Our nation’s public housing stock faces serious challenges, starting with its age—approximately half of public housing properties were constructed before 1975. A 2010 report (PDF) sponsored by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimated that approximately $26 billion is needed to address deferred maintenance issues in public housing. That number has now reached upwards of $70 billion, according to recent legislative proposals. The pandemic has only made these challenges more urgent: with people isolating in place, COVID-19-related health and safety concerns are exacerbated by poor housing conditions.

Public housing properties also tend to be located in racially segregated neighborhoods with higher poverty rates and fewer social services and amenities than more affluent neighborhoods. This is largely the result of racist policies, such as redlining, that continue to foster unequal access to jobs, transportation, and other resources.

New strategies, along with a hefty infusion of funding, are critical to improve and preserve public housing for the more than two million people who live in these homes. In a new fact sheet, we detail how prior efforts to address distressed public housing have yielded mixed results in terms of improving conditions for original residents and conserving subsidized units.

Policymakers first sought to address the physical deterioration of public housing properties in the 1990s. By combining investments in infrastructure, management improvements, and community services, the Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE VI) Program fueled the demolition, redevelopment, and construction of public housing and other affordable and market-rate units. Through 260 revitalization implementation grants, the program reconstructed more than 97,000 units and relocated over 75,000 households (PDF) between 1992 and 2014.

The results of HOPE VI show that previous public housing redevelopment efforts have fallen short of their aspirational mission to foster improved living conditions for all original residents. The following policy recommendations could ensure that redeveloped units remain both deeply affordable and available to current and future households.

  • Fund public housing preservation and redevelopment initiatives to meet the scale of need.
  • Involve residents in redevelopment and relocation planning and implementation processes.
  • Support residents—via services, counseling, and financial assistance if needed—through relocation, and empower them to make choices about the neighborhoods and units where they live.
  • Pursue more research to build evidence for best practices.

Read the full article about public housing and investment by Mica O'Brien and Susan J. Popkin at Urban Institute.