a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Housing and 

Transportation, Committee on Banking, 

Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate

November 2003 PUBLIC HOUSING

HOPE VI Resident 

Issues and Changes in 

Neighborhoods 

Surrounding Grant 

Sites

GAO-04-109
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-109.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact David G. Wood 

at (202) 512-8678 or woodd@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-109, a report to 

Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee 

on Housing and Transportation, 

Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate 

November 2003 

PUBLIC HOUSING 

HOPE VI Resident Issues and Changes in 

Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites 

The largest percentage of the approximately 49,000 residents that had been 

relocated from HOPE VI sites, as of June 30, 2003, were relocated to other 

public housing, and about half were expected to return to the revitalized 

sites. Although grantees, overall, expected 46 percent of relocated residents 

to return, the percentage of original residents that were expected to return 

(or the reoccupancy rate) varied greatly from site to site. 

The level of resident involvement in the HOPE VI process varied at the 1996 

sites. While all of the 1996 grantees held meetings to inform residents about 

revitalization plans and solicit their input, some took additional steps to 

involve residents. For example, in Tucson, the housing authority submitted 

the revitalization plan for the Connie Chambers site to the city council for 

approval only after the residents had voted to approve it. 

 

The neighborhoods in which 1996 HOPE VI sites are located generally have 

experienced improvements in indicators such as education, income, and 

housing, although GAO could not determine the extent to which the HOPE 

VI program contributed to these changes. In a comparison of four 1996 

HOPE VI neighborhoods to four comparable neighborhoods, mortgage 

lending activity increased to a greater extent in three of the HOPE VI 

neighborhoods. But, a comparison of other variables (such as education and 

new construction) produced inconsistent results, with HOPE VI 

neighborhoods experiencing both greater positive and negative changes than 

comparable neighborhoods. 

 

Planned and Actual Reoccupancy at HOPE VI Sites 

Source: GAO.

0

10

20

30

40

50

75 to

<100

50 to 100

<75

25 to

<50

0 to

<25

Number of HOPE VI sites

Percentage of original residents returning to revitalized site (reoccupancy rate)

23

17 40

6

26

9

21

4

3

3

39 sites where reoccupancy is complete (actual reoccupancy rate)

113 sites where reoccupancy is not yet complete (planned reoccupancy rate)

Note: This figure is based on GAO analysis of data from HUD’s HOPE VI reporting system (as of 

June 30, 2003). We excluded 10 of the 165 sites from our analysis because they did not involve 

relocation and an additional 3 sites because the reoccupancy data reported as of June 30, 2003 

was incorrect. 

Congress established the HOPE VI 

program in 1992 to revitalize 

severely distressed public housing 

by demolition, rehabilitation, or 

replacement of sites. In fiscal 

years 1993–2001, the Department of

Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD) awarded approximately $4.5 

billion for 165 HOPE VI 

revitalization grants to public 

housing authorities (grantees). 

GAO was asked to examine (1) the 

types of housing to which the 

original residents of HOPE VI sites 

were relocated and the number of 

original residents that grantees 

expect to return to the revitalized 

sites, (2) how the fiscal year 1996 

grantees have involved residents in 

the HOPE VI process, and (3) how 

the neighborhoods surrounding the 

20 sites that received HOPE VI 

grants in fiscal year 1996 have 

changed. 
Page i GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 6

Largest Percentage of Original Residents Were Relocated to Other 

Public Housing, and About Half Are Expected to Return to HOPE 

VI Sites 8

Resident Involvement in the HOPE VI Process Has Varied 16

Community and Supportive Services Yielded Some Positive 

Outcomes 19

Indicators for Education, Income, and Housing Have Generally 

Improved in 1996 HOPE VI Neighborhoods 23

Agency Comments 32

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 34

Appendix II: Technical Methodology 39

Data Sources 39

Data Reliability 40

Limitations of Analysis 40

Analytical Approach and Results 41

Appendix III: Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, and 

Summary Crime Data 44

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 52

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 53

GAO Contacts 53

Staff Acknowledgments 53

Tables Table 1: Number of Residents That Have Enrolled in and 

Completed Community and Supportive Services 

Programs 21

Table 2: Selected 1990 and 2000 Census Data on Education for Each 

1996 HOPE VI Neighborhood and Four Comparable 

Neighborhoods 44

Table 3: Selected 1990 and 2000 Census Data on Income, Poverty, 

and Unemployment for Each 1996 HOPE VI Neighborhood 

and Four Comparable Neighborhoods 46
Contents

Page ii GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Table 4: Selected 1990 and 2000 Census Data on Housing for Each 

1996 HOPE VI Neighborhood and Four Comparable 

Neighborhoods 47

Table 5: Loans Originated for Home Purchase for Each 1996 HOPE 

VI Neighborhood and Four Comparable Neighborhoods 49

Figures Figure 1: Initial Relocation of HOPE VI Residents 9

Figure 2: Planned and Actual Reoccupancy at HOPE VI Sites 11

Figure 3: Percentage of Public Housing Units Being Replaced at 

1996 HOPE VI Sites 13

Figure 4: Percentage of Revitalized Units That Are Public Housing 

Units at 165 HOPE VI Sites 15

Figure 5: Neighborhood Changes between 1990 and 2000 for 

Selected Cities 29

Figure 6: Summary of Crime Data at HOPE VI and Comparable 

Sites 51

Abbreviations

GED General Educational Development

HMDA Home Mortgage Disclosure Act

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

PHA public housing authority

NOFA notice of funding availability

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

November 21, 2003 Letr

The Honorable Jack Reed

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Housing

and Transportation

Committee on Banking, Housing,

and Urban Affairs

United States Senate

Dear Senator Reed:

The public housing program began in the late 1930s and 1940s as a means 

to provide temporary housing for the working poor. By the 1960s and 1970s, 

public housing had become the housing of last resort. Over time, some of 

the nation’s public housing became old and deteriorated, leaving residents 

to live in unsafe and unsanitary conditions. In 1989, Congress formed the 

National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing (the 

Commission) and tasked it with proposing a national action plan to 

eradicate severely distressed public housing by the year 2000. In 1992, the 

Commission reported that approximately 86,000, or 6 percent, of the 

nation’s public housing units were severely distressed—characterized by 

physical deterioration and uninhabitable living conditions; high levels of 

poverty; inadequate and fragmented services; institutional abandonment; 

and location in neighborhoods often as blighted as the sites themselves. 

Therefore, the Commission recommended increased funding for support 

services to residents of severely distressed public housing, resident 

participation in revitalization efforts, and revitalization consistent with any 

occurring in surrounding neighborhoods.

In response to the Commission’s report, Congress, in October 1992, 

established the Urban Revitalization Demonstration Program, commonly 

known as HOPE VI, which is administered by the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD). By providing funds for a combination of 

capital improvements and supportive services, such as child care and job 

training, HOPE VI seeks to fulfill its legislative goals of (1) improving the 

living environment for public housing residents of severely distressed 

public housing through the demolition, rehabilitation, reconfiguration, or 

replacement of obsolete public housing; (2) revitalizing sites on which such 

public housing is located and contributing to the improvement of the 

surrounding neighborhood; (3) providing housing that will avoid or 

decrease the concentration of very low-income families; and (4) building 
Page 2 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

sustainable communities. In fiscal years 1993-2001, HUD awarded 

approximately $4.5 billion in HOPE VI revitalization grants to 98 public 

housing authorities (grantees) for 165 sites.1

You requested that we comprehensively review the HOPE VI program. 

Because of the scope of the request, we agreed with your office to provide 

the information in a series of reports. The first report, issued in November 

2002, discussed the financing of HOPE VI sites.2 The second report, issued 

in May 2003, described HUD’s management of the HOPE VI program.3 This 

third and final report focuses on the effect that the HOPE VI program has 

had on residents and the neighborhoods surrounding HOPE VI sites. 

Specifically, as agreed with your office, this report examines (1) the types 

of housing to which the original residents of HOPE VI sites were relocated 

and the number of original residents that grantees expect to return to the 

revitalized sites, (2) how the fiscal year 1996 grantees have involved 

residents in the HOPE VI process, (3) the types of community and 

supportive services that have been provided to residents and the results 

achieved, and (4) how the neighborhoods surrounding the sites that 

received HOPE VI grants in fiscal year 1996 have changed.4

1

HUD did not award the 28 fiscal year 2002 revitalization grants until March 2003; therefore, 

they are not covered in this report. HUD also has awarded about $15 million in HOPE VI 

planning grants and approximately $336 million in HOPE VI demolition grants, but they are 

not the focus of this report.

2

U.S. General Accounting Office, Public Housing: HOPE VI Leveraging Has Increased, but 

HUD Has Not Met Annual Reporting Requirement, GAO-03-91 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 

2002).

3

U.S. General Accounting Office, Public Housing: HUD’s Oversight of HOPE VI Sites Needs 

to Be More Consistent, GAO-03-555 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2003).

4

The 1996 grantees and sites are as follows: Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta (Heman 

E. Perry Homes); Housing Authority of Baltimore City (Hollander Ridge); Charlotte Housing 

Authority (Dalton Village); Chester Housing Authority (Lamokin Village); Chicago Housing 

Authority (Henry Horner Homes, ABLA Homes—Brooks Extension, and Robert Taylor 

Homes B); Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority (Riverview and Lakeview Terraces); 

Detroit Housing Commission (Herman Gardens); Holyoke Housing Authority (Jackson 

Parkway); Jacksonville Housing Authority (Durkeeville); Housing Authority of Kansas City, 

Missouri (Theron B. Watkins Homes); Housing Authority of Louisville (Cotter and Lang 

Homes); Housing Authority of New Orleans (St. Thomas); New York City Housing Authority 

(Arverne and Edgemere Houses); Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh (Bedford 

Additions); San Francisco Housing Authority (North Beach); Spartanburg Housing 

Authority (Tobe Hartwell Courts and Tobe Hartwell Extension); Tucson Community 

Services Department (Connie Chambers); and Wilmington, North Carolina Housing 

Authority (Robert S. Jervay Place). 
Page 3 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

To address these objectives, we first obtained and analyzed information 

from HUD’s HOPE VI reporting system on the 165 revitalization grants 

awarded through fiscal year 2001, including relocation, reoccupancy (the 

movement of some original residents to completed units), and community 

and supportive services data. Second, we visited the 18 housing authorities 

that were awarded revitalization grants in fiscal year 1996 and interviewed 

resident representatives at 19 of the 20 sites.5

 We selected the 1996 grants 

because they were the first awarded after HUD issued a rule allowing 

revitalization to be funded with a combination of public and private funds, 

which has become the HOPE VI model. Third, to determine how 

neighborhoods have changed, we analyzed Census and Home Mortgage 

Disclosure Act (HMDA) data and reviewed crime data summaries.6

 Finally, 

we interviewed the HUD headquarters officials responsible for 

administering the program. We assessed the reliability of the HUD, Census, 

HMDA, and summary crime data we used by reviewing information about 

how the data were collected and performing electronic testing to detect 

obvious errors in completeness and reasonableness. We determined that 

the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

We performed our work in Washington, D.C. and other U.S. cities from 

November 2001 to October 2003 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Appendixes I and II provide additional 

details on our scope and methodology.

Results in Brief The largest percentage of residents at sites that received HOPE VI grants 

were relocated to other public housing, and grantees expect that about half 

of the original residents will return to the revitalized sites. According to 

HUD data, approximately 50 percent of the almost 49,000 residents that had 

been relocated as of June 30, 2003, were relocated to other public housing; 

about 31 percent used vouchers to rent housing in the private market; 

approximately 6 percent were evicted; and about 14 percent moved 

5

At 16 sites, we interviewed resident leaders. At three sites, we could not interview resident 

leaders because there was no resident council. Instead, we interviewed individuals that the 

housing authority identified as residents of the original site. At the remaining site, despite 

repeated attempts, we were not able to interview the resident leader.

6

HMDA requires certain financial institutions, including banks, savings associations, credit 

unions, and other mortgage lending institutions, to submit loan data to the Federal Financial 

Institutions Examination Council. Data collected includes the number of mortgage loans 

originated by census tract.
Page 4 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

without giving notice or vacated for other reasons.7 Because HUD did not 

require grantees to report the location of original residents until 2000, 

grantees have lost track of some original residents. Although grantees, 

overall, expect 46 percent of all the residents that occupied the original 

sites to return to the revitalized sites, the percentage varies greatly from 

site to site. For example, the planned or actual reoccupancy rate is less 

than 25 percent at 40 sites and 75 percent or greater at 31 sites. 

Additionally, the percentage of residents expected to return has decreased 

over time. As of September 30, 1999 (the earliest date for which we could 

obtain data), fiscal year 1993–1998 grantees estimated that 61 percent of 

the original residents would return to the revitalized sites. By June 30, 2003, 

the same grantees estimated that 44 percent of the original residents would 

return. A variety of factors may affect the expected return rates, such as the 

numbers and types of units to be built at the revitalized site and the criteria 

used to select the occupants of the new public housing units. 

The extent to which the 1996 grantees involved residents in the HOPE VI 

process varied. All of the 1996 grantees held meetings to inform residents 

about revitalization plans and solicit their input. However, some of them 

took additional steps to involve residents in the HOPE VI process. For 

example, in Tucson, the housing authority waited until the residents had 

voted their approval before submitting the revitalization plan for the 

Connie Chambers site to the city council. In other cases, litigation or the 

threat of litigation ensured resident involvement. For instance, under a 

settlement agreement, the Chicago Housing Authority’s decisions regarding 

the revitalization of Henry Horner Homes are subject to the approval of the 

Horner Resident Committee.

Grantees overall have provided a variety of community and supportive 

services to residents under the HOPE VI program; limited HUD data and 

information collected during our site visits suggest that the services have 

yielded at least some positive outcomes. Services provided include case 

management (in which case managers assess the needs of each family and 

make referrals to appropriate service providers) and direct services such as 

computer and job training. According to HUD data on the 165 sites 

awarded grants through fiscal year 2001, about 55 percent of the residents 

that had enrolled in job skills training programs since the inception of 

HOPE VI had completed the programs as of June 30, 2003, and over 1,000 

residents obtained jobs in the second quarter of 2003. Also, 22 percent of 

7

Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.
Page 5 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

the community and supportive services caseload, which consisted of about 

53,000 residents, was employed as of June 30, 2003. However, we cannot 

determine the extent to which the employment was a result of these 

services. 

According to our analysis of census, HMDA, and crime data, the 

neighborhoods in which 1996 HOPE VI sites are located have generally 

experienced improvements in indicators such as education, income, and 

housing, although we cannot determine the extent to which HOPE VI 

contributed to these changes. For example, in 18 of these 20 

neighborhoods, the percentage of the population with a high school 

diploma increased, in 13 neighborhoods average housing values increased, 

and in 14 neighborhoods the poverty rate decreased between 1990 and 

2000. To better isolate the effects of the HOPE VI program, we compared 

each of four neighborhoods in which HOPE VI sites are located with a local 

neighborhood in which a comparable public housing site is located. The 

HOPE VI neighborhoods showed greater improvements in some indicators, 

but not all. For example, mortgage lending activity increased in three of the 

four HOPE VI neighborhoods to a greater extent than in the comparable 

neighborhoods. In contrast, new housing construction increased to a 

greater extent in two of the four HOPE VI neighborhoods than in the 

comparable neighborhoods, but it decreased in one of the HOPE VI 

neighborhoods between 1990 and 2000 to a greater extent than in the 

comparable neighborhood. The HOPE VI program may also influence 

changes in neighborhood indicators by demolishing old public housing 

alone. For example, in the six HOPE VI neighborhoods where the original 

public housing units have been demolished, but no on-site units have been 

completed, educational attainment and income levels increased. Several 

studies conducted by universities and private institutions also showed that 

the neighborhoods in which HOPE VI sites are located have experienced 

improvements in key indicators.

We provided a draft of this report for HUD’s review. HUD stated that it 

regards our study as an important tool in its continuing efforts to improve 

the HOPE VI program.
Page 6 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Background HUD’s requirements for HOPE VI revitalization grants are laid out in each 

fiscal year’s notice of funding availability (NOFA) and grant agreement.8

NOFAs announce the availability of funds and set forth application 

requirements and the selection process. Grant agreements are executed 

between each grantee and HUD and specify the activities, key deadlines, 

and documentation that grantees must meet or complete. Both NOFAs and 

grant agreements also contain guidance on resident involvement in the 

HOPE VI process. For example, the fiscal year 2002 NOFA stated that 

residents and the broader community should be involved in the planning, 

proposed implementation, and management of revitalization plans. In 

additional guidance on resident involvement, HUD encourages grantees to 

communicate, consult, and collaborate with affected residents and the 

broader community through resident councils, consultative groups, 

newsletters, and resident surveys. HUD’s guidance states that residents 

should be included in all phases of HOPE VI development, but also states 

that grantees have the final decision-making authority.

The majority of HOPE VI grants involve the relocation of residents from a 

public housing site prior to demolition or rehabilitation. Grantees must 

conduct the relocation process in accordance with laws such as the 

Uniform Relocation Act and HUD guidance.9

 Before the relocation process 

can begin, the grantee must develop a HOPE VI relocation plan that 

includes the number of families to be relocated, a description of the 

counseling and advisory services to be offered to families, a description of 

housing resources that will be used to relocate families, an estimate of 

relocation costs, and an example of the notice the grantee will provide to 

residents concerning relocation. Residents are generally given three basic 

relocation options: (1) using a housing choice voucher (formerly Section 8) 

8

The HOPE VI program’s authorization is found at 42 U.S.C. 1437v. HUD had planned to 

develop regulations for the HOPE VI program but, as of March 2002, had withdrawn its plans 

to do so.

9

The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 

(URA) was enacted to protect the rights of tenants, homeowners, and nonresidential tenants 

and owners who are displaced as a result of federally funded projects for rehabilitation, 

acquisition, or demolition of real property. The URA requires that displaced tenants be 

provided with assistance and services to help them in reestablishing themselves in a 

comparable residential situation.
Page 7 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

to move into the private market, (2) moving to a different public housing 

site, or (3) leaving federally assisted housing.10

Revitalized HOPE VI sites often contain fewer public housing units and 

have more stringent screening criteria. HUD guidance states that grantees 

must collaborate with residents and other stakeholders to establish criteria 

that residents must meet in order to return to the site. Residents are not 

guaranteed that they will automatically return to the site. Typically, 

grantees offer original residents who remain in good standing the first 

priority right to return to the revitalized site.

Grantees must offer community and supportive services—such as child 

care, transportation, job training, job placement and retention services, and 

parenting classes—to all original residents, regardless of their intention to 

return to the revitalized site. HUD guidance states that services for original 

residents should begin as soon as possible following the grant award and 

help residents make progress toward self-sufficiency. Additionally, HUD 

guidance suggests that grantees offer residents community and supportive 

services that are specifically designed to help them meet the criteria for 

their return to the revitalized site. New households that move to the 

revitalized site also are eligible to receive services. HUD guidance 

emphasizes that HOPE VI grantees should use case managers to assess the 

needs and circumstances of residents and then make appropriate referrals 

to a range of service providers. Grantees must submit to HUD a community 

and supportive services plan that contains a description of the supportive 

services that will be provided to residents, proposed steps and schedules 

for establishing arrangements with service providers, plans for actively 

involving residents in planning and implementing supportive services, and 

a system for monitoring and tracking the performance of the supportive 

services programs, as well as resident progress.

10The housing choice voucher program is the federal government’s main program for 

assisting very low-income families in renting housing in the private market. Housing 

assistance is provided on behalf of the family or individual, and participants find their own 

housing using the voucher. Vouchers are administered locally by public housing authorities, 

which receive federal funds from HUD to administer the program.
Page 8 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Largest Percentage of 

Original Residents 

Were Relocated to 

Other Public Housing, 

and About Half Are 

Expected to Return to 

HOPE VI Sites

According to HUD data, the largest percentage of residents living at HOPE 

VI sites were relocated to other public housing. Because HUD has not 

always required grantees to track original residents during the 

development process, housing authorities lost track of some original 

residents. Overall, grantees estimated that 46 percent of the original 

residents would return to the revitalized sites. However, the percentage of 

original residents expected to return varied greatly from site to site. Several 

factors may affect planned and actual reoccupancy rates, including the 

planned mix of units and the criteria used to screen the occupants of the 

new units.

Half of Original Residents 

Relocated to Other Public 

Housing

As shown in figure 1, a majority of the almost 49,000 residents that had 

been relocated from HOPE VI sites, as of June 30, 2003, moved to other 

public housing (about 50 percent) or received vouchers (about 31 percent). 

Additionally, approximately 6 percent were evicted, and about 14 percent 

were classified as “other,” which includes either residents who moved 

without giving notice or who moved out of public housing. Grantees lost 

track of some original residents for a number of reasons. HUD did not 

emphasize the need to track original residents until 1998 and did not 

require grantees to report the location of residents until 2000. Also, four of 

the 1996 grantees we interviewed stated that it was difficult to track 

residents who had left federally-assisted housing (i.e., were no longer in 

public housing or using a voucher.)
Page 9 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Figure 1: Initial Relocation of HOPE VI Residents

Note: This figure is based on GAO analysis of data from HUD’s HOPE VI reporting system (as of June 

30, 2003). Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.

In a June 2002 report to Congress, HUD acknowledged that efforts to track 

original residents during the development process had been uneven and 

stated that the agency and grantees were working to improve resident 

tracking.11 All but one of the 1996 grantees developed some means of 

tracking original residents, although three stated that they only tracked a 

subset of original residents, such as those still in public housing or using a 

voucher.12 The Housing Authority of Louisville created a database to track 

residents and used it to determine the status of the 1,304 families that 

resided at Cotter and Lang Homes prior to relocation. The housing 

authority concluded that 65 percent had been relocated to other public 

housing or given vouchers, and 33 percent had vacated Cotter or Lang prior 

11U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HOPE VI: Best Practices and 

Lessons Learned 1992-2002 (Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2002).

12The residents at one site had not yet been relocated as of June 30, 2003; therefore, there 

was no need for the housing authority to track them. 

6%

14%

31%

50%

Other

Evicted

Received vouchers

To other public housing

Source: GAO.
Page 10 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

to being relocated.13 It could not determine if the remaining 2 percent had 

been relocated or vacated prior to relocation. In addition, two 1996 

grantees took steps to locate original residents with whom they had lost 

contact. The Chicago Housing Authority hired a consultant to help it find 

relocated residents. To track down those original residents that did not 

remain in public housing or take a voucher, the Spartanburg Housing 

Authority posted public notices stating that the authority was trying to 

track down original residents and held meetings to get their addresses.

Various Factors May Affect 

the Return Rate for Original 

Residents 

Overall, grantees estimated that 46 percent of all the original residents of 

HOPE VI sites would return to the revitalized sites. However, as shown in 

figure 2, the percentage of original residents that were expected to return 

varied greatly from site to site. For example, at the 113 sites where 

reoccupancy was not yet complete, the planned reoccupancy rate was less 

than 25 percent at 23 sites; in contrast, the planned rate was 75 percent or 

greater at 24 sites. At the 39 sites where reoccupancy was complete, the 

actual reoccupancy rate was less than 25 percent at 17 sites and 75 percent 

or greater at 7 sites. Also, the percentage of residents that were expected to 

return decreased over time. As of September 30, 1999 (the earliest date for 

which we could obtain data), fiscal year 1993–1998 grantees estimated that 

61 percent of the original residents would return to the revitalized sites. By 

June 30, 2003, the same grantees estimated that 44 percent of the original 

residents would return.

13The 33 percent that vacated prior to being relocated included families that were evicted for 

nonpayment of rent or drug involvement, families that moved without notice, and families 

that left the city.
Page 11 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Figure 2: Planned and Actual Reoccupancy at HOPE VI Sites

Note: This figure is based on GAO analysis of data from HUD’s HOPE VI reporting system (as of June 

30, 2003). We excluded 10 sites from our analysis because they did not involve relocation. For 

example, at several sites, relocation was completed prior to the grant award and was not reported as 

part of the development process. We excluded an additional 3 sites because the reoccupancy data 

reported as of June 30, 2003 was incorrect. 

Several factors may affect planned and actual reoccupancy rates, including 

the mix of units. To reduce the concentration of poverty at HOPE VI sites, 

HUD recommends a mix of public housing, affordable housing (lowincome housing tax credit or other subsidized housing), and market-rate 

housing.14 As a result, grantees, as of June 30, 2003, had demolished or 

planned to demolish 76,393 public housing units and rebuild or renovate 

14Low-income housing tax credits provide tax incentives for private investment in the 

development and rehabilitation of housing for low-income households. Under this program, 

states are authorized to allocate federal tax credits as an incentive to the private sector to 

develop rental housing for low-income households. 

Source: GAO.

0

10

20

30

40

50

75 to

<100

50 to 100

<75

25 to

<50

0 to

<25

Number of HOPE VI sites

Percentage of original residents returning to revitalized site (reoccupancy rate)

23

17 40

6

26

9

21

4

3

3

39 sites where reoccupancy is complete (actual reoccupancy rate)

113 sites where reoccupancy is not yet complete (planned reoccupancy rate)
Page 12 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

44,781 replacement public housing units.15 At the 1996 sites, the percentage 

of public housing units being replaced ranged from 10 percent to 102 

percent (see fig. 3). Resident and low-income housing advocates have 

criticized the HOPE VI program for reducing the number of public housing 

units. However, HUD, in its June 2002 report to Congress, pointed to the 

number of affordable units and vouchers that the program would provide. 

HUD also noted that over 20,000 of the units to be demolished were longstanding vacancies when the housing authorities applied for a HOPE VI 

grant, and that a majority of the vacant units were uninhabitable. 

15As of June 30, 2003, grantees had completed the demolition of 60,580 public housing units 

and the construction of 19,070 replacement public housing units.
Page 13 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Figure 3: Percentage of Public Housing Units Being Replaced at 1996 HOPE VI Sites

ABLA Homes–

Brooks Extension

Arverne/Edgemere Houses

Bedford Additions

Connie Chambers

Cotter/Lang Homes

Dalton Village

Durkeeville

Heman E. Perry Homes

Henry Horner Homes

Herman Gardens

Jackson Parkway

Lamokin Village

North Beach

Riverview/Lakeview Terraces

Robert S. Jervay Place

Robert Taylor Homes B

St. Thomas

Theron B. Watkins Homes

Tobe Hartwell Courts/Extension

HOPE VI site % of public housing units being replaced Number of original public housing units being replaced

99% 1,803 1,813

48% 220 460

100% 200 200

45% 500 1,116

60% 180 300

98% 275 280

21% 228 1,072

23% 271 1,197

16% 258 1,573

65% 142 219

43% 150 350

100% 229 229

102% 335 329

28% 71 250

10% 251 2,400

12% 182 1,510

100% 173 173

52% 666 1,287

48% 128 266

Source: GAO.

Replacement public housing units
Page 14 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Note: This figure is based on GAO analysis of data from HUD’s HOPE VI reporting system (as of June 

30, 2003) and data collected during our site visits. We excluded the Hollander Ridge site from our 

analysis because the HOPE VI funds were transferred to another public housing site.

As shown in figure 4, the percentage of revitalized units that are public 

housing units varied from site to site. Among the 143 sites where 

construction was not yet complete, as of June 30, 2003, public housing 

units constituted less than 50 percent of total units at 69 sites. At all but 

three of the 22 sites where construction was complete, 50 percent or more 

of the units were public housing units.16 Additionally, the number of 

planned public housing units decreased over time. As of September 30, 

1999 (the earliest date for which we could obtain data), fiscal year 1993–

1998 grantees estimated that they would construct 34,199 public housing 

units. By June 30, 2003, the same grantees estimated that they would 

construct 30,772 public housing units—about a 10-percent decrease. (This 

decrease in the number of planned public housing units may help explain 

why the percentage of residents that the grantees expected to return 

decreased over time, as discussed previously in this report.) 

16HUD did not start encouraging mixed-income development until 1995; therefore, some of 

the earlier grant sites were all public housing.
Page 15 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Figure 4: Percentage of Revitalized Units That Are Public Housing Units at 165 

HOPE VI Sites 

Note: This figure is based on GAO analysis of data from HUD’s HOPE VI reporting system (as of June 

30, 2003). 

Another factor that may affect reoccupancy is the screening criteria that 

original residents must meet to return to the revitalized sites. HUD allows 

grantees to determine the screening criteria for each site. Consequently, the 

screening criteria varied at the 1996 sites we visited. For example, the 

Charlotte Housing Authority required returning Dalton Village residents to 

Source: GAO.

75 to

<100

50 to 100

<75

25 to

<50

0 to

<25

Number of HOPE VI sites

Percentage of revitalized units that are public housing units

22 sites where construction is complete

143 sites where construction is not yet complete

10

1

59

43

5

19

5

12

9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2
Page 16 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

participate in the family self-sufficiency program.17 Residents that do not 

successfully complete the program within 5 years and are not in violation 

of their lease will be transferred to another public housing site. In addition 

to participation in the family self-sufficiency program, the Spartanburg 

Housing Authority required returning Tobe Hartwell residents to agree to 

random drug testing. In contrast, there were no special criteria at some 

sites. In Tucson, there were no new screening criteria for the original 

residents of the Connie Chambers site. Under a settlement agreement, all of 

the residents of Henry Horner Homes in Chicago, Illinois, were eligible to 

return. 

Other factors that may affect reoccupancy include resident preferences 

and the time between relocation and completion of construction of the new 

units. According to three of the 1996 grantees, some relocated residents did 

not want to return to the revitalized sites because they preferred a voucher 

or were satisfied at their new location. Another 1996 grantee observed that, 

because of the length of time between relocation and construction, some 

residents did not want to move again. For the 1996 grantees, the average 

time between the completion of relocation and the projected or actual 

completion of construction was 86 months (times ranged from 26 months 

to 129 months).18

Resident Involvement 

in the HOPE VI Process 

Has Varied

The extent to which grantees involved residents in the HOPE VI process 

has varied at the 1996 sites. HUD has provided guidance on resident 

involvement in its NOFAs and grant agreements and on its Web site. The 

1996 grantees have taken a variety of steps to involve residents in the 

HOPE VI process, ranging from holding informational meetings and 

soliciting input to involving residents in major decisions.

17When a family volunteers to participate in the family self-sufficiency program, the housing 

authority and the head of the family execute a contract of participation that specifies the 

rights and responsibilities of both parties. The 5-year contract specifies goals and services 

for each family. The housing authority establishes an interest-bearing escrow account for 

each participating family and credits the account, based on increases in earned income of 

the family, during the term of the contract. If the family completes the contract and no 

member of the family is receiving welfare, the amount of the account is paid to the head of 

the family.

18We excluded 6 of the 20 1996 sites from our analysis. At 4 sites, construction was begun 

prior to the completion of relocation. At 1 site, relocation has been postponed until after the 

completion of off-site construction. At the remaining site, no construction was planned 

because the funds were transferred to another site.
Page 17 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

HUD Has Provided General 

Guidance on Resident 

Involvement

HUD’s guidance on resident involvement in the HOPE VI process consists 

of annual NOFAs and grant agreements, as well as information located on 

its Web site. For example, the fiscal year 2002 NOFA stated that residents 

should be involved in the planning, proposed implementation, and 

management of revitalization plans. The NOFA required that, prior to 

applying for a HOPE VI revitalization grant, housing authorities conduct at 

least one training session for residents on the HOPE VI development 

process and at least three public meetings with residents and the broader 

community to involve them in developing revitalization plans and preparing 

the application. The fiscal year 2002 grant agreement (between HUD and 

the winning applicants) stated that grantees were required to foster the 

involvement of, and gather input and recommendations from, affected 

residents throughout the entire development process. Specifically, grantees 

were responsible for, among other things, holding regular meetings to 

provide the status of revitalization efforts, providing substantial 

opportunities for affected residents to provide input, and providing 

reasonable resources to prepare affected residents for meaningful 

participation in planning and implementation.

HUD’s published guidance on resident involvement provides general 

guidelines that grantees must meet. For example, it states that full resident 

involvement is a crucial element of the HOPE VI program. HUD requires 

grantees to give all affected residents reasonable notice of meetings about 

HOPE VI planning and implementation and provide them with 

opportunities to give input. The guidance states that, at a minimum, 

grantees are required to involve residents throughout the entire HOPE VI 

planning, development, and implementation process and to provide 

information and training so that residents may participate fully and 

meaningfully throughout the entire development process. Although 

grantees are required to solicit and consider input from residents, the 

guidance makes it clear that the grantees have final decision-making 

authority.

Resident Participation Has 

Varied at 1996 Sites

The amount and type of resident participation varied at the 1996 sites. All 

of the 1996 grantees held meetings to inform residents about revitalization 

plans and solicit their input. For example, residents of Dalton Village in 

Charlotte and Bedford Additions in Pittsburgh were asked to provide input 

on the design plans for the new sites. As the following examples illustrate, 

some of the grantees we visited took additional steps to seek a greater level 

of resident involvement in the HOPE VI process: 
Page 18 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

• In Tucson, the housing authority first asked residents to vote on the 

revitalization plan for the Connie Chambers site. Only after the residents 

expressed their support for the plan did the mayor and city council vote 

to submit the plan to HUD.

• The Chicago Housing Authority formed working groups at each of its 

HOPE VI sites to solicit input on plans and the selection of developers. 

These groups include representatives from the resident council, the 

housing authority, and city agencies. 

• The Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority’s plans for its 

Riverview/Lakeview grant involved acquiring 54 off-site public housing 

units and, in many cases, the residents to be relocated selected the 

single-family homes that the housing authority then purchased for them. 

• The Jacksonville and Chester Housing Authorities worked with 

residents to develop screening criteria used to select the occupants of 

the new development.

• The Holyoke Housing Authority asked residents to be part of its HOPE 

VI Implementation Team and the mayor’s HOPE VI Advisory Task Force.

At one site we visited, the resident leader stated that residents were not 

adequately involved early in the HOPE VI process. Not until the residents at 

Robert Jervay Place in Wilmington, North Carolina, sent a letter to HUD 

describing the lack of progress at the site did the housing authority start 

moving forward with the project and involving residents in design 

meetings. 

In some cases, litigation or the threat of litigation has led to increased 

resident involvement. Due to a settlement agreement, any decisions 

regarding the revitalization of Henry Horner Homes in Chicago are subject 

to the approval of the Horner Resident Committee. According to the 

president of the St. Thomas resident council, the Housing Authority of New 

Orleans agreed to provide an additional 100 off-site public housing eligible 

rental units and change the screening criteria so that most of the original 

residents would be able to return in response to petitions filed by the 

attorney for St. Thomas residents with HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and 

Equal Opportunity.
Page 19 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Community and 

Supportive Services 

Yielded Some Positive 

Outcomes

Grantees have provided a variety of community and supportive services, 

including case management and direct services such as job training 

programs. HUD data and information obtained during our site visits 

suggest that the supportive services yielded at least some positive 

outcomes. However, the data are limited and do not capture outcomes for 

all programs or reflect all services provided. Also, we could not determine 

the extent to which the HOPE VI program was responsible for these 

outcomes. 

Grantees Have Provided a 

Variety of Community and 

Supportive Services to 

Residents

Grantees are using HOPE VI and other funds to provide a variety of 

community and supportive services, including case management and direct 

services such as job training programs. In our November 2002 report on 

HOPE VI financing, we reported that the housing authorities that had been 

awarded grants in fiscal years 1993–2001 had budgeted a total of about $714 

million for community and supportive services.19 In addition to their HOPE 

VI funds, grantees are encouraged to obtain in-kind, financial, and other 

types of resources necessary to carry out and sustain supportive service 

activities from organizations such as local boards of education, public 

libraries, private foundations, nonprofit organizations, faith-based 

organizations, and economic development agencies. Of the $714 million 

budgeted for community and supportive services, $418 million were HOPE 

VI funds (59 percent), and $295 million (41 percent) were leveraged funds.20

Although the majority of funds budgeted overall for supportive services 

were HOPE VI funds, we noted that the amount of non-HOPE VI funds 

budgeted for supportive services had increased since the program’s 

inception.

In recent years, HUD has stressed the importance of grantees using 

community and supportive services funding to provide case management 

services to residents. In fact, all of the 1996 grantees have used the case 

management approach. For example, the Housing Authority of New 

Orleans hired a social service provider located near the St. Thomas site to 

perform assessments and provide case management plans for residents. 

The Holyoke Housing Authority has three case managers, who help 

residents of its 1996 grant site find employment, acquire General 

19GAO-03-91.

20Numbers do not add because of rounding.
Page 20 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Educational Development (GED) certificates, take English as a Second 

Language courses, and receive homeownership counseling. The Chester 

Housing Authority established a “one-stop shop” at a local hospital, which 

serves as the coordinating point for all programs and partners servicing the 

authority’s residents.

Grantees have also used funds set aside for community and supportive 

services to construct facilities where services are provided by other 

entities. For example, the Charlotte Housing Authority spent $1.5 million in 

HOPE VI funds to construct an 11,000-square-foot community and 

recreational center consisting of a gymnasium, four classrooms, and a 

computer lab near its 1996 grant site. In exchange, the residents annually 

will receive $60,000 in services from the center, which is run by the 

Mecklenburg County Parks and Recreation Department. The Tucson 

Community Services Department, which serves as Tucson’s public housing 

authority, used some of its 1996 HOPE VI funds to fund the construction of 

a child development center and learning center. Two day care programs—

one operated by Head Start and the other by a local nonprofit 

organization—are operating in the child development center, and a 

computer library run by the Tucson-Pima Public Library is operating in the 

learning center. The Spartanburg Housing Authority used a portion of its 

HOPE VI funds to build a community center containing a computer center, 

health clinic, and gymnasium. The Spartanburg Technical College provides 

adult and student computer training, and the University of South Carolina 

Spartanburg School of Nursing performs health assessments and tracking 

at the center.

Grantees also provided direct services such as computer and job training. 

For instance, the New York City Housing Authority instituted a computer 

incentive program that provides a personal computer system to Arverne 

and Edgemere residents who either work 96 hours volunteering on HOPE 

VI recruiting and other HOPE VI activities or who participate in a HOPE VI 

training program. HOPE VI residents enrolled in the San Francisco Housing 

Authority’s family self-sufficiency program can receive up to $1,200 per 

household to participate in training for various trades. The Detroit Housing 

Commission formed a number of partnerships to provide training in retail 

sales, computers, manufacturing, and child care to Herman Gardens 

residents. For example, 18 different unions formed a partnership that offers 

a preapprenticeship program.
Page 21 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Limited Data Show That 

HOPE VI Services Have 

Helped Achieve Positive 

Outcomes

Limited HUD data on all 165 grants awarded through fiscal year 2001 and 

information collected during our visits to the 1996 sites indicated that 

HOPE VI community and supportive services have achieved or contributed 

to positive outcomes. We recommended in July 1998 that HUD develop 

consistent national, outcome-based measures for community and support 

services at HOPE VI sites.21 Since June 2000, HUD has used its HOPE VI 

reporting system to collect data from grantees on the major types of 

community and supportive services they provide and the outcomes 

achieved by some of these services. HUD collects data on services 

provided to both original and new residents. According to the data, as of 

June 30, 2003, for the 165 sites awarded grants through fiscal year 2001, 

about 45,000 of the approximately 70,000 original residents potentially 

eligible for community and supportive services made up the grantees’ 

caseload. The remaining original residents were not part of the caseload 

because, among other things, they declined or no longer needed services, 

or the grantee could not locate them. Additionally, about 8,000 new 

residents were included in the grantees’ caseload, bringing the total to 

approximately 53,000.

As shown in table 1, the community and supportive services programs in 

which the most residents enrolled, as of June 30, 2003, were employment 

and counseling programs. HUD also collects data on the number of 

residents that have completed certain of these programs. For example, 

about 55 percent of the residents that enrolled in job skills training 

programs, as of June 30, 2003, completed the program. About 35 percent of 

the residents that signed up for high school or equivalent education classes 

completed them.

Table 1: Number of Residents That Have Enrolled in and Completed Community and 

Supportive Services Programs

21U. S. General Accounting Office, HOPE VI: Progress and Problems in Revitalizing 

Distressed Public Housing, GAO/RCED-98-187 (Washington, D.C.: July 20, 1998).

Community and supportive services

Number of 

residents enrolled

Number of 

completions

Employment preparation/placement/retention 25,831 N/A

Counseling programs 23,458 N/A

Transportation assistance 18,202 N/A
Page 22 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Source: HUD.

Note: This table is based on data from HUD’s HOPE VI reporting system (as of June 30, 2003).

HUD also collects data on selected outcomes such as employment and 

homeownership, although the outcomes cannot always be attributed to 

participation in or completion of HOPE VI programs or services. Other 

factors such as welfare-to-work requirements may have contributed to 

these outcomes. The data collected, as of the quarter ending June 30, 2003, 

showed that over 1,000 residents obtained jobs in that quarter. Overall, 22 

percent of the grantees’ caseload was employed, and 16 percent had been 

employed 6 months or more. In addition, 344 resident-owned businesses 

had been started, as of June 30, 2003, and 967 residents had purchased a 

home.

HUD has made modifications to the community and supportive services 

data that it collects and worked with grantees to help them better 

understand their reporting responsibilities. Seven of the 1996 grantees 

stated that they were not always certain about what to report, and 11 stated 

that the system did not reflect some of the services, such as those for youth 

and seniors, that they provided. To improve reporting, HUD hired the 

Urban Institute to help identify reporting problems and make refinements 

to the system. Also, HUD staff and one of two outside technical assistance 

providers review the data provided each quarter for consistency. As a 

result, the data are more reliable now than they were initially, according to 

the HOPE VI official that oversees community and supportive services. The 

same official stated that, while HUD encourages grantees to provide 

services to youth and seniors, it does not collect data on these services in 

order to limit the reporting burden on grantees.

Limited data collected during our site visits also suggest that community 

and supportive services have helped achieve some positive outcomes. For 

example, the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh offered in-home 

Job skills training programs 11,860 6,477

Child care 9,274 N/A

High school or equivalent education 7,136 2,530

Homeownership counseling 4,901 2,093

Substance abuse programs 2,108 N/A

Entrepreneurship training 1,634 789

English as a Second Language course 1,089 N/A

(Continued From Previous Page)

Community and supportive services

Number of 

residents enrolled

Number of 

completions
Page 23 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

health worker training courses, in which 49 Bedford Additions residents 

have participated since October 2000. Thirty-one of the 49 participants 

obtained employment, and 12 were still employed, as of September 2003. In 

Louisville, 114 former Cotter and Lang residents had enrolled in 

homeownership counseling, as of June 2003, 41 had completed the 

counseling, and 34 had purchased a home. Between January and June 2003, 

76 St. Thomas residents in New Orleans got a job, 12 residents got a GED, 

and 5 residents became homeowners. Finally, residents of Arverne and 

Edgemere Houses in New York City had earned 242 computers, as of July 

2003, as part of the computer incentive program described in the previous 

section.22

Indicators for 

Education, Income, 

and Housing Have 

Generally Improved in 

1996 HOPE VI 

Neighborhoods

According to our analysis of census and other data, the 20 neighborhoods 

in which the 1996 HOPE VI sites are located have experienced 

improvements in a number of indicators used by researchers to measure 

neighborhood change, such as educational attainment levels, average 

household income, and average housing values. However, for a number of 

reasons, we could not determine the extent to which the HOPE VI program 

was responsible for these changes. For example, we relied primarily on 

decennial census data (adjusted for inflation), comparing measures from 

1990 with those of 2000. However, the HOPE VI sites were at varying stages 

of completion in 2000. We also used data available under the Home 

Mortgage Disclosure Act for numbers of home mortgage originations in 

1996 and 2001. Further, a number of factors—such as changes in national 

or regional economic conditions—can influence the indicators we 

compared. 

In an attempt to more directly gauge the influence of the HOPE VI program, 

we compared each of four selected HOPE VI neighborhoods with a 

comparable non-HOPE VI public housing neighborhood in the same city. 

Some variables indicated greater improvements in the HOPE VI 

neighborhoods than their comparable neighborhoods, such as in mortgage 

lending activity, but other variables indicated inconsistent results among 

the sites. We also found that the demolition of old public housing alone may 

influence changes in neighborhoods. Analysis of six HOPE VI 

neighborhoods where the original public housing units have been 

22According to the HOPE VI reporting system, the community and supportive services 

caseload, as of June 30, 2003, was 835 at Bedford Additions, 521 at Cotter and Lang Homes, 

468 at St. Thomas, and 2,188 at Arverne and Edgemere Houses. 
Page 24 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

demolished, but no on-site units have been completed, also shows 

improvements in educational attainment, unemployment rates, income, 

and housing. Finally, other studies have shown similar findings in HOPE VI 

neighborhoods.

1996 HOPE VI 

Neighborhoods Have 

Generally Experienced 

Positive Changes 

The 20 neighborhoods in which the 1996 HOPE VI sites are located have 

experienced positive changes in education, income, and housing indicators 

as measured by comparing 1990 and 2000 Census and 1996 and 2001 HMDA 

data. When using census data, we defined the neighborhood as consisting 

of the census block group or groups in which a public housing site is 

located and the immediately adjacent census block groups. When using 

HMDA data, which is not available at the census block group level, we 

defined the neighborhood as the census tract in which a public housing site 

is located (see app. II). Since 2000 data is the most recent census data 

available, it reflects the neighborhood conditions at the 1996 HOPE VI sites, 

which were at various stages of completion, at that time. Finally, not all of 

the changes in census data from 1990 to 2000 were statistically significant 

(see app. III).23 Moreover, at five sites, revitalization work had begun prior 

to receipt of HOPE VI funds with various non-HOPE VI funding sources.24

As a part of its fiscal year 2001 and 2002 performance goals, HUD specified 

that neighborhoods with substantial levels of HOPE VI investment would 

show improvements in such dimensions as household income, 

employment, homeownership, and housing investment. As a result, we 

used similar indicators, as well as other indicators generally used by 

researchers, to analyze neighborhood changes. However, it was not 

possible to determine the extent to which the HOPE VI program was 

responsible for the changes in these neighborhoods. Many factors, such as 

national and regional economic trends, can also affect neighborhood 

23A statistically significant difference is one where the probability of the difference 

occurring by chance is less than 5 percent. See appendix II for a detailed explanation of 

statistical significance.

24Some Dalton Village units in Charlotte, North Carolina, were rehabilitated through the 

Comprehensive Grant program beginning in May 1996; the first phase of revitalization at the 

Henry Horner site in Chicago, Illinois, began in 1995; the modernization of 425 units at the 

Lakeview site in Cleveland, Ohio, began in 1994; the first phase of revitalization at the 

Theron B. Watkins site began in May 1995; and the first phase of revitalization at the 

Cotter/Lang site in Louisville, Kentucky, began in January 1995.
Page 25 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

conditions. According to experts, it is extremely rare for any one program 

or actor to be able to change a neighborhood single-handedly.25

Our analysis of census and HMDA data for the 20 1996 HOPE VI 

neighborhoods showed the following positive changes:

• In 18 of the 1996 HOPE VI neighborhoods, the percentage of the 

population with a high school diploma or equivalent increased, from a 

minimum of 4 percentage points in Detroit to a maximum of 21 

percentage points in Baltimore. 

• In 11 of the HOPE VI neighborhoods, the percentage of the population 

with an associate’s degree or better increased, from a minimum of 3 

percentage points in Tucson to a maximum of 14 percentage points in 

San Francisco. 

• Average household income increased in 15 of the 1996 HOPE VI 

neighborhoods, from a minimum of 18 percent in Detroit to a maximum 

of 115 percent in Chicago (Henry Horner). 

• The percentage of the population in poverty decreased in 14 of the 

HOPE VI neighborhoods, from a minimum of 4 percentage points in 

Atlanta and Detroit to a maximum of 20 percentage points in Baltimore. 

Despite these decreases, 9 of the HOPE VI neighborhoods remained 

“high-poverty neighborhoods” (having poverty rates of 30 percent or 

more), and 5 remained “extremely high-poverty neighborhoods” (having 

poverty rates of 40 percent or more).26 According to the Urban Institute, 

areas where 30-40 percent of the population lives in poverty represent 

significantly more deteriorated and threatening living environments 

than those with poverty rates below those thresholds.27

25Sean Zielenbach, The Economic Impact of HOPE VI on Neighborhoods, (Washington, 

D.C.: Housing Research Foundation, 2002); and Chris Walker et. al, The Impact of CDBG 

Spending on Urban Neighborhoods, (Washington, D.C.: prepared by the Urban Institute for 

the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and 

Research, October 2002).

26The definitions of high and extremely high poverty neighborhoods are from G. Thomas 

Kingsley and Kathryn L.S. Petit, "Concentrated Poverty: A Change in Course," Neighborhood 

Change in Urban America, no. 2 (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, May 2003).

27G. Thomas Kingsley, Jennifer Johnson, and Kathryn L.S. Petit, HOPE VI and Section 8: 

Spatial Patterns in Relocation, (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, January 2001).
Page 26 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

• Average housing values increased in 13 of the 20 HOPE VI 

neighborhoods, ranging from a minimum of 11 percent in Tucson to a 

maximum of 215 percent in Chicago (Henry Horner). It is generally 

accepted among researchers that housing values represent the best 

available index of expectations regarding future economic activity in an 

area. 

• Rental housing costs increased in 15 of the HOPE VI neighborhoods, 

from a minimum of 9 percent in Tucson to a maximum of 61 percent in 

Louisville. Increasing rental-housing costs are an indication that there is 

a greater demand for housing in that area. 

• The number of mortgage loans originated in 10 of the HOPE VI 

neighborhoods increased between 1996 and 2001. These increases 

ranged from a minimum of 21 percent in Holyoke to a maximum of 728 

percent in Charlotte—where the number of loans originated increased 

from 7 to 58.

However, some of the HOPE VI neighborhoods showed negative changes 

for certain indicators. For example:

• The percent unemployed rose at 4 of the 20 sites, from a minimum of 2 

percentage points in Charlotte to a maximum of 8 percentage points in 

Kansas City.

• In the Holyoke HOPE VI neighborhood, average housing values declined 

by 26 percent.

• The number of mortgage loans originated in seven of the HOPE VI 

neighborhoods decreased between 1996 and 2001. These decreases 

ranged from a minimum of 5 percent in Atlanta to a maximum of 58 

percent in Wilmington. 

Appendix III shows the census and HMDA data for all of the indicators we 

analyzed for each of the 1996 HOPE VI sites.
Page 27 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

By Some Measures, HOPE 

VI Neighborhoods Have 

Experienced More Positive 

Change Than 

Neighborhoods with 

Comparable Public Housing 

Comparison of four HOPE VI neighborhoods with neighborhoods in which 

comparable public housing sites are located (comparable neighborhoods) 

showed that HOPE VI neighborhoods experienced greater positive changes 

in some, but not all, of the variables that we evaluated.28 We conducted this 

comparative analysis to attempt to better isolate the effects of the HOPE VI 

program, although it was not possible to directly link changes to the HOPE 

VI program (see app. II). In addition, 2000 census data may not reflect some 

of the changes that could occur over time in these neighborhoods because 

the demolition and new construction at these sites did not begin until the 

late 1990s. Moreover, in these four HOPE VI neighborhoods, the units put 

back on-site were all public housing and, thus, not representative of the 

majority of HOPE VI projects, which are mixed-income. 

Three of the four HOPE VI neighborhoods experienced greater increases in 

mortgage loan originations than their comparable neighborhoods, 

according to HMDA data. From 1996 to 2001, the percentage of loans 

originated for home purchases increased 25 percent in Kansas City, 50 

percent in Jacksonville, and 166 percent in Chester, while the percentage 

decreased in the comparable neighborhoods. In Spartanburg, the 

percentage of mortgage loans originated in the HOPE VI neighborhood 

decreased 33 percent, in contrast to a 46-percent decrease in the 

comparable neighborhood. 

While crime data summaries were not available at the neighborhood level, 

we were able to obtain crime data summaries for each of the sites being 

compared. Available crime data summaries show that three of the four 

HOPE VI sites experienced greater decreases in crime than their 

comparable sites (see app. III). Although incidents of crime generally 

decreased at both the HOPE VI and comparable site in Spartanburg, South 

Carolina, they decreased to a greater extent at the HOPE VI site. In both 

28Using census, mortgage lending, and crime data summaries, we made comparisons 

between the neighborhoods in which HOPE VI sites that had completed 75 percent or more 

of their on-site construction (as of December 2002) are located and the neighborhoods in 

which comparable public housing sites are located. The comparable public housing sites 

were identified by local housing authority officials as being approximately the same age, 

size, type, or condition as their HOPE VI sites. The HOPE VI sites were located in Chester, 

Pennsylvania; Jacksonville, Florida; Kansas City, Missouri; and Spartanburg, South Carolina. 

The HOPE VI site in Tucson, Arizona, had also completed 75 percent or more of its on-site 

construction as of December 2002. However, according to public housing officials from the 

City of Tucson, there are no public housing sites in Tucson that are comparable to its HOPE 

VI site. As a result, we could not do a comparative analysis using this site.
Page 28 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Chester, Pennsylvania, and Jacksonville, Florida, crime decreased at the 

HOPE VI sites while it increased at the comparable sites. In contrast, crime 

incidents at Kansas City’s HOPE VI site have generally increased. 

According to officials from the Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri, 

in 1996 the HOPE VI site had a 24-percent occupancy rate because most of 

the residents had already been relocated, and a 98-percent occupancy rate 

in 2002. They attribute the increase in crime during this time period to this 

increased occupancy rate. Officials from the Housing Authority of Kansas 

City, Missouri, also reported that crimes per household decreased from .51 

to .31 at the HOPE VI site from 1996 to 2002.

Comparison of census data for the HOPE VI and comparable 

neighborhoods between 1990 and 2000 showed some positive and some 

negative changes. However, we were able to compare only a small number 

of variables because the differences in the changes for others were not 

statistically significant (see fig. 5). Kansas City, Missouri, had the largest 

number of statistically significant differences between the HOPE VI and 

comparable neighborhoods; specifically, in Kansas City, the differences 

between the HOPE VI and comparable neighborhood were statistically 

significant for four variables. It should be noted that Kansas City’s HOPE VI 

neighborhood has been changing for a longer period of time than the other 

HOPE VI neighborhoods in our analysis. The first phase of revitalization in 

this neighborhood began in May 1995 with non-HOPE VI funds, whereas 

the other three sites in our comparative analysis did not begin revitalization 

activities until after being awarded HOPE VI revitalization grant funds in 

1996. While the Kansas City HOPE VI neighborhood experienced greater 

positive changes in new construction, it also experienced a greater 

increase in unemployment, and a greater decrease in the percentage of the 

population with both a high school diploma and an associate’s degree or 

better. In Spartanburg, South Carolina, the differences between the HOPE 

VI and its comparable neighborhood were statistically significant for two 

variables. The percentage of the population with a high school diploma 

increased to a greater extent in the HOPE VI neighborhood than the 

comparable neighborhood, while new construction decreased to a greater 

extent in the HOPE VI neighborhood relative to the comparable 

neighborhood. In addition, in Jacksonville, Florida, the HOPE VI 

neighborhood experienced a greater increase in new construction relative 

to its comparable neighborhood.
Page 29 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Figure 5: Neighborhood Changes between 1990 and 2000 for Selected Cities

Note: Data are aggregated by neighborhood, which is defined as the census block group or groups in 

which a site is located, plus all of the immediately adjacent census block groups. Statistical 

significance testing was not conducted on the "Population" variable because it is based upon 100-

percent census figures. Differences for poverty rate, unemployment rate, population with high school 

degree, population with a degree, housing units constructed within the last 10 years, and occupied 

housing units are based upon percentage point differences. Differences for average household 

income, average housing value, average gross rent, and population are calculated as percent 

changes.

a

1990 dollar values were adjusted to make them comparable to 2000 dollar values.

b

An associate’s degree or better.

c

The change in estimates from 1990 to 2000 is statistically significant.

d

The difference between the percent changes in the HOPE VI and in the comparable neighborhoods is 

statistically significant.

Chester, Pennsylvania Jacksonville, Florida Kansas City, Missouri Spartanburg,

South Carolina

Average household incomea

Poverty rate

Unemployment rate

Population with high school degree

Population with a degreeb

Average housing valuea

Housing units constructed 

within the last ten years

Occupied housing units

Average gross renta

Population

-2 

8

0

14c

0

-8

-4c

1

5

-2

12c

0

-6

-4c

-3

3

2

1

0

-2

1

-10c

23c

0

10c

0

15

14c

-4c

11

-1

10c

0

14c

-2c

-4

12

1

0

0

1

16d

-8c

29c

8c

6c

0

51c

5c

-10c

11

-1

16c

14c

11

-3

1

18

8d

-8d

-14d

40

8d

-4

10

4

14c

4

24c

-12c

0

0

0

4c

0

18c

-4c

-4

10

3

10d

4

7

-8d

Sources: GAO analysis of 1990 and 2000 Census data.

HOPE VI

Comparable

Difference

HOPE VI

Comparable

DifferenceHOPE VI

Comparable

Difference

HOPE VI

Comparable

Difference

0

12c

-27

-2

0

-21

2

13

-6

2

25c

-28

3

11c

-4

-2

14

-24

5c

12c

-19

10c

24c

8

-6

-12

-27

-3

2

-20

-4c

4

-10

0

-2

-10
Page 30 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Changes in Indicators 

Suggest That HOPE VI Can 

Influence Neighborhoods 

through the Demolition of 

the Old, Deteriorated Public 

Housing Alone 

Even in the six 1996 HOPE VI neighborhoods where the original public 

housing units had been demolished, but no units had been completed onsite as of December 2002, a comparison of 1990 and 2000 Census data 

showed that positive changes occurred in educational attainment, 

unemployment, income, and housing.29 For example:

• The percentage of the population with a high school diploma or 

equivalent increased in all six neighborhoods, from a minimum of 4 

percentage points in Detroit to a maximum of 21 percentage points in 

Baltimore. Similarly, the percentage of population with an associate’s 

degree or better increased in five neighborhoods, from a minimum of 4 

percentage points in Atlanta and Baltimore to a maximum of 14 

percentage points in San Francisco. 

• The unemployment rate decreased in four of the six HOPE VI 

neighborhoods, from a minimum of 4 percentage points in Cleveland to 

a maximum of 6 percentage points in Baltimore and Detroit. 

• Average household income increased in all of the neighborhoods, from a 

minimum of 18 percent in Detroit to a maximum of 46 percent in 

Cleveland. 

• The poverty rate decreased in five of the neighborhoods, from a 

minimum of 4 percentage points in Atlanta and Detroit to a maximum of 

20 percentage points in Baltimore. 

• Average housing values increased in four of the neighborhoods, from a 

minimum of 26 percent in Atlanta to a maximum of 116 percent in 

Detroit. 

• The percentage of occupied housing units increased in four 

neighborhoods, from a minimum of 4 percentage points in Atlanta to a 

maximum of 8 percentage points in Cleveland and New Orleans. 

29As of December 31, 2002, demolition was complete, but no units had been completed onsite at seven of the 1996 HOPE VI sites: Heman E. Perry Homes in Atlanta, Georgia; 

Hollander Ridge in Baltimore, Maryland; Robert Taylor Homes B in Chicago, Illinois; 

Riverview and Lakeview Terraces in Cleveland, Ohio; Herman Gardens in Detroit, Michigan; 

St. Thomas in New Orleans, Louisiana; and North Beach in San Francisco, California. The 

Robert Taylor Homes B site was excluded from our analysis because no on-site construction 

was planned as a part of the 1996 grant.
Page 31 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

• Rental-housing costs increased in all six neighborhoods, from a 

minimum of 11 percent in New Orleans to a maximum of 38 percent in 

Baltimore. 

In contrast, the level of mortgage lending activity decreased in four of these 

neighborhoods from a range of 5 percent in Atlanta to 57 percent in 

Baltimore between 1996 and 2001. Moreover, new construction decreased 

by 2 percentage points in Cleveland, New Orleans, and San Francisco 

between 1990 and 2000.

We cannot attribute these changes solely to the HOPE VI program. To the 

extent that they do reflect the program’s influence, however, they suggest 

that demolition of old, deteriorated public housing alone may influence 

surrounding neighborhoods. For example, average housing value and 

average household income increased even though no new units had been 

constructed. It is possible that the HOPE VI program influenced these 

indicators by removing blight from the neighborhoods and temporarily 

relocating large numbers of low-income households during demolition.

Studies Have Shown 

Positive Changes in HOPE 

VI Neighborhoods

Studies by housing and community development researchers have shown 

positive changes in HOPE VI neighborhoods as reflected in income, 

employment, community investment, and crime indicators.30 In reviewing 

the literature, we identified one report that discussed changes in the 

neighborhoods surrounding eight HOPE VI sites and two reports that 

evaluated changes at two of the sites we visited.31 While each study covered 

a small number of HOPE VI neighborhoods, they showed positive changes:

30Beginning in fiscal year 1999, HUD began to encourage HOPE VI revitalization grant 

applicants to form partnerships with local universities to evaluate the impact of their 

proposed HOPE VI revitalization plans. HUD suggested evaluating economic development, 

spillover revitalization activities, and property values. Some grant recipients initiated such 

studies prior to fiscal year 1999.

31The three reports are: (1) Abt Associates Inc., Exploring the Impacts of the HOPE VI 

Program on Surrounding Neighborhoods (Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates Inc., January 

2003); (2) Adriana Cimetta and Ralph Renger, Final Evaluation Report for the Greater 

Santa Rosa HOPE VI Project Year Ending 2002 (Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona, 

College of Public Health, October 2003); and (3) Zeilenbach, The Economic Impact of 

HOPE VI on Neighborhoods (2002).
Page 32 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

• Per capita incomes in eight selected HOPE VI neighborhoods increased 

an average of 71 percent, compared with 14.5 percent for the cities in 

which these sites are located between 1989 and 1999. 

• The percentage of low-income households living in eight selected HOPE 

VI neighborhoods decreased from 82 to 69 percent from 1989 to 1999. 

• Median income increased 80 percent from 1990 to 2000 in Chester’s 1996 

HOPE VI neighborhood.

• Unemployment rates decreased from 24 to 15 percent between 1989 and 

1999 in eight selected HOPE VI neighborhoods. 

• The number of small business loans closed in seven selected HOPE VI 

neighborhoods grew by an average of 248 percent from 1998 to 2001, 

compared with 153 percent in the neighborhoods’ respective counties.

• The number of new business licenses issued in Tucson’s 1996 HOPE VI 

neighborhood increased from 6 in 1996 to 28 in 2002. In addition, the 

number of business closures in the neighborhood decreased from 23 in 

1996 to 15 in 2001. 

• The vacancy rate decreased from 9 to 6 percent between 1990 and 2000 

in Chester’s 1996 HOPE VI neighborhood, while the vacancy rate for the 

city increased from 12 to 14 percent during the same period.

• Overall and violent crime rates decreased by 48 and 68 percent, 

respectively, between 1993 and 2001 in four of the HOPE VI 

neighborhoods where crime data were available. Overall and violent 

crimes decreased by 25 and 38 percent, respectively, during the same 

time period for the cities in which these sites are located. 

Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report to HUD for its comment and review. We 

received comments from the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian 

Housing (see app. IV) who thanked GAO for its thorough review of the 

HOPE VI program and stated that HUD regards our study as an important 

tool in its continuing efforts to improve the program.
Page 33 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, Senate Committee on 

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; the Chairman and Ranking Minority 

Member, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; the 

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Housing and 

Community Opportunity, House Committee on Financial Services; and the 

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on Financial 

Services. We also will send copies to the Secretary of Housing and Urban 

Development and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. We 

also will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the 

report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov.

Please call me at (202) 512-8678 if you or your staff have any questions 

about this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in Appendix V.

Sincerely yours,

David G. Wood

Director, Financial Markets and

Community Investment
Page 34 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

Our objectives were to examine (1) the types of housing to which the 

original residents of HOPE VI sites were relocated and the number of 

original residents that grantees expect to return to the revitalized sites, (2) 

how the fiscal year 1996 grantees have involved residents in the HOPE VI 

process, (3) the types of community and supportive services that have been 

provided to residents and the results achieved, and (4) how the 

neighborhoods surrounding the sites that received HOPE VI grants in fiscal 

year 1996 have changed.

To accomplish these objectives, we analyzed the data contained in HUD’s 

HOPE VI reporting system on the 165 sites that received revitalization 

grants in fiscal years 1993-2001.1

 To assess the reliability of the data in 

HUD’s HOPE VI reporting system, we interviewed the officials that manage 

the system; reviewed information about the system, including the user 

guide, data dictionary, and steps taken to ensure the quality of these data; 

performed electronic testing to detect obvious errors in completeness and 

reasonableness; and interviewed grantees regarding the data they reported. 

We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 

this report. For the second and fourth objectives, we then focused on and 

visited the 20 sites in 18 cities that received HOPE VI revitalization grants in 

fiscal year 1996. We selected the 1996 grants because they were the first 

awarded after HUD issued a rule allowing revitalization to be funded with a 

combination of public and private funds, which has become the HOPE VI 

model. We also analyzed Census and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data 

and reviewed crime data summaries. In addition, we interviewed the HUD 

headquarters officials responsible for administering the HOPE VI program.

To determine the types of housing to which the original residents of HOPE 

VI sites were relocated and the number of original residents that grantees 

expect to return to the revitalized sites, we analyzed the relocation and 

reoccupancy data in HUD’s HOPE VI reporting system. Specifically, we 

determined what percentage of the original residents that had been 

relocated as of June 30, 2003, were relocated to other public housing, given 

vouchers, or evicted. We also determined the percentage of original 

residents overall and at each site that was expected, as of June 30, 2003, to 

return to the revitalized sites. At the 113 sites where reoccupancy was not 

yet complete, we divided the number of original residents the grantee 

estimated would return by the total number of residents the grantee 

estimated would be relocated. At the 39 sites where reoccupancy was 

1

The data in the HOPE VI reporting system are self-reported quarterly by grantees.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 35 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

complete, we divided the number of original residents who actually 

returned by the total number of residents relocated. We excluded 10 of the 

165 sites from our analysis because they did not involve relocation and an 

additional three sites because the reoccupancy data reported as of June 30, 

2003, was incorrect. To determine how reoccupancy estimates changed 

over time, we compared the data in HUD’s HOPE VI reporting system as of 

September 30, 1999 (the earliest date for which we could obtain data) with 

data as of June 30, 2003. Finally, to determine what factors affected 

whether residents returned to the revitalized sites, we interviewed HUD 

officials, public housing authority (PHA) officials responsible for managing 

the fiscal year 1996 grants, and resident representatives at 19 of the 20 

fiscal year 1996 sites.2

For all 165 sites, we used data from HUD’s HOPE VI reporting system to 

calculate the percentage of revitalized units that would be units under an 

annual contributions contract (that is, public housing units).3

 At the 143 

sites where construction was not yet complete, we divided the number of 

planned public housing units by the total number of planned units. At the 

22 sites where construction was complete, we divided the actual number of 

public housing units by the total number of units. To determine how the 

number of planned public housing units has changed over time, we 

compared the number of public housing units planned as of September 30, 

1999 (the earliest date for which we could obtain data) with data as of June 

30, 2003. For 19 of the 20 1996 HOPE VI sites, we used data from HUD’s 

HOPE VI reporting system and data collected during our site visits to 

calculate the percentage of public housing units being replaced.4

To determine how the fiscal year 1996 grantees have involved residents in 

the HOPE VI process, we obtained and reviewed HUD’s guidance on 

resident involvement, including the portions of the fiscal year 2002 notice 

of funding availability and fiscal year 2002 grant agreement that address 

2

At 16 sites, we interviewed resident leaders. At 3 sites, we could not interview resident 

leaders because there was no resident council. Instead, we interviewed individuals that the 

PHA identified as residents of the original site. At the remaining site, despite repeated 

attempts, we were not able to interview the resident leader.

3

Annual contributions contracts are written contracts between HUD and PHAs under which 

HUD agrees to make payments to the PHA and the PHA agrees to administer the public 

housing program in accordance with HUD regulations and requirements.

4

We excluded one grant from the analysis because the HOPE VI funds were transferred to 

another public housing site.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 36 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

resident involvement. For the 1996 grants, we interviewed PHA officials 

and resident representatives to determine the extent to which residents 

had been involved in the HOPE VI process. Finally, we interviewed two 

resident advocate groups—Everywhere and Now Public Housing Residents 

Organizing Nationally Together and the National Low Income Housing 

Coalition—regarding resident involvement and other resident issues.

To identify the types of community and supportive services that have been 

provided to residents of HOPE VI sites, we obtained and reviewed HUD’s 

draft guidance on community and supportive services. To obtain specific 

examples of community and supportive services provided at the fiscal year 

1996 sites, we interviewed PHA officials and obtained and reviewed 

community and supportive services plans. We also obtained data from 

HUD’s HOPE VI reporting system to determine the number of residents that 

have participated in different types of community and supportive services. 

To determine the results that have been achieved, we obtained data from 

HUD’s HOPE VI reporting system on selected outcomes, including the 

number of new job placements and the number of residents that have 

purchased homes. We also obtained information during our site visits that 

documents the results achieved by various community and supportive 

services programs.

To determine how the neighborhoods surrounding the sites that received a 

1996 HOPE VI revitalization grant have changed, we analyzed nine key 

variables from 1990 and 2000 census data for each neighborhood, including 

the average household income, the percentage of the population in poverty, 

and the percentage of occupied housing units. When using census data, we 

defined a “HOPE VI neighborhood” as consisting of the census block group 

in which the original public housing site was located, as well as all of the 

immediately adjacent census block groups (see app. II). We also analyzed 

changes in mortgage lending activity using 1996 and 2001 Home Mortgage 

Disclosure Act (HMDA) data. These data are only available by census tract, 

which encompasses a larger area than a census block group. As a result, for 

this analysis we used only the census tract in which the original public 

housing site was located as the proxy for the neighborhood. 

In addition to using the census and HMDA data to analyze changes in the 

neighborhoods around all 20 1996 HOPE VI sites, we performed additional 

analysis for those sites where demolition, but no on-site construction, was 

complete and those that were the closest to completion. To explore the 

change in neighborhoods where only demolition had occurred, we used the 

HOPE VI reporting system to identify the six sites that had demolished all 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 37 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

of the original public housing units, but not completed any on-site 

construction as of December 31, 2002.5

 We also used the HOPE VI reporting 

system to identify the five sites where on-site construction was 75 percent 

or more complete as of December 31, 2002. We then compared changes in 

census, HMDA, and summary crime data for four of the five HOPE VI 

neighborhoods with changes in comparable public housing 

neighborhoods—neighborhoods containing public housing sites that PHAs 

identified as similar in condition to the HOPE VI sites prior to 

revitalization.6

 However, these comparisons are not perfect. For example, 

in two cases the HOPE VI sites are about 10 years older than the 

comparable sites. In Chester, Pennsylvania, the comparable site was 

rehabilitated in 1997, and units were enlarged. 

We obtained crime data summaries for the Lamokin Village (HOPE VI) and 

Matopos Hills (comparable) sites from the Chester Housing Authority; for 

the Durkeeville (HOPE VI) and Brentwood Park (comparable) sites from 

the Jacksonville Housing Authority; for the Theron B. Watkins (HOPE VI) 

and West Bluff (comparable) sites from the Housing Authority of Kansas 

City, Missouri; and for the Tobe Hartwell/Extension (HOPE VI) and 

Woodworth Homes (comparable) sites from the Spartanburg Housing 

Authority. Each of these PHAs obtained site-specific crime data summaries 

from their local police departments. We reviewed the crime data 

summaries for reasonableness and followed up on anomalies. Because we 

did not have disaggregated crime data directly from each city’s police 

department, we were unable to perform tests of statistical significance on 

the summary crime trends. Although we did not do extensive testing of the 

summary crime data, we feel that it is sufficiently reliable for the 

informational purposes of this report.

Finally, we obtained and reviewed reports by various universities and 

private institutions that discussed the social and economic impacts of the 

HOPE VI program. We focused on one report that discussed changes in the 

neighborhoods surrounding eight sites and two reports that evaluated 

changes at sites we visited. See appendix II for more detailed information 

5

We excluded Robert Taylor Homes B from this analysis because no on-site construction 

was planned as a part of the 1996 grant.

6

The HOPE VI site in Tucson, Arizona, had completed more than 75 percent of its on-site 

construction as of December 31, 2002, but PHA officials stated that there was no public 

housing site in Tucson that was comparable.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 38 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

on the methodology we used to determine how the 1996 HOPE VI 

neighborhoods have changed. 

We performed our work from November 2001 through October 2003 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 39 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Appendix II

Technical Methodology ApendxiI

This appendix provides detailed information on the methodologies we used 

to analyze neighborhood changes observed in the HOPE VI neighborhoods 

(for recipients of 1996 HOPE VI revitalization grants) and, where 

applicable, four comparison neighborhoods.

Data Sources To analyze changes observed in HOPE VI neighborhoods, we first defined 

HOPE VI neighborhoods as the census block group in which the public 

housing site was located and the adjacent census block groups.1

 This 

definition allowed us to examine changes observed in HOPE VI 

neighborhoods and the extent to which some of the goals of the HOPE VI 

program may have been addressed, such as improvements in household 

income, employment, and housing investment. Census block groups were 

used, as this geographic area was likely to better represent the area of the 

housing site and its adjacent neighborhood than a larger census entity, such 

as a census tract, would have. That is, use of block groups lessened the 

likelihood that both community residents and characteristics that are not 

influenced by the housing development were included in the analyses. The 

block groups in which HOPE VI sites were located, and the adjacent block 

groups, were identified by electronically mapping the addresses using 

MapInfo. 

Next, we obtained 1990 and 2000 census data on nine population and 

housing characteristics for the census block groups in which the HOPE VI 

sites were located and the adjacent block groups. In order to make valid 

and reliable comparisons between decennial censuses, we had to ensure 

that the geographic regions in 1990 and in 2000 shared the same, or nearly 

the same, physical boundaries and land area. We visually inspected a map 

of the 1990 boundaries for each of the block groups contained in a HOPE VI 

neighborhood and compared them with the 2000 boundaries. 

In some cases, we had to reclassify block groups in order to maintain 

comparability between the two census years. For example, in 2000, 

Wilmington's Jervay Place site was located in block group 11002. One of its 

1

We defined HOPE VI neighborhoods using a concept similar to that in Sean Zielenbach’s 

The Economic Impact of HOPE VI on Neighborhoods, (Washington, D.C.: Housing Research 

Foundation, 2002). Abt Associates Inc. also studied the neighborhoods surrounding HOPE 

VI sites by analyzing the census tract in which each of the HOPE VI sites studied is located, 

in Exploring the Impacts of the HOPE VI Program on Surrounding Neighborhoods

(Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates Inc., January 2003).
Appendix II

Technical Methodology

Page 40 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

adjacent block groups, part of the Jervay Place “neighborhood” (as defined 

by our study), was block group 10001. However, in 1990, the same area 

constituting block group 10001 had been partitioned into two block groups, 

10001 and 10003, of which only 10003 was adjacent to the site block group, 

11002. In order to have consistent and comparable geographic areas, we 

added the respondents of 1990 block group 10001 and their characteristics 

into the calculations for the 1990 descriptive statistics.

We also obtained 1996 and 2001 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) 

data from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council. 

Specifically, for each of the 20 HOPE VI neighborhoods and the four 

comparable neighborhoods we compared the number of loans originated in 

1996 with the number originated in 2001. However, the smallest geographic 

unit for which HMDA data are available is the census tract. Therefore, 

analyses of these data were conducted at the census tract level, and each 

neighborhood was defined as consisting of the census tract in which the 

site was located.

Data Reliability We reviewed information related to the census data variables and 

performed electronic data testing to identify obvious gaps in data 

completeness or accuracy. We determined that the data were sufficiently 

reliable for use in this report. We conducted a similar review of information 

related to the HMDA variables. Finally, since we found no issues impacting 

the use of these data as a result of electronic data testing, we concluded 

that the data elements being used were sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of the report.

Limitations of Analysis In evaluating community development initiatives such as HOPE VI, we note 

that it is difficult to determine the impact of a program or to definitely 

conclude that a program caused a specified outcome to occur. For 

example, several factors—such as other community initiatives, reemphasis on the Community Reinvestment Act (Zielenbach, 2002), or 

national trends in the economy and unemployment (Zielenbach, 2002)—in 

conjunction with HOPE VI efforts may have contributed to observed 

changes in the geographic region surrounding a HOPE VI site. 

To attempt to isolate the influence of HOPE VI activities, an ideal 

evaluation research design would include the identification of a 

neighborhood identical to the HOPE VI community based on key 
Appendix II

Technical Methodology

Page 41 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

characteristics (such as size, ethnic distribution, income distribution, 

number of social institutions, crime rates) and ideally use an in-depth, 

longitudinal case study to track changes in the HOPE VI and comparison 

communities from the inception of HOPE VI work until its completion. 

While we recognized that such a method would permit the greatest 

understanding of community changes and their relationship to HOPE VI, 

we could not utilize it for two reasons. First, in-depth, longitudinal case 

studies of multiple HOPE VI sites would be very resource-intensive and 

were outside the scope of this study. Second, it is unlikely that we or other 

analysts could identify a series of identical neighborhoods given the natural 

variation in population, business, and housing development characteristics 

that occurs within a city over the length of a longitudinal study. Therefore, 

in an attempt to limit the potential factors that could explain changes 

observed in HOPE VI communities, we worked with the public housing 

authorities that managed the four 1996 HOPE VI sites that had completed 

75 percent or more of their on-site construction, as of December 31, 2002, 

to identify comparison neighborhoods. These comparison neighborhoods 

contained public housing sites that were comparable to the original HOPE 

VI sites in terms of age, size, or condition. Each of these comparison sites 

was located in the same city as the HOPE VI site, but had not received any 

HOPE VI revitalization funding. 

The decennial nature of the Census also constrained our analysis. The 

HOPE VI sites were awarded their grants in 1996; however, relocation did 

not begin at most sites until 1997 or later. Demolition did not begin at over 

half of the sites until 1999 or later, and construction did not begin at the 

majority of sites until 2000 or later. In addition, as of June 30, 2003, the 

majority of sites had not completed construction. Thus, data collected 

during the 2000 Census may not have detected neighborhood changes. 

However, the 2000 data are the most current available. Similarly, at the time 

of our analysis, 2001 HMDA data were the most current available. Despite 

these limitations, we believe that we have constructed a design that is as 

methodologically sound as possible given resource and data constraints 

and the varying stages of implementation of HOPE VI plans.

Analytical Approach 

and Results

To analyze census data, we selected nine population and housing 

characteristics. Those characteristics were average household income, 

percent of population living in poverty, percent unemployed, percent of the 

population with a high school degree, average housing value, percent of 

housing units constructed within the last 10 years, percent of occupied 

housing units, average gross rent, and population total. For the six 
Appendix II

Technical Methodology

Page 42 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

percentage characteristics, we calculated the percent change by finding the 

difference between the 1990 sample estimate and the 2000 sample estimate. 

For the three average characteristics, we calculated the percent change by 

finding the difference between the 1990 sample estimate and the 2000 

sample estimate and then dividing this difference by the 1990 sample 

estimate. In our comparison of four HOPE VI sites with comparable public 

housing sites, we also analyzed census data on population totals for each 

neighborhood. Populations were based on a 100 percent count of the 

individuals living in the block groups.

With the exception of the population total, each of the census variables is 

based on sample data. Since this sample is only one of a large number of 

samples that might have been drawn and each sample could have provided 

different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of this 

particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval (for 

example, plus or minus 7 percentage points). This is the interval that would 

contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples that could 

have been drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the 

confidence intervals in this report will include the true values for the 

population. We used the methodology described in the Census Bureau’s 

documentation for the 1990 and 2000 Censuses (Appendix C: Accuracy of 

the Data, 1990, and Chapter 8: Accuracy of the Data, 2000) to calculate 

standard errors and confidence intervals. Essentially, we used the Census 

Bureau’s formulas to compute the standard error for the sample estimate 

under the assumption of simple random sampling. We then multiplied this 

result by a design effect factor to adjust for the survey’s sample design to 

give the appropriate standard error. 

In order to determine whether the 1990 and 2000 percent change estimates 

were statistically significant, we interpreted the confidence interval. For 

example, if the confidence interval includes zero, then the difference 

between the 1990 and 2000 estimates is not considered a statistically 

significant difference. If the confidence interval does not include zero, then 

the percent change between the 1990 and 2000 estimates is considered 

statistically significant (see app. III). We also calculated 95 percent 

confidence intervals to determine whether there are statistically significant 

differences between the HOPE VI and non-HOPE VI (comparable) 

neighborhoods on the percent differences from 1990 to 2000.

In addition to sampling errors, sample data (and 100 percent data) are 

subject to nonsampling errors, which may occur during the operations 

used to collect and process census data. Examples of nonsampling errors 
Appendix II

Technical Methodology

Page 43 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

are not enumerating every housing unit or person in the sample, failing to 

obtain all required information from a respondent, obtaining incorrect 

information, and recording information incorrectly. Operations such as 

field review of enumerators’ work, clerical handling of questionnaires, and 

electronic processing of questionnaires also may introduce nonsampling 

errors in the data. The Census Bureau discusses sources of nonsampling 

errors and attempts to control in detail.

To analyze the HMDA data for each of the 20 HOPE VI sites and the four 

comparable sites, we compared the number of loans originated in 1996 

with the number originated in 2001 (see app. III). The HMDA data contain 

all of the loans originating in these time periods; therefore, it is not a 

sample, and confidence intervals did not need to be computed for these 

data.
Page 44 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Appendix III

Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure 

Act, and Summary Crime Data ApendxiI

We obtained 1990 and 2000 census data for each neighborhood in which a 

1996 HOPE VI site is located, as well as for four neighborhoods in which 

public housing that is comparable to selected 1996 HOPE VI sites is 

located. When using census data, we defined a neighborhood as consisting 

of the census block group in which a site is located, as well as the adjacent 

census block groups. We selected nine census data variables, which are 

generally used by researchers to measure neighborhood change, and 

analyzed the changes in these variables from 1990 to 2000 (see tables 2 

through 4). We also determined whether these changes were statistically 

significant.

For these same 20 HOPE VI and four comparable neighborhoods, we 

obtained 1996 and 2001 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data. With 

this data, we compared the number of loans originated for the purchase of 

a home in 1996 with the number originated in 2001 (see table 5). When 

using HMDA data, we defined each neighborhood as consisting of the 

census tract in which each site is located.

We also obtained 1996 and 2002 crime data summaries for each of the four 

HOPE VI sites that had completed 75 percent or more of their on-site 

construction (as of December 2002), as well as for four comparable public 

housing sites. This data was obtained from public housing authority 

officials and consisted of the total number of crimes that occurred in 

selected categories. We then calculated the percent change in the total 

number of crimes over time (see fig. 6).

Table 2: Selected 1990 and 2000 Census Data on Education for Each 1996 HOPE VI Neighborhood and Four Comparable 

Neighborhoods

Percent with a high school diploma Percent with an associate’s degree or better

Neighborhood

(comparable neighborhood) 1990 2000

Percentage point 

difference 1990 2000

Percentage point 

difference

Atlanta, Georgia: Heman E. Perry 

Homes 48 59 11a 6 11 4a

Baltimore, Maryland: Hollander 

Ridge 59 80 21a 10 15 4a

Charlotte, North Carolina: Dalton 

Village 66 68 2 14 13 0

Chester, Pennsylvania: Lamokin 

Village

(Matopos Hills)

58

(61)

73

(74)

14a

(12a)

10

(10)

9

(10)

0

(0)
Appendix III

Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure 

Act, and Summary Crime Data 

Page 45 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Sources: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census.

a

The difference of the two estimates is statistically significantly different, and the 2000 estimate is 

larger than the 1990 estimate.

Chicago, Illinois: ABLA Homes – 

Brooks Extension 44 56 12a 13 22 9a

Chicago, Illinois: Henry Horner 

Homes 40 54 14a 6 16 10a

Chicago, Illinois: Robert Taylor 

Homes B 46 57 11a 9 8 -1

Cleveland, Ohio: Riverview and 

Lakeview Terraces 52 64 12a 16 21 6a

Detroit, Michigan: Herman 

Gardens 66 70 4a 13 14 2

Holyoke, Massachusetts: Jackson 

Parkway 63 66 3 19 18 0

Jacksonville, Florida: Durkeeville

(Brentwood Park)

50

(53)

61

(63)

10a

(10a)

11

(11)

12

(11)

0

(0)

Kansas City, Missouri: Theron B. 

Watkins Homes

(West Bluff)

57

(60)

64

(76)

7a

(16a)

13

(22)

13

(36)

0

(14a)

Louisville, Kentucky: Cotter and 

Lang Homes 61 71 10a 10 14 4a

New Orleans, Louisiana: St. 

Thomas 67 75 8a 29 37 8a

New York, New York: 

Arverne/Edgemere Houses 58 65 7a 11 18 7a

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Bedford 

Additions 58 69 11a 12 19 6a

San Francisco, California: North 

Beach 80 87 8a 52 66 14a

Spartanburg, South Carolina: Tobe 

Hartwell Courts and Tobe Hartwell 

Extension

(Woodworth Homes)

44

(62)

58

(67)

14a

(4a)

13

(21)

17

(20)

4

(0)

Tucson, Arizona: Connie Chambers 51 58 7a 13 16 3a

Wilmington, North Carolina: Robert 

S. Jervay Place 52 61 8a 12 15 3

(Continued From Previous Page)

Percent with a high school diploma Percent with an associate’s degree or better

Neighborhood

(comparable neighborhood) 1990 2000

Percentage point 

difference 1990 2000

Percentage point 

difference
Appendix III

Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure 

Act, and Summary Crime Data 

Page 46 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Table 3: Selected 1990 and 2000 Census Data on Income, Poverty, and Unemployment for Each 1996 HOPE VI Neighborhood and 

Four Comparable Neighborhoods

Average household incomea Percent in poverty Percent unemployed

Neighborhood 

(comparable 

neighborhood) 1990 2000

Percent 

change 1990 2000

Percentage 

point 

difference 1990 2000

Percentage 

point 

difference

Atlanta, Georgia: Heman 

E. Perry Homes 23,394 31,522 35b 46 42 -4b 14 19 5b

Baltimore, Maryland: 

Hollander Ridge 36,672 49,470 35b 26 6 -20b 11 4 -6b

Charlotte, North Carolina: 

Dalton Village 34,443 42,208 23b 21 21 0 6 8 2b

Chester, Pennsylvania: 

Lamokin Village

(Matopos Hills)

27,289

(30,313)

29,468

(31,730)

8

(5)

33

(32)

31

(33)

-2

(1)

13

(13)

13

(11)

0

(-2)

Chicago, Illinois: ABLA 

Homes – Brooks Extension 22,124 34,398 55b 52 40 -13b 22 14 -8b

Chicago, Illinois: Henry 

Horner Homes 15,106 32,494 115b 67 48 -18b 34 25 -9b

Chicago, Illinois: Robert 

Taylor Homes B 18,086 23,951 32b 67 58 -8b 35 32 -2

Cleveland, Ohio: Riverview 

and Lakeview Terraces 22,006 32,074 46b 52 34 -18b 18 14 -4b

Detroit, Michigan: Herman 

Gardens 33,072 39,190 18b 32 27 -4b 17 11 -6b

Holyoke, Massachusetts: 

Jackson Parkway 35,815 37,332 4 29 26 -2 11 7 -4b

Jacksonville, Florida: 

Durkeeville

(Brentwood Park)

17,261

(23,454)

21,208

(25,936)

23b

(11)

51

(38)

41

(33)

-10b

(-4b)

16

(14)

16

(13)

0

(-1)

Kansas City, Missouri: 

Theron B. Watkins Homes

(West Bluff)

22,378

(35,596)

28,857

(39,668)

29b

(11)

43

(32)

34

(22)

-8b

(-10b)

14

(9)

22

(8)

8b

(-1)

Louisville, Kentucky: Cotter 

and Lang Homes 28,086 35,890 28b 38 26 -12b 17 10 -7b

New Orleans, Louisiana: 

St. Thomas 37,103 45,095 22b 47 38 -8b 16 11 -5b

New York, New York: 

Arverne/Edgemere 

Houses 35,724 35,868 0 35 30 -5b 15 19 4b
Appendix III

Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure 

Act, and Summary Crime Data 

Page 47 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Sources: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census Bureau Data.

a

The 1990 dollar figures were adjusted to make them comparable to the 2000 dollar figures.

b

The difference of the two estimates is statistically significantly different, and the 2000 estimate is 

larger than the 1990 estimate.

Table 4: Selected 1990 and 2000 Census Data on Housing for Each 1996 HOPE VI Neighborhood and Four Comparable 

Neighborhoods

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: 

Bedford Additions 22,686 25,704 13 39 36 -2 20 17 -4

San Francisco, California: 

North Beach 82,104 106,942 30b 9 7 -2 4 2 -1

Spartanburg, South 

Carolina: Tobe Hartwell 

Courts and Tobe Hartwell 

Extension

(Woodworth Homes)

23,898

(34,801)

26,248

(34,730)

10

(0)

37

(24)

34

(24)

-3

(-2)

10

(8)

14

(9)

4

(0)

Tucson, Arizona: Connie 

Chambers 24,345 30,472 25b 39 30 -9b 14 10 -4b

Wilmington, North 

Carolina: Robert S. Jervay 

Place 19,489 23,610 21b 46 36 -10b 16 14 -2

(Continued From Previous Page)

Average household incomea Percent in poverty Percent unemployed

 Neighborhood 

(comparable 

neighborhood) 1990 2000

Percent 

change 1990 2000

Percentage 

point 

difference 1990 2000

Percentage 

point 

difference

Average housing valuea

Percent built within last 

10 years Percent occupied Average gross renta

Neighborhood 

(comparable 

neighborhood) 1990 2000

Percent 

change 1990 2000

Percentage 

point 

difference 1990 2000

Percentage 

point 

difference 1990 2000

Percent 

change

Atlanta, Georgia: 

Heman E. Perry 

Homes 56,952 71,784 26b 4 4 0 86 90 4b 360 432 20b

Baltimore, 

Maryland: 

Hollander Ridge 112,561 111,732 -1 4 5 1 94 68 -26b 478 662 38b

Charlotte, North 

Carolina: Dalton 

Village 69,341 81,912 18b 10 13 4b 93 91 -2 504 561 11b
Appendix III

Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure 

Act, and Summary Crime Data 

Page 48 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Chester, 

Pennsylvania: 

Lamokin Village

(Matopos Hills)

52,290

(59,790)

47,895

(56,094)

-8

(-6)

7

(8)

3

(3)

-4b

(-4b)

92

(94)

92

(91)

0

(-2)

426

(428)

480

(427)

12b

(0)

Chicago, Illinois: 

ABLA Homes – 

Brooks Extension 140,772 238,934 70b 9 7 -2b 81 81 0 370 487 32b

Chicago, Illinois: 

Henry Horner 

Homes 65,884 207,676 215b 8 15 7b 75 83 7b 285 390 37b

Chicago, Illinois: 

Robert Taylor 

Homes B 76,587 111,666 46 2 3 1b 77 74 -4 372 397 7

Cleveland, Ohio: 

Riverview and 

Lakeview Terraces 48,877 100,494 106b 5 2 -2b 76 83 8b 308 424 37b

Detroit, Michigan: 

Herman Gardens 32,110 69,266 116b 0 1 0 89 94 5b 497 586 18b

Holyoke, 

Massachusetts: 

Jackson Parkway 131,763 97,858 -26 b 4 4 0 94 92 -2 510 480 -6

Jacksonville, 

Florida: Durkeeville

(Brentwood Park)

41,565

(44,572)

47,740

(50,936)

15

(14b)

3

(4)

18

(1)

14b

(-2b)

80

(82)

82

(85)

2

(3)

309

(384)

387

(426)

25b

(11b)

Kansas City, 

Missouri: Theron B. 

Watkins Homes

(West Bluff)

39,630

(65,204)

59,743

(72,286)

51b

(11)

2

(14)

7

(10)

51b

(-3)

76

(79)

82

(90)

5b

(10b)

381

(462)

425

(571)

12b

(24b)

Louisville, 

Kentucky: Cotter 

and Lang Homes 42,829 67,118 57b 3 14 11b 88 92 3b 300 483 61b

New Orleans, 

Louisiana: St. 

Thomas 186,924 221,355 18 4 2 -2b 71 79 8b 494 546 11b

New York, New 

York: 

Arverne/Edgemere 

Houses 143,812 173,972 21 2 4 2b 97 87 -10b 484 513 6

(Continued From Previous Page)

Average housing valuea

Percent built within last 

10 years Percent occupied Average gross renta

 Neighborhood 

(comparable 

neighborhood) 1990 2000

Percent 

change 1990 2000

Percentage 

point 

difference 1990 2000

Percentage 

point 

difference 1990 2000

Percent 

change
Appendix III

Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure 

Act, and Summary Crime Data 

Page 49 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Sources: 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census.

a

The 1990 dollar figures were adjusted to make them comparable to the 2000 dollar figures.

b

The difference of the two estimates is statistically significantly different, and the 2000 estimate is 

larger than the 1990 estimate.

Table 5: Loans Originated for Home Purchase for Each 1996 HOPE VI Neighborhood 

and Four Comparable Neighborhoods

Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania: 

Bedford Additions 41,035 52,056 27b 11 9 -2 84 84 0 330 360 9

San Francisco, 

California: North 

Beach 681,610 895,089 31b 7 4 -2b 91 91 0 983 1,182 20b

Spartanburg, South 

Carolina: Tobe 

Hartwell Courts 

and Tobe Hartwell 

Extension

(Woodworth 

Homes)

52,912

(65,382)

65,711

(76,930)

24b

(18b)

16

(9)

3

(4)

-12b

(-4b)

92

(93)

89

(90)

-3

(-4b)

332

(454)

338

(472)

2

(4)

Tucson, Arizona: 

Connie Chambers 66,704 74,308 11b 26 13 -13b 88 89 1 413 448 9b

Wilmington, North 

Carolina: Robert S. 

Jervay Place 46,992 92,038 96b 5 6 0 82 87 5b 358 498 39b

(Continued From Previous Page)

Average housing valuea

Percent built within last 

10 years Percent occupied Average gross renta

 Neighborhood 

(comparable 

neighborhood) 1990 2000

Percent 

change 1990 2000

Percentage 

point 

difference 1990 2000

Percentage 

point 

difference 1990 2000

Percent 

change

Neighborhood (comparable neighborhood) 1996 2001 Percent change

Atlanta, Georgia

Heman E. Perry Homes 63 60 -5

Baltimore, Maryland 

Hollander Ridge 7 3 -57

Charlotte, North Carolina

Dalton Village 7 58 728

Chester, Pennsylvania

Lamokin Village 6 16 166

(Matopos Hills) (5) (3) (-40)
Appendix III

Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure 

Act, and Summary Crime Data 

Page 50 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Sources: 1996 and 2001 HMDA data.

Chicago, Illinois

ABLA Homes – Brooks Extension 0 0 0

Henry Horner Homes 7 7 0

Robert Taylor Homes B 3 11 266

Cleveland, Ohio

Riverview and Lakeview Terraces 9 18 100

Detroit, Michigan

Herman Gardens 194 137 -29

Holyoke, Massachusetts

Jackson Parkway 117 142 21

Jacksonville, Florida

Durkeeville 2 3 50

(Brentwood Park) (80) (65) (-18)

Kansas City, Missouri

Theron B. Watkins Homes 8 10 25

(West Bluff) (37) (12) (-68)

Louisville, Kentucky

Cotter and Lang Homes 32 54 68

New Orleans, Louisiana

St. Thomas 42 56 33

New York, New York

Arverne/Edgemere Houses 29 46 58

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Bedford Additions 0 0 0

San Francisco, California

North Beach 70 60 -14

Spartanburg, South Carolina

Tobe Hartwell Courts and Tobe Hartwell 

Extension 6 4 -33

(Woodworth Homes) (103) (56) (-46)

Tucson, Arizona

Connie Chambers 66 32 -52

Wilmington, North Carolina

Robert S. Jervay Place 19 8 -58

(Continued From Previous Page)
Appendix III

Selected Census, Home Mortgage Disclosure 

Act, and Summary Crime Data 

Page 51 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Figure 6: Summary of Crime Data at HOPE VI and Comparable Sites

Note: This figure is based on GAO analysis of summary crime data provided by the Chester Housing 

Authority; Jacksonville Housing Authority; Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri; and 

Spartanburg Housing Authority. 

a

The Jacksonville Housing Authority was unable to provide 1996 summary crime data for their 

comparable public housing site. The earliest data they could provide was from 1999. 

b

The first phase of revitalization at the Kansas City HOPE VI site began in May 1995 with non-HOPE 

VI funds.

c

Not defined.

d

Not available.

Crime

Chester, Pennsylvania Jacksonville, Florida Kansas City, Missouri Spartanburg,

South Carolina

HOPE VI Comparable HOPE VI Comparable HOPE VIb Comparable HOPE VI Comparable

Assault/battery

Burglary–breaking

or entering

Drugs

Larceny

Motor

vehicle theft

Vandalism/

property crimes

Total

1996

2002

% change

1996

2002

1996

2002

% change

1999a2002

% change

1996

2002

% change

1996

2002

% change

1996

2002

% change

1996

2002

% change

% change

4 

5

3

1

2

9

24

1

3

0

0

0

1

5

-75

-40

-100

-100

-100

-89

-79

5

0

0

8

0

3

16

7

24

2

12

5

12

62

40

n/dc

n/d

50

n/d

300

288

15

8

6

12

8

6

55

2

3

0

4

3

0

12

-87

-63

-100

-67

-63

-100

-78

27

67

n/ad

47

25

n/a

166

34

88

n/a

67

32

n/a

221

26

31

n/a

43

28

n/a

33

7

8

n/a

11

3

6

35

2

27

2

6

11

15

63

-71

238

n/a

-45

267

150

80

7

20

n/a

6

5

4

42

1

16

0

5

6

5

33

-86

-20

n/a

-17

20

25

-21

16

70

11

37

37

38

209

1

4

n/a

12

1

8

26

-94

-94

n/a

-68

-97

-79

-88

5

27

3

15

1

19

70

5

13

2

15

5

7

47

0

-52

-33

0

400

-63

-33

Source: GAO.
Page 52 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development ApendxiIV
Page 53 GAO-04-109 HOPE VI Program

Appendix V

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiV

GAO Contacts David Wood (202) 512-8678

Paul Schmidt (312) 220-7681

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to those individuals named above, Kristine Braaten, Jackie 

Garza, Catherine Hurley, Grant Mallie, Alison Martin, John McGrail, Sara 

Moessbauer, Marc Molino, Lisa Moore, Barbara Roesmann, Sidney 

Schwartz, Paige Smith, Ginger Tierney, and Carrie Watkins made key 

contributions to this report.

(250142)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government 

for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal 

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other 

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to 

e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00