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
,0USI12 -1% 3044U1I5 %6!670'461
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 9:.
-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 <;;3 to <;1<:.
Severe problems of public housings which the U.S. had e#perienced in the past are not
reported well in )orea. +ut as a result of our country"s public housing massive construction
policy, e#cessive concentration of low income families is unavoidable and other incidental
problems may happen on the road of carrying out and after the completion of these pro=ects.
+y investigating the U.S."s e#periences in housing policies for low income families, the study
intends to get some suggestions, implications, and ideas to improve our country"s housing policy.
o achieve the purpose, the study will focus on comparison between direct supply of public
housing and the housing voucher program.
II. Goals of Affordable Housing Policy for Low Income Families
o assess housing policy, some studies and debates on goals of housing policy have been
done 8%i'as(uale and )eyes 199;, ,usoc& 1997, 1ewman and Schnare 1999, 199< and 1993:
1
.
1
1ewman and Schnare, >?-nd a Suitable 7iving 6nvironment@A he *ailure of ,ousing 'rograms to deliver on
/B
A Study on Public Housing and Housing Voucher Program in the US
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 81ewman and Schnare, 1997:.
- recent )atC and others" paper
<
describes the goals of affordable housing policy very well.
In the paper, affordable housing mainly indicates rental housing or home ownership for low
income families. -ccording to the paper, the ultimate goal of an effective affordable housing
policy should be Dhousing that supports and promotes healthy families and communities", and
this overarching goal involves following seven more specific policy ob=ectives.
E 'reserve and e#pand the supply of good$(uality housing units.
E 4a&e housing more affordable and more readily available.
E 'romote racial economic diversity in residential neighborhoods.
E ,elp households build wealth.
E Strengthen families.
E 7in& housing with essential supportive services.
E 'romote balanced metropolitan growth.
o e#press housing policy"s goal, )atC et al. and 1ewman F Schnare use different
descriptions. +ut they say same things. D,ealthy families" and Ddecent housing" involve same
meaning, and Dhealthy community" and Dsuitable neighborhood" also deliver same intention. In
conclusion, we can say that housing policy have dual goals one of which is supporting healthy
and sound family and decent living space 8housing: and other one is supporting healthy and
sound neighborhood and community.
III. Public Housing and Housing Voucher Program
1eighborhood Guality@, ,ousing 'olicy %ebate, !olume 9, Issue B, *annie 4ae *oundation 1997.
2
+ruce )atC, 4argery -ustin urner, )aren %estorel +rown, 4ary 3unningham, 1oah Sawyer. Rethinking Local
Affordable Housing Strategies: Lessons from 70 ears of Policy and Practice!" he +roo&ings Institution F he
Urban Institute, <;;3. p3.
/H
,0USI12 -1% 3044U1I5 %6!670'461
'ublic housing is assisted under the provision of the U.S. ,ousing -ct of 1937 or under a
state program having the same general purposes as the federal program. 'ublic housing provides
decent and safe rental housing for eligible low$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 8,U%: 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;; ',-s
3
.
he main program of housing voucher in U.S. is the section 9 program. he section 9
program is funded by the U.S. %epartment of ,ousing and Urban %evelopment 8,U%: 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
3
httpAIIwww.&nowledgeple#.orgItopic.htmlJcK<39
4
httpAIIwww.&nowledgeple#.orgItopic.htmlJcK<71
//
A Study on Public Housing and Housing Voucher Program in the US
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$(uality affordable housing units for low
income families, and to ma&e housing more affordable and readily available. +ut it is rarely
contributed to promote neighborhoods diversity and promote balanced metropolitan growth, and
generally not contributed to build wealth of low income households.
3ompared to public housing, the voucher program has mainly contributed to ma&ing housing
more affordable and e#panding good$(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 3unningham, 1oah Sawyer. Rethinking Local
Affordable Housing Strategies: Lessons from 70 ears of Policy and Practice!" he +roo&ings Institution F he
Urban Institute, <;;3.
/7
,0USI12 -1% 3044U1I5 %6!670'461
housing units need to be produced
4a&e housing more
affordable and more readily
available
5esA but affordability depends
on siCe and duration of
subsidies
5esA primary goal of these
programs is affordabilityL
success depends on households"
ability to find units
'romote racial and
economic diversity in
residential neighborhoods
.arelyA depends on where
new units are located and who
is eligible to occupy them
'ossiblyA if recipients can find
units in diverse neighborhoods
,elp households build
wealth
2enerally notA though lower
rents may lead to increased
family assets
2enerally notA though lower
rents may lead to increased
family assets
Strengthen families 'ossiblyA but little literature
e#ists to confirm program"s
ability to strengthen families
'ossiblyA but less impact if units
are located in distressed
neighborhoods or occupancy
rules discourage family
unification
7in& housing with essential
supportive services
SometimesA when units are
designed in con=unction with
effective supportive services
2enerally not
'romote balanced
metropolitan growth
.arelyA depends on where the
new units are built
'ossiblyA depends on recipients"
ability to find units in suburban
areas and close to =ob
opportunities
MSourceN )atC et al., <;;3. p33.
&. An Analysis of Housing Policy &ased on the 'eighborhood (uality
1ewman and Schnare evaluated the relative performance of housing program in terms of
neighborhood (uality
/
. hey profile neighborhood characteristics surrounding assisted housing
6
Sandra O. 1ewman, -nn +. Schnare, > >?-nd a Suitable 7iving 6nvironment@A he *ailure of ,ousing 'rograms
to deliver on 1eighborhood Guality@, ,ousing 'olicy %ebate, !olume 9, Issue B, *annie 4ae *oundation 1997
/9
A Study on Public Housing and Housing Voucher Program in the US
units and assess the direction of assisted housing policy in light of this information
7
. -s a result
of their study, they conclude that pro=ect$based assistance program do little to improve the
(uality of recipients" neighborhoods relative to those of welfare households and, in the case of
public housing ma&e things significantly worse.
In contrast to pro=ect$based assistance, they evaluate that certificates and voucher programs
reduce the probability that families will live in the most economically and socially distressed
areas. +ut they do not insist that public housing is the cause of a neighborhood"s decline.
-ccording to them, many public housing units were built in the place where the decline had
already ta&en place
9
. +ut it is evident that they firmly advocate voucher programs.
here are two significant comments on 1ewman and Schnare"s study. 0ne says
9
that >the
least popular housing developments have long been relegated to neighborhoods of least political
resistance, a fact that constrains most local efforts to deconcentrate poverty. *urthermore,
through the ta# code, -merica spends about three times as much on housing assistance for
middle$ and upper$income households as it does on assistance to low$ and moderate$income
households. Pe have not applied Qfair shareQ principles either to the location of housing
assistance or to its allocation across the income spectrum.@
he other one says
1;
that >.ecent research suggests that family characteristics outweigh those
of the neighborhood in predicting outcomes for youth. hey fail to consider the possible
conse(uences. !oucher recipients will include not only the victims of poor neighborhood (uality,
7
heir analysis relies on a housing census database they developed that identifies the type and census tract location
of assisted housing units$ that is public housing, development assisted under ,U%, the Section H1H rural rental
housing direct loan program, 7I,38the low$income housing ta# credit:, certificates and vouchers, and state rental
assistance program.
8
hey show Illinois case, in 3hicago 9;R of public housing built between 19H; and 19/H was located in tracts
where minorities constituted more than 7HR of the population.
9
3omment on Sandra O. 1ewman and -nn +. SchnareSs Q... and a Suitable 7iving 6nvironmentSA he *ailure of
,ousing 'rograms to %eliver on 1eighborhood GualityQ +y Tavier de SouCa +riggs
10
3omment on Sandra O. 1ewman and -nn +. SchnareSs Q...-nd a Suitable 7iving 6nvironmentSA he *ailure of
,ousing 'rograms to %eliver on 1eighborhood GualityQ +y ,eather 4ac%onald
/9
,0USI12 -1% 3044U1I5 %6!670'461
but the perpetrators as well, who may then spread social problems to marginal but stable
wor&ing$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$income families.
+. )om,arison of Public Housing and Vouchers# )ost -ffectiveness
4c3lure compares tenant$based assistance to pro=ect$based assistance in terms of long$term
cost efficiency
1<
. ,e shows that to cost premium associated with pro=ect$based assistance may be
lower than conventionally believed, around B;R, and may get even lower if the cost comparison
could e#tend to longer time periods and could control for the (uality of the housing units.
11
,oward ,usoc&, >,ow public housing harm to cities@, city =ournal, <;;3winter
12
)ir& 4c3lure, >,ousing !ouchers versus ,ousing 'roductionA -ssessing 7ong$term 3osts@, ,ousing policy
debate. !ol.9, issue <, *annie 4ae *oundation, 1999
7;
A Study on Public Housing and Housing Voucher Program in the US
SourceA )ir& 4c3lure, 1999
-. 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$income families" life.
71
,0USI12 -1% 3044U1I5 %6!670'461
3onse(uently, changing distressed public housing to decent housing policy 8as ,0'6 I!: is
more important than phasing out all public housing units.
V. Housing )hallenges and the Policy +irection in the .$
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 organiCations
13
. 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
3onsistent enforcement of the nation"s fair housing laws is a vital part of ma&ing
housing a part of the ladder of economic opportunityL
3ongruence 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
13
he 4illennial ,ousing 3ommission, >4eeting 0ur 1ation"s ,ousing 3hallenges@, Pashington%.3. <;;<
7<
A Study on Public Housing and Housing Voucher Program in the US
be e#actly applied to )orea"s housing policy too.
VI. Housing Policy for Low/income Families in orea
A. Housing $ituation in orea
he housing supply rate
1B
in )orea is over than 1;3R 8<;;B: nationally. 3onsidering the
supply rate it can be said that )orea"s housing condition is generally good. +ut in Seoul
metropolitan area, housing supply rate is still remain in 93R
1H
and housing stoc&"s shortage
problem e#ists now. )orea also has public housing for low$income families. Its stoc& is about
33;,;;; units in <;;B
1/
.
&. Housing Policy and Programs for Low/income Families
he essence of the housing policy for low$income people is to construct public rental housing
similar to that of other countries. 'ublic rental housing is classified into two types. 0ne ta&es the
government"s financial assistance, and the other receives subsidies from the 1ational ,ousing
*und without the government"s financial assistance. .ental housing with financial assistance
includes permanent rental housing constructed as a part of the two million housing unit
construction plan and the national rental housing started by the present government. he
permanent rental housing is worthy of close attentionA
i. public finance is first invested in housing programs, and
ii. the government"s financial support reaches 9HR of the construction cost.
his financial support enabled the monthly rental fees to be reduced to 77,;;; won 8U/9:, and
1;R of the lowest income class can occupy housing of this type.
14
,ousing supply rate means housing unit per household. In )orea this inde# mainly used as a basic inde# for
housing policy
15
5ou may as& > 17R of Seoul citiCens are homelessJ@. 1o, in )orea some housing units were made to be used by
several households independently. herefore actual housing units are not deficient and homeless problem is not
familiar in )orea.
16
'residential 3ommittee on Social Inclusion, >public rental housing policy reformation scheme@, Seoul, <;;H
73
,0USI12 -1% 3044U1I5 %6!670'461
he present government has initiated the construction of 1,;;;,;;; public rental housing
units from <;;3 to <;1< due to the decision that it is necessary to provide financial support again
to the rental housing pro=ect. his ambitious housing policy"s goal is the support of low$income
families" residential environment improvement, especially removing substandard housing.
-ccording to <;;; census in )orea 1,/;;,;;; households in urban regions are living in
substandard houses. o respond to this housing problem, present government decided to build
massive rental housing, annually 1;;,;;;units for 1;years.
). Issues and Problems of Housing Policies 0 Programs
'roviding appropriate amount of public housing is generally regarded necessary, but massive
construction of rental housing in short time ma&es some difficulties and problems as follows.
*irst, e#cessive concentration of low income families cannot avoidable. o build massive
rental housing in short time, the situation that several thousands of public housings are
constructed in one site is not avoidable.
Second, conflicts between national government and local government happen fre(uently.
7ocal governments are tends to avoid public rental housing construction. Instead of the
development, they often want other types of development, such as business and commercial, and
other economic or public facilities developments.
hird, location mismatch problem happens. 4ost parts of substandard housing residents are
living in metropolitan area. +ut in that area, there is no much land which can be developed for
rental housing sites. *or this reason many public rental housings sites are located in the area
which is about <;VH;&m far from center of big cities, especially in Seoul metropolitan area.
VII. Recommendations for orean Housing Policy
he U.S. e#periences in public housing can provide many meaningful lessons to )orea.
*irst, government officials and policy ma&ers need to be aware of the impact of e#cessive
7B
A Study on Public Housing and Housing Voucher Program in the US
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
,0USI12 -1% 3044U1I5 %6!670'461
References
1ewman and Schnare, >? -nd a Suitable 7iving 6nvironmentA he *ailure of ,ousing
'rograms to deliver on 1eighborhood Guality@, Housing Policy #ebate, !olume 9, Issue B,
*annie 4ae *oundation, 1997
+ruce )atC, 4argery -ustin urner, )aren %estorel +rown, 4ary 3unningham, 1oah Sawyer.
Rethinking Local Affordable Housing Strategies: Lessons from 70 ears of Policy and Practice,
he +roo&ings Institution F he Urban Institute, <;;3
Tavier de SouCa +riggs , 3omment on Sandra O. 1ewman and -nn +. Schnare"s >? -nd a
Suitable 7iving 6nvironmentA he *ailure of ,ousing 'rograms to %eliver on 1eighborhood
Guality@, 1997

,oward ,usoc&, >,ow public housing harm to cities@, $ity %ournal, <;;3 winter
)ir& 4c3lure, >,ousing !ouchers versus ,ousing 'roductionA -ssessing 7ong$term 3osts@,
Housing Policy #ebate. !ol.9, issue <, *annie 4ae *oundation, 1999
he 4illennial ,ousing 3ommission, &eeting 'ur (ation)s Housing $hallenges,
Pashington%.3. <;;<
'residential 3ommittee on Social Inclusion, Public Rental Housing Policy Reformation Scheme,
Seoul )orea, <;;H
7/