Moving Out and Going Down? A Review of Recent Evidence on Negative Spillover Effects of Housing Restructuring Programmes in the United States and the Netherlands

Abstract

Comparing USA and Dutch experiences, this paper seeks to determine whether the demolition of public or social housing results in negative spillover effects, i.e. the shift of crime and other social problems to nearby neighbourhoods, as a result of residential relocation patterns. Notwithstanding fundamental contextual differences, existing research shows that many relocatees do recluster in low-income areas not much better than the public or social housing sites they moved from. Furthermore, USA and Dutch research highlights concern among public officials, politicians and community activists that this clustering is resulting in higher crime, increased neighbourhood dissatisfaction (among existing residents), more conflicts between residents, lower school test scores, etc. Few researchers have, however, been able to go beyond correlations and establish cause–effect relations between the in-movement of public/social housing relocatees and increased social problems. Attempts to identify a statistical threshold for clustering, beyond which negative effects occur, have not been successful. Nevertheless, existing evidence regarding negative spillover effects is compelling enough to warrant expanded and improved monitoring of both relocation and neighbourhood change patterns and to initiate programmes to address the concerns of residents in destination areas.

Key Words:

• Spillover effects
• restructuring
• demolition
• relocation
• displacement
• HOPE VI
• vouchers
• United States
• Netherlands

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to many colleagues in the USA, the Netherlands and other European countries who responded to our literature inquiry and provided useful suggestions. Colleagues at OTB Research Institute provided valuable comments on earlier drafts. Special thanks go to Per Jansen (the second author's research assistant), who performed the systematic search of databases and also provided other valuable support for this paper. This research was partly financed by the Nicis Institute. David Varady's work on this article occurred while he was on sabbatical at OTB-Delft University of Technology in 2010.

Notes

See the official programme website of HOPE VI: http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6/about

Destination neighbourhood residents may correctly perceive the in-migration of troublesome families but incorrectly assume that they came from a restructuring project.

‘Hot spot’ analysis can detect areas with significant densities of voucher recipients compared with the surrounding environment.

Moving to Opportunity (MTO) relocation differs from HOPE VI relocation in many respects. For example, MTO does not involve large-scale demolition of public housing.

Census block groups are much smaller than census tracts and correspond more closely to the sociological concept of neighbourhoods.