Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Contents -- Preface -- Chapter 1 -- Moving to Work (MTW): Housing Assistance Demonstration Program( -- Summary -- Introduction -- What are the Public Housing and Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Programs? -- History and Purpose of the MTW -- Demonstration Program -- Authorizing Legislation -- Policy Context -- Program Implementation and Growth -- Policies Implemented by MTW Agencies -- Merged Funding Streams: Development Activities and Project-Basing -- Public Housing Redevelopment -- Project-Basing -- Sample Policy: Keene Housing Authority (NH) and Project-Based Assistance -- Level of Assistance: Income, Rent, and Conditions of Assistance -- Income and Rent Policies -- Income Policies -- Rent Policies -- Sample Policy: MDHCD (MA) -- Self-Sufficiency Program -- Conditions of Assistance -- New Administrative Flexibilities -- Inspections -- Sample Policy: The Oakland Housing Authority (CA) and Biennial Inspections -- Reporting -- Observations about Outcomes -- Tenant Outcomes -- Public Opposition to MTW Participation: The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) -- Outcomes for PHA Operations -- Future of the MTW Demonstration Program -- Policy Option: Restructure MTW as More Effective Demonstration -- Policy Option: MTW as an Expanded Permanent Program -- Policy Option: The Status Quo -- End Notes -- Chapter 2 -- Moving to Work Demonstration: Opportunities Exist to Improve Information and Monitoring( -- Why GAO Did This Study -- What GAO Recommends -- What GAO Found -- Abbreviations -- Background -- HUD Has Not Identified Standard Performance Data and Indicators Needed to Evaluate the Program -- Although Information on Activities Is Generally Available at the Agency Level, It Varies Due to HUD's Limited Guidance -- Design and Data Weaknesses Have Prevented a Comprehensive Evaluation of MTW

Testimony issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Under the Public Housing Program, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and local public housing agencies (PHA) provide housing for low-income residents at rents they can afford. Today, over 3,000 PHAs administer approximately 1.2 million public housing units throughout the nation. First authorized in 1937, the program has undergone changes over the decades. The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 increased managerial flexibility but also established new requirements for housing agencies. Some observers have questioned the program's ability to provide quality, affordable housing to the nation's neediest families. This testimony, which is based upon a number of reports that GAO has issued related to public housing since 2002, discusses the roles of (1) HUD (2) public housing agencies, (3) capital markets, and (4) community services organizations in the public housing system."

— L'auteur examine d'abord les réglementations restrictives qui permettent aux pouvoirs locaux d'exercer une action sur la construction d'habitations. On trouve déjà en 1901, une loi de l'Etat de New-York, influencée par la campagne menée par le philosophe autrichien Félix Adler, et qui servit à cette époque de modèle à de nombreux autres états. Cette loi prescrivait des standards minima d'hygiène, d'air et de lumière. En 1929 fut votée la loi sur les habitations multiples, qui est encore une des plus avancées du pays. Par ailleurs, plus de 1.600 municipalités ont édicté des règlements de bâtisse pour les constructions nouvelles. Enfin, il existe des législations qui permettent la destruction de taudis. Leur exécution se heurte à des intérêts privés et il a fallu lutter contre la corruption de la politique municipale. Il est intéressant de signaler que dans certains Etats, les villes peuvent exproprier plus que ne nécessite la réalisation des travaux en cause, ce qui leur permet de démolir des quartiers insalubres et de construire des quartiers nouveaux. La réglementation par zones des hauteurs, des surfaces et des affectations de bâtiments tend également à se développer. Le Gouvernement Fédéral a établi un Conseil Consultatif qui a pour mission d'aider les municipalités à rédiger leurs règlements dans ce sens. Toutes ces réglementations ont un caractère restrictif. Avec la loi sur l'Habitation de l'Etat de New-York (1926) on franchit une étape de plus. Cette loi crée un service de l'Habitation qui n'a pas encore le pouvoir de bâtir ou même de financer des constructions, mais qui peut déterminer les régions où les sociétés privées pourront bâtir. Ces sociétés seront exemptées d'impôts pendant vingt ans à condition de limiter leurs bénéfices à 6 % de leurs investissements, de ne pas dépasser certains loyers et de se soumettre au contrôle du Service. Ces sociétés fournissent ainsi des logements à environ 5,000 familles recrutées plus dans les classes moyennes que parmi les indigents. Cette loi ne constitue donc pas encore une solution au problème des taudis. En 1932, le Gouvernement fédéral intervient et une société fut établie aux fins de consentir des prêts aux gouvernements contrôlés par les états et les municipalités. Les résultats de cette loi furent assez restreints. L'auteur signale les initiatives prises pendant et après la grande guerre par le gouvernement en faveur des travailleurs, des industries de guerre et des anciens combattants. Mais toutes ces tentatives étaient limitées dans leur objet et dans leur durée. Il fallut attendre la crise économique pour entreprendre des plans plus vastes. Le Service de l'Habitation à l'Administration des Travaux publics (P. W. A.) fut institué en 1933 par la Loi Nationale de Reconstruction industrielle, et fut autorisé à démolir ou à transformer des quartiers de taudis et à bâtir des habitations à bon marché. Le but de la P. W. A. étant de résorber rapidement le chômage, il fallait sacrifier les plans à longue échéance aux nécessités de l'heure. Ce service inaugura en 1933 une politique de prêts qui ne donna que peu de résultats et fut remplacée en 1934 par une politique de constructions et de démolition de taudis. Le Service de l'Habitation reçut à cette fin environ 150 millions de dollars, qui lui permirent de loger à peu près 22,000 familles. Sa gestion financière et administrative fut l'objet de nombreuses critiques. En 1937, il fut englobé dans le Service de l'Habitation des Etats-Unis qui avait pour but de réaliser dans ce domaine une certaine décentralisation tout en maintenant des types uniformes de construction et de financement. Cette politique influença considérablement les pouvoirs locaux et en février 1938, 103 services locaux d'habitations avaient été créés et leur nombre ne cesse d'augmenter. Presque tous les états ont accordé aux autorités s'occupant d'habitation le droit d'expropriation et quelques-uns les exemptent d'impôts. Des expériences intéressantes de construction d'habitations rurales et suburbaines sont poursuivies par l'Administration du Retour à la Terre. (Resettlement Administration) notamment dans les « ceintures de verdure » (greenbelt towns) près de Washington. Ces espèces de cités-jardins sont financées par le Gouvernement Fédéral. M. Ebenstein dénombre ensuite les organismes financiers par l'intermédiaire desquels le Gouvernement Fédéral poursuit son action dans le domaine de l'habitation. a) La Banque Fédérale de Prêts pour Habitations qui contrôle: 1) Les banques qui prêtent sur hypothèques ou nantissement de bons d'Etat; 2) Les caisses d'épargne; 3) Les sociétés qui assurent contre risques de pertes les placements dans les Associations de constructions; 4) La Société de Prêts aux propriétaires. b) L'Administration Fédérale de l'Habitation qui assure les risques de prêts hypothécaires sur habitations à bon marché. Enfin, l'intervention de l'Etat Fédéral dans le domaine de la construction d'habitations s'est concrétisée dans les dispositions de la loi de 1937 connue sous le nom de « loi de Wagner-Steagall ». Le Service Fédéral de l'Habitation a pour but de prêter assistance financière aux Etats et aux pouvoirs locaux aux fins de procurer des habitations convenables et hygiéniques aux familles disposant de revenus minimes. Il peut procéder par prêts, par avances de capitaux ou par contributions annuelles. Le total de ses transactions financières pour les trois premières années ne peut dépasser 500 millions de dollars qui devront être répartis dans toutes les régions des Etats-Unis. Ce service se trouve sous le contrôle du Département de l'Intérieur. L'importance de cètte loi réside, selon l'auteur, dans le fait qu'il ne s'agit plus simplement de résorber le chômage, mais de faire rentrer te problème de l'Habitation à bon marché et de la lutte contre les taudis dans le domaine de la compétence normale de l'Etat et de le faire échapper aux contingences partisanes.

A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "About 3,000 public housing authorities--state, county, and municipal agencies--develop and manage low-income housing in cooperation with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Since 1979, 15 housing authorities have been placed in the hands of receivers' outside parties designated to manage the authorities during a specific period of time, usually several years. GAO was asked to identify the circumstances that led to receiverships, any differences in the way they operate and in their results, and the factors that have influenced the termination of receiverships."

The most significant and most expensive housing policy in the United States is the treatment of owner-occupied housing for tax purposes. This treatment of housing under the tax code is analogous to that in many other countries (for example, Sweden), but certainly not in all developed countries (for example, Canada). Federal subsidies to US renter households are much smaller. Policy has evolved from programmes in which the government built, owned, and managed dwellings to programmes emphasizing housing demand through vouchers and rent certificates awarded to eligible households.

"The fourth edition of Housing Policy in the United States refreshes its classic, foundational coverage of the field with new data, analysis, and comparative focus. This landmark volume offers a broad overview that synthesizes a wide range of material to highlight the significant problems, concepts, programs and debates that all define the aims, challenges, and milestones within and involving housing policy. Expanded discussion in this edition centers on state and local activity to produce and preserve affordable housing, and the implications of reduced financial incentives for homeowners. Other features of this new edition include: Analysis of the impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 on housing-related tax expenditures; Review of the state of fair housing programs in the wake of the Trump Administration's rollback of several key programs and policies; Cross-examination of US housing policy and conditions in an international context. Featuring the latest available data on housing patterns and conditions, this is an excellent companion for graduate and advanced undergraduate courses in urban studies, urban planning, sociology and social policy, and housing policy"--

Public housing is an important part of the heritage of the 20th century that deserves preservation, but is in danger of being demolished or unrecognizably altered. The United States, which saw the construction of such government sponsored projects, largely between 1930 and 1975, is no exception. In the last four decades government efforts have continued to shift towards financial incentives for private initiatives for design, construction and property management. This housing legacy, if being preserved, still needs to be improved so it can continue to serve as affordable housing in the 21st century.

A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 was designed to improve the quality of public housing and the lives of its residents. Since fiscal year 2000, housing agencies managing low-rent or tenant-based Section 8 units have been required to develop and submit five-year and annual plans. As of January 2002, 98 percent of public housing agency plans for fiscal year 2000 had been submitted and approved. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had mixed views about the fiscal year 2000 plan process and its value. The field locations that responded to GAO's survey reported that their review of fiscal year 2000 plans was hampered by several factors, including difficulty in transmitting data between public housing agencies and HUD. Most field locations responded that public housing agencies are implementing their plans but acknowledged that there may be some problems, particularly in fulfilling requirements related to resident participation in the process. The eight public housing agencies GAO visited had differing views on the usefulness of the planning process, the level of resources required to prepare the plans, the sufficiency of HUD's guidance on completing the plans, and the difficulty of meeting the resident participation requirement."

Testimony issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Since fiscal year 1992, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has awarded more than $6 billion in HOPE VI program grants to public housing authorities to revitalize severely distressed public housing and provide supportive services to residents. HUD has encouraged housing authorities to use their HOPE VI grants to attract, or leverage, funding from other sources, including other federal, state, local, and private-sector sources. Projects funded with public and private funds are known as mixed-finance projects. This testimony is based primarily on three reports that GAO issued between November 2002 and November 2003, focusing on (1) the financing of HOPE VI projects, including the amounts of funds leveraged from non-HOPE VI sources; (2) HUD's oversight and administration of the program; and (3) the program's effects on public housing residents and neighborhoods surrounding HOPE VI sites. As requested, the statement summarizes the key findings from these reports, the recommendations GAO made to HUD for improving HOPE VI program management, and HUD's actions in response to the recommendations."

Testimony issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "According to a congressionally established bipartisan commission, decreased investment in affordable housing and an elderly population that is projected to grow from about 12 percent of the population in 2002 to 20 percent by 2030 are likely to increase the number of elderly who must spend large portions of their incomes on housing. Moreover, according to this commission, more than one-third of the elderly tenants of government-subsidized housing require assistance with some type of activity of daily living, such as making a meal or getting in and out of bed. This testimony, which is based on a report issued in February 2005, discusses (1) the federal housing assistance programs requiring that supportive services be made available to elderly residents, (2) other Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs that assist the elderly in obtaining supportive services, and (3) private partnerships and federal health care programs that may provide supportive services to elderly beneficiaries of federal housing assistance."

Other written product issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "This document presents the results of GAO's survey of public housing agencies that manage developments that house primarily the elderly and non-elderly persons with disabilities. The purpose of the survey was to (1) collect data on physical and social characteristics that constitute aspects of "severe distress," (2) verify HUD data from the PIC and REAC databases, and (3) collect data about ways in which the stock of severely distressed public housing for the elderly and non-elderly persons with disabilities could be improved. We surveyed 46 public housing agencies that manage the 76 developments identified as potentially severely distressed using a mail questionnaire. Questions covered the following topics: physical deterioration, systems requiring renovation or modernization, the neighborhood environment in which the development was located, accessibility features, access to social and public services, and actions to remedy housing challenges. Each questionnaire contained a set of specific questions about the identified development and a set of general questions about public housing for the elderly and non-elderly persons with disabilities. In the 11 cases where the housing agency managed more than one of the identified 76 developments, respondents were asked to provide separate answers--in response to the specific questions--for each of the identified developments. For the 35 public housing agencies with one development, we also asked the local housing agencies whether they had other developments or buildings occupied primarily by elderly persons or non-elderly persons with disabilities that did not score above our distress threshold, but had conditions comparable to or worse than the developments we identified. We mailed the questionnaire to each public housing agency on June 10, 2005. Participants could return the questionnaire by mail or fax and collection of survey data ended on August 30, 2005. We had 43 housing agencies return the survey, providing a response rate of 93 percent, and representing 66 of the 76 developments. Respondents were asked to provide written comments to open-ended questions; however to maintain the confidentiality of participants, responses to these items are not provided here. We did not attempt to verify the respondents' answers against an independent source of information; however, we used two techniques to verify the reliability of questionnaire items. First, we used in-depth cognitive interviewing techniques to evaluate the answers of pretest participants. Interviewers judged that all the respondents' answers to the questions were correct. Second, we compared some responses with observations made during site visits; again, observers concluded that responses to these items were correct. A more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology, and a discussion of the survey results are contained in our report, Distressed Conditions in Developments for the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities and Strategies Used for Improvement. Clicking on the following link will provide access to this report (GAO-06-163). We conducted our survey work from November 2004 through August 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards."

A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "To improve its oversight of housing agencies, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) implemented its Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS). PHAS provides HUD with a system to measure the performance of its housing agencies. GAO found that the effectiveness of HUD's ability to measure housing agencies' performance under PHAS has not been greatly improved for several reasons. First, HUD does not verify the accuracy of self-certified data submitted by the agencies in response to PHAS requirements. According to GAO's survey, in several instances, agencies that certified themselves as "standard" or "high performers" were later found to be troubled. Second, HUD's field offices indicated that they are adequately prepared in some areas to assist troubled housing agencies but that in other areas, such as adequate staffing, they are not. Furthermore, HUD's experience indicated that although the use of sanctions against poor performing agencies can be an effective tool for improving performance, most of its field offices fail to use them."