WW-07565     2000  

The Effects of Subsidized Housing on Communities

<< return

EDWARD G. GOETZ

Current housing policy initiatives at all levels of government emphasize the dispersal of subsidized housing as a means of deconcentrating poverty. This paper presents a review of research conducted over 25 years that examines the various ways in which dispersal is achieved and the impacts of these programs on the poor families affected, as well as the receiving communities into which the poor (or the subsidized units) are placed. Though the programs tend to improve the conditions of poor families relative to other forms of subsidized housing, their potential to significantly deconcentrate poverty is limited by their small scale and by continued political opposition from receiving communities.

Edward G. Goetz is Associate Professor of Planning and Public Affairs at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota.

---

Introduction

Research has shown that extreme concentrations of poverty in urban areas are the cause of a range of social problems. As a result, current housing policy initiatives at all levels of government emphasize the dispersal of subsidized housing. This paper provides a review of research on four questions: How do dispersal programs work? Do they effectively deconcentrate poverty? Does dispersal improve the lives of the poor? How do these programs affect the communities into which the poor, or subsidized housing units, are placed?

Various Types of Dispersal Programs

There are several types of dispersal programs. Mobility programs use tenant-based subsidies (Section 8 housing certificates and vouchers Ñhenceforth, vouchers) to encourage or require families to move to areas with lower concentrations of poverty or minority groups. For example, the Gautreaux program in Chicago provides vouchers for public housing residents to move to predominantly white areas of the metropolitan region.

The Moving To Opportunity (MTO) program, enacted in 1992, is modeled on Gautreaux but mandates moves to areas of low poverty instead of low minority concentration. Currently there are over 50 mobility programs of different kinds in cities across the country, most modeled on Gautreaux or MTO. In addition, HUD has shifted subsidies in many of its older buildings from unit-based to tenant-based assistance. Called "vouchering out," this process results in the conversion of subsidized projects into market rate buildings and gives families vouchers to use on the market.

Fair share and scattered-site programs focus on dispersing subsidized units throughout a metropolitan region. "Fair share" refers to the objective of increasing affordable housing opportunities throughout a metropolitan region. The methods of achieving fair share include inclusionary zoning programs (for example, programs such as those in Montgomery County, Maryland, and New Jersey) that require a percentage of units in new developments be set aside for low- and moderate-income occupancy, "builders' remedies" (as in Connecticut and Massachusetts) that provide opportunities for developers to appeal permit and zoning decisions of local governments, and state programs (such as those in California, New Hampshire, and Oregon) that require local communities to provide reasonable opportunities for the development of affordable housing.

The term "scattered-site" is applied most frequently to the practice of local public housing authorities purchasing and renting to public housing residents units that are located in single family homes, duplexes, or small apartment buildings scattered throughout the local jurisdiction. Public housing authorities are restricted from buying or leasing properties outside their jurisdiction, so that most scattered site programs involve dispersal within municipal boundaries.

Another strategy for deconcentration is the development of mixed income housing. Mixed income housing is an attempt to desegregate by income within subsidized developments. In the past, because of congressional restrictions on eligibility and tenant preferences, public housing has been almost exclusively inhabited by the very poor, resulting in concentrations of extreme poverty regardless of the characteristics of surrounding neighborhoods.

Finally, the federal HOPE VI program seeks to deconcentrate public housing through the demolition of larger distressed projects, and redevelopment of the sites into lower-density, mixed-income housing, and by reducing the absolute number of public housing units by providing vouchers to families of demolished units.

Program Scope and Potential for Poverty

Can dispersal programs solve the problem of concentrated poverty? There are an estimated 5.9 million black residents living in concentrated poverty in the United States. To date, mobility programs have served less than 12,000 households nationwide. Obviously, a significant expansion of dispersal policy is needed to have a measurable impact on concentrated poverty. Yet, this is unlikely because of the degree of political opposition to dispersal programs, usually from middle-class communities fearing property value decline, and increases in social problems. In fact, the Gautreaux program was specifically designed to minimize suburban opposition. Participating families were carefully screened, and housing counselors were careful not to create re-concentrations of Gautreaux families in receiving communities. MTO also was designed to operate below the radar screen of most communities. Even so, it generated significant opposition in suburban Baltimore, leading to congressional action ending appropriations to the program.

The selectivity of dispersal programs has led to criticisms of "creaming." Participants in several dispersal programs were found to be significantly different than the general public housing population (Galster and Zobel, 1998). In Chicago, for example, the screening of program participants led to programs selecting smaller families, families more likely to be employed, and families who had kept up with housekeeping and rental payments (Rosenbaum and Popkin, 1990). Those who do not want to move, or for one reason or another are unable to move, are not represented in voluntary dispersal programs. Thus, one should be careful about making generalizations about all subsidized housing families based on the experiences of families in dispersal programs to date.

In addition to the small scale of dispersal programs and the difficulty in generalizing outcomes, achieving real deconcentration is constrained by the inherent limitations of tenant-based assistance. When vouchers are provided to families without mobility counseling and assistance in locating units, they tend to have little impact on locational choice, economic or racial concentration, or neighborhood quality (Cronin and Rasmussen, 1980). An early HUD study showed that most families who received vouchers did not actually move to another apartment, and those who did went to neighborhoods that were only marginally more affluent than those they had left (Leger and Kennedy, 1990). Although there is a slight tendency for African-Americans to deconcentrate, no significant out-migration to the suburbs has occurred (Gray and Tursky, 1986). Even when Congress allowed the "porting" of vouchers across municipal boundaries, studies have shown that families have not dispersed significantly. Central cities retain important advantages for low-income families. For example, a study of porting in the Twin Cities showed that the two central cities were the largest net gainers of subsidized families (Malaby and Lukermann, 1996). Voucher holders came to the central cities because of the availability of larger and more affordable units, and for public transportation. The movement of poor people to the suburbs is also limited by the ability of suburban municipalities to grant waiting list preferences to their own residents. As a result of these factors, vouchers are 17 to 21 times denser in low-income tracts than in other tracts (Hartung and Henig, 1997).

Whites are more successful than nonwhites in using Section 8 outside of poor and minority neighborhoods (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1995), and voucher holders in the suburbs tend to cluster in racially and economically defined neighborhoods (Hartung and Henig, 1997). Voucher holders typically concentrate in areas of low socioeconomic status and where there is affordable housing, generally following existing patterns of integration set by unassisted households (Ibid.).

The outcomes are even more pronounced for displaced families. Families that are vouchered out and not given relocation counseling tend to make short distance moves, remain in or near their original neighborhoods, and experience little improvement in housing conditions. Displaced HOPE VI families primarily have moved into segregated areas where the residents are as poor as they are. In fact, the record of relocated families is even worse than the Section 8 program as a whole. As of June 1998, 79 percent of families relocated out of public housing in Chicago were in census tracts that are 90 percent or more black, and 94 percent live in tracts in which the average income is $15,000 or less (Rumbler, 1998). Another study found that only 6 percent of displaced families moved to tracts that were less than 10 percent of their own race (Rubinstein, 1988). Displaced families, the studies show, are followers of racial change rather than pioneers.

Why do so few displaced families move to better circumstances? Discrimination in the housing search is reported by many, and for others, the fear of discrimination limits their search. In addition, many simply want to retain proximity to their social networks and to supportive services upon which they rely, or stay in neighborhoods with which they are familiar.

Though vouchers are unlikely to deconcentrate the poor any more than the market does, it is undeniably the case that vouchers result in significantly less concentration than other forms of subsidized housing. All studies of the issue show that Section 8 households are less concentrated than public housing residents, and they reside in neighborhoods with less poverty, less racial segregation, and greater levels of home ownership. Similarly, studies of scattered-site housing show that residents live in neighborhoods with higher median incomes, median housing values, median rents, and higher ownership rates.

Studies indicate that counseling and housing search assistance are very important for the success of voluntary dispersal programs. Counseling assistance does not have much impact for families involuntarily displaced (those families that are vouchered out).

The deconcentration potential of fair share programs depends upon their scale and the program rules. For example, the Twin Cities Livable Communities Act will, if program goals are fully met, result in a 13 percent decline in the region-wide percentage of affordable units over the next 10 years (Goetz, 2000). In addition, the program will result in only minor redistribution of affordable housing throughout the region. Regional affordable housing planning in California is hampered by the lack of an enforcement mechanism and the dispersal potential of the New Jersey fair share program is significantly compromised by a program rule that allows wealthier communities to buy out of their obligation to provide affordable housing.

The potential of mixed income developments to deconcentrate poverty depends on the ability of these projects to attract middle income people to developments that are partially subsidized. This requires design features and amenities to attract moderate income and market-rate renters to neighborhoods they may not typically consider. Studies have shown that though this is difficult, it is quite possible to achieve (Brophy and Smith, 1997).

Dispersal Impact on Poor Families

The argument for housing dispersal programs is partially based on the contention that poor families in concentrated neighborhoods lack role models for success. The benefits of role models require, as a prerequisite, some interaction among the different income groups in diverse communities. On the other hand, critics of dispersal strategies argue that the wholesale displacement of residents has the immediate effect of pulling apart the very networks of social and family ties upon which low-income households depend.

Evidence on the social impacts of dispersal is mixed. Gautreaux participants who moved to the suburbs reported more interactions with whites, but less neighbor-to-neighbor interaction over all (Rosenbaum et al., 1991). In Cincinnati, residents of scattered-site units did not report any greater levels of social isolation than the comparison group (Varady and Preiser, 1998). Suburban movers in Chicago were more likely to complain of isolation and loneliness, and reported more instances of harassment (though it declined over time) than did participants who stayed in the city (Rosenbaum et al., 1991). Similarly, in Cleveland, one-quarter of dispersed families reported incidents of racial harassment after moving to scattered-site units (Chandler, 1991).

The most extensive study of this phenomenon, a study of scattered site housing in Yonkers, New York, found no evidence that dispersed families are more socially isolated than a comparison group of public housing residents that did not move. However, the social networks of dispersed families consisted of acquaintances from their old neighborhoods, or other public housing families in the same townhouse development (Briggs and Darden, 1999). There was no interaction between the dispersed families and the predominantly white, home owning residents of the neighborhoods into which they were placed.

Even in mixed income developments, the poor and higher income groups tend to live side-by-side with little interaction. In one case, developers inadvertently created a de facto concentration of low-income renters by locating all of the three- and four-bedroom units in a separate building (Brophy and Smith, 1997). Residents of a mixed-income development in Chicago resisted attempts to artificially create connections across income groups, seeing them as intrusions on privacy and secondary in importance to good project management (Nyden, 1998).

Studies over several years found an array of benefits to families who have moved to suburban areas through dispersal programs. In Chicago, suburban movers were more likely to be employed than those who stayed in the city, though there were no differences in wage level or in number of hours worked (Rosenbaum and Popkin, 1991). The children of suburban movers also were more likely to be employed than their city counterparts, and the jobs they held were more likely to have benefits (Rosenbaum, 1991). Suburban movers claimed that a greater sense of safety made it possible for them to work. They also mentioned greater motivation, peer pressure, and positive role models. Early results from the MTO program show similar gains in employment and earnings among participants in one city, but not in a second (Hanratty, McLanahan and Pettit, 1997; Katz, Kling and Liebman, 1997). Less than one-third of the participants in the scattered site program in Cleveland reported that they felt their employment opportunities had improved compared to more than half who felt no change. There were no changes within the group in actual employment status after the move. The respondents reported lack of child care, transportation, and skills as key barriers to employment after the move (Chandler, 1991). As for involuntarily displaced families, the typically short moves made by these families tend not to translate into employment gains (HUD, 1998).

Suburban movers in Gautreaux also reported higher levels of educational attainment than did the city movers (Rosenbaum, Kulieke, and Rubinowitz, 1987). Dispersed parents perceived teachers as more helpful, and reported more positive attitudes towards school by their children. Children had difficulty adjusting to higher expectations regarding grade level work, but overall, their grades did not suffer compared to the city movers. The children of suburban movers were less likely to drop out, more likely to be on a college track, and were more likely to attend college than their city counterparts (Kaufman and Rosenbaum, 1992). Suburban schools placed these children in special education programs at a significantly higher rate than the city schools, a fact attributed to racism by many of the dispersed families (Rosenbaum et al., 1987). Nevertheless, suburban movers reported more satisfaction with schools than did city movers. Similar improvements in education were also reported in other dispersal programs.

The financial costs of dispersal to poor families have not been well studied. In two sites where families were displaced after being vouchered out, average out of pocket rent payment decreased; in two other sites, it rose (HUD, 1998).

The overwhelming majority of evidence from families participating in dispersal programs suggests that they are more satisfied than they were prior to moving and relative to comparison groups (Rosenbaum and Popkin, 1990). The only exception to this is among families involuntarily displaced. With respect to housing satisfaction, families in scattered-site programs, families vouchered out, and families in mobility programs all report higher satisfaction with their new neighborhoods compared to where they had been living (Ibid.; Varady and Preiser, 1998). In all but one study, families also reported more satisfaction with their housing unit after the move. There is also overwhelming evidence that families in dispersal programs report reductions in fear of crime (Burby and Rohe, 1989). Finally, participants of dispersal programs provide mixed evidence with regard to satisfaction with public services in their new communities. Residents are typically more satisfied with services such as public schools and police, but report less satisfaction with transportation services, and in one study, with subsidized medical services.

Impact on Receiving Communities

Research on the impact of subsidized housing on neighborhoods is mixed. Early studies indicated that subsidized housing had positive or undetectable impacts on neighborhoods. In more recent years, some studies have shown slight negative effects for public housing and other forms of subsidized housing, while others have found no effect or slight positive impacts. The evidence suggests that whatever effects occur, they are highly dependent upon the local context.

Studies of scattered-site programs in Montgomery County, Maryland and Yonkers, New York have found no negative price effects of subsidized housing on nearby market rate units, despite the fact that in both communities there was a tendency to locate the subsidized units in the least desirable parts of the receiving communities (Briggs and Darden, 1999; Innovative Housing Institute, 1998). A study of subsidized multi-family housing in Minneapolis showed that units operated by nonprofit community development corporations had slight positive impacts on property values and led to reductions in crime, while large public housing projects and older privately owned, publicly subsidized units had slightly negative effects on nearby property values (Goetz, Lam and Heitlinger, 1997). In Denver, scattered-site public housing had positive impacts on property values in more affluent neighborhoods, but some negative effects in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods (Santiago, Galster and Tatian, 2000). Lee, Culhane and Wachter (1999) show slight negative effects of public housing on nearby property values in Philadelphia.

A study of the impact of families with vouchers on nearby property values in Baltimore County indicated that, within a 500-foot ring of sales, lower concentrations of vouchers are associated with positive effects on property values (Galster, Tatian and Smith, 1999). However, larger concentrations of subsidized families are associated with negative impacts on value.

The impact of subsidized development on nearby residents seems minimal. A survey of 56 residents of market units in Montgomery County, Maryland, found that 93 percent were either very satisfied or satisfied with their neighborhoods (IHI, 1998). Though there was no control group against which to compare these responses, the absolute percentage of those expressing satisfaction is very high. In Yonkers, the introduction of scattered-site units has not had substantial negative effects on psychological sense of community in receiving neighborhoods (Briggs and Darden, 1999). In Cleveland, the majority (70 percent) of residents surveyed was unaware that a program of scattered-site housing existed, and among newer residents, the program was completely unknown (Chandler, 1991). Neighborhood reaction varies widely according to the scale and visibility of the housing, the prevalence of media coverage of the program, and whether the units being introduced are scattered single family homes or small complexes that are more identifiable.

Because subsidized housing is highly race-identified, attitudes and reactions toward its introduction in neighborhoods are highly connected to prevailing racial attitudes and relations. Early federal policies, such as the FHA/VA home ownership programs and the public housing program were based on the assumption that property values and neighborhood conditions would inevitably decline if minority families were introduced into white neighborhoods. However, beliefs about the negative price effects of nonwhite in-movers are often self-fulfilling. That there is a historical correlation between units of subsidized housing and subsequent changes in racial composition of neighborhoods is as much due to anticipated changes in property values and neighborhood desirability as they are reactions to real outcomes. Initially, the placement of subsidized housing was so concentrated that units in place by 1970 contributed to subsequent racial change in their respective tracts overwhelmingly through the process of the projects changing racial composition, not by altering the residential choices of actual or prospective white residents. Subsequent to the 1970s, neighborhood change was driven by changes in locational decisions by whites.

A study of the limited scattered-site program in Yonkers shows that public housing can be introduced into neighborhoods that oppose it without triggering white flight (Briggs and Darden, 1999). White homeowners living near the scattered-site units were not concerned about racial tipping, nor were they more likely to move than counterparts citywide. A national study of subsidized housing built after 1980 shows that assisted housing did not trigger racial turnover in the neighborhoods in which it was located (Freeman and Rohe, 2000).

Conclusion

Research on the neighborhood and individual-level impacts of dispersed subsidized housing has accelerated in the past decade because of public policy efforts at all levels of government to help deconcentrate poverty. The findings of these studies show that introducing subsidized housing in areas where it does not exist in great numbers will generally not have adverse community impacts. Most studies show there are no negative impacts on nearby property values. The studies that do show a negative impact suggest that these effects occur either in central cities or in neighborhoods that are already characterized by decline.

In addition, these programs have been shown to have generally positive effects on the lower-income families who volunteer to move into the dispersed units. Families who are involuntarily displaced, or who simply access tenant-based (Section 8) assistance without significant mobility counseling and housing search assistance, are unlikely to improve their neighborhood environment or their individual life conditions measurably.

Thus, stepping up this region's efforts at meaningful dispersion of subsidized housing could be done without threatening the well-being of communities that currently have little of this type of housing. The current Livable Communities Act, as it is being implemented, actually guarantees that the region will fall further behind in the availability of affordable housing and it does almost nothing to redistribute the availability of that housing within the region (Goetz, 2000). The experience of other communities across the nation suggests that a more energetic attempt to create affordable housing throughout the region will not compromise the prosperity of neighborhoods and communities in which it is located.

References

Briggs, Xavier de Souza and Joe Darden. 1999. "In the Wake of Desegregation: Early Impacts of Scattered-site Public Housing on Receiving Neighborhoods in Yonkers, New York." Journal of the American Planning Association. 65:1, pp. 27-49.

Brophy, Paul C. and Rhonda N. Smith. 1997. "Mixed-income Housing: Factors for Success." Cityscape. 3:2, pp. 3-32.

Chandler, Mittie Olion. 1991. The Effects of Public Housing Efforts: The Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority Acquisition Program. Cleveland: Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs.

Cronin, Francis J. and David W. Rasmussen. 1981. "Mobility," in Raymond J. Struyk and Marc Bendick, Jr., eds. Housing Vouchers for the Poor: Lessons from a National Experiment. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.

Freeman, Lance and William Rohe. 2000. "Subsidized Housing and Neighborhood Racial Transition: An Empirical Investigation." Housing Policy Debate. 11:1, pp. 67-90.

Galster, George, Peter Tatian and Robin Smith. 1999. "The Impact of Neighbors who Use Section 8 Certificates on Property Values." Housing Policy Debate. 10:4, pp. 879-918.

Galster, George and Anne Zobel. 1998. "Will Dispersed Housing Programmes Reduce Social Problems in the U.S.?" Housing Studies. 13:5, pp. 605-22.

Goering, J., H. Stebbins and M. Siewart. 1995. Promoting Housing Choice in HUD's Rental Assistance Programs. WDC: Office of Policy Development and Research, Dept HUD.

Goetz, E.G. 2000, forthcoming. "Fair Share or Status Quo? The Twin Cities Livable Communities Act." Journal of Planning Education and Research. 20.

Goetz, Edward G., H.K. Lam and A. Heitlinger. 1996. There Goes the Neighborhood? The Impact of Subsidized Multifamily Housing on Urban Neighborhoods. Minneapolis: Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota.

Gray, Robert and Steven Tursky. 1986. "Location and Racial/Ethnic Occupancy Patterns for HUD-Subsidized Family Housing in Ten Metropolitan Areas," in John M. Goering, ed. Housing Desegregation and Federal Policy. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Hanratty, Maria, Sara McLanahan and Elizabeth Pettit. 1997. "The Impact of the Los Angeles Moving To Opportunity Program on Residential Mobility: Neighborhood Characteristics and Early Child and Parent Outcomes." Presented at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Moving To Opportunity Research Conference, Washington, D.C.: November 20-21.

Hartung, John M. and Jeffrey R. Henig. 1997. "Housing Vouchers and Certificates as a Vehicle for Deconcentrating the Poor: Evidence from the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area." Urban Affairs Review. 32:3, pp. 403-19.

Innovative Housing Institute. 1998. "The House Next Door." http://www.inhousing.org/house1.htm.

Katz, Lawrence F., Jeffrey Kling and Jeffrey Liebman. 1997. "Moving to Opportunity in Boston: Early Impacts of a Housing Mobility Program." Paper presented at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Moving To Opportunity Research Conference. Washington, D.C., November 20-21.

Kaufman, Julie E. and James E. Rosenbaum. 1992. "The Education and Employment of Low-Income Black Youth in White Suburbs." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 14:3, pp. 229-40.

Lee, C., D. P. Culhane and S. M. Wachter. 1999. "The Differential Impacts of Federally Assisted Housing Programs on Nearby Property Values." Housing Policy Debate. 10:1, pp. 75-94.

Leger, Mireille L. and Stephen D. Kennedy. 1990. Final Report of the Freestanding Housing Voucher Demonstration. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

Malaby, Elizabeth G.D. and Barbara L. Lukermann. 1996. "Given Choice: The Effects of Portability in Section 8 Rental Housing Assistance." CURA Reporter. 26:2, pp. 12-15.

Nyden, Philip. 1998. "Comment on James E. Rosenbaum, Linda K. Stroh and Cathy A. Flynn's ÔLake Parc Place: A Study of Mixed-Income Housing.'" Housing Policy Debate. 9:4, pp. 741-48.

Peterson, George E. and Kale Williams. 1997. "Housing Mobility: What Has it Accomplished and What is its Promise?" In A. Polikoff, ed. Housing Mobility: Promise or Illusion? The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.

Rosenbaum, James E. 1991. "Black Pioneers: Do Their Moves to the Suburbs Increase Economic Opportunity for Mothers and Children?" Housing Policy Debate. 2:4, pp. 1179-1213.

Rosenbaum, James E., Marilyn J. Kulieke and Leonard S. Rubinowitz. 1987. "Low-income Black Children in White Suburban Schools: A Study of School and Student Responses." Journal of Negro Education. 56:1, pp. 35-43.

Rosenbaum, James E. and Susan J. Popkin. 1991. "Employment and Earnings of Low-income Blacks who Move to Middle-class Suburbs," in Christopher Jencks and Paul Peterson, eds. The Urban Underclass. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

Rosenbaum, James E. and Susan J. Popkin. 1990. Economic and Social Impacts of Housing Integration: A Report to the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. Evanston, IL: Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research.

Rosenbaum, J. E., S. J. Popkin, J. E. Kaufman and J. Rusin. 1991. "Social Integration of Low-income Black Adults in Middle-class White Suburbs." Social Problems. 38:4, pp. 448-61.

Rubenstein, James M. 1988. "Relocation of Families for Public Improvement Projects: Lessons from Baltimore." Journal of the American Planning Association. 54:2, pp. 185-96.

Rumbler, Bill. 1998. "Despite Section 8 Vouchers, Segregation Perpetuates." Chicago Sun Times, December 6.

Santiago, Anna, George Galster and Peter Tatian. 2000. "Why Not in my Neighborhood? The Positive Impacts of the Dispersed Housing Subsidy Program in Denver." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Urban Affairs Association, Los Angeles, CA. May 3-6.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1996. Expanding Housing Choices for HUD-Assisted Families: First Biennial Report to Congress: Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Office of Policy Development and Research. April, pp. 1-31.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1998. Case Studies of Vouchered-Out Assisted Properties. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Office of Policy Development and Research.

Varady, David P. and Wolfgang F.E. Preiser. 1998. "Scattered-site Public Housing and Housing Satisfaction." Journal of the American Planning Association. 64:2, pp. 189-207.

<< return

Produced by Communication and Educational Technology Services, University of Minnesota Extension.

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this material is available in alternative formats upon request. Please contact your University of Minnesota Extension office or the Extension Store at (800) 876-8636.