U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

53–249 PDF 2009

ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVES ON THE 

FUTURE OF PUBLIC HOUSING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 29, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 111–69 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

TRAVIS CHILDERS, Mississippi 

WALT MINNICK, Idaho 

JOHN ADLER, New Jersey 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio 

SUZANNE KOSMAS, Florida 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JIM HIMES, Connecticut 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

CHRISTOPHER LEE, New York 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

JEANNE M. ROSLANOWICK, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

MAXINE WATERS, California, Chairwoman 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

JIM HIMES, Connecticut 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

CHRISTOPHER LEE, New York 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

July 29, 2009 ..................................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

July 29, 2009 ..................................................................................................... 37 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2009 

Boston, Dr. Thomas D., Professor, School of Economics, Georgia Institute 

of Technology ........................................................................................................ 5 

Cabrera, Hon. Orlando J., Chief Executive Officer, National Community Renaissance and Of Counsel to Nixon Peabody ....................................................... 7 

Fraser, Dr. James C., Associate Professor, Department of Human and Organizational Development, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University ...................... 8 

Goetz, Dr. Edward G., Director, Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, 

and Professor, Urban and Regional Planning, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota ................................................. 10 

Harris, Dr. Laura E., Assistant Professor, Division of Public and Nonprofit 

Administration, School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy, University of 

Memphis ............................................................................................................... 12 

Jones, David R., Esq., President and Chief Executive Officer, Community 

Service Society of New York ................................................................................ 14 

Joseph, Dr. Mark L., Assistant Professor, Mandel School of Applied Social 

Sciences, Case Western Reserve University ...................................................... 16 

Popkin, Dr. Susan J., Director, Program on Neighborhoods and Youth Development, The Urban Institute .............................................................................. 17 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Boston, Dr. Thomas D. ..................................................................................... 38 

Cabrera, Hon. Orlando J. ................................................................................. 41 

Fraser, Dr. James C. ........................................................................................ 49 

Goetz, Dr. Edward ............................................................................................ 59 

Harris, Dr. Laura E. ......................................................................................... 77 

Jones, David R. ................................................................................................. 88 

Joseph, Dr. Mark L. ......................................................................................... 94 

Popkin, Dr. Susan J. ........................................................................................ 117 

(1) 

ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVES ON THE 

FUTURE OF PUBLIC HOUSING 

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND

COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Maxine Waters [chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Waters, Lynch, Cleaver, 

Green, Driehaus, Himes, Maffei; and Capito. 

Chairwoman WATERS. This hearing of the Subcommittee on 

Housing and Community Opportunity will come to order. 

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to thank the 

ranking member and other members of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity for joining me today for this hearing on academic perspectives on the future of public housing. Public housing plays an important role in providing affordable rental 

housing for 1.2 million households, containing about 3 million individuals. 

In fact, research suggests that residents of public housing fare 

better across a number of measures than households at similar income levels who live in private market apartments without housing 

assistance. Despite the many successes of public housing, some 

critics continue to associate the program only with problems. These 

perceptions of public housing have led some public housing authorities to push for the continued demolition of public housing units. 

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates since 1995, 

200,000 public housing units, including the great majority of large 

high-rises have already been torn down, just as yesterday the Associated Press reported that the City of Atlanta is in the process of 

demolishing the last of its public housing, making it both the first 

city to have public housing and the first major city to eliminate it. 

These negative perceptions of public housing also helped fuel disinvestments in the program over the last 8 years. 

For too long, our Federal housing policy said that homeownership 

was a one-size-fits-all approach for all households and neglected 

the important need that public housing fills for some individuals 

and families. Year after year, our Federal budgets reflected these 

priorities. Beginning in 2003, the Federal Government underfunded 

the public housing operating fund for 6 consecutive years. The pubVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:08 Dec 09, 2009 Jkt 053249 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\53249.TXT TERRIE
2 

lic housing capital fund has also fallen well short of need in recent 

years. 

Where estimates vary, the Center on Budget and Public Policy 

priorities estimates the cost of needed repairs and modest upgrades 

at $22 billion. As the current Administration begins to reverse the 

trend of underfunding the program, I believe that now is the time 

to look at how the current program can be improved, so that it best 

serves the needs of low-income families. 

First, we must address the loss of units throughout the country. 

The HOPE VI Program has accelerated the demolition of public 

housing, leading to a net loss of at least 50,000 units. That is why 

last year I introduced in the House, and the House passed, a 

HOPE VI reauthorization bill that required one-for-one replacement. In addition, Chairman Frank and I recently wrote to Secretary Donovan to request a one-year moratorium on all public 

housing demolitions. 

I am also troubled by resident displacement and the low rates of 

return among original public housing tenants. Additionally, I believe we need to build-up the record of HOPE VI and reconsider 

how well public housing programs meet the needs of different types 

of residents. In particular, I am concerned about whether we are 

adequately serving the most vulnerable public housing residents, 

including elderly and disabled residents, families with children, 

and included in that ex-offenders. 

More needs to be done to ensure that housing is connected to job 

opportunities, affordable healthcare, and transportation. We also 

need to improve upon how public housing agencies and nonprofits 

work together to provide case management services to residents of 

all ages by grounds and levels of need. This case management 

needs to continue through the life of the development and it needs 

to effectively target residents who relocate with vouchers. It is time 

to rethink the way that residents are involved in the process of 

governing their communities, particularly when redevelopment 

takes place. This includes helping residents access job opportunities right in their own backyards and ensuring that they can advocate for how their communities are designed. 

I am pleased that our witnesses are here today to comment on 

these issues. There are many questions we have yet to answer on 

these important topics and I look forward to our witnesses’ testimony. 

I thank you, and I would now like to recognize our ranking member, Ranking Member Capito, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I want to 

thank the witnesses today for coming before us. I don’t have a formal opening statement. I just have a couple of things I would like 

to say, and I also want to apologize. I have to go to the Floor to 

manage two or three suspensions, so I might be in and out during 

the committee hearing. 

At this point in time, I think it’s well-placed to be looking at the 

future of public housing and how we can best use our resources. 

Right now at this moment, Federal spending on public housing is 

at an all-time high. When you combine the consolidated appropriations with the stimulus package, it’s quite sizeable, and certainly 

3 

the same can be said for the HUD appropriations bill that was 

passed last week. 

I think it’s important as we look at more dollars that we do this 

in a smart and efficient way, and one of the things I have learned 

through service on this committee in talking with my local housing 

folks is that some flexibility needs to be built into the program. So, 

as the chairwoman said, a one-size-fits-all approach no longer fits 

the housing authorities and the others who are in the position to 

make decisions. 

That’s why we did our Section 8, the Moving to Work revisions 

I think were good because of the flexibility we built in there, and 

I would like to see us build flexibility into our public housing programs as well. I think that innovative solutions are what we are 

looking for today, and I’m certain most of you have great ideas on 

that in terms of how to reach our vulnerable populations, whether 

it’s our elderly or disabled from my perspective representing a 

rural State. 

I think it’s important too that we realize that rural America has 

great housing needs, maybe not in the greater numbers. But as a 

lot of our aging population lives in the rural area, certainly in my 

State, we need to be able to help them meet the challenges they 

have as they move into their elderly years and make sure that they 

are in safe, affordable housing. I have also noticed in my own community of Charleston, West Virginia, when we have tried to reshape the face of public housing, that a lot of the housing units 

were clustered together intensely, and have come into quite disrepair, because of the age, basically, of the units. And I think our 

housing authority has done a wonderful job in terms of reshaping 

the face of public housing in our community, but I think they have 

been able to use some flexibility in terms of not necessarily a oneto-one replacement in that exact locality but spread those units 

around the different city and area to make sure the units are there, 

but they are not as heavily concentrated as they had been in the 

past. 

And one of the aspects I think it’s important that we emphasize 

too, is as we rebuild and renovate units, that we do this in a smart 

and efficient way to use our dollars the best, and that’s to make 

sure we build an energy efficiency and the green standards I think 

will help drive cost savings, but also be a smarter way to use our 

dollars. 

So with that I would like to thank the chairwoman for having 

this hearing and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Lynch is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I appreciate you holding this hearing and I appreciate your longstanding advocacy on behalf of families living in public housing. I 

would also like to welcome our panelists and I thank them in advance for their testimony on this very important issue. 

As someone who was raised in public housing in the housing 

projects in South Boston, I understand the important role that public housing can provide for families and the community at large. 

Federally-subsidized public housing provides homes for about 3 

4 

million Americans living in 1.2 million households today, but we 

know that our public housing stock is insufficient and more units 

are necessary. 

Prior to coming to Congress, I worked as a young lawyer. I did 

pro bono work in the housing projects in the City of Boston representing families living in public housing, who were having trouble with lead paint on the pipes, asbestos in the apartments. Folks 

who were underhoused, a lot of kids living in apartments with 

maybe one bedroom. So I know the strain that’s facing a lot of families in public housing. Many factors have contributed to a shortage 

of public housing, including insufficient Federal funding and the 

demolition of aging units without replacements, as Chairwoman 

Waters has mentioned. 

This committee has received testimony at previous hearings, and 

I have heard from the public housing community in my district, 

that public housing agencies lack sufficient staff and resources to 

perform inspections and maintain aging buildings. It is especially 

stressful in larger urban areas, including some cities in the Northeast, such as in my district in Boston, where the housing stock is 

older than in many parts of the country. 

We know that additional maintenance and inspections are necessary to ensure tenants’ safety and the proper allocation of Federal resources. 

The lasting questions related to public housing are grounded in 

how to best use affordable housing as a platform for families’ stability and independence. Research has supported the idea that a 

stable, safe, and clean place to live can serve as the foundation for 

self-sufficiency. And as we enter into a new phase of federally-subsidized housing, I am interested in hearing more about the many 

approaches to the future of public housing intervention, whether 

it’s a continuation of the mobility-based, mixed-income models that 

have helped transform old high-rises into revitalized communities 

or the prioritization of housing preservation for certain populations 

like the disabled and elderly. 

I look forward to hearing from our panelists on these ideas. I 

want to thank you, Madam Chairwoman, again for your advocacy 

on this issue and for convening this hearing. And I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Himes, would you like to make an opening statement? If not, 

we will move to our witnesses. Again, we want to thank you for 

being here today. We will recognize you each for 5 minutes, and we 

will begin with our first witness, Dr. Thomas Boston, professor, 

School of Economics, Georgia Institute of Technology. 

Our second witness will be the Honorable Orlando Cabrera, 

CEO, National Community Renaissance and Of Counsel to Nixon 

Peabody. 

Our third witness will be Dr. James Fraser, associate professor, 

Department of Human and Organizational Development, Vanderbilt University. 

Our fourth witness will be Dr. Edward Goetz, director, Center for 

Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota. 

Our fifth witness will be Dr. Laura Harris, assistant professor, 

School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy, University of Memphis. 

5 

Our sixth witness will be Mr. David Jones, president and CEO, 

Community Service Society of New York. 

Our seventh witness will be Dr. Mark Joseph, assistant professor, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University. 

And our eighth witness will be Dr. Susan Popkin, director, Program on Neighborhoods and Youth Development, The Urban Institute. 

Without objection, your written statements will be made a part 

of the record. You will be now be recognized for a 5-minute summary of your testimony. 

Thank you. Starting with you, Dr. Boston. 

STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS D. BOSTON, PROFESSOR, 

SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS, GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 

Mr. BOSTON. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and the honorable and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

Your invitation letter asked me to answer eight specific questions 

related to my research on the Atlanta Housing Authority, and I 

will restrict my answers to those questions. And let me start simply by summarizing my research findings, and that is that when 

low-income housing-assisted families are given access to quality affordable housing in neighborhoods of greater opportunity, their 

self-sufficiency increases significantly. 

The first question I was asked to respond to was to describe my 

research on public housing in Atlanta. I have mainly focused on 

how mixed-income revitalization, housing choice vouchers, and public housing have affected family self-sufficiency. I have examined 

20,000 administrative records of families who received housing assistance from the Atlanta Housing Authority between 1995 and 

2007, and, more recently, I completed an examination of 26,000 

families who received housing assistance from the Chicago Housing 

Authority between 1999 and 2007. 

I have attempted to answer the following questions: Did families 

relocate to better neighborhoods when the housing projects they 

lived in were demolished? Did they lose housing assistance? Did 

mixed-income developments or vouchers improve self-sufficiency in 

comparison to housing projects? Did the benefits of mixed-income 

revitalization exceed the cost? Finally, did the performance of elementary kids improve if their families had access to vouchers or 

lived in mixed-income developments? 

Next, I was asked to describe the transformation efforts in Atlanta. Between 1995 and 2007, Atlanta fully constructed 13 mixedincome developments, more than any other housing authority in 

the country. In 1995, Atlanta provided housing assistance to over 

16,000 families, 47 percent of whom lived in public housing 

projects, and 33 percent of whom used the vouchers. 

By 2007, Atlanta provided housing assistance to over 17,000 families, 15 percent of whom lived in public housing projects, and 59 

percent of whom used vouchers. And then, another 90 percent lived 

in mixed-income developments and I am leaving aside in those percentages the elderly families. 

6 

What are the re-screening policies of AHA and what percentage 

of original public housing residents moved back into the redeveloped communities? Madam Chairwoman, I cannot speak authoritatively on the re-screening policies. I do know that those policies, 

those re-screening processes were handled by private development 

companies, and I would have to defer to the management of the authority in regards to a more authoritative answer to that. But with 

regard to the second question that I have examined in detail, my 

research found that in Atlanta, 21.4 percent of the still-active original families moved back into mixed-income developments, and 

about 61 percent used vouchers. 

I have also found through numerous focus group interviews that 

the large percentage of families who remain on vouchers do so primarily by choice. My statistical research in Atlanta also found that 

mixed-income revitalization did not cause families to lose housing 

assistance. 

The next question I was asked is in what way have I updated 

my 2005 article that was published in the Journal of the American 

Planning Association. And I would simply say that I conducted a 

number of updates to that study, including extending it over a period of time. I have added a study of Chicago. I have looked at 

issues of the association between voucher locations and crime. I 

have done cost-benefit analyses, and so on. The most important update has been the addition of the Chicago Housing Authority that 

was funded by a grant from the McArthur Foundation, and that is 

a 300-page report that is currently undergoing peer review. Here 

are the findings: 

First, I found that families who relocated—and this is specifically 

with respect to Atlanta—from public housing projects moved to 

much better neighborhoods. We looked at 16 community metrics to 

evaluate that. Second, we found that the employment rates of work 

eligible adults increased from 21 percent in 1995, when most families lived in public housing projects, to an average of 53 percent in 

2007, when most families had moved away from those projects. 

And we tracked families longitudinally. 

On nationally standardized tests we found that: kids whose families lived in housing projects scored very low, in the 29th percentile 

nationally; those whose families used vouchers scored slightly higher, in the 35th percentile nationally; and those whose families lived 

in mixed-income developments scored higher, in the 43rd percentile. All of these, of course, are much lower than we would like 

to see them. And, the most important point is that the vouchers in 

mixed-income developments provided access to better schools. 

Violent crime was not significantly correlated with the percentage of families who lived in census tracts. It was, however, highly 

correlated with the poverty rate in census tracks. And, finally, we 

found that the net social benefit of revitalizing 6 public housing 

projects in Atlanta was $125 million per development, our benefit 

cost ratio of 1.6 to 1. 

Let me end simply by saying that my research in Atlanta has 

demonstrated conclusively that the self-sufficiency of low-income 

families can improve significantly if those families are provided access to quality, affordable housing in neighborhoods where the opportunities for upward mobility are greater. 

7 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Boston can be found on page 38 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Now, we will go to Mr. Cabrera. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ORLANDO J. CABRERA, 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL COMMUNITY RENAISSANCE AND OF COUNSEL TO NIXON PEABODY 

Mr. CABRERA. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Good morning, Chairwoman Waters, Ranking Member Capito, 

and members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Orlando Cabrera and I wanted to thank you, Madam 

Chairwoman, and Ranking Member Capito for your invitation to 

speak this morning. Madam Chairwoman, I ask that my written 

comments be entered and accepted into the record. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. CABRERA. In light of present company, I feel compelled to 

state that I am not an academic. Further, most of my comments 

are tailored to the world of the PHA, the housing provider. There 

are some axioms in the world of public housing; and, one of them 

is that public housing is at a crossroads, and that’s because public 

housing is always at a crossroads. There are pretty basic reasons 

for that being the case. The first and foremost reason is that our 

country is always changing. 

That is no different today. Public housing policy has always been 

interesting because it’s a terrific indicator of where our country is. 

Public housing was very important to returning veterans during 

World War II and it’s going to be very important to the elderly, 

right now, frankly, with our aging population. We’re going to see 

demand increased for public housing and more accurately for affordable housing. And one of the very large issues facing the issue 

of public housing is how we look at housing. 

Public housing has always been treated as something that is outside of the housing spectrum. It is another theory I disagree with 

strongly. I think public housing is well within the housing spectrum and needs to be considered within the housing spectrum. 

Moreover, the focus, I believe, for many housing practitioners is the 

issue of affordable housing, and, what is the supply of affordable 

housing? How is that supply helping those who need it most? 

No place is that reality more acute than in the world of elderly 

housing; and no place will it be more acute in our lifetimes, I believe, with the state of our aging population. 

Another large issue for PHAs is the changing nature of our Nation’s demographics. Much of our public housing stock was developed at a time when the population center was located in the 

Northeast. Things are changing remarkably. The modality for 

housing in the places where it’s changing has typically not been 

public housing. It has been for the last 30-plus years Section 8. So 

issues that are very important to the Northeast and rightly important, such as public housing and the obsolescence of public housing, 

are far less important to places in the West than in the South 

where vouchers are the typical modality for housing people who 

have the need to be housed. This is going to drive a lot of the conVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:08 Dec 09, 2009 Jkt 053249 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\53249.TXT TERRIE
8 

versation, but it begs a big question, which is why we have typically treated public housing in a particular way. We have decided 

long ago that public housing, and this is not a one-size fits all argument, but public housing is a particular kind of program. 

The truth is that, from a practitioner’s perspective, public housing is one part of a very large spectrum that fits a lot of needs, and 

that spectrum deals with its needs in different ways in different 

parts of the country. The driver here is always going to be whether 

the local government has the flexibility to function in order to address the needs of its particular community. In the Northeast it’s 

going to be different than in West Virginia or in Los Angeles, or 

for that matter in San Bernardino, which is just 40 miles to the 

East of Los Angeles. 

That driver is going to dictate a lot of how we deal with the issue 

of affordable housing generally and the subset of public housing. 

Very quickly, there is a tangential issue that I promise you no 

one—none of my formal professional colleagues at HUD—asked me 

to do this, but I’m going to do this shamelessly. A big part of trying 

to determine the future of public housing is probably funding technology at HUD. Public housing is driven by data, and data currently is kept at HUD in ways that would be a technological generation ago—a lot of Excel spreadsheets. There are currently applications that will make the business of keeping data much easier, 

would serve Congress well, would serve HUD well, would serve 

PHAs well, and would serve tenants well. 

I would ask Congress to think about funding a solid, technological platform for HUD to provide that data to all of us, to the 

American taxpayer, to PHAs, to this Congress, and to tenants. 

With that, Madam Chairwoman, and Ranking Member Capito, 

thank you for your time. Thank you for the invitation, and I stand 

ready to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cabrera can be found on page 41 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Dr. James Fraser? 

STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES C. FRASER, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN AND ORGANIZATIONAL 

DEVELOPMENT, PEABODY COLLEGE, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY 

Mr. FRASER. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Capito, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify today. 

For more than a decade, I have been involved as evaluator in a 

variety of HOPE VI and mixed-income housing programs around 

the southeastern United States, I have also been a part of the active community of scholars who share scientific findings with each 

other. Today, I draw on all of these to testify. 

One of the most noteworthy aspects of the HOPE VI Program is 

that it addressed both place-based goals around neighborhood revitalization and people-based goals around economic self-sufficiency, 

wealth accumulation, and general wellbeing. Among the most important lessons that we have learned from HOPE VI is that any 

policy utilizing such a dual focus requires as much planning, proVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:08 Dec 09, 2009 Jkt 053249 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\53249.TXT TERRIE
9 

fessionalism, and follow-through to create the enabling conditions 

for people to move up and out of poverty as it does to change the 

landscape by building housing and providing increased police patrol. 

Research shows that HOPE VI has been very successful in most 

cases in providing decent, affordable housing that is attractive and 

suits the needs of many low-income families. My own research in 

Durham, North Carolina, and in Nashville, Tennessee, show that 

residents are generally very satisfied and appreciate safe, affordable, quality housing. Likewise, research across the country does 

point to the fact that people who are able to qualify to move back 

into HOPE VI redevelopments actually do experience a better environment living where there’s less crime, whether that be their perceptions or actual police records showing that it is decreased. 

However, people are not all benefiting equally for two reasons. 

First, even when stakeholders claim that they equally support 

place-based goals and people-based goals, the place-based goals 

typically outpace people-based goals. And, second, HOPE VI has 

been geared for a specific type of low-income citizen, namely, those 

who have clear paths in mind to achieve their goals, access to decent paying jobs, relatively few barriers in their way, and they view 

HOPE VI as providing quality, income stabilized housing as a stepping stone on their journey. But we know the evidence suggests the 

large majority of people in poverty do not fall into this category. 

Many low-income families live in isolated poverty with multiple 

barriers to work and a lack of access to living wage jobs. Indeed, 

HOPE VI was designed to deal with this issue through the creation 

of mixed-income communities. But today I would contend there is 

little, if any, direct evidence, that shows that living in a mixed-income community has actually empowered low-income residents to 

move toward economic self-sufficiency. 

Certainly, living and having access to quality affordable housing 

has helped that, but living near middle-income families has not 

been shown to do that to-date. These findings have prompted some 

people to suggest that we are expecting too much out of a program 

like HOPE VI, that we could do better, or that we should just not 

expect that people would move up and out of poverty in such a 

way. But, my research and my review of the literature shows that 

perhaps part of the issue is that we haven’t provided the authority 

to the people that we’re trying to help to actually make decisions 

about the communities being built. 

HOPE VI families do have quality housing, but broader achievement around people in place-based goals of neighborhood revitalization and increases in economic status have not been realized. And, 

if residents through community-based organizations had more control over their homes and neighborhoods as well as the authority 

to lead and design HOPE VI type neighborhood initiatives, it is 

likely these goal sets would be addressed in a manner that mirrored the actual needs of the people who are the stakeholders, the 

low-income residents. 

It is not my intention to say that public housing authorities are 

not capable of meeting the goals of HOPE VI. Rather, I suggest 

that we are asking too much of them. Let them build on their 

strengths, which are frequently related to developing and manVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:08 Dec 09, 2009 Jkt 053249 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\53249.TXT TERRIE
10 

aging housing and other physical assets, and let us instead turn to 

residents and community-based organizations to lead the public, 

private, and non-private sectors toward the intertwined goals of 

neighborhood transformation and upward economic momentum for 

low-income residents. 

I have assembled policy suggestions that do stem from different 

research projects, and I’ll state a few right now. First, thinking 

about the choice neighborhoods legislation that will be considered, 

perhaps entities other than public housing authorities could be considered to be the recipients. Community-based organizations have 

long-standing relationships with public and private organizations 

that have a track record of getting things done. 

The second, in terms of governance of these types of initiatives, 

residents do much better when they come to a table on equal footing. Too often, I heard stories from HOPE VI where residents were 

asked to choose paint colors and give their feelings or input about 

the relocation process. But when it came down to the actual decision-making, they were not at the table. So I concluded that their 

range of policy suggestions, I suggest around this, that might be 

able to empower residents to engender greater commitment toward 

the communities and neighborhoods we’re building and create the 

sustainability we’re looking for with the large public investment 

that is outlayed. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Fraser can be found on page 49 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Edward Goetz. 

STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD G. GOETZ, DIRECTOR, CENTER 

FOR URBAN AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS, AND PROFESSOR, 

URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING, HUBERT H. HUMPHREY 

INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 

Mr. GOETZ. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and members of 

the committee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony today. As 

Dr. Fraser noted, the HOPE VI Program is designed to create two 

general types of benefits. The first is the community-wide benefits. 

It is envisioned that HOPE VI redevelopment will result in an increase in property values, attraction of greater levels of private sector investment, an improved neighborhood environment, a reduction in crime, and so on. 

The program is also designed to provide individual level benefits 

for the residents of the public housing. The idea here is that by relocating the better neighborhoods while moving into the finished 

redevelopment that these residents will have a reduced fear of 

crime and reduced risk of victimization. They may even experience 

increased physical health, mental health, and will achieve greater 

economic self-sufficiency. 

The academic research to-date shows a fair amount of success, an 

impressive amount of success on the first of these objectives, these 

community-wide benefits. Studies across the country have shown 

that crime is reduced in neighborhoods that have undergone HOPE 

11 

VI transformation, unemployment drops, incomes in the neighborhood rise. poverty declines, there is an overall increase in the level 

of education in the neighborhood, and property values increase. 

The only caveat to these generally very positive outcomes is that 

most of them are dependent upon population turnover. That is income is increased in the neighborhood and levels of education increase, not because the existing residents have improved their lot, 

but because those residents have been replaced by more highlyeducated and higher-income people. 

At the individual level, the research is much more mixed and the 

evidence of benefits to individuals is much more modest. On the 

positive side, virtually all studies show consistent and strong benefits in the form of a reduced fear of crime. Residents report less evidence of social disorder. They report higher satisfaction with housing conditions, with the exception of cost in most cases. But, otherwise, the evidence is really quite mixed. There is the predominance 

of evidence shows no demonstrated benefits on employment, on 

earnings, on economic self-sufficiency. 

In fact, there is even evidence of greater economic insecurity 

among families who are displaced through HOPE VI redevelopment. There is no consistent evidence of health improvements. This 

comes from the largest study in this respect is the Urban Institute’s five-city panel study. There is no consistent evidence of 

school-related benefits for children. There are mixed findings related to neighborhood satisfaction. 

Some residents are more satisfied in their new neighborhoods. 

Some are less satisfied. Some residents are more satisfied with certain dimensions of their new neighborhood and less satisfied with 

others. There are significant and consistent findings, however, that 

displacement through HOPE VI disrupts the social networks and 

the social support systems of lower-income public housing families. 

They experience, and their children tend to report, greater levels 

of social isolation, fewer interactions with neighbors in their new 

neighborhoods, a loss of a sense of community, and damage to the 

overall social capital. These limited individual benefits are problematic in and of themselves. I think they are more problematic because of my current research, which shows that HOPE VI and public housing demolition in general tend to target projects with disproportionately high percentages of African-American residents in 

them. So my recommendations going forward, these results I think 

suggest a number of different changes in direction. 

The first would be to stop further demolition of public housing. 

As you noted in your opening remarks, HUD has demolished close 

to 200,000 units of public housing over the last 15 to 20 years. 

That’s more than twice the number of units that the Commission 

that led to the creation of HOPE VI identified as being severely 

distressed. As we continue to tear down public housing through 

HOPE VI, we tend to tear down units and projects that are more 

and more functional over time, and this is reflected in the evidence 

of residents who are asked whether they want to move, the majority of whom say no. 

I would also suggest that given the positive outcomes of the 

physical redevelopment in HOPE VI neighborhoods that we have 

perhaps come upon a good model for building more affordable housVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:08 Dec 09, 2009 Jkt 053249 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\53249.TXT TERRIE
12 

ing. So far from continuing to tear down public housing, we should 

use the lessons of HOPE VI to actually expand public housing. We 

can build it in a mixed-finance and a mixed-income manner, and 

we can be expanding the stock of affordable housing. The demand 

for it, of course, still exists. 

Any redevelopment policies going forward should limit displacement of families to all extent possible. This means favoring rehabilitation over demolition. It means phased redevelopment. It 

means building replacement housing before demolition takes place 

and then, finally, for a percentage of residents of public housing, 

the evidence shows those who benefit the most from voluntary, enforced displacement are those who wanted to move in the first 

place. 

And so Federal policy should maintain an option for people who 

want to move out of public housing. Voluntary mobility programs 

like Moving to Opportunity should be continued and expanded in 

order to provide that opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Goetz can be found on page 59 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Harris? 

STATEMENT OF DR. LAURA E. HARRIS, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DIVISION OF PUBLIC AND NONPROFIT ADMINISTRATION, SCHOOL OF URBAN AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC POLICY, 

UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS 

Ms. HARRIS. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Capito, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Based 

on my research experiences, this testimony addresses the questions 

posed in the invitation letter I received for this hearing. 

I have submitted a more lengthy written testimony to the subcommittee, but here I’ll focus on describing the case management 

system in Memphis and lessons for future policy. Case management to help new residents toward employment and economic selfsufficiency is a key part of the HOPE VI Program, typically by referring residents to existing community programs. 

In the past few years, there has been a tremendous evolution in 

this case management system used in Memphis based on experiences with two early HOPE VI grants they received. While these 

early grants maintain compliance with HOPE VI guidelines, they 

did not achieve the desired change of significant progress toward 

economic self-sufficiency for many residents, which was the ultimate goal. 

By the time the Memphis Housing Authority received its third 

and fourth HOPE VI grants in 2002 and 2005, there were local 

stakeholders, including the Housing Authority, who saw that there 

needed to be a more structured, intensive, and comprehensive case 

management system in place to help households move toward selfsufficiency. The most important stakeholder to become involved in 

the HOPE VI redevelopment efforts was the Women’s Foundation 

for Greater Memphis, who made a financial commitment of $7.2 

million to support the entire case management program for these 

2 cities for 5 years for approximately 600 families. 

13 

During this time, the Memphis Housing Authority identified 

urban strategies as a key partner in providing technical assistance 

to this case management program, helping plan and coordinate 

community development programs. In 2006, Urban Strategies, the 

Memphis Housing Authority, and the Women’s Foundation together agreed to the creation of a new nonprofit called Memphis 

HOPE, which is now the entity responsible for case management 

for HOPE VI residents. 

One key lesson from much HOPE VI research has been that 

many adults need far more than referrals to job training programs 

or encouragement in order to get a job. In my written testimony, 

I describe three key barriers that public housing residents in Memphis and elsewhere face when trying to improve their economic situation: low levels of education and literacy problems; health problems that are undiagnosed, not managed well, or do not meet Federal guidelines as disabilities in order to receive assistance; and a 

lack of personal or accessible public transportation. 

In thinking about the lessons from HOPE VI, there are five 

issues that should be considered in crafting future Federal policy 

for public housing residents and other very poor households. First, 

in programs like this, identify a strong intermediary who will advocate throughout the local community for the needs of this client 

population in the redeveloping neighborhood. In Memphis, the 

Women’s Foundation and local foundations have made a commitment to see long-term change, continually asking for evidence of 

change and plans for sustainability after the initial 5-year case 

management period ends. Many in the local community now view 

this Memphis HOPE model as an incubator for creative ideas about 

how to affect real change for poor households. 

Second, following on this first point, figure out how to work 

around the program funding silos which make comprehensive case 

management and redevelopment efforts difficult. In Memphis, the 

local funding through the efforts of the Women’s Foundation and 

the creation of this third-party nonprofit have made it possible to 

react quickly to create programs as they identify program gaps for 

their case load. 

Third, ensure that the program starts to make plans early on to 

figure out how case management will be sustainable for HOPE VI 

clients wherever they live. In particular, the presence or absence 

of case management services may affect the long-term viability of 

these newly developed mixed-income HOPE VI sites. For example, 

at one of the earlier HOPE VI sites that is now mostly redeveloped, 

property managers have reported that in the last year since HOPE 

VI case management stopped there, there has been an increase in 

the number of public housing residents losing their jobs and facing 

eviction. There is concern at this site and others that particularly 

during the current economic climate, more residents will lose employment and face some more circumstances. There is a need for 

ongoing case management if this vision of creating mixed-income 

communities where public housing residents live is to be truly viable. 

Fourth, make sure that grantees are realistic from the start 

about the goals for their client population, by understanding the 

depth of literacy problems, mental and physical health problems, 

14 

and other barriers to employment and self-sufficiency. After more 

than a decade of Welfare to Work era efforts, including HOPE VI 

case management, there is a much better understanding about the 

types of issues to look for and plan for. 

Finally, encourage grant recipients to capitalize on creative approaches to identify local partnerships for client employment. I go 

into more detail in my written testimony about this, using a very 

innovative approach. They work to create individual relationships 

with both large and small area employers to help open doors for 

clients who are qualified for work. They have chosen to target opportunities where clients might move ahead and ultimately become 

economically self-sufficient, rather than merely focusing on quickly 

locating minimum wage service sector jobs. These recommendations suggest that both the system of service delivery and the content of those services should be examined to ensure that programs 

can be as efficient as possible in helping move poor individuals toward economic self-sufficiency as appropriate. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Harris can be found on page 77 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Jones? 

STATEMENT OF DAVID R. JONES, ESQ., PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COMMUNITY SERVICE SOCIETY OF 

NEW YORK 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and honorable 

members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify on 

the future of public housing, particularly in regard to the New York 

City Housing Authority’s (NYCHA) implementation of something 

called Section 3 of the 1968 Housing Act, which requires that HUD 

funds be used to maximize job and training opportunities for lowincome residents. 

My organization, the Community Service Society, has long been 

concerned about the scale and effectiveness of local Section 3 efforts by the New York City Housing Authority. As a more than 

160-year-old organization, we were one of the first to address urban 

poverty in America. We founded the Columbia of Social Work, and 

for those visiting New York, the first public baths. But our work 

recently has focused on labor force issues in New York, particularly 

concerning black males and disconnected youth. 

To place New York’s experience in context, it should be noted 

that the New York City Housing Authority runs the largest and reputedly one of the best housing authorities in the Nation. It serves 

over 180,000 households in 340 developments across the 5 Boroughs of the City. With a resident population in that complex of 

500,000, its size comes closer to matching some major cities in 

America and it represents, I think, somewhat over a quarter of the 

total population of residents in public housing. 

In contrast to other areas, low-income families are desperate to 

get into public housing in New York. We have a waiting list that 

well exceeds 100,000 and waits as long as 9 years are not uncommon for people waiting to get in. NYCHA receives more than $1 

billion in HUD funds each year, which are spent on management 

15 

operations and capital improvements. And, this year, NYCHA has 

already received 423 million additional economic and stimulus 

funds, which opens up further opportunities. In short, NYCHA is 

a major economic engine within the City of New York and we have 

a good reason to expect Section 3 efforts to be significant. 

But, we find it falls short of providing economic opportunity to 

residents at a size comparable to the expenditure. In our latest 

housing policy report that we have submitted to the committee 

making the connection, economic opportunity for public housing 

residents, we find that only 51 percent of NYCHA’s 231,000 working age residents participated in the labor force in 2005. Another 

13 percent were engaged in school or training. 

We estimate at present, and this is probably a low estimate, that 

between 20- and 30,000 residents are unemployed, and now actively seeking work in a recession. Our economy can serve the 

worse since the Great Depression of the 1930’s. We have some reason to believe from our experts that unemployment rates for Blacks 

and Latinos in New York may well top-out in 2011, somewhere in 

the vicinity of 20 percent. So we’re coming into an enormously bad 

time. 

Most in the Housing Authority in New York are Black and 

Latino women—62 percent—many under age 24; or Black and 

Latino men between 18 and 34. Over a third don’t have high school 

diplomas. As our report indicates, the Authority’s Section 3 effort 

is ridiculously small compared to the number of potential jobseekers in NYCHA communities. For that reason, CSS supports the 

Earnings and Living Opportunities Act being drafted by Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, because it will strengthen existing Section 3 provisions in several ways. 

It accords, first, hiring-training priorities to residents in developments where head funds are being expended and then to those in 

the broader community around those developments. It essentially 

incentivizes and makes it possible for residents to watch as enormous investment goes on in their community and sit around; and 

none of those jobs are available. This becomes an intolerable situation. 

It provides a private right of action that enables aggrieved parties to take legal action against agencies or contractors, and New 

York, as you may be aware, has a long history of discriminatory 

behavior in the trades. It sharpens the requirements for hiring and 

training for agencies and contractors receiving HUD funds. It creates a Section 3 office within the Office of the HUD Secretary, and 

it increases local accountability. 

Moreover, we urge congressional drafters to incorporate real incentives for housing authorities to intensify Section 3 efforts. The 

proposed legislation speaks to performance incentives that can be 

instituted by the HUD Secretary. I’ll close there. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones can be found on page 88 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Joseph. 

16 

STATEMENT OF DR. MARK L. JOSEPH, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, 

MANDEL SCHOOL OF APPLIED SOCIAL SCIENCES, CASE 

WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. JOSEPH. Madam Chairwoman, members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the invitation to speak before you today. 

Secretary Donovan has said that building communities in a more 

integrated and inclusive way is essential to advancing social and 

economic justice in America. The HOPE VI Program, as we have 

already heard, has had some impressive successes and also faces 

some deep challenges. 

The Choice Neighborhoods initiative has great promise as a new 

phase of poverty deconcentration, but as best I can tell, it also has 

the potential to repeat or overlook some of the key shortcomings 

with the HOPE VI Program. Along with collaborators at the University of Chicago, one of whom—Amy Khare—sits behind me 

today at the hearing. 

My research is focused at the ground level of the massive public 

housing transformation currently underway in Chicago. Our research has included in-depth interviews with almost 200 residents 

and 75 other stakeholders; and almost 300 observations of internal 

meetings and community activities. I want to make just two main 

points this morning about what we are learning about mixed-income development in Chicago. First we have identified some of the 

early benefits that residents have experienced, but also some important downsides to what is happening to them. Second, successful mixed-income development is more complicated than anticipated, and I will propose six key success factors that should be considered. 

So one of my early resident experiences in mixed-income developments, on the very positive side, there have been high levels of 

resident satisfaction with the new physical environment. Public 

housing residents never thought they would get to live in such 

high-quality housing. My written testimony includes quotes, so you 

hear in residents’ own voices about all of these findings I am going 

to talk about. 

Also positive, there have been self-reported psychological benefits. Some report a decrease in the stress that they feel, not having 

to deal with violence and crime. Some particularly increased aspirations, feeling that they are more motivated to accomplish more 

in their lives now that they have had this housing opportunity. 

But, on the other hand, there are residents who report an increase 

in stress. For some, the strict rules and monitoring in the new developments generate stress, and, some have told us that they feel 

there are double standards that are applied to them versus the 

other residents of the developments. 

For some, there’s an increased sense of stigma within the new 

development. Residents feel stereotyped by their new neighbors because of where they used to live. There are low levels of social 

interaction among the residents. Some residents are disappointed 

with the lack of a sense of community. Others welcome the privacy 

in the new developments, but there’s a considerable amount of selfisolation—residents withdrawing and really keeping to themselves. 

And this was not the intention of HOPE VI. 

17 

There have also been some tensions and negative interactions 

among residents driven by underlying us versus them dynamics. 

These issues include an absence of shared norms and concerns 

about social control. Let me use my remaining time then to suggest 

six possible key factors for success: 

Number one: balancing screening with inclusion: Which low-income residents will get to return on-site to benefit from the revitalization? The key will be how to screen-out those residents who may 

create problems for everyone while screening in as many residents 

as possible, who could make the most of the opportunity. 

Second, property management: It is clear that high quality property management is critical to a successful development. But less 

obvious is the potential for property managers to either be central 

players in the positive community building process; or, to detract 

from it by imposing their own prejudices and differential treatment 

of residents. 

Third, support services: Housing relocation alone will not change 

residents’ economic circumstances. There need to be both pre and 

post occupancy supports; and, not just work supports and incentives, but social services as well; and these services must be sustained well beyond move in. So that’s where there’s a need for longterm funding, service infrastructure and service integration. 

Fourth, physical design: Units should be externally indistinguishable, but also physically integrated on the site. And the design 

should include common space, green space, and shared amenities. 

This is need to promote and shape social relations; but, we must 

anticipate that it will be contested space, raising issues of turf, of 

norms of behavior and of informal social control. 

Next, resident engagement and community building: Given the 

extreme income and racial diversity in these sites, social connections will not happen naturally. There must be ways to identify 

shared interest and common ground, or else perceived and real differences will drive social relations. 

And, finally, governance and decisionmaking: In the Chicago developments, the condo associations are the sole, formal the decisionmaking body; and, they exclude all renters. The local advisory 

counsels have been disbanded, thus creating tension and increasing 

divisions. There need to be inclusive governance bodies, where all 

residents can be represented and have a voice in their community. 

I’ll end there. I have not had time to address the impact of the 

current housing market crisis on mixed-income development, and 

can take that up later if there’s interest. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Joseph can be found on page 94 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Popkin. 

STATEMENT OF DR. SUSAN J. POPKIN, DIRECTOR, PROGRAM 

ON NEIGHBORHOODS AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT, THE 

URBAN INSTITUTE 

Ms. POPKIN. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, and honorable 

members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to appear 

here today. 

18 

For the past decade, I have been studying the impact of the 

HOPE VI Program on the original residents of public housing targeted for redevelopment. While most of my research is focused on 

Chicago, which had more distressed public housing than any other 

city, I have conducted research in 15 HOPE VI sites across the 

country. 

My remarks today draw from two major studies: the HOPE VI 

Panel Study, which tracked residents from five sites across the 

country from 2001 to 2005; and the Chicago Family Case Management Demonstration, which began in 2006. HOPE VI was a key 

element of a bold effort to transform distressed public housing communities and demonstrate that housing programs could produce 

good results for residents and communities. 

Evidence from The Urban Institute’s Hope VI Panel Study, the 

most comprehensive study of resident outcomes, shows that many 

former residents have received vouchers or moved into fixed-income 

developments, and now live in better housing, in less-poor, dramatically safer neighborhoods. And as Dr. Goetz said, we see the 

same finding in virtually every study that has been done on relocation. However, despite these very real gains, our research shows 

that the program has not been a solution for those hard-to-house 

families who suffered the worst consequences of distressed public 

housing. 

If Choice Neighborhoods is to be more successful than its predecessor in meeting the needs of the most vulnerable, the initiative 

must incorporate strategies that effectively address their needs. 

Hard-to-house residents are long-term public housing residents 

who are coping with multiple, complex problems, such as mental 

illness, severe physical illness or disability, substance abuse, large 

numbers of young children, grandparents raising young children, 

low levels of education, weak labor market histories, and criminal 

records. 

Our analysis from the data from the Hope VI Panel Study estimated the proportion of families falling into one of these categories 

ranges from 37 percent in 3 smaller cities to 62 percent in the 2 

larger cities, in Chicago and Washington, D.C. In 2005, we found 

that the follow-up, that every site these hard-to-house families 

were more likely to end up in traditional public housing than to 

have received vouchers who have moved into mixed-income housing. Placing them in other traditional developments may well have 

kept them from being homeless, but clearly we need better solutions for vulnerable residents than simply moving them to other 

developments, which may well become as or even more distressed 

than the developments where these families started. 

The Chicago Family Case Management demonstration provides 

one model for serving the needs of the most vulnerable public and 

assisted housing families. The Demonstration, the partnership of 

The Urban Institute, the Chicago Housing Authority, and Heartland Human Care Services, serves residents from two CHA developments and provides these families with intensive family case 

management services, long-term support, enhanced relocation services, workforce strategies for those who have barriers to employment, and financial literacy training. 

19 

The ultimate goal of these services is to help these families maintain safe and stable housing, whether in traditional public housing 

in the private market with a voucher or in a new, mixed-income 

development. The project is now in its third year, and has achieved 

impressive interim outcomes, including engagement rates of 90 percent; and, successfully adapting the model from one that provides 

place-based services to one that follows residence post-relocation. 

We have used the data from the demonstration to create a resident typology to develop criteria for targeting services effectively. 

Our analysis divides the demonstration population, all long-term, 

extremely poor, African-American residents, into three distinct 

groups based on characteristics, each needing a different kind of 

service approach. What we call the ‘‘Striving Group’’ has their high 

school diplomas. They are connected to the labor market, even if 

they are cycling in and out of low-wage jobs, and most significantly 

they are in good physical and mental health. These are the residents most likely to benefit from relocation with vouchers or to 

mixed-income developments. Their biggest problem is that they 

have lived in public housing for more than 20 years. 

They will continue to need light-touch support to ensure that 

they are able to maintain the gains they made in leaving distressed 

public housing, including long-term follow-up, employment and financial literacy services, and perhaps second mover counseling to 

help them make subsequent moves to even less poor neighborhoods 

that offer greater opportunities for them and their children. In contrast, the group we’re calling ‘‘Aging and Distressed’’ have stark 

physical and mental health challenges, and are unlikely to move toward self-sufficiency. 

In addition to having very fragile health status, most have not 

worked in decades, and are truly disconnected from the labor market and the world outside public housing. A better approach for 

these extremely vulnerable residents is to focus on harm reduction; 

essentially, helping them remain stable and avoid becoming either 

homeless or ending up in nursing homes. And since many of them 

still have children in the household, to keep those children from 

ending up in the child welfare system. 

For example, a strategy might be to convert some traditional senior housing into an assisted living model that provides sufficient 

care, meals, housekeeping activities, healthcare and case management, to help these frail residents remaining in the community. To 

accommodate the needs in the public housing population, the service would need to be available to residents well under the age of 

60, so not just to elderly who suffer from major and physical disabilities. 

Finally, the group we’re calling ‘‘High Risk’’ residents share characteristics with both the ‘‘Striving’’ and ‘‘Aging and Distressed’’ 

groups. Like the ‘‘Striving Group,’’ they generally are younger and 

have children in the household; and, like the ‘‘Striving Group,’’ the 

vast majority of these residents indicated they didn’t want to remain in traditional public housing. But they have very low levels 

of education and literacy. They are disconnected from the labor 

force. And, further, while they are not yet as frail as the ‘‘Aging 

Distressed Group,’’ they already have serious physical and mental 

20 

health challenges with high rates of poor health, depression, anxiety, obesity, and substance abuse. 

With their multiple challenges ‘‘High Risk’’ families are the 

group for whom intensive case management models and permanent, supportive housing are most likely to pay off in terms of 

keeping them out of the homeless, child welfare, and criminal justice systems. Assisting them to achieve their housing goals for 

vouchers or mixed income, and helping them move towards self-sufficiency. 

In conclusion, with its proposed Choice Neighborhoods initiative, 

the Obama Administration has the opportunity to build on nearly 

2 decades of experience with HOPE VI. Incorporating intensive 

case management and permanent supportive housing for the most 

vulnerable into Choice Neighborhoods or any other comprehensive 

redevelopment efforts is one way to ensure these initiatives truly 

meet the needs of all public housing families. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Popkin can be found on page 117 

of the appendix.] 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you all very much for your testimony here today. 

I would now like to recognize myself for 5 minutes to try to raise 

some questions about some of what I have heard. Let me ask Dr. 

Boston, would you describe the case management services that 

have been received by those clients who have been moved out of 

public housing or even those who remain in mixed-use HOPE VI 

projects? What kind of case management do they get? 

Mr. BOSTON. Each family who is relocated has an individual case 

manager. That family is assigned a person and that person works 

with an individual on a one-on-one basis, so that if it is an issue 

of relocation or if it is an issue of attempting to find housing, if 

they have to move from one location to another, they have that. 

There’s also a very extensive program of training, both in terms of 

workforce development as well as educational training and other 

kinds of programs. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Are the case managers social workers? Are 

they individuals who are hired to connect with community resources rather than do the kind of social work that deals with the 

whole person and the whole family? 

Mr. BOSTON. They are a combination of both, and they do. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Do you have professional social workers 

who are doing this work? 

Mr. BOSTON. The individuals are not professional social workers, 

but they are individuals who are very familiar with the problems 

that families have encountered and they have a variety of strategies to assist those families in addressing those problems. 

Chairwoman WATERS. The residents who are given Section 8 

vouchers, and I think you described something like 61,000 of those, 

I’ll go back and take a look, had they been tracked? Do you know 

why they are? 

Mr. BOSTON. Yes, I do. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Where are they? 

Mr. BOSTON. The residents who have Section 8 vouchers have 

moved in a variety of locations. They have roughly of those who 

21 

have Section 8 vouchers about 20 percent live in suburban communities outside of Atlanta and the remainder live in various communities within the City of Atlanta. Most of those residents are in the 

southern part of the city, but more recently with the growing use 

of project-based rental assistance, which allows the location of 

housing assistance throughout the City, there are a number of families who have moved in all locations of the City, including some 

of the wealthiest neighborhoods. 

Chairwoman WATERS. So what you are telling me is your research is such that you have traced all of those and you know 

where they are and that none are concentrated in the poor census 

tracks? 

Mr. BOSTON. No. I am not saying that none are concentrated, but 

I can tell you definitively that I have traced every one of the families; and, we have what we call a metric, a community attribute 

index that includes 16 variables. And we have geocoded that index 

to the address of every family and we have tracked those families’ 

movements from year-to-year between 1995 and 2007. 

Chairwoman WATERS. How do you account for the growing homelessness in Atlanta? I was recently there over by Five Points and 

Woodruff Park, and there were hundreds of people being fed. And 

when I went back in the evening I saw what appeared to be thousands. Who are those people, and are any of those former residents 

of public housing? Has the homelessness increased in Atlanta? 

Mr. BOSTON. Homelessness has increased, but I cannot say the 

increase is due to any policies of the Atlanta Housing Authority. In 

fact, as the initial part of my research, I spent a great deal of time 

setting up a research designed specifically to determine whether or 

not the housing policies, particularly in regards to mixed-income 

development, was causing families to lose housing assistance at a 

rate that would not be expected otherwise, and I found that was 

not the case. 

Atlanta has had, up until the recent housing crisis, a serious 

problem of housing affordability; and it had created a tremendous 

strain for families, both working families as well as housing assisted families, low-income families, without jobs. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Well, you had waiting list for housing assistance in 2001 with over 24,000 individuals on it. So are you suggesting that even with the Section 8 vouchers that you put out into 

the overall Atlanta area and the waiting list, that there was plenty 

of room for these Section 8 vouchers, plenty of units that could be 

utilized by the displaced tenants? 

Mr. BOSTON. The families who have been relocated, and in addition to tracking records, I have conducted over 20 focus groups, and 

each focus group has a minimum of 10 families there. And so I 

have looked at families both qualitatively as well as quantitatively 

and I can say that those families have been able to find housing 

in locations throughout the City. And there has not been a problem 

with families who received housing vouchers finding places to live. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Our records show that as of 2007, of the 

5,000 families displaced from public housing, only 332 moved back 

into mixed-income communities. Does that number sound correct to 

you? 

Mr. BOSTON. That number does not sound correct to me. 

22 

Chairwoman WATERS. What does your research show? About how 

many moved back? 

Mr. BOSTON. Well, yes. As I indicated earlier, my research shows 

that roughly 20 percent of the families who were living in public 

housing moved back to public housing, and the issue is complex, 

because there is a normal year-to-year attrition of families from 

public housing, and that attrition rate is about 10 percent independent of whether they are involved in mixed-income development. 

Families move away. Some families are evicted. Some families 

have health problems, and other problems. And so that’s 10 percent 

across-the-board, so if you take that 10 percent out, which is true 

of both families affected by mixed-income revitalization and those 

that aren’t, then 20 percent of those remaining who are in public 

housing moved back into public housing developments. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Someone, and I don’t know if it was you 

who mentioned that the screening process for being able to get 

back into a HOPE VI project is done by the private developer. Is 

that true? 

Mr. BOSTON. Yes. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Why would private developers be deciding 

how we spend our government money to house? 

Mr. BOSTON. Because that’s the way it is done. I’m sorry, Madam 

Chairwoman, I don’t know all of the details of the screening process, so I can’t speak authoritatively on that. But I can say simply 

that the housing authority works with private developers and they 

outline the criteria that the developers have to follow in providing 

services to the families, and, there are also certain stipulations in 

the lease agreement that families sign onto that establish conditions for them occupying those houses. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Mr. Goetz, it sounds as if your research 

and your information is quite different from Mr. Boston’s. You have 

heard what his research has shown in Atlanta, and it differs somewhat with what you appear to have discovered in your work. Can 

you tell me about what you have discovered with the ability of 

those who were living in distressed housing who are transferred 

into HOPE VI projects—the ability for them to get back in—how 

was that screening done? Who gets back in and why? 

Mr. GOETZ. Well, I don’t know of any studies that have answered 

that particular question about who gets in and why. I do know that 

in most cities the screening process is managed by private management firms that are working in the redeveloped site and that they 

apply screening criteria that are generally much stricter than what 

had been applied in previous public housing instances. So increased 

tenant screening criteria is an important reason why so few of the 

original residents ever get back into the development. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Do you know if the private developers 

have social workers who are part of that screening who are looking 

at these individuals, what their needs are and how they possibly 

could benefit from this redeveloped housing? 

Are we looking at Atlanta and other areas who are interested in 

getting people back into HOPE VI projects, who had no problems, 

who have demonstrated that they already have taken control of 

their lives and that they are on the path to career development. 

23 

Are we literally getting rid of the most vulnerable people in those 

housing projects who need more services and the people who are 

already on the track to taking control of their lives benefiting from 

these policies? Is that what we are doing? 

Mr. GOETZ. Well, I do know also that most of the families who 

are displaced from a HOPE VI project, they do as many of the 

members of the panel have mentioned: move to better neighborhoods; but that’s a relative term. They are moving in most cases 

from neighborhoods that have 60 percent poverty to neighborhoods 

that have 30 percent poverty. This still leaves them in neighborhoods that are more than 3 times as poor as the average city neighborhood and more than 4 times as poor as the average metropolitan area neighborhood. 

They also move to other racially segregated neighborhoods. So 

those who don’t get back into the redeveloped site may have marginally improved their neighborhoods, but they are still in many of 

the most disadvantaged neighborhoods in the city. 

Chairwoman WATERS. So, I’m going to move on to my other 

members, but let me just say that everyone basically concluded 

that most of the distressed housing projects are occupied by African 

American and Latino minorities for the most part. And when they 

are given these Section 8 vouchers that will allow them to move 

wherever they want to move, they are moving into suburbia and 

into better communities where they are welcomed by everybody. Is 

that right? 

Mr. GOETZ. No. 

Chairwoman WATERS. No? 

Mr. GOETZ. No. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Why not? 

Mr. GOETZ. Well— 

Chairwoman WATERS. In Atlanta, they move wherever they want 

to move. 

Mr. GOETZ. They are of course restricted by the ability of fair 

market rents and by the willingness of landlords to accept housing 

choice vouchers. They are also limited by their knowledge of the 

housing market and their own preferences for staying in neighborhoods that are neighborhoods that they may be more familiar with 

or neighborhoods where they had social support networks in place. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Do you think that the poor Census tracks 

in these cities are impacted by the displaced, Section 8 voucher 

holders, more than any other sections of these cities? 

Mr. GOETZ. Are you still asking just me? 

Chairwoman WATERS. Yes, just you. 

[laughter] 

Mr. GOETZ. I asked because I actually haven’t researched that 

particular question, but, given the fact that that’s where most of 

the displaced families conduct their housing searches, it’s logical to 

conclude that it’s putting significant pressure on the housing stock 

in those neighborhoods. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Well, I thank you for that, and the reason 

I did not ask some of the others was I had an opportunity to meet 

Mr. Jones up in New York when I held a hearing there just last 

week, and I know what he has testified to. And both Dr. Harris 

24 

and Dr. Popkin basically gave testimony today that comports with 

my experience having worked in public housing. 

So I just did not ask them additional questions, because, you 

know, they too like you seem to share some of the knowledge and 

information that I have, but I wanted to hear a little bit more from 

you, because you first opened up some of the questions about the 

success. And everybody said with HOPE VI there is some success, 

but I appreciate you also identifying the weaknesses along with Dr. 

Fraser. 

Thank you very much. 

With that, I will turn to Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I understood Mr. Goetz on the same deal, but I want to include 

Dr. Joseph and Dr. Harris to perhaps get some kind of an academic 

response as well. When I was Mayor of my City and in charge of 

public housing, we built the first HOPE VI project in the Nation 

in Kansas City, Missouri. And if we look at the units today, they 

still look good. 

They are well cared for, but I was criticized because all the 

HOPE VI units are still in the lowest income tracks. But, we have 

a structural problem, and I don’t know how we can get it fixed. I 

know right now you’re going to fix it, because you can answer this 

question and we are going to solve this problem. I am going to be 

a hero. Yale University is going to get big grants. 

Here it is. HUD—Mr. Cabrera may need to get in this as well— 

will only give a certain amount of money for land acquisition. And 

it turns out that land acquisition is always less expensive in the 

low-income tracks. And so if we get dollars for a HOPE VI project, 

I don’t care where the housing authority looks or the mayor looks, 

it’s going to end up in the lower-income tracks, because that’s the 

only affordable land. How do we solve it? 

I mean, there are some neighborhoods that are exempt. Now, 

they would probably fight anyway, but their exemption, at least 

when I was mayor, is based on the fact that I can’t buy land there. 

Mr. CABRERA. Congressman, are you asking? 

Mr. CLEAVER. Well, yes. 

Mr. CABRERA. Okay. HOPE VI developments happen on property 

that belongs to the public housing authority that is subject to a 

declaration of trust and that has units that have annual contributions contracts on them that are going to be demolished. So when 

the portion of the HOPE grant, and I don’t recall that there is an 

acquisition portion, it might be that they are adding on land 

around the property that they already own. 

The first step in HOPE VI is identifying what property the public 

housing authority has that it wants to deal with in terms of demolition. HOPE VI’s purpose, legislative intent to this day, is two-fold. 

It is to demolish public housing units that are obsolete, because the 

vast majority of public housing stock is between 50 and 70 years 

old. Its purpose is to deconcentrate poverty. And its purpose is to 

build something back, using a bunch of different kinds of financial 

tools—not just public housing funds. The reason that it worked in 

Kansas City, the reason it has worked in other cities as well— 

when it has worked and it has worked mostly—is because the marriage of all those tools have come out with a product that serves 

25 

a lot of people—not just the demographic—that is occupying the 

public housing band width. 

Public housing is a financing mechanism. It essentially is a unit 

financing mechanism to operate a particular apartment. When you 

add the other mechanisms, you are serving essentially low-income 

people, but you may not be serving low-income people who had received a public housing unit. Dr. Popkin illustrated this just a few 

minutes ago with respect to how it is that folks come back or don’t 

come back. There’s always attrition from public housing. 

One of the reasons that it winds up being the case that HOPE 

VI deals, as you noted, look better, is because generally the way 

they are pro forma, the way they are economically modeled, allow 

for reserves to permit the maintenance of those units. So from an 

economic perspective, Dr. Boston, I don’t know if I missed that, but 

if I did, please correct me. 

Mr. BOSTON. Yes. Congressman, I would like to share my perspective on that, and maybe we can get some grant money coming 

to Georgia Tech. But it requires a complex of strategies to have a 

successful community. The fundamental strategy is that you have 

to focus on the issue the ladders that create the fulfillment of the 

human potential. And above and beyond bricks and mortar, and 

anything else, the most important element is having in place policies and strategies that allow families to fulfill their human potential. 

What does that mean when we talk about neighborhoods? Well, 

forget about the bricks and mortar. We mean, have we built better 

schools? Do the children have access to better schools? On average, 

their mother, typically black, has two kids. Those kids are very 

young. She is concerned about their safety. Have we addressed 

issues of crime in the neighborhood through various partnerships 

with communities that have capabilities of doing so? Have we established an early learning center and do we have new YMCAs or 

after school programs? 

Mr. CLEAVER. I am going to interrupt you because you’re making 

the point I was trying to make. What we’re talking about is trying 

to completely, socially, and in some cases even morally and physically, rehab an area and that’s because the only place we place 

housing units are in areas like that. 

I mean why can’t we place housing units, whether they are Section 8, whether they are HOPE VI, in areas where, you know, everybody says scatter sites of housing. If people find out that you’re 

going to try to build something, they are going to come and say, 

I know the whole deal. We will have traffic problems if we build 

new housing coming in, or we’re going to overload the schools. But 

why can’t we have scatter-site housing in neighborhoods where we 

don’t have to go in fighting crime? 

Mr. CABRERA. It’s very expensive, scattered housing. And, Congressman, just a small tweak: The case of Kansas City is different 

than other cases. So if you go to San Francisco, there is a HOPE 

VI deal smack down in the middle of North Beach. If you go to Seattle, there is a huge, brand new, beautiful HOPE VI deal in South 

Seattle, which is now a very vital community. And, if you go to Tacoma, you go to Salishan. It’s another example of a place where, 

again, it’s in a vital community. And this is where the local nature 

26 

has to be brought into consideration. It depends upon the location. 

It depends upon where you are building. It is a very different situation in Kansas City, perhaps, than it is in Seattle. And I think 

that’s part as it is in Atlanta for that matter. So I think that’s part 

of the stress there. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you Madam Chairwoman, and I thank both 

you and the ranking member for the work that you have done in 

affordable housing, especially with the Affordable Housing Trust 

Fund, which I hope will in time help us with a good many of the 

problems that we are contending with currently. I also thank you 

for the assemblage of witnesses that we have today, all of whom 

have great credentials, and I thank you for your testimony. 

My first question, and it’s to anyone who would care to respond, 

and if you can be terse, it would be appreciated. Why do we need 

brick and mortar as opposed to just having vouchers? There are 

many who contend, why have a building that we have to manage? 

Why not just have all vouchers? 

Mr. GOETZ. The most prominent answer to that would be that in 

some cities with very tight housing markets, Housing Choice 

vouchers are extremely difficult for tenants to use. They face tremendous competition in the rental market, and given the choice, 

landlords tend to prefer residents who don’t have vouchers and Section 8 certificates to those who do. And so in some hot real estate 

markets that characterize many American cities, Housing Choice 

vouchers are about as good as confederate money. 

Mr. GREEN. Moving to another question, and thank you. 

We have lost about 50,000 public housing units because of the 

HOPE VI revitalization program. Is that a fair statement? If I have 

made an unfair statement, somebody please correct me. 

Mr. CABRERA. We have demolished 110,000 units through the 

HOPE VI Program, if I recall. 

Mr. GREEN. Now, if the purpose of the Program was to revitalize 

severely distressed public housing, has HOPE VI in some fashion 

been less than HOPE VI, maybe HOPE V? 

Mr. CABRERA. There was a HOPE V, you know. There is HOPE 

I through V. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes, well. 

Mr. CABRERA. HOPE VI has been successful in places where the 

local government has the capacity to move it forward. It has struggled in places where that might have been a challenge. I would 

take, you know, without at all trying to appear disagreeable, I 

would disagree with Dr. Goetz. 

In those places that allocate Section 8 vouchers, what you’ll find 

is utilization rates that are bordering 98 percent, and they tend to 

be very dense areas of the country. The places where you see Section 8 probably struggle a bit, are in places that have housing authorities in suburban areas or housing authorities in rural areas. 

Rural areas drive a lot of the Section 8 voucher underutilization. 

The second largest housing authority in this country is not on the 

mainland. It’s in Puerto Rico. It has more units than Los Angeles. 

It has more vouchers, I believe, than Chicago. 

27 

Mr. GREEN. I am going to have to ask you to wrap up. I have 

about four more questions. 

Mr. CABRERA. No, sure. I’m sorry. And so my point is, it’s more 

a balance of understanding what the demand is in the city. 

Mr. GREEN. And I’ll give you a chance to respond in a moment 

if I have enough time. But because we don’t have one-for-one replacement, and because we have persons who do not return for various and sundry reasons, I have to ask, is HOPE VI being used to 

evict people from projects who ordinarily might not be evicted? I 

heard what were called forcible injury and detainer lawsuits in another life, commonly known as evictions. 

And there were persons who could not be evicted, but my suspicion is if they had a chance to find another way to move persons, 

this may have been done. So does that happen when you rebuild, 

reconstruct? Do you lose people who have been deemed undesirable, but who were lawfully eligible to be in the project, the housing unit? 

Ms. POPKIN. May I respond to that? 

Mr. GREEN. Go on. 

Ms. POPKIN. Our research has shown that what mostly happens 

to the most troubled tenants, the undesirable tenants, is they have 

been moved to other distressed public housing. They have not been 

evicted in large numbers. They have been pushed somewhere out 

of the way in a place that I think could become even more distressed than the place they started, because now you have all the 

troubled families concentrated together. So in the housing authorities I have studied, they have certainly been moved out of where 

they were, which was often an awful place. But they often feel that 

where they have gone is a little bit better, but it’s certainly not 

anywhere any of us would think is a good solution. 

Mr. GREEN. Madam Chairwoman, may I ask one final question? 

Chairwoman WATERS. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. My final question, thank you, is this. Is public housing in this country at risk because of undocumented workers? 

Mr. CABRERA. No, Congressman. Public housing is offered to either folks who are legal residents of the United States or U.S. citizens; or, alternatively, children who might have parents who are 

illegal, but who have an entitlement. 

Mr. GREEN. But are you having a real problem? Are you being 

sued by undocumented workers, lined up outside, demanding that 

they have units? 

Mr. CABRERA. No. 

Mr. GREEN. Are they protesting outside, saying where is my public housing? 

Mr. CABRERA. They aren’t, Congressman. 

Mr. GREEN. I ask because there’s a big concern about the takeover, about the undocumented workers just absolutely consuming 

the public housing stock of this country, and I’m eager to know 

where this is happening. Have any of you experienced a big takeover because of undocumented workers? 

Mr. CABRERA. No. No. 

Mr. GREEN. Let the record reflect that all heads were indicating 

a negative in terms of an answer, and I thank you Madam Chairwoman. If we have a second round, I will have more questions. 

28 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. Our ranking member has returned. Ms. Capito? 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I apologize for missing a lot of the testimony, but I am very interested in the questions. Dr. Boston, in your presentation you 

talked about the influence of different public housing availabilities 

on the level of achievement for students in testing. And, I think if 

you go from 29 percent in public housing to 43 percent in the 

mixed income, that’s dramatic. 

I am not a professional like you all are, but that’s a dramatic increase there. But as you said, that’s still low, but it’s going in the 

right direction. How much in the future strategy of the best way 

to put forth public housing are statistics such as this incorporated 

into reshaping public housing for the future? We are looking at the 

academic side of the polling—not polling—but the research that 

you have done. 

Mr. BOSTON. Thank you very much for the question. It is increasingly becoming an issue, and, indeed, a growing criteria that is 

being asked of public housing authorities to consider. That is, how 

do various policies affect the performance of kids whose families receive housing assistance, so that if you look at the Choice Neighborhoods Program, it’s a part of that program. And I think it’s an 

excellent criteria, because fundamentally, those are the kids who in 

the future will either contribute productively to society or if there 

is no adequate intervention, unproductively. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Does anybody else have a response? Yes, Dr. Joseph? 

Mr. JOSEPH. I think it is also important to note though that what 

Dr. Boston is finding may also be evidence of different populations 

going into different circumstances. So the group that we see going 

into mixed-income housing and having these better numbers in 

terms of achievement may have been actually a higher achievement group in some ways, had they been able to jump through the 

different hurdles they needed to to get themselves into the new 

housing versus taking a voucher or making different choices. 

So part of what we do moving forward to your question is also 

sort out a little bit how much of this is an actual impact of the different circumstance and how much is driven by different types of 

families making or being forced or constrained into different 

choices. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Yes, I could see that. I see what you’re saying, but 

I do think as Dr. Boston points out that those children—and I’m 

sure I’m not telling you something you don’t already know, but— 

those children are probably going to be the children; that, as they 

grow if they fail to achieve or if they have difficulties—meaning 

they are going to be the ones who are going to be looking at public 

housing as an option for them—and then the cycle continues in a 

way that it makes it difficult to break those cycles. So I think that’s 

good. 

We do a lot in this committee and subcommittee about different 

social programs, and counseling programs, housing literacy programs, foreclosure assistance. Well, not foreclosure, obviously, that 

wouldn’t be right, but other educational programs. And can you 

29 

give me an overview of the utilization of these programs and are 

they actually achieving what we hope they do achieve? 

Ms. POPKIN. I think that related to the HOPE VI Program, specifically, the case management has very considerably. You heard 

Dr. Harris talk about Memphis, where it took them a long time to 

develop a comprehensive case management. I know from Chicago, 

the City where I’m doing work now, utilization is about 50 percent, 

generally. 

Mrs. CAPITO. About what? 

Ms. POPKIN. 50 percent. 

Mrs. CAPITO. 50 percent of the residents are using it or the total 

program is only used 50 percent of the time? 

Ms. POPKIN. 50 percent of the residents are using it in a demonstration. We are doing it and have been able to increase that to 

90 percent, but that takes extra money and more time for the case 

managers. 

Mrs. CAPITO. What would be the best? This might be a dangerous 

question in some sense, but what would you say is the most effective best program in terms of counseling assistance, whether it’s 

parenting or child skills, or financial literacy or home budgeting? 

I mean, is there one that kind of stands out above the rest? 

Ms. POPKIN. I think you need all of it, especially. You know, a 

lot of people have been using distressed public housing, not all public housing, the subset of really troubled public housing, as the 

housing’s last resort. And you’re dealing with a population that is 

very similar to the homeless, and they need comprehensive services—everything you mentioned—parenting, support. And a lot of 

them are going to need it for a long time. It’s not going to go away 

quickly. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Doctor? 

Ms. HARRIS. May I say, in Memphis, they do really think. They 

haven’t come up with words like Dr. Popkin described for their typology in Chicago looking at their entire case load. But they really 

do think about, you know, what are the services appropriate for 

their elderly and getting them in stable housing, where there’s not 

work as a goal there. And what do they do for people who are officially, technically disabled, who may be able to work a little bit. 

But a full time job is not feasible for them and helping them find 

what’s appropriate for them. And then there’s the whole rest of the 

case loads. That’s the working age adults who may have employment, or may not, that need some further assistance in some way. 

And it’s figuring out for them is their key barrier really getting him 

hooked up to one more program; you know, a job training program, 

that’s going to move them into a position that would be stable for 

them; or, is it really getting them into that literacy class and finding childcare and whatever the other issues are. 

So I think it’s so hard to come up with what is the program or 

what is the most effective, because it’s so personalized for small 

segments of the case load. And I think Memphis has done a good 

job of looking at that, particularly when it comes to employment, 

in figuring out small groups to work together with those residents 

to move toward employment. 

Mr. JONES. I would just be careful, and not just from an academic vantage point, not to forget that the magnitude of the recesVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:08 Dec 09, 2009 Jkt 053249 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\53249.TXT TERRIE
30 

sion we are in is changing all the rules. If you have whole communities where public housing is set that are losing employment at 

extraordinary rates, that changes the game entirely. 

So some of the inventions we’re talking about here may not be 

as effective, because the real question is, can you get people back 

into the workforce and can you get people in housing authorities, 

that we see some skills to get back into productive work? So I think 

there has been a shift here, and some of the fights we have in New 

York are assuming full employment where people are just holding 

back. That’s not the case here. People are clamoring for work. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Driehaus? 

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and 

thank you for this hearing. 

I have worked with the housing authority very closely over the 

last 10 years in Cincinnati, and, with all due respect to Dr. Boston 

and his comments about the way the voucher system is working, 

we haven’t seen it play out that way in Cincinnati. And I would 

like to ask any member of the panel about rent reasonableness, because we are running into what I perceive to be a real challenge. 

The HOPE VI project in Cincinnati has displaced many low-income families, but in addition to the HOPE VI project, there were 

other very large developments that were also torn down around the 

same time, which led to a dramatic increase in the voucher population. But where the relocation occurred in many cases was driven 

not by the housing authority or the policies of the housing authority directly, but by what they were claiming to be the private sector. 

Well, when we dug into it a little deeper, what we found was 

that the reimbursement rates for the vouchers in certain neighborhoods, and they tended to be high poverty neighborhoods, so far exceeded the market rate rental that that’s where landlords flocked. 

We are in low- to mixed-income neighborhoods, and, purchase single family homes, there was an additional incentive, a 10 percent 

bump-up in the voucher if it was a single family home. 

So we found a lot of investors going in and purchasing single 

family homes in what were moderate priced neighborhoods. And 

what we did not find was the type of dispersion, Dr. Boston, that 

you spoke of in Atlanta. And we found that there was a reconcentration of poverty in essentially the neighborhoods right around 

where the HOPE VI project was. So we created this kind of artificial mixed-income neighborhood through the HOPE VI project. 

We took what were mixed-income neighborhoods in the surrounding area, and turned them into low-income neighborhoods. 

And we have seen the subsequent flight that one often sees when 

that happens. You know, in addition, these were the same neighborhoods that were impacted by predatory lending and who have 

felt the brunt of a foreclosure crisis. So at the same time, these 

neighborhoods are experiencing predatory lending. 

They have an influx in investors using vouchers, and really tipping the balance in many of these neighborhoods. But it was driven 

in large part in terms of the voucher side by what the reimbursement rate was for the voucher. How do we get around the rather 

31 

strict requirements at HUD on rental reimbursements? How do we 

get more flexibility to the local housing authority to recognize 

where that disparity exists between the rental reimbursements and 

the market rate to make that even across-the-board, so we do 

achieve the type of balance that Dr. Boston spoke of. 

Mr. BOSTON. Could I just respond very quickly? 

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Sure. 

Mr. BOSTON. And, again, one of the things Atlanta has done is 

to create what they call rental submarkets. And, so, rather than 

applying the same fair market rental standard across the City, 

whereby you actually constrained to neighborhoods that you can 

move in and it confines most of the rental opportunities to the 

lower-income neighborhoods, they have taken the same pool of 

money and disaggregated it, broken it down into different power, 

depending upon the cost of housing in different neighborhoods. 

Mr. DRIEHAUS. The challenge we face is that those runaways can 

change dramatically from street to street in certain neighborhoods. 

So when we try to set rental rates by Census track, even, they can 

be wildly off, depending upon what block you’re on. 

Mr. BOSTON. Right. 

Mr. DRIEHAUS. And in many older cities, we find this all the 

time, that neighborhoods are not homogenous in terms of the housing. But, yet, the Housing Authority finds itself restricted because 

of what they are being told by HUD. 

Mr. CABRERA. Congressman, it isn’t so much what they are being 

told by HUD. HUD, when they set rent payment reasonableness 

standards, now use something called the American Community 

Survey. And it isn’t the perfect tool. Traditionally, it used a lagging 

indicator built on the Census, which meant your rent standards 

were being set 2 years behind the date when it would apply. 

Mr. DRIEHAUS. But by Census track, correct? 

Mr. CABRERA. It is by Census track, but it’s beyond the Census 

track. It is more a survey beyond what you are describing to me, 

as I understand it, is a qualified Census track. So it has other permutations to it. Even if it is a standard rate, housing authorities 

can go in and ask for a multiple increase over the rent reasonableness standard up to 140 percent. One of the problems here—I hate 

to keep coming back to this—but actually there are two issues that 

you are highlighting. 

The first one is that rent setting is a bit of a Byzantine process, 

and for most public housing authorities it is very frustrating. If 

anybody knows what their community looks like, it’s the housing 

authority. They know what rents should be. That is an issue of 

some controversy before this body. It has been for a very long time. 

I am certainly an advocate of that decision being made, as locally 

as humanely possible, within some parameter. But the second issue 

here is one of a housing authority recognizing what it’s looking at 

in terms of what its housing stock looks like. Cincinnati’s housing 

stock is very different than Atlanta. Atlanta has an enormous number of multi-family options and also of single-family detached, 

where Cincinnati has far more single-family detached. 

That’s the supply driver, and that has to do with a broader policy 

issue that’s tougher to address. Certainly, on the payment standard 

issue, there are options that the housing authority has within a deVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:08 Dec 09, 2009 Jkt 053249 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\53249.TXT TERRIE
32 

gree, but there is a question in there, a policy question, of who is 

better at setting rents. Is it going to be the public housing authority, or is it going to be policy development and research at HUD. 

And I understand. 

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Well, I appreciate the understanding. I thank 

you, Madam Chairwoman, and I’ll wrap up. But I really do think 

that the objective, obviously, through the voucher program, is to 

allow families, allow kids to grow up in neighborhoods that create 

a supportive environment. But that is not the way we have seen 

it play out, at least in Cincinnati. What we are seeing is a reconcentration of poverty. You know, the same type of concentration we 

are trying to break down through the HOPE VI project, but that’s 

not how it’s working in practice. And I believe that for the most 

part is due to the restrictions through rent reasonableness that are 

placed on local housing authorities by HUD. And I would like to 

see far greater flexibility. 

You only have to open up the newspaper to figure out what the 

market rate is in a given neighborhood or sub-neighborhood. It’s 

not that tough, and it seems to me that we should allow local authorities the flexibility to do so. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

I would like to yield to myself another minute and to all of our 

members here today one minute for a closing statement or questions that you may have. 

Let me just thank our participants for being here today and presenting very valuable information. We really do have to think 

about public policy for this entire country and recognize that they 

are different communities with different kinds of problems and different kinds of resources that we must recognize. But we must always recognize that there are people who have little or no income 

and have little or no education or health problems and other kinds 

of problems that do not allow them to be fully in charge of their 

lives, and we have to deal with that. And so we are going to look 

at all this information and try and get all of the research that we 

possibly can to help move us to a public policy that will make good 

sense for basically everyone. 

I am committed to the moratorium on demolition for the next 

year. I think that’s important while we try to get a handle on 

where we are going. We will be looking very closely at the new secretaries at Choice Neighborhoods proposal, etc., etc. Let me just 

close by asking a very simple question relative to the private developer criteria I have been given from Atlanta in determining whether or not residents are eligible in the residents’ election plan. There 

are several questions that I don’t understand. 

Credit and good standing: No negative information without remedy relating to a landlord, property owner or mortgagee. No debt 

can have been written off within one year of application, including 

bankruptcy as a write-off. Any past-due consumer debts showing 

balances older than 6 months must accompany written evidence on 

creditor stationery indicating repayment plan, and no past due balances within 3 months of application. What does that have to do 

with whether or not a potential resident, particularly one who lived 

in distressed housing, is able to get back into a HOPE VI redeveloped project. Anyone? 

33 

Yes, Mr. Fraser, is it? 

Mr. FRASER. Yes. I would say that that speaks to the multiple 

goal sets that public housing authorities find themselves in under 

a type of program like HOPE VI. So they have the responsibility 

of managing an asset, that asset has been heavily invested in. And, 

most times, what I have seen in my own research is that the rules 

and regulations go well beyond what would be expected of someone 

who is middle class and items that aren’t necessarily pertinent. 

So in the name of keeping the asset the way it is, we do find that 

many people who need housing are kept from it. So it’s not surprising my research in Nashville, where I interviewed people at all 

four public housing sites that were HOPE VI, no one is complaining, because everyone who got in met such high criteria that 

they are really not the population that I was speaking of before 

who needs the most help. They are grateful, but we need to also 

help those people who have not risen to that level yet. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Does anyone on the panel believe that no 

debt can have been written off within 1 year of application, including bankruptcy as a write-off, is a fair criteria? 

Mr. CABRERA. Madam Chairwoman, for me it’s not a question of 

whether it’s fair or not. There are two dynamics in a HOPE VI 

deal, and I’m assuming that questionnaire comes from a HOPE VI 

deal. The first one is which are the units that are being financed 

with ACCs, and which are the units that are being or were financed in terms of their construction by low-income housing tax 

credits? 

When they are financed by low-income housing tax credits, it 

means an investor was involved. And that questionnaire is very, 

very common in the 2 million or so units that we have nationwide 

with respect to low-income housing tax credits. Further, I am currently a tenant in Southern California. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Do you meet the credit criteria? 

Mr. CABRERA. Pardon me? 

Chairwoman WATERS. For this application? 

Mr. CABRERA. I received an application that looked an awful lot 

like that, and asked those questions, just like the way you have 

asked them. Now I ask those questions, because when you are an 

investor, the critical issue is can the tenant pay rent, in order to 

support the units that they have invested in. 

If there is evidence the tenant cannot, that is troublesome, because they are the landlord and they have to pay usually a lender. 

They have to pay an investor. They have to pay whomever they 

have to pay. They have to find out whether that’s a legitimate recourse. 

Chairwoman WATERS. What percentage of public housing tenants 

are evicted for non-payment of rent? 

Mr. CABRERA. Public housing tenants? 

Chairwoman WATERS. Yes. 

Mr. CABRERA. I don’t know. It depends upon what the public 

housing authority’s policy is on rent setting. I think a great example of which percentage are evicted for, you know, Section 8 vouchers are a great example. If the Section 8 voucher is presented to 

a HOPE VI deal that has been financed by low-income housing tax 

credits or any low-income housing tax credit deal, there are a series 

34 

of questions. The first one is, do you have a criminal record, because that’s required by Federal law. 

Chairwoman WATERS. I know. I know about that. I am just interested in the credit question, because I am aware that unfortunately 

many people in our society oftentimes run into credit problems. 

Mr. CABRERA. Right. 

Chairwoman WATERS. And to have had a debt written-off, does 

not necessarily mean that it was your fault. It could have been 

fraud that was involved in the contract that was opposed by an attorney or someone that caused it to have to be written off. This is 

very tough criteria— 

Mr. CABRERA. Madam Chairwoman, I couldn’t agree with you 

more. 

Chairwoman WATERS. —to ask of poor people. 

Mr. CABRERA. I am not saying they are right. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Yes. 

Mr. CABRERA. I am simply saying in terms of how they are asking it’s very normal in this context. 

Chairwoman WATERS. No. It is not normal in this context. 

Mr. CABRERA. No. No, I’m saying but Section 8 voucher holders 

are not typically evicted; that’s once they are in. 

Chairwoman WATERS. No, they are not. 

Mr. CABRERA. That’s what I was trying to answer. 

Chairwoman WATERS. I understand. 

Thank you very much. Let me go to Mr. Cleaver. Do you have 

one minute, Mr. Green? Oh, I’m sorry. Ms. Capito comes first. Excuse me. Ms. Capito. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I want to just thank you all and I appreciate it. And we’ll just 

continue working on this. It’s very important to the safety and 

health of a lot of people here in this country. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Madam Chairwoman, I would like to join you in supporting the 

moratorium and I believe it would be beneficial. Also, I would like 

to simply submit that whether by accident or design, it appears 

that the Federal Government is becoming the sole source of affordable housing. And, I wanted to have some response to this basic 

premise that while municipalities receive the funds, and by the 

way, when they open up a new project, there is a big, big, big parade. We have a new housing project. 

Never say that it’s funded by Federal dollars. There seems to be 

the notion that municipalities are doing it, but it’s actually the 

Federal Government that’s funding it and it’s not widely known. So 

I see someone who would like to respond and let’s start with the 

doctor at the very end, Dr. Boston. 

Mr. BOSTON. Yes, Congressman, and it’s a very astute observation and an important issue. One of the things that I have done 

as a part of my research is looking at the benefits and cost of revitalizing communities, and I shared with you that benefit. For the 

6 communities that I looked at, on average, it was $126 million. 

35 

One issue that I have raised with individuals who are involved 

in this area, both developers and others, is how can that surplus 

be used to generate greater affordability in the neighborhoods within which mixed-income developments have been constructed. Let 

me just give a brief example, and I know that time is short. But 

if you look at the neighborhood in Atlanta where Centennial Place 

is now, that was formerly Techwood Homes. That neighborhood 

had a violent crime rate of 37 times the national average. Now, 

that neighborhood has not only a new mixed-income development, 

but it has the Georgia Aquarium. It has the New World of Coca 

Cola and the Civil Rights Museum. 

That is a great deal of tax revenue that has been generated. So 

I think that there needs to be creative strategies, getting with private developers to figure out if these benefits are flowing to both 

the private and public sector, how can they be used to generate 

greater affordability in the communities surrounding it. 

Mr. CABRERA. Congressman, just to add to Dr. Boston’s comments, HOPE VI by itself has never funded a unit. The low-income 

tax credit has never funded a unit. Nor have private activity bonds 

ever funded a unit of affordable housing. All of those things together, together with local money and State money in a variety of 

pots are put together with private money to fund a unit. When we 

talk about HOPE VI, it’s one part of a very big machine. I can say 

that with some glee because I have been in a lot of grand openings 

and a lot of HOPE VI grand openings. They have never forgotten 

about us. 

Mr. GREEN. You said they have never forgotten about it? 

Mr. CABRERA. Never forgot the Federal Government; they always 

said thank you, and we were always a big piece of the pie. But it 

should be the case that those grand openings are participatory and 

that they involve everybody involved in financing the construction 

of these units, because it takes a lot of the partners. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman WATERS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Green, we are going to have to get to a telephone interview. 

I would like to thank all of the panelists for coming. The Chair 

notes that some members may have additional questions for this 

panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days for members 

to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their 

responses in the record. This panel is now dismissed, and, without 

objection, I would like to enter into the record the criteria that is 

being used by private developers relative to the screening process 

for potential resident. 

With that, this committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(37) 

A P P E N D I X 

July 29, 2009 

38 


53249.001
39 


53249.002
40 


53249.003
41 


53249.004
42 


53249.005
43 


53249.006
44 


53249.007
45 


53249.008
46 


53249.009
47 


53249.010
48 


53249.011
49 


53249.012
50 


53249.013
51 


53249.014
52 


53249.015
53 


53249.016
54 


53249.017
55 


53249.018
56 


53249.019
57 


53249.020
58 


53249.021
59 


53249.022
60 


53249.023
61 


53249.024
62 


53249.025
63 


53249.026
64 


53249.027
65 


53249.028
66 


53249.029
67 


53249.030
68 


53249.031
69 


53249.032
70 


53249.033
71 


53249.034
72 


53249.035
73 


53249.036
74 


53249.037
75 


53249.038
76 


53249.039
77 


53249.069
78 


53249.070
79 


53249.071
80 


53249.072
81 


53249.073
82 


53249.074
83 


53249.075
84 


53249.076
85 


53249.077
86 


53249.078
87 


53249.079
88 


53249.040
89 


53249.041
90 


53249.042
91 


53249.043
92 


53249.044
93 


53249.045
94 


53249.046
95 


53249.047
96 


53249.048
97 


53249.049
98 


53249.050
99 


53249.051
100 


53249.052
101 


53249.053
102 


53249.054
103 


53249.055
104 


53249.056
105 


53249.057
106 


53249.058
107 


53249.059
108 


53249.060
109 


53249.061
110 


53249.062
111 


53249.063
112 


53249.064
113 


53249.065
114 


53249.066
115 


53249.067
116 


53249.068
117 


53249.080
118 


53249.081
119 


53249.082
120 


53249.083
121 


53249.084
122 


53249.085
123 


53249.086
124 


53249.087
125 


53249.088
126 


53249.089
127 


53249.090
128 


53249.091
129 


53249.092
130 


53249.093
131 


53249.094
132 


53249.095