| 来源类型 | Article
|
| 规范类型 | 评论
|
| Low-income housing programs are safe for now. Should they be? |
| Kevin C. Corinth
|
| 发表日期 | 2017-05-11
|
| 出版年 | 2017
|
| 语种 | 英语
|
| 摘要 | Federal low-income housing programs have been saved — at least for now. The Trump administration’s calls to reduce domestic spending have gone unheeded, and Congress passed a bill that keeps current domestic programs near current levels through September. Given that housing programs were among the targets for cuts, housing advocates have expressed temporary relief.
In the long term though, a deeper conversation should take place about which housing assistance programs are truly necessary. In a new report, I propose that a more efficient housing safety net should focus on short term assistance — preventing homelessness whenever possible and resolving it when it occurs. Long term assistance would be reserved for the most vulnerable, including homeless individuals with severe mental illness. At the same time, other programs that provide permanent housing would be phased out to free up money for cash assistance.
A brief overview of current housing programs follows:
The most necessary programs are those that provide a real housing safety net to people with nowhere else to go, and also offer flexible assistance provided directly to the individual or family in need.
A good example is the rapid rehousing program for families that become homeless. These families are helped to find an apartment on the private market, and given several months of rental assistance. A case manager makes sure that the family is able to keep their housing when the federal government’s assistance ends.
Prevention programs seek to prevent homelessness from occurring in the first place. Low income families in danger of losing their housing are offered modest one-time payments to enable them to stay in their current housing and prevent an eviction. Research has shown that prevention programs are highly effective in protecting families from becoming homeless. And even when prevention efforts fail, families can still get help under the rapid rehousing program.
Permanent housing programs for the most vulnerable should be preserved as well. People living on the streets with severe mental illness should be offered housing and supportive services. It is important to remember that creating a more efficient housing safety net does not require a weaker commitment to help the most vulnerable.
The rest of the low-income housing programs soak up the bulk of expenditure and should be phased out. Public housing and other methods of financing construction of new housing for low income Americans provide some help to recipients. But a portion of the benefits go to developers or end up inflating housing costs.
Housing vouchers are less wasteful because they provide direct assistance and allow recipients to use them anywhere. But they still have problems. One is administrative costs, which, according to a recent study, were estimated to be $840 per family each year.
Another problem is that vouchers and other permanent housing programs make it harder for individuals and families to live in bigger households, either with a spouse, relatives or friends. Not only must families apply to the government for permission to have additional people come live with them, but they also have their benefits reduced by the government when bigger households are allowed.
Making it harder to live with more people is a worrisome side effect of low-income housing programs. Research has shown that the number of adults in a household falls significantly when a family receives assistance. That’s a concern as more children grow up in single parent families who must rely on extended family for support.
Phasing out these programs without doing anything else would leave fewer resources available to low income Americans. Thus, freed up funding should be put back into other safety net programs that provide cash assistance. That could be done through existing or new programs. It could be conditioned on work, or it could be offered with no strings attached.
Why is a more targeted housing safety net that frees up resources for cash assistance better than the status quo? Shelter is of course a basic need. But it is one that is met by 99.95 percent of Americans on any given night — despite the fact that most Americans who qualify for housing assistance don’t receive it. In other words, the vast majority of Americans do not need housing assistance to stay off the streets.
Our policies should recognize that poor Americans have lives that are complex and interrelated, just like everyone else. A housing safety net that protects people in times of crises is a better way to deal with the loss of housing than offering permanent housing assistance to people who don’t need it. Converting freed up funds into cash assistance would enable people to use their family and social networks as support in their efforts to flourish in society. |
| 主题 | Economics
; Poverty Studies
|
| 标签 | Affordable housing
; Safety-net programs
|
| URL | https://www.aei.org/articles/low-income-housing-programs-are-safe-for-now-should-they-be/
|
| 来源智库 | American Enterprise Institute (United States)
|
| 资源类型 | 智库出版物
|
| 条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/262386
|
推荐引用方式
GB/T 7714 |
Kevin C. Corinth. Low-income housing programs are safe for now. Should they be?. 2017.
|
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
