This legislation amends Section 24 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (the “1937 Act”) to reauthorize and enhance the HOPE VI program.  It recognizes the successes of HOPE VI, affirms the continuing need for the program, and makes several programmatic adjustments based on the considerable experience that public housing agencies and their private sector partners have had in implementing HOPE VI for more than a decade.  In particular, the bill would place a renewed emphasis on relocation activities and on partnerships with local schools as part of an overall strategy to encourage and facilitate resident self-sufficiency. The PDF of the bill is here.

(a) Findings

In subsection (a), Congress makes a set of findings that acknowledge the importance and success of the HOPE VI program and the need for reauthorization.  Congress finds that:

·        the HOPE VI program is one of the most significant and successful neighborhood reinvestment strategies implemented in recent years having  transformed dozens of distressed public housing developments into successful mixed-use and mixed-income communities of hope and opportunity and without which the physical and social revitalization of these neighborhoods would not have occurred;

·        HOPE VI has changed the face of public housing by seamlessly incorporating affordable housing opportunities in vital and sustainable market-based, mixed-income developments, thereby serving as a model for creativity and innovation in the delivery of affordable housing;

·        there are over 1.2 million units of public housing, between 46,900 and 81,900 of which are considered to be severely distressed;

·        nationwide, the public housing inventory has an accumulated capital needs backlog of approximately $18 billion, with an estimated additional $2 billion accruing each year;

·        HOPE VI funds have successfully leveraged substantial additional resources.  From 1993-2001, the $4.5 billion in HOPE VI grants awarded was anticipated by Public Housing Authorities to leverage an additional $10.21 billion in other public and private investments. According to the GAO, 59 percent of the total funds budgeted by fiscal year 2001 grantees for community and supportive services consisted of leveraged funds;

·        HOPE VI has resulted in the demolition of tens of thousands of severely distressed and often uninhabitable public housing units and, in their place, created affordable housing opportunities in healthy mixed-income communities in the form of both project-based housing and housing voucher assistance, giving existing public housing residents improved and meaningful housing choices;

·        HOPE VI has fundamentally transformed the lives of thousands of public housing residents who have become self-sufficient through the required community and supportive services programs.

(b) Declaration of Policy

Congress declares in Subsection (b) of the bill that it is the policy of the United States to reauthorize the HOPE VI program in order to achieve a number of important goals, as follows:

• To end the practice of concentrating the poor in distressed and isolated neighborhoods as an underlying predicate for leaving no children behind.  
• To create healthy communities using a holistic and comprehensive approach to assure long term marketability and sustainability of the community.
• To support excellent outcomes for families, especially children, with emphasis on excellent, high performing neighborhood schools and excellent quality of life amenities, such as first class retail space and green space. 
• To create mixed-income communities, with the goal of creating a market-rate community with a seamless affordable component.
• To develop such communities through public-private partnerships using public and private sources of funding and market principles.
• To support residents with adequate resources to assist them to achieve their life goals, focusing on self-sufficiency and educational advancement of children and their parents, thereby creating a culture of learning, education, and excellence, in which expectations and standards for personal responsibility are benchmarks for success.

 

(c)    Purposes of the HOPE VI Program

Given these Congressional findings and declarations of national policy, and in view of the considerable experience public housing agencies and their private partners have had in implementing the HOPE VI program, subsection (c) of the bill adds two new purposes of the HOPE VI program, as provided in Section 24 of the 1937 Act:

·        promoting sustainable connections between the revitalization of public housing communities and local schools and institutions of higher learning, as a means of supporting educational achievement by children and adults as part of a comprehensive self-sufficiency strategy, and,

·        reducing concentrations of poverty and promoting housing choice and self-sufficiency among low-income families by ensuring the successful temporary or permanent relocation of residents from severely distressed public housing projects through comprehensive counseling and supportive services that assist the families’ selection of and success in lower poverty neighborhoods by giving them the tools to achieve self sufficiency.

These are in addition to the existing purposes of the program:

·        improving the living environment for public housing residents

·        revitalizing sites on which severely distressed public housing is located

·        providing housing that will avoid or decrease the concentration of very low-income families, and,

·        building sustainable communities

(d) Eligible Activities

            Subsection (d)(1) of the bill modifies Section 24(d) of the 1937 Act, which lists the eligible activities that may be funded with HOPE VI funds.  New section 24(d)(1)(L) authorizes funding for necessary comprehensive supportive services, including employment and vocational counseling, life skills training and other human services.  It replaces the provision of current law that limits the use of HOPE VI funds for supportive service activities to no more than 15% of the grant.  New section 24(d)(1)(M) of the 1937 Act recognizes the importance of relocation activities to a successful HOPE VI program and authorizes funding for necessary costs of ensuring the effective temporary and permanent relocation of existing residents.

            The bill also recognizes the critical importance of successful partnerships with educational institutions, especially neighborhood schools.  Accordingly, Subsection (d)(2) of the bill adds a new Section 24(d)(3) to the 1937 Act, requiring each HOPE VI grant recipient to establish, in partnership with the local schools and school superintendent, a comprehensive educational reform and achievement strategy for transforming the neighborhood schools that serve the revitalized HOPE VI sites into high-performing schools.  The strategy must include the clear commitment of the neighborhood schools and institutions of higher learning, including the commitment of financial and other resources by local foundations and other public and private partners. 

            The timeline for development and implementation of the comprehensive educational reform and achievement strategy must support and be consistent with the HOPE VI redevelopment schedule.  The strategy also must include a detailed plan for reforming educational programming for pre-school and elementary school children, address educational reform for middle school and high school students, and provide means of encouraging adult continuing education.

(e) Grant Award Criteria

            Based on the lessons learned from prior HOPE VI awards, Subsection (e) of the bill amends Section 24(e) of the 1937 Act to establish a new set of criteria for HUD to use in making award decisions for HOPE VI grants.  It provides that HUD shall establish criteria for the award of grants that ensure performance standards are met by awarding funds to public housing agencies that demonstrate partnerships and collaboration between public and private sector partners, a need for funding, a readiness and capacity to execute the proposed program, and that propose measurable interim and long-term outcomes for achieving the purposes and goals of the HOPE VI program.  

Many of the criteria exist in the current HOPE VI statute:

·        the extent to which the applicant could undertake such activities without a grant under this section

·        the extent of involvement of residents, State and local governments, private service providers, financing entities, and developers, in the development and ongoing implementation of a  revitalization program for the project except that the Secretary may not award a grant under this section unless the applicant  has involved affected public housing residents at the beginning and during the planning process for the revitalization program, prior to submission of an application

·        the need for affordable housing in the community

·        the supply of other housing available and affordable to families receiving tenant-based assistance

·        the extent to which the plan sustains or creates more  project-based housing units available to persons eligible for  public housing in markets where the plan shows there is demand for the maintenance or creation of such units

The following are new criteria:

·        The extent to which the proposal realistically addresses achievement of the purposes of the HOPE VI program

·        The extent to which a proposal demonstrates a comprehensive strategy for educational achievement and for transforming the neighborhood schools that serve the revitalized HOPE IV site into high-performing schools and encourages the educational advancement of adults

·        The quality and sustainability of the physical redevelopment program and the offering of housing choice to residents, including multifamily rental housing and homeownership opportunities for households with a wide range of incomes and housing for seniors

·        The likely effectiveness of the plan for temporary and permanent relocation of existing residents, which shall ensure that residents are fully aware of their relocation choices, and supported during the relocation process to assure a successful transition, including case management and the counseling and supportive services the plan offers to such residents

·        evidence that the subject project is severely distressed, which shall include a certification signed by an engineer or architect licensed by a state licensing board that the project meets the criteria for physical distress

·        The strength of local government support for the proposal, financial and otherwise, which shall require, at a minimum, a commitment evidenced by the signature of the chief executive of such local government of financial assistance equal to at least five percent of the HOPE VI grant amount

·        The strength of evidence that the implementation team has the ability to perform under the HOPE VI program, including evidence as to the capabilities of both the public partners, including the public housing agency, and the proposed private development partners

·        The achievability of the timelines proposed for implementation of the revitalization plan, which must reflect the scope and scale of the project, while addressing the implementation timeline for each of the components individually

·        The extent to which the proposal will leverage other public or private funds or assets for the project in an amount that is not less than two times the amount of the HOPE VI grant

·        The strength and soundness of the proposal to assist residents in achieving self-sufficiency and personal responsibility

·        the extent to which the plan minimizes permanent  displacement of current residents of the public housing site who wish to return to the revitalized community and who meet the reoccupancy criteria (including all residents that were not evicted prior to the revitalization effort) and  provides for community and supportive services to residents prior to and during any relocation, and the extent to which  reasonable and appropriate supportive services are offered to residents wishing to return to the revitalized site that will help them meet reoccupancy criteria

·        The extent to which the proposal sets forth strategies and plans that assist residents displaced by the revitalization in utilizing tenant based vouchers to select housing opportunities, including in communities with a lower concentration of poverty, that will not result in a financial burden to the family and will promote long-term housing stability

·        The extent to which the proposal provides as part of its revitalization program for the effective temporary and permanent relocation of existing residents and ensures that:

(i) residents are fully informed of relocation options, which include relocation to housing in a neighborhood with a lower concentration of poverty than their current residence, through workshops, site tours, case management, or other means, and are given the opportunity to make informed choices;

(ii) relocation milestones are established that ensure successful relocation in terms of timeliness and steps toward self-sufficiency;

(iii) the relocation plan does not result in increased concentrations of poverty in the communities to which residents are relocated;

(iv) particular attention is paid to minimizing the impact of relocations on children, such as coordinating relocation moves with school calendars;

(v) existing residents who are being relocated temporarily or permanently are offered and encouraged to participate in comprehensive community and supportive services over the period of the HOPE VI grant to facilitate their progress toward self-sufficiency whenever possible; and

(vi) the proposed budget for relocation costs reflects the costs of effective relocation efforts, including moving expenses, counseling, case management, and other related costs, including payments required under the Uniform Relocation Act

·        Such other factors as the Secretary considers appropriate

 

(f) Site Visits

 

            Subsection (f) of the bill adds a new Subsection 24(e)(4) to the 1937 Act, regarding HOPE VI grant award criteria, to authorize HUD to conduct site visits as part of the selection process.  Specifically, it provides that notwithstanding any other law, HUD may conduct site visits for HOPE VI applicants to assist in making funding decisions. 

(g) Performance Benchmarks

            Subsection (g) of the bill adds a new Section 24(f) to the 1937 Act to require performance benchmarks for each HOPE VI grant.  Public housing agencies, in consultation with HUD, would be required to set performance benchmarks for each component of their HOPE VI projects, including benchmarks for linkages with schools and other community partners, for effective temporary and permanent relocation of existing residents, for achievement of self-sufficiency by residents, timelines for accomplishing key revitalization goals taking into consideration the scope and scale of the revitalization plan, and such other benchmarks as HUD determines appropriate.  

            If a public housing agency fails to meet the performance benchmarks, HUD is required to impose appropriate sanctions, such as appointment of an alternative administrator for the HOPE VI project, imposition of financial penalties, withdrawal of funding, or other sanctions HUD deems necessary.  HUD must also determine the amount of the grant and the closeout date for the grant taking into consideration the scope, scale, and size of the revitalization plan.

(h) Authorization of Appropriations

            Subsection (h) of the bill would amend Section 24(n) of the 1937 Act to authorize appropriations of $600 million for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011.

 

 

(i) Extension of Program

             Subsection (i) of the bill would amend Section 24(p) of the 1937 Act to reauthorize the HOPE VI program through September 30, 2011.

(j) Other Federally-Assisted Housing

            Subsection (j) of the bill would require HUD to conduct a review of strategies and accomplishments in the HOPE VI program which may be transferable to other federally-assisted housing programs and to make recommendations to the Congress on the same no later than September 30, 2008.