U.S. assisted housing programs and poverty deconcentration: A critical geographic review
U.S. assisted housing programs and poverty deconcentration: A critical geographic review
复制标题
美国援助住房计划和贫困分散：关键的地理审查
DOI：
10.1007/978-94-007-6695-2_11
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
9.7
通讯作者：
G. Galster
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Galster
集中低收入群体的个人和社会成本在本章中，Galster探讨了过去25年来四个旨在减少贫困集中的联邦住房计划：（1）分散式公共住房;（2）以租户为基础的住房选择权（HCV）;（3）通过低收入住房税收抵免（LIHTC）补贴的私人开发项目;以及（4）对陷入困境的公共住房进行混合收入重建（HOPE VI）。根据证据的综合，得出四个结论。美国公共住房的居民平均居住在比任何其他援助住房计划的参与者更不利的社区。其他类型的基于站点的辅助住房计划（特别是LIHTC）的居民居住在与基于租户的HCV持有者没有显着不同的居住环境中。与没有住房补贴的同等家庭相比，丙型肝炎家庭生活在较低贫困的社区，但在LIHTC单位的居民中，比较差异较小。丙肝病毒携带者通常不会在随后的搬迁中实质性地改善他们的邻里环境。在了解这些后公共住房政策的努力并没有产生更显着的分散贫困的章节确定的规模和结构的住房方案，居民的特点和需求，以及结构性障碍。最后，建议结合供应方和需求方的住房计划改革，再加上非住房战略。重要的是，美国的经验为西欧的住房政策制定者提供了选择性的教训，尽管在解决集中贫困的起源和政策选择方面存在巨大差异。
The personal and social costs of concentrating low-income (typically minority) households in neighbourhoods with high proportions of similarly disadvantaged households has long been of concern in the U.S. In this chapter, Galster explores four federal housing programs tasked with reducing poverty concentrations over the last 25 years: (1) scattered-site public housing; (2) tenant-based Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV); (3) private developments subsidized through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC); and (4) mixed-income redevelopment of distressed public housing estates (HOPE VI). Based on a synthesis of the evidence, four conclusions are drawn. Residents of U.S. public housing on average reside in significantly more disadvantaged neighbourhoods compared to participants in any other assisted housing program. Residents of other types of site-based assisted housing programs (particularly LIHTC) do not reside in significantly different residential environments than tenant-based HCV holders. HCV households live in somewhat lower-poverty neighbourhoods than equivalent households who do not receive housing subsidies, but the comparative differences are more modest for residents in LIHTC units. HCV holders typically do not substantially improve their neighbourhood circumstances with subsequent moves. In understanding how these post-public housing policy efforts have not produced more significant deconcentration of poverty the chapter identifies both the scale and structure of the housing programs, characteristics and needs of residents, and structural barriers. In conclusion, an amalgam of supply-side and demand-side housing program reforms is suggested, coupled with non-housing strategies. Importantly, the US experience offers selective lessons for housing policymakers in Western Europe, though there are vast differences in the origins and policy options available for addressing concentrated poverty.