Reimagining HPHA Series: Public Housing in Hawai'i

Reimagining HPHA

Series

Public Housing in Hawai‘i

Assessing the Needs of Public Housing Residents

University of Hawai‘i Community Design Center for the Hawai‘i Public Housing Authority

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS:

Jennifer Darrah-Okike, Ph.D.

Philip Garboden, Ph.D.

HAWAI‘I PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY

The HPHA is the state of Hawai‘i’s primary housing agency. The Hawai‘i Public Housing Authority is committed to promoting adequate and affordable housing, economic opportunity, and a suitable living environment free from discrimination. HPHA focuses its efforts in developing affordable rental and supportive housing, public housing and the efficient and fair delivery of housing services to the people of Hawai’i.

hpha.hawaii.gov

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I COMMUNITY DESIGN CENTER

The UHCDC is a teaching practice and outreach initiative led by the School of Architecture at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa that operates as a platform for students, staff, faculty, and partnered professionals to collaborate on interdisciplinary applied research, planning, and design projects that serve the public interest. These projects offer service-learning opportunities for students through academic instruction, internship, and post-graduate employment.

uhcdc.manoa.hawaii.edu

Public Housing in Hawai‘i Assessing the Needs of Public Housing Residents

PROJECT REPORT

University of Hawai‘i Community Design Center for the Hawai‘i Public Housing Authority

PROJECT MANAGER AND PRINCIPAL REPORT AUTHOR:

Nathalie Rita, Ph.D. Candidate,

University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Department of Sociology

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS:

Jennifer Darrah-Okike, Ph.D.

University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Department of Sociology

Philip Garboden, Ph.D.

HCRC Professor in Affordable Housing Economics, Policy, and Planning

Department of Urban and Regional Planning

University of Hawai‘i Economic Research Organization

The Re-Imagining HPHA Series is an inter-departmental and multidisciplinary initiative conducted by a group of Principal Investigators at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa through the University of Hawai'i Community Design Center aimed at re-thinking public housing programs and facilities in an effort to support HPHA’s mission and long term goals.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Jennifer Darrah-Okike, PhD.

2424 Maile Way, Saunders Hall 235 Honolulu, HI 96822

Telephone: 1 (808) 956-7950

Email: jdarrah@hawaii.edu

Website: sociology.manoa.hawaii.edu/jennifer-darrah

CITATION

Rita, N., Darrah-Okike, J., Garboden, P. 2023. Public Housing in Hawai‘i: Assessing the Needs of Public Housing Residents. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would also like to recognize the work of Amanda Rothschild, Lisipa Sua, Austin Davis, Kevin Lee, Rachel Engel, Mark Willingham, Jr., Katia Moraes, Laura Johnston, and Samalaulu (Chrissy) Yuen; all of whom helped collect the interview data presented in this report. We would also like to acknowledge the work of Katrina (Nina) Shuping, who collected the follow-up data from residents in 2021. Lastly, we would also like to acknowledge the hard-working and dedicated HPHA staff and leadership at each of the study sites. This study was made possible through funding and assistance from the UH Community Design Center in cooperation with the Hawai’i Public Housing Authority. Finally, we are deeply grateful for the many tenants who generously shared their time and stories with us.

PICTURES

The pictures in this report are used for illustrative purposes only and are not study participants. Individuals pictured are not known beneficiaries of any specific state or county program. All pictures were taken by a trained member of our research team with permission from the model or a guardian, if under 18 years of age.

HPHA SERIES GRAPHIC DESIGN

Jill Misawa

Distribution of this work is licensed to the UHCDC under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-ND 4.0) unless otherwise noted. To view a copy of this license, visit https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/.

© 2023 University of Hawai‘i Community Design Center

Executive Summary 6

Introduction 8

Public Housing Overview 12

HPHA Needs-Assessment Study 14

Sampling And Methods 14

Respondent Demographics 18

Findings 20

Previous Living Circumstances 22

Limitations in Private Housing Market 26

Collateral Benefits of Public Housing 28

Resident Needs and Areas for Improvement 32

Conclusion 40

Endnotes 42

Appendix 44

Recruitment Letter 44

Interview Guide 45

Demographic Profile 52

Institutional Review Board (IRB) Consent Form 54

Technical Methods on Site Selection 57

References 64

Executive Summary

Homelessness has long been seen as one of the most pressing social and policy challenges in Hawai‘i.1 In response, state and city lawmakers have supported initiatives to create more affordable housing,2 as well as increase funds for emergency and transitional shelters. These programs are important steps, yet more resources are needed, especially as the economic and social upheavals associated with COVID-19 are projected to exacerbate existing social, economic, and housing insecurities (Lake 2020; Zarroli 2020). This means that local, state, and federal governments must invest in long-term strategies to secure affordable housing, especially for families who have extremely limited options on the private market.

In this report, we bring attention to the foundational role that public housing has to play in the social and economic recovery associated with COVID-19. This report is based on an assessment of public housing residents’ needs, drawing primarily from the views of tenants themselves. In particular, this report answers the following questions: What are the circumstances that led Hawai‘i’s public housing tenants to seek housing assistance? How does access to public housing shape households’ residential trajectories? What are the impacts of public housing residence for adults and their children in terms of wellbeing and opportunity? And finally, how can public housing better address the needs of its residents?

To answer these questions, researchers at the University of Hawai‘i randomly sampled residents from three public housing projects on O‘ahu to collect tenants’ in-depth responses to a range of questions about their residential histories, experiences in public housing, present needs, and future goals. Using specialized labor-intensive fieldwork techniques, our team recruited 83% of sampled households (N=75). This afforded insight into the views and backgrounds of Hawai‘i’s highly diverse public housing population, allowing us to hear directly from residents who may rarely speak to researchers and agencies. In addition, to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on residents’ housing needs, we conducted follow-up interviews during October and November 2021 with a randomly selected sub-sample of 15 respondents, of which 40% (N=6) were reached and willing to participate. From this data, we offer three primary findings.

First, a vast majority of respondents (77%) experienced profound housing insecurity prior to gaining access to public housing, which included periods of unsheltered homelessness, overcrowded living conditions, and/or other forms of housing instability.3 Public housing effectively alleviated these insecurities for its beneficiaries by providing access to permanently-affordable units. In the face of job losses, health crises, and other challenges associated with COVID-19, residents discussed how they avoided eviction and homelessness by having

their rent adjusted to reflect their new economic reality. Thus, we argue that public housing should be recognized as one of the most effective and long-lasting solutions in the alleviation of housing insecurity for low-income families, especially in the face of COVID-19.

Second, residents recognized public housing as generating a range of important secondary benefits in their lives, such as overcoming substance abuse, leaving violent partners, enhancing readiness to work, supporting mental and physical health, and creating residential stability. In addition, respondents reported vast improvements to their children’s wellbeing, especially in comparison to prior living situations. During the pandemic, public housing continued to offer residents, and their children, a place to work, learn, and heal. The positive returns of these benefits, especially for children’s long term trajectories, are of profound and enduring value.

Third, we identify ways that the Hawai‘i Public Housing Authority—and other agencies and organizations—can better support tenants. Some of our suggestions include a) providing more resources to households that are seeking to transition into the private real estate market by promoting or expanding existing programs, such as the Financial Self Sufficiency Program; b) improving tenant and management communication, especially for Limited English Proficiency (LEP) families, through the adoption of residential representatives and/or more community engagement events; c) expanding access to play spaces for children; d) providing residents with more access to information and support—perhaps through partner agencies—in regard to childcare and employment resources.

The format of this report is as follows: First, we present background information on public housing in the national and local context. Second, we provide a demographic overview of residents in public housing in Hawai‘i, as well as our sample, design, and methodology. Third, we describe our main findings:

a) Public housing provides residents with a relief from homelessness, domestic violence, and other forms of housing instability.

b) Public housing has many unique benefits for low-income families, especially in light of profound limitations in the private-rental market, including a dearth in supply of units that can accommodate low-income families, large families, and/or residents with disabilities.

c) Public housing is associated with many collateral benefits in the lives of residents and their children.

In the fourth section, we offer suggestions for potential areas of program improvement. Lastly, we conclude by recognizing the need for increasing subsidies through the public housing operating and capital funds to ensure that local housing authorities have sufficient funds to operate their programs, as well as pursue suggestions (Fischer, Acosta, and Bailey 2021).

by Nathalie Rita, Jennifer Darrah-Okike, Ph.D., and Philip Garboden, Ph.D.

Even prior to the economic and social dislocations caused by COVID-19, Hawai‘i already suffered from an acute shortage of affordable housing.

In 2018, for example, 78% of renter-families earning between $35,000-50,000 annually were burdened by their housing costs, paying above 30% of household income on rent (American Community Survey (ACS) 2018). Meanwhile, thousands of families slept in shelters, cars, or in parks each night (Henry et al. 2018). For extremely low-income families—those who earn at or below 30% of their area median income—there were only 39 units available per 100 renter-households (National Low Income Housing Coalition 2019).

COVID-19 is expected to worsen such trends (Klein and Smith 2021; Zarroli 2020). This is especially true in Hawai‘i, where the pandemic has had deep negative effects on the economy. In 2020, for example, Hawai‘i experienced a 12.4% unemployment rate, up nearly 10% from 2019, as the state lost between 60,000 and 140,000 jobs (UHERO 2020a, 2020b). These losses were largely concentrated in the hospitality and service sectors (Garboden 2020), resulting in one of the highest unemployment rates in the United States (Hawai‘i News Now 2021). As of January 2021, roughly 30,000 households across the state were behind on their rent (Garboden 2021). As Hawai‘i continues to recover from the pandemic, the state must prioritize securing low-income families with access to safe, stable, and affordable housing.

COVID INSIGHT

Federal, state, and local officials have recognized that housing must play a critical role in the recovery from COVID-19. For example, President Biden’s “Build Back Better Act” proposes a massive expansion of the housing voucher program that would benefit over one thousand families in Hawai‘i (Olivia 2021), as well as an expansion to the low-income housing tax credit program, which is aimed at building and rehabilitating more affordable units (Sprecher and Sparks 2021). Like these other programs, public housing stands to play a foundational role in the social and economic recovery from COVID-19.

In this report, we emphasize the benefits of Hawai'i's public housing and thus its potential to play a crucial role in the social and economic recovery from COVID-19. In addition to providing safe and stable housing for low-income families, public housing—and other federal programs managed through the US Department of Housing of Urban Development (HUD), such as the Housing Choice Voucher program and Project-Based Section 8—is uniquely structured to protect residents during economic recessions because rent paid by tenants is based on household income. Thus, if a recipient were to lose their income, as many families have due to COVID-19, their rent would also go down. This public housing payment model protects families from losing their homes due to a loss of income, preventing homelessness, overcrowded living conditions,5 and/or other forms of housing insecurities.

In all, we found the public housing offers low-income families a durably-affordable opportu nity to achieve housing stability. In line with previous research, we also provide more evidence that permanent housing subsidies can have powerful indirect effects on the lives of low-income families, as residents identified public housing as a contributing factor in improved mental and physical wellbeing, safety from intimate partner violence, and improved financial self-sufficiency (Fischer et al. 2021, Gubits et al. 2015).

These findings are based on a needs-assessment study of the public housing program, where we sought to answer: What are the circumstances that lead people to seek out public housing? How does public housing access shape households’ residential trajectories? What are the impacts of public housing residence for adults and their children in terms of household and family wellbeing and opportunity? And finally, how can public housing better address the needs of its residents?

To answer these questions, we conducted in-depth interviews with a representative random sample of public housing residents. Residents were sampled from three different sites on the island of O‘ahu, which, taken together, represent the heterogeneity of Hawai‘i’s public housing stock (in terms of age, size,

Hawai‘i

by Nathalie Rita, Jennifer Darrah-Okike, Ph.D., and Philip Garboden, Ph.D.

location, population composition, and other key variables). With the assistance of the Housing Authority and property managers, we randomly sampled 30 households from each of these housing projects to recruit them to participate in an in-depth interview about their experiences in public housing, as well as their residential trajectory, current needs, and future plans.

Through intensive outreach efforts, repeated in-person visits, and carefully crafted recruitment protocols, we maximized respondent participation to ensure that those who participated in our study would most closely reflect the population and community characteristics of those served by public housing. Out of the 90 randomly-selected households, over 80% agreed to participate, a rate above the conventional rule of thumb for an unbiased sample. In addition, we followed up with a random selection of respondents to understand how their housing needs have changed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This allowed us to learn from the perspectives and narratives of respondents who may rarely speak to researchers and public agencies, including people with physical and mental disabilities, history of drug usage, limited English proficiency, and/or extensive work or caretaking responsibilities.

In this report, we share our findings to help define the priorities of the Hawai‘i Public Housing Authority (HPHA), as we identify ways that HPHA can further promote household wellbeing, socioeconomic opportunity, and financial self-sufficiency among its residents. Below, we detail and elaborate upon major findings, as well as raising suggestions for how HPHA can better serve its residents:

PUBLIC HOUSING SOLVES HOMELESSNESS AND OTHER FORMS OF HOUSING INSTABILITY:

We found that public housing effectively alleviated housing insecurity for its beneficiaries. The vast majority of respondents (77%) reported previously experiencing some form of profound housing insecurity prior to public housing residence. This included situations where residents lived unsheltered on beaches, in parks, and/or at homeless shelters. Others described staying in overcrowded homes with extended kin or others. In many cases, residents described past experiences using other programs from the public and private sector (e.g., emergency shelters, charities, etc.), which failed to offer durable solutions to their housing precarity. During the COVID-19 pandemic, residents also discussed how public housing prevented homelessness, as their rent was adjusted in response to job losses and health crises. Throughout our study, respondents made it clear that public housing is a fundamental, reliable, and uniquely effective safety net for low-income families in Hawai‘i.

PUBLIC HOUSING SUPPORTS HOUSEHOLD WELLBEING:

Our interview respondents made a direct connection between the ability to live in public housing and improvements in their lives, such as overcoming drug addiction, leaving violent partners, enhancing readiness to work, supporting mental and physical health, and creating beneficial residential stability. The positive returns for children’s long term trajectory from such household gains are of profound and enduring value. In the context of COVID-19, this remained salient, as respondents’ units became a place where they could work, their children could learn, and their families could social distance from public places.

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT:

Through a thorough review of the distinct themes raised by respondents, we also point to some areas for improvement. Some of these suggestions are directly within the scope of HPHA and its portfolio, such as: a) providing access to information about existing programs, including the Financial Self Sufficiency program (FSS); b) addressing the needs of Limited English Proficient (LEP) families through the adoption of community representatives and more engagement events; c) increasing support for children, including more greenspace and play areas within HPHA sites. Other suggestions may represent opportunities for collaboration between HPHA and other agencies, including respondents yearning for more on-ramps to employment, as well as childcare opportunities.

In the next section of this report, we provide an overview of the public housing program at the national and local levels, followed by a discussion of our study design and methodology. These are followed by our findings and conclusion sections.

by Nathalie Rita, Jennifer Darrah-Okike, Ph.D., and Philip Garboden, Ph.D.

Public Housing Overview

BACKGROUND ON THE FEDERAL HOUSING PROGRAM

Public housing is one of the longest-serving federal programs aimed at assisting low-income families. It was established in the 1930s to provide affordable housing options through publicly-owned and operated units, primarily for war workers who were flooding into America’s industrial cities. In Hawai‘i, for example, the public housing authority was the largest rental agency throughout 1950s, a period during which O‘ahu experienced unprecedented economic growth (Hawai‘i Public Housing Authority 2019). Until the 1970s, the program expanded in size, as complexes were built across the U.S.

Since the 1990s, public housing has seen a decline in federal funding, which has been part of a bi-partisan trend that has shifted housing assistance from publicly-owned and operated complexes towards leveraging the private market to supply and develop affordable housing (Landis and McClure 2010; McCarty, Perl, and Jones 2019; Oakley and Fraser 2016). As public housing complexes were demolished, many low-income families were reassigned to housing voucher programs (specifically the Housing Choice Voucher program, formerly known as “Section 8”), but these programs have been unable to keep up with the demand for housing assistance. Moreover, there has been a massive decline in funding directed towards the Public Housing Capital Fund, which has decreased 35% since 2000. Given the $26 billion backlog in capital repair needs, Public Housing Authorities have had to think beyond traditional programs to preserve their existing housing stock—not to mention increase access to affordable housing—to keep pace with increasing demand.

Despite HUD’s retrenchment, public housing remains a critical resource for low-income families, providing stability that is nearly unmatched by other programs, as it gives families access to permanently affordable hard-units. Research has shown that many families who had to trade a hard-unit for a voucher struggled to find stable housing of reasonable quality on the private market (Garboden et al. 2018; Popkin 2016; Rosen 2020). This has had particularly negative effects on African Americans and other racial/ethnic minorities, who have experienced high rates of displacement (Chaskin and Joseph 2011:201, 2015; Goetz 2011; Lees 2016; Oakley and Fraser 2016). However, some families have benefited from vouchers in terms of safety, health, and children’s education. In all, the housing needs of low-income families are heterogenous, meaning that there should also be a diversity of solutions.

Thus far, the majority of studies on public housing, as well as its retrenchment, are based on major U.S. metros, including regions with large African American populations. Not much is currently known about the experiences of public housing residents in multiethnic and

multi-linguistic contexts, such as Hawai‘i. In this report, we provide insights into the experiences of tenants living in public housing in Hawai‘i to identify ways to further promote household wellbeing, socioeconomic opportunity, and financial self-sufficiency among public housing residents.

PUBLIC HOUSING IN HAWAI‘I

As discussed, the federal public housing program is funded by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), but the program is operated by state and local public housing authorities (PHAs). The Hawai‘i Public Housing Authority (HPHA) is the sole public housing provider in Hawai‘i. It was established by the Territory of Hawai‘i in 1935. Today, the core function of HPHA is to manage federal and state public housing programs across the state, including public housing properties, housing voucher programs, and senior housing facilities (Hawai‘i Public Housing Authority 2019).

In Hawai‘i, public housing programs currently serve 5,133 low income families, who are defined as households earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). However, it is required that not less than 40% of residency is restricted to families deemed to be “extremely low income,” defined as households earning less than 30% AMI. Despite these targets, HPHA can only serve a small portion of families who qualify for housing assistance. In recent years, the waitlists for Housing Choice Vouchers, as well as public housing, have been mostly closed with only periodic openings.

HPHA currently owns and manages 85 properties across the state.8 The units within these properties range in size from studio-styled to five bedrooms, but most are between one to three bedrooms. The majority of HPHA properties have been identified as needing a major overhaul to address structural issues (Hawai‘i Public Housing Authority 2019; Hofschneider 2015). In response, HPHA is pursuing a series of public-private partnerships to redevelop its properties into mixed-income communities.

In terms of demographics, HPHA serves a unique population. Whereas the majority of public housing residents in the U.S. are either Black/African-American or White, the majority of public housing residents in Hawai‘i are either Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (47%) or Asian/Asian-American (33%) (Department of Housing and Urban Development 2019). Public housing communities in Hawai‘i also include a relatively high share of foreign-born residents, including people from various countries in the Asia-Pacific region and elsewhere. In addition, HPHA also serves a relatively large share of recently-immigrated people from the Micronesia region of Oceania, including nationals of the three nations covered under the Compact of Free Association (COFA).6 COFA nationals7 have a unique residency status in the US that grants access to certain benefits, including public housing. Today, COFA nationals make up 10% of public housing residents in Hawai‘i. In the findings section, we explore commonalities between the needs of Hawai‘i diverse communities, as well as programs designed to address the particular needs of tenants based on indigeneity, migrant-status, and other characteristics.

HPHA Needs-Assessment Study

SAMPLING AND METHODS

This report is a needs-assessment study based on the experiences, perspectives, and views of public housing tenants at the time of our primary data collection, during the summer and fall of 2019, as well as interviews with a random sub-selection of residents in the fall of 2021. To ensure that respondents reflected the diverse social fabric of public housing residents in Hawai‘i, we selected three public housing complexes on O‘ahu. Each were selected from different strata of public housing properties, which we identified using a k-means cluster analysis based on property characteristics (bedroom sizes, age of property), locational characteristics (attributes of the relevant census tract—same or sometimes adjacent tract), and AMP population characteristics (e.g., percent of COFA nationals, percent elderly).8

This statistical analysis produced three clusters of similar housing projects from which we randomly selected one property from each cluster (excluding properties outside of O‘ahu). Our final sample consisted of Kalakaua Homes, Ko‘olau Village, and Kuhio Homes (See Table 1 for data on complexes). Importantly, these sites represent both rural and distinctive urban locations. This was important given that resource constraints prevented us from collecting data from housing sites outside of O‘ahu, which may be disproportionally rural in comparison to sites on O‘ahu. The details of this sampling technique are explained in the technical appendix.

After we selected three sites, we worked with HPHA and property management to get a roster of all tenant addresses, which we used to randomly select 30 households to participate in our study. First, we sent a letter to each sampled address inviting any household member over the age of 18 years old to participate (see the technical appendix for recruitment materials). In a few cases, phone numbers were also available, which we used to call and recruit respondents. Most of our recruitment took place through repeated in-person visits to each sampled address by a trained member of our research team until we could obtain contact with an adult-member of the household. Most importantly, our field team excelled in building rapport and developing trust in each of the three communities, which led to our successful recruitment of over 80% of randomly sampled households. In 2021, we contacted a sub-sample of 15 randomly selected respondents to participate in a follow up study on their housing needs during the covid-19 pandemic. From this sample, 40% of respondents were willing to participate (N=6). The other respondents were either unreachable or declined participation due to illnesses, work, or family obligations. Given the small size of this follow-up sample, findings from the 2021 interviews are not intended to be representative. However, these follow-up interviews

TABLE 1: Demographics Measured at the Asset Management Project Level

offered illustrative demonstrations of tenants' real-world experiences under COVID-19. We supplemented these interviews with a review of secondary literature in order to gain further insight into public housing and tenants' needs during the COVID 19 pandemic.

When a resident agreed to be interviewed, a trained member of our research team would meet them at a location and time based on their preference and availability. In-depth interviews lasted between 1-3 hours. Interviewees were given an option of conducting the interview in English or another language of their choosing. 48% of respondent households included a family member who spoke a language other than English (n=36), but nearly all of the interviews were conducted in English, except for four (two in Cantonese, one in Chuukese, and one in Korean). The low-rate of non-English interviews occurred because we invited participation of any household resident over 18 years of age, and 97% of households in our sample had at least one adult-member proficient in English. Thus, even interviews that were conducted in English provided insight into the experiences of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) households. All interview participants were paid a cash stipend of $50-$75. Respondents who were randomly selected to participate in the short follow up interview in 2021 were contacted via phone, and were offered a $10 gift card to participate in the study.

Our interviews were conducted using a technique called narrative-empathetic interviewing (Boyd and DeLuca 2017; DeLuca, Clampet-Lundquist, and Edin 2016). This method involves the usage of an extensive interview guide. In the case of our study, the interview guide included modules on current housing/neighborhood; residential history; family and children; schooling; employment and financial history; migrant incorporation; and future housing goals (see technical appendix for the interview guide). Each of these topics were raised using open-ended questions, neutral language, and other techniques designed to make respondents feel comfortable sharing sensitive information and free from normative judgment. In other words, our interviews were designed to minimize social desirability biases, or the risks that responses would be shaped by social norms and external judgment.

by Nathalie Rita, Jennifer Darrah-Okike, Ph.D., and Philip Garboden, Ph.D.

Data provided by HPHA and property management

A. This measurement includes all residents at the Asset Management Project (AMP) level who identify as Asian-American and/or Pacific Islander, including Native Hawaiians.

B. This measurement refers to the total percentage of residents at the AMP level who are from the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, or the Marshall Islands. This count is not mutually exclusive from "Total Percent AAPI," since the vast majority of COFA nationals identify as Pacific Islander in the United States.

Throughout the interview, respondents were encouraged to lead the dialogue and share in-depth stories, which researchers responded to with specific probes designed to maximize recall and the revelation of specific details. This approach to interviewing is meant to feel more like a conversation and less like a study, which is proven to be an effective methodology in research studies with low-income and vulnerable populations (Darrah and DeLuca 2014; DeLuca, Garboden, and Rosenblatt 2012, 2013; Edin and Lein 1997; Edin and Shaefer 2015). Throughout the interview process, we were struck by how rich and involved our conversations were with respondents, who readily shared some of the most intimate details of their lives in ways that allowed our team to appreciate the meaning, significance, and impact of access to public housing in their life trajectories. After the conclusion of an intensive in-depth interview, or “talk story session,” we also collected basic demographic information and clarified remaining questions about income, housing details, or other background characteristics. Our study protocol was approved by the University of Hawai‘i Human Subjects Board, and our team maintained strict measures to protect the anonymity of each respondent.

Our research team completed interviews during 2019 with 75 households from our stratified random sample of 90.9 This figure puts us at an overall response rate of 83%, comfortably above the gold-standard threshold used by government evaluation agencies. This high response rate is notable even among structured survey-based studies. Achieving this high rate of response ensured that our sample reflects the full diversity of residents within each sampled complex.

In addition, as part of the pilot phase of the study (In 2019), we completed interviews with an additional 16 households generated from a convenience sample. This convenience sample included respondents recruited from Kuhio Homes, Mayor Wright Homes, Kam IV, and the Towers at Kuhio Park Terrace. Each of these respondents were recruited during “tabling” sessions outside of the entryway to the Towers at Kuhio Park Terrace and through additional referrals.

By choosing a finite sample, and then pushing to maximize participation, we were able to reach residents who are not typically included in planning and design processes, such as those with Limited English Proficiency, multiple jobs, mobility limitations, health conditions

PUBLIC HOUSING ON O‘AHU

Paoakalani

Puahala Homes I

Kuhio Homes

Palolo Valley Homes

Kalihi Valley Homes

Puahala Homes III

Mayor Wright Homes

Waimaha-Sunflower

Makua Ali‘i Kalanihuia

Ka‘ahumanu Homes

Puahala Homes II

Kalakaua Homes

Kauhale O‘Hana

Kau‘iokalani Maili II

Waimanalo Homes II

Kamehameha Homes

Waimanalo Homes

Kaneohe Apartments

Kuhio Park Terrace Lowrise

Noelani I

Ko‘olau Village

Hale Laulima

Spencer House Maili I

Hauiki Homes

Pumehana

Makamae Salt

Lake Kauhale

Nani

Kupuna Home O‘Waialua

Wahiawa Terrace

Kalaheo

Punchbowl Homes

Waipahu I

Puahala Homes IV

Puuwai Momi

Hookipa Kahaluu

Waipahu II

by Nathalie Rita, Jennifer Darrah-Okike, Ph.D., and Philip Garboden, Ph.D.

FIGURE 1: Map of Public Housing on O‘ahu

(both physical and mental), extensive caretaking responsibilities, or substance abuse issues. Each respondent was asked to select a pseudonym, which we used throughout this report to protect anonymity. Each interview was recorded and transcribed verbatim. These transcriptions were systematically analyzed to identify key themes related to our research questions. Please see the appendix for more detailed information on data collection and analysis.

RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

In Table 2, we present self-reported demographic data. Two-thirds are women. Respondent ages ranged from 19 to 80 years old with a median age of 42. We collected race/ethnicity in two ways. First, we asked respondents to tell us their race/ethnicity without providing any options. Second, we provided a list of racial or ethnic identities, asking respondents to mark all options that they identified with. This question often stimulated discussions about identity, heritage, and cultural backgrounds.

We categorize respondents’ race/ethnicity as follows: respondents are listed as “Native Hawaiian” regardless of any other racial/ethnic categories selected (34%); “Samoan” regardless of other categories other than Native Hawaiian (14%); “Black” regardless of other categories other than Native Hawaiian or Samoan (2%); “Asian-American” regardless of other categories other than Native Hawaiian, Samoan or Black/African-American (14%); “Latino or Hispanic” regardless of other categories other than Native Hawaiian, Samoan, Black/African-American, or Asian-American (3%); or “White,” if no other categories were selected (7%). “Micronesian” is

TABLE 2: Descriptive Statistics for Respondents

Median Age: 42 years

Source: Self-reported data from respondents

a. This refers to all of the languages spoken in the household. The total will not equal 100% because multiple languages can be spoken in each household.

b. Other languages include Kosraean, Laotian, Mandarin, Japanese, Tongan, Ilocano, German, and Hawaiian. Only one household reported a speaker for each of these languages.

used to identify all respondents identifying with any of the ethnicities associated with COFA (Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands) (15%). Only one respondent identified as Micronesian and another racial/ethnic option.

Respondents had a wide range of employment characteristics. 28% of respondents were employed full-time and 18% were employed part-time. 28% were currently unemployed, and other 20% were no longer in the labor market (elderly/disabled). 4% of respondents were full-time students.

by Nathalie Rita, Jennifer Darrah-Okike, Ph.D., and Philip Garboden, Ph.D.

Findings

Existing literature on public housing in the United States has often discussed public housing sites as places of concentrated disadvantage, areas that are notorious for their high levels of social and economic distress, racial isolation, and even violence.

In turn, scholars have shown how public housing residence in some locales can be associated with stigma, resulting in many in the policy-making world presuming that public housing residents everywhere may experience feelings of shame (Blokland 2008; Chaskin and Joseph 2015; Keene and Padilla 2010; McCormick, Joseph, and Chaskin 2012; Venkatesh 2000). In contrast to this expectation, the overwhelming majority of respondents in our study expressed appreciation for their housing and communities.

For example, many respondents detailed the positive attributes of their homes, communities, and locations, especially in contrast to their prior living situations. For example, Summer—a 38-year old Samoan woman—positively recalled memories of growing up in public housing, telling us that: “It was nice living here…It was a good childhood. I liked living here in the public housing.” In reference to her housing complex, Moana—a 25 year old Hawaiian-Samoan woman—told us that, “I love it. This is my home.”

In particular, Native Hawaiian residents expressed gratitude that public housing has given them an opportunity to stay in Hawai‘i, especially due to the significant need for affordable housing, as well as the growing diaspora of Hawaiians (Corey 2017; Kauanui 2007). For

COVID INSIGHT

In Hawai‘i, hospitality and service sectors were particularly hard-hit by the pandemic, resulting in employee reductions of 83% and 55% in each sector in 2020, respectively (Garboden 2020). One of our respondents, Faith a 53-year old Micronesian woman, told us that both her and her husband lost their jobs in the service industry. Without public housing, Faith felt that her family would have had to “go [live[ on the street.” Instead, her rent was adjusted, and her family continued to have a safe place to live, thereby avoiding homelessness.

example, Gale—a 42 year old Hawaiian woman—told us how the majority of her family members have moved out of Hawai‘i due to the high cost of living in the state. Gale told us: “you know how the islands are getting. Nobody can afford it here anymore. So, basically everybody just [left].” Another Hawaiian woman, Joy—a 47 year old mother to four children— also described how the affordability of public housing allowed her to raise her children in Hawai‘i after her husband died in an automobile accident. Joy said, “I'm grateful for being here. I love being here because I have a house over my head.”

Our data collection across rural and urban public housing sites provided insights into the varied reasons that tenants appreciated their units and communities. For example, residents in urban complexes often discussed the convenience of living close to workplaces, hospitals, transportation, and other resources. This sentiment was shared by Cara, a 61-year old resident, who has diabetes. Although she is now retired, Cara used to go to dialysis “in the afternoon…[then] work the evening,” so it was convenient for her to live in an urban complex located close to her job and healthcare providers. Buffy, a 65-year old Japanese-American woman, also described the convenience of her urban complex due to its proximity to public transportation and commercial areas: “I can catch a bus from anywhere, I can even walk like to Walmart or other bus stations.” She elaborated, telling us: “it's really a good location because it's in the middle of pretty much everything.”

Residents at a rural location discussed how their complex provided opportunities to raise families in what they perceived to be a safe and peaceful environment. For example, Fifi—a 59-year old Pacific Islander woman and a mother of four adult children—expressed how important public housing has been to her family, telling us, “this is our home. And we treat it as our home.” From the first time Fifi walked into the neighborhood, she knew that it would be an ideal place to raise her children because it was located away “from the city, and I wanted to raise my kids in a country way.” She proudly told us that, “every single one of my kids grow up here, and they all graduated [high school] from here, from in this place.” It is within this broader context of gratitude that respondents discussed the situations that led them into public housing. Below, we present three primary findings. First, we discuss the circumstances that led people to seek out housing assistance, including homelessness, overcrowded living conditions, and/or domestic violence. Second, we discuss how public housing is uniquely situated to alleviate housing insecurity, given the barriers respondents experienced in the private housing market. Third, we discuss the collateral or secondary benefits of living in public housing.

by Nathalie Rita, Jennifer Darrah-Okike, Ph.D., and Philip Garboden, Ph.D.

PREVIOUS HOUSING CIRCUMSTANCES: HOMELESSNESS, OVERCROWDED LIVING CONDITIONS, AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

In this section, we explore the various circumstances that led low-income families to seek out housing assistance. In Table 3, we provide an overview of our respondent’s residential histories prior to entering public housing. The majority of residents (77%%) experienced some form of housing precariousness, such as unsheltered homelessness (37%), overcrowded living conditions (58%), and/or living in an emergency or transitional shelter (46%).10 As discussed in the next subsection, many women also discussed histories of domestic violence from which public housing often provided a reprieve. These issues were not mutually exclusive, as many residents experienced a combination of these circumstances (see also, Baker et al. 2010). Overall, we argue that it is critical to understand why people seek out housing assistance in order to better address their long-term housing needs, as well as potentially aiding them in re-entering the private housing market.

Homelessness

Prior to gaining access to public housing, nearly 37% of respondents experienced unsheltered homelessness, living in a tent or a car, usually in a public place, such as a beach or park. For example, Gabby—a 35-year-old Hawaiian woman, who is a mother to three children—was homeless for five years. Gabby told us that, “I was sleeping on beaches, from house to house and hostels.” While homeless, Gabby filled out an application for public housing, and waited two years before she was approved to move into a unit.

COVID INSIGHT

Experts have warned that homelessness may increase the health risks associated with COVID-19, as congregate settings—such as shelters—make it difficult to practice social isolation (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2020). Thus, the need to provide families with access to safe, secure, and affordable housing is a public health issue (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities 2020; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2020). In our research, we found that public housing provided respondents with a relief from homelessness and other forms of housing insecurity, meaning that investments in public housing can help relieve some of the crises associated with COVID-19.

TABLE 3: Residential History Prior to Public Housing

Source: Self-reported data from respondents

a. Includes all residents with residential history outside of public housing who experienced housing insecurity, including periods involving unsheltered homelessness, living in a shelter or transitional housing program, or overcrowded living conditions.

b. Includes all residents who did not experience any of the aforementioned listed circumstances.

c. Includes all residents without previous housing history outside of public housing residence

d. Categories are not mutually exclusive. Many residents experienced various forms of housing instability prior to public housing.

Nearly 46% of residents relied on temporary housing assistance in the form of emergency or transitional shelters. For example, Napoleon—a 54-year old father originally from Micronesia—ended up living in a shelter after his family was left with “no place to stay, and we become homeless.” Initially, Napoleon moved in the U.S. to seek out medical treatment for a family member, during which they relied on a children’s charity for housing. When their tenure expired, Napoleon struggled to obtain housing, telling us that, “we couldn’t afford [a] rental around [here] because it's too expensive.” While living in a park, a social worker helped Napoleon move his family into a shelter, as well as aiding them to apply for public housing. Throughout their interview, Napoleon repeated that, “we’re lucky [that] we get a house—three bedrooms. We kind of feel lucky.” For Napoleon—and nearly half of our residents—shelters offered a temporary relief from homelessness and others forms of housing precarity before they were able to gain access to a permanently affordable unit in public housing.

Overcrowded Housing

Prior to gaining access to public housing, 57% of residents experienced overcrowded living conditions. For example, Paul—a 47 year old father originally from Micronesia—initially applied for public housing while his wife was pregnant with their first child, but he waited nearly 20 years before gaining access to a unit. During this time, Paul and his growing family

by Nathalie Rita, Jennifer Darrah-Okike, Ph.D., and Philip Garboden, Ph.D.

barely avoided homelessness by living in a one-bedroom apartment in Waikiki, which became increasingly difficult as his three sons were getting older. In reference to the overcrowded living conditions, Paul summarized, “[we] didn’t like that.” As such, Paul was excited for the opportunity to move into housing because it meant “more room, more space for my kids.”

COVID INSIGHT

A recent study published in Health Service Research found overcrowded housing to be a major risk factor for COVID-19 mortality, serving as a better predictor for number of deaths in a city than age and total number of COVID-19 cases (Varshney and Adalbert 2021). Our research showed that gaining access to public housing alleviated overcrowded housing conditions for many recipients.

These forms of housing precarity were not mutually exclusive circumstances. Instead, many residents discussed how they frequently altered their living circumstances based on access to resources. For example, Tara—a 37-year old Hawaiian woman—was homeless for many years, “living in my car.” At another point, Tara lived in a house with “twenty-two” other people: “I was living in my mother-in-law's house but, over there, it's like really, really crowded,” so Tara “lived in one bedroom on a king size bed” with her husband and their three children. The stress associated with living in such restricted quarters meant that “we had to move out.” As discussed later in the report, once Tara moved into public housing, she noted vast improvements in her children’s wellbeing, which is consistent with previous studies that have shown how stable housing profoundly benefits children, as measured by educational outcomes, health measures, and later improved work and employment opportunities (DeLuca, Wood, and Rosenblatt 2019; Desmond 2016; Harvey 2020; Newman and Harkness 2002).

Survivors of Domestic Violence

During our interviews, approximately 27% of women respondents11 (over the age of 25) discussed how their housing insecurities were worsened due to unsafe conditions associated with domestic abuse, a leading cause of housing instability for women (Baker et al 2010). For example, Carma—a 41-year old Japanese-Chinese woman born in Hawai‘i—described how public housing offered her a gateway to leave an abusive partner. After having her first child, Carma moved in with her boyfriend and eleven of his family members. Carma told us that this situation was, “really tough.” She explained further: “we were highly into…drugs, a lot of drugs and…he was very physical.” She recalled feeling “so suffocated. I need[ed] something, to just live on my own. I need[ed] to just get away from things.” So, she applied for public housing “without him knowing.” Once she was offered a unit, Carma told us that she had to move all of her belongings into public housing, “secretly, hiding behind his back.” Carma identified public housing as a critical mechanism in her creating a safe environment for her children, as well as aiding her recovery from substance abuse.

Leolani—a 44-year old Hawaiian woman—also described how public housing empowered her to leave an abusive partner. Prior to public housing, Leolani lived with her ex-boyfriend’s family for nearly two-decades. Leolani described their relationship as “toxic,” but felt that she

COVID INSIGHT

During the pandemic, many state governments—including Hawai‘i—enacted stay-at-home orders that required individuals to stay indoors except for essential activities. While these measures were effective in helping to control the spread of the virus, research has shown that they resulted in a “catastrophic milieu for individuals whose lives are plagued by domestic violence,” as rates of interpersonal violence increased across the country (Boserup, McKenney, and Elkbuli 2020). Throughout our research, women respondents discussed how gaining access to public housing provided them and their children with relief from dangerous living conditions involving domestic violence. Given that the pandemic heightened risks for domestic violence, the need for public housing to provide a safe-haven is even more acute.

was unable to leave him because she did not have anywhere else to live. She explained, “I got pregnant with my daughter [and] just kind of felt trapped,” telling us that even talking about this time of her life felt “still scary for me.” When Leolani was offered a unit in public housing, it gave her the opportunity to leave her abusive partner, so she “refuse[d]” to add her boyfriend to the lease. She stressed that, “this is my children's home, and I don't want any negative kind of stuff there.” Thus, Leolani felt that public housing “gave me an avenue to break away and move on with my life.” At the time of our interview, she stressed that, “my main concern is my children and that’s the bottom line.”

Even for respondents who had not directly experienced domestic violence, public housing provided respite and security for tenants undergoing separation from spouses. For example, Solid—a 54-year old Samoan woman—described a history of housing insecurity that she attributed to her husband’s alcohol usage, who was also the primary income earner in the household. At times, her husband disappeared, leaving her to care for her children alone. Thus, public housing has served as a desperately needed safety net for Solid and her children.

LIMITATIONS IN THE PRIVATE HOUSING MARKET

In this section, we focus on the experiences of residents who tried to remain in the private rental market, including 12% of respondents who attempted to do so by using a Housing Choice Voucher (HCV).12 The Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV, formerly “Section 8”) is the largest demand-side housing assistance program (Schwartz 2015), which provides low-income recipients with a coupon worth 60-70% of their rent on the private rental market (HUD 2019).13

Even with housing assistance, many residents reported barriers that prevented them from either remaining within or re-entering the private rental market, including: a lack of affordable units, especially for large families; concerns about maintaining rent due to family instability; the impact of bad credit; and, landlord hesitancy to accept tenants using a voucher. Overall, this section shows how many residents identified the durably affordable structure of public housing as a uniquely situated program to assist low-income families achieve housing stability. It is important to note that this section focuses on participants who felt that their housing-needs were best met via public housing. However, in the "Recommendations" section of this report, we discuss how some upwardly mobile residents felt that their needs would be best met by re-entering the private housing market. As shown, the housing needs of low-income families are heterogenous, meaning that a diversity of solutions should be used to alleviate the housing insecurities of low-income families in Hawai‘i.

Barriers: Large Units

Before gaining access to public housing, some residents discussed their attempts at remaining in the private rental market. For example, despite working fulltime at a daycare, Ansina—a 63-year Chuukese resident—struggled to afford housing, which led her to apply for a Housing Choice Voucher. After “waiting, waiting, waiting...it took so many years,” Ansina received a voucher, which she used to rent an apartment in the private market. After eight years, her landlord asked her to move out, which Ansina attributed to the size of her family. Afterwards, she had “a hard time finding another [unit]” because landlords kept replying to her requests by saying, “I don’t accept Section 8.” Eventually, Ansina “called her [case manager] and I said, ‘I just give up [on] Section 8. I cannot look anymore for Section 8 home[s]. It's getting hard on me and my husband, plus he is sick.’” Afterwards, Ansina and her family became homeless, as they slept in a park, until she was offered a unit in public housing. As shown, the HCV program was able to give Ansina and her family temporary access to housing stability, but public housing was better situated to meet the family’s long-term needs.

Barriers: Family Instability

Melissa—a 58 year old Hawaiian woman—successfully rented a home using a housing voucher in an urban part of Honolulu for many years. Melissa described her prior residence to us: “it was a three-bedroom, one bath, and it was $1,500 a month. It was a beautiful house. It was worth it.” Even though Melissa loved her home, she decided to accept a unit in public housing

because it would provide her with more financial security. She explained: “me and him [her husband] was having [martial] problems at the time. So, I thought, ‘Okay, I'm not going to be able to be good on my own here [using Section 8], so I took the [unit in public] housing,’ because if anything happens I can [afford it]." In all, Melissa felt that public housing provided her family with more stability due to the durability of its affordable-structure, especially in the case of a family emergency.

COVID INSIGHT

During the pandemic, Melissa remained grateful for public housing, especially when she fell ill with COVID-19 and lost her job. Through this incredibly distressing time, housing management and staff regularly called her to check up how she was feeling. They also promptly adjusted her rent, ensuring that she remained housed during the pandemic. In addition, HPHA and housing management made various efforts at alleviating the distressing conditions caused by COVID-19, such as providing on-site testing and vaccinations (State of Hawai‘i 2020). Such efforts reflect best practices guidelines issues by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (see Office of Public and Indian Housing 2021).

Barriers: Credit History

Both Ansina and Melissa received Housing Choice Vouchers before they gained access to public housing. However, Ruth—42-year old Samoan woman—received a voucher after she moved into public housing. Ruth was really excited at the prospect of re-entering the private rental market, but after applying to “eight places” to no avail, she became really discouraged. Ruth explained: “after you get turned down so many times, you get kind of, you know, you give up and just say, ‘Forget it already, why keep trying?’” Ruth attributed these challenges to her credit history: “My credit isn’t very good. When they did the credit check…I ended up not getting called back.” This whole process was particularly burdensome to Ruth—a single mother of five children—because she had to pay application fees for each unit: “I don’t have that kind of money…I can’t just pull like, $20 to $25 off the tree and say, ‘Here you go.’” As such, she eventually ended up “losing my voucher because I didn’t find a place in that 60 days,” so she continued to live in her public housing unit.

Ansina, Melissa, and Ruth’s stories highlight the challenges low-income households face when trying to stay-in or re-enter the private rental market. Some of the challenges described by residents include: a lack of affordable units, especially for large families; concerns about maintaining rent in the context of family instability; the impact of bad credit; and landlord hesitancy to accepts tenants using a voucher. Respondents who struggled to find an appropriate unit reported experiencing a heightened sense of stress during their housing searches. These challenges are consistent with findings from previous studies that have shown that many landlords refuse to accept vouchers—which is legal in the State of Hawai‘i—often resulting in voucher recipients failing to use their vouchers in the allotted timeframe (Finkel and Buron 2001; Garboden et al. 2018).

Barriers: ADA-Compliance

As previously shown, many families experienced challenges while trying to remain-in or re-enter the private rental market; issues that were largely exacerbated for families with disabilities. For example, Jacob is a 21-year old fulltime student who lives with his parents and sibling, who has a physical disability. He told us that, “I think that housing has done a lot for [my] family.” Jacob recalled his parents struggling to find affordable housing that could accommodate his sibling’s wheelchair because the units that his parents could afford were “so small and so compact that not even my sibling's wheelchair can go through a hallway.” These limitations, Jacob explained, are “why we live in a housing authority [property] for 18 years, mainly because my sibling.” As shown by Jacob, public housing is a crucial source of housing for his family, as he described it as “a nice choice” for his family.

Solid—a 54-year old Samoan woman—also described the ways in which public housing benefits families with disabilities. Throughout her interview, Solid described many of the challenges associated with raising a child with severe physical disabilities due to a chronic disease. As such, she expressed thankfulness for HPHA leadership, who have gone out of their way to meet her family’s needs. For example, after experiencing a delayed response to her requests for accommodations from the contracted property management company servicing the site, she reached out to HPHA, who retrofitted the unit to ensure accessibility within a matter of days.

Families with disabilities overwhelming expressed gratitude for public housing, but Junior— a 57-year old Samoan resident— stressed that additional changes are needed to make public housing truly accessible for families like his. First, “the bedroom[s] are too small” to accommodate hospital-styled bed. Second, the kitchens are not large enough to accommodate wheelchairs: “it's only good for my wife—people that are able bodied—but for me I can't get to the icebox, I can't get to the stove, the sink. There is no way. There is no room for me to turn around with my wheelchair in the kitchen.” Third, there is no ramp to exit the backdoors of units. This makes Junior and his family worry that “if there is a fire, how is he going to get out?” Junior wished that he could have the opportunity to voice the needs of ADA families, especially if “somebody [from management could] go around and meet with the families.” While changes are needed to make public housing truly-accessible for Junior and his family, they are thankful for the opportunity to live in public housing because of the difficulty associated with finding an affordable ADA-compliant unit on the private rental market.

COLLATERAL BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENCE

In this section, we explore the secondary, or indirect, benefits associated with public housing residence. We found that residents identified public housing as a contributing factor in overcoming addiction, enhancing readiness to work, addressing health concerns, and improving children wellbeing. Many of these secondary benefits were not mutually exclusive, as residents experienced improvements in various aspects of their lives.

COVID INSIGHT

In response to COVID-19, HPHA worked with other government agencies to provide residents with resources to combat the pandemic and its resulting economic disruption, such as by providing masks, hand sanitizer, and food (State of Hawai‘i 2020). In our follow up interviews, residents described their thankfulness for such efforts. For example, Fifi—a 66-year Polynesian woman— described her satisfaction with management’s response to COVID-19, especially when they brought in a vaccination clinic and enforced mask wearing on-site.

These findings contribute to previous research that has shown that neighborhood and housing contexts have implications for children’s short and long-term economic outcomes, educational attainment, and health (Chetty, Hendren, and Katz 2016; Herbers et al. 2012). In particular, public housing residence during childhood has been shown to increase employment opportunities and reduce welfare reliance in adulthood (Newman and Harkness 2002). One of the ways in which public housing indirectly assists families is allowing them to redirect resources from securing shelter into other needs, such as nutrition, educational recourses, and other extra-curricular activities (Burnstein et al. 2019). As such, we suggest that public housing plays a critical role in supporting the wellbeing of children and parents from low-income families in Hawai‘i.

1. Family Reunification and Improved Child Wellbeing

One of the primary collateral benefits of public housing residence was that it provided residents with an opportunity to re-unify families. For example, prior to gaining access to public housing, Tara—a previously introduced resident—lost custody over her children due to addiction and homelessness. This situation made her feel “loneliness and hopelessness.” After completing a recovery program, Tara was able to move into public housing and, in turn, re-gain custody of her children. Since moving into public housing, Tara told us that it has allowed her to focus on her children’s education. She explained, “I'm always so adamant about the education. And I want them to be successful…I just really always emphasize how important it is to be educated like go to school and be successful.” She excitedly told us about her son’s acceptance into private school. Luckily, he received a scholarship, but if he did not, Tara was “ready to take out a $40,000 loan” to ensure that he could attend. Research has shown that housing programs that offer access to safe, secure and reliable homes can have a range of indirect effects on children by relieving parental stress and financial strain (DeLuca et al. 2016; Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn 2000).

2. Financial Independence

Another positive effect of public housing residence was that it allowed many residents to become more financially independent. For example, Yuriko—a 33-year old woman of Japanese-Filipino descent—explained how public housing “help[ed] us get on our own feet again.”

Prior to moving into public housing, Yuriko’s husband lost his job, resulting in them moving into her in-laws’ house with their four children. Yuriko was thankful for the opportunity to live with extended family, but “the kids needed space. We needed space. They [her children] were growing up.” The need for more privacy led her to apply for housing assistance. After

Yuriko and her family moved into public housing, “My husband finally—he's been in between jobs—he finally found a better paying job, which is God's blessing.” The financial security provided by his new job has meant that, “we're able to actually move out [of public housing].” When we spoke to Yuriko, she was preparing to move out of public housing and re-enter the private rental market. In Yuriko’s case, public housing was “a steppingstone to help us save.”

Piper, a 38 year old housing resident, also explained how the affordability of public housing allowed her family to become more financially self-sufficient, as it allowed her husband the opportunity to go back to school. After he graduated with a vocational degree, he was able to take on the “great financial responsibility” of paying their rent and bills. This has allowed Piper to “stay home [and] take care of the children,” which is critical because two of her children have special needs. Piper told us that, she is “grateful that I had the opportunity” to move into public housing, as it has been a critical “steppingstone to being independent without assistance.”

3. Support for Recovery

Many residents also attributed access to public housing as a mechanism in their recovery from substance abuse. For example, Margi—a 51-year old Hawaiian woman— introduced herself by telling us: “I am a recovering drug addict…I have eight-and-a-half years of sobriety.” In regard to her recovery, Margi said that “living in [public] housing has helped,” as it offered her an affordable place to live while she underwent recovery. After Margi finished her recovery program, she enrolled in a course to become an addiction specialist at “a drug treatment center.” Margi has now “work[ed] there for five years,” telling us that “I really love my job. I love working with women and it's an all-women facility.” Margi’s experience reflects previous studies that have shown how stable housing act as a crucial foundation for addressing a range of other health and medical issues, including recovery from addiction (Tsemberis 2010).

4. Opportunities for Generational Mobility

As previously discussed, public housing in Hawai‘i is home to people from across the Asia-Pacific region and beyond. In our sample, 20% percent of respondents were born outside of the United States, and 48% of households included a family member who spoke a language other than English. Previous studies have shown that immigrants are at a high risk for living in inadequate housing due to barriers in the housing market, including a lack of housing affordability, racial and ethnic discrimination, and lack of institutional knowledge (Tillett 2006; Wayland 2007). Respondents in our study identified similar challenges. For example, Napoleon—previously introduced—told us that trying to afford housing in Hawai‘i has been one of his family’s biggest obstacles since moving to the U.S.

In particular, many immigrant families described how public housing supported opportunities for intergenerational mobility. This sentiment was expressed by Jonny, a 72-year old man originally from Vietnam, who articulated how the affordability of public housing allowed him and his wife to focus on their children’s educational needs. Jonny is now retired, but he worked for 30 years as a janitor. He explained that, while he worked, his wife was able to focus on “tak[ing] care [of] my children.” The affordability of public housing also allowed him to redirect income that would have been used for housing in the private rental market into supporting his children’s educational pursuits. All three of Jonny’s children have since graduated from college and they now work fulltime in professional occupations. Overall, Jonny said that he is “really happy” that he got to raise his family in “the best [neighborhood] in Honolulu.”

More recent immigrants from COFA nations also stressed how public housing provides them with a safe and stable place to raise their children, who they hope will also achieve upward mobility. Fia, a 38-year old public woman originally from Chuuk, told us that she moved to Hawai‘i to support her children’s educational pursuits, and the affordability of public housing has allowed her to do so. For example, her teenage sons recently told her that they wanted to work at a fast-food restaurant, but she told them, "No, I don't want you guys to go work now." She proudly told us, that “they're smart…They always get straight A[s],” so she wants them to solely focus on school and sports so that they can receive scholarships for college. Like previous immigrants—such as Jonny and his family—public housing is providing a safe and stable environment for Fia to focus on her children’s education.

Throughout this section, we explored many of the transformative effects public housing has had on the lives of low-income families in Hawai‘i. In interviews, respondents described how gaining access to public housing has impacted various aspects of their lives, including recovering from addiction, reuniting families, providing economic stability, and aiding intergenerational mobility. In particular, the affordability of public housing allowed many families to redirect finite resources towards their children’s development, as well as into their own career aspirations. In the next section, we explore some of the ways in which the Housing Authority and property management can further aid public housing residents in various regards, including re-entering the private housing market, building trust between tenants and management, resolving interethnic and cultural tensions between residents, and aiding people in achieving economic mobility.

by Nathalie Rita, Jennifer Darrah-Okike, Ph.D., and Philip Garboden, Ph.D.

Resident Needs and Areas for Improvement

OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESIDENTIAL MOBILITY FINANCIAL SELF-SUFFICIENCY

Throughout this report, we identified how public housing is a uniquely situated program to meet the housing needs of low-income families in Hawai‘i. The durably-affordable structure of public housing allowed some residents to invest resources into furthering their skillsets, resulting in increased household income. In turn, some of these more upwardly-mobile residents discussed a desire to re-enter the private housing market. However, they also expressed frustration over their inability to save enough money to achieve this goal. In this section, we identify ways that the Housing Authority can help these residents re-enter the private housing market, which would, in turn, give more families the opportunity to experience the benefits of public housing.

Gale is a 42-year old Hawaiian woman. Since moving into public housing, Gale’s family income has increased to $70K annually, so she expressed interest re-entering the private housing market or buying a home. However, she told us that, “the problem is you have to come up with the down payment. That’s a killer.” Gale—like all public housing residents—is required to pay 30% of her household income as her Total Tenant Payment (TTP). This means that as her household income increases, it is essentially taxed at an additional 30% above and beyond state and federal deductions. This can greatly reduce the ability of families to leverage additional income to make the jump into the private market. For example, Gale now pays over $1900 for a three-bedroom unit in public housing, which—when combined with the high cost of other goods—makes the rent seem unaffordable to her family. Like Gale, many residents attributed increases to their Total Tenant Payment (TTP), or their portion of the rent, as a barrier to achieving residential mobility.

Previous studies have found that low-income families face significant challenges associated with achieving economic upward mobility, especially as related to saving money (Burnstein et al. 2019). One reason is that they may actually experience a decrease in their annual income (i.e., salary from work, plus public benefits and assistance), as their income from work increases. This occurs as increased incomes may result in a decrease or elimination of allotted public benefits (Burnstein et al. 2019:28). In Hawai‘i, these issues may be exacerbated due to the high-cost of living.

One way that the Housing Authority can assist upwardly mobile families who receive housing assistance from HUD (including public housing and the Housing Choice Voucher program) is the Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) program. FSS is a federal program that creates a saving incentive for upwardly mobile residents. As residents’ income and TTP increase, the program is designed to redirect the increased rent into an interest-bearing account, which can be later be accessed by residents to purchase a home. In some iterations of the program, participants are also required to participate in financial education and personal coaching workshops, such as the Compass FSS Program. A study of HCV recipients who enrolled in the Compass FSS Program found that it produced a net benefit of over $10,000 per participant over the course of the five-year study period (Dastrup et al. 2017).14 Another study—based on an enhanced version of the FSS program (Home Ownership Program) ran by the Housing Authority in Denver, Colorado—found that program participants exhibited greater earnings growth, economic security, and rates of home ownership (Santiago, Smith, and Galster 2017). We found that, although FSS is available to HPHA residents, the program is not being well-publicized. For example, Faith—a 51-year old Chuukese resident—expressed a clear desire to eventually re-enter the private housing market, since her family has seen a large increase in their income since moving into public housing. She explained, “when we first moved here, I was the only one working,” but her husband has since obtained a fulltime job. Faith hopes to eventually “mortgage a house,” but the ability to save for a down payment is a barrier to achieving this goal. She told us, “We cannot save anything.” When asked about whether there are any ways for the Housing Authority or property management to help her family in this regard, Faith mentioned that there is a program that assists residents, she vaguely told us that: “if you want to move out, they can help you pay—I think—a deposit for a month.” However, she was unclear on how to benefit from the program. Like Faith, a few other residents cited vague familiarity with FSS. For example, Karma–a previously introduced resident—mentioned that there is a program that “help[s] you save for a down payment for the house.” But, “I don’t know who helps you…I forgot what program that is.”

From our sample, only one resident attempted to apply for the FSS program. Previously introduced, Tara is a highly-driven resident, who currently works multiple independent contracting jobs. Tara is determined to move out of public housing and eventually own a home, telling us that “the whole goal right now is to like move out of here.” To do so, she has independently sought out information on financial planning and improving her credit. In this process, Tara learned FSS when “I went to the office and there was a brochure. And I was like totally interested in it,” but the office worker was not able to provide much information on it. Therefore, Tara had to independently seek out information on the program. Tara hopes that “after the program is done,” her family will then have “enough for a down payment for our home.” After waiting over one year from the time of application, Tara recently heard back about her eligibility for the program, telling us that, “I've been calling them and calling them and calling them to get into this program, and they finally called me back this year. And so, I can't wait to get started on it.” Other tenants may need more support or guidance in accessing information on financial planning and savings options.

Our findings show that, although FSS is mentioned to residents, they are not given adequate information to benefit from the program. Based on existing literature, we can assume that the expansion of this program in public housing complexes in Hawai‘i could provide upwardly

mobile residents with assistance in re-entering the private rental market, which could allow HPHA to serve more needy families in Hawai‘i. Thus, we propose that the Housing Authority and property management provide tenants with more information and support for existing programs aimed at promoting residential mobility

TENANT AND MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION

One of the unique attributes of the public housing population in Hawai‘i is its racial and ethnic diversity. Throughout our interviews, we learned about families sharing food, childcare, and traditions across linguistic, racial and ethnic, and national-origin backgrounds. During our site visits, we also found that management showed a strong commitment to language diversity, as materials were printed in various languages and placed through offices. Despite efforts of management, we also found that Limited English Proficiency (LEP) families expressed unique challenges in terms of communicating their needs.

One of the primary challenges expressed by LEP households was their apprehension in discussing issues with management. For example, Sarah—a 20 year old college student who is of Chinese descent—told us that her mother often relied on her to translate materials received from management. She explained, “she just trusted me to take care of it for the most part.” Her mother’s hesitancy to communicate her needs with management concerns Sarah, especially now that she lives in another state for college. She is worried that her mother will “sort of just nod and smile, and just sign the forms,” instead of communicating any concerns with management.

Similarly, Jen—a 24-year old college graduate, whose parents are from Vietnam—explained that, even though management does “offer translators,” her “parents don’t feel comfortable with translators.” So, “for anything housing related, I would tend to go with my parents.” She attributed her parents’ hesitation to a feeling that the property managers have been dismissive of their needs in the past. For example, when a portion of their unit showed rust and disrepair, Jen felt like the repairs done by management were inadequate and "makeshift." The family tried following up about needed repairs, but management did not agree to their requests. Interactions like this have made her parents rather distrustful of management.

Many of the residents from COFA countries also showed reticence in regard to asking for clarification about income, rent, and policies. Barry—a 34 year old public housing resident, originally from a country in Micronesia—currently lives in a one-bedroom unit with his wife, son, and parent-in-laws. Since they are in a one-bedroom unit, his in-laws sleep in the living room, while Barry and his wife share the bedroom with their young child. Barry described the situation, as “really hard. We want to move. We want our child to be in their own bedroom, as they are getting older now.” However, Barry has tried to bring this up to management, telling us that, “we have been asking them to look for any available three-bedrooms, so we can move in there, but…it's been three years we have been waiting.” Barry expressed frustration over the frequent turnover in management. He said that “every time we went there to follow-up, or have a question, people change in the office.” This often results in miscommunication, which has left him confused and disheartened, especially because he feels responsible for getting

his family into a larger unit, since he is the only family member who is proficient in English. Based on a review of existing programs, we offer some discussion of cost-effective programs that may be effective in building rapport and trust between management and LEP residents. First, tensions could be alleviated through the presence of a residential representative whom other residents could confide in without fear of retaliation. This is especially important for immigrant households who described feeling a marked sense of vulnerability. One way to initiate such a program is to tap into individual residents’ assets and abilities (Brown and Shukla 1997). For example, some of the residents are already certified to do legal and medical translations, so they may be able to help bridge the communication gap between tenants and management.

Second, a tenant hotline or an anonymous comment box could provide residents with anonymity and, in effect, make them less hesitant to approach management. This approach has been successfully implemented in Canada. In Toronto, the Federation of Metro Tenants ‘Association offers a tenant hotline that offers assistance in 150 languages through an interpreta tion service (Wayland 2007). Tenant hotlines have reportedly received a high volume of calls, suggesting their potential value as a resource for residents.

Third, it is critical that management plan community outreach meetings and activities, as well as support tenant-led organiza tions. Some of the long-term public housing residents told us about meetings that were convened by management to discuss tenant issues in the past, but most respondents did not seem aware of any current activities or meetings. Informal activities like barbeques, children’s events, or clean ups could provide opportunities for management staff and residents to see each other outside of formal settings, which can benefit both staff and tenants. Community engagement events have been shown to be beneficial in alleviating tensions between management and tenants in various ways. First, it allows staff to learn more about their tenants and their families. Second, it was been shown to make tenants more active in their community, including in activities related to safety, childcare, and develop ment (Brown and Shukla 1997; Leung 2005).

PLAY SPACES FOR CHILDREN

Many residents celebrated the racial and ethnic diversity of their communities and the positive community support available for children. For example, Paul—a 47-year old father to three sons who is originally from Micronesia—told us that that public housing is “really good for families and the kids”

by Nathalie Rita, Jennifer Darrah-Okike, Ph.D., and Philip Garboden, Ph.D.

because it offers a safe affordable place to raise children. When discussing his neighborhood, Paul told us that his favorite part is that “all the kids play together, doesn’t matter where they came from and they really play like they are family.”

Other residents expressed similar sentiments. For example, Ansina—a previously introduced resident originally from Chuuk—also took great pride in the diversity of her neighborhood. Describing her neighbors, she told us that they are “Chuukese, Micronesian, and Korean, Chinese”—all of whom she described as “really friendly.” Jen, a previously introduced resident of Vietnamese descent, concurred by saying that her neighbors—often from different linguistic backgrounds—"always do favors for us and we always bring them food and stuff like that. So that’s nice.”

While interviewing Ruth—introduced above—we watched as her kids happily played outside and visited neighbors, who in turn visited her home (in one instance, asking Ruth for a cookie). Ruth described rich interactions with neighbors that involved sharing food, joint supervision of kids, barbeque get-togethers, and even a Halloween costume contest that parents organize for the kids. Ruth did describe one occasion when sirens and an apparent police chase interrupted the neighborhood, but she was reassured that the kids were safe and knew to “run inside.” When our interviewer probed about the ethnic identity of the neighbors, she quickly rattled off the different backgrounds represented on her row of homes: Hawaiian, Samoan, Pacific Islander, and Vietnamese. Her specific stories revealed how the neighbors all get along well and all take care of the kids.

Ruth’s description mirrored that of other respondents living in low-rise or townhouse complexes with buffers of green space between units (typical of Kuhio Homes and Ko‘olau Village). By contrast, the residents of Kalakaua Homes were more likely to voice frustration at the lack of suitable play spaces for their children. The lack of dedicated play spaces for children in Kalakaua Homes (and as mentioned by one of our pilot interview respondents in Kalihi Valley Homes) often inhibited opportunities for cross-cultural connections. Instead, residents described stressful situations that involved children playing in laundry mats and parking lots, which caused confrontations between neighbors.

For example, John—a 58-year-old public housing resident originally from American Samoa— expressed frustration about young children playing in the streets. Instead of attributing this to a lack of play spaces, John blamed the actions of children on perceived cultural incompatibilities with Micronesian residents. He described Micronesian youth as “running loose and that, they just have no control.” As such, he recommended that Micronesian parents “gotta be more focused on their family.” In response, some Micronesian parents felt that their children are unfairly blamed for problems in the neighborhood. One father in particular expressed frustration, telling us that, “We never cause the problem here, but they always put on it us.” As shown, a lack of play spaces can cause frustration among residents, which can lead some to blame problems on perceived incompatibilities among the diverse ethnic and cultural groups living in public housing. Thus, we identify a need for more dedicated public spaces for children, as a way to not only give children more safe places to play, but to also alleviate tensions between neighbors. This recommendation is largely based on the experiences of residents in low-rise complexes, where interconnected yard spaces fostered shared care-taking of children, as well as networks of neighborly support across ethnic and national origin groups.

More broadly, residents across complexes discussed the need for more activities and programs for children, such as on-site tutoring and reading programs. Some of the adult-children that we interviewed mentioned the existence of such programs in the past, as well as a yearning for children to continue to benefit from them. For example, Jen—a previously introduced respondent—recalled fond memories of a program called “Hang Out,” where the property management would “do activities and plan things. Like Easter egg hunts and…we actually did a stream cleanup.” In her experience, she felt like the program prevented kids in the neighborhood “from doing other things like, you know, drugs and stuff like.” Laura—a 28 year old mother of two children—also discussed this program, telling us that she wishes her children could benefit from a similar program, especially if it involved activities related to reading and math. Afterschool literacy programs have been shown to be greatly impactful in improving reading proficiency, particularly for high-risk students (Bayless et al. 2018).

CHILDCARE AND EMPLOYMENT BARRIERS

The affordability of public housing allowed many residents to focus on childrearing. For example, Solid—a previously introduced resident—was able to provide fulltime care for her son with disabilities until he passed away. However, some residents discussed childcare as a barrier to re-entering the labor market. Past studies have found that access to affordable and reliable childcare results in greater access to employment and educational opportunities for parents in public housing (Sextant Consultants, Inc. 1992).

COVID INSIGHT

At the time of writing this report (December 2021), school aged children are “back in school” in Hawai‘i, but they are still experiencing increased time away from school due to periodic closures or quarantining associated with COVID-19 exposures (Lee 2021). All of this has placed increased pressure on parents, especially as online learning often requires close supervision by adults (Heitner 2021). In turn, one way that the HPHA can alleviate stressors associated with COVID-19 is by providing increased access to childcare, as well as educational and enrichment activities for children. In the wake of COVID-19, housing has become even more important for all aspects of family life. Children and adults are likely to spend more time at home and on site in public housing complexes. Agencies should focus on enhancing and expanding physical spaces where children can learn and play as well as providing other supports for children's learning and wellbeing such as internet connectivity, study space, and safe play areas.

Laura—a 28 year old woman of Southeast Asian descent—discussed a desire to return to the labor market now that her son is two-years old. She examples, “I just keep applying and applying [for jobs], I'm not going to give up.” Even though she is eager to return to work, she is worried about what she will do about childcare. Right now, Laura is responsible for “tak[ing] my daughter to school,” then she spends the rest of the day caring for her young son. If she returns to work, she will have to figure out an affordable way to get childcare for her son. Even families who were able to access childcare voiced concerns about its cost. For example, Fia, previously introduced, worked out of financial necessity when her children were younger. This was challenging because she had to hire a babysitter whom she “[paid] $1,000 a month.” Even though Fia did receive partial assistance for childcare, which she estimated to be $100 per month, she had to pay the rest out of pocket.

The difficulties associated with accessing childcare led many tenants to depend on extended family members for assistance. For example, Melissa—a 58-year old Hawaiian resident—currently has fulltime custody of her grandson, even though she also works fulltime. A normal day for Melissa includes “getting ready for work. And, then [I] get my grandson up…I get him up and get him ready…I wait for the bus to come like about 7:00. And then I'm out of here, because I have to be at work by 7:30. Then I'm gone, go to work, do my thing there.” Once she

gets home from work around 5pm, she has to “get dinner going, and make him go take a bath.” Between working fulltime and raising her grandson, Melissa is overwhelmed, telling us “I've been doing [work and childcare] all my life. I'm tired of it.”

The Housing Authority could help address this set of resident needs by providing more on-site childcare options, either through on-site childcare centers or through Family Childcare (FCC) providers. FCC providers are registered with the State Department of Human Services, which allows them to work from home, tending to care for up to six children at a time (DeBaryshe et al. 2017). Although FCC costs can still be relatively high for low-income residents, they are more affordable than center care (DeBaryshe et al. 2017). Investing in residents’ training to become FCC providers could provide parents with greater options for childcare. In effect, it could also provide employment opportunities for other residents who become FCC providers.

It is critical to note that challenges associated with childcare are not unique to public housing residents. Hawai‘i currently suffers from a dearth of childcare resources in relation to its population, particularly for infants and toddlers. Currently, the islands of Kaua‘i, Moloka‘i, and Lāna‘i have no licensed infant-toddler centers (DeBaryshe et al. 2017). In addition, the cost of childcare continues to exceed 7% of state median family income, the federally accepted metric for “affordable” childcare (DeBaryshe et al. 2017). The shortage of childcare centers in Hawai‘i disproportionately affects low-income families.

Many of our respondents—including those with or without children—faced struggles when trying to access employment or find better paying jobs. For example, Fiona15—a 36-year-old public housing resident originally from Chuuk—has a hard time paying her bills and covering her needs even though she works full-time at a fast-food restaurant. Members of the research team noticed that the household lacked food and other basic necessities. The financial precarity experienced by this family led Fiona’s 19-year-old daughter to get a job at the same fast food restaurant as her mother. Even with two-incomes, this family—like many others across the United States—cannot get out of poverty. As such, it is nearly impossible for Fiona to move out of public housing without access to a new and better-paying job, which may require access to job training.

Conclusion

Through in-depth interviews with public housing residents across O‘ahu, we learned about the transformative effects of public housing on the lives of low income families in Hawai‘i. Before moving into public housing, many residents experienced years of housing instability, including periods of homelessness, overcrowded living conditions, domestic violence, and other challenges.

In line with previous research, our data showed how housing instability negatively impacted both adults and children. For example, Ruth—a 42-year old Samoan woman introduced above—described spells of living in her car. During this period, Ruth described how she was, “suffering from anxiety and depression” because “I just wanted my own space…I’d cry in the shower.” Having contended with housing instability since childhood, Ruth told us, “I’m more grateful to have a place,” especially as it gives her four youngest children “so much space down here, you know, they can run outside and play.” Ruth’s thankfulness was shared by an overwhelming majority of our respondents.

It is within this context of widespread gratitude that public housing residents also told us about their current needs and future goals. Using this information, we researched possible solutions that would improve opportunities for social and economic mobility.

First, the affordability and stability provided by public housing has allowed some residents to invest in education and training, sometimes resulting in income gains. This meant that some residents were interested in potentially re-entering the private rental market. To assist them in this venture, property managers and the Housing Authority could provide residents with access to existing, or newly designed, programs aimed at assisting residents to save money, such as the Financial Self-Sufficiency program. This is a low-cost suggestion, since the program is already in place through HUD.

Second, we found that property managers are serious about supporting cultural and linguistic diversity in their communities. However, many LEP families still expressed confusion about existing policies and displayed hesitation to reach out to management. This could be alleviated through the presence of a residential representative in whom other residents could confide. While some long-term residents discussed the presence of tenant-led organizations in the past, most respondents did not seem aware of currently active organizations or relevant meetings (or, at least, the residents did not know of these meetings taking place). A community representative may help management better understand its residents’ problems, as well as

helping residents better understand tenants’ and management’s responsibilities. Management could plan more community outreach events for residents, which could help residents feel more comfortable with management, especially outside of an office setting.

Third, many residents believed that public housing provides unique opportunities to bring about informal cultural exchanges among residents of different ethnic backgrounds, including among children. However, the lack of dedicated place spaces for children in some complexes often inhibited these opportunities. Instead, residents described stressful situations wherein children played in laundry mats and parking lots, causing confrontations between neighbors. As such, we identify the need for more dedicated public space for children, as a way to not only give children more safe places to play, but also alleviate tensions between groups who incorrectly attribute troubling behaviors as “cultural differences.” This recommendation is largely based on the experiences of residents in low-rise complexes, where interconnected yard spaces fostered shared care-taking of children, as well as networks of neighborly support across ethnic and national- origin groups.

Fourth, our last recommendation is the hardest to implement and needs support from the various agencies, as it is a wide reaching problem across Hawai‘i and the United States. Many residents described childcare as a barrier to entering the paid-labor market. As such, we propose investment in more on-site childcare options, either through an on-site childcare center or through Family Childcare (FCC) providers.

Endnotes

1. Hawaiʻi had the second highest rate of unsheltered homeless individuals after California, and homelessness has increased by 23% since 2007 (Henry et al. 2018). Research has shown that poor families in Hawai‘i— disproportionately Pacific Islanders (including Native Hawaiians)—face the highest housing burdens, lowest quality housing, and greatest residential exclusion (Corey et al. 2017).

2. For an example, see Kahuiki Village (www.kahauiki.org)

3 Our full sample is based 75 interviews with public housing residents. As shown in Table 3, 16 residents did not have any housing history outside of public housing and 2 did not provide any residential history. Of those who provided their residential history outside of public housing, the vast majority (77%) experienced profound housing insecurity prior to gaining access to public housing, including periods of unsheltered homelessness, overcrowded living conditions, and/or residence in temporary shelters.

4 There is no clear definition of who is considered to be “homeless,” especially because various organizations use different criteria to define who qualifies for assistance related to homelessness. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) uses a broad four-part scale to define priorities for HUD-funded homelessness assistance programs:

1) People who are living in a “place not meant for human habitation, in emergency shelter, in transitional housing, or are exiting an institution they temporarily resided”;

2) People who are “losing their primary nighttime residence, which may include a motel or hotel or a doubled up situation”;

3) Families with children who are “unstably housed and likely to continue in that state”;

4) People who are fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence” or “other dangerous or life-threatening situations related to violence,” and they have no other residence (National Alliance to End Homelessness 2012:1). In this report, we separate these categories to provide a clear understanding of the various types of housing precarity experienced by our respondents prior to moving into public housing. We use the term “unsheltered homelessness” to describe any situation wherein a person lived outdoors in a “place not meant for human habitation,” such as a sidewalk or park, often times in a car or tent.

5 In this report, we use the term “overcrowded living conditions” to describe situations where respondents “doubled up” with extended family or friends to meet their housing needs, or where respondents lived in severely overcrowded conditions. This is often referred to as “doubling up.”

6 The Compact of Free Association (COFA) refers to a series of treaties signed between the United States, the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau between the 1980s and 1990s. COFA granted each of the island-nations sovereignty from the United States, but it also embedded each into a new long-term political relationship with the United States. The US retained controls over the nations’ foreign affairs, airspace, and waters. In return, citizens of the aforementioned nation-states are permitted to live, work, and study in the US without a visa.

7 In this report, we refer to people from COFA nations as “COFA nationals.”

8 Resident population characteristics were only available at the AMP level, as further explained in the technical appendix.

9 One sampled household was occupied by a resident who we deemed unable to grant consent to the interview due to apparent mental illness. Per IRB protocols, this respondent was deemed ineligible for participation for their lack of ability to fully understand the study and give free permission for their participation. We sampled one additional household to replace this ineligible household.

10 As previously described, each of these counts are derived from the total number of respondents who previously lived outside of public housing (n=55). Not included in this count are respondents who have not lived outside of public housing (n=16) and respondents who did not provide their residential history (n=2).

11 This count includes all women 25-years old and older (n=48). We excluded women under the age of 25-years old from this count because they all lived with their parents in their childhood homes (n=7).

12 This count excludes residents who did not previously live outside of public housing (n=16) or those who did not provide any residential history (n=2). Out of the 55 residents who previously lived outside of public housing, 12% previously used a housing voucher (n=7). Two additional residents reported receiving a voucher after they moved into public housing, but they did not redeem it to rent a unit on the private market. The first respondent attempted to use the voucher but was unable to find anything affordable. The second declined the voucher, since they had only moved into public housing a few days prior.

13 Previous research has found that some low-income families experience various forms of social, economic, and health benefits from receiving housing vouchers (through the HCV program or other mobility programs). Because our sample design was limited to current public housing residents, we cannot make direct comparisons to voucher recipients. However, we report insights gleaned from our respondents’ descriptions of their own residential trajectories, including past experiences attempting to use vouchers before public housing residence.

14 Dastrup et al. (2017) studies the effects of Compass FSS on HCV recipients. Over the five year study, they found that the program posted $8,616 per participant plus a $2,040 deposit into the escrow accounts. However, the benefits of the program—including $830 in net increase in tax revenue, $6,240 decrease in non-housing benefits, and $3,310 in reduction in housing assistance payments to landlords—led to total net cost of $276. Over the five year study, participants increased income by $17,490, decreased tax liability by $365, increased escrow savings by $2,040. Even when including the net decrease in non-housing support ($6260) and housing assistance ($3,310), the net effect of the program for participants was that they were able to save on average $10,345 to be applied to future housing costs or other needs.

15 This interview was conducted in Chuukese with the assistance of a professional translator hired through the Pacific Gateway Center.

by Nathalie Rita, Jennifer Darrah-Okike, Ph.D., and Philip Garboden, Ph.D.

RECRUITMENT LETTER

Department of Sociology

Date

Dear Mr. and/or Ms./Mrs.

I am writing to invite you to participate in a study conducted by researchers from the University of Hawaiʻi.

Your household was randomly selected to participate, out of residents living in [neighborhood name]. This letter was also mailed to the other adult members of your household. We hope to interview one adult member of this household.

The interview will be more like a conversation, less like a sur vey. The purpose is to learn about public housing in Hawaiʻi and to identify the needs of public housing residents. We want to know what it is like to live here, as well as your ideas for improving the wellbeing of residents. The goal of the study is to he lp improve housing programs and policies in Hawaiʻi.

The study will take approximately 1 -2 hours. We can meet you at your home or anywhere else that is convenient for you, such as a park or library. All of the information you provide will anonymous and co nfidential, and will not be shared directly with management or the Housing Authority We will offer you $50 cash as a thank you for participating in our study.

To participate or learn more about the study, please call or email Dr. Jennifer Darrah at (808) 383 -2486 or jdarrah@hawaii.edu , or call Amanda at (808) 781 -1162.

Please let us know if you would like us to provide a translator. We hope that you will participate in our study. We look forward to meeting with you!

Thank you, UH Housing Study Research Team

INTERVIEW GUIDE

Housing Hawai‘i’s Low Income Households: Interview Guide

REVISED May 15, 2019

Introductory Script

Hello, we’re and from The University of Hawai‘i Housing Study and we’re interested in learning about your experiences living in this community. So we want to learn all about you, how you came to live here, what you like and dislike, and what you hope for in the future. It’s really more of an informal conversation than a formal interview.

But before we begin it’s important that you understand all the ways we protect your privacy. First of all, we keep everything you tell us completely confidential. We don’t share these conversations with anyone outside the research team. The only exception is that we’re required by state law to report if we hear about a child in danger – I can’t imagine how that will come up in this context but we need to mention it.

If there’s anything I ask about that you’d rather not talk about, just let me know and we’ll skip it. No big deal.

I’m going to record our conversation because I don’t want to take many notes during the interview. This way, I can really concentrate on what you have to say. If you want me to turn the tape off for any reason or at any time, just say so. No one will hear the tape except for the research team and the secretary who transcribes it. Then, we erase the tape. We take out your name and any other identifying information from the transcript. In other words, no one will know who you are, but a lot of people will hear what you have to say.

Does that all make sense? [Assure comprehension.] Do you have any questions about the interview? [Answer questions.]

Okay, so we ask people to choose a fake name that we can use for your stories. We use this name on the tape and that way your real name isn’t attached to any of this information. What name would you like to choose?

Is it okay if I turn on the tape recorder now? [Get verbal consent, turn on recorder]. [Make the following statement after you have turned on the tape recorder]:

The tape recorder is now on. This is [your name], and I’m chatting with [their pseudonym] [their ID number], on [the date] in [place interview is held]

by Nathalie Rita, Jennifer Darrah-Okike, Ph.D., and Philip Garboden, Ph.D.

I. WARM UP & LIFE STORY

Tell me the story of your life.

[Note: This story can least between 20 minutes – an hour or even more. Allow/encourage this story to weave into the residential history. Use important life events to anchor the story in time. Most likely, the most important thing in the respondent’s life (children, addiction, employment) will come up in this section. Pursue these issues extensively with the respondent. Not only does this build rapport and provide valuable data on the respondent’s identity, but it also allows you to “train” them in the types of answers we want to get from them as respondents – rich detailed narratives.]

[Possible probes for life story–don’t need to cover all]

1. Where from? How family ended up in Hawai‘i ?

2. Family background [if they have siblings or living parents]

3. Major life turning points/difficulties/achievements, etc.

Brief Housing Roster:

Who stays here with you? Sometimes people stay at other places with other friends or family, how about you? Your kids? [goal: get brief housing roster to orient for the rest of the interview]

II. Immigration and Ethnicity

Ethnicity

1. What is your ethnic or cultural background?

Migration Story

1. Tell me the story about how you ended up in Hawai‘i. Probes: did family or close friends, influence your decision to migrate? Came alone or with family? Motivated by search for work; climate; healthcare; politics; natural disasters.

2. Tell me about any help you received when you arrived?

3. If applicable: Tell me about your relationships back home still? Probes: how stay in touch w/ family, friends; remittances; travel; sending family.

Obstacles

1. Tell me about some of your biggest obstacles since moving to the U.S. OR Hawai‘i?

a. Probes: work, language, family, etc.

2. What about language? Tell me about how it’s been getting by speaking English.

a. Get full story on learning English, whether speak English prior to migrating. If no, Tell me about any opportunities to learn English since migrating?

III. Living Here

How did you come to live in [CURRENT HOUSING PROPERTY]?

1. Tell me about the process of applying for [housing] – [note: use their words maybe just “housing” or “public housing”)

a. Probe: How did you find out about options? On waitlist? Source of info from friends and family? Knew someone living in community or Public Housing.

b. NOTE: find out how long on waitlist.

2. Tell me the story of when you first heard you could get housing?

a. Probe: Did they have a choice about this CURRENT HOUSING Property? Find out if opted to say no or try to get into another property – get full story.

3. What advice would you give someone who was thinking about living here?

4. What were you looking forward to about living in CURRENT HOUSING Property?

a. Tell me about any concerns you had before moving in?

What’s it like living in the CURRENT HOUSING UNIT?

1. Tell me about your unit

2. What do you like?

a. Get full details on what like and why, maybe even ask to see favorite part of unit.

3. What would you like to see changed?

a. Probe: Have they ever changed units why or why not. Get full story. Would they like to move?

b. Probe: Was their unit recently renovated? If so, get full story. How is it working out?

4. Tell me about the last time you had a maintenance issue in your unit.

a. Probe: Bed bugs, air conditioning, heating, water leaks. Get full story. What happened. Did they contact management?

Unit Changes Building REDEVELOPMENT OR RENOVATION

1. Was your unit renovated or have you been notified of plans of renovation [or “redevelopment”] plans?

a. Probe for: changes in building ownership and management.

b. If yes: Tell me about your involvement in any planning. Probe:wheregetinformation,fromwho?Whatchangeswouldyouliketosee?Whatworries do you have (moving, expenses, rent changes, neighbor changes, new amenities). If ever had to move, get full story.

2. If you were given a voucher to live elsewhere, where would you go? How would you find out about housing options?

3. What would be your IDEAL housing option in terms of UNIT (probe for size, number of Bedrooms and bathrooms, etc.)

4. What about your ideal LOCATION (specific neighborhood or neighborhood amenities)?

Management

1. Tell me about the last time you contacted the building manager? (get full story)

2. Tell me what is helpful about the management?

3. Tell me anything NOT helpful about management? (Probe: sense of fairness? Responsiveness? Enforce rules?)

4. Tell me about any past changes in building ownership and management? What changed? What worked well? What did not work well?

Race/Ethnic Relations in the Building

1. Tell me about the other people who live in the building or property. Who lives here? [First let them answer open ended what do they say? Then follow up with prompts below]

2. Which ethnic groups (“nationalities” or use whatever word they use) live here?

3. How well do they get along? TMMAT

4. Some people like to live by people with the same RACE/ETHNICITY/CULTURE some people don’t. How is it for you?

a. We heard that sometimes different groups get along and other times they don’t. How do you think it is around here?

Neighbors and Neighboring

1. Tell me anything else about who live here what are people here like?

a. Find out what people say in general they might mention things like employment, age, family type, immigrant status okay to leave it open ended no need for specific probe

2. Tell me about the last time you talked to a neighbor. Get full story

3. Sometimes neighbors can be helpful and sometimes neighbors can be a problem. How is it like for you? [probe: noise; parties; fights; drugs]

4. OR Tell me about the last time another resident helped you out?

5. Tell me about any problems you’ve had with neighbors or other residents. Tell me the full story. [probe: contact management?]

6. In some places people look out for each other’s children. How is it here? [get example]

Neighborhood

1. Tell me about the neighborhood? [probe for loitering; lots of police; drugs/drinking; noise, etc.]

2. Tell me about any changes in the neighborhood since you’ve lived here? (probe for changes in terms of residents; crime; businesses, etc.)

3. How safe or unsafe do you feel in Kalakaua Homes/Ko’olau Village/Kuhio Homes?

TMMAT (NOTE: ask to elaborate and give examples if they say, “very safe” or “not safe”)

a. How about this neighborhood or AREA just outside of the property? (goal: tease out differences between housing safety and neighborhood safety).

4. Tell me about the last time you did not feel safe. If experienced a crime or victimized, get full story

5. Some people do certain things to keep safe. How about you?

6. (e.g. times of day to walk; walking alone; geographic routines)

7. What are your rules for your children if any, to keep them safe?

8. Tell me what would make you feel more safe.

Programs and Services

1. Tell me about any programs or services offered on the property. Get full story of involvement.

(Probe: how did you find out about?)

2. Key Question: What kind of programs or services would you like to be offered here?

IV. RESIDENTIAL HISTORY

Now I’d like to hear about where you were living just BEFORE coming here (to current housing complex). NOTE: you will have a chance to fill in address details on the housing roster ‘clean up’ at the end. Here’s a good time to jot general notes, and then hard details can get clarified in Profile. Focus here on STORIES. Clean up ordering and address specifics at end.

1. Tell me the whole story of how you ended up there.

a. probe: why moved there; how found information about unit; story for why left.

b. Make sure to find out which other places were considered but they could not get.

Note: get location/rough address so you can refer back to this story in the residential roster). GET FULL STORIES–what is happening in their life; make sure to probe for any discrimination based on ethnicity/language/gender/ family size/ source of income How much deposit needed; credit check; background check, etc. If have voucher, get story of landlord accepting voucher)

I’d like to hear about the places you lived just before that.

2. Tell me the whole story of how you ended up there.

a. (probe: why moved there; how found information about unit; story for why left).

b. Make sure to find out which other places were considered but they could not get.

c. (note: get approximate locations so you can refer back to this story in the residential roster).

Now I’d like to hear about the place you lived just before that (this is would be the first of the last three units lived in prior to public housing).

3. Housing is very hard to afford in Hawai‘i Tell me about a time you didn’t have a house to stay in–e.g. If you ever stayed outside, in your car, or at a shelter?

a. (probe: get all details for houseless spells, where stayed, what happened, how transitioned into or out of).

b. Specific probe for: How about a time you or your kids stayed with a friend or family? ‘Gets at Doubling up’

4. If not already covered: tell me about a time you had to leave or were forced to leave a place you were living but did NOT want to leave. (Get full story-could be family members living doubled up wanting them to leave; could be soft or hard eviction, could be landlord raised rent or would not renew lease, etc.)

5. Sometimes people experience discrimination based on language, background, culture or ethnicity when looking for housing. How about for you? (get full story).

6. Sometimes people have trouble getting housing because of bad credit/past evictions or legal/criminal records. How about for you? TMMAT. Get examples if relevant.

7. Tell me about where you plan to live in 5 years; 10 years, 20 years.

• Goal: determine aspirations to stay in current housing/public housing or not if aspire to leave, find out what steps plan to take.

• Key Question: find out what sources of help or assistance would help achieve housing goals; information; help with deposit; help communicating with landlords; help speaking English; transportation; computer access).

V. EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME

Current Job

1. It can be hard to find and keep a job. How has it been for you?

a. If you are working, tell me about your current job? Probe:( How did you find the job? What like or don’t like? How get there? Pay?)

b. If not working: Tell me about what it’s been like to look for a job? What are the main things in your way?

[NOTE: some of this may have been covered in life story section]

Past Employment

1. I’d like to hear about your past jobs. Tell me about the last job you had, before this one.

a. probe: How did you find the job? What like or don’t like? How get there? Pay? Why leave

b. For migrants: Probe on how job opportunities compare in Hawai‘i versus back home?

by Nathalie Rita, Jennifer Darrah-Okike, Ph.D., and Philip Garboden, Ph.D.

Income and support

1. A lot of people have trouble making ends meet in Hawai‘i . How about for you?

a. [NOTE: here is the place where you should likely learn generally about other sources of income, general financial situation. Try to get sense of family household work/employment/ income situation and then get specific details at the end for Demographic Profile. No need to get all break downs here.]

2. What do you do when money is short? Tell me about the last time this happened.

a. Probe: side jobs, help from friends and family; support from church or agencies

3. Was there a time recently when you had trouble affording your rent? TMMAT. Probe: How did the management react?

Future Income/Professional aspirations

1. What kind of job or work do you hope to do in the future?

a. KEY question: What would help you achieve that? What would help you find a job you like?

b. KEY question: What could HOUSING AUTHORITY/MANAGEMENT do to help you get a good job/a job you want?

Probes: bank loans, education, technical assistance, emotional support from cultural or residential community. Probe for stigma from living in public housing, any other barriers related to housing such as transportation access

Volunteer/Community Service

1. Tell me about the last time you volunteered or did community service.

a. Get the whole story/organization name Union, charity event, parent-teacher, etc.

2. Tell me about the tenant organization/association here?

a. Get full story: Do you go to meetings? Do you have a say in tenant organization? TMMAT.

3. Tell me about any church that you attend.

a. Get full story of how joined; what role and involvement in church; probe for if services are in another language or attended by a specific ethnic group)?

Typical Day: Transportation, Mobility

1. Walk me through a typical day for you.

a. Daily routine probe: sources of family help, distance of school/job/child care; how manage; if respondent has kids, find out child care and child care before or after school)

2. How do you get to where you need to go?

a. goal is to find out transportation access and routines, and access to grocery shopping, service agencies, health care, daily routines, hygiene, visiting friends etc.

b. What could be done to help you get around more easily?

VI. CHILDREN AND SCHOOLING

1. Tell me about each of your kids (get general info names, ages, personalities, interests, strengths. Let respondent talk).

Schooling

1. How are they doing in school?

2. How did CHILD end up at SCHOOL NAME (Goal: find out if charter school, exam school, if they had a choice, vs. default neighborhood school; did they have to sign up/ apply?).

a. (Repeat for each child).

3. Tell me about what you like about the school for your children?

a. (Repeat for each child).

4. Tell me about what you don’t like?

a. (Repeat for each child).

5. Tell me about the last time you talked to a teacher or school official?

6. Tell me about your children’s interests? What do they do for fun?

7. Do they participate in any youth programs? Probe for (Sports; youth programs, activities. If in activities, get full story of where and which organization).

a. Probe: find out about location of youth activities make sure to find out which if any are in housing area/building campus.

8. Key Question: Tell me more about the activities or programs you would LIKE to have available for your children. (probe for in general, and then in HOUSING Property).

a. Why would that be useful to you or your family?

b. Tell me how you could find those? What is getting in the way?

9. It can be hard to find child care. Tell me about how you manage child care (friends/ family/paid child care). What would you like to change? What do you like about your child care?

VII. HEALTHCARE NEEDS

Medical Conditions/Disabilities

1. Key Question: What kind of HOUSING or HOUSING Programs would help you stay healthy? [note: at least ask this question, if you don’t get through others]

2. What kind of chronic medical conditions or disabilities do you suffer from? Tell me more about that (probe: history; how help; where get care; how satisfied with care)

a. What about for your children?

3. [If not mentioned] What about mental health? Do you receive treatment for any mental health issues? (probe: history; how help; where get care; how satisfied with care)

a. What about for your children?

b. What kind of HOUSING or HOUSING Programs would help you stay healthy in terms of mental health?

4. How about Drugs or Alcohol? Do you receive treatment for drug or alcohol issues? (probe: history; how help; where get care; how satisfied with care)

a. What kind of HOUSING or HOUSING Programs would help with your treatment?

VIII. WRAP-UP

What are your hopes for the future?

1. What would you like to see have happen for you in 5 years? What about 20 years?

2. What about for your children or family? 5 years? 20 years?

Is there anything else you’d like to share that is important to you? Did we miss anything important to you?

by Nathalie Rita, Jennifer Darrah-Okike, Ph.D., and Philip Garboden, Ph.D.

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

RESPONDENT ID:

CURRENT ADDRESS:

1. Gender Male Female Other

2. Racial or Ethnic Group

a. What race do you consider yourself to be? (Fill in respondent’s answer verbatim)

b. Which of the following ethnic/racial backgrounds do you identify as? List all and check all that apply. Write down specifics.

White/Caucasian/Haole

Hawaiian Chinese (Taiwanese)

Filipino

Japanese (Okinawan)

Portuguese Korean Vietnamese

Asian Indian

Other Asian (specify) (Laotian, Thai, Malaysian, etc.)

Samoan

Tongan

Guamanian/Chamorro

Micronesian (specify): (Marshallese, Chuukese, Kosraean, Pohnpeian, Palauan, etc.)

Other Pacific Islander (specify) (Polynesian, Fijian, etc.)

Black/African-American

Native American, Aleut, Eskimo, Inuit (specify)

Puerto Rican

Mexican

Other Latino/Hispanic (specify):

Other (specify):

3. Age: years

4. Date of Birth:

5. Education Level

< High school graduate

High school graduate/GED Some college

Associate degree

Bachelor’s degree

Advanced degree Certificate (e.g. Certified Nurse,etc.)

6. Relationship Status

Husband/Wife

Boyfriend/Girlfriend/Unmarried partner Not in a relationship

Other:

7. Marital Status

Now married

Registered domestic partnership/civil union Divorced Widowed Separated Never married

8. Children (who are cared for by and/ or live with respondent)

#:

Ages and Genders:

9. Current housing roster (e.g.: respondent, husband, mother-in -law, 2 children, niece)

10. How much are you paying in rent monthly?

a. Do you know the market value on your unit? Y: N: (If yes) $

b. Are you… (fill in housing payment/monthly) Renter ($ ) Stayer doubled up ($ ) Voucher ($ ) Public housing ($ )

c. Are you the leaseholder? Y: N: (if no) who is?

2. Length of Residence

a. How long have you lived in this unit?

b. How long have you lived in Hawaii?

c. How long have you lived in the U.S.?

d. (Optional) U.S. citizen? COFA national? Other legal resident?

3. Is the respondent planning a move in the next year? Yes No

4. Current employment status (select all that apply)

Formally employed full-time

Formally employed part-time

Informally employed full-time

Informally employed part-time Unemployed Retired

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) CONSENT FORM

Institutional

University of Hawai'i

Consent to Participate in a Research Project

Jennifer Darrah and Philip Garboden, Principal Investigators

Hawaii Public Housing Study

I am working with a team of researchers at University of Hawai'i at Mānoa who are doing a study on public housing in Hawaii. We’re interested in learning about how you came to live here, what it’s been like to live here, what it’s been like for your family, and your ideas for improving the wellbeing of residents.

What am I being asked to do?

You are being asked to participate in a research interview. In addition to asking you questions about your home and neighborhood, I will also ask you questions about your community, family life, and work experiences. If you participate in this project, I will meet with you for an interview at a location and time convenient for you.

Taking part in this study is your choice.

Your participation in this project is completely voluntary. You may sto p participating at any time. If you stop being in the study, there will be no penalty or loss to you. Your choice to participate or not participate will not affect your rights to housing or services.

Why is this study being done?

The purpose of my project is to understand the experiences of Hawaii public housing residents. Our goal is to help policy makers, administrators and social service providers understand how to better serve public housing residents. You were one of the people randomly selected to participate because you currently reside in one of the study sites.

What will happen if I decide to take part in this study?

We will ask questions about how you ended up living here, what you’ve liked or disliked about your housing or neighborhood, y our residential history, your access to social services and work opportunities, your children’s experiences in school and access to services and educational opportunities.

With your permission, I will audio -record the interview so that I can later transcribe the interview and analyze the responses. You will be one of up to 150 people I will interview for this study. If we receive funding, we’d like to conduct an additional interview with you in a future phase of this study.

What are the risks and benefits of taking part in this study?

I believe there is little risk to you for participating in this research project. You may become stressed or uncomfortable answering any of the interview questions or discussing topics with me during the interview. If you do become stressed or uncomfortable, you can skip the question or take a break. You can also stop the interview or you can withdraw from the project altogether.

Although the research we are conducting will not directly benefit you, it will provide us with a better understanding of public housing in Hawaii. Our findings may help design better programs in the future.

Consent Form – Version 1

University of Hawai'i

Consent to Participate in a Research Project

Jennifer Darrah and Philip Garboden, Principal Investigators

Hawaii Public Housing Study

Privacy and Confidentiality:

Your answers to these questions will be audio -recorded and then transferred to a secure, password -protected computer. Your name will be changed to an ID number for the purposes of analyzing the data from the study. The only information linking your name to this ID will be stored and locked in secure desk, away from your survey answers, and accessible only to Jennifer Darrah, Philip Garboden and their resea rch assistants.

We will keep all study data secure in a locked filing cabinet in a locked office/encrypted on a password -protected computer. Only my University of Hawai'i advisors and our research team will have access to the information. University of Hawai'i Human Studies Program has the right to review research records for this study for purposes of research ethics compliance.

After the end of the study, I will erase or destroy the audio-recordings, and all personal information. When I report the results of my research project, I will not use your name. I will not use any other personal identifying information that can identify you. I will use pseudonyms (fake names) and report my findings in a way that protects your privacy and confidentiality to the extent allowed by law.

It is important for you to understand that if you tell me anything about you or someone else hurting a child, threatening to hurt a child, or putting a child in danger, I must report this as required by law.

Compensation:

You will receive a $75 cash stipend as a show of appreciation for your effort in participating in this research project.

Questions:

If you have any questions about this study, please call or email the Principal Investigators Jennifer Darrah (808)956-7950 jdarrah@hawaii.edu or Philip Garboden pgarbod@hawaii.edu (808) 956 -7381. You may also contact the UH Human Studies Program at (808)956 -5007 or uhirb@hawaii.edu to discuss any problems, concerns and questions; obtain information; or offer input with an informed individual who is unaffiliated with the specific research protocol. Please visit http://go.hawaii.edu/jRd for more information on your rights as a research participant.

We may ask to take a photograph of you and/or your family to show when we give talks or presentations about our research. Of course, we will not mention names or any other details about you or your family when we use the photograph.

If you agree to participate in this project, please sign and date this signature page, and return it to it to me.

Consent Form – Version 1

by Nathalie Rita, Jennifer Darrah-Okike, Ph.D., and Philip Garboden, Ph.D.

Institutional Review Board Consent Form

University of Hawai'i Consent to Participate in a Research Project

Jennifer Darrah and Philip Garboden, Principal Investigators Hawaii Public Housing Study

Signature(s) for Consent:

I give permission to join the research project entitled, “ Hawaii Public Housing Project.” Keep a copy of the informed consent for your records and reference.

Yes No I consent to be audio-recorded for the interview portion of

Yes No this research. I consent to be photographed as part of this study.

Name of Participant (Print):

Participant’s Signature:

Signature of Translator (if necessary):

Signature of the Person Obtaining Consent:

Date: Mahalo!

Consent Form – Version 1

TECHNICAL METHODS ON SITE SELECTION

HPHA Site Selection: Technical Appendix

Jennifer Darrah and Philip Garboden

March 2019

1 Introduction

Site selection represents a perennial problem for ethnographic research. In some instances, it is optimal to select outlying or exemplary cases that have the ability to sharply elucidate underlying social mechanisms masked by modal cases. At other times, it is preferable to select modal cases, so that descriptive findings more closely reflect the lived experiences of research subjects. And in others, strong theory can suggest, a priori, vectors for stratification that are salient to the question at hand.

In the case of the Public Housing in Hawai‘i Project, none of these techniques were appropriate. There is almost no extant literature on public housing in contexts even remotely similar to those of Hawai‘i. From the client’s perspective, the charge was simply to select a representative set of cases. However, given that our study was limited to three research sites (out of the 78 in the state), a naive random sampling approach would likely result in insufficient heterogeneity resulting in inefficiencies.

To resolve this, we took the novel approach of employing k-means clustering of property-level data to empirically create clusters of similar housing sites from which we selected properties at random. This approach is equivalent to stratified random sample but without the necessity of selecting the core stratification vectors theoretically.

1.1 K-Mean Clustering

The objective of k-means clustering is to divide a sample into a pre-defined number (k) of groups ( S ) in such a way as to minimize the total distance between the group means ('µ) and each member of the group ('x):

arg min | |' xi ' µi || 2 (1)

There is no closed form solution to this equation, so the process of cluster selection must be approached algorithmically. The algorithm first assigns a semirandom set of k potential means and assigns observations to the mean with the lowest Euclidean distance.

Technical Methods on Site Selection

by Nathalie Rita, Jennifer Darrah-Okike, Ph.D., and Philip Garboden, Ph.D.

Technical Methods on Site Selection

continued

Once the groups are assigned, the algorithm recalculates the cluster means and repeats the assignment process. Once cluster assignment remains constant, a local minimum has been achieved and the process ceases.

To improve the chance of identifying a true, rather than local, minimum, the process is repeated multiple times (in our case 100) with a different set of random starting means.

1.2 Results

Because much of the data collected by HPHA was aggregated in terms of property management areas (aka AMPs), we did not have an enormous number of variables to choose from to develop our clusters. At the parcel level, we included the distribution of bedroom sizes, whether or not the property served an elderly population, and the year it was first occupied. We also calculated the poverty rate of the tract (based on the 2017 American Community Survey) and included longitude and latitude values to allow for spatial location to be considered in the clustering. Because COFA migrants were of particular interest, we included the percent COFA for each property’s AMP (smaller dis-aggregation was not available).

Table 1: Summary Statistics

As shown in Table 2, for k = 3 the following cluster means were produced. Cluster 2 appears to be mainly old properties in high poverty communities. In contrast, Cluster 3 (which contains no elderly properties) is much newer. Cluster 1 includes most of the rural properties on the windward and leeward parts of Oahu.

Technical Methods on Site Selection continued

by Nathalie Rita, Jennifer Darrah-Okike, Ph.D., and Philip Garboden, Ph.D.

Table 2: Cluster Means (3 Clusters)

These clusters are visualized spatially in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Locations of all public housing properties on Oahu color coded by cluster (3 cluster model)

Institutional Review Board Consent Form

A list of all properties and the clusters into which they were placed is show in Table A1.

1.3 Selected Sample

To generate our sample, we simply sampled one property at random from each cluster. Due to cost considerations, we excluded properties that served only the elderly and those located outside of Oahu. Our final sample consists of:

1. Kuhio Homes: Kuhio Homes is a housing project located in the Kalihi neighborhood of Urban Honolulu. This project was initially constructed in the 1950s, and it was first occupied in 1953 (Hawai‘i Public Housing Authority, 2017). Today, it has 134 units. Kuhio Homes is closely located to other public housing and low-income sites, including the Kuhio Park Terrace Lowrises and the project formerly-called Kuhio Park Terrace. In the early 2010s, Kuhio Park Terrace underwent a massive $135 million redevelopment project funded through a public-private partnership between the Hawai‘i Public Housing Authority and the Michaels Development Company, who now owns and manages the newly renamed project, the Towers at Kuhio Park Apartments (Mendoza, 2013). Kuhio Homes was initially slated for redevelopment at the same time as the Towers at Kuhio Park, but this project was postponed, and it has not been rescheduled. As such, Kuhio Homes continues to be owned and operated by the Hawai‘i Public Housing Authority.

2. Kalakaua Homes: Kalakaua Homes is a housing project located in Ur- ban Honolulu that is owned and operated by the Hawai‘i Public Housing Authority. This project was initially constructed in the early 1980s, and it was first occupied in 1983 (Hawai‘i Public Housing Authority, 2017). Today, it has 221 units. Kalakaua Homes is not currently scheduled for redevelopment, but it has been flagged as one of 70 projects in Hawai‘i with immediate repair needs that are estimated to cost around $275 million. It is estimated that the repairs at Kalakaua Homes alone will cost $9 mil- lion, including interior repairs, fire protection systems, exhaust systems, and other site work (Hofschneider, 2015).

3. Koolau Village: Koolau Village is a housing project located in Kaneohe on the Windward Side of Oahu. It is owned and operated by the Hawai‘i Public Housing Authority. The neighborhood was constructed in the 1960s, and it was first occupied in 1969 (Hawai‘i Public Housing Authority, 2017). Today, it has 80 townhome styled-units. It is not currently scheduled for redevelopment.

References

Hawai‘i Public Housing Authority. Annual Report Fiscal Year 2016-2017, 2017.

Anita Hofschneider. Public Housing Is Crumbling, So What’s State Doing About It? 2015. URL www.civilbeat.org

Jim Mendoza. Kuhio Park Terrace Renamed and Renovated. June, 2013.

Technical Methods on Site Selection

continued

Hawai‘i

by Nathalie Rita, Jennifer Darrah-Okike, Ph.D., and Philip Garboden, Ph.D.

Public Housing Properties and Clusters

by Nathalie Rita, Jennifer Darrah-Okike, Ph.D., and Philip Garboden, Ph.D.

References

American Community Survey (ACS). 2018. 2018 American Community Survey Single-Year Estimates. Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Baker, Charlene K., Kris A. Billhardt, Joseph Warren, Chiquita Rollins, and Nancy E. Glass. 2010. “Domestic Violence, Housing Instability, and Homelessness: A Review of Housing Policies and Program Practices for Meeting the Needs of Survivors.” Aggression and Violent Behavior.

Blokland, Talia. 2008. “‘You Got to Remember You Live in Public Housing’: Place-Making in an American Housing Project.” Housing, Theory & Society 25(1):31–46.

Boserup, Brad, Mark McKenney, and Adel Elkbuli. 2020. “Alarming Trends in US Domestic Violence during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” The American Journal of Emergency Medicine 38(12):2753–55.

Boyd, Melody L., and Stefanie DeLuca. 2017. “Fieldwork with In-Depth Interviews: How to Get Strangers in the City to Tell You Their Stories.” Pp. 239–53 in.

Brown, Susan, and Renu Shukla. 1997. Community Building Is Key to Improving Public Housing New Report Offers Guidance. Urban Institute.

Burnstein, Eric, Megan Gallagher, and Wilton Oliver. 2019. Economic Mobility Services for Affordable Housing Residents. Urban Institute.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 2020. People Experiencing or at Risk of Homelessness Should Be a Priority in State COVID-19 Responses.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2020. Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions To Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19. Washington, DC.

Chaskin, Robert J., and Mark L. Joseph. 2011. “Social Interaction in Mixed-Income Developments: Relational Expectations and Emerging Reality.” Journal of Urban Affairs 33(2):209–37.

Chaskin, Robert J., and Mark L. Joseph. 2015. Integrating the Inner City: The Promise and Perils of Mixed-Income Public Housing Transformation. Chicago, IL, UNITED STATES: University of Chicago Press.

Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence F. Katz. 2016. “The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment.” American Economic Review.

Corey, Kristen, Jennifer Biess, Nancy Pindus, and Doray Sitko. 2017. Housing Needs of Native Hawaiians: A Report from the Assessment of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs. Washington DC: US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Darrah, Jennifer, and Stefanie DeLuca. 2014. “‘Living Here Has Changed My Whole Perspective’ How Escaping Inner-City Poverty Shapes Neighborhood and Housing Choice.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 33(2):350–84.

Dastrup, Samuel, Lesley Freiman, Jeffery Lubell, Micah Villarreal, and Daniel Weiss. 2017. “Interim Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Compass Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program.” Abt Associates. Retrieved November 18, 2019 (https://www.abtassociates.com/insights/ publications/report/interim-cost-benefit-analysis-of-the-compass-family-self-sufficiency).

DeBaryshe, B. D., O. Bird, I. Stern, and D. Zysman. 2017. Hawai‘i Early Learning Needs Assessment. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Center on the Family.

DeLuca, Stefanie, Susan Clampet-Lundquist, and Kathryn Edin. 2016. Coming of Age in the Other America. Russell Sage Foundation.

DeLuca, Stefanie, Philip Garboden, and Peter Rosenblatt. 2012. “Why Don’t Vouchers Do a Better Job of Deconcentrating Poverty? Insights from Fieldwork with Poor Families.” Poverty and Race 21(5).DeLuca, Stefanie, Philip Garboden, and Peter Rosenblatt. 2013. “Segregating Shelter: How Housing Policies Shape the Residential Locations of Low-Income Minority Families.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 647(1):268–99.

DeLuca, Stefanie, Holly Wood, and Peter Rosenblatt. 2019. “Why Poor Families Move (and Where They Go): Reactive Mobility and Residential Decisions.” City & Community 18(2):556–93.

Desmond, Matthew. 2016. Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Edin, K., and L. Lein. 1997. Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive Welfare and Low- Wage Work. Russell Sage Foundation.

Edin, K., and H. L. Shaefer. 2015. $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Finkel, Meryl, and Larry Buron. 2001. Study on Section 8 Voucher Success Rates. C-OPC-18571. US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Fischer, Will, Sonya Acosta, and Anna Bailey. 2021. An Agenda for the Future of Public Housing. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Garboden, Philip. 2020. COVID-19’s Uneven Impact on Businesses and Workers: Results from a UHERO-Chamber of Commerce Hawaii Survey ·. Honolulu, HI: UHERO.

Garboden, Philip. 2021. November Rental Market: Troubling Signs Remain As State Prepares for an Uncertain 2021. Honolulu, HI: UHERO.

Garboden, Phillip ME, Eva Rosen, Stefanie DeLuca, and Kathryn Edin. 2018. “Taking Stock: What Drives Landlord Participation in the Housing Choice Voucher Program.” Housing Policy Debate 28(6):979–1003.

Goetz, Edward G. 2011. “Where Have All the Towers Gone? The Dismantling of Public Housing in U.S. Cities.” Journal of Urban Affairs 33(3):267–87.

Gubits, Daniel, Marybeth Shinn, Stephen Bell, Michelle Wood, Samuel R. Dastrup, Claudia Solari, Scott Brown, Steven Brown, Lauren Dunton, Winston Lin, Debi McInnis, Jason Rodriguez, Galen Savidge, and Brooke Spellman. 2015. Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families. SSRN Scholarly Paper. ID 3055272. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.

Harvey, Hope. 2020. “Cumulative Effects of Doubling Up in Childhood on Young Adult Outcomes.” Demography 57(2):501–28.

Hawaii News Now. 2021. “Hawaii’s Unemployment Rate Remains Highest in the Nation.” Hawaii News Now, February 2.

Hawai‘i Public Housing Authority. 2019. Annual Report Fiscal Year 2018-2019: Hawai‘i Public Housing Authority. Honolulu, HI: Hawai‘i Public Housing Authority.

Hawai‘i

by Nathalie Rita, Jennifer Darrah-Okike, Ph.D., and Philip Garboden, Ph.D.

Heitner, Devorah. 2021. “Perspective | Remote School Is Stressing Parents out. Here’s How to Tame the Anxiety.” Washington Post, February 8.

Henry, Meghan, Anna Mahathey, Tyler Morrill, Anna Robinson, Azim Shivji, and Rian Watt. 2018. The 2018 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress Part 1: Point- In-Time Estimates of Homelessness. United States: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development.

Herbers, Janette E., JJ Cutuli, Laura M. Supoff, David Heistad, Chi-Keung Chan, Elizabeth Hinz, and Ann S. Masten. 2012. “Early Reading Skills and Academic Achievement Trajectories of Students Facing Poverty, Homelessness, and High Residential Mobility.” Educational Researcher 41(9):366–74.

Hofschneider, Anita. 2015. “Public Housing Is Crumbling, So What’s State Doing About It?” Honolulu Civil Beat. Retrieved March 11, 2019 (https://www.civilbeat.org/2015/02/public- housing-is-crumbling-so-whats-thestate-doing-about-it/).

Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2019. “Section 8 Rental Certification Program.” Retrieved November 27, 2019 (https:// www.hud.gov/programdescription/cert8).

Kauanui, J. Kēhaulani. 2007. “Diasporic Deracination and ‘Off-Island’ Hawaiians.” The Contemporary Pacific 19(1):137–60.

Keene, Danya E., and Mark B. Padilla. 2010. “Race, Class and the Stigma of Place: Moving to ‘Opportunity’ in Eastern Iowa.” Health and Place 16(6):1216–23.

Klein, Aaron, and Ember Smith. 2021. Explaining the Economic Impact of COVID-19: Core Industries and the Hispanic Workforce. Brookings.

Lake, Jaboa. 2020. The Pandemic Has Exacerbated Housing Instability for Renters of Color. Center for American Progress.

Landis, J. D., and K. McClure. 2010. “Rethinking Federal Housing Policy.” Journal of the American Planning Association 76(3):319–48.

Lee, Suevon. 2021. “Can Kids Keep Up With Schoolwork In Quarantine? In Hawaii, It Depends On The School.” Honolulu Civil Beat, September 9.

Lees, Loretta. 2016. “Gentrification, Race, and Ethnicity: Towards a Global Research Agenda?: GENTRIFICATION, RACE, AND ETHNICITY.” City & Community 15(3):208–14.

Leung, Carolyn C. 2005. Resident Participation: A Community-Building Strategy in Low-Income Neighborhoods. Neighborhood Works America.

Leventhal, Tama, and Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne. 2000. “The Neighborhoods They Live in: The Effects of Neighborhood Residence on Child and Adolescent Outcomes.” Psychological Bulletin 126(2):209–337.

McCarty, Maggie, Libby Perl, and Katie Jones. 2019. Overview of Federal Housing Assistance Programs and Policy. RL34591. Congressional Research Service.

McCormick, Naomi J., Mark L. Joseph, and Robert J. Chaskin. 2012. “The New Stigma of Relocated Public Housing Residents: Challenges to Social Identity in Mixed-income Developments.” City and Community 11(3):285–308.

National Alliance to End Homelessness. 2012. Changes in the HUD Definition of “Homeless.” Washington, DC: National Alliance to End Homelessness.

National Low Income Housing Coalition. 2019. “The Gap: A Shortage of Affordable Rental Homes.” National Low Income Housing Coalition. Retrieved June 14, 2019 (https:// reports.nlihc.org/gap).

Newman, Sandra, and Joseph M. Harkness. 2002. “The Long-Term Effects of Public Housing on Self-Sufficiency.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21(1):21–43.

Oakley, Deirdre, and James C. Fraser. 2016. “US Public-Housing Transformations and the Housing Publics Lost in Transition.” City and Community 15(4):346–66.

Office of Public and Indian Housing. 2021. Guidance for Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) on Supporting Access to COVID-19 Vaccinations for Residents and Staff. Washington, DC: US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Olivia, Ann. 2021. BBB Includes Major Investments in Housing Affordability. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Popkin, Susan J. 2016. No Simple Solutions: Transforming Public Housing in Chicago. Chicago, IL: Rowman & Littlefield.

Rosen, Eva. 2020. The Voucher Promise: “Section 8” and the Fate of an American Neighborhood. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Santiago, Anna Maria, Richard John Smith, and George C. Galster. 2017. “Evaluating the Impacts of an Enhanced Family Self-Sufficiency Program.” Housing Policy Debate 27(5).

Schwartz, Alex F. 2015. Housing Policy in the United States. Routledge.

Sextant Consultants, Inc. 1992. Public Housing Child Care Demonstration Program. US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Sprecher, Christina, and Stephen Sparks. 2021. “Affordable Housing and the Build Back Better Act.” Reuters, November 12.

State of Hawaii. 2020. Public Housing Authority Taking Multiple Steps to Protect Residents. Honolulu, HI.

Tillett, Tanya. 2006. “Inadequate Housing May Put Immigrant Farmworkers at Risk.” Environmental Health Perspectives 114(8):A467–A467.

Tsemberis, Sam. 2010. Housing First: The Pathways Model to End Homelessness for People with Mental Illness and Addiction Manual. Center City, MN: Dartmouth PRC-Hazelden.

University of Hawai‘i Economic Research Organization (UHERO). 2020a. Interim Forecast Update: COVID-19 Will Impose Significant Economic Impacts in Hawai‘i. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.

University of Hawai‘i Economic Research Organization (UHERO). 2020b. UHERO State Forecast Update, September 2020. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i at Manoa.

Varshney, Karan, and Jenna Adalbert. 2021. “Overcrowded Housing Increases Risk for COVID-19 Mortality: An Ecological Study.” Health Services Research 56(S2):75–76.

Venkatesh, Sudhir Alladi. 2000. American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wayland, Sarah V. 2007. The Housing Needs of Immigrants and Refugees in Canada. Canadian Housing and Renewal Association (CHRA).

Zarroli, Jim. 2020. “‘A Homeless Pandemic’ Looms As 30 Million Are At Risk Of Eviction.” NPR, August 20.