Are Discrimination and Social Capital Related to Housing Instability?

Existing studies examining social capital and housing instability have overlooked structural factors such as discrimination, providing an incomplete explanation of the relationship between social capital and housing instability. This study addresses this limitation by exploring how discrimination and social capital are related to housing instability. This study is a secondary analysis of data collected during the Atlanta Neighborhood Pilot study. The sample consists of mostly African American adults who resided in the Atlanta metropolitan area in 2013 (n = 691). After controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, residential mobility, and public assistance, stepwise logistic regression identified social capital and discrimination as significant predictors of housing instability. Lower social capital and higher everyday discrimination scores were associated with increased odds for housing instability. Individuals 35 or older, those with annual incomes between $25,000 and $50,000, and those who reported receiving public assistance during their lifetime also had increased odds for housing instability. Findings identify characteristics of individuals vulnerable to housing instability and suggest that social capital development as a housing intervention warrants further exploration. These findings can be utilized by policymakers and practitioners to better target funding and to create efficient systems better equipped to deploy early homelessness prevention interventions.     

Beyond the ‘At Risk’ Individual: Housing and the Eradication of Poverty to Prevent Homelessness

A prevention framework represents one of the fundamental means of the Australian Government's contemporary drive to achieve permanent reductions in homelessness. Consistent with prevailing policies in the UK and US, Australia has approached homelessness prevention through identification and early intervention of individuals ‘at risk’ of homelessness. In this article we suggest that prevention strategies focused on the risk factors that individual pose obscures efforts to address the underlying structural factors that contribute to homelessness, or to reduce the prevalence of homelessness at the overall population level. The article examines the efficacy of increasing the supply of affordable housing to prevent homelessness, but suggests that the provision of housing alone may be insufficient to realising related well‐being objectives. In turn, it is proposed that policy which focuses on poverty reduction has the capacity to achieve the sustainable prevention of homelessness ambitions.     

Comment on Chester Hartman and David Robinson's “evictions: The hidden housing problem"—protection or protraction?

Abstract

Since the 1960s, judges and legislatures have made it increasingly difficult for landlords to evict tenants even in those instances where tenants have breached their leases. Sometimes, the growth of tenant protections has actually harmed law‐abiding tenants by raising costs to landlords and allowing rule‐breakers to remain in their apartments. Most landlords and tenants should want a system of laws that provides for both fair and efficient eviction procedures. Tenants should be entitled to legal representation when they are threatened with eviction, but their attorneys should not use the legal system to obtain free accommodations for their clients.

In the end, efforts to improve the housing of low‐ and moderate‐income households should rely not on setting up impediments to eviction, but rather on increasing tenants’ ability to afford housing and reducing the cost of housing development and operation.     

Evictions: The hidden housing problem

Abstract

Although evictions are a major housing problem that disproportionately affects lower‐income and minority tenants, no systematic data about evictions are collected on a local or national level. This article presents the scattered available data on the magnitude and impact of the problem, along with existing model efforts to reduce its incidence and impact.

Creating a national database on evictions—how many, where, who, why, and what happens to evictees—would be an important first step in focusing attention on this neglected issue. Definitional questions must be resolved as an initial step. In an effort to launch such a project, suggestions are offered on how to begin creating such a database.     

Comment on Chester Hartman and David Robinson's “evictions: The hidden housing problem”

Abstract

Evictions and involuntary moves negatively affecting poor renters present a significant problem. Creating a national database to comprehensively document the magnitude of the problem, however, presents serious difficulties. Most local courts do not publish data on court actions involving evictions. To do this on a national level and to obtain all of the data needed by the authors would require special funding and the cooperation of courts; these are unlikely to materialize. To obtain comprehensive data on involuntary moves beyond the court system would present even greater difficulty.

Improvements can be made in existing protections for tenants vulnerable to displacement without compiling comprehensive national data. Previous examples include the debates over displacement and homelessness. Since legislative and administrative reforms are more likely at the state and local levels, reform efforts, including any data collection, should be primarily focused there.     

Local response to federal changes in the housing voucher program: A case study of intraregional cooperation

Abstract

The desire to increase residential choice for Section 8 voucher clients resulted in the adoption of portability by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Portability allows voucher holders to move between the jurisdictions of local housing authorities (HAs). InterHA cooperation could ease the administrative and financial burdens imposed by portability and improve service to voucher recipients. However, voluntary regional cooperation is rare.

This article presents a case study of a successful, voluntary, intraregional cooperative agreement among HAs. Theoretical and empirical analyses suggest that a cooperative agreement is more likely to develop voluntarily if two conditions are present: rational self‐interest and shared norms and trust among the managers. Agreements can ease the burdens associated with portability, but it is important for the parties to regularly assess implementation issues to ensure the agreement's continuing effectiveness. The article concludes with policy implications based on the findings from this research.     

The low‐income housing tax credit program goes mainstream and moves to the suburbs

Abstract

The Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program is now 20 years old. With the maturing of the program, the use of tax credits has become commonplace in the development of rental housing across the nation. This article examines how the program has changed both financially and spatially. Specifically, the article asks whether it provides a mechanism that can help deconcentrate impoverished renters by providing access to low‐poverty neighborhoods.

This research finds that as the price for tax credits rises, the program becomes increasingly popular with developers who are helping it make inroads in low‐poverty suburbs. By entering the suburbs, the LIHTC program is meeting and even exceeding the performance of the Housing Choice Voucher Program in terms of offering opportunities to live in low‐poverty settings.     

Section 8 and Movement to Job Opportunity: Experience after Welfare Reform in Kansas City

Abstract

This research addresses the extent to which tenant‐based rental assistance, before and after welfare reform, helps households move to areas with greater opportunities for employment. It was thought that the threat of losing their welfare benefits would encourage participants in the Section 8 program to use the mobility it offers to move to neighborhoods with greater opportunities for employment.

Two samples of Section 8 program participants, one taken before welfare reform and the other taken after it was enacted, have been examined. With the strong economy after welfare reform, more Section 8 households are employed and fewer are on welfare. However, the analysis finds that, independent of welfare reform, households did not use their housing subsidy to move to areas with greater opportunities for employment. Program participants typically remained in racially concentrated areas of the central city, away from those neighborhoods with job growth or large numbers of jobs.     

Mitigating apprehension about section 8 vouchers: The positive role of housing specialists in search and placement

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has found that Section 8 voucher recipients are often unable to secure apartments outside of high‐poverty areas in tight urban rental markets. However, intensive housing placement services greatly improve the success and mobility of voucher holders. Drawing on ethnographic research in the housing placement department of a private, nonprofit community‐based organization, I first describe how fundamental problems in implementing the public subsidy program in a tight private rental market generate apprehension among landlords and voucher recipients that can prevent the successful use of vouchers. Second, I demonstrate how housing placement specialists can dispel and overcome this apprehension through a variety of tactics that require extensive soft skills and a deep commitment to the mission of housing poor families.

These findings provide support for the increased use of housing placement services to improve success and mobility rates for Section 8 vouchers.     

Comment on Kirk Mcclure's “The low‐income housing tax credit program goes mainstream and moves to the suburbs”

Abstract

As McClure's article notes, the Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program has indeed gone mainstream. Given the tarnished reputation of many other federal low‐income housing programs, this is good news. It is also surprising in some ways considering the many programmatic flaws inherent in the LIHTC program.

As a point of departure, I look at why McClure and others are able to describe the program in a positive light despite its many flaws. I attribute this to the unique political culture of the United States, for which the LIHTC program is well suited. In addition, it sidesteps one of the thorniest problems that have bedeviled low‐income housing programs—the spatial isolation of poor minorities. Until the LIHTC program explicitly addresses this issue, however, any praise must be tempered by a great deal of caution.