Neighborhood locations of Section 8 housing certificate users with and without mental illness

Change in housing environment and residential satisfaction following exit from permanent supportive housing

Moving On initiatives (MOIs) transition stable permanent supportive housing (PSH) residents into mainstream housing without embedded services. While this approach frees up PSH for homeless individuals in need, open questions remain regarding MOI recipients' long-term outcomes. This exploratory study examines how housing environment and residential satisfaction, potential predictors of housing retention, change from PSH to mainstream housing. Subjective assessments of housing and neighborhood quality and residential satisfaction, as well as objective neighborhood-level data, are used to examine housing-related change for New York City MOI recipients. Participants generally moved to less-distressed neighborhoods with lower poverty and crime. Subjective perceptions of some aspects of neighborhood and housing quality also improved post-move. Participants tended to move farther from public transportation but were on average located within one mile of the nearest subway station. Results can be taken as early indicators of the potential benefits of MOIs.

The relationship between housing subsidies and supportive housing on neighborhood distress and housing satisfaction: does drug use make a difference?

Background

Since the 1970s, the dominant model for U.S. federal housing policy has shifted from unit-based programs to tenant-based vouchers and certificates. Because housing vouchers allow recipients to move to apartments and neighborhoods of their choice, such programs were designed to improve the ability of poor families to move into neighborhoods with less concentrated poverty. However, little research has examined whether housing voucher recipients live in less distressed neighborhoods than those without housing vouchers. There is much reason to believe that drug users may not be able to access or keep federal housing subsidies due to difficulties drug users, many of whom may have criminal histories and poor credit records, may have in obtaining free market rental housing. In response to these difficulties, permanent supportive housing was designed for those who are chronically homeless with one or more disabling condition, including substance use disorders. Little research has examined whether residents of permanent supportive housing units live in more or less economically distressed neighborhoods compared to low-income renters.

Methods

This paper uses survey data from 337 low-income residents of Hartford, CT and geospatial analysis to determine whether low-income residents who receive housing subsidies and supportive housing live in neighborhoods with less concentrated poverty than those who do not. We also examine the relationships between receiving housing subsidies or supportive housing and housing satisfaction. Finally, we look at the moderating effects of drug use and race on level of neighborhood distress and housing satisfaction.

Results

Results show that low-income residents who receive housing subsidies or supportive housing were not more or less likely to live in neighborhoods with high levels of distress, although Black residents with housing subsidies lived in more distressed neighborhoods. Regarding housing satisfaction, those with housing subsidies perceived significantly more choice in where they were living while those in supportive housing perceived less choice. In addition, those with rental subsidies or supportive housing reported living closer to needed services, unless they also reported heavy drug use.

Conclusions

Housing subsidies and supportive housing have little impact on the level of neighborhood distress in which recipients live, but some effects on housing satisfaction.

Access to housing subsidies, housing status, drug use and HIV risk among low-income U.S. urban residents

BACKGROUND

Much research has shown an association between homelessness and unstable housing and HIV risk but most has relied on relatively narrow definitions of housing status that preclude a deeper understanding of this relationship. Fewer studies have examined access to housing subsidies and supportive housing programs among low-income populations with different personal characteristics. This paper explores personal characteristics associated with access to housing subsidies and supportive housing, the relationship between personal characteristics and housing status, and the relationship between housing status and sexual risk behaviors among low-income urban residents.

METHODS

Surveys were conducted with 392 low-income residents from Hartford and East Harford, Connecticut through a targeted sampling plan. We measured personal characteristics (income, education, use of crack, heroin, or cocaine in the last 6 months, receipt of welfare benefits, mental illness diagnosis, arrest, criminal conviction, longest prison term served, and self-reported HIV diagnosis); access to housing subsidies or supportive housing programs; current housing status; and sexual risk behaviors. To answer the aims above, we performed univariate analyses using Chi-square or 2-sided ANOVA's. Those with significance levels above (0.10) were included in multivariate analyses. We performed 2 separate multiple regressions to determine the effects of personal characteristics on access to housing subsidies and access to supportive housing respectively. We used multinomial main effects logistic regression to determine the effects of housing status on sexual risk behavior.

RESULTS

Being HIV positive or having a mental illness predicted access to housing subsidies and supportive housing, while having a criminal conviction was not related to access to either housing subsidies or supportive housing. Drug use was associated with poorer housing statuses such as living on the street or in a shelter, or temporarily doubling up with friends, acquaintances or sex partners. Living with friends, acquaintances or sex partners was associated with greater sexual risk than those living on the street or in other stable housing situations.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that providing low-income and supportive housing may be an effective structural HIV prevention intervention, but that the availability and accessibility of these programs must be increased.

How much choice is there in housing choice vouchers? Neighborhood risk and free market rental housing accessibility for active drug users in Hartford, Connecticut

BACKGROUND

Since the mid-1970s, the dominant model for U.S. federal housing policy has shifted from unit-based programs to tenant based vouchers and certificates, intended to allow recipients a choice in their housing and neighborhoods. Surprisingly little research has examined the question of where those with Section 8 housing vouchers are able to live, but some research suggests that voucher holders are more likely to reside in distressed neighborhoods than unsubsidized renter households. Further, federal housing policy has limited drug users' access to housing subsidies. In turn, neighborhood disorder has been associated with higher levels of injection drug risk behaviors, and higher drug-related mortality. This paper explores rental accessibility and neighborhood characteristics of advertised rental housing in Hartford CT.

METHODS

Brief telephone interviews were conducted with landlords or management companies with units to rent in Hartford to explore housing accessibility measured as initial move in costs, credit and criminal background checks, and whether rental subsidies were accepted. These data were supplemented with in-depth interviews with landlords, shelter staff and active users of heroin, crack or cocaine. Apartments for rent were geocoded and mapped using ArcGIS. We used location quotients to identify areas where low-income rental housing is concentrated. Finally, we mapped apartments in relation to drug and violent arrest rates in each neighborhood.

RESULTS

High security deposits, criminal background and credit checks limit housing accessibility even for drug users receiving vouchers. While most landlords or management companies accepted housing subsidies, several did not. Voucher units are concentrated in neighborhoods with high poverty neighborhoods. Landlords reported little incentive to accept rental subsidies in neighborhoods with low crime rates, but appreciated the guarantee provided by Section 8 in high crime neighborhoods that were less likely to attract applicants with good jobs and credit.

CONCLUSION

Housing vouchers in themselves do not greatly improve recipients' choice of neighborhood and voucher units are concentrated in the most distressed neighborhoods. Policy changes are needed to increase landlords' incentives to accept housing subsidies. Interventions to improve neighborhood conditions are needed to improve the probability of success for those recovering from drug addictions.

‘How Do You Pay Your Rent?’ Social Policies And The President’s Mental Health Commission

Mental health policy involves broad social policies related to housing, education, work disability and rehabilitation, welfare, and criminal justice. The modern era of community care has moved patients, clinicians, and policymakers from closed institutions into the mainstream of society and its health and human service systems. The importance of knowing about the broad array of human services and their policies is reflected in the deliberations and policy recommendations of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. It is hoped that these recommendations will provide a roadmap for further change to enable people affected by severe mental illness "to live, learn, work, and participate fully in their communities."