«A Journal of Policy Development and Research HoPe VI Volume 12, Number 1 • 2010 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy ...»
86 HOPE VI HOPE VI Neighborhood Spillover Effects in Baltimore • All observations missing a census tract value were excluded from the analysis. Because the study was limited to certain census tracts, it was not possible to determine which neighborhood these observations belonged to. Less than 2 percent of all property sales in Baltimore City were missing a value for the census tract variable; however, it is not possible to determine exactly which of these sales pertain to the study sites in this analysis.
• Four observations were missing a value for the tenure variable, and these four observations were excluded from the analysis because it did not seem appropriate to predict whether a property is occupied by an owner or a renter based on the other structural characteristics.
I used multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE) to impute the remaining missing values.
MICE produces additional data sets that replace missing values with imputed values using a multivariate switching regression. Although the more traditional way to deal with incomplete data is to replace missing values with means, this method may distort estimates and falsely increase their precision by yielding smaller standard errors. The correlation matrix in exhibit A-2 shows that the probability of having a missing value is correlated with property characteristics, so failing to account for this relationship may bias estimates.17 MICE, on the other hand, takes into account the uncertainty of missing data by imputing values according to the predictive distribution of the data (Van Buuren, 2007).
I used the ice program in Stata® software to perform this multiple imputation method. I selected OLS regression to impute missing values for age, structure area, lot size, and number of stories;
logit regression to impute missing values for whether the property has a basement; and multinomial logit regression to impute missing values for the construction type and quality. I imputed five data sets. To avoid imputing extreme values, I chose the match option so the imputed value is drawn from existing values in the original data.
After creating the imputed data sets, I estimated models for each imputed data set separately, then pooled them to integrate the results from all three data sets into one set of estimates. The estimates from this combined analysis are reported in the text of this article.
As a sensitivity test, I ran each model replacing missing values with mean values and included a series of dummy variables indicating a missing value for the corresponding covariate. Estimates from these models were slightly different, but, overall, there were no qualitative differences.
Acknowledgments The author thanks Sandra J. Newman, Mark Shroder, and three anonymous referees for their valuable suggestions on earlier drafts of this article.
Author Nina Castells is a research analyst at MDRC.
References Anft, Michael. 2000. “Zones of Contention: Poor Performance Prompts Empowerment Zone Shake-Ups,” Baltimore City Paper, November 1.
———. 1999. “Enmity Zone: Divided Poppleton Village Center Tries To Pick Up the Pieces,” Baltimore City Paper, October 13.
Beamon, Todd. 2004. “Baltimore BioPark Begins on West Side,” Baltimore Sun, January 8.
Briggs, Xavier de Souza, Joe T. Darden, and Angela Aidala. 1999. “In the Wake of Desegregation:
Early Impacts of Scattered-Site Public Housing on Neighborhoods in Yonkers, New York,” Journal of the American Planning Association 65 (1): 27–49.
Brophy, Paul. 2006 (October 9). Personal communication (telephone interview). [Principal.] Paul C. Brophy & Associates.
Brophy, Paul C., and Rhonda N. Smith. 1997. “Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success,” Cityscape 3 (2): 3–31.
City of Baltimore. 2007. “What Is the Baltimore Empowerment Zone?” Empower Baltimore. http:// www.ci.baltimore.md.us/business/empower/index.html (accessed March 28).
Dewar, Heather. 2003. “Flipping Schemes Down 82%, Study Says; Maryland Senators Credit Crackdown on Speculators, Educating City Buyers,” Baltimore Sun, October 9.
Dolan, Matthew. 2005. “City Property Flipping in Steep Decline; Officials Credit Vigilance, Hot Real Estate Market and Legitimate Investors,” Baltimore Sun, August 4.
Ellen, Ingrid Gould, Michael H. Schill, Amy Ellen Schwartz, and Scott Susin. 2001. “Building Homes, Reviving Neighborhoods: Spillovers from Subsidized Construction of Owner-Occupied Housing in New York City,” Journal of Housing Research 12 (2): 185–216.
Ellen, Ingrid Gould, and Ioan Voicu. 2006. “Nonprofit Housing and Neighborhood Spillovers,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 25 (1): 31–52.
Galster, George C., Peter Tatian, and Robin Smith. 1999. “The Impact of Neighbors Who Use Section 8 Certificates on Property Values,” Housing Policy Debate 10 (4): 879–917.
Gunts, Edward. 2003. “A Workable New Twist on the Rowhouse Concept,” Baltimore Sun, April 20.
Halvorsen, Robert, and Raymond Palmquist. 1980. “The Interpretation of Dummy Variables in Semilogarithmic Equations,” The American Economic Review 70 (3): 474–475.
Holin, Mary Joel, Larry Buron, Gretchen Locke, and Alvaro Cortes. 2003. Interim Assessment of the HOPE VI Program Cross-Site Report. Unpublished manuscript prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates.
Housing Authority of Baltimore City (HABC). 2006. “Project Showcase.” http://www.
baltimorehousing.org/index/project_showcase.asp (accessed December 1).
Johns Hopkins University Master’s Program in Public Policy (JHU MPP). 2003. Neighborhood Effects of Hope VI: Evidence From Baltimore. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Institute for Policy Studies.
Raffel, Jeffrey A., LaTina R. Denson, David P. Varady, and Stephanie Sweeney. 2003. Linking Housing and Public Schools in the HOPE VI Public Housing Revitalization Program: A Case Study Analysis of Four Developments in Four Cities. Newark, DE: University of Delaware, Center for Community Research and Service.
Rosen, Sherwin. 1974. “Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition,” Journal of Political Economy 82 (1): 34–55.
Santiago, Anna M., George C. Galster, and Peter Tatian. 2001. “Assessing the Property Value Impacts of the Dispersed Housing Subsidy Program in Denver,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20 (1): 65–88.
Seipp, Michael. 2007 (February 26). Personal communication (telephone interview). [Executive director.] Baltimore Station.
Shea, Christopher. 2006 (November 20). Personal communication (interview). Deputy commissioner for development. Housing Authority of Baltimore City.
Sviridoff, Mitchell. 1994. “The Seeds of Urban Revival,” The Public Interest 114 (Winter): 82–103.
Turbov, Mindy, and Valerie Piper. 2005. HOPE VI and Mixed-Finance Redevelopments: A Catalyst for Neighborhood Renewal. Discussion paper prepared for the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2006. “About HOPE VI.” U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Home and Communities website: http://www.
hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/about/index.cfm (accessed August 4).
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 2003. HOPE VI Resident Issues and Changes in Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites. Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Housing and
Transportation, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate. Washington, DC:
U.S. General Accounting Office.
Van Buuren, Stef. 2007. “The Multiple Imputation FAQ Page.” The Department of Statistics at TNO Quality of Life Multiple Imputation website: http://www.multiple-imputation.com (accessed February 1).
Zielenbach, Sean. 2003. “Assessing Economic Change in HOPE VI Neighborhoods,” Housing Policy Debate 14 (4): 621–655.
———. 2002. The Economic Impact of HOPE VI on Neighborhoods. Washington, DC: The Housing Research Foundation.
———. 2000. The Art of Revitalization: Improving Conditions in Distressed Inner-City Neighborhoods.
New York: Garland Publishing.
Additional Reading Abt Associates. 2003. Exploring the Impacts of the HOPE VI Program on Surrounding Neighborhoods.
Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Cambridge, MA:
Galster, George C., Peter Tatian, and Kathryn Pettit. 2003. Supportive Housing and Neighborhood Property Value Externalities. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.
Galster, George C., Kenneth Temkin, Chris Walker, and Nowah Sawyer. 2004. “Measuring the Impacts of Community Development Initiatives,” Evaluation Review 28 (6): 502–538.
98 HOPE VI HOPE VI and Neighborhood
The Importance of Local Market Dynamics Sean Zielenbach Woodstock Institute Richard Voith Econsult Corporation Abstract This study examines the extent to which HOPE VI redevelopments have had positive spillover effects on their surrounding neighborhoods. It examines four such redevelopments—two in Boston, Massachusetts, and two in Washington, D.C.—and documents the changes that have taken place in property values, violent crime patterns, and resident incomes in surrounding neighborhoods since the redevelopment began. The study assesses the extent to which those changes can be attributed to the public housing redevelopment.
The study finds that, for the most part, the HOPE VI redevelopments have had positive, statistically significant effects on economic conditions in their surrounding neighborhoods. The extent of the spillover neighborhood effects has depended, in part, on the location and market dynamics of the surrounding community. The economic effects of a HOPE VI redevelopment have tended to be greater in communities where there were other development pressures and existing, stable institutions. In the absence of these factors, the positive effects of HOPE VI have been less pronounced.
Introduction This study examines the extent to which HOPE VI redevelopments have had positive spillover effects on their surrounding neighborhoods. An extensive literature documents the negative effects of many traditional public housing complexes on their surrounding neighborhoods, including low property values and high levels of crime (Massey and Kanaiaupuni, 1993). Research on the neighborhood effects of HOPE VI public housing redevelopment efforts, in contrast, frequently has shown much more positive effects.1 These studies have shown that the neighborhoods surrounding HOPE VI properties are frequently characterized by lower crime, higher property values, and higher resident incomes than similar communities without such redevelopment. Yet none of the HOPE VI studies to date has comprehensively evaluated the extent to which the observed neighborhood improvements have resulted from the HOPE VI investment. Are the observed correlations the result of preexisting positive trends within the community, or was the HOPE VI investment a critical catalyst for change? What would have happened to the community in the absence of HOPE VI?
To address these questions, the study focuses on the economic spillover benefits of HOPE VI redevelopments in selected neighborhoods in Boston, Massachusetts, and in Washington, D.C.2 It documents the changes that have taken place in local property values, violent crime patterns, and resident incomes before and after the redevelopments, and it assesses the extent to which the changes can be attributed to HOPE VI. It is important to note that the HOPE VI redevelopments do not take place in isolation. Most occur in conjunction with other efforts to improve the communities. It could easily be argued that existing neighborhood development activity drove the selection of certain HOPE VI sites and that the HOPE VI redevelopment in these cases has been more of an augmenting than a catalyzing factor for local change. The study does not attempt to distinguish the relative importance of each particular factor; rather, it assesses the role that HOPE VI and associated programs have played in bringing about local change.
The study finds that, for the most part, the HOPE VI redevelopments have had positive, statistically significant effects on economic conditions in their surrounding neighborhoods. The extent of the neighborhood spillover effects has depended, in part, on the location and market dynamics of the surrounding community. The economic effects of a HOPE VI redevelopment have tended to be greater in communities where there were other development pressures and existing, stable institutions. In the absence of these factors, the positive effects of HOPE VI are less pronounced.
Zielenbach (2003a, 2003b), Bair and Fitzgerald (2005), Turbov and Piper (2005), and Levy and Gallagher (2006) all provide evidence of positive neighborhood spillover benefits associated with HOPE VI developments.
This article is based on a six-city HOPE VI economic cost-benefit analysis sponsored by the John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation and the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities. Parts of it are adapted from a forthcoming article in Housing Policy Debate.
Approach, Methods, and Site Selection Community development practitioners and policymakers have multiple reasons to expect HOPE VI redevelopments to have positive neighborhood effects. The sheer size of many of the targeted properties, along with the substantial amount of public and private money earmarked for their improvement, allow for creative, comprehensive planning and better integration with the surrounding areas.