During the 1990s, the federal government dramatically changed its policy on housing the poor. Under the HOPE VI (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere) Program, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development intended to address the concentration of troubled low-income households in public housing by moving away from its reliance on project-based assistance and promoting instead the construction of mixed-income housing and the use of housing subsidies.This article presents important evidence from two systematic, multicity studies on how the original residents of HOPE VI developments have been affected by this radical new approach to public housing. While many residents have clearly benefited, the findings raise critical questions about whether the transformation of public housing will achieve its potential as a powerful force for improving the lives of low-income families.
The transformation of public housing will necessarily have profound effects on the lives of thousands of very vulnerable families. For three decades, public housing served as the housing of last resort, with federal regulations increasingly favoring the neediest households. But this transformation has meant dramatic changes in federal policy for housing the poor by promoting mixed-income housing and the use of vouchers to prevent the concentration of troubled, low-income households. This transformation has largely failed to address the needs of the hard-to-house residents who have relied on public housing for stable, if less than ideal, housing.We use data from two studies of developments targeted for HOPE VI (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere) revitalization to estimate the size of the hard-to-house population. We conclude that public housing authorities will need to develop a range of alternative options to ensure that all residents obtain stable, secure housing.
Residential instability is common among low-income families, with low-income families moving more often than higherincome families (Coulton, Theodos, and Turner 2009; Crowley 2003) Low-income families move for a variety of reasons.
This study addresses whether providing housing vouchers through the Family Unification Program (FUP) to families involved in the child welfare system reduces child maltreatment and the need for child welfare services. The study uses child welfare administrative data on 326 children in Portland, Oregon, and 502 children in San Diego, California from the point at which their families were referred to the program through 18 months post-referral. Using a quasi-experimental waitlist comparison design, probit regressions show little impact of FUP on preventing child removal from home, but some positive impact on reunification among children already placed out of home. Hazard estimations show receipt of FUP speeds up child welfare case closure. Impacts on new reports of abuse and neglect are mixed, but point toward reduced reports. Low rates of removal among intact comparison families and high rates of reunification for children in out-of-home care suggest poor targeting of housing resources. Housing vouchers are being given to families not bearing the risks the program is intended to address. The presence of some positive findings suggests that housing vouchers might help reduce child welfare involvement if better targeting were practiced by child welfare agencies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.