1. May 3, 2012 George Dugdale & Katie Fries POVERTY DISPERSAL POLICIES

2. CONCENTRATED POVERTY: DEFINED 2011 HHS Poverty Guidelines Persons in Family 48 Contiguous States and D.C.AlaskaHawaii 1$10,890$13,600$12,540 2 14,710 18,380 16,930 3 18,530 23,160 21,320 4 22,350 27,940 25,710 5 26,170 32,720 30,100 6 29,990 37,500 34,490 7 33,810 42,280 38,880 8 37,630 47,060 43,270 For each additional person, add 3,820 4,780 4,390 Source: Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 13 Census defines two concentrated poverty areas: ‘Poverty Areas’ – at least 20% of residents within one census tract have incomes that do not exceed the poverty threshold ‘Extreme Poverty Areas’ – at least 40% of residents within one census tract have incomes that do not exceed the poverty threshold

3. CONCENTRATED POVERTY: CONSEQUENCES Living in areas with man other poor people places burdens on what impoverished families’ individual circumstances dictate (Census) Researchers argue that concentration of poverty results in increased crime, poor public schools, poor housing and health conditions, and limits access to private service and employment (Census) Wealth building is hindered (Brookings) Reduction in private-sector investment and increases in proves for goods and services (Brookings) Increased costs for local government (Brookings)

4. HOUSING IN THE US 1945-60 Expansion of the Suburbs 1951 first Levittown opens 1954 Highways Act Wide availability of the car Discrimination in FDA loans and redlining of neighborhoods Mass Public Housing Projects Slum clearing lead to development of public housing programs in areas with minimal infrastructure Originally planned for “submerged middle class” quickly became poor, largely African American neighborhoods

5. PRUITT IGOE: 1955

6. PRUITT IGOE: 1956-1972

7. POVERTY DISPERSAL : FIRST WAVE 1960’S – 1970’S Growing concern about racial discrimination and housing inequity in inner cities 1962 Executive Order 11063 1964 Civil Rights Act 1968 Fair Housing Act First Wave late 1960’s - mid 1970’s Section 8 Voucher Program Scattered Site Programs Gautreaux

8. POVERTY DISPERSAL POLICY: SCATTERED SITE PUBLIC HOUSING Created in response to HUD’s 1967 implementation of equal opportunity regulation in compliance with the Civil Rights Act Theory suggested economic integration would reduce social and spatial isolation of the poor Supporters HUD Lyndon B. Johnson Widely accepted by policymakers in the 1970’s Successes Residential integration was partially achieved by moving blacks to predominately white areas Residents reported higher levels of satisfaction with their new neighborhood Criticism Projects were still built in lower-income, high minority concentrated areas Scattered-site concept is inefficient for housing authorities to maintain Scattered Site, Everett WA, built 1982

9. POVERTY DISPERSAL POLICY: SECTION 8 HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 authorized the first national voucher program known as the Section 8 Existing Housing Program Participants receive a voucher for use in regular rental market Theory behind program suggests vouchers would enable participants to move to safer, less-troubled communities Supporters Richard Nixon Private sector Successes Data indicates that vouchers allow recipients to live in communities more typical of the average renter Criticism Racial differences in neighborhood locations of voucher holders Voucher holders opportunities are limited to locations with affordable housing stock

10. POVERTY DISPERSAL POLICY: GAUTREAUX 1976 Hills vs. Gautreaux: Landmark decision requiring Public Housing Authorities to increase public housing opportunities located away from inner-city concentrations of low-income minority residents Supporters American Civil Liberties Union Chicago civil rights activists Chicago civil rights attorney: Alex Polikoff Successes Residents moved to the suburbs experienced higher educational outcomes than those remaining in the city Criticism 1981 one provision allowed families to be relocated to ‘revitalizing communities’ Success was a result of motivation, not location

11. POVERTY DISPERSAL: SECOND WAVE 1990’S - PRESENT New Policies Moving to Opportunity Hope VI Inclusionary zoning (School Vouchers) Most First Wave Programs Still Relevant Section 8 Gautreaux inspired Moving to Opportunity

12. POVERTY DISPERSAL POLICY: MOVING TO OPPORTUNITY In 1992 Congress authorized funding for the Moving to Opportunity Program. MTO tested the effect of residential mobility on former public housing tenants in a model similar to Gautreaux Supporters HUD secretaries: Jack Kemp, Henry Cisneros Gautreaux supporters: Alex Polikoff Successes Participants reported improvements in feelings of safety and neighborhood conditions Criticism Evidence did not suggest improved educational performance

13. POVERTY DISPERSAL POLICY: HOPE VI Congress launches HOPE VI in 1993 to demolish and redevelop distressed public housing Supporters Successes Improved safety, greater amenities More efficient management Criticism HOPE VI typically develops fewer public housing units than are demolished Only 45% of units that are redeveloped receive similar deep subsidies, the remaining have shallower subsidies

14. CASE STUDY High Point: Seattle “Redevelopment of High Point has transformed the community into an award winning development and has reduced crime in the area” However, “original household heads are neither better off nor worse than they were prior to redevelopment.”

15. POVERTY DISPERSAL POLICY: INCLUSIONARY ZONING Summary Action taken by local municipalities (i.e. cities or counties) requiring a portion of new construction to be made affordable to low or moderate income households Supporters Political activists Environmentalists Smart growth advocates Labor unions Successes Ten members of A Regional Coalition for Housing in East King County have implemented land use policies resulting in over 600 market-produced units Montgomery Count Maryland has developed over 13,000 affordable housing units Criticism Private development is limited Promotes over-development and congestion Private developers should not be responsible for creating affordable housing

16. CONCENTRATED POVERTY: CONTINUING CHALLENGES US is experiencing a re-emergence of concentrated poverty