The Neighborhood Stabilization Program: Stable for Whom?

Fraser, Jim; Oakley, Deirdre

doi:10.1111/juaf.12159

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous authors have noted the necessity of analyzing NSP effects within local contexts since there was significant heterogeneity in program implementation across the country (Fraser and Oakley, 2015;Reid et al, 2011;Schuetz et al, 2015a). Further study of NSP effects in other locations will help to inform the extent to which the effects of NSP in Dallas County are representative of the programs effect in other areas.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All of these program have been analyzed by various authors and with mixed results in terms of their neighborhood-level impacts (Schuetz et al, 2015a). Additionally, the few studies to date analyzing NSP effects have also had mixed results (Fraser and Oakley, 2015;Schuetz et al, 2015b;Spader et al, 2015).…”

Section: Neighborhood Effects Of Property Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, a distinguishing feature of NSP was that the program had a wide range of flexibility with regards to implementation which gave rise to a wide range of documented potential benefits including stimulating market demand, spurring of private investment, building non-profit capacity in neighborhood redevelopment, alleviation of blight and land banking properties for future larger-scale development activities (Fraser and Oakley, 2015;Reid et al, 2011). All of these likely impacted neighborhoods in different ways, and at different time horizons.…”

Section: Neighborhood Effects Of Property Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, the neighborhoodlevel effects of NSP funding should be evaluated within singular contexts to improve our understanding of how different implementations of NSP impacted neighborhoods (Fraser and Oakley, 2015;Reid et al, 2011;Schuetz et al, 2015a). Second, a more robust assessment of the temporal variation in neighborhood price effects is warranted.…”

Section: Neighborhood Effects Of Property Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Neighborhood price externalities of foreclosure rehabilitation: an examination of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The federally-funded, HUD-administered Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) was enacted in the wake of the financial recession to mitigate the underlying adverse neighborhood effects associated with foreclosed properties. We examined the neighborhood price impacts of NSP-funded foreclosure rehabilitation undertaken by Habitat for Humanity in Dallas County, Texas using a difference-in-difference framework. Foreclosure rehabilitation projects in Dallas County produced an average 15% increase in neighborhood home prices that sold up to 30 months after the rehabilitated property sale and within 0.1 miles of the rehabilitated property. Foreclosure rehabilitation that involved significant exterior repairs was associated with the largest estimated effect sizes. Results suggest that NSP-funding in Dallas County effectively targeted homes that had the potential to have the most severe neighborhood impacts, and that rehabilitation was an effective means of reversing neighborhood price externalities associated with blighted foreclosed properties.JEL Classification: R31, G21, G28

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Neighborhood Effects Of Property Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Neighborhood Effects Of Property Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Neighborhood Effects Of Property Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Neighborhood price externalities of foreclosure rehabilitation: an examination of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A further aid to identifying the effect of NSP activity on crime is that, although grantees selected census tracts to receive NSP funds based on pre-existing measures of distress, they consistently indicated in interviews that there were quite constrained in their ability to target specific properties for investment. This was particularly true for properties acquired for rehabilitation: many banks with large REO inventories chose to release only a few properties at a time, to avoid flooding the market, and NSP grantees in some areas had to compete with private investors also purchasing foreclosed properties(Fraser and Oakley 2015;Newburger 2010;Reid 2011;Spader et al 2015). The difficulties experienced by grantees in acquiring strategically important properties introduces a quasi-random nature into the location of NSP properties which aids in identification (although it may have hindered the effectiveness of the program overall).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Fewer Vacants, Fewer Crimes? Impacts of Neighborhood Revitalization Policies on Crime

Spader¹,

Schuetz

Cortes

2015

FEDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship between neighborhood physical environment and social disorder, particularly crime, is of critical interest to urban economists and sociologists, as well as local governments. Over the past 50 years, various policy interventions to improve physical conditions in distressed neighborhoods have also been heralded for their potential to reduce crime. Urban renewal programs in the mid-20 th century and public housing redevelopment in the 1990s both subscribed to the idea that signs of physical disorder invite social disorder. More recently, the federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) provided funding for local policymakers to rehabilitate or demolish foreclosed and vacant properties, in order to mitigate negative spillovers-including crime-on surrounding neighborhoods. In this paper, we investigate the impact of NSP investments on localized crime patterns in Cleveland, Chicago and Denver. Results suggest that demolition activity in Cleveland decreased burglary and theft, but do not find measurable impacts of property rehabilitation investments-although the precision of these estimates are limited by the number of rehabilitation activities.

show abstract

Subprime Lending/Foreclosure Crisis

Rugh¹

2019

The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subprime mortgage lending in the USA is marked by its short and costly history that ended with a foreclosure crisis in which several million borrowers lost their homes and trillions of dollars of household wealth. The advent of subprime lending in the early 1990s was initially understood as a product of innovations like risk-based pricing, automated underwriting, and credit scoring that would expand access to credit and homeownership. Designed to meet the needs of borrowers whose credit scores fell below a certain threshold, subprime loans featured a higher interest rate to compensate lenders for higher risk of default. As subprime lending grew, estimates of the fraction of subprime borrowers eligible for prime loans rose from 10 to 35 percent in the early

show abstract

The Neighborhood Stabilization Program: Stable for Whom?

Cited by 15 publications

References 7 publications

Neighborhood price externalities of foreclosure rehabilitation: an examination of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program

Neighborhood price externalities of foreclosure rehabilitation: an examination of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program

Fewer Vacants, Fewer Crimes? Impacts of Neighborhood Revitalization Policies on Crime

Subprime Lending/Foreclosure Crisis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About