The issue of poverty is exacerbated by the concentration of low-income families in neighborhoods of concentrated disadvantage. Public administrators in housing and social services are uniquely situated to address poverty and concentrated disadvantage through an explicit housing with services agenda. This article provides a theoretical and empirical review of issues associated with poverty and concentrated disadvantage from the perspective of subsidized housing provision. The review leads to the recommendation that administrators provide housing with services. The article finishes with an agenda for placing standardized assessments that are connected to evidence-based services within the delivery of public housing.
AinsworthJ. W. (2002). Why does it take a village? The mediation of neighborhood effects on educational achievement. Social Forces, 81, 117-152.
2.
BoardmanJ. (2004). Stress and physical health: The role of neighborhoods as mediating and moderating mechanisms. Social Science & Medicine, 58, 2473-2483.
BrattR. G. (2008). Viewing housing holistically: The resident focused component of the housing-plus agenda. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74, 100-110. doi:10.1080/01944360701816071
5.
BrissonD.AltschulI. (2011). Neighborhood social cohesion and informal social control predicting experience of material hardship in low-income neighborhoods. Urban Affairs Review, 47, 541-563. doi:10.1177/1078087411400043
6.
BrissonD.RollS. (2012). The effect of neighborhood on crime and safety: An integrated review of the evidence. Journal of Evidence Based Social Work, 9, 333-50.
7.
BronfenbrennerU. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742.
8.
Brooks-GunnJ.DuncanG. J.AberJ. L. (1997). Neighborhood poverty: Context and consequences for children. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
9.
BrowningC. R.CagneyK. A. (2002). Neighborhood structural disadvantage, collective efficacy, and self-rated physical health in an urban setting. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43, 383-399.
10.
BrowningC. R.FeinbergS. L.DietzR. D. (2004). The paradox of social organization: Networks, collective efficacy, and violent crime in urban neighborhoods. Social Forces, 83, 503-534.
BurtM. (2006). Characteristics of transitional housing for homeless families. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
13.
CohenS.WillsT. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.
14.
Corporation for Supportive Housing. (2013). CSH: The source for housing solutions. Available from http://www.csh.org
15.
ElliottD. S.MenardS.RankinB.ElliottA.WilsonW. J.HuizingaD. (2006). Good kids from bad neighborhoods: Successful development in social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
GalsterG. C. (2007). Neighbourhood social mix as a goal of housing policy: A theoretical analysis. European Journal of Housing Policy, 7, 19-43.
18.
GalsterG. C.SantiagoA. M. (2013). Benefit–cost analysis of an enhanced family self-sufficiency program. Denver, CO: Denver Housing Authority.
19.
GoetzE. G.ChappleK. (2010). You gotta move: Advancing the debate on the record of dispersal. Housing Policy Debate, 20, 209-236. doi:10.1080/10511481003779876
20.
Hearing on the choice neighborhoods initiative: A new community development model, March27, 2012 (Testimony of Susan Popkin, Urban Institute).
21.
JargowskyP. A.SawhillI. (2006). The decline of the underclass. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
22.
JohnsonP. D.RenwickT.ShortK. (2010). Estimating the value of federal housing assistance for the supplemental poverty measure (No. 2010-13). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
23.
JosephM. L.ChaskinR. J.WebberH. S. (2007). The theoretical basis for addressing poverty through mixed-income development. Urban Affairs Review, 42, 369-409.
24.
KawachiI.BerkmanL. (2000). Social cohesion, social capital, and health. In BerkmanL.KawachiI. (Eds.), Social epidemiology (pp. 174-190). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
25.
KingsleyT. G.AbravanelM. D.CunninghamM.GustafsonJ.NaperstekA. J.TurnerM. A. (2004). Lessons from HOPE VI for the future of public housing. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
26.
KneeboneE.NadeauC.BerubeA. (2011). The re-emergence of concentrated poverty: Metropolitan trends in the 2000s. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
27.
LeventhalT.Brooks-GunnJ. (2003). Moving to opportunity: An experimental study of neighborhood effects on mental health. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1576-1582.
28.
LudwigJ.DuncanG. J.GennetianL. A.KatzL. F.KesslerR. C.KlingJ. R.SanbonmatsuL. (2012). Neighborhood effects on the long-term well-being of low-income adults. Science, 337, 1505-1510. doi:10.1126/science.1224648
29.
ManzoL. C.KleitR.CouchD. (2008). “Moving three times is like having your house on fire once”: The experience of place and impending displacement among public housing residents. Urban Studies, 45, 1855-1878.
30.
MarmotM.WilkinsonR. G. (2006). Social determinants of health (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
NaparstekA. J.FreisS. R.KingsleyG. T. (2000). HOPE VI: Community building makes a difference. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
PopkinS. J.DaviesE. (2013). Improving the lives of public housing’s most vulnerable families (No. 04). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
37.
PopkinS. J.KatzB.CunninghamM. K.BrownK. D.GustafsonJ.TurnerM. A. (2004). A decade of HOPE VI: Research findings and policy challenges. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
38.
PopkinS. J.ScottM. M.ParillaJ.FalkenburgerE.McDanielM.KyungS. (2012). Planning the housing opportunity and services together demonstration: Challenges and lessons learned. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
39.
Purpose Built Communities. (2013). Purpose built community: Changing communities changing lives. Available from http://purposebuiltcommunities.org
40.
PutnamR. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
41.
SampsonR. J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
42.
SampsonR. J.RaudenbushS. W.EarlsF. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-924.
43.
SanbonmatsuL.LudwigJ.KatzL. F.GennetianL. A.DuncanG. J.KesslerR. C.LindauS. T. (2011). Moving to opportunity for fair housing demonstration program—Final impacts evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
44.
SchroderM. (2001). NBER locational constraint housing counseling and successful lease-up in a randomized housing voucher experiment. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
45.
SkobbaK.GoetzE. G. (2013). Mobility decisions of very low-income households. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 15(3), 155-171.
46.
SmallM. L. (2009). Unanticipated gains: Origins of network inequality in everyday life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
47.
SpothR. L.RohrbachL. A.GreenbergM. T.LeafP. C.BrownH.FaganA. A.HawkinsJ. D. (2013). Addressing core challenges for the next generation of type 2 translation research and systems: The translation science to population impact (TSci2PI) framework. Prevention Science, 14, 319-351. doi:10.1007/s11121-012-0362-6
TheodosB.PopkinS. J.ParillaJ.GetsingerL. (2012). The challenge of targeting services: A typology of public-housing residents. Social Service Review, 86, 517-544.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2011). Moving to opportunity for fair housing demonstration program: Final impacts evaluation summary. Washington, DC: Author.
