The profile of households receiving rental assistance has changed over time, yet much of the policy and political dialogue surrounding rental assistance has not. Understanding the changing profile of subsidized households is important to evaluating the role of rental subsidies, particularly in the context of neighborhood access. This paper analyzes how the composition of subsidized households has changed over time, and how this relates to existing measures of neighborhood opportunity. We find that since 2000, the share of subsidized households headed by seniors grew, while the share with children dropped. In particular, households using vouchers used to be young relative to the general population and to households in other housing subsidy programs but have aged rapidly. We also find that current neighborhood amenity measures do not reflect these changes, and we use a national analysis and a case study of southeastern Pennsylvania to test alternative metrics.
Acevedo-GarciaDoloresMcArdleNancyHardyErinDillmanKeri-NicoleReeceJasonCrisanUnda IoanaNorrisDavid, et al. 2016. “Neighborhood Opportunity and Location Affordability for Low-Income Renter Families.” Housing Policy Debate26 (4–5): 607–45.
2.
Airgood-ObryckiWhitneyMolinskyJennifer. 2020. Accessibility Features for Older Households in Subsidized Housing. Boston: Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University.
BasoloVictoria. 2013. “Examining Mobility Outcomes in the Housing Choice Voucher Program: Neighborhood Poverty, Employment, and Public School Quality.” Cityscape15 (2): 135–53.
5.
BeenVickiCunninghamMaryEllenIngrid GouldGordonAdamParillaJoeTurnerMargery AustinWhitneySheryl Verlaine, et al2010. Building Environmentally Sustainable Communities: A Framework for Inclusivity. New York: New York University, Furman Center.
6.
BeldenNancyRussonelloJohn. 2003. Valuing Housing: Public Perception of Affordable Housing in the Chicago Region. Chicago, IL: Housing Illinois.
7.
BianXun. 2016. “Leverage and Elderly Homeowners’ Decisions to Downsize.” Housing Studies31 (1): 20–41.
8.
BuronLarryNoldenSandraHeintziKathleenStewartJulie. 2000. Assessment of Economic and Social Conditions of LIHTC Residents and Neighborhoods. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
9.
CarderPaulaLuhrGretchenKohonJacklyn. 2016. “Differential Health and Social Needs of Older Adults Waitlisted for Public Housing or Housing Choice Vouchers.” Journal of Aging and Social Policy28 (4): 246–60.
10.
CarruthersJohnDuncanNatashaWaldorfBrigitte. 2013. “Public and Subsidized Housing as a Platform for Becoming a United States Citizen.” Journal of Regional Science53 (1): 60–90.
11.
ChanSewinEllenIngrid Gould. 2017. “Housing for an Aging Population.” Housing Policy Debate27 (2): 167–92.
12.
ChettyRajHendrenNathanielKatzLawrence F.2015. “The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment.” American Economic Review106 (4): 855–902.
13.
ClarkWilliam A. V.2008. “Reexamining the Moving to Opportunity Study and Its Contribution to Changing the Distribution of Poverty and Ethnic Concentration.” Demography45 (3): 515–35.
14.
CortesAlvaroLamKenFeinDavid. 2008. “Household Life Cycle and Length of Stay in Housing Assistance Programs.” Cityscape10 (1): 117–56.
15.
CraneJonathan. 1991. “The Epidemic Theory of Ghettos and Neighborhood Effects on Dropping Out and Teenage Childbearing.” American Journal of Sociology96 (5): 1226–59.
16.
DastrupSamuelFinkelMerylEllenIngrid Gould. 2019. “The Effects of Small Area Fair Market Rents on the Neighborhood Choices of Families with Children.” Cityscape21 (3): 19–48.
17.
DastrupSamuelFinkelMerylBurnettKimberleyde SousaTanya. 2018. Small Area Fair Market Rent Demonstration Evaluation: Final Report. Washington, DC: Abt Associates for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
18.
DawkinsCaseyMillerMark. 2017. “The Characteristics and Unmet Housing Program Needs of Disabled HUD-Assisted Households.” Housing Policy Debate27 (4): 499–518.
19.
DeFilippisJamesWylyElvin. 2008. “Running to Stand Still: Through the Looking Glass with Federally Subsidized Housing in New York City.” Urban Affairs Review43 (6): 777–816.
20.
DeLucaStefanieRosenblattPeter. 2017. “Walking Away from the Wire: Housing Mobility and Neighborhood Opportunity in Baltimore.” Housing Policy Debate27 (4): 519–46.
21.
DengLan. 2007. “Comparing the Effects of Housing Vouchers and Low-Income Housing Tax Credits on Neighborhood Integration and School Quality.” Journal of Planning Education and Research27 (1): 20–35.
22.
DevineDeborah JGrayRobert W.RubinLesterTaghaviLydia B.2003. Housing Choice Voucher Location Patterns: Implications for Participants and Neighborhood Welfare. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
23.
DrewnowskiAdamAggarwhalAnjuHurvitzPhilip M.MonsivasPabloMoudonAnne V.2012. “Obesity and Supermarket Access: Proximity or Price?”American Journal of Public Health102: e74–80.
EllenIngrid GouldHornKeren M.KuaiYiwen. 2017. “Gateway to Opportunity? Disparities in Neighborhood Conditions among Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Residents.” Housing Policy Debate28 (4): 572–91.
26.
FeinsJudith DShroderMark. 2005. “Moving to Opportunity: The Demonstration’s Design and its Effects on Mobility.” Urban Studies42 (8): 1275–99.
27.
FeinsJudith DPattersonRhiannon. 2005. “Geographic Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program: A Study of Families Entering the Program, 1995–2002,”Cityscape8 (2): 21–47.
28.
FergusonRoger. 2013. “The Road Ahead: The Graying of America and its Implications for Finance and the Economy.” Business Economics48 (2): 108–12.
29.
FreemanLance. 2005. “Does Housing Assistance Lead to Dependency? Evidence from HUD Administrative Data.” Cityscape8 (2): 115–33.
GeyerJudy. 2017. “Housing Demand and Neighborhood Choice with Housing Vouchers.” Journal of Urban Economics99: 48–61.
32.
GoeringJohnKamelyAliRichardsonThomas. 1994. The Location and Racial Composition of Public Housing in the United States. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
33.
GoetzEdward G.2011. “Where Have All the Towers Gone? The Dismantling of Public Housing in U.S. Cities.” Journal of Urban Affairs33 (3): 267–87.
34.
GrumbachKevinVranizanKarenBindmanAndrew B.1997. “Physician Supply and Access to Care in Urban Communities.” Health Affairs16 (1): 71–86.
35.
GuhathakurtaSubhrajitMushkatelAlvin H.2000. “Does Locational Choice Matter? A Comparison of Different Subsidized Housing Programs in Phoenix, Arizona.” Urban Affairs Review35 (4): 520–40.
36.
HartungJohn M.HenigJeffrey R.1997. “Housing Vouchers and Certificates as a Vehicle for Deconcentrating the Poor: Evidence from the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area.” Urban Affairs Review32 (3): 403–19.
37.
HornKaren MEllenIngrid GouldSchwartzAmy E.2014. “Do Housing Choice Voucher Households Live Near Good Schools?”Journal of Housing Economics23: 28–40.
38.
HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development). 2018. Understanding Whom the LIHTC Serves: Data on Tenants in LIHTC Units as of December 31, 2015. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research.
IglesiasTim. 2002. “Managing Local Opposition to Affordable Housing: A New Approach to NIMBY.” Journal of Affordable Housing and Community and Development Law12 (1): 78–122.
41.
Joint Center for Housing Studies. 2014. Housing America’s Older Adults: Meeting the Needs of an Aging Population. Boston: Harvard University.
42.
Joint Center for Housing Studies. 2016. Projections and Implications for Housing a Growing Population: Older Households 2015–2035. Boston: Harvard University.
43.
Joint Center for Housing Studies. 2018. Housing America’s Older Adults: Meeting the Needs of an Aging Population. Boston: Harvard University.
44.
JonesLawrence D.1997. “The Tenure Transition Decision for Elderly Homeowners.” Journal of Urban Economics41: 243–63.
45.
JonesRoderick WPaulsenDerek J.2011. “HOPE VI Resident Displacement: Using HOPE VI Program Goals to Evaluate Neighborhood Outcomes.” Cityscape13 (3): 85–102.
46.
KingAbby CSallisJames F.FrankLawrence D.SaelensBrian E.CainKelliConwayTerry L.ChapmanJames E., et al2011. “Aging in Neighborhoods Differing in Walkability and Income: Associations with Physical Activity and Obesity in Older Adults.” Social Science and Medicine73: 1525–33.
47.
KingsleyG. ThomasPettitKathryn L. S.2008. Have MTO Families Lost Access to Opportunity Neighborhoods Over Time?Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
48.
KleitRachel GGalvezMartha. 2011. “The Location Choices of Public Housing Residents Displaced by Redevelopment: Market Constraints, Personal Preferences, or Social Information.” Journal of Urban Affairs33 (4): 375–407.
49.
KoschinskyJuliaTalenEmily. 2015. “Affordable Housing and Walkable Neighborhoods: A National Urban Analysis.” Cityscape17 (2): 13–56.
LensMichael C.2017. “Measuring the Geography of Opportunity.” Progress in Human Geography41 (1): 3–25.
52.
LensMichael CReinaVincent. 2016. “Preserving Neighborhood Opportunity: When Federal Housing Subsidies Expire.” Housing Policy Debate26 (4–5): 714–32.
53.
LensMichael CEllenIngrid GouldO’ReganKatherine. 2011. “Do Vouchers Help Low-Income Households Live in Safer Neighborhoods? Evidence on the Housing Choice Voucher Program.” Cityscape13 (3): 135–59.
MalmgrenJudithMartinMonaNicolaRay. 1996. “Health Care Access of Poverty-Level Older Adults in Subsidized Public Housing.” Public Health Reports111 (3): 260.
McClureKirk. 2018. “Length of Stay in Assisted Housing.” Cityscape20 (1): 11–38.
65.
MotleyCarol MPerryVanessa Gail. 2013. “Living on the Other Side of the Tracks: An Investigation of Public Housing Stereotypes.” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing32: 48–58.
66.
NewmanSandra JSchnareAnn B.1997. “‘And a Suitable Living Environment’: The Failure of Housing Programs to Deliver on Neighborhood Quality.” Housing Policy Debate8 (4): 703–41.
67.
OakleyDeirdre. 2008. “Locational Patterns of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Developments: A Sociospatial Analysis of Four Metropolitan Areas.” Urban Affairs Review43 (5): 599–628.
68.
OrfieldMyronStancilWillLuceThomasMyottEric. 2015. “High Costs and Segregation in Subsidized Housing Policy.” Housing Policy Debate25 (3): 574–607.
69.
PendallRolf. 1999. “Opposition to Housing: NIMBY and Beyond.” Urban Affairs Review35 (1): 112–36.
70.
PendallRolf. 2000. “Why Voucher and Certificate Users Live in Distressed Neighborhoods.” Housing Policy Debate11 (4): 881–910.
71.
PopkinSusan JCoveElizabeth. 2007. Safety is the Most Important Thing: How HOPE VI Helped Families. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/publications/311486.html.
72.
PopkinSusan JBuronLarry F.LevyDiane K.CunninghamMary K.2000. “The Gautreaux Legacy: What Might Mixed-Income and Dispersal Strategies Mean for the Poorest Public Housing Tenants?”Housing Policy Debate11 (4): 911–42.
73.
PopkinSusan JGwiasdaVictoria E.OlsonLynn M.RosenbaumDennis P.BuronLarry. 2000. The Hidden War: Crime and the Tragedy of Public Housing in Chicago. New Brunswick: Rutgers Univ. Press.
74.
RedfootDonald LKocheraAndrew. 2005. “Targeting Services to Those Most at Risk.” Journal of Housing for the Elderly18 (3–4): 137–63.
75.
ReeceJasonGambhirSamirRatchfordCraigMartinMatthewOlingerJillian. 2010. The Geography of Opportunity: Mapping to Promote Equitable Community Development and Fair Housing in King County, WA. Columbus, OH: Kirwan Institute, Ohio State University.
76.
ReinaVincentWinterBen. 2019. “Safety Net? The Use of Vouchers When a Place-Based Rental Subsidy Ends.” Urban Studies56 (10): 2092–111.
77.
ReinaVincentBegleyJaclene. 2014 “Will They Stay or Will They Go: Predicting Subsidized Housing Opt-outs.” Journal of Housing Economics23 (2014): 1–16.
78.
ReinaVincentWilliamsMichael. 2012. “The Importance of Using Layered Data to Analyze Housing: The Case of the Subsidized Housing Information Project.” Cityscape14 (1): 215–22.
79.
ReinaVincentAcolinArthurBosticRaphael. 2019. “Section 8 Vouchers and Rent Limits: Do Small Area Fair Market Rent Limits Increase Access to Opportunity Neighborhoods? An Early Evaluation.” Housing Policy Debate29 (1): 44–61.
80.
ReinaVincent. 2019. “Do Small Area Fair Market Rents Reduce Racial Disparities in the Voucher Program?”Housing Policy Debate29 (5): 820–34.
RugglesStevenFloodSarahGoekenRonaldGroverJosiahMeyerErinPacasJoseSobekMatthew. 2019. IPUMS USA: Version 9.0, Minneapolis, MN. https://doi.org/10.18128/D010.V9.0.
83.
SanbonmatsuLisaLudwigJensKatzLawrence F.GennetianLisa A.DuncanGreg J.KesslerRonald C.AdamEmma, et al2011. Moving to Opportunity: Fair Housing Demonstration Program Final Impacts Evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/pubasst/MTOFHD.html.
84.
SchoeniRobert FOfstedalMary B.2010. “Key Themes in Research on the Demography of Aging.” Demography47 : S5–15.
85.
SharkeyPatrickFarberJacob W.2014. “Where, When, Why, and For Whom Do Residential Contexts Matter? Moving Away from the Dichotomous Understanding of Neighborhood Effects.” Annual Review of Sociology40: 559–79.
86.
SchwartzAlex F.2015. Housing Policy in the United States. New York: Routledge.
SubramanianS.VKubzanskyLauraBermanLisaFayMarthaKawachiIchiro. 2006. “Neighborhood Effects on the Self-Rated Health of Elders: Uncovering the Relative Importance of Structural and Service-Related Neighborhood Environments.” The Journals of Gerontology: Series B61 (3): S153–60.
89.
TurnerMargery AComeyJenniferKuehnDanielNicholsAustin. 2011. Helping Poor Families Gain and Sustain Access to High-Opportunity Neighborhoods. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/publications/412455.html.
Van ZandtShannon SMhatrePratik C.2013. “The Effect of Housing Choice Voucher Households on Neighborhood Crime: Longitudinal Evidence from Dallas.” Poverty and Public Policy5 (3): 229–49.
92.
WaiteLindaDasAniruddha. 2010. “Families, Social Life, and Well-Being at Older Ages.” Demography47: S87–109.
93.
WalterRebbeca JLiYanmeiAtherwoodSerge. 2015. “Moving to Opportunity? An Examination of Housing Choice Vouchers on Urban Poverty Deconcentration in South Florida.” Housing Studies30 (7): 1064–91.
94.
WalterRebecca JWangRuoniu. 2016. “Searching for Affordability and Opportunity: A Framework for the Housing Choice Voucher Program.” Housing Policy Debate26 (4–5): 670–91.
95.
WangRuoiniu. 2018. “Tracking ‘Choice’ in the Housing Choice Voucher Program: The Relationship Between Neighborhood Preference and Locational Outcome.” Urban Affairs Review54 (2): 302–32.
96.
WangRuoniuWalterRebecca J.ArafatAbdulnaser A.DingXuesong. 2017. “Examining Neighborhood Opportunity and Locational Outcomes for Housing Choice Voucher Recipients: A Comparative Study between Duval County, Florida and Bexar County, Texas.” City and Community16 (4): 421–46.
97.
WilliamsonAnne RSmithMarc T.Strambi-KramerMarta. 2009. “Housing Choice Vouchers, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, and the Federal Poverty Deconcentration Goal.” Urban Affairs Review45 (1): 119–32.
98.
YangFang. 2009. “Consumption Over the Life Cycle: How Different is Housing?”Review of Economic Dynamics12 (3): 423–43.
99.
ZhangJinfengZhangJianzinZhouMingjieYuNancy Xiaonan. 2018. “Neighborhood Characteristics and Older Adults’ Well-Being: The Roles of Sense of Community and Personal Resilience.” Social Indicators Research137: 949–63.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
