Home  About us  Contact
 

Public Housing Residents (public + housing_resident)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Humanities and Social Sciences80%

Selected Abstracts

VIOLENCE AMONG ADOLESCENTS LIVING IN PUBLIC HOUSING: A TWO-SITE ANALYSIS,

CRIMINOLOGY AND PUBLIC POLICY, Issue 1 2003
TIMOTHY O. IRELAND
Research Summary: Current knowledge about violence among public housing residents is extremely limited. Much of what we know about violence in and around public housing is derived from analysis of Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data or victimization surveys of public housing residents. The results of these studies suggest that fear of crime among public housing residents is high and that violent offense rates may be higher in areas that contain public housing compared with similar areas without public housing. Yet, "[r]ecorded crime rates (and victimization rates) are an index not of the rate of participation in crime by residents of an area, but of the rate of crime (or victimization) that occurs in an area whether committed by residents or non-residents" (Weatherburn et al., 1999:259). Therefore, neither UCR nor victimization data measurement strategies address whether crime in and around public housing emanates from those who reside in public housing. Additionally, much of this research focuses on atypical public housing,large developments with high-rise buildings located in major metropolitan areas. To complement the existing literature, we compare rates of self-reported crime and violence among adolescents who reside in public housing in Rochester, N.Y., and Pittsburgh, Pa., with adolescents from the same cities who do not live in public housing. In Rochester, property crime and violence participation rates during adolescence and early adulthood among those in public housing are statistically equivalent to participation rates among those not in public housing. In Pittsburgh, living in public housing during late adolescence and early adulthood, particularly in large housing developments,increases the risk for violent offending, but not for property offending. The current study relies on a relatively small number of subjects in public housing at any single point in time and is based on cross-sectional analyses. Even so, there are several important policy implications that can be derived from this study, given that it moves down a path heretofore largely unexplored. Policy Implications: If replicated, our findings indicate that not all public housing is inhabited disproportionately by those involved in crime; that to develop appropriate responses, it is essential to discover if the perpetrators of violence are residents or trespassers; that policy should target reducing violence specifically and not crime in general; that a modification to housing allocation policies that limits, to the extent possible, placing families with children in late adolescence into large developments might reduce violence perpetrated by residents; that limited resources directed at reducing violence among residents should be targeted at those developments or buildings that actually have high rates of participation in violence among the residents; and that best practices may be derived from developments where violence is not a problem. [source]

The end of public housing as we know it: public housing policy, labor regulation and the US city

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN AND REGIONAL RESEARCH, Issue 1 2003
Jeff R. Crump
In this article I argue that the US public housing policy, as codified by the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA), is helping to reconfigure the racial and class structure of many inner cities. By promoting the demolition of public housing projects and replacement with mixed-income housing developments, public housing policy is producing a gentrified inner-city landscape designed to attract middle and upper-class people back to the inner city. The goals of public housing policy are also broadly consonant with those of welfare reform wherein the ,workfare' system helps to bolster and produce the emergence of contingent low-wage urban labor markets. In a similar manner, I argue that public housing demonstration programs, such as the ,Welfare-to-Work' initiative, encourage public housing residents to join the lowwage labor market. Although the rhetoric surrounding the demolition of public housing emphasizes the economic opportunities made available by residential mobility, I argue that former public housing residents are simply being relocated into private housing within urban ghettos. Such a spatial fix to the problems of unemployment and poverty will not solve the problems of inner-city poverty. Will it take another round of urban riots before we seriously address the legacy of racism and discrimination that has shaped the US city? Cet article démontre que la politique du logement public américaine, telle que la réglemente la Loi de 1998, Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, contribue à remodeler la structure par races et classes de nombreux quartiers déshérités des centres-villes. En favorisant la démolition d'ensembles de logements sociaux et leur remplacement par des complexes urbanisés à loyers variés, la politique publique génère un embourgeoisement des centres-villes destinéà y ramener les classes moyennes et supérieures. Les objectifs de la politique du logement rejoignent largement ceux de la réforme sociale où le système de ,l'allocation conditionnelle' facilite et nourrit la création de marchés contingents du travail à bas salaires. De même, les programmes expérimentaux de logements publics, telle l'initiative Welfare-to-Work (De l'aide sociale au travail) poussent les habitants des logements sociaux à rejoindre le marchéde la main d',uvre à bas salaires. Bien que les discours autour de la démolition des logements sociaux mettent en avant les ouvertures économiques créées par la mobilité résidentielle, leurs anciens habitants sont simplement en train d'être déplacés vers des logements privés situés dans des ghettos urbains. Ce genre de solution spatiale aux problèmes du chômage et de la pauvreté ne viendra pas à bout du dénuement des quartiers déshérités du centre. Faudra-t-il une autre série d'émeutes urbaines pour que l'on aborde sérieusement l'héritage de racisme et de discrimination qui a façonné les villes américaines? [source]

Comments on Jeff R. Crump's ,The end of public housing as we know it: public housing policy, labor regulation and the US city'

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN AND REGIONAL RESEARCH, Issue 1 2003
Alex SchwartzArticle first published online: 13 MAY 200
Jeff Crump's discussion of housing policy in the United States is highly polemic but not very analytic or informative. Crump argues that federal housing policy is attempting to move people out of public housing and into the private housing market and the lowwage labor force. However, he fails to support his argument with credible evidence. My comments point out the most egregious of Crump's claims. I start with Crump's most extreme contentions that housing policy is coercing public housing residents into the low-wage labor force. I then question his dismissive attitude toward the problems confronted by residents of distressed public housing and policies designed to help low-income families move out of impoverished neighborhoods. I subsequently show how Crump exaggerates the extent to which federal housing policy is clearing central cities of subsidized low-income housing. I conclude with a few words on the serious issues that a more informed critique of US housing policy could have raised. L'exposé de Jeff Crump sur la politique du logement aux Etats-Unis relève principalement de la polémique, plus que de l'analyse ou de l'information. Selon lui, la politique fédérale tente de déplacer la population des logements sociaux vers les marchés de l'habitat privé et de la main-d',uvre à bas salaires. Toutefois, il n'apporte aucune preuve crédible à son propos. Ma réaction porte sur ses arguments les plus insignes, en commençant par ses allégations extrémistes selon lesquelles la politique du logement contraint les habitants des logements publics à des emplois peu rémunérés. Je remets ensuite en cause son dédain à l'égard des difficultés que rencontrent les résidents des logements sociaux insalubres, sans oublier les politiques prévues pour aider les familles à faibles revenus à quitter les quartiers pauvres. En conséquence, à mon avis, Crump exagère la mesure dans laquelle la politique fédérale élimine des centres-villes les habitats à loyer modéré subventionnés. En quelques mots, ma conclusion porte sur les questions graves qu'aurait pu soulever un commentateur mieux documenté sur la politique du logement aux Etats-Unis. [source]

Rejoinder: Alex Schwartz's critique of ,The end of public housing as we know it'

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF URBAN AND REGIONAL RESEARCH, Issue 1 2003
Jeff R. Crump
In this article I argue that the US public housing policy, as codified by the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA), is helping to reconfigure the racial and class structure of many inner cities. By promoting the demolition of public housing projects and replacement with mixed-income housing developments, public housing policy is producing a gentrified inner-city landscape designed to attract middle and upper-class people back to the inner city. The goals of public housing policy are also broadly consonant with those of welfare reform wherein the ,workfare' system helps to bolster and produce the emergence of contingent low-wage urban labor markets. In a similar manner, I argue that public housing demonstration programs, such as the ,Welfare-to-Work' initiative, encourage public housing residents to join the lowwage labor market. Although the rhetoric surrounding the demolition of public housing emphasizes the economic opportunities made available by residential mobility, I argue that former public housing residents are simply being relocated into private housing within urban ghettos. Such a spatial fix to the problems of unemployment and poverty will not solve the problems of inner-city poverty. Will it take another round of urban riots before we seriously address the legacy of racism and discrimination that has shaped the US city? Cet article démontre que la politique du logement public américaine, telle que la réglemente la Loi de 1998, Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act, contribue à remodeler la structure par races et classes de nombreux quartiers déshérités des centres-villes. En favorisant la démolition d'ensembles de logements sociaux et leur remplacement par des complexes urbanisés à loyers variés, la politique publique génère un embourgeoisement des centres-villes destinéà y ramener les classes moyennes et supérieures. Les objectifs de la politique du logement rejoignent largement ceux de la réforme sociale oú le système de ,l'allocation conditionnelle' facilite et nourrit la création de marchés contingents du travail à bas salaires. De même, les programmes expérimentaux de logements publics, telle l'initiative Welfare-to-Work (De l'aide sociale au travail) poussent les habitants des logements sociaux à rejoindre le marchéde la main d',uvre à bas salaires. Bien que les discours autour de la démolition des logements sociaux mettent en avant les ouvertures économiques créées par la mobilité résidentielle, leurs anciens habitants sont simplement en train d'être déplacés vers des logements privés situés dans des ghettos urbains. Ce genre de solution spatiale aux problèmes du chômage et de la pauvreté ne viendra pas à bout du dénuement des quartiers déshérités du centre. Faudra-t-il une autre série d'émeutes urbaines pour que l'on aborde sérieusement l'héritage de racisme et de discrimination qui a façonné les villes américaines? [source]

LIMITED EXPOSURE: CHILDREN'S ACTIVITIES AND NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECTS IN THE GAUTREAUX TWO HOUSING MOBILITY PROGRAM

JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS, Issue 4 2010
ANITA ZUBERI
ABSTRACT:,Housing mobility programs intend to improve the well-being of low-income families by changing the neighborhood environment in which they live, and thereby creating access to a new set of opportunities and resources. Using data collected in a study of the Gautreaux Two (G2) Housing Mobility program, which offered housing vouchers to public housing residents in Chicago to move to lower-poverty and less segregated "opportunity" neighborhoods, this article explores families' access to programs and services for their children in the neighborhoods where they move. The analysis is based on a sample of 46 families who moved through the G2 program. Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with mothers in four waves, which started when the family still lived in public housing. The results show that almost three-quarters of the families utilized activities for their children in the baseline neighborhoods, but mothers also expressed concerns about the safety and lack of program variety available in these disadvantaged neighborhoods. After moving through the G2 program, only one-third of the children in these families are using activities. The decline in activity participation is especially steep for children in families that move to areas outside of the city. Although few mothers are concerned with safety or the variety of programs available, several report barriers to activities for children in the new neighborhood, including fewer programs for low-income children, high cost, transportation difficulties, and issues finding daycare or preschool for younger children. Some children continue to use activities in the old neighborhood and some families end up making subsequent moves to nonqualifying neighborhoods. These findings suggest that activity participation is important for many low-income families, and losing access to these activities upon moving through the G2 program may limit children's exposure to the new neighborhood and contribute to subsequent moves. [source]

EARLY RESIDENT EXPERIENCES AT A NEW MIXED-INCOME DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO

JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS, Issue 3 2008
MARK L. JOSEPH
ABSTRACT:,Mixed-income development is an increasingly popular poverty deconcentration strategy in the United States but there have been few in-depth studies about the experiences of residents once they move in to the new housing developments. This article explores the early experiences of residents of all income levels who have moved into a new mixed-income development on the south side of Chicago. In-depth interviews have been conducted with 46 residents of the development, including 23 former public housing residents. Interviews were also conducted with a comparison group of 69 public housing residents who did not move to the development. I find that public housing movers appear to be a substantially different group than non - movers. I find that overall satisfaction with the new development is quite high among residents of all income levels. Early social relations are limited, particularly across income levels, and there are key barriers to interaction, such as physical design, stigma and assumptions based on class and housing status, and segregated associational structures. [source]

People, places and policies , trying to account for health inequalities in impoverished neighbourhoods

AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Issue 1 2009
Peter Feldman
Abstract Objective: We consider associations between individual, household and area-level characteristics and self-reported health. Method: Data is taken from baseline surveys undertaken in 13 socio-economically disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Victoria (n=3,944). The neighbourhoods are sites undergoing Neighbourhood Renewal (NR), a State government initiative redressing place-based disadvantage. Analysis:This focused on the relationship between area and compositional factors and self-reported health. Area was coded into three categories; LGA, NR residents living in public housing (NRPU) and NR residents who lived in private housing (NRPR). Compositional factors included age, gender, marital status, identifying as a person with a disability, level of education, unemployment and receipt of pensions/benefits. Results: There was a gradient in socio-economic disadvantage on all measures. People living in NR public housing were more disadvantaged than people living in NR private housing who, in turn, were more disadvantaged than people in the same LGA. NR public housing residents reported the worst health status and LGA residents reported the best. Conclusions: Associations between compositional characteristics of disability, educational achievement and unemployment income and poorer self-reported health were shown. They suggested that area characteristics, with housing policies, may be contributing to differences in self-reported health at the neighbourhood level. Implications: The clustering of socio-economic disadvantage and health outcomes requires the integration of health and social support interventions that address the circumstances of people and places. [source]