Do Housing Choice Voucher holders live near good schools?

Horn, Keren Mertens; Ellen, Ingrid Gould; Schwartz, Amy Ellen

doi:10.1016/j.jhe.2013.11.005

Cited by 68 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the U.S., the general finding is that on average public housing tenants live in worse quality and poorer neighborhoods than housing voucher holders (Olsen and Zabel, 2015). For example, Horn et al (2014) find that the housing voucher holders live near better schools than public housing tenants, whereas Lens et al (2011) find that voucher holders live in safer neighborhoods (in terms of crime) than public housing and LIHTC tenants. Susin (2005) and Lens et al (2011) report similar results with respect to neighborhood poverty rate.…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Delivering affordable housing and neighborhood quality: A comparison of place- and tenant-based programs

Eerola

Saarimaa

2018

Journal of Housing Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. This paper analyzes the relative merits of large place-and tenant-based housing programs in Finland in terms of housing affordability and neighborhood quality. Using hedonic regression methods and household micro data, we find that rent savings to public housing tenants are less targeted towards low-income households than housing allowance. In addition, low-income public housing tenants live in poorer, less educated and lower quality neighborhoods than similar low-income households in private rental housing. This suggests that place-based programs may lead to more segregation than tenant-based alternatives even when neighborhood mixing is an explicit aim of the program, as in Finland. Terms of use: Documents inJEL-Codes: H220, R210, R230.

show abstract

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Delivering affordable housing and neighborhood quality: A comparison of place- and tenant-based programs

Eerola

Saarimaa

2018

Journal of Housing Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…What is needed is the ability to look across entire metropolitan areas with many jurisdictions including both central cities and suburbs. School performance data are losing relevance as children are no longer attending the nearest neighborhood school (Horn, Ellen, & Schwartz, 2014). Actual educational achievement data are needed for test and control groups to determine whether location in a high-opportunity neighborhood matters.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Future of Research on Assisted Housing for the Poor

McClure

2015

Housing Policy Debate

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Despite the buying power that the voucher provides, nearly half of the families using vouchers live in high poverty neighborhoods, 5 and their children rarely have access to high quality educational opportunities. 6 Black voucher participants have even greater difficulty translating this buying power into improved neighborhoods. 7 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%