Examines changes in living conditions for distressed public housing residents who moved to mixed-income or rehabilitated developments or the private market. Recommends vigilant monitoring by the housing authority to prevent deterioration over time

Larry Buron

Susan J. Popkin

English

IssueLab

When the Chicago Housing Authority(CHA) launched its ambitious Plan forTransformation in 1999, it faced enormouschallenges. For decades, the CHA had failedto meet even its most basic responsibilitiesas the city’s largest landlord; by the 1990s, acombination of failed federal policies, man-agerial incompetence, financial malfeasance,basic neglect, and a troubled residentpopulation had left its developments inan advanced state of decay. CHA familieslived in an environment that exposed themto such hazards as lead paint, mold, cock-roaches, rats and mice, broken plumbing,exposed radiators, and broken light fixtures.They had to cope with broken elevators anddarkened stairwells and elevators that putthem at risk for injury or assault (Popkin et al. 2000). The Madden/Wells develop-ment was no exception; by the time theCHA received a HOPE VI grant in 2000 torevitalize the Madden/Wells community,the development was in deplorable condi-tion, with many units with water leaks,mold and mildew damage, and brokenheating.One of the primary goals of the CHA’sPlan for Transformation—and for theHOPE VI program overall—was to pro-vide an improved living environment forresidents of severely distressed publichousing (Popkin, Levy, and Buron 2009).The CHA’s HOPE VI plans for Madden/Wells, as for most of their other distresseddevelopments, called for demolishing thedevelopment—nearly 3,000 units in threeadjacent developments—and replacingthem with a new mixed-income communitycalled Oakwood Shores. In Madden/Wells,unlike most of its other HOPE VI sites, theCHA used a staged relocation plan, mean-ing that the site was not cleared before newconstruction began. Instead, the agency leftoriginal buildings standing and occupied,as other buildings were demolished andnew housing was constructed on the site(Popkin 2010). The CHA did not completerelocation and close the development untilAugust 2008.When we followed up on the CHAPanel Study sample in 2005, four years afterthe Panel Study baseline and the beginningof relocation, the picture for residents’ qual-ity of life was mixed. Respondents’ reportsof their housing conditions varied consider-ably according to where they lived. ThoseTransformed HousingMajor Improvements in CHA Residents’Quality of LifeLarry Buron and Susan J. Popkin1Urban Institute a nonpartisan economic and social policy research organizationProgram on Neighborhoods and Youth DevelopmentNo. 2, August 2010CHA Familiesand the Plan forTransformation“In 2000,Madden/Wells was indeplorable condition.”Program on Neighborhoods and Youth Development2who had moved with a Housing ChoiceVoucher—the largest share of the residentsat 44 percent of the sample—reported liv-ing in substantially better conditions in2005 than in 2001. For example, the propor-tion of voucher movers reporting two ormore problems with their housing like bro-ken plumbing, mold, and peeling paint fellfrom 83 percent at the baseline to just 26 per-cent in 2005. The vast majority (81 percent)reported that their new housing was bet-ter than where they lived before theymoved. The respondents who relocated tonew mixed-income housing (5 percent)also reported very good living conditions,while the reports of those who had movedbut were no longer receiving housing assis-tance (7 percent) were mixed, with moststill rating their housing better than at base-line. However, while conditions for movershad improved, the situation for the 40 per-cent of respondents still living in Madden/Wells and awaiting relocation had notchanged since 2001. Most were still living insubstandard—and potentially dangerous—housing, with about 70 percent continuingto report two or more problems with theirhousing in 2005.In 2009, eight years after the baseline,Madden/Wells was closed and all resi-dents had been relocated. Most (54 per-cent) had vouchers and were renting in theprivate market, 18 percent had moved intoa mixed-income development, and 12 per-cent were living in a traditional publichousing development. The rest (17 percent)were no longer receiving housing assis-tance. Since 2005, the CHA had made significant progress on the mixed-incomedevelopments that were replacing its dis-tressed public housing, and some formerresidents had moved into the new units.Further, the agency had made major invest-ments in its remaining traditional publichousing developments, completing rehabili-tation efforts that were part of the Plan forTransformation. Original residents who hadelected to stay in public housing had movedinto these refurbished developments.This brief reports on the longer-termhousing quality outcomes for Madden/Wells residents, eight years after the base-line and 10 years into the CHA’s Plan forTransformation. Overall, we find thathousing quality has now improved sub-stantially for CHA residents across theboard. These differences are profound andrepresent a significant improvement in thequality of life for CHA’s residents.Ratings of Current HousingAs described above, in 2005, respondentswho had moved with vouchers reportedimprovements in housing quality, but resi-dents who remained in Madden/Wellswere enduring conditions that were asbad—or worse—than at the baseline in2001. Four years later, the picture is quitedifferent—the vast majority of residentsreport that their housing is in good condi-tion, regardless of the type of assistancethey receive. As figure 1 shows, mostPercent0255075100Unassisted rentersHousing Choice VoucherMixed-income public housingTraditional public housingCurrent homein better conditionthan formerMadden/Wells homeCurrent homein excellentor good conditionFIGURE 1. Condition of Current Home by Housing Assistance in 2009 Source: 2009 Chicago Panel Study Sample“Housing quality hasimproved substantiallyfor CHA residentsacross the board.”Program on Neighborhoods and Youth Development3respondents now give high ratings to theirhousing and report that it is better thanwhere they lived in Madden/Wells: Over three-fourths (77 percent) ofrespondents reported their current unitwas in excellent or good condition.Respondents in mixed-income housingwere most likely to rate their housing asexcellent (43 percent), while approxi-mately a quarter of those in traditionalpublic housing, voucher units, andunassisted units gave their housing sucha high rating. In sharp contrast to 2005,no residents living in traditional publichousing rated their housing as poor, andless than 10 percent of residents in othertypes of housing gave their housing lowratings.1 Nearly all survey respondents (84 per-cent) reported that their current unit wasin better condition than their formerMadden/Wells unit, including more than90 percent of those in mixed-income ortraditional public housing. These highratings likely reflect the fact that theserespondents were living in new or sub-stantially refurbished units. As in 2005,more than 80 percent of respondentsusing vouchers to rent units in the private market also reported that theircurrent unit was better than their hous-ing in Madden/Wells. The few respondents (3 percent) whoreported their current unit was in worsecondition than their Madden/Wells unit were all renting in the private market, either with a voucher or with-out assistance.Housing ProblemsIn addition to asking respondents to com-pare their current housing to their originalpublic housing unit, we also asked themabout a series of specific housing problems,similar to the list included in the AmericanHousing Survey.2 These problems includebroken plumbing, mold, peeling paint, bro-ken heating, and infestations of cockroachesand other vermin. Figure 2 shows the profound improve-ment in Madden/Wells’ respondentshousing quality since 2001. At baseline,nearly 80 percent of Madden/Wells residents reported two or more housingproblems. But in 2009, just 19 percentreported two or more problems. Like-wise, the proportion of respondentsreporting severe housing quality prob-lems (four or more problems) droppedfrom over 40 percent at baseline to lessthan 10 percent in 2009 (figure 3). Table 1 shows that the most commonproblems that respondents reported in2009 were water leaks (17 percent) andpeeling paint or broken plaster (11 per-cent). However, while not ideal, theselevels still represent dramatic improve-ments from the baseline, when over halfof Panel Study respondents reportedeach of these problems.200920052001Percent0255075784019100FIGURE 2. Respondents Reporting Two or More Housing Condition Problems Sources: 2001, 2005, and 2009 Chicago Panel Study SampleNote: All changes are significant at the p < .05 level.Program on Neighborhoods and Youth Development4200920052001Percent4223401020304050FIGURE 3. Respondents Reporting Four or More Housing Condition Problems Sources: 2001, 2005, and 2009 Chicago Panel Study SampleNote: All changes are significant at the p < .05 level.TABLE 1. Problems in Housing UnitsMadden/Wells Current home, Changehome, 2001 (%) 2009 (%) (percentage points)Water leaks in home 58 17 –41**(in past three months)Peeling paint or broken 56 11 –44**plaster larger than 8 by 11 inchesExposed radiator 46 3 –43**without a coverSignificant mold or 36 10 –27**damage in bathroomCockroach infestation 34 9 –25**Unit cold for 24 hours 33 10 –23**or more in winterAll toilets were not 29 6 –23**working (in past three months)Rat or mice infestation 27 10 –17**Sources: 2001 and 2009 Chicago Panel Study Samples.Notes: Sample size is 136.** Indicates change is statistically significant at the p < .05 percent level.Figure 4 shows respondents’ reportsof current problems by type of housingassistance in 2009. Stunningly, those whorelocated to a traditional public housingdevelopment report almost no problemswith their units, a dramatic reversal of thetrend from 2005. Residents who are rentingin the private market (voucher holders andunassisted renters) report the most prob-lems overall, though the level is still sub-stantially lower than when they lived inMadden/Wells. Even the most commonproblems are comparatively rare; in 2009,23 percent of voucher holders reportedwater leaks, compared with 64 percent in 2001. Likewise, 17 percent reported“Those who relocatedto a traditional publichousing developmentreport almost no problems with theirhousing.”Program on Neighborhoods and Youth Development5problems with peeling paint, comparedwith 64 percent at baseline. Private marketrenters’ higher level of housing problemscould reflect the fact that these residentsare living in older buildings more likelyto have problems or that they are rentingfrom private landlords who fail to properlymaintain their properties.ImplicationsAfter the four-year follow-up of 2005, we questioned whether CHA’s Plan forTransformation would have a mixed legacyfor residents, with former residents who hadreceived vouchers or succeeded in movinginto mixed-income housing far better off,and those left behind in traditional publichousing still living in unacceptably poorconditions (Popkin 2010). In light of thoseearlier findings, the results from the 2009eight-year follow-up are truly stunning:regardless of where they live, CHA reloca-tees are now living in significantly betterhousing. The CHA has put considerabletime and effort into improving its remain-ing public housing developments, andthe investment appears to have paid off—the small percentage of respondents whoare still living in these developments reporthaving high-quality housing, often betterthan their counterparts now renting in theprivate market. Those in mixed-incomehousing and renting in the private markethave also realized substantial gains andrelatively few now report serious hazardsin their units. Perhaps the most strikingfinding is that the gains of voucher holdersthat were documented in 2005 have noteroded over time, suggesting these improve-ments are long-lasting.However, while these gains areextremely encouraging, the CHA needs toremain vigilant to ensure that conditionsdo not deteriorate again over time. The CHA must ensure that its traditionaldevelopments are well-managed andmaintained so that they remain decentplaces for its families to live. Theagency will need to sustain its currentmanagement oversight and lease-enforcement policies, as well as continueto provide adequate case managementand supportive services for residents.The CHA has a long history of manage-ment neglect; demonstrating that it canmaintain the quality of these newlyrehabilitated developments will helpthe agency overcome this legacy. Likewise, the CHA must take care toensure that its new mixed-income com-munities remain high-quality places tolive. Although the numbers are low, the200920052001Percent0255075858372605149403528955100Unassisted renterVoucherMixed-income public housingTraditional public housingFIGURE 4.  Respondents Reporting Two or More Housing Condition Problems by Housing Assistance in 2009 Sources: 2001, 2005, and 2009 Chicago Panel Study SampleNote: All changes from 2001 to 2009 are significant at the p < .05 level.Program on Neighborhoods and Youth Development6fact that residents are already reportingsuch problems as water leaks, mold,and broken heat is a concern and sug-gests that the agency will need to care-fully monitor the private managementcompanies responsible for maintenanceand upkeep. Finally, these findings suggest thatwhile most voucher holders are living in decent private market housing, somecontinue to experience serious housingproblems like mold, peeling paint andplaster, and water leaks. The CHA mustcontinue to monitor and improve itsHCV inspection system to ensure thatall residents are living in units thatmeet HUD’s housing quality standards.Further, the CHA should continue tooffer voucher holders access to mobilitycounseling and supportive services tohelp residents make more informedhousing choices.Notes1. All reported differences in means and proportionsare significant at the p < .10 level.2. For more information on the American HousingSurvey, see U.S. Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (2009).ReferencesPopkin, Susan J., Victoria E. Gwiasda, Lynn M. Olson,Dennis P. Rosenbaum, and Larry Buron. 2000. TheHidden War: Crime and the Tragedy of Public Housingin Chicago. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UniversityPress.Popkin, Susan J., Diane K. Levy, and Larry Buron. 2009.“Has HOPE VI Transformed Residents’ Lives?New Evidence from the HOPE VI Panel Study.”Housing Studies 24(4): 477–502.Popkin, Susan J. 2010. “A Glass Half Empty? NewEvidence from the HOPE VI Panel Study.” HousingPolicy Debate 20(1): 43–63.U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.2009. “2009 Instrument Items Booklet.” Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment. http://www.huduser.org/portal/datasets/ahs/ahsdata09.html.About the AuthorsLarry Buron is a senior associate in Abt Associates’Housing and CommunityRevitalization Area.Susan J. Popkin is directorof the Urban Institute’sProgram on Neighborhoodsand Youth Development anda senior fellow in theMetropolitan Housing andCommunities Policy Center. THE URBAN INSTITUTE2100 M Street, NWWashington, DC 20037The Chicago Panel StudyThe Chicago Panel Study is a follow-up to the five-site HOPE VI Panel Study, whichtracked resident outcomes from 2001 to 2005. The Chicago Panel Study continues totrack the residents from the Chicago Housing Authority’s Ida B. Wells Homes/WellsExtension and Madden Park Homes who were part of the original HOPE VI Panel sample.In October 2009, the CHA marked the 10th anniversary of the Plan for Transformation; thepurpose of the Chicago Panel Study is to track the circumstances of the families in theChicago HOPE VI Panel Study sample to assess how they are faring as the Plan forTransformation progresses.Revitalization activities began in Madden/Wells in mid- to late 2001, and the last residentswere relocated in August 2008. At the baseline in summer 2001, we surveyed a randomsample of 198 heads of household and conducted in-depth, qualitative interviews withseven adults and seven children. We conducted follow-up surveys and interviews for theHOPE VI Panel Study in 2003 (n = 174, response rate 88 percent) and 2005 (n = 165,response rate 83 percent). In 2009, when we attempted to track the original Madden/Wellssample for the Chicago Panel Study, we surveyed 136 heads of household (response rate69 percent) and conducted in-depth interviews with 9 adults and 9 children. The largestsource of attrition between 2001 and 2009 was mortality; we were able to locate, if notsurvey, nearly all original sample members in the 2009 follow-up.The principal investigator for the Chicago Panel Study is Susan J. Popkin, Ph.D., directorof the Urban Institute’s Program on Neighborhoods and Youth Development. Funding forthis research was provided by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Finally,we wish to thank the CHA, the many colleagues who have assisted with and commentedon this research, and most of all, the Chicago Panel Study respondents, who have so generously shared their stories with us for so many years.The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the UrbanInstitute, its trustees, or its funders.Permission is granted for reproduction of this document, with attribution to the UrbanInstitute.

Transformed Housing: Major Improvements in CHA Residents' Quality of Life

https://www.issuelab.org/resources/7734/7734.pdf

Transformed Housing: Major Improvements in CHA Residents' Quality of Life

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

IssueLab