04_OhIT_p63-76

8/12/2019 04_OhIT_p63-76

1/14

A Study on Public Housing and Housing Voucher Program in the US

Abstract

In the U.S., mass construction of public housing for low income families was stopped in

1973 and housing policy has been mainly transformed to the housing voucher policy. he

distressed conditions of many public housing sites left a negative image of general public

housing. !oucher"s fle#ibility in choosing houses by low$income families is a big merit which

public housing rarely has. he voucher program"s positive impact on neighborhoods is generally

greater than that of public housing. %espite these facts, public housing is still a valid housing

policy and it is necessary to reform the program to ma&e it more effective and compatible to

housing policy"s goals. 'ublic housing mainly contributed to increase in affordability for housing

of low$income families and (uality housing supply.

)orea can learn a lot from the U.S. e#periences in housing policies and programs. *irst, it is

necessary to assess the impact of e#cessive concentration of low$income families as a result of

massive public housing construction. It is necessary to develop smaller public housing sites

which are naturally mi#ed with e#isting neighborhoods. Second, developing various housing

programs and establishing congruence among e#isting housing programs are needed. )orean

housing policy for low$income people is much inclined to providing public rental housing. +ut it

is not sufficient to respond to various different situations of policy demands. ousing voucher,

homeownership program must be developed to fit )orea"s situation. -nd it is also important to

establish congruence among these several programs. hird, supporting formation of wealth and

enhancing self$sufficiency program must be deeply considered.

ecently, the price of decent housing of middle and upper classes is rapidly raised and the

gap between the wealth and the poor is widened now. o ma&e the gap a little closer, supporting

formation of wealth and enhancing self$sufficiency policy is needed.

/3

8/12/2019 04_OhIT_p63-76

2/14

0USI2-%044UI5%6!60'46

I. Introduction

In the U.S., mass construction of public housings for low income families are stopped in

1973 and housing policy is mainly transferred to the housing vouchers program 8section :.

-mong e#isting public housings, severely distressed things are being phased out in some cities

and replaced to decent housings in other cities. he transformation of housing policy is mainly a

result of severe side effects of public housing such as increased crimes in deteriorated public

housing sites, e#cessive concentration of low income families, low neighborhoods (uality, and so

on.

In )orea, about 33; thousands of public housing for very low income families e#ist now, and

our government is ambitiously carrying out the policy of mass construction of public housing

which is planned to construct 1 million public rental housings for low income families in 1;

years 8from

8/12/2019 04_OhIT_p63-76

3/14


he goal of housing policy described by 19B9 ousing -ct as >suitable living environment@ can

be interpreted as dual goal of >decent housing and suitable neighborhoods@ and this is still in

effect 8ewman and Schnare, 1997:.

- recent )atC and others" paper

8/12/2019 04_OhIT_p63-76

4/14

0USI2-%044UI5%6!60'46

'ublic housing is assisted under the provision of the U.S. ousing -ct of 1937 or under a

state program having the same general purposes as the federal program. 'ublic housing provides

decent and safe rental housing for eligible low$income families, the elderly, and persons with

disabilities. he siCe and type of public housing varies from scattered single$family houses to

high$rise apartments for elderly individuals. he U.S. %epartment of ousing and Urban

%evelopment 8U%: administers federal aid to local public housing authorities 8'-s: that

manage the housing for low$income residents at rents they can afford. 'ublic housing is limited

to low$income families and individuals. here are appro#imately 1.3 million households living in

public housing units, managed by some 3,3;; '-s3.

he main program of housing voucher in U.S. is the section program. he section

program is funded by the U.S. %epartment of ousing and Urban %evelopment 8U%: as a rent$

subsidy program that supplements what very low$income families and individuals can afford to

pay for housing in the private mar&et through the use of housing vouchers. ousing vouchers

allow very low$income families to choose and then lease or purchase safe, decent, and affordable

rental housing in the private mar&et. +ecause housing assistance is usually provided on behalf of

the family or individual, participants are most often able to find their own housing, including

single$family homes, town houses, and apartments. here are several types of vouchers, and they

are administered locally by public housing agencies 8'-s: using federal funds from U%B.

IV. Literature Review on Public Housing and Housing Voucher Program

here are many debates and studies about public housing and housing voucher"s strength and

wea&ness. In some cases public housing program is severely criticiCed and voucher program is

deeply advocated. In other cases more neutral analysis is being done. -mong many debates and

3httpAwww.&nowledgeple#.orgtopic.htmlJcK

8/12/2019 04_OhIT_p63-76

5/14


studies some important debates are described below.

A. at! and "thers# $tudy%

)atC and his colleagues analyCed very well public housing and vouchers" correspondence to

housing policy goal as summariCed in able 1. -ccording to his analysis, public housing 8supply$

side production: is mainly contributed to e#pand good$(uality affordable housing units for low

income families, and to ma&e housing more affordable and readily available. +ut it is rarely

contributed to promote neighborhoods diversity and promote balanced metropolitan growth, and

generally not contributed to build wealth of low income households.

ompared to public housing, the voucher program has mainly contributed to ma&ing housing

more affordable and e#panding good$(uality housing units by encouraging landlords to maintain

e#isting housing. e evaluated it to have possibility to increase neighborhoods diversity and

promote balanced metropolitan growth those which public housing rarely has. +ut they analyCed

that voucher program also generally not contributed to build wealth of low income households.

able 1. ental ousing -ssistance Summary 'rograms" 'erformances

ental housing assistance

Supply$side production %emand$side vouchers

'reserve and e#pand the

supply of good$(uality

5esA rental stoc& has been

e#panded, though more units

SomewhatA encourage landlords

to maintain e#isting housing

5+ruce )atC, 4argery -ustin urner, )aren %estorel +rown, 4ary unningham, oah Sawyer.Rethinking LocalAffordable Housing Strategies: Lessons from 70 ears of Policy and Practice!" he +roo&ings Institution F heUrban Institute,

8/12/2019 04_OhIT_p63-76

6/14

8/12/2019 04_OhIT_p63-76

7/14

8/12/2019 04_OhIT_p63-76

8/14

0USI2-%044UI5%6!60'46

but the perpetrators as well, who may then spread social problems to marginal but stable

wor&ing$class neighborhoods@

). Howard Husoc*# s $tudy

usoc& is considered as one of the most critical scholars to public housing. -ccording to

him, public housing is harm to city. e said, >'ublic housing spawns neighborhood social

problems because it concentrates together welfare$dependent, single$parent families, whose

fatherless children disproportionately turn out to be school dropouts, drug users, non$wor&ers,

and criminals.@11

e says that in its early time after the Porld Par II public housing was a way to redistribute

wealth by ma&ing houses affordable for low$income families. -t that time ma=ority of residents

of public housing was wor&ing$low$income families. +ut after 19/;"s they moved out to middle

class neighborhoods. hose who left behind were the poorest, most disorganiCed, non$wor&ing

families and almost all of them were headed by single women. -s a conclusion he suggests to

phase out public housing and to ma&e private housing mar&et wor& for low$income families.

+. )om,arison of Public Housing and Vouchers# )ost -ffectiveness

4clure compares tenant$based assistance to pro=ect$based assistance in terms of long$term

cost efficiency1ow public housing harm to cities@, city =ournal, ousing !ouchers versus ousing 'roductionA -ssessing ong$term osts@, ousing policydebate. !ol.9, issue

8/12/2019 04_OhIT_p63-76

9/14


SourceA )ir& 4clure, 199

-. Im,lications of Public Housing and Voucher Program

!oucher program was introduced as an alternative program to public housing program.

4any public housing sites are in a severely distressed situation providing with a negative image

of public housing. Some scholars insist to demolish the entire public housing units in the nation.

!oucher"s fle#ibility in choosing house by low$income families is a big merit which public

housing rarely has. !oucher program"s impact on neighborhoods is generally better than that of

public housings. %espite these facts, public housing is a still valid housing policy and it should

be reformed to be more effective and to be more compatible to housing policy goals. 'ublic

housing mainly contributed to increase in affordability of low$income families and (uality

housing supply. It is very important to stabiliCe economically low$income families" life.

71

8/12/2019 04_OhIT_p63-76

10/14

0USI2-%044UI5%6!60'46

onse(uently, changing distressed public housing to decent housing policy 8as 0'6 I!: is

more important than phasing out all public housing units.

V. Housing )hallenges and the Policy +irection in the $

he millennial housing commission broadly gathered ideas for addressing the U.S. housing

challenges from public hearing, numerous focus group meetings, commissioned papers, and

solicits input on policy positions and program recommendations from a myriad of individuals

and organiCations13. he consistent ideas were e#pressed in the various forums as followsA

-ffordability and lac& of decent housing are a growing problem, particularly for low$

income familiesL

ousing must be financially and physically sustainable for the long termL

ousing issues are predominantly local issues, and programs must reflect the variations

from state to state and community to communityL

ousing e#ists in a broader community conte#t, and programs must consider the

relation and impact of housing on education, economic opportunity, and transportationL

'rivate$sector involvement in the production of affordable housing must be increasedL

4i#ed$income housing is generally preferable to affordable housing that concentrates

and isolates poor familiesL

onsistent enforcement of the nation"s fair housing laws is a vital part of ma&ing

housing a part of the ladder of economic opportunityL

ongruence among e#isting housing programs is essentialL

omeownership counseling is necessary to ma&e homeownership programs wor& well

for low$income families.

hese gathered ideas show very well that Dwhat housing policy is to be". hese ideas can also

13he 4illennial ousing ommission, >4eeting 0ur ation"s ousing hallenges@, Pashington%..

8/12/2019 04_OhIT_p63-76

11/14

8/12/2019 04_OhIT_p63-76

12/14

8/12/2019 04_OhIT_p63-76

13/14


concentration of low$income families. o avoid the negative impacts of public housing

concentration, it is necessary to develop smaller public housing sites that are naturally mi#ed

with e#isting neighborhoods. )orea"s public rental housing policy tends to concern only about

increasing housing stoc&s for low$income families. he policy rarely addresses concerns about

neighborhoods and communities. +ut both housing and community need to be treated as e(ually

important goals of housing policy. 4i#ed$income development must be enhanced for achieving a

healthy family and neighborhood.

Second, developing various housing programs and establishing congruence among e#isting

housing programs is needed. )orea"s housing policy for low$income people is much inclined to

providing public rental housing. +ut it is not sufficient to respond to various different situations

of policy demands. ousing voucher, homeownership, self sufficiency program must be

developed to fit )orea"s situation. -nd it is also important to establish congruence among these

several programs. hird, supporting formation of wealth and enhancing self$sufficiency program

must be deeply considered.

)orea government want to change citiCen"s thought about housing from wealthy asset to

living place. +ecause wealth ma&ing housings continually have bordered government and people

who do not have wealthy housing assets. In spite of government struggle, ma=or thought on

housing has not changed yet. 0n the contrary recently the price of decent houses of middle and

upper$class is rapidly increased and the gap between the wealth and the poor is widen now. o

ma&e the gap a little closer, supporting formation of wealth and enhancing self$sufficiency policy

is urgently needed now.

7H

8/12/2019 04_OhIT_p63-76

14/14

0USI2-%044UI5%6!60'46

References

ewman and Schnare, >? -nd a Suitable iving 6nvironmentA he *ailure of ousing

'rograms to deliver on eighborhood Guality@,Housing Policy #ebate, !olume , Issue B,

*annie 4ae *oundation, 1997

+ruce )atC, 4argery -ustin urner, )aren %estorel +rown, 4ary unningham, oah Sawyer.

Rethinking Local Affordable Housing Strategies: Lessons from 70 ears of Policy and Practice,

he +roo&ings Institution F he Urban Institute,

Documents

04_OhIT_p63-76