HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A
A
.Eelllll.enll
1Ia1lC or
1III111I1Y ~
..rc. 211.
This report is made possible through the generosity of
. W....lnpon Mutual
Found.tlon
~^' Low INCOM'.
'.- ~~;¿ COAunoN
IE111m1m11
~1IEIIIIE 1111
IIIn:h 21114
1110 IF .IIEIII
About This Issue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
"Deconcentration" as Policy: HUD and Housing Policy in the 1990s
Elizabeth Julian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Housing Vouchers Can and Should Promote Regional Mobility and Economic Integration
Margery Austin Turner. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Working Toward Balance: Providing Affordable Housing in One ofthe Nation's Costliest Housing
Markets
Conrad Egan.... . . . .... .. .. .... . ... . . . ...... . . . ... . . . .... .. . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..14
Deconcentrating Poverty and the Race to the Bottom
Edward G Goetz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
"We Already Have Our Fair Share": Fair Housing Complaints as a Weapon in the Battle Against
Affordable Housing
Michael Allen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ............21
Deconcentration with a 1\vist: The Service Hub Concept in Shelter/Service Delivery
Jennifer R. Wolch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Let My People Go: The Promise of "Deconcentration" for People with Disabilities
Michael Allen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ........... 26
A Review ofthe Findings: The Deconcentration of Poverty During the 1990s
Irene Basloe Saraf· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
" Copyright (c) 2004 National Low Income Housing Coalition
Abo. Bis ISSUB
In May 2003, housing advocates were pleasantly
surprised when both the Brookings Institution and the
Urban Institute released studies, based on the 2000
Census, which found that concentrated poverty had
decreased over the course of the 1990s. A decrease in
the concentration of povertY would seem to indicate
that NIMBYism may be declining.
After all, if poor people are less clustered together, then
a greater proportion of poor people must be living with
people who are less poor. Perhaps the statistics mean
that low income housing developments are being
successfully integrated into more affluent areas or poor
people with other means of housing assistance, such as
tenant-based vouchers, or without any housing
assistance at all are finding their way into those areas.
But the implications of the deconcentration of povertY
are complex for a host of reasons: the extent to which
povertY, despite improvements, remains concentrated;
the intersection of povertY concentration and race; the
meaning of deconcentration for people with disabilities;
how the goal of deconcentration may impede the
development of low income housing in some
communities. This issue of The N1MBY Report attempts
to grapple with these complexities.
The Brookings and Urban studies did not provide
definitive explanations-beyond general statements
about macroeconomics and the boom of the I 990s-
for why povertY became less concentrated. One reason
may be the attention deconcentration received from
HUD and Congress in the development of policy in the
1990s.
Elizabeth Julian, a HUD official during the Clinton
Administration, describes how HUD came to consider
deconcentration of povertY a worthy policy goal under
Secretary Henry Cisneros. Even with this attention,
however, HUD avoided making too direct a connection
between the concentration of poverty and racial
segregation. Given her experience as a civil rights lawyer
fighting racial discrimination in housing, Ms. Julian brings
important insights to her description of HUD's efforts.
Margery Austin Turner, a scholar at the Urban
Institute's Metropolitan Housing and Communities policy
center and an expert on the housing voucher program,
TII. I'..' ....
explains the value of housing vouchers in promoting
deconcentration. She also describes how vouchers fall
short of their potential and how policies could be changed
to enhance the opportunities and choices of voucher
holders.
The on-the-ground challenge of expanding affordable
housing opportunities is also described in an article by
Conrad Egan. Mr. Egarr-who, in addition to his role as
President and CEO of the National Housing Conference,
serves as Chairman of the Fairfax County Housing and
RedevelopmentAuthority-outlines how Fairfax County
has supported the development oflow income housing
in a costly and booming housing market.
The dark side of deconcentration is tackled by Edward
Goetz, a professor at the Center for Urban and Regional
Affairs at the University of Minnesota and author of a
recent book on the topic of deconcentration, Clearing
the Way. In Mr. Goetz's view, fears of concentrated
povertY became an excuse, in some parts of greater St.
Paul and Minneapolis, to rejectthe development oflow
income housing and to blame such housing for a host of
social ills.
Michael Allen, Senior Staff Attorney at the Bazelon
Center for Mental Health Law and a member of the
The N1MBY Report Advisory Board, takes on a related
issue in one of his two articles. Mr. Allen discusses
how fair housing laws are being commandeered to
combat the siting of low income housing when
neighborhoods claim they have their tàir share. Providing
specific examples, Mr. Allen presents the challenge of
determining whether NIMBYism is at work or a
neighborhood has a legitimate gripe.
Two articles consider deconcentration from the
perspective of people with disabilities. Jennifer Wolch,
Professor of Geography and Director of the Center for
Sustainable Cities at the University of Southern
California, describes efforts to rid downtown urban
neighborhoods oflow income housing and services for
people with disabilities under the guise of
deconcentration. Ms. Wolch argues that there are
circumstances where concentration can be beneficial.
She recommends a small-scale clustering oflow income
housing and the service facilities on which the residents
ofthat housing depend.
"
MlRUOM
3
On the flip side, Michael Allen discusses historic
tendencies to create a "disabilities ghetto." Mr. Allen
describes shifts in policies and attitudes leading toward
deconcentration of housing opportunities for people with
disabilities.
Irene Basloe Saraf, Associate Director at the National
Low Income Housing Coalition, rounds out the issue
with a review ofthe studies that spurred on this edition
of The NIMBY Report originally. Ms. Saraf describes
the Brookings and Urhan findings and their implications.
While the studies' news was heartening, questions
remain about why povertY became less concentrated
during the 1990s and how much the new deconcentration
trend reflects the creation of more inclusive communities
in this country.
4
"
TII. ...., ....
..re.2084
UDBconcBntradon" as POlicy:
HUD and Housing Policy in thB 1990s
BIIIIIIIII'lllln
Having been asked to discuss how "deconcentration"
became the focus of low income and public housing
policy at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) during the eight years of the
Clinton Administration,' my initial thought was: As
opposed to what? Racial segregation? Concentrated
povertY? Both were arguably policies, or results of
policies, practiced to some degree by the Department
since its inception, and my Clinton Administration
colleagues and I tried to change that. But certainly this
was not the first time anyone tried to get
"deconcentration" on the national housing policy agenda.
Public housing was the federal government's response
to the identified need for affordable housing for poor
Americans in the late 1930s and 1940s. In passing the
Housing Act of 1949, white liberals in Congress opposed
an amendment that would have prohibited racial
segregation and discrimination in public housing funded
under the Act, arguing that the much needed housing
would not be built if racial segregation were not allowed.
The sponsor of the House amendment, Representative
Vito Marcantonio from New York, a member of the
American Labor Party, answered the liberals' arguments
by stating:
Further, to those who want to use the
opportunistic argument, let me tell them that
you have no right to use housing against civil
rights. Housing and civil rights are an integral
part of each other. Housing is advanced in the
interest of the general welfare and in the interest
of strengthening democracy. When you
separate civil rights from housing you weaken
that general welfare. You weaken the
democracy you pretend to strengthen.
Remember, here you launch a 40 year program
whereby you deny equal opportunity in housing
1 This article reflects my perspective on the issue of
deconcentration and the circumstances under which policy
was made during my time during the Clinton Administration.
Others no doubt will have a different perspective and could
share different insights.
TII. II..' ....n
to 14,000,000 American citizens and to other
racial minorities. This attempt to separate civil
rights from housing is dishonest political
opportunism.
Nonetheless, the country made that deal back in 1949,
and, with minor and ineffective exceptions, honored it
for the next 40 years. The 1960s brought the civil rights
movement's victories, Executive Order 11063 (issued
on November 20, 1962 and providing for equal
opportunity in housing), the passage of the Fair Housing
Act, and the creation ofHUD. This period also brought
alternatives to public housing for low income whites,
with the advent of the privately owned, federally
subsidized project-based developments of the Section
221d(3) and Section 236 programs, and later the Section
8 New Construction Program. While the tenant based
Section 8 program established in the mid-1970s
theoretically offered an opportunity for low income
families to escape concentrated poverty, such an
opportunity was never the reality for minority families.
If the civil rights victories of the I 960s removed official
barriers to full and equal opportunity, the racial
segregation and discrimination practiced against Amcan-
Americans and other people of color in virtually all
aspects of public and private life in this country since its
inception insured that a significantly disproportionate
number of the poor continued to be minorities who
already lived in racially segregated communities. As it
became more difficult to segregate and isolate minority
people on basis of race alone, poverty became an
effective substitute.
Some people involved in housing policy during that period
understood the importance of insuring access by minority
families to all segments of the housing market and the
dangers ofisolating low income minority persons in low
income minority neighborhoods. Title I of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974 specified the
following goals: "The reductions of the isolation of
income groups in the diversity and vitality of
neighborhoods through the spatial de-concentration of
housing opportunities for persons of low income and
"
..rcb20D4
5
Cities had been victimized
by urban policies that
had not addressed the issue
of concentrated poverty
effectively, leaving individual
families whose housing
opportunities were limited to
high poverty, minority
concentrated areas.
the revitalization of deteriorating or deteriorated
neighborhoods to attract person of higher incomes." This
mandate followed the passage of the Fair Housing Act
of 1968, and the decisions in the Gautreaux and
Shannon cases that questioned the legality and viability
of a housing policy that did not deal directly with the
effects of concentrated race and povertY.
The history ofthe efforts to give effect to that mandate
is discussed in Housing Desegregation and Federal
Policy, a series of essays edited by John M. Goering,
one of the most knowledgeable people in the country
on the history offederal housing policy as it relates for
fair housing. While that story is beyond the scope of
this article, it is important to the current discussion. The
site and neighborhood standards developed in response
to the Shannon decision and the Gautreaux-related
efforts to make mobility
requirements a part of HUD's
tenant based Section 8
regulation were consistent with
the 1974 Congressional goals.
However, in another example of
the difficulty of keeping low
income housing policy and civil
rights policy on the same page,
those efforts were met with
opposition from all political
sides, were embraced
ambivalently by HUD during
the Carter Administration, and
effectively disappeared with the 1980 election. These
earlier afforts at deconcentration failed due to concerns
about threats to growing black political power in urban
areas, racially motivated resistance to development of
low income housing opportunities in white areas and
the suburbs, and a lack of political will to follow through
with policies that might effect real change in the
segregated nature of American residential housing
patterns.
Community development and revitalization strategies,
which were more popular during this period, did not gild
the ghetto nearly enough to close the gap in povertY
concentration between the races. As the civil rights
laws afforded housing opportunities foreclosed by
segregation, people of color began to exercise their right
to live where their economic status would take them,
while whites continued to avoid areas where persons
of color lived, regardless of economics. The total
apartheid of Jim Crow was gradually replaced with
6
TIll II..' ....n
residential concentration of people of color at the
intersection of race and povertY, with the attendant social
and environmental problems so painfully examined by
William Julius Wilson in his 1987 book, The Truly
Disadvantaged. Between 1970 and 1990 concentrated
povertY increased dramatically for poor people of color,
and not only in federal housing programs, but in cities
and neighborhoods more generally.
By the early 1990s there was a growing consensus
among social scientists, policy makers, and some
advocates that concentrated povertY was not a good
thing for poor people or the communities in which they
lived. There was also an undeniable link between
concentrated poverty and race. While visiting the
Department in the fall of 1993, prior to being named
Deputy General Counsel for Civil Rights and Litigation
under HUD Secretary Henry
Cisneros, 1 ran into George
Latimer, former mayor of St.
Paul and a special advisor to
the Secretary. He invited me
to a lunchtime talk in the
Departmental Conference
Room being given by Doug
Massey and Nancy Denton on
their then-recent book,
American Apartheid. I was
impressed, as the authors'
presence suggested that the
new Administration would be
open to dealing with the difficult issue of race and
housing, particularly as it played itself out in HUD's
own housing programs.
When 1 officially arrived at HUD in January of 1994, I
found informed concern about concentrated urban
poverty prevalent among the top political appointees.
There was a strong sense that cities had been victimized
by urban policies that had not addressed the issue of
concentrated povertY effectively, leaving individual
families whose housing opportunities were limited to
high poverty, minority concentrated areas. The
Rosenbaum research related to the Gautreaux
experiment was demonstrating that, indeed, low income
minority families who relocated from high povertY to
low poverty areas over time had improved life situations
by a number of objective criteria. The "Moving to
Opportunity" initiative, though cut short by Congressional
appeasement of white hostility to minority families
moving into white areas, continued to provide
"
MlreUOI4
researchers with information about the relative value
of such moves for the families that were able to achieve
them. This, in turn, provided support for increased
resources devoted to making the housing certificate and
voucher programs vehicles for povertY deconcentration,
if not race. The disability advocacy community was
increasingly identifying their cause with that of the
victims of racial segregation and arguing that housing
opportunities must not be afforded in a manner that
segregated people with disabilities from the mainstream.
The various agendas that would characterize the
Administration, including comprehensive community
planning requirements, a focus on encouraging
regionalism, and the transformation of public housing
through the use ofthe HOPE VI program, were moving
ahead. There was a growing consensus that the
existence of the really "bad" public housing was and
would continue to be a barrier to increased funding for
new public housing. The specter
oflarge, bombed out high rises
or vast barrack-style low rises
housing the mostly minority,
poorest of the poor, haunted low
income housing advocates and
the Administration as they sought
to expand the quantity of low
income housing. Chicago was
always high on the radar, as were
Boston, Newark, Kansas City,
Dallas, and the portfolio of
100,000 public housing units
which were generally referred to
as the "worst of the worst."
where at least 20 percent of the residents are poor....
Highly concentrated minority poverty is urhanAmerican's
toughest challenge."
At the same time, the Department was facing a growing
number of Gautreaux-type lawsuits. These suits alleged
that it had participated in the creation and perpetuation of
racial segregation in its public housing program, that it had
failed to take effective steps to eliminate the vestiges of
that segregation, and that such failure was causing ongoing
harm to minority families living in or in need of that housing
assistance. That harm included subjecting low income
minority families to a system that was both "separate"
and "unequal." Public housing developments had become
institutions of concentrated poverty for minority residents,
located in neighborhoods that were themselves
overwhelmingly minority, high poverty, and historically
victimized by discrimination and disinvestment.
Remedial actions would
have to address both the
separate and unequal
conditions. Dealing with this
li1igationaffirmatively meant
that the Department-and
the country-would have to
confront the practical and
political realities of pmviding
housing to poor people of
color if it could not be
restricted by location to low
income minority
neighborhoods. Remedies
were focused on the interests of class members to be
afforded housing choice, be it the choice to relocate or the
choice to stay and live in an improved environment. A
policy of deconcentration was obviously consistent with
the effort to develop appropriate remedies in those cases.
The racial segregation that
had characterized public
housing since its inception,
coupled with the economic
segregation imposed by
subsequent well-meaning
decision makers, had morphed
into a nightmare for urban
areas.
The racial segregation that had characterized public
housing since its inception, coupled with the economic
segregation imposed by subsequent well-meaning
decision makers, had morphed into a nightmare for urban
areas. The cancer of urban blight could no longer be
contained within the walls of the large public housing
developments that scarred the urban landscape--and,
more devastatingly, scarred the lives ofliterally millions
of minority children who were forced to grow up in
increasingly deprived, violent and isolated environments.
In his 1995 essay on regionalism, Secretary Cisneros
asserted that "in a typical metropolitan area three out
of every four poor whites live in middle-class, mostly
suburban neighborhoods. By contrast, three out of four
poor African American and two out of three poor
Hispanics live in inner-city 'poverty neighborhoods,'''
TIIIIIRY ....
I came to HUD with the understanding that the
Department was going to seek to resolve the numerous
meritorious claims pending against the Department
involving public housing segregation and do so in a way
that expanded opportunity and affirmatively furthered
fair housing. I saw the Secretary become convinced
that the only effective low income housing policy would
have to address honestly and boldly the mistakes of the
past, including bringing down the worst of the worst,
and replacing it with housing that was more consistent
with the sort of housing that people and communities
wanted and needed. The intersection of these two
"
MI!CU_
J
issues-resolution of the litigation appropriately and
demolition and replacement of the worst public
housing-presented an incredible opportunity to right
the wrongs of the past and increase both the quality
and quantity oflow income housing. The extent to which
that was accomplished is clearly open to debate, and
probably will not be a story fully written for another
decade or so. However, we continued to learn how
difficult it is, even among people of good will, to resolve
tensions between civil rights and housing policy.
Today the term "deconcentration" appears a number
of places in the Department's policies and programs,
though any overt discussion of racial deconcentration
or desegregation has been replaced by an emphasis on
deconcentrating povertY alone. HOPE VI has de-
concentration of povertY as one of its stated goals, but
addressing the longstanding vestiges of racial
segregation is not a stated goal. PHA Plans have to
demonstrate how they will
deconcentrate povertY in the
programs they operate, but
this is more focused on
bringing higher income
families into existing public
housing developments than
insuring public housing
families are afforded
opportunities in lower poverty
areas. This "de-
concentration rule," while
taking the important step of
recognizing the history and
reality of racial segregation in public housing, was
limited in scope and was not designed to be an effective
response to the problem of either economic or racial
concentration where it is most severe. As HOPE VI
shifted from being a housing program to being a
community development program, the interests of the
individuals who were the intended beneficiaries of
replacement units were severely compromised in the
rush to revitalization.
engineering" the efforts of African-American residents
of public housing developments in Baltimore to redirect
housing opportunities outside of the confines of high
rise public housing developments in predominately black,
low income neighborhoods of the City ofBaltimore. He
decried the efforts ofHUD, under direction of Secretary
Cisneros, to disperse African-American residents of
public housing in Baltimore into the surrounding
overwhelmingly white, middle-class suburbs, which he
argued would place additional economic and social
burdens on those areas. The alternative, Mr. Erlich
argued, was "reclaiming and revitalizing Baltimore's
neighborhoods." Apparently, he considered mobility
strategies and revitalization strategies mutually exclusive.
The policy makers at HUD during this period disagreed
and struggled to develop a comprehensive policy
approach that kept civil rights policy and low income
housing and community development policy on the same
page. At the heart of
that struggle was the
recognition that
concentrated poverty
was about race.
Significant social
engineering had been
required to
geographically
concentrate poor
people of color and it
would req uire
significant social
engineering to undo that
concentration and its effects. Progress was made, but
the tensions remain, challenging yet another generation
of good people with the best of intentions to figure out
how to do both.
The intersection of these two
issues-resolution of the
litigation appropriately and
demolition and replacement of the
worst public housing-presented
an incredible opportunity to right
the wrongs of the past and increase
both the quality and quantity of low
income housing.
We learned, I believe, that effective poverty
deconcentration policy must take race into account and
coordinate a number of different, though not necessarily
incompatible, approaches. It is not, and should not, be
an "either-or" game. In a 1996 article in opposition to
Secretary Cisneros's efforts to resolve the Baltimore
housing desegregation case, then Representative
Robert Ehrlich (R-MD) denounced as "social
.
TIll"" ....
The so-called "policy of deconcentration" is not new.
It is based upon decades of data, research and
experience. It is properly faulted not because racial
and economic concentration is a better policy, but
because comprehensive policies designed to achieve
the benefits of deconcentration are seldom fully
implemented. A responsible deconcentration policy is
one which understands that concentrated povertY is a
racial issue, and that the harm it inflicts is
disproportionately visited upon poor people of color. Even
today, in spite of the impressive gains between 1990
and 2000, poor whites still do not live in and suffer the
disadvantages of extreme povertY neighborhoods in
"
Mire. 2114
anything approaching the degree to which minorities Goetz, E. G. (2003). Clearing the way:
do. While the condition of concentrated povertY is Deconcentrating the poor in urban america.
lessening for all groups, according to the 2000 census, Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
concentrated povertY is still not an equal opportunity
condition. Efforts to de-concentrate povertY through Grant,GF. (2001). Housing mobility and mixed-income
mobility and redevelopment strategies must be pursued housing: An assessment of current urban poverty
with equal vigor and resources because true choice and deconcentration strategies. Kennedy School Review.
real equal opportunity require it.
ElIZIII....I."11 served at HUD during the Clinton
Administration as Deputy General Counsel for Civil
Rights and Litigation, Assistant Secretary for Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity, and, in the second term,
as the Secretary's Representative for the Southwest.
Prior to going to HUD, she represented minority
plaintiffs in litigation against the Department involving
charges of racial discrimination and segregation. She is
is currently engaged in a private civil rights practice in
Dallas, Texas working on both litigation and policy related
matters in the area of housing and community
development.
l"lnlel.
Cisneros, H.G. (1995). Regionalism: The new
geography of opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Gautreaux et al. v. Chicago Housing Authority, et
al., 265 F. Supp. 582 (N.D.Ill. 1967)
Goering, J.M. (Ed.). (1986). Housing desegregation
and federal policy. Chapel Hill and London: The
University of North Carolina Press.
TII. IIIIIY .n,"
Hills v. Gautreaux et al. 425 U.S. 284 (1976)
Jargowsky, P.A. (2003, May). Stunning progress,
hidden problems: The dramatic decline of
concentrated poverty in the 1990s. (The Living Cities
Census Series). Brookings Institution: Washington, D.C.
Julian, E., & Daniel, M. (1989). Separate and unequal:
The root and branch of public housing segregation,
Clearinghouse, 23, 666.
Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. (1993). American
apartheid: Segregation and the making of the
underclass. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University
Press.
Rosenbaum, J.E. (1995). Changing the geography of
opportunity by expanding residential choice: Lessons
from the Gautreaux program. Housing Policy Debate,
6(1)
Shannon v. HUD, 364 F.2d 809 (3rd Cir. 1970)
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The
inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
"
Mlrcb20D4
.
Housinl VouchBrs Can and Should PromotB
RBlionalMollllb and Economic I.Blradon
laru.rv 11II1II Ill'll"
Historically, federally subsidized rental housing has
exacerbated the concentration of poor people-
especially minorities-in distressed inner-city
neighborhoods. The vast majority offederally subsidized
housing developments are located in central cities. And
often, subsidized rental housing is clustered in the poorest
and most distressed neighborhoods. The over-
concentration of poverty that results from clustering
subsidized housing undermines the economic and social
viability of urban communities (Massey & Denton 1993;
Wilson, 1987). And a growing body of social science
research indicates that growing up in these high-poverty
neighborhoods also undermines a child's life chances
(Ellen & Turner, 1997).
As jobs-including low-skilled and entry-level jobs-
have increasingly dispersed throughout the suburbs of
most metro areas, the mismatch between subsidized
housing locations and employment opportunities has
become severe. Although some suburban communities
have effectively used inclusionary zoning and other tools
to build subsidized housing in job-rich areas, the political
barriers are daunting and success has been limited
(Burchell etal., 1994).
The federal Housing Choice Voucher program provides
a potentially powerful tool for addressing the failures of
past housing policies. Effectively implemented, vouchers
can promote mobility and location choice helping to
deconcentrate poverty and enabling poor households to
find affordable housing in neighborhoods close to entry-
level employment opportunities. This article focuses
on the role that Housing Choice Vouchers can and should
be playing and reforms needed to strengthen their
performance.
T.. ..1.111.1 ., ...11' ...111 '.I...n
The Housing Choice Voucher Program (previously
known as Section 8 certificates and vouchers)
supplements rent payments for about I. 7 million low
income families and individuals. Recipients rent a house
or apartment in the private market and contribute about
30 percent of their incomes toward rent. The Voucher
Program pays the difference, up to a locally defined
11
TII. I..' ....
"payment standard." To participate, families must find
a house or apartment that meets the program's housing
quality standards with a landlord who is willing to accept
vouchers.
Nationally, the evidence is clear that this kind of "tenant-
based" assistance is far less likely than public housing
programs to concentrate needy households in high-
poverty and high-minority neighborhoods. Only 22
percent of voucher recipients live in high-poverty
neighborhoods (greater than 30 percent poor) and a
majority (59 percent) live in neighborhoods that are less
than 20 percent poor (Devine et al., 2003). In contrast,
54 percent of public housing residents live in high-poverty
neighborhoods (Newman & Schnare, 1997).
Early in the 1990s, findings from the Gautreaux
demonstration in Chicago brought national attention to
the possibility that vouchers could help families escape
from segregated, high-povertY neighborhoods. In the
Gautreaux program, established as the result of a
lawsuit, African American families who were residents
of public housing or eligible to move into public housing
received special-purpose housing vouchers. These
vouchers could only be used to move to predominantly
white or racially mixed neighborhoods. In addition to
the vouchers, Gautreaux families received support and
counseling from a non-profit organization, which helped
them find suitable rental housing in white neighborhoods.
Research on Gautreaux participants found that children
offamilies who moved to suburban neighborhoods were
much more likely to complete high school, take college-
track courses, attend college, and enter the work force
than children from similar families who moved to
neighborhoods within the central city (Rosenbaum 1995).
These findings are being more extensively tested in
HUD's Moving to Opportunity (MTO) demonstration.
MTO is a controlled, random-assignment experiment
to test the effectiveness of using vouchers to help poor
people move out of high-poverty subsidized
developments into low-povertY neighborhoods. Early
findings indicate that many MTO families were able to
move to substantially healthier neighborhoods and that
they feel dramatically safer and more secure as a result.
C'
l1li1:.21..
In addition, there is convincing evidence of
improvements in both mental and physical health (Orr
et aI., 2003). Some research also suggests that young
people whose families have moved to low-povertY
neighborhoods may be less likely to engage in crime
and other risky behaviors (Goering & Feins, 2003).
'l.eIIlrs An .11 UllII I. h ....Ir ...11111
In most communities around the country, the
performance of the federal Housing Choice Voucher
program falls far short of its potential. As currently
administered, vouchers do not provide equal access to
low-poverty and low-minority neighborhoods for all poor
households. Tenant-based assistance produces better
locational outcomes in suburban areas than in central
cities, for white recipients than for African Americans
and Hispanics, and for the elderly than for non-elderly
families and disabled people. For example, 25 percent
of African American recipients and 28 percent of
Hispanics live in high-poverty neighborhoods, compared
to only eight percent of
whites (Devine et aI.,
2003). It is important to
note that tenant-based
assistance still consistently
outperforms public housing,
even in central cities, even
among African Americans
and Hispanics, and even
among families and
disabled recipients. But it
clearly has the potential to offer better locational
outcomes for minority families (Turner & Williams 1998).
voucher recipients are at a real disadvantage. Many of
the landlords who own good housing in desirable
neighborhoods want nothing to do with the federal
voucher program. They fear that low income families
will make risky tenants and undesirable neighbors, or
that red tape and bureaucratic hassles are inevitable
(Turner, Popkin & Cunningham, 2000).
Moreover, suburban communities often oppose the
arrival of voucher families from nearby cities, because
of their race, their povertY, or both (Churchill, Holin,
Khadduri, & Turnham, 2001). Longstanding patterns
of residential segregation and housing market
discrimination create barriers to housing search and
neighborhood choice for minority voucher recipients
(popkin & Cunningham, 2000; Turner et al., 2002). And
many families never even consider moving to a better
neighborhood because they expect discrimination and
prejudice to block their path.
1..nnd"'IIC.lr'I~lnll'CI
Beginning when Henry
Cisneros was Secretary,
the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)
increasingly used the
voucher program as a
tool to promote mobility,
povertY deconcentration,
and racial desegregation.
Special-purpose vouchers have been included as an
important element of public housing desegregation
settlements, and as a tool for relocating residents of
HOPE VI developments, both temporarily and
permanently. In addition, the Regional Opportunity
Counseling Initiative provided funding to voucher
programs in selected metro areas to develop regionwide
mobility programs. These initiatives vary tremendously
with respect to size, goals, and effectiveness, and as
yet no systematic evaluation has been conducted to
assess their performance. Nonetheless, they offer
useful insights about what it takes to ensure that vouchers
realize their unique potential.
Inmost communities around the
country, the peñormance of the
federal Housing Choice Voucher
program falls far short of its
potential...And in hot rental markets,
taking advantage of a voucher can
be particularly difficult.
Because the voucher program is administered by local
public housing agencies, central city recipients are
generally not encouraged to search for housing
regionwide. Technically, vouchers are portable-
recipients can use them to move anywhere in the u.s.
But the administrative hurdles can be daunting, both for
housing agencies and for recipients. And few local
housing agencies see it as their responsibility to gather
information about affordable rental housing regionwide
and help clients move to other jurisdictions (Feins et al
1997).
Mobility counseling and assistance can help voucher
In hot rental markets, taking advantage of a voucher recipients understand the locational options available,
can be particularly difficult. Specifically, in communities identifY housing opportunities, and negotiate effectively
where vacancy rates are low and rents are rising, with landlords. A growing body of evidence from assisted
landlords have no trouble finding tenants for units in housing mobility programs across the country indicates
good neighborhoods. Under these circumstances, that this kindofsupplementai assistance can significantly
TIIIIIIIIY ....n
"
Ml1Ch2_
11
improve locational outcomes for voucher recipients,
resulting in greater mobility to low-povertY and racially
mixed neighborhoods for families who might otherwise
find it difficult to move out of distressed, inner-city
neighborhoods (Goering, Tebbins, & Siewert 1995; HUD
1996; Turner & Williams 1998; HUD 1999; Orr et al.
2003).
Aggressive landlord outreach, service, and incentives,
though sometimes viewed as a component of mobility
counseling, actually involve very different activities.
Housing agencies can significantly expand the options
available to voucher recipients and improve recipients'
success in finding suitable housing by continuously
recruiting new landlords to participate in the program,
listening to landlord concerns about how the program
operates, addressing red tape and other disincentives to
landlord participation, and, in some cases, offering
financial incentives to landlords to accept voucher
recipients.
hit StIli IIr Fe.lnl Pillet
A radical strategy for
achieving the goals of
mobility and choice
through the federal
voucher program would be
to replace the current
balkanized system of
administration by local housing authorities with regional
administration. Bruce Katz and I have argued that the
voucher program should be administered by one agency
per metropolitan area (Katz & Turner 2001). This
agency could be one of the local public housing agencies
that currently administers the program for a single
jurisdiction, or it could be a regional non-profit
organization or even a for-profit business. Our proposal
argues for HUD to select metropolitan administrators
competitively and to compensate them based on their
performance.
encourage housing authorities to aggressively expand
opportunities in low-povertY neighborhoods, and to
provide meaningful information and encouragement to
families who might be interested in moving.
In addition, regulatory and administrative barriers that
now make it difficult for families to move between
jurisdictions within a metropolitan hodsing market should
be eliminated. HUD should discourage individual
housing authorities within a metropolitan area from using
different application forms for the Section 8 program,
requiring in-person applications, or providing preferences
for existing residents ofthe jurisdiction. HUD needs to
work with housing authorities to minimize the
administrative hurdles involved in portability, which often
discourage families from searching outside their
immediate area.
And finally, the number and scale of regional housing
mobility initiatives funded by the federal government
should be gradually expanded. In metropolitan areas
with large concentrations of povertY and significant
barriers to mobility, additional
funding may be needed over
the long-term to support
housing counseling and
search assistance. As a
general principle, this funding
should go to organizations
with a track record for
counseling and assisting low income families, and with
the capacity to provide information and access to housing
opportunities regionwide. Although these regional
initiatives should enjoy considerable flexibility and
discretion to design a program that responds to local
circumstances, they should be held accountable for
results, through a set of objective performance
measures, collected and reported on a regular basis.
H UD can significantly
improve the capacity of the
Housing Choice Voucher
Program to enhance real mobility
and choice.
But short of such a radical overhaul, HUD can
significantly improve the capacity of the Housing Choice
Voucher Program to enhance real mobility and choice.
Specifically, HUD should use its management
assessment procedures to create stronger incentives for
housing authorities to focus on residential mobility and
locational outcomes among voucher recipients. This
kind of incentive structure does not mean that every
family receiving Section 8 assistance must be pressured
into moving to a low-poverty neighborhood. But it should
12
111_""
MI,..,. II1II1 Tlnlr directs the Urban Institute's
Metropolitan Housing and Communities policy center
and is a nationally recognized expert on urban policy
and neighborhood issues. Ms. Turner served as Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Research at the Department
of Housing and Urban Development from 1993 through
1996, focusing HUD's research agenda on the problems
of racial discrimination, concentrated poverty, and
economic opportunity in America's metropolitan areas.
Prior to joining the Clinton Administration at HUD, Ms.
Turner directed the housing research program at the
Urban Institute.
"
Mlrcb20Ø4
.1'lnnel.
Burchell, R.W. et al. (1994). Regional housing
opportunities for lower income households: A
resource guide to affordable housing and regional
mobility strategies. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Churchill, S., Holin, M.J., Khadduri, J. & Turnham, 1..
(200 I). Strategies that enhance community relations
in the tenant-based housing choice voucher
program, final report. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Ellen, I. G, & Turner, M. A. (1997). Does neighborhood
matter? Assessing recent evidence. Housing Policy
Debate, 8(4),833-866.
Devine, D. J. et al. (2003). Housing choice voucher
location patterns: 1mplications for participant and
neighborhood welfare. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Feins, J., et al. (1997). State and metropolitan
administration of Section 8: Current models and
potential resources. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates.
Goering, J., & Feins, J. D. (Eds.). (2003). Choosing a
better life? Evaluating the moving to opportunity
Social Experiment. Washington, D.C.: The Urban
Institute Press.
Goering, J., Stebbins, H., & Siewert, M. (1995).
Promoting housing choice in HUD's rental
assistance programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Katz, B. J., & Turner, M. A. (2001). Who should run
the housing voucher program? A reform proposal.
Housing Policy Debate 12(2), 239-62.
Massey, D. S., Denton, N. (1993). American
apartheid: segregation and the making of the
Underclass. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
MilIennial Housing Commission. (2002). Meeting our
nation:S housing challenges. Washington, D.C.:
Bipartisan Millennia! Housing Commission.
Newman, S., & Schnare, A. B. (1997). '...And a
suitable living environment': The failure of housing
TII. II. ....
programs to deliver on neighborhood quality. Housing
Policy Debate, 8(4),703-41.
Orr, L. et al. (2003), Moving to opportunity interim
impacts evaluation. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Popkin, S. J,. & Cunningham, M. K. (2000). Searching
for rental housing with Section 8 in Chicago.
Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
Rosenbaum, J. E. (1995). Changing the geography of
opportunity by expanding residential choice: Lessons
from the Gautreaux program. Housing Policy Debate
6(1), 231-69.
Turner, M. A. et al. (2002). Discrimination in
metropolitan housing markets: Results from phase 1
of HDS2000. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development.
Turner, M. A., Popkin, S.J., & Cunningham, M. K..
(2000). Section 8 mobility and neighborhood health.
Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
Turner, M. A., & Wilson, C. (1998). Affirmatively
jùrthering fair housing: Neighborhood outcomes for
tenant-based assistance in six metropolitan areas.
Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
Turner, M. A., & Williams, K. (1998). Housing
mobility: Realizing the promise. Washington, D.C.: The
Urban Institute.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(1996). Expanding housing choices for HUD-
assisted families: First biennial report to Congress.
Washington, D.C.: Author.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
1999. Waiting in vain: An update on America's
housing crisis. Washington, D.C.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The
inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago,
Ill.: The University of Chicago Press.
"
MI!CUBM
13
Working Toward BalancB :
Providing AftordablB Housing in BOB of IhB
Nalion's CosliBSI Housing MarkBls
C..nd EI..
At first glance, Fairfax County, Virginia appears to be
a prosperous and thriving community adjacent to the
Nation's capital. With its median household income
and median single family home value among the highest
in the nation according to the 2000 Census, Fairfax
County has a healthy economic base with 221 million
square feet of commercial and institutional floor area
(Fairfax County Department of Systems Managment,
2002) and a labor force of 576,522 (Virginia Employment
Commission (2003).
Dubbed a "MEGA County" (Massively Enlarged
Growth Accelerated) by the Metropolitan Institute at
Virginia Tech, its population at just over one million is
larger than that of seven states. Its growth has been
staggering, with a population increase of200,000 since
1990 (Fairfax County Department of Systems
Management, n.d.). One of the most dynamic
communities in the country, Fairfax County is home to
a number ofleading firms in the technology and defense
industries and enjoys close proximity to the historic and
cultural resources of the District of Columbia,
unparalleled employment opportunities, dozens of
institutions of higher learning, and a tireless army of
non-profit organizations and volunteers.
The strong local economy and dramatic population
increase brought a set of complex paradoxes to Fairfax
County: a sorely-needed labor pool, but an
unprecedented demand for housing; the vibrancy of
cultural diversity, but the challenge of multiple languages
and expectations; a populace of both great wealth and
extreme povertY; citizens with a spirit of benevolence,
and those with great need. The number of jobs in Fairfax
County far outstripped the number of dwellings
available, and workers at all levels were forced to seek
housing outside the County and commute into the County
for work. County policy makers soon realized the loss
of wealth that was occurring and would continue to
occur if the housing shortage was not addressed.
Affordable housing was of particular importance since
tens of thousands of service workers were needed to
support the County's economic base, and service job
vacancies were becoming increasingly difficult to fill.
14
TII. ...., ....
County policies were established in the County's
Comprehensive Plan by the Board of Supervisors to
help address the shortage of housing. These policies
included encouraging the provision of affordable housing
in all parts of the County; promoting the development
of multifamily housing in both mixed-use centers and
existing residential areas in an effort to diversifY the
housing stock and expand lower cost housing options;
and ensuring that redevelopment of residential
neighborhoods would provide affordable dwelling units
or a contribution to the Fairfax County Housing Trust
Fund equal to the replacement value of all affordable
units displaced.
To help put the policies into effect, the County worked
with its state legislature to gain permission to establish
a County-wide Affordable Dwelling Unit (ADU)
Program. The Program, articulated as an ordinance
within the County Code, was established in 1990 and
initially provided a standard approach for developers to
make a commitment at the time of rezoning to provide
affordable dwelling units in exchange for an extra density
of dwelling units. The Commonwealth of Virginia
requires that developers experience no net economic
loss as a result of providing units under the ADU
Program. Over time, and with the direction of a Task
Force comprised of community developers, affordable
housing advocates, elected officials and staff, the
Program was strengthened to its current terms. The
Task Force, appointed by the Board of Supervisors, has
evolved to having an ongoing consultative role in policy
matters pertaining to the Affordable Dwelling Unit
Program.
The ADU Program applies to sites that are the subject
of a rezoning or special exception application or site
plan or subdivision plat submission that yield 50 or more
dwelling units, including low-rise and certain mid-rise
multi-family structures that are typically five stories or
less. ADUs also may be provided in developments
where these criteria are not applicable, in order to take
advantage of special zoning regulations that apply to
properties with ADUs. In return for an increase in
"
..reb2104
density, such developments are ~uired to provide a
specified percentage of affordable units which (µ'e
defined as unitS åffordable tohouseholds wlwseincome
is 70%orless ofillemedianincome for'theWfßliirig1;on,
D.C. Metropolitan Statistical Area. The percenþ\ges
of ADDs r¡;:qUÏI'ed are related to a certain amount of
increased density. In-all cases, dêvelopfiCS are strongly
encouraged to disperse ADUs amoqg other market~
rate units in thfi development.
-_I'JI$<~
.UoiIo......K'<:VO"~.II'··I~IiÍ<!i1Wl',.._.
0.........··..1_ '"·~'''~...·r .
, .
^'-..IõIaopo"'-_......,..iJ\O:·..."""Jo..._.'U,....,.....AM
Fairfax County wso maintains a Housing Trust Fund,
into which .a developer makes a contribution for
developments that are not subject to theADUProgJ'am
or for those very Iimiteddevelopments that are gt@ted
amodification oftheADUPtogJ'am n~quirements. Too
TtIJ$t Fundhasprovidedmoretban$l8m1llion toproduce
more than 1,000 units ofaffurdåble housing and itfuß
been a pgwerlì.d development cat:ályst. Onaver~e, for
every $1 ofHousingTrustFundmoney, $7 is leveJ:flßèd
ITom outside sources to: create: ärid preserve atfordâble
hOusing
Since the ADIJ PrograIJ,1: was established in 1990, over
2,OOOunits (including bel)¡ fur sale andrentaJ units) have
either b¢¢¡i created or are in the development pipeline.
These units are spread among 131 developments and
they are predominantly either single family attached or
UltlllllllY ...811
~
multi~family developments. Under theADO Program,
the maximum ~rcentage ofADUs required is 12.5%
ofthetot:ålnumber of units withiri adevelopment Since
the CountY' has a strong policy of conserving
neigþborhoods and preventing their redevelopment,
ADDs tend toQCcur innew developments, so the ADUs
are distribUted widely across the County.
In fiscal year 1995, the Fairfax County Board of
Supervisors allocated $500,000 for an Employees
Homeowßer$hip ASsi;.tance Program for moderateø
income C()unty and schools employees seeking to buy
their :fiiSt homes, To date. 26 second trust loans have
beell mäde to employees under this program. Because
ofille expense of1ivlng in the County, there is a high
levelofpublic supportfonilœrîng theADU Program to
provideADITs as a priority to public safety personnel.
Market forces such as higJi land values and a robust job
market are próQucingamarketforhigÞerend residential
construction. These forces, combined with the-County's
requirements for affordable dwelling units in new
residentiaIdevelopmen:t~ sometimeshavetberesuJtthat
theADUs are located withirinewhigttend communities
:thát offer luxury amenities not ttäditioiïâlly found in
market rate subdivisions.
To ensure some degree of compatibility in terms of
basic design, IDe Pro~ rAAuires that the ADDs meet
ceJtûn b<:J$ic COD$®ction ~ificationsföf'thëPm:tOtÿ~
'affordable housin~ product for both for~så1e anq Teptal
units. At the: $affie time, however, theADD Progµµµ
haS.aISö fostered aspiritofint1<wation in housing desigp,
and dèvelopment. Sincel:l,U:ge lµxµry homes are ap<mU1at
_2014
15
product for new subdivisions, the PrograJn wa$amendM
to include anaffordable dwelling concept called a Gteåt
House.
The Great House structure has the (lp~arance of a
large luxury single family house frørn the oUÍ$ide and
blends into the visual impression of the overall
neighborhood. In truth, it <:ontains two Qr more
affordable dwellings for families who earn :up to 70%
of the median household income for the Washirigton
Metropolitan Statistical Area.
ExampltofAffoidåblecDWdAAgUnitsfortwoormoœ
families tbatmimic,Sjugtè:fäJJJiJý dt$i:-khed housing
("Great House")
The Fairfax County Redevelopment and Housing
Authority (FCRHA), which administers the ADU
Progral,11 for the County, ålso owns and maDi)ges over
1,000 public housing units. In ~neriiJ, the FCRRA
strategy is to provide these units in developments oBO
units or less. Under the ADD Progra,rn, the FCRHA
has the option to purchase up to one~third of the available
ADUs and has exercised its right tQ purchase 40 units:
in eight developments scattered thrQuglloutthe Countÿ
for its Public Housing Program. These units are
attractively designed and unrecognizable as assisted
housing.
Acceptance by the community haS beengenerälly qQite
positive and from a1JUl1.1agementp¡;n¡(X;Ctlve there have
been fewer management issues as the Pübic Housing
residents living in the ADUs have blended well withfu
the community. The FCRHA~uisitionþ{)1icy prevents
purchasingmorethannine units ÍnRIlY onedevcloPment
Policy goals include,: ensuring that acquired units are
appropriately located, allO<:ating scarce resources to
priority investment$; erihancingrentäl opportunities in
proximity toemploy:¡:nentcentef$ orpubJic~ion;
and providipghousingfor persQns withspeciål hQusing
needs.
1&
1IIo_YB...n
Eù:m~ofpubJ,i¢Ìý~WnêdAffofdableDwellûig Unitin
Fåid'ax:County,Vi~.
Pelln CllaO.....
AriiO.Qg changes made to the ADD Pro~ since its
incepµonwere atœmms toofi'erflexibilitytodevelopers.
Indiffi¡;:ultdeve:wpµlentsituations suchas infill parcels,
a$.seìnbl~e ofpreviollSly developexlland. or inhospitable
terrain, a combination of innovation and flexibility is
sometimes needed to make any development feasible.
The resUlt of the Coun,ty's attempts to offer flexibility
(e.g;, exemptions, modifications) is currently under
review by the FCRRA to determine whether the
potentiw supply of AD Us was adversely affected and
whether more ADDs could have been created.
Another area for examination is the policy of the
CommonweâlthofVu:giniatoprohibitany net economic
loss to developers as a result of providing ADUs.
B~use ofthiš pplièy,FaiifaxCountyis now challenged
to i:nçof:P()rateADUs into higþ~rise buildiI1gs (typically,
five stories or more) that also have elevators and
structuredpäiking. ExtéI1sive economic modeling and
discussion within the ADD Task Force occurred in
recent years to determine how to make the provision of
ADDs in taller buildings more economically equitable
to developers. The work of the ADD Task Force
...,nwd to show tbatadditiona! densily alone likely would
not prevent economic loss to developers. Abatement
of reål estate tm;es was explored, and found to be
prohibited by the Commonwealth ofVuginia except in
extr-emely limited cases.
The most recent chåriges to the ADO Ordinance went
into effect on Janllllfy 31, 2Q04, and the Board of
Supervisors is expected to turn its at:tention once again
to the challenge. of providing ADDs in tallerresidential
structures. lfihis canbe achieved, it would present the
('
Mareum
opportunity of providing affordable housing around major
transit centers with mixed uses to reduce the
transportation cost for affordable housing residents.
Fairfax County intends to explore this opportunity as
fully as possible in the coming years.
C..nd EI.. is the President and CEO of the National
Housing Conference. Prior to being appointed to that
position he served for five years as NHC's director of
policy. During 200 I and 2002, Mr. Egan was on a leave
of absence from NHC so that he could serve as
Executive Director of the MiIlennial Housing
Commission, established by the United States Congress
to recommend ways to better support good housing for
all Americans. Mr. Egan is also the chairman of the
commissioners of the Fairfax, VA County Housing and
RedevelopmentAuthority.
TII. I'" .q.
Rller..cls
Fairfax County Department of Systems Management.
(n.d.). Economic and demographic information.
[Data file]. Available from http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/
comm/demogrph/gendemo.htrn.
Fairfax County Department of Systems Management.
(2002). Nonresidential structure gross floor area.
[Data file]. Available from http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/
comm/demogrph/dem/rptslnrespd.xls.
Virginia Employment Commission. (2004, February).
Local area unemployment statistics. [Data file].
Available from http://www.vec.state.va.us/vecportals/
lbrmrktllauscllabor.cfm.
"
..re.2104
11
DBconCBntraling PMnv and
thB Race 10 thB Boaom
IdWlnII. IIIIl
Virtually everyone can agree that concentrated poverty is
undesirable. It imposes severe costs on families who suffer
ftom the crime and violence as well as from the degraded
schools and other inferior public and private services that
often characterize these neighborhoods. Concentrated
povertY imposes costs on communities in the fonn of
elevated expenditures for a more service-dependent
population, while simultaneously s1rainingrevenues through
the continual devaluation of property. If concentrated
poverty is so destructive on an individual and community
level, then it would seem clearthat deconcentrating poverty
is an objective worth building political support for and worth
pursuing. Not necessarily.
A sustained attempt to deconcentrate poverty within the
Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan area, described below,
triggered and even widened NIMBY attitudes toward
affordable housing in the region. (See Goetz, 2003, for a
more detailed treatment of the issues discussed in this
article). At the height of the effort to deconcentrate poverty
in the region, a number of central city neighborhoods and
inner ring suburbs concluded that they had, in fact, too
much affordable housing and would take no more until
"non-concentrated" areas took their fair share. These
more affluent communities, noting the dire predictions
associated with concentrated poverty, were convinced
more than ever that affordable housing should be avoided.
What ensued was a race to the bottom among communities
in the region to off-load existing low-cost housing or avoid
new affordable housing to the extent they could.
A number of factors coalesced in the early I 990s to trigger
a large-scale effort to deconcentrate poverty in the Twin
Cities. The region was suffering a significant spike in
violent crime associated with gang and drug activity in
central neighborhoods. The incidence of concentrated
poverty itselfhad widened considerably during the 1980s.
Newspaper articles and reports ftom civic organizations
highlighted the growing economic and social disparities in
the region. Then-State Senator Myron Orfield, from a
district that included poverty neighborhoods in south
Minneapolis, began a relentless and highly effective public
education campaign with what came to be known as his
"scary maps." The maps showed concentrations of poverty,
of school-children using the federal lunch program (another
measure of poverty), of crime, low tax-capacity, and a
18
TII. I..' ....
range of other factors illustrating in vivid terms the growth
of areas of disadvantage in the core of the metropolitan
area, spreading toward and in some cases including first
ring suburbs.
Orfield's legislation at the state house that attempted to
equalize these disparities was at center-stage of regional
politics from 1992 through 1995. His public education
campaign convinced many people of the problems
associated with concentrated poverty. Groups from central
neighborhoods saw in concentrated poverty the cause of
theirgrowing problems in crime, violence and neighborhood
decay. Those from the first ring suburbs recognized in
Orfield's maps a compelling explanation for the decline of
their communities over the previous 10 years.
The concentrated povertY scare produced a singular
response from community and political activists in the area,
one prohably not intended by Orfield and other advocates
of deconcentration. The oveniding lessons taken from
the concentrated poverty scare by many in the region was
roughly the following: first, having too many poor people is
bad for a neighborhood and a community; second, actions
that attract or anchor poor people in one place, such as the
provision of social services and affordable housing,
contribute to concentrated poverty and ought to be avoided;
and, third, where these anchoring activities already exist
in large numbers, they should be reduced (e.g., through
the demolition of low -cost housing). What the concentrated
poverty discourse had provided for many groups in the
region was, in effect, a more acceptable rationale for
NIMBYism.
Local policies and the attitudes of community groups
changed accordingly. Both central cities started aggressive
anti-drug programs and crime prevention programs that
neighborhood groups enthusiastically endorsed. In Saint
Paul, a housing inspector accompanied the police on drug
raids so that units might be condemned and suspects forced
to move even if no evidence of drug activity were found.
The raids were highly targeted against African-Americans
and other people of color; more than 90% of these raids
were against non-whites, in a city that was 82% white.
The city also demolisbed whole apartment buildings, citing
concentrated poverty as a reason. In a similar fashion,
Minneapolis became very aggressive in the condemnation
"
..re.2...
and demolition of low-cost housing in high-crime
neighborhoods. Between 1991 and 1998, the city tore down
2,250 more units than were built during the period. Forthe
entire decade, the city demolished nearly 5,600 housing
units.
First ring suburbs pursued similar objectives. In north
suburban Brooklyo Park, the city organized landlords and
supported tenant-screening efforts. Several large
apartment complexes were renovated for higher-income
occupancy or demolished. Neighbors of one complex being
considered for partial demolition and rehabilitation were
canvassed by the city. Echoing the deconcentration
argument, over 90% "basically said, 'tear 'em all down. '"
Other inner-ring suburbs identified the demolition oflow-
cost housing as a policy objective, arguing they had too
much ofit. The region as a whole, despite growing by
more than 350,000 people, actually lost more than 5,000
rental units between 1990 and 2000.
In a region where community politics is animated by
deconcentration of poverty,
renters do not fare well. The
City of Minneapolis diverted
millions of dollars during this
period away from multi-family
housing rehabilitation in core
neighborhoods toward
homeownership programs and
toward projects in non-impacted
neighborhoods. One Saint Paul
community development corporation publicized the results
of a community survey it conducted, in which it found that
the things residents did not like about their neighborhood
included "crime and disorder, renters, other housing
problems, social characteristics and poor aesthetics..."
[italics added].
In Minneapolis, as bas happened elsewhere, advocates
and the low-income tenants being displaced protested their
forced removal. Despite the poor conditions in the public
housing projects slated for demolition, slightly more than
half of the residents did not wish to move. As in most
HOPE VI projects nationwide, however, the demolition
and displacement of families was the one element ofthe
project that proceeded quickly. Even in the middle of a
severe affordable housing shortage, with vacancy rates at
one percent, and despite community protests that
temporarily halted demolition, hundreds of the city's most
affordable housing units came down.
Officials in the 1\vin Cities region were able to replace
virtually all of the demolished public housing on a scattered
site basis throughout the region, including the suburbs. This
was a tremendous success that was not matched in other
cities with similar settlements or HOPE VI projects. But,
importantly, significant progress on the replacement housing
was made only after the region had slipped into a crisis-
level lack of affordable
housing, when the
'deconcentration' rationale
gave way to a more
generalized need for low-cost
housing in suburban areas. It
was only when the
development of affordable
housing was de-coupled from
the objective of
deconcentrating poverty that suburhan communities begao
to make progress in developing replacement units.
Deconcentratlon efforts may
identify low-cost rental
housing as a neighborhood
problem, rather than a resource,
putting advocates for low-income
housing on the defensive.
In 1995, a multi-million dollar legal settlement called for
the deconcentration of poverty in anorth side neighborhood
of Minneapolis, home to over 1,000 units of public housing.
The resulting demolition of those units, the displacement
of hundreds of families, the redevelopment of the 73-acre
site, and the efforts to build replacement units throughout
the region also exposed the divisive nature of
deconcentrating povertY. In most respects, this legal
settlement produced a series of actions that closely
resembles what occurs in the typical federal HOPE VI
public housing redevelopment project. Older,
'dysfunctional' public housing was demolished, the
residents were displaced and dispersed, and the site was
redeveloped into alower-density, mixed-income community.
TII. II.IY ....n
Concentrated poverty, as a framework for organizing
community action, is fundamentally differentthan previous
paradigms that typically identified outside threats (e.g, red-
lining by insurance and lending institutions, urhan renewal,
gentrification, disinvestment, insensitive public and private
development schemes, etc.) to community health. The
deconcentration argument, in contrast, suggests
communities' biggest problems lie within. In the Twin
Cities the concentrated poverty scare oriented community
activists inward, and led them to conclude that their
neighborhood problems could be equated with the poor
people who lived there. It is a movement that divided
communities. What national crime scholar, Wesley Skogao
says about anti-crime initiatives-that they can lead to
"middle class residents often unit(ing) against 'bad
elements' in their own community... "--<:an also be said
about efforts to deconcentrate poverty. Such efforts pit
one element of the community against another.
"
MlreUOM
19
Deconcentratlon efforts may also identil)' low-cost rental Rellrelce
housing as aneighborhood problem, rather than a resource,
putting advocates forlow-income bousing on the defensive. Goetz, E. G. (2003). Clearing the way:
Deconcentrating the poor in urban america.
Concentrated poverty is certainly destructive to Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
neighborhoods and families in a number of ways.
Affordable housing advocates should include
desegregation as one among their many objectives. But,
whether or not to adopt the vocabulary of
deconcentration that carries with it the risk of unleashing
a race to the bottom, and whether or not to adopt the
range of strategies associated with deconcentration,
including demolition of low-cost units and the forced
relocation of low-income families, are two questions
that should be regarded very carefully.
EIIwInI G. IIIIIl is professor and director of the Urhan
and Regional Planning program at the Humphrey Institute
of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota. He is the author
of Clearing the Way: Deconcentrating the Poor in
Urban America, published by the Urban Institute Press
in 2003. He has published several articles on the politics of
affordable housing and on regional programs to disperse
subsidized housing.
28
TII. II..' ....n
"
MlreUØ4
"WB AlrBadV Have Our Fair SharB":
Fair Housing Complaints as a WBapon In IhB
HaBIB AIIalnsl AnordablB Housing
-.:.......
The rhetoric about deconcentration on the basis of
income is appealing to people across the ideological
spectrum. In part, it is because of such bipartisan support
that the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act
of 1998 (QHWRA) and its emphasis on deconcentration
was enacted. While such broad support for a policy
can suggest widely shared goals, it can also demonstrate
widely divergent understandings of the term
deconcentration.
As with "affordable housing," the true meaning of
"deconcentration" is in the ear of the listener. A low
income housing advocate may hear the term and think
of mobility counseling programs that offer families a
chance to get out of a disadvantaged inner city. A local
elected official may think it is a way to get rid of public
housing downtown and smooth the path for
gentrification. To an opponent of low-cost housing,
deconcentration may provide a compelling argument to
limit development in a neighborhood or region of a city
which, in the eyes of opponents, already has its "fair
share.'" By themselves, each of these meanings is
plausible. The fact that they may all be at cross purposes
demonstrates that we must be clearer in our public
discussions oflanguage and policy direction.
Using the rhetoric of deconcentration, opponents of
affordable housing have been getting more sophisticated
in the tools they use to slow or stop new development.
Back in the I 960s and I 970s, they mastered the use of
leaflets, petitions and public testimony. During the 1990s,
the trend was toward greater use of technology, as
neighborhood groups amplified their messages through
listserves and websites. In the early 21 st century, the
tool of choice seems to be aggressive use of the Fair
Housing Act (FHA).
Housing providers and civil rights groups have used the
FHA successfully over the past 35 years to increase
1 The irony. of course. is that ''fair share" is such a subjective
term that almost any neighborhood can claim to have
achieved it, whether there is a single unit of affordable
housing or thousands.
TII. II..' ....
housing opportunities for people of color and people with
disabilities. (See The NIMBY report, Fall 2002.) Taking
a page from their playbook, opponents in several states
have begun to argue that placing affordable housing in
disadvantaged neighborhoods is a form of race or
disability discrimination. So far, such claims have been
rebuffed by courts, but the delay and confusion sown
by such claims is delaying the development of much
needed affordable and supportive housing.
One of the most visible recent attempts by opponents
to interpose claims of discrimination occurred in
Minneapolis. Project for Pride in Living (PPL), a non-
profit dedicated to helping low income families achieve
self sufficiency, proposed to build a 20-unit supportive
housing community for homeless families in which one
or more members has a disability, in the Ventura Village
neighborhood of the city. In August 2002, neighbors
sued in federal court, claiming that the city was guilty
of race discrimination for allowing PPL to build in a
racially mixed neighborhood. Alleging that another
supportive housing project in their neighborhood would
depress property values and increase crime, the
neighbors claimed that they had been discriminated
against because they lived in a "predominantly non-white
neighborhood," and that "the City has forced
the...Plaintiffs...to suffer the effects of increased crime
and decreased propertY values in ways that residents
of the City's predominantly white neighborhoods do not."
The lawsuit also claimed that the prospective residents
of the PPL community were discriminated against on
the basis of race and disability, because the city limited
their ability to "choose a dwelling in neighborhoods other
than those in which the City has concentrated supportive
housing." On November 13, the court found that none
of these arguments was persuasive, and denied the
neighbors' request for a preliminary injunction to stop
construction. The lawsuit will now proceed toward trial,
which is expected in late 2004.
In Durham, North Carolina, two African American
homeowners in a community that is 90% African
American, sued a developer and the city government,
"
.1ICb28D4
21
alleging that they had engaged in race discrimination by
locating and allowing an 88-unit, tax-credit financed,
rent-to-own townhouse project in their neighborhood.
The plaintiffs have been active in the formation of East
Durham Fair Share, a group advocating a broader
distribution of subsidized housing throughout the city.
They claimed that the developer, Peter Hubicki, the city
and its housing authority "intentionally maintained a
policy, practice and custom that discriminated against
them, as black citizens of North Carolina, on the basis
of race by the placement of the Pendleton Townhome
project within one-half mile of their separate residences,"
in violation of the North Carolina Constitution.
The complaint is not specific about how such a
concentration, if it existed, would violate the Fair
HousingAct. "I'm not exactly sure what the complaint
is alleging....I think it's trying to say we're trying to
segregate Hispanics on the east side into high-density,
low income housing," Ernest Cate, deputy city attorney
said in an interview. "If that's the case, the facts simply
do not back that up. According to the census, minorities
are spread pretty evenly across the city. There may
have been more recent development on the east side,
but that's because the west side is already developed,"
Cate said. The city filed a response with HUD on
October 10, denying the allegations and asking that the
complaint be dismissed. Included in the response are
As summarized in his August 14, 2003 decision 2000 census figures that indicate that Springdale's
dismissing the claims, Judge Howard Manning, Jr. Hispanic population is divided almost equally throughout
believed plaintiffs had alleged that "saturation of minority the city. The city has also suggested that Stromwall
communities with low income housing segregates and does not have "standing" (the legal right to file a
disadvantages the minority residents who live there." complaint) under the Fair HousingAct. The Fair Housing
Because he found that the Pendleton development Act requires HUD to conduct
"is an affordable housing an investigation within 100 days
complex for working moderate What happens when andtodeterminewhetherornot
income families and is not the communities of color reasonable cause exists to
kind of project that could be oppose affordable housing on believe that discrimination has
classified as a concentrated low h h occurred.
income minority housing unit," the grounds that t ey ave
JudgeManningdeterminedthat become "saturated" while Regardless of their eventual
the city's Housing Impact wealthier communities have outcome, these cases raise
Policy, which was ~opted to not done their fair share? ~nteres~ng and difficult ~ssues
encourage greater dIspersal of mvolvmg the concentratton of
low income housing, did not apply, and that the city's affordable housing in communities that believe they
approval of Pendleton was not a violation of that policy. already have their fair share. When a well-to-do,
The plaintiffs have filed an appeal of Judge Manning's predominantly white community opposes affordable
decision; the matter will be taken up by the North housing, it is relatively easy to apply the NIMBY label,
Carolina Court of Appeals next year. and to suggest that its intolerance is a form of
discrimination. But what happens in cases such as those
discussed above, when communities of color oppose
such housing on the grounds that they have become
"saturated" while wealthier communities have not done
their fair share?
A newly formed neighborhood opposition group in
northwest Arkansas, Citizens United for a Better
Springdale (CUBS), has filed a discrimination complaint
under the Fair Housing Act with the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), charging
that the city of Spring dale uses "discriminatory zoning
practices to perpetuate segregated housing patterns on
the older east side of the city." While few specifics
supporting the complaint are available, CUBS president
Linda Stromwall alleges in the complaint that "[i]nstead
of sharing citywide its obligation to provide affordable
housing, Springdale, by hiding behind its exclusive zoning
practices, has placed 90 percent of its affordable and
multifamily housing on the east side, while maintaining
the west side for low-density, single-family zoning."
22
TII. I..' .N.
Developers oflow-cost housing frequently point to the
fact that land acquisition costs in middle class and
wealthier neighborhoods are prohibitive, and that
addressing the affordable housing crisis will require
increasing the number of affordable units in already
affordable neighborhoods. But pursuing this course
without considering the impact on disadvantaged
communities (not to mention the impact of concentration
on the new low income families who will live in these
"
MlrcU_
units) is to overlook the principle of equity behind the
fair share movement. At some basic level, it is unfair to
expect a handful of communities to provide all the
affordable housing in a city or region.
Developers, policy makers, advocates and funders should
listen carefully to the messages being sent in Minnesota,
North Carolina and Arkansas. Even ifthese complaints
are turned away by courts and administrative agencies,
they remind us that our efforts to build housing for low
income people must be guided by more than mere
economics.
MI.IIIAlII. is a senior staff attorney and director of
housing programs at the Judge David L. Bazelon Center
for Mental Health Law in Washington, D.C., where he
is involved in public policy and litigation on behalf of the
housing needs of people with mental disabilities. He also
serves as co-director of the Building Better Communities
Network (www.bettercommunities.org). He can be
reached at 1101 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1212,
Washington, D.C. 20005, 202-467-5730 x117,
michaela@bazelon.org.
TII. IIIIIY ...l1li
.llln.ce
Ross, J. (Ed.) (2002, Fall). Using civil rights laws to
advance affordable housing. The N1MBY Report.
fir ..n .......U..
Minnesota Case:
Barbara McCormick, Director of Housing and
Development, Project for Pride in Living. E-mail:
barbara.mccormick@ppl-inc.org. Telephone: 612/874-
8511. Christopher Shaheen, Esq., Dorsey & Whitney
(counsel). E-mail: shaheen.christopher@dorsey.com.
Telephone: 612/340-2886.
North Carolina Case:
Guy Crabtree, Esq., Pulley, Watson, King & Lischer,
P.A. (counsel for Peter Hubicki). E-mail:
gwc@pwkl.com. Telephone: 919/682-9691.
Arkansas Case:
Ernest Cate, Deputy City Attorney, City of Spring dale.
E-mail: ecate@springdaleark.org. Telephone: 479/750-
8173.
"
"reb2D"
23
DBconcBntraUon with I Twist: DB SBrvicB Hub
ConcBPI in Sh8hBrlSBnicB IBlivBrv
11..lIIr R. Wile.
After decades of concentrating homeless shelters and
related human service facilities in areas of transitional
land use on the downtown fringe, policies of
deconcentration have become popular across American
cities. The impulse for deconcentration is both
therapeutic and expedient. Advocates have long argued
against the ghettoization of impoverished, service-
dependent residents in group home and SRO districts
located in deteriorating downtown neighborhoods. Their
rationale was that ghettoization ran counter to the goal
of 'normalization' and integration of poor people into
mainstream urban life, subjected some of our most
vulnerable residents to dangerous and insalubrious
treatment settings and housing locations, and forced
people from allover a metropolitan region to leave their
home communities in order to receive assistance.
But in an era of economic globalization and neoliberal
welfare state policy, in which cities must compete
fiercely for investment dollars, business travelers,
tourists, and local shoppers, a new regime of "povertY
management" has become common across U.S. cities.
Under this regime, the more powerful engine for
deconcentration has been the desire oflocal governments
to "clean up" areas adjacent to downtown and rid them
of extremely poor and visibly homeless people in order
to insure that the city is attractive to the affluent. Too
often, the result is local ordinances that criminalize
homelessness, repeated police actions and street
sweeps, demolition of encampments, closure of facilities,
restrictions on facility expansions, and forced relocation
of certain services to other locales.
There is the very real danger that downtown services
and residential facilities will be closed or prevented from
expanding to meet growing demands for services and
shelter, at the same time that NIMBY forces in both
inner-ring and outer suburbs block facility siting. This
creates the prospect of an unending cycle of
displacement or churning, from one crowded facility to
another, from shelter to jail to street to sober living home,
and back again. Nonetheless, many advocates have
embraced deconcentration as a means to achieve their
long-sought goal of a more geographically equitable
24
TIll.., ...en
distribution of service resources. Few, however, have
raised the question: what do we lose when services
and shelter are deconcentrated?
The answer is: several things. First, when people need
more than one type of service, as they often do, some
concentration of facilities and programs is efficient.
Concentration reduces travel time and costs, which are
often physically taxing if not financially prohibitive for
extremely poor or homeless individuals. Thus too much
deconcentration of services can lead to inaccessibility,
effectively blocking service utilization. Second, service
providers located in close proximity to each other are
better able to coordinate their service offerings, share
information about emergent needs for assistance, and
build advocacy coalitions designed to protect their
interests and attract financial support. Third, extremely
poor and homeless people cope with the challenges of
survival by using several strategies. Adaptive strategies
include cultivation of peer and homed social networks,
and connection with a community of others facing similar
challenges. Such networks and communities offer
material, logistical, and emotional support, and their
development is facilitated by some degree of
concentration. Access, coordination, and social network
formation are all hindered by the spatial isolation of poor
people, and of service providers. Thus concentration is
not an unambiguously negative geographic pattern for
shelter/service resources, nor is radical deconcentration
necessarily in the best interests of those reliant on
services.
This mixed picture suggests the utility of a strategy of
dispersed concentration or small-scale service hubs.
This approach is predicated on the observation that the
geographical pattern of human services can influence
service delivery outcomes. Service clients frequently
rely on a network of services, and when that network is
highly dispersed, services become inaccessible and are
less apt to be used. Also, the physical facilities that house
shelter and service activities create a range of positive
and negative spillover effects which extend over some
geographic area, affecting clients as well as
neighborhoods. Among the positive spillover effects are
"
..reUt114
the benefits that accrue to service providers in close
proximity to each other, such as greater ease ofinter-
service coordination and referral.
By siting specific types of community-based shelter and
service facilities close together, these sites become hubs
that minimize user travel requirements and capture the
maximum positive spillover effects, while avoiding the
negative external effects oflarge aggregations of shelter
beds and ancillary service facilities. Service hubs can
be developed either within the context of new
community design, or more often, by adding the basic
elements of the support network onto existing urban
infrastructure. In practice, service hubs should be small-
scale, and artfully designed so as to seamlessly
incorporate into the urban/suburban fabric-in
neighborhood shopping centers, storefront offices, or
run out of community facilities such as recreation centers
---and thus reduce the potential for NIMBY battles.
The development of service hubs is apt to face certain
obstacles. For example, most zoning ordinances do not
explicitly make room for service facilities on a by-right
basis. Also, because service funding typically comes
from many sources and services themselves may be
public, private, or nonprofit, coordination of their siting
plans is difficult without a long-term vision and process
of information dissemination to prospective providers
about how to locate in a community. Lastly, although
real or perceived spillovers from a service hub may be
lower than a large-scale facility, they may still become
an issue for neighbors. This problem-which is one of
the most nettlesome of any challenges facing
providers-may be overcome with the adoption of
regional fair-share policies than insure that whereas all
communities must share the burden of supporting those
in need, no one community will become saturated with
services and clients.
Nonetheless, the service hub concept offers the
possibility of the best of both worlds: a fair distribution
of service and shelter resources that does not require
TIIIIIMIY III.
people in need to leave their home communities in order
to gain assistance, an accessible clustering of service
facilities and programs that helps people cope and can
offer more coordinated programming, and the provision
of needed services while minimizing impacts on
neighboring communities. This way of providing' help-
in-place' allows people to obtain help needed to prevent
homelessness, and to retain their community ties should
they temporary lose their housing. Provisions for service
hubs-just like parks, libraries, hospitals, and other
socially necessary facilities-should therefore be part
of every local general plan.
11..ller S. Wllell is Professor of Geography and
Director of the Center for Sustainable Cities at the
University of Southern California, where she teaches
courses on Los Angeles, urban social problems, and
sustainable cities. Her research focuses on urban
poverty, homelessness, and human service delivery. She
also investigates problems of urban planning, urban open
space, and human-animal relations, particularly attitudes
toward animals and animal-inclusive city planning and
design.
FtJrIIIlr ...1111..
Dear, M., Wolch, J., & Wilson, R. (1994). The service
hub concept in human services planning. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Wolch, J. (1996). "Community-Based Human Service
Delivery," Housing Policy Debate 7:649-672.
Wolch, J., & Dear, M. (1993). Malign neglect:
homelessness in an American city. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Wolch, J., & DeVerteuil, G (2001). New landscapes of
urban povertY management. In N. Thrift and J. May
(Eds.), 1!me-Space (pp. 149-168). London: Routledge.
"
..reb2OM
25
LBI MV PBOplB Go: DB ProlDisB of
uDBconcBntradon" for PBople with Disabilities
.ell.......
"This is nothing but a disabilities ghetto! You
have these people locked away from humanity,
out of sight, where the rest of the world doesn't
have to think about their own mortality. You
could've built this complex near civilization, or
better yet, modified some existing construction.
That would've allowed them to interact with
their community." (Eberle, n.d.).
Historically, American housing policy has not promoted
housing for people with disabilities in "the American
mainstream." Over the past 30 years in particular, as
people with disabilities have gradually entered the
housing market, housing authorities and private
developers have created thousands of apartment
complexes and congregate settings that are available
only to people with disabilities. They may do so out of
a sincere belief that the service needs of people with
disabilities are best provided in such settings, with full-
time staff that provide medical, nursing or personal care
services, but they do it without real reflection on how
such segregated settings diminish real opportunities for
community integration and economic self-sufficiency.
Some disability advocates have raised their voices in
protest, and suggested that segregating people by
disability is as fundamentally wrong as segregating them
by race or income. The evocation of a "disabilities
ghetto" suggests how closely the struggle for disability
rights parallels the historic and ongoing struggles for
racial and economic justice in this county. And the
quotation as a whole-offered at a celebration for a
housing complex built exclusively for people with
disabilities-reminds us how location and tenant
selection policies can have a profound effect on whether
residents feel truly integrated into their surrounding
community.
Beginning in the mid-l 990s and culminating in passage
of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of
1998 (QHWRA), the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) openly pursued a policy of
"deconcentration" of povertY. Such efforts, desigoed
to spread out public housing families with very low
21
TII. .., ....
incomes, were aimed at offering greater housing,
employment and educational opportunities to those
families by giving them opportunities to live with and
near people with higher incomes and higher life
aspirations. This article suggests that a policy of
"deconcentrating" people with disabilities might deliver
similar salutary effects.
HUD has framed the deconcentration debate in terms
of income, but it is clear that it is also intended as a
strategy to desegregate public housing. Desegregation
is a term that gained currency in the African-American
civil rights struggle of the 1950s and 1960s, but it took
on new meaning in the past fifteen years, as Congress
broadened civil rights protections for people with
disabilities. Both the Fair HousingAmendmentsAct of
1988 (FHAA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (ADA) spoke in broad and sweeping terms
about bringing people with disabilities "into the American
mainstream" and putting behind us the time when people
with disabilities were housed in "isolated and
segregated" settings. The rhetoric of "desegregation"
and "integration" is alive and well in the disability rights
movement, and we owe much to our brothers and sisters
in the earlier civil rights struggles.
Deconcentration has a parallel significance in the
disability world. When asked about their housing
preferences, people with disabilities answer in much
the same way as people without disabilities. (Yeich,
Mowbray, Bybee et al., 1994; see also City ofSt. Louis,
n.d., showing non-congregate housing preferences
among people with disabilities). They want decent, safe
and affordable housing. They want it to be both
physically accessible and accessible to community
services and community activities, including
employment, transportation, education, health care and
civic life. In short, many people with disabilities say
they do not want "special needs" housing but rather
housing that looks like where you and I live, and they do
not want their use of health care or personal care services
to define the location or appearance of their housing.
Karen Tamley, a wheelchair user and long-time advocate
"
..1Ch2_
for greater housing choice and self-direction for people
with disabilities sums the matter up as follows:
Until people with disabilities are able to freely
choose the services they need and determine
where, with whom, and in which communities
they will live, true integration will not be
realized. If a sea change in thinking and
practice is to occur, this debate must be elevated
to a broader policy arena. Glimmers of hope
are on the horizon. HUD seems to have heeded
the outcry over mandated service
requirements. One ofHUD's primary disability
housing programs now prohibits conditions tied
to tenancy. Although this is a huge policy move
in the right direction, the fact remains that
countless other programs exist, funded by HUD
and state dollars, that still require individuals to
accept service plans as a condition of housing
occupancy. Although HUD has taken a lead
in shifting its policy position, a long road lies
ahead for disability and
fair housing advocates to
ensure that others will
follow. (Tamley, 2002).
elected officials and neighbors who resist the location
of such housing in their back yards. Local elected
officials have a number of tools at their disposal to
achieve truly integrated housing for people with
disabilities and at the same time respond to their
constituents who want to keep identifiable "disability
housing" out of their neighborhoods. For many urban
and suburban municipalities, this win-win approach could
be funded through the use of Community Development
Block Grant or HOME funding to create portable
housing subsidies for people with disabilities. In addition,
local housing trust funds and the Low Income Housing
Tax Credit program can finance the creation of new
multi-family units that reserve a portion of units for people
with physical and mental impairments. State agencies
can assist smaller communities by prioritizing state
CDBG and HOME funds for development of such
integrated housing.
While funding will remain an ongoing challenge, the most
important barriers are attitudinal. Many government
disability agencies continue to
focus on the deficits of people
with disabilities rather than
their strengths. Many care
providers continue to offer
"one size fits all" supports
rather than flexible, on-demand
services tailored to the needs
of each individual. Federal and
state disability policy still has an
institutional bias that results in
far too many people with
disabilities living in nursing
homes or other congregate settings because Medicaid
and other benefit programs will reimburse for such care,
but will not pay for the kinds of services people may
need to thrive in more integrated settings. Some people
with disabilities worry about the stigma and social
isolation that often come along with truly integrated
housing opportunities. But these barriers are
surmountable, as has been shown by housing providers
allover the country:
Local elected officials have a
number of tools at their
disposal to achieve truly
integrated housing for people
with disabilities and at the
same time respond to their
constituents who want to keep
identifiable "disability housing"
out of their neighborhoods.
Pitched battles over group
homes have taken place in
virtually every community in
the country, and also in the
halls of Congress in the 1990s,
when half a dozen bills were
introduced to eviscerate the
disability provisions of the
FHAA. Employing the rhetoric of deconcentration, that
legislation would have allowed local officials to limit the
number of group homes in any community through the
use of spacing requirements, density limitations and
maximum occupancy rules. (See historical materials
available at the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law's
website, including Whitman & Parnas, 1999). By 1999,
opposition from the entire civil rights community had
convinced Congress to leave the FHAA intact, but
opposition to group homes, supportive housing and other
congregate settings continues throughout the country.
(Natioal Low Income Housing Coalition, 2003).
Ifhousing for people with disabilities was truly integrated
throughout the community, and was not identified as
"disability housing," chances are that we would spend
much less time fighting against the NIMBYism of
TII. ..., .n.
. Ohio Department of Mental Health adopted its
"housing as housing" policy in 1988, declaring that
"[blousing should be available in settings which maximize
integration of mentally ill people and increase
opportunities for acceptance into the community." (See
Ohio Dep't of Mental Health, 1996.)
"
,,!CUlM
27
. William Malleris, a Chicago-area developer and
wheelchair user completed the 48-unit Maple Court
apartments in Naperville in 1996. The project, a national
model, integrated 20 barrier-free units for people with
disabilities with 28 apartments for people without
disabilities. (See Malleris, 1999.)
. The Self-Determination Housing Project in
Pennsylvania has helped to move at least 72 people out
of institutional or congregate settings and into their own
homes.(See Self-Determination Housing Project, n.d.)
. The Texas Department of Housing and Community
Affairs has set aside $2 million to fund tenant-based
rental vouchers for people with disabilities who are at
risk of unnecessary institutionalization. (See Texas Dep't
of Human and Community Affairs, n.d.)
These examples demonstrate that the knowledge is in
place to develop housing for people even with the most
serious impairments. It is time now to develop the
political will to adopt a real and robust "deconcentration"
policy for people with disabilities, a policy that returns
to the original vision of the FHAA (which promised
people with disabilities the opportunity to have "housing
of their choice in the community") and the ADA (which
says that government sponsored housing programs
should be designed in a way that people with disabilities
"have the maximum opportunity to interact with people
who do not have disabilities").
.III...ICII
City of St. Louis (n.d.). Sf. Louis Five Year Strategy
Consolidated Plan, 2000-2004. Available at http://
stlouis.missouri.org/5yearstrategy/index.html.
Eberle, P. (n.d.). The master archer. Retrieved January
17,2004, from http://members.tripod.comlguidingangel2l
id20.htm.
21
TIIII.ß ."111
Malleris, W. (1999, October). Testimony before the
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the
Judiciary. Presented at a hearing of the Subcommittee
on the Constitution on H.R. 2347. Available at http://
www.house.gov/judiciary/malll028.htm and describes
the manner in which he developed Maple Court
Apartments in Naperville, Illinois as truly integrated.
National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2003, Aug.,
Oct., Dec.) The N1MBY Report. Available at http://
www.nlihc.orglnimby/index.htm.
Ohio Dep't of Mental Health. (1996, June). Housing
as housing. Available at http://
www.newhousingopp.org/hah.htm.
Self-Deterimination Housing Project. (n.d.). About
SDHP. Available at http://www.sdhp.org/aboutus.htm.
Tamley, K. (2002, December). Fair play on the
housingfront. Paper presented at the 9th Annual Great
Cities Winter Forum, Chicago, IL. Available at http://
www.uic.edulcuppalgcilevents/gci_winterforum_site/
background%20resources/fairhousing.doc.
Texas Dep't of Housing and Community Affairs. (n.d.).
Olmstead Rental Assistance. Available at http://
www.tdhca.state.tx.us/olmstead.htm.
Whitman, C., & Parnas, S. (1999). Fair housing: The
siting of group homes for the disabled and children.
Washington, D.C: National League ofCitites. Available
at http://www.bazelon.orglissueslhousing/cpfhal.
Yeich, S. Mowbray, C.T., Bybee, D., et al (1994). The
case for a "supported housing" approach: A study of
consumer housing and support preferences.
Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 18(2).
"
MilCh 2114
A RBViBW of IhB Findings:
DB DBconcBntradon of PovBnv DuringlhB 1990s
In.I.I"11 Ill'll
In May 2003, the Urban Institute (Kingsley & Pettit,
2003) and the Brookings Institution (Jargowsky, 2003)
published articles describing surprising trends in the
concentration of poverty over the course of the 1990s.
Both articles relied on data from the 2000 Census. Both
shared the overarching finding that, after two decades
of increasing concentration, povertY had become less
concentrated between 1990 and 2000, with a smaller
share of poor people living in the very poorest
neighborhoods.
This fmding represents a marked change from the !rends
of the 1970s and 1980s. In simple terms, poverty
concentration refers to the extent to which poor people
are living in the same neighborhood as other poor people.
Between 1970 and 1990, the concentration of povertY
increased, with 16.5% of poor city dwellers living in
extreme poverty tracts in 1970 and 28.5% living in such
tracts in 1990 (Kasarda, 1993). The increased
concentration of povertY during those decades was the
subject of much attention from and consternation among
academics, advocates and policymakers. As a result,
deconcentrating povertY became a policy goal.
PovertY became more concentrated in the 1970s and
1980s for several reasons. The economy of the central
cities weakened during those decades, as industry and
jobs moved to the suburbs or overseas. This left a
mismatch between jobs and people, as well as a
mismatch between the skills of poor city dwellers and
the jobs available (Walker & Ting, 1996). Blue collar
work opportunities were moving elsewhere and white
collar positions required more substantial education and
skills (Walker & Ting,1996). In addition, patterns of
development in the suburbs exacerbated segregation
on an economic basis, preventing poor people from
moving closer to the new job centers (Jargowsky, 2003).
But those people with the economic wherewithal to move
away from the central cities tended to do so, including
middle class people of color, who found the suburbs
more accessible to them because of federal fair housing
legislation and enforcement (Kingsley & Pettit, 2003).
As a result, poor people were left behind in the central
cities in poor neighborhoods that were becoming
TIll", ....,
increasingly poorer and more isolated. With the departure
of the middle-class, these poor neighborhoods lost the
institutions (such as churches and businesses) that
middle-class residents had supported and the role models
and networks that middle-class residents had provided.
The departure of middle-class people, both white and
of color, for the suburbs left the cities with shrinking tax
bases and resources. For those left behind, the isolation
and concentration of poor people served to intensify
povertY's effects (Kingsley & Pettit, 2003).
Over the course of the 1990s, however, the general
trend towards concentration has reversed. The share
of the metropolitan poor in "extreme poverty
neighborhoods"-neighborhoods where the povertY rate
is 40% or more-declined from 17% to 12%, putting it
below 1980 levels (Kingsley & Pettit, 2003). The
absolute number of people in such neighborhoods fell
by 24% or by 2.5 million people and the number of
neighborhoods that could be characterized as extreme
poverty neighborhoods declined (Jargowsky, 2003).'
While tltis decline in the concentration of povertY in the
poorest neighborhoods is striking, it can be qualified in
several ways. As noted, the share of poor people living
in extreme poverty tracts (poverty rate of 40% or
greater) declined during the 1990s. Between 1990 and
2000, the share of poor people in high povertY tracts
(povertY rate of 30% or greater) also fell and the share
of poor people in low povertY tracts (povertY rate less
than 10%) remained nearly the same. But the share of
poor people in the mid-range tracts-tracts with poverty
rates of 10% to 20% and with povertY rates of 20% to
30%-increased (Kingsley & Pettit).
1 it should be noted that the Brookings author and the
Urban institute authors do not use the same labels. with
the Urban institute authors defining "extreme poverty
neighborhoods" as having poverty rates of 40% and higher
and "high poverty neighborhoods" as neighborhoods
having poverty rates of 30% and higher, while the
Brookings author uses the term "high poverty
neighborhoods" for neighborhoods with poverty rates of
40% and higher. This article will follow the Urban Institute
terminology, even when describing the Brookings results.
"
.Im 2184
21
In making urban-suburban comMrisons, the researchers
found a divergence between trends in the central cities
and the suburbs. In the central cities of the 100 largest
metropolitan areas, there was a decrease in the number
of high poverty neighborhoods from 3,366 in 1990 to
3,231 in 2000. Meanwhile, number of high poverty tracts
in the suburbs of those metro areas increased from 408
in 1980 to 772 in 2000. This represented an increase
from 482,000 poor residents to 1.07 million poor residents
in those tracts over those decades. Despite these
increases in absolute numbers, the share of poor people
living in high povertY neighborhoods declined in both
the central cities and the suburbs of the 100 largest
metropolitan areas (Kingsley & Pettit, 2003). One
specific area of concern arising from the analysis of
povertY rates across metropolitan regions is the increase
in the povertY rates on the outer borders of central cities
and in the irmer ring suburbs (Jargowsky, 2003).
The changes in
the concentration
of poverty over
the 1990s can also
be examined
through the lens
of race. African-
Americans were
the predominant
race-making up
more than 60% of
the population-in half of all high poverty tracts in 1980,
but they were the predominant race in only 39% of all
such tracts in 2000. Whites were predominant in 18%
of all high poverty tracts in 1980 and in 14% of such
tracts in 2000. Predominantly Latino high povertY tracts
increased, however, from 13% of all high povertY tracts
in 1980 to 20% in 2000. Tracts with no predominant
race or ethnicity increased from 21 % to 26% of all tracts
over the two decades.
metropolitan areas. Of the four major geographic
regions of the country-Northeast, Midwest, South and
West-three experienced declines in the percentage of
poor people living in high povertY neighborhoods, while
one region had an increase. The share of poor people
living in high povertY neighborhoods dropped slightly in
the Northeast (from 31% in 1990 to 30% in 2000),
declined significantly in the Midwest (from 36% in 1990
to 26% in 2000) and the South (from 34% in 1990 to
25% in 2000), and increased in the West (from 29% in
1990 to 36% in 2000) (Kingsley & Pettit, 2003). Los
Angeles exemplified the povertY concentration trends
in the West, where the increased concentration of
povertY diverged markedly from other metropolitan
areas. In the Los Angeles metropolitan area, the share
of poor people living in extreme povertY neighborhoods
increased from 9.0% in 1990 to 14.9% in 2000
(Jargowsky, 2003) and the share of poor people living
in high povertY neighborhoods increased from 29% in
1990 to 36% in
2000 (Kingsley &
Pettit). One
explanation for
this increase in
concentrated
povertY over the
decade is the
increase in the
number of
barrios, high
povertY Hispnic neighborhoods (Jargowsky, 2003).
RacelEthnicity Percentage of Poor in Extreme Poverty
Neighborhoods
1990 2000
Afiican-American 30.4 18.6
Asian 12.7 9.8
Latino 21.5 13.8
Native American 30.6 19.5
White 7.1 5.9
Despite these variations, when analyzed from the view
of the percentage of poor people of each race living in
extreme povertY neighborhoods, there were declines
across the board (Jargowsky, 2003). These declines
were especially significant for poor African-Americans
and Native Americans. The chart on this page shows
these changes.
The Urban Institute and Brookings Institution articles
also analyzed poverty concentration on a macro level,
comparing geographic regions and rural areas to
.
TIII.IY ...en
What effects did the lessened concentration of povertY
have on neighborhoods? High povertY neighborhoods
experienced improvements on a variety of measures
during the I 990s. In those neighborhoods, among people
25 years of age and older, there was a decrease in the
percentage without a high school degree and an increase
in the percentage with a college degree. The percentage
of female-headed households declined while the
percentage of women 16 years of age and older who
were working increased. The percentage of people in
high poverty neighborhoods on public assistance dropped
from 24% in 1990 to 12% in 2000 (Kingsley & Pettit,
2003). As these statistics followed general trends,
however, the gap in these measures between high
povertY neighborhoods and other neighborhoods did not
narrow over the decade (Kingsley & Pettit, 2003).
While the overall decline in the concentration of poverty
is worth celebrating, questions and concerns remain.
"
"re.2.
The increase of concentrated poverty in the inner ring
suburbs raises worries about deepening stratification
within urban areas and the impact of sprawl. The
deconcentration of poverty in the central cities may be
cited as proof of the value of community development,
showing that it is worth trying to improve conditions in
poor neighborhoods. But gentrification is likely to have
played a role as well, as poor neighborhoods become
the targets for residential development unaffordable to
poor people.
Both articles give the economic boom of the 1990s credit
for the deconcentration of poverty. But additional
research is needed to explain the connection between
the variations and exceptions to the overarching
deconcentration trend and the nuances of economic
conditions in the 1990s. As the boom went bust at the
beginning of this decade, it is an open question whether
the trend toward deconcentration will continue or will
reverse course. Given the deleterious effects of
concentrated povertY, further analysis of the causes and
continued tracking of the trends will be welcome.
In.. Bill.. SlnI is the Associate Director of the
National Low Income Housing Coalition.
TIll", I...
E.....III
Kingsley, G. T. & Pettit, K. L. S. (2003, May).
Concentrated Poverty: A Change in Course.
(Neighborhood Change in Urban America Series).
Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
Jargowsky, P.A. (2003, May). Stunning progress.
hidden problems: The dramatic decline of
concentrated poverty in the i990s. (The Living Cities
Census Series). Brookings Institution: Washington, D.C.
Kasarda, J. D. (\993). Inner-city concetrated povertY
and neighborhood distress: 1970-1990. Housing Policy
Debate. 4(3), 254-302.
Kasarda, J. D., & Ting, K. (1996). Joblessness and
povertY in America's central cities: Causes and policy
prescriptions. Housing Policy Debate. 7(2),387-419.
"
..m 2184
31