Alvaro Cortes

Interim Assessment of the Hope VI Program Cross-Site Report

In 1989, Congress established the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing to explore the problems of troubled public housing developments and to establish a plan to address those problems by the year 2000. Following several years of research and public hearings, the Commissions 1992 final report identified the key factors that defined severely distressed housing: extensive physical deterioration of the property; a considerable proportion of residents living below the poverty level; a high incidence of serious crime; and management problems as evidenced by a large number of vacancies, high unit turnover, and low-rent collection rates. The report estimated that 6 percent, or 86,000, of the nations 1.4 million public housing units were severely distressed based on these factors. The Commission members agreed that existing approaches for improving public housing were inadequate to address the needs of severely distressed developments. Instead, they proposed the creation of a new program to address comprehensively the social and physical problems of distressed public housing communities. Congress first provided funding for such a program through the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 1993. Originally called the Urban Revitalization Demonstration Program, this public housing revitalization program soon became known by the acronym HOPE VI (Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere). Congressional appropriations have been provided for HOPE VI every year since 1993. In 1998, Abt Associates Inc., under contract to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), began a 5-year evaluation of the HOPE VI program. The Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program was designed to study program outcomes by collecting and analyzing data about 15 HOPE VI sites once redevelopment was completed and units were reoccupied. This report presents the study findings.

Have Distressed Neighborhoods Recovered? Evidence from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program

During the 2007–2009 housing crisis, concentrations of foreclosed and vacant properties created severe blight in many cities and neighborhoods. The federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) was established to help mitigate distress in hard-hit areas by funding the rehabilitation or demolition of troubled properties. This paper analyzes housing market changes in areas that received investments during the second round of NSP funding, focusing on seven large urban counties. Grantees used NSP to invest in census tracts with high rates of distressed and vacant properties, and tracts that had previously received other housing subsidies. The median NSP tract received quite sparse investment, relative to the overall housing stock and the initial levels of distress. Analysis of housing market outcomes indicates the recovery has been uneven across counties and neighborhoods. In a few counties, there is some evidence that NSP2 activity is correlated with improved housing outcomes, primarily increased sales volume.

Which Way to Recovery? Housing Market Outcomes and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program

To help communities recover from the foreclosure crisis, Congress enacted a set of policies known as the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP). NSP’s objective was to mitigate the impact of foreclosures on neighboring properties, through reducing the stock of distressed properties and removing sources of visual blight. This paper presents evidence on production outcomes achieved through the second round of NSP funding (NSP2), and discusses the housing market context under which the program operated from 2010 to 2013. Two key findings emerge. First, local grantees undertook quite different approaches to NSP2. The type and scale of activity, expenditures per property and spatial concentration vary widely across grantees. Second, census tracts that received NSP2 investment had poor economic and housing market conditions prior to the program, but generally saw improved housing markets during the program’s implementation period, as did non-NSP2 tracts in the same counties. Based on these findings, we outline topics and suggested approaches for additional research.

Have distressed neighborhoods recovered? Evidence from the neighborhood stabilization program

During the 2007–2009 housing crisis, concentrations of foreclosed and vacant properties created severe blight in many cities and neighborhoods. The federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) was established to help mitigate distress in hard-hit areas by funding the rehabilitation or demolition of troubled properties. This paper analyzes housing market changes in areas that received investments during the second round of NSP funding, focusing on seven large urban counties. Grantees used NSP to invest in census tracts with high rates of distressed and vacant properties, and tracts that had previously received other housing subsidies. The median NSP tract received quite sparse investment, relative to the overall housing stock and the initial levels of distress. Analysis of housing market outcomes indicates the recovery has been uneven across counties and neighborhoods. In a few counties, there is some evidence that NSP2 activity is correlated with improved housing outcomes, primarily increased sales volume.