Public Housing Transformation and the "Hard to House"

Brief #9 from the series "Metropolitan Housing and Communities: A Roof Over Their Heads"

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Note: This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).

The transformation of public housing will necessarily have profound effects on the lives of thousands of very vulnerable families.¹ For three decades, public housing served as the housing of last resort, with federal regulations increasingly favoring the neediest households. But during the 1990s, the federal government dramatically changed its policy for housing the poor. Under the new approach, largely driven by the $5 billion HOPE VI program begun in 1992, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) began promoting mixed-income housing and relocating families through housing vouchers to prevent the concentration of troubled, low-income households (see page 7).²

The goals of the HOPE VI program include "improving the living environment for residents of severely distressed public housing" and "providing housing that will avoid or decrease the concentration of very low income families." Our most recent research shows that the majority of HOPE VI relocatees have received vouchers, with most of the remainder moving to other traditional public housing developments (Cunningham 2004). For many residents, this relocation means that HOPE VI has met its basic goals; most HOPE VI relocatees report living in better housing in dramatically safer, less poor neighborhoods (Comey 2004; Buron 2004).³

Despite these successes, however, public housing transformation has largely failed to address the more complex needs of "hard-to-house" residents who have relied on public housing as a source of stable, if less than ideal, housing. According to recent research by the Urban Institute, a substantial proportion of these residents may not fit easily into existing relocation options for HOPE VI households, particularly vouchers or new mixed-income communities that may require the household to pass strict screening requirements (i.e., criminal background checks, drug tests, or work requirements).⁴ Further, many families awaiting relocation will need special assistance beyond the typical relocation package to help them move from their current units into safe and stable housing.

The hard to house include a range of high-need households, such as grandparents caring for grandchildren, families with disabled members, very large households, and multiple-barrier families coping with an array of difficult problems. For these vulnerable families, the same public housing transformation that may offer better housing and new opportunities for other tenants can be just one more blow—leaving families in their distressed communities, facing the specter of losing their assistance altogether. Because housing continues to become increasingly unaffordable for low-income families, these families are left with few good alternatives outside of public housing.⁵

In this brief, we lay out a strategy for effectively serving "hard-to-house" residents who remain in distressed public housing or who are experiencing hardship as a result of HOPE VI-related relocation. Using evidence from our research on HOPE VI families, we identify the different needs that make it difficult for some residents to successfully transition to mixed-income or private-market housing. Next, we use this evidence to find out how many residents living in HOPE VI developments fall into these categories and require special assistance or support during and after relocation. We conclude with recommended strategies that can meet the needs of these vulnerable families and help ensure better outcomes for all original residents.

Notes from this section

This brief is based on an article of the same title that will appear in a forthcoming issue of Housing Policy Debate.

1. See Susan J. Popkin, Larry Buron, Diane K. Levy, and Mary K. Cunningham, "The Gautreaux Legacy: What Might Mixed-Income and Dispersal Strategies Mean for the Poorest Public Housing Tenants?" Housing Policy Debate 11, no. 4 (2000): 911-42 for an overview of the policies that gave priority to the lowest-income households.

2. The HOPE VI program was the largest and most visible component of the transformation of public housing. HOPE VI specifically targeted the worst public housing, combining grants for physical revitalization with funding for management improvements and supportive services to promote resident self-sufficiency (Popkin et al. 2004). Since 1992, HUD has awarded 446 HOPE VI revitalization and demolition grants in 166 cities. To date, 63,100 severely distressed units have been demolished and another 20,300 units are slated for redevelopment (HUD 2003). As of the end of 2002, 15 of 165 funded HOPE VI programs were completed (GAO 2002).

3. For a complete review of the history and impact of public housing transformation and HOPE VI, see Popkin et al. (2004).

4. See Susan J. Popkin, Mary K. Cunningham, and Martha Burt, "Public Housing Transformation and the Hard to House" Housing Policy Debate 16, no. 4 (2005).

5. See The National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out of Reach 2003: America's Housing Wage Climbs, at http://www.nlihc.org/oor2003/.

Note: This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Usage, posting and reprint of materials on the UI web site:

Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site in PDF format. This information may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required.

Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact paffairs@urban.org.

If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.