View Research by Author - Megan Gallagher

Megan Gallagher is a Research Associate in the Urban Institute's Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center. She manages complex projects and collects and analyzes data from surveys, administrative databases, in-depth interviews, and media. Ms. Gallagher has conducted research studies on housing and community development, child well-being, and welfare-to-work programs. Her work focuses on improving housing and educational opportunities for low-income families. Recently, Ms. Gallagher analyzed the potential benefits of Individual Development Accounts for low-income homebuyers. She reported on the well-being of the children of former public housing residents and managed the survey analysis for the HOPE VI Panel Study. She is currently completing a case study on the State of Louisiana's pilot alternative to FEMA travel trailers and a study that assesses the extent to which Section 8 voucher holders in Washington, DC are taking advantage of affordable housing in opportunity-rich neighborhoods.

Prior to joining the Urban Institute in 2005, Ms. Gallagher examined the impacts of experimental welfare programs on adult, child, and family well-being at Child Trends. During her tenure at Child Trends, she co-authored several publications on child well-being and employment among low-income mothers. She holds a Master of Public Policy degree from Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute (GPPI) and a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology and Social Welfare from the University of Wisconsin?Madison.

MGallagher@urban.org

Publications

Child outcomes have been a special focus for the HOPE VI Panel Study since the baseline study in 2001. On one hand, children are the most likely to benefit in important ways from improved housing quality such as exposure to lead paint or mold. On the other hand, moving can disrupt their education and friendships and put older youth at risk for conflict with local gangs. This brief examines how relocation has affected the well-being of the youngest former Madden/Wells residents. We find that these youth are doing relatively well; however, there are some reasons for concern, especially for boys.

This overview presents findings from the Chicago Panel Study, a follow up to the Urban Institute’s five-site HOPE VI Panel Study, to assess how the residents are faring as the Plan for Transformation progresses. We find that after 10 years, the story for CHA families is far more positive than many observers—including ourselves— would have predicted at the outset. Regardless of where they have moved, most families in our study are living in considerably better circumstances. However, the study also highlights the serious challenges that remain, most significantly, residents’ extremely poor health and persistently low rates of employment.

This study provides the first evidence available on loan terms and foreclosure outcomes among individuals who purchased their home through individual development account (IDA) programs. Our results suggest that IDA homebuyers are more likely to receive government-insured loans and less likely to receive high interest rate or subprime loans than other low-income homebuyers. Further, we find that foreclosure rates for IDA homebuyers were one-half to one-third the rate for other low-income homebuyers in the same communities. Overall, the findings suggest that participation in an IDA program with its related services can improve homeownership outcomes for low-income households.

This report addresses two questions about outcomes for firms receiving assistance through SBA's 7(a), CDC 504, or SBIC programs between 1999 and 2001: 1) what happens to sales, employment, and survival before and after firms receive SBA financing; and 2) what explains the changes observed in sales or employment after firms receive SBA financing? Descriptive analyses found that prior to financing and each year thereafter, average sales increased over time, as did average employment. Multivariate analyses found that firm age, industry, and region of the country were significantly related to percent change in sales and employment for all three programs.

This report synthesizes the findings, conclusions, and policy recommendations derived from six reports generated by our evaluation of SBA's 7(a) Loan Guaranty, CDC 504 Loan, MicroLoan, and SBIC programs. The various studies were conducted to address three key research questions of particular interest to SBA and its constituents: 1) Does SBA assistance help the firms that receive it? 2) To what extent does SBA assistance serve its market? 3) Do SBA programs duplicate or overlap with other public sector programs?

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.

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.

Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of HOPE VI relocation. While they are the most likely to benefit in important ways from improved housing quality—and reduced exposure to risks like lead paint or mold—and from safer, less distressed neighborhoods, moving can disrupt their education and friendships and even put older youth at risk for conflict with local gangs. Where they moved was also significant. Children whose families moved to the private market with vouchers are doing better, while those whose families moved to other traditional public housing are not faring as well. Girls, in particular, are suffering from the ill effects of being left behind in developments that are becoming increasingly dangerous and chaotic as vacancies increase.

Data from the 2002 National Survey of America's Families shows that school engagement declined from 43 percent in 1997 to 35 percent in 2002 among 6- to 11-year-olds. School engagement also declined for 12- to 17-year-olds from 38 to 31 percent. The share of young children whose parents read or told stories to them infrequently dropped from 17 to 14 percent. Higher-income children showed some small setbacks in their behavioral and emotional health.

States with the greatest gaps between rich and poor generally have a larger proportion of their children living in poverty. Of the 13 states studied, California, Mississippi, New York, and Texas have the most inequality in family income available to children. The authors combine six common measures of inequality into a composite inequality index. They conclude that states with the most poor children may have resources available in their state to increase the material well being of poor children.

Return to list of authors