Abstract
In the face of a severe and deepening affordable rental housing shortage in the United States, subsidized rental housing, though comprising a small portion of the housing stock, is a critical resource. In this study, we synthesize and summarize secondary research and opinions from eight leading experts on the broad currents of subsidized rental housing policy in the United States. We present the resulting lessons across three themes: the persistence of segregation; the disappointment of poverty deconcentration; and the elusiveness of access to opportunity. We seek to identify consensus on what is known, and point to what needs to be learned via future research.
Keywords: Housing policy; subsidized rental housing; housing segregation; poverty deconcentration; access to opportunity
Introduction
A recent analysis shows that in the United States as of 2014, only 31 rental housing units affordable to and available to households earning 30% or less of the median income in their region exists for every 100 such households (National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2016). In only two states—sparsely populated North Dakota and West Virginia—did this ratio equal or exceed 50% (National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2016). For low-income renters across the nation, and increasingly even for reasonably well-off renters in a small but growing subset of metropolitan regions, a lack of affordable, safe, and well-located rental housing is a formidable impediment to a better life (Glaeser, Gyourko & Saks, 2005, 2006).
And yet there is ample reason to believe that the problem will likely get worse, not better, in coming decades. At root there is the seemingly inescapable trend, now decades long, toward greater levels of income inequality (Piketty & Saez, 2014). More short-term factors, above all the ongoing fallout from the Great Recession nearly a decade after it first began, have sharply increased the number of renter households competing for housing. The fiscal consequences of the long recovery from economic depression have resulted in a drastic reduction in federal rental housing subsidies at just the moment when they are most needed (Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2014). The pressure is likely to increase still further; when the Cityscape journal recently asked four groups of housing experts to project homeownership rates to the year 2050, only one forecast that homeownership would eventually increase to just shy of the pre–Great Recession level of 69% (Haurin, 2016). The remaining three projected middle-of-the-road scenarios with homeownership rates ranging from approximately 53% to 58% in 2050, all considerably reduced from the 63% of today (Acolin, Goodman & Wachter, 2016; Myers & Lee, 2016; Nelson, 2016).
This trend in homeownership is aggravated by a traditionally weak policy response from the federal government. For all of the sound and fury in public discourse over subsidized rental housing dating back to 1937—the year the federal government began permanently funding rental housing— and continuing unabated to the present day, such units represent only 5% of the total housing stock in the United States, compared with 17% in France and 20% in the United Kingdom (European Union, 2013). At the time of this writing, during a vigorously contested presidential election cycle with no mention of rental housing from candidates of either major political party, it seems difficult to imagine that a policy response equal to the deepening rental housing crisis will emerge anytime soon.
However, it is not impossible to imagine that these trends will cause rental housing to rise among the ranks of prominent policy issues in the United States. If and when this happens, it will be important to be able to answer fundamental questions about subsidized rental housing: What do we already know? And what do we need to learn? While we cannot definitively answer these questions, in this study we endeavor to take the first steps on a long road to doing so.
Defining Subsidized Rental Housing
Basic nomenclature is a seemingly trivial but real barrier to discourse, whether popular or academic, on low-cost housing in the United States. Affordable housing is a term that, although widely used, often obscures more than it clarifies because it inevitably raises the question: “Affordable for whom?” We opt here to instead use the straightforward, descriptive term subsidized rental housing to refer to rental housing units in which both tenants’ incomes and rents are legally restricted by virtue of federal governmental subsidies granted to their developers or tenants. In our usage, this term includes dwellings occupied by renters who receive tenant-based subsidies such as Housing Choice Vouchers.
While we recognize that the term “subsidized” in conjunction with rental housing has at times served as a signpost for a long history of ideologically driven hostility toward publicly assisted rental housing (Radford, 1996), we nevertheless maintain that it is accurate and intend it in a straightforwardly descriptive, neutral manner. In any event, honest commentators recognize the indisputable fact that U.S. homeowners, above all those with high incomes, receive federal taxpayer subsidies that dwarf those directed toward rental housing (Downs, 2008).
Plan for the Article
In this study we synthesize the state of knowledge on subsidized rental housing in the United States according to three themes, and seek to identify gaps in knowledge connected to each one. The first of these is racial segregation, a deeply embedded and stubbornly persistent feature of both life in the United States in general and its subsidized rental housing in particular. The second is poverty deconcentration, an overarching policy goal that has animated American housing policy for decades but that housing scholars are increasingly questioning. The third, access to opportunity, is a relatively unfamiliar, though emergent, research and housing policy frontier in the United States.
We explore the state of knowledge across these three themes on two tracks. First, we review existing literature, seeking to identify points of consensus where they exist. Second, we report results of our interviews with eight expert interviewees (Table 1). We asked each of them, “What do we need to learn about subsidized rental housing in the United States?” The three themes we present here emerged from both the literature review and the expert interviews.
Following our literature review for each of the three themes, we report the most notable responses that emerged from the expert interviewees. Finally, we close with a brief summary and synthesis of our findings, also noting progress in addressing chronic homelessness, for decades a seemingly immovable phenomenon in the United States, via supportive housing. We view supportive housing as a positive example of a productive policy shift informed by research that could point the way towards eventual headway on the overall shortage of rental housing, especially for low-income households, that at the present moment seems equally intractable.
Racial Segregation: Stubbornly Persistent Despite Subsidized Rental Housing Programs
There is a vast academic scholarship on racial segregation in the United States. Massey and Denton (1993) provide the definitive account of the harm done to people of color, particularly to African Americans, by longstanding, ongoing housing discrimination. While some evidence shows that segregation diminished even as overall racial and ethnic diversity sharply increased, housing discrimination persists and African Americans continue to disproportionately bear its brunt (Alba & Denton, 2004). For many households of color, discrimination constrains housing options, reduces access to their top-choice neighborhoods, and increases housing costs over what they otherwise would be.
Differential outcomes according to tenants’ race continue within housing subsidy programs, and not just in the unsubsidized rental housing market. Even the federal Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, the leading rental housing subsidy in the United States and one its proponents envisioned as a means of empowering its participants to move to opportunity-rich neighborhoods, appears to fit this pattern. After controlling for mobility, rent, and other factors, Basolo and Nguyen (2005) find that voucher holders of color in diverse Orange County (CA) were more likely than non-Hispanic White households to live in poorer neighborhoods.2 Galvez’s (2010) findings mirror those of Basolo and Nguyen: African Americans using vouchers live in poorer neighborhoods than their White counterparts, although African Americans with vouchers live in less poor neighborhoods than those without, while Whites with vouchers live in poorer neighborhoods than those without.
Meanwhile, scholars are heeding Galvez’s (2010) call for more research to distinguish whether the voucher program’s racially disparate outcomes are intrinsic to the program itself or to the populations it serves. Rosen’s (2014) ethnographic study in Baltimore (MD) reveals that many landlords steer the most disadvantaged voucher holders into units in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods.3 Taking the tenants’ viewpoint, a longitudinal study of 100 low-income African-American households in Mobile (AL) has found that “the administration and implementation of the voucher program make it difficult for [these] low-income households to overcome the existing structural and discriminatory barriers to geographic mobility” (DeLuca, Garboden & Rosenblatt, 2013, p. 276). The barriers in the voucher program’s implementation include the short time periods allotted for tenants to search for units, and pressure from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on local housing authorities to maintain short lease-up times for the vouchers they issue.
Expert Interviewees on Research Frontiers on Racial Segregation and Subsidized Rental Housing
Our expert interviewees identified two main areas in which research on the interaction between racial segregation and subsidized rental housing is needed. The first concerns the need to identify specific program-related barriers, particularly with HCVs, that prevent households of color from accessing less-segregated housing. The studies by Rosen (2014) and DeLuca, Garboden, and Rosenblatt (2013) are promising, but far more research along these lines is needed.
The other major theme that arose is the need to understand disparate impacts of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, the most important site-based subsidy for subsidized rental housing, on tenant populations on the basis of race and ethnicity. In their pioneering work, Cummings and DiPasquale (1999) find that much LIHTC housing is sited in relatively racially homogeneous areas. In inner cities, most neighborhoods with LIHTC developments have populations of at least 80% people of color. However, even now very little is known about the roughly 2.6 million households living in LIHTC housing, including their race and ethnicity compared with residents of the surrounding neighborhoods.
It is therefore apparent that the two most important subsidized rental housing programs in the United States are failing to help overcome—or are even actively exacerbating—the longstanding racial discrimination in housing that has plagued the United States for at least a century. Finding out exactly how and why needs to be a top priority for research.
Poverty Deconcentration: A Longstanding Housing Policy Imperative Under Attack
For the better part of a half-century, poverty deconcentration, or the geographic dispersion of low-income households away from neighborhoods in which they predominate, has been an overarching federal policy priority, even as the specific means to do so have changed dramatically over the decades. The seminal poverty deconcentration program, Gautreaux, stemmed from a mandate emerging from a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court subsidizing the relocation of residents of segregated and distressed Chicago public housing to predominantly White city neighborhoods and nearby suburbs. Gautreaux inspired a similar federal initiative, Moving To Opportunity (MTO), rolled out in five cities in 1992. MTO stands alone among worldwide poverty deconcentration programs in that its random selection of participants has allowed researchers to evaluate its results with statistical rigor (Cheshire, 2006).
Most recently, Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE VI), the signature urban policy of President Bill Clinton, replaced dozens of public housing developments with mixed-income housing and vouchers issued to residents of the redeveloped public housing sites. These three influential initiatives have been supplemented by dozens of smaller-scale programs throughout the nation using counseling, search and relocation assistance, and vouchers, as well as the Welfare-to-Work demonstration program and initiatives to “voucher out” non-public subsidized rental housing developments with expiring subsidies.4 Thus, poverty deconcentration has been consistent housing policy in the United States from 1976 to the present, with the Obama Administration continuing the essence of HOPE VI under its Choice Neighborhoods initiative.
The long history of poverty deconcentration initiatives, particularly MTO and HOPE VI, has yielded a trove of evaluations and academic studies. To paraphrase Goetz and Chapple’s (2010) review of this literature, the results are in, and they are unimpressive. High-poverty-area residents often “move to another high-poverty, racially concentrated neighborhood that offers little improvement over their previous communities” (Goetz & Chapple, 2010, p. 9). They do find that relocated households feel safer, and there is some evidence that they experience improved mental health. However, they find no evidence of improvements in employment, income, welfare dependency, or physical wellbeing. Worst of all, relocations sever the rich, location-specific social networks that low-income households rely upon more heavily than do affluent families.
In an overview of literature examining outcomes for low-income residents of mixed-income communities, Joseph, Chaskin, and Webber’s (2007) conclusions are strikingly similar. Of the four claims in favor of mixed[1]income communities that they evaluate, the only one supported by empirical evidence is that low-income residents of mixed-income communities gain greater informal social control and access to better services. Meanwhile, there is little evidence of socioeconomic benefits through place-based social networks ostensibly enabled by mixed-income communities.
Why has poverty deconcentration proved disappointing? Goetz and Chapple (2010) assert that the “neighborhood effects” literature that originally justified poverty deconcentration overemphasizes harm from concentrated social distress, called the “contagion effects of place.” Meanwhile, these early studies undervalue local social networks. This would help explain the repeated finding that residents are surprisingly attached to their original, although distressed, communities, and are reluctant to move far away. Overgeneralizing the singularly deplorable conditions in Chicago public housing and the benefits of Gautreaux may have spurred a nationwide adoption of dispersion policy. Accordingly, the critique of place-based housing and community development underpinning poverty deconcentration deserves reconsideration.
Another critique of poverty deconcentration asserts that neighborhood effects proponents have misread economic upgrading processes in some communities that appear dysfunctional according to census data. Instead, at least some high-poverty communities are places where newcomers, often immigrants, find cheap housing, save money, begin to upgrade their skills, and then eventually move on to higher-status communities. Viewed this way, such communities, though by no means lacking in social problems, are successfully fostering upward socioeconomic mobility, even if poverty rates and other measures of social distress within them appear to be high at particular points in time.
In a journalistic account, Saunders (2011) proposes the West Adams district of South Los Angeles as a successful “arrival city.” But little quantitative research has systematically identified U.S. “arrival cities” and distinguished them from high-poverty neighborhoods in which residents are unable to escape poverty.
Ironically, RAD’s full-throated embrace of a quasi-privatization of public housing is used, unlike HOPE VI and its successor programs, in a serious effort to allow existing residents to remain in place (Smith, 2015). The swift rollout of the program has taken housing scholars by surprise, and its implications are as yet unclear (Smith, 2015). Monitoring the effects of RAD will be an important task for researchers in the near future.
Expert Interviewees on Research Frontiers on Poverty Deconcentration and Subsidized Rental Housing
Two of our expert interviewees independently mention an additional critique of poverty deconcentration, namely the poorly understood effects of transportation costs on residents who are relocated away from impoverished, but centrally located, neighborhoods. In recent years the Housing + Transportation, or “H+T,” Affordability Index, has begun to draw attention to this set of issues. The index quantifies affordability burdens not simply as the ratio of housing costs to income, but housing costs and transportation costs to income.5 Using this more comprehensive measure, suburban neighborhoods distant from jobs, services, and public transportation are less affordable when compared with high-density, mixed-use urban locations than they initially appear.
Alternatively stated, the H + T Affordability Index shows that low[1]income households must own one or more automobiles to function adequately in automobile-oriented settings. This financial burden would explain Glaeser, Kahn, and Rappaport’s (2000) finding that low[1]income households actively seek out urban areas to be closer to public transportation and jobs. Although not all low-poverty neighborhoods are suburban, and not all suburban neighborhoods are low poverty, the association between poverty deconcentration and suburban destinations for dispersed households remains strong. Thus, research on how drastic changes in transportation accessibility affect low-income households will be paramount in evaluating the benefits—or lack thereof—of moves away from impoverished neighborhoods.
Another expert interviewee emphasizes the lack of consensus on the beneficial destination neighborhoods for low-income households seeking to flee neighborhoods that are “poverty traps”: what Coulton, Theodos, and Turner (2009) refer to as “isolating communities.” Undoubtedly the transportation issues noted above would form a major component of such a determination, but not the only one. Related to this, another expert interviewee notes that it would be important to study whether the trend of building affordable housing in peripheral locations within metropolitan regions is causally linked to the trend of “suburbanization of poverty” now well under way in the United States (Kneebone & Berube, 2013).
Finally, an expert interviewee notes the rich data that exists, but remains largely unanalyzed, on the length of residency and subsequent life outcomes of residents living in subsidized rental housing operated by nonprofits. Such information would aid in comparing the merits of long[1]term residency in such housing to those of moving to a neighborhood that is low poverty but lacks on-site services.
Access to Opportunity: An Alternative to Poverty Deconcentration, But an Elusive One
Although moving low-income households into “geographies of opportunity” (Galster & Killen, 1995) through site-based subsidized rental housing or vouchers may seem to be the other side of the poverty deconcentration coin, on closer inspection, it is something distinct. Poverty deconcentration policies tend to ensure that residents in areas of concentrated poverty leave those areas, but, as noted earlier, they rarely assure that these households subsequently arrive in neighborhoods with low poverty. The placement of housing affordable to low-income renters into truly low-poverty areas, with safe streets, high-performing schools, and typically high homeownership rates—something that arguably fosters access to opportunity—has proven to be a tough nut to crack (Calavita & Mallach, 2010).6 Unlike poverty deconcentration, few housing scholars question the benefits of more access to opportunity, which might best be considered wealth dilution.7 Less is known about access to opportunity in the United States than about poverty deconcentration, partly because less has been accomplished. Below we survey what is known, and what remains to be learned.
Little access to opportunity seems to occur through established U.S. federal programs. For instance, Basolo and Nguyen (2005) find little evidence that voucher holders in Santa Ana (CA) had used them to move to higher-income neighborhoods. Kirk McClure (2006), one of our expert interviewees, finds in a nationwide study that LIHTC-funded units tend to be located in somewhat less impoverished neighborhoods than the units inhabited by voucher-assisted families, although they also tend to serve somewhat higher-income families. Worse, in a follow-up national study, he finds that LIHTC housing generally is not built in areas with a shortage of affordable rental housing (McClure, 2010). Cummings and DiPasquale (1999) similarly find that few LIHTC developments are built in high-income neighborhoods.
Reviewing the HCV literature, Galvez (2010) finds a similar lack of access to opportunity. She states that more needs to be learned about the quality of life where voucher holders live (measured via criteria more comprehensive than simply the poverty rate), the experiences of households interacting with the regional housing market while using a voucher, and the causes of diverging outcomes for different racial and ethnic groups.
While combining vouchers and LIHTC housing offers the potential to afford low-income families access to higher-income areas, Galvez (2010) points out that relatively little research has been done on this nexus. A rare exception by Williamson, Smith, and Strambi-Kramer (2009) counterintuitively finds that voucher holders occupying LIHTC-funded apartments in Florida live disproportionately in high-poverty locations.
While federal rental housing programs have achieved disappointing results in furthering access to opportunity, another set of efforts, termed fair share policies, has operated at the regional level for decades with mixed results in a few states. Beginning with public concern over the mid- to late 1960s urban riots, such policies attempted to coerce exclusionary suburbs into approving subsidized housing (Lewis, 2005). Some recent efforts to implement regional fair share housing have been achieved by a political coalition between central cities and older, inner-ring suburbs in regions such as Minnesota’s Twin Cities (Orfield, 2002).
These coalitions have often been hampered by internal mutual distrust, partly exacerbated by racial divisions. When, as in the case of the Twin Cities, they have succeeded in effecting policy reforms, such as empowering a regional authority to disburse federal housing funds and to require local cities to plan for subsidized housing, notable results have been achieved. But the political will for such reforms and the reforms themselves have been fragile and quickly reversible (Goetz, Chapple & Lukermann, 2005).
Lewis (2005) examines statewide affordable housing review mechanisms in four states, including Oregon, which has a state-level regime that applies only to the Portland region. Massachusetts and New Jersey employ what he terms retrospective systems. In these systems the state reviews local production levels of subsidized housing against their fair share obligation to their host regions. Calavita, Grimes, and Mallach (1997) show New Jersey’s success, for example, in spurring local inclusionary zoning ordinances.
By contrast, California has a prospective statewide requirement that local governments plan for future subsidized housing, but does not hold them accountable for achieving actual production targets. Lewis (2005) finds no detectable correlation between state-approved local housing plans and local levels of housing production. He points to California’s weak enforcement mechanisms, which consist only of legal challenges brought by nongovernmental entities and the (rare) withholding of certain federal funds, but no direct state enforcement.
Thus, fair share housing policies have at least the potential to achieve real progress in promoting access to opportunity, particularly when backed by effective enforcement mechanisms. However in the relatively few states where they exist at all, fair share systems are difficult to enact and sustain. What other approaches could help bring increase access to opportunity for low-income renters, and what do we know about them?
Most efforts to achieve access to opportunity beyond fair share regimes seek to attack exclusionary land use policies of the sort documented by Levine (2005). In low-poverty, high-homeownership areas, NIMBY sentiment limits the potential of modifications of LIHTC and other federal housing programs for expanding access to opportunity (Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2010). More empirical research is needed that punctures the myths used to justify land use policies that have the effect (acknowledged or not) of excluding subsidized rental housing from high-opportunity jurisdictions and neighborhoods.
One NIMBY myth is that subsidized rental housing depresses property values of nearby owner-occupied houses. A study of Boston (MA) suburbs finds no evidence that such developments reduce the value of adjacent single-family properties (Pollakowski, Ritchay & Weinrobe, 2005). An earlier study of the effects of six subsidized rental housing developments on single-family house sales prices in the San Francisco Bay Area reaches a similar conclusion (Cummings & Landis, 1993). A more recent Santa Clara County (CA) study by one of the expert interviewees finds that LIHTC developments mostly had positive impacts on the property values of nearby single-family houses, whether they were developed by for-profit entities, housing nonprofits, or local housing authorities (Deng, 2011).
Another NIMBY myth is that onerous local land use regulations such as excessive off-street parking, which increases multifamily housing costs, including affordable rental housing, are needed to protect local quality of life. McDonnell, Madar, and Been (2011) find that New York City’s off-street parking requirements are forcing developers building residential projects near subway stations to provide more off-street parking than the buildings’ residents actually use, thus unnecessarily driving up costs.
Expert Interviewees Discuss Research Frontiers on Access to Opportunity and Subsidized Rental Housing
While the literature cited above describes rigorous quantitative analysis of locational patterns of HCV holders, two of our expert interviewees call for qualitative research on the specific experiences of the households. They advocate for particular emphasis on large households and/or those navigating the tightest housing markets, especially the experiences of those facing the greatest structural obstacles to using HCVs to obtain suitable housing. Another expert calls for research on the nexus between HCV holders and LIHTC housing, examining why this intersection does not happen more often, and why housing nonprofits generally are not pursuing new projects combining LIHTCs and vouchers in low-poverty areas.
One of the experts notes that while the broad contours of the effects of exclusionary land use policies are well known, as noted earlier, much more needs to be learned about such effects in specific geographical areas. Finally, echoing an argument made by Scally and Koenig (2012), still another expert interviewee notes that more research is needed on outcomes stemming from housing with “the whole package” of amenities, including quality schools and access to jobs.
Recommendations for a Subsidized Rental Housing Research Agenda
Our study of these three themes, the research consensus on them, and the gaps in knowledge that still exist among them yields valuable takeaways that should inform the selection of research programs in the near future. First, segregation by race has a long and difficult history in the United States, and is remarkably resistant to well-meaning housing policy. Experience suggests that an intensive focus on the micro-details of subsidized rental housing programs from the standpoint of the residents themselves is essential to combating segregation.
Second, recent history in the United States suggests that a policy focus on poverty deconcentration may lead to disappointing results for affected residents. Existing social networks, the time and monetary costs of transportation, and the role of particular communities as “arrival cities” or “launch pads” for immigrants deserve particular attention from those considering deconcentration policies.
Third, the elusiveness of access to opportunity for low-income renters in the United States implies that a great deal of work needs to be done in this area. The most important tools for attaining these goals in the United States, fair share housing systems, work best when they evaluate past performance by local jurisdictions and impose substantial remedies when targets are not met. In addition, the claims used by local residents to help argue against subsidized rental housing developments in high[1]opportunity locations need to be tested and countered by careful research.
A recent major shift in federal housing policy aimed at addressing chronic homelessness shows that when a political consensus on a sound course of action emerges, informed by convincing results from empirical studies, it is possible for real change to occur. This is the transition from the “Continuum of Care” delivery model (in which individuals emerging from homelessness must demonstrate their readiness to live independently before receiving housing places in subsidized housing) to “Housing First” (in which individuals are given housing regardless of their ongoing substance abuse or mental health issues). For this shift to occur, and for policy makers of both political parties to be convinced that it was a good idea, research first had to demonstrate results in terms of both outcomes and monetary savings. This is indeed what happened (Culhane, Metraux & Hadley, 2002; Hannigan, Samuels & Baker, 2000; Larimer et al., 2009; Lipton, Siegel, Tsemberis, et al., 2004).
Today, a similar policy shift concomitant with the deepening urgency of the lack of affordable rental housing likely is not in the cards. But experience with supportive housing and many other past episodes suggests that those seeking changes should be prepared for moments of opportunity. In the meantime, there is ample scope for researchers to redouble their efforts to learn all we can about subsidized rental housing in the United States.
References
Acolin, A., Goodman, L. S., & Wachter, S. M. (2016). A renter or homeowner nation? Cityscape, 18(1), 145–157.
Alba, R., & Denton, N. A. (2004). Old and new landscapes of diversity: The residential patterns of immigrant minorities. In N. Foner & G. M. Fredrickson (Eds.), Not just Black and White (pp. 237–261). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Basolo, V., & Nguyen, M. T. (2005). Does mobility matter? The neighborhood conditions of housing voucher holders by race and ethnicity. Housing Policy Debate, 16(3–4), 297–324.
Buckley, James M. Interview (in person in Berkeley, California). May 17, 2013.
Calavita, N., Grimes, K., & Mallach, A. (1997). Inclusionary housing in California and New Jersey: A comparative analysis. Housing Policy Debate, 8(1), 109–142.
Calavita, N., & Mallach, A. (2010). An international perspective on inclusionary housing. In N. Calavita & A. Mallach (Eds.), Inclusionary housing in international perspective (pp. 1–14). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Center for Transit-Oriented Development (CTOD), & Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT). (2006). The affordability index: A new tool for measuring the true affordability of a housing choice. Metropolitan Policy Program, Market Innovation Brief. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Cheshire, P. C. (2006). Resurgent cities, urban myths and policy hubris: What we need to know. Urban Studies, 43(8), 1231.
Coulton, C., Theodos, B., & Turner, M. A. (2009, November). Family mobility and neighborhood change: New evidence and implications for community initiatives. Making Connections Research Series. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Culhane, D. P., Metraux, S., & Hadley, T. (2002). Public service reductions associated with placement of homeless persons with severe mental illness in supportive housing. Housing Policy Debate, 13(1), 107–163.
Cummings, J. L., & DiPasquale, D. (1999). The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit: An analysis of the first ten years. Housing Policy Debate, 10, 251–251.
Cummings, P. M., & Landis, J. D. (1993). Relationships between affordable housing developments and neighboring property values: An analysis of BRIDGE housing corporation developments in the San Francisco Bay Area. Institute of Urban and Regional Development Working Paper 599. Berkeley: University of California.
DeLuca, S., Garboden, P., & Rosenblatt, P. (2013). Segregating shelter: How housing policies shape the residential locations of low income minority families. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 647, 268–299.
Deng, Lan. Interview (in person at ACSP conference in Cincinnati). November 1, 2012.
Deng, L. (2011). The external neighborhood effects of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit projects built by three sectors. Journal of Urban Affairs, 33(2), 143–166.
Downs, A. (2008). Introduction: Why rental housing is the neglected child of American shelter. In N. P. Retsinas & E. S. Belsky (Eds.), Revisiting rental housing: Policies, programs, and priorities (pp. 1–13). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Ellen, Ingrid Gould. Interview (via telephone). May 17, 2013.
European Union. (2013). Social Housing in the EU. Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy Briefing Paper (English). Retrieved from http://www.europarl. europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2013/492469/IPOL-EMPL_ NT%282013%29492469_EN.pdf
Galante, Carol. Interview (in person in Oakland, California). October 8, 2012.
Galster, G. C., & Killen, S. P. (1995). The geography of metropolitan opportunity: A reconnaissance and conceptual framework. Housing Policy Debate, 6(1), 7–43.
Galvez, M. M. (2010, August). What do we know about housing choice voucher program location outcomes? A review of recent literature. Washington, DC: What Works Collaborative, Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/what-works-collaborative.cfm
Glaeser, E. L., Gyourko, J., & Saks, R. (2005). Why have housing prices gone up? Working Paper No. W11129. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Glaeser, E. L., Gyourko, J., & Saks, R. (2006). Urban growth and housing supply. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(1), 71–89.
Glaeser, E. L., Kahn, M. E., & Rappaport, J. (2000). Why do the poor live in cities? Working Paper 7636. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Goetz, E. G., & Chapple, K. (2010). You gotta move: Advancing the debate on the record of dispersal. Housing Policy Debate, 20(2), 209–236.
Goetz, E. G., Chapple, K., & Lukermann, B. (2005). The rise and fall of fair share housing: Lessons from the Twin Cities. In X. de Souza Briggs (Ed.), The geography of opportunity: Race and housing choice in metropolitan America (pp. 247–265). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Goetz, Edward G. Interview (in person at ACSP conference in Cincinnati). November 1, 2012.
Haas, P. M., Makarewicz, C., Benedict, A., Sanchez, T. W., & Dawkins, C. J. (2006, July). Housing and transportation cost trade-offs and burdens of working households in 28 metros. Chicago, IL: Center for Neighborhood Technology.
Haurin, D. R. (2016). The future course of U.S. homeownership rates. Cityscape, 18(1), 123–130.
Joint Center for Housing Studies (Harvard University). (2010, November). Long[1]term Low Income Housing Tax Credit policy questions. Washington, DC: What Works Collaborative, Urban Institute. Retrieved from http:// www.urban.org/what-works-collaborative.cfm
Joint Center for Housing Studies (Harvard University). (2014). The state of the nation’s housing 2014. Retrieved from http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/ sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/sonhr14-color-full.pdf
Joseph, M. L., Chaskin, R. J., & Webber, H. S. (2007). The theoretical basis for addressing poverty through mixed-income development. Urban Affairs Review, 42(3), 369–409.
Kneebone, E., & Berube, A. (2013). Confronting suburban poverty in America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Larimer, M. E., Malone, D. K., Garner, M. D., Atkins, D. C., Burlingham, B., Lonczak, H. S., … Marlatt, G. A. (2009). Health care and public service use and costs before and after provision of housing for chronically homeless persons with severe alcohol problems. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 301(13), 1349–1357.
Lens, M.C., Ellen, I. G., & O’Regan, K. (2011). Do vouchers help low-income households live in safer neighborhoods? Evidence on the housing choice voucher program. Cityscape, 13(2), 135–159.
Levine, J. (2005). Zoned out: Regulation, markets, and choices in transportation and metropolitan land-use. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Lewis, P. G. (2005). Can state review of local planning increase housing production? Housing Policy Debate, 16(2), 173–200.
Lipman, B. (2006, October). A heavy load: The combined housing and transportation burdens of working families. Washington, DC: Center for Housing Policy.
Lipton, F. R., Siegel, C., Hannigan, A., Samuels, J., & Baker, S. (2000). Tenure in supportive housing for homeless persons with severe mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 51(4), 479–486.
Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McClure, K. (2006). The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program goes mainstream and moves to the suburbs. Housing Policy Debate, 17(3), 419–446.
McClure, K. (2010). Are Low-Income Housing Tax Credit developments locating where there is a shortage of affordable units? Housing Policy Debate, 20(2), 153–171.
McClure, Kirk. Interview (in person at ACSP conference, Cincinnati). November 1, 2012.
McDonnell, S., Madar, J., & Been, V. (2011). Minimum parking requirements and housing affordability in New York City. Housing Policy Debate, 21(1), 45–68.
Myers, D., & Lee, H. (2016). Cohort momentum and future homeownership: The outlook to 2050. Cityscape, 18(1), 131–143.
National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2016). The GAP: The affordable housing GAP analysis 2016. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.nlihc.org
Nelson, A. C. (2016). On the plausibility of a 53-percent homeownership rate by 2050. Cityscape, 18(1), 125–129.
Orfield, M. (2002). American metropolitics: The new suburban reality. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Piketty, T., & Saez, E. (2014). Inequality in the long run. Science, 344(6186), 838– 843.
Poethig, Erika. 2013. Interview (via telephone). June 6, 2013.
Pollakowski, H. O., Ritchay, D., & Weinrobe, Z. (2005). Effects of mixed-income, multi-family rental housing developments on single-family housing values. Cambridge, MA: Center for Real Estate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Radford, G. (1996). Modern housing for America: Policy struggles in the New Deal era. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Rosen, E. (2014). The end of poverty of the emergence of the horizontal ghetto: Post[1]public housing spatial concentration and social organization in Baltimore (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Program in Sociology and Social Policy, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Ryan, B. D. (2012). Design after decline: How America rebuilds shrinking cities. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Saunders, D. (2011). Arrival city: The final migration and our next world. Vintage Books Canada.
Scally, C. P., & Koenig, R. (2012). “Beyond NIMBY and poverty deconcentration: Reframing the outcome of affordable rental housing development. Housing Policy Debate, 3(22), 435–461.
Schwartz, Alex F. Interview (via telephone). November 12, 2012.
Smith, J. L. (2015). Between a rock and a hard place: Public housing policy. Journal of Urban Affairs, 37(1), 42–46.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). American community survey. Table SE: T14 (“Hispanic or Latino by race”). Retrieved from www.socialexplorer.com; generated by Jake Wegmann.
Williamson, A. R., Smith, M. T., & Strambi-Kramer M. (2009). Housing choice vouchers, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, and the federal poverty deconcentration goal. Urban Affairs Review, 45(1), 119–132.
