Taking the Local: The Reagan Administration, New Federalism, and Fair Housing Implementation

Lamb, Charles M.; Twombly, Jim

doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1993.tb01813.x

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…During the rebirth of federalism in the 1990s (Walker 2000), state and local governments actively began to seek federal funds to enforce national fair housing standards. Despite the obstacle presented by the substantial equivalency requirement, the number of participating state and local programs grew dramatically, mainly because of the financial incentives provided by FHAP (Lamb and Twombly 1993). 4 In this era of state resurgence and improved functioning, states were creating new agencies, consolidating old ones, doing more merit‐based hiring, and increasing the transparency of their procedures, all of which increased their capacity (Hedge 1998; Walker 2000).…”

Section: The Administrative Process In Fair Housing Enforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…“Substantially equivalent” state and local agencies processed most discrimination complaints throughout this period, under the oversight and direction of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Yet in many instances, HUD handled these complaints, frequently because the state or locality where the complaint originated had passed no substantially equivalent fair housing law (Lamb and Twombly 1993; Schwemm 2009). Because all three levels of government processed identical types of complaints, we should be able to determine whether state and local governments produced as favorable outcomes for fair housing complainants as HUD.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Civil Rights, Federalism, and the Administrative Process: Favorable Outcomes by Federal, State, and Local Agencies in Housing Discrimination Complaints

Lamb

Wilk²

2010

Public Administration Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some theorists argue that cooperative intergovernmental relations are critical to policy implementation in the United States. This assertion is explored in the context of fair housing enforcement by comparing favorable administrative outcomes in fair housing complaints at the federal, state, and local levels from 1989 to 2004. What conclusions can be drawn from this systematic comparison of intergovernmental enforcement in one policy area over an extended period of time? First, cooperative federalism works well in fair housing enforcement. Second, of special significance, state civil rights agencies resolve complaints in favor of complainants nearly as often as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and localities sometimes do so even more frequently.

show abstract

Section: The Administrative Process In Fair Housing Enforcementmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Civil Rights, Federalism, and the Administrative Process: Favorable Outcomes by Federal, State, and Local Agencies in Housing Discrimination Complaints

Lamb

Wilk²

2010

Public Administration Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Department of Housing and Urban Development 1990, 1999, 2008). Although FHAP preceded Reagan by one year, the program grew remarkably during the 1980s as a result of Reagan's New Federalism (Lamb and Twombly 1993), and has continued as a vital part of Title VIII enforcement ever since (Lamb and Wilk 2009). The linkage between the improvement in Title VIII implementation and the Reagan Presidency is unmistakable.…”

Section: Presidential Support For Title Viii5mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet by the end of 1982, the percentage of Title VIII complaints processed by FHAP agencies was actually greater than the percentage processed by HUD—a trend that continued until 1989. FHAP agencies processed more complaints during this time largely because of Reagan's New Federalism and its emphasis on state and local governments (Lamb and Twombly 1993). Between 1989 and 1995, though, HUD again processed more Title VIII complaints than all FHAP agencies combined, because state and local governments were required to pass new fair housing laws to remain substantially equivalent 12 .…”

Section: Title VIII Enforcement and The Fhap Programmentioning

confidence: 99%

Presidents, Bureaucracy, and Housing Discrimination Policy: The Fair Housing Acts of 1968 and 1988

Lamb

Wilk

2009

Politics & Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Housing segregation and discrimination remain contemporary American problems despite 40 years of policy initiatives aimed at combating them. Since strong presidential support and active bureaucratic enforcement of fair housing laws should reduce these problems, we investigate variation over time in presidential support for the Fair Housing Acts of 1968 and 1988 (Title VIII) and their enforcement. Our findings first indicate that President Nixon's interpretation of Title VIII notably weakened its scope and enforcement, but the most liberal outcomes in Title VIII policy and enforcement since the 1960s ironically surfaced during the Reagan years. Then merging two unique databases, we explore variations in Title VIII enforcement and find some fluctuation across enforcement indicators. Our study suggests that housing discrimination and segregation can be expected to continue absent strong presidential support and active bureaucratic enforcement of Title VIII that encourages a significant role for state and local civil rights agencies.Segregation and discrimination continue in the American housing market despite 40 years of major policy initiatives aimed at combating them. Consider housing segregation. Since the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968), studies have repeatedly concluded that residential segregation is widespread and persistent, that it remains high but has

show abstract

Shelter from the Storm: Roles, responsibilities, and challenges in United States housing policy governance

Willison

2017

Health Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Housing is a critical social determinant of health. Housing policy not only affects health by improving housing quality, affordability, and insecurity; housing policy affects health upstream through the politics that shape housing policy design, implementation, and management. These politics, or governance strategies, determine the successes or failures of housing policy programs. This paper is an overview of challenges in housing policy governance in the United States. I examine the important relationship between housing and health, and emphasize why studying housing policy governance matters. I then present three cases of housing governance challenges in the United States, from each pathway by which housing affects health - housing quality, affordability, and insecurity. Each case corresponds to an arm of the TAPIC framework for evaluating governance (Krieger and Higgins) [1], to assess mechanisms of housing governance in each case. While housing governance has come a long way over the past century, political decentralization and the expansion of the submerged state have increased the number of political actors and policy conflict in many areas. This creates inherent challenges for improving accountability, transparency, and policy capacity. In many instances, too, reduced government accountability and transparency increases the risk of harm to the public and lessens governmental integrity.

show abstract

Taking the Local: The Reagan Administration, New Federalism, and Fair Housing Implementation

Cited by 4 publications

References 3 publications

Civil Rights, Federalism, and the Administrative Process: Favorable Outcomes by Federal, State, and Local Agencies in Housing Discrimination Complaints

Civil Rights, Federalism, and the Administrative Process: Favorable Outcomes by Federal, State, and Local Agencies in Housing Discrimination Complaints

Presidents, Bureaucracy, and Housing Discrimination Policy: The Fair Housing Acts of 1968 and 1988

Shelter from the Storm: Roles, responsibilities, and challenges in United States housing policy governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About