Largest Percentage of Original Residents Were Relocated to Other Public Housing, and About Half Are Expected to Return to HOPE VI Sites

According to HUD data, the largest percentage of residents living at HOPE  VI sites were relocated to other public housing. Overall, grantees estimated that 46 percent of the original  residents 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. Resident Involvement in the HOPE VI Process Has Varied

The extent to which grantees involved residents in the HOPE VI process  has varied at the 1996 sites. All  of the 1996 grantees held meetings to inform residents about revitalization  plans and solicit their input. As the following examples illustrate,  some of the grantees we visited took additional steps to seek a greater level  of resident involvement in the HOPE VI process:   In Tucson, the housing authority first asked residents to vote on the  revitalization plan for the Connie Chambers site. However, for a number of  reasons, we could not determine the extent to which the HOPE VI program  was responsible for these changes. By Some Measures, HOPE VI Neighborhoods Have Experienced More Positive Change Than Neighborhoods with Comparable Public Housing

Comparison of four HOPE VI neighborhoods with neighborhoods in which  comparable public housing sites are located (comparable neighborhoods)  showed that HOPE VI neighborhoods experienced greater positive changes  in some, but not all, of the variables that we evaluated. Key contributors to this report are listed in Appendix V.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to examine (1) the types of housing to which the  original residents of HOPE VI sites were relocated and the number of  original residents that grantees expect to return to the revitalized sites, (2)  how the fiscal year 1996 grantees have involved residents in the HOPE VI  process, (3) the types of community and supportive services that have been  provided to residents and the results achieved, and (4) how the  neighborhoods surrounding the sites that received HOPE VI grants in fiscal  year 1996 have changed. In addition, as of June 30, 2003, the  majority of sites had not completed construction.
Why GAO Did This Study

Congress established the HOPE VI program in 1992 to revitalize severely distressed public housing by demolition, rehabilitation, or replacement of sites. In fiscal years 1993-2001, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awarded approximately $4.5 billion for 165 HOPE VI revitalization grants to public housing authorities (grantees). GAO was asked to examine (1) the types of housing to which the original residents of HOPE VI sites were relocated and the number of original residents that grantees expect to return to the revitalized sites, (2) how the fiscal year 1996 grantees have involved residents in the HOPE VI process, and (3) how the neighborhoods surrounding the 20 sites that received HOPE VI grants in fiscal year 1996 have changed.

What GAO Found

The largest percentage of the approximately 49,000 residents that had been relocated from HOPE VI sites, as of June 30, 2003, were relocated to other public housing, and about half were expected to return to the revitalized sites. Although grantees, overall, expected 46 percent of relocated residents to return, the percentage of original residents that were expected to return (or the reoccupancy rate) varied greatly from site to site. The level of resident involvement in the HOPE VI process varied at the 1996 sites. While all of the 1996 grantees held meetings to inform residents about revitalization plans and solicit their input, some took additional steps to involve residents. For example, in Tucson, the housing authority submitted the revitalization plan for the Connie Chambers site to the city council for approval only after the residents had voted to approve it. The neighborhoods in which 1996 HOPE VI sites are located generally have experienced improvements in indicators such as education, income, and housing, although GAO could not determine the extent to which the HOPE VI program contributed to these changes. In a comparison of four 1996 HOPE VI neighborhoods to four comparable neighborhoods, mortgage lending activity increased to a greater extent in three of the HOPE VI neighborhoods. But, a comparison of other variables (such as education and new construction) produced inconsistent results, with HOPE VI neighborhoods experiencing both greater positive and negative changes than comparable neighborhoods.