Public Housing Policy

This article presents an overview of public housing in the United States. Public housing provides affordable rental housing for low-income families, elderly individuals, and person with disabilities. Despite the common perception of the decaying condition of public housing, most subsidized inner-city housing was relatively functional until the 1980s. Demolition and replacement of the most run down of the older units began in the early 1990s. The primary crisis in public housing increasingly involves the availability and affordability of old and new units as much as the adequacy of living conditions. Efforts to reform the public housing system under the 1992 HOPE VI program through the integration of public housing residents into mixed-income communities (largely based on the defensible space theory) saw more than two hundred revitalization grants awarded to more than one hundred housing authorities between 1993 and 2010. The beneficiaries of these reforms, however, have arguably been the more socially and economically advantaged households that were often least in need of access to public housing. In short, two distinctly different responses have emerged from efforts at public housing reform: one that emphasizes the integration of residents with other, more heterogeneous urban communities and another that emphasizes the social values that can be identified within public housing communities.

Keywords Brooke Amendment; Concentration Effects; Defensible Space Theory; Gautreaux Program; HOPE VI; Housing and Urban Development (HUD); One-Strike Policies; Section 8 Voucher; Set-Aside Programs; Social Capital

Social Issues & Public Policy > Public Housing Policy

Overview

Although HOPE VI combines subsidized housing opportunities with social services (such as education programs), the reforms also go a step further in imposing strict oversight measures such as the policing of personal behavior. Nevertheless, HOPE VI is popular within much of the public housing community (Alexander, 2008).

Arguably, political decisions at the municipal level also reflect an implicit agenda to separate the poorest urban dwellers from the middle class. Freeways were constructed to allow suburban residents easy access to city centers at the same time that suburban municipal governments were able to opt-out of building programs sponsored by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (Carter, Schill, & Wachter, 1998). Until the 1960s, African American residents in public housing had been more socially integrated with middle-class African Americans families. White households and successful working-class African American households were compelled to leave public housing in the 1960s due the loss of local employment, deteriorating living conditions, and HUD emphasis on reserving public housing for the neediest households (Curley, 2005). As such, public programs legitimately intended to help working-class African Americans often had the effect of strengthening discriminatory attitudes and even of encouraging further segregation, while existing tangible and intangible neighborhood resources deteriorated.

Concentration Effects Theory

These and other spiraling problems—poor education and employment outcomes, high crime rates, and escalating social and geographical isolation—are often grouped together under the rubric of the concentration effects theory. This theory tends to tie together the strands of several other theories about the downward spiral of physical and social conditions in public housing, while emphasizing two key points: all of these trends tend to be mutually re-enforcing, and they were largely limited to public housing populations (Carter, Schill, & Wachter, 1998). The horror stories that proliferate in the popular media about terrible living conditions in public housing, however, are only characteristic of about 100,000 of five million units (Rice, 2006). A 1992 study similarly concluded that about 6 percent of public housing units were uninhabitable at that time (Brazley & Gilderbloom, 2007). According to a report by the National Council on Disability, there was a 24 percent reduction in public housing units between 2000 and 2010, from 1.28 million to about 976,000 units, due to the demolition of 150,000 units under the HOPE IV program and the loss of units declared uninhabitable. Although the HOPE IV oversaw the construction of 50,000 replacement public housing units, this was insufficient to replace the demolished and decrepit buildings (National Council on Disability, 2010). Despite the shortfall, the HOPE IV program has generally been considered successful in transferring public housing residents into mixed-income communities.

Unlike the factors that contribute to the concentration effects theory, the principles underlying the current practice of relocating public housing residents to mixed-income neighborhoods point in decidedly different directions. On one hand, relocation is likely to result in a greater sense of safety, material improvement, and possibly exposure to healthier education-based and work-related environments. On the other hand, relocation itself is disruptive and can sever the social networks that have developed within public housing communities. This form of social capital is arguably the greatest advantage held by residents of public housing, in addition to manageable rent. In other words, it is important to draw a sharp distinction between forced or implicit segregation and efforts to maintain an "asset-based" strategy that emphasizes community, familiarity, and solidarity within public housing developments. The assets-based approach might help to explain why many public housing residents tend to favor the harsh measures, such as one-strike eviction clauses, to which they themselves are subjected (Alexander, 2008).

The term "affordable housing" usually indicates housing expenses not greater than 30 percent of income. Residents of public housing have paid roughly that portion of their income in rent; the remaining amount is subsidized. The median income in neighborhoods surrounding public housing developments has usually been three times higher than the average income within public housing (Mele, 2003).

Homeownership Opportunity for People Everywhere (HOPE VI)

The conventional high density of poverty in public housing developments has been, at least, an addressable problem at the level of urban planning. Most HOPE VI neighborhoods contain a large number of market-priced single-family homes, a handful of homes sold below the market price, and some subsidized apartments in low-rise buildings (Rice, 2006). HOPE VI programs, however, are only available to a small portion of public housing residents due to the screening process and limited availability; the waiting time to secure a new unit can be several years. About 1.4 million households that qualify for public housing receive Section 8 vouchers, and some of those recipients are waiting for a HOPE VI unit (Curley, 2005). The screening process involves credit checks, criminal background checks, employment records, and even continuing home inspections and supervision. This process is largely an extension of the welfare reforms of 1996 in that it places emphasis on competition for opportunities and on illustrating and maintaining self-sufficiency. Past protests against a Public Housing Agency, a local administrator of HUD policies and programs, are also likely to prevent a household from gaining access to a HOPE VI waiting list (Hackworth, 2005).

The first decade of HOPE VI expended $5.3 billion, and more than twice as many units were demolished as have been constructed. The mixture of subsidized housing and social services, however, is significant. More emphasis has been placed on job training, child care, education, and case management (Curley, 2005). When a new public housing development is announced, thousands of applicants routinely sign up in a matter of days (Rice, 2006). The relocation procedure among qualified applicants is largely a lottery (Hackworth, 2005). Public housing residents holding a valid lease in units that are about to be demolished are usually given Section 8 vouchers, but the acquisition process for Section 8 vouchers among new applicants can take years (Belluck, 1998).

Set-Aside Programs

Under set-aside programs, more than one hundred cities and counties have enacted legislation requiring the existence of some low-cost housing. These requirements are not always enforced, but tax credits are provided to real estate developers to build affordable rental units. The real estate industry generally opposes set-aside requirements. Small, low-rise apartment buildings constructed under set-aside programs have recently been disguised as large luxurious houses in order to preserve aesthetic neighborhood continuity. Numerous efforts have been made to meet set-aside requirements through highly creative financing schemes combining public funds, private builders, and community organizations (such as churches), but doing so is only economically feasible in a healthy real estate market (Rice, 2006). There is a growing body of evidence indicating that HOPE VI programs are more beneficial to business districts and real estate interests than to low-income households. The inner-city land that had been used for high-rise public housing buildings and that HOPE VI projects have reclaimed is of considerable value (Curley, 2005).

Further Insights

Segregation & Tolerance or Re-Integration & Intolerance?

Public housing initially grew out of New Deal legislation, the United States Housing Act of 1937 (also known as the Wagner-Steagall Housing Act). The new housing developments at that time were intended to provide safe and sanitary living conditions for low-income earners who had previously resided in slums, but they were also a public works project meant to stimulate the economy and create jobs during the Great Depression. In many large northern cities, the total population declined between about 1950 and 1970 as the number of people living in poverty increased proportionally and even in absolute terms. In Cleveland, poverty tended to expand near other pockets of poverty. In Boston, by contrast, some pockets grew worse in both inner and outer areas of the city, while other sections improved through social integration or displacement. In most cases, however, it was quite clear that there was a strong connection between urban planning and the patterns of poverty (Carter, Schill, & Wachter, 1998).

That tendency was even more pronounced in Chicago. The American Civil Liberties Union initiated a class-action lawsuit against the Chicago Housing Authority, Gautreaux v. CHA, in 1966. In 1976, the Supreme Court decided that the Chicago Housing Authority had defied the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education by constructing public housing in areas with a high concentration of poor minorities. A subsequent experiment in relocation known as the Gautreaux Project resulted from the court-ordered dismantling of discriminatory housing practices in Chicago. It was possible to trace and directly compare the relocated households that had received Section 8 vouchers in both inner-city and suburban environments, and the latter group clearly benefited from integration into a largely white, middle-class community. The adults in those families did not exhibit substantial changes, but the children were significantly better off in education and employment outcomes. The group that was relocated to inner-city neighborhoods did not exhibit a similar pattern of improved outcomes (Curley, 2005).

The success of this experiment became a model for later programs, most notably the 1994 Moving to Opportunities (MTO) program. The MTO program resulted in a similar improvement in education outcomes, but the employment and welfare-based outcome did not match the results of the Gautreaux Project, the participants of which had also received additional education and supervision regarding the expectations that accompanied movement to a middle-class neighborhood. The MTO was also less ambitious in its relocation agenda, in that public housing residents were moved to areas with a somewhat lower concentration of poverty (under 40 percent). It was also described as a "people-based" rather than a "place-based" approach that did not provide thorough preparation or supervision. The theory underlying the Gautreaux Project was essentially that that residential mobility would lead to social mobility. The Gautreaux Project also resembles HOPE VI projects in an unfortunate way: only 20 percent of eligible participants were granted access to the earlier program (Alexander, 2008). Other studies have concluded that the relocation of public housing residents through the MTO program did not result in a reduction of city-wide crime rates (Harcourt & Ludwig, 2005).

One-Strike Policies

Whereas efforts to ensure the civil rights of public housing residents in the 1960s led to several unexpected consequences, the current trend has been to both limit their rights and increase their positive obligations. The rigorous screening process required by the HOPE VI program and one-strike termination of tenancy clauses to which public housing applicants now must agree are indicative of a very high standard of behavior. The application process usually requires years of waiting and eventually signing a lease that allows a supervisory authority to perform inspections of units, residents, and guests, in addition to the "no fault" eviction clause for allegations of criminal activity. Even an off-unit criminal charge of drug possession of a guest is grounds for the eviction of an entire household. In other words, residents are burdened with an "affirmative obligation" to control the behavior of third parties. The unfortunate side effect of this high standard of behavior that domestic violence might not result in police intervention due to fear of eviction if reported; a relative who is given to mild criminal activity might be disowned by a family. This requirement is not attached to HUD mortgage assistance programs. The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 classifies subsidized housing as a temporary form of relief for privileged recipients of financial support (Mele 2003).

In 2002, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of one-strike eviction clauses, even if the individual in question does not have direct knowledge of the criminal charge against a third party. Lower courts had asserted a less strict standard of knowledge. As such, tenants are responsible both for community policing and to take positive action in discerning with which acquaintances they should not associate. Landlords have the discretion not to evict, but they are held to a low standard of proof if they decide to do so. Attempting to resist eviction from public housing, therefore, appears to be largely futile. A potential Section 8 landlord can also access information about previous evictions (Mele 2003). This sort of "zero tolerance" standard for relatively minor criminal infractions was tested (under the motto of "broken windows" programs) in several large cities circa the 1990 crime wave and were found to be ineffective, but the standard of proof in criminal court is much higher (Harcourt & Ludwig, 2005).

Resisting relocation also appears to be difficult. A unified group of public housing residents in Miami attempted to do so, but the initial opposition fractured after some tenants were offered a relatively advantageous relocation option. After a recent relocation program in Chicago, most residents ended up moving to similar units in segregated neighborhoods, and 30 percent of the group either had to leave the city to find another residence or return their Section 8 vouchers. Litigation against HUD policies by former public housing residents has resulted in some technical victories but no tangible results (Hackworth, 2005; Venkatesh, 2008)

A ninety-six-hour annual unpaid volunteer requirement was established in the late 1990s for physically able residents of public housing who are not employed or in school, even if they have school-aged children. This work can include volunteer service with the police department, the local library, or Habitat for Humanity. Compliance elsewhere is enforced through threats of eviction. This measure was passed in 1998, but its implementation was delayed until 2003 due to political resistance in New York City (Chen, 2004b).

Public Housing & Public Well-Being

A few early studies of the urban areas surrounding public housing developments found little negative effect on nearby property values or socioeconomic conditions such as crime. These conclusions may have resulted from the narrowness of the research itself rather than actual conditions. Some studies have found a noticeable "spillover" effect of poverty near public housing (Carter, Schill, & Wachter, 1998). The relocation of more than six thousand families in Chicago between 2000 and 2008 resulted in a 1-percent decrease in the overall violent crime rate and a 4.4-percent decline in gun crimes. In the neighborhoods where public housing units were demolished, violent crime dropped more than 60 percent and property crime declined by 50 percent (Wegner, 2012).

A common anecdotal argument has been that the cheaper living expenses public housing offers might provide "back door" health benefits by freeing up money for better food and easier access to clinics. Long-term public housing residents do indicate mildly better health outcomes than households earning comparable income that are not in public housing, but the difference is small. The only significant trend, according to one study, is a lower self-reported rate of smoking during pregnancy (Fertig & Reingold, 2006).

Glaesar and Sacerdote (2000) found that public housing residents are actually safer within their homes than most other city-dwellers, and racial issues do not affect this trend. Burglaries are more common in more affluent residences. Most other urban trends related to crime, however, bode poorly for public housing residents. Residents in tall urban buildings, in particular, are more likely to be victimized by robberies or vehicle theft in nearby public spaces than residents of smaller buildings. Building height, in particular, is especially predictive of victimization (Glaser & Sacerdote, 2000). Although the defensible space theory emphasizes the safety that can be conferred more easily by smaller urban buildings, it also postulates that residents in large or tall buildings can render those buildings safer by exhibiting more control and territorial presence in public areas in or near those buildings (Newman, 2004).

Drug epidemics and drug-related violence in public housing neighborhoods have also been substantially overemphasized in the popular media, but violence and victimization by crime in public housing are significantly linked to substance abuse issues. The New York City Housing Authority established a community policing program known as Operation Safe Home, to little observable effect on serious crimes. The aggressive police presence, however, did register some results on relatively minor crime, but less so than in the neighborhoods surrounding public housing blocks. In 1998, there were 801 cases of eviction for substance abuse in New York City under the one-strike provision (Fagan, Davies, Holland, & Dumanovsky, 2005). A 2011 study by Wendy J. Kaplan and David Rossman found no evidence that the one-strike provision reduces crime in public housing; instead, Kaplan and Rossman emphasized the social ills created by the one-strike policy.

Viewpoints

The Culture of Poverty

Earlier studies of the concentration effects theory of poverty in public housing often emphasized the "culture of poverty," which includes such factors as ingrained low expectations or aspirations, atypical or even deviant viewpoints that are reinforced by peers and spread to next the generation, and the absence of positive role models and community resources. The social effects of these effects include higher rates of teen pregnancy, welfare dependence, and failure to finish high school (Carter, Schill, & Wachter, 1998). These negative results have also been termed "contagion effects" and "collective socialization." This approach alone, however, ignores important structural (or economic) factors, such as the drastic decline in the demand for manual labor in large urban centers, also known as the "suburbanization of employment."

Concentration Effects & Social Capital

The idea of social capital has also been subdivided into two categories: social support (or "getting by") and social leverage (or "getting ahead"). Public housing residents clearly lack social leverage, but their social support levels are relatively strong. Social support can function as a counteractive force to concentration effects through, for example, an ability to intervene on the behalf of children in other families or voluntary participation in community program. Curley (2005) argues that collective social organization results in a lower rate of crime even when poverty levels are high, although the combination of a high crime rate with a high poverty rate tends to reduce subsequent collective social organization. There is some evidence that the absence of social leverage, which is generally enhanced by access to resources and people outside a home community, is more pronounced for women than for men (Curley, 2005).

Does Relocation Work?

Integration and relocation, however, are economically feasible responses to urban problems. The high value of inner-city real estate renders it more appealing to middle-class suburban residents who would evidently be less willing to have former public housing residents as neighbors in the suburbs. Some sociologists have argued that the suburbs are the best place for poor inner-city residents because that is where entry-level jobs are located. It is fairly clear that middle-class suburban residents seeking to move to the inner-city can benefit from HOPE VI (Alexander, 2008).

Studies of public housing residents who have been relocated have shown little improvement in terms of access to jobs or in terms of self-sufficiency even when they have participated in social and civic programs, but some improvements in physical safety outcomes have been evident. Section 8 voucher holders have an especially good record of moving to safer residences, but their living conditions are still below national averages among the poor (Curley, 2005).

In retrospect, it appears that the demolition of public housing proceeded too quickly and that the relocation process ignored the relevance of finding housing in areas in which job growth is possible. HUD has been criticized for not allowing the residents of public housing to provide any contribution to plans for rebuilding public housing and for failing to inform tenants of its own procedures (Alexander, 2008). Public housing is highly malleable, and short-term political trends can produce societal change rapidly (Hackworth, 2005).

Terms & Concepts

Concentration Effects: The idea of the "concentration effects" of poverty in public housing was largely developed by W. J. Wilson. It refers to a variety of economic and social factors that induce negative effects related to poor family, education, and employment outcomes that are largely unique to poverty in public housing.

Defensible Space Theory: The defensible space theory was developed by Oscar Newman, an architect and city planner, in the 1970s in response to the high rate of crime in high-rise apartments in New York City. Newman claimed that buildings could be designed in order to confer a greater degree of resident interaction with, and territorial claim to, surrounding public areas. In this theory, criminals are expected to be deterred from interfering with a "controlled" space over which civilians exert social influence. Defensible space theory has been applied as a supporting principle for the construction of smaller apartment buildings rather than as a guide to rendering large buildings safer.

Gautreaux Program: The Gautreaux Program of the late 1970s involved the dispersion of former public housing residents to different parts of Chicago with Section 8 voucher following the court-ordered dismantling of the public housing policies that effectively segregated minorities in high-density, poverty-stricken areas. The resulting study revealed that the children of those families moved to suburban areas performed better in education and employment outcomes than those relocated to inner-city areas. The success of this program led to other programs that have not produced such affirmative results.

HOPE VI: The Homeownership Opportunity for People Everywhere program, established in 1992, is a major HUD project that has demolished the most decrepit of public housing and built mixed-income neighborhoods in its place. These projects are funded through a combination of public and private resources and include a mixture of market-based and subsidized housing units. Most of the projects have replaced high-rise buildings or complexes with low-buildings and attached houses.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): A descendent of the former Housing and Home Finance Agency, HUD was established in 1965 in order to encourage urban growth and provide mortgage assistance to new homeowners and veterans. HUD has traditionally provided grants to fund the construction and operating of housing projects such as public housing, but the HOPE VI projects involves the more intensive participation of private real estate developers.

One-Strike Policies: "One-Strike and You're Out" or "no fault" eviction clauses allow the tenancy of public housing residents to be terminated if a criminal charge is brought against a resident or even a resident's relative or guest. It is primarily directed at drug-related crimes.

Section 8 Voucher: Section 8 vouchers, part of the Housing Choice Voucher Program, were established in 1974 in response to the high cost of building new public housing developments. These vouchers limit the holder's expenditure on rent to 30 percent of his or her income with participating private landlords; the federal government pays the balance based on what it determines to be a fair market value. The Section 8 system is highly malleable; it allows qualifying displaced public housing residents to find alternate housing in a variety of locations. Some landlords negotiate with HUD for the large-scale occupancy of Section 8 voucher holders, but landlords are not required to accept them.

Social Capital: In this context, social capital refers primarily to the supportive social networks that can form in housing communities.

Bibliography

Alexander, L.T., (2008). A sociolegal history of public housing reform in Chicago. [Book Review]. Univ. of Wisconsin Law School Working Paper No. 1061. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from SSRN http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=1151801

Barrett, E. J. (2013). Women’s work attitudes, aspirations, and workforce participation before and after relocation from public housing. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 40, 135–161. Retrieved November 5, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90154244

Belluck, P. (1998, September 6). End of a ghetto: A special report.; Razing the slums to rescue the residents. New York Times. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from http://www.query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A07E0D7173EF935A3575 5AC0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Brazley, M., & Gilderbloom, J.I. (2007). HOPE VI housing program: Was it effective? American Journal of Economics & Sociology, 66, 433-442. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=24814577&site=ehost-live

Carter, W.H., & Schill, M.H., Wachter, S.M. (1998). Polarisation, public housing and racial minorities in US cities. Urban Studies, 35, 1889-1911. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=1277212&site=ehost-live

Chen, D.W. (2004a, August 30). Northeast loses in reshuffling of housing aid. New York Times. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from http://www.query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06E2D81F3EF933A0575 5BC09629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Chen, D.W. (2004b, April 15). In public housing, it's work, volunteer or leave. New York Times. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from http://www.query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9506E0DD143BF936A2575 57C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Curley, A.M.. (June 2005). Theories of urban poverty and implications for public housing policy. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 32 , 97-119. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=17270618&site=ehost-live

Eckholm, E. (2008, March 21). Washington's grand experiment to rehouse the poor. New York Times. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/us/21housing.html?sq=Public%20Housing% %20Policy&st=nyt&scp=30&pagewanted=all

Fagan, J., Davies, G., Holland, J., & Dumanovsky, T. (2005). The bustle of horses on a ship: Drug control in New York City public housing. Columbia Law School Pub. Law Research Paper No. 05-89. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from SSRN http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=716821

Fertig, A.R., & Reingold, D.A. (2006). Public housing and health: Is there a connection? SSRN. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=895711

Garbarine, R. (2000, February). Public housing's new face lift: Will it lift the urban poor? New York Times. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from http://www.query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D9113EF930A2575 51C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Glaeser, E.L., & Sacerdote, B. (2000). The social consequences of housing. Harvard Institute of Economic Research Paper No. 1915. Retrieve July 25, 2008 from SSRN http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=263369

Hackworth, J. (2005). Progressive activism in a neoliberal context: The case of effort to retain public housing in the United States. Studies in Political Economy, 75, 29-51.

Harcourt, B.E., & Ludwig, J. (2006). Broken windows: New evidence from New York City and a five-city social experiment. University of Chicago Law Review, 73. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from SSRN http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=743284

Hetling, A. & Botein, H. (2013). Housing assistance and disconnection from welfare and work: assessing the impacts of public housing and tenant-based rental subsidies. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 40, 7–30. Retrieved November 5, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90154238

Kaplan, W. J., & Rossman, D. (2011). Called out at home: the one strike eviction policy and juvenile court. Duke Forum for Law and Social Change. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=dflsc

Kramer, M. R., Waller, L. A., Dunlop, A. L., & Hogue, C. R. (2012). Housing transitions and low birth weight among low-income women: longitudinal study of the perinatal consequences of changing public housing policy. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 2255–2261. Retrieved November 5, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=83522171

Mele, C. (2004). Civil threat of eviction and the regulation of US public housing communities. Conference Papers — American Sociological Association, 2004 Annual Meeting, San Francisco, 1-16. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=15928602&site=ehost-live

National Council on Disability. (2010). The state of housing in America in the 21st century: a disability perspective. NCD Housing Report, January 19, 2010. Retrieved November 7, 2013 from NCD.gov: http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2010/Jan192010

Newman, O. (1996). Creating defensible space. Retrieved July 26, 2008 from http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/def.pdf

Rice, A. (2006, March 5). Affordable housing: The suburban solution. New York Times Magazine. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/05/magazine/305affordable%5frice.1.html?sq =Public%20Housing%20Policy&st=nyt&scp=4&pagewanted=all

Scott, J. (2006a, April 21). 27% of public housing tenants face more rent under city plan. New York Times. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/21/nyregion/21housing.html?scp=15&sq= =Public+Housing+Policy&st=nyt

Scott, J. (2006b, September 25). National housing innovator leads city's effort for the poor. New York Times. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/nyregion/25donovan.html?sq=Public%20Ho ousing%20Policy&st=nyt&scp=34&pagewanted=all

Suresh, G., & Vito, G. (2007). The tragedy of public housing: Spatial analysis of hotspots of aggravated assaults in Louisville, KY (1989-1998). American Journal of Criminal Justice, 32 99-115. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=28164307&site=ehost-live

Venkatesh, S. (2008, July 25). To fight poverty, tear down HUD. New York Times. Retrieved July 27, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/opinion/25venkatesh.html?r=1&oref= =slogin&pagewanted=all

Wegner, Yvonne. (2012, April 20). New study links crime rate to public housing relocation efforts. The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved November 7, 2013 from http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-04-20/business/bal-new-study-links-crime-rate-to-public-housing-relocation-efforts-hint-the-results-arent-as-dramatic-as-you-might-think-20120419-1-public-housing-violent-crime-property-crime

Suggested Reading

Bowie, S.L., Barthelemy, J.J., & White Jr., G. (2007). Federal welfare and housing policy at the crossroads: Outcomes from a rent incentive-based welfare-to-work initiative in low-income, predominantly African American, urban public housing community. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 15 (2/3), 391-414. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=28032436&site=ehost-live

Keating, L. (2000). Redeveloping public housing. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66, p384-398. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=3647161&site=ehost-live

Kimble, J. (2007). Insuring inequality: The role of the federal housing administration in the urban ghettoization of African Americans. Law & Social Inquiry, 32, 299-434. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=25317510&site=ehost-live

Massey, D., & Denton, N. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

McCormick, N. J., Joseph, M. L., & Chaskin, R. J. (2012). The new stigma of relocated public housing residents: challenges to social identity in mixed-income developments. City and Community, 11, 285–308. Retrieved November 5, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=79958883

Newman, S.J., & Harkness, J.M. (2002). The long-term effect of public housing on self- sufficiency. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 21, 21-43.

Reingold, D.A., Van Ryzin, G.G., & Ronda, M. (2001). Does urban public housing diminish the social capital and labor force activity of its tenants? Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 20, 485-504.

Smith, D.A. (2006). The future of public housing: Christmas yet to come? Journal of Housing & Community Development, 63, 6-14. Retrieved July 25, 2008 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=20920681&site=ehost-live

Wilson, W. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wilson, W. (1996). When work disappears. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.