The Evolution of Low‐Income Housing Policy, 1949 to 1999

Abstract

The evolution of low‐income housing policy during the past 50 years can be divided roughly into two segments: the first running from 1949 to the 1973 Nixon moratorium on subsidized production programs and the second from 1973 to the present, marked by a diminished federal leadership role and an increased state and local role. After tracing the rise of the federal leadership role represented in the Housing Acts of 1949 and 1968, this article focuses on the development of three important policy instruments that mark the devolution of housing policy: housing vouchers, housing block grants, and the Low‐Income Housing Tax Credit.

The three‐pronged strategy of vouchers, block grants, and tax credits has achieved reasonably good results and attracted an unusual degree of political consensus. A steady expansion of all three offers the most promising path to the “realization as soon as feasible” of the national housing goal.     

The changing demography of multifamily rental housing

Abstract

The residents of multifamily rental housing are different from both homeowners and single‐family home renters, and these differences have implications for the housing market and for public policy. This article describes apartment residents today, discusses recent changes in their number and characteristics, projects their future growth and composition, and highlights business and policy implications of future changes.

For purposes of business and public policy, a segmentation of apartment residents into three submarkets is useful: the “affordable” market serving low‐ and moderate‐income households, some of which receive government housing assistance; the “lifestyle apartment market” serving higher‐income adult households; and the substantial “middle market.” The number of apartment renters is likely to grow moderately over time. The combination of multifamily structure type and rental tenure form offers unique opportunities not only for provision of affordable housing but also for revitalization of downtown areas and balanced “smart” growth in suburban areas.     

Is preserving small,low-end rental housing feasible?

This paper uses multiple national datasets to examine the financial, structural, neighborhood, and tenant characteristics of 1–4 unit low-end rental properties, which house 44 percent of all poor renters in US cities. We investigate the feasibility of two strategies to stabilize these properties: (1) outsourcing property management, and (2) transferring bundles of properties to large owners to generate economies of scale, cash reserves, and lower financing costs. We find that approximately five percent of small affordable rental properties are stable, 65 percent are salvageable but at risk, and about 30 percent are not salvageable. For roughly 19 percent of the salvageable properties, a key problem is high vacancy rates, which could be addressed by professional tenant placement services. Bundling has greater potential, but requires purchases at below market prices, amounting to a subsidy.     

Housing Choice Vouchers and Crime in Charlotte,NC

Recent media attention and research have focused on the effect of housing vouchers on crime, with different conclusions. The purpose of this study is to bring further evidence to the voucher–crime debate, using annual data from 2000 to 2009 for Charlotte-Mecklenburg County. We study the relationship between crime counts and housing vouchers with quantile regression models with year and census tract fixed effects. We found that voucher households are associated with increased crime, controlling for past crime levels. Estimates vary, however, with the concentration of vouchers in the neighborhood, with little impact in areas with low concentrations. Estimates also vary with the neighborhood crime level. We extend the literature by examining the effect of different voucher family types, finding no evidence that elderly households or nonelderly households without disabilities and without children are associated with more crime. However, we found a very significant positive association for nonelderly households without disabilities with children. Our results indicate that significant crime reductions could be accomplished by focusing U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, local housing agency, and criminal justice resources on the types of places and voucher families most at risk for crime problems when a family uses a voucher to move into a new neighborhood.     

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.     

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.     

A different lens: administrative perspectives on portability in Illinois' Housing Choice Voucher Program

Over the last decade, the Housing Choice Voucher Program has grown to become the USA's primary strategy for providing safe, decent, and affordable housing. Annually serving more than 2 million low-income households, the program is designed to help low-income households afford private market rental housing. The program also allows for the “portability” of vouchers nationally between housing authority jurisdictions. Both features aim to mitigate the effects of concentrated poverty. Research on the Moving to Opportunity Program and the Gautreaux consent decree have produced data confirming that residential mobility can at times lead to positive opportunities for assisted households. This past research has been conducted on specific programs occurring outside of the general Housing Choice Voucher Program framework and has focused on household-level outcomes, paying little attention to the ways in which program administration may affect outcomes for voucher households. This article aims to understand voucher portability from the perspective of housing authority executive directors and program administrators, in order to better understand how program administration impacts the types of household outcomes observed in prior research. The results reveal that housing authority administrative practices and inter-housing authority relationships play a significant role in shaping the types of outcomes realized by porting voucher households. These findings suggest several changes to program administrative design and policy that may improve support for voucher households as they make portability moves.     

Impacts of Heading Home Hennepin's Housing First programs for long-term homeless adults

This paper evaluates the impact of Heading Home Hennepin’s Housing First programs for long-term homeless individuals with work-limiting disabilities. These programs combine subsidized housing and extensive case management services to help program participants maintain stable housing. Using a matched comparison of housing-first participants and nonparticipants residing in public shelters, this study finds that housing-first placement is associated with a substantial decrease in public shelter use, an increase in public health insurance coverage, and a decrease in arrests and incarceration. Most of the decline in arrests is due to decreases in arrests for livability and drug-related charges and not for violent or property crime.     

The impact of source of income laws on voucher utilization

Vouchers are lauded both for being the most efficient way of delivering housing assistance to needy households and for the potential to allow poor households to access better neighborhoods. The success of vouchers is of course predicated on recipients being able to successfully use a voucher. For a number of reasons, including discrimination by landlords on the basis of source of income (i.e. a voucher), voucher recipients frequently cannot find apartments to lease. Using a difference-in-differences approach the research reported here examines how Source of Income anti-discrimination laws affect the utilization of housing vouchers.

The findings indicate that utilization rates are higher among Local Housing Authorities in jurisdictions with Source of Income anti-discrimination laws. These findings suggest such laws can be an effective tool for increasing the rate at which vouchers are successfully utilized. In a time of scarce resources for affordable housing this is an important policy tool that should not be over looked.     

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.