Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Housing Choice Vouchers and Escaping Neighborhood Crime

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_212

Overview

The Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) provides relocation opportunities for low-income families to find better places to live. In examining why HCVP, participants want to relocate research generally focuses on the “pull” factors of why low-income families want to relocate. Most reasons for relocation are related to some benefit the new neighborhood offers, such as access to better schools, jobs, housing stock, and other amenities to improve their lives. Often overlooked are the “push” factors that drive residents from a neighborhood. Much research on these push factors has focused on life-course changes in family structure, career options, or some financial gain. One significant push factor that uniformly effects residential satisfaction is how safe families feel with respect to witnessing or being victims of crime in their neighborhood. Families who use a voucher to relocate are no exception to this concept and have stated across numerous studies that the primary reason...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank John Markovic from the Community Oriented Policing Services Office (COPS) of the US Department of Justice, Paul Joice of the US Department of Housing & Urban Development, Mark Stallo of the Dallas Police Department, and Emma Wilson of Montgomery College for providing valuable comments toward improving the clarity of this entry. We would also like to thank Sue-Ming Yang for giving us the opportunity to include this work.

The views expressed in this entry are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the official positions or policies of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development or the US Government.

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Austin DM, Furr AL, Spine M (2002) The effects of neighborhood conditions on perceptions of safety. J Crim Justice 30:417–427Google Scholar
  2. Banks JG, Banks P (2004) Chapter 9, The decline of public housing. In: The unintended consequences: family and community, the victims of isolated poverty. University Press of America, Lanham, pp 63–74Google Scholar
  3. Basolo V, Strong D (2002) Understanding the neighborhood: from residents; perceptions and needs to action. Hous Policy Debate 13(1):83–105Google Scholar
  4. Baumer TL (1980) Personal protective behaviors and the threat of crime: a comparative analysis. Final report, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Briggs X, Comey J, Weismann G (2010) Struggling to stay out of high-poverty neighborhoods: housing choice and locations in moving to Opportunity’s first decade. Hous Policy Debate 20(3):383–427Google Scholar
  6. Buck N (2001) Identifying neighbourhood effects on social exclusion. Urban Stud 38(12):2251–2275Google Scholar
  7. Buron L, Patrabansh S (2008) Are census variables highly correlated with housing choice voucher holder’s perceptions of the quality of their neighborhoods? Cityscape: J Policy Dev Res 10(1):157–183Google Scholar
  8. Bursik RJ, Grasmick HG (1993) Neighborhoods and crime: the dimensions of effective community control. Lexington Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. DeFrances CJ, Smith SK (1998) Perceptions of neighborhood crime, 1995. Special Report. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Dugan L (1999) The effect of criminal victimization on a household’s moving decision. Criminology 37(4):903–929Google Scholar
  11. Earls FJ, Brooks-Gunn J, Raudenbush SW, Sampson RJ (1995) Project on human development in Chicago neighborhoods: community survey, 1994–1995. ICPSR-2766: individual-level data codebook. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [Producer and Distributor], Ann Arbor, 2007-10-29. doi:10.3886/ICPSR02766.v3Google Scholar
  12. Fagan J, Davies G (2004) The natural history of neighborhood violence. J Contem Crim Justice 20(2):127–147Google Scholar
  13. Fauth RC, Leventhal T, Brooks-Gunn J (2004) Short-term effects of moving from public housing in poor middle-class neighborhoods on low-income, minority adults’ outcomes. Soc Sci Med 59:2271–2284Google Scholar
  14. Friedrichs J, Blasius J (2003) Social norms in distressed neighbourhoods: testing the Wilson hypothesis. Hous Stud 18(6):807–826Google Scholar
  15. Galster G (1987) Identifying the correlates of dwelling satisfaction: an empirical critique. Environ Behav 19(5):539–568Google Scholar
  16. Galster GC, Killen SP (1995) The geography of metropolitan opportunity: a reconnaissance and conceptual framework. Hous Policy Debate 6(1):7–43Google Scholar
  17. Gibbs JJ, Hanrahan KJ (1993) Safety demand and supply: an alternative to fear of crime. Justice Q 10(3):369–394Google Scholar
  18. Gilderbloom J, Brazley MD, Pan Z (2005) HOPE VI: a study of housing and neighborhood satisfaction. J Environ Sustain 11:1–26Google Scholar
  19. Goering J, Feins JD (2003) Choosing a better life: evaluating the moving to opportunity social experiment. The Urban Institute Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Harris D. R. (2001) Why are whites and blacks averse to black neighbors? Soc Sci Res 30:100–116Google Scholar
  21. Hipp JR (2009) Specifying the determinants of neighborhood satisfaction: a robust assessment in 24 metropolitan areas over four time points. Soc Forces 88(1):395–424Google Scholar
  22. Hipp JR, Tita G, Greenbaum RT (2009) Drive-bys and trade-ups: the impact of crime on residential mobility patterns in Los Angeles. Soc Forces 87:1777–1812Google Scholar
  23. Jones R, Kaminsky D, Roanhouse M (1979) Problems affecting low rent public housing projects: a field study. Final report, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Katz LF, Kling JR, Liebman JB (2001) Moving to opportunity in Boston: early results of a randomized mobility experiment. Q J Econ 116:607–654Google Scholar
  25. Keels M, Duncan GJ, Deluca S, Mendenhall R, Rosenbaum J (2005) Fifteen years later: Can residential mobility programs provide a long-term escape from neighborhood segregation, crime, and poverty? Demography 42(1):51–73Google Scholar
  26. Kling JR, Leibman JB, Katz L, Sanbonmatsu L (2004) Moving to opportunity and tranquility neighborhood effects on adult self sufficiency and health from a randomized housing voucher experiment. Working paper #481, Industrial Relations Section, Princeton UniversityGoogle Scholar
  27. Krivo LJ, Peterson RD (1996) Extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods and urban crime. Soc Forces 75:619–650Google Scholar
  28. Lines JK (1995) Comment on Lawrence J. Vale’s “Beyond the problem projects paradigm: defining and revitalizing ‘severely distressed’ public housing. Hous Policy Debate 4(2):183–198Google Scholar
  29. Lu M (1999) Determinants of residential satisfaction: ordered logit vs. regression models. Growth Chang 30:264–287Google Scholar
  30. Moran J (2012) Waukegan Officials Rap Section 8 Housing Units. Lake County News-Sun. Chicago-Sun Times Publishers, January. http://newssun.suntimes.com/news/9813284-418/waukegan-officials-rap-section-8-housing-units.html
  31. Musterd S, Ostendorf W, de Vos S (2003) Neighbourhood effects and social mobility: a longitudinal analysis. Hous Stud 18(6):877–892Google Scholar
  32. Orr L, Feins JD, Jacob R, Beecroft E, Sanbonmatsu L, Katz LF, Liebman JB, Kling JR (2003) Moving to opportunity for fair housing demonstration program: interim impacts evaluation. Moving to opportunity interim impacts evaluation. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development by Abt Associates, Inc., and the National Bureau of Economic Research. U.S., Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Overman HG (2002) Neighbourhood effects in large and small neighbourhoods. Urban Stud 39(1):117–130Google Scholar
  34. Popkin SJ, Harris LE, Cunningham MK (2003) Families in transition: a qualitative analysis of the MTO experience. Final report, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development by Abt Associates, Inc., and the National Bureau of Economic Research. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. Roman CG, Chalfin A (2008) Fear of walking outdoors: a multilevel ecological analysis of crime and disorder. Am J Prev Med 34(4):306–312Google Scholar
  36. Rosenbaum J (2001) Moving and changing: how places change people who move into them. Working paper, Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern UniversityGoogle Scholar
  37. Ross LM (2011) The impact of housing vouchers on renters neighborhood satisfaction – understanding the perceptions and constraints among assisted and unassisted renters. Selected paper for the American housing survey user conference, Washington, DC, MarchGoogle Scholar
  38. Rossi PH (1980) Why families move, 2nd edn. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  39. Rountree PW, Land KC (1996) Perceived risk versus fear of crime: empirical evidence of conceptually distinct reactions in survey data. Soc Forces 74(4):1353–1376Google Scholar
  40. Sampson R, Groves WB (1989) Community structure and crime: testing social disorganization theory. Am J Sociol 94:774–802Google Scholar
  41. Sampson RJ, Morenoff JD, Gannon-Rowley T (2002) Assessing neighborhood effects: social processes and new directions in research. Annu Rev Sociol 28:443–478Google Scholar
  42. Sharkey P (2008) The intergenerational transmission of context. Am J Sociol 113(4):931–969Google Scholar
  43. Shaw C, McKay HD (1942) Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  44. Skogan WG (1990) Disorder and decline: crime and the spiral of decay in American neighborhoods. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Turnham J, Michlin N, Locke G, Wood M, Baker M (2003) The voucher homeownership program assessment, vol I. Final report, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development by Abt Associates, Inc., and the National Bureau of Economic Research. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  46. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (2010) Public and Indian housing tenant-based rental assistance: 2012 summary statement and initiatives. http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=Transform_R_Assis_2012.pdf
  47. Vale LJ (1995) Beyond the problem projects paradigm: defining and revitalizing “severely distressed” public housing. Hous Policy Debate 4(2):147–174Google Scholar
  48. Varady DP, Preiser WFE (1998) Scattered-site public housing and housing satisfaction. J Am Plann Assoc 64(2):189–207Google Scholar
  49. Varady DP, Walker CC, Wang X (2001) Voucher recipient achievement of improved housing conditions in the US: do moving distance and relocation services matter? Urban Stud 38(8):1273–1304Google Scholar
  50. Weisburd DL, Bushway S, Lum C, Yang S-M (2004) Trajectories of crime at places: a longitudinal study of street segments in the city of Seattle. Criminology 42(2):283–321Google Scholar
  51. Wilson RE (2012) Point of contention: defining neighborhoods. Cityscape: J Policy Dev Res 14(2):219Google Scholar
  52. Wilson JQ, Kelling GL (1982) Broken windows: the police and neighborhood safety. Atl Mon 249:29–38Google Scholar
  53. Winnick L (1995) The triumph of housing allowance programs: how a fundamental policy conflict was resolved. Cityscape: J Policy Dev Res 1(3):95–121Google Scholar
  54. Wolpert J (1965) Behavioral aspects of the decision to migrate. Pap Proc Reg Sci Assoc 15:159–169Google Scholar
  55. Xie M, McDowall D (2008) Escaping crime: the effects of direct and indirect victimization on moving. Criminology 46(4):809–839Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Office of Policy Development and ResearchU.S. Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmentWashingtonUSA