23 Jan 2007 ... EVALUATING THE LIBERTY VIEW. HOPE VI PROJECT IN. DANVILLE, VIRGINIA
. THE FINAL REPORT. Center for Urban Progress. Howard ...
EVALUATING THE LIBERTY VIEW HOPE VI PROJECT IN DANVILLE, VIRGINIA THE FINAL REPORT
Center for Urban Progress Howard University th
1840 7 Street, NW Suite 318 Washington, DC 20001 January 23, 2007
I. INTRODUCTION Background Congress enacted the HOPE VI Program in 1992, based on the recommendations of the congressionally-chartered National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing. The HOPE VI program represented a significant change in federal policy toward public housing by provided competitive funding for Public Housing Authorities to accomplish the physical revitalization of a “distressed” public housing development, and to implement a program of community and supportive services to promote the selfsufficiency of the residents of that public housing community. Early grants were awarded to rebuild 100% public housing communities, however, the program quickly evolved to promote the creation of mixed-income communities, utilizing New Urbanist design principles. A key requirement of the program was for PHAs to engage partners and to leverage non-HOPE VI investments to build sustainable communities. In the late summer of 2001, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (US HUD) announced the award of a FY ’00 HOPE VI Revitalization grant in the amount of $20,647,784 to the Danville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (DRHA) for the revitalization of the Liberty View public housing development and the surrounding community. Liberty View was the DRHA’s largest and most distressed public housing development. The following are some of the indicators of distress that the DRHA identified in the approved HOPE VI application.
Based on an engineering review, the 47 year old property was functionally obsolete. $8.3 million was required to complete a conventional modernization of the site, which would only bring the property up to 1990 code standards. 58% of public housing applicants rejected offers of housing at Liberty View. Annual turnover at the property was approximately 50%. 1
Despite aggressive leasing efforts, 30% of units remained vacant. There were no households with income above 50% of the area median income. The successful application called for the demolition of 250 units of severely distressed public housing and, in their place, the development of a new mixed-income residential community, including rental and homeownership units, as well as a new community center/ office building and a golf training center. In addition to the real estate development, the HOPE VI program included a comprehensive program of Community and Supportive Services (CSS). Overall, the HOPE VI grant was expected to leverage an additional $37.1 million in public and private investments. The Evaluation Team
The DRHA issued a Request for Proposal for Evaluation Services and, in early 2002, the Danville
Redevelopment
and
Housing
Authority
(DRHA)
selected
Housing
Opportunities Unlimited (HOU), in partnership with the Howard University Center for Urban Progress (HUCUP), to evaluate the Liberty View HOPE VI neighborhood redevelopment program. The Evaluation Team collectively and individually has experience planning, evaluating and directly operating supportive service programs, both in public housing and privatelyowned affordable housing. This experience includes the following:
Directly operating three HOPE CSS programs from start to finish; Evaluating three HOPE VI programs; Operating resident service coordination programs in more than twenty five affordable housing communities over the past twenty five years; Directly administering and providing services under more than a dozen HUD and Department. of Education grants;
2
Providing technical assistance to housing authorities on more than twenty HOPE VI projects around the country, including writing six HUD-approved HOPE VI CSS Workplans; Assessing multiple PHA resident services departments and FSS programs; Directly operating community centers and advising PHAs on the planning, design and operation of community centers; In addition, the Lead Evaluator, has a strong understanding of how these programs operate within the broader context of operating large public housing authorities based on his experience as a part of teams implementing a Court-appointed receivership, PHA management assessments and as a former member of the Board of Commissioners of a large PHA. The Conclusion of the Evaluation Effort The following report constitutes the culmination of over four years of research, and five interim evaluation reports (one baseline report and four annual reports). The Evaluation Team has employed a consistent methodology throughout the evaluation period, which is described in detail in the following section. It is important to note that the DRHA has cooperated with this evaluation effort completely. The DRHA, as an institution, has been entirely transparent to the Evaluation Team, in several cases, the HOPE VI staff has gone above and beyond to provide the Evaluation Team with the data necessary to explore difficult questions. In this respect, the Evaluation Team acknowledges a debt of gratitude to the DRHA’s staff. This Final Evaluation Report begins with a presentation of the evaluation design followed by four primary sections, as follows. The Impact of Community and Supportive Services Program on Former Residents of the Liberty View Public Housing Community; The Impact of the HOPE VI Project on Economic Development and Real Estate Values in the Former Liberty View Neighborhood; Resident Satisfaction with the Liberty View/ Seeland Crossing HOPE VI Project; Best Practices. 3
II. Evaluation Design Methodology This evaluation process has sought to measure the impact of the HOPE VI project in four primary ways. First, the evaluation measures the extent to which the project meets goals defined in relevant strategic planning documents, including the CSS Workplan and the Revitalization Plan, and goals established by HUD for all HOPE VI programs. Second, the evaluation measures the extent to which community residents make progress toward self-sufficiency and the target area demonstrates positive economic development. Third, the evaluation demonstrates how the HOPE VI target area evolves in comparison to a similar public housing community (Cardinal Village), the city of Danville, the Danville MSA, and the State of Virginia. Finally, the evaluation gauges the extent to which former residents of Liberty View have been involved in and/or satisfied with the project. In evaluating the outcomes of the HOPE VI CSS program, the evaluation focuses specifically on the following areas: A. The Physical Development Effort B. Case Management, Career Development and Educational Advancement; C. Homeownership; D. Relocation; E. Other Program Components; F. Durability and Sustainability of the CSS Program; and G. CSS Program Systems.
Data Collection Efforts In addition to baseline data from 2000 on the incomes of former Liberty View households, the HOU/ Howard University CUP Team collected the following data on an annual basis from 2003 through 2006:
4
Information collected by the DRHA property management division, as well as DRHA’s third-party management agent for tax credit units at Seeland Crossing, on the incomes of former residents of Liberty View and residents of Cardinal Village; Reviews of case management files and activities and interviews with case managers. Reviews of the career development program including a review of monthly reports and interviews with the contractor; Interviews with the Homeownership Coordinator and special reports requested by the Evaluation Team related to the homeownership program homeowners; A variety of reports, newsletters and program documents provided by the HOPE VI staff; The City of Danville’s annual Land Book; Data collected by Dun and Bradstreet regarding the number and revenue of area businesses; Various reports submitted to HUD regarding the CSS program; In depth interviews with seven households in 2005 and 2006; Focus groups with participants in the GED program and the youth summer employment program; and, The Evaluation Team conducted four annual surveys of resident needs and satisfaction, using an identical survey tool in each year, 2003-2006. The following table summarizes the response rate for each annual survey effort. Table # 1: Participation in the Annual Survey Conducted by the Evaluation Team Year
Total Households Target Population
2003 2004 2005 2006
124 102 92 83
in Households Surveyed 77 62 58 51
Response Rate 62% 61% 63% 61%
Finally, while the scope of services for evaluation did not include additional data collection for the preparation of the Final Evaluation Report, the Evaluation Team did obtain and analyze a final round of income data for former Liberty View residents in
5
December 2006 as well as a report on career development activity conducted by the HOPE VI office in 2006. The Real Estate Development Effort The first construction initiated under the HOPE VI project was the redevelopment of an old armory building near the HOPE VI site into a new DRHA maintenance building and service center. A putting green and driving range were included as a part of the overall development of this site, which were originally intended to be a location for a youth golf training program. The residential development effort was divided into four phases. As of December 2006, Phases I, II and III were completed and Phase III was in the process of being leased up. DRHA is considering how to most effectively proceed with Phase IIIa – a final homeownership phase. The following table summarizes the Seeland Crossing development plan, as of December 2006. Table 2: Summary of Seeland Crossing Development Plan Public Housing
Public Housing
Tax Credit
Lease
Fee
Rental Without
Rental With Tax
Rental with
Purchase
Simple
Tax Credit
Credit Subsidy
Section 8
Subsidy
Subsidy
Phase I
32
0
0
14
10
Phase II
0
19
12
0
0
Phase III
0
24
20
0
0
Phase IIIa*
0
0
0
12
36
* Reflects the currently approved plan, which may be revised.
Throughout the development process, the DRHA acquired numerous parcels in the vicinity of the original HOPE VI site, which are not currently part of the approved development plan. Some of these parcels present the opportunity for the ongoing development of affordable housing or other public interest uses.
6
III. The Impact of the Community and Supportive Services Program
1
This section of the evaluation report explores what impact the Liberty View/ Seeland Crossing HOPE VI Community and Supportive Services Program had on the original, pre-redevelopment residents of the Liberty View public housing community. A. Changes in Size and Average Income of the Target Community
Dislocation/ Reoccupancy The following tables illustrate the reduction in the target population for the Liberty View/ Seeland Crossing HOPE VI Community and Supportive Services Program. Table 3: Potential Caseload* Year
2000
2003
2004
2005
2006
124
102
92
83
(at grant award) # of
157
Households** * Data collection was conducted in May/June of each year, except for the baseline data from 2000. ** In each year prior to 2006, the Evaluation Team chose to count some households as a part of the potential caseload despite the fact that there was no income data available for those households. This was based on evidence that the HOPE VI CSS team was tracking and communicating with these households, even though they lived outside of DRHA-subsidized housing. The 83 households identified in 2006 all resided in DRHA-subsidized housing.
The following table summarizes the reasons that explain the reduction of the potential caseload by 74 households, approximately half of the original population.
1
It is worth noting that a new HOPE VI Director took over management of the DRHA’s Liberty View/ Seeland Crossing HOPE VI in the spring of 2005. Mr. Tom Barrett replaced Mr. Ray Manieri in this position. In addition, a new Executive Director took over management of the DRHA in early 2006. Mr. Gary Wasson replaced Mr. Daryl Dalton in this position.
7
Table 4: Reasons for Reduction in Potential Caseload Reason Household is No Longer in the
Number of Households*
Potential Caseload Evicted
34
Pre-Relocation Voluntary Moves or
22
Abandoned Units Death
9
Post-Relocation Voluntary Moves
8
Incarceration
0
Nursing Home
1
* Between May 2006 and December 2006, two households that previously were incarcerated and two households that had voluntarily moved out of DRHA housing returned to Seeland Crossing in December 2006. However, the total reduction in the target population remained the same (74 households) because four households dropped out of the target population between May and December 2006 – one due to eviction and three as a result of voluntary moves.
As of December 2006, 31 former Liberty View households resided in rental units and 8 in lease purchase units at the new Seeland Crossing. The following table summarizes the occupancy of Seeland Crossing as of December 2006. Table 5: Occupancy in Seeland Crossing as of December 2006 Phase I –
Phase II –
Phase III –
Phase I -
Phase I -
Rental
Rental
Rental
Lease
Fee
(16 units yet
Purchase
Simple
TOTAL
to lease up) # of former Liberty
18
7
6
8
0
39
0
24
22
6
0
52
0
0
0
0
10
10
View households # of other public housing/ S8 residents # of non-public housing residents
8
Composition of Returning Households, Non-returning Households and Other Residents of Seeland Crossing As of December 2006, 39 former Liberty View had returned to the revitalized Seeland Crossing community; thirty-one as renters and eight as lease-purchase program participants. Of the thirty-one renter households, seventeen were headed by an elderly and/or disabled adult who had an average household income of $7,896. Of the remaining fourteen households, wages were the primary source of income for eleven, and the average income among the fourteen was $12,121. Of the eight lease purchase program participants, three were employed, three were disabled, one was elderly and one was unemployed. The average income among these eight households was $15,503, however, excluding the one unemployed household that reported zero income, the average among the remaining seven was $17,718. Among those households that remained in the target population (in other public housing or Section 8 housing) but did not return to Seeland Crossing, nine were headed by an elderly and/or disabled adult and their average income was $10,816. Among the remaining 35 households, 17 had wages as the primary source of income and the average income was $9,241. The Evaluation Team also collected income data for residents of Seeland Crossing that were not former Liberty View residents (not a part of the original target population). Among the 46 non-former-Liberty View households that leased up in tax credit rental units at Seeland Crossing, 4 were headed by an elderly adult, among whom the average income was $10,747. In addition, 19 non-elderly households claimed social security as their primary source of income (likely disabled households), with an average income of $9,894. Among the remaining 23 households, 16 claimed wages as the primary source of income and the average annual income was $12,500. In total, 10 of the 46 the non-former Liberty View households at Seeland Crossing receive non-social security public assistance.
9
The Evaluation Team noted a factor that appears to have limited the income of households that moved into tax credit units at Seeland Crossing. DRHA’s approved tax credit application for Phase II, submitted on March 14, 2003, states that tax credit funds will support 31 units to be occupied by households at or below 40% of area median income (AMI). Similarly, the approved Phase III tax credit application, submitted on March 11, 2004, states that tax credit funds will support 24 units to be occupied by households at or below 54.55% of AMI and 20 units to be occupied by households at or below 45.45% of AMI. The result of these financing decisions was that 13 public housing households that applied for units at Seeland Crossing were denied because they were over income. Two of these households were former Liberty View households, one of which was subsequently able to move into a lease purchase unit when it became available.
In July 2006, the average income among the five non-former-Liberty View lease purchase households for which the Evaluation Team obtained income data was $14,675, with the highest at $16,500 and the lowest at $13,000. The average income among the ten market rate homebuyers at Seeland Crossing in July 2006 was approximately $22,360, with the highest at $27,540 and the lowest at $16,380. Changes in Average Annual Household Income Among Former Liberty View Households The following table summarizes the average incomes of the caseload in each year as well as the average incomes over the same period of those 83 households that made up the caseload in May 2006. Table: 6 Changes in Average Income Among Former Liberty View Households* 2000
2003
2004
2005
2006
149
115
100
90
83
$5,229
$6,362
$7,585
$9,584
$8,990
(at grant award) # of households in caseload for which income data was available Average income among households in
10
caseload Average income among 83 households
$5,288
$7,078
$7,340
$9,476
$8,990
in the final target population * * Except for the historical baseline data from 2000, income data was gathered in the second quarter of each year. In 2000-2005, the HOPE VI Office was tracking households who had left DRHA-subsidized housing and, as such, income data was not available for all tracked households.
These data illustrate that the 83 households that remained in the caseload throughout the evaluation criteria had a substantially similar average income in each year as compared to the overall caseload in the same year. This indicates that neither households with higher than average incomes, nor households with lower than average incomes were disproportionately represented in the population that left the potential caseload. 2
Changes in Average Annual Household Income Among Cardinal Village Households
The decline in income among former Liberty View households between 2005 and 2006 was not mirrored in the Cardinal Village population. The following table illustrates the trend in average income among Cardinal Village households between 2003 and 2006.
Table 7: Average Household Income Among Cardinal Village Households Number Households
2003
2004
2005
2006
99
102
105
108
$6,842
$6,772
$8,764
$9,140
Residing at Cardinal Village Average Annual Income: Cardinal Village households
Changes in Composition of the Target and Control Populations and Their Impact on the Analysis of Average Annual Incomes Prior to analyzing or comparing the changes in income between the target population and the control population, it is important to understand the impact that changes in the populations have had on average incomes. The former Liberty View population has not 2
All data presented herein for the Cardinal Village population excludes former Liberty View households that reside at Cardinal Village. These households are counted in the former Liberty View target population.
11
gained any new households during the evaluation period, and has been reduced by 74 households. Approximately 15% - 25% of the Cardinal Village population changes each year. The tables below detail the average incomes of the households that account for these changes in the two populations. Table 8: Average Annual Incomes of Households Exiting the Former Liberty View Target Population 2000*
2003
2004
2005
Average Annual
$4,157
$2,201
$8,944
$8,872
Income Among
(30
(15
(10
(7 households)
Households In
households) households)
2006 Unknown
households)
Their Last Year In The Target Population Average Annual
$5,229
$6,362
$7,585
$9,584
$8,990
Income Among Former Liberty View Households * While a total of 74 households have exited the target population, income data was available for only 65. The remaining 9 left Liberty View between the time of the HOPE VI application and the initiation of project and, as a result, no baseline income data from 2000 was available for these households. ** This is income data from 2000 and the 30 households exited the population between 2000 and 2003.
Table 9: Average Annual Incomes of Households Entering and Exiting the Cardinal Village Population
Average Annual Income
2003
2004
2005
2006
Unknown
$5,287
$7,007
$8,534
(14 households)
(22 households)
(28 households)
$8,250
$7,223
$10,188
Unknown
(10
(21 households)
(28 households)
Among Households in Their First Year Residing at Cardinal Village Average Annual Income Among Households in Their Last Year Residing at
households)
Cardinal Village
12
Average Annual Income
$6,842
$6,772
$8,764
$9,140
Among All Cardinal Village Households
The data presented in the two tables above illustrate that, the average annual income of former Liberty View households in the year prior to exiting the target population tended to be lower than the average annual income of all former Liberty View households for the same year. In contrast, the average annual income of former Cardinal Village households in the year prior to exiting Cardinal Village tended to be substantially higher than the average annual income of all Cardinal Village households for the same year. At the same time, households in their first year at Cardinal Village had an average annual income below the average for all Cardinal Village households in the same year. When comparing the changes in average annual income in the target population and the control population, it therefore important to take into account that at least some of the rise in average annual incomes among Liberty View households was due to lower income households exiting the target population. Meanwhile, there is a substantial “drag” on average incomes at Cardinal Village due to the fact that higher income households tend to move out and are replaced by lower income households. Comparison of Changes in Average Annual Household Incomes in the Former Liberty View Target Population and the Cardinal Village Control Population In the first three annual reports, the Evaluation Team reported that comparatively, average household incomes among former Liberty View households were rising faster than among Cardinal Village households and clearly outpacing inflation. As illustrated in the following graph, that trend did not continue in 2006, and the level of increase in average incomes in the two populations was very similar.
13
$12,000 Average Annual Income Among Households Former Liberty View Households
$10,000 $8,000
Average Annual Income Among Cardinal Village Households
$6,000 $4,000
Point A
$2,000 Point B
$0 2000
2003
2004
2005
2006
One key moment has been identified in each of the average income trends plotted in the graph above. Point A identifies the beginning of a significant increase in average incomes at Cardinal Village in 2004, a departure from the previously flat trend. Point B identifies the beginning of a decrease in the average income among former Liberty View households in 2005, a departure from the previous trend of significant increases. This is a marked contrast from the trend of increase among Cardinal Village households during the same period. The Evaluation Team sought to understand these two key changes in the average income trends. The Team learned that Point A appears to correspond with the initiation of two supportive service resources at Cardinal Village: the Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Program and the Neighborhood Network Center (NNC). Pathways to Self-Sufficiency is a supportive service program, operated by Pittsylvania County Community Action (PCCA) and funded with DRHA’s HUD ROSS grant. The two Pathways to Self-Sufficiency case managers, based at Cardinal Village, serve households throughout DRHA public housing, however their largest caseload is at Cardinal Village. In the summer of 2006, the Pathways case managers were working with 28 households in Cardinal Village. Relatively similar in focus to the HOPE VI CSS program, though resourced at a significantly lower level, the Pathways to Self14
Sufficiency program places an emphasis on employment and training. The DRHA’s Director of Resident Relations reported that the contract for this program was awarded on or around February 2003 and the program was in full operation toward the end of 2003. The NNC, also funded by HUD grant, is operated by nearby Danville Community College (DCC). According to the DRHA Department of Resident Relations, the NCC is a host location for job search, adult education, computer training and open access computer usage. The NNC at Cardinal Village was also initiated in early 2003. As noted in the Third Annual Report, “…the sizable jump in income from 2004 to 2005 for Cardinal Village residents was driven primarily by increased earnings from wages and secondarily by increased governmental support through food stamps, DSS-issued payments and social security.” These findings are consistent with the outcomes one would expect from an employment-focused case management program. Typically, case managers work with households to stabilize their income by accessing government programs, then connecting them to education and training opportunities, and eventually connecting them with employment. Resulting increases in income should begin to appear in the second year of operation, which for the Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Program was in 2004. The Evaluation Team also investigated the decline in average incomes among former Liberty View households between 2005 and 2006, indicated by Point B on the graph above. While the regional economy, and specifically the employment outlook, in Danville have been dismal, this factor has been present throughout the evaluation period. As illustrated in the economic development portion of this evaluation, the regional economy has been consistently depressed in recent years. Consequently, the Evaluation Team sought a more specific explanation of this departure from the pre-established trend of gains in average income among former Liberty View households. The vast majority of the reductions in household incomes between 2005 and 2006 among the 83 households in the target population can be accounted for by 11 households (13%); they each lost at least $5,000 in income from wages, because they lost their jobs and 15
either did not return to work or, in two cases, obtained lower paying jobs. These households lost a total of $156,142 representing 93% of the total reductions in income between 2005 and 2006 in the target population. A similar comparison of annual incomes among the 90 households in the target population between 2004 and 2005, reveals that there were 5 job losses (6%) which accounted for $16,477 in reduced income, representing 37% of the total reductions in income between 2004 and 2005 in the target population. Yet another similar comparison of annual incomes among the 100 households in the target population between 2003 and 2004 reveals that there were 5 job losses (5%), which accounted for $39,947 in reduced income, representing 32% of the total reductions in income between 2003 and 2004 in the target population. These data, summarized in the table below, indicate a significant drop in job retention in the target population in 2005-2006 as compared to the two previous years. Table 10: Summary of Data Related to Job Loses in the Target Population Number of
Percent of All
Reductions in
% of Total
Households
Households
Income in
Income
with Job Losses
with Job Losses
Households
Reductions in
with Job Losses
Population Attributable to Households with Job Losses
2003-2004
5
5% (5/100)
$39,947
32%
2004-2005
5
6% (5/90)
$16,477
37%
2005-2006
11
13% (11/83)
$156,142
93%
In reviewing the CSS program structure, the Evaluation Team observed that the career development function relied on communication and referral between the HOPE VI Case Managers and the on-site PCCA Employment Specialist. The PCCA Employment
16
Specialist played the primary role in job placement and employer outreach, while the Case Managers played the primary role in job retention. In February 2006, one of the two HOPE VI case managers was terminated, and the DRHA decided not to fill this position. As discussed below in the case management section of this report, this decision substantially weakened the effectiveness of the case management function, including job retention support. It appears that the data presented above is evidence of the impact of this weakened case management function. Final Collection of Income Data for the HOPE VI Target Population in December 2006 The change in 2006 of the previous trend of increasing household incomes among former Liberty View households left the Evaluation Team with questions about whether this would be a short term “hiccup” or a more sustained change in the trend. As such, the Evaluation Team decided to collect income data for former Liberty View households one more time (in December 2006), despite the fact that this final data collection was not required in the original scope of work. The following chart illustrates the trend in average incomes among former Liberty View households over the evaluation period, including the December 2006. Table: 11 Changes in Average Income Among Former Liberty View Households* 2000
2003
2004
2005
2006
(at grant
Dec 2006
award) # of households in caseload for which
149
115
100
90
83
83**
$5,229
$6,362
$7,585
$9,584
$8,990
$10,226
income data was available Average income among households in caseload * Except for the historical baseline data from 2000 and the final data collection in December 2006, income data was gathered in the second quarter of each year. In 2000-2005, the HOPE VI Office was tracking households who had left DRHA-subsidized housing and, as such, income data was not available for all tracked households.
17
** The 83 households for whom income data was available in December 2006 was actually slightly different from the 83 households for whom income data was available in May 2006. Four households left the target population (one eviction and three voluntary moves) while four households that had previously left the target population leased up at Seeland Crossing after May 2006. This subtraction of four and addition of four resulted in a steady overall number of 83 in the target population.
As documented above, the Evaluation Team believes that a temporary reduction in the HOPE VI program’s case management capacity was a key factor that resulted in poor job retention from 2005 to 2006 and a resulting reduction in the average income of the target population when measured in May 2006. In the Spring of 2006, the HOPE VI CSS Program Coordinator had to realign the caseload assignments to compensate for the lost case manager position, then in the late Fall, the DRHA decided to fill the previously vacated case management position. The average income revealed in the final December 2006 data collection effectively resumes the original trend of increases in average income among the former Liberty View target population that had previously been established between 2003 and 2005. The Evaluation Team therefore analyzed the differences between the data collected in May 2006 and December 2006 to determine whether the HOPE VI case management team recovered capacity after the caseload realignment in the Spring of 2006, or whether other factors resulted in the increase in average income from May to December 2006. As noted above, while there were 83 households in the target population in May 2006 and December 2006, there was a change in the composition of these 83 households. Four households left the target population (one by eviction and three by voluntary moves) and four former-Liberty View households that had previously left the target population returned to Seeland Crossing (two from jail and two from non-DRHA housing). The average income of the four households that left the target population after May 2006 was $8,065, while the average income of the four “new” households in the target population was approximately $1,000 less at $7,038. The change in the composition of the 83 households was not a factor that helped to increase the average household income; on the contrary, it was a drag on the average income.
18
Among the 79 households that were a part of the target population in both May and December 2006, 16 households accounted for approximately 90% of the total change in income in the target population. Of these, 7 lost income in an amount between $2,496 and $14,784 while 11 increased their incomes in an amount between $2,681 and $36,990. Of those seven households that represented the bulk of lost income, three lost their jobs, one had reduced income from a small business, two experienced reductions in public assistance and one had reduced social security income because a member of the household left. Of those eleven households that represented the bulk of the gained income, seven secured employment (in three of these cases the employment was secured by a second wage earner in the household), one experienced an increase in their wages as a result of a promotion, one added an employed member to the household, one experienced an increase in public assistance and one secured SSI. In a year-end report, the PCCA Employment Specialist who works out of the HOPE VI offices reported working with two of the four households with the highest increases in income from May to December 2006. In addition, the Employment Specialist reported two additional job placements in the final month of the year that were not yet reflected in the management data (generally residents report increases in income after their first pay check arrives). The HOPE VI CSS Program Coordinator also reported that the case management staff worked actively during this period with all of the households that increased their income as a result of new employment. These data, together with data previously collected and analyzed, indicate that, during the period from early 2003 to the end of 2006, the HOPE VI program positively impacted the average income of the target population. It appears that the temporary spike in job losses between May 2005 and May 2006, which resulted in a drop in the average income, was substantially reversed in the period from May to December 2006.
19
Between May and December 2006, the number of households that secured new employment (7) significantly outpaces the number of households with job losses (3). The following table illustrates the trend of job losses in the target community and the impact that job losses had on overall income in the target population. This table is similar to Table 9, except that it includes data from December 2006.
Table 12: Summary of Data Related to Job Loses in the Target Population Number of
Percent of All
Reductions in
% of Total
Households
Households
Income in
Income
with Job Losses
with Job Losses
Households
Reductions in
with Job Losses
Population Attributable to Households with Job Losses
2003-2004
5
5% (5/100)
$39,947
32%
2004-2005
5
6% (5/90)
$16,477
37%
2005-May 2006
11
13% (11/83)
$156,142
93%
May-Dec. 2006
3
4% (3/83)
$28,260
49%
The period from 2005 to May 2006 stands out as the exception to the apparent trend of 46% of the target population losing employment, which represented less than half of the overall loss in income in the target population during that year. Despite the resumption of this more positive trend, it appears that job retention continued to be an ongoing challenge among households in the target population. The additional income data collected in December 2006 have revealed that the spike in job losses from 2005 to May 2006 and the resulting decrease in the average income of the target population was in fact a temporary disruption. It appears that after losing a case management position in early 2006, the HOPE VI program realigned its resources and was able to put back in place the support that allowed numerous households to secure new employment.
20
B. Progress Against the CSS Workplan The HOPE VI CSS Workplan for Liberty View, which was approved by U.S. HUD, outlines quantitative programmatic goals for the CSS Program. These are some of the benchmarks by which HUD will measure the success of HOPE VI CSS program. The following chart illustrates the HOPE VI program’s progress toward the programmatic goals established in Section 3 of the CSS Workplan.
21
Table 13: Progress Against Goals Established in the Liberty View HOPE VI CSS Workplan GOALS
CSS Workplan Projected # Resident/ Households To Be Served
Results Reported in First Evaluation Report
Cumulative Results As of Summer 2004
Cumulative Results As of Summer 2005
Cumulative Results As of Summer 2006
# Residents Obtaining GED’s Job Training and Employment
18
0
0
2
2
Job Readiness Training Job Skills Training Job Search Assistance
7
7
21
33
58
8 11
10 14
26 (not tracked separately)
31
51 76
Obtaining New Employment Support Services
26
22
35
42
59
Childcare Transportation Health Service Referrals Mental Health Treatment Substance Abuse Treatment
21 62
20 106
35 316
40 437
43 475
5
2
4
5
5
2
8
10
12
15
Nutrition/Health/Fitn ess Family/Parenting Classes Entrepreneurship
2
0
0
0
1
2
1
4
4
5
Business Start-Up Training Businesses Started Homeownership
7
0
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
Residents Provided With Training
25
50
25
0
145 (18 HOPE VI residents) 14
205
Lease Purchase Agreements Signed
105 (18 HOPE VI residents) 0
Home Purchases Section 3
20
1
1
1
1
Employment on Project Youth
10
5
7
7
13
Year Round Youth Program Placements
8
0
20
20
20
Summer Youth Employment Placements
25
21
46
56
62
Education
22
14
As indicated in Table 10, the HOPE VI Office has met or exceeded most of its goals established in the original CSS Workplan. As indicated in the last Annual Report, outcomes related to transportation, homeownership counseling and youth summer employment are particularly noteworthy given the extent to which they far outstrip initial expectations established in the CSS Workplan. To date, the HOPE VI Office has not its original CSS Workplan goals related to residents obtaining GEDs, purchasing homes and business start-up training. C. Case Management, Career Development and Educational Advancement Building Case Management Capacity
In 2003, after the first review of the DRHA’s HOPE VI case management system, the Evaluation Team recommended that the DRHA provide the case management staff with additional training and that one system for documenting and tracking resident progress toward case management goals be implemented. The following are selections from the case management portion of the First Annual Report. The filing system and forms used by the case managers were inconsistent. One case manager maintains all materials related to a household in one file, while the second case manager keeps different types of materials in separate files. It was difficult to determine the level of engagement that residents have with the program. The files reviewed did not sufficiently indicate regular follow up by the case management staff. While it is somewhat difficult to measure the impact of the case management program by reviewing the files, other data does illustrate a significant impact. It is clear that significantly more work is being done by case managers than is reflected in case files.
23
In the Second Annual Report in 2004, the Evaluation Team noted some progress in developing the case management system, but continued to note concerns about the extent to which case management files fully reflected the work of the HOPE VI staff and consistency of the case management approach to all households. Comments included the following. While overall data on household income and sources of income tell an undoubtedly favorable story about the impact of the HOPE VI program overall, the case management files do not adequately document the efforts of the case management team and thus leave some questions about the effectiveness of the case management program itself. In response to last year’s evaluation, the Program Coordinator has begun holding regular case conferences to review particularly difficult cases with the case managers It remains difficult to track resident progress. The files did not reflect regular follow- up with residents regarding goals and it was difficult to determine the level that residents are engaged in the program. In 2005, the HOPE VI Office increased its investment in case management systems and training for case management staff by engaging Housing Opportunities Unlimited to provide case management form and procedures that would facilitate more effective evaluation and improved service delivery as well as by sending staff to HUD-sponsored trainings and meetings. As a result, the Evaluation Team’s case management review ceased to focus on basic systems and was able to focus on more complex issues including case management with the hardest to serve households. Case management file reviews in 2005 and 2006 revealed significantly improved documentation for many cases. The 2006 Annual Evaluation Report stated the following. A review of a sample of 30 files indicated significant improvement in goal planning, service delivery, outcomes, documentation and tracking for 24
clients regularly seen by case management staff. Findings include the following. The CSS Program Coordinator has implemented a uniform system for case management documentation and tracking. Case management files are consistent with the case management tracking database Case management staff has done an impressive job of connecting seniors to necessary services. The evaluation team found a correlation between regular case management interventions and positive employment outcomes. In addition, the HOPE VI Office significantly improved its career development capacity by entering into an MOU with Pittsylvania County Community Services to place a fulltime Employment Specialist in the HOPE VI Office. By the end of 2005, the HOPE VI Office had put in place the ingredients for a case management program that had the potential to take service delivery to the next level. As noted earlier in this report, the capacity of the HOPE VI case management program was significantly reduced by the loss of a case manager in early 2006. The DRHA initially decided not to fill this position, a decision that was eventually reversed in the fall of 2006. The loss of this case management position required the HOPE VI CSS Coordinator to redistribute the caseload. The redistribution of the caseload required using part of the time of case managers under a separate DRHA contract funded with ROSS grant dollars as well as the DRHA’s Property Manager/ Relocation Coordinator for Seeland Crossing. In the 2006 Annual Evaluation Report, the Evaluation Team detailed numerous concerns not only about the resources devoted to providing HOPE VI case management service but also about the resulting quality of the service. Indeed, the positive comments about the case management files reproduced above from the 2006 Annual Evaluation Report were qualified as follows.
25
These improvements over last year, however, are not present in files for clients not seen regularly (at least once in a six month period). The later group includes numerous households that were in the caseload of the HOPE VI Case Manager that was let go in early 2006. Many of the clients in this category have made limited progress towards their FSS goals. These households also tended to rate case management services lower on the Evaluation Team’s resident satisfaction survey. Six of the seven residents that gave case management services the lowest possible rating were in the case load of the case manager who was let go. In the Fall of 2006, the DRHA decided to fill the previously vacated HOPE VI case manager position. Eviction Prevention Assistance The Evaluation Team previously recommended that the HOPE VI office institute a written referral system between DHRA management and CSS staff to address lease compliance issues before they reach the point of eviction. This process was not implemented at Seeland Crossing, either with the private management firm or DRHA management, which may have limited past eviction prevention efforts and may continue to limit this function. Case Management with Vulnerable Households In 2005, the Evaluation Team’s case management review focused on services being provided to vulnerable households in the target population. Vulnerable households were identified as those making less than $6,000 in annual income.
3
This represents income
just below the lower range of income received by households that receive social security (that is to say, just below the lowest annual income that can be expected in a household receiving steady monthly income). 3
The Evaluation Team acknowledges that a variety of other factors can be used to identify households in crisis or “vulnerable households.” The purpose of this particular methodology is not to identify every vulnerable household, or even the most vulnerable, but rather to identify households that clearly required significant case management support and to follow how they were supported by the HOPE VI CSS Program.
26
In 2005, there were twenty households in this extremely low-income category. The Evaluation Team found that in 2006, nine of the twenty had increased their annual income by more than $1,000, of which four had increased their income above $6,000 (three of the four secured employment). Nine of these households reported essentially no change in income (less than a $400 gain or loss), one reported a loss of income of more than $1,000 and one was evicted. In addition, in 2006, there were eight new households in this extremely low income category that reported income below $6,200 (the $6,000 criteria from 2005 plus a 2.5% inflation adjustment). In six of these cases, the household lost employment, in one case, the household’s employment income was reduced and, in one case, the household lost unemployment benefits. While these data indicated that the case management staff did focus on working with the most vulnerable households identified by the Evaluation Team in 2005, job retention problems resulted in an overall increase in the number of households in this category as of May 2006. Services to Clients with Substance Abuse and Mental Health Issues The review of vulnerable households in 2005 revealed that the case managers suspected that a number of these households did not maintain a steady source of income as a result of substance abuse. In the Third Annual Evaluation Report, the Evaluation Team stated, None of the households [among the twenty households identified as vulnerable] that were identified as having a potential chemical dependence problem, or a mental health issue, had been connected with assessment services that would confirm these conditions and allow for referral to treatment.
27
In response to the recommendation of the Third Annual Evaluation Report, the CSS Program Coordinator did successfully establish connections to reputable drug and alcohol and mental health providers in 2006 and made referrals to these providers. Nevertheless, many of the households identified as having potential chemical dependence problems were not connected to services that would allow for effective treatment, and as a result, any real chance at securing and maintaining steady employment. FSS Outcomes The HOPE VI CSS Coordinator provided the Evaluation Team with a detailed breakdown of the goals established by FSS participants and their progress toward those goals. It is worth noting that the ability to produce such a detailed status report on FSS households, their goals and escrow amounts is a reflection of strong record keeping with regard to FSS cases. The HOPE VI Office reports that a total of 51 former Liberty View adults have participated in the FSS program during the grant period, of which 29 were participating in the FSS program as of July 2006 (excluding four previous graduates). Table 14: Status of Former Liberty View FSS Participants as of July 2006 FSS Status
Number of Individuals
Active participants
29
Terminated Evicted Moved voluntarily Deceased
6 6 3 1
Contract expired Jailed Graduated with escrow pay out
1 1 4
Among the 29 active FSS participants, the HOPE VI Office reports significant success in meeting FSS goals that were established collaboratively between the Case Managers and
28
their clients. Of the 24 active FSS participants with clearly delineated FSS goals, 14 (58%) had achieved at least one of their established goals, which in most cases were to obtain full-time employment. 5 other FSS participants (21%) with goals related to educational advancement and homeownership were engaged in an activity directly related to meeting their goals (classes or counseling). 5 FSS participants (21%) were not making progress toward their goals. As stated above, 5 did not have clearly delineated goals. The four FSS participants that completed their FSS contracts received escrow pay outs totaling $18,940. The HOPE VI Office did not track the uses of those pay outs. Among active participants, seven have escrowed more than $500 and an additional six have escrowed more than $50. These low escrow outcomes are concerning and may indicate a lack of workforce participation by FSS households. The Evaluation Team learned that DRHA stopped escrowing funds for FSS participants when they moved into tax credit housing at Seeland Crossing. According to the DRHA’s Executive Director, since the tax credit developments are stand alone properties of a small size, and given that public housing dollars used to fund escrow accounts come directly from operating funds, this kind of contribution would make the properties financially unworkable. Career Development The percentage of wage earners in the HOPE VI target population declined in comparison to previous years, a trend that was mirrored in the control population, though somewhat less dramatically. Table 15: Wage Earners Among Former Liberty View and Cardinal Village Households 2000
2003
2004
2005
2006
27.5%
27.8%
38.0%
46%
40%
Liberty View households
(41/ 149)
(32/115)
(38/100)
(41/90)
(33/83)
% wage earners among Cardinal
unknown
44%
39%
44%
41%
(44/99)
(40/102)
(46/105)
(44/108)
% wage earners among former
Village households
29
To better understand the dynamics of career development in the target population, the Evaluation Team analyzed over four years how many individuals 1) lost jobs, 2) obtained employment and 3) how many wage earners simply left the target population (be it through voluntary moves or evictions). This analysis is presented in the table below. Table 16: Changes in Employment Among Households in the Target Population 2003
2004
2005
2006
Dec 2006
32
38
41
33
37
3 evicted
2 evicted, 1
1 evicted, 1
0
n/a
earners that left the
jailed, 1
voluntary
target population
voluntary
move
Total wage earners in the target population Number of wage
move 14
12
5
7
n/a
5
5
11
3
n/a
n/a
15 + 1
24 + 1
Unknown*
Unknown*
remained employed
childcare
childcare
by the same employer
business
business
Number of residents who secured employment by the following year Number of residents that lost their employment by the following year Number that
from the previous year Note: Income data upon which this chart is based were pulled each year in the months of May or June. Wage income data obtained for the purposes of determining rent for public housing and Section 8 require employer verification. * In 2006, the new DRHA management information system did not contain usable data regarding employers.
30
This table illustrates a trend across the periods 2003 to 2004 and 2004 to 2005 of annual employment gains that are more than double the employment losses. Between 2005 and 2006, this trend was reversed, with more than double the number of employment losses as employment gains. Between May and December 2006, the data returns to the original trend established between 2003 and 2005. Excluding work with the DRHA’s summer youth employment program, the PCCA Employment Specialist reported working with more than 60 different individuals between June 2005 and December 2006 on issues including job search, resume building and interview preparation. The PCCA Employment Specialist made 24 job placements during this period into jobs with hourly rates ranging from $5.75 to $8.00 per hour. Only twelve of these placements were former Liberty View residents. The majority of the others were Seeland Crossing residents who came from other public housing communities.
The Employment Specialist had significant success in connecting her clients with new jobs in Danville. Nine of the twenty four job placements were with the Televista Call Center at $8.00 per hour. Televista is one of the only major new employers in Danville in the past four years. Section 3 The DRHA met its goals with regard to engaging Section 3 firms, encouraging resident hiring and engaging MBE/WBE firms in connection with the HOPE VI project. Thirteen (13) former Liberty View residents have obtained jobs working on the HOPE VI project and over $3.3 million dollars have been spent on Section 3 firms (the large majority has been in connection with a general contractor that has its headquarters in the immediate surrounding neighborhood). Educational Advancement There was a steady decline throughout the evaluation period in the participation of HOPE VI residents in the GED classes provided by Danville Public Schools in the HOPE VI Office. According to reports provided by the HOPE VI Office, in 2004 there were 31
nineteen (19) enrollees in the on-site GED program, in 2005 there were twelve (12) participants and in 2006, there were seven (7) participants. None of the seven enrollees have demonstrated a full grade level of improvement based on NRS testing. While there remains significant evidence of need in the target population, this program simply did not attract resident interest and/or sustain participation. While the GED program has not been a success, the HOPE VI has had significant success in connecting residents with Danville Community College. As of the Summer of 2006, the HOPE VI Office had paid DCC tuition for 11 former Liberty View residents as well as tuition for one former Liberty View resident to the DRHA cosmetology training program. A number of the households that received support to attend DCC were young adult, non-head of households. The HOPE VI Office also supported one resident to obtain a Certified Nursing Assistant certification. While tracking the educational outcomes of youth was beyond the scope of this evaluation effort, the consistent engagement of these youth in summer activities, organized by the HOPE VI Office, as well as direct feedback from parents, indicates that the HOPE VI staff played an important supporting role for a group of at least ten teenagers in obtaining their high school diplomas. D. Homeownership
Homeownership at Seeland Crossing Phase I of the Seeland Crossing development included ten for sale units and fourteen lease purchase units. The for sale units were all sold to non-public housing residents and all of the lease purchase units were occupied by formerly public housing/ Section 8 households, of which eight were former Liberty View households. Since initial occupancy, two of the original lease purchase households (both former Liberty View residents) have moved back to regular public housing. One who moved out in 2005 was replaced in late March 2006 by another former Liberty View household. The second moved out the summer of 2006 and was replaced by a non-Liberty View household. In both cases, the households had lost employment and had not gone back to work prior to 32
moving out of the lease purchase units. In addition, there was a third case in which a nonLiberty View lease purchase participant was married to a former Liberty View resident who was incarcerated. When the former Liberty View resident returned to the household, the original head of household left, resulting in that household being counted as former Liberty View household. The HOPE VI Homeownership Coordinator provided the Evaluation Team with a July 2006 report regarding the readiness to purchase of the remaining thirteen lease purchase households (the fourteenth unit was in the process of being occupied at the end of this evaluation period). In addition, the Homeownership Coordinator provided a brief update on the status of households at the end of the year. Of the former Liberty View households, the Homeownership Coordinator stated that five are making good progress in terms of debt reduction, job stability and other indicators of readiness for purchase. One household lost employment and has not gone back to work (much like the two households that have already moved out of the lease purchase units). As stated above, one unemployed, formerly incarcerated “inherited” a lease purchase unit and it is the future of this household in the lease purchase program is unclear. Finally, another household was impacted by a serious health issue in the first half of 2006. This household went from being employed to securing disability benefits that resulted in lower, long-term income potential. This household is otherwise purchase-ready and, in fact, has been approved for a loan; however the approved loan amount is lower than is necessary to purchase a unit a Seeland Crossing at this time. Of the six non-former Liberty View households, one had lost employment income, however the Homeownership Coordinator reported that the other five were making good progress toward being ready for a purchase agreement. In 2006, five of the lease purchase households reported annual incomes under $15,000, with one as low as $10,000. These households represent significant foreclosure risks should they actually enter into a purchase agreement without significantly increasing their annual incomes. While these households represent the highest risk for foreclosures
33
in the new community, every household purchasing at the new Seeland Crossing will benefit from ongoing post-purchase counseling. As of July 2006, there had been no foreclosures among the market rate homebuyers at Seeland Crossing. One household did lose their employment as a result of the major Dan River, Inc. layoff, however, it appears that relatives have stepped in to prevent the loss of the home. Other Homeownership Counseling Efforts The HOPE VI Homeownership Coordinator, in conjunction with a non-profit partner, Telamon Corporation, is conducting ongoing homeownership counseling sessions with both public housing residents and non-public housing residents. In the first half of 2006, the counseling method changed from weekend workshops to a six month homebuyer club, which incorporates the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s “Money Smart” curriculum. Between January and July 2006, twenty five households participated in this program, including three non-Liberty View public housing households. Thirteen households, including all three public housing households, graduated from this program and one has purchased a home (a non-public housing household). In total, fourteen past participants in HOPE VI homeownership counseling programs have purchased homes, including the ten on-site. The Homeownership Coordinator reported that another six month homebuyer club was initiated with thirteen households in the fall of 2006. E. Other HOPE VI Services The HOPE VI Office coordinates or directly provides several other services for community residents as follows. Transportation The HOPE VI Office owns a van and employs a van driver in order to provide residents with transportation primarily in connection with access to employment, health care or youth services. The van service is utilized regularly and is well-documented in a 34
weekly transportation log. In addition, the HOPE VI Office has provided financial support to residents to attend driving school. To date, four residents have obtained their driver’s licenses. Youth Employment In each summer during the evaluation period, the HOPE VI office has organized summer employment opportunities for youth that are part of households in the target population. Each year, between eight and twelve youth have been placed in employment with various DRHA departments, working in administrative and maintenance roles. In addition, nine teenagers were engaged in employment during their school year through a local Workforce Investment Board program. Other Youth Services Throughout the grant period, the HOPE VI Office sustained active engagement with youth service providers and youth in the HOPE VI community. The MOU with the City of Danville’s Department of Parks and Recreation, through which youth from public housing participate in after school and summer recreation programs, continues in place. Five youth ages 5 - 9 years participated in a five week summer camp and two teenagers participated in a summer camp. Ten youth participated in a week-long 4H Camp retreat. The 4H Program Director provided a report to the HOPE VI Community Task Force in late July, describing a well-supervised and structured experience that focused on physical activity, life skills and leadership development. The HOPE VI Office’s sustained efforts to work with a group of approximately a dozen teenagers over the course of the grant period deserves particular note in this Report. From year to year, the summer employment cohort included the same group of youth, representing a sustained engagement over the grant period with these young people. In addition, many of the same youth participated in the WIB school year employment program and the 4H Summer Camp. In addition, during one week of the 2006 summer employment program, the students attended a computer learning course at the Institute for Advanced Learning and Research. In August 2006, the HOPE VI staff also took these youth to Washington, D.C. to visit Howard University. 35
While conducting a detailed evaluation the impact of the HOPE VI program on these youth is beyond the scope of this effort, it appears to the Evaluation Team that the HOPE VI staff has been a positive influence on the social and educational development of these students, including supporting them to graduate from high school and to focus on posthigh school educational opportunities. Neighborhood Network Center As reported in 2005, DRHA utilized a grant from HUD to open a Neighborhood Network Center at the James Slade HOPE VI Community Center and Office Building. DRHA employs an NNC Coordinator who reports to the HOPE VI CSS Program Coordinator. The NNC Coordinator organizes and hosts weekly activities for adults and youth and, in 2006, conducted week long outreach effort during Neighborhood Network Week (July 31 – August 4) to highlight the Center to community residents. The NNC is a satellite location in the community for Danville Community College, which offers computer classes at the Center. F. Relocation The Evaluation Team conducted a review of the HOPE VI relocation efforts first in 2003 and did a follow up review in 2006. In 2003, the Evaluation Team did not conduct a file audit, but rather spoke extensively with the relocation coordinator, surveyed residents about their relocation experience and reviewed a sample of files. In the 2003 Annual Evaluation Report the Evaluation Team noted the following. It is important that all one hundred and fifty seven (157) original households have been tracked… It appears that all households received URA required General Information notices and ninety (90) day notices as well as an additional thirty (30) day notice (though the files do not include proof of delivery). Households seem to have received URA required payments and had comparable units made available to them. It is also clear that between the case managers and the relocation coordinator, counseling was provided consistent with the URA requirement. 36
The overall relocation process appears to have been implemented in a manner that took into account residents’ concerns and special needs. In focus groups, residents consistently stated that the relocation process was smooth and respectful. Because some buildings on-site were not torn down, residents were given the option to stay on-site. Due to this phased approach to demolition thirty households have been able to remain onsite, of which nine never even had to move. Priority appears to have been appropriately given to elders and residents with disabilities. This is an excellent illustration of how the HOPE VI process has attempted to minimize the negative impact of lives of residents. Seamless integration between the property management and relocation functions was achieved by having the property manager also manage the relocation process. The property manager/ relocation coordinator appears to have been technically competent and to have a good relationship with the resident population. In 2006, the Evaluation Team conducted a brief review of relocation files and obtained resident input regarding the relocation process, both through surveys and interviews, regarding the relocation process. The following is an excerpt from the 2006 Annual Evaluation Report. All relocation files are kept securely in a locked closet and appear to be well organized. The Evaluation Team randomly selected eight households from the former Liberty View population and looked for their relocation files. All eight files were in the filing cabinet and appeared to document all relocation activity (first move and second move if it occurred). There was evidence of reimbursements for utility hook ups and other expenses. In cases were there was a second move, there did not appear to be any reimbursement for expenses or a dislocation allowance.
37
Resident feedback about their relocation experiences was close to uniformly positive. In some cases, there were complaints about charges from the DRHA for damages or cleaning. In one case, there was a concern about the need for multiple moves and in one case a concern about the movers. In most cases, however, residents rated their relocation experience positively. The Evaluation Team’s review of the HOPE VI relocation process does not constitute an audit of compliance with the URA or other federal, state or local statutes and regulations. G. CSS Program Systems/ Procedures As is common in housing authorities implementing their first HOPE VI project, the DRHA began the HOPE VI process with relatively few established procedures and systems for implementing various aspects of the project. As described above, the HOPE VI Office steadily built its systems and procedures related to case management services over the course of the evaluation period. This began with the use of an electronic database for maintaining case management case notes, and eventually included several specific trainings for staff. The relocation process appeared to have been more structured from the beginning and appears to have resulted in a smooth relocation process. The HOPE VI Office also initiated a process for communicating with residents from the outset of the project, which included a newsletter and regular community meetings. Communication with the broader community took longer to establish. Regular Community Task Force meetings were not held until the third year of the evaluation period. H. Sustainability of the CSS Program and Durability of Program Outcomes
CSS Program Sustainability In each annual evaluation report, the Evaluation Team recommended that DRHA develop a written plan for sustaining the HOPE VI CSS Program beyond the grant period. In the Spring of 2006, the DRHA’s new Executive Director requested that the Evaluation Team provide written suggestions regarding the sustainability of the HOPE VI program. The 38
Evaluation Team provided the Executive Director with a memorandum detailing recommendations related to sustainability, which is incorporated into this Final Evaluation Report as Appendix A. The DRHA has not yet developed a plan for sustaining the HOPE VI program after the grant period, nor has the Authority leveraged significant resources in connection with the CSS program. While DRHA has had ongoing success in securing grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (US HUD), none of these grants will last significantly beyond the HOPE VI grant period. The DRHA remains frustrated in its efforts to obtain HUD approval for the implementation of a HOPE VI Endowment Trust, a key strategy for sustainability anticipated in the original application. The HOPE VI Director continues to wait for a response from HUD regarding the DRHA’s proposal to initiate the HOPE VI endowment fund proposed in the original application. Lasting Partnerships with Outside Agencies/ Employers In the first year of the evaluation effort, the Evaluation Team noted that the HOPE VI project appeared to have few effective connections with partner agencies. Over the course of the evaluation period, however, the HOPE VI Office successfully developed and maintained a number of strong partnerships with outside agencies. The Evaluation Team participated in a Community Task Force meeting in July 2006 (near the end of the evaluation period) and observed that numerous community-based organizations and City agencies were in attendance. The following are highlights of the HOPE VI Offices interactions with external partners.
The HOPE VI Office has maintained a contract with Pittsylvania County Community Action to provide on-site career development services. In 2005, the HOPE VI Office worked to build a relationship with the Bibleway Church located in the HOPE VI target area. Representatives of the church have participated in a number of HOPE VI events, attended Community Task Force 39
meetings and even coordinated with the HOPE VI Office in the development of a parcel between the church and the HOPE VI community. As noted above, ten HOPE VI youth participated in the 4H Club’s week long summer retreat. HOPE VI staff participated as counselors during this week long program. This was the fourth year of coordination between the HOPE VI Office and the 4H Program. In 2005 and 2006, the Department of Parks and Recreation (which in turn partners with the Boys and Girls Club) worked with DRHA to create opportunities for youth in the HOPE VI community to participate in after school activities. The HOPE VI Office connected residents to various classes and resources at Danville Community College and, in numerous cases, paid for tuition. The HOPE VI Office has maintained its cooperative relationship with the non-profit, Telamon Corporation, to provide homeownership counseling services. The HOPE VI Office has developed a relationship with the Institute for Advanced Learning related to youth summer learning and the Neighborhood Network Center. Nine youth attended the IAL summer program in 2006. Durability of Program Outcomes The Evaluation Team views the question of durability through three fundamental questions. 1. To what extent have systems, structures, services and ongoing sources of funding been put in place to sustain the outcomes that were achieved through the HOPE VI project? 2. To what extent does longitudinal analysis of data provide evidence that positive program outcomes for individual households have been consistent over an extended period and demonstrate promise of longer term durability? 3. To what extent is their evidence of factors that will help to sustain the improvements made to the neighborhood as a whole? With regard to the first question, and as discussed above, there is little to suggest that systems, structures and services funded under the HOPE VI CSS Program will survive beyond the grant period and continue to provide benefits to former Liberty View 40
residents or new residents of Seeland Crossing Community. The most promising sources of ongoing community and supportive services will be the partner organizations with which the HOPE VI Office worked closely over the course of the grant period, and especially in the last two years. These include PCCA’s employment program, Telamon’s homeownership counseling program, and the youth programs operated by the Department of Parks and Recreation in conjunction with the Boys and Girls Club. The funding set aside from the HOPE VI grant for the endowment trust originally envisioned in the HOPE VI application may be a resource to sustain future services, but without a legal instrument in place, this funding could be subject to recapture at the end of the grant period. With regard to the second question about whether individual households will sustain the improvements that they have achieved over the course of the grant period, there are naturally diverse answers for the different households. The Evaluation Team has conducted longitudinal analysis of the HOPE VI program’s impacts on individual households and has identified several categories of households based on evidence that the impacts of the HOPE VI program on these households will be durable over time, or sustained into the future. Elderly and disabled adults – The Evaluation Team analyzed the average change in annual income among elderly and/or disabled households that were part of the target population. Volatility measures the extent to which annual income fluctuates from year to year, regardless of whether it increases or decreases. High volatility would indicate an unstable source of income.
Table 17: Average Change in Annual Income and Volatility of Annual Income Among Seniors and Disabled Adults in the Final Target Population Period Number of Households*
20002003 33
20032004 33
41
20042005 28
20052006 25
2006 to Dec. 2006 24
Average Change in Annual Income - Expressed as a % of the average income in the baseline year for the given column Volatility of Annual Income (average absolute change in annual income) - Expressed as a % of the average income in the baseline year for the given column
$
995
$
601
16%
8%
$ 2,035
$ 1,204
34%
17%
$
546
$
7%
$
573
8%
404
$
290
5%
$
484
3%
$
314
6%
4%
* These numbers represent the number of households for which income data was available in both years being compared in each given column.
This data illustrates a very modest and stable upward trend in annual income among elderly and disabled residents with relatively low volatility. This is consistent with a population that relies on social security or disability payments as their primary source of income. The larger average increases and higher volatility earlier in the evaluation period was likely the result of case managers’ work to help connect these households with income sources for which they were eligible as a result of their age and/or disability. The trend over the evaluation period of steady increases in average income and lower volatility from year to year is a positive indicator for ongoing stability among these households. 17 of the 24 elderly and disabled households that remained in this target population are now residents of Seeland Crossing and many of them take advantage of HOPE VI services, especially case management and the transportation program. Based on resident satisfaction surveys, the positive impact of the HOPE VI program for these households was less in terms of increased income and more in terms of quality of life that resulted from new housing and increased supportive services. Stable income and new housing are factors that suggest that this population will enjoy long-term benefits from the HOPE VI project. The potential loss of services after the end of the HOPE VI program is a factor that may mitigate the current high levels of satisfaction expressed by this population.
42
Employable Adults ages 18 to 63 – The durability of outcomes achieved by employable households ages 18 to 63 are less certain. The following chart presents a similar analysis as is present above for the disabled and elderly population. Table 18: Average Change in Annual Income and Volatility of Annual Income Among Employable Adults Ages 18-63 in the Final Target Population 20002003 64
20032004 64
20042005 61
Period Number of Households* Average Change in Annual $ 1,759 $ 113 $ 2,565 Income - Expressed as a % of the average income in the baseline year for the 32% 2% 34% given column Volatility of Annual Income (average absolute $4,755 $3,169 $3,648 change in annual income) - Expressed as a % of the average income in the baseline year for the 88% 44% 48% given column
20052006 58
2006 to Dec. 2006 55
$(1,015) $
1,813
-10%
20%
$4,765
$3,883
47%
43%
* These numbers represent the number of households for which income data was available in both years being compared in each given column.
These data, together with analysis presented earlier in this report, reveal issues that are not positive indicators for the ongoing durability of improvements achieved by households in the target population.
While the target population achieved a significant improvement in average annual income from 2000 to December 2006, there were significant fluxuations in the rate of change in the average annual income, with one year of essentially flat income and one year with a reduction in the average income. The rate of volatility is consistently high throughout the evaluation period. Over one year intervals, this group of residents experienced changes in income that were equal to almost half of their income in the previous year. 43
As described earlier in this report, the capacity of the HOPE VI case management and career development function was temporarily, but significantly, reduced. During this period of reduced capacity, there was a spike in job losses in the target population and a resulting reduction in the average income. This relatively dramatic response to the reduction in services is an indicator that the target population relies strongly on the HOPE VI case management team for stability. This is not a favorable indicator for the durability of improvement in annual income and career development achievements in the target population. Finally, relatively few adult heads of households significantly improved the level of their educational achievement, either by obtaining a GED, by obtaining a college degree or by obtaining a marketable certification. Youth – While the scope of this evaluation did not include tracking educational outcomes or other indicators for youth in the target population, the Evaluation Team did conduct focus groups and individual interviews with youth throughout the grant period. It worth noting that the HOPE VI staff maintained a sustained engagement with a group of approximately 12 young adults throughout the grant period. These youth participated in summer employment opportunities, summer camps, educational programs and many also participated in a year-round employment program. As stated earlier in this report, it appears to the Evaluation Team that the HOPE VI staff has been a sustained positive influence on the social and educational development of these students, including supporting them to graduate from high school and to focus on post-high school educational opportunities. In addition, the HOPE VI Office has supported a number of young adults to take classes at Danville Community College.
As discussed in the previous annual reports, the durability of improvements made on the neighborhood level, that is to say the extent which Seeland Crossing remains a quality affordable housing community, will be influenced by factors including the following:
44
-
the extent and quality of ongoing CSS services to the residents of Seeland Crossing;
-
the ongoing quality of management by DRHA or its contractor;
-
the extent to which low-income homeowners in the community avoid foreclosures;
-
the extent to which community residents can build a cohesive and representative community organization;
-
and the extent to which DRHA and Seeland Crossing together residents have positive ongoing relationships with the institutions and businesses in the immediate neighborhood.
There are several factors that suggest that Seeland Crossing Community will remain a quality affordable housing community, including the following:
there were no foreclosures in the Seeland Crossing community during the evaluation period; DRHA and its private management company appear to actively enforce the leases; and, Seeland Crossing residents have initiated a single community association for all residents. The Evaluation Team did note two issues that could negatively impact the Seeland Crossing community over the long term.
The management of units at Seeland Crossing is split between two management entities: the DRHA manages traditional public housing and lease purchase units while its contractor Excel Management manages units that have been developed using a tax credit subsidy. While the Evaluation Team understands DRHA interest in bringing in a contractor to add to its capacity to manage units that are subject to IRS regulations (a significantly different set of regulations than HUD’s requirements for public housing units), as a
45
generalization, it is not a best practice to have neighbors in the same housing community served by different management agents. While the Evaluation Team did not conduct a review of the quality or consistency of management practices, nor does this Report seek to make any representations on this matter, the current situation could result in inconsistent management on the same site, which can easily lead to tensions within the community. The income limits placed on Seeland Crossing Phase II and III tax credit units have limited the ability of higher income public housing households to occupy these units. These restrictions on the income of potential tenants will make it more difficult to maintain a mix of incomes in the community.
46
IV. The Impact of the HOPE VI Project on Economic Development and Real Estate Values in the Former Liberty View Neighborhood Introduction Has the HOPE VI program brought about improvements in the business environment in the Liberty View impact area, providing additional amenities and opportunities for new and old residents, or has it followed the general decline of Danville’s economy? How have real estate values behaved over the period 2002-2006? These issues are addressed by extending to 2006 the indicators of business activity and of real estate values developed over the past four years in the former-Liberty View HOPE VI impact area, the Cardinal Village comparison area, and Danville City as a whole. While there is interest in learning of the absolute level and trend of these indicators for the HOPE VI impact area itself, evaluating the impact of project requires a relative view of the developments in the impact area compared to an area that was roughly comparable to it at the beginning of the study but was not targeted by a HOPE VI project. This comparison area immediately surrounds the Cardinal Village public housing development. It is also important to assess the relative values of these indicators in the HOPE VI impact area compared to developments in Danville as a whole. If, for example, many of these indicators declined significantly in Danville, and if indicators for the HOPE VI impact area remained flat over the same period, one could argue that HOPE VI helped prevent the loss of economic value in the impact area. Business activity in the City of Danville, the HOPE VI impact area, and the Cardinal Village comparison area declined slightly or remained relatively flat since 2005. Indicators of business expansion such as the number of firms and the number of employees, depicted in Table 1, show modest declines in Danville City and Cardinal Village, while revenue in Danville City and the HOPE VI impact area of Liberty View remained steady. Cardinal Village witnessed a sharp decline in revenue.
47
TABLE 19 BUSINESS, EMPLOYMENT, AND REVENUE DANVILLE, CARDINAL VILLAGE, AND LIBERTY VIEW 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006
Area of
Number of Businesses
Number of Employees
Revenue (millions of dollars)
2002
2004
2002
12,246
13,39
12,34
1
2
Study
Danville
200
200
200
200
2
4
5
6 1,09
2005 2006
1,31
1,12
1,15
City
1
9
0
8
Cardinal
21
18
15
14
324
313
309
5
4
4
5
31
19
19
10,67
2004
2005
$480.7
$418.7
0
3
9
288
4.37
4.55
4.50
25
$0.059
$0.182
1
2006
$410.9 $430.1 2
$1.82
Village
Liberty
$0.182 $0.227
View
Sources: Dun and Bradstreet, 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2006
Since the implementation of the HOPE VI program in 2002, the number of firms has decreased by 213 in Danville City and 7 in Cardinal Village, while in Liberty View, the number of firms has remained constant albeit at a very low level. Employment has declined in the past year in Danville City and Cardinal Village, while in Liberty View it has increased ever so slightly (6 net new jobs) in the past year. Revenues are up very slightly in Liberty View and by a bit more in Danville City, while declining slightly in Cardinal Village. (See Table 2).
48
TABLE 20 SELECTED CHANGES IN DANVILLE, CARDINAL VILLAGE, & LIBERTY VIEW FIRMS, EMPLOYMENT AND REVENUE 2002-2006
Danville City
Cardinal
Liberty View
Village
Change
Firms
Employment
Revenue (Million $$)
Percentage Change
Firms
Employment
Revenue
’02-‘04
-182
-3
-1
’04-‘05
21
-3
0
’05-‘06
-52
-1
1
’02-‘06
-213
-7
0
’02-‘04
1,145
-11
-12
’04-‘05
-1049
-4
0
’05-‘06
-1671
-21
6
’02-‘06
-1575
-36
-6
‘02-‘04
-61.97
0.18
-0.123
’04-‘05
-7.74
-0.05
0
’05-‘06
19.13
-2.68
0.045
’02-‘06
-50.58
-2.55
0.168
‘02-‘04
-13.9
-14.3
-20.0
’04-‘05
1.9
-16.7
0
’05-‘06
-4.5
-6.6
25
’02-‘06
-16.2
33.3
0
‘02-‘04
9.35
-3.4
-38.7
’04-‘05
-7.83
-1.3
0
’05-‘06
-13.5
-6.8
31.5
’02-‘06
-12.8
-11.1
-19.3
‘02-‘04
-12.9
4.1
208.5
’04-‘05
-1.8
-1.1
0
’05-‘06
4.6
-59.5
24.7
’02-‘06
-10.5
-58.3
284.7
49
City of Danville In Danville, from 2005 to 2006, the number of businesses decreased by 4.5 percent and the number of people employed decreased by 13.5 percent. This reduction in economic performance is largely due to the closing of Dan River, Inc. It was purchased by Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Limited, an Indian manufacturer, who moved Dan River’s equipment and production work to India, leaving only 600 distribution employees in Danville.
4
The amount of revenue earned in Danville did increase by 4.6 percent in the same period and, despite the downturn in the number of businesses and employed workers, city officials remain bullish on economic growth in the city. EIT Incorporated, a provider of electronic manufacturing services, is planning to open a new plant that will generate 120 jobs over two years and a half.
5
Telvista planned to expand and hire an
additional 250 employees in Danville by the end of 2006. Also, the opening of a new shopping center, Coleman Marketplace, is projected to add about 1,600 jobs to the 6
workforce by the year 2008 and generate up to $140 million in sales. Arista Tubes , a tube manufacturer, is in the process of bringing 145 jobs to Danville by the end of 2006; and Sam’s Club, a warehouse chain, will create 150 new jobs.
7
Within the general decline in business and employment in Danville as a whole, there are some winning and losing sectors. Within manufacturing, a steady decline continued with the loss of four textile manufacturing firms since last year (a 31% decline). Apparel and Accessories edged downward, losing another firm; this manufacturing category is now at 55% of its level in 2002. Tobacco Manufacturing similarly lost another firm, and it is also just a bit above 50% of its 2002 level. In the retail sector, most areas lost ground except for shopping centers, which added two new enterprises. The service sector remained relatively stable, losing a few firms overall, with a notable increase in Miscellaneous Offices, which added nine firms for a 12% increase. (See Table 3)
4
Interview with Jeff Reed, Project Manager, Office of Economic Development Danville City of Danville Office of Economic Development, 427 Patton Street Danville, VA 245433300 http://www.discoverdanville.com/press.asp?pr=1&id=2952 6 Trade and Industry Development 2006. http://www.tradeandindustrydev.com/news.asp?ID=166 7 Trade and Industry Development 2006. http://www.tradeandindustrydev.com/news.asp?ID=166 5
50
TABLE 21 BUSINESSES IN DANVILLE CITY, 2002-2006 Type of Businesses
Number of Firms 2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Lumber Products
7
7
9
10
10
Stone-Clay-Glass Products
1
1
1
1
1
Metal Products
8
7
7
8
8
Food Products
7
2
2
2
2
Tobacco Manufacturing
15
14
11
9
8
Textile Manufacturing
14
13
13
13
9
Apparel and Accessories
33
28
21
19
18
Printing and Publishing
8
8
7
7
7
Chemicals and Allied Products
1
1
1
1
1
Petroleum and Coal Products
6
6
5
5
4
Rubber Products
1
1
1
1
1
Distribution Warehouse Wholesale
18
22
21
22
22
Wholesale Food Dealers and Jobbers
5
6
5
5
5
Miscellaneous Manufacturing-Heavy
13
9
9
8
8
Food and Drugs
70
13
13
13
12
General Merchandise
24
48
50
51
49
Furniture and Home Appliances
27
28
28
29
27
Liquor Stores
3
1
1
1
1
Building Materials and Farm Equipment Dealers
52
50
36
36
34
Shopping Centers
15
16
22
23
25
Beauty Shop, Barber Shop, Laundry
76
66
66
66
63
Utilities and Communication
36
43
41
43
43
Restaurants
87
92
96
99
101
Service Stations
39
24
22
22
22
Bank, Real Estate, Insurance, Finance
93
77
73
72
71
Auto Repair Services
61
67
67
67
66
Doctor Offices and Medical Services
89
93
88
89
90
Legal Services
13
13
14
14
14
Educational Buildings
42
44
47
44
49
Manufacturing
Retail
Services
51
Churches
173
176
179
180
185
Hospitals
14
8
8
10
10
Amusement and Recreation
18
19
19
19
20
Motor Vehicles and Accessories (Used Car Lots)
62
60
61
61
62
Miscellaneous Business Services
201
206
203
213
211
Miscellaneous Repair Services
23
24
23
23
21
Miscellaneous Offices
61
63
71
75
84
Carwash
6
9
10
10
8
Building Construction and Special Contractors
14
22
36
36
37
General Contactors Other Than Building
4
5
6
5
5
Professional and Miscellaneous
3
6
6
6
6
Liberty View The HOPE VI impact area, immediately surrounding the site of the former-Liberty View public housing development, continues to show little economic progress. Even the apparent three-fold growth in revenues mainly reflects the paucity of firms in 2002, several of which did not report any revenue data, combined with the entry of one modest firm with reasonable levels of income. The opening of a new beauty salon since the 2005 report increased Liberty View’s revenue by 24.6 percent and increased employment by 31 percent, but the gross revenue of the firm was only $45,000. Thus, the HOPE VI initiative has had only had a minor positive economic impact on the target neighborhood. However, at least there has not been a substantial decline in the impact area either, as has happened both in Danville as a whole and in Cardinal Village. Cardinal Village Revenue in Cardinal Village fell by 60% since July 2005 (see Table 5). JW Squire Company, Inc., previously located at 425 Hughes Street, moved across the river to a new location. JW Squire engages in plastering, drywall and insulation and employs 21 people. The lost revenue to Cardinal Village was $2,443,816. Overall, partly due to the loss of this company, Cardinal Village, from 2002 to 2006, witnessed a 33 percent decrease in businesses, an 11 percent decrease in employment, and a 58 percent decrease in revenue. Composition of Business Activity 52
A detailed look at businesses in HOPE VI impact area, shown in Table 4, indicates considerable stability. The only change in the impact area’s economic indicators was the inclusion of the new beauty shop, located at 312 Garfield Street that assisted in increasing the area’s revenue by 24.6 percent. The activities of businesses in the impact area (the Apartment Building Operators, the Real Estate Agent and Operators – both represent the DRHA and its contractors -, and Religious Organization) were flat (see Table 5). Cardinal Village experienced considerable changes relative to Liberty View, including the opening of a new single-family housing construction business, a beauty shop, and paint, glass, and wallpaper stores. In addition to JW Squire Company, Inc., two grocery stores left and one residential care company left the area. The loss of these businesses and their revenue exceeded the new revenue brought in from the new companies. TABLE 22 LIBERTY VIEW BUSINESSES LOCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND REVENUE 2002- 2006 Type of Business Child Day Care Services
Apartmen t Building Operators Real Estate Agents & Managers Religious Organization
Beauty Shops Total
Street Address & Name 151 Grant St 317 Grant St 317 Grant St 317 Grant St 175 Sanitary Rd 299 Garfield St 128 Lincoln St 219 Darby Rd 312 Garfield St
Firms
Employment
Revenue ($$)
2002
2004
2005
2006
2002
2004
2005
2006
2002
2004
2005
2006
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
NA
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
23,000
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
NA
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
15
15
15
0
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
NA
0
1
1
1
0
2
2
2
0
110,000
110,000
110,000
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
36,000
36,000
36,000
36,000
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
36,000
36,000
36,000
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
45,000
5
4
4
5
31
19
19
25
59,000
182,000
182,000
227,000
Sources: Dun and Bradstreet 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2006
53
TABLE 23 CARDINAL VILLAGE BUSINESSES LOCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND REVENUE 2002-2006 Type of Business Social Services
Street Address Name 326 Taylor St
2002 1
Firms 2004 2005 0 0
2006 0
2002 1
Employment 2004 2005 2006 0 0 0
2002 46,000
Revenue (dollars) 2004 2005 0 0
2006 0
Home Health Care Services Psychiatric Hospital Entertainers &Entertainment Groups Single Family Housing Construction
326
Taylor St
1
1
1
1
50
50
50
50
NA
NA
NA
NA
382
Taylor St
1
1
1
1
200
200
200
200
NA
NA
NA
NA
709
Edmond St
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
27,000
27,000
27,000
236
Taylor St
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
826
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
220,000
220,000
220,000
180,000 220,000
Apartment Building Operators Plumbing, Heating & AirConditioning Beauty Shop
651
Edmonds St Cardinal Pl
1
1
1
1
20
20
20
20
940,000
940,000
940,000
940,000
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
42,000
42,000
42,000
42,000
604
W Stephen St Hughes
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
NA
0
0
0
NA
211 717 206 142
Stephen Kemper Bell Dr. Hughes
0 1 2 1
1 1 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 2 4 3
2 1 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 29,000 135,000 99,000
29,000 16,000 0 0
0 16,000 0 0
0 16,000 0 0
114
Kemper
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
36,000
36,000
36,000
36,000
501
Kemper
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
99,000
0
0
0
533
Kemper
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
36,000
36,000
0
0
801
Kemper
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
36,000
36,000
36,000
36,000
529
0
1
1
0
0
3
3
0
0
175,000
175,000
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
120,000
120,000
120,000
0
504
Kemper Rd. Kemper Rd Kemper
1
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
NA
0
0
0
422
Hughes
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
190,000
0
Florist
113
Hughes
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
80,000
180,000
200,000
200,000
Dry Cleaning, Plants, Except Rugs Lawn and Garden Services Ornamental Shrub & Tree Services Plastering, Drywall, & Insulation Gift, Novelty, & Souvenir Shop Paint, Glass, Wallpaper Stores
114
Hughes St
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2,000
0
0
0
324
Hughes St Hughes St
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
61,000
61,000
61,000
61,000
1
1
0
0
3
3
0
0
90,000
90,000
0
0
425
Hughes St
1
1
1
0
21
21
21
0
2,296,218
2,443,816
2,443,816
0
204
Charles St. Banner St.
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
98,000
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
66,000
21
18
15
14
324
313
309
288
$4.37M
$4.55M
$4.50m
$1.82M
Religious Organizations
Residential Care Miscellaneous Retail Stores Grocery Stores
Total
105
721
324
111
54
Overview of Real Estate Properties and Values Between 2005 and 2006, the number of properties in the city of Danville decreased by 162 units (less than 1%) while the number of properties in the HOPE VI impact area fell by 6 units (less than 3%). The comparison area of Cardinal Village experienced an increase of 31 units (over 5% percent). In the residential category, however, Danville as a whole remained virtually constant (a slight gain of 15 units), the impact and comparison areas lost 14 and 5 units respectively. For the impact area, this change represented a 14% loss (See Table 1). At the same time, while Danville sustained a small reduction in vacant residential properties, there was a slight increase in such properties in the impact area and a 46% increase in vacant properties in the comparison area (see Table 6).
TABLE 24 DANVILLE CITY, CARDINAL VILLAGE AND LIBERTY VIEW PROPERTIES
2002 – 2005 Property Type Total Number of Properties Residential Properties
Vacant Residential Lots Vacant Commercial Lots Other (Businesses Educational & Religious Institutions)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Danville City Cardinal Village Liberty View Danville City Cardinal Village Liberty View Danville City Cardinal Village Liberty View Danville City Cardinal Village Liberty View Danville City Cardinal Village
26,100 591
26,030 591
25,992 591
25,929 590
25,767 621
239 17,648 462
239 17,566 462
239 17,579 462
239 17,525 461
233 17,540 455
100 5,258 72
100 5,196 71
100 5,145 69
100 5,099 69
86 4,960 101
103 811 8
83 822 8
73 806 8
62 818 8
64 837 10
0 2,383 49
0 2,446 50
0 2,462 52
0 2,487 53
0 2,430 55
Liberty View
36
56
66
77
83
55
Properties and Their Values in the Impact Area Overall, there are 233 properties of various types in the impact area with an aggregate real estate value of $7,719,000 (Table 7). These properties fall into 10 distinct categories with an average value of $33,128.80. The three most prevalent types of properties in the impact area are vacant exempt lot–local, vacant residential lot-buildable, and singlefamily residential dwellings with 76, 62 and 61 units respectively. There are five churches in the impact area with a total real estate value of $3,429,500, accounting for 44% of all property value in the area. The total value of exempt and non-exempt singlefamily dwellings is $2,093,500. Although vacant lots of various types constitute the most numerous type of property, they are also the least valuable with an average value of $2,010.50. TABLE 25 IMPACT AREA PROPERTY TYPE AND VALUES, 2006 Property code Type of property 1 Single Family Residential - 1 Dwelling 2 Vacant Residential Lot Buildable – 1 Vacant Residential Lot Non-Buildable 3 Multi-family duplex/triplex & more 4 Vacant Commercial Buildable – 4 5 Vacant Exempt Lot – Local 6 Duplex/Multi-family exempt 7 Single Family Residential Exempt – Local 8 Churches - Exempt – Religious 11 Multi-Family – 4 or more units – 4 Buildings Non-Profit Clubs exempt 12 Miscellaneous Business Services 13 Distribution Warehouse Wholesale 14 Building Materials & Farm Equipment Dealers 15 Carwash 16 Utilities & Communications – Exempt – Local 17 Convenience Market 18 Parking Lot/Garage - Exempt – Local 19 Doctors Offices Exempt – Educational 20 Outdoor Amusement - Exempt – Local 21 Hospital - Exempt – Local 22 Parking Lot/Garage – Residential 23 Food & Drugs 24 Miscellaneous Offices - Exempt – Local Total
56
Number of properties 61 62 2 2 76 8 15 5 1 1 233
Average value 32,990.2 1,419.4 300.0 20,200.0
Aggregate value 2,012,400 88,000 600 40,400
2,010.5 112,537.5 72,073.3 685,900.0
152,800 900,300 1,081,100 3,429,500
100.0 13,800.0 33,128.8
100 13,800 7,719,000
Properties and Their Values in the Comparison Area There are 621 properties broken down into 20 categories in the comparison area. The aggregate value of these properties is $31,562,500 (over four times the aggregate value of impact area properties) while their average value is $50,825.30, roughly 53% percent higher than that in the impact area (see Table 8). Single family residential dwellings (381 units) constitute the most numerous housing category in the comparison area, accounting for over 61% of all properties, followed by vacant residential-buildable lots and multifamily dwellings with 86 and 67 units respectively. The aggregate real estate value of single-family residential dwellings is $13,133,400, or approximately 42% of the value of all properties in the comparison area. The second highest real estate value is associated with a hospital, followed by multi-family residences. The comparison area properties are more diverse than those in the impact area in part because of a relatively active commercial segment in the former versus little commercial activity in the former.
Property code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
TABLE 26 COMPARISON AREA PROPERTY TYPE AND VALUE, 2006 # of Average Type of property properties value ($) Single Family Residential - 1 Dwelling 381 34,471 Vacant Residential Lot Buildable – 4 86 3,326 Vacant Residential Lot Non Buildable 15 727 Multi-family duplex/triplex & more 67 63,345 Vacant commercial lot/ Buildable/Not-Buildable 10 7,840 Vacant Exempt Lot – Local 25 8,064 Duplex /Multi-Family Exempt – Federal 2 1,578,200 Single Family Residential Exempt – Local 5 45,940 Churches - Exempt – Religious 9 114,089 Miscellaneous Business Services 6 149,683 Distribution Warehouse Wholesale 2 103,200 Building Materials & Farm Equipment Dealers 2 123,600 Carwash 1 49,300 Utilities & Communications – Exempt – Local 1 5,500 Convenience Market 2 75,950 Parking Lot/Garage - Exempt – Local 2 277,850 Doctors Offices & Medical Services - Exempt – Educational 1 2,062,500 Outdoor Amusement - Exempt – Local Hospital – Exempt – Local 1 4,914,100 Parking Lot/Garage – Residential 2 8,650
57
Aggregate value ($) 13,133,400 286,000 10,900 4,244,100 78,400 201,600 3,156,400 229,700 1,026,800 898,100 206,400 247,200 49,300 5,500 151,900 555,700 2,062,500 4,914,100 17,300
21 22 23
TABLE 26 COMPARISON AREA PROPERTY TYPE AND VALUE, 2006 Food & Drugs Miscellaneous Offices - Exempt – Local Beauty Shop 1 87,200 Total 621 50,825
87,200 31,562,500
Trends Over Time in Properties in the Impact Area Since 2005, the number of properties has fallen by six units after having remained constant at 239 for the previous three years. New types of properties-- a non–profit club and a parking lot garage – were added to the property rolls. Two key trends are evident in the impact area: the steady decline of single-family residential dwellings from 85 to 61 (a 28% decrease) and a steady increase in the number of vacant exempt lots from 20 to 73, more than a three-fold increase. It is likely that these trends are effects of the property acquisition, demolition and new construction occurring as part of the HOPE VI program.
TABLE 27: TYPE AND NUMBER OF PROPERTIES IN THE IMPACT AREA, 2002-2006 Property Description Single Family Residential 1 Vacant Residential Lot-Buildable 2a Vacant Residential Lot-Not Buildable 2b Multi-Family Duplex/ Triplex/4 or More 3&10 Churches Exempt/ Taxable 8 Single Family Residential Expt Fed7a Single Family Res. Exempt-Local 7b Vacant Exempt Lot – Federal 5a Vacant Exempt Lot-Local 5b Vacant Exempt Lot – Religious 5c Duplex Exempt – Local 6 Multi-Family Residential Expt-Fed 9a
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
85
84
79
69
61
100
80
69
58
62
3
3
4
4
2
8
8
5
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
1
-
-
-
-
5
7
12
22
15
7
-
-
-
-
20
47
58
69
73
3
3
3
3
3
-
-
3
6
6
1
-
-
-
58
TABLE 27: TYPE AND NUMBER OF PROPERTIES IN THE IMPACT AREA, 2002-2006 Multi-Family Exempt Local 9b Convenience Market 17 Parking Lot/Garage Residential 22 Cemetery Exempt – Other 9 Food & Drugs 23 Non-Profit /Clubs Exempt Miscellaneous Offices Exempt
Total
-
1
1
1
2
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
1 -
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
239
239
239
239
233
Trends Over Time in Properties in the Comparison Area While the impact area has witnessed a decline in the number of properties, the comparison area has experienced an increase of 31 properties to 621 (see Table 10). The most significant increase was in vacant residential lots, rising from 54 in 2005 to 86 in 2006, a 59% increase. TABLE 28: TYPE AND NUMBER OF PROPERTIES IN THE COMPARISON AREA 2002-2006 Property Description Single Family Residential 1 Vacant Residential Lot-Buildable 2a Vacant Residential Lot-Not Buildable 2b Multi-Family Duplex/ Triplex/4 or more 3&10 Churches Exempt/ Taxable 8 Single Family Residential Expt loca/Fed/reli7a Vacant Exempt Lot – Federal 5a, loc5b, rel5c Multi-Family Residential/duplex Expt-Fed 9a Vacant Commercial Lot Buildable/nonbuildable Hospitals & Doctors Offices Rest
Total
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
387
386
385
384
381
59
56
54
54
86
13
15
15
15
15
69
69
69
69
67
8
8
8
8
9
4
5
6
6
5
22
25
27
27
25
2
2
2
2
2
8
8
8
8
10
2 17
2 15
2 15
2 15
591
591
591
590
2 19 621
59
TABLE 29: LIBERTY VIEW AND CARDINAL VILLAGE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES BY TYPE OF PROPERTY 2002-2006 Property Description
All Properties in the Study Area
Single Family Residential
Vacant Residential Lot Buildable Vacant Residential Lot Not Buildable
Multi-Family Residential Duplex/Triplex/4 or More Churches- Exempt –Religious /Taxable Single Family Residential ExemptFed/Lc/Rel/St/Ch Vacant Exempt LotFed/Lc/Rel/St/Ed Multi-Family Duplex /Residential ExemptFederal/local Vacant Commercial Lot Buildable /Not Buildable Hospitals & Doctors Offices
Rest
Area
Number of Properties 2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Liberty View
239
239
239
239
233
Cardinal Village
591
591
591
590
621
Liberty View
85
84
79
69
61
Cardinal Village
387
386
385
384
381
Liberty View
100
80
69
58
62
Cardinal Village
59
56
54
54
86
Liberty View
3
3
4
4
2
Cardinal Village
13
15
15
15
15
Liberty View
8
8
5
2
2
Cardinal Village
69
69
69
69
67
Liberty View
5
5
5
5
5
Cardinal Village
8
8
8
8
9
Liberty View
6
7
12
22
15
Cardinal Village
4
5
6
6
5
Liberty View
30
50
61
72
76
Cardinal Village
22
25
27
27
25
Liberty View
1
1
4
7
8
Cardinal Village
2
2
2
2
2
Liberty View
-
-
-
-
-
Cardinal Village
8
8
8
8
10
Liberty View
-
-
-
-
-
Cardinal Village
2
2
2
2
2
Liberty View
1
1
-
-
2
Cardinal Village
17
15
15
15
19
60
Trends in Average Property Values in the Impact Area The average property value rose by over 8% since 2005, but still remained almost 12% below its 2002 level. For single-family residential properties, however, average value rose in one year by almost 22%, exceeding its 2002 level by approximately 5%. Singlefamily residences-exempt similarly rose 18% in value in the past year, approximately the same percentage increase since 2002. The average value of churches grew by 14% over the past year, and by 50% since 2002. Other property types, including vacant land and multi-family units, declined slightly. (See Table 12). TABLE 30: AVERAGE PROPERTY VALUE IN THE IMPACT AREA 2002-2006 Type of Property
Average Property Value (in dollars) 2003 2004 2005
2002 Single Family Residential 1 Vacant Residential Lot-Buildable 2a Vacant Residential Lot-Not Buildable 2b Multi-Family Duplex/ Triplex/4 or More 3&10 Churches Exempt/ Taxable 8 Single Family Res. Exempt-Local 7b Vacant Exempt Lot – Federal/local/rel 5a Multi-family Residential Duplex Exempt –Local 6
Vacant Commercial Lot Buildable/non-buildable Hospitals & Doctors offices Rest All properties in the study area
2006
31,331
32,089
29,911
27,100
32,990
1,663
1,480
1,493
1493
1,419
733
733
1050
1050
300
85,700
85,313
81,020
19,800
20,200
458,580
557,720
599,600
599,600
685,900
61,133
55,314
51,117
60,855
2,670
2,688
2,687
2,517
2,010.5
2,573,300
534,100
183,750
113,300
112,538
-
-
-
-
17,700
19,000
-
-
13,900
37,018
30,803
30,902
30,592
33,128
72,073
Trends in Average Property Values in the Comparison Area In 2006, the average property value fell by almost 5% to $50,825 but remained 5% above the 2002 average property value level. Within this general trend, there were winners and losers. Single family residential values fell by almost 9%, the opposite direction from residential values in the impact area, and only slightly above the average value of such properties in 2002. This finding is most likely due to the new construction activity occurring in the impact area due to HOPE VI; nevertheless, the importance of this 61
difference should not be overstated since in both areas values of single-family residential properties are only slightly higher than their respective average value in 2002. In Cardinal Village, tax exempt single family residential values rose by 56% and the value of multifamily units grew by over 15%, the value of hospitals and doctors’ offices grew by 5%, and vacant lots grew in value except for federally owned lots. TABLE 31: AVERAGE PROPERTY VALUE IN THE COMPARISON AREA 2002-2006 Type of Property Single Family Residential 1 Vacant Residential Lot-Buildable 2a Vacant Residential Lot-Not Buildable 2b Multi-Family Duplex/ Triplex/4 or More 3&10 Churches Exempt/ Taxable 8 Single Family Res. Exempt-Local 7b Vacant Exempt Lot – Federal/local/rel 5a Multi-family Residential Duplex Exempt – Local 6
Vacant Commercial Lot Buildable/non-buildable Hospitals & Doctors offices
Rest
All properties in the study area
2002
Average Property Value ($) 2003 2004 2005
2006
33,364
35,914
37,599
37,520
34,471
2,742
2,839
2.889
2,889
3,326
654
627
627
627
727
55,743
63,093
64,007
64,007
63,345
97,375
111,013
126,100
126,100
114,049
24,975
27,540
28,617
29,533
45,940
30,682
23,540
25,093
25,093
8,064
1,345,300
1,367,100
1,367,100
1,367,100
1,578,200
5,613
5,613
5,613
5,613
7,840
3,065,800 72,476
3,052,200 76,680
3,310,400 77,573
3,310,400 79,707
3,488,300 116,768
48,435
50,743
53,262
53,301
50,825
62
TABLE 32 LIBERTY VIEW AND CARDINAL VILLAGE LEVEL AND AVERAGE PROPERTY VALUES BY TYPE OF PROPERTY 2002-2006 Property Description
All Properties in the Study Area
Single Family Residential
Vacant Residential Lot Buildable Vacant Residential Lot Not Buildable
Area
Average Property Value (in dollars) 2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Liberty View
37,018
30,803
30,902
30,592
33,128
Cardinal Village
48,435
50,743
53,262
53,301
50,825
Liberty View
31,331
32,089
29,911
27,100
32,990
Cardinal Village
33,364
35,914
37,599
37,520
34,470
Liberty View
1,663
1,480
1,493
1493
1,419
Cardinal Village
2,742
2,839
2.889
2,889
3,325
Liberty View
733
733
1050
1050
300
Cardinal Village
654
627
627
627
727
Multi-Family Residential Duplex/Triplex/4 or More Churches- Exempt –Religious
Liberty View
85,700
85,313
81,020
19,800
20,200
Cardinal Village
55,743
63,093
64,007
64,007
63,345
Liberty View
458,580
557,720
599,600
599,600
685,900
/Taxable
Cardinal Village
97,375
111,013
126,100
126,100
114,089
Single Family Residential ExemptFed/Lc/Rel/St/Ch Vacant Exempt LotFed/Lc/Rel/St/Ed
Liberty View
61,133
55,314
51,117
60,855
72,073
Cardinal Village
24,975
27,540
28,617
29,533
45,940
Liberty View
2,670
2,688
2,687
2,517
2,011
Cardinal Village
30,682
23,540
25,093
25,093
8,064
Liberty View
2,573,300
534,100
183,750
113,300
112,538
Cardinal Village
1,345,300
1,367,100
1,367,100
1,367,100
1,578,200
Liberty View
-
-
-
-
Cardinal Village
5,613
5,613
5,613
5,613
Liberty View
-
-
-
-
Cardinal Village
3,065,800
3,052,200
3,310,400
3,310,400
3,488,300
Liberty View
17,700
19,000
-
-
13,900
Cardinal Village
72,476
76,680
77,573
79,707
116,768
Multi-Family Duplex /Residential ExemptFederal/local Vacant Commercial Lot Buildable /Not Buildable Hospitals & Doctors Offices
Rest
63
7,840
Aggregate Value of Properties in the Impact Area The total assessed value of properties in the impact area rose slightly to $7,719,000 in 2006 but remained almost 13% below the assessed value of these properties in 2002, due primarily to the elimination of a federal multi-family property (public housing) from the rolls. Vacant residential non-buildable lots, single family-exempt residential dwellings, and vacant lots have decreased in value, while all other property categories have risen. The most notable of these are single-family residential dwellings, rising from $1,869,900 to $2,012,400, and multi-family-exempt duplex dwellings, rising from $793,100 to $900,300. Church properties also rose in aggregate value, from $2,998,000 to $3,429,500, an increase of 14 percent (see Table 15).
64
TABLE 33 LEVEL AND AGGREGATE VALUE OF LIBERTY VIEW PROPERTIES BY TYPE 2002-2005 Property Description Single Family Residential Vacant Residential Lot-Buildable Vacant Residential Lot-Not Buildable Multi-Family Duplex /Triplex/4 or More
2002 2,663,100
Aggregate Value (dollars) 2003 2004 2005 2,695,500 2,363,000 1,869,900
2006 2,012,400
166,300
118,400
103,000
86,600
88,000
2,200
2,200
4,200
4,200
600
685,600
682,500
405,100
39,600
40,400
Churches Exempt /Taxable Single Family Residential Expt Fed Single Family Res. Exempt-Local Vacant Exempt Lot – Federal Vacant Exempt Lot-Local Vacant Exempt Lot – Religious Duplex/Multi-Family Exempt – Local Multi-Family Residential Expt-Fed Convenience Market
2,292,900
2,788,600
2,998,000
2,998,000
3,429,500
28,100
-
-
-
-
338,700
387,200
613,400
1,338,800
1,081,100
17,300
-
-
-
-
61,900
133,500
163,000
180,300
148,900
900
900
900
900
3900
-
534,100
735,000
793,100
900,300
2,573,300
-
-
-
-
-
19,000
-
-
-
Parking Lot/Garage Exempt-Local Cemetery Exempt – Other Food & Drugs
-
-
-
-
13,800
-
-
-
-
-
17,700
-
-
-
-
Non Profits Clubs Exempt
-
-
-
-
100
Total
8,847,400
7,361,900
7,385,600
7,311,400
7,719,000
65
Aggregate values of Property in the Comparison Area Total property values in the comparison area rose steadily risen from 2002-2006 in contrast to the slightly more volatile fluctuations in value observed in the impact area. Aggregate property values were 10% higher in the comparison area in 2006 than in 2002 in contrast to the 13% decline over the same period in the impact area. The 10% decline in single family residential values in the comparison area and the 70% decline in the aggregate value of vacant tax-exempt lots were offset by increases in the aggregate values of vacant lots, churches, single-family tax-exempt properties, tax-exempt multifamily properties, and hospitals and doctors offices (see Table 16).
66
TABLE 34: LEVEL AND AGGREGATE VALUE OF CARDINAL VILLAGE PROPERTIES BY TYPE, 2002-2006 Aggregate Value ($)
Property Description Single Family Residential
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
12,911,868
13,862,804
14,475,615
14,407,680
13,133,413
161,778
158,984
156
156,006
286,002
8,502
9,405
9,405
9,405
10,905
3,846,267
4,353,417
4,416,483
4,416,483
4,244,115
779,000
888,104
1,008,800
1,008,800
1,026,801
99,900
137,700
171,702
177,198
229,700
675,004
588,500
677,511
677,511
201,600
2,690,600
2,734,200
2,734,200
2,734,200
3,156,400
44,904
44,904
44,904
44,904
78,400
6,131,600
6,104,400
6,620,800
6,620,800
6,976,600
1,232,092
1,150,200
1,163,595
1,195,605
2,218,592
28,625,085
29,989,113
31,477,842
31,447,590
31,562,325
Vacant Residential Lot Buildable Vacant Residential Lot Not Buildable Multi-Family Residential Duplex/Triplex/4 or More Churches- Exempt – Religious /Taxable Single Family Residential ExemptFed/Lc/Rel/St/Ch/Oth Vacant Exempt LotFed/Lc/Rel/St/Ed/Ch/ Others Duplex & MultiFamily /Residential ExemptFederal/local/Others Vacant Commercial Lot Buildable /Not Buildable Hospitals & Doctors Offices
Rest All Properties in the study Area
Conclusion After close to five years, HOPE VI has had little discernable economic impact on the neighborhood surrounding the former-Liberty View site. The federal grant may have helped the target area grow slightly while the comparison area, Cardinal Village, and
67
Danville City as a whole declined by most economic and real estate indicators. There is some ground for optimism because of the improvement in residential real estate values in Liberty View. However, HOPE VI has not succeeded at this point in stimulating significant growth in the varied amenities deemed ideal by most planners for a mixedincome community. Given the relatively depressed state of the economy in the City of Danville throughout the grant period, and the both the low population density and very low presence of economic activity in the target neighborhood prior to the initiation of the HOPE VI project, it is not surprising to the Evaluation Team that the project has had little discernable impact on the economic vibrancy of the neighborhood. While the improved housing stock and the higher income of the community residents are positive economic indicators for the neighborhood, which may yet attract some business activity to the area, the overall reduction in residential density that resulted from the HOPE VI project could discourage retail or service-related businesses from entering the area. Given that federal and local government, together with non-profit and private partners, have invested more than $25 million in the target neighborhood and the DRHA still holds a significant number of buildable lots in the immediate vicinity, there is a strong argument for continuing investment in this neighborhood to reach a point when market activity can drive further revitalization efforts, rather than continued public subsidy.
68
V. Resident Input and Satisfaction
Resident Satisfaction Survey Based on responses to the survey of resident satisfaction conducted by the Evaluation Team, in 2006, the large majority of residents remained satisfied with the HOPE VI program and the services that they receive from the HOPE VI office. In 2006, 84% (43/51) of the residents surveyed indicated they were either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the services they have received from the HOPE VI program. This is consistent with the responses to the same question in 2005 (81%) and 2004 (86%) and somewhat lower than responses to that question in 2003 (96%). When asked to rate specific services on a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), residents expressed varying levels of satisfaction.
GED classes received an average rating of 3.5 from 18 respondents. Employment services received an average rating of 3.6 from 17 respondents. Job training services received an average rating of 3.5 from 17 respondents. Pre-school childcare services received an average rating of 3.6 from 12 respondents. School-age childcare services received an average rating of 3.6 from 12 respondents. Summer youth programs services received an average rating of 4.0 from 13 respondents. Relocation services received an average rating of 3.7 from 22 respondents. Housing management services received an average rating of 4.1 from 30 respondents. Health care services received an average rating of 3.7 from 15 respondents. Case management services received an average rating of 3.8 from 32 respondents. Legal services received an average rating of 3.2 from 12 respondents. Transportation services received an average rating of 3.9 from 27 respondents.
69
Homeownership counseling services received an average rating of 3.4 from 12 respondents. Senior services received an average rating of 3.7 from 13 respondents. The most highly rated services included Housing Management, Summer Programs for Youth, Transportation and Case Management. Both Housing Management and Case Management were among the four most highly rated services in 2005.
Overall resident satisfaction with their housing situation was strong throughout the grant period, and increased each year from 2004 to 2006. In 2006, forty-four (44) of fifty (50) respondents (88%) stated that they were either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their housing/home “right now.” Of the six respondents who were either “Barely Satisfied” “Very Dissatisfied” only one lived at Seeland Crossing at the time they were surveyed. This high level of satisfaction regarding respondents’ housing situations represents the highest level of satisfaction during the evaluation period (79% in 2005; 73% in 2004; 84% in 2003). It is interesting to note, however, that the second highest level of satisfaction with regard to housing was at the beginning of the evaluation period when most respondents lived in the original Liberty View public housing development. Finally, when residents were asked in 2006 to rate how much better or worse their lives would be because of HOPE VI, thirty four (34) of forty-seven (47) respondents (72%) stated that they thought their lives would be better or much better, while twelve (12) or 26% stated that it was about the same. Residents Not Returning to Seeland Crossing Of the residents surveyed who were not planning to return to Seeland Crossing, only seven provided a reason why. Four stated that they were happy where they were currently living, two stated that the additional cost of utilities at Seeland Crossing would make it unaffordable and one gave a vague response. In order to further explore this question, the Evaluation Team conducted face-to-face interviews with three residents who stated that they were not returning to the site (one of which responded to the
70
question in the survey and two who did not). In all three cases, the residents expressed the belief that they could not afford to pay their own utilities in the new community. One of the three actually applied for a tax credit unit at Seeland Crossing and was denied for being over income. Another resident, who lives in a public housing community, stated that she preferred to live in the same development as her family members. The third resident, also a resident of another public housing community, stated that her income consisted of providing childcare to families in the development where she lived and moving to Seeland Crossing could jeopardize her business. Resident Statements Regarding Their Own Needs The following is a summary of resident responses on the 2006 survey when asked to indicate which services, from a list provided, would benefit them. Table 35: Resident Self-Assessment of Service Needs in 2006 Service
Transportation Utility Assistance Health Insurance Food Pantry/ Free Meals
Respondents That Indicated They Would Benefit From the Service 24 22 19 15
Job Training Child Care Financial Aid for Education Youth Programs (612)
12 11 10
GED Classes Youth Programs (13-17) Regular Community Events
7 6
Family Counseling Parenting Classes
1 1
8
4
71
Given the list above, the five services that residents most often self-assessed that they would benefit from were (from most often to least often): Transportation, Utility Assistance, Health Insurance, Food Pantry and Job Training. Transportation, Utility Assistance and Health Insurance have been among the top five for the past three years. Job training was among the top five in 2005 while Food Pantry has become important, as measured by these resident self assessments. In addition, many residents currently living in Seeland Crossing indicated a desire for a playground and a store in the neighborhood.
72
VI. Identification of Best Practices The following are aspects of the Liberty View/ Seeland Crossing HOPE VI project that the Evaluation Team views as best practices, and which have been key factors in producing the positive impacts that have resulted from this project. Best Practices
Openness to Evaluation and Responsiveness to Evaluation Reports – As has been noted in each of the past Evaluation Reports, the HOPE VI Office has made every effort to be transparent to the evaluation process. This openness has significantly improved the ability of the Evaluation Team to obtain the data necessary to complete this, and previous, evaluation reports. In addition, the HOPE VI Office consistently demonstrated specific and, in many cases, effective responses to the Evaluation Team’s recommendations.
Career Development MOU with PCCA – With the drop in employment retention among members of the target population from 2005 to 2006, it appears that job placements made by the on-site PCCA Employment Specialist prevented an even more dramatic drop in the employment and income figures for the target population as a whole. The presence of a dedicated Employment Specialist will be critical to improving employment outcomes for members of the target population by the end of the grant period. It appears that the Employment Specialist has been able to connect numerous public housing residents to some of Danville’s newest employers – most notably Televista, which pays a higher entry level hourly wage than most employers in the City. Support for Post-High School Educational Achievement – The HOPE VI Office has covered the tuition of eleven former Liberty View residents at Danville Community College. Case Managers also worked to support many of these households to pursue their education by connecting them with childcare resources, transportation and by helping to address other barriers to participation. 73
Homeownership Counseling Partnership with Telamon – It appears that the HOPE VI Office’s partnership with the non-profit Telamon Corporation has substantially improved its homeownership counseling program, both in terms of the quality of the curriculum and the level of engagement with counselees (moving from a weekend class to a six month homebuyer club). High Utilization of the Transportation Program – As in previous years, the high utilization of the HOPE VI van service reflects the extent to which this program is meeting a pressing need among members of the target population. Support for Young Adults in the HOPE VI Community – As noted in this report, it appears that the ongoing engagement of the HOPE VI staff with a group of approximately a dozen young adults from households in the target population has had a beneficial impact on these young adults, in terms of access to summer employment, as well as support in finishing high school and considering ongoing educational opportunities. Efforts to Facilitate the Establishment of a Single Community Organization – By actively supporting the formation of the Seeland Crossing Community Association, the HOPE VI Office took an important step toward fulfilling the expectations of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regarding ongoing resident participation in a HOPE VI project as well as toward ensuring the sustainability of the new community.
74
Appendix A
Memorandum Date: May 26, 2006 To: Gary Wasson, Executive Director, Danville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (DRHA) Tom Barrett, HOPE VI Director, DRHA From: Noel Poyo, Lead Evaluator Re:
Sustainability for Liberty View/ Seeland Crossing HOPE VI
cc:
Eric Hearn, Vice President, HOU Rodney Green, Executive Director, Howard University CUP Debra Hairston, HOPE VI CSS Program Coordinator, DRHA
In each of the previous annual reports, the HOU/Howard CUP Evaluation Team has recommended that the DRHA develop a sustainability plan for the Seeland Crossing community. In fact, HUD has required more recent HOPE VI grantees to develop a formal plan for ensuring the sustainability of future HOPE VI communities. In response to the DRHA’s request for additional guidance regarding this recommendation, the HOU/Howard CUP Evaluation Team submits this memorandum with the intent to: once again encourage the DRHA to develop a plan for sustaining services in the HOPE VI community after the grant period; provide an outline of what a sustainability plan should include; provide some suggestions about the content of the plan for Seeland Crossing; and offer some thoughts about potential sources of funding for ongoing services and strategies for securing funds. The content of this memorandum will be incorporated, as an appendix, into the fourth annual evaluation. *** Developing a Sustainability Plan At a minimum, a sustainability plan should: 1. analyze current social and economic trends in the new HOPE VI community; 2. make projections about the type and degree of needs that will be present among community residents; 3. make a determination about the services that will be required to meet those needs; 75
4. identify existing community assets; 5. include strategies for preserving and strengthening the community’s existing assets; 6. develop a budget for those services and strategies; and finally, 7. determine what funding sources can support that budget. The annual evaluation reports developed by the Evaluation Team present the data and analysis of social and economic trends in the new HOPE VI community upon which DRHA could base its sustainability plan for Seeland Crossing. It is clear that the services that will help to sustain stable households and, overall, a stable housing community, should include, but not be limited to: On-going adult education and career development support; Post-purchase counseling for homeowners and ongoing homeownership counseling for lease purchase households; Support for accessing utility assistance and other resources to address emergency expenses; Services to support independent living for the elderly and disabled; Transportation assistance (especially related to accessing employment and health services); Youth summer employment and connections to after school programs; A referral process between management and a service coordinator to address issues of non-payment, poor housekeeping and disputes between neighbors prior to an eviction becoming necessary. Access and referrals to adequate child care services. DRHA should identify the number of households that it seeks to serve with these or other services and develop a budget and staffing plan to support these goals. In order to carry out a service plan, DRHA will almost certainly need to engage a service coordinator (either as an employee or under a contract with an outside provider) to be the individual primarily responsible for leveraging and coordinating resources for residents at Seeland Crossing. DRHA could then build upon this foundation as funds become available (based on the availability of funding). DRHA should anticipate a minimum annual budget for services of $65,000, which would cover the cost of a service coordinator, benefits, basic office expenses and overhead as well as a very modest budget for materials and community activities. Potential Sources of Funding DRHA could raise funds for a program of service coordination at Seeland Crossing from a variety of federal and non-federal resources. At a minimum, DRHA should explore the feasibility of accessing funding under the following HUD grant programs to support (or maintain) services at Seeland Crossing: Public and Indian Housing Family Self-Sufficiency Program Coordinators ROSS - Service Delivery Models-Family-Homeownership ROSS - Service Delivery Models-Elderly/Disabled 76
Public Housing Neighborhood Networks In order to access private foundation dollars, DRHA will need to take one of two approaches: 1) develop applications for funding through a subsidiary 501 (c)(3); or 2) develop a long-term partnership with a reputable non-profit organization that can leverage limited funding provided by DRHA. Potential private and corporate foundation sources might include: Bank of America Foundation BB&T Charitable Foundation Wachovia Charitable Foundation SunTrust Foundation Home Depot Foundation Walton Family Foundation Jack Kent Cooke Foundation Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation The Annie E. Casey Foundation
DRHA should also closely examine whether a modest amount of funding can be pulled from the property’s operating budget to match other funds to support services at Seeland Crossing. Further, while the for sale portion of Seeland Crossing appears to have required significant subsidy, if additional sale units are developed and sold at a price that exceeds construction costs, the DRHA could choose to allocate a portion of the proceeds toward services in the community. Finally, DRHA has in recent years attempted to establish an endowment trust with HOPE VI funds. DRHA should insist on substantive negotiations with HUD regarding the funds that have been set aside for this endowment trust. If it is not feasible for HUD to approve an endowment trust model in a reasonable amount of time, then DRHA should obtain a special waiver or grant extension that allows the DRHA to invest these funds in services at Seeland Crossing over a period of time that allows DRHA to raise other funds to support services once the endowment funds have been expended. Other Considerations 1. City Investment - The DRHA should consider the role that the City of Danville can play in supporting this new affordable community. One important example is in the area of transportation. The City bus service only passes by development on Industrial Avenue once an hour, making it very difficult for community residents that do not own cars to commute to work and to access healthcare, shopping, and daycare centers, etc. The HOPE VI program has provided a heavily utilized van service. If funding for the van service runs out, this will create significant service gap that could be addressed, at least in part, by improved bus service in and out of the neighborhood. 2. Leveraging the First Tee Facility - The DRHA has made a significant investment in the First Tee facility at the Slade Building. It is not clear that this facility has generated 77
significant interest from the neighborhood or ongoing support from funders. This facility can be a platform from which to engage well known golfers, holding community events and fundraisers or otherwise communicating a positive profile for the community and raising funds to support services. 3. Maintain FSS Escrow Accounts and Explore Connections with IDA Programs - The FSS program escrow accounts have been a primary tool for encouraging savings among former Liberty View households. DRHA should continue this program and explore the possibility of connecting this program with an Individual Development Account program, which could match escrow savings. 4. Explore the Use of Section 8 Homeownership Vouchers with the Lease Purchase Units – DRHA’s Section 8 homeownership program could be an important resource for ensuring stability for future low-income homeowners at Seeland Crossing. 5. Sustain and Expand Connections with DCC and other Local Educational Institutions – DRHA has had some success in connecting residents to classes at DCC and engaging DCC with the Neighborhood Network Centers in public housing properties. DRHA should work to facilitate access to the resources available through DCC and the local school system.
78
APPENDIX B NUMBER OF PROPERTIES – DANVILLE CITY, LIBERTY VIEW, CARDINAL VILLAGE Property Description All Properties in the study Area
Single Family Residential
Vacant Residential Lot Buildable
Vacant Residential Lot Not Buildable
Multi-Family Residential Duplex/Triplex/4 or More Churches- Exempt –Religious /Taxable Single Family Residential ExemptFed/Lc/Rel/St/Ch/ Oth Vacant Exempt LotFed/Lc/Rel/St/Ed/ Ch/Others Duplex & MultiFamily /Residential ExemptFederal/local/Othe rs Vacant Commercial Lot Buildable /Not Buildable Hospitals & Doctors Offices
Rest
Number of Properties Study Area
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
26,100
26,030
25,992
25,929
591
590
25,767 621
Liberty View
591 239
591 239
239
239
233
Danville
16,605
16,544
16,601
16,554
16,545
Cardinal Village
387
386
385
384
381
Danville Cardinal Village
Liberty View
85
84
79
69
61
Danville
4,182
4,193
4,154
4,145
4,075
Cardinal Village
59
56
54
54
86
Liberty View
100
80
69
58
62
Danville
1,076
1,001
991
954
885
Cardinal Village
13
15
15
15
15
Liberty View
3
3
4
4
2
Danville
953
932
867
859
856
Cardinal Village
69
69
69
69
67
Liberty View
8
8
5
2
2
Danville
173
176
178
180
Cardinal Village
8
8
8
8
160 9
Liberty View
5
5
5
5
5
Danville
80
86
96
90
117
Cardinal Village
4
5
6
6
5
Liberty View
6
7
12
22
15
Danville
509
547
447
572
526
Cardinal Village
22
25
27
27
25
Liberty View
30
50
61
72
76
Danville
6
8
13
17
Cardinal Village
2
2
2
2
22 2 8
Liberty View
1
1
4
7
Danville
811
822
806
818
Cardinal Village
8
8
8
8
837 10 -
Liberty View
-
-
-
-
Danville
106
101
99
99
Cardinal Village
2
2
2
2
100 2
Liberty View
-
-
-
-
-
Danville
1,597
1,620
1,740
1,641
Cardinal Village
17
15
15
15
1,644 19
Liberty View
1
1
-
-
2
79
APPENDIX C - CHANGES IN NUMBER OF PROPERTIES, SELECTED INTERVALS Property Description
Study Area ’02-‘03
’03-‘04
’04-‘05
All Properties in the study Area
Danville
-70
-38
-63
Cardinal Village
0
0
-1
Single Family Residential
Vacant Residential Lot Buildable Vacant Residential Lot Not Buildable Multi-Family Residential Duplex/Triplex/ 4 or More ChurchesExempt – Religious /Taxable Single Family Residential ExemptFed/Lc/Rel/St/C h/Oth
Vacant Exempt LotFed/Lc/Rel/St/E d/Ch/Others Duplex & MultiFamily /Residential ExemptFederal/local/Ot
Vacant Commercial Lot Buildable /Not Buildable Hospitals & Doctors Offices
Change in Number of Property ’05-‘06
Percentage Change in Number of Property ’02-‘06
’02-‘03
’03-‘04
’04-‘05
’05-‘06
’02-‘06
-162 31
-333 30
-0.3
-0.1
-0.2
0.0
0.0
-0.2
-0.6 5.3
-1.3 5.1
-6
-6
0.0
0.0
0.0
-2.5
-2.5
0.3
-0.3
Liberty View
0
0
0
Danville
-61
57
-47
Cardinal Village
-1
-1
-1
-9 -3
-60 -6
-0.4 -0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-0.1 -0.8
-0.4 -1.6
-8
-24
-1.2
-6.0
-12.7
-11.6
-28.2
0.3
-0.9
-0.2
Liberty View
-1
-5
-10
Danville
11
-39
-9
Cardinal Village
-3
-2
0
-70 32
-107 27
-5.1
-3.6
0.0
-1.7 59.3
-2.6 45.8
Liberty View
-20
-11
-11
4
-38
-20.0
-13.8
-15.9
6.9
-38
Danville
-75
-10
-37
-1.0
-3.7
2
0
0
-191 2
-7.0
Cardinal Village
-69 0
15.4
0.0
0.0
-7.2 0
-17.8 15.4
Liberty View
0
1
0
-2
-1
0.0
33.3
0.0
-50
-33.3
Danville
-21
-65
-8
-0.9
0
0
-97 -2
-7.0
0
-3 -2
-2.2
Cardinal Village
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.3 -2.9
-10.2 -2.9
Liberty View
0
-3
-3
0
-6
0.0
-37.5
-60.0
0
-75
Danville
3
2
2
1.1
0
0
0
-13 1
1.1
Cardinal Village
-20 1
1.7 0.0
0.0
0.0
-11.1 12.5
-7.5 12.5
Liberty View
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
Danville
6
10
-6
-6.3
1
1
0
37 1
11.6
Cardinal Village
27 -1
7.5 25.0
20.0
0.0
30.0 -16.7
46.3 25
-7
9
16.7
71.4
83.3
-31.8
150
7.5
-18.3
28.0
Liberty View
1
5
10
Danville
38
-100
125
Cardinal Village
3
2
0
-46 -2
17 3
13.6
8.0
0.0
-8.0 -7.4
3.3 13.6
Liberty View
20
11
11
4
46
66.7
22.0
18.0
5.6
153.3
Danville
2
5
4
62.5
30.8
0
0
0
16 0
33.3
Cardinal Village
5 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
29.4 0
266.7 0
Liberty View
0
3
3
1
7
0.0
300.0
75.0
14.3
700
Danville
11
-16
12
1.5
0
0
26 2
-1.9
0
19 2
1.4
Cardinal Village
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3 25
3.2 25
Danville
-5
-2
0
-2.0
0.0
0
0
0
-6 0
-4.7
Cardinal Village
1 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2 0
2.9 0
3 4
47 2
1.4
7.4
-5.7
-11.8
0.0
0.0
1.0 26.7
-5.7 11.8
1
0.0
0.0
Liberty View
Liberty View Rest
Danville
23
120
-99
Cardinal Village
-2
0
0
Liberty View
0
80
100
APPENDIX D AVERAGE PROPERTY VALUE - DANVILLE CITY, CARDINAL VILLAGE, LIBERTY VIEW Property Description All Properties in the study Area
Single Family Residential
Vacant Residential Lot Buildable Vacant Residential Lot Not Buildable
Multi-Family Residential Duplex/Triplex/4 or More Churches- Exempt –Religious /Taxable Single Family Residential ExemptFed/Lc/Rel/St/Ch/ Oth Vacant Exempt LotFed/Lc/Rel/St/Ed/ Ch/Others Duplex & MultiFamily /Residential ExemptFederal/local/Othe rs Vacant Commercial Lot Buildable /Not Buildable Hospitals & Doctors Offices
Rest
Average Property Value (dollars) Study Area
2002
2003
2004
2005
Danville
73,871
75,826
88,470
90,095
2006
Cardinal Village
48,435
50,743
53,262
53,301
97,479.9 50,825
Liberty View
37,018
30,803
30,902
30,592
33,128
Danville
57,632
62,309
66,798
67,465
Cardinal Village
33,364
35,914
37,599
37,520
70,941.3 34,470.9
Liberty View
31,331
32,089
29,911
27,100
32,990.2
Danville
5,107
5,257
5,383
5,147
Cardinal Village
2,742
2,839
2.889
2,889
5,329.6 3,325.6
Liberty View
1,663
1,480
1,493
1493
1,419.4
Danville
1,334
1,308
1,297
1,321
Cardinal Village
654
627
627
627
1,123.6 727 300
Liberty View
733
733
1050
1050
Danville
101,497
101,395
116,670
123,510
Cardinal Village
55,743
63,093
64,007
64,007
140,765.1 63,345
Liberty View
85,700
85,313
81,020
19,800
20,200
Danville
361,150
374,105
433,542
433,856
Cardinal Village
97,375
111,013
126,100
126,100
498,187.6 114,089
Liberty View
458,580
557,720
599,600
599,600
685,900
Danville
61,021
47,872
59,951
71,231
Cardinal Village
24,975
27,540
28,617
29,533
74,289.7 45,940
Liberty View
61,133
55,314
51,117
60,855
72,073.3
Danville
11,869
16**
10,880
9,985
Cardinal Village
30,682
23,540
25,093
25,093
10,670.3 8,064
Liberty View
2,670
2,688
2,687
2,517
2,010.5
Danville
1,695,800
1,980,586
1,483,154
980,094
Cardinal Village
1,345,300
1,367,100
1,367,100
1,367,100
865,990.9 1,578,200
Liberty View
2,573,300
534,100
183,750
113,300
112,537.5
Danville
22,251
165**
24,237
23,559
Cardinal Village
5,613
5,613
5,613
5,613
30,014.9 7,840 -
Liberty View
-
-
-
-
Danville
875,548
938,282
1,238,812
1,270,177
Cardinal Village
3,065,800
3,052,200
3,310,400
3,310,400
1,313,773.0 3,488,300
Liberty View
-
-
-
-
-
Danville
411,463
438,328
471,195
511,071
Cardinal Village
72,476
76,680
77,573
79,707
563,811.7 116,768
Liberty View
17,700
19,000
-
-
13,900
81
APPENDIX E AVERAGE AND PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN PROPERTY VALUES, SELECTED INTERVALS, 2002-06 DANVILLE CITY, CARDINAL VILLAGE, LIBERTY VIEW PROPERTIES
Property Description
Area
All Properties in the study Area Single Family Residential
Vacant Residential Lot Buildable Vacant Residential Lot Not Buildable Multi-Family Residential Duplex/Triplex /4 or More ChurchesExempt – Religious /Taxable Single Family Residential ExemptFed/Lc/Rel/St/ Ch/Oth
Vacant Exempt LotFed/Lc/Rel/St/ Ed/Ch/Others Duplex & Multi-Family /Residential ExemptFederal/local/
Vacant Commercial Lot Buildable /Not Buildable Hospitals & Doctors Offices Rest
Change in Average Property Value ($)
Percentage Change in Average Property Value ($)
’02-‘03
’03-‘04
’04-‘05
’05-‘06
’02-‘06
’02-‘03
’03-‘04
’04-‘05
Danville
1,955
12,644
1,625
7,384.90
23,608.90
2.6
16.7
1.8
8.2
32
Cardinal Village
2,308
2,519
39
5.0
0.1
-4.6
4.9
-6,215
99
-310
2,390 -3,890
4.8
Liberty View
-2,476 2,536
-16.8
0.3
-1.0
8.3
-10.5
Danville
4,677
4,489
667
13,309.30
8.1
7.2
1.0
5.2
23.1
Cardinal Village
2,550
1,685
-79
1,107
7.6
4.7
-0.2
-8.1
3.3
Liberty View
758
-2,718
-2,811
5,890
1,659
2.4
-6.8
-9.4
21.7
5.3
Danville
150
101
-236
182.6
222.6
2.9
1.9
-4.4
3.5
4.4
Cardinal Village
97
50
0
437
584
3.5
1.8
0
15.1
21.3
Liberty View
-183
13
0
-74
-244
-11.0
0.9
0
-4.9
-14.6
Danville
-26
-11
24
-197.4
-210.4
-1.9
-0.8
1.9
-14.9
-15.8
Cardinal Village
-27
0
0
100
73
-4.1
0
0
15.9
11.2
Liberty View
0
317
0
-750
-433
0
43.3
0
-71.4
-59.1
Danville
-102
15,275
6,840
17,255.10
39,268.10
-0.1
15.1
5.9
14
38.7
Cardinal Village
7,350
914
0
-662
7,602
13.2
1.5
0
-1.0
13.6
Liberty View
-387
-4,293
-61,220
-65,500
-0.5
-5.0
-75.6
2.0
-76.4
Danville
12,955
59,437
314
64,331.60
137,037.60
3.6
15.9
0.1
14.8
37.9
Cardinal Village
13,638
15,087
0
-12,011
16,714
14.0
13.6
0
-9.5
17.2
Liberty View
99,140
41,880
0
86,300
227,320
21.6
7.5
0
14.4
49.6
Danville
-13,149
12,079
11,280
3,058.70
13,268.70
-21.5
25.2
18.8
4.3
21.7
Cardinal Village
2,565
1,077
916
20,965
10.3
3.9
3.2
55.6
83.9
Liberty View
-5,819
-4,197
9,738
11,218
10,940
-9.5
-7.6
19.1
18.4
17.9
Danville
-11,853
10,864**
-895
685.3
-1,198.70
-99.9
67,900**
-8.2
6.9
-10.1
Cardinal Village
-7,142
1,553
0
-17,029
-22,618
-23.3
6.6
0
-67.9
-73.7
Liberty View
18
-1
-170
-507
-660
0.7
-0.04
-6.3
-20.1
-24.7
Danville
284,786
-497,432
-503,060
-829,809.10
16.8
-25.1
-33.9
Cardinal Village
21,800
0
0
211,100
232,900
1.6
0
0
-11.6 15.4
-48.9 17.3
Liberty View
-2,039,200
-350,350
-70,450
-763
-2,460,763
-7.9
-65.6
-38.3
-0.67
-95.6
Danville
22,086
24,072**
-678
6,455.90
7,763.90
99.3
14,589**
-2.8
Cardinal Village
0
0
0
2,227
2,227
0
0
0
27.4 39.7
34.9 39.7
Liberty View
-
-
-
-
-
-
Danville
62,734
300,530
31,365
43,596.00
438,225.00
6.4
32.0
25.3
3.4
50.1
Cardinal Village
-13,600
258,200
0
177,900
422,500
-0.4
8.5
0
5.4
13.8
Liberty View
-
-
-
-
-
-
152,348.70
6.5
7.5
8.5
10.3
37
44,292
5.8
1.2
2.8
46.5
61.1
-3,800
7.3
-
-
Danville
26,865
32,867
39,876
Cardinal Village
4,204
893
2,134
Liberty View
1,300
-
-
3,476.30 -3,049
400
16,407
-114,103.10
52,740.70 37,061
82
’05-‘06
’02-‘06
-21.5
83
