Undergraduate

By Jacqueline M. Allain| Originally published in the Vol. 6 no. 2 (Spring/Summer 2013) issue.

In 2007, two years after Hurricane Katrina, the city of New Orleans began on its plan to demolish 4,500 public housing units and replace them with mixed-income housing.[1] This action was both welcomed by some former residents, who hoped to escape the crime and poverty of public housing, and chastened by others, like Sharon Sears Jasper. “They don’t want this city to be for the poor, working-class people,” she told the New York Times, highlighting suspicion about the perceived true intention of the plan.[2] Many saw it as an attack on affordable housing in an impoverished city already struggling to get its feet back on the ground after Katrina.

Controversy over public housing is not limited to New Orleans. Since the 1990s, public housing has been torn down in cities across the United States: twenty-one buildings each in Philadelphia and Baltimore, seventy-nine in Chicago, and many more in cities such as Newark, Atlanta, and the District of Columbia.[3]

The central aim of this paper is to explore the cultural and material underpinnings of the demolition of public housing in American cities such as Atlanta, Chicago, and New York, among others; and to address some of the problems found in public housing today. This paper will attempt to demonstrate the importance of public housing as a source of housing for lower- and working-class people across the United States and suggest that demolishing and privatizing public housing should not be the go-to option for policy makers.

Public Housing: A Brief History and Overview

Although publicly funded housing existed in a few cities, such as New York, before the 1937 United States Housing Act (USHA), it was this act that set the stage for public housing on a federal scale.[4] Public housing (hereafter referred to as PH) was originally built as a means of construction job creation and of providing housing for the “submerged middle class” of the Great Depression, people who were temporarily out of work.[5] Post World War II, a combination of discriminatory distribution of federal benefits, the suburban boom, and later, as Jennifer Stoloff explains, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 led many white people to leave PH in the inner cities.[6] The construction of PH accelerated into the 1950s and 60s, increasingly in the form of high-rise buildings instead of the shorter, more open buildings of the years previous.[7] Built in 1936, the former Techwood Houses of Atlanta—the first PH in the nation—were low-rise and low-density. The former Pruitt-Igoe Houses of St. Louis, built in the 1950s, were tall and dense. Both of these developments have been demolished.

Today there are approximately 1.2 million households in public housing across the nation.[8] The average annual income for a PH household is around $13,000 and 95-percent of PH residents qualify as Low Income, Very Low Income, or Extremely Low Income (defined as making an income of 80-percent of the national median, 50-percent of the national median, or less than 30-percent of the national median, respectively).[9] 15-percent of residents are seniors and nearly 20% of PH households include someone with a disability.[10] It is important to note that although the average national income of public housing residents is very low, there is some variation; residents pay about 30% of their income in rent, which for the extremely poor could mean almost no rent at all and for the others could mean many hundreds of dollars. PH is a vital source of housing for poor and working class families across the nation. Despite this, the future of PH remains perilous.

Attitudes Toward Public Housing: Is it Worth Preserving?

Unfavorable cultural attitudes toward public housing are certainly an underlying factor in its demise, as public scorn for it means that people are less likely to try to preserve it. Stereotypes of the infamous “Welfare Queen” living off government money—lazy, undeserving, and manipulative of the social safety net— color perceptions of PH residents.[11] This lifestyle may only be representative of a minority of residents, but it is persistent enough to incite widespread resentment toward people living in housing.[12] For example, according to Lawrence J. Vale, a scholar of urban design, “one recent poll intended to measure general societal attitudes toward public housing residents, commissioned by a large public housing authority, yielded such alarming results that its findings were never even released.”[13] Studies have shown that oppositional attitudes toward affordable housing (such as PH) are influenced strongly by “class and racial stereotypes and prejudice.”[14] Widespread capitalist-individualist ideology, which accepts socioeconomic inequality as just and emphasizes individual hard work and perseverance,[15] combined with racial prejudice leads many Americans to disdain residents of affordable housing. The fact that 50-percent of PH residents are non-white suggests that racism is probably a factor in opposition to PH.[16] The comments section of any online newspaper article about public housing is filled with (often racially-based) statements chastising PH residents for being lazy and entitled. PH is often seen as a symbol of “big government,” a term with negative connotations for many Americans. It is safe to say that PH is not a widely valued good, leading one pundit to declare, “Everybody hates public housing, except the low-income people who live there”—an obviously hyperbolic statement but one not devoid of any truth.[17]

But not all arguments against PH stem from a dislike for “big government.” Some social scientists think that housing creates an environment conducive to crime and other social ills, and thus, that demolition and privatization are the most effective solutions to the problems of PH.[18] By concentrating poverty, they argue, PH breeds poverty, welfare dependency, and anti-social behavior. Indeed, although the data on crime in public housing is lacking;[19] in general, violent crime occurs at a higher rate in public housing than it does elsewhere.[20] According to a 2000 HUD study, “Despite reductions in crime and gun violence [nationally], people who receive housing assistance remain twice as likely to be victims of gun violence. Nearly one person is killed each day by gunfire in the nation’s largest 100 public housing communities.”[21] Crime in PH is a problem that must be addressed if PH is to be seen as a resource worth preserving.  

Public Housing in Distress: Structural Problems

The more direct cause of the demolition of PH is that many housing developments are too decrepit to maintain. 1989 report by the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing found that 86,000 of the nation’s PH units qualified as “severely distressed.”[22] Twenty-two years later, problems in housing still persist. For example, a 2011 survey of 1,444 New York City PH residents living in 71 developments found that many residents were dissatisfied with the timeliness and effectiveness of repairs to their apartments (e.g. of cracked walls). Residents were asked to give the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) a grade of A to F in a number of different categories. 47.2% of those surveyed gave NYCHA a grade of C- in the Timeliness category and 41.4% gave the same grade in the Quality category.[23] A total of 84% of respondents said the elevators in their developments broke either weekly or monthly, making it very difficult for seniors or disabled residents to reach their apartments.[24] These problems may not appear significant on an individual level but years of disrepair can severely compromise the integrity of a building. Like all PH authorities, NYCHA depends on funding from HUD, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, a severely budgeted federal cabinet. When HUD cannot, or does not, sufficiently fund housing authorities, repairs do not get done in PH developments. This applies to many American cities outside New York.[25] It is often more cost-efficient to demolish severely decrepit buildings than to try to repair them.

HOPE VI

The National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing’s 1989 report concluded that “a new and comprehensive approach would be required to address the range of problems existing at these developments.”[26] The Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE) VI, a federal grant program enacted in 1992 that allots money to cities to revitalize decrepit or otherwise “failed” housing developments, was conceived of as one of such new and comprehensive approaches.  It is also one of the major causes of the demolition of PH. 

As of 2010, 262 HOPE VI grants, worth slightly less than $6.2 billion in total, had been awarded.[27] The purpose of these grants is to convert high-rise PH into lower, mixed income housing developments designed according to the principles of new urbanism, as described by Oscar Newman: “houses facing the streets, with . . . a mix of housing types, prices, and sizes to attract a mix of people; shopping and parks accessible via footpaths and sidewalks; a grid of streets.”[28] Whether or not HOPE VI projects have succeeded in this aim remains controversial.

HOPE VI has not been met without criticism. Many on the Left charge it with causing resident displacement[29] and homelessness among former site tenants (however, there is evidence to suggest that these claims have been exaggerated, and that the majority of HOPE VI residents are able to find new homes).[30] Another objection to HOPE VI is that the rate of return for former residents is fairly low. Some of them may be happy with their relocations, perhaps in neighborhoods with less crime and better schools; some may have wanted to return originally, but after years-long waits, they have given up; yet others might not be able to afford the higher rents of the mixed-income developments. Of all the HOPE VI grants awarded through 2003, which account for 9,400 PH units, only 48,000 (about half) of the 95,100 replacement units were to receive “the deep, permanent public housing operating subsidies necessary to reach households with very low incomes.”[31] What this means is that many of the former tenants could not have afforded to return, leading social welfare policy expert J.S. Fuerst to call HOPE VI a form of “publicly funded gentrification.”[32]

Others argue that HOPE VI projects fail to deliver on the mixed-income residency that they promise. Analysts from this camp do not doubt the importance of mixed-income, mixed-race environments—and are thus less concerned than others with issues of displacement and gentrification—but question the effectiveness of HOPE VI projects in reaching this goal. For example, a Fannie Mae 2005 study of four HOPE VI developments found that the goal of creating mixed-income spaces was not sufficiently met.[33]

Another criticism of HOPE VI is its lack of transparency and accountability.  First, HOPE VI-funded revitalization projects do not always proceed in a timely fashion. For example, in 2002, the residents of Prospect Plaza in Brooklyn, New York, were forced to leave their development so that it could be converted. To this day, the remaining three of four towers (one was demolished in 2005, leaving in its place an empty lot) remain vacant. Every month since 2005, the city spends $25,000 on security for the empty buildings.[34] Former residents are frustrated and confused about the process, which has been marked by a lack of clarity from the onset. Second, data on the whereabouts of former site tenants are often not recorded, meaning that in many cases, officials only have a vague sense of what happened to residents once they were evicted.[35]

Finally, the sense of community residents lose when they are evicted can take a toll on happiness and health. Particularly elderly residents who may have lived in a development for years feel a strong sense of attachment to their homes and communities. A study of Atlanta PH residents prior to HOPE VI-induced relocation found that over 58% felt that “public housing is home,” over 50% that it was “meaningful and important to them,” 41% that they were proud of their homes, and 41% that they would rather fix their developments than relocate.[36] Clearly, a sizable portion of these residents felt attached to their PH developments. Unsurprisingly, after being evicted due to HOPE VI, many chose to stay as close by as possible.[37] The authors conclude that “embodied in relocation is a real sense of loss” and that “dislocation can cause distress and root shock. It can disrupt community and can be difficult for the relocated residents to create new communities and social ties.”[38] Some HOPE VI tenants may be happy to relocate but others undergo considerable stress and social isolation as a result. The authors suggest that policy makers “reconsider current policies that require relocation and think about how to harness the positive sense of place found among public housing residents as a resource for renovating and revitalizing public housing communities.”[39] While it may be necessary to demolish some public housing developments, HOPE VI has been shown to yield less-than-ideal results.

Arguments for Public Housing

Not all social scientists agree with the position that public housing itself is the cause of social ills like crime and poverty. In the words Griff Tester et al., authors of “Sense of Place Among Atlanta Public Housing Residents,” “few disagree that public housing sites are undesirable living situations, but the situation is a symptom, not a cause of the residents’ poverty.”[40]  As Jeff Crump, an affordable housing specialist, put it, “the notion that the concentration of poverty is the root cause of inner-city social problems and that public housing should be demolished in order to deconcentrate the poor… [is] based on a conceptually inadequate view of urban space which leads to simplistic spatial solutions to what are complex social and spatial problems.”[41] He goes on to argue that demolition projects posited under the pretext of alleviating inner-city social ills are really a means of grabbing land from low income communities. Economists Janet Currie and Aaron Yellowitz believe that PH, though far from perfect, has “been wrongly vilified”— that it does not have negative effects on, for example, children’s educational performance.[42] 

Many studies have shown that PH is more than just not bad; it is actually good for the people who live in it. First of all, people living in affordable housing (which includes PH) have more money to spend on food and healthcare. One study found that individuals living in unsubsidized housing in Indiana were almost twice as likely to not see a doctor because they did not have enough money than people living in PH.[43] A study of low-income single mother households receiving “unit-based assistance, such as traditional public housing” found that the receipt of such assistance “is associated with a large decrease in rent burden and modest decreases in difficulty paying rent or utilities and residential crowding.”[44] Obviously, these effects are positive in terms of making the day-to-day lives of low-income single mothers easier. Individuals who would not otherwise be able to afford living in certain neighborhoods can because of PH. Housing makes it possible for people to stay in trendy, fast-gentrifying neighborhoods that they may have grown up in or otherwise feel attached to. 

Besides being good for the residents who live there, studies have shown that PH is beneficial to the economies in which it is situated.[45] PHAs spend approximately $8.1 per year in operations and capital improvements, spending that “generates another $8.2 billion in indirect and induced economic activity in the PHAs’ regional economies.”[46] Furthermore, the fact that it allows low-income individuals to stay in communities that they otherwise could not afford provides “an indirect subsidy to local employers.”[47]

It is also important to note that not all PH developments have “failed.” Even among high-rise developments, there is variation in crime rates, resident satisfaction, and quality of physical maintenance.[48] For example, J.S. Fuerst discusses the relative success of three Chicago PH developments, Long Grove House, Lake Parc Place, and Archer Courts, which he attributes to strong management and a “sufficient level of resources,” among other factors.[49] “With good management,” he concludes, “with sufficient funding… publicly high-rise public housing [sic] for low-income, female-headed families can be sanctuaries, not penitentiaries.”[50]

Overall, despite its many problems, PH in the United States is not a universal failure, and, in fact, serves the vital function of housing a sizeable portion of America’s poor and working-class. As housing attorney Peter W. Salsich, Jr. so aptly puts it, “For over seventy years, public housing has filled a valuable niche in the housing sector, one that should be preserved.”[51] Before resorting to demolition and privatization, policy-makers would be wise to implement reforms in existing PH developments to improve material conditions and quality of life.

Recommendations for Improvement

Analysts who believe in the importance of PH are more likely to try to improve existing developments and alleviate the problems found there before resorting to demolition or projects like HOPE VI. For example, the community organizations that created the 2011 “report card” survey of NYCHA residents do not believe that demolition is the answer to the woes of housing.  In fact, they argue, that a lot of the structural problems that lead to demolition could be avoided with more funding. The following are two of their recommendations to NYCHA:

• Advocate for Congress and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to increase funding for repairs and maintenance to address the $6 billion backlog of repair needs.
• Hire enough staff to have at least one maintenance worker per 100 units of housing.[52]

 

Again, although this study was conducted only in New York City, the data it uncovers and the conclusions its authors make apply to PH developments across the United States. As the authors point out, “Federal disinvestment has increased over the years, perpetuating the deterioration of the public housing stock and the shrinking of services and programs for residents. The final federal budget for fiscal year 2011 continued this trend, cutting $100 million from NYCHA alone” [emphasis added].[53] Like NYCHA, underfunded PHAs all over the country are unable to pay for repairs, leading to the deterioration of housing. 

So far, these suggestions have all been concerned with alleviating physical damage to buildings, the most direct cause of PH demolition. But as stated, unfavorable attitudes toward housing are a subtler, more indirect cause of its destruction. The following are some thoughts on how to alleviate the social ills found in PH, thereby taking away some of the stigma attached to it. 

One solution to the problem of crime in housing is to increase employment opportunities for residents. Unemployment, of course, is linked to poverty, which some analysts argue is linked to crime. Although the correlation between unemployment and crime has been disputed, it makes sense that individuals with steady employment are less likely to engage in criminal activity, or at least property crime (if not violent crime).[54] Individuals with a source of income are less likely to turn to theft and black market activities like drug dealing to make money and are less likely to engage in high-risk behavior for fear of losing their jobs. Welfare-dependency, which itself is seen as a social ill, would also, of course, decrease with more job opportunities and higher employment rates. 

The authors of the NYCHA report card found that about 21% of survey respondents had lost a job in the past year, and about 30% were skilled in construction and were interested in doing construction work for NYCHA.[55] However, only about 26% had heard about NYCHA’s Resident Employment Program, which allocates a certain number of jobs to low-income residents.[56] Not only is NYCHA failing to inform residents of job opportunities, the Resident Employment Program “has also failed to hire the minimum number of residents or significantly impact the economic opportunities available to them.”[57] In keeping with the current interest in “green jobs,” the authors propose that NYCHA “Allocate $5 million to develop and implement a pilot green jobs training program, which would offer specialized training for residents to learn how to retrofit existing public housing buildings and property”[58] as well as:  

• Create a Workforce Development Center to provide a central place for public housing residents to receive job training and career and work placement services, and
• Increase outreach and public education efforts to ensure that more residents are aware of training and employment opportunities through NYCHA and its contractors. To do so, NYCHA should increase use of its website, electronic communication tools and mailings, and increase collaboration with community based-organizations and non-official resident leaders.[59]

In summary, the authors would like to see NYCHA provide more job training and work placement services to its residents and to better advertise these opportunities, which could potentially increase employment among PH residents—thereby, perhaps, lowering property crime rates and welfare-dependency.  

Changes in policing strategies might also help reduce crime. Most PH residents are working or lower class and of color, two often-overlapping groups that are disproportionately targeted by law enforcement agents.  Case in point, a 1999 report commissioned by the New York State attorney general “found that the New York City Police Department stopped Blacks…four times more frequently than Whites.”[60] Numerous other studies have yielded similar results. Unfair treatment at the hands of the law means that low-income people of color are likely to be weary of the police. This is especially true of African Americans.[61] Blacks are much more likely than Whites to feel unfairly targeted because of their race and that they receive inadequate protection. It is no surprise that many individuals of color feel that, as one young woman put it, “More police makes it less safe; anything can happen with police around.”[62]

Clearly, unfair treatment and police brutality create a troubled relationship—a culture of mutual distrust—between PH residents and law enforcement agencies. Better police training on how to interact with residents might help alleviate abuse and the distrust that goes along with it, making PH safer for everyone. Community-based approaches to policing have been shown to “increase community safety through problem- solving and prevention, community engagement, organizational development, and community partnerships.”[63] Such approaches might include conducting surveys of residents’ opinions on police performance; educating community members about crime-prevention techniques; establishing community-led “watch dog” committees; creating police partnerships with non-profit organizations and other public-sector agencies; and the use of civilian volunteers. These techniques have been shown to effectively address problems in an individualized manner by taking into account community concerns.[64] The implementation of community-based policing strategies in PH might help reduce crime, making PH safer, more sustainable, and more defensible as a public investment.

In general, increased HUD funding for PHAs, increased employment opportunities, the implementation of community-based policing initiatives, and the strengthening of management and oversight might alleviate some of the social ills that plague PH—if not in every case, at least in many. Considering the shortcomings of demolition and privatization initiatives such as HOPE VI (in particular, lack of institutional accountability and tenant displacement, leading to gentrification and, often, a sense of personal loss) and the importance of PH as a source of housing for low-income and working-class people, policy-makers should consider implementing the sorts of reforms outlined above before resorting to demolition.

Conclusion

The above suggestions are intended to address the structural problems that lead to the demolition of housing as well as the social ills that create public disdain for it. Of course, to implement these plans on a wide scale would take time, patience, and above all, money—lots of it. Especially in the midst of an economic recession, even supporters of PH might wonder if there is simply enough funding to preserve it. This is a valid concern.

Ultimately, to save housing will require more than just a reallocation of funds, but a fundamental change in the way Americans look at and value public services. There is a famous saying: “It'll be a great day when education gets all the money it wants and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy bombers” (source unknown). While simplistic, this proverb asks us to reconsider the way we take for granted the distribution of government resources. It is arguable that PH, like public education and fire department services, is not a superfluous act of charity, but a fundamental component of a just society. By providing low-income and working-class people with a place to live, often in neighborhoods and communities to which they are attached and which they would not otherwise be able to afford, and allowing low-income and working-class people to afford healthcare and other vital necessities, PH acts as an important resource.

Moving forward, perhaps the best way to address PH’s problems is on a case-by-case basis. Some deteriorating buildings may still be saved and others may need to be demolished. In the event of demolition and the implementation of HOPE VI, attempts should be made to ensure that resident input is taken into account; that former residents are given the resources they require to move into adequate housing elsewhere; that a clear plan is in place for post-demolition construction (to avoid situations like Prospect Plaza); and that as many residents as possible are able to return to their homes, especially in “trendy” or commercially desirable neighborhoods at risk of serious gentrification.

Notes

• [1] Leslie Eaton, “In New Orleans, Plan to Raze Low-Income Housing Draws Protest,” New York Times (December 14, 2007).
• [2] Ibid.
• [3] Fernandez, “New York Plans to Topple Public Housing Towers,” New York Times (February 5, 2010).  
• [4] Stoloff, “A Brief History of Public Housing,” 2.
• [5] Ibid., 1.  
• [6] Ibid., 6.
• [7] Ibid., 18.
• [8] United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), “HUDS’s Public Housing Program.”
• [9] United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), “Resident Characteristics Report,” (November 30, 2011).
• [10] National Center for Health in Public Housing, “About Residents of Public Housing,” (2012).
• [11] For a discussion of the gendered, racialized “welfare queen” stereotype, see Kohler-Hausmann, Julilly, “‘The Crime of Survival’: Fraud Prosecutions, Community Surveillance, and the Original ‘Welfare Queens,’” Journal of Social History 41, 2 (2007), 329-354.
• [12] For a discussion of the stigmatization of PH residents, see Vale, Lawrence J., Reclaiming Public Housing: A Half Century of Struggle in Three Public Neighborhoods (Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press, 2002), 14-17.
• [13] Ibid., 16.
• [14] Tighe, J. Rosie, “How Race and Class Stereotyping Shapes Attitudes Toward Affordable Housing,” Housing Studies 27, 7 (2012), 962.
• [15] Ibid., 964.
• [16] United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), “Resident Characteristics Report,” March 31, 2013.
• [17] Peter Dreier, “Does Public Housing Have a Future?” Talking Points Memo (June 8 2010).
• [18] For example, Popkin, Susan J., Victoria E. Gwiasda, Lynn M. Olson, Dennis P. Rosenbaum, and Larry Buron, The Hidden War: Crime and the Tragedy of Public Housing in Chicago (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2000). Popkin, in particular, is an advocate for demolition, privatization, and relocation initiatives such as HOPE VI.
• [19] Holzman, Harold R. and Lanny Piper, “Measuring Crime in Public Housing: Methodological Issues and Research Strategies,” Quantitative Criminology 14, 4 (1998), 331; Renzetti, Claire and Shana L. Maier, “‘Private’ Crime in Public Housing Violent Victimization, Fear of Crime and Social Isolation Among Women Public Housing Residents,” Women’s Health and Urban Life 1, 2 (2002), 46; National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing, “Final Report to Congress and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development” (1992), 107.
• [20] For more information on crime in public housing, see National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing, “Final Report to Congress and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development,” xiii, 63-67, 68-69, 102, 107.
• [21] The White House Office of the Press Secretary, “President Clinton Releases New Report on Gun Violence in Public Housing” (February 16, 2000).
• [22] Popkin et al., “A Decade of Hope VI: Research Findings and Policy Changes,” The Urban Institute (2004), 1.
• [23] Community Project of the Urban Justice Center, “A Report Card for the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA): Residents’ Evaluation of NYCHA and Recommendations for Improvement” (2011), iv. 
• [24] Ibid., 8. 
• [25] For an analysis of a similar situation in Chicago, see Popkin, Susan J., Victoria E. Gwiasda, Lynn M. Olson, Dennis P. Rosenbaum, and Larry Buron, The Hidden War: Crime and the Tragedy of Public Housing in Chicago (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2000).
• [26] Popkin et al., “A Decade of HOPE VI,” 1.
• [27] US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), “HUD Awards Six Housing Authorities $113.6 Million to Revitalize Public Housing, Transform Surrounding Neighborhood” (June 1, 2010).
• [28] Newman, “Creating Defensible Space,” Center for Urban Policy Research (1996).
• [29] Salsich, Peter W., Jr., “Does America Need Public Housing?” George Mason Law Review 19, 1 (2011), 707-708.
• [30] McInnis et al., “Are HOPE VI Families At Greater Risk for Homelessness?” The Urban Institute (2007): 1.  
• [31] Popkin et al., “A Decade of HOPE VI,” 21.
• [32] Fuerst, J.S. and D. Bradford Hunt, When Public Housing Was Paradise: Building Community in Chicago (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2003).
• [33] Varady et al., “Attracting Middle-Income Families in the Hope VI Public Housing,” Journal of Urban Affairs 27, 2.22 (2005), 161. 
• [34] Fernandez, “New York Plans to Topple Public Housing Towers,” 2010.
• [35] United States General Accounting Office, “Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate: HOPE VI Resident Issues and Changes in Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites,” (November 2003), 8.
• [36] Tester et al., “Sense of Place Among Atlanta Public Housing Residents,” Journal of Urban Health 88, 3 (2011), 446.  
• [37] Ibid., 437.
• [38] Ibid., 449.
• [39] Ibid., 437.
• [40] Ibid., 449.  
• [41] Jeff Crump, “Deconcentration by demolition: public housing, poverty, and urban policy,” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 20 (2002), 581. Also see Roncek, Dennis W., Ralph Bell, and Jeffrey M.A. Francik, “Housing Projects and Crime: Testing a Proximity Hypothesis,” Social Problems 29,2 (1981): 151-166.  
• [42] Currie and Yelowitz, “Are Public Housing Projects Good for Kids?” Journal of Public Economics 75 (2000), 121.
• [43] Lubell et al., “Framing the Issues—The Positive Impacts of Affordable Housing on Health,” Center for Housing Policy (2007), 4.
• [44] Berger, Lawrence M., Therese Heintz, Wendy B. Naidich, and Marcia K. Meyers, “Subsidized Housing and Household Hardship Among Low-Income Single-Mother Households,” Journal of Marriage and Family 70, 4 (2008), 934.
• [45] Econsult Corporation, “Assessing the Benefits of Public Housing: Final Report” (January 2007).
• [46] Ibid., 4.
• [47] Ibid., 4.
• [48] Fuerst and Hunt, When Public Housing Was Paradise, 205. According to the author, the policy of demolishing PH developments “ignores numerous high-rise buildings that today serve low-income families quite well.” Vale, Reclaiming Public Housing, 2. “Despite all the attention given to the most egregious failures of the system, public housing has not faltered everywhere equally.”
• [49] Fuerst and Hunt, When Public Housing Was Paradise, 207.
• [50] Ibid., 209.
• [51] Salsich, “Does America Need Public Housing?” 736.  
• [52] Community Project of the Urban Justice Center, “A Report Card for the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA): Residents’ Evaluation of NYCHA and Recommendations for Improvement,” 7.
• [53] Ibid., 1.
• [54] Raphael and Winter-Ebmer, “Identifying the Effect of Unemployment on Crime” Journal of Law and Economics 44, 1 (2001), 259. 
• [55] Community Project of the Urban Justice Center, “A Report Card for the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA): Residents’ Evaluation of NYCHA and Recommendations for Improvement,” v.
• [56] Ibid.,  11.
• [57] Ibid., 11.
• [58] Ibid., 12.
• [59] Ibid., 12.  
• [60] Fine et al., “‘Anything Can Happen With Police Around’: Urban Youth Evaluate Strategies of Surveillance in Public Places” Journal of Social Issues 59, 1 (2003), 43.
• [61] Weitzer and Tuch, “Race, Class, and Perceptions of Discrimination by the Police” Crime and Delinquency 45, 4 (October 1999), 494. 
• [62] Fine et al., “‘Anything Can Happen With Police Around,’”142.  
• [63] Community Project of the Urban Justice Center, “A Report Card for the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA): Residents’ Evaluation of NYCHA and Recommendations for Improvement,” 10.
• [64] Community-Oriented Policing, “Award-Winning Community Policing Strategies” (September 2007).

Bibliography

• Berger, Lawrence M., Therese Heintz, Wendy B. Naidich, and Marcia K. Meyers. “Subsidized Housing and Household Hardship Among Low-Income Single-Mother Households.” Journal of Marriage and Family 70, 4 (2008): 934-949.
• Community Development Project of the Urban Justice Center with CAAV: Organizing Asian Communities, Community Voices Heard, Families United for Racial and Economic Equality, and Mothers on the Move with the Community Development Project of the Urban Justice Center. “A Report Card for the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA): Residents’ Evaluation of NYCHA and Recommendations for Improvement.” August 2011. Online.
• http://cdp-ny.org/report/nychareportcard.pdf.
• Econsult Corporation. “Assessing the Economic Benefits of Public Housing: Final Report.” Submitted to the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities (January 2007).
• Crump, Jeff. “Deconcentration by demolition: public housing, poverty, and urban policy.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 20 (2002): 581-596.
• Currie, Janet and Aaron Yelowitz. “Are public housing projects good for kids?” Journal of Public Economics 75, 1 (2000): 99-124.
• Dreier, Peter. “Does Public Housing Have a Future?” Talking Points Memo. June 8, 2010. Online.
• http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/08/does_public_housing_have_a_future/.
• Eaton, Leslie. “In New Orleans, Plan to Raze Low-Income Housing Draws Protest.” New York Times. December 14, 2007. Online. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/us/nationalspecial/14orleans.html?_r=0.
• Fernandez, Manny. “New York Plans to Topple Public Housing Towers.” The New York Times. February 5, 2010. Online.
• http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/nyregion/06demolish.html.
• Fields, Carlos, Community-Oriented Policing Strategies (COPS). “Award-Winning Community Policing Strategies: A Report for the International Association of Chiefs of Police Community Policing Committee.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2007. www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/e08071596.pdf.
• Fine, Michelle, Nick Freudenberg, Yasser Payne, Tiffany Perkins, Kersha Smith, Katya Wanzer. “‘Anything Can Happen With Police Around’: Urban Youth Evaluate Strategies of Surveillance in Public Places.” Journal of Social Issues 59, 1 (April 2003): 141-158.
• Fuerst, J.S. and D. Bradford Hunt. When Public Housing Was Paradise: Building Community in Chicago. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2003.
• Holzman, Harold R. and Lanny Piper. “Measuring Crime in Public Housing: Methodological Issues and Research Strategies.” Quantitative Criminology 14, 4 (1998): 331-351.
• “HOPE VI Resident Issues and Changes in Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites.” Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate. United States General Accounting Office. May 2003. Online.
• http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04109.pdf.
• Kohler-Hausmann, Julilly. “‘The Crime of Survival’: Fraud Prosecutions, Community Surveillance, and the Original ‘Welfare Queens.’” Journal of Social History 41, 2 (2007): 329-354.
• Lohr, Kathy. “Atlanta Housing Demolition Sparks Outcry.” All Things Considered, National Public Radio. 10 October 2011. Online.
• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87964901.
• Lubell, Jeffrey, Rosalyn Crain, and Rebecca Cohen. “Framing the Issues—The Positive Impacts of Affordable Housing on Health.” Center For Housing Policy. July 2007. Online.
• McInnis, Debi, Larry Buron, and Susan J. Popkin. “Are HOPE VI Families At Greater Risk for Homelessness?” The Urban Institute. June 2007. Online.
• National Center for Health in Public Housing. “About Residents of Public Housing.” http://www.nhlp.org/. 2012.
• http://www.nchph.org/about-residents-of-public-housing/. 
• National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing. “Final Report to Congress and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.” Washington, DC: National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing, 1992.  
• Newman, Oscar. “Creating Defensible Space.” Center for Urban Policy Research. April 1996. Online.
• http://www.huduser.org/portal/publications/pdf/def.pdf.
• Popkin, Susan J., Bruce Katz, Mary K. Cunningham, Karen D. Brown, Jeremy Gustafson, and Margery A. Turner. “A Decade of Hope VI: Research Findings and Policy Changes.” The Urban Institute. May 2004. Online.
• Popkin, Susan J., Victoria E. Gwiasda, Lynn M. Olson, Dennis P. Rosenbaum, and Larry Buron. The Hidden War: Crime and the Tragedy of Public Housing in Chicago. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2000.
• Raphael, Steven and Rudolf Winter-Ebmer. “Identifying the Effect of Unemployment on Crime” The Journal of Law and Economics 44, 1 (2001): 259-283.
• Renzetti, Claire and Shana L. Maier. “‘Private’ Crime in Public Housing Violent Victimization, Fear of Crime and Social Isolation Among Women Public Housing Residents,” Women’s Health and Urban Life 1, 2 (2002): 46- 65.
• Roncek, Dennis W., Ralph Bell, and Jeffrey M.A. Francik. “Housing Projects and Crime: Testing a Proximity Hypothesis.” Social Problems 29, 2 (1981): 151-166.
• Salsich, Peter W., Jr., “Does America Need Public Housing?” George Mason Law Review 19, 1 (2011): 689-738.
• Stoloff, Jennifer. "A Brief History of Public Housing." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. August 14, 2004. Online.
• http://reengageinc.org/research/brief_history_public_housing.pdf.
• Tester, Griff, Erin Ruel, Donald C. Reitzes and Deirdre Oakley. “Sense of Place Among Atlanta Public Housing Residents.” Journal of Urban Health 88, 3 (2011): 436-453.  
• Tighe, J. Rosie. “How Race and Class Stereotyping Shapes Attitudes Toward Affordable Housing.” Housing Studies 27, 7 (2012): 962-983.
• Weitzer, Ronald and Steven A. Tuch. “Race, Class, and Perceptions of Discrimination by the Police.” Crime and Delinquency 45, 4 (October 1999): 494-507.
• The White House Office of the Press Secretary. “President Clinton Releases New Report on Gun Violence in Public Housing.” February 16, 2011. Online.
• United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). “Resident Characteristics Report.” November 30, 2011. Online.
• United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), “Resident Characteristics Report.” March 31, 2013. Online.
• United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). “HUD’s Public Housing Program.” Portal.hud.gov. Online.
• United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),.“HUD Awards Six Housing Authorities $113.6 Million to Revitalize Public Housing, Transform Surrounding Neighborhood.” June 1, 2010.
• United States General Accounting Office. “Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Housing and  Transportation, Committee on Banking,  Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate: HOPE VI Resident Issues and Changes in Neighborhoods Surrounding Grant Sites,” (November 2003).
• Vale, Lawrence J. Reclaiming Public Housing: A Half Century of Struggle in Three Public Neighborhoods. Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press, 2002.
• Varady, David P., Jeffrey A. Raffel, Stephanie Sweeney, and Latina Denson. “Attracting Middle-Income Families in the Hope VI Public Housing.” Journal of Urban Affairs 7, 2. 22 (April 2005): 149-164.