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

Spatial Analysis of 

Choice Neighborhoods Initiative 

PLANNING GRANT APPLICANT NEIGHBORHOODS
Spatial Analysis of 

Choice Neighborhoods Initiative

PLANNING GRANT APPLICANT NEIGHBORHOODS

Prepared!for

U.S.!Department!of!Housing!and!Urban!Development

Washington,!D.C.

Prepared!by

Matthew!F.!Gebhardt

Portland!State!University

Portland,!Oregon

June!2014
ii

Table'of'Contents

1 Introduction 1!

1.1 Choice!Neighborhoods!Initiative!Summary!and!Purpose 1!

1.2 Purpose!of!Research 3!

1.3 Choice!Neighborhoods!Initiative!NOFA!and!Planning!Grant!Neighborhood!

Requirements 4!

1.4 Research!Design!and!Methodology 5!

1.5 Summary!of!Key!Findings 7!

1.6 Structure!of!the!Report 8!

2 General!Characteristics!of!Planning!Grant!Applicant!Neighborhoods 9!

2.1 Distribution!of!Applicants 9!

2.2 Applicant!Neighborhood!Boundaries 11

2.3 Applicant!Neighborhood!Physical!Size 14

2.3.1 Physical!Size!Summary 14

2.3.2 Physical!Size!by!Application!Year 16

2.3.3 Physical!Size!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful!Applicants 17

2.3.4 Physical!Size!by!Region 18

2.4 Applicant!Neighborhood!Population 19

2.4.1 Population!General!Characteristics 19

2.4.2 Population!by!Application!Year 21

2.4.3 Population!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful!Applicants 22

2.4.4 Population!by!Region 24

2.5 Applicant!Neighborhood!Population!Density 24

2.5.1 Population!Density!General!Characteristics 25

2.5.2 Population!Density!by!Application!Year 26

2.5.3 Population!Density!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful!Applicants 26

2.5.4 Population!Density!by!Region 27

2.6 General!Characteristics!Summary 28

3 Housing!Characteristics!of!Planning!Grant!Applicant!Neighborhoods 30

3.1 Applicant!Neighborhood!Housing!Units 30

3.2 Housing!Unit!General!Characteristics 30

3.2.1 Number!of!Housing!Units!by!Applicant!Year 32

3.2.2 Number!of!Housing!Units!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful!Applicants 33

3.2.3 Number!of!Housing!Units!by!Region 34

3.3 Housing!Vacancy 35

3.3.1 Housing!Vacancy!General!Information 35

3.3.2 Housing!Vacancy!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful!Applicants 36

3.3.3 Housing!Vacancy!by!Region 36

3.3.4 Housing!Vacancy!by!Neighborhood!Racial!or!Ethnic!Majority 37

3.4 Housing!Tenure 38

3.4.1 Housing!Tenure!General!Characteristics 38

3.4.2 Housing!Tenure!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful!Applicants 39

3.4.3 Housing!Tenure!by!Region 39

3.5 Age!of!Housing!Stock 40

3.5.1 Age!of!Housing!Stock!General!Characteristics 41

3.5.2 Age!of!Housing!Stock!by!Region 41

3.6 Summary!and!Conclusions 43
iii

4 Demographic!Characteristics!of!Planning!Grant!Applicant!Neighborhoods 44!

4.1 Race!and!Ethnicity 44!

4.1.1 Race!and!Ethnicity!General!Characteristics 44!

4.1.2 Race!and!Ethnicity!by!Region 46

4.2 Age!and!Sex!Characteristics 47

4.3 Educational!Attainment 51

4.3.1 Educational!Attainment!General!Characteristics 51

4.3.2 Educational!Attainment!in!Comparison!Areas 51

4.3.3 Educational!Attainment!by!Neighborhood!Racial!or!Ethnic!Majority 52

4.3.4 Educational!Attainment!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful!Applicants 53

4.4 Summary!and!Conclusions 53

5 Economic!Characteristics!of!Planning!Grant!Applicant!Neighborhoods 55

5.1 Median!Household!Income 55!

5.1.1 Median!Household!Income!General!Characteristics 55!

5.1.2 Median!Household!Income!by!Region 56

5.1.3 Median!Household!Income!by!Neighborhood!Racial!or!Ethnic! 57!

Majority

5.1.4 Median!Household!Income!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful! 57!

Applicants

5.2 Poverty 58!

5.2.1 Neighborhood!Poverty!Rates!General!Characteristics 58!

5.2.2 Neighborhood!Poverty!Rates!by!Region 60

5.2.3 Neighborhood!Poverty!Rates!by!Neighborhood!Racial!or!Ethnic! 61

Majority

5.2.4 Neighborhood!Poverty!Rates!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful! 61

Applicants

5.3 Employment 62

5.3.1 Employment!General!Characteristics 62

5.3.2 Employment!by!Region 64

5.3.3 Employment!by!Neighborhood!Racial!or!Ethnic!Majority 64

5.3.4 Employment!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful!Applicants 66

5.4 Summary!and!Conclusions 67

6 Summary!and!Conclusions 68

7 References 73
iv

List'of'Figures'

Figure!1:!Choice!Applicant!Geographic!Distribution!(FY!2010–2012) 9!

Figure!2:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Boundary!and!Existing!Neighborhood!Definition— 12

Brownsville,!Brooklyn,!New!York

Figure!3:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Boundary!and!Existing!Neighborhood!Definition— 13

Downtown,!Rocky!Mount,!North!Carolina

Figure!4:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Boundary!and!Existing!Neighborhood!Definition—! 14

Itta!Bena!Neighborhood,!Itta!Bena,!Mississippi

Figure!5:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Physical!Size!Distribution! 15

Figure!6:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Population!Distribution!(2010) 20

Figure!7:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Population!Density!Distribution 25

Figure!8:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Distribution!of!Total!Number!of!Housing!Units!(2010) 31

Figure!9:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Race!and!Ethnicity 45

Figure!10:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Age!and!Sex!(2010) 47

Figure!11:!Choice!Applicant!Majority!American!Indian!Neighborhood!Age!and!Sex!(2010) 48

Figure!12:!Choice!Applicant!Majority!Asian!and!Pacific!Islander!Neighborhood!Age!and!Sex! 48

(2010)

Figure!13:!Choice!Applicant!Majority!Black!Neighborhood!Age!and!Sex!(2010) 49

Figure!14:!Choice!Applicant!Majority!Hispanic!Neighborhood!Age!and!Sex!(2010) 49

Figure!15:!Choice!Applicant!Mixed!Neighborhood!Age!and!Sex!(2010) 50

Figure!16:!Choice!Applicant!Majority!White!Neighborhood!Age!and!Sex!(2010) 50

Figure!17:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!and!Comparison!Area!Median!Household!Incomes! 55

(1990!to!2006–2010)

Figure!18:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!and!Comparison!Area!Poverty!Rates!(1990!to!2006– 59

2010)
v!

List'of'Tables

Table!1:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhoods,!by!Region 10

Table!2:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Physical!Size 15

Table!3:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Physical!Size,!by!Grant!Year 16

Table!4:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Physical!Size,!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful! 17

Applicants

Table!5:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Physical!Size,!by!Region 18

Table!6:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Population!(2010) 19

Table!7:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Population!Growth!and!Decline!(1990–2010) 21

Table!8:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Population!(2010),!by!Grant!Year 22

Table!9:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Population!(2010),!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful! 23

Applicants

Table!10:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Population!(2010),!by!Region 24

Table!11:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Population!Density 25

Table!12:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Population!Density,!by!Grant!Year 26

Table!13:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Population!Density,!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful! 27

Applicants

Table!14:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Population!Density,!by!Region 28

Table!15:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Housing!Units!(2010) 30

Table!16:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Housing!Unit!Growth!and!Decline 32

Table!17:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Housing!Units!(2010),!by!Grant!Year 32

Table!18:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Housing!Units!(2010),!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful! 33

Applicants

Table!19:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Housing!Units!(2010),!by!Region 34

Table!20:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!and!Comparison!Area!Vacancy!Rates 35

Table!21:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Vacancy!Rates,!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful! 36

Applicants

Table!22:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Vacancy!Rates,!by!Region 37

Table!23:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!and!Comparison!Area!Vacancy!Rates,!by!Racial!or! 37

Ethnic!Majority

Table!24:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!and!Comparison!Area!Ownership!and!Rental!Rates 38

Table!25:!Choice Applicant!Neighborhood!Ownership!and!Rental!Rates,!by!Successful!and! 39

Unsuccessful!Applicants

Table!26:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Ownership!and!Rental!Rates,!by!Region 40

Table!27:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!and!Comparison!Area!Housing!Unit!Age 41

Table!28:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Housing!Unit!Age,!by!Region 42

Table!29:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Racial!or!Ethnic!Majority,!by!Region 46

Table!30:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Educational!Attainment!(1990–2010) 51

Table!31:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!and!Comparison!Area!Educational!Attainment 52

Table!32:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Educational!Attainment,!by!Racial!or!Ethnic!Majority 52

Table!33:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Educational!Attainment,!by!Successful!and! 53

Unsuccessful!Applicants

Table!34:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!and!Comparison!Area!Median!Household!Incomes,!by! 56

Region

Table!35:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Median!Household!Incomes,!by!Racial!or!Ethnic! 57

Majority!(1990!to!2006–2010)
vi

Table!36:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!and!Comparison!Area!Median!Household!Incomes,!by! 58

Successful!and!Unsuccessful!Applicants

Table!37:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!and!Comparison!Area!Poverty!Rates,!by!Region 60

Table!38:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!and!Comparison!Area!Poverty!Rates,!by!Racial!or! 61

Ethnic!Majority

Table!39:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!and!Comparison!Area!Poverty!Rates,!by!Successful! 62

and!Unsuccessful!Applicants!(1990!to!2006–2010)

Table!40:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!and!Comparison!Area!Labor!Force!Participation!(1990! 63

to!2006–2010)

Table!41:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!and!Comparison!Area!Unemployment!Rates!(1990!to! 63

2006–2010)

Table!42:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!and!Comparison!Area!Unemployment!Rates,!by! 64

Region

Table!43:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!and!Comparison!Area!Labor!Force!Participation,!by! 65

Racial!or!Ethnic!Majority

Table!44:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!and!Comparison!Area!Unemployment!Rates,!by!Racial! 65

or!Ethnic!Majority

Table!45:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Labor!Force!Participation,!by!Successful!and! 66

Unsuccessful!Applicants!(1990!to!2006–2010)

Table!46:!Choice!Applicant!Neighborhood!Unemployment!Rates,!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful! 66

Applicants!(1990!to!2006–2010)
1!

1 Introduction

This!report!summarizes!the!findings!of!research!on!the!first!3!years!of!the!Choice!Neighborhoods!

Initiative!(Choice),!a!competitive!grant!program!administered!by!the!U.S.!Department!of!Housing!and!

Urban!Development!(HUD).!Choice!makes!funding!available!for!local!actors!in!cities!across!the!United!

States!to!plan!for!and!implement!revitalization!activities!in!highdpoverty!neighborhoods!containing!

severely!distressed!subsidized!housing!to!transform!them!into!sustainable,!supportive!mixeddincome!

neighborhoods.!This!research!focuses!on!one!component!of!Choice,!the!Planning!Grants,!and!the!

neighborhoods!identified!by!Choice!Planning!Grant applicants.!The!following!section!provides!more!

information!in!general!about!Choice!and!specifically!about!the!purpose!and!approach!of!this!research.

1.1 Choice'Neighborhoods'Initiative'Summary'and'Purpose

Choice!was!proposed!in!2009!as!a!component!of!a!U.S.!government!interagency!strategy!to!create!new!

opportunities!in!neighborhoods!characterized!by!high!rates!of!poverty!and!severely!distressed!housing.!

Choice!is!a!program!that!directs!investment!to!these!neighborhoods!through!competitive!grants.!This!

investment!is!intended!to!leverage!additional!public!and!private!resources!and!investment!to!plan!for!

and!subsequently!remake!these!areas!into!sustainable,!mixeddincome!neighborhoods!in!which!

individuals!and!families!will!choose!to!live.!

Choice!was!initially!proposed!as!a!replacement!for!the!HOPE!VI!Program,!a!longdrunning!program!that!

awarded!competitive!grants!to!local!public!housing!authorities!for!revitalizing!severely!distressed!public!

housing.!The!HOPE!VI!Program!was!created!in!response!to!the!findings!of!the!National!Commission!on!

Severely!Distressed!Public!Housing.!Formed!in!1989!by!Congress!to!study!the!problem!of!physical!and!

social!deterioration!in!U.S.!public!housing,!the!commission!issued!a!report!in!1992!that!recommended!

the!rehabilitation!or!replacement!of!86,000!public!housing!units!identified!as!being!severely!distressed.!

The!HOPE!VI!Program!was!initiated!less!than!3!months!later!via!congressional!appropriations!under!the!

label!“Urban!Revitalization!Demonstration”!program.!Renamed!HOPE!VI!the!following!year,!the!program!

awarded!262!Revitalization!Grants!totaling!nearly!$6.3!billion,!along!with!285!Demolition!Grants!and!35!

Planning!Grants!totaling!approximately!$392!million!and!$15!million,!respectively,!during!its!17dyear!

history!(HUD,!2013).!New!grants!through!the!HOPE!VI!Program!ended!in!2010;!completion!of!ongoing!

projects!will!continue!through!the!end!of!the!decade.

The!stated!intent!of!Choice!is!to!build!on!the!success!of!the!HOPE!VI!Program,!while!making!several!

changes!based!on!the!experience!of!HOPE!VI.!The!first!change!made!in!Choice!was!to!expand!

redevelopment!and!revitalization!activities!beyond!the!footprint!of!an!assisted!housing!property.!This!

change!came!from!a!growing!recognition!that!issues!such!as!deterioration!and!abandonment!do!not!

terminate!at!the!property!lines!of!an!assisted!housing!complex.!Transformation!in!the!surrounding!

neighborhood!is!also!necessary!for!sustained!success.!Choice!requires!program!applicants!to!selfddefine!

neighborhoods!that!will!be!the!target!for!revitalization!through!the!program.

The!second!change!was!to!expand!the!groups!that!could!apply!for!the!grants!beyond!simply!public!

housing!authorities.!The!pool!of!eligible!applicants!was!expanded!to!include!other!actors,!including!cities!

and!nonprofit!organizations,!to!draw!in!other!capable!local!actors!and!to!encourage!coalition!and!

capacity!building.!Capacity!building!is!also!promoted!through!the!awarding!of!Planning!Grants!to!be!

used!for!the!creation!of!“transformation!plans”!to!guide!future!revitalization!efforts.!Thus,!groups!that!

wished!to!revitalize!a!neighborhood!that!met!the!requirements!of!the!program!but!did!not!yet!possess!

the!capacity!to!successfully!execute!that!wish!could!receive!assistance with!developing!that!capacity!
2!

(Donovan,!2009).!The!third!change!was!to!expand!the!pool!of!eligible!properties!from!only!public!

housing!to!include!other!HUDdassisted!housing.!This!change!substantially!increased!the!number!and!

ranges!of!properties!that!could!be!targeted!and!of!neighborhoods!that!are!eligible!for!the!program.

At!first,!Congress!did!not!fully!endorse!the!switch!from!the!HOPE!VI!Program!to!Choice.!Instead,!it!

allowed!Choice!as!a!demonstration!through!the!Department!of!Housing!and!Urban!Development!

Appropriations!Act,!20101 which!authorized!the!use!of!$65!million!to!fund!grants.!Choice!has!continued!

via!yearly!congressional!appropriations!for!HUD,!which!distributes!funds!through!a!competitive!grant!

process!guided!by!a!Notice!of!Funding!Availability!(NOFA)!issued!for!each!year.!This!research!concerns!

the!NOFAs!for!fiscal!years!(FY)!2010,!2011,!and!2012.!A!fourth!NOFA!for!FY!2013!has!also!been!released!

and!run,!but!it!is!not!included!in!this!research.!Choice!NOFAs!contain!general!information!and!goals!for!

the!program,!definitions!and!rules!for!applicants,!and!guidelines!and!procedures!for!applications.!

Choice!has!three!specifically!stated!goals:!

1. Transform!distressed!public!and assisted!housing!into!energydefficient,!mixeddincome!housing!

that!is!physically!and!financially!viable over!the!longdterm.!

2. Support!positive!outcomes!for!families!who!live!in!the!target!development(s) and!the!

surrounding!neighborhood,!particularly!outcomes!related!to!resident’s!health,!safety,!

employment,!mobility,!and!education.!

3. Transform!neighborhoods!of!poverty!into!viable,!mixeddincome!neighborhoods!with!access!to!

welldfunctioning!services,!highdquality!public!schools and!education!programs,!highdquality!early!

learning!programs!and!services,!public!assets,!public transportation,!and!improved!access!to!

jobs!(HUD,!2010:!2).!

To!achieve!those!three!goals,!Choice!makes!available!two!types!of!grants.!The!first!type!of!grant!is!a!

Planning!Grant.!Planning!Grants!are!small!amounts!of!money!that!enable!local!public,!private,!and!

nonprofit!organizations!to!form!partnerships!to!develop!transformation!plans!for!redeveloping!areas!of!

high!poverty!and!severely!distressed!subsidized!housing.!These!transformation!plans!detail!the!range!of!

activities!and!initiatives!to!be!undertaken!to!revitalize!a!neighborhood!in!accordance!with!the!goals!of!

Choice!and!local!priorities.!Neighborhoods!meeting!the!minimum!criteria!for!the!program!that!have!an!

acceptable!transformation!plan—which!may!or!may!not!have!been!completed!as!part!of!a!Planning!

Grant—can!apply!for!Implementation!Grants.!Implementation!Grants!provide!partial!funding!for!

activities!to!revitalize!a!neighborhood.!Successfully!securing!a!Planning!Grant!does!not!automatically!

qualify!an!applicant!or!neighborhood!for!an!Implementation!Grant!(HUD,!2010,!2011,!2012).

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAWd111publ117/pdf/PLAWd111publ117.pdf.!
3!

1.2'Purpose'of'Research

At!present,!a!very!limited!amount!of!scholarly!literature!has!been!published!about!Choice.!The!few!

exceptions!are!an!issue!of!City!and!Community (ASA,!2010),!a!small!number!of!position!papers!published!

by!the!Urban!Institute!in!2010!(Smith!et!al.,!2010)!about!how!to!monitor!Choice!going!forward,!and!an!

interim!report!by!the!Urban!Institute!(2013)!on!the!first!five!implementation!sites.!The!main!thrust!of!

the!Choice!research!agenda,!including!the!Baseline!Assessment!being!carried!out!by!the!Urban!Institute,!

is!focused!on!the!Implementation!Grant!recipients.!This!research!and!research!on!future!

Implementation!Grant!sites!is!important.!However,!the!Planning!Grants!are!intended!to!be!the!primary!

(although!not!the!only)!generator!of!applicants!for!the!Implementation!Grants,!meaning!understanding!

the!neighborhoods!being!targeted!and!coalitions!being!created!will!help!better!target!the!program!and!

advise!potential!applicants!on!how!best!to!identify!potential!neighborhoods!and!participants.!

Additionally,!the!Planning!Grants!are!likely!to!reach!a!larger!number!of!neighborhoods!than!the!

Implementation!Grants.

Choice!is!intended!to!improve!on!the!HOPE!VI!Program,!building!off!of!successes!and!avoiding!failures!

(Donovan,!2009).!The!research!on!HOPE!VI!can!provide!a!useful!indication!of!what!is!understood!about!

revitalizing!neighborhoods!with!distressed,!federally assisted!housing!and!what!requires!further!

research.!This!report!will!begin!to!address!two!gaps!in!the!existing!literature.!The!first!concerns!the!

demographic!and!geospatial!characteristics!of!neighborhoods!targeted!for!revitalization.!As!noted!in!a!

recent!issue!of!Evidence!Matters (HUD!PD&R,!2011),!one!key!issue!in!identifying!the!effects!of!

neighborhood!revitalization!efforts!is!properly!defining!the!boundaries!of!and!between!neighborhoods.!

Whereas!the!HOPE!VI!Program!was!limited!to!public!housing!complexes,!Choice!allows!considerably!

more!flexibility!for!local!actors!to!determine!the!boundaries!of!the!neighborhoods!being!targeted.!

Although!some!of!the!characteristics!of!the!chosen!neighborhoods,!such!as!poverty!rate,!are!considered!

as!part!of!the!grant!review!process,!the!characteristics!considered!are!limited.!This!report!develops!a!

more!comprehensive!profile!of!the!demographic,!economic,!and!physical!characteristics!of!applicant!

neighborhoods!and!identifies!underlying!patterns!where!they!exist.!It!also!compares!the!characteristics!

of!applicant!neighborhoods!with!those!of!recipient!neighborhoods!to!attempt!to!identify!any!key!

differences!between!successful!and!unsuccessful!Planning!Grant!applicants.!Finally,!the!applicant!and!

recipient!neighborhoods!are!placed!within!the!context!of!demographic!and!spatial!change!in!

surrounding!neighborhoods!and!the!cities!in!which!they!are!located.

The!purpose!of!the!profile!and!comparison!of!applicant!and!recipient!neighborhoods!is!to!identify!

whether!specific!spatial!characteristics!of!a!neighborhood!better!position!it!for!sustainable!revitalization.!

Some!of!the!most!recent!work!on!the!HOPE!VI!Program!concerns!exactly!these!issues.!Castells!(2010),!

through!an!analysis!of!three!HOPE!VI!sites!in!Baltimore,!Maryland,!argues that!the!preexisting!

neighborhood!conditions!and!the!broad!trends!in!neighborhood!change!within!a!city!can!greatly!

influence!the!effects!of!the!program,!particularly!in!terms!of!its!ability!to!generate!spillover!

improvements!in!surrounding!neighborhoods.!She!argues!that!the!most!effective!employment!of!the!

program!is!to!target!those!neighborhoods!that!are!stable!or!fit!within!a!broader!trend!of!neighborhood!

change.!Zeilenbach!and!Voith!(2010)!found!that!HOPE!VI!had!the!greatest!effect!in!neighborhoods!with

existing!development!pressures!and!established!institutions.!Neighborhoods!with!distressed!public!

housing!that!were!surrounded!by!stable!or!improving!neighborhoods,!had!existing!institutional!

presences,!and!were!near!transit!lines!experienced!greater!improvements!than!those!that!lacked!these!

elements.!This!finding!strongly!suggests!that!the!characteristics!of!the!neighborhoods!and!of!the!

neighborhoods!adjacent!to and!surrounding those!designated!as!recipients!of!Choice!grants!will!

influence!whether!revitalization!efforts!are!successful!and!sustainable.!In!both!cases,!the!authors!
4!

indicate!that,!although!the!research!is!suggestive,!the!samples!are!too!small!to!draw!conclusions!for!all!

neighborhoods.

Choice!differs!from!the!HOPE!VI!Program!in!that!it!expands!redevelopment!and!revitalization!activities!

beyond!the!boundaries!of!former!public!housing!complexes!in!recognition!that!issues!such!as!

deterioration!and!abandonment!often!extend!beyond!those!boundaries.!Recent!academic!research!on!

HUD!programs,!such!as!those!mentioned!previously,!and!policy!papers!such!as!the!White!House!

Neighborhood!Revitalization!Initiatives!Report!(White!House,!2011)!suggest!that!programs!such!as!

Choice!will!work!best!if!targeted!strategically!rather!than!spread!thin.!They!also!suggest!a!symbiotic!

relationship!between!targeted!neighborhoods!and!surrounding!areas.!This!research!will!establish!a!

demographic!profile!of!the!neighborhoods!forming!the!baseline!for!establishing!whether!specific!

neighborhood!characteristics!lead!to!successful!Planning!Grant!applications.!Beyond!providing!

information!on!the!characteristics!separating!successful!and!unsuccessful!grant!applications,!this!report!

provides!a!baseline!for!tracking!which!neighborhoods!successfully!complete!redevelopment!plans!that!

then!move!forward!with!implementation!either!independently!or!using!a!subsequent!Implementation!

Grant.!This!description!of!neighborhood!characteristics!will!help!local!partners!better!target!their!

resources!and!partnerships!and!help!HUD!provide!expanded!guidance to!potential!local!partners!on!the!

characteristics!of!neighborhoods!that!lead!to!successful!implementation.

In!addition,!one!key!issue!identified!in!the!literature!and!in!the!Choice!research!NOFA!is!establishing!

whether!the!program!actually!catalyzed!or!contributed!to!the!turnaround!of!neighborhoods!or!whether!

this!turnaround!was!the!result!of!ongoing!patterns!of!neighborhood!change,!revitalization,!and!

improvement.!This!research!will!create!a!baseline!for!neighborhoods!identified!in!Planning!Grant!

applications!and!for!surrounding!neighborhoods.!This!baseline!will!enable!the!tracking!of!the!applicant!

neighborhoods,!which!can!conduct!further!research!on!the!program!by!helping!to!identify!

neighborhoods!with!similar!demographic!and!geospatial!characteristics!that!can!be!used!to!create!

counterfactuals.

1.3'Choice'Neighborhoods'Initiative'NOFA'and'Planning'Grant'Neighborhood'Requirements

This!research!focuses!on!the!applicants!for!Choice!Planning!Grants!under!the!FY!2010,!FY!2011,!and!FY!

2012!NOFAs.!The!FY!2010!NOFA!made!available!$65!million!for!both!Planning!Grants!and!

Implementation!Grants.!Of!that!number,!$3!million!was!allocated!to!Planning!Grants.!Applicants!were!

allowed!to!apply!for!up!to!$250,000!each,!and!19!Planning!Grants!were!awarded.!The!FY!2011!NOFA!

increased!the!amount!available!for!Planning!Grants!to!$3.6!million.!Applicants!for!FY!2011!grants!were!

allowed!to!apply!for!up!to!$300,000!each,!and!13!Planning!Grants!were!awarded.!Total!appropriations!

for!Choice!increased!in!FY!2012!to!$115!million,!of!which!$5!million!was!allocated!to!Planning!Grants.!

Applicants!were!allowed!to!apply!for!up!to!$300,000.!In!FY!2012,!17!Planning!Grants!were!awarded.

These!NOFAs!contain!information!and!guidelines!for!applicants!that!aid!in!defining!neighborhoods!

eligible!for!consideration!as!part!of!an!application!for!a!Planning!Grant.!For!purposes!of!Choice,!a!

neighborhood!is!defined!as!“the!geographic!area!within!which!the!activities!of!the!Transformation!Plan!

shall!focus,”!and!Choice!allows!for!applicants!“to!identify boundaries!for!the!target!neighborhood!that!

are!generally!accepted!as!a!neighborhood”!provided!that!the!neighborhood!is!“larger!than!just!the!

footprint!of!the!distressed!public!or!HUDdassisted!housing!targeted!in!the!application”!(HUD,!2010,!p11.!

In!the!FY!2011!and!FY!2012!NOFAs,!additional!language!was!added!to!specify!that!neighborhoods!would!

be!“typically!an!area!less!than!two!miles!wide”!(HUD,!2011:!12).!Within!this!definition,!Planning!Grant!

applicants!are!afforded!substantial!leeway!in!defining!neighborhood!boundaries.!However,!HUD!does!
5!

“reserve!the!right!to!ask!grantees!to!provide!evidence!that!the!target!neighborhood!boundary!is!

generally!acceptable”!if!the!boundary!appears!to!be!drawn!specifically!to!maximize!eligibility!criteria!

(HUD,!2011:!12).

In!addition!to!that!neighborhood!definition,!the!NOFAs!contain!two!other!criteria.!At!least!20!percent!of!

households!within!the!neighborhood!must!be!in!poverty!or!have!extremely!low!incomes,!and!the!

neighborhood!must!be!experiencing!high!crime,!high!vacancy,!or!inadequate!schools.

1.4'Research'Design'and'Methodology

The!data!and!analysis!presented!in!this!report!are!intended!to!address!several!interrelated!questions!

related!to!the!neighborhoods!being!put!forward!by!Planning!Grant!applicants!as!appropriate and!desired!

locations!for!development!of!a!transformation!plan!and!for!subsequent!revitalization.!The!specific!

questions!are!as!follows.

• What!are!the!physical,!demographic,!and!geospatial!characteristics!of!the!neighborhoods!

identified!in!Choice!Planning Grant!applications?!Do!these!neighborhoods!exhibit!patterns!in!

demographic!and!geospatial!characteristics?

• Where!are!the!neighborhoods!being!identified!located!in!relation!to!broader!trends!of!

neighborhood!demographic!and!physical!change!within!corresponding!urban!areas?

• Do!the!neighborhoods!that!have!successfully!received!Planning!Grants!exhibit!a!pattern?

• What,!if!any,!relationship!exists!between!the!selection!criteria!outlined!for!Planning!Grant!

applications!and!the!demographic!and!geospatial!characteristics!of!the!applicant!

neighborhoods?

The!following!hypotheses!relate!to!the!preceding!research!questions.

1. Neighborhoods!that!have!been!identified!in!Planning!Grant!applications!do!not!substantially!

differ!from!each!other!in!their!socioeconomic!characteristics,!but!they!demonstrate!

considerable!variance!in!their!geospatial!characteristics.

2. Neighborhoods!that!have!been!identified!in!Planning!Grant!applications!demonstrate!a!clear!

pattern!of!deterioration!during!the!past!two!decades!related!to!measures!of!distress,!including!

but!not!limited!to!population!and!housing!unit!loss!and!poverty!and!unemployment!increases.

3. Neighborhoods!that!have!been!identified!in!Planning!Grant!applications!are!worse!off!than!the!

adjacent!areas,!their!cities,!and!their!regions!(as!represented!by!their!metropolitan!statistical!

areas,!or!MSAs)!across!measures!of!distress,!including!but!not!limited!to!poverty,!

unemployment,!and!vacancies.

4. Neighborhoods!that!have!been!identified!in!Planning!Grant!applications!are!generally,!but!not!

universally,!situated!in!locations!that!represent!the!next!phase!of!neighborhood!change!within!a!

city.
6!

5. Neighborhoods!that!have!been!successful!in!securing!a!Choice!Planning!Grant!are!worse!off!than!

the!unsuccessful!applicant!neighborhoods!across!measures!of!distress,!including!but!not!limited!

to!poverty,!unemployment,!and!vacancies.

The!data!and!analysis!that!follow!were!assembled!from!two!primary!sources.!Basic!information!about!

the!neighborhoods!identified!by!Planning!Grant!applicants!was!obtained!directly!from!HUD.!These!data!

included!the!following!information

• Applicant!identification!number.

• Name!of!the!lead!applicant.

• Applicant!city!and!state.

• Name!of!the!neighborhood!being!targeted.

• Number!of!housing!units!in!the!target!neighborhood.

• Poverty!rate!in!the!target!neighborhood.

• Extremely!lowdincome!rate!in!the!target!neighborhood.

• Geographic!information!about!the!neighborhood!boundaries.

To!support!the!application!process,!HUD!developed!an!online!mapping!tool!that!applicants!were!

required!to!use!to!identify!their!target!neighborhood.!Applicants!used!this!tool!to!define!the!boundaries!

of!the!neighborhood,!and!the!tool!returned!information!about!the!proposed!neighborhood,!including!

the!number!of!housing!units,!the!poverty!rate,!and!the!rate!of!extremely!lowdincome!households.!To!

support!this!research,!HUD!provided!the!data!from!this!tool,!including!the!applicantddefined!

neighborhood!boundaries.

In!addition!to!the!data!provided!directly!by!HUD,!data!were!gathered!from!the!U.S.!Census!Bureau.!

TIGER!files!were!acquired!for!each!of!the!areas!covered!by!the!Planning!Grant!applicant!neighborhoods!

and!the!surrounding!MSAs.!These!files!provided!spatial!data,!including!roads,!railroads,!waterways,!

census!tracts,!and!city!boundaries.!Census!tract!boundaries!included!1990,!2000,!and!2010!boundaries.!

Demographic,!economic,!and!housing!data!were!also!acquired.!These!data!were!drawn!from!the!1990,!

2000,!and!2010!U.S.!decennial!censuses!and!the!2006–2010!American!Community!Survey!(ACS)!5dyear!

estimates.!The!outputs!of!the!mapping!tool!were!incorporated!into!the!dataset!and!analysis.!The!

geographic!information!was!merged!with!the!TIGER,!census,!and!ACS!data!to!derive!additional!data!on!

the!applicant!neighborhoods.!All!Choice!Planning!Grant!applications!and recipients!for!the!first!3!years!

of!the!program!were!represented!in!the!dataset.!No!sampling!was!involved;!the!dataset!represents!a!

100dpercent!sample.

The!merging!of!data!was!done!using!ArcGIS.!Applicant!neighborhood!geographies!received!from!HUD!

were!consolidated!from!individual!shapefiles!by!application!year.!The!TIGER!geospatial!data!for!all!MSAs!

containing!one!or!more!applicant!areas!were!merged!with!census!and!ACS!data.!Demographic!data!used!

in!this!research!were!at!the!smallest!possible!geographic!unit,!the!census!tract.!Over!time,!census!tracts!
7!

have!changed!in!a!number!of!the!applicant!areas,!requiring!the!reconciliation!of!census!boundaries,!

which!was!done!using!census!tract!relationship!files!(U.S.!Census Bureau,!2013).!All!geospatial!data!were!

projected!in!the!World!Geodetic!System (WGS)!1984!Web!Mercator!coordinate!system!for!compatibility!

and!then!merged.

Output!tables!were!created!for!applicant!neighborhoods,!adjacent!areas!within!1/2!mile!of!the!applicant!

neighborhoods,!cities,!and!MSAs.!Where!applicant!neighborhood!boundaries!did!not!follow!census!tract!

boundaries,!data!were!allocated!proportionally.!Each!applicant!area!was!subsequently!visually!checked!

to!identify!any!potential!cases!where!too!much!or!too!little!of!a!census!tract!was!being!included!in!the!

output!tables!and,!in!the!few!cases!where!issues!were!identified,!corrections!were!made.!Outputs!were!

then!crossdchecked!against!the!data!provided!by!HUD!and!against!information!obtained!from!a!sample!

of!applicants!(via!project!websites)!to!ensure!that!estimates!in!the!output!tables!were!accurate.!The!

maximum!variance!between!outputdtable!values!and!HUDdprovided!values!was!2!percent,!with!91!

percent!of!cases!having!a!variance!of!less!than!1!percent.

The!output!tables!were!then!used!to!produce!descriptive!statistics!(that!is,!means,!medians,!minimums,!

and!maximums)!for!the!applicant!neighborhoods,!their!adjacent!areas,!their!cities,!and!their!MSAs.!

Where!relevant,!comparisons!with!overall!U.S.!statistics!were!also!included.!Applicant!neighborhoods!

were!also!categorized!based!on!criteria!including!year,!region,!and!success!(whether!the!application!was!

funded)!for!additional!analysis.

1.5'Summary'of'Key'Findings

This!report!provides!aggregate!profiles!for!Planning!Grant!applicant!neighborhoods.!Detailed!findings!

are!provided!in!subsequent!sections!of!the!report.!The!general!demographic,!economic,!and!housing!

characteristics!of!the!neighborhoods!are!largely!unsurprising.!The!average!applicant!neighborhood!is!

majority!minority!and!has!been!since!at!least!1990.!The!average!applicant!neighborhood!has!a!median!

household!income!below!the!average!for!the!corresponding!city,!corresponding!MSA,!and!United!States,!

and!the!median!household!income!has!been!declining,!particularly!between!2000!and!2010.!Educational!

attainment!in!the!average!applicant!neighborhood!is!primarily!a!high!school!education!or!lower,!but!the!

number!of!residents!with!some!college!or!a!bachelor’s!degree!has!increased!during!the!past!two!

decades.!Poverty!rates!in!applicant!neighborhoods!average!approximately!30!percent!and!have!grown!

worse!during!the!past!decade.!Unemployment!has!also!increased!during!the!past!two!decades!in!the!

average!applicant!neighborhood,!although!labor!force!participation!has!increased.!Housing!tenure!in!

applicant!neighborhoods!is!decidedly!rental,!with!very!high!vacancy!rates.!Housing!units!in!these!

neighborhoods!have!a!median!age!of!approximately!60!years,!with!a!substantial!number!built!before!

1940!and!in!the!1950s.!Some!regional!variation!exists!in!these!data,!particularly!as!they!relate!to!

Hispanic!population!(consistently!larger!in!the!West!and!Northeast)!and!age!of!housing!(consistently!

older!in!the!Northeast!and!Midwest).!The!average!characteristics!of!applicant!neighborhoods!are!largely!

consistent!with!the!characteristics!of!highdpoverty,!lowdincome!urban!neighborhoods!across!the!United!

States.

Some!differences!emerge!in!the!demographic,!economic,!and!housing!characteristics!of successful!and!

unsuccessful!applicant!neighborhoods,!most!of!which!are!linked!to!the!geographic!location!of!successful!

and!unsuccessful!applicants.!The!one!consistent!difference!is!that!successful!neighborhoods!have!higher!

poverty!rates!overall!than!unsuccessful!neighborhoods.!
8!

With!regard!to!the!general!characteristics!of!the!applicant!neighborhoods!in!terms!of!physical!size,!

population,!and!numbers!of!housing!units,!no!consistent!emerging!pattern!appears!across!the!applicant!

areas.!All!measures!across!the!applicant!neighborhoods!vary!substantially,!and!no!consistent!pattern!of!

change!emerged!among!the!applicants!in!each!of!the!first!three!grant!cycles.!This!finding!is!consistent!

with!the!flexibility!built!into!the!program,!which!allows!for!applicants!to!selfddefine!neighborhoods,!

although!it!might!also!suggest!that!the!program!lacks!sufficient!criteria!to!guide!applicants!to!select!

neighborhoods!appropriate!for!the!program.

The!areas!adjacent!to!applicant!neighborhoods!are!consistently!better!off!in!terms!of!economic!and!

housing!characteristics.!They!have!higher!median!incomes,!lower!poverty!rates,!and!lower!

unemployment!rates.!They!also!have!lower!vacancy!rates,!higher!homeownership!rates,!and!a!newer!

housing!stock.!These!findings!may!support!the!hypothesis!that!the!target!neighborhoods!may!be!linked!

to!the!next!phase!of!ongoing!improvement!in!a!city!and!may!be!selected!to!capture!or!create!spillover!

effects.!It!is!also!possible!that!the!most!distressed!neighborhoods!were!selected!as!applicant!areas.!

1.6'Structure'of'the'Report

The!remainder!of!this!report!is!broken!into!four!sections!providing!detail!on!the!applicant!

neighborhoods!and!one!containing!concluding!comments.!Section!2!provides!data!and!descriptive!

statistics!on!the!general!characteristics!of!the!neighborhoods,!including!physical!size,!population,!and!

population!density.!Information!is!presented!on!the!overall!characteristics!and!also!is!broken!down!by!

application!year,!successful!and!unsuccessful!applications,!region,!and!change!over!time.

Section!3!covers!the!housing!characteristics!of!each!neighborhood,!providing!information!about!tenure,!

vacancy!rates,!and!age!of!housing!stock.!This!information!is!also!presented!for!successful!and!

unsuccessful!applications!broken!down!by!region.

Section!4!addresses!the!economic!characteristics!of!the!neighborhoods,!looking!at!income,!poverty,!and!

employment.!Statistics!presented!are!broken!down!by!race!and!ethnicity,!successful!and!unsuccessful!

applications,!and!region.!Each!variable!is!also!analyzed!to!examine!change!from!1990!to!2006–2010.

Section!5!provides!information!about!the!demographic!characteristics!of!the!applicant!neighborhoods.!

This!section!specifically!addresses!race!and!ethnicity,!educational!attainment,!age,!and!sex.!For!race!and!

ethnicity,!comparisons!are!presented!viewing!the!applicant!neighborhoods!by!successful!and!

unsuccessful!applications,!by!region,!and!by!change.!Change!over!time!in!educational!attainment,!age,!

and!sex!are!also!be!considered.!Each!variable!is!also!analyzed!to!examine!change!from!1990!to!2006–

2010.

The!purpose!of!the!four!previous!sections!is!to!provide!information!about!the!range!and!types!of!

neighborhoods!being!identified!by!local!applicant!teams;!to!begin!to!identify!emergent!trends,!patterns,!

and!any!outliers;!and!to!explore!the!possible!existence!of!trends!or!patterns!of!decline!(Are!applicants!

targeting!neighborhoods!to!reverse!decline?)!or!growth!(Are!applicants!attempting!to!support!ongoing!

growth?).!

The!report!concludes!with!a!section!the!reviews!the!key!findings!from!the!analysis.!This!section!also!

highlights!questions!that!remain!unanswered!from!the!analysis!and!suggests!avenues!for!continuing!this!

research.!Finally,!several!recommendations!are!made!about!targeting!Choice.
9!

2 General'Characteristics'of'Planning'Grant'Applicant'Neighborhoods'

This!section!provides!data!and!descriptive!statistics!on!the!general!characteristics!of!the!Choice!

Neighborhoods!Initiative!Planning!Grant!applicant!neighborhoods.!The!first!part!of!this!section!presents!

a!general!overview!of!the!distribution!of!Planning!Grant!applicants!overall!and!by!HUD!and!U.S.!Census!

Bureau!regions.!The!remainder!of!the!section!presents!information!about!the!physical!size,!population,!

and!population!density!of!each!applicant!neighborhood.!This!information!is!presented!first!based!on!the!

characteristics!of!all!applicant!neighborhoods!and!second!categorized!based!on!several!comparative!

measures:!by!application!year,!by!successful!and!unsuccessful!applications,!by!region,!and!by!change.!

The!purpose of!this!section!is!to!provide!a!general!description!of!the!neighborhoods!and!to!begin!to!

identify!emerging!trends!and!patterns!in!the!data.!Where!appropriate,!comparisons!to!adjacent!areas,!

cities,!and!metropolitan!statistical!areas!are!also!included.

2.1'Distribution'of'Applicants

Figure!1!shows!a!map!of!the!geographic!distribution!of!Planning!Grant!applicants!throughout!the!United!

States.!As!this!map!shows,!most!Planning!Grant!applications,!by!far,!have!come!from!cities!in!the!eastern!

portion!of!the!country.

FY!=!fiscal!year.!

Figure'1:'Choice'Planning'Grant'Applicants'Geographic'Distribution'(FY2010QFY2012)

Source:!applicant!files
10

Table!1!displays!this!information!in!tabular!form,!showing!the!number!of!applicants!in!fiscal!years!2010!

through!2012,!broken!down!by!HUD2 and!census3 regions.

Table'1: Choice'Applicant Neighborhoods, by Region

Region

Count

FY!2010 FY!2011 FY!2012 Overall

HUD!region

Region!1 6 4 4 14

Region!2 9 5 4 18

Region!3 10 6 5 21

Region!4 20 14 17 51

Region!5 12 6 4 22

Region!6 4 1 4 9

Region!7 1 3 1 5

Region!8 1 1 2 4

Region!9 12 9 8 29

Region!10 1 1 1 3

Census region

Northeast 19 12 9 40

Midwest 13 10 5 28

South 30 19 24 73

West 14 10 12 36

FY!=!fiscal!year.

Source:!Applicant!files

As!table!1!indicates,!applications!for!Choice!come!primarily!from!HUD!Region!4,!which!includes!mainly!

states!in!the!Southern!United!States.!This!region!has!nearly!twice!as!many!applications!as!the!region!

with!the!second!most!and!accounts!for!approximately!29!percent!of!all!applications.!This!predominance!

is!also!reflected!in!the!large!number!of!applicants!in!the!South!Census!Region,!which!accounts!for!

slightly!more!than!41!percent!of!all!applications.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2 HUD!Region!1!includes!Connecticut,!Maine,!Massachusetts,!New!Hampshire,!Rhode!Island,!and!Vermont;!HUD!

Region!2!includes!New!Jersey!and!New!York;!HUD!Region!3!includes!Delaware,!Maryland,!Pennsylvania,!Virginia,!

Washington,!D.C.,!and!West!Virginia;!HUD!Region!4!includes!Alabama,!Florida,!Georgia,!Kentucky,!Mississippi,!

North!Carolina,!Puerto!Rico,!South!Carolina,!Tennessee,!and!the!U.S.!Virgin!Islands;!HUD!Region!5!includes!Illinois,!

Indiana,!Michigan,!Minnesota,!Ohio,!and!Wisconsin;!HUD!Region!6!includes!Arkansas,!Louisiana,!New!Mexico,!

Oklahoma,!and!Texas;!HUD!Region!7!includes!Iowa,!Kansas,!Missouri,!and!Nebraska;!HUD!Region!8!includes!

Colorado,!Montana,!North!Dakota,!South!Dakota,!Utah,!and!Wyoming;!HUD!Region!9!includes!Arizona,!California,!

Hawaii,!and Nevada;!and!HUD!Region!10!includes!Alaska,!Idaho,!Oregon,!and!Washington. 3 Census!Region!1!(Northeast)!includes!Connecticut,!Maine,!Massachusetts,!New!Hampshire,!New!Jersey,!New!

York,!Pennsylvania,!Rhode!Island,!and!Vermont;!Census!Region!2!(Midwest)!includes!Illinois,!Indiana,!Iowa, Kansas,!

Michigan,!Minnesota,!Missouri,!Nebraska,!North!Dakota,!Ohio,!South!Dakota,!and!Wisconsin;!Census!Region!3!

(South)!includes!Alabama,!Arkansas,!Florida,!Georgia,!Kentucky,!Louisiana,!Maryland,!Mississippi,!North!Carolina,!

Oklahoma,!South!Carolina,!Tennessee,!Texas,!Virginia,!Washington,!D.C.,!and!West!Virginia;!Census!Region!4!

(West)!includes!Alaska,!Arizona,!California,!Colorado,!Hawaii,!Idaho,!Nevada,!New!Mexico,!Oregon,!Washington,!

and!Wyoming.
11

The!large!number!of!applications!from!the!Southern!United!States!is!different!from!the!pattern!of!HOPE!

VI!grants,!which!included!large!numbers!of!Midwestern!and!Northeastern!applicants!and!recipients.!The!

reason!for!this!variation!is!not!readily!apparent!from!the!neighborhood!data.!One!possible!explanation!is!

that!expanding!the!pool!of!eligible!assisted!housing!properties!beyond!strictly!public!housing!complexes!

makes!more!areas!in!the!South!eligible!for!this!program.!A!second!possible!explanation!is!that!the!HOPE!

VI!Program!has!already!redeveloped!many!aging!public!housing!developments!in!the!regions!

characterized!by!older!housing!stock,!such!as!those!regions!covering!the!Northeastern!and!Midwestern!

states.!Further,!the!prohibition!on!using!Choice!grants!for!revitalization!activities!for!public!housing!

complexes!that!were previous!recipients!of!HOPE!VI!grants!may!also!be!a!factor.!These!changes!may!

open!up!neighborhoods!in!cities!previously!unable!to!participate!in!the!HOPE!VI!Program!to!eligibility!for!

grants!and!may!prevent!neighborhoods!in!other!cities!from!applying.

2.2'Applicant'Neighborhood Boundaries

Planning!Grant!applicants!are!afforded!the!ability!to!draw!their!own!neighborhood!boundaries.!The!

selection of!neighborhood!boundaries!varies!considerably!among!applicants;!some!have!drawn!their!

boundaries!based!on!existing!neighborhood!definitions!and!others!have!chosen!to!target!newly!defined!

neighborhoods.!The!neighborhood!boundary!for!Brownsville,!Brooklyn,!New!York!represents!an!example!

of!the!first!approach!(figure!2).
12

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census!Bureau TIGER!files;!NYCityMap

Figure'2:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood Boundary'and'Existing'

Neighborhood'Definition—Brownsville,'Brooklyn,'New'York

Although!the!neighborhood!identified!for!Choice!does!not!encompass!the!entirety!of!the!New!York!City

Planning!Department!neighborhood!boundary!for!Brownsville,!it!is!clearly!derived!from!this!previously!

defined!neighborhood!area.

Other!applicants!have!defined!entirely!new!areas!that!do!not!correspond!to!any!previously!defined!

neighborhood.!The!neighborhood!identified!by!Rocky!Mount,!North!Carolina,!demonstrates!this!

approach!(figure!3).
13

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census!Bureau TIGER!files;!City!of!Rocky!Mount

Figure'3:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'Boundary'and'Existing'

Neighborhood'Definition—Downtown,'Rocky'Mount,'North'Carolina

The!neighborhood!identified!in!this!case!does!not!correspond!to!any!of!the!neighborhoods!from!the!

city’s!list!of!existing!neighborhoods.

Finally,!a!few!applicants!representing!very!small!jurisdictions!designate!the!entire!municipality!as!a!

“neighborhood”!for!purposes!of!Choice.!A!few!neighborhoods!even!encompass!an!entire!municipality!

and!some!of!the!surrounding!area.!An!example!is!the!applicant!neighborhood!for!Itta!Bena,!Mississippi!

(figure!4).
14

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census!Bureau!TIGER!files

Figure'4:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'Boundary'and'Existing'

Neighborhood'Definition—Itta'Bena'Neighborhood,'Itta'Bena,'Mississippi

The!ability!to!select!the!applicant!neighborhood!is!an!important!feature!of!Choice!that!has!produced!a!

variety!of!results.!In!the!Choice!Notice!of!Funding!Availability,!HUD!retains!the!right!to!request!further!

information!from!applicants!to!support!their!selection!of!neighborhood.!It!is!unclear!how!often!this!right!

is!invoked.!Minor!changes!in!neighborhood!definition!can!create!significantly!different!results.

2.3'Applicant'Neighborhood'Physical'Size

2.3.1!Physical!Size!Summary

Table!2!shows!a!general!summary!of!the!physical!size!of!Planning!Grant!applicant!neighborhoods.!

Applicant!neighborhoods!range!in!size!from!a!minimum!of!10!acres!(0.02!square!miles)!for!the!

neighborhood!in!Robbins,!Illinois!(FY!2010),!to!a!maximum!of!14,223 acres!(22!square!miles)!for!

Convent,!St.!James!Parish,!Louisiana!(FY!2012).!The!average!size!of!all!applicant!neighborhoods!is!1,120!

acres!(1.75!square!miles),!but!the!median!size!is!much!smaller,!at!697!acres!(1.09!square!miles).!
15

Table'2: Choice'Applicant Neighborhood Physical Size

Acres Square!Miles Neighborhood

Mean 1,120 1.75

Median 697 1.09

Minimum 10 0.02 Robbins!neighborhood,!Robbins,!Illinois

Maximum 14,223 22.22 Convent,!St.!James!Parish,!Louisiana

Source:!Applicant!files

The!mean!is!pulled!upward!by!several!physically!large!applicant!areas.!Because!of!the!presence!of!these!

few!very!large!applicant!neighborhoods!and!their!influence!on!the!mean!values!for!neighborhood!size,!

the!interpretation!of!physical!size!results!uses!primarily!median!values.!Figure!5!shows!the!distribution!

of!applicant!neighborhoods!by!physical!size.

Robbins,!

Robbins,!IL,!0.02!

Fairmount,!

Cincinnao,!OH,!5.47!

Commodore!Perry!Homes,!

Buffalo,!NY,!7.53!

South!Brooksville,!

Brooksville,!FL,!8.13!

GillespiedSelden!Character!

Area,!

Cordele,!GA,!8.67!

Harqord!North!End,!

Harqord,!CT,!8.9!

Quad!Cioes,!

Rock!Island,!IL,!9.24!

Downtown,!

Rocky!Mount,!NC,!10.15!

Convent,!

St!James!Parish,!LA,!22.22!

0!

2!

4!

6!

8!

10!

12!

14!

16!

18!

20!

22!

24!

0! 20! 40! 60! 80! 100! 120! 140! 160! 180! 200!

Square'miles'

Neighborhoods'

Figure'5:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'Physical'Size'Distribu[on''

Mean

CT!=!Connecticut.!FL!=!Florida.!GA!=!Georgia.!IL!=!Illinois.!LA!=!Louisiana.!NC!=!North!Carolina.!NY!=!New!York.!OH!=!Ohio.

Source:!Applicant!files

With!the!exception!of!the!seven!largest!applicant!areas!and!a!cluster!of!nine!neighborhoods!of!between!

3.18!and!5.47!square!miles,!the!other!applicant!neighborhoods!are!fairly!evenly!distributed!across!the!

range!of!sizes.!The!neighborhood!in!St.!James!Parish!represents!a!significant!outlier;!it!is!more!than!

twice!the!size!of!the!next!largest!applicant!neighborhood,!Downtown!Rocky!Mount,!North!Carolina!

(2012),!at!6,493!acres!(10!square!miles).!Only!one!of!the!seven!largest!applicant!neighborhoods,!

Commodore!Perry!Homes!in!Buffalo,!New!York,!at!7.53!square!miles,!was!successful!in!securing!a!

Planning!Grant.
16

The!FY!2010!application!for!Robbins,!Illinois,!has!the!smallest!applicant!area!but!does!not!represent!a!

significant!outlier.!Another!6!neighborhoods!are!0.10!square!mile!or!smaller,!and!37!neighborhoods!are!

less!than!0.5!square!mile.!None!of!the!7!smallest!neighborhoods!was!successful!in!securing!a!Planning!

Grant.

2.3.2!Physical!Size!by!Application!Year

Table!3!shows!the!variation!in!physical!size of!applicant!neighborhoods!by!applicant!year.!The!numbers!

overall!and!for!each!of!the!grant!cycles!demonstrate!a!notable!trend!of!having!significantly!smaller!

median!than!mean!sizes!because!of!the!small!number!of!outliers!described!previously.

Table'3: Choice'Applicant Neighborhood'Physical Size, by Grant Year

Grant Cycle Acres Square!

Miles Neighborhood

FY!2010

Mean 953 1.49

Median 676 1.06

Minimum 10 0.02 Robbins neighborhood, Robbins, Illinois

Maximum 5,205 8.13 South Brooksville, Brooksville, Florida

FY!2011

Mean 928 1.45

Median 697 1.09

Minimum 56 0.09 Soledad Street/Chinatown, Salinas, California

Maximum 3,504 5.47 Fairmount, Cincinnati, Ohio

FY!2012

Mean 1,566 2.45

Median 778 1.22

Minimum 126 0.20 Kuhio Park, Honolulu, Hawaii

Maximum 14,223 22.22 Convent, St. James Parish, Louisiana

FY!=!fiscal!year.

Source:!Applicant!files

Median!neighborhood!size!has!increased!over!the!three!grant!cycles.!This!increase!was!unexpected!

because!the!FY!2011!and!FY!2012!NOFAs!included!new!language!intended!to!restrain!neighborhood!

sizes.!Whereas!the!FY!2010!NOFA!contained!no!specific!language!regarding!the!physical!size!of!a!

neighborhood,!the!FY!2011!and!FY!2012!NOFAs!included!an!additional!phrase!suggesting!that!

neighborhoods!are!“typically!an!area!less!than!two!miles!wide”!(HUD,!2011:!11).!Applying!this!criterion!

would!mean!that!the!typical!neighborhood!should!be!less!than!4!square!miles!total.!Although!it!is!

unclear!if!the!change!is!the!result!of!the!addition!of!this!language,!the!range!of!neighborhood!sizes!

decreased!in!the!second!application!year,!and!fewer!applicant!neighborhoods!exceeded!the!new!

suggested!threshold.!Only!one!applicant!neighborhood!in!the!second!grant!cycle!would!have!been!in!the!

top!three!the!first!year.!However,!two!neighborhoods!of!more!than!4!square!miles!were!successfully!

awarded!grants!in!the!second!grant!cycle.
17

The!FY!2012!grant!cycle!saw!a!substantial!increase!in!the!number!of!applicant!neighborhoods!of!more!

than!4!square!miles,!from!three!in!FY!2011!to!eight,!and!a!concurrent!increase!in!average!neighborhood!

size.!This!increase!suggests!that!the!limit!is!not!constraining!applicants.!Even!correcting!for!the!

significant!outlier!in!St.!James!Parish,!the!FY!2012!grant!cycle!applicant!neighborhoods!are!an!average!of!

400!acres!(0.60!square!miles)!larger!than!the!first!2!applicant!years.!As!noted!previously,!the!median!

neighborhood!size!has!also!increased.!If!HUD!is!interested!in!constraining!neighborhood!size,!it!may!

need!to!add!more!specific!language!to!the!NOFA!regarding!ideal!or!maximum!neighborhood!size.

2.3.3!Physical!Size!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful!Applicants!!

Table!4!shows!the!applicant!neighborhoods!by!successful!and!unsuccessful!applications,!overall!and!by!

grant!cycle.!Both!the!overall!numbers!and!the!FY!2012!numbers!have!been!adjusted!to!remove!the!St.!

James!Parish!numbers,!which!greatly!skew!the!results.

Table'4:'Choice'Applicant

Applicants

Neighborhood'Physical Size, by Successful and'Unsuccessful

Grant Cycle Acres Square!

Miles Neighborhood

Overall

Min successful 126 0.20 Kuhio Park, Honolulu, Hawaii

Max successful 4,820 7.53 Commodore

York

Perry Homes, Buffalo, New

Mean unsuccessful* 1,065 1.66

Median unsuccessful* 678 1.06

Mean successful 1,191 1.86

Median successful 779 1.22

FY!2010

Min successful 172 0.27 South Norwalk, Norwalk, Connecticut

Max successful 4,820 7.53 Commodore

York

Perry Homes, Buffalo, New

FY!2011

Min successful 392 0.61 East Washington Street, Suffolk, Virginia

Max successful 3,061 4.78 ParksidedKenilworth, Washington, D.C.

FY!2012

Min successful 126 0.20 Kuhio Park, Honolulu, Hawaii

Max successful 1,824 2.85 Mills!Memorial

Connecticut

Apartments, Meriden,

FY!=!fiscal!year.

*Outlier!(Convent,!St.!James!

Source:!Applicant!files

Parish,!Louisiana) removed.

The!table!shows!that!the!range!of!neighborhoods!successfully!receiving!Planning!Grants!remains!quite!

broad!but!is!narrower!than!the!range!applying.!The!smallest!successful!application!is!Kuhio!Park,!

Honolulu,!Hawaii!(2012),!at!126!acres!(0.19!square!miles),!and!the!largest!successful!application!is!

Commodore!Perry!Homes!(2010),!at!4,820!acres!(7.53!square!miles).
18

It!is!worth!noting!that!neither!the!Robbins!neighborhood,!the!smallest!applicant!overall,!nor!the!St.!

James!Parish!neighborhood,!the!largest!applicant!overall,!were!successful!grantees.!Indeed,!none!of!the!

smallest!5!percent!of!applicant!neighborhoods!and!only!one!of!the!largest!5!percent!of!applicant!

neighborhoods!was!successful!in!winning!a!Planning!Grant.!Although!not!definitive,!this!finding!may!

suggest!a!preference!against!very!small!and!very!large!neighborhoods.!

Very!small!neighborhoods,!such!as!the!Robbins!application!(from!2010),!may!be!viewed!as!representing!

areas!too!small!to!address!the!lessons!learned!from!the!HOPE!VI!Program!on!the!need!to!move!beyond!

narrowly!focused!revitalization!efforts!to!sustain!success.!Until!the!approval!of!two!neighborhoods!of!

less!than!0.25!square!miles!in!2012,!no!neighborhoods!smaller!than!this!size!had!been!successful.!The!

pressure!to!address!a!neighborhood!of!sufficient!size!may!also!be!reflected!in!the!pattern!of!repeat!

applications.!In!85!percent!of!these!cases,!the!revised!applicant!neighborhood!was!larger!than!the!initial!

neighborhood.!A!subsequent!application!from!Robbins!was!submitted!in!2012!covering!a!much!larger!

area!(2,042!acres,!or!3.19!square!miles).!

The!larger!neighborhoods,!such!as!the!2012!St.!James!Parish!neighborhood,!may!be!viewed!as!too!large!

to!represent!a!cohesive!neighborhood.!The!largest!successful!applicant,!Commodore!Perry!Homes,!is!an!

outlier.!No!other!successful!applicant!proposed!a!neighborhood!of!5!square!miles!or!larger.

2.3.4!Physical!Size!by!Region

Table!5!breaks!down!the!applicant!neighborhood!sizes!by!HUD!and!census!region.!The!table!shows!

considerable!variation!in!the!size!of!applicant!neighborhoods!based!on!these!geographic!areas.!

Table'5:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'Physical'Size,'by'Region

Mean!Size Median!Size Minimum! Maximum!

Region Count Square! Square! Square! Square! Acres Acres Miles Miles Miles Miles

HUD!region

Region!1 14 1,095 1.71 551 0.86 0.27 8.90

Region!2 18 806 1.26 397 0.62 0.07 7.53

Region!3 21 585 0.91 428 0.67 0.06 4.78

Region!4 51 1,287 2.01 844 1.32 0.29 10.15

Region!5 22 1,228 1.92 926 1.45 0.02 9.24

Region!6 9! 1,179 1.84 925 1.45 0.36 22.22

Region!7 5! 895 1.40 916 1.43 0.49 2.28

Region!8 4! 1,356 2.12 742 1.16 0.99 5.16

Region!9 29 932 1.46 837 1.31 0.09 5.05

Region!10 3! 589 0.92 594 0.93 0.90 0.93

Census!region

Northeast 40 836 1.31 498 0.78 0.06 8.90

Midwest 27 1,167 1.82 925 1.44 0.02 9.24

South 73 1,001 1.10 703 1.10 0.23 22.22

West 36 950 1.48 805 1.26 0.09 5.16

Source:!Applicant!files
19

Median!neighborhood!sizes!are!largest!in!HUD!Regions!5,!6,!and!7.!These!regions!represent!the!Midwest!

and!portions!of!the!South.!Median!neighborhood!sizes!are!smallest!in!HUD!Regions!2!and!3.!These!

regions!represent!the!MiddAtlantic!states!and!portions!of!the!Northeast.!Region!2!(New!Jersey!and!New!

York)!in!particular!has!very!small!median!neighborhood!sizes.

2.4'Applicant'Neighborhood'Population

As!with!physical!size,!the!population!size!of!the!applicant!neighborhoods!varied!considerably.!This!

section!provides!information!about!applicant!neighborhood!population!sizes!and!growth!or!decline.

2.4.1!Population!General!Characteristics

Table!6!summarizes!the!basic!information!regarding!population!size.!Applicant!neighborhoods!

represent,!on!average,!approximately!10!percent!of!the!population!of!the!cities!in!which!they!are!

located.!The!median!value!is!approximately!3!percent.

Table'6: Choice'Applicant Neighborhood'Population'(2010)

2010!Population Neighborhood

Mean 6,291

Median 4,601

Minimum 27 Robbins

Illinois

neighborhood, Robbins,

Maximum 60,131 Brownsville, Brooklyn, New York

Sources:!Applicant!files; U.S.!Census Bureau

The!chart!shows!that!applicant!neighborhood!populations!ranged!from!as!small!as!27!for!the!

neighborhood!in!Robbins!(2010)!to!as!large!as!60,131!for!Brownsville!(2010).!The!average!neighborhood!

population!was!slightly!more!than!6,200.!Again,!similar!to!physical!size,!the!median!is!smaller!than!the!

mean,!suggesting!that!the!distribution!contains!outliers.!Figure!6shows!the!distribution!of!neighborhood!

populations.
20

Robbins,!!

Robbins,!IL,!27!!

Codorus!Homes,!!

York,!PA,!244!!

Sunnydale/Visitacion!Valley,!!

San!Francisco,!CA,!20,642!!

Quad!Cioes,!!

Rock!Island,!IL,!21,629!!

Wats,!!

Los!Angeles,!CA,!25,057!!

Pacoima,!!

Los!Angeles,!CA,!26,060!!

Point!Breeze,!

Philadelphia,!PA,!26,838!!

Commodore!Perry!Homes,!

Buffalo,!NY,!27,567!!

Central!Southeastern!San!Diego,!

San!Diego,!CA,!30,581!!

Harqord!North!End,!

Harqord,!CT,!36,218!!

Mot!Haven,!

Bronx,!NY,!!39,439!!

Brownsville,!

Brooklyn,!NY,!60,131!!

!d!!!!

!5,000!!

!10,000!!

!15,000!!

!20,000!!

!25,000!!

!30,000!!

!35,000!!

!40,000!!

!45,000!!

!50,000!!

!55,000!!

!60,000!!

!65,000!!

0! 20! 40! 60! 80! 100! 120! 140! 160! 180! 200!

Popula[on'

Neighborhoods'

Figure'6:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'Popula[on'Distribu[on'(2010)'

Mean

CA!=!California.!CT!=!Connecticut.!IL!=!Illinois.!NY!=!New!York.!PA!=!Pennsylvania.

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census!Bureau

A!full!73!percent!of!neighborhoods!were!smaller!than!the!mean,!with!56!percent!of!all!applicant!

neighborhoods!having!populations!between!2,000!and!7,000. The!10!large!applicant!neighborhoods!

shown!in!Figure!6!have!populations!more!than!three!times!the!average.!Three!of!these!neighborhoods—

Mott!Haven,!Bronx,!New!York;!Commodore!Perry!Homes;!and!Sunnydale/Visitacion!Valley,!San!

Francisco,!California—received!Planning!Grants.!The!largest!applicant!neighborhood,!Brownsville,!has!a!

population!nearly!10!times!the!average.!The!smallest!applicant!area!is!also!an!outlier.!The!Robbins!

neighborhood!has!a!population!approximately!onedtenth that!of!the!next!smallest!applicant!

neighborhood,!Codorus!Homes,!York,!Pennsylvania.

One!item!of!information!identified!at!the!outset!of!this!research!as!being!potentially!useful!for!

understanding!applicant!neighborhoods!involved!whether!these!neighborhoods!were!growing!or!

declining.!This!information!could!be!helpful!for!understanding!whether!Planning!Grant!applicants!are!

targeting!neighborhoods!to!reverse!decline!or!to!support!growth.!Table!7!shows!the!number!of!

neighborhoods!growing!and!declining!for!the!preceding!two!decades!and!the!extent!of!the!average!and!

median!growth!or!decline.
21

Table'7:'Choice'Applicant

Decline'(1990–2010)

Neighborhood'Population'Growth'and'

Period Percent!of!

Neighborhoods

Mean Change

(%)

Median!

Change!

(%)

1990–2000

Growing 42 20 10

Declining 58 – 14 – 11

2000–2010

Growing 37 19 8

Declining 63 – 15 – 12

1990–2010

Growing 34 37 17

Declining 66 – 22 – 19

Growing both 22

Declining both 43

Declining/growing 15

Growing/declining 20

Sources:!Applicant!files; U.S.!Census Bureau

The!overall!trend!suggests!that!more!applicants!are!targeting!declining!neighborhoods!than!growing!

neighborhoods.!More!applicant!neighborhoods!experienced!population!declines!between!1990!and!

2010,!with!the!highest!percentage!(43!percent)!declining!from!both!1990!to!2000!and!from!2000!to!

2010.!The!same!trend!holds!when!considering!only!2000!to!2010.!The!extent!of!neighborhood!growth!or!

decline!is!significant.!Overall,!neighborhoods!that!grew!between!1990!and!2010!had!an!average!growth!

rate!of!37!percent!and!neighborhoods!that!declined!during!that!period!had!an!average!rate!of!decline!of!

22!percent.

2.4.2!Population!by!Application!Year

Applicant!neighborhood!populations!overall!are!largely!consistent!across!the three!grant!cycles.!Table!8!

shows!the!applicant!neighborhood!populations!by!year.
22

Table'8: Choice'Applicant Neighborhood'Population'(2010), by Grant Year

Grant Cycle 2010!Population Neighborhood

FY!2010

Mean 6,721

Median 4,374

Minimum 27 Robbins neighborhood, Robbins, Illinois

Maximum 60,131 Brownsville, Brooklyn, New York

FY!2011

Mean 5,506

Median 4,619

Minimum 772 Lee!Walker Heights, Asheville, North Carolina

Maximum 25,037 Pacoima,!Los Angeles, California

FY!2012

Mean 6,422

Median 4,500

Minimum 594 Convent,!St. James Parish, Louisiana

Maximum 39,439 Mott Haven, Bronx, New York

FY!=!fiscal!year.

Sources:!Applicant!files; U.S.!Census Bureau

Of!the!10!largest!neighborhoods!by!population,!6!were!proposed!in!the!first!year!of!the!program,!

including!the!largest!neighborhood.!The!FY!2011!grant!cycle!had!the!smallest!neighborhood!average!

population,!but!FY!2010!had!the!most!small!neighborhoods.!The!mean!population!size!declined!during!

the!second!grant!cycle,!largely!because!of!a!decrease!in!the!number!of!very!populous!neighborhoods,!

and!then!increased!in!the!third!cycle.!This!finding!may!be!the!result!of!normal!fluctuations!or!may!be!

linked!to!the!slight!changes!in!definitions!and!criteria!among!the!NOFAs.

2.4.3!Population!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful!Applicants

The!average!and!median!population!of!applicant!neighborhoods!associated!with!successful!and!

unsuccessful!grants!overall!are!essentially!the!same.!No!statistical!difference!exists!between!the!

population!characteristics,!as!the!overall!numbers!in!table!9!show.!These!numbers!are!also!statistically!

the!same!as!the!overall!average!and!median!applicant!neighborhood!populations.!
23

Table'9:'Choice'Applicant

Applicants

Neighborhood'Population'(2010), by Successful and'Unsuccessful

Grant Cycle 2010!Population Neighborhood

Overall

Min successful 1,165 South Norwalk, Norwalk, Connecticut

Max successful 39,439 Mott Haven, Bronx, New!York

Mean unsuccessful 6,947

Median unsuccessful 5,091

Mean successful 6,038

Median successful 3,801

FY!2010

Min successful 1,165 South Norwalk, Norwalk, Connecticut

Max successful 27,567 Commodore Perry Homes, Buffalo, New York

Mean unsuccessful 6,248

Median unsuccessful 3,801

Mean successful 6,249

Median successful 4,887

FY!2011

Min successful 1,202 River DistrictdRailyards, Sacramento, California

Max successful 10,302 Central Choice, Cleveland, Ohio

Mean unsuccessful 5,276

Median unsuccessful 4,144

Mean successful 6,163

Median successful 6,147

FY!2012

Min successful 1,616 LacoocheedTrilby, Dade City, Florida

Max successful 39,439 Mott Haven, Bronx, New York

Mean unsuccessful 5,441

Median unsuccessful 2,959

Mean successful 8,326

Median successful 4,644

FY!=!fiscal!year.

Source:!Applicant!files;!U.S. Census Bureau

The!minimum!and!maximum!successful!applicant!information!suggests!that,!as!with!physical!size,!the!

largest!and!smallest!overall!applications!are!not!successful,!although!the!range!is!substantial.!The!

variation!within!applicant!years!is!more!pronounced,!with!clear!differences!between!successful!and!

unsuccessful!neighborhoods!in!FY!2012.!In!that!year,!the!average!and!median!successful!neighborhood!

sizes!were!well!above!the!average!and!median!sizes!of!unsuccessful!neighborhoods.!
24

2.4.4!Population!by!Region

Substantial!variation!exists!among!the!populations!of!applicant!neighborhoods!from!different!regions,!as!

indicated!in!table!10.

Table'10: Choice'Applicant Neighborhood'Population'(2010), by Region

Region Count

2010!Population

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

HUD!region

Region!1 14 7,990 6,040 1,165 36,218

Region!2 18 11,750 5,270 2,100 60,131

Region!3 21 5,029 4,144 244 26,838

Region!4 51 4,332 4,310 772 12,121

Region!5 22 6,218 5,148 27 21,629

Region!6 9! 4,864 4,977 594 10,185

Region!7 5! 3,109 3,529 962 5,199

Region!8 4! 1,921 1,785 1,616 2,497

Region!9 29 8,438 5,566 822 30,581

Region!10 3! 2,938 2,657 2,552 3,606

Census!region

Northeast 40 9,336 4,612 244 60,131

Midwest 27 5,642 4,672 27 21,629

South 73 4,370 4,310 594 12,121

West 36 7,290 4,591 822 30,581

Source:!Applicant!files

The!most!populous!applicant!neighborhoods!are!in!HUD!Regions!2!and!9!and!the!Northeast!and!West!

Census!Regions.!As!the!population!distribution!graph!suggests,!the!average!neighborhood!populations!in

these!regions!are!skewed!by!several!very!large!neighborhoods,!particularly!those!in!New!York!City!and!

Los!Angeles.!The!least!populous!are!in!HUD!Regions!8!and!10.!However,!both!regions!have!very!few!

applicants,!meaning!that!the!data!might!not!be!particularly!indicative!of!the!expected!neighborhood!

population!size!in!these!regions.

2.5'Applicant'Neighborhood'Population'Density

To!further!explore!the!differences!among!neighborhoods,!equivalent!population!densities!were!

calculated!for!each!of!the!applicant!neighborhoods!using!the!size!and!population!data.!Densities!are!

described!on!a!populationdperdsquaredmile!basis.!Equivalent!population!densities!for!the!applicant!

neighborhoods!vary!substantially,!and!it!is!not!surprising!that!dramatic!differences!are!seen among!

different!regions!of!the!country.!
25

2.5.1!Population!Density!General!Characteristics

The!overall!average!and!median!population!density!(population!per!square!mile)!for!applicant!

neighborhoods!is!shown!in!table!11.!

Table'11: Choice'Applicant Neighborhood Population

Density

Population

per!Square Neighborhood

Mile

Mean 5,627

Median 3,715

Minimum 27 Convent,!

Louisiana

St. James Parish,

Maximum 32,327 Mott Haven, Bronx, New York

Sources:!Applicant!files; U.S.!Census Bureau

The!substantial!difference!between!the!minimum!and!maximum!equivalent!densities!illustrates!the!

range!of!values.!The!difference!between!the!mean!and!median!suggests!more!less!dense!than!more!

dense!neighborhoods!overall.!Figure!7!shows!the!distribution!of!applicant!neighborhoods!by!population!

density.

Convent,!!

St!James!Parish,!LA,!27!!

Soledad!Street/Chinatown,!!

Salinas,!CA,15,445!!

Dayton!Street,!

Newark,!NJ,!16,685!!

Choice!Neighborhood,!!

Los!Angeles,!CA,!19,343!!

Kuhio!Park!Terrace!(2011),!

Honolulu,!HI,!25,244!!

Brownsville,!!

Brooklyn,!NY,!26,844!!

Kuhio!Park!(2012),!!

Honolulu,!HI,!28,031!!

Andrew!Jackson!Gardens/

Harrison!Gardens,!!

Hoboken,!NJ,!28,705!!

Hoboken,!

Hoboken,!NJ,!29,993!!

Mot!Haven,!!

Bronx,!NY,!32,327!!

!d!!!!

!5,000!!

!10,000!!

!15,000!!

!20,000!!

!25,000!!

!30,000!!

!35,000!!

0! 20! 40! 60! 80! 100! 120! 140! 160! 180! 200!

Popula[on'density'

Neighborhoods'

Figure'7:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'Popula[on'Density'Distribu[on'

Mean

CA!=!California.!HI!=!Hawaii.!LA!=!Louisiana.!NJ!=!New!Jersey.!NY!=!New!York.

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census!Bureau
26

It!is!not!surprising!that!the!least!and!most!dense!neighborhoods!both!represent!substantial!outliers.!

Nine!of!the!applicant!neighborhoods!are!more!than!twice!as!dense!as!the!average!neighborhood,!

although!two!of!these!applications!are!for!the!same!neighborhood!submitted!in!different!years.

2.5.2!Population!Density!by!Application!Year

The!applicant!neighborhood!population!densities!show!remarkable!consistency!across!the!three!grant!

cycles.!The!average!population!density!in!each!year!is!virtually!identical.!The!median!density!has!

declined!each!year!(table!12).!

Table'12: Choice'Applicant Neighborhood Population Density, by Grant Year

Grant Cycle

Population

per!Square

Mile

Neighborhood

FY!2010

Mean 5,577

Median 3,926

Minimum 606 River DistrictdDos Rios, Sacramento, California

Maximum 29,993 Hoboken, Hoboken, New Jersey

FY!2011

Mean 5,656

Median 3,761

Minimum 479 River DistrictdRailyards, Sacramento, California

Maximum 28,705 Andrew Jackson!Gardens, Harrison!Gardens, Hoboken, New Jersey

FY!2012

Mean 5,675

Median 3,264

Minimum 27 Convent, St. James Parish, Louisiana

Maximum 32,327 Mott Haven, Bronx, New York

FY!=!fiscal!year.

Sources:!Applicant!files; U.S.!Census Bureau

2.5.3!Population!Density!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful!Applicants

Table!13!shows!applicant!neighborhood!densities!by!successful!and!unsuccessful!applicants.!The!overall!

range!in!applicant!neighborhood!densities!remains!very!broad,!from!a!low!of!less!than!1,000!people!per!

square!mile!to!a!high!of!more!than!32,000!people!per!square!mile.!The!densities!of!successful!and!

unsuccessful!neighborhoods!show!no!discernable!pattern.!The!data!for!FY!2010!and!FY!2011!

demonstrate!a!tendency!for!neighborhoods!with!lower!average!and!median!population!densities!to!be!

successful.!The!exact opposite!is!true!in!FY!2012,!when!more!dense!neighborhoods!had!substantially!

more!success.!
27

Table'13:'Choice'Applicant

Unsuccessful'Applicants

Neighborhood'Population'Density, by Successful and'

Grant Cycle

Population!per

Square!Mile Neighborhood

Overall

Min successful 479 River DistrictdRailyards, Sacramento, California

Max successful 32,327 Mott Haven, Bronx, New York

Mean unsuccessful 5,348

Median unsuccessful 3,599

Mean successful 6,350

Median successful 3,921

FY!2010

Min successful 1,650 Sun Valley Neighborhood, Denver, Colorado

Max successful 14,184 Central West Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland

Mean unsuccessful 5,702

Median unsuccessful 4,016

Mean successful 5,200

Median successful 3,661

FY!2011

Min successful 479 River DistrictdRailyards, Sacramento, California

Max successful 8,153 ParksidedKenilworth, Washington, D.C.

Mean unsuccessful 6,349

Median unsuccessful 4,116

Mean successful 3,681

Median successful 3,301

FY!2012

Min successful 829 LacoocheedTrilby, Dade City, Florida

Max successful 32,327 Mott Haven, Bronx, New York

Mean unsuccessful 3,614

Median unsuccessful 2,786

Mean successful 9,675

Median successful 5,845

FY!=!fiscal!year.

Sources:!Applicant!files; U.S.!Census Bureau

2.5.4!Population!Density!by!Region

Population!densities!are!dramatically!different!among!regions.!Table!14!shows!these!differences.!The!

average!densities!are!particularly!striking!with!the!neighborhoods!in!the!most!dense!HUD!region,!Region!

2,!which!has!average!population!densities!nearly!10!times!that!of!the!neighborhoods!in!the!least!dense!

HUD!region,!Region!8.!Even!using!median!numbers,!Region!2!is!seven!times!as!dense!as!Region!8!and!

three!times!as!dense!as!Region!4.!Region!9!is!also!very!densely!settled.
28

Table'14: Choice'Applicant Neighborhood'Population'Density, by Region

Region Count Population per Square!Mile

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

HUD!region

Region!1 14 5,519 4,898 1,921 11,969

Region!2 18 13,149 11,015 1,676 32,327

Region!3 21 6,576 4,443 2,054 14,184

Region!4 51 3,060 2,948 686 9,599

Region!5 22 4,034 3,273 1,204 10,528

Region!6 9 2,839 2,964 27 6,494

Region!7 5 2,185 1,963 1,673 3,267

Region!8 4 1,304 1,542 484 1,650

Region!9 29 8,227 6,555 460 28,031

Region!10 3 3,190 2,857 2,836 3,877

Census region

Northeast 40 9,456 6,871 1,676 32,327

Midwest 27 3,692 3,067 1,204 10,528

South 73 3,536 2,996 27 14,184

West 36 7,064 5,853 460 28,031

Source: Applicant!files

These!data!illustrate!a!fundamental!difference!between!the!densely!settled,!older!industrial!cities!of!the!

Northeast!and!other!cities,!including!those!with!a!densely!settled!Hispanic!majority.!The!differences!in!

densities!have!implications!for!the!challenges!and!opportunities!of!transformation!plans!in!these!

neighborhoods,!which!are!discussed!in!more!detail!in!the!following!sections.

2.6'General'Characteristics'Summary

The!preceding!review!of!the!general!characteristics!of!Planning!Grant!applicant!neighborhoods!

illustrates!the!wide!variety!of!neighborhoods!being!proposed.!The!range!of!neighborhoods!based!on!

physical!size,!population,!density,!and!housing!units!is!considerable,!and!no!clear!pattern!emerges!in!the!

types!of!neighborhoods!being!proposed.!The!one!notable!pattern!to!emerge!with!regard!to!successful!

applicants!is!that,!although!varied,!they!are!more!tightly!clustered!than!unsuccessful!applicants.!The!

largest!and!smallest!neighborhoods!do!not!have!good!records!of!success.

One!of!the!original!hypotheses!considered!was!that!the!types!of!neighborhoods!being!proposed!or!

selected!for!funding!would!begin!to!demonstrate!consistency.!This!hypothesis!was!based!on!several!

notions.!First,!potential!applicants!might!learn!from!previous!applications!(either!their!own!or!others)!

and!refine!their!neighborhood!definitions!accordingly.!Second,!HUD!might!adjust!its!criteria!or!scoring!to!

better!reflect!agency!and!program!priorities!(the!addition!of!language!related!to!neighborhood!size!in!

the!FY!2011!and!FY!2012!NOFAs!seemed!to!suggest!such!adjustment!was!the!case).!However,!through!

the!first!3!years!of!the!program!a!strong!convergence!toward!an!“ideal”!neighborhood!size,!population,!

or!density!does!not!appear.
29

Patterns!do!appear!to!be!emerging!based!on!regional!differences.!Applicant!neighborhoods!in!the!

Northeast!and!in!parts!of!the!Midwest!and!West!have!larger!populations,!higher!densities,!and!more!

housing!units!than!neighborhoods!in!other!regions.!Neighborhoods!in!the!South!and!in!parts!of!the!

West,!however,!have!lower!populations,!lower!densities, and!fewer!housing!units.!Neighborhoods!in!the!

MiddAtlantic!and!Pacific!states!also!are!physically!smaller!than!those!in!other!divisions.!These!density!

differences!may!be!important!influences!on!the!transformation!plans!of!neighborhoods!in!these!

different!areas.!The!different!challenges!faced!by!HOPE!VI!redevelopment!efforts!in!more!and!less!dense!

public!housing!developments!are!instructive.!Building!mixeddincome!neighborhoods!in!less!dense!areas!

can!be!accomplished!by!adding!new!marketdrate!units!into!an!area!and!increasing!densities!without!

needing!to!reduce!the!number!of!public!housing!units!on!the!site.!For!example,!the!NewHolly!HOPE!VI!

redevelopment!in!Seattle,!Washington,!achieved!its!income!mix!in!part!through!increasing!the!site!

density.!Building!mixeddincome!developments!at!denser!redevelopment!sites!without!increasing!

densities!further,!removing!public!housing!units,!or!both!is!considerably!more!complex.!The!Cabrinid

Green!HOPE!VI!redevelopment!in!Chicago!involves!plans!for!far!fewer!replacement!public!housing!units!

on!site!than!desired!by!residents!or!public!housing!advocates,!in!part!because!of!a!desire!to!create!a!

mixeddincome!development!while!simultaneously!reducing!densities.!The!effect!of!the!regional!

differences!on!both!the!transformation!plans!and!implementation!challenges!should!not!be!overlooked.

No!agreement!is!emerging!on!what!constitutes!an!appropriate!or!ideal!neighborhood!for!the!program.!

This!lack!of!agreement!may!mean!that!the!program!is!working!exactly!as!intended!by!allowing!for!local!

actors!to!define!neighborhoods!that!best!reflect!local!priorities,!conditions,!and!context.!The!variation!in!

the!applicant!pool!may!simply!reflect!the!reality!that!different!cities!have!different!needs!and!

challenges,!and!the!program!is!successfully!providing!the!flexibility!to!enable!local!actors!to!identify!and!

address!them!through!the!program.!However,!if!specific!agency!and!program!needs!and!priorities!are!

not!being!met!by!the!wide!range!of!applicant!neighborhoods,!more!specific!or!stringent!criteria!

governing!physical!size,!population,!and!density!may!be!advisable.

Of!these!characteristics,!physical!size!is!the!most!logical!characteristic!to!restrict!with!additional!criteria.!

The!data!from!FY!2012!showed!an!increasing!number!of!physically!large!neighborhoods.!Although!the!

lessons!of!HOPE!VI!indicate!that!choosing!an!area!that!is!too!small!can!result!in!problems!for!sustaining!

success,!these!physically!large!neighborhoods!may!also!be!problematic!for!two!reasons.!First,!they!may!

be!too!large!to!represent!a!cohesive!neighborhood.!Second,!implementation!may!be!more!difficult!

because!funds!would!be!spread!across!a!larger!area.
30

3 Housing'Characteristics'of'Planning'Grant'Applicant'Neighborhoods'

This!section!provides!data!and!descriptive!statistics!on!the housing!in!the!Choice!Neighborhoods!

Initiative!Planning!Grant!applicant!neighborhoods.!This!section!covers!the!total!number!of!housing!units!

and!more!specific!information!related!to!housing,!including!vacancy!rates,!age!of!housing!stock,!and!

tenure.

3.1'Applicant'Neighborhood'Housing'Units

As!with!the!other!basic!measures!reviewed!in!Section!2,!the!applicant!neighborhoods!vary!substantially!

in!the!number!of!housing!units!they!include.!Although!no!clear!trend!exists,!the!housing!unit!numbers!

are!more!consistent!than!other!measures,!with!more!clustered!around!the!mean.!This!finding!may!

suggest!that!the!number!of!housing!units!to!be!affected!by!a!transformation!plan!is!a!particularly!

important!factor!for!applicants!defining!their!neighborhoods.!Thus,!physical!size!may!vary!because!of!

density!variations!in!different!cities!to!accommodate!what!is!deemed!an!appropriate!number!of!housing!

units.!In!a!similar!way,!population!may!vary!based!on!vacancy!rates!and!more!or!less!population!per!

housing!unit,!whereas!the!number!of!housing!units!may!be!more!consistent!across!neighborhoods.

3.2'Housing'Unit'General'Characteristics

Table!15!shows!the!overall!figures!for!the!number!of!housing!units.

Table'15: Choice'Applicant Neighborhood'Housing'Units (2010)

2010!Housing Units Neighborhood

Mean 2,790

Median 2,100

Minimum 4 Robbins neighborhood, Robbins, Illinois

Maximum 22,017 Brownsville, Brooklyn, New York

Sources:!Applicant!files; U.S.!Census Bureau

The!median!number!of!housing!units!in!applicant!neighborhoods!is!slightly!less!than!the!average,!

number!indicating!that!more!neighborhoods!have!less!than!the!average!number!shown!in!the!table.!

Figure!8!shows!the!distribution!of!housing!units!by!neighborhood.
31

Robbins,!!!

Robbins,!IL,!4!!

Codorus!Homes,!!!

York,!PA,!56!!

Fairmount,!!!

Cincinnao,!OH,!7,325!!

Central!Southeastern!San!

Diego,!

San!Diego,!CA,!!9,392!!

Quad!Cioes,!!!

Rock!Island,!IL,!11,465!!

Point!Breeze,!!!

Philadelphia,!PA!14,852!!

North!End,!!

Harqord,!CT,!14,881!!

Commodore!Perry!Homes,!!!

Buffalo,!NY,!16,577!!

Mot!Haven,!!

Bronx,!NY,!16,797!!

Brownsville,!!

Brooklyn,!NY,!22,017!

!d!!!!

!5,000!!

!10,000!!

!15,000!!

!20,000!!

!25,000!!

0! 20! 40! 60! 80! 100! 120! 140! 160! 180! 200!

Number'of'housing'units'

Neighborhoods'

Figure'8:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'Distribu[on''

of'Total'Number'of'Housing'Units'(2010)'

Mean

CA!=!California.!CT!=!Connecticut.!IL!=!Illinois.!NY!=!New!York.!OH!=!Ohio.!PA!=!Pennsylvania.

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census!Bureau

Approximately!69!percent!of!all!applicant!neighborhoods!have!less!than!the!average!number!of!housing!

units!(2,790),!with!65!percent!having!between!1,000!and!5,000!units.!Seven!neighborhoods!represent!

significant!outliers.!These!neighborhoods!represent!either!very!large!neighborhoods!in!moderately!

dense!cities,!such!as!Commodore!Perry!Homes,!Buffalo,!New!York,!or!mediumdtodlarge!neighborhoods!in!

very!dense!locations,!such!as!Brownsville,!Brooklyn,!New!York.!

Unlike!the!population!data,!the!housing!unit!data!indicate!that!only!slightly!more!applicant!

neighborhoods!lost!(52!percent)!than!gained!(48!percent)!housing!units!during!the!past!two!decades!

(table!16).!Most!(61!percent)!grew!rather!than!declined!between!2000!and!2010.!The!reason!for!this!

result!is!unclear.!One!explanation!may!be!that!these!numbers!reflect!the!overheated!housing!market!

that!existed!pred2007;!many!urban!neighborhoods!were!growing,!and!these!applicant!neighborhoods!

were!no!exception.!A!second!explanation!may!be!that!these!numbers!show!that!the!applicant!areas!are!

locations!where!investment!in!housing!is!happening!within!applicant!cities.!In!the!latter!case,!the!

selection!of!these!neighborhoods!for!Choice!may!represent!a!continuation!of!ongoing!revitalization!

efforts.
32

Table'16: Choice'Applicant Neighborhood'Housing'Unit Growth'and'Decline

Period Percent!of!

Neighborhoods

Mean Change

(%)

Median!

Change!(%)

1990–2000

Growing 41 21 8

Declining 59 – 12 – 9

2000–2010

Growing 61 15 7

Declining 39 – 11 – 6

1990–2010

Growing 48 27 15

Declining 52 – 17 – 13

Growing both 30

Declining both 28

Declining/growing 30

Growing/declining 12

Source: Applicant!files

3.2.1!Number!of!Housing!Units!by!Applicant!Year

Table!17!shows!the!data!on!housing!units!in!the!applicant!neighborhoods.!The!housing!unit!data!present!

no!clear!trends!or!patterns!across!the!three!grant!cycles.!The!average,!median,!minimum,!and!maximum!

numbers!all!fluctuate,!following!no!clear!pattern.

Table'17:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'Housing'Units'(2010),'by'Grant'Year

Grant Cycle 2010!Housing Units Neighborhood

FY!2010

Mean 2,783

Median 2,208

Minimum 4 Robbins neighborhood, Robbins, Illinois

Maximum 22,017 Brownsville, Brooklyn, New!York

FY!2011

Mean 2,679

Median 2,196

Minimum 214 Soledad Street/Chinatown, Salinas, California

Maximum 7,325 Fairmount, Cincinnati, Ohio

FY!2012

Mean 2,912

Median 1,446

Minimum 241 Convent, St. James Parish, Louisiana

Maximum 16,797 Mott Haven, Bronx, New York

FY!=!fiscal!year.

Sources:!Applicant!files; U.S.!Census Bureau
33

Although!the!average!and!median!numbers!for!fiscal!years!2010!and!2011!are!very!similar,!the!minimum

and!maximum!applicant!numbers!highlight!that!these!similarities!are!only!surface.!Despite!the!large!

overall!range,!a!large!number!of!housing!units!are!clustered!around!the!mean.!In!FY!2010!and!FY!2012!

approximately!63!percent!of!applicant!neighborhoods!had!between!1,000!and!5,000!housing!units,!

whereas!in!FY!2011!68!percent!of!applicant!neighborhoods!fell!in!this!range.

3.2.2!Number!of!Housing!Units!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful!Applicants

Table!18!shows!the!number!of!housing!units!broken!down!by!successful!and!unsuccessful!applicants!in!

each!grant!cycle.

Table'18:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'Housing'Units'(2010),'by'Successful'and Unsuccessful'Applicants

Grant Cycle 2010 Housing Units Neighborhood

Overall

Min successful 353 River DistrictdRailyards, Sacramento, California

Max successful 16,797 Mott Haven, Bronx, New York

Mean unsuccessful 2,628

Median unsuccessful 1,891

Mean successful 3,210

Median successful 2,248

FY!2010

Min successful 482 Sun Valley Neighborhood, Denver, Colorado

Max successful 16,577 Commodore Perry Homes, Buffalo, New York

Mean unsuccessful 2,908

Median unsuccessful 1,928

Mean successful 3,183

Median successful 2,344

FY!2011

Min successful 353 River DistrictdRailyards, Sacramento, California

Max successful 5,654 Southeast of Downtown, Little!Rock, Arkansas

Mean unsuccessful 2,265

Median unsuccessful 2,061

Mean successful 2,901

Median successful 2,248

FY!2012

Min successful 618 LacoocheedTrilby, Dade City, Florida

Max successful 16,797 Mott Haven, Bronx, New York

Mean unsuccessful 2,551

Median unsuccessful 1,593

Mean successful 3,476

Median successful 2,240

FY!=!fiscal!year.

Sources:!Applicant!files; U.S.!Census Bureau
34

Two!patterns!appear!to!emerge!from!the!data.!First,!successful!applicant!neighborhoods!have!higher!

average!and!median!numbers!of!housing!units!than!unsuccessful!neighborhoods.!This!fact!is!true!both!

overall!and!for!each!grant!cycle,!which!seems!to!indicate!a!slight!preference!for!neighborhoods!that!

include!more!housing!units.

Second,!the!range!of!successful!applicant!neighborhoods!is!smaller!than!the!range!of!all!applicant!

neighborhoods.!The!largest!successful!neighborhood!(Mott!Haven,!Bronx,!New!York)!is!considerably!

smaller,!at!16,797!units,!than!the!largest!applicant!neighborhood!(Brownsville),!at!22,017!units.!A!

smaller!but!still!substantial!difference!emerges!between!the!smallest!successful!neighborhood!(River!

DistrictdRailyards,!Sacramento,!California),!at!353!units,!and!the!smallest!applicant!neighborhood!(the!

Robbins!neighborhood!in!Robbins,!Illinois),!at!4!units.!Thus,!whereas!no!preference!for!slightly!larger!

neighborhoods!appears!overall,!as!suggested!by!the!size,!population,!and!density!data,!very!large!and!

very!small!neighborhoods!appear!to!have!lower!success!rates!than!those!of!more!modest!size.!There!is!

virtually!no!difference!overall!between!the!average!and!median!applicant between successful!and!

unsuccessful!neighborhoods.!

3.2.3!Number!of!Housing!Units!by!Region

The!breakdown!of!housing!units!by!HUD!and!U.S.!Census!Bureau!regions!shows!little!consistency!across!

average!number!of!housing!units!in!applicant!neighborhoods!for!most!regions!(table!19).!The!clear!

outliers!are!HUD!Region!2,!which!has!considerably!higher!mean!and!median!numbers!of!housing!units!

than!any!other!region,!and!HUD!Region!8,!which!has!considerably!fewer.

Table'19: Choice'Applicant Neighborhood'Housing'Units (2010), by Region

Region Count

2010!Housing Units

Mean Median Minimum Maximum

HUD!region

Region!1 14 3,540 4,898 780 14,881

Region!2 18 5,365 11,015 1,174 22,017

Region!3 21 2,522 4,443 56 14,852

Region!4 51 2,114 2,948 457 6,095

Region!5 22 3,323 3,273 4 11,465

Region!6 9 2,430 2,964 241 5,654

Region!7 5 1,645 1,963 538 2,554

Region!8 4 707 1,542 482 887

Region 9 29 2,571 6,555 214 9,392

Region!10 3 1,184 2,857 969 1,505

Census region

Northeast 40 4,354 2,451 56 22,017

Midwest 27 3,012 2,199 4 11,465

South 73 2,113 2,073 241 6,095

West 36 2,260 1,439 214 9,392

Sources:!Applicant!files; U.S.!Census Bureau
35

The!distribution!graph!(figure!8)!suggests!that!one!reason!is!the!presence!of!several!neighborhoods!with!

very!large!numbers!of!housing!units,!particularly!those!in!New!York!City.!The!New!York!City!

neighborhoods!are!also!reflected!in!the!Northeast Census!Region.!HUD!Region!8!is!home!to!two!

applications!that!encompass!large,!primarily!rural!areas!with!few!housing!units.

3.3'Housing'Vacancy

Housing!vacancy!rates!is!one!factor!that,!beyond!poverty!or!extremely!lowdincome!rates,!is!considered!

when!selecting!Planning!Grant!recipients.!This!section!presents!information!about!housing!vacancy!rates!

in!applicant!areas.

3.3.1!Housing!Vacancy!General!Information

Table!20!shows!the!vacancy!rates!for!applicant!neighborhoods!and!comparison!areas!for!1990!to 2010.

Table'20: Choice'Applicant Neighborhood'and'Comparison'Area Vacancy Rates

Area

Vacancy Rate (%) Neighborhood/City

1990 2000 2010

Applicant neighborhoods

Mean 12 12 14

Median 11 11 14

Minimum N/A N/A 4 Whittier, Boston, Massachusetts

Maximum N/A N/A 31 Greater WrightdDunbar, Dayton,!Ohio

Adjacent areas

Mean 11 11 13

Median 10 10 13

Minimum N/A N/A 5 Arts District, Los Angeles, California

Maximum N/A N/A 32 ABC!GG Providence, Columbia, South!Carolina

Cities

Mean 9 8 11

Median 9 8 11

Minimum N/A N/A 5 Helena, Montana (6th Ward West)

Maximum N/A N/A 29 Fort Myers, Florida!(Dunbar)

N/A!=!not!applicable.!

Sources:!Applicant!files; U.S.!Census Bureau

The!mean!and!median!vacancy!rates!in!applicant!neighborhoods!are!14!percent.!The!vacancy!rate!in!

applicant!neighborhoods!stayed!constant!from!1990!to!2000!but!increased!during!the!past!decade.!This!

finding!may!be!a!further!indication!of!the!effect!of!the!overheated!pred2007!housing!market!and!the!

subsequent!crash!and!rise!in!foreclosures.

The!mean!vacancy!rate!for!applicant!neighborhoods!is!slightly!higher!than!the!mean!vacancy!rate!in!

adjacent!areas!and!is!higher!than!the!rate!in!other!census!tracts!in!cities!in!which!the!applicant!

neighborhoods!are!located.!The!overall!average!vacancy!rate!in!applicant!cities!is!11!percent.!Vacancy!
36

rates!increased!in!more!than!threedfourths!(74!percent)!of!all!applicant!neighborhoods!between!1990!

and!2000.

3.3.2!Housing!Vacancy!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful!Applicants

A!slight!variation!emerges!between!the!vacancy!rates!in!successful!and!unsuccessful!applicant!

neighborhoods,!as!shown!in!table!21.

Table'21:'Choice'Applicant Neighborhood'Vacancy Rates, by Successful and'Unsuccessful

Applicants

Grant Status Vacancy

Rate!(%) Neighborhood

Successful

Mean/median 15

Minimum 4 Whittier, Boston, Massachusetts

Maximum 31 Atlanta University Center/Westside of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia

Unsuccessful

Mean/median 14

Minimum 4 Worcester, Worcester, Massachusetts

Maximum 31 Greater WrightdDunbar, Dayton, Ohio

Sources:!Applicant!files; U.S.!Census Bureau

The!vacancy!rates!are!slightly!higher!in!neighborhoods!that!successfully!applied!for!a!Planning!Grant!

than!in!unsuccessful!neighborhoods,!but!the!difference!is!not!substantial.!In!addition,!the!ranges!of!

vacancy!rates!for!successful!and!unsuccessful!applicants!are!equally!broad.!Both!include!neighborhoods!

with!very!high!and!very!low!vacancy!rates.!For!both!successful!and!unsuccessful!applicant!

neighborhoods,!the!median!and!mean!vacancy!rates!are!the!same.

3.3.3!Housing!Vacancy!by!Region

Vacancy!rates!in!applicant!neighborhoods!vary!substantially!depending!on!the!region!of!the!country!in!

which!they!are!located.!Vacancy!rates!in!applicant!neighborhoods!by!region!are!shown!in!table!22.
37

Table'22: Choice'Applicant Neighborhood'Vacancy Rates, by Region

Region Count Vacancy Rate (%)

Mean/Median Minimum Maximum

HUD!region

Region!1 14 11 4 20

Region!2 18 13 5 24

Region!3 21 15 6 30

Region!4 51 17 6 31

Region!5 22 18 9 31

Region!6 9 14 6 20

Region!7 5 18 14 21

Region!8 4 9 8 16

Region!9 29 8 4 21

Region!10 3 5 5 5

Census region

Northeast 40 13 4 24

Midwest 27 18 9 31

South 73 16 6 31

West 36 8 4 21

Sources:!Applicant!files; U.S.!Census Bureau

Vacancy!rates!overall!are!lowest!in!HUD!Regions!8,!9,!and!10!and!the!West!Census!Region.!These!regions!

cover!cities!in!the!Western!United!States!with!very!low!vacancy!rates!that!are!reflected!in!the!applicant!

neighborhoods.!HUD!Regions!1!and!9,!which!are!representative!of!Northeastern!and!Western!states,!

have!the!lowest!vacancy!rates!overall.

The!highest!vacancy!rates!are!found!in!HUD!Regions!4,!5,!and!7.!This!finding!is!also!reflected!in!the!

Midwest!and!South!Census!Regions.!HUD!Regions!4!and!5!share!the!highest!overall!vacancy!rate!(31!

percent)!and!both!have!very!high!mean!and!median!values.

3.3.4!Housing!Vacancy!by!Neighborhood!Racial!or!Ethnic Majority

Applicant!neighborhoods!with!different!racial!or!ethnic!population!majorities!also!demonstrate!clear!

differences!in!vacancy!rates.!These!results!are!summarized!in!table!23.

Table'23: Choice'Applicant Neighborhood'and'Comparison'Area Vacancy Rates, by Racial or Ethnic Majority

Area

Vacancy Rate (%)

American!

Indian!(n!=!3)

Asian!and!

Pacific!Islander

(n!=!3)

Black (n =!84) Hispanic

28)

(n = Mixed!(n

50)

= White (n = 8)

Applicant!

neighborhoods 8 5 17 12 13 11

Adjacent areas 15 17 13 14 12 11

Cities 12 9 13 9 11 11

Sources:!Applicant!files; U.S.!Census Bureau
38

Applicant!neighborhoods!with!majority!Asian!and!Pacific Islander!populations!have!very!low!vacancy!

rates!overall!(5!percent),!some!of!the!lowest!among!all!applicant!neighborhoods.!Applicant!

neighborhoods!with!majority!American!Indian,!Asian!and!Pacific!Islander,!and!Hispanic!populations!have!

lower!vacancy!rates!within!the!applicant!neighborhoods!than!within!surrounding!areas.!Majority!Black!

applicant!neighborhoods!have!the!highest!vacancy!rates!overall!(17!percent),!considerably!higher!than!

both!adjacent!areas!and!the!cities!within!which!they!are!located.

3.4'Housing'Tenure

In!the!simplest!terms,!housing!tenure!refers!to!whether!a!housing!unit!is!owned!or!rented.!The!following!

sections!describe!the!tenure!situation!in!Planning!Grant!applicant!neighborhoods.

3.4.1!Housing!Tenure!General!Characteristics

As!with!other!characteristics,!housing!tenure!in!applicant!neighborhoods!is!quite!different!from!that!

which!is!found!in!adjacent!areas!and!in!the!cities!in!which!the!neighborhoods!are!located.!Table!24!

summarizes!housing!tenure!in!applicant!neighborhoods,!adjacent!areas,!and!cities.

Table'24: Choice'Applicant Neighborhood'and'Comparison'Area Ownership'and'Rental Rates

Area Own

(%)

Rent

(%) Neighborhood/City

Applicant!

neighborhoods

* Mean/median 32 68

Max owner 84 16 Convent, St. James Parish,!Louisiana

Max renter 5 95 Choice Neighborhood, Los!Angeles, California

Adjacent areas

* Mean/median 42 58

Max owner 74 26 South Brooksville, Brooksville, Florida

Max renter 9 91 Mott Haven, Bronx, New York

Cities

* Mean/median 50 50

Max owner 74 26 Joliet, Illinois (Des Plains Gardens neighborhood)

Max renter 22 78 Newark, New Jersey (Lower Broadway District neighborhood) *

Includes!only!occupied!

Sources:!Applicant!files;

units.

!U.S.!Census Bureau

More!of!the!occupied!housing!in!applicant!neighborhoods!is!rental!(68!percent)!than!is!owner!occupied!

(32!percent).!The!housing!stock!in!adjacent!areas!also!includes!a!higher!percentage!of!rental!housing!(58!

percent)!than!ownerdoccupied!housing!(42!percent).!Only!16!of!the!176!applicant!neighborhoods!(9!

percent)!have!more!ownerdoccupied!than!rental!units.

Ownership!and!rental!rates!in!cities!that!include!applicant!neighborhoods!are!equal!(50!percent!each).!

By!comparison,!the!homeownership!rate!in!the!United!States!overall!was!65.3!percent!in!2010!after!

having!declined!for!nearly!3!years.!Ownership!rates!exceed!rental!rates!in!41!of!the!176!adjacent!areas!

(23!percent)!and!in!71!of!the!176!applicant!cities!(40!percent).!One!potential!concern!with!these!figures!
39

is!that!certain!very!large!cities!with!high!rates!of!renting!(for!example,!New!York!City)!could!be!skewing!

the!results!for!cities,!leading!to!an!overestimate!of!the!rate!of!renting!in!applicant!cities.!After!correcting!

for!the!outlier!cities!in!the!dataset!(New!York!City,!Los!Angeles,!and!Chicago),!however,!the!owner!and!

rental!rates!for!applicant!cities!overall!remained!constant!(50!percent!each).

Although!the!rental!rates!are!high!in!adjacent!areas!and!cities,!the!percentage!is!substantially!lower!than!

in!applicant!neighborhoods.!Rental!rates!in!applicant!neighborhoods!exceed!rates!in!adjacent!areas!in!

143!cases!(81!percent)!and!exceed!rates!in!their!cities!in!151!cases!(86!percent).!On!average,!rental!rates!

in!applicant!neighborhoods!exceeded!rental!rates!in!adjacent!areas!by!9!percent!and!in!their!cities!by!16!

percent.!In!combination,!these!data!suggest!that!one!consistent!feature!of!the!areas!being!identified!by!

applicants,!in!all!but!a!few!cases,!is!a!high!rate!of!renting!versus!ownership,!which!is!true!regardless!of!

the!size,!density,!and!racial!or!ethnic!makeup!of!the!neighborhood!and!of!the!economic!characteristics.

3.4.2!Housing!Tenure!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful!Applicants

Regarding!housing!tenure,!minor!but!clear!differences!exist!between!the!applicant!neighborhoods!that!

were!successful!in!receiving!Planning!Grants!and!those!that!were!unsuccessful.!These!results!are!

summarized!in!table!25.

Table'25:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'Ownership'and'Rental Rates,

by'Successful'and'Unsuccessful'Applicants

Grant Status Own

(%)

Rent

(%)! Neighborhood

Successful

Mean/median 28 72

Max owner 65 35 LacoocheedTrilby, Dade City, Florida

Max renter 5 95 Mott Haven, Bronx, New York

Unsuccessful

Mean/median 33 67

Max owner 84 16 Convent, St. James Parish,!Louisiana

Max renter 5 95 Choice Neighborhood, Los!Angeles, California

Sources:!Applicant!files; U.S.!Census!Bureau

Successful!applicants!for!Planning!Grants!have,!on!average,!higher!rates!of!renting!versus!ownership!in!

occupied!housing!units.!Of!the!successful!applicants,!only!two!(LacoocheedTrilby,!Dade!City,!Florida,!and!

Sunnydale/Visitacion!Valley,!San!Francisco,!California)!had!ownership!rates!that!exceeded!renting!rates.

3.4.3!Housing!Tenure!by!Region

Housing!tenure!in!applicant!neighborhoods!is!largely!consistent!across!regions.!Housing!tenure!by!region!

is!shown!in!table!26.
40

Table'26:

Rates,'by

Choice'Applicant

Region

Neighborhood Ownership and Rental

Region Count

Mean (%) Max!Owner

(%)

Max!Renter

(%)

Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent

HUD!region

Region!1 14 21 79 37 63 7 93

Region!2 18 23 77 52 48 5 95

Region!3 21 31 69 52 48 7 93

Region!4 51 36 64 65 35 8 92

Region!5 22 30 70 54 46 11 89

Region!6 9 36 64 84 16 9 91

Region!7 5 36 64 48 52 20 80

Region!8 4 38 62 45 55 9 91

Region!9 29 34 66 56 44 5 95

Region!10 3 46 54 46 54 46 54

Census region

Northeast 40 25 75 54 46 11 89

Midwest 27 31 69 52 48 5 95

South 73 34 66 84 16 7 93

West 36 35 65 56 44 5 95

Sources:!Applicant!files; U.S.!Census Bureau

Applicant!neighborhoods!in!HUD!Regions!1!and!2!have!the!lowest!levels!of!ownerdoccupied!units!and!

the!highest!levels!of!renting.!These!regions!include!several!cities!with!very!high!levels!of!renting!versus!

owning,!including!New!York!City.!This!finding!is!also!reflected!in!the!statistics!for!the!Northeast!Census!

Region.

The!ownership!rates!across!all!HUD!and!census!regions!for!applicant!neighborhoods!are!below!50!

percent.!With!the!exception!of!HUD!Regions!1,!2,!and!10,!the!latter!of!which!has!only!three!applications!

(all!in!the!same!city),!every!region!has!ownership!rates!of!between!30!and!38!percent.

3.5'Age'of'Housing'Stock

A!goal!of!Choice!is!addressing!deterioration!and!distress!in!a!neighborhood’s!housing!stock.!The!age!of!

the!housing!stock!may!be!linked!to!this!goal!in!a!number!of!ways.!Older!housing!units!may!have!

experienced!longer!periods!of!neglect!and!deterioration!and!may!have!historical!environmental!and!

health!issues,!resulting!in!more!complications!for!revitalization!efforts.!Older!housing!stock,!however,!

may!be!regarded!as!having!more!architectural!character,!may!have!been!built!using!materials!that!were!

less common!in!more!recent!construction!(for!example,!hard!woods),!or!both,!resulting!in!more!

desirable!revitalization!opportunities.
41

3.5.1!Age!of!Housing!Stock!General!Characteristics

The!characteristics!of!Planning!Grant!applicant!neighborhoods!and!comparison!areas!related!to!the!age!

of!housing!stock!are!displayed!in!table!27.

Table'27: Choice'Applicant Neighborhood'and'Comparison'Area Housing'Unit Age

Area

Housing Units!by Decade Built (%) Median!

Decade!

Built 2000s 1990s 1980s 1970s 1960 1950s 1940s Before

1940

Applicant neighborhoods 7 6 8 12 14 16 12 25 1950s

Adjacent areas 8 7 9 13 13 15 10 26 1950s

Cities 9 8 10 14 12 14 9 23 1960s

Sources:!Applicant!files; U.S.!Census Bureau

The!housing!stock!in!applicant!neighborhoods!is!older!overall!than!the!housing!stock!in!adjacent!areas!

and!the!cities!in!which!they!are!located.!Although!the!median!decade!built!for!the!housing!stock!in!both!

applicant!neighborhoods!and!adjacent!areas!is!the!1950s,!and!although!more!of!the!housing!stock!in!

adjacent!areas!was!built!before!1940,!applicant!neighborhoods!have!more!housing!stock!built!during!the!

1940s,!1950s,!and!1960s.!Applicant!neighborhoods!have!also!had!less!housing!built!in!recent!decades!

than!adjacent!areas.!The!housing!stock!in!both!applicant!neighborhoods!and!adjacent!areas!is!

considerably!older!than!in!their!cities.!

As!noted!previously,!this!trend!is!both!not!terribly!surprising!and!a!source!of!potential.!Older!areas!have!

had!a!longer!period!during!which!to!experience!deterioration!and!tend!to!be!more!centrally!located!

within!cities,!near!areas!that!were!most!negatively!affected!by!postdWorld!War!II!suburbanization!and!

abandonment.!These!older!areas!also!may!have!quality!older!housing!stock!that!would!offer!strong!

opportunities!for!investment!and!revitalization,!however.

3.5.2!Age!of!Housing!Stock!by!Region

The!age!of!the!housing!stock!varies!by!neighborhood.!The!differences!among!neighborhoods!largely!

correspond!to!the!region!of!the!country!in!which!the!neighborhood!is!located.!Table!28!shows!the!age!of!

housing!stock!in!applicant!neighborhoods!broken!down!by!HUD!and!census!regions.
42

Table'28:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'Housing'Unit'Age,'by'Region

Region

Housing Units!by Decade Built (%) Median!

Decade!

Built 2000s 1990s 1980s 1970s 1960s 1950s 1940s Before

1940

HUD!region

Region!1 4 4 8 11 9 9 8 48 1940s

Region!2 5 6 6 11 13 18 9 31 1950s

Region!3 8 6 6 9 10 17 12 33 1950s

Region!4 8 7 9 14 16 19 13 14 1960s

Region!5 7 4 4 9 14 13 10 38 1950s

Region!6 8 8 7 14 15 17 14 16 1960s

Region!7 8 6 4 11 10 12 11 38 1950s

Region!8 1 9 13 29 12 15 10 12 1970s

Region!9 8 6 11 14 14 17 13 17 1960s

Region!10 11 15 12 16 15 14 16 2 1970s

Census

region

Northeast 5 5 6 10 11 14 9 39 1950s

Midwest 7 5 4 10 13 13 10 38 1950s

South 8 7 9 14 15 19 13 16 1960s

West 8 8 11 16 14 16 13 15 1960s

Sources:!Applicant!files; U.S.!Census Bureau

Neighborhoods!in!the!Midwest!and!Northeast!have!considerably!older!housing!stock!than!

neighborhoods!in!the!South!and!West.!In!the!Midwest!and!Northeast,!nearly!40!percent!of!the!housing!

stock!was!built!before!1940.!Housing!in!the!South!and!West!dates!from!much!more!recent!decades,!with!

less!than!20!percent!built!before!1940!in!each!region!and!the!highest!percentage!built!during!the!1950s.

The!oldest!housing!stock!in!any!HUD!region!is!found!in!Region!1,!New!England.!Nearly!50!percent!of!the!

housing!stock!in!applicant!neighborhoods!in!this!region!was!built!before!1940.!The!newest!housing!stock!

is!found!in!Regions!4,!6,!8,!9,!and!10.!These!regions!represent!Southern!and!Western!states.!These!same!

trends!are!reflected!in!the!census!regions,!in!which!the!Midwest!Region!has!the!oldest!housing!stock!

overall!and!the!South!Region!has!the!youngest.!These!divisions!are!not!surprising!given!the!historical!

development!of!U.S.!cities!and!metropolitan!statistical areas.

The!trends!seen!in!the!applicant!neighborhoods!largely!mirror!the!trends!seen!in!applicant!cities.!Two!

differences!are!of!note.!Applicant!neighborhoods!in!the!Northeast!tend!to!have!newer!housing!stock!

than!the!overall!housing!stock!of!the!cities!in!which!they!are!located.!Applicant!neighborhoods!have!a!

higher!percentage!of!housing!built!during!the!1950s.!One!potential!explanation!is!that!applicant!

neighborhoods!represent!areas!targeted!by!postwar!urban!renewal!efforts.!Applicant!neighborhoods!in!

the!West!have!older!housing!stock!than!the!overall!housing!stock!of!the!cities!in!which!they!are!located.!

As!with!the!neighborhoods!in!the!Northeast,!more!of!the!housing!stock!was!built!in!the!1950s,!likely!

because!of!the!continued!growth!of!these!cities!after!the!housing!stock!in!applicant!neighborhoods!was!

built.
43

3.6'Summary'and'Conclusions

Vacancy!rates!in!applicant!neighborhoods!are!high!overall.!The!rate!varies!among!neighborhoods!but!is!

generally!higher!than!in!the!cities!in!which!they!are!located.!Applicant!neighborhoods!also!have!higher!

rates!of!renting!and!lower!rates!of!owner!occupation!than!their!cities.!The!vacancy!rates!have!been!

increasing!and!the!ownership!rates!decreasing!in!most!neighborhoods,!which!may!be!linked!with!larger!

economic!trends!(that!is,!the!housing!crisis).!Vacancy!rate!is!one!criterion!for!selecting!grant!recipients,!

which!appears!to!be!reflected!in!the!higher!vacancy!rates!in!successful!applicant!neighborhoods!

compared!with!those!of!unsuccessful!neighborhoods.

The!age!of!housing!stock!in!applicant!neighborhoods!varies!by!region,!with!the!Midwest!and!Northeast!

having!older!housing!stock!than!the!South and!West.!These!trends!are!not!particularly!surprising!given!

the!historical!development!of!cities!in!different!regions!of!the!United!States,!but!they!have!implications!

for!revitalization!approaches.!Housing!built!in!different!decades!employed!different!materials,!were!built!

to!different!construction!standards,!and!had!different!design!standards!(for!example,!room!sizes).!Older!

units!may!be!more!likely!to!have!certain!issues!such!as!lead!paint!or!asbestos!not!found!in!later!

construction.!These!older!units,!however,!may!use!more!varied!architectural!styles!and!more!durable!

materials!such!as!hard!woods!not!found!in!later!construction.
44

4 Demographic'Characteristics'of'Planning'Grant'Applicant'Neighborhoods'

This!section!provides!data!and!descriptive!statistics on!the!demographic!characteristics!of!the!Choice!

Neighborhoods!Initiative!Planning!Grant!applicant!neighborhoods.!The!specific!topics!covered!in!this!

section!include!the!breakdown!of!applicant!neighborhoods!by!race!and!ethnicity,!educational!

attainment,!age,!and!sex.!This!information!is!presented!based!on!the!characteristics!of!all!applicant!

neighborhoods!and!then!categorized!based!on!comparative!measures,!as!appropriate,!for!the!specific!

characteristics.!The!purpose!of!this!section!is!to!provide!more!detail!on!applicant!neighborhoods!and!

explore!patterns!and!trends!related!to!demographic!measures.

4.1'Race'and'Ethnicity

The!overall!racial!and!ethnic!makeup!of!Planning!Grant!applicant!neighborhoods!is!varied.!The!largest!

population!overall!in!applicant!neighborhoods!is!Black,!with!substantial!numbers!of!Hispanic!and!nond

Hispanic!White!(hereafter,!White)!populations!and!smaller!numbers!of!American!Indian,!Asian!and!

Pacific!Islander,!and!other!populations.!The!presence!of!many!different!racial!and!ethnic!groups!across!

all!applicant!neighborhoods!masks!the!level!of!segregation!within!each!neighborhood.!This!trend!

becomes!visible!when!viewing!the!neighborhoods!grouped!by!racial!or!ethnic!majority.

4.1.1!Race!and!Ethnicity!General!Characteristics

Categorizing!applicant!neighborhoods!by!the!majority!racial!or!ethnic!group!provides!a!more!detailed!

portrait!of!the!neighborhood!demographics.!Figure!9!groups!neighborhoods!based!on!the!predominant!

racial!or!ethnic!group!and!presents!a!more!detailed!breakdown!for!each!neighborhood!grouping.
45

!22!!

!3!!

!11!!

!6!!

!67!!

!24!!

!11!!

!23!!

!6!!

!3!! !10!!

!16!!

!34!!

!70!!

!48!!

!4!!

!81!!

!12!!

!31!!

!13!!

!2!!

!90!!

!4!! !1!!

!73!!

!1!! !2!!

!6!! !3!!

!2!!

!8!!

!2!! !1!! !3!! !3!!

All!(n=176)! American!Indian!

(n=3)!

Asian!and!Pacific!

Islander!(n=3)!

Black!(n=79)! Hispanic!(n=29)! Mixed!(n=49)! White!(n=13)!

Percent'of'neighborhood'popula[on'

Neighborhood'majority'racial'or'ethnic'group'

Figure'9:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'Race'and'Ethnicity'

%!Hispanic! %!nondHispanic!White! %!nondHispanic!Black! %!American!Indian! %!Asian!and!Pacific!Islander! %!other!

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census!Bureau

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Most!(65!percent)!Planning!Grant!applicant!neighborhoods!have!predominantly!minority!populations.!Of!

these!majoritydminority!neighborhoods,!the!largest!number!(79,!or!69!percent!of!majoritydminority!

neighborhoods)!are!majority!nondHispanic!Black.!Majority Hispanic!neighborhoods!account!for!the!next!

highest!number!(29,!or!25!percent!of!majoritydminority!neighborhoods),!with!the!rest!either!majority!

American!Indian!(2.5!percent)!or!majority!Asian!and!Pacific!Islander!(2.5!percent).!A!small!number!of!

neighborhoods!(13,!or!7!percent!of!all!neighborhoods)!are!majority!nondHispanic!White.!A!substantial!

number!of!neighborhoods!(49,!or!28!percent!of!all!neighborhoods)!are!mixed,!with!no!clear!majority!

population.

As!Figure!9!shows,!the!applicant!neighborhoods!are!not!diverse;!rather,!they!are!quite!segregated,!

which!is!particularly!clear!in!majority!Black!neighborhoods.!In!the!majority!Black!neighborhoods,!on!

average,!81!percent!of!the!population!is!nondHispanic!Black.!In!28!percent!of!the!majority!Black!

neighborhoods,!90!percent!or!more!of!the!population!is!Black.!In!57!percent!of!the!majority!Black!

neighborhoods,!more!than!80!percent!of!the!population!is!nondHispanic!Black.!In!majority!Hispanic!

neighborhoods,!on!average,!67!percent!of!the!population!is!Hispanic.!In majority!White!neighborhoods,!

on!average,!70!percent!of!the!population!is!White.!Asian!and!Pacific!Islander!populations!make!up!73!

percent!of!the!population!in!majority!Asian!and!Pacific!Islander!neighborhoods.!Majority!American!

Indian!neighborhoods!are!the!most!segregated,!with!90!percent!of!their!populations!American!Indian.!
46

However,!this!is!based!on!a!small!sample!size of!three neighborhoods that are!all!associated!with!

reservation!areas.!

Approximately!20!percent!of!the!neighborhoods!have!experienced!a!change!in!their!majority!population!

since!1990,!with!4!percent!changing!from!majority!Black!to!majority!White,!4!percent!changing!from!

majority White!to!majority!Black,!and!16!percent!changing!from!either!majority!Black!or!majority White!

to!majority!Hispanic.

Four!additional!aspects!differentiate!these!neighborhoods.!The!first!is!the!pattern!of!growth!and!decline.!

All!but!one!of!the!eight!majority!White!neighborhoods!is!declining!in!population.!For!majority!Black!

neighborhoods,!89!percent!are!declining.!On!the!other!hand,!64!percent!of!majority!Hispanic!

neighborhoods!and!54!percent!of!mixed!neighborhoods!are!growing.

The!second!aspect!differentiating!these!neighborhoods!is!the!percentage!of!the!population!that!are!

noncitizens.!In!the!majority!Hispanic!neighborhoods,!an!average!of!20!percent!of!the!population!are!

noncitizens.!In!five!cases,!the!number!exceeds!30!percent.!The!third!and!fourth!differences!are!dealt!

with!separately!in!the!following!sections.

4.1.2!Race!and!Ethnicity!by!Region

Planning!Grant!applicant!neighborhood!racial!and!ethnic!populations!vary!by!region.!Table!29!shows!

applicant!neighborhood!race!and!ethnicity!by!region.

Table'29:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'Racial'or'Ethnic'Majority,'by'Region

Racial!or!Ethnic!Majority!(%)

Asian!

Region Count American! and! Black White Hispanic Other Indian Pacific!

Islander

HUD!region ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Region!1 14! 1! 8! 52 18 15! 6!

Region!2 18! 0! 7! 44 24 18! 7!

Region!3 21! 1! 4! 43 16 30! 7!

Region!4 51! 5! 4! 40 22 22! 7!

Region!5 22! 5! 1! 45 20 24! 6!

Region!6! 9! 1! 2! 59 18 16! 5!

Region!7! 5! 0! 6! 42 32 13! 6!

Region!8! 4! 1! 2! 60 10 22! 6!

Region!9 29! 1! 1! 54 19 19! 6!

Region!10! 3! 1! 1! 45 14 29 10

Census!region ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Northeast 40! 0! 7! 49 21 16! 7!

Midwest 27! 4! 2! 44 22 22! 6!

South 73! 4! 4! 41 20 24! 7!

West 36! 1! 1! 54 17 20! 6!

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census Bureau
47

4.2'Age'and'Sex'Characteristics

The!third!difference!between!the!applicant!neighborhoods!associated!with!the!racial!or!ethnic!majority!

is!the!age!and!sex!cohorts.!Figures!10!through!16!show!the!age!and!sex!population!cohorts!for!each!

neighborhood!category.!In!reviewing!these!figures,!note!that!some!cohorts!cover!5!years!and!others!

cover!10.

The!overall!applicant!neighborhood!profile!includes!large!cohorts!at!ages!18!to!24!and!25!to!34.!For!

children!under!age!18,!the!largest!cohort!is!ages!0!to!4!(figure!10).

85#+

75–84

0–4

5–9

10–14

15–17

18–24

25–34

35–44

45–54

55–64

65–74

10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10

Male

Female

Figure'10:'All'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'Age'and'Sex'(2010)

Age'cohort

WĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƚŽƚĂůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census!Bureau
48

Majority!American!Indian!neighborhoods!have!a!very!different!age!and!sex!profile,!with!large!cohorts!of!

children!and!of!adults!ages!18!to!24,!25!to!34,!and!(especially!females)!45!to!54!(figure!11).!Elderly!

populations!are!very!small!in!these!neighborhoods.

85#+

75–84

0–4

5–9

10–14

15–17

18–24

25–34

35–44

45–54

55–64

65–74

10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10

Male

Female

Figure'11:'Choice'Applicant'Majority'American'Indian

Neighborhood'Age'and'Sex'(2010)

Age'cohort

WĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƚŽƚĂůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census!Bureau

Applicant!neighborhoods!with!a!majority!Asian!and!Pacific!Islander!population,!again,!have!a!quite!

different!age!and!sex!profile!that!includes!smaller!cohorts!of!children!than!average!and!fewer!18dtod24!

year!olds!(figure!12).!The!ages!35dtod44!and!45dtod54 cohorts!are!larger,!as!are!those!representing!the!

elderly!population.!

85#+

75–84

65–74

55–64

45–54

35–44

25–34 Male

18–24

15–17

10–14

5–9

0–4

10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10

Female

&ŝŐƵƌĞϭϮ͗ŚŽŝĐĞƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚDĂũŽƌŝƚLJƐŝĂŶĂŶĚWĂĐŝĮĐ/ƐůĂŶĚĞƌ

Neighborhood*Age*and*Sex*(2010)

Age*cohort

WĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƚŽƚĂůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census!Bureau
49

Applicant!neighborhoods!with!a!majority!Black!population!have!a!large!cohort!of!those!ages!18!to!24,!

particularly!when!compared!with!the!average!(figure!13).!The!age!45dtod54!cohort!is!also!large.!The!

entire!chart!also!shows!higher!percentages!of!females!at!every!adult!age!cohort.

85#+

75–84

0–4

5–9

10–14

15–17

18–24

25–34

35–44

45–54

55–64

65–74

10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10

Male

Female

Figure'13:'Choice'Applicant'Majority'Black

Neighborhood'Age'and'Sex'(2010)

Age'cohort

WĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƚŽƚĂůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census!Bureau

Applicant!neighborhoods!with!a!majority!Hispanic!population!are!distinguishable!as!having!larger!

cohorts!less!than!age!18!(figure!14).!The!age!25dtod34!cohort!is!also!larger!than!the!average!

neighborhood.

85#+

75–84

0–4

5–9

10–14

15–17

18–24

25–34

35–44

45–54

55–64

65–74

10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10

Male

Female

Figure'14:'Choice'Applicant'Majority'Hispanic

Neighborhood'Age'and'Sex'(2010)

Age'cohort

WĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƚŽƚĂůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census!Bureau
50

Mixed!neighborhoods!have!smaller!populations!at!all!age!cohorts!less!than!age!18!(figure!15).!However,!

the!age!25dtod34!cohorts!for!both!males!and!females!are!the!largest!for!any!category!of!neighborhood.

85#+

75–84

0–4

5–9

10–14

15–17

18–24

25–34

35–44

45–54

55–64

65–74

10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10

Male

Female

Figure'15:'Choice'Applicant'Mixed

Neighborhood'Age'and'Sex'(2010)

Age'cohort

WĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƚŽƚĂůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census!Bureau

Applicant!neighborhoods!with!a!majority!White!population!have!the!highest!percentages!of!elderly!

populations,!age!65!and!older,!of!any!neighborhood!type!(figure!16).!These!neighborhoods!also!have!

large!cohorts!of!those!ages!25!to!34!and!45!to!54.

85#+

75–84

0–4

5–9

10–14

15–17

18–24

25–34

35–44

45–54

55–64

65–74

10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10

Male

Female

Figure'16:'Choice'Applicant'Majority'White

Neighborhood'Age'and'Sex'(2010)

Age'cohort

WĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨƚŽƚĂůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƉŽƉƵůĂƟŽŶ

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census!Bureau

The!differences!in!age!and!sex!profiles!in!the!applicant!neighborhoods!are!important!because!they!

suggest!different!types!of!interventions.!Neighborhoods!with!very!large!populations!of!children!are!

more!likely!to!need!larger!housing!units!and!amenities!tailored!to!children!and!families,!such!as!schools!
51

(perhaps!suggesting!opportunities!to!target!other!programs,!such!as!the!U.S.!Department!of!Education’s!

Promise!Neighborhoods!initiative,!in!these!areas)!and!youthdoriented!recreation!facilities.!

Neighborhoods!with!larger!elderly!populations!are!likely!to!need!facilities!with!greater!accessibility!and!

housing!units!that!could!facilitate!aging!in!place.!To!the!extent!possible,!applicants!for!Choice,!and!

particularly!for!Choice!Planning!Grants,!should!be!encouraged!to!think!carefully!about!their!age!and!sex!

profiles!and!address!them!in!their!transformation!plans.

4.3'Educational'Attainment

Educational!attainment!is!closely!tied!with!economic!opportunities.!It!may!also!be!a!representation!of!

the!strength!of!the!schools!within!a!particular!neighborhood!or!of!the!changing!demographics!of!a!

neighborhood.!Increasing!educational!attainment!is!often!tied!with!the!influx!of!professionals!into!

workingdclass!neighborhoods.!The!following!sections!describe!the!changing!state!of!educational!

attainment!in!Planning!Grant!applicant!neighborhoods.

4.3.1!Educational!Attainment!General!Characteristics

Educational!attainment!across!applicant!neighborhoods!has!been!increasing.!The!most!notable!change!

has!been!the!steep!decline!in the!percentage!of!the!population!over!age!25!in!applicant!neighborhoods!

that!have!less!than!a!high!school!education.!Changes!in!educational!attainment!in!applicant!

neighborhoods!are!shown!in!table!30.

Table'30:'Choice'Applicant Neighborhood'Educational Attainment

(1990–2010)

Year Educational Attainment (%)

<!High! High! Some! Bachelor’s Graduate

School School!or! College Degree Degree

Equivalent

1990 46 27 18 6 3

2000 40 29 20 7 4

2010 31 32 24 9 4

Sources:!Applicant!files; U.S.!Census Bureau

The!percentage!of!the!population!with!less!than!a!high!school!diploma!or!equivalent!has!fallen!by!nearly!

33!percent,!and!the!percentages!of!the!population!completing!high!school!or!equivalent,!some!college,!a!

bachelor’s!degree,!or!a!graduate!degree!have!all!increased.!The!greatest!percentage!gains!have!been!in!

graduate!degrees,!although!this!category!still!comprises!only!a!small!fraction!of!the!total!population!in!

applicant!neighborhoods.

4.3.2!Educational!Attainment!in!Comparison!Areas

Although!educational!attainment!has!been!increasing!in!applicant!neighborhoods,!the!overall!level!of!

attainment!lags!behind!that!of!comparison!areas.!Educational!attainment!in!applicant!neighborhoods!

compared!with!attainment!in!adjacent!areas,!applicant!cities,!and!applicant!metropolitan!statistical!

areas!is!shown!in!table!31.
52

Table'31:'Choice'Applicant

Attainment

Neighborhood'and'Comparison'Area Educational

Area Educational Attainment (%)

<!High!

School

High!School!or

Equivalent

Some!

College

Bachelor’s

Degree

Graduate

Degree

Applicant!

neighborhoods 31 32 24 9 4

Adjacent areas 25 30 25 13 8

Cities 19 28 26 16 10

MSAs 15 28 28 18 11

MSA!=!metropolitan!statistical!area.

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census Bureau

Educational!attainment!in!applicant!neighborhoods!remains!substantially!lower!than!in!comparison!

areas.!The!percentage!of!the!population!in!the!middle,!having!attained!a!high!school!education!or!

equivalent!or!attended!some!college,!is!not!substantially!different!from!comparison!areas.!The!

percentage!of!the!population!over!age!25,!however,!with!less!than!a!high!school!education!is!more!than!

double!that!of!applicant!MSAs,!the!percentage!of!that!population!achieving!Bachelor’s!degrees!is!oned

half!that!of!applicant!MSAs,!and!the!percentage!of!the!population!achieving!graduate!degrees!is!less!

than!onedhalf!of!applicant!MSAs.!

4.3.3!Educational!Attainment!by!Neighborhood!Racial!or!Ethnic!Majority

Information!about!the!educational!attainment!in!applicant!neighborhoods,!categorized!by!majority!

racial!or!ethnic!population,!is!shown!in!table!32.!As!this!information!suggests,!the!applicant!

neighborhoods!also!vary!considerably!in!educational!attainment!depending!on!racial!and!ethnic!

makeup.!

Table'32:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'Educational'Attainment,'by'Racial'or'Ethnic'Majority

Educational!Attainment!(%)

Racial!or!Ethnic! <!High!School High!School!or! Some!College Bachelor’s! Graduate!

Majority Equivalent Degree Degree

American!Indian 31 38 25 6! 1!

Asian!and! 29 36 22 11 2!

Pacific!Islander

Black 31 35 24 7! 3!

Hispanic 42 28 20 6! 3!

Mixed

27 30 25 12 6!

White

21 31 24 15 9!

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census Bureau

In!the!average!applicant!neighborhood,!approximately!onedthird!of!the!population!over!age!25!lacks!a!

high!school!diploma!or!equivalent!qualification,!but!the!number!is!substantially!greater!in!the!majority!

Hispanic!neighborhoods.!Majority!Hispanic!applicant!neighborhoods!have!the!lowest!level!of!

educational!attainment!overall.
53

The!highest!level!of!educational!attainment!is!in!mixed!and!majority!White!neighborhoods,!where!the!

percentage!of!the!population!possessing!a!college!degree!or!higher!makes!up!nearly!onedfourth (24!

percent)!of!the!population,!double!that!in!all!but!majority!Asian!and!Pacific!Islander!and!Mixed!

neighborhoods.!

4.3.4!Educational!Attainment!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful!Applicants

Applicant!neighborhoods’!educational!attainment!levels,!broken!down!by!neighborhoods!successfully!

receiving!Planning!Grants!and!those!that!were!unsuccessful,!are!shown!in!table!33.

Table'33:'Choice'Applicant

Unsuccessful'Applicants

Neighborhood'Educational Attainment, by Successful and'

Grant Status

Educational Attainment (%)

<!High!

School

High!School!or

Equivalent

Some!

College

Bachelor’s

Degree

Graduate

Degree

Successful 32 33 23 9 4

Unsuccessful 30 32 25 9 4

Sources:!Applicant!files; U.S.!Census Bureau

Educational!attainment!of!applicant!neighborhood!populations!does!not!appear!to!contribute!to!the!

success!of!a!Choice!Planning!Grant!application.!Educational!attainment!levels!are!nearly!identical!in!

successful!and!unsuccessful!applicant!neighborhoods.!

4.4'Summary'and'Conclusions

Twodthirds!of!Planning!Grant!applicant!neighborhoods!have!majoritydminority!populations.!When!

categorized!by!majority!racial!or!ethnic!group,!Planning!Grant applicant neighborhoods!show!a!high!level!

of!internal!homogeneity.!The!lack!of!diversity!within!neighborhoods!is!not!altogether!surprising,!but!it!

does!have!implications!for!transformation!plans!and!their!implementation.!The!high!degree!of!racial!and!

ethnic!homogeneity!in!these!neighborhoods!adds!a!complicating!factor!to!attempts!to!create!more!

diverse,!mixed,!and!integrated!communities.!Whereas!class!differences!are!not!always!visible,!racial!and!

ethnic!differences!are.!These!visible!differences!may!complicate!efforts!to!attract!higher!income!

households!with!different!backgrounds.

The!demographic!data!on!the!applicant!neighborhoods!also!reinforce!a!major!trend!observed!in!the!

general!neighborhood!characteristics.!Applicant!neighborhoods!vary!substantially!in!their!racial!and!

ethnic!characteristics.!As!with!the!general!characteristics,!these!variations!suggest!that!factors!such!as!

regional!differences!and!applicant!priorities!are!creating!a!diverse!set!of!applicant!neighborhoods.!This!

finding!may!be!a!positive!reflection!of!the!flexibility!built!into!the!program!regarding!neighborhood!

selection.

The!different!age!and!sex!cohorts!in!the!different!neighborhoods!may!suggest!different!types!of!

investments!and!amenities!and!different!types!of!programming!in!the!different!neighborhoods.!In!

particular,!the!higher!numbers!of!young!children!and!teenagers!in!majority!Hispanic!neighborhoods!

highlights!the!importance!of!coordinating!with!partners!working!in!education!and!youth!initiatives,!

including!activities!supported!by!Promise!Neighborhoods.
54

Educational!attainment!is!linked!with!positive!economic!characteristics.!Educational!attainment!in!

applicant!neighborhoods!has!been!improving!during!the!past!two!decades.!These!levels,!however,!

continue!to!be!lower!than!those!in!adjacent!areas,!applicant!cities,!and!MSAs.!This!finding!may!have!

implications!for!the!longdterm!economic!success!of!these!neighborhoods!and!suggest!that!developing!

human!capital!and!improving!physical!characteristics!in!these!neighborhoods!may!be!key!to!sustained!

success.
55

5 Economic'Characteristics'of'Planning'Grant'Applicant'Neighborhoods

This!section!provides!data!and!descriptive!statistics!on!the!economic!characteristics!of!the!Choice!

Neighborhoods!Initiative!Planning!Grant!applicant!neighborhoods.!The!specific!topics!covered!in!this!

section!are!the!breakdown!of!applicant!neighborhoods!by!median!income,!employment,!and!poverty.!

The!purposes!of!this!section!are!to!provide!more!detail!on!applicant!neighborhoods!and!to!explore!

patterns!and!trends!related!to!economic!measures.

5.1'Median'Household'Income

Median!household!income!is!one!important!measure!of!the!economic!strength!of!a!neighborhood.!This!

section!presents!information!about!the!median!household!incomes!in!Planning!Grant!applicant!

neighborhoods.

5.1.1!Median!Household!Income!General!Characteristics

Figure!17!shows!the!change!during!the!past!20!years!in!median!household!incomes!in!applicant!

neighborhoods!and!in!several!comparison!areas.

!d!!!!

!10,000!!

!20,000!!

!30,000!!

!40,000!!

!50,000!!

!60,000!!

Applicant!

neighborhoods!

Adjacent!areas! Cioes! MSAs! United!States!

Median'household'income'($)'

Area'

Figure'17:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'and'Comparison'Area'Median'Household'

Incomes'(1990'to'2006–2010)'

1990!

2000!

2006–2010!

MSA!=!metropolitan!statistical!area.

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census!Bureau; American!Community!Survey 2006–2010!5dyear!estimates
56

All!areas!shown!in!figure!17!experienced!decreases!in!inflationdadjusted!median!household!incomes!

from!2000!to!2006–2010.!With!the!exception!of!those!in!applicant!metropolitan!statistical!areas,!which!

remain!slightly!above!1990!levels,!median!household!incomes!at!all!levels!were!also!lower!in!2006–2010!

than!in!1990.!These!numbers!compare!across!U.S.!census!and!American!Community!Survey!5dyear!

estimates,!and!although!it!is!possible!that!the!differences!are!exacerbated!by!the!collection!and!

estimation!techniques!used!in!these!different!datasets,!the!general!trends!are!unlikely!to!change.

Figure!17!also!shows!that,!as!compared!with!all!comparison!groups,!households!within!Planning!Grant!

applicant!neighborhoods!have!consistently!lower!median household!incomes.!It!is!not!surprising!that!

the!differences!are!greatest!between!applicant!neighborhoods!and!other!census!tracts!within!their!

MSAs.

5.1.2!Median!Household!Income!by!Region

Median!household!incomes!in!applicant!neighborhoods!demonstrated significant!regional!differences.!

Table!34!shows!applicant!neighborhood!median!household!incomes!by!region.

Table'34:

Region

Choice'Applicant Neighborhood'and'Comparison'Area Median'Household'Incomes, by

Region Count

Median Household Income ($)

Neighborhoods Adjacent Areas Cities MSAs

HUD!region

Region!1 14 34,575 42,819 42,631 64,374

Region!2 18 40,216 42,798 47,603 61,413

Region!3 21 29,876 35,819 45,267 64,218

Region!4 51 25,992 28,061 36,466 45,490

Region!5 22 30,216 33,643 37,255 54,998

Region!6 9 27,603 31,053 41,520 48,338

Region!7 5 24,269 26,599 35,403 56,751

Region!8 4 31,171 35,509 33,570 59,349

Region!9 29 39,032 43,737 51,880 66,525

Region!10 3 52,941 57,380 61,592 69,698

Census region

Northeast 40 34,939 40,872 43,271 61,908

Midwest 27 29,115 32,339 36,912 55,323

South 73 27,265 29,750 39,465 49,790

West 36 39,914 44,683 51,375 66,400

MSA!=!metropolitan!statistical!area.

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census Bureau

Median!household!incomes!in!applicant!neighborhoods!were!highest!overall!in!HUD!Regions!2,!9,!and!

10.!The!lowest!median!household!incomes!in!applicant!neighborhoods!are!found!in!HUD!Regions!4!and!

7,!which!represent!the!Southeast!and!Rocky!Mountain!states.!Region!7!has!low!median!household!

incomes!in!adjacent!areas!and!cities!as!well,!but!it!has!higher!median!household!incomes!in!MSAs,!

whereas!Region!4!median!household!incomes!are!low!for!all!areas.!These!differences!mirror!broad!

regional!differences!in!median!household!incomes.!They!may!also!reflect!the!preponderance!in!regions!
57

with!higher!median!household!incomes!of!large!cities!with!very!high!median!household!incomes,!

including!New!York!City,!Boston,!and!San!Francisco,!and!in!regions!with!lower!median!household!

incomes!of!more!small!cities.

5.1.3!Median!Household!Income!by!Neighborhood!Racial!or!Ethnic!Majority

Median!household!incomes!vary!by!applicant!neighborhoods!when!categorized!by!racial!or!ethnic!

majority.!Table!35!shows!median!household!incomes!by neighborhood,!based!on!majority!race!or!

ethnicity.

Table'35:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'Median'Household'

Incomes,'by'Racial'or'Ethnic'Majority'(1990'to'2006–2010)

Racial or Ethnic Majority

Median Household Income ($)

1990 2000 2006–2010

American!Indian 22,611 27,387 28,697

Asian!and!Pacific Islander 53,823 56,443 55,896

Black 27,626 28,460 25,534

Hispanic 37,047 36,170 32,964

Mixed 36,831 39,274 37,285

White 34,207 38,958 42,844

Sources:!Applicant!files; U.S.!Census Bureau;!American!Community!Survey 2006–2010!5d

year!estimates

Median!household!incomes!for!majority!Asian!and!Pacific!Islander!neighborhoods!are!high!overall,!

whereas!median!household!incomes!in!majority!Black!and!majority!American!Indian!neighborhoods!are!

low.!Median!household!incomes!in!majority!Black!and!majority!American!Indian!neighborhoods!are!

below!the!median!household!income!for!all!neighborhoods.!Median!household!incomes!in!majority!

Hispanic!neighborhoods!have!been!falling!during!the!past!20!years,!while!median!household!incomes!in!

majority!American!Indian!and!majority!White!neighborhoods!have!been!growing.

Median household!incomes!are!lowest in!majority!Black neighborhoods.!This!finding!is!perhaps!

predictable!given!that!Black!median!household!incomes!are!lower!across!the!entire!United!States!and!

that!the!data!on!race!and!ethnicity!for!Choice!Planning!Grant!applicant!neighborhoods!(see!Section!4)!

indicate!that!majority!Black!neighborhoods!are!homogenous!and!isolated.!Very!low!median!household!

incomes!may!be!an!indicator!of!other,!underlying!issues!such!as!unemployment!or!poor!educational!

attainment.!The!combination!of!a!highly!concentrated!minority!population!coupled!with!very!low!

median!household!incomes!may!complicate!the!revitalization!of!some!neighborhoods,!as!racial!

discrimination!and!the!depth!of!subsidy!necessary!may!make!relocation!or!mixeddincome!housing!more!

difficult!to!realize.

5.1.4!Median!Household!Income!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful!Applicants

Table!36!shows!the!differences!in!median!household!incomes!in!successful!and!unsuccessful!applicant!

neighborhoods.!
58

Table'36:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'and'Comparison'Area Median'Household'Incomes, by

Successful'and'Unsuccessful'Applicants

Area and Grant Status Median!Household Neighborhood

Income!($)

Applicant!

neighborhoods

Successful 31,122

Min successful 15,591 Allenton!Heights Redevelopment District, Jackson, Tennessee

Max successful 120,400 South Potrero, San Francisco, California

Unsuccessful 32,172

Min unsuccessful 13,321 Cleveland!Avenue, WinstondSalem, North Carolina

Max unsuccessful 92,647 Hoboken, Hoboken, New Jersey

Adjacent areas

Successful 34,792

Unsuccessful 36,091

Cities

Successful 42,898

Unsuccessful 42,173

MSAs

Successful 58,095

Unsuccessful 56,093

MSA!=!metropolitan!statistical!area.

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census Bureau

Median!household!incomes!in!successful!and!unsuccessful!applicant!neighborhoods!show!virtually!no!

differences!overall.!The!range!of!median!household!incomes!in!successful!and!unsuccessful!applicant!

neighborhoods!is!equally!broad,!ranging!from!very!low!to!very!high.!In!addition,!successful!and!

unsuccessful!applicants!are!virtually!no!different!in!terms!of!the!median!household!incomes!in!adjacent!

areas,!cities,!or!MSAs.!Successful!applicant!neighborhoods!had!adjacent!areas!with!slightly!lower!median!

household!incomes!than!areas!adjacent!to!unsuccessful!applicant!neighborhoods.

5.2'Poverty

The!poverty!rate!in!an!applicant!neighborhood!is!one!primary!measure!used!to!determine!Planning!

Grant!eligibility.!This!section!provides!information!about!the!poverty!rates!in!Planning!Grant!applicant!

neighborhoods.

5.2.1!Neighborhood!Poverty!Rates!General!Characteristics

Poverty rates!are!a!defining!characteristic!of!Planning!Grant!applicant!neighborhoods.!Figure!18!shows!

poverty!rates!in!applicant!neighborhoods,!how!they!have!changed!during!the!past!two!decades,!and!

how!they!compare!with!other!reference!areas.
59

0!

5!

10!

15!

20!

25!

30!

35!

40!

45!

Applicant!

neighborhoods!

Adjacent!areas! Cioes! MSAs! United!States!

Poverty'rate'(%)'

Area'

Figure'18:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'and'Comparison'Areas'Poverty'Rate'

(1990'to'2006–2010)'

1990!

2000!

2006–

2010!

MSA!=!metropolitan!statistical!area.

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census!Bureau Census!Bureau; American!Community!Survey 2006–2010!5dyear!estimates

Poverty!rates!in!applicant!neighborhoods!are!very!high!overall!(41.4!percent!in!2010),!much!higher!than!

in!all!comparison!areas.!Poverty!rates!in!applicant!neighborhoods!are!a!full!10!percentage!points!higher!

than!in!adjacent!areas!and!cities!and!are!more!than!three!times!that!of!their!MSAs.

Nearly!onedfourth!(24!percent)!of!all!applicant!neighborhoods!had!more!than!onedhalf!the!neighborhood!

population!living!below!the!poverty!line.!The!neighborhoods!with!the!highest!poverty!rates!are!Coffelt,!

Phoenix,!Arizona!(77!percent),!and!Central!Choice,!Cleveland,!Ohio!(74!percent).!The!two!neighborhoods!

with!the!lowest!poverty!rates!are!Sunset!Area,!Renton,!Washington!(15!percent)!and!

Sunnydale/Visitacion!Valley,!San!Francisco,!California!(15!percent).

Poverty!rates!in!applicant!neighborhoods!have!remained!extremely!durable.!As!the!data!show,!applicant!

neighborhoods!have!consistently!had!high!percentages!of!their!populations!below!the!poverty!line.!

Poverty!rates!overall!declined!slightly!between!1990!and!2000!but!increased!again,!by!4!percent,!

between!2000!and!2010.!Poverty!rates!in!applicant!neighborhoods!in!2010!exceeded!poverty!rates!in!

1990.

Although!poverty!rates!overall!were!consistent,!they!varied!among!neighborhoods.!Since!2000,!68!

percent!of!applicant!neighborhoods!have!experienced!an!increase!in!their!poverty!rates,!while!32!

percent!have!experienced!declines.!Of!those!experiencing!an!increase!in!the!poverty!rate!between!2000!

and!2006–2010,!62!percent!witnessed!substantial!increases!(more!than!10!percent).!Another!10!percent!
60

of!neighborhoods!with!increasing!poverty!rates!had!moderate!increases!(5!to!10!percent).!Onedfourth!

(25!percent)!of!neighborhoods!with!increasing!poverty!between!2000!and!2006–2010!had!increases!of!

20!percent!or!more.!Slightly!less!than!onedhalf!of!the!neighborhoods!that!experienced!increases!in!

poverty!rates!between!2000!and!2006–2010!(47!percent)!also!experienced!increases!in!poverty!between!

1990!and!2000.

With!the!exception!of!three!applicant!neighborhoods!in!Los!Angeles!which!experienced!large!population!

gains!at!the!same!time!they!experienced!large!drops!in!poverty,!neighborhoods!with!significant!declines!

in!poverty!rates!also!experienced!significant!population!loss,!suggesting!that!the!declines!were!because!

of!an!outdmigration!of!lowdincome!households.

5.2.2!Neighborhood!Poverty!Rates!by!Region

Poverty!rates!showed!no!consistent!variation!across regions.!Information!about!neighborhood!poverty!

rates!by!region!is!shown!in!table!37.

Table'37: Choice'Applicant Neighborhood'and'Comparison'Area Poverty Rates, by Region

Region Count Poverty Rate!(%)

Applicant!

Neighborhoods

Adjacent

Areas Cities MSAs

HUD!region

Region!1 14 42 23 32 13

Region!2 18 38 26 32 12

Region!3 21 46 29 35 15

Region!4 51 43 33 3 13

Region!5 22 44 33 31 16

Region!6 9 33 31 29 11

Region!7 5 38 33 22 16

Region!8 4 36 29 30 17

Region!9 29 38 25 24 13

Region!10 3 33 10 20 9

Census region

Northeast 40 45 39 37 14

Midwest 27 40 42 31 12

South 73 41 43 31 14

West 36 38 40 24 13

MSA!=!metropolitan!statistical!area.

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census Bureau;!American!Community!Survey!2006–2010!5dyear!estimates

As!table!37!shows,!applicant!neighborhood!poverty!rates!are!high!across!all!regions.!HUD!Regions!1,!3,!4,!

and!5!have!poverty!rates!of!more!than!40!percent.!In!all!but!four!HUD!regions,!the!poverty!rates!in!

adjacent!areas!are!actually!lower!than the!poverty!rates!in!the!rest!of!the!city.!Each!region!has!nearly!

equal!shares!of!very!highdpoverty!neighborhoods!and!neighborhoods!with!increasing!or!decreasing!rates!

of!poverty.
61

5.2.3!Neighborhood!Poverty!Rates!by!Neighborhood!Racial!or!Ethnic!Majority

Applicant!neighborhoods!demonstrated!a!consistent!variation!based!on!racial!or!ethnic!majority,!as!

shown!in!table!38.

Table'38: Choice'Applicant Neighborhood'and'Comparison'Area Poverty Rates, by Racial or Ethnic Majority

Area

Poverty Rate!(%)

American!

Indian

Asian!and!

Pacific!Islander Black Hispanic Mixed White

Applicant!

neighborhoods

40 27 45 42 38 31

Adjacent areas 37 14 34 29 23 21

Cities 37 10 36 31 25 22

MSAs N/A 9 14 13 13 13

MSA!=!metropolitan!statistical!area.!

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census

N/A!=!not!available.!

Bureau;!American!Community!Survey!2006–2010!5dyear!estimates

Consistent!with!the!data!on!median!household!incomes,!neighborhoods!with!a!majority White!

population!had!consistently!lower!poverty!rates!overall.!Mixed!neighborhoods!had!a!surprisingly!high!

poverty!rate!given!the!median!household!income!data.!This!finding!may!suggest!that!these!

neighborhoods!are!changing!and!have!a!mix!of!not!only!racial!and!ethnic!groups,!but!also!of!classes.

Majority!American!Indian,!Black,!and!Hispanic!neighborhoods!had!higher!poverty!rates!overall,!with!

majority!Black!neighborhoods!having!the!highest!average!poverty!rates.!As!with!the!median!household!

income!data,!poverty!rates!in!applicant!neighborhoods,!regardless!of!racial!or!ethnic!majority,!are!

remarkably!persistent!over!time.

5.2.4!Neighborhood!Poverty!Rates!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful!Applicants

Poverty!rates!are!one!factor!considered!in!selecting!successful!Planning!Grant!applicants.!Table!39!

shows!the!neighborhood!poverty!rates!in!successful!and!unsuccessful!applicant!neighborhoods!and!in!

comparison!areas.
62

Table'39:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'and'Comparison'Area

Unsuccessful'Applicants'(1990'to'2006–2010)

Poverty Rates, by Successful and'

Area and!Grant Status

Poverty!Rate!(%)

Neighborhood 1990 2000 2006–2010

Applicant neighborhoods

Successful 40 40 45

Min successful N/A N/A 15 Sunnydale/Visitacion

California

Valley, San Francisco,

Max successful 74 Central!Choice, Cleveland, Ohio

Unsuccessful 37 36 40

Min unsuccessful N/A N/A 15 Sunset Area, Renton, Washington

Max unsuccessful N/A N/A 77 Coffelt, Phoenix, Arizona

Adjacent areas

Successful 29 28 31

Unsuccessful 28 27 29

Cities

Successful 30 30 33

Unsuccessful 30 29 30

MSAs

Successful 12 12 13

Unsuccessful 13 13 14

MSA!=!metropolitan!statistical!area.!

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census

NA!= not!applicable.!

Bureau;!American!Community!Survey!2006–2010 5dyear!estimates

As!would!be!expected,!poverty!rates!in!successful!applicant!neighborhoods!are!higher!than!poverty!

rates!in!unsuccessful!applicant!neighborhoods.!The!range!of!poverty!rates!in!successful!and!unsuccessful!

applicant!neighborhoods!is!nearly identical.!Adjacent!areas!and!cities!of!successful!applicant!

neighborhoods!also!have!slightly!higher!poverty!rates.

5.3'Employment

The!sustained!success!of!neighborhood!revitalization!efforts!may!be!tied!to!the!economic!success!of!the!

population.!In!addition!to!poverty!rates,!employment!statistics!provide!a!useful!indicator!of!the!

economic!situation!in!an!area.!Overall,!Planning!Grant!applicant!neighborhoods!have!demonstrated!

persistently!high!levels!of!unemployment!and!low!levels!of!labor!force!participation.!Information!about!

the!employment!characteristics!of!applicant!neighborhoods!is!presented!in!the!following!section.

5.3.1!Employment!General!Characteristics

Two!measures!of!the!general!employment!situation!in!applicant!neighborhoods!are!labor!force

participation!rates!and!unemployment!rates.!Tables!40!and!41!summarize!these!two!characteristics!in!

applicant!neighborhoods!and!comparison!areas!for!the!past!two!decades.
63

Table'40:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'and'Comparison'Area

Labor'Force'Participation'(1990'to'2006–2010)

Area

Labor Force Participation Rate (%)

1990 2000 2006–2010

Applicant neighborhoods 54 54 56

Adjacent areas 59 58 60

Cities 63 61 63

MSAs 66 64 65

United States 67 67 65

MSA!=!metropolitan!statistical!area.

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census Bureau;!American Community!Survey!2006–2010!5d

year!estimates

Labor!force!participation!rates!in!applicant!neighborhoods!increased!during!the!past!decade!but!remain!

lower!than!those!in!comparison!areas.!Labor!force!participation!rates!have!remained!relatively!steady!in!

comparison!areas!over!time.

Table'41:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'and'Comparison'

Area'Unemployment'Rates'(1990'to'2006–2010)

Area

Unemployment Rate (%)

1990 2000 2006–

2010

Applicant neighborhoods 15.5 16.2 17.0

Adjacent areas 11.0 12.0 12.9

Cities 8.5 8.9 10.5

MSAs 5.9 5.8 8.1

United States 5.6 4.0 9.6

MSA!=!metropolitan!statistical!area.

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census Bureau;!American!Community!Survey!2006–

2010!5dyear!estimates

Unemployment!rates!have!increased!over!time!in!applicant!neighborhoods!and!all!comparison!areas.!

Unemployment!rates!in!2006–2010!in!applicant!neighborhoods!were!very!high,!at!17!percent.!By!

comparison,!unemployment!in!adjacent!areas!was!nearly!5!percentage!points!lower!and!in!applicant!

cities!was!nearly!7!percentage!points!lower.!The!unemployment!rate!in!applicant!neighborhoods!varied!

considerably,!from!as!low!as!4!percent!in!Riverside,!Patterson,!New!Jersey,!to!as!high!as!36!percent!in!

Sun!Valley!Neighborhood,!Denver,!Colorado.

Approximately!20!percent!of!neighborhoods!had!consistent!unemployment!rates!(no!more!than!2!

percent!difference)!in!1990,!2000,!and!2006–2010.!The!unemployment!rates!in!the!other!neighborhoods!

fluctuated!over!time.!In!40!percent!of!neighborhoods,!the!unemployment!rate!differed!substantially!

(greater!than!5!percent!difference)!across!decades.

As!with!many!of!the!other!characteristics,!the!overall!trends!in!the!preceding!tables!mask!some!variation!

between!neighborhoods.!In!17!percent!of!neighborhoods,!a!clear,!positive!trend!emerged!of!increasing

labor!force!participation,!decreasing unemployment,!and!decreasing!poverty.!In!more!than!50!percent!

of!all!neighborhoods,!however,!the!clear!trend!was!more!complicated:!increasing!labor!force!

participation,!decreasing or!steady!unemployment,!and!increasing!or!stagnant!poverty!rates.
64

The!combination!of!the!low!labor!force!participation!rate!and!the!high!unemployment!rate!shows!a!high!

percentage!of!the!adult!population!not!working!or!seeking!work.!Coupled!with!the!stagnant!median!

household!incomes!and!persistent!and!even!increasing!poverty!rates,!however,!this!trend!presents!a!

troubling!picture!of!applicant!neighborhoods.!More!residents!are!seeking!work!but!are!either!unable!to!

find!it or!are!able!to!secure!only!employment!that!does!not!pay!enough!to!increase!their!household!

income!or!move!out!of!poverty.

5.3.2!Employment!by!Region

Neighborhood!unemployment!rates!varied!by!region.!This!information!is!presented!in!table!42.

Table'42:

Rates,'by

Choice'Applicant

Region

Neighborhoods and Comparison Area Unemployment

Region Count

Unemployment Rate (%)

Applicant!

Neighborhoods Adjacent Areas Cities MSAs

HUD!region

Region!1 14 15 11 12 8

Region!2 18 13 11 10 8

Region!3 21 17 12 9 7

Region!4 51 20 15 11 9

Region!5 22 20 15 12 8

Region!6 9 15 11 8 7

Region!7 5 22 17 14 7

Region!8 4 17 13 10 6

Region!9 29 14 12 10 8

Region!10 3 8 7 8 7

Census region

Northeast 40 15 11 11 8

Midwest 27 21 15 13 8

South 73 18 14 10 8

West 36 13 11 10 8

MSA!=!metropolitan!statistical!area.

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census Bureau;!American!Community!Survey!2006–2010!5dyear!estimates

Regional!variation!in!applicant!neighborhood!unemployment!rates!follows!a!predictable!pattern.!

Unemployment!rates!were!lower!in!applicant!neighborhoods!in!areas!of!stronger!employment,!including!

HUD!Regions!1,!2,!9,!and!10,!and!were!higher!in!areas!of!weaker!employment,!including!Regions!4!and!5.

5.3.3!Employment!by!Neighborhood!Racial!or!Ethnic!Majority

As!with!other!characteristics,!when!the!employment!data!are!grouped!by!neighborhood!race!and!

ethnicity,!a!pattern!emerges!with!respect!to!applicant!neighborhoods.!Tables!43!and!44!show!labor!

force!participation!and!unemployment!in!applicant!neighborhoods!categorized!by!majority!racial!or!

ethnic!population.
65

Table'43:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'and'Comparison'Area

by'Racial'or'Ethnic'Majority

Labor Force'Participation,

Racial or Ethnic Majority

Labor Force!Participation (%)

Applicant!

Neighborhoods Adjacent Areas Cities MSAs

American!Indian 57 57 51 N/A

Asian!and!Pacific Islander 58 63 66 65

Black 52 57 62 64

Hispanic 60 61 64 63

Mixed 59 64 66 64

White 62 64 61 64

MSA!=!metropolitan!statistical!area.!

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census

N/A!=!not!available.!

Bureau;!American!Community!Survey!2006–2010!5dyear!estimates

As!with!other!economic!indicators,!labor!force!participation!in!mixed!and!majority!White!neighborhoods!

is!highest,!coming!close!to!or!exceeding!rates!in!adjacent!areas!and!cities.!Labor!force!participation!rates!

in!majority!Black!neighborhoods!are!lowest,!falling!well!below!labor!force!participation!rates!in!

comparison!areas.!Although!median!household!incomes!are!among!the!lowest!in!majority!Hispanic!

neighborhoods,!labor!force!participation!rates!are!among!the!highest.

Table'44:'Choice'Applicant Neighborhood'and'Comparison'Area Unemployment Rates, by

Racial'or'Ethnic'Majority

Racial or Ethnic Majority

Unemployment Rate (%)

Applicant!

Neighborhoods Adjacent Areas Cities MSAs

American!Indian 8 23 20 N/A

Asian!and!Pacific Islander 7 6 5 5

Black 21 15 11 6

Hispanic 15 12 11 6

Mixed 14 10 9 6

White 11 10 9 5

MSA!=!metropolitan!statistical!area.!N/A!=!not!available.!

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census Bureau;!American!Community!Survey!2006–2010!5dyear!estimates

Unemployment!rates!in!majority!Black!neighborhoods!are!very!high!compared!with!unemployment!

rates!in!other!neighborhoods.!Unemployment!rates!in!majority!Asian!and!Pacific!Islander!neighborhoods!

are!very!low!(onedthird!the!rate!in!majority!Black!neighborhoods),!which!is!likely!attributable!to!the!low!

overall!unemployment!rate!in!these!cities!and!MSAs.

The!unemployment!situation!in!majority!Black!and!majority!Hispanic!neighborhoods!may!prove!

particularly!vexing;!the!unemployment!rates!in!their!cities!are!also!quite!high,!indicating!more!

widespread!economic!difficulties.
66

5.3.4!Employment!by!Successful!and!Unsuccessful!Applicants

Unemployment!and!labor!force!conditions!varied!slightly!between!successful!and!unsuccessful!Planning!

Grant!applicant!neighborhoods.!Tables!45!and!46!show!labor!force!participation!and!unemployment!

rates!for!applicant!neighborhoods,!grouped!by!successful!and!unsuccessful!applications.

Table'45:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'Labor Force Participation, by'Successful and

Unsuccessful'Applicants'(1990'to'2006–2010)

Grant Status Labor Force!Participation Neighborhood

(%)

1990 2000 2006–

2010

Successful

Mean 53 53 53

Minimum N/A N/A 29 River DistrictdRailyards, Sacramento, California

Maximum N/A N/A 76 South Potrero, San Francisco, California

Unsuccessful

Mean 55 54 57

Minimum N/A N/A 24 Old Town Somerset, Baltimore, Maryland

N/A!=!not!applicable.!

Sources:!Applicant!files; U.S.!Census Bureau;!American!Community!Survey!2006–2010!5dyear!estimates

Successful!applicant!neighborhoods!had!slightly!lower!labor!force!participation!rates!than!unsuccessful!

applicant!neighborhoods.!It!is!very!likely!the!lower!labor!force!participation!rates!are!related!to!the!

higher!poverty!rates!in!successful!applicant!neighborhoods.

Unsuccessful!applicant!neighborhoods!had!increasing!labor!force!participation!rates!during!the!past!20!

years,!but!successful!neighborhoods!did!not!demonstrate!the!same!increase!in!overall!rates.!The!range!

of!labor!force!participation!rates!in!both!successful!and!unsuccessful!applicant!neighborhoods!was!wide.

Table'46:'Choice'Applicant'Neighborhood'Unemployment

Unsuccessful'Applicants'(1990'to'2006–2010)

Rates, by Successful and'

Grant Status

Unemployment

(%)

Rate

Neighborhood

1990 2000 2006–

2010

Successful

Mean 17 18 19

Minimum N/A N/A 5 Kuhio Park,!Honolulu,!Hawaii

Maximum N/A N/A 36 Sun Valley!neighborhood, Denver, Colorado

Unsuccessful

Mean 15 15 16

Minimum N/A N/A 4 Riverside, Patterson, New Jersey

Maximum N/A N/A 34 Northeast!Area, Kansas City, Kansas

N/A!=!not!applicable.!

Sources:!Applicant!files;!U.S.!Census Bureau;!American!Community!Survey!2006–2010!5dyear!estimates
67

Unemployment!rates!in!successful!applicant!neighborhoods!were!higher!than!in!unsuccessful!

neighborhoods.!Again,!the!higher!unemployment!rates!are!very!likely!related!to!the!higher!poverty!rates!

in!successful!neighborhoods.

The!unemployment!rates!in!unsuccessful!neighborhoods!have!remained!relatively!steady!over!time,!but!

the!unemployment!rates!in!successful!neighborhoods!have!been!steadily!increasing!during!the!past!20!

years.!The!range!of!unemployment!rates!is!virtually!identical!in!successful!and!unsuccessful!applicant!

neighborhoods.

5.4'Summary'and'Conclusions

Regarding!economic!characteristics,!including!median!household!income,!poverty!rates,!and!

employment,!applicant!neighborhoods!are!clearly!more!distressed!than!other!neighborhoods.!Applicant!

neighborhoods!vary,!with!some!neighborhoods!faring!better!than!others!and!some!neighborhoods!

improving!while!others!decline.!The!most!important!takeaway!from!these!data!is!that,!despite!some!

differences,!applicant!neighborhoods!are!marked!by!persistent!low!incomes,!poverty!rates,!and

unemployment.

One!particularly!troubling!trend!in!applicant!neighborhoods!is!that!of!increasing!labor!force!participation!

but!stagnant!household!incomes!and!persistent!or!increasing!poverty!rates.!This!trend!may!simply!

reflect!larger!economic!trends,!as!policies!such!as!welfare!reform!encourage!or!require!work,!but!wages!

are!insufficient,!particularly!at!the!low!end!of!the!wage!scale,!to!lift!households!out!of!poverty.!It!also!

may!be!an!indication!of!the!location!and!connectedness!of!the!applicant!neighborhoods!and!the!

availability!of!employment!opportunities!that!pay!living!wages.
68

6 Summary'and'Conclusions

The!Choice!Neighborhoods!Initiative!provides!grants!for!the!planning!and!the!implementation!of!

revitalization!activities!in!neighborhoods!that!are!home!to!distressed,!HUDdassisted!housing!properties.!

The!program!affords!applicants!the!ability!to!define!the!neighborhoods!they!wish!to!target!for!

revitalization!activities.!The!primary!purpose!of!this!research!was!to!build!a!profile!of!general!

characteristics!of!these!applicant!neighborhoods.!The!preceding!sections!of!this!report!provided!the!

results!of!this!profile.!This!section!summarizes!those!results.

In!the!introduction!to!this!report,!several!questions!were!posed!as!a!starting!point!for!the!research.

These!questions!are!used!as!a!framework!for!summarizing!the!results.!

• What!are!the!physical,!demographic,!and!geospatial!characteristics!of!the!neighborhoods!

identified!in!Choice!Planning!Grant!applications?!Do!these!neighborhoods!exhibit!patterns!in!

demographic!and!geospatial!characteristics?

The!neighborhoods!identified!by!applicants!for!Choice!Planning!Grants!vary!in!their!specifics!but!

have!an!overall!profile!that!is!largely!consistent.!With!the!exception!of!a!small!number!(13)!of!

majority!White!neighborhoods,!the!applicant!neighborhoods!have!predominantly!minority!

populations!and!have!since!at!least!1990.!The!most!neighborhoods!(79)!are!majority!Black.!

Sizable!numbers!of!majority!Hispanic!(29)!and!mixed!(49)!neighborhoods!also!applied!for!

Planning!Grants.!With!the!exception!of!the!49!mixed!neighborhoods,!applicant!neighborhoods!

have!mostly!homogenous!populations.!Overall,!the!applicant!neighborhoods!are!less!diverse!

than!their!surroundings.!

It!is!not!clear!whether!the!selection!of!segregated!neighborhoods!was!intentional!on!the!part!of!

applicants!or!whether!target!areas!were!chosen!based!on!high!levels!of!distress,!and!those!

neighborhoods!also!happened!to!be!segregated.!Whatever!the!reason,!applicants!should!be!

aware!of!and!particularly!sensitive!to!the!potential!implications!and!complications!that!could!

arise!from!targeting!a!racially!homogenous!area!for!revitalization!and!redevelopment!activities.!

Issues!of!displacement!and!racial!or!ethnic!turnover!should!be!explicitly!addressed!as!part!of!

planning for!neighborhood!transformation.

Applicant!neighborhoods!have,!on!average,!younger!populations!than!the!cities!within!which!

they!are!located.!Age!and!sex!cohorts!in!specific!applicant!neighborhoods!vary,!but!trends!

emerge!when!considering!the!neighborhoods!based!on!racial!or!ethnic!majorities.!Applicants!

should!carefully!consider!the!age!of!a!neighborhood’s!population!when!planning!revitalization!

activities!and!programming.!The!types!of!services,!amenities,!and!accommodations!provided!

may!vary!depending!on!the!population!age!profile.!

Applicant!neighborhoods!also!exhibit!high!levels!of!characteristics!associated!with!neighborhood!

distress.!Applicant!neighborhoods!have!low!median!household!incomes!($31,880),!high!levels!of!

poverty!(41.4!percent),!and!high!rates!of!unemployment!(17!percent)!based!on!American!

Community!Survey!2006–2010!5dyear!averages,!and!all!three!conditions!have!been!consistently!

bad!and!growing!worse.!Applicant!areas!have!lower!median!household!incomes,!higher!poverty!

rates,!and!higher!unemployment!rates!than!all!comparison!areas,!including!adjacent!areas!and!

applicant!cities.!In!particular,!applicant!neighborhoods!have!poverty!rates!10!percentage!points!

higher!than!adjacent!areas!or!applicant!cities!and!nearly!three!times!the!national!average.!The!
69

differences!between!applicant!neighborhoods!and!comparison!areas!are!consistent!across!

regions.!Although!neighborhoods!vary!somewhat,!the!dominant!trend!in!applicant!

neighborhoods!is!one!of!continuing!and!increasing!poverty!and!disadvantage.!

Applicant!neighborhoods!have!shown!improvements!in!educational!attainment!and!labor!force!

participation!during!the!past!two!decades.!The!percentage!of!the!population!in!applicant!

neighborhoods!with!less!than!a!high!school!education!has!decreased!while!the!percentage!with!

college!degrees!has!increased.!Labor!force!participation!has!also!increased!slightly,!to!56!

percent.!Educational!attainment!and!labor!force!participation!in!these!neighborhoods!continues!

to!lag!behind!adjacent!areas!and!applicant!cities,!however.!It!is!also!worth!noting!that!the!

improvements!in!educational!attainment!and!labor!force!participation!have!not!brought!

improvements!to!median!household!income!or!poverty!rates.!In!fact,!as!noted!previously,!these!

neighborhood!characteristics!have!grown!worse.!

More!than!anything,!that poverty,!unemployment,!and!low!incomes!remain!consistent!despite!

improvements!in!educational!attainment!and!labor!force!participation!underscores!the!need!for!

programs!such!as!Choice!to!address!what!has!become!deeply!entrenched!disadvantage.!The!

profile!of!the!population!in!applicant!neighborhoods!also!suggests,!however,!that!the!strategies!

to!improve!resident!economic!selfdsufficiency!will!be!vital!to!the!success!of!revitalization!efforts!

in!applicant!neighborhoods.!Changing!the!built!environment!alone!is unlikely!to!be!sufficient.

Applicant!neighborhoods!also!have!a!largely!consistent!profile!with!regard!to!their!housing!

stock,!vacancy!rates,!and!tenure.!Applicant!neighborhoods!have!an!aging!housing!stock.!The!

median!housing!unit!in!applicant!neighborhoods!dates!from!the!1950s,!with!onedfourth!built!

before!1940!and!sizable!numbers!built!in!the!1940s!and!1950s.!The!housing!stock!in!applicant!

neighborhoods!was!consistently!older!than!in!comparison!areas.!The!age!of!housing!is!a!source!

both!of!problems!and!of!potential.!Older!housing!stock!has!had!a!longer!period!of!time!during!

which!to!experience!neglect!and!deterioration,!and!it!may!have!been!built!to!outdated!

standards!(for!example,!room!sizes!or!finishes)!or!using!problematic!materials!(for!example,!

asbestos).!It!may!also!offer!architectural!styles!or!more!durable!materials!(for!example,!hard!

woods)!not!found!in!more!contemporary!construction,!however.

Housing!in!applicant!neighborhoods!also!has!high!overall!vacancy!rates!(14!percent)!that!have!

increased!during!the!past!decade.!Vacancy!rates!in!applicant!neighborhoods!are!worse!than!in!

adjacent!areas!and!applicant!cities,!although!these!comparison!areas!also!have!high!vacancy!

rates!overall.!Vacancy!rates!in!applicant!neighborhoods!vary!considerably,!from!as!low!as!4!

percent!to!as!high!as!31!percent.!Vacancy!rates!are!highest!in!majority!Black!neighborhoods.

Applicant!neighborhoods!also!have!low!rates!of!ownership!and!high!rates!of!renting.!Ownership!

rates!are!lower!and!rental!rates!are!higher!in!applicant!neighborhoods!than!in!adjacent!areas!or!

cities.!The!rates!of!owning!and!renting!vary!by!neighborhood,!but!in!only!16!neighborhoods!did!

ownership!rates!exceed!rental!rates.!The!high!level!of!renting!in!applicant!neighborhoods!may!

suggest!strategies!to!increase!ownership!as!part!of!revitalization!planning.!High!rental!rates,!

however,!also!suggest!high!percentages!of!the!population!may!be!more!vulnerable!to!

displacement!from!revitalization!activities.

Applicant!neighborhoods!have!a!relatively!consistent!profile!in!terms!of!their!demographic,!

economic,!and!housing!characteristics,!but!they!have!no!clear!profile!in!terms!of!physical!size,!
70

population,!density,!or!number!of!housing!units.!Substantial!variation!exists!in!all!measures!

across!the!applicant!neighborhoods,!and!no!consistent!pattern!of!change!emerges!among!the!

applicants!in!each!of!the!first!three!grant!cycles.!Applicant!neighborhoods!range!in!physical!size!

from!10!to!14,223!acres,!in!population!from!27!to!60,131,!in!density!from!27!to!32,327!people!

per!square!mile,!and!in!number!of!housing!units!from!4!to!22,017.!Significant!outliers!exist!for!

each!measure,!particularly!at!the!high!end,!and!those!applications!were!unlikely!to!receive!

funding.!Although!substantial,!the!range!of!housing!units!is!more!tightly!clustered!around!the!

median!than!the!other!measures.!More!applicant!neighborhoods!are!losing!population!and!

housing!units!than!are!gaining!them.!This!growth!and!decline!exhibit!considerable!variation!and!

no!consistent!pattern,!however.!

• Where!are!the!neighborhoods!being!identified!located!in!relation!to!broader!trends!of!

neighborhood!demographic!and!physical!change!within!corresponding!urban!areas?!!

The!areas!adjacent!to!applicant!neighborhoods!are!consistently!better!off!in!terms!of!economic!

and!housing!characteristics!than!the!applicant!neighborhoods.!They!have!higher!median!

incomes,!lower!poverty!rates,!and!lower!unemployment!rates.!They!also!have!lower!vacancy!

rates,!higher!homeownership!rates,!and!a!newer!housing!stock.!Areas!adjacent!to!applicant!

neighborhoods!have!experienced!larger!improvements,!smaller!declines,!or!both!than!applicant!

neighborhoods!in!these!measures.!In!most!cases,!however,!adjacent!areas!are!also!worse!off!

than!applicant!cities.!One!exception!is!vacancy!rate;!on!average,!the!vacancy!rate!in!adjacent!

areas!is!actually!lower!than!in!the!remainder!of!the!city.!

The!data!and!analysis!are!inconclusive!regarding!this!question.!They!may!support!the!hypothesis!

that!the!target!neighborhoods!are!linked!to!the!next!phase!of!ongoing!improvement!in!a!city!

and!may!be!selected!to!capture!or!create!spillover!effects.!It!is!also!possible!that!the!most!

distressed!neighborhoods!were!selected!as!applicant!areas.!

• Do!the!neighborhoods!that!have!successfully!received!Planning!Grants!exhibit!a!pattern?

The!range!of!characteristics!for!both!successful!and!unsuccessful!applicant!neighborhoods!is!

broad.!No!agreement!appears!to!be!emerging!on!what!constitutes!an!appropriate!or!ideal!

neighborhood!for!the!program.!Several!patterns!appear!to!be!emerging,!however,!with!regard!

to!successful!applicants.!First,!very!small!and!very!large!neighborhoods appear!to!have!a!slightly!

lower!likelihood!of!success.!Successful!applicants!are!more!tightly!clustered!than!unsuccessful!

applicants!with!regard!to!physical!size,!population,!density,!and!housing!units.!

Second,!two!fairly!unsurprising!patterns!emerge!from!the!data.!Applicant!neighborhoods!with!

high!poverty!and!vacancy!rates!are!consistently!more!successful!than!applicant!neighborhoods!

with!lower!rates!of!these!two!measures.!This!pattern!is!not!surprising!because!both!vacancy!

rates!and!poverty!rates!are!measures!specifically!identified!in!the!Choice!Notices!of!Funding!

Availability!as!being!important!factors!for!determining!eligibility!for!the!program!and!selecting!

grant!recipients.

Third,!successful!neighborhoods!had!higher!rates!of!unemployment!than!unsuccessful!

neighborhoods.!Further,!successful!neighborhoods’!unemployment!rates!have!increased!during!

the!past!two!decades,!while!unemployment!rates!in!unsuccessful!neighborhoods!remained!
71

relatively!steady.!This!finding!may!suggest!greater!economic!disconnection!and!isolation!in!

successful!applicant!neighborhoods.

No!pattern!emerged!to!differentiate!successful!and!unsuccessful!neighborhoods!with!regard!to!

educational!attainment,!age,!sex,!median!household!income,!labor!force!participation,!or!

housing!tenure.

• What,!if!any,!relationship!exists!between!the!selection!criteria!outlined!for!Planning!Grant!

applications!and!the!demographic!and!geospatial!characteristics!of!the applicant!

neighborhoods?

Most!applications!for!Choice!Planning!Grants,!by!a!substantial!margin,!have!come!from!cities!in!

the!eastern!part!of!the!country.!A!full!41!percent!of!applications!have!come!from!the!South.!This!

pattern!of!applications!may!be!related!to!the!selection!criteria!in!the!Choice!NOFA!that!expands!

the!pool!of!eligible!assisted!housing!properties!beyond!only!public!housing!complexes.!This!

change!may!make!more!neighborhoods!in!cities!in!the!South!eligible!for!the!program.!The!

restriction!in the!Choice!NOFA!preventing!applications!for!Choice!funds!from!housing!complexes!

that!were!already!recipients!of!HOPE!VI!funding!may!eliminate!some!aging!public!housing!

developments!in!the!regions!characterized!by!older!housing!stock,!such!as!those!regions

covering!the!Northeastern!and!Midwestern!states.!The!preponderance!of!applications!from!the!

Eastern!United!States!and!the!scarcity!of!applications!from!the!Western!United!States,!with!the!

possible!exception!of!California,!indicate!opportunities!to!expand!the!program!in!the!western!

regions.!This!finding!may!suggest!that!additional!dissemination!of!information,!and!possibly!

proactive!recruitment!of!applicants,!should!be!pursued.

The!ability!afforded!to!Planning!Grant!applicants!to!select!their!own!neighborhoods!and!the!

general!lack!of!guidance!regarding!the!size!or!population!of!these!neighborhoods!also!appear!to!

be!influencing!applicant!areas.!Some!applicants!have!used!existing!neighborhood!boundaries!to!

guide!their!neighborhood!definition,!but!others!have!identified!new!neighborhoods!specifically!

for!the!program.!The!enormous!range!of!neighborhood!physical!sizes,!populations,!densities,!

and!housing!units!may!be!either!an!indication!of!the!program’s!success!in!encouraging!

neighborhoods!that!respond!to!local!needs!and!issues!or!of!its!need!for!clearer!criteria!to!guide!

neighborhood!definition.

As!noted!previously,!the!criteria!in!the!Choice!NOFA!on!poverty!rate!and!vacancies!appear!to!be!

influencing!neighborhood!definition!and!application!success.!Because!the mapping!tool!used!by!

applicants!provides!specific!information!about!poverty!rates,!it!is!not!surprising!that!applicants!

would!define!neighborhoods!that!responded!to!the!NOFA!selection!criteria!related!to!this!

measure.!As!applicants!are!allowed!to!redraw!boundaries!using!the!tool!to!locate!an!area!with!a!

poverty!rate!in!line!with!the!requirements!of!the!NOFA,!tracking!the!evolution!of!the!

neighborhood!boundaries!drawn!using!the!tool!over!time!could!provide!a!clearer!picture!of!the!

effect!of!this!measure!on!neighborhood!definition.

The!information!and!analysis!presented!in!this!report!provide!a!basic!profile!of!Planning!Grant!applicant!

neighborhoods.!This!profile!highlights!several!areas!for!additional!research—!

• The!neighborhoods!successfully!receiving!Planning!Grants!are!distinguishable!from!

neighborhoods!not!receiving!Planning!Grants!by!higher!poverty,!vacancy,!and!unemployment!
72

rates.!This!trend!is!not!universal,!however,!nor!do!any!other!factors!considered!here!clearly!

relate!to!a!neighborhood’s!success!in!securing!a!grant.!Other!factors!identified!in!the!NOFAs,!

such!as!likelihood!of!success,!also!play!a!significant!role!in!selecting!grant!winners.!Further!

exploration!of!the!role!that!other!factors,!such!as!applicant!teams!and!structure!of!proposals,!

play!is!necessary!to!better!understand!the!program!and!to!provide!additional!guidance!to!

potential!applicants.

• As!described!previously,!very!few!clear!trends!have!emerged!from!the!information!and!analysis!

presented!here!on!applicant!neighborhoods!from!the!first!three!Choice!grant!cycles.!As!

additional!grant!cycles!are!completed,!an!opportunity!exists!to!add!more!applicant!

neighborhoods!to!the!dataset.!Analysis!of!this!expanded!dataset!may!begin!to!reveal!trends!and!

patterns.!In!addition,!the!existing!dataset!contains!a!small!number!of!repeat!applicants.!Special!

focus!on!these!neighborhoods!may!reveal!more!about!how!repeat!applicants!receive!and!

respond!to!feedback.

• This!analysis!considered!a!narrow!range!of!information!about!applicant!neighborhoods!that!

could!be!reasonably!acquired,!reconciled,!and!analyzed!for!176!applicants!in!the!time!frame.!

Data!could!be!acquired!on!numerous!other!factors,!such!as!additional!information!about!

buildings,!commuting,!and!crime.!These!additional!characteristics!could!be!added!to the!analysis!

of!applicant!neighborhoods!to!provide!a!more!complete!profile.

• Choice!Planning!Grant!recipients!are!to!use!the!grant!to!create!a!transformation!plan!outlining!

the!activities!and!programs!intended!to!revitalize!a!neighborhood.!On!completing!their!

transformation!plan,!recipients!can!apply!for!an!Implementation!Grant!to!undertake!these!

activities!and!programs.!It!is!not!necessary!to!have!received!a!Planning!Grant!to!apply!for!an!

Implementation!Grant,!and!successfully!securing!a!Planning!Grant!does!not!automatically!qualify!

an!applicant!neighborhood!for!an!Implementation!Grant.!Tracking!the!rate!of!success!for!

Planning!Grant!recipients!that!apply!for!Implementation!Grants!may!provide!insights!into!the!

success!of!the!Planning!Grant!portion!of!the!Choice!Neighborhoods!Initiative.
73

7 References'

American!Sociological!Association!(ASA). 2010.!City!and!Community 9!(1).!New!York:!Wiley.

Castells,!Nina.!2010.!“HOPE!VI!Neighborhood!Spillover!Effects!in!Baltimore,”!Cityscape 12!(1):!65–98.

Donovan,!Shaun. 2009.!“Prepared!Remarks.”!Brookings!Institution!Metropolitan!Policy!Program!

Discussion,!July!14.!Washington,!DC:!U.S.!Department!of!Housing!and!Urban!Development.

Smith,!Robin!E.,!G.!Thomas!Kingsley,!Mary!K.!Cunningham,!Susan!J.!Popkin,!Kassie!Dumlao!Bertumen,!

Ingrid!Gould!Ellen,!Mark!Joseph,!and!Deborah!McKoy.!2010.!Monitoring!Success!in!Choice!

Neighborhoods:!A!Proposed!Approach!to!Performance!Measurement. Washington,!DC:!Urban!

Institute.!

U.S.!Census!Bureau.!2013.!“2010!Census!Tract!Relationship!Files.”!http://www.census.gov/geo/mapsd

data/data/tract_rel_layout.html.!

U.S.!Department!of!Housing!and!Urban!Development!(HUD).!2010.!Notice!of!Funding!Availability—

Choice!Neighborhood!Initiative!Planning!Grant.!Washington,!DC:!U.S.!Department!of Housing!

and!Urban!Development.

———.!2011.!Notice!of!Funding!Availability—Choice!Neighborhood!Initiative!Planning!Grant.!

Washington,!DC:!U.S.!Department!of!Housing!and!Urban!Development.!

———.!2012.!Notice!of!Funding!Availability—Choice!Neighborhood!Initiative!Planning!Grant.!

Washington,!DC:!U.S.!Department!of!Housing!and!Urban!Development.!

———.!2013.!“About!HOPE!VI.”!Available!at!

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/

ph/hope6/about (accessed!September).

U.S.!Department!of!Housing!and!Urban!Development,!Office!of!Policy!Development!and!Research!(HUD!

PD&R).!2011.!Evidence!Matters:!Transforming!Knowledge!Into!Housing!and!Community!

Development!Policy,!Winter!2011.!Washington,!DC:!U.S.!Department!of!Housing!and!Urban!

Development,!Office!of!Policy!Development!and!Research.

Urban!Institute.!2013.!Developing!Choice!Neighborhoods:!An!Early!Look!at!Implementation!in!Five!Sites.

Washington,!DC:!U.S.!Department!of!Housing!and!Urban!Development.

White!House.!2011.!Building!Neighborhoods!of!Opportunity.!White!House!Neighborhood Revitalization!

Initiatives!Report.!Washington,!DC:!White!House.

Zielenbach,!Sean,!and!Richard!Voith.!2010.!“HOPE!VI!and!Neighborhood!Economic!Development:!The!

Importance!of!Local!Market!Dynamics,”!Cityscape 12!(1):!99–131.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

June 2014