The Poverty Deconcentration Imperative and Public Housing Transformation
Public housing has been on the chopping block for almost two decades now in an effort to deconcentrate poverty. In 1992 the federal government created the Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE) VI program. HOPE VI is driven by the assumption that deconcentrating neighborhood‐level povert...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Sociology compass 2011-09, Vol.5 (9), p.824-833 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 833 |
---|---|
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | 824 |
container_title | Sociology compass |
container_volume | 5 |
creator | Oakley, Deirdre Ward, Chandra Reid, Lesley Ruel, Erin |
description | Public housing has been on the chopping block for almost two decades now in an effort to deconcentrate poverty. In 1992 the federal government created the Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE) VI program. HOPE VI is driven by the assumption that deconcentrating neighborhood‐level poverty will yield better access to upward mobility opportunities for former public housing residents. To accomplish this, existing public housing is demolished and replaced with mixed‐income developments. Public housing residents are relocated, many with Housing Choice Voucher subsidies to private‐market rental housing. However, by its very definition mixed income means that only a small percentage of former residents get the opportunity to return. Do voucher relocated residents end up in lower poverty neighborhoods with greater upward mobility opportunities? We examine the spatial organization of relocation within the critical discourse on the deconcentration imperative. We highlight Atlanta because it recently became the first city in the nation to eliminate all of its public housing. Findings reveal that voucher relocatees end up in neighborhoods with modestly less poverty than the public housing neighborhoods they left. Questions remain about what poverty deconcentration means vis‐à‐vis policy goals. We provide recommendations for future research. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00405.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_925711641</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>925711641</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3835-306260f9636086d35bcc4af2829529f1325b5317acd1d2578d968c94f391f40a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkDtPwzAYRSMEEqXwH7wxJfgRO_HAgAq0FRVFIgg2y3VsSMmj2Glp_z1OgypGvHxX-u6xrRMEAMEI-XO1jFBCUcghhhGGCEUQxpBG26NgcFgc_8mnwZlzSwgZ5pAMgkn2ocFTs9G23YFbrZpa6bq1si2aGkyrle7iRgNZ5-BpvSgLBSbN2hX1O8isrJ1pbLUvnwcnRpZOX_zOYfByf5eNJuFsPp6ObmahIimhIfEPM2g4IwymLCd0oVQsDU4xp5gbRDBdUIISqXKUY5qkOWep4rEhHJkYSjIMLvt7V7b5WmvXiqpwSpelrLX_mOAeQojFyDfTvqls45zVRqxsUUm7EwiKzp1Yik6L6LSIzp3YuxNbj1736HdR6t2_OfE8HxGfPB_2fOFavT3w0n4KlpCEitfHsWDxQwYpZeKN_ACdbYLY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>925711641</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Poverty Deconcentration Imperative and Public Housing Transformation</title><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Oakley, Deirdre ; Ward, Chandra ; Reid, Lesley ; Ruel, Erin</creator><creatorcontrib>Oakley, Deirdre ; Ward, Chandra ; Reid, Lesley ; Ruel, Erin</creatorcontrib><description>Public housing has been on the chopping block for almost two decades now in an effort to deconcentrate poverty. In 1992 the federal government created the Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE) VI program. HOPE VI is driven by the assumption that deconcentrating neighborhood‐level poverty will yield better access to upward mobility opportunities for former public housing residents. To accomplish this, existing public housing is demolished and replaced with mixed‐income developments. Public housing residents are relocated, many with Housing Choice Voucher subsidies to private‐market rental housing. However, by its very definition mixed income means that only a small percentage of former residents get the opportunity to return. Do voucher relocated residents end up in lower poverty neighborhoods with greater upward mobility opportunities? We examine the spatial organization of relocation within the critical discourse on the deconcentration imperative. We highlight Atlanta because it recently became the first city in the nation to eliminate all of its public housing. Findings reveal that voucher relocatees end up in neighborhoods with modestly less poverty than the public housing neighborhoods they left. Questions remain about what poverty deconcentration means vis‐à‐vis policy goals. We provide recommendations for future research.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1751-9020</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1751-9020</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00405.x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Atlanta, Georgia ; Discourse ; Federal Government ; Housing ; Neighborhoods ; Poverty ; Public Housing ; Residential Preferences ; Residents</subject><ispartof>Sociology compass, 2011-09, Vol.5 (9), p.824-833</ispartof><rights>2011 The Authors. Sociology Compass © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3835-306260f9636086d35bcc4af2829529f1325b5317acd1d2578d968c94f391f40a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3835-306260f9636086d35bcc4af2829529f1325b5317acd1d2578d968c94f391f40a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9020.2011.00405.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9020.2011.00405.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,33775,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Oakley, Deirdre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ward, Chandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reid, Lesley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruel, Erin</creatorcontrib><title>The Poverty Deconcentration Imperative and Public Housing Transformation</title><title>Sociology compass</title><description>Public housing has been on the chopping block for almost two decades now in an effort to deconcentrate poverty. In 1992 the federal government created the Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE) VI program. HOPE VI is driven by the assumption that deconcentrating neighborhood‐level poverty will yield better access to upward mobility opportunities for former public housing residents. To accomplish this, existing public housing is demolished and replaced with mixed‐income developments. Public housing residents are relocated, many with Housing Choice Voucher subsidies to private‐market rental housing. However, by its very definition mixed income means that only a small percentage of former residents get the opportunity to return. Do voucher relocated residents end up in lower poverty neighborhoods with greater upward mobility opportunities? We examine the spatial organization of relocation within the critical discourse on the deconcentration imperative. We highlight Atlanta because it recently became the first city in the nation to eliminate all of its public housing. Findings reveal that voucher relocatees end up in neighborhoods with modestly less poverty than the public housing neighborhoods they left. Questions remain about what poverty deconcentration means vis‐à‐vis policy goals. We provide recommendations for future research.</description><subject>Atlanta, Georgia</subject><subject>Discourse</subject><subject>Federal Government</subject><subject>Housing</subject><subject>Neighborhoods</subject><subject>Poverty</subject><subject>Public Housing</subject><subject>Residential Preferences</subject><subject>Residents</subject><issn>1751-9020</issn><issn>1751-9020</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkDtPwzAYRSMEEqXwH7wxJfgRO_HAgAq0FRVFIgg2y3VsSMmj2Glp_z1OgypGvHxX-u6xrRMEAMEI-XO1jFBCUcghhhGGCEUQxpBG26NgcFgc_8mnwZlzSwgZ5pAMgkn2ocFTs9G23YFbrZpa6bq1si2aGkyrle7iRgNZ5-BpvSgLBSbN2hX1O8isrJ1pbLUvnwcnRpZOX_zOYfByf5eNJuFsPp6ObmahIimhIfEPM2g4IwymLCd0oVQsDU4xp5gbRDBdUIISqXKUY5qkOWep4rEhHJkYSjIMLvt7V7b5WmvXiqpwSpelrLX_mOAeQojFyDfTvqls45zVRqxsUUm7EwiKzp1Yik6L6LSIzp3YuxNbj1736HdR6t2_OfE8HxGfPB_2fOFavT3w0n4KlpCEitfHsWDxQwYpZeKN_ACdbYLY</recordid><startdate>201109</startdate><enddate>201109</enddate><creator>Oakley, Deirdre</creator><creator>Ward, Chandra</creator><creator>Reid, Lesley</creator><creator>Ruel, Erin</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201109</creationdate><title>The Poverty Deconcentration Imperative and Public Housing Transformation</title><author>Oakley, Deirdre ; Ward, Chandra ; Reid, Lesley ; Ruel, Erin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3835-306260f9636086d35bcc4af2829529f1325b5317acd1d2578d968c94f391f40a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Atlanta, Georgia</topic><topic>Discourse</topic><topic>Federal Government</topic><topic>Housing</topic><topic>Neighborhoods</topic><topic>Poverty</topic><topic>Public Housing</topic><topic>Residential Preferences</topic><topic>Residents</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Oakley, Deirdre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ward, Chandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reid, Lesley</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruel, Erin</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Sociology compass</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Oakley, Deirdre</au><au>Ward, Chandra</au><au>Reid, Lesley</au><au>Ruel, Erin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Poverty Deconcentration Imperative and Public Housing Transformation</atitle><jtitle>Sociology compass</jtitle><date>2011-09</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>5</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>824</spage><epage>833</epage><pages>824-833</pages><issn>1751-9020</issn><eissn>1751-9020</eissn><abstract>Public housing has been on the chopping block for almost two decades now in an effort to deconcentrate poverty. In 1992 the federal government created the Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE) VI program. HOPE VI is driven by the assumption that deconcentrating neighborhood‐level poverty will yield better access to upward mobility opportunities for former public housing residents. To accomplish this, existing public housing is demolished and replaced with mixed‐income developments. Public housing residents are relocated, many with Housing Choice Voucher subsidies to private‐market rental housing. However, by its very definition mixed income means that only a small percentage of former residents get the opportunity to return. Do voucher relocated residents end up in lower poverty neighborhoods with greater upward mobility opportunities? We examine the spatial organization of relocation within the critical discourse on the deconcentration imperative. We highlight Atlanta because it recently became the first city in the nation to eliminate all of its public housing. Findings reveal that voucher relocatees end up in neighborhoods with modestly less poverty than the public housing neighborhoods they left. Questions remain about what poverty deconcentration means vis‐à‐vis policy goals. We provide recommendations for future research.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00405.x</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1751-9020 |
ispartof | Sociology compass, 2011-09, Vol.5 (9), p.824-833 |
issn | 1751-9020 1751-9020 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_925711641 |
source | Sociological Abstracts; Wiley Online Library All Journals |
subjects | Atlanta, Georgia Discourse Federal Government Housing Neighborhoods Poverty Public Housing Residential Preferences Residents |
title | The Poverty Deconcentration Imperative and Public Housing Transformation |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T10%3A30%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Poverty%20Deconcentration%20Imperative%20and%20Public%20Housing%20Transformation&rft.jtitle=Sociology%20compass&rft.au=Oakley,%20Deirdre&rft.date=2011-09&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=824&rft.epage=833&rft.pages=824-833&rft.issn=1751-9020&rft.eissn=1751-9020&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00405.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E925711641%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=925711641&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |