The relationship between housing subsidies and supportive housing on neighborhood distress and housing satisfaction: does drug use make a difference?

Abstract

BackgroundSince the 1970s, the dominant model for U.S. federal housing policy has shifted from unit-based programs to tenant-based vouchers and certificates. Because housing vouchers allow recipients to move to apartments and neighborhoods of their choice, such programs were designed to improve the ability of poor families to move into neighborhoods with less concentrated poverty. However, little research has examined whether housing voucher recipients live in less distressed neighborhoods than those without housing vouchers. There is much reason to believe that drug users may not be able to access or keep federal housing subsidies due to difficulties drug users, many of whom may have criminal histories and poor credit records, may have in obtaining free market rental housing. In response to these difficulties, permanent supportive housing was designed for those who are chronically homeless with one or more disabling condition, including substance use disorders. Little research has examined whether residents of permanent supportive housing units live in more or less economically distressed neighborhoods compared to low-income renters.MethodsThis paper uses survey data from 337 low-income residents of Hartford, CT and geospatial analysis to determine whether low-income residents who receive housing subsidies and supportive housing live in neighborhoods with less concentrated poverty than those who do not. We also examine the relationships between receiving housing subsidies or supportive housing and housing satisfaction. Finally, we look at the moderating effects of drug use and race on level of neighborhood distress and housing satisfaction.ResultsResults show that low-income residents who receive housing subsidies or supportive housing were not more or less likely to live in neighborhoods with high levels of distress, although Black residents with housing subsidies lived in more distressed neighborhoods. Regarding housing satisfaction, those with housing subsidies perceived significantly more choice in where they were living while those in supportive housing perceived less choice. In addition, those with rental subsidies or supportive housing reported living closer to needed services, unless they also reported heavy drug use.ConclusionsHousing subsidies and supportive housing have little impact on the level of neighborhood distress in which recipients live, but some effects on housing satisfaction.

Applications of geospatial analyses in health research among homeless people: A systematic scoping review of available evidence

“…Additionally, studies used R statistical Package, R-INLA, Geo-Mapping Software (GMS), WebGIS, and STATA for both statistical and spatial analysis. These studies used the aforementioned geospatial analysis software and tools for data visualization and mapping 11,21-23 , distribution of homeless center 24-26 or visualize results 19 related to the health-related problems and homelessness.…”

“…Most of the studies included in this review reported using data from official federal or governmental data source such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the USA; Regional Public Health Department of Montreal in Canada; Office for National Statistics and Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) in the UK; Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Canada; All-Payer Claims Databases; Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS); New York State Department of Health; London Tuberculosis Register; Westminster City Council; Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), UK; Department for Education (DoE), UK. Very few studies used primary survey data 4,11,21,28,31,32 , focus group discussion data 19 , key informant interview data 24 for the health-related studies of the homeless.…”

“…Even though the articles from this review focused primarily on the health problems of the homeless population, they also emphasized some other social issues that are almost as important as the health-related problems. These issues include the accessibility of the basic services 4,22 , community integration 4,5 , the pattern of injuries 20 , gambling 12 , neighborhood distress 11 , and shelter environment 19 . Even though the spatial analysis tools used in these studies are very similar to those used in the disease-related studies, the focus and outcome are different.…”

Placement of chronically homeless into different types of permanent supportive housing before and after a coordinated entry system: The influence of severe mental illness, substance use disorder, and dual diagnosis on housing configuration and intensity of services

“…The United States has a long and ugly history of residential segregation and we must be certain that this is not being duplicated in supportive housing programs. Previous research has suggested that Housing Choice vouchers were associated with moving to improved neighborhoods for White but not Black recipients (Pendall, 2000), and Black residents of Permanent Supportive Housing Programs were also more likely to live in distressed neighborhoods (Dickson‐Gomez, McAuliffe, Obidoa, Quinn, & Weeks, 2016).…”

Change in housing environment and residential satisfaction following exit from permanent supportive housing

“…Whether supportive housing sites are located in relatively better or worse neighborhoods than Moving On housing is also an open question. In a study of neighborhood distress, low-income residents who received housing subsidies or supportive housing were no more or less likely to live in neighborhoods with high levels of economic distress, as measured by the American Community Survey (ACS) metrics on neighborhood employment, income, education, assistance/benefits, household characteristics, and housing vacancy, than other low-income residents (Dickson-Gomez et al, 2016). In another study, recipients of project-based vouchers, a common source of affordable housing assistance utilized by PSH programs that are tied to the PSH program, were found to reside in better neighborhoods than recipients of tenant-based vouchers, a common source of affordable housing assistance utilized by MOIs that are tied to and move with the individual, despite a general lack of between-group differences in predisposing and need characteristics (Chinchilla et al, 2019).…”