Existing research suggests that tenant-based subsidies (housing vouchers) can help to deconcentrate poverty and improve the quality of life of low-income families. The Gautreaux Assisted Housing Program and the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) demonstration program have been shown to help families move to safer neighborhoods and ones with better public schools. The regular Section 8 program has been successful in facilitating moves to low-poverty areas in places like Alameda County, California, but public housing families have had difficulties in Chicago. Research on mixed-income communities has provided little evidence that social mixing has any direct positive impacts through social interaction and/or social networks. However, the lack of research on the long-term impacts on children, such as future improvements in their employment circumstances due to better educational attainment, makes it impossible to offer conclusive assessments on the connection between income mixing and social mobility.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alltucker, Ken. 2002. 30 years of undermining neighborhoods: Section 8 program concentrated the poor in a few areas. Cincinnati Enquirer (February 25): local news. Retrieved from http://enquirer.com/editions/2002/02/25/loc_30_years_of.html.
2.
Atkinson, Rowland, and Keith Kintrea. 1999. Reconnecting excluded communities: The neighborhood impacts of owner occupation. Report to Scottish Homes. Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Homes.
3.
Basgal, Ophelia, and Joseph Villarreal. 2001. Comment on Bruce J. Katz and Margery Austin Turner’s “Who should run the housing voucher program? A reform proposal”: Why public housing authorities remain the best solution for running the housing voucher program. Housing Policy Debate12, 2: 263-281.
4.
Briggs, Xavier de Souza. 2003. Desegregating the city: Space and inequality in global perspective. Unpublished paper. Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, MA.
5.
Brophy, Paul C., and Rhonda N. Smith. 1997. Mixed-income housing: Factors for success. Cityscape3, 2: 3-32.
6.
Buron, Larry, Sandra Nolden, Kathleen Heinz, and Julie Stewart. 2000. Assessment of the economic and social characteristics of LIHTC residential neighborhoods. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
7.
Campbell DeLong Resources Inc. 1998. Keeping drug activity out of rental property: A police guide for establishing landlord training programs. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice.
8.
Cunningham, Mary K., Susan J. Popkin, Janet L. Smith, and Anne Knepler. 2002. CHAC mobility counseling assessment. Final report. Submitted to the Mac Arthur Foundation. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
9.
Devine, Deborah J., Robert W. Gray, Lester Rubin, and Lydia B. Taghavi. 2003. Housing choice voucher location patterns: Implications for participants and neighborhood welfare. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
10.
Ellen, Ingrid Gould, and Margery Austin Turner. 1997. Does neighborhood matter? Assessing recent evidence. Housing Policy Debate8, 4: 833-866.
11.
Feins, J. D., W. E. Rizor, P. Elwood, and L. Noel. 1997. State and metropolitan administration of Section 8: Current models and potential resources. Final report. April. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.
12.
Finkel, Meryl, Larry Buron, and Abt Associates Inc. 2001. Study on Section 8 voucher success rates. Volume 1, Quantitative study of success rates in metropolitan areas. Prepared by Abt Associates Inc. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
13.
Fischer, Paul. 1999. Section 8 and the public housing revolution: Where will families go? Chicago: The Wood Fund of Chicago.
14.
Freeman, Lance, and Hilary Botein. 2002. Subsidized housing and neighborhood impacts: A theoretical discussion and review of the evidence. Journal of Planning Literature16, 3: 339-378.
15.
Frieden, Bernard J. 1985. Housing allowances: An experiment that worked. In Federal housing policy & programs, J. Paul Mitchell, ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research Press.
16.
Galster, George C. 2002. Trans-Atlantic perspectives on opportunity, deprivation, and the housing nexus. Housing Studies17, 1: 5-10.
17.
Galster, George C., Peter Tatian, and Robin Smith. 1999. The impact of neighbors who use Section 8 Certificates on property values. Housing Policy Debate10, 4: 879-918.
18.
Gautreauxv. Chicago Housing Authority. 1969. 304 F. Supp. 736, enforcing 296 F. Supp. 907 (N.D. IL 1969).
19.
Goering, John, Judith D. Feins, and Todd Richardson. 2002. A cross-site analysis of initial MTO demonstration results. Journal of Housing Research13, 1: 1-30.
20.
Goering, John, Joan Kraft, Judith D. Feins, Debra McInnis, Mary Joel Holin, and Huda Elhassan. 1999. Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing demonstration program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
21.
Goetz, Edward G. 2002. Forced relocation vs. voluntary mobility: The effects of dispersal programs on households. Housing Studies17, 1: 107-123.
22.
Hollman v. Cisneros. D.MN, No. 492712. Stipulation and Amended Consent Decree (Amendment No.3) May 13, 1998.
Jennings, Stephanie A., and Roberto G. Quercia. 2001. Comment on Bruce J. Katz and Margery Austin Turner’s “Who Should Run the Housing Voucher Program? A Reform Proposal.” Housing Policy Debate12, 2: 291-298.
25.
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.
26.
Katz, Bruce J., and Margery Austin Turner. 2001. Who should run the housing voucher program? A reform proposal. Housing Policy Debate12, 2: 239-262.
27.
Katz, Lawrence F., Jeffrey R. Kling, and Jeffrey B. Liebman. 2001. Moving to opportunity in Boston: Early results of a randomized mobility experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics116, 2: 607-654.
28.
Kearns, Ade. 2002. Response: From residential disadvantage to opportunity? Reflections on British and European policy and research. Housing Studies17, 1: 145-150.
29.
Khadduri, Jill. 2001. Deconcentration: What do we mean? What do we want? Cityscape5, 2: 69-84.
30.
Kingsley, G. Thomas, Jennifer Johnson, and Kathy Pettit. 2000. Housing choice for HOPE VI relocatees. Report for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
31.
Kleit, Rachel Garshick. 2002. Job search networks and strategies in scattered-site public housing. Housing Studies17, 1: 83-100.
32.
Kleit, Rachel Garshick. 2001a. Neighborhood relations in suburban scattered-site and clustered public housing. Journal of Urban Affairs23, 3-4: 409-430.
33.
Kleit, Rachel Garshick. 2001b. The role of neighborhood social networks in scattered-site public housing residents’ search for jobs. Housing Policy Debate12, 3: 541-573.
Lee, Chang-Moo, Dennis P. Culhane, and Susan M. Wachter. 1999. The differential impacts of federally assisted housing programs on nearby property values: A Philadelphia case study. Housing Policy Debate10, 1: 75-94.
36.
Ludwig, Jens, Greg J. Duncan, and Paul Hirschfield. 2001. Urban poverty and juvenile crime: Evidence from a randomized housing-mobility experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics116, 2: 655-680.
37.
Ludwig, Jens, Helen F. Ladd, and Greg J. Duncan. 2001. Urban poverty and educational outcomes. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 147-201.
38.
Macek, Nathan M., Asad J. Khattak, and Roberto G. Quercia. 2001. What is the effect of commute times on employment? An analysis of the spatial patterns in the New York metropolitan area. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
39.
Mitchell, J. Paul. 1985. Historical overview of direct federal housing assistance. In Federal housing policy & programs, J. Paul Mitchell, ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research Press.
Musterd, Sako. 2002. Response: Mixed housing policy: A European (Dutch) perspective. Housing Studies17, 1: 139-143.
42.
Olesker, Michael. 1996. Couple tapes collapse of neighborhood. Baltimore Sun (April 28): 6B.
43.
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.
44.
Popkin, Susan J., and Mary K. Cunningham. 2000. Searching for rental housing with Section 8 in the Chicago region. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410314.pdf.
45.
Popkin, Susan J., Mary K. Cunningham, Erin Godfrey, Beata Bednarz, Alicia Lewis, Janet L. Smith, Anne Knepler, and Doug Schenkleberg. 2002. CHA relocation counseling assessment. Submitted to the Mac Arthur Foundation. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
46.
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 draft report. Submitted to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Contract No. COPC-5929, Task Order 14 UI No. 06542-014-00. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
47.
Popkin, Susan J., Victoria E. Gwiasda, Jean M. Amendolia, Larry Buron, and Lynn Olson. 1998. Gauging the effects of public housing redesign: Final report on the early stages of the Horner Revitalization Initiative. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the John D. and Catherine T. Mac Arthur Foundation. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
48.
Popkin, Susan J., Victoria E. Gwiasda, Lynn M. Olson, Dennis P. Rosenbaum, and Larry Buron. 2000. The hidden war: Crime and the tragedy of public housing in Chicago. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
49.
Popkin, Susan J., Laura Harris, and Mary K. Cunningham. 2002. Families in transition: A qualitative analysis of the MTO experience.Prepared by the Urban Institute for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development under a subcontract with Abt Associates Inc. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
50.
Popkin, Susan J., Diane K. Levy, Laura E. Harris, Jennifer Comey, Mary K. Cunningham, and Larry Buron. 2002. HOPE VI Panel Study: Baseline report. Submitted to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. Mac Arthur Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
51.
Quane, James M., Bruce H. Rankin, and Pamela Joshi. 2002. Housing assistance, housing costs, and welfare reform. In Welfare, children, & families: A three-city study. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University. Policy brief 02-4 (July). Retrieved from http://www.jhu.edu/~welfare/20012Brief_Jun02.pdf.
52.
Rosenbaum, Emily, and Laura E. Harris. 2001. Residential mobility and opportunities: Early impacts of the Moving to Opportunity demonstration program in Chicago. Housing Policy Debate12, 2: 321-346.
53.
Rosenbaum, James E. 1998. Gautreaux program. In The encyclopedia of housing, Willem van Vliet--, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54.
Rosenbaum, James E. 1995. Changing the geography of opportunity by expanding residential choice: Lessons from the Gautreaux program. Housing Policy Debate6, 1: 231-269.
55.
Rosenbaum, James E. 1993. Closing the gap: Does racial integration improve the employment and education of low-income blacks? In Affordable housing and public policy, Lawrence B. Joseph, ed. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
56.
Rosenbaum, James E. 1991. Black pioneers—Do their moves to the suburbs increase economic opportunity for mothers and children? Housing Policy Debate2, 4: 1179-1213.
57.
Rosenbaum, James E., and Stefanie DeLuca. 2000. Is housing mobility the key to welfare reform? Lessons from Chicago’s Gautreaux program. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Survey Series.
58.
Rosenbaum, James E., Lisa Reynolds, and Stefanie DeLuca. 2002. How do places matter? The geography of opportunity, self-efficacy and a look inside the black box of residential opportunity. Housing Studies17, 1: 71-82.
59.
Rosenbaum, James E., Linda K. Stroh, and Cathy A. Flynn. 1996. Lake Parc Place: Astudy of mixed income housing. Housing Policy Debate9, 4: 703-740.
60.
Rubinowitz, Leonard S., and James E. Rosenbaum. 2000. Crossing the class and color line: From public housing to white suburbia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
61.
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.
62.
Sard, Barbara. 2001. Housing vouchers should be a major component of future housing policy for the lowest income families. Cityscape5, 2: 89-110.
63.
Schwartz, Alex, and Kian Tajbakhsh. 2001. Mixed-income housing as social policy: The case for diminished expectations. Paper presented at the 43rd annual conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, November 8, Cleveland, OH.
64.
Smith, Robin. 2002. Housing choice for HOPE VI relocatees. (April.) Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
65.
Solomon, Arthur P., and Chester G. Fenton. 1973. The nation’s first experience with housing allowances: The Kansas City demonstration. Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Urban Studies of MIT and Harvard University.
66.
Squires, Gregory D. 2002. Review of Crossing the class and color lines: from public housing to white suburbia by Leonard S. Rubinowitz and James E. Rosenbaum. Journal of Urban Affairs24, 3: 369-375.
Turner, Margery Austin, Susan Popkin, and Mary Cunningham. 2000. Section 8 mobility and neighborhood health: Emerging issues and policy challenges. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2000. Section 8 tenant-based housing assistance: A look back after 30 years. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
72.
U.S. House. 1998. Public Housing Reform Act of 1998. 105th Cong., 2d sess., H.R. 4194.
73.
U.S. House. 1970. Housing and Development Act of 1970. 91st Cong., 2d sess., H.R. 19436.
74.
U.S. Senate. 1974. Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. 93d Cong., 2d sess., S. 3006.
75.
U.S. Senate. 1937. United States Housing Act of 1937. 75th cong., 1st sess., S. 1685.
76.
Varady, David, and Carole C. Walker. 2000a. Case study of Section 8 rental vouchers and rental certificates in Alameda County, California. Contract No. DU100C000005967, Task Order No. 7. Final Report to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development from the Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
77.
Varady, David, and Carole C. Walker. 2000b. Vouchering out distressed subsidized developments: Does moving lead to improvements in housing and neighborhood conditions? Housing Policy Debate11, 1: 115-162.
78.
Varady, David, and Carole C. Walker. 1999a. Does moving lead to enhanced feelings of safety? Environment & Behavior31, 1: 3-27.
79.
Varady, David, and Carole C. Walker. 1999b. Helping families move: Relocation counseling for housing voucher recipients. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment14, 1: 33-59.
80.
Varady, David, and Carole C. Walker. 1998. Case studies of vouchered-out properties. Contract No. DU100C000005967, Task Order No. 4. Final Report to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development from Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
81.
Varady, David P., Carole A. Walker, and Xinhao Wang. 2001a. Is it really that difficult for housing voucher recipients to move to the suburbs? Paper presented at the 42d annual conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, November 8-11, Cleveland, OH.
82.
Varady, David P., Carole A. Walker, and Xinhao Wang. 2001b. Voucher recipient achievement of improved housing conditions in the U.S.: Do moving distance and relocation services matter? Urban Studies38, 8: 1273-1304.
83.
von Hoffman, Alexander. 1998. High ambitions: The past and future of American low-income housing policy. In New directions in urban public housing, David P. Varady, Wolfgang F. E. Preiser, and Francis Russell, eds. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
Welfeld, Irving. 1998. Gautreaux: Baby steps to opportunity. In New directions in urban planning, David P. Varady, Wolfgang F. E. Preiser, and Francis P. Russell, eds. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
