Research by Author & Topic

Publications by Diane K. Levy on Housing

HOPE VI supports demolishing large, dilapidated public housing and replacing it with smaller-scale, more appealing properties. What makes this feasible (mixed financing; private-sector entities; and mixed-income, mixed-tenure complexes) also creates conditions that challenge and can undermine long-term sustainability. Sustainability has not yet been assessed and whether it should or can be assessed has been questioned. With input from housing practitioners and insight from a trial exploration of two HOPE VI redevelopments, this report demonstrates the need for, and feasibility of, conducting an assessment that can assist both private owners and public agencies in sustaining this valuable resource.

This report, commissioned by the D.C. Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking, examines the extent of subprime lending in the District of Columbia and the resulting impacts on residents and neighborhoods. The study found that subprime lending was concentrated in predominantly African-American, moderate-income neighborhoods, areas that are now experiencing a sharp rise in home foreclosures. The report recommends a number of actions to protect the city's homeowners and neighborhoods, including stronger monitoring of mortgage lenders, better outreach and education for home owners and home buyers, and creation of a loan fund to help persons refinance out of bad loans.

The Chicago Process Study was initiated in 2001 to document and assess the early implementation of the HOPE VI redevelopment at the Madden and Wells public housing developments and the changes occurring in the surrounding neighborhoods. Through the study, Urban Institute researchers have provided feedback to the Chicago Housing Authority on HOPE VI-related activities with the idea that findings might inform later stages of redevelopment as well as other public housing redevelopment efforts. This final report examines the status of site development of Oakwood Shores, the breadth of neighborhood change surrounding the HOPE VI site, public housing resident relocation, and supportive services available to current and former residents of the Madden and Wells public housing developments as of autumn 2005.

The HOPE VI program has invested over $6 billion in federal funds for the redevelopment of severely distressed public housing. Drawing on the existing research evidence, this study systematically compares the costs (both monetary and nonmonetary) of maintaining severely distressed public housing developments to the potential costs and benefits of effectively revitalizing them. An effective redevelopment strategy can dramatically improve living conditions for families, resulting in better physical and mental health and increased employment and earnings. Moreover, redevelopment can trigger the revitalization of previously blighted communities. These outcomes also save public resources. In fact, for a typical distressed public housing project, mixed-income redevelopment can save the public more than $20 million over 20 years.

Most former HOPE VI residents have received Housing Choice Vouchers; these residents, who are now living in private-market housing are doing well in many ways. Compared with those who moved to traditional public housing developments, those who moved with vouchers are living in significantly better quality housing in neighborhoods that are lower poverty and dramatically safer. On most measures, they are substantially better off than those who have moved to other traditional public housing developments, particularly on the those outcomes directly affected by HOPE VI relocation: the quality of their housing, their neighborhoods, and their perceptions of safety. But while the story is generally positive, it is also clear that many voucher holders are struggling to cope with the financial challenges of living in the private market. Moving out of public housing presents new financial management challenges, such as paying rent on time and being responsible for separate utility payments, which are usually included in the rent in public housing. Relocation assistance and updated utility allowances could ease the burden of these challenges for those moving to the private market with Housing Choice Vouchers.

In addition to providing residents with an improved living environment, the HOPE VI program seeks to help them attain self-sufficiency. However, while there have been dramatic improvements in quality of life, there have been no overall changes in employment. HOPE VI residents' poor health impedes their ability to work. Efforts that address physical and mental health and other key barriers, such as education and safe, affordable child care availability, could prove more effective than job training or placement efforts alone in improving the chances that former and current public housing residents move into employment or retain jobs they already have.

The HOPE VI program has invested over $6 billion in federal funds for the redevelopment of severely distressed public housing. Drawing on the existing research evidence, this study systematically compares the costs (both monetary and nonmonetary) of maintaining severely distressed public housing developments to the potential costs and benefits of effectively revitalizing them. An effective redevelopment strategy can dramatically improve living conditions for families, resulting in better physical and mental health and increased employment and earnings. Moreover, redevelopment can trigger the revitalization of previously blighted communities. These outcomes also save public resources. In fact, for a typical distressed public housing project, mixed-income redevelopment can save the public more than $20 million over 20 years.

This report explores strategies used by nonprofit organizations, for-profit developers, and city agencies to ensure low- to-moderate-income residents can live in revitalizing neighborhoods. Strategies used to prevent displacement are influenced by a number of factors, including housing market strength, political climate and organizational capacity. Through six case studies, researchers consider the impact of timing on strategy selection and implementation to untangle whether certain approaches work better in different housing-market contexts. See the companion document, Keeping the Neighborhood Affordable: A Handbook of Housing Strategies for Gentrifying Areas, for a discussion of additional affordable housing strategies.

This handbook describes a wide range of strategies that local governments, developers, and nonprofit organizations can use to create and retain affordable housing in their communities. Fifteen strategies for addressing affordable housing are discussed. The strategies are divided into three categories: housing production, housing retention, and asset building. The handbook adds to the body of literature on affordable housing strategies by considering the interplay of strategy implementation and housing-market context. The document serves as a companion piece for the report, In the Face of Gentrification: Case Studies of Local Efforts to Mitigate Displacement.

City governments have an important role to play in creating support for the inclusion of affordable housing in revitalizing neighborhoods, and that role extends beyond expressing concern about the impact of revitalization on individual households. As important as such concern is, leaders also need to make the case that displacement of poorer families due to increasing housing costs hurts the entire community. By framing the discussion around the value of economically diverse communities, local government leaders can help smooth the way for initiatives to preserve and increase the affordable housing stock.