Public Housing Transformation and Crime Activity

www.urban.org aprIl 2012

Data: Information on voucher holders is collected from each housing authority using data from HUD Form 50058, which is completed as part of the annual recertification process. These records InsIDe tHIs IssUe were linked over time, and voucher holder locations were aggregated to the census tract for each • Is there a link between public housing quarter in the study period. Reports of Part I crimes were collected from each city’s police depart - transformation and crime? ment and aggregated by quarter and census tract. In Chicago, data from Census 2000 and Census •Do effects vary by neighborhood? 2010 were used to create population and household counts at the tract level, while the Atlanta estimates used Census 2000 and population estimates calculated by the Atlanta Regional • What are the implications for relocation Commission. The final analysis samples contained observations for 843 tracts over 37 quarters efforts? for Chicago (2000–08) and 121 tracts and 32 quarters for Atlanta (2002–09). This brief also draws on qualitative data from focus groups conducted in Chicago in 2010.

Methods: We estimate negative binomial, fixed-effects panel models of crime counts as a function of relocated household rates per 1,000 households. Our base model treats this key variable as continuous; our threshold model breaks the rate into various categories to test for nonlinear responses. We control for the concentration of voucher holders who are not relocated households, as well as the citywide crime trend and seasonality of criminal public Housing transformation and Crime activity. Tract fixed-effects, the spatial lag of the given crime dependent variable, and population with its coefficient fixed to one complete the specifi - cation. Our estimates from the threshold model are used to determine how much crime would have occurred in the absence of the public housing trans - Making the Case for responsible relocation formation in destination neighborhoods. The model just described does not tell us what effect relocation had on crime in neighborhoods where public housing was demolished. To predict Susan J. Popkin, Michael J. Rich, Leah Hendey, Chris Hayes, and Joe Parilla how many crimes would have been reported in these neighborhoods without demolition, we estimated an OLS model for these tracts for each crime type, Chicago and Atlanta are very different cities, but in the 1990s both faced serious problems with their public housing—distressed, using data before and through the study period, and setting crime counts to missing after the relocation of households began in preparation for the first building demolition in each tract. We used the coefficients in this model, which included controls for time, season, and tract fixed effects to produce a high-crime developments that were damaging residents’ lives and contributing to neighborhood decline. By the end of the decade, count of “expected” crimes in these neighborhoods. Subtracting the expected number from the actual number of crimes gives us the change in crime due both cities’ housing authorities had used federal HOPE V I1 grants to launch ambitious plans for citywide transformation efforts, to the public housing demolition in these tracts. To calculate the overall net effect for the city, we compare the changes in actual versus expected crime wit h the goal of demolishing their worst developments and replacing them with new, mixed-income communities. Transforming for both public housing and destination neighborhoods. Our methodology is described in more detail in our forthcoming article in CityScape . public housing meant relocating thousands of households while the new housing was constructed, a process that often took years and required developing new services to support residents through the process. As part of the relocation effort, many former public housing residents in both cities received Housing Choice (Section 8) Vouchers and moved to private-market housing; most opted to keep their vouchers and stay in their new neighborhoods rather than return to new mixed-income communities. about the authors Susan J. Popkin is both director of the Urban ot surprisingly, the nation’s two Monthly article claimed that HOPE VI— Institute’s Program on Neighborhoods and largest public housing transforma - specifically, relying on vouchers to relocate This research rigor - Youth Development and a senior fellow in tion efforts—the Chicago Housing residents in private rental housing—was to the Metropolitan Housing and Communities Authority’s (CHA) Plan for blame for rising crime in Memphis. The arti - ously investigated Policy Center. NTransformation and the Atlanta Housing cle drew a grim picture of rapidly increasing Copyright © April 2012 Authority’s (AHA) Olympic Legacy and crime in previously safe Memphis communi - whether relocating Michael J. Rich is an associate professor The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Quality of Life Initiatives—have generated a ties, and then used an analysis that associated of political science and director of the Office Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Permission is granted for reproduction of this variety of concerns, and many affordable crime incidents with the movement of public housing of University-Community Partnerships at document, with attribution to the Urban Institute. housing advocates focused on how former voucher recipients to make the case that Emory University. residents fared during the relocation process. 2 HOPE VI was responsible for these problems residents into private- But local politicians and press accounts have (Rosin 2008 ). The article ignited a national Urban InstItUte Leah Hendey, Chris Hayes, and Joe Parilla also raised questions about whether house - debate about the impact of housing vouchers market housing 2100 M street, nW ● are research associates in the Urban Institute’s holds receiving vouchers have brought crime on crime, with many researchers and advo - Washington, DC 20037-1231 Metropolitan Housing and Communities and disorder to their new communities. 3 cates arguing that the Atlantic analysis was (202) 833-7200 ● affected crime rates in Policy Center. This issue reaches beyond Chicago and too simplistic, blaming voucher holders [email protected] ● www.urban.org Atlanta. In 2008 , a highly controversial Atlantic unfairly for broader trends (Briggs and Dreier Chicago and Atlanta.

12. public Housing transformation and Crime

rates in Chicago and Atlanta. The relationship benefit both socially and economically from Sampson 2010 ). Second, new residents mov - Third, like most housing authorities, the early leader in the national movement to Key terms between crime rates and relocated public hous - living in more diverse, higher-opportunity ing into a neighborhood could disrupt the CHA had little experience providing support - replace distressed public housing develop - Housing Choice Voucher (voucher): a ing households moving into the private market neighborhoods (Joseph, Chaskin, and community’s “collective efficacy”—the degree ive services and certainly had not previously ments with market-quality communities. 12 federal rental subsidy that enables eligible is complex. Crime declined dramatically in Webber 2007 ). Although not all these hopes of mutual trust and social cohesion that acts attempted a large-scale relocation. The chal - In 1996 , the Atlanta Blueprint called for using families to rent homes and apartments both cities throughout the 2000 s—even in have been realized in every public housing as a protective factor for residents—thereby lenges only intensified over time as families a HOPE VI grant to revitalize the Techwood- in the private market neighborhoods that received many relocated revitalization project, a large body of research making the residents of these neighborhoods who were easier to relocate moved, leaving the Clark Howell Homes, the nation’s oldest households. Further, the transformation efforts shows that former residents are generally liv - less safe (Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls CHA with a population increasingly domi - public housing development, marking an relocated household: a household led to substantial decreases in crime in neigh - ing in better housing in safer neighborhoods 1997 ). And third, some public housing resi - nated by the most vulnerable households important point in the evolution of the formerly living in public housing that has 4 6 relocated to the private market with the borhoods where the CHA and AHA demol - where they experience less stress and anxiety. dents or their associates could simply bring (Popkin 2010 ). The agency ultimately over - HOPE VI program nationally. When the first assistance of a Housing Choice Voucher ished public housing communities. This Public housing transformation also crime with them, essentially displacing prob - came these challenges. Using the funding and phase of Centennial Place—in reference to the decline contributed to a small but significant intends to improve neighborhoods. Removing lems like drug trafficking and gang activity regulatory flexibility provided by HUD’s Centennial Olympic Games that Atlanta neighborhood: defined here as census net decrease in violent crime across all Chicago distressed public housing properties that are from one neighborhood to another. 10 Moving to Work (MTW) program, the CHA hosted that year—opened in summer 1996 , it tracts, geographic areas with an average neighborhoods and a small decrease in violent causing blight may allow for new develop - built a robust resident services department was the nation’s first mixed-income develop - population of around 3,000 residents crime and property crime in Atlanta neighbor - ment, increase property values, and attract transforming public Housing in (Popkin et al. 2010 ); by 2011 , the CHA had ment that included publicly assisted housing. public housing transformation: efforts in hoods. However, the picture is not entirely more affluent residents (Turner et al. 2009 ). Chicago and atlanta completed work on over 85 percent of its Also in 1996 , the AHA unveiled its Olympic Chicago and Atlanta to demolish distressed positive. The transformation contributed to However, while controversial, the question of Atlanta and Chicago have the two most planned units. Legacy Program, the agency’s effort to bring to public housing and relocate families using slightly higher property crime overall in how large-scale relocation of public housing prominent public housing transformation CHA residents had three relocation scale the mixed-income revitalization model housing vouchers (among other strategies) Chicago, and some neighborhoods in both families might affect destination communities efforts in the nation, initiatives that have options: move to new mixed-income housing, for traditional public housing. The AHA was to prevent the concentration of low-income cities have experienced problems associated has received relatively little attention from been both widely lauded and extremely con - live in rehabilitated public housing, or use a able to build on the momentum from the households with concentrations of relocated households. researchers, despite real concerns about the troversial. In both cities, the most visible voucher to rent a private-market unit. By Centennial Place revitalization and leverage plan for transformation: the Chicago Housing Once the number of relocated households potential for creating new concentrations of change has been replacing notorious develop - 2008 , approximately 6,400 former public additional local investments to support replac - Authority’s plan to replace or revitalize reached a certain threshold, crime rates, on poverty (Galster et al. 2003 ). Only one major ments like Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago housing households had relocated to the pri - ing three additional public housing develop - 25,000 units of distressed public housing average, decreased less than they would have if study rigorously explored how voucher hold - and Techwood Homes in Atlanta with new, vate market with vouchers. However, the ments with mixed-income communities. 13 Quality of life Initiative: the Atlanta there had been no former public housing in- ers living in a community might affect crime mixed-income housing that reflected the limitations of the voucher program—that After nearly a decade of experience in turning Housing Authority’s initiative to replace movers. These findings have important policy rates, and it found no evidence to support a current thinking on how to provide afford - rents must fit HUD’s guidelines for afford - distressed public housing into mixed-income, 12 public housing developments with implications and suggest that future relocation link between the presence of voucher holders able housing without creating concentrations ability and landlords must be willing to com - mixed-use developments, the AHA launched mixed-income communities efforts need to learn from Chicago and and increased crime (Ellen, Lens, and of poverty. 11 ply with program rules and regulations— its final and even more ambitious effort to Violent crime: aggravated assault, forcible Atlanta’s experiences, particularly the responsi - O’Regan 2011 ). However, that study looked Chicago has been one of the country’s meant that most voucher rentals tended to be fully transform public housing in Atlanta. rape, murder, and robbery ble relocation strategies both housing authori - only at traditiona l7 voucher holders (who are housing policy bellwethers, and efforts there concentrated in lower-income, minority Similar to CHA, the legal and regulatory ties developed as they learned more about not generally former public housing resi - have received considerable national attention. areas (Cunningham and Droesch 2005 ). framework for that effort was made possible property crime: arson, burglary, larceny, 5 and motor vehicle theft resident needs. dents), used annual data on voucher holders, The CHA’s Plan for Transformation began in Although the CHA offered residents reloca - through Atlanta’s participation in the MTW and did not explicitly examine the question 1999 , when the agency announced its goals to tion assistance and mobility counseling to program, which began in July 2003 . Among Gun crime: crimes involving handguns How Could public Housing of the potential effect of large-scale public replace or rehabilitate 25 ,000 units of public encourage them to move to “opportunity the key initiatives were a number of policy or other firearm s— homicide, sexual assault, transformation affect Crime? housing relocation. 8 housing. As in many cities, relocation proved areas” that offer better schools and services, changes in AHA’s leasing standards and prac - robbery, battery, ritualism, and assault Over the past two decades, housing assistance There are several reasons to expect that the most challenging aspect of the transfor - and those who chose vouchers could move to tices, and the adoption of strategies intended in the United States has undergone a pro - large-scale public housing demolition and mation initiative. First, with over 16 ,000 any unit that met housing quality and rent to enable families to use their vouchers in a found transformation (Turner, Popkin, and relocation might affect crime in other com - households to relocate, the sheer magnitude payment standards, many have chosen to stay broader range of neighborhoods. In addition, 2008 ). Yet, until recently, no systematic efforts Rawlings 2009 ). The $ 6 billion HOPE VI munities more than the presence of tradi - of the problem was daunting. Second, many in familiar areas on the city’s South and West like the CHA, the AHA introduced, in 1998 , have tried to understand whether there is program facilitated the demolition of hun - tional voucher holders. 9 First, relocating of the CHA’s residents faced numerous barri - sides (Popkin et al. 2009 ). Further, one ben - a five-year family-focused coaching and coun - empirical evidence for these fears or if they dreds of distressed inner-city public housing public housing residents for redevelopment ers that made relocation particularly challeng - efit of tenant-based vouchers is that recipi - seling program to provide comprehensive simply represent negative stereotypes of public developments and allowed housing authori - could disrupt their social networks ing. Because of the terrible conditions in ents have the freedom to move, and many assistance to tenants through the relocation housing residents. ties to replace them with a combination of (Hagedorn and Rauch 2007 ), increasing CHA family developments, tenants who had residents have moved several times since leav - process as well as post-relocation . This research rigorously investigated new, mixed-income communities and vouch - their risk for either perpetrating or becoming better options had left long ago, leaving ing public housing. AHA’s Quality of Life Initiative (QLI), whether relocating public housing residents ers. Underlying this transformation was the vic tims of crime in their new neighborhoods behind a population dominated by extremely While the CHA did not launch its Plan for launched in 2007 , aimed to demolish nearly into private-market housing affected crime hope that public housing residents would (Haynie and South 2005 ; Sharkey and vulnerable families (Popkin et al. 2000 ). Transformation until 1999 , the AHA was an all of the city’s remaining family public

2. 3. public Housing transformation and Crime

2. 3.

public Housing transformation and Crime

housing developments and replace those their validity. This analysis used econometric crime rates. The demolition of CHA’s housing dashed lines show how much crime we predict units with new mixed-income communities. techniques to probe the relationship between had a bigger effect on gun crime, which was would have occurred in these neighborhoods Figure 1. annual number of Violent Crimes in Like the CHA, the AHA found that the fam - large-scale public housing relocation and more heavily concentrated in public housing: if there were no relocated households and public Housing tracts ilies still needing to be relocated during these changes in crime trends in neighborhoods in reports of gun crime decreased on net by 4.4 public housing transformation had not later phases of the agency’s transformation both Chicago ( 2000 –08 ) and Atlanta percent citywide. In Atlanta, the effects of pub - occurred. The differences between the two initiative were more vulnerable and required (2002 –09 ). We estimated the impact of relo - lic housing transformation yielded a 0.7 per - lines are our estimates of the impact of the atlanta more substantial support. The AHA’s com - cated households using a fixed-effects panel cent net decrease in violent crimes and a 0.5 relocated households on crime in these neigh - 15 4,0 00 prehensive supportive services, launched as model of crime counts based on quarterly percent decrease in property crimes. borhoods. Our estimates of the effects of pub - With public housing transformation part of its expanded relocation strategy, crime and voucher data, controlling for other lic housing relocation voucher holders on Without public housing transformation 3,5 00 offered these services to relocated families for possible contributory factors such as popula - Divergent trends for neighborhoods crime in the destination neighborhoods varied up to five years. Relocated households who tion trends, concentration of other voucher While the overall impact on crime in both depending on the density of relocated house - 3,0 00 received this comprehensive support reported households, tract-specific features, and nearby cities was generally positive, as with any major holds (see below); these estimates suggest that substantial improvements in their quality of crime trends. We modeled the impact of proj - social policy intervention, CHA and AHA’s overall crime reports in the destination neigh - 2,5 00 life (Rich et al. 2010 ). By 2010 , the AHA no ect demolition in public housing develop - efforts generated positive effects in some borhoods would have been 2.8 and 5.5 percent 2,0 00 longer owned or operated any large family ment neighborhoods separately with an OLS places and negative effects in others. Both lower, respectively, for violent crime in Atlanta public housing developments. To underscore regression model, using quarterly crime data cities experienced large and lasting crime and Chicago. Without relocated households 1,5 00 the magnitude of the transformation, in 1996 , before and through the study period. Like all declines in neighborhoods where public hous - in these neighborhoods, property crime would more than 70 percent of the AHA’s assisted statistical models, our methods estimated ing was torn down and in many neighbor - have been lower by 1.1 percent in Atlanta and 1,0 00 households lived in conventional public average patterns and cannot perfectly explain hoods where former public housing residents 2.8 percent in Chicago. Gun crime in Chicago housing; by 2011 , nearly 70 percent of AHA changes in every neighborhood (for details on moved. But, in a relatively small number of also would have been 4.3 percent lower in 500 residents had vouchers, with another 15 per - our data and research methods see page 12 ). areas in Chicago and Atlanta that received destination neighborhoods. 19971998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 20072008 2009 cent living in new, mixed-income housing Our analysis examined the total effect of pub - more than a few relocated households, crime Source: Emory University analysis of data from the Atlanta Police Department and the Atlanta Housing Authority. and the rest living in other mixed-income lic housing transformation on crime, includ - decreased less than it would have if no former Crime impact varies by the density of properties with project-based rental assistance ing census tracts where public housing was public housing residents had moved in. relocated households in a neighborhood developed throughout the city. In the course demolished as well as destination neighbor - Our findings clearly indicate a much smaller of this transformation, about 10 ,000 house - hoods where relocated households moved; substantial crime decreases in neighbor - impact of public housing transformation on holds were relocated, and the vast majority whether the presence of relocated voucher hoods with public housing demolition destination neighborhood crime rates than Chicago used vouchers to move to the private market. households significantly influenced crime In the Chicago neighborhoods where public popular accounts imply. Nevertheless, they 8,0 00 rates in their new neighborhoods; and, if so, housing was demolished, violent crime suggest that there are negative impacts for With public housing transformation Without public housing transformation Is there a link between relocation whether this effect varied by the concentra - decreased more than 60 percent, property crime some neighborhoods when relocated house - 7,0 00 and Crime? tion of relocated households. declined 49 percent, and gun crime declined 70 holds take up residence in them. Using neigh - During focus groups, residents living in percent between 2000 and 2008 . In Atlanta, borhoods with at least one relocated house - 6,0 00 Chicago communities that received former public Housing transformation violent crime declined 13 percent and property hold, we defined four categories of relocatee public housing residents echoed many of the reduced Crime Citywide crime declined 9 percent between 2002 and density: very low density areas have more than 5,0 00 same concerns about crime raised by media As in many American cities, crime declined in 2009 in neighborhoods with public housing zero to 2 relocated households per 1,000 ; low 4,0 00 accounts. The changes in Chicago have been both Chicago and Atlanta during the study demolition (figure 1). density areas have more than 2 to 6; moderate highly visible, and residents clearly associate period. However, in both cities, tearing down density areas have more than 6 to 14 ; and areas 3,0 00 changes in their communities with the dis - public housing and relocating residents with Crime would have been slightly lower in with high density have more than 14 relocated appearance of the CHA’s high-rises. Even in vouchers meant a modest, statistically signifi - destination neighborhoods without relo - households per 1,000 . 2,0 00 communities with few relocated households, cant reduction in violent crime overall. 14 cated households In Chicago, for instance, a neighborhood residents claimed that CHA families Over the study period, CHA’s Plan for Crime generally decreased in the residential with a low density of relocatees at the begin - 1,0 00 brought new problems with them, especially Transformation is associated with a 1.0 percent neighborhoods without public housing demo - ning of the quarter has a (statistically) signifi - 19971998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 20072008 2009 criminal behavior. net decrease in violent crimes reported and lition in Atlanta and Chicago during the study cantly higher rate of violent and property Although these beliefs are widely—and a 0.3 percent increase in property crimes periods. The solid lines in figure 2 represent crimes per capita ( 5 percent) during that quar - Source: Urban Institute analysis of data from the Chicago Police Department and the Chicago Housing Authority. firmly—held, no rigorous research has tested reported, independent of other factors affecting the actual number of crimes reported. The ter than a neighborhood without relocatees,

4. 5.

public Housing transformation and Crime

4. 5.

public Housing transformation and Crime

all other things being equal. 16 Gun-related based on cumulative voucher holders in a areas that were already struggling. In Chicago impact on crime was found, 22 percent had no Figure 2. annual number of Violent Crimes in Destination tracts crime in Chicago and both property and vio - neighborhood, as more public housing reloca - tracts where there was at least a low density of relocated households, 15 percent had a very lent crime in Atlanta are not affected until a tion vouchers are added to the private market relocated households for at least half the study low density, and 12 percent had a low density moderate density of relocated households is over the study period, there are likely to be period, the median income was $ 31 ,400 and of relocated households. reached. A neighborhood with a moderate more census tracts with moderate and higher the poverty rate was 31 percent (citywide fig - atlanta density of relocated households compared densities of relocation households. In the ures were $ 38 ,600 and 20 percent). The violent policy Implications with a similar neighborhood with no relo - study period, most Chicago tracts had no ( 33 crime rate in 2000 in these tracts was 29 .6 per Untangling the relationship between public 8,0 00 With public housing transformation cated households would have a violent crime percent) or very low ( 19 percent) densities of 1,000 people, compared with 16 .6 per 1,000 for housing transformation and crime trends is Without public housing transformation rate that is 11 percent higher on average in relocated households—the categories for Chicago overall. The tracts that received relo - extremely challenging. Neighborhoods with Atlanta and 13 percent higher on average in which there are no effects on crime. Another cated households, but only at the lowest cate - preexisting higher crime rates are more likely 7,0 00 Chicago. Compared with a similar neighbor - third of tracts had relocated households at the gory, are much less vulnerable. The median to be affordable and accessible to voucher hood with no relocated households, a neigh - density levels associated with impacts on income in these tracts was $ 50 ,858 , the poverty holders because they have higher vacancies, borhood with a high density of relocated crime (low, moderate, and high) for a major - rate was 15 percent, and the violent crime rate lower rents, and more landlords actively 6,0 00 households has a violent crime rate that is 21 ity of the study period. In the remaining 15 was 8.8 per 1,000 people. In 2008 , the propor - recruiting them (see Popkin and percent higher in Atlanta and Chicago. percent of tracts, the density of relocated tion of the city that experienced the impacts on Cunningham 2000 ). The econometric tech - The analysis also looked at the effect of households was also at these levels but not for crime associated with relocated households niques developed for this research provide the 5,0 00 traditional voucher holders—those that were a majority of the study period. included 12 percent of tracts with a low density best estimation possible of the effect of large- not relocated from public housing—on crime. Similarly, most of Atlanta’s census tracts of relocated households, 16 percent with a scale public housing relocation on crime Traditional voucher holders have much fell into the lowest relocated household cate - moderate density, and 14 percent with a high trends in the neighborhoods where relocated 4,0 00 smaller effects on crime rates than relocated gories. From 2002 through 2009 , about half density. Of the remaining tracts, 41 percent did households move. This analysis shows a simi - 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 20072008 2009 households, and it takes a much higher den - the Atlanta census tracts included in the analy - not contain relocated households, and only 17 lar pattern in both Chicago and Atlanta: not sity of traditional voucher holders before we sis had either no public housing transforma - percent of tracts had a very low density of relo - the simplistic relationship implied by media Source: Emory University analysis of data from the Atlanta Police Department and the Atlanta Housing Authority. see any effect at all. For violent crime in tion relocation households ( 21 percent) or had cated households where the effects were not accounts, but rather a complex picture of Chicago, compared to a similar neighborhood a very low or low density of relocation house - statistically significant. declining crime rates in both cities, a small with no traditional voucher holders, there is holds ( 25 percent), where the effects of public In Atlanta, the census tracts classified as net decrease in violent crime citywide associ - no impact on crime until the density of tradi - housing transformation on crime were not sta - having a moderate or high density of relocated ated with the transformation efforts, but Chicago tional voucher holders in the neighborhood tistically significant. Only about 13 percent of households for more than half the study effects in some neighborhoods—those that exceeds 64 households per 1,000 households, the census tracts in Atlanta had moderate or period had median incomes of only $ 26 ,000 received more than a few relocated house - 60,0 00 With public housing transformation which is nearly five times greater than the high densities of relocated households during and poverty rates of 32 percent (citywide fig - holds—that suggest that crime would have Without public housing transformation high-density threshold for public housing the majority of the study period, while 41 per - ures were $ 37 ,200 and 24 percent). The vio - been lower in those neighborhoods had there 55,0 00 relocation vouchers. Violent crime per capita cent had moderate or high densities of relo - lent crime rate in these tracts in 2002 was 29 .7 been no public housing transformation. in Chicago neighborhoods with that many cated households for less than half the study per 1,000 people; the rate for Atlanta overall Overall, our findings show that a substantial 50,0 00 traditional voucher holders is about 8 percent period, with the vast majority of these tracts was 22 .7 per 1,000 . By comparison, the majority of neighborhoods in both cities were higher, on average, than a neighborhood with reaching that threshold level during the last median income (on average) in the tracts that able to absorb public housing relocation 45,0 00 no voucher holders. 17 In Atlanta, there were four quarters of the study period. had public housing relocation vouchers but voucher households without any adverse no statistically significant threshold effects at Finally, the tracts in both cities that experi - never reached densities to classify them into effect on neighborhood conditions. 40,0 00 any level for traditional voucher holders in enced the greatest impact on crime associated the two highest threshold categories at any This research raises many questions, most regards to property or violent crime. with relocated households are neighborhoods point during the study was $ 56 ,090 and the notably why the presence of even relatively 35,0 00 These findings raise the question of how that were already vulnerable, with high rates of poverty rate was 22 .6 percent. The violent small clusters of relocated households in the many and how often census tracts have densi - poverty and crime before the arrival of public crime rate in these tracts was 22 .6 per 1,000 destination neighborhoods is associated with 30,0 00 ties of relocated households that are associated housing relocation households. In other words, people, equivalent to the overall rate for statistically significant differences in crime 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 20072008 2009 with higher crime rates. Because households our story is not the popular version of previ - Atlanta. By the end of 2009 , 14 percent of rates during that quarter, on average, com - move, census tracts may shift between our ously stable communities spiraling into decline tracts in the city had a moderate density and pared to tracts without any relocation Source: Urban Institute analysis of data from the Chicago Police Department and the Chicago Housing Authority. four density categories over the course of the because of public housing residents moving in, 37 percent had a high density of relocated voucher holders, while the presence of tradi - study period. Also, since these thresholds are but rather a story of poor families moving into households. Of the remaining tracts, where no tional voucher holders seems to have little to

6. 7.

public Housing transformation and Crime

6. 7. public Housing transformation and Crime

no impact. Historically, public housing • performance incentives for housing author - Management Demonstration showed that it developments suffered extreme rates of vio - ities, rewarding those who help voucher was feasible to provide intensive, wraparound notes lent crime and drug trafficking; many house - holders move outside disadvantaged neigh - service s— more intensive than the compre - 1. HOPE VI stands for Housing Opportunities 9. The connection between public housing and 15 . Due to data limitations, we were unable to per - holds had members tied to gangs or the drug borhoods and avoid creating new concen - hensive services that CHA offers to all for People Everywhere. Begun in 1992 , it funded crime is complex, yet the two are clearly related. form the analysis for gun crime in Atlanta. For example, research shows a moderate to trade (Popkin et al. 2000 ; Popkin 2010 ). It is trations of poverty; resident s— to vulnerable families even after the demolition and rehabilitation of public 16 . To the extent that neighborhoods with higher strong positive relationship between the location housing around the country. For more informa - preexisting rates of crime ended up attracting possi ble that some former households could • prohibitions on the use of vouchers in cer - relocation (Popkin et al. 2010 ). The costs of of subsidized housing in cities and crime tion on the program, see Popkin, Cunningham, more relocated households because vacancies have brought problem behavior s— or associ - tain neighborhoods that already have high these services were not insignificant, but not hotspots (Galster et al. 2002 ; McNulty and and Burt ( 2005 ). were higher, rents were lower, or landlords were at es—with them, or that they could have concentrations of assisted housing and/or more expensive than standard place-based Holloway 2000 ; Roncek, Bell, and Francik 1981 ; more heavily recruited there, our estimates will become targets in their new communities requirements that they can only be used in services. Further, the benefits in terms of sta - 2 . See, for example, Bennett, Smith, and Wright Suresh and Vito 2007 ), and that public housing (2006 ); Keating ( 2001 ); and National Housing overstate the true effect of these households on because of gang turf issues. 18 Ethnographic more “opportunity rich” neighborhoods; ble households could be significant both for may impose negative crime externalities on Law Project et al. ( 2002 ). subsequent crime rates. research might help shed light on how relocated • requirements for all landlords to partici - former public housing residents and the surrounding neighborhoods (Sandler 2011 ) . households affect neighborhood dynamics . pate in the voucher program upon request; communities to which they move. • 3. See , for example, Mitch Dumke ,“A Neighborhood’s Opportunities for involvement in gang violence 17 . Traditional voucher holders were associated and drug sales, among other kinds of offending, with a very small impact on property crime Regardless of the mechanism, a crucial • intensified fair housing enforcement aimed Steady Decline,” New York Times, April 28 , 2011 , http://www.nytimes.com/ 2011 /04 /29 /us/ are more readily available to youth who reside in per capita in Chicago (an average of less than policy implication from this research is the at expanding choices for minority voucher acknowledgments 29 cncguns.html; and Jennifer Medina, “Subsidies public housing developments than to those who 0.1 percent higher), but we could not identify need for responsible relocation strategies—like holders and families with children; and This research was the result of a tremendously and Suspicion,” New York Times, August 11 , 2011 , live outside (Popkin et al. 2000 ; Venkatesh thresholds for the effect. those now employed in both Chicago and • coordination with local law enforcement to collaborative partnership. We thank George 2000 ). Public housing residents also experience http://www.nytimes.com/ 2011 /08 /11 /us/ 11 housing. 18 . We do not have empirical evidence to stake Atlanta—that offer former residents a real ensure that patrol officers and narcotics and Galster for leading the design of the method - elevated levels of criminal victimization relative html?_r= 2&src=me&ref=us. this claim, which would require linking addresses choice of housing and neighborhoods, and gang units are aware of the neighborhoods ology and providing his deep subject matter to their non–public housing counterparts 4. We define neighborhoods as census tracts in of crime victims and crime perpetrators to provide long-term support to them once they receiving relocated households to take action expertise. We acknowledge Wesley Skogan for (DeFrances and Smith 1998 ; DeKeseredy et al. this analysis. Throughout this brief, the terms addresses of voucher holders. leave public housing. 19 Other housing author - in preventing any violence that might result. lending his insights to the methodology and 2003 ; Griffiths and Tita 2009 ; Holzman, “neighborhood,” “census tract,” and “tract” are Hyatt, and Dempster 2001 ; Kling, Liebman, 19 . This recommendation is consistent with a wide ities planning large-scale redevelopment report. For their critical review of our method - used interchangeably. These are not in reference and Katz 2005 ). range of research showing how neighborhoods should learn from the experiences of these two But promoting opportunity and choice will ology, we thank John Hipp, Lance Hannon, to Chicago’s 77 community areas, which are are adversely affected by concentrations of disad - 10 . Evidence across multiple U.S. cities is mixed cities about how to support former residents not be sufficient to address the needs of many Jens Ludwig, and Akiva Liberman. Our part - much larger, typically containing around nine vantaged households (Galster et al. 2003 ; Galster, (Kleinhans and Varady forthcoming; Suresh in moving to a wider range of communities relocated households—the families that ners at Metropolitan Chicago Information census tracts. Cutsinger, and Malega 2008 ). There has been and Vito 2009 ; Van Zandt and Mhatre 2009 ), and not creating new concentrations of endured the worst of the gang violence, drug Center provided access to rich geocoded data. considerable discussion about how preventing 5. Responsible relocation is a strategy that provides although the most rigorous research suggests poverty in other vulnerable communities. trafficking, and management neglect that The University of Illinois-Chicago’s Survey such reconcentration can best be accomplished; relocation counseling and other direct services to this phenomenon is not occurring as a result of see, for example, Turner and Williams ( 1998 ); These strategies include the following: characterized the nation’s worst public hous - Research Laboratory helped organize and ensure that residents receive appropriate reloca - HOPE VI demolition (Cahill, Lowry, and Popkin and Cunningham ( 1999 ); Katz and • comprehensive supportive services for relo - ing. The substantial differences in crime transcribe our focus groups. At the Urban tion benefits and have the opportunity to move Downey 2011 ; Santiago, Galster, and Pettit 2003 ). cated households before and after relocation; impacts between relocated households and Institute, we are grateful for the enlightening to better neighborhoods than those they are leav - Turner ( 2001 , 2008 ); Pendall ( 2000 ); Galster et 11 . For an overview of the CHA’s history and the al. ( 2003 ); Grigsby and Bourassa ( 2004 ); Popkin • mobility counseling to ensure that resi - traditional voucher holders underscore the qualitative research conducted by Diane Levy. ing. See Annie E. Casey Foundation ( 2008 ). Plan for Transformation, see Popkin ( 2010 ). et al. ( 2005 ); and Briggs et al. ( 2010 ). dents are making informed choices about unique challenges of long-term public hous - We acknowledge the thoughtful guidance 6. See, for example, Popkin, Levy, and Buron their housing and neighborhood options; ing residents and suggest that these findings given by Nancy La Vigne and Marge Turner. (2009 ); Briggs, Popkin, and Goering ( 2010 ); 12 . The agency’s long history of mismanagement 20 . Both the AHA and CHA were able to use and regarding relocated households should not be At Emory University, we thank Moshe Haspel, and Turner et al. ( 2009 ). and broken promises compounded its problems the flexibilities afforded by HUD’s Moving to with relocation (Popkin and Cunningham 2005 ; Work program to institute these reforms. • financial incentives to voucher holders and applied to the general voucher holder popu - Lance Waller, Jeffrey Switchenko, Michael Leo 7. Throughout the report, we refer to “traditional Venkatesh et al. 2004 ; Bennett et al. 2006 ). potential landlords in desirable areas, such lation. Many of these residents—who, after Owens, and Elizabeth Griffiths (now at voucher holders” as those households that receive as raising allowable fair-market rent levels all, are moving involuntarily—require much Rutgers) for their important contributions. a Housing Choice Voucher subsidy but were not 13 . Overall, 10 family public housing projects were there. 20 more intensive support throughout the We are appreciative of the John D. and relocated from public housing. included in the AHA’s Olympic Legacy Program, with seven receiving assistance through the search, relocation, and post-move process Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Annie E. 8. Research is thin on the differences between HOPE VI program. Other types of strategies that HUD or local than most housing authorities have provided Casey Foundation, and Chicago Housing Housing Choice Voucher households and public housing authorities should consider: to date. Other research on CHA families has Authority for their generous support of this housing households, but evidence indicates that 14 . It is important to note that this analysis of • direct leasing and brokerage for connecting found that many of these residents have work. And finally, we acknowledge the public housing households are more likely to be “public housing transformation” only includes former public housing residents relocated with voucher holders to market-rate rental never lived anywhere other than public Chicago Housing Authority and Atlanta elderly and less likely to include children. Section 8 vouchers and does not include analysis housing and subsidized developments in a housing and lack the skills and experience Housing Authority for their collaboration, of residents living in rehabbed public housing or wider range of neighborhoods; necessary to negotiate the private market transparency, and commitment to evidence- mixed-income developments without vouchers. (Popkin 2010 ). The Chicago Family Case driven policymaking.

8. 9. public Housing transformation and Crime

references Galster, George, Kathryn Pettit, Anna Santiago, Keating, Larry. 2001 . Atlanta: Race, Class, and Popkin, Susan J., Mary Cunningham, and Martha Suresh, Geetha, and Gennaro F. Vito. 2007 . “The Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2008 . Responsible and Peter Tatian. 2002 . “The Impact of Supportive Urban Expansion. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Burt. 2005 . “Public Housing Transformation Tragedy of Public Housing: Spatial Analysis of Redevelopment: Relocation Road Map 1.0 . Baltimore, Housing on Neighborhood Crime Rates.” University Press. and the Hard-to-House.” Housing Policy Debate Hotspots of Aggravated Assaults in Louisville, KY Journal of Urban Affairs 24 (3): 289 –315 . 16 (1): 1–24 . (1989 –1998 ).” MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation. Kleinhans, Reinout, and David Varady. American Journal of Criminal Justice 32 (1/2): 99 –115 . Bennett, Larry, Janet. L. Smith, and Patricia Wright. Galster, George, Peter Tatian, Anna Santiago, Forthcoming. “A Review of Recent Evidence on Popkin, Susan J., Diane K. Levy, and Larry Buron. 2006 . Where Are Poor People to Live: Public Housing Kathryn Pettit, and Robin Smith. 2003 . Negative Spillover Effects of Housing Restructuring 2009 . “Has HOPE VI Transformed Residents’ ———. 2009 . “Homicide Patterns and Public at the Crossroads in Chicago. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Why NOT in My Backyard? Neighborhood Impacts of Programs in the USA and the Netherlands.” Lives? New Evidence from the HOPE VI Panel Housing: The Case of Louisville, KY ( 1989 –2007 ).” Deconcentrating Assisted Housing. New Brunswick, International Journal of Housing Policy. Study.” Housing Studies 24 (4): 477 –502 . Homicide Studies 13 (4): 411 –33 . Briggs, Xavier de Souza, and Peter Dreier. 2008 . NJ: Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Kling, Jeffery R., Jeffrey B. Liebman, and Lawrence Popkin, Susan J., Brett Theodos, Liza Getsinger, Turner, Margery, and Kale Williams. 1998 . “Memphis Murder Mystery? No, Just Mistaken Research, Transaction Press. Housing Identity.” Shelterforce 22 (July). F. Katz. 2005 . “Bullets Don’t Got No Name: and Joe Parilla. 2010 . “An Overview of the Chicago Mobility: Realizing the Promise. Washington, DC: Griffiths, Elizabeth, and George Tita. 2009 . Consequences of Fear in the Ghetto.” In Family Case Management Demonstration.” The Urban Institute. Briggs, Xavier de Souza, Susan Popkin, and John “Homicide In and Around Public Housing: Discovering Successful Pathways in Children’s Supporting Vulnerable Public Housing Families Goering. 2010 . Moving to Opportunity: The Story of Turner, Margery Austin, Susan J. Popkin, and Is Public Housing a Hotbed, a Magnet, or a Development: Mixed Methods in the Study of Brief 1. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Lynette Rawlings. 2009 . Public Housing and the an American Experiment to Fight Ghetto Poverty . Generator of Violence for the Surrounding Childhood and Family Life, edited by Thomas S. Popkin, Susan J., Victoria E. Gwiasda, Lynn M. Legacy of Segregation. Washington, DC: Urban Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Community?” Social Problems 56 (3): 474 –93 . Weisner ( 243 –81 ). Chicago: University of Olson, Dennis P. Rosenbaum, and Larry Buron. Institute Press. Cahill, Meagan, Samantha Lowry, and P. Mitchell Chicago Press. Grigsby, William, and Steven Bourassa. 2004 . 2000 . The Hidden War: Crime and the Tragedy of Downey. 2011 . Movin’ Out: Crime Displacement and Van Zandt, Shannon, and Pratik Mhatre. 2009 . “Section 8: The Time for Fundamental Program McNulty, Thomas L., and Steven R. Holloway. Public Housing in Chicago. New Brunswick, NJ: HUD’s HOPE VI Initiative. Washington, DC: The “The Effects of Housing Choice Voucher Change.” Housing Policy Debate 15 (4): 805 –34 . 2000 . “Race, Crime, and Public Housing in Rutgers University Press. Households on Neighborhood Crime: Longitudinal Urban Institute. Atlanta: Testing a Conditional Effect Hypothesis.” Hagedorn, John, and Brigid Rauch. 2007 . Rich, Michael J., Michael Leo Owens, Elizabeth Evidence from Dallas.” Working Paper 09 -01 . Cunningham, Mary, and Audrey Droesch. 2005 . Social Forces 79 (2): 707 –29 . “Housing, Gangs, and Homicide: What We Can Griffiths, Moshe Haspel, Kelly Hill, Adrienne College Station: Sustainable Housing Research Unit, Neighborhood Quality and Racial Segregation. Learn from Chicago.” Urban Affairs Review 42 (4): National Housing Law Project, Poverty & Race Smith, and Katherine M. Stigers. 2010 . Evaluation College of Architecture, Texas A&M University. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 435 –56 . Research Action Council, Sherwood Research of the McDaniel Glenn HOPE VI Revitalization: Venkatesh, Sudhir Alladi. 2000 . American Project: DeFrances, Carol J., and Steven K. Smith. 1998 . Associates, and Everywhere and Now Public Final Report. Atlanta, GA: Emory University. Haynie, Dana, and Scott J. South. 2005 . The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto. Cambridge, Perceptions of Neighborhood Crime, 1995 . Special Housing Residents Organizing Nationally Together “Residential Mobility and Adolescent Violence.” Roncek, Dennis W., Ralph Bell, and Jeffrey M. A. MA: Harvard University Press. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of (ENPHRONT). 2002 . False HOPE: A Critical Social Forces 84 :361 –74 . Francik. 1981 . “Housing Projects and Crime.” Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Assessment of the HOPE VI Public Housing Venkatesh, Sudhir, Isil Celimli, Douglass Miller, Social Problems 29 (2): 151 –66 . Holzman, Harold R., Robert A. Hyatt, and Joseph Redevelopment Program. Oakland, CA: National and Alexandra Murphy. 2004 . Chicago Public DeKeseredy, Walter S., Martin D. Schwartz, Shahid M. Dempster. 2001 . “Patterns of Aggravated Assault Housing Law Project Rosin, Hanna. 2008 . “American Murder Mystery.” Housing Transformation: A Research Report. New Alvi, and E. Andreas Tomaszewski. 2003 . “Crime in Public Housing: Mapping the Nexus of Offense, The Atlantic Monthly 302 (1): 40 –54 . York: Center for Urban Research and Policy, Victimization, Drug Use, and Alcohol Pendall, Rolf. 2000 . “Why Voucher Holder and Place, Gender, and Race.” Violence Against Women Columbia University. Certificate Users Live in Distressed Neighborhoods.” Sampson, Robert J., Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Consumption in Canadian Public Housing.” 7:662 –84 . Journal of Criminal Justice 31 (4): 383 –96 . Housing Policy Debate 11 (4): 881 –910 . Felton Earls. 1997 . “Neighborhoods and Violent Joseph, Mark L., Robert J. Chaskin, and Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.” Ellen, Ingrid Gould, Michael C. Lens, and Popkin, Susan J. 2010 . “A Glass Half-Empty: Public Henry S. Webber. 2007 . “The Theoretical Basis Science 277 (5328 ): 918 –24 . Housing Families in Transition.” Housing Policy Katherine O’Regan. 2011 . American Murder Mystery for Addressing Poverty through Mixed-Income Debate 20 (1): 42 –62 . Sandler, Danielle. 2011 . “Is Public Housing a Revisited: Do Housing Voucher Households Cause Development.” Urban Affairs Review 42 (3): 369 –409 . Public Bad? Externalities of Chicago’s Public Crime? New York: Furman Center for Real Estate Popkin, Susan J., and Mary Cunningham. 1999 . Katz, Bruce, and Margery Turner. 2001 . “Who Housing Demolitions.” Job Market paper. Davis: and Urban Policy. CHAC Section 8 Program: Barriers to Successful Should Run the Housing Voucher Program? A Department of Economics, University of California, Galster, George, Jackie Cutsinger, and Ron Malega. Leasing Up. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Reform Proposal.” Housing Policy Debate 12 (2): Davis. 2008 . “The Costs of Concentrated Poverty: 239 –62 . ———. 2000 . Searching for Rental Housing with Santiago, Anna, George Galster, and Kathryn Pettit. Neighborhood Property Markets and the Dynamics Section 8 in the Chicago Region. Washington, DC: ———. 2008 . “Rethinking U.S. Rental Housing 2003 . “Neighborhood Crime and Scattered-Site of Decline.” In Revisiting Rental Housing: Policies, The Urban Institute. Programs, and Priorities, edited by Nicholas Retsinas Policy: A New Blueprint for Federal, State, and Public Housing.” Urban Studies 40 (11 ): 2147 –63 . and Eric Belsky ( 93 –133 ). Washington, DC: Local Action.” In Revisiting Rental Housing: Policies, ———. 2005 . “Demolition and Struggle: Public Sharkey, Patrick, and Robert J. Sampson. 2010 . Brookings Institution Press. Programs, and Priorities, edited by Nicolas Retsinas Housing Transformation in Chicago and the “Destination Effects: Residential Mobility and and Eric Belsky ( 319 –58 ). Washington, DC: Challenges for Residents.” In Housing, Race, and Trajectories of Adolescent Violence in a Stratified Brookings Institution Press. Regionalism: Rethinking the Geography of Race in Metropolis.” Criminology 48 (3): 639 –81 . America, by Xavier de Souza Briggs ( 176 –96 ). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

10. 11. public Housing transformation and Crime

10. 11. www.urban.org aprIl 2012

12.