Benefits

Subterms

    Latest story

    175 Shares169 Views

    This racist US housing policy that tried to fix poverty is a massive failure

    by

    For 20 or so years, the architects of public housing have clung tightly to what became conventional wisdom in the field: move residents of low-income neighborhoods out of public housing and into economically resourced neighborhoods.As the theory goes, middle-class and wealthy communities with high-quality schools, healthcare and public facilities could work “wonders” on the residents of low-income and mostly Black neighborhoods. This idea – which advocates call “mixed-income housing” and includes Section 8, among other programs – depends on the idea that people with low incomes, especially those who are Black, are somehow culturally deficient. They need to be immersed in “better” neighborhoods so they are no longer exposed to food deserts, street violence and a lack of employment opportunities.More often than not, this policy experiment fails. In Chicago, many residents who were moved into higher-income neighborhoods ended up living in Black, low-income neighborhoods within five years. Mixed-income housing policy initiatives have struggled for a variety of reasons, but mostly because they are rooted in racist notions of public housing as a breeding ground for Black dysfunction.It’s clear “compassionate relocation” has been a notoriously mixed bag. Sociologist Ann Owens found that mixed-income housing policy has had a minimal impact on concentrated poverty from 1977 to 2008. Another study examined the experiences of 4,600 families who participated in the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) program, which offered families subsidized vouchers for private rentals. Moving improved the educational prospects of younger children and the mental health of women (who wouldn’t feel better in housing not plagued by chronic plumbing or heating problems, pests and cramped living conditions?). But relocation had no effect on employment or income for people who moved as adults. Economic opportunity didn’t magically appear at a new address.By the 1990s, scholars and politicians had made a cottage industry out of claiming that grouping poor Black people in high-density residential communities causes poor quality of life in the form of struggling schools and other ills. If you subscribe to this view, you probably believe poverty spreads among people with lower incomes like a highly contagious virus.The US Department Housing and Urban Development (HUD) bought into this narrative and, with its Hope VI transformation plans, emphasized moving former public housing residents out of their old neighborhoods. The Chicago Housing Authority (CHA), one of the nation’s largest public housing systems, committed to this course of action in 1999.Soon Chicago began demolishing “severely distressed public housing”. Among them were high-rise public housing developments like the infamous Cabrini-Green complex, which became a national symbol of urban blight and failed housing policy; those ideas were imprinted on the American imagination when Cabrini-Green appeared as the location of the 1970s sitcom Good Times and as the nightmarish setting for the 1992 horror film Candyman.The real experts on how relocation is not all it’s cracked up to be are the very targets of resettlement. As a political scientist who studies public housing, I’ve interviewed dozens of women who lived in properties owned by the CHA, which has a 50-year-old track record of grossly mismanaged and dilapidated public housing.I attended a memorable 2011 CHA tenants association meeting where women questioned discriminatory drug-testing policies in mixed-income housing developments. A CHA official claimed, “We don’t have a drug policy.” Chaos erupted because the women knew otherwise. Developers who managed mixed-housing programs often did as they pleased and made their own policies, sometimes in violation of CHA or HUD rules. Later in the meeting, another official seemed to admit those enrolled in mixed-income programs were subjected to more drug testing than residents who paid full market value.That contradicted talking points from advocacy groups like the National Housing Conference. It has contended that “mixed-income communities provide a safer environment that offers a greater range of positive role models and exposure to more job leads for area residents”. Transplanted residents weren’t safer, but rather vulnerable to additional surveillance, potential interaction with law enforcement (sometimes when neighbors reported them for no reason) and a different kind of stress in their nice, new homes. White supremacy and class bias followed residents wherever they moved, if they could move. Many participants in voucher programs continue to have trouble finding landlords willing to accept them.Researchers who hew to the old, entrenched school of thought – that masses of poor Black people living together are the problem – don’t seem to grasp that kids who once lived in public housing may not be accepted in their new schools. Or that their parents don’t “fit in” enough to get a nearby job. Or that groceries and life essentials are often more expensive in wealthier areas. Or that families are often placed in suburbs far from any of the public housing or welfare offices, let alone public hospitals and other support systems.Robert Chaskin and Mark Joseph coined a term for the marginalization of relocated families: “Incorporated exclusion”. People considered “lucky” enough to “get out” deal with isolation from valuable community networks. Contrary to popular belief and social entitlement policy, such networks and social support do exist in public housing. Far from being the “welfare queens” of the Reagan era, residents work hard and frequently to support each other. They provide childcare or elder care, organize meals for each other and advise neighbors on how to deal with bureaucracy that ignores the crumbling state of public housing it’s supposed to maintain.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionYet mixed-income housing policy has shown little to no consideration of the importance of living near friends, family, church, schools and so on. Lack of easy access to community can also have detrimental effects on both community and individual health. By transferring residents all over metro Chicago, the CHA disrupted mutual aid mechanisms. Importantly, it also undermined tenants’ ability to organize and advocate for themselves.Because Black and poor Americans are presumed to be socially, culturally and spiritually broken, US poverty policy has never prioritized maintaining or protecting their communities. We don’t have enough meaningful public conversation about what redlining housing discrimination, systemic underdevelopment of places like Chicago’s South Side and police torture have done to low-income Black communities today.Housing policies forged in racism, sexism and classism do little but duplicate anti-Blackness and socioeconomic biases. Mixed-income housing policy attempts to shift the blame for what geographer Ruthie Wilson Gilmore calls “the organized government abandonment” of public housing stock and inner cities, de facto economic dead zones where white people and investment will not go.The problem is not high concentrations of Black, low-income people causing negative child and family outcomes. Rather, it’s that our government, businesses, schools and citizens discriminate against the working class, the poor and the unhoused. Members of the “underclass” – once a popular term in US poverty studies – are literally pushed out of sight and into public housing, low-performing schools and low-wage jobs.We deny them the rights to safe and secure housing, transportation and living-wage employment. White, middle-class and wealthy citizens refuse to frequent businesses or attend schools in high-poverty neighborhoods, and businesses are disincentivized to offer services in neighborhoods with high numbers of Black people.Assumptions about public housing residents have been built into the very foundations of public housing policy. It’s time to retire these damaging scripts – and eradicate them in policy because, as Fannie Lou Hamer said: “Nobody’s free until everybody’s free.”Alex J. Moffett-Bateau PhD is from Detroit, Michigan, and is an assistant professor of political science at John Jay College in New York City More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican debt ceiling plans could see most vulnerable Americans lose aid

      by

      As debt ceiling negotiations come down to the wire with the 1 June deadline looming, some Republican leaders seem determined to use critical safety net programs – specifically, Medicaid and Snap – as a bargaining chip, and millions of America’s most vulnerable families may pay the price.Cuts and restrictions to these essential programs, which offer healthcare and food assistance, will cause further hardship to families who are already struggling – and who in many cases can’t afford the basic essentials like food and shelter. The Republican fixation on appending work requirements to these benefits are also ineffective: data shows these policies are not needed and don’t produce any substantial solutions. Some critics say they also force people to find jobs that don’t actually lead to economic mobility, prolonging their need for federal assistance.“Most Americans with health coverage through Medicaid are already working if they are able to,” Senator Ron Wyden, chairman of the Senate finance committee, said in a recent statement. He also noted that “the track record shows work reporting requirements are a bureaucratic nightmare for Americans”.If Democrats make these concessions to the GOP, the cuts would also be one more blow to vulnerable people this year, many of whom just recently experienced slashed benefits when emergency Snap benefits ended along with the public health emergency for Covid-19 in May. At the same time, grocery prices are soaring: The US Department of Agriculture estimates all food prices are predicted to increase 6.5% in 2023, on top of the jumps in cost we’ve already seen over the past year or so.Maine resident Hazel Willow, single mother to a four year old, recently left an abusive relationship and says these programs provide the essential support she desperately needs to survive and heal.“The way I’m best able to provide for my child, to make sure I’m living my highest good as myself, a mother, a citizen and human in society, is to heal and recover with whatever ability I have in my body that day,” Willow said. “To do that safely and successfully, I need the societal safety net of Snap, Tanf, Wic, and others.”Willow notes that – like everyone else she knows who relies on these programs – she would love to be more self-sufficient, and wishes she had more options that would provide her with more financial breathing room and agency over her own life.“A life in which you live or die by your access to these programs is not an easy one. In my new world – where almost everyone is on most of these same programs – I have yet to meet someone who has an easy day, who is happy and safe with the way their life is and feels content to simply exist on these benefits.”Paco Vélez, president and chief executive of Feeding South Florida, said there are more than a million people struggling with food insecurity in his region and worries that more restrictions will make the situation even more dire.“The proposed work restrictions expand the minimum 20 hour per week work requirement from ages 18 to 49 to include ages 50 to 55,” said Vélez. “Many times, individuals that are unable to work fall through the cracks and have a hard time filing for an exemption or navigating the process to obtain disability, although their health is at risk, or they are unable to perform in a job they used to be able to do.”“My Snap benefits run out by the second week of the month and that is already shopping for whatever I can find on sale,” says Lilia Jorge Perez, 51, of Hollywood, Florida, who relies on Feeding South Florida. “I want to buy more healthy foods like vegetables, fruits, chicken or fish but that would take most of my benefits.”Perez came to the US from Cuba last year and has been struggling to find work because she is still waiting for her work permit. She was recently cut off from Medicaid and cash assistance and is grateful to be receiving Snap benefits.“It is already difficult to find work and even worse for those over 50 with little to no education and who don’t speak English,” says Perez. “I know people shouldn’t have to rely only on the government to provide for themselves, but if we are already facing the possibility of homelessness from the raise in rent, and people are going without food because of the prices, how can the politicians make it worse during such a difficult time in the United States?”Work restrictions often create obstacles for people accessing benefits, while also putting additional strain on staff and resources that are already stretched thin in such programs. Many families are required to navigate a notoriously complicated and time-consuming process in order to submit documentation proving they are meeting the requirements.And many communities – especially those in high-poverty areas – lack the resources to help residents who are facing food insecurity.“The families we serve may not have access to a computer, miss the required phone interview, or have notices mailed to a former address,” said Vélez. “Expanding the age for work requirements will force more folks to jump through these hoops to access food – a necessity.”Meanwhile, the cuts could deprive millions of Americans access to healthcare at a time when Covid continues to have significant impacts. The pandemic emergency status may have officially ended earlier in May, but tens of thousands of Americans are still getting sick with the virus or dealing with the lingering symptoms of long-term Covid.A mandatory national Medicaid recertification process involving all program enrollees – known as an “unwinding” – has already begun as states resume the annual eligibility verification procedures that had been on hold during the pandemic. KFF estimates that between 5.3 million and 14.2 million people will lose Medicaid coverage just through that process alone.States that saw some of the largest Medicaid enrollment surges during the pandemic – such as California, New York and Florida – are also likely to be among those with the largest number of people who lose coverage during this unwinding process. That means many people living in those states will soon be left uninsured – particularly in states like Florida, which didn’t adopt the Medicaid expansion, meaning fewer people meet the criteria for eligibility.Adding work requirements and other barriers to coverage will compound the healthcare access crisis – and place significant strain on community resources including emergency rooms (where uninsured patients will seek care if they have no other option).The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) says the red tape created by the Republicans’ proposed work restrictions would jeopardize the health coverage and access to care of 21 million Americans.Kimberley Causey-Gomez, commissioner of the Virgin Islands Department of Human Services, notes that more than 40% of the territory’s population relies on Medicaid, and she worries that many of them may be at risk of losing coverage (and the access to healthcare) should work requirements become a reality.Meanwhile, in Maine, Willow thinks the wealthy, including lawmakers and administrators who create and oversee these policies, don’t appreciate the consequences their actions have for people who rely on these programs – people who play an important role in our communities and society.“The people who make your coffee, cut your hair or bag your groceries. The staff at the gas stations and restaurants you frequent,” she said.“Your life is supported by these programs whether you see them or not.”This article was supported by the Economic Hardship Reporting Project More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on post-Covid recovery: powered by the state not the market | Editorial

      by

      OpinionCoronavirusThe Guardian view on post-Covid recovery: powered by the state not the marketEditorialThe Thatcherite wing of the Conservative party desires a restoration of ideas whose time has come and gone Mon 9 Aug 2021 14.02 EDTLast modified on Mon 9 Aug 2021 15.35 EDTThe Conservative party hooked British capitalism to the state’s life support system for the past 18 months. So it takes chutzpah to think, as business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng does, of putting the free market at the heart of a post-Covid recovery. Yet lengthening NHS waiting lists, hiking consumer energy bills and welfare cuts when poverty is rising all betray a mindset that regards the re-legitimation of state intervention as threatening a way of life rather than securing it.What the Thatcherite wing of the Conservative party desires is a restoration. For them this is an opportunity to go back to 1979 and use tried-and-tested ways to stabilise prices, crush labour and discipline poorer nations. These rightwingers yearn for higher interest rates, to prioritise financial returns on assets and the use of creditor power to squeeze the global south.Such ideologues are likely, in part, to be disappointed. The US president, Joe Biden, does not see the world their way, saying this April that “trickle-down economics”, associated with Ronald Reagan, didn’t work. The president aims to show that the state can do good, and the early results are promising. His Covid-related aid boost will push the share of Americans in poverty to the lowest level on record. Mr Biden’s treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, professes a “free market” scepticism. She has promoted the social benefits of running the economy “hot” by maximising the use of all available resources. Her inspiration is the economist Arthur Okun, who in 1973 argued that governments increasing employment would foster “a process of ladder climbing” in the job market that would reduce inequality and stimulate productivity growth. Ms Yellen has stuck to this playbook in office.Perhaps the greatest pushback against the return of laissez-faire dominance in economics comes from China. Beijing has surpassed the US in some key technologies. Mr Biden’s economic team is blunt about needing to use the state for more “targeted efforts to try to build domestic industrial strength … when we’re dealing with competitors like China that are not operating on market-based terms”.The state is, clearly, not powerless against global capital. During Covid it paid for millions of workers without breaking a sweat. Contrary to conventional thinking there was no threat from rising deficits to interest rates. Thatcherism was defined by Nigel Lawson as “increasing freedom for markets to work within a framework of firm monetary and fiscal discipline”. This saw the state put in service of business interests rather than mediating between labour and capital. It also left Britain woefully unprepared, and ill-equipped, for the pandemic. A Thatcherite approach will not produce a fairer distribution of growth. It will militate against support during downturns and plans to “level up” the regions. Ministers ought to outline a new role for the state rather than relying on failed ideas about what the market can do.TopicsCoronavirusOpinionConservativesMargaret ThatcherEconomicsJoe BidenUS politicsRonald ReaganeditorialsReuse this content More