Move To Opportunity Programs

The author explained how the government established policies and initiatives that created ghettos and suburbs. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) is a program that helped citizens become homeowners by lending loans. However, only certain neighborhoods qualified for those loans. Research and data were used to prove that certain areas were considered a loss of investment. The

One of the most prevalent forms of discrimination is through housing. While modern discrimination is typically difficult to figure out the exact intentions of the person accused of discrimination, such as a boss not choosing a minority to fill a management role, discrimination in housing has continued to be more obvious. The reason why housing is so important is because where a person lives dictates the school the resident’s children go to, the infrastructure such as hospitals, parks and libraries, and also availability of employment. Many of the housing inequalities have been caused by the Federal government such as the national appraisal system and subsidizing suburban areas, and not enforcing abolishing restricted covenants.

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.

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).

Access to resources has been historically constrained in the U.S. on the basis of ethnicity, race and most recently class. This differential access to resources is a result of overt structural forces that create barriers to employment, housing, education and neighborhood investment. The political policy of “redlining” is a great example of how public policy can affect access to resources. This policy selectively avoided giving mortgages to individuals living in predominantly Black

Despite increased diversity across the country, America’s neighborhoods remain highly segregated along racial and ethnic lines. Residential segregation, particularly between African-Americans and whites, persists in metropolitan areas where minorities make up a large share of the population. This paper will examine residential segregation imposed upon African-Americans and the enormous costs it bears. Furthermore, the role of government will be discussed as having an important role in carrying out efforts towards residential desegregation. By developing an understanding of residential segregation and its destructive effects, parallels may be drawn between efforts aimed at combating

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).

It is often easy to castigate large cities or third world countries as failures in the field of affordable housing, yet the crisis, like an invisible cancer, manifests itself in many forms, plaguing both urban and suburban areas. Reformers have wrestled passionately with the issue for centuries, revealing the severity of the situation in an attempt for change, while politicians have only responded with band aid solutions. Unfortunately, the housing crisis easily fades from our memory, replaced by visions of homeless vets, or starving children. Metropolis magazine explains that “…though billions of dollars are spent each year on housing and development programs worldwide, ? At least 1 billion people

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

In Fiscal Year 2016, the area median income for Chicago was $76,900. Because Housing Choice Vouchers are intended to assist low income families, eligibility for vouchers is limited to households whose income does not exceed 80% of area median income, which was approximately $61,520 in 2016. More importantly, distribution requirements specify that at least 75% of Section 8 vouchers must go to households designated as “very low income,” meaning that their income does not exceed 30% of the area median income. In 2016 in Chicago, the figure constituting 30% of area median income was approximately $18,456. Complainant’s annual income, excluding the Section 8 voucher, was $8,796, thus placing her within the very low income threshold for housing seekers. Therefore, it appears that Respondent’s minimum income policy excluded over 75% of Section 8 voucher holders. As such, this facially-neutral policy has a disparate impact on persons with a Housing Choice Voucher as a source of

This article discusses the Gautreaux program and the MTO (moving to opportunity) for the poor families. This article explains how helping poor minority families leave dangerous neighborhoods and bring improvements to their lives. If the poor and minority families had access to the same schools, communities, and labor markets as the middle-class families, they could be more successful. The article stated that when black families move, they usually move between poor neighborhoods, not out of them.

This article is about the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) program and how it was designed to help move families from a high-poverty neighborhood to a lower-poverty neighborhood. The goal of the program is to improve the economic struggles of low-income families by giving them a chance to success in a better environment. Moving to Opportunity program (MTO) was created by congress as an anti- poverty experiment to see how well families who live in high poverty areas will adjust to moving and living in better low poverty areas. (MTO) was a randomized social experiment sponsored by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the 1990s among 4600 low-income families with children living in high-poverty public housing projects. Vouchers were given to families that volunteered for the program to aid them in moving to better areas.

If a family decides to use these vouchers in a fashion that does not improve the educational outcomes of their children, then there will be no ostensible educational benefit to children in low-income families. The effects of other enrichment activities are unknown, and in any case would not directly benefit a child’s education. Therefore, we should question what these vouchers can be used for, and judge their effectiveness based on this. Policy solutions should prefer to address problems directly, not address one facet of a problem (enrichment) in hopes that it will impact the larger problem at hand (socio-economic educational achievement gap). Policy aimed at improving this gap should seek to impact the structures that have created it. Instead of vouchers, perhaps funding should be used for increasing resources at public schools (particularly ones with a high proportion of low-income students), improving teacher performance through pay incentives, or having programs that directly impact students from low-income families (like free extended school days, for example). There is no guarantee that the money that parents use will go towards educational enrichment. Conversely, there is an implicit guarantee that money going to educational resources in the classroom will go to improved education for students in the

Introduction: My family was never the richest, always looking for help in many different ways. A struggle was my mom trying to take care of three children all on her own, ensuring there was a roof over our heads, food in our stomach and clothes on our backs. We have moved many times since I was about four years old, but never did I think about how hard it was to find a new home each time. Although my mother was able to get section 8 (which can be considered as the Housing Choice Voucher which is money given to low income families to help pay the rent), it is still very tough to find a home which the voucher covers.

Imagine going to school and finding half of your friends are moving to different schools because they have qualified for a school voucher. It’s difficult to see them go because you have known them all your life. It’s also difficult to watch them attend the school which everyone knows in your community is known to better than the one you are currently attending. Questions are also brought up to your mind with school vouchers. Students who don’t qualify may ask themselves am I put into a disadvantage because my friends are attending a school, which is known to better than mine? Did my friends choose to attend this school or were there parents up to it? These questions can cause a dilemma to the students and their families. There are