Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) on the Geographic,Socio-economic,and Public Policy Periphery: A Critical Case Study of Blocked Mobility in the City of San Diego,California
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2022
Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) on the Geographic,Socio-economic,and Public Policy Periphery: A Critical Case Study of Blocked Mobility in the City of San Diego,California
This article examines the geographic and socio-economic distribution of housing choice vouchers (HCVs) in the city of San Diego, California. It focuses on how the concentration of HCVs on geographic, socio-economic, and public policy peripheries forms a nexus that limits housing options for low-income residents. The analysis is based on a unique database that combines three datasets. One includes data for 13,973 individual HCV recipients measuring head of household characteristics (race, Hispanic ethnicity, gender, and age) and housing unit characteristics (unit size, rents, public subsidy levels). Another data set includes population and housing characteristics at the ZIP code level from the American Community Survey (ACS). The third data set includes small area fair market rents (SAFMRs) for ZIP codes and fair market rents (FMRs) for metropolitan San Diego. Data are displayed using GIS and analyzed using logistic hierarchical regression models. The results indicated that the public housing authority (PHA) that administers HCVs in the city of San Diego implemented the HCV program in a manner that reinforced the concentration of program participants in low-income areas and impeded moves to higher opportunity areas. The results expand our understanding of how geography, socio-economics, and public policy shape the production and reproduction of the periphery.
BakerEBentleyRLesterL, et al. (2016) Housing affordability and residential mobility as drivers of locational equity. Applied Geography72: 65–75.
2.
BasoloV (2013) Examining mobility outcomes in the housing choice voucher program: neigborhood poverty, employment, and public school quality. Cityscape15(2): 135–153.
3.
BasoloVYerenaA (2017) Residential mobility of low-income, subsidized households: a synthesis of explanatory frameworks. Housing Studies32(6): 841–862.
4.
BergmanPChettyRDeLucaS, et al. (2019) Creating Moves to Opportunity: Experimental Evidence on Barriers to Neighborhood Choice. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at: https://www.nber.org/papers/w26164.pdf
5.
CovingtonKFreemanLStollMA (2011) The Suburbanization of Housing Choice Voucher Recipients. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
6.
DeLucaSGarbodenPMERosenblattP (2013) Segregating shelter: how housing policies shape the residential locations of low-income minority families. ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science647: 268–299.
7.
FainsJDPattersonR (2005) Geographic mobility in the housing choice voucher program: a study of families entering the program, 1995–2002. Cityscape8(2): 21–47.
8.
Federal Register (2016) Small area fair market rents in housing choice voucher program values for selection criteria and metropolitan areas subject to small area fair market rents. Fed. Reg. § 81, 221 (final rule Nov. 16, 2016) (to be codified as 24 CFR 888.113).
9.
FlaniganST (2019) Diverging from “bureaucracy:” A case study of organizational image in housing services. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy26(1): Article 1.
10.
FloridaR (2017) The New Urban Crisis: How Our Cities are Increasing Inequality, Deepening Segregation, and Failing the Middle Class, and What We Can Do About It. New York, NY: Basic Books.
11.
FloridaRAdlerP (2018) The patchwork metropolis: the morphology of the divided postindustrial city. Journal of Urban Affairs40(5): 609–624.
12.
GoldsmithW (2016). Saving our Cities: A Progressive Plan to Transform Urban America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
13.
JamesonF (1991) Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
MandelE (1999) Late Capitalism. 2nd Edition.New York, NY: Verso.
16.
MallachA (2018) The Divided City: Poverty and Prosperity in Urban America. Washington, DC: Island Press.
17.
MasseyDSAlbrightLCascianoR, et al. (2013) Climbing Mount Laurel: The Struggle for Affordable Housing and Social Mobility in an American Suburb. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
McClureKSchwartzA (2019) Small area fair market rents, race, and neighborhood opportunity. Cityscape21(3): 49–70.
19.
MearesWLGilderbloomJL (2019) Exploring the relationship between housing choice vouchers and neighborhood housing dynamics in Louisville, Kentucky. Housing and Society46(1): 38–54.
20.
MetcalfG (2018) Sand castles before the tide?: Affordable housing in expensive cities. Journal of Economic Perspectives32(1): 58–80.
21.
MollenkopfJCastellsM (eds) (1991) Dual City: Restructuring New York. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
22.
PattersonKLSilvermanRM (2019) The best-laid plans often go awry: an analysis of the implementation of small area fair market rents (SAFMRs). Cityscape21(3): 123–157.
23.
PattersonKLYooE E (2012) Trapped in poor places?: An assessment of residential spatial patterns of housing choice voucher holders in 2004 and 2008. Journal of Social Science Research38(5): 637–655.
24.
PattersonKLSilvermanRMYinL, et al. (2016) Neighborhoods of opportunity: developing an operational definition for planning and policy implementation. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy22(3): Article 2.
25.
RongerudeJHaddadM (2016) Cores and peripheries: spatial analysis of housing choice voucher distribution in the San Francisco Bay Area Region, 2000-2010. Housing Policy Debate26(3): 417–436.
26.
RosenbaumJEZuberiA (2010) Comparing residential mobility programs: design elements, neighborhood placements, and outcomes in MTO andGautreaux. Housing Policy Debate20(1): 27–41.
27.
SassenS (1992) The Global City: New York, London and Tokyo. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
SilvermanRMPattersonKL (2012) The four horsemen of the fair housing apocalypse: a critique of fair housing policy in the USA. Critical Sociology38(1): 123–140.
29.
SilvermanRMYinLPattersonKL (2013) Dawn of the dead city: an exploratory analysis of vacant addresses in Buffalo, NY 2008-2010. Journal of Urban Affairs35(2): 131–152.
30.
The White House (2011) Building Neighborhoods of Opportunity: White House Neighborhoods Revitalization Initiative Report. Washington, DC: The White House.
31.
ThomasKAlozieNO (2019) Have voucher will relocate?: Poverty de-concentration in a large American city. Journal of Public Management & Social PolicyFall: 48–78.
32.
ThorpeD (2018) Achieving housing choice and mobility in the voucher program: recommendations for the administration. Journal of Affordable Housing27(1): 145–160.
33.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (2011) Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration Program Final Impacts Evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
34.
WalterRJColburnGYerenaA, et al. (2020) Constraints and opportunities for innovation in the moving to work demonstration program. Housing and Society47(1): 1–21.
35.
WangRWalterRJ (2018) Tracking mobility in the housing choice voucher program: a household level examination in Florida, USA. Housing Studies33(3): 455–475.
36.
WebbMDFrescolnKPRoheWM (2016). Innovation in US public housing: a critique of the moving to work demonstration. International Journal of Housing Policy16(1): 111–124.
37.
WongGYMasonWM (1985) The hierarchical logistic regression model for multilevel analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association80(391): 513–524.
