cha relocation counseling assesment interim report

CHA RELOCATION COUNSELINGASSESSMENT

INTERIM REPORT

Susan J. PopkinMary K. Cunningham

July 2001

CHA RELOCATION COUNSELINGASSESSMENT

INTERIM REPORT

Prepared By:

Susan J. PopkinMary K. Cunningham

With assistance from:Beata BednarzErin GodfreyDavis Kim

The Urban InstituteWashington, DC 20037

and

Janet L. SmithAnne Knepler

Doug Schenkleberg

University of Illinois at ChicagoGreat Cities InstituteChicago, IL 60607

Submitted To:

The MacArthur FoundationChicago, IL 60603UI No. 07011-000-05

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and

should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment—Interim Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................. i

The Study..................................................................................................................... i

METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................... ii

Limitations of this Research ........................................................................................ iii

MAJOR FINDINGS ................................................................................................................... iv

CONTINUING CHALLENGES ................................................................................................... v

Relocation Rights Contract..........................................................................................vi

Good Neighbor Counseling ........................................................................................vii

Relocation Counseling .............................................................................................. viii

Service Connectors..................................................................................................... x

Maintenance and Management Initiatives ................................................................... x

OVERVIEW................................................................................................................................ 1

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY....................................................................................................... 3

METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................... 5

Limitations of this Research ........................................................................................ 5

BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................... 6

CHA Plan for Transformation ...................................................................................... 7

MAJOR FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 10

Locational Outcomes for the CHA Relocatee Sample ............................................... 16

Personal and Institutional Barriers to Relocation ....................................................... 22

Counseling Agency Perspectives .............................................................................. 27

Conditions in Public Housing Buildings ..................................................................... 30

CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment—Interim Report

CONTINUING CHALLENGES ................................................................................................. 33

Relocation Rights Contract........................................................................................ 34

Good Neighbor Counseling ....................................................................................... 35

Relocation Counseling .............................................................................................. 36

Service Connectors................................................................................................... 38

Maintenance and Management Initiatives ................................................................. 39

REFERENCES......................................................................................................................... 41

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY

APPENDIX B: DATA EXHIBITS WAVE 1 CHA RESPONDENTS

APPENDIX C: DATA EXHIBITS WAVE 1 CHA MOVERS AND NONMOVERS

APPENDIX D: DATA EXHIBITS WAVE 2 CHA MOVERS AND NONMOVERS

APPENDIX E: STUDY TIMELINE

CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment—Interim Report i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Public housing in Chicago, as in many cities across the nation, is currently undergoing adramatic transformation. In 1998, nearly 19,000 of the CHA’s units failed viability inspection,meaning that, under federal law the CHA was required to demolish the units within a five-yearperiod.1 As a result, the city put forth a plan to “transform” the CHA’s enormous high-risebuildings into smaller mixed-income communities of townhomes and low-rise buildings. TheCHA Transformation Plan calls for the demolition of 51 gallery high-rise buildings, as well asseveral thousand mid-rise and low-rise units.2 The CHA will redevelop or rehabilitate 25,000units of public housing; however, the plan calls for a substantial reduction in family publichousing units (a net loss of 14,000 units). As a result of the reduction in the number of publichousing units available, over the next six years as many as 6,000 families currently living inCHA developments will receive Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8 vouchers).3 This plan,including relocation and revitalization, is estimated to cost $1.5 billion over 10 years.

In 1999, the CHA began implementing housing search programs to provide relocateeswith assistance that will help them find housing in a broader range of neighborhoods. Theseprograms also provide a range of training programs (e.g., workshops on tenant rights andresponsibilities, budgeting, and housekeeping) and supportive services (generally, casemanagement) intended to help relocatees become successful private market tenants. Theoverarching goals of CHA’s relocation services were to: 1) help participants make a successfultransition to the private market and 2) help prevent the creation of clusters of relocatees. Duringthe first year of relocation, the CHA’s counseling services were targeted to residents of buildingsslated for closing and demolition who indicated that Section 8 was their first choice forreplacement housing.

The Study

The Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) Relocation Counseling Assessment is intended toprovide rapid feedback to the CHA, the Section 8 program, and the counseling agenciesproviding relocation counseling services. In order for relocation counseling to be effective, it isimportant that the relocation agencies have meaningful, high-quality information about

1 Section 202 of the Omnibus Consolidated Reconciliation Act (OCRA), 1996.2 See the CHA Transformation Plan (October, 2000) for more details regarding demolition and relocation.

Most of these demolitions are covered by a 1996 federal law calling for the conversion to vouchers of certain severelydistressed public housing developments.

3 The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 merged the Section 8 certificate and voucherprogram into one to create the Housing Choice Voucher program. We refer to this program throughout the report as“Section 8 vouchers” or “Section 8.”

CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment—Interim Report ii

participants’ needs, the types of barriers they encounter when searching for housing withSection 8, and the challenges they face in becoming stable in their new units and communities.

The study is also meant to inform other actors concerned about the relocation processand the Section 8 program overall, including the Mayor’s Office; Chicago Department of HumanServices; and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The study isfunded by a grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and is beingconducted by the Urban Institute, a non-profit policy research organization based inWashington, D.C., and its partner, the University of Illinois at Chicago.

This report provides a systematic look at what happened to a sample of 190 relocateesas they moved through the relocation process. The CHA’s counseling programs and servicesare very much a work in progress and the CHA has made a number of substantial changes tothe relocation system since the study began. However, the changes did not begin to affectresidents, including the respondents in our sample, until after our follow-up survey wascompleted. Thus, while this report concerns policies and programs that have now beenupdated, our findings offer important lessons for CHA’s ongoing efforts. The challengesencountered during the first phase of implementation remain threats to the long-term success ofthe relocation effort, particularly the challenge of providing effective services to so manyresidents with complex needs.

METHODOLOGY

To answer the research questions above, our study uses a variety of methods, includingboth qualitative and quantitative data. Specifically, we combined information from three majorsources:

A three-wave panel survey of a sample of approximately 190 CHA residents awaitingrelocation with Section 8. The CHA relocatees in our sample are all leaseholders whoselected Section 8 as their first option for relocation when their buildings were slated forclosing in September 1999, but had not relocated by the winter of 2000, when our studybegan. Survey design and sample selection for the baseline survey were conducted inFebruary and March 2000 and the survey was administered between April and June2000. The first follow-up was conducted between November and January 2001. Thethird and final survey wave began in May and will be completed by July 2001.

In-depth interviews with CHA relocatees focusing on their experiences with thecounseling programs. For the first round, project staff conducted in-depth interviewswith seven CHA respondents in May 2000 to ask about their experiences with relocationcounseling. The second round of in-depth interviews focused on the barriers torelocation. In March 2001, project staff conducted interviews with 11 CHA relocateeswho were surveyed at baseline, but had not yet relocated.

CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment—Interim Report iii

A process study of the counseling and relocation services provided by the agenciescontracted by the CHA to provide relocation services. Between February 2000 and April2001, these agencies were: The Leadership Council for Metropolitan OpenCommunities, Family Dynamics Inc., and Changing Patterns for Families. Project staffconducted group interviews with CHA staff and counseling program administrators inJanuary 2000 and held interviews and program observations from April to August 2000.They observed workshops and other program activities such as van tours andworkshops for tenants. They also conducted one-on-one interviews with programadministrators and individual counselors. Finally, they conducted follow-up interviewswith program administrators in January and March 2001.4

Limitations of this Research

This study provides the first systematic evidence of what is happening to CHA residentswho have chosen Section 8 for replacement housing. However, because the study is intendedto provide rapid feedback for an ongoing process, we are by design studying a “moving target.”We have had to adapt our study to reflect changes in the CHA’s process. A timeline showingchanges in the CHA’s programs and our major research activities in shown in Appendix E. Ouroriginal research design called for selecting a random sample of relocatees from buildings thathad not initiated the relocation process. However, after the fall of 1999, the CHA began torevamp its plans and hold off on closing additional buildings. Since our survey began inFebruary 2000, we had to draw our sample of relocatees from buildings slated for closing inSeptember 1999.5 According to CHA records, just over half of the families who had originallylived in those buildings had relocated by February 2000. As a result, our respondents do notrepresent all residents referred for counseling in September 1999, but rather are a randomsample of the 350 households, who according to CHA records, were referred for counseling buthad not yet relocated.6 Thus, because of the timing of our study, our sample likely representsthose residents who face the greatest challenges in transitioning out of public housing.

4 The CHA revamped its counseling services and contracted with a different set of agencies in April 2001.

Our final project report will incorporate information about these new services.5 This list included all residents who had indicated Section 8 as their first choice for replacement housing

and were referred to one of three counseling agencies in September 1999.6 The majority (72 percent) of the relocatees on this list were residing in the Robert Taylor Homes. The

respondents from Robert Taylor and Henry Horner include families who were relocated on an emergency basis dueto heating failures in their original buildings in January and February 1999. Details on survey methodology arepresented in Appendix A.

CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment—Interim Report iv

MAJOR FINDINGS

Our data document outcomes for our sample of CHA residents as they have movedthrough the relocation system, including personal and institutional barriers they have facedduring relocation. These findings offer important lessons to the CHA and its partners as theymove forward with the implementation of the CHA’s new, ambitious service package.

• Baseline Characteristics of CHA Relocatee Sample. The respondents in our sample arevery poor, lack education and skills and have many challenges to overcome. All are African-American, most are female, 42 percent are under 35 years old and 14 percent are over 60years old. Over half (59 percent) report having three or more children in the household.Most are long-term public housing residents, having lived in CHA housing for more than 10years. The majority (84 percent) report having household incomes below $10,000 andabout two-thirds (63 percent) say they do not have a high school diploma. They are evenmore impoverished than Section 8 movers, who are also extremely low-income. Further, asubstantial number report health problems; 34 percent rate their health as “fair” or “poor”and 50 percent report that they or a family member have asthma. Finally, the baseline dataindicate high levels of depression and low levels of self-efficacy among our sample of CHArelocatees, and very low expectations for being able to find housing with Section 8.

• Very few of the CHA residents in our sample had relocated by the six-month follow-up; more than three-fourths were still living in public housing. Our survey team wasable to contact 156 (80 percent) of the original respondents at the follow-up. Of these 156respondents, just 36 (23 percent) had moved out of public housing. Even among the 38respondents we were unable to contact, only five appear in Section 8 program records,indicating that they have successfully leased up. Thus, although this group of relocateeshad initially indicated in their first housing choice survey that they wanted to move out ofpublic housing with Section 8, the majority had not done so after more than a year.

• Conditions for movers have improved significantly, but nearly all have moved to high-poverty, segregated neighborhoods. Although the number of movers is small, theyclearly perceive substantial impact on their overall well-being as a result of moving. At thefollow-up, just 12 percent of movers report having at least one “big problem” with unitconditions (e.g. peeling paint; broken plumbing; rats, mice, or roaches; broken locks; heatingproblems) as compared to 53 percent of nonmovers. The six-month follow-up also showsdramatic differences between movers and nonmovers in perceptions of safety, with moverssignificantly less likely to report “big problems” with drug trafficking, gang activity, and violentcrime. However, while their new neighborhoods represent an improvement, most are livingin high-poverty, segregated communities: only three respondents have moved to a censustract that is less than 20 percent poor, and all but two respondents are living in tracts thatare more than 90 percent African-American.

CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment—Interim Report v

• Residents face personal and institutional barriers that make it challenging for them torelocate. Our findings indicate that many of the residents in our sample have not been ableto conduct an effective search for replacement housing. Counselors cite multiple personalproblems that some of the relocatees face, including: substance abuse, domestic violence,depression, fear of leaving public housing, and gang affiliation. Further, many of theresidents in our sample appear to have received no or minimal counseling services—morethan 40 percent could not identify their counseling agency at either baseline or follow-up andsome who said they had received serviced complained that the counseling was sometimesinadequate. Finally, some residents have apparently not tried to search for housing andsome are facing lease-compliance problems that need to be resolved before they areeligible for a voucher.

• Institutional barriers undermined the effective implementation of the relocationservices in place from September 1999 to the spring of 2001. The process study and in-depth interviews highlight the institutional barriers that undermined the effectiveness of therelocation services provided during the first year of this study. Specifically, the lack ofstrategic planning and coordination with the CHA and the Section 8 program createdobstacles to effective implementation.

• Conditions for residents still living in public housing units are very poor. At baseline,respondents reported many problems with their units; further, the proportion of respondentsreporting problems actually increased from the baseline to the six-month follow-up, withsignificantly more respondents reporting problems with infestations of vermin, broken locks,and broken plumbing. In-depth interviews indicated that these problems ranged frominconveniences to actual health hazards such as faucets that could not be turned on or off,exposed wiring, and sewage backing up into their units. Safety was also a serious concern;nearly all respondents reported “big problems” with drugs and violent crime.

CONTINUING CHALLENGES

The findings from the first year of the CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment indicatethat the first phase of relocation encountered many obstacles that undermined effectiveimplementation. Although this is an interim report—the final report will be available in late2001—it offers important lessons for both program administration and for providing effectiverelocation services to CHA’s remaining residents. While the majority of residents who werereferred for relocation services in September 1999 have left public housing, both our surveydata and counseling agency records from the spring of 2001 show that the number who havenot yet moved is substantial. Because our baseline survey occurred in April 2000, the samplefor this study likely consisted of the same group that the counseling agencies have identified asmore difficult to serve. Thus far, this research indicates that finding solutions for these familieswill not be simple.

CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment—Interim Report vi

As noted earlier, the CHA’s counseling programs and services are very much a work inprogress. While this report concerns policies and programs that have now been updated, webelieve that our findings offer important lessons for CHA’s ongoing efforts. We highlight theissues that must be addressed to ensure that new policies and programs are implementedsuccessfully to bring about the best possible outcomes for CHA’s remaining residents.

Relocation Rights Contract

In response to concerns from advocates for CHA residents, the CHA agreed to create aRelocation Rights Contract that spelled out the CHA’s obligations to residents during thetransformation process. The CHA and its Central Advisory Council (CAC), which is the CHA’sresident organization, signed the contract in November 2000. Per this agreement, all leasecompliant tenants living in CHA housing as of October 1999 are guaranteed a right to return topublic housing.7 Lease compliance is defined as tenants who are:

• Up-to-date on their rent and utility payments and/or repayment agreement;

• Compliant with terms of the August 15, 2000 lease and federal requirements(including one-strike provisions that disqualify any tenants with household memberswho have evidence of involvement in drug or felony activity);

• Have no unauthorized tenants in their units;

• Have a good housekeeping record, with no documented evidence of destruction,damage, or removal of CHA property in CHA files.

In addition to guaranteeing a right to return, the contract spells out the process for residents toselect replacement housing and defines the services that will be offered to residents during thetransformation, including supportive services and relocation counseling.

As part of the CHA’s efforts to improve the relocation process, the agency has recentlymade substantial investments in developing materials to ensure that tenants understand theirrights and obligations and make informed choices about replacement housing. The CHA alsobegan implementing Housing Choice Clinics to present this information to residents, ensure thatthey truly understand their choices, and provide them with assistance in completing theirHousing Choice Surveys.

Concerns for Ongoing Implementation

� Lease compliance issues appear widespread. Our findings indicate that leasecompliance, both rental payment problems and criminal record issues, are probably

7 See CHA Leaseholder Housing Choice and Relocation Rights Contract, November 2000.

CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment—Interim Report vii

widespread among the CHA’s remaining residents. Currently, the Relocation RightsContract allows for a “cure period” for residents to address their problems. It is importantthat these lease compliance issues be dealt with compassionately and that CHA’scounseling programs offer serious services that will help residents who can “cure” their leasecompliance problems to do so—an intensive service model will likely be required for most ofthese noncompliant tenants. In addition, CHA administrators and other concerned actorsshould begin thinking creatively about providing options for those who cannot “cure” theirproblems, e.g., serious drug addiction. Tenants with problems of this magnitude mayrequire a solution like supportive housing in order to avoid becoming homeless.

� Tracking a resident’s right to return. The CHA’s capacity to track residents’ housingchoices and relocation locations should be expanded. The CHA is currently working on anautomated tracking system to monitor housing choice and the movement of residents duringthe relocation process. Plans call for the tracking system to be operational by July 2001. Inorder for this tracking system to be effective, it must include a comprehensive listing ofrelocatees, their housing choices (most importantly whether or not Section 8 is temporary orpermanent) and their current location. Updates from this system should be made availableto the public via CHA quarterly reports on transformation.

� Continuing monitoring of Housing Choice Clinics. The CHA has made substantialefforts to create their new Housing Choice Clinics and to monitor and make ongoingimprovements the process. This monitoring process needs to continue so that the CHA cancontinue to make changes if necessary to ensure that all residents are able to make trulyinformed choices.

Good Neighbor Counseling

In response to concerns about the level of problems among its remaining residents,particularly about their ability to make successful transitions to private market or replacementhousing, the CHA created its Good Neighbor Counseling program. The counseling consists of aone-day session that that includes counseling on housekeeping and household management,utilities, budgeting, lease compliance, and finding and linking to services in a new community.All current CHA tenants will receive this counseling, whether or not they select Section 8 as theirfirst choice for replacement housing. In April 2001, the CHA contracted with five agencies toprovide Good Neighbor Counseling sessions in its developments, and began implementing theprogram in May. As of this writing, the contractors have received training from CHA and begunproviding sessions, but the program is still undergoing modifications.

CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment—Interim Report viii


� Many residents may need more intensive preparation for the private market. Providinga training session on budgeting and household management is useful, but without long-termfollow-up and reinforcement, many residents may have difficulty applying the informationprovided. We encourage the CHA to link this training to longer-term services, perhapsthrough its Service Connector program.

• Consistency and coordination are critical. The CHA has hired five different contractorsto provide its Good Neighbor Training. The findings from our research highlight theproblems that occur when communication is poor and the crucial importance of coordinationamong different counseling agencies to ensure that a consistent level of service is beingprovided to all residents. The CHA has taken many steps to facilitate coordination, includingholding training sessions and regular meetings with counseling agency staff. It is critical thatthe CHA continue to follow this process, as well as carefully monitor the implementation ofthe training sessions to make sure that information is provided consistently and that servicesare adequate.

Relocation Counseling

The CHA is continuing to offer relocation counseling for residents who choose Section 8as their first choice for replacement housing.8 In April 2001, the agency contracted with twoagencies to provide counseling services: Changing Patterns Inc. and E.F. Ghoughan. As in theearlier system described in this report, the counseling is to include information onneighborhoods, identification of units, escorting clients to units, and assistance in completingpaperwork for the Section 8 process. In addition, the counselors will provide budgeting andcredit counseling, needs assessment and connection to supportive services—possibly throughthe Service Connectors program—and information on services available in residents’ newneighborhoods. The CHA provided training for counselors in the spring of 2001 and recentlybegan referring clients to the agencies.

In addition to the regular relocation counseling, the CHA has contracted with theLeadership Council to provide a Gautreaux-type program for residents who indicate an interestin making a mobility move. The Leadership Council will begin implementing its program inAugust 2001.

8 Information about the CHA’s new Relocation Counseling and Mobility Counseling programs comes from

the CHA’s RFP for counseling services, its new handbook, Making the Move to Your New Home, and a report on theService Connector model issued by the Metropolitan Planning Council (Snyderman and Dailey 2001). Additionalinformation was provided by the CHA’s Department of Section 8/Relocation.

CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment—Interim Report ix


• Need for more intensive service and long-term follow up. Our findings suggest that thebasic level of counseling services may not be adequate for many residents, especially thosewith multiple, complex problems. As this report documents, many CHA residents areextremely poor and have little education or formal work experience. Further, many sufferfrom depression and other physical and mental health problems. Many relocatees will needconsiderable assistance to stabilize their current situations to help them prepare to move;without this help, it is likely that even if they are relocated, they will not be able to sustaintheir new housing situation. We recommend that the CHA continue to expand its services toinclude long-term, intensive follow-up for all relocatees, not only those enrolled in theLeadership Council’s mobility program. Implementing such a service-rich, long-term processwill undoubtedly require a considerable allocation of resources. But not making thisinvestment means that the relocation system will continue to face serious problems andmay, ultimately, lead to substantial human costs for current residents.

� Not all CHA relocatees will receive mobility counseling. Nearly all relocatees who havemoved are living in better neighborhoods than their public housing developments, but theirnew communities still have high levels of poverty and are highly segregated. Although it istrue that many families may choose not to move to low-poverty neighborhoods, this findingsuggests a need for more effective mobility counseling in the short-run, as well as ongoingcounseling to help all CHA relocatees continue to make incremental moves to betterneighborhoods in the future. Under the CHA’s new system, those residents who volunteerto participate in the Leadership Council’s program will receive extensive mobility services.We recommend that this information be provided to all residents who select Section 8 tohelp them make informed choices about where to move. In addition, we recommend thatCHAC continue to offer its Second Mover mobility counseling program to former CHAresidents who have made successful transitions to Section 8.

� Consistency and coordination are critical. As is the case with Good NeighborCounseling, consistency and coordination are critical to ensuring that relocation counselingservices are delivered effectively. The CHA has taken positive steps to avoid the kinds ofproblems encountered during the first phase of relocation, including training counselingagency staff, scheduling weekly meetings with counseling agency and CHAC staff, andholding monthly roundtables that include other actors. It is important that these efforts tofacilitate communication continue. In addition, as with the Good Neighbor program, theCHA must continue to carefully monitor counseling agency activities to make sure thatservices are adequate and consistent.

CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment—Interim Report x

Service Connectors

The final component of the CHA’s new service package is its Service Connector model.According to a review by the Metropolitan Planning Council (Snyderman and Dailey 2001), theprogram consists of development-based case managers who will assist residents in identifyingand gaining access to community-based services provided through public agencies and socialservice providers. The CHA’s developments will be divided into six clusters for service, whichwill each have their own staff providing outreach, assessment, referral, and follow-up services toparticipants. In addition to the program’s own outreach, residents can be referred to theprogram from Good Neighbor Counseling, property managers, local advisory councils, or bysimply coming in and requesting assistance. Current plans call for one service coordinator forevery 139 households.

As of this writing, the CHA is in the very early phases of implementing this program. Theagency is coordinating with the Chicago Department of Human Services (CDHS) to coordinatethe program. CDHS issued an RFP seeking agencies to provide services in April 2001 and theprogram is to be implemented later this year.


� Careful implementation is critical. The Metropolitan Planning Council review of two pilotService Connector programs raises several concerns. These include the need for carefultraining and coordination among cooperating agencies, the need to allow adequate time forprogram development and implementation, and the need for careful tracking and monitoringof service provision and participant outcomes. In addition, the review questions theproposed staff-to-resident ratio of one staff person for every 139 leaseholders, noting thatthe ratios were much lower in both pilot programs. Our findings support these concerns; theService Connector model will be the CHA’s most ambitious service program to date and it iscritical that the agency learn from its earlier challenges to ensure that there is coordinationand cooperation among the many parties involved, that residents receive adequate levels ofservice, and that there is careful monitoring and follow-up.

Maintenance and Management Initiatives

In addition to the challenges encountered during the first year of relocation, this reporthas documented that conditions in CHA’s remaining developments are unacceptable. The CHAis taking steps to address these problems. First, the agency is working with the Chicago PoliceDepartment to secure its properties. Second, the CHA is currently working with a consultingfirm to develop two major initiatives to address its maintenance problems, an ongoing QualityControl program and a Habitability analysis intended to identify extraordinary maintenance

CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment—Interim Report xi

needs in all buildings slated for closing. All problems identified by the Habitability analysis areto be corrected by the end of 2001.

� Improving conditions in CHA’s buildings is extremely challenging. The transformationprocess, with the slow emptying out of buildings and the consolidation of residents—manyaffiliated with rival gangs—in a small number of buildings, is almost guaranteed to increaseproblems with gang activity and violent crime in the short run. The CHA and Chicago Policemust carefully plan how they will cope with this situation to ensure the safety of residentsduring the transition. In addition, as with the new counseling efforts, the CHA must carefullyimplement its new maintenance initiatives, ensuring that adequate tracking and monitoringsystems are in place. Given the seriousness of the maintenance problems in its remainingbuildings, the agency must be especially careful to ensure that any threats to health andsafety are quickly identified and addressed adequately.

The CHA is currently attempting to implement an extremely ambitious set of servicesthat it hopes will both bring about positive outcomes for its current residents and transform itstroubled developments. Our assessment of the first year of relocation counseling offersimportant lessons for the agency and its partners as they continue to try to improve and expandservices. The problems inherent in the previous relocation system clearly indicate the need forcareful strategic planning and ongoing monitoring to ensure that the relocation process runs assmoothly as possible.

Finally, many of the problems that we have identified in this report appear to be theresult of the CHA’s attempting to plan and implement its relocation policies and servicessimultaneously. The agency is under pressure to rapidly move forward with its transformationplan. Federal regulations require the rapid closing and demolition of nonviable developments;financing agreements require the redevelopment plans to proceed on set schedules. However,given past experiences with relocation services and counseling programs, the CHA needs tothink strategically and carefully pace the implementation of its ambitious new initiatives toensure that they are functioning effectively and truly meeting the needs of its remainingresidents.

CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment—Interim Report 1

OVERVIEWPublic housing in Chicago, as in many cities across the nation, is currently undergoing a

dramatic transformation. In 1998, nearly 19,000 of the CHA’s units failed viability inspection,meaning that, under federal law the CHA was required to demolish the units within a five-yearperiod.1 As a result, the city put forth a plan to “transform” the CHA’s enormous high-risebuildings into smaller mixed-income communities of townhomes and low-rise buildings. TheCHA Transformation Plan calls for the demolition of 51 gallery high-rise buildings, as well asseveral thousand mid-rise and low-rise units.2 The CHA will redevelop or rehabilitate 25,000units of public housing; however, the plan calls for a substantial reduction in family publichousing units (a net loss of 14,000 units). As a result of the reduction in the number of publichousing units available, over the next six years as many as 6,000 families currently living inCHA developments will receive Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8 vouchers).3 This plan,including relocation and revitalization, is estimated to cost $1.5 billion over 10 years.

In 1999, the CHA began implementing housing search programs to provide relocateeswith assistance that will help them find housing in a broader range of neighborhoods. Theseprograms also provide a range of training programs (e.g., workshops on tenant rights andresponsibilities, budgeting, and housekeeping) and supportive services (generally, casemanagement) intended to help relocatees become successful private market tenants. Theoverarching goals of CHA’s relocation services were to: 1) help participants make a successfultransition to the private market and 2) help prevent the creation of clusters of relocatees. Duringthe first year of relocation, the CHA’s counseling services were targeted to residents of buildingsslated for closing and demolition who indicated that Section 8 was their first choice forreplacement housing.

In light of the size and scope of the CHA Transformation Plan, some observers haveraised concerns about the potential impact of transformation, particularly the potential risks ofrelocation for both current CHA tenants and for receiving neighborhoods. A number of concernshave been raised. First, critics have questioned whether there will truly be enough replacementhousing for all residents. Concern about the availability of replacement housing led HUD andother local government agencies and philanthropic organizations to fund a rental market study

1 Section 202 of the Omnibus Consolidated Reconciliation Act (OCRA), 1996.2 See the CHA Transformation Plan (October, 2000) for more details regarding demolition and relocation.

Most of these demolitions are covered by a 1996 federal law calling for the conversion to vouchers of certain severelydistressed public housing developments.

3 The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 merged the Section 8 certificate and voucherprogram into one to create the Housing Choice Voucher program. We refer to this program throughout the report as“Section 8 vouchers” or “Section 8.”


in 1999 (Great Cities Institute 1999). This study, along with a recent review conducted by theUrban Institute (Turner et al 2001), concluded that the available data indicate that there likely isenough potential replacement housing in the Chicago metropolitan area to absorb the numberof CHA tenants expected to relocate with Section 8. However, even if units are available,current CHA tenants may not have access to this housing; they may lack information aboutavailable units in unfamiliar areas and, further, landlords may not be willing to rent to them.

Even assuming residents can find units, these same observers fear that CHA residentsmay end up clustered in other, very low-income communities. The Section 8 program inChicago is already heavily clustered, with the majority of recipients living in a relatively smallnumber of low-income, African-American communities (Fischer 1999). One potential scenario isthat the relocation of CHA residents will intensify clustering, leaving many Section 8 participantsin communities with high concentrations of poverty that suffer from many of the same problemsas CHA developments and offer little economic opportunity for residents. In addition, if thisclustering does occur, the large influxes of public housing residents may have the potential todestabilize moderate-income African-American neighborhoods that border these poorcommunities.4

Finally, some observers have raised concerns about whether current CHA tenants willbe able to make a successful transition to either the private market or new mixed-incomedevelopments. Previous research suggests that, compared to mainstream Section 8 recipients,CHA relocatees face unique barriers when searching for housing on the private market. Inparticular, the prevalence of problems such as substance abuse, depression, gang affiliation,and domestic violence create barriers to successful use of Section 8. Relocatees’ lack ofprivate market experience also made it more challenging for them to search effectively (Popkinand Cunningham 2000).

The purpose of this report is to provide a systematic look at what has happened to asample of relocatees as they have moved through the relocation process. The CHA’scounseling programs and services are very much a work in progress and the CHA has made anumber of substantial changes to the relocation system since the study began. However, thechanges did not begin to affect residents, including the respondents in our sample, until afterour follow-up survey was completed. Thus, while this report concerns policies and programsthat have now been updated, our findings offer important lessons for CHA’s ongoing efforts.The challenges encountered during the first phase of implementation remain threats to the long-term success of the relocation effort, particularly the challenge of providing effective services toso many residents with complex needs.

4 See M. A. Turner, S. J. Popkin, and M.K. Cunningham (2000). Section 8 Mobility and Neighborhood

Health, Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute for a discussion of the evidence on the impact of Section 8 onneighborhoods.


In the following sections, we present an overview of the study and major findings. In thefirst section, we describe the purpose of the study and our research methods. Next, wehighlight our major findings. Finally, we provide an overview of some of the recent changes theCHA has implemented along with a discussion of the implications of our findings for the currentrelocation process.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) Relocation Counseling Assessment is intended toprovide rapid feedback to the CHA, the Section 8 program, and the counseling agenciesproviding relocation counseling services. In order for relocation counseling to be effective, it isimportant that the relocation agencies have meaningful, high-quality information aboutparticipants’ needs, the types of barriers they encounter when searching for housing withSection 8, and the challenges they face in becoming stable in their new units and communities.

The study is also meant to inform other actors concerned about the relocation processand the Section 8 program overall, including the Mayor’s Office; Chicago Department of HumanServices; and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The study isfunded by a grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and is beingconducted by the Urban Institute, a non-profit policy research organization based inWashington, D.C., and its partner, the University of Illinois at Chicago. The CHA RelocationCounseling Assessment asks the big question: What is happening to CHA residents who aremoving with Section 8? Table 1 provides a complete listing of research questions.


TABLE 1. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Barriers

� What are the range of problems and challenges that CHA relocateesface in locating housing and leasing up with Section 8?

� What proportion of each population (CHA relocatees and other Section 8participants) has multiple problems; what proportion require intensivecounseling before attempting a move; and what proportion will needlong-term support in order to maintain their Section 8 assistance?

Services andFacilitators

� Do participants search in low-poverty areas?

� What factors affect families’ willingness to consider unfamiliar areas,including: families’ preferences for particular communities, fears ofmoving to unfamiliar areas, concerns about encountering discrimination,and the limited availability of appropriate units (e.g., affordable units,large bedroom units)?

� Are there other services they feel that they need?

� What are the characteristics of those participants that move to low-poverty areas?

� What types of services do these participants receive?

Locational

Outcomes

� What proportion of CHA relocatees fail to find a unit with Section 8?

� What proportion of Section 8 holders fail to make a move?

� How do these participants compare to successful movers?

� What are the relocation outcomes for participants, i.e., thecharacteristics of the neighborhoods that they move from and to?

� How satisfied are movers with their new units and neighborhoods?

� Do they feel they have received adequate follow-up support?

� Are there any early impacts on employment or quality of life outcomesfor participants?

� What are the outcomes for those who failed to find units?


METHODOLOGY

To answer the research questions above, our study uses a variety of methods, includinga collection of both qualitative and quantitative data. Specifically, we combined information fromthree major sources:

A three-wave panel survey of a sample of approximately 190 CHA residents awaitingrelocation with Section 8. The CHA relocatees in our sample are all leaseholders whoselected Section 8 as their first option for relocation when their buildings were slated forclosing in September 1999, but had not relocated by the winter of 2000, when our studybegan. Survey design and sample selection for the baseline survey were conducted inFebruary and March 2000 and the survey was administered between April and June2000. The first follow-up was conducted between November and January 2001. Thethird and final survey wave began in May and will be completed by July 2001.

In-depth interviews with CHA relocatees focusing on their experiences with thecounseling programs. For the first round, project staff conducted in-depth interviewswith seven CHA respondents (mostly recent movers identified in the survey) in May2000 to ask about their experiences with relocation counseling. The second round of in-depth interviews focused on the barriers to relocation. In March 2001, project staffconducted interviews with 11 CHA relocatees who were surveyed at baseline, but hadnot yet relocated.

A process study of the counseling and relocation services provided by the agenciescontracted by the CHA to provide relocation services. Between February 2000 and April2001, these agencies were: The Leadership Council for Metropolitan OpenCommunities, Family Dynamics Inc., and Changing Patterns for Families. Project staffconducted group interviews with CHA staff and counseling program administrators inJanuary 2000 and held interviews and program observations from April to August 2000.They observed workshops and other program activities such as van tours andworkshops for tenants. They also conducted one-on-one interviews with programadministrators and individual counselors. Finally, they conducted follow-up interviewswith program administrators in January and March 2001.5

Limitations of this Research

This study provides the first systematic evidence of what is happening to CHA residentswho have chosen Section 8 for replacement housing. However, because the study is intended

5 The CHA revamped its counseling services and contracted with a different set of agencies in April 2001.

Our final project report will incorporate information about these new services.


to provide rapid feedback for an ongoing process, we are by design studying a “moving target.”We have had to adapt our study to reflect changes in the CHA’s process. A timeline showingchanges in the CHA’s programs and our major research activities in shown in Appendix E. Ouroriginal research design called for selecting a random sample of relocatees from buildings thathad not initiated the relocation process. However, after the fall of 1999, the CHA began torevamp its plans and hold off on closing additional buildings. Since our survey began inFebruary 2000, we had to draw our sample of relocatees from buildings slated for closing inSeptember 1999.6 According to CHA records, just over half of the families who had originallylived in those buildings had relocated by February 2000. As a result, our respondents do notrepresent all residents referred for counseling in September 1999, but rather are a randomsample of the 350 households, who according to CHA records, were referred for counseling buthad not yet relocated.7

There are several reasons why these residents may not have moved by February 2000.One possibility is that the CHA’s demolition schedule and plans for replacement housing hadchanged by the time we conducted the baseline survey and could have affected their decisionsabout housing choice. More likely, they may have had problems—personal problems or leasecompliance issues—that made it difficult for them to move or even ineligible for replacementhousing. Thus, because of the timing of our study, our sample likely represents those residentswho face the greatest challenges in transitioning out of public housing.

BACKGROUND

In order to understand the challenge of providing relocation and mobility services forCHA residents, it is important to review the recent history of public housing transformation inChicago. By the 1980s, the CHA’s decaying public housing developments had becomeextremely high crime, impoverished communities where drug dealing and gang activitydominated the social world. Poor construction and negligent maintenance led to dangerousphysical conditions in many developments. Vandalism exacerbated these problems; youthbroke light bulbs in halls and stairwells and marked the buildings with graffiti, while othervandals stripped vacant units of pipes and window frames. The agency’s serious managementproblems complicated the situation, undermining the CHA’s ability to respond effectively asconditions in its developments deteriorated.

6 This list included all residents who had indicated Section 8 as their first choice for replacement housing

and were referred to one of three counseling agencies in September 1999.7 The majority (72 percent) of the relocatees on this list were residing in the Robert Taylor Homes. The

respondents from Robert Taylor and Henry Horner include families who were relocated on an emergency basis dueto heating failures in their original buildings in January and February 1999. Details on survey methodology arepresented in Appendix A.


Because of the extreme nature of the CHA’s problems, the U.S. Department of Housingand Urban Development (HUD) took control of the housing authority in May 1995. InSeptember of that year, HUD selected the Quadel Consulting Corporation to manage the CHA’sSection 8 program, which also suffered from severe management problems. Quadel created asubsidiary, CHAC Inc., which formally took over program administration on December 1, 1995.8

Following the HUD takeover, the CHA gradually began to close and demolish buildingsin its high-rise developments, initiating a massive revitalization effort in the Henry Hornerdevelopment in late 1995. Between 1993 and 1998, HUD awarded HOPE VI grants forredevelopment efforts in Cabrini-Green, Henry Horner, ABLA Homes, Robert Taylor, Ida B.Wells, and Washington Park. In 1998, nearly 19,000 of the CHA’s units failed viabilityinspection, meaning that, under federal law, the CHA was required to demolish the units within afive-year period.9 This viability assessment created an even greater imperative to develop astrategy for replacing the CHA’s developments.

CHA Plan for Transformation

As described above, in 1999, the city of Chicago and the CHA developed a plan totransform CHA housing. The plan called for the demolition of all of the CHA’s gallery high-risebuildings, as well as several thousand mid-rise and low-rise units, the development of mixed-income replacement housing, and the relocation of as many as 6,000 families with Section 8.As part of the early implementation of this plan, in September 1999 the CHA closed 11 buildingsin Robert Taylor and Rockwell Gardens as part of its “winterization” program. Additionalbuildings were closed during late 1999 in Henry Horner, Stateway Gardens, Lawndale Gardens,Madden Park, Darrow Homes, Harold Ickes Homes, and Hilliard Homes. Families from the“winterization buildings” were moved to temporary units in “cluster buildings” in theirdevelopments.

The CHA contracted with three agencies to provide relocation counseling for residentswho selected Section 8 as their first choice for replacement housing: Changing Patterns forFamilies Inc., Family Dynamics Inc., and the Leadership Council for Metropolitan OpenCommunities.10 All three agencies provided a basic set of services including: orientation to the

8 For more information on the recent history of the Section 8 program, see S.J. Popkin and M.K.Cunningham, 2000, Searching for Housing with Section 8 in the Chicago Region. Washington, D.C.: The UrbanInstitute. For a detailed history of the CHA, see S.J. Popkin, et al. 2000 The Hidden War: Crime and the Tragedy ofPublic Housing in Chicago. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

9 Section 202 of the Omnibus Consolidated Reconciliation Act (OCRA), 1996.10 A detailed description of the agencies’ services and missions was provided in our earlier report, S.J.

Popkin et al, CHA Relocation and Mobility Counseling Assessment: Interim Report. Washington, D.C.: The UrbanInstitute.


Section 8 program and the relocation process; individual needs assessments; housing searchassistance; workshops; and follow-up support. However, the three agencies had differentmissions and philosophies and used very different approaches to providing relocationcounseling.

Changing Patterns was created in 1997 specifically to provide relocation services toCHA residents. The agency focused on preparing clients for moving and finding them newunits. Staff used a “hand-holding” approach, with a single counselor following relocateesthroughout the entire relocation process, and providing social service referrals as needed. Theagency also offered a seven-hour “lifeskills” workshop for clients and provided some follow-upsupport.

Family Dynamics Inc. is a child welfare agency founded in 1994. The agency provided awide range of services including case management, GED and computer training classes, after-school programs, and a juvenile detention alternative program. The CHA relocation programwas the agency’s first experience in providing housing search assistance; the agencyresponded to a CHA RFP in the summer of 1998 and began serving relocatees in 1999. FamilyDynamics staff called its service delivery model One Stop Shopping. Counselors had smallcaseloads and modeled themselves after realtors, negotiating with landlords, and guidingrelocatees through the lease-up process at CHAC. In addition to housing search services,Family Dynamics offered workshops on budgeting/money management, housekeeping,childcare resources, and housing rights. Relocation counselors were responsible for making acase plan with the clients, working to get them enrolled in education or training programs, to gettheir children enrolled in after-school programs or other activities, and providing follow-upsupport as needed.

The Leadership Council was the first agency in the United States to provide mobilitycounseling to Section 8 participants, administering the Gautreaux program for 20 years. LikeFamily Dynamics, the Leadership Council responded to the CHA’s RFP for counseling providersin 1998, with the expectation that the agency would primarily provide mobility services tointerested residents. However, according to agency staff, in September 1999 the CHA abruptlysent them nearly 500 relocatees in need of immediate service. During the years that it ran theGautreaux program, the Leadership Council’s approach to mobility counseling evolved from amore intensive service model to the empowerment model the agency uses today. This modelplaced the responsibility for finding housing on the client. The Leadership Council continued touse this approach with CHA relocatees, requiring them to attend initial briefings at theLeadership Council’s downtown location to receive information about Section 8, housing search,and mobility counseling. After the briefing, families made individual appointments with acounselor for a needs assessment and then began to search for housing, either on their own orwith some assistance from counselors. The agency also offered a budgeting workshop forrelocatees and provided some follow-up support.


The CHA estimated that it referred 800 families to the relocation agencies during the fallof 1999. In contrast, figures from the counseling agencies themselves indicated they wereserving substantially higher numbers of clients (one agency said they had over 500 referrals,another said they had about 400, and the third did not provide a figure). This disagreement overthe actual numbers of families in the relocation system during 1999 and 2000 is indicative of thelack of coordination and communication among the different entities involved in the relocationprocess during this period. However, regardless of which figure is correct, what is clear is thatthe CHA referred a very large number of relocatees to its counseling agencies and the Section 8program in September 1999, taxing their capacity to provide adequate service.

Initially, CHA referred all relocatees requesting Section 8 as their first choice forreplacement housing directly to CHAC for eligibility screening and a Section 8 briefing.Relocatees received their voucher and then were assigned to work with a counseling agencywhile searching for housing. However, some CHA and counseling agency staff were concernedthat this system might not allow counseling agencies sufficient time to prepare their clients forthe private market. Further, there was concern that families would feel pressured to findhousing within the initial 120-day period of their voucher, even though they could receivevirtually unlimited additional time if necessary. Finally, staff were concerned that relocateeswould simply begin searching independently and would not receive the counseling services asCHA intended.

Because of these concerns, the relocation process was changed substantially in the fallof 1999. The process for the relocatees in our sample began with “town meetings” held at eachbuilding that was scheduled for closure. Residents were asked to complete a survey indicatingtheir first choice for replacement housing; those that indicated that their first choice was Section8 were referred directly to a counseling agency—often, counselors attended the meetings tobegin working with clients immediately. After the town meeting, the counseling agencies beganworking with the families and helping them search for housing. Some clients were sent toCHAC relatively early in the search process to have an eligibility screening (i.e., determinewhether or not they are eligible for Section 8); others did not begin the Section 8 process withCHAC until they had found a unit. Even if they had eligibility screening early in the process,relocatees were not issued their vouchers until they had found a unit.

In addition to the changes mentioned above, the CHA made changes in the fall of 2000,most notably changing the process so relocatees were referred to CHAC and their counselingagencies simultaneously. The CHA issued a new counseling RFP in September 2000,requesting a modified set of services, and contracted with a new set of agencies to provideservices in April 2001. Along with the new service providers, the CHA has adopted a newservice delivery model that includes services to prepare relocatees for the private market,housing search assistance, and mobility counseling. Further, the CHA has adopted a relocation


rights contact, which provides all lease-compliant CHA tenants in residence as of October 1,1999 the right to return to public housing.

The remainder of this report presents our findings from our survey, process study, andin-depth interviews in detail. Since the new service delivery model was just recentlyimplemented (between March 2001-present) our findings do not reflect recent changes. Thedata are based on the old system. However, in our discussion, we provide a detaileddescription of new services along with a discussion of the lessons from our research for ongoingimplementation of the CHA’s new policies and counseling services.

MAJOR FINDINGS

In this section, we discuss our findings from our baseline survey and six-month follow-upsurveys and in-depth interviews, and our process study observations and interviews. Wedescribe the characteristics of our respondents, locational outcomes for movers andnonmovers, the impact of the relocation process on conditions for movers and nonmovers, andthe barriers that have prevented many residents from leaving public housing. In addition, wedescribe the challenges of providing effective counseling, including the institutional barriers thatcreated problems during the first year of relocation services.

Baseline Characteristics of CHA Relocatee Sample. The respondents in our sampleare very poor, lack education and skills and have many challenges to overcome. All areAfrican-American, most are female, 42 percent are under 35 years old and 14 percent are over60 years old. Over half (59 percent) report having 3 or more children in the household. Mostare long-term public housing residents, having lived in CHA housing for more than 10 years(Figure 1). The majority (84 percent) report having household incomes below $10,000 (Figure

Figure 1Length of Time in CHA

CHA Respondents at Baseline

Less than 5 yrs9%

5-10 yrs29%

More than 10 yrs62%

N=190


2), and about two-thirds (63 percent) say they do not have a high school diploma. Only about athird (32 percent) report being employed; 48 percent say they receive TANF and 34 percent saythey receive SSI. Very few have access to a car, an indicator of potential mobility—just 13percent of CHA relocatees in our sample have a drivers license and only 22 percent say theyhave access to a car that runs (Figure 3).

Figure 2Income Distribution


$10,000 or less84%

$ 20,001 to 30,0004%

$10,001 to 20,00012%

N=190

Figure 3Source of Income and Access to Transportation


0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Have a drivers license

Access to a car

Receiving TANF

Receiving SSI or SSDI

Currently Employed

% of Respondents (N=190)


The CHA respondents in our sample are more distressed than Section 8 movers.11 BothCHA respondents and Section 8 movers are extremely low-income, with high rates of welfarereceipt and low levels of education, and both groups live in relatively poor, high crimeneighborhoods. However, our data show that CHA respondents suffer higher levels of distressand are even more distressed than Section 8 movers. Our baseline data indicate that the CHArelocatees in our sample are significantly poorer, less likely to be high school graduates, andhave more children than Section 8 movers. (Table 2).

Table 2Comparison of CHA and CHAC Section 8 Respondents

CHARespondentsN=190

CHACRespondentsN=203

Income*$10,000 Or Less 84% 70%$10,001 To $20,000 12% 22%$20,001 To $30,000 4% 7%

Education*No High School 15% 10%Some High School 48% 33%HS Grad (No College) 25% 35%HS Grad (College) 12% 22%

11 At baseline, between April and June 2000, we surveyed 203 CHAC Second Movers who are Section 8

participants who attended transfer briefings. Transfer Briefings are for current Section 8 holders who either haverequested “moving papers” because they want to move to a new apartment or are required to move because of aproblem with their unit. Participants might have to move because their unit failed its annual Housing QualityStandards (HQS) inspection, because of a problem with the landlord, or because of a change in family size.11


Table 2 (continued)Comparison of CHA and CHAC Section 8 Respondents

CHARespondentsN=190

CHACRespondentsN=203

Public AssistanceTANFYes 48% 42%

SSI*Yes 26% 40%

SSDI

Yes 11% 7%

Have A Drivers License**Yes 13% 42%

Access To Car That Runs**Yes 22% 38%

Self EfficacyEvery Time I Try To Get Ahead, SomethingStops Me*

Agree 69% 60%Disagree 31% 40%

Good Luck Is More Important Than HardworkFor Success*

Agree 48% 33%Disagree 52% 67%

Paid Rent Late In The Last 6 Months* 39% 23%Notes:

Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.

Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001


A substantial number of respondents report experiencing health problems; 34 percent of theCHA sample rate their health as “fair” or “poor” (Figure 4) and 50 percent report that they or afamily member have asthma. Further, almost one-third (29 percent) of all respondents reportthat someone in the household had an asthma attack within the past six months, and nearly aquarter (24 percent) report that someone in the household had visited the emergency roombecause of asthma (Figure 5).

Figure 4General Health


Excellent23%

Good32%

Fair34%

Poor11%

N=190

Figure 5 Reports of Asthma in the Household


0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Past 6 m onths v isited ER becauseof asthma?

Past 6 months anyone in HH hadasthma attack?

Ever to ld by a doctor had asthm a?

% Percent of Respondents (N=190)


In addition, the baseline data indicate high levels of depression among the CHArelocatee respondents. The baseline survey included a measure of self-efficacy, whichindicates how much control people feel they have over their lives and is associated withdepression and with other characteristics such as long-term welfare recipiency (c.f. Popkin1990). Here, low efficacy levels are another indicator of the level of distress among the CHArelocatee respondents (Figure 6). About half (48 percent) of these respondents agree that“good luck is more important than hard work for success, that “something stops me every time Iget ahead” (70 percent), and that “planning only makes people unhappy” (56 percent). As wasthe case with income, CHA relocatee respondents show significantly lower levels of self-efficacythan the general Section 8 population.

Another indication of relocatees’ general outlook is their low expectations about theirability to find new housing with Section 8. These low expectations likely reflect both what theyhave heard about Section 8 from other residents and their own fears about attempting to leavepublic housing. For example, over 70 percent said they expected to have “big problems” findinga place they liked, a place they could afford, or a landlord who would accept Section 8. Further,these respondents expected to encounter discrimination: 75 percent expected thatdiscrimination against CHA residents would be a big problem, and 61 percent expected thatdiscrimination against families with children would be a big problem. Finally, more than half (58percent) said that not having transportation to search for housing was a big problem. (Figure 7)

Figure 6Self-Efficacy


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Every time I try to get aheadsomething stops me…

When I make plans I can usuallycarry them out…

Planning only makes peopleunhappy…

Good luck is more important thanhardwork for success…

% of Respondents (N=190)


Locational Outcomes for the CHA Relocatee Sample

In this section, we present our findings on the overall status of the relocation effort afterone year and our analysis of locational outcomes for those respondents who left public housing.

Relocation. Very few of our sample of residents had relocated by the six-month follow-up in November 2000. As Table 3 shows, our survey team was able to contact 156 (80percent) of the original respondents at the follow-up. Of these 156 respondents, just 36 (23percent) had moved out of public housing. Even among the 38 respondents we were unable tocontact, only five appear in Section 8 program records, indicating that they have successfullyleased up. Ten are still living in the same public housing unit; 10 have moved but are notreceiving Section 8 (i.e., have either moved to another public housing unit or left the systemaltogether); three have died; and the whereabouts of the remaining 10 are unknown. Thus,although this group of relocatees had initially indicated in their first housing choice survey thatthey wanted to move out of public housing with Section 8, the majority had not done so aftermore than a year.

Figure 7Expectations for Section 8 Search


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Finding a place with enoughbedrooms

Finding a place you can afford

Finding a place you like

Finding a place that will pass S8inspection

Finding landlords who will acceptSection 8

Not having access to transportationfor apartment search

Discrimination because you arecoming from CHA ph

Landlords who do not want to rentto families w/kids

% of Respondents (N=190) reporting "big problem" or "some problem"


Table 3. Survey Response and Relocation Status

Number Of RespondentsTotal Baseline Sample 190Total Respondents at 6-month follow-up 157Respondents not contacted 38Response Rate 82%

Relocation Status of those ContactedMovers 36Nonmovers 121

Status of Respondents Not ContactedMoved and receiving Section 8 5Moved and not receiving Section 8 10Still living in public housing 10Deceased 3Status Unknown 10

Figure 8 shows that the 36 respondents who have moved are living in neighborhoodsthat have significantly lower poverty levels than their original public housing developments (allwere above 60 percent). However, only a few are living in low-poverty neighborhoods—only 9percent (representing 3 households) are living in a neighborhood that is less than 20 percentpoor. Another 15 percent (5 households) are living in mid-poverty neighborhoods (20 to 30percent poor). The rest are living in high poverty neighborhoods: 27 percent in 30 to 40 percentpoverty and 50 percent in neighborhoods that are more than 40 percent poverty. Map 1illustrates the relocation outcomes for the CHA relocatees in our sample who moved. As shownin Figure 9 and Map 2 (maps can be found on pages 20 and 21), these neighborhoods arehighly segregated—all but two respondents live in neighborhoods that are more than 90 percentAfrican-American.


Figure 8Neighborhood Outcomes for Public Housing Relocatees by Poverty Rate*

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

< 10% poor 10-20% poor 20-30% poor 30-40% poor > 40% poor

Poverty Rate of Destination Neighborhoods

Num

ber o

f Rel

ocat

ees

(N=3

5)

* Poverty Rate for Neigborhoods all Relocatees originated from >60%

Figure 9Neighborhood Outcomes for Public Housing Relocatees by Percent Black*

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

< 50% Black 50-90% Black > 90% Black

% Black in Destination Neighborhoods

Num

ber o

f Rel

ocat

ees

(N=3

5)

* Percentage Black in the neighborhoods all relocatees originated from was > 90%


Although the number of movers is small, movers clearly perceive substantial impact ontheir overall well being as a result of these incremental improvements in their neighborhoods,consistently reporting much better conditions than their counterparts who have remained inpublic housing. For example, we asked respondents about a range of problems with theirhousing, including peeling paint, broken plumbing, rats or mice, roaches, broken locks, and heatthat does not work. Figure 10 shows that at the six-month follow-up, just 12 percent of moversreport having at least one “big problem” with their housing as compared to 53 percent ofnonmovers.12 The six-month follow-up also shows dramatic differences between movers andnonmovers in perceptions of safety. Movers are significantly less likely to report “big problems”with drug trafficking, gang activity, graffiti, trash, and violent crime (assaults, shootings andviolence, and rape or sexual assaults). Finally, movers consistently rate their communitiesmuch higher than nonmovers on social control (whether neighbors would take action if they sawsomeone causing problems) and social cohesion and trust (whether neighbors trust each otherand share values). In addition to indicating a stronger, more cohesive community, high scoreson both of these scales are associated with low crime rates (Sampson et al. 1997).

12 This difference is statistically significant at the p < .001 level.

Figure 10Neighborhood and Housing Conditions

CHA Movers and Nonmovers at Six-month Follow-Up

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Social Disorder

Physical Disorder

Violence

Housing Quality

% of Respondents reporting "big problem"

Nonmovers

Movers

N=117

N=36


Personal and Institutional Barriers to Relocation

As discussed above, very few of the respondents in our sample have been able to makea successful transition from public housing to Section 8 units in the private market. In thissection, we examine some of the factors that have prevented the majority of these residentsfrom moving in more than a year.

Frustration with Relocation Process. The in-depth interviews reflect the depth ofthese respondents’ frustration with the relocation process to date. Even a year later, somerespondents were still angry about having to leave their public housing developments. Oneissue that created frustration for some residents, particularly those from Robert Taylor, washaving to make a series of moves as individual buildings closed. For example, this woman, whohad been relocated on an emergency basis during the winter of 1999 and was clearly resentfuland suspicious:

…they were having floods in the buildings and you know. It had gotten so bad, theydidn't have heat. They got so bad that they had taken people out and they had to stay inmotels. They had to stay in hotels, things downtown…a lot of people think they did onpurpose…. Then they came up with the story that it was less people living in ourbuilding then the buildings that they had fixed down there, but that was a lie. It wasmore people living in our building than buildings back there. But it was nothing you cando, you know, you just had to go. R=10041

Although the CHA put up notices, sent letters, and held meetings at all the affected buildings,some residents still complained about not getting enough warning about the building closures:

…I moved in September 2000. They told me, they put a note on our door in Septemberand told us we had to be out in November…we knew nothing of it. [There] was abuilding closing down the street. So we knew that was closing. But our building wasn’tsupposed to close. So we got a note on our door telling us we had to be out byNovember of 2000. R=100004

Finally, some residents for one reason or another, failed to attend the CHA’s meetingsand were very confused about the process. One woman said she had been away taking care ofher mother when the meetings were held and did not know that her building was closing untilshe noticed that most of her neighbors had already been moved. Another woman who missedthe meetings said she did not get her Section 8 because she was “kinda confused,” saying:

…I just heard on the streets that they were closing the building down. They just camearound with surveys and asked us, do we want our Section 8 or relocation or HUD orwhatever. They didn’t tell us nothing from there…the only reason I knew we had tomove out of the building was because the people talking around the building…. Theyhad building meetings, but I just didn’t never go because I was working then. R=100117


Residents’ reasons for not moving. We asked survey respondents directly why theyhad not moved in the six months since the baseline interview.13 Their responses reflect therange and complexity of the barriers that have made relocating these families so challenging.About half (49 percent) say that they cannot find an apartment they like, i.e., in a neighborhoodwhere they feel comfortable, that has enough bedrooms, etc. Another 18 percent say they werewaiting for responses from the Section 8 program, including actually receiving their voucher,waiting for rent to be negotiated, or waiting for a unit to be inspected. The remainingrespondents cite a range of personal problems, including lease compliance issues (8 percent);not having enough money to move (9 percent); and not having completed the steps they needto take to move (3 percent). Only 3 percent say that they decided not to move.

Experiences with Counseling Agencies. Many of these residents may not havereceived the counseling services that the CHA intended, suggesting that there were problemswith the initial referral system. As discussed above, there were three counseling agencies thatcould have been providing services to these residents: the Leadership Council, ChangingPatterns and Family Dynamics. However, at the baseline, which occurred during the periodwhen counseling activities were more intensive, 40 percent of the respondents could not identifytheir counseling agency: 7 percent named CHAC, 6 percent said “other,” and 31 percent saidthat they did not have a counseling agency (Table 2). These figures remained virtuallyunchanged at the six-month follow-up.

Those residents who did report having received counseling services complained thatthese services were sometimes inadequate. For example, one woman said that she felt sheneeded more information and support than the two group meetings at her counseling agencythat she attended could provide and many of the listings she received from her counselor werefor units that had already been rented. She attributed the problems to the agency’s simplybeing overloaded with clients:

I believe it's because they closed so many CHA buildings down at one time that theoffices got overloaded with work and they were just pushing you in and pushing you out.And that was wrong for them to do the clients like that but that's the way was happening.R=100088

Likewise, this respondent complained that the group briefings and housing listings wereunhelpful:

And they [counseling agency] are supposed help. But I went to one of their meetingsand they didn't help me with nothing that I didn't know. I mean they didn't say anythingthat I didn't know. As far as Section 8. As far as looking for an apartment. They said

13 This question was open-ended and the responses were grouped into categories for analysis.


they can help find something. So the list they gave me, it's worse than staying in publichousing. R=10076

Several respondents complained that their counselors only offered them apartments indangerous neighborhoods—neighborhoods they perceived as being as bad as the publichousing developments they were trying to leave. One respondent said that her counselor wasafraid to get out of the car to show her a unit:

And so I was explaining that to her…I don't want anything worse than Rockwell. If youare scared, it's somebody is selling drugs over here, I mean it's the same problem thatwe have over there. I was like I can't take that chance…. She would be like…” I'mgoing to take you to see two apartments today.” And we would go and I mean like theworst neighborhood. I was like my voucher is worth $1068, you mean to tell me I can'tget anything better than this? She was like well you have to go where they are willing toaccept you and your children. R=10004

Another respondent reported similar problems with her counseling agency:

They came and picked me up at the building. And then they took me around. They findapartments for you, you don’t find it yourself…. And the neighborhoods were just likethe neighborhood I’m in now. R=100117

This same woman went on to say that her counselor never asked her where she wanted to liveand that she felt that her counselor was trying to bully her into taking an apartment she did notwant in a neighborhood she felt was unsafe:

Yeah, that’s how it felt. Wherever they found [a unit], they expected you to take it or,“Girl, I don’t feel like keep going all around looking,” that’s how they were…. R=100117

Rental Market Barriers. As discussed above, respondents’ expectations about beingable to find new housing were low at baseline and most expected to encounter obstacles. Still,although they have not moved, many of our respondents have searched for housing, some ofthem intensively. In-depth interview respondents described calling their counseling agenciesregularly for listings, scanning the newspapers, and going out regularly to look at units. Thosewho have searched report that the experience has been difficult. They have encountereddiscrimination against Section 8 holders generally; against CHA relocatees, who are oftenperceived as trouble makers or criminals; discrimination against families with children; and atight rental market that has meant they have had to compete for units in better neighborhoods.14

This respondent described her experiences:

14 For a more detailed discussion on the rental market barriers facing Section 8 holders in general, see S.J.

Popkin and M.K. Cunningham (2000). Searching for Housing with Section 8 in the Chicago Region. Urban InstituteReport. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.


…every place I find now and I call and asking where are you from and you tell them andit's like well, they don't come out and say well you from CHA we are not going to havenothing to do with you…they'll say someone was looking at the apartment earlier andwe're going to go with them. Then they said well how many children do you have. AndI'll say well I have three small children. And they say well that's a problem. Do you haveany teenagers? No I do not. If you got teenagers then they say that's a problem. Theydon't want teenagers in the building. They don't want small children in the building ifthey are not in school.… But I hope to get out. R=100088

Respondents’ Fears and Reluctance to Move. In addition to the barriers created bythe referral and counseling system and the overall rental market, many residents also have toovercome their own fears about leaving their public housing communities. Bad as theconditions are, these developments are residents’ long-term homes. Most have lived in publichousing for more than a decade and many have extensive networks of family and friends in theircommunities. As a result, for many, the prospect of leaving is very frightening. This womandescribed her reasons for not wanting to leave Robert Taylor:

I've been there for 29 years. I've raised all my kids there. I've raised my grandkids, I'vedone raised four generations and I get respect. I stay in my own house. I know every-body and everybody knows me. R=10075

Another woman said that she felt safe in Robert Taylor because she knew everybody,even though she hoped to move to a better neighborhood:

….Like I said, that's the only reason that I hate to move out of CHA. Like I said, I feelsafe in a sense. You know, because I know everybody. Even though those are theones who will stab you in the back…. In the next six months I hope to be in a different,better place. And a little peace of mind. R=10076

The many rumors about Section 8 that circulate in CHA developments have contributed toresidents’ reluctance to move. For example, the respondent quoted above also said she wasafraid of being forced to move to the suburbs “where all the flooding is at,” a common fearexpressed by CHA relocatees. These two residents interviewed in April 2000—both of whomhad relocated—described the rumors they had heard about Section 8 from other tenants.

I only heard that it [Section 8] was up for a year and then after a year you have torenew it but I haven’t went through that process yet so I don’t know…. [R106]

Well, there was a lot of negativity, the building president, at first she was making us feelup, then she made us feel down. She told us they were gonna do it [make us move],then she say they not gonna do it. Then they were saying the Section 8 don’t work, andthen they say it does work. And it was just so many things that were being said….[R105]


Personal problems. Finally, residents’ personal problems have also created obstaclesthat have made it difficult for them to relocate. As discussed earlier, many residents havephysical health problems, and, overall, our respondents had relatively low levels of personalefficacy and very low expectations about their ability to improve their circumstances (in thisinstance, to move). Our follow-up survey included a more comprehensive measure ofdepression.15 The results show that the level of depression is very high—approximately 40percent of the respondents score as “depressed” and 10 percent of these score as moderatelyor very depressed. The fact that some respondents were surprised by the relocation and hadnot searched for housing likely reflects this overall level of depression and passivity.

Survey and in-depth interview respondents also reported lease compliance problemsthat made it difficult for them to move. For example, poor rental payment appeared to be a fairlycommon problem. At baseline, 39 percent of the survey respondents reported paying their rentlate; the majority of these respondents said that these late payments had happened two or moretimes in the past six months. At the six-month follow-up, nonmovers were significantly morelikely to report late rental payments than movers; 36 percent of nonmovers said they had paidtheir rent late as compared to just 9 percent of movers. Likewise, two of the in-depth interviewrespondents had large, unpaid light bills—one of them confessed that she had been illegallyhooked up to the meter and had eventually gotten caught. She now owed $8,000.

….I can't see myself getting $8,000…that's a lot of money. I can see if they would let merelocate and then I can pay or something like that. But they say I'm not the only one thatthere are a lot of us up in there owing our light bill…the meter man wasn't coming out toread the meter because they were scared to come in the projects…. R=100150

Finally, several in-depth interview respondents hinted at sons with gang affiliations, noting thatthey could not have their sons live with them in their temporary public housing units. The samerespondent quoted above spoke generally about this problem, saying that her son would beconfronted if he came to visit her:

Well he [my son] doesn’t have any trouble but he figures that if he stays there [in theconsolidation building], he would be having trouble. Because they had confronted himonce. And I figure it was safer for him to be with his aunt. R=100150

15 The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) was used to assess the degree of

depression. The scale employs 20 questions asking about the frequency with which each of the 20 events wasexperienced during the previous week. The weighted answers are added to create the depression score, whichranges from 0 to 60. Respondents with a depression score of 16 or more are considered depressed.


Counseling Agency Perspectives

The information gathered through our process study observations and interviews withcounseling agency staff supports the findings from the resident survey and in-depth interviews.These staff report that providing effective counseling services to CHA relocatees has been verychallenging, citing obstacles such as participant’s multiple personal problems, institutional andadministrative barriers, and the challenges of finding units in a tight rental market.

Two of the three counseling agencies (Leadership Council and Family Dynamics)provided data on outcomes for the group of clients whom CHA referred to under their contractsthat began in the fall of 1999. As with our survey sample, large proportions of these clientsnever moved. Each agency maintained its records and categorized clients in different ways, butthe patterns were very similar. The Leadership Council records show that they were referred517 clients, mostly from Robert Taylor. As of January 2001, when the Leadership Council’sprogram was winding down, 58 percent of these clients had leased up, 12 percent were foundineligible (presumably for lease compliance problems), 4 percent were “nonresponsive,” and 26percent were still considered “active.” Likewise, Family Dynamics’ records show that theyreceived approximately 480 clients. Of these, approximately 40 percent had leased up byMarch 2001. Counselors were still actively working with about half of the remaining clients.Staff stated that most of the clients who had moved were the easiest to work with, requiring lessassistance or preparation before moving. The remaining clients had more difficult situations,e.g., needing large units or having multiple personal problems to address before they wereready to move.

One common theme in interviews with counselors was that simply being able to locateclients to provide counseling service was extremely challenging and required a great deal oftime and effort. Some counselors spoke of having to spend entire days trying to connect with asingle client. Most relocatees do not have phones or regular transportation to enable them tocome to the counseling agency offices. Many fail to appear for appointments or respond tomail.

In addition to the basic problem of being able to locate clients to provide service,counselors from all three agencies cited examples of clients who had problems with substanceabuse, domestic violence, poor housekeeping, and poor tenanting behavior. One counselorsaid that her client was about to lose her new Section 8 unit due to a domestic violence problemthat had become so severe that the landlord had become afraid for her own safety. Othersspoke of having to mediate disputes with landlords over clients who made too much noise orwho had “too much traffic,” i.e., too many people in and out of their apartment.

Another problem counselors—particularly those from Changing Patterns—raisedfrequently was gang affiliation. Some CHA residents are afraid of moving to certain areas thatare in rival gang territory and may place them or family members at risk. Further, continued


gang involvement may put tenants at risk of losing their housing assistance altogether—thosewith evidence of criminal activity may not qualify for replacement housing and those who domove may lose their Section 8 units.

Finally, echoing relocatees’ own concerns, counselors spoke about relocatees’ fear ofmoving, particularly of moving to unfamiliar areas and leaving family, friends, and children’sschools. One counselor gave an example of a client who initially seemed very motivated tomove, but repeatedly backed out of specific units. Counselors also said that family members orboyfriends sometimes put pressure on clients not to move, exacerbating their fear.

Institutional Barriers. The relocation system in place from late 1999 to August 2000created a number of problems that made it even more challenging for the counseling agenciesto provide effective service. As discussed above, the CHA has since made substantial changesin this system. However, reviewing the challenges of the first year is instructive, highlightingissues that, without careful planning, may continue to create problems for the CHA and itscontractors.

Our process study findings indicate that the biggest obstacle was the lack of strategicplanning that might have given counseling agencies more time to develop their servicepackages and deliver them consistently. The lack of strategic planning led to “lumpy”allocations of clients, leaving counseling agencies sometimes struggling to serve large numbersof relocatees—a problem noted by the residents as well as the counselors—and other times nothaving enough clients. In addition, poor planning seems to have led to a confusing referralsystem that left some relocatees confused about where to go for relocation services, and a lackof communication and coordination among the CHA, CHAC and the counseling agencies.

Two of the three counseling agencies (Family Dynamics and the Leadership Council)responded to an RFP in the summer of 1998. Changing Patterns had been providing servicesas needed under an earlier contract. Family Dynamics and Changing Patterns served relativelysmall numbers of clients during the first half of 1999, while the Leadership Council had noclients. None of the agencies were prepared when the CHA announced the closing of 11buildings in September 1999 and began referring large numbers of clients in a short period oftime. In addition to having to quickly hire and train staff, the sudden influx of relocatees meanthaving to trim back counseling services (e.g., shortening workshops, reducing one-on-onecounseling, limiting follow-up) until they could catch up with orientations and initial assessments.It took the counseling agencies several months to develop effective systems and get their clientcaseloads under control.

Further, the rapid announcement of building closings seems to have led to confusionamong relocatees about where they were supposed to go for service. One agencyadministrator mentioned getting calls from clients several months after initial town meetingssaying that they had never been assigned to a counseling agency. The same administrator also


reported receiving a continuing trickle of small numbers of client referrals from CHA, which shethought indicated some relocatees had not been assigned an agency when their building closingwas announced. As discussed above, the survey and in-depth interviews also indicate a highdegree of confusion among relocatees—about 40 percent could not identify the counselingagency to which they had been assigned for service and many seemed to be very confusedabout the relocation process.

In addition to confusion about referrals, the relocation process in place from September1999 to August 2000 suffered from a lack of coordination and communication among the CHAand its contractors. First, the fact that relocatees were referred directly to counseling agenciesto begin searching and did not receive their Section 8 vouchers until they had identified theirunits created a number of problems. This system required the Section 8 program to be able tocomplete its eligibility procedures, conduct an inspection, and negotiate rent in a few days. Theshort time frame inevitably led to frustration for CHAC, the counseling agencies, and clients andmay have delayed moves when CHAC was unable to meet this timetable or found that the unitsthe counselors had identified did not meet Section 8 housing quality standards. Because ofthese problems, this system was changed in August 2000 and all relocatees were referred toCHAC and their counseling agency at the same time.

Our process study interviews indicate that poor coordination between the threecounseling agencies and the Section 8 program also created barriers to effective service.Although they had received training from CHAC staff, relocation counselors often seemed not tounderstand the requirements of the Section 8 program, particularly rent reasonableness, andwere often frustrated by program requirements. On the other hand, counseling agency staffcomplained that the Section 8 program did not consistently complete inspections in a timelyfashion. Further, relocation counselors said that Section 8 staff were inconsistent, with someproviding rapid service and others being unresponsive. Some of these complaints abouttimeliness or responsiveness may have been attributable to problems with the units or landlords(e.g. landlords who could not be contacted to arrange inspections or units that failed inspection).Whatever the cause, all of these issues appear to have contributed to tension between CHACand the counseling agencies. CHAC has taken since taken steps to improve its process,particularly its inspection system.

Finally, the staff from counseling agencies cited difficulties in working with CHAadministration that they felt affected their ability to provide effective service. In particular, theywere frustrated by the level of bureaucracy and the frequent management turnover. Staffcomplained that the CHA needed to “regroup” each time there was a change in administrationand that there was never adequate follow through to make sure each new plan wasimplemented properly. Counseling agency staff were very concerned that they were beingblamed for problems with the relocation process that they saw as the result of the CHA’s


internal management issues. This concern reflects the level of tension between the CHA and itscontractors.

Conditions in Public Housing Buildings

Not surprisingly, findings from the surveys and in-depth interviews indicate thatconditions for those residents still living in public housing units are very poor. At baseline,respondents reported many problems with their units and extreme levels of crime and disorder.For example, at the baseline in April 2000, 49 percent said that broken plumbing was “some” or“big problem” in their units, 46 percent reported problems with peeling paint or broken plaster,and 66 percent reported problems with cockroaches. Further, respondents reported thatconditions in their buildings were equally poor: 92 percent reported graffiti and 86 percentreported trash in the halls and stairwells.

The proportion of respondents reporting at least one big problem in their unit increasedsignificantly from the baseline to the six-month follow-up. Scores on our “housing quality index”for nonmovers, an additive scale for the number of housing problems, increased from 2.23 atbaseline to 3.14 at the follow-up. Specifically, more nonmovers reported problems with rats,mice and cockroaches in their apartment, broken locks on doors, and plumbing, compared totheir responses at baseline. In-depth interviews indicated that these problems ranged frominconveniences to actual health hazards. For example, this respondent described living in a unitwith missing bathroom and bedroom doors and faucets that must be turned on and off with awrench:

They brought me a bathroom door, I’ve been there a year, they brought me a bathroomdoor and never put it up. So it’s like you prop the door up for the bathroom. Never hadknobs to my tub since I’ve been there. We turn the tub on, the water on, with a wrench.R=100004

Another respondent complained about problems with exposed wiring:

Right, the buildings were rehabbed, but it was just like thrown up rehabbed thing. Like inmy apartment, I have sockets that just don’t work. When we first move in there,…I hadfive switches it didn’t have a plate across it, and these wires, I said it was dangerous….

R=100141

A third woman said she had twice had sewage back up into her unit and that the second floodhad destroyed most of her belongings:

Oh I had two floods. The worst flood I had, I lost all of my belongings. My TV, mymicrowave…about 8 or $900 worth of merchandise…. [But] I didn’t have but $499 worthof receipts for some of the things I had purchased. And they [CHA] gave me, it’s tookabout seven weeks, they gave me $400…. Then they gave me a voucher to go to the


Salvation Army to get me a bed to sleep in. Because…my bed was closer to the floor, Idon’t put my bed way up because of the shooting. R=200001

In addition to the increasing problems with unit maintenance, residents reported thatoverall conditions in the building remained poor. As at the baseline, the majority reported“some” or “big” problems with graffiti in their building (89 percent) and trash and junk in the hallsand stairwells (73 percent). This woman described the squalid conditions in her building:

For one, I’m on the 14th floor and the elevators are always broke. I don’t like the urine inthe hallways and on the elevator and they be smoking marijuana…. Like me and mykids have got to get on the elevator with the marijuana smell. They’ve got asthma, twoof them have. R=100117

Safety is also a serious concern for those residents still living in public housing: nearly allresidents report “big problems” with drugs and violent crime. These figures are virtuallyunchanged since the baseline; indeed, the levels of reported crime are virtually identical tothose reported in the 1997 CHA Resident Satisfaction and Management Needs Survey (Popkinet al. 1998). For example, 89 percent of the respondents still living in public housing reported atleast one big problem with social disorder, i.e., drug trafficking, drug sales, gangs, groups ofpeople hanging out, and police not coming when called. The figures for violent crime (assaults,shootings and violence, sexual assault) were only slightly lower: 74 percent of the nonmoversreported at least one big problem. Finally, as discussed above, residents still living in publichousing rate their community as much lower than movers on social control (whether neighborswould take action if they saw someone causing problems) and social cohesion and trust(whether neighbors trust each other and share values). Low scores on these indicators areassociated with high crime rates (Figure 11).


At the baseline, this in-depth interview respondent spoke poignantly of living amongcrime and violence at the baseline:

It’s a lot of shooting. And a lot of stuff, you be scared to go out. And when yougo out, you scared to come back cause you don’t know whether they out theremight be shooting and you scared you might get hit coming in or you might get hitgoing out. Cause you don’t know. For the last couple of months they havecooled down. It’s not as bad. But it was something else last year. [R111]

Conditions had not improved by the follow-up. This respondent described the problemswith vacant units in her building:

….vacant apartments, they [CHA] come out and put boards up, at night they come andtake the boards down. CHA will put them back up and when they leave they will takethem back down. People get raped in the apartments, vacant apartments you know.Kids are going in there and who knows what's going on. You know, having sex in thereand doing drugs, everything. So what can you do? It's like living in hell. But you try toswim and fight your way out but you know you're still getting pulled down. It's like that.But I can't give up. I can't stop. R=100088

Other respondents, particularly in Robert Taylor, spoke of the dangers of having members fromdifferent gangs living in the same consolidation buildings. Several women mentioned that it wasunsafe for their sons to visit them. Because of the high level of gang activity, even young menwho were not active gang members were in danger.

Figure 11Social Cohesion and Trust

CHA Movers and Nonmovers at Six-month Follow-Up

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

People around here are willingto help their neighbors

People in this neighborhoodshare values

This is a close-knitneighborhood

People in this neighborhoodcan be trusted

People in this neighborhoodgenerally get along with each

other

% of Respondents

Nonmovers

Movers

N=117

N=36


…inside the building is where they sell their drugs. …having to walk throughthere…sometimes it messes with me mentally but I gather myself and go on upstairs.My son can't come see me, and my grandbabies, I can't see them like I want. R=20001

Finally, several respondents spoke about the dangers they or their children hadexperienced. One woman said she was shot in the head by a stray bullet. Another spoke ofhow the children in her building had terrorized her young son:

And he [my six year old] can’t go outside and play. I have to pick him up from school.And these little kids are so cruel, it’s terrible. One of them had, it makes me so sadwhen I think about it, one of them have my son in the hallway and I heard him crying…Igo out to the hallway and they had him on his knees, they had little play guns, they had alittle play gun to his head…. R=100188

CONTINUING CHALLENGES

The findings from the first year of the CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment indicatethat the first phase of relocation encountered many obstacles that undermined effectiveimplementation. Although this is an interim report—the final report will be available in late2001—it offers important lessons for both program administration and for providing effectiverelocation services to CHA’s remaining residents. While the majority of residents who werereferred for relocation services in September 1999 have left public housing, both our surveydata and counseling agency records from the spring of 2001 show that the number who havenot yet moved is substantial. Because our baseline survey occurred in April 2000, the samplefor this study likely consisted of the same group that the counseling agencies have identified asmore difficult to serve. Thus far, this research indicates that finding solutions for these familieswill not be simple.

As noted earlier, the CHA’s counseling programs and services are very much a work inprogress. The CHA has made a number of substantial changes to the relocation system inresponse to the problems noted in this report. However, the changes did not begin to affectresidents, including the respondents in our sample, until after our follow-up survey wascompleted. While this report concerns policies and programs that have now been updated, webelieve that our findings offer important lessons for CHA’s ongoing efforts. The types ofchallenges encountered during the first phase of implementation remain threats to the long-termsuccess of the relocation effort, particularly the challenge of providing effective services to somany residents with complex needs. In this section, we provide a brief overview of the recentchanges to the relocation process and draw lessons from our findings about the issues thatmust be addressed to ensure that new policies and programs are implemented successfully tobring about the best possible outcomes for CHA’s remaining residents.


Relocation Rights Contract

In response to concerns from advocates for CHA residents, the CHA agreed to create aRelocation Rights Contract that spelled out the CHA’s obligations to residents during thetransformation process. The CHA and its Central Advisory Council (CAC), which is the CHA’sresident organization, signed the contract in November 2000. Per this agreement, all leasecompliant tenants living in CHA housing as of October 1999 are guaranteed a right to return topublic housing.16 Lease compliance is defined as tenants who are:

• Up-to-date on their rent and utility payments and/or repayment agreement;

• Compliant with terms of the August 15, 2000 lease and federal requirements(including one-strike provisions that disqualify any tenants with household memberswho have evidence of involvement in drug or felony activity);

• Have no unauthorized tenants in their units;

• Have a good housekeeping record, with no documented evidence of destruction,damage, or removal of CHA property in CHA files.

In addition to guaranteeing a right to return, the contract spells out the process for residents toselect replacement housing and defines the services that will be offered to residents during thetransformation, including supportive services and relocation counseling.

As part of the CHA’s efforts to improve the relocation process, the agency has recentlymade substantial investments in developing materials to ensure that tenants understand theirrights and obligations and make informed choices about replacement housing. The CHA has anew, professionally-produced handbook and videos that explain the relocation process andoptions for replacement housing. In the spring of 2001, the agency began implementingHousing Choice Clinics to present this information to residents, ensure that they trulyunderstand their choices, and provide them with assistance in completing their Housing ChoiceSurveys. These clinics are now being administered in all buildings slated for closing.


� Lease compliance issues appear widespread. Our findings indicate that leasecompliance, both rental payment problems and criminal record issues, are probablywidespread among the CHA’s remaining residents. On the surface, imposing more stringentconditions for occupancy seems reasonable—some of these “noncompliant” tenants haveundoubtedly created much of the misery in the CHA’s developments. However, enforcingthese requirements strictly could potentially displace a large number of households.

16 See CHA Leaseholder Housing Choice and Relocation Rights Contract, November 2000.


urrently, the Relocation Rights Contract allows for a “cure period” for residents to addresstheir problems. It is important that these lease compliance issues be dealt withcompassionately and that CHA’s counseling programs offer serious services that will helpresidents who can “cure” their lease compliance problems to do so—an intensive servicemodel will likely be required for most of these noncompliant tenants. In addition, CHAadministrators and other concerned actors should begin thinking creatively about providingoptions for those who cannot “cure” their problems, e.g., serious drug addiction. Tenantswith problems of this magnitude may require a solution like supportive housing in order toavoid becoming homeless.

� Tracking a resident’s right to return. The CHA’s capacity to track residents’ housingchoices and relocation locations should be expanded. The CHA is currently working on anautomated tracking system to monitor housing choice and the movement of residents duringthe relocation process. Plans call for the tracking system to be operational by July 2001. Inorder for this tracking system to be effective, it must include a comprehensive listing ofrelocatees, their housing choices (most importantly whether or not Section 8 is temporary orpermanent) and their current location. Updates from this system should be made availableto the public via CHA quarterly reports on transformation.

� Continuing monitoring of Housing Choice Clinics. The CHA has made substantialefforts to create their new Housing Choice Clinics and to monitor and make ongoingimprovements the process. This monitoring process needs to continue so that the CHA cancontinue to make changes if necessary to ensure that all residents are able to make trulyinformed choices.

Good Neighbor Counseling

In response to concerns about the level of problems among its remaining residents,particularly about their ability to make successful transitions to private market or replacementhousing, the CHA created its Good Neighbor Counseling program. The counseling consists of aone-day session that that includes counseling on housekeeping and household management,utilities, budgeting, lease compliance, and finding and linking to services in a new community.All current CHA tenants will receive this counseling, whether or not they select Section 8 as theirfirst choice for replacement housing. In April 2001, the CHA contracted with five agencies toprovide Good Neighbor Counseling sessions in its developments, and began implementing theprogram in May. As of this writing, the contractors have received training from CHA and begunproviding sessions, but the program is still undergoing modifications.



� Many residents may need more intensive preparation for the private market. Providinga training session on budgeting and household management is useful, but without long-termfollow-up and reinforcement, many residents may have difficulty applying the informationprovided. In particular, our research suggests that residents who have lease complianceissues and complex problems, such as drug addiction, will need more intensive support.We encourage the CHA to link this training to longer-term services, perhaps through itsService Connector program.

• Consistency and coordination are critical. The CHA has hired five different contractorsto provide its Good Neighbor Training. The findings from our research highlight theproblems that occur when communication is poor and the crucial importance of coordinationamong different counseling agencies to ensure that a consistent level of service is beingprovided to all residents. The CHA has taken many steps to facilitate coordination, includingholding training sessions and regular meetings with counseling agency staff. It is critical thatthe CHA continue to follow this process, as well as carefully monitor the implementation ofthe training sessions to make sure that information is provided consistently and that servicesare adequate.

Relocation Counseling

The CHA is continuing to offer relocation counseling for residents who choose Section 8as their first choice for replacement housing.17 In April 2001, the agency contracted with twoagencies to provide counseling services: Changing Patterns Inc. and E.F. Ghoughan. Asdiscussed in this report, Changing Patterns has been providing relocation services since 1997;E.F. Ghoughan has done other work for the CHA and CHAC in the past, but this is the agency’sfirst experience with relocation counseling.

As in the earlier system described in this report, the counseling is to include informationon neighborhoods, identification of units, escorting clients to units, and assistance in completingpaperwork for the Section 8 process. In addition, the counselors will provide budgeting andcredit counseling, needs assessment and connection to supportive services—possibly throughthe Service Connectors program—and information on services available in residents’ newneighborhoods. The CHA provided training for counselors in the spring of 2001 and recentlybegan referring clients to the agencies.

17 Information about the CHA’s new Relocation Counseling and Mobility Counseling programs comes from

the CHA’s RFP for counseling services, its new handbook, Making the Move to Your New Home, and a report on theService Connector model issued by the Metropolitan Planning Council (Snyderman and Dailey 2001). Additionalinformation was provided by the CHA’s Department of Section 8/Relocation.


In addition to the regular relocation counseling, the CHA has contracted with theLeadership Council to provide a Gautreaux-type program for residents who indicate an interestin making a mobility move. The Leadership Council will begin implementing its program inAugust 2001. Participants will receive enhanced relocation counseling to assist them in movingto “opportunity areas,” i.e. census tracts in the city where the poverty rate is less than 23.49percent and less than 30 percent of the population is African-American. In suburban areas, thetracts must be less than 10 percent poor and less than 10 percent African-American.Participants in the mobility program will receive three follow-up visits.


• Need for more intensive service and long-term follow up. Our findings suggest that thebasic level of counseling services may not be adequate for many residents, especially thosewith multiple, complex problems. As this report documents, many CHA residents areextremely poor and have little education or formal work experience. Further, many sufferfrom depression and other physical and mental health problems. Many relocatees will needconsiderable assistance to stabilize their current situations to help them prepare to move;without this help, it is likely that even if they are relocated, they will not be able to sustaintheir new housing situation. We recommend that the CHA continue to expand its services toinclude long-term, intensive follow-up for all relocatees, not only those enrolled in theLeadership Council’s mobility program. For example, a model employed by the Moving toOpportunity Program in Los Angeles offered participants who had moved to new units withSection 8 a year of intensive counseling, workshops, job development, and other supportiveservices. Another successful model is the approach used by Project Match, which provideslong-term services to help support public housing residents as they take incremental stepstoward self-sufficiency. Implementing such a service-rich, long-term process willundoubtedly require a considerable allocation of resources. But not making this investmentmeans that the relocation system will continue to face serious problems and may, ultimately,lead to substantial human costs for current residents.

� Not all CHA relocatees will receive mobility counseling. Nearly all relocatees who havemoved are living in better neighborhoods than their public housing developments, but theirnew communities still have high levels of poverty and are highly segregated. Although it istrue that many families may choose not to move to low-poverty neighborhoods, this findingsuggests a need for more effective mobility counseling in the short-run, as well as ongoingcounseling to help all CHA relocatees continue to make incremental moves to betterneighborhoods in the future. Under the CHA’s new system, those residents who volunteerto participate in the Leadership Council’s program will receive extensive mobility services.We recommend that this information be provided to all residents who select Section 8 tohelp them make informed choices about where to move. In addition, we recommend that


CHAC continue to offer its Second Mover mobility counseling program to former CHAresidents who have made successful transitions to Section 8.

� Consistency and coordination are critical. As is the case with Good NeighborCounseling, consistency and coordination are critical to ensuring that relocation counselingservices are delivered effectively. This report has documented the problems that aroseduring the first phase of relocation, including tensions between the counseling agencies, theCHA, and CHAC. The CHA has chosen to contract with two different agencies to providerelocation counseling—one which has extensive experience in this area and one which doesnot. The CHA has taken positive steps to avoid the kinds of problems encountered duringthe first phase of relocation, including training counseling agency staff, scheduling weeklymeetings with counseling agency and CHAC staff, and holding monthly roundtables thatinclude other actors. It is important that these efforts to facilitate communication continue.In addition, as with the Good Neighbor program, the CHA must continue to carefully monitorcounseling agency activities to make sure that services are adequate and consistent.

Service Connectors

The final component of the CHA’s new service package is its Service Connector model.According to a review by the Metropolitan Planning Council (Snyderman and Dailey 2001), theprogram consists of development-based case managers who will assist residents in identifyingand gaining access to community-based services provided through public agencies and socialservice providers. The CHA’s developments will be divided into six clusters for service, whichwill each have their own staff providing outreach, assessment, referral, and follow-up services toparticipants. In addition to the program’s own outreach, residents can be referred to theprogram from Good Neighbor Counseling, property managers, local advisory councils, or bysimply coming in and requesting assistance. Current plans call for one service coordinator forevery 139 households.

As of this writing, the CHA is in the very early phases of implementing this program. Theagency is coordinating with the Chicago Department of Human Services (CDHS) to coordinatethe program. CDHS issued an RFP seeking agencies to provide services in April 2001 and theprogram is to be implemented later this year.


� Careful implementation is critical. The Metropolitan Planning Council review of two pilotService Connector programs raises several concerns. These include the need for carefultraining and coordination among cooperating agencies, the need to allow adequate time forprogram development and implementation, and the need for careful tracking and monitoringof service provision and participant outcomes. In addition, the review questions the


proposed staff-to-resident ratio of one staff person for every 139 leaseholders, noting thatthe ratios were much lower in both pilot programs. Our findings support these concerns; theService Connector model will be the CHA’s most ambitious service program to date and it iscritical that the agency learn from its earlier challenges to ensure that there is coordinationand cooperation among the many parties involved, that residents receive adequate levels ofservice, and that there is careful monitoring and follow-up.

Maintenance and Management Initiatives

In addition to the challenges encountered during the first year of relocation, this reporthas documented that conditions in CHA’s remaining developments are unacceptable.Residents report extremely severe problems with drug trafficking and violent crime. Further,many units suffer from maintenance problems that present serious health hazards, e.g. exposedwiring and broken plumbing. The CHA is taking steps to address these problems. First, theagency is working with the Chicago Police Department to secure its properties. Second, theCHA is currently working with a consulting firm to develop two major initiatives to address itsmaintenance problems, an ongoing Quality Control program and a Habitability analysis intendedto identify extraordinary maintenance needs in all buildings slated for closing. All problemsidentified by the Habitability analysis are to be corrected by the end of 2001.

� Improving conditions in CHA’s buildings is extremely challenging. The transformationprocess, with the slow emptying out of buildings and the consolidation of residents—manyaffiliated with rival gangs—in a small number of buildings, is almost guaranteed to increaseproblems with gang activity and violent crime in the short run. The CHA and Chicago Policemust carefully plan how they will cope with this situation to ensure the safety of residentsduring the transition. In addition, as with the new counseling efforts, the CHA must carefullyimplement its new maintenance initiatives, ensuring that adequate tracking and monitoringsystems are in place. Given the seriousness of the maintenance problems in its remainingbuildings, the agency must be especially careful to ensure that any threats to health andsafety are quickly identified and addressed adequately.

The CHA is currently attempting to implement an extremely ambitious set of servicesthat it hopes will both bring about positive outcomes for its current residents and transform itstroubled developments. Our assessment of the first year of relocation counseling offersimportant lessons for the agency and its partners as they continue to try to improve and expandservices. The problems inherent in the previous relocation system clearly indicate the need forcareful strategic planning and ongoing monitoring to ensure that the relocation process runs assmoothly as possible.

Finally, many of the problems that we have identified in this report appear to be theresult of the CHA’s attempting to plan and implement its relocation policies and services


simultaneously. The agency is under pressure to rapidly move forward with its transformationplan. Federal regulations require the rapid closing and demolition of nonviable developments;financing agreements require the redevelopment plans to proceed on set schedules. However,given past experiences with relocation services and counseling programs, the CHA needs tothink strategically and carefully pace the implementation of its ambitious new initiatives toensure that they are functioning effectively and truly meeting the needs of its remainingresidents.


REFERENCES

Fischer, P. (1999) Section 8 and the Public Housing Revolution: Where Will the Families Go?Chicago, IL: The Woods Fund of Chicago.

Great Cities Institute. (1999). For Rent: Housing Options in the Chicago Region. A Report tothe Metropolitan Planning Council. Chicago: Metropolitan Planning Council.

Popkin, S. J. , V.E. Gwiasda, D.P. Rosenbaum, L.M. Olson, and L. F. Buron. (2000) TheHidden War: Crime and the Tragedy of Public Housing in Chicago. New Brunswick:Rutgers University Press.

Popkin, S. J. and M. K. Cunningham. (2000). Searching for Rental Housing With Section 8 inChicago. Urban Institute Report. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

Popkin, S. J. and M. K. Cunningham. (1999). CHAC Inc. Section 8 Program: Barriers toSuccessful Leasing Up. Report prepared for CHAC, Inc. Washington, D.C.: The UrbanInstitute.

Popkin, S.J., V.E. Gwiasda, L. Buron, and J. Amendolia. (1998) Chicago Housing AuthorityResident Satisfaction and Management Needs Survey: Final Report. Report to the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Popkin, S.J. "Welfare: Views from the Bottom." (1990) Social Problems 37(1): 64-79.

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush S. W., & Earls F. (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: Amultilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277: 918-924.

Snyderman, R and S.D. Dailey (2001) Public Housing in the Public Interest: Examining theChicago Housing Authority’s Proposed Service Connector Model. Chicago, IL:Metropolitan Planning Council.

Turner, M.A., S.J. Popkin, and M.K. Cunningham. (2000) Section 8 Mobility and NeighborhoodHealth. Washington, D.C. The Urban Institute.

The Center for Epidemiologic Studies. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Health and HumanPerformance. Retrieved May 5, 2001, from the World Wide Web:http://www.mhhe.com/catalogs/sem/hhp/faculty/labs/stress/01.mhtml

Appendix AMethodology


APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY

Our study uses a variety of methods, including a three-wave panel survey; in-depthinterviews with CHA relocatees; interviews with administrative staff at CHA, CHAC, and thecounseling agencies; and observations of program activities. This appendix provides anoverview of our sampling frame and response rates for Waves I and II of survey data collection,an overview of the in-depth interviews with CHA relocatees, and a description of the interviewswe conducted with administrative staff.

Panel Survey of Participants

This report includes data from two waves of data collection. The first wave of the surveywas conducted between April and June 2000 and collected baseline information on CHArelocatee sample characteristics, service needs, health, self-efficacy, and factors relevant torelocation—such as housing choice and counseling agency contact. The second wave,conducted six months later between November and January 2001, collected follow-up data onboth CHA relocatee respondentss who moved from public housing and those who remained.We asked respondents who moved about their experiences throughout the process of searchingfor housing, leasing up, and adjusting to new units and communities, and about the quality oftheir housing and new neighborhoods. For the respondents who remained in public housing,we asked about their current housing and neighborhood conditions and reasons why they didnot move.

Sampling Frame

We had originally understood that it would be possible to interview CHA relocatees forthe baseline survey at either the CHA-conducted “Town Hall” briefing about the building’sclosing or at the initial Section 8 briefing at CHAC. In either scenario, CHA relocatees wouldhave just learned that CHA was closing their building and would be new to the relocationprocess.

However, our reconnaissance research determined that neither of these were viableoptions. In September 1999, the CHA announced that it was closing 11 buildings for“winterization,” as well as a number of individual buildings in a number of developments. TheCHA made no plans to close any additional buildings during the data collection period for thebaseline. For this reason, we had to draw our sample from the group of buildings that werenotified of building closings in the fall of 1999. Some of these residents had already moved,meaning that our sample pool was drawn from those residents who did not move early on.While not ideal, this sampling method allowed us to document the experiences of CHA residentswho came from buildings that were in some of the agency’s most distressed developments.


We received a list of 348 names from the CHA. Assuming a response rate of 80percent—determined from previous surveys conducted in CHA developments—we created amain sample of 250 names. This sample was designed to represent the client populations ofthe three counseling agencies: Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities,Changing Patterns for Families, and Family Dynamics. To create this representation, we took acensus of names from Darrow, Hilliard, Ickes, Madden Park, Rockwell developments andRobert Taylor relocatees. To supplement the sample, we added a randomized group ofrelocatees from the Robert Taylor Homes, which had the largest number of relocatees.

The remaining 98 names on the list were divided into two groups: Group A with 51relocatees from the Henry Horner Homes and Group B containing 47 relocatees from RobertTaylor assigned to the Leadership Council. Group B was further divided randomly into 5replicates A-E. These groups and replicates were only released to supplement the main sampleas needed.A18

Survey Administration

The University of Chicago’s Survey Research Laboratory (SRL) was responsible forsurvey administration. SRL conducted a pretest of the survey instrument and data collectionprocedures with five CHA respondents. The SRL Project Coordinator conducted a study-specific training session for the field staff prior to the start of data collection. The trainingincluded a general orientation to the design and purpose of the study, instructions forconducting the initial telephone contacts, a question-by-question review of the main survey, andpractice interviews. The project coordinator also prepared an interviewer training manualcovering all aspects of the data collection procedures which was used during the trainingsession and as a reference manual throughout the course of data collection.

Baseline CHA relocatee data collection consisted entirely of face-to-face interviews.SRL field staff surveyed CHA Relocatees in their homes, going door-to-door in each of thesampled buildings. Five attempts were made to locate each respondent. Our sample of CHArelocatees included respondents from seven CHA developments: Darrow/Ida B Wells, Hilliard,Ickes, Madden Park, Robert Taylor, Rockwell and Henry Horner. The baseline survey lastedapproximately 20 minutes, and each participant was paid $10 for completing the interview.

For Wave II data collection, SRL field staff first attempted to contact baselinerespondents by telephone. If they were successful, they administered a 20 minute follow-up

A18 More than one replicate was released at a time, but once released, every name in the replicate was

brought to full disposition. After four weeks of interviewing, it was determined that additional sample would beneeded, and all five replicates from group B were released. Group A relocatee names were released as a finaladdition to the sample at the end of June 2000.


survey. Approximately 75 percent of completed Wave II interviews were conducted by phone.For respondents who could not be contacted by telephone, face-to-face interviews wereconducted.

Response Rates

During baseline data collection, SRL successfully completed interviews with a total of190 of 345 sampled relocatee names. For the six month follow-up (Wave II), SRL completedinterviews with 157 of the baseline respondents. A breakdown of the counseling agencies andCHA developments represented in our completed interviews is provided in Table A-1.

Table A-1. Wave I Respondents by Counseling Agency

Designated Counseling Agency # of CHARespondents

Leadership Council for 102Changing Patterns for Families 63Family Dynamics 24None listed 1

There are two ways to calculate the response rate for this survey. The first assumesthat the eligible sample includes relocatees who were screened—and therefore known to beeligible—as well as those who could not be located to screen. There were 113 cases that couldnot be located or screened. We then assumed the same eligibility rate for those 113 as wasfound for the 225 successfully screened, 97.4 percent. Therefore, we estimated that 110 casesof those not screened should be added to the 225 we knew to be eligible. Under theseassumptions, the total eligible sample was 335, and the response rate is 190/335 or 56.7percent.

However scientifically rigorous this method may be, it does not take into account therealities of our relocatee sample. From the onset of the sampling frame, we knew our data to beincomplete and in a constant state of flux. The “winterization” process was not welldocumented, and many relocatees moved earlier than expected or dropped out of the system.Taking these realities into consideration, then, a second survey response rate can becalculated. If we assume that the 113 relocatees who could not be located to screen haveactually left the system, then they can be dropped from our sample total. Assuming the same97.4 percent eligibility rate found among those screened, we could drop our total sample


number by 110, reducing it from 335 to 225. The second response rate becomes 190/225 or84.4 percent.

The survey response rate is the proportion of eligible respondents who completed aninterview. Table A-2 shows the rates calculated for the Wave I survey.

Table A-2. Response Rate for Wave I Survey

Number Rate

Total Sample 345Non duplicates 344 99.7%Contact to Screener 311 90.4%Cooperation to Screener 231 74.3%Eligible 225 97.4%Contact to Final 196 87.1%Cooperation to Final 190 96.9%Response Rate 84.4%

The six-month sample (Wave II) consisted of respondents who completed a pretest orbaseline interview. Table A-3 shows the response rate for Wave II of the survey data collection.

Table A-3 Response Rate for Wave II Survey

Number Rate

Total Sample 195

Non duplicates 195 100%

Contact to Screener 189 96.9%

Cooperation to Screener 168 88.9%

Eligible 165 98.2%

Contact to Final 159 96.4%

Cooperation to Final 157 82%

Response rate 157 82%


Nonresponse Analysis

We conducted an analysis of respondents who were surveyed at baseline but were notsurveyed in the six-month follow-up to check if these respondents were different from therespondents included in our sample. We ran cross tabulations on respondents andnonrespondents to compare demographic and socio-economic characteristics, the buildings therespondents originated from, and the amount of relocation counseling they received. Using chi-square statistics, we found no statistically significant differences between nonrespondents andrespondents. This analysis suggest the sample remains representative of CHA leaseholderswho had selected Section 8 as their first option for relocation when their buildings were slatedfor closing in September 1999.

Process Study

The second component of this research is a process study of the relocation and mobilitycounseling services provided by the four counseling agencies (CHAC, Leadership Council,Family Dynamics, and Changing Patterns). The process study is designed to provide ongoingfeedback on program activities, and serve as a tool to help agency staff to identify any problemsearly on and make any necessary changes to their counseling programs. There are two majorcomponents of the process study: 1) interviews with counseling agency staff; and 2)observation of program activities. Between April and mid-August 2000, UIC staff interviewedcounselors at all four agencies and observed key program activities at two agencies.

Interviews with Agency Staff

In March 2000, UI and UIC staff conducted interviews with agency administrators andcounselors to obtain information about: their agency’s missions, the range and content of theservices being provided, the types of challenges staff are encountering, and any changes madeto the service package over time. We also asked about any other initiatives that might affectservices, for example, the CHA and CHAC’s proposed initiative to develop a standard set ofeducational materials for Section 8 participants and landlords. We interviewed CHA and CHACadministrators about any external factors that may affect counseling, such as emergencyrelocations of CHA residents, changes in funding, or shifts in policy emphasis. Finally, weasked about broader issues that may affect outcomes for participants, particularly changes inthe rental market. With the exception of Changing Patterns for Families, interviews werecompleted with most, if not all, the counselors working in the agencies providing relocationservices.

During the Wave II data collection period, contracts with relocation counseling agencieswere expiring so we did not conduct interviews. We did, however, meet with key relocationdepartment staff to discuss new approaches to relocation counseling—such as good neighbor


counseling, the relocation rights contract, and other new materials the CHA has created.Although most relocatees have been turned over to new counseling agencies, a new relocationschedule has not been released.

In-depth Interviews

The baseline panel survey was supplemented with in-depth case studies of families.These interviews were designed to provide more textured information about participantexperiences. At baseline, we interviewed the selected heads of household about topics suchas: their concerns about moving, their needs, their family situation, their current housingsituation, condition of current neighborhood, and their concerns about children. The interviewswere semi-structured, allowing us to cover all topics of interest to the research, while alsopermitting respondents to bring up other issues of importance to them.

For baseline, we selected participants from each counseling agency to interview in-depth. Since these interviews were not intended to be representative, we asked staff from thecounseling agencies to nominate potential respondents whom they view as articulate and wellinformed. We asked the counseling agencies to identify both participants who have positiveviews about moving out of public housing, as well as those who are dissatisfied or havingdifficulty with the relocation process. From this list we recruited respondents to participate in theinterviews. During April 2000, we completed 7 interviews with CHA relocatees.

For Wave II, we interviewed 11 randomly selected CHA relocatees who had beenreferred to a counseling agency, but had not moved as of March 2001. The purpose of theseinterviews was to investigate the reasons why families had not moved, ask about theirexperiences with relocation counseling and the relocation process.

Interviewing took place at SRL’s facilities in Chicago. A team of four trained interviewersspoke with each respondent for about an hour, following developed interview guides for CHArelocatees. Case study respondents received $40 for their participation in the interview.

Appendix BWave I: CHA Respondents

Data Exhibits

Exhibit 1-1Wave I: CHA Respondents

Respondent Characteristics at a Glance

CHAN=190

GenderFemale 96%Male 4%

Age25 or younger 13%26-35 29%36-49 33%50-59 11%60 or older 14%

Number of children1-2 children 41%3 or more children 59%

EducationNo high school 8%Some high school 55%HS grad (no college) 25%HS grad (college) 12%

Length of time in CHALess than 5 years 9%5-10 years 29%More than 10 years 63%

Income$10,000 or less 84%$10,001 to $20,000 12%$20,001 to $30,000 4%

Currently Employed 32%20 or more hours 89%Less than 20 hours 11%

Receiving public aid or TANF 48%Receiving SSI or SSDI 34%Have a valid drivers license 13%Have access to a car that runs 22%

Exhibit 1-2Wave I: CHA RespondentsSection 8 Search Barriers

CHAN=190

Do think these factors will be a “big problem” or “someproblem” while searching for housing with Section 8?

Finding a place with enough bedrooms 55%

Finding a place you like 72%

Finding a place you can afford 71%

Finding a place that will pass Section 8 inspection 63%

Finding landlords who will accept Section 8 71%

Knowing how to look for a new apartment 48%

Not having access to transportation for apartment hunting 58%

Having a disability which makes it difficult to search 29%

Finding child care so you can look for housing 24%

Discrimination because of your race 34%

Landlords who do not want to rent to families with children 61%

Discrimination because you are coming from CHA publichousing

75%

Taking time off from work to look for an apartment 41%


Housing Quality

CHAN=190

Housing Quality Index 2.31

Percent reporting “big problem” or “some problem”

Walls with peeling paint or broken plaster 46%

Plumbing that does not work properly 49%

Rats or mice in the apartment 33%

Cockroaches or other bugs in the apartment 66%

Broken locks or no locks on doors to unit 20%

Heat or not working for more than 24 hours 17%

The housing quality index was calculated by adding all of the respondents that reported a “big problem” with each housingquestion and calculating the average. All indices have a Cronbachs Alpha >.60


Household Member Victimized in the Past Year

CHAN=190

Purse, wallet, or jewelry stolen 6%

Threatened with a knife or gun 9%

Beaten or assaulted 12%

Stabbed or shot 5%

Anyone trying to break into home 10%


Social Disorder, Physical Disorder, and Violence

CHAN=190

Social Disorder Scale 3.92People selling drugs 92%People using drugs 92%Groups of people just hanging out 89%Gangs 91%Police not coming when called 61%

Physical Disorder Scale 1.42Graffiti 92%Trash and junk 86%

Violence Scale 2.04People being attacked or robbed 68%Shootings and violence 91%Rape or sexual assaults 64%

The social disorder scale, physical disorder scale, and violence scale were calculated by adding all of the respondentsthat reported a “big problem” with each related question and calculating the average. All indices have a Cronbachs Alpha>.60


Health

CHAN=190

General HealthExcellent 17%Good 24%Fair 26%Poor 8%

Health compared to six months agoMuch better 22%Somewhat better 15%About the same 47%Somewhat worse 9%Much worse 6%

Ever told by doctor had asthma? 50%

Past 6 months anyone in HH had asthma attack 29%

Past 6 months visited ER because of asthma 24%


Self-Efficacy

CHAN=190

Every time I try to get ahead, something stops me 70%

When I make plans, I can usually carry them out 88%

Planning only makes people unhappy because planshardly ever work out anyway

56%

Good luck is more important than hard work for success 48%


Financial Hardship

CHAN=190

In the past 6 months:

Worried whether food runs outOften true 15%Sometimes true 35%

Food bought ran out too soonOften true 8%Sometimes true 36%

Ever cut meals because not enough money 12%

How often in last 6 monthsAlmost every month 13%Some months but not every month 48%Only one or two months 39%

Paid rent late in the last 6 months 39%

How many times paid rent late in last 6 monthsOnce 32%Two to three times 50%Four to six times 18%

Last 6 months couldn’t afford a telephone 38%

Appendix CWave I: CHA Movers and Nonmovers

Data Exhibits

Exhibit 2-1Wave I: CHA Movers and Nonmovers

Respondent Characteristics at a Glance

CHAMoversN=35

CHANonmovers

N=117GenderFemale 97% 96%Male 3% 4%

Age25 or younger 11% 14%26-35 40% 25%36-49 20% 36%50-59 6% 13%60 or older 23% 12%

Number of children1-2 children 50% 41%3 or more children 50% 59%

EducationNo high school 11% 9%Some high school 40% 53%HS grad (no college) 26% 27%HS grad (college) 23% 12%

Length of time in CHALess than 5 years 6% 8%5-10 years 29% 28%More than 10 years 66% 64%

Income$10,000 or less 83% 83%$10,001 to $20,000 17% 13%$20,001 to $30,000 0% 4%

Currently Employed 31% 33%20 or more hours 82% 90%Less than 20 hours 18% 10%

Receiving public aid or TANF 51% 48%Receiving SSI or SSDI 40% 32%Have a valid drivers license 14% 15%Have access to a car that runs 26% 22%

Notes:Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001


Section 8 Search Barriers

CHAMoversN=35

CHANonmovers

N=117

Do think these factors will be a “bigproblem” or “some problem” whilesearching for housing with Section 8?

Finding a place with enough bedrooms 60% 53%

Finding a place you like 69% 73%

Finding a place you can afford 66% 74%

Finding a place that will pass Section 8inspection

63% 63%

Finding landlords who will accept Section 8 83% 70%

Knowing how to look for a new apartment 51% 41%

Not having access to transportation forapartment hunting

63% 61%

Having a disability which makes it difficult tosearch

34% 28%

Finding child care so you can look for housing 20% 24%

Discrimination because of your race 37% 32%

Landlords who do not want to rent to familieswith children

49% 63%

Discrimination because you are coming fromCHA public housing

82% 77%

Taking time off from work to look for anapartment

34% 45%



Housing Quality

CHAMovers

CHANonmovers

N=35 N=117

Percent reporting “big problem” or“some problem”

Walls with peeling paint or broken plaster 54% 46%

Plumbing that does not work properly 51% 45%

Rats or mice in the apartment 29% 19%

Cockroaches or other bugs in theapartment

17% 18%

Broken locks or no locks on doors to unit 34% 32%

Heat or not working for more than 24 hours 53% 64%

Notes:Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001The housing quality index was calculated by adding all of the respondents that reported a “big problem” with each housingquestion and calculating the average. All indices have a Cronbachs Alpha >.60



CHAMoversN=35

CHANonmovers

N=117

Purse, wallet, or jewelry stolen 3% 5%

Threatened with a knife or gun 14% 6%

Beaten or assaulted 9% 13%

Stabbed or shot 3% 5%

Anyone trying to break into home 11% 7%



Social Disorder, Physical Disorder, Violence

CHAMoversN=35

CHANonmovers

N=117

Social Disorder Scale 3.91 4.27

People selling drugs 88% 91%People using drugs 88% 93%Groups of people just hanging out** 80% 91%Gangs 91% 93%Police not coming when called 56% 62%

Physical Disorder Scale 1.77 1.78

Graffiti 91% 93%Trash and junk 86% 85%

Violence Scale 2.62 2.23

People being attacked or robbed 56% 68%Shootings and violence 91% 91%Rape or sexual assaults 56% 64%

Notes:Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001The social disorder scale, physical disorder scale, and violence scale were calculated by adding all of the respondentsthat reported a “big problem” with each related question and calculating the average. All indices have a Cronbachs Alpha>.60


Health

CHAMoversN=35

CHANonmovers

N=117

General HealthExcellent 17% 19%Good 20% 27%Fair 17% 25%Poor 31% 21%Don’t know 14% 9%

Health compared to six months agoMuch better 17% 20%Somewhat better 20% 17%About the same 40% 49%Somewhat worse 9% 10%Much worse 14% 4%

Ever told by doctor had asthma? 54% 50%

Past 6 months anyone in HH hadasthma attack

43% 24%

Past 6 months visited ER because ofasthma

31% 22%


Exhibit 2-7Wave I: Movers and Nonmovers

Self-Efficacy

CHAMoversN=35

CHANonmovers

N=117

Every time I try to get ahead,something stops me

77% 67%

When I make plans I can usually carrythem out

91% 86%

Planning only makes people unhappybecause plans hardly ever work outanyway

54% 46%

Good luck is more important thanhandwork for success

53% 46%


Exhibit 2-8Wave I: Movers and Nonmovers

Financial Hardship

CHAMoversN=35

CHANonmovers

N=117In the past 6 months:

Worried whether food runs outOften true 14% 13%Sometimes true 31% 38%

Food bought ran out too soonOften true 3% 8%Sometimes true 38% 36%

Ever cut meals because not enough money** 20% 9%

How often in last 6 months have you cutmeals because not enough moneyAlmost every month 28% 10%Some months but not every month 43% 50%Only one or two months 29% 40%

Paid rent late in the last 6 months 34% 42%

How many times paid rent late in last 6monthsOnce 42% 33%Two to three times 25% 49%Four to six times 33% 18%

Last 6 months couldn’t afford a telephone 23% 40%


Appendix DWave II: CHA Movers and Nonmovers

Data Exhibit

Exhibit 3-1Wave II: CHA Movers and Nonmovers

Housing Quality

CHAMovers

N=35

CHANonmovers

N=117

Housing Quality Index 2.62 3.14

Percent reporting “big problem” or “someproblem”

Walls with peeling paint or broken plaster*** 9% 50%

Plumbing that does not work properly*** 14% 49%

Rats or mice in the apartment*** 26% 44%

Cockroaches or other bugs in the apartment*** 26% 62%

Broken locks or no locks on doors to unit*** 3% 20%

Heat or not working for more than 24 hours*** 3% 23%

Notes:Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001The housing quality index was calculated by adding all of the respondents that reported a “big problem” with each housingquestion and calculating the average. All indices have a Cronbachs Alpha >.60


Social Cohesion and Trust

CHAMoversN=35

CHANonmovers

N=117

How many family members live in the sameneighborhood as you?None 54% 44%A few 43% 49%Many 3% 7%

How many of your friends live in the sameneighborhood as you?***None 71% 40%A few 26% 52%Many 3% 9%

People around here are willing to help theirneighbors

70% 59%

People in this neighborhood share vales 59% 38%

This is a close-knit neighborhood*** 73% 43%

People in this neighborhood can be trusted*** 64% 24%

People in this neighborhood generally get alongwith each other***

88% 46%

How likely is that your neighbors would dosomething if they sawPercentage of respondents reporting “very likely”or “likely”

Children skipping school and hanging out on astreet corner?***

73% 49%

Children spray-painting graffiti on a localbuilding?

71% 56%

Children showing disrespect to an adult? 73% 59%

A fight breaks out in front of their home? 74% 63%



CHAMoversN=35

CHANonmovers

N=117

Percent reporting at least one householdmember being victimized in the past year

Purse, wallet, or jewelry stolen 3% 5%

Threatened with a knife or gun 6% 9%

Beaten or assaulted 3% 7%

Stabbed or shot 3% 1%

Anyone trying to break into home 6% 6%



Social Disorder, Physical Disorder, and Violence

CHAMoversN=35

CHANonmovers

N=117

Social Disorder Scale 1.77 4.05

People selling drugs*** 44% 91%People using drugs*** 42% 86%Groups of people just hanging out*** 32% 89%Gangs*** 38% 90%Police not coming when called*** 31% 55%

Physical Disorder Scale .485 1.62

Graffiti*** 14% 89%Trash and junk*** 34% 73%

Violence Scale .82 2.03

People being attacked or robbed*** 32% 60%Shootings and violence*** 31% 90%Rape or sexual assaults*** 25% 60%

Notes:Due to rounding, all variables may not sum to 100 percent.Significant difference indicated by *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.001The social disorder scale, physical disorder scale, and violence scale were calculated by adding all of the respondentsthat reported a “big problem” with each related question and calculating the average. All indices have a Cronbachs Alpha>.60


Health

CHAMoversN=35

CHANonmovers

N=117

General HealthExcellent 11% 19%Good 14% 22%Fair 31% 31%Poor 29% 22%Don’t know 14% 8%

Health compared to six months agoMuch better 29% 14%Somewhat better 11% 12%About the same 43% 66%Somewhat worse 14% 7%Much worse 3% 2%

Ever told by doctor had asthma? 51% 45%

Past 6 months anyone in HH had asthma attack 34% 26%

Past 6 months visited ER because of asthma 34% 23%



Self-Efficacy and Depression

CHAMoversN=35

CHANonmovers

N=117

Depression ScaleNot depressed (<16) 69% 61%Depressed (16-30) 26% 30%Depressed (31-45) 6% 9%Very depressed (46-60) 0% 1%

Self-Efficacy

Every time I try to get ahead, something stops me 65% 63%

When I make plans, I can usually carry them out 47% 47%

Planning only makes people unhappy because planshardly ever work out anyway

88% 86%

Good luck is more important than hardwork forsuccess**

67% 50%



Financial Hardship

CHAMoversN=35

CHANonmovers

N=117In the past 6 months:

Worried whether food runs outOften true 11% 11%Sometimes true 26% 35%

Food bought ran out too soonOften true 11% 12%Sometimes true 26% 30%

Ever cut meals because not enough money** 14% 19%

How often in last 6 months have you cut mealsbecause not enough moneyAlmost every month 0% 23%Some months but not every month 100% 32%Only one or two months 0% 45%

Paid rent late in the last 6 months** 9% 36%

How many times paid rent late in last 6 monthsOnce 0% 19%Two to three times 100% 60%Four to six times 0% 14%Six to eight times 0% 7%

Last 6 months couldn’t afford a telephone 20% 44%


Appendix EStudy Timeline

CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment Timeline

CHA closes CHA Old counseling agency contracts expire

11 buildings Transformation Plan New counseling agency contracts issues

"Winterization" Approved Good Neighbor Counseling starts

Sep-99 Oct-99 Apr-01

Jan-00 Dec-01

Study Study

Start Date Mar-00 April-June 00 Nov-Jan March-01 May-July 2001 Sep-01 End Date

Interviews Wave I 2001 In-depth Wave III In-depth

with staff Survey Wave II interviews Survey interviews

Survey

Apr-00

In-depth

interviews

Relocation Ongoing Sept-99-April-01

cha relocation counseling assesment interim report

Documents