2. Housing & Urban Development Mixed-Income Housing

3. 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

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

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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

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

10. MTO Research Designed as Experiment

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

12. 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

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

14. 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

15. 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

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

17. 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

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

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

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

21. Moderately-Priced Dwelling Unit Program

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

23. MPDU Program (cont’d) Mandates that 12.5-15% of the units in residential developments of 50 or more units must be for low- and moderate-income households. The program also includes a density bonus for developments that include more than the minimum percentages required by law.

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