Publications on Housing Markets & Choice

U.S. public policy has increasingly been conceived, debated, and evaluated through the lenses of politics and ideology. The fundamental question--Will the policy work?--too often gets short shrift or even ignored. A remedy is evidence-based policy -- a rigorous approach that draws on careful data collection, experimentation, and both quantitative and qualitative analysis to determine what the problem is, which ways it can be addressed, and the probable impacts of each of these ways. Examples of how evidence informs good policy and lack of evidence can invite bad include health insurance coverage, welfare reform, sentencing policy, and redress for housing discrimination.

The Chicago Family Case Management Demonstration is an innovative initiative designed to meet the challenges of serving the Chicago Housing Authority's (CHA) "hard to house"; residents. It involves a unique partnership of city agencies, service providers, researchers, and private foundations, all with a deep commitment to finding solutions for the most vulnerable families affected by the CHA's Plan for Transformation. The rigorous evaluation allows for continuous learning and mid-course corrections, and helped the team develop a validated model that other housing authorities can use. This report highlights the lessons learned during the first year implementation of the Demonstration.

This report analyzes FHA borrower closing costs using data from 7,600 FHA-insured, 30-year fixed-rate home purchase loans. Total closing costs paid to mortgage originators are substantial, averaging just under $3,400. Borrowers in neighborhoods with more minorities and lower educational attainment consistently pay higher costs than others. Loans with simpler terms are less expensive. Borrowers who use "no-cost" loans and so can shop on interest rate alone pay $1,200 less than borrowers who pay some lender or broker fees in cash. This suggests that consumers have a tougher time comparing alternatives when trade-offs are involved and that mortgage loan markets are not fully transparent or competitive.

Neighborhoods with high concentrations of foreclosures and increasing vacancy rates are likely to generate substantial unanticipated costs for resident families and jurisdictions. Any formula distributing resources to help cover those costs must be carefully constructed if it is to be equitable. In this testimony, Kingsley makes six points related to that goal.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) launched the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) demonstration in 1994 in five cities: Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York. MTO targeted families living in some of the nation’s poorest, highest-crime communities and used housing subsidies to offer them a chance to move to lower-poverty neighborhoods. Research on the families conducted in 2002 raised some important questions about the impact of the program. Findings from the follow up Three-City Study of MTO, in 2004 and 2005, answer some of the questions but also highlight the complexity of the MTO experience and the limitations of a relocation-only strategy in being able to bring about fundamental changes in the lives of very low income families.