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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Sociology compass 2011-09, Vol.5 (9), p.824-833
Hauptverfasser: Oakley, Deirdre, Ward, Chandra, Reid, Lesley, Ruel, Erin
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