Public Housing Residence and College Performance: Evidence From the Nation's Largest Urban Public University

Despite clear implications for human capital accumulation, there has been little research on the postsecondary educational experiences of students living in public housing. While there is significant and growing research exploring outcomes for public housing tenants, even in the education sphere, little of this work focuses on postsecondary outcomes and what role, if any, public housing plays in human capital accumulation. Our case study, New York City, is home to both the nation's largest urban public university system and the largest public housing authority. In this work, we use matching techniques to identify and describe the residential characteristics of students at the City University of New York. We explore how students who live in public housing developments differ from their peers in terms of characteristics associated with success in college, including demographics, neighborhood poverty, and high school preparation. We use regression techniques to test the relation between public housing residence, neighborhood income, and two indicators of early college performance: successful completion of credits attempted and one-year retention. In a naive model (including only residence and high school characteristics), public housing residence is negatively associated with our outcomes of interest, but less so when we control for other factors, including neighborhood income. Specifically, for students pursuing an associate's degree, we find a negative relation between public housing residence and credit completion and a less pronounced negative relation with retention. We find no significant relation between public housing residence and either baccalaureate outcome.     

Madhya Pradesh Housing & Infrastructure Development Board: affordable housing via public–private partnership mode

The Madhya Pradesh Housing & Infrastructure Development Board (MPHIDB) is a state‐owned entity in Madhya Pradesh State of India with the mandate of providing housing for citizens, particularly for those in the low‐income segment. MPHIDB has been constructing houses on its own using the traditional engineering and procurement contract (EPC) model. In July 2015, it was exploring the possibility of creating affordable housing units via public–private partnership (PPP). The advantage of involving private sector is that MPHIDB can tap into creative energy and construction efficiency of the private sector and deliver the best results within the given set of time and resource constraints. The proposed structure of PPP is that the private partner will be given a portion of land in lieu of the affordable housing units that it will build and transfer to MPHIDB. However, there are trade‐offs involved in doing the project in PPP mode instead of EPC mode. The main advantages of a government body like MPHDIB doing the project on its own are as follows: (a) It is able to better manage regulatory risks in terms of getting clearances, land acquisition, and so forth; (b) it can raise finances at lower interest rates than what is charged for private sector entities; and (c) the entire land parcel is available to construct houses, and hence it can get more housing units per unit of land. The Commissioner (CEO) of MPHIDB had to decide whether to go for PPP or EPC model, and if he opted for PPP, how should the PPP be structured?     

On the equity effects of taxing imputed rent: Evidence from Australia

Abstract

Taxation of net imputed rent from owner‐occupied housing (and mortgage interest deductibility) has been advocated in Australia on grounds of both efficiency and equity. The current tax system (no taxation or deductibility) favors owner‐occupied housing over business investments, and in the owner‐occupied sector it favors high‐income, low‐debt households over others. Nevertheless, imputed rent taxation has been criticized on the empirical grounds that its direct burden would fall more heavily on low‐income households than high‐income households.

Using micro‐level data from the 1986 Income Distribution Survey, we show that the burden does not fall more heavily on low‐income households when net imputed rent is included in owners’ incomes and when life cycle effects are controlled for. Moreover, for married couples aged 25 to 54, the taxation of imputed rental income would be not only progressive, but more progressive than the taxation of other household income.     

Residential mortgage foreclosure and neighborhood change

Abstract

We use New Orleans as a case study to explore residential mortgage foreclosure as one mechanism linking prior black population and changes in employment levels with changes in aggregate income, housing tenure, vacancy rates, and black population size. Mortgage foreclosure data are merged with 1980 and 1990 census data aggregated at the block group level.

Structural equation modeling results indicate that both economic change and prior racial composition are associated with reductions in median block group incomes. Racial transition and loss of employment and income also increased foreclosure rates. Economic change and prior racial composition together impact neighborhoods through their effects on income and foreclosure rates, which in turn differentially affect vacancy rates, the change in black population, and the housing tenure status of residents. The differential effects of these variables point to the persistence of a dual housing market for blacks and whites in New Orleans.     

No renters in my suburban backyard: Land use regulation and rental housing

Academics and policymakers have argued that the ability of low‐ and moderate‐income families to move into desirable suburban areas is constrained by the high cost of housing. Local zoning and other forms of land use regulation are believed to contribute to increased housing prices by reducing supply and increasing the size of new housing. Suburban restrictions on rental housing are particularly likely to reduce mobility for low‐income families. In this paper, I employ an instrumental variables approach to examine the effects of zoning on the quantity and price of rental housing in Massachusetts, using historical municipal characteristics to instrument for current regulations. Results suggest that communities with more restrictive zoning issue significantly fewer building permits for multifamily housing but provide only weak evidence of the effects of regulations on rents. The lack of effects on rents may reflect the low level of multifamily development, while analysis is complicated by development of subsidized housing under the state's affordable housing law. © 2009 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.     

Economic Prosperity and Housing Affordability in the United States: Lessons from the Booming 1990s

The United States is facing an acute shortage of reasonably priced housing with over 35% of households paying more than 30% of their income for housing costs in 2015. As the U.S. economy recovers from the Great Recession, will housing become less unaffordable as incomes rise and households could potentially pay a lower share of their income for housing costs? To see if this is likely, I examined the change in housing affordability in the 100 largest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in the United States between 1990 and 2000, a period of exceptional economic prosperity. I used the percentage of housing cost-burdened households (those that pay more than 30% of their gross income on ownership or rental costs) as a measure of the availability of reasonably priced housing. I used discriminant analysis techniques to detect statistically significant differences in the percentage of cost-burdened households in the 100 MSAs based on a variety of factors. I found that despite the phenomenal economic prosperity of the 1990s, about 30% of households were cost-burdened both in 1990 and 2000. High MSA median income was correlated with a greater shortage of reasonably priced housing. Neither economic growth rate nor poverty rate nor population growth rate distinguished high-shortage MSAs from low-shortage ones. Large MSAs and MSAs in the West had greater shortages than other MSAs. Economic prosperity did not alleviate the problem of lack of reasonably priced housing in the past, and is not likely to do so in the near future. Planners and policy-makers need to enact new policies at local, regional, state, and federal levels to effectively address America’s chronic affordable housing shortage.     

Public housing authorities: Determining an appropriate role in a national preservation strategy

Abstract

This paper examines the obstacles and issues involved in developing a comprehensive preservation agenda for public housing and explores the capacity of public housing authorities (PHAs) to meet the current and future demand for affordable housing. The paper discusses the current challenges facing the public housing program and PHAs and examines the roles and functions PHAs can assume in the current preservation and affordable housing crisis. Six specific roles for PHAs are included: resolving the equity/community dilemma, improving management, articulating modernization needs and carrying out modernization programs, preventing the loss of public housing units through sales and demolition, assuming management of privately owned subsidized housing, and developing new public housing. Although there is also much potential in nonprofits as providers of low‐income housing, they must be joined by PHAs in a comprehensive low‐income housing production and preservation strategy.     

Comment on Roberto G. Quercia and George C. Galster's “The challenges facing public housing authorities in a brave new world”

Abstract

We find Quercia and Galster's article on reforming public housing an intriguing academic exercise that contains some key insights useful to practitioners. However, the article fails to consider several key elements in the provision of assisted housing that make their “constrained quadrilemma” much less problematic than they assume.

The article ignores the tenant‐based certificate/voucher approach to meeting the housing needs of low‐income and very low income persons and households. This is a significant oversight, in that many public housing authorities (PHAs) manage a larger portfolio of certificates than of PHA‐owned housing. If the litmus test of the success of public housing's “reinvention” is the extent to which it is able to maximize both the number of low‐income households served and their social and geographic integration, then public housing's extensive use of certificate/voucher programs demonstrates a road out of the quadrilemma.     

House poor in Los Angeles: examining patterns of housing-induced poverty by race,nativity, and legal status

Housing affordability in the United States is generally operationalized using the ratio approach, with those allocating more than thirty percent of income to shelter costs considered to have housing affordability challenges. Alternative standards have been developed that focus on residual income, whether income remaining after housing expenditures is sufficient to meet non-housing needs. This study employs Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey data to consider racial/ethnic, nativity and legal status differences in one residual income standard. Logistic regression analyses of housing-induced poverty focus on whether there are differences among five distinct groups: US born Latinos, Non-Hispanic Whites, and African Americans, authorized Latino immigrants, and unauthorized Latino immigrants. Results suggest that: (1) Latino natives are significantly more likely to be in housing-induced poverty than African Americans and Latino immigrants, and (2) unauthorized Latino immigrants are not more likely to experience the outcome than other groups. The present work extends previous research. First, the results provide additional evidence of the value of operationalizing housing affordability using a residual income standard. Alternatives to the ratio approach deserve more empirical attention from a wider range of scholars and policymakers interested in housing affordability. Second, housing scholarship to date generally differentiates among Latinos by ethnicity, nativity, and citizenship. The present study contributes to emerging research investigating heterogeneity among Latinos by nativity and legal status.     

Low‐Income Housing Development,Poverty Concentration,and Neighborhood Inequality

Considerable debate exists about the merits of place‐based programs that steer new development, and particularly affordable housing development, into low‐income neighborhoods. Exploiting quasi‐experimental variation in incentives to construct and rehabilitate rental housing across neighborhoods generated by Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program rules, we explore the impacts of subsidized development on local housing construction, poverty concentration, and neighborhood inequality. While a large fraction of rental housing development spurred by the program is offset by a reduction in the number of new unsubsidized units, housing investment under the LIHTC has measurable effects on the distribution of income within and across communities. However, there is little evidence the program contributes meaningfully to poverty concentration or residential segregation.     

The HOPE VI Program: What about the residents?

Abstract

During the 1990s, the federal government dramatically changed its policy on housing the poor. Under the HOPE VI (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere) Program, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development intended to address the concentration of troubled low‐income households in public housing by moving away from its reliance on project‐based assistance and promoting instead the construction of mixed‐income housing and the use of housing subsidies.

This article presents important evidence from two systematic, multicity studies on how the original residents of HOPE VI developments have been affected by this radical new approach to public housing. While many residents have clearly benefited, the findings raise critical questions about whether the transformation of public housing will achieve its potential as a powerful force for improving the lives of low‐income families.     

Inclusionary housing in California and New Jersey: A comparative analysis

Abstract

Many people have argued that inclusionary housing (IH) is a desirable land use strategy to address lower‐income housing needs and to further the geographic dispersal of the lower‐income population. In an attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of IH, this article examines the experiences of New Jersey and California, two states where IH has been applied frequently over an extended period.

While the concept of regional “fair share” is central to both states’ experiences, the origins of the programs, their applications, and their evolutions are quite dissimilar. IH originated in New Jersey from the famous Mount Laurel cases and in California from housing affordability crises and a legislatively mandated housing element. The experiences of both states indicate that IH can and should be part of an overall affordable housing strategy but that it is unlikely to become the core of such a strategy.     

Financing multifamily rental housing: The changing role of lenders and investors

Abstract

A broad consensus exists that there are significant barriers to accessing capital markets for multifamily rental housing, particularly for housing targeted at low‐and moderate‐income households. While there is a growing secondary market for multifamily mortgages, the market is in the early stages of development and remains quite small. Expanding this market requires increasing standardization of mortgages, increasing credit quality with better underwriting and credit enhancement, and educating investors as to the risks and returns of multifamily investments. In addition, dramatically improved data collection on the performance of multifamily investments and analysis on the determinants of success are needed.     

Comment on Michael A. Stegman,Walter R. Davis,and Roberto Quercia's “The Earned Income Tax Credit as an instrument of housing policy”

Abstract

The article by Stegman, Davis, and Quercia is a careful, comprehensive analysis of the current impact of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) on the housing cost burdens of working families. Its major proposal, a graduated supplement to the EITC to reflect housing costs, is compared with my broader concept of addressing severe cost burdens through supplements to major income support programs. Criticisms of my concept, chiefly administrative difficulties and incompatibility with the EITC benefit structure, are discussed.

My primary concerns are that Stegman, Davis, and Quercia's proposal does not sufficiently target families with severe housing costs and that the formula for calculating the additional benefit does not reflect diverse housing costs throughout the country and provides the smallest increases to the recipients with the lowest incomes. However, it is more important to generate discussion of the reality that “income policy IS housing policy” than to argue about details.     

RTC's affordable housing program: Reconciling competing goals

Abstract

Congress gave the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) authority to sell modestly valued housing at below‐market prices and with concessionary financing to enable lower income families to become homeowners and to expedite sales. Nonprofits and public agencies seeking to buy properties for occupancy by lower income people also qualified for these favorable terms. Setting a precedent for future housing policy initiatives, Congress conditioned access to this special program on the imposition of permanent low‐income use and affordability restrictions.

This paper considers whether the RTC can reconcile its mandate to maximize preservation of affordable housing with its duty to maximize return on assets and minimize negative impacts on local markets. This issue is addressed through a comparative review of property disposition programs administered by three other federal agencies. The author concludes that the RTC's three goals can be harmonized and suggests criteria for evaluating the RTC's performance in meeting its affordable housing mandate.     

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.     

State and local governments: New initiatives in low‐income housing preservation

Abstract

Preservation of the federally assisted low‐income housing stock is a critical issue in housing policy for the 1990s. Most of the low‐income housing initiatives that emerged over the last decade at the local and state levels were in response to changing economies and housing markets, to shifts in composition of the low‐income population, and to cutbacks in federal housing assistance as well as potential losses in the federally assisted housing inventory. The expansion of housing initiatives at state and local levels has critical ramifications for federal housing policy. It is a challenge to the federal government, which has not undergone a similar dramatic change in housing assistance policies. A number of areas of a new “federal partnership” need to be explored.     

Potential Effects of Federal Policy Devolution on Local Housing Expenditures

As 1994 came to a close, the future of the U.S. Department ofHousing and Urban Development (HUD) and the continued role ofthe federal government in low-income housing assistance washighly uncertain. The agency was targeted for elimination bycongressional leaders, its budget was the object of recissionattempts, and agency officials proposed a radical reinventionto alter housing programs and the delivery system for federalhousing assistance. Given the likelihood of either more budgetcuts (resulting in greater reliance on nonfederal sources offunds) or the devolution of policy responsibility through blockgrants, there is heightened concern for how local governmentsallocate housing funds. This article examines housing expenditurestrategies of large U.S. cities. The analysis describes factorsrelated to a greater use of nonfederal housing revenues by cities,and examines the impact of funding source on program and beneficiarytargeting. The data suggest that reduced federal spending ora shift to block grants is likely to result in more housingbenefits directed to moderate-income households and to homeownersand homebuyers.     

Housing,Welfare Reform,and Self‐Sufficiency: An Assessment of the Family Self‐Sufficiency Program

Abstract

Recently passed welfare reform legislation may have adverse impacts on the incomes of public and assisted housing residents and hence on the rental income of housing authorities. One way to dampen these impacts is to help welfare‐reliant tenants find jobs. The Family Self‐Sufficiency (FSS) programs sponsored by many housing authorities may be an important means of doing this. This article presents the findings of an early study of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's FSS program and explores the program's potential for dampening the impacts of welfare reform. The study involved a mail survey of the coordinators of 564 FSS programs.

The survey results indicate a surprising lack of interest in the early FSS program among potential participants. The results also indicate that these programs are inadequately staffed, and that the programs’ potential to dampen the effects of welfare reform are limited by the relatively small percentage of welfare‐reliant residents enrolled.     

Comment on Jean L. Cummings and Denise DiPasquale's “The Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit: An Analysis of the First Ten Years”

Abstract

The Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit (housing credit) that Cummings and Di‐Pasquale portray is effective, efficient, and healthy. However, rapid changes in the industry have turned some of their data stale, and the absence of suitable context and information invalidate some key analyses and findings. Moreover, the researchers sometimes seem to see the glass as 10 percent empty instead of 90 percent full. A practitioners’ perspective is more positive.

The housing credit generates an array of public benefits while harnessing private investors’ business discipline. Genuinely low‐income tenants occupy the housing. The housing revitalizes low‐income communities. Properties are in good financial and physical condition. The housing credit is also cost effective. The economic fundamentals of producing low‐income rental housing, not the housing credit, necessitate substantial subsidies. A remarkably high proportion of the federal tax‐credit subsidy goes into the housing, and investor returns are modest. Nonprofit‐sponsored production appears to cost more because nonprofits are prominent in high‐cost locations and for other similar reasons, not because nonprofit developers are inefficient.