Housing Urban Development MixedIncome Housing Hills vs Gautreaux

Housing & Urban Development Mixed-Income Housing

Hills vs. Gautreaux • Class action suit filed in 1966 • Charge of racial discrimination in Chicago public housing • Against the Chicago public housing authority and HUD • Court rules in favor of Gautreaux

Supreme Court Ruling (1976) Approves a plan to remediate the segregation in Chicago public housing

Remediation Plan • Administrator: the nonprofit organization Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities • Section 8 certificates to be used in predominately white neighborhoods • Housing counseling

Research (Rosenbaum et al. ) • Educational attainment was higher for children who moved to suburbs compared to within city movers • Movers to the suburbs were more likely to be employed than those that moved within the city • Social integration appears to have occurred

Moving to Opportunity (MTO) • HUD sponsored demonstration program • Focuses on income not race • Implemented in five cities: Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and New York

MTO Participants Very low-income families with children living in public housing or Section 8 project-based housing in central city neighborhoods with high concentrations of poverty

MTO Program Elements • Section 8 certificates or vouchers to be used in low poverty areas • Housing Counseling

MTO Research Designed as Experiment

Research Design Three Groups: #1 Experimental: receives Section 8 rental certificates or vouchers usable only in low-poverty areas and housing counseling

Research Design (cont’d) #2 Section 8 comparison group: Receives Section 8 rental certificates or vouchers for use anywhere in PHA area and the usual types of assistance from the PHA

Research Design (cont’d) #3 Control group: No change-receives their current projectbased assistance.

Research Design (cont’d) • Volunteers for program, randomly assigned to one of the three groups • Being followed over a ten-year period • Assessment of change in various measures including employment, educational attainment, and others

Research Design (Cont’d) Random Assignment Time 1 Treatment Measurements Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Time 2 Measurements O 1 X 1 e O 1 O 2 X 2 c O 2 O 3

Research Design (Cont’d) Shortcomings of Research --Participants were volunteers; therefore, findings cannot be generalized i. e. , volunteers may differ systematically from nonvolunteers

HOPE VI • Public housing authorities compete on a national basis for program funds • Program goal is to redevelop public housing • Typically involves some demolition of existing units and overall reduction in density

Concerns About HOPE VI • Loss of standing public housing stock • Displacement of public housing residents – Section 8 vouchers depend on private housing market

Attraction of Higher Income Households • • • Location of development Development density Design Amenities Demographics: overall mix of incomes • On-site location of lower income households

Examples of Non-Federal Mixed- Income Policies • Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency • California’s Density Bonus • New York State • Montgomery County, MD

Montgomery County, MD Moderately-Priced Dwelling Unit Program

Conditions Leading to Program • Job Growth • Development growth controls • Public Infrastructure did not keep pace with population growth = demand exceeds supply = high cost housing

MPDU Program (cont’d) Mandates that 12. 5 -15% of the units in residential developments of 50 or more units must be for low- and moderate-income households. The program also includes a density bonus for developments that include more than the minimum percentages required by law.

Does Mixed-Income Housing Succeed? We don’t know-Additional research is needed