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

May 2003 PUBLIC HOUSING

HUD’s Oversight of 

HOPE VI Sites Needs 

to Be More Consistent

GAO-03-555
HUD has generally used the same core rating factors to assess HOPE VI 

grant applications—need, capacity, quality, and leveraging. However, HUD 

has, over time, increased the requirements that housing authorities must 

meet for each of these factors in order to make better selection decisions. 

Although authorities’ historical program performance had been considered 

under various rating factors, it was not until fiscal year 2002 that past 

performance became a threshold requirement that an applicant must meet to 

be eligible for a grant. 

The status of work at HOPE VI sites varies greatly, with construction 

complete at 15 of the 165 sites. As of December 31, 2002, grantees had 

completed 27 percent of the total planned units and spent approximately 

$2.1 of the $4.5 billion in HOPE VI revitalization funds awarded. However, 

the majority of grantees have not met their grant agreement deadlines. For 

example, the time allowed for construction has expired for 42 grants, yet 

grantees completed construction within the deadline on only 3 grants. 

Several factors affect the status of work at HOPE VI sites, including the 

development approach used and changes made to revitalization plans. 

HUD’s oversight of HOPE VI grants has been inconsistent, due partly to 

staffing limitations and confusion about the role of field offices. Both 

headquarters and field office staff are responsible for overseeing HOPE VI 

grants. However, HUD field offices have not systematically performed 

required annual reviews. Additionally, despite grantees’ inability to meet key 

deadlines, HUD has no formal enforcement policies. Instead, the agency 

determines if action should be taken against a grantee on a case-by-case 

basis. Although HUD has declared 9 grants to be in default and issued 

warnings regarding 3 grants, it has not done so for other grants in a similar 

situation.

Percentage of Construction Completed at 165 HOPE VI Sites 

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

December 31, 2002. 

Congress established the HOPE VI 

program to revitalize severely 

distressed public housing. In fiscal 

years 1993 to 2001, the Department 

of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) awarded 

approximately $4.5 billion in HOPE 

VI revitalization grants. The 

Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Housing and 

Transportation, Senate Committee 

on Banking, Housing, and Urban 

Affairs, asked GAO to examine 

HUD’s process for assessing grant 

applications, the status of work at 

sites for which grants have been 

awarded, and HUD’s oversight of 

HOPE VI grants. 

To improve its selection and 

oversight of HOPE VI grants, GAO 

recommends that HUD (1) 

continue to include past 

performance as an eligibility 

requirement in each year’s notice 

of funding availability; (2) clarify 

the role of HUD field offices in 

HOPE VI oversight and ensure that 

the offices conduct required annual 

reviews of HOPE VI grants; and (3) 

develop a formal, written 

enforcement policy to hold public 

housing authorities accountable for 

the status of their grants. 

HUD found this report to be fair 

and accurate, and it agreed with 

the three GAO recommendations. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-555.

To view the full report, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact David G. Wood 

at (202) 512-8678. 

Highlights of GAO-03-555, a report to the 

Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee 

on Housing and Transportation, 

Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate 

May 2003

PUBLIC HOUSING 

HUD's Oversight of HOPE VI Sites Needs 

to Be More Consistent 
Page i GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

HUD Uses Core Factors to Assess Applications but Has Not 

Consistently Followed Its Selection Procedures 8

Status of Work Varies Greatly, and Most Grantees Have Not Met 

Grant Agreement Deadlines 16

HUD’s Oversight of HOPE VI Grants Has Been Inconsistent 25

HUD Has Obligated the Majority of Funds Budgeted for Technical 

Assistance for Support to Grantees and HOPE VI Program 

Reporting 31

Conclusions 33

Recommendations for Executive Action 34

Agency Comments 35

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 36

Appendix II: HOPE VI Revitalization Grants 38

Appendix III: Fiscal Year 2002 Application Screening and Scoring

Process 46

Appendix IV: Site Visit Summaries 49

ABLA Homes—Brooks Extension, Chicago, Illinois 50

Arverne/Edgemere Houses, Queens, New York 55

Bedford Additions, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 60

Connie Chambers, Tucson, Arizona 64

Cotter and Lang Homes, Louisville, Kentucky 68

Dalton Village, Charlotte, North Carolina 72

Durkeeville, Jacksonville, Florida 76

Heman E. Perry Homes, Atlanta, Georgia 80

Henry Horner Homes, Chicago, Illinois 85

Herman Gardens, Detroit, Michigan 89

Hollander Ridge, Baltimore, Maryland 93

Jackson Parkway, Holyoke, Massachusetts 97

Lamokin Village, Chester, Pennsylvania 100

North Beach, San Francisco, California 103

Riverview and Lakeview Terraces, Cleveland, Ohio 107

Robert S. Jervay Place, Wilmington, North Carolina 110

Robert Taylor Homes B, Chicago, Illinois 114

St. Thomas, New Orleans, Louisiana 119
Contents

Page ii GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Theron B. Watkins Homes, Kansas City, Missouri 124

Tobe Hartwell Courts and Tobe Hartwell Extension, Spartanburg, 

South Carolina 128

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 131

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 133

GAO Contacts 133

Staff Acknowledgments 133

Glossary 134

Tables Table 1: Average Number of Days to Complete Key Program 

Activities 22

Table 2: 165 Revitalization Grants Awarded, Fiscal Years 

1993-2001 38

Table 3: Fiscal Year 2002 Rating Factors 47

Figures Figure 1: Changes to the HOPE VI Program Over Time 10

Figure 2: Percentage of Planned Revitalization Activities That 

Grantees Completed, by Fiscal Year Awarded 17

Figure 3: Percentage of Construction Completed at 165 HOPE VI 

Sites 18

Figure 4: Status of HOPE VI Funds Budgeted and Expended for 

Revitalization Activities 20

Figure 5: Grant Manager Workload, by Fiscal Year 27

Figure 6: Technical Assistance Funding, by Fiscal Year 31

Figure 7: Total Obligations for Technical Assistance, by Funding 

Category 32

Figure 8: Obligations for Technical Assistance, by Fiscal Year 33

Figure 9: Time Line for ABLA Homes 51

Figure 10: Time Line for Arverne/Edgemere Houses 56

Figure 11: Time Line for Bedford Additions 61

Figure 12: Time Line for Connie Chambers 65

Figure 13: Time Line for Cotter and Lang Homes 68

Figure 14: Time Line for Dalton Village 72

Figure 15: Time Line for Durkeeville 76

Figure 16: Time Line for Heman E. Perry Homes 81

Figure 17: Time Line for Henry Horner Homes 86

Figure 18: Time Line for Herman Gardens 89

Figure 19: Time Line for Hollander Ridge 94
Contents

Page iii GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Figure 20: Time Line for Jackson Parkway 97

Figure 21: Time Line for Lamokin Village 100

Figure 22: Time Line for North Beach 103

Figure 23: Time Line for Riverview and Lakeview 107

Figure 24: Time Line for Robert S. Jervay Place 110

Figure 25: Time Line for Robert Taylor Homes B 115

Figure 26: Time Line for St. Thomas 120

Figure 27: Time Line for Theron B. Watkins Homes 125

Figure 28: Time Line for Tobe Hartwell Courts and Tobe Hartwell 

Extension 128

Abbreviations

ACLU American Civil Liberties Union

CSS community and supportive services

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

NOFA notice of funding availability

REAP Resource Estimation Allocation Process

TIF tax increment financing

HOPE VI Urban Revitalization Demonstration Program

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. It may contain copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. 

Permission from the copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product.
Page 1 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

May 30, 2003 Lret

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:

For decades, some of the nation’s public housing sites have exemplified 

urban decay. In 1992, the National Commission on Severely Distressed 

Public Housing 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. In 

an effort to address these long-standing problems in a new way, 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). The program 

provides grants to public housing authorities to rehabilitate or rebuild 

severely distressed public housing and improve the lives of public housing 

residents through supportive services, such as child care and job training. 

In fiscal years 1993 to 2001, HUD awarded approximately $4.5 billion in 

HOPE VI revitalization grants to 98 public housing authorities (grantees) 

for 165 sites.1

While each HOPE VI project is unique, all projects generally involve (1) the 

preparation of a comprehensive revitalization plan; (2) relocation of the 

original residents; (3) demolition of the distressed public housing units; (4) 

construction of new public housing units, often intermingled with other 

types of housing, or rehabilitation of existing public housing units; (5) 

“reoccupancy,” or the movement of some original residents to completed 

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 $293 million in HOPE VI demolition grants, but they are 

not the focus of this report.
Page 2 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

units; and (6) occupancy, or the filling of all of the completed housing units. 

To select housing authorities for participation in HOPE VI, HUD publishes 

an annual notice of funding availability (NOFA) setting forth the program’s 

current requirements and available funds. Housing authorities then prepare 

applications from which HUD selects those that best satisfy the NOFA 

requirements and signs grant agreements that serve as contracts with the 

housing authorities. Grant agreements specify the activities and 

documentation, such as revitalization plans, that grantees must complete 

as well as key deadlines that they must meet. Grantees that HUD 

determines are in default of grant agreement terms are subject to various 

sanctions, including having their remaining HOPE VI funds rescinded.

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

 This second report 

focuses on HUD’s management of the HOPE VI program. Specifically, as 

agreed with your office, this report examines (1) HUD’s process for 

assessing HOPE VI revitalization grant applications and selecting grantees, 

(2) the status of work at sites for which grants have been awarded and 

compliance with grant agreement deadlines, (3) HUD’s oversight of HOPE 

VI grants, and (4) the amount of program funds that HUD has budgeted for 

technical assistance and the types of technical assistance it has provided.

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 production data and key 

milestones. We assessed the reliability of these data by reviewing 

information about the system 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. Second, 

we visited the 18 housing authorities that were awarded revitalization 

grants in fiscal year 1996. We selected 1996 because it was the first year 

that grants were subject to a standard construction deadline, and the 

deadline had passed for the majority of the grants by the time we began our 

site visits. In addition, we interviewed the HUD headquarters officials 

responsible for administering the program.

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).
Page 3 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

We performed our work from November 2001 to April 2003 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I 

provides additional details on our scope and methodology.

Results in Brief To assess HOPE VI revitalization grant applications, HUD has consistently 

used four core factors—that is, the demonstrated need for revitalization 

assistance, the capacity of applicants to use grants effectively, the quality of 

proposed revitalization plans, and the potential for applicants to use grants 

to leverage funds from other sources. However, the agency has imposed 

more stringent requirements over the years to facilitate and improve its 

decision-making process. For example, to demonstrate need, HUD has 

required applicants since fiscal year 1993 to provide basic statistics, such 

as crime and vacancy rates; but, in fiscal year 1999, it began requiring 

applicants to also submit an independent engineer’s certification that 

public housing units targeted for revitalization are “severely distressed.” 

Further, in fiscal year 2002, HUD imposed an additional eligibility criterion 

to eliminate applicants that had made little progress with revitalization 

grants received in prior years. Previously, such applicants were not 

excluded, and some were awarded multiple grants. Although the core 

assessment factors have been consistent over the years, the HUD Inspector 

General—in annual reviews of the grant award process—found that the 

agency has not consistently followed the HOPE VI grant selection 

procedures that it establishes each year; for example, the Inspector 

General reported that the staff making selection decisions did not always 

document their justifications for scoring and rating individual applications. 

HUD has taken steps to improve the process in response to the Inspector 

General’s findings.

As of December 31, 2002, construction was complete at 15 of the 165 HOPE 

VI sites, and the majority of grantees had not met deadlines established in 

their grant agreements with HUD. Relocation was complete at 101 sites, 

demolition was complete at 87 sites, and at least some units were built at 99 

of the 165 sites. Grantees had completed 27 percent of the total planned 

units and spent approximately $2.1 of the $4.5 billion in HOPE VI 

revitalization funds awarded. However, the majority of grantees had missed 

at least one of the deadlines in their grant agreements. For example, 

grantees did not submit the revitalization plan to HUD within the time 

frame specified in the grant agreement for 75 percent of the grants awarded 

through fiscal year 1999 (for grants awarded after 1999, the deadline had 

not yet passed at the time of our study). Similarly, grantees did not 

complete construction within the deadline on 39 of the 42 grants for which 
Page 4 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

the standard time allowed for construction (54 months) had expired at the 

time of our study. Several factors affect the status of work at HOPE VI sites, 

including the development approach used, changes to revitalization plans, 

and relationships with residents. For example, sites funded with a mix of 

public and private financing tend to take longer because housing 

authorities must hire additional staff or outside consultants proficient in 

private-sector real estate construction, financing, and lending practices in 

order to put together financing and retain developers.

HUD’s oversight of HOPE VI grants has been inconsistent due to staffing 

limitations, confusion about the role of field offices, and a lack of formal 

enforcement policies. Both grant managers who report directly to HUD 

headquarters and staff in HUD field offices are responsible for overseeing 

HOPE VI grants. The workload assigned to HUD grant managers, who have 

primary responsibility for HOPE VI grants, has been increasing since HUD 

last hired a large group of grant managers in 1998, and HUD has reported 

that one reason for project delays has been the limited number of grant 

managers. Staff in HUD’s field offices are required to monitor grants by 

conducting annual reviews. However, by the end of 2002, HUD had not 

conducted any annual reviews for 8 out of the 20 grants awarded in fiscal 

year 1996. According to field office managers, the reviews were not 

performed either because of a lack of staff or because the offices did not 

understand their role in HOPE VI oversight. In a 1998 report, the HUD 

Inspector General noted that HUD had not been performing even the 

minimal monitoring required for the HOPE VI program, in part due to 

understaffing in both headquarters and the field offices. HOPE VI oversight 

also is hampered by a lack of enforcement policies. While HUD’s grant 

agreements describe conditions that the agency may consider a default, 

HUD lacks specific policies on when it will declare a grantee to be in 

default or apply sanctions. Although HUD has issued nine default notices to 

grantees that have not demonstrated significant progress, it has not done 

so for other grantees showing a similar lack of progress.

Since the HOPE VI program began in fiscal year 1993, about $63 million in 

HOPE VI funding has been budgeted for technical assistance, and HUD has 

obligated the majority of its technical assistance funding for services 

provided directly to grantees. Of the $51 million that HUD estimates it has 

obligated to date, 55 percent has been obligated for services provided 

directly to grantees. This included, in fiscal years 1996 to 2000, providing 

each new grantee with an expediter—a private-sector expert in finance, 

real estate development, and community revitalization—to assist with the 

implementation of its HOPE VI grant. HUD obligated the remaining funds 
Page 5 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

for services that help it to manage the program. For example, it obligated 

21 percent of the funding to develop and implement the HOPE VI reporting 

system. In recent years, HUD has eliminated some services previously 

provided to grantees. In fiscal year 2001, for example, HUD stopped 

providing expediters because, according to program officials, the practice 

had become too expensive. Currently, only at-risk grantees—grantees that 

are experiencing problems with their grants or that do not have adequate 

capacity to manage their grants—are considered for technical assistance.

This report contains recommendations designed to improve HUD’s 

management of the HOPE VI program. HUD agreed with each of our 

recommendations.

Background Under the Housing Act of 1937, as amended, Congress created the federal 

public housing program to help communities provide housing for lowincome families. Congress annually appropriates funds for the program, 

and HUD allocates these funds to the approximately 3,400 public housing 

authorities nationwide. Housing authorities are typically created under 

state law, and a locally appointed board of commissioners approves their 

decisions. HUD and the housing authorities have an annual contributions 

contract—a written contract under which HUD agrees to make payments 

to the housing authority and the housing authority agrees to administer the 

housing program in accordance with HUD regulations and requirements. In 

addition to competitively awarded HOPE VI grants, HUD provides housing 

authorities with several types of assistance, including operating subsidies 

to cover the difference between rent payments and operating expenses and 

capital funds to improve the physical condition of properties and upgrade 

the management and operation of existing public housing sites. 

HOPE VI is one of the few active federal housing production programs. By 

providing funds for a combination of capital improvements and community 

and supportive services, HOPE VI seeks to (1) improve the living 

environment for public housing residents of severely distressed public 

housing through the demolition, rehabilitation, reconfiguration, or 

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

public housing is located and contribute to the improvement of the 

surrounding neighborhood; (3) provide housing that will avoid or decrease 

the concentration of very low-income families; and (4) build sustainable
Page 6 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

communities.3 With the 165 grants awarded through fiscal year 2001, 

grantees planned, as of December 31, 2002, to demolish 78,265 public 

housing units and construct or rehabilitate 85,327 units, including 44,757 

public housing units.

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

fiscal year’s NOFA and grant agreement.4

 NOFAs announce the availability 

of funds and contain application requirements, threshold requirements, 

rating factors, and the application selection process.5

 Grant agreements, 

which change each fiscal year, are executed between each grantee and 

HUD and specify the activities, key deadlines, and documentation that 

grantees must meet or complete. For example, the fiscal year 2001 grant 

agreement specified that the grantee must complete construction within 54 

months of the date on which the grant agreement was executed.

From fiscal years 1993 to 2001, HUD received 609 revitalization grant 

applications.6

 HUD uses the same basic procedures each year to screen, 

review, and rank grant applications. When grant applications are received, 

they are screened to determine whether they meet the eligibility and 

threshold requirements in the NOFA. Next, reviewers rate the grant 

3

Until fiscal year 1999, the HOPE VI program operated from year to year as a demonstration 

program in accordance with authorization provided each year in appropriations acts. The 

Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 authorized HOPE VI through the end 

of fiscal year 2002. As defined in the act, severely distressed public housing (1) requires 

major redesign, reconstruction, or redevelopment or partial or total demolition; (2) is a 

significant contributing factor to the physical decline of and disinvestments by public and 

private entities; (3) is occupied predominantly by families that are very low-income, whose 

members are unemployed, and that are dependent on various forms of public assistance or 

has high rates of vandalism and criminal activity; and (4) cannot be revitalized through 

assistance under other programs.

4

HUD had planned to develop regulations for the HOPE VI program but, as of May 2002, had 

withdrawn its plans to do so.

5

A threshold requirement is a requirement that an applicant must meet to be eligible for a 

HOPE VI revitalization grant. For example, the fiscal year 2002 NOFA states that an 

applicant is eligible only if it provides a certification either that it has procured a developer 

for the first phase or that it will act as its own developer. A rating factor is a category that is 

used to evaluate specific aspects of the application, such as the need for funding. For each 

factor, HUD can award anywhere from zero to the maximum amount of points.

6

Some of the 609 applications were submitted for the same public housing site. For example, 

of the 66 fiscal year 2001 applicants, 43 had submitted previous applications for the same 

public housing site. Of the 43 repeat applicants, 25 had applied twice, 11 had applied three 

times, 3 had applied four times, and 4 had applied five times.
Page 7 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

applications on the basis of the rating factors described in the NOFA and 

rank them in score order. Generally, a group of applications representing 

twice the amount of funds available is sent to a final review panel, which 

may include the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Housing 

Investments, the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, and 

other senior HUD staff. The final review panel assigns a final score and 

recommends for selection the most highly rated competitive applications, 

subject to the amount of available funding. For a list of the 165 grants 

awarded through fiscal year 2001, see appendix II.

Public housing authorities with revitalization grants can use a variety of 

other public and private funds to develop their HOPE VI sites. Public 

funding can come from federal, state, and local sources. For example, 

housing authorities can use funds raised through federal low-income 

housing tax credits. 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.7

 Private sources can include 

mortgage financing and financial or in-kind contributions from nonprofit 

organizations. Developing public housing with a combination of public and 

private financing sources is known as mixed-finance development.

HUD’s Office of Public Housing Investments, housed within the Office of 

Public and Indian Housing, manages the HOPE VI program. Grant 

managers within the Office of Public Housing Investments are primarily 

responsible for overseeing HOPE VI grants. They approve changes to the 

revitalization plan and coordinate the review of the community and 

supportive services plan that each grantee submits.8

 In addition, grant 

managers track the status of grants by analyzing data on the following key 

activities: relocation of original residents, demolition of distressed units, 

7

After the state allocates tax credits to developers, the developers typically offer the credits 

to private investors. The private investors use the tax credits to offset taxes otherwise owed 

on their tax returns. The money that private investors pay for the credits is paid into the 

projects as equity financing.

8

The revitalization plan includes, among other things, the grantee’s HOPE VI application, 

budgets, a community and supportive services plan, a relocation plan, and any supplemental 

submissions that HUD requests following its review of the HOPE VI application or as a 

result of a visit to the site. The community and supportive services plan 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.
Page 8 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

new construction or rehabilitation, reoccupancy by some original 

residents, and occupancy of completed units. Public and Indian Housing 

staff located in HUD field offices also play a role in overseeing HOPE VI 

grants, including coordinating and reviewing construction inspections.

HUD Uses Core 

Factors to Assess 

Applications but Has 

Not Consistently 

Followed Its Selection 

Procedures

According to our analysis, HUD has generally used a core of four rating 

factors as the basis for assessing HOPE VI revitalization grant applications. 

Although HUD’s fundamental factors have remained the same, the 

requirements that housing authorities must fulfill under each factor have 

become more stringent from year to year. Additionally, until the most 

recent NOFA, HUD had not eliminated applicants on the basis of poor 

performance on previously awarded grants. HUD’s Inspector General also 

has reported that HUD has not consistently followed its selection 

procedures that are established for each annual assessment.

Although HUD Generally 

Uses the Same Core Factors 

to Assess Applications, 

Applicants Must Now Meet 

More Stringent 

Requirements 

HUD has generally evaluated applications for HOPE VI revitalization grants 

on the basis of four core rating factors. Although other factors have been 

added and removed over time and the names of the factors have varied 

somewhat throughout the years, four key concepts—need, capacity, 

quality, and leveraging—have been used consistently to assess 

applications.9

 As defined in the most recent NOFA, need should indicate 

the severity of distress at the targeted public housing site. Information 

provided under capacity is used to assess the experience of the applicant’s 

team in planning, implementing, and managing comparable physical 

development, financing, leveraging, and partnership activities.10 HUD 

determines quality by evaluating the overall quality of the plan, the 

likelihood of success, project readiness, and design. Finally, information 

provided under leveraging is used to assess the extent to which funds will 

be leveraged for physical development and community and supportive 

services, what other revitalization activities have been carried out in the 

targeted area in anticipation of the HOPE VI grant, and if there are physical 

9

For example, the need factor has also been called “Extent of Need for Revitalization” and 

“Need for Funding.” The capacity factor was also called “Capability” and “Capability and 

Readiness.” Since 1996, HUD has evaluated the quality of the revitalization plan using terms 

such as “Program Quality, Feasibility, and Sustainability” and “Soundness of Approach.” 

10The applicant’s “team” can include housing authority staff, developer partners, program 

managers, property managers, subcontractors, consultants, attorneys, financial consultants, 

and other entities proposed to carry out program activities.
Page 9 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

development activities under way that will enhance the new HOPE VI site. 

For more information on the most recent NOFA, see appendix III. 

Although the core factors have remained the same, the information that 

housing authorities must submit and the requirements that they must fulfill 

under each factor have generally increased over time (see fig. 1). For 

example, although housing authorities have been required to provide basic 

statistics, such as crime and vacancy rates, to document severe distress or 

need since fiscal year 1993, housing authorities also were required, 

beginning in fiscal year 1999, to submit a certification from an independent 

engineer that the public housing targeted for revitalization met HUD 

criteria for severe distress. Since fiscal year 1993, applicants also were 

required to provide information on their own capacity to implement their 

plans. But, beginning in fiscal year 1997, housing authorities also were 

required to document the ability of their proposed partners to develop, 

construct, and manage the proposed activities. To receive the maximum 

amount of points for the quality rating factor in fiscal year 1996, applicants 

were required to submit several pieces of information, including budgets, a 

certification that the proposed activities could not be completed without 

HOPE VI funding, and a description of how the housing authority planned 

to maintain the proposed programs and policies over the long term. By 

fiscal year 2002, housing authorities additionally had to submit 

documentation that the revitalization plan would result in outside 

investment in the surrounding community and evidence that, if funded, 

work could commence immediately. To indicate that they could leverage 

funds, housing authorities were encouraged to submit evidence of outreach 

and support for the project in fiscal year 1995. However, by fiscal year 2000, 

applicants had to show that they would obtain at least $4 in leveraged funds 

for every HOPE VI dollar requested for development in order to receive the 

maximum amount of points under leveraging.
Page 10 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Figure 1: Changes to the HOPE VI Program Over Time

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Legislation

HUD

October 1992:

FY 1993 appropriations act creates 

HOPE VI Urban Revitalization 

Demonstration Program

· Targets 40 most populous cities 

 and troubled housing authorities

· Limits funding to 

 500 units in each city

· Requires using at least 80 

 percent of funds for capital costs

October 1993:

FY 1994 appropriations act requires

funding to be provided to qualified

housing authorities that applied 

in FY 1993 but were not funded

April 1996:

FY 1996 appropriations act 

expands program eligibility to all 

housing authorities with 

distressed housing and adds 

demolition to the funding criteria

September 1994:

FY 1995 appropriations act 

requires funding for housing 

authorities that received planning 

grants in prior years

· Removed 500 units per city limit

September 1996:

FY 1997 appropriations act 

prohibits granting competitive

advantage in awards to settle 

litigation or pay judgments

January 1993:

HUD publishes 1993 HOPE VI NOFA

· Requires applicants to submit 

 evidence of their capacity, including

 their Public Housing Management 

 Assessment Program scores

· Caps funding at $50 million per city

February 1995:

HUD issues special funding 

request letter to the 40 most 

populous cities and troubled 

housing authorities

· Requires applicants to complete 

 a worksheet documenting 

 severe distress

· Evaluates applicants on the 

 extent to which any previous 

 HOPE VI grants have 

 progressed

· Requires description of 

 support from potential 

 leveraging partners

· Caps funding at $50

 million per application

July 1996:

HUD publishes 1996 

HOPE VI NOFA

· Requires applicants to demolish 

 at least one obsolete building;

 strongly encourages them to 

 establish a self-sufficiency 

 program for residents and 

 mixed-income sites

· Sets funding on the basis of

 size, with a maximum award

 of $40 million

· Requires one public meeting 

 with residents and community

 members

April 1997:

HUD publishes 1997 

HOPE VI NOFA

· Removes demolition 

 requirement

· Requires documentation of 

 the developer's experience 

· Eliminates the 

 categorization of 

 applicants by size

· Caps funding at $35

 million per application

· Establishes $5,000 limit

 per unit for community

 and supportive services

Source: GAO.
Page 11 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Note: This figure is based on GAO analysis of HUD’s legislative appropriations and NOFAs.

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Legislation

HUD

October 1997:

FY 1998 

appropriations act 

creates new $26 

million set aside for 

senior sites

October 1998:

FY 1999 appropriations act 

authorizes $625 million for

the HOPE VI program

The Quality Housing and Work 

Responsibility Act of 1998 

authorizes the HOPE VI program 

through September 30, 2002

· Provides a definition of severely 

 distressed public housing

October 1999:

FY 2000 appropriations act 

specifies that $1.2 million should 

be contracted to the Urban 

Institute to conduct an 

independent study on the 

long-term effects of the HOPE VI 

program on former residents

March 1998:

HUD publishes 1998 

HOPE VI NOFA

· Requires 

 description of 

 resident 

 involvement

· Eliminates the 

 requirement to 

 submit Public 

 Housing 

 Management 

 Assessment 

 Program scores

· Establishes $5,000

 limit per household

 for community and

 supportive services

February 2000:

HUD publishes 

2000 HOPE VI NOFA

· Fully implements the Quality 

 Housing and Work 

 Responsibility Act of 1998

· Evaluates applicants on the 

 ratio of HOPE VI funds to 

 committed leveraged funds

February 2001:

HUD publishes 

2001 HOPE VI NOFA

· Gives priority to Section 202 

 and other large sitesa

· Evaluates applicants on the 

 ratio of HOPE VI funds to 

 community and supportive 

 service funds leveraged

February 1999:

HUD publishes 1999 HOPE VI NOFA

· Requires grantees to provide matching 

 funds (at least 5 percent of the 

 revitalization grant amount)

· Disqualifies troubled housing authorities 

 unless HUD determines this designation is 

 not due to reasons that affect its capacity 

 to carry out the proposed activities

· Requires applicants to conduct at least 

 one training session for residents and 

 at least three public meetings with 

 residents and community members

· Limits the amount of the grant that can

 be spent on community and supportive

 services to 15 percent

· Requires applicants to submit a 

 certification by an engineer that units 

 are severely distressed

October 2000:

FY 2001 appropriations act 

authorizes $575 million for the 

HOPE VI program

November 2001:

FY 2002 appropriations act 

authorizes $574 million for the 

HOPE VI program

July 2002:

HUD publishes 

2002 HOPE VI NOFA

· Emphasizes grant 

 timeliness and

 capacity of applicants

· Sets 28 threshold 

 requirements that 

 applicants must meet 

 to be eligible

· Places a $20 million 

 cap on award amounts
Page 12 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

a

Section 202 sites are distressed public housing sites with more than 300 units that HUD has 

determined to be subject to conversion to rental assistance under Section 202 of the Omnibus 

Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.

According to HOPE VI officials, HUD has increased the types and quantity 

of information required each year in an effort to obtain information that 

makes it easier to rate and rank applications and allows the agency to make 

improved selection decisions. In addition, the agency has made some 

changes in an effort to make the application process easier for housing 

authorities. Finally, HOPE VI officials noted that the program’s annual 

appropriation legislation can change the requirements each year and that 

the NOFAs must be revised to reflect these changes.

Although the changes have given HUD better information upon which to 

base selection decisions, some of the housing authority and public housing 

industry group officials that we interviewed expressed concerns about the 

changes in the application requirements that housing authorities must 

meet. According to these officials, such changes make it difficult for 

housing authorities to anticipate what HUD intends to emphasize and to 

make detailed revitalization plans until each NOFA is published. The 

officials also noted that it is challenging for previously denied applicants to 

determine how to revise their applications. Housing authorities and 

interest groups report that it generally costs $75,000 to $250,000 to prepare 

a HOPE VI grant application. The fiscal year 2002 NOFA was of particular 

concern to some of the housing authority officials and industry group 

representatives that we interviewed. According to these officials, the NOFA 

required housing authorities to conduct impractical up-front planning and 

to obtain commitments at an unrealistically early date. For example, an 

applicant had to certify that it had procured a developer for the first phase 

of construction by the application due date. Officials we interviewed stated 

that this requirement would be costly to the applicant, who at that point 

would have no guarantee of funding.

Until Fiscal Year 2002, HUD 

Did Not Declare Applicants 

Ineligible because of Past 

Performance

Although HUD’s annual selection process had considered the performance 

of applicants who had received HOPE VI grants in prior years, it was not 

until the fiscal year 2002 NOFA that past program performance became a 

mandatory threshold requirement for an applicant to be eligible for a HOPE 

VI revitalization grant. Incorporating past performance—specifically, the 

demonstrated ability to efficiently manage projects—can help direct HOPE 

VI funds to where they can most effectively produce results.
Page 13 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Starting in fiscal year 1995, an applicant’s score for capacity was partially 

based on the extent to which any previously awarded HOPE VI grants had 

progressed. In fiscal years 1993, 1996, and 1997, applicants were also 

required, under the capacity factor, to submit Public Housing Management 

Assessment Program scores, which were a measure of a housing 

authority’s performance in all major areas of management operations. HUD 

stopped requiring this information in fiscal year 1998, after the Public 

Housing Management Assessment Program was discontinued.11 The fiscal 

year 2002 NOFA was the first that stated that an applicant with one or more 

existing HOPE VI revitalization grants would be disqualified if one or more 

of those grants failed to meet certain performance requirements as 

required in the applicable HOPE VI revitalization grant agreement. 

During the years that past performance was a rating factor—rather than a 

threshold eligibility requirement—multiple HOPE VI revitalization grants 

were awarded to housing authorities that had made little progress in 

constructing new units under previous grants. For example, the Chicago 

Housing Authority was awarded grants in fiscal years 1998, 2000, and 2001, 

although construction, as of December 31, 2002, was 21 percent complete 

at the Cabrini-Green site (fiscal year 1994 grant); 26 percent complete at 

the Robert Taylor B site (fiscal year 1996 grant); 27 percent complete at the 

ABLA Brooks Extension site (fiscal year 1996 grant); and 0 percent 

complete at the Henry Horner site (fiscal year 1996 grant). Similarly, the 

Detroit Housing Commission has received three grants and constructed 25 

percent of the units planned.

11In 1997, HUD instituted a new system—the Public Housing Assessment System—to 

measure overall housing authority performance. Because this system is still undergoing 

changes, applicants have not been asked to submit their scores as part of their application.
Page 14 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

In a June 2002 report to Congress, HUD acknowledged that it has done 

little to rectify the problems among low performers and has often awarded 

poorly performing housing authorities multiple grants despite low or no 

unit production, inadequate oversight, and capacity issues.12 HUD also 

acknowledged that awarding multiple grants to poor performers further 

strains the institutional and staff capacity of these public housing 

authorities, intensifying existing problems. Finally, HUD noted that it had 

initially awarded grants to large housing authorities for large-scale 

developments, without fully recognizing that most of the grantees included 

at-risk and troubled public housing authorities.13 Some of these large 

housing authorities were awarded multiple revitalization grants, and the 

burden of managing the grants resulted in slow planning, redevelopment, 

and construction.

According to HUD, it elevated the importance of past performance in the 

fiscal year 2002 NOFA because it wanted to emphasize accountability and 

readiness. It determined that applicants that already had one or more 

HOPE VI revitalization grants should demonstrate the capability to manage 

them before HUD awarded them more funds. It also concluded that poor 

performers should not be rewarded with additional funding when other 

housing authorities possibly could implement the grants better.

HUD Has Not Consistently 

Followed Its Grant 

Selection Procedures

In annual reviews of the HOPE VI grant selection process, HUD’s Inspector 

General has found that the agency has not consistently followed its grant 

selection procedures for each year. For example, in an audit of the fiscal 

year 1996 grant award process, the Inspector General found that HUD 

revised its screening procedures to allow applicants to comply with only 

one of the two eligibility criteria in the NOFA.14 Under the revised 

screening procedures, HUD awarded $269 million to applicants that should 

have been ineligible for funding because they did not demonstrate 

compliance with the two criteria as specified in the NOFA. Similarly, when 

12U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HOPE VI: Best Practices and 

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

13Under the Public Housing Management Assessment Program, housing authorities that 

received an overall score of less than 60 percent were designated as troubled (overall). An 

at-risk housing authority is one that is close to being designated as troubled.

14U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General, Audit of 

the Fiscal Year 1996 HOPE VI Grant Award Process, 98-FO-101-0001 (Washington, D.C.: 

Oct. 20, 1997).
Page 15 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

HUD encountered a defect in a fiscal year 1996 application, often the 

reviewers resolved the defect in a manner that improved the applicant’s 

application but did not always comply with the NOFA procedures for 

resolving application defects. The Inspector General concluded that, as a 

result, some applications that should have been ineligible for funding were 

inappropriately funded.

Similarly, the Inspector General also has found that in both fiscal years 

1998 and 1999 HUD did not fully or consistently implement key application 

review procedures.15 Specifically, the final review panel, and to a lesser 

degree the initial reviewers, did not always document their justifications 

for scoring and rating individual applications. For example, in its fiscal year 

1998 audit, the Inspector General reviewed 24 applications and identified 6 

on which the final review panel changed preliminary scores without 

providing adequate documentation or justification to support all the 

changes. The scoring changes resulted in 5 of the applicants obtaining 

funding and 1 losing funding. In its fiscal year 1999 audit, the Inspector 

General reviewed 25 applications and found that HUD’s final review panel 

had changed scores for 6 applications without providing adequate 

documentation or justification. The scoring changes resulted in 5 of the 

applicants obtaining funding.

In response to these and other Inspector General criticisms of the HOPE VI 

grant selection process, HOPE VI officials told us that they follow their 

review procedures to the best of their ability, given the time constraints of 

the annual competition. Although the Inspector General generally has 

about 4 months to review the previous year’s applications, HOPE VI 

officials noted that they have shorter time frames—generally, 6 weeks. 

HUD officials also stated that they have made efforts to address the 

Inspector General’s concerns, including efforts to better screen 

applications. In its report on the fiscal year 1999 HOPE VI competition, the 

Inspector General determined that HUD had addressed issues in its fiscal 

year 1998 review, relating to the need to ensure that (1) each rejected 

applicant would be provided specific written notification as to why the 

application was not successful and (2) all evaluations were based on the 

facts presented in the applications.

15The results of the Inspector General’s reviews of the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 award 

processes were captured in management letters related to annual financial statement audits.
Page 16 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Status of Work Varies 

Greatly, and Most 

Grantees Have Not Met 

Grant Agreement 

Deadlines

The status of work at HOPE VI sites varies, with construction completed at 

15 of the 165 sites that received revitalization grants through fiscal year 

2001. Overall, at least some units have been constructed at 99 of the 165 

sites, and 47 percent of all HOPE VI funds have been expended. In general, 

more recently awarded grants are progressing more quickly than earlier 

grants. Nevertheless, the majority of grantees missed at least one of the 

deadlines in their grant agreements. For example, grantees did not submit 

the revitalization plan to HUD on time for 75 percent of the grants awarded 

through fiscal year 1999. Many factors affect the status of work at HOPE VI 

sites, including the development approach, housing authority management, 

and relationships with residents and the surrounding community.

Status of Work Varies 

Widely at HOPE VI Sites

Our analysis of data from HUD’s HOPE VI reporting system shows that 

work status varies at HOPE VI sites. As of December 31, 2002, relocation 

was complete at 101 of the 165 sites, demolition at 87 sites, and 

construction at 15 sites.16 Reoccupancy—the return of some original 

residents to revitalized units—was complete at 37 sites, while occupancy 

was complete at 14 of the 165 sites. Grantees had demolished 57,772 units 

of severely distressed public housing and constructed or rehabilitated 

23,109 units. Figure 2 shows the percentage of planned revitalization 

activities completed by each fiscal year’s grantees.

16The following 15 sites are complete: Bernal/Plaza, San Francisco, California (fiscal year 

1993 grant); Earle Village, Charlotte, North Carolina (fiscal year 1993 grant); Outhwaite 

Homes/King Kennedy, Cleveland, Ohio (fiscal year 1993 grant); Allen Parkway Village, 

Houston, Texas (fiscal year 1993 grant); Hillside Terrace, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (fiscal year 

1993 grant); Quigg Newton Homes, Denver, Colorado (fiscal year 1994 grant); Lafayette 

Courts, Baltimore, Maryland (fiscal year 1994 grant); McGuire Gardens, Camden, New 

Jersey (fiscal year 1994 grant); Hayes Valley, San Francisco, California (fiscal year 1995 

grant); Lexington Terrace, Baltimore, Maryland (fiscal year 1995 grant); Valley Green/Sky 

Tower, Washington, D.C. (fiscal year 1997 grant); Enterprise Drive, Helena, Montana (fiscal 

year 1997 grant); Vine Hill Homes, Nashville, Tennessee (fiscal year 1997 grant); Caroline 

Street Apartments, New Bedford, Connecticut (fiscal year 1998 grant); and Heritage House 

II, Kansas City, Missouri (fiscal year 1998 grant).
Page 17 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Figure 2: Percentage of Planned Revitalization Activities That Grantees Completed, by Fiscal Year Awarded

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

31, 2002).

Although construction was complete at only 15 sites as of December 31, 

2002, construction was nearing completion at additional sites. As shown in 

figure 3, at least some units had been constructed at 99 of the 165 sites. 

Where construction was still ongoing, it was 50 percent or more complete 

at 40 sites and 75 percent or more complete at 25 sites. No units had been 

completed at 66 sites. Overall, 27 percent of the total planned units were 

complete as of December 31, 2002.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Occupancy

Reoccupancy

Construction

Demolition

Relocation

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Percentage

Fiscal year

Source: GAO.
Page 18 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Figure 3: Percentage of Construction Completed at 165 HOPE VI Sites

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

31, 2002).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Number of sites

Percentage range of construction completed

75 to 100

<100

50 to

<75

25 to

<50

>0 to

<25

0

66

19

25 25

15 15

Source: GAO.
Page 19 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

In general, grantees with more recently awarded grants are completing 

activities more quickly than those with the earlier grants. The fiscal year 

1993 grantees took an average of 31 months after execution of grant 

agreements to start construction. The fiscal year 1994 grantees took an 

average of 41 months.17 However, the 14 grantees awarded grants in fiscal 

year 1999 that have started construction did so an average of 16 months 

after grant agreement execution. Furthermore, the 9 fiscal year 2000 

grantees that have started construction did so, on average, 10 months after 

grant agreement execution.18 According to HUD, there are several possible 

reasons for this improvement, which include that the later grantees may 

have more capacity than the earlier grantees, the applications submitted in 

later years were more fully developed to satisfy NOFA criteria, and HUD 

has placed greater emphasis on reporting and accountability.

Overall, grantees have expended about $2.1 of the $4.5 billion (47 percent) 

in HOPE VI revitalization funds awarded.19 As expected, a greater 

percentage of the funds budgeted for planning and demolition has been 

expended than of the funds budgeted for construction and community and 

supportive services (see fig. 4). For example, 67 percent of all HOPE VI 

funds budgeted for demolition have been expended, while 42 percent of all 

HOPE VI funds budgeted for construction have been expended.

17One fiscal year 1994 grant was not included in the calculation because the grantee plans to 

use the grant funds to acquire, rather than construct, homeownership units.

18As of December 31, 2002, 7 of the fiscal year 1999 grantees and 9 of the fiscal year 2000 

grantees had not started construction. Until these grantees start construction, we cannot be 

sure that the fiscal years 1999 and 2000 grantees, as a whole, have moved faster than earlier 

grantees.

19The percentage of HOPE VI dollars expended can be impacted by the fact that, in some 

cases, other money is spent first, reserving the HOPE VI dollars to be expended later in the 

project.
Page 20 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Figure 4: Status of HOPE VI Funds Budgeted and Expended for Revitalization 

Activities

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

31, 2002).

Majority of Grant 

Agreement Deadlines Have 

Not Been Met

The majority of grantees missed at least one of the deadlines established in 

their grant agreements.20 Grantees must meet three major deadlines 

according to their grant agreements: the submission of a revitalization plan 

to HUD, the submission of a community and supportive services plan to 

HUD, and completion of construction. Overall, for 75 percent of the grants 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Planning/

Professional

services

Dollars in millions

Source: GAO.

Fund uses

HOPE VI funds budgeted

HOPE VI funds expended

Community/

Supportive

Relocation/

services

Reoccupancy

Construction

Demolition

64%

67%

42%

49%

43%

20All grants are not subject to the same time frames because the deadlines in each year’s 

grant agreements tend to be different. 
Page 21 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

awarded through fiscal year 1999, the grantees did not submit the 

revitalization plan to HUD on time.21 For 70 percent of the grants subject to 

a standard deadline for the submission of a community and supportive 

services plan, the grantees did not meet the deadline.22 Additionally, 

grantees completed construction within the deadline on only 3 of the 42 

grants for which the time allowed for construction—54 months from grant 

execution for grants awarded since fiscal year 1996—had expired. For 9 of 

the 39 grants that missed their construction deadline, the grantees had not 

constructed any units as of December 31, 2002.

HUD data show that the time it has taken grantees to submit key 

documents has shortened over the life of the program. For example, as 

shown in table 1, grantees have been taking less time to submit 

revitalization plans to HUD. On average, the fiscal year 1994 grantees took 

about 790 days after the execution of their grant agreements to submit a 

revitalization plan. By fiscal year 2000, the grantees took an average of 185 

days after the execution of their grant agreements to submit a revitalization 

plan. Similarly, although there is no specific grant agreement deadline 

related to submitting mixed-finance proposals—documents that HUD must 

approve before mixed-finance construction can begin—the recent grantees 

have done so in less time than did earlier grantees. The average number of 

days between grant execution and submission of a mixed-finance proposal 

fell from 2,255 days for the fiscal year 1994 grantees to 508 days for the 

fiscal year 2000 grantees. 

21We omitted from our analysis 5 fiscal year 1995 grants that were awarded during a second 

round of funding because each grantee signed a grant agreement with HUD that contained 

unique deadlines specific to that grant. The revitalization plan deadlines for the fiscal years 

2000 and 2001 grants have not yet passed.

22We could not assess compliance for grants awarded in fiscal years 1995-99 using the data in 

HUD’s HOPE VI reporting system because the grant agreements stated that the activity 

should be completed in accordance with the schedule in each grantee’s revitalization plan, 

rather than in accordance with a standard deadline. 
Page 22 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Table 1: Average Number of Days to Complete Key Program Activities

Source: HUD.

Note: Not all of the grantees have submitted a revitalization plan. For example, 1 of the fiscal year 

2000 grantees and 4 of the fiscal year 2001 grantees have not submitted a revitalization plan. Until 

these grantees have submitted a plan, we cannot determine the average number of days for the fiscal 

year 1999 and 2000 grantees, as a whole.

HUD has taken steps to encourage adherence to deadlines. For instance, 

the agency notified grantees in March 2002 that, as part of HUD’s increased 

focus on readiness, 10 dates could no longer be revised in the HOPE VI 

reporting system as of June 30, 2002. The dates included planned 

completion of the revitalization plan, planned completion of a mixedfinance proposal, planned start of construction, and planned completion of 

construction. Prior to this decision, grantees had been allowed to adjust 

their planned dates when delays occurred, making it difficult for HUD to 

determine the extent of delays. In its fiscal year 2002 NOFA, HUD also 

stressed project readiness. For example, the NOFA required applicants to 

provide a certification stating either that they had procured a developer for 

the first phase of development by the application due date or that they 

would act as their own developer. Similarly, applicants that proposed offsite replacement housing were required to submit evidence of control of 

the proposed off-site locations.

Many Factors Affect Work 

Status

Our visits to the sites that were awarded revitalization grants in 1996 show 

that many factors—including the development approach, housing authority 

management, and relationships with residents and the community—can 

affect the status of work at a site. In its June 2002 report to Congress, HUD 

Fiscal year 

awarded

Average number of days from

grant execution to revitalization

plan submission

Average number of days from

grant execution to submission

of mixed-finance proposal

1993 137 2,047

1994 790 2,255

1995 287 1,276

1996 400 1,421

1997 290 983

1998 317 1,005

1999 259 912

2000 185 508

2001 93 296
Page 23 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

stated that a mixed-finance development approach might cause delays 

because housing authorities often lack staff with expertise in development 

and complex financing approaches. They must hire additional staff or 

outside consultants proficient in private-sector real estate construction, 

financing, and lending practices to put together financing and retain 

developers. For example, the redevelopment of Dalton Village in Charlotte, 

North Carolina, was delayed about 1 year due to the denial of its initial 

application for low-income housing tax credits. In addition, the Housing 

Authority of New Orleans decided to use tax increment financing to raise 

additional funds for its St. Thomas site.23 It took more than 2 years for the 

housing authority to get all of the approvals necessary. In contrast, the 

Chester Housing Authority was able to complete construction at Lamokin 

Village within 5 years of grant execution because it used only public 

housing funds, which did not require them to acquire additional expertise. 

Other aspects of the development approach, such as the type and location 

of planned revitalization efforts, also can affect status. For example, 

rehabilitation of existing buildings tends to take less time than construction 

of new ones. As of December 31, 2002, over half of the HOPE VI units 

scheduled for rehabilitation had been completed, while less than a quarter 

of the new planned units had been constructed. The Cuyahoga 

Metropolitan Housing Authority’s fiscal year 1996 grant involves both 

rehabilitation of existing units and construction of new units. As of April 

2003, rehabilitation of 56 units was under way, whereas the construction of 

new units was not scheduled to begin until October 2004. Also, on-site 

construction tends to occur faster than off-site construction. As of 

December 31, 2002, 29 percent of on-site construction was complete, while 

19 percent of off-site construction was complete. Grantees planning for offsite construction sometimes have to purchase the property or properties on 

which the units will be built. For example, the Housing Authority of the 

City of Pittsburgh plans to acquire numerous parcels of land in the 

community surrounding the Bedford Additions site and construct new offsite units prior to beginning construction on-site. Because acquiring the 

sites is taking longer than anticipated, the housing authority has yet to 

relocate residents and demolish the original site. For more examples of 

how development approaches can affect work status, see appendix IV.

23Tax increment financing allows a municipality to provide financial incentives to stimulate 

private investment in a designated area, known as a tax increment financing district.
Page 24 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

The extent to which revitalization plans were changed during the course of 

redevelopment also affects work status. The Housing Authority of the City 

of Atlanta’s original application for a fiscal year 1996 HOPE VI grant 

outlined a plan for 100 percent public housing at the Perry Homes site. Two 

years after the grant award, HUD conducted a site visit and determined that 

the site should include a wide range of units, including market-rate units. 

Due to these changes, a revitalization plan was not approved until October 

2002. The Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority changed the plans for 

its Riverview site due to environmental problems. In contrast, the Housing 

Authority of Louisville, another fiscal year 1996 grantee, has not had to 

make any significant modifications to its revitalization plan for Cotter and 

Lang Homes, and over 60 percent of the 1,213 planned units were complete 

as of December 31, 2002.

Several grantees we visited stated that the performance of housing 

authority management staff affected the status of their revitalization plans. 

For example, residents in Jacksonville and housing authority staff in 

Spartanburg stated that their fiscal year 1996 grants had progressed 

significantly, in part, because the executive director communicated well 

with residents, the housing authority board, and local community leaders. 

In contrast, the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority was 

experiencing internal problems at the time its fiscal year 1996 grant was 

awarded. Its executive director was ultimately convicted for theft of public 

funds, mail fraud, and lying about a loan. A new executive director was 

hired in late 1998, and the housing authority was finally able to focus on the 

fiscal year 1996 HOPE VI grant in 1999, according to housing authority 

officials. In Detroit, the revitalization plans for Herman Gardens changed 

multiple times because there were several changes in executive leadership 

and each executive director had a different plan for the site. Because the 

Detroit Housing Commission had not submitted a formal revitalization plan 

for Herman Gardens, HUD notified the commission in March 2000 and 

March 2002 that it was in default of its grant agreement. 

The extent of support from residents and the local community also can 

affect the timing of progress at HOPE VI sites. For example, the Tucson 

Community Services Department, which serves as the city’s public housing 

authority, worked closely with its residents and the local community during 

the planning process for its fiscal year 1996 grant. Tucson did not submit its 

revitalization plan until a majority of the residents had approved it. In 

contrast, resident or community opposition delayed progress at several of 

the sites we visited. For instance, the Chicago Housing Authority’s plans for 

Henry Horner Homes were delayed 4 years by legal actions related to a 
Page 25 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

resident lawsuit. Residents at San Francisco’s North Beach site did not 

want to relocate from the site during the redevelopment, which caused the 

redevelopment to take longer than it would have otherwise. Because the 

Housing Authority of New Orleans’s St. Thomas site is located in a historic 

district, local preservationists opposed the construction of a retail store at 

the site. In July 2002, a nonprofit organization filed a lawsuit against the 

housing authority for failing to comply with environmental and historic 

preservation laws. The case was dismissed in April 2003. See appendix IV 

for more information on each of the 20 sites we visited.

HUD’s approval process can also affect the status of work at HOPE VI sites. 

Officials responsible for managing 12 of the 20 grants awarded in fiscal year 

1996 told us that HUD’s approval process for key documents, such as the 

revitalization plan and mixed-finance proposals, was too slow. However, 

according to a HUD report, the agency’s approval process has been 

improving. For instance, HUD’s data show the average number of days 

from the submission of a mixed-finance proposal to approval was 185 days 

for the fiscal year 1996 grantees. For the fiscal year 1999 grantees, the 

average number of days between submission and approval of a mixedfinance proposal was 126 days.

HUD’s Oversight of 

HOPE VI Grants Has 

Been Inconsistent

HUD grant managers located at HUD headquarters and in the field are 

primarily responsible for overseeing HOPE VI grants, but staff in HUD’s 

field offices also assist grant managers in monitoring grants. In particular, 

field office staff are to perform annual on-site monitoring reviews. 

However, by the end of 2002, HUD had not conducted any annual reviews 

for 8 out of the 20 grants awarded in fiscal year 1996. According to HUD, 

staffing limitations have constrained its ability to oversee grants. 

Additionally, despite grantees’ inability to meet key deadlines, HUD has not 

developed a formal enforcement policy, which is an important part of 

oversight.

While Grant Managers 

Oversee Grants, Field Office 

Staff Share HOPE VI 

Oversight Responsibilities

Both HUD headquarters and field office staff are responsible for overseeing 

HOPE VI revitalization grants. HUD has 30 grant managers that report 

directly to the Office of Public Housing Investments—17 located at HUD 

headquarters and 13 located in field offices. Grant managers are primarily 

responsible for overseeing HOPE VI grants and perform a number of 

duties, including tracking the overall status of the grant, reviewing and 

approving mixed-finance proposals, reviewing and approving all proposed 
Page 26 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

changes to program schedules, and reviewing and approving procurement 

documents. According to HOPE VI officials, the main tool that grant 

managers use to oversee grants is the HOPE VI reporting system, which 

since 1998 has provided information on the status of each grant. (Grantee 

reporting existed before 1998, but not in the form of the quarterly reporting 

system currently used.) Grantees enter data into the Web-based system at 

the end of each quarter.24 According to the grant managers, the reports 

from the system enable them to track grant activity and deadline 

compliance.

Office of Public and Indian Housing staff in HUD’s field offices also play a 

role in overseeing HOPE VI grants, but their responsibilities vary. Three 

field offices that contain grant managers—located in New York, New York; 

Miami, Florida; and Cleveland, Ohio—have signature authority, meaning 

that the office’s local Director of Public Housing can approve documents 

without approval from headquarters. Other field offices contain grant 

managers but do not have signature authority. However, most field offices 

do not have a grant manager, but rather have a HOPE VI coordinator, 

whose responsibilities include assisting grantees with preparing demolition 

applications, reviewing environmental assessments, and coordinating and 

reviewing inspections of HOPE VI construction sites performed by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. The field offices also are responsible for 

performing an annual on-site monitoring visit to each HOPE VI grant. 

Following this visit, the field office is to prepare a report for both the 

housing authority staff and the grant manager detailing grantee systems 

and controls in place and compliance with HOPE VI program requirements. 

The site visit reports also provide an assessment of the overall status of 

grant activities. 

Staffing Limitations and 

Confusion about the Role of 

Field Offices Constrain 

HUD’s Ability to Oversee 

Grants

According to various reports and HUD field staff, the limited number of 

grant managers, a shortage of field office staff, and confusion about the 

role of field offices have diminished the agency’s ability to oversee HOPE 

VI grants. As shown in figure 5, grant manager workload has been 

increasing since HUD last hired a large group of grant managers in 1998, 

24Data include current and projected production data (e.g., the number of households 

relocated and the number of units demolished, constructed, and occupied); financial 

information (e.g., HOPE VI funds budgeted and expended); and key milestones (e.g., the 

grant award date, the dates the revitalization and community and supportive services plans 

were submitted and approved by HUD, and dates related to each phase of construction).
Page 27 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

but the workload remains below the previous level. As of fiscal year 2001, 

each grant manager was responsible for an average of about 6 grants 

totaling about $157 million in HOPE VI funding. In its June 2002 report to 

Congress, HUD stated that one factor contributing to delays at HOPE VI 

sites was limited HUD grant managers. Similarly, some of the grantees we 

visited stated that they believe grant manager workload contributed to the 

slow approval process previously discussed in this report.

Figure 5: Grant Manager Workload, by Fiscal Year

Note: This figure is based on GAO analysis of data provided by HUD.

HUD reports that HOPE VI oversight also has been affected by a shortage 

of field office staff and confusion about the role of field offices. Our site 

visits showed that HUD field staff are not systematically performing the 

required annual reviews. Of the 20 revitalization grants awarded in fiscal 

year 1996, 8 had never had an annual review performed as of the end of 

2002, and no grant had had an annual review performed each year since the 

grant award. Overall, only one in five of the required annual reviews were 

performed. However, the annual reviews that were performed did contain 

important findings. For example, several of the annual reviews performed 

for the fiscal year 1996 grantees noted that housing authorities were not 

Fiscal year

Source: GAO.

0

3

6

9

12

15

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Grants per grant manager
Page 28 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

following procurement policies and lacked proper documentation of 

resident relocations.

From our interviews with field office managers, we determined that there 

are two reasons why annual reviews were not performed. First, many of the 

field office managers we interviewed stated that they simply did not have 

enough staff to get more involved in overseeing HOPE VI grants. For 

example, one field office manager told us that, because of staffing 

constraints, his office did not perform any HOPE VI oversight. Second, 

some field offices did not seem to understand their role in HOPE VI 

oversight. For instance, one office thought that the annual reviews were 

primarily the responsibility of the grant managers. Others stated that they 

had not performed the reviews because construction had not yet started at 

the sites in their jurisdiction or because they did not think they had the 

authority to monitor grants.

The HUD Inspector General and the agency itself have reported that 

staffing shortages, particularly in the field, have resulted in a lack of 

program oversight. In a 1998 review of the HOPE VI program, the Inspector 

General stated that HUD had not been performing even the minimal 

monitoring requirements for the HOPE VI program in part due to 

understaffing in both headquarters and the field offices.25 As noted in that 

report, lack of monitoring led to grant implementation problems remaining 

unresolved. In addition, HUD’s most significant workforce planning activity 

to date—its Resource Estimation Allocation Process (REAP)—cited 

staffing shortages related to the HOPE VI program. Under REAP, HUD 

systematically estimated the number of employees needed to do its work, 

on the basis of current workload and operations. The final resource 

estimation report, which was issued in April 2001, noted that the Office of 

Public and Indian Housing needed to add approximately 38 full-time 

employees in the field to conduct tasks such as monitoring and providing 

assistance to HOPE VI grantees.26 The report also concluded that the 

Office of Public Housing Investments should more clearly articulate its 

own role and the role of field offices in the oversight of HOPE VI grants.

25U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Inspector General, 

Nationwide Audit of HOPE VI Urban Revitalization Program, 99-FW-101-0001 

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 17, 1998).

26Arthur Andersen LLP, HUD Workforce Measurement Final Report – Phase I (Washington, 

D.C.: Apr. 17, 2001).
Page 29 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

HUD Lacks Clear 

Enforcement Policies and 

Has Not Always Enforced 

Grant Agreement Deadlines

Although the majority of grantees have missed key deadlines, HUD has not 

developed and provided to grantees an official HOPE VI enforcement 

policy, according to program officials. Instead, the agency determines if 

action should be taken against a grantee on a case-by-case basis. A clear 

enforcement policy could provide grantees with more certainty regarding 

the consequences of not meeting grant agreement deadlines. In a 

December 1999 memorandum, HUD’s Office of General Counsel noted that 

no statutory or program provisions required grantees to expend HOPE VI 

funds within a set period of time. Therefore, it concluded that HUD may 

grant extensions to time frames established in the grant agreements, thus 

avoiding the need to declare grantees that have missed deadlines to be in 

default of their grant agreements.27 

In the absence of a formal enforcement policy, HUD has outlined in general 

terms its default policy in grant agreements. In each grant agreement, HUD 

describes several occurrences that might constitute a default by the 

grantee under the grant agreement, including a grantee’s failure to comply 

with the conditions and terms of its grant agreement. HUD provides written 

notice of all defaults and gives the grantee 30 days to remedy the default or 

to submit evidence to HUD that it is not in default. If the default cannot be 

remedied within 30 days, grantees have an additional 60 days to rectify the 

default situation. At that time, if the condition(s) noted in HUD’s initial 

letter to the grantee has not been resolved, HUD may require the grantee to 

revise its program schedule, management plan, or program budget. HUD 

also may restrict the grantee’s authority to draw down grant funds or 

require reimbursement by the grantee. HUD also reserves the right to 

appoint a receiver to carry out HOPE VI activities, reduce the amount of 

the grant award, or terminate the grant.

According to HOPE VI officials, all grantees would have been considered in 

default of their grant agreements at some point in their grant process if 

HUD had not been flexible regarding time frames. For example, virtually all 

of the fiscal year 1996 grantees were allowed an extension to the date 

construction was to be completed, and some were allowed multiple 

27Prior to fiscal year 2002, HOPE VI appropriations were available until expended. Starting 

in fiscal year 2002, HOPE VI appropriations must be obligated within 2 fiscal years. 

Specifically, the fiscal year 2002 HOPE VI appropriations must be obligated by September 

30, 2003, while the fiscal year 2003 HOPE VI appropriations must be obligated by September 

30, 2004. For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, appropriations must be expended within 5 years 

after the period of availability of obligation.
Page 30 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

extensions. The Chicago Housing Authority’s Henry Horner grant and the 

Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta’s Perry Homes grant received 

extensions for the execution of a general contractor’s agreement and for 

the date construction was to be completed. In 2000, the Housing Authority 

of the City of Pittsburgh’s grant for Bedford Additions received an 

extension until early 2003 to complete construction; in 2002, the authority 

received an additional extension to complete construction by July 2007.

Although HUD has not developed a formal enforcement policy, it has issued 

default notices to grantees. It has generally issued these notices when there 

is no evidence of a formal and comprehensive approach to the grantee’s 

revitalization effort. As of March 2003, HUD had declared nine grants to be 

in default and issued warning notices regarding three other grants. 

According to program officials, HUD expects to increase the use of the 

default tool because a default letter tends to garner enough attention with 

the local media and political leaders to prompt action. However, HUD has 

never rescinded any HOPE VI funds, even when it has issued default letters.

Because HUD does not have a formal enforcement policy, its issuance of 

default notices can be viewed as arbitrary. For example, in July 2000, HUD 

declared the Housing Authority of Baltimore City’s fiscal year 1996 grant 

for Hollander Ridge to be in default of its grant agreement on the basis of 

“failure to comply with the HOPE VI requirements or any other Federal, 

State or local laws, regulations or requirements applicable in implementing 

the Revitalization Plan.” The default letter also noted that, because the 

housing authority’s revitalization plan was no longer consistent with the 

requirements of a consent decree, the grant was deemed to be in default. In 

March 2000 and March 2002, HUD declared the Detroit Housing 

Commission’s fiscal year 1996 grant for Herman Gardens to be in default 

because the housing authority had not submitted a revitalization plan as 

required in its grant agreement. However, HUD has not issued default 

letters to other grantees who have not met grant agreement deadlines for 

completing construction. For example, even though no units have been 

completed at St. Thomas in New Orleans or Bedford Additions in 

Pittsburgh and, according to grant agreement deadlines, construction was 

to be completed by early 2002, neither fiscal year 1996 grant has been 

declared in default.
Page 31 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

HUD Has Obligated the 

Majority of Funds 

Budgeted for Technical 

Assistance for Support 

to Grantees and HOPE 

VI Program Reporting

HUD estimates that it has obligated about $51 million of the $63 million in 

HOPE VI funds that have been set aside for technical assistance, with the 

majority of this obligation funding services provided directly to grantees 

and program reporting. As shown in figure 6, the funding budgeted for 

technical assistance has fluctuated. Over the first 4 years of the program, 

funding ranged between $2.5 and $3.2 million, annually. In fiscal year 1998, 

funding increased to $10 million and consistently remained at or above that 

level until fiscal year 2002, when it decreased to $6.2 million.

Figure 6: Technical Assistance Funding, by Fiscal Year

Note: This figure is based on GAO analysis of data provided by HUD.

As shown in figure 7, HUD has obligated the majority of its technical 

assistance funding for services provided directly to grantees and program 

reporting. Of the $51 million that HUD estimates it has obligated to date, 55 

percent has been obligated for technical assistance provided to grantees. 

For example, HUD assigns each grant an outside technical assistance 

provider to help the grantee develop its community and supportive services 

plan. In fiscal years 1996 to 2000, HUD assigned each new grant an 

expediter to assist the grantee with its HOPE VI plans. These expediters 

0

5

10

15

20

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Source: GAO.
Page 32 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

were private-sector experts in finance, real estate development, and 

community revitalization. Another major category of technical assistance 

has been program reporting. According to HOPE VI officials, HUD spends 

about $2.5 million annually on the HOPE VI reporting system. A contractor 

maintains the reporting system and staffs a help desk to respond to 

questions from grantees. The remaining technical assistance funding has 

been obligated for headquarters management assistance, such as 

consultants; site inspections performed by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers; and staff training and travel.

Figure 7: Total Obligations for Technical Assistance, by Funding Category

Note: This figure is based on GAO analysis of estimates provided by HUD.

In recent years, HUD has eliminated some services previously provided to 

grantees. For example, in fiscal year 2001, HUD stopped providing 

expediters because, according to program officials, the practice had 

become too expensive. Currently, only at-risk grantees—grantees that are 

experiencing problems with their grants or do not have adequate capacity 

to manage their grants—are considered for technical assistance. According 

to HUD officials, HUD has decreased the amount of technical assistance it 

provides because the agency believes that grantees should be responsible 

for retaining and funding their own technical assistance. Figure 8 shows 

Source: GAO.

4%

7%

13%

21%

55%

Technical assistance to grantees

HOPE VI program reporting

Site inspections

Headquarters management assistance

Staff training and travel
Page 33 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

the percentage of technical assistance funds provided directly to grantees 

over the life of the program. 

Figure 8: Obligations for Technical Assistance, by Fiscal Year

Note: This figure is based on GAO analysis of estimates provided by HUD.

Conclusions HOPE VI is one of the few active federal housing production programs and 

is supposed to deliver almost 45,000 units of rehabilitated or new public 

housing. During these tight budgetary times, when Congress faces difficult 

choices in deciding how to provide affordable housing, it is increasingly 

important that federal housing programs produce results. After 10 years of 

the HOPE VI program, construction has been completed at 15 of 165 sites. 

Source: GAO.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Obligations in millions

Fiscal year

Technical assistance to grantees

All other technical assistance

Through 1999 2000 2001 2002

1998

59%

41%

59%

50%

50%

29%

71%

41%

67%

33%
Page 34 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

However, work is proceeding more quickly at sites financed by more 

recently awarded grants. The HOPE VI program has incorporated measures 

to increase efficiency—in part attributable to HUD’s requesting more 

information from grant applicants and a renewed emphasis on meeting 

deadlines. In addition, the emphasis on performance measures, such as 

HUD’s incorporation of past performance as an eligibility requirement in 

the fiscal year 2002 NOFA, should help direct HOPE VI funds to where they 

can most effectively produce results.

However, the HOPE VI program could be improved further. By emphasizing 

the need for regular grant oversight and review and improving and 

clarifying the lines of communication between headquarters and the field 

offices, HUD can eliminate existing confusion about staff roles, build a 

consistent record of site reviews and oversight, and improve 

communications with grantees to facilitate progress on grants. Since the 

HOPE VI grant process involves both HUD and public housing authorities, 

HUD can further improve the efficiency of the grant program and help 

achieve its goal of revitalizing public housing by holding grantees 

accountable for performance, particularly in the areas of meeting deadlines 

and producing deliverables. The HOPE VI program, as it is currently set up, 

does not have a clear and consistent system for determining if grantees are 

not in compliance with grant requirements, nor does it offer clear 

incentives for grantees to change behavior or correct undesirable 

conditions.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To improve its selection and oversight of HOPE VI grants, we recommend 

that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

• continue to include past performance as an eligibility requirement in 

each year’s notice of funding availability;

• clarify the role of HUD field offices in HOPE VI oversight and ensure 

that the offices conduct required annual reviews of HOPE VI grants; and

• develop a formal, written enforcement policy to hold public housing 

authorities accountable for the status of their grants. 
Page 35 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

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

letter from the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing (see

app. V), HUD stated that it found the report to be fair and accurate in its 

assessment of the management of the program. HUD also agreed with our 

three recommendations. Specifically, it stated that it would take action to 

incorporate past performance as an eligibility criterion in the fiscal year 

2003 HOPE VI Revitalization NOFA. Regarding the recommendation to 

develop a formal enforcement policy, HUD stated that it regards the 

development of management tools such as the locked checkpoint system 

described in this report to be a key step in the establishment of a 

formalized enforcement policy and will endeavor to institute other 

responsive measures. Additionally, HUD provided clarifications on several 

technical points, which have been included in this report as appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 10 days after the 

date of this report. 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 will also send copies to the Secretary 

of Housing and Urban Development and the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget. We will make copies available to others upon 

request. This report will also be available at no charge on GAO’s 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 VI.

Sincerely yours,

David G. Wood

Director, Financial Markets and

Community Investment
Page 36 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology AAppenendxIdeisi

Our objectives were to examine (1) the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development’s (HUD) process for assessing HOPE VI revitalization grant 

applications and for selecting grantees, (2) the status of work at sites for 

which grants have been awarded and compliance with grant agreement 

deadlines, (3) HUD’s oversight of HOPE VI grants, and (4) the amount of 

program funds that HUD has budgeted for technical assistance and the 

types of technical assistance it has provided.

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 through 2001 and visited 20 sites in 18 cities. We 

selected these 20 sites because they received HOPE VI revitalization grants 

in fiscal year 1996, which was the first year that grants were subject to a 

standard construction deadline. Using the 1996 grants also allowed us to 

assess whether grantees had met their deadlines, which had passed for the 

majority of the grantees by the time we began our site visits. In addition, we 

interviewed the HUD headquarters officials responsible for administering 

the HOPE VI program.

To determine the criteria that HUD uses to assess HOPE VI revitalization 

grant applications, we analyzed each year’s notice of funding availability 

(NOFA). Specifically, we examined the rating factors used each year to 

determine if there were any similarities between the different NOFAs. We 

also analyzed the information that housing authorities were required to 

submit for selected rating factors and identified changes in these 

requirements over time. To determine how HUD has followed its grant 

selection procedures, we obtained and reviewed HUD Office of Inspector 

General reports on the HOPE VI grant selection process for fiscal years 

1996 and 1998 to 2001.1

 Finally, we interviewed public housing industry 

groups—the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, the Public 

Housing Authorities Directors Association, and the National Association of 

Housing and Redevelopment Officials—regarding the grant selection 

process.

To determine the status of work at sites for which grants have been 

awarded, we obtained and analyzed information from HUD’s HOPE VI 

reporting system. Specifically, we obtained data as of December 31, 2002, 

for the 165 revitalization grants awarded through fiscal year 2001. We used 

1

The HUD Inspector General did not publish a review of the fiscal year 1997 HOPE VI 

selection process.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 37 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

these data to determine the status of relocation, demolition, construction, 

reoccupancy, and occupancy and the amount of expended HOPE VI funds. 

For each of the 1996 grants, we interviewed housing authority and HUD 

officials to determine the status of each grant and the factors affecting that 

status. To determine the extent to which grantees have met grant 

agreement deadlines, we obtained and analyzed each year’s grant 

agreement. We then used milestone data from HUD’s HOPE VI reporting 

system to determine the extent to which grantees had met the deadlines in 

their grant agreements. 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; and 

performed electronic testing to detect obvious errors in completeness and 

reasonableness. We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable 

for the purposes of this report.

To identify how HUD oversees HOPE VI grants, we obtained and analyzed 

HUD’s HOPE VI monitoring guidance and interviewed program officials. 

We obtained and analyzed information on the number of grants and grant 

managers at the end of each fiscal year to determine grant manager 

workload. During each of our site visits, we interviewed housing authority 

staff regarding HUD’s oversight of their grants. We also obtained and 

analyzed copies of the annual reviews performed for the 1996 grants and 

interviewed HUD field office staff regarding their role in HOPE VI 

oversight. Finally, we reviewed HUD Inspector General reports on the 

HOPE VI program and HUD’s final report on its Resource Estimation and 

Allocation Process. 

To determine how much HUD has budgeted for technical assistance, we 

reviewed information provided by HUD on the total amount budgeted each 

fiscal year for technical assistance. To determine the types of technical 

assistance HUD has provided, we obtained and analyzed data on the major 

types of technical assistance provided with each fiscal year’s budget. The 

data HUD provided were estimates of the amounts it had obligated for 

technical assistance over the life of the program. We also interviewed 

program officials regarding the types of technical assistance provided and 

1996 grantees regarding the types of technical assistance they received 

from HUD.

We performed our work from November 2001 through April 2003 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 38 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Appendix II

HOPE VI Revitalization Grants ApenIdxi

In fiscal years 1993 to 2001, HUD awarded 165 revitalization grants to 98 

public housing authorities (see table 2). Nearly half of all of the HOPE VI 

revitalization grant funds awarded have been granted to 20 housing 

authorities. Within this group of housing authorities, 8 have received 4 or 

more revitalization grants: the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, the 

Housing Authority of Baltimore City, the Chicago Housing Authority, the 

Housing Authority of the City of Oakland, the District of Columbia Housing 

Authority, the Philadelphia Housing Authority, the Seattle Housing 

Authority, and the City and County of San Francisco Housing Authority. 

The Chicago Housing Authority has been awarded 8 HOPE VI revitalization 

grants, more than any other housing authority. The Housing Authority of 

Baltimore City follows with 6 revitalization grants.1

Table 2: 165 Revitalization Grants Awarded, Fiscal Years 1993-2001

1

Although the Housing Authority of Baltimore City was awarded 6 grants, 1 grant was 

subsequently split into 2 grants, for a total of 7 grants.

Public housing authority Site Fiscal year awarded Amount awarded

Albany Housing Authority

Albany, New York

Edwin Corning Homes 1998 $28,852,200

Alexandria Redevelopment and 

Housing Authority

Alexandria, Virginia

Samuel Madden Homes 1998 6,716,250

Allegheny County Housing Authority

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

McKees Rocks Terrace 1997 15,847,160

Homestead Apartments 1998Ea 2,549,392

Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta

Atlanta, Georgia

Techwood/Clark Howell/Centennial Place 1993 42,562,635

Perry Homes 1996 20,000,000

Carver Homes 1998 34,669,400

Joel Chandler Harris Homes 1999 35,000,000

Capitol Homes 2001 35,000,000

Atlantic City Housing Authority and 

Urban Redevelopment Agency

Atlantic City, New Jersey

Shore Park

Shore Terrace

1999 35,000,000

Housing Authority of Baltimore City

Baltimore, Maryland

Lafayette Courts 1994 49,663,600

Lexington Terrace 1995(2)b 22,702,000

Hollander Ridge 1996 20,000,000
Appendix II

HOPE VI Revitalization Grants

Page 39 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Murphy Homes

Julian Gardens

1997 31,325,395

Flag House Courts 1998 21,500,000

Broadway Homes 1999 21,362,223

Housing Authority of the City of Biloxi

Biloxi, Mississippi

Bayview Homes

Bayou Auguste

2000 35,000,000

Housing Authority of the Birmingham 

District

Birmingham, Alabama

Metropolitan Gardens 1999 34,957,850

Boston Housing Authority

Boston, Massachusetts

Mission Main 1993 49,992,350

Orchard Park 1995(2) b 30,000,000

Maverick Gardens 2001 35,000,000

Housing Authority of the City of 

Bradenton

Bradenton, Florida

GD Rogers and Addition 1999 21,483,332

Housing Authority of the City of 

Bridgeton

Bridgeton, New Jersey

Cohansey View 2001 10,945,944

Buffalo Housing Authority

Buffalo, New York

Lakeview Homes

Lower West Side

1997 28,015,038

Cambridge Housing Authority

Cambridge, Massachusetts

John F. Kennedy Apartments 1998Ea 5,000,000

Camden Housing Authority

Camden, New Jersey

McGuire Gardens 1994 42,177,229

Westfield Acres 2000 35,000,000

Housing Authority of the City of 

Charlotte

Charlotte, North Carolina

Earle Village 1993 41,740,155

Dalton Village 1996 24,501,684

Fairview 1998 34,724,570

Chattanooga Housing Authority

Chattanooga, Tennessee

McCallie Homes 2000 35,000,000

Housing Authority of Chester City

Chester, Pennsylvania

Lamokin Village 1996 14,949,544

McCafferey Village 1998 9,751,178

Chester County Housing Authority

West Chester, Pennsylvania

Oak Street 1997 16,434,200

Chicago Housing Authority

Chicago, Illinois

Cabrini-Green 1994 50,000,000

ABLA Brooks Extension 1996 24,483,250

Henry Horner 1996 18,435,300

(Continued From Previous Page)

Public housing authority Site Fiscal year awarded Amount awarded
Appendix II

HOPE VI Revitalization Grants

Page 40 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Robert Taylor 1996 25,000,000

ABLA 1998 35,000,000

Madden/Wells/Darrow 2000 35,000,000

Robert Taylor 2001 35,000,000

Rockwell Gardens 2001 35,000,000

Cincinnati Housing Authority

Cincinnati, Ohio

Lincoln Court 1998 31,093,590

Laurel Homes 1999 35,000,000

Housing Authority of the City of 

Columbia, South Carolina

Columbia, South Carolina

Saxon Homes 1999 25,843,793

Columbus Metropolitan Housing 

Authority

Columbus, Ohio

Windsor Terrace (Rosewind) 1994 42,053,408

Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing 

Authority

Cleveland, Ohio

Outhwaite Homes

King Kennedy Estate South

1993 50,000,000

Carver Park 1995(2) b 21,000,000

Riverview 1996 29,733,334

Dallas Housing Authority

Dallas, Texas

Lakewest 1994 26,600,000

Roseland 1998 34,907,186

Danville Redevelopment and Housing 

Authority

Danville, Virginia

Liberty View 2000 20,647,784

Dayton Metropolitan Housing Authority

Dayton, Ohio

Edgewood Court

Metro Gardens

Metro Annex

1999 18,311,270

Decatur Housing Authority

Decatur, Illinois

Longview Place 1999 34,863,615

Housing Authority of the City and 

County of Denver

Denver, Colorado

Quigg Newton Homes 1994 26,489,288

Curtis Park 

Arapahoe Courts

1998 25,753,220

Detroit Housing Commission

Detroit, Michigan

Jeffries Homes 1994 39,807,342

Parkside Homes 1995(1) b 47,620,227

Herman Gardens 1996 24,224,160

District of Columbia Housing Authority

Washington, D.C. 

Ellen Wilson Homes 1993 25,075,956

Valley Green, Skytower 1997 20,300,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Public housing authority Site Fiscal year awarded Amount awarded
Appendix II

HOPE VI Revitalization Grants

Page 41 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Frederick Douglass Homes

Stanton Dwellings

1999 29,972,431

East Capitol Dwellings

Capitol View Plaza

2000 30,867,337

Arthur Capper

Carrollsburg

2001 34,937,590

Housing Authority of the City of Durham

Durham, North Carolina

Few Gardens 2000 35,000,000

Housing Authority of the City of El Paso

El Paso, Texas

Kennedy Brothers 1995(1) b 36,224,644

Housing Authority of the City of 

Elizabeth

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Pioneer Homes

Migliore Manor

1997 28,903,755

Housing Authority of the City of Gary

Gary, Indiana

Duneland Village 1999 19,847,454

Greensboro, North Carolina Housing 

Authority

Greensboro, North Carolina

Morningside Homes 1998 22,987,722

Housing Authority of the City of 

Greenville, South Carolina

Greenville, South Carolina

Woodland Homes

Pearce Homes

1999 21,075,322

Housing Authority of the City of 

Hagerstown

Hagerstown, Maryland

Westview Homes 2001 27,357,875

Helena Housing Authority

Helena, Montana

Enterprise Drive 1997 939,700

Housing Authority of the City of High 

Point, North Carolina

High Point, North Carolina 

Springfield Townhouses 1999 20,180,647

Holyoke Housing Authority

Holyoke, Massachusetts

Jackson Parkway 1996 15,000,000

Houston Housing Authority

Houston, Texas

Allen Parkway Village 1993 36,602,761

1997 21,286,470

Indianapolis Housing Authority

Indianapolis, Indiana 

Concord Village

Eagle Creek

1995(1) b 29,999,010

Jacksonville Housing Authority

Jacksonville, Florida

Durkeeville 1996 21,552,000

Housing Authority of the City of Jersey 

City

Jersey City, New Jersey

Curries Woods 1997 31,624,658

Lafayette Gardens 2001 34,140,000

Housing Authority of Kansas City

Kansas City, Missouri

Guinotte Manor 1993 47,579,800

(Continued From Previous Page)

Public housing authority Site Fiscal year awarded Amount awarded
Appendix II

HOPE VI Revitalization Grants

Page 42 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Theron B. Watkins Homes 1996 13,000,000

Heritage House 1997 6,570,500

1998Ea 3,429,500

King County Housing Authority

Tukwila, Washington 

Park Lake Homes 2001 35,000,000

Knoxville's Community Development 

Corporation

Knoxville, Tennessee

College Homes 1997 22,064,125

Housing Authority of the City of 

Lakeland, Florida

Lakeland, Florida

Washington Ridge 1999 21,842,801

Lexington-Fayette Urban County 

Housing Authority

Lexington, Kentucky

Charlotte Court 1998 19,331,116

Housing Authority of the City of Los 

Angeles

Los Angeles, California

Pico Gardens 1993 50,000,000

Aliso Village 1998 23,045,297

Housing Authority of Louisville

Louisville, Kentucky

Cotter and Lang Homes 1996 20,000,000

Macon Housing Authority 

Macon, Georgia

Oglethorpe Homes 2001 19,282,336

Memphis Housing Authority

Memphis, Tennessee

LeMoyne Gardens 1995(1) b 47,281,182

Hurt Village 2000 35,000,000

Mercer County Housing Authority

Sharon, Pennsylvania

Steel City Terrace Extension 2000 9,012,288

Miami-Dade Housing Agency

Miami, Florida

Ward Towers 1998Ea 4,697,750

Scott Homes

Carver Homes

1999 35,000,000

Housing Authority of the City of 

Milwaukee

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 

Hillside Terrace 1993 45,689,446

Parklawn 1998 35,000,000

Lapham Park 2000 11,300,000

Mobile Housing Board

Mobile, Alabama

Central Plaza Towers 1998Ea 4,741,800

Metropolitan Development and Housing 

Agency - Nashville

Nashville, Tennessee

Vine Hill Homes 1997 13,563,876

Preston Taylor Homes 1999 35,000,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Public housing authority Site Fiscal year awarded Amount awarded
Appendix II

HOPE VI Revitalization Grants

Page 43 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

New Bedford Housing Authority

New Bedford, Massachusetts

Caroline Street Apartments 1998Ea 4,146,780

Housing Authority of the City of New 

Brunswick

New Brunswick, New Jersey

New Brunswick Homes 1998 7,491,656

Housing Authority of the City of New 

Haven

New Haven, Connecticut

Elm Haven Terrace 1993 45,331,593

Housing Authority of New Orleans

New Orleans, Louisiana

Desire 1994 44,255,908

St. Thomas 1996 25,000,000

New York City Housing Authority

New York, New York

Arverne Homes

Edgemere Homes

1995(1) b 47,700,952

1996 20,000,000

Prospect Plaza 1998 21,405,213

Housing Authority of the City of Newark

Newark, New Jersey

Archbishop Walsh Homes 1994 49,996,000

Stella Wright Homes 1999 35,000,000

Newport, Kentucky Housing Authority

Newport, Kentucky

Peter G. Noll

Booker T. Washington

McDermott-McLane

2000 28,415,290

Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing 

Authority

Norfolk, Virginia

Roberts Village

Bowling Green

2000 35,000,000

North Charleston Housing Authority

North Charleston, South Carolina

North Park Village 2001 30,347,921

Housing Authority of the City of Oakland

Oakland, California

Lockwood Gardens

Lower Fruitvale

1994 26,510,020

Chestnut Court 1998 12,705,010

Westwood Gardens 1999 10,053,254

Coliseum Gardens 2000 34,486,116

Housing Authority of the City of Orlando

Orlando, Florida

Colonial Park 1997 6,800,000

Housing Authority of the City of 

Paterson

Paterson, New Jersey

Christopher Columbus 1997 21,662,344

Peoria Housing Authority

Peoria, Illinois

Colonel John Warner Homes 1997 16,190,907

Philadelphia Housing Authority

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Richard Allen Homes 1993 50,000,000

Schuylkill Falls 1997 26,400,951

Martin Luther King Plaza 1998 25,229,950

Mill Creek 2001 34,825,000

(Continued From Previous Page)

Public housing authority Site Fiscal year awarded Amount awarded
Appendix II

HOPE VI Revitalization Grants

Page 44 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

City of Phoenix Housing Department

Phoenix, Arizona

Matthew Henson Homes 2001 35,000,000

Pittsburgh Housing Authority

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Allequippa Terrace 1993 31,564,190

Manchester 1995(2) b 7,500,000

Bedford Additions 1996 26,592,764

Housing Authority of Portland

Portland, Oregon

Columbia Villa,

Columbia Villa Additions

2001 35,000,000

Portsmouth Redevelopment and 

Housing Authority

Portsmouth, Virginia

Ida Barbour 1997 24,810,883

Puerto Rico Housing Administration

San Juan, Puerto Rico

Cristantemos y Manuel A. Perez 1994 50,000,000

Housing Authority of the City of Raleigh

Raleigh, North Carolina

Halifax Court 1999 29,368,114

Housing Authority of the City of 

Richmond, California

Richmond, California

Easter Hill 2000 35,000,000

Richmond Redevelopment and Housing 

Authority

Richmond, Virginia

Blackwell 1997 26,964,118

City of Roanoke Redevelopment and

Housing Authority

Roanoke, Virginia

Lincoln Terrace 1998 15,124,712

St. Louis Housing Authority

St. Louis, Missouri

Darst-Webbe 1995(1) b 46,771,000

Blumeyer Homes 2001 35,000,000

Housing Authority of the City of St. 

Petersburg

St. Petersburg, Florida

Jordan Park 1997 27,000,000

San Antonio Housing Authority

San Antonio, Texas

Springview 1994 48,810,294

Mirasol 1995(1) b 48,285,500

City and County of San Francisco 

Housing Authority

San Francisco, California

Bernal

Plaza East

1993 49,992,377

Hayes Valley North and South 1995(2) b 22,055,000

North Beach 1996 20,000,000

Valencia Gardens 1997 23,230,641

Housing Authority of Savannah

Savannah, Georgia

Garden Homes 2000 16,328,649

Seattle Housing Authority

Seattle, Washington

Holly Park 1995(1) b 48,116,503

(Continued From Previous Page)

Public housing authority Site Fiscal year awarded Amount awarded
Appendix II

HOPE VI Revitalization Grants

Page 45 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Source: HUD.

a

1998E indicates a special grant for elderly projects.

b

There were two funding rounds in fiscal year 1995.

Roxbury 1998 17,020,880

Rainier Vista Garden 1999 35,000,000

High Point Garden 2000 35,000,000

Housing Authority of the City of 

Spartanburg

Spartanburg, South Carolina

Tobe Hartwell

Tobe Hartwell Extension

1996 14,620,369

Springfield Housing Authority

Springfield, Illinois

John Hay Homes 1994 19,775,000

Housing Authority of the City of 

Stamford

Stamford, Connecticut

Southfield Village 1997 26,446,063

Housing Authority of the City of Tacoma

Tacoma, Washington

Salishan 2000 35,000,000

Housing Authority of the City of Tampa

Tampa, Florida

Ponce de Leon

College Hill

1997 32,500,000

Riverview Terrace

Tom Dyer

2001 19,937,572

Tucson Public Housing Authority

Tucson, Arizona

Connie Chambers 1996 14,600,000

Robert F. Kennedy Homes 2000 12,748,000

Housing Authority of the City of Tulsa

Tulsa, Oklahoma

Osage Hills 1998 28,640,000

Housing Authority of the City of 

Wheeling, West Virginia

Wheeling, West Virginia

Grandview Manor

Lincoln Homes

1999 17,124,895

Wilmington, Delaware Housing 

Authority

Wilmington, Delaware

Eastlake 1998 16,820,350

Housing Authority of the City of 

Wilmington, North Carolina

Wilmington, North Carolina

Robert S. Jervay Place 1996 11,620,655

Housing Authority of the City of 

Winston-Salem

Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Kimberly Park Terrace 1997 27,740,850

(Continued From Previous Page)

Public housing authority Site Fiscal year awarded Amount awarded
Page 46 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Appendix III

Fiscal Year 2002 Application Screening and 

Scoring Process ApenIdxi

The fiscal year 2002 NOFA for the HOPE VI program explained the process 

that HUD would use to screen and score applications. It stated that HUD 

would first screen applications to determine if they met threshold 

requirements—requirements that must be met in order for a HOPE VI 

revitalization grant application to be considered for funding. The NOFA 

also stated that if the application failed to meet any one of these thresholds, 

HUD would not rate or rank the application.1

 The NOFA contained 28 

threshold requirements, for which applicants had to attest or document 

compliance, including certification signed by an engineer or architect that 

the targeted public housing project meets the definition of severe physical 

distress and certification either that the applicant had procured a developer 

for the first phase by the application deadline or that it would act as its own 

developer. Additionally, an applicant that had one or more existing HOPE 

VI revitalization grants would be disqualified if one or more of those grants 

failed to meet the performance requirements described in the NOFA; 

applications that included a proposal to develop market-rate housing had 

to include a preliminary market assessment letter.2

If an application met all of the threshold requirements, HUD would rate it 

using the rating factors outlined in the NOFA. As shown in table 3, the 2002 

NOFA listed nine rating factors, some of which comprised various 

subfactors. An application could receive a maximum of 114 points. 

1

Some of the threshold items were “curable,” meaning that HUD would give the applicant an 

opportunity to correct a technical deficiency. Examples of curable technical deficiencies 

included the failure of an applicant to include a required certification or sign a document. If 

HUD identified a technical deficiency, the applicant would be notified by fax and be 

required to submit information to cure the deficiency to HUD within 14 calendar days from 

the date of HUD notification.

2

A market assessment letter should (1) provide an assessment of the demand and associated 

pricing structure for the proposed residential units and any community facilities, economic 

development, and retail structures and (2) be based on the market and economic conditions 

of the project area.
Appendix III

Fiscal Year 2002 Application Screening and 

Scoring Process 

Page 47 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Table 3: Fiscal Year 2002 Rating Factors

Factor Subfactor

Maximum possible points

per subfactor Maximum points available

Capacity 21

Capacity of developer 6

Development capacity of 

applicant

6

Capacity of prior granteesa

 -10

Community and supportive 

services program capacity 

3

Property management capacity 4

Public housing authority planb 2

Need 26

Severe physical distress 10

Impact of the severely distressed 

site on the surrounding 

neighborhood 

5

Obligation of capital fundsc 8

Need for affordable housing in 

the community

3

Leveraging 17

Development leveraging 7

Community and supportive 

services leveraging 

5

Variety of community and 

supportive services resources 

1

Anticipatory resourcesd

 2

Collateral resourcese 2

Resident and community involvement 3

Community and supportive services 6

Relocation 5

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity 7

Accessibilityf 2

Adaptabilityg 1

Visitabilityh

 1

Fair housing 3

Mixed-income communities 6

On-site unit mix 3

Off-site housing 1
Appendix III

Fiscal Year 2002 Application Screening and 

Scoring Process 

Page 48 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Source: GAO analysis of the fiscal year 2002 NOFA.

a

Although points could not be earned under this subfactor, points would be deducted if certain 

activities, such as submission of the community and supportive services plan, had not been carried out 

within the initial time frames established. Points also would be deducted on the basis of the percentage 

of the grant funds obligated. For example, if a housing authority received a HOPE VI revitalization grant 

in fiscal year 1996 or prior and had obligated less than 60 percent of its grant funds, 5 points would be 

deducted.

b

Two points would be awarded if the revitalization plan described in the application had been 

incorporated into the applicant’s public housing authority plan, and if the public housing authority’s plan 

had been approved by its local HUD field office.

c

HUD would evaluate the extent to which the applicant could undertake the proposed revitalization 

activities without a HOPE VI grant. Large amounts of available capital funds may indicate that the 

revitalization could be carried out without a HOPE VI grant.

d

In many cases, public housing authorities, cities, or other entities may have carried out revitalization 

activities in previous years in anticipation of the applicant’s receipt of a HOPE VI revitalization grant. 

These expenditures, if documented, may be counted as leveraged anticipatory resources. 

e

Collateral investment includes physical redevelopment activities under way or projected to be 

completed before October 2007 that would enhance the new HOPE VI community, but would occur 

whether or not the public housing project was revitalized. This includes economic or other kinds of 

development activities that would have occurred with or without the anticipation of HOPE VI funds.

f

Points are awarded if the applicant describes a plan to provide housing and services for persons with 

disabilities, such as accessibility in homeownership units or accessibility modifications.

g

Adaptability means that certain elements of a dwelling unit, such as kitchen counters, sinks, and grab 

bars, can be added to, raised, lowered, or otherwise altered to accommodate the needs of persons 

with or without disabilities.

h

Visitability standards allow a person with mobility impairments access into the home but do not 

require that all features be made accessible.

i

Applicants are encouraged to work with their local university(ies), other institutions of learning, 

foundations, or others to evaluate the performance and impact of their HOPE VI revitalization plan over 

the life of the grant. The proposed methodology must measure success against goals set at the outset 

of the revitalization activities. Evaluators must establish baselines and provide ongoing interim reports 

that will allow the applicant to make changes as necessary as the project proceeds.

Homeownership housing 2

Overall quality of plan 23

Overall quality of the application 5

Likelihood of success 5

Project readiness 7

Design 3

Evaluationi 3

Maximum points that 

could be awarded 114

(Continued From Previous Page)

Factor Subfactor

Maximum possible points

per subfactor Maximum points available
Page 49 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries ApenVIdxi

Between January and October 2002, we visited the 18 housing authorities 

that were awarded HOPE VI revitalization grants in fiscal year 1996. For 

each of the 20 sites that were awarded grants that year, we describe below 

background information on the conditions at the original site for which the 

grant was awarded, the housing authority’s revitalization and community 

and supportive services (CSS) plans for the site, the status of those plans as 

of March 2003, and the factors that affected the status. We also include a 

time line and photographs for each site. Because the site summaries 

incorporate a number of program-specific and technical terms, we have 

included a glossary at the end of this report. 
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 50 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

ABLA Homes—Brooks 

Extension, Chicago, 

Illinois

As figure 9 shows, the Chicago Housing Authority was awarded a $24.5 

million HOPE VI revitalization grant for the Brooks Extension portion of 

ABLA Homes in October 1996.1

 Relocation and demolition have been 

completed at the ABLA Brooks Extension site, but the new construction 

has not yet begun. The Chicago Housing Authority’s scattered site program, 

which includes the development of any nonelderly public housing, has 

been under judicial receivership since 1987. The housing authority is in the 

midst of implementing a 10-year transformation plan, which is a $1.5 billion 

blueprint for rebuilding or rehabilitating 25,000 units of public housing—

enough for every leaseholder as of October 1999—and transforming 

isolated public housing sites into mixed-income communities. The housing 

authority was awarded another HOPE VI revitalization grant for ABLA in 

fiscal year 1998 and also has received revitalization grants for the following 

sites: Cabrini-Green (fiscal year 1994), Henry Horner (fiscal year 1996), 

Robert Taylor (fiscal years 1996 and 2001), Madden/Wells/Darrow (fiscal 

year 2000), and Rockwell Gardens (fiscal year 2001).

1

ABLA Homes consists of five contiguous sites: Jane Addams Homes, Grace Abbott Homes, 

Robert Brooks Homes, Brooks Extension, and Loomis Courts. 
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 51 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Figure 9: Time Line for ABLA Homes

Note: This time line is based on GAO analysis of data provided by the Chicago Housing Authority.

Background The five sites that comprise ABLA Homes had more than 3,500 original 

units. Three of the five ABLA sites were included in the authority’s fiscal 

year 1996 revitalization plans. Brooks Extension, the focus of the fiscal 

year 1996 revitalization grant, was completed in 1961 and consisted of 

three, 16-story buildings containing 453 units. Robert Brooks Homes was 

'96 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Sources: GAO (except the left photo, which is printed with the permission of the Chicago Housing Authority).

October:

Initial 

revitalization 

grant awarded

July:

Projected completion

of new construction

Demolition of Brooks Extension. Vacant Brooks Extension site.

July:

Initial grant

agreement

executed

November:

Second

revitalization

grant awarded

January:

CSS plan approved by HUD

March:

Projected start 

of new construction

October:

Second grant 

agreement executed

November:

Completion of Brooks 

Homes rehabilitation

January:

Relocation completed

July:

Revitalization and 

CSS plans submitted

August:

Demolition completed

December:

Revitalization plan

approved by HUD
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 52 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

completed in 1943 and contained 834 units. Loomis Courts—a projectbased Section 8 development—was completed in 1953 and contained 126 

units.

The density at ABLA was 37.33 units per acre, as compared with Chicago’s 

average density of 28 units per acre. The buildings at ABLA suffered from 

significant structural deficiencies as a result of age, weathering, and the 

lack of proper maintenance. A central heating plant, located at the Jane 

Addams site, provides the heat for the complex. This system is inadequate, 

and regulating the amount of heat for each unit has been a problem. The 

Chicago Housing Authority was awarded a fiscal year 1995 HOPE VI 

planning grant totaling $400,000 for ABLA and two other sites.

Revitalization and 

Community and Supportive 

Services Plans

In addition to the $24.5 million HOPE VI revitalization grant, the Chicago 

Housing Authority was awarded four HOPE VI demolition grants totaling 

$2.5 million for Brooks Extension and Robert Brooks Homes. The total 

budget for the renovation of Brooks Extension, Robert Brooks Homes, and 

Loomis Courts is $186 million and includes other public housing funds, 

equity from low-income housing tax credits, and tax increment financing. 

The revitalization plans call for the rehabilitation of 330 public housing 

units at Robert Brooks Homes; the construction of 777 new units at Brooks 

Extension (336 public housing units, 90 tax credit units, and 351 

homeownership units); and the rehabilitation of 126 subsidized units at 

Loomis Courts. A 57,000-square-foot community center to be funded by the 

city is also part of the plans.

Of the $24.5 million revitalization grant, the housing authority plans to set 

aside $3.6 million for community and supportive services. The community 

and supportive services plan for ABLA, which was approved in January 

2002, focuses on employment, education, health, community building, and 

pilot programs. In addition to special programs funded by the HOPE VI 

grant, the housing authority plans to implement its service connector 

system at ABLA. The service connector system will help residents access 

services through a system of outreach, assessment, referral, and follow-up. 

Current Status The rehabilitation at Robert Brooks Homes has been completed. The 

reconstruction of 132 units was completed in 1998, and the reconstruction 

of the remaining 198 units was completed in 2000. Brooks Extension has 

been demolished (see fig. 9). The housing authority selected a developer 
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 53 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

for the entire ABLA development area in December 2002. Construction on 

the new units at Brooks Extension is expected to start in March 2004.

The housing authority has hired a nonprofit organization to serve as ABLA’s 

service connector, and the program has been in operation since August 

2001. A consultant has also been hired to implement the community and 

supportive services plan, including facilitating task forces on employment, 

education, and health.

Factors Contributing to 

Current Status

The ABLA revitalization has been affected by the need for the revitalization 

plans to comply with the Gautreaux consent decree. In 1966, African 

American residents of Chicago public housing filed suit against the Chicago 

Housing Authority for creating a segregated public housing system. In 

response, the court issued a judgment that prohibits the housing authority 

from constructing any new public housing in a neighborhood in which 

more than 30 percent of the occupants are minorities (limited areas) unless 

it develops an equal number of units in neighborhoods where less than 30 

percent are minorities (general areas). In 1987, the court appointed a 

receiver for the housing authority’s scattered site program, including the 

development of nonelderly public housing. In the case of ABLA, the 

receiver and the housing authority had to show the court that, while ABLA 

was currently in a limited area, the area was going to be revitalized by 

HOPE VI. In June 1998, the court approved the housing authority’s request 

to designate ABLA a revitalizing area, thus allowing the development of 

new nonelderly public housing at the site without requiring an equal 

number of units to be built in a general area.

According to a housing authority official, site planning was progressing at 

the Brooks Extension site until the housing authority applied, in 1997, for a 

HOPE VI revitalization grant for the Grace Abbott Homes portion of ABLA. 

HUD rejected the application, stating that the housing authority needed to 

develop plans for the entire ABLA site and establish better relationships 

with the city and the receiver. In 1998, the housing authority submitted a 

new application that covered all of ABLA and showed that it had worked 

closely with the city and receiver. While the housing authority was 

preparing this application, work at Brooks Extension stopped. HUD 

ultimately awarded the housing authority a fiscal year 1998 grant for the 

portions of ABLA not covered by the fiscal year 1996 grant.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 54 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Management changes at the housing authority have also affected 

implementation of the grant, according to a housing authority official. After 

placing the housing authority under administrative receivership for 

approximately 4 years, HUD returned control of the housing authority to 

Chicago in May 1999. During the reorganization that occurred after the city 

resumed control, decisions were delayed. For example, the housing 

authority’s negotiations with the program manager selected for ABLA were 

delayed, in part, because the agency had just regained control of its 

operations and was developing an overall plan for transformation.

According to a housing authority official, the receiver raised some legal 

issues that slowed progress at the ABLA site. HOPE VI revitalization grants 

are typically awarded to housing authorities. However, under the 

Gautreaux case, the receiver believed that the two ABLA grants should be 

split so that the funds for “hard” construction costs were awarded to the 

receiver, while the funds for social services were awarded to the housing 

authority. It took almost 2 years to settle this issue. In October 2000, the 

grants were split between the receiver and the housing authority. The only 

funds that the housing authority controls are funds for demolition, 

relocation, and community and supportive services.

The housing authority had to issue two requests for proposals before 

selecting a developer. The first request for proposals to develop Brooks 

Extension was issued in November 2001, and the authority received three 

responses. The housing authority did not think that the respondents had 

sufficient capacity; therefore, it decided to issue another request for 

proposals to develop the entire ABLA site. The second request for 

proposals was issued in June 2002, and a developer was selected in 

December 2002.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 55 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Arverne/Edgemere 

Houses, Queens, New 

York

The New York City Housing Authority is using $67.7 million in HOPE VI 

revitalization grant funds to renovate Arverne and Edgemere Houses. Some 

of these revitalization funds were originally awarded to another site, Beach 

41st Street Houses, and transferred to Edgemere in December 1996 (see fig. 

10). All three sites are in Far Rockaway, a peninsula on the southern edge 

of Queens, south of Jamaica Bay and Kennedy Airport. The housing 

authority expects to complete the rehabilitation of Arverne and Edgemere 

by the end of 2004. In addition to the Arverne/Edgemere grant, the 

authority is overseeing another HOPE VI revitalization grant awarded in 

fiscal year 1998 for Prospect Plaza.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 56 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Figure 10: Time Line for Arverne/Edgemere Houses

Note: This time line is based on GAO analysis of data provided by the New York City Housing 

Authority.

Background The New York City Housing Authority received a $400,000 planning grant 

for the Arverne and Edgemere sites in fiscal year 1995. In 1996, the 

authority was awarded a revitalization grant for Arverne, and HUD 

transferred the revitalization grant originally awarded to Beach 41st Street 

1995 1997 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Source: GAO.

December:

Projected

completion of

all rehabilitation

Arverne and Edgemere Houses. HOPE VI Technology Lab at Ocean Bay 

Apartments (formerly Arverne and 

Edgemere Houses).

January:

Revitalization grant 

awarded to 

Beach 41st Street

June:

Grant

agreement

executed

February:

Revised 

revitalization

plan submitted

December:

CSS plan

submitted

June:

First revitalization

plan submitted

December:

Revitalization grant funds 

transferred from Beach 

41st Street to Edgemere

October:

Revitalization

grant awarded

to Arverne

November:

Revitalization

plan 

conditionally

approved by HUD

May:

CSS plan

approved 

by HUD

January:

Start of 

rehabilitation

July:

Projected

completion 

of relocation

June:

Projected completion

of interior rehabilitation
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 57 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Houses to Edgemere. The funding was transferred from Beach 41st Street 

after an impasse over the residents’ role in the planning process could not 

be overcome. The Arverne site, with 418 units, was completed in 1951; the 

Edgemere site, with 1,395 units, was completed in 1961 (see fig. 10). 

Although soundly constructed, they were in need of significant 

modernization and improvement.

The area surrounding Arverne/Edgemere lacks essential retail services and 

adequate recreation and community space. In addition, the high density 

and current configuration of the buildings have contributed to vandalism 

and other criminal activity. Joblessness and low educational achievement 

among residents further weaken the community. Though situated in an 

attractive locale, between Jamaica Bay and the Atlantic Ocean, the 

community is extremely isolated with limited transportation links to other 

parts of New York City.

Revitalization and 

Community and Supportive 

Services Plans

The total projected budget for the renovation of Arverne and Edgemere is 

$233 million, which includes other public housing funds, city funds, and 

private funds. The revitalization plans for Arverne/Edgemere, renamed 

Ocean Bay Apartments, call for the modernization of 1,803 apartments, 

including lobby and facade improvements and site improvements such as 

upgrading infrastructure and landscaping. The plans also include the 

construction of a recreational facility, the expansion of the existing 

community center and day-care center, and the off-site construction of a 

health and education center and two retail centers.

Of the $67.7 million in revitalization grant funds, the housing authority has 

budgeted $6.8 million for community and supportive services. The 

community and supportive services plan, which was approved in May 1999, 

focuses on case management, training, and self-sufficiency programs.

Current Status Because the majority of residents chose to remain on-site during the 

renovation, only 211 residents were temporarily relocated, with the 

majority of households relocating to vacant units within the development. 

The renovation is being done in phases. For example, all of the asbestos 

was removed and electrical work completed before the kitchens and 

bathrooms were renovated. As of March 2003, 79 percent of the interior 

modernization work at Arverne and 85 percent of the interior 

modernization work at Edgemere was complete. The housing authority 

estimates that all of the apartment modernization work will be completed 
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 58 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

by June 2003. Under the revised revitalization plan, the community center 

will now be combined with the new recreational facility to reduce the 

overall costs of the plan. This work is under design and is expected to bid 

fall 2003. Also, the day-care center will be upgraded and expanded to create 

a state of the art facility with expanded capacity. The day-care center 

expansion design documents are completed.

Community and supportive services are being offered to residents and 

other community residents. In November 1999, the housing authority 

opened a Family Resource Center where it administers various training and 

self-sufficiency programs for the residents. Already operating are the 

computer lab (see fig. 10), after-school program, and job training classes. A 

popular project has been the computer incentive program that provides a 

personal computer system to 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. The authority also has 

contracted with Goodwill Industries to provide case management, 

counseling, and job preparation, placement, and retention services. To 

sustain community and supportive services after the expiration of the 

HOPE VI grant, the authority has created the Ocean Bay Community 

Development Corporation.

Factors Contributing to 

Current Status

Resident opposition to demolition was one of the issues that led to the 

impasse at Beach 41st Street Houses. After HUD transferred the HOPE VI 

funds from Beach 41st Street to Edgemere in December 1996, the housing 

authority again included demolition in the plans for Edgemere’s 

redevelopment. The housing authority determined that the best way to 

meet the demolition requirement would be to remove some top floors from 

each of three, nine-story buildings, thereby eliminating about 100 units. 

Subsequently, the housing authority withdrew this plan and proposed to 

convert dwelling units on the first floor to space for commercial and 

community services. This approach would also have removed about 100 

units. The issue became moot when Congress, in the fiscal year 1998 

appropriations act for the departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and 

Urban Development and independent agencies, gave the New York City 

Housing Authority the option of not following any HOPE VI demolition 

requirements, and the housing authority abandoned the plans for 

demolishing the 100 units.

It took almost 18 months to get the revitalization plan for 

Arverne/Edgemere Houses approved. The housing authority first submitted 
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 59 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

a revitalization plan to HUD in June 1997. After HUD returned the plan with 

comments for the housing authority to address, the housing authority 

submitted a revised plan in February 1998. The housing authority then went 

back and forth with HUD on changes to the plan. According to housing 

authority officials, the primary point of contention was the types of 

economic development activities upon which HOPE VI funds could be 

spent. HUD finally approved the housing authority’s revised plan in 

November 1999.

The effects of September 11, 2001, have also posed challenges for the 

redevelopment of Arverne and Edgemere. Some of the housing authority’s 

HOPE VI records were destroyed and had to be recreated. Additionally, 

housing authority officials estimated that costs for one portion of the 

project had escalated from $22 million to $30 million over the life of the 

project—due, in part, to the labor force and materials moving downtown 

after September 11. Overall, the housing authority estimated that the 

Arverne/Edgemere project was delayed 6 months because of the 

September 11 attack.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 60 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Bedford Additions, 

Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania

The Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh was awarded a $26.6 

million HOPE VI revitalization grant for Bedford Additions in October 1996, 

as shown in figure 11. Off-site construction began in September 2002, and 

relocation and demolition have not yet occurred. The authority was 

previously awarded HOPE VI revitalization grants for Allequippa Terrace 

(fiscal year 1993) and Manchester (fiscal year 1995). 
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 61 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Figure 11: Time Line for Bedford Additions

Note: This time line is based on GAO analysis of data provided by the Housing Authority of the City of 

Pittsburgh.

Background Bedford Additions, part of the larger Bedford Dwellings, was constructed 

in 1954 and contains 460 units, the majority of which are in three-story, 

walk-up buildings (see fig. 11). It is located in the Hill District, a 

neighborhood offering access to many job centers. Many of the buildings at 

'96 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2007 2005 2006

Sources: GAO (except the photos, which are printed with the permission of the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh).

July:

Projected

completion

of all new

construction

Bedford Additions before revitalization. Off-site construction under way.

October:

Revitalization

grant awarded

July:

Grant agreement

executed;

CSS plan submitted

October:

Revitalization

plan submitted

March:

Revitalization plan

approved by HUD

December:

CSS plan

approved

by HUD

September:

Start of new

off-site

construction

December:

Relocation to

be completed

May:

Demolition 

to be completed
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 62 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Bedford Additions had leaky roofs, cracks in the walls, and outdated 

mechanical systems that had not been well-maintained. Also, 72 percent of 

the families in its census tract were earning incomes below the poverty 

level. The housing authority was awarded a $395,700 HOPE VI planning 

grant for Bedford Dwellings and three other sites in fiscal year 1995.

Revitalization and 

Community and Supportive 

Services Plans

The total estimated budget for the revitalization is about $102 million and 

includes other public housing funds and equity from low-income housing 

tax credits. The revitalization plans call for

• construction of a two-story, 12,000-square-foot community center;

• construction of 75 off-site homeownership units and 365 off-site rental 

units (phases one and two); and 

• construction of 45 on-site homeownership units and 175 on-site rental 

units (phase three).

Of the 660 total units planned, 220 will be replacement public housing units. 

In addition, up to 40 of the homeownership units will be made affordable 

for public housing residents. The off-site units will be constructed first, and 

then the existing on-site units will be demolished and new units will replace 

them.

Of the HOPE VI funds, the housing authority has budgeted about $5.1 

million for community and supportive services. A new community center 

will house the supportive services program, including the case 

management function, computer learning lab, day care, a family support 

program, after-school teen program, resident council offices, and housing 

authority management offices.

Current Status The community center has been completed, and many of the planned 

services are operational, including the computer lab. As of March 2003, the 

housing authority had acquired 235 of the approximately 650 separate 

parcels of land required for the off-site component of the project. 

Construction on the first 147 off-site rental units started in September 2002 

(see fig. 11), and construction on the first 35 off-site homeownership units 

is scheduled to begin in June 2003.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 63 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Factors Contributing to 

Current Status

The decision to construct the off-site units first and on many different 

parcels of land has been the major impediment to progress. According to 

housing authority officials, the residents were fearful of being displaced; 

therefore, they wanted the housing authority to build the new off-site 

structures first so that they could be relocated to the new off-site units. The 

housing authority has been going through the lengthy process of acquiring 

parcels in the surrounding community either by negotiating the purchase of 

properties or through eminent domain. It also had to relocate 111 private 

households after acquiring their properties.

Financing the redevelopment also has been a challenge. For example, it 

was difficult to obtain low-income housing tax credits because the state 

housing finance agency has established strict guidelines. It wants any units 

developed as part of a mixed-income project to be contiguous. Because the 

housing authority could not acquire certain properties, there is a break 

between two sections of off-site parcels. After convincing the state housing 

finance agency that it would need two tax credit allocations, one for each 

section of the off-site parcels, and that it should not finance one without 

the other, the housing authority was awarded tax credits for the first phase 

of off-site development. Although this process did not delay the 

revitalization plans, it did make financing the first phase of development 

more complicated, according to a housing authority official. 
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 64 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Connie Chambers, 

Tucson, Arizona

The City of Tucson Community Services Department, which serves as 

Tucson’s public housing authority, was awarded a $14.6 million HOPE VI 

revitalization grant for Connie Chambers in late 1996, as shown in figure 12. 

The grant was closed out in January 2003. The department was also 

awarded a fiscal year 2000 revitalization grant for Robert F. Kennedy 

Homes.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 65 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Figure 12: Time Line for Connie Chambers

Note: This time line is based on GAO analysis of data provided by the City of Tucson Community 

Services Department.

Background Connie Chambers, built in 1967, consisted of 200 units (see fig. 12). The 

surrounding Santa Rosa neighborhood is historic and home to a lower 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Sources: GAO (except the top left photo, which is printed with the permission of the City of Tucson Community Services Department).

January:

Closeout

of grant

Connie Chambers prior to demolition. Santa Rosa Neighborhood Center (top), scattered off-site unit (bottom right), and 

Posadas Sentinel (formerly Connie Chambers) duplex (bottom left).

October:

Revitalization

grant awarded

August:

Grant

agreement

executed

November:

Revitalization

plan submitted;

CSS plan

submitted

April:

Revitalization

plan approved

by HUD

May:

CSS plan

approved

by HUD

March:

Start of new

on-site

construction November:

Demolition

completed

December:

Relocation

completed

December:

Completion of

new on-site

construction
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 66 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

income population. According to housing authority officials, the primary 

problem with Connie Chambers was that it was isolated from other 

communities after construction of a new convention center and police and 

fire department headquarters. Two out of three households on the public 

housing waiting list turned it down because of a history of high crime and 

poor physical conditions. The housing authority was awarded a $370,000 

planning grant for Connie Chambers in fiscal year 1995. It used the 

planning grant to conduct maintenance studies and physical needs 

assessments and to hold meetings with residents.

Revitalization and 

Community and Supportive 

Services Plans

The total projected budget for the project is $72 million and includes other 

public housing funds, equity from low-income housing tax credits, city 

funds, and bond funds. The revitalization plan for Connie Chambers, 

renamed Posadas Sentinel, calls for

• rehabilitation of 10 units at another site;

• construction of 120 on-site units (60 public housing units and 60 tax 

credit units);

• acquisition of 130 scattered public housing units;

• construction of 60 homeownership units;

• construction of a child development center, learning center, and health 

center and expansion of the existing recreation center;

• construction of a grocery store; and

• an elderly building to be built by a nonprofit organization.

Of the $14.6 million revitalization grant, the housing authority has budgeted 

$1.2 million for community and supportive services. The community and 

supportive services plan, approved in May 1998, calls for a neighborhood 

services center to serve as a resource center for residents of the 

neighborhood and the provision of services such as language classes, an 

expanded child-care program, and job training.

Current Status The 10 units at the other site have been renovated, all 120 of the on-site 

units have been completed, and all 130 scattered sites have been acquired 
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 67 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

(see fig. 12). As of March 2003, 54 of the homeownership units had been 

completed. The child development center and learning center, located in 

the Santa Rosa Neighborhood Center, were completed in April 2002. 

Construction on the recreation and health centers is under way. The 

housing authority was able to close out the grant in January 2003 because 

the remaining homeownership units and the recreation and health centers 

were not financed with HOPE VI funds.

A Head Start program has been operating in the child development center 

since January 2002. Another day-care service, operated by a local nonprofit 

organization, opened in the center in November 2001. It primarily serves 

working families. The learning center has been operational since April 2002 

and contains a computer library. The learning center offers basic computer 

classes in either Spanish or English.

Factors Contributing to 

Current Status

Because the City of Tucson Community Services Department acts as both 

the city’s public housing authority and community development agency, it 

was able to draw on other resources for the Connie Chambers 

revitalization. Funding for the project includes city funds for infrastructure, 

general city funds, and bonds. In addition, the state housing finance agency 

agreed to set aside 10 percent of its annual tax credit allotment for HOPE 

VI sites.

The housing authority has involved the residents and the neighborhoods 

surrounding the Connie Chambers site in the revitalization process. Both 

residents and the surrounding neighborhoods were involved in developing 

the revitalization plan. After the revitalization plan was developed, 

residents were asked to vote on the plan. Of the 181 Connie Chambers 

households, 107 participated in the vote. Of the 107 that voted, 84 voted in 

favor of the plan. Only after the residents expressed their support for the 

plan did the mayor and city council vote to submit the plan to HUD. When 

the housing authority determined that some residents did not want to 

relocate outside the neighborhood, even temporarily, it decided to 

demolish Connie Chambers in phases, starting at each end of the site. While 

the first phases were under construction, those who did not want to leave 

the neighborhood were allowed to live in the remaining units. Once 

construction was complete, they were moved into the new units, and the 

rest of the original units were demolished.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 68 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Cotter and Lang 

Homes, Louisville, 

Kentucky

The Housing Authority of Louisville was awarded a $20 million HOPE VI 

revitalization grant for Cotter and Lang Homes in late 1996 (see fig. 13), and 

about 65 percent of the planned units were complete as of March 31, 2003.

Figure 13: Time Line for Cotter and Lang Homes 

Note: This time line is based on GAO analysis of data provided by the Housing Authority of Louisville.

a

The first phase of rental units was begun prior to receipt of the HOPE VI revitalization grant.

'96 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

October:

Revitalization grant awarded

Sources: GAO (except the two left photos, which are printed with the permission of the Housing Authority of Louisville).

September:

Relocation completed

December:

Grant agreement executed

February:

Revitalization and CSS plans submitted

May:

Revitalization plan approved by HUD

June:

New construction started on second phasea

August:

CSS plan approved by HUD

October:

Demolition completed

May:

Revised CSS 

plan submitted

November:

Revised CSS plan

approved by HUD

June:

Projected 

completion

of rental units

April:

Projected completion

of homeownership

units

Cotter and Lang Homes prior to demolition. Park DuValle (formerly Cotter and Lang Homes) rental units (bottom left), 

homeownership unit (bottom right), and senior building (top right).
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 69 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Background Cotter Homes, completed in 1953, consisted of 620 units. Lang Homes, built 

in 1959, contained 496 units (see fig. 13). These two contiguous public 

housing sites, located in Louisville’s Park DuValle neighborhood, were the 

largest public housing sites in Louisville. Together, they covered almost 80 

acres. Almost 80 percent of the residents in the Park DuValle neighborhood 

lived in poverty. The neighborhood also had the highest violent crime rate 

per square mile in Louisville. The local newspaper referred to one corner 

on the Cotter and Lang site as the “meanest” corner in Louisville. 

Furthermore, the area surrounding the two sites contained vacant or 

underused industrial buildings, unused school land, vacant failed 

subsidized housing, and other available housing development sites.

Revitalization and 

Community and Supportive 

Services Plans

The total projected budget for the project is $200 million and includes other 

public housing funds, other HUD funds, and equity from low-income 

housing tax credits. The revitalization plans for Cotter and Lang Homes, 

renamed Park DuValle, call for 1,213 new units to be completed in five 

phases.

• Phase one: development of 100 rental units.

• Phase two: development of 213 rental units and 150 homeownership 

units.

• Phase three: development of 108 rental units (including some elderly 

units) and 300 homeownership units. 

• Phase four: development of 192 rental units.

• Phase five: acquisition of 150 off-site rental units.

Of the 763 total rental units, 500 will be public housing units, 160 will be tax 

credit units, and 103 will be market-rate units. The 450 homeownership 

units will be targeted to households with a variety of incomes. A town 

center will include space for various types of commercial enterprises. The 

HOPE VI funds will be used to develop the 150 off-site units and to provide 

homeownership assistance.

Of the $20 million in HOPE VI revitalization grant funds, the housing 

authority has set aside $3 million for community and supportive services. 

The focus of its initial community and supportive services plan, approved 
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 70 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

in August 1998, was lifelong learning programs and services, such as child 

care, youth programs, and computer training. The developer would provide 

services to residents of the Park DuValle revitalization area, and the 

housing authority would provide case management services to former 

Cotter and Lang residents that were not residing at the Park DuValle site.

Current Status Work on the first phase of 100 rental units was begun before the housing 

authority received its HOPE VI revitalization grant, and construction was 

completed in 1998. The 321 rental units envisioned for phases two and 

three also have been completed, and construction on the fourth phase of 

192 rental units is under way (see fig. 13). Of the 150 planned off-site units, 

112 had been acquired as of March 31, 2003. As part of the phase three 

rental units, a 59-unit senior building was constructed. As of March 31, 

2003, the first 150 homeownership units had been sold, and 147 had been 

completed. Twenty-eight homeowners received soft second mortgages 

funded by the HOPE VI program.2

 The remaining phase of 300 

homeownership units is under way. Because it estimates that it can sell 

only 4 units a month in the Louisville housing market, the housing authority 

does not expect all 300 units to be completed and sold until April 2008.

The housing authority hired Jefferson County Human Services to provide 

intensive case management services to former Cotter and Lang residents. 

The emphasis was on preparing former residents to return to Park DuValle. 

The developer focused primarily on community building in the new Park 

DuValle neighborhood. For instance, it served as liaison to the Park DuValle 

Neighborhood Advisory Council—an organization comprised of former 

residents of Cotter and Lang, Park DuValle public housing residents, and 

residents of the surrounding neighborhood. However, the housing authority 

determined that additional efforts were necessary to ensure that all former 

Cotter and Lang residents, whether or not they were residents of the new 

community, had access to services aimed toward increasing selfsufficiency. Therefore, it developed a revised community and supportive 

services plan, which it submitted to HUD in May 2002. HUD approved the 

plan in November 2002.

2

The soft second mortgages are recorded liens for 10 years. The amount of the soft second 

mortgage is forgiven at 20 percent per year beginning with year 6. After 10 years, the equity 

in the home belongs to the owner. The soft second mortgages are not transferable if the 

home is sold prior to year 10.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 71 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Factors Contributing to 

Current Status

According to housing authority officials, support from the city, other local 

entities, and the local HUD field office has been integral to the success of 

the Park DuValle project. Both the mayor at the time the grant was awarded 

and the subsequent mayor were very supportive of the project. The city has 

provided funds and other resources (e.g., the services of the city’s chief 

architect). The local school board spent $15 million on a new school in the 

Park DuValle neighborhood, and the health department spent $5 million on 

a new health center. Staff from the local HUD field office have also been 

part of the project team. During planning and much of implementation, a 

management team comprised of representatives from the housing 

authority, the city, the local HUD field office, and the developer met weekly 

to discuss the project. Now that much of the construction has been 

completed, the team meets about once a month.

The leadership of the housing authority’s executive director was another 

factor cited as contributing to the success of Park DuValle. Housing 

authority officials noted that, because the executive director formerly 

worked in the mayor’s office, he has been able to strengthen the city’s 

support for the project. In addition, according to local HUD officials, the 

executive director’s relationship with residents was very good. During his 

tenure as executive director, a public housing resident was named the 

chairman of the housing authority’s Board of Commissioners. 

Another factor contributing to Louisville’s success is that the housing 

authority has not had to make any significant modifications to its 

revitalization plan. The total number of planned units (1,213) has not 

changed. The few changes that have been made are minor. For example, 

the housing authority originally planned for the homeownership units to be 

constructed in three phases but later decided to consolidate the last two 

phases for a total of two phases. Also, instead of the 125 homeownership 

units originally planned in phase two, the housing authority was able to sell 

150 units.

The housing authority has been able to obtain multiple sources of funding 

for the project. In addition to the $20 million in HOPE VI funds, the master 

budget includes $56.2 million in other public housing funds and $20.5 

million in other HUD funds. The other sources of funding include $37.2 

million in equity from low-income housing tax credits and $56.3 million in 

debt financing. The state housing finance agency set aside 6 years of tax 

credits for the Park DuValle project.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 72 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Dalton Village, 

Charlotte, North 

Carolina

The Charlotte Housing Authority was awarded a $24.5 million HOPE VI 

revitalization grant for Dalton Village in October 1996 (see fig. 14). As of 

March 2003, 194 of 432 total planned units were complete. In addition to the 

Dalton Village grant, the authority is overseeing two other revitalization 

grants awarded in fiscal years 1993 and 1998.

Figure 14: Time Line for Dalton Village

Note: This time line is based on GAO analysis of data provided by the Charlotte Housing Authority.

'96 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Sources: GAO (except the photos, which are printed with the permission of the Charlotte Housing Authority).

October:

Revitalization

grant awarded

September:

Grant 

agreement 

executed

June:

Projected completion

of all new construction

Dalton Village prior to demolition. Arbor Glen (formerly Dalton Village) rental units.

December:

CSS plan submitted

January:

Revitalization 

plan submitted;

rehabilitation 

completed;

first developer 

signed on

March:

Relocation completed

October:

Demolition completed

December:

Second developer signed on

March:

CSS plan approved by HUD

May:

Revised revitalization plan submitted

September:

Revised revitalization plan approved by HUD

March:

Start of new construction
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 73 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Background Dalton Village was built in 1970 and consisted of 300 units in brick 

townhouse structures with sloped roofs and clapboard facades, as shown 

in figure 14. The development was located off Clanton Road, an off-shoot 

from West Boulevard, which was once a major route to Charlotte’s Douglas 

International Airport. In addition to the presence of lead-based paint and 

asbestos materials, the structures at Dalton Village suffered from severe 

deficiencies due to the age of the buildings. The site conditions were very 

poor with severe erosion taking place over a large portion of the site, and 

the lack of adequate drainage devices compounded the site problems. 

Dalton Village was isolated from the adjoining communities by virtue of 

noncontinuous street access and a steep hill that physically separated it 

from the neighboring community.

Revitalization and 

Community and Supportive 

Services Plans

The total projected budget for the revitalization project is $44 million, 

which includes equity from low-income housing tax credits. The 

revitalization plan for Dalton Village, renamed Arbor Glen, calls for

• rehabilitation of 50 existing public housing units and the Family 

Investment Center;

• on-site construction of 144 family and elderly rental units, including 60 

public housing units;

• on-site and off-site construction of 175 rental townhouses, including 70 

public housing units;

• construction of 48 on-site homeownership units, including 20 for public 

housing residents; 

• construction of 15 off-site homeownership units designated for public 

housing residents; and

• construction of an outreach center for recreational and educational 

programs.

The housing authority has budgeted $4.1 million of the HOPE VI 

revitalization grant for community and supportive services. The community 

and supportive services plan, approved in March 2000, calls for services to 

be provided at the new outreach center, which would house multipurpose 
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 74 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

classrooms and a full-size multipurpose gymnasium. The focus would be on 

services and programs that promote self-sufficiency.

Current Status The 50 existing units and the Family Investment Center have been 

renovated, and the 144 family and elderly rental units are complete and 

fully occupied (see fig. 14). The housing authority estimates that 

construction of the on-site rental townhouses will begin in June 2003 and 

be completed by June 2004. The housing authority has submitted two tax 

credit applications—one for an additional 23 on-site units and one for 74 

units at an off-site location. In January 2003, the housing authority 

completed its acquisition of nearby county land needed for the 48 on-site 

homeownership units, and groundbreaking is scheduled for summer 2003. 

The $1.5 million outreach center was completed and opened to the public 

in March 2002. It is an 11,000-square-foot community and recreational 

center consisting of a gymnasium, four classrooms, and a computer lab. 

The center is open not only to Arbor Glen residents but also to the entire 

Arbor Glen community and nearby neighborhoods. It houses recreational 

and other educational programs. All of the Arbor Glen public housing 

residents are required to participate in the family self-sufficiency program. 

A case manager works with participants to develop an individual service 

plan and to help the residents meet their self-sufficiency goals, such as 

those related to education and employment. 

Factors Contributing to 

Current Status

The redevelopment of Arbor Glen was delayed initially because the 

Charlotte Housing Authority changed development partners. According to 

housing authority officials, the first developer, signed on in 1998, did not 

have much development expertise, kept changing financial projections, and 

did not listen to the community or the state housing finance agency. As a 

result, the initial developer’s application for low-income housing tax credits 

was denied. In December 1999, the housing authority signed a new 

development partner for the site. This developer was part of the initial 

development team; therefore, the housing authority did not have to issue 

another request for proposals.

Since the new developer was retained, the project has moved forward. The 

housing authority and the new developer worked to develop a new site plan 

and development scheme that would be more competitive for tax credits. 

In late 2000, the project was awarded tax credits for the first phase of new 
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 75 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

construction. The first phase of 144 units was completed and leased 6 

months ahead of schedule.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 76 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Durkeeville, 

Jacksonville, Florida

The Jacksonville Housing Authority was awarded a $21.5 million HOPE VI 

revitalization grant for Durkeeville in October 1996 (see fig. 15). Of the 303 

planned units, 228 have been completed. 

Figure 15: Time Line for Durkeeville

Note: This time line is based on GAO analysis of data provided by the Jacksonville Housing Authority.

'96 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Sources: GAO (except the left photo, which is printed with the permission of the Jacksonville Housing Authority).

December:

Projected 

completion of

off-site units

October:

Revitalization

grant awarded

July:

Grant agreement 

executed

August:

Revitalization 

plan submitted

Durkeeville prior to demolition. The Oaks at Durkeeville (formerly Durkeeville).

December:

Demolition

completed

February:

CSS plan 

approved

by HUD

December:

On-site 

construction

completed

December:

CSS plan

submitted

April:

Start of 

new on-site

construction

October:

Relocation

completed

September:

Revitalization plan

approved by HUD
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 77 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Background The 280 units in the Durkeeville public housing complex were poorly 

designed, lacked sufficient ventilation, and had extensive plumbing and 

drainage deficiencies. For example, the roofs were constructed without an 

overhang, which exacerbated the deterioration of the outside walls (see fig. 

15). Furthermore, the site consisted of mostly small, one-bedroom units 

that no longer met the residents’ needs for space. Built in 1936, the overall 

design of the Durkeeville site had become outmoded. Parking was 

nonexistent, the density of the housing units was twice that of the 

surrounding community, and a porous design with alleyways instead of 

roadways provided an environment conducive to criminal activity. 

By 1990, the Durkeeville site and its surrounding neighborhood had 

become Jacksonville’s most dangerous community—the violent crime rate 

for Durkeeville was 12 times higher than for Jacksonville. The 

neighborhood surrounding Durkeeville was once a desirable middle-class 

neighborhood. However, low incomes in the neighborhood contributed to 

low property values, low rents, and little economic activity; over 40 percent 

of neighborhood households were below the poverty level, according to the 

1990 census. The Jacksonville Housing Authority was awarded a fiscal year 

1995 HOPE VI planning grant totaling $400,000 for Durkeeville.

Revitalization and 

Community and Supportive 

Services Plans

The total projected budget for the revitalization is about $37 million, which 

includes other public housing funds left over from the redevelopment of 

another Jacksonville Housing Authority property. Several key features of 

the revitalization plan for Durkeeville, renamed The Oaks at Durkeeville, 

include

• construction of 200 new rental public housing units (of which 40 will be 

for seniors and the disabled) and 28 homeownership units on the 

Durkeeville site;

• construction of 75 off-site public housing units;

• renovation and expansion of the community center; 

• renovation of two existing buildings for historic preservation; and

• retail space containing several businesses and a health clinic.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 78 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

The housing authority plans to set aside $3.1 million of the revitalization 

grant for community and supportive services. The community and 

supportive services plan, approved in February 1999, calls for the 

renovated community center to become a focal point for the entire 

community and to include a computer lab; community meeting rooms; 

social service agencies; adult education classes; and recreational facilities, 

among other programs.

Current Status The Jacksonville Housing Authority has completed the on-site 

construction, which includes the 200 rental units (see fig. 15), 28 

homeownership units, the renovation of the community center, and 

rehabilitation of two historic buildings that include a day-care center and 

resident management offices. Several businesses—including a grocery 

store, pizza restaurant, Chinese restaurant, and health clinic—have moved 

into the retail strip adjacent to the site. All of the housing units are 

occupied. The community center houses the family self-sufficiency 

program and adult literacy classes, sponsors numerous recreational 

activities for children, and hosts community meetings. The day-care facility 

and a museum showcasing Durkeeville’s history are operating on-site.

The housing authority does not plan to start the development of the 75 offsite rental units until October 2003. Currently, the housing authority is 

planning to use a portion of their HOPE VI funds to purchase 75 to 100 

apartments and convert them to public housing.3

Factors Contributing to 

Current Status

According to officials at the housing authority, on-site construction at 

Durkeeville was completed in a timely manner for several reasons. First, 

the housing authority was able to develop a sound, comprehensive 

revitalization plan because HUD awarded it a planning grant in fiscal year 

1995. The grant provided the authority with the necessary resources to hire 

several consultants and invest in extensive outreach to public housing and 

community residents. Second, the on-site public housing units were funded 

entirely with public housing funds. The housing authority used only its 

HOPE VI grant and surplus public housing funds from another 

rehabilitation project to fund Durkeeville’s redevelopment. The simpler 

3

This will satisfy, in part, a federal court consent decree that stipulates that the Jacksonville 

Housing Authority must create 225 new public housing units by 2006 in designated areas of 

Duval County where public housing had not previously been built.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 79 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

financial structure of the redevelopment shortened the project’s time 

frames by over 1 year, according to one housing authority official.

According to the executive director, in addition to these unique features of 

the Durkeeville site, the housing authority enjoys the backing of a 

committed board of directors, which includes prominent Jacksonville real 

estate developers, attorneys, and former corporate managers. Also 

represented on the board are the police department, public housing 

residents, and local businesses. This broad base of support, in conjunction 

with the executive director’s extensive networking with various 

government entities, provided the housing authority with key partnerships 

that helped expedite work on the site. 

Finally, according to housing authority officials, the decision to place the 

HOPE VI-related offices in the community center increased the public 

housing residents’ sense of belonging to a community. The increased 

number of interactions between public housing and local residents has 

improved the overall relations between the two groups. This has had an 

overall positive impact on the entire community.

Plans for the off-site portion of the revitalization have not proceeded as 

smoothly. First, the initial site that the housing authority chose could not 

get approval by the Environmental Protection Agency. The site was once 

used for garbage incineration and contains polluted ash in its soil. The 

housing authority then proposed to purchase a neglected privately owned 

apartment complex (HUD was going to foreclose the property) and convert 

all 78 units to public housing, but a local citizens group opposed the plan 

and took legal action to enforce a court decree from 2000, which states that 

only 25 percent of any apartment complex the authority buys in an area 

with a low percentage of minorities can be used for public housing. 

Ultimately, HUD did not conduct foreclosure proceedings, and the housing 

authority is currently researching other sites. 
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 80 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Heman E. Perry 

Homes, Atlanta, 

Georgia

The Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta was awarded a $20 million 

HOPE VI revitalization grant for Heman E. Perry Homes (Perry Homes) in 

late 1996 (see fig. 16), but the revitalization effort did not move forward for 

some time, primarily because of changes to the revitalization plans. 

Construction on the first phase of units began in November 2002. The 

housing authority also has received revitalization grants for the following 

sites: Techwood/Clark Howell Homes (fiscal year 1993), Carver Homes 

(fiscal year 1998), Harris Homes (fiscal year 1999), and Capitol Homes 

(fiscal year 2001). Centennial Place, the name given to the revitalized 

Techwood/Clark Howell Homes, was largely completed in 2000 and was the 

first mixed-use, mixed-income community (with public housing as a 

component) in the nation.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 81 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Figure 16: Time Line for Heman E. Perry Homes

Note: This time line is based on GAO analysis of data provided by the Housing Authority of the City of 

Atlanta.

Background Perry Homes and Perry Homes Annex, constructed in 1955, consisted of 

944 and 128 units, respectively, and were located on approximately 153 

acres of land (see fig. 16). When the housing authority applied for the 

revitalization grant, the brick exterior walls had deteriorated, resulting in 

water damage to walls, floors, and personal belongings. The sanitary sewer 

system leaked, and the storm drainage system did not function properly. 

'96 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Sources: GAO (except the photos, which are printed with the permission of the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta).

December:

Projected completion

of homeownership

units

October:

Revitalization

grant

awarded

July:

Grant

agreement

executed

September:

Initial

revitalization

plan submitted

August:

Relocation

completed

February:

Demolition of 

community center completed

July:

CSS plan 

approved by 

HUD

June:

CSS plan 

submitted

December:

Revised 

revitalization

plan submitted

Perry Homes prior to demolition. Cleared Perry Homes site.

August:

Demolition of dwelling units completed

February:

Supplement to revised

revitalization plan submitted

October:

HUD approval of supplement

to revised revitalization plan

November:

Start of new construction December:

Projected

completion

of rental units
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 82 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

From 1992–95, an average of 254 Perry Homes residents were victims of 

crime each year. In addition, more than 60 percent of the residents of Perry 

Homes and the surrounding neighborhood were living below the poverty 

line. The Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta received a $400,000 

HOPE VI planning grant for Perry Homes and one other site in fiscal year 

1995.

Revitalization and 

Community and Supportive 

Services Plans

In addition to the $20 million revitalization grant, the housing authority also 

was awarded $5.1 million in fiscal year 1998 HOPE VI demolition funds. 

The total projected budget for the revitalization of the site is $143 million 

and includes other public housing funds and equity from low-income 

housing tax credits. The revitalization plan for Perry Homes, renamed West 

Highlands at Heman E. Perry Boulevard, calls for 800 new housing units to 

be constructed in five phases. The construction phases are as follows: 

• Phase one: 124 rental units (50 public housing units, 12 tax credit units, 

and 62 market-rate units).

• Phase two: 152 family rental units (61 public housing units, 19 tax credit 

units, and 72 market-rate units) and 130 elderly rental units (100 projectbased Section 8 units and 30 market-rate units).

• Phase three: 152 rental units (61 public housing units, 14 tax credit units, 

and 77 market-rate units).

• Phase four: 142 rental units (56 public housing units, 11 tax credit units, 

and 75 market-rate units).

• Phase five: 100 homeownership units (40 units for public housing 

eligible families and 60 market-rate units).4

In addition to housing, the plan calls for a town center, an 18-hole public 

golf course, and over 90 acres of green space in the form of parklands, 

nature trails, and recreational fields.

4

Although the revitalization plans call for 100 homeownership units, an additional 150 

market-rate homeownership units may be built on-site, and up to 300 additional 

homeownership units may be built off-site.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 83 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Of the $20 million revitalization grant, the housing authority has budgeted 

$2.6 million for community and supportive services. It plans to deliver 

community and supportive services to Perry Homes residents using two 

basic approaches. First, it provides authoritywide programs that are 

available to all public housing residents, including residents of HOPE VI 

sites. These authoritywide programs include the Human Service 

Management Program—which provides case management services—and 

the Work Force Enterprise Program—which equips participants with the 

skills necessary to manage the transition from unemployment to the 

workforce. Second, the housing authority plans to ensure that Perry Homes 

residents have access to neighborhood-based programs. Some of these 

programs will be offered at a new school, public library, and YMCA.

Current Status All of the Perry Homes residents have been relocated, and demolition has 

been completed (see fig. 16). Construction on the first phase of 124 rental 

units began in November 2002. Construction of the rental and 

homeownership units is scheduled to be completed by December 2006 and 

December 2008, respectively.

HUD approved the community and supportive services plan for Perry 

Homes in July 2000, and Perry Homes residents have been participating in 

authoritywide programs. The developer has hired a human services 

provider to supply case management services specifically for former Perry 

Homes residents. Services to be provided include case management 

tracking and referral services. Construction has not yet begun on the town 

center, which will include the school, public library, and YMCA. The town 

center also will include a park, retail, and office space.

Factors Contributing to 

Current Status

After the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta submitted its original 

revitalization plan for Perry Homes to HUD in September 1998, HUD 

officials visited the site to discuss issues and concerns that they had about 

the plan. The plan called for the development of 415 new public housing 

units on the existing site; the housing authority planned to use only HOPE 

VI funds and other HUD funds. In a June 2, 1999, letter to the housing 

authority summarizing its concerns about the plan, HUD questioned 

whether rebuilding the site entirely with public housing units, without 

funding to provide meaningful supportive services and without significant 

partnerships, could result in a sustainable development and provide the 

maximum benefits to residents.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 84 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

In response to HUD’s concerns, the housing authority came up with a new 

concept for the Perry Homes site and started developing a new master 

plan. In December 1999, the housing authority submitted a revised 

revitalization plan to HUD, which called for a mixed-use, mixed-income 

community consisting of 750 residential units (40 percent of which would 

be public housing units), a recreation center, a public library, and a village 

center. After a developer was selected, the revitalization plan was further 

refined, and a supplement to the revised revitalization plan was submitted 

in February 2002. HUD approved the supplement in October 2002, and 

construction began shortly thereafter.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 85 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Henry Horner Homes, 

Chicago, Illinois

As figure 17 shows, the Chicago Housing Authority was awarded an $18.4 

million HOPE VI revitalization grant for Henry Horner Homes in late 1996. 

However, the planned revitalization of the site has been delayed by a 

lawsuit filed by residents and subsequent legal decisions. The Chicago 

Housing Authority’s scattered site program, which includes the 

development of any nonelderly public housing, has been under judicial 

receivership since 1987. The housing authority is in the midst of 

implementing a 10-year transformation plan, which is a $1.5 billion 

blueprint for rebuilding or rehabilitating 25,000 units of public housing—

enough for every leaseholder as of October 1999—and transforming 

isolated public housing sites into mixed-income communities. The housing 

authority has also received revitalization grants for the following sites: 

Cabrini-Green (fiscal year 1994), ABLA (fiscal years 1996 and 1998), Robert 

Taylor (fiscal years 1996 and 2001), Madden/Wells/Darrow (fiscal year 

2000), and Rockwell Gardens (fiscal year 2001).
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 86 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Figure 17: Time Line for Henry Horner Homes

Note: This time line is based on GAO analysis of data provided by the Chicago Housing Authority.

Background Henry Horner Homes, completed in 1957, and Henry Horner Extension, 

completed in 1961, consisted of a combination of high-rise and mid-rise 

buildings containing 1,659 units (see fig. 17). Henry Horner Homes is 

adjacent to the United Center, the arena where the Chicago Bulls play, and 

is located about 1.5 miles from Chicago’s central business district. At the 

time that the housing authority applied for the grant, the units targeted for 

revitalization had broken windows and doors, sewage backups, insect and 

1991 1997 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Source: GAO.

December:

Projected

completion

of new

construction

Henry Horner high-rise awaiting demolition.

May:

Lawsuit filed 

by residents

September:

Amended consent

decree signed

August:

Grant 

agreement 

executed

February:

Second 

court order

January:

Start of new

construction

May:

Revitalization plan

conditionally

approved by HUD

December:

Revitalization

plan submitted

December:

First

court order

August:

Revitalization

grant awarded

December:

Projected

completion

of relocation

and demolition
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 87 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

rodent infestation, and missing window child guards. The violent crime 

rates were three to eight times higher than those for Chicago as a whole, 

and the vacancy rate in the targeted area was about 50 percent. The 

Chicago Housing Authority was awarded a $400,000 HOPE VI planning 

grant for Henry Horner and two other sites in fiscal year 1995.

Revitalization and 

Community and Supportive 

Services Plans

In addition to the $18.4 million revitalization grant, the housing authority 

was awarded a $2.3 million HOPE VI demolition grant for Henry Horner in 

fiscal year 2000. The total projected budget for the project is $78 million 

and includes other public housing funds, equity from low-income housing 

tax credits, and state and city funds. The revitalization plan calls for the 

construction of 764 new units on-site—271 public housing units, 132 

affordable units (80 tax credit rental units and 52 homeownership units), 

and 361 market-rate units (114 rental units and 247 homeownership units). 

These units will be constructed in three phases. The housing authority has 

set aside almost $30,000 of the HOPE VI revitalization grant funds for 

community and supportive services. Although this amount is small, the 

housing authority plans to submit a community and supportive services 

plan for Henry Horner.

Current Status Over 600 of the planned 1,197 units have been demolished. According to the 

housing authority, the revitalization plans were developed in such a way as 

to minimize the temporary relocation of current residents. After the first of 

three phases of construction is completed, most of the remaining 176 

households will be relocated to the new units. Construction on the first 

phase of units began in January 2003. The first units are expected to be 

ready for occupancy by the end of 2003. The authority and the Horner 

Resident Committee are currently negotiating the relocation notices that 

will go out to the residents. The remaining buildings will be demolished on 

a schedule negotiated with the Horner Resident Committee. 

Factors Contributing to 

Current Status

The redevelopment of Henry Horner was delayed for 4 years by legal 

actions. In 1991, the Henry Horner Mothers Guild filed a suit against the 

Chicago Housing Authority and HUD alleging, among other things, that 

Henry Horner had been “de facto” demolished without obtaining HUD or 

local government approval or providing replacement housing. The case 

was settled in September 1995 when an amended consent decree was 

signed. After the housing authority was awarded a HOPE VI revitalization 
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 88 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

grant for Henry Horner in 1996, the Henry Horner plaintiffs raised concerns 

about the revitalization plans, including the number of replacement public 

housing units, which delayed the project and ultimately resulted in two 

subsequent court orders, issued in December 1999 and February 2000. As a 

result of these legal decisions, the Chicago Housing Authority is required to 

designate 220 units or 35 percent of the total units, whichever is greater, as 

very low-income units. Also, any decisions regarding the revitalization of 

Henry Horner are subject to the approval of the plaintiffs’ counsel and the 

Horner Resident Committee.

Because any remaining work at Henry Horner is subject to approval by the 

Horner plaintiffs’ counsel and the Horner Resident Committee, decisionmaking has been slow. According to housing authority officials, it took the 

Henry Horner Working Group—which includes the Horner Resident 

Committee and the Horner plaintiffs’ counsel—about 2 years to develop the 

revitalization plan and issue a request for qualifications for a developer. It 

took another 4 months after the request for qualifications was issued to 

select a developer.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 89 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Herman Gardens, 

Detroit, Michigan

The Detroit Housing Commission was awarded a $24.2 million HOPE VI 

revitalization grant for Herman Gardens in October 1996 (see fig. 18). 

Construction has not yet begun, and HUD notified the housing commission, 

for the second time, in March 2002 that it was in default of its grant 

agreement. The housing commission previously had been awarded 

revitalization grants for Jeffries Homes (fiscal year 1994) and Parkside 

Homes (fiscal year 1995).

Figure 18: Time Line for Herman Gardens

Note: This time line is based on GAO analysis of data provided by the Detroit Housing Commission.

'96 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Sources: GAO (except the left photo, which is printed with the permission of the Detroit Housing Commission).

September:

Projected completion

of new construction

October:

Revitalization

grant

awarded

June:

Relocation

completed

April:

Demolition

completed

December:

Supplement to

revitalization

plan submitted

January:

Projected 

start of new 

construction

August:

Revitalization

plan submitted

March:

Second

default

notice

August:

CSS plan

approved

by HUD

June:

CSS plan

submitted

October:

Grant

agreement

executed

Herman Gardens prior to demolition. Vacant Herman Gardens site.

March:

First

default notice
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 90 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Background Herman Gardens, built in 1943, originally consisted of 2,144 units on 160 

acres (see fig. 18). Problems at the site included structural decay, 

deterioration of underground utility systems, rodents, and hazardous 

materials contamination. The Detroit Housing Commission received a 

$400,000 HOPE VI planning grant for Herman Gardens and two other sites 

in fiscal year 1995.

Revitalization and 

Community and Supportive 

Services Plans

In addition to the $24.2 million revitalization grant, the Detroit Housing 

Commission was awarded, in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, $3.8 million in 

HOPE VI demolition funds for Herman Gardens. The total projected budget 

for the revitalization of the site is $232 million and includes other public 

housing funds, equity from low-income housing tax credits, and city funds. 

The revitalization plan calls for 804 units—470 rental units (including 258 

public housing units) and 334 homeownership units. Other elements of the 

plan include construction of a regional athletic facility on the site and 

construction of 250,000 square feet of institutional space for a new 

community college. 

Of the $24.2 million revitalization grant, the housing commission has 

budgeted $3.5 million for community and supportive services. The 

community and supportive services plan, which was approved in August 

2001, focuses on case management; employment and training; youth and 

senior services and activities; and partnerships to address job readiness, 

placement, and retention.

Current Status Relocation and demolition have been completed (see fig. 18). As of March 

2002, the Detroit Housing Commission had not submitted a revitalization 

plan for Herman Gardens. Therefore, HUD notified the housing 

commission on March 15, 2002, that it was in default of its grant agreement 

and needed to submit a default resolution plan to avoid losing its grant. As 

part of the default resolution plan, HUD required the commission to meet a 

number of requirements, including submitting a revitalization plan and 

obtaining firm financial commitments from the city. The Detroit Housing 

Commission submitted its revitalization plan for Herman Gardens to HUD 

in August 2002 and submitted a supplement to the plan in December 2002. 

In September 2002, the city council passed a resolution committing $22 

million to the Herman Gardens project. As of April 2003, HUD had not lifted 

the default status or approved the revitalization plan. According to a 
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 91 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

housing commission official, the revitalization plan states that construction 

is scheduled to begin in January 2004.

However, the housing commission has already formed a number of 

partnerships to provide community and supportive services to Herman 

Gardens residents. These services include training in retail sales, 

computers, manufacturing, and child care. Additionally, 18 different unions 

have formed a partnership that offers a preapprenticeship program.

Factors Contributing to 

Current Status

Due to management changes, the Detroit Housing Commission developed 

several different plans for Herman Gardens. The first plan was developed 

prior to the grant award and called for 672 units of public housing. Before 

that plan was formally submitted to HUD, the executive director 

responsible for the plan left the housing commission and was replaced by 

an interim executive director. By February 1999, the interim executive 

director had developed a second plan, which proposed a combination of 

public and market-rate housing as well as a golf course. After a new 

executive director was hired, the housing commission proposed a third 

development concept. Although never submitted as a formal revitalization 

plan, the concept called for a mixed-use, mixed-income development on 

the site.

Problems at one of Detroit’s other HOPE VI projects also contributed to 

delays at Herman Gardens. According to a housing commission official, 

HUD visited all three of its grant sites shortly after the commission 

developed the second plan for Herman Gardens in February 1999. During 

the visit, HUD recommended that the commission cease work at Herman 

Gardens and Jeffries Homes until problems at Parkside Homes were 

addressed. The Parkside Homes project was over budget and behind 

schedule. Additionally, once work resumed at Herman Gardens and Jeffries 

Homes, the Jeffries Homes project seemed to be more of a priority for 

HUD, according to a commission official.

According to commission and local HUD officials, being part of city 

government has also affected the pace of progress on the project. Until 

recently, all of the commission’s contracts had to be approved by the city 

council. Currently, only contracts related to the disposition of land upon 

which public housing is situated are subject to city council approval. The 

commission also has to go through the city to hire staff. According to a 

commission official, the commission is in the process of seeking the 

authority to hire its own staff.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 92 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Because it never formally submitted a revitalization plan for Herman 

Gardens, HUD notified the Detroit Housing Commission in March 2000 that 

it was in violation of its grant agreement. In December 2000, HUD issued a 

letter to the housing commission requiring it to develop a default resolution 

plan. The two parties agreed that the housing commission would submit 

biweekly progress reports on Herman Gardens. When HUD found these 

biweekly reports to be inadequate, it notified the housing commission 

again in March 2002 that it was in default of its grant agreement. In the 

letter, HUD stated that it had been 52 months since the grant was awarded 

and no substantial progress had occurred.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 93 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Hollander Ridge, 

Baltimore, Maryland

The Housing Authority of Baltimore City received a $20 million HOPE VI 

revitalization grant in October 1996 for Hollander Ridge (see fig. 19). 

Project activity was brought to a standstill by a series of legal actions, and 

the funds were ultimately transferred to another public housing site in the 

city of Baltimore. The housing authority will be selling the Hollander Ridge 

property to the city upon HUD approval. Additionally, the housing authority 

has completed construction at two HOPE VI sites—Lafayette Courts (fiscal 

year 1994) and Lexington Terrace (fiscal year 1995)—and is administering 

four additional HOPE VI grants as follows: Homeownership Demonstration 

(fiscal year 1994), Murphy Homes and Julian Gardens (fiscal year 1997), 

Flag House Courts (fiscal year 1998), and Broadway Homes (fiscal year 

1999). 
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 94 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Figure 19: Time Line for Hollander Ridge

Note: This time line is based on GAO analysis of data provided by the Housing Authority of Baltimore 

City.

Background Hollander Ridge was built in 1976 and was located on 60 acres at the 

eastern edge of Baltimore City. Hollander Ridge was once the public 

housing of choice, but over time became one of the most distressed 

communities in the housing authority’s portfolio. The property had over 

1,000 units of family and elderly public housing. By the late 1990s, only half 

of the units were occupied, and the crime rate soared above the rates of 

Baltimore’s other public housing sites. Additionally, Hollander Ridge 

suffered from significant deferred maintenance, extensive site problems, 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Sources: GAO (except the left photo, which is printed with the permission of the Housing Authority of Baltimore City).

November:

Federal legislation

enacted allowing

Hollander Ridge

funds to be

used for

Claremont

Homes

June:

Partial consent decree

approved by U.S. District Court

October:

Revitalization grant awarded

January:

American Civil Liberties Union 

writes HUD concerning its legal 

objections to revitalization plans

August:

Grant agreement executed

January:

U.S. District

Court grants

housing

authority's

motion to amend

partial consent

decree allowing

construction of

senior village at

Hollander Ridge

September:

Revitalization

plan submitted

April:

Relocation 

completed;

demolition 

started

July:

Fourth Circuit 

Federal Appeals 

Court overturns 

District Court's 

decision;

HUD declares

Hollander Ridge

grant in default February:

Housing authority

proposes reuse of

Hollander Ridge funds;

demolition completed

Hollander Ridge prior to demolition. Vacant Hollander Ridge site.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 95 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

and the deterioration of infrastructure and major building systems (see fig. 

19). Because of its isolation, the site’s residents had little access to public 

transportation and lacked nearby shopping and employment opportunities. 

The Housing Authority of Baltimore City received a $700,000 HOPE VI 

planning grant for Hollander Ridge and one other site in fiscal year 1995.

Current Status Federal legislation was passed in November 2001 that enabled the housing 

authority to transfer its HOPE VI funds for Hollander Ridge to Claremont 

Homes. The revitalization plans for Claremont Homes, which are in the 

preliminary stages, call for the demolition of all existing low-rise buildings 

and the construction of a new mixed-income development. The housing 

authority plans to reserve 73 units at the Claremont Homes site for former 

Hollander Ridge residents. However, according to the housing authority, 

the legislation enacted in November 2001 that allowed the housing 

authority to transfer the Hollander Ridge funds to the site must be amended 

before any of the plans to revitalize Claremont Homes can be implemented. 

The legislation currently only allows for the rehabilitation of Claremont 

Homes. As a result of third-party master planning, the housing authority 

determined that rehabilitation is not financially feasible; therefore, housing 

authority officials intend to ask Maryland’s congressional delegation to 

propose an amendment to the federal legislation that would allow 

demolition and new construction to occur at the site. Concurrence will be 

sought from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—the 

representative of the residents. The authority has submitted a disposition 

application to HUD for approval to sell the Hollander Ridge site to the city 

of Baltimore. 

Factors Contributing to 

Current Status

Legal actions and community opposition halted progress at Hollander 

Ridge and ultimately led to the transfer of the HOPE VI funds to Claremont 

Homes. In 1995, six public housing families, represented by the ACLU, filed 

suit against the Housing Authority of Baltimore City and HUD alleging that 

they had engaged in racial and economic segregation through site selection 

and development of public housing in Baltimore City since 1937. On June 

25, 1996, the parties entered into a partial consent decree, which was 

approved by a United States District Court Judge. Among other things, this 

decree provides that the housing authority “will not seek public housing 

funds from HUD for public housing construction or acquisition with 

rehabilitation in Impacted Areas.” The Hollander Ridge site is located in an 

impacted area, with a high concentration of low-income housing and a high 

percentage of minority populations.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 96 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

The housing authority’s original plan was to modernize Hollander Ridge by 

reducing its density through demolition and reconfiguration of existing 

units and upgrading the housing units and amenities. This plan was 

consistent with the terms of the partial consent decree, and HUD had 

awarded the HOPE VI grant on the basis of this plan. However, the adjacent 

community resisted plans to place any type of public housing back on the 

site. Community residents had long complained about the site’s high crime 

rate and its effect on nearby property values. In response to the local 

opposition, the housing authority decided to abandon plans to rebuild 

family public housing at Hollander Ridge.

The housing authority and the community agreed to a subsequent plan to 

demolish all of the existing public housing units and replace them with 

facilities for seniors. The plan called for a senior village, which would 

provide affordable housing as well as community-based health and 

wellness programs for low- to moderate-income seniors. All 1,000 units 

would be demolished, and 450 senior units would be built on-site, 225 of 

which would be designated as public housing. The housing authority also 

agreed to build a $1.2 million fence around the entire Hollander Ridge site.

Because the plans for a senior village would violate sections of the partial 

consent decree and residents would be displaced, the ACLU maintained 

strict opposition to the senior village concept. Nevertheless, the housing 

authority sought a modification to the decree that would allow the 

development of public housing on the Hollander Ridge site. In January 

1999, the U.S. District Court approved this request. On July 8, 2000, 

Hollander Ridge was imploded. Just a few days later, the Fourth Circuit 

Court of Appeals, responding to an ACLU appeal, reversed the District 

Court’s order. On July 31, 2000, HUD declared the grant to be in default. 

Federal legislation enacted in November 2001 allowed the housing 

authority to transfer the funds to its Claremont Homes site. As shown in 

figure 19, Hollander Ridge remains a vacant lot.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 97 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Jackson Parkway, 

Holyoke, 

Massachusetts

The Holyoke Housing Authority received a $15 million HOPE VI 

revitalization grant in October 1996 for Jackson Parkway (see fig. 20). Fiftyone of the 272 planned units have been completed.

Figure 20: Time Line for Jackson Parkway

Note: This time line is based on GAO analysis of data provided by the Holyoke Housing Authority.

Background Jackson Parkway was built in 1943 and contained 219 units on a 12.5-acre 

site in the Churchill section of Holyoke (see fig. 20). According to housing 

authority officials, the apartments and their residents were isolated from 

'96 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Sources: GAO (except the left photo, which is printed with the permission of the Holyoke Housing Authority).

April:

Projected

completion of

new construction

October:

Revitalization

grant

awarded

March:

CSS plan

approved by

HUD;

revitalization

plan submitted

January:

Relocation

completed

October:

Start of new

construction

December:

Projected

completion

of demolition February:

Revitalization plan

approved by HUD

August:

Grant

agreement

executed

February:

CSS plan 

submitted

Jackson Parkway prior to demolition. New rental units.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 98 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

the economic and social fabric of the surrounding community. In addition, 

the units were run-down and unappealing. The immediate neighborhood 

adjacent to Jackson Parkway was marked by abandoned, obsolete, and 

vacant buildings and was affected by drug dealing and vandalism. The 

Churchill neighborhood formerly was a residential center for mill workers 

and other laborers. However, by the 1990 census, the neighborhood’s 

residents had a 50 percent school drop-out rate and only 37 percent 

participated in the workforce. Because Jackson Parkway contained almost 

25 percent of all residential units in the Churchill neighborhood, its 

revitalization was seen as pivotal to the success of future improvements in 

the area. 

Revitalization and 

Community and Supportive 

Services Plans

The revitalization of Jackson Parkway is estimated to cost around $47 

million—which includes other public housing and HUD funds, other 

federal funds, and equity from low-income housing tax credits—and will 

occur in three phases. The first phase will consist of the demolition of 219 

units and a 42-unit elderly complex and the construction of 50 public 

housing units, 60 homeownership units, a park, a community center, and a 

maintenance facility. The second phase will consist of the rehabilitation of 

two, five-story walkups, which will result in 39 public housing units, and 

the construction of 11 new public housing units. In the third phase, 112 

units will be rehabilitated or constructed in the surrounding neighborhood. 

The new community will be called Churchill and Oakhill Homes. 

Of the $15 million revitalization grant, $700,000 has been set aside for 

community and supportive services. The focus of the community and 

supportive services plan, approved in March 1998, is to implement a 

comprehensive on-site service delivery system to coordinate existing 

health and human services with innovative educational and employment 

opportunities. The Holyoke Housing Authority plans to partner with 

numerous schools, universities, churches, career development 

organizations, libraries, and the Chamber of Commerce to implement its 

self-sufficiency programs.

Current Status Of the 272 total units to be rehabilitated or constructed, 51 have been 

completed. The 50 new public housing units planned for phase one were 

built and fully occupied in summer 2002 (see fig. 20). Additionally, all 

planned phase one demolition has been completed. The community 

buildings are in the design phase, and work on the community park has 

begun and is expected to be completed by summer 2003. One model 
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 99 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

homeownership unit has been completed. Also, 270 applications to 

purchase the 60 homeownership units have been received. 

Selective demolition has begun for phase two—the rehabilitation of two, 

five-story walkups. Additionally, land has been cleared and footings and 

foundation walls have been set. These units are to be completed in the fall 

of 2003. The housing authority is working with the Catholic Diocese of 

Springfield and Habitat for Humanity to build new homeownership units on 

one complete city block. This will be the third and final phase of the 

revitalization. 

By the spring of 2000, a resident services department was established and 

operating to address the needs of former Jackson Parkway residents. Each 

Jackson Parkway resident was assessed by one of three case managers, 

who help residents to find employment, acquire GEDs, take English as a 

Second Language courses, and receive homeownership counseling. 

Factors Contributing to 

Current Status

Several factors contributed to delays early in the revitalization process. 

Because Jackson Parkway was the authority’s first experience with the 

HOPE VI program, its staff had to overcome an initial learning curve. For 

example, the staff had to learn about real estate development and lowincome housing tax credits and about how to work with developers. Also, 

HUD’s Inspector General charged the housing authority with procurement 

violations related to the selection of its first developer. According to HUD 

officials, they placed procurement review restrictions on the authority 

because of the lack of sufficient in-house procurement expertise. These 

restrictions delayed the authority’s ability to obtain an infrastructure 

contractor and a developer for the site. One housing authority official 

estimated that the procurement charges delayed the progress of the grant 

by 1 year. 

Additionally, approval of key documents took longer than expected. For 

example, approval of the revitalization plan took 23 months and approval 

of the mixed-finance proposal for the first phase took 6 months. The 

housing authority has had seven different HUD HOPE VI grant managers 

since 1996, and staff believe that this frequent rotation caused temporary 

disconnects that resulted in delays.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 100 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Lamokin Village, 

Chester, Pennsylvania

The Chester Housing Authority was awarded a $14.9 million HOPE VI 

revitalization grant in October 1996 for Lamokin Village (see fig. 21). 

Construction is complete, and all 150 units are occupied. Since 1994, the 

housing authority has been under judicial receivership resulting from a 

resident lawsuit concerning distressed housing conditions. The housing 

authority also was awarded a fiscal year 1998 HOPE VI revitalization grant 

for Wellington Ridge. 

Figure 21: Time Line for Lamokin Village

Note: This time line is based on GAO analysis of data provided by the Chester Housing Authority.

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

October:

Revitalization

grant awarded

September:

Revitalization

plan submitted

July:

Grant

agreement

executed

November:

CSS plan

submitted

December:

CSS plan 

approved 

by HUD

July:

Revitalization

plan approved

by HUD

September:

Relocation

completed

July:

Start of new

construction

June:

Senior

building

completed

September:

Demolition

completed

June:

Rental

units

completed

Sources: GAO (except the left photo, which is printed with the permission of the Chester Housing Authority).

Lamokin Village prior to demolition. Chatham Estates (formerly Lamokin Village).
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 101 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Background Lamokin Village was built in the early 1940s and consisted of 38, two- and 

three-story buildings, totaling 350 units. The site suffered from substantial 

deterioration; major system problems, such as piping leaks and water table 

problems; and poor site conditions (see fig. 21). The site also had 

significant design problems due to its dense, maze-like building 

configuration with no interior streets. According to the Chester Housing 

Authority, Chester has been a distressed community for decades. About 56 

percent of the population of Chester receives some form of government 

assistance, and HUD has ranked Chester as the most depressed city of its 

size in the United States. The housing authority was awarded a fiscal year 

1995 HOPE VI planning grant for Lamokin Village and one other site as a 

part of the overall recovery plan for the city. 

Revitalization and 

Community and Supportive 

Services Plans

The total amount budgeted for the redevelopment of Lamokin Village is $27 

million, which includes other public housing funds and equity from lowincome housing tax credits. The revitalization plan for Lamokin Village, 

renamed Chatham Estates, calls for three phases: (1) 22 new residential 

buildings with a mix of 110 one-story and duplex row homes, (2) a 40-unit 

senior building, and (3) 30 off-site homeownership units. All existing units 

in Lamokin Village were to be demolished. 

Of the $14.9 million revitalization grant, the housing authority budgeted 

about $1.2 million for community and supportive services. The community 

and supportive services plan, approved in December 1997, proposes a 

comprehensive welfare-to-work strategy designed to cultivate the 

economic self-sufficiency of Lamokin Village residents. Specific plans 

include the establishment of a “one-stop shop” for social services, a 

community center and educational facility to be built on-site, and a 

comprehensive evaluative component that will examine the impact of 

HOPE VI on the Chester community.

Current Status The 150 units, including the 40-unit senior building, planned for phases one 

and two are 100 percent complete and occupied (see fig. 21). Thirty-eight 

former residents returned to the family rental units, and 21 former 

residents moved to the senior building. The third phase of the plan is being 

transferred to the housing authority’s fiscal year 1998 HOPE VI 

revitalization grant.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 102 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

The authority did establish an interagency “one-stop shop” in 1998 that is 

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

authority’s residents. The shop is located in the Chester Crozier Hospital, 

along with various other social service agencies. For example, the Chester 

Education Foundation provides an employment program at the hospital. 

The authority has also included a family self-sufficiency component, which 

is optional for residents and provides services such as case management, 

computer hardware and software training, van transportation, 

homeownership training, and entrepreneurial training. The supportive 

services funding was expended before construction of the community and 

educational center could begin; the authority is currently trying to raise 

additional funding for this center. Finally, Widener University’s School of 

Social Work has been evaluating impacts and outcomes of HOPE VI 

initiatives in Chester since 1997.

Factors Contributing to 

Current Status

In 1994, the Chester Housing Authority was placed on HUD’s troubled 

status list after receiving an extremely low evaluation score. During this 

same period, a federal judge appointed a federal court receiver for the 

housing authority in an effort to transform the authority. The receivership 

is scheduled to end in June 2003. According to officials at the local HUD 

field office, the receiver has brought about many positive changes for the 

housing authority and its residents, including the two HOPE VI 

revitalization grants. In 2002, the authority received a high evaluation 

score, placing it in HUD’s high-performer category. The receiver ensured 

that the authority had the proper staffing and knowledge to administer its 

HOPE VI grants. Additionally, the authority brought the president of the 

resident council on staff, helping to rebuild the relationship between the 

authority and its residents. The receiver also created a separate police 

force to increase the safety and security of the authority’s public housing 

sites, the lack of which had been a major complaint of former residents. 

Finally, during the receivership, all of Chester’s public housing family units 

have either been demolished or rehabilitated.

Relying primarily on public housing funds simplified the development 

process. Tax credit equity was only used to finance the construction of the 

40-unit senior building. The remainder of the redevelopment was financed 

by HOPE VI and other public housing funds. In addition, the housing 

authority elected to act as its own developer of the family units. Finally, all 

units were constructed on-site, thus the housing authority did not have to 

purchase additional property.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 103 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

North Beach, San 

Francisco, California

The San Francisco Housing Authority was awarded a $20 million HOPE VI 

revitalization grant for North Beach in October 1996. Construction at the 

site did not begin until November 2002 (see fig. 22). The housing authority 

has also completed three sites with two HOPE VI revitalization grants—

Bernal/Plaza (fiscal year 1993) and Hayes Valley (fiscal year 1995)—and 

construction at its Valencia Gardens site (fiscal year 1997) is scheduled to 

begin later this year. 

Figure 22: Time Line for North Beach

Note: This time line is based on GAO analysis of data provided by the San Francisco Housing 

Authority.

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Source: GAO.

December:

Projected

completion

of new

construction

North Beach prior to demolition. Vacant North Beach site.

October:

Revitalization

grant awarded

February:

Grant

agreement

executed

December:

Revitalization

plan submitted

June:

Revitalization

plan 

approved

by HUD

March:

CSS plan

submitted

May:

CSS plan

approved

by HUD November:

Start of new 

construction

October:

Relocation

completed

January:

Demolition

completed
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 104 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Background Located adjacent to Fisherman’s Wharf and surrounding the historic cable 

car turnaround, North Beach is situated in the heart of San Francisco’s 

tourist attractions. The site is surrounded by a busy, densely built, vibrant 

neighborhood that is well-served by public transportation, schools, 

shopping, and services. However, North Beach itself has been a pocket of 

poverty, with residents earning, on average, only 17 percent of area median 

income. The site was built in 1952 and consisted of 13 concrete buildings 

with 229 walk-up units, which filled two city blocks (see fig. 22). It was 

poorly designed with large amounts of indefensible space that became 

havens for criminal activity. Due to repeated earthquake stress, the 

buildings were weakening and had substandard major systems, including 

sewer and plumbing. A $400,000 HOPE VI planning grant awarded in fiscal 

year 1995 for North Beach funded a study of the site. The study determined 

that due to the dilapidated condition of the site and the high crime rate in 

the area, complete neighborhood revitalization would be essential to any 

redevelopment plan.

Revitalization and 

Community and Supportive 

Services Plans

In addition to the $20 million revitalization grant, the San Francisco 

Housing Authority was subsequently awarded a $3.2 million HOPE VI 

demolition grant for the North Beach site in fiscal year 2001. The total 

projected budget is $106 million—up from the $69 million estimated in 

1996—and includes other public housing funds, other HUD funds, other 

federal funds, and equity from low-income housing tax credits. The 

revitalization plans call for 341 units. The 341 units will be divided as 

follows:

• 229 public housing units, which will be a one-for-one replacement for 

the units that were demolished on both the east and west blocks and

• 112 rental apartments for families with incomes below 50 percent of the 

city median income.

Also included in the plans are a parking garage for 323 cars and commercial 

and retail space surrounding the cable car turnaround area. 

Approximately $1.5 million of the revitalization grant was set aside for 

community and supportive services. This service component was created 

to provide residents with opportunities to achieve self-sufficiency through 

education, employment, and entrepreneurship. The community and 

supportive services plan, approved in May 2001, calls for a commitment to 
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 105 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

lifelong education that includes the development of basic intellectual skills, 

specific training for particular types of employment, and a focus on life 

skills such as parenting.

Current Status Relocation, abatement, and demolition of both the east and west blocks has 

been completed (see fig. 22). California awarded the authority $55 million 

in tax credits in the spring of 2002 for the North Beach site, the largest 

award in California history. With this additional funding, the housing 

authority was able to begin construction at the site in November 2002.

About half of all residents currently participate in community and 

supportive services. Participants create an individual plan with a case 

manager, who then directs the resident to the various services offered, such 

as employment assistance, computer, and English as a Second Language 

classes. Additionally, 30 residents from North Beach are enrolled in the 

housing authority’s family self-sufficiency program. Program participation 

enables each household to receive up to $1,200 for training in various 

trades.

Factors Contributing to 

Current Status

According to housing authority officials, the primary factor contributing to 

delays at North Beach was resident resistance. To address resident 

concerns regarding relocation, a former executive director initially 

promised residents that the redevelopment would occur in two phases, 

which meant that they would not have to be relocated off-site. However, 

the housing authority later determined that this option would be too 

expensive, and that the residents would have to be relocated off-site so that 

redevelopment could occur all at once. The residents were not happy with 

this decision and were very reluctant to move out of their apartments.

Funding shortfalls have also contributed to delays at the North Beach site. 

San Francisco’s original HOPE VI application requested $30 million to 

complete the revitalization of North Beach. Because HUD only awarded 

them $20 million, making up the difference has been difficult. The authority 

had to add 112 units to the plan in order to convince the city to provide $10 

million in funding assistance. According to housing authority officials, now 

that the project has been awarded $55 million in tax credits, the pace of the 

redevelopment should accelerate. 

Administering over $118 million in HOPE VI funds for five sites 

simultaneously has been challenging for the authority’s staff. The housing 
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 106 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

authority has a history of management and financial problems that have 

affected its redevelopment efforts. HUD took over the housing authority in 

1996 after the Mayor of San Francisco requested HUD’s assistance. The 

authority had managerial problems, high crime at its public housing 

developments, and problems with the physical condition of its housing 

stock. After implementing new policies and procedures and reorganizing 

the housing authority, HUD returned it to local control in 1997. Several 

years after the housing authority was returned to local control, it developed 

financial difficulties and again sought HUD’s assistance. HUD continues to 

monitor and provide assistance to the housing authority.

Another factor that delayed the North Beach redevelopment was 

environmental problems on-site. Half of the units contained lead paint and 

asbestos, and the site’s soil had some arsenic, mercury, zinc, and lead 

contamination (due to the site’s early industrial history). As a result, the 

city required additional environmental reviews before it gave its approval 

to begin construction.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 107 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Riverview and 

Lakeview Terraces, 

Cleveland, Ohio

The Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority was awarded a $29.7 

million HOPE VI revitalization grant for Riverview and Lakeview Terraces 

in October 1996 (see fig. 23). Although the housing authority has completed 

relocation and demolition, the rehabilitation of units at Lakeview has been 

slow, and little progress has been made with the construction of new units 

at Riverview. The housing authority has been awarded two other HOPE VI 

revitalization grants: a $50 million grant in fiscal year 1993 for Outhwaite 

Homes/King Kennedy, which is complete, and a $21 million grant in fiscal 

year 1995 for the Carver Park site. 

Figure 23: Time Line for Riverview and Lakeview

Note: This time line is based on GAO analysis of data provided by the Cuyahoga Metropolitan 

Housing Authority.

'96 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Sources: GAO (except the left photo, which is printed with the permission of the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority).

October:

Revitalization

grant

awarded

January:

Revitalization

plan

submitted

June:

Revised revitalization plan 

conditionally approved by HUD

July:

CSS plan

approved by HUD

November:

Start of 

renovation 

at Lakeview

October:

Projected start 

of new on-site 

construction 

at Riverview

October:

Projected 

completion

of renovation 

at Lakeview

April:

CSS plan submitted

May:

Demolition at

Riverview completed

October:

Grant

agreement

executed

June:

Projected

completion

of new off-site

construction

Riverview and Lakeview prior to renovation. Vacant Riverview site; renovation under way at the Lakeview site.

January:

Revised revitalization

plan submitted

March:

Relocation at

Riverview completed

June:

Projected 

completion

of new on-site 

construction

at Riverview
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 108 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Background Riverview, completed in 1963, consisted of 143 family units and 501 elderly 

units (see fig. 23).5 Lakeview, completed in 1932, contained 570 family units 

and 214 elderly units. Riverview and Lakeview are neighboring public 

housing sites, which collectively housed 715 elderly units and 713 family 

units. Riverview is on unstable ground, which includes numerous 

sinkholes. Both developments are located in the Ohio City neighborhood, 

home to the West Side Market, which has been in operation since the 1880s 

and attracts around 1 million visitors each year. Due to its age, the 

Lakeview units had many problems, including high lead levels, lack of 

parking, and obsolete underground plumbing and storm lines. In addition, 

the majority of the Lakeview units were one- and two-bedroom units, while 

the local demand is for three-bedroom and larger units. 

Revitalization and 

Community and Supportive 

Services Plans

The total projected budget for the Riverview/Lakeview revitalization is 

about $112 million, which includes other public housing funds, other 

federal funds, equity from the sale of low-income housing tax credits, bank 

financing, and other local funds. The current revitalization plan calls for 95 

new public housing units, 240 rehabilitated public housing units, and 345 

new market-rate and moderate-income units. For Riverview, there are 

plans to construct 45 public housing units on-site and 50 off-site, to acquire 

54 off-site public housing units, and to construct 228 market-rate and 117 

affordable (tax credit) units. At the Lakeview site, there are plans to 

renovate 186 public housing units and a community center. There are also 

plans for site improvements, including the demolition of garage 

compounds. 

Of the $29.7 million in HOPE VI funds, the housing authority plans to set 

aside $5.8 million for community and supportive services. The goals of its 

community and supportive services plan, approved in July 2000, are to 

track and provide services to Lakeview residents and relocated families 

from Riverview, make all interested residents meet the qualifications for 

moving into the newly renovated units, and help Lakeview and Riverview 

residents make the transition from welfare to work.

5

The elderly units were modernized in March 1996 and are not included in the HOPE VI 

revitalization plans.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 109 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Current Status The renovation of the first 56 units at the Lakeview site is under way, and 

six units have been completed (see fig. 23). The demolition of the garage 

compounds and rehabilitation work are moving along as scheduled, 

according to the housing authority. The relocation of 98 households and 

demolition of 135 units is complete at the Riverview site (see fig. 23). The 

housing authority has also acquired 54 single-family homes in scattered 

sites, which are fully occupied, but the construction of new units is not 

scheduled to begin until October 2004. In June 2002, the housing authority 

received an award for its plan for the Riverview site from the Congress for 

New Urbanism. The housing authority is in the process of executing a 

development agreement. 

Case management activities are in progress for 343 Riverview and 

Lakeview residents. These residents participate in a range of activities, 

including entrepreneurial and employment training and educational 

programs. The housing authority is also in the process of implementing a 

new system for ensuring that residents can receive the job-training services 

that they need by using vouchers to purchase services. 

Factors Contributing to 

Current Status

The housing authority was experiencing internal problems when the grant 

was awarded in 1996. The prior administration was not following 

appropriate procurement procedures, according to HUD officials, and the 

former executive director was ultimately convicted for theft of public 

funds, mail fraud, and lying about a loan. A new executive director was 

hired in late 1998, and the housing authority was finally able to focus on the 

HOPE VI grant in 1999. 

The project has also experienced delays due to cost constraints, 

consideration of community and resident input, and problems with the site. 

First, the housing authority requested $40 million to implement its 

revitalization plan, but it was awarded $29.7 million. As a result, it took 

time for the housing authority to obtain other funding. Next, the housing 

authority did not originally plan to put public housing back on the 

Riverview site because the land was sloping and unstable. Due to 

community and resident opposition to this plan, the housing authority 

agreed to put public housing units back on-site. Subsequent analysis by an 

engineering firm revealed that certain areas were stable enough for new 

construction. Similarly, while the housing authority originally planned to 

modernize 12 of the buildings at Lakeview, it later revised these plans to 

include modernization of an additional 66 row-house units.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 110 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Robert S. Jervay Place, 

Wilmington, North 

Carolina

The Wilmington Housing Authority was awarded an $11.6 million HOPE VI 

revitalization grant for Robert S. Jervay Place (Jervay Place) in October 

1996 (see fig. 24). Relocation and demolition at Jervay Place are complete, 

but construction has been slow to start.

Figure 24: Time Line for Robert S. Jervay Place

Note: This time line is based on GAO analysis of data provided by the Wilmington Housing Authority.

'96 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Sources: GAO (except the left photo, which is printed with the permission of the Wilmington Housing Authority).

August:

Projected completion

of new construction

Jervay Place prior to demolition. New homeownership units.

October:

Revitalization

grant awarded

April:

First

developer

selected

August:

Grant

agreement

executed

May:

CSS plan

submitted

February:

CSS plan

approved

by HUD

October:

Relocation

completed

November:

Demolition

completed

December:

Revitalization

plan submitted

April:

Second

developer

selected

October:

Revitalization

plan approved

by HUD

March:

Start of new

construction
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 111 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Background Jervay Place, constructed in 1951, was made up of 30, two-story, brick 

buildings that housed 250 units on 14 acres of land (see fig. 24). The 

building configuration yielded limited defensible space for each dwelling 

unit and rendered the site vulnerable to criminal activity. The site needed 

renovation, lead-based paint removal, asbestos abatement, and 

modifications for the handicapped. In addition, the resident population 

consisted of young, welfare-dependent, single-parent families. 

Revitalization and 

Community and Supportive 

Services Plans

The total projected budget for the Jervay Place revitalization is $33 million, 

which includes equity from low-income housing tax credits, other grants, 

and private debt. The revitalization plans called for 190 new units to be 

developed at Jervay Place and surrounding sites in four phases, excluding a 

phase dedicated to the implementation of community and supportive 

services. The construction phases are as follows:

• construction of 14 for-sale or lease-purchase units on the original site;

• construction of 60 units and a community center on the original site and 

40 off-site units;

• construction of 44 for-sale or lease-purchase units on the original site; 

and

• construction of 32 scattered site for-sale or lease-purchase units. 

Of the 190 new units, 71 would be public housing units, 29 would be 

financed with a combination of low-income housing tax credits and 

project-based Section 8, 28 would be lease-purchase units, and 62 would be 

other subsidized homeownership units. A 7,000-square-foot, commercialretail space will also be constructed on-site, but the housing authority has 

not determined in which phase this will be done.

Of the $11.6 million in HOPE VI funds, the Wilmington Housing Authority 

planned to set aside $1.5 million for community and supportive services. 

The focus of its service efforts would be transportation, job training and 

placement, education, health care, and child care. The housing authority 

also planned to establish partnerships with local schools and businesses.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 112 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Current Status Relocation, demolition, and 4 of the 14 phase one homeownership units 

have been completed, and construction of the next 5 units is under way 

(see fig. 24). For phase two, construction began in November 2002, and tax 

credits have been approved. For phase three, the housing authority is 

working on its homeownership plan. The final phase of construction has 

not begun. The housing authority estimates that all of the units will be 

complete in August 2005.

HUD approved the housing authority’s community and supportive services 

plan in February 1999. The housing authority administers services through 

its family self-sufficiency program, through which case managers are 

assigned to work with individual households and match them with 

appropriate services. Case managers have worked with participants to 

assist them with their self-sufficiency goals, including working with 

residents to prequalify them to purchase the homes constructed in phase 

one. Residents who wish to return to Jervay Place must be enrolled in this 

program. As of January 2003, 62 of the 132 original residents were enrolled. 

Factors Contributing to 

Current Status

The procurement of the initial development partner was legally challenged 

by one of the other bidders. According to HUD, a considerable amount of 

time was spent resolving this issue, and HUD’s Office of General Counsel 

ultimately determined the challenge was unfounded. However, the housing 

authority and the initial developer did not work well together, and the 

developer was released in July 1999. A new developer was hired in April 

2001, and HUD assigned an expediter—a private-sector expert in finance, 

real estate development, or community revitalization—to help move the 

project. Both the housing authority and the second developer had to work 

through resistance from the community and residents, who did not 

understand the plans because they were not involved in the planning by the 

previous developer and who were frustrated by the lack of progress at 

Jervay Place, according to housing authority officials. As a result of these 

issues, the housing authority did not submit its revitalization plan until 

December 2000. HUD approved the plan in October 2001. 

According to housing authority officials, revitalization also has been 

adversely affected by the city’s and HUD’s slow approval processes. For 

example, while the city informed the housing authority in August 2001 that 

its site plan had been approved, it was informed in December 2001 that the 

site plan should not have been approved because the setbacks, the space 

between the building area and the property line, were incorrect. As a result, 
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 113 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

the site plans had to be changed and resubmitted to obtain the city’s 

approval. Similarly, housing authority officials stated that HUD’s slow 

approval process has contributed to delays. For example, it took HUD 5 

months to conditionally approve the revitalization plan. In addition, 

housing authority officials stated that they had to take out a line of credit to 

begin construction because HUD was taking too long to make the grant 

funds available. According to HUD, approval could not be completed until 

the housing authority fulfilled several conditions, including submission of a 

mixed-finance proposal, a revised implementation schedule, proposed unit 

designs, and a revised HOPE VI budget. In addition, the HUD grant 

manager assigned to the housing authority was responsible for closing six 

mixed-finance deals as well as reviewing new HOPE VI grant applications 

during this time frame.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 114 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Robert Taylor Homes 

B, Chicago, Illinois

The Chicago Housing Authority was awarded a $25 million HOPE VI 

revitalization grant in October 1996 for Robert Taylor Homes B (see fig. 25). 

Relocation and demolition are complete, and approximately one-quarter of 

the planned units have been constructed. The housing authority’s scattered 

site program, which includes the development of any nonelderly public 

housing, has been under judicial receivership since 1987. The authority is in 

the midst of implementing a 10-year transformation plan, a $1.5 billion 

blueprint for rebuilding or rehabilitating 25,000 units of public housing—

enough for every leaseholder as of October 1999—and transforming 

isolated public housing sites into mixed-income communities. The 

authority was awarded a revitalization grant for Robert Taylor A in fiscal 

year 2001 and has also received grants for the following sites: CabriniGreen (fiscal year 1994), ABLA (fiscal years 1996 and 1998), Henry Horner 

(fiscal year 1996), Madden/Wells/Darrow (fiscal year 2000), and Rockwell 

Gardens (fiscal year 2001).
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 115 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Figure 25: Time Line for Robert Taylor Homes B

Note: This time line is based on GAO analysis of data provided by the Chicago Housing Authority.

Background The Robert Taylor Homes consisted of over 4,300 units in 28 detached, 16-

story buildings along Chicago’s State Street corridor, a 4-mile stretch of five 

different public housing sites (see fig. 25). It was the nation’s largest, most 

densely populated public housing enclave. The Robert Taylor Homes were 

divided into two subsites called Robert Taylor A and B. The fiscal year 1996 

HOPE VI revitalization grant is for Robert Taylor B, which was constructed 

between 1959 and 1963, and consisted of 2,400 units spread over 16 highrise buildings. The surrounding neighborhood included many boarded-up 

'96 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Source: GAO.

December:

Projected completion

of new construction

Robert Taylor Homes prior to demolition. The Langston.

October:

Revitalization

grant awarded

August:

Grant

agreement

executed

January:

Revitalization 

plan submitted

June:

CSS plan submitted;

CSS plan approved by HUD

January:

Relocation completed

March:

Start of new construction

October:

Demolition completed

December:

Revitalization plan approved by HUD
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 116 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

buildings, vacant lots, and a few small businesses. However, the site also is 

near bus and train services and a technical vocational school.

Revitalization and 

Community and Supportive 

Services Plans

In addition to the revitalization grant for Robert Taylor B, the Chicago 

Housing Authority was subsequently awarded a $6.3 million HOPE VI 

demolition grant in fiscal year 2000 and a $13 million HOPE VI demolition 

grant in fiscal year 2001. The total projected budget for the Robert Taylor B 

revitalization is $113 million, which includes other public housing funds, 

other federal funds, conventional debt, and equity from the sale of lowincome housing tax credits. The revitalization plans call for the demolition 

of 762 units and the construction of 251 public housing units in scattered 

off-site locations throughout the surrounding neighborhoods. 

Of the $25 million revitalization grant, approximately $1.5 million has been 

budgeted for community and supportive services. The community and 

supportive services plan was submitted and approved in June 1998. The 

plan states that the housing authority will provide case managers to 

monitor families’ progress in meeting goals established in self-sufficiency 

plans. The plan also allowed for the housing authority to use a Boys and 

Girls Club to deliver self-sufficiency activities until a community center 

was constructed in 1998. The services provided would include a 

combination of employment; education; and family services, such as child 

care and health care.

Current Status As shown in figure 25, a 116-unit site, referred to as The Langston, has been 

constructed and is at capacity. Twenty-nine of these units are public 

housing units and are occupied by former residents of Robert Taylor A and 

B. The remaining units are a mixture of tax credit and market-rate units. 

Construction of a second site, referred to as The Quincy, is also complete. 

The Quincy has 107 units, including 27 public housing units, which are fully 

occupied. The remaining units are also a mixture of market-rate and tax 

credit units. In February 2003, HUD approved the combination of the 1996 

grant for Robert Taylor B with the 2001 grant for Robert Taylor A for 

planning and implementation purposes as well as the extension of certain 

grant agreement deadlines affecting the 1996 grant. As a result, while the 

housing authority is still obligated to complete 195 more public housing 

units under the 1996 grant, these units will be developed as a part of a new 

three-phase Robert Taylor Master Plan. Construction on the first phase of 

this plan is scheduled to begin in late 2003.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 117 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

The housing authority is currently in the process of revising its community 

and supportive services plan to incorporate its service connector program, 

in which case managers work individually with residents to provide either 

necessary services or refer them to the appropriate providers. The housing 

authority is in the process of locating the original residents, finding out 

whether they are using any supportive services through the housing choice 

program, and determining what services they need. According to the 

housing authority, the primary service provided to the original residents 

has been relocation assistance. In addition, the Charles Hayes Family 

Investment Center opened in September 1998 adjacent to the original site, 

offering a one-stop source for computer training, job placement, medical, 

and other supportive services.

Factors Contributing to 

Current Status

The revitalization of Robert Taylor B has been slowed by tension early in 

the relationship between the Chicago Housing Authority and its receiver 

and by the need for the plans to comply with the Gautreaux consent 

decree. In 1966, African American residents of the Chicago public housing 

community filed suit against the housing authority for creating a segregated 

public housing system. In response, the court issued a judgment that 

prohibits the housing authority from constructing any new family public 

housing in a neighborhood in which more than 30 percent of the occupants 

are minorities (limited areas) unless it develops an equal number of units in 

neighborhoods where less than 30 percent are minorities (general areas). 

In 1987, the court appointed a receiver for Chicago’s scattered-site 

program, which includes the development of nonelderly public housing.

According to a housing authority official, the first delay at Robert Taylor B 

occurred because the housing authority did not develop its revitalization 

plan with the input of the receiver. The housing authority submitted the 

plan to HUD in January 1998, and 9 months later HUD informed the 

housing authority that it could not act on the plans without the 

concurrence of the receiver. It took over 1 year for the housing authority 

and the receiver to revise the plans together and to address HUD’s specific 

concerns. HUD approved the plan in December 1999, but it only partially 

approved the HOPE VI budget because the housing authority and the 

receiver had not come to agreement on the receiver fee. The determination 

of how grant funds should be dispersed between the housing authority and 

the receiver was not finalized until May 2000.

The housing authority also has experienced difficulty obtaining off-site 

locations for the balance of the public housing units that need to be 
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 118 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

constructed. To address this difficulty, the housing authority has proposed 

combining the revitalization efforts of Robert Taylor B with the 

revitalization funded under the fiscal year 2001 Robert Taylor A grant. The 

housing authority is working on obtaining a revitalizing order for the 

Robert Taylor community, which would waive the Gautreaux restrictions. 

Revitalizing orders allow the construction of new family public housing 

units in limited areas without requiring an equal number of units to be built 

in a general area. The revitalizing circumstances must support a reasonable 

forecast of economic integration, with the longer term possibility of racial 

integration. The housing authority hopes that it can use the work already 

completed with the Robert Taylor B grant to show that the area is being 

revitalized.

Finally, receipt of the fiscal year 2001 HOPE VI grant for Robert Taylor A 

has slowed progress at Robert Taylor B. After receiving this grant, the 

housing authority took time to develop a master plan to coordinate the 

development of both Robert Taylor A and B. The master plan allows the 

housing authority to combine the grants for planning purposes, although 

they remain administratively separate. In addition, the Robert Taylor site 

has not consistently been a top priority for the housing authority. 

According to a housing authority official, other sites that are further along 

have been selected to get the majority of the housing authority’s time, 

energy, and resources.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 119 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

St. Thomas, New 

Orleans, Louisiana 

The Housing Authority of New Orleans was awarded a $25 million HOPE VI 

revitalization grant for St. Thomas in 1996. Although relocation and 

demolition have been completed, no new units have been constructed (see 

fig. 26). The housing authority is currently under administrative 

receivership. The housing authority was also awarded a HOPE VI 

revitalization grant for the Desire site in fiscal year 1994.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 120 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Figure 26: Time Line for St. Thomas

Note: This time line is based on GAO analysis of data provided by the Housing Authority of New 

Orleans.

Background St. Thomas, completed in 1941, consisted of 1,510 public housing units on 

almost 50 acres (see fig. 26). The site was located in a mixed-use 

neighborhood close to the central business district and the Garden District. 

The neighborhood in which St. Thomas is located was recently designated 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Source: GAO.

December:

Projected completion

of new construction

Original St. Thomas buildings. Cleared St. Thomas site.

September:

Revitalization

grant awarded

September:

First 

developer

selected

October:

Grant

agreement

executed

August:

Revitalization

plan submitted

October:

Second

developer

selected

September:

Revitalization

plan approved

by HUD

May:

CSS plan

submitted

June:

Relocation

completed

July:

CSS plan

approved 

by HUD

December:

Demolition completed

June:

Projected

start of new

construction
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 121 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

as a historic district. St. Thomas had a vacancy rate of 50 percent when the 

Housing Authority of New Orleans applied for the HOPE VI grant. The 

original site had a density of approximately 30 units per acre and contained 

long spaces between buildings, which were conducive to criminal and 

violent behavior. Moreover, underground utilities were either obsolete or 

deteriorated. Stormwater flooding and sanitary line overflows were 

common. The odor of sewage was pervasive throughout the site.

Revitalization and 

Community and Supportive 

Services Plans

In addition to the revitalization grant, the Housing Authority of New 

Orleans was awarded a HOPE VI demolition grant in the amount of $3.5 

million to demolish 701 units at St. Thomas. With funds from the city, state, 

tax-exempt bonds, and other sources, the total projected budget for the 

revitalization of St. Thomas is $293 million. The revitalization plans call for

• a total of 1,238 units, including construction of 182 on-site public 

housing units, 107 on-site public housing eligible rental units, 15 on-site 

affordable homeownership units, 100 off-site public housing eligible 

rental units, and 50 off-site affordable homeownership units;

• construction of a 200,000-square-foot retail center on 17 acres adjacent 

to the site; and

• historic preservation and renovation of five of the original St. Thomas 

buildings.

Of the $25 million revitalization grant, the housing authority plans to spend 

$4 million on community and supportive services. The housing authority 

will attempt to contact all of the original St. Thomas households and 

conduct assessments of their needs. On the basis of these assessments, a 

detailed case management plan will be drafted. The St. Thomas community 

and supportive services plan, which HUD approved in July 2001, 

documents goals and objectives for achieving self-sufficiency for the 

residents of St. Thomas in the following areas: employment and income 

generation, education, training, homeownership training and assistance, 

health, strengthening families, and services to build community leadership.

Current Status The St. Thomas site has been cleared, but construction has not yet started 

(see fig. 26). The relocation of 739 families was completed in June 2001, 

and demolition of 1,365 units was completed in December 2001. As of April 

2003, infrastructure work at the St. Thomas site was 60 percent complete. 
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 122 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

The transfer of property from the housing authority to the retail developer 

for the construction of the retail center is scheduled to occur by June 2003. 

This property transfer is contingent upon the housing authority’s 

submission of documents to HUD for the closing of the first phase of 

construction on residential units, an escrow deposit from the developer to 

guarantee the construction of residential housing, and the environmental 

clearance for the retail site. State economic development bonds were 

approved in December 2002, which enabled negotiations regarding the 

retail center to progress. The historic preservation of five of the original St. 

Thomas buildings also has begun.

The housing authority has hired Kingsley House, a social service provider 

located near the St. Thomas site, to perform assessments and provide case 

management plans in accordance with the community and supportive 

services plan. The Kingsley House, established in 1896, administers a 

variety of programs from Head Start to adult day care. Assessments have 

been conducted on 451 of the 739 families that were affected by the 

redevelopment plans. 

Factors Contributing to 

Current Status

According to housing authority officials, progress has been delayed due to 

funding shortfalls. Although the housing authority requested $40 million, 

HUD awarded $25 million, which was not enough to revitalize the St. 

Thomas site. Similarly, the city could provide $6 million of the $20 million 

needed for infrastructure at the site. As a result, the developer had to take 

time to identify other funding sources. Moreover, it took approximately 2 

years from the time that the developer told HUD its intentions to employ 

tax-increment financing (TIF) until the New Orleans City Council approved 

it. Approval of the TIF was delayed due to public pressure against the TIF 

concept and the project itself. Moreover, the state bond commission did not 

approve the issuance of bonds until December 2002, after nearly 6 months 

of delays due in part to the need to complete environmental review 

processes. 

Also, although the housing authority selected a developer in September 

1997, the HUD Office of Inspector General identified problems with the 

selection process.6 Specifically, the Inspector General found that the 

6

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Developer Selection; St. Thomas 

HOPE VI Grant; New Orleans, Louisiana, 98-FW-201-1813 (Fort Worth, Texas: July 24, 

1998).
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 123 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

housing authority allowed the majority of the selection panel members to 

be nonhousing authority individuals. The Inspector General also found that 

the interaction of the initial developer with certain members of the 

selection panel and St. Thomas residents constituted both a perceived and 

actual conflict of interest. As a result, the housing authority selected a new 

developer in October 1999. Once selected, the new developer reconfigured 

the revitalization plan.

Delays continue because the St. Thomas site is located in a historic district. 

Preservationists opposed demolition of existing buildings and the 

construction of the retail center because of its size, design, financing, 

impact upon traffic, and negative effect upon local businesses. The housing 

authority consulted with environmental and preservationist groups and 

executed a Memorandum of Agreement in September 2000 that stipulated 

the preservation of five of the original St. Thomas buildings and a 

warehouse as well as other measures aimed at minimizing adverse 

environmental impact in and around St. Thomas. Consultation began in 

2001 for an amended Memorandum of Agreement to consider the retail 

component proposed for the site. 

In July 2002, a nonprofit organization filed a lawsuit against the housing 

authority and HUD (1) stating that they were not in compliance with 

environmental and historic preservation laws and (2) seeking HUD to 

withhold all HOPE VI funds from the housing authority. Since the filing of 

the lawsuit, HUD has completed a supplemental environmental assessment 

and has published a finding of no significant impact. Moreover, the housing 

authority, HUD, and other parties have executed an amended 

Memorandum of Agreement. The case was reopened in March 2003, but it 

was dismissed by a judge in April 2003. 

Finally, the Housing Authority of New Orleans has had a long history of 

management problems, and its public housing has long been in very poor 

condition. In 1996, HUD entered into a “cooperative endeavor agreement” 

with New Orleans to correct problems at the housing authority. Under this 

agreement, HUD dissolved the housing authority’s board of commissioners 

and chose a HUD representative as Executive Monitor to oversee the 

authority’s progress in implementing improvements. In 2002, after the 

housing authority had made little progress, HUD took control of its 

management and operations. According to HUD officials involved in the 

receivership, they are working on reallocating staff resources, reorganizing 

the housing authority’s structure, and cutting back on unnecessary 

expenditures.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 124 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Theron B. Watkins 

Homes, Kansas City, 

Missouri

The Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri, received a $13 million 

HOPE VI revitalization grant for Theron B. Watkins in November 1996 (see 

fig. 27). This grant has funded the revitalization of the Watkins site and will 

fund additional revitalization plans at another site and off-site units. The 

authority has had numerous problems related to management and 

maintenance of its properties, and it was placed under judicial receivership 

in 1994. The authority also was awarded three other HOPE VI revitalization 

grants—a fiscal year 1993 revitalization grant for Guinotte Manor, a fiscal 

year 1997 revitalization grant for Heritage House, and a smaller 

revitalization grant for Heritage House awarded in fiscal year 1998 that is 

complete.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 125 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Figure 27: Time Line for Theron B. Watkins Homes

Note: This time line is based on GAO analysis of data provided by the Housing Authority of Kansas 

City, Missouri.

Background For many years, the Theron B. Watkins site served as the symbol for urban 

decline in Kansas City. With its deteriorated structures, large open 

entryways, and outdated and neglected electrical systems, the site suffered 

from many of the same problems identified in housing of similar design 

throughout the country. The site was built in 1953 and contained 288 units 

in 22, three-story buildings. In the late 1980s, living conditions at the site 

began to deteriorate at a rapid pace with drug dealing and related crime 

rampant; units in disrepair and neglect; and the housing authority unable to 

'96 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Source: GAO.

October:

Projected completion

of off-site construction

Theron B. Watkins Homes after revitalization.

November:

Revitalization

grant awarded

December:

Relocation

completed;

revitalization

plan submitted

August:

Grant agreement

executed

June:

Revitalization plan 

approved by HUD

August:

CSS plan

submitted

December:

CSS plan 

approved 

by HUD

June:

Demolition

completed

April:

Completion 

of on-site

rehabilitation
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 126 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

address problems due to its mismanagement problems. These conditions 

created an unsafe living environment that prompted residents to vacate the 

site in large numbers. Upon the arrival of the receiver in 1994, problems at 

the site included a 43 percent vacancy rate; enormous backlogs of 

uncompleted maintenance work; high rates of criminal activity; and 

hundreds of families living in dangerous, substandard conditions.

Revitalization and 

Community and Supportive 

Services Plans

According to the revitalization plan, the Housing Authority of Kansas City, 

Missouri, would use their $13 million HOPE VI revitalization grant to fund 

portions of several redevelopment projects. The majority of the grant 

would fund the rehabilitation of 75 units at the Theron B. Watkins site. 

(Other public housing funds would be used to complete the rehabilitation 

of the remaining units.) Additionally, some of the HOPE VI funds would be 

used to rehabilitate 74 townhomes at the housing authority’s Wayne Miner 

site. Finally, the funding would be used to demolish 24 units at Theron B. 

Watkins. These units would be replaced in two off-site communities. Of the 

$13 million revitalization grant, $1.4 million was budgeted for community 

and supportive services. The funds would be used to provide case 

management, community policing, and programs and activities. An 

additional $314,000 would be used to renovate the housing authority’s 

family development center.

Current Status Of the 173 total planned units, 149 have been completed. The rehabilitation 

of 75 units at the Theron B. Watkins site is complete (see fig. 27), as is the 

renovation of the family development center. The rehabilitation of the 74 

townhomes at the Wayne Miner site was completed in March 2003. The 

replacement of the 24 demolished units in two, off-site, mixed-income 

developments remains in the planning stage. However, due to recent tax 

credit awards, construction on 13 of the 24 replacement units is scheduled 

to begin in June 2003.

Community and supportive services for residents of Theron B. Watkins 

include bilingual case management for the large immigrant population, 

community policing, transportation, public health programs, and youth 

development activities. The housing authority recently conducted a needs 

assessment of its residents, which demonstrated the residents’ preference 

for case management. Services for children are offered at an on-site 

community center, including Head Start, Parents as Teachers, Boy/Girl 

Scouts, and the Police Athletic League.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 127 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Factors Contributing to 

Current Status

The housing authority had already begun the revitalization of Theron B. 

Watkins with other public housing funds when the fiscal year 1996 HOPE VI 

revitalization grant was awarded. Additionally, the receivership improved 

the management of the housing authority, which ensured that the authority 

had the staffing and expertise to implement its HOPE VI grants.

Although the on-site renovation was completed by April 2000, the other two 

parts of the redevelopment effort have faced challenges. The housing 

authority’s initial HOPE VI application included the Wayne Miner site as a 

mixed-income development, but after an evaluation of financial feasibility 

and market demand, the housing authority decided that mixed-income 

development would not be sustainable at the site. Thus, the housing 

authority had to redo its plans for the site to include only public housing. 

The plans to replace the 24 demolished Theron B. Watkins units at two, offsite, mixed-income developments were delayed when the housing 

authority’s fiscal years 2001 and 2002 applications for low-income housing 

tax credits were denied. However, in early 2003, one of the two mixedincome developments was awarded tax credits, and construction is 

expected to begin in June 2003. The housing authority plans to reapply for 

tax credits for the other development in the fall of 2003.
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 128 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Tobe Hartwell Courts 

and Tobe Hartwell 

Extension, 

Spartanburg, South 

Carolina

The Spartanburg Housing Authority was awarded a $14.6 million HOPE VI 

revitalization grant for Tobe Hartwell Courts and Tobe Hartwell Extension 

in October 1996 and has completed all of the planned public housing and 

homeownership units, a community center, and nearly half of the planned 

tax credit units (see fig. 28).

Figure 28: Time Line for Tobe Hartwell Courts and Tobe Hartwell Extension

Note: This time line is based on GAO analysis of data provided by the Spartanburg Housing Authority.

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Sources: GAO (except the left photo, which is printed with the permission of the Spartanburg Housing Authority).

November:

Projected

completion

of tax credit

units

Tobe Hartwell Courts prior to demolition. Tobias Booker Hartwell Campus of Learners (formerly Tobe Hartwell Courts

and Tobe Hartwell Extension): rental units, computer room, and gymnasium.

October:

Revitalization

grant awarded

August:

Grant agreement

executed

March:

Relocation

completed

January:

Revitalization

plan submitted;

CSS plan submitted

May:

Revitalization

plan approved

by HUD;

CSS plan

approved 

by HUD

March:

Demolition

completed

April:

Start of new

construction

February:

Completion of

replacement

public housing

units

July:

Completion of

homeownership units
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 129 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Background Tobe Hartwell Courts and Tobe Hartwell Extension—constructed in 1941 

and 1952, respectively—contained 266 units in concrete and masonry 

buildings (see fig. 28). High density, narrow streets, limited rehabilitation 

options, and general disrepair characterized the development. In 1996, 

incidents of crime were 19 percent higher at this development than crime in 

Spartanburg public housing in general, and nearly 40 percent of the 

residents did not have a high-school diploma. The housing authority was 

awarded a $400,000 HOPE VI planning grant for Tobe Hartwell Courts and 

Extension in May 1995. 

Revitalization and 

Community and Supportive 

Services Plans

The total projected budget for the project is $30 million, which includes tax 

credit equity and private funds. The revitalization plans for Tobe Hartwell 

Courts and Tobe Hartwell Extension, renamed the Tobias Booker Hartwell 

Campus of Learners, call for 268 new units to be developed in the following 

four phases:

• Phase one: 118 public housing replacement units and a community 

center on the original site.

• Phase two: 50 single-family homes on two off-site locations.

• Phase three: 50-unit, off-site apartment complex (40 low-income 

housing tax credit units and 10 public housing units).

• Phase four: another 50 low-income housing tax credit off-site units.

Of the $14.6 million in HOPE VI funds, approximately $803,000 was set 

aside for community and supportive services. The community and 

supportive services plan, approved in May 1998, stated that case managers 

would administer the program and monitor residents’ progress. The 

community center would be the hub of the supportive services component 

and would include a day-care facility, a computer center, a clinic, meeting 

rooms, staff offices, and a combined gymnasium and multipurpose 

community room. 

Current Status The 118 replacement public housing units were completed in February 

2001 and are now fully occupied (see fig. 28). All 50 homes are complete, 36 

have been sold, and contracts are in place for 7. Of the 50 tax credit units 

planned for phase three, all have been constructed and accepted. Site 
Appendix IV

Site Visit Summaries

Page 130 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

infrastructure work is complete for phase four, and the housing authority is 

awaiting the 2003 low-income housing tax credit cycle to apply for building 

funds for this phase.

A needs assessment of the residents was updated in January 2000, and 

provision of supportive services began in December 2000. The community 

center is complete, and the day-care and health-care components are fully 

operational. Classes are also under way in the computer lab, and case 

managers are on-site.

Factors Contributing to 

Current Status

Spartanburg Housing Authority officials believe that they have been 

successful for several reasons. First, receipt of a planning grant enabled the 

housing authority to thoroughly plan the revitalization. As a result of this 

early planning, the housing authority made few changes to their plans after 

the revitalization grant was awarded. Also, housing authority officials 

emphasized that they involved their residents early and often, enabling 

them to avoid the delays and difficulties that many other housing 

authorities have experienced. Moreover, housing authority officials 

emphasized that their previous executive director provided strong 

leadership and was the driving force behind the planning and 

implementation of their revitalization grant. 

The financing of this grant was relatively simple compared with the 

financing that other housing authorities must arrange to construct mixedincome developments. For example, the housing authority put all public 

housing units back on-site. In addition, in South Carolina, the state housing 

finance agency sets aside low-income housing tax credits for HOPE VI 

sites. This made it easier for the housing authority to obtain tax credits for 

its off-site components.
Page 131 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Appendix V

Comments from the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development ApendxiV
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development

Page 132 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program
Page 133 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Appendix VI

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApenVdxiI

GAO Contacts David Wood, (202) 512-8678

Paul Schmidt, (312) 220-7681

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to those named above, Catherine Hurley, Kevin Jackson, 

Barbara Johnson, Alison Martin, John McGrail, Sara Moessbauer, Marc 

Molino, Lisa Moore, Barbara Roesmann, Paige Smith, Ginger Tierney, and 

Carrie Watkins made key contributions to this report.
Page 134 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Glossary

Case management An experienced case manager assesses the needs and circumstances of 

each family holistically and makes referrals to an appropriate range of 

service providers on the basis of priorities that these individual 

assessments suggest. Also see community and supportive services.

Community and supportive 

services

Services such as child care, transportation, job training, job placement and 

retention services, youth programs, addictions counseling, and parenting 

classes.

Community and supportive 

services plan

Contains a description of the types of community and supportive services 

that will be provided to residents, the proposed steps and schedules for 

establishing arrangements with service providers, the plans for actively 

involving residents in supportive services planning and implementation, 

and a system for monitoring and tracking the performance of the 

supportive services programs as well as resident progress. Also see 

community and supportive services.

Consent decree A judicial decree that sanctions a voluntary agreement between parties in 

dispute. 

Defensible space program A program that restructures the physical layout of communities to allow 

residents to control the areas around their homes and reduce crime. For 

example, common entryways and grounds are replaced with private 

entrances and yards.

Elderly rental unit A unit designated for an individual or for a family whose head, spouse, or 

sole member is a person 62 years of age or older. An elderly family may 

include elderly persons with disabilities and other family members who are 

not elderly and who may or may not have disabilities.

Family rental unit A unit of affordable rental housing developed for use by two or more 

persons in a development.
Glossary

Page 135 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

Family self-sufficiency 

program

A HUD program that encourages communities to develop local strategies to 

help assisted families obtain employment that will lead to economic 

independence and self-sufficiency. Public housing agencies work with 

welfare agencies, schools, businesses, and other local partners to develop a 

comprehensive program that gives participating family members the skills 

and experience to enable them to obtain employment that pays a living 

wage. When a family volunteers to participate in the 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. The housing authority credits the escrow 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.

HOPE VI demolition grant Awarded to housing authorities from 1996 to the present, these grants fund 

the demolition of severely distressed public housing, the relocation of 

residents affected by the demolition, and the implementation of supportive 

services for permanently relocated residents. 

HOPE VI planning grant Awarded to housing authorities from 1993 to 1995, these grants were used 

to fund studies for the area to be revitalized, to develop a plan of 

revitalization, for economic development, and for technical support.

HOPE VI revitalization grant Revitalization grants—which have been awarded since the program’s 

inception—fund, among other things, the capital costs of major 

rehabilitation, new construction, and other physical improvements; 

demolition of severely distressed housing; and community and supportive 

services programs for residents, including those relocated as a result of 

revitalization efforts.

Low-income housing tax 

credit program

Low-income housing tax credits provide tax incentives for private 

investment in the development and rehabilitation of housing for lowincome households. Under this program, states are authorized to allocate 

federal tax credits as an incentive to the private sector to develop rental 
Glossary

Page 136 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

housing for low-income households. After the state allocates tax credits to 

developers, the developers typically offer the credits to private investors. 

The private investors use the tax credits to offset taxes otherwise owed on 

their tax returns. The money that private investors pay for the credits is 

paid into the projects as equity financing. 

Market-rate unit Housing unit with no income eligibility restrictions for renters or 

homeowners.

Mixed-finance development A method of public housing development that involves a combination of 

public and private financing sources and may include the ownership of 

public housing units by a housing authority, or an entity other than the 

housing authority in which the authority may or may not have an 

ownership interest.

Mixed-finance proposal A proposal that must be approved by HUD prior to the development of 

units financed with a combination of public and private funds. The 

proposal consists of 12 sections of narrative and attachments and includes 

basic descriptive information, such as the number and types of units 

planned, the development schedule, and the sources and uses of funding.

Mixed-income development A development that combines public housing families with other residents 

of various income levels in order to decrease the economic and social 

isolation of the public housing families.

Project-based Section 8 

Program

A HUD rent subsidy program that attaches the subsidy to a unit instead of a 

person. Under this program, landlords are responsible for ensuring that 

these units are leased only to qualified tenants and that the units meet HUD 

standards. 

Revitalization plan Consists of a series of documents and submissions that govern the 

revitalization of a public housing development. The revitalization plan 

includes, among other things, the grantee’s HOPE VI application, budgets, a 

community and supportive services plan, a relocation plan, and any 
Glossary

Page 137 GAO-03-555 HUD's Management of the HOPE VI Program

supplemental submissions that HUD requests following its review of the 

HOPE VI application and as a result of a site visit to the development. 

Tax credit unit Units financed with low-income housing tax credit equity. Also see lowincome housing tax credit program.

Tax increment financing 

(TIF)

Allows a municipality to provide financial incentives to stimulate private 

investment in a designated area (a TIF district) where blight has made it 

difficult to attract new development. TIF can be used to support new 

development or the rehabilitation of existing buildings in industrial, 

commercial, residential, or mixed-use development proposals. Funding for 

TIF-eligible activities is derived from the increase in incremental tax 

revenues generated by new construction or rehabilitation projects within 

the boundaries of the TIF district. States determine what activities are 

eligible uses of TIF funds; these activities may include land acquisition, site 

preparation, building rehabilitation, public improvements, and interest 

subsidy. 

(250107)
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 GAO 

Mailing Lists” under “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