Current federal housing policy and the planning approaches of many local governments focus on the dispersal of subsidized families. There have been, in fact, two generations of dispersal policy. The first, occurring in the late 1960s through the mid-1970s, was part of the fair housing movement that was aimed at addressing issues of racial discrimination and suburban exclusionism in housing, and the second, dating from the early 1990s, is focused on deconcentrating poverty in American cities. Both generations of dispersal efforts, regardless of their differing justifications, use roughly the same policy strategies. This article reviews the policy history of housing dispersal and offers a schematic interpretation of different programmatic approaches.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anglin, Roland. 1994. Searching for justice: Court-inspired housing policy as a mechanism for social and economic mobility. Urban Affairs Quarterly29, 3: 432-453.
2.
Bennett, Larry, and Adolph Reed Jr. 1999. The new face of urban renewal: The Near North Redevelopment Initiative and the Cabrini-Green neighborhood. In Without justice for all: The new liberalism and our retreat from racial equity, Adolph Reed Jr., ed. New York: Westview.
3.
Boger, John C. 1996. Toward ending residential segregation: A fair share proposal for the next reconstruction. In Race, poverty, and American cities, John C. Boger and Judith W. Wegner, eds. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
4.
Briggs, Xavier de Souza. 1997. Moving up versus moving out: Neighborhood effects in housing mobility programs. Housing Policy Debate8, 1: 195-234.
5.
Brophy, Paul C., and Rhonda N. Smith. 1997. Mixed-income housing: Factors for success. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research3, 2: 3-32.
6.
Brown, Karen Destoral. 2001. Expanding affordable housing through inclusionary zoning: Lessons from the Washington metropolitan area. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
7.
Calavita, Nico, Kenneth Grimes, and Alan Mallach. 1997. Inclusionary housing in California and New Jersey: A comparative analysis. Housing Policy Debate8, 1: 109-142.
8.
Carter, W. H., Michael Schill, and Susan M. Wachter. 1998. Polarization, public housing and racial minorities. Urban Studies35:1889-1911.
9.
Chandler, Mittie Olion. 1990. Dispersed public housing: Does it make any difference? Paper presented at the Urban Affairs Association meeting, April, 18-21, Charlotte, North Carolina.
10.
Craig, Lois. 1972. The Dayton area’s “fair share” housing plan enters the implementation phase. City January/February: 50-56.
11.
Cummins, Justin D. 1996. Recasting fair share: Toward effective housing law and principled social policy. Law and Inequality14, 2: 339-390.
12.
Danielson, Michael N. 1976. The politics of exclusion. New York: Columbia University Press.
13.
Donovan, Shaun. 1994. Moving to the suburbs: Section 8 mobility and portability in Hartford. Working paper W94-3. Joint Center for Housing Studies, Cambridge, MA.
14.
Epp, Gayle. 1996. Emerging strategies for revitalizing public housing communities. Housing Policy Debate7, 3: 563-588.
15.
Field, Patrick, Jennifer Gilbert, and Michael Wheeler. 1997. Trading the poor: Intermunicipal housing negotiation in New Jersey. Harvard Negotiation Law Review2, 1: 1-33.
16.
Friedman, Joseph, and Daniel H. Weinberg. 1983. History and overview. In The great housing experiment, Vol. 24, Urban Affairs Annual Review, Joseph Friedman and Daniel H. Weinberg, eds. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17.
Galster, George C. 1990. Federal fair housing policy: The great misapprehension. In Building foundations: Housing and federal policy, Denise DiPasquale and Langley C. Keyes, eds. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
18.
Gautreaux et al. v. Chicago Housing Authority et al., 265 F. Supp. 582, 583 (N.D. Ill. 1967)
19.
Goering, John M. 1986. Introduction to Section IV. In Housing desegregation and federal policy, John M. Goering, ed. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
20.
Goering John, H. Stebbins, and M. Siewart. 1995. Promoting housing choice in HUD’s rental assistance programs. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development.
21.
Goetz, Edward G. Forthcoming. Clearing the way: Deconcentrating the poor in urban America. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
22.
Goetz, Edward G.. 2002a. Deconcentrating poverty in Minneapolis: Hollman v. Cisneros. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Urban and Regional Affairs.
23.
Goetz, Edward G.. 2002b. Forced relocation vs. voluntary mobility: The effects of dispersal programmes on households. Housing Studies17, 1: 107-124.
24.
Gray, Robert, and Steven Tursky. 1986. Location and racial/ethnic occupancy patterns for HUD-subsidized family housing in ten metropolitan areas. In Housing desegregation and federal policy, John M. Goering, ed. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
25.
Haar, Charles M. 1996. Suburbs under siege: Race, space, and audacious judges. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
Hanratty, Maria, Sara McLanahan, and Elizabeth Pettit. 1997. The impact of the Los Angeles Moving to Opportunity program on residential mobility: Neighborhood characteristics and early child and parent outcomes. Presented at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Moving to Opportunity Research Conference, November 20-21, Washington, DC.
Hartman, Chester W., and Gregg Carr. 1969. Housing authorities reconsidered. Journal of the American Institute of Planners35, 1: 10-21.
29.
Hartung, John M., and Jeffrey R. Henig. 1997. Housing vouchers and certificates as a vehicle for deconcentrating the poor: Evidence from the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. Urban Affairs Review32, 3: 403-419.
30.
Hogan, James. 1996. Scattered-site housing: Characteristics and consequences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
31.
Hogan, James B., and Dorothy L. Lengyel. 1985. Experiences with scattered-site housing. Urban Resources2 (winter): 9-14.
32.
Holloway, Steven R., Deborah Bryan, Robert Chabot, Donna M. Robers, and James Rulli. 1998. Exploring the effects of public housing on the concentration of poverty in Columbus, Ohio. Urban Affairs Review33, 6: 767-789.
33.
Johnson, Michael P., Helen F. Ladd, and Jens Ludwig. 2002. The benefits and costs of residential mobility programmes for the poor. Housing Studies17, 1: 125-138.
34.
Keating, Larry. 2000. Redeveloping public housing: Relearning urban renewal’s immutable lessons. Journal of the American Planning Association66, 4: 384-397.
35.
Keating, W. Dennis. 1994. The suburban racial dilemma. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
36.
Listokin, David. 1976. Fair share housing allocation. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
37.
Ludwig, Jens, Helen F. Ladd, and G. J. Duncan. 2001. The effects of urban poverty on educational outcomes: Evidence from a randomized experiment. In Brookings-Wharton papers on urban affairs, Vol. 2, W. G. Gale and J. Pack, eds. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
38.
Mallach, Alan. 1984. Inclusionary housing programs: Policies and practices. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
39.
Massey, Douglas, and Nancy Denton. 1993. American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
Massey, Douglas, and Shawn M. Kanaiaupuni. 1993. Public housing and the concentration of poverty. Social Science Quarterly74,1:109-122.
Moberg, David. 1995. No vacancy! Shelterforce no. 79 (January/February): 11-13.
43.
Morgan, Jennifer M. 1995. Zoning for all: Using inclusionary zoning techniques to promote affordable housing. Emory Law Journal7, 1: 359-397.
44.
National Housing Law Project. 2002. False HOPE: A critical assessment of the HOPE VI public housing redevelopment program. Oakland, CA: National Housing Law Project.
45.
Nenno, Mary K. 1998. New directions for federally assisted housing: An agenda for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In New directions in urban public housing, David P. Varady, Wolfgang F. E. Preiser, and Francis P. Russell, eds. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research.
46.
Newman, Sandra J., and Ann B. Schnare. 1997. “And a suitable living environment”: The failure of housing programs to deliver on neighborhood quality. Housing Policy Debate8, 4: 703-741.
47.
Norris, Donald F., and James X. Bembry. 1998. Moving to Opportunity in Baltimore: Neighborhood choice and neighborhood satisfaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Urban Affairs Association, April 21-25, Fort Worth, TX.
48.
Nyden, Philip. 1998. Comment on James E. Rosenbaum, Linda K. Stroh, and Cathy A. Flynn’s “Lake Parc Place: A study of mixed-income housing.” Housing Policy Debate9, 4: 741-748.
49.
Polikoff, Alexander, ed. 1997. Housing mobility: Promise or illusion? Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
50.
Popkin, Susan J., Larry F. Buron, Diane K. Levy, and Mary K. Cunningham. 2000. The Gautreaux legacy: What might mixed-income and dispersal strategies mean for the poorest public housing tenants? Housing Policy Debate11, 4: 911-942.
51.
Popkin, Susan J., George Galster, Kenneth Temkin, Carla Herbig, Diane K. Levy, and Elise Richer. 2000. Baseline assessment of public housing desegregation cases: Cross-site report. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
52.
Rasmussen, David W. 1980. The urban impacts of the Section 8 existing housing assistance program. In The urban impacts of federal policies, Norman J. Glickman, ed. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Rosenbaum, James E., Linda K. Stroh, and Cathy A. Flynn. 1998. Lake Parc Place: Astudy of mixed-income housing. Housing Policy Debate9, 4: 703-740.
55.
Rubinowitz, Leonard S. 1992. Metropolitan public housing desegregation remedies: Chicago’s privatization program. Northern Illinois University Law Review12, 3: 590-669.
56.
Rubinowitz, Leonard, and James E. Rosenbaum. 2001. Crossing the class and color lines: From public housing to white suburbia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
57.
Rumbler, Bill. 1998. Despite Section 8 vouchers, segregation perpetuates. Chicago Sun Times (December 6).
58.
Salama, Jerry J. 1999. The redevelopment of distressed public housing: Early results from HOPE VI projects in Atlanta, Chicago, and San Antonio. Housing Policy Debate10, 1: 95-142.
59.
Schill, Michael H. 1997. Chicago’s mixed income new communities strategy: The future face of public housing? In Affordable housing and urban redevelopment in the United States: Urban Affairs Annual Reviews 46, Willem van Vliet--, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
60.
Schill, Michael H., and Susan M. Wachter. 1995 The spatial bias of federal housing law and policy: Concentrated poverty in urban America. University of Pennsylvania Law Review143: 1284-1349.
61.
Schwartz, Alex, and Kian Tajbakhsh. 1997. Mixed-income housing: Unanswered questions. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research3, 2: 71-92.
62.
Semer, Milton P., Julian H. Zimmerman, Ashley Foard, and John M. Frantz. 1976. Housing in the seventies: Working papers. Vol. 1, National Housing Policy Review. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
63.
Shannon et al. v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, 436 F. 2d 809 (3d Cir. 1970).
64.
Spence, L. H. 1993. Rethinking the social role of public housing. Housing Policy Debate4, 3: 355-368.
65.
Stoll, Michael A. 1999. Spatial mismatch, discrimination, and male youth employment in the Washington, D.C. area: Implications for residential mobility policies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management18, 1: 77-98.
66.
Struyk, Raymond J. 1991. Preservation policies in perspective. Housing Policy Debate2, 2: 383-411.
67.
Tegeler, Philip D., Michael L. Hanley, and Judith Liben. 1995. Transforming Section 8: Using federal housing subsidies to promote individual housing choice and desegregation. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review30: 451-486.
68.
Tein, Michael R. 1992. The devaluation of nonwhite community in remedies for public housing discrimination. University of Pennsylvania Law Review140: 1463-1503.
69.
Turner, Margery Austin. 1998. Moving out of poverty: Expanding mobility and choice through tenant-based housing assistance. Housing Policy Debate9, 2: 373-394.
70.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 1999. Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing demonstration program: Current status and initial findings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
71.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 1996. Expanding housing choices for HUD-assisted families: First biennial report to Congress: Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing and urban development. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
72.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 1994. Residential mobility programs. Urban Policy Brief Number 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
73.
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1997. HOPE VI demonstration. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.
74.
Varady, David P., and Carole C. Walker. 2000. Vouchering out distressed subsidized developments: Does moving lead to improvements in housing and neighborhood conditions? Housing Policy Debate11, 1: 115-162.
75.
Weisman, Jonathan. 1996. True impact of GOP Congress reaches well beyond bills. Congressional Quarterly54, 36: 2515-2520.
76.
Williams, Kale. 1998. Fair housing for everybody—Including the poor. The Fair Housing Report, winter: 15-16. Washington, DC: Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington, D.C.
77.
Williams-Bridgers, Jacquelyn. 1994. Public housing: Housing agency officials want more flexibility in replacing deteriorated housing. Testimony before the Employment, Housing and Aviation Subcommittee, U.S. House Committee on Banking Finance, Urban Affairs, 103d Congress. 22 March.
78.
Wish, Naomi Bailin, and Stephen Eisdorfer. 1997. The impact of Mount Laurel initiatives: An analysis of the characteristics of applicants and occupants. Seton Hall Law Review27: 1268-1337.
79.
Wright, Pat. 1998. The privatization of public housing leads to affordable housing crisis. PRAGmatics1, 2: 13.
