Journal of Communitv Payclrdogy, 1976, 4.298402.

EFFECTS OF SOME PUBLICLY FINANCED HOUSING PROGRAMS FOR THE URBAN POOR*

NEIL C. KALT AND SHELDON S. ZALKIND

B a d College, City University of New York

Research findings provide considerable support for the proposition that public housing can be designed in ways that result in tenant satisfaction. The findings suggest that three interacting features of desi produce housing that facil- itates the development of social networks an?reduces considerably the in- cidence of crime. The findings also suggest that these are important and re- lated determinants of tenant satisfaction. Additional implications for pro- viding low-income families with satisfactory housing come from the studies of rent subsidies and direct housing allowances. Although further research is clearly needed before conclusions about their effectiveness can be drawn, the studies that have been done suggest thnt rent subsidies and direct housing allowances are desirable strategies from the vantage point of the participating families.

In an attempt to provide adequate housing for large numbers of low-income families, the federal government has implemented some strategies and tried to evaluate others. For example, the government has constructed public housing, provided rent supplements, leased private housing, and studied the feasibility of direct housing allowances. Unfortunately, several million people in cities still live in substandard dwellings. Obviously, a great deal more housing suitable for low- income families needs to be created. In an attempt to identify some of the factors that make housing programs suitable or desirable from the vantage point of these families, this paper examines studies of the psychological impact of public housing, rent supplements, leased housing, and direct housing allowances.'

PWLIC HOTJSINQ The research findings suggest that the way public housing is designed has a

considerable impact on the degree to which social networks develop and on the rate a t which crimes are committed. The findings also suggest that these are im- portant and related determinants of tenant satisfaction. Based on interviews with 154 residents of Pruitt-Igoe, a public housing project containing 43 eleven-story buildings and located in St. Louis, Yancey (1971) argued that the design of the buildings severely impeded development of the networks of relationships that maintain informal social control :

Absent from the architectural design of Pruitt-Igoe is what has sometimes been referred to as wasted space. We choose to call it 'defensible space.' In lower- and working-class slums, the littered and often trash-filled alleys, streets, and backyards provide the . . . basis around which informal networks of friends and relatives may develop. Without such semi-public space and facilities, the development of such networks is retarded; the resulting atomization of the community can be seen in the frequent and escalating conflict between neighbors, fears of and vulnerability to the human dangers in the environ-

*Re rint requests to N. C. Kalt, CUNY, 17 Lexington Avenue, N. Y. 10010. 1AltEough a relatively small number of studies have been published most were large-scale. For

example, Newman (1972) studied 167 public housing projects in New Pork City and 200 families were observed in a study of direct housing allowances in Kansas City (U.S.D.H.e.D., 1973).

298

EFFECTS OF SOME PUBLICLY FINANCED HOUSINQ PROGRAMS 299

ment, and, finally, withdrawal to the last line of defense-into the single- family dwelling unit. The sense of security and control that is found in other working- and lower-class neighborhoods is not present. (p. 17)

The importance of defensible space is underlined by the results of a study of two public housing projects in New York City (Newman, 1972). The Brownsville and Van Dyke projects were similar in a number of ways. They each housed ap- proximately 6,000 people, contained 288 persons per acre, and averaged about 4.6 rooms per apartment. The racial composition, average family size, proportion of minors, average family income, percent on welfare, and percent of broken homes were nearly identical. They were also located across the street from one another. As a result, they were served by the same Housing Authority police and New York City police. Despite these similarities, the two projects differed markedly in layout and design. For example, Van Dyke was composed primarily of fourteen-story rectangular-shaped buildings, while Brownsville consisted of three to six-story cross-shaped buildings. The one functional entrance to each Van Dyke building was about 60 feet from the street, invisible to street surveillance, and served ap- proximately 125 families. Each Brownsville building contained several entrances. Each entrance was used by nine to thirteen families and was usually located only a few feet from the street. In Van Dyke, enclosed, soundproof fire stairwells became areas in which crimes were frequently committed. In Brownsville, open stairwells were surrounded by apartment doors.

The behavior of tenants and the incidence of crime suggest that these dif- ferences in layout and design had a considerable impact on the quality of life in each project. While crime and vandalism were major problems in both housing projects, more than twice as many robberies, and 60% more felonies and mis- demeanors, were reported in the Van Dyke Homes. In Brownsville, children were allowed to play in corridors and on stairwells. In Van Dyke, they were not. Simi- larly, young children in Brownsville were allowed to roam over a greater range of outdoor space than young children in Van Dyke. Brownsville tenants, compared to Van Dyke tenants, were also more active in keeping their buildings clean, and were less likely to move out of their apartments.

Based on this study and on studies of 165 other public housing projects in New York City, Newman (1972) proposed that defensible space is produced by three interacting features of design. One, the space outside the individual apart- ment units should be designed in ways that cause tenants and outsiders to perceive that the public spaces in the project are part of the tenants’ personal territory. For example, locate the apartment buildings in ways that define and break up the grounds they occupy; limit the project to 1,OOO units or less; and use low walls, hedges, stoops, changes in the texture of the walking surface, and entry portals to create symbolic barriers between the public street and the semi-public grounds of the project. Within each building, separate the elevators so that each one serves about four to eight apartments per floor, and cluster small numbers of apartments around corridors and open stairwells. Two, the grounds of the project and the building interiors should be designed in ways that provide residents and formal authorities with natural opportunities to observe all public and semi-private spaces and paths. For example, divide housing projects into small, recognizable enclaves;

300 NEIL C. KALT AND SHELDON S. ZALKIND

locate building entrances close to the street and facing the street; illuminate paths and entrances; make lobbies and elevator entrances visible to passersby; build windows into firestair walls; and have kitchen windows face building entrances, play areas, and parking lots. Three, projects should be designed in ways that minimize residents’ and outsiders’ perception of the project as unique, isolated, and stigmatized. For example, build two to three, rather than ten to twenty high-rise buildings; avoid materials that create an institutional atmosphere, such as glazed tiles and mercury-vapor type exterior lighting; and provide automobiles with access to streets within the project.

RENT SUPPLEMENTS AND LEASED HOUSINQ In an attempt to respond more effectively to the problem of housing the poor,

the federal government created the rent supplement and leased housing programs in 1965.2 The rent supplement program sought to encourage private groups to construct and manage housing for low-income families by providing these groups with rent subsidy payments. The leased housing program was designed to lease privately owned housing units and sublease those units to families qualified for public housing. Shortly before these programs were created, the Boston Housing Authority funded an experimental rent subsidy program that contained many of the features of the rent supplement and leased housing programs. I n an attempt to determine the effectiveness of the Boston program from the vantage point of the participants, Feagin, Tilly, & Williams (1972) compared the responses of 35 low- income black families who moved into a newly constructed middle-income develop- ment and 24 low-income black families who moved into a public housing project. Both development and project were located in the Roxbury ghetto area. The 35 families in the middle-class development paid the rents they would normally pay in public housing. The findings indicated that 83% of the rent subsidy wives, compared to 29% of the public housing wives, said they liked their new residence “very much.” The findings also indicated that most of the rent subsidy wives liked their new homes better than the homes they moved from; for example, almost everyone was more satisfied with the size and external appearance of the building, the amount of apartment space, the quietness of the street, and the neighborhood as a place to raise children. Although a majority of the public housing wives were also more satisfied with their buildings and apartments, sizable minorities were less satisfied with the proximity of public transportation, the class of people living nearby, and the quietness of the street. The social ties of the women in both groups were similarly affected by the move; that is, most of the wives cut some social ties when they moved and made new friends several weeks afterward. Within the middle-income development, there was no indication that rent subsidy families were treated as a stigmatized group by their middle-class neighbors, or that unusual problems developed between the two groups.

Rent supplements and leased housing appear to have several advantages. One, they can provide a considerable number of poor families with housing that meets

The Boston Housing Authority paid the rest.

‘Rent supplements and leased housing do not include the subsidized purchase by poor families of newly constructed or renovated homes.

EFFECTS O F SOME PUBLICLY FINANCED HOUSING PROGRAMS 30 1

desired standards. Two, “they are flexible; in all but a very tight market they can be used to rapidly increase the number of units available for relocated families” (Tilly & Feagin, 1970, p. 328). Three, “they give redevelopment and housing authorities the means to assure that relocated families receive dwellings in good condition” (Tilly & Feagin, 1970, p. 328). Unfortunately, rent supplements and leased housing may also have disadvantages. One, they may have an adverse impact on the quality of housing in a city. For example, Tilly and Feagin suggest that the owners of substandard dwellings may respond to rising vacancy rates by abandoning or destroying the buildings. On the other hand, Tilly and Feagin note that these owners might improve, convert, or reduce rents on their properties. Two, landlords who participate in rent subsidy programs may collude with in- spectors to maintain low standards while setting high rents. While some policing may be needed, Tilly and Feagin argue that “the local housing authority operating a rent subsidy program under its own control has several advantages over the city’s code enforcement officer. It is offering something precious to a landlord: a guaran- tee of continuous rent payments. It can negotiate the rent directly . . . for many units at a time, rather than relying on piecemeal landlord-tenant agreements . . . (and) can supervise maintenance, or it can contract with a third party for main- tenance” (p. 329).

While further research on the impact of rent supplements and leased housing is clearly needed, the results of the Boston experiment suggest that they are de- sirable strategies from the vantage point of the participating families.

DIRECT HOUSING ALLOWANCES The shortcomings of public housing-long waiting lists, little or no oppor-

tunity to choose where to live, and the creation of pockets of high density housing in ghetto areas-led Model Cities agencies in Kansas City, Missouri and Wilming- ton, Delaware to conduct preliminary examinations during 1971-1972 of the feasi- bility of direct housing allowances (U.S.D.H.U.D., 1973; Peabody, 1974). Ap- proximately 200 low-income families living primarily in substandard units or in public housing were selected to participate in the Kansas City program. Eighty- five percent of the families chosen were black, 79% were headed by a female, and 75% were receiving welfare. Each family was given the opportunity to rent housing anywhere in the Kansas City metropolitan area as long as that housing met city code standards. In other words, each family was given a monthly housing allow- ance when they found acceptable housing. The amount of the allowance was the standard cost of housing appropriate to the family’s size and composition less 25% of the family’s income (adjusted for family size). If families rented housing for less than the standard cost, they could keep the difference as long as the allowance was less than or equal to the rent. I n other words, they could reduce their own expenses.

The results indicated that most black families moved to black working-class neighborhoods while most white families moved to white working-class neighbor- hoods, that 90%] of the participants liked choosing their own homes and preferred a direct allowance to public housing, and that the allowances averaged about $95 a month, or only about 40% of the cost of subsidizing a new public housing unit each year. Although the Wilmington study produced fairly similar findings, the use of

302 NEIL C. KALT AND SHELDON 5. ZALKIND

two cities and about 250 families calls for caution in generalizing. As a result, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is currently funding major studies of the direct housing allowance in eleven metropolitan areas.

While direct housing allowances seem to have a number of desirable features, Gans (1974) argues that they also have several drawbacks. One, a housing allowance will not work in cities whose vacancy rate is less than 5%. In other words, unless there is an adequate supply of moderately priced vacant housing, many poor people will not be able to take advantage of the allowance. Although the vacancy rate in many metropolitan areas is a t least 5%, it is less than 5% in a considerable number of others; for example, New York and Rochester (Peabody, 1974). Two, a direct housing allowance will not benefit poor families who already reside in standard housing. Three, the units that allowance recipients select will have to be inspected to make sure that they meet city code standards. Unfortunately, this may generate considerable corruption, since it costs less to bribe an inspector than to renovate a building. Four, the residents of working-class neighborhoods are likely to react hostilely to a large influx of poor families, and many may move voluntarily or be frightened into moving by block-busting realtors. In an attempt to minimize or eliminate these drawbacks, Gans proposes that allowances be given to poor, near poor, and barely moderate income people without requiring them to move; that rent control be a part of direct housing allowance legislation; and that the con- struction of housing for the nonpoor accompany an allowance program, except in cities with abundant vacancies.

REFERENCES FEAQIN, J., TILLY, C., & WILLIAMS, C. Subsidizing the poor: A Boston housing experiment. Lexington,

GANS, H. A poor man’s home is his poorhouse. The New York T i m a Magazine, 31 March 1974. NEWMAN, 0. Defensible space. New York: Macmillan, 1972. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSINQ AND URBAN DEVELQPMENT. First annual report of the experimental

PEABODY, M., JR. Housing allowances. The New Republie, 1974,170,20-23.

Mass.: Heath, 1972.

M n g ahwance program. Washington, D. C . : U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.

TILLY, C., & FEAQIN, J. Boston’s experiment with rent subsidies. Journal of the Ame+ican Institute of Planners, 1970,36, 323-329.

YANCEY! W. Architecture, interaction, and social control: The case of a large-scale public housing project. Environment and Behavior, 1971,S, 3-21.