HUD’s requirements for HOPE VI revitalization grants are laid out in each fiscal year’s notice of funding availability (NOFA) and grant agreement. NOFAs announce the availability of funds and set forth application requirements and the selection process. Grant agreements are executed between each grantee and HUD and specify the activities, key deadlines, and documentation that grantees must meet or complete. Both NOFAs and grant agreements also contain guidance on resident involvement in the HOPE VI process. For example, the fiscal year 2002 NOFA stated that residents and the broader community should be involved in the planning, proposed implementation, and management of revitalization plans. In additional guidance on resident involvement, HUD encourages grantees to communicate, consult, and collaborate with affected residents and the broader community through resident councils, consultative groups, newsletters, and resident surveys. HUD’s guidance states that residents should be included in all phases of HOPE VI development, but also states that grantees have the final decision-making authority. The majority of HOPE VI grants involve the relocation of residents from a public housing site prior to demolition or rehabilitation. Grantees must conduct the relocation process in accordance with laws such as the Uniform Relocation Act and HUD guidance. Before the relocation process can begin, the grantee must develop a HOPE VI relocation plan that includes the number of families to be relocated, a description of the counseling and advisory services to be offered to families, a description of housing resources that will be used to relocate families, an estimate of relocation costs, and an example of the notice the grantee will provide to residents concerning relocation. Residents are generally given three basic relocation options: (1) using a housing choice voucher (formerly Section 8) to move into the private market, (2) moving to a different public housing site, or (3) leaving federally assisted housing. Revitalized HOPE VI sites often contain fewer public housing units and have more stringent screening criteria. HUD guidance states that grantees must collaborate with residents and other stakeholders to establish criteria that residents must meet in order to return to the site. Residents are not guaranteed that they will automatically return to the site. Typically, grantees offer original residents who remain in good standing the first priority right to return to the revitalized site. Grantees must offer community and supportive services—such as child care, transportation, job training, job placement and retention services, and parenting classes—to all original residents, regardless of their intention to return to the revitalized site. HUD guidance states that services for original residents should begin as soon as possible following the grant award and help residents make progress toward self-sufficiency. Additionally, HUD guidance suggests that grantees offer residents community and supportive services that are specifically designed to help them meet the criteria for their return to the revitalized site. New households that move to the revitalized site also are eligible to receive services. HUD guidance emphasizes that HOPE VI grantees should use case managers to assess the needs and circumstances of residents and then make appropriate referrals to a range of service providers. Grantees must submit to HUD a community and supportive services plan that contains a description of the supportive services that will be provided to residents, proposed steps and schedules for establishing arrangements with service providers, plans for actively involving residents in planning and implementing supportive services, and a system for monitoring and tracking the performance of the supportive services programs, as well as resident progress. According to HUD data, the largest percentage of residents living at HOPE VI sites were relocated to other public housing. Because HUD has not always required grantees to track original residents during the development process, housing authorities lost track of some original residents. Overall, grantees estimated that 46 percent of the original residents would return to the revitalized sites. However, the percentage of original residents expected to return varied greatly from site to site. Several factors may affect planned and actual reoccupancy rates, including the planned mix of units and the criteria used to screen the occupants of the new units. As shown in figure 1, a majority of the almost 49,000 residents that had been relocated from HOPE VI sites, as of June 30, 2003, moved to other public housing (about 50 percent) or received vouchers (about 31 percent). Additionally, approximately 6 percent were evicted, and about 14 percent were classified as “other,” which includes either residents who moved without giving notice or who moved out of public housing. Grantees lost track of some original residents for a number of reasons. HUD did not emphasize the need to track original residents until 1998 and did not require grantees to report the location of residents until 2000. Also, four of the 1996 grantees we interviewed stated that it was difficult to track residents who had left federally-assisted housing (i.e., were no longer in public housing or using a voucher.) In a June 2002 report to Congress, HUD acknowledged that efforts to track original residents during the development process had been uneven and stated that the agency and grantees were working to improve resident tracking. All but one of the 1996 grantees developed some means of tracking original residents, although three stated that they only tracked a subset of original residents, such as those still in public housing or using a voucher. The Housing Authority of Louisville created a database to track residents and used it to determine the status of the 1,304 families that resided at Cotter and Lang Homes prior to relocation. The housing authority concluded that 65 percent had been relocated to other public housing or given vouchers, and 33 percent had vacated Cotter or Lang prior to being relocated. It could not determine if the remaining 2 percent had been relocated or vacated prior to relocation. In addition, two 1996 grantees took steps to locate original residents with whom they had lost contact. The Chicago Housing Authority hired a consultant to help it find relocated residents. To track down those original residents that did not remain in public housing or take a voucher, the Spartanburg Housing Authority posted public notices stating that the authority was trying to track down original residents and held meetings to get their addresses. Overall, grantees estimated that 46 percent of all the original residents of HOPE VI sites would return to the revitalized sites. However, as shown in figure 2, the percentage of original residents that were expected to return varied greatly from site to site. For example, at the 113 sites where reoccupancy was not yet complete, the planned reoccupancy rate was less than 25 percent at 23 sites; in contrast, the planned rate was 75 percent or greater at 24 sites. At the 39 sites where reoccupancy was complete, the actual reoccupancy rate was less than 25 percent at 17 sites and 75 percent or greater at 7 sites. Also, the percentage of residents that were expected to return decreased over time. As of September 30, 1999 (the earliest date for which we could obtain data), fiscal year 1993–1998 grantees estimated that 61 percent of the original residents would return to the revitalized sites. By June 30, 2003, the same grantees estimated that 44 percent of the original residents would return. Several factors may affect planned and actual reoccupancy rates, including the mix of units. To reduce the concentration of poverty at HOPE VI sites, HUD recommends a mix of public housing, affordable housing (low- income housing tax credit or other subsidized housing), and market-rate housing. As a result, grantees, as of June 30, 2003, had demolished or planned to demolish 76,393 public housing units and rebuild or renovate 44,781 replacement public housing units. At the 1996 sites, the percentage of public housing units being replaced ranged from 10 percent to 102 percent (see fig. 3). Resident and low-income housing advocates have criticized the HOPE VI program for reducing the number of public housing units. However, HUD, in its June 2002 report to Congress, pointed to the number of affordable units and vouchers that the program would provide. HUD also noted that over 20,000 of the units to be demolished were long- standing vacancies when the housing authorities applied for a HOPE VI grant, and that a majority of the vacant units were uninhabitable. As shown in figure 4, the percentage of revitalized units that are public housing units varied from site to site. Among the 143 sites where construction was not yet complete, as of June 30, 2003, public housing units constituted less than 50 percent of total units at 69 sites. At all but three of the 22 sites where construction was complete, 50 percent or more of the units were public housing units. Additionally, the number of planned public housing units decreased over time. As of September 30, 1999 (the earliest date for which we could obtain data), fiscal year 1993– 1998 grantees estimated that they would construct 34,199 public housing units. By June 30, 2003, the same grantees estimated that they would construct 30,772 public housing units—about a 10-percent decrease. (This decrease in the number of planned public housing units may help explain why the percentage of residents that the grantees expected to return decreased over time, as discussed previously in this report.) Another factor that may affect reoccupancy is the screening criteria that original residents must meet to return to the revitalized sites. HUD allows grantees to determine the screening criteria for each site. Consequently, the screening criteria varied at the 1996 sites we visited. For example, the Charlotte Housing Authority required returning Dalton Village residents to participate in the family self-sufficiency program. Residents that do not successfully complete the program within 5 years and are not in violation of their lease will be transferred to another public housing site. In addition to participation in the family self-sufficiency program, the Spartanburg Housing Authority required returning Tobe Hartwell residents to agree to random drug testing. In contrast, there were no special criteria at some sites.