area and made the

neighborhood a priority of multiple city departments and committed community partners. Choice’s

short-term impact on the area wil be focused on improvements to the housing stock, landscape, and

economic development along Quincy Street. Though the changes in public safety mentioned above may

ameliorate the violence, the crime plaguing the area is a significant barrier for broader impact in the surrounding Choice neighborhood.

From the community’s standpoint, gentrification of Quincy Corridor is not currently a threat due to the abundance of subsidized housing, high crime rates, and poor-performing schools. This may change as

pockets of areas near the periphery of the Choice Neighborhood see an influx of higher-income and

White residents. Mayor Menino’s new Middle-Income Housing Initiative and progress in the

Fairmount/Indigo Initiative may heighten concerns about gentrification in the future.

SUMMARY OF PROGRESS IN COORDINATION AND LEVERAGE

Coordination within the grantee team. Choice coordination and implementation improved significantly during 2013 compared with the disorganized beginning documented in Developing Choice

Neighborhoods (Pendal et al. 2013). In the fal of 2012 Mayor Menino appointed a new DND director who has excel ent working relationships with multiple city departments and community partners. These

relationships helped establish a more robust implementation process, with regular in-person meeting

schedules, expectations for participation, a deliberate process for refining roles, and clear mechanisms for communication. Smal er, more structured and topic-focused implementation meetings with regular

follow-up have built new layers of accountability into Choice implementation. In addition, the Mayor’s

Office of Inter-Governmental Relations increased its oversight and coordination of Choice in 2012–13,

reinforcing coordination among city departments and Choice partners. Choice implementation has led

to even closer relations between DND and JCS, Inter-Governmental Relations, Boston Public Schools,

and BRA. With heightened attention on Choice, city departments are more responsive to one another

and other Choice partners. The improvement in coordination is likely to help in the transition to

Boston’s first new mayor in 20 years beginning in January 2014. The Boston Police Department has also

become more integrated into Choice implementation in 2013 in part because of the PSE grant (discussed

in chapter 4), which has required laborious coordination but has reinforced resources for the grantees

and BPD to work together. Connecting the Choice efforts with the DSNI Promise Neighborhood Initiative

will require more of the city’s attention as the Promise implementation advances.

Coordination among service providers and Choice partners improved with the addition of IHR in 2013.

IHR brought more partners into Choice service provider meetings, which improved communication

between Choice providers and key public safety stakeholders (BPD, Youth Connects, and VIP). Project

RIGHT continued to serve as a critical link between neighborhood residents and Choice partners (BPD

and other city departments). The role of DSNI subsided after the Promise award and because the

executive director stepped down to run for mayor.

B-19

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

The Boston grantee team has frequent communication with HUD staff via monthly conference cal s with

all Boston Choice partners, as wel as numerous e-mail and phone exchanges between key DND staff and

HUD. The core Boston stakeholders have a good working relationship with HUD staff, but coordination

with HUD was challenging. Because Boston was part of the first implementation cohort, HUD had yet to

clarify many policies and procedures, particularly in relation to the grantees with HUD-assisted housing.

Boston Choice partners were frustrated with unclear and often changing requirements and

expectations, vague language, and numerous unexpected requests for modifications. Early Choice

implementation in Boston has thus been incredibly taxing in terms of staffing and time. The ambiguity

led to significant delays in the Choice closing process, as wel as the approval processes for CCIs, HCVs, and the PSE grant; all these delays slowed and complicated Choice implementation in Boston. The

Boston team also found the data management requests complicated, time consuming, and not

particularly helpful at the site level.

Coordination with External Stakeholders. Boston’s Choice implementation team has not engaged

external stakeholders to a great degree in 2013. The Boston Housing Authority was not involved until

early implementation when JCS was struggling with case management RFQs. The grantee team could

have benefitted from BHA’s extensive experience in implementing HOPE VI if they had been engaged

earlier and more directly with the team.

Leverage. As described above, Choice has brought attention and momentum to the Quincy Heights

development and the Pearl Meats renovation that have helped increase leverage in the housing and

neighborhood domains. Leveraging funds for services has been more chal enging. Major cuts to

Community Development Block Grants stemming from federal cutbacks required the city to rework a

very limited source of funds to maintain Choice commitments. The tight public and private funding

environment has made it difficult for the Boston grantee to leverage additional resources to increase

amenities, educational and economic opportunities, and other services in the Choice neighborhood.

Exhibit B.6 provides a summary of major activities by Choice domain and their early implementation

status in Quincy Corridor as of September 2013.

Exhibit B.6. Summary of Major Activities and Early Implementation Progress in Quincy Corridor,

September 2013

Choice Domain and Related

Lead

Funding

Funding

Funding

Summary

Activities

Organization

Level ($

Covered by

Covered by

Status

thousands)

Choice (%)

Other Sources

(%)

HOUSING

Quincy Heights: (target

Dorchester Bay

56,400

22

78

In progress

development)

Economic

renovation of 80 units and new Development

construction of 49 units.

Corporation

(DBEDC)

Uphams West: Rehabilitation

DBEDC

5,357

0

100

Completed

of 9 rental units for residents at

or below 60% of AMI.

B-20

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Choice Domain and Related

Lead

Funding

Funding

Funding

Summary

Activities

Organization

Level ($

Covered by

Covered by

Status

thousands)

Choice (%)

Other Sources

(%)

Quincy Commons: A 40-unit

Nuestra

14,877

0

100

In progress

affordable elderly housing

Comunidad CDC

(HUD Section 202) project with

commercial space.

Neighborhood Stabilization

City of Boston

3,137

0

100

Completed

Program:

Department of

Foreclosed homes sold to

Neighborhood

households at or below 120%

Development

of AMI.

(DND)

PEOPLE

Case management: Service

Institute for

560

100

0

In progress

coordination and case

Health and

management services to 129

Recovery (IHR)

households focusing on

employment, economic

security, strengthening

families, and education support

for youth.

Afterschool programs: Provide Boston Public

450

100

0

In progress

access to quality afterschool

Schools and

activities for all youth in the

others to be

target development who

determined

attend schools located within

(TBD)

the Choice boundaries.

Additional services: Provide

TBD

1,030

100

0

Not started

debt reduction and asset

management services, adult

education and ESL, and

afterschool enrichment for

youth attending schools

outside the Choice boundaries.

Literacy in schools and

Read Boston and

250

100

0

In progress

childcare centers: Promote

City of Boston

family literacy; parental

Office of Jobs

support for increasing verbal

and Community

interactions with children;

Services (JCS)

professional development for

early care and education staff

in the Choice Neighborhood.

Mental health services:

Boston Public

305

100

0

In progress

Provide clinical support at

Health

existing health center in local

Commission

high school.

Start-up community

Project RIGHT

35

100

0

In progress

engagement: Conduct

outreach and referral services

to keep residents informed of

Choice and other services.

B-21

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Choice Domain and Related

Lead

Funding

Funding

Funding

Summary

Activities

Organization

Level ($

Covered by

Covered by

Status

thousands)

Choice (%)

Other Sources

(%)

Ongoing community

Project RIGHT

35

100

0

In progress

engagement: Conduct ongoing and Dudley

outreach to residents and keep Street

them informed of Choice and

Neighborhood

other services and supports.

Initiative

Service coordination and

DBEDC

Unavailable

0

100

In progress

resident organizing: Empower

residents of

Woodledge/Morrant Bay to

organize around issues

important to them.

Relocation: Coordinate

DBEDC and Judy

1,686

21

79

In progress

temporary relocation of 129

Cohn Associates

households; track residents;

coordinate moves back on site

as new units are completed.

Youth services: Provide

JCS

15

0

100

In progress

enrichment services to youth

from the target development.

NEIGHBORHOOD

Gap funding five current

DND

0

0

0

Canceled

Community Development

Block Grant programs in

Quincy Corridor: Offset FY

2011 al ocation reduction of

17.8%.

Violence intervention: Hire a

Boston Public

270

100

0

In progress

trauma coordinator to engage

Health

residents in violence

Commission’s

prevention and intervention;

Violence and

provide psychological first aid

Intervention

to residents affected by

Prevention (VIP)

violence; develop coordinated, program

community-based team

enhance community response;

develop workshops and trauma

response training.

Martin Luther King School

DND

825

100

0

In progress

playground renovation and

park

Haynes Early Learning Center

DND

450

100

0

In progress

play lot renovation

B-22

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Choice Domain and Related

Lead

Funding

Funding

Funding

Summary

Activities

Organization

Level ($

Covered by

Covered by

Status

thousands)

Choice (%)

Other Sources

(%)

Pearl Meats project: Rehab a

DBEDC

14,000

3.6

96.4

In progress

long-vacant, 36,000-square-

foot former meat processing

facility into a food production

business center. Pearl will

provide a mix of shared-use

production space, a dedicated

food truck commissary, flexible

lease terms for shared cold and

dry storage, shared office and

meeting rooms, and small

separately leased kitchens to

support 30 to 50 smal and

startup businesses.

Additional

DND

500

100

0

Not started

commercial/infrastructure

projects

Quincy Street area

Boston

25

100

0

In progress

improvements visioning and

Redevelopment

planning: Community planning Authority (BRA)

process to enhance quality of

life on Quincy Street through

improvements to roadway,

signals, sidewalks, trees, and

lighting.

Partners with Non-Profits

DND

325

62

38

Not started

projects:

Assist with capital

improvements to nonprofits in

the Choice Neighborhood.

ReStore façade improvements: DND

400

75

25

In progress

Assist business owners with

façade improvements.

Economic development:

Grove Hall Main

150

0

100

In progress

Promote economic

Streets

development in the Choice

Neighborhood.

Other critical community

DND

296

0

100

In progress

improvements: Support

upgrades to community

gardens.

Community Internet access:

City of Boston

800

37.5

62.5

In progress

Expand Grove Hall low-cost Wi- Department of

Fi to neighborhood.

Innovation and

Technology

Sources: Review of documents, including Choice Neighborhoods round 1 and 2 applications and budgets, interviews with stakeholders, and observation of team meetings and phone calls.

B-23

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

B.2. CHICAGO: GROVE PARC AND THE WOODLAWN NEIGHBORHOOD

The Woodlawn neighborhood sits on the South Side of Chicago, adjacent to Washington Park to the

northwest and Hyde Park, home to the University of Chicago, to the north. It is located seven miles

south of downtown Chicago with Jackson Park as its eastern boundary, including Lakeshore Drive and

Lake Michigan. Southeast of Woodlawn is the South Shore neighborhood, and Grand Crossing is to the

southwest (exhibit B.7). The commercial center of Woodlawn is Cottage Grove Avenue, which runs north

and south and splits Woodlawn into two neighborhoods: West Woodlawn and East Woodlawn. West

Woodlawn is more distressed than East Woodlawn. However, many vacant lots stil remain in East

Woodlawn. The Woodlawn neighborhood has a well-known identity in the Chicago community due to its

long history of community activism.

B-24

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit B.7. Map of the Woodlawn Neighborhood

B-25

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

BASELINE CONDITIONS

The Woodlawn neighborhood has the largest land area and is the most populous of the Choice

Neighborhoods, with about 23,700 residents in two square miles. Eighty-eight percent of Woodlawn

residents were non-Hispanic African-American and 96 percent were born in the United States, making it

much less diverse than the other Choice Neighborhoods. As reported in the baseline survey, 56 percent

of the heads of households had some col ege or technical schooling, but 18 percent had not graduated

from high school. Woodlawn was the most affordable Choice Neighborhood for homebuyers and offers

lower home values and rents than most other Chicago neighborhoods. 94 Despite average home values of $156,000, a sizable proportion of both homeowners and renters are cost burdened. Fifty-six percent of

residents have incomes under $15,000, and 72 percent have incomes under $30,000. Unemployment is

high in Woodlawn, although the residents have higher educational attainment levels and good access to

transit and job centers. Fifty percent of survey respondents in Woodlawn were employed at baseline.

Seventy percent of residents have a car accessible to them; 35 percent take public transit regularly

(exhibit B.8).

94 Pendal et al. (2013).

B-26

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit B.8. Resident and Household Characteristics in Woodlawn

Head of Household Characteristics

Percent Household Characteristics

Percent

Female

69

Households with children

33

Race and Ethnicity

Three-generation household

5

Non-Hispanic African- American

88

Household's annual income

Non-Hispanic White

5

Under $15,000

56

Non-Hispanic other

4

$15,000 to $29,999

16

Hispanic

2

$30,000 to $49,999

10

Born in the US

96

$50,000 to $69,999

6

Education

$70,000 or more

12

12th grade or less

18

Public assistance

GED or high school diploma

27

Supplemental Security Income

27

Some technical or col ege or higher

56

Disability

15

HH is currently employed

50

Cash assistance

5

Ratings of Well-Being

Percent

Mode of Transportation

Respondent in good health

76

Has a car to use

70

Child well-being

Takes public transit regularly

35

Focal child in good health

94

Focal child positive behavior scale (score)

4.7

Focal child 2 or more negative behaviors

37

Ratings of Housing Quality

Percent Ratings of Neighborhood Quality and Safety

Percent

Number of housing quality problems

Rates the neighborhood as at least an 8 of 10

37

0

37

Feels safe alone outside of home during the day

84

1

25

Feels safe alone outside of home at night

64

2 to 3

27

Thinks the ngh. is a good place to raise children

58

4 or more

12

Collective efficacy scale score

3.4

Source: Choice Neighborhoods Baseline Survey 2013–14.

Vacancy is a problem in the neighborhood, where 22 percent of the housing units remain empty. 95

Vacant lots on major corridors also raise concerns about land use planning and the potential for future commercial and housing development. Eighty-nine percent of the 12,100 units in Woodlawn are

multifamily structures. Twenty-seven percent of households reported two or more housing quality

problems.

The five Choice Neighborhoods were very similar on measures of resident and child well-being. In

Woodlawn most respondents (76 percent) reported good health, and 94 percent reported that their

child was in good health. The baseline survey also asked about the behaviors of children and youth. In

reference to positive behaviors, such as the ability to regulate emotions and get along with others,

youth in Woodlawn averaged 4.7 positive behaviors out of a possible 6. Thirty-seven percent of

95 Pendall et al. (2013).

B-27

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

respondents reported that their child aged 6 to 14 had two or more negative behaviors, such as

disobedience at school or home, and restlessness or overactivity.

Survey respondents in Woodlawn (37 percent) were less likely to rate their neighborhood highly (an 8 or higher out of 10) than residents living in central cities nationwide (62 percent). This neighborhood rating level was lower than that of Iberville/Tremé (53 percent), but similar to the rating levels of the other three Choice Neighborhoods. Fifty-eight percent of respondents believed that Woodlawn is a good place

to raise children, lower than in Ibervil e/Tremé and Yesler (about 70 percent) but comparable to the

proportion of residents in Quincy Corridor and Eastern Bayview. Most respondents felt safe outside

their homes during the day (84 percent), a lower proportion than in Ibervil e/Tremé and Yesler (about

92 percent). Fewer respondents felt safe at night (64 percent), which was comparable to the other

Choice Neighborhoods except for Eastern Bayview (50 percent). Woodlawn had lower average ratings of

collective efficacy (3.4 out of 5) than Iberville/Tremé (3.7), but its rating was similar to collective efficacy ratings in the other three Choice Neighborhoods. 96

The Choice target development in Woodlawn is Grove Parc, a project-based Section 8 development

spread across five city blocks in the northwest section of the Woodlawn community area (exhibit B.9). It was original y constructed in 1969 and consisted of 504 units in 24 three- to four-story buildings. Before demolition began, Grove Parc constituted 4 percent of the 12,100 housing units in Woodlawn.

Preservation of Affordable Housing, Inc. (POAH) owns the Grove Parc Development. POAH had already

begun demolition before receiving Choice funding, leaving 378 units to replace under Choice.

96 Collective efficacy includes how cohesive the residents feel the neighborhood is, with shared trust and values, as well as how likely neighbors are to exhibit informal social control and do something to address concerns in their neighborhood, from children fighting to cuts to services in their neighborhood.

B-28

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit B.9. Resident and Household Characteristics in Grove Parc

Head of Household Characteristics

Percent Household Characteristics

Percent

Female

86

Household size (average number of people)

2.8

Race and Ethnicity

Households with children

60

Non-Hispanic African American

98

Three-generation household

10

Non-Hispanic White

0

Household's annual income

Non-Hispanic other

1

Under $15,000

87

Hispanic

1

$15,000 to $29,999

11

Born in the US

99

$30,000 to $49,999

2

Education

$50,000 to $69,999

0

12th grade or less

39

$70,000 or more

1

GED or high school diploma

29

Public assistance

Some technical or col ege or

higher

32

Supplemental Security Income

34

HH is currently employed

38

Disability

9

Mode of Transportation

Cash assistance

15

Has a car to use

66

Ratings of Well-Being

Takes public transit regularly

36

Respondent in good health

71

Child wel -being

Currently lives in the neighborhood

91

Focal child in good health

94

Lives in original housing unit

52

Focal child positive behavior scale (score)

4.6

Desire to return after redevelopment

76

Focal child 2 or more negative behaviors

35

Source: Choice Neighborhoods Baseline Survey 2013–14.

At the time of the baseline survey, 52 percent of households remained in their original unit, and 91

percent lived within the Woodlawn neighborhood. Grove Parc was almost completely non-Hispanic

African-American (99 percent), and all heads of households were born in the United States. Thirty-two

percent of respondents, the highest percentage across all developments, had at least some college or

technical schooling, but 39 percent had not graduated from high school. Only 38 percent of the heads of households were working at baseline. Sixty percent of households had children, and the average

household size was 2.8. Household incomes were severely low in Grove Parc, with 87 percent under

$15,000 and 98 percent under $30,000. About 34 percent of households received SSI and 15 percent

received cash assistance. Seventy-one percent of heads of households reported being in good health,

and 94 percent reported that their child was in good health. Thirty-five percent of household children

displayed two or more negative behaviors, but they averaged 4.6 positive behaviors on a scale of 1 to 6.

Seventy-six percent of respondents expressed a desire to return after redevelopment.

IMPLEMENTATION OF CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS

KEY ACTORS AND RELATIONSHIPS

As the lead grantee for the Chicago Choice Neighborhood grant, POAH oversees al aspects of grant

implementation. POAH is a national nonprofit organization with primary headquarters located in Boston

and a midwestern regional office that is charged with implementing the Choice grant in Chicago. The city B-29

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

of Chicago serves as the co-grantee and is responsible for delivering necessary public resources—such as transportation, infrastructure planning, and policing—to ensure the stability and revitalization of the Woodlawn area. 97 During the second year of the grant, the city of Chicago’s Department of Planning and Development hired a ful -time staff member to support the implementation of the Choice grant as there

was a need for increased coordination with municipal departments.

POAH subcontracts to local nonprofit organizations for the people and neighborhood components of the

grant. POAH selected Metropolitan Family Services (MFS) as the primary case management and tenant

services provider in January 2012. 98 MFS is a large, multiservice regional nonprofit organization that operates an onsite office in Grove Parc. The Network of Woodlawn (NOW), a force in community

development and the lead grantee in the MacArthur Foundation/LISC–funded New Communities

Program, is the neighborhood lead. NOW and its affiliated pil ar programs, Woodlawn Children’s

Promise Community (WCPC) and Woodlawn Public Safety Alliance (WPSA), lead education, safety,

health, and economic development reforms in the local area. Led by POAH, the Choice team coordinates

internal y through monthly partnership meetings of al team members.

The working relationship between HUD staff and the Choice partners operates through monthly

coordination calls that over time have become more inclusive of MFS and NOW partners. HUD staff have

provided technical assistance to POAH directly and through independent contractors to develop more

robust accountability, primarily through the implementation of a performance measurement system.

POAH engages other important community organizations and anchor institutions through a variety of

strategies, including monthly meetings and ongoing informal communication. In particular, the

University of Chicago’s Office of Civic Engagement staff partner with POAH to coordinate neighborhood

planning initiatives.

HOUSING

The development: Plan summary

Units and buildings. Grove Parc original y consisted of 504 units in 24 buildings, spread across five city blocks in the northwest section of the Woodlawn community area. POAH had begun demolition before

receiving the Choice funding, leaving 378 units to replace under Choice. According to the round 2

application, and as summarized in greater detail in Developing Choice Neighborhoods (Pendall et al.

2013), POAH planned 995 units, 420 new construction units on the Grove Parc footprint and 575

rehabbed and new construction units elsewhere in the neighborhood. The precise arrangement of

structures and units is too complex to summarize here, but the site plan is reproduced in exhibit B.10. 99

97 These roles are outlined in the revitalization agreement between POAH and the city.

98 In the application, POAH proposed the lead people partner as Jane Adams Hull House, which subsequently went bankrupt near the beginning of the first year of the grant implementation. See Pendal et al. (2013) for more details. In addition, MFS was replaced by a new service provider, SGA Youth and Families after September 2013.

99 Subsequent to the data col ection period that ended in September 2013, the Woodlawn grantee team submitted a revised Transformation Plan, which HUD approved. The plan reflected in this appendix was the original plan from the time of application (May 2011).

B-30

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit B.10. Site Plan, Grove Parc, May 2011

Source: Choice Neighborhoods round 2 application, attachment 26.

Income mixing and tenure. POAH’s application included 795 mixed-income rental units and 200 owner-occupied units. The rental units were to include 558 very low-income units, 51 moderate-income units,

and 186 market-rate units. The 200 owner-occupied units were al proposed as market-rate or

affordable up to 120 percent of area median income (AMI). POAH’s plan cal ed for substantial income

and tenure mixing on the Grove Parc footprint, with 210 Section 8 replacement units, 19 rental units

[restricted at 60 percent of AMI], 111 unrestricted market-rate rental units, and 80 owner-occupied

B-31

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

units. The offsite units have a similar mix of income and housing tenure. At the time of the application, POAH had applied for (but had not received) 146 housing choice vouchers for Grove Parc residents. 100

The income and tenure plan are in flux, however, as discussed at greater length below; very weak

housing demand and high levels of neighborhood violence have dimmed the prospects for market-rate

and owner-occupied housing.

Design. The onsite redevelopment plan involved the demolition of the 378 remaining Grove Parc units.

The new construction units at Grove Parc were designed to address safety and traffic concerns on

Cottage Grove, as well as blend into the existing streetscape. The buildings were raised two feet above street level and incorporated landscaped gardens along the sidewalk. The architectural plan took into

account the need to eliminate the spatial gaps between the fences, alleys, and the street. The main

entrances created more security with double doors with glass and secure buzzers that ring directly to

residents’ homes. POAH intended to have al replacement units include hardware and wiring for

broadband Internet. Designed and constructed using LEED for Home standards, the new construction

buildings meet the Choice requirement for energy efficiency.

Finance. Of the $30.5 mil ion Choice grant, $19.7 mil ion was al ocated for housing. The total budget for POAH’s proposed Choice housing redevelopment was estimated in the round 2 application at $91.7

mil ion; $72 mil ion in leverage was claimed, with sources including Chicago Tax Increment Finance

funds, city Low-Income Housing Trust Fund resources, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program, the

HOME program, and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. POAH expected to continue to receive

project-based operating subsidies through a Section 8 Housing Assistance Payment contract.

Management. When POAH acquired Grove Parc in 2008, they contracted with Preservation Housing

Management, POAH’s for-profit property management entity, for the property management of al the

rental units. In the round 2 application, POAH intended to maintain Preservation Housing Management

as the management company for al 795 mixed-income rental units, including the market-rate units.

Offsite housing. The units located off site were to include rehabbed multifamily apartment buildings as well as newly constructed units. In the area surrounding Grove Parc, POAH proposed to create 168

Section 8 replacement units and an additional 187 affordable rental units (78 at 60 percent of AMI, 58 at 80 percent of AMI, and 51 at 120 percent of AMI). POAH also proposed to build 45 new owner-occupied

units and to renovate or provide gap financing for 75 home ownership units in abandoned or distressed

properties through the Renew Woodlawn Fund.

Progress on the housing development

POAH made significant progress on housing development, even amid a weak housing market. Several

factors contributed to this success. Because POAH was working as the sole housing developer, they had

the latitude to make decisions that would have been more complicated had they been working within a

more complex partnership arrangement. Further, POAH made progress before the award of the Choice

grant in demolishing onsite structures, rehabilitating replacement housing units, and developing the first 100 In December 2013, POAH received approval from HUD for the use of the Housing Choice Vouchers.

B-32

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

phases of new construction housing. Final y, POAH has been successful in obtaining financing and

leveraging additional funds. In particular, POAH’s leadership to develop the Renew Woodlawn Fund

stands out as a unique contribution enabled by Choice funding. As of September 2013, POAH had

accomplished the following housing development activities:

• POAH demolished 276 distressed Grove Parc units within a four-block blighted area. POAH

moved forward with demolition ahead of the original proposed schedule due to public safety

concerns and criminal activity by nonresidents in and around the existing Grove Parc structures.

• POAH completed Phase I of the Choice Neighborhood plan, including producing 349 units. These

included 197 Section 8 replacement units and 152 nonreplacement units located on the Grove

Parc site and in the adjacent blocks. 101 POAH did not use Choice financing for development but rather leveraged financing from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, HOME program, the

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program, and a variety of other grants.

• Using a portion of Choice funding to pay for master-planning and financing costs, POAH

completed the development of The Jackson (67 units) 102 and The Grant (33 units) at Woodlawn Park. Construction and occupancy of these mixed-income rental buildings contributed to a more

stable streetscape on Cottage Grove. POAH’s significant and timely progress on the construction

and lease-up of these buildings has been considered a success by many local residents who were

previously opposed to POAH’s plans for building more affordable housing.

• POAH prepared for construction on two housing developments using Choice funds: the onsite

Woodlawn Park Senior Building (65 units) and a six-flat apartment building on an adjacent street

(6 units).

• POAH and the City prepared to launch the Renew Woodlawn Fund, an innovative strategy for

rehabilitating vacant homes and bringing them back into use by new homeowners. 103 Choice funding leveraged a newly obtained grant of $750,000 from the state of Illinois, and additional

funding is being sought to establish and expand the program.

The weak housing market combined with the high levels of violence led to growing concerns among

partners that the proposed mix of market-rate rental and for-sale housing units may be hard to achieve

within the five year implementation period. POAH took the position that they needed redevelop the

101 Subsequent to the data col ection period in September 2013, the number of necessary Section 8 vouchers changed from 197 to 133.

102 The Jackson at Woodlawn Park (previous cal ed Woodlawn Center South) won the Richard H. Driehaus Award for Excel ence in Community Design, given by the Chicago Neighborhood Development Awards and LISC in

February 2014. See “Landon Bone Baker for the Jackson at Woodlawn Park: 3rd Place Driehaus Award for

Architectural Excel ence,” Chicago Neighborhood Development Awards. http://www.lisc-cnda.org/Past-

winners/20th-ChoiceDA-Winners/The-Richard-H-Driehaus-Foundation-Awards-for-Architectural-Excellence-in-

Community-Design-Third-Place.html (accessed May 5, 2014). It also won an award for Residential Energy Efficiency from the State and Local Energy Report. See “Energy Innovators Honored in Fifth Annual Residential Energy Efficiency Awards,” State and Local Energy Report. http://stateenergyreport.com/2011/09/08/press-release/

(accessed May 5, 2014).

103 This fund is described in the Choice application and the interim report as the Woodlawn Housing Loan Fund.

B-33

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Grove Parc site first to decrease violence and blight on the Cottage Grove corridor. POAH made the

fol owing adjustments to their proposed housing plan in response to these growing concerns:

• Because the local housing market was oversaturated with foreclosed homes that could be

renovated and resold, POAH changed the onsite for-sale strategy to prioritize a foreclosure

conversion strategy through the Renew Woodlawn Fund that wil bring needed housing units

back into use. The development of for-sale homes on the Grove Parc footprint has been put on

hold temporarily until housing market conditions improve.

• POAH changed the planned number and integration of market-rate rental phases after private

financing for these units became difficult to obtain. POAH intends to carry through on its plan to

include market-rate units at Grove Parc once local housing market conditions improve.

• The chal enges with managing a property where there is ongoing violence required property

managers to coordinate with police, social service providers, and residents on strategies that

extended beyond typical roles of property management. POAH actively supported Preservation

Housing Management on violence prevention and intervention strategies.

PEOPLE

Developing and leading the people domain of the Choice grant is not a simple task, and this aspect of

the grant has been a chal enge to launch in part due to POAH’s lack of experience in providing social

services. POAH serves as the lead partner and subcontracts direct services to three organizations:

Metropolitan Family Services (MFS), Urban Relocation Services (URS), and Woodlawn Children’s Promise

Community (WCPC).

Social dynamics and resident engagement

The social dynamics of the Grove Parc target development, its replacement housing, and the

surrounding Woodlawn community have been the most chal enging of the first five implementation

sites. Within Grove Parc and its replacement development, the longstanding Grove Parc Tenant

Association faces significant chal enges with capacity and credibility, in part due to transitions in tenant leadership. Grove Parc Tenant Association leaders struggle to represent the interests of relocated

residents within the changing mixed-income environment. Residents living in the new developments are

in early stages of forming connections. Staff and residents raised concerns about the lack of capacity for neighbors to watch out for each other and for youth who are not well supervised.

The Grove Parc site is part of Woodlawn but straddles the boundary of two subneighborhoods, East

Woodlawn and West Woodlawn. The redevelopment site is more readily identified with West

Woodlawn. Grove Parc residents who are relocating, and the stakeholders who work with them,

describe social divides between residents from Grove Parc and other residents in Woodlawn,

particularly East Woodlawn homeowners. The new development and the renters living in it remain

stigmatized even post-redevelopment, partially because local homeowners expressed their desire for

Grove Parc residents to move out of Woodlawn and pushed for fewer affordable housing units in

Woodlawn, as described in Developing Choice Neighborhoods (Pendal et al. 2013). Notwithstanding these pressures, most Grove Parc residents continue to live in Woodlawn.

B-34

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Division within Woodlawn may be exacerbated by its complex institutional environment. Neighborhood

organizations have some shared interests, but they lack the participatory processes, forums, and

governing structures necessary to relationship building. Long-time residents and newly arrived residents sometimes clash. Even the anchor institutions, which hold power over funding and resources, can

engage in turf struggles. These divisions engender a highly factionalized, complex community dynamic

that is contentious at times and that has hindered Choice coordination and implementation.

Choice partners worked in the first two years of implementation to develop interventions aimed at

building trust among neighbors. POAH and MFS staff are assessing how the services model (described

below) should be designed to al ow residents to more meaningful y engage in a consistent manner and

serve in an advisory role. In summer 2013, MFS staff started facilitating a resident committee in which highly engaged residents made recommendations about potential programming. This group has been

helpful in acting as a sounding board for MFS to redesign services that meet the desires and needs of

residents. In addition, MFS began holding a weekly empowerment workshop, as well as a monthly Jazz

Café designed for seniors to meet once a month for social connection. This shift in the culture of service provision may well be a key element to keep residents engaged over time.

Community building and engagement at the neighborhood level has proceeded haltingly. By fal 2013,

POAH and NOW, the neighborhood lead for the Choice grant, were col aborating to engage a diverse

representation of residents in the target development and the neighborhood to develop a unified vision

of neighborhood redevelopment. At the same time, NOW was moving forward with launching a newly

created comprehensive neighborhood plan, but this plan had not been vetted with community groups

and resident leaders. 104 According to some participants in Urban Institute focus groups, NOW represents historically powerful stakeholders, and its priorities do not reflect the wishes of the majority of low-income residents living in Woodlawn.

Case management and supportive services

Woodlawn’s Choice “people” service model is driven by the idea that Grove Parc residents need social

services to become more self-sufficient. Since residents are not required to engage in services, the

people partners must persuade residents that service engagement is valuable and necessary. MFS, the

contracted case management service provider, aimed to conduct a needs assessment involving al

original Grove Parc residents and to encourage them to consider case management services, but it had

not met with all the residents as of September 2013. 105 At the time of this report, approximately 15

percent of original residents still had no service contact. MFS also held group events, such as GED classes and computer trainings, at which attendance started high but fell over time. In focus groups, residents 104 This plan is referred to locally as the “Gensler report.” Under the direction of Dr. Bryon T. Brazier, Apostolic Church of God hired Gensler, a private consulting firm, to develop a long-term plan for economic and community development. As of September 2013, the report had not yet been made public.

105 Subsequent to the data col ection period, MFS and POAH terminated their contract for service provision. POAH

selected SGA as the new provider and has designed a new service model focused on youth and family supports.

POAH staff made significant progress since the September 2013 period in revamping the People components, including revising the Transformation Plan and developing tools for assessment and on-going services.

B-35

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

reported being cautious about developing a trusting relationship with providers. Residents also

expressed the need for more participation in service design and delivery so that service providers would begin to view residents as part of the solution rather than as a target for interventions.

MFS operates an onsite office in the Woodlawn Resource Center with five staff members devoted to

serving Woodlawn residents. The yearly budget of approximately $500,000 aims to provide services

guided by HUD program requirements. MFS case managers face high caseloads, making proactive

outreach difficult. 106 Case managers offered group workshops, individual crisis interventions, and financial incentives to participate in activities aimed at building resident self-sufficiency. Staff at POAH

and HUD expressed concern that residents have been slow to engage in services. There are multiple

reasons given for this reluctance, including that before the Choice grant there was no onsite social

services provided to residents. Thus, residents lacked prior personal experience knowing how and why

they might benefit from social services. A second reason is that the property management staff, rather

than the case management staff, had more consistent and trusting relationships with residents. POAH

did not communicate to residents an expectation that they engage with services, and the residents’

primary relationship was to the property management staff. MFS staff turnover has also discouraged

some residents from connecting with case management.

Services and programming

Education and early childhood. One of the largest concerns in Woodlawn is the lack of affordable youth services, such as recreation, mentoring, and out-of-school care. As one of the people partners, the

NOW-affiliated organization, Woodlawn Children’s Promise Community (WCPC), was charged with

providing youth-centered services to existing and former Grove Parc families to meet these needs. 107

The Choice subcontract of approximately $90,000 per year provides funding to work directly with youth

and with the local schools they attend. WCPC focused efforts on expanding programming in

neighborhood schools, which resulted in securing an International Baccalaureate status for the local

high school and elementary school. Despite efforts by WCPC, the local schools continue to be poor

quality. School closures in 2013 (four elementary schools were consolidated into two schools), as wel as the poor quality of the schools (particularly the high school), have led to immense instability for youth and families.

Employment. MFS operates economic and financial self-sufficiency services through the LISC-sponsored Center for Working Families, as well as through a partnership with City Colleges of Chicago. Residents

who are interested in employment meet with an MFS employment specialist to gain necessary job

contacts and skil s, as well as attend group counseling and job readiness training. In focus groups,

residents reported positive engagement with the employment and job training services.

Health and other supportive services. Staff and residents reported that residents can access health and other human services at many public and nonprofit providers in Woodlawn and the surrounding

106 Case loads are reported by MFS staff as one worker to approximately 77 households.

107 For more information about the Woodlawn educational plan and WCPC, see chapter 4, Developing Choice Neighborhoods (Pendal et al. 2013).

B-36

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

neighborhoods. NOW has begun to develop a public web-based portal that includes information on how

to access neighborhood-based resources and services.

Relocation

As of September 2013, 197 Grove Parc households were permanently housed, 29 households were

temporarily housed, and 89 households had not yet been relocated but had moves planned for winter

2014. Grove Parc residents were relocated to apartments in Woodlawn or the adjacent neighborhood of

Washington Park. 108 Of those households permanently housed, approximately 90 families relocated from Grove Parc into the newly constructed mixed-income rental buildings that were developed at the

original Grove Parc location. Social service providers were not available to support residents during the early phases of relocation.

NEIGHBORHOOD

The neighborhood component of Chicago’s Choice grant is led by a partnership between POAH and the

Network of Woodlawn (NOW), which has been designated the neighborhood implementation entity in

the Choice grant.

Critical Community Improvements

In the initial application, POAH proposed to use Critical Community Improvements (CCI) funds for the

creation of the Renew Woodlawn Fund (see the previous section on housing) and a broadband

expansion initiative. After the award of the grant, HUD staff clarified that the proposed use of CCI funds was inappropriate and requested a plan for the use of CCI funds. HUD, POAH, and City staff discussed a

variety of options, including commercial and economic development, parks, and transit improvements.

HUD provided guidance to grantees about what was needed to be included in the CCI Plan in the

summer of 2013. As of fal 2013, the plan for the CCI funds had not yet been finalized.

Public safety

The number one issue in Woodlawn is violence, particularly in West Woodlawn and at Grove Parc, which

Choice partners have been working to address. The most serious crimes include homicide, shootings,

muggings, other violent crime, gang activity, and drug sales. Social order is disrupted by the drug trade, large groups of youth and older men loitering on the streets, unsupervised younger children, loud

parties, littering, and lack of curfew enforcement. These issues signal that Woodlawn is not safe and

that criminal activity is permissible. Stakeholders describe public safety issues as impediments to

economic and housing development that would otherwise help attract and retain middle-income

households.

In response, POAH, Preservation Management Housing, the University of Chicago police department,

and the Chicago Police Department worked together to prevent and deescalate violence. The high level

of violence led POAH to decide in fall 2013 to relocate all households out of Grove Parc, ahead of the

planned schedule, to demolish existing structures. During this time, POAH continued to work on

obtaining the Public Safety Enhancement grant in partnership with HUD and the Department of Justice.

108 Approval for implementation of vouchers was received in December 2013.

B-37

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Due to the strong partnership POAH staff established with the Chicago Police Department’s leadership,

the police expanded foot patrols in the area and added more police cars at POAH’s request. This

expanded police attention resulted in a significant difference in the number of police walking and driving around the five-block area of Grove Parc and the surrounding blocks. The intensive efforts to get more

police on the street and collect gang-related intelligence led to a reduction in criminal activity.

With the support of the Choice partnership, the NOW-affiliated organization Woodlawn Public Safety

Al iance has been the most active community organization attempting to prevent and intervene in public

safety concerns. WPSA ran the PlayStreets weekend program, in which teens facilitated games and

mentored younger children, while staff provided linkages to job training for the parents. WPSA also

received a grant from the Chicago Public Schools to operate the Safe Passages Zone program, which

created 40 jobs for local residents (six of whom were Grove Parc residents). This program helped ensure that youth who attend new schools (due to school closures) have a route to walk to school that is being monitored. Final y, WPSA operated a youth employment program for 80 youth that provided

neighborhood-based job preparation courses, computer training, ongoing mentoring, and paid positions

during summer 2013.

Neighborhood economic development

Since the Choice award, POAH, NOW, the South East Chicago Commission, and other partners made

efforts to encourage commercial retail development. Strategies included improving the commercial

streetscapes by erecting “Welcome to Woodlawn” banners, working on crime reduction strategies in

key hot spots, and developing a steering committee of property and business owners who serve as an

informal commerce association. The city of Chicago is close to completing the 63rd Street Commercial

Corridor Study, which will determine options for land use and retail development.

POAH made plans to develop commercial sites they already own in Woodlawn. They proposed the

development of a three-star hotel with approximately 125 rooms, which would include a full-service

restaurant and potential y other ground-floor retail. Situated at 61st and Cottage Grove Avenue, this

hotel would serve the University of Chicago and its medical campus, as well as create job opportunities for local residents. POAH completed a feasibility study and marketing plan to share with potential hotel developers and investors. 109 POAH was also considering options for the development of a small grocery store/pharmacy, which may help meet residents’ demands for better access to fresh produce,

prescription drugs, and convenience goods.

Built environment and infrastructure

POAH made predevelopment plans for a parcel near Grove Parc to be used for recreation. Through a new

partnership, POAH is leasing land to a nonprofit organization, METROsquash, which is developing an

education and recreation center that wil house squash courts, classrooms, and a computer lab for use by youth and families within and around the Woodlawn neighborhood. METROsquash completed the $6.5

mil ion fundraising for this facility, and the beginning of construction was projected for spring 2014.

109 Subsequent to the data collection period for this study, the hotel was removed as an option for the CCI investments.

B-38

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Choice funds helped leverage additional resources of partners, including the city of Chicago and anchor institutions. The University of Chicago partnered with Choice grantees to support neighborhood

initiatives that help enhance the standard of living in Woodlawn. Since Choice was awarded, the

University hired a director of place-based initiatives who works to enhance Woodlawn residents’ access

to campus resources, such as arts and culture, employment opportunities, medical care, and

homeownership grants. The Chicago Transit Authority partnered with Choice grantees for infrastructure

improvements at the transit stop at 63rd Street and Cottage Grove Avenue. Finally, the city of Chicago

incorporated Woodlawn into a recently announced broadband expansion initiative funded by the State

of Illinois.

Future of the neighborhood

Mixed-income housing and mixed-use development are important aims of Choice, but debates existed

among Woodlawn partners about which neighborhood amenities are most important and for which

residents. Choice partners, with the leadership of POAH, started to catalyze changes in housing and

public safety that wil affect the retail, transit, and infrastructure of the neighborhood. Ultimately, the future of the neighborhood rests on the capacity of al stakeholders and residents to significantly reduce crime in ways that eventually lead to more economic investment. The safety interventions put in place

by Choice partners have demonstrated how Choice funds can lead to meaningful and concrete changes

in public safety. The future success of neighborhood planning efforts wil in large part depend on the

capacity to catalyze market-rate rental and homeownership development, as well as create retail that

contributes to access to enhanced amenities and services.

SUMMARY OF PROGRESS IN COORDINATION AND LEVERAGE

Coordination within the Grantee Team and with HUD. Boston-based POAH understood its position as an outside entity and relied on NOW and the city to establish credibility for the Choice grant. The

memoranda of understanding required in the grant application defined the roles and relationships of

each partner, with the city’s Department of Planning and Development coordinating with other city

agencies and NOW coordinating with Woodlawn stakeholders. However, internal coordination between

the Department of Planning and Development, MFS, NOW, and POAH has been difficult, with each of

the partners concerned about mutual accountability and expectations of progress. External coordination

is also chal enging, as Woodlawn is a neighborhood in which there is longstanding distrust between and

among community organizations and anchor institutions. POAH has attempted to oversee the

implementation and to increase collective ownership of Choice, but to date these activities have been

challenging for the team.

The working relationship between HUD staff and the Choice grantees has aided implementation. HUD

and POAH staff communicated on a weekly basis and attended monthly team meetings at which they

developed action plans for tackling challenges. Together, they identified areas in which technical

assistance was needed. HUD provided consultants to work with Choice partners on special projects. For

example, HUD enlisted a consultant to help redevelop the resident services performance measurement

system.

B-39

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Local partners identified a few instances when HUD regulations and expectations complicated the grant

implementation. For example, the process for drawing down HUD funds and unclear evidentiary

paperwork caused delays in housing development. In addition, partners expressed ongoing frustration

with the extent of data col ection to document program outcomes and the time necessary for staff to

report on progress. The lack of clear HUD criteria on how the CCI funds could be used caused additional delays in neighborhood improvement planning.

Coordination with External Stakeholders. POAH’s greatest strength is their experience in developing affordable rental housing. Their relative lack of experience in nonresidential development and for-sale housing development presented a chal enge because a portion of the grant aims to develop commercial

sites and provide homeownership opportunities. The development of the grocery store and hotel site

has proved difficult, in part because POAH staff needed to hire consultants with strengths in commercial development. On a positive note, the innovation of the Renew Woodlawn Fund may serve as an

example of how public entities and financing help to stimulate the work of private nonprofit developers and organizations to work together to address chal enges left by the foreclosure crisis. POAH

demonstrated their strong capacity to bring together external partners and funding in order to launch

this innovative strategy.

Leverage. The Choice grant leveraged additional financing for housing development. Most significantly, the award of $750,000 from the state of Il inois for the Renew Woodlawn Fund ensured that this part of

the Choice grant would be ful y implemented. METROsquash, which had committed leverage in the

Choice application, was successful in raising $6.5 million that will contribute to creating essential

recreational space. Without Choice, these investments probably would not have been ful y realized.

Some leverage funds described in the application have not materialized, however, most notably the

Chicago Tax Increment Financing funds that were planned for housing redevelopment. In addition,

Woodlawn Children’s Promise Community applied for Promise Neighborhood implementation grants

that were not awarded, thus impeding education and youth services reforms.

Exhibit B.11 provides a summary of major activities by Choice domain and their early implementation

status in Woodlawn as of September 2013.

Exhibit B.11. Summary of Major Activities and Early Implementation Progress in Woodlawn,

September 2013

Choice Domain and Related

Lead

Funding

Funding

Funding Covered Summary

Activities

Organization

Level ($

Covered by

by Other

Status

thousands)

Choice (%)

Sources (%)

HOUSING

Site acquisition for rental

POAH

4,800

100

0

In

housing: Demolish 84 units of

progress

existing housing, prepare site and

develop new senior building with

65 rental units (Section 8 and

unrestricted) and 15,000 sq. ft. of

commercial space.

B-40

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Choice Domain and Related

Lead

Funding

Funding

Funding Covered Summary

Activities

Organization

Level ($

Covered by

by Other

Status

thousands)

Choice (%)

Sources (%)

Demolition: Demolition of eight

POAH

1,000

100

0

In

existing structures at Grove Parc.

progress

Section 8 rental housing:

POAH

1,255

100

0

In

Develop 210 Section 8

progress

replacement units.

Renew Woodlawn Fund: Provide POAH and

1,750

70

30

In

homebuyer assistance loans to

city of

progress

households earning up to 120%

Chicago and

of AMI for rehabbing 75 homes in Illinois State

Woodlawn containing 1–4 units.

Attorney’s

Additional loans will be targeted

Office

to smaller local developers for

rehabbing another 100 units (of

which 25 will be affordable at

80% of AMI).

Market-rate rental housing:

POAH

6,825

100

0

In

Develop 130 market-rate rental

progress

units on site located at Cottage

Grove and 61st; 19 market-rate

units targeted at 60% of AMI and

111 unrestricted market-rate

units.

For-sale new construction

POAH

1,750

100

0

Not

housing: Develop two

started

homeownership phases of 44

units located on the east and

west side of Cottage Grove in the

62nd block.

West Woodlawn TIF district:

City of

10

0

100

In

Investment in public

Chicago

progress

improvements, community

facilities, or retail development.

Woodlawn TIF district: Develop

City of

23,400

0

100

In

an additional 400 units off site

Chicago

progress

through a combination of new

construction of vacant lots or

rehab of existing apartments,

including 45 for-sale units and

355 rental units (168 Section 8

replacement units, 51 NSP units,

78 LIHTC-only units, 58 HOME

units).

HOME loan: Loan for acquisition

City of

6,879

0

100

Complete

and preservation of 117 units,

Chicago

d

including 39 replacement units at

the Renaissance Apartments to

be used as replacement housing.

B-41

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Choice Domain and Related

Lead

Funding

Funding

Funding Covered Summary

Activities

Organization

Level ($

Covered by

by Other

Status

thousands)

Choice (%)

Sources (%)

Chicago Low-Income Housing

City of

1,227

0

100

In

Trust Fund: Funding for Housing

Chicago

progress

Assistance Payment–restricted

units at Renaissance Apartments.

Neighborhood Stabilization

City of

9,900

0

100

Complete

Program 2: Acquisition and

Chicago

d

preservation of the 102-unit

Westwood Apartments.

Low-income housing tax credits: City of

7,000

0

100

In

For Woodlawn Center South and

Chicago and

(credits)

progress

North, senior building; and mid-

Illinois

70,000

way building.

Housing

(equity)

Development

Authority

Housing choice vouchers:

Chicago

11,000

0

100

In

Funding for 146 vouchers.

Housing

progress

Authority

PEOPLE

Program oversight: Oversee the

POAH

325

100

0

In

people component of the Choice

progress

activities.

Case management and center

MFS

2,075

100

0

In

for working families: Provide

progress

programming for adults and

youth focused on economic

security, including employment

and financial coaching services.

Education programs: Implement

WCPC

550

100

0

In

a comprehensive educational

progress

development program addressing

school-based education,

extended day programming, and

infant/preschool programs.

Management information

POAH

158

100

0

In

system: Efforts to Outcomes

progress

system development and

training.

Workforce development: Lead

NOW

100

100

0

In

economic development focused

progress

on attracting new businesses,

investments, and amenities.

Youth development: Youth

TBD

150

100

0

In

empowerment programs,

progress

leadership development,

afterschool programs, youth

organizing, mural arts program.

B-42

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Choice Domain and Related

Lead

Funding

Funding

Funding Covered Summary

Activities

Organization

Level ($

Covered by

by Other

Status

thousands)

Choice (%)

Sources (%)

Health services: Targeted health

University of

100

100

0

In

programming and outreach to

Chicago

progress

assisted residents.

Health

Initiative

Endowment trust: Private

POAH

1,000

0

100

In

funding to pay for supportive

progress

services.

Woodlawn Resource Center

POAH/MFS

180

100

0

In

operations: Annual costs to run

progress

the resource center.

Relocation costs: Moving fees for POAH

$255

100

0

In

91 Grove Parc residents at

progress

approximately $3,125 per

household.

NEIGHBORHOOD

Critical Community

POAH

2,100

100

0

In

Improvements: Development of

progress

commercial space for grocery

store, hotel/restaurant, and

some transit improvements to

Green Line stop.

Nonhousing capital projects:

POAH

1,269

100

0

In

Development of retail space and

progress

other capital projects

(infrastructure, transportation,

parks improvements).

Neighborhood partner: To

NOW

500

100

0

In

support the work of the

progress

revitalization efforts through a

partnership with NOW.

OTHER

Data collection and evaluation

POAH

200

100

0

Not

Local evaluation of Choice

started

progress.

Notes: MFS: Metropolitan Family Services; WCPC: Woodlawn Children's Promise Community; NOW: Network of Woodlawn; LIHTC: low-income housing tax credit; TBD: to be determined; TIF: Chicago Tax Increment Financing Sources: Review of documents, including Choice Neighborhoods round 1 and 2 applications and budgets, interviews with stakeholders, and observation of team meetings and phone cal s.

B-43

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

B.3. NEW ORLEANS: THE IBERVILLE AND THE IBERVILLE/TREMÉ

NEIGHBORHOOD

In New Orleans, Choice is supporting the transformation of an area that includes the Ibervil e public

housing development, the Tremé neighborhood, and parts of the Sixth and Seventh Wards (exhibit

B.12). These historically African-American neighborhoods have played a significant role in the city’s

cultural development. Tremé was once home to the city’s primary African-American commercial

corridor along Claiborne Avenue. This area also includes Congo Square, a historic gathering place for

free and enslaved people of color, and present-day Iberville is on the site of Storyville, a former red light district that was home to famous musicians and artists. 110 These neighborhoods have long featured low-income and wealthy residents living in close proximity, creating a socioeconomically diverse

neighborhood fabric a few blocks from the city’s famous French Quarter and its central business district.

110 Housing Authority of New Orleans. Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grant: Round 2 Grant application, A.1: Executive Summary (2011).

B-44

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit B.12. Map of the Iberville/Tremé Neighborhood

B-45

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

BASELINE CONDITIONS

The flooding that accompanied Hurricane Katrina and devastated many New Orleans neighborhoods

had a serious impact on the Choice Neighborhood. The population of the three main neighborhoods in

the Choice boundaries (Iberville, Tremé, and the Seventh Ward) at the 2010 census was 15,580, down

45 percent from the 2000 census. The parish as a whole lost 29 percent of its residents in the decade;

the most flood-devastated district, the Lower Ninth Ward, lost 80 percent of its residents. 111 Although the Choice Neighborhood occupies higher ground than the Lower Ninth Ward, flooding extended even

to some of the higher ground, including Iberville itself. 112

Exhibit B.13. Resident and Household Characteristics in the Ibervil e/Tremé Neighborhood

Head of Household Characteristics

Percent Household Characteristics

Percent

Female

65

Households with children

23

Race and Ethnicity

Three-generation household

5

Non-Hispanic African-American

77

Household's annual income

Non-Hispanic White

13

Under $15,000

57

Non-Hispanic other

4

$15,000 to $29,999

20

Hispanic

4

$30,000 to $49,999

9

Born in the US

96

$50,000 to $69,999

5

Education

$70,000 or more

8

12th grade or less

36

Public assistance

GED or high school diploma

25

Supplemental Security Income

26

Some technical or col ege or higher

40

Disability

14

HH is currently employed

48

Cash assistance

2

Ratings of Well-Being

Percent

Mode of Transportation

Respondent in good health

75

Has a car to use

78

Child wel -being

Takes public transit regularly

20

Focal child in good health

94

Focal child positive behavior scale (score)

4.3

Focal child 2 or more negative behaviors

52

Ratings of Housing Quality

Percent Ratings of Neighborhood Quality and Safety

Percent

Number of housing quality problems

Rates the neighborhood as at least an 8 of 10

53

0

35

Feels safe alone outside of home during the day

92

1

25

Feels safe alone outside of home at night

67

2 to 3

22

Thinks the ngh. is a good place to raise children

70

4 or more

19

Collective efficacy scale score

3.7

Source: Choice Neighborhoods Baseline Survey 2013–14.

111 Greater New Orleans Community Data Center (2012).

112 Greater New Orleans Community Data Center (2005).

B-46

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

The mix of race and family type in the neighborhood has shifted since Hurricane Katrina, with a sharp

drop in the African-American population, and increased numbers of White and Hispanic residents

(exhibit B.13). The neighborhood experienced a 13-percentage point drop in the share of children and a

similar decrease in share of households with children. At the time of the baseline survey, 77 percent of heads of households were non-Hispanic African-American and 4 percent were Hispanic. Almost all were

born in the United States. About 23 percent of households were families with children, the lowest

percentage across the five Choice Neighborhoods. Approximately 40 percent of heads of households

reported having some col ege or technical schooling, and 36 percent reported not having completed

high school. Residents in Iberville/Tremé were struggling to get by; 57 percent of households reported

an annual income less than $15,000, and 77 percent reported below $30,000. Forty-eight percent of

heads of household were employed. About 26 percent received supplemental security income, 14

percent received disability, and 2 percent received cash assistance. Only 20 percent of respondents in

Iberville/Tremé reported that they regularly took public transportation, the lowest share reported in any of the five Choice Neighborhoods.

The 8,200 housing units in Ibervil e/Tremé represent some of the oldest housing stock of the Choice

Neighborhoods; 8 out of 10 units were built before 1960. Most homes are single-family, duplexes, or

smal multifamily buildings. Vacancy is a major issue in the city overal and in Ibervil e/Tremé. About 39

percent of the habitable homes in the neighborhood are vacant, not counting the blighted homes

excluded from the Census. With the population loss, vacancy, and prevalence of single-family homes,

Iberville/Tremé, with an area of 1.7 square miles, is much less densely populated than the other Choice Neighborhoods. Compared with the large declines in home sale prices in the other Choice

neighborhoods, Iberville/Tremé’s prices have been stable. In contrast, a reduced livable supply of rental housing across New Orleans has meant a big jump in rents during the past few years, but incomes have

not kept up. Four in 10 households reported having two or more housing quality problems.

The five Choice Neighborhoods were very similar on measures of resident and child well-being. In

Ibervil e/Tremé most respondents (75 percent) reported good health, and 94 percent reported that their

child was in good health. The baseline survey also asked about the behaviors of children and youth. In

reference to positive behaviors, such as the ability to regulate emotions and get along with others,

youth in Ibervil e/Tremé averaged 4.3 positive behaviors out of a possible 6. Fifty-two percent of

respondents reported that their child aged 6 to 14 had two or more negative behaviors, such as

disobedience at school or home, and restlessness or overactivity.

At the same time, Iberville/Tremé residents general y reported the greatest satisfaction with their

neighborhoods, of all the first round of Choice grantees. Fifty-three percent of survey respondents in

Ibervil e/Tremé rated their neighborhood highly (an 8 or higher out of 10), which was less than those

living in central cities nationwide (62 percent), but higher than that in Yesler, Quincy Corridor,

Woodlawn, or Eastern Bayview, where rating levels ranged from 37 to 44 percent. Seventy percent of

respondents believed that Iberville/Tremé is a good place to raise children, more than in the other

Choice Neighborhoods except Yesler. A large majority of respondents (92 percent) felt safe outside their homes during the day, more than in Woodlawn and Eastern Bayview (80 to 84 percent), but fewer

respondents felt safe at night (67 percent), which was comparable to the other Choice Neighborhoods

B-47

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

except for Eastern Bayview (50 percent). Iberville/Tremé also had higher average ratings of collective

efficacy (3.7 out of 5) than the other four Choice Neighborhoods. 113

Iberville, the public housing development targeted by the Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO) for

its Choice grant, was constructed during the 1940s and is located in the southeast corner of the

Ibervil e/Tremé neighborhood, adjacent to New Orleans’s central business district and the French

Quarter. The street grid was removed in Iberville, creating a 23-acre superblock with 821 units in 74

walk-up, two- or three-story brick buildings arrayed barracks-style. Interstate 10, historic cemeteries, and adjacent vacant lots isolate Ibervil e from the rest of the Tremé neighborhood. Residents described the development as cut off, and said they rarely ventured on foot to area parks or the nearby Tremé

Community Center or other cultural amenities. The Ibervil e community makes up about 10 percent of

all housing units in the Choice Neighborhood.

Some residents of the Iberville have come from other HANO projects that are themselves undergoing

redevelopment, a fact which sometimes fed into tenant uncertainties about relocation. By late 2013, the Iberville housing plans were in process, while housing development plans in the surrounding Choice

Neighborhood were still taking shape. Initial plans for the transformation of the Iberville development were to demolish 52 of the 74 original buildings to make way for the creation of 913 units through

construction of new townhomes and multifamily buildings. This demolition and new construction would

be complemented by the renovation of the 22 remaining original buildings on the 23-acre site. Of the

913 units, 304 were intended to be replacement public housing units, and the remaining 600 units were

expected to be divided between affordable rental units and market-rate units to create a mixed-income

community blending public housing units, subsidized units for low-income residents, and units for

middle-income residents.

113 Collective efficacy includes how cohesive the residents feel the neighborhood is, with shared trust and values, as well as how likely neighbors are to exhibit informal social control and do something to address concerns in their neighborhood, from children fighting to cuts to services in their neighborhood.

B-48

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit B.14. Resident and Household Characteristics in the Ibervil e Public Housing Development

Head of Household Characteristics

Percent Household Characteristics

Percent

Female

81

Household size (average number of people)

2.0

Race and Ethnicity

Households with children

36

Non-Hispanic African-American

94

Three-generation household

12

Non-Hispanic White

1

Household's annual income

Non-Hispanic other

3

Under $15,000

85

Hispanic

2

$15,000 to $29,999

12

Born in the US

99

$30,000 to $49,999

2

Education

$50,000 to $69,999

0

12th grade or less

69

$70,000 or more

0

GED or high school diploma

22

Public assistance

Some technical or col ege or

higher

10

Supplemental Security Income

43

HH is currently employed

41

Disability

15

Mode of Transportation

Cash assistance

2

Has a car to use

53

Ratings of Well-Being

Takes public transit regularly

28

Respondent in good health

66

Child wel -being

Currently lives in the neighborhood

22

Focal child in good health

97

Lives in original housing unit

2

Focal child positive behavior scale (score)

4.8

Desire to return after redevelopment

71

Focal child 2 or more negative behaviors

37

Source: Choice Neighborhoods Baseline Survey 2013–14.

At the time of the baseline survey, only about 2 percent of Iberville households were still in their original housing units (exhibit B.14). The Ibervil e is a predominantly African-American community. Ninety-four

percent of heads of households were non-Hispanic African-American and 99 percent were born in the

United States. Only 10 percent reported having some form of college or technical schooling; 69 percent

reported they had not graduated from high school. Thirty-six percent of households had a child under

the age of 18, and the average household size was 2.0. Just over 40 percent of al heads of households

surveyed were currently employed. About 53 percent reported that they had a car to use, and 28

percent noted that they took public transit regularly. Annual household incomes are low in the Ibervil e, with 85 percent making below $15,000 and 97 percent making below $30,000. Approximately 43

percent of respondents received supplemental security income, 15 percent received disability, and 2

percent received cash assistance. Sixty-six percent of heads of households reported they were in good

health. Of those who had children, 97 percent reported that their focal child was in good health. Thirty-seven percent reported that their focal child exhibited two or more negative behaviors, with an average score of 4.8 out of 6 on the positive behavior scale. When respondents were asked if they would like to return after redevelopment is completed, about 71 percent expressed a desire to return. Although

desire to return was high, respondents in Iberville expressed the lowest desire to return of the five

Choice target developments, perhaps reflecting the fact that many of them had original y come from

other developments before relocation to the Iberville.

B-49

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

IMPLEMENTATION OF CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS

KEY ACTORS AND RELATIONSHIPS

HANO and the city of New Orleans are the joint lead grantees for Choice. HANO is charged with

providing housing for impoverished residents and has primarily done so through direct management of

public housing developments and management of a Section 8 voucher program. For Choice, HANO has

taken the lead on housing and resident support aspects, both related to the Ibervil e but also managing off-site housing issues. The city serves as lead on coordinating with external stakeholders, related to the significant amount of neighborhood activity and infrastructure investments. The relationship between

HANO, which was in federal receivership until July of 2014, and the city, is close, but was not without challenges during early implementation, as described below.

HRI Properties and McCormack Baron Salazar (MBS) are the developer partners on the New Orleans

Choice project, with HRI taking the lead for onsite development at the Iberville and MBS taking the lead on offsite development. A third significant partner, Urban Strategies, serves as the “people” lead and

coordinates services provided to residents and tracks data. Both developers have had experience

transforming other HANO properties into mixed-income developments, but Iberville/Tremé is their first

experience working as a team. HRI was the developer for one of the first of New Orleans’ HOPE VI

developments, St. Thomas (now River Gardens). As one of the first of its kind in the city, the

development was highly controversial, and some have claimed it was a less successful example of HOPE

VI efforts. 114 MBS began working in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and led the redevelopment of the C.J. Peete housing development (now Harmony Oaks) and worked on the redevelopment of the

B.W. Cooper housing development (now Marrero Commons). MBS has an extensive history of working

with Urban Strategies to provide community development and resident support in New Orleans and

throughout the country.

Other key partners in the New Orleans Choice team during early implementation included GCR Inc. and

Black Men of Labor (BMoL). GCR and BMoL led community engagement, whereas the Iberville Resident

Working Team, with support of Urban Strategies, was the lead for resident engagement. GCR is a local

consulting firm that general y has focused on city planning and played a role in outreach and leadership of the city’s Unified New Orleans Plan process. Black Men of Labor is a social aid and pleasure club based in Iberville/Tremé that has worked on neighborhood canvasing and community engagement during

Choice implementation. The Iberville Resident Working Team was established by HANO to fulfill the

need for a resident leadership and engagement arm for Choice.

Throughout early implementation, the key parties met regularly—initially biweekly and eventually

monthly—as the implementation working team (IWT) to share progress updates and to develop

strategies for addressing chal enges to implementation. The IWT was coordinated by a project director

who was jointly hired by HANO and the city of New Orleans to be the overall coordinator of Choice

implementation. Key actors at HANO and the city viewed this coordinator role as critical to the

114 See, for example, http://www.hopehouseneworleans.org/HOPEVIandStThomas.pdf.

B-50

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

successful implementation of Choice and also noted the difficulty of this position, which required

“managing up” within both agencies. In addition to regular IWT meetings, an executive team comprising

key actors at the city and HANO held regular leadership calls and biweekly cal s with the HUD team.

Working relationships between the lead agencies, among the key parties, and between the grantee

team and HUD were generally described as positive and collaborative. In early interviews, al parties

described a positive and inclusive process to develop the Choice application and seemed to have

developed strong working relationships that continued throughout early implementation.

Regular team meetings, combined with cooperative working relationships, often helped respond to

significant early implementation challenges, including a complicated archeological review process that

threatened the demolition and construction schedule at the Iberville. At the same time, the

implementation team sometimes experienced tensions related to some aspects of coordination

associated with early demolition and construction, which, given the complicated series of archaeological and environmental reviews, is not surprising. Additional y, some key partners (e.g., school system

representatives and the relocation service provider) were not part of the IWT meetings, and ultimately

implementation was slower or more chal enging in these areas.

HOUSING

The development: Plan summary

Units and buildings. Iberville includes 821 units in 74 walk-up, two- to three-story brick buildings arrayed barracks-style on a 23-acre superblock. The Iberville/Tremé Choice Neighborhood plan calls for

the creation of 2,446 units, 913 of them onsite at the Iberville and 1,533 elsewhere within the Choice

Neighborhood’s boundary. The round 2 application proposed that 52 of the 74 original target

development buildings would be demolished and replaced with new townhomes and multifamily

buildings (exhibit B.15). The remaining 22 buildings would be rehabilitated. As described below,

however, the plan shifted in 2012–13 because of the discovery of archeological remains on the Iberville footprint; current plans cal for 60 buildings to be demolished and 14 to be preserved (exhibit B.16).

B-51

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit B.15. Original Site Plan for Redevelopment, Iberville

Source: Choice Neighborhoods application, round 2, attachment 26.

B-52

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit B.16. Site Plan after Section 106 Review, Iberville

Source: PowerPoint Slide, Alternative 11, displayed at a public meeting on the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Ibervil e Redevelopment, February 19, 2013.

B-53

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Income mixing. The development plan cal s for a substantial level of income mixing within blocks and buildings on the Iberville footprint. Of the 913 units expected there, 304 were slated as replacement

public housing units, with the remaining 609 units divided equally between affordable rental units and

market-rate units.

Design. Design plans for the Iberville site were created by Manning Architects with input from Iberville resident leaders and other key stakeholders during the drafting of the Choice application. The process

yielded a set of design priorities for building style and heights, unit sizes and types, and site layout and street grid. Al planned units are expected to be energy efficient, consistent with the Green Communities standard promoted by Enterprise Community Partners (a national community development finance

intermediary). Only 19 of the 227 planned units in Phases I and II are three-bedroom units.

Finance. Early phases of the housing redevelopment in Ibervil e/Tremé wil be funded mainly by non-Choice funds, including commitments of HANO’s capital budget, low-income housing tax credit

allocations, and other federal and local sources. As of September 2013 it is likely that at least some

Choice funds dedicated to housing wil be expended outside the Iberville footprint. [For more details on the initial plans for financing, see Pendal et al. (2013.)] The offsite housing plan (described below) had not yet been finalized as of September 2013, making it unclear exactly how Choice funding would be

allocated among sites and projects.

Management. The redeveloped Iberville will be managed by HRI; MBS is expected to manage most or al of the offsite properties, although uncertainty over site control (discussed below) left this issue

unsettled as of September 2013.

Offsite housing. With 1,533 units expected to be built outside of the Iberville target development, the housing plan for Ibervil e/Tremé relies more heavily than the other Choice Neighborhoods on the

grantees’ ability to secure sites and move ahead with construction on properties they do not control. In al , the offsite development plans cal ed for 577 replacement public housing units, 493 low-income

units, and 448 market-rate units. Implementation of offsite housing was one of the more significant

chal enges of the first two years in New Orleans, as discussed in the next section.

Progress on the housing redevelopment

Financing for the initial phases of onsite construction at the Iberville was in place by September 2013

through a mix of funding sources that included Choice grant funds, HANO capital improvement funds,

low-income housing tax credits, state Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and

permanent first-mortgage funds. The full $78 million plan for the initial three phases of construction on the Iberville footprint will result in 333 market-rate, affordable, and public housing units. These units are funded primarily through secured and anticipated low-income housing tax credit funds, CDBG and

HOME funds, and HANO capital improvement funds, with only a smal portion provided through the

Choice grant. Plans were in development in September 2013 for the next round of financing; grantees

were optimistic about the outcome of their latest application for low-income housing tax credit funds

and state CDBG funds. HANO also has committed project-based vouchers for affordable units to be

B-54

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

rehabilitated within the 14 original Iberville buildings. Demolition at the Iberville began in September 2013. Two main issues have slowed progress:

• Archeological investigations on the site uncovered human remains under the part of the

Iberville closest to St. Louis Cemetery No. 1. This discovery triggered a new process of public

participation and development redesign, as required by Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966. HANO and the city presented residents with several options that

would limit impacts on the burial area. Based in part on their feedback and in part on financial

feasibility, they settled on a site design that leaves green spaces on sections of the development

where burials were discovered and increases the height and density of some buildings, rising to

a fourth story in some buildings previously planned for only three stories. The design will still

include a mix of townhomes and multifamily units, with affordability levels intermixed within

buildings. This plan will require an increase in demolitions from 52 to 60 buildings, with 14

buildings retained and rehabilitated. A community space planned for the area with the burials

will also be moved to a different location. The need to protect the burial site also led the team

to abandon the initial plan to reestablish the street grid in that section of the development.

• Implementation of plans for offsite replacement units in the Choice Neighborhood has been

challenging, mainly because of gentrification pressures in this wel -situated area. As prospects

for development improved, land assemblers and market-rate developers began buying up land,

including some of the parcels identified for offsite development in the Choice plan. One early

example was the eastern adjacent (Winn-Dixie) site [see Pendall et al. (2013) for more details].

Furthermore, residents of the surrounding Choice Neighborhood were pressing for infill

development rather than housing projects large enough to accomplish the ful unit count

anticipated in the Choice plan. With so many vacant but viable homes and significant blight in

the area, neighborhood residents pressed for rehabilitation of existing housing and buildings,

even as the Choice grantee depended on higher-density development to meet overall unit

counts. These issues remained unresolved through the first year of implementation. Iberville

resident leaders and members of the surrounding community increasingly pressed for more

information on the details of neighborhood development plans, especially in light of site-control

issues on the eastern adjacent site. Solutions for the neighborhood development plan

challenges were underway by September 2013 as McCormack Baron Salazar worked behind the

scenes to negotiate an agreement with the new owners of the eastern adjacent property that

incorporated public housing and affordable housing units. With pressure from HUD, the lead

grantees pushed the developer partners for a revised offsite development plan tied to specific

projects throughout the Choice Neighborhood. That plan, delivered to HUD in summer 2013,

became the basis for neighborhood housing development.

Beyond the location and configuration of offsite housing, additional decisions stil needed to be made

regarding management of the new housing. The offsite adjacent units were initially expected to be

managed by MBS, but given that the property was purchased by a non-Choice developer, it was not

clear how replacement units built as part of the redevelopment of that property would be managed.

B-55

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Resident leaders expressed some concerns about how the rules for reoccupancy ultimately would be

defined and pressed for the agreements and protocols to be complete before relocation.

PEOPLE

Social dynamics and resident engagement

Residents of both the Ibervil e public housing and the surrounding Ibervil e/Tremé Choice Neighborhood

spoke of belonging to interrelated communities in which neighbors have long-standing relationships and

input into plans about development. Public meetings on Choice sometimes served as reunion

opportunities for Tremé residents returning to the area after long absences or reconnecting for the first time since Hurricane Katrina. Residents of both Iberville and the surrounding Choice Neighborhood

listed the familiar and interconnected feel within their separate communities among important positive

attributes. Iberville residents felt strongly connected to their own neighbors, as did residents of the various neighborhoods included within the Choice Neighborhood boundaries. 115

Relationships between residents in the Ibervil e and the surrounding Choice Neighborhood, however,

were not as close. Many actors charged with implementing Choice voiced concerns about “not-in-my-

backyard” sentiment (NIMBYism) in opposition to affordable housing. In focus groups, residents of the

Iberville spoke of feeling physically and socially isolated from the surrounding Choice Neighborhood.

Iberville residents seemed to attribute this isolation to physical separation and to the prejudices of

business owners and residents of the surrounding neighborhoods. Overall, they expressed skepticism

about whether the Iberville development could become integrated into the surrounding areas.

Residents of the surrounding neighborhoods, particularly Tremé, felt that the isolation of the Iberville from the surrounding neighborhoods needed to be mitigated through redesign of the new development

and other means.

Although some NIMBYism certainly exists in the Choice Neighborhood, it is not the only sentiment. In

planning meetings, interviews, and focus groups, residents of the neighborhoods near the Iberville often spoke in support of maintaining the area’s current socioeconomic blend and ensuring access to

affordable housing, and they raised concerns that the redevelopment of the Iberville was being

conducted without adequate input from public housing residents.

The New Orleans planning process for Choice included substantial engagement of resident leaders (the

Iberville resident working team) starting when the grantee team was developing its application. In

interviews, resident leaders and other key stakeholders recounted a planning process that included this leadership body at every step, including decisions about preliminary site plans and identifying

development sites throughout the Choice Neighborhood. Most of the resident leaders included in the

early visioning process continued to participate in meetings of the core implementation partners.

After the grant was awarded, residents of the Ibervil e and surrounding neighborhoods were invited to a meeting in which they were asked to form working groups focused on housing, education, economic

115 Although the Choice Neighborhood is named Iberville/Tremé, local residents do not tend to view this area as a single neighborhood but rather a series of four to five distinct neighborhoods and portions of two others.

B-56

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

development, and cultural preservation. After this well-attended kick-off meeting, however, this process apparently was abandoned so as not to compete with the more formal, public-input process required by

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Over time, the resident leadership group also

dwindled in number and fluctuated in influence, especially as relocation proceeded. Leaders at times

raised questions about the level of engagement of other residents, and they were especially concerned

about relocation and the ability of residents to return to the redeveloped Iberville. These concerns

seemed to fuel a general suspicion about the implementation process and a belief that community

engagement efforts were merely for show. In interviews, neighborhood residents complained about a

lack of follow-up on the working groups and a lack of information about the process and

implementation of Choice. As one neighborhood resident commented, “I feel like every meeting I've

been to is a waste of my time . . . it's like it’s already decided.” One-third of neighborhood residents who responded to the baseline survey did not feel they had a say in the plans for the new development.

Members of the Iberville resident working team attempted to allay these suspicions, supporting the

redevelopment at pivotal public input meetings during the Section 106 review process. Meanwhile, the

plans for neighborhood housing remained in preliminary stages and had not been opened for

community engagement. This lack of involvement seemed to fuel resident concerns about a lack of

meaningful community engagement.

Case management

Urban Strategies focused heavily on completing needs assessments for the Iberville residents and

setting up case management services during early implementation. By September 2013 almost all the

residents of the Iberville had completed the voluntary needs assessments and were in active case

management, as assessment had occurred before relocation. A key chal enge that Urban Strategies

thought they needed to overcome related to provision of case management services was that these

services were not mandatory. Urban Strategies team members noted that the lack of built-in incentives

was a barrier to attracting residents into the process and potential y would make keeping in contact

with residents throughout relocation more difficult. Without an incentive for residents to stay

connected, Urban Strategies was concerned about the ultimate success in preparing residents for

eventual return to the redeveloped Iberville. Although some incentives were used, case managers

seemed to primarily encourage resident participation through the offer of services and support during

critical moments, such as the extended power outage after Hurricane Isaac or during relocation.

At the same time, residents who took part in focus groups reported mixed experiences with social

services and case management. There appeared to be significant dissatisfaction with relocation options, and some residents felt inadequately supported by Urban Relocation Services, a separate entity from

Urban Strategies that was managed by HANO to assist with apartment searches and moves, although

the natural disruptiveness of relocation might have compounded these frustrations.

Services and programming

As of September 2013, Urban Strategies reported having expended very little of the al ocated Choice

funds for establishing services because they could connect to existing programming from service

providers and nonprofit organizations with overlapping interest in the Choice Neighborhood. In some

cases, Urban Strategies leveraged programming in place at one of the other public housing

B-57

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

developments to offer programing to Iberville residents. Meanwhile, most service provision

programming was not yet in place, and the focus remained on completing initial needs assessments and

connecting residents to existing services and supporting residents, especially the elderly and those with disabilities, through relocation.

Education. In the area of K-12 education and early childhood development, a major challenge to

implementation was the decentralized choice-based nature of the public school system in New Orleans.

Families living in the Iberville sent their children to dozens of schools across the city, and none of the nearby schools enrolled a significant proportion of Iberville youth. The state-run Recovery School District was a named partner in Choice but did not have representation at the coordination table, and the local

Orleans Parish School Board district was not initially included as a formal partner. Most public schools in the area and across the city are charter schools overseen by nonprofit charter school boards, and as a

result the two school districts have limited influence on the daily operation of these schools. The

grantee team initially struggled to understand the school landscape, and creating partnerships with

schools was an on-going challenge.

Hoping to win a Promise Neighborhoods grant from the US Department of Education, Urban Strategies

worked to build direct partnerships with schools and education service providers within the Choice

Neighborhood during the first year of implementation. Urban Strategies was not awarded a grant, but

they continued to work to develop programing for school-aged children and reinforce relationships with

early childhood providers under the leadership of an education coordinator who joined the team about

one year into Choice implementation.

Another significant chal enge to education programming was a lack of adequate space. During early

implementation, Urban Strategies launched a smal summer program and an afterschool program, but

staff noted that these programs were limited in part by a lack of physical space at the Iberville site. The development was being prepared for eventual relocation and demolition, and creating community

programming space was either not possible or not prioritized during this period. To address program

space needs, the grantee team looked for nearby locations that could serve this purpose temporarily

during demolition and construction and were nearing a solution by late 2013.

Employment. Workforce development programing launched in early 2013 with construction training

and customer service training programs, as well as coordination of job fairs with area employers. HANO

launched a HANO Academy program in mid-2013 to offer construction training for city youth. Though

the academy was not directly a part of Choice, HANO planned ultimately to locate the program within

the Choice Neighborhood, and many of the initial participants were residents of the Iberville or affiliated with the area in some way. The workforce development programs seemed to show early success in

connecting participants to job opportunities, but they struggled to attract participants from the Iberville development. Lack of access to program space also hindered the establishment of employment services.

Prior to demolition, Urban Strategies used the Iberville Community Center, but the location was too

small for many of the training programs.

B-58

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Health. Urban Strategies frequently noted the city’s general lack of adequate support services for substance abuse and mental health care, although the Iberville’s proximity to clinics and hospitals was seen as a potential advantage for health goals. Health-related activities were not a major focus during early implementation outside of case management; Urban Strategies reported success in connecting

residents to existing clinics.

Relocation

Relocation presented numerous challenges, as the start of relocation was delayed because of the

longer-than-anticipated archeological review process. These delays meant that residents were waiting

for the start of relocation and to access relocation vouchers. Once relocation began, residents reported significant challenges with relocation both in identifying adequate housing and in the logistics of the moves. Resident leaders also raised concerns about the clarity of the reoccupancy process and

requirements. HANO addressed these challenges by increasing staff focus on the relocation process,

working with HUD to expedite the release of relocation vouchers, and holding resident meetings to

address relocation questions. A reoccupancy committee met throughout early implementation, but the

final reoccupancy plan was not yet complete (but was nearing a final version) as relocation began.

NEIGHBORHOOD

Numerous improvements were underway within the New Orleans Choice Neighborhood during early

implementation, bringing more than $4 bil ion in investments into the area, including the opening of

two grocery stores, reopening and creation of neighborhood parks, construction of the new biomedical

district, and roadway and transportation improvements. However, most colocated investments in

Iberville/Tremé were not coordinated with the Choice plans. Ongoing neighborhood improvement

efforts were routinely discussed at the IWT coordination meetings for the Choice team to keep abreast

of these efforts and watch for opportunities for synergy. The view was that the larger efforts were

moving forward and did not need shepherding by the IWT.

Critical Community Improvements

Although the initial Choice grant application outlined a plan to use $1.5 mil ion in Critical Community Improvements (CCIs) funds to establish a neighborhood improvement grant program, the grantees did

not further develop this plan during early implementation. They were stil rethinking the CCI approach in September 2013, with technical assistance from HUD. Part of the chal enge in developing CCIs might

have been driven by a need to focus on complicated demolition and relocation processes, given site

needs, but some might also be caused by a central structural issue in New Orleans: the fact that Choice is situated in an neighborhood undergoing an extremely extensive amount of activity, but where the

Choice grantee does not directly control all planning and investment processes related to these external activities.

Public safety

Despite New Orleans’ overall challenges with high rates of violent crime, the grantees spent little time discussing public safety except as related to safety features of the Iberville redevelopment, although

HANO’s own police department was praised in resident focus groups. This lack of focus on public safety

issues is at least partial y attributed to the fact that within Iberville/Tremé no areas were identified as B-59

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

crime hot spots. In addition, the New Orleans Police Department did not have a seat at the Choice

coordination table and generally was absent from the coordination discussions. The broader climate of

police and criminal justice reform in New Orleans made it challenging to involve the police in Choice

plans. During the period of early implementation, the US Department of Justice Consent Decrees

required that the city address significant issues within the New Orleans Police Department and

conditions at the Orleans Parish Prison.

Neighborhood economic development

During early implementation, many economic development efforts were underway within

Iberville/Tremé and in adjacent areas, some of which might offer job opportunities for residents of the Choice Neighborhood. Chief among these investments was the opening of two grocery stores and the

construction of the new biomedical district. Circle Foods, a long-time neighborhood institution, was

poised to open in early 2014 in the center of the Choice Neighborhood, and a new fresh foods center—

including a Whole Foods store and a food service and management training program—was under

development on Broad Street. Both of these projects were expected to provide new jobs for local

residents. The opening of two new retail areas adjacent to Iberville/Tremé during early implementation

also offered new job opportunities. The continuing redevelopment of the Lafitte public housing

development (located in the center of the Choice Neighborhood) provided some construction

employment opportunities for graduates of Urban Strategies’ construction training program. Although

the new biomedical corridor under construction on Tulane Avenue was included in economic

development plans, its connection with Choice had not manifested by September 2013, creating

skepticism among Iberville residents, residents of the surrounding neighborhood, and some of the key

actors in Choice that it would yield job opportunities for residents of Iberville/Tremé. Issues of

coordination are discussed in greater detail below.

Built environment and infrastructure

Significant investments to enhance the built environment were also underway within Iberville/Tremé,

funded by sources other than Choice Neighborhoods. Armstrong Park was reopened and began hosting

neighborhood events, including a monthly free concert. The city’s ongoing street repair program

improved major thoroughfares within the Choice Neighborhood, including Esplanade and St. Bernard

Avenues, with repaving and creation of new bicycle lanes. Two other major investments wil improve the

Iberville/Tremé’s connectivity to other parts of the city. Construction for the $9.1 million Lafitte

Greenway Bicycle and Pedestrian Path, a 2.6-mile multiuse trail and linear park connecting the French

Quarter to Bayou St. John and Mid-City, was slated to start in late 2013. In addition, a streetcar

expansion on North Rampart was in the planning stages and expected to move into construction in

2014.

Future of the neighborhood

There was strong consensus among stakeholders that the neighborhoods within the Choice

Neighborhood boundaries are in the process of transition and on a trajectory toward neighborhood

improvement. This ongoing neighborhood change and apparent gentrification were evident in the

increasing housing costs in some neighborhoods within in the Choice boundaries (especial y Tremé) and

subtle changes to resident demographics as more young White newcomers were moving into the area

B-60

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

(especially Tremé and the Seventh Ward). Residents often raised concerns about the future affordability of the area and retention of the cultural and historic significance of the neighborhoods, especial y

Tremé. Opinions differed over whether Choice is helping to preserve neighborhood affordability and

resident stabilization.

SUMMARY OF PROGRESS IN COORDINATION AND LEVERAGE

Coordination among Key Stakeholders. The joint lead-grantee structure created opportunities for col aboration and coordination between HANO and the city of New Orleans and established a strong

working relationship between two political entities that have a history of contention. Key actors within both agencies, as wel as external stakeholders, described the relationship as positive while also noting that the joint grantee structure created challenges in clarity of roles at times. The project was described as having “two masters” who often need to be “managed up.”

Regular IWT coordination meetings were a successful vehicle for communication about implementation,

as well as real-time problem solving, as leaders from most key stakeholders participated in the

coordination meetings. Through routine reporting updates, coordination meetings also created a kind of

accountability process as key stakeholders were expected to report progress and respond to questions

about tasks that were off-track or behind schedule. The problem-solving function of the coordination

meetings was particularly evident during the Section 106 process. Through team meetings, the team

problem solved at pivotal moments and, perhaps equal y important, stayed in strong communication

during the process despite chal enges and tensions. These meetings also provided a semipublic forum

for highlighting threats to project progress. Use of this aspect of the meetings was particularly evident as plans for neighborhood housing development stalled in the wake of HANO’s inability to acquire adjacent

land. In this light, the meetings came to be a platform for pressing the development partners to create a plan for meeting offsite replacement unit goals and finding negotiation opportunities with the new

owners of the adjacent parcel.

Throughout early implementation, the grantees maintained a strong relationship with HUD through the

grantee support team as well as through HUD’s Strong Cities, Strong Communities initiative, which

embedded a HUD staff member at city hall during the first year of implementation. The working

relationship with HUD was described as very positive and supportive, and key parties said HUD’s

expertise was critical to successful implementation and problem solving. The grantee team leaned

heavily on HUD staff through the Section 106 process, which unlike the recent processes for other New

Orleans public housing developments, was led by the city and not HANO. The team also depended on

HUD support in addressing chal enges in the neighborhood housing development plan. When developer

partners seemed to have lost focus on the offsite plan, the grantees used pressure from HUD to press

them for a revised plan.

With over $1 bil ion of investment within neighborhood boundaries, Choice in New Orleans can be seen

as part of a portfolio of major investments to the area, which borders the downtown and historic French Quarter, and which had been seen for decades to offer opportunities for investment and greater

physical, social, and economic connections. At the same time, these investments were often driven by

their own governance and accountability requirements. Accordingly, communication about other

B-61

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

neighborhood development efforts underway within the Choice Neighborhood happened primarily

through IWT, which comprised representatives of each of the partner agencies and organizations, and

sometimes via NEWCITY, a voluntary neighborhood col aboration group hosted by Lafitte developer

Providence Community Housing. Because most of the colocated investments within the Choice

Neighborhood were not funded by Choice or happening as a direct result of Choice, coordination with

these activities was limited and seemingly informal. The city of New Orleans, as a Choice co-grantee, had a role in other activities happening in the neighborhood, such as the Claiborne Corridor Study, a major transportation plan, and the Lafitte Greenway, a major green space and community economic

development initiative, or the BioDistrict, a state-enabled, 1500-acre effort charged with promoting

biosciences in the region. These three important projects were not funded by Choice and predated the

Choice award, but would affect the neighborhoods. Accordingly, city representatives were often positioned to serve a liaison role to other, colocated projects and Choice investments, but it was not

always clear how these investments were concretely coordinated with Choice by the time that

implementation observations ended in September of 2013.

Leverage. The overall half-billion-dol ar housing plan relies on significant additional investment through a blend of housing tax credits, city redevelopment funds, and HANO capital improvement funds, which

al seemed to be coming into place for the early phases of the redevelopment plan. These funds could

be most clearly argued as additional investments in Iberville/Tremé that likely would not have been

spent in the neighborhood if not for Choice. Evidence of other leverage, however, was less clear because planning for many of the colocated investments predated the implementation of Choice. Some evidence

suggests that the grantee team has been able to connect additional services with Iberville residents

through case management activities that might not otherwise have been provided to the residents and

to secure commitments for early childhood education services to be located at the Iberville

development once construction is complete.

Exhibit B.17 provides a summary of major activities by Choice domain and their early implementation

status in Iberville/Tremé as of September 2013.

B-62

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit B.17. Summary of Major Activities and Early Implementation Progress in Ibervil e/Tremé,

September 2013

Choice Domain and Related

Lead

Funding

Funding

Funding Covered Summary

Activities

Organization

Level ($

Covered by

by Other

Status

thousands)

Choice (%)

Sources (%)

HOUSING

Site acquisition for new

McCormack

7,500

TBD

TBD

In progress

affordable housing units: For Baron Salazar

the acquisition of the Eastern

Adjacent property.

Phases I–III demolition,

HRI

11, 861

26

74

In progress

construction, and

Properties

restoration of Ibervil e

buildings: Demolition and

construction or renovation of

333 units in Phases 1–3.

Construction of new

McCormack

TBD

TBD

TBD

Not started

affordable offsite units:

Baron Salazar

Construction and/or

restoration of offsite

replacement units.

PEOPLE

Case management for

Urban

1,655

100

0

In progress

Iberville households:

Strategies

Implement household

assessments of employment,

education, childcare, health,

training, and other needs and

create individual

development plans for every

resident.

Early childhood learning

Urban

100

100

0

Not started

services: Create early

Strategies

childhood education

programs within the Choice

boundaries.

Improvement of K-12

Urban

390

100

0

In progress

education services: Improve

Strategies

quality of public schools

serving residents.

Service coordination

Urban

1,200

100

0

In progress

Strategies

NEIGHBORHOOD

Critical Community

HANO

1,500

100

0

Not started

Improvements:

Neighborhood chal enge

grants program.

B-63

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Choice Domain and Related

Lead

Funding

Funding

Funding Covered Summary

Activities

Organization

Level ($

Covered by

by Other

Status

thousands)

Choice (%)

Sources (%)

Implementation of With

Urban

500

100

0

In progress

Every Heartbeat is Life

Strategies

program: Increase access to

Tulane Health Center and

Louisiana State University

pediatric clinic and increase

access to Food for Families

Program.

Children and youth services

Urban

350

100

0

Not started

Strategies

Employment training

Urban

160

100

0

In progress

program: Develop and

Strategies

implement sector-based

business and employment

training program and literacy

training for Ibervil e youth

and adults; provide job

readiness skills; integrate

youth services.

Establishment of

Urban

100

100

0

Not started

neighborhood safety

Strategies

programs: Partner with

Mayor's Empowerment Task

Force, implementing a

neighborhood watch and

youth leadership board and

increasing safety through

design of onsite construction

and renovation.

Sources: Review of documents, including Choice Neighborhoods round 1 and 2 applications and budgets, interviews with stakeholders, and observation of team meetings and phone calls.

B-64

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

B.4. SAN FRANCISCO: ALICE GRIFFITH AND THE EASTERN BAYVIEW

NEIGHBORHOOD

Eastern Bayview sits at the extreme southeast corner of San Francisco City and County, adjacent to San

Francisco Bay and the Hunters Point area on the east. Just south of the neighborhood is San Mateo

County. The CalTrain tracks, a block west of 3rd Street, serve as its western boundary, and to the north is the Port neighborhood (exhibit B.18). One prominent feature in Eastern Bayview is Candlestick Park,

the 83-acre former home of San Francisco Giants professional baseball and the 49ers professional

football franchise. Another landmark within Eastern Bayview is the Hunters Point Shipyard, established

in 1870 and the original source of development in this area. Three other San Francisco Housing

Authority (SFHA) public housing developments occupy the northernmost part of the neighborhood:

Hunters View, Hunters Point, and Westbrook Apartments. For many years the neighborhood has lacked

good shopping and retail or a high-quality grocery store. It is physically isolated from the rest of the city.

B-65

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit B.18. Map of the Eastern Bayview Neighborhood

B-66

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

BASELINE CONDITIONS

Eastern Bayview is among the larger three of the first five Choice Neighborhoods, at 1.6 square miles

and 17,600 people. It is one of the centers of African-American population in San Francisco; by 2010,

non-Hispanic African-Americans made up about half (49 percent) of the neighborhood’s population

(exhibit B.19). The diversity in the neighborhood is growing, however, and 24 percent of respondents

identified as Hispanic. Over one-quarter were foreign born. As reported in the baseline survey, about 30

percent of heads of households had some col ege or technical schooling, but 34 percent had not

graduated from high school. Thirty-seven percent of Eastern Bayview households had annual incomes

below $15,000, and 51 percent had annual incomes below $30,000, the fewest households in these

lower income brackets across the Choice Neighborhoods. At baseline, 60 percent of heads of

households were employed, a higher share than Quincy Corridor, Woodlawn, and Iberville/Tremé, but

about the same level as Yesler. Eighty percent of households had a car to use, and 28 percent took

public transportation regularly (less than in Quincy Corridor, Woodlawn, and Yesler, but more than in

Iberville/Tremé).

Exhibit B.19. Resident and Household Characteristics in Eastern Bayview

Head of Household Characteristics

Percent Household Characteristics

Percent

Female

71

Households with children

30

Race and Ethnicity

Three-generation household

3

Non-Hispanic African-American

49

Household's annual income

Non-Hispanic White

5

Under $15,000

37

Non-Hispanic other

5

$15,000 to $29,999

24

Hispanic

23

$30,000 to $49,999

20

Born in the US

77

$50,000 to $69,999

10

Education

$70,000 or more

8

12th grade or less

34

Public assistance

GED or high school diploma

36

Supplemental Security Income

19

Some technical or col ege or higher

30

Disability

11

HH is currently employed

60

Cash assistance

12

Ratings of Well-Being

Percent

Mode of Transportation

Respondent in good health

76

Has a car to use

79

Child wel -being

Takes public transit regularly

27

Focal child in good health

86

Focal child positive behavior scale (score)

4.6

Focal child 2 or more negative behaviors

40

Ratings of Housing Quality

Percent Ratings of Neighborhood Quality and Safety

Percent

Number of housing quality problems

Rates the neighborhood as at least an 8 of 10

42

0

61

Feels safe alone outside of home during the day

80

1

17

Feels safe alone outside of home at night

50

2 to 3

17

Thinks the ngh. is a good place to raise children

56

4 or more

5

Collective efficacy scale score

3.6

Source: Choice Neighborhoods Baseline Survey 2013–14.

B-67

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Although the Bay Area housing market suffered during the past several years, San Francisco’s

neighborhoods were less hard-hit than those in outlying suburbs and have recently risen above

prerecession levels. Demand is strong even in low-income neighborhoods such as Eastern Bayview,

where vacancy rates were less than 5 percent. 116 More than one-half of Eastern Bayview’s 5,600 housing units were single-family homes in 2010. Just 22 percent of households in Eastern Bayview reported two

or more housing quality problems, a lower percentage than the other Choice Neighborhoods.

The five Choice Neighborhoods were very similar on measures of resident and child well-being. In

Eastern Bayview most respondents (76 percent) reported good health, and 86 percent reported that

their child was in good health. The baseline survey also asked about the behaviors of children and youth.

In reference to positive behaviors, such as the ability to regulate emotions and get along with others, youth in Eastern Bayview averaged 4.6 positive behaviors out of a possible 6. Forty percent of

respondents reported that their child aged 6 to 14 had two or more negative behaviors, such as

disobedience at school or home, and restlessness or overactivity.

Survey respondents in Eastern Bayview (42 percent) were less likely to rate their neighborhood highly

(an 8 or higher out of 10) than residents living in central cities nationwide (62 percent). This

neighborhood rating level was lower than that in Ibervil e/Tremé (53 percent), but similar to the rating level in other Choice Neighborhoods. Fifty-six percent of respondents believed that Eastern Bayview is a good place to raise children, lower than in Iberville/Tremé and Yesler (about 70 percent), but

comparable to the percentage of residents in Quincy Corridor and Woodlawn. Most respondents felt

safe outside their homes during the day (80 percent), though it was a smal er proportion than in

Iberville/Tremé and Yesler (92 to 93 percent). Fewer respondents felt safe at night (50 percent), lower than all other Choice Neighborhoods. Eastern Bayview had higher average ratings of collective efficacy

(3.6 out of 5) than Quincy Corridor (3.2) but lower than Ibervil e/Tremé (3.7). 117

The Choice target development in Eastern Bayview is the Alice Griffith public housing community,

consisting of 256 townhouse-style units in the southeastern corner of the neighborhood. The

development has 33 two-story buildings on 23 acres and a closed street grid that leaves it poorly

integrated into the surrounding neighborhood. Alice Griffith is part of HOPE SF, a local y funded version of HOPE VI with principles that are highly consistent with Choice. McCormack Baron Salazar (MBS) is the lead grantee and wil construct 256 public housing replacement units, and 248 new affordable units, for a total of 504 units. One hundred twenty one units of senior housing are also part of the housing

component (which began construction in April 2014). Alice Griffith makes up 5 percent of the units in

the Eastern Bayview neighborhood.

116 Pendall et al. (2013).

117 Col ective efficacy includes how cohesive the residents feel the neighborhood is, with shared trust and values, as well as how likely neighbors are to exhibit informal social control and do something to address concerns in their neighborhood, from children fighting to cuts to services in their neighborhood.

B-68

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit B.20. Resident and Household Characteristics in Alice Griffith

Head of Household Characteristics

Percent Household Characteristics

Percent

Female

83

Household size (average number of people)

3.1

Race and Ethnicity

Households with children

58

Non-Hispanic African-American

65

Three-generation household

9

Non-Hispanic White

1

Household's annual income

Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander

14

Under $15,000

75

Non-Hispanic other

7

$15,000 to $29,999

17

Hispanic

14

$30,000 to $49,999

4

Born in the US

81

$50,000 to $69,999

0

Education

$70,000 or more

0

12th grade or less

49

Public assistance

GED or high school diploma

30

Supplemental Security Income

42

Some technical or col ege or

higher

21

Disability

9

HH is currently employed

36

Cash assistance

30

Mode of Transportation

Ratings of Well-Being

Has a car to use

79

Respondent in good health

61

Takes public transit regularly

35

Child wel -being

Currently lives in the neighborhood

94

Focal child in good health

90

Lives in original housing unit

94

Focal child positive behavior scale (score)

4.4

Desire to return after redevelopment

88

Focal child 2 or more negative behaviors

40

Source: Choice Neighborhoods Baseline Survey 2013–14.

At the time of the baseline survey, 94 percent of households were still in their original unit (exhibit B.20). Alice Griffith is home to a diverse group of residents, where 65 percent of the heads of

households identified as non-Hispanic African-American, 14 percent as non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific

Islander, 14 percent as Hispanic and 19 percent were foreign born. Only 21 percent had some college or

technical schooling, and 49 percent had no high school degree. About 36 percent of the heads of

households were working at baseline. Just over half of households had children under the age of 18 (58

percent), and the average household size was 3.1. Household incomes were very low in Alice Griffith,

where 75 percent of households had an annual income of less than $15,000, and 92 percent of

households had an income less than $30,000. Forty-two percent of households reported receiving

supplemental security income, and 30 percent reported receiving cash assistance. Sixty-one percent of

respondents reported being in good health, and 90 percent reported that their child was in good health.

On a scale of 1 to 6, children averaged 4.4 positive behaviors, although 40 percent of respondents said children exhibited two or more negative behaviors. Eighty-eight percent of the heads of households had

a desire to return to Alice Griffith after redevelopment.

IMPLEMENTATION OF CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS

KEY ACTORS AND RELATIONSHIPS

The grantee team includes the developer, MBS, as the lead applicant and the housing lead; Urban

Strategies, the MBS partner responsible for resident services and community building, as the people

B-69

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

lead; and the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) as the neighborhood

lead. SFHA and the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) are also implementation co-leads (SFHA for housing and SFUSD for people). The Lennar Urban Development Corporation (Lennar) is also on the

grantee team. Lennar, the master developer for the larger redevelopment area in which the Choice

Neighborhood is situated, executed a joint-venture development agreement with McCormack Baron

Salazar (MBS). Lennar is responsible for horizontal construction (infrastructure), and MBS is responsible for vertical construction (buildings). The residents are represented by the Alice Griffith Tenants

Association (AGTA), which has been actively involved in redevelopment planning and monitoring its

progress.

The key actors have regular meetings. The Choice grantee team has an internal meeting every two

weeks. These meetings are often by phone, but the team also meets in person at MOHCD. SFUSD is the

exception; there is no SFUSD representative attending the Choice team meetings. SFUSD coordinates

with Choice by working with the people lead. The grantee team (with the exception of SFUSD) has a

standing call with HUD each month. HUD’s contractual relationship is with MBS (as the lead applicant),

and not with the city of San Francisco. AGTA meets every two weeks. Urban Strategies, MBS, and the

Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII)¹¹⁸ also coordinate actively with AGTA, attending meetings to hear resident concerns about Choice (which over the first two years of Choice

implementation have primarily revolved around the construction timeline).

The grantee team works with three major sets of local stakeholders. First, there is the set of

stakeholders that coordinate the HOPE SF initiative, a larger San Francisco project to revitalize four

public housing sites, one of which is Alice Griffith. This group includes MOHCD (the lead agency for HOPE

SF), as well as the City Services Team (CST), the members of which are deputy-level staff from several

city agencies. The services director (working out of MOHCD) convenes the CST, which works to ensure

alignment and coordination among al city departments (and related human services agencies) that fund

or provide services to HOPE SF resident populations. The CST has representatives from: MOHCD; SFHA;

the Human Services Agency; the Department of Public Health; the Office of Economic and Workforce

Development (OEWD); the San Francisco Police Department; the Department of Children, Youth, and

Their Families; SFUSD; and First 5 San Francisco (an organization that focuses on early childhood). The services director is responsible for ensuring that case management is working well at al the HOPE SF

sites and meets frequently with the Urban Strategies people lead on Choice to address case

management–related issues. She also serves as a connection point to the city human services

departments and agencies that provide services to Alice Griffith residents.

The two other important sets of stakeholders that the Choice grantee team works with are the OCII staff who coordinate the Hunters Point Shipyard/Candlestick Point (HPS/CP) redevelopment project (the

larger project of which the Alice Griffith rebuild is a part), and the nonprofit community partners

providing services to Alice Griffith residents (known as the Service Provider Network).

118 The OCII is the agency that San Francisco created to take over the functions of its redevelopment agency, which was dissolved in 2012 (see the section on SFRA’s dissolution).

B-70

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

KEY CONTEXTUAL FACTORS AFFECTING IMPLEMENTATION

Choice is a complex project unfolding within a complex environment. In this environment two major

factors—entirely beyond the grantee team’s control—have created deep challenges for timely Choice

implementation: (1) the dissolution of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) and (2) the

linkage between Alice Griffith and the larger shipyard redevelopment project of which it is a part.

Understanding this context is important for understanding the delays that the grantee team has had to

contend with.

Dissolution of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency

Very soon after the Choice grant was awarded to the San Francisco grantee team, its neighborhood lead

at the time, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, was closed down when all redevelopment

agencies in California were dissolved in February 2012 as part of the governor’s plan to help balance the state budget. SFRA’s dissolution caused delays because the grantee team lost (1) SFRA staff who were

carrying out neighborhood lead responsibilities and (2) SFRA funding for revitalization. The city of San Francisco addressed the staffing issue smoothly: after the dissolution of SFRA, MOHCD assumed

neighborhood lead responsibilities for Choice. Former SFRA staff continue to manage the Hunters Point

Shipyard and Candlestick Point development (which encompassed Eastern Bayview) and the housing

development component of the new Alice Griffith community. 119

Of the projects to which SFRA had committed funds, only the projects within “major approved

development project areas” were considered by the state to be “enforceable obligations.” To administer

these projects, the city of San Francisco created a successor agency to SFRA; in 2013 this agency was

renamed the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure. Determining enforceable obligations

was a complicated process involving extensive documentation and negotiations between San Francisco’s

attorneys and the state. Working through the complexities of the situation wil not happen quickly, and inevitable delays have occurred.

The rebuild of Alice Griffith was ultimately determined to be an enforceable obligation because the

HPS/CP project area was a major approved development project area. Although there was a positive

outcome for Alice Griffith, the unavoidable delays meant that Lennar and MBS needed to push back

construction. One stakeholder with deep knowledge of the situation said that al the SFRA-funded

projects had to contend with “11 months of uncertainty” before the SFRA dissolution, and then a

complete freeze on funds for an additional 7 months after dissolution.

Linkage between Choice and surrounding redevelopment

Alice Griffith and Eastern Bayview do not constitute an isolated redevelopment project; rather, they are part of the much larger HPS/CP megaproject. Being part of a larger project means that the forces

creating delays for HPS/CP will necessarily create delays for Choice as well. A challenge arose for Choice stakeholders when the Navy delayed its transfer of the next parcel of Shipyard land to the HPS/CP megaproject by five years. Prior to this delay, the Schedule of Performance included in the 2010 Development 119 As of April 2014, these former staff members of SFRA were with OCI ; they had previously worked under the Mayor’s Office of Housing which became the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development.

B-71

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

and Disposition Agreement (DDA) had laid out the timeline for Alice Griffith’s infrastructure phase as

beginning in 2012 and ending in 2013. 120 The Schedule was amended in 2012, moving the start date for the infrastructure phase to October 2015 and the end date to September 2017. Vertical construction

was to begin in December 2018 and finish in December 2021.

If the amended Schedule of Performance had remained in place, it would have meant that the grantee

would not meet the Choice deadline of July 2016 for completion of the replacement public housing and

LIHTC units. However, the grantee and city government were able to work together and find a way to

meet the Choice deadline. 121 Lennar and MBS accelerated the schedule from the one laid out in the 2012 amendment of the DDA and worked with OCII to shift work within the HPS/CP mega-project: the

Hunters Point phases of development were pushed back to accommodate moving up Alice Griffith’s

construction. While the delay of the HUD-approved Alice Griffith timeline was avoided, the proposed

postponement of the Navy land transfer meant additional work, coordination, and challenge for the

Choice stakeholders. The current agreed upon timeline is detailed in the “Progress on Housing

Development” section below.

Another link between Choice and the larger HPS/CP redevelopment project has been the need for city

approval of several complicated master plans pertaining to utilities, streetscapes, water management,

and so forth. These plans involve a multitude of decisions involving many different actors. For example, an issue such as building the sewer system beneath the streets must be planned jointly by the

Department of Public Works, the Public Utilities Commission, and the Metropolitan Transit Authority.

Agreement hinges on many technical issues, such as the width of streets, the depth at which a pipe will be laid, and the specifications the pipe must meet for the Public Utilities Commission to agree to

maintain the pipe.

Although there are people within the city and Lennar responsible for moving these plans through city

departments, the complexity and interdependence of the steps involved mean that master plan

approval will be slow. For observers who don’t ful y understand that development approvals for Choice

cannot be teased apart from approvals for HPS/CP, the delays seem incomprehensible. As one

stakeholder put it, “The project is ful y financed and Lennar needs to get moving. [Why they don’t do

that] escapes many of us.”

HOUSING

The development: Plan summary

As mentioned above, Alice Griffith is part of HOPE SF, a locally funded version of HOPE VI with principles that are highly consistent with Choice.

120Because it was anticipated that many factors outside of the control of the Master Developer could impact this schedule, the DDA al ows the OCI Director to amend the schedule to al ow for “Excusable Delay,” which includes delay due to environmental litigation and delays in the Navy's transfer of Shipyard lands to OCII.

121Each time the timelines shifted due to circumstances beyond the grantee’s control, MBS worked with HUD to have amendments to its timeline approved.

B-72

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Units and buildings. The plan for Alice Griffith replaces the 256 townhouse-style public housing units with 504 mixed income units. HUD also amended the approval to bring a previously planned 121-unit

senior housing building at 5800 Third Street into the project as part of the Choice housing component.

No Choice funds, however, are being used for the development of the senior building (keeping the total

Choice unit count at504). As the Choice-funded units are developed, MBS will build those units on

vacant land on and immediately adjacent to Alice Griffith. MBS will then move current Alice Griffith

tenants into the newly developed housing and the new senior housing. The vacated buildings will be

demolished, and Lennar wil use the cleared site to build an additional 622 units (not funded under

Choice, but ultimately part of new Alice Griffith development). Exhibit B.21 shows the original site plan for Alice Griffith.

B-73

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit B.21. Site Plan, Alice Griffith

Source: Choice Neighborhoods round 2 application, attachment 26.

B-74

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Income mixing. The first phase, with 504 units built on parcels adjacent to the current Alice Griffith footprint, wil include 256 public housing units and 248 low-income housing tax credit units. New

housing construction by Lennar on the Alice Griffith footprint wil incorporate 310 market-rate units, 281

workforce units, and 31 low-income inclusionary housing units.

Design. 122 Plans for site design have not changed significantly since MBS submitted its plans with the Choice application to HUD. These plans align with the Candlestick Point Design for Development Plan

approved in 2010. Design goals include a compact, pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use neighborhood;

location efficiency and disaster resiliency; community spaces and recreation; defensible space; and

microclimate-appropriate landscaping. Community input from a 2012 workshop (details of which are

discussed below in the section on resident engagement) led the design team to refine the plan in various ways. The plan wil include housing on seven blocks, with most blocks having inviting frontages facing a new park. Several unit types will be constructed to accommodate families of various sizes, including

one- and two-bedroom flats and flats and townhomes with three, four, and five bedrooms. When al

seven blocks of the first 504 units are built out, there will be 81 one-bedroom units, 161 two-bedroom

units, 151 three-bedroom units, 95 four-bedroom units, and 16 five-bedroom units. They wil include a

variety of amenities: one- and two-bedroom units will have laundry facilities on each building floor,

while accessible two-bedroom, and al three-, four-, and five-bedroom units wil have washers and

dryers in the units.

Finance. The rebuild of Alice Griffith (the first 504 units including the public housing replacement units and the LIHTC units) is ful y financed. The project benefits from the agreement between the former

SFRA and Lennar to fund the gaps associated with the redevelopment of Alice Griffith. Of the total

budget of $272,250,000, low-income housing tax credit equity makes up $131 mil ion, Lennar’s portion

totals $58 mil ion, funding from OCII provides $51 mil ion, the Choice grant funds $21,250,000, and a

first mortgage from a bank provides the remaining $11 mil ion. Debt and equity providers are extremely

aggressive in their pricing for this project due to the high demand for Community Reinvestment Act

credit in the area and the amount of public support for the project.

Management. McCormack Baron Ragan (MBR), an MBS partner company, is the property management

company that will serve the new Alice Griffith development. Although, SFHA formal y stil acts as the

property manager for Alice Griffith tenants, MBR is closely involved. MBR stays in touch with the Urban Strategies’ lead, as wel as the MBS lead. The current MBR focus is to support Urban Strategies’ in their efforts to work with off-lease residents to get on lease. Service connectors work with households in

arrears, working to connect them to services that wil help them to get back rent paid off and prevent

eviction, and also to prepare for living in the new mixed-income community. In planning for the future

relocation to the new site, MBR envisions that its focus wil be on much more than col ecting rent; the staff explain that the plan wil be to engage the residents through community building, have staff trained and ready to address behavior issues, and partner with the governance council representing the residents.

122 Information for this paragraph comes from the June 2012 Alice Griffith Community Workshop Summary by McCormack Baron Salazar and Torti Gallas and Partners, Inc.

B-75

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Offsite housing. MBS is developing a 121-unit building for low-income seniors at 5800 Third Street (the Carroll Avenue Seniors Building), a few blocks from Alice Griffith. Adjacent to the recently extended

light-rail transit line connecting Eastern Bayview with downtown San Francisco, the site will provide a relocation option for seniors currently living in Alice Griffith. SFHA supported financing of this building by awarding 120 project-based Section 8 vouchers to the developer. The Choice plan and “neighborhood

vision” foresaw leverage commitments to housing improvements beyond Alice Griffith via SFRA’s Model

Block Program, which supported rehabilitation of single-family homes by matching “public infrastructure improvements on neighborhood streets and provid[ing] financial assistance to low-income households

for home renovations.” After SFRA’s dissolution, the Choice team worked to ensure that MOHCD would

al ocate bond funding to this program. One Choice team member believes that the Choice grant has

helped to sustain support for the program, in that if the city were not required to implement the

program as part of its commitment to HUD, it might not expend the current level of effort and funding

to pursue this avenue of redevelopment.

PROGRESS ON THE HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT

For the reasons discussed above, construction dates have been pushed back several times. Delays

caused tension among Lennar, MBS, OCII, and AGTA. Residents were receiving inconsistent information

from different actors about the construction schedule and believed that construction would simply

never happen. As residents told city representatives, people had been promising them redevelopment

for a decade, and none of their promises had been kept. To address the residents’ concerns and to

ensure that that al major players had the same understanding of the construction schedule, in July 2013

OCII convened the principals from Lennar, MBS, OCII, and AGTA to nail down a timeline. Lennar, MBS,

and OCII each publicly stated at that meeting: “I wil keep to this schedule.” The schedule shows the

following dates:

• Infrastructure design: 4/4/13 to 5/26/14

• Vertical design: 7/10/13 to 5/5/15

• Grading bid and construction: 12/31/13 to 5/4/15

• Infrastructure bid and construction: 3/18/14 to 5/17/16

• Vertical construction: 1/12/15 to 7/12/16

This timeline is now posted in the Alice Griffith Opportunity Center and serves as a public commitment

to a construction schedule. According to city stakeholders, the residents are now more confident that

construction wil go forward, and AGTA members are proud of their role in developing the timeline. The

principals met again in October 2013 and confirmed that they were stil on track. 123 This includes the 123 Since September 2013 the development team has achieved the fol owing major milestones: the start of construction of Carroll Avenue Seniors Building; approval of schematic design by the Commission on Community Investment and Infrastructure (CCCI), the entitlement entity for HPS/CP; execution of predevelopment loans for Phases 1, 2 and 3 and permanent loans for Phases 1 and 2 by the CCCI; submission of tax credit and bond financing applications for Phases 1 and 2; San Francisco Housing Authority Commission approval of a project-based voucher allocation for Phases 1 and 2 (in addition to the approval of the Rental Assistance Demonstration subsidies that were previously al ocated); and submission of building permit applications to the city.

B-76

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Choice deadline of September 2016 for initial replacement public housing and LIHTC units, which MBS is

on schedule to meet.

PEOPLE

Social dynamics and resident engagement

Stakeholders in interviews and residents in focus groups characterized the social dynamics at Alice

Griffith in various ways. For many residents—and especial y for those who participate in community-

building activities—there is largely a sense of community and supportive social relations. At the same

time there are serious points of tension. Certainly the problem of violence undermines healthy social

dynamics, and according to staff working on site, residents have identified safety and the trauma

associated with violence as their primary concerns. Some of the safety issues run squarely into another issue of social dynamics: relations between African-American and Samoan ethnic groups. In 2012 and

2013 there were shootings related to ethnic rivalries. Some Samoans also have the sense that providers

offer programs to African-American youth and exclude Samoan youth. Service connection staff and

community leaders are using community-building activities and outreach to build bridges between

members of these two ethnic groups.

The issue of ethnic group competition also characterizes the social dynamics within the larger

neighborhood. In a neighborhood focus group, African-American Eastern Bayview residents noted an

influx of Asians and Latinos. They worried out loud about the possibility of people with high-tech jobs moving in and changing the character of the neighborhood. One resident who was himself hopeful for

the future said he saw the fol owing attitude in others: “When I see someone of a different race, or a

different color, I feel rejected because you’re coming to take over my place where I’ve been for so long.”

A staff person working for the city who has a great deal of contact with neighborhood residents said that people moving into the neighborhood who will qualify for higher-paying jobs create “a bit of an ‘us

against them’ thing, particularly among the races.”

The social dynamics between the target development and the Choice Neighborhood are embodied in a physical barrier: the gate at the front of Alice Griffith. Several neighborhood residents in the focus group likened the site to a prison: “With the gates up, it’s like a prison . . . to get in there, it’s like you’re going into another world.” Although Alice Griffith is physically isolated, many people in the neighborhood have friends and family living in the development. At the same time, Alice Griffith residents believe many

safety problems can be traced to those who come in from the wider neighborhood. Sometimes they are

protected from the violence in the neighborhood by staying on site, and other times violence comes to

Alice Griffith from the outside.

The grantee team had engaged residents of Alice Griffith on several levels since implementation began.

In May 2012, MBS and its architecture and planning firm, Torti Gal as and Partners, hosted a week-long

design workshop to receive community input on design for the first phase of the redevelopment. The

workshop was meant to demonstrate to residents how the redevelopment would affect their living

space and the neighborhood and to solicit input from residents on amenities and design features for the units as well as buildings and open spaces. Alice Griffith residents attended, along with representatives from community-based organizations, schools in the neighborhood, a neighborhood church, and

B-77

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

multiple city agencies. During the workshop, stakeholders provided input based on their hopes and

concerns for the neighborhood. Their input focused on the need for safety and security; access to

transit, social services, and jobs; community open spaces appropriate for all ages; a daycare center;

community gardens; jobs and a job training center; access for residents with disabilities; large units and large bedrooms; and expanded transit service. The site plan, discussed above, reflects this input.

Engagement has also been important in working out details for the people plan. Although the grantee

team originally emphasized connecting people to services as the central way to work with residents,

onsite staff have found that resident engagement has been even more critical. In response, Urban

Strategies has evolved its strategy to focus more heavily on home-grown community-building through

social events and resident engagement activities. One example is the work done by an outreach

coordinator who focuses specifical y on elderly and disabled residents. In 2012 he organized volunteers to distribute fresh food to homebound seniors. This face-to-face contact with seniors opened up lines of communication so that volunteers and the outreach coordinator could provide information about

additional community services available. As a result, the outreach coordinator has been able to connect seniors to additional programs offered by the Family Services Agency and the Bayview Hunters Point

Multipurpose Senior Center. For other examples, see the discussion in the section on safety about Man-

UP work and the safety focus groups organized by Urban Strategies.

The onsite staff from Urban Strategies are creative and flexible in their resident engagement work and

tailor their approach to each person or family. They hold community meetings and go door to door to

engage with residents who don’t attend the meetings. They also use peer-to-peer engagement, asking

residents to encourage other residents to attend. The staff tries to engage residents socially before

asking them to complete a needs assessment. They emphasize that the team is at the Opportunity

Center to help with residents’ needs.

Case management

For engaging in case management with residents, Alice Griffith adopted a service connection model.

Service connectors work on site to (1) build trusting relationships with residents, (2) conduct needs

assessments with each family, (3) make needed referrals, and (4) support residents to connect

successfully with those services to which they are referred and navigate any challenges.

Beginning in summer 2012, Alice Griffith supplemented the service connection model with the Family

Rewards Program, a local adaptation of a program developed in Memphis, Tennessee, that is supported

by the Social Innovation Fund, a federal program that supports the scaling of effective models. The

program is designed to motivate behavior change by providing monetary rewards for taking positive

steps in the areas of health, education, and employment. Many results of the program are contributing

to progress toward greater job success. Urban Strategies reports that by the end of 2012, the Family

Rewards Program had resulted in 6 residents enrolling in adult basic education, GED classes, or other

remedial education; 8 residents receiving grants for barrier removal; 24 residents receiving grants for transportation assistance; 17 residents enrolled in offsite job readiness training; 7 residents completing the career development seminar series; and 40 residents obtaining paid employment.

B-78

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Services and Programming

Education. SFUSD signed on as the education implementation entity for Choice. The most relevant

component of the SFUSD strategy is the formation of “Superintendent’s Zones” in specific

neighborhoods, one of which is Bayview. SFUSD makes concerted efforts in these zones to reform

schools through developing principals as change agents, improving teacher effectiveness, and

integrating holistic student supports.

Although school reform strategies already underway in SFUSD aligned closely with Choice people goals,

the collaboration between SFUSD and the rest of the Choice team has been challenging. Some of the

Choice services funding was allocated for some of the Bayview Zone’s strategies. However, services

funding from HUD was delayed because HUD could not release any Choice funding until the issues of

enforceable obligations were settled. So while the Bayview Zone activities funded with non-Choice

dollars were implemented, other planned activities did not take place. For example, the plan anticipated community school coordinators at all three elementary schools in the zone. But because two of them

were to be paid for with Choice dollars, only one of the schools was able put a coordinator in place.

Employment. Urban Strategies’ main employment strategy has been to use service connection to link residents to workforce services (including barrier removal, job readiness programs, adult education/GED

classes, and job skil s training programs) and jobs (including transitional jobs). Service connection staff include a workforce specialist and an employment specialist. When—through the needs assessments—

the specialists identify resident employment needs, they connect residents with workforce training

opportunities in the city or support them to engage directly in a job search. As residents engage in jobs or job training, service connectors also provide wraparound services to support program or job

retention. Urban Strategies has also used the Family Rewards Program (described above) to supplement

the employment service connection activities. Through these activities, 17 people enrolled in offsite

workforce programming (mostly with the neighborhood workforce partner Young Community

Developers), and 40 people obtained jobs in the 2012 calendar year. Using rough estimates of the

number of residents needing work in 2012, Urban Strategies helped to connect approximately 30

percent of job seekers with employment.

Although employment service connection activities have met with some success, the strategy has been

challenged. One serious challenge stemmed from the dissolution of SFRA, which resulted in the phasing

out of a key job training program (the SFRA-funded Job Readiness Initiative) targeted to Eastern Bayview residents with the most challenging workforce barriers. Construction delays, which resulted in delays in job openings for target development site construction, posed a second serious chal enge. Urban

Strategies has sought to fil the gaps with the work of their employment specialists and the incentives of the Family Rewards Program.

Health. The anchor of the health strategies for Eastern Bayview has been the work of the national y recognized expert Dr. Nadine Burke-Harris. Dr. Burke-Harris has built a model of health care based on a

“whole person” approach that focuses on addressing trauma and stress in patients’ lives. This model is

based on research showing that if trauma and stress are successful y addressed, physical health

improves, and depression and anxiety wil decrease. Her Southeast Health Center opened in Bayview in

B-79

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

2007, and she has partnered with HOPE SF stakeholders to bring high-quality health care to the

neighborhood.

To expand the model to pediatric “whole child” health care, Dr. Burke-Harris opened the Center for

Youth Wellness (CYW) adjacent to Eastern Bayview at the end of 2013. The CYW model is to “provide

multidisciplinary care wrapped around the pediatric medical home that recognizes and treats chronic

stress and trauma, including comprehensive case management, mental health, family support services,

holistic interventions and education advocacy.” Urban Strategies has been working closely with CYW to

support building the center’s presence at Alice Griffith and the surrounding Choice Neighborhood.

Urban Strategies and CYW are working to create a “trauma aware zone.” As part of building this zone,

CYW has been training frontline service providers (including SFUSD and police) to build awareness of

how to recognize trauma-related behaviors and how to intervene to appropriately address them. After

the training, participants are able to recognize the signs of trauma in children and youth; identify

children, youth, and families who may benefit from the services provided by CYW; and use

nonstigmatizing strategies to encourage families to enroll in CYW services.

Relocation

The housing component of San Francisco’s Choice plan also addresses the chal enges of relocating

residents. The plan splits the construction process into phases; the first phase will be on vacant land acquired by the city of San Francisco adjacent to Alice Griffith. After replacement units are completed (in 2016) and households relocate, Lennar will begin phased deconstruction of the vacant Alice Griffith

buildings. This phased approach responds to residents’ desire to remain in their neighborhood by

ensuring that tenants are not forced to relocate off site.

Although residents are hopeful about new homes and a neighborhood with jobs and better amenities,

they also seem to feel that the city does not truly plan to al ow current residents to return. This belief opens up many possibilities for tension and miscommunication. For example, some residents (including

resident leaders) discuss the “fact” that property managers wil be doing credit checks and using poor

credit as grounds for eviction, even though the developer and other stakeholders have repeatedly

reassured residents that poor credit does not provide cause for eviction.

NEIGHBORHOOD

Critical Community Improvements

The grantee team proposed two Critical Community Improvements (CCIs) projects in its original

application to HUD: (1) building an early childhood education center and (2) building a community

center (cal ed the Opportunity Center). These projects, which were identified through a collaborative

process involving the residents, the mayor’s office, SFRA, and MBS, were allocated $4.5 million. Projects were selected based on community need. There have been slight changes to the original plan. First, the

Opportunity Center building is now being covered by other funds, so its construction will not draw down the CCI funds. Second, HUD had asked MBS to rethink the al ocation of the CCI funds, and stakeholders

were reconvened to further consider the CCIs. This stakeholder group included the residents, OCII,

MOHCD, and MBS. By the end of 2013 no final decision had been reached, but stakeholders close to the

decisionmaking process stil hope to apply the CCI funds to the early childhood education center,

contending that it would meet an important identified community need.

B-80

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Public safety

In the course of their work, the service connectors have found that residents consistently rank

neighborhood safety as a top concern. In 2012 and 2013 there were incidents of violent crime, in

particular between African-American and Samoan youth. Urban Strategies has focused on safety

activities that support residents to lead and participate in efforts to improve neighborhood safety and reduce crime rates. The resident engagement strategy, as evidenced by its Man-UP Safety Initiative and

its safety focus groups, has shown promising success.

• Man-UP. One of Alice Griffith’s outreach coordinators developed the Man-UP initiative, which is designed to mobilize men to support ensuring that Alice Griffith is a safe place for their children

to grow up. In 2012, Man-UP members held eight Living Room Meetings, with seven residents

participating on average. In these meetings, residents discussed issues of community safety.

• Safety focus groups. Urban Strategies hosted a focus group on safety during which residents

voiced their concerns about—and suggested solutions for—vandalism, drugs, violent crime,

prostitution, reckless driving, public drinking, and gambling. Suggested solutions included a

neighborhood watch, parental involvement, and volunteer opportunities for youth to keep the

community clean.

• Peacekeepers program. Urban Strategies partnered with the grassroots CBO Hunters Point

Family to enroll 24 Alice Griffith youth in the HPF Peacekeepers program. This program uses a

violence interruption model to deescalate potential violence in the community.

In 2012, the Department of Justice coordinated with HUD’s Choice program to award a Public Safety

Enhancement grant to in the Choice team in San Francisco. Urban Strategies is using this funding to

partner with the Choice development team and community partners to implement comprehensive case

management and support the work of Green Streets (a social enterprise that employs public housing

residents and provides recycling, hauling, composting, and janitorial services) and community safety

partnerships with SFHA and the San Francisco Police Department. The Office of the District Attorney in

San Francisco was also awarded a Byrne Justice Criminal Innovation grant of $1 mil ion in September

2013 to focus on violence issues in Eastern Bayview; because the award occurred at the end of the data

collection period for this report, information about its coordination with Choice is unavailable.

Neighborhood economic development

The grantee’s efforts to revitalize neighborhood commerce focus on creating attractive, wel -cared for

spaces and providing capital to local businesses in the form of grants and loans. SFRA had committed

about $4.5 million in the Choice application for three programs: the SF Shines Third Street Façade and

Tenant Improvement Program, the Bayview Revolving Loan Program, and the Smal Business Assistance

Program. These programs benefit the Third Street corridor at the border of the Choice Neighborhood.

This corridor runs about 25 to 30 blocks, from Evans on the northern border to Jamestown on the

southern border.

When SFRA dissolved, the funds for these programs were lost because the programs were not

enforceable obligations. The San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development has taken

over the commitments for SF Shines and the Small Business Assistance Program. Although the funds for

B-81

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

the loan program have not yet been ful y replaced, OEWD has funded other business-attraction

initiatives along the corridor. MOHCD is responsible for identifying new sources of neighborhood

investments and has ongoing conversations with other city agencies to identify projects and sources of

funds. 124

Built environment and infrastructure

In its application, the San Francisco Choice team desired to complete a series of large investments in

public assets:

• The Bayview Opera House. Bayview Opera House is a nonprofit community cultural and arts center that provides free and low-cost arts education and cultural enrichment to the

community. Renovations included restoring the façade and the original wood flooring, creating

interior ADA access, and greening the surrounding plaza.

• The Bayview Branch Public Library. The library underwent extensive renovations beginning in

2011. The library reopened in 2013 with a new 9,000-square-foot building with adult, teen, and

children’s areas that host programs for seniors, students, and young children.

• Col ege Track building. In 2011 SFRA provided a $1 mil ion grant for the new building, from

which College Track was able to leverage $8.7 million in New Market Tax Credits and foundation

funding. In 2012 the building, a 13,000-square-foot center with the capacity to serve 500

students from the neighborhood annual y, opened to the public.

Built environment improvements include additional streetscape and façade improvements beyond the

SF Shines program. In particular, the Public Utilities Commission has provided funds to use vacant store fronts as gal ery space until permanent tenants for store fronts can be found and funded new mural

work along Third Street. Built environment and infrastructure improvements also include transit

improvements. A new bus rapid transit line in the neighborhood will have a stop located at the entrance to the new Alice Griffith site. SFRA had al ocated $61,500 to transit improvements, but those funds were lost with SFRA dissolved; MOHCD has not yet identified replacement funds.

Future of the neighborhood

The two main drivers of the future of the neighborhood are the execution of the HPS/CP megaproject

and the strong real estate market in San Francisco. The redevelopment plan for HPS/CP includes a

massive transformation of the area. When completed, it will include more than 12,000 new residential

units, a research and development campus for emerging technologies, retail and arts and community

spaces, and more than 350 acres of open park space. This megaproject wil entirely change the character of San Francisco’s Southeast corner.

124 The three programs discussed here are actual y part of a larger set of neighborhood investments that includes the College Track building, the Model Block program, and transit improvements. All of these, together with the programs discussed in this section, make up a $6.5 million commitment made by SFRA in the Choice application.

None of these were considered enforceable obligations, however, so MOHCD had to coordinate efforts for

ensuring that San Francisco spends al $6.5 mil ion in neighborhood investments.

B-82

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

At the same time, the high cost of real estate in San Francisco means that market-rate housing is out of reach for those below about the top 10 percent of incomes. The city’s Southeast corner has thus

become a destination for middle-income families wanting to buy homes. The redevelopment project—

and the neighborhood improvement it promises—will likely make Eastern Bayview more attractive to

these home buyers, as well.

Given the Choice goals of a thriving mixed-income community, the city and developers are making every

effort to avoid gentrification. However, there is fear among Alice Griffith residents, as wel as among long-time residents of the surrounding Choice neighborhood, that the redevelopment project ultimately

means that poor families will be driven out and that Bayview will be taken over by newcomers with

higher incomes and those with the skil s for high-paying (especial y high-tech) jobs. Although residents acknowledge the positive impact of new resources in their community, many are conflicted because of

the negative aspects of these changes. Residents note that one negative outcome is the loss of a strong African-American community in San Francisco, adding that, while it is refreshing to see racial diversity in the community, it often comes with the displacement of African-American–owned homes and

businesses.

SUMMARY OF PROGRESS IN COORDINATION AND LEVERAGE

Coordination among Key Stakeholders. SFRA was originally intended to implement the HPS/CP project, which was approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 2010. After the dissolution of SFRA,

which was replaced by the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure, HPS/CP was classified as

an enforceable obligation. MBS (the Choice developer and housing lead) and MOHCD (the neighborhood

lead) meet weekly with an OCII representative who serves as a connection between Choice and Alice

Griffith and the larger HPS/CP project.

Urban Strategies and its staff at Alice Griffith have been actively working with local community-based

nonprofits to build a coordinated network of providers that can serve the needs of Alice Griffith

residents. A meeting of Bayview providers that grew out of HOPE SF (and predates Choice) has

convened monthly as a network. The onsite senior project manager from Urban Strategies attends these

meetings (as does the HOPE SF services director, who serves as meeting facilitator).

Coordination within the grantee team and between the grantee team members and key external

stakeholders seems to have general y supported progress. During the Choice implementation meetings

grantee team members provide updates on the progress of offsite development, onsite development,

and services for the residents. Representatives also discuss emerging challenges. Choice in San Francisco also benefits from additional coordination related to the larger HOPE SF initiative; the City Services

Team supports case management efforts on the ground at Alice Griffith. Stakeholders report that

meetings with MBS, MOHCD, and OCII are productive and help to address chal enges that arise from the

linkage between the Choice effort and the larger HPS/CP project.

The beginning of the coordination was challenging for some issues, but relationship building within a

collaborative always takes time. The only way in which poor coordination affected progress is related to SFUSD’s lack of participation in the Choice implementation meetings. Some observers suggest that if

B-83

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

SFUSD had participated, some of the issues related to the Bayview Zone could have been more readily

resolved. Another suggestion is that HUD could have kept a closer eye on who was included in those

meetings and ensured that all key players were at the table.

Leverage. Choice reportedly had unanticipated leverage impacts on transportation and housing in Eastern Bayview. San Francisco’s transit provider had planned to build a bus rapid transit line first to the shipyard, and then to the environs of Alice Griffith. Choice funding for Alice Griffith helped OCII to make the case for accelerating the bus rapid transit infrastructure. As a result, bus rapid transit will arrive in Eastern Bayview about five years sooner than planned, and a stop wil be located at the entrance to

Alice Griffith. 125 In addition, the frequency of one of the bus lines serving the area will increase. In another example of leverage, San Francisco won an Infil Infrastructure Grant of about $5.6 mil ion from the state of California for the senior housing development at 5800 Third Street. The state has an interest in making investments that already show federal investments, so the Choice grant gave San Francisco an

edge. These early leverage examples support stakeholders’ expectation that Choice will lead to

additional investment in the future.

Attributing leverage to Choice is complicated because Alice Griffith and Eastern Bayview, rather than

being distinct Choice projects, are part of the much larger HPS/CP project. The attribution of

neighborhood improvement to Choice wil be difficult given the broader range of reinvestment driven to

the neighborhood by the cost of other locations in San Francisco and by neighborhood revitalization

efforts not directly connected to Choice. For example, investment in Third Street over the last decade

has resulted in new stores and restaurants. The media have taken notice: in 2013 the San Francisco

Chronicle published “Reinventing the Bayview District,” which described new businesses on Third Street

and cal ed attention to the OEWD statistic that vacancy rates on Third Street are down 7 percent since

2012. 126 In the summer of 2013, the Bayview Merchants Association collaborated with the San Francisco Arts Coalition (as wel as artists and local businesses) to launch “3rd on Third,” a monthly arts festival to take place on Third Street on the third Thursday of each month.

In the longer term, development at Candlestick Point (planned to rol out in 2016–17) wil mean

additional retail, with 755,000 square feet of retail space planned as part of the HPS/CP Phase II plan.

The new mixed-income housing units at the current Alice Griffith site should serve as a way to attract

retail businesses.

Exhibit B.22 provides a summary of major activities by Choice domain and their early implementation

status in Eastern Bayview as of September 2013.

125 An acceleration of approximately five years is the current best understanding of OCII, but the timeline for BRT

has not been finalized.

126 See http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Reinventing-the-Bayview-district-4708490.php.

B-84

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit B.22. Summary of Major Activities and Early Implementation Progress in Eastern Bayview,

September 2013

Choice Domain and Related

Lead

Funding

Funding

Funding Covered Summary

Activities

Organization

Level ($

Covered by

by Other

Status

thousands)

Choice (%)

Sources (%)

HOUSING

Alice Griffith (public housing

McCormack

72,350

8

92

In progress

and affordable):

Baron Salazar

Redevelopment of 504 units of

multifamily, mixed-income

housing (256 replacement public

housing units and 248

affordable units).

Carrol Avenue Seniors Building McCormack

62,300

0

100

In progress

(off site): Senior building was

Baron Salazar

reclassified as part of the Choice

housing component and

includes 121 project-based

vouchers approved for senior

Alice Griffith residents eligible

for Section 8.

PEOPLE

Case Management and overal

Urban

2,100

100

0

In progress

program coordination and

Strategies

oversight: Uses service

connection model (connecting

residents with existing

community services). Active

case management by seven case

managers and staff provides

referrals and linkages to

programs.

Raising a Reader: Preschool

FranDelJA

11

0

100

In progress

youth are encouraged to read

Enrichment

along with their parents.

Center

Preschool for Al : A locally

First Five

800

0

100

In progress

funded universal preschool

program for four-year-olds that

provides access to

comprehensive, high-quality,

and free early childhood

education.

Bayview Superintendents Zone: San Francisco

1,400

0

100

In progress

SFUSD’s school reform strategy

Unified

/delayed

designed to close the

School

achievement gap. Targets youth District

with low academic achievement

levels. The schools within the

zones receive extra resources to

engage in school improvement

efforts.

B-85

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Choice Domain and Related

Lead

Funding

Funding

Funding Covered Summary

Activities

Organization

Level ($

Covered by

by Other

Status

thousands)

Choice (%)

Sources (%)

Career development seminar:

Urban

In case

100

0

In progress

Career readiness training and

Strategies

management

seminars for residents at AG.

budget

The Family Rewards Program

supports positive steps toward

employment, including funding

for job readiness training and

incentives for obtaining full time

employment.

Job readiness initiative: A

OEWD

1,400

0

100

In progress

program developed by SFRA

specifically for those who have

multiple workforce barriers and

thus are not able to qualify for

other job training programs.

Green Streets: Job training and

McCormack

80

0

100

In progress

employment from a social

Baron Ragan

enterprise offering recycling,

composting, janitorial, and

grounds-keeping services at

SFHA developments.

Green job readiness: An eight-

Young

44

0

100

In progress

week program designed to

Community

prepare at-risk youth ages 17 to Developers

25 for the growing green

economy in San Francisco.

Trauma Aware Zone: Training

Center for

35

0

100

In progress

for frontline service providers

Youth

(including SFUSD and police) to

Wellness

build awareness of how to

recognize trauma-related

behaviors and intervene

appropriately.

NEIGHBORHOOD

Critical Community

McCormack

4,500

100

0

Not started

Improvements: TBD; some

Baron Salazar

funds will likely be used for an

early childhood education

center.

Alice Griffith (above 50% of

Lennar

329,494¹²⁷

0

100

Not started

AMI): AG will also include 310

market-rate units, 31

inclusionary units, and 281

workforce units, all serving

households above 50% of AMI.

127 Please also note that depending on construction timeframe this estimate will change. Lennar has been seeing 10 percent year over year inflation.

B-86

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Choice Domain and Related

Lead

Funding

Funding

Funding Covered Summary

Activities

Organization

Level ($

Covered by

by Other

Status

thousands)

Choice (%)

Sources (%)

Bus rapid transit (BRT): A BRT

San Francisco

785

0

100

Not started

line in the neighborhood with a

Municipal

stop at the entrance to the new Transporta-

Alice Griffith site.

tion Agency

SF Shines: A façade and tenant

OEWD

1,351

0

100

In progress

improvement program for

businesses on Third Street.

Smal business assistance:

OEWD

717

0

100

In progress

Loans to selected small

businesses on Third Street.

Bayview Branch Public Library:

SF Public

11,800

0

100

Completed

9,000-sq.-ft. building with adult, Libraries

teen, and children’s areas built

around a central courtyard. Also

has upgraded computers for

public access, a study room,

public art, and a room dedicated

to library and community

events. Programs provided at

the library include literacy

activities for young children,

homework help for students,

and senior programming.

Renovating the Bayview Opera

SF Arts

1,900

0

100

In progress

House: A nonprofit community

Commission

cultural and arts center that

provides free and low-cost arts

education and cultural

enrichment. Renovations

included restoring the façade

and the original wood flooring,

creating interior ADA access, and

greening the surrounding plaza.

New Col ege Track building:

San Francisco

9,700

0

100

Completed

13,000-sq.-ft. center with the

Redevelop-

capacity to serve 500 students/

ment

year from the neighborhood.

Authority

Expansion of the South East

San Francisco

3,535

Leverage

100

In progress

Health Center: Includes

Redevelop-

comprehensive child crisis

ment

services, foster care mental

Authority and

health program, Family Mosaic

SF

Project, Children's System of

Department

Care, and Bayview Hunters Point of Public

Health and Environmental

Health

Resource Center.

Notes: AMI: area median income; OEWD: Office of Economic and Workforce Development; TBD: to be determined.

Sources: Review of documents, including Choice Neighborhoods round 1 and 2 applications and budgets, interviews with stakeholders, and observation of team meetings and phone calls.

B-87

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

B.5. SEATTLE: YESLER TERRACE AND THE YESLER NEIGHBORHOOD

Yesler is located east of Seattle’s downtown core on the southern slope of the First Hill neighborhood. It is bounded by the Interstate 5 to the west; three medical centers and Seattle University to the north;

the Squire Park neighborhood to the east; and Little Saigon, a part of the International District, to the south (exhibit B.23). Yesler has the smallest land area (0.2 square miles) of the five implementation

Choice Neighborhoods.

B-88

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit B.23. Map of the Yesler Neighborhood

B-89

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

BASELINE CONDITIONS

Seattle’s wealthy residents led the development of the neighborhood, first known as Yesler Hill, as a

haven from the growing central city and associated urban problems in the late 19th century. As Seattle

grew, wealthy residents continued to move outward, eventually leaving the Yesler area. They were

replaced by working class residents in the early 20th century, and increasingly by immigrants after

World War II. Today, Yesler is one of the most diverse but poorest communities in Seattle, with 46

percent of households having an annual income below $15,000 and 70 percent below $30,000 (exhibit

B.24). Of the five Choice Neighborhoods, Yesler had the highest percentage of foreign-born heads of

households at 46 percent, and the lowest percentage of non-Hispanic African/African-American heads of

households. Yesler has a sizable Asian population; about 21 percent of heads of households were non-

Hispanic Asian. As reported in the baseline survey, about 29 percent of households in Yesler were

families with children, about the same level as reported in Woodlawn, Iberville/Tremé, and Eastern

Bayview. About 52 percent had received some col ege or technical schooling, but 29 percent had not

graduated from high school. About 59 percent of the heads of households surveyed at baseline were

currently employed, about 27 percent received supplemental security income, 9 percent received

disability, and 8 percent received cash assistance. Just over one-third of heads of households reported that they used public transportation regularly; this was about the same level as reported in Woodlawn

and Quincy Corridor but a higher share than in Ibervil e/Tremé or Eastern Bayview.

B-90

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit B.24. Resident and Household Characteristics in Yesler

Head of Household Characteristics

Percent Household Characteristics

Percent

Female

54

Households with children

29

Race and Ethnicity

Three-generation household

5

Non-Hispanic African/ African-

American

34

Household's annual income

Non-Hispanic White

26

Under $15,000

45

Non-Hispanic other

8

$15,000 to $29,999

24

Hispanic

8

$30,000 to $49,999

12

Born in the US

54

$50,000 to $69,999

10

Education

$70,000 or more

9

12th grade or less

29

Public assistance

GED or high school diploma

20

Supplemental Security Income

27

Some technical or col ege or higher

52

Disability

9

HH is currently employed

59

Cash assistance

8

Ratings of Well-Being

Percent

Mode of Transportation

Respondent in good health

69

Has a car to use

74

Child wel -being

Takes public transit regularly

34

Focal child in good health

99

Focal child positive behavior scale (score)

4.8

Focal child 2 or more negative behaviors

7

Ratings of Housing Quality

Percent Ratings of Neighborhood Quality and Safety

Percent

Number of housing quality problems

Rates the neighborhood as at least an 8 of 10

44

0

42

Feels safe alone outside of home during the day

93

1

28

Feels safe alone outside of home at night

62

2 to 3

21

Thinks the ngh. is a good place to raise children

71

4 or more

9

Collective efficacy scale score

3.5

Source: Choice Neighborhoods Baseline Survey 2013–14.

Unlike the other Choice Neighborhoods, the Yesler neighborhood is dominated by the Choice target

public housing development, Yesler Terrace. Yesler Terrace makes up more than one-half of the 965

housing units in the neighborhood. Yesler consists mainly of large multifamily apartment buildings and is home to about 2,100 residents. In contrast, Yesler Terrace consists of low-rise two- and three-story

buildings. Approximately 30 percent of households reported two or more problems related to housing

quality. Large plots of undeveloped, underutilized, or vacant land are also found in the neighborhood.

The five Choice Neighborhoods were very similar on measures of resident and child well-being. In Yesler most respondents (69 percent) reported good health, and 99 percent reported that their child was in

good health. The baseline survey also asked about the behaviors of children and youth. In reference to

positive behaviors, such as the ability to regulate emotions and get along with others, youth in Yesler averaged 4.8 positive behaviors out of a possible 6. Only 7 percent of respondents reported that their

B-91

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

child aged 6 to 14 had two or more negative behaviors, such as disobedience at school or home, and

restlessness or overactivity, lower than in the other four Choice Neighborhoods.

Survey respondents in Yesler (44 percent) were less likely to rate their neighborhood highly (an 8 or

higher out of 10) than residents living in central cities nationwide (62 percent). This neighborhood rating level was similar to that of the other Choice Neighborhoods. Seventy-one percent of respondents

believed that Yesler is a good place to raise children, higher than the other Choice Neighborhoods. Most respondents felt safe outside their homes during the day (93 percent), a higher proportion than in

Woodlawn and Eastern Bayview (80 to 84 percent). Fewer respondents felt safe at night (62 percent).

Yesler had higher average ratings of col ective efficacy (3.5 out of 5) than Quincy Corridor (3.2) but lower than Ibervil e/Tremé (3.7). 128

Yesler Terrace was developed in the early 1930s. Jesse Epstein, a University of Washington law school

graduate, wanted to turn the Yesler neighborhood, suffering from drugs, crime, and prostitution, into a public housing development. In 1939, the Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) was created, with Epstein as

its director. In 1941, SHA and Epstein created 863 low-rise row housing units, modeled after worker

housing in Sweden, on 43 acres in the Yesler neighborhood. With each low-rise housing unit including a

fenced-in yard, the Yesler Terrace apartments were notable for their contrast to the high-rise public

housing sites constructed later in other parts of the country. Yesler Terrace was also notable for being the first racial y integrated public housing project in the country. Major changes to the development

include the construction of the I-5 freeway in the mid-1960s, which required ceding 11 of Yesler

Terrace’s original 43 acres and demolishing 266 of its 864 units. From 1978 to 1982, SHA rehabilitated

and modernized 456 of the remaining units.

Today, Yesler Terrace is a 36.6-acre site containing 69 low-rise, two- and three-story wood-frame

buildings comprising 561 public housing units. This development has a larger elderly population (18

percent) than the other target developments. The interior and exterior of these units are worsening

significantly, the underground infrastructure is decaying, and the utilities are not sufficient. The

redevelopment plan will be led by SHA in partnership with the city of Seattle.

128 Col ective efficacy includes how cohesive the residents feel the neighborhood is, with shared trust and values, as well as how likely neighbors are to exhibit informal social control and do something to address concerns in their neighborhood, from children fighting to cuts to services in their neighborhood.

B-92

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit B.25. Resident and Household Characteristics in Yesler Terrace

Head of Household Characteristics

Percent Household Characteristics

Percent

Female

68

Household size (average number of people)

2.6

Race and Ethnicity

Households with children

42

Non-Hispanic African/African-

American

31

Three-generation household

4

Non-Hispanic White

6

Household's annual income

Non-Hispanic Asian

47

Under $15,000

73

Non-Hispanic other

13

$15,000 to $29,999

20

Hispanic

3

$30,000 to $49,999

4

Born in the US

26

$50,000 to $69,999

0

Education

$70,000 or more

0

12th grade or less

52

Public assistance

GED or high school diploma

25

Supplemental Security Insurance

53

Some technical or col ege or

higher

24

Disability

14

HH is currently employed

50

Cash assistance

15

Mode of Transportation

Ratings of Well-Being

Has a car to use

72

Respondent in good health

49

Takes public transit regularly

26

Child wel -being

Currently lives in the neighborhood

77

Focal child in good health

90

Lives in original housing unit

76

Focal child positive behavior scale (score)

4.8

Desire to return after redevelopment

87

Focal child 2 or more negative behaviors

23

Source: Choice Neighborhoods Baseline Survey 2013–14.

At the time of the baseline survey, 76 percent of households were still in their original units (exhibit B.25). The racial composition of Yesler Terrace reflects that of the Yesler neighborhood. A large

percentage of heads of households (74 percent) were born outside of the United States, with about 31

percent non-Hispanic African/African-American and 46 percent non-Hispanic Asian. Only 24 percent had

some col ege or technical schooling, and 52 percent had not graduated from high school. Forty-two

percent of households had children under the age of 18, and the average household size was 2.6 people.

About half the heads of households were currently working. Nearly 73 percent of households reported

an annual income less than $15,000, and 93 percent were below $30,000. Fifty-three percent, higher

than the other four target developments, received supplemental security income payments, and 15

percent received cash assistance. About half of al heads of households reported they were in good

health. Of those who had children, 90 percent said their child was in good health. Twenty-three percent of focal children had two or more negative behaviors. On the positive behavior scale, focal children

averaged 4.8 out of 6 positive behaviors. When asked if they would like to return after redevelopment is completed, 87 percent of respondents expressed a desire to return.

IMPLEMENTATION OF CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS

The plan for Yesler Terrace will be carried out with $30 million in Choice Neighborhoods funding. SHA,

the lead grantee, applied in 2010 for $27 mil ion. The FY 2010–11 award included only $10.3 mil ion,

B-93

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

reportedly because city approvals were not yet in place for important parts of the plan. SHA

subsequently applied successful y for additional funds, receiving an award in 2012 for $19.7 million.

KEY ACTORS AND RELATIONSHIPS

The implementation of the transformation of Seattle’s Yesler Terrace has progressed favorably. This

success can be attributed to the grantee team’s competence; the consonance between the team’s

aspirations for the target development and Yesler and the stated goals of Choice Neighborhoods; and an

agreeable redevelopment climate, including a city that supports the project and a promising local real

estate and job market. SHA, the lead on every component of the Choice grant except for education

(Seattle University), provides housing assistance in some form to more than 26,000 people in the city of Seattle and owns and operates buildings on more than 400 sites throughout the city. SHA has

implemented the mixed-income redevelopment of three other low-income housing communities

through HOPE VI grants and has built not only technical and political expertise but also an established network of reliable partnerships. These partnerships include strong relationships with the city of Seattle, Seattle University, and Neighborhood House, a nonprofit agency with a location in the heart of Yesler

Terrace that provides a range of educational and social services.

The city of Seattle’s role as SHA’s partner in the implementation has been significant, especially so

considering that the city is not formal y part of the Choice Neighborhoods grantee team. The city

government has demonstrated a high level of commitment to the redevelopment of Yesler Terrace and

the surrounding area. A proposed legislative package was intensely vetted by the general public as well as the city council’s special committee on Yesler Terrace. 129 The legislation, which was approved by the city council in September 2012, included the creation of a new land use zone (Master Planned

Community—Yesler Terrace), a planned action ordinance, street vacations¹³⁰ and new street dedications, and a cooperative agreement between the city and SHA. This voluntary agreement

describes commitments related to affordable housing, relocation, open space, district heat, and funding partnerships. It includes a “housing production plan” that specifies how many units are to be provided at varying income levels; requires that SHA use al proceeds from land sales or leasing for redevelopment

activities; and reinforces federal provisions for tenant relocation by requiring SHA to submit a relocation plan to the Seattle Office of Housing. 131 The city is contributing approximately $30 million in infrastructure funds and $5 mil ion in community services funding to the redevelopment, more than the

Seattle grantee team’s two Choice grant awards combined.

HOUSING

The development: Plan summary

Units and buildings. The housing plan for Yesler Terrace increases the site’s density more dramatically than for any of the other developments. The current project includes 561 housing units in 69 two- to

three-story buildings on a 36.6-acre site. The redevelopment plan envisions the construction in four

129 See http://www.seattle.gov/council/attachments/2012yesler_bg/tab18/01.pdf (accessed July 28, 2014).

130 Street vacation is an action in which a jurisdiction relinquishes its right of way.

131 See http://www.seattle.gov/council/attachments/2012yesler_bg/201206yesler05_agreement_exha3.6.pdf.

B-94

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

phases of up to 5,000 housing units on this site and several nearby parcels. The FY 2010–11 Choice

Neighborhoods grant funded the first phase, which includes two affordable housing developments and

one market-rate project adjacent to Yesler Terrace. A 1.75-acre block previously occupied by 40 public

housing units that had been leased by the YWCA as temporary housing was cleared and wil be replaced

by 1105 East Fir, a three-building, 103-unit SHA property, and Anthem on 12th, an apartment building

with 120 workforce and market-rate units. Anthem on 12th also includes ground-floor retail. Phase I also includes the rehabilitation of the 31-unit Baldwin Apartments, a few blocks from Yesler Terrace, into 15

affordable units. Phase II, funded by the FY 2012 grant of $19.7 million, will include 174 additional units.

Exhibit B.26 shows the site plan for Yesler Terrace.

B-95

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit B.26. Site Plan (in FY 2012 Application), Yesler Terrace

Source: Choice Neighborhoods application (FY 2012), attachment 42.

Income mixing and affordability terms. With a planned radical increase in density, the redeveloped Yesler Terrace will be weighted toward market-rate development: 3,199 units, or 64 percent of the

B-96

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

prospective new housing. A combination of local incentives, investments, regulations, and federal

subsidies will yield a complex mosaic of affordability levels and subsidy terms. The 561 replacement

units wil make up about 11 percent of the total; another 100 units of extremely low-income housing wil be added beyond this. The buildout includes 290 low-income and up to 850 workforce housing units (60

and 80 percent of AMI, respectively). All the extremely low- and low-income units and 160 of the

workforce units will have a 50-year term of affordability. The remaining workforce units will carry a 20-year term of affordability.

For Phase I housing construction, 98 units (83 at 1105 East Fir and al 15 units at the renovated Baldwin Apartments) will serve as replacement housing for current Yesler Terrace tenants, whose buildings will

be demolished after they move to allow Phase II to proceed. Twenty low-income units make up the

balance of 1105 East Fir. Despite receiving only $10.3 million in FY 2010–11, SHA maintained almost the same number of replacement housing units as proposed in its $27 million 2010 application because they

believed doing so maintained stakeholder confidence. HUD provided 60 new project-based housing

choice vouchers to sustain this commitment.

For Phase II housing construction, which consists of two separate building projects, SHA wil build 104

replacement units and 70 low-income units on two blocks on site in Yesler Terrace. The locations for

housing beyond the first two phases as wel as most of the market-rate housing were undetermined in

September 2013, but plans for Phases I and II indicate that buildings housing residents of varying income levels will be interspersed, with a clustering of market-rate buildings on the north side of Yesler Way. 132

In SHA’s past developments and in 1105 East Fir, SHA combines extremely low-income and low-income

units in the same building. If a household’s income increases, SHA can change the unit from a public

housing unit to a tax credit unit without requiring the household to move. The block containing 1105

East Fir also includes Anthem on 12th, meaning that tenants with a wide range of incomes wil share the same block but wil probably enter their buildings from different streets. The specific mix within

buildings and blocks in Phase II building projects was unavailable during the data-collection period. 133

Extremely low-income and low-income units are likely to be mixed within buildings, but SHA currently

does not plan to include market-rate units in its own projects.

SHA is encouraging new construction of workforce housing by the private market in the redevelopment

but has fewer incentives for it. No federal subsidies are available, though the city of Seattle does have a Multifamily Property Tax Exemption Program. Anthem on 12th wil have 30 percent of its 120 units at 80

132 For the most current site plan for the proposed redevelopment, see http://seattlehousing.net/wp-

content/uploads/2013/11/Yesler-Terrace-2014-printer-friendly.pdf.

133 The cooperative agreement requires that 36 of the Phase I replacement housing units and 24 of the 60% of AMI units “wil be developed on property owned by SHA in Block 2 adjacent to the Steam Plant.” (This property is the western area of the existing Yesler Terrace.) Sixty-eight replacement units, along with 46 of the 60% of AMI units, “wil be developed on property owned by SHA in Block 6, adjacent to the Neighborhood Park.” The latter refers to the large neighborhood park to be built by the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation that wil be sited just west of the existing Yesler Community Center. For a map showing block numbers, see

http://www.seattle.gov/council/attachments/2012yesler_bg/tab05/06.pdf.

B-97

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

percent of AMI. The total of al new buildings in the redevelopment wil have 23 percent of the units at 80 percent of AMI, but these may not be distributed equal y within buildings.

Design. In 2012, the city of Seattle designated Yesler Terrace west of Boren Avenue as a Master Planned Community, a designation that requires it to provide “a mixture of uses, appropriate urban density,

cohesive urban design . . . , [and] a higher level of environmental sustainability, affordable housing, and publicly accessible open space than is typical y provided through conventional lot-by-lot

development.” 134 The redeveloped Yesler Terrace will occupy its existing footprint, both east and west of Boren Avenue, and portions of two blocks east of the footprint. If built to the scale allowable under the new zoning, half the built out redevelopment’s floor area would be in midrise buildings and half

would be in high-rise buildings ranging from 160 feet to 300 feet, departing dramatical y from today’s

low-rise development.

The intersection of Yesler Way and Broadway will be the heart of the redeveloped Yesler Terrace. The

Yesler Community Center sits at this intersection, one of over 20 community centers run by the Seattle

Parks and Recreation Department that serve Seattle’s Central Area. Services and retail will line Yesler Way, a commercial corridor between Yesler Terrace and downtown that will be reinforced by the First

Hill streetcar, which begins operation late in 2014 or early in 2015. Streets will be reconfigured to

provide better connections to Little Saigon south of Yesler Terrace and to the Central District, north and east of Yesler Terrace, with a planned “green street loop” to provide a favorable pedestrian experience.

The design of the Phase I housing units is varied in terms of scale and building types: midrise buildings, townhouses, and a rehabilitated historic apartment building. Housing design is informed by city of

Seattle design guidelines, guidelines specific to Yesler Terrace as designated in the September 2012

legislation, HUD requirements, and resident and interdepartmental feedback to SHA. The design process

also includes work on fine details between the grantee’s property management and maintenance staff

and the grantee’s asset management team. They identify potential problems that the development

team may not anticipate; examples include concerns expressed about a corner of a building that may be

too dark or a hand dryer that could pose a maintenance issue.

The existing Yesler Terrace contains studio and one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom apartments.

During the city council’s examination of the proposed redevelopment, residents and activist

organizations, such as Puget Sound Sage, highlighted the need to create more housing for families who

require large units. The cooperative agreement adopted by the city council addressed these concerns by

explicitly requiring replacement housing minimums for one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom units.

Building on its previous experience, SHA will ensure that new units meet goals for healthy and energy-

efficient development. Incoming air wil be filtered, and no pets, smoking, or burning of incense wil be al owed. New housing construction and the rehabilitation of the Baldwin Apartments wil meet

Enterprise Green Community criteria, which address a range of factors from neighborhood-scale

134 The Master Planned Community includes only the existing development west of Boren Avenue, not the entire Yesler Terrace redevelopment area (which itself is smaller than the Yesler neighborhood boundary).

B-98

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

considerations (distance to transit, site design, and open space) to building-level considerations such as materials and water-conserving fixtures. 135 As with the grantee’s previous redevelopment at High Point, utilities for Yesler Terrace’s units will be individually metered to encourage conservation.

Finance. The 2011 development plan anticipates total costs for the affordable housing, infrastructure, and community services to amount to $293 million: $200 million for housing, $80 million for

infrastructure, and $13 mil ion for community services. Anticipated financing sources for the housing

include $33 mil ion in subsidies from Choice Neighborhoods and other housing assistance programs, $47

million in low-income housing tax credit equity, $30 mil ion in mortgage debt, and $90 mil ion in

proceeds from land sales. Land sales also account for $50 mil ion of the funds for infrastructure and $5

million for community services. 136

SHA is the only one of the first five implementation grantees that plans to subsidize its development

using land sales. With such heavy dependence on land sale revenues, the grantee expressed concern

that prices from the first round of sales would be heavily discounted because of the neighborhood’s

perceived instability and risk. SHA received $23,000 per unit from the sale of 12th and Yesler to

Spectrum Development Solutions, a low price for multifamily land in the city of Seattle generally at that time. In other neighborhoods, they may have received two to three times that amount for land that was

comparably zoned for multifamily housing. The grantee cannot be sure how much they will receive from

future land sales and how and when the land’s value wil appreciate as redevelopment proceeds.

Management. Currently property management at Yesler Terrace is handled through a central office. The property manager, a former Yesler Terrace resident, is a familiar face to residents. Residents

interviewed in focus groups for this evaluation were effusive in their description of property

management personnel; in general, they feel very comfortable approaching them with problems they

are experiencing. Planning specifically intended to smooth the transition in management as mixed-

income development occurs has not yet taken place.

The existing Yesler Terrace public housing comprises low-rise construction with private yards;

redevelopment wil be in the form of high-rise buildings and some townhouses that wil require a

necessary shift in management practices. In response to this, the plan is to have a property manager for each building, with the manager’s office located off the main lobby of the building. The grantee plans to have two to three maintenance bases (at present Yesler Terrace is served only by maintenance trucks).

Offsite housing. The development planned beyond the current Yesler Terrace at the Baldwin

Apartments is discussed above.

135 See http://www.enterprisecommunity.com/solutions-and-innovation/enterprise-green-communities/criteria.

136 City of Seattle sources are anticipated to cover the balance of infrastructure costs and $5 mil ion in services costs; federal support makes up the remaining $3 million in service costs. See Seattle Housing Authority, Yesler Terrace: Bringing Home a Better Future (p. 19), adopted by the Board of Commissioners May 17, 2011.

http://seattlehousing.org/redevelopment/pdf/DevPlanFinal-web.pdf (accessed July 29, 2014).

B-99

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Progress on the housing redevelopment

A series of important redevelopment milestones were realized between 2011 and 2013: rezoning, a

cooperative agreement with the city, a detailed relocation plan, an approved plat for the site, a

community workforce agreement, design approvals, and established partnerships and programming.

This work has taken more time and consultant expense than the grantee expected, as the city rarely

does anything at such a large scale and of this level of complexity. Though some uncertainties remain

(for example, the role of the private market in the redevelopment and how to promote affordable

retail), most of the framework for redevelopment is in place; the work ahead, though considerable, can

be largely characterized as filling in this framework. Phase I began construction in fal 2013, with

expected completion of the Baldwin Apartments in spring 2014 and 1105 East Fir in early 2015. Anthem

on 12th, developed by Spectrum Development Solutions, will break ground in 2014, with expected

completion in spring 2015. Construction of Phase II wil proceed after tenants are relocated into the

Baldwin Apartments and 1105 East Fir.

One implementation setback occurred for Phase I. When the grantee entered into a purchase and sale

agreement with Spectrum Development Solutions (a private developer), HUD determined that the

agreement was premature because the decision for the federal release of funds had not been finalized.

In HUD’s terminology, the grantee had performed a “choice-limiting action,” and by entering into a

purchase and sale agreement with Spectrum Development, it was limiting choice of entering into a

purchase and sale agreement with other private developers. This decision triggered a new review of the

entire final environmental impact statement, including the mitigation portion of the document, to

determine that adequate mitigations have been identified for the project. HUD approved a waiver in

August 2013 allowing the project to proceed. The grantee estimates that the six-month construction

delay has added between $200,000 and $250,000 in costs so far, with possible additional costs related

to the difficulty of having to work in the rain, as the summer construction season was lost.

PEOPLE

Social dynamics and resident engagement

The residents of Yesler Terrace are diverse in age, race, country of origin and cultural norms, language, and family size. This diversity creates cultural and language barriers among residents that have resulted in some minor tensions, such as those created because of differences in the cultural norms of the East

African Christians and the Somalis. The Southeast Asian immigrants, many of them elderly and living

alone, are unlikely to interact with the newer East African immigrants, more of whom are families with

young children. Yet amicable and tolerant social relations and a sense of shared community prevail

among Yesler Terrace residents. Residents in focus groups uniformly described Yesler Terrace as a

peaceful place where people respected one another. Residents’ complaints usually relate to people

from outside the development: raucous late-night patrons of a nearby hookah bar, for example. There is

little interaction with residents outside of Yesler Terrace, mainly because there is little residential development in the Yesler Choice Neighborhood, which is largely institutional. Beyond the

neighborhood boundaries, the site’s elevation separates it from Little Saigon, and I-5 separates it from the central business district.

B-100

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

The grantee’s community-building efforts support this sense of community. The residents report that

the Yesler Terrace property management staff are approachable and sympathetic. SHA also has a

dedicated “community builder” position at Yesler Terrace, has made conspicuous language translation

efforts, and actively acknowledges and celebrates the diversity of the residents. They organize events to celebrate what their residents are celebrating, such as Chinese New Year, to promote understanding

among residents. These efforts have enhanced the residents’ willingness to accept and trust the grantee in matters relating to the redevelopment.

With each proposed new building project at Yesler Terrace, the grantee, along with its architects, sought input from residents on schematic-level design decisions such as the overall exterior appearance of the building and grounds to more detailed interior design decisions, such as kitchen partition wal s for units designed to accommodate home daycare businesses. SHA’s commitment to early resident input into

design is exemplified by a meeting in October 2012 between the consulting architects for building 2A

(part of Phase II) and the Yesler Terrace Community Council. Architects taped up various images of

building exteriors and interiors. Residents were invited to place green stickers on images they found

appealing and red stickers on images they did not. Their comments led the architects to provide all units with their own washers and dryers. (Initial plans had provided shared laundry facilities for families in smal er units.)

The Citizen Review Committee (CRC) required as a result of a 2002 settlement secured by the Seattle

Displacement Coalition in their fight against the redevelopment of Rainier Vista, a HOPE VI

redevelopment, is often cited by the grantee as evidence of resident and stakeholder participation in

the redevelopment process. Begun in 2006, CRC, which met quarterly, comprises approximately 30

residents, members of the surrounding communities, and other key stakeholders. Their purpose is to

make recommendations to the Seattle Housing Board of Commissioners regarding Yesler Terrace

redevelopment efforts. CRC’s most tangible contributions to the redevelopment are the Yesler Terrace

Guiding Principles, which were adopted by SHA’s Board of Commissioners. The guiding principles

address core values that largely overlap with the stated goals and requirements of Choice

Neighborhoods (for example, economic opportunity and one-for-one replacement housing), but the

exercise in community participation that produced them set the stage for a redevelopment with

significant public exposure. Though as a review committee CRC cannot enforce its recommendations,

the committee’s existence encourages communication among the grantee, residents, and stakeholders

and promotes accountability because of its visibility. CRC has also been useful for disseminating

information quickly; the grantee might, for example, e-mail the CRC member representing the Squire

Park Community Council, who can then post on the Squire Park Community Council website or send out

e-mails letting residents know what is happening. 137

137 Squire Park is a neighborhood east of Yesler Terrace. According to the Squire Park Community Council website (http://squireparkseattle.com/OLD/), Squire Park is bounded on the south by S. Jackson Street, on the west by 12th Avenue and 12th Avenue S., on the north by E. Union Street, and on the east by 23rd Avenue and 23rd Ave S., placing it within what are commonly thought of as First Hil and the Central Area.

B-101

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Case management

Independent of Choice, the grantee provides comprehensive case management in-house to all its clients

through its Economic Opportunities Program (their services extend beyond strictly economic

opportunities). Six offices are located throughout Seattle, with one located on site at Yesler Terrace. At the Yesler Terrace office, three case managers work with a caseload of fifty households, and a Section 3

Coordinator helps residents to find construction jobs.

Case management personnel report that language is a chal enge in providing services. The majority of

Yesler Terrace residents are immigrants: an older wave of Southeast Asian immigrants fol owed by a

more recent wave of East African immigrants. Only 20 percent of Yesler Terrace residents speak English

in the home. This affects implementation in numerous ways: the need for interpretation and translation

services; the need for familiar, trusted personnel to successfully link residents to services; the need for personnel exclusively dedicated to community building and engagement with available services; and the

need for English-language skills to increase employability.

SHA case management staff work closely with Neighborhood House staff (Neighborhood House has a

location in Yesler Terrace), which has a formal education role (Parent-Child Home Visit Program, Early

Head Start, citizenship assistance) and also provides SHA with language assistance.

Services and programming

The grantee’s progress toward its people initiatives should be measured in light of the grantee having

received their Choice Neighborhoods implementation grant in two parts. The FY 2010–11

implementation grant went almost exclusively toward education, so other components have only

recently been funded. The grantee applied for funding for a supportive services coordinator under the

first grant, but with the reduced grant amount, they had to wait until for the FY 2012 grant before hiring someone for this position in fall 2013.

Though guided by ideas about healthy communities and the guiding principles articulated by CRC,

decisions about where and how to al ocate resources in the people domain were based on what the

grantee could leverage and what resources were available. Seattle University, located just north of

Yesler Terrace, was poised to take the lead on education; consequently, the grantee focused on

education with the Choice money awarded through the first application.

Education. Since 2007, Seattle University had focused community-engagement efforts on the Bailey-Gatzert Elementary School attendance zone, located just east of Yesler Terrace, so it was prepared to

take the lead on Choice educational initiatives. Their place-based approach is an “educational pipeline”

model that sees education as a continuum of programming that serves toddlers to high school–aged

students. Their work extends beyond strictly educational efforts. Law students have provided citizenship services, and nursing students have assisted with health education (the latter were not funded through

Choice). The university’s view is that providing supportive services to the whole family furthers the

educational impact they have on students. Seattle University organizes these efforts through monthly

meetings with educational service providers, as well as conferences and other events.

B-102

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Of the first Choice grant, $300,000 went toward the Parent-Child Home Visit Program; this amount was

matched by the United Way. This program, which is administered by Neighborhood House, serves three

cohorts of 25 families each. The College Success Foundations received $368,000 from the first grant, and a further $142,000 from the second grant. The university itself spends approximately $55,000 a year for summer learning, as there are limited opportunities for educational advancement for Yesler

neighborhood children, and the goal is to mitigate the educational setbacks that occur during the

summer between academic school years.

With the first Choice grant funding, Seattle University hired a staff person to work in Bailey-Gatzert to support Seattle University students’ tutoring work. Choice also funded a family educational engagement

specialist from Seattle University to work with 50 Yesler Terrace families to set specific educational goals and to connect them with available resources.

SHA’s collaboration with Seattle University is frequently cited by the grantee as evidence of a strong and successful partnership. Proposals for col aborative projects continue to stem from the success of the

current education initiative.

Employment. With the help of the Seattle Foundation, the grantee has worked toward forging

partnerships with Yesler neighborhood employers. These employers include Harborview and Swedish

Medical Centers, Seattle University, the Workforce Development Council, and the Seattle Office of

Economic Development. Human resource personnel from these institutions provided information about

entry-level jobs that residents could obtain. In November and December 2012, the grantee hosted job

fairs at Harborview Medical Center, Swedish Medical Center, and Seattle University that approximately

40 or 50 SHA residents attended. As a result of those job fairs, about six Yesler Terrace residents

obtained employment. The grantee heard from the employers at the job fairs, however, that many of

the candidates could not speak English sufficiently well to make them employable.

In January 2013, the grantee completed a Community Workforce Agreement for the Yesler Terrace

redevelopment. It established policies and procedures for redevelopment construction and outlined

opportunities for Section 3 businesses and minority- and women-owned businesses to participate as

contractors and suppliers. SHA’s Economic Opportunities office has a dedicated Section 3 coordinator to inform and assist Yesler Terrace residents regarding construction-related job opportunities.

Health. Yesler Terrace is within walking distance of two major medical centers. Residents repeatedly cited this proximity as an advantage to living in the target development. Yet access, in terms of

understanding what resources are available, as wel as insurance and payment requirements, can be

challenging for residents. In response to this problem, the grantee is al ocating $404,000 from its FY

2012 Choice award for funding two part-time multilingual community health educators through a

contract with its partner, Neighborcare Health, and for Neighborcare’s assistance with conducting an

annual health survey. The grantee expected a contract to be in place by October 2013. Neighborcare

Health also received funding in spring 2013 from Seattle’s Family and Education Levy to open a

permanent clinic at Bailey-Gatzert Elementary School, where previously the school nurse was available

B-103

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

only two days a week. The clinic at Bailey-Gatzert began operating in fall 2013. Neighborcare Health also planned to open a second clinic in the neighborhood, though a location had yet to be identified.

Relocation

The grantee has outlined its approach to relocation in a highly detailed document, the Relocation Plan for Yesler Terrace, 138 the first iteration of which was due to the city council 60 days after passage of the cooperative agreement between the city and SHA. The city of Seattle and various city departments

“were intimately involved in the process” of crafting the relocation plan, and the grantee is required to make periodic reports to the city council on the progress of the relocation process.

SHA hired a relocation coordinator specifically for relocation associated with the Yesler Terrace

redevelopment. SHA gives an 18-month notice before relocation so residents have ample warning and

time to prepare. SHA sets up in-person meetings with each family to explain what their options are and

to help them decide what they would like to do. SHA has placed a special focus on families with children to avoid children having to relocate in the middle of the school year. As of August 2013, 30 families,

many with children, had elected to relocate ahead of the required time. These 30 families transferred to other SHA units at Yesler Terrace and in other SHA developments. SHA has a large housing stock, but it

has still been a challenge to match people’s preferences with available units. In response to this

chal enge, SHA has been flexible with their occupancy standards, al owing a one-bedroom family to

occupy a two-bedroom unit, for example.

Housing choice vouchers were initially seen by many residents as a “golden ticket,” but enthusiasm for

vouchers waned as residents encountered the reality of high private market costs.

NEIGHBORHOOD

A note on “Yesler neighborhood”

Although SHA has ambitious plans for redevelopment, the “Yesler neighborhood” does not currently

have any local identity outside the Choice Neighborhoods implementation grant. Described by the

grantee as “a hole in the donut,” the Choice Neighborhood is surrounded by distinct neighborhoods, but

Yesler itself is a largely institutional and underutilized area. The lack of residential development can be explained by a number of factors. First, when I-5 was built, it cut off Yesler Terrace on the west side. To the south of Yesler Terrace, the topography slopes sharply, cutting it off from the International District and Little Saigon below it. Boren Avenue is a “wall,” as one resident put it, posing a barrier to the east.

To the northwest is Harborview Medical Center. The King County Juvenile Detention Center compound

occupies about one-eighth of the Choice Neighborhood boundary. Other than transitional housing in the

Choice Neighborhood, there is very little residential use aside from the public housing development.

The transformation of Yesler Terrace is happening in concert with detailed city of Seattle planning

interventions resulting from the close coordination with the grantee (described above). A

comprehensive plan designation was adopted for Yesler Terrace in 2011, and the area of the existing

Yesler Terrace west of Boren Avenue was designated Master Planned Community–Yesler Terrace (MPC-

138 See http://seattlehousing.org/redevelopment/pdf/YT-resident-relocation-plan.pdf (accessed July 28, 2014).

B-104

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

YT). Redevelopment in MPC-YT wil include up to 4,500 units of housing, up to 900,000 square feet of

office space, up to 150,000 square feet of other nonresidential uses, and more than six acres of open

space.

Critical Community Improvements

As with the people domain initiatives, the Critical Community Improvements (CCIs) projects were chosen

because they were in accordance with the goals of the development as articulated by CRC and they

overlapped with city and SHA goals. In addition, key partners were in place for implementing the

projects, and the projects were projected to have an important impact in revitalizing the area.

With the first Choice grant in FY 2010–11, $1.5 mil ion was budgeted for CCIs toward the 10th Avenue

hill climb, the Horiuchi Park conversion, and affordable retail. In the FY 2012 Choice grant, $2,950,000

was budgeted for the pedestrian connection between Main Street and the neighborhood park,

rehabilitation of historic Washington Hall, and the creation of South Washington Street.

Some of these projects have been slower to start than original y planned, but preparations are moving

forward. Construction on the hil climb, which the grantee planned to begin in summer 2013, had only

completed the city’s design review process as of September 2013. The Choice grant declared a $650,000

JPMorgan Chase grant as leverage for the project, but it was still not fully funded in fall 2013.

Although the P-Patch Trust projected that Horiuchi Park would be completed by summer 2013, it was

still in the permitting process, with delays related to the slope of the site. SHA explained that the P-Patch Trust was not experienced in navigating the permitting process but that it was important to

engage partners by vesting them with responsibility.

Public safety

Both residents and police describe Yesler Terrace as a generally safe and quiet area, with some low-level drug-dealing activities. Yesler Terrace is patrolled by a police officer who is dedicated to Yesler Terrace and one other high-rise building owned by the grantee. SHA reimburses the city for his salary and

benefits. He is familiar to residents and attends almost every Yesler Terrace Community Council

meeting. At one meeting, for example, he reported that someone who had attempted robbery was

apprehended because of a resident report. The example was an opportunity for him to emphasize the

importance of reporting crimes, as Yesler Terrace residents are sometimes reluctant to report crime for fear of retaliation.

A smal portion of the first Choice grant awarded to the Seattle grantee was spent on a survey by the

Seattle Police Department (SPD) of Yesler Choice Neighborhood residents who cal ed 911. However,

because SPD did not pay for language interpretation, the survey respondents were limited to English

speakers and thus were not representative of the whole population. The SPD conducted two surveys a

year apart: one of Yesler Terrace residents who cal ed 911 between January and August 2012, and

another survey of residents who cal ed between August 2012 and August 2013. Overal , the survey

results reflected that residents were largely satisfied with the response they received, and some ratings improved in the second survey. The grantee has received technical assistance funding from HUD to

B-105

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

develop a public safety plan. In early fal 2013, the grantee worked with HUD to identify a scope of work for a consultant who wil develop the plan, but they had not yet issued a solicitation. 139

Neighborhood economic development

Affordable retail was a CCI in the grantee’s first Choice application in FY 2010–11. The grantee planned to al ot $750,000 in Choice grant money to subsidize affordable retail in the ground floor of Spectrum

Development Solution’s apartment building at 12th and Yesler, but Spectrum was unable to work out a

financing plan with the affordable retail component. The grantee is stil committed to using the funds for affordable retail, but they have not resolved how to invest the grant money.

Built environment and infrastructure

As noted earlier, this area is the focus of most of the CCI funds, which wil result in enhanced community space and connectivity for the neighborhood. Beyond the hill climb and the pedestrian connection, the

creation of South Washington Street wil implement the southern portion of the Seattle Department of

Transportation’s Green Street plans. A green street has specific design requirements and aims to attract pedestrians and strengthen connections between residential enclaves and downtown amenities. 140

Significant progress was made on the rehabilitation of the historic steam plant into a community center.

This project, funded through a federal Capital Fund Education and Training Community Facilities grant,

was planned for completion by spring 2014. Located at 8th and Yesler, the steam plant is a highly visible marker within Yesler Terrace. The renovated plant wil be known as the Epstein Opportunities Center

and wil house Neighborhood House’s Head Start program, Catholic Community Service’s Youth Tutoring

Program, and SHA’s Economic Opportunities services.

Progress had also been made on the First Hill streetcar line, which was wholly implemented by the

Seattle Department of Transportation, which laid tracks and built new sidewalks in spring 2013.

Electrical work, landscaping, and station shelter construction were scheduled for completion in early

2014. The streetcar construction has been “pretty difficult for the community,” according to the

grantee, and caused residents to worry about dust and noise from future building construction. The

grantee has accordingly noted on its recently revamped Yesler Terrace website that “the city reports

that this work is not expected to be as disruptive as the work completed earlier this year and should not result in any more ful street closures or loud construction noise.” 141 SHA addressed the issue at its August 2013 Citizen Review Committee meeting, specifically outlining how they would hold the

contractor to standards about control ing dust and noise. Though there have been chal enges, the city

has been responsive. Yesler Terrace residents complained directly to the city council when main streets were closed unnecessarily. In response, a city councilmember attended the Yesler Terrace Community

Council leadership meeting to listen to their concerns, and the following week the streets were

reopened.

139 The consultant and technical assistance are part of the Public Safety Enhancement grant funding described in chapter 4 of the report.

140 See http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/rowmanual/manual/6_2.asp.

141 See http://seattlehousing.net/redevelopment/yesler-terrace/neighborhood/first-hill-streetcar/.

B-106

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Another major proposed neighborhood intervention funded outside of Choice funding is a large

neighborhood park that wil be developed through a partnership with the Seattle Department of Parks

and Recreation. As of this writing, construction is expected to begin in 2015.

Future of the neighborhood

Over the next 10 to 15 years, Yesler Terrace is expected to transform from a sleepy low-rise residential low-income development into a mid- to high-rise mixed-income, mixed-use development, with the First

Hil streetcar running through its heart. An influx of more affluent residents will likely spill over into the limited residential area surrounding Yesler Terrace, but the neighborhood transformation efforts will

leave the sizable institutional uses, such as the medical centers and the county Juvenile Detention

Center, unchanged.

Most residents envisioned a cleaner, safer, and more attractive Yesler Terrace, and view the mixed-

income aspect positively. But others worried that it would be a harder place for families with children because their peaceful and intimate community would be supplanted by a much denser, bustling

community with the rapid arrival of newcomers. The 10th Avenue hill climb will safely connect Yesler

Terrace with Little Saigon below it and help generate customers for business in Yesler Terrace, but the smal business owners worry that greater affluence will price them out of the area.

SUMMARY OF PROGRESS IN COORDINATION AND LEVERAGE

Coordination within the Grantee Team and with Key Partners. Having already developed three HOPE VI communities, SHA had many of the relationships and mechanisms supporting coordination across

departments and stakeholders in place before receiving the Choice implementation grant. Although the

scale and complexity of the proposed redevelopment, as well as the construction of high-rise apartment

buildings in an urban setting, are new chal enges, SHA has a wel -functioning development process and a high level of internal coordination, and they are adept at working with city agencies, governing bodies, and residents. Within SHA, coordination is supported by a weekly Yesler Terrace team meeting, biweekly

Choice Neighborhood implementation meetings, and monthly Yesler onsite team meetings. SHA’s

design process seeks input from residents and other departments at key stages, as described above in

the section on housing. Further, SHA uses a single point person for all things related to the Yesler

Terrace redevelopment. She is seen by other SHA staff as the person to come to for the most current

information relating to the redevelopment.

The city of Seattle is the grantee’s most prominent partner. Though the city government is not named as the lead in the Choice Neighborhoods application, it nevertheless has had and continues to have a

powerful shaping influence on implementation. The cooperative agreement discussed above has

imposed conditions that are “extremely restrictive on what we are and [are] not supposed to do, and

how we’re supposed to move forward with the redevelopment,” according to the grantee. Reflecting on

the relocation plan for Yesler Terrace, which SHA developed to meet the terms of the cooperative

agreement, the grantee states that it undertakes the development partnership “with residents,

stakeholders, and the city of Seattle.” When asked about which city agencies the grantee coordinates

with, the grantee responded, “All of them.”

B-107

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

In general, the early influence of the Choice Neighborhoods implementation grant is extremely positive, as it has leveraged city and private funding and garnered excitement about the redevelopment. Federal

funding is seen by SHA as imperative for the success of the redevelopment not only because the money

itself is directly funding redevelopment, but because of what it leverages in terms of dol ars and

legitimacy. Federal funding assures the city and the private market of the redevelopment’s viability. The imprimatur of federal investment instil s confidence in potential donors and private market developers

because it is a guarantee that their investment will not be isolated. In a city notorious for protracted deliberation relating to public works, the city council was spurred to act by the prospect of further

federal dol ars from a second Choice implementation grant; councilmember Nick Licata wrote on his

blog that while he would have preferred to deliberate further, his fellow councilmembers were

concerned that additional delay could lessen the likelihood of receiving up to $20 million in federal

funds for the project. 142

SHA’s relationship with HUD appears to have progressed fairly smoothly in terms of gaining approvals,

though reporting requirements have been chal enging. SHA’s partners are not accustomed to the

frequency of reporting or certain metrics that have been required, and it has been suggested that it

would be helpful if grant applicants were apprised of reporting requirements early on, though the

grantee reports that HUD has been flexible about allowing them to report only the data they have

available.

Leverage. The most substantial funding leveraged as a result of the Choice Neighborhoods grant comes from the city of Seattle: this includes funding from the Office of Housing to support housing

construction; the planning, construction, and future maintenance of a large neighborhood park by the

Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation; and funding from Seattle’s Family and Education Levy to

open a clinic at Bailey-Gatzert Elementary School. The grantee believes the federal grant is imperative to gain the confidence of the private market.

Other sizable leveraged funds include $3,000,000 from Seattle University donors, $650,000 from a JP

Morgan Chase grant for the 10th Avenue South hil climb (the Choice grant provides $700,000), and

$300,000 in matching funds from United Way for the Parent-Child Home Visit Program.

More recently, SHA received a $60,000 grant from the JP Morgan Chase Foundation to conduct an

economic development study about the best uses for retail space in the early phases of the

redevelopment, along with funding to provide technical assistance to existing Yesler resident–owned

businesses. In early 2014, the grantee learned that two private foundations wil fund a proposal

($70,000) for summer employment for high school students taking summer STEM training taught by the

College Success Foundation. The funding wil also pay for on-the-job training for 10 Yesler adults who

are taking an integrated ESL-job skills course taught by Seattle Community College in the Yesler

neighborhood. The grantee believes that these opportunities would not have been possible without the

momentum created by the Yesler redevelopment (possible because of Choice).

142 See http://licata.seattle.gov/2012/09/10/the-yesler-terrace-redevelopment-project/#sthash.0r5oZDCc.dpbs (accessed July 28, 2014).

B-108

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

SHA has actively tried to garner additional funding for the redevelopment. In May and September 2013

they held funder’s summits with major Pacific Northwest philanthropic agencies to let them know about

opportunities with the Yesler Terrace redevelopment, though it is unclear whether any funding was a

direct result of those efforts. It can sometimes be difficult for even the grantee to parse funding or

partnerships that have been directly leveraged by Choice versus funding or partnerships that are more

general y products of the momentum of redevelopment.

Exhibit B.27 provides a summary of major activities by Choice domain and their early implementation

status in Yesler as of September 2013.

B-109

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit B.27. Summary of Major Activities and Early Implementation Progress in Yesler, September

2013

Choice Domain and Related

Lead

Funding

Funding

Funding Covered Summary

Activities

Organization

Level ($

Covered by

by Other

Status

thousands)

Choice (%)

Sources (%)

HOUSING

YWCA relocation: Housing not

SHA

1,100

36

64

Complete

operated by SHA, but leased to

YWCA for a long-term shelter

program; these units needed to

be demolished in preparation

for the construction of Phase 1

housing at 1105 East Fir.

Phase 1 housing: 1105 East Fir

SHA

35,029

21

79

In

and Baldwin Apartments (118

progress

units total). 1105 East Fir is a

midrise townhome housing

project that wil produce 103

units (83 replacement units; 20

units at 60% of AMI), including

68 1-bedroom units, 37 2-

bedroom units, 7 3-bedroom

units, and 6 4-bedroom units.

Baldwin is a rehabilitation

project at 13th Avenue and East

Fir that will produce 15

replacement units.

Private market new

Spectrum

23,500

0

100

In

construction housing: Phase 1

Development

progress

housing located at 12th and

Solutions

Yesler will produce

approximately 125 units; 75%

will be market rate, and 25% will

be for residents with incomes

below 80% of AMI; ground floor

wil include 3,000 sq. ft. of

commercial space.

Phase 2 demolition: In

SHA

1,606

0

100

Not

preparation for new housing at

started

820 Yesler Way and 221 10th

Avenue

B-110

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Choice Domain and Related

Lead

Funding

Funding

Funding Covered Summary

Activities

Organization

Level ($

Covered by

by Other

Status

thousands)

Choice (%)

Sources (%)

Phase 2 housing: (187 units):

SHA

60,199

18

82

Not

820 Yesler Way (Building 2A);

started

221 10th Avenue South

(Building 2B): 820 Yesler Way

will include 83 units (50

replacement units; 27 at 60% of

AMI). Street level will include a

retail space, a large

neighborhood meeting room,

and an outdoor courtyard

between townhome-style

apartments. 221 10th Avenue

South wil include 97 units (58

replacement units; 39 at 60% of

AMI).

PEOPLE

Phase 2 relocation

SHA

724

55

45

In

progress

Improving economic self-

SHA

3,165

16

84

In

sufficiency: SHA’s Yesler Terrace

progress

economic opportunity staff

assist residents in developing

self-sufficiency plans, preparing

for work, and getting placed into

jobs. Partners include

Harborview Medical Center,

Swedish Medical Center, and

Seattle University.

Education: Parent-Child Home

Seattle

9,174

21

79

In

Visit Program for toddlers, Head University

progress

Start programming, youth

tutoring, summer programming,

and college preparation

services. Choice funds are used

for a family education

engagement specialist with a

caseload of 50 Yesler Terrace

students.

Youth development: Arts

SHA

591

100

0

In

education activities, summer

progress

youth employment work

experience opportunities, and a

Youth Violence Prevention

Initiative.

B-111

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Choice Domain and Related

Lead

Funding

Funding

Funding Covered Summary

Activities

Organization

Level ($

Covered by

by Other

Status

thousands)

Choice (%)

Sources (%)

School-based health clinic and

Neighborcare

29,069

1

99

In

health educators: A permanent

Health

progress

clinic at Bailey-Gatzert

Elementary will offer health

education, wel -child care,

minor and acute care,

immunizations, mental health

care, oral health care, and

outreach and enrollment

assistance for Medicaid and

Children’s Health Insurance

Program. Two community

health educators, one fluent in

Vietnamese and one in Somali,

wil connect residents to health

care and support them in

navigating the health care

system.

NEIGHBORHOOD

Epstein Opportunity Center:

SHA

5,710

0

100

In

Phase 1 rehabilitation project of

progress

a historic steam plant located in

the heart of Yesler Terrace; it

will house early learning and job

training programs.

Yesler Neighborhood Park: SHA Seattle

3,000

0

100

Not

will prepare park site and

Department

started

transfer ownership of 1.75 acres of Parks and

to the city. Seattle Parks and

Recreation

Recreation will lead park

planning, design, and

development.

First Hil streetcar construction: Seattle

32,300

0

100

In

Streetcar will connect

Department

progress

residential neighborhoods and

of

business districts of Capitol Hill,

Transportatio

First Hill, Yesler Terrace, Central n

Area, Chinatown/International

District, and Pioneer Square.

The streetcar will travel through

Yesler Terrace and offer 15-

minute headways, 20

hours/day.

Washington Hal : Renovation of Historic

7,652

4

96

In

historic 1908 performance

Seattle

progress

venue; Choice funds are

contributing to the renovation

and to the accessibility of the

venue to the Yesler Terrace.

B-112

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Choice Domain and Related

Lead

Funding

Funding

Funding Covered Summary

Activities

Organization

Level ($

Covered by

by Other

Status

thousands)

Choice (%)

Sources (%)

Horiuchi Park: Phase 1

P-Patch Trust

150

67

33

Not

conversion of existing park into

started

a community garden.

Affordable retail space: SHA’s

SHA

700

100

0

Not

FY 2010 Choice grant award

started

included funds for 4,000 sq. ft.

of affordable retail space.

10th Avenue South hil climb: A SHA

2,500

28

72

Not

new pedestrian pathway on

started

10th Avenue S from S Main

Street to S Jackson Street will

connect Yesler Terrace to Little

Saigon below it.

Public safety: SHA to enlist

SHA

114

89

11

Not

consultant to develop a public

started

safety plan.

Friends of Little Saigon

SHA

100

0

100

Not

Landmark Project Feasibility

started

Study: By Seattle City Council

requirement, SHA to work with

Friends of Little Saigon to

explore the feasibility of a

mixed-use project.

Pedestrian pathways: Includes

SHA

1,600

38

62

Not

pedestrian connection between

started

9th Avenue and 10th Avenue

South hil climb. This connection

will create a direct path for

pedestrians and cyclists to travel

between First Hill, Yesler

Terrace, and Little Saigon.

Sewer and streets:

SHA

6,194

33

67

Not

Infrastructure improvement.

started

Other infrastructure

SHA

8,090

0

100

Not

improvements:

started

To Yesler Way, along with

grading and drainage

improvements.

Sources: Review of documents, including Choice Neighborhoods round 1 and 2 applications and budgets, interviews with stakeholders, and observation of team meetings and phone calls.

B-113

Appendix C:

Analysis of the Built Environment¹⁴³

143 This appendix was written by Emily Talen of GeoDa Group, which performed the analysis.

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

In broad terms, the Choice Neighborhoods program defines what the neighborhood context is meant to

be: “functioning, sustainable mixed-income neighborhoods with appropriate services, public assets,

transportation and access to jobs and schools.” In addition to revitalization of existing distressed

housing units and the importance of resident involvement in the planning process, there is a clear vision of neighborhood here: the creation of neighborhoods of mixed income and “sustainable opportunity.”

The neighborhood metrics are based on a livability principle and include sustaining a mix of household

incomes, providing a range of services within walking distance (a requirement of all applications was to provide the Walk Score® of the neighborhood), and providing access to good schools, parks, recreation

amenities, and public transit. These factors are all hallmarks of what might be called livable

neighborhoods, which are walkable, diverse, and well serviced.

The clear message here is that neighborhood context, the physical environment, will affect the success

of the Choice Neighborhood Initiative. It does this by affecting the quality of public and assisted housing units, the ability to catalyze private investment, and the ability of the neighborhood to sustain mixed income, expand social networks, and promote safety. Less tangible but still powerful are the ability of the neighborhood to exert positive feelings about the neighborhood. Such positive feelings include a

sense of opportunity, identity, caring, and empowerment.

This analysis assesses the built environment by focusing on the relationship of site plans to the broader neighborhood physical context.

PRINCIPLES

Al Choice Neighborhood FY 2010–11 implementation grantees shared a common set of principles

regarding site design and neighborhood vision. These principles, widely shared among urban planners

and designers, can be summarized in three interrelated categories: connectivity, services, and public

realm.

Connectivity means that the target development is well connected both internal y and external y around its footprint. The connectivity goal is about integration and the need to transform these developments

from being insular to being a more seamless part of the community. Achieving this goal translates to

specific physical design requirements: relatively short block lengths, the removal of physical barriers like dead-end streets, and a pedestrian network (streets and paths) that is wel marked and continuous (i.e., interconnected). Bicycle paths or lanes support connectivity as well. All five Choice Transformation Plans paid strong attention to improving connectivity.

Services refers to neighborhood amenities, especially services and facilities that meet the needs of residents. Neighborhoods should be complete in the sense that residents have easy access to groceries,

schools, day care, transit, and other daily life needs. Access to employment is also important but may

not be realistical y contained within each neighborhood. Both the quality and quantity of services are

important considerations. From an urban design point of view, the quality of the route between

residence and service is essential. As many of these services are not provided by Choice grantees (e.g., C-1

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

retail is generally not contained on site), there was less focus on this aspect in the Transformation Plans, with the exception of recreational or park space.

Quality of the public realm considers the quantity and quality of spaces outside the home. Both the kind of public space (e.g., recreational or nonrecreational, passive or active) and the quantity and spatial distribution of public space are important. Amenities within the public space (benches, lighting) play a role in public space quality. Because a significant portion of the public realm is in the form of streets and sidewalks, the quality of the pedestrian route is a primary consideration. Mostly the goal is a vibrant pedestrian environment with “build-to” lines that promote spatial enclosure, parking behind rather than in front of buildings, complete streets that accommodate more than one travel mode, and street

trees. 144 There should be no blank wal s, and signage, furniture, and lighting should reinforce the character of the street. Some of the Choice Transformation Plans called attention to these qualities, but control of the public realm is generally limited to the immediate target development footprints.

BASELINE CONDITIONS

All five Choice Neighborhoods suffer from common urban design problems that fall into the three

categories discussed above. Maps and tables included in this analysis present selected results of a block front (or street segment) survey that was conducted on a random sample of streets in each Choice

Neighborhood using images available via Google Street View. Ninety-eight percent of the images were

taken by Google during 2011. These survey results are used to highlight the design issues discussed

below. The complete set of survey questions is included at the end of this appendix.

In addition, a similar protocol was used by the research team to observe pedestrian conditions in the

summer of 2013 in person along a key walking route in each Choice Neighborhood:

• Quincy Corridor: Quincy Street between Blue Hill Avenue and Columbia Road.

• Woodlawn: S. Cottage Grove Avenue between E. 62nd Street and E. 64th Street and E. 63rd

Street to S. El is Avenue.

• Iberville/Tremé: From the Iberville development to the Tremé Center on N. Villere Street.

• Eastern Bayview: From the entrance of Alice Griffith west on Fitzgerald Avenue to 3rd Street.

• Yesler: Yesler Way to Boren Avenue, then down 12th Avenue to S. Jackson.

Findings from these observations are included in the discussion below. More details on the methods

used to conduct the pedestrian conditions survey and the block front survey are available in appendix A on methodology.

144 A “build-to” line is a specification of how far a building must be from a street or sidewalk; it is used instead of a setback regulation, which only specifies a minimum distance.

C-2

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

CONNECTIVITY

In terms of connectivity, all neighborhoods had issues related to site design based on poorly connected superblocks and cul-de-sacs, resulting in long blocks that disrupted connectivity both external y and

internally. Dead-end streets are not uncommon. Exhibits C.1 and C.2 reveal the extent to which

connectivity was a problem.

Exhibit C.1. Built Environment Issues Related to Connectivity

Quincy

Woodlawn Iberville/

Eastern

Yesler

Corridor

Tremé

Bayview

Street segments without sidewalks (%)

3

6

12

2

1

Street segments with significant barriers to

4

8

14

6

4

walking (%)

Street segments without marked

48

9

51

37

57

pedestrian crossings (%)

Source: Choice Neighborhoods block front survey, 2011.

C-3

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit C.2. Barriers to Walking and Deteriorated Buildings in Choice Neighborhoods

Source: Choice Neighborhoods block front survey, 2011.

Iberville/Tremé had the most problems with connectivity related to the street segments without

sidewalks (12 percent) or with significant barriers to walking (14 percent). The chosen pedestrian

C-4

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

observation route in this neighborhood, however, did not have any significant barriers to walking,

though sidewalks were not always in good condition. There were fewer issues with sidewalk

connectivity in the other neighborhoods. Along Quincy Street in Quincy Corridor, several blocks had

narrow sidewalks (under 6 feet), and less than half of segments had sidewalks in good condition. The

blocks included in the pedestrian observation in Woodlawn also had narrow sidewalks, though they

were in good condition.

Exhibit C.2 shows that some barriers to walking were located around the target developments and thus

affected the ability of the development to connect with the surrounding neighborhood. Exhibit C.1

provides data on pedestrian crossings. Most pedestrian crossings were unmarked. Woodlawn had the

highest share of street segments with marked crossings. In Quincy Corridor, Iberville/Tremé, and Yesler nearly one-half or more of the blocks that should have had marked pedestrian crossings had none.

SERVICES

All target developments presented a mixed picture in that there were services in the vicinity within a

one-mile radius, but the route and site design associated with many of these services presented a

significant barrier. Grocery stores tended to be “big box” and automobile-based rather than pedestrian

oriented and neighborhood scale. Although some neighborhoods showed relatively high Walk Scores®,

closer inspection of each site revealed two occurrences. First, Walk Scores® were for a single point

location and sometimes did not adequately characterize the entire neighborhood. For example, the New

Orleans Choice Neighborhood had a walk score of 91, but the point location on which the score was

based was at the target development, which is at the far end of the neighborhood. For Eastern Bayview,

with a Walk Score® of 68 (down from a score of 72 in the round 1 application for Choice), the point

location on which the Walk Score® was based was almost one mile from the target development in the

center of the Eastern Bayview neighborhood. The Walk Score® for Woodlawn was 82 (up from 77 in the

round 1 application), which is actual y quite low for Chicago standards (even if rated “very walkable” by the Walk Score® company). Second, these Walk Score® were, apparently, based on straight-line distance

(“as the crow flies”) rather than street network distance. 145 This distinction matters significantly in areas plagued by lack of sidewalks and barrier issues.

Exhibits C.3 and C.4 show the block front survey results concerning land use. Residential-only street

segments dominated, although there were high numbers of mixed-use blocks in all locations. Business-

only blocks were particularly low in Quincy Corridor and Woodlawn. Exhibit C.4 shows that business-

only block fronts in Yesler and Eastern Bayview were clustered, but they were more dispersed in the

other three neighborhoods. One caution in interpreting this aspect of the survey is that mixed use does not necessarily translate to active, pedestrian-oriented streets and must be evaluated in concert with

street quality. Exhibit C.3 also lists the percentage of street segments that, although labeled mixed use, had one or more of the fol owing conditions: no sidewalk, no buffer between the sidewalk and the

street, significant walking barrier, deteriorated buildings, broken or boarded-up windows, or abandoned 145 Please see http://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml.

C-5

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

buildings or lots. The majority of mixed-use segments in al neighborhoods except Yesler had one or

more of these built environment issues.

Exhibit C.3. Built Environment Issues Related to Services and Land Use

Quincy

Woodlawn

Ibervil e/

Eastern

Yesler

Corridor

Tremé

Bayview

Street segments for business/institutional use

9

15

27

24

32

only (%)

Street segments with mixed use (%)

39

26

35

22

30

Mixed-use street segments with other built

94

65

74

80

41

environment issues (%)

Street segments for residential use only (%)

51

47

29

48

35

Street segments with bus stop (any type) (%)

11

17

9

9

12

Street segments with bus shelter (%)

4

7

2

6

8

Street segments with pedestrian-oriented

13

16

18

12

18

lighting (%)

Source: Choice Neighborhoods block front survey, 2011.

The provision of bus stops and pedestrian-oriented lighting are two other issues pertaining to how well the neighborhood is serviced. Exhibit C.3 gives the percentage of sampled street segments with a bus

stop, including whether a bus shelter was present. A standard principle of good urbanism is that bus

stops should provide shelter that is dignified, well-lit and accessible. 146 Exhibit C.3 shows that bus stops with shelters occurred fairly infrequently (ranging from 2 percent in Iberville/Tremé to 8 percent in

Yesler). As shown in exhibit C.5, target developments in Quincy Corridor and Iberville/Tremé did not

have sheltered bus stops in the vicinity, although the other three target developments did.

Pedestrian-oriented lighting did not occur very often, ranging from 12 percent in Eastern Bayview to 18

percent in Iberville/Tremé and Yesler. The pedestrian observation routes chosen across the Choice

Neighborhoods confirmed this lack of pedestrian-oriented lighting. As shown in exhibit C.5, the

distribution tended to be random and disconnected and did not overlap with other amenities such as

buffers and sheltered bus stops.

146 However, resident stakeholders in Quincy Corridor, however, explicitly did not want bus shelters in order to reduce loitering in the neighborhood.

C-6

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit C.4. Land Use in the Choice Neighborhoods

Source: Choice Neighborhoods block front survey, 2011.

C-7

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit C.5. Lighting, Bus Stops, and Buffers in the Choice Neighborhoods

Source: Choice Neighborhoods block front survey, 2011.

C-8

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

QUALITY OF THE PUBLIC REALM

The quality of the public realm was assessed in the block front survey by evaluating landscape buffers

(between the sidewalk and the street), deteriorated buildings (cracked walls, missing bricks or siding), broken windows, abandoned buildings and lots, graffiti, and litter. Exhibits C.5 and C.6 show the street segments with landscaped buffers between the street and sidewalk, an important aspect of a

maintaining a pedestrian-oriented public realm. This condition varied widely among the neighborhoods.

In Quincy Corridor, there were no street segments with continuous buffering, and in Eastern Bayview

only 11 percent had continuous buffering. Woodlawn did much better, where more than one-half of the

street segments had buffers along the entire segment. In Eastern Bayview and Iberville/Tremé,

landscaped buffers were not proximal to the target developments. The pedestrian observation route in

Eastern Bayview on Fitzgerald Avenue, which connects the target development to retail on 3rd Street,

lacked a permanent buffer and had segments where the sidewalk became the driveway apron for

businesses. As shown in exhibit C.5, there were very few block fronts in any neighborhood that had the

combined qualities of pedestrian-oriented lighting and landscape buffer: none in Quincy Corridor,

Eastern Bayview, or Woodlawn, and only a handful of block fronts in Yesler and Iberville/Tremé.

Exhibit C.6. Built Environment Issues Related to the Quality of the Public Realm

Quincy

Woodlawn

Ibervil e/

Eastern

Yesler

Corridor

Tremé

Bayview

Street segments with a continuous

0

59

25

11

47

permanent buffer (%)

Street segments with only a portion of the

5

26

40

28

40

block buffered (%)

Street segments with buildings in disrepair

39

51

59

26

22

(%)

Street segments with some or a lot of either

abandoned buildings and lots, graffiti, or

34

50

47

25

20

litter (%)

Source: Choice Neighborhoods block front survey, 2011.

Exhibits C.2, C.6, and C.7 report on the conditions related to the quality of the public realm in sampled street segments. They present a profile of significant challenges to the public realm. Nearly 51 percent of Chicago’s block fronts showed deterioration, and the map (exhibit C.2) shows that these blocks

tended to be clustered around the target development and in West Woodlawn. Ibervil e/Tremé had

significant deterioration (59 percent), but these blocks tended to be away from Iberville. Most block

fronts surrounding Boston’s Woodledge/Morrant Bay showed deterioration. As exhibit C.6 shows, the

share of street segments reporting “some or a lot” for abandoned buildings, graffiti, or litter ranged

from only 20 percent in Yesler to 50 percent in Woodlawn. Exhibit C.7 shows that in Quincy Corridor and C-9

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Woodlawn, the blocks were clustered around the target developments, but in the other neighborhoods

these conditions were more dispersed. The quality of the public realm along the selected pedestrian

routes across the Choice Neighborhoods was also low, and had problems with abandoned or

deteriorating buildings and litter.

The above analysis based on the block front survey and pedestrian conditions observations mostly

highlights the problems these neighborhoods had with lack of connectivity, poor services, and a low-

quality public realm. This analysis is not intended to disparage the potential of these neighborhoods to eventually meet their objective of transforming into vibrant pedestrian areas. It is only meant to caution that substantial work is needed to ensure this trajectory. The neighborhoods have a significant way to

go to arrive at an interconnected, well-balanced mix of services and facilities supported by a healthy

public realm, all of which are necessary conditions of complete, sustainable neighborhoods.

C-10

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit C.7. Quality of the Public Realm in Choice Neighborhood

Source: Choice Neighborhoods block front survey, 2011.

C-11

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

PROPOSED VISIONS

The vision statements prepared by each Choice Neighborhood applicant general y adhere to the goals of

improving connectivity, services, and a quality public realm. All plans are sensitive to the need for local identity, reinforced through public spaces that function as community focal points, proposing

neighborhood central spaces wherever possible. In short, the plans are consistent with sustainable

neighborhood principles, and al seek the creation of compact, walkable, mixed-use, mixed-income,

transit-served urban neighborhoods. A summary of the physical parameters of these vision statements

is given for each city below. In some cases, revisions to the plans have been made during early

implementation. Please see the material presented in the body of the report and Appendix B, which

includes an update on progress for each Choice Neighborhood.

QUINCY CORRIDOR

The “Vision for the Neighborhood” in Boston’s Quincy Corridor is a simple statement that the goal of the Transformation Plan is to “support the transformation of the Quincy Corridor into a neighborhood of

sustainable opportunity rather than moving the neighborhood’s poor and low-income people to

opportunities elsewhere.” 147 There are few design specifics in terms of neighborhood context. Exhibit D

provides a “Design Narrative” that lists the physical components of the plan, which include renovation of nine architecturally and historically significant row houses, demolition of two deteriorated properties, the provision of onsite parking, and passive and active play areas in the interior of the site. Also listed are a future transit stop, the redevelopment of the former Pearl Meats factory into a smal business

center, and the segregation of play areas “away from the busy streets.”

WOODLAWN

The design for Chicago’s Grove Parc development and surrounding neighborhood of Woodlawn takes

advantage of the fact that Woodlawn is well positioned geographically. It is a compact urban

neighborhood close to a major university, an Olmsted-designed park, and public transit. 148 There are plans for public investments that are likely to support the walkable, pedestrian orientation of the

neighborhood, including renovation of the transit line, streetscape improvements including new

pedestrian crossings, an athletic and education facility for local youth, and two new school parks. The plan also cal s for a large community resource center intended to provide “a central community

gathering space.”

Public safety concerns motivated some of the design elements in the new site plan for Grove Parc, which places significant emphasis on defensible space concepts such as private spaces that are wel delineated and access control ed (enclosed rear yards for families), as wel as front-facing windows for “eyes on the street” surveillance of street activity. The site plan includes site fencing that may potentially conflict with connectivity goals.

147 Choice Neighborhoods round 2 application, p. 39 of exhibit E.

148 Choice Neighborhoods round 2 application, exhibit D and attachment 26.

C-12

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

IBERVILLE/TREMÉ

Iberville/Tremé’s vision statement and conceptual site plan for the Iberville conforms to principles of walkable urban neighborhoods, relying predominantly on the recreation of the historic street grid. 149

This is an essential aspect of the redesign, which has multiple advantages: better integration of the site with the surrounding neighborhood, and, with improved connectivity, improved security. The site plan

also calls for a central community square that wil provide an important focal point for the

neighborhood. The plan cal s for unit type variety, integrated by employing a common style (indigenous

Ibervil e/Tremé architecture), ranging from single-family to two- and three-story townhouses to

multifamily structures. In terms of services, the plan envisions “integrated neighborhood retail,” a

community center, and “an abundance of parks and green space.”

The vision cal s for infrastructure improvements designed to enhance street connectivity and

pedestrian-friendly streetscapes. The plan states that the city has made investments (specifical y Louis Armstrong Park, the Lafitte Greenway, rehabbing of Municipal Auditorium, hospital complex, transit line expansion) in the neighborhood and that these investments will improve cultural and recreational

assets.

EASTERN BAYVIEW

The vision for Eastern Bayview involves transforming Alice Griffith, which is poorly connected, and the surrounding, deteriorated commercial streets into a walkable neighborhood with pedestrian-oriented

streetscape improvements. 150 The plan shows significant unit diversity, including townhouses, stacked townhouses, and four-story stacked flats. Alice Griffith’s new site plan includes a community center

building with townhouses and apartment buildings that enclose the space. This arrangement provides

an effective “outdoor room,” which in turn helps to create a more community-oriented design and

sense of place. On-street parking and street trees are also enlisted to support sense of enclosure.

Midblock crossings and pedestrian paths help promote connectivity by al owing public access through

the middle of an otherwise privately developed block. Open space forms a continuous network,

composed of interconnected parks, pedestrian pathways, and landscaped streets, also helping to

integrate the development with the surrounding community.

The plan does an excellent job of spelling out design guidelines and requirements such as underground

parking, concealed parking entrances, a requirement for active uses on the ground floor, and a build-to line (a minimum 70 percent of buildings to 40-foot height must be built to setback line). The plan

envisions “generous sidewalks and tree-lined medians,” and there is also a clear relationship between

street width and building height. Building design is intended to ensure “activation and interest on the street level.”

149 Choice Neighborhoods round 2 application, exhibit E and attachment 32

150 Choice Neighborhoods round 2 application, attachments 26 and 32 and exhibit D.

C-13

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

YESLER

The Yesler neighborhood’s vision has well-defined goals: compact, pedestrian friendly, mixed use, with

opportunities for community gathering spaces, defensible space, and better landscaping. 151 The plan consists of mixed-income housing (mostly midrise residential, three to six stories) distributed on a site with expanded pedestrian and transit connections. There is a new 1.75-acre neighborhood park, a

community garden, and a restored performing arts center. Buildings and spaces are placed in a way that

delineates semiprivate, semipublic, and public open space in an effort to enhance defensible space and

provide a feeling of safety. Most buildings are set in courtyards. Design standards have been adopted for development that occurs on the site (i.e., al property control ed by the housing authority).

The proposed network of sidewalks, streets, and open space is intended to make Yesler Terrace less

insular and provide better connectivity (the existing layout is very disconnected). An innovative aspect of the plan is a Green Street loop where cars are subordinated to pedestrians and bicyclists. Along the

street there will be three pocket parks and exercise stations.

PROSPECTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

This section discusses some of the main obstacles that may limit the ability of neighborhoods to realize their future visions. Beyond lists and maps of amenities, site plans of proposed buildings, and

descriptions of proposed investments, how wil the neighborhood as a whole sustain livability

principles?

It is widely recognized that neighborhoods do not necessarily improve through top-down, wholesale

transformation of the kind that might have been conceived under urban renewal in the 1950s and

1960s. Nevertheless, coordinated, proactive strategies are needed to provide a way for individual effort to coalesce around something greater than the sum of parts. Improving connectivity, increasing services, and strengthening the public realm are al goals that need to be approached not just for individual

project sites, but for the surrounding neighborhood as a whole. All applicants argued extensively that

the redevelopment of individual sites is significantly affected by the design context of the surrounding neighborhood.

Al the Choice Neighborhood proposals did an exemplary job formulating future neighborhood goals in

terms of improving connectivity, services, and the public realm. There is little to critique. However, two fundamental issues need to play a more direct role in realization of these visions: regulatory reform and coordinated public investment for the neighborhood as a whole. HUD and the Choice grantees should work in concert with local, state, and regional funding and regulatory entities to ensure quality

investment in Choice Neighborhoods.

There is a need to look closely at zoning regulations and planned public improvements in areas

surrounding project sites, especially any expenditures related to thoroughfares, to leverage the

151 Choice Neighborhoods FY12 application: attachment 42, exhibits E and G.

C-14

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

investments being made in Choice Neighborhoods. There needs to be evidence of a more direct

relationship between the proposed visions for project sites and the public investments and zoning

reforms necessary to achieve these visions in the context of the larger neighborhoods. As proposed,

Choice proposals were necessarily focused on project site improvements under the control of the

grantees. Discussions of improvements to the surrounding neighborhood were expressed in terms of

hopes and dreams rather than concrete plans. There is a need to get al levels of government on board

with supportive place-making policies in the surrounding areas, and it is unclear whether this

coordination has been achieved. 152 Please see chapter 5 in the ful report for the status of efforts related to coordination.

Several of the neighborhoods have adopted design standards and guidelines, but these only apply to the

target development itself (i.e., property controlled by the lead grantees and developers). These

guidelines need to be extended to the surrounding neighborhood to aid integration of the site.

Guidelines are essential for creating an appropriate relationship between buildings and public space,

especially by controlling setbacks, building heights, and the treatment of ground-floor units. The

relationship between street width and building height is essential, requiring forethought about street

hierarchy and the ways in which building character and typology support street function. The

Transformation Plan for Eastern Bayview and the master plan for Yesler seemed to be the only ones that

paid explicit attention to this essential aspect.

Al plans al uded to the importance of guidelines and regulations, but municipal government (not

housing authorities or developers) are responsible for implementing such rules in the areas surrounding the target developments. Such guidelines should strike a balance—not too restrictive, but protective of the best qualities of the neighborhood. At a minimum, guidelines or regulations should ensure that—

• Parking is placed behind or below buildings, not in front of buildings. Large surface parking lots

in front of buildings should be prohibited in Choice Neighborhoods. There was no evidence that

this important aspect of neighborhood quality was being enforced.

• Buildings face the street or public open space, not parking lots.

• Building details are oriented toward pedestrians, with windows and no blank wal s, and human

scaled in terms of lighting and signage (the aesthetic quality of the public realm is strongly

affected by the aesthetic quality of buildings); utilitarian buildings with flat roofs and no

articulation should be prohibited.

• Pedestrians are able to access buildings directly from the street or public space.

• New buildings respect existing adjacent buildings in terms of massing and scale.

In terms of public investment priorities, strategic coordination of investment is important for several reasons. First, strategies for large-scale redevelopment are chal enged by property ownership that is

fragmented. The use of eminent domain for land assembly is difficult. Second, there is a danger that the 152 See for example: Brown, Lance Jay. Urban Design for an Urban Century: Placemaking for People. 1 edition.

Hoboken, N.J: Wiley, 2009 and Silberberg, Susan. Places in the Making: How placemaking builds places and communities. MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning, 2013. http://dusp.mit.edu/cdd/project/placemaking C-15

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

numerous stakeholders and projects working in the neighborhood are operating without formal

coordination. Boston, for example, has no requirement for general or neighborhood plans, and planning

occurs on a project-by-project basis. The city’s Department of Neighborhood Development is primarily a

funding agency for affordable housing and the redevelopment of small projects. Many goals will require

coordinated change to attract investment and stimulate the creation of more sustainable

neighborhoods, ultimately addressing the problem of vacant properties and abandoned buildings,

improving community facilities, and promoting economic development.

This lack of coordinated investment is a problem widely recognized in city government. The city of

Chicago, for example, launched a program cal ed “Neighborhoods Now” for select neighborhoods whose

main purpose is to bring public and private investment together, enabling investment in a more

coordinated fashion and thereby helping neighborhoods ful y achieve their potential. 153 Choice Neighborhoods should be part of such efforts.

Another issue is that although many of the Choice Neighborhoods have transit, amenities, and

recreational space within their borders, these benefits may only exist in an aggregate sense. Many

facilities are listed as being “within the neighborhood” but are unfortunately very poorly located and

anti-pedestrian. These facilities may be contained within a one-mile “as the crow flies” circle, but

equally important is whether these facilities constitute an asset to the neighborhood in terms of scale, design, connectedness, and adjoining route condition. In short, there is a crucial difference between

proximity and accessibility that needs to be understood and addressed.

All Choice vision statements acknowledge future, government-backed infrastructure improvements.

These are mostly judged to be in keeping with pedestrian-oriented goals and the improvement of green

space, but there is little sense of how these investments coalesce around an improved neighborhood as

a whole. Investments do not seem to be tied to an overall strategic investment plan, or at least there is a lack of documentation indicating that strategic investment is occurring, with the exception of Yesler. In addition, apart from public investment, there is also reliance on private enterprise for the realization of neighborhood vision statements.

Ideal y, each Choice Neighborhood should have a city-adopted neighborhoodwide plan that locates

future investment, adopts design guidelines, and evaluates the appropriateness of zoning regulations.

Neighborhoods should work with city planning staff to request a compliance review: do existing plans

and regulations, including al land use and comprehensive plans, capital investments, zoning regulations, and street improvement plans conform to the vision and goals of the Choice Neighborhood? City

planning staff should help to identify possible incongruities in the same way that any new development

is reviewed for plan and code compliance. Beyond an assessment of compliance, city staff should be

able to identity whether there are planned investments that wil work to proactively implement the

153 See

http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/mayor/press_room/press_releases/2013/april_2013/mayor_emanuel

_highlightsinvestmentsinenglewoodagriculturalexpans.html. However, Woodlawn was not one of the participating neighborhoods.

C-16

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Choice vision statements – or whether no such plans exist. It is unclear whether this kind of basic

analysis of plan/code compliance has been undertaken.

More specifically, a neighborhood plan that delineates prioritized nodes and character areas

surrounding target developments would be very beneficial. Such neighborhood plans could help the

neighborhood, and the target developments within them, to develop a sense of opportunity and

identity. Character areas show differences in urban fabric and help clarify the interface between areas contained within the larger neighborhood.

Another main concern is that it is unclear whether large-scale public investments—especially large

hospital complexes (in the case of the biodistrict outside Iberville/Tremé) and athletic facilities (in the case of Woodlawn)—are likely to be supportive of the goal of creative walkable, pedestrian-oriented

urbanism. Without design guidelines, large-format buildings like hospitals and athletic facilities can

easily undermine the other goals of the Choice Neighborhoods, especially those related to pedestrian

orientation and connectivity. Ensuring minimal friction in competing goals can be worked out in a

strategic plan that anticipates public investment.

The fol owing public investments should be considered as essential components to leverage the Choice

Neighborhoods investment:

• Sidewalks that are a minimum of 6 feet wide.

• Complete streets, public infrastructure investment consistent with the ITE’s complete

thoroughfares standards. 154

• Street trees and landscape buffers.

• Coordinated street furniture, lighting, and signage designed to enhance the pedestrian realm;

lighting should not be in the form of plain galvanized steel poles. 155

• Corridorwide streetscape guidelines that enforce aesthetic quality.

Future investment in any streets in Choice Neighborhoods should adhere to a common set of design

principles. Such standards can go a long way toward ensuring that, over time, public investment is

directed in a consistent direction. Often the “devil is in the details,” which is why a guided approach to public investment is needed. Street improvements should adhere to the National Association of City

Officials Urban Street Design Guide, as well as the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context-Sensitive Approach (see footnote 12). Investment in streets should prioritize bicycle paths or lanes, traffic calming, bus stop shelters, and pedestrian amenities.

154 Further details about these guidelines and their implementation are available at www.ite.org.

155 Improvements need to be monitored to ensure that they do not create unintended negative effects. For example, some residents expressed concern for street furniture such as benches and bus stops that would encourage loitering. Given these concerns, improvements might need to be added gradual y, introduced only when the neighborhood has reached a point where the improvements, due to an overall climate of investment, increased informal surveillance and col ective efficacy, are unlikely to generate negative effects.

C-17

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

In fact these elements were often included in the implementation proposals, but they were listed as

“planned future investments.” Vague statements about “planned pedestrian upgrades” and “future

streetscape improvements” lack commitment on the part of outside agencies.

C-18

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

PROTOCOL

C-19

Appendix D:

Energy Scorecard Report

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

This report was prepared by CNT Energy under subcontract to the Urban Institute for the Choice

Neighborhoods Implementation Evaluation under Task Order #1. It was submitted to the Urban Institute

on October 3, 2012.

The report addresses the fol owing research questions:

• What is the projected change in the quality of public and assisted housing?

• What are the estimated savings in energy costs expected from housing rehabilitation or

redevelopment?

• What is the baseline energy use before housing rehabilitation or redevelopment?

SCORECARD

CNT Energy has developed a Scorecard of energy use for affordable multifamily housing that can be

used to evaluate energy performance of buildings prior to redevelopment as well as post-occupancy for

the HUD Choice Neighborhoods. In this report the Scorecard is applied to sites in five cities (Boston,

Chicago, New Orleans, San Francisco, and Seattle). This Scorecard is part of a baseline assessment of the physical quality of public and assisted housing developments.

The Scorecards presented here document the energy use of an average building at each of the five sites

studied. Average buildings were benchmarked, rather than specific individual buildings, because energy

data and building characteristics were often supplied by building owners on a site-wide total basis.

Moreover, in some cases buildings in the study areas do not have individual utility meters.

BENCHMARKING

The Scorecards are based on owner data from five cities and comparison data from national data sets. It is said that the best benchmark for a building’s energy performance is itself, and that remains true with these sites. The specific building characteristics, use, occupants, weather, and other elements that

determine energy use make each building and site unique. However, a range of energy use for similar

buildings is reported for context.

Energy use intensity (EUI) as measured in thousand British Thermal Units (BTUs) per square foot per

year is becoming a standard unit of measure in building energy efficiency reporting and is the basis of energy benchmarking in the Scorecards. More information on EUI and the other scorecard elements can

be found at the end of this appendix.

The national and area average EUIs used in the Scorecards come from the U.S. Department of Energy’s

Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS). 156 Area average data are from RECS for units in multifamily buildings of five units or more in the building’s Census Division (or state in the case of San Francisco were state-specific data were available).

The 2005 RECS was used because public use microdata were not yet available for the 2009 RECS at the

time of this writing. The individual survey responses provided in the microdata are published with the

156 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey, Revised January 2009.

D-1

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

corresponding heating degree days for the survey respondent’s location, enabling weather

normalization of the data, which al ows them to be much more comparable data points. However, one

limitation of the RECS survey as a comparison for multifamily buildings is that RECS only surveys

individual residential units, rather than entire buildings, so may exclude significant common area energy uses in multifamily buildings.

Building EUIs for the study sites are presented in the context of a range of more and less efficient

buildings for the area. These more and less efficient values were derived in part from the most and least efficient quintiles in the RECS data for multifamily buildings with five or more units in each Census

Division. CNT Energy also used a database of energy use for over 100 anonymized multifamily buildings

in the study cities provided by Bright Power.

METHODS

The redevelopment that is occurring at these sites presents a unique circumstance for energy

benchmarking as the buildings are being actively demolished or renovated and occupancy is changing

significantly. In New Orleans, for example, 2011 occupancy was just 50%. To adjust for this, the square footage of vacant units is subtracted from the gross floor area before calculating 2011 EUIs for these

Scorecards. This method aligns with that of EPA’s Portfolio Manager and Energy Star benchmarking

methodology, which tracks vacant space separately from occupied space.

All data were weather normalized to examine energy use under an average year’s climate conditions in

each city, which prevents an extremely hot or cold year from overshadowing building efficiency

patterns, but does not eliminate differences in energy use due to differing climates from city-to-city.

National average data used for comparison were similarly weather normalized to represent a year with

the average number of heating degree days nationwide. Weather normalization of energy data used a

simple ratio of actual heating degree days for the data year divided by normal heating degree days, a

method consistent with the level of granularity of the energy data available. Cooling degree days were

not adjusted for, as the buildings studied largely did not have air conditioning (except for some window units). Electricity data was weather normalized in Seattle where units have electric heating and hot

water; all other sites are only weather adjusted for natural gas data, because electricity use in these areas will not vary with weather.

The Scorecards here present an overview snapshot of energy use in the HUD Choice Neighborhoods

buildings before rehabilitation and redevelopment. They can be used to build understanding of energy

use patterns to target efficiency improvement and as a benchmark for comparison in estimating cost

savings post-redevelopment.

D-2

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

SCORECARDS

CHICAGO GROVE PARC PLAZA BUILDING ENERGY SCORECARD SUMMARY

Exhibit D.1 shows that 14 of Chicago’s Grove Parc Plaza’s buildings with available energy use data

averaged an Energy Use Intensity (EUI) of 150 thousand BTU per square foot per year (kBTU/sqft/yr.) in

2011, compared to an area average of 89 and a national average of 59. Similar buildings in this region

ranged from a less efficient EUI of 190 to a more efficient EUI of 19. Electricity use and cost values for Chicago are estimated based on tenant electricity costs and owner electric utility data.

The average energy cost per month at Grove Parc Plaza was $109 per unit in 2011, compared to a

national average of $86 per month for homes in multifamily buildings with five units or more. The

weather adjusted cost per unit decreased in 2011 as prices declined; natural gas was $59 and $48 per

month in 2010 and 2011 respectively. Estimated electricity costs were steady at $61 those same years.

These energy costs represent an estimate of the total of bills paid by the owners and the tenants and

include energy used in common areas as well as individual units.

Natural gas made up the largest share of the 150 EUI for the average Grove Parc building. The total EUI was greater than the national average of 59. The EUI for natural gas alone was 141 in 2010 and 125 in

2011. The electricity EUIs were 25 for both of those same years.

Grove Parc Plaza was built in 1968. The buildings were heated with central natural gas boilers, and some units had window air conditioners. On average the buildings had 22 units each and an occupancy of 67%

in 2011. The average building was 3 stories tall and had 40 bedrooms in a gross floor area of 18,652

square feet. The share of gross floor area that was conditioned was 100%. There were no in-unit laundry hookups, no common area laundry hookups, and no dishwashers.

Grove Parc’s energy use was much higher than the national average for multifamily buildings due in

large part to Chicago’s cold winters. The age and state of repair of the buildings likely played significant roles in Grove Parc’s energy demand as well, as buildings with inefficiencies, such as insufficient

insulation and air leaks require more energy to keep residents comfortable.

The number of window air conditioners and their usage is unknown, but if they were widely used the

summer electricity consumption would have been greatly impacted by the same weatherization issues

that influenced the winter heating demand. Grove Parc did not have major appliances, such as laundry

machines, so its energy use would be even higher if those types of energy uses were present.

D-3

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit D.1: Chicago, IL Grove Parc Scorecard

Building Energy Scorecard

Building Name

Grove Parc Plaza (Average of 14 Buildings)

Location

Chicago, IL

2011 Energy Use Intensity (est.)

Average Cost per Unit per Month (est.)

Building EUI by Energy Type (est.)

2011 Cost

$109 per month

2011 Total EUI

150 kBTU/sqft/yr

Building Details

Year Built

1968

Number of Bedrooms

40

Heating Type

Natural Gas Boiler

Gross Floor Area

18,652 square feet

Share of Gross Floor

Air Conditioned

Window Air Conditioners

Area Conditioned

100%

Number of In-Unit

Number of Units

22

Laundry Hookups

0

Number of Common

Occupancy

67%

Area Laundry Hookups

0

Number of Floors

3

Number of Dishwashers 0

D-4

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

NEW ORLEANS IBERVILLE BUILDING ENERGY SCORECARD SUMMARY

Exhibit D.2 shows that 71 of New Orleans’ Iberville’s buildings averaged an Energy Use Intensity (EUI) of 57 thousand BTU per square foot per year (kBTU/sqft/yr.) in 2011, compared to an area average of 27

and a national average of 59. Similar buildings in this region ranged from a less efficient EUI of 64 to a more efficient EUI of 10.

The average energy cost per month at Iberville was $58 per unit in 2011, compared to a national

average of $86 per month for homes in multifamily buildings with five units or more. Only one year of

cost data was available—spanning July 2010 to June 2011. The weather adjusted cost per unit was $42

for electricity and $16 for natural gas per month. The building owner pays the electricity, heating, and hot water bills at Iberville. There were 50 meters on-site for the 71 buildings in Iberville with some

meters covering two buildings. Energy data were reported for the site as a whole.

Natural gas and electricity made up relatively even shares of the 57 EUI for the average Iberville

building. The total EUI was slightly less than the national average of 59. The EUI for electricity was 30

and the natural gas EUI was 27 in 2011.

Iberville was built in 1941. The buildings were heated with natural gas wal heaters and there was no air conditioning. On average the buildings had 12 units each and an occupancy of just 50% in 2011 due to

the redevelopment process. The average building was 3 stories tal and had 20 bedrooms in a gross floor area of an estimated 7,841 square feet. The share of gross floor area that was conditioned was 100%.

There were no in-unit laundry hookups, no common area laundry hookups, and no dishwashers.

The average building at Iberville was more efficient than the national average, but energy use was

higher than might be expected. Given New Orleans’ temperate winters, with normal heating degree

days of just 1,272 per year (compared to 6,329 in Chicago), the Ibervil e buildings likely did not require frequent heating. Though the summer is very hot, with 2,995 normal cooling degree days, the buildings

did not have cooling systems, yet the average Ibervil e building had an EUI that was twice that of the

average multifamily building in the area.

D-5

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit D.2: New Orleans, LA Ibervil e Scorecard

Building Energy Scorecard

Building Name

Ibervil e/Tremé (Average of 71 Buildings)

Location

New Orleans, LA

2011 Energy Use Intensity

Average Cost per Unit per Month

Building EUI by Energy Type

2011 Cost

$58 per month

2011 Total EUI

57 kBTU/sqft/yr

Building Details

Year Built

1941

Number of Bedrooms

20

Heating Type

Natural Gas Wall Heaters

Gross Floor Area

7,841 square feet (est.)

Share of Gross Floor

Air Conditioned

None

Area Conditioned

100%

Number of In-Unit

Number of Units

12

Laundry Hookups

0

Number of Common

Occupancy

50%

Area Laundry Hookups

0

Number of Floors

3

Number of Dishwashers 0

D-6

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

BOSTON WOODLEDGE/MORRANT BAY BUILDING ENERGY SCORECARD SUMMARY

Exhibit D.3 shows that 11 of Boston’s Woodledge/Morrant Bay’s buildings averaged an Energy Use

Intensity (EUI) of 168 thousand BTU per square foot per year (kBTU/sqft/yr.) in 2011, compared to an

area average of 102 and a national average of 59. Similar buildings in this region ranged from a less

efficient EUI of 238 to a more efficient EUI of 23.

Energy cost data for Woodledge/Morrant Bay were not available, but an estimate of energy costs was

made using average energy prices in the region. 157 Monthly energy costs were an estimated $152 per unit in 2011, compared to a national average of $86 per month for homes in multifamily buildings with

five units or more. The weather adjusted monthly costs per unit were estimated at $14 and $13 for

electricity in 2010 and 2011 respectively and $149 and $139 for natural gas in those same years. Energy bills were a split responsibility with tenants paying the electric bills for their units and the building owner paying for heat, hot water, and electricity use in common areas.

Natural gas made up the vast majority of the 168 EUI for the average Woodledge/Morrant Bay building.

The total EUI was nearly three times the national average of 59. The EUI for natural gas was 168 in 2010

and 163 in 2011, and the electricity EUI was 5 in 2010 and 4 in 2010.

Woodledge/Morrant Bay was built in 1920. The buildings were heated with natural gas boilers and there

was no air conditioning. On average the buildings had 12 units each and an occupancy of 89% in 2011.

The average building was 3 stories tal and had 28 bedrooms in a gross floor area of 8,799 square feet.

The share of gross floor area that was conditioned was 92%. There were no in-unit laundry hookups, no

common area laundry hookups, and no dishwashers.

Woodledge/Morrant Bay’s energy use was much higher than the national average for multifamily

buildings, likely due to Boston’s cold winters and the age and state of repair of the buildings. The

overwhelming share of the EUI that comes from natural gas use is indicative of a very heavy heating

load. Indeed, Boston’s Choice Neighborhoods round 1 Implementation Grant application states,

“Typical annual cost for gas for heat and hot water for the properties ranges from $1,375 to

$1,690 per unit—about 60% to 75% higher than utility costs at comparable properties in the

Dorchester Bay and Quincy Geneva portfolios. Outdated and inefficient heating systems;

lack of insulation; poorly-fitting windows; and absence of low-flow showers and faucets all

contribute to Morrant Bay’s high energy costs.” 158

Woodledge/Morrant Bay did not have window air conditioners or major appliances, such as laundry

machines, so its energy use would be even higher if those types of energy uses were present.

157 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Electric Sales, Revenue, and Average Price, Table 6, 2012 and 2011. and U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Prices: Massachusetts, September 28, 2012.

158 City of Boston Department of Neighborhood Development, “Choice Neighborhoods Initiative Round 1

Implementation Grant Application,” undated.

D-7

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Data at Woodledge/Morrant Bay were reported on a building-by-building basis. Taken individual y the

building EUIs ranged from 113 to 208 in 2011, or a range from 33% below to 24% above than the

average of 168.

Exhibit D.3: Boston, MA Woodledge/Morrant Bay Scorecard

Building Energy Scorecard

Building Name

Woodledge/Morrant Bay (Average of 11 Buildings)

Location

Boston, MA

2011 Energy Use Intensity

Average Cost per Unit per Month (est.)

Building EUI by Energy Type

2011 Cost

$152 per month

2011 Total EUI

168 kBTU/sqft/yr

Building Details

Year Built

1920

Number of Bedrooms

28

Heating Type

Natural Gas Boiler

Gross Floor Area

8,799 square feet

Share of Gross Floor

Air Conditioned

None

Area Conditioned

92%

Number of In-Unit

Number of Units

12

Laundry Hookups

0

Number of Common

Occupancy

89%

Area Laundry Hookups

0

Number of Floors

3

Number of Dishwashers 0

D-8

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

SAN FRANCISCO ALICE GRIFFITH BUILDING ENERGY SCORECARD SUMMARY

Exhibit D.4 shows that 33 of San Francisco’s Alice Griffith’s buildings averaged an Energy Use Intensity (EUI) of 98 thousand BTU per square foot per year (kBTU/sqft/yr.) in 2011, compared to an area average

of 90 and a national average of 59. The area average EUI represents an average across all of California—

the smallest geography at which RECS data were available. The California average EUI would be

expected to be higher than San Francisco as it includes areas that typically require more heating and

cooling, so the higher EUI at Alice Griffith is notable. Similar buildings in this region ranged from a less efficient EUI of 153 to a more efficient EUI of 32.

The average energy cost per month at Alice Griffith was $145 per unit in 2011, compared to a national

average of $86 per month for homes in multifamily buildings with five units or more. The weather

adjusted cost per unit has been fairly steady over the past three years with natural gas at $81, $83, and $83 per month in 2009, 2010, and 2011 respectively, and electricity at $61, $69, and $62 those same

years. These energy costs represent the total of bil s for the buildings and include energy used in

common areas as wel as individual units.

Natural gas made up the majority of the 98 EUI for the average Alice Griffith building. The total EUI was significantly higher than the national average of 59. The EUI for natural gas was 85 in 2009, 80 in 2010, and 75 in 2011, and the electricity EUI was 24, 24, and 23 those years.

Alice Griffith was built in 1962. The buildings were heated with natural gas boilers and there was no air conditioning. On average the buildings had 8 units each and an occupancy of 93% in 2011. The average

building was 2 stories tall and had 22 bedrooms in a gross floor area of an estimated 7,727 square feet.

The share of gross floor area that was conditioned was 100%. A 2009 energy audit indicated that the,

“Site has central laundry and most apartment units have hook ups and portable units.” 159

Alice Griffith’s energy use was quite a bit higher than the national average for multifamily buildings, which is significant because San Francisco has a temperate climate with just 2,652 normal annual

heating degree days (compared to 6,329 in Chicago). The site underwent energy retrofits in the 1980’s,

and a 1992 study found that the retrofits reduced the site’s energy use by 32% with attic insulation and other measures. 160 Nevertheless, the age and state of repair of the buildings likely played significant roles in Alice Griffith’s 2011 energy demand. Additional y, the 2009 energy audit reports that the

buildings were kept at an average temperature of 73 degrees during the winter, which is quite warm—

many energy efficiency resources recommend a winter set point of 68 degrees during waking hours and

lower during sleeping hours, though heating needs wil vary. The overwhelming share of the EUI that

comes from natural gas use is indicative of a very heavy heating load. Alice Griffith did not have window air conditioners, and there is little to no demand for cooling in San Francisco due to its cool summers.

159 Ameresco, Energy Audit Report: San Francisco Housing Authority Alice Griffith, March 31, 2009.

160 Ronald Ritschard and Andrew McAllister, Persistence of Savings in Multifamily Public Housing, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 1992.

D-9

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit D.4: San Francisco, CA Alice Griffith Scorecard

Building Energy Scorecard

Building Name

Alice Griffith (Average of 33 Buildings)

Location

San Francisco, CA

2011 Energy Use Intensity

Average Cost per Unit per Month

Building EUI by Energy Type

2011 Cost

$145 per month

2011 Total EUI

98 kBTU/sqft/yr

Building Details

Year Built

1962

Number of Bedrooms

22

Heating Type

Natural Gas Boiler

Gross Floor Area

7,727 square feet (est.)

Share of Gross Floor

Air Conditioned

None

Area Conditioned

100%

Number of In-Unit

Number of Units

8

Laundry Hookups

8

Number of Common

Occupancy

93%

Area Laundry Hookups

0

Number of Floors

2

Number of Dishwashers Unknown

D-10

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

SEATTLE YESLER TERRACE BUILDING ENERGY SCORECARD SUMMARY

Exhibit D.5 shows that 65 of Seattle’s Yesler Terrace’s buildings averaged an Energy Use Intensity (EUI) of 38 thousand BTU per square foot per year (kBTU/sqft/yr.) in 2010 (the most recent year for which

complete data were available), compared to an area average of 38 and a national average of 59. Similar

buildings in this region ranged from a less efficient EUI of 115 to a more efficient EUI of 23.

The average energy cost per month at Yesler Terrace was $62 per unit in 2010, compared to a national

average of $86 per month for homes in multifamily buildings with five units or more. Electricity was the only energy type used in the buildings. The cost per unit was $48, $49, and $62 in 2008, 2009, and 2010

respectively. These electricity costs represent the total of bills for the buildings and include energy used in common areas as well as individual units.

Because electricity was the only fuel used the electricity EUI is the same as the whole building EUI and was 33 in 2008, 34 in 2009, and 38 in 2010. The total EUI was lower than the national average of 59.

Yesler Terrace was built in 1941. The buildings were heated with electric baseboard heaters and there

was no air conditioning. On average the buildings had 8 units each and an occupancy of 97% in 2011.

The average building was 2 stories tall and had 14 bedrooms in a gross floor area of 7,516 square feet.

The share of gross floor area that was conditioned was 86%. There were no in-unit laundry hookups, no

common area laundry hookups, and no dishwashers.

Seattle has a long history of hydroelectric power generation and very low cost electricity, which is why many Seattle buildings rely solely on electricity for all energy needs. Yesler Terrace’s energy use was lower than the national average for multifamily buildings, which is due in part to Seattle’s moderate

winters. Notably, the EUI for the average building at Yesler Terrace exactly matches that of the average for the area of 38. A 2009 study of ten new multifamily buildings in Seattle also found an average EUI of 38. 161

Yesler Terrace has significant room for energy efficiency improvement with redevelopment. A 2007

study found that units at Yesler Terrace used 24% more energy than their equivalents at a Hope VI

redevelopment in Seattle that met modern building codes (New Holly) and 40% more energy than a

Hope VI green building redevelopment (High Point). 162 Yesler Terrace is located in Seattle’s 2030 District, an area that is working to achieve the Architecture 2030 Chal enge targets for new buildings; this

includes a goal EUI of 16 for new multifamily buildings beginning in 2010 and an EUI of 12 beginning in 2015. 163

Yesler Terrace also has 4 buildings that serve as YMCA Emergency Housing sites. These buildings were

not included in the Scorecard average, because their energy use was reported separately and their

usage patterns were likely quite different. Occupancy data for these buildings were unavailable, but

161 Ecotope, Multifamily Billing Analysis: New Mid-Rise Buildings in Seattle, prepared for City of Seattle Department of Planning & Development, December 2009.

162 Cedar River Group, Sharing the Benefits of Building Green: A Study of the High Point Community, 2009.

163 CollinsWoerman & Gibson Economics, Yesler Terrace Sustainable District Study, December 12, 2010.

D-11

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

assuming 100% occupancy these buildings had an average EUI of 49 in 2010, which us notably higher

than the other Yesler Terrace buildings.

Exhibit D.5: Seattle, WA Yesler Terrace Scorecard

Building Energy Scorecard

Building Name

Yesler Terrace (Average of 65 Buildings)

Location

Seattle, WA

2010 Energy Use Intensity

Average Cost per Unit per Month

Building EUI by Energy Type

2010 Cost

$62 per month

2010 Total EUI

38 kBTU/sqft/yr

Building Details

Year Built

1941

Number of Bedrooms

14

Electric Baseboard

Heating Type

Heaters

Gross Floor Area

7,516 square feet

Share of Gross Floor

Air Conditioned

None

Area Conditioned

86%

Number of In-Unit

Number of Units

8

Laundry Hookups

0

Number of Common

Occupancy

97%

Area Laundry Hookups

0

Number of Floors

2

Number of Dishwashers 0

D-12

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

CHICAGO UTILITY DATA

Working with the building owner, Preservation of Affordable Housing, gas and electric utility data were col ected for Grove Parc Plaza in Chicago. These utility data are in addition to the owner-reported data used in this study and al ow for comparison between data from these two different sources.

The issues encountered in the process of gathering utility data in Chicago were typical of the challenges faced when working to assess multifamily buildings. Specifical y, buildings were not individually

metered, building addresses did not match utility records, and data for utilities paid by tenants were

often missing or difficult to align with other building data.

The median difference in natural gas utility-reported and owner-reported data at 14 Grove Parc

buildings was quite smal at 3% and ranged from -27% to 21% on a building-by-building basis . Typical

issues that cause such variance are bil ing estimates, inconsistent bil ing dates, and transcription errors.

Because the building owner at Grove Parc pays all natural gas utility bil s, the dataset for these buildings was relatively straightforward.

Comparatively, accessing electric utility data paid by tenants at Grove Parc was extremely chal enging.

Grove Parc tenants pay their own utility bills for in-unit electricity use while the building owner pays for common area electricity use. Utility records have not historically been set up to easily enable the roll up of accounts from multiple different customers, so data requested for Grove Parc buildings was often

missing the vast majority of tenant accounts.

In the end, complete electricity use data for two buildings that share a common meter were gathered.

The electricity use at these buildings was much higher than the average with an EUI of 56, as compared

the EUI of 25 estimated for the 14 buildings in Grove Parc’s Scorecard. These two buildings had some

unusual characteristics, such as being the only buildings in Grove Parc with studio and one-bedroom

apartments, as wel as having the only elevators in the complex—both factors that wil increase the EUI of a building. As a result, it was decided these two buildings were not enough of a representative sample to warrant adjusting the other building’s electricity use upward in line with these buildings.

CONCLUSION

All of the buildings studied were ripe for energy efficiency improvements, and will likely see better

energy performance after redevelopment, barring the addition of new major energy uses such as air

conditioning, elevators, and large appliances. Benchmarking and tracking energy use and costs wil help drive ongoing energy improvements by al owing building owners to identify and address inefficiencies.

Improving the efficiency of multifamily buildings wil reduce costs and increase affordability.

Gathering the data necessary for these Scorecards posed many challenges, not least of which was that

many of the buildings were not individual y metered for energy use. Future benchmarking efforts would

be well served by developing stronger energy data standards for buildings in HUD programs.

D-13

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Historically, public housing authorities were only required to report energy expenditures to HUD on an

agency-wide basis, and today’s required property-by-property reporting of consumption data has been

an improvement in transparency. But, building-level meters with automatic monthly reporting would

bring a much deeper and more accurate level of understanding of building energy use patterns.

New utility initiatives are making energy data collection easier than ever before with online reporting systems. The days when building owners had to hand-enter data from paper bil s into spreadsheets and

survey residents to track usage and costs should be coming to an end. Supporting adoption of

automated reporting in affordable housing would benefit owners and residents.

In many places around the country new building disclosure laws have been developed which encourage

or require building owners to disclose energy use. As these policies are implemented data issues related to building energy benchmarking are coming into sharper focus. PlaNYC’s, New York City Local Law 84

Benchmarking Report, makes a set of recommendations for improved data gathering and benchmarking that apply wel to multifamily affordable housing, including automatic uploading of utility data, building-level metering, corrections to service addresses and building square footage, improvements to Energy

Star Portfolio Manager, and the creation of evaluation and feedback systems to continually improve

data over time. 164 Coordinating affordable housing benchmarking with benchmarking and disclosure policies such as New York City’s will standardize and improve the practice for everyone involved.

ADDITIONAL METHODOLOGY: SCORECARD COMPONENTS

The Scorecard is made up of a set of four key components that are explained in detail here— Building

Energy Use Intensity; Average Cost; EUI by Energy Type; and Building Details.

BUILDING ENERGY USE INTENSITY

Energy use intensity (EUI) as measured in thousand British Thermal Units (BTUs) per square foot per

year is becoming a standard unit of measure in building energy efficiency reporting. It enables

comparison by including al types of energy use, such as natural gas, electricity, and fuel oil. To calculate EUI annual energy use values are converted into common units and summed. Dividing this total energy

use by square footage provides some normalization and comparability among buildings of very different

sizes. This can be important in multifamily housing where buildings can range from 5 units to 150 units and more.

Exhibit D.6 shows the average building EUI for Boston, normalized for Boston’s average weather, on a

scale that includes a range of intensities as wel as a national and area average gives the EUI context.

The national average used in the Scorecard is the average value for apartments in buildings with five or more units in the U.S. from the Department of Energy’s 2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey

(RECS) normalized for an average national weather year. The average RECS EUI of apartments in

buildings with five or more units in the associated Census Division (or state for San Francisco) weather 164 City of New York, PlaNYC, New York City Local Law 84 Benchmarking Report, August 2012.

D-14

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

normalized for the average year’s climate in the area is used as the area average. The “more efficient”

and “less efficient” values represent the average of the upper and lower quintiles of the RECs microdata for multifamily buildings with five or more units in each region. CNT Energy also used a database of

energy use for over 100 anonymized multifamily buildings in the study cities provided by Bright Power.

Exhibit D.6: Energy Use Intensity Chart

The EUIs for the buildings can be represented in two ways—the energy used on site, or the life cycle

total of energy use including the source energy lost in the process of generating the electricity and

transporting the natural gas used in the building. These two types are known as site EUIs and source

EUIs. Site EUIs represent energy use as building owners and residents usual y understand it. Source EUIs have the benefit of presenting the ful energy use of a building from a global perspective. Unless stated otherwise, all of the EUIs presented here are site-based EUIs. Source EUIs are calculated using US EPA

multipliers of 3.34 for electricity and 1.047 for natural gas. However, it should be noted that these

national average multipliers may distort the impact of electric use in Seattle, which is largely

hydropowered, so does not face the same source energy inefficiencies of the average fossil fuel power.

Exhibit D.7: Site and Source Energy Use Intensity

2011 Site EUI

2011 Source EUI

(kBTU/sqft/yr.)

(kBTU/sqft/yr.)

Chicago (Grove Parc Plaza)

150

214

New Orleans (Iberville)

57

128

Boston (Woodledge/Morrant Bay) 168

186

San Francisco (Alice Griffith)

98

156

Seattle (Yesler Terrace)

38

127

D-15

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

The visuals for the EUI portion of the Scorecard are loosely based off of the federal EnergyGuide label for appliances (Exhibit D.8), which provides a quick glance look at how an appliance ranks in energy use in comparison to other similar items. 165

Exhibit D.8: Energy Guide Label

AVERAGE COST

Where cost data are available it is useful to include them in the Scorecard as energy cost is a much more tangible factor for households and building owners than energy use. However, it should be stressed that energy costs vary significantly over time and by place. Costs should not be the primary metric to score building energy efficiency, as two buildings in two different places using the same amount of energy

may have very different energy bills due to regional energy generation and delivery costs. Moreover, the same building using constant energy over time could have increasing energy costs due to changes in the

energy market.

Utility costs are split in a variety of ways in multifamily buildings—owners may pay all energy costs;

tenants may pay for electricity in their units while owners pay for heating, hot water, and common area energy use; or there may be some other split of costs. For simplicity and comparability cost data are

reported here on a total average per-month, per-occupied-unit basis.

A national average energy cost value is presented as a point of comparison. The national average value

is for multifamily rental buildings of five units or more and it is not broken out by fuel, because home energy fuels vary across the country—heating oil is common in the Northeast U.S., while other areas

may use only electricity for all household energy needs.

165 U.S. Federal Trade Commission, “Proposed 2012 Energy Guide Label for Heating Ventilation and Air

Conditioning Equipment,” May 2012. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/05/images/energyguide-label.jpg

D-16

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

EUI BY ENERGY TYPE

The third chart presented in the Scorecard is Energy Use Intensity (EUI) by fuel by year. This uses some of the same information as the first chart, but provides a trend if enough data points are available. It also shows the energy intensity of the different types of energy used in the building, which can be quite different than the breakdown by cost in the previous chart. As with the cost data, a national average is presented as a point of comparison, but the data are not broken up by energy type because different

types of energy are used in different regions.

BUILDING DETAILS

The building details section of the Scorecard provides information on some of the major factors that wil impact the building’s energy use. For simplicity’s sake, not al variables affecting energy use are included here. Instead, the focus is on factors that could change and impact energy use after redevelopment or

renovation. For example, if a redevelopment adds air conditioning the energy use of the new building

will likely be much higher unless other efficiency improvements offset the new source of energy

demand. On the other hand, measures of local climate are not included in the Scorecard, as they wil not change upon redevelopment or rehabilitation. More information on the variables affecting energy use is

provided in the next section.

VARIABLES AFFECTING ENERGY USE

SIZE AND OCCUPANCY

Multifamily homes tend to have higher energy use intensities on a per-square-foot basis than single

family homes in large part because multifamily homes are smaller. There are typically more people and

more appliances per square foot in a multifamily home than in a single family home. The more people

there are, the greater the use of lighting, hot water, and other energy consuming appliances. Occupancy patterns can also affect energy use, for if household members are home during the day the unit wil

need to be heated, cooled, and lighted for more hours than if it was vacant during the day.

AGE, CONSTRUCTION, AND WEATHERIZATION

The materials that a home is built of, along with its age and state of repair, can determine how hard the heating and air conditioning have to work in order to keep the home at a comfortable temperature. If a

home has been weatherized and improvements have been made to insulation, leaky windows, and

other building elements it will be more efficient to heat and cool.

APPLIANCES

Appliances such as refrigerators, stoves, clothes washers, and dryers are all major energy users. A home that has a lot of appliances or old, inefficient appliances wil have higher energy bil s. The trend in the last decade is that homes have more and more electrical equipment, but appliances are getting more

efficient due to federal standards.

D-17

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

CLIMATE AND WEATHER

The climate in which a home is located is one if the major drivers of its energy use. Because heating and air conditioning are typical y a home’s largest energy users, homes in extreme climates tend to demand

more energy.

Heating degree days (HDDs) and cooling degree days (CDDs) are common units of measure for the

influence of climate and weather on energy use. HDDs and CDDs are measures of the difference

between a day’s average temperature and a base temperature of 65 degrees Fahrenheit. This gives one

a sense of how much heating or cooling might be required to make a building comfortable. These

measures also al ow one to compare actual weather with the “normal” average. Exhibit D.9 shows 2011

actual and normal HDDs and CDDs in the five Choice cities.

Exhibit D.9: Actual and Normal Heating and Cooling Degree Days in five Choice cities

2011 Actual

Normal

Chicago

HDD

6133

6329

New Orleans

HDD

1231

1272

Boston

HDD

5137

5667

San Francisco

HDD

2960

2652

Seattle

HDD

5151

4694

Chicago

CDD

1033

827

New Orleans

CDD

3358

2995

Boston

CDD

1008

741

San Francisco

CDD

115

156

Seattle

CDD

121

184

The climates in the Choice cities are significantly different from each other, so energy use patterns will inherently vary from site-to-site. The chart also shows that actual values are above normal in some

places but below normal in others within the same year. A close-up look at Boston alone in Exhibit D.9

shows that these patterns vary year-to-year even in the same place.

Energy data in the Scorecards are adjusted to “normalize” for weather, so changes in energy use due to

weather do not overshadow other building energy use patterns. Best practice is to normalize a building’s energy use on a month-by-month basis using regression analysis and separating base load energy uses

from energy uses impacted by weather, but annual ratios of actual to normal HDDs were used in this

study because only annual data were available

D-18

Appendix E: Analysis of Financial

Feasibility

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

This appendix provides an analysis of operating pro formas associated with the housing transformation

plans for Grove Parc (Chicago), Quincy Heights (Boston), Ibervil e (New Orleans), and Yesler Terrace

(Seattle). Strategic Economics, Inc. (SE) conducted the analysis with the goal of understanding the issues general y affecting operating feasibility in the Chicago, Boston, New Orleans, and Seattle regions and to evaluate the project pro formas within those contexts. 166 The analyses in this appendix are based on memoranda received from Strategic Economics. The assessment indicates how local operating cost and

revenue chal enges may affect the long-term financial sustainability of the Choice housing

redevelopments. Completed operating pro formas for the Eastern Bayview/Alice Griffith redevelopment

plan were not available at the time of this analysis. The operating pro forma analysis contributes to a better understanding of the ongoing operating feasibility of the grant recipient projects.

This appendix begins with a general overview of pro forma financial statements to provide a basic

understanding of their purpose and content. Next, a step-by-step description of the study methodology

and a discussion of the data sources used are provided. The next sections present the analysis and

findings associated with each of the operating pro formas provided by the grant recipient developers.

Each analysis describes the development program analyzed, fol owed by an assessment of operating

revenues, costs, and a summary of findings.

OVERVIEW OF PRO FORMA STATEMENTS

A pro forma financial statement (pro forma) is a tool used to model the financial performance of a real estate development project. 167 A pro forma for a new multifamily construction or rehabilitation project typically makes assumptions related to three phases of project development and operations:

• Preconstruction or construction. The pro forma reflecting this phase of project development

describes the finances related to project construction or rehabilitation. During this time, major

expenditures are made to cover start-up costs such as land acquisition, project design,

permitting, and construction; these one-time expenditures are typically funded by large

infusions of debt or equity financing.

• Lease-up and ongoing operation. Once the project is constructed, tenants will begin to move in and pay rent. The project pro forma reflecting this phase estimates the annual net operating

income (NOI) of the project, which is used to pay ongoing debt service. NOI is calculated by

subtracting projected ongoing operating expenses from the rental revenue generated by

occupied units before income taxes and financing costs.

• Disposition. Pro formas typically assume that a project will be sold at the end of a specified period of time – often 30 years – at which point proceeds from the sale of the project will

provide returns on equity or pay down any remaining debt associated with the project. This

assumption provides a means of estimating the project’s terminal value – and, therefore, total

investment return – and is frequently included regardless of intent to sel .

166 Dena Belzer, Amanda Gehrke, and Derek W. Braun of Strategic Economics, Inc. authored the memoranda.

167 Pro forma financial statements can take many forms; individual pro formas, including those reviewed for this report, may vary based on the standards of developers and financing institutions associated with a project.

E-1

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

The analyses conducted for this study pertain specifical y to the assumptions made in the project pro

formas during the period of ongoing operations (the operating pro forma). The components of an

operating pro forma are described in more detail below.

• Operating revenues are chiefly composed of effective gross income (EGI), which represents

the rent generated by occupied units within a project. EGI is typical y estimated by

multiplying expected project rents by the number of units, less expected vacancies due to

unit turnover, as il ustrated in exhibit E.1. Rents are general y estimated through market

analysis or – in the case of an affordable housing project – a projection of attainable rents

based on affordability restrictions of the housing units.

Exhibit E.1. Sample Calculation of Effective Gross Income per Month

Rent per unit

$1,000

Number of units

55

Gross income

$55,000

Expected project vacancy

-5%

Effective gross income

$52,250

Source: Strategic Economics, 2013.

Rents at housing units constructed with low-income housing tax credits (LIHTCs) may not

exceed applicable rent and household income limits established by HUD. Essentially, LIHTC

unit revenues are restricted in exchange for construction subsidies, whereas units covered

by the HUD Section 8 program receive ongoing subsidies that are intended to approximate

the fair market value of housing rents in the region. The developments at Grove Parc and

Quincy Heights will be operated under HUD Section 8 project-based housing assistance

payments (HAP) contracts. These contracts specify that HUD will provide rental subsidies

that close the gap between resident rent contributions and the approved “contract rent”

delineated in the contract. Fair market rent is recalculated annually based on a region’s

most recent Census-determined gross rental rate, which is then adjusted based on rental

rates of households that have recently moved (if rents have increased), regional or local

changes in the consumer price index inflation measure, national changes in the consumer

price index, the most recent trends in the national median gross rent, and comparison to

the current minimum statewide rent. The net impact of these adjustments is that fair

market rents are strongly affected by overal regional rental rates and adjusted upward to

reflect aggregate trends in rents and costs of living.

• Operating expenses represent the ongoing costs associated with operating a multifamily

residential project. These costs are general y estimated on a per unit basis based on the

performance of comparably designed newer development projects. Operating cost

categories vary, but typical y include—

o Administration, such as ongoing building management.

o Operations, including building supplies, utilities, and building services.

E-2

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

o Maintenance, including security, ongoing repairs, and ground maintenance.

o Taxes and insurance, such as property taxes, fire or flood insurance, and any ongoing

fees or permits.

o Recreational amenities, such as fitness rooms, swimming pools, and other common

recreational facilities.

Other payrol includes any payroll expenses not included in previous categories.

• In addition to these ongoing expenses, capital or replacement reserves are set aside to pay for future capital improvements. To determine the appropriate level of reserves, a developer will

conduct a property needs assessment – also called a capital needs assessment – to determine

future costs for major repairs and replacement of building components such as the roof,

heating and ventilation equipment, appliances, countertops, and carpeting. The annual funding

for the reserve is often not included in the pro forma statement as an operating cost but

instead subtracted from annual net operating income before financing costs. Note that this

reserve is different from the operating reserve, which is an upfront capital cost in affordable

housing developments designed to cover three to six months of operating expenses in case of

unexpected income shortfal s.

OPERATING PRO FORMA ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

The methodology used to understand the local context for multifamily residential development and

operations and to analyze the cost and revenue assumptions in the operating pro forma statements

involves five steps.

STEP 1. OPERATING REVENUE ANALYSIS

As part of an earlier phase of work, SE completed market studies of the four redevelopment plan areas

with the goal of better understanding the market, demographic, and economic factors driving

residential demand in the cities and evaluating

how these factors intersect with the proposed

Operating Costs As a Percentage of Revenues

redevelopment programs. The findings from these

Operating costs and revenues vary across

market studies, including local multifamily housing

projects, due to factors such as location,

rents and vacancy rates, provide insight into the

building type, target market, and recreational

assessment of operating revenues associated with

amenities. Projects with higher operating

market rate development.

costs generally project higher revenues,

STEP 2. OPERATING COST ANALYSIS

generated by premium rents or other funding

As a baseline test of operating assumptions, SE

sources. Given this variation, Strategic

first calculated operating costs as a percentage of

Economics chose operating costs as a

revenues for each of the major cost categories

percentage of revenues as a key metric for

(administration, maintenance, operation, taxes

this analysis, in order to standardize cost and

and insurance, recreational amenities, and other

revenue data from individual projects for

payrol ) and the project as a whole. These metrics

comparison with regional benchmarks.

were then compared against the range of average

costs as a percentage of revenues established by a sample of comparable buildings. The results

E-3

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

demonstrated whether the project’s operating costs fell within a normal range. The range of operating

costs as a percentage of revenues is based on maximum and minimum average values for each

operating expense category at market rate and federally assisted buildings in the local metropolitan area and multistate region. SE also examined total costs per unit to provide another point of comparison with local and regional data.

Regional operating cost and revenue data were purchased from the Institute of Real Estate

Management (IREM) Income/Expense Analysis research program and were supplemented by other

sources of local data when possible.

Institute of Real Estate Management Data (IREM)

Data from IREM’s Income/Expense Analysis research program are based on an annual survey of

over 10,000 real estate projects nationwide compiled into a comprehensive database. In

identifying the correct IREM data for comparison, SE considered several factors:

• Market-Rate versus Federally Assisted Buildings

The IREM data include income and expense figures for both market-rate and

federally assisted properties. SE examined data for both types of properties to

establish the typical range of operating costs per unit and operating costs as a

percentage of revenues.

• Building Size and Type

IREM data are categorized by building size and type. For the purposes of this

analysis, SE examined data for “Garden Type Projects,” defined as “a group of low-

rise apartment buildings situated on a sizable landscaped plot, under one

management.” This choice most closely reflects the type of development planned at

Grove Parc, Quincy Heights, Iberville, and Yesler Terrace.

• Geography

IREM data are available at the national, multistate regional, and metropolitan area

local level. SE based the analysis on local and regional data due to the regional data’s

larger sample size.

Data Limitations

It is important to note that these data represent operating costs and expenses voluntarily

submitted on a range of buildings in different conditions and locations throughout the region.

The data do not represent ideal or standard operating costs and expenses but serve as a

benchmark for analysis, comparison, and evaluation.

STEP 3. INTERVIEWS WITH DEVELOPERS

Strategic Economics conducted interviews with independent market rate and affordable housing

developers in each city to identify any factors that may cause operating costs or revenues in the Choice Neighborhoods projects to vary from normative trends. Given that costs and revenues are typical y

based on previous performance of comparable projects, any factors that cause costs or revenues to

E-4

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

deviate from these trends have the potential to cause financial distress for a project if not properly

accounted for in the operating pro forma. These interviews provided insight into the local factors that inform the grantees’ operating pro forma assumptions, al owing SE to better understand any deviations

from national data and identify any areas of potential concern. Local developers also sometimes

provided additional data for comparative analysis.

STEP 4. INTERVIEWS WITH GRANTEES

Strategic Economics conducted interviews with each of the grantee developer teams to—

• Understand how and why their cost and revenue assumptions vary from the normal range

for the region, if at all.

• Discuss how their operating pro formas account for potential variations in costs and

revenues over time, as identified in interviews with independent developers.

• Clarify any remaining questions about the operating pro formas.

STEP 5. PRO FORMA ASSESSMENT

Building off of the initial pro forma analysis and interviews with independent and grantee developers, SE

conducted an overal assessment of operating costs and revenues for the Choice redevelopment

projects. SE examined whether and how operating cost and revenue trends and conditions were

reflected in the pro formas. SE also performed a sensitivity analysis to test the redevelopment projects’

long-term financial sustainability by modeling a scenario in which noteworthy costs or revenues grow at a different rate than was assumed.

E.1. ASSESSMENT OF GROVE PARC, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

This section describes SE’s findings regarding multifamily residential operating conditions in the Chicago region and evaluates whether those conditions are sufficiently accounted for in the operating pro forma statements for the first housing developments funded by the HUD Choice Neighborhoods Initiative

grant.

The Grove Parc Comprehensive Transformation Plan received a $30.5 million HUD Choice

Neighborhoods Initiative grant; $20.35 mil ion of this grant was awarded toward the housing

component, which includes projects examined in this section.

GROVE PARC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

This analysis assesses operating pro formas for two grant-funded housing developments: the

rehabilitation of 6418 South Maryland Avenue and the construction of Woodlawn Center Senior

Apartments (exhibit E.2). These housing developments are the first Choice Neighborhoods–funded

components of the larger Grove Parc Transformation Plan. That plan’s housing component includes

demolition of the existing 504 units at Grove Parc Plaza Apartments (located along South Cottage Grove

Avenue between East 60th Street and East 63rd Street); construction of 420 units in the newly renamed

Woodlawn Park mixed-income, mixed-use development at the former Grove Parc Plaza sites; and

rehabilitation or construction of at least 575 mixed-income units on sites located throughout the

surrounding neighborhood. The project developer is Preservation of Affordable Housing, Inc. (POAH),

E-5

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

and the units wil be managed by Preservation Housing Management (PHM). POAH acquired Grove Parc

Plaza prior to initiating redevelopment. All Grove Parc Plaza units will be replaced as part of the plan.

Exhibit E.2. 6418 South Maryland Avenue and Woodlawn Center Senior Apartments Development

Summary

Developer

Preservation of Affordable Housing

Buildings

6 units in rehabilitated 6418 South Maryland Avenue

65 units in new senior apartments building on the 6100 block of

South Cottage Grove Avenue

Units affordable to households earning

All units (HAP Section 8 contract)

up to 50% of AMI

Additional amenities and services

Senior apartments include computer center, management

offices, lounge, health care space

6418 South Maryland Avenue (6418) is an existing six-unit apartment building located near East 64th

Street and South Cottage Grove Avenue. The six apartments will be rehabilitated and made available to

households earning up to 50 percent of area median income (AMI) under POAH’s housing assistance

payments (HAP) contract.

Woodlawn Center Senior Apartments (WCSA) will be constructed on the west side of South Cottage

Grove Avenue between East 61st and East 62nd Streets. The planned building will consist of five floors, with four stories of residences and over 16,000 square feet of ground floor uses, including property

management offices, community spaces, and the Woodlawn Resource Center. The 65 units wil serve

senior citizens earning up to 50 percent of AMI under POAH’s HAP contract and wil be subject to LIHTC

income limits. The WCSA site is part of the existing Grove Parc Plaza development; six existing buildings will be demolished to make way for the development, and the residents will be relocated to

replacement housing units.

The 6418 and WCSA pro forma statements analyzed in this section were current as of late-October of

2013. POAH further refined the pro forma statements in subsequent revisions. When possible, updated

results are noted and discussed in footnotes.

OPERATING REVENUES FINDINGS

As entirely income-restricted, subsidized projects, the rents at 6418 and WCSA wil be determined by HAP contract rents. 6418 and WCSA are both entirely income-restricted, subsidized housing

developments operating under HUD Section 8 HAP contracts. Maximum rents and revenues are

predetermined by the contract provisions, and household incomes wil be limited to 50 percent of AMI.

The operating pro forma for 6418 assumes rental income of approximately $1,250 per unit per month

E-6

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

before vacancy. 168 The WCSA pro forma assumes rental income of approximately $1,030 per unit per month. The pro formas for both projects assume 2 percent annual rent increases under the HAP

contracts. Chicago-area affordable housing developers interviewed for this study noted that HUD fair

market rents for the region are often higher than actual market rents in low-income communities; the

additional revenues help cover additional compliance and maintenance needs for affordable housing.

The operating pro forma assumptions for 6418 and WCSA appropriately incorporate a higher vacancy

rate assumption for 6418. The 6418 pro forma assumes a 5 percent vacancy rate compared to 2 percent at WCSA. It is generally reasonable to assume vacancy rates of 5 percent or less for new or rehabilitated affordable housing due to strong demand and need. The higher vacancy rate at 6418 recognizes the

development’s small size and, therefore, relatively more significant impact of any vacant units compared to the larger WCSA development.

WCSA includes significant amounts of nonrevenue-generating ground floor uses, including resident

gathering areas, service provider offices, and management offices. The entire first floor of WCSA is

dedicated to common areas for residents, offices for the Woodlawn Center property management

office, and social services offices. These ground floor spaces are assumed to not generate any revenue

for the project. The services provided by these office tenants are necessary to effectively and

sustainably operate the entire Woodlawn Park development, despite not generating revenue for the

WCSA building.

OPERATING COSTS FINDINGS

Based on comparison to IREM Chicago metropolitan area data, IREM Region V¹⁶⁹ data, and local developer input, operating costs at 6418 are within a typical range of costs as a percentage of income.

Projected operating costs at 6418 are 43 percent of projected revenues and are well within a typical

range established by IREM for the Chicago area and wider region (exhibit E.3). 170 These costs are also below the typical range of 50 to 55 percent provided by a local affordable housing developer. 6418’s

total annual operating costs per unit are projected to be $6,500; this compares to a typical range of

$4,500 to $5,500 for a comparable market-rate project, with the higher costs driven by higher

compliance and management costs for affordable housing. The developer of 6418 stated that operating

costs were based partly on their experience operating the existing and new housing at Woodlawn Park.

168 Average rent per unit at WCSA was revised downward to $860 in subsequent revisions to the pro forma assumptions.

169 Region V consists of the states of Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio.

170 Projected operating costs for 6418 were revised upward to 58 percent of projected revenues and $7,800 per unit annual y in subsequent revisions to the pro forma assumptions. As a percent of revenues, these costs remain within the typical IREM range for the region but are above the range provided by the local housing developer.

E-7

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit E.3. Expenses As a Share of Revenues, 6418 South Maryland Avenue versus IREM Local and

Regional Range

80%

esu 70%

en 60%

ev

f R 50%

oe 40%

arh 30%

S

High

se 20%

Low

en 10%

xp

6418 S. Maryland Ave.

E

0%

Sources: IREM, 2013; Grove Parc Transformation Plan development team, 2013; Strategic Economics, 2013.

Based on comparison to IREM Chicago metropolitan area data, IREM Region V data, and local developer

input, operating costs at WCSA are unusual y high as a share of revenues and overal cost per unit.

Projected operating costs at WCSA are 76 percent of projected revenues, exceeding the typical local and regional IREM range of 37 percent to 69 percent (exhibit E.4). WCSA’s projected annual operating costs

per unit are $7,200; affordable housing developers interviewed for this study stated that annual

operating costs at larger subsidized housing developments are typically $6,500 per unit or higher in

Chicago. 171 The cost projections for WCSA were created by POAH based on their actual operating costs for units in the Woodlawn neighborhood and then adjusted based on POAH’s experience operating

senior housing in other locations.

The high operating costs at WCSA are driven by inclusion of large amounts of community spaces, high

levels of services (many of which serve both the senior residents and the larger Woodlawn Park

population’s needs) and property management offices. The high operating costs at WCSA are driven by a number of factors and are a realistic projection by POAH. Local developers interviewed for this study noted that senior housing incurs less wear and tear than family housing. However, residents in senior

housing spend significantly more time on the property and therefore require additional community

gathering spaces, services, programming, and security and wellness checks. WCSA incurs relatively high

maintenance costs because of these community spaces, resident services, elevator maintenance needs,

and the maintenance needs of numerous smal er units. Administration and service costs are higher due

to onsite property management (including the cost of operating office space for property management

171 Projected operating costs for WCSA were revised upward to 78 percent of projected revenues and $7,600 per unit annual y in subsequent revisions to the pro forma assumptions.

E-8

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

and administration covering other buildings in Woodlawn Park, despite no additional revenue being

generated for WCSA), an onsite resident services coordinator, and onsite security staff.

Exhibit E.4. Expenses As a Share of Revenues, Woodlawn Center Senior Apartments versus IREM Local

and Regional Range

80%

esu 70%

en 60%

ev

f R 50%

oe 40%

ar

High

h 30%

S

se 20%

Low

en 10%

xpE

Woodlawn Center Senior

0%

Apartments

Sources: IREM, 2013; Grove Parc Transformation Plan development team, 2013; Strategic Economics, 2013.

Local developers identified four key factors with the potential to affect operating costs for new

development in Chicago. Operating costs that unexpectedly increase above those included in the

operating pro forma can result in financial distress for a project. The factors listed below represent

common issues that may lead to higher than expected operating costs, as wel as future trends that may

result in operating costs deviating from historic norms. Each of these factors is listed below, followed by a response describing how the 6418 South Maryland Avenue and WCSA development programs address

these areas of concern based on interviews with the development team, independent local developers,

and additional analysis where possible.

Issue: Increasing property tax costs

Affordable housing developments in Cook County are assessed and taxed in the same manner as

market-rate housing developments. Affordable housing developments are therefore reassessed to

reflect market value every three years. Few protections exist against rapid increases in assessed value and the consequent increases in property taxes. Local affordable housing developers stated that they

must regularly appeal assessed values to demonstrate the limited income (and therefore value) their

properties can generate. Interviewees also noted that increases in assessment levels and tax rates are a constant concern given the well-publicized need for additional local and state tax revenue to balance

public budgets.

E-9

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Response:

POAH projects 3 percent annual increases in property taxes at 6418 and WCSA and proactively seeks to

reduce property tax burdens. POAH wil seek designation of 6418 and WCSA as Class 9 Multi Family

Incentive properties by the Cook County Assessor and is likely to appeal valuations that appear

unreasonably high. The Class 9 designation was original y created as an affordability incentive program in which a property with 30 percent of units affordable to 80 percent of AMI or less would be subject to taxes on 16 percent of its market value instead of the 32 percent in effect for market-rate rental

properties. 172 The benefits of Class 9 status were diminished in 2008 when assessment levels were adjusted so that nearly all residential properties are now assessed based on 10 percent of assessed

value. However, Class 9 status can stil ease tax appeals and may protect 6418 and WCSA from future

adjustments to assessment levels. Local affordable housing developers also noted that Cook County

tends to be less aggressive in pursuing higher tax valuations for properties in low-income

neighborhoods.

Given that assessment levels could increase in the future, SE examined the impact of a return to

prerecession assessment levels on WCSA. Under such a scenario, taxes would be levied on 16 percent of

the project’s assessed value instead of on the projected 10 percent. The results are shown in exhibit E.5.

As shown, this increase in tax rates would have a minor impact on the long-term sustainability of the

project, but cost efficiencies would be needed to achieve necessary debt service coverage.

Exhibit E.5. Impact of Pre-2008 Tax Assessment Level on Woodlawn Center Senior Apartments’ Net

Operating Income

700,000

574,126

600,000

544,876

500,000

400,000

rs

lla

Do 300,000

200,000

100,000

-

Real Estate Taxes

Other Costs

Net Operating Income

10% Assessment Level

16% Assessment Level

Sources: Grove Parc Transformation Plan development team, 2013; Strategic Economics, 2013.

172 Cook County property taxes are levied on the assessment level of a property based on its use code; the assessment level is the share of a property’s market value subject to taxation at the local tax rate. For example, taxes are levied on 25 percent of the market value of most commercial and industrial properties and on 10 percent of the value of residential properties.

E-10

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Issue: Increasing water and utility costs

Chicago energy and water costs are increasing at a relatively fast rate. Interviewees stated that water and sewer costs are their primary concern and noted that it is reasonable to assume 5 percent annual

increases in long-term operating pro forma projections. Data provided by POAH show that combined

water rates increased an annual average of 15 percent between 2012 and 2015, and sewer rates

increased an annual average of nearly 20 percent over the same period.

Response:

POAH seeks to reduce water, sewer, and energy costs by pursuing highly efficient construction at WCSA

and having tenants at WCSA and 6418 pay their own electric costs. POAH wil pay for gas/heat, but wil

limit tenants’ ability to adjust thermostats beyond a specified range. POAH will also pay for water and sewer costs. WCSA will be designed to meet LEED gold classification requirements, including highly

efficient heating and ventilation systems, low-flow water fixtures, and solar panels for hot water

systems. The operating pro forma for WCSA assumes that overall utility costs wil increase at the same 3

percent annual rate as most other expenses due to these efficiency measures. The operating pro forma

for 6418 assumes a more conservative 4 percent increase because the building is a rehabilitation project and less efficient to operate.

Issue: Adequate budgeting for administration and compliance costs

Subsidized affordable housing projects incur additional administrative and compliance costs compared

to market rate housing projects. These additional costs are driven by the need to document eligibility of residents and conduct audits required by lenders and HUD. Local affordable housing developers

provided estimates that affordable housing developments typical y incur administrative and

management costs of at least $250 or more per unit plus a management fee equal to 5 percent of

revenues. This compares to typical administrative costs of $50 to $100 per unit per year at Chicago area market-rate developments. However, these numbers are rough guides and wil vary based on project

size, design, types of subsidy programs, and so forth.

Response:

POAH is an experienced national operator of affordable housing and, given lender oversight, likely to

ensure adequate budgeting for long-term administration and management. Both 6418 and WCSA

dedicate significant resources to project administration and management. The 6418 operating pro

forma assumes an annual management fee of 5.5 percent of project revenues and an additional $937

per unit per year for other administrative costs. 173 The WCSA operating pro forma assumes an annual management fee of 5.8 percent of revenues and an additional $1,218 per unit per year for other

administrative costs.

173 The 6418 management fee percentage was revised upward to 5.8 percent in subsequent revisions to the pro forma assumptions.

E-11

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Issue: Maintaining adequate replacement reserves

Affordable housing projects often require high replacement reserves due to the long-term ownership of

the properties and limited opportunities for substantial rehabilitation due to continuous occupancy.

Units restricted to high levels of affordability and large units also experience more substantial

maintenance and repair costs upon turnover. Based on local Chicago developer interviews, replacement

reserves should be at least $275 to $400 for affordable market rate units.

Response:

Projected replacement reserves are $400 per unit per year at 6418 and $350 per unit per year at WCSA,

well within the appropriate range to ensure long-term sustainability. A representative of the POAH

development team noted that more-typical replacement reserves of $250 to $300 per unit per year

have proven inadequate in their experience. 6418 has a higher replacement reserve contribution due to

the building’s older age and small size, which limits its ability to spread unexpected costs across a large number of units.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Strategic Economics finds that the revenues and costs projected in the 6418 South Maryland Avenue

and Woodlawn Center Senior Apartments operating pro formas are supportable despite some

explainable deviations from comparative data sources. Rents at both developments wil be determined

by POAH’s Section 8 HAP contract, and the operating pro formas revenues are inflated at a conservative

2 percent annual rate. Vacancy rate assumptions were adjusted to reflect building size. Overal

projected costs and costs as a share of revenues are within a typical range at 6418. Projected costs and costs as a share of revenues are unusually high at WCSA compared to local and national sources, but

these high costs are explained by the extensive services offered and the presence of nonleasable

communal and service-provider spaces at WCSA. These tenants will help ensure the sustainability of

WCSA and the entire Woodlawn Park development by providing necessary supportive services. WCSA

and 6418 have planned for adequate property tax costs and appear able to absorb some future

increases in costs. Increasing water and utility costs are addressed through efficient design and an

increased annual cost escalation assumption for 6418. There is no reason to believe administration and

compliance cost assumptions and replacement reserve assumptions are inadequate to ensure

sustainable operations at WCSA and 6418.

E.2. ASSESSMENT OF QUINCY HEIGHTS, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

This section describes SE’s findings regarding multifamily residential operating conditions in the Boston region and evaluates whether those conditions are sufficiently accounted for in the operating pro forma statements for the Quincy Heights housing development project funded by the HUD Choice

Neighborhoods Initiative grant.

The Quincy Corridor Comprehensive Transformation Plan received a $20.5 mil ion HUD Choice

Neighborhoods Initiative grant; $12.3 mil ion of this grant was awarded toward the housing component,

which is the focus of this analysis.

E-12

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

QUINCY HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

The Quincy Heights housing development includes the rehabilitation and/or new construction of 129

residential units across 16 buildings. A scattered-site development, Quincy Heights is distributed over a roughly four block area in the Grove Hal section of the Dorchester neighborhood in Boston, centered on the intersection of Howard Avenue and Quincy Street. Further details are provided in exhibit E.6. The

project is being jointly developed by Dorchester Bay Economic Development Corporation (DBEDC) and

Quincy Geneva Housing (Quincy Geneva). United Housing Management (UHM) wil manage the units.

Quincy Heights represents the redevelopment of Woodledge/Morrant Bay, a distressed affordable

housing project containing 129 units of affordable housing spread throughout 11 buildings. Of the

existing buildings, 9 will be rehabilitated and 2 will be demolished. All 129 existing units will be fully replaced, although the new units wil be larger and spread among a greater number of buildings. The

new housing units wil be operated under a 20-year Section 8 housing assistance payments (HAP)

contract – a renewal of the previous 40-year HAP contract associated with Woodledge/Morrant Bay –

that went into effect in March 2012. Most units wil be limited to households earning up to 50 percent

of AMI.

Exhibit E.6. Quincy Heights Development Summary

Developer

Dorchester Bay Economic Development Corporation and Quincy

Geneva Housing

Buildings

Rehabilitation and reconfiguration of nine apartment buildings

to provide 80 units

Construction of seven new apartment buildings to provide 49

new affordable units; requires demolition of four buildings on

five city- and privately owned lots

Income restrictions

All units income-restricted; nearly all affordable to households

earning up to 50% of AMI. LIHTC income limits also apply.

OPERATING REVENUES FINDINGS

As an income-restricted development, Quincy Heights’s revenues wil be determined by affordable

housing program requirements. The ongoing operation of Quincy Heights will be subsidized by a Section 8 HAP contract, which fil s the gap between the affordable rents paid by tenants and the market rate

rents needed to maintain a high level of service, management, and maintenance at the project. This

contract sets monthly rental income in the first year at $1,963 per unit (less a 3 percent vacancy rate), projected to escalate at 1.75 percent annually.

Due to a recently updated HAP contract, Quincy Heights’s revenues are comparable to those of

market rate housing and higher than many affordable housing projects operating under outdated

contracts. The current HAP contract represents a “mark up to market” renewal of the previous contract associated with the Woodledge/Morrant Bay project, which originated in 1977. Due to unforeseen

increases in market rents over the last 30 years, the rents associated with the original contract were no longer consistent with market rents in the area; the mark-up-to-market contract renewal therefore

included a significant increase in rental income to bring revenues for Quincy Heights more in line with E-13

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

comparable market rate buildings in the area. As a result, rental income for Quincy Heights is relatively high for the area, particularly in comparison with affordable housing projects operating under older HAP

contracts that have not been recently updated. Although the renewed contract wil provide a

predictable stream of revenue over the next 20 years, its relatively modest rent escalation may result in Quincy Heights rents being outpaced by operating cost increases over time, particularly as rents cannot be raised to market rates in response.

OPERATING COST FINDINGS

Although within the typical range as a share of revenues, total per unit operating costs for Quincy

Heights are higher than local standards. Total operating costs for Quincy Heights account for 54 percent of revenues, within the acceptable range of 39 to 65 percent established by the IREM data (exhibit E.7).

However, local affordable housing developers report that at $12,357 per unit, annual operating costs for Quincy Heights are significantly higher than local standards, which typical y range from $9,000 to

$10,000 per unit for subsidized projects in the city of Boston.

The reasons for these higher per-unit costs are as fol ows:

• Scattered-site operations. With 16 buildings over four blocks, Quincy Heights can be

described as a scattered-site housing development. Scattered-site projects are relatively

common in Boston, where the availability of parcels for large-scale development in

residential neighborhoods is limited, and affordable housing developers must often

assemble a series of smal er, noncontiguous parcels to meet housing goals. Although these

smaller-scale buildings better reflect the built environment and are more easily integrated

into existing neighborhoods, local developers report that they also present operational

challenges that can result in increased costs. Administrative and management costs are

higher because onsite management services are not available in all buildings, and greater

outreach and coordination is required. Maintenance costs are higher because scattered-site

projects have a higher share of common space, such as entries, exits, hallways, and

stairwel s, which must be cleaned and maintained. Developers cited snow removal as a

significantly higher cost for scattered-site projects; for example, Quincy Heights will require

snow removal from 16 distinct entries and exits and associated public spaces. Equipment for

cleaning, maintenance, and snow removal must be transported between buildings rather

than remaining in a central location. Finally, developers reported that a lack of control over

the management and maintenance of nearby buildings can also adversely impact scattered-

site projects, resulting in higher security and maintenance costs. Although DBEDC, Quincy

Geneva, and UHM are taking steps to minimize these costs – as described in the fol owing

section – they are a critical factor in higher overall operating costs.

• Resident services. DBEDC and Quincy Geneva consider a high level of resident services to be

critical to the long-term success of Quincy Heights and the broader Quincy Corridor

Comprehensive Transformation plan and therefore include a much higher operating budget

for resident services: $849 per unit compared to the $200 per unit typical y provided for

subsidized housing. These resident services, which wil include after school programs,

E-14

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

computer classes, and senior programs, supplement the array of neighborhood-level

services offered through the community support services component of the Quincy Corridor

Comprehensive Transformation Plan. DBEDC and Quincy Geneva’s unique approach to

budgeting for residential services, which result in higher than average taxes and insurance

costs, is described in more detail below.

Quincy Heights’s higher than average operating costs are directly related to the challenges associated

with managing and operating a scattered-site project and the higher level of resident services offered

for an affordable housing project. Given that the project’s operating costs as a percentage of revenues are well within an acceptable range for the region, however, these higher total operating costs do not

present a cause for concern.

Exhibit E.7. Expenses As a Share of Revenues, Quincy Heights versus IREM Local and Regional Range

70%

60%

esu

en 50%

ev

f R 40%

oe

arh 30%

S

High

se 20%

en

Low

xp

Quincy Heights

E 10%

0%

Sources: IREM, 2013; Quincy Heights Development Team, 2013; Strategic Economics, 2013.

Higher than average taxes and insurance for Quincy Heights are the result of an innovative approach

to funding resident services and therefore are not an area of concern. As noted above, the Quincy Heights developers consider a high level of resident services and community involvement as critical to

the long-term success and stability of the project. As such, the developers initial y proposed an annual resident services line item of $109,490, or approximately $849 per unit, considerably higher than the

$200 per unit typical y budgeted by local affordable housing developers. The developers covered the

higher cost of services through a negotiated 121A tax agreement with the state of Massachusetts. The

agreement reduces the property tax rate from the typical 10 percent of revenue to 9 percent and then

further reduces it to 7 percent of revenue to offset the addition of resident services. In order to satisfy underwriting requirements established by LIHTC lenders, the developers maintained the resident

E-15

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

services line item at the typical amount of $200 per unit ($25,800 in total) and included the budget for additional resident services (approximately $649 per unit or $83,690) in the taxes and insurance

category (exhibit E.8).

Exhibit E.8. Taxes and Insurance and Resident Services, Quincy Heights Operating Pro Forma

Per Unit

Total

Resident Services

$200

$25,800

Taxes and Insurance

Property Taxes

$1,600

$206,373

Additional Resident Services

$649

$83,690

Insurance Payments

$1,175

$151,638

Sources: Quincy Heights Development Team, 2013; Strategic Economics, 2013.

Given that that the tax rate reduction from 9 percent to 7 percent in the 121A agreement is only valid

while a higher level of resident services are being offered, SE conducted a sensitivity analysis to illustrate the project’s ability to withstand loss of the services-contingent 2 percent tax reduction. The left-hand column of exhibit E.9 il ustrates the combination of insurance payments, property taxes at 7 percent,

and resident services, al of which are included in the taxes and insurance section of the current pro

forma. The current pro forma budgets $441,701 for this category. Should the developers fail to offer the promised level of resident services, the 121A agreement reduction to a 7 percent rate would be

invalidated, and property taxes would revert to 9 percent of revenues, as illustrated in the right-hand column. Costs for taxes and insurance would remain at $441,701; that is, they would not increase over

the current budget amount for the total category. In this scenario, the total budget for resident services would revert to the existing line item of $200 per unit, which is typical of local affordable housing

projects but low for this project. Although there is no reason to suggest that the developers wil not

provide the level of resident services anticipated by the current operating pro forma, this analysis

suggests that such a scenario would not adversely affect the operating budget unless the reduced

services drive up costs in other expense categories.

E-16

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit E.9. Taxes and Insurance Sensitivity Analysis to Services Shortfall

$500,000

$441,701

$441,701

$450,000

Addl Resident

$400,000

services

$83,690

t $350,000

so

C

Property taxes

a $300,000

at 9%

rm

Property

o

$290,063

F $250,000

taxes at 7%

ro

$206,373

l Pa $200,000

unnA $150,000

$100,000

Insurance

Insurance

payments

payments

$50,000

$151,638

$151,638

$0

Current Taxes and Insurance

Taxes and Insurance without Services

Under 121A Agreement

Sources: Quincy Heights Development Team, 2013; Strategic Economics, 2013.

Local developers identified the fol owing four key factors with the potential to affect operating costs for new development. Operating costs that unexpectedly increase above those included in the

operating pro forma can result in financial distress for a project. The factors listed below represent

common issues that may lead to higher than expected operating costs and future trends that may result

in operating costs deviating from historic norms. Each factor is identified and followed by a response

describing how the Quincy Heights development program addresses these areas of concern based on

interviews with the development team, independent local developers, and additional analysis when

possible.

Issue: Rising water and sewer rates

Local developers report that water and sewer rates in Boston are on the rise as the city updates

infrastructure and encourages a more efficient use of resources. Developers report expected increases

of 8 to 10 percent annual y.

Response:

The Quincy Heights pro forma accounts for expected cost increases by projecting a 6 percent annual

increase in water and sewer rates compared to the 3 percent escalation assumed for most costs. The

developers have also taken measures to reduce the impact of rising water and sewer costs by reducing

water consumption through the instal ation of efficient fixtures and appliances, such as low-flow toilets and shower heads in al units. Although energy costs are not expected to experience similar increases in the short term, the developers have also taken measures to reduce energy use in both rehabilitated and

E-17

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

new construction buildings through the use of energy-efficient appliances and HVAC systems, efficient

building design, and improved insulation. The inclusion of these elements during construction/

rehabilitation will make the project less vulnerable to fluctuating energy, water, and sewer costs over the long term.

Issue: Unpredictable property insurance rates

Local developers report that the rising number of national disasters has had an unpredictable effect on national insurance rates in recent years, with increases of 40 to 45 percent associated with Hurricanes Katrina and Isaac alone. However, the impact of these events is highly unpredictable: although rates are expected to increase by 10 to 15 percent this year, developers also report receiving refunds in recent

years due to an overestimation of previous premiums.

Response:

The Quincy Heights pro forma assumes a 3 percent annual increase in insurance rates, which is the local standard for affordable housing based on historic trends. Given the unpredictable nature of the events

affecting property insurance rates and the fact that the operating pro forma represents a 25-year time

period, this assumption appears reasonable. However, the potential impact of unpredictable property

insurance premiums remains a concern for Quincy Heights, as it does for the broader development

community in Boston and across the nation.

Issue: Rising property taxes

Local market-rate developers report that property taxes in Boston are on the rise; although rates remain steady, the assessed value of properties is increasing as the real estate market strengthens, leading to an increase in property tax bil s. Buildings that were undervalued during the recession are reported to have experienced the most notable increase in property taxes.

Response:

The Quincy Heights pro forma assumes a modest annual escalation of property taxes at 1.8 percent per

year. Given the income-restricted nature of this project, this assumption appears reasonable: the value of the project is directly tied to its revenue potential, which is set by the 20-year HAP contract described in the previous section. Unexpected property tax increases are more likely to affect market-rate

projects, which are more susceptible to fluctuating market cycles.

Issue: Higher costs to audit scattered-site projects

Local affordable housing developers report that the cost to audit scattered-site projects in compliance with funding requirements can be high. For example, affordable housing developments receiving LIHTC

funding require annual audits. If separate audits are required for each building of a scattered-site

project, the costs of the audit are much higher than for a similar number of units in one larger building.

Response:

As a recipient of LIHTC funding, Quincy Heights will be subject to the LIHTC auditing process, with each building receiving a separate identification number. The initial postcompletion certification will be done E-18

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

for each individual building. As each building is classified as part of a multibuilding project, however, the annual audit will not have to be performed on a building-by-building basis. As a result, the higher

compliance costs associated with ongoing, individual LIHTC audits of scattered-site buildings are not a concern for Quincy Heights.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Strategic Economics finds the operating revenues and costs included in the Quincy Heights operating pro forma to be supportable in comparison to regional benchmarking data and within the context of local

trends. Operating revenues are primarily determined by a 20-year HAP contract, which was recently

renewed to reflect current market rents. Although the revenues for this project are higher than those

received by comparable projects with contracts reflecting outdated rents, it is possible that Quincy

Heights’s relatively modest rent escalation may again result in rents being outpaced by the local market over time.

Although operating costs as a percentage of revenues were found to be within an acceptable range, per

unit operating costs were high in comparison with local norms reported by other developers. These

higher per unit costs were found to be directly related to the chal enges associated with managing and

operating a scattered-site project and the higher level of resident services offered. Given that these

costs were offset by the project’s higher than average revenues, they do not present a cause for

concern. Final y, although most areas of concern were sufficiently addressed through information

gained through the interview process and a review of the operating pro forma statements, the potential

impact of unpredictable property insurance premiums remains a concern for Quincy Heights.

Nevertheless, given the unpredictable nature of events affecting these premiums and the long-term

timeline of the operating pro forma, which allows for variation in costs between years, SE does not at

this time recommend an increase to the property insurance escalation factor used in the Quincy Heights

pro forma.

E.3. ASSESSMENT OF THE IBERVILLE, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA

This section describes the Strategic Economics findings regarding multifamily residential operating

conditions in the New Orleans region and evaluates whether those conditions are sufficiently accounted

for in the operating pro forma statements for the Ibervil e redevelopment program.

The Iberville Comprehensive Transformation Plan received a $30.5 million HUD Choice Neighborhood

Initiative grant; $24.4 mil ion of this grant was awarded toward the housing component, which includes

redevelopment of the existing Ibervil e housing development.

IBERVILLE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

This analysis assesses the operating pro formas for the Phase I and Phase II onsite Ibervil e

redevelopment program (exhibit E.10). These are components of a much larger vision for the creation of

a mixed-income, mixed-use neighborhood that incorporates additional offsite residential and

commercial development. The full onsite Iberville program will eventually result in the rehabilitation of E-19

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

16 existing structures, demolition of the remaining structures, and replacement with new mixed-income

housing.

The Phase I and II program wil include 227 total units in eight renovated historic buildings, three new townhouse-style buildings, and three new three- to four-story multifamily buildings. The market-rate

units are primarily one-bedroom units, and most three-bedroom units are public housing targeted

toward low-income families. Development of Phases I and II is now underway. Demolition of existing

buildings began on September 10, 2013.

Exhibit E.10. Ibervil e Phase I and II Onsite Development Program

Developer

Ibervil e Revitalization Company (McCormack Baron Salazar and

HRI Properties)

Buildings

8 renovated existing buildings

3 new townhouse buildings

3 new 3–4 story multifamily buildings

Public housing replacement units

81 units

Workforce housing units

49 units

Market-rate units

97 units

Additional amenities and services

Computer lab, day library, fitness center, playground

OPERATING REVENUES FINDINGS

Rents for the majority of units in the Ibervil e Phase I and II development wil be determined by

affordability program requirements rather than the market. More than half the units (57 percent) in Phase I and Phase II of the Ibervil e redevelopment are subsidized; rents and associated revenues for

these units are therefore set by affordability program requirements. The 81 public housing replacement

units will receive ongoing Section 8 project-based subsidies from the Housing Authority of New Orleans.

The 49 workforce housing units are subject to low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) requirements

restricting affordability to households earning below 50 percent of the area median income. Advantages

to subsidized rents include a more predictable stream of revenue less subject to short-term market

cycles; disadvantages include a lack of flexibility to adjust rents (and therefore, revenues) in response to changing costs and market conditions.

Affordable units are expected to lease quickly and maintain high occupancy rates, achieving the

anticipated revenue stream. Developers of mixed-income and affordable housing projects in the New Orleans region noted that the project’s affordable units are expected to quickly achieve the projected

occupancy rates of 94 percent because waiting lists are long and there is pent-up demand from low-

income households currently residing in substandard housing. As a result, Ibervil e Phases I and II are not expected to experience any difficulty in achieving anticipated revenues from the subsidized units, which account for more than half of the project’s residential units.

Iberville is well-positioned to attract residents to market-rate units. Iberville is located within the strong Central New Orleans rental market, and sufficient demand exists to absorb the market-rate units.

E-20

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Iberville is close to employment in the central business district, future employment in the biodistrict, and nightlife and entertainment options in the French Quarter.

Ibervil e’s anticipated market-rate rents, vacancy rates, and unit mix are also supported by current market conditions. Based on their own market studies, the Iberville development team is currently underwriting development with an assumed average monthly rent of $1,050 per market-rate unit, which

is wel below the $1,206 average rent for the second quarter of 2012 in the Central New Orleans market

area (exhibit E.11). Independent developers interviewed for this study recommended that anticipated

market-rate rents in a mixed-income project be reduced by 10 to 15 percent compared to an al market-

rate project. At 13 percent below the area average, Iberville’s rents are therefore consistent with local market conditions. Furthermore, the operating pro forma assumes a vacancy rate of 6 percent, which is

relatively conservative in comparison with the vacancy rate of 4.8 percent reported for Central New

Orleans in the second quarter of 2012. Finally, developers interviewed for this study stated that demand for one- and two-bedroom rental units in the Central New Orleans market, generated by growth in smal

and childless households in New Orleans, is very strong. Ibervil e’s emphasis on one- and two-bedroom

market-rate units is therefore consistent with local demand and avoids competition for large households that may prefer a single-family home.

Exhibit E.11. Average Rents and Vacancy Rents, Ibervil e Phases I and II and Central New Orleans

Market Area

Average

Vacancy

Rent

Rate

Central New Orleans, 2012 (second

$1,206

4.8%

quarter)

Ibervil e Phases I and I , operating pro

$1,050

6.0%

forma assumptions

Sources: Iberville Development Team, 2013; REIS, Inc. 2012; Strategic Economics, 2013.

OPERATING COSTS FINDINGS

Based on a comparison to IREM data for the New Orleans metropolitan area and IREM’s Region VI¹⁷⁴, Ibervil e’s Phase I and II projected operating costs as a percentage of revenues are wel within a

typical range. Total operating expenses for Ibervil e Phase I and II account for 55 percent of revenues, well within the acceptable range of 43 to 63 percent established by IREM data (exhibit E.12). Although a precise comparison between Iberville and IREM cost categories is challenging due to variations in how

different types of costs are categorized, each of the expense categories included in the Phase I and II pro formas are approximately within the standard range established by IREM data. As shown in exhibit E.12,

Iberville costs are within the extremes of the range for most cost category ranges, but these costs are primarily the result of differences in expense categorizations compared to the IREM data.

174 IREM’s Region VI includes New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana.

E-21

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit E.12. Expenses As a Share of Revenues, Ibervil e Phases I and II versus IREM Local and Regional Range

70%

60%

esu

en 50%

ev

f Ro 40%

e

arh 30%

S

se

High

20%

en

Low

xp 10%

E

Iberville

0%

Sources: IREM, 2013; Ibervil e Development Team, 2013; Strategic Economics, 2013.

Local developers identified five key factors with the potential to affect operating costs for new

development in New Orleans. Operating costs that unexpectedly increase above those included in the operating pro forma can result in financial distress for a project. The factors listed below represent

common issues that may lead to higher than expected operating costs and future trends that may result

in operating costs deviating from historic norms. Each of these factors is listed below, followed by a

response describing how the Iberville development program addresses these areas of concern based on

interviews with HRI Properties, independent local developers, and additional analysis when possible.

Issue: Quality of property management

Market-rate and affordable housing developers alike report that the quality of property management is

an important factor in achieving profitability and long-term project stability. Mismanagement can lead

to increased expenses and a loss in revenues as tenants move away or substandard living conditions for

tenants in subsidized housing who cannot afford to move.

Response:

Local developers report that HRI Properties has considerable experience managing affordable housing

and is likely to provide high-quality management for the Ibervil e project. HRI Properties manages a portfolio of 36 multifamily residential buildings in nine cities. Given the firm’s extensive experience and strong reputation among local independent developers, it is unlikely that poor management will be a

significant issue for the project.

E-22

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Issue: Property and flood insurance costs

Property insurance rates increased significantly in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Isaac (by 300 to 500 percent, according to developers), resulting in unexpected increases in multifamily operating costs.

Flood insurance costs are also projected to increase due to changes in the National Flood Insurance

Program under the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. These increased costs continue

to represent a challenge to the financial feasibility of new market-rate construction.

Response:

As a large national developer, HRI Properties maintains a national insurance policy on its properties

across the country. The higher costs associated with projects located in New Orleans are absorbed by

this “blanket” policy, resulting in much lower premiums compared to those paid by developers with

local insurance policies. Local developers report that teaming with large national developers to gain

access to a national insurance policy is common practice in the New Orleans market. Furthermore, flood

insurance costs at Iberville are not anticipated to be unusually high for the New Orleans market due to the project’s location.

Issue: Property tax costs

Developers report that property tax assessments have recently become more aggressive as the Orleans

Parish Assessor’s Office works to update and standardize the assessment process. The resulting

increases to assessed property values can lead to unexpected increases in property taxes that have a

direct impact on operating costs.

Response:

HRI Properties has negotiated a 25-year payment in lieu of taxes () with the Industrial Development

Board and the city of New Orleans. Rather than pay traditional property taxes, which are based on the

assessed value of land and likely to rise over time as improvements are made, PILOT sets a

predetermined schedule of payments. PILOT is a form of subsidy to encourage affordable and mixed-

income housing development. In the case of the Iberville development, the developers wil pay $5,000

per year for the first five years; the payment wil then increase to $7,500 per year until the last three years, when it rises to $10,000. This distribution of payments is consistent with the $7,500 per year

budgeted in the operating pro forma for property tax payments. This prenegotiated PILOT provides

predictability around future property tax costs and ensures that the project wil not face unexpected

increases.

Issue: Water and sewer rate increases

In 2012, the New Orleans City Council passed a major rate increase to fund needed improvements to the

city’s water and sewer systems¹⁷⁵ that is expected to result in a 15 percent annual increase in water and 175 Rainey, R. “New Orleans City Council Passes Major Sewer and Water Rate Hikes,” The Times Picayune, December 6, 2012. http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/12/new_orleans_city_council_passe_4.html.

E-23

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

sewer rates over the next 10 years. These increases will have a direct, although predictable, increase on operating costs.

Response:

HRI Properties reports that their cash flow statement, which shows how operating costs and revenues

are expected to change over the life of the project, reflects this expected increased in water and sewer rates. Because SE did not have access to the multiyear cash flow statement to confirm this claim, a

sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the potential impact of the water and sewer rate hike on the Iberville operating pro forma. First, SE calculated the annual increase in market-rate rents from 2015 to 2020 generated by a standard 3 percent annual increase in rents. Next, SE estimated the additional

annual costs associated with the expected 15 percent annual increase in water and sewer rates for the

same five-year time period. Because subsidized units have less flexibility to adjust rents quickly in

response to fluctuating costs, the increased costs are assumed to be supported solely by the rental

increases from market-rate units. As il ustrated in exhibit E.13, this analysis suggests that the water and sewer rate increase could easily be absorbed by standard rent increases. In reality, subsidized rents are also supposed to be adjusted on a regular basis to reflect changes in market rents, adding further

support to this finding. In combination with the predictable nature of the water and sewer rate

increases, this analysis suggests that the rate hikes are not an area of significant concern for the Iberville Phase I and II redevelopment.

Exhibit E.13. Additional Water and Sewer Costs versus Additional Rental Income, 2015–2020

2,500

2,000

ease

cr

Additional Annual

In

Rent per Unit after

st 1,500

o

3% Rent Increase

Ce/u

en 1,000

Additional Annual

ev

Water & Sewer

Ral

Cost Per Market

u

Rate Unit After 15%

nn

Increase

A

500

-

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Year

Source: Strategic Economics, 2013.

E-24

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Issue: Adequacy of replacement reserves

Affordable housing projects often require high replacement reserves due to the long-term ownership of

the properties and limited opportunities for substantial rehabilitation due to continuous occupancy.

Units restricted to high levels of affordability and large units also experience more substantial

maintenance and repair costs upon turnover.

Response:

The Phase I and II development team stated that replacement reserves met typical minimum financing

standards of $300 per unit; the reserve set-aside is included as a separate cost after operations

expenses, as is typical. A project needs assessment will be required to fully determine the appropriate replacement reserve set-aside.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Strategic Economics finds the operating revenues and costs included in Iberville’s Phase I and II

operating pro forma to be supportable, both in comparison to regional benchmarking data and within

the context of local market conditions and trends. More than half the project’s residential units are

subsidized and are expected to lease up quickly, maintain strong occupancy, and provide a steady and

predictable revenue stream. Market-rate units are responsive to local demand, and projected rents and

vacancy rates are consistent with local market conditions. In addition, project operating costs as a

percentage of revenues were found to be within an acceptable range, both for the project as a whole

and within specific cost categories. Finally, potential areas of concern were sufficiently addressed

through information gained from interviews with HRI Properties and independent local developers, a

review of the operating pro forma statements, and additional sensitivity analysis as needed.

E.4. ASSESSMENT OF YESLER TERRACE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

This section describes the Strategic Economics findings regarding unique residential project operating

conditions in the Seattle region and evaluates whether those conditions are sufficiently accounted for in the operating pro forma statements for the first Phase of development under the Yesler Terrace

Neighborhood Transformation Plan.

The Yesler Terrace redevelopment project was awarded a $10.27 mil ion implementation grant in 2011

as part of HUD’s Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. Of the total initial grant, $7,229,950 was allocated

toward the housing component of the plan. The Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) received an additional

$19.73 mil ion implementation grant in 2012, with $11,081,105 al ocated to the housing component.

YESLER TERRACE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

This analysis assesses the initial development program of the larger Yesler Terrace Neighborhood

Transformation Plan. The larger development program envisions creation of a mixed-income

neighborhood including approximately 1,800 income-restricted housing units and 1,200 to 3,200

market-rate housing units. The existing Yesler Terrace housing units wil be demolished and replaced.

Strategic Economics analyzed the Transformation Plan’s first phase of housing development at 1105 East

Fir Street and at Baldwin Apartments at 124 13th Avenue (exhibit E.14). These offsite units are not part E-25

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

of the existing Yesler Terrace complex but are located within two blocks of it. They were strategical y selected by SHA because they can be redeveloped or rehabilitated relatively easily, providing the first replacement units for Yesler Terrace households relocated due to demolition of the existing complex.

Operating pro formas for future phases of housing are stil under development and were therefore

unavailable for this analysis.

The redeveloped 1105 East Fir Street site will contain 103 units of housing, with 83 units restricted to households earning up to 30 percent of area median income (AMI) and 20 units restricted to households

earning up to 60 percent of AMI. The project wil include a six-story building and adjacent townhouses.

The site currently contains emergency housing leased by SHA to the YWCA; redevelopment can proceed

relatively quickly because there are no permanent tenants and few zoning or other regulatory barriers.

The Baldwin Apartments building wil be rehabilitated to contain 15 housing units serving households

earning up to 30 percent of AMI. The building is currently vacant and is owned by SHA.

Exhibit E.14. Yesler Terrace Phase I Offsite Development Program

1105 East Fir Street and Baldwin Apartments Development Summary

Developer

Seattle Housing Authority

Buildings

103 units in a six-story building and adjacent townhouses

15 units in rehabilitated Baldwin Apartments

Public housing replacement units

98

Workforce housing units

20

Market-rate units

None; an adjacent parcel sold to a private developer by SHA wil

include 120 units, with 20% affordable to households earning up

to 50% of AMI

Additional amenities and services

Green roof, playground, community room and spaces,

underground parking

OPERATING REVENUES FINDINGS

As an income-restricted development, potential revenues wil be determined entirely by affordable

housing program requirements. The first phase of construction at 1105 East Fir Street and the Baldwin Apartments consists entirely of affordable units. The project is subsidized through ongoing Section 8

project-based assistance and through low-income housing tax credit financing. The 1105 East Fir Street

operating pro forma projects average rents of approximately $980 per month per unit in the first year of operations, before accounting for 5 percent vacancy. The Baldwin Apartments pro forma projects $845

per month per unit before accounting for 7 percent vacancy; average rents are lower for these units

because they are one-bedroom apartments instead of the variety of sizes to be constructed at 1105 East

Fir Street. An advantage of subsidized rents is a predictable stream of revenue less subject to short-term market cycles; disadvantages include a lack of flexibility to adjust rents in response to changing costs and market conditions.

The rental revenue inflation factor applied to Phase 1 of development reflects slowing growth in

allowable rents. The operating pro forma statements for 1105 East Fir Street and Baldwin Apartments assume rental revenue increases of 2 percent per year. SHA representatives noted that these inflation

E-26

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

factors are more conservative than those used in the past due to slowing growth rates in fair market

rents supported by the Section 8 program and slowing growth rates in median incomes. Review of HUD

Section 8 fair market rent limits for two-bedroom apartments in King County, Washington, supports this

conservative approach: average year-over-year increases were 2.28 percent over the past 10 years,

compared to 3.63 percent in the previous 10 year period. 176 As was described in the section on methodology above, these fair market rent limits incorporate adjustments for increasing market rents

and general inflation.

OPERATING COSTS FINDINGS

Based on comparison to IREM and other data sources, projected total operating costs per unit at 1105

East Fir Street and Baldwin Apartments are within a typical range. The development pro forma

statements for 1105 East Fir Street and the Baldwin Apartments assume total operating costs of $5,410

and $5,068 per unit per year, respectively. Data sources, including IREM, the National Apartment

Association, 177 and local interviewees suggest that these costs would be unusual y high for an al market-rate project in the Seattle region, with estimates at such projects of approximately $4,500 per unit.

However, the costs are within a typical range for a federally assisted housing development, with local

affordable housing developers citing a range of $5,100 to $5,200 in the Seattle region and IREM and

RubinBrown¹⁷⁸ citing costs of between $4,400 and $6,100 per unit in the Pacific Northwest. Operations and maintenance costs for affordable housing are typical y higher due to relatively high salaries and

benefits, higher staffing levels, increased administrative compliance costs, and increased maintenance

and repair needs.

Based on a comparison to IREM Seattle metropolitan area data and Region X¹⁷⁹ data, Yesler Terrace and Baldwin Apartments costs as a percentage of revenues are relatively high (exhibits E.15 and E.16).

Total projected operating expenses at Yesler Terrace and Baldwin Apartments comprise 48 and 54

percent of projected revenues. These approach and exceed the 50 percent high end of comparable data

available from IREM for market rate and federally assisted housing projects in the Seattle metropolitan area and larger Region X. These high costs relative to revenues are likely driven by SHA’s high labor

costs, the limited amount of income available to this al -affordable development, and the relatively cost-inefficient format of Baldwin Apartments. Baldwin Apartments’ 15 units provide less efficiency in

distributing fixed operating costs among a large number of units. The units themselves are single-

bedroom, which provides less rental revenue per unit compared to two- and three-bedroom units. The

building is a rehabilitated existing structure, which is likely to require additional maintenance and offer less energy and space efficiency compared to a new building. Although scattered-site development and

rehabilitated buildings will play key roles in revitalizing an entire neighborhood under Choice

Neighborhood Initiative Transformation Plans, the approach does create cost inefficiencies.

176 Historical fair market rent data is available at HUDUser.org (accessed October 27, 2013).

177 National Apartment Association 2012 Survey of Operating Income and Expenses in Rental Apartment

Communities.

178 RubinBrown LLP, Apartment Stats 2013.

179 Region X consists of the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.

E-27

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit E.15. Expenses As a Share of Revenues, 1105 East Fir Street versus IREM Local and Regional

Range

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

High

10%

Low

0%

1105 E. Fir

Sources: IREM, 2013; Seattle Housing Authority, 2013; Strategic Economics, 2013.

Exhibit E.16. Expenses as a Share of Revenues, Baldwin Apartments versus IREM Local and Regional

Range

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

High

10%

Low

0%

Baldwin Apartments

Sources: IREM, 2013; Seattle Housing Authority, 2013; Strategic Economics, 2013.

Local developers identified five key factors with the potential to affect operating costs for new

development in Seattle. Operating costs that unexpectedly increase above those included in the

operating pro forma can result in financial distress for a project. The factors listed below represent

common issues that may lead to higher than expected operating costs and future trends that may result

in operating costs deviating from historic norms. Each of these factors is listed below, followed by a

response describing how the Yesler Terrace Phase I development program addresses these areas of

E-28

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

concern based on interviews with SHA, independent local developers, and additional analysis when

possible.

Issue: Higher management costs of affordable housing projects

Developers in the Seattle region noted that administrative costs for affordable housing developments

generally exceed those of market-rate projects due to annual audits, other affordable housing

compliance-related administration, and more frequent service needs at buildings with especially low

median incomes and/or high concentrations of large units.

Response:

SHA will manage the first phase of development at 1105 East Fir Street and Baldwin Apartments.

Management by SHA allows potential cost efficiencies by centralizing compliance-related administration

duties. At the site level, SHA is providing onsite property managers at each major development rather

than a single administration office as currently exists at Yesler Terrace. Maintenance will be performed out of two to three “bases” covering al SHA properties in the Yesler Terrace neighborhood. Although

these site-level administration and maintenance activities may slightly increase costs due to greater

staffing needs, they can potentially provide more attentive service that prevents larger administration and maintenance problems from emerging. The operating pro forma statements for the first phase of

development reflect relatively high overall operating costs expected at an affordable housing site.

Issue: High wage and benefit costs

Developers noted that Seattle has a higher cost of living and generally higher wage and benefit costs

compared to the United States overall. Affordable housing projects often employ full-time staff and

provide a living wage and relatively generous employee benefits, further increasing employment costs.

Response:

SHA representatives reported that staffing costs were examined and adjusted to account for union wage

rates and staffing in the operating cost projections for 1105 East Fir Street and Baldwin Apartments. SHA staff is familiar with the unique cost considerations involved in planning for project operations and

maintenance. SHA employees are represented by three collective bargaining units, each with its own set

of employee job titles and responsibilities. SHA’s higher employment costs are reflected in the relatively high operating costs per unit at the Phase I housing developments.

Issue: Maintaining adequate replacement reserves for affordable housing and rehabilitated units

Local developers stated that affordable housing projects require higher replacement reserves compared

to market-rate housing projects. Although affordable housing units typical y experience less tenant

turnover compared to market rate units, particularly in new buildings with strong demand and long wait

lists, the units will often require significant repair and replacement upon vacancy. Interviewees also

noted that affordable housing developments must perform relatively substantial ongoing maintenance

because major capital rehabilitation projects are difficult to perform in a continuously occupied building with few outside sources of reinvestment funds. Finally, developers noted that rehabilitated buildings

require higher replacement reserves due to more frequent repairs.

E-29

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Response:

SHA plans to set aside relatively high replacement reserves for the Phase I developments. SHA typically sets aside replacement reserves of $300 to $350 per unit per year for new developments, which is

typical at affordable housing projects in Seattle, but market-rate projects set aside lower amounts of

approximately $250. Planned replacement reserves at 1105 East Fir Street are $350 per unit per year

with a 3 percent annual increase to account for higher costs as the building ages. Planned reserves at

Baldwin Apartments start higher, at $500 per unit per year, in anticipation of higher costs due to its

historic rehabilitation; contributions will increase by 3 percent annually.

Issue: Sewage treatment capacity charge

The Metropolitan King County Council charges a sewage treatment capacity charge for al new sewer

connections. The charge can either be paid monthly for 15 years (at $55.35 per month as of 2013) or

paid upfront for a 5.5 percent discount. 180 The capacity charge has been in place since 1990 and represents a significant cost for new housing developments.

Response:

Unlike most market-rate developments in the Seattle region, SHA pays the sewer treatment capacity

charge upfront as a development capital cost rather than an ongoing operating cost. This al ows SHA to

receive the discounted rate and ensure reduced operating costs in the future. SHA will also receive

credits for preexisting sewer connections for units demolished at the Phase I sites. Residents in new or rehabilitated onsite and offsite Yesler Terrace buildings will have individually metered water

connections, thereby incentivizing reduced water usage and sewage volume.

Issue: Overall operating costs are increasing more rapidly than revenues at affordable housing developments in Seattle

Overall operating costs are increasing more rapidly than affordable housing revenues in the Seattle

region. For example, developers particularly noted that utilities costs are increasing between 4 and 6

percent overal even as affordable housing rental rates remain stagnant.

Response:

SHA historically assumed that operations costs at new or rehabilitated buildings would increase by 3

percent annually. Costs at 1105 East Fir Street and Baldwin Apartments are instead assumed to increase

by 3.5 percent annual y to account for rising operations expenses. Revenues, which are limited by

affordability requirements, are projected to increase by only 2 percent annual y. This mismatch properly accounts for cost increases exceeding revenue increases, but it poses a long-term challenge to the

financial feasibility of operating these developments. As shown in exhibit E.17, the pro forma cash flow statement analyzed for Baldwin Apartments shows declining net operating income due to cost increases

exceeding revenue increases. SE performed a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate the impact of these

180 Metropolitan King County Council. “Council Approves 2014 Sewer Rate That Maintains 2013 Levels,”

kingcounty.gov, June 12, 2013. http://www.kingcounty.gov/council/news/2013/June/sewer.aspx.

E-30

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

rising expenses on long-term development feasibility. As shown, Baldwin Apartments would have

maintained positive operating revenues for a significantly longer period under the previous assumption

of 3 percent annual operating expense increases. Seattle’s affordable housing developers will need to

pursue increasing levels of cost efficiency and additional revenue sources if current trends continue.

Exhibit E.17. Net Operating Income Impact of Projected 3.5% Annual Operating Expense Increase

versus Historical 3.0% Assumption

300,000

250,000

Revenues

200,000

Operating Expenses, 3.5%

rs

Annual Increase

lla 150,000

Operating Expenses, 3.0%

Do

Annual Increase

100,000

Net Operating Income with

3.0% Expense Increase

50,000

Net Operating Income with

3.5% Expense Increase

0

Source: Strategic Economics, 2013.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Strategic Economics finds that the projected operating revenues and total operating costs in the Yesler Terrace Phase I offsite developments are supported by existing conditions and trends in the Seattle

region. As an entirely affordable housing development, operating revenues will be limited by Section 8

and LIHTC program requirements. Projected revenue growth is adequately conservative to match slow

growth in fair market rents and al owable rents under those programs in the Seattle region. Although

operating costs per unit at both 1105 East Fir Street and Baldwin Apartments are within a typical range for federally assisted housing, projected costs at Baldwin Apartments are unusual y high as a percentage of revenues. Contributing factors include the building’s smal size, smal units, and age.

The SHA operating pro forma projections incorporate the impacts of key operations issues including high overal management costs for affordable housing, the region’s high wage and benefit costs,

maintenance of adequate replacement reserves, payment of sewage treatment capacity charges, and

the higher growth rate of operating costs compared to affordable housing revenues. The latter trend

poses a long-term chal enge to the financial sustainability of al affordable housing in the Seattle region.

The pro forma statements provided by SHA reflect those chal enges, with the Baldwin Apartments pro

forma showing operating cost growth exceeding revenue growth. The sensitivity analysis in this

memorandum demonstrates that smal differences in revenue or cost growth can strongly influence the

financial sustainability of new affordable housing developments in the Seattle region.

E-31

Appendix F: Performance Measurement

Indicators for the Choice Neighborhoods

Implementation Grantees

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

HOUSING

(where Recording/Collection/Aggregation Responsibilities = Grantee)

No. Metric

Description

Frequency

Relocation

1

Relocation (1st move out These are the number of households that wil be moved from the

Quarterly

of target site)

target site because of the Choice Neighborhoods project. The

target site is defined as the Public Housing or HUD Assisted

Housing identified in the Severe Distress Certification document

(attachment 11) as part of your Round 1 Application. These are

households that are required to move into alternate housing

because their original unit is no longer available due to demolition,

construction or rehabilitation activities. If a household must be

moved more than once because of the Choice Neighborhoods

project, you should only count one of the moves. We want to

determine the number of households that move, not the number

of moves that occur. If a household is split up at the time of the

relocation, thereby creating multiple households, each new

household shall be counted as a separate relocation.

2

Relocation to Public

The total number of households that wil be relocated from the

Quarterly

Housing Annual

target site into other Public Housing ACC Units (units which are

Contribution Contract

under ACC and receive operating subsidies). The target site is

(ACC)

defined as the Public Housing or HUD Assisted Housing identified

in the Severe Distress Certification document (attachment 11) as

part of your Round 1 Application.

3

Relocation to HUD-

The number of households relocated from the target site into any

Quarterly

Assisted Multifamily

form of HUD-Assisted Housing. That is, they are moved to housing

Housing

that is subsidized through project-based Section 8, Section 221(d)

(3), Section 221(d) 4, Section 202, or Section 811. The target site is

defined as the Public Housing or HUD Assisted Housing identified

in the Severe Distress Certification document (attachment 11) as

part of your Round 1 Application. If a family moves multiple times

and one of those moves is into a housing unit subsidized above,

they should be accounted for in this line item in order to

accurately track the number of relocations in HUD-Assisted

Housing. Please note that household relocation with a Section 8

tenant-based voucher is captured in a separate field.

4

Relocation with Section 8 The number of households that are relocated from the target site

Quarterly

Tenant-based Vouchers

who receive a Section 8 tenant-based housing voucher. The target

site is defined as the Public Housing or HUD Assisted Housing

identified in the Severe Distress Certification document

(attachment 11) as part of your Round 1 Application.

F-1

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

5

Relocation to

The number of households that are relocated from the target site

Quarterly

Homeownership Units

into housing units that are sold under a lease purchase program.

The target site is defined as the Public Housing or HUD Assisted

Housing identified in the Severe Distress Certification document

(attachment 11) as part of your Round 1 Application

6

Relocation to Other

The number of households that are relocated from the target site

Quarterly

Housing Units

into market rate housing or any other form of housing not

mentioned above. The target site is defined as the Public Housing

or HUD Assisted Housing identified in the Severe Distress

Certification document (attachment 11) as part of your Round 1

Application

Involuntary Termination

7

Involuntary Termination

This is the actual number of households from the target site that

Quarterly

were evicted from the development during the current reporting

period. Evictions are only captured as actual values as they cannot

be foreseen or planned. Only those households who were part of

your original caseload for relocation should be counted under

evictions.

8

Involuntary

Actual number of households from the target site that were

Quarterly

Terminations-Public

evicted from Public Housing during the current reporting period.

Housing ACC

9

Involuntary

Actual number of households from the target site that were

Quarterly

Terminations-HUD

evicted from HUD Assisted Housing during the current reporting

Assisted Multifamily

period.

Housing

Demolition

10

Demolition

The number of units completely demolished in order to complete

Quarterly

the project. Any partial demolition or interior demolition activity

should be accounted for in the rehabilitation line item.

11

Demolition-Public

The actual number of Public Housing ACC Units demolished.

Quarterly

Housing ACC

12

Demolition-HUD Assisted The actual number of HUD-Assisted units demolished.

Quarterly

Multifamily Housing

Replacement Housing

13

Replacement Housing

Total number of newly constructed, acquired, or rehabilitated

Quarterly

units that replace demolished or disposed Public Housing ACC or

HUD-Assisted rental Units. This includes units under ACC, Project-

Based Section 8, Section 221(d) (3), Section 221(d) 4, Section 202,

or Section 811.These units satisfy the one for one replacement

requirement. This does not include Section 8 tenant-based

vouchers.

14

New

Al units newly constructed or acquired that replaced previous

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition demolished or disposed Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted

rental Units. To satisfy the one for one replacement through

acquisition the replacement unit must not have been receiving any

HUD assistance prior to acquisition.

F-2

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

15

New

Al newly constructed or acquired rental Public Housing ACC Units

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- built on target housing development footprint and replaced

On-site Public Housing

previous demolished or disposed Public Housing ACC or HUD-

ACC Rental Units

Assisted rental Units.

16

New

Al newly constructed or acquired on-site rental Public Housing

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- ACC Units that replaced previous demolished or disposed Public

On-site Public Housing

Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental Units. These are non mixed

ACC only Rental Unit

finance units meaning they received no subsidy other than from

the Public Housing Program.

17

New

Al newly constructed or acquired on-site rental Public Housing

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- ACC Units that replaced previous demolished or disposed Public

On-site Public Housing

Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental Units. These are mixed

ACC/Low-Income

finance units subsidized by both Public Housing and LIHTC funds.

Housing Tax Credit

(LIHTC) Unit

19

New

Al newly constructed or acquired rental Public Housing ACC Units

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- outside the target housing development footprint and replaced

Off-site Public Housing

previous demolished or disposed Public Housing ACC or HUD-

Rental Units

Assisted rental Units.

20

New

Al newly constructed or acquired off-site rental Public Housing

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- ACC Units that replaced previous demolished or disposed Public

Off-site Public Housing

Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental Units. These are non mixed

ACC Only Rental Unit

finance units meaning they received no subsidy other than from

the Public Housing Program.

21

New

Al newly constructed or acquired off-site rental Public Housing

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- ACC Units that replaced previous demolished or disposed Public

Off-site Public Housing

Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental Units. These are mixed

ACC/Low-Income

finance units subsidized by both Public Housing and LIHTC funds.

Housing Tax Credit

(LIHTC) Unit

22

New

Al newly constructed or acquired rental units subsidized through

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- project-based Section 8, Section 221(d) (3), Section 221(d) (4),

HUD-Assisted Multifamily Section 202, or Section 811 and replaced previous demolished or

Housing Rental Units

disposed Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental Units.

23

New

Al newly constructed or acquired on-site rental Project-Based

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- Voucher Units that replaced previous demolished or disposed

On-site Rental Project-

Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental Units. These are mixed

Based Voucher/LIHTC

finance units meaning they receive a subsidy from the Project-

Based Voucher and LIHTC.

24

New

Al newly constructed or acquired on-site rental HUD Assisted units Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- that replaced previous demolished or disposed Public Housing ACC

On-site Rental HUD-

or HUD-Assisted rental Units. These are non mixed finance units

Assisted Multifamily Only meaning they only receive one source of subsidy either from,

Units

Section 221(d) (3), Section 221(d) 4, Section 202, or Section 811.

Do not include Project-Based Vouchers in this field as they are

captured in another data field.

F-3

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

25

New

Al newly constructed or acquired on-site rental HUD Assisted units Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- that replaced previous demolished or disposed Public Housing ACC

On-site Rental HUD-

or HUD-Assisted rental Units. These are mixed finance units

Assisted

meaning they receive a subsidy from either, Section 221(d) (3),

Multifamily/LIHTC Units

Section 221(d) 4, Section 202, or Section 811 and LIHTC. Do not

include Project-Based Vouchers in this field as they are captured in

another data field.

26

New

Al newly constructed or acquired rental units built outside the

Construction/Acquisition- target housing development footprint and subsidized through

Off-site HUD-Assisted

project-based Section 8, Section 221(d) (3), Section 221(d) (4),

Housing Rental Units

Section 202, or Section 811. These units replaced previous

demolished or disposed Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted

rental Units.

27

New

Al newly constructed or acquired off-site rental Project-Based

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- Voucher Units that replaced previous demolished or disposed

Off-site Rental Project-

Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental Units. These are non

Based Voucher Only

mixed finance units meaning they received no subsidy other than

Units

from the Project-Based Voucher.

28

New

Al newly constructed or acquired off-site rental Project-Based

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- Voucher Units that replaced previous demolished or disposed

Off-site Rental Project-

Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental Units. These are mixed

Based Voucher/LIHTC

finance units meaning they received a subsidy from both Project-

Based Voucher and LIHTC.

29

New

Al newly constructed or acquired off-site rental HUD Assisted

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- units that replaced previous demolished or disposed Public

Off-site Rental HUD-

Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental Units. These are non mixed

Assisted Multifamily Only finance units meaning they only receive one source of subsidy

Units

either from, Section 221(d) (3), Section 221(d) (4), Section 202, or

Section 811. Do not include Project-Based Vouchers in this field as

they are captured in another data field.

30

New

Al newly constructed or acquired off-site rental HUD-Assisted

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- rental Units that replaced previous demolished or disposed Public

Off-site Rental HUD-

Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental Units. These are mixed

Assisted

finance units meaning they receive a subsidy from either, Section

Multifamily/LIHTC units

221(d) (3), Section 221(d) (4), Section 202, or Section 811 and

LIHTC. Do not include Project-Based Vouchers in this field as they

are captured in another data field.

31

Rehabilitation

Rehabilitated units are classified as existing units in the Public

Quarterly

Housing and HUD-Assisted Housing stock that have been

completely renovated for the purpose of occupancy.

Rehabilitation-Rental

All rehabilitated units that will be rented from the owners of the

Quarterly

Units

property and that replaced previous demolished or disposed

Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental Units.

32

Rehabilitation-Public

All rehabilitated rental units under an ACC that receive operating

Quarterly

Housing ACC Rental Units subsidies and replaced Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental

Units.

F-4

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

33

Rehabilitation-On-Site

All rehabilitated rental Public Housing ACC Units built on target

Quarterly

Public Housing Rental

housing development footprint and replaced previous Public

Units

Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental Units.

34

Rehabilitation-On-Site

All rehabilitated on-site rental Public Housing ACC Units that

Quarterly

Public Housing ACC only

replaced previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental

Rental Unit

Units. These are non mixed finance units meaning they received

no subsidy other than from the Public Housing Program.

35

Rehabilitation-On-Site

All rehabilitated on-site rental Public Housing ACC Units that

Quarterly

Public Housing ACC/Low- replaced previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental

Income Housing Tax

Units. These are mixed finance units subsidized by both Public

Credit (LIHTC) Unit

Housing and LIHTC funds.

36

Rehabilitation-Off-site

All rehabilitated rental Public Housing ACC Units outside the target Quarterly

Public Housing Rental

housing development footprint and replaced previous Public

Units

Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental Units.

37

Rehabilitation-Off-site

All rehabilitated off-site rental Public Housing ACC Units that

Quarterly

Public Housing ACC Only

replaced previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental

Rental Unit

Units. These are non mixed finance units meaning they received

no subsidy other than from the Public Housing Program.

38

Rehabilitation-Off-site

All rehabilitated off-site rental Public Housing ACC Units that

Quarterly

Public Housing ACC/Low- replaced previous demolished or disposed Public Housing ACC or

Income Housing Tax

HUD-Assisted rental Units. These are mixed finance units

Credit (LIHTC) Unit

subsidized by both Public Housing and LIHTC funds.

39

Rehabilitation-HUD-

Al rehabilitated rental units subsidized through project-based

Quarterly

Assisted Multifamily

Section 8, Section 221(d) (3), Section 221(d) (4), Section 202, or

Housing Rental Units

Section 811 and replaced previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-

Assisted rental Units.

40

Rehabilitation-On-Site

All rehabilitated rental units built on the target housing

Quarterly

HUD-Assisted Multifamily development footprint and subsidized through project-based

Housing Rental Units

Section 8, Section 221(d) (3), Section 221(d) (4), Section 202, or

Section 811. These units replaced previous Public Housing ACC or

HUD-Assisted rental Units.

41

Rehabilitation-On-Site

All rehabilitated on-site rental Project-Based Voucher Units that

Quarterly

Rental Project-Based

replaced previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental

Voucher Only units

Units. These are non mixed finance units meaning they received

no subsidy other than from the Project-Based Voucher.

42

Rehabilitation-On-Site

All rehabilitated on-site rental Project-Based Voucher Units that

Quarterly

Rental Project-Based

replaced previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental

Voucher/LIHTC

Units. These are mixed finance units meaning they receive a

subsidy from the Project-Based Voucher and LIHTC.

F-5

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

43

Rehabilitation-On-Site

All rehabilitated on-site rental HUD Assisted units that replaced

Quarterly

Rental HUD-Assisted

previous demolished or disposed Public Housing ACC or HUD-

Multifamily Only Units

Assisted rental Units. These are non mixed finance units meaning

they only receive one source of subsidy from either Section 221(d)

(3), Section 221(d) 4, Section 202, or Section 811. Do not include

Project-Based Vouchers in this field as they are captured in

another data field.

44

Rehabilitation-On-Site

All rehabilitated on-site rental HUD Assisted units that replaced

Quarterly

Rental HUD-Assisted

previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental Units. These

Multifamily/LIHTC Units

are mixed finance units meaning they receive a subsidy from

either Section 221(d) (3), Section 221(d) (4), Section 202, or

Section 811 and LIHTC. Do not include Project-Based Vouchers in

this field as they are captured in another data field.

45

Rehabilitation-Off-site

All rehabilitated rental units built outside the target housing

Quarterly

HUD-Assisted Multifamily development footprint and subsidized through project-based

Housing Rental Units

Section 8, Section 221(d) (3), Section 221(d) (4), Section 202, or

Section 811. These units replaced previous Public Housing ACC or

HUD-Assisted rental Units.

46

Rehabilitation-Off-site

All rehabilitated off-site rental Project-Based Voucher Units that

Quarterly

Rental Project-Based

replaced previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental

Voucher Only Units

Units. These are non mixed finance units meaning they received

no subsidy other than from the Project-Based Voucher.

47

Rehabilitation-Off-site

All rehabilitated off-site rental Project-Based Voucher Units that

Quarterly

Rental Project-Based

replaced previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental

Voucher/LIHTC

Units. These are mixed finance units meaning they received a

subsidy from both Project-Based Voucher and LIHTC.

48

Rehabilitation-Off-site

All rehabilitated off-site rental HUD Assisted units that replaced

Quarterly

Rental HUD-Assisted

previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental Units. These

Multifamily Only Units

are non mixed finance units meaning they only receive one source

of subsidy from either Section 221(d) (3), Section 221(d) 4, Section

202, or Section 811. Do not include Project-Based Vouchers in this

field as they are captured in another data field.

49

Rehabilitation-Off-site

All rehabilitated off-site rental HUD Assisted units that replaced

Quarterly

Rental HUD-Assisted

previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted rental Units. These

Multifamily/LIHTC Units

are mixed finance units meaning they receive a subsidy from

either Section 221(d) (3), Section 221(d) (4), Section 202, or

Section 811 and LIHTC. Do not include Project-Based Vouchers in

this field as they are captured in another data field.

Non-Replacement Housing

50

Non-Replacement

Total number of newly constructed, acquired, or rehabilitated

Quarterly

Housing

units that do not replace any previous Public Housing or HUD

Assisted Housing and do not count towards the one for one

replacement requirement.

F-6

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

51

New

All rental and homeownership units newly constructed or acquired Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition that are not replacements for any previous Public Housing ACC or

HUD-Assisted inventory.

52

New

Al rental units newly constructed or acquired that are not

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- replacements for any previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-

Rental Units

Assisted inventory.

53

New

All rental units newly constructed or acquired that are restricted to Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- households making less than 120 percent of the area median

Affordable Housing

income. These households are not al owed to pay more than 30

Rental Units

percent of their household income towards housing expenses.

These units are not replacements for any previous Public Housing

ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

54

New

Al affordable rental units newly produced or acquired located on

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- the target housing development footprint and are not

On-site Affordable

replacements for any previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-

Housing Rental Units

Assisted inventory.

55

New Construction/

All on-site affordable rental units newly constructed or acquired

Quarterly

Acquisition-On-site

using any source of funding except Choice Neighborhood and

Affordable Housing

LIHTC funds. These units are not replacements for any previous

Rental Units

Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

56

New Construction/

All onsite affordable rental units newly constructed or acquired

Quarterly

Acquisition-On-site

using LIHTC funding. These units are not replacements for any

Affordable Housing

previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

Rental LIHTC Only Units

57

New Construction/

All on-site affordable rental units newly constructed or acquired

Quarterly

Acquisition-On-site

using CN funds. Units must be income restricted. These units are

Affordable Housing

not replacements for any previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-

Rental Developed with

Assisted inventory.

CN Funds

58

New

Al affordable rental units newly constructed or acquired located

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- outside the target housing development footprint and are not

Off-site Affordable

replacements for any previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-

Housing Rental Units

Assisted inventory.

59

New

All off-site affordable rental units newly constructed or acquired

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- using any source of funding except Choice Neighborhood and

Off-site Affordable

LIHTC funds. These units are not replacements for any previous

Housing Rental Units

Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

60

New

All off-site affordable rental units newly constructed or acquired

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- using LIHTC funding. These units are not replacements for any

Off-site Affordable

previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

Housing Rental LIHTC

Only Units

61

New

All off-site affordable rental units newly constructed or acquired

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- using CN funds. Units must be income restricted. These units are

Off-site Affordable

not replacements for any previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-

Housing Rental

Assisted inventory.

F-7

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Developed with CN Funds

62

New

These are non income restricted rental units which receive no

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- subsidies and are not replacements for any previous Public

Market Rate Rental Units Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

63

New

These are non income restricted rental units which receive no

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- subsidies located on the target housing development footprint.

On-site Market Rate

These units are not replacements for any previous Public Housing

Rental Units

ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

64

New

These are non income restricted rental units which receive no

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- subsidies located outside the target housing development

Off-site Market Rate

footprint. These units are not replacements for any previous Public

Rental Units

Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

65

New

Al units newly constructed or acquired that are sold under a lease Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- purchase program. These units are not replacements for any

Homeownership Units

previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

66

New

These are income restricted homeownership units for households

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- making less than 120 percent of the area median income and must

Affordable

remain affordable for over 20 years. These units do not include

Homeownership Units

any public housing units or assisted housing units. Households pay

no more than 30 percent of their annual income to rent these

units.

67

New

All homeownership units newly constructed or acquired located

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- on the target housing development footprint. These units are

On-site Affordable

restricted to households making less than 120 percent of the area

Homeownership Units

median income and must remain affordable for over 20 years.

These households are not al owed to pay more than 30 percent of

their household income towards housing expenses. These units

are not replacements for any previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-

Assisted inventory.

68

New Construction/

All on-site affordable homeownership units that received Choice

Quarterly

Acquisition-On-site

Neighborhood financing. These units are not replacements for any

Affordable

previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

Homeownership Units

with CN Financing

69

New Construction/

These are on-site affordable homeownership units financed with a Quarterly

Acquisition-On-site

2nd mortgage which allows a buyers a low-interest loan to help

Affordable

with down payment, closing costs, or a gap in financing. These

Homeownership 2nd

units are not replacements for any previous Public Housing ACC or

Mortgage Only

HUD-Assisted inventory.

F-8

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

70

New

All homeownership units newly constructed or acquired located

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- outside the target housing development footprint. These units are

Off-site Affordable

restricted to households making less than 120 percent of the area

Homeownership Units

median income and must remain affordable for over 20 years.

These households are not al owed to pay more than 30 percent of

their household income towards housing expenses. These units

are not replacements for any previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-

Assisted inventory.

71

New

All off-site affordable newly constructed or acquired

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- homeownership units that received Choice Neighborhood

Off-site Affordable

financing. These units are not replacements for any previous

Homeownership Units

Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

with CN Financing

72

New

These are off-site affordable homeownership units financed with a Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- 2nd mortgage which al ows a buyers a low-interest loan to help

Off-site Affordable

with down payment, closing costs, or a gap in financing. These

Homeownership 2nd

units are not replacements for any previous Public Housing ACC or

Mortgage Only

HUD-Assisted inventory.

73

New

These are non income restricted newly constructed or acquired

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- homeownership units which receive no subsidies. These units are

Market Rate

not replacements for any previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-

Homeownership Units

Assisted inventory.

74

New

These are non income restricted newly constructed or acquired

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- homeownership units which receive no subsidies located on the

On-site Market Rate

target housing development footprint. These units are not

Homeownership Units

replacements for any previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-

Assisted inventory.

75

New

These are non income restricted newly constructed or acquired

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- homeownership units which receive no subsidies located outside

Off-site Market Rate

the target housing development footprint. These units are not

Homeownership Units

replacements for any previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-

Assisted inventory.

76

New

Al units newly constructed or acquired for homeownership other

Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- than those listed above. These units are not replacements for any

Other Homeownership

previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

Units

77

New

All onsite units newly constructed or acquired for homeownership Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- other than those listed above. These units are not replacements

On-site Other

for any previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

Homeownership Units

78

New

Al off site units newly constructed or acquired for homeownership Quarterly

Construction/Acquisition- other than those listed above. These units are not replacements

Off-site Other

for any previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

Homeownership Units

F-9

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

79

Rehabilitation

All rental and homeownership units rehabilitated that are not

Quarterly

replacements for any previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-

Assisted inventory.

80

Rehabilitation-Rental

All rental units rehabilitated that are not replacements for any

Quarterly

Units

previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

81

Rehabilitation-Affordable All rental units rehabilitated that are restricted to households

Quarterly

Housing Rental Units

making less than 120 percent of the area median income. These

households are not al owed to pay more than 30 percent of their

household income towards housing expenses. These units are not

replacements for any previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-

Assisted inventory.

82

Rehabilitation-On-Site

All affordable rental units rehabilitated located on the target

Quarterly

Affordable Housing

housing development footprint and are not replacements for any

Rental Units

previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

84

Rehabilitation-On-Site

All on-site affordable rental units rehabilitated using any source of Quarterly

Affordable Housing

funding except Choice Neighborhood and LIHTC funds. These units

Rental Units

are not replacements for any previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-

Assisted inventory.

85

Rehabilitation-On-Site

Al onsite affordable rental units rehabilitated using LIHTC funding. Quarterly

Affordable Housing

These units are not replacements for any previous Public Housing

Rental LIHTC Only Units

ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

86

Rehabilitation-On-Site

Al onsite affordable rental units rehabilitated using CN funds.

Quarterly

Affordable Housing

Units must be income restricted. These units are not replacements

Rental Developed with

for any previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

CN Funds

87

Rehabilitation-Off-site

All affordable rental units rehabilitated located outside the target

Quarterly

Affordable Housing

housing development footprint and are not replacements for any

Rental Units

previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

88

Rehabilitation-Off-site

All off-site affordable rental units rehabilitated using any source of Quarterly

Affordable Housing

funding except Choice Neighborhood and LIHTC funds. These units

Rental Units

are not replacements for any previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-

Assisted inventory.

89

Rehabilitation-Off-site

All off-site affordable rental units rehabilitated using LIHTC

Quarterly

Affordable Housing

funding. These units are not replacements for any previous Public

Rental LIHTC Only Units

Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

92

Rehabilitation-Off-site

All off-site affordable rental units rehabilitated using CN funds.

Quarterly

Affordable Housing

Units must be income restricted. These units are not replacements

Rental Developed with

for any previous Public Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

CN Funds

91

Rehabilitation-Market

These are non income restricted rental units which receive no

Quarterly

Rate Rental Units

subsidies and are not replacements for any previous Public

Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

F-10

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

92

Rehabilitation-On-Site

These are non income restricted rental units which receive no

Quarterly

Market Rate Rental Units subsidies located on the target housing development footprint.

These units are not replacements for any previous Public Housing

ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

93

Rehabilitation-Off-site

These are non income restricted rental units which receive no

Quarterly

Market Rate Rental Units subsidies located outside the target housing development

footprint. These units are not replacements for any previous Public

Housing ACC or HUD-Assisted inventory.

Occupancy

94

Occupancy

These are the number of al newly constructed, acquired, and

Quarterly

rehabilitated units that have been occupied throughout the entire

project each quarter. An occupied unit is defined as one that has

residents living in it at the time. This should include the number of

households from the original development as well as all other

households occupying all new and rehabilitated units. At the

completion of the project, the goal is for al units to be occupied.

Therefore, at end of construction the total occupancy should equal

the total number of units constructed.

Re-Occupancy

95

Re-Occupancy

The number of households from the original Public Housing ACC or Quarterly

HUD Assisted target site that will occupy (or move into) a newly

constructed, acquired, or rehabilitated unit.

96

For those residents

The total number of days each household from the target site was Quarterly

relocated temporarily,

temporarily relocated divided by number of temporarily relocated

average duration of

households from the target site. Temporary relocation refers to

temporary relocation

households that were relocated due to CN construction and

returned back to a CN development.

Quality, Energy Efficiency, and Financial Sustainability

97

Percent units good

Total number of Choice Neighborhoods housing development

Annual

quality that meet

units with a Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) score over 60

satisfactory REAC score

divided by total number Choice Neighborhoods housing

development units. The resultant percent of good quality units

(post CN grant award) is compared to number of good quality

units before the award of the CN grant.

98

Number of energy

Total number of units constructed as part of the Transformation

Quarterly

efficient units

Plan that meets national or local standards for an energy efficient

constructed

units.

99

Number of energy

Total number of replacement units constructed as part of the

Quarterly

efficient replacement

Transformation Plan that meets national or local standards for an

units constructed

energy efficient units.

F-11

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

100 National or regional

Total number of replacement units constructed as part of the

Quarterly

green certification,

Transformation Plan that obtain certification from national or local

other than Energy Star,

organizations for energy efficiency that are not Energy Star such as

such as (LEED,

LEED, Enterprise Green Communities, Earthcraft, Built Green, etc.

Enterprise Green

Communities,

Earthcraft, Built Green,

etc.) for replacement

units

101 Energy Star for New

Total number of replacement units constructed as part of the

Quarterly

Construction

Transformation Plan that meet Energy Star standards for new

(replacement units)

construction.

102 Number of energy

Total number of non- replacement units constructed as part of the Quarterly

efficient non-

Transformation Plan that meets national or local standards for an

replacement units

energy efficient units.

constructed

103 National or regional

Total number of non- replacement units constructed as part of the Quarterly

green certification,

Transformation Plan that obtain certification from national or local

other than Energy Star,

organizations for energy efficiency that are not Energy Star such as

such as (LEED,

LEED, Enterprise Green Communities, Earthcraft, Built Green, etc.

Enterprise Green

Communities,

Earthcraft, Built Green,

etc.) for non -

replacement units

104 Energy Star for New

Total number of non- replacement units constructed as part of the Quarterly

Construction (non-

Transformation Plan that meet Energy Star standards for new

replacement units)

construction.

105 Housing development

Amount of unoccupied housing units built as part of the Choice

Quarterly

vacancy rates

Neighborhoods Transformation Plan divided by total amount of

housing units built as part of the Choice Neighborhoods

Transformation Plan. This number wil only be entered after

construction of the phase is complete.

106 Vacancy rates in Public

Amount of unoccupied Public Housing units divided by total Public Quarterly

Housing Units

Housing units. This also includes Public Housing ACC units

receiving LIHTC funds or other funds. This number wil only be

entered after construction of the phase is complete.

107 Vacancy rates in HUD-

Amount of unoccupied HUD-assisted units divided by total HUD-

Quarterly

assisted units

assisted units. HUD assisted Units are units subsidized through

project-based Section 8, Section 221(d) (3), Section 221(d) 4,

Section 202, or Section 811.This also includes HUD assisted units

receiving LIHTC funds or other funds. This number wil only be

entered after construction of the phase is complete.

108 Vacancy rates in LIHTC

Amount of unoccupied Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)

Quarterly

units

units divided by total LIHTC housing units. LIHTC units are units

receiving LIHTC tax credits. This number will only be entered after

construction of the phase is complete.

F-12

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

109 Vacancy rates in market Amount of unoccupied market rate units built as part of the

Quarterly

rate units

Choice Neighborhoods Transformation Plan divided by total

market rate housing units built as part of the Choice

Neighborhoods Transformation Plan. Market rate units are defined

as units not receiving any subsidies. This number wil only be

entered after construction of the phase is complete.

110 Number of ADA units

Total number of units accessible to people with disabilities.

Quarterly

111 Bedroom mix- Studio

Total number of Choice Neighborhood studio units

Quarterly

112 Bedroom mix- One

Total number of Choice Neighborhood one bedroom units

Quarterly

Bedroom

113 Bedroom mix- Two

Total number of Choice Neighborhood two bedroom units

Quarterly

Bedroom

114 Bedroom mix- Three

Total number of Choice Neighborhood three bedroom units

Quarterly

Bedroom

115 Bedroom mix- Four

Total number of Choice Neighborhood four bedroom units

Quarterly

Bedroom

116 Bedroom mix- Five

Total number of Choice Neighborhood five bedroom or more units Quarterly

Bedroom or more

117 Number of units

Number of units available to people over 62 in the Choice

Quarterly

targeted to seniors

Neighborhood developments.

118 Number of Households

Total number of households occupying a new constructed,

Quarterly

acquired, or rehabilitated Choice Neighborhoods units.

119 Total number of ELI

Total number of occupied units with household making less than

Quarterly

(Extremely Low Income) 30% of Area Median Income.

households

120 Total number of VLI

Total number of occupied units with household making between

Quarterly

(Very Low Income)

31%-50% of Area Median Income.

households

121 Total number of LI (Low Total number of occupied units with household making between

Quarterly

Income) Households

51%-80% of Area Median Income.

122 Total number of

Total number of occupied units with household making between

Quarterly

Moderate Income

81%-100% of Area Median Income.

households

123 Total number of Above Total number of occupied units with household making over 101% Quarterly Moderate Income

of Area Median Income.

households

F-13

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

NEIGHBORHOOD

(where Recording/Collection/Aggregation Responsibilities = Grantee)

No. Metric

Description

Frequency

Economic Opportunity

1

Number of neighborhood Total number of residents within defined census tracts of a CN

Annual

residents assisted

grant neighborhood who participate in Section 3 programs.

through Sec. 3

2

*Number of commercial

Total number of properties that have been revitalized or

Annual

properties redeveloped

redeveloped within the Transformation Plan boundary for the sole

or developed as part of

purpose of commercial usage. These properties include only those

the Transformation Plan

properties that are zoned for office, retail or industrial use.

3

*Number of building

Total number of building permits filed within the CN grant

Quarterly

permits filed

neighborhood.

4

*Number of new

Total number of new business permits issued by the local business

Quarterly

businesses in the

permit agencies in the defined census tracts for the CN grant

neighborhood (net

neighborhood.

change)

Neighborhood Stability

5

*Number of vacant and

This is sum total number of properties having no associated

Annual

undeveloped lots

structure within the CN neighborhood.

Crime and Safety

6

*Number of crimes

Total crimes include Part 1 Violent (murder, non-negligent

Quarterly

reported in the

manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault), Part

neighborhood

1 Property Crimes (burglary, larceny, auto theft, and arson), Part 2

(simple assault, curfew offenses and loitering, embezzlement,

forgery and counterfeiting, disorderly conduct, driving under the

influence, drug offenses, fraud, gambling, liquor offenses, offenses

against the family, public drunkenness, runaways, sex offenses,

stolen property, vandalism, vagrancy, and weapons offenses).

7

*Part I Violent crime

Part I crime rates are defined as murder, non-negligent

Quarterly

rates per 1,000 residents manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault by

as defined in the Round 1 FBI. This measure is a comparison between citywide Part I crime

Choice Neighborhoods

rates (per 1000 residents) and the CN grant neighborhood Part I

NOFA, compared to

crime rates (per 1000 residents). It is derived from the difference

citywide rate

between these two numbers and indicates the overall safety of the

CN neighborhood as compared to the rest of the city.

8

*Number of murders

Murder is defined by the number of homicides or the unlawful

Quarterly

kil ing of another human being.

9

*Number of shootings

Shootings is defined by the number of gun expulsions aimed at

Quarterly

another human being.

10

*Part I property crime

Part I Property Crimes include burglary, larceny, auto theft, and

Quarterly

rates per 1,000 residents, arson as defined by the FBI. This measure is a comparison between

compared to citywide

citywide Part I property crime rates (per 1000 residents) and the

rate

CN grant neighborhood Part I property crime rates (per 1000

F-14

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

residents). It is derived from the difference between these two

numbers and indicates the overal safety of the CN neighborhood

from the rest of the city.

11

*Part II crime rate per

Part II crimes are defined as simple assault, curfew offenses and

Quarterly

1,000 residents,

loitering, embezzlement, forgery and counterfeiting, disorderly

compared to citywide

conduct, driving under the influence, drug offenses, fraud,

rate

gambling, liquor offenses, offenses against the family, public

drunkenness, runaways, sex offenses, stolen property, vandalism,

vagrancy, and weapons offenses by the FBI. This is a comparison

between city wide Part I crime rates (per 1000 residents) and the

CN grant neighborhood Part II crime rates (per 1000 residents). It

is derived from the difference between these two numbers and

indicates the overal safety of the CN the CN neighborhood from

the rest of the city.

12

*Number of arrests made Total number of all arrests made by the local police and law

Quarterly

in the neighborhood

enforcement agencies in the CN grant neighborhood(or closest

resulting in bookings

equivalent police beat, station area, police district) that resulted in

bookings.

13

*Percent Reduction in

See your Public Enhancement Grant (PSE) for definition and

Quarterly

illegal drug activity

contact the technical assistance provider for PSE grant with any

questions. This measure wil be the same as is required for you

PSE grant.

14

*Percent reduction in

See your Public Enhancement Grant (PSE) for definition and

Quarterly

gang activity

contact the technical assistance provider for PSE grant with any

questions. This measure wil be the same as is required for you

PSE grant.

Educational Opportunity

15

*Enrol ment numbers in

Total number of K through 12 enrol ments wil be captured one

Annual

neighborhood schools

time at the beginning of the school year for each school (only

public) within the CN grant neighborhood.

16

*Number of schools

Sum total of al schools including elementary, middle, secondary,

Annual

located in the

and high schools within the CN grant neighborhood.

neighborhood

17

*Number and percent of Total number of students in 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades in

Annual

students at or above

each school in the defined census tracts who score at or above

grade level according to

grade level for math and reading/language arts divided by the

State mathematics and

total number of students in each of the above mentioned grades

reading or language arts

in each school within the CN grant neighborhood

assessments in at least

the grades required by

the ESEA (3rd through 8th

and once in high school)

19

*Absentee rates in

Total number of student days lost due to absenteeism (only

Annual

neighborhood schools

unexcused absences) divided by total number of student days

offered by the non post-secondary schools within the CN grant

neighborhood. If absentee rates are calculated differently by the

school please provide definition to T&H.

F-15

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

20

*High School graduation

The number of high school graduates in a given year divided by the

Annual

rate

number of students who enrolled four years earlier. If

graduation/completion rates are calculated differently by the

school please provide definition to T&H.

21

*High school dropout

A dropout is a student who attends school in a particular school

Annual

rate

year but does return the fol owing Fal ; is not expelled, does not

graduate or receive a GED, continue school outside of the system,

begin col ege, or die. Dropout rate is calculated by dividing the

number of students who have dropped out from school before

graduating by the total number of students who enrolled four

years earlier. If graduation/completion rates are calculated

differently by the school please provide definition to T&H.

22

*Number of center-

This is a sum total of al center based or formal home-based early

Annual

based or formal home-

learning and childcare slots that within the CN neighborhood.

based early

learning/childcare slots

offered in the

neighborhood

Public Health

23

**Incidence per 1000 of

Total number of asthma hospitalizations reported at the nearest

Annual

asthma hospitalization

hospital to the CN grant neighborhood divided by 1000. The

underlying assumption is that asthma patients hospitalized at the

nearest hospital reside in the CN grant neighborhood. This

assumption is made because the personal information including

patient addresses are not accessible due to HIPPA regulations.

24

**Incidence per 1000 of

Number of children within the CN grant neighborhood who are

Annual

childhood obesity

20% above their ideal weight based on age, height and weight

divided by 1000. The underlying assumption is that obesity is

determined by the local health facilities and or through physical

education programs at local schools.

25

**Number of Diabetes

Number of diabetes related hospitalizations within the defined

Annual

related hospitalization

census tracts.

26

**Incidence per 1000 of

Number of heart disease patients within defined census tracts

Annual

heart disease

divided by 1000.

27

**Incidence per 1000 of

Number of lead poisonings (as defined by state thresholds) at

Annual

lead poisoning

facilities within defined census tracts divided by 1000.

28

**Incidence per 1000 of

Number of low birth weight incidences at facilities within defined

Annual

low birth weight

census tracts divided by 1000. Low birth weight is defined as birth

weight lower than 5.5 pounds by the International Statistical

Classification of diseased and related health problems.

29

**Teen birth rate

Number of childbirths to 13-19 year old females residing in the

Annual

defined census tracts divided by total number of births to al

females residing in census tracts.

F-16

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

30

**Late entry or no

Late or no prenatal care is the percentage of births that occur to

Annual

prenatal care

mothers residing within the CN grant neighborhood that on their

child’s birth certificate reported receiving prenatal care only in the

third trimester of their pregnancy, or reported receiving no

prenatal care.

Community Engagement and Capacity Building

31

*Number of

Total number of Choice Neighborhood related meetings open to

Annual

neighborhood meetings

residents and community alike held by grantee or their partners.

held as part of

Transformation Plan /

Choice Neighborhoods

grant

32

*Number of total

Total number of participants in al the CN related meetings open

Annual

participants in CN related to residents and community members alike held by grantee or

meetings

their partners.

*Thomas & Herbert wil obtain this data from the Grantees through mutual assistance and partnerships

** Thomas & Herbert will obtain this data from the local health depts. T&H will strategize data collection methodologies for these measures with assistance from the grantee.

F-17

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

PEOPLE

(Assisted Residents) (where Recording/Collection/Aggregation Responsibilities = Grantee)

No. Metric

Description

Frequency

Assisted Residents

1

Current Total Assisted

Number of Current Total Original Residents plus New Assisted

Quarterly

Residents

Residents

2

Current Total Original

Number of original public and assisted residents at the time of

Quarterly

Assisted Residents

Choice Neighborhoods application including new births and

additions (i.e. marriage, adoptions, etc.) and deducting the deaths,

evictions and out of states moves.

3

Original Assisted

Total number of residents in public and assisted housing at the

One Time

Residents

time of Choice Neighborhood Application. This number can be

found in Round 1 Application. This number wil never change.

4

Number of Births

Number of children born to original public and assisted residents

Quarterly

since the time of Choice Neighborhoods Application.

5

Number of Deaths

Number of original public and assisted residents at the time of

Quarterly

Choice Neighborhoods Application who have since passed away.

6

Number of non birth

Number of non birth addition (i.e. new spouse, adoption, etc.) to

Quarterly

additions

original public and assisted residents since the time of Choice

Neighborhoods Application.

7

Number of non death

Number of original public and assisted residents at the time of

Quarterly

deductions

Choice Neighborhoods Application who have either been

involuntarily terminated or moved out of state.

8

Current Total Original

Number of Current Total Original Assisted Residents who are

Quarterly

Assisted Residents in

receiving supportive services.

Case Management

9

Current Total Original

Number of Current Total Original Assisted Residents who are not

Quarterly

Assisted Residents not in receiving supportive services for the following reasons: residents

Case Management

did not need the services provided, resident refused the services,

residents were not authorized to receive services, or resident that

cannot be found.

10

New Assisted Residents

Number of non original assisted residents in the replacement

Quarterly

public and assisted housing units for the reporting quarter.

11

New Assisted Residents

Number of non original assisted residents in replacement public

Quarterly

in Case Management

and assisted housing units who are receiving supportive services.

12

New Assisted Residents

Number of non original assisted residents who are not receiving

Quarterly

not in Case Management supportive services for the following reasons: residents did not

need the services provided, resident refused the services,

residents were not authorized to receive services, or resident

cannot be found.

Education

F-18

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

13

Number and percent of

Number of school aged public and assisted housing children

Annual

children enrol ed in

enrolled in a school within the defined CN grant neighborhood

neighborhood schools

divided by total number of school aged public and assisted housing

children within the defined CN grant neighborhood. School age

defined as between the ages of 5-18.

14

Number and percent of

Number of school aged public and assisted housing children

Annual

children enrol ed in

enrol ed in a school outside of the CN grant neighborhood divided

schools outside the

by total number of school aged public and assisted housing

neighborhood footprint

children within the CN grant neighborhood. School age is defined

as between the ages of 5-18.

15

Number and percent of

Number of public and assisted housing children, from birth to

Annual

children, from birth to

kindergarten entry, participating in center-based or formal home-

kindergarten entry,

based early learning settings or programs divided by total number

participating in center-

of public and assisted housing children, from birth to kindergarten.

based or formal home-

Early learning programs may include Early Head Start, Head Start,

based early learning

certain child care or preschool.

settings or programs*

16

Attendance rate of

Number of attended school days of public and assisted housing

Annual

students in elementary,

children in elementary, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th grade divided by

6th, 7th,8th, 9th grades

number of student days by grade. If attendance is calculated

differently in your school district please inform T&H of the

definition being used.

17

High School

The number of public and assisted housing high school graduates

Annual

graduation/completion

in a given year divided by the number of public and assisted

rate

housing students who enrol ed four years earlier. If graduation

rate is calculated differently in your school district please inform

T&H of the definition being used.

19

Number participate in

Sum total of al parents of public and assisted housing school age

Annual

PTA or other school

children who have attended a PTA or an equivalent school support

support organization

organization.

20

Number and percent of

Sum total of parents of public and assisted housing children

Annual

parents or family

between the ages of 0-7 who report reading to their children on a

members who report

regular basis i.e., 3 or more times a week.

reading to their children

three or more times a

week

21

Number and percent of

Sum total of parents residing in the CN development who report

Annual

parents that have

researching more than one school option for their children.

explored school choice

options for their

children*

22

Number/% of children in Early learning development measures needs to be defined. The

Annual

kindergarten who

measure is calculated as total number of children residing in public

demonstrate at the

and assisted housing who demonstrate at the beginning of the

beginning of the program program or school year age-appropriate functioning across

or school year age-

multiple domains of early learning as determined using

appropriate functioning

developmental y appropriate early learning measures divided by

F-19

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

across multiple domains

total number of children entering school (5 years old).

of early learning as

determined using

developmentally

appropriate early

learning measures*

23

Number and percent of

Total number of public and assisted housing students in each

Annual

students at or above

grade i.e. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 who score at or above grade level for

grade level according to

math and reading or language arts assessments divided by total

State mathematics and

number of public and assisted housing students in each grade.

reading or language arts

assessments in at least

the grades required by

the ESEA (3rd through

8th and once in high

school)*

24

Number of youth

Total number of public and assisted housing residents 5-18 year

Annual

involved in positive youth olds who are involved in at least one positive youth development

development activities

activity. Positive youth development activities are activities for

youth 5-18 years old that target increased mental, physical, and/

or social development. These can include but are not limited to:

Sport teams, school sponsored extracurricular activities, Boys/Girl

Scouts, mentoring programs, church youth groups, etc.

Health

25

Number and percent of

Total number of public and assisted housing residents who have a

Annual

residents who have a

place where they regularly go other than an emergency room

place where they

when they are sick or need advice about their health divided by

regularly go other than

the total number of public and assisted housing residents. Places

an emergency room

residents may go other than the emergency room when they are

when they are sick or

sick include but are not limited to health clinics, doctor’s officers,

need advice about their

urgent care centers, minute clinics, and free clinics.

health

26

Number and percent of

Total number of public and assisted housing children, from birth to

Annual

children, from birth to

kindergarten entry, who have a place where they usual y go, other

kindergarten entry, who

than an emergency room, when they are sick or in need of advice

have a place where they

about their health divided by the total number of public and

usual y go, other than an assisted housing children. The relevant age group is 0-5.

emergency room, when

they are sick or in need

of advice about their

health

27

Number and percent of

Total number of public and assisted housing residents who have

Annual

residents who have

health insurance divided by the total number of public and

health insurance

assisted housing residents. Health Insurance includes insurances

from both private and public sources.

F-20

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

28

Number and percent of

Total number of public and assisted housing children (0-17 yrs.)

Annual

children who have health who have health insurance divided by the total number of public

insurance

and assisted housing residents children. Health Insurance includes

insurances from both private and public sources.

29

Number of residents

Sum total of public and assisted housing residents who have

Annual

covered by Medicaid or

Medicaid and/or Medicare coverage.

Medicare

30

Number and percent of

Good physical will be a self-reported data by the residents. A

Annual

residents, including

person with good health wil not suffer from any chronic il ness

children, reporting good

such as those listed below but this is not an exclusive list. The total

physical health

number of public and assisted housing residents with fewer than

one chronic il ness divided by the number of public and assisted

housing residents.

31

Number and percent of

Total number of public and assisted housing residents, including

Annual

residents, including

children, with Asthma divided by the total number of assisted and

children, with asthma

public housing residents including children. This includes only

those diagnosed as such by a licensed medical provider.

Number and percent of

Total number of public and assisted housing residents, including

Annual

residents, including

children, with Type II diabetes divided by the total number of

children, with Type II

assisted and public housing residents including children. This

diabetes

includes only those diagnosed as such by a licensed medical

provider.

32

Number and percent of

Total number of public and assisted housing children, with lead

Annual

children with lead

poisoning divided by the total number of assisted and public

poisoning

housing children. Use your states definition and threshold for lead

poisoning not elevated levels of lead.

33

Number and percent of

Total number of low birth babies born to assist and public housing

Annual

low birth weight babies

residents divided by the total number of babies born to the

born

assisted and public housing residents. Birth weight under 5.51

pounds is considered to be low birth weight and is an indicator of

pre natal care and maternal health.

34

Number and percentage

This is a perceptual indicator and wil be captured on a

Annual

of residents reporting

comparative scale from 1-5. Total number of public and assisted

stress or psychological

housing residents reporting 3 or higher on a scale of 1-5 who feel

distress

stressed divided by the total number of assisted and public

housing residents.

35

Number and percent of

Total number of public and assisted housing residents not able to

Annual

adults unable to work

work due to health restrictions divided by the total number of

due to health restrictions assisted and public housing residents. Adults unable to work due

to health is defined as a public or assisted housing resident 18 or

over that has been certified as medically disabled by the Social

Security Administration. This does not count temporarily disabled

residents or residents with a doctor’s note.

36

Number and percent of

Total number of public and assisted housing residents, including

Annual

residents, including

children, with hypertension divided by the total number of

children with

assisted and public housing residents including children. This

F-21

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

hypertension

includes only those diagnosed as such by a licensed medical

provider.

37

Number and percent of

Total number of public and assisted housing residents, including

Annual

residents, including

children, with high cholesterol divided by the total number of

children with high

assisted and public housing residents including children. This

cholesterol

includes only those diagnosed as such by a licensed medical

provider.

Economic Self-Sufficiency

38

Number of households

Sum total of public and assisted housing households receiving food

Annual

enrol ed in food stamps

stamps or WIC.

or WIC

39

Number of hours worked The number of hours per week worked by public and assisted

Annual

per week

housing residents divided by the number of employed public and

assisted housing residents.

40

Number that received

EITC (Earned Income Tax credit) is an outcome of tax returns filed

Annual

EITC

by public and assisted housing residents once a year. Residents

under a certain income threshold earn an EITC from the Federal

government. The total number of public and assisted housing

residents receiving EITC is an indicator for low income residents.

41

Number of residents who Number of public and assisted housing residents who have been

Annual

have been employed for

employed at their current job consecutively over the last six

6 months or longer

months or more without any voluntary or involuntary gaps (sick

and/or vacation days don't count as gaps).

42

Number residents

Number of public and assisted housing residents employed full or

Quarterly

employed by Grantee or

part time by grantee or its contractors through section 3. The

its contractors through

number wil indicate the number of jobs fil ed by the grantees and

Section 3

their contractors to fulfill section 3 requirements, under the CN

funding. This wil include al employment pre or post CN grant

award. Only those contractors who are directly associated with the

CN grant are taken into account for this measure.

43

Number/percent that are Total number of unemployed public and assisted housing residents

Annual

unemployed

between the ages of 18-65 who are not employed but seeking

employment divided by the number of public and assisted housing

residents between the ages of 18-65 who are able to work.

44

Number receiving

Total number of public and assisted housing residents who receive

Annual

Unemployment

Unemployment Insurance. Unemployment insurance includes

Insurance

unemployment benefits received from the state.

45

Number of residents that The total number of public and assisted housing residents

Annual

have been unemployed

between the ages of 18-24 that have been out of work for 6-24

for 6-24 months

months divided by the number of public and assisted housing

residents classified as unemployed.

F-22

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

46

Number enrol ed in job

The number of public and assisted housing residents that have

Quarterly

training or other

enrolled in a job training or other workforce development

(for

workforce development

program.

residents in

programs

Case

Manageme

nt)

Annual

(for all

residents)

47

Number completed job

The number of public and assisted housing residents that have

Quarterly

training or other

completed a job training or other workforce development

(for

workforce development

program.

residents in

programs

Case

Manageme

nt)

Annual

(for all

residents)

48

Number/percent

The number of public and assisted housing residents enrol ed in an

Annual

enrol ed in IDA or other

IDA or other savings program divided by the total number of public

savings program

housing and assisted residents.

Individual Development Account; A savings account for persons

with lower income. The funds put into an IDA are matched by a

public or private organization. One may use the funds in an IDA for

educational purposes, starting a business, or buying a first house.

IDAs are accompanied by programs for credit improvement and

other classes to help account holders move up from poverty and

into the middle classes.

49

Number/percent that

The number of public and assisted housing residents with a bank

Annual

have a bank account

account divided by the total number of public and assisted housing

residents. Bank Account

includes Checking Account, Savings Account, IRA, Certificate of

Deposit, Money market account maintained by residents on a

continuous basis

Crime and Safety

50

Number of residents

The number of public and assisted housing residents reporting to a

Annual

reporting that they were case manager or on a survey that they were a victim of a crime in

victims of crime in their

their unit or in the defined census blocks. Crimes include: Part 1

home or their

Violent (murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape,

neighborhood

robbery, and aggravated assault), Part 1 Property Crimes (burglary,

larceny, auto theft, and arson), Part 2 (simple assault, curfew

offenses and loitering, embezzlement, forgery and counterfeiting,

disorderly conduct, driving under the influence, drug offenses,

fraud, gambling, liquor offenses, offenses against the family, public

drunkenness, runaways, sex offenses, stolen property, vandalism,

vagrancy, and weapons offenses).

F-23

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

51

Residents report feeling

This is a perceptual indicator and wil be captured on a

Annual

safe in their homes

comparative scale from 1-5.

52

Original Residents report This is a perceptual indicator and wil be captured on a

Annual

feeling safe in their

comparative scale from 1-5.

homes

53

Residents report feeling

This is a perceptual indicator and wil be captured on a

Annual

safe in their

comparative scale from 1-5.

neighborhood

54

Original Residents report This is a perceptual indicator and wil be captured on a

Annual

feeling safe in their

comparative scale from 1-5.

neighborhood

55

Number and percent of

This is a perceptual indicator and wil be captured on a

Annual

students who feel safe at comparative scale from 1-5.

school

56

Number and percent of

This is a perceptual indicator and wil be captured on a

Annual

students who feel safe

comparative scale from 1-5.

traveling to and from

school

Technology

57

Number of units with

Sum total of public and assisted housing units with broadband

Annual

broadband access

access capability.

58

Number of households

Number of public and assisted housing households with a

Annual

with a computer

computer which includes: desktop computers, laptops and tablets

not smart phones.

59

Number and percent of

Total number of public and assisted housing residents who have

Annual

residents who have

access to broadband internet and a connected computing device

home access to

(desktop computers, laptops, and tablets, not smart phones) in

broadband internet and a their homes divided by total number of public and assisted

connected computing

housing residents

device

60

Number and percent of

Total number of public and assisted housing resident students who

Annual

students who have

have access to broadband internet and a connected computing

school and home access

device (desktop computers, laptops, and tablets, not smart

to broadband internet

phones) in their homes and school divided by total number of

and a connected

public and assisted housing students.

computing device

Community Engagement and Capacity Building

61

Number of resident

Total number of CN related meetings held by grantee or partner

Annual

meetings held as part of

organizations primarily targeted to public and assisted housing CN

Transformation Plan /

residents.

Choice Neighborhoods

grant

F-24

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

62

Number/percent of

Total number of public and assisted housing residents who

Annual

residents that have

participated in CN related meetings held by the grantee or partner

participated in a Choice

organizations primarily targeted to public and assisted housing CN

Neighborhoods-related

residents over a year divided by total number of public and

meeting

assisted housing residents.

63

Number of residents that Total number of public and assisted housing resident who have

Annual

participate in 50 percent participated in 50 percent or more of all CN related meetings held

or more of all Choice

by the grantee or partner organizations targeted to CN public and

Neighborhoods -related

assisting housing residents.

meetings

64

Number of residents

Total number of CN public and assisted housing resident who have

Annual

occupying leadership

a titled position on a council or committee related to CN grant.

positions on councils or

committees formed as

part of the Choice

Neighborhood effort

F-25

Appendix G: Detailed Crime Statistics

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Chapter 4 of the Baseline Report includes a discussion of reported crime statistics in the neighborhoods of the FY10/11 Choice grantees and how the neighborhoods compare to their respective cities. Detailed

statistics compiled from local administrative data are presented in this appendix. It should be noted that not all crimes are reported, so actual crime may be higher than these rates indicate.

Analysis for this report aggregated block-level reported crime data from the sources listed below to the Choice Neighborhoods and cities.

• Boston: The data were provided to the Urban Institute by the Boston Police Department. Arson

is not reported as part of Part I property crimes.

• Chicago: The data were downloaded from the City of Chicago’s open data platform. 181

• New Orleans: The data were provided to the Urban Institute by the New Orleans Police

Department. These data represent raw reported crimes that have not been processed for

reporting to the FBI. Analysis of the 2011 data results in violent crime counts that are 10 percent

lower than those reported by the FBI. 182

• San Francisco: The data were downloaded from the City of San Francisco’s open data

platform. 183 Preliminary analysis of local crime data resulted in violent crime counts 11 percent higher and property crime counts 6 percent higher than those reported by the FBI (see above).

Homicide was not reported as part of Part I violent crimes on the open data platform and was

obtained separately by the Urban Institute, directly from the San Francisco Police Department.

• Seattle: The data were obtained by the Urban Institute from the Seattle Police Department

through a research data use agreement.

Exhibit G.1. contains rates of reported crime for Part I and Part II crimes, and Exhibit G.2. provides the number of reported crimes for violent crimes, homicide, and rape. Part I crimes are categories of serious crime submitted by police departments to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Part I violent crime includes homicide, rape, aggravated assault and robbery. Part I Property crime includes burglary,

larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Part II crimes are all other types of reported.

To calculate crime rates for cities we used population data from the 2010 decennial census as well as

the Census Bureau’s Population estimates program. In order to calculate crime rates for the Choice

Neighborhoods, we applied the city’s rate of change in the population estimates to the 2010 block-level population for the neighborhood to estimate population for 2011 and 2012. The crime statistics listed

here may not match rates from other sources for various reasons, such as the source of the

denominator and whether the dataset provided to us represented a file cleaned for the FBI submission

or an earlier iteration of the file.

181 See http://data.cityofchicago.org/Public-Safety/Crimes-2001-to-present/ijzp-q8t2

182 See http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-

2011/tables/table_8_offenses_known_to_law_enforcement_by_state_by_city_2011.xls/view

183 See http://apps.sfgov.org/datafiles/index.php?dir=Police

G-1

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Exhibit G.1. Detailed Crime Rates for the Choice Neighborhoods and their Cities, 2010-12

Choice Neighborhoods

Choice Cities

Type of

Quincy

Wood- Iberville/ Eastern

New

San

Crime

Year

Corridor

lawn

Tremé

Bayview Ye sler B

oston Chi cago Orleans Francisco Se

attle

Total Part I 2010

56.6

86.2

76.2

61.1

82.5

42.4

56.7

43.6

49.0

60.1

crime rate 2011

59.4

84.4

76.9

53.6 105.3

39.4

55.2

45.8

50.3

56.9

2012

59.0

76.0

80.9

58.7 100.9

37.2

52.2

44.5

59.3

56.2

Part I

2010

19.9

26.7

15.7

18.8

13.5

9.3

11.4

6.6

7.7

5.3

Violent

2011

16.5

23.8

15.5

15.0

13.7

8.4

10.7

6.9

7.5

5.3

Crime Rate 2012

19.9

22.8

17.1

17.6

19.9

8.3

10.4

6.7

8.1

5.5

Homicide

2010

0.3

0.3

0.8

0.6

0.5

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.1

0.0

rate

2011

0.2

0.6

0.8

0.2

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.1

0.0

2012

0.1

0.8

0.8

0.4

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.1

0.0

2010

0.5

1.3

0.6

0.5

0.0

0.4

0.5

0.4

0.2

0.2

Rape rate

2011

0.8

1.1

1.2

0.3

0.9

0.4

0.6

0.5

0.2

0.2

2012

0.6

0.5

1.2

0.8

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.2

0.2

Robbery

2010

5.0

10.2

6.6

8.6

6.3

3.1

5.3

2.6

4.1

2.3

rate

2011

3.4

9.1

6.2

6.5

4.7

3.0

5.2

2.8

4.1

2.3

2012

4.8

9.2

7.6

8.1

11.1

3.0

5.0

2.6

4.7

2.3

Aggravated 2010

14.0

14.8

7.7

9.0

6.8

5.7

5.4

3.2

3.3

2.8

assault

2011

12.0

13.1

7.4

8.0

8.0

4.8

4.8

3.2

3.1

2.8

rate

2012

14.4

12.3

7.5

8.3

8.3

4.8

4.7

3.3

3.0

3.0

Simple

2010

35.9

62.5

23.3

28.1

27.5

17.5

27.1

10.0

10.2

10.4

assault

2011

31.8

50.6

22.7

26.5

31.2

16.9

25.5

10.4

9.5

10.2

rate

2012

38.8

51.4

27.0

22.0

29.2

17.0

24.9

10.3

8.9

9.9

Part I

2010

37

60

60

42

69

33

45

37

41

55

property

2011

43

61

61

39

92

31

45

39

43

52

crime rate 2012

39

53

64

41

81

29

42

38

51

51

Burglary

2010

10

19

16

13

14

6

10

11

6

11

rate

2011

7

17

14

10

18

6

10

11

6

11

2012

7

14

14

10

13

5

8

9

7

10

2010

22

32

31

16

44

24

28

19

30

38

Larceny

rate

2011

30

33

33

19

61

22

27

21

31

35

2012

27

33

37

19

57

21

27

22

36

35

Motor

2010

5

9

13

11

10

3

7

7

5

6

vehicle

2011

6

10

13

8

13

3

7

7

6

5

theft rate

2012

6

6

13

10

11

2

6

6

7

6

G-2

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Choice Neighborhoods

Choice Cities

Type of

Quincy

Wood- Iberville/ Eastern

New

San

Crime

Year

Corridor

lawn

Tremé

Bayview Yesler Boston Chicago Orleans Francisco Seattle

2010

n.r.

0.2

0.9

2.2

0

n.r.

0.2

0.4

0.3

0

Arson rate 2011

n.r.

0.2

0.9

1.5

0

n.r.

0.2

0.4

0.2

0

2012

n.r.

0.2

0.2

1.8

0

n.r.

0.2

0.2

0.3

0

Vandalism 2010

19

30.4

20.8

22.5

15.4

11

15.1

11.0

9.4

8.4

rate

2011

17

22.8

18.9

19.7

21.7

10

13.8

10.1

8.5

7.8

2012

12

23.5

17.5

19.8

32.4

9

13.2

9.4

9.1

7.6

Part II

2010

83

185.7

107.8

139.4 120.2

48

80.3

38.7

65.8

34.6

crime rate 2011

77

153.5

87.1

127.8

91.6

44

74.3

35.8

57.1

30.2

2012

78

147.2

90.6

128.8 102.3

43

70.8

35.6

53.8

29.5

Notes: All rates are rates per 1,000 population. Part I violent crime includes homicide, rape, aggravated assault and robbery.

Part I Property includes burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson. N.r.: Not reported.

Sources: Analysis by the Urban Institute of r eported crimes counts obtained from local police departments; 2010 decennial census, Census Population Estimates.

Exhibit G.2. Selected Detailed Crime Counts for the Choice Neighborhoods and their Cities, 2010-12

Choice Neighborhoods

Choice Cities

Type of

Quincy

Wood- Iberville/ Eastern

New

San

Crime

Year

Corridor

lawn

Tremé

Bayview Ye sler B

oston Chi cago Orleans Francisco Se

attle

Part I violent 2010

193

633

182

330

28

5,766 30,643

2,275

6,218

3,241

crime

2011

163

567

189

266

29

5,272 28,995

2,479

6,083

3,270

(count)

2012

199

546

213

317

43

5,292 28,202

2,484

6,658

3,483

Homicide

2010

3

8

9

11

1

72

437

144

50

19

(count)

2011

2

14

10

3

0

64

435

161

50

22

2012

1

20

10

8

0

56

513

160

69

23

2010

5

31

7

9

0

263

1,467

149

195

105

Rape (count) 2011

8

26

14

5

2

271

1,537

173

193

99

2012

6

13

15

14

1

288

1,429

143

186

117

Notes: Part I violent crime includes homicide, rape, aggravated assault and robbery.

Sources: Analysis by the Urban Institute of reported crimes counts obtained from local police departments; 2010 decennial census, Census Population Estimates.

G-3

Appendix H: Questions for Future

Research and Evaluation

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative represents an important evolution of housing and community

development policy. Building on lessons from HOPE VI and other place-based initiatives, Choice has the potential to accelerate the development of revitalized, mixed-income neighborhoods. At the same time,

Choice’s long-term goals are ambitious, and an investment of up to $30.5 mil ion, while significant for a federal initiative, still will not transform neighborhoods immediately. As an important policy goal that may only be attained over time, it will be important to track implementation processes, and outcomes

and impacts related to housing, people, and neighborhoods in the communities in which it operates.

The following sections of this appendix outline research questions for future evaluation efforts in each domain: housing, people, neighborhoods, and coordination and leverage.

HOUSING

The housing-related findings from the study of the initial grantees suggest a number of questions about implementation activities and outcomes that could be explored through future research and evaluation

efforts.

ACTIVITIES

Are redevelopment plans moving forward? What factors lead grantees to change elements of

their plans?

Future evaluation studies can assess whether grantees and housing partners are able to complete their

housing redevelopment plans, identify changes to the plans during the course of implementation, and

identify factors that lead to significant changes, whether financing, site control, political support, or other things. With the exception of Boston’s housing plan that is scheduled to be completed within a

shorter timeframe, the plans will be implemented over a number of years. A final assessment could only

happen years from now. During the interim, additional implementation studies could provide valuable

information for policymakers and practitioners.

OUTCOMES

What factors affect the achievement of mixed income goals?

Studies of income mix could focus on replacement housing and other housing development in the

Choice neighborhood claimed as part of the broader redevelopment effort. Beyond a descriptive

assessment of resident income mix, research could examine factors that support or inhibit the formation and stability of mixed-income communities. Such research would contribute to the growing body of

work focused on mixed-income communities. Factors to study could include property features (such as

management structure and policies, building amenities, housing unit design and quality) and

neighborhood and city factors (housing demand, perceived safety, access to amenities and

transportation, and so on).

What factors support community building among residents?

Resident engagement and interaction in the Choice developments likely will be affected by a number of

factors, some within and others beyond the influence of property managers. Research could examine

the role of site designs (placement of buildings, location of open space, connections and barriers

between spaces) and building design (whol y market rate or affordable unit buildings versus mixed-

income buildings) in supporting or inhibiting community building. Depending on the management

H-1

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

practices put in place to support community building efforts, it might be possible to compare

approaches across Choice developments.

How do design decisions about housing unit sizes affect the composition of the tenant base

after redevelopment? And, how do households, large and small, fare after final relocation,

whether they return to the target development or not?

Once replacement housing is built and occupied, research can reconsider a number of questions related

to household size and housing outcomes. Post-redevelopment occupants’ household size and

composition can be compared with those of pre-redevelopment occupants to understand how the

resident base changes. Such a study would answer the question: Do the developments serve households

that are markedly different from those that lived in them before Choice? The household tracking study

could support a future survey of pre-Choice households to understand how they fare after relocation in

terms of housing adequacy. Survey data could be used to assess whether post-redevelopment unit sizes

affect households’ decisions to return, to restructure their household, or to seek subsidized or

nonsubsidized housing elsewhere.

How have energy efficiency and use changed as a result of redevelopment and which types of

design and technology advances and resident training lead to the most significant

improvements?

Housing designs for buildings and units should lead to significant improvements in energy consumption.

Research on post-occupancy consumption can use CNT Energy’s baseline analysis to gauge energy

efficiency and energy use improvements. Approaches to energy efficiency improvements and energy use

reductions can be assessed comparatively to identify those with the greatest returns.

Will Choice be a catalyst for housing improvements in the neighborhood?

As redevelopment of the target housing properties and off-site housing proceeds, research can assess

the impact Choice has on nearby property owners. Studies also could attempt to identify the features of redevelopment and the neighborhood characteristics most closely associated with positive spillover

effects.

PEOPLE

The findings from this study about the early implementation of Choice’s resident and community

supports suggest a number of questions that could be explored through future research.

ACTIVITIES

This first set of research questions align with the four program areas the Urban Institute has identified, followed by questions that address the overall theory of change in the design of Choice’s resident and

community supports model.

How will grantees engage neighborhood residents to plan for and support transformation

efforts?

Resident and community engagement efforts should reach al residents. Neighborhood residents,

businesses, and community organizations need to be engaged with the redevelopment process through

efforts that seek to foster connections among stakeholders and residents across income and housing

H-2

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

tenure. Future research should identify successful strategies for engaging neighborhood residents and

other stakeholders in transformation efforts and assess the potential costs and benefits of each.

Which grantees’ configurations and activities will help to ensure existing leverage

commitments and establish new ones?

Choice’s aims for interagency collaboration and systems partnerships, which were established at the

federal level, are still working their way to the local level. All Choice grantees faced chal enges in

building the capacity of partners, working toward a shared vision of success, and seeking joint funding opportunities, such as through the US Departments of Labor, Justice, and Education. Local interagency

col aborations continued to chal enge grantees as they sought to expand neighborhood-based resident

and community support activities. Grantees needed to foster new and existing partnerships with

nonprofit community-based organizations, public safety net service providers, and anchor institutions to enhance residents’ opportunities for access to education, employment, and health services. We need to

know more about how to integrate existing publicly funded services through the municipal departments

with service provision in the neighborhood, ensure that case managers and other service providers

know about and access neighborhood-based resources, and connect to and build the capacity of local

organizations when service gaps exist.

How will the grantees structure and sequence the relocation and case management services?

Grantees are offering case management services to all original residents of the target developments,

and in some cases are prioritizing households that face the greatest vulnerability during and after

relocation. Initiating case management services before relocation is crucial for ensuring housing

stability. When relocation must happen prior to initiating case management services, as it did in Grove Parc, residents may be at greater risk for losing HUD assisted housing in the process of relocation.

Future research should examine how grantees’ decisions about the design and sequencing of case

management services affect relocation outcomes and longer-term outcomes for families. In addition, we

need to know more costs and benefits of grantee strategies to identify, engage and provide services for residents that are consistent with what they need. 184

Which grantee team configurations and activities will prove most and least conducive to

strong and effective teams, and why?

Coordination between grantees and their subcontracted providers who interact with residents on a

frequent basis is essential to meeting the intended outcomes for residents. Social service providers,

relocation specialists, property managers, and other staff would benefit from training on how to build

more col aborative and trusting partnerships that result in better referrals and coordinated planning of housing relocation and social services. Training and ongoing technical assistance for grantee teams in

effective communication, transparent referral systems, shared data systems, and service planning

integration between partners could result in residents having better outcomes.

184 Such a prioritization strategy is being implemented by Urban Strategies in New Orleans and San Francisco. See Case Management section above for description.

H-3

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

How will the evolution of performance measurement requirements help or hinder progress

as the grantees seek to improve resident outcomes?

HUD has already made a number of modifications to the performance measurement requirements.

Through technical assistance, HUD has also made great advances in helping grantees to use the data to

shape the service delivery models and make midcourse corrections so that performance measurement

activities translate into improved services and outcomes. Following the data collection period, HUD staff made significant changes in the performance measurement expectations, including providing clarity to

grantees through helpful revisions to a “data dictionary” and providing significant support for the Grant Management reporting system. HUD staff demonstrated responsiveness to grantees needs while

figuring out the software and reporting expectations. Future research should examine the streamlined

set of indicators and grantees ability to not only col ect them but also use them to make decisions.

OUTCOMES

This next set of research questions aims to understand how Choice impacts the long-term quality of life for assisted and other low-income households in the Choice neighborhood.

How will Choice contribute to families’ capacities to meet their children’s developmental

needs?

Choice aims to address persistent intergenerational poverty through interventions designed for both

youth and families in the areas of education, employment, and health. Future research should explore

how Choice interventions result in new opportunities and future trajectories for youth growing up in

distressed urban neighborhoods.

How will Choice interventions improve the physical and mental health of assisted residents?

Stress and physical decline have been linked with involuntary relocation. However, when relocation

efforts are coordinated with preventative health activities, that link can be broken. As Choice

implementers continue to develop models for health supports, future research can explore the ways

that health interventions support the immediate and long-term wellness for assisted residents and low-

income residents in the surrounding area.

To what extent will Choice stabilize neighborhood schools, support student academic

achievement, and leverage additional federal, state, and local education investments?

School improvement and student achievement are essential for changing the trajectory of these

revitalizing neighborhoods. Future research should identify the reciprocal benefits of Choice and federal education efforts like Promise Neighborhoods, as well as local models like the partnership between

Seattle Housing Authority, Seattle University, the school district and child-centered non-profit

organizations. Understanding the relationship between school choice and place-base initiatives is also

an area that increasingly needs to be understood in the context of how to best support families whose

children do not attend school in the neighborhood.

What combinations of resident engagement, service coordination, and case management

strategies will result in the greatest improvements in job readiness and employment?

Future research should look at the connection between Choice people activities, including workforce

development initiatives, and nearby job opportunities. Residents’ need and desire for jobs in the local H-4

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

area meant that Choice grantees needed to develop stronger relationships with institutions that offer

jobs congruent with residents’ skil s. Building these connections has been difficult, particularly where there are language and cultural differences.

What will be the impact of Choice services and relocation approaches on the rate at which

families leave HUD assistance?

Choice provides services and supports to reduce the disruption caused by relocation processes and

ensure the right to return to lease compliant households. Future research should examine supportive

services and relocation efforts to understand how residents experience these strategies. More research

is needed to understand the reasons why some households in target developments leave HUD

assistance and how best to ensure their housing stability during and after relocation.

NEIGHBORHOOD

The findings from the neighborhood and public safety sections of this study suggest several questions to follow up on for the Choice implementation activities. Future research can also investigate the benefits of the inclusion of neighborhood goals in Choice and provide lessons for other neighborhood

revitalization efforts.

ACTIVITIES

What kinds of projects will the grantees in Eastern Bayview, Woodlawn, and Iberville/Tremé

pursue for their Critical Community Improvements?

In this early implementation period, the Boston and Seattle Choice grantees made considerable progress

on their CCI plans by September 2013, and residents wil benefit from the fruits of that work in 2014. In the other three neighborhoods, the grantee plans for the neighborhood activities were less definite than those related to housing and people, but the Choice teams in Woodlawn and Eastern Bayview were

moving forward with concrete proposals. The original CCI plans in Ibervil e/Tremé were being revisited.

Will the CCIs be successfully implemented and improve the quality of life for current

residents?

In Yesler and Quincy Corridor, early signs are positive that CCIs will help improve the quality of life for residents. The CCI projects that have been selected will be very visible signals of the benefits Choice may bring to the neighborhood and can earn community buy-in for the initiative. Stakeholder comments

confirm that the projects chosen were ones that the residents considered important and believed would

enhance the neighborhood. In Yesler, CCIs are funding key components of the overal vision of the

rebuilt neighborhood and seem likely to have a greater influence than if they were isolated investments.

The Quincy Corridor interventions, consistent with their Choice approach to incremental change in the

neighborhood, reinforce preexisting initiatives and have the advantage of being concentrated in the

smal Choice Neighborhood. In both these cases, the parks, playgrounds, gardens, and community

centers may provide important public spaces to build community among both the target development

and the neighborhood residents. For these projects and the CCIs yet to be determined by the other

three Choice grantees, HUD could explore how the CCI selection process contributed to the success or

delays in the implementation of the projects in order to give guidance to future grantees.

H-5

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

How will the implementation of PSE and public safety activities proceed?

There will be a lot to learn from the FY 2010-2011 grantees’ implementation of their PSE efforts and

other public safety activities. Future process studies should assess how the planning and technical

assistance related to the PSE influenced local program design and whether grantees are able to meet

their interim objectives and leverage goals and ultimately complete their implementation plans.

How can the federal government induce local efforts and build capacity on important topic

areas?

HUD’s partnership with DOJ to expand opportunities for the Choice grantees to receive technical

assistance on and additional federal funding for public safety interventions, stands out as an important effort to follow. These grants served to call attention to the public safety issue, provide additional direct funding, require additional leverage partnerships, build substantive expertise at the local level through technical assistance and requirements to implement evidence-based programming, and monitoring

program outcomes. The PSE grants offer a model of strong coordination between federal agencies that

could be expanded to other topic areas. For example, Choice aims to increase the number of jobs in the

neighborhood and the income levels of neighborhood residents. A partnership with the U.S. Department

of Labor (DOL) on a grant to fund workforce development programs in the Choice Neighborhoods along

with the technical assistance and expertise of the DOL staff could help HUD and the grantees achieve

these goals. Future research should explore the extent to which interagency coordination at the federal level could be an important lever for comprehensive neighborhood transformation initiatives.

OUTCOMES

How do CCIs contribute to successful neighborhood outcomes and catalyze external

investments?

Beyond knowing if the CCIs are successful y completed and serve the current residents, future

researchers will be interested in which ones seemed to accelerate or substantially contribute to

neighborhood revitalization. How do investments in the built environment such as the development of

recreational space compare with those designed to bring residents new retail options? Which CCIs

catalyze new investments by the private sector in the neighborhood? While the Choice Neighborhoods

al exhibited signs of distress, they are not homogeneous. Better understanding about what mix of

investments appear best suited to different neighborhood conditions would inform future federal and

local efforts to revitalize neighborhoods.

In addition to the neighborhood context, the grantees’ design choices for their Transformation Plan

could also affect whether CCIs spur neighborhood transformations. As one example, the selection and

size of the neighborhood area could affect the ultimate impact of Choice interventions. Does choosing a boundary consistent with preexisting local neighborhood areas facilitate alignment of Choice and non-Choice activities? How does the size of the chosen area affect the pace of neighborhood revitalization?

On one hand, effecting change with the fixed amount of Choice funding for neighborhood interventions

is potentially more difficult in a larger area. 185 A larger area may also be less cohesive. For example, 185 See, for example, Galster, Tatian, and Accordino (2006) and Galster et al. (2004).

H-6

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Ibervil e/Tremé covers three neighborhoods from the local perspective, which has presented chal enges

for building social and physical connections across the entire area. On the other hand, a larger area may encompass more institutional resources and broader constituencies to advocate for support.

Whatever the neighborhood size, the Choice interventions are unlikely to affect all parts of the

neighborhood equal y. What is the geographic extent of the impact of neighborhood interventions? Are

interventions more effective clustered together? The Neighborhoods in Bloom program in Richmond,

Virginia, in which there were two areas of treatment, provides an example of this approach. The impact

areas received direct investments and the larger target area (surrounding the impact area) only received priority for city services. 186

What approaches will be most effective for improving public safety outcomes?

The design of the FY 2010-11 NOFA, with the division of program activities into housing, people, and

neighborhood domains, meant that the grantees’ proposed approaches to public safety were

fragmented. The Transformation Plans did not describe how al elements would contribute and interact

to reduce violence in the community. However, the FY 2012 and FY 2013 grantees were required to

describe their overall public safety strategy and how community groups and criminal justice entities

would coordinate activities to improve safety outcomes. In addition, the step of setting baseline and

program target goals for the PSE grants has been incorporated into the FY 2013 Choice NOFA, which

awards more points to applicants who can identify these goals and describe a public safety strategy that aligns with those outcomes. Future evaluations should look at the differences in Choice program

activities that occur as wel as crime rates and resident ratings of safety between these grantee cohorts.

Another important question for Choice is whether leadership by an entity on the Choice team, such as

Project RIGHT in Quincy Corridor or the Woodlawn Public Safety Alliance on the issue, will increase the likelihood of successfully addressing the high levels of violence in these communities, potentially

through more or higher quality programming and coordination with the police. The Choice program

already has a precedent for formalizing leadership on a specific issue, with the designation of an

education implementation entity, such a study could assess whether this would be helpful on public

safety.

How will the grantees’ choices of sequencing neighborhood activities affect the pace and

character of neighborhood revitalization?

Over the next several years, the early grantees and those in other implementation sites will be making

choices about what neighborhood revitalization activities to prioritize and how to sequence them. These choices represent excel ent potential learning opportunities for other grantees, for HUD, and for the

community development field more broadly. There may be a logical sequencing of activities in public

safety, economic development and the built environment. These long-distressed neighborhoods remain

in the early phases of transformation, with a great amount of uncertainty and demand for potential

investors. Stakeholders see high crime and lack of safety as key obstacles thwarting investment that

186 Galster, Tatian, and Accordino (2006).

H-7

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

could lead to new jobs and broader economic development. One specific question future research

efforts could address is whether earlier attention to public safety efforts will speed transformation of the neighborhoods, or whether economic development efforts will thrive even within an environment of

high crime.

In the various topic areas that fall under the neighborhood domain, how important is

coordination with external partners? Which types of government agencies, nonprofits, and

private sector actors are most critical in each issue area?

HUD’s intention is that the CCI activities wil both focus current funding and spur new public and private investments. Achieving this intention wil require purposeful and ongoing engagement on the part of the Choice grantee teams. The level of Choice funding means that money alone wil likely not induce

influential external partners to come the table, but the grantee teams can also draw on the team’s

relationships and political influence.

The current grantees have provided good examples of the payoff of this approach. The community

engagement related to the Quincy Street Public Realm Improvement Project resulted in a broader range

of community perspectives being considered before final decisions were made. Engagement with

anchor institutions can leverage additional resources. For example, the University of Chicago’s $2.55

million investment allowed the grantee team to enhance their public safety activities.

Future process studies should look at what kind of organizations (community building, advocacy, service providers, schools, etc.) need to be at the table and the extent and structure of their involvement. One specific question should be the roles that the anchor institutions, such as hospitals, universities, or other major employers, choose to play in Choice neighborhood planning. Studies should also explore how the

coordination relates to outcomes. For example, do grantees that collaborate with law enforcement and

community organizations engaged in activities related to public safety succeed in reducing the violent

crime rates compared to other high-crime areas? Economic development would require a different set

of actors, such as the key stakeholders of the biomedical district in New Orleans, and different outcome measures, like the number of target development residents employed in the district.

How (and to what extent) do neighborhood and regional context facilitate or hinder

neighborhood revitalization?

The five neighborhoods vary in factors that are difficult for the Choice grantees to shift in the short- and medium-term, such as proximity to job centers, access to transit, and presence of anchor institutions.

The Choice Neighborhoods also do not function in isolation from their surrounding city and regional

context. For example, the likelihood of new middle-income households moving into the redeveloped

Choice Neighborhoods wil be affected by the citywide demand for market-rate housing. The city and

regional labor markets wil mediate Choice Neighborhood workforce and economic development

efforts, no matter how well executed. Future evaluation will need to view the apt selection and

successful implementation of Choice housing, people and neighborhood investments within an

understanding of how each place’s broader environment contributed to the neighborhood trajectory.

H-8

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

How will a neighborhood being part of a broader comprehensive plan affect the role that

Choice plays in neighborhood revitalization? In sites without a preexisting holistic plan, will

the presence of Choice spur new efforts to plan for neighborhood development in an

integrated way?

Achieving neighborhood transformation appears more likely in the Yesler Choice Neighborhood because

Choice-funded and externally funded activities are well-integrated and are helping to execute a shared

vision of how the neighborhood wil change. For example, the city of Seattle’s infrastructure

improvements in combination with the CCIs to better connect residents to amenities anticipate the

large-scale transformation plans put forward by SHA. Watching the progress in Yesler can help to answer whether coordination around neighborhood activities helps to accelerate the execution of the

comprehensive plan and results in better neighborhood outcomes.

In Choice Neighborhoods without a neighborhood plan with broad civic support and resources, the

examples of how Yesler and Eastern Bayview coordinate public and private investments may inspire

other grantees to pursue a similar path. Relationships forged by implementing Choice could be

leveraged to build consensus around a comprehensive vision and to begin formulating the high-level

strategies necessary to achieve the community’s goals. Having a role in creating this shared vision is a long-term process that goes beyond the Choice grant period, but would be an important outcome for

the Choice initiative.

COORDINATION AND LEVERAGE

While expectations for early implementation progress should be based on HUD’s requirements and

those in the reasonable control of implementers, process research can also point toward issues that may be critical components of the initiatives’ longer-term theory of change, and which future research

should explore.

ACTIVITIES

To what extent do future grantees develop the authority and capacity to coordinate

significant, neighborhood-level change efforts?

As described above, first-round grantees general y coordinated work well within implementation teams,

but making progress in the broad goals of Choice—creating mixed-income neighborhoods of choice and

opportunity through direct and leveraged investments—appears to be promoted best when HUD has a

local partner with the ability to coordinate and control local action at a significant scale, and to hold partners accountable for meeting their commitments to the transformation. Political support helped

move Choice toward scale, and may help engage local schools, and anchor institutions such as hospitals, col ege, and universities, in the future. Understanding how grantees develop this authority may be an

important component of future process research.

How will the federal government continue to coordinate resources for the benefit of Choice

Neighborhoods?

As described above, Choice is a part of the White House’s Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative (NRI), which provided a venue for HUD to facilitate interagency agreements to direct resources and deliver

technical assistance to Choice. Participation within NRI working groups allowed HUD greater access to

H-9

Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

partners at the Departments of Education and Justice, with subject-area expertise to craft the Choice

NOFA and to review education- and safety-related applications. As Choice implementers continue to

develop their comprehensive improvement programs, future research can explore the ways that federal

interagency coordination expands to other federal agencies to the benefit of local neighborhoods and

how Promise Zones contribute to that coordination.

OUTCOMES

How will Choice grantees enact systemic changes or improvements in local interagency

function?

Choice was credited by many of the grantees as helping to set in motion or put in place some systemic

changes or improvements in local interagency functioning. At the same time, other aspects of local or

federal policy made it more difficult for Choice efforts to extend their reach beyond the target

development into the Choice Neighborhood as a whole. For example, the absence of neighborhood

schools among al the Choice Neighborhoods except Yesler made Choice’s goal of coordination with

education reform more difficult, although grantees did develop tools to engage with school

improvement efforts. Choice’s ability to spark systems change and reform is a topic future research

might explore.

How much additional investment will Choice attract to neighborhoods over time?

While colocated investments previously committed to Choice Neighborhoods are significant, examples

of the Choice grant catalyzing additional resources were infrequent at this early point in Choice

implementation. Given ongoing chal enges stemming from the financial crisis, federal spending

retrenchment after the wind-down of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and strains

in the public and private sector, it is not surprising that obtaining significant additional leverage has been challenging for grantees. Implementation of Choice is still in its very early phases, however, and financing obtained to reconstruct new housing and commercial facilities will undoubtedly help Choice

implementation in the future. This issue can be studied in different ways, including the quantitative

comparison of neighborhood investment trajectories in Choice relative to similar areas.

H-10

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

September 2015

Document Outline

Front Cover

Title Page - Choice Neighborhoods: Baseline Conditions and Early Progress

Authors

Acknowledgments

Disclaimer

Foreword

Contents

List of Exhibits

Executive Summary

Overview of Implementation Findings

Understanding Early Progress and Challenges in Choice Implementation

Housing

People

Neighborhood

Coordination and Leverage

Overview of Baseline Conditions in the Five Choice Neighborhoods

Conclusion

1. Introduction

The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative and Its Evolution

Methodology

The FY 2010–11 Choice Neighborhoods at Baseline

Housing

People

Neighborhood

Structure of the Baseline Report

2. Rebuilding the Housing

Findings

Introduction and Overview of Plans and Implementation Activities

Resident Income Mix in Target Development Housing and Choice Neighborhoods

Target Development Housing Status

Design

Site Design

Unit Design

Resident Involvement in Design Development

Implementation of Design Plans

Housing Quality

Target Housing

Neighborhood Housing

Housing Financing for Redevelopment

Property Management and Community Building

Changes in housing management

Community Building

Conclusion

Issues and Opportunities

3. Supporting the Residents and Community

Findings

Introduction

Choice People Domain Framework

Defining Residents’ Needs

Exhibit 3.1. Characteristics of Residents of Choice Target Developments, May 2011

Defining the Resident and Community Support Activities

Coordinating Resident and Community Support Activities

Funding for Resident and Community Support Activities

Measuring Outcomes of the Resident and Community Support Activities

Resident and Community Engagement

Service Coordination

Enriching Services for Residents

Early Childhood and Education

Employment and Workforce Development

Mental and Physical Health

Improving Service Coordination

Relocation and Reoccupancy

Case Management

Conclusion

Issues and opportunities

4. Revitalizing the Neighborhoods

Findings

Neighborhood Context

Public Safety

Violent Crime in the Neighborhoods

Funding and Federal Coordination

Ongoing and Planned Activities

Public Safety Enhancement Grants

Critical Community Improvements

Economic Development

Built Environment

Connectivity

Services

Quality of the Public Realm

Conclusion

Issues and Opportunities

5. Coordinating Action and Leveraging New Resources

Findings

Introduction

Coordination and Systems Reform Through Choice

HUD’s Coordinating Role

Interagency Coordination

Coordination within HUD

HUD’s Interactions with the Grantees

HUD’s Roles

HUD-Grantee Relations

Summary and Reflections

Coordination Within Grantee Teams

Coordination Between Grantee Teams and Other Actors

Policy or Systems Change and Choice

Leverage

Conclusion

Issues and Opportunities

6. Conclusions and Reflections: Choice As a Vehicle for Neighborhood Transformation

Early Implementation in the First Five Choice Neighborhoods

Housing Redevelopment

Supporting the Residents of Target Developments

Neighborhood Investments

The Coordination and leverage Challenges

Issues and Opportunities: Maximizing the Benefits of Choice

Near-Term Issues and Opportunities

Medium- to Long-Term Issues and Opportunities

Areas for Future Research

Concluding Thoughts

References

Additional Reading

Appendix A: Methodology

Introduction

Staffing Overview

Key Document Review

Interviews

Meeting Observations

Administrative Data

Focus Groups

Block Front and Pedestrian Routes Surveys

Protocol Design:

Training of Observers

Block Front Survey

Sampling

Data collection

Pedestrian Routes Survey

Selection of Routes

Data Collection

Baseline Household Survey

Instrument design

Pretest

Hiring and Training Staff

CATI Staff

Field Staff

Sampling

Residents of Target Development

Other Neighborhood Residents

Recruitment

Tracking

Data collection

English and Spanish Language Interviews

Non-English and non-Spanish Language Interviews

Incentives

Timeline

Quality Control Procedures

Data Analysis

Response Rates

Weights and Design Effects

Appendix B: The Five Choice Neighborhoods

Introduction

B.1. Boston: Woodledge/Morrant Bay and the Quincy Corridor Neighborhood

Baseline Conditions

Implementation of Choice Neighborhoods

Key Actors and Relationships

Housing

The development: Plan summary

Progress on the housing redevelopment

People

Social dynamics and resident engagement

Case management

Services and programming

Relocation

Neighborhood

Critical Community Improvements

Public safety

Neighborhood economic development

Built environment and infrastructure

Future of the neighborhood

Summary of Progress in Coordination and Leverage

B.2. Chicago: Grove Parc and the Woodlawn Neighborhood

Baseline Conditions

Implementation of Choice Neighborhoods

Key Actors and Relationships

Housing

The development: Plan summary

Progress on the housing development

People

Social dynamics and resident engagement

Case management and supportive services

Services and programming

Relocation

Neighborhood

Critical Community Improvements

Public safety

Neighborhood economic development

Built environment and infrastructure

Future of the neighborhood

Summary of Progress in Coordination and Leverage

B.3. New Orleans: The Iberville and the Iberville/Tremé Neighborhood

Baseline Conditions

Implementation of Choice Neighborhoods

Key Actors and Relationships

Housing

The development: Plan summary

Progress on the housing redevelopment

People

Social dynamics and resident engagement

Case management

Services and programming

Relocation

Neighborhood

Critical Community Improvements

Public safety

Neighborhood economic development

Built environment and infrastructure

Future of the neighborhood

Summary of Progress in Coordination and Leverage

B.4. San Francisco: Alice Griffith and the Eastern Bayview Neighborhood

Baseline Conditions

Implementation of Choice Neighborhoods

Key Actors and Relationships

Key Contextual Factors Affecting Implementation

Dissolution of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency

Linkage between Choice and surrounding redevelopment

Housing

The development: Plan summary

Progress on the Housing Redevelopment

People

Social dynamics and resident engagement

Case management

Services and Programming

Relocation

Neighborhood

Critical Community Improvements

Public safety

Neighborhood economic development

Built environment and infrastructure

Future of the neighborhood

Summary of Progress in Coordination and Leverage

B.5. Seattle: Yesler Terrace and the Yesler Neighborhood

Baseline Conditions

Implementation of Choice Neighborhoods

Key Actors and Relationships

Housing

The development: Plan summary

Progress on the housing redevelopment

People

Social dynamics and resident engagement

Case management

Services and programming

Relocation

Neighborhood

A note on “Yesler neighborhood”

Critical Community Improvements

Public safety

Neighborhood economic development

Built environment and infrastructure

Future of the neighborhood

Summary of Progress in Coordination and Leverage

Appendix C: Analysis of the Built Environment

Principles

Baseline Conditions

Connectivity

Services

Quality of the Public Realm

Proposed Visions

Quincy Corridor

Woodlawn

Iberville/Tremé

Eastern Bayview

Yesler

Prospects for Implementation

Protocol

Scorecard

Benchmarking

Methods

Appendix D: Energy Scorecard Report

Scorecards

Chicago Grove Parc Plaza Building Energy Scorecard Summary

New Orleans Iberville Building Energy Scorecard Summary

Boston Woodledge/Morrant Bay Building Energy Scorecard Summary

San Francisco Alice Griffith Building Energy Scorecard Summary

Seattle Yesler Terrace Building Energy Scorecard Summary

Chicago Utility Data

Conclusion

Additional Methodology: Scorecard Components

Building Energy Use Intensity

Average Cost

EUI by Energy Type

Building Details

Variables Affecting Energy Use

Size and Occupancy

Age, Construction, and Weatherization

Appliances

Climate and Weather

Overview of Pro Forma Statements

Operating Pro Forma Analysis Methodology

Step 1. Operating Revenue Analysis

Step 2. Operating Cost Analysis

Step 3. Interviews with Developers

Step 4. Interviews with Grantees

Step 5. Pro Forma Assessment

Appendix E: Analysis of Financial Feasibility

E.1. Assessment of Grove Parc, Chicago, Illinois

Grove Parc Development Program

Operating Revenues Findings

Operating Costs Findings

Summary of Findings

E.2. Assessment of Quincy Heights, Boston, Massachusetts

Quincy Heights Development Program

Operating Revenues Findings

Operating Cost Findings

Summary of Findings

E.3. Assessment of the Iberville, New Orleans, Louisiana

Iberville Development Program

Operating Revenues Findings

Operating Costs Findings

Summary of Findings

E.4. Assessment of Yesler Terrace, Seattle, Washington

Yesler Terrace Development Program

Operating Revenues Findings

Operating Costs Findings

Summary of Findings

Appendix F: Performance Measurement Indicators for the Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grantees

Housing

Neighborhood

People

Appendix H: Questions for Future Research and Evaluation

Housing

Activities

Are redevelopment plans moving forward? What factors lead grantees to change elements of their plans?

Outcomes

What factors affect the achievement of mixed income goals?

What factors support community building among residents?

How do design decisions about housing unit sizes affect the composition of the tenant base after redevelopment? And, how do households, large and small, fare after final relocation, whether they return to the target development or not?

How have energy efficiency and use changed as a result of redevelopment and which types of design and technology advances and resident training lead to the most significant improvements?

Will Choice be a catalyst for housing improvements in the neighborhood?

People

Activities

How will grantees engage neighborhood residents to plan for and support transformation efforts?

Which grantees’ configurations and activities will help to ensure existing leverage commitments and establish new ones?

How will the grantees structure and sequence the relocation and case management services?

Which grantee team configurations and activities will prove most and least conducive to strong and effective teams, and why?

How will the evolution of performance measurement requirements help or hinder progress as the grantees seek to improve resident outcomes?

Outcomes

How will Choice contribute to families’ capacities to meet their children’s developmental needs?

How will Choice interventions improve the physical and mental health of assisted residents?

To what extent will Choice stabilize neighborhood schools, support student academic achievement, and leverage additional federal, state, and local education investments?

What combinations of resident engagement, service coordination, and case management strategies will result in the greatest improvements in job readiness and employment?

What will be the impact of Choice services and relocation approaches on the rate at which families leave HUD assistance?

Neighborhood

Activities

Outcomes

Coordination and Leverage

Activities

To what extent do future grantees develop the authority and capacity to coordinate significant, neighborhood-level change efforts?

How will the federal government continue to coordinate resources for the benefit of Choice Neighborhoods?

Outcomes

How will Choice grantees enact systemic changes or improvements in local interagency function?

How much additional investment will Choice attract to neighborhoods over time?

Back Cover