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.     

You gotta move: advancing the debate on the record of dispersal

This paper summarizes the social science research on the record of housing dispersal programs since 1995. The research shows a consistently disappointing record of benefits to low-income households. Households moved out of high-poverty neighborhoods, voluntarily and involuntarily, show few or no beneficial effects in terms of economic self-sufficiency, health benefits, or social integration. The benefits of dispersal are confined to feelings of greater safety and satisfaction with neighborhood environmental conditions. We offer a framework for understanding the disappointing record of dispersal, highlighting its translation from social science diagnosis to policy, problems in the policy's implementation, its underlying theory of poverty, and the political context within which dispersal has been applied.     

Deciding how to use scarce federal housing aid funds

Abstract

This paper assesses the major forms of federal housing assistance and compares the relative value of each in meeting the housing needs of the nation's low‐ and moderate‐income households. Programs are first identified and described. A ranking system, based on nine criteria of desirability, is then developed and used to compare the programs. The evaluation system presented in this paper represents one method of determining how to allocate scarce federal housing assistance funds. The subjective nature of the evaluation process dictates that other criteria and weighting systems may be legitimately applied. However, to provide a clear decision‐making framework, any such system should clearly explain its assumptions and rationales.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Global inequality as one of the root causes of the financial crisis: a suggested explanation

Abstract

The global financial crisis was caused because the volume of toxic assets in the financial system had grown to the point where the system could no longer cope. The dominant view among heterodox economists is that this point of critical mass was reached because of various failures in the financial system. This paper puts the accompanying view that the toxic assets were created largely in response to external pressures, a principle source of which was global inequality: while income inequality was an important factor behind the supply of those assets, wealth concentration was a major factor behind the demand for them. The policy implications of this analysis are that income distribution and wealth ownership have to be more equitably structured if global financial crises are to be avoided in the future. This is not to exclude other proposals for making the financial system more transparent and accountable. The point, rather, is that these proposals are insufficient on their own. No matter how radical the re-structuring of the financial system, as long as there remain external pressures on it to create products or to indulge in practices that are harmful to it, such products and practices will continue to be introduced and financial crises will continue to occur.     

税收公平伦理视角下的个人所得税制建构

税收公平原则富含社会伦理的思想。对个人所得税的征管,不仅要强调其经济功能,更要关注其社会公正和伦理维护的社会功能。我国的个人所得税制存在纳税人身份确定、纳税能力确定、征税范围确定三个方面的公平伦理扭曲。因此,新的个人所得税构想中应当强调全民纳税、量能负担原则,实行低累进税率和负所得税税率,同时要改进征管模式。