Skip to main content

Evidence Matters Additional Resources Archive: 2013


Additional Resources


                        FALL 2013                         SUMMER 2013                         SPRING 2013                        



FALL 2013
Evidence Matters Fall 2013
FALL 2013

Back to top


Evidence Matters Summer 2013
  • “Affordable Housing Preservation: Building a National Data Infrastructure” (2007), by Anne Ray, explains which and how preservation data are tracked and charts out how to build a national preservation database.
  • “Barriers to the Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing” (2001), by David Listokin et al. for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, is a two-part report that provides an in-depth, technical examination of the challenges and costs of preserving affordable housing that includes state-specific information about building codes, as well as case studies.
  • “Best Practices for Effecting the Rehabilitation of Affordable Housing” (2006), by David Listokin et al., a two-volume report on proven approaches to rehabilitating affordable housing, provides guidance regarding different types of remediation and includes case studies of model efforts at state and local levels.
  • “Challenges of the Small Rental Property Sector” (2009), by Alan Mallach for the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, looks at the preservation issues specific to small-scale rental properties and suggests methods with which to ensure an adequate supply.
  • “Components of Inventory Change 2007–2009” (2011), prepared for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, uses detailed data to explain precisely how different types of housing stock were lost and gained from 2007 to 2009.
  • “Encouraging Residential Rehabilitation with Building Codes: New Jersey’s Experience” (2006), by Raymond J. Burby et al., describes how the state of New Jersey applied “smart building codes” to rehabilitation projects to overcome barriers to preservation.
  • “The Latest Threat: How Mortgage Maturity Jeopardizes Affordable Housing” (2012), by Adam Cowing, looks at what happens to rents of subsidized housing when mortgage subsidies expire, with a focus on Los Angeles.
  • “Innovation in Capital Markets” (2009), by My B. Trinh for Enterprise Community Partners, offers three case studies of large-scale preservation funds designed to finance the preservation and acquisition of affordable housing.
  • “Rental Housing Affordability — A Review of Current Research” (2010), by Rebecca Cohen et al., provides ways of measuring rental affordability and information and data about tradeoffs that cost-burdened renters make.
  • “Taking Stock: The Role of ‘Preservation Inventories’ in Preserving Affordable Rental Housing,” prepared by the Center for Housing Policy, explains the significance of data to preservation and offers legislative and other solutions to overcoming barriers to rehabilitation.
  • “The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Promote Healthy Homes” (2009) offers evidence-based information about how substandard housing can negatively impact residents’ health, filling out the picture of what else preservation can do.
  • “After Year 15: Challenges to the Preservation of Housing Financed with Low-Income Housing Tax Credits” (2008), by Alex Schwartz and Edwin Meléndez, examines the risk associated with expiration of the initial 15-year period protecting affordability for housing units developed with Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. Housing Policy Debate 19:2, 261–94.
  • “Preserving Affordable Housing Near Transit: Case Studies from Atlanta, Denver, Seattle and Washington, D.C.” (2010), released by Reconnecting America, Enterprise, and the National Housing Trust, is a collection of case studies examining what cities are doing to ensure that affordable housing is not lost as a result of transit-oriented development.

Back to top


Evidence Matters Spring 2013
  • “Finding Common Ground: The Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning” (2006), by Lynne C. Manzo and Douglas D. Perkins, develops a framework for understanding the psychological dimensions of people’s interaction with community that emphasizes place attachments and meaning, along with social and political aspects of community participation.
  • “Seven Strategies for Successfully Marketing and Stabilizing the Occupancy of Mixed-Income/Mixed-Race Properties” (2006), by NeighborWorks America, uses eight case studies to identify successful management and marketing practices for properties serving mixed- to low-income families.
  • “Neighborhood Effects on the Long-Term Well-Being of Low-Income Adults” (2012), by Jens Ludwig et al., uses data from the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) demonstration to assess the long-term impacts on low-income adults that move to less distressed areas.
  • “Social Seams in Mixed-Income Neighborhoods: A Case Study of Garfield Square Park” (2009), by Tessa Munekiyo and Karen Chapple, explores how social interaction occurs within a diverse mixed-income neighborhood with an analysis of informal socializing and other uses made of a nearby park.
  • “Creating Defensible Space” (1996), by Oscar Newman, uses case studies to illustrate how the physical layout of communities can help people control areas around their homes and preserve the areas in which residents can realize commonly held values and lifestyles.
  • “Inequality Rising and Permanent Over Past Two Decades” (2013), by Jason DeBacker et al., investigates the permanent-versus-transitory nature of rising household income inequality in the U.S.
  • “Housing Policy is School Policy: Economically Integrative Housing Promotes Academic Success in Montgomery County, Maryland” (2010), by Heather Schwartz, looks into the impact of economic integration, achieved through inclusionary zoning and other housing programs, on school performance outcomes for disadvantaged children in Montgomery County, Maryland.
  • “Can Inclusionary Zoning Be an Effective and Efficient Housing Policy? Evidence from Los Angeles and Orange Counties” (2010), by Vinit Mukhija et al., examines inclusionary zoning programs’ structure, ability to deliver affordable housing, and effect on housing markets in Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
  • “The Effects of Inclusionary Zoning on Local Housing Markets: Lessons from the San Francisco, Washington DC and Suburban Boston Areas” (2007), by Jenny Schuetz et al., looks at the characteristics of jurisdictions that adopted inclusionary zoning policies, subsequent affordable housing production, and the effect on the housing markets of the study areas.
  • “Expanding Housing Opportunities through Inclusionary Zoning: Lessons from Two Counties” (2012), by the Urban Institute, presents case studies of inclusionary zoning programs in Montgomery County, Maryland and Fairfax County, Virginia to evaluate their effectiveness in increasing the supply of affordable housing units.
  • Mixed-Income Development Study Research Briefs (nos. 1–8), School of Social Service Administration at The University of Chicago, summarize major results of a multiyear, two-phased study that investigated the early implementation and community-building processes at three, new mixed-income developments in Chicago and is now exploring the ideas and assumptions behind mixed-income development policy and how the strategy affects communities and their residents.

Back to top


All Additional Resources links:

The contents of this article are the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. Government.