Housing Policy Debate最新文献

We performed a secondary analysis of the Moving To Opportunity (MTO) social experiment to investigate the impact of different types of housing assistance and neighborhood environments on long-term patterns of health care use for specific conditions and across different types of health care services. MTO participants, who were randomized at baseline, were linked to up to 21 years of all-payer hospital discharge and Medicaid data. Among the 9,170 children at the time of randomization, those who received a voucher had subsequent hospital admissions rates that were 36% lower for asthma and 30% lower for mental health disorders compared to the control group; rates of psychiatric services, outpatient hospital services, clinic services and durable medical equipment were also lower among the voucher groups. Findings for adults were not statistically significant. The results suggest that housing policies that reduce neighborhood poverty exposure as a child are associated with lower subsequent healthcare use for specific clinical conditions and types of services.

This study uses individual level consumer trace data for 2006 residents of low- and moderate-income neighborhoods for the principal cities of the 100 largest metropolitan regions in the US using their location in 2006 and 2019 to examine exposure to the following four cSDOH: healthcare access (Medically Underserved Areas), socioeconomic condition (Area Deprivation Index), air pollution (NO2, PM 2.5 and PM10), and walkability (National Walkability Index). The results control for individual characteristics and initial neighborhood conditions. Residents of neighborhoods classified as gentrifying were exposed to more favorable cSDOH as of 2006 relative to residents of low- and moderate-income neighborhoods that were not gentrifying in terms of likelihood to be in a MUA, and level of local deprivation and walkability while experiencing similar level of air pollution. As a result of changes in neighborhood characteristics and differential mobility pattern, between 2006 and 2019, individuals who originally lived in gentrifying neighborhoods experienced worse changes in MUAs, ADI, and Walkability Index but a greater improvement in exposure to air pollutants. The negative changes are driven by movers, while stayers actually experience a relative improvement in MUAs and ADI and larger improvements in exposure to air pollutants. The findings indicate that gentrification may contribute to health disparities through changes in exposure to cSDOH through mobility to communities with worse cSDOH among residents of gentrifying neighborhoods although results in terms of exposure to health pollutants are mixed.

There is inconsistent evidence as to whether gentrification, the increase of affluent residents into low-income neighborhoods, is detrimental to health. To date, there is no systematic evidence on how gentrification may matter for a range of birth outcomes across cities with varying characteristics. We utilize California's Birth Cohort File (2009-2012), Decennial Census data, and the American Community Survey (2008-2012) to investigate the relationship of gentrification to: preterm birth, low birthweight, and small-for-gestational-age across California. We find that socioeconomic gentrification is uniformly associated with better birth outcomes. Notably, however, we find that only places specifically experiencing increases in non-White gentrification had this positive impact. These associations vary somewhat by maternal characteristics and by type of gentrification measure utilized; discrepancies between alternative measurement strategies are explored. This study provides evidence that socioeconomic gentrification is positively related to birth outcomes and the race-ethnic character of gentrification matters, emphasizing the continued need to examine how gentrification may impact a range of health and social outcomes.

Although non-experimental studies find robust neighborhood effects on adults, such findings have been challenged by results from the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) residential mobility experiment. Using a within-study comparison design, this paper compares experimental and non-experimental estimates from MTO and a parallel analysis of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). Striking similarities were found between non-experimental estimates based on MTO and PSID. No clear evidence was found that different estimates are related to duration of adult exposure to disadvantaged neighborhoods, non-linear effects of neighborhood conditions, magnitude of the change in neighborhood context, frequency of moves, treatment effect heterogeneity, or measurement, although uncertainty bands around our estimates were sometimes large. One other possibility is that MTO-induced moves might have been unusually disruptive, but results are inconsistent for that hypothesis. Taken together, the findings suggest that selection bias might account for evidence of neighborhood effects on adult economic outcomes in non-experimental studies.

Homeowners are significantly more prepared for disasters than renters. However, disaster preparedness among subsidized renters is an understudied topic despite their increased vulnerability to negative disaster outcomes. Previous research shows that one in three subsidized units is at risk for exposure to disasters, relative to one in four unsubsidized rental units, and one in seven owner-occupied units. Subsidized housing residents often fall into many vulnerable statuses that would make them less prepared than renters and owners. Using 2017 American Housing Survey data, we examine differences in household disaster preparedness by housing tenure, with and without controls for such factors. Logistic regression analyses indicate that subsidized renters are significantly less prepared than unsubsidized renters, and both renter types are significantly less prepared than homeowners, controlling for demographic and neighborhood characteristics. The policy implications of this research are considered as they relate to the location and management of subsidized housing in an era of climate change.