Housing & Urban Development Mixed-Income Housing
Jan 18, 2016
Housing & Urban Development
Mixed-Income Housing
Hills vs. Gautreaux
• Class action suit filed in 1966
• Charge of racial discrimination in Chicago public housing
• Against the Chicago public housing authority and HUD
• Court rules in favor of Gautreaux
Supreme Court Ruling (1976)
Approves a plan to remediate the segregation in Chicago
public housing
Remediation Plan
• Administrator: the nonprofit organization Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities
• Section 8 certificates to be used in predominately white neighborhoods
• Housing counseling
Research (Rosenbaum et al.)
• Educational attainment was higher for children who moved to suburbs compared to within city movers
• Movers to the suburbs were more likely to be employed than those that moved within the city
• Social integration appears to have occurred
Moving to Opportunity (MTO)
• HUD sponsored demonstration program
• Focuses on income not race
• Implemented in five cities: Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and New York
MTO Participants
Very low-income families with children living in public housing or Section 8 project-based housing
in central city neighborhoods with high concentrations of poverty
MTO Program Elements
• Section 8 certificates or vouchers to be used in low poverty areas
• Housing Counseling
MTO
Research Designed as Experiment
Research Design
Three Groups:
#1
Experimental: receives Section 8 rental certificates or vouchers usable only in low-poverty areas and housing counseling
Research Design (cont’d)
#2
Section 8 comparison group: Receives Section 8 rental certificates or vouchers for use anywhere in PHA area and the usual types of assistance from the PHA
Research Design (cont’d)
#3
Control group: No change--receives their current project-based assistance.
Research Design (cont’d)
• Volunteers for program, randomly assigned to one of the three groups
• Being followed over a ten-year period
• Assessment of change in various measures including employment, educational attainment, and others
Research Design (Cont’d)
Random Assignment
Time 1 Treatment Time 2
Measurements Measurements
Group 1 O1 X1e O1
Group 2 O2 X2c O2
Group 3 O3 O3
Research Design (Cont’d)
Shortcomings of Research
--Participants were volunteers; therefore, findings cannot be generalized
i.e., volunteers may differ systematically from non-volunteers
HOPE VI
• Public housing authorities compete on a national basis for program funds
• Program goal is to redevelop public housing
• Typically involves some demolition of existing units and overall reduction in density
Concerns About HOPE VI
• Loss of standing public housing stock
• Displacement of public housing residents– Section 8 vouchers depend on private
housing market
Attraction of Higher Income Households
• Location of development• Development density• Design• Amenities• Demographics: overall mix of
incomes• On-site location of lower income
households
Examples of Non-Federal Mixed- Income Policies
• Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency
• California’s Density Bonus• New York State• Montgomery County, MD
Montgomery County, MD
Moderately-Priced Dwelling Unit Program
Conditions Leading to Program
• Job Growth• Development growth controls• Public Infrastructure did not keep
pace with population growth
= demand exceeds supply = high cost housing
MPDU Program (cont’d)
Mandates that 12.5-15% of the units in residential developments of 50 or more units must be for low- and moderate-income households. The program also includes a density bonus for developments that include more than the minimum percentages required by law.
Does Mixed-Income Housing Succeed?
We don’t know--
Additional research is needed