Recently the Los Angeles Times editorial board supported the Los Angeles Housing Authority’s decision to allow people leaving prison to qualify for a small pool of vouchers set aside for homeless people. Let me second that idea. I study homelessness and it’s well known in my field that prison and other correctional facilities are so-called “feeder intuitions” into shelters. Approximately 5 percent of single adults who enter shelters spent the previous night in a correctional facility, according to HUD data.  Even more become homeless eventually.  Spending your first night out in a homeless shelter—what kind of start is that? One that could result in recidivism and a quick return to prison. And too many do return. The evidence says as many as two-thirds of those who exit prison are rearrested within three years. That’s not good for returning prisoners, their families, the communities they leave, or, for that matter, taxpayers. Prison stays are expensive. Really expensive.

The Los Angeles Housing Authority is onto something with its housing voucher plan. Housing can be a platform for those exiting prison. That is, housing can provide more than just shelter; it can be a base from which people improve their lives. The link between recidivism and stable housing makes sense intuitively: persons with stable housing may be less likely to engage in criminal activities. They may also be more likely to find and keep jobs, reunify with their families, and become productive members of society.

As my colleagues Jocelyn Fontaine and Jennifer Biess note in a recent paper, we need more evidence to empirically document these links. That’s why we should be watching the Los Angeles experiment closely and encouraging other housing authorities to loosen “one-strike” provisions that keep people with criminal histories out of subsidized housing. Keeping people in housing could mean keeping them out of prison. Now that’s a novel idea.

Share this:

In March, I wrote about launching the Housing Opportunities and Services Together (HOST) Demonstration, an innovative project that is testing strategies that deliberately use housing as a platform to improve the life chances of both youth and adults as part of the same initiative. The four HOST sites are developing, implementing, and testing dual-generation service models that aim to address parents’ key barriers to self-sufficiency, while simultaneously integrating services and supports for children and youth.

One of the purposes of the HOST demonstration is to create a learning community that can inform other organizations trying to develop comprehensive community initiatives, such as Choice and Promise Neighborhoods, about the most effective service strategies. This month, we brought together the front-line staff from the four HOST sites—two of which are up and running and two of which are in the planning stages—for a cross-site meeting to talk about the real day-to-day challenges of trying to implement a true dual-generation approach to case management and supportive services.

The two-day meeting was as much a learning opportunity for the research team as it was for the staff from the four HOST sites. The dedication and passion of these front-line workers, who daily face difficult and frustrating challenges, was clearly evident. The meeting helped them see the value of their work and how the extra effort they are putting in enables others learn from their experiences. But for me, the biggest takeaway was that the hardest part of HOST is attempting to implement high-quality dual-generation service approaches. Most service approaches in public or assisted housing have focused primarily on adults—trying to help them move toward self-sufficiency with the hope that those improvements will benefit the whole family. However, it is increasingly clear that in distressed communities like the four HOST sites, it is critical to directly reach children and youth with the kinds of services that will help them fare better than their parents.

We learned from listening to the HOST service team that, in practice, implementing this kind of dual-generation approach requires a high level of creativity and initiative. Engaging children and youth means working with a range of ages and needs. It also means earning parents’ trust so that they will permit their children to participate—a challenge that can be even harder in sites with diverse immigrant populations with different norms and expectations. The sites are providing services like parenting support and girls and boys groups that offer clinical services and build leadership while offering fun and engaging activities. One site is using an innovative approach that rewards children (and parents) for setting and achieving goals. An issue facing all sites is how to address the critical needs of very young children and encourage parents to take advantage of opportunities for early childhood education. And, finally, implementing a true dual-generation approach requires constant coordination and cooperation among providers, both within the same agency and among different providers serving adults and children.

HOST is providing a true laboratory for learning about the most effective strategies for improving the life chances of vulnerable families. The project has already yielded lessons about the real challenges behind the current push for “housing as a platform” and “dual-generation service models”—lessons that will help inform larger efforts, such as Choice and Promise Neighborhoods, and help ensure that we know what it takes to help children succeed.

Share this:

Last week, MetroTrends bloggers offered solid facts on issues in the news:

• Because May is Asian/Pacific American Heritage month, Margaret Simms takes on the “model minority” stereotype and explores the diversity within this group.

• And Rob Pitingolo digs into the most recent trends in mortgage delinquencies, comparing metros based on the foreclosure laws governing their states.
• Rob Santos explains why the House vote to eliminate the American Communities Survey would be a tragedy for metropolitan America.

Share this:

Amendment to H.R. 5326: “None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to conduct the survey, conducted by the Secretary of Commerce, commonly referred to as ‘the American Community Survey’.” Voting results: 232 in favor; 190 opposed. And so the House voted yesterday to eliminate funding for the one of the most important resources available to the nation’s public and to the corporate world. Life without the American Community Survey (ACS) would represent nothing short of a tragedy. Why, you ask? Read on.

U.S. society lives in the information age. Government and private industry function most effectively and efficiently when managing by fact. Even the congressmen who voted down the American Community Survey have staff who rely heavily on analyses of ACS data. ACS data is essentially the sample-based “long-form” information that used to be captured by the decennial census but is now captured annually. We’ve collected long-form information for over 200 years, since the late 1700s!

The nation deserves to know itself beyond simple counts of population, households, and a few demographics (sex, age, race/ethnicity). ACS fills that void, allowing government and business alike to create economic development plans, health policy, transportation plans, and housing and community development strategies, as well as to assess the impact of legislation (e.g., health, tax, corporate regulation) on business and the public, and so on. In short, a government needs to know its population to serve it, and businesses need to know their customers to be profitable. The absence of such knowledge is like driving with a blindfold—you have no information to guide you.

A world without ACS represents a huge societal step backwards. We, the people, deserve better.

Share this:

May is Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month, so it is a good time to get rid of the “model minority” stereotype and explore the diversity within this group. The median education level of Asian Americans is higher than that of non-Asian Americans and their unemployment rates are lower, on average, as well, contributing to the “model minority” label. But these general statistics mask large differences in the economic situation of Asians in the United States.

Labor market positions vary greatly among different Asian subgroups, as detailed in a recent Monthly Labor Review article, which uses data from 2008 through 2010. For example, three-quarters of Asian Indians have at least a bachelor’s degree and over two-thirds are in management or professional jobs. But Vietnamese are less well positioned. One-fifth of them have less than a high school diploma and similar numbers are in low-paying personal care and service jobs.  And while unemployment rates for all Asian groups are lower than rates for non-Asians, once they lose their jobs, Chinese and Filipino Americans are about 25 percent more likely to be unemployed for at least six months than other Asian and non-Asian groups.

Employed People by Occupation, Asian Indians and Vietnamese, averages for the combined years 2008-2010

Source: Monthly Labor Review, November 2011

Even the most successful Asian Americans face barriers to upward mobility in corporate America.  A Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics (LEAP) study finds that Asians are far less likely to work their way up to CEO and board positions in private corporations. Although they are 6 percent of the population and 6.5 percent of the labor force, Asians hold only 2.4 percent of the total number of board seats in Fortune 500 companies and only 18 Asian Pacific Americans hold the title of Chairman, President, CEO or Vice Chair.

The economic position of Asian children also varies substantially across the country. The Asian child poverty rate varies among states with a sizeable Asian population—rising above the national Asian child poverty rate of 10.5 percent in Minnesota and New York, for example, while falling below the national rate in Illinois and Virginia, according to the Urban Institute’s Children of Immigrants Data Tool.  Some of these differences are related to the different concentrations of Asian subgroups, primarily more recent immigrants. In other cases, the differences are related to economic opportunity.

So while Asian Americans on average fare well on measures of education and employment, a closer look reveals great diversity by ethnicity, immigration status, and state—as well as barriers to economic success. The “model minority” stereotype papers over these differences and often hides the challenges many Asians still face.

Share this:

Rates of serious mortgage delinquency are rebounding in the 100 largest U.S. metro areas, after a downward trend between December 2009 and June 2011. Ultimately, two key factors drive this indicator: the number of homes entering the foreclosure process and the speed at which the delinquencies can be resolved or properties can be returned to the market for sale.

Roughly half (46) of the 100 largest metros are in judicial foreclosure states, where a court makes the final decision about a property before it can exit foreclosure. Metros in judicial states—such as Florida, New York, Illinois, and Ohio—tend to have higher serious delinquency rates than states that do not require court action.

 States enact judicial foreclosure laws to ensure due process and provide the opportunity for the borrowers to negotiate with the lender—but this process also means delinquencies take longer to resolve.

States face a tension between speed and equity because borrowers need time to navigate the complex legal system and loan modification process to save their homes, if possible. On the other hand, properties in foreclosure for too long are more likely to become vacant and hinder a neighborhood’s ability to recover from the crisis quickly. Finding the balance between speed and equity is a difficult, but nonetheless critical, task to restoring the health of housing markets.

Share this:

Healthy food and decent housing are both critical to well-being of metropolitan residents.  And both pose challenges for poor families, especially those living in distressed neighborhoods.

Last week, MetroTrends bloggers tackled both these human needs.

• Rolf Pendall took on Mitt Romney’s proposal to eliminate the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): first agreeing that the federal government shouldn’t be imposing “one size fits all” approaches to solve local housing and community problems, but going on to argue that federal policy plays an essential role.

• And Michael Martinez-Schiferl reports the shocking fact that over half of all infants and more than a quarter of children up to age 5 participate in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children—better known as WIC.

Share this:

Mitt Romney suggested that Americans would be better off without a federal agency responsible for housing and urban development. I disagree, and here’s why. We still need the national housing goal, spelled out in the National Affordable Housing Act, that “every American family should be able to afford a decent home in a suitable environment.” The fact that we don’t meet this goal on any of its measures—affordable, decent, suitable, or universal—doesn’t mean that we should give up.

Having a national goal has meant many long debates about its real meaning, and we need a federal housing agency to be the ultimate authority to settle those debates. For example:

• Being able to afford housing means being able to buy other necessities after paying rent or mortgage. We need a federal housing agency because the meaning of affordability will continue to evolve, for example, as we address the joint costs of housing and transportation.
• Federal standards for a decent home have helped make houses safer and healthier and have yielded industry standards for building materials and house types (especially manufactured homes), helping build more efficient markets. Definitions and standards here are evolving for indoor air quality and energy efficiency—and we need a federal agency to broker those definitions.
• The federal goal of a suitable environment is perhaps best reflected in the Fair Housing Act, which requires that the federal government—led by HUD—actively promote racial residential integration. Here, too, debates continue. Should we define a “suitable” living environment based only on avoiding the most toxic situations, or on attaining excellent situations?
• The words “every American family” mean we need to go deep—to strive to reach everyone. Without that part of the goal, we would likely be worse off than we are now. But we’ve never had enough housing resources to meet all needs. Should we simply give up? Or should we expand our resources by looking beyond the HUD budget to what we spend on such needs as health, transportation, and homeland security?

Beyond words and definitions, we also need a federal agency that motivates and guides action. HUD’s many partners currently have either broad autonomy with little accountability or exacting accountability with too little autonomy. State and local actors need autonomy for many reasons, foremost because conditions vary so much across the country. But the flipside of such autonomy must be accountability—first for planning to meet the national housing goal, and then for moving closer to it.

Together, this means that as long as we have a national housing goal, which I hope we always will, we’ll need a national agency to help us get there. The “U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development” is as apt a name as I can think of for such an agency.

Share this:

Statistics from a recently published Food and Nutrition Service report confirm that nearly half (49.8 percent) of all infants are born into families below 185 percent of the federal poverty guidelines—the cutoff for WIC income eligibility. (From July 2011 to June 2012, 185 percent of the poverty guidelines equaled $41,348 for a family of four.) Another 12.0 percent of infants are eligible because they participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly Food Stamps), Medicaid, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Among children age 1 to 4, a slightly smaller share, 44.3 percent, are eligible for WIC due to income and another 9.8 percent are eligible due to participation in another program.

Infants and Children by WIC Eligibility Type, CY 2009

Source: Betson et al. (2011)

WIC’s reach is extensive and studies suggest that WIC dollars translate into cost savings on government health spending. Those not already familiar with WIC should know that it provides select foods, nutrition education, and referrals for health care and government services. You can learn more about the WIC program in this recently published brief: WIC Participants and Their Growing Need for Coverage.

Share this:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently expressed the sentiment that social issues would be better left to state and local governments, without federal involvement. Among those issues, he included housing and urban development, even stating a preference for getting rid of HUD. While I disagree with that position, I agree that state and local governments ought to have more autonomy over their urban development programs and policies than they currently do.

Some housing programs—the Community Development Block Grant, HOME, and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit—already grant substantial discretion at the state and local levels about which investments, communities, and neighborhoods get funding. This discretion allows slow-growing places to buy, renovate, and rehabilitate established housing and allows fast-growth locations to build new housing. It also fuels a local process that, even though sometimes flawed, creates a potentially important forum for deliberating about the future of cities and neighborhoods.

But this latitude isn’t enough. Most of our housing and homelessness policies and programs are still locked into particular purposes, with separate funding streams, offices, and even agencies (HUD, USDA, Treasury, the VA, and so on), not only reducing the reach of these programs but also often conflicting with state and local priorities. Local governments clearly want more flexibility even among their HUD programs, as shown by the wild popularity among housing agencies of the Moving to Work demonstration.

Beyond this lock-in within the housing domain, the status quo makes it difficult or impossible to develop programs and deploy resources across domains. In particular, stable and affordable housing might be the ounce of prevention that avoids a pound of cure in areas ranging from health to criminal justice to education (HUD calls this “housing as a platform”). But state and local governments can’t redirect federal funds—or large streams of state and local matching funds—from education or health programs into housing, even though doing so might save costs and (more important) prevent harm. For another example consider housing and transportation, which are complementary expenses—it costs more to live in a location with many opportunities, but if you already live there, you don’t have to spend as much to get there. But states and cities can’t easily transfer transportation funds into community redevelopment, even though doing so could cut down on the need for more highway lanes or miles of transit provision in the long run.

Both examples suggest that a dollar spent on housing can meet more than a dollar’s worth of some non-housing goals. Any government has a host of goals to reach; in principle, it should be able deploy resources in ways that minimize costs and maximize benefits. So, what should the federal role really be in housing and urban development? Should there be any at all? That will be the subject of my next blog.

Share this:

The Latino vote gets a great deal of attention during presidential campaigns—and understandably so. Latino voters in key states such as Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and New Mexico may well decide whether President Obama gets to stay through 2016 or Governor Romney takes over come January 2013.

But analysts, experts, strategists, and other talking heads are largely ignoring the Asian vote. Again, understandably so. Asian American Pacific Islanders (AAPI) make up only 4.8 percent of the U.S. population, a mere pittance of 14.7 million people compared with the 50.5 million Latinos. Moreover, AAPIs are not exactly known for their attendance come election time. Their share of the electorate hovers around the 2 percent mark.

In an extremely tight election however, every vote does count and the invisible Asian voter can make as much of a difference as her Latino neighbor. In highly contested Nevada and Virginia, AAPIs make up 7.8 percent and 5.6 percent of the population respectively.

Asian Americans are poised to be a force to be reckoned with in the near future. AAPIs are the fastest growing racial group, multiplying by 45.6 percent in the past decade, far outpacing the total U.S. population, which only grew by 9.7 percent. Their numbers have risen by at least 30 percent in all states, except in Hawaii where they are already the undisputed majority. Politicians should take note that the AAPI population grew by 116 percent in Nevada and by well over 80 percent in Arizona and North Carolina. Projections show that by mid-century, over 9 percent of the population will be of Asian Pacific Island descent.

As Don T. Nakashini, director emeritus of UCLA’s Asian American Studies Center, writes in the 2011-12 National Asian Pacific American Political Almanac: As voters, donors, public policy advocates, and elected officials, “Asian Pacific Americans seek to no longer remain as spectators to the parade of politics, or as vulnerable victims of partisan power struggles. Instead they are striving to become more organized, more visible, and more effective as participants and leaders in order to advance—as well as protect—their individual and group interests, and to contribute to our nation’s democratic processes and institutions.”

It just might be worth both parties’ time to pay Asian voters some heed.

Share this:

Low-income families in America face a range of challenges about which MetroTrends bloggers have recently completed clear, data-driven research.

• Gregory Mills describes the encouraging results of a New York tax-time matched savings program that helps its low-income residents save up to $1500 per year
• Mary Cunningham tackles the question of foreclosures and homelessness, but the data are sparse and thus, strong conclusions are elusive
• Margery Turner cautions that, though mostly-Black neighborhoods in American metros have become more racially diverse, the pernicious effects of decades of segregation persist

The news is thus mixed, and so MetroTrends will continue providing empirically rigorous answers to these and other fundamental questions.

Share this:

A just-released report by UNC-Chapel Hill’s Center for Community Capital provides insights on low-income savings behavior based on in-depth interviews with 48 $aveNYC participants—mostly African-American and Hispanic women between 25 and 50 years old. Consistent with other research, the study highlights the fact that children provide the strongest motivation for low-income workers to save because of the obligation to meet kids’ basic living needs, the instinct to serve as a role model for them, and the desire to provide them a better environment for growing up. To be realized, these impulses to save must be combined with confidence in one’s ability to save and a sense of trust in the financial institutions that hold one’s savings. And low-income households often lack that confidence and trust.

The basic message from this recent research—and the emerging body of work in behavioral economics—is that savings interventions need to nurture the intention to save and also make the act of saving easier. Whether someone is able to save (given that they can afford to) depends on a complex tug-of-war between their current impulses and their future plans. Savings tools such as precommitment, default-in/opt-out decision framing, and envelope budgeting are ways to enable our better selves to prevail.

Community-based savings collaboratives, such as savings circles where people pool their savings, have had some success helping the very poor save in developing countries. Is there a scalable way to do something similar in urban America? Can the motivational influence of one’s children be more effectively harnessed?

One possible untested approach is setting up a virtual savers’ club comprised of parents whose children share the same birthday. Parents could create a savings account on their child’s behalf and set a savings goal to be reached by the child’s next birthday. Members would receive periodic savings reminders and could compare their progress with the progress of other club members. This kind of self-induced competition has worked in energy conservation initiatives.

As with $aveNYC, the financial incentive to save could be strengthened by match funds—in this case, funds directed to a child’s account through donations from other family members or friends (or even a noncustodial parent). If this virtual savers’ club were widely marketed, other people who share the same birthday might be interested in making charitable donations of match funds to a child’s account.

In each of these cases, the necessary focus for savings interventions is clear: nurture the intention to save and enable the act of saving.

Share this:

The most frequent question that comes across my desk is whether households facing foreclosure are becoming homeless. This is a tough question. The answer is that a few families may be trickling into homeless shelters, but probably not immediately after foreclosure, and not on a wide scale. Some limited evidence from DC shows this is the case. The rest of the answer requires some sleuthing. HUD data show that almost a quarter of families that entered shelter in 2010 came directly from a home they owned or rented. It is unclear how many of these situations are foreclosure related because shelters are not required to track this information. Plus, shelters are often a last stop on the residential instability road. Families facing foreclosure may move into a rental unit or double up with friends or family first. If these situations become unsustainable for whatever reason, the next stop may be the shelter. Indeed, the HUD data on shelter entry show that most families entering shelter come from doubled-up situations; but again, it is unclear how many are doubling up because of foreclosure. The lack of data is frustrating.

Previous Living Situation Before Entering Shelter

Source: HUD AHAR 2010.

Bottom line? It is hard to tell exactly how many families facing foreclosure end up homeless. But we know that forced displacement can produce residential instability, and we know from the research that residential instability is bad for school-age children, who may fall behind in class and spend a large part of the year playing catch-up. What should policymakers do about it? My colleagues Jenn Comey and Kathryn Pettit outline some recommendations here.

Share this:

Earlier this year, the Manhattan Institute published an analysis by Ed Glaeser and Jacob Vigdor arguing that the twentieth century saw the end of segregation and that we should declare victory and turn our attention to other explanations for persistent (and widening) equity gaps.

I wish I could agree.

Residential segregation can be measured in many different ways. Sometimes, the metric that’s chosen drives the result. Glaeser and Vigdor focus on the extent to which blacks live separately from everybody else (whites, Latinos, Asians, people of mixed race or ethnicity). And indeed, this measure of segregation has declined substantially over the last few decades.

Take a look at the two pie charts below. The average black person’s neighborhood is dramatically more diverse today than three decades ago. But that’s mostly because many more Latinos and Asians now live in neighborhoods with blacks, not because very many more white people live there.

The average white person’s neighborhood—where more than three quarters of the neighbors are also white—also looks more diverse today than three decades ago, due to modest increases in neighbors of all non-white groups.

So Glaeser and Vigdor are right that blacks are less segregated from non-blacks than they were three or four decades ago. But blacks are only a little less segregated from whites.

Given our country’s bitter history of de jure segregation and systematic discrimination against African Americans, segregation of blacks from non-Hispanic whites (who possess the greatest wealth and power in our society) is a better measure than segregation of blacks from all non-blacks. By this measure, segregation is slowly declining, but it remains stubbornly high, especially in big metros with large African-American populations. And it’s in these metros that other measures of black-white inequality are also high.

Segregation certainly isn’t the only cause of racial inequality, but it’s inextricably entangled with gaps in school quality, employment and earnings, homeownership opportunity, and wealth accumulation. If we want to make progress toward a more equitable society, we can’t close our eyes to the persistence of residential segregation.

Share this: