Interim Assessment of
the HOPE VI Program:
Case Study of Ellen
Wilson Dwellings in
Washington, DC
Final Report
Cambridge, MA
Lexington, MA
Hadley, MA
Bethesda, MD
Washington, DC
Chicago, IL
Cairo, Egypt
Johannesburg, South Africa
Contract #
DU100C000021098
Task Order No. 2
March 2001
Prepared for
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Office of Policy Development and Research
451 Seventh Street, SW, Room 8140
Washington, DC 20410
Abt Associates Inc.
55 Wheele r Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Prepared by
Mary Joel Holin
Jean Amendolia
Table of Contents
Preface
Highlights
1.
Background and Overview of the HOPE VI Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 The HOPE VI Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.3 Redevelopment Process and Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.4 Program Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.
The Revitalized Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1 Creating Mixed-Income Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Physical Redesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 Community Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.
Management Operations and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1 Property Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Occupancy, Marketing and Resident Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Income Bands and Housing Payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
15
16
17
20
4.
Characteristics and Perceptions of HOPE VI and Neighborhood Residents . .
4.1 Resident Demographics and Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 HOPE VI Residents Compared with Neighborhood Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Residents’ Views of the Townhomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4 Social Cohesion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5 Residents’ Perceptions of their Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
23
27
27
29
31
5.
The Capitol Hill Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1 The Neighborhood Prior to Revitalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Overall Goals for the Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Current Physical and Economic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
34
38
38
6.
Community and Supportive Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1 Supportive Services Activities through 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2 The Endowment Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3 Self-Reported Use of Supportive Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
42
44
44
Abt Associates Inc.
Table of Contents
1
1
3
4
6
7.
Crime and Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.1 Improved Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2 Changes in Crime Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3 Residents’ Perceptions of Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.
Institutional Impacts of the HOPE VI Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Appendix A - Operating Budget for the Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Appendix B - Data Collection Methodology
Appendix C - Survey Results for HOPE VI and Neighborhood Residents
Appendix D- Survey Results by Income Band
Abt Associates Inc.
Table of Contents
46
46
47
47
1.
Background and Overview of the HOPE VI Plan
In 1993, Washington, D.C.’s Department of Public and Assisted Housing (DPAH) received a
$15.6 million HOPE VI grant to fund the revitalization of the former Ellen Wilson Dwellings in
the historic Capitol Hill neighborhood. Two years later, an additional grant of $9.4 million was
obtained to cover increased costs associated with additional infrastructure work and
environmental remediation at the site, bringing the total HOPE VI award to $25 million.
At the time of the initial grant, the property had been vacant for five years and was a negative
influence on the surrounding residential community. According to the final revitalization plan,
the redevelopment of the property presented an opportunity “. . . to change a source of blight in
the neighborhood into a source of strength: a well-designed, privately managed, mixed-income
community that is fully integrated into its surrounding neighborhood.”1 The plan proposed the
creation of a limited equity housing cooperative that would operate without long term public
housing subsidies.
1.1
Background
Ellen Wilson Dwellings was one of the first public housing developments in Washington, D.C.
Named for President Woodrow Wilson’s first wife, it was constructed in 1941 on the site of
former slum alley dwellings not far from the U.S. Capitol. Ellen Wilson was built to house white
public housing residents, while a public housing development for blacks—Arthur Capper
Dwellings—was constructed concurrently a few blocks away.2
The development consisted largely of low-rise (two- and three-story), garden-style apartment
buildings of concrete and brick construction. There was also one block of rowhouses. The
original development contained a total of 205 units and occupied less than 20 percent of a fiveacre site, with the remaining land left as open space. The project planners made little effort to
integrate the development into the surrounding Capitol Hill neighborhood, where streetfront
rowhouses are the prevalent residential building type. Most of the Ellen Wilson structures faced
the interior of the development, with landscaped courtyards at the center.
1
Revised Revitalization Plan for the Redevelopment of the Ellen Wilson Dwellings, September 29, 1995, p. 1.
2
Much of the discussion in this section is based on a baseline case study of Ellen Wilson Dwellings contained in An Historical and Baseline
Assessment of HOPE VI, Volume II, Case Studies, U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development, August 1996.
Abt Associates Inc.
Community and Supportive Services
1
Ellen Wilson Dwellings in 1941
3
Until the late 1960s the property reportedly was well maintained. In the early 1970s, part of Ellen
Wilson was demolished and a large piece of land was taken to build a freeway located
immediately south of the development. At this point, Ellen Wilson was left with 134 units in 13
buildings.4
After the partial demolition, the property entered a period of decline that paralleled a general
deterioration in public housing throughout the city and can be attributed at least in part to poor
management by DPAH. The open space that the Ellen Wilson planners believed to be beneficial
became an unsafe wasteland filled with neighborhood refuse. In 1987 a physical needs assessment
concluded that “. . . the buildings and systems were deteriorated to a degree of obsolescence
beyond any further practical use.”5 One of the development’s residents at the time reported that
her unit:
3
Photo taken from DCHA HOPE VI Revitalization Projects. Executive Summaries. Prepared by the Office of the Receiver.
4
This included 72 one-bedroom units, 34 two-bedroom units, and 28 three-bedroom units.
5
Revised Revitalization Plan, September 1995, Section D, p. 3.
Abt Associates Inc.
Community and Supportive Services
2
. . . was without heat and hot water during the last four years. The boiler could
not be repaired and needed to be replaced. During the cold winter months, poor
insulation caused icicles to form in the apartment. There was a constant problem
with mice and rats. Building maintenance was poor and very slow. One of the
units had a hole in the roof so large you could see the sky.6
Although Ellen Wilson was officially closed in 1988, the property reportedly was occupied by
squatters and homeless persons for the next several years. In 1992 a group of homeless veterans
began an unauthorized renovation of the buildings. This spurred DPAH to secure the property,
which included filling in first floor windows with bricks and surrounding the property with a chain
link fence.
1.2
The HOPE VI Plan
The redevelopment plan for Ellen Wilson Dwellings was not prepared by the local housing
authority. Instead, it was conceived and implemented by a group of Capitol Hill neighbors who
were concerned about the negative impact of the vacant property on the surrounding community.
The group first began meeting in 1990. According to one of the original members, the group
began to explore redevelopment options and looked for models to several public housing
redevelopments projects that were underway around the country, including Columbia Point in
Boston. Members also tapped into the expertise of local nonprofit housing providers.
In the fall of 1991 this ad hoc group organized the Ellen Wilson Neighborhood Redevelopment
Corporation (CDC). The CDC’s diverse board of directors included several ministers, an
architect, public housing residents (including former Ellen Wilson residents), a real estate agent,
an accountant, representatives from nonprofit social service agencies, and an Advisory
Neighborhood Commissioner. The CDC assembled a development team, created a
redevelopment plan, and approached HUD and DPAH to discuss acquiring the property.
In creating in 1993 what would become the HOPE VI program, Congress provided the funding
vehicle that would allow the CDC’s redevelopment plan to move forward. The CDC first
persuaded DPAH to apply for HOPE VI funding for Ellen Wilson using the CDC’s proposed
plan. DPAH subsequently selected the CDC’s team—officially the Ellen Wilson Redevelopment
Limited Liability Corporation—as the developer for the site. The team included: the Telesis
Corporation, a specialist in affordable housing development; the Corcoran Jennision Companies,
the developer and manager of Columbia Point in Boston as well as of several other mixed-income
communities around the country; and the CDC. Because the DPAH was a “troubled” agency in
1993, HUD approved the award on the condition that an outside entity, McHenry/TAG Inc.,
administer the grant on behalf of the authority.
6
Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI, Ellen Wilson Dwellings, p. 11.
Abt Associates Inc.
Community and Supportive Services
3
As envisioned by the CDC members, several ambitious goals were to be achieved through the
redevelopment of Ellen Wilson Dwellings:
C
the development of “. . . an economically integrated community that reflects the
strengths of self-sufficient housing development through homeownership” and
specifically through mixed-income cooperative homeownership;
C
independence from long-term operating subsidies or other forms of public
assistance—in other words, no public housing subsidies would be used;
C
the creation of an important neighborhood resource that brings community services
and social services to the greater Capitol Hill neighborhood; and
C
the replacement of distressed and vacant public housing with a privately managed
development that blends naturally into the Capitol Hill historic district.7
The process for implementing these goals began with the demolition of all existing structures on
the site and the installation of new public infrastructure. The replacement housing would include
134-unit, mixed-income cooperative townhouse development as well as 13 market-rate
townhouses, all architecturally consistent with residential properties in the surrounding area. A
new 4,000 square foot community center would be constructed as well.8
1.3
Redevelopment Process and Timing
Almost 10 years passed between the CDC’s first meetings and the completion of the first units
at the Ellen Wilson site, now known as The Townhomes on Capitol Hill. As shown in Exhibit
1-1, even after the HOPE VI funding was secured in 1993, the redevelopment process took
substantially longer than anticipated. The HOPE VI contract between DPAH and HUD was
executed in December 1994, a year after the original grant was awarded. Several months later,
the grant administrator applied for and received from HUD an additional $9.4 million to cover
additional costs associated with improvements related to environmental remediation and
infrastructure development.
Demolition began in April 1996. While the redevelopment plan suggested that units would be
available for occupancy roughly one year after the start of demolition, it was almost three years
after demolition began that the first units were ready for occupancy (January 1999). As of
7
Revised Revitalization Plan, Section B, p. 1.
8
In order to develop this number of units, the developers also acquired an adjacent property that contained a blighted industrial warehouse
with underground fuel storage tanks.
Abt Associates Inc.
Community and Supportive Services
4
December 2000, the cooperative units were completed and mostly occupied. Construction had
not yet started on the 13 homeownership units or the community center.
According to staff responsible for the grant’s administration, the project schedule changed
frequently after the start of demolition. While some of the delays were caused by missed
deadlines on the part of architects or contractors, local opposition to the project erupted at
various times and impeded progress in obtaining zoning and historic preservation approvals.
Concerns were voiced about everything from the mixed-income nature of the development to the
types of exterior building materials that the architect had selected. A staff member for the
developer noted that opposition was driven partly by community fears that the revitalized
development would be occupied primarily by low-income families.
In explaining the lengthy development process, a leader of the Community Development
Corporation stated that “nothing about the redevelopment of Ellen Wilson was easy.” An
ineffective local government and housing agency served to complicate the CDC’s efforts early
on and also fueled community opposition. However, in May 1995 a court order placed DPAH
into receivership. The agency’s name was changed to the District of Columbia Housing Authority
(DCHA) and an administrator appointed by the court was charged with managing all public
housing in the city. This new administrator supported the CDC’s efforts and was instrumental
in helping the redevelopment move forward.
Exhibit 1-1
Key Milestones for Redevelopment of Ellen Wilson Dwellings
Milestone
Proposed Date per
Revitalization Plan
Actual Date
Ellen Wilson Neighborhood Redevelopment
Corporation incorporated
Fall 1991
HOPE VI application submitted
May 1993
HOPE VI grant awarded
November 1993
Initial HOPE VI contract executed
December 1994
Additional HOPE VI grant funds awarded
Summer 1995
Demolition and remediation work begun
Jan/Feb 1996
April 1996
Infrastructure work begun
Spring 1996
June 1997
Townhouse construction begun
Summer 1996
June 1997
First cooperative units ready for occupancy
Winter 1997
January 1999
Cooperative board elected
December 2000
Market rate units ready for occupancy
estimated, Fall 2001
Community center opened
estimated, Fall 2001
Sources: KPMG HOPE VI Quarterly Progress Report (First Quarter 2000) and interviews with the HOPE VI development team
and the grant administrator.
Abt Associates Inc.
Community and Supportive Services
5
1.4
Program Costs
As shown in Exhibit 1-2, development of the mixed-income cooperative townhouses was financed
almost entirely with HOPE VI funds. As of mid-2000, close to 90 percent of the $25 million
project budget had been expended. These funds were used primarily for site improvements and
construction. Of the remaining funds, $878,000 have been designated as an operating reserve for
the cooperative development.9 Other remaining money will pay for the construction of the
community center and be used to reimburse administrative costs incurred by the housing authority
and the grant administrator. The development team reported that the costs associated with
developing 134 co-op units (including demolition, infrastructure, and building costs) was
$144,961 per unit or $133 per square foot.10
Exhibit 1-2 does not include the costs associated with developing 13 market-rate townhouses,
which will be privately financed.
Exhibit 1-2
Townhomes on Capitol Hill HOPE VI Redevelopment Costs
(Through March 2000)
Uses
Planning/Professional Services
Demolition
New Units/Site Improvements
Community/ Supportive Services
Administration and Operating
Reserve
Total
HOPE VI
Funds
Budgeted
Other
Funds
Budgeted
Total
Budgeted
Percentage
of Total
Funds
Expended
$3,820,482
$348,110
$4,168,592
95%
950,522
0
950,522
100%
15,749,659
8,000
15,757,659
91%
1,921,587
30,154
1,951,741
89%a
2,633,706b
0
2,633,706
55%
$25,075,956
$386,264c
$25,462,220
88%
Source: KPMG HOPE VI Quarterly Progress Report (First Quarter 2000) and data provided by the development team.
a
The grant administrator reported that some supportive services funds have been used to pay for overages in construction costs.
This money will be reimbursed to the co-op for future supportive services activities.
b
Of this amount, $878,000 is designated for a co-op operating reserve.
c
Funds provided by the DC Housing Agency
9
This reserve will be used to cover operating deficits, re-purchase memberships as co-op units turnover, and pay for any expenses that are
not covered by a separate replacement reserve.
10
As reported by Richard Gervase of Telesis Corporation in an “Ellen Wilson Budget Overview.”
Abt Associates Inc.
Community and Supportive Services
6
2.
The Revitalized Development
The former Ellen Wilson property is now the site of the Townhomes on Capitol Hill, a 134-unit
mixed-income cooperative. The project is largely completed, although an additional 13 marketrate homeownership units and a community center remain to be constructed. The major features
of the revitalization effort include: the creation of a mixed-income housing cooperative that will
operate without ongoing public subsidies; the physical redesign of the site so that it now blends
with the surrounding residential area; and the development of a new community center.
2.1
Creating Mixed-Income Housing
Creating a mixed-income community was an early and central theme in the Community
Development Corporation’s (CDC’s) discussions about the redevelopment of Ellen Wilson
Dwellings. The notion of a limited equity mixed-income cooperative was proposed by a
development team member (Telesis Corporation) and well-received by CDC members, because
it was viewed as a way to give incoming residents a greater stake in their new community. It also
presented an opportunity to provide housing for low-income families without bringing public
housing back to the site—an option that would likely have been opposed by neighborhood
residents.
In a housing cooperative, members purchase shares in a corporation that owns and manages the
property. Each member makes an initial payment and then pays monthly carrying charges. In the
case of the Townhomes, both the initial payment and amount of the monthly charge vary with
household income as well as unit size. If a member moves from the housing cooperative, he or
she is able to receive back a portion of initial and monthly housing payments based on “tenure
credits,” which are earned based on length of tenure and level of investment through the initial
purchase price and monthly carrying charges.11
To achieve an economically mixed development, the cooperative was planned to include share
holders, or cooperative members, in three income bands:
11
C
Income Band One: 25 percent of units are available to households with incomes less
than 25 percent of the area median income (up to $20,700 for a family of four in year
2000);
C
Income Band Two: 25 percent of units are available to households with incomes
between 25 and 50 percent of area median (up to $41,400 for a family of four); and
If a member sells his or her interest in the first three years, he or she receives only the initial purchase payment back, plus bank interest.
Abt Associates Inc.
The Revitalized Development
7
C
Income Band Three: 50 percent of units are available to households with incomes
between 50 and 80 percent of area median (up to $66,240 for a family of four). Up
to 20 units in Income Band Three could be occupied by households whose incomes
are between 80 percent and 115 percent of median.12
Cooperative member households pay a fixed monthly housing payment, equal to 30 percent of
the income that is at the center of their income band. The housing payments of those in the
highest income band are used to cross-subsidize the payments of households in the lowest band.
Because the HOPE VI grant financed all capital costs for the project, the housing payments of
cooperative members are sufficient to cover all operating expenses. No long-term public
subsidies will be used to support the development. (The operations and financing of the co-op
are discussed in detail in Chapter 3.)
The addition of 13 market-rate homeownership townhomes was seen as a way of further
enhancing the mixed-income character of the development. Both the market-rate units and units
occupied by households in different income bands are integrated throughout the development.
2.2
Physical Redesign
The design of the Townhomes on Capitol Hill reflects the CDC’s goal to create a development
that “blends naturally into the Capitol Hill area.” It does not distinguish individual units based
on income bands. The site plan, shown in Figure 2-1, includes a new public road and a public
alley or “mews” that mirror the street pattern in the neighborhood and connect the development
to the surrounding community. As is typical in Capitol Hill, the townhouses are oriented toward
the street. Each unit has its own entrance onto the street, and some also have a back entrance
onto a small enclosed yard. Because Capitol Hill is an historic district, the developers were
required to build brick sidewalks with granite curbs. The streets are tree-lined and small front
yards are landscaped with shrubs and perennial flowers. In addition to on-street parking, there
is a limited-access parking lot for residents.
Substantial investment was made in the exterior design and detailing of the townhouses.
According to development team staff, the architect, who had done extensive prior work in the
Capitol Hill area, invested significant attention and resources in the design of the front facades
of the buildings.13 Her designs were a frequent subject of debate among neighbors concerned that
the development look like upscale market-rate housing. The end result is a development that is
quite varied architecturally and draws on the range of building styles in Capitol Hill. A variety
of building materials (including decorative brick, brownstone, stucco, and siding) as well as
12
Revised Revitalization Plan, p. 3.
13
The “development team” refers to the partners of the Ellen Wilson Redevelopment Limited Liability Corporation, including the CDC,
Corcoran Jennison, and the Telesis Corporation, as well as the grant administrator.
Abt Associates Inc.
The Revitalized Development
8
Figure 2-1
Site Plan for the Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Abt Associates Inc.
The Revitalized Development
9
The Townhomes on Capitol Hill along I Street, Southeast. (June 2000)
paint colors are used, leaving the impression that these buildings are an extension of the Capitol
Hill neighborhood rather than a separately constructed development.
As of the fall of 2000, 134 cooperative units had been built and another 13 market-rate, fee simple
townhouses were scheduled for construction. There are five building types:
C
three-story, two-family townhouses: representing the predominant building type,
each of these townhouses consists of a two-bedroom, two-bath unit over a onebedroom English basement; the English basement apartments have about 600 square
feet, and the two-bedroom units are typically 1,100 to 1,200 square feet;
C
four-story, two-family townhouses: these consist of a two-story, three-bedroom unit
on the first two floors, with a two-story, two-bedroom unit on the top floors; the
three-bedroom units have about 1,250 square feet;
C
two-story, two-family townhouses: designed to look like two side-by-side
townhomes, these are two-bedroom flats, one unit on top of the other;
C
semi-detached “carriage” houses: these are two-story, two-bedroom units of
roughly 1,100 square feet; and
C
three-story, two-family, trapezoidal-shaped townhouses: these are designed for the
perimeter of the site, with a mix of unit sizes.
Abt Associates Inc.
The Revitalized Development
10
Note the mix of building types: three-story, two-family townhouses (far left and center); four-story, twofamily townhouses; and two-story, two-family townhouses (left of center, with sloped roof). (June 2000).
Three-story, two-family townhouses and four-story, two-family townhouses. (June 2000)
Abt Associates Inc.
The Revitalized Development
11
Semi-detached “carriage” houses on Ellen Wilson Place (the new public alley). (June 2000)
Altogether, the cooperative part of the development has the same number of units as did Ellen
Wilson prior to its demolition, although fewer co-op units are reserved for low-income
households and there are fewer large (three-bedroom) units. (See Exhibits 2-1 and 2-2.) The
units are also modest in size. One-bedroom units range from 560 to 600 square feet. The twoand three-bedroom units range from 780 to 1250 square feet.
All units have wall-to-wall carpeting, central air conditioning, dishwashers, security systems, and
washer/dryer hookups. In contrast to the exteriors, the interior plans for the units are fairly
standard in design. One redevelopment team member observed that, because of community
pressures, significantly more attention was paid to the exteriors of the units. She would have
liked to see more attention to the quality of workmanship and materials on the inside. This
sentiment was echoed by the current manager of the development, who complained about the use
of bi-fold doors for closets and noted some recent plumbing problems.
Abt Associates Inc.
The Revitalized Development
12
Exhibit 2-1
Changes to Units/Buildings at Ellen Wilson/Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Baseline
Current
Upon
Completion
Units for households with incomes at 80% or
less of mediana
134b
(rental)
114
(co-op)
114
(co-op)
Units for households with incomes between
80% and 115% of median
0
20
(co-op)
20
(co-op)
Market-rate homeownership unitsc
0
0
13
134
134
147
Unit Type
Total number of units
Sources: Revised Revitalization Plan, September 1995 and interviews with the development team.
a
This is the family income limit for public housing. Actual occupants of public housing have much lower incomes.
b
There Ellen Wilson units were vacant at baseline.
c
13 townhouses will be constructed, owners may opt for these to be built with basement apartments, resulting in more than 13
units.
Exhibit 2-2
Changes to Bedroom Configurations at Ellen Wilson/Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Baseline
Current
(All Units)
Efficiencies
0
0
One-bedroom units
72
46
Two-bedroom units
34
82
Three-bedroom units
28
6
Total number of units
134
134
Type of Units
Sources: Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI, Ellen Wilson Dwellings and interviews with the development team.
2.3
Community Center
Construction is scheduled to begin on a 4,000 square foot community center in 2001. Originally,
the center was to house a small day care facility. However, based on reports from the community
regarding an already adequate supply of day care, this plan has changed. The center is now
expected to house office space for the property manager, a small maintenance room, community
meeting space for classes or community events, an exercise area, and perhaps a computer learning
center. The center’s “siting, scale, orientation and materials will reflect its function and
distinguish it from the adjacent townhouses, while maintaining a compatible character with the
Abt Associates Inc.
The Revitalized Development
13
surrounding historic area.”14 Development staff estimated that the center will be completed by
the fall of 2001.
14
Revised Revitalization Plan, September 1995, Section A, Executive Summary, page 2.
Abt Associates Inc.
The Revitalized Development
14
3.
Management Operations and Policies
In addition to paying careful attention to the project’s physical design, the development team also
crafted a complicated and ambitious management plan. Their goals in developing this plan were
to ensure that:
C
C
the Townhomes are adequately maintained and operated over time; and
the goals regarding income diversity and housing affordability are maintained.
This chapter first describes the management structure for the project. This is followed by a
discussion of current occupancy rates, marketing of units, and the selection of cooperative
members in Section 3.2. Section 3.3 describes the structure that has been put in place to ensure
that the co-op remains an affordable, mixed-income development. Sections 3.4 and 3.5 describe
current maintenance practices and plans for ensuring the long-term viability of the development.
3.1
Property Management
The Capitol Hill Cooperative Housing Association (CHCHA), which includes all those who live
in the cooperative development and pay monthly carrying charges, will have overall responsibility
for managing the Townhomes. The Association will not own the property outright. Instead, the
buildings and land are conveyed to the CHCHA by the District of Columbia Housing Authority
(DCHA) through a 99-year ground lease.
In April 2000, a formal training program for all cooperative members was begun by the
development team.15 The training program was designed to culminate in the election of the first
CHCHA board of directors. This election was delayed, because some co-op members did not
participate in all training sessions and make-up sessions had to be scheduled. The board was
finally elected in December 2000 and has assumed responsibility for overseeing the private
property manager and making budget decisions as necessary. (Until the board was elected, the
development team had assumed overall management responsibility on behalf of the CHCHA.)
The CJ Management Company, a division of Corcoran Jennison (part of the development team),
has been the day-to-day manager of the development since December 1998.16 As outlined in the
co-op’s Management Plan and in a management services agreement between the management
company and the cooperative association, the private manager is responsible for marketing,
15
The training program began once 90 percent of the units were occupied. The training consists of six sessions that address issues such as coop operations, home maintenance and security, co-op bylaws, and board responsibilities.
16
The company has a contract to continue day-to-day management of the property through 2002.
Abt Associates Inc.
Management Operations and Policies
15
resident selection, maintenance, and the provision of resident services related to household
budgeting and management. The company currently has five on-site staff, including a property
manager, two maintenance workers, an administrative assistant, and a part-time social service
worker. Based on the results of an in-person survey of residents conducted in the Summer of
2000 (discussed in detail in Chapter 4), most residents have been satisfied with the maintenance
and management of the property to date.
3.2
Occupancy, Marketing and Resident Selection
As of July 2000, 128 of the 134 co-op units were occupied. Of the six vacant units, three were
being used as interim office space by the property manager until the community building is
completed. The three remaining units became vacant only recently and were scheduled to be
occupied shortly. The property manager noted that since the project opened there had been only
one eviction. Delinquencies in carrying charges were reported to be low. At the time of the site
visit, no residents were more than 30 days in arrears. If a resident has a problem with payment,
he or she may seek assistance from of an on-site resident services coordinator, who is available
to work with residents on budgeting and household management issues
Initial marketing of the co-op units, which began in early 1999, is described by development team
staff as one of the few easy tasks in the process. The units became available just as the housing
market in Washington D.C.—and in Capitol Hill in particular—was becoming more active.
Marketing efforts included advertising in The Washington Post and in a neighborhood newspaper,
placing a large sign at a prominent corner of the property, and a web page. The property manager
reported that these efforts generated significant response and a substantial pool of potential
applicants. Based on this initial outreach, residents were selected and a waiting list was
developed that still serves as a source of applicants.
The selection of residents is made based on the following critiera:
17
C
income qualifications: the household must have an income below 80 percent of area
median income and must have income sufficient to pay monthly carrying charges;17
C
background checks: both criminal and credit checks are performed;
C
references: applicants must provide positive references from an employer or landlord;
and
According to the Cooperative’s management plan, anticipated housing costs cannot exceed 40 percent of the households’s gross adjusted
income and credit obligations cannot exceed an additional 20 percent of income. Gross adjusted income can be from a number of sources
including employment, Social Security, SSI, Pensions, etc. TANF is not counted as income because, according to one key informant, it is
not considered an on-going income source.
Abt Associates Inc.
Management Operations and Policies
16
C
income “proportionality”: applicants must meet income critieria based on
availability of units in each of the income bands.
In addition, at the time of initial lease-up of the property, preference was given to households who
met the eligibility and screening critiera and were residents of the former Ellen Wilson Dwellings
who were displaced when the site was vacated in 1988, or had resided at one of two nearby
public housing developments, Arthur Capper and Carrollsburg Dwellings, as of July 1998.18 In
order to make former Ellen Wilson residents aware of this preference, the housing authority
reviewed old data files and developed a mailing list of roughly 80 former residents. Roughly half
of these residents applied, but not many met the development’s strict selection criteria.19
Ultimately, 13 former residents of Ellen Wilson and 10 residents of Arthur Capper and
Carrollsburg moved to the Townhomes.
3.3
Income Bands and Housing Payments
As noted previously, according to the CHCHA Regulatory and Operating Agreement a targeted
number of cooperative households must fall into each of three income bands:
C
Income Band One: 33 households will have incomes with less than 25 percent of
annual gross family median income;
C
Income Band Two: 34 households will have incomes between 25 and 50 percent of
median;
C
Income Band Three: 47 households will have incomes between 50 and 80 percent
of median, and an additional 20 households may have incomes between 80 percent
and 115 percent of median.
The cooperative is required to maintain this income mix for at least 40 years as units turn over,
although there is some leeway for fluctuation (plus or minus 10 percent) regarding the number
in each band.
Before moving into the Townhomes, each household must purchase shares in the cooperative.
The initial share payment varies with income. In general, the share payment is the equivalent of
5 percent of area median income, adjusted for unit size, at the middle of the purchaser’s income
band. For example, a family in Band One would be required to pay 5 percent of 12.5 percent of
area median income (which is adjusted based on the size of unit that they will occupy). Based on
2000 median income figures, the payment for a family of two for a one-bedroom unit in Band One
18
This preference only applied at the time the property was originally leased.
19
“Wilson Housing Reborn,” The Washington Post, November 5, 1998.
Abt Associates Inc.
Management Operations and Policies
17
is about $414. [$66,240 (area median income for a 2-person household) x .125 (no unit size
adjustment) = $8280 x .05 = $414.] By comparison, the initial share payment for a two-person
family in Band Three purchasing shares for a one-bedroom unit would be about $2150. (See
Exhibit 3-1)
On a monthly basis, residents pay 30 percent of income at the middle of their income band
(adjusted for unit size) as a total housing cost. This includes the carrying charge paid to the
cooperative plus utility payments paid privately by each resident. Exhibit 3-1 provides several
examples of how this cost is calculated. A two-person household earning less than 25 percent
of median would have a total housing payment of $207 per month for a one-bedroom unit. This
includes estimated utilities of $100 plus a monthly $107 carrying charge. The total housing
payment is calculated based on 30 percent of $8,280, which represents the midpoint of the income
range for a two-person household earning less than 25 percent of median (as of 2000).20 For a
two-person household with an income between 50 and 80 percent of median, the housing
payment for the same one-bedroom unit would be $1,076, including $100 for utilities and $976
for the co-op carrying charge.21
The payment system is designed to allow households in Band Three to subsidize the Band One
households. The payments of Band Two residents are intended to break even with operating
costs. In fact, the operating budget for 1999 and the projected budget for 2000 show that the
operating costs for the co-op was $455 per unit per month in 1999 (this was a lease-up period)
and projected at $545 per unit per month in 2000. By comparison, the monthly carrying charge
for a two-person family in Exhibit 3-1 is between $418 and $629. (The operating budget is
contained in Appendix A.)
The development team noted several reasons why they developed a fixed housing payment within
each income band. First, residents are not penalized when their income rises within the band.
Second, they believe that residents generally prefer a fixed housing payment to paying 30 percent
of income.22 However, some drawbacks to this approach are worth mentioning. Most important,
a monthly payment is only fixed while the co-op member’s income remains within a particular
band. When their income rises above the band range, they can expect an increase of between
$200 and $300 per month— a possible disincentive to maximizing income growth. In addition,
the payments are subject to annual adjustment to reflect changes in the metropolitan area median
income.
20
For a four-person household, the middle of the band is $10,350 and the monthly payment is $259.
21
These figures are similar to a listing of actual monthly carrying charges provided by the property manager. These charges ranged from as
little as $94 to $1100 per month. Based on annual income figures reported from the HOPE VI survey, it appears that most co-op
households are paying 30 percent or less of income monthly carrying charges and utilities.
22
Revised Revitalization Plan, Section F, Replacement Housing Plan, p. 3.
Abt Associates Inc.
Management Operations and Policies
18
Exhibit 3-1
Examples of Estimated Initial Share Payments and Monthly Housing Payments for a
Two-Person Household in a One-Bedroom Unit (2000)23
Income Band 1
Income Band 2a
Income Band 3
(up to 25% of
median income)
Band 2a (2537.5% of median)
Band 2b (37.550%of median)
(50-80% of
median)b
up to $16,560c
$16,560-$24,840
$24,840-$33,120
$33,120-52,992
Annual incomemiddle of band
$8,280
$20,700
$29,160
$43,056
30% of monthly
income
$207
$518
$729
$1,076
($100)
($100)
($100)
($100)
$107
$418
$629
$976
$1458
$2150
Income range
Estimated utilities
(paid by resident)
Monthly co-op
carrying charge
Initial share
payment
$414
$1035
a
In order to prevent residents in the lower-end of Income Band Two from paying an unacceptable percentage of their incomes for
housing, this band is divided into sub-bands for purposes of calculating housing payments.
B
The housing payment for Income Band Three residents is the lesser of 30 percent of monthly median income less utilities or market rent.
Market rent is determined annually based upon housing payments for comparable units in the private market.
C
A household in Band One must have at least 10 percent of area median income to qualify for residence at the co-op.
One of the more challenging management tasks that the cooperative and property management
are likely to face is maintaining the numbers of households in each income band over time,
especially given changing family circumstances. It is the responsibility of the property manager
to recertify income annually, for households in Income Bands One and Two. (Residents in
Income Band Three are not recertified annually since their housing payment will not change as
income increases. If their income declines, they may request to be placed in a different band.)
Several households that moved into the development in 2000 have already experienced significant
income changes, so that they no longer belong to their original income band. These households
have been required to make the monthly housing payment for their new income band once there
is an “open position” within that band. As a resident moves to a different band or leaves the
development, the property manager must ensure that incoming residents meet income
requirements based on which bands have openings. For this reason, waiting lists are maintained
by unit size by band. Residents are not forced to leave the cooperative if their income rises above
80 percent or even 115 percent of median.
23
This table was developed based on the “Ellen Wilson Resident Payment Profile” prepared for the Revised Revitalization Plan. The table
uses the 2000 area median income for a two-person family in the D.C. metropolitan area of $66,240.
Abt Associates Inc.
Management Operations and Policies
19
Compared to renting, belonging to the Townhomes cooperative offers an advantage in that when
a household moves from the development they are eligible to receive back some limited equity,
based on their payments to the cooperative. A seller’s share payment will vary depending on how
long they have lived at the cooperative, their Income Band, and current market conditions. At
minimum, all sellers receive back the initial share payment. Members who have lived at the
cooperative for a minimum of three year receive further compensation. For each year that these
member households maintain “good tenure”—that is, abide by the co-op’s rules and provide
adequate notice of their intent to move—they receive a “tenure credit.” Each tenure credit is
equal to two percent of the annual income at the middle of the household’s income band, adjusted
for unit size. For example, a Band One family of three would receive a tenure credit in the year
2000 of (82,800 x .125 (no unit size adjustment) = $10,350 x .02 = $207. A Band Three family
would receive a tenure credit in 2000 of $1076. The actual amount (beyond the initial share
payment) that a seller receives upon the sale of his or her shares depends upon the tenure credits
that have been earned and the price at which the share is sold (tied to income of the incoming
household and market conditions).24
3.4
Maintenance
The property management company has day to day responsibility for the maintenance of all units and
common areas. In addition, the company subcontracts with a landscaping firm to maintain the grounds.
The property manager has two full-time maintenance workers on-site who are available to handle both
routine and emergency problems. The co-op’s management plan requires the property management
to resolve any emergency requests with 24 hours. During the first year of operation, there have been
no serious maintenance issues, although problems with plumbing and bi-fold closet doors have been
common. The property manager reported that the overall construction quality of the Townhomes is
good, although he echoed other key informant reports that the high quality of materials used on the
units’ exteriors was not matched by a similar level of workmanship inside the units.
Through the co-op’s regulatory and operating agreement, several requirements are in place to ensure
that the Townhomes are maintained in good phsyical condition over the long term. The agreement
requires that the property manager conduct annual physical inspections of each unit “. . . to ensure that
all units meet the basic standards of habitability and to observe any potential maintenance problems.”25
Further, the cooperative is required to establish a replacement reserve, with average contributions of
$250 per unit per year. This reserve will be used to pay for major repairs or replacements to mechanical
and electrical systems, architectural structures (roofs, foundations), or individual units. It should also
be noted that all 134 units has a one-year builder’s warranty, and some items such as the roofs
have longer warranty periods.
24
See Capitol Hill Cooperative Housing Association Regulatory and Operating Agreement, pp. 12-17.
25
CHCHA Regulatory and Operating Agreement, pp. 22-24.
Abt Associates Inc.
Management Operations and Policies
20
3.5
Long-Term Viability of the Development
The long-term success of the Townhomes will ultimately depend on the ability of the cooperative
members and the CHCHA board of directors to manage the development in a fiscally responsible
manner and to ensure that it maintains its mixed-income character. Cognizant of the responsibility
that will rest on the co-op board, the development team has established requirements in the coop’s regulatory and operating agreement to ensure that the board carries out its responsibilities.
To sustain the development’s fiscal stability, HOPE VI grant funds totaling $878,000 will be used
to create an operating or “affordability reserve.” This money can be used to: 1) cover operating
deficits caused by delinquencies in monthly housing payments or high vacancy rates; 2) repurchase memberships of selling members; and 3) pay insurance deductible and other losses not
covered by the replacement reserve.
To help ensure that the original goals of the project are met over the long-term, an entity called
the New Community Trust (NCT) has been established to oversee the CHCHA’s operations. The
CHCHA is required to submit periodic reports and financial statements to the Trust and to the
housing authority (which owns the land). Board actions regarding changes in by-law, significant
withdrawals from the affordability reserve, and annual budget setting must be approved by the
Trust. The Trust also has the power to remove co-op members from the CHCHA board of
directors.26
During the first five years of the cooperative (which begins when the board of directors is
elected), the Ellen Wilson Redevelopment Limited Liability Corporation (the development team)
comprises the majority membership of the Trust. At the end of five years, the Trust’s membership
changes to consist of two members of the Capitol Hill community and two members of the
cooperative. If the development does not remain a mixed-income, limited equity cooperative
during the first 40 years, the regulatory and operating agreement specifies the steps by which the
development can be taken over by the housing authority.
While the Trust is described in writing as the entity that will ensure that co-op restrictions
regarding affordability of housing payments and income diversity are enforced and that the
property is well-maintained, those involved in its development noted that it serves another
purpose as well. Specifically, the Trust is also viewed as a “buffer,” in that it addresses the
concerns of some in the Capitol Hill neighborhood who did not want the housing authority to
have sole oversight of the development.
While the development team is confident that they have put in place the physical, financial, and
management resources that will ensure the long-term success of the cooperative, some Capitol
26
CHCHA Regulatory and Operating Agreement, pp. 26-31.
Abt Associates Inc.
Management Operations and Policies
21
Hill neighbors remain skeptical. One long-time Capitol Hill resident stated that many neighbors
are not convinced that the co-op can be self-supporting. However, he also remarked, “Even if
they have to go back for HUD funds year after year, it’s 10,000 times more attractive than any
public housing project. No matter what happiness, its sheer beauty will be a positive factor.”27
27
“Wilson Housing Reborn,” The Washington Post November 5, 1998.
Abt Associates Inc.
Management Operations and Policies
22
4.
Characteristics and Perceptions of HOPE VI and
Neighborhood Residents
As part of this study, Abt Associates conducted an in-person survey of those living in the
Townhomes on Capitol Hill, as well as those living in the neighborhood immediately surrounding
the development. All residents of the Townhomes who had lived in the development for at least
one month were eligible to participate in the survey, and residents who had lived in the
surrounding neighborhood for at least six months were randomly selected.28 The survey was
conducted between July and September 2000, with a total of 90 development residents and 136
neighborhood residents interviewed. 29
Using these data, this chapter describes the characteristics of residents at the Townhomes, makes
comparisons among residents in various income bands, and compares the characteristics and
perceptions of Townhomes residents with those in the surrounding neighborhood.
More detailed results may be found in the Appendix Tables at the end of this report.30
4.1
Resident Demographics and Income
Because Ellen Wilson was long vacant at the time of the baseline assessment, no detailed data are
available on the characteristics of former Ellen Wilson residents. Based on the reports of key
informants at the time of the baseline study, it appears that most residents were African American
and relied on public assistance as their primary source of income.31
By design today’s residents are a much more diverse group. As shown in Exhibit 4-1, 68 percent
of the co-op residents are African American, and 32 percent are white. The majority of
households heads (69 percent) are female. Ages of household heads vary considerably. About
half are 18 to 34 years of age, while 22 percent are between 35 and 49, 13 percent are between
50 and 64, and 10 percent are over age 65. Most households (83 percent) consist of just one or
28
The survey area was bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue on the north, Tenth Street on the east, the Southeast-Southwest Freeway on the
south, and Second Street on the west (North Carolina Avenue joins the North and West borders, and I Street joins the South and East
borders). Information on survey methodology and analysis can be found in Appendix B.
29
Response rates varies among the three income bands. Response rates were determined by dividing the number of completed surveys by the
number of eligible units (the number of units by band, minus vacant units and units where residents were screened out of the survey).
Overall, we completed interviews with 96 percent of eligible Band One residents, 58 percent of Band Two residents, and 85 percent of
Band Three residents.
30
Appendix C shows the survey results for all Townhomes residents and neighborhood residents. Appendix D shows the responses of
Townhomes residents by income band.
31
An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI, Ellen Wilson Dwellings, p. 9.
Abt Associates Inc.
Characteristics and Perceptions of Residents
23
two persons, which is not surprising given the number of modest-sized units at the Townhomes.32
According to the survey, seventy-four (74) percent of Townhomes households did not have
children. Information provided by the management company suggests that less than one quarter
of all Townhomes residents are under 18 years of age and that more than 90 percent of the
children are five years or younger.33
Exhibit 4-1
Demographic Characteristics of Townhomes Residents and Neighborhood Residents
Income Bands
Band
Two
(n=14)
Race/Ethnicity by Household Head
African American
White
American Indian
Hispanic
89%
11
0
0
93%
7
0
0
*
49%
51
0
2
Household Size
1 person
2 people
3+ people
Average HH Size
Married Head of Household
44%
37
19
1.9
4%
21%
57
21
2.2
7%*
31%
55
14
1.9
24%*
33%
50
17
1.9
16%
**
41%
36
23
1.9**
34%**
Female-Headed Households
81%
64%
63%
69%
51%**
Single Female-Headed Households
with Children
30%
29%
2%*
14%
1%**
67%
88%*
*
12%
59
16
8
4
74%
8%
12
31
27
23
43%
*
23%
46
23
0
8
13%
43
22
13
10
87%**
**
4%
23
34
29
11
7%
29%*
73%*
47%
82%**
Households without Children
Age of Household Head
18-24
25-34
35-49
50-64
65 and over
Household Heads with a
College Degree
Band
Three
(n=49)
All
Townhomes
Residents
(n=90)
Band
One
(n=27)
68%
32
0
1
Neighborhood
(n=136)
**
12%
88
1
3
Source: HOPE VI Resident and Neighborhood Interim Survey (July - September 2000).
*Indicates that the responses of this Band are statistically significantly different than the responses of the Band One residents at the 5
percent level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables, a chi-squared test was used to compare the
distribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical variables are indicated by an * placed above
the responses rather than next to individual numbers. See Appendix B for details on tests of statistical significance.
**Indicates that the responses of neighborhood residents are statistically significantly different than the responses of Townhomes residents
at the 5 percent level.
32
Residents of the Townhomes are generally similar to renters in the D.C. area: 63 percent of all renters were African American and 27
percent were white; 55 percent were1-person households and another 22 percent were 2-person households; and 74 percent of households
had no children. American Housing Survey for the Washington Metropolitan Area: 1998, U.S. Census Bureau.
33
CJ Management. Demographic Statistics. The Townhomes on Capitol Hill. June 27, 2000.
Abt Associates Inc.
Characteristics and Perceptions of Residents
24
There are noticeable differences in the characteristics of households within the three income
bands.34 By definition, Band One households have the lowest incomes among the three bands.
More than 60 percent of the returning Ellen Wilson residents are in this band. (See Appendix B.)
The Band One households are predominantly African American (89 percent). The household
heads are more likely to be female (81 percent), older (one-half are 50 years or older), and less
educated than household heads in the other income bands (only 7 percent have a college degree).
The highest percentage of single-person households (44 percent) is in this band.
Like Band One, the Band Two households (incomes between 25 and 50 percent of median) are
primarily African American (93 percent) and many are female-headed (64 percent.) At the same
time, the household heads are generally younger and more likely to have children than Band One
households. Almost half of the Band Two households heads are between 25 and 34 years of age,
and another 23 percent each are under age 25. More than half (57 percent) reported having
children in the household. Average household size was 2.2 persons, larger than that reported for
Bands One or Three. Band Two households are also more educated than Band One households,
with 29 percent reporting that they have a college degree.
The Band Three households (incomes of 50 percent of median and above) are the most diverse
racially—half are African American and half are white. As with Bands One and Two, femaleheaded households are in the majority (63 percent), and overall household size is small (1.9
persons per household). However, very few Band Three households have any children—only 12
percent compared to 57 percent of Band Two households and 33 percent of Band One
households. Further, most of the married households are in Band Three (24 percent of all
households in Band Three compared to 4 and 7 percent in Bands One and Two, respectively).
The Band Three households are closer in age to Band Two than to Band One. Overall, 71
percent of Band Three households heads reported to be under 35 years of age. Finally, Band
Three households are more educated than those in the other bands, with 73 percent reporting that
they have completed college.
As shown in Exhibit 4-2, the Townhomes is a mixed-income community. While the median
household income across all bands is $35,000 (or 42 percent of 1999 area median), there is
significant variation by band. The median household income for Band One households was
$7,350, compared with $29,100 for Band Two households and $45,000 for Band Three
households. Overall, these figures are consistent with the income requirements of each band.
However, it should be noted that several households reported incomes that suggest that they no
longer belong to the band to which they were assigned upon moving into the development. For
example, a Band One household reported a gross household income between 50 and 80 percent
of HUD median, while a Band Two household reported an income above 80 percent of median.
For all co-op households surveyed, 33 percent reported a gross income in the Band One range,
15 percent of households reported an income in the Band Two range, and 53 percent of residents
34
The surveyed households are grouped according to the band to which they were assigned when they first moved into the development.
Abt Associates Inc.
Characteristics and Perceptions of Residents
25
reported an income in the Band Three range. (Based on the co-op’s income targets, 25 percent
of households should each fall into Bands One and Two, and 50 percent should fall into Band
Three, although variations of plus or minus 10 percent are allowed.)
Exhibit 4-2
Income Characteristics of Townhomes Residents and Neighborhood Residents
Band
One
(n=27)
Median Household Income
Household Income as Percent
of Area Median
<25 percent
25 to 49 percent
50 to 80 percent
>80 percent
Sources of Income/Assistancea
Earned income
SSI
Disability/workers comp
Food stamps
Public assistance
Other
Income Bands
Band
Band
Two
Three
(n=14)
(n=49)
All
Townhomes
Residents
(n=90)
Neighborhood
Residents
(n=136)
$7,350
$29,100*
$45,000*
$35,000
$85,000**
88%
8
4
0
*
21%
50
21
7
*
7%
7
53
33
33%
14
34
20
**
4%
7
22
67
32%
37
33
30
7
0
92%*
0*
0*
0*
0
8
96%*
2*
4*
0*
0
0
76%
13
13
9
2
0
*
91%**
4**
4**
3**
1
0
Source: HOPE VI Resident and Neighborhood Interim Survey (July - September 2000.)
Notes: Area Median Household Income for a family of four was $82,800 in the Washington Metropolitan Region in 2000.
a
Based on whether the respondent reported any income from the source.
*Indicates that the responses of this Band are statistically significantly different than the responses of the Band One residents at the 5
percent level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables, a chi-squared test was used to compare the
distribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical variables are indicated by an * placed
above the responses rather than next to individual numbers.
**Indicates that the responses of neighborhood residents are statistically significantly different than the responses of Townhomes
residents at the 5 percent level.
There are several possible explanations for these discrepancies. First, some households may
simply have misreported their income to the survey interviewer or to the management company.
Alternatively, the incomes of these households may have changed since moving into the
development. In fact, the property manager reported that several households had switched bands.
If this is the case, it appears that Bands One and Three may be oversubscribed, and that the
management company will be looking to bring in new residents with incomes in the Band Two
range.
It is also worth noting that 20 percent of Townhomes residents reported incomes above 80
percent of the median. As discussed in Chapter 3, the Townhomes can accommodate 20
households (or 15 percent of all co-op households) with incomes between 80 and 115 percent of
the median. Based on the survey results they currently exceed this number. These findings
Abt Associates Inc.
Characteristics and Perceptions of Residents
26
suggest the complexity of maintaining the co-op’s income distribution requirements over time.
The private manager acknowledged that maintaining the desired balance of incomes was a
challenge. It remains to be seen whether the households whose incomes increase beyond 80
percent of median will eventually move allowing households of more moderate means to take
advantage of the Townhomes’ affordable housing payments.
Overall, 76 percent of the Townhomes’ residents are working, although this varies dramatically
by band. More than 90 percent each of Band Two and Three residents are working, compared
with just 32 percent of Band One residents. Given that many Band One residents are older, it is
not surprising that 37 percent reported receiving some income from Supplemental Security
Income (SSI). In addition, one-third reported receiving Social Security disability income or
workers compensation. However, only a small number of Band One families (7 percent) reported
receiving public assistance. According to the cooperative’s management plan, public assistance
is not counted in determining a household’s eligibility for the co-op, because it is not an ongoing
source of income.
4.2
HOPE VI Residents Compared with Neighborhood Residents
Exhibits 4-1 and 4-2 also provide data that show differences between the characteristics of
Townhomes residents and those in the surrounding neighborhood. While the majority of
Townhomes residents are African American, most neighborhood residents are white (88 percent).
The neighborhood residents tend to be older (40 percent are over 50), more affluent, and more
educated than residents of the Townhomes. Neighborhood residents are also more likely to be
married (34 percent compared to 16 percent of Townhomes residents).
Like residents of the HOPE VI development, the neighborhood includes a significant percentage
of female-headed households (51 percent), and the average household is small, with 87 percent
reporting no children.
Household income varies more among Townhomes residents than among neighborhood residents,
with neighborhood residents generally reporting higher annual incomes. The median income
reported for all neighborhood households was $85,000, more than twice the median reported for
Townhomes residents ($35,000) and slightly more than the area median income for a family of
four in 1999 ($82,800). Ninety-one (91) percent of neighborhood residents reported that they
received some or all of their income from employment. Income from SSI, disability, and other
sources was very small.
4.3
Residents’ Views of the Townhomes
In the course of the survey, residents were asked why they chose to move to the Townhomes.
Among all residents, 44 percent said that the primary reason to move was the development’s
Abt Associates Inc.
Characteristics and Perceptions of Residents
27
convenient location, while 22 percent said that they wanted to move to a “better” unit. These
were the two primary reasons to move reported by 86 percent of Band Two residents and 73
percent of Band Three residents. (See Exhibit 4-3.) Relatively few respondents (12 percent)
reported that lower housing cost was the primary motivation.
Exhibit 4-3
Resident Satisfaction with the Development
Income Bands
Band
Band
Two
Three
(n=14)
(n=49)
*
*
11%
50%
61%
33
36
12
7
7
16
15
7
6
19
0
0
15
0
5
*
74%
50%
65%
15
50
33
7
0
2
4
0
0
Band
One
(n=27)
Primary Reason to Move to Townhomes:
Convenient location
Better unit
Lower rent
Safer than former unit
Proximity to family/friends
Other
Satisfaction with Apartment:
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Satisfaction with Management:
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Percent Reporting Some or Big Problems with:
Adequacy of storage space
Too little living space
Too much noise
Plumbing
Walls with peeling paint
All
Townhomes
Residents
(n=90)
44%
22
12
9
6
7
66%
30
3
1
67%
26
4
4
50%
29
7
14
45%
39
12
4
52%
33
9
6
26%
15
7
0
7
57%
35
14
14
21
64%*
22
29*
16*
20
51%
23
20
11
17
Source: HOPE VI Resident Interim Survey (July - September 2000).
*Indicates that the responses of this Band are statistically significantly different than the responses of the Band One residents at
the 5 percent level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables, a chi-squared test was used to
compare the distribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical variables are
indicated by an * placed above the responses rather than next to individual numbers.
Within income bands, the reasons reported by Band One residents tended to be different than
those reported by other residents. Only 11 percent of Band One residents noted that the primary
reason to move to the Townhomes was its convenient location, while 33 percent said they were
moving to a better unit. Nineteen percent of Band One residents said that they wanted to be
closer to family and friends, and another 15 percent reported that they moved because the
development was safer than where they had lived previously. None of the Band Two or Three
residents moved to be closer to family and friends. However, 7 percent of Band Two residents
Abt Associates Inc.
Characteristics and Perceptions of Residents
28
and 16 percent of Band Three residents said that they moved to the Townhomes because they
believed it would be safer than where that had lived previously.
Overall, residents appear to be satisfied with their new homes. Two-thirds (66 percent) reported
that they were very satisfied with their unit, and another 30 percent reported that they were
somewhat satisfied. Eleven (11) percent of Band One residents reported some level
dissatisfaction, compared with 0 and 2 percent of residents in Bands Two and Three, respectively.
When asked about a range of possible problems with plumbing and heating systems, equipment
such as stoves and refrigerators, or maintenance issues such as peeling paint or broken windows,
concerns were reported by some residents. Overall, 11 percent of residents reported a problem
with plumbing, and 17 percent reported a problem with peeling paint. (Note that the private
manager specifically mentioned that plumbing problems had developed early on in some units.)
Townhomes residents were more likely to report problems with space in the unit. Just over onehalf of residents reported that storage space was a problem; another 23 percent reported that too
little living space was a “big” problem. Lack of space was a particular concern among Band Two
households, which tend to be larger and are more likely to have children. It should be noted that
many of the units at the Townhomes are less than 1,000 square feet; while all units have closets,
none have attic or basement space for storage, and the fenced yards (available to some units) are
small. Finally, 20 percent of residents reported problems with too much noise. Thia problem was
noted especially among Band Three residents. While the souce of the noise problem can not be
confirmed, the development’s proximity to the Southeast-Southwest Expressway is a likely
contributing factor.
4.4
Social Cohesion
Integrating the Ellen Wilson site socially and physically into the surrounding community was
among the CDC’s original objectives. To determine to what extent this objective has been met
to date, residents of the Townhomes and the neighborhood were asked how they defined their
neighborhood physically. Eighty percent of neighborhood residents consider the Townhomes to
be part of their neighborhood, suggesting that there has been progress in physically integrating
the Townhomes into the larger community. (See Exhibit 4-4.) The majority of Townhomes
residents defined their neighborhood as “the development and several blocks around it” (40
percent) or as “the block [I] live on and several blocks in each direction” (36 percent). This
suggests that many Townhomes residents also feel that their development is physically part of the
larger community.
In terms of social integration between neighborhood and Townhomes residents, the reports are
more mixed. Sixty-three (63) percent of Townhomes residents reported that they socialize with
residents who live outside the development, but within several blocks of their home. At the same
time, only 19 percent of neighborhood residents reported that they have socialized with
Townhomes residents.
Abt Associates Inc.
Characteristics and Perceptions of Residents
29
Exhibit 4-4
Social Cohesion in the Townhomes and in the Neighborhood
Income Bands
Band
Band
Band
One
Two
Three
(n=27)
(n=14)
(n=49)
Percent who define the neighborhood as:
My building and the block I live on
My block and several blocks in each direction
This development only
The development and several blocks around it
Other
All
Townhomes
Residents
(n=90)
Neighborhood
Residents
(n=136)
7%
26
33
33
0
14%
43
7
36
0
*
8%
39
8
45
0
9%
36
16
40
0
4%
93
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
80%
Percent who consider the Townhomes to be part of
the neighborhood:
Percent who socialize with Townhomes residents:
Percent who socialize with residents in the
surrounding neighborhood:
NA
NA
NA
NA
19%
63%
43%
69%
63%
NA
Percent who strongly agree or somewhat agree
that:
People generally get along
This is a close-knit neighborhood
People are willing to help neighbors
63%
67
76
84%
62
61
74%
53
62
71%
58
67
93%**
79**
91**
Percent who attend resident/neighborhood council
meetings:
Always
Sometimes
Never
No such resident/neighborhood council
37%
30
33
0
14%
50
29
7
43%
33
24
0
37%
34
28
1
3%
24
33
40
Length of time living at current unit:
<12 months
1 to 2 years
2 to 4 years
5 to 10 years
More than 10 years
48%
52
0
0
0
64%
36
0
0
0
67%
33
0
0
0
61%
38
0
0
0
19%
14
21
18
30
Source: HOPE VI Resident and Neighborhood Interim Survey (July - September 2000).
NA - Not applicable
*Indicates that the responses of this Band are statistically significantly different than the responses of the Band One residents at the 5 percent
level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables, a chi-squared test was used to compare the distribution of
responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical variables are indicated by an * placed above the responses
rather than next to individual numbers.
**Indicates that the responses of neighborhood residents are statistically significantly different than the responses of Townhomes residents at
the 5 percent level.
At the time of the survey, there appeared to be greater social cohesion among neighborhood
residents than Townhomes residents. As shown in Exhibit 4-4, 93 percent of neighborhood
residents agreed that people in the neighborhood generally get along with each other, compared
to 72 percent of the Townhomes residents. Similarly, 90 percent of neighborhood residents but
Abt Associates Inc.
Characteristics and Perceptions of Residents
30
only 66 percent of Townhomes residents agreed that their neighbors are generally willing to help
each other. Similarly, 79 percent of neighborhood residents compared with 58 percent of
Townhomes residents consider their neighborhood to be close-knit.
On the surface, these findings are puzzling given the smaller size and cooperative structure of the
Townhomes development. However, only 39 percent of residents have lived at the Townhomes
for more than one year, compared with 81 percent of neighborhood residents. In addition, the
cooperative has only recently begun to formally organize and elect its board. One would
anticipate that over the next several years, as residents become better acquainted with each other
through co-op activities, the level of social cohesion will rise.
The survey offered encouraging evidence that many Townhomes residents have begun to
participate actively in co-op meetings. Overall, 71 percent of Townhomes residents reported that
they “always” or “sometimes” attend resident meetings, while only 27 percent of neighborhood
residents reported that they at least occasionally attended a community meeting.
4.5
Residents’ Perceptions of their Neighborhood
As shown in Exhibit 4-5, residents of the Townhomes and the surrounding neighborhood share
positive views about their community. Roughly 96 percent of each group reported that they are
“very” or “somewhat” satisfied with the Capitol Hill neighborhood as a place to live. Further, the
majority of residents—including 67 percent from the Townhomes and 66 percent from the
neighborhood—view the neighborhood as an “excellent” or “good” place to raise children. Most
residents of each group (77 percent of Townhomes residents and 84 percent of neighborhood
residents) would like to live in the neighborhood five years from now.35
Among the three bands, there is some variation in opinions about the neighborhood. While
satisfaction levels are relatively high in all three groups, the Band Three residents appear
somewhat less enthusiastic about the neighborhood than do Band One or Two residents. About
60 percent describe their satisfaction with the neighborhood as “very high” compared to about
80 percent of residents each in the other two income bands. When asked whether the Capitol Hill
neighborhood is a good place to raise children, about half of Band Three residents reported that
it was “excellent” or “good” compared with 80 percent of Band One residents and 77 percent of
Band Two residents. Thirty-eight percent of Band Three residents said that Capitol Hill was only
“fair” place to raise children. Perhaps as a result, fewer Band Three households (70 percent) said
that they would like to be living in Capitol Hill in another five years.
35
It should be noted that 25 percent of Townhomes residents lived in the Capitol Hill neighborhood before moving to their current address.
Abt Associates Inc.
Characteristics and Perceptions of Residents
31
Exhibit 4-5
Resident Perceptions of their Neighborhood
Income Bands
Band
One
(n=27)
Band
Two
(n=14)
Band
Three
(n=49)
All
Townhomes
Residents
(n=90)
Neighborhood
Residents
(n=136)
Satisfaction with neighborhood
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
81%
15
4
0
79%
14
0
7
61%
35
2
2
70%
26
2
2
**
73%
23
4
1
Neighborhood as a place to raise
children
An excellent place
A good place
A fair place
A poor place
38%
42
12
8
23%
54
23
0
*
21%
35
38
6
26%
40
28
6
**
16%
49
26
8
Would like to live in neighborhood
5 years from now
85%
86%
70%
77%
84%**
Source: HOPE VI Resident and Neighborhood Interim Survey (July - September 2000).
*Indicates that the responses of this Band are statistically significantly different than the responses of the Band One residents at
the 5 percent level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables, a chi-squared test was used to
compare the distribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical variables are indicated
by an * placed above the responses rather than next to individual numbers.
**Indicates that the responses of neighborhood residents are statistically significantly different than the responses of Townhomes
residents at the 5 percent level.
The neighborhood is viewed by Townhomes residents as having numerous amenities. As shown
in Exhibit 4-6, nearly everyone interviewed—99 percent of Townhomes residents and 98 percent
of neighborhood residents—rated access to public transportation as “excellent” or “good.” In
fact, as Chapter 5 indicates, the Eastern Market metro stop is in close proximity to the
Townhomes and offers easy access to all parts of the Washington DC area. The majority of
residents also gave high ratings for neighborhood access to employment and job training
programs, parks and recreational facilities, and child care services. Health care facilities, quality
schools, and grocery stores were viewed as accessible by somewhat fewer respondents, especially
those from the neighborhood. Only half of neighborhood residents rated access to grocery stores
as good or excellent, perhaps reflecting the fact that the nearest large grocery store is about two
miles away. Forty-four (44) percent of neighborhood residents gave a positive rating to access
to good schools.
Abt Associates Inc.
Characteristics and Perceptions of Residents
32
Exhibit 4-6
Access to Neighborhood Amenities
Percent rating amenity as “excellent” or
“good” (other possible responses are “fair”
and “poor”)
Access to public transportation
Townhomes
Residents
(n=90)
99%
Neighborhood
Residents
(n=136)
97%
Close to job opportunities
81
92**
Close to job training/placement programs
66
73
Access to child care services
73
63
Access to parks and recreational facilities
74
86**
Close to friends and relatives
77
74
Access to health care services
60
51
Access to good schools
65
44**
Access to grocery stores
56
51**
Source: HOPE VI Resident and Neighborhood Interim Survey (July - September 2000).
**Indicates that the responses of neighborhood residents are statistically significantly different than the responses of Townhomes
residents at the 5 percent level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means.
Finally, returning Ellen Wilson residents and long-time Capitol Hill residents were asked how the
neighborhood had changed since the redevelopment began. Among neighborhood residents, 82
percent report that the neighborhood is “somewhat” or “much” better now than before the
redevelopment. Nineteen (19) percent thought it was about the same. All of the former Ellen
Wilson residents now living at the Townhomes indicated that the neighborhood is “somewhat”
(8 percent) or “much” (92 percent) better than before.
Exhibit 4-7
Changes in Neighborhood since the Redevelopment Began
Returning
Townhomes
residents
(n=13)
Long-term
Neighborhood
residents
(n=108)
92%
**
28%
A somewhat better place now
8
54
Neither better nor worse
0
19
Somewhat worse now
0
0
Much worse now
0
0
For returning residents and residents who lived in the
surrounding neighborhood before the redevelopment,
comparison of how the neighborhood has changed:
A much better place now
Source: Interim HOPE VI Resident and Neighborhood Surveys (July - September 2000).
**Indicates that the responses of neighborhood residents are statistically significantly different than the responses of Townhomes
residents at the 5 percent level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables, a chi-squared test was
used to compare the distribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical variables
are indicated by an ** placed above the responses rather than next to individual numbers.
Abt Associates Inc.
Characteristics and Perceptions of Residents
33
5.
The Capitol Hill Neighborhood
Capitol Hill is a thriving, racially mixed neighborhood that stretches just over a mile to the east
of the U.S. Capitol. It is largely residential, although the western portion of the area is dominated
by the Capitol building, the Library of Congress, the Supreme Court, and numerous
Congressional and other offices. There are also a variety of shops and restaurants catering to
government workers and to local residents. The area is designated as an historic district.
This case study focuses on a portion of Capitol Hill that surrounds the former Ellen Wilson
Dwellings. As shown in Figure 5-1, this is the southeast part of the neighborhood, bounded by
Pennsylvania Avenue on the north, Tenth Street on the east, and Second Street on the west. A
close-up view of Ellen Wilson and the surrounding area can be seen in Figure 5-2. The
Southeast-Southwest Freeway physically separates the neighborhood from two public housing
developments—Arthur Capper and Carrollsburg Dwellings. These developments are included
in this discussion, since residents from these developments participated on the CDC and a few
moved into the Townhomes. This chapter describes this area prior to revitalization, discusses
goals for the neighborhood as part of the redevelopment effort, and reports on conditions in the
area as of the summer of 2000.
5.1
The Neighborhood Prior to Revitalization
The baseline study of Ellen Wilson Dwellings provides a snapshot of the surrounding area in the
early 1990s. Overall, the Capitol Hill community that abutted Ellen Wilson had many strengths,
including a relatively stable population and sound housing stock, as well as some weaknesses,
notably a significant crime problem. A land developer who was interviewed at baseline reported
that Ellen Wilson had “. . . suppressed everything south of Pennsylvania Avenue” and that
property values were lower in the area immediately surrounding Ellen Wilson than just a few
blocks away.36 In 1993, the incidence of serious crime in the Ellen Wilson area was 165 percent
of the city average.
At the same time, the residential area to the north and west of the development (consisting
primarily of townhouses and some apartment buildings) was desirable, given its proximity to
government buildings and the downtown area, as well as its historic appeal. The neighborhood
had excellent access to downtown and other parts of Washington via bus and subway. The
Eastern Market Metro stop is located within the study area.
The revitalization of Capitol Hill’s stock had begun in the 1960s and over time had spread east
from the Capitol. A further wave of gentrification had begun in the study area in the mid-1980s,
36
Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI, Ellen Wilson Dwellings, p.14.
Abt Associates Inc.
The Capitol Hill Neighborhood
34
although by 1993 it was described as “stalled.” Nevertheless, the rate of homeownership in the
area was around 62 percent in 1990 (excluding the Ellen Wilson Dwellings). The 1990 median
income was $45,000, significantly above the city-wide median of $30,727. The population in
1990 was 81 percent white and 19 percent minority.37
Figure 5-1
The Study Area Within the Capitol Hill Neighborhood
HOPE VI Study Area
37
Based on 1990 Census data reported for tracts 70.1 and 65.1.
Abt Associates Inc.
The Capitol Hill Neighborhood
35
Figure 5-2
Townhomes on Capitol Hill and the Surrounding Area
Abt Associates Inc.
The Capitol Hill Neighborhood
36
The Southeast-Southwest Freeway at the underpass at Sixth Street and Virginia Avenue, Southeast. (June 2000)
The area immediately to the south of the freeway consisted primarily of two public housing
developments—Arthur Capper (approximately 1,000 dwelling units) and Carrollsburg Dwellings
(302 dwelling units)—as well as the Washington Navy Yard, home to the Chief of Naval
Operations and numerous naval commands. The area also contained a few small businesses,
including convenience stores, a deli, and a bar. Overall, 97 percent of households living in the
area were African American, and the 1990 median income was around $6,100. More than half
of the residents had incomes below the poverty level in 1990.
Most of the commercial activity in the neighborhood was and is to the north and east of the Ellen
Wilson site, along Pennsylvania Avenue and Eighth Street. Prior to the redevelopment, the
Pennsylvania Avenue commercial area offered a mix of restaurants and small retail shops that
catered to Capitol Hill’s middle- and upper-income residents and office workers. By contrast,
the Eighth Street corridor served a low- to moderate-income clientele in the early 1990s, offering
a mix of franchise establishments such as a Popeye’s, Payless Shoe Store, and a Blockbuster
Video, as well as locally owned, service-oriented businesses such as a beauty salon, a small
grocery, and a thrift shop. There were some vacant storefronts as well. The nearest large
grocery store was two miles away.
Finally, the neighborhood had a wealth of social and cultural resources. There are numerous
churches and schools. In addition, several community organizations had offices in the immediate
vicinity of Ellen Wilson Dwellings. The latter included: the offices of Sasha Bruce Youthwork,
Abt Associates Inc.
The Capitol Hill Neighborhood
37
a private nonprofit agency that offers assistance to atheadquarters
agency providing basic social services to community residents.
n
Overall Goals for the Neighborhood
Unlike
HOPE VI projects, the redevelopment of Ellen Wilson was not viewed as a
means
revitalization of a deteriorated neighborhood. In particular, the area to
the
d
perspective, the redevelopment was seen p
significant blighting influence (north of the freeway). A secondary goal, articulated in the revised
ion plan, was “. . . to provide an important neighborhood resource that would brin
social services to Capitol Hill.” Efforts to reach this goal are discussed in Chapter 6.
It
noting that, while the redevelopment effort was initiated and led by neighborhood
ists, there were some in the community who opposed the redevelopment. According t
those involved in the effort, their primary concerns were that a mixed-income development could
housing project would ultimately be put back on the site.
According to the editor of a Capitol Hill newspaper who participated in a focus group for this
. at least half the people in the area were saying Ellen Wilson would never
fill that top tier and . . .would begin to deteriorate. . . it would take a special
hen they could move over to a house
of East Capitol Street for
changed
s
deal. But if we didn’t have this economic boom. . . it could’ve been a very
38
5.3
As the newspaper editor’s comment suggests, the housing market in Capitol Hill (and across the
. While the sales market was
reportedl sluggish through much of the 1990s, many houses have recently been sold above
being on the market. In August 2000, the average price of
39
a home on Capitol Hill was approximately $23
A local
ple units at the Townhomes are now 20 percent
higher
-
38
Focus group with Capitol Hill business leaders, conducted by Brett Williams and Sherri Lawson Clark, August 30, 2000.
Interview with Don Denton, Pardoe Realty, September 7, 2000.
Abt Associates Inc.
38
$200,000s to the mid-$400,000s. The increased demand for housing is associated with a number
of factors, including a booming economy, low mortgage interest rates, and increasing gridlock
in the Washington, D.C. suburbs. In addition, there have been changes in city leadership, efforts
to improve city services, and a $5,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers in the District.
In the immediate vicinity of the Townhomes, there has been some renovation in the past two
years, and more is anticipated. A former liquor store at Seventh and G that had been considered
Apartments newly converted from a vacated liquor store at Seventh and G Streets, Southeast.(June 2000)
a problem site by neighborhood residents was recently converted into two, two-bedroom
apartment units slated to rent for $1,800 a month each (significantly more than the monthly
carrying charges for a two bedroom unit at the Townhomes). In addition, a former crack house
on Seventh and I Streets is now home to a nonprofit organization. It remains to be seen whether
several townhouses adjacent to the HOPE VI site that are in dilapidated condition will be
rehabilitated.
Finally, a vacant lot just across Sixth Street from the Townhomes has recently been sold to a
private developer, who plans to build townhouse apartments there. While this activity is not
solely the result of the Townhomes redevelopment, observers believed that it played a role in
spurring this construction and rehabilitation work.
Abt Associates Inc.
The Capitol Hill Neighborhood
39
The primary commercial areas of the neighborhood have witnessed some improvements, although
these cannot be directly attributed to the revitalization of Ellen Wilson. Eighth Street contains
a mix of establishments, including restaurants (eat-in and take-out), bars, and shops that range
from affordable to upscale. Among the new shops is a bicycle store that, according to its owner,
has been “very well received.” The owner noted in a focus group session that she serves a variety
of clients, from “lower income customers who use bicycles as their mode of transporation” to
“more well-off customers [who] use [bicycles] as a means of recreation.”40
More changes are expected along 8th Street. The Barracks Road Business Alliance, a merchant’s
association committed to the redevelopment of the 8th Street corridor, has been successful in
obtaining Community Development Block Grant funds from the city to pay for street facade
improvements including street lighting, new sidewalks and landscaping. These improvements will
give the corridor a much needed facelift.
The strength of the housing market and commercial activity to the north and west of the
Townhouses is good for members of the housing cooperative. In addition, they can look forward
to two major redevelopment projects on the south side of the freeway. First, the mid-rise
buildings of Arthur Capper were declared non-viable in 1998 and are being demolished. The 290unit senior high-rise building and 93 townhomes will remain at the site. The land where the midrises were located has been sold to the U.S. Marine Corps, which will build barracks on the site.
(The U.S. Marine Corps’ oldest base in the country is located in the study neighborhood.)
Housing authority staff are hopeful that this construction will link the neighborhoods to the south
and north of the freeway, which would benefit the public housing families living on the south side.
They anticipate that the Marines will hold their drills on the ball field at the site and work with
local children. One Arthur Capper resident who participated in a focus group for this study
echoed the view of the housing authority staff. She noted that she was pleased that the Marines
had moved to her neighborhood because, “I think this will help us in the near future. . . I can see
many children. . .down there becoming young Marines.”
Additionally, efforts are underway to redevelop the Washington Navy Yard into a “modern office
center.”41 Several office buildings are under construction and a hotel is planned as well. Roughly
1,300 Navy employees have moved to the Navy Yard since 1997, and the majority of 4,125
employees (mainly civilians) of the Naval Sea Systems Command are expected to begin working
at the site by the summer of 2001. The redevelopment is expected to draw shops, restaurants,
and services.
40
Focus group with Capitol Hill business leaders, conducted by Brett Williams and Sherri Lawson Clark, August 30, 2000.
41
“In Washington, New Recruits for the Navy Yard,” New York Times, 7/13/2000.
Abt Associates Inc.
The Capitol Hill Neighborhood
40
Townhomes, visible on the far right behind the freeway. (June 2000)
(June 2000)
The Capitol Hill Neighborhood
41
6.
Community and Supportive Services
One of the CDC’s goals in redeveloping Ellen Wilson was to create a neighborhood resource that
would bring community and social services to the greater Capitol Hill neighborhood.42 Almost
$2 million was set aside from the HOPE VI grant for this purpose. Between 1993 and 2000, the
redevelopment team used a portion of these funds to develop a plan for delivering services to the
community and to pay for programs and resources to help local residents improve their job skills
and opportunities. As the redevelopment work comes to an end, the team is preparing to begin
construction of a community center at the site and looking to make long-term supportive services
available to Townhomes residents and others in the neighborhood by creating a Supportive
Services Endowment Trust that will operate over the next 40 years. The supportive services
activities that have been funded, as well as plans for the new community center and the
endowment trust, are described in this chapter.
6.1
Supportive Services Activities through 2000
As planning for the physical redevelopment got underway in the mid 1990s, the development
team also initiated a process to determine how to spend $1.9 million in HOPE VI
community/supportive services funds. This process, outlined in detail in the revised revitalization
plan, involved several steps:
C
assessing neighborhood conditions and supportive service needs (performed by local
university students);
C
training local residents to act as “resident facilitators” to manage a supportive services
planning process; and
C
convening a series of town hall meetings (1995 and 1996) to gain community input
on supportive service needs.
These activities culminated in the identification of serveral activities that would receive HOPE
VI funding in advance of the redevelopment of Ellen Wilson. As of December 2000, two
activities were implemented that provided supportive services to neighborhood residents: an
apprenticeship program and the placement of a job development/budget counselor at the CDC.
These are discussed below.
42
Because Ellen Wilson had been vacant for several years prior to the grant award, no effort was made to target former residents to receive
social services unless they lived in the neighborhood.
Abt Associates Inc.
Community and Supportive Services
42
Apprenticeship Program. The job apprenticeship program focused on developing elementary
construction and carpentry skills, as well as providing basic education, testing, and life skills
training. A staff person was hired to run the program, and counseling was provided by a Capitol
Hill nonprofit organization. The program was offered to residents living in the vicinity of the
Ellen Wilson site, as well as others who were already receiving supportive services in the
community. A number of participants were simultaneously enrolled in a neighborhood drug
rehabilitation program or were residents of the nearby Arthur Capper/Carrollsburg public housing
developments. Several were reportedly former residents of the Ellen Wilson Dwellings.
In order to be eligible to participate in the apprenticeship program, trainees had to be able to read
at the 6th grade level. Many who applied did not meet this criterion; as a result, a separate
remedial reading program was established so that more applicants could enter the program. Some
trainees went on to take and pass high school equivalency exams.
Two classes, with 20 to 25 trainees each, completed the apprenticeship program. One class was
involved in the de-construction of greenhouses at Walter Reed Medical Center.43 Another group
performed rehabilitation work at a building owned by a neighborhood nonprofit. Trainees were
paid a small stipend for their participation. Although the program has ended, the director has
moved on to start a similar program at another location in the District.
Reports about the success of the apprenticeship program have been mixed. Mostly anecdotal
information was available on what happened to trainees when they completed the program. A
DCHA staff person noted that program would have been more effective had it been sponsored
or approved by a local union. In the course of a focus group, one supportive service provider
whose agency had provided counseling to the trainees stated, “To be really honest, I’m not sure
how great it worked.” However, another individual familiar with the program noted, “It worked
out fine because a lot of people were on TANF. . . over 15 or 20 people that were on welfare got
off. . .they got real good jobs.”44 The only evidence supporting the claim that trainees were able
to locate jobs is a job development counselor’s report that she had personally found jobs for
“several” trainees following their completion of the program.
Job Development and Budget Counseling. At present, the only HOPE VI funded services at
the development are provided by a CDC employee who offers job development and budget
counseling to residents of the Townhomes and the surrounding community. The CDC’s Human
Resources Coordinator currently has an office in one of the Townhomes units and will move to
the community center when it is completed. The coordinator reported that she had worked with
as many as 75 families and individuals in the community, some of whom also completed the
43
The trainees were to re-construct the greenhouses on the grounds of St. Elizabeth’s Hospital. However, the building materials were stolen
and the re-construction work was never undertaken.
44
Focus group with Community and Service Providers, conducted by Brett Williams and Sherri Lawson Clark, August 31, 2001.
Abt Associates Inc.
Community and Supportive Services
43
apprenticeship program. She has found positions for several graduates at the Washington Navy
The Community Center. The future community center will be funde
will
d
services and programs include credit counseling, employment counseling, computer training, and
some before and after school programs for children. The long-term provision of these services,
however, will depend upon the creation of the Endowment Trust discussed below. The center is
scheduled to open in November 2001.
6.2
The Endowment Trust
The development team has been working with the D.C. Housing Authority to establish a
Supportive Services Endowment Trust. Funding from the Trust would be used to address
supportive service needs at the Townhomes and at the nearby Arthur Capper and Carrollsburg
public housing developments over the next 40 years. According to one development team
member, $650,000 to $675,000 in HOPE VI funds will be the “seed money” for the Trust;
matching funds of two times that amount will be secured from local foundations, bringing the
total to about $2 million.45 The team has been in contact with a local foundation to discuss raising
the matching funds and managing the Trust.
One potential obstacle to creating the Trust is HUD rules regarding use of HOPE VI funds.
When the idea of the Endowment Trust was first developed several years ago, development team
members approached HUD to determine whether this was an appropriate use of HOPE VI funds.
The initial response was negative. However, the Public Housing Reform Act of 1998 includes
language proposed by HUD that allows public housing agencies to create endowment trusts to
provide supportive services over an extended period of time. Unfortunately, the Act limits this
use of funds to grants awarded after 2000. Thus, while team members are moving forward with
plans for the Trust, no one is entirely confident that this effort will be successful.
6.3
Self-Reported Use of Supportive Services
Respondents to the resident/neighborhood survey were asked about the availability of services
at the Townhomes and whether they had used any services. (See Exhibit 6-1.) Overall, 21 percent
of Townhomes residents and just 3 percent of neighborhood residents were aware that supportive
services were offered. Households in Band One, which has the lowest incomes and the fewest
working members, were more likely to be aware that services were available (8 households, or
36 percent, were knowledgeable about services).
45
HOPE VI funds that were targeted for the Endowment have reportedly been spent on construction overages. The development team
Abt Associates Inc.
Community and Supportive Services
At present only job development and budget counseling is offered at the Townhomes. The survey
results indicate that, among Townhomes residents, only a handful of Band One residents have
used the services offered by the Human Resource Coordinator. Three residents said that they had
received assistance with household management and budgeting. Two households indicated that
they had received job-related assistance. None of the neighborhood residents interviewed said
that they had used services at the Townhomes. The survey did not include interviews with
households at the Arthur Capper and Carrolsburg developments, the most likely community
residents to have taken advantage of these services.
Exhibit 6-1
Use of Supportive Services at the Townhomes
Income Bands
Percent of households aware that
supportive services are available at
The Townhomes
Of those who are aware of services,
percent who used them
Any supportive services
Job training/development
Household management/budgeting
Band
One
(n=27)
Band
Two
(n=14)
Band
Three
(n=49)
All
Townhomes
Residents
(n=90)
36%
0%*
18%
21%
3%**
43%
25
38
NA
NA
NA
0%
0
0
21%
13
20
0%**
0**
0**
Neighborhood
(N=136)
Source: HOPE VI Resident and Neighborhood Interim Survey (July - September 2000).
*Indicates that the responses of this Band are statistically significantly different than the responses of the Band One residents at the 5
percent level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables, a chi-squared test was used to compare the
distribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical variables are indicated by an * placed
above the responses rather than next to individual numbers.
**Indicates that the responses of neighborhood residents are statistically significantly different than the responses of Townhomes
residents at the 5 percent level.
Abt Associates Inc.
Community and Supportive Services
45
7.
Crime and Security
While crime was reportedly a problem while Ellen Wilson was occupied, it increased dramatically
(by 29 percent) after the property was vacated in 1988.46 Because the vacant buildings were
poorly secured and within close proximity to the expressway, they quickly became a haven for
drug activity and violent crime. In 1993, at the time the HOPE VI grant was awarded, serious
crimes in the vicinity of Ellen Wilson were reported to be 165 percent of the citywide average.
This is notable, considering that the overall D.C. crime rate was quite high throughout the early
1990s.47
7.1
Improved Security
Although the design of the Townhomes was driven primarily by the goal of blending into the
surrounding neighborhood, the architects were cognizant of the need to incorporate elements of
defensible space in their planning. Defensible space is defined as dividing larger portions of public
space and assigning them to individuals and small groups to use and control as their own private
areas.48 The elements of this concept that were adopted at the Townhomes included the creation
of a new street and public alley to break up the large, vacant parcel of land, siting units in
proximity to public streets, and providing individual entrances to each unit. These features allow
residents to monitor activity directly outside their homes. In addition to these features, each unit
is equipped with an alarm system, and ground floor windows are barred, as is common on Capitol
Hill.
The Townhomes’ co-op management plan outlines the steps that management and residents will
take to ensure safety within the development. The security plan is based primarily on resident
education and awareness, and on cooperation with the Metropolitan Police Department and
neighborhood groups.49 The plan charges the management company with responsibility for
working with the police department to ensure that the area is patrolled. According to the site
manager, management has been in touch with the First District police, and there are regular
patrols through the Townhomes. In addition, police representatives have participated in
46
Historical and Baseline Assessment, Ellen Wilson Dwellings, p. 11.
47
For example, in 1991, Washington D.C.’s crime rate was 10,768 crimes per 100,000 population. Among cities with populations of
200,000 or more, D.C.’s crime ranking was 30th (with first being the worst crime rating). County and City Data Book 1999, U.S.
Bureau of the Census.
48
See Creating Defensible Space by Oscar Newman. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, April 1996.
49
The development is located in Police Service Area (PSA) 112 in the First District. The First District includes most of the Capitol Hill
neighborhood on the East, stretches west to 17th Street in downtown Washington, north to Florida and New York Avenues, and south to
the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers.
Abt Associates Inc.
Crime and Security
46
occasional resident “coffees” that are sponsored by the management company to discuss safety
issues.
While the site manager did not note any particular safety issues, a resident of the Townhomes
who participated in a focus group stated that there have been some security problems and that
increased police presence at the development was needed:
. . . we have the same problems in our community that they have in
Carrollsburg and Arthur Capper. . . we have had break ins and car thefts in
our development. So policing needs to be more visible out there so the
residents . . . can be protected.50
7.2
Changes in Crime Levels
While the Townhomes residents have not been immune from the types of crime that residents
confront in many urban neighborhoods, according to former Ellen Wilson residents who now live
at the Townhomes the area as a whole is significantly safer than it was before redevelopment. Of
the 13 former Ellen Wilson residents who live in the Townhomes, 85 percent reported that it is
much safer, and the remaining 15 percent reported that the area is somewhat safer. Long-time
neighborhood residents concurred with this assessment to a degree. Twenty-two (22) percent
reported that the area was much safer, and another 44 percent reported that it was somewhat
safer. One-third of neighborhood residents said that neighborhood crime was unchanged.
To some extent, this perceived improvement can be attributed to removal of the vacant Ellen
Wilon buildings and the construction of an attractive new development. At the same time, crime
statistics for the Capital Hill area indicate that crime has declined dramatically since the early
1990s. According to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, between 1993 and 1999 the
percent of crimes reported declined by 35 percent within the First District.51 This is in keeping
with citywide decline of 38 percent during the same period.
7.3
Residents’ Perceptions of Crime
In this section, residents’ perceptions of crime and safety in the area as reported through the
survey are discussed. The majority of development (86 percent) and neighborhood (84 percent)
residents feel either “very” or “somewhat” safe being alone at night just outside of their unit. (See
Exhibit 7-1.) However, it should be noted that attitudes toward safety vary among residents in
the three income bands. Among Band One residents (those with the lowest income), 64 reported
50
Focus Group with Community and Service Providers, conducted by Brett Williams and Sherri Lawson Clark, August 31, 2000.
51
2000 Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, DC. Information is not available for the Police Service Area that includes the
Townhomes.
Abt Associates Inc.
Crime and Security
47
that they feel very safe outside their unit, compared with 57 percent of Band Two residents and
just 33 percent of Band Three residents. Twenty (20) percent of Band Three residents reported
that they feel somewhat or very unsafe just outside their homes at night, compared with 16
percent of Band One residents, and no Band Two residents. It is noteworthy that the two groups
that are most alike in term of socio-economic characteristics—neighborhood residents and the
Band Three residents—share similar concerns about neighborhood safety.
Surprisingly, very few survey respondents reported any major problems with criminal activity in
the area. For example, when asked whether “shootings and violence” were a problem, only 1
percent of Townhomes residents and 2 percent of neighborhood residents said it was a “big”
problem. When asked whether “people using drugs” was a problem, no Townhomes residents
and just 5 percent of neighborhood residents described it as a “big” problem. Finally, 3 percent
of Townhomes residents and 6 percent of neighborhood residents reported that “being attacked
or robbed” was a big problem, although 9 percent and 24 percent of these groups respectively,
said that it was something of a problem. Among Townhomes residents, only the Band Three
residents reported “big” problems with these or any of the crime-related issues raised by the
interviewers.
At the same time, Townhomes and neighborhood residents were more likely to note concerns
about nuisance-related activities such as “groups of people hanging out” and “trash and junk in
parking lots and lawns.” “Groups of people hanging out” was reported to be a big problem by
7 percent of neighborhood residents and something of a problem by another 21 percent. The
percentages reported for Townhomes residents were quite similar. Six percent of neighborhood
residents and 2 percent of Townhomes residents considered trash and junk in parking lots and
lawns as a big problem, although another 39 and 26 percent of each group said that this was
something of a problem. Again, among the Townhomes residents, the Band Three residents were
more likely to view these as concerns than were Band One or Two residents.
As shown in Exhibit 7-2, a small number of Townhomes and neighborhood residents reported that
they or someone in their household had been the victim of a crime in the neighborhood within the
past 12 months. Overall, 7 percent of Townhomes residents and 6 percent of neighborhood
residents indicated that they had been the victims of an attempted home burglary. Four (4)
percent of neighborhood residents and 3 percent of Townhomes residents reported that a member
of their household had their wallet or purse taken while walking in the neighborhood. All of these
incidents were reported by households in Bands Two or Three. None of the Band One residents
reported any personal experience with crime over the past 12 months. Overall, experience with
crime is virtually the same between neighborhood and development residents, suggesting that a
moderate level of crime is spread throughout the neighborhood and not concentrated within the
Townhomes development.
Abt Associates Inc.
Crime and Security
48
Exhibit 7-1
Resident Perceptions of Crime and Safety
Income Bands
Band
Band
Band
One
Two
Three
(n=27 ) (n=14 ) (n=49 )
Feelings of safety outside of house or
apartment:
Very safe
Somewhat safe
Somewhat unsafe
Very unsafe
Percent reporting problems with:
Groups of people hanging out
Big problem
Some problem
People being attacked or robbed
Big problem
Some problem
Trash and junk in parking lots/lawns
Big problem
Some problem
People using drugs
Big problem
Some problem
Shooting and violence
Big problem
Some problem
All
Residents
(n=90 )
64%
28
8
8
57%
43
0
0
*
33%
47
18
2
45%
41
13
1
0%
7
0%
21
12%
31
7%
22
0%
19
0%
7
6%
4
3%
9
0%
15
0%
14
4%
35
2%
26
0%
0
0%
0
0%
9
0%
5
0%
4
0%
0
2%
6
1%
5
Neighborhood
Residents
(n=136 )
**
35%
49
13
4
7%
21
**
6%
24
**
6%
39
**
5%
10
**
2%
8
Source: HOPE VI Resident and Neighborhood Interim Survey (July - September 2000).
*Indicates that the responses of this Band are statistically significantly different than the responses of the Band One residents at the 5
percent level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables, a chi-squared test was used to compare the
distribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical variables are indicated by an * placed
above the responses rather than next to individual numbers.
**Indicates that the responses of neighborhood residents are statistically significantly different than the responses of Townhomes
residents at the 5 percent level.
Abt Associates Inc.
Crime and Security
49
Exhibit 7-2
Resident Perceptions of Crime and Safety
Income Bands
In the past 12 months has a
household member been the victim
of any of the following crimes:
Wallet/purse/jewlery snatching
Beating or assult
Attempted home burglary
Band
One
(n=27 )
Band
Two
(n=14 )
Band
Three
(n=49 )
All
Residents
(n=90 )
Neighborhood
Residents
(n=136)
0%
0
8
7%
7
0
4%
0
8
3%
1
7
4%
1
6
Source: HOPE VI Resident and Neighborhood Interim Survey (July - September 2000).
Exhibit 7-3
Resident Perceptions of Safety
For returning residents and long-term
neighborhood residents, neighborhood safer
now than before HOPE VI:
Much safer now
Somewhat safer now
Neither safer nor less safe
Somewhat less safe
Much less safe now
Townhomes on
Capitol Hill
Returning Residents
(n=13)
Long Term
Neighborhood
Residents
(n=108)
85%
15
0
0
0
22%**
44**
34**
0
0
Source: HOPE VI Resident and Neighborhood Interim Survey (July-September 2000)
**Indicates that the responses of neighborhood residents are statistically significantly different than the responses of
Townhomes residents at the 5 percent level.
Abt Associates Inc.
Crime and Security
50
8.
Institutional Impacts of the HOPE VI Program
s expected that the program could
spu institutional changes within a public housing authority or could lead to increased
among PHAs, local government agencies, and nonprofit organizations in a
At some HOPE VI sites that are being assessed as part of this interim evaluation,
anges have been documented. For example, some HOPE VI projects have led the local
ing
e
tionships
o
The
site in many ways—did not present an
promote this type of change. The project was not developed or implemented by
forces
e
y, the local housing authority did not have the capacity
ant. HUD agreed to fund the project as long as an entity other than
dministrator was selected and
see the project to fruition. The role
housing authority line staff
of
l
In fact, based on the reports of indi
the housing authority in the Ellen Wils
on
m
nformants noted that there was a longstanding lack of confidence
s of reported mismanagement. Even as the Ellen
g
possible in the future over the Townhomes on Capitol Hill.
effor
y
It should be pointed out
interv
of an indep
The District of Columbi
period
these
Abt Associates Inc.
e
Institutional Impacts of the HOPE VI Program
DCHA “owns” these projects.52 None of the projects follow the Ellen Wilson model, which the
receiver noted could not be easily replicated because it relied so heavily on the vision of the
community, and because of the “esoteric” nature of a cooperative. Instead, these projects
replicate HOPE VI strategies applied in other cities and will offer a mix of home ownership and
rental opportunities.
52
Interview with David Gilmore, D.C. H.A. receiver, August 21, 2000.
Abt Associates Inc.
Institutional Impacts of the HOPE VI Program
52
Appendix A
Operating Budget for the Townhomes on
Capitol Hill (1999/2000)
Appendix B
Data Collection Methodology
Appendix B
Data Collection Methodology
This Appendix documents the data collection methods used for this case study. The primary sources
of information included:
•
•
•
•
a survey of HOPE VI development and neighborhood residents from July through
September 2000;
several visits between June and September 2000 to the HOPE VI development and
offices of key individuals familiar with the redevelopment;
focus groups with business and community leaders and representatives of local
nonprofit organizations in August 2000; and
secondary data, such as neighborhood crime data and resident data provided by the
District of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA) and C.J. Management, the property
management firm for the Townhomes on Capitol Hill.
Below we describe the data collection procedures for each of these sources.
B1.
Survey of HOPE VI Neighborhood and Residents
The in-person survey of current HOPE VI and neighborhood residents was administered by Abt
Associates survey staff from July through September 2000. Each survey took approximately 20
minutes to complete. Survey response rates are discussed below, but detailed responses to each of
the survey questions are shown in Appendix C. Appendix D presents the HOPE VI survey results
disaggregated by Income Band.
Response Rates
As noted in Chapter 4, all residents of the Townhomes who had lived in the development for at least
one month were eligible to participate in the survey, and neighborhood residents (who had been
living in their unit at least six months) were randomly selected from the surrounding area.1,2 In the
neighborhood survey, 72 households were determined to be ineligible, but we completed surveys
with 136 of 165 eligible households for an 82 percent response rate. For the HOPE VI survey, all
131 occupied units were targeted. Of these, 21 were determined ineligible by survey field staff, but
we completed surveys with 90 of the 110 eligible households for a response rate of 82 percent.
We also calculated response rates among HOPE VI residents by Income Band. These rates were
determined by dividing the number of completed surveys by the number of eligible units (the number
1
The survey area was bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue on the north, Tenth Street on the east, the Southeast-Southwest Freeway on the south,
and Second Street on the west (North Carolina Avenue joins the North and West borders, and I Street joins the South and East borders).
2
The minimum length of residency for other HOPE VI sites in the Interim Study (and the neighborhood portion of this study) was six months.
The residency requirement for this HOPE VI site was reduced to one month because the last units to be constructed were occupied just prior
to the start of the survey period.
of units by band, minus vacant units and units where residents were screened out of the survey).
Overall, we completed interviews with 96 percent of eligible Band One residents, 58 percent of Band
Two residents, and 85 percent of Band Three residents.
Statistical Tests of Significance
The findings in the study are based on a sample of the eligible population rather than the entire
population. As a result, we present sample estimates of the population parameters of interest.
Because the results are from a sample, there is sampling error associated with the estimate. That is,
there is some uncertainty surrounding the estimate because we could have had different estimates
if we had interviewed a different sample of neighborhood and HOPE VI residents. In using a sample
estimate, this sampling error (or uncertainty) must be taken into account. The sampling error is taken
into account in tests of statistical significance. These tests objectively indicate whether it is likely
that the true population parameters are different as suggested by differences in the sample estimates.
We have chosen to use the 5 percent level of significance as the criteria for reporting differences as
statistically significant. This means there is less than a 5 percent chance that the population
parameters are not truly different even though there are statistically significant differences in sample
estimates.
The tests of statistical significance used in this report include both the t-test for comparisons of
means (e.g., comparison of mean income for residents of nonprofit and for-profit properties) and the
chi-square test for comparisons of categorical data (e.g., comparisons of categorized earnings—such
as <=30%, 31-50%, >50% of the area median—between HOPE VI and neighborhood residents).
We used the STATA procedure SVYTEST to conduct the t-tests and the SVYTAB procedure for
the chi-square tests. An important factor worth noting is that these STATA procedures are able to
take into account the finite population correction (FPC) which reduces standard errors when the
survey sample is a large percentage of the population of interest. Since we surveyed a large
proportion of the eligible population, this reduced the standard errors substantially and resulted in
smaller standard errors and thus more statistically significant differences between groups than might
be expected based on the size of our samples. The FPC reduces the variance estimate by a multiplier
equal to the ratio of: [(population size - sample size) / population size]. Hence, if you conduct a
census of the entire population, this multiplier is zero and the sampling error is zero (i.e., there is no
sampling error if the sample size equals the population size). On the other hand, if the sample
represents a really small proportion of the overall population, this factor is close to one and the
standard error is not reduced by the FPC. (For discussion of FPC, see Chapters One and Ten of
Graham Kalton’s Introduction to Survey Sampling, 1983, Sage Publications).
B.2
Site Visits
The site visits, conducted between June and September 2000, served five main purposes: to complete
in-depth, in-person interviews with key individuals familiar with and/or directly involved in the
HOPE VI revitalization; to tour the development and neighborhood; to begin the preparation of the
survey sample for the neighborhood survey; to collect official and unofficial documents highlighting
key aspects of the redevelopment; and to answer any questions (from residents, PHA staff, or the
property manager’s staff) about the study.
The key individuals interviewed during the site visits included members of the HOPE VI
development team. Due to the unusual way this particular redevelopment came about, this group
did not include many housing authority staff (who did not play a direct role) or current resident
leaders (who had not been identified at the time of the site visit). Persons interviewed included the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Andy Buelken of C.J. Management, the private property manager;
Richard Gervase of Telesis Corporation, developer and partner in the Ellen Wilson
Limited Liability Corporation;
Dave Perry, key member of the Ellen Wilson CDC;
Gordon Cavanaugh, a Capitol Hill resident who served as an advocate for the Ellen
Wilson CDC (and is an attorney representing the Council of Large Public Housing
Authorities);
Laurie Putscher of TAG Associates, grant administrator;
David Gilmore, Receiver for the DCHA;
Perlia Smith, the Human Development Coordinator for the Ellen Wilson CDC; and
Don Denton, a local realtor with Pardoe Realty.
Abt Associates staff also briefly met with Larry Dwyer (HOPE VI Coordinator) and Ray Tarasovic
of the DCHA. Follow-up calls and visits were made to Laurie Putscher and Andy Buelken. Abt
staff also obtained copies of the following: the final Revitalization Plan; the Public Offering
Statement for the Capitol Hill Cooperative Housing Association; the co-op’s management plan;
documents describing DCHA-wide demographics; several newspaper articles about the
redevelopment; DCHA-wide crime data; and income and demographic data for Townhomes
residents.
A tour of the Townhomes on Capitol Hill included visits to the management office, model unit, and
site of the future community center. Site staff also invited Abt Associates staff to attend a training
meeting of the co-op members. Here, Abt staff introduced themselves and gave an overview of the
upcoming survey, encouraging residents to participate. On subsequent visits to the site, Abt staff
canvassed the neighborhood to document the number and location of housing units for the
neighborhood survey and viewed the progress of the other local redevelopment projects, such as the
one underway at the nearby Navy Yard. This also served as a useful guide for creating the
neighborhood map found in Chapter 5, as well as a resource for discussing what the neighborhood
is like today.
B.3
Focus Groups
Two focus groups were conducted in August 2000 by the Local Research Affiliates (LRAs) from
American University, Dr. Brett Williams and Sherri Lawson Clark. The first was conducted on
August 30, and included 10 individuals, most of whom were business leaders in the community. The
second focus group was held on August 31 and included nine community leaders and representatives
of local non-profit organizations. A staff member from Abt was able to observe both focus groups.
The LRAs provided Abt with notes summarizing each focus group, along with complete audiotapes
and transcripts of each session.
B.4
Secondary Data Sources
In addition to the survey, Abt used numerous other sources of information about the HOPE VI site
and the neighborhood:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Revised Revitalization Plan for the Redevelopment of the Ellen Wilson Dwellings;
Public Offering Statement for the Capitol Hill Cooperative Housing Association;
KPMG Quarterly Progress Reports;
Telesis’ “Ellen Wilson Budget Overview;”
An Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI, prepared by Abt Associates;
1998 American Housing Survey Data;
1990 U.S. Census Data;
County and City Data Book, U.S. Bureau of the Census;
D.C. Metropolitan Police Department crime statistics for 1993 through 1999;
Resident income and demographic information on Townhomes residents, provided
by the Townhomes property manager; and
Demographic information on DCHA residents, provided by DCHA.
Staff also collected information about the development and the surrounding neighborhood from
publications, including neighborhood newsletters, newspapers, and websites.
Appendix C
Survey Results for HOPE VI and
Neighborhood Residents
Appendix C
Survey Results for HOPE VI and Neighborhood Residents
Appendix C contains survey results for HOPE VI (Townhomes on Capitol Hill) and
neighborhood residents. Results for new and returning HOPE VI residents are shown
separately.
Exhibit C-1
Resident Characteristics, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and Surrounding
Neighborhood
Exhibit C-2
Income and Employment, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and Surrounding
Neighborhood
Exhibit C-3
Satisfaction with Apartment, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Exhibit C-4
Satisfaction with Neighborhood, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and Surrounding
Neighborhood
Exhibit C-5
Prior Living Situation, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Exhibit C-6
Quality of Life, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and Surrounding Neighborhood
Exhibit C-7
Issues in Neighborhood, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and Surrounding
Neighborhood
Exhibit C-8
Use of Supportive Services in HOPE VI Development, Townhomes on
Capitol Hill and Surrounding Neighborhood
Exhibit C-9
Perceptions of Safety, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and Surrounding
Neighborhood
Exhibit C-1
Resident Characteristics, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and Surrounding Neighborhood
Lived in HOPE VI before Redevelopment
Household Size
Townhomes
Non-HOPE VI
Neighborhood
Residents
All Residents
New Residents
Returning
Residents
(n=136)
(n=90)
(n=77)
(n=13)
NA
14%
0%
100%
38%
*
-
1 Person
41%
33%
32%
-
2 Persons
36
50
51
46
-
3 + Persons
23
17
17
15
-
Average
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
43%
50%
47%
69%
57
50
53
31
1.7*
1.5
1.6
1.3
Adults
-
1 Adult
-
2 + Adults
-
Average
Children
*
*
-
0 Child
87%
74%
77%
62%
-
1 Child
7
17
16
23
-
2 Children
4
7
5
15
-
3 + Children
1
2
3
0
-
Average
0.2*
0.4
0.4
0.5
12%
Race of Household Head
*
-
African American
68%
67%
77%
-
White
88
32
33
23
-
American Indian & Alaskan Native
1
0
0
0
-
Mixed Race
0
0
0
0
1%
1%
0%
69%
66%
85%
15%
Ethnicity of Head of Household
-
Hispanic (Any Race)
Gender of Household Head
-
Female
Age of Household Head
*
3%
*
51%
*
-
18-24
4%
13%
12%
-
25-34
23
43
48
15
-
35-49
34
22
23
15
-
50-64
29
13
9
31
-
65+
11
10
8
23
46%
Marital Status of Household Head
*
-
Single
52%
69%
73%
-
Married
34
16
17
8
-
Divorced/Separated/Widowed
14
16
10
46
Education Level of Household Head
*
-
Less Than High School
2%
18%
16%
31%
-
High School Graduate
7
18
17
23
-
Some College
9
18
17
23
-
College Graduate
82
47
51
23
Note: NA signifies not applicable or not available.
*Indicates the responses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses from all residents
of the HOPE VI site at the 5 percent significance level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables,
a chi-squared test was used to compare the distribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for
categorical variables are indicated by an * placed above the responses rather than next to individual numbers.
Exhibit C-2
Income and Employment, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and Surrounding Neighborhood
Household Income as Percent of FSA HUD
Median
Townhomes
Non-HOPE VI
Neighborhood
Residents
All Residents
New Residents
Returning
Residents
(n=136)
(n=90)
(n=77)
(n=13)
58%
*
-
Below 30% of FSA HUD Median
4%
35%
31%
-
30% to 49% of FSA HUD Median
7%
12
11
17
-
50% to 80% of FSA HUD Median
22
34
35
25
-
Above 80% of FSA HUD Median
67
20
23
0
Sources of Income
-
SSI
4%*
13%
11%
23%
-
Disability or Workers Compensation
4*
13
11
23
-
Food Stamps
3*
9
9
8
-
Cash from Public Aid (AFDC, TANF)
1
2
3
0
Employment
*
-
Only Household Head Working
45%
39%
38%
42%
-
Only Other Working
7
4
4
0
-
Both Working
39
34
39
0
9
24
18
58
8%*
17%
20%
0%
- None Working
Household Head Currently Enrolled in
School or Vocational Training Program
*Indicates the responses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses from all residents
of the HOPE VI site at the 5 percent significance level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical
variables, a chi-squared test was used to compare the distribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant
differences for categorical variables are indicated by an * placed above the responses rather than next to individual numbers.
Exhibit C-3
Satisfaction with Apartment, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Townhomes
All Residents
New Residents
Returning
Residents
(n=90)
(n=77)
(n=13)
6%
1%
31%
Most important reason for moving here
-
To be near family and friends
-
What PHA gave me
1
1
0
-
Availability of rent subsidy or lower rent
12
12
15
-
Availability of on-site support services
0
0
0
-
More convenient location
44
45
38
-
Safer than previous house or apartment
9
9
8
-
Better or larger apartment
22
26
0
-
Nowhere else to go
1
1
0
-
Other reasons
5
5
8
Satisfaction with apartment
-
Very satisfied
66%
62%
85%
-
Somewhat satisfied
30
34
8
-
Somewhat dissatisfied
3
3
8
-
Very dissatisfied
1
1
0
0%
Problems with apartment
Walls with peeling paint or broken plaster
-
Big problem
0%
0%
-
Some problem
17
18
8
-
Not a problem
83
82
92
0%
Plumbing that doesn't work
-
Big problem
3%
4%
-
Some problem
8
8
8
-
Not a problem
89
88
92
0%
0%
0%
Rats and mice
-
Big problem
-
Some problem
1
1
0
-
Not a problem
99
99
100
0%
0%
0%
Broken locks or no locks on the door of the unit
-
Big problem
-
Some problem
7
8
0
-
Not a problem
93
92
100
Broken windows or windows w/o screens
-
Big problem
0%
0%
0%
-
Some problem
4
5
0
-
Not a problem
96
95
100
Exhibit C-3 (continued)
Satisfaction with Apartment, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Townhomes
All Residents
New Residents
Returning
Residents
(n=90)
(n=77)
(n=13)
0%
0%
0%
Heating system that does not work
-
Big problem
-
Some problem
2
3
0
-
Not a problem
98
97
100
Stove or refrigerator that doesn't work
-
Big problem
0%
0%
0%
-
Some problem
2
1
8
-
Not a problem
98
99
92
Too little living space
-
Big problem
7%
5%
15%
-
Some problem
16
16
15
-
Not a problem
78
79
69
Adequacy of storage space
-
Big problem
24%
25%
23%
-
Some problem
27
29
15
-
Not a problem
49
47
62
8%
Too much noise
-
Big problem
3%
3%
-
Some problem
17
18
8
-
Not a problem
80
79
85
Satisfaction with the maintenance of the apartment
-
Very satisfied
68%
65%
85%
-
Somewhat satisfied
27
30
8
-
Somewhat dissatisfied
4
4
8
-
Very dissatisfied
1
1
0
Satisfaction with the management of the development
-
Very satisfied
52%
49%
69%
-
Somewhat satisfied
33
36
15
-
Somewhat dissatisfied
9
9
8
-
Very dissatisfied
6
5
8
Exhibitb C-4
Satisfaction with Neigborhood, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and Surrounding Neighborhood Residents
Townhomes
Non-HOPE VI
Neighborhood
Residents
All Residents
New Residents
Returning
Residents
(n=136)
(n=90)
(n=77)
(n=13)
NA
NA
NA
Neighborhood Residents. The neighborhood is
-
Only the block I live on
4%
-
The block I live on and several blocks
93
-
My building
0
-
My project/apartment complex
0
- Other
HOPE VI Residents. The neighborhood is
2
-
Only my building
0%
0%
0%
-
Less than one block but more than my building
0
0
0
-
My building and the block I live on
9
10
0
-
The block I live on and several blocks
36
34
46
-
Only my development
16
13
31
-
My development and several blocks
40
43
23
-
More than several blocks
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
37%
38%
31%
34
34
38
23
NA
- Other
Is the HOPE VI development part of neighborhood ?
-
Part of neighborhood
-
Part of a different neighborhood
80%
20
Attend neighborhood council or association meetings?
-
Always
3%
-
Sometimes
24
-
Never
33
-
No such council or association
40
Attend resident council meetings?
-
Always
-
Sometimes
-
Never
28
29
-
No such council or association
1
0
8
19%
NA
NA
NA
NA
63%
62%
69%
Socialize with HOPE VI residents
Socialize with Non-HOPE VI residents
Satisfied with your neighborhood?
NA
*
-
Very satisfied
73%
70%
66%
92%
-
Somewhat satisfied
23
26
29
8
-
Somewhat dissatisfied
4
2
3
0
-
Very dissatisfied
1
2
3
0
Like to live in the neighborhood 5 years from now
84%*
77%
76%
83%
For returning residents, the neighborhood before and nowa
- Much better now
47%
*
92%
-
Somewhat better now
38
-
Neither better nor worse
15
-
Somewhat worse now
0
0
-
Much worse now
0
0
NA
NA
8
0
Note: NA signifies not applicable or not available.
*Indicates the responses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses from all residents
of the HOPE VI site at the 5 percent significance level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables, a chi-squared test
was used to compare the distribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical variables are indicated by
an * placed above the responses rather than next to individual numbers.
a
For neighborhood residents, N=107
Exhibit C-5
Prior Living Situation, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Townhomes
All Residents
New Residents
Returning
Residents
(n=90)
(N=77)
(n=13)
Type of residence before current address
-
In the same public housing development
0%
0%
0%
-
In another public housing development
21
16
54
-
In scattered site public housing
1
1
0
-
In a private unit with Section 8 assistance
4
5
0
-
In a private unit with no rental assistance
70
74
46
-
In a private unit, assistance unknown
3
4
0
-
In a homeless or domestic violence shelter
0
0
0
Residence before current address
-
In this neighborhood
25%
19%
58%
-
Outside this neighborhood but in this city
35
36
25
-
In a different state
10
12
0
-
In the D.C. metropolitan area
30
32
17
Exhibit C-6
Quality of Life, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and Surrounding Neighborhood
People willing to help neighbors
Townhomes
Non-HOPE VI
Neighborhood
Residents
All Residents
New Residents
Returning
Residents
(n=136)
(n=90)
(n=77)
(n=13)
*
-
Strongly agree
46%
28%
25%
45%
-
Somewhat agree
45
39
39
36
-
Neither agree or disagree
7
24
25
18
-
Somewhat disagree
1
7
8
0
-
Strongly disagree
1
2
3
0
The neighborhood is close knit
*
-
Strongly agree
35%
24%
20%
45%
-
Somewhat agree
44
34
36
18
-
Neither agree or disagree
13
29
30
27
-
Somewhat disagree
7
9
9
9
-
Strongly disagree
1
4
4
0
People generally get along with each other
*
-
Strongly agree
50%
36%
34%
55%
-
Somewhat agree
43
35
36
27
-
Neither agree or disagree
7
22
24
9
-
Somewhat disagree
0
4
3
9
-
Strongly disagree
1
2
3
0
Neighborhood as a place to raise childrena
- An excellent place
*
16%
26%
26%
27%
-
A good place
49
40
39
45
-
A fair place
26
28
28
27
-
A poor place
8
6
7
0
Access to good schoolsb
Excellent
*
12%
24%
20%
42%
Good
32
41
41
42
Fair
28
27
31
8
Poor
27
8
8
8
Access to public transportation
Excellent
79%
78%
76%
85%
Good
18
21
22
15
Fair
1
1
1
0
Poor
1
0
0
0
Access to grocery stores
Excellent
*
13%
23%
22%
31%
Good
38
33
36
15
Fair
33
28
27
31
Poor
16
16
14
23
Exhibit C-6 (continued)
Quality of Life, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and Surrounding Neighborhood
Townhomes
Non-HOPE VI
Neighborhood
Residents
(n=136)
All Residents
(n=90)
New Residents
(n=77)
Returning
Residents
(n=13)
Access to health care servicesc
Excellent
18%
24%
20%
50%
Good
33
36
37
30
Fair
35
31
35
0
Poor
14
9
8
20
Access to child cared
Excellent
21%
35%
33%
50%
Good
42
38
38
38
Fair
32
19
23
0
Poor
5
8
8
13
39%
31%
30%
38%
Good
47
43
43
38
Fair
13
14
16
0
Poor
1
13
11
23
Access to parks & recreational facilities
Excellent
*
Close to friends & relatives
Excellent
29%
29%
25%
46%
Good
45
48
51
31
Fair
18
18
17
23
Poor
8
6
7
0
Close to job opportunities
Excellent
*
48%
43%
43%
42%
Good
44
38
39
33
Fair
5
14
15
8
Poor
3
6
4
17
Close to job training / placement programse
Excellent
29%
26%
26%
29%
Good
44
40
38
57
Fair
21
32
36
0
Poor
6
2
0
14
NA
NA
For returning residents, neighborhood
before and nowf
Much better place
*
28%
92%
Somewhat better place
54
Neither better nor worse
19
0
somewhat worse place
0
0
0
0
much worse place
Note: NA signifies not applicable or not available.
8
*Indicates the responses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses from all residents
of the HOPE VI site at the 5 percent significance level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables, a
chi-squared test was used to compare the distribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for
categorical variables are indicated by an * placed above the responses rather than next to individual numbers.
a
10 percent of neighborhood residents said, "Don't Know" to this question. These responses are excluded from
reported results.
b
21 percent each of neighborhood and Townhomes residents said, "Don't Know" to this question. These responses
are excluded from reported results.
c
16 percent of neighborhood residents and 14 percent of Townhomes residents said, "Don't Know" to this question. These
responses are excluded from reported results.
d
53 percent of neighborhood residents and 46 percent of Townhomes residents said, "Don't Know" to this question. These
responses are excluded from reported results.
e
51percent of neighborhood residents and 37 percent of Townhomes residents said, "Don't Know" to this question. These
responses are excluded from reported results.
f
For neighborhood residents, N=108.
Exhibit C-7
Issues in Neighborhood, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and Surrounding Neighborhood
People being attacked on the block
Townhomes
Non-HOPE VI
Neighborhood
Residents
All Residents
New Residents
Returning
Residents
(n=136)
(n=90)
(n=77)
(n=13)
0%
*
-
Big problem
6%
3%
4%
-
Some problem
24
9
11
0
-
No problem
70
88
86
100
0%
People selling drugs
*
-
Big problem
3%
0%
0%
-
Some problem
12
3
4
0
-
No problem
85
97
96
100
0%
People using drugs
*
-
Big problem
5%
0%
0%
-
Some problem
10
5
5
0
-
No problem
85
95
95
100
0%
Groups of people just hanging out
-
Big problem
7%
7%
8%
-
Some problem
21
22
25
8
-
No problem
72
71
68
92
0%
Graffiti (writing, painting) on walls
-
Big problem
0%
0%
0%
-
Some problem
4
2
3
0
-
No problem
96
98
97
100
2%
0%
Shootings and violence
*
-
Big problem
1%
1%
-
Some problem
8
5
5
0
-
No problem
90
94
93
100
0%
Trash and junk in the parking lots
*
-
Big problem
6%
2%
3%
-
Some problem
39
26
25
31
-
No problem
55
72
72
69
Wallet, purse or jewelry of household member
snatched in past 12 months
4%
3%
4%
0%
Household member beaten or assaulted in past 12
months
1%
1%
1%
0%
Household member stabbed or shot in past 12
months
0%
0%
0%
0%
Someone tried to break into home to steal in past
12 months
6%
7%
8%
0%
*Indicates the responses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses from all residents
of the HOPE VI site at the 5 percent significance level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables, a chisquared test was used to compare the distribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical
variables are indicated by an * placed above the responses rather than next to individual numbers.
Exhibit C-8
Use of Supportive Services in
Townhomes on Capitol Hill and Surrounding Neighborhood
Townhomes
Non-HOPE VI
Neighborhood
Residents
All Residents
New Residents
Returning
Residents
(n=136)
(n=90)
(n=77)
(n=13)
Supportive services at HOPE VI available
3%*
21%
21%
18%
If any supportive services available, percent of
households using the following services
NA
NA
NA
NA
Any supportive services
0%
21%
8%
100%
Adult education like job training
0%
13%
0%
100%
Household management
0%
20%
8%
100%
Parenting programs
0%
7%
0%
100%
a
General counseling
0%
0%
0%
0%
Drug or Alcohol prevention programs
0%
0%
0%
0%
Child care services or Head Start program
0%
0%
0%
0%
Sports, Youth or after school programs
0%
0%
0%
0%
Satisfaction of those who used the services
Adult education like job training
-
Very satisfied
0%
0%
-
Somewhat satisfied
100
100
-
Neither satisfied
-
Somewhat dissatisfied
0
0
-
Very dissatisfied
0
0
NA
0
NA
0
Household management
-
Very satisfied
-
Somewhat satisfied
100%
100%
100%
0
0
-
Neither satisfied
0
0
0
-
0
Somewhat dissatisfied
0
0
-
0
Very dissatisfied
0
0
0
N/A
Note: NA signifies not applicable or not available.
*Indicates the responses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses from all residents
of the HOPE VI site at the 5 percent significance level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables, a chisquared test was used to compare the distribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical
variables are indicated by an * placed above the responses rather than next to individual numbers.
a
28 percent of neighborhood residents and 19 percent of Townhomes residents said, "Don't Know" to this question. These responses
are excluded from reported results.
Exhibit C-9
Perceptions of Safety, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and Surrounding Neighborhood
Feeling about being alone at night in apartment
Townhomes
Non-HOPE VI
Neighborhood
Residents
All Residents
New Residents
Returning
Residents
(n=136)
(n=90)
(n=77)
(n=13)
*
-
Very safe
63%
67%
64%
85%
-
Somewhat safe
33
24
26
15
-
Somewhat unsafe
3
7
8
0
-
Very unsafe
1
2
3
0
35%
Feeling about being alone at night in neighborhood
*
-
Very safe
45%
43%
62%
-
Somewhat safe
49
41
41
38
-
Somewhat unsafe
13
13
15
0
-
Very unsafe
4
1
1
0
30%
30%
Police response timea
*
-
Excellent
27%
26%
-
Good
48
51
51
50
-
Fair
19
15
15
10
-
Poor
3
8
8
10
NA
NA
For returning residents, neighborhood safer now than
before HOPE VIb
*
-
Much safer now
-
Somewhat safer now
22%
44
85%
-
Neither safer nor less safe now
34
0
-
Somewhat less safe now
0
0
15%
- Much less safe now
0
0
Note: NA signifies not applicable or not available.
*Indicates the responses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses from all residents
of the HOPE VI site at the 5 percent significance level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables, a chisquared test was used to compare the distribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical
variables are indicated by an * placed above the responses rather than next to individual numbers.
a
13 percent of neighborhood residents and 17 percent of Townhomes residents said, "Don't Know" to this question.
These responses are excluded from reported results.
b
For neighborhood residents, N=107.
Appendix D
Survey Results by Income Band
Appendix D
Survey Results by Income Band
Appendix D contains survey results for residents of the Townhomes on Capitol Hill. All
results are presented separately for residents of each income band.
Exhibit D-1
Resident Characteristics, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Exhibit D-2
Income and Employment, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Exhibit D-3
Satisfaction with Apartment, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Exhibit D-4
Satisfaction with Neighborhood, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Exhibit D-5
Prior Living Situation, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Exhibit D-6
Quality of Life, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Exhibit D-7
Issues in Neighborhood, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Exhibit D-8
Use of Supportive Services in HOPE VI Development, Townhomes on
Capitol Hill
Exhibit D-9
Perceptions of Safety, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Exhibit D-1
Resident Characteristics, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Townhomes
Lived in HOPE VI before Redevelopment
Band I
Band II
Band III
(n=27)
(n=14)
(n=49)
30%
29%
2%*
Household Size
-
1 Person
44%
21%
31%
-
2 Persons
37
57
55
-
3 + Persons
19
21
14
-
Average
1.9
2.2
1.9
74%
64%
33%
Adults
*
-
1 Adult
-
2 + Adults
26
36
67
-
Average
1.3
1.5
1.7*
67%
43%
88%
Children
*
-
0 Children
-
1 Child
19
43
8
-
2 Children
7
14
4
-
3 + Children
-
Average
7
0
0
0.6
0.7
0.2*
89%
93%
49%
Race of Household Head
*
-
African American
-
White
11
7
51
-
American Indian & Alaskan Native
0
0
0
-
Mixed Race
0
0
0
0%
0%
2%
81%
64%
63%
Ethnicity of Head of Household
-
Hispanic (Any Race)
Gender of Household Head
-
Female
Age of Household Head
*
*
-
18-24
8%
23%
12%
-
25-34
12
46
59
-
35-49
31
23
16
-
50-64
27
0
8
-
65+
23
8
4
Marital Status of Household Head
*
*
56%
86%
71%
-
Single
-
Married
4
7
24
-
Divorced/Separated/Widowed
41
7
4
*
*
6%
Education Level of Household Head
-
Less Than High School
48%
0%
-
High School Graduate
30
36
6
-
Some College
15
36
14
-
College Graduate
7
29
73
*Indicates the responses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses
from Band One residents at the 5 percent significance level. A t-test was used for comparisons of
means. For categorical variables, a chi-squared test was used to compare the distribution of
responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical variables are
indicated by an * placed above the responses rather than next to individual numbers.
Exhibit D-2
Income and Employment, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Townhomes
Band I
Band II
Band III
(n=27)
(n=14)
(n=49)
*
*
Household Income as Percent of FSA HUD
Median
-
Below 30% of FSA HUD Median
96%
21%
7%
-
30% to 49% of FSA HUD Median
0
50
7
-
50% to 80% of FSA HUD Median
4
21
53
-
Above 80% of FSA HUD Median
0
7
33
37%
0%*
2%*
Sources of Income
-
SSI
-
Disability or Workers Compensation
33
0*
4*
-
Food Stamps
30
0*
0*
-
Cash from Public Aid (AFDC, TANF)
7
0
0*
*
*
77%
38%
Employment
-
Only Household Head Working
-
Only Other Working
4
0
4
-
Both Working
8
15
53
68
8
4
9%
21%
20%
- None Working
Household Head Currently Enrolled in
School or Vocational Training Program
20%
*Indicates the responses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses from Band
One residents at the 5 percent significance level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For
categorical variables, a chi-squared test was used to compare the distribution of responses for each group,
thus statistically significant differences for categorical variables are indicated by an * placed above the
responses rather than next to individual numbers.
Exhibit D-3
Satisfaction with Apartment, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Townhomes
Band I
Band II
Band III
(n=27)
(n=14)
(n=49)
Most important reason for moving here
-
To be near family and friends
19%
*
*
0%
0%
-
What PHA gave me
4
0
0
-
Availability of rent subsidy or lower rent
7
7
16
-
Availability of on-site support services
0
0
0
-
More convenient location
11
50
61
-
Safer than previous house or apartment
15
7
6
-
Better or larger apartment
33
36
12
-
Nowhere else to go
0
0
2
-
Other reasons
11
0
3
Satisfaction with apartment
*
-
Very satisfied
74%
50%
65%
-
Somewhat satisfied
15
50
33
-
Somewhat dissatisfied
7
0
2
-
Very dissatisfied
4
0
0
Problems with apartment
Walls with peeling paint or broken plaster
-
Big problem
0%
0%
0%
-
Some problem
7
21
20
-
Not a problem
93
79
80
0%
7%
4%
Plumbing that doesn't work
*
-
Big problem
-
Some problem
0
7
12
-
Not a problem
100
86
84
0%
Rats and mice
-
Big problem
0%
0%
-
Some problem
0
0
2
-
Not a problem
100
100
98
0%
0%
0%
Broken locks or no locks on the door of the unit
*
-
Big problem
-
Some problem
0
7
10
-
Not a problem
100
93
90
0%
Broken windows or windows w/o screens
-
Big problem
0%
0%
-
Some problem
0
7
6
-
Not a problem
100
93
94
Exhibit D-3 (continued)
Satisfaction with Apartment, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Townhomes
Band I
Band II
Band III
(n=27)
(n=14)
(n=49)
0%
Heating system that does not work
-
Big problem
0%
0%
-
Some problem
4
0
2
-
Not a problem
96
100
98
0%
Stove or refrigerator that doesn't work
-
Big problem
0%
0%
-
Some problem
4
0
2
-
Not a problem
96
100
98
Too little living space
-
Big problem
4%
21%
4%
-
Some problem
11
14
18
-
Not a problem
85
64
78
11%
36%
29%
Adequacy of storage space
*
-
Big problem
-
Some problem
15
21
35
-
Not a problem
74
43
37
Too much noise
0%
*
*
14%
2%
-
Big problem
-
Some problem
7
0
27
-
Not a problem
93
86
71
89%
64%
57%
39
Satisfaction with the maintenance of the apartment
*
-
Very satisfied
-
Somewhat satisfied
7
21
-
Somewhat dissatisfied
4
14
2
-
Very dissatisfied
0
0
2
Satisfaction with the management of the development
-
Very satisfied
67%
50%
45%
-
Somewhat satisfied
26
29
39
-
Somewhat dissatisfied
4
7
12
- Very dissatisfied
4
14
4
*Indicates the responses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses from Band One residents at
the 5 percent significance level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables, a chi-squared test
was used to compare the distribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical
variables are indicated by an * placed above the responses rather than next to individual numbers.
Exhibit D-4
Satisfaction with Neigborhood, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Townhomes
Band I
Band II
Band III
(n=27)
(n=14)
(n=49)
NA
NA
NA
0%
0%
0%
0
Neighborhood Residents. The neighborhood is
-
Only the block I live on
-
The block I live on and several blocks
-
My building
-
My project/apartment complex
- Other
HOPE VI Residents. The neighborhood is
*
-
Only my building
-
Less than one block but more than my building
0
0
-
My building and the block I live on
7
14
8
-
The block I live on and several blocks
26
43
39
-
Only my development
33
7
8
-
My development and several blocks
33
36
45
-
More than several blocks
0
0
0
Other
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
37%
14%
43%
-
Is the HOPE VI development part of neighborhood ?
-
Part of neighborhood
-
Part of a different neighborhood
Attend neighborhood council or association meetings?
-
Always
-
Sometimes
-
Never
-
No such council or association
Attend resident council meetings?
-
Always
-
Sometimes
30
50
33
-
Never
33
29
24
-
No such council or association
0
7
0
Socialize with Non-HOPE VI residents
63%
43%
69%
Satisfied with your neighborhood?
-
Very satisfied
81%
79%
61%
-
Somewhat satisfied
15
14
35
-
Somewhat dissatisfied
4
0
2
-
Very dissatisfied
0
7
2
85%
86%
70%
Like to live in the neighborhood 5 years from now
Note: NA indicates not applicable or not available.
*Indicates the responses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses from Band One
residents at the 5 percent significance level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables, a
chi-squared test was used to compare the distribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant
differences for categorical variables are indicated by an * placed above the responses rather than next to individual
numbers.
Exhibit D-5
Prior Living Situation, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Townhomes
Band I
Band II
Band III
(n=27)
(n=14)
(n=49)
*
Type of residence before current address
-
In the same public housing development
0%
0%
0%
-
In another public housing development
41
14
12
-
In scattered site public housing
4
0
0
-
In a private unit with Section 8 assistance
11
7
0
-
In a private unit with no rental assistance
44
79
82
-
In a private unit, assistance unknown
0
0
6
-
In a homeless or domestic violence shelter
0
0
0
30%
23%
22%
*
Residence before current address
-
In this neighborhood
-
Outside this neighborhood but in this city
52
31
27
-
In a different state
0
8
16
-
In the DC metro area
19
38
35
*Indicates the responses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses from
Band One residents at the 5 percent significance level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means.
For categorical variables, a chi-squared test was used to compare the distribution of responses for each
group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical variables are indicated by an * placed above
the responses rather than next to individual numbers.
Exhibit D-6
Quality of Life, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Townhomes
Band I
Band II
Band III
(n=27)
(n=14)
(n=49)
People willing to help neighbors
-
Strongly agree
36%
23%
24%
-
Somewhat agree
40
38
38
-
Neither agree or disagree
16
38
24
-
Somewhat disagree
4
0
11
-
Strongly disagree
4
0
2
a
The neighborhood is close knit
-
Strongly agree
38%
31%
15%
-
Somewhat agree
29
31
38
-
Neither agree or disagree
25
38
29
-
Somewhat disagree
4
0
15
-
Strongly disagree
4
0
4
42%
42%
33%
People generally get along with each otherb
-
Strongly agree
-
Somewhat agree
21
42
41
-
Neither agree or disagree
29
8
22
-
Somewhat disagree
4
8
2
-
Strongly disagree
4
0
2
Neighborhood as a place to raise children
*
-
An excellent place
38%
23%
21%
-
A good place
42
54
35
-
A fair place
12
23
38
-
A poor place
8
0
6
c
Access to goood school
-
Excellent
26%
43%
15%
-
Good
52
43
32
-
Fair
17
7
41
-
Poor
4
7
12
Access to public transportation
-
Excellent
69%
93%
78%
-
Good
27
7
22
-
Fair
4
0
0
-
Poor
0
0
0
Access to grocery stores
-
Excellent
19%
43%
20%
-
Good
26
36
37
-
Fair
41
7
27
-
Poor
15
14
16
Exhibit D-6 (continued)
Quality of Life, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Townhomes
Band I
Band II
Band III
(n=27)
(n=14)
(n=49)
d
Access to health care services
-
Excellent
26%
23%
23%
-
Good
26
62
33
-
Fair
30
15
36
-
Poor
17
0
8
e
Access to child care
-
Excellent
31%
55%
29%
-
Good
31
36
43
-
Fair
25
9
19
-
Poor
13
0
10
Access to parks & recreational facilities
-
Excellent
23%
36%
34%
-
Good
38
29
49
-
Fair
15
21
11
-
Poor
23
14
6
Close to friends & relatives
-
Excellent
41%
29%
21%
-
Good
37
43
56
-
Fair
19
21
16
-
Poor
4
7
7
32%
29%
52%
Close to job opportunities
*
-
Excellent
-
Good
32
43
40
-
Fair
28
14
6
-
Poor
8
14
2
24%
11%
32%
Close to job training / placement programsf
-
Excellent
-
Good
41
33
42
-
Fair
35
44
26
- Poor
0
11
0
*Indicates the responses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses
from Band One residents at the 5 percent significance level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For
categorical variables, a chi-squared test was used to compare the distribution of responses for each group, thus
statistically significant differences for categorical variables are indicated by an * placed above the responses
rather than next to individual numbers.
a
11 percent of Band One residents said, "Don’t know" to this question. These responses are
excluded from reported results.
b
11 percent of Band One residents and 14 percent of Band Two residents said, "Don’t know" to this question.
These responses are excluded from reported results.
c
15 percent of Band One residents and 31 percent of Band Three residents said, "Don’t know" to this question.
These responses are excluded from reported results.
d
19 percent of Band Three residents said, "Don’t know" to this question. These responses are excluded from
reported results.
e
41percent of Band One residents, 21 percent of Band Two residents and 56 percent of Band Three residents said, "Don’t know" to this questi
f
37 percent each of Band One and Band Three residents said "Don't Know" to this question. These responses are excluded from reported res
Exhibit D-7
Issues in Neighborhood, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Townhomes
Band I
Band II
Band III
(n=27)
(n=14)
(n=49)
0%
6%
People being attacked on the block
*
-
Big problem
0%
-
Some problem
19
7
4
-
No problem
81
93
90
0%
0%
0%
People selling drugs
-
Big problem
-
Some problem
-
No problem
0
7
4
100
93
96
0%
0%
0%
People using drugs
-
Big problem
-
Some problem
-
No problem
*
0
0
9
100
100
91
0%
0%
12%
Groups of people just hanging out
*
-
Big problem
-
Some problem
7
21
31
-
No problem
93
79
57
Graffiti (writing, painting) on walls
-
Big problem
0%
0%
0%
-
Some problem
4
0
2
-
No problem
96
100
98
Shootings and violence
-
Big problem
0%
0%
2%
-
Some problem
4
0
6
-
No problem
96
100
91
Trash and junk in the parking lots
*
-
Big problem
0%
0%
4%
-
Some problem
15
14
35
-
No problem
85
86
60
Wallet, purse or jewelry of household member
snatched in past 12 months
0%
7%
4%
Household member beaten or assaulted in past
12 months
0%
7%
0%
Household member stabbed or shot in past 12
months
0%
0%
0%
Someone tried to break into home to steal in past
12 months
8%
0%
8%
*Indicates the responses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses from
Band One residents at the 5 percent significance level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For
categorical variables, a chi-squared test was used to compare the distribution of responses for each
categorical variables, a chi-squared test was used to compare the distribution of responses for each
group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical variables are indicated by an * placed above
the responses rather than next to individual numbers.
Exhibit D-8
Use of Supportive Services in HOPE VI Development,
Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Townhomes
Band I
Band II
Band III
(n=27)
(n=14)
(n=49)
Supportive services at HOPE VI available
36%
0%*
18%
If any supportive services available, percent of
households using the following services
NA
NA
NA
a
Any supportive services
43%
NA
0%
Adult education like job training
25%
NA
0%
Household management
38%
NA
0%
Parenting programs
14%
NA
0%
General counseling
0%
NA
0%
Drug or alcohol prevention programs
0%
NA
0%
Child care services or Head Start program
0%
NA
0%
Sports, Youth or after school programs
0%
NA
0%
Satisfaction of those who used the services
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Adult education like job training
-
Very satisfied
0%
-
Somewhat satisfied
100
-
Neither satisfied
0
-
Somewhat dissatisfied
0
-
Very dissatisfied
0
Household management
-
Very satisfied
-
Somewhat satisfied
100%
-
Neither satisfied
0
-
Somewhat dissatisfied
0
-
Very dissatisfied
0
0
Parenting programs
-
Very satisfied
-
Somewhat satisfied
-
Neither satisfied
-
Somewhat dissatisfied
NA
- Very dissatisfied
Note: NA indicates not applicable or not available.
*Indicates the responses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses from
Band One residents at the 5 percent significance level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical
variables, a chi-squared test was used to compare the distribution of responses for each group, thus statistically
significant differences for categorical variables are indicated by an * placed above the responses rather than next to
individual numbers.
a
19 percent of Band One residents, 14 percent of Band Two residents and 20 percent of Band Three residents said,
"Don’t know" to this question. These responses are excluded from reported results.
Exhibit D-9
Perceptions of Safety, Townhomes on Capitol Hill
Townhomes
Band I
Band II
Band III
(n=27)
(n=14)
(n=49)
*
Feeling about being alone at night in apartment
-
Very safe
81%
79%
55%
-
Somewhat safe
11
21
33
-
Somewhat unsafe
4
0
10
-
Very unsafe
4
0
2
64%
57%
33%
*
Feeling about being alone at night in neighborhood
-
Very safe
-
Somewhat safe
28
43
47
-
Somewhat unsafe
8
0
18
-
Very unsafe
8
0
2
39%
31%
18%
56
a
Police response time
-
Excellent
-
Good
43
46
-
Fair
13
15
- Poor
4
8
*Indicates the resoponses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses
Band One residents at the 5 percent significance level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For
categorical variables, a chi-squared test was used to compare the distribution of responses for each group,
thus statistically significant differences for categorical variables are indicated by an * placed above the
responses rather than next to individual numbers.
a
15 percent of Band One residents and 20 percent of Band Three residents said, "Don’t know" to this
question. These responses are excluded from reported results.
15
10