The Unintended Imposition of Housing Deconcentration?

John Goering
City University of New York

For years, policy analysts and the current Secretary of Housing and Urban Development have offered the reply to the question of how deconcentration fits as part of federal housing policy objectives: use deconcentration whenever appropriate, along with supply-side or place-based improvements, in a multifaceted strategy to address poverty (Briggs, 2008; DeLuca, 2012; Galster, 2013; Goering and Feins, 2008; Sharkey, 2013). Voluntary mobility (Goetz, 2002), in some form and degree, needs to be among the alternatives offered to low-income residents receiving housing assistance, if only because of the substantial levels of harm and fear often caused by living in deeply poor communities. Although not a silver bullet, voluntary mobility is among the critical tools that government and the nonprofit worlds should continue to engage in as they pursue comprehensive, effective, and equitable outcomes for cities, neighborhoods, and poor households.