Dickson-Gomez Julia, McAuliffe Timothy, Obidoa Chinekwu, Quinn Katherine, Weeks Margaret
Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Center for AIDS Intervention Research, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Global Health, Mercer University, Macon, GA, USA.
Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2016 May 27;11(1):20. doi: 10.1186/s13011-016-0064-3.
Since the 1970s, the dominant model for U.S. federal housing policy has shifted from unit-based programs to tenant-based vouchers and certificates. Because housing vouchers allow recipients to move to apartments and neighborhoods of their choice, such programs were designed to improve the ability of poor families to move into neighborhoods with less concentrated poverty. However, little research has examined whether housing voucher recipients live in less distressed neighborhoods than those without housing vouchers. There is much reason to believe that drug users may not be able to access or keep federal housing subsidies due to difficulties drug users, many of whom may have criminal histories and poor credit records, may have in obtaining free market rental housing. In response to these difficulties, permanent supportive housing was designed for those who are chronically homeless with one or more disabling condition, including substance use disorders. Little research has examined whether residents of permanent supportive housing units live in more or less economically distressed neighborhoods compared to low-income renters.
This paper uses survey data from 337 low-income residents of Hartford, CT and geospatial analysis to determine whether low-income residents who receive housing subsidies and supportive housing live in neighborhoods with less concentrated poverty than those who do not. We also examine the relationships between receiving housing subsidies or supportive housing and housing satisfaction. Finally, we look at the moderating effects of drug use and race on level of neighborhood distress and housing satisfaction.
Results show that low-income residents who receive housing subsidies or supportive housing were not more or less likely to live in neighborhoods with high levels of distress, although Black residents with housing subsidies lived in more distressed neighborhoods. Regarding housing satisfaction, those with housing subsidies perceived significantly more choice in where they were living while those in supportive housing perceived less choice. In addition, those with rental subsidies or supportive housing reported living closer to needed services, unless they also reported heavy drug use.
Housing subsidies and supportive housing have little impact on the level of neighborhood distress in which recipients live, but some effects on housing satisfaction.
自20世纪70年代以来，美国联邦住房政策的主导模式已从基于单元的项目转向基于租户的代金券和证书。由于住房代金券允许受助者搬到他们选择的公寓和社区，此类项目旨在提高贫困家庭搬入贫困程度较低社区的能力。然而，很少有研究考察住房代金券受助者居住的社区是否比没有住房代金券的人居住的社区困境更少。有充分理由相信，吸毒者可能无法获得或保留联邦住房补贴，因为吸毒者（其中许多人可能有犯罪记录和不良信用记录）在获得自由市场租赁住房方面可能存在困难。针对这些困难，永久性支持性住房是为那些长期无家可归且有一种或多种致残状况（包括物质使用障碍）的人设计的。很少有研究考察与低收入租房者相比，永久性支持性住房单元的居民居住的社区经济困境程度是更高还是更低。
本文使用来自康涅狄格州哈特福德市337名低收入居民的调查数据和地理空间分析，以确定获得住房补贴和支持性住房的低收入居民居住的社区贫困集中度是否低于未获得补贴和支持性住房的居民。我们还考察了获得住房补贴或支持性住房与住房满意度之间的关系。最后，我们研究吸毒和种族对社区困境程度和住房满意度的调节作用。
结果表明，获得住房补贴或支持性住房的低收入居民居住在高困境社区的可能性并没有更高或更低，尽管获得住房补贴的黑人居民居住在困境程度更高的社区。关于住房满意度方面，获得住房补贴的人认为他们在居住地点的选择上有更多选择，而住在支持性住房中的人则认为选择较少。此外，获得租金补贴或支持性住房的人报告说居住地点离所需服务更近，除非他们也报告有大量吸毒情况。
住房补贴和支持性住房对受助者居住社区的困境程度影响不大，但对住房满意度有一些影响。
