In HUD's HOPE VI program, deteriorated structures housing some of the poorest families in our society are being demolished and replaced by low-rise, mixed-income developments. Some of the most serious concerns about the program relate to how it is handling the relocation of original residents. This article is the first to look at the outcomes nationally. It uses data from a HUD information system, showing the spatial pattern of Section 8 recipients relocated from 73 HOPE VI developments in 48 cities through May 2000. The research finds that the majority of relocatees do move to neighborhoods that have lower poverty rates than those they left behind, although the impacts in reducing racial concentration have not been dramatic. Most relocatees tend to be spread across many different neighborhoods rather than being clustered in just a few, but significant clustering was found in a few neighborhoods in most cities.

No abstract

Quantitative and qualitative methods are employed to investigate the extent to which proximity to 14 supportive housing facilities opening in Denver from 1992 to 1995 affects crime rates. The econometric specification provides pre-and post-controls for selection bias as well as a spatial autocorrelation correction. Focus groups with homeowners living near supportive housing provide richer context for interpreting the econometric results. The findings suggest that developers paying close attention to facility scale and siting can avoid negative neighborhood impacts and render their supportive housing invisible to neighbors. Implications for structuring local regulations and public education regarding supportive housing facilities follow.The imperative for increasing the supply of housing for Americans with special needs has become increasingly clear over the past several decades, as the effects of the AIDS epidemic, rising homelessness, and changes in approaches to serving the mentally ill and non-violent offenders have manifested themselves. A consensus has emerged that not only did many with special needs require affordable housing, but they also require supervision and a package of support services tailored to their needs, perhaps but not necessarily delivered in conjunction with the housing (Dear & Wolch, 1987, Mechanic & Rochefort, 1990, Newman, 1992. Supportive housing facilities were the result.

In this paper, an assessment is made of the extent to which proximity to 38 dispersed public housing sites opening in Denver during 1992-95 affected post-development levels and trends in neighbourhood crime rates. A new econometric specification incorporating pre- and post-controls for selection bias as well as spatial autocorrelation was employed to test for statistical relationships between the development of dispersed public housing sites and subsequent increases in various types of crime. The findings suggest that proximity to dispersed public housing was not associated with any post-development increase in reported crime of any type.

George C. Galster presents a static model showing how the deconcentration of poverty to neighborhoods with mid-level poverty rates rather than low-poverty neighborhoods (as occurred in the 1990s) could result in systemwide increases in socially problematic outcomes. This is not seen as a significant concern. The authors present data to suggest that, in the dynamic real world, the potential increases in problems resulting from the workings of Galster’s model could well be more than offset by (a) the effects of subsequent decreases in poverty rates in those tracts or (b) reductions in the level of problems associated with any given poverty rate. Furthermore, they judge that the policies and conditions that led to the deconcentration of poverty that did occur in the 1990s are still essential for yet more complete deconcentration in the future. Galster gives us no clear indication of how we might change them or any strong motivation for doing so.