Housing Choice Vouchers

These practices help maintain the status quo, helping low-income families remain poor. Moreover, it requires these low-income families to depend on government assistance, such as low-income housing and welfare. The reliance on assistance programs groups the poorest people in the same housing projects and communities, overwhelming schools with low-income students. Not only do these real estate practices concentrate the poorest in an area together, they also drive the often whiter, more affluent families out. The majority of poor feel they have no opportunity to transcend class restrictions, and the property taxes that fund our schools do not alleviate their stress. Further, homogeneous collections of poor means that school populations are rarely as diverse as we believe.

The Los Angeles County Board has allocated $25 million dollars to spend on new programs that promote social justice. I have developed a proposal to allocate the money to create affordable housing complexes in communities within the city. The communities selected for housing developments are Boyle Heights, Watts, Chinatown, Pico-Union and Elysian Park. The proposal includes spending all $25 million in five developments of affordable housing. Each housing development will have twenty five 2-bedroom apartments. A total of one hundred low income families will benefit in total. My proposal includes asking each family to pay a monthly rent of 1/4 of their monthly earnings. The monthly rent collected from tenants can be used to maintain the developments,

For the past fifty years the shift from meeting the housing needs of the poor through government projects-based housing to a more individual approach, has been slowly implemented. Housing vouchers now enable underprivileged populations to move from high-poverty, segregated neighborhoods to more un-segregated, low-poverty neighborhoods. Low-poverty neighborhoods have less crime, better opportunities for employment, and more diverse schooling options. Some housing advocates however, contend that housing assistance is unnecessary and is an income subsidy that should be combined with other social safety nets (Clark, W. 2008).

“When we can predict how well students will do in school by looking at their zip code, we know we have a serious systemic problem” (Gloria Ladson-Billings 20). When we are able to forecast how a child will perform by where the child resides, then how can we say that every child is receiving quality education. The unsuccessful educational system infused into the United States is affecting the majority of minorities. In the United States students due to their race and social class, suffer from underfunded public schools, inexperienced teachers, and housing segregation, which in turn inhibit their opportunity to succeed through education. These difficulties plaque students from the very beginning of their public school experience and follow them throughout their academic life. There are a few solutions to these issues but they have to be implemented and enforced with a slow integration.

California’s housing situation is severe compared to the rest of the United States. California is included in the top three states with the most “housing cost burdened individuals” (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2015). In a list of 20 cities where rents were highest compared to income, 10 of the 20 cities were in California with Los Angeles, CA topping the list (Dewan, 2014). Opponents might say that households in poverty could never afford housing due to their impoverished state but poverty measures of California show that the abnormally high cost of housing in California makes matters more severe and causes the amount of households that are severely cost afflicted to increase. Furthermore, when poverty measures take into account California’s uniquely expensive and insufficient housing supply, the results show that housing costs contribute significantly to poverty. For example, when housing costs were included in the California Poverty Measure as well as federal Supplemental Poverty Measure, the poverty rates rose substantially (Wimer, Mattingly, & Levin, 2013) (Short, 2015). And when high housing costs were artificially substituted with low housing costs, poverty rates significantly dropped (Bohn, Danielson, & Levin, 2013). And it’s not just the poor who are affected! Even those who are moderate income earners are becoming financially burdened by high housing costs. Those who are moderately well off compared to low income earners are financially burdened by rent costs in expensive cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, CA (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University,

In “The Complexities and Processes of Racial Housing discrimination” by Vincent J. Roscigno, Diana L. Karafin, and Griff tester, the main concept of racial disparity and inequality among neighborhoods is discussed, and how those inequalities became to be. They first highlight the wide range of potentially exclusionary practices, through qualitative and quantitative data comprised of over 750 verified housing discrimination cases (Roscigno, p. 162). Citing the U.S. Census, it is found that Blacks, compared to Hispanics and Asians, continue to experience high levels of residential segregation. This is done through discriminatory practices, whether they be by exclusionary or non-exclusionary methods. Even after the passing of the Fair Housing Act in 1988, discrimination against Blacks and Hispanics decreased somewhat, though African Americans still appeared to take part in racial steering, and Hispanics continued to have limitations in regards to opportunities and access to rental units (Roscigno, p. 163).

One of the causes of homelessness in Baltimore City is lack of affordable housing, this includes subsidized housing from the state. Lack of affordable housing in Baltimore City is due to an increase luxury housing and Baltimore’s decrease desire for rental housing (Mayor’s Office of Human Services, 2013). Available housing is not proportional to the wages of people living in Baltimore City. Nearly half of renters in Baltimore spend 35% of their income or more on their rent. The waiting list for Baltimore City opened in 2014 and 74,000 households applied for 25,000 available slots for up to six years to own a voucher (“Homelessness in Baltimore,” 2017). For the extremely poor population there are only 42 available homes for over 100 people who identify with the population (Public Justice Center, 2015). Therefore, Baltimore needs to make affordable housing for their population or there should be an increase in jobs and wages. However, the private sector is not interested in developing houses for the low-income population because it is not profitable compared to selling a building to a company to make luxury housing (Richman, 2015).

This all seems great, a savior program that allows people who cannot afford to pay rent normally. Section 8 is utilized by the elderly, disabled, and families with and without children but is it really a golden program? Stated above, section 8 provides for vouchers for all types of apartments and even condos in certain states; however, are these opportunities open to all races? 41.6 percent of African Americans are on housing assistance programs, as in this county’s displaced history on minorities, the voucher program produces elements that affect minorities. Although African Americans make up the overall higher percentage when it comes to housing assistance programs, according to National Low-Income Housing Coalition, surprisingly Caucasians make up 49 percent of the project-based section 8. Yet, National Low-Income Housing Coalition mentions that African Americans as of 2010 shows that black and Hispanic public housing residents are four times more likely than their Caucasian counterparts public housing residents to live in high-poverty neighborhoods. Black and Hispanic voucher recipients are about three times as likely as their white counterparts to live in high-poverty neighborhoods. Analyzing this data; furthermore, as of 2010, 28 percent of white voucher recipients live in the lowest poverty neighborhoods! Reviewing this data Caucasians obtains overall nationwide more voucher approvals that African Americans living in the highest of poverty neighborhoods and that comes

This program as its part of New York City's zoning since 1987 was created to encourage economically integrated communities in areas experiencing new housing development. There are two programs to achieve Inclusionary Housing Program bonus; first program is original R10 Program that provides a floor area bonus of up to 20%, and second program is in Inclusionary Housing designated areas give a bonus of 33 %of floor area can be achieved for providing 20 percent as affordable housing.

Discrimination against applicants with children affects poor women, especially; in the United States, 46% of all single mothers live below the poverty line (Schondelmeyer 2017). These women typically have fixed incomes and can only select from a limited pool of housing. Bias against children further shrinks this pool. Altogether, the total number of homes available to low-income women with children is miniscule. Ultimately landlords’ aversion to children creates an environment where motherhood is a

The federal government played a role in establishing and maintaining residential segregation in metropolitan areas. For example, Rothstein states that after the New Deal and World War II, federally funded public housing was explicitly and racially segregated (5). The projects were designated for either whites or blacks, later becoming increasingly black. Neighborhoods that were historically segregated still continue today with the very same characteristics – racially and economically homogeneity. Children who grow up in and attend schools in these neighborhoods encounter what Sherman refers to as “youth disconnection”. In essence, youth disconnection is the lack of exposure to important influences that help with human development. Sherman takes into account statistics about disconnected youth which include being twice as likely to live in poverty, three times as likely to leave high school without a diploma, half as likely to obtain a bachelor’s degree, and etc (“How Disadvantages Caused by Residential Segregation End Up Costing Billions”). How can students thrive in environments that are historically segregated and disadvantaged? Access to a better education along with other influences beneficial to development should to be decided based upon the location in which a student

The Moving To Opportunity experiment grants vouchers to random families in poor neighborhoods and moves them to non-poor neighborhoods. Using tax data, Raj Chetty and his team found that moving children at a young age (below 13) increased college attendance, and earnings and decreased chances of becoming a single parent. However, children who were over 13 experienced negative effects. This may be due to to the shock of moving to a completely new environment. These findings suggest that the span of exposure to a better environment impacts the person’s long-term

Adequate and stable housing is an indicator of childhood health and well-being necessary for educational success. Childhood well-being includes physical health, social and emotional health, and cognitive development (Vandivere et al., 2006).There are multiple housing factors within both the Orville Wright and Lakewood elementary school attendance zones that affect child well-being, moreover these all interconnect to influence educational success. These subtopics in housing include: homeownership, residential stability, quality of the home, affordability, and the lack of housing, or homelessness.

School Choice has gained popularity recently and shows potential in beneficial alternative options. The first supporting reason showing this, how vouchers put educational choices for children in the hands of the people who care the most; the parents. (Charlotte, Hays n/a) Evidence showing how the statement is true is the voucher program was developed in the 1980s to give low-income families more choice in where their kids go to school. Upper class families already have this choice. Therefore, the original voucher program got designed specifically for the choice of the parents. Having this option of vouchers, allow parents to be guides with power to where they so

My field placement in the center of Gilpin Court which is one of the oldest housing developments in Richmond, Virginia. My primary concern as stated in my community assessment is the plight of impoverished children. But more specifically for children who live in public housing because they are apart of the low-income community. Growing up my father was the director of resident relations at the Housing Authority of the city of Los Angeles they had many programs for the children that unfortunately dwindled away when they dissolved that position. Along with my field placement this is what has fueled my interest in children that live in public housing and what I can do to improve their quality of life. In my home state of California 20% of the children live in poverty specifically 1,785,000 children. (The Annie Casey Foundation, 2017) Living in poverty and specifically public housing can negatively affect a child and how successful they will become. A child’s environment can have a direct affect on development from birth. The physical quality of the household tends to severely affect infants more than adolescent children. In particular the paint in older housing developments can cause blood lead poisoning. (Vandivere et. al, 2006) Some indirect ways that living in public housing can affect children is through their parents, parents suffer from health problems, and emotional well being problems that can ultimately affect their parenting skills. Children can become nested and