The Capitol Homes HOPE VI Evaluation Baseline Study

The Capitol Homes HOPE VI Evaluation Baseline Study A Baseline Snapshot of the Capitol Homes HOPE VI Redevelopment Process and Its Effects on Residents and Their Neighborhoods August 2003 Prepared for: The Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta 230 John Wesley Dobbs Drive Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Prepared by: Dr. Bob Holmes Mitch Moody, Andy Hill, Cheryll Hardison-Dayton, Nykia Green, Rashid Herd, Elias Sisya and Jeffrey Williams Clark Atlanta University Southern Center for Studies in Public Policy 223 James P. Brawley Drive, SW Atlanta, Georgia 30314 Voice: 404-880-8085 Fax: 404-880-8090 E-mail: scspp@cau.edu

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Principal Investigator and driving force behind this evaluation of the Capitol Homes HOPE VI redevelopment program, Dr. Bob Holmes, established early working relationships with the Atlanta Housing Authority and was responsible for all aspects of the conduct and management of this study. Mitch Moody contributed to the design and quantitative analysis phases of the work and was the primary author of the preliminary and final reports. A qualitative study relies on the efforts of a dedicated data collection and analysis team. Field data collection activities were organized by Andy Hill and Cheryll Hardison-Dayton. These researchers identified local respondents, assisted in focus group facilitation, and documented the results. Rashid Herd, Elias Sisya, Jeffrey Williams and Nykia Greene contributed to data collection, analysis and final production of this document. The authors wish to thank the staff at the Atlanta Housing Authority. This study could not have been completed without the gracious cooperation of many individuals including E. Mike Proctor, Ph.D. Senior Vice President, Office of Corporate Planning, Research and Development; Reneé Dixon Resource Management Director (AHA Project Director for the Evaluation); Gary Coates Financial Operations Director; Cynthia Nash Resource Development Director; Adrienne Walker Resource Development Project Analyst; Pat Houston Director of Resident Services; Janice Stewart Senior Vice President, Housing Choice Program; Fatimah Babalade Resident Services Information Coordinator; Marvin Nesbitt, Jr., Program Analyst; Steve Darrisaw Senior Network Technician; Anthony Jackson Systems Programmer; Dwayne C. Vaughn Director of Special Initiatives; Rosetta Dixon Relocation Manager; and Shadonna Forgacs Relocation Information Coordinator. In addition, people from numerous City of Atlanta agencies, community groups, and social service organizations agreed to speak with us, providing valuable information on housing, social and economic conditions in the Capitol Homes area. Finally, sincere thanks go to the many focus group participants who openly shared with us their experiences and opinions. The contributions of each of these individuals are the basis of this study. Cover: A panoramic view of Memorial Drive at Capitol Homes in late March 2003 looking north toward the first buildings demolished for the HOPE VI Redevelopment. Note access to Interstate 75/85 on the far left, the gold Capitol Dome in the background, the Sloppy Floyd State Government Towers in the center, and still-standing Capitol Homes buildings continuing to the far right. ii

Context for This Evaluation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta (AHA) has requested that the Southern Center for Studies in Public Policy (SCSSP) of Clark Atlanta University (CAU) perform a program evaluation of the redevelopment of the Capitol Homes public housing project. The HOPE VI Capitol Gateway development plan called for the demolition of the sixty-two year old, 694- unit, AHA apartment property previously located on a 34-acre site southeast of downtown Atlanta and the subsequent construction of 1,134 new units and homes. At baseline in late 2003, the Capitol Homes HOPE VI Revitalization Program began razing the site and has relocated all former residents into conventional public housing, Housing Choice or made other arrangements. Purpose and Challenges of This Evaluation The purpose of Capitol Homes HOPE VI Baseline Evaluation Study is to provide the AHA with information and analyses of the impacts of the Capitol Gateway redevelopment on the former residents of Capitol Homes, the local economy, and surrounding neighborhoods. The approach of this evaluation is to simultaneously integrate qualitative (focus groups and surveys) and quantitative (data) analyses into a coherent story of the Capitol Homes population and their experiences with the HOPE VI process. This baseline assessment of the former residents of Capitol Homes will be augmented by a series of annual updates, the goal of which is to provide a comprehensive picture of program effectiveness, at least as it relates to resident and neighborhood impacts. As with any evaluation, the primary challenge for the Capitol Homes HOPE VI Baseline Evaluation Study is to deduce, from focus groups, surveys, and data analysis, accurate information that will be of practical programmatic use to the client and other stakeholders. No collection of data, no matter how complete, can fully encompass all aspects of a complex program such as the Capitol Gateway HOPE VI redevelopment. Further, an external evaluator, by definition, remains outside the day-to-day operations of the organization studied. This is necessary to maintain critical objectivity but carries with it the unavoidable drawback of offering information and advice based on a partial understanding of the evaluated iii

organization s total environment. Nevertheless, a thorough and competent external evaluation can provide AHA senior management with a valuable tool for understanding the effectiveness of the current Capitol Homes HOPE VI program. Below is a summary of the key findings from the baseline data collection and analysis that focuses on three key study areas: resident status, economic status, and neighborhood status. Sunnary Resident Status at Baseline Demographics There are 195 Conventional Public Housing (CPH) and 342 Housing Choice (HC) Capitol Homes householders. The population is predominantly female (91.1%), non-hispanic, (99.4%), black (99.3%), and single (99.4%). Males are 14.4 percent of the CPH householders and only 5.8 percent of the HC householders. The average age of CPH householders (48.5) is 10 years older than the average HC householder (37.6). The average CPH resident is 8.1 years older than the average HC resident, 27.7 versus 19.6 years of age, primarily due to the presence of more young children in HC households. The single largest age group for HC families is children age 6 12, accounting for 22.1 percent of the total HC population. There are a large number of young householders ( less than age 24) in the HC population 22.1% vs. 18.0% for CPH. Also, there is a high proportion of 62-and-older householders (19.5% of all CPH householders) in the CPH population. CPH families have relatively more single-member families and HC units have more 3-member families. Less than 10 percent of all Capitol Homes families have 5 or more members. Quality of Life After Leaving Capitol Homes In every category assessed on quality of life in the focus groups, a majority of respondents report they are satisfied (29.9%), iv

somewhat satisfied (23.2%), or very satisfied (10.4%) with their post-move experience. Only 7.4 percent are dissatisfied and 8.2 percent very dissatisfied. Respondents say they are satisfied with their: house (83.7%), rent (87.2%), neighborhood (80.2%), safety (77.6%), access to public transportation (84.9%), proximity to shopping (81.6%), close to physician (72.1%), job (76.3%), and child care (77.3%). However, there are often substantial disparities between the questionnaire survey and the focus group comments which tend to be much more critical of their HOPE VI experiences. Considering annualized income data for employed Capitol Homes residents older than 16 years of age, almost half (48%) have income from wages. Wages are the largest source of income for both HC (58.2%) and CPH (29.1%) residents. The average wage income for HC residents who receive wage income is $12,926, over $2,267 more than the CPH average. For all sources of income, the 74 HC residents had an average annual income of $8,578 while the 41 CPH residents with income averaged only $6,964. After wage income, the largest income categories are Supplemental Social Security (18.4%) and Social Security (13.8%), which reflects the large number of disabled and elderly. Relatively little income is derived from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) welfare programs, only 7.7 percent overall. The income-earning capability difference between HC and CPH residents is striking. Aggregate income for HC residents ($2.8M) is almost double that of CPH residents ($1.5M) although they account for only 60 percent of the total population. The difference arises because of the disproportionately high numbers of old and disabled persons in the CPH population. There is a high proportion of married non-earner households 75 percent compared to less than one percent married for earning households. v

Where Do Relocatees Move? 433 (68.9%) former households moved to non-aha properties and 194 (31.1%) moved to the 20 AHA properties. Grady Homes (36), Herndon Homes (18), McDaniel Glenn (15) and University Homes (15) experienced the largest impacts. Approximately eight (7.9%) percent of former Capitol Homes households moved less than a mile away from Capitol Homes; 35.8% remained within 3 miles; 48.8% within 4 miles, and 67.3% remained within 6 miles of Capitol Homes. Most relocatees remain between one and 7 miles of Capitol Homes. HC households tended to move the farthest away: 97 percent are living at least one mile from the original development, and 40 percent are living more than five miles away. Few (9) HC households remain close less than a mile to Capitol Homes. Quality of Housing Services Received by Housing Choice Movers Many Housing Choice focus group participants were pleased with the amenities not usually found in public housing, such as recreational facilities and the presence of personal laundry equipment, but many more did not like the poor maintenance, restrictions on personal conduct, or external apartment appearance. Residents Experiences with AHA Relocation Services A majority (65.9%) found the housing counseling services to be somewhat to very helpful. Only 5.7 percent found the counseling to be of no help. A few did not receive housing counseling, 9.1%. Other AHA services did not fare as well: three-fourths did not participate in the job training, job placement or job retention counseling. Residents Experiences with AHA Community and Supportive Services (CSS) Programs The Workforce Enterprise Program (WFEP) had only 160 of 1,159 participants AHA-wide to successfully complete their course of study over the 5 year time span during which participants were vi

recruited, an average of less than three successful completions per month out of a large potentially employable working-age AHA population. Of the 72 WFEP participants from Capitol Homes, only 4 successfully completed a program of study. The Atlanta Self-sufficiency Program (ASAP) had no completions indicated so program success was impossible to determine though length of employment and other employment measures suggest poor results. Summary Economic Status at Baseline Neighborhood Land Use There are 8,055 land parcels within the Large Study Area (LSA, see Chapter 2 for definition) of which 5,601 are residential, 1,093 commercial, 44 parcels for utilities (Georgia Power, Atlanta Gas, and Southern Bell) and railroads (CSX, Southern, and Seaboard), and about 1,300 miscellaneous parcels. The Capitol Homes neighborhood is primarily residential with a large legacy distribution of commercial and utility properties. The Capitol Homes property is virtually landlocked by physical barriers to the north (I-75/85, utilities and commercial), west (the central business district), and south (Interstate 20). Though centrally located, geographic isolation and immobility have been major factors affecting the lives of the former Capitol Homes residents. Neighborhood Construction Activity For the LSA, the total number of building permits issued by the City over the study period (Jan. 2000 Oct. 2002) was 1,080 at a total construction cost of $21.3 million. The largest number of permits were for additions and alterations to single-family residences (212); erections of single-family residences (166); and repairs to single-family residences (290). The high counts of residential building permits are indicative of strong new residential development and gentrification. For the Small Study Area (SSA), one hundred sixty seven (167) building permits were issued for the study period (Jan. 2000 Oct. 2002) for building new single-and multi-family residences vii

(31); additions and alterations to single- and multi-family residences (23); and repairs of single-family residences (47). Vigorous residential redevelopment is already occurring in the immediate vicinity of Capitol Homes. Neighborhood Business Activity In last quarter 2002, the 1,660 licensed businesses in the LSA included miscellaneous business services (189), restaurants (79), contractors (139), consultants (64) and realtors (64). Most LSA businesses serve the needs of the Central Business District (CBD), not the Capitol Homes neighborhood. Local-serving economic development in the LSA is limited and inadequate to serve residential consumer demand. The SSA has 228 licensed businesses, including contractors (28), miscellaneous business services (25), consultants (16), and realtors (12). Regression analysis of the data reveals that the LSA averaged 9.3 new businesses annually and the SSA, 2.0 annually, during the study period 1995-2002. New business growth in the LSA and SSA is positive but modest. Within the LSA the number of business loans is 174, an average of 15 per block group, averaging about $348,000 per loan. Aggreagate loan activity for the block groups to the area north of the LSA averaged $4.8 million. This disparity in business loan activity reflects a lower density and quality of economic development in the LSA. Counts of residential loans range from 228 to 589 by block group in the area immediately north of the LSA to 4 to 52 in the LSA. Aggregate residential loan amounts by block group were $3.2 million (average $266,000) for the LSA and $20.6 million (average $6.9 million) for the 3 block groups north of the LSA. This large disparity in residential loan activity reflects a much lower level of personal income in the LSA compared to areas immediately north of the LSA. The vigorous local residential and commercial redevelopment near Capitol Homes preceded the HOPE VI program and will make viii

isolation of HOPE VI effects from other activity more difficult in subsequent analyses. The Capitol Homes neighborhood is currently a stagnant local economy. New capital has been difficult to attract to the Capitol Homes neighborhood for the last several decades, but recent and future developments, including on-going gentrification and the HOPE VI redevelopment of Capitol Homes, will change the local economy for the better. The former Capitol Homes residents chief connection with the local economy is as consumers through the retail sector. Reaction to their new retail environment is mixed many are pleased but for others, especially Housing Choice movers, access to retail is worse. Summary Neighborhood Status at Baseline Conventional Public Housing Program Neighborhoods Of the 537 households leaving Capitol Homes, 195 chose to remain in conventional public housing (CPH) and 342 chose Housing Choice (HC). Most of the remaining households were terminated for various reasons. Bowen, McDaniel Glenn, University, Carver, Herndon, Grady Homes and Thomasville Heights, were destinations for 110 of the 195 CPH households and are all in block groups with slightly higher percent (0-5%) black than the referenced Capitol Homes block group. Movers to the Villages at Carver, Herndon, and Bowen Homes, 36 households, found their new neighborhoods to be at least as poor as Capitol Homes. (As defined here, neighborhoods encompass more than the immediate area aound the AHA property.) Twentythree (23) households moved to AHA properties Crosby Spears, U-Rescue, Grady Homes, Englewood Manor in less poor block groups. The remaining households moved to McDaniel Glenn, University Homes, Thomasville Heights, and other AHA properties with essentially equal poverty characteristics. ix

Compared to the average neighborhood poverty level experienced by a relocating household from Capitol Homes (37%), the CPH household is in a neighborhood with an average poverty rate of 59.4 percent. Because the block group in which Capitol Homes is sited is one of the poorest in Atlanta, moves away from Capitol Homes usually result in higher household median income. Notable exceptions are the block groups with the Villages at Carver, Herndon Homes, and Bowen Homes, home to 87 Capitol Homes households, each with lower household incomes. Only 26 CPH households moved to AHA properties, mostly University Homes and McDaniel Glenn, in block groups with higher household incomes. Housing Choice Program Neighborhoods A majority, 62.5 percent, of the Capitol Homes HOPE VI households selected the Housing Choice program. The improvement of poverty status by HC movers is striking. Only 11 of the 342 HC households moved to a block group with an equal or higher poverty status. An impressive 331 HC movers improved the racial diversity of their neighborhoods by between 5 and 65 percent. Median household incomes have improved for 333 (97.4 percent) of the 342 HC households. This result is due, in part, to the fact that the Capitol Homes neighborhood is relatively income-poor as a basis for comparison, but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of HC households live in higher income neighborhoods than before. Crime Atlanta Police Department crime incident reports from January 1997 to November 2002 number 651,844 of which 46,947 were in the LSA and 5,307 in the SSA. Within the study areas, crime rates are high as almost every street address has had at least one crime incident report over the study period. Criminal activity on the Capitol Homes site has been higher than any part of study area. x

According to the survey administered to focus group participants, the great majority of focus group participants report equal or improved safety (89.4%) and equal or improved satisfaction with their new security situation (87.1%). However the actual comments from focus group participants are much more critical of their safety. It is unclear why participants should be much more critical in an anonymous survey compared to their more public focus group comments. A major finding of this study is that crime over the study period is down 5.2 percent for the LSA and 11.1 percent for the SSA immediately surrounding Capitol Homes. Education For the APS schools closest to Capitol Homes, the elementary school, Cook, experienced a downward enrollment trend since 1996 while enrollment at King Middle School and Southside High School has been relatively stable. The APS has decided to transfer students from Ralph McGill Elementary School to Cook so enrollment will increase. The children in the former Capitol Homes attended schools that were extraordinarily segregated, both racially and economically. Percent black for the three schools ranged from 85 to 98 percent. Participation in the free lunch programs was high, from 99 percent at Cook to 73.3 percent at Southside. While the baseline elementary school (Cook) scored at the 26 th percentile on the Iowa Basic Skills Test, schools close to the AHA properties where CPH households moved surprisingly scored, at the 48.5 percentile. On average, middle school reading and math scores were also higher for destination Housing Choice areas and AHA properties: reading 27% and math 36% at the baseline King school vs. 41.0% reading and 49.7% at Housing Choice areas middle schools. xi

Overview of Evaluation Results and Potential for Further Research At baseline in late 2003, the Capitol Homes HOPE VI Revitalization Program had relocated all former residents into Conventional Public Housing, Housing Choice, private housing, or terminated them. At this early stage, it is premature to draw any definitive conclusions about the effects of the revitalization on the Capitol Homes population, but on balance, it seems there have been more positive than negative impacts. Capitol Homes residents choosing the Housing Choice Program report better housing and neighborhood conditions. Conventional public housing residents, as might be expected, report little change in their living conditions. Many residents did not move to appreciably better neighborhoods, but of those who did, mostly Housing Choice participants, it is clear their living environment and opportunities have substantially improved. On the downside, the low number of participants completing the Community and Supportive Services (CSS) programs is problematic, especially considering the large number of non-disabled, working age adults in the Capitol Homes population. Economically, the Capitol Homes neighborhood is undergoing a renaissance, particularly in the housing market. Crime rates in the Capitol Homes and surrounding neighborhoods have been falling for several years, another indicator of sustainable neighborhood revitalization. The longterm effects of the HOPE VI Program on the Capitol Homes neighborhood will almost certainly be beneficial. Less certain, however, are the lasting impacts on the lives of the former Capitol Homes residents of HOPE VI. Since then, many former residents, both Conventional and Housing Choice, report continuing obstacles to establishing a stable family life and employment. This situation remains as the primary challenge to the longterm success of the Capitol Homes HOPE VI redevelopment, at least as regards the former residents. Looking forward, the SCSPP recommends that the Atlanta Housing Authority consider an expanded scope of research focused on the ongoing human impacts of the Capitol Homes redevelopment. While it is often convenient to refer to the Capitol Homes population as a single entity, it must be remembered that the population actually consists of many diverse groups of people the work-capable, the disabled, the educated and uneducated, the elderly, and the young each of which has its own xii

distinctive challenges and needs. A more detailed socio-economic analysis of the Capitol Homes population, particularly as it relates to employment potential within each household, would help establish which households have the best promise for economic self-sufficiency so that intensive support services can be more effectively targeted. Although individuals hold jobs, the household is the primary unit of economic viability and should be addressed directly and comprehensively. Finally, the Community and Supportive Services program should be studied more comprehensively to determine why so few clients have been able to avail themselves of badly needed employment and family support services. xiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY Introduction... 1 National HOPE VI Program Objectives... 2 The Capitol Homes HOPE VI Redevelopment Program... 3 Study Tasks and Methodology... 4 Report Structure...... 5 CHAPTER 2 CAPITOL HOMES HOPE VI IMPACTS ON RESIDENTS Introduction... 7 Capitol Homes HOPE VI Household and Personal Characteristics... 14 Are You Better Off After Leaving Capitol Homes?... 21 Where do Relocatees Move?... 29 Relocating to Conventional Public Housing... 40 Relocating with Housing Choice... 42 Residents Experiences with AHA Relocation Services... 62 Effectiveness of the Community Support Services Programs to Residents... 48 Summary Findings... 55 CHAPTER 3 CAPITOL HOMES HOPE VI ECONOMIC IMPACTS Introduction... 72 Brief History of the Capitol Homes Neighborhood... 77 xiv

Baseline Capitol Homes Local Economic Conditions... 79 Planned Investment and Development Activity... 111 Summary Findings... 114 CHAPTER 4 CAPITOL HOMES HOPE VI NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS Introduction... 117 Brief Review of the Literature of Neighborhood Effects... 117 Baseline Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Destination Neighborhoods... 118 Changing Crime Environment for Capitol Homes Residents... 135 Changing Educational Environment for Capitol Homes Children... 149 Summary Findings... 155 APPENDIX 2-1: FOCUS GROUP INSTRUMENTS AND DOCUMENTATION... 160 APPENDIX 2-2: DETAILED CSS PROGRAM SUMMARIES... 175 APPENDIX 3: DETAILED FOCUS GROUP COMMENTS... 193 APPENDIX 4: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ON ATLANTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS... 221 xv

Introduction CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY The United States Housing and Urban Development (HUD) HOPE VI program is the major federal initiative driving the transformation of distressed public housing developments nationwide. Under HOPE VI, distressed developments are demolished and replaced with mixed-income housing. HOPE VI is intended to improve opportunities by bringing investment to poor neighborhoods, constructing quality affordable housing, and by providing vouchers so that public housing residents can move to housing in better neighborhoods. HOPE VI is designed to revitalize distressed properties and their surrounding neighborhoods by significantly changing both the physical environment and the related social context. In most cases, altering the built environment requires demolition or substantial renovation during which residents are moved to other buildings within the development, relocated to another public housing complex or provided with private market vouchers. Capitol Homes is undergoing this process at baseline in 2003 (Image 1-1). Prior to demolition (Image 1-2), Capitol Homes was a sixty-two year old, 694 unit apartment complex of the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta located southeast of the Georgia State Capitol building, Atlanta City Hall, and immediately adjacent to downtown Atlanta. It sat on a 34-acre site separated into two areas by Memorial Drive. The new HOPE VI Capitol Homes development Capitol Gateway will resemble the mixed-income and mixed-use developments of previous revitalized communities in Atlanta such as Centennial Place (built on the site formerly known as Techwood Homes), The Villages of East Lake (East Lake Meadows) and Magnolia Park (John Eagan Homes). The revitalization plan calls for the development of 948 new multifamily residential units on the Capitol Homes and the adjacent MLK Village site and the renovation of 96 units in the 12-story apartment building on the MLK Village site as well as the construction of 90 homeownership units based on location and 1

affordability. The total number of units and homes to be constructed in the Capitol Gateway development will be 1,134. National HOPE VI Program Objectives Created by Congress in 1992, the HOPE VI Program represents the federal government s most ambitious effort to date to address the problems of severely distressed public housing. Its major objectives 1 are: 1. to improve the living environment for residents of severely distressed public housing through the demolition, rehabilitation, reconfiguration, or replacement of obsolete projects (or portions thereof); 2. to revitalize sites on which such public housing projects are located and contribute to the improvement of the surrounding neighborhood; 3. to provide housing that will avoid or decrease the concentration of very-low-income families; and, 4. to build sustainable communities. The HOPE VI program combines physical revitalization with management improvements and supportive services to promote resident self sufficiency. To achieve the goal of simultaneously investing in sites, buildings, and people, housing authorities can allocate up to 20 percent of the grant funds awarded to supportive services, such as literacy training, job training, day care, and youth activities. Over time, the HOPE VI program evolved significantly. For example, a number of the early projects focused on the rehabilitation of public housing units. Beginning in 1996, the emphasis began to shift to the use Image 1-1 Capitol Homes Public Housing at Baseline After Resident Move-Out and Prior to Demolition and Reconstruction, Jan. 2003. 2

of mixed-finance tools and the development of mixed-income communities that blended public housing units with tax credit and market rate units. An emphasis on new urbanism and broader neighborhood-wide redevelopment strategies began in 1996, followed by increased use of partnerships, leveraging resources, and the provision of affordable homeownership opportunities. Grant amounts have become smaller, leveraging has increased, and the program has been opened up to smaller housing authorities and developments. HOPE VI is part of a package of policy initiatives intended to foster economic opportunity for low-income households 2. The theory behind these policies is that the quality of life of poor households will improve if poor people live in neighborhoods with better socio-economic characteristics. In particular, HOPE VI policymakers hope that living in low-poverty or mixed-income communities will offer low-income households access to better employment networks and greater access to higher-paying jobs. Unfortunately, at this time, in the critical academic literature there are no studies that conclusively demonstrate that living among better-off residents favorably affects the employment and income of low-income persons. Because of the lack of research evidence, it is difficult to predict whether living in mixed-income developments or neighborhoods will advance outcomes for HOPE VI residents. Experience will prove whether the HOPE VI program will improve the quality of life of the former Capitol Homes residents. The Capitol Homes HOPE VI Redevelopment Program The Capitol Gateway development is a five-year project with a projected cost of $144.7 million dollars. To facilitate this project, AHA is utilizing a $35 million HUD HOPE VI grant for startup in addition to tax credits and leveraging private financing and investments. The total amount of funding for physical redevelopment from non-public sources is approximately $132.6 million dollars. Additionally, AHA has commitments of $12.1 million for community and supportive services. Three primary residential building types are proposed for construction, including three-story townhouses that face the street, three and four story loft-style walk-ups with one ground level retail commercial space, along Memorial Drive and Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, and three to five story loft buildings. 3

The Capitol Gateway project includes 45,000 square feet of retail space in the development plan. AHA s proposed retail space uses include pharmacy, beauty parlor, dry cleaner, restaurant(s), coffee shop, branch bank, grocery store, and other neighborhood establishments. Within the plan, AHA and APS propose to reconstitute Cook Elementary School into a theme school focusing its curriculum on technology and computer-related learning skills. The Capitol Gateway development is built in the spirit of Smart-Growth developments and, with some of its proposed development, has the potential to link this site into the Central Business District (CBD) and the redevelopment and construction planned for Georgia State University, a major player in Central Atlanta Progress s pedestrian friendly plans for downtown Atlanta. Study Tasks and Methodology The Capitol Homes HOPE VI Baseline Evaluation Study focuses on the locational patterns, neighborhood conditions and socioeconomic outcomes for the original residents of the Capitol Homes HOPE VI development. The approach of this evaluation is to simultaneously integrate qualitative (focus groups) and quantitative (data) analyses into a seamless story of the Capitol Homes population and their experiences with the HOPE VI process. Resident Experiences: Focus Groups Focus groups with relocatees were used to examine various aspects of the relocation process, including where residents chose to live and influences and constraints on their housing choices. This report presents comments from relocatee respondents about their strategies, decisions, and destinations. The comments from the focus group participants provide important insights about the HOPE VI relocation process that have both practical and strategic planning relevance. HOPE VI Participant Surveys CAU administered a baseline questionnaire to a sample of 101 heads of Capitol Homes households during 2002-2003. Surveys administered to participants covered basic demographics, housing and neighborhood conditions, health, employment and public assistance receipt, financial stability, material hardship; education, access to social and community services, and the outlook for relocation. 4

Administrative Data This evaluation relies on a variety of administrative and other social science databases for the objective information necessary to assess participant and neighborhood characteristics at baseline. Analyses of administrative databases provided background on the relocation process and local information on neighborhood and economic characteristics. Comprehensive Analyses The complex issues addressed in this study include relocation patterns, search processes, neighborhood selection criteria, available housing choices, effects of relocation on the respondents and the affected communities, and difficulties related to the relocation experience. Baseline and Follow-up Focus Groups and Analyses This baseline evaluation of the Capitol Homes revitalization program will subsequently be updated as the HOPE VI process progresses. The analytical and focus group methodologies used in this baseline study will be repeated so that results will be comparable over time. Report Structure This baseline evaluation report is divided into four chapters: Chapter 1: Introduction and Methodology Summarizes the background of HOPE VI and the methodology of this study. Chapter 2: Capitol Homes HOPE VI Impacts on Residents Studies the resident impacts of the Capitol Homes HOPE VI redevelopment, including experiences with relocation and why residents picked their new neighborhoods, and either continued in conventional public housing, moved to Housing Choice properties, or other residences. Chapter 3: Capitol Homes HOPE VI Economic Impacts Explores the economic impacts of the Capitol Homes HOPE VI redevelopment on the surrounding neighborhood, including changes in property values, zoning, levels of new construction, and business activity. Chapter 4: Capitol Homes HOPE VI Neighborhood Impacts Investigates the social impacts of the Capitol Homes HOPE VI redevelopment on the Capitol Homes neighborhood, other AHA conventional public housing properties, and the scattered-site Housing Choice neighborhoods. 5

Image 1-2 Final Demolition of Capitol Homes, August 2003. 1 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Relocation and Expanding Opportunities for Public Housing Residents: Draft Recommendations on Relocation Guidance for the HOPE VI Program. Washington, D.C., 2000. 2 Popkin, Susan J. and Diane Levy, et al. HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report. The Urban Institute Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center, 2100 M Street, Washington, DC. 6

CHAPTER 2 CAPITOL HOMES HOPE VI IMPACTS ON RESIDENTS* Introduction This chapter focuses on the human impacts of the Capitol Homes HOPE VI revitalization on the lives of the former residents at construction baseline. The evaluation tasks are both qualitative and quantitative and include: 1) conducting pre- and post-focus group sessions with original residents; 2) analyzing changes in neighborhood conditions data and adjacent communities for the revitalized site; and 3) examining resident demographic data using the AHA-provided relocation and CSS databases. A primary goal of the HOPE VI program is improving the living environment for residents of severely distressed public housing by providing housing that will avoid or decrease the concentration of very low-income families 1. HOPE VI aims to achieve this goal by creating mixed-income communities which offer aesthetically pleasing buildings, open recreation spaces, and a comprehensive array of social services. For residents who decide not to return to the reconstructed Capitol Homes site, the program offers the opportunity to move to a potentially better neighborhood with a Housing Choice voucher or to a different potentially less distressed conventional public housing development. HOPE VI requires residents to make these important choices about relocation early in the revitalization process. The Capitol Homes Neighborhood Study Area For the purposes of this evaluation, the Capitol Homes neighborhood will consist of twelve adjacent census tracts (Map 2-1), excluding those in the Central Business District (CBD). These census tracts will be designated as the Large Study Area (LSA). The two census tracts immediately adjoining the Capitol Homes property (48.00 and 49.95) will be referred to as the Small Study Area (SSA). The rationale behind using two units of geographic analysis for the demographic, economic, and neighborhood analyses is that the SSA *The data source for all tables and maps in this chapter related to resident demographics is the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta. 7

8

captures effects in the immediate vicinity of Capitol Homes while the LSA is a broader aggregate measure of the larger neighborhood. Use of the SSA geography provides more effective isolation of localized HOPE VI effects. A one-mile study area radius around Capitol Homes is not a good basis for analysis primarily because of undesirable CBD effects on the data. The LSA excludes downtown but is a larger total area than a 1-mile radius. Finally, census tracts allows use of the very recent Census 2000 dataset for personal and neighborhood demographics. Capitol Homes Relocatees: A Regional Perspective Of the 685 households listed in the master Capitol Homes database 2 supplied for this evaluation by the AHA, 342 were classified as participants in the Housing Choice (HC) program, 195 were classified as selecting conventional or revitalized public housing (CPH), 96 had been terminated, and 52 had no recorded status. Because the terminated and no-status cases were treated separately, the number of HC and CPH cases reported here are lower than other AHA-published case counts. The total Capitol Homes population was 1,546 of which 1,052 individuals were in HC and 494 in CPH. The primary focus of this evaluation is on the 537 households with an HC or CPH status. Map 2-2 presents a regional perspective on the movement of Capitol Homes households. It shows ten 1-mile distance buffers extending from Capitol Homes. Relocatees to AHA properties (CPH) are shown as red dots and relocatees to non-aha properties (HC) are shown as green dots. Of those former Capitol Homes residents remaining in the Atlanta region, some moved as far as 24 miles from Capitol Homes. As will be examined in Chapter 4, Neighborhood Impacts, most movers, particularly those to CPH, remained clustered in poverty areas. The opportunity provided by the HOPE VI program to HC movers is based on the assumption that, at least in the case of Capitol Homes, almost any other neighborhood is an improvement. Evidence provided in Chapter 4 will demonstrate that many HC movers have improved the quality of their neighborhoods compared to the Capitol Homes at baseline but it remains for subsequent evaluations to assess the actual impacts of the move. Focus Group Methodology This section describes focus group research methodology, including an overview of their uses in social science research, the setting for the Capitol Homes focus groups, the participant recruitment process, and participant 9

10

demographics. Appendix Table 2-1a-e are a compilation of all forms, questionnaires, and administrative documents for the focus groups. Purpose of Focus Groups Focus groups provide qualitative data on participants specifically their opinions, experiences, and perceptions. Traditionally, groups include six to twelve persons with similar experiences. A group discussion is led by a moderator allowing participants to discuss their experiences without the limits of structured answers. Additionally, focus groups allow the moderator to probe for more information when unanticipated answers surface. Focus groups capture the interaction and discussion among participants, providing more forthright and natural responses. The HOPE VI post relocation focus groups will assist in reviewing the impact/ changes in the living conditions, overall quality of life and the delivery of AHA Relocation services to the former residents of Capitol Homes. AHA will use the information to continue to make improvements to its revitalization program and will share best practices with other housing authorities around the country. The Focus Group Setting and Data Collection Focus Group sessions one through three were held at the Capitol Homes Community Center. Sessions four through thirteen were held at the Georgia State Capitol Building in Room 230. All sessions were held on Saturday afternoons from 1:00pm to 3:00pm. Childcare was arranged when that was a barrier to participation. Refreshments were served before each presentation. Moderators always shared the ground rules, purpose and agenda for the focus groups with the residents. The ground rules were very important to ensure the effectiveness of each session. The rules included: no talking over each other, listening to what your neighbor is really saying and waiting until the person speaking has finished. The ground rules were designed to create an environment where everyone s opinion was heard and valued. Each session was audio taped. Participants also completed rating scales related to their living conditions and quality of life since leaving Capitol Homes. They also rated the delivery of AHA relocation services. Focus Group Recruitment CAU was responsible for recruiting participants for the focus groups. Each focus group participant was randomly selected from the database of Capitol Homes residents. CAU staff contacted potential participants 11

via telephone and screened them to ensure they were eligible for participation. If the person was deemed eligible to participate, they were placed in the appropriate group and sent a confirmation letter. CAU staff recruited 10 to 20 participants for each group. All participants were contacted by telephone and letter. Participants were called the day before scheduled focus group sessions as a reminder. Focus Group Participants A total of 101 individuals participated in 13 focus groups. Each group ranged from 6 to 12 participants. Each participant was asked to fill out a survey at the end of the focus group session (see Appendix 2-1). Information on participant characteristics is summarized later in Table 2-3. Focus Group Challenges The SCSPP faced many challenges in scheduling and conducting the focus groups. The databases received from Atlanta Housing Authority had many disconnected or out of service telephones, wrong numbers, and a lack of secondary and/or alternative contact phone numbers. Administrative databases maintained on a dynamic population like that of Capitol Homes are often difficult to maintain and there were unavoidable impacts on focus group recruitment. Letters were mailed in an attempt to contact individuals without telephones or who did not return calls. Problems encountered included: 1) a large number of returned contact letters due to wrong addresses; 2) slow and no responses to contact letters; 3) failure of participants to attend scheduled focus groups (often potential participants were scheduled to come to three focus groups before they actually showed up); and 4) over-scheduling of focus groups (20-26 persons) and only 3 6 individuals showing up. The number of scheduled focus groups had to be increased from 10 to 13 based on the failure of participants to attend. At the completion of the ninth focus group, only 62 persons had attended. One focus group had to be cancelled because only one person showed up. In order to address this problem, the courtesy fee amount was changed on two occasions. The original amount was $25, changed to $50, and finally to $100. One of the consequences of increasing the courtesy fee pertains to participants actively participating in the focus group. Prior to increasing the courtesy fee to $100, participants were more spontaneous. They required very little prompting to elicit responses and in some cases their lengthy responses had to be politely terminated. Once the courtesy fee 12

was increased to $100, participant responses were short, often one word. In many cases participants had to be prompted by actually asking them to respond. Most were concerned with when they were going to get paid. There may be a threshold incentive amount beyond which less cooperative attendees are recruited. Focus Group Results In this evaluation, focus group responses are presented as selected answers to a set of research questions. Each research question focuses attention on a particular topic as a means of making sense of the large volume of analytical and focus group data. Quantitative (tables and maps) and qualitative information (focus group responses) are both used to answer most research questions. Analytical Methodology and Datasets The analytical methodology is designed to complement and extend the qualitative information gathered in the focus groups. Because the life experiences of the former Capitol Homes residents are closely tied to the quality of their destination neighborhoods, this evaluation makes extensive use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping to display important differences in destination neighborhoods. Maps can be an efficient way to display the large quantities of demographic and economic information available to this evaluation. Several types of datasets were used: administrative datasets o AHA relocation, resident, and Community Support Services (CSS) databases; o City of Atlanta business license, building permit, and crime databases; o Atlanta Public School (APS) performance data; o Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) business and residential loan activity; Census datasets: o Census 2000 Summary File SF3 crosstabulations. Initially, tabular and mapped data summaries of these datasets were prepared and preliminary findings produced. Then, using the initial results as a guide, selected follow-up analyses, often combining disparate datasets into a single comprehensive analysis, were developed. For example, a steep 13

decline in Capitol Homes street-level criminal activity is linked in Chapter 4 to increased residential building permit activity in the area. Crossutilization of apparently unrelated information across datasets adds to the richness and interpretive quality of the evaluation. Capitol Homes HOPE VI Household and Personal Characteristics A Comparison of Demographic and Housing Characteristics: Conventional Public Housing vs. Housing Choice vs. Terminated Households Table 2-1 summarizes the available data on Capitol Homes householders here classified by CPH, HC, or terminated status. The usual demographics are covered Capitol Homes householders, of which there are 195 CPH and 342 HC, are predominantly female (91.1%), non-hispanic, (99.4%), black (99.3%), and single (99.4%). Some variation from these averages is evident between the HC and CPH populations. For example, males are 14.4 percent of the CPH householders and only 5.8 percent of the HC householders. Interestingly, the average age of CPH householders (48.5) is 10 years more than the average HC householder age (37.6). To the degree these age and gender factors overlap, there appears to be a relative excess of older male householders in the CPH population compared to the HC population. This can be a significant finding for CSS program design. Other data elements in Table 2-1 are as might be expected: householder relocation type matches status (HC, CPH) except for 11 CPH and 4 HC misclassifications and a few householders were classified as having exceptional circumstances, such as eviction. Three households listed as CPH were recorded as wanting to return to the revitalized Capitol Homes. Several HC households moved outside the AHA process. HC households reported relatively more 2-bedroom apartments (48.4%) while CPH households reported relatively more 1-bedroom apartments (41.2%). In most respects the terminated households were very similar to the other Capitol Homes households. Those that did terminate, either by choice or other circumstance, were predominantly from the HC program (79.1%), were primarily male (5.4% vs. 0.6% average), and included 3 CPH householders choosing homeownership and four who were evicted. Terminations occured both before and after relocation. Table 2-2 presents much of the same demographic data as Table 2-1 but for the entire Capitol homes population rather than just householders. 14

TABLE 2-1 Comparison of Selected Personal and Housing Characteristics of Capitol Homes Householders: Conventional Public Housing (CPH), Housing Choice (HC), Terminated Households CPH CPH Percent HC HC Percent Total Total Percent Terminated Term. Percent Count 195 342 537 96 Mean Age (Years) 48.5 37.6 41.3 40.9 Gender Male 28 14.4% 20 5.8% 48 8.9% 12 12.5% Female 167 85.6% 322 94.2% 489 91.1% 84 87.5% Ethnicity Minority Status Hispanic 3 1.5% 0 0.0% 3 0.6% 1 1.0% Non-Hispanic 192 98.5% 342 100.0% 534 99.4% 95 99.0% White 3 1.5% 0 0.0% 3 0.6% 1 1.0% Black 191 97.9% 342 100.0% 533 99.3% 95 99.0% Amer. Ind. 1 0.5% 0 0.0% 1 0.2% 0 0.0% Asian 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Spanish 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Single No 2 1.0% 1 0.3% 3 0.6% 5 5.4% Yes 192 99.0% 340 99.7% 532 99.4% 88 94.6% Housing Choice 11 5.7% 333 97.4% 344 64.2% 68 79.1% Homeownership 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 3.5% Evicted 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.2% Private Housing 0 0.0% 3 0.9% 3 0.6% 4 4.7% Relocation Type Medical or Nursing Facility 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 1.2% Public Housing 180 92.8% 4 1.2% 184 34.3% 4 4.7% Return to Revitalised Community 3 1.5% 0 0.0% 3 0.6% 0 0.0% Other 0 0.0% 2 0.6% 2 0.4% 5 5.8% Exceptional Circumstances Deceased 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 11.1% Evicted 0 0.0% 1 25.0% 1 25.0% 4 44.4% Nursing Homes / Assisted Living Facility 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 11.1% Moved Outside Process 0 0.0% 2 50.0% 2 50.0% 2 22.2% Skip Moved 0 0.0% 1 25.0% 1 25.0% 1 11.1% Bedrooms 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 18 20.7% 1 77 41.2% 62 18.2% 139 26.3% 46 52.9% 2 75 40.1% 165 48.4% 240 45.5% 21 24.1% 3 29 15.5% 103 30.2% 132 25.0% 2 2.3% 4 5 2.7% 11 3.2% 16 3.0% 0 0.0% 5 1 0.5% 0 0.0% 1 0.2% 0 0.0% 6 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 8 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Average Duration of Current Period of AHA Program Residency (Years) 12.6 0.6 5.0 9.2 Sources: CAPITOL_HOMES_MASTER_TABLE.xls and DDI1032003.xls 15