Housing & Urban Development Mixed-Income Housing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MTO Research Designed as Experiment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moderately-Priced Dwelling Unit Program

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

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

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