How Are HOPE VI Families Faring? Children

Brief #6 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 HOPE VI program targets the nation's most distressed public housing—impoverished communities with substandard housing and extreme levels of drug trafficking and violent crime. Children growing up in these communities face special challenges: the dangers of their physical environment, a social world dominated by the drug economy, poor schools, and the likelihood that the adults in the household have personal challenges that prevent them from parenting effectively. These conditions put children at risk for serious consequences, including developmental delays, teen parenthood, and academic failure (Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, and Aber 1997; Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn 2000). The HOPE VI program can improve the life chances for these children by improving their neighborhoods and helping families move to less distressed communities (see page 7).

The HOPE VI Panel Study tracks outcomes for original residents at five sites where redevelopment activities began in 2001 (see page 7). At the 2001 baseline survey, the challenges facing children growing up in the HOPE VI Panel Study sites were extreme. Their families were very poor; the majority of households with children reported incomes below $10,000 a year. The children faced many hazards of living in substandard housing, such as lead paint, mold, inadequate heat, and infestations of cockroaches and other vermin, all of which could seriously affect their health and well-being (Comey 2004). Further, all five developments were very dangerous. The majority of survey respondents reported major problems with drugs and shootings in their communities (Popkin et al. 2002). In-depth interview respondents—both parents and children—spoke poignantly of bullets shot into their homes, of children caught in the cross-fire, and of keeping children indoors to shield them from the drug dealing and violence. Even inside their homes, these families never felt completely safe.

Most schools the children attended at baseline were also troubled—students were virtually all minority and poor, and most students performed below grade level on standardized tests.¹ About half the survey respondents said they viewed school quality in their community as a problem. In-depth interview respondents complained about poor teachers and chaotic school environments; their children told of fights, gang activity, and shootings.

Although some children seemed to thrive despite these challenges, many were experiencing significant problems. According to parents, many children were struggling in school: a substantial proportion—23 percent—were in special education, about two-thirds had one or more reported behavior problems, and about half had two or more, with boys reportedly having more problems than girls. About one in four children had been suspended or expelled from school (Popkin et al. 2002).² Further, HOPE VI children were in worse physical health at baseline than other poor children in national samples. In particular, they were far more likely to be diagnosed with asthma; the prevalence of asthma among older HOPE VI children was nearly twice the national average.

A primary goal of the HOPE VI program is to improve residents' living environment. The program can profoundly affect the lives of children, who are the most vulnerable residents in the dangerous environment of distressed public housing and particularly likely to suffer from the stress of relocation (Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn 2001). Earlier briefs in this series documented that two years after relocation began at the HOPE VI Panel Study sites, relocatees were living in better housing in neighborhoods that were less poor and dramatically safer (Comey 2004; Buron 2004). Those who relocated with Section 8 Housing Choice vouchers or no longer received assistance—mostly because their incomes had increased—reported the largest improvements (Cunningham 2004). In contrast, those who moved to other public housing reported modest changes. In this brief, we examine the impact of these changes on children and youth in HOPE VI households. Have these children benefited from the changes, or has the disruption of relocation—even to a better neighborhood—simply created more challenges for them in school, at least in the short term? Future research will examine the long-term impacts as families adjust to their new situations or return to the revitalized HOPE VI sites.

Notes from this section

1. At baseline, in each household with children, we randomly picked up to two focal children, one under the age of 6 and the other between the ages of 6 and 14. We asked parents detailed questions about each child, including quality and access to schools, special education, behavior (both positive and negative), and delinquency (for older children only). This brief focuses on educational and behavioral results for the older focal children.

2. These rates were higher than those for other poor children nationally (Brooks-Gunn et al. 1997).

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.