Federal Programs and Policies

In April 2012, Living Cities asked the Urban Institute to study the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, and the HUD Regional Planning Grants specifically, as a way to understand how the federal government could break down "silos," institutional or political barriers to cooperative and collaborative efforts. The research team reviewed key documents and conducted in-person interviews with personnel at federal agencies as well as organizations leading the regional planning grant projects in five case sites. These findings suggest that federal efforts can, in fact, contribute to breaking down silos both within the federal government and at the regional level.

In April 2012, Living Cities asked the Urban Institute to study the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, and the HUD Regional Planning Grants specifically, as a way to understand how the federal government could break down "silos," institutional or political barriers to cooperative and collaborative efforts. The research team reviewed key documents and conducted in-person interviews with personnel at federal agencies as well as organizations leading the regional planning grant projects in five case sites. These findings suggest that federal efforts can, in fact, contribute to breaking down silos both within the federal government and at the regional level.

In testimony before the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, Urban Institute President Sarah Rosen Wartell described alternatives for reforming the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to ensure a sustainable housing finance system, focusing on steps Congress can take now to improve FHA’s financial health by strengthening its ability to assess and manage risk and mitigate loss.

Each year the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program provides $140 million for independent living services to assist youth as they age out of foster care and enter adulthood. Under this formula grant program, states are provided allocations and allowed to use up to 30 percent of program funds for room and board for youth ages 18 to 21 who have left care. This report describes how states are using these funds to provide housing assistance to these vulnerable youth and explores how the assistance provided through this program fits in with other sources of housing assistance available in the states examined.

Opponents of MID reform warn that reducing the deduction would undermine the value of owner-occupied homes and impede the recovery of the depressed housing market. The best available evidence predicts far less dire effects and suggests that some reforms could actually bolster the housing market recovery. However, the results are far from definitive. As debate continues, the Urban Institute plans to further explore behavioral and market changes, strengthening the evidence upon which policymakers can rely.

For more than a decade, the Urban Institute has been following the experiences of CHA families as they were relocated and their buildings were demolished and replaced with new, mixed-income housing. In this brief, the author distills a decade's worth of research and outlines lessons from this research that have important implications for cities across the nation grappling with how to improve their most troubled communities and provide decent, affordable housing for vulnerable families in an era of shrinking resources.

This brief provides an overview of the Urban Institute research on CHA families since 2001. It describes how most former residents now live in better housing in safer neighborhoods. Those who got intensive case management and supportive services through the Chicago Family Case Management Demonstration have significantly lower rates of depression, better physical health, and higher rates of employment. However, even with these gains, many adults struggle with extremely high rates of debilitating chronic illnesses that prevent them from finding full-time employment and many children still grapple with the fallout from growing up with chronic violence.

Chicago's Plan for Transformation improved housing quality for residents in our study; most reported living in extremely distressed units in 2001 but by 2011, just 25 percent reported such severe problems. Although their neighborhoods are still poor and racially segregated, they have higher rates of collective efficacy, less social disorder, and fewer signs of physical disorder. Many respondents are experiencing material hardship, including food insecurity and trouble paying bills and utilities. Voucher holders, in particular, are moving frequently with no perceptible improvement in housing or neighborhood quality. In fact, voucher holders report more housing problems than residents in public housing.