scholarly journals Childhood Housing and Adult Earnings: A Between-Siblings Analysis of Housing Vouchers and Public Housing

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fredrik Andersson ◽  
John C Haltiwanger ◽  
Mark J. Kutzbach ◽  
Giordano Palloni ◽  
Henry O Pollakowski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Housing ◽  
Housing Vouchers ◽  
Adult Earnings

scholarly journals Childhood Housing and Adult Earnings: A Between-Siblings Analysis of Housing Vouchers and Public Housing

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fredrik Andersson ◽  
John Haltiwanger ◽  
Mark J. Kutzbach ◽  
Giordano Palloni ◽  
Henry Pollakowski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Housing ◽  
Housing Vouchers ◽  
Adult Earnings

scholarly journals Childhood Housing and Adult Earnings: A Between-Siblings Analysis of Housing Vouchers and Public Housing

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fredrik Andersson ◽  
John Haltiwanger ◽  
Mark Kutzbach ◽  
Giordano Palloni ◽  
Henry Pollakowski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Housing ◽  
Housing Vouchers ◽  
Adult Earnings

scholarly journals Childhood Housing and Adult Earnings: A Between-Siblings Analysis of Housing Vouchers and Public Housing

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fredrik Andersson ◽  
John Haltiwanger ◽  
Mark J. Kutzbach ◽  
Giordano E Palloni ◽  
Henry Pollakowski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Housing ◽  
Housing Vouchers ◽  
Adult Earnings

scholarly journals Childhood Housing and Adult Earnings: A Between-Siblings Analysis of Housing Vouchers and Public Housing

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fredrik Andersson ◽  
John Haltiwanger ◽  
Mark Kutzbach ◽  
Giordano Palloni ◽  
Henry Pollakowski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Housing ◽  
Housing Vouchers ◽  
Adult Earnings

Moving From Inequality: Housing Vouchers and Escaping Neighborhood Crime

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Lens
Keyword(s):  
Public Housing ◽  
Low Income ◽  
The United States ◽  
Subsidized Housing ◽  
Neighborhood Crime ◽  
Housing Vouchers ◽  
Housing Developments ◽  
Moving To Opportunity ◽  
High Crime ◽  
Housing Voucher

The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program is the largest housing subsidy program in the United States, serving over 2.2 million households. Through the program, local public housing authorities (PHAs) provide funds to landlords on behalf of participating households, covering a portion of the household’s rent. Given the reliance on the private market, there are typically many more locational options for HCV households than for traditional public housing, which has a set (and declining) number of units and locations. The growth of this program has been robust in recent decades, adding nearly 1 million vouchers in the last 25 years. This has been a deliberate attempt to move away from the traditional public housing model toward one that emphasizes choice and a diversity of location outcomes through the HCV program. There are many reasons for these policy and programmatic shifts, but one is undoubtedly the high crime rates that came to be the norm in and near far too many public housing developments. During the mid-20th century, when the vast majority of public housing units were created, they were frequently sited in undesirable areas that offered few amenities and contained high proportions of low-income and minority households. As poverty further concentrated in central cities due to the flight of higher-income (often white) households to the suburbs, many public housing developments became increasingly dangerous places to live. The physical design of public housing developments was also frequently problematic, with entire city blocks being taken up by large high-rises set back from the street, standing out as areas to avoid within their neighborhoods. There are many quantitative summaries and anecdotal descriptions of the crime and violence present in some public housing developments from sources as diverse as journalists, housing researchers, and architects. Now that the shift to housing vouchers (and the low-income housing tax credit [LIHTC]) has been underway for over two decades, we have a good understanding of how effective these changes have been in reducing exposure to crime for subsidized households. Further, we are beginning to better understand the limitations of these efforts and why households are often unsuccessful in moving from high-crime areas. In studies of moving housing voucher households away from crime, the following questions are of particular interest: What is the connection between subsidized housing and crime? What mechanisms of the housing voucher program work to allow households to live in lower-crime neighborhoods than public housing? And finally, how successful has this program been in reducing participant exposure to crime, and how do we explain some of the limitations? While many aspects of the relationship between subsidized housing and crime are not well understood, existing research provides several important insights. First, we can conclude that traditional public housing—particularly large public housing developments—often concentrated crime to dangerously high levels. Second, we know that public housing residents commonly expressed great concern over the presence of crime and drugs in their communities, and this was a frequent motivation for participating in early studies of housing mobility programs such as Gautreaux in Chicago and the Moving to Opportunity experiment. Third, while the typical housing voucher household lives in a lower-crime environment than public housing households, they still live in relatively high-crime neighborhoods, and there is substantial research on the limited nature of moves using vouchers. Finally, while there is research on whether voucher households cause crime in the aggregate, the outcomes are rather ambiguous—some rigorous studies have found that clusters of voucher households increase neighborhood crime and some have found there is no effect. Furthermore, any potential effects on neighborhood crime by vouchers need to be weighed against their effectiveness at reducing exposure to neighborhood crime among subsidized households.

scholarly journals Moved to Opportunity: The Long-Run Effects of Public Housing Demolition on Children

2018 ◽  
Vol 108 (10) ◽  
pp. 3028-3056 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Chyn
Keyword(s):  
Public Housing ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Housing Vouchers ◽  
Disadvantaged Neighborhoods ◽  
Young Adult Outcomes ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Displaced Children ◽  
High School Dropout Rates ◽  
Housing Demolition ◽  
New Evidence

This paper provides new evidence on the effects of moving out of disadvantaged neighborhoods on the long-run outcomes of children. I study public housing demolitions in Chicago, which forced low-income households to relocate to less disadvantaged neighborhoods using housing vouchers. Specifically, I compare young adult outcomes of displaced children to their peers who lived in nearby public housing that was not demolished. Displaced children are more likely to be employed and earn more in young adulthood. I also find that displaced children have fewer violent crime arrests. Children displaced at young ages have lower high school dropout rates. (JEL H75, I38, J13, R23, R38)

scholarly journals Public housing units vs. housing vouchers: Accessibility, local public goods, and welfare

2012 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 310-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Ka Yui Leung ◽  
Sinan Sarpça ◽  
Kuzey Yilmaz
Keyword(s):  
Public Goods ◽  
Public Housing ◽  
Local Public Goods ◽  
Housing Vouchers ◽  
Housing Units

Enabling More Families with Housing Vouchers to Access Higher-Opportunity Neighborhoods

2018 ◽  
pp. 92-119
Author(s):  
Barbara Sard
Keyword(s):  
Public Housing ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Housing Cost ◽  
Housing Choice ◽  
Policy Changes ◽  
Housing Vouchers ◽  
Housing Stability ◽  
Minor Children ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Local Agencies

This chapter discusses the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, which helps more than two million low-income households—nearly half with minor children in the home—to pay for modestly priced, decent-quality homes in the private market. The program has reduced housing cost burdens, decreased homelessness, and increased housing stability, but vouchers currently do less than they could to help families live in low-poverty, high-opportunity neighborhoods. Public housing agencies have flexibility to implement strategies to improve location outcomes in their HCV programs. But unless changes in federal policy encourage them to take such steps and to modify counterproductive policies—and reliable funding is available to maintain the number of families receiving HCV assistance and to administer the program effectively—there is little reason to expect better results. Federal, state, and local agencies can make four sets of interrelated policy changes that will help families in the HCV program to live in better locations.

scholarly journals Public Housing, Housing Vouchers, and Student Achievement: Evidence from Public Housing Demolitions in Chicago

2004 ◽  
Vol 94 (1) ◽  
pp. 233-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian A Jacob
Keyword(s):  
Student Achievement ◽  
Public Housing ◽  
Student Outcomes ◽  
Housing Assistance ◽  
Housing Vouchers ◽  
High Rise ◽  
Achievement Measures ◽  
Zero Effect ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Exogenous Source

This paper utilizes a plausibly exogenous source of variation in housing assistance generated by public housing demolitions in Chicago to examine the impact of high-rise public housing on student outcomes. I find that children in households affected by the demolitions do no better or worse than their peers on a wide variety of achievement measures. Because the majority of households that leave high-rise public housing in response to the demolitions move to neighborhoods and schools that closely resemble those they left, the zero effect of the demolitions may be interpreted as the independent impact of public housing.

scholarly journals Neighborhood effects and housing vouchers

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 1307-1346
Author(s):  
Morris A. Davis ◽  
Jesse Gregory ◽  
Daniel A. Hartley ◽  
Kegon T. K. Tan
Keyword(s):  
Los Angeles ◽  
Neighborhood Effects ◽  
Location Choice ◽  
Optimal Location ◽  
Location Decisions ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Housing Vouchers ◽  
Moving To Opportunity ◽  
Adult Earnings ◽  
The Impact

Researchers and policy makers have explored the possibility of restricting the use of housing vouchers to neighborhoods that may positively affect the outcomes of children. Using the framework of a dynamic model of optimal location choice, we estimate preferences over neighborhoods of likely recipients of housing vouchers in Los Angeles. We combine simulations of the model with estimates of how locations affect adult earnings of children to understand how a voucher policy that restricts neighborhoods in which voucher‐recipients may live affects both the location decisions of households and the adult earnings of children. We show the model can nearly replicate the impact of the Moving to Opportunity experiment on the adult wages of children. Simulations suggest a policy that restricts housing vouchers to the top 20% of neighborhoods maximizes expected aggregate adult earnings of children of households offered these vouchers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document