resident services_ how hud can support place-based service intervention for families

HOW HUD CAN SUPPORT PLACE-BASED SERVICE INTERVENTION FOR FAMILIES

Goldman School of Public Policy Consultant Team: Kate Faust Ethan Guy Corey Matthews Peri Weisberg

M a y 2 0 1 4

RESIDENT SERVICES

Resident Services: How HUD Can Support Place-Based Service Intervention for Families

-1-

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to acknowledge our clients, Margaret Salazar and Victoria Brown in the Office of Affordable Housing Preservation at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), for providing vision, insight, and guidance. We thank our faculty advisor, Jesse Rothstein, for his support in the development of this report. We would further like to acknowledge several housing providers, academics, advocates, and funders who took time to share their experience and knowledge:

• Larry Rosenthal, University of California - Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy • Bill Kelly, Clare Duncan, & Nancy Pollock, Stewards of Affordable Housing for the Future • Tanya Wolfersperger, OregonOn • Tracewell Hanrahan, Fresno Housing Authority • Carol Breslau, Mercy Housing • Peggy Jen, Bay Area LISC, re: Nystrom Village project • Judith Chavis, American Association of Service Coordinators

Cover photo: Huster, Frank. Malichi Usoro (23 mo). 2010. Seattle, Washington. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation © Some Rights Reserved


-2-

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Introduction & Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 RESIDENT SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................... 4 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ................................................................................................................................ 4 A NOTE ABOUT THE SCOPE OF ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 5

Methods for Delivery of Resident Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 CASE MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................... 6 SERVICE COORDINATION .................................................................................................................................. 8 LEARNING CENTERS ....................................................................................................................................... 10 PARTNERSHIPS .............................................................................................................................................. 12 CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESS ............................................................................................................................. 14

Common Barriers to Effective Resident Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Options for the Office of Affordable Housing Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 I. EXPAND FAMILY SELF-‐SUFFICIENCY PROGRAM TO ALLOW PARTICIPANTS RESIDING IN RAD CONVERTED PROPERTIES TO BE COUNTED TOWARDS FUTURE PHA FSS FUNDING UNTIL GRADUATION ................................... 15 II. USE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO ENFORCE AN EXPECTATION OF SUPPORT FOR SERVICES ........................... 17 III. PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENT SERVICE PROGRAMS ....... 18 IV. DEVELOP OR EXPAND PARTNERSHIP WITH AMERICORPS VISTA TO BUILD CAPACITY IN RESIDENT SERVICE PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................................................... 19

Analytical Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Analysis of Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 I. EXPAND FAMILY SELF-‐SUFFICIENCY PROGRAM TO ALLOW PARTICIPANTS RESIDING IN RAD CONVERTED PROPERTIES TO BE COUNTED TOWARDS FUTURE PHA FSS FUNDING UNTIL GRADUATION ................................... 21 II. USE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO ENFORCE AN EXPECTATION OF SUPPORT FOR SERVICES ......................... 23 III. PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENT SERVICE PROGRAMS ...... 25 IV. DEVELOP OR EXPAND PARTNERSHIP WITH AMERICORPS VISTA TO BUILD CAPACITY IN RESIDENT SERVICE PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................................................... 27

Recommendation & Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 RECOMMENDATION ...................................................................................................................................... 30 LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix 1: Figures and Calculations involved in projecting outcomes of policy alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Works Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Further Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40


-3-

Executive Summary

Introduction & Overview “[The] single biggest predictor of [children’s] life chances, even their lifespan, is the ZIP Code they grow up in.” – HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan1 Researchers, housing advocates and housing providers agree that there is not enough coordination of available resources that could impact the well-being of families living in affordable housing. Resident families face scarce employment opportunities, poor quality schools, high crime rates and declining health. Ensuring appropriate supply of affordable housing stock is the just first step in addressing these multifaceted issues. For that reason, The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is invested in leveraging affordable housing as a platform for creating stable, well-resourced, healthy communities. Choice Neighborhoods, Promise Zones, and the Building Neighborhood Capacity Program are all pieces of the Obama Administration’s Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative, an interagency investment in place-based approaches to help distressed communities transform themselves into neighborhoods of opportunity.2

Despite these investments in neighborhood revitalization, there remains a great need to ease barriers that make it difficult to connect low-income families with community resources and social services. Housing providers contend with numerous challenges to develop and manage resident service models that address the needs of resident families. However, even with limited resources and capacity, some housing providers have managed to implement service models that promote mobility and enhance the quality of life for their residents. Large-scale neighborhood revitalization grants are not available to every struggling community,

1 Donovan, Shaun, “Reimagining the City” TED City 2.0 2013. September 20, 2013 2 Public Policy & Community Change Briefe: Promise Zones. Issue Brief. Center for the Study of Social Policy, 2013

This report discusses the models and trends for resident service programs provided to families living in publicly subsidized affordable housing properties. This report (1) presents an overview of the benefits of resident services and resident service models with documented success (2) analyzes conditions for successful implementation of resident service models and (3) identifies high-potential opportunities for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Affordable Housing Preservation to leverage existing resources, institute regulatory reforms, and increase partnerships that facilitate the development of resident service programs as a standard practice for affordable housing providers. The ultimate goal for our client is to be better prepared to support affordable housing providers in using housing as a platform that can provide families with access to employment, education, asset building, childcare, and health related resources. Among the opportunities identified, we conclude that an expanded partnership between HUD and AmeriCorps VISTA is the strategy with the greatest potential to advance the goal of utilizing housing as a platform for improving quality of life of residents.


-4-

therefore existing funding sources must be efficiently leveraged in order to replicate these successful models and further develop innovative, low-cost strategies that can be widely adopted. This report highlights resident service models employed by affordable housing providers that are developing the capacity to meet resident needs with limited resources. Through strategic partnerships, creative use of public funding, and outcome-based program models, mission-driven housing providers are at the forefront of place-based service intervention. Successful resident service models provide insight into the capacity and resources that are necessary to support low-income families living in affordable housing developments in high-poverty communities.

RESIDENT SERVICES Resident services are support systems designed to connect low-income families with non-housing resources and services in order to foster various positive outcomes. We use the term resident services to refer to a wide variety of activities, from informational resources to community events to intensive case management. In the literature, similar programs are referred to as “service-enriched housing” or “housing plus services.”

The current landscape of resident services in affordable housing is characterized by a largely consistent level of services for elderly and disabled residents and varying levels of service provision for families. In general, services are more common in units owned by public and nonprofit agencies, in contrast to private owners. Many housing providers are mission-driven to provide social services in proportion to their existing resources.

PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT This report describes variations in resident services for families living in affordable housing in terms of quality, availability and access. We highlight innovations in program models and identify common barriers that providers face in the coordination and delivery of resident services. Finally, we analyze potential approaches the Office of Affordable Housing Preservation may undertake in order to make high-quality resident service provision for families a common practice. Our analysis of potential interventions includes cost estimates, projections of impact, and feasibility assessments that are derived from publicly available research and evaluation data. However, HUD’s internal Office of Policy Development and Research may offer more precise projections of outcomes. Additional research may support more robust conclusions about what makes resident service delivery effective and efficient, and what supports can be leveraged to ensure that meaningful data is collected and evaluated.

TYPICA L RESIDENT SERV ICES

• Information and referral • Health or financial literacy

programs • Individual Case Management • Employment Preparation and

Training • Childcare • Community and social events • Civic and community participation


-5-

A NOTE ABOUT THE SCOPE OF ANALYSIS We examine multifamily on-site resident service programs that provide resources in which services that focus on improving personal and community quality of life are available through referral and/or on site.3 We conducted stakeholder interviews, case studies, and extensive research to identify several ways that the Office of Affordable Housing Preservation can support the success of existing resident service models and increase the number of affordable housing residents that benefit. Our focus is on services for families and children as opposed to populations with special needs such as the elderly, chronic substance abusers, homeless individuals or people with disabilities. Separate policies and programmatic mandates target specialized support toward these populations, whereas services in family properties have historically not been emphasized to the same degree. In recognition that HUD’s most feasible opportunities are those that have minimal budget impact, this report focuses exclusively on no-and low-cost4 opportunities. Additionally, our analysis is tailored toward housing in areas that tend to have a large diversity of service organizations. Areas with few local service partners are not included in this report. The capacity and resources necessary to implement quality resident service programs in isolated areas falls outside the scope of our analysis.

3 Resident Services for Families in Affordable Housing: Background Paper. National Resident Services Collaborative, 2005. 4 Maximum investment considered is $10 million.

BENEFITS OF RESIDENT SERV ICES

There is sufficient anecdotal and qualitative data to suggest important benefits to resident services. The benefits accrue not only for resident families but also to housing providers and their communities.

• An intensive resident case management program in Chicago grew participants’ employment rates from 49 percent to 59 percent.

• One housing provider estimated that the cost of an eviction averaged $3,700. They found that preventing even ten evictions per year justified the cost of a service coordinator.

• A Center for Working Families program focused on housing enabled more than one in six participant residents to grow assets, income, and employment prospects.

• In one recent study, frequency of 9-1-1 calls was almost halved in housing with intensive services.

• In the same study, annual costs of vacancy losses, maintenance, and bad debt were between $95 and $228 lower per unit in housing with services.


-6-

Methods for Delivery of Resident Services

Affordable housing practitioners and advocates have long recognized that the best services are responsive to resident needs and community conditions. For that reason, we focus on how core capacities and institutions catalyze access to services, rather than the specific services provided. Through case study reviews and interviews, we identify four basic models for services: case management, service coordination, community spaces, and partnerships. Implementation of any of these models may vary significantly from place to place. Housing providers often combine them to ensure residents have access to appropriate, effective services.

CASE MANAGEMENT Generally, the most intensive services that a housing development provides directly will be case management services. Case management services require a qualified case manager to be on staff to develop practitioner-client relationships with individual residents. Case managers work with residents to establish individualized goals and make referrals to services. This model requires identification of relevant resources in the community and often involves establishment of formal or informal partnerships to support the referral process.

Case management is commonly used in supportive housing that serves the elderly and disabled. In these developments, case managers are an integral part of the housing model. In multi-family housing case management is relatively rare.

Case management should be considered the most expensive to implement among the models presented here. The National Resident Services Collaborative estimates that, when combined with the specialized services offered in supportive housing, it usually costs $5,000-$15,000 annually on a per-household basis.5

5 Resident Services for Families in Affordable Housing: Background Paper. National Resident Services Collaborative, 2005


-7-

6 7 8 9

6 Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County. Web. Accessed April 2014. < http://www.hocmc.org/Resident-Services/Family-Self002DSufficiency-Program.aspx> 7 Ibid. 8 HOC has graduated nearly 45% of program participants. Ibid.

CASE MANAGEMENT CLOSE-UP: MONTGOMERY COUNTY FAMILY SELF SUFFICIENCY PROGRAM (FSS)

“The Family Self-Sufficiency Program (FSS) is a career development program that assists the Housing Opportunities Commission (HOC) residents of Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) to achieve self-sufficiency over a five to seven year period toward ending dependency on welfare assistance.”6

The Montgomery County FSS is frequently cited as the premier FSS program in the nation. The HOC focuses on offering the following:

● Ways to gain, retain and improve employment through individualized assessment and goal planning

● Resources to gain job skills training and education at all levels to increase earnings ● Individual savings accounts, unique to the FSS Program, resulting from increased earnings ● Case management assistance to help with resources and supports ● Ways to improve money management and credit7

As a result of these efforts, the HOC has more than doubled the income of FSS graduates.8Additionally, HOC has achieved its goals of increasing participant assets, homeownership and employment rates.9

Service Area Montgomery County, MD

Number of Units 450

Staff 9 FTE

Cost $690,519

Services Provided:

• Education and Career Development • Job Readiness Assistance • Transportation • Childcare and Parenting Resources • Health Services • Mental Health, Substance and Domestic

Abuse Services • Housing Stabilization (Emergency Services) • Financial Assistance • Legal Assistance • Food Assistance • Furniture & Clothing • Home Ownership Programs


-8-

SERVICE COORDINATION Service coordination aims to meet general community needs and individual needs that are less intensive than those for which case management is required. A service coordinator provides information and referrals to individual families, and engages in activities focused on building community assets.

One of the key ways a resident service coordinator is unique from a case manager is that he or she may facilitate social events, like job fairs, and operate more structured programs, like parenting workshops. For this reason, on-site facilities such as a community room or learning center are particularly critical components of this model.

The National Resident Services Collaborative estimates that typical service coordination in family housing costs $300-$600 per family per year.10 This estimate includes staff costs as well as management systems and facilities.

While the most effective family housing providers understand the goals of resident services as critical to their operations, this strategy is generally not as integrated with housing services as case management may be. In practice, service coordinators tend to work independently of property management.

9 18% of FSS graduates have become homeowners. 60% of FSS participants are currently employed. Ibid. 10 Ibid.


-9-

11

SERVICE COORDINATION CLOSE-UP: OREGON ON, RESIDENT SERVICES OPPORTUNITY PROJECT

“The Oregon Opportunity Network (Oregon ON) is a statewide association of 130 affordable housing and community development organizations and others committed to improving the lives of all Oregonians… Oregon ON launched the Resident Services Opportunity Project (RSOP) – a two year collaborative effort to develop a framework for a sustainable Resident Services funding and delivery system.”11

The RSOP program identified the two main goals: promoting (1) housing stability and (2) household opportunity and advancement. Providing housing stability was achieved by enabling tenants to meet their basic lease obligations while also providing core services focusing on:

● Eviction prevention ● Connections to services ● Conflict resolution ● Community safety and stability

Providing household opportunity and advancement was achieved by providing core services aimed at: ● Household Opportunity:

○ Skill building and income generation ○ Youth development ○ Asset building

● Household Advancement: ○ Transitions to market-rate housing and homeownership ○ Increased independence and self-reliance ○ Improved long-term outcomes

Resident Service Coordinators work onsite to develop resident service programs based upon the interests and needs of the residents. Additionally, the coordinator works with property management to proactively assist residents who may be at risk for eviction.

At the end of the program, RSOP found that resident services were key in creating sustainable residents, sustainable properties, and healthy communities. Furthermore, RSOP found that while investment in affordable housing development is important, additional investment in resident services would go a long way to “achieving housing stability and building better lives.”

Service Area Oregon, Statewide Number of Units 20,000 Staff Approx. 110 FTE Cost $400-$700 per unit

Services Provided: • Adult education • Job training and placement • After-school learning and

recreation programs • Financial literacy classes and

access to computers


-10-

LEARNING CENTERS Large multifamily developments frequently feature a community room or rooms. At their best, these spaces offer computers and play spaces for children. A community space that is designed and leveraged well can support a variety of resources ranging from social and community events to childcare programs, resume workshops, and classes.

NeighborWorks® refers to these types of spaces, where “programs and services provide a mechanism for community residents to reach their goals,” as Learning Centers.12 Learning Centers are a less structured model for service delivery than those described above, but provide capacity for bringing high-priority services and resources to residents. According to a small survey by NeighborWorks® of property managers committed to Learning Center success, the Centers featured programming an average of 39 hours a week and provided resources to community members outside of just residents.13

Learning Centers expand capacity to meet resident needs with convenient services. However, they must be staffed and resourced appropriately to be effective. Costs can vary dramatically depending on the size and structure of the space, and the type of programs delivered in it. Smaller and rural family housing developments have even successfully utilized Learning Centers that are physically located off-site or on wheels.14

11 Resident Services Opportunity Project Final Report. Putting Our Missions to Work: Supporting Housing Stability and Opportunity for Residents of Affordable Housing through Resident Services. Oregon Opportunity Network. September 2010. 12 Funding Strategies for Sustainable Resident Services: A Summary of NeighborWorks® Learning Center Consortium Member Approaches to Structuring Costs and Revenues. NeighborWorks®, 2005 13 Supporting National Advancement and Local Achievement in Resident Services. NeighborWorks®, 2007 14 Bradford, Robin. “Community Learning Centers: Investing in Multifamily Excellence.” Bright Ideas Summer 2004 23.3 (2004): 3-12. Web. 12 March 2014


-11-

15 16 17 18

15 Plan NYCHA: A Roadmap For Preservation. New York City Housing Authority. December 2011. Pg. 33. <http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/downloads/pdf/plan-nycha.pdf>

LEARNING CENTER CLOSE-UP: NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY (NYCHA), COMMUNITY PROGRAMS & SERVICES

“NYCHA will collaborate with new and existing partners to take advantage of the city’s most innovative, high-quality and results- oriented programming, ensuring that residents receive the maximum benefit from critically-needed services.”15

With 400 community facilities,16 the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) utilizes staff and outside community-based organizations to provide programming for services based upon resident needs and desired outcomes. To do this, they “assess services currently provided by or offered at NYCHA community facilities and compare them to services provided by other organizations to understand which programs are producing the best results.”17 Additionally, NYCHA is focused on “implementing a new outcome-driven resident economic opportunity platform—the Zone model—focused on service coordination, strategic partnerships and accessing localized external resources.”18 In order to maintain these services, NYCHA has begun identifying which public and private agencies are best suited for providing these services. Once identified, NYCHA will work to raise private and non-profit capital to fund existing services. In order to facilitate this process, NYCHA has partnered with the Mayor’s Fund to create a non-profit entity capable of accepting these funds. Service Area New York City (2011) Number of Units 178,000 Staff 11,605 Cost $75 million ($12 million in government grants, $63 million in the NYCHA budget)

Services Provided • After-school programs • Career counseling • Financial training (tax

assistance, savings and investment assistance, credit counseling)

• Employment training • Health insurance • ESL courses • Continuing-education

courses

Public/Private Partnerships Department for the Aging Department of Youth and Community Development Administration for Children’s Services Human Resources Administration New York City Department of Small Business Services New York City Department of Consumer Affairs New York City Economic Development Corporation Center for Economic Opportunity Department of Education Department of Parks and Recreation


-12-

PARTNERSHIPS “We have the space and access to low-income residents. They have the resources, services and expertise. We see it as an automatic match.” - Jennifer Endo, AHC Inc., Arlington, VA quoted in NeighborWorks report19 Multifamily housing developments are frequently surrounded by public and private organizations that are mission-driven to assist low-income families. Housing providers may engage in partnerships that allow for referrals to off-site services, share information about those services, or mobilize partner resources to deliver services on-site. High-quality partnerships are well-coordinated and institutionalized. Practitioners say they perform best when each party gains from the partnership. Housing providers have found benefits from partnerships with a number of organizations. Traditional private nonprofits that provide direct services are only one example. Beyond that, there are opportunities for partnerships with city and state agencies; programs operated through schools and higher education institutions; and organizations that help individuals navigate public and private resources. The housing providers generally participate in the partnership by providing a space for services or access to residents via a newsletter or bulletin board. Developments that employ a resident service coordinator or case manager may contribute staff time to the partnership.

16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19Supporting National Advancement and Local Achievement in Resident Services. NeighborWorks®, 2007


-13-

20 21 22

20 "Nystrom United Revitalization Effort." City of Richmond, California, Accessed April 2014. <http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=1939>. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid.

PARTNERSHIPS CLOSE-UP: NYSTROM NEIGHBORHOOD

“We are bringing people together to create a safe, diverse and thriving place, where kids walk to quality schools, people of all ages use the parks and community facilities, and a variety of housing options to meet the needs of local residents.”1 The Nystrom neighborhood of Richmond, California has been among the hardest hit by the postwar decline in the city. Faced with complex, interrelated challenges and major infrastructure needs, civic leaders in and around Richmond formed the Nystrom United Revitalization Effort (NURVE) in 2002. By committing to shared goals, civic leaders and stakeholders undertook strategic planning and coordinated funding to promote jobs, opportunity and community health. Co-founded by two local foundations, stakeholders include the City of Richmond, the local school district, the National Park Service, community-based nonprofit organizations, and community residents. One of the key capital projects NURVE supports is the revitalization of Nystrom Village, a public housing development owned by the Richmond Housing Authority (a NURVE stakeholder). Nystrom Village is now a Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) project and is converting to mixed-income housing. Other capital projects include the local elementary school, a maritime center, a large park, and various sidewalk improvements. Managers of each of these projects have committed to a shared community vision around education, housing, community facilities, local economic development, social services, and more. Although Nystrom Village's renovations are still underway, community efforts have resulted in new services and resources being delivered in the neighborhood. The newly renovated park and a performing arts center provide spaces for athletic programming, healthy play, and creative expression; a financial opportunity center was established; a new children's literacy program has already increased reading proficiency; residents and local organizations are designing a long-term community health initiative; and students from a local university are helping engage Richmond youth in planning for neighborhood redevelopment projects. The community also applied for, but did not receive, a Choice Neighborhood Planning Grant. Service area: Nystrom Neighborhood, a five-block by four-block portion of Richmond, CA.1 Population: 13,7091

Public/Private Partnerships • City of Richmond • West Contra Costa Unified

School District • Contra Costa County • Richmond Children’s

Foundation • East Bay Community

Foundation

• Bay Area Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC)

• National Park Service • Coronado, Santa Fe and Iron

Triangle Neighborhood Councils • Rosie the Riveter Trust • Community Based and Non Profit

Organizations • Community Residents


-14-

CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESS The case studies highlight the critical capacities that make resident service models work effectively to reach families and children in affordable housing. Onsite space and partnerships bolster the impact of resident service delivery models when properly managed by capable staff. This report references these conditions for success as a framework for modeling resident service programs that have the capacity to sustain high-quality, effective services.

Common Barriers to Effective Resident Services Drawing from existing literature and interviews with housing providers, we have identified five common barriers to providing quality place-based services to residents in affordable housing. The on-the-ground challenges that housing providers face as they manage resident service programs offer context and provide a goal-oriented framework for HUD’s policy, programmatic and organizational approaches to support resident service efforts Barrier 1: Reach. Providers pointed to limited capacity to provide services to all residents due to funding constraints and staff ability to manage large caseloads in tandem with other job responsibilities. Housing providers explained that funding for resident service programs cannot meet the demands of all residents living in affordable housing. A Public Housing Authority commented that support is only available to some of the resident families, despite the need for service-intervention faced by many residents.

Barrier 2: Partnerships. A resource-rich environment with community-based organizations, local government agencies, and other neighborhood entities that are capable of providing quality services to residents is critical to the success of many resident service program models. One housing provider described the success they have had securing funding for resident services by partnering with their local school district and community action agency. Another explained how difficult it is to make any changes at the community level without partnerships. A newer housing provider highlighted an innovative model that they have recently developed through a partnership with the city, a local park, and community center in order to provide

services to their residents.

Barrier 3: Administrative Burden. Housing providers have to direct staff time to manage the coordination of administrative responsibilities (e.g. paperwork, reports and web-based submissions) when receiving support for resident service programs. Housing providers said that the annual grant renewals and constantly changing forms are burdensome. One added that they are skeptical of HUD funding because of its many conditions, and voiced the need for flexibility to account for the differences in the innovative programs developed by grantees.

“No one has an answer to do it both in terms of financing structures and service delivery models.” –An advocate describing the challenges of the diversity of needs among family housing residents.

“We’ve got to check 67 boxes on the application and we use six people for that and if we only had 37 boxes, we could use three to check boxes and the other three people with the same funding level to staff resident services.” –An interviewee’s example of typical administrative burdens


-15-

Barrier 4: Funding Guarantee. There is a shortage of available funds for resident service programs. Despite commitment to providing services, some providers cannot afford it. Providers felt that the struggle to find sustainable funding ultimately limits what program models they are willing to develop. One resident services advocate pointed out that the federal budget proposals continually attempt to zero out funding for the Family Self-Sufficiency Program and Resident Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency Program. A Public Housing Authority proposed that capital funds, operating subsidies, and Section 8 assistance provide above-the-line funding for resident services. Barrier 5: Best Practices. Research to identify and describe best practices in resident service implementation and evaluation is nascent. Housing providers recognize that there is no a single authoritative source for resident service implementation and management guidelines. Although there are good practices on the ground level, there is a need for program standards and tools to scale up the best models. Advocates point out that the required training and tracking for case managers facilitating services to the elderly do not apply to staff working with families, which is one reason for greater variation in services in family housing.

Options for the Office of Affordable Housing Preservation

“Neither federal policy nor local practice is taking full advantage of opportunities to link housing assistance with services to improve outcomes for children or encourage family economic success.” --Urban Institute, 200823

While housing providers and advocates laud the benefits of comprehensive social services for residents, there are only limited resources to help housing providers coordinate services or improve the scope of existing services. Among the housing providers we spoke to, even those who were national leaders in the resident services field made it clear that housing, not social services, is their primary mission and area of expertise.

Housing providers need reliable, accessible pathways and meaningful assistance. While HOPE VI, Choice Neighborhoods, and Promise Zones target resources with the goal of improving social services, they do not reach all tenants who could benefit from them. We have identified several policy approaches that the Office of Affordable Housing Preservation may pursue to expand the reach of resident services and grow the effectiveness of existing efforts.

I. EXPAND FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY PROGRAM TO ALLOW PARTICIPANTS RESIDING IN

RAD CONVERTED PROPERTIES TO BE COUNTED TOWARDS FUTURE PHA FSS FUNDING UNTIL

GRADUATION

The Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program serves residents with a tenant-based voucher and residents of public housing, with the goal of increasing a family’s income and savings.24 Case managers work with families to connect them with services and employment opportunities while money from increased earnings (some of which can otherwise be collected through a proportionate rental increase) accumulates in an interest-bearing

23 Turner, Margery Austin and G. Thomas Kingsley. “Federal Programs for Addressing Low-Income Housing Needs: A Policy Primer.” The Urban Institute, December 2008. Accessed April 2014. 24 Program participants who reside in converted properties and leave the program before completion will only be counted towards PHA FSS future funding for the time that they are enrolled.


-16-

escrow account. Currently, Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) with properties converting to Property Based Rental Assistance contracts (PBRA) through the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) are allowed to use existing FSS funds for service coordinator salaries until such funds are expended, at which point they no longer include the PBRA resident families in the FSS program. Participants in converted units are not counted towards future FSS funding applications once the resident property is converted.25 An expansion of the FSS funding guidelines can allow participants currently enrolled in the FSS program to maintain the necessary resources to complete the program even if their residence converts to a PBRA contract. PHAs can then continue to count participants toward annual FSS funding requests until they have completed the remainder of the five-year program. The FSS program affords an opportunity for low-income families to build assets. The documented impact of program completion on family income, asset accumulation, employment and overall improved quality of life is substantial. A program study commissioned by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research26 examined the FSS program characteristics in a representative sample of 100 housing agencies. The study also followed a group of 181 FSS participants in 14 programs, observing their FSS experiences and outcome. Program graduates were more likely to be employed than participants who withdrew or still-enrolled participants. Program graduates also had higher incomes than participants who had not completed the program. Key impacts were:

1. The average escrow account balance was $5,294 for program graduates, representing about 27 percent of their average household income at the time of program enrollment.

2. For graduates who were mostly employed during the tracking period, hours worked and wages increased over time: average hours worked increased from 37 to 39, and average hourly wage increased from $11.73 in 2006 to $14.41 in the graduation year.

3. Increases in benefits for paid vacation, health insurance, and retirement accounts are also evident. By the time of graduation, 60 percent of the mostly employed graduates were reporting receipt of fringe benefits compared with less than 20 percent of the participants who withdrew at their time of program exit.

4. Average annual income for program graduates increased from $19,902 to $33,390 in their year of graduation. The average annual income for participants who withdrew increased by a much smaller margin––from about $15,551 in the first tracking year to $15,918 in the year they left the program.

Every FSS participant who increases earnings enough to leave public housing or cease to receive Section 8 assistance frees up a housing subsidy for a new eligible family. Some PHAs’ FSS programs are extremely successful at encouraging such turnover. For example, of the 13 graduates of the Housing Authority of Island County’s FSS program in 1998, 12 gave up their vouchers upon graduation27 The current FSS provision for RAD conversions maintain participant eligibility at the covered project under FSS guidelines until the FSS grant expires. The FSS grant expires annually; consequently, participants who are less than 4 years into their 5-year program tenure will lose their eligibility status before they are able to 25 United States of America. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Office of Public and Indian Housing. Notice PIH-2012-32 (HA), REV-1. Washington D.C.: HUD, 2014. Technical correction issued February 6, 2014 26 Da Silva, Lalith, Imesh Wijewardena, Michelle Wood, and Bulbul Kaul. Evaluation of the Family Self-Sufficiency Program: Prospective Study. Rep. HUD, Office of Policy Development and Research, Feb. 2011. Web. Mar. 2014. 27 Ibid.


-17-

graduate. This technicality expels FSS participants and denies their families the rewards and benefits of program completion. Amending the RAD Notice28 to include a provision for current FSS participants to maintain program resources until graduation is an opportunity for HUD to leverage an existing resource to improve the quality of life for resident families.

II. USE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO ENFORCE AN EXPECTATION OF SUPPORT FOR

SERVICES Through the use of competitively awarded Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), most states take an active role in encouraging housing providers to ensure services are available to their residents. Most commonly, they establish scoring incentives so that applicants with planned or existing services have a competitive advantage. Some states set aside a certain number of credits for such applicants. A few states set threshold requirements, whereby a project must offer or plan to provide access to resident services in order to be eligible for the credits. Applying any of these strategies within HUD programs has capacity to create incentives for housing providers. HUD can enforce an expectation that multifamily housing units take on resident services as an explicit goal. However, this type of incentive must be selected with consideration of the nature of HUD programs.

Major programs in the Office of Affordable Housing Preservation tend to be less competitive than LIHTC, so policies mimicking scoring incentives and set-asides will be ineffective. However, an eligibility threshold can be effective if applied to key programs like Mark-to-Market or RAD. Such a threshold can require, as a necessary condition for approval, that the applicant demonstrate a commitment to facilitating access to resident services. Massachusetts provides an example of a requirement that achieves this with minimal burden to the applicant: Massachusetts requires all applicant developments to “provide a narrative … describing services available in the community to existing or future tenants of the project. Developers do not necessarily have to pay for the services, but must identify the services and indicate how they will notify tenants on a regular basis of opportunities for education, employment training, and other important services.”29

Other states, like Maine, have more specific requirements that involve some ongoing cost to the provider. While these warrant consideration, they can place a burden on vulnerable housing providers and risk compromising the primary goals of the programs.30

Consistent standards for resident service-supporting activities can be developed within RAD and Mark-to-Market, and if successful could eventually be integrated into other HUD programs. The most effective implementation of this strategy would establish shared language among all HUD programs for multifamily developments defining resident services (or plans for them) and processes for documenting those services.

28 United States of America. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Office of Public and Indian Housing. Notice PIH-2012-32 (HA), REV-1. Washington D.C.: HUD, 2014. Technical correction issued February 6, 2014 29 “Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program: 2014 Qualified Allocation Plan.” Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development. Accessed April 2014. <http://www.mass.gov/hed/docs/dhcd/hd/lihtc/final2014qap.pdf> 30 Tassos, James. “State Leadership in Encouraging Family Housing Enriched with Resident Services: An Assessment of 2007 Housing Credit Allocation Policies.” Enterprise Community Partners, November 2007. Accessed April 2014. <https://s3.amazonaws.com/KSPProd/cache/documents/657/65731.pdf>


-18-

Critically, the impact of this policy approach depends on the type of technical assistance and guidance HUD provides in conjunction with the new requirements. Robust assistance in the manner described in Alternative III is recommended. This type of assistance can defray some pushback from practitioners and help ensure effective use of their limited resources.

III. PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENT

SERVICE PROGRAMS Due to the unique needs of communities, there is wide variation in how resident services are provided. This variation makes it unreasonable to develop a single resident services program model that can be implemented successfully nationwide. Rather than attempt to create a nationwide program model, HUD can incorporate best practices from current resident service programs into a curriculum that can be shared via webinars, brochures, and an enhanced website to stakeholders of the Office of Affordable Housing Preservation. This curriculum would aim to expand the abilities of providers by educating them on how to improve access to resident services within their communities. It would include:

1. An overview of resident services 2. Resident services best practices 3. Ways to identify existing community resources 4. Methods to provide resident services 5. Methods of finding private/public partnerships to fund resident services 6. Educational pamphlets and materials to disburse to residents

Based upon our interviews, one of the biggest challenges facing resident service programs is a lack of consensus on meaningful indicators of success.31 In addition to curriculum development, technical assistance provided by HUD can develop recommended measurable outcomes associated with resident services. HUD can facilitate stakeholder workshops with the objective of determining these core measurable outcomes. Additionally, HUD can develop tools that could be utilized by interested parties to record and track outcomes associated with residential services. These would include:

1. Tenant survey forms 2. Templates for tenant communication 3. Online data entry applications 4. Online database to record and track resident service program outcomes

While technical assistance can be provided as a single policy initiative, combining technical assistance with another approach considered here is expected to increase the robustness and effectiveness of both.

31 Oregon On and Mercy Housing Interviews


-19-

IV. DEVELOP OR EXPAND PARTNERSHIP WITH AMERICORPS VISTA TO BUILD CAPACITY IN

RESIDENT SERVICE PROGRAMS AmeriCorps VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) is a federal anti-poverty program administered by the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). Participating projects receive funding and other assistance to engage full-time volunteers at nonprofit organizations and local government agencies. VISTA members focus specifically on improving organizational infrastructure, expanding community partnerships, securing long-term resources, and training program participants during their one-year tenure.32

PHA’s have been employing VISTA members for decades in a variety of projects.33 The members focus on creating sustainable program infrastructure and building community partnerships to reduce poverty. This mission makes the organization an ideal partner to build housing providers' capacity to operate quality resident service programs. The Office of Affordable Housing Preservation can encourage more housing providers to engage VISTA members for this purpose. A partnership between HUD and CNCS, very similar to the partnership HUD is undertaking to support Promise Zones, can encourage greater employment of VISTA members in resident service programs nationwide. The major distinction from the current partnership is that the members can be placed directly with affordable housing providers and their tasks can be focused on resident services specifically.

HUD can match CNCS expenses, at a probable cost of $5,000 per volunteer to each organization. CNCS ensures that members receive an annual stipend, health and liability coverage, an education award, and travel/childcare reimbursements. The cost for these benefits is estimated at $10,000. (Although a match is not required, it is encouraged. Many organizations that receive large CNCS grants for VISTA projects provide a match of 50% or more34.) The Office of Affordable Housing Preservation can also direct information about the resource to its program participants, highlighting the ways that housing providers can use members to build service capacity and ensure program success. Housing providers associated with the Office of Affordable Housing Preservation may be interested in this resource as a low-cost way to improve or develop programming that increases the value and sustainability of affordable housing. We expect that HUD can provide matching funds for applications by housing providers participating in the programs that the Office of Affordable Housing Preservation oversees. The most important requirement for eligibility would be demonstrating that the VISTA member(s) can support resident service provision and add sustained capacity. Examples of appropriate activities for VISTAs include:

• Undertaking a resident needs assessment • Creating resident communication and feedback tools • Building a database of community resources • Developing community partnerships for resident services • Creating tracking systems for service coordination or case management

32A Guide to Becoming an AmeriCorps VISTA Project Sponsor.” Corporation for National and Community Service. Accessed April 2014 33 AmeriCorps Programs and Public Housing Authorities. Issue Brief. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development 34 Ibid


-20-

In addition to funding, HUD and CNCS must work together to ensure that members have access to appropriate training and resources. HUD should consider the importance of an orientation to affordable housing, access to online forums or communities of practice, and ongoing development opportunities in designing the orientation. A 2009 report estimated that 30 percent of AmeriCorps VISTA members sponsored by PHA’s are public housing residents or voucher holders.35 Making resident hiring a priority boosts the effectiveness of this option by meeting resident needs in two ways. Hiring a resident AmeriCorps volunteer increases the overall capacity of a resident service program while serving as workforce development for resident employees. With proper training and support, residents can bring a unique perspective and passion when they serve as liaisons between service providers, PHA staff, and community members.

Analytical Criteria The options presented for the Office of Affordable Housing Preservation to better support resident services are not exhaustive, but illustrate a range of potential mechanisms and areas of opportunity. We anticipate that HUD will consider the following as it decides whether to undertake a new initiative:

I. Total Cost: An estimate of the HUD funding needed to fully implement each option.

II. Impact: The extent to which the option helps address the five identified barriers: reach, partnerships, administrative burden, funding guarantee, and best practices. This metric assesses the ability of each of the alternatives to confront the core challenges we have identified through stakeholder interviews and research. Impact is considered low when two or fewer barriers are addressed, moderate when three of the five barriers are addressed, and high when four or more barriers are addressed

III. Value Per Dollar: Projects the number of affordable households that can be reached with new or

improved services for five million dollars. We assume a consistent funding level for each option at five million dollars annually in order to fairly compare the reach of HUD’s potential investment. Our analysis takes into account that there are fundamentally different capacities for reaching households (i.e. direct service, indirect service and policy change). It is important to note that only the quantity, not quality, of services is considered.

IV. Feasibility: The political, organizational and administrative considerations that must be addressed

for a policy approach to be successful. While our scope restricts us to offering options that all meet a baseline standard for feasibility, each alternative presents unique challenges to implementation. Feasibility for each is ranked low, medium, or high.

35 Ibid


-21-

Analysis of Options

I. EXPAND FAMILY SELF-SUFFICIENCY PROGRAM TO ALLOW PARTICIPANTS RESIDING IN

RAD CONVERTED PROPERTIES TO BE COUNTED TOWARDS FUTURE PHA FSS FUNDING UNTIL

GRADUATION ! Total Cost: $3,270,000 - $8,175,000 annually ! Impact: Low ! Value Per Dollar: ~6,660 households ! Feasibility: High

Total Cost: $5,928,208 annually Including FSS participants residing in converted PBRA properties will cost approximately $5,928,208 annually. The figure reflects a salary range of $54,38736 for 109 service-coordinators that will serve approximately 8,11737 households38. Impact: Low Two out of five barriers are addressed:

1. Reach: The alternative has the potential to reach 8,117 households who would otherwise no longer be eligible for the FSS Program. However, fewer than five percent of households with children in the public housing and Section 8 voucher programs currently participate in FSS39. Commonly cited reasons for this narrow participation are: a lack of funding availability, poor staff expertise, lack of resident interest, lack of local employment opportunities, and a lack of service partners available in the community. Assuming RAD conversion properties provide FSS services to households at a comparable rate, fewer than 406 households will be served by the proposed maintenance of funding.

2. Partnerships: The FSS program model links participants to existing services in their community based on the individual’s goals. According to HUD, the purpose of the FSS program is “to promote the development of local strategies to coordinate the use of assistance under the Public Housing program with public and private resources to enable participating households to increase earned income, reduce or eliminate the need for welfare assistance and make progress toward achieving economic independence and housing self-sufficiency.”40 To this end, only service-coordinator salaries

36 This estimation of salary is based on the annual figures provided in the Public And Indian Housing Family Self-Sufficiency

Coordinators 2013 Summary Statement and Initiatives.$"#,!!!,!!!

!,!"# !"#$%&" !""#$%&'("#)= $54, 387 𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟

37 This estimation is based on the number of properties that have converted to PBRA contracts as of March 1, 2014 (6,670 units). Based on the April 2014 Government Accountability Office (GAO) assessment of RAD PBRA conversions, we estimate that 3.81% of the remaining 38,000 RAD conversions will be PBRA units (1,448 units). If 100% of the residents of these units are currently enrolled in the FSS program, approximately 109 service coordinators will be necessary to manage an appropriately sized FSS program. Although it is unrealistic to assume 100% FSS enrollment, it is helpful to estimate total cost as a maximum cost figure. 38 HUD Rental Assistance Demonstration Information on Initial Conversions to Project-Based Vouchers. Rep. Government Accountability Office, Apr. 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2014. 39 Ibid 40 "Public Housing Family Self-Sufficiency Overview." Public Housing Family Self-Sufficiency. Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2014. <http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/centers/gmc/categorical/phfss>.


-22-

are funded through the FSS grant. All service interventions are provided through community partnerships leveraged by the PHA.

3. Administrative Burden: FSS funding is currently awarded on a competitive basis. Housing providers must reapply every year for funding, despite the fact the program is meant to be five years for participants. Judith Chavis, Vice President of the American Association of Service Coordinators, commented that technical assistance for the program is poor, adding, “a number of PHAs with successful programs were eliminated because of a new box in a checklist that wasn’t marked.”41 The annual grant period coupled with an increasingly bureaucratic application process and lack of ongoing technical assistance make securing FSS funding exceedingly burdensome.

4. Funding Guarantee: This expansion would not necessarily expand the pool of funding, however it would allow PHAs to request funding at the level necessary to give FSS program participant sufficient time to graduate (five years).

5. Best practices: The FSS program model is relatively standardized across PHAs and is evaluated at a federal level by HUD. Funding is linked to annual reporting requirements, including enrollment, progress, and exit reporting. Data collection could be further improved with the implementation of standard data tracking system.

Value Per Dollar: ~6,900 households At $5 million, HUD can fund approximately 92 service coordinators at a $54,387 salary level for one year. A total of 6,90042 households will be directly served through the FSS program. For households that graduate from the FSS program within that year, this $5 million investment has the potential to leverage43:

1. $36,528,600 in household escrow accounts – (Which reflects an average savings balance of $5,294 per family)

2. $93,067,200 in increased annual earnings – (Which reflects an average annual income increase of $13, 488)

Feasibility: High The structural and administrative coordination necessary for the implementation of this expansion are already in place.

41Chavis, Judith. AASC Vice President. "Stakeholder Interview: American Association of Social Workers." Telephone interview. 10 Apr. 2014. 42 Based on a maximum caseload of 75 participants per coordinator 43 Da Silva, Lalith, Imesh Wijewardena, Michelle Wood, and Bulbul Kaul. Evaluation of the Family Self-Sufficiency Program: Prospective Study. Rep. HUD, Office of Policy Development and Research, Feb. 2011. Web. Mar. 2014.


-23-

II. USE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS TO ENFORCE AN EXPECTATION OF SUPPORT FOR

SERVICES ! Total Cost: $268,400 annually ! Impact: Low ! Value Per Dollar: ~330,000 households ! Feasibility: Medium

Total Cost: $268,400 annually The ongoing direct expenses HUD can incur are in (1) providing guidance to applicants, and (2) approving documentation of resident service activities. Costs for guidance and processing will require one to two FTEs at a projected maximum cost of $268,400 – consistent with costs for two TA professionals in the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative. See Appendix A for an explanation of the assumptions involved in this estimate. The changes would largely spur action by providers that facilitate no resident services at all. Not included in this assessment are the costs that housing providers can be expected to incur as they implement resident services to comply with the eligibility requirement. In the absence of new federal aid, these costs may be significant. Impact: Low Because it ties resident services to significant opportunities for revitalization, this approach has potential to dramatically change the landscape of resident services in affordable housing. Given the incentive of the Mark-to-Market and RAD programs’ aid, it is reasonable to expect that most housing developments will conform to minimum standards and begin to add services to their program model, if they are not already included. However, unless accompanied by further assistance any new resident service initiatives that are spurred by this incentive are unlikely to be intensive or of high quality. Threshold eligibility requirements place a burden directly on housing providers, accompanied by high stakes. They do not meaningfully address many of the common challenges faced by housing providers, with the exceptions of growing the reach of resident services and potentially facilitating partnerships.

1. Reach: Some impact is anticipated as housing developments that currently feature no services at all begin to communicate to residents about available resources. We anticipate that this is a minority of housing providers participating in RAD and Mark-to-Market, but a sizable one consisting mostly of smaller for-profit housing providers. Rough estimates (detailed in Appendix A) suggest that over 17,000 households might benefit from this limited improvement in services.

2. Partnerships: By spurring housing providers to identify and potential partners and define their capacity to engage with partners, this option may have some limited value in overcoming partnership burdens.

3. Administrative Burden: Although the requirements suggested above are minimal, eligibility thresholds will exacerbate to some extent the challenge of administrative burdens. HUD and respected practitioners encourage supportive services that are designed with the specific needs of the community in mind. For that reason, it is critical that any requirements for service provision be


-24-

broadly permissible of all types of services. Potential over-specification of the parameters of permissible services runs the risk of hampering ongoing efforts for tenants with unique needs.

4. Funding Guarantee: No new funding is provided. 5. Best Practices: Unless accompanies by additional technical assistance, a broad eligibility threshold

such as that described above cannot improve knowledge or exercise of best practices at the property level.

Value Per Dollar: 330,000 households annually An estimated $268,400 per year can be required for HUD to fully finance the additional staff time needed to revise regulations, approve paperwork, and provide guidance to participants. Calculations in Appendix A use information about current RAD and Mark-to-Market property characteristics, as well as assumptions about ongoing application rates and current prevalence of resident service provision, to project that over 17,000 households can benefit from new eligibility requirements in these programs. This estimate does not anticipate any program attrition due to the new requirements. The Office of Affordable Housing Preservation may also consider that an effective implementation could lead to similar policies being adopted in other, further-reaching HUD entities, in which case more can benefit. If $5 million could be invested in this strategy annually without altering its per-household cost, over 330,000 households can benefit. It is important to note that this figure eases comparison with alternative options, but is largely hypothetical. Annual investments significantly beyond the full funding level of $268,000 can have increasingly limited impact, unless they go toward providing more robust technical assistance as described in Option III or capacity as described in Option IV. Feasibility: Medium Implementation of this policy option may face administrative hurdles in securing staff to process new application materials and provide guidance. There is an elevated need for carefully designed and appropriately applied regulations when a policy addresses a large variety of vulnerable partners, as this can. More critically, providers of affordable housing may consider these standards a new cost of working with HUD. The Office of Affordable Housing Preservation might meet resistance from its current affordable housing partners. Although the recommended eligibility threshold is minimally burdensome, this approach is something of a departure from the ground-up, community-centered resident service strategy that has afforded housing providers significant flexibility in recent decades. With a higher threshold, even those providers with a strong commitment to resident services may find that HUD standards compromise their goals or processes, unless those standards are carefully developed. The Office of Affordable Housing Preservation interfaces primarily with those providers that are already struggling to sustain affordable housing, and the goals of its programs involve maintaining availability in challenging housing markets. Surveys indicate that quality non-supportive services for households impose a relatively small financial burden – typically costing $300-$600 per household per year44 - and there is only a small possibility that the basic services suggested here will make affordable housing provision unviable. Nevertheless, for some struggling housing providers this possibility may be daunting.

44 Resident Services for Families in Affordable Housing: Background Paper. National Resident Services Collaborative, 2005.


-25-

III. PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENT

SERVICE PROGRAMS ! Total Cost: $1,600,000 annually ! Impact: High ! Value Per Dollar: ~7,100 households ! Feasibility: High

Total Cost: $1,600,000 annually Expenses incurred by HUD’s provision of technical assistance can be separated into two areas 1) curriculum development and training, and 2) development and maintenance of a resident services database and data tracking tools to measure program outcomes. These expenses can be associated primarily with an increase in staffing.45 In the short run, staffing expenses can be higher due to program startup costs associated with developing the resident services curriculum and the creation of the database and data tracking tools. However, in the long run staffing requirements can only be associated with maintain technical assistance and the data tracking tools. To estimate the cost of these expenses, we looked at the technical assistance provided to Choice Neighborhoods grantees, Choice TA. For FY2013, Choice Neighborhoods incurred a total personnel cost of $4.697 million covering 35 FTE for the Innovative Program and Demonstrations function.46 Within this function, only 12 FTE were designated to the Choice TA program. Assuming an equal allocation for personnel costs across all FTE, we estimate an average total cost of $1.6 million annually for the Choice TA program.47 Choice TA provides “collaboration with other federal, state, local and non-profit partners; on-site and remote monitoring of the grantees for program compliance; and providing customer service to stakeholders in community revitalization and demonstration efforts.”48 Because of the similarities between the services provide between Choice Neighborhoods’ technical assistance and the technical assistance proposed in this option, we use the same projections for our estimate.

Impact: High The development of effectiveness measures and data tracking tools through technical assistance will empower current and future resident service programs. Based upon these services we estimate impact on each of the five barriers:

1. Reach: While this approach provides no direct service to residents, training affordable housing staff will indirectly increase access to resident services. Providing data tools for tracking resident services outcomes allows more efficient provision of resident services leading to more households reached.

45 While expenses associated with the printing and dispersion of curriculum materials can be expected, these expenses are considered negligible for the purposes of this report. 45Requirements of database development and maintenance, the majority of this work would have to be performed by current qualified HUD staff or from an external consulting firm. 46 H-133, Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Office and Salaries and Expenses Office of Public and Indian Housing 47 $".!"# !"##"$%

!" !"# = $134,200 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝐹𝑇𝐸

48 H-133, Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Office and Salaries and Expenses Office of Public and Indian Housing


-26-

2. Partnerships: A key portion of the proposed technical assistance curriculum can include training providers on ways to develop sustainable, effective community partnerships.

3. Administrative Burden: One of the disadvantages of this alternative is the lack of increased funding for resident services. Because additional funding is not provided, the burden is placed upon providers to incorporate resident services without additional HUD funding. However, the development of database and tracking tools can make implementation and tracking more efficient for resident services providers easing some administrative burden.

4. Funding Guarantee: Due to the relatively low cost in providing technical assistance, we assume few barriers in providing long-term funding. Additionally, the curriculum developed by technical assistance can train providers in ways to secure non-HUD funding for future resident services.

5. Best Practices: Another key aspect of the technical assistance can be to develop best practices through the facilitation of meetings with key stakeholders.

This approach effectively overcomes the reach, partnership, funding and best practices challenges. While technical assistance can create some additional administrative burden, our research suggests that particularly the development of data tracking tools will help increase efficiency significantly.

Value-per-Dollar: ~7,100 households To determine the value per dollar for this alternative, we considered a $1.6 million estimated annual total cost. Additionally we assumed this alternative can reach the same number of households as the Choice TA program in 2013: 2,271 households.49 If there were no change in efficiency due to scale, an investment of $5 million annually can correspond to 7,100 households reached per year.50 This value-per-dollar estimate is anticipated to be very conservative. The Choice Neighborhoods program is intensive and focuses on relatively few households annually. The maximum efficiency of a technical assistance program could be significantly higher because Choice TA is only provided to grantees, which are limited by the program guidelines. By utilizing HUD’s institutional capacity to centralize the development and maintenance of the technical assistance, the overall efficiency of developing these measures is substantially increased. Specifically, HUD’s staffing already includes the administrative support necessary to provide the technical assistance measures that can be otherwise prohibitive to individual providers. Budget, staffing and information limitations of individual resident service providers often make it impractical to develop comprehensive data tracking tools. These same constraints have made it difficult for resident service providers nationwide to convene and create a comprehensive curriculum. HUD’s participation in this process will aid in overcoming these institutional barriers. Feasibility: High We anticipate no political, administrative or organizational barriers to providing technical assistance. The framework provided by Choice TA allows for an initial development of new technical assistance with minimal start-up costs. Additionally, the propensity of HUD’s administration to support programs providing technical

49 Developing Choice Neighborhoods: An Early Look at Implementation in Five Sites. Interim Report. The Urban Institute. Washington, DC (September 2013)

50 $" !"##"$%$".! !"##"$%

∗ 2,271 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑠 = 7,097 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 $5 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦


-27-

assistance, as well as the expressed desire from current resident service providers for technical assistance, make this option highly feasible. Expenses incurred by HUD’s provision of technical assistance can be separated into two areas 1) curriculum development and training, and 2) development and maintenance of data tracking tools. The expenses incurred by HUD to provide resident service curriculum development and training can be associated primarily with an increase in staffing.51 In the short-run, staffing expenses can be higher due to the initial level of effort needed in developing the curriculum. However, in the long-run staffing requirements would only be associated with maintaining the accuracy of the curriculum and performing annual training workshops. HUD could further reduce expenses by utilizing the AmeriCorps partnership described in Alternative IV. Similarly, the expenses incurred by HUD to develop and maintain data tracking tools can also be associated with an increase in staffing. In the short-run, staffing expenses can be linked to the programming of the online data tracking tools. In the long-run, expenses can be related to maintaining tools and managing potential data requests. However, due to the technical experience required, this work may be done through a contractor. Overall the centralization of these efforts under HUD’s jurisdiction will reduce the costs associated with stakeholders fulfilling these responsibilities individually. By lowering barriers to housing providers, it may increase access to and quality of resident services.

IV. DEVELOP OR EXPAND PARTNERSHIP WITH AMERICORPS VISTA TO BUILD CAPACITY IN

RESIDENT SERVICE PROGRAMS

! Total Cost: $518,400 annually ! Impact: High ! Value Per Dollar: ~175,520 households ! Feasibility: High

Total Cost: $518,400 annually There is no required match for new AmeriCorps VISTA project sponsors, but there is an option to cost-share. Sharing VISTA-related costs will help to ensure that housing providers have access to a larger number of VISTAs for a sustained period. We anticipate a cost to HUD of $5,000 per VISTA out of the estimated $10,000 total cost, which is consistent with cost-sharing terms of other large national AmeriCorps service projects. However, PHAs that have engaged VISTAs generally contribute between $500 and $4000 per member.52

51 While expenses associated with the printing and dispersion of curriculum materials can be expected, these expenses are considered negligible for the purposes of this report. Requirements of database development and maintenance, the majority of this work would have to be performed by current qualified HUD staff or from an external consulting firm. 52 Assessing the AmeriCorps Projects of Public Housing Authorities: Best Practices and Lessons Learned. August 2009


-28-

HUD should also anticipate some administrative costs to promoting VISTAs in housing developments. A high-quality initiative will involve moderate technical assistance, for which one FTE will be needed at an estimated cost of $134,200 per year.53 Up to one additional FTE may be necessary to approve and process requests for funding, so total costs administrative costs to HUD will be on the order of $268,400 per year. Total cost to HUD will be determined by how many volunteers are leveraged. If the AmeriCorps partnership is targeted at providers in Office of Affordable Housing Preservation programs, an eventual size of 50 volunteers annually is both ambitious and reasonable. At that size, HUD can face annual costs projected at $518,400.54 See Appendix A for precise calculations. While cost to stakeholders is not part of this estimate, it is important to note that housing providers will find that the management, paperwork and other administrative tasks involved in securing and managing an AmeriCorps project are extensive. Site visits and monitoring of project activities are critical, and most AmeriCorps project managers also hold weekly or bi-weekly group meetings to discuss members’ successes and challenges faced. Impact: High Four of five barriers are addressed:

1. Reach: Since the capacity provided by AmeriCorps is flexible, providers will be able to apply their volunteers to address their unique needs. We anticipate that some will use this limited-time and resources to establish a services program by developing goals, processes, and monitoring systems. The additional capacity can expand the reach of services for housing providers that offer no services prior to application, as well as those with potential to improve existing programming.

2. Partnerships: Another appropriate, and common use of AmeriCorps member capacity is to forge deeper partnerships in their communities.

3. Administrative Burden: Administrative burdens are not addressed, and may in fact be exacerbated by management and reporting requirements of multiple organizations.

4. Funding Guarantee: Although no new funding is provided for program operations, the lack of sustainable funding will be somewhat addressed as long as the partnership is stable and lasting.

5. Best Practices: AmeriCorps can be a key resource for researching and implementing best practices in tracking, evaluation, and service delivery.

Value per Dollar: ~175,520 households If 50 AmeriCorps members are split proportionately between housing providers in Mark to Market and RAD, Appendix A demonstrates that they can together be expected to reach around 18,000 households annually. Since AmeriCorps volunteers are focused on capacity-building and not sustained program operation, successfully reaching 18,000 households per year depends on the ability of the housing provider to ensure that other critical resources are in place. AmeriCorps VISTA members are not an appropriate long-term staffing solution. AmeriCorps capacity adds the most value in improving or supplementing programs rather than providing day-to-day management.

53 Members By State | The Corps Network. Web. 02 May 2014 http://www.corpsnetwork.org/impact/corps-by-state 54AmeriCorps Programs and Public Housing Authorities. Issue Brief. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development


-29-

If $5 million could be invested in this strategy annually without altering its per-household cost, over 175,520 households can be affected. It is important to note that this figure eases comparison with alternative options, but is largely hypothetical. Annual investments significantly beyond the full funding level of $518,400 can have increasingly limited impact, unless they go toward providing more robust technical assistance as described in Alternative III. Feasibility: High Because HUD has already embarked in a partnership with CNCS, much of the groundwork has been laid. HUD may use the current partnership as a pilot for eventual broader implementation that meets the goals of providing short-term capacity for resident services. The low cost and modest administrative needs make this a practical alternative for HUD to provide meaningful interventions. Further, HUD is unlikely to encounter resistance from key stakeholders due to strong political support for the AmeriCorps program. The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, signed by President Obama on April 21, 2009, supports the continued growth of national service programs over the next decade. As the result of the Serve America Act, the annual number of AmeriCorps members sponsored is expected to increase from 75,000 to 250,000 by 2017.


-30-

Recommendation & Conclusion This report on the provision of resident services in multifamily affordable housing investigates the successes, challenges and areas for further study in the field of resident services. We discuss several opportunities for HUD to leverage existing resources to support housing providers in the development and implementation of outcome-driven resident service models and analyze the potential outcomes of each approach. The following chart compares the alternative approaches in terms of four analytical criteria:

Total Cost

Impact

Value Per Dollar

Feasibility

Expand FSS Program

$5,928,208 /year

Low

~6,900 households

High

Heighten Eligibility

Requirements

$268,600/ year

Low ~330,000

households

Medium

Provide Technical

Assistance

$1,600,000/ year

High ~7,100 households

High

Develop

Partnerships with AmeriCorps VISTA

$518,400/ year

High

~175,520

households

High

RECOMMENDATION A partnership between HUD and AmeriCorps VISTA is the strategy with the greatest potential to advance HUD’s goal of utilizing housing as a platform for improving quality of life. This option is feasible, has the potential for broad reach, strategic impact and will involve low costs to HUD. PHAs across the country have been partnering with AmeriCorps VISTA for decades. Their knowledge and experience can be integrated into the development of a more formal institutional partnership to ensure the efficient growth of a promising trend. However, all of these policy approaches provide feasible low-cost opportunities to increase the provision of resident services. A comprehensive, effective investment in community revitalization through housing will involve multiple, aligned interventions to promote resident services. For that reason, each of the policy approaches outlined above can be successfully implemented in tandem with an initiative to improve resident service capacity using AmeriCorps VISTA. Moving forward, we additionally recommend HUD continue to investigate high-impact opportunities to support resident services and foster support at the federal level for consistent and meaningful investments.


-31-

LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSION Further analysis is necessary to identify the additional impacts of providing technical assistance to ensure that partnerships with AmeriCorps VISTA are well managed at the PHA level. With additional funding, HUD can assess grant applications and employ an in-depth technical assistance plan to help grantees share best practices and evaluate their work. There are several potential combinations of policy options, but integrating technical assistance with the AmeriCorps VISTA partnership is most likely to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of both policy options. This report unpacks leading trends and practices in the resident service landscape and identifies several opportunities for HUD to support continued success in the field. We provide a roadmap to promote and support good practices and offer considerations for implementation and coordination of resident services at the federal level. HUD is well positioned to create momentum within the world of multifamily affordable housing. A significant push to integrate responsive and sustainable resident service models for families can forever change the housing landscape and cement the role that housing plays in improving outcomes for low-income families.


-32-

Appendix 1: Figures and Calculations involved in projecting outcomes of policy alternatives

Alternative 1: Expand FSS Funding Eligibility Parameters

Figure Source Notes Average Salary for FSS Service Coordinators: $54, 387

This estimation of salary is based on the annual figures provided in the Public And Indian Housing Family Self-Sufficiency Coordinators 2013 Summary Statement and Initiatives

$"#,!!!,!!!!,!"# !"#$%&" !""#$%&'("#)

=$54, 387 𝑠𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟

RAD conversions next year: 38,000

GAO Projection

Percent of conversions to PBRA: 3.81%

GAO Projection

Optimal FSS Caseload: 75 families?

Da Silva, Lalith, Imesh Wijewardena, Michelle Wood, and Bulbul Kaul. Evaluation of the Family Self-Sufficiency Program: Prospective Study. Rep. HUD, Office of Policy Development and Research, Feb. 2011. Web. Mar. 2014.

Average Escrow Account Balance per FSS participant family: $5,294

Ibid.

FSS Participant's average increase in annual income: $13,488

Ibid.

Percent of families in FSS developments participating in the program: 5%

HUD Rental Assistance Demonstration Information on Initial Conversions to Project-Based Vouchers. Rep. Government Accountability Office, Apr. 2014. Web. 20 Apr. 2014.

Assumptions Figure Notes

Hypothetical HUD investment: $5,000,000

Analytical parameter used in assessing value per dollar.

100% of families in RAD PBRAs would participate in FSS

Assumption for the purpose of establishing a high-end range.

Projections Estimate Method Calculations


-33-

8,117 Families reached annually at full investment

(Future RAD conversions) x (percent converting to PBRA) X (percent of families participating)

38,000 x 3.81% x 100%

109 Service Coordinators at full investment level

(Families reached at full investment)/(optimal caseload)

8,117/109

Full investment: $3,270,000 - $8,175,000 annually

(Service Coordinators at full investment level) x (salary)

109 x $30,000-$75,000

6,660 families reached annually at $5M investment

[(Investment)/(average caseworker salary)] x (optimal FSS program size

$35,258,040 in participants escrow account

(families reached with $5M investment) x (average escrow account size)

6,600 x 5,294

$89,830,080 in increased annual earnings

(families reached with $5M investment) x (average increase in annual savings)

6,600 x 13,488

Alternative 2: Heighten Eligibility Requirements Parameters

Figure Source Notes Annual cost of HUD TA FTE: 134,200

“Notice PIH-2012-32 (HA), REV-1.” Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Public and Indian Housing, February 2014. <http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/ documents/huddoc?id=OFFICEofPIH.pdf>

Choice TA program allocates $4,697,000 for 35 FTE in 2014. $4697,000/35 = 134,200 per FTE.

Annual new M2M properties: 40

“Mark to Market (M2M) Reports: Participating Administrative Entity (PAE) and Assigned Property Status Report.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Affordable Housing Preservation, March 2014. Accessed April 2014. <http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/ HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/mfh/ presrv/presmfh/reports>

In the past year, 41 properties were accepted into M2M.1 One of these was deemed ineligible. Assumes properties continue to enter at the current rate.

Percent of M2M properties providing family housing: 68%

Hilton, Richard et. al. “Evaluation of the Mark-to-Market Program.” Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research, August 2004. Accessed April 2014. <http://www.huduser.org/ Publications/pdf/M2MEva.pdf>

Units in a typical M2M property: 85

See above.

Annual new RAD units: 115,644

“Applications Beyond the 60,000 Cap.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Affordable Housing Preservation, December 2013. Accessed April 2014. <http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/

This is the number of units currently on the waitlist and assumed to be a reasonable estimate of the number of new entrants per year in the near


-34-

documents/huddoc?id=PendingRAD Apps_YE13.pdf>

future.

Percent of RAD properties serving families: 72%

“RAD Program Update.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Affordable Housing Preservation, December 2013. Accessed April 2014. <http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/ HUD?src=/RAD/info>




Percent of M2M multifamily housing developments do not offer conforming services: 50%

M2M participants tend to be slightly smaller (85 units on average, as compared to 108) and are more likely to be profit-motivated (54%, as compared to 36%) (See Hilton, Richard et. al. “Evaluation of the Mark-to-Market Program.” Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research, August 2004. Accessed April 2014. http://www.huduser.org/ Publications/pdf/M2MEva.pdf)

Percent of RAD properties that do not offer conforming resident services: 20%

RAD serves PHAs, which are more likely than others to offer resident services. However, 45% of developments frequently serve fewer than 250 units, and smaller properties are less likely to offer services. (See “RAD Program Update.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Affordable Housing Preservation, December 2013. Accessed April 2014. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/ HUD?src=/RAD/info)

HUD staff needed at full investment: 2

For guidance and document review/approval for applicants. These may not represent new staff but attempt to estimate the additional burden placed on existing staff.

Projections

Estimate Method Calculations

Full annual investment necessary: $268,400

(HUD staff needed at full investment) x (annual salary)

2 x 134,200

Households affected annually at full investment: 17,809.

(Annual new RAD units) x (percent of RAD properties serving families) x (percent of units that don't offer significant RS) + (annual new M2M properties) x (units in a typical M2M property) x (percent of properties that serve families) x (percent of properties that do not offer services)

(115,644 x 72% x 20%) + (40 x 85 x 68% x 50%)

Households affected annually at $5 million annual investment: 332,257

[($5 million)/(Full investment necessary)] x households affected annually at full investment.

(5,000,000/268,000) x (17,809)


-35-

Alternative 3: Provide Technical Assistance Parameters

Figure Source Notes Annual cost of HUD TA FTE: 134,200


Choice TA program allocates $4,697,000 for 35 FTE in 2014. $4697,000/35 = 134,200 per FTE.

Annual FTE needed for proposed TA: 12


Assumed the same as Choice TA



Analytical parameter in assessing value per dollar.

Projections Estimate Method Calculations

Households reached for $5 million dollars annually: 7,097

($5 million)/ (Annual Cost) X (Number of Households Reached Annually)

$5 million / $1.6 million X 2,271 households = 7,097 households per $5 million annually

Alternative 4: Develop Partnership with AmeriCorps VISTA Parameters

Figure Source Notes Annual cost of HUD FTE: 134,200


Choice TA program allocates $4,697,000 for 35 FTE in 2014. $4,697,000/35 = $134,200 per FTE.

Annual per-member match in cost-sharing arrangement: $5,000

“Congressional Budget Justification: Fiscal Year 2015.” Corporation for National and Community Service. Accessed April 2014. <http://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/ CNCS_CBJ_FINAL_V5_03_12_2014.pdf>

50% of the approximately $10,000 annual cost per member is a typical match, although CNCS supports in a range of cost-sharing arrangements.

Annual new M2M properties: “Mark to Market (M2M) Reports: Participating In the past year, 41 properties


-36-

40 Administrative Entity (PAE) and Assigned Property Status Report.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Affordable Housing Preservation, March 2014. Accessed April 2014. <http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/ HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/mfh/ presrv/presmfh/reports>

were accepted into M2M.1 One of these was deemed ineligible. Assumes properties continue to enter at the current rate.

Annual new RAD units: 115,644

“Applications Beyond the 60,000 Cap.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Affordable Housing Preservation, December 2013. Accessed April 2014. <http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/ documents/huddoc?id=PendingRAD Apps_YE13.pdf>

This is the number of units currently on the waitlist and assumed to be a reasonable estimate of the number of new entrants per year in the near future.

Average RAD project size: 402 units

See above Calculated by dividing total units by number of applicants.

Units in a typical M2M property: 85

Hilton, Richard et. al. “Evaluation of the Mark-to-Market Program.” Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research, August 2004. Accessed April 2014. <http://www.huduser.org/ Publications/pdf/M2MEva.pdf>




Fully-funded Corps size: 50 This size allows HUD provide capacity to a significant portion of housing providers that participate in OAHP programs. Not all housing providers will have a need for additional capacity.

Number of FTE for full funding: 2

Estimated FTE needed to manage the volunteer program jointly with CNCS as well as to process and approve applications from providers.

Projections

Estimate Method Calculations

Total annual cost of full implementation: $518,400

(Number of FTE) x (Annual FTE cost) + (Corps size) x (Annual match)

2 x $134,200 + 50 x $5,000

Annual number of RAD properties: 288

(Annual new RAD units)/(Average RAD project size)

115,644/402

Number of AmeriCorps Volunteers in RAD properties: 44

Assumes proportional split between RAD and M2M of 50 AmeriCorps. (Corps size) x (Number of RAD properties)/[(number of RAD properties)+(number of M2M properties)}

50 x [288/(40+288)]

Number of AmeriCorps Volunteers in M2M properties: 6

Assumers proportional split between RAD and M2M of 50 AmeriCorps. . (Corps size) x (Number of M2M properties)/[(number of RAD properties)+(number of M2M properties)}

50 x [40/(40+288)]


-37-

Households affected at full funding: 18,198

(average RAD project size)(Number of AmeriCorps in RAD projects) + (average M2M project size)(Number of AmeriCorps in M2M projects)

(402)x(44)+(85)x(6)

Households affected annually at $5 million annual investment: 175,520

[($5 million)/(Full investment necessary)] x Households affected annually at full investment.

(5,000,000/518,400) x (18,198)


-38-

Works Cited “A Guide to Becoming an AmeriCorps VISTA Project Sponsor.” Corporation for National and Community Service. Accessed April 2014. <http://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/page/SponsorGuide.pdf> “AmeriCorps Programs and Public Housing Authorities.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Corporation for National and Community Service. Accessed April 2014. <http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=americorps-brief.pdf> AmeriCorps Programs and Public Housing Authorities. Issue Brief. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development “Applications Beyond the 60,000 Cap.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Affordable Housing Preservation, December 2013. Accessed April 2014. <http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=PendingRADApps_YE13.pdf> Assessing the AmeriCorps Projects of Public Housing Authorities: Best Practices and Lessons Learned. August 2009 Bradford, Robin. “Community Learning Centers: Investing in Multifamily Excellence.” Bright Ideas Summer 2004 23.3 (2004): 3-12. Web. 12 March 2014 Breslau, Carol. "Mercy Housing." Telephone interview. April 2014. Chavis, Judith. "American Association of Service Coordinators." Telephone interview. April 2014. “Congressional Budget Justification: Fiscal Year 2015.” Corporation for National and Community Service. Accessed April 2014. <http://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CNCS_CBJ_FINAL_V5_03_12_2014.pdf> “Department of Housing and Urban Development : Program Office and Salaries and Expenses : Office Of Public And Indian Housing.” http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=OFFICEofPIH.pdf Developing Choice Neighborhoods: An Early Look at Implementation in Five Sites. Interim Report. The Urban Institute. Washington, DC (September 2013) Donovan, Shaun, “Reimagining the City” TED City 2.0 2013. September 20, 2013 “FSS Counts by PHA.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. April 2012. Accessed April 2014. <http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/administration/grants/fundsavail/nofa12/phfss> Funding Strategies for Sustainable Resident Services: A Summary of NeighborWorks® Learning Center Consortium Member Approaches to Structuring Costs and Revenues. NeighborWorks®, 2005 H-133, Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Office and Salaries and Expenses Office of Public and Indian Housing Hilton, Richard et. al.“Evaluation of the Mark-to-Market Program.” Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research, August 2004. Accessed April 2014. <http://www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/M2MEva.pdf>


-39-

Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County. Web. Accessed April 2014. http://www.hocmc.org/Resident-Services/Family-Self002DSufficiency-Program.aspx Jen, Peggy. "Nystrom Village." Telephone interview. April 2014. “Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program: 2014 Qualified Allocation Plan.” Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development. Accessed April 2014. <http://www.mass.gov/hed/docs/dhcd/hd/lihtc/final2014qap.pdf> “Mark to Market (M2M) Reports: Participating Administrative Entity (PAE) and Assigned Property Status Report.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Affordable Housing Preservation, March 2014. Accessed April 2014. <http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/mfh/presrv/presmfh/reports> Members By State | The Corps Network. Web. 02 May 2014 http://www.corpsnetwork.org/impact/corps-by-state “NURVE United Revitalization Effort.” Richmond Community Foundation, January 2014. Accessed April 2014. <http://www.richmondcf.org/community-initiatives/nurve> "Nystrom United Revitalization Effort." City of Richmond, California, Accessed April 2014. <http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=1939>. Public Policy & Community Change Briefe: Promise Zones. Issue Brief. Center for the Study of Social Policy, 2013 Plan NYCHA: A Roadmap For Preservation. New York City Housing Authority. December 2011. <http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/downloads/pdf/plan-nycha.pdf> “RAD Program Update.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Affordable Housing Preservation, December 2013. Accessed April 2014. <http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/RAD/info> “Resident Services for Families in Affordable Housing: A Background Paper.” National Resident Services Collaborative, March 2005. Accessed April 2014. <http://residentservices.org/documents/ResidentServicesBackgroundPaperMarch29.pdf> Resident Services for Families in Affordable Housing: Background Paper. National Resident Services Collaborative, 2005. Resident Services Opportunity Project Final Report. Putting Our Missions to Work: Supporting Housing Stability and Opportunity for Residents of Affordable Housing through Resident Services. Oregon Opportunity Network. September 2010. <http://oregonon.org/files/2010/10/RSOP-Final-Report-final-version1.pdf> Supporting National Advancement and Local Achievement in Resident Services. NeighborWorks®, 2007 Tassos, James. “State Leadership in Encouraging Family Housing Enriched with Resident Services: An Assessment of 2007 Housing Credit Allocation Policies.” Enterprise Community Partners, November 2007. Accessed April 2014. <https://s3.amazonaws.com/KSPProd/cache/documents/657/65731.pdf> Turner, Margery Austin and G. Thomas Kingsley. “Federal Programs for Addressing Low-Income Housing Needs: A Policy Primer.” The Urban Institute, December 2008. Accessed April 2014. <http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411798_low-income_housing.pdf> Wolfersperger, Tanya. “OregonOn." Telephone interview. April 2014.


-40-

Further Reading “Affordable Housing as a Platform for Improving Family Well-Being: Federal Funding and Policy Opportunities.” Center for the Study of Social Policy, June 2011. <http://www.cssp.org/publications/neighborhood-investment/financing-community-change/Affordable-Housing-as-a-Platform-for-Improving-Family-Well-Being-June-2011.docx.pdf > Cohen, Rebecca. “Connecting Residents of Subsidized Housing with Mainstream Supportive Services: Challenges and Recommendations.” The Urban Institute, December 2010. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1001490-Subsidized-Housing.pdf?RSSFeed=UI_CitiesandNeighborhoods.xml Dunn, Adam. “Resident Services in Subsidized Housing for Low-Income Families: An Evaluation of Property, Tenant, and Community Outcomes.” Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California. May 2011. < http://nonprofithousing.org/wp-content/uploads/Documents/Reports/Resident_Services_in_Subsidized_Housing.pdf> “Funding Strategies for Sustainable Resident Services: A Summary of NeighborWorks® Learning Center Consortium Member Approaches to Structuring Costs and Revenues.” NeighborWorks® America, May 2005. < http://www.nw.org/network/pubs/studies/documents/fundingStrategiesFINALv2-052305.pdf> Meyer, Diana A. et. al. “Volume One: Implementing a Basic Resident Services Program,” Creating Opportunities for Families through Resident Services: a Practitioner’s Manual. Enterprise Community Partners and NeighborWorks America, 2009. < http://www.residentservices.org/downloads/manual/Vol1_Sec2_Design_Process.pdf> Proscio, Tony. “More Than Roof and Walls.” Freddie Mac Foundation, 2006. <http://residentservices.org/documents/roof_and_walls.pdf> “Recommended Family and Individual Outcome Measures for Housing-Based Resident Services.” National Resident Services Collaborative. < http://www.residentservices.org/documents/outcome_measures.pdf> Supporting Vulnerable Public Housing Families: An Evaluation of the Chicago Family Case Management Demonstration. The Urban Institute, December 2010. <http://www.urban.org/housing/Supporting-Vulnerable-Public-Housing-Families.cfm>