APPENDIX A.1Downloadable Databases and on-line Query 2000Units fromOnline QueryUnits fromDatabaseDifference%DifferencePublic <strong>Housing</strong> (PH)** 1,282,099 1,281,669 430 0.0%Moderate Rehab (MR)*** 111,392 0 111,392 100.0%Section 236 Projects (S. 236) 440,329 440,329 0 0.0%Section 8 Projects (S8 NC/SR) 877,830 877,830 0 0.0%Multifamily Other Projects (MF/Other)** 352,337 352,547 -210 -0.1%Other Subtotal 1,781,888 1,670,706 111,182 6.2%Other Subtotal w/o MR 1,670,496 1,670,706 -210 0.0%Low Income <strong>Housing</strong> Tax Credits (LIHTC) 945,347 945,347 0 0.0%Site-Based Subtotal 4,009,334 3,897,722 111,612 2.8%Vouchers (VO)**** 1,817,360 1,497,037 320,323 17.6%TOTAL 5,826,694 5,394,759 431,935 7.4%*Downloadable Database has census tracts geocoded for aggregation by program type. <strong>The</strong> query functiondoes not allow for this level <strong>of</strong> detail and so it is necessary to use the downloaded database for part <strong>of</strong>the analysis in this study.**Public <strong>Housing</strong> and Multifamily/Other will be analyzed using either the query data or downloaded databasesbecause the differences are not significant.**Moderate Rehab (MR) units (111,392) are not available in the downloadable database at the census tractlevel so these units will be excluded from further analysis <strong>of</strong> "Other".****Vouchers: <strong>The</strong> query identifies 1,817,360 total voucher units. <strong>The</strong> database only includes the numberreported (1,497,040) which are geocoded for census tract aggregation. <strong>The</strong> remaining 320,320 unitsare allocated but not occupied.Source: HUD, A Picture <strong>of</strong> <strong>Subsidized</strong> <strong>Housing</strong> 2000154
APPENDIX A.2“Total Units” and “Reported Units” in on-line Query 2000Total Units Number%Difference(Query) ReportedDifferencePublic <strong>Housing</strong> (PH) 1,282,099 1,056,174 225,925 17.6%Moderate Rehab (MR) 111,392 57,367 54,025 48.5%Section 236 Projects (S. 236) 440,329 276,799 163,530 37.1%Section 8 Projects (S8 NC/SR) 877,830 724,129 153,701 17.5%Multifamily Other Projects (MF/Other) 352,337 291,997 60,340 17.1%Other Site-Based Subtotal* 1,781,888 1,350,292 431,596 24.2%Low Income <strong>Housing</strong> Tax Credits (LIHTC)* 945,347 0 945,347 100.0%Site-Based Subtotal 4,009,334 2,406,466 1,602,868 40.0%Vouchers (VO)** 1,817,360 1,497,037 320,323 17.6%TOTAL 5,826,694 3,903,503 1,923,191 33.0%*100% <strong>of</strong> LIHTC units and some portion <strong>of</strong> other types are missing resident data. Since this is a geographic study the lack <strong>of</strong>resident data does not preclude using these units.**Vouchers: <strong>The</strong> query identifies 1,817,360 total voucher units. <strong>The</strong> database only includes the number reported (1,497,040)which are geocoded for census tract aggregation. <strong>The</strong> remaining 320,320 units need to be considered missing in addition toany other missing data in the database itself (such as units reported but missing geographic data).Source: HUD, A Picture <strong>of</strong> <strong>Subsidized</strong> <strong>Housing</strong> 2000APPENDIX A.3Exclusions from Further Analysis 2000# Units from # UnitsQuery ExcludedNet UnitsPublic <strong>Housing</strong> (PH) 1,282,099 61,929 1,220,170Moderate Rehab (MR)** 111,392 111,392 0Section 236 Projects (S. 236)*** 440,329 11,926 428,403Section 8 Projects (S8 NC/SR)*** 877,830 22,863 854,967Multifamily Other Projects (MF/Other)*** 352,337 5,972 346,365Other Subtotal 1,781,888 152,153 1,629,735Low Income <strong>Housing</strong> Tax Credits (LIHTC)*** and****945,347 7,631 937,716Site-Based Subtotal 4,009,334 221,713 3,787,621Vouchers (VO)**** 1,817,360 397,052 1,472,715TOTAL 5,826,694 618,765 5,260,336*Puerto Rico and U.S. Islands are excluded from further analysis.**Moderate Rehab (MR) units (111,392) are not available in the downloadable database at the census tract level so these unitsare excluded from further analysis.***Units in projects with both LIHTC and "Other Site-Based" have been unduplicated and excluded from further analysis****Although there is duplication between LIHTC and Vouchers, sufficient data does not exist to make an estimate.Source: HUD, A Picture <strong>of</strong> <strong>Subsidized</strong> <strong>Housing</strong> 2000155
- Page 1 and 2:
THE SPATIAL CONCENTRATION OF SUBSID
- Page 3 and 4:
I certify that I have read this dis
- Page 5 and 6:
TABLE OF CONTENTSLIST OF TABLES ...
- Page 7 and 8:
6.4 Summary of Cluster Analysis Res
- Page 9 and 10:
Table 5.2 Range of MSA Segregation
- Page 11 and 12:
ABSTRACTSubsidized housing has been
- Page 13 and 14:
Chapter 1INTRODUCTIONPublic housing
- Page 15 and 16:
Data on subsidized housing prior to
- Page 17 and 18:
subsidy programs in that rents are
- Page 19 and 20:
Chapter 2LITERATURE REVIEWA compreh
- Page 21 and 22:
from the nine matched neighborhood
- Page 23 and 24:
Overall, it is clear that there are
- Page 25 and 26:
limited the study to city vs. subur
- Page 27 and 28:
to the public housing, location adj
- Page 29 and 30:
hardship; and 2) public housing wea
- Page 31 and 32:
deconcentrated over time is whether
- Page 33 and 34:
deconcentration. In fact, a higher
- Page 35 and 36:
in the same neighborhood). On avera
- Page 37 and 38:
Concentration of Tenant-Based Subsi
- Page 39 and 40:
Wang, Varady and Wang (2008) studie
- Page 41 and 42:
from the vouchers. However, there w
- Page 43 and 44:
consisting of single family zones,
- Page 45 and 46:
early-mid 1990’s consisting of pu
- Page 47 and 48:
Recent studies of individual housin
- Page 49 and 50:
One of the criticisms of the HOPE V
- Page 51 and 52:
that they are smaller scale, better
- Page 53 and 54:
Chapter 3METHODOLOGYWhile the conce
- Page 55 and 56:
Data AvailabilityA limitation in th
- Page 57 and 58:
just coming on line in the 1990’s
- Page 59 and 60:
with 1,500 to 12,000 the minimum an
- Page 61 and 62:
exclusion of these units is not pro
- Page 63 and 64:
Unduplication of Subsidized UnitsDu
- Page 65:
projects between 35.2 and 46.6 perc
- Page 68 and 69:
Resulting Data for AnalysisAs a res
- Page 70 and 71:
Lack of household level data will l
- Page 72 and 73:
TABLE 4.2Mean Subsidized Housing Un
- Page 74 and 75:
Measures of ConcentrationThree meas
- Page 76 and 77:
TABLE 4.6Subsidized Units as a Perc
- Page 78 and 79:
would have to be to be considered t
- Page 80 and 81:
mean of 82 subsidized units per tra
- Page 82 and 83:
Subsidized Housing by Type and Pove
- Page 84 and 85:
TABLE 4.9Subsidized Units by Subsid
- Page 86 and 87:
unemployment rate (.427), less than
- Page 88 and 89:
TABLE 4.12Correlation Matrix (page
- Page 90 and 91:
TABLE 4.12Correlation Matrix (page
- Page 92 and 93:
spatial sensitivity because many di
- Page 94 and 95:
It is possible that these census tr
- Page 96 and 97:
only 8 MSA’s). The segregation in
- Page 98 and 99:
The correlation between the subsidi
- Page 100 and 101:
developing strategies to deconcentr
- Page 102 and 103:
y subsidy type. The correlation bet
- Page 104 and 105:
with a poverty rate of 9.2 percent.
- Page 106 and 107:
The cluster is relatively small con
- Page 108 and 109:
Cluster 7: Other Site-Based Units -
- Page 110 and 111:
the only cluster that had a signifi
- Page 112 and 113:
alter the perception of public hous
- Page 114 and 115:
VouchersVoucher type tracts are dom
- Page 116 and 117: TABLE 6.1Subsidized Units by Cluste
- Page 118 and 119: FIGURE 6.1Percent Census Tracts by
- Page 120 and 121: FIGURE 6.5Census Tract Percent Rent
- Page 122 and 123: Cluster - Concentration -PovertyCen
- Page 124 and 125: strategies. The cluster map shows t
- Page 126 and 127: FIGURE 6.9Map of Public Housing Uni
- Page 128 and 129: Cluster 1: Voucher/No Subsidized Un
- Page 130 and 131: considered moderately concentrated
- Page 132 and 133: Cluster Analysis ResultsThe cluster
- Page 134 and 135: tracts than other subsidy types it
- Page 136 and 137: ecommend efforts to reduce the leve
- Page 138 and 139: scale at which the impacts occur; 2
- Page 140 and 141: units. Given the high cost of these
- Page 142 and 143: REFERENCESAbt Associates, I. (2006)
- Page 144 and 145: Briggs, X. d. S. (Ed.). (2005). The
- Page 146 and 147: Deng, L. (2007). Comparing the effe
- Page 148 and 149: Ellen, I. G., & Voicu, I. (2005). N
- Page 150 and 151: Galster, G. C. (2005). Consequences
- Page 152 and 153: Harris, L. E. (1999). A home is mor
- Page 154 and 155: Johnson, M. P. (2006). Single-perio
- Page 156 and 157: Lee, B. A., Reardon, S. F., Firebau
- Page 158 and 159: Nguyen, M. T. (2005). Does Affordab
- Page 160 and 161: implementing eight consent decrees.
- Page 162 and 163: Schwartz, A. (1999). New York City
- Page 164 and 165: Varady, D. P., & Walker, C. C. (200
- Page 168 and 169: APPENDIX A.4Missing DataPublicHousi
- Page 170 and 171: APPENDIX A.6Subsidized Housing Unit
- Page 172 and 173: APPENDIX A.8Subsidized Housing Unit
- Page 174 and 175: APPENDIX A.9Demographics by Cluster
- Page 176 and 177: MSAFIPS MSA Name Population Voucher
- Page 178 and 179: MSAFIPS MSA Name Population Voucher
- Page 180 and 181: MSAFIPS MSA Name Population Voucher
- Page 182 and 183: MSAFIPS MSA Name Population Voucher
- Page 184 and 185: MSAFIPS MSA Name Population Voucher
- Page 186 and 187: MSA /PMSA Code MSA / PMSA Name Popu
- Page 188 and 189: MSA /PMSA Code MSA / PMSA Name Popu
- Page 190 and 191: MSA /PMSA Code MSA / PMSA Name Popu
- Page 192 and 193: MSA /PMSA Code MSA / PMSA Name Popu
- Page 194 and 195: MSA /PMSA Code MSA / PMSA Name Popu
- Page 196 and 197: Author Date Data GeographyGalster a
- Page 198 and 199: Author Date Data GeographyHolloway,
- Page 200 and 201: Author Date Data GeographyType ofPr
- Page 202 and 203: Author Date Data GeographyMurray 19
- Page 204 and 205: Author Date Data GeographyLee 20081
- Page 206 and 207: Author Date Data GeographyOakley 20
- Page 208 and 209: Devine, Gray,Rubin andTaghavi (HUD)
- Page 210 and 211: Carlson,Haveman,Kaplan andWolfe 200
- Page 212 and 213: Newman andSchnare 1997Rohe andFreem
- Page 214: Galster andZobel 1998Freeman andBot