Perceived Safety of LIHTC Residents in Ohio: Impacts of Building Design

Abstract

Ecological theories of crime have found that perceptions of neighborhood safety are influenced by a broad range of building features. Yet most research on how building design impacts perceptions of neighborhood safety for low-income renters was developed in a period of affordable housing defined by dense, segregated, and brutalist-inspired public housing. Research on low-income rental design has yet to focus on how residents in Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) properties perceive their levels of neighborhood safety, and how that may be influenced by building design. This study uses survey responses from 652 LIHTC residents in Ohio paired with design attributes and crime data to test how residents’ perceptions of neighborhood safety are related to building design features, controlling for neighborhood violent and property crimes. We find that design features minimally impact residents’ perceived neighborhood safety, and this does not vary significantly by resident characteristics. We suggest this contrast with past literature may relate to the design and maintenance standards associated with LIHTC properties. We recommend that housing finance agencies continue to encourage or incentivize affordable housing developers to design housing with features to increase natural surveillance, access control, and territoriality, and to focus on fostering community for LIHTC residents.

Keywords:

• low-income housing
• crime
• tax credit
• design
• safety

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Disclaimers

This work did not receive financial support from an external agency. The authors have no financial interest or benefit that will arise or has arisen from the direct applications of our research. This article reflects the views of the authors and not the position or views of the Ohio Housing Finance Agency.

Notes

1. Breetzke and Pearson (2014), studying the relationship between reported crime and fear of crime, studied three geographical scales, from the local neighborhood to the broader region, in New Zealand and found that the incidence of crime had little or no effect on feelings of safety. Similar studies have found that incidence of crime and local victimization rates may not be the correct calibrator of safety, because there is substantial individual variation in perceived exposure to crime (Balkin, 1979; Donnelly, 1989). It is not whether fear of safety is accurate; perceptions have the power to affect individual actions and motivations (Ferraro, 1995).

2. Research on the link between crime and well-being indicate that increases in crime—for both direct victims and nonvictims—can have a detrimental impact on one’s mental health and well-being (Cornaglia, Feldman, & Leigh, 2014; Diener & Tov, 2007). Crime is also related to physical health; multiple studies have found that perceived safety was one of the most important qualities for physical mobility (Bauman et al., 1996; Chandola, 2001;Hawthorne, 1989; Loukaitou-Sideris, 2006; Ross, 1993; Weinstein et al., 1999).

3. Pruitt Igoe was 11 stories high with double-loaded corridors, designed in the modernist style influenced by Le Corbusier and the Congrès International d’Architecture Moderne.

4. We focus on 9% projects rather than a combination of 9% and 4% projects, because of the differences within the program and the types of programs they tend to fund. The 9% credit is generally reserved for new construction and projects submitted through a competitive process defined by the QAP, whereas 4% credits are typically used for rehabilitation projects or new construction that is financed with tax-exempt bonds and not as tied to the QAP. Similarly, the credit rates fluctuate according to the market, such that the 4% has fluctuated between about 3.15% and 3.97% compared with the 9% which has ranged between 7.35% and 9.27%—but has had an established floor of 9% since 2008. Given this, the credits are distinct both in what they tend to fund and in how equity is assigned to the credits. We argue that this difference in policy requirements and incentives may change design in ways that would not allow us to compare effectively, and would limit our ability to make substantial policy recommendations.

5. To help increase our response rate for this hard-to-reach, vulnerable population, we employed a number of methods. We emailed on-site property managers of sampled properties to notify them of our resident survey. We encouraged them to partner with us and to have them encourage their residents to complete the survey and inform us if any resident had questions regarding the survey. We also included a lottery to win a $50 gift card incentive for survey completion, which is a relatively standard lottery amount and has been shown to be an amount and type of incentive that helps increase survey response (James & Bolstein, 1990, 1992; Mack, Huggins, Keathley, & Sundukchi, 1998; Singer, 2002). Similarly, studies have found that monetary incentives might be especially effective in recruiting low-income and minority respondents, who ordinarily would be underrepresented (Goyder & Warriner, 1999; Groves & Couper, 1998; Singer, 2002).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Cody R. Price

Cody R. Price, PhD, is a research analyst in the Office of Housing Policy at the Ohio Housing Finance Agency.

Katherine F. Fallon

Katherine F. Fallon, PhD, is the Director of Housing Policy in the Office of Housing Policy at the Ohio Housing Finance Agency.