Assessing Economic Change in HOPE VI Neighborhoods

Abstract

Neighborhoods surrounding large public housing developments have historically been economically distressed. The revitalization of many developments through the federal HOPE VI program, in conjunction with increased inner‐city lending and a strong economy for much of the 1990s, should theoretically lead to improvements in these neighborhoods. This study analyzes changes in selected HOPE VI neighborhoods since 1990 and compares them with changes in other high‐poverty communities, as well as with overall trends in their respective cities.

At the beginning of the decade, conditions in HOPE VI communities were almost universally worse than in other high‐poverty areas. By the end of the decade, the relationship was reversed. The changes resulted from a number of interrelated factors, including the redevelopments themselves, other private market activity, specific commitments of resources by city governments, and increased attention to the communities by lenders. These neighborhoods still qualify as economically distressed, but economic development now seems a realistic possibility.     

Comment on Robert E. Lang,Katrin B. Anacker,and Steven Hornburg's “the new politics of affordable housing”

Abstract

In his thoughtful analysis, Joseph realistically points to what a mixed‐income housing development can and cannot offer its low‐income residents. Observed benefits include greater informal social controls over the development, likely proximal modeling opportunities for youth, and participation in a political‐economic subgroup that can demand more responsive public services. Yet without offering more comprehensive, structured supports to its residents, no form of housing alone can be an antidote to poverty.

However, if we expand Joseph's analysis to include the impact of large‐scale developments on distressed urban neighborhoods, we can see mixed‐income housing catalyzing other benefits for low‐income residents. These benefits include a reduced housing cost burden; more structured supportive services; dramatically improved surroundings; high‐quality housing and community design; faster‐paced complementary investments in public systems and amenities; and strategically restored market functioning that offers more choices, lower prices, new jobs, and additional tax revenues to support service delivery.     

The Gautreaux Legacy: What Might Mixed‐Income and Dispersal Strategies Mean for the Poorest Public Housing Tenants?

Abstract

The current transformation of public and assisted housing reflects the legacy of the Gautreaux case, which created the first mobility and scattered‐site programs. Mixed‐income and dispersal strategies now dominate federal housing policy, although their focus has shifted. Drawing on evidence from two preliminary studies of public housing transformation in Chicago, we argue that these new strategies seem to offer benefits for distressed public housing communities but also involve risks for the most vulnerable current tenants. Increased screening and/or the need to compete with private market tenants may force these families out of the assisted housing market.

Addressing the complex needs of the most troubled public housing tenants will call for a more comprehensive solution. The intent of the Gautreaux case was to increase opportunity and enhance quality of life for public housing tenants; policy makers should take steps to ensure that current programs reflect these fundamental goals.     

Interpreting the dynamics of public housing: Cultural and rational choice explanations

Abstract

This article uses culture of poverty and rational choice theories of poverty to explain how quickly nonelderly household heads leave public housing. Data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics serve as the basis for the analysis.

Although a significant proportion of all household heads have public housing spells lasting five or more years, the majority have spells lasting less than five years. The availability of other housing options has a strong impact on how quickly individuals move out of public housing. Family structure and human capital play a more modest role. To the extent that one's childhood experiences affect the likelihood of exiting public housing, they appear to do so mostly through their effect on the acquisition of human capital. Finally, the evidence presented is inconsistent with the notion that public housing is a trap from which it is more difficult to escape the longer one lives in it.     

Creating an enabling environment for housing: Recent reforms in Mexico

Abstract

A recent World Bank policy statement on housing advocates the reform of government policies, institutions, and regulations to enable housing markets to work more efficiently. The policy statement identifies several instruments that governments can use to address housing market constraints, and to improve the performance of the housing sector as a whole, while paying particular attention to the needs of the poor.

In recent years, the government of Mexico has employed many of the enabling instruments described in the World Bank's housing policy statement. This article reviews the role of housing in the Mexican economy and the major reforms that the Mexican government has implemented to improve the operation of the housing market so that private lenders and home builders can play an expanded role in addressing the country's housing needs. The World Bank has supported the government's reform program, and since 1985 it has lent more than $1.2 billion to Mexico for low‐income housing projects.     

Why voucher and certificate users live in distressed neighborhoods

Abstract

The Section 8 voucher and certificate program potentially allows recipients to choose better neighborhoods than they might otherwise be able to afford. This article compares the location of households using Section 8 vouchers and certificates with the location of other renter households, both low‐income renters and all renters.

In 1998, Section 8 users were 75 percent as likely as other poor tenants to live in distressed neighborhoods but 150 percent more likely than all renters to live in such tracts. These national averages obscure substantial variation among metropolitan areas. Section 8 users concentrate in distressed neighborhoods when rental housing concentrates there, but they avoid distressed neighborhoods with very low rents. Concentration also hinges on race; when assisted households are mostly black and other residents are mostly white, assisted households are much more likely to live in distressed neighborhoods.     

Comment on Bruce J. Katz and Margery Austin Turner's “Who should run the housing voucher program? A reform proposal”

Abstract

There is much evidence that the housing voucher program has successfully met its two main goals: housing low‐income families and expanding housing opportunity. Nonetheless, efforts to address the program's limitations could improve success. We agree with Basgal and Villarreal that, on the subject of housing mobility, the focus of Katz and Turner is misplaced.

In addition to proposing a solution that does not address the problem, Katz and Turner fail to consider three key points: First, there is no consensus or clear definition of what “mobility” means, how it is measured, and what standard we hope to achieve. Second, the role and impact of family choice in the locational outcomes of voucher holders is a major factor. And third, the considerable trade‐offs in outcomes that result from a greater emphasis on mobility should be examined.     

Moving out of poverty: Expanding mobility and choice through tenant‐based housing assistance

Abstract

Historically, federal housing policy has contributed to the concentration of poverty in urban America. Moving out of poverty is not the right answer for every low‐income family, but tenant‐based housing assistance (Section 8 certificates and vouchers) has tremendous potential to help families move to healthier neighborhoods. This article explores the role of tenant‐based housing assistance in addressing the problem of concentrated inner‐city poverty.

The Section 8 program by itself does not ensure access to low‐poverty neighborhoods, particularly for minority families. Supplementing certificates and vouchers with housing counseling and search assistance can improve their performance; a growing number of assisted housing mobility initiatives are now in place across the country. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) should continue to fund these initiatives and increase their number over time. HUD should also strengthen incentives for all housing authorities to improve locational outcomes in their Section 8 programs.     

Comment on Bruce J. Katz and Margery Austin Turner's “Who should run the housing voucher program? A reform proposal”: Why public housing authorities remain the best solution for running the housing voucher program

Abstract

Katz and Turner propose that the Section 8 program be administered regionally at the metropolitan level by a single organization awarded the contract through a competitive bidding process. We disagree. Local public housing authorities have been successful in providing family housing choice and moving families from the worst neighborhoods through the Section 8 program. The factors that inhibit mixed‐income communities and family mobility, resulting in concentration of poverty, are beyond the control of these authorities and will be affected little by a change in administration. Moreover, the additional cost of these changes would decrease the number of families served and at the same time increase bureaucracy.

We welcome the discussion the proposal has caused. Misperceptions exist about the program, even among those close to it. True, effective program reform can be engendered only by an honest dialogue among housing advocates, administrators, and consumers, both tenants and owners.     

“… And a suitable living environment”: The failure of housing programs to deliver on neighborhood quality

Abstract

This article evaluates the relative performance of housing programs in terms of neighborhood quality. We profile neighborhood characteristics surrounding assisted housing units and assess the direction of assisted housing policy in light of this information. The analysis relies on a housing census database we developed that identifies the type and census tract location of assisted housing units—that is, public housing, developments assisted under the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Direct Loan Program, the low‐income housing tax credit, certificates and vouchers, and state rental assistance programs.

We conclude that project‐based assistance programs do little to improve the quality of recipients’ neighborhoods relative to those of welfare households and, in the case of public housing, appear to make things significantly worse. The certificate and voucher programs, however, appear to reduce the probability that families will live in the most economically and socially distressed areas.     

Comment on Sandra J. Newman and Ann B. Schnare's “'… And a suitable living environment’: The failure of housing programs to deliver on neighborhood quality”

Abstract

Newman and Schnare provide a useful portrait of where housing assistance ends up geographically. The evidence that certificate and voucher holders are less likely than public housing residents to live in the poorest neighborhoods is encouraging, as well as important for policy decisions. Unresolved in the article, and unresolvable with the data, as the authors themselves note, is the matter of how neighborhood quality is affected by housing assistance. The least popular housing developments have long been relegated to neighborhoods of least political resistance, a fact that constrains most local efforts to deconcentrate poverty. Futhermore, through the tax code, America spends about three times as much on housing assistance for middle‐ and upper‐income households as it does on assistance to low‐ and moderate‐income households. Thus far, we have not applied “fair share” principles either to the location of housing assistance or to its allocation across the income spectrum.     

Participation in a residential mobility program from the client's perspective: Findings from Gautreaux Two

Abstract

In 2002, the Gautreaux Two housing mobility program provided low‐income families living in Chicago public housing with the opportunity to move to more affluent, less racially isolated communities. This article presents findings on their complex search and moving process. Only about one‐third of enrolled families actually moved through the program ("leased‐up"). In‐depth interviews with a randomly chosen sample of 71 families and an additional 20 “likely mover” families showed that movers fell into four groups distinguished by personal characteristics that made it easier for them to move or by residence on Chicago's North Side.

Nonmovers faced a variety of obstacles, both external (a tight rental market, discrimination, and bureaucratic delays) and internal (limited experience and program comprehension, large household size, and health problems). Also, some nonmovers were too busy with work or school to engage in what proved to be an onerous process of identifying a suitable unit and moving.     

Child characteristics and successful use of housing vouchers: Estimates from the moving to opportunity demonstration

Abstract

Voucher‐based programs have become the most common form of housing assistance for low‐income families in the United States, yet only a slim majority of households that are offered vouchers actually move with them. This article uses data from 2,938 households in the Moving to Opportunity demonstration program to examine whether child characteristics influence the probability that a household will successfully use a housing voucher to lease‐up.

Our results suggest that while many child characteristics have little bearing on the use of housing vouchers, child health, behavioral, and educational problems, particularly the presence of multiple problems in a household, do have an influence. Households with two or more child problems are 7 percentage points less likely to move than those who have none of these problems or only one. Results suggest that such families may need additional support to benefit from housing vouchers or alternative types of affordable housing units.     

Social capital and crime in New York City's low‐income housing

Abstract

This article presents evidence that components of social capital can play a prospective role in preventing crime in low‐income housing. It develops a conceptual approach to crime prevention involving social capital, alternative forms of ownership, and environmental design considerations. The study compares five programs that house New York City's poorest, mostly minority residents. The effectiveness of social capital in preventing crime is assessed using data from surveys of 487 buildings in Brooklyn, NY, and crime data from the New York City Police Department.

Results of the analysis indicate that three components of social capital—basic participation in tenant associations, tenant prosocial norms, and a building's formal organization—were all related to reducing various types of crime in the buildings under study 6 to 12 months after social capital was measured. The effectiveness of social capital was related to alternative ownership structures, building characteristics, and housing policy.     

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.     

Public housing and the American dream: Residents’ views on buying into “the projects”

Abstract

This article examines residents’ attitudes toward homeownership in five large inner‐city public housing projects composed of multifamily apartment buildings. Based on 267 interviews with public housing residents in Boston, it contrasts their broad support for homeownership as a concept with their wholly mixed reaction to the idea of owning a public housing apartment. Interest in homeownership in public housing is shown to be independent of residents’ current employment status and closely tied to residents’ social investment in specific housing developments and to their perceptions about the quality of that development's management, maintenance, and security.

The findings cast renewed doubt on policies that would make public housing sales a centerpiece of national policy, but they provide qualified support for more modest efforts to increase homeownership in public housing developments and in low‐income neighborhoods around them.     

The redevelopment of distressed public housing: Early results from HOPE VI projects in Atlanta,Chicago, and San Antonio

Abstract

The redevelopment of distressed public housing under the Urban Revitalization Demonstration Program, or HOPE VI, has laudable social, physical, community, and economic goals. Three public housing projects in Atlanta, Chicago, and San Antonio demonstrate the complexity and trade‐offs of trying to lessen the concentration of low‐income households, leverage private resources, limit project costs, help residents achieve economic self‐sufficiency, design projects that blend into the community, and ensure meaningful resident participation in project planning.

Although worthwhile and ambitious, HOPE VI cannot achieve all these goals. More of them can be achieved by developing strategies related to the strength of the local real estate market. To that end, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and public housing authorities must use the market‐based tools in the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998. Standards for improved physical design and resident participation and further research on critical supportive services for residents are also needed.     

Neighborhood change and the city of New York's ten‐year housing plan

Abstract

This article examines neighborhood changes associated with New York City's Ten‐Year Plan—the largest municipal housing program in the United States. We examine indicators of change, in the context of two possible hypotheses about the program's impact: (1) neighborhood revitalization, including improved physical and housing market conditions, as well as gentrification, and (2) the concentration of poor and welfare‐dependent households, as well as the possibility of residential segregation by race or ethnicity.

Our results present a mixed picture, with some evidence favoring both hypotheses, especially when parts of the city, particularly the South Bronx, are examined separately. Specifically, the program is associated with steep declines in the rate of boarded‐up buildings and some indications of increased home values, as well as rent burdens. However, it is also correlated with increases in maintenance deficiencies and a greater proportion of poor, single‐parent, and welfare‐dependent households, but there is little evidence of accentuated residential segregation.     

Comment on James E. Rosenbaum,Linda K. Stroh,and Cathy A. Flynn's “Lake Parc Place: A study of mixed‐income housing”

Abstract

Rosenbaum, Stroh, and Flynn confirm existing community leader perceptions that this model mixed‐income development in the predominantly low‐income South Side of Chicago has produced a positive residential environment. Increased tenant voice, not role modeling, seems to be a factor in producing increased resident satisfaction with the building and a strong sense of commitment to the mixed‐income alternative to exclusively low‐income housing projects. The extra resources invested in physical improvements and the extraordinary media attention paid to this model project may have created a “Hawthorne effect,” which also produced higher levels of satisfaction. The existence of this successful model is not sufficient to provide more housing alternatives; community‐based advocacy for more mixed‐income developments is needed.