The Urban Institute released five briefing papers describing the results of its ten-year study of the long-term outcomes for families who relocated from two Chicago public housing developments to private housing using housing choice vouchers, to rehabilitated public housing, or to mixed-income developments. In 1999, the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) announced its Plan for Transformation that called for demolishing and replacing all of CHA’s high-rise public housing developments and substantially rehabilitating 10,000 units in low-rise and senior buildings. More than ten years later, the number of vouchers that CHA administers doubled to nearly 38,000, while far fewer public housing units exist. The briefing papers are based on samples of residents from two CHA developments. One was the Madden/Wells Homes, a 3,200-unit public housing community demolished with a $35 million HOPE VI grant with plans to create 1,133 mixed-income units, of which 273 were to be family public housing rental homes and 150 were to be elderly public housing. Today, the replacement Oakwood Shores community has 296 family public housing rental homes. The senior building is a 59-unit Section 202 building, not a public housing building, but former Madden/Wells residents had first priority to occupy it. The second public housing development was Dearborn Homes, an 800-unit property which underwent substantial rehabilitation and now has 660 units. The Urban Institute writes that fewer than 20% of the displaced public housing residents were able to return to CHA’s new or rehabilitated developments. The Urban Institute asserts that as a result of the Plan for Transformation, most families live in better-quality housing and in better neighborhoods than they did in 1999. In 2001, 75% of the sampled households reported two or more housing condition problems, but by 2011, only 25% reported severe problems, and 75% reported that their housing was in better condition than the homes from which they relocated. However, ongoing challenges remain in terms of housing quality, housing stability, and neighborhood quality. About one-third of the households in the sample opted to use a voucher. The study states that voucher holders have experienced substantial improvements in housing and neighborhood quality. However, many voucher households are struggling in the private market; some end up in substandard units with significant housing hazards and experience housing instability. In 2011, residents who relocated with vouchers reported a decline in housing quality, registering more housing problems than residents who relocated to public housing or mixed-income housing. Voucher residents suggest that the quality of housing inspections has declined. There is also a hint that voucher holders are reluctant to report problems to landlords. They might also hesitate to report problems to CHA, worried that if the landlord does not make the repairs, the unit will ultimately fail CHA inspection and they will have to move again. Another problem experienced by public housing residents who chose to relocate with vouchers is difficulty paying utility bills. While in public housing, residents did not pay their own utility bills. With vouchers, if utilities are not included in the rent, residents often have difficulty adjusting to budgeting for seasonal utility cost spikes, especially in old, private homes that are not well-insulated. The study indicates that many households, not just voucher households, move relatively often and with no perceptible improvement in housing or neighborhood quality. Between 2009 and 2011, 32% of all households moved again. The most common reason for moving was that the unit was in bad condition (15%) or that the neighborhood was not safe (11%). Voucher households report that violence in their neighborhoods is a bigger problem than do residents in public housing or mixed-income housing. When they moved, most did not move far: those in public housing tended to stay in the same neighborhood, moving less than a quarter mile, while 50% of voucher households moved more than two miles. Although almost all residents lived in neighborhoods that were relatively less poor and racially segregated, most still live in neighborhoods with high concentrations of poverty and racial minorities. Half live in neighborhoods with poverty rates above 40%; 84% live in neighborhoods where more than 75% of the population is African-American. Despite mobility counseling, out of 381 households in the Urban Institute study sample, only seven live in areas of opportunity.Click here to view the Urban Institute’s five briefing papers.