The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Abstract
More than 18 months after the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, thousands of low-income people remain in FEMA trailer parks. Social science research teaches us that clustering large numbers of vulnerable families in isolated, underserved communities is a recipe for disaster. Public policies should focus on providing meaningful, permanent housing choices in decent neighborhoods for the low-income families currently living in trailers. In addition, as long as some families remain in trailer communities, they need on-site services to counteract the damaging effects of isolation and distress.
The text below is an excerpt from the complete document. Read the full paper in PDF format.
Introduction
More than 18 months after the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, too many low-income families remain in FEMA trailer parks. The numbers seem to change day by day, but recent reports indicate that thousands of displaced renters live in over 115 group trailer sites constructed, managed, or funded by FEMA (Garratt 2007). I visited one of these sites almost a year ago and saw hundreds of tiny trailers lined up in efficient rows in a huge, fenced-in field, miles from schools, jobs, grocery stores, playgrounds, or doctors offices. Despite the best efforts of the management staff, it epitomized everything that housing policy can do wrong for families.
Dangers of Poverty Concentration
Social science research teaches us that clustering large numbers of vulnerable families in isolated, underserved communities is a recipe for disaster. Historically, many federally subsidized rental housing projects have made the same mistake, clustering poor families—especially minorities—in distressed inner-city neighborhoods. In these neighborhoods, jobs are scarce, schools are often ineffective, crime and violence are common, and young people see few opportunities for success (Schill and Wachter 1995; Turner and Rawlings 2005).
A growing body of research evidence indicates that living in these high-poverty communities undermines the long-term life chances of families and children—cutting off access to mainstream social and economic opportunities (Ellen and Turner 1997). Low-income families that live in distressed, high-poverty neighborhoods face especially daunting challenges as they attempt to leave welfare, find jobs, earn adequate livings, and raise their children. For example, children who grow up in distressed neighborhoods and attend high-poverty, poor-performing schools are less likely to succeed academically, complete high school, or attend college. Young people who are surrounded by unemployment, drug use, and crime—and whose peers encourage these activities—are more likely to become caught up in dangerous or criminal activities. And adults who live in neighborhoods that are isolated from job opportunities (by distance or due to poor public transportation) are less likely to work steadily. Young children—especially those shaken by the trauma and displacement of the storms—are particularly vulnerable to the damage of living in a high-poverty, distressed environment (Golden 2006).
Experience from communities across the country provides a growing body of evidence that low-income families are likely to enjoy better health and long-term life chances if they have the opportunity to live in safe and healthy communities that offer access to jobs and are served by well-performing public schools (Briggs and Turner 2006). And when affordable housing is more widely dispersed, well-designed, and effectively managed, it can be an asset to the communities in which it is located. In fact, rigorous statistical analyses indicate that neither housing vouchers nor subsidized housing developments undermine property values in the surrounding neighborhoods as long as they are properly sited and well-managed (Galster, Tatian, and Smith 1999; Galster, Santiago, and Tatian 2001; Galster, Tatian, and Pettit 2004).
The complete paper is available in PDF format.
The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Usage, posting and reprint of materials on the UI web site:
Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site in PDF format. This information may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required.
Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact paffairs@urban.org.
If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.
Latest Research
Browse by Topic:
PDF
Printer-friendly summary
