 A Research Focus of the Urban Institute
For over 35 years, Urban Institute researchers have examined how well federal housing policies serve needy families and the communities in which they live.
About the Research
The stated goal of federal housing policy is "a decent home in a suitable living environment for every American family." But as a nation, we have never come close to achieving this goal. As Hurricane Katrina taught us, much substandard housing has been clustered in poor inner-city neighborhoods, raising rates of poverty and accompanying woes.
During the 1990s, federal housing policies changed course, putting greater emphasis on creating healthy mixed-income communities and assisting poor families who wanted to move to private housing in low-poverty communities. But daunting policy challenges and choices remain. Congress created the HOPE VI program in 1992 to replace crumbling housing projects with mixed-income developments. But local housing agencies are generally building back fewer units than they demolish. Most former residents receive vouchers, which many landlords, unfortunately, eschew. What's NewThe challenge of providing housing for New Orleans' displaced residents is still immense over one year after the storm struck. A series of UI essays recommend tested models for making the social structure stronger in the Gulf states and more equitable. For instance, the "new" New Orleans should avoid old patterns of concentrating poor families in a few isolated communities. Rebuilding New Orleans right could be a model, even for cities not devastated by disaster. Lots of other cities are struggling with unpredictable school populations, insufficient affordable housing, and a lack of adequate supports to give poor children a healthy start in life. Margery Austin Turner talks about this. Recent Findings
Below are results from our latest studies, briefs, books, opinion articles, and essays.
The HOPE VI program should be continued, but with more attention to the challenge of relocating former residents. The $5 billion HOPE VI program is one of the most ambitious urban redevelopment efforts in the nation's history. It has replaced severely distressed public housing projects with well-designed mixed-income housing. It also provides housing vouchers so some of the original residents can rent apartments in the private market. Since 1992, HUD has awarded 446 HOPE VI grants in 166 cities. To date, 63,100 severely distressed units have been demolished and another 20,300 units are slated for redevelopment. By the end of 2002, 15 of 165 HOPE VI programs were fully complete. The billions of federal dollars spent on this reconstruction have leveraged billions more in other public, private, and philanthropic investments. Although not every HOPE VI project has been fully successful, the program as a whole has transformed the way public housing is designed, financed, and managed. Many of the new developments offer high-quality, mixed-income living environments and are contributing to the health and vitality of surrounding neighborhoods. What happens to the former residents of the demolished HOPE VI projects has been at the crux of ongoing Urban Institute research. Our HOPE VI Panel Study tracks the living conditions and well-being of residents from five public housing developments where revitalization activities began in mid- to late 2001. The sites are Shore Park/Shore Terrace (Atlantic City, New Jersey); Ida B. Wells Homes (Chicago, Illinois); Few Gardens (Durham, North Carolina); Easter Hill (Richmond, California); and East Capitol Dwellings (Washington, D.C.) For more information: - "Five Questions for Susan Popkin." An Urban Institute Interview, October 2004.
- "Metropolitan Housing and Communities: A Roof Over Their Heads." An Urban Institute Policy Brief series. Using findings from a new research initiative, "A Roof Over Their Heads: Changes and Challenges for Public Housing Residents," this 2004 series examines the impact of the radical changes in public housing policy over the past decade.
- Buron, Larry, Susan Popkin, Diane Levy, Laura Harris, and Jill Khadduri. 2002. The HOPE VI Resident Tracking Study: A Snapshot of the Current Living Situation of Original Residents from Eight Sites. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
- Kingsley, G. Thomas, Martin D. Abravanel, Mary Cunningham, Jeremy Gustafson, Arthur J. Naparstek, Margery Austin Turner. 2003. Lessons from HOPE VI for the Future of Public Housing. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
- Naparstek, Arthur J., Susan R. Freis, and G. Thomas Kingsley. 2000. HOPE VI: Community Building Makes a Difference. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
- Popkin, Susan J., Bruce Katz, Mary K. Cunningham, Karen D. Brown, Jeremy Gustafson, and Margery A. Turner. 2004. A Decade of Hope VI: Research Findings and Policy Challenges. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
- Popkin, Susan J. 2002. The HOPE VI Program—What About the Residents? Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
- Popkin, Susan J. Testimony on H.R. 1614 HOPE VI Reauthorization and Small Community Mainstreet Revitalization and Housing Act for the Committee on Financial Services, April 29, 2003.
- Popkin, Susan J., Mary K. Cunningham, and William T. Woodley. 2003. Residents At Risk: A Profile of Ida B. Wells and Madden Park. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
- Popkin, Susan J., Diane K. Levy, Larry Buron, Laura E. Harris. 2002. HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline Report. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
- Smith, Robin E., Arthur Naparstek, Susan Popkin, Lesley Barlett, Lisa Banes, Jessica Cigna, Russell Crane, Elisa Vinson. 2002. Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Housing voucher recipients are more likely than residents of public and assisted housing to live in low-poverty and racially-mixed neighborhoods.
The federal housing voucher program supplements rent payments for about 1.7 million low-income families and individuals, making it the nation's largest housing assistance program. Recipients choose a house or apartment available in the private market and contribute about 30 percent of their incomes toward rent; the federal government pays the difference—up to a locally defined "payment standard." Because the voucher program relies upon existing housing, rather than building new developments, it is the least costly strategy for making housing affordable to low-income families and it has the added advantage of giving recipients a wide range of choices about what kind of house or apartment and what location is best for them. Unlike federal housing construction programs, which often cluster low-income families in a few distressed neighborhoods, vouchers generally allow recipients to disperse more widely and to live in healthier neighborhoods. In most communities around the country, however, the performance of the federal voucher program falls far short of its potential. As currently administered, vouchers do not provide equal access to low-poverty and low-minority neighborhoods for all poor households. Vouchers produce better locational outcomes in suburban areas than in central cities, for white recipients than for African Americans and Hispanics, and for the elderly than for non-elderly families and disabled people. Vouchers still consistently outperform public housing, even in central cities, even among African Americans and Hispanics, and even among families and disabled recipients. But vouchers clearly have the potential to offer better neighborhood outcomes for minority families. The single biggest problem with housing vouchers is underfunding. Only about one in every three eligible families gets assistance. Although vouchers work well for those lucky enough to receive them, 6.1 million low-income renters still face severe housing hardship—paying more than half their monthly income for housing or living in seriously run-down or overcrowded housing. For more information: - Popkin, Susan J., and Mary K. Cunningham. 2000. Searching for Rental Housing with Section 8 in the Chicago Region. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
- Popkin, Susan J. 2002. "Families Need CHA Escape Plan." Commentary in the Chicago Sun Times. August 17.
- Popkin, Susan J., and Mary K. Cunningham. 2002. CHA Relocation Counseling Assessment. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
- Turner, Margery Austin. "Strengths and Weaknesses of the Housing Voucher Program." Congressional Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, June 17, 2003.
- Turner, Margery Austin, with Bruce J. Katz. 2001. "Who Should Run the Housing Voucher Program? A Reform Proposal." Housing Policy Debate, volume 12, issue 2.
- Turner, Margery Austin. 1998. "Moving Out of Poverty: Expanding Mobility and Choice through Tenant-Based Housing Assistance," Housing Policy Debate, 9:2.
- Turner, Margery Austin, Susan Popkin, and Mary Cunningham. 2000. Section 8 Mobility and Neighborhood Health: Emerging Issues and Policy Challenges. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
- Turner, Margery Austin and Susan Popkin. 2003 "Comment" on 'Should the Housing Voucher Program Become a Block Grant?'" Housing Policy Debate 14(3), 2003.
- Turner, Margery Austin and Kale Williams. 1998. Housing Mobility: Realizing the Promise. Report from the Second National Conference on Assisted Housing Mobility. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
- Turner, Margery Austin and Charlene Wilson. 1998. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Neighborhood Outcomes for Tenant-Based Assistance in Six Metropolitan Areas. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
- "Housing Vouchers: How Well Do They Work?" An Urban Institute First Tuesday Forum, May 2, 2000.
Federal deregulation reforms and proposals are unlikely to hold the solution to today's housing policy challenges.
The devolution of the nation's welfare system in the 1990s set the stage for similar housing reforms. Although a number of local housing agencies advocated for a comparable overhaul of the public housing system, Congress authorized a much more limited demonstration initiative in 1996, entitled Moving to Work (MTW). This demonstration has given a small number of housing authorities the opportunity and flexibility to design and test their own approaches to (a) reducing program costs and achieving greater cost effectiveness; (b) giving incentives to residents to work and become more self-sufficient; and (c) increasing housing choices. The MTW experience to date offers fascinating insights on alternative housing subsidy formulas, local administrative efficiencies, and the responsiveness of local housing authorities to local housing needs and priorities. Some have argued that the MTW experience supports greater devolution and deregulation. But the Urban Institute's recent assessment of the demonstration found it too limited to demonstrate convincingly either the benefits—or pitfalls—of federal deregulation. Likewise, giving housing authorities more autonomy by converting housing vouchers to a block grant doesn't promise to be any panacea. In fact, this approach could exacerbate the program's major problem—lack of resources relative to needs. Under a block grant, funding for the voucher program would no longer be tied to actual program costs and rents. As a consequence, the gap between needs and resources would almost certainly widen. For more information: - Abravanel, Martin D., Robin E. Smith, Margery A. Turner, Elizabeth C. Cove, Laura E. Harris, and Carlos A. Manjarrez. 2004. Housing Agency Responses to Federal Deregulation: An Assessment of HUD's "Moving to Work" Demonstration. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
- Abravanel, Martin D. 2004 "Is Public Housing Ready for Freedom?"
- Turner, Margery Austin. "Strengths and Weaknesses of the Housing Voucher Program." Congressional Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, June 17, 2003.
- Turner, Margery Austin, and Susan Popkin. 2003 "Comment on 'Should the Housing Voucher Program Become a Block Grant?'" Housing Policy Debate 14(3), 2003.
The Research Team
The Urban Institute's Housing Policy Research team features seasoned experts in housing policy as well as younger scholars who are focusing on the issues of the future. They are:
- Margery Austin Turner, center director, an expert in housing market discrimination and segregation, housing choice and residential mobility, and housing needs and market assessments;
- Martin D. Abravanel, senior research associate, an expert in federal housing programs and policies, housing needs, and market assessments;
- Susan J. Popkin, principal research associate, an expert in public housing, housing vouchers and mobility, and the needs of vulnerable families;
- G. Thomas Kingsley, principal research associate, an expert in regional housing markets, housing policy and planning, and indicators of community health and change;
- Christopher Walker, senior research associate, an expert in federal housing programs and policies, nonprofit organizations, and community development initiatives.
- Mary Cunningham, research associate, an expert in performance of the federal housing voucher program and barriers to residential mobility;
- Laura Harris, research associate, an expert in residential mobility and the impacts of community environment on family well-being;
- Diane K. Levy, research associate, an expert in resident relocation, affordable housing finance, and housing and lending discrimination;
- Robin E. Smith, research associate, an expert in resident relocation, affordable housing finance, and housing and lending discrimination; and
- Peter A. Tatian, senior research associate, an expert in census data, housing and economic development, and neighborhood indicators.
Publications
The Urban Institute disseminates myriad publications related to the issue of housing America's low-income families.
|
