; The University of Pittsburgh
Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

The University of Pittsburgh

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 53

  • pg 1
									HOPE VI Evaluation Report on Oak Hill
 Community Revitalization Program




     Hide Yamatani, Ph.D., MSW, MBA
 Community Enhancement Research Network
School of Social Work University of Pittsburgh
                 June 6, 2002
                             Table of Contents

Executive Summary                                         i

Section I. Introduction                                   1

     A. HOPE VI Mission                                   2
     B. HOPE VI and New Features                          4
     C. Evaluation of Oak Hill’s HOPE VI Initiative       2

Section I. Profile of HOPE VI Residents in Oak Hill      5

     A. Aggregate Profile                                 6
     B. Income Profile
     C. Race/ethnic Profile                              7
     D. Eviction                                         7
     E. Public Transportation                            7
     F. Total building cost                              7
     G. Total Cost for Social Service                    7

Section III. HOPE VI Resident Survey                      8

     A. Demographic Information                           9

           1. Residency in Hill District
           2. Age Distribution of Heads of Households
           3. Race/Ethnic Distribution
           4. Educational Level
           5. Marital Status
           6. Employment Status
           7. Children Living in the Household
           8. DPW Temporary Assistance Clients
           9. Job Training and Education Programs
          10. Training completion rate

     B. Over all satisfaction with services offered to
         residents of Allequippa Terrace                 14
     C. Assessment of Services provided by
          Housing Opportunities Unlimited                16
     D. Assessment of services offered by HOU            17
     E. Additional Evaluative Assessment                 18
     F. Neighborhood Safety                              19
     G. Illicit Drug Abuse                               20
     H. Resident/Family Empowerment                      21
      I. Tenant Council                                  22
     J. Community Meeting Attendance                     25
Section IV. Responses to Open-ended Questions                  26

     A. Feeling about Current Housing Situation                27
     B. Feeling about Current Housing Situation Compared
        to 12 months ago                                       28
     C. Service Adequacy                                       29
     D. Cultural/Racial/Gender Respect                         30
     E. Recommendation for Improving Services                  31
     F. Services Needed Right Now                              32
     G. Reasons for Not Using Services                         33


Section V. Program Administrators, Outreach Workers and
           Social Service Providers Assessment                 34

     A. Income Integration                                     35
     B. Physical integration with neighborhood                 36
     C. Self-sufficiency Program                               37
     D. Community Safety                                       38

Section VI. Overall Summary and Conclusion                     37

Section VII. Consulted Bibliography                            41

Appendix 1: Factors Associated with Successful Collaboration   43

     A. Critical Factors Influencing Collaboration Outcome
     B. Essential elements for a successful Collaboration

Appendix 2: Community Enhancement Research Network
            School of Social Work University of Pittsburgh     46
                               Executive Summary
        The major mission of HOPE VI initiative is to revitalize the nation's most
severely distressed public housing facilities and communities. The US Congress and
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) created the HOPE VI grant
program in 1992 to provide a major source of support for investment in public housing
and to support residents in need of community-based social services. Since 1993, HOPE
VI has conducted major surgery on devastated communities through decisive public
housing reform, and by practicing and emulating collaborative strategies to transform the
nation's poorest public housing into mixed-income urban communities (The U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999; The Housing Research
Foundation, 2000). Oak Hill’s HOPE VI Initiative was implemented by Beacon/Corcoran
Jennison Partners in collaboration with the Allequippa Terrace Resident Council,
Housing Outreach Unlimited, the City of Pittsburgh and a number of community based
organizations.

        Based on the findings of this evaluation study, the HOPE VI initiative in Oak Hill
is improving the living environment for public housing residents through the demolition,
rehabilitation, reconfiguration, and replacement of obsolete public housing. Additionally,
revitalized housing in Oak Hill is contributing to the improvement of the surrounding
neighborhoods. Although future challenges surely await, the HOPE VI housing initiative
has dispersed the concentration of very low-income families, and has contributed to the
building of a positive community atmosphere.

        The community of Oak Hill, Allequippa Terrace was one of the most socially
isolated communities in the City of Pittsburgh. The pattern of housing development
required the creation of streets that did not exist prior to the development. These streets
provide a more "open" community feeling and integrate Oak Hill into the rest of the Hill
District and West Oakland. The number of individuals relocated from public housing to
new housing units (350) represents 65% of resident members (538). The income
distribution of those who have been relocated is mixed.

        How do residents feel about their housing situations? An overwhelming majority
of residents responded with positive comments about their HOPE VI housing, such as “the
housing is wonderful, peaceful, quiet, a good change,” “I feel good about my house,” and
“right now the neighborhood is a safe place to live.”

        Residents were also asked "how do you feel about your housing situation right now
compared to 12 months ago?" Once again, their responses were generally positive.
Responses included: “better neighborhood, and some of the neighbors are very nice and
want a good community,” cleaner, safer, quiet,” “I feel a lot better about this place than I
did over a year ago,” “love the housing now,” and “decent, private, larger, better.” There
were relatively few negative comments. Examples include, “the housing is better except
for a lot of rules and regulations dictating how to live,” and “when I first moved to 259
there was not that many kids, now it’s too many.” Only a few residents indicated that they
wanted to move out of the Oak Hill community.


                                                                                         2
       Residents were asked to what extent services offered through HOPE VI meet their
needs. Most responses to this question, both quantitative and qualitative, were positive.
There were at least 33 major services offered to the Allequippa Terrace residents to
prepare them for changes in welfare policies and to capitalize on new opportunities.

         Housing Opportunities Unlimited (HOU) outreach workers also provide
facilitative assistance to Oak Hill residents in need of various services. The vast majority
of the Oak Hill residents are familiar with HOU (95.5%). A total of 17 major services
were offered by HOU to the residents of Allequippa Terrace during years 2000 and 2001.
The top-rated services include: relocation assistance, food assistance, job
development/employment, assistance reporting problems with new units, information
about housekeeping, and information on programs in the community.

        The majority of residents (89%) feel that they are safe in their neighborhoods – an
unexpected finding among public housing residents. Similarly, a majority of the sampled
residents feel there is less illicit drug use (63.9%) and less drug trafficking in the
neighborhood (66.3%) compared to 12 months ago. In addition, the majority of Oak Hill
residents feel that they: are better informed about available services and resources; have
greater access to community resources; and are better at supporting themselves and their
family members than they were a year ago. A significant number of respondents (69.5%)
also felt that their family's issues and problems were addressed appropriately and in a
timely fashion (69.2%) by community service providers.

        In contrast, only a slight majority indicated that they have been involved in
discussions about services provided to this community within the last year, and only
46.9% of the respondents indicated that they have been asked for their opinions regarding
the identification of services/resources needed in the community. The residents reported
being familiar with the Allequippa Terrace Resident Council due to information obtained
from communication flyers, friends, the Housing Authority and HOU, and through use of
sponsored services. A majority of respondents indicated that they believe the Tenant
Council's purposes include resident representation, provision of important information,
and to find solutions to common problems in the neighborhood.

       Slightly over one-half (51.4%) of the respondents indicated that they attend
community meetings. Over the last year, community residents attended an average of 16
meetings (median value) -- of those who attended at least one meeting or more. They
were notified of the community meetings by flyers (64.8%), mail (20.7%), friends
(14.5%), and Council members (6.1%). Slightly over one in ten (12.3%) indicated that
they were unaware of the community meetings.

        In view of the fact that currently there are 241 children (ages 18 or younger) in
Oak Hill, the need for a playground and other recreational facilities is evident. This
suggestion surfaced repeatedly in the resident survey and in discussions held with a focus
group of residents.




                                                                                         3
I. Introduction
       A. HOPE VI Mission
       B. HOPE VI and New Features
       C. Evaluation of Oak Hill’s HOPE VI Initiative

        Revitalizing severely distressed public housing is a daunting national task
beleaguered with difficulties and challenges. Serious design flaws, such as high resident
densities as well as inadequately sized and unsafe units, typify most of the facilities
targeted for revitalization. Most of the evaluations conducted by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) during the early 1990s indicated that the
physical condition of almost one-half of the nation's public housing facilities was "poor"
or "very poor." Other studies have identified critical management problems with public
housing such as frequent turnover of local housing directors and resident council
members. In 1992, two-thirds of HUD grantees across the nation were listed as
“troubled” public housing authorities (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 1999).

       To exacerbate these challenges, a majority of the nation’s 1.3 million public
housing residents are among America's poorest and most vulnerable population --
inadequately educated heads of household who are often unemployed. During the early
1990s, income from public assistance supported 84 percent of public housing occupants
(The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999; The Housing Research
Foundation, 2000).


A. HOPE VI Mission

        The HOPE VI program was developed as a result of recommendations by the
National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing, which was charged with
proposing a National Action Plan to eradicate the severe distress of public housing
communities. The Commission recommended revitalization under the HOPE IV umbrella
in three general areas: physical improvements, management improvements, and social
and community services to address resident needs.

        Specifically, the mission of HOPE VI is to revitalize the nation's most severely
distressed public housing facilities and communities. The US Congress and Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) created the HOPE VI grant program to
provide a major source of support for investment in public housing, and to assist residents
in need of community-based social services. Since 1993, HOPE VI has been the US
laboratory of public housing reform, practicing and emulating collaborative strategies to
transform the nation's worst public housing into mixed-income, urban communities.
Public housing authorities (PHAs) that operate public housing units are eligible to apply
for HOPE VI funds. Indian housing authorities and section 8-only authorities, however,




                                                                                         4
are not eligible for HOPE VI support (Norfolk Redevelopment and housing Authority,
2002).

        HOPE VI was designed to incorporate a variety of approaches for achieving its
mission, including: the development of mixed-income communities, demolition and
renovation of current developments, deconcentration and dispersion, emphasis on family
self-sufficiency, and resident management of properties. More specifically, the major
goals of the HOPE VI initiative are:

        1. Improving the living environment for public housing residents of
           severely distressed public housing projects through the demolition,
           rehabilitation, reconfiguration, or replacement of obsolete public
           housing projects;

        2. Revitalizing sites on which such public housing projects are located
           and contributing to the improvement of the surrounding neighborhood;

        3. Providing housing that will avoid or decrease the concentration of very
           low-income families; and

        4. Building sustainable communities.

        Between inception of the program and Fiscal Year 2001, a total of over $4.8
billion in funds was awarded to 146 housing authorities in 37 states, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The awards for fiscal years 1993-2001
have funded demolition of over 115,000 severely distressed public housing units, and
produced almost 66,000 revitalized dwellings (The U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, 2002).


B. HOPE VI and New Features

        According to the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
(2002), through its HOPE VI program, HUD is using public housing money to leverage
private investment in new contemporary-style, lower-density developments that include
market-rate housing and commercial projects. The idea, according to HUD officials, is to
"break the monoculture" of traditional public housing, which mostly involved
warehousing poor families living on public assistance, by opening the housing field to
mixed-use development and mixed-income housing. In addition to demolishing obsolete
public housing units and replacing them with new public housing, HOPE VI facilitates
low-income housing tax credit and offers market-rate rental and homeownership units.
Rather than isolating the poorest urban residents in stand-alone high-rise buildings, the
new approach to public housing is opening the door to more contemporary townhouse
complexes with socially and economically enriching "quality of life amenities” (US
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999; The National Housing &
Rehabilitation Association, 2002).


                                                                                       5
        HUD officials believe that public housing will become an inspirational and
transitional avenue for those who want to move to self-sufficiency. By encouraging
private development to enter the initiative, HUD maintains that federal money can act as
a much more powerful attraction for inner-city investing. Since the program's launch in
1993, HUD reports that $4 billion in federal money has already brought $6.7 billion in
private investment -- money that has supported a variety of projects, from refurbishing
local factories to building multi-million dollar magnet schools. "The impact on residents
of public housing has been profound,” HUD officials report. "In the seven-year life of the
program, nearly 3,500 public housing residents have left welfare and more than 6,500
have found jobs." While it is clear that recent welfare reform in general has affected
those numbers, it is also clear that a new chapter has arrived when it comes to public
housing in the United States (John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University, 2002).


C. Evaluation of Oak Hill’s HOPE VI Initiative

       Oak Hill’s HOPE VI Initiative was conducted by Beacon/Corcoran Jennison
Partners in collaboration with the Allequippa Terrace Resident Council, Housing
Outreach Unlimited (HOU), the City of Pittsburgh, and a number of community-based
organizations.

       The evaluation of the Oak Hill HOPE VI project is founded on several major
guiding principals, including collaboration among stakeholders, a commitment to the
perspectives of strength-based assessment, cultural sensitivity and competence, and
humanistic treatment of community residents. The evaluation report is divided into five
major sections: (1) Profile of HOPE VI residents in Oak Hill; (2) HOPE VI residents’
survey; (3) responses to open-ended questions; (4) program administrator, outreach
worker and service provider assessment; and (5) overall summary and conclusion.




                                                                                        6
II. Profile of HOPE VI Residents in Oak Hill
    A. Aggregate Profile
    B. Income Profile
    C. Race/Ethnicity Profile
    D. Eviction
    E. Public Transportation
    F. Total Building Cost
    G. Total Cost for Social Service




                                               7
     The following list describes the current demographic profile of the Oak Hill
Community (as of April, 2002).

A. Aggregate Profile

   1. Total number of housing units built with HOPE VI funding…632

   2. Total number of housing units to be built with HOPE VI funding during the year
      2002…150

   3. Total number of housing units to be built with HOPE VI funding beyond the year
      2002… 86

   4. Current total number of new housing residents (heads of household only)…297

   5. Current total number of all residents/family members in new housing… 538

   6. Current total number of children ages 18 or younger…241

   7. Current total number of individuals relocating from public housing to
      new housing units… 350

   8. Current total number of people on the waiting list for new housing (public
      housing residents)… 145

   9. Current total number of people on the waiting list for new housing (non-public
      housing/market rate residents)… 132


B. Income Profile

          1. Average income of employed residents:

                  a. Full-time… $19,582
                  b. Part-time… $7,991
                  c. SSI … $7,997

          2. Percentages of annual household income for the following categories:

                       a. Less than $12,000     56%
                       b. $12,001 - $18,000     18%
                       c. $18,001 - $24,000     19%
                       d. $24,001- $36,000       5%
                       e. $36,000+               2%




                                                                                       8
C. Race/Ethnicity Profile

       African American 97.9%
       White 1.7%
       Other 0.3%


D. Eviction

      Total number of evictions during 2001:

              a. Drug related violations… 2
              b. Rent payment difficulty …3
              c. Other 4 (in a single incident, 3 teens fired guns at an HACP police
                 officer, and illegal occupancy)

E. Public Transportation

          Total number of bus stop locations …12

          Available bus lines … 81A 84A 84C

F. Total Building Cost … $116,000,000

G. Total Cost for Social Services … $3,286,000




                                                                                       9
III. HOPE VI Resident Survey
    A. Demographic Information
    B. Overall Satisfaction with Services Offered
        to Residents of Allequippa Terrace
    C. Assessment of Services Provided by
        Housing Opportunities Unlimited
    D. Assessment of Services Offered by HOU
    E. Additional Evaluative Assessment
    F. Neighborhood Safety
    G. Illicit Drug Abuse
    H. Resident/Family Empowerment
    I. Tenant Council
    J. Community Meeting Attendance




                                                    10
       The Oak Hill HOPE VI Residents' Survey was designed with a special emphasis
on major evaluation questions that originated from community stakeholders and
inclusion of community participation in the research process. The survey instrument was
reviewed by Allequippa Terrace Resident Council members, selected HOPE VI
residents (through a focus group and pre-test session), City of Pittsburgh representatives,
staff members of Beacon/Corcoran Jennison and Housing Outreach Unlimited,
community service providers of the Oak Hill residents, and members of the University
of Pittsburgh Community Outreach Partnership Center (COPC). Thus, a number of
individuals played significant roles in the development and refinement of the instrument.
Needless to say, this process was quite time-consuming, taking longer than was initially
anticipated (approximately 12 months). The major data gathering activities occurred
during the summer and early fall of 2001. A sample of 184 respondents from HOPE VI
households was gathered based on random selection of street addresses. Thus, on
average, more than 6 out of every 10 households (61%) were randomly selected for
inclusion in the study. Seven individuals residing in Hill District or with substantial
work experience with the community were hired and trained to conduct door-to-door
interviews with self-declared heads of household.

A. Demographic Information

       1. Residency in the Hill District

       The median length of residency in the community among the surveyed HOPE VI
residents is 14.7 years. Slightly more than one-third (34.8%) of the heads of household
have lived in the Hill District for 3 years or less. Thus, a majority of the HOPE VI
residents have lived in the Hill District for 10 years or longer.

       2. Age Distribution of Heads of Household

       Not quite one-fourth of the respondents (24.3%) are 40 years of age or younger,
and only about one in twenty (5.2%) are 30 years of age or younger. The median age is
51. Approximately one in five (20.2%) are ages 65 or older (see Chart IIIA2).

              Chart IIIA2: Age distribution of the heads of household

            40 or younger                                      24.3%


                 41 to 50                                      23.7%


                 51 to 64                                                31.8%


              65 or older                              20.2%




                                                                                         11
       3. Race/Ethnicity Distribution

        The racial distribution of the Oak Hill HOPE VI respondents mirrors the racial
distribution of the Hill District community as a whole. Nearly all (96.1%) of the survey
participants are African American (several, however, reported that they prefer to be
referred to as Black Americans).

                         Chart IIIA3: Race/Ethnicity Distribution

                Black                                            96.1%


               White     1.7%


             Hispanic   0.6%


                Other     2.8%




       4. Educational Level

       Nearly one-half (48%) of the surveyed residents had not extended their education
beyond high school, and 11.3% did not have a high school diploma. In contrast, nearly
one in five (21.8%) had at least some college. This heterogeneous distribution of
residents by educational level supports the HOPE VI goal of decreasing concentrations of
very low-income, uneducated families (see Chart IIIA4).


                Chart IIIA4: Educational Level Distribution (n= 184)

             Up to elementary
                                 2.2%
                  school

                  Junior High
                                        9.1%
                    school

             Some high school                  18.9%

              Completed high
                                                                    48.0%
                 school

                    Some
                                               18.9%
              college/training

              College graduate
                                 2.9%
                 or higher




                                                                                      12
       5. Marital Status

        The marital status distribution of the respondents also mirrors the Hill District
community as a whole. As Chart IIIA5 shows, the vast majority of the respondents are
single, divorced or separated. Many, however, associate closely with someone
identifiable as a significant other.

                                         Chat IIA5: Marital Status

                   Married             6.1%


  Single/divorced/separated
                                                                                     93.9%




       6. Employment Status

       In regard to employment status, more than one-third (38.5%) of the respondents
are employed full- or part-time (see Chart IIIA6). Excluding individuals who are retired
or unable to work, the actual rate of employment is 41.8%. Similarly, the relative
percentage of those who are unemployed and looking for work is 8.4%.

                              Chart IIIA6: Employment Status
                    (including those who are retired and/or unable to work)

       Working full-time (for pay)                                                           27.5%

      Working part-time (for pay)                            11.0%

                              Retired                            13.2%

           Not Working by choice               3.8%

                 Looking for work                     7.7%

                   Unable to work                                            21.4%

                               Other                                 15.4%




                                                                                                     13
       7. Children Living in the Household

        Three-quarters of the households surveyed (75.5%) include children. The term
“children” refers to respondents’ own children, foster care children and grandchildren.
Based on the selected calculation method, nearly one-third (32.6%) of the households
include children ages 5 or younger. It should be noted that the total percentage in chart
IIIA7 exceeds 100% due to households with children in two or more age categories. In
other words, if a household includes children ages 5 and 16, they are both counted in the
chart distribution.


                      Chart IIIA7: Children Living in the Household

            Ages 5 or younger
                                              32.6%


                  Ages 6 to 17                              53.8%


               Age 18 or older                   38.0%


            Total (all children)                                     75.5%




       8. DPW Temporary Assistance Clients

        As shown nationally, HOPE VI residents’ dependence on public welfare is
significantly lower than in the early 1990s when nearly 80% of the nation’s public
housing residents were welfare clients. This may be due in part to the welfare to work
national policy (enacted by Congress in 1996 as the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act). Under this policy, heads of household of former welfare
dependent families are required to work or to look for work from the first day of
assistance. Welfare aid is restricted for heads of household to 60 months in a lifetime,
and these adults must find work within 24 months after determination of eligibility as a
condition for receiving cash assistance and food stamps. This national policy, coupled
with the HOPE VI efforts to provide housing units to mixed income families, seem to
have resulted in noticeably reduced numbers of families on temporary welfare assistance.


                            Chart IIIA8: Temporary DPW clients?
                                                         79.8%

                                   20.2%


                                    Yes                   No




                                                                                       14
       9. Job Training and Education Programs

       As the following chart shows, relatively few respondents (14.7%) were enrolled
in job training or educational programs during the past 24 months. This distribution
excludes those individuals who reported being retired or unable to work. This finding
may be impacted by the fact that, as reported previously, a noticeable number of the
respondents were employed at the time of the survey (41.8%).

             Chart IIIA9: Within the past 24 months (including now)
            were you enrolled in a job training or educational program?

                                                    85.3%

                           14.7%

                            Yes                      No




       10. Training Completion Rate

       As shown below, of those who enrolled in job training or educational programs,
the majority (80%) successfully completed the programs. This suggests that when
residents enroll in this type of programming, there is a good chance for successful
completion.


                      Chart IIIA10: Training completion rate
                           80.0%

                                                    20.0%


                        Yes-completed             No/Not yet




                                                                                    15
B. Overall Satisfaction with Services Offered
  to Residents of Allequippa Terrace

        As the following chart indicates, at least 33 major HOPE IV services are offered
to Allequippa Terrace residents. The overall average rating of these services was 3.2 out
of a possible 5, where 1 = not helpful at all, and 5 = very helpful. The 10 most highly
rated services include: food bank, Wadsworth Hall summer day camp (ages 6-13), annual
trip to Kennywood, summer lunch program, Matilda Theiss health education programs
(55+), life skills – Teri Johnson (adult), after-school programming (ages 6-13), Project
Tutor/tutoring program (ages 6-13), homeownership preparation classes (adult), and
computer training programs (ages 6-13).

              Chart IIIB1a: Overall Satisfaction with Services Offered to
                       Residents of Allequippa Terrace (part a)
                      (Code: 5=Very Helpful; 1=Not helpful at all)

                                        Food Bank (adult)                        4.13

         Wadsworth Hall Summer Day Camp (ages 6-13)                            3.91


                     Annual trip to Kennywood (all ages)                       3.89


                                  Summer Lunch Program                        3.82


          Matilda Theiss Health Education Programs (55+)                  3.70


                         Life Skills – Teri Johnson (adult)               3.68

                       After-School Program (ages 6-13)                  3.59

              Project Tutor/Tutoring Program (ages 6-13)                3.53


              Homeownership Preparation Classes(adult)                  3.50


                 Computer Training Programs(ages 6-13)                 3.48

                           KDT Driver’s Training (adult)               3.47


                                         Job Links (adult)             3.46


            Community Transportation Services (all ages)               3.46


                 National Night Out Activities(ages 6-18)              3.43


               Computer Training Programs (ages 13-18)                 3.42


          Program to teach adults to use computers (adult)             3.42


                 Allequippa Respite Care Program (adult)               3.42




                                                                                        16
        In contrast, the 10 lowest rated services (scoring less than 3.0) include the music
program (ages 6-13), healthcare training (adult), House of the Crossroads drug and
alcohol prevention (adult), LIFE Pittsburgh health education classes (55+), St. Francis
health education discussions (55+), the Living at Home program (55+), podiatry/foot
service (55+), St. Francis health education programs (55+), quilting class (ages 6-13), and
the Wadsworth poster contest.

              Chart IIIB1b: Overall Satisfaction with Services Offered to
                 Residents of Allequippa Terrace (continued-part b)
                     (Code: 5= Very Helpful; 1= Not helpful at all)


                      Community Service Picnic (all ages)                           3.42


          Youth Drug and Alcohol Prevention (ages 13-18)                          3.27


                                Teen Program(ages 13-18)                          3.23


              Job training in computer related field (adult)                     3.17


                         Construction Job Training (adult)                       3.16


                      University of Pittsburgh Job Training                  3.03


                               Music Program (ages 6-13)                   2.89


                               Healthcare Training (adult)                 2.88

                House of the Crossroads Drug and Alcohol
                                                                          2.80
                            Prevention (adult)

            LIFE Pittsburgh Health Education Classes (55+)            2.63


            St. Francis Health Education Discussions (55+)          2.52


                            Living at Home Program (55+)            2.52


                                Podiatry/Foot Service (55+)         2.50


              St. Francis Health Education Programs (55+)          2.41


                                 Quilting Class (ages 6-13)        2.38


                                 Wadsworth poster contest         2.33




                                                                                           17
C. Assessment of Services provided by
   Housing Opportunities Unlimited

         The Housing Opportunities Unlimited (HOU) outreach workers provide
facilitative assistance to Oak Hill residents in need of various services, including those
needing services related to housing issues and complaints. HOU facilitates resident
social activities and advocacy for residential interests and preferences. The vast majority
of the Oak Hill residents are familiar with HOU (95.5%). Residents indicated that they
learned of HOU through use of services (52%), from the Housing Authority (33.3%) and
from friends (22.2%). Most of the sampled residents (88.8%) knew the name of their
HOU case manager/outreach worker. Respondents met with HOU outreach workers
within the past six months a median of 3.4 times.

                           Chart IIIC1: How did you learn of HOU?

                             I use their services                                                   52.0%

                                   Tenant Council                      18.1%

                      I have never heard of HOU          1.2%

                                  A friend told me                         22.2%

                                Housing Authority                                   33.3%

                                       I saw a flyer               13.5%

              I know someone who works there                                          35.7%



                Note: Distribution exceeds 100% due to questionnaire option of checking all that apply.


       Over 80% of the Oak Hill residents rated assistance received from their HOU
outreach worker as good/helpful to very good/helpful. Only 7.4% rated their assistance
as poor/unhelpful to very poor/unhelpful (see Chart IIIC3).

                   Chart IIIC2: Helpfulness of HOU outreach workers
                       Very                                                                               62.9%
                Good/Helpful

                Good/Helpful                           18.3%

                     Not sure                11.4%

               Poor/Unhelpful       2.3%

          Very Poor/Unhelpful         5.1%




                                                                                                                  18
D. Assessment of services offered by HOU

        A total of 17 major services were offered by HOU to the residents of Allequippa
Terrace during the years 2000 and 2001. The top-rated services include: relocation
assistance, food assistance, job development/employment, assistance reporting problems
with new units, information about housekeeping, and information on programs in the
community.


                Chart IIID1: Helpfulness rating of services offered by HOU
                                    (Code: 5= Very helpful; 1= Not helpful at all)


          Relocation Assistance                                                                               4.3


                Food Assistance                                                                               4.2

                 Job
                                                                                                        3.8
       Development/Employment
       Report problems with new
                  unit                                                                                3.7

              Information about                                                                       3.7
                housekeeping
        Information on programs
                                                                                                      3.7
            in this community
        To discuss what you like                                                                  3.6
         about this community

              Conflict resolution                                                                 3.6


                    Job Training                                                                3.5

          To discuss problems in
                                                                                                3.5
               community

           Education Assistance                                                             3.4


                     Counseling                                                           3.3

        Report problems with old
                                                                                    3.2
                  unit

             Clothing Assistance                                                    3.1

             Drug and Alcohol
            Assistance/Referral                                                 3.1

            Furniture Assistance                                              3.0

              Mental Health
                                                                        2.8
            Assistance/Referral




        In contrast, relatively lower ratings in regard to helpfulness were issued to:
clothing assistance, drug and alcohol assistance referral, furniture assistance and mental



                                                                                                                    19
health assistance referral. The overall average rating across the 17 services identified was
3.5 -- an adequately positive rating.


E. Additional Evaluative Assessment

         As the following charts indicate, the majority of Oak Hill residents feel that they
(a) are better informed about available services and resources; (b) have greater access to
community resources; and (c) are better at supporting themselves and their family
members than they were a year ago.


               Chart IIIE1: Are you better informed about the services
               and resources available to you than you were a year ago?

                              76.0%

                                                         24.0%


                               Yes                        No




                Chart IIIE2: Do you feel that you have greater access to
                   community resources than you did a year ago?

                              75.7%

                                                         24.3%


                               Yes                        No




              Chart IIIE3: Do you feel that you are better at supporting
                      yourself and your family than a year ago?

                              69.5%

                                                         30.5%



                               Yes                         No




                                                                                          20
       A majority of respondents (69.5%) also felt that their family’s issues and
problems were responded to appropriately, and in a timely fashion (69.2%). In contrast,
only a slight majority indicated that they have been involved in discussions about
services provided to this community within the last year. More specifically, only 46.9%
of the respondents indicated that they have been asked for their opinion regarding
services/resources needed in the community.

F. Neighborhood Safety

        One well-known issue among public housing residents is neighborhood safety.
The HOPE VI policies, rules and regulations were designed to directly address this issue
in a manner that is considered by many to be appropriate, but by some to be "assertive"
and even "unreasonable." Many HOPE VI regulations follow a rule of "one strike and
you are out." Anyone, for example, caught with an illicit drug violation is swiftly evicted.
There is a very low tolerance for violence among residents, both youth and adult. Crimes
committed in the residential area are met with quick disciplinary action. Such “stringent”
rules and regulations are preferred by the majority of residents, housing council members,
and other community stakeholders.

       As the following chart indicates, the vast majority of residents (89%) feel that
they are safe in their neighborhood. Such a rating by residents living in public housing is
unexpected.

                 Chart IIIF1: Do you feel safe in your neighborhood?

                             89.0%




                                                         11.0%


                              Yes                         No




       The residents also reported that they: (a) feel their door locks are secure (83.9%);
and (b) are aware of programs related to neighborhood safety (61.6%). A majority of the
residents, however, have not participated in programs related to safety in their
neighborhood (70.2%).

       The residents were also asked to indicate which agency or agencies they have
used in the last year to report problems when they felt unsafe in the neighborhood.
Respondents indicated that they reported problems to Beacon/Corcoran Jennison
(31.7%), police (27.6%), HOU (20%), management (11%), the tenant Council (10.3%)
and others.


                                                                                          21
G. Illicit Drug Abuse

        A common concern among public housing residents and council members is illicit
drug abuse and visible drug trafficking within the neighborhood. As noted, HOPE VI
policies and regulations were designed to evict drug abusers and traffickers. The study
findings suggest that this strategy is having a direct positive impact on such problems.
Charts IIIG1 and 2 show, compared to 12 months ago, the majority of sampled residents
feel there is less illicit drug use (63.9%) and less drug trafficking in the neighborhood
(66.3%).



                 Chart IIIG1: Compared to 12 months ago, do you feel
       there is less, the same or more illicit drug usage in your neighborhood?


              Less drug usage                                            63.9%


                  About same                      27.1%


              More drug usage      9.0%




                Chart IIIG2: Compared to 12 months ago, do you feel
         there is less, the same or more drug dealing in your neighborhood?



           Less drug usage                                             66.3%


               About same                 23.8%


           More drug usage       10.0%




        These findings affirm the belief of many residents that an effective way to control
drug abuse and trafficking in the neighborhood is to "get tough" by making the
consequences of violation severe. Media coverage of evictions associated with drug
possession and sales among HOPE VI neighborhoods may also be having a positive
impact.



                                                                                         22
H. Resident/Family Empowerment

    Many respondents suggested that one way to improve the neighborhood would be to
build a playground for young children. As the following chart indicates, the vast majority
of respondents feel there is not an adequate play area for children of the community
(85.9%).


              Chart IIIF1: Is there an adequate playground for your children?

                                                       85.9%




                                     14.1%


                                      Yes                No




        A core paradigm of the HOPE VI initiative is the empowerment of residents and
tenant council members to express their views, opinions and preferences related to their
housing. Thus, questions related to how services are provided to the residents and their
family members were included on the survey.


                   Chart IIIF2: Responses to resident empowerment questions
                        (Code: 5 = Strongly Agree; 1 = Strongly Disagree)


        When I need help with
     problems in my family, I am                                                           4.1
         able to ask for help


  I know the rights of my family
     are regarding services we                                                      3.9
              receive


   I am able to work with service
   agencies and professionals to                                              3.8
    decide what services I need


   I make sure that professionals
     did understand my opinions                                                      4.0
     about what services I need


   The housing service providers
    made me feel that I have the
                                                                        3.7
   right to approve all services I
              receive




                                                                                                 23
        As the previous chart shows, respondents generally feel that they are empowered
to affect their living conditions under the HOPE VI initiative. The highest empowerment
rating is in reference to the statements, "when I need help with problems in my family, I
am able to ask for help" and "I make sure that professionals understand my opinions
about what services I need." An overall average rating of 3.9 for the empowerment
questions is relatively positive. In agreement with these findings, the vast majority of
residents (88.3%) indicated that they have not been mistreated by service providers.


             Chart IIIF4: Have you been mistreated by service provider(s)?

                                                         88.3%



                               11.7%


                                Yes                           No




I. Tenant Council

       The residents were asked to express their opinions of the Allequippa Terrace
Resident Council. An extremely high number of residents (90.5%) indicated that they had
heard of the Council for Oak Hill (see Chart IIIG1).



              Chart IIIG1: Have you heard of the Allequippa Terrace
                 Resident Council, Tenant Council or the Board?

                             90.5%



                                                       9.5%

                              Yes                       No




                                                                                       24
       The residents reported that they became familiar with the Council due to
information obtained from communication flyers, friends, the Housing Authority and
HOU, and through use of sponsored services (see Chart IIIG2). A majority of
respondents also indicated that they believe the Tenant Council's purposes include
resident representation, provision of important information, and finding solutions to
common problems in the neighborhood (see Chart IIIG3).

                 Chart IIIG2: How did you learn of the Tenant Council


                                  I use their service                 11.9%

                                Housing Authority                             18.6%

                                         I saw a flyer                                              39.5%

                                    A friend told me                                       31.6%

           I know someone who sits on the Board                                  21.5%

         I have never heard of the Tenant Council             4.0%

                                                 HOU                      15.3%

                                                Other              9.0%




      Chart IIIG3: What do you believe is the purpose of the Tenant Council?


            To represent the residents of Allequippa
                                                                                                    77.9%
                             Terrace
               To provide residents with important
                                                                                                   73.8%
                           information
          To act as a liaison between the HACP and
                                                                                   45.6%
                            residents
         To find solutions to common problems in
                                                                                           59.1%
                     the neighborhood
          To assist HOU to provide quality resident
                                                                                   45.6%
          and social services in the neighborhood

                      To host Community Meetings                                      48.5%


                          To provide entertainment                    20.0%

         I don’t believe that the Tenant Council has
                                                                     18.7%
                           a purpose


               Note: Distribution exceeds 100% due to questionnaire option of checking all that apply.




                                                                                                            25
        The respondents were also asked if they knew who the current President of the
Tenant Council was. Nearly one-half (48.2%) indicated correctly that Delfonte Ellis is the
President, while most others (48.8%) reported that they did not know. A majority
(65.3%) indicated that they voted in the last Tenant Council election. They heard that
elections were being held through flyers (45.7%), from friends (16.1%), by mail (12.1%)
and from Council members. In contrast, nearly one-quarter (22.4%) indicated that they
were not notified of the election.


            Chart IIIG4: Did you vote in the last Tenant Council election?

                                                                 65.3%

                                    34.7%



                                     Yes                          No




           Chart IIIG5: How did you hear that elections were being held?


          Flyer posted in the neighborhood                               45.7%

                          My friend told me              16.1%

              I wasn’t notified of elections                  22.4%

                     I received a phone call   1.7%

                                    By mail           12.1%

           Someone on the Council told me        6.3%

                                       Other          11.5%




        The Oak Hill residents reported that they would like to be notified of elections in
the future by mail (56.7%), flyers (40%), and through other means (phone calls, Council
members, etc.).




                                                                                              26
J. Community Meeting Attendance

        Slightly over one-half (51.4%) of the respondents indicated that they attend
community meetings. For those who went to at least one meeting over the last year, the
median number of meetings attended was 16. They were notified of the community
meetings by flyers (64.8%), mail (20.7%), friends (14.5%), and Council members (6.1%).
Slightly over one in ten (12.3%) indicated that they were unaware of the community
meetings.

                     Chart IIIH1: Do you attend community meetings?

                                                                      51.4%

                                     48.6%



                                       Yes                                No




        The top three reasons given for attending less than 6 community meetings
included: working at the time of the meetings (30.3%), not being notified of the meetings
(22.4%), and simply forgot (15.1%). The resident respondents indicated that they would
like to be notified of meetings in the future by flyer (55%) or by mail (53.9%).

                     Chart III H 3: Why didn’t you attend more meetings?


       I am working when the meetings are conducted                                            30.3%


                                                 I forgot                      15.1%


                 I was not notified about the meetings                                 22.4%


                              I cannot find a babysitter           5.3%


                                 I do not want to attend            6.6%

     I don’t believe that the information given in the         3.9%
         Community Meetings is important to me

        I am too tired to attend Community Meetings                   7.9%


                     Community Meetings are boring             3.9%


                                                   Other    0.7%




                                                                                                       27
IV. Responses to Open-ended Questions

    A. Feelings about Current Housing Situation
    B. Feelings about Current Housing Situation Compared to 12 months ago
    C. Service Adequacy
    D. Cultural/Racial/Gender Respect
    E. Recommendations for Improving Services
    F. Services Needed Right Now
    G. Reasons for Not Using Services




                                                                            28
A. Feelings about Current Housing Situation

       How do residents feel about their housing situations right now?                An
overwhelming majority responded with positive comments about their current HOPE VI
housing. For instance, many respondents offered clearly positive remarks such as Alright,
Fine, Good, Excellent, Like it, Love it, Cool, Nice (85 responses). In contrast, few
responded with negative comments such as Don't like it, Grim, Like to move (5
responses), or even mediocre remarks such as Fair, OK (5 responses). Other comments
(unedited) were also predominately positive (see list below).

   Anything new is nice. It's a nice place           Less money
   Enjoys her housing situation, misses her          Like it/don't want to move
   washer and dryer                                  Loves where he lives
   Enjoys her porch                                  My housing situation right now
   Good but scary - children will be children.       My housing situation right now is stable,
   People can only be people.                        have no problems
   Good, but i wish when they have inspections       Need storm door
   and what ever that they could all come at         Need to check out floor - it is leveled. Came
   one time                                          but didn't fix it.
   Good, but need little thing to be done            Not happy, it is low income housing. Why
   Greatly, enjoy it.                                should we pay gas, light, rent. We live as
   Housing is wonderful, peaceful, quiet, a          though we own or renting off owner.
   good change.                                      Our place is to small we would like to move.
   Concerned about downstairs. Very cold in          We have noisy, nasty neighbors. The
   winter, hot upstairs.                             children are tearing up the court. The drug
   I can live with it                                dealers are back hanging around our court
   I don't like neighborhood                         and all of our children. I would have to say
   I Enjoy it                                        worse.
   I feel good about my house. Right now             Over crowded community
   neighborhood is a safe place to live in.          Safe and satisfied
   I feel OK and content at this time.               Sometimes the noise is a little to much - not
   I feel that everything is fine right now          enough car space. Whose idea was it to put a
   I feel that if a problem should arise I can get   bathroom in the kitchen. The bathroom are
   the help or assistance if I needed it.            cold, there is no heat there, no ventilation.
   I hate my apartment. It's way to small. I pay     The water is not hot in the shower. There is
   $394 for the same thing I was paying $97          not enough cupboard space, floor are shaky.
   for!                                              Do not need a dishwasher as much as a
   I like it nice - nobody bothers me.               washer & dryer in apt. In the summer time
   I like my house, but not the area                 why is the porch door locked at 12 am, there
   I like my situation but it could be better        are no children in the apt. Buildings. The
   I love and enjoy my home. Me and my               intercom system does not work. . When are
   children.                                         we getting the windows washed. The ac unit
   I'm housed                                        leaks. Why is the heat and outlet for tv on
   I'm unsure - thinking of section 8                same wall (the outlet is right above the
   I'm very pleased                                  heat). The garbage disposal does not work
   In summer time the first floor is cool & OK       correctly. The peep hole is too high. Why
   for now. But when winter time comes you           couldn't we have a small balcony. There is
   must plastic the first floor window, get a        still time to put one up at our windows it
   heater, put blankets in front of door.            does not have to be very large just enough
   Is ok and it's better than we had - just need     room the size of a chair.
   to weed out the bad people, so it can stay        Terrible, i wish blj don't come in our
   nice.                                             apartments
   It could be a lot better and bigger               The first floor in the new town houses are
   It descent, better than before                    extremely cold. It's not fixed.


                                                                                                29
    The housing situation is better than before            Unsatisfied
    how even i think that residents are still live         Very safe
    close to each other                                    Want to move when time comes
    There is not anything about management in              Well-good
    the survey?                                            Wonderful, very happy and safe
    Things are ok                                          Would like to move into a house with two
    To crowded. I have 3 children in one                   bathrooms
    bedroom.



B. Feelings about Current Housing Situation Compared to 12 Months Ago

       Residents were also asked how they feel about their housing situation right now
compared to 12 months ago? Once again, their responses were predominantly positive.
Common responses included: Much better, Better, Like it, Cool, Nice, OK, Happy (52
responses); Same, Not much different (11 responses); and Worse, Displeased, Grim (6
responses). Other comments (unedited) were also predominately positive (see list below).


Basically I’m pleased                                  It was much better a few years ago
Beautiful                                              It’s almost the same
Better environment                                     It’s better atmosphere
Better neighborhood and the “some” of                  It’s better living
neighbors are very nice and want a good                It’s livable. There’s no kids around.
community.                                             It’s nice and peaceful
Better than any other home I’ve had. No steps.         I’ve come a long way. It’s good
No stinky hallways.                                    Less money
Better than the projects                               Love the housing now. Decent, private, larger,
Better, but I want my own                              better.
Blessed                                                Much better now. I feel like I have a piece of
Cleaner, safer, quiet                                  mine.
Could be better constructed                            My housing situation is a whole lot better than a
Enjoys it                                              year ago.
Excellent                                              My situation was good 12 months ago. I didn’t
Great                                                  have high gas bills.
Hope less                                              Nine months ago I lived where we were all
Hopeful, happy                                         family
Housing is better except for a lot of rules,           No, because of drugs
regulation dictating how to live                       Not much
I can’t wait to move out. I wish I could have          Safer
gotten a choice on where to live.                      Same/don’t like color of rugs.
I don not have to go through with what I went          Still didn’t have a choice
through before I moved. Thank God!                     Still didn’t like it
I feel a lot better about this place than I did over   Stressed
a year ago.                                            The same as 12 month. OK. Crowded.
I feel good about my house.                            To into people business
I feel safe and my kid do too.                         Very good, I am pleased that I am able to get one
I love it                                              Very safe, comfortable in neighborhood
I’m housed                                             Want to move when time comes
Improvement continues.                                 When I first moved to 259 there was not that
It is much better. Thank you!                          many kids now it’s too many




                                                                                                      30
C. Service Adequacy

       Residents were asked to what extent services offered through HOPE VI meet their needs.
Most responses to this question were positive. Common responses included: Very well, Pretty good
(34 responses); Fair, OK (23 responses); Poor, It could be better (5 responses); and Didn’t use
services, Didn’t know (14 responses). Other comments regarding services provided through HOPE
IV (unedited) were also generally positive (see list below).

Assisted very well                                   It is an inconvenience when I have to work late
Block captain reports have been satisfactory         at night to get home
taken care of                                        It was good but could have been a little better
Fenced in and I didn’t know anything about how       I’ve only been a resident for seven months
to get out of the courts.                            Keeping the kids curfew was very good idea
Has given better housing for the community           Most definitely helped
Hope VI offered a new look on life in the family     Never used them
Housing services were not helpful                    The hope vi are doing the best that can be done
I do not remember any service that I needed help     The services are there but know one who work
with                                                 for the service wasn’t able to give any answer.
I feel like our community is a lot better than in    The services that I used were explained
the past.                                            thoroughly & arranged to meet my needs
I have no ideal about the services available to me   They were coordinated (my services) through my
they weren’t presented to me formally                case manager and they were personal and were
I seen the process but                               handle with desecration and care.
I thought that construction should be completed      Was given a choice to leave or stay and is happy
before we moved                                      that I was able to stay in the community
                                                     Was happy with where he was




                                                                                                   31
D. Cultural/Racial/Gender Respect

        One of the most important components of social service is how providers treat program
participants. Thus, residents were asked, in general, how respectfully the service providers
associated with the HOPE IV initiative treated them and their family members. The majority of
responses to this question were positive. Typical responses included: (a) Very Good, Fine, Good,
Respectfully (49 responses); (b) OK, Fair (27 responses); and (c) Not respectfully (4 responses).
Other comments (unedited) were also generally positive (see list below).

   A lot of respect                                  That's cool
   Any self have been treated with respect but       The service providers always treated us with
   as a whole the community is not shown             respect and care.
   consideration                                     The service providers are very respectful.
   By saying hello                                   The service providers need to treat people
   Everybody watch you and tell lie on the           with respect and stop looking like a pitbug
   neighborhood                                      dog and need to smile.
   Everyone was very nice                            The were respected well and we were
   Feel they were treated with respect and care      treated fairly.
   Goes to Matilda Theiss and senior citizen         There is discrimination
   hall for meetings and is given respect and        They are fine
   care.                                             They treated me with more respect than
   Great                                             others do
   Have been very helpful                            They were nice
   I feel that there is a big gab when it comes to   Treated
   racial/gender                                     Treated good
   I get treated with respect                        Very respectful, willing to work with all
   I guess                                           residents.
   I have never had a bad situation with             Was very polite
   anything yet                                      We were treated very well
   I haven't come in contact with any                Well respected
   Indifferent about the object                      When needed faier on as not available
   I've been treated very well as a tenant and to    With respect
   my neighbors                                      Wonderful
   No problems                                       Yes, service providers did respect me - my
   One service provider mistreated my                situation and showed that they truly cared.
   intelligence
   Respect and care from service providers
   Some are mean. Don't want answer
   questions only to certain ones.




                                                                                                32
E. Recommendations for Service Improvement

        Residents were asked to provide recommendations for improving HOPE IV services. Many
of the responses were positive, including: none (43 responses); it's alright as-is (5 responses); and
build playground for kids (4 responses). Other comments (unedited) varied noticeably (see list
below).


   Need smaller lawn movers to cut grass.           More security.
   Put outside water hose to water the grass.       More understanding with residents.
   A better policy as far as checking on the        Move me into a new house away form all
   elderly.                                         these kids. Please.
   Be more considerate of elderly.                  My downstairs is cold in the winter with
   Being truthful to people.                        furnace on.
   Better notification of services available.       Need to do better.
   Caring management/management needs to            Needs a roof on read building-- 115 Oak
   be more sensitive to the residents as how        Hill Drive.
   staff is.                                        Needs more programs, plans for children to
   Change paint to semi-gloss - paint sooner.       get involved in, Keep them from….the
   Choice-give more.                                streets.
   Control the children 8-16.                       Not really, need a paint job.
   Courtesy officers should not walk with           Please get people who love their job not for
   walkie talkie in hallways because wrong          the money.
   doers will know/here approaching.                Please respect the people, their feelings.
   Disabled would like to be seen more often.       Some are mean.
   Get worker that like their job?                  Quit treating blacks like retarded
   Getting service providers to remain on-site      Respect people's homes always in our
   not on a come and go basis.                      houses. Change color of rugs and change
   How to build houses.                             paint too semigloss:
   I believe that communication can be              Residents can't afford to reprint it should
   improved in many ways.                           have been done right the first time.
   I feel like to don't have a say on. where I      Screen clients better a year ago.
   want to live.                                    Security guards need to do their job/opposed
   I feel there must be a agenda covered.           to being friendly with the people.
   Members must be more open minded.                Send more flyers out and maybe calling the
   Avoiding issues.                                 people you know needs the service.
   I hope they stick to the curfew.                 They can improve the security
   Inspection is too harsh.                         Treat residents with a little more respect,
   It can get better.                               also the workers.
   It's cold in the Mrop unit                       Under cover drug operation
   Its not a problem for me. I like where I am      We need better services
   its just he housing situation don’t change       When service providers are at you door they
   anything keep it the way it was.                 should give you a chance to respond to their
   Listen.                                          knock before entering the apartment.
   More flyers about programs.                      Women's Support Group. More Family
   More organization.                               Empowerment. More Community meetings.
   More recreation needed for our children.         Recreation for teenagers.
   More safer.




                                                                                               33
F. Services Needed Right Now

       Residents were asked to describe any other services that they need right now for
themselves and their family members. The most popular responses included: none right
now (64 responses); new job/money (6 responses); and recreation/playground (2
responses). Other comments (unedited) varied noticeably (see list below).

   A bus shop and shelter ASAP                    More washing machines and dryers. Larger
   A place where children go & playground as      rec. Space - places for children to go.
   well                                           Must have more washer and dryers
   Better job training for a better job           Need income. Need help and medical help.
   Boy & girl & men                               No insurance.
   Child care food bank                           My husband and I are self sufficient, both
   Energy assistance                              working, living and paying our bills.
   Food-furniture                                 Physical exercise for elderly
   From always to keep noise from over my         Plummer for apartment in Mrop's -
   head - should had wooden floors                bathroom sink
   Furniture                                      Programs for children and playground
   Gotta do for myself                            Respect, honesty
   I haven't had a reason to use any of the       Shuttle bus for senior citizens
   services yet.                                  Somewhere for kids to play
   I prefer a caregiver to help me go shopping    Too many ants and spiders
   & pick up food bank                            Treat people right
   More stop signs                                Tutors, mentoring
   More structured activities for children.       We need more cops walking the street at
                                                  night - keep the people from selling drug.




                                                                                               34
G. Reasons for Not Using Services

        A noticeable number of residents indicated that they were not using services
offered for HOPE VI residents. Thus, interviewers asked them to explain why they and
their family members are not taking advantage of available resources. The majority of the
respondents indicated that they did not need services (31 responses); did not know about
service availability (12 responses); had conflicts with their work schedules (11
responses); were sick of all the time (5 responses); were disabled/handicapped (3
responses); and found out too late (3 responses). Other responses (unedited) varied
noticeably (see list below).


Because I have very bad swelling in my ankles         Just didn't feel like getting involved
both of them that stop me from getting involved.      Looking for work
Because of the people you have to come in             My mother and aunt can't be left alone
contact with.                                         Never home
Because unable to go. Goes when she can.              No way to get around: handicapped
Couldn't get out at time. No transportation for       Not interested
senior. Just started getting involved. Like it now.   Say one thing - do another
Didn't have time (3)                                  See no services up here to take
Don’t' know. Guess wasn't interested.                 Services not organized that well - too much
Family member needed me.                              bickering.
I plan to in the neat future.                         The people that work look so mean
I took advantage of respite care because kids         The reason is because Ms. Willella's hearing is
need help when parents need help.                     not good.
I would not take advantages of services that did      The time some of the services are offered was
not fully understand.                                 not convenient with the work or school
I'm active in after-school volunteer time is spend    schedules.
in time to research for children. No energy for       The worker keep everything in side store
other activities.                                     They didn't suit my needs.
It was not relevant to me.                            Try to take part in all services that provide for or
Job/worked all the time they needed sleep.            help my family.




                                                                                                         35
V.   Program Administrator,
     Outreach Worker and Social
     Service Provider Assessment
         A. Income Integration
         B. Physical Integration with Neighborhood
         C. Self-sufficiency Program
         D. Community Safety




                                                     36
        Program administrators, outreach workers and social service providers were asked
to respond to questions related to the Hope VI effort in the Oak Hill community
regarding: (a) income integration; (b) physical integration with the neighborhood; (c)
self-sufficiency; and (d) community safety. A total of 11 individuals responded to the
survey. Most of the responses were too general to assess. Many simply stated “I’m not
sure” or I do not have specific information.” Thus, the following information was
gathered for inclusion in this report.


A. Income Integration

        As part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Congress created low-income housing tax
credits. Tax credits offer investors a dollar for dollar reduction in tax liability once taxes
have been calculated. This strategy, used by the federal government to encourage
investment in low-income neighborhoods, is one of the primary financing tools used in
HOPE VI projects.

        The Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, the state agency responsible for
administering and monitoring the use of tax credits, requires that developments are
income-integrated. Overall, 65% of the rental units developed in Allequippa Terrace/Oak
Hill are rented to low income persons and 35% of the units are leased to market-rate
residents. These numbers differ slightly across phases, but the 65-35 ratio accurately
captures the goal of the development in Oak Hill.

        TANF rules and regulations now mandate that those who once received public
assistance work or participate in workforce training programs. Changes in the minimum
wage laws are also likely to have had an effect on the willingness of members of this
community to seek employment.

        The heads of household surveyed for this evaluation are predominately African-
American, and they typically follow cultural, historical and economic trends of the City
of Pittsburgh. Specifically, since many low-income African-American residents were
relocated from traditional public housing into the HOPE VI community of Oak Hill, it is
expected that many of the residents are African-American females.


B. Physical Integration with the Neighborhood

        Prior to the development of the community of Oak Hill, Allequippa Terrace was
one of the most socially isolated communities in the City of Pittsburgh. The pattern of
housing development required the creation of streets that did not exist prior to the
development. These streets provide a more "open" community feeling and integrate Oak
Hill into the rest of the Hill District and West Oakland.

        As new streets emerge, transportation service will need to be modified. During
the building phase, public transportation was temporarily re-routed to accommodate the


                                                                                            37
development. There are plans to re-establish previously existing bus routes. The closing
of streets has not been without problems. Traffic patterns have changed to accommodate
construction, and residents, unaccustomed to living in an area under construction, have
had to make sometimes inconvenient accommodations.


C. Self-Sufficiency Program

       HOU has organized a social and supportive services system which uses case
management as a model for assessing the dependency of residents on public and other
support systems. TANF, changes in minimum wage laws, and the efforts of HOU have
had a positive impact on improving the ability of Oak Hill residents to seek and retain
employment.

        HOU keeps detailed records which indicate that residents are employed in a
variety of jobs, and that income ranges are diverse. Since 1996, the total number of
service units offered to the residents by HOU to help move them from TANF to job
placement (including those who may have received employment assistance from HOU on
more than one occasion) is 451. HOU partnered with the Department of Public Welfare
to provide welfare-to-work assistance.

       It is noted, however, that residents need more job training that leads to “real
opportunities” to earn adequate wages for supporting their families. Currently, some
residents are “bouncing” from job to job.


D. Community Safety

        Beacon/Corcoran Jennison Partners Management and HOU work together to
ensure that residents are aware of socially acceptable behavior and that there are
definable punishments when behavior is not acceptable. As a part of its case
management function, HOU intervenes with residents after receiving management
referrals.

        Evictions due to rent non-payment and socially unacceptable behavior are handled
by Beacon/Corcoran Jennison Partners Management. In the past year, there has been a
considerable decrease in the numbers of tenants evicted due to non-payment of rent or
socially unacceptable behavior compared to the number evicted for similar reasons when
the property was managed by HACP.

       It should also be noted that rent eviction under the one-strike rule seems to be
working. It is healthy for communities to rid themselves of crime, domestic violence,
drugs and unacceptable behavior.




                                                                                      38
VI. Overall Summary and Conclusions




                                      39
        As noted earlier, the mission of HOPE VI is to revitalize the nation's most
severely distressed public housing facilities and communities. The US Congress and
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) created the HOPE VI grant
program in 1992 to provide a major source of support for investment in public housing
and to support residents in need of community-based social services. Since 1993, HOPE
VI has conducted major surgery on devastated communities through decisive public
housing reform, and by practicing and emulating collaborative strategies to transform the
nation's poorest public housing into mixed-income urban communities (The U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999; The Housing Research
Foundation, 2000). Oak Hill’s HOPE VI Initiative was implemented by Beacon/Corcoran
Jennison Partners in collaboration with the Allequippa Terrace Resident Council,
Housing Outreach Unlimited, the City of Pittsburgh and a number of community based
organizations.

        Based on the findings of this evaluation study, the HOPE VI initiative in Oak Hill
is improving the living environment for public housing residents through the demolition,
rehabilitation, reconfiguration, and replacement of obsolete public housing. Additionally,
revitalized housing in Oak Hill is contributing to the improvement of the surrounding
neighborhoods. Although future challenges surely await, the HOPE VI housing initiative
has dispersed the concentration of very low-income families, and has contributed to the
building of a positive community atmosphere.

        As noted, prior to the development of the community of Oak Hill, Allequippa
Terrace was one of the most socially isolated communities in the City of Pittsburgh. The
pattern of housing development required the creation of streets that did not exist prior to
the development. These streets provide a more "open" community feeling and integrate
Oak Hill into the rest of the Hill District and West Oakland.

       The number of individuals relocated from public housing to new housing units
(350) represents 65% of resident members (538). The income distribution of those who
have been relocated is mixed.

        How do residents feel about their housing situations? An overwhelming majority
of residents responded with positive comments about their HOPE VI housing, such as “the
housing is wonderful, peaceful, quiet, a good change,” “I feel good about my house,” and
“right now the neighborhood is a safe place to live.”

        Residents were also asked "how do you feel about your housing situation right now
compared to 12 months ago?" Once again, their responses were generally positive.
Responses included: “better neighborhood, and some of the neighbors are very nice and
want a good community,” cleaner, safer, quiet,” “I feel a lot better about this place than I
did over a year ago,” “love the housing now,” and “decent, private, larger, better.” There
were relatively few negative comments. Examples include, “the housing is better except
for a lot of rules and regulations dictating how to live,” and “when I first moved to 259



                                                                                         40
there was not that many kids, now it’s too many.” Only a few residents indicated that they
wanted to move out of the Oak Hill community.

       Residents were asked to what extent services offered through HOPE VI meet their
needs. Most responses to this question, both quantitative and qualitative, were positive.
There were at least 33 major services offered to the Allequippa Terrace residents to
prepare them for changes in welfare policies and to capitalize on new opportunities.

         Housing Opportunities Unlimited (HOU) outreach workers also provide
facilitative assistance to Oak Hill residents in need of various services. The vast majority
of the Oak Hill residents are familiar with HOU (95.5%). A total of 17 major services
were offered by HOU to the residents of Allequippa Terrace during years 2000 and 2001.
The top-rated services include: relocation assistance, food assistance, job
development/employment, assistance reporting problems with new units, information
about housekeeping, and information on programs in the community.

        The majority of residents (89%) feel that they are safe in their neighborhoods – an
unexpected finding among public housing residents. Similarly, a majority of the sampled
residents feel there is less illicit drug use (63.9%) and less drug trafficking in the
neighborhood (66.3%) compared to 12 months ago. In addition, the majority of Oak Hill
residents feel that they (a) are better informed about available services and resources; (b)
have greater access to community resources; and (c) are better at supporting themselves
and their family members than they were a year ago. A significant number of respondents
(69.5%) also felt that their family's issues and problems were addressed appropriately and
in a timely fashion (69.2%) by community service providers.

        In contrast, only a slight majority indicated that they have been involved in
discussions about services provided to this community within the last year, and only
46.9% of the respondents indicated that they have been asked for their opinions regarding
the identification of services/resources needed in the community.

        The residents reported being familiar with the Allequippa Terrace Resident
Council due to information obtained from communication flyers, friends, the Housing
Authority and HOU, and through use of sponsored services. A majority of respondents
indicated that they believe the Tenant Council's purposes include resident representation,
provision of important information, and to find solutions to common problems in the
neighborhood.

       Slightly over one-half (51.4%) of the respondents indicated that they attend
community meetings. Over the last year, community residents attended an average of 16
meetings (median value) -- of those who attended at least one meeting or more. They
were notified of the community meetings by flyers (64.8%), mail (20.7%), friends
(14.5%), and Council members (6.1%). Slightly over one in ten (12.3%) indicated that
they were unaware of the community meetings.




                                                                                         41
        In view of the fact that currently there are 241 children (ages 18 or younger) in
Oak Hill, the need for a playground and other recreational facilities is evident. This
suggestion surfaced repeatedly in the resident survey and in discussions held with a focus
group of residents.

         Finally, it should be noted that the following people involved with the HOPE VI
Initiative in Oak Hill have made invaluable contributions to this study: (a) Allequippa
Terrace Resident Council members, including Delfonte Ellis, Lousandris Critten, Wayne
Murphy, Pauletta James, Franzetta Wilborn, Diane Henderson, Ron Wilson and Jim
Richter; (b) Housing Outreach Unlimited employees, including Eric Hearn, Jackie
McCollum, Lisa Enoch, and Sadie McFarland (c) PCC Consulting employees including
Carlotta Paige; and (d) Beacon/Corcoran Jennison Partners, including Michael Polite,
Debra Gipson, and Denise Taylor.




                                                                                        42
VII. Consulted Bibliography




                              43
Bruner, Charles (1991) Thinking Collaboratively: Questions and Answers to Help Policy Makers Improve
        Children Services. Washington DC. Education and Human Services Consortium.

Diegmueller, K. (1989) “Middle America: Priced out of house and home DWELLINGS.” Current,
       Jul/Aug89 Issue 315, p16, 6p.

Evans, Mariwyn (1998) “Privatization of public housing.” Journal of Property Management, Mar/Apr98,
        Vol. 63 Issue 2, p24, 6p, 5c

John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University (2002.) Innovations in American Government
        http://www.innovations.harvard.edu

Journal of Housing & Community Development, “HUD awards grants to five cities under the HOPE VI
         program.” Jan/Feb96, Vol. 53 Issue 1, p3, 1/6p

Kennedy, Stephen D. (1988) “Direct Cash Low-Income Housing Assistance.”            New-Directions-for-
       Program-Evaluation; 1988, 37, spring, 29-45.

Norfolk Redevelopment and housing Authority HOPE VI www.nrha.norfolk.va.us

Peck, Dennis L. (1989) “Factors in Housing Program Effectiveness: The View of Urban Homestead
        Officials.” Free-Inquiry-in-Creative-Sociology; 1989, 17, 2, Nov, 145-151.

The National Housing & Rehabilitation Association http://www.housingonline.com

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2002). Purpose of the HOPE VI Program
        http://www.hud.gov/progdesc/hopevia.html

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Office of Policy Development and Research.
        (1999). An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI -- (August 1999, Vol. I–207 p., Vol.
        II–550 p., Vol.III–293 p.)

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2000). HOPE VI: Community Building Makes
        a Difference Government Printing Office Washington DC.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (1999.) The Long Term Effects of Housing
        Assitance on Self-Sufficiency Government Printing Office Washington DC.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (1999). HOPE VI: Building Communities
        Transforming Lives Government Printing Office Washington DC.

Van-Ryzin,, Gregg G. (1996). “The Impact of Resident Management on Residents' Satisfaction with Public
       Housing: A Process Analysis of Quasi-Experimental Data.” Evaluation-Review, 20, 4, Aug, 485-
       506.

Wayman, Carol (1999). “HUD programs and collaboration.” Journal of Housing & Community
      Development, Mar/Apr99, Vol. 56 Issue 2, p8, 2p.




                                                                                                      44
Appendix A: Factors Associated with
           Successful Collaboration
    1. Critical Factors Influencing Collaboration Outcomes
    2. Essential Elements for a Successful Collaboration




                                                             45
A. Critical Factors Influencing Collaboration Outcomes*

    1. Factors Related to the ENVIRONMENT.

       A. History of collaboration or cooperation in the community.
       B. Collaborative group seen as a leader in the community.
       C. Favorable political/social climate for collaboration.

    2. Factors Related to MEMBERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS.

       A.   Mutual respect, understanding and trust.
       B.   Appropriate cross-section of members.
       C.   Members see collaboration as in their self-interest.
       D.   Ability to compromise.

    3. Factors Related to PROCESS/STRUCTURE.

       A.   Members share a stake in both process and outcome.
       B.   Multiple layers of decision-making.
       C.   Flexibility.
       D.   Development of clear roles and policy guidelines.
       E.   Adaptability.

  4. Factors Related to COMMUNICATION.

       A. Open and frequent communication.
       B. Established informal and formal communication links.

  5. Factors Related to PURPOSE.

       A. Concrete, attainable goals and objectives.
       B. Shared vision.
       C. Unique purpose.

  6. Factors Related to RESOURCES.

       A. Sufficiency of funds.
       B. Optimal distribution of funds.
       C. Skilled convener for collaboration.


                   * Adopted from Charles Bruner (1991) and Amherst H. Wilder Foundation (1992)




                                                                                             46
    B. Essential elements for a successful collaboration*


                 • A legitimate purpose;

                 • Open and meaningful communication;

                 • Trust and honesty;

                 • Mutually agreed upon agendas;

                 • Respect of each member;

                 • The ability to agree to disagree;

                 • Convenient meeting times and locations;

                 • Representation from all feeder communities;

                 • Ongoing training on the initiative’s goals and objectives;

                 • Open information sharing;

                 • Knowledge of program/initiative activities and changes;

                 • Facilitation of meetings by all members;

                 • Task-oriented projects/responsibility for members;

                 • Reward and recognition of members' involvement;

                 • Trusted and secure leadership;

                 • Cooperation from the funder; and

                 • The initiative’s goals as the focus of all discussions.



* Based on studies conducted in the Greater Pittsburgh Region by H. Yamatani.




                                                                                47
Appendix B:

  Community Enhancement Research Network
  School of Social Work, University of Pittsburgh




                                                    48
        Community Enhancement Research Network
                                         Overview
                                                                  Hide Yamatani, Ph.D.
                                                                                 Director
                                                                  School of Social Work
                                                                 University of Pittsburgh

        The mission of the Community Enhancement Research Network is to help refine
the quality of community life through active utilization of empirical information gathered
directly from communities. The network aims to help find solutions to community
problems and participate effectively in community decisions. A major goal of this
network is to support and conduct research studies that are directly related to social,
economic and educational factors affecting communities of the Greater Pittsburgh Area.
This network supports investigations into topics which traditionally have received low
priority among mainstream academic research, such as community needs assessment, fact
finding research, program evaluation, performance optimization of public organizations
and institutions, community opinion surveys and benefit equity assessments of
community-based interventions.

        The Network ensures that empirically-based information generated by research
studies contributes to making a concrete and constructive difference in the community.
The aim is not merely to advance understanding, but to generate specific information that
will be immediately useable for addressing social, economic and educational issues and
needs. Studies conducted through this network will be rooted in the community, serve a
community's interests, and encourage community participation at all levels. Thus, a
unique component of the Research Network is its emphasis on generating a major
research agenda that originates from selected communities—a ground-up process in
contrast to the traditional top-down approach.

     Beneficiaries

        The Community Enhancement Research Network serves a variety of community-
based organizations and unaffiliated groups that have unmet research needs (due to
inadequate resources, technical expertise, or tools for improving their lives). Students
benefit directly from research experience, mentorship, and financial support for their
education (Graduate Student Researcher support, fellowships, and Work-Study support).
Faculty members benefit from continual learning of applied community research,
accumulation of up-to-date and relevant teaching materials, and the opportunity to
publish scholarly work that contributes to communities. Ultimately, the network further
strengthens the University of Pittsburgh by synthesizing social responsibility into the
creation of applied knowledge and information that are directly relevant to surrounding
communities’ quality of life.




                                                                                        49
CERN projects (Fall 2000 to present)

   Sample of CERN research projects:

      A. Installation of Organization-wide Evaluation System.
         Urban League of Greater Pittsburgh

      This project involves the development and installation of a comprehensive
      evaluation system with the capacity to assess organization-wide performance
      among the Urban League's five major divisions -- Early Childhood Services,
      Education, Youth Services, Employment, and Housing. The evaluation system is
      designed so that each program can analyze client outcomes, staff assessments,
      client opinions and suggestions, and organizational collaboration to continually
      optimize service benefits and outcomes.

      B. Garfield Community Needs Assessment

      This project involves the implementation of a community needs assessment with a
      special focus on the unemployed and welfare-to-work population in the Garfield
      area. This project was developed and implemented jointly by the University of
      Pittsburgh School of Social Work, University Center for Social and Urban
      Research (UCSUR), Pittsburgh Partnership for Community Development, and
      Garfield residents and community-based organizations.

      C. Annual Regional Education Index Report
      Public Schools of Southwestern Pennsylvania (Completed)

      The Annual Regional Education Index Report is based on ten critical measures of
      student and school performance (e.g., early reading and math performance,
      strength of curriculum and instruction, post-high school preparedness and school
      completion). The Southwestern region includes 118 school districts with over
      370,000 students and 23,000 teachers. The Allegheny County Educational Issues
      and Policies Center requested the participation of the Community Enhancement
      Research Network in this regional project in collaboration with Carnegie Mellon
      University’s Heinz School of Public Policy. Students of the Interdisciplinary
      Doctoral Fellowship Program in Policy and Evaluation were used for this project
      as research assistants.




                                                                                    50
C. HOPE VI Evaluation Project

This evaluation project is designed to generate research information in order to
assist the HOPE VI initiative of the Hill District area to achieve its maximum
potential and to secure meaningful outcomes as efficiently as possible. A
comprehensive evaluation report will also allow emulation of best practices by
organizations in other areas of the region or jurisdiction.

D. Assessment of Optimal Staffing Distribution
   Allegheny County Children, Youth and Families

Allegheny County Children, Youth and Families has requested that Drs. Sites and
Yamatani design a county-wide evaluation study to estimate the optimal staffing
pattern needed for quality assurance for the agency. Children, Youth and Families
(CYF) is undergoing a major reorganization and staffing modification in order to
improve program quality-- service adequacy, efficiency and effectiveness. This
project will be designed so that CYF programs of other regions can emulate the
assessment methods and staffing patterns. The Community Enhancement
Research Network is in the process of recruiting additional applied researchers
from various disciplines to implement this project.

E. Professional Family Care Services, Inc.
   Program Optimization and Evaluation

The purpose of this proposed project is to conduct an organizational assessment of
the PFCS operation in order to generate recommendations for optimization of
program performance. The selected organizational assessment consists of three
major areas: (a) adequacy of client and outreach services; (b) administrative and
personnel practices and performance; and (c) strategic planning.                More
specifically, the focus of the organizational assessment will be on: (1) client rights
and organizational responsibilities and ethics; (2) organization’s assessment
practices; (3) targeted service system; (4) client/family education; (5) continuum
of services; (6) continual improvement of organizational performance; (7)
administrative leadership; (8) personnel management; (9) adequacy of
management information systems; and (10) organizational effort/resource
commitments.




                                                                                    51

								
To top