Research by Author & Topic

Publications by G. Thomas Kingsley on Federal Programs and Policies

Neighborhoods likely to be the hardest hit by foreclosure impacts in 2009 are those that experienced the highest densities of subprime (high-cost) lending during the peak 2004-2006 period. This brief examines patterns of such lending in the 100 largest metropolitan areas. The very highest subprime densities were found in minority neighborhoods that were, interestingly, at the higher rather than the lower end of the income spectrum. But there was considerable variety in characteristics among the most troubled. Of the fifth of census tracts that ranked highest in subprime density, 35 percent had predominantly white populations and 60 percent were in the suburbs.

Housing costs constitute the single biggest expenditure in most family budgets, and many low-income families have difficulty finding housing they can reasonably afford. Although most family-strengthening and community change initiatives recognize the urgency of the housing problems facing low-income families, they often have difficulty figuring out how to constructively address them. Federal housing programs are numerous and confusing, implementation is balkanized, funding falls woefully short of needs, and policy debates often focus on narrow technical issues. This primer demystifies federal rental assistance programs and provides the most current information available on how many (and who) they serve and how their scale is changing. It also summarizes key challenges facing housing policy today and in the coming years—challenges that may create opportunities for federal, state, and local engagement and innovation.

The District of Columbia Housing Monitor provides a quarterly look at the Washington, D.C., housing market, tracking home prices, real estate listings, new construction, and affordable housing. This issue's special section provides the most extensive tracking to date of the city's subsidized affordable housing stock, reporting numbers of units by location, program type, ownership, and expiration of affordability restrictions.

Families in HUD's Moving to Opportunity program had the chance to move to neighborhoods with lower poverty, lower crime rates and, presumably, more opportunities for employment, good schools and better quality of life. Did they benefit from the moves and did they remain there to continue those benefits? This brief identifies patterns of moving for MTO families and the characteristics of the neighborhoods both from and to which they moved.

A booming regional and local economy and constraints on housing production have combined to create unprecedented housing price inflation in the District of Columbia and present added challenges for the city's goal of preserving an "Inclusive City." This report offers a brief summary of the facts that define the new housing market environment in the city and summarizes the main themes of the Comprehensive Housing Strategy Task Force. In it we identify policy instruments other U.S. cities have utilized to respond to the housing market pressures and whether there are any lessons of relevance for the next stages of strategy implementation in the District.

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.

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.

The District of Columbia Housing Monitor will provide a quarterly look at current trends in the D.C. housing market. Each report will use the most recent available data to illuminate housing market and affordable housing trends. In addition, each report will include a special focus section that will analyze, in greater depth, developments that are shaping the District of Columbia housing landscape. In this issue, the special section goes beyond the standard citywide perspective and offers a neighborhood-by-neighborhood view of home sales trends throughout Washington, D.C.

Over the past decade, the HOPE VI program has invested over $5 billion in federal funds in the replacement or revitalization of severely distressed public housing developments. The current administration at HUD has been critical of the high costs of HOPE VI, and proposes that the program should be cut back dramatically or even eliminated. By our estimates, however, between 47,000 and 82,000 severely distressed units remain in the public housing inventory. Tackling the remaining inventory of severely distressed public housing would be costly. But doing nothing about distressed public housing has costs as well. This paper summarizes the existing research evidence on the costs of doing nothing about the remaining inventory of severely distressed public housing.

The Urban Institute's Center on Metropolitan Housing and Communities has just released two major reviews of research on the HOPE VI experience to date that offer five fundamental lessons for the next generation of public housing revitalization. The research record strongly supports continuing a flexible investment initiative like HOPE VI. But HOPE VI (or a successor) can and should be substantially strengthened based on lessons learned to date. In addition, the HOPE VI experience has broader applicability to the public housing program as a whole.