case managers was that they were not being informed when residents were on notice for eviction, especially when this was due to late rent payments. Case managers felt that they could not fully execute their role as resident advocates when the CHA did not inform them about such critical actions. To resolve this and other communication challenges, several interviewees suggested changing the timing of regular meetings that included both key CHA and case management staff to facilitate timely discussion of pending court orders, evictions, and other topics. Priority Differences One of the essential features of the MTW program is that it allows local housing authorities to make their own decisions as to how best to spend HUD funds. Thus, there are bound to be differences of opinion related to the CHA’s priorities. It takes time, however, to work out these differences and to move forward with program implementation. One such difference of opinion among both board and staff members was whether to give priority to real estate development or client services. The argument for prioritizing real estate development is that it will provide additional units to meet the needs of low-and moderate-income households on the waiting list. The argument for prioritizing client services is that it will help people increase their incomes so that they can move out of assisted housing, thereby opening up units for other qualifying households. This tension has existed since the beginning of the MF program, but several staff members felt that those differences of opinion had intensified recently due to the loss of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds, changes in HUD programs (such as the switch from HOPE VI to the Choice Neighborhoods program), and higher than anticipated costs of providing client services. The higher than anticipated cost of providing case management limited the number of CHA clients subject to the work requirement, since case management services were coupled with the work requirement to help tenants increase their work effort. Differences of opinion also existed on how best to target case management and enhanced services. At the beginning of the program, some argued for targeting those
this left some CHA staff members confused about both the goals of the program and their roles in it. On the issue of professional staff turnover, most of those interviewed suggested that it had little negative impact on CHA operations. Interviewees generally considered the CHA to be an efficiently managed organization, where staff members know their responsibilities and can fill in for absent co-workers for short periods of time. Some interviewees went so far as to say that non-senior staff turnover had been helpful, as it weeded out those individuals who were not comfortable with the CHA’s new directions, opening up opportunities for employees committed to the MF program. For their part, several case managers expressed problems with turnover in case management staff. Overall, most MF case managers indicated that the average case load of 25 was manageable but several had struggled to meet client needs during times of case management vacancies. Because case management is assigned by development, when a case manager leaves, the other case manager assigned to that development must either assume responsibility for the residents whose case manager left or leave their former clients without a case manager. Most case managers interviewed had taken on more clients, creating a strain until a replacement could be hired and trained. Database Challenges CHA staff expressed frustration over the Yardi software system’s inflexibility. Although the Yardi staff has continued to customize the system to address the MF initiatives, that process has been time consuming and it has slowed the implementation of the program. Others suggested that the problem was a lack of training in how to create Yardi reports, while others linked these problems to understaffing in the information technology department. Case managers have also experienced frustration with the database management system used to track the activities of case managers and client activities and progress toward self-sufficiency. Case managers maintain paper files for their clients but are required to enter data into an Excel-based spreadsheet for CHA administrators. This spreadsheet contains information on activities associated with work and case
Some commissioners mentioned that the MF program has helped some families become self-sufficient, opened up housing opportunities for others. Others felt that they had only modest success and hoped to see an increase in the number of families that achieve self-sufficiency. One board member mentioned that MF has led to more effective partnerships with other local housing and social service agencies, resulting in new, expanded housing opportunities for lower-income families in Charlotte. MTW flexibility also allowed for the purchase of security cameras and the hiring of private security personnel, which resulted in a 22 percent reduction in serious crimes such as robbery, rape, and burglary. The program was also credited with cost savings due to the use of local design standards and inspection standards, rather than HUD standards. CHA’s clients have also benefited by the adoption of site-based waiting lists, giving them more control over the developments in which they live. On the issue of achieving greater cost effectiveness, the commissioners pointed to several ways in which administrative costs have been reduced including not having to recertify elderly and disabled clients every year, and reducing administrative redundancy in reporting. For their part, CHA staff members suggested that the MF program has led to very good relations with HUD. They believe that CHA’s MF program is considered a MTW success story which has enhanced its reputation among HUD officials. Residents were asked in the survey to list both the best things about the MF program and what they would like to see changed in the MF program. Responses indicate overall support for the program and its implementation. Resident responses to the open-ended question of “What are the best things about the Moving Forward program?” suggest that residents believe the MF program is supporting them to achieve the broad goal of self-sufficiency (see Table II 10). The most commonly occurring response was that the program helped residents improve themselves and become more self-sufficient. Other responses highlighted the program’s employment assistance programs, incentive accounts, educational assistance, and support to move out of subsidized housing and to become a home owner. Table II 10: Residents’ Responses to “Best things about the Moving Forward Program”
Finally, the percentage of single-parent households was higher than the county average in neighborhoods with conventional public housing, family and HCV properties. The percentage of single-parent households was lower than the county average in neighborhoods with senior and/or disabled developments. Between 2008 and 2012, there were modest decreases in the percent of single-parent households in neighborhoods with conventional public and family mixed-income developments, but little change in neighborhoods with HCV units (see Table IV 5). As mentioned the 2012 version of the Charlotte Quality of Life study adopted new neighborhood boundaries and a new set of social indicators so they cannot be compared to data reported in earlier years. Thus, we only present the most recent 2012 study data, and will use them as a new baseline for future analysis. in the neighborhoods with CHA properties did not do as well on several indicators compared to the Mecklenburg County averages. With the exception of youth living in the neighborhoods with senior and/or disabled developments, the high school dropout rate, percent of children achieving at or above grade level, and adolescent births were all higher than the Mecklenburg County average (see Table IV 6). Table IV 6: Characteristics of Youth Achievement in CHA Tenant-Occupied Neighborhoods Public Housing Senior and/or Disabled Family Income HCV Properties Mecklenburg Average High School Dropout Rate 4.27 2.87 4.7 4.2 3.0 Percent children achieving at or above grade level 42.32 63.82 49.5 51.5 66.0 Percent of births to adolescents 6.40 3.57 8.6 6.9 4.0 Source: 2012 Charlotte Quality of Life Similar to the findings reported above, crime rates in neighborhoods with senior and/or disabled developments were closer to the Mecklenburg county averages than they were for the other types of CHA supported housing (see Table IV 7). Neighborhoods with conventional public housing had violent crime rates that were almost three times the county rate and property crime rates almost twice the county rate. The violent crime rate in neighborhoods with senior and/or disabled