Moving Out and Going Down? A Review of Recent Evidence on Negative Spillover Effects of Housing Restructuring Programmes in the United States and the Netherlands

Abstract

Comparing USA and Dutch experiences, this paper seeks to determine whether the demolition of public or social housing results in negative spillover effects, i.e. the shift of crime and other social problems to nearby neighbourhoods, as a result of residential relocation patterns. Notwithstanding fundamental contextual differences, existing research shows that many relocatees do recluster in low-income areas not much better than the public or social housing sites they moved from. Furthermore, USA and Dutch research highlights concern among public officials, politicians and community activists that this clustering is resulting in higher crime, increased neighbourhood dissatisfaction (among existing residents), more conflicts between residents, lower school test scores, etc. Few researchers have, however, been able to go beyond correlations and establish cause-effect relations between the in-movement of public/social housing relocatees and increased social problems. Attempts to identify a statistical threshold for clustering, beyond which negative effects occur, have not been successful. Nevertheless, existing evidence regarding negative spillover effects is compelling enough to warrant expanded and improved monitoring of both relocation and neighbourhood change patterns and to initiate programmes to address the concerns of residents in destination areas.Spillover effects, restructuring, demolition, relocation, displacement, HOPE VI, vouchers, United States, Netherlands,

Urban Restructuring, Displaced Households and Neighbourhood Change: Results from Three Dutch Cities

“…Negative effects may not occur since the total numbers of displaced households that settle in speci fi c neighbourhoods are small in comparison with the total population of the neighbourhood. Furthermore, the increase of problems in neighbourhoods may not be directly related to the number of displaced residents that settle in that neighbourhood but more to the type of displaced residents: the arrival of a few multi-problem families may have a much more severe effect than the arrival of a relatively large number of regular families (Kleinhans and Varady 2011 ) . Further research will need to reveal the possible link between problems in the neighbourhood and the in fl ow of displaced households.…”

The Dialectic of Neighborhood Social Mix: Editors' Introduction to the Special Issue

“…Clearly, worthy goals do not justify all conceivable means of achieving them, so policy-makers and planners must assess the equity and efficacy dimensions of particular program(s) being considered for enhancing social mix. We have no doubt that many past strategies, particularly those that have restructured large public housing estates and involuntarily displaced disadvantaged households, have often imposed heavy costs on them (see, e.g., Arthurson, 2012;Bridge et al, 2012;Goetz, 2003;Kleinhans & Varady, 2011). But these blunt-force restructuring programs are not the only vehicles for achieving social mix.…”

“…Critical assessments of social mix's theoretical foundations (Galster, 2007b;Joseph et al, 2007), salutary effects on the disadvantaged (Cheshire, 2007;Galster, 2007a;Joseph, 2006;Tunstall & Fenton, 2006), and the efficacy of particular strategies (Berube, 2005;Briggs et al, 2010;Darcy, 2010;Goering & Feins, 2003;Imbroscio, 2008;Kleinhans & Varady, 2011;Van Beckhoven & Van Kempen, 2003;Van Kempen & Bolt, 2009) were advanced.…”

Regeneration, relocation and health behaviours in deprived communities

“…In some variants of regeneration, more people are permanently relocated to other places than continue to reside in the intervention areas (Kleinhans and Varady, 2011;Kleinhans and Kearns, 2013). Some of the best evidence about the effects of relocation upon individual outcomes comes from the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) demonstration project in the USA, which aimed to assess the impacts of residential location on employment, income, education and wellbeing outcomes (HUD, 1996).…”