interim assessment of the hope vi program: case … assessment of the hope vi program: case study of...

Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program: Case Study of Ellen Wilson Dwellings in Washington, DC Final Report Contract # DU100C000021098 Task Order No. 2 March 2001 Prepared for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research451 Seventh Street, SW, Room 8140 Washington, DC 20410 Prepared by Mary Joel Holin Jean Amendolia

Cambridge, MA Lexington, MA Hadley, MA Bethesda, MD Washington, DC Chicago, IL Cairo, Egypt Johannesburg, South Africa

Abt Associates Inc. 55 Wheeler Street Cambridge, MA 02138

Abt Associates Inc. Table of Contents

Table of Contents

PrefaceHighlights

1. Background and Overview of the HOPE VI Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 The HOPE VI Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.3 Redevelopment Process and Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.4 Program Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2. The Revitalized Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.1 Creating Mixed-Income Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.2 Physical Redesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.3 Community Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3. Management Operations and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.1 Property Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.2 Occupancy, Marketing and Resident Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163.3 Income Bands and Housing Payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173.4 Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4. Characteristics and Perceptions of HOPE VI and Neighborhood Residents . . 234.1 Resident Demographics and Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234.2 HOPE VI Residents Compared with Neighborhood Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274.3 Residents’ Views of the Townhomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274.4 Social Cohesion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294.5 Residents’ Perceptions of their Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5. The Capitol Hill Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345.1 The Neighborhood Prior to Revitalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345.2 Overall Goals for the Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385.3 Current Physical and Economic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

6. Community and Supportive Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426.1 Supportive Services Activities through 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426.2 The Endowment Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446.3 Self-Reported Use of Supportive Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Abt Associates Inc. Table of Contents

7. Crime and Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467.1 Improved Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467.2 Changes in Crime Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477.3 Residents’ Perceptions of Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

8. Institutional Impacts of the HOPE VI Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Appendix A - Operating Budget for the Townhomes on Capitol HillAppendix B - Data Collection MethodologyAppendix C - Survey Results for HOPE VI and Neighborhood ResidentsAppendix D- Survey Results by Income Band

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 BaselineAssessment 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

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 inthe historic Capitol Hill neighborhood. Two years later, an additional grant of $9.4 million wasobtained to cover increased costs associated with additional infrastructure work andenvironmental 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 negativeinfluence 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 inthe neighborhood into a source of strength: a well-designed, privately managed, mixed-incomecommunity that is fully integrated into its surrounding neighborhood.” The plan proposed the1

creation of a limited equity housing cooperative that would operate without long term publichousing 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 offormer slum alley dwellings not far from the U.S. Capitol. Ellen Wilson was built to house whitepublic housing residents, while a public housing development for blacks—Arthur CapperDwellings—was constructed concurrently a few blocks away.2

The development consisted largely of low-rise (two- and three-story), garden-style apartmentbuildings of concrete and brick construction. There was also one block of rowhouses. Theoriginal development contained a total of 205 units and occupied less than 20 percent of a five-acre site, with the remaining land left as open space. The project planners made little effort tointegrate the development into the surrounding Capitol Hill neighborhood, where streetfrontrowhouses are the prevalent residential building type. Most of the Ellen Wilson structures facedthe interior of the development, with landscaped courtyards at the center.

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.


Ellen Wilson Dwellings in 19413

Until the late 1960s the property reportedly was well maintained. In the early 1970s, part of EllenWilson was demolished and a large piece of land was taken to build a freeway locatedimmediately south of the development. At this point, Ellen Wilson was left with 134 units in 13buildings. 4

After the partial demolition, the property entered a period of decline that paralleled a generaldeterioration in public housing throughout the city and can be attributed at least in part to poormanagement by DPAH. The open space that the Ellen Wilson planners believed to be beneficialbecame an unsafe wasteland filled with neighborhood refuse. In 1987 a physical needs assessmentconcluded that “. . . the buildings and systems were deteriorated to a degree of obsolescencebeyond any further practical use.” One of the development’s residents at the time reported that5

her unit:

6 Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI, Ellen Wilson Dwellings, p. 11.


. . . was without heat and hot water during the last four years. The boiler couldnot be repaired and needed to be replaced. During the cold winter months, poorinsulation caused icicles to form in the apartment. There was a constant problemwith mice and rats. Building maintenance was poor and very slow. One of theunits 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 bysquatters and homeless persons for the next several years. In 1992 a group of homeless veteransbegan 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 chainlink fence.

1.2 The HOPE VI Plan

The redevelopment plan for Ellen Wilson Dwellings was not prepared by the local housingauthority. Instead, it was conceived and implemented by a group of Capitol Hill neighbors whowere 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 groupbegan to explore redevelopment options and looked for models to several public housingredevelopments projects that were underway around the country, including Columbia Point inBoston. 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 RedevelopmentCorporation (CDC). The CDC’s diverse board of directors included several ministers, anarchitect, public housing residents (including former Ellen Wilson residents), a real estate agent,an accountant, representatives from nonprofit social service agencies, and an AdvisoryNeighborhood Commissioner. The CDC assembled a development team, created aredevelopment 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 fundingvehicle that would allow the CDC’s redevelopment plan to move forward. The CDC firstpersuaded DPAH to apply for HOPE VI funding for Ellen Wilson using the CDC’s proposedplan. DPAH subsequently selected the CDC’s team—officially the Ellen Wilson RedevelopmentLimited Liability Corporation—as the developer for the site. The team included: the TelesisCorporation, 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-incomecommunities around the country; and the CDC. Because the DPAH was a “troubled” agency in1993, HUD approved the award on the condition that an outside entity, McHenry/TAG Inc.,administer the grant on behalf of the authority.

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 warehousewith underground fuel storage tanks.


As envisioned by the CDC members, several ambitious goals were to be achieved through theredevelopment of Ellen Wilson Dwellings:

C the development of “. . . an economically integrated community that reflects thestrengths of self-sufficient housing development through homeownership” andspecifically through mixed-income cooperative homeownership;

C independence from long-term operating subsidies or other forms of publicassistance—in other words, no public housing subsidies would be used;

C the creation of an important neighborhood resource that brings community servicesand social services to the greater Capitol Hill neighborhood; and

C the replacement of distressed and vacant public housing with a privately manageddevelopment that blends naturally into the Capitol Hill historic district.7

The process for implementing these goals began with the demolition of all existing structures onthe site and the installation of new public infrastructure. The replacement housing would include134-unit, mixed-income cooperative townhouse development as well as 13 market-ratetownhouses, all architecturally consistent with residential properties in the surrounding area. Anew 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 unitsat the Ellen Wilson site, now known as The Townhomes on Capitol Hill. As shown in Exhibit1-1, even after the HOPE VI funding was secured in 1993, the redevelopment process tooksubstantially longer than anticipated. The HOPE VI contract between DPAH and HUD wasexecuted 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 coveradditional costs associated with improvements related to environmental remediation andinfrastructure development.

Demolition began in April 1996. While the redevelopment plan suggested that units would beavailable for occupancy roughly one year after the start of demolition, it was almost three yearsafter demolition began that the first units were ready for occupancy (January 1999). As of


December 2000, the cooperative units were completed and mostly occupied. Construction hadnot yet started on the 13 homeownership units or the community center.

According to staff responsible for the grant’s administration, the project schedule changedfrequently after the start of demolition. While some of the delays were caused by misseddeadlines on the part of architects or contractors, local opposition to the project erupted atvarious 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 thetypes of exterior building materials that the architect had selected. A staff member for thedeveloper noted that opposition was driven partly by community fears that the revitalizeddevelopment would be occupied primarily by low-income families.

In explaining the lengthy development process, a leader of the Community DevelopmentCorporation stated that “nothing about the redevelopment of Ellen Wilson was easy.” Anineffective local government and housing agency served to complicate the CDC’s efforts earlyon and also fueled community opposition. However, in May 1995 a court order placed DPAHinto 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 publichousing in the city. This new administrator supported the CDC’s efforts and was instrumentalin helping the redevelopment move forward.

Exhibit 1-1Key Milestones for Redevelopment of Ellen Wilson Dwellings

Milestone Revitalization Plan Actual DateProposed Date per

Ellen Wilson Neighborhood Redevelopment Fall 1991Corporation incorporated

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 teamand the grant administrator.

9 This reserve will be used to cover operating deficits, re-purchase memberships as co-op units turnover, and pay for any expenses that arenot covered by a separate replacement reserve.

10 As reported by Richard Gervase of Telesis Corporation in an “Ellen Wilson Budget Overview.”


1.4 Program Costs

As shown in Exhibit 1-2, development of the mixed-income cooperative townhouses was financedalmost entirely with HOPE VI funds. As of mid-2000, close to 90 percent of the $25 millionproject budget had been expended. These funds were used primarily for site improvements andconstruction. Of the remaining funds, $878,000 have been designated as an operating reserve forthe cooperative development. Other remaining money will pay for the construction of the9

community center and be used to reimburse administrative costs incurred by the housing authorityand the grant administrator. The development team reported that the costs associated withdeveloping 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 1-2Townhomes on Capitol Hill HOPE VI Redevelopment Costs(Through March 2000)

Uses Budgeted Budgeted Budgeted Expended

HOPE VI Other of TotalFunds Funds Total Funds

Percentage

Planning/Professional Services $3,820,482 $348,110 $4,168,592 95%

Demolition 950,522 0 950,522 100%

New Units/Site Improvements 15,749,659 8,000 15,757,659 91%

Community/ Supportive Services 1,921,587 30,154 1,951,741 89%a

Administration and OperatingReserve 2,633,706 0 2,633,706 55%b

Total $25,075,956 $386,264 $25,462,220 88%c

Source: KPMG HOPE VI Quarterly Progress Report (First Quarter 2000) and data provided by the development team.The grant administrator reported that some supportive services funds have been used to pay for overages in construction costs. a

This money will be reimbursed to the co-op for future supportive services activities.Of this amount, $878,000 is designated for a co-op operating reserve.b

Funds provided by the DC Housing Agencyc

11 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

2. The Revitalized Development

The former Ellen Wilson property is now the site of the Townhomes on Capitol Hill, a 134-unitmixed-income cooperative. The project is largely completed, although an additional 13 market-rate homeownership units and a community center remain to be constructed. The major featuresof the revitalization effort include: the creation of a mixed-income housing cooperative that willoperate without ongoing public subsidies; the physical redesign of the site so that it now blendswith 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 CommunityDevelopment Corporation’s (CDC’s) discussions about the redevelopment of Ellen WilsonDwellings. The notion of a limited equity mixed-income cooperative was proposed by adevelopment team member (Telesis Corporation) and well-received by CDC members, becauseit was viewed as a way to give incoming residents a greater stake in their new community. It alsopresented an opportunity to provide housing for low-income families without bringing publichousing back to the site—an option that would likely have been opposed by neighborhoodresidents.

In a housing cooperative, members purchase shares in a corporation that owns and manages theproperty. Each member makes an initial payment and then pays monthly carrying charges. In thecase of the Townhomes, both the initial payment and amount of the monthly charge vary withhousehold income as well as unit size. If a member moves from the housing cooperative, he orshe is able to receive back a portion of initial and monthly housing payments based on “tenurecredits,” which are earned based on length of tenure and level of investment through the initialpurchase price and monthly carrying charges.11

To achieve an economically mixed development, the cooperative was planned to include shareholders, or cooperative members, in three income bands:

C Income Band One: 25 percent of units are available to households with incomes lessthan 25 percent of the area median income (up to $20,700 for a family of four in year2000);

C Income Band Two: 25 percent of units are available to households with incomesbetween 25 and 50 percent of area median (up to $41,400 for a family of four); and

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.


C Income Band Three: 50 percent of units are available to households with incomesbetween 50 and 80 percent of area median (up to $66,240 for a family of four). Upto 20 units in Income Band Three could be occupied by households whose incomesare between 80 percent and 115 percent of median.12

Cooperative member households pay a fixed monthly housing payment, equal to 30 percent ofthe income that is at the center of their income band. The housing payments of those in thehighest 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 ofcooperative members are sufficient to cover all operating expenses. No long-term publicsubsidies will be used to support the development. (The operations and financing of the co-opare discussed in detail in Chapter 3.)

The addition of 13 market-rate homeownership townhomes was seen as a way of furtherenhancing the mixed-income character of the development. Both the market-rate units and unitsoccupied 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 developmentthat “blends naturally into the Capitol Hill area.” It does not distinguish individual units basedon income bands. The site plan, shown in Figure 2-1, includes a new public road and a publicalley or “mews” that mirror the street pattern in the neighborhood and connect the developmentto the surrounding community. As is typical in Capitol Hill, the townhouses are oriented towardthe street. Each unit has its own entrance onto the street, and some also have a back entranceonto a small enclosed yard. Because Capitol Hill is an historic district, the developers wererequired to build brick sidewalks with granite curbs. The streets are tree-lined and small frontyards are landscaped with shrubs and perennial flowers. In addition to on-street parking, thereis 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 theCapitol Hill area, invested significant attention and resources in the design of the front facadesof the buildings. Her designs were a frequent subject of debate among neighbors concerned that13

the development look like upscale market-rate housing. The end result is a development that isquite varied architecturally and draws on the range of building styles in Capitol Hill. A varietyof building materials (including decorative brick, brownstone, stucco, and siding) as well as


Figure 2-1Site Plan for the Townhomes on Capitol Hill


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 CapitolHill 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 simpletownhouses 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 one-bedroom English basement; the English basement apartments have about 600 squarefeet, 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 uniton the first two floors, with a two-story, two-bedroom unit on the top floors; thethree-bedroom units have about 1,250 square feet;

C two-story, two-family townhouses: designed to look like two side-by-sidetownhomes, these are two-bedroom flats, one unit on top of the other;

C semi-detached “carriage” houses: these are two-story, two-bedroom units ofroughly 1,100 square feet; and

C three-story, two-family, trapezoidal-shaped townhouses: these are designed for theperimeter of the site, with a mix of unit sizes.


Note the mix of building types: three-story, two-family townhouses (far left and center); four-story, two-family 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)


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 EllenWilson prior to its demolition, although fewer co-op units are reserved for low-incomehouseholds and there are fewer large (three-bedroom) units. (See Exhibits 2-1 and 2-2.) Theunits are also modest in size. One-bedroom units range from 560 to 600 square feet. The two-and three-bedroom units range from 780 to 1250 square feet.

All units have wall-to-wall carpeting, central air conditioning, dishwashers, security systems, andwasher/dryer hookups. In contrast to the exteriors, the interior plans for the units are fairlystandard in design. One redevelopment team member observed that, because of communitypressures, significantly more attention was paid to the exteriors of the units. She would haveliked to see more attention to the quality of workmanship and materials on the inside. Thissentiment was echoed by the current manager of the development, who complained about the useof bi-fold doors for closets and noted some recent plumbing problems.


Exhibit 2-1Changes to Units/Buildings at Ellen Wilson/Townhomes on Capitol Hill

Unit Type Baseline Current CompletionUpon

Units for households with incomes at 80% or 134 114 114less of median (rental) (co-op) (co-op)a

b

Units for households with incomes between 0 20 2080% and 115% of median (co-op) (co-op)

Market-rate homeownership units 0 0 13c

Total number of units 134 134 147

Sources: Revised Revitalization Plan, September 1995 and interviews with the development team.This is the family income limit for public housing. Actual occupants of public housing have much lower incomes.a

There Ellen Wilson units were vacant at baseline.b

13 townhouses will be constructed, owners may opt for these to be built with basement apartments, resulting in more than 13c

units.

Exhibit 2-2Changes to Bedroom Configurations at Ellen Wilson/Townhomes on Capitol Hill

Baseline (All Units)Current

Type of 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

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 communityregarding an already adequate supply of day care, this plan has changed. The center is nowexpected to house office space for the property manager, a small maintenance room, communitymeeting space for classes or community events, an exercise area, and perhaps a computer learningcenter. The center’s “siting, scale, orientation and materials will reflect its function anddistinguish it from the adjacent townhouses, while maintaining a compatible character with the

14 Revised Revitalization Plan, September 1995, Section A, Executive Summary, page 2.


surrounding historic area.” Development staff estimated that the center will be completed by14

the fall of 2001.

15 The training program began once 90 percent of the units were occupied. The training consists of six sessions that address issues such as co-

op 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

3. Management Operations and Policies

In addition to paying careful attention to the project’s physical design, the development team alsocrafted a complicated and ambitious management plan. Their goals in developing this plan wereto ensure that:

C the Townhomes are adequately maintained and operated over time; andC the goals regarding income diversity and housing affordability are maintained.

This chapter first describes the management structure for the project. This is followed by adiscussion of current occupancy rates, marketing of units, and the selection of cooperativemembers in Section 3.2. Section 3.3 describes the structure that has been put in place to ensurethat the co-op remains an affordable, mixed-income development. Sections 3.4 and 3.5 describecurrent 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 livein the cooperative development and pay monthly carrying charges, will have overall responsibilityfor managing the Townhomes. The Association will not own the property outright. Instead, thebuildings 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 thedevelopment team. The training program was designed to culminate in the election of the first15

CHCHA board of directors. This election was delayed, because some co-op members did notparticipate in all training sessions and make-up sessions had to be scheduled. The board wasfinally elected in December 2000 and has assumed responsibility for overseeing the privateproperty manager and making budget decisions as necessary. (Until the board was elected, thedevelopment 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. As outlined in the16

co-op’s Management Plan and in a management services agreement between the managementcompany and the cooperative association, the private manager is responsible for marketing,

17 According to the Cooperative’s management plan, anticipated housing costs cannot exceed 40 percent of the households’s gross adjustedincome and credit obligations cannot exceed an additional 20 percent of income. Gross adjusted income can be from a number of sourcesincluding employment, Social Security, SSI, Pensions, etc. TANF is not counted as income because, according to one key informant, it isnot considered an on-going income source.


resident selection, maintenance, and the provision of resident services related to householdbudgeting and management. The company currently has five on-site staff, including a propertymanager, two maintenance workers, an administrative assistant, and a part-time social serviceworker. Based on the results of an in-person survey of residents conducted in the Summer of2000 (discussed in detail in Chapter 4), most residents have been satisfied with the maintenanceand 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 werebeing used as interim office space by the property manager until the community building iscompleted. The three remaining units became vacant only recently and were scheduled to beoccupied shortly. The property manager noted that since the project opened there had been onlyone eviction. Delinquencies in carrying charges were reported to be low. At the time of the sitevisit, 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 availableto 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 teamstaff as one of the few easy tasks in the process. The units became available just as the housingmarket 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 managerreported that these efforts generated significant response and a substantial pool of potentialapplicants. Based on this initial outreach, residents were selected and a waiting list wasdeveloped that still serves as a source of applicants.

The selection of residents is made based on the following critiera:

C income qualifications: the household must have an income below 80 percent of areamedian 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

18 This preference only applied at the time the property was originally leased.

19 “Wilson Housing Reborn,” The Washington Post, November 5, 1998.


C income “proportionality”: applicants must meet income critieria based onavailability 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 whomet the eligibility and screening critiera and were residents of the former Ellen Wilson Dwellingswho were displaced when the site was vacated in 1988, or had resided at one of two nearbypublic housing developments, Arthur Capper and Carrollsburg Dwellings, as of July 1998. In18

order to make former Ellen Wilson residents aware of this preference, the housing authorityreviewed old data files and developed a mailing list of roughly 80 former residents. Roughly halfof 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 andCarrollsburg moved to the Townhomes.

3.3 Income Bands and Housing Payments

As noted previously, according to the CHCHA Regulatory and Operating Agreement a targetednumber 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 ofannual gross family median income;

C Income Band Two: 34 households will have incomes between 25 and 50 percent ofmedian;

C Income Band Three: 47 households will have incomes between 50 and 80 percentof median, and an additional 20 households may have incomes between 80 percentand 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 numberin 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 of5 percent of area median income, adjusted for unit size, at the middle of the purchaser’s incomeband. For example, a family in Band One would be required to pay 5 percent of 12.5 percent ofarea median income (which is adjusted based on the size of unit that they will occupy). Based on2000 median income figures, the payment for a family of two for a one-bedroom unit in Band One

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 aslittle as $94 to $1100 per month. Based on annual income figures reported from the HOPE VI survey, it appears that most co-ophouseholds are paying 30 percent or less of income monthly carrying charges and utilities.

22 Revised Revitalization Plan, Section F, Replacement Housing Plan, p. 3.


is about $414. [$66,240 (area median income for a 2-person household) x .125 (no unit sizeadjustment) = $8280 x .05 = $414.] By comparison, the initial share payment for a two-personfamily in Band Three purchasing shares for a one-bedroom unit would be about $2150. (SeeExhibit 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 thecooperative plus utility payments paid privately by each resident. Exhibit 3-1 provides severalexamples of how this cost is calculated. A two-person household earning less than 25 percentof median would have a total housing payment of $207 per month for a one-bedroom unit. Thisincludes estimated utilities of $100 plus a monthly $107 carrying charge. The total housingpayment is calculated based on 30 percent of $8,280, which represents the midpoint of the incomerange for a two-person household earning less than 25 percent of median (as of 2000). For a20

two-person household with an income between 50 and 80 percent of median, the housingpayment for the same one-bedroom unit would be $1,076, including $100 for utilities and $976for the co-op carrying charge.21

The payment system is designed to allow households in Band Three to subsidize the Band Onehouseholds. The payments of Band Two residents are intended to break even with operatingcosts. In fact, the operating budget for 1999 and the projected budget for 2000 show that theoperating 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 chargefor a two-person family in Exhibit 3-1 is between $418 and $629. (The operating budget iscontained in Appendix A.)

The development team noted several reasons why they developed a fixed housing payment withineach 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 percentof income. However, some drawbacks to this approach are worth mentioning. Most important,22

a monthly payment is only fixed while the co-op member’s income remains within a particularband. 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 medianincome.

23 This table was developed based on the “Ellen Wilson Resident Payment Profile” prepared for the Revised Revitalization Plan. The tableuses the 2000 area median income for a two-person family in the D.C. metropolitan area of $66,240.


Exhibit 3-1Examples of Estimated Initial Share Payments and Monthly Housing Payments for aTwo-Person Household in a One-Bedroom Unit (2000)23

Income Band 1 Income Band 2 Income Band 3a

(up to 25% of Band 2a (25- Band 2b (37.5- (50-80% ofmedian income) 37.5% of median) 50%of median) median)b

Income range up to $16,560 $16,560-$24,840 $24,840-$33,120 $33,120-52,992c

Annual income- $8,280 $20,700 $29,160 $43,056 middle of band

30% of monthly $207 $518 $729 $1,076 income

Estimated utilities ($100) ($100) ($100) ($100) (paid by resident)

Monthly co-op $107 $418 $629 carrying charge

$976

Initial share $414 $1035 $1458 $2150payment

In order to prevent residents in the lower-end of Income Band Two from paying an unacceptable percentage of their incomes fora

housing, this band is divided into sub-bands for purposes of calculating housing payments.The housing payment for Income Band Three residents is the lesser of 30 percent of monthly median income less utilities or market rent. B

Market rent is determined annually based upon housing payments for comparable units in the private market.A household in Band One must have at least 10 percent of area median income to qualify for residence at the co-op.C

One of the more challenging management tasks that the cooperative and property managementare 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 managerto recertify income annually, for households in Income Bands One and Two. (Residents inIncome Band Three are not recertified annually since their housing payment will not change asincome 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 significantincome changes, so that they no longer belong to their original income band. These householdshave been required to make the monthly housing payment for their new income band once thereis an “open position” within that band. As a resident moves to a different band or leaves thedevelopment, the property manager must ensure that incoming residents meet incomerequirements based on which bands have openings. For this reason, waiting lists are maintainedby unit size by band. Residents are not forced to leave the cooperative if their income rises above80 percent or even 115 percent of median.

24 See Capitol Hill Cooperative Housing Association Regulatory and Operating Agreement, pp. 12-17.

25 CHCHA Regulatory and Operating Agreement, pp. 22-24.


Compared to renting, belonging to the Townhomes cooperative offers an advantage in that whena 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 howlong they have lived at the cooperative, their Income Band, and current market conditions. Atminimum, all sellers receive back the initial share payment. Members who have lived at thecooperative for a minimum of three year receive further compensation. For each year that thesemember households maintain “good tenure”—that is, abide by the co-op’s rules and provideadequate notice of their intent to move—they receive a “tenure credit.” Each tenure credit isequal to two percent of the annual income at the middle of the household’s income band, adjustedfor unit size. For example, a Band One family of three would receive a tenure credit in the year2000 of (82,800 x .125 (no unit size adjustment) = $10,350 x .02 = $207. A Band Three familywould receive a tenure credit in 2000 of $1076. The actual amount (beyond the initial sharepayment) that a seller receives upon the sale of his or her shares depends upon the tenure creditsthat have been earned and the price at which the share is sold (tied to income of the incominghousehold and market conditions).24

3.4 Maintenance

The property management company has day to day responsibility for the maintenance of all units andcommon 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 bothroutine and emergency problems. The co-op’s management plan requires the property managementto resolve any emergency requests with 24 hours. During the first year of operation, there have beenno serious maintenance issues, although problems with plumbing and bi-fold closet doors have beencommon. The property manager reported that the overall construction quality of the Townhomes isgood, although he echoed other key informant reports that the high quality of materials used on theunits’ 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 ensurethat the Townhomes are maintained in good phsyical condition over the long term. The agreementrequires that the property manager conduct annual physical inspections of each unit “. . . to ensure thatall 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 mechanicaland electrical systems, architectural structures (roofs, foundations), or individual units. It should alsobe noted that all 134 units has a one-year builder’s warranty, and some items such as the roofshave longer warranty periods.

26 CHCHA Regulatory and Operating Agreement, pp. 26-31.


3.5 Long-Term Viability of the Development

The long-term success of the Townhomes will ultimately depend on the ability of the cooperativemembers and the CHCHA board of directors to manage the development in a fiscally responsiblemanner and to ensure that it maintains its mixed-income character. Cognizant of the responsibilitythat will rest on the co-op board, the development team has established requirements in the co-op’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 usedto create an operating or “affordability reserve.” This money can be used to: 1) cover operatingdeficits caused by delinquencies in monthly housing payments or high vacancy rates; 2) re-purchase memberships of selling members; and 3) pay insurance deductible and other losses notcovered by the replacement reserve.

To help ensure that the original goals of the project are met over the long-term, an entity calledthe New Community Trust (NCT) has been established to oversee the CHCHA’s operations. TheCHCHA is required to submit periodic reports and financial statements to the Trust and to thehousing authority (which owns the land). Board actions regarding changes in by-law, significantwithdrawals from the affordability reserve, and annual budget setting must be approved by theTrust. The Trust also has the power to remove co-op members from the CHCHA board ofdirectors.26

During the first five years of the cooperative (which begins when the board of directors iselected), 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 membershipchanges to consist of two members of the Capitol Hill community and two members of thecooperative. If the development does not remain a mixed-income, limited equity cooperativeduring the first 40 years, the regulatory and operating agreement specifies the steps by which thedevelopment can be taken over by the housing authority.

While the Trust is described in writing as the entity that will ensure that co-op restrictionsregarding affordability of housing payments and income diversity are enforced and that theproperty is well-maintained, those involved in its development noted that it serves anotherpurpose as well. Specifically, the Trust is also viewed as a “buffer,” in that it addresses theconcerns of some in the Capitol Hill neighborhood who did not want the housing authority tohave sole oversight of the development.

While the development team is confident that they have put in place the physical, financial, andmanagement resources that will ensure the long-term success of the cooperative, some Capitol

27 “Wilson Housing Reborn,” The Washington Post November 5, 1998.


Hill neighbors remain skeptical. One long-time Capitol Hill resident stated that many neighborsare not convinced that the co-op can be self-supporting. However, he also remarked, “Even ifthey have to go back for HUD funds year after year, it’s 10,000 times more attractive than anypublic housing project. No matter what happiness, its sheer beauty will be a positive factor.”27

28 The survey area was bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue on the north, Tenth Street on the east, the Southeast-Southwest Freeway on thesouth, and Second Street on the west (North Carolina Avenue joins the North and West borders, and I Street joins the South and Eastborders). 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 thenumber 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 ofBand Three residents.

30 Appendix C shows the survey results for all Townhomes residents and neighborhood residents. Appendix D shows the responses ofTownhomes 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

4. Characteristics and Perceptions of HOPE VI andNeighborhood Residents

As part of this study, Abt Associates conducted an in-person survey of those living in theTownhomes on Capitol Hill, as well as those living in the neighborhood immediately surroundingthe development. All residents of the Townhomes who had lived in the development for at leastone month were eligible to participate in the survey, and residents who had lived in thesurrounding neighborhood for at least six months were randomly selected. The survey was28

conducted between July and September 2000, with a total of 90 development residents and 136neighborhood residents interviewed. 29

Using these data, this chapter describes the characteristics of residents at the Townhomes, makescomparisons among residents in various income bands, and compares the characteristics andperceptions 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 areavailable on the characteristics of former Ellen Wilson residents. Based on the reports of keyinformants at the time of the baseline study, it appears that most residents were African Americanand 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 percentof the co-op residents are African American, and 32 percent are white. The majority ofhouseholds heads (69 percent) are female. Ages of household heads vary considerably. Abouthalf are 18 to 34 years of age, while 22 percent are between 35 and 49, 13 percent are between50 and 64, and 10 percent are over age 65. Most households (83 percent) consist of just one or

32 Residents of the Townhomes are generally similar to renters in the D.C. area: 63 percent of all renters were African American and 27percent were white; 55 percent were1-person households and another 22 percent were 2-person households; and 74 percent of householdshad 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.


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 havechildren. Information provided by the management company suggests that less than one quarterof all Townhomes residents are under 18 years of age and that more than 90 percent of thechildren are five years or younger.33

Exhibit 4-1Demographic Characteristics of Townhomes Residents and Neighborhood Residents

Income Bands AllTownhomesBand Band BandResidentsOne Two Three

(n=90) (n=136)(n=27) (n=14) (n=49)Neighborhood

Race/Ethnicity by Household Head * **African American 89% 93% 49% 68% 12%White 11 7 51 32 88American Indian 0 0 0 0 1Hispanic 0 0 2 1 3

Household Size **1 person 44% 21% 31% 33% 41%2 people 37 57 55 50 363+ people 19 21 14 17 23Average HH Size 1.9 2.2 1.9 1.9 1.9**

Married Head of Household 4% 7%* 24%* 16% 34%**

Female-Headed Households 81% 64% 63% 69% 51%**

Single Female-Headed Householdswith Children 30% 29% 2%* 14% 1%**

Households without Children 67% 43% 88%* 74% 87%**Age of Household Head * * **18-24 8% 23% 12% 13% 4%25-34 12 46 59 43 2335-49 31 23 16 22 3450-64 27 0 8 13 2965 and over 23 8 4 10 11

Household Heads with a College Degree 7% 29%* 73%* 47% 82%**

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 5percent level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables, a chi-squared test was used to compare thedistribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical variables are indicated by an * placed abovethe 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 residentsat the 5 percent level.

34 The surveyed households are grouped according to the band to which they were assigned when they first moved into the development.


There are noticeable differences in the characteristics of households within the three incomebands. By definition, Band One households have the lowest incomes among the three bands.34

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 householdheads are more likely to be female (81 percent), older (one-half are 50 years or older), and lesseducated 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) areprimarily African American (93 percent) and many are female-headed (64 percent.) At the sametime, the household heads are generally younger and more likely to have children than Band Onehouseholds. 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 havingchildren in the household. Average household size was 2.2 persons, larger than that reported forBands 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 diverseracially—half are African American and half are white. As with Bands One and Two, female-headed households are in the majority (63 percent), and overall household size is small (1.9persons per household). However, very few Band Three households have any children—only 12percent compared to 57 percent of Band Two households and 33 percent of Band Onehouseholds. Further, most of the married households are in Band Three (24 percent of allhouseholds 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, 71percent of Band Three households heads reported to be under 35 years of age. Finally, BandThree households are more educated than those in the other bands, with 73 percent reporting thatthey have completed college.

As shown in Exhibit 4-2, the Townhomes is a mixed-income community. While the medianhousehold income across all bands is $35,000 (or 42 percent of 1999 area median), there issignificant 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 Threehouseholds. 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 nolonger belong to the band to which they were assigned upon moving into the development. Forexample, a Band One household reported a gross household income between 50 and 80 percentof 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


reported an income in the Band Three range. (Based on the co-op’s income targets, 25 percentof households should each fall into Bands One and Two, and 50 percent should fall into BandThree, although variations of plus or minus 10 percent are allowed.)

Exhibit 4-2Income Characteristics of Townhomes Residents and Neighborhood Residents

Income Bands AllTownhomes NeighborhoodBand Band BandResidents ResidentsOne Two Three

(n=90) (n=136)(n=27) (n=14) (n=49)

Median Household Income $7,350 $29,100* $45,000* $35,000 $85,000**

Household Income as Percentof Area Median * * **<25 percent 88% 21% 7% 33% 4%25 to 49 percent 8 50 7 14 750 to 80 percent 4 21 53 34 22>80 percent 0 7 33 20 67

Sources of Income/Assistance *a

Earned income 32% 92%* 96%* 76% 91%**SSI 37 0* 2* 13 4**Disability/workers comp 33 0* 4* 13 4**Food stamps 30 0* 0* 9 3**Public assistance 7 0 0 2 1Other 0 8 0 0 0Source: 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.Based on whether the respondent reported any income from the source.a

*Indicates that the responses of this Band are statistically significantly different than the responses of the Band One residents at the 5percent level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables, a chi-squared test was used to compare thedistribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical variables are indicated by an * placedabove the responses rather than next to individual numbers.**Indicates that the responses of neighborhood residents are statistically significantly different than the responses of Townhomesresidents at the 5 percent level.

There are several possible explanations for these discrepancies. First, some households maysimply 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 thedevelopment. 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 themanagement company will be looking to bring in new residents with incomes in the Band Tworange.

It is also worth noting that 20 percent of Townhomes residents reported incomes above 80percent of the median. As discussed in Chapter 3, the Townhomes can accommodate 20households (or 15 percent of all co-op households) with incomes between 80 and 115 percent ofthe median. Based on the survey results they currently exceed this number. These findings


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 achallenge. It remains to be seen whether the households whose incomes increase beyond 80percent of median will eventually move allowing households of more moderate means to takeadvantage of the Townhomes’ affordable housing payments.

Overall, 76 percent of the Townhomes’ residents are working, although this varies dramaticallyby band. More than 90 percent each of Band Two and Three residents are working, comparedwith just 32 percent of Band One residents. Given that many Band One residents are older, it isnot surprising that 37 percent reported receiving some income from Supplemental SecurityIncome (SSI). In addition, one-third reported receiving Social Security disability income orworkers compensation. However, only a small number of Band One families (7 percent) reportedreceiving public assistance. According to the cooperative’s management plan, public assistanceis not counted in determining a household’s eligibility for the co-op, because it is not an ongoingsource 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 ofTownhomes residents and those in the surrounding neighborhood. While the majority ofTownhomes 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 moreeducated than residents of the Townhomes. Neighborhood residents are also more likely to bemarried (34 percent compared to 16 percent of Townhomes residents).

Like residents of the HOPE VI development, the neighborhood includes a significant percentageof female-headed households (51 percent), and the average household is small, with 87 percentreporting no children.

Household income varies more among Townhomes residents than among neighborhood residents,with neighborhood residents generally reporting higher annual incomes. The median incomereported for all neighborhood households was $85,000, more than twice the median reported forTownhomes residents ($35,000) and slightly more than the area median income for a family offour in 1999 ($82,800). Ninety-one (91) percent of neighborhood residents reported that theyreceived some or all of their income from employment. Income from SSI, disability, and othersources 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


convenient location, while 22 percent said that they wanted to move to a “better” unit. Thesewere the two primary reasons to move reported by 86 percent of Band Two residents and 73percent of Band Three residents. (See Exhibit 4-3.) Relatively few respondents (12 percent)reported that lower housing cost was the primary motivation.

Exhibit 4-3Resident Satisfaction with the Development

Income Bands AllTownhomesBand Band BandResidentsOne Two Three

(n=90)(n=27) (n=14) (n=49)Primary Reason to Move to Townhomes: * *Convenient location 11% 50% 61% 44%Better unit 33 36 12 22Lower rent 7 7 16 12Safer than former unit 15 7 6 9Proximity to family/friends 19 0 0 6Other 15 0 5 7Satisfaction with Apartment: *Very satisfied 74% 50% 65% 66%Somewhat satisfied 15 50 33 30Somewhat dissatisfied 7 0 2 3Very dissatisfied 4 0 0 1Satisfaction with Management:Very satisfied 67% 50% 45% 52%Somewhat satisfied 26 29 39 33Somewhat dissatisfied 4 7 12 9Very dissatisfied 4 14 4 6Percent Reporting Some or Big Problems with:Adequacy of storage space 26% 57% 64%* 51%Too little living space 15 35 22 23Too much noise 7 14 29* 20Plumbing 0 14 16* 11Walls with peeling paint 7 21 20 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 tocompare the distribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical variables areindicated 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 thanthose reported by other residents. Only 11 percent of Band One residents noted that the primaryreason to move to the Townhomes was its convenient location, while 33 percent said they weremoving to a better unit. Nineteen percent of Band One residents said that they wanted to becloser to family and friends, and another 15 percent reported that they moved because thedevelopment was safer than where they had lived previously. None of the Band Two or Threeresidents moved to be closer to family and friends. However, 7 percent of Band Two residents


and 16 percent of Band Three residents said that they moved to the Townhomes because theybelieved it would be safer than where that had lived previously.

Overall, residents appear to be satisfied with their new homes. Two-thirds (66 percent) reportedthat they were very satisfied with their unit, and another 30 percent reported that they weresomewhat satisfied. Eleven (11) percent of Band One residents reported some leveldissatisfaction, 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, equipmentsuch 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 problemwith plumbing, and 17 percent reported a problem with peeling paint. (Note that the privatemanager 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 one-half of residents reported that storage space was a problem; another 23 percent reported that toolittle living space was a “big” problem. Lack of space was a particular concern among Band Twohouseholds, which tend to be larger and are more likely to have children. It should be noted thatmany 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) aresmall. Finally, 20 percent of residents reported problems with too much noise. Thia problem wasnoted especially among Band Three residents. While the souce of the noise problem can not beconfirmed, the development’s proximity to the Southeast-Southwest Expressway is a likelycontributing factor.

4.4 Social Cohesion

Integrating the Ellen Wilson site socially and physically into the surrounding community wasamong the CDC’s original objectives. To determine to what extent this objective has been metto date, residents of the Townhomes and the neighborhood were asked how they defined theirneighborhood physically. Eighty percent of neighborhood residents consider the Townhomes tobe part of their neighborhood, suggesting that there has been progress in physically integratingthe Townhomes into the larger community. (See Exhibit 4-4.) The majority of Townhomesresidents defined their neighborhood as “the development and several blocks around it” (40percent) or as “the block [I] live on and several blocks in each direction” (36 percent). Thissuggests that many Townhomes residents also feel that their development is physically part of thelarger community.

In terms of social integration between neighborhood and Townhomes residents, the reports aremore mixed. Sixty-three (63) percent of Townhomes residents reported that they socialize withresidents who live outside the development, but within several blocks of their home. At the sametime, only 19 percent of neighborhood residents reported that they have socialized withTownhomes residents.


Exhibit 4-4Social Cohesion in the Townhomes and in the Neighborhood

Income Bands AllTownhomes NeighborhoodBand Band BandResidents ResidentsOne Two Three

(n=90) (n=136)(n=27) (n=14) (n=49)

Percent who define the neighborhood as:My building and the block I live onMy block and several blocks in each directionThis development onlyThe development and several blocks around itOther

7% 14% 8% 9% 4%26 43 39 36 9333 7 8 16 NA33 36 45 40 NA0 0 0 0 2

*

Percent who consider the Townhomes to be part ofthe neighborhood:

NA NA NA NA 80%

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 agreethat:People generally get alongThis is a close-knit neighborhoodPeople are willing to help neighbors

63% 84% 74% 71% 93%**67 62 53 58 79**76 61 62 67 91**

Percent who attend resident/neighborhood councilmeetings:AlwaysSometimesNeverNo such resident/neighborhood council

37% 14% 43% 37% 3%30 50 33 34 2433 29 24 28 330 7 0 1 40

Length of time living at current unit:<12 months1 to 2 years2 to 4 years5 to 10 yearsMore than 10 years

48% 64% 67% 61% 19%52 36 33 38 140 0 0 0 210 0 0 0 180 0 0 0 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 percentlevel. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables, a chi-squared test was used to compare the distribution ofresponses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical variables are indicated by an * placed above the responsesrather than next to individual numbers.**Indicates that the responses of neighborhood residents are statistically significantly different than the responses of Townhomes residents atthe 5 percent level.

At the time of the survey, there appeared to be greater social cohesion among neighborhoodresidents than Townhomes residents. As shown in Exhibit 4-4, 93 percent of neighborhoodresidents agreed that people in the neighborhood generally get along with each other, comparedto 72 percent of the Townhomes residents. Similarly, 90 percent of neighborhood residents but

35 It should be noted that 25 percent of Townhomes residents lived in the Capitol Hill neighborhood before moving to their current address.


only 66 percent of Townhomes residents agreed that their neighbors are generally willing to helpeach other. Similarly, 79 percent of neighborhood residents compared with 58 percent ofTownhomes residents consider their neighborhood to be close-knit.

On the surface, these findings are puzzling given the smaller size and cooperative structure of theTownhomes development. However, only 39 percent of residents have lived at the Townhomesfor more than one year, compared with 81 percent of neighborhood residents. In addition, thecooperative has only recently begun to formally organize and elect its board. One wouldanticipate that over the next several years, as residents become better acquainted with each otherthrough co-op activities, the level of social cohesion will rise.

The survey offered encouraging evidence that many Townhomes residents have begun toparticipate actively in co-op meetings. Overall, 71 percent of Townhomes residents reported thatthey “always” or “sometimes” attend resident meetings, while only 27 percent of neighborhoodresidents 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 sharepositive 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, themajority of residents—including 67 percent from the Townhomes and 66 percent from theneighborhood—view the neighborhood as an “excellent” or “good” place to raise children. Mostresidents of each group (77 percent of Townhomes residents and 84 percent of neighborhoodresidents) 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. Whilesatisfaction levels are relatively high in all three groups, the Band Three residents appearsomewhat less enthusiastic about the neighborhood than do Band One or Two residents. About60 percent describe their satisfaction with the neighborhood as “very high” compared to about80 percent of residents each in the other two income bands. When asked whether the Capitol Hillneighborhood is a good place to raise children, about half of Band Three residents reported thatit was “excellent” or “good” compared with 80 percent of Band One residents and 77 percent ofBand 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) saidthat they would like to be living in Capitol Hill in another five years.


Exhibit 4-5Resident Perceptions of their Neighborhood

Income Bands All Townhomes NeighborhoodBand Band BandResidents ResidentsOne Two Three

(n=90) (n=136)(n=27) (n=14) (n=49)

Satisfaction with neighborhood **Very satisfied 81% 79% 61% 70% 73%Somewhat satisfied 15 14 35 26 23Somewhat dissatisfied 4 0 2 2 4Very dissatisfied 0 7 2 2 1

Neighborhood as a place to raisechildren * **An excellent place 38% 23% 21% 26% 16%A good place 42 54 35 40 49A fair place 12 23 38 28 26A poor place 8 0 6 6 8

Would like to live in neighborhood5 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 atthe 5 percent level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables, a chi-squared test was used tocompare the distribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical variables are indicatedby 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 Townhomesresidents at the 5 percent level.

The neighborhood is viewed by Townhomes residents as having numerous amenities. As shownin Exhibit 4-6, nearly everyone interviewed—99 percent of Townhomes residents and 98 percentof neighborhood residents—rated access to public transportation as “excellent” or “good.” Infact, as Chapter 5 indicates, the Eastern Market metro stop is in close proximity to theTownhomes and offers easy access to all parts of the Washington DC area. The majority ofresidents also gave high ratings for neighborhood access to employment and job trainingprograms, parks and recreational facilities, and child care services. Health care facilities, qualityschools, and grocery stores were viewed as accessible by somewhat fewer respondents, especiallythose from the neighborhood. Only half of neighborhood residents rated access to grocery storesas good or excellent, perhaps reflecting the fact that the nearest large grocery store is about twomiles away. Forty-four (44) percent of neighborhood residents gave a positive rating to accessto good schools.


Exhibit 4-6Access to Neighborhood Amenities

Percent rating amenity as “excellent” or Townhomes Neighborhood“good” (other possible responses are “fair” Residents Residentsand “poor”) (n=90) (n=136)Access to public transportation 99% 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 Townhomesresidents 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 theneighborhood had changed since the redevelopment began. Among neighborhood residents, 82percent report that the neighborhood is “somewhat” or “much” better now than before theredevelopment. Nineteen (19) percent thought it was about the same. All of the former EllenWilson residents now living at the Townhomes indicated that the neighborhood is “somewhat”(8 percent) or “much” (92 percent) better than before.

Exhibit 4-7Changes in Neighborhood since the Redevelopment Began

For returning residents and residents who lived in the Townhomes Neighborhoodsurrounding neighborhood before the redevelopment, residents residentscomparison of how the neighborhood has changed: (n=13) (n=108)

Returning Long-term

A much better place now 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

**

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 Townhomesresidents at the 5 percent level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables, a chi-squared test wasused to compare the distribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical variablesare indicated by an ** placed above the responses rather than next to individual numbers.

36 Historical and Baseline Assessment of HOPE VI, Ellen Wilson Dwellings, p.14.

Abt Associates Inc. The Capitol Hill Neighborhood 34

5. The Capitol Hill Neighborhood

Capitol Hill is a thriving, racially mixed neighborhood that stretches just over a mile to the eastof the U.S. Capitol. It is largely residential, although the western portion of the area is dominatedby the Capitol building, the Library of Congress, the Supreme Court, and numerousCongressional and other offices. There are also a variety of shops and restaurants catering togovernment 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 WilsonDwellings. As shown in Figure 5-1, this is the southeast part of the neighborhood, bounded byPennsylvania Avenue on the north, Tenth Street on the east, and Second Street on the west. Aclose-up view of Ellen Wilson and the surrounding area can be seen in Figure 5-2. TheSoutheast-Southwest Freeway physically separates the neighborhood from two public housingdevelopments—Arthur Capper and Carrollsburg Dwellings. These developments are includedin this discussion, since residents from these developments participated on the CDC and a fewmoved into the Townhomes. This chapter describes this area prior to revitalization, discussesgoals for the neighborhood as part of the redevelopment effort, and reports on conditions in thearea 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 theearly 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 reportedthat Ellen Wilson had “. . . suppressed everything south of Pennsylvania Avenue” and thatproperty values were lower in the area immediately surrounding Ellen Wilson than just a fewblocks away. In 1993, the incidence of serious crime in the Ellen Wilson area was 165 percent36

of the city average.

At the same time, the residential area to the north and west of the development (consistingprimarily of townhouses and some apartment buildings) was desirable, given its proximity togovernment buildings and the downtown area, as well as its historic appeal. The neighborhoodhad excellent access to downtown and other parts of Washington via bus and subway. TheEastern 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 eastfrom the Capitol. A further wave of gentrification had begun in the study area in the mid-1980s,

37 Based on 1990 Census data reported for tracts 70.1 and 65.1.


although by 1993 it was described as “stalled.” Nevertheless, the rate of homeownership in thearea was around 62 percent in 1990 (excluding the Ellen Wilson Dwellings). The 1990 medianincome was $45,000, significantly above the city-wide median of $30,727. The population in1990 was 81 percent white and 19 percent minority. 37

Figure 5-1The Study Area Within the Capitol Hill Neighborhood

HOPE VI Study Area


Figure 5-2Townhomes on Capitol Hill and the Surrounding Area


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 housingdevelopments—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 NavalOperations 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 thearea were African American, and the 1990 median income was around $6,100. More than halfof 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 EllenWilson site, along Pennsylvania Avenue and Eighth Street. Prior to the redevelopment, thePennsylvania Avenue commercial area offered a mix of restaurants and small retail shops thatcatered 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, offeringa mix of franchise establishments such as a Popeye’s, Payless Shoe Store, and a BlockbusterVideo, as well as locally owned, service-oriented businesses such as a beauty salon, a smallgrocery, and a thrift shop. There were some vacant storefronts as well. The nearest largegrocery store was two miles away.

Finally, the neighborhood had a wealth of social and cultural resources. There are numerouschurches and schools. In addition, several community organizations had offices in the immediatevicinity of Ellen Wilson Dwellings. The latter included: the offices of Sasha Bruce Youthwork,

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

a private nonprofit agency that offers assistance to at-headquarters nagency providing basic social services to community residents.

Overall Goals for the Neighborhood

Unlike HOPE VI projects, the redevelopment of Ellen Wilson was not viewed as ameans revitalization of a deteriorated neighborhood. In particular, the area tothe dperspective, the redevelopment was seen psignificant blighting influence (north of the freeway). A secondary goal, articulated in the revised

ion plan, was “. . . to provide an important neighborhood resource that would brinsocial 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 neighborhoodists, 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 couldhousing 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 neverfill that top tier and . . .would begin to deteriorate. . . it would take a special

hen they could move over to a houseof East Capitol Street forchanged sdeal. 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

a home on Capitol Hill was approximately $23 A local39

ple units at the Townhomes are now 20 percenthigher -


Apartments newly converted from a vacated liquor store at Seventh and G Streets, Southeast.(June 2000)

$200,000s to the mid-$400,000s. The increased demand for housing is associated with a numberof factors, including a booming economy, low mortgage interest rates, and increasing gridlockin the Washington, D.C. suburbs. In addition, there have been changes in city leadership, effortsto 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 twoyears, and more is anticipated. A former liquor store at Seventh and G that had been considered

a problem site by neighborhood residents was recently converted into two, two-bedroomapartment units slated to rent for $1,800 a month each (significantly more than the monthlycarrying charges for a two bedroom unit at the Townhomes). In addition, a former crack houseon Seventh and I Streets is now home to a nonprofit organization. It remains to be seen whetherseveral townhouses adjacent to the HOPE VI site that are in dilapidated condition will berehabilitated.

Finally, a vacant lot just across Sixth Street from the Townhomes has recently been sold to aprivate developer, who plans to build townhouse apartments there. While this activity is notsolely the result of the Townhomes redevelopment, observers believed that it played a role inspurring this construction and rehabilitation work.

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.


The primary commercial areas of the neighborhood have witnessed some improvements, althoughthese cannot be directly attributed to the revitalization of Ellen Wilson. Eighth Street containsa mix of establishments, including restaurants (eat-in and take-out), bars, and shops that rangefrom 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 varietyof 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’sassociation committed to the redevelopment of the 8th Street corridor, has been successful inobtaining Community Development Block Grant funds from the city to pay for street facadeimprovements including street lighting, new sidewalks and landscaping. These improvements willgive the corridor a much needed facelift.

The strength of the housing market and commercial activity to the north and west of theTownhouses is good for members of the housing cooperative. In addition, they can look forwardto two major redevelopment projects on the south side of the freeway. First, the mid-risebuildings of Arthur Capper were declared non-viable in 1998 and are being demolished. The 290-unit senior high-rise building and 93 townhomes will remain at the site. The land where the mid-rises 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 southand 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 withlocal children. One Arthur Capper resident who participated in a focus group for this studyechoed the view of the housing authority staff. She noted that she was pleased that the Marineshad moved to her neighborhood because, “I think this will help us in the near future. . . I can seemany children. . .down there becoming young Marines.”

Additionally, efforts are underway to redevelop the Washington Navy Yard into a “modern officecenter.” Several office buildings are under construction and a hotel is planned as well. Roughly41

1,300 Navy employees have moved to the Navy Yard since 1997, and the majority of 4,125employees (mainly civilians) of the Naval Sea Systems Command are expected to begin workingat the site by the summer of 2001. The redevelopment is expected to draw shops, restaurants,and services.

The Capitol Hill Neighborhood 41

Townhomes, visible on the far right behind the freeway. (June 2000)

(June 2000)

42 Because Ellen Wilson had been vacant for several years prior to the grant award, no effort was made to target former residents to receivesocial services unless they lived in the neighborhood.


6. Community and Supportive Services

One of the CDC’s goals in redeveloping Ellen Wilson was to create a neighborhood resource thatwould bring community and social services to the greater Capitol Hill neighborhood. Almost42

$2 million was set aside from the HOPE VI grant for this purpose. Between 1993 and 2000, theredevelopment team used a portion of these funds to develop a plan for delivering services to thecommunity and to pay for programs and resources to help local residents improve their job skillsand opportunities. As the redevelopment work comes to an end, the team is preparing to beginconstruction of a community center at the site and looking to make long-term supportive servicesavailable to Townhomes residents and others in the neighborhood by creating a SupportiveServices Endowment Trust that will operate over the next 40 years. The supportive servicesactivities that have been funded, as well as plans for the new community center and theendowment 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 developmentteam also initiated a process to determine how to spend $1.9 million in HOPE VIcommunity/supportive services funds. This process, outlined in detail in the revised revitalizationplan, involved several steps:

C assessing neighborhood conditions and supportive service needs (performed by localuniversity students);

C training local residents to act as “resident facilitators” to manage a supportive servicesplanning process; and

C convening a series of town hall meetings (1995 and 1996) to gain community inputon supportive service needs.

These activities culminated in the identification of serveral activities that would receive HOPEVI funding in advance of the redevelopment of Ellen Wilson. As of December 2000, twoactivities were implemented that provided supportive services to neighborhood residents: anapprenticeship program and the placement of a job development/budget counselor at the CDC.These are discussed below.

43 The trainees were to re-construct the greenhouses on the grounds of St. Elizabeth’s Hospital. However, the building materials were stolenand 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.


Apprenticeship Program. The job apprenticeship program focused on developing elementaryconstruction and carpentry skills, as well as providing basic education, testing, and life skillstraining. A staff person was hired to run the program, and counseling was provided by a CapitolHill nonprofit organization. The program was offered to residents living in the vicinity of theEllen Wilson site, as well as others who were already receiving supportive services in thecommunity. A number of participants were simultaneously enrolled in a neighborhood drugrehabilitation program or were residents of the nearby Arthur Capper/Carrollsburg public housingdevelopments. 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 readat the 6th grade level. Many who applied did not meet this criterion; as a result, a separateremedial reading program was established so that more applicants could enter the program. Sometrainees went on to take and pass high school equivalency exams.

Two classes, with 20 to 25 trainees each, completed the apprenticeship program. One class wasinvolved in the de-construction of greenhouses at Walter Reed Medical Center. Another group43

performed rehabilitation work at a building owned by a neighborhood nonprofit. Trainees werepaid a small stipend for their participation. Although the program has ended, the director hasmoved on to start a similar program at another location in the District.

Reports about the success of the apprenticeship program have been mixed. Mostly anecdotalinformation was available on what happened to trainees when they completed the program. ADCHA staff person noted that program would have been more effective had it been sponsoredor approved by a local union. In the course of a focus group, one supportive service providerwhose agency had provided counseling to the trainees stated, “To be really honest, I’m not surehow great it worked.” However, another individual familiar with the program noted, “It workedout fine because a lot of people were on TANF. . . over 15 or 20 people that were on welfare gotoff. . .they got real good jobs.” The only evidence supporting the claim that trainees were able44

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 atthe development are provided by a CDC employee who offers job development and budgetcounseling to residents of the Townhomes and the surrounding community. The CDC’s HumanResources Coordinator currently has an office in one of the Townhomes units and will move tothe community center when it is completed. The coordinator reported that she had worked withas many as 75 families and individuals in the community, some of whom also completed the

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

apprenticeship program. She has found positions for several graduates at the Washington Navy

The Community Center. The future community center will be fundewill dservices and programs include credit counseling, employment counseling, computer training, andsome 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 isscheduled to open in November 2001.

6.2 The Endowment Trust

The development team has been working with the D.C. Housing Authority to establish aSupportive Services Endowment Trust. Funding from the Trust would be used to addresssupportive service needs at the Townhomes and at the nearby Arthur Capper and Carrollsburgpublic housing developments over the next 40 years. According to one development teammember, $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 thetotal to about $2 million. The team has been in contact with a local foundation to discuss raising45

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 teammembers 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 includeslanguage proposed by HUD that allows public housing agencies to create endowment trusts toprovide supportive services over an extended period of time. Unfortunately, the Act limits thisuse of funds to grants awarded after 2000. Thus, while team members are moving forward withplans 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 servicesat the Townhomes and whether they had used any services. (See Exhibit 6-1.) Overall, 21 percentof Townhomes residents and just 3 percent of neighborhood residents were aware that supportiveservices were offered. Households in Band One, which has the lowest incomes and the fewestworking members, were more likely to be aware that services were available (8 households, or36 percent, were knowledgeable about services).


At present only job development and budget counseling is offered at the Townhomes. The surveyresults indicate that, among Townhomes residents, only a handful of Band One residents haveused the services offered by the Human Resource Coordinator. Three residents said that they hadreceived assistance with household management and budgeting. Two households indicated thatthey had received job-related assistance. None of the neighborhood residents interviewed saidthat they had used services at the Townhomes. The survey did not include interviews withhouseholds at the Arthur Capper and Carrolsburg developments, the most likely communityresidents to have taken advantage of these services.

Exhibit 6-1Use of Supportive Services at the Townhomes

Income Bands AllTownhomesBand Band BandResidents NeighborhoodOne Two Three

(n=90) (N=136)(n=27) (n=14) (n=49)

Percent of households aware thatsupportive services are available at 36% 0%* 18% 21%The Townhomes

3%**

Of those who are aware of services,percent who used them Any supportive servicesJob training/developmentHousehold management/budgeting

43% NA 0% 21% 0%**25 NA 0 13 0**38 NA 0 20 0**

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 5percent level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables, a chi-squared test was used to compare thedistribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical variables are indicated by an * placedabove the responses rather than next to individual numbers.**Indicates that the responses of neighborhood residents are statistically significantly different than the responses of Townhomesresidents at the 5 percent level.

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 of200,000 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 Hillneighborhood on the East, stretches west to 17th Street in downtown Washington, north to Florida and New York Avenues, and south tothe Potomac and Anacostia Rivers.

Abt Associates Inc. Crime and Security 46

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. Because the vacant buildings were46

poorly secured and within close proximity to the expressway, they quickly became a haven fordrug activity and violent crime. In 1993, at the time the HOPE VI grant was awarded, seriouscrimes 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 early1990s.47

7.1 Improved Security

Although the design of the Townhomes was driven primarily by the goal of blending into thesurrounding neighborhood, the architects were cognizant of the need to incorporate elements ofdefensible space in their planning. Defensible space is defined as dividing larger portions of publicspace and assigning them to individuals and small groups to use and control as their own privateareas. The elements of this concept that were adopted at the Townhomes included the creation48

of a new street and public alley to break up the large, vacant parcel of land, siting units inproximity to public streets, and providing individual entrances to each unit. These features allowresidents to monitor activity directly outside their homes. In addition to these features, each unitis equipped with an alarm system, and ground floor windows are barred, as is common on CapitolHill.

The Townhomes’ co-op management plan outlines the steps that management and residents willtake to ensure safety within the development. The security plan is based primarily on residenteducation and awareness, and on cooperation with the Metropolitan Police Department andneighborhood groups. The plan charges the management company with responsibility for49

working with the police department to ensure that the area is patrolled. According to the sitemanager, management has been in touch with the First District police, and there are regularpatrols through the Townhomes. In addition, police representatives have participated in

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 theTownhomes.


occasional resident “coffees” that are sponsored by the management company to discuss safetyissues.

While the site manager did not note any particular safety issues, a resident of the Townhomeswho participated in a focus group stated that there have been some security problems and thatincreased police presence at the development was needed:

. . . we have the same problems in our community that they have inCarrollsburg and Arthur Capper. . . we have had break ins and car thefts inour development. So policing needs to be more visible out there so theresidents . . . can be protected.50

7.2 Changes in Crime Levels

While the Townhomes residents have not been immune from the types of crime that residentsconfront in many urban neighborhoods, according to former Ellen Wilson residents who now liveat the Townhomes the area as a whole is significantly safer than it was before redevelopment. Ofthe 13 former Ellen Wilson residents who live in the Townhomes, 85 percent reported that it ismuch safer, and the remaining 15 percent reported that the area is somewhat safer. Long-timeneighborhood residents concurred with this assessment to a degree. Twenty-two (22) percentreported that the area was much safer, and another 44 percent reported that it was somewhatsafer. 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 EllenWilon buildings and the construction of an attractive new development. At the same time, crimestatistics for the Capital Hill area indicate that crime has declined dramatically since the early1990s. According to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, between 1993 and 1999 thepercent of crimes reported declined by 35 percent within the First District. This is in keeping51

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 thesurvey 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. (SeeExhibit 7-1.) However, it should be noted that attitudes toward safety vary among residents inthe three income bands. Among Band One residents (those with the lowest income), 64 reported


that they feel very safe outside their unit, compared with 57 percent of Band Two residents andjust 33 percent of Band Three residents. Twenty (20) percent of Band Three residents reportedthat they feel somewhat or very unsafe just outside their homes at night, compared with 16percent of Band One residents, and no Band Two residents. It is noteworthy that the two groupsthat are most alike in term of socio-economic characteristics—neighborhood residents and theBand Three residents—share similar concerns about neighborhood safety.

Surprisingly, very few survey respondents reported any major problems with criminal activity inthe area. For example, when asked whether “shootings and violence” were a problem, only 1percent 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 residentsand just 5 percent of neighborhood residents described it as a “big” problem. Finally, 3 percentof Townhomes residents and 6 percent of neighborhood residents reported that “being attackedor 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 Threeresidents reported “big” problems with these or any of the crime-related issues raised by theinterviewers.

At the same time, Townhomes and neighborhood residents were more likely to note concernsabout nuisance-related activities such as “groups of people hanging out” and “trash and junk inparking lots and lawns.” “Groups of people hanging out” was reported to be a big problem by7 percent of neighborhood residents and something of a problem by another 21 percent. Thepercentages reported for Townhomes residents were quite similar. Six percent of neighborhoodresidents and 2 percent of Townhomes residents considered trash and junk in parking lots andlawns as a big problem, although another 39 and 26 percent of each group said that this wassomething of a problem. Again, among the Townhomes residents, the Band Three residents weremore 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 thatthey or someone in their household had been the victim of a crime in the neighborhood within thepast 12 months. Overall, 7 percent of Townhomes residents and 6 percent of neighborhoodresidents 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 memberof their household had their wallet or purse taken while walking in the neighborhood. All of theseincidents were reported by households in Bands Two or Three. None of the Band One residentsreported any personal experience with crime over the past 12 months. Overall, experience withcrime is virtually the same between neighborhood and development residents, suggesting that amoderate level of crime is spread throughout the neighborhood and not concentrated within theTownhomes development.


Exhibit 7-1Resident Perceptions of Crime and Safety

Income BandsAll NeighborhoodBand Band Band

Residents ResidentsOne Two Three(n=90 ) (n=136 )(n=27 ) (n=14 ) (n=49 )

Feelings of safety outside of house orapartment: * **Very safe 64% 57% 33% 45% 35%Somewhat safe 28 43 47 41 49Somewhat unsafe 8 0 18 13 13Very unsafe 8 0 2 1 4

Percent reporting problems with:Groups of people hanging out

Big problem 0% 0% 12% 7% 7%Some problem 7 21 31 22 21

People being attacked or robbed **Big problem 0% 0% 6% 3% 6%Some problem 19 7 4 9 24

Trash and junk in parking lots/lawns **Big problem 0% 0% 4% 2% 6%Some problem 15 14 35 26 39

People using drugs **Big problem 0% 0% 0% 0% 5%Some problem 0 0 9 5 10

Shooting and violence **Big problem 0% 0% 2% 1% 2%Some problem 4 0 6 5 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 5percent level. A t-test was used for comparisons of means. For categorical variables, a chi-squared test was used to compare thedistribution of responses for each group, thus statistically significant differences for categorical variables are indicated by an * placedabove the responses rather than next to individual numbers.**Indicates that the responses of neighborhood residents are statistically significantly different than the responses of Townhomesresidents at the 5 percent level.


Exhibit 7-2Resident Perceptions of Crime and Safety

Income Bands

All NeighborhoodBand Band BandResidents ResidentsOne Two Three

(n=90 ) (n=136)(n=27 ) (n=14 ) (n=49 )In the past 12 months has ahousehold member been the victimof any of the following crimes:Wallet/purse/jewlery snatching 0% 7% 4% 3% 4%Beating or assult 0 7 0 1 1Attempted home burglary 8 0 8 7 6

Source: HOPE VI Resident and Neighborhood Interim Survey (July - September 2000).

Exhibit 7-3Resident Perceptions of Safety

Townhomes on Long TermCapitol Hill Neighborhood

Returning Residents Residents(n=13) (n=108)

For returning residents and long-termneighborhood residents, neighborhood safernow than before HOPE VI:Much safer now 85% 22%**Somewhat safer now 15 44**Neither safer nor less safe 0 34**Somewhat less safe 0 0Much less safe now 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 ofTownhomes residents at the 5 percent level.

Abt Associates Inc. Institutional Impacts of the HOPE VI Program

8. Institutional Impacts of the HOPE VI Program

s expected that the program couldspu 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 localing 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 ey, the local housing authority did not have the capacity

ant. HUD agreed to fund the project as long as an entity other thandministrator was selected and

see the project to fruition. The role housing authority line staff

of l

In fact, based on the reports of indithe housing authority in the Ellen Wilson m

nformants noted that there was a longstanding lack of confidences 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 intervof an indepThe District of Columbiperiodthese e

52 Interview with David Gilmore, D.C. H.A. receiver, August 21, 2000.

Abt Associates Inc. Institutional Impacts of the HOPE VI Program 52

DCHA “owns” these projects. None of the projects follow the Ellen Wilson model, which the52

receiver noted could not be easily replicated because it relied so heavily on the vision of thecommunity, and because of the “esoteric” nature of a cooperative. Instead, these projectsreplicate HOPE VI strategies applied in other cities and will offer a mix of home ownership andrental opportunities.

Appendix AOperating Budget for the Townhomes on

Capitol Hill (1999/2000)

Appendix BData Collection Methodology

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 priorto the start of the survey period.

Appendix BData Collection Methodology

This Appendix documents the data collection methods used for this case study. The primary sourcesof information included:

• a survey of HOPE VI development and neighborhood residents from July throughSeptember 2000;

• several visits between June and September 2000 to the HOPE VI development andoffices of key individuals familiar with the redevelopment;

• focus groups with business and community leaders and representatives of localnonprofit organizations in August 2000; and

• secondary data, such as neighborhood crime data and resident data provided by theDistrict of Columbia Housing Authority (DCHA) and C.J. Management, the propertymanagement 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 AbtAssociates survey staff from July through September 2000. Each survey took approximately 20minutes to complete. Survey response rates are discussed below, but detailed responses to each ofthe survey questions are shown in Appendix C. Appendix D presents the HOPE VI survey resultsdisaggregated by Income Band.

Response Rates

As noted in Chapter 4, all residents of the Townhomes who had lived in the development for at leastone month were eligible to participate in the survey, and neighborhood residents (who had beenliving in their unit at least six months) were randomly selected from the surrounding area. In the1,2

neighborhood survey, 72 households were determined to be ineligible, but we completed surveyswith 136 of 165 eligible households for an 82 percent response rate. For the HOPE VI survey, all131 occupied units were targeted. Of these, 21 were determined ineligible by survey field staff, butwe 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 weredetermined 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 BandTwo 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 entirepopulation. 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 estimatesif we had interviewed a different sample of neighborhood and HOPE VI residents. In using a sampleestimate, this sampling error (or uncertainty) must be taken into account. The sampling error is takeninto account in tests of statistical significance. These tests objectively indicate whether it is likelythat 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 asstatistically significant. This means there is less than a 5 percent chance that the populationparameters are not truly different even though there are statistically significant differences in sampleestimates.

The tests of statistical significance used in this report include both the t-test for comparisons ofmeans (e.g., comparison of mean income for residents of nonprofit and for-profit properties) and thechi-square test for comparisons of categorical data (e.g., comparisons of categorized earnings—suchas <=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 forthe chi-square tests. An important factor worth noting is that these STATA procedures are able totake into account the finite population correction (FPC) which reduces standard errors when thesurvey sample is a large percentage of the population of interest. Since we surveyed a largeproportion of the eligible population, this reduced the standard errors substantially and resulted insmaller standard errors and thus more statistically significant differences between groups than mightbe expected based on the size of our samples. The FPC reduces the variance estimate by a multiplierequal to the ratio of: [(population size - sample size) / population size]. Hence, if you conduct acensus of the entire population, this multiplier is zero and the sampling error is zero (i.e., there is nosampling error if the sample size equals the population size). On the other hand, if the samplerepresents a really small proportion of the overall population, this factor is close to one and thestandard error is not reduced by the FPC. (For discussion of FPC, see Chapters One and Ten ofGraham 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 completein-depth, in-person interviews with key individuals familiar with and/or directly involved in theHOPE VI revitalization; to tour the development and neighborhood; to begin the preparation of thesurvey sample for the neighborhood survey; to collect official and unofficial documents highlightingkey 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 VIdevelopment team. Due to the unusual way this particular redevelopment came about, this groupdid not include many housing authority staff (who did not play a direct role) or current residentleaders (who had not been identified at the time of the site visit). Persons interviewed included thefollowing:

• 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 HousingAuthorities);

• 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 Tarasovicof the DCHA. Follow-up calls and visits were made to Laurie Putscher and Andy Buelken. Abtstaff also obtained copies of the following: the final Revitalization Plan; the Public OfferingStatement for the Capitol Hill Cooperative Housing Association; the co-op’s management plan;documents describing DCHA-wide demographics; several newspaper articles about theredevelopment; DCHA-wide crime data; and income and demographic data for Townhomesresidents.

A tour of the Townhomes on Capitol Hill included visits to the management office, model unit, andsite of the future community center. Site staff also invited Abt Associates staff to attend a trainingmeeting of the co-op members. Here, Abt staff introduced themselves and gave an overview of theupcoming survey, encouraging residents to participate. On subsequent visits to the site, Abt staffcanvassed the neighborhood to document the number and location of housing units for theneighborhood survey and viewed the progress of the other local redevelopment projects, such as theone underway at the nearby Navy Yard. This also served as a useful guide for creating theneighborhood map found in Chapter 5, as well as a resource for discussing what the neighborhoodis like today.

B.3 Focus Groups

Two focus groups were conducted in August 2000 by the Local Research Affiliates (LRAs) fromAmerican University, Dr. Brett Williams and Sherri Lawson Clark. The first was conducted onAugust 30, and included 10 individuals, most of whom were business leaders in the community. Thesecond focus group was held on August 31 and included nine community leaders and representativesof 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 audiotapesand 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 siteand 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 frompublications, including neighborhood newsletters, newspapers, and websites.

Appendix CSurvey Results for HOPE VI and

Neighborhood Residents

Appendix CSurvey Results for HOPE VI and Neighborhood Residents

Appendix C contains survey results for HOPE VI (Townhomes on Capitol Hill) andneighborhood residents. Results for new and returning HOPE VI residents are shownseparately.

Exhibit C-1 Resident Characteristics, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and SurroundingNeighborhood

Exhibit C-2 Income and Employment, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and SurroundingNeighborhood

Exhibit C-3 Satisfaction with Apartment, Townhomes on Capitol Hill

Exhibit C-4 Satisfaction with Neighborhood, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and SurroundingNeighborhood

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 SurroundingNeighborhood

Exhibit C-8 Use of Supportive Services in HOPE VI Development, Townhomes onCapitol Hill and Surrounding Neighborhood

Exhibit C-9 Perceptions of Safety, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and SurroundingNeighborhood

All Residents New ResidentsReturning Residents

(n=136) (n=90) (n=77) (n=13)

Lived in HOPE VI before Redevelopment NA 14% 0% 100%

Household Size *

- 1 Person 41% 33% 32% 38%

- 2 Persons 36 50 51 46

- 3 + Persons 23 17 17 15

- Average 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8

Adults *

- 1 Adult 43% 50% 47% 69%

- 2 + Adults 57 50 53 31

- Average 1.7* 1.5 1.6 1.3

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

Race of Household Head *

- African American 12% 68% 67% 77%

- White 88 32 33 23

- American Indian & Alaskan Native 1 0 0 0

- Mixed Race 0 0 0 0

Ethnicity of Head of Household *

- Hispanic (Any Race) 3% 1% 1% 0%

Gender of Household Head *

- Female 51% 69% 66% 85%

Age of Household Head *

- 18-24 4% 13% 12% 15%

- 25-34 23 43 48 15

- 35-49 34 22 23 15

- 50-64 29 13 9 31

- 65+ 11 10 8 23

Marital Status of Household Head *

- Single 52% 69% 73% 46%

- 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

Exhibit C-1Resident Characteristics, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and Surrounding Neighborhood

Non-HOPE VINeighborhood

Residents

Townhomes

Note: NA signifies not applicable or not available.*Indicates the responses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses from all residentsof 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.


(n=136) (n=90) (n=77) (n=13)

*

- Below 30% of FSA HUD Median 4% 35% 31% 58%

- 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

- None Working 9 24 18 58

8%* 17% 20% 0%

*Indicates the responses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses from all residentsof 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.

Household Head Currently Enrolled in School or Vocational Training Program

Household Income as Percent of FSA HUD Median

Exhibit C-2Income and Employment, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and Surrounding Neighborhood


Residents

Townhomes


(n=90) (n=77) (n=13)

Most important reason for moving here

- To be near family and friends 6% 1% 31%

- 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

Walls with peeling paint or broken plaster

- Big problem 0% 0% 0%

- Some problem 17 18 8

- Not a problem 83 82 92

Plumbing that doesn't work




Rats and mice




Broken locks or no locks on the door of the unit




Broken windows or windows w/o screens




Exhibit C-3Satisfaction with Apartment, Townhomes on Capitol Hill

Problems with apartment

Townhomes


(n=90) (n=77) (n=13)

Heating system that does not work




Stove or refrigerator that doesn't work




Too little living space




Adequacy of storage space




Too much noise




Satisfaction with the maintenance of the apartment





Satisfaction with the management of the development





Townhomes

Exhibit C-3 (continued)Satisfaction with Apartment, Townhomes on Capitol Hill


(n=136) (n=90) (n=77) (n=13)

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 2

HOPE VI Residents. The neighborhood is

- 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

- Other 0 0 0

Is the HOPE VI development part of neighborhood ?

- Part of neighborhood 80%

- Part of a different neighborhood 20

Attend neighborhood council or association meetings?

- Always 3%

- Sometimes 24

- Never 33

- No such council or association 40

Attend resident council meetings?

- Always 37% 38% 31%

- Sometimes 34 34 38

- Never 28 29 23

- No such council or association 1 0 8

Socialize with HOPE VI residents 19% NA NA NA

Socialize with Non-HOPE VI residents NA 63% 62% 69%

Satisfied with your neighborhood? *

- 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 8

- Neither better nor worse 15 0

- Somewhat worse now 0 0

- Much worse now 0 0

NA

NA NA

Note: NA signifies not applicable or not available.*Indicates the responses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses from all residentsof 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

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

NA

Exhibitb C-4Satisfaction with Neigborhood, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and Surrounding Neighborhood Residents


Residents

Townhomes

(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-5Prior Living Situation, Townhomes on Capitol Hill

Townhomes



(n=136) (n=90) (n=77) (n=13)

People willing to help neighbors *

- 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 *






People generally get along with each other *






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-6Quality of Life, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and Surrounding Neighborhood


Residents

Townhomes


(n=136) (n=90) (n=77) (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

Access to parks & recreational facilities *

Excellent 39% 31% 30% 38%

Good 47 43 43 38

Fair 13 14 16 0

Poor 1 13 11 23

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

*

Much better place 28% 92%

Somewhat better place 54 8

Neither better nor worse 19 0

somewhat worse place 0 0

much worse place 0 0Note: NA signifies not applicable or not available.

Townhomes

NA NA

For returning residents, neighborhood

before and nowf


Residents

a10 percent of neighborhood residents said, "Don't Know" to this question. These responses are excluded from reported results.b21 percent each of neighborhood and Townhomes residents said, "Don't Know" to this question. These responsesare excluded from reported results.c16 percent of neighborhood residents and 14 percent of Townhomes residents said, "Don't Know" to this question. These responses are excluded from reported results.d53 percent of neighborhood residents and 46 percent of Townhomes residents said, "Don't Know" to this question. These responses are excluded from reported results.e51percent of neighborhood residents and 37 percent of Townhomes residents said, "Don't Know" to this question. These responses are excluded from reported results.fFor neighborhood residents, N=108.


Exhibit C-6 (continued)Quality of Life, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and Surrounding Neighborhood


(n=136) (n=90) (n=77) (n=13)

People being attacked on the block *

- Big problem 6% 3% 4% 0%

- Some problem 24 9 11 0

- No problem 70 88 86 100

People selling drugs *



- No problem 85 97 96 100

People using drugs *



- No problem 85 95 95 100

Groups of people just hanging out



- No problem 72 71 68 92

Graffiti (writing, painting) on walls



- No problem 96 98 97 100

Shootings and violence *



- No problem 90 94 93 100

Trash and junk in the parking lots *



- No problem 55 72 72 69

4% 3% 4% 0%

1% 1% 1% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%

6% 7% 8% 0%


Wallet, purse or jewelry of household member snatched in past 12 months


Residents

Someone tried to break into home to steal in past 12 months

Household member beaten or assaulted in past 12 months

Household member stabbed or shot in past 12 months

Exhibit C-7Issues in Neighborhood, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and Surrounding Neighborhood

Townhomes


(n=136) (n=90) (n=77) (n=13)

Supportive services at HOPE VI availablea 3%* 21% 21% 18%

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%

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%

Adult education like job training

- Very satisfied 0% 0%

- Somewhat satisfied 100 100

- Neither satisfied NA 0 NA 0

- Somewhat dissatisfied 0 0

- Very dissatisfied 0 0

Household management



- Neither satisfied N/A 0 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 residentsof 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.a28 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-8

Satisfaction of those who used the services


Residents

If any supportive services available, percent of households using the following services

Use of Supportive Services inTownhomes on Capitol Hill and Surrounding Neighborhood

Townhomes


(n=136) (n=90) (n=77) (n=13)

Feeling about being alone at night in apartment *

- Very safe 63% 67% 64% 85%

- Somewhat safe 33 24 26 15

- Somewhat unsafe 3 7 8 0

- Very unsafe 1 2 3 0

Feeling about being alone at night in neighborhood *

- Very safe 35% 45% 43% 62%

- Somewhat safe 49 41 41 38

- Somewhat unsafe 13 13 15 0

- Very unsafe 4 1 1 0

Police response timea *

- Excellent 30% 27% 26% 30%

- Good 48 51 51 50

- Fair 19 15 15 10

- Poor 3 8 8 10

*

- Much safer now 22% 85%

- Somewhat safer now 44 15%

- Neither safer nor less safe now 34 0

- Somewhat less safe now 0 0

- Much less safe now 0 0Note: NA signifies not applicable or not available.*Indicates the responses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses from all residentsof 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.a13 percent of neighborhood residents and 17 percent of Townhomes residents said, "Don't Know" to this question. These responses are excluded from reported results.bFor neighborhood residents, N=107.

For returning residents, neighborhood safer now than before HOPE VIb

NA NA

Exhibit C-9Perceptions of Safety, Townhomes on Capitol Hill and Surrounding Neighborhood


Residents

Townhomes

Appendix DSurvey Results by Income Band

Appendix DSurvey Results by Income Band

Appendix D contains survey results for residents of the Townhomes on Capitol Hill. Allresults 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 onCapitol Hill

Exhibit D-9 Perceptions of Safety, Townhomes on Capitol Hill

Band I Band II Band III

(n=27) (n=14) (n=49)

Lived in HOPE VI before Redevelopment 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

Adults *

- 1 Adult 74% 64% 33%

- 2 + Adults 26 36 67

- Average 1.3 1.5 1.7*

Children *

- 0 Children 67% 43% 88%

- 1 Child 19 43 8

- 2 Children 7 14 4

- 3 + Children 7 0 0

- Average 0.6 0.7 0.2*

Race of Household Head *

- African American 89% 93% 49%

- White 11 7 51

- American Indian & Alaskan Native 0 0 0

- Mixed Race 0 0 0

Ethnicity of Head of Household

- Hispanic (Any Race) 0% 0% 2%

Gender of Household Head

- Female 81% 64% 63%

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 * *

- Single 56% 86% 71%

- Married 4 7 24

- Divorced/Separated/Widowed 41 7 4

Education Level of Household Head * *

- Less Than High School 48% 0% 6%

- High School Graduate 30 36 6

- Some College 15 36 14

- College Graduate 7 29 73

Exhibit D-1

*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 ofmeans. 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.

Townhomes

Resident Characteristics, Townhomes on Capitol Hill


(n=27) (n=14) (n=49)

* *

- 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

Sources of Income

- SSI 37% 0%* 2%*

- Disability or Workers Compensation 33 0* 4*

- Food Stamps 30 0* 0*

- Cash from Public Aid (AFDC, TANF) 7 0 0*

Employment * *

- Only Household Head Working 20% 77% 38%

- Only Other Working 4 0 4

- Both Working 8 15 53

- None Working 68 8 4

9% 21% 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-2Income and Employment, Townhomes on Capitol Hill

Household Head Currently Enrolled in School or Vocational Training Program

Household Income as Percent of FSA HUD Median

Townhomes


(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 *





Walls with peeling paint or broken plaster




Plumbing that doesn't work *




Rats and mice




Broken locks or no locks on the door of the unit *




Broken windows or windows w/o screens




Exhibit D-3Satisfaction with Apartment, Townhomes on Capitol Hill

Problems with apartment

Townhomes


(n=27) (n=14) (n=49)

Heating system that does not work




Stove or refrigerator that doesn't work




Too little living space




Adequacy of storage space *




Too much noise * *




Satisfaction with the maintenance of the apartment *





Satisfaction with the management of the development




- 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-3 (continued)Satisfaction with Apartment, Townhomes on Capitol Hill

Townhomes


(n=27) (n=14) (n=49)

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 0% 0% 0%

- Less than one block but more than my building 0 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

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 37% 14% 43%

- 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?





Like to live in the neighborhood 5 years from now 85% 86% 70%

Note: NA indicates not applicable or not available.

Exhibit D-4Satisfaction with Neigborhood, Townhomes on Capitol Hill

Townhomes

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

*Indicates the responses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses from Band Oneresidents 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 individualnumbers.


(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

Residence before current address *

- In this neighborhood 30% 23% 22%

- 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 abovethe responses rather than next to individual numbers.

Exhibit D-5Prior Living Situation, Townhomes on Capitol Hill

Townhomes


(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

The neighborhood is close knita






People generally get along with each otherb






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

Access to goood schoolc

- 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-6Quality of Life, Townhomes on Capitol Hill

Townhomes


(n=27) (n=14) (n=49)

Access to health care servicesd

- Excellent 26% 23% 23%

- Good 26 62 33

- Fair 30 15 36

- Poor 17 0 8

Access to child caree

- 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

Close to job opportunities *

- Excellent 32% 29% 52%

- Good 32 43 40

- Fair 28 14 6

- Poor 8 14 2

Close to job training / placement programsf

- Excellent 24% 11% 32%

- Good 41 33 42

- Fair 35 44 26

- Poor 0 11 0

Exhibit D-6 (continued)Quality of Life, Townhomes on Capitol Hill

Townhomes

*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.a11 percent of Band One residents said, "Don’t know" to this question. These responses are excluded from reported results.b11 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.c15 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.d19 percent of Band Three residents said, "Don’t know" to this question. These responses are excluded from reported results.e41percent of Band One residents, 21 percent of Band Two residents and 56 percent of Band Three residents said, "Don’t know" to this question. These responses are excluded from reported results.f37 percent each of Band One and Band Three residents said "Don't Know" to this question. These responses are excluded from reported results.


(n=27) (n=14) (n=49)

People being attacked on the block *



- No problem 81 93 90

People selling drugs




People using drugs *



- No problem 100 100 91

Groups of people just hanging out *




Graffiti (writing, painting) on walls




Shootings and violence




Trash and junk in the parking lots *




0% 7% 4%

0% 7% 0%

0% 0% 0%

8% 0% 8%

Townhomes

Exhibit D-7Issues in Neighborhood, Townhomes on Capitol Hill

*Indicates the responses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses fromBand 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

Wallet, purse or jewelry of household member snatched in past 12 months

Someone tried to break into home to steal in past 12 months

Household member beaten or assaulted in past 12 months

Household member stabbed or shot in past 12 months

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 abovethe responses rather than next to individual numbers.


(n=27) (n=14) (n=49)

36% 0%* 18%

NA NA NA

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%

NA NA NA

Adult education like job training

- Very satisfied 0%

- Somewhat satisfied 100

- Neither satisfied 0 NA NA

- Somewhat dissatisfied 0

- Very dissatisfied 0

Household management

- Very satisfied 100%

- Somewhat satisfied 0

- Neither satisfied 0 NA NA

- Somewhat dissatisfied 0

- Very dissatisfied 0

Parenting programs

- Very satisfied

- Somewhat satisfied

- Neither satisfied NA NA NA

- Somewhat dissatisfied

- Very dissatisfiedNote: NA indicates not applicable or not available.*Indicates the responses for this group are statistically significantly different than the responses fromBand 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.a19 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.

Supportive services at HOPE VI availablea

Exhibit D-8Use of Supportive Services in HOPE VI Development,

Townhomes on Capitol Hill

Townhomes

Satisfaction of those who used the services

If any supportive services available, percent of households using the following services


(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

Feeling about being alone at night in neighborhood *

- Very safe 64% 57% 33%

- Somewhat safe 28 43 47

- Somewhat unsafe 8 0 18

- Very unsafe 8 0 2

Police response timea

- Excellent 39% 31% 18%

- Good 43 46 56

- Fair 13 15 15

- Poor 4 8 10*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.a15 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.

Exhibit D-9Perceptions of Safety, Townhomes on Capitol Hill

Townhomes

interim assessment of the hope vi program: case … assessment of the hope vi program: case study of...

Documents