Homeownership Incentive Program_Final Report

1
Institutional Homeownership Incentive
Program Report
“An Opportunity for Pittsburgh To Strengthen the Local
Economy”
By: Mario Enríquez, Coro Fellow in Public Affairs
March 2014

2
Report Outline
1. Purpose and Motivation
2. Report Phases
3. Best Practices of EAH Programs
4. Benefits and Challenges
5. Interviews: List and Notes
6. Recommendations Moving Forward
7. Resource Links

3
Purpose and Motivation
Purpose
This report is intended to further explore the idea of creating an Institutional Homeownership
Incentive Program (IHIP) in the City of Pittsburgh, specifically near the universities in the
Oakland and North Oakland neighborhoods of Pittsburgh. Creating this type of program can
result in positive outcomes such as strengthening the overall economy for the City and benefiting
the staff and faculty of the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University.
Colleges and universities across the country have implemented successful programs to
incentivize faculty and staff to purchase homes in the City. Currently, approximately 50% of its
workforce does not live in the City. This results in a missed revenue-generating opportunity for
Pittsburgh. This report outlines and analyzes programs and initiatives that the City could
implement to increase homeownership and support potential homebuyers nearby these
universities.
Motivation
The motivation for this report is to explore methods to increase the tax base for the City of
Pittsburgh. Currently, employees who work in the City but live elsewhere pay only $52 per year
in Local Services Taxes. A significant portion of staff and faculty from the University of
Pittsburgh, the affiliated University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and Carnegie Mellon
University do not live within city limits, resulting in potential property and other tax revenue
being lost. A unique opportunity exists to build cross-sector partnerships that will implement an
“Institutional Homeownership Incentive Program” that will set Pittsburgh apart from other parts
of the country, and provide additional revenue for the City.
A secondary motivation for this project was to encourage homeownership not only within the
City of Pittsburgh, but specifically near the aforementioned Universities and hospitals in the
Oakland and North Oakland neighborhoods. Currently, certain residential portions of Oakland,
specifically south Oakland, have a high density houses rented by university students, many with
out-of-state and absentee landlords that allow their properties to deteriorate to the point of
unsightly, or even illegal status. While student rental houses will continue to be a reality in
Oakland, as they are in most all university neighborhoods, homeownership by responsible, more
permanent residents could help transform these portions of the neighborhood in positive ways.

4
Report Phases
Throughout the past eight weeks, Mario Enriquez, a Coro Fellow in Public Affairs, was assigned
with the task of creating a research report focused on exploring an “Institutional Homeownership
Incentive Program.” To support the report, the work was broken into three key phases, each
providing specific roles to support the research, while ultimately giving stakeholders an
additional perspective to this type of initiative.
Phase #1 (3 weeks)
• Online research
Three weeks were spent researching case studies, university websites, and developing a deeper
understanding of overall employer-assisted housing programs across the United States. The
online research reports provided the best use of understanding what works and what doesn’t
work when implementing an employer-assisted housing program. The research was able to then
assist in providing an overview of best practices for the five universities highlighted in this
report.
Phase #2 (3 weeks)
• Interviews
In the second phase of the research report, eight interviews were conducted to gain local
perspective from key stakeholders regarding the “Institutional Homeownership Incentive
Program.” By going out into the community and directly speaking with the targeted
stakeholders, relationships were also built to further continue the conversation in the future.
Phase #3 (2 weeks)
• Summary Report
During the third and final phase, all of the data from both online research and interviews were
collected and sorted to create this final summary report. Through this final phase, a summary of
notes from interviews and recommendations seemed to have produced the most important when
moving forward on implementing an “Institutional Homeownership Incentive Program.”

5
Best Practices of EAH Programs
What is an Employer-Assisted Housing (EAH) Program?
An employer-assisted housing program aim s for the employer to provide rental and home-
buying assistance to its employees. Universities nationwide are implementing these programs
for many reasons; whether it be to improving the local economy, engage in issues of revitalizing
struggling neighborhoods, retain their staff and faculty, and many more.
Best Practices Overview
The following five universities were explored further to demonstrate the “best practices” of
implementing an employer-assisted housing program. Each university may have similarities in
implementation, as well as distinct features. It should be noted that all of these universities
started their respective EAH program to strengthen the surrounding neighborhoods through
revitalization efforts. Many of the direct neighborhoods where the universities reside were
facing difficult obstacles ranging from blighted neighborhoods, crime, and unemployment.
The following five universities highlighted provide a quick snapshot of its overview and
strengths.
1. University of Chicago
2. John Hopkins University
3. Yale University
4. Case Western Reserve University
5. University of Pennsylvania

6
#1 University of Chicago
Name of Program: Employer Assisted Housing Program
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Start Date: May 2003
Staff/Faculty Size: 10,000
Website: http://humanresources.uchicago.edu/benefits/retirefinancial/eap.shtml
Program Brochure: http://rp.uchicago.edu/pdf/2012%20EAH%20Program%20Brochure.pdf
Primary Motivation: Initially began to revitalize the surrounding community that had been
facing crime and unemployment. Also, retaining and recruiting talented staff was an original
priority as well when the program was created.
Strengths of the Program:
1. Interest-free forgivable loans up to $7,500 are offered for a specific set of homes in
certain neighborhoods in Chicago. An added strength to this is that it may be forgiven in
five years if employee remains fully employed at the University of Chicago and any
affiliated departments.
2. Comprehensive homebuyer education courses are provided to all eligible employees.
Additional sources:
Sources accessed from website and brochure links above.

7
#2 John Hopkins University
Name of Program: Live Near Your Work Program
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Start Date: 1997
Staff/Faculty Size: Over 46,000 employed in the State of Maryland
Website: http://web.jhu.edu/lnyw/
Program Brochure: N/A
Primary Motivation: The Live Near Your Work Program was created in order to retain and
recruit talented employees. In addition, it focused on sustainability practices such as cutting
commute & traffic time, and decreasing carbon footprint.
1. $2,500-$36,000 in grants are provided to full-time employees for down payment and
closing costs. Grants vary based on certain neighborhoods.
2. Comprehensive homebuyer education courses are provided to all eligible employees.
3. The Rouse Company Foundation expanded the program in 2008 to offer grants in the
amounts of $2,500, $6,000, $10,000, or $17,000 depending on specified area where the
residence is purchased.
Additional sources:
http://web.jhu.edu/administration/gcpa/EIR_PDFs/15358%20Maryland1PgSumPrinterProof.pdf
www.hopkinsfastfacts.org/ppt/FFApr29_2010.ppt
Source also accessed from website link above.

8
#3 Yale University
Name of Program: Yale Homebuyer Program
Location: New Haven, Connecticut
Start Date: 1994
Staff/Faculty Size: 10,000-15,000
Website: http://www.yale.edu/hronline/hbuyer/index.htm
facing crime and unemployment.
1. Yale is known to be a best practice for being a financial provider to their staff and
faculty. Yale specifically provides loan payment assistance for loans up to $7,000 when
a home is purchased, and then nine additional annual payments of $2,000-2,500.
2. A $5,000 special incentive payment is offered to eligible employees if they purchase a
home in the Winfield/Dixwell neighborhood before December 31, 2015.
Additional sources:
http://www.yale.edu/hronline/hbuyer/hbuyworks.htm
Source also accessed from website link above.

9
#4 Case Western Reserve University
Name of Program: The Greater Circle Living Housing Program
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Start Date: 2008
Staff/Faculty Size: 5,000
Website: http://case.edu/finadmin/humres/benefits/housing.html
Program Brochure: http://case.edu/finadmin/humres/benefits/attachments/GCLBrochure.pdf
facing crime and unemployment. Also, retaining and recruiting talented staff was an original
priority as well when the program was created.
1. A forgivable loan is offered which ranges from $20,000 to $30,000. They can use the
loan as a down payment to purchase a home in the specific neighborhood in which the
program exists.
2. For those interested in renting instead of purchasing a home, a reimbursement is offered
for an amount the equals up to $1,400 for specific apartments in neighborhoods where
the program exists.
3. An additional strength of the program is the opportunity to renovate exterior repairs of
an employee’s residence. Up to $8,000 in repairs is offered in the form of a grant.
Additional sources:
Sources accessed from website and brochure links above.

10
#5 University of Pennsylvania
Name of Program: Penn Home Ownership Services
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Start Date: 2008
Staff/Faculty Size: 16,500 (approximately)
Website: https://cms.business-services.upenn.edu/homeownership/
Primary Motivation: The Penn Home Ownership Services was created in order to retain and
recruit talented employees.
1. Provides forgivable loans of up to $7,500 to eligible employees. PHOS refers to these as
“Enhanced Forgivable Loans.” These loans can be utilized for down payments,
interior/exterior improvements, and/or closing costs for the home purchased.
2. Comprehensive homebuyer counseling courses are provided by numerous community
organizations.
Additional sources:
Source accessed from website link above.

11
Benefits and Challenges
The following two categories highlight possible benefits and challenges to consider when
implementing an “Institutional Homeownership Incentive Program.”
Benefits (+)
Increasing homeownership around universities in Pittsburgh has the potential to stabilize the
housing market and maintain a strong quality of life in various neighborhoods across the city.
Benefits include:
• Increased tax revenue
o By living in the city, residents pay taxes to contribute to the daily operations of
keeping a city intact in providing various services to its citizens.
• Low employee turnover
o With an investment shown from the university employer to its staff and faculty,
living close to the university and being assisted with the process of buying and/or
renting a home may lower employee turnover.
• Increased community partnership engagement
o The ability to work together towards a common vision of serving the citizens of a
city can provide many benefits.
• Reduced carbon footprint by living closer to university campus
o By living closer to the university campus, staff and faculty will use less gas
emissions if they use a vehicle as their primary source of transportation to get to
work.
• Decreased commute time
o In addition to reduced carbon footprint, a decrease in commute time will likely
follow if they physically live closer to their working environment.
• Helps working families secure affordable housing near their workplaces
o With an investment to assist staff and faculty in providing either loan assistance
or courses on homeownership practices, families will feel more at ease when it
comes to the potential stresses of affording and purchasing a home close to where
they work.

12
• Neighborhood revitalization
o Universities can use their resources to purchase land and build homes, work with
community partners to address landlords who do not take care of their property,
and ensuring families are moving into the neighborhoods to spark economic
development and tax revenue.
• Increased literacy in homeownership practices
o Staff and faculty have the opportunity to make the best decision possible when
purchasing or renting a home close to their university campus. Many universities
across the country work with their own research centers that focus on real estate,
or local housing development organizations to come to campus and provide
homeownership workshops.
Challenges (-)
• Ensuring clear communication of partnerships
o When trying to implement a citywide or cross-sector partnership, it would be vital
to ensure the roles and responsibilities’ of each partner. This can be done through
hosting monthly stakeholder meetings, recruit a project manager, and online
communication.
• Funding sources
o Who will primarily fund this program? Will it be the universities, foundations,
housing development group, or a collective cross-sector partnership?
• Avoid the issue of gentrification and displacement
o Help to ensure that families who live in these revitalized neighborhoods are not
being displaced or left out of the opportunity to purchase or rent a home.
• Ensure housing needs benefit incomes of all levels, not just the wealthy
o Help to ensure that the employer-assisted housing program is affordable for staff
and faculty with all types of income to be able to purchase a home.

13
Interviews: List and Notes
Interview List
1. Tracey Soska, Professor, University of Pittsburgh School of Social Work
2. Wanda Wilson, Executive Director, Oakland Planning Development Corporation
3. Paul Supowitz, Vice Chancellor for Governmental Relations, University of Pittsburgh
4. Kannu Sahni, Director of Community Relations, University of Pittsburgh
5. Stan Caldwell, Director of State Relations, Carnegie Mellon University
6. Tim McNulty, Director of Government Relations, Carnegie Mellon University
7. David Howe, Manager, Pittsburgh Housing Development Corporation, Urban
Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh
8. Jessica Perry, Assistant Director, Housing Department, Urban Redevelopment Authority
of Pittsburgh
Interview Notes
1. The past couple of weeks has provided this report with an “inside look” to how members
in the community view an “Institutional Homeownership Incentive Program.” Moreover,
it provided an opportunity to receive feedback on steps that Councilman should consider
moving forward, as well as facing current realities, which will be explained in the
summary of this section.
2. Collectively, all interviewees were more open to a citywide effort to the “Institutional
Homeownership Incentive Program.” They pointed out that both University of Pittsburgh
and Carnegie Mellon University have to have a good reason to invest in this type of
program. The question they posed is, “What is the reason of wanting this program in the
City of Pittsburgh?” This goes back to really thinking about the main motivations of
proposing this initiative from a citywide perspective. Other questions were arose from
the conversations such as, “Who is this truly serving?” Also “How will this initiative
negatively impact communities?” They also asked if it is it solely to increase tax revenue
for the city?
3. The University of Pittsburgh has summarized their financial contribution to be very
limited due to their scarce resources and gave an overall sense that an EAH program is
not too appealing to attract its employees. The current housing stock doesn’t appear to be
well handled due to corrupt landlords not investing in their property. It would be a
potential challenge if this initiative were too narrowly focused on just the Oakland
neighborhood. Housing in Oakland is currently too expensive for staff and faculty, not to

14
mention, “oversaturated with pretty wealthy and overeducated individuals living in the
area.” Most EAH programs (best practices) were created to initially support the
neighborhoods around its college campus that were heavily underserved. This isn’t the
case for Oakland, where both the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon
University reside.
4. Struggling school districts can also be a potential challenge for an EAH program to truly
incentivize staff and faculty. It can especially be a barrier for young families who decide
to live outside the city so their kids can go to a different school district. For example,
having strong Pittsburgh Public Schools can attract and keep people in the city if they
feel that their kids will receive a quality education in the city. This can lead to them
looking for a home within city limits. Thinking big-picture, what big-picture issues must
be addressed first to get to a conversation of creating a citywide EAH program with key
stakeholders being brought to the table?
5. The specific resources that the University of Pittsburgh mentioned they can provide are:
1) advocacy analysis, 2) publicity and marketing, and 3) utilizing their University Center
for Social and Urban Research (UCSUR) to provide expertise and information relating to
land, real estate, economic development, and demographics. Many key topics were
addressed several times throughout the interviews such as the recent proposal on land
banking legislation, citizens rehabilitating their homes through a program of the URA,
and the Public Service Fund (PSF).
6. A question was asked how the relationship between Carnegie Mellon University and the
University of Pittsburgh were and both schools provided a positive response. Both
mentioned that they work well together and have been for quite some time now. In
regards to a citywide EAH program, the question of “what fits” in Pittsburgh was also
addressed. It seemed that it might not be done by simply creating an EAH program and
finding somewhere to place it.
7. There was a discussion of what other stakeholders or issues should be addressed that best
the environment of Pittsburgh. Suggestions included: the Urban Redevelopment
Authority, the County Office, Business community such as the Allegheny Conference,
organized labor groups, financial institutions such as PNC Bank, and even groups outside
the City of Pittsburgh as such housing and economic groups.
8. There was a preference of leaning more towards the name of a “Homeownership
Incentive Program” rather than an “Employer Assisted Housing” program. The term
comes across as more “inclusive” rather than just focusing on the educational institutions,
which can make communities, feel excluded from accessing quality homes. The
University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University have a positive relationship
with the Port Authority and provides benefits such as bus passes to its staff/faculty. The
incentive of transportation seems to be more appealing to the university stakeholders than
housing benefits.

15
9. Tackle deep-rooted issues first such as education, land use, etc.
10. There is not much of a need to create a program such as this in the communities that
surround the universities. First, how will this proposal be communicated to the citizens
of Pittsburgh? Ensure the program is inclusive and allows for the opportunity to invest in
all communities where there is a high volume of vacant/blight neighborhoods. Also,
revitalize other neighborhoods to attract folks from outside the city to live in these areas
(ex: Homewood).
11. The Urban Redevelopment Authority was again mentioned to be a “big player” in leading
a citywide initiative to assisting the two universities in implementing an “Institutional
Homeownership Incentive Program.”
12. URA offers best practices such as: Residential Façade Improvement Grant program and
tax abatement program. Employees also show great interest in transportation such as ride
shares, bus passes.
13. CMU’s interest is not interested in where their staff and faculty live. The incentive needs
to come from the city, not schools. If it’s citywide, then URA needs to lead a big effort
in this.
14. Potential legal issues may arise if EAH program is too specific on just the University of
Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon staff and faculty. Find an alternative that has least
resistance. Find an entity that has legal and financial vehicles to do this work. That’s the
URA!
15. There needs to be a “legal” vehicle to drive these programs: URA.
16. Market it as a citywide effort where the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon
University can potentially market it more strategically to their staff and faculty as an
opportunity to buy a home in the city.
17. What’s needed from the City and Councilman Dan Gilman? The following was asked by
university stakeholders: What are the original motivations and vision of this idea, who is
this benefitting, and what will be potential positive and negative impacts in his opinion.
18. If the City of Pittsburgh wants a citywide initiative, then the Urban Redevelopment
Authority should be the lead on this initiative due to their legal access to maneuver this
type of program across partnerships in the city. The university stakeholders also
addressed that they are not interested in “best practices” of other universities since they
have reviewed these and do not find any particular relation to the lay of the land in
Pittsburgh. A conversation must bring all stakeholders together to truly tailor the needs
of the city. With a stakeholder’s roundtable, the purpose of the “Institutional
Homeownership Incentive Program” can be redefined collectively, as well as outline
possible solutions and outcomes moving forward.

16
Recommendations Moving Forward
Considering the information provided in this report, there are strategies universities in Pittsburgh
can take to effectively create an “Institutional Homeownership Program.” While the best
practices highlighted in this report started primarily to its direct surround community, Pittsburgh
can be geared towards supporting the city in two ways: increased tax revenue and helping to
revitalize neighborhoods outside the direct surrounding community (Oakland).
Additionally, I can foresee the following strategies that Councilman Gilman can utilize moving
forward on this initiative. First, it would be ideal to hold a stakeholder’s meeting to discuss the
possibility of an “Institutional Homeownership Incentive Program.” This meeting can bring the
unique perspectives of various partners such as university senior leadership, members of
foundations such as the Heinz Endowments and Forbes Fund, City Councilmember’s, and
housing development groups such as the Urban Redevelopment Authority the Oakland Planning
and Development Corporation. Since many of the organizations in the interviews are key
stakeholders, they now have the idea presented to them from the Councilman’s office. This will
lead to a smoother discussion since many of them already have the idea in their head. The
stakeholder’s meeting can also provide the opportunity to capture even more notes and hear in
more detail what resources each partner has, outline possible roles, and review best practices of
other universities.
It would be interesting to see if the University Center for Social & Urban Research at the
University of Pittsburgh, or another potential partner can lead the efforts in creating a detailed
survey for the staff and faculty of both: Carnegie Mellon University and the University of
Pittsburgh. Since best practices from other universities are vastly different than the City of
Pittsburgh, it would be most beneficial to gather initial thoughts of the specific group that will be
impacted the most. This will also save time and energy if conclusions lead that a majority of
them actually do not see an “Institutional Homeownership Incentive Program” to be ideal or
appealing for them.
There always seems to be an opportunity for Councilman Gilman to directly speak with the
Urban Redevelopment Authority and foundations such as the Heinz Endowments to leverage as
much support on how this proposal can be brought to the senior leadership at Carnegie Mellon
University and the University of Pittsburgh.

17
Resources Links
Comprehensive Case Studies of EAH University Programs
https://www.case.edu/president/cir/pdfiles/updated/staffbyoccupation11.pdf
http://www.msgcrc.com/pdfs/UnderstandingEmployerAssistedHousing.pdf
http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.7977773/k.7189/Employer_Assisted_Housing/
apps/nl/newsletter2.asp
Local Articles
University of Pittsburgh
http://www.utimes.pitt.edu/?p=236
http://www.utimes.pitt.edu/?p=457
http://www.pitt.edu/~copc/COPC_Final_Report.pdf
Senate Committee Meeting Hearing Notes-Guest: Wanda Wilson:
http://www.univsenate.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/PDF_CR/Nov12.pdf
Best Practices: Other Universities
University of Chicago:
http://humanresources.uchicago.edu/fpg/forms/benefits/EAHProgramBrochure10282010.pdf
http://humanresources.uchicago.edu/benefits/retirefinancial/eap.shtml
Yale University:
http://www.yale.edu/hronline/hbuyer/index.htm
John Hopkins University
http://web.jhu.edu/lnyw/
Case Western Reserve University
http://case.edu/finadmin/humres/benefits/housing.html
http://case.edu/finadmin/humres/benefits/attachments/GCLBrochure.pdf
University of Pennsylvania
https://cms.business-services.upenn.edu/homeownership/

Homeownership Incentive Program_Final Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Homeownership Incentive Program_Final Report

Similar to Homeownership Incentive Program_Final Report (20)

Homeownership Incentive Program_Final Report