The Spatial Concentration of Subsidized Housing - Poverty & Race ...

in the same neighborhood). On average, subsidized housing was located in areas thatwere slightly more depressed than the distressed neighborhoods in which they werelocated (p. 272). The LIHTC and Section 202 (housing for the elderly) programs hadpositive effects in housing values at all project sizes and this effect persisted over time(p. 278). Public housing for families had a negative effect for average size projects butthe negative effect declined over time. The type of project did not matter and therewere no statistically significant differences between rental and homeowner units,between new construction and rehab units or type of structure (1-4 units vs. multifamilybuilding). Positive spillover effects were large compared to other cityprograms.Schwartz (1999) found that most investments were made in the city’s poorestdistricts which continue to have high poverty rates. A relationship was found betweeninvestments in gut-rehab and a sharp reduction in vacant buildings. Correlationsbetween housing starts and changes in welfare rolls and felony complaints werestatistically significant but weaker than the vacant properties. The author notes thatthe scale of community districts (which are multi-census-tract areas larger than somecities) may be too large to see the full effects on welfare and crime.Santiago, Galster and Tatian (2001) evaluated a scattered site public housingprogram which acquired and rehabilitated 167 homes in middle-class neighborhoodsduring the first phase of a 400-unit program. Hedonic price regression measured thechange in sale prices over a decade while focus groups with homeowners at 6 sites23