The What,Where, and When of Place-Based Housing Policy’s Neighborhood Effects

Ever-scarce affordable housing production resources, in addition to their primary function of providing housing for those in need, are increasingly enlisted for the dual goals of strengthening distressed communities and increasing access to higher opportunity neighborhoods. Information on spillovers can inform investment decisions over time and across communities. We leverage recent, high-quality research on neighborhood effects of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) production, synthesizing evidence according to neighborhood context. We also summarize the evidence on project features moderating impacts of publicly subsidized, place-based rental housing, in general. We conclude that context matters. Producing LIHTC housing in distressed neighborhoods positively impacts the surrounding neighborhood—in terms of modest property value gains and increased safety. By contrast, higher opportunity neighborhoods experience small property value reductions, and no impacts on crime. Big questions remain, however, about impact heterogeneity—via tenant mix, property design, and ongoing property management, as examples—with the scarcity of systematic data representing one of the field’s largest constraints.     

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.     

Gateway to Opportunity? Disparities in Neighborhood Conditions Among Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Residents

A key goal of housing assistance programs is to help lower income households reach neighborhoods of opportunity. Studies have described the degree to which Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) developments are located in high-opportunity neighborhoods, but our focus is on how neighborhood outcomes vary across different subsets of LIHTC residents. We also examine whether LIHTC households are better able to reach certain types of neighborhood opportunities. Specifically, we use new data on LIHTC tenants in 12 states along with eight measures of neighborhood opportunity. We find that compared with other rental units, LIHTC units are located in neighborhoods with higher poverty rates, weaker labor markets, more polluted environments, and lower performing schools, but better transit access. We also find that compared with other LIHTC tenants, poor and minority tenants live in neighborhoods that are significantly more disadvantaged.     

Comment on Kirk McClure's “Are low-income housing tax credit developments locating where there is a shortage of affordable units?”

Kirk McClure's article makes important contributions to our understanding of the way in which state allocating agencies are using the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). However, one of the premises of his analysis – that allocating agencies should encourage the location housing developments in census tracts with a “surplus” of low-income renters – is mistaken. Census tracts are too small to be considered closed-system housing markets. Additionally, the LIHTC program does not exist in isolation, but instead as part of a combined national rental housing policy that includes both supply-side programs (LIHTC) and demand-side programs (housing vouchers). A final flaw in the notion that LIHTC units should be built in census tracts with a surplus of renter households in the 30% to 60% of AMI range compared with the units affordable to them is that increasing the amount of affordable housing in those tracts could have the effect of further concentrating households by income and race.     

Comment on Dennis P. Culhane et al.’s “Public shelter admission rates in Philadelphia and New York City: The implications of turnover for sheltered population counts”

Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) developments serve renter households with incomes between 30% and 60% of Area Median Family Income. Ideally, the program places units into neighborhoods where there is a shortage of units serving this cohort. LIHTC units are allocated to developers by state agencies through their Qualified Allocation Plans which should direct units to areas of need. Using a national database, this research examines where LIHTC developments were placed in service to determine whether these developments enter tracts experiencing shortages.

The LIHTC program is not directing units to those census tracts where there is a latent demand for units in this rent range. Rather, it is placing units into tracts that have surpluses. Equally, the program is not placing units in tracts with little or no affordable housing. This suggests that the program is not breaking down the income separation that exists in the nation's housing markets.     

The Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit An Analysis of the First Ten Years

Abstract

The Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) has been the de facto federal rental housing production program since its creation in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. In this article, using a detailed database on 2,554 LIHTC projects, we analyze the costs of building these projects, where they are built, their financial viability, whom they serve, who finances them, and the size of the subsidies provided to them.

The LIHTC is a flexible program that has built different types of housing in various markets. While LIHTC projects serve low‐ and moderate‐income households, their rents are beyond the reach of many poor households without additional subsidy. Revenues just cover costs for many LIHTC projects. Over time, considerably more of each tax‐credit dollar has ended up in the projects, and returns to equity investors have dropped significantly, perhaps reflecting an increased understanding of project risks. We estimate that LIHTC projects developed by nonprofits are 20.3 percent more expensive than those developed by for‐profits.     

The low income housing tax credit and racial segregation

This paper addresses a critical but almost unexamined aspect of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program – whether its use (and in particular, the siting of developments in high-poverty/high-minority neighborhoods), is associated with increased racial segregation in the metropolitan area. Using data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Census, supplemented with data on the racial composition of LIHTC tenants in three states, we examine three potential channels through which the LIHTC could affect segregation: where LIHTC units are built relative to where other low income households live, who lives in these tax credit developments, and changes in neighborhood racial composition in neighborhoods that receive tax credit projects. The evidence on each of these channels suggests that LIHTC projects do not contribute to increased segregation, even those in high poverty neighborhoods. We find that increases in the use of tax credits are associated with declines in racial segregation at the metropolitan level.     

Challenges in the Creation of Mixed-Use Affordable Housing: Measuring and Explaining Its Limited Prevalence

ABSTRACT

Mixed-use affordable housing buildings collocate residences and commercial uses. The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program provides one mechanism to fund such structures. But the literature offers little insight into the frequency of mixed-use LIHTC buildings, partly because of a lack of data identifying them, and it does not pinpoint conditions that facilitate their development. I explore these issues through a Chicago, Illinois, case study. First, I analyze imagery to create the first database of mixed-use LIHTC buildings. I show that only 5% of LIHTC structures incorporate commercial uses, and that these are concentrated in wealthier, whiter, and already retail-heavy neighborhoods. Second, I use stakeholder interviews to explain the low rate and selective location of mixed-use projects; I find that the stiffest barriers are conflicting governmental policies, difficulties securing financing in the context of a perception of weak retail demand and investor desires for reliable returns, and design constraints.     

How Location Efficient Is LIHTC? Measuring and Explaining State-Level Achievement

A growing recognition that the cost of transportation should be included in calculations of housing affordability has led to efforts to promote location efficiency (LE) in affordable housing policy. Because the program is responsible for most new affordable housing in the United States, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program has the potential to be a link between housing affordability and LE. This research analyzes the extent to which LIHTC units built between 2007 and 2011 were in location-efficient places. Ordinary least squares regression analysis was used to test the role of market, policy, developer, and urban form factors in determining state-level LIHTC LE. We find that for the nation as a whole, from a quarter to half of LIHTC units added during this period were in location-efficient places, depending on the LE criteria applied. State-by-state comparisons showed wide variation in both our absolute measures of LIHTC LE and our relative measures of LIHTC LE compared with overall housing in each state. State policy and nonprofit developers were associated with higher LIHTC LE and had a positive effect on a state’s ability to outperform its underlying urban form.     

Addressing the Affordable Housing Crisis for Vulnerable Renters: Insights From Broward County on an Affordable Housing Acquisition Tool

South Florida is experiencing an affordable rental crisis that is especially burdensome on those most vulnerable in society, low-income households. Rapid urbanization has resulted in inequitable land-use patterns that are a barrier to housing for the poor. As a solution to the crisis, local housing agencies seek to expand their affordable housing stock for vulnerable renters in opportunity-rich neighborhoods, but there is no standard framework for identifying properties for acquisition. Broward County serves as a case study to develop a housing acquisition tool. Using a combination of spatial statistics and principal components analysis, neighborhoods in which housing agencies may consider acquiring property are identified through the creation of an affordability surface in ArcGIS. Affordability is overlain by an opportunity surface derived from neighborhood quality and accessibility rankings. The results identify neighborhoods in Broward County that are both affordable and opportunity-rich, to better serve the county's most vulnerable renters.     

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.     

Do Shrinking Cities Allow Redevelopment Without Displacement? An Analysis of Affordability Based on Housing and Transportation Costs for Redeveloping,Declining, and Stable Neighborhoods

Abstract

Plans and policies to combat or mitigate gentrification typically pursue affordable housing production and preservation as the primary mechanism to avoid displacement. However, it is unclear whether affordable housing financing mechanisms function as designed in weak market cities. As such, we question whether the housing-only approach is a complete one and whether increased transportation investments in redeveloping neighborhoods in shrinking cities can be leveraged to improve the lives of the poor. Our results suggest that funding for subsidized housing does not produce units affordable to the poor in declining cities, limiting the efficacy of a housing-only approach. Furthermore, we find that transportation costs make up a larger proportion of household budgets among families living in declining neighborhoods. These results suggest that transportation improvements—particularly those aimed at bicycling and pedestrian accessibility—may be the most efficient approach to mitigating displacement and improving quality of life for low-income households in shrinking cities.     

Housing vouchers versus housing production: Assessing long‐term costs

Abstract

Possibly the single largest debate in the field of affordable rental housing concerns the use of tenant‐based assistance versus project‐based assistance. The accepted wisdom is that project‐based assistance costs anywhere from 50 to 100 percent more than tenant‐based assistance. This premium for project‐based housing is based on a comparison of subsidy costs at the start of a project's life rather than on a comparison of the discounted present value of the costs over the long term.

The subsidy costs of samples of Section 8 new construction projects have been compared to those of Section 8 certificates over a long period of time. The results indicate that the cost premium associated with project‐based assistance may be lower than conventionally believed, around 40 percent, and may get even lower if the cost comparison could extend to longer time periods and could control for the quality of the housing units.     

Whose shortage of affordable housing?

Abstract

Shortfalls of low‐rent units are repeatedly cited as the rationale for programs to expand the supply of affordable housing. But the poverty‐level rents studied fall well below those of major supply programs. To reassess whether HOME and the low‐income housing tax credit (LIHTC) address actual shortfalls, this article compares numbers of units with renters by measuring both affordability and incomes with the median‐income‐based metric used for all federal rental programs.

During the 1980s, there were growing surpluses of units affordable to renters with incomes between 50 and 80 percent of their area's median income, a “low‐income” range that includes most HOME and LIHTC rents. By contrast, shortages were severe and growing only at rents affordable to households with incomes below 30 percent of area median. Examination of these shortfalls and the problems they create implies that programs to expand supply are not widely 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.     

Housing Subsidies and Early Childhood Development: A Comprehensive Review of Policies and Demonstration Projects

ABSTRACT

In this article, we ask how housing subsidies might influence young children. We examine two national housing policies – public housing assistance and the Section 8 vouchers program – and two demonstration projects that aimed to improve the administration of providing housing subsidies – HOPE (Homeownership Opportunities for People Everywhere) VI and Moving to Opportunity. This article is a critical examination of these policies and demonstration projects in relation to the following housing dimensions that promote the healthy development of young children: income supplements residential stability, physical environment, access to services and amenities, housing choice, neighborhood safety, and social capital. We compared advantages and limitations of each of these national housing policies and demonstration projects and examined ways in which they might influence children in these housing dimensions. The article concludes with implications and future research directions for U.S. housing policy by discussing its most recent U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) initiative, Rental Assistance Demonstration, in addressing limitations of housing policies and demonstration projects we examined.     

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.     

How Do People-Based Housing Policies Affect People (and Place)?

Assisted housing programs in the United States aim to provide decent, safe, and affordable housing for low-income households. Increasingly, policymakers have also considered how assisted housing can provide access to lower poverty, income-diverse, and higher opportunity neighborhoods. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development currently balances two strategies. First, place-based programs—immoveable subsidies linked to particular units—can both revitalize distressed neighborhoods and provide access to higher opportunity neighborhoods. Second, people-based assistance—housing vouchers for use on the private rental market—can facilitate moves out of high-poverty, low-opportunity neighborhoods. During this policy moment with fair housing priorities receiving national attention, understanding the efficacy of each approach is critically important. This article synthesizes past research on housing vouchers to identify the impact of people-based assistance on four outcomes: residents’ neighborhood attainment, education, economic outcomes, and health. I also review the scant literature examining how vouchers affect place rather than people. I conclude by identifying aspects of special voucher programs that promote positive outcomes that could potentially be scaled up.     

Preservation policies in perspective

Abstract

This paper looks at the housing stock serving low‐income households and provides recommendations for future analysis and action. It concludes that too little attention is being paid to preserving the stock of unassisted units affordable by very low‐income families. This stock has shrunk in recent years, while the number of poverty‐level families has increased. Several recommendations for action by local governments are enumerated. Moreover, while much attention is focused on preserving projects developed under early federal assistance programs, policies for preserving units developed under the Section 8 program are needed to preserve owners’ incentives for maintaining these projects. Additionally, preservation issues must be considered in designing any new production programs. The paper outlines one option for a new program with a radically simplified financing structure.