This paper tests the common belief that subsidised housing contributes to higher crime rates. To do this, panel data on over 200 US cities are used and fixed effects models are estimated to control for unobserved differences between cities that may affect both voucher use and crime. Additionally, models are estimated that focus on the suburbs, to see if the steady increase in vouchers there has had any effect on crime. In cities, it is found that vouchers have a weak, negative relationship with violent crime rates, although these estimates are not particularly robust. In suburban areas, there is no observed relationship between vouchers and crime, suggesting that controversies in those communities blaming voucher households for elevated crime rates are misguided.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllardS. W.RothB. (2010) Strained Suburbs: The Social Service Challenges of Rising Suburban Poverty. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press.
2.
BarkerV. (2010) Explaining the great American crime decline: a review of Blumstein and Wallman, Goldberger and Rosenfeld, and Zimring, Law & Social Inquiry, 35(2), pp. 489–516.
3.
CovingtonK.FreemanL.StollM. A. (2011) The suburbanization of housing choice voucher recipients. The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, Washington, DC.
4.
EllenI. G.HornK. M. (2012) Do federally assisted households have access to high performing schools?Poverty and Race Research Action Council, Washington, DC.
5.
EllenI. G.O’ReganK. M. (2010) Crime and urban flight revisited: the effect of the 1990s drop in crime on cities, Journal of Urban Economics, 68(3), pp. 247–259.
6.
EllenI. G.LensM. C.O’ReganK. M. (2012) American murder mystery revisited: do housing voucher households cause crime?, Housing Policy Debate, 22(4), pp. 551–572.
7.
FarleyJ. E. (1982) Has public housing gotten a bum rap? The incidence of crime in St. Louis public housing developments, Environment and Behavior, 14(4), pp. 443–477.
8.
FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) (2008a) Uniform crime reports. Washington, DC.
9.
FBI (2008b) Uniform crime reporting program data: offenses known and clearances by arrest. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI.
10.
FreedmanM.OwensE. G. (2011) Low-income housing development and crime, Journal of Urban Economics, 70(2/3), pp. 115–131.
11.
FreemanL. (2012) The impact of source of income laws on voucher utilization rates, Housing Policy Debate, 22(2), pp. 297–318.
12.
GalsterG. C. (2005) Consequences from the redistribution of urban poverty during the 1990s: a cautionary tale, Economic Development Quarterly, 19(2), pp. 119–125.
13.
GalsterG. C.TatianP. A.SantiagoA. M.PettitK. L. S.SmithR. E. (2003) Why not in my backyard? Neighborhood impacts of deconcentrating assisted housing. Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick, NJ.
14.
GoetzE. G.LamH. K.HeitlingerA. (1996) There goes the neighborhood? The impact of subsidized multi-family housing on urban neighborhoods. Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
15.
GrilichesZ.HausmanJ. A. (1986) Errors in variables in panel data, Journal of Econometrics, 31(1), pp. 93–118.
16.
KotlowitzA. (1991) There Are No Children Here: The Story of Two Boys Growing Up in the Other America. New York: Anchor Books.
17.
LevittS. D. (1998) Why do increased arrest rates appear to reduce crime: deterrence, incapacitation, or measurement error?Economic Inquiry, 36(3), pp. 353–372.
18.
McNultyT. L.HollowayS. R. (2000) Race, crime, and public housing in Atlanta: testing a conditional effect hypothesis, Social Forces, 79(2), pp. 707–729.
National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing (1992) Final report to Congress and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing, Washington, DC.
21.
PopkinS. J.GwiasdaV. E.OlsonL. M.RosenbaumD. P.BuronL. (2000) The Hidden War: Crime and the Tragedy of Public Housing in Chicago. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
22.
PopkinS. J.RichM. J.HendeyL.HayesC.ParillaJ. (2012) Public housing transformation and crime: making the case for responsible relocation. The Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
23.
RoncekD. W.BellR.FrancikJ. M. A. (1981) Housing projects and crime: testing a proximity hypothesis, Social Problems, 29(2), pp. 151–166.
24.
RosinH. (2008) American murder mystery, The Atlantic Monthly, 302(1), pp. 40–54.
25.
SabolW. J.WestH. C.CooperM. (2008) Prisoners in the United States. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
26.
SantiagoA. M.GalsterG. C.PettitK. L. S. (2003) Neighbourhood crime and scattered-site public housing, Urban Studies, 40(11), pp. 2147–2163.
27.
SchneiderR. H.KitchenT. (2002) Planning for Crime Prevention: A TransAtlantic Perspective. New York: Routledge.
28.
SchwartzA. F. (2006) Housing Policy in the United States: An Introduction. New York: Routledge.
29.
SureshG.VitoG. (2009) Homicide patterns and public housing: the case of Louisville, KY (1989–2007), Homicide Studies, 13(4), pp. 411–433.
30.
van ZandtS.MhatreP. (2009) The effect of housing choice voucher households on neighborhood crime: longitudinal evidence from Dallas. Working Paper No. 09–01, Sustainable Housing Research Unit, College of Architecture, Texas A&M University.
