Broken Promises or Selective Memory Planning? A National Picture of HOPE VI Plans and Realities

Government efforts to redevelop public housing often face a contentious gap between plans and realities. This paper compares 2014 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administrative data on housing unit counts and unit mixes for all 260 developments receiving Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE VI) revitalization grants with data provided in the original HOPE VI grant award announcements. We find that HUD records undercount approximately 11,500 once-proposed units. The biggest changes were a 29% decline in the number of market-rate units and a 40% decline in homeownership units. The chief shortfall during implementation, therefore, was not with public housing units (although the HOPE VI program as a whole did trigger an overall decline of such units). To help elucidate the dynamics at play when the unit allocation shifts between initial grant award and implemented project, we include a series of five brief case studies that illustrate several types of unit change. Interviews with HUD staff confirm the baseline for record-keeping shifted during implementation once project economic feasibility became clearer; adherence to original unit mix proposals remained secondary. HUD prioritized its accountability to Congress and developers over its public law accountability to build the projects initially proposed to local community residents. Although these changes have sometimes been interpreted as broken promises, it is even clearer that HUD’s monitoring system exemplifies what we call Selective Memory Planning: when planners and policy makers, willfully or not, selectively ignore elements of previous plans in favor of new plans that are easier to achieve.     

HOPE VI–a viable strategy for improving neighborhood conditions and resident self-sufficiency? The case of Maverick Gardens in Boston

This article considers whether the HOPE VI program has achieved two of its key goals: improving neighborhood conditions and increasing resident self-sufficiency. Findings from the Maverick Gardens HOPE VI program in Boston, Massachusetts are presented and discussed in the context of other research on HOPE VI and other relocation initiatives.

Evidence from the Boston site affirms that the combination of relocation and redevelopment can lead to dramatic improvements in neighborhood quality for many – but not all – residents. Self-sufficiency outcomes, on the other hand, were not achieved: employment did not change, job networks were not expanded to new neighbors, and some residents experienced a decline in economic stability as a result of the program. Why HOPE VI has failed to improve neighborhood conditions for all residents and why it has failed to impact resident self-sufficiency is discussed, and how program goals and strategies might be adjusted to make it more effective is considered.     

Government Assistance Protects Low‐Income Families from Eviction

A lack of affordable housing is a pressing issue for many low‐income American families and can lead to eviction from their homes. Housing assistance programs to address this problem include public housing and other assistance, including vouchers, through which a government agency offsets the cost of private market housing. This paper assesses whether the receipt of either category of assistance reduces the probability that a family will be evicted from their home in the subsequent six years. Because no randomized trial has assessed these effects, we use observational data and formalize the conditions under which a causal interpretation is warranted. Families living in public housing experience less eviction conditional on pre‐treatment variables. We argue that this evidence points toward a causal conclusion that assistance, particularly public housing, protects families from eviction.     

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.     

The Effects of a Housing Mobility Experiment on Participants’ Residential Environments

We used the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) housing experiment to inform how Housing Choice Vouchers and housing mobility policies can assist families living in high-poverty areas to make opportunity moves to higher quality neighborhoods, across a wide range of neighborhood attributes. We compared the neighborhood attainment of the three randomly assigned MTO treatment groups (low-poverty voucher, Section 8 voucher, control group) at 1997 and 2002 locations (4–7 years after baseline), using survey reports, and by linking residential histories to numerous different administrative and population-based data sets. Compared with controls, families in low-poverty and Section 8 groups experienced substantial improvements in neighborhood conditions across diverse measures, including economic conditions, social systems (e.g., collective efficacy), physical features of the environment (e.g., tree cover) and health outcomes. The low-poverty voucher group, moreover, achieved better neighborhood attainment compared with Section 8. Treatment effects were largest for New York, New York, and Los Angeles, California. We discuss the implications of our findings for expanding affordable housing policy.     

How Affordable Is HUD Affordable Housing?

This article assesses the affordability of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rental assistance properties from the perspective of transportation costs. HUD housing is, by definition, affordable from the standpoint of housing costs due to limits on the amounts renters are required to pay. However, there are no such limitations on transportation costs, and common sense suggests that renters in remote locations may be forced to pay more than 15% of income, a nominal affordability standard, for transportation costs. Using household travel models estimated with data from 15 diverse regions around the United States, we estimated and summed automobile capital costs, automobile operating costs, and transit fare costs for households at 8,857 HUD rental assistance properties. The mean percentage of income expended on transportation is 15% for households at the high end of the eligible income scale. However, in highly sprawling metropolitan areas, and in suburban areas of more compact metropolitan areas, much higher percentages of households exceed the 15% ceiling. This suggests that locational characteristics of properties should be considered for renewal when HUD contracts expire for these properties, based on location and hence on transportation affordability.     

Do Neighborhood Effects on Low-Income Minority Children Depend on Their Age? Evidence From a Public Housing Natural Experiment

We analyze data from a natural experiment involving Denver public housing that quasirandomly assigns low-income Latino and African American youth to neighborhoods. Intent-to-treat and treatment-on-treated models reveal substantial effects of neighborhood socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and safety domains on youth and young adult educational, employment, and fertility outcomes. Effects are contingent on when a youth was first assigned to public housing and the neighborhood characteristic in question. Benefits from neighbors of higher occupational prestige are stronger if a child begins experiencing them at a younger age, whereas negative consequences of neighborhood crime are only manifested for teens. Neighborhood effect sizes apparently depend on the interaction among exposure duration, disruption effects of mobility, and developmental stage-specific differences in vulnerability to the given neighborhood effect mechanism operative. Our results hold powerful and provocative implications for where assisted housing should be developed and how applicants should be assigned to neighborhoods.     

It’s Good but Is It Right? An Under-the-Hood View of the Location Affordability Index

In 2012, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) released the Location Affordability Index (LAI) as an online portal and downloadable data set. The LAI has elevated the U.S. conversation on affordability to include transportation and access to opportunities, and has been used in state and federal programming, by researchers, and by private households. However, although some researchers have noted concerns with and potential limitations of the data, none has provided practitioners and researchers with an under-the-hood view of the data, analysis of its reliability or validity, or its conceptual limitations. This article recommends methodological improvements dealing with issues of variable construction, aggregation, and modeling. A recreation of the LAI at the census-tract level suggests the LAI overestimates both costs and cost burden, but especially among renters, and especially in metropolitan areas. On the transportation side, model recreation requires partnership and resourcing to both gain access to restricted data and to develop a reliable database on transit supply and use.     

Does the Likely Demographics of Affordable Housing Justify NIMBYism?

ABSTRACT

NIMBYism (not in my backyard) decreases the amount of affordable housing construction. A possible motivator for this is an existing homeowner’s fear that proximity to affordable housing depresses property value. Using a hedonic regression analysis of the sales prices of homes in Sacramento County, California, this study finds that increases in the demographic characteristics in a census tract that are likely to increase if more affordable housing is built there lower the sales price of a home. This finding holds even after controlling for the percentages of racial/ethnic groups more likely to face discrimination. Policymakers should recognize this economic element of NIMBYism as they consider instruments to increase the amount of affordable housing built. We conclude with a suggestion for a knowingly controversial policy mechanism based upon cap and trade with the hope it will spur further debate on this issue.