Seattle City Council February 11, 2010 Potluck Consulting Eva Wingren, Lan Bai, Gary Pollack Poverty Dispersal Policies

Origins of poverty concentration Policies ( HOPE VI, Section 8, Mobility, mixed income housing) Outcomes of these policies Support & Criticism Lesson learned Where are we today? - Local examples

 Concentrated poverty across America  In part due to decades of policies that confined poor households  Concentrated public housing in segregated inner-city neighborhoods  Subsidized metropolitan sprawl  Housing for low-income families and minorities rapidly developing suburbs  Consequences Higher crime rates, underperforming public schools, poor housing and health conditions, limited access to opportunities, multiple costs on individual and society Poverty Concentration Poverty Concentration

Text A high-poverty neighborhood in Atlantic city, N.J.

Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority 1969 to 1976 Ruled that CHA discriminated against blacks by concentrating poorly maintained public housing in minority neighborhoods 7,100 Section 8 Vouchers Dispersed lowest income households

Dispersal - Section 8 Dispersal - Section 8 Tenant-based rent assistance Intent is to give low-income families options and assistance with vouchers to rent market housing Priority for lowest incomes Vouchers cover % of rent after 30% of household income Disbursed through PHAs

Initiated in 1992, extended in 2007, expires 2015 Intents: Mixed income development Physical improvements Management improvements Social and community services to address resident needs Main Street Revitalization (smaller towns) Services for displaced residents Deconcentration- HOPE VI

Mobility Moving to Opportunity 10-year research demonstration to assess the affects of counseling in conjunction with Section 8 rental assistance Required partnership between housing authority and local nonprofits Moving to Work Allowed approved PHAs to aggregate funding for innovative approaches to public housing

Outcomes

Criticism Tenants faced discrimination Isolated in wealthy neighborhoods Reconcentrated in poor neighborhoods Lack of data about outcomes Tight rental markets cost PHA $$ Markets not responsive Underfunded Long waitlists Extra level of bureaucracy Support Avoided “public housing” stigma Decreased concentration of poverty With mobility counseling, clients successfully transitioned to self sufficiency Became a major part of PHA funding portfolio Adapted to housing trends Funded development Service enriched supportive housing for vulnerable populations Support and Criticism of Section 8

Criticism Reduced units available Costly marketing to attract market rate buyers Tenants equate it with gentrification Outcomes not tracked Support and Criticism for HOPE VI Support Helping dispel “public housing” stigma Tenants given relocation assistance Leveraged public, private, and nonprofit $$

Criticism Market not responsive Half of people offered vouchers restricted to <10% poverty tracts did not find a place Scale issues No significant difference in economic indicators Support and Criticism of MTO Support Higher de-concentration success rate than Section 8

Subsidies for market units Mobility counseling and services to help people leverage community resources and connect with others Political agency and participation for marginalized groups Good communication with tenants Market incentives for landlords Investment in public housing Good design and amenities Financial incentives, advertising, and critical mass of higher income people Social services Research and follow-up Lesson Learned

The concentrated poverty in 2000 remained above its levels in 1970 and 1980 As of 2000, several big U.S. cities still had more than one in four poor individuals—and more than one in three blacks and Hispanics—living in high-poverty neighborhoods Regional differences Rural community remains high Where are we now?

Local Examples Greenbridge – Hope VI High Point in West Seattle & other developments West park

Thank you!