Rooms for Improvement: A Qualitative Metasynthesis of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

IF 2.9 3区 经济学 Q2 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Housing Policy Debate Pub Date : 2016-03-03 DOI:10.1080/10511482.2015.1072573
E. Graves
{"title":"Rooms for Improvement: A Qualitative Metasynthesis of the Housing Choice Voucher Program","authors":"E. Graves","doi":"10.1080/10511482.2015.1072573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article synthesizes housing subsidy voucher research to explain why, when in theory vouchers enable users to move out of poor neighborhoods, in practice they often do not. This qualitative meta-analysis presents an examination of the assumptions of the program and their relationship to empirical findings. Two themes emerged from this synthesis: market barriers and product problems. Data from a variety of studies and contexts portray recipients struggling to use vouchers in the private rental market due to market barriers, including lack of public transportation and the presence of discrimination. Product problems constrained freedom of choice about where to move and when to make a housing transition. These constraints manifest as compromised housing quality and low voucher utilization. This synthetic view cannot account for all outcomes or exceptional cases, but results suggest where participant experiences are generalizable and attributable to features of the housing market and structure of the program itself.","PeriodicalId":47744,"journal":{"name":"Housing Policy Debate","volume":"26 1","pages":"346 - 361"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10511482.2015.1072573","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Housing Policy Debate","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2015.1072573","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

Abstract This article synthesizes housing subsidy voucher research to explain why, when in theory vouchers enable users to move out of poor neighborhoods, in practice they often do not. This qualitative meta-analysis presents an examination of the assumptions of the program and their relationship to empirical findings. Two themes emerged from this synthesis: market barriers and product problems. Data from a variety of studies and contexts portray recipients struggling to use vouchers in the private rental market due to market barriers, including lack of public transportation and the presence of discrimination. Product problems constrained freedom of choice about where to move and when to make a housing transition. These constraints manifest as compromised housing quality and low voucher utilization. This synthetic view cannot account for all outcomes or exceptional cases, but results suggest where participant experiences are generalizable and attributable to features of the housing market and structure of the program itself.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
改进的空间:住房选择券计划的定性综合
摘要本文综合了住房补贴券的研究,解释了为什么在理论上,住房补贴券可以让使用者搬离贫困社区,但在实践中却往往不能。这一定性荟萃分析提出了对该计划的假设及其与实证研究结果的关系的检查。这种综合产生了两个主题:市场壁垒和产品问题。来自各种研究和背景的数据表明,由于缺乏公共交通和存在歧视等市场障碍,接受者很难在私人租赁市场上使用代金券。产品问题限制了人们选择迁往何处和何时进行住房过渡的自由。这些制约因素表现为住房质量受损和代金券利用率低。这种综合观点不能解释所有的结果或例外情况,但结果表明,参与者的经验是可概括的,可归因于住房市场的特点和项目本身的结构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
17.20%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: Housing Policy Debate provides a venue for original research on U.S. housing policy. Subjects include affordable housing policy, fair housing policy, land use regulations influencing housing affordability, metropolitan development trends, and linkages among housing policy and energy, environmental, and transportation policy. Housing Policy Debate is published quarterly. Most issues feature a Forum section and an Articles section. The Forum, which highlights a current debate, features a central article and responding comments that represent a range of perspectives. All articles in the Forum and Articles sections undergo a double-blind peer review process.
期刊最新文献
Factors Associated With Exits From and Returns to Homelessness Among Older Homeless Adults: Results From the HOPE HOME Study. A Descriptive Analysis of Tenant Right to Counsel Law and Praxis 2017-2024. Retraction: The Effect of Rent Control Status on Eviction Filing Rates: Causal Evidence from San Francisco The Effect of Rent Control Status on Eviction Filing Rates: Causal Evidence From San Francisco Game of Homes: Carrots, Sticks, and the Puzzle of Housing Vacancies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1