PD&R: A HISTORICAL

INVESTIGATION AT (ALMOST) 50

A HUD 50TH ANNIVERSARY PUBLICATION

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research

Visit PD&R’s website

huduser.gov

to find this report and others sponsored by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R).

Other services of HUD User, PD&R’s research information service, include listservs, special interest reports, bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources), access to public use databases, and a hotline (800-245-2691) for help accessing the information you need.

PD&R: A Historical

Investigation at (Almost) 50

A HUD 50th Anniversary Publication

January 2016

Acknowledgments

The author thanks David Hardiman, Meena Bavan, and Mark Shroder for providing their expertise in discussions and comments during the writing of this article.

Disclaimer

The contents of this publication are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. government.

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................................1

The Late 1960s: Urban Crisis and Research by Advisory Commission .................................................................................................2

The Beginnings of PD&R ....................................................................................................................................................................................4

From Technological Research and Development to Social Experimentation and Back Again, and Again ......................................6

Decline and (Temporary?) Renewal of Budgetary Resources .................................................................................................................13

Evolving Data .......................................................................................................................................................................................................18

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................................................22

References ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................23

iii

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

to ensure that the most needy families can afford a decent

(HUD) was created as a cabinet-level agency 50 years

home in a suitable environment. The shifts show that

ago, combining within its oversight various existing federal

federal policy priorities, filtering down from Congress and

programs such as public housing and urban renewal. Some

the White House, directed, nudged, or constrained PD&R’s

of the individual programs were already running research

work. Notwithstanding this buffeting, PD&R’s history

demonstrations when HUD began, but the agency did not

shows the buildup of a significant housing-related data

immediately have an office devoted to coordinated research

infrastructure, a store of publicly available housing-related

and analysis about the need for, and impacts of, different

social science evidence, and a federal research office

federal interventions to improve the state of housing and

that both feeds and benefits from a wider community of

communities in the nation. Within 4 years of HUD’s birth,

academics, research institutions and foundations, and other

however, the first subcabinet-level research office was

federal agencies.

created, which became what is now known as the Office of

Policy Development and Research (PD&R).

This story begins with a national urban crisis that brought

to light the need for research and policy recommendations

Many stories could be told about the history of PD&R. This

about how the federal government can help provide decent

one takes a case-specific approach, focusing on shifts over

living environments for American households, particularly

time between PD&R’s study of ways to produce a decent

for those that cannot afford or are excluded from them.

home for all American families, on the one hand, and ways

1

The Late 1960s: Urban Crisis and

Research by Advisory Commission

The postwar Atomic Age of technological exuberance met

Otto Kerner. It was tasked with discovering the source

up with the socioeconomic “crisis of the cities” in the mid-

of the urban riots. The President’s Committee on Urban

1960s. Cities saw a large in-migration of Black residents

Housing, better known as the Kaiser Commission after

from the rural south and a concomitant out-migration of

its chairperson, industrial shipbuilder Edgar Kaiser, was

White residents to exclusionary suburban communities,

tasked with investigating ways to supply “a decent home

and with them significant out-migration of commercial

and healthy surroundings for every American family now

and mercantile employment opportunities. The federal

imprisoned in the squalor of the slums” (PCUH, 1968: 1).

Urban Renewal program, authorized in 1954, was meant

The third advisory committee was the National Commission

to eradicate urban slums with their substandard housing. A

on Urban Problems, known as the Douglas Commission

decade into it, impoverished urban areas persisted. From

after its chairperson, Paul H. Douglas, a former Senator

1964 through 1968, cities in the United States experienced from Il inois and self-described “early proponent of civil hundreds of race riots. In the midst of this turmoil, the

rights legislation” (NCUP, 1968: 501). President Johnson

Department of Housing and Urban Development Act in

formed this committee pursuant to authority he had

1965 established HUD.1

requested in 1965, which Congress granted, to study

building and housing codes, zoning, local and federal

Congress emphasized the sense of crisis in its statement

tax policies, and development standards to provide, in

of findings for the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan

Johnson’s words, “knowledge that would be useful in

Development Act of 1966:

dealing with slums, urban growth, sprawl and blight, and

The Congress hereby finds and declares

to insure decent and durable housing” (NCUP, 1968: vi ).

that improving the quality of urban life is

The Douglas Commission was specifical y to recommend

the most critical domestic problem facing

ways to combine efforts of the federal government, private

the United States. The persistence of

industry, and local communities to increase the supply of

widespread urban slums and blight, the

low-cost, decent housing (NCUP, 1968).

concentration of persons of low- income in

older urban areas, and the unmet needs for

The Kerner Commission reported that the riots stemmed

additional housing and community facilities

and services arising from rapid expansion

from pervasive racial discrimination and segregation

of our urban population have resulted in a

resulting in economic, social, and political impoverishment

marked deterioration in the quality of the

in inner-city ghettos and in frustration with the contrast

environment and the lives of large numbers

between these conditions and hopes spurred by judicial

of our people while the Nation as a whole

and legislative victories of the Civil Rights Movement. The

prospers.2

Commission also cited media reflections of expanding

In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson created three advisory

national prosperity. Inadequate housing was one of the

committees to study the situation. All three reported out in

conditions complained of (NACCD, n.d. [1968]).3 Focusing

1968.

on urban housing, the Kaiser Commission had a significant

hand in developing what would be the Housing and Urban

The National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders was

Development Act of 1968 (hereafter, the 1968 Act).4 It

formed immediately after the July 1967 riots and informal y

recommended putting what President Johnson referred to

known as the Kerner Commission after its chairperson,

3 Documents referenced in the form “n.d. [YYYY]” indicate that the

1 Pub. L. 89–174, 79 Stat. 667 (Sept. 9, 1965), codified as 42 U.S.C.

document has no publication date, but the author imputed the approximate

§§ 3532–3537.

year of publication from the context of the document.

2 Sec. 101, Pub. L. 89–754, 80 Stat. 1255 (Nov. 3, 1966).

4 Pub. L. 90–448, 82 Stat. 476 (Aug. 1, 1968).

2

as the “genius of industry” to work in dramatical y increasing housing production (von Hoffman, 2010). The Douglas

Commission’s expansive view of its task resulted in a review

of housing policy general y rather than simply codes and tax

policies. One of its recommendations urged the President

and Congress to expand federal data col ection about

housing and other urban problems, specifying that HUD’s

research activities should “be vastly expanded, with special

reference to housing programs for the poor and near-poor”

in order “to close serious information gaps that now exist

with regard to many aspects of public policy and effective

government for urban areas” (NCUP, n.d. [1968]: 184).

The 1968 Act reflected the Kaiser report’s recommendations

and included a numerical goal of producing, within the next

10 years, 20 mil ion homes plus 6 mil ion affordable units

for low-income families. Section 108 of the 1968 Act also

required HUD to promote and support, as much as feasible,

the use of technological innovations in its work. The same

technology provision was repeated in Title V of the Housing

and Urban Development Act of 1970 (hereafter, the 1970

Act), when Congress replaced various different housing and

urban development research authorities into one general

provision granting HUD broad authority to engage in

research and demonstrations relevant to HUD’s mission.5

5 Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, Title V, §§ 501–504, Pub.

L. 91–609, 84 Stat. 1784–1786 (December 31, 1970).

3

The Beginnings of PD&R

When HUD was created in 1965, federal research,

report was split into one part focused on “technological

development, and demonstration activities relating to

considerations,” or the role of industry in housing R&D,

housing, metropolitan growth, and urban problems were

and a second part focused on strategic use of “social and

relatively smal , disparate projects initiated in response to

behavioral science” to address urban problems. The NRC

unsolicited proposals under individual HUD program offices. report reflected two strategies for HUD R&D: low-cost These projects included demonstration programs on

housing production and social intervention.

low-income housing, urban planning, and “urban renewal”

and research on transportation

NRC’s specific research recommendations included “a

6 and federal assistance

in response to natural disasters (HUD, n.d. [1968]: 24). In

major shift in emphasis from the traditional ‘bricks and

1966, HUD created a number of advisory committees of

mortar’ approach to urban research and development

outside experts to evaluate those program areas (HUD,

to a systematic concern with the people, their condition,

n.d. [1967]).

institutions, and social change” (NRC, 1969: 26). It went

on to explain its premise for the shift in emphasis. It did

In 1967, HUD’s first Secretary, Robert Weaver, created

not accept “the assumption that improvements in housing

two divisions within the Office of the Secretary that would

and physical services have an automatic and beneficial

eventual y merge into the present-day PD&R (NRC, 2008).

multiplier effect on the human conditions of the cities.

The two divisions were an office for policy analysis and

… urban processes may be more effectively studied

program evaluation, and a research and development

and altered when viewed in their human and institutional

(R&D) office. The latter, the Office of Urban Technology

dimensions” (NRC, 1969: 26).

and Research, was established “to create a coordinated

and comprehensive research effort, and to lay a sound

NRC recognized that HUD was simultaneously receiving

foundation for its necessary future enlargement.” It

advice on its R&D program from various other sources. In

assumed responsibility for all but the most closely program-

addition to the Douglas Commission’s review of the state of

oriented of HUD’s R&D programs. It began with a director,

knowledge on zoning, housing and building codes, taxation,

a budget of $500,000, and a total staff of 32 (HUD, n.d.

and development standards, the RAND Corporation

[1968]: 24–25). In 1968, HUD’s R&D office awarded the

had already fulfil ed a contract for “Recommendations

newly formed Urban Institute its first contract to study

for Research in Support of Federal Urban Programs” in

urban problems as a whole (HUD, n.d. [1968]). From

April 1968. NRC also took it for granted that HUD was

1967 to 1969, the title of the R&D office switched from

monitoring similar relevant ongoing activities such as the

“Urban Technology and Research” to “Urban Research and

President’s Task Force on Communications Policy, which

Technology,” and then to simply “Research and Technology”

explored urban impacts of such innovations as “facsimile

(HUD, n.d. [1969]: 385; HUD, n.d. [1970]: 259).

mail, electronic communications, computerized money and

credit systems, home consoles for access to education and

Also in 1967, HUD commissioned a study and report by

information reference banks [presumably precursors to the

the National Research Council of the National Academies

personal computer and the Internet], and TV surveil ance

of Sciences and Engineering (NRC) on recommendations

for traffic and public order and safety” (NRC, 1969: 24).

for “long-range planning for R&D” at HUD. NRC reported

its results in 1969. Based on questions that HUD gave

On the technology side, the basic strategy outlined by

NRC to guide the goals of its recommendations, the NRC

NRC emphasized using social science research to guide

technological efforts. NRC recommended that HUD focus

on ways to use currently available technology (such as

6 When HUD was first established, it had responsibility for administering

federal programs for urban mass transportation. In the Reorganization Plan

improvements in factory-produced housing), and only

No. 2 of 1968, President Johnson transferred the responsibility to the U.S.

secondarily on pursuing research opportunities in new

Department of Transportation (33 Fed. Reg. 6965, 6865–6866 [May 9,

1968]).

technology (NRC, 1969).

4

On the social and behavioral sciences side, NRC

Before the merger, HUD’s research office undertook a large

recommended that HUD develop its research manpower

demonstration project to test a strategy of increasing the

and capabilities to keep up with the growth of related

housing industry’s capacity for mass production of housing.

nonfederal R&D. According to NRC, HUD should develop

Its first big project after the merger was a social experiment

means to tap into an “extramural network” of social and

to provide housing al owance payments to households living

behavioral science research conducted by universities,

in substandard or overpriced housing.

nonprofits, municipal governments, private industry, and

inhouse. HUD should thus al ocate (1) “a substantive

What fol ows is an historical investigation into shifts in

share” of HUD’s R&D budget to developing a network

PD&R’s research agenda along these axes as it was

of extramural R&D capabilities, “including the required

buffeted by political agendas and budgetary resources

supplies of scientific and professional manpower”; (2)

through the next 40 or so years and how, notwithstanding

“a significant portion” to program evaluation; and (3) an

these headwinds, its production and support of evidence-

“adequate provision” for short-run research to analyze for

based social science data and research evolved.

policy purposes the data generated by larger research

efforts (NRC, 1969: 88). The basic premise of NRC’s

report was that the nation suffered from a significant lack

of social science research on housing and urban problems.

NRC’s advice, therefore, focused more on process than

product: HUD should help build extramural research

capacity with which HUD’s intramural R&D program could

be networked.

HUD’s second (official)7 Secretary, George Romney, took

office in January 1969, and by May of that year had raised

the R&D office to the subcabinet level as the Office of the

Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (HUD,

n.d. [1971]: 281). It would not be until 1973, when newly

appointed Secretary James Lynn merged research and

technology with the policy and program evaluation functions

in the Secretary’s office, that PD&R took on its current

form as the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy

Development and Research. The merger shifted the weight

of expertise in HUD’s research office from technology to

social science. The Assistant Secretary of Research and

Technology was an engineer from NASA (the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration). The Assistant

Secretary of PD&R after the merger was an economist, as

were many of the staff members who joined the office from

the preceding policy and program evaluation division (NRC,

2008: 13).

7 HUD’s first Secretary, Robert Weaver, left office in December 1968.

George Romney took office in January 1969. Between the two, Weaver’s

Under Secretary, Robert C. Wood, served as Secretary with a recess

appointment from President Johnson. The Senate never acted on Wood’s

nomination, however, and he was never sworn in as Secretary.

5

From Technological Research and

Development to Social Experimentation

and Back Again, and Again

The national housing goal declared by Congress in 1949,

in 1966, to conduct studies and demonstrations on ways

and emphatical y reaffirmed in the 1968 Act, is “a decent

to apply innovative technologies to housing construction,

home and a suitable living environment for every American

rehabilitation, and maintenance and to urban development

family.”8 This phrase broadly encompasses HUD’s mission:

activities,11 the 1968 Act went further and mandated that

to work toward not only a decent dwel ing unit for al ,

HUD undertake a specific demonstration program to test

but also a local living environment that is suitable.9 The

new technologies for low-income housing production.

beginnings of PD&R exemplify two distinct focuses for

Section 108 of the 1968 Act cal ed for HUD to solicit

researching how to reach that goal. First, test ways to

and approve no more than five plans by public or private

improve the production of houses; second, test ways to

entities to develop low-income housing “using new and

provide resources to needy families so that they may live in

advanced technologies … where local building regulations

a decent dwel ing.

permit the construction of experimental housing,” or where

local zoning law permits variances for the construction

Later, research on improving production would disaggregate of “experimental housing.” In addition to encouraging the into researching construction techniques and how to

use of new technology in low-income housing production,

overcome regulatory barriers that drive up the cost of

the demonstration was meant to “encourage large-

production. Research on providing resources to needy

scale experimentation in the use of such technologies,”

families would expand to include a suitable living

provide for a comparison of the new and existing housing

environment or neighborhood as part and parcel of the

technologies, and evaluate the effect of local housing and

access afforded to a decent dwel ing.

zoning codes on the use of new housing technologies.12

Operation BREAKTHROUGH

When Secretary Romney took over administration of HUD

in January 1969, the outgoing administration informed him

Elevation of HUD’s research office to the subcabinet

that the Office of Urban Technology and Research had

level in 1969 coincided with its launch of an ambitious

already initiated an experimental housing project to study

demonstration project, Operation BREAKTHROUGH,

how zoning, building codes, labor rules, and local financial

championed by Secretary Romney.

and administrative policies constrain the rapid adoption of

The 1968 Act had established HUD’s responsibility for

cost-saving housing production technologies. This project

ensuring the production of 26 mil ion new homes in 10

was cal ed the “‘In-Cities’ Experimental Housing Project”

years, 6 mil ion of them for low- and moderate-income

(HUD, n.d. [1968]: 28). The outgoing administration also

families.10 The same act directed HUD to encourage the

use of new technologies in the development of low-income

11 Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, § 1010,

housing. Although Congress had already directed HUD,

Pub. L. 89–754, 80 Stat. 1286 (Nov. 3, 1966). Section 1011 of the statute

also directed HUD to conduct research about “the ecological factors

involved in urban living,” because Congress had found that, given the

“influence of environment on all living creatures, … much more knowledge

8 1968 Act: 601.

is urgently needed concerning the effect on human beings of highly

9 The Fair Housing Act, also enacted in 1968, made discrimination in

urbanized surroundings.” The record of HUD’s research undertakings of the

housing il egal, which added to the meaning of decent homes in suitable

time shows no significant research on ecological factors in urban living in environments, requiring they be free of discrimination.

response to this directive.

10 1968 Act: 601.

12 1968 Act, § 108: 495.

6

advised Romney that one of the most important matters

Operation BREAKTHROUGH produced nine prototype

requiring HUD attention in the R&D area was developing

housing projects on sites nominated by local and state

a major innovative housing demonstration “potential y ten

governments, representing urban, peripheral, suburban,

times the size of the In-Cities experiment” in response to

and semirural neighborhoods. It built nearly 3,000 units

Section 108 of the 1968 Act (HUD, n.d. [1968]: 30–31).

between 1971 and 1973. Most units were occupied and in

private ownership by 1975. Operation BREAKTHROUGH

Romney apparently took the advice, and had the newly

hit a funding crisis in fiscal year (FY) 1971, however,

elevated Office of Research and Technology initiate

when Congress approved only $30 mil ion for HUD

Operation BREAKTHROUGH to demonstrate and

research and technology although President Nixon had

encourage the development of mass production techniques

requested $55 mil ion, of which $35 mil ion was to go to

in residential construction, while breaking through other

BREAKTHROUGH (HUD, n.d. [1975]).

regulatory and market barriers to swift and low-cost

housing production. HUD had high ambitions for the

The 1969-to-1972 initiative did not meet its overall

research demonstration, describing it in the 1971 HUD

objectives. The General Accounting Office (GAO; now

Statistical Yearbook as—

the Government Accountability Office, a research arm

of Congress), NRC, and others reviewed the results of

… a focusing activity for improving

the entire housing process. Operation

the demonstration. GAO found fault with HUD’s lack of

BREAKTHROUGH is a major HUD program

preparatory research; NRC found that the government did

to increase the overal productive capacity

not have sufficient procurement interest to foster the new

of the American housing industry, to identify

building technologies; and others found a lack of technical

and apply advances in building materials,

expertise and market experience at the root of Operation

production techniques, design, management

BREAKTHROUGH’s failure to catalyze mass production of

marketing, financing methods, and site

planning “to break through” the factors that

affordable housing (GAO, 1976: 30; Martin, 2005: 7).

have kept us from achieving our housing

objectives. (HUD, n.d. [1972]: 293)

The Experimental Housing Allowance Program

Evaluation of Proto-Housing Choice Voucher

Program (Section 8 Existing Housing)

Included in the constraints on achieving housing goals

were “a fragmented housing market, restrictive building

The Office of Research and Technology’s second big

and zoning codes, shortages and inefficient use of skil ed

demonstration project emphasized providing needy families

labor, processing red tape, poor use of land, restrictive

the means to live in decent housing that already existed.

labor practices, inadequate management methods, and the

Section 504 the 1970 Act authorized the demonstration

absence of adequate short- and long-term financing” (HUD,

as the Experimental Housing Al owance Program

n.d. [1972]: 293). The budget of what was then the Office

(EHAP). Such an experimental program was one of the

of Research and Technology went primarily to this priority

recommendations of the Kaiser Commission report in 1968.

from 1969 through 1971.

Although it recommended use of housing al owances to

meet the needs of low-income households, the Kaiser

Without much time to prepare a plan for testing how to

Commission was reluctant to recommend a ful -scale

“break through” local regulatory and market constraints

program because it feared that al owances would cause

(such as land use, zoning, taxes, and codes and labor, land,

housing inflation and would divert from an immediate

and building material markets) and traditional construction

need for new construction (PCUH, 1968: 71). Planning

technologies, the program was outlined in May 1969

for the mandated demonstration study began in 1971,

at meetings held by HUD with members of the building

while Operation BREAKTHROUGH was still under way.

industry, labor unions, and state and local governments.

Completing the design and startup of this demonstration

The new Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology,

did not become a priority, however, until James Lynn

Harold B. Finger, organized the initial meetings, and his

became Secretary of HUD in 1973 (Foote, 1995). Its

successor, Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and

final design represented the first major attempt to subject

Research Michael H. Moskow, assumed the responsibility

a housing program concept to systematic testing. It

on taking over (HUD, n.d. [1975]).

comprised three related experiments.

7

The “demand experiment” asked how a housing al owance

what cost might an al owance program be administered?

payment would affect low-income families’ housing

Including all three experimental prongs, EHAP involved

expenses, quality, and segregation. It included experimental

more than 30,000 households in 12 locations nationwide

and control groups of 3,600 low-income households in two

and, according to an estimate by GAO, cost approximately

cities (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Phoenix, Arizona).

$153 mil ion, including the housing al owance payments

The experimental groups were offered cash al owances

(HUD, 1980; GAO, 1983).

in varying amounts provided they lived in (or moved to)

housing that, for one experimental group, met a minimum

HUD submitted annual reports to Congress on the EHAP

standard for health and safety or, for another group, met a

demonstration from 1973 through 1976 and in 1979.

minimum rent standard. The control group had no housing

PD&R’s report on conclusions from the EHAP experiment

standard requirements and received no housing al owance

noted that before EHAP, information about the housing

payments, but it was given nominal compensation for fil ing

conditions of low-income families was extremely crude

out a monthly form and participating in periodic interviews

(HUD, 1980). In addition, although PD&R had launched

(Shroder, 2000).

the statutorily mandated Annual Housing Survey (AHS;

since renamed the American Housing Survey) in 1973, 2

The “administrative agency experiment” tested public

years after EHAP was initiated, data gathered through the

housing agencies’ administration of al owances by providing

EHAP experiment contained more detailed information

the housing agencies in eight jurisdictions (cities, counties,

than the AHS on housing conditions of low-income families

or rural areas in California, Florida, Il inois, Massachusetts,

at the time. EHAP data showed that most income-eligible

North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Oregon)

households in the test jurisdictions lived in substandard

with funds and authority to administer housing al owances

housing and most had high rent burdens. The 1980

for between 500 and 900 low-income households in each

report also concluded that the housing al owance did not

jurisdiction. Al owance payments for the demand and

significantly impact a household’s choice of neighborhood.

administrative agency experiments ran for 3 and 2 years,

Instead, ties to family and friends, neighborhoods, work

respectively (HUD, 1980).

places, and schools largely governed mobility and location

of residence (HUD, 1980).

The “supply experiment” asked how housing markets and

neighborhoods respond. It provided all eligible families in

The data and analysis from the EHAP demonstration

two test locations (Green Bay, Wisconsin, and South Bend,

fed into information from PD&R’s evaluations of Section

Indiana) with an al owance of the difference between the

8 subsidy programs—including the Section 8 Existing

HUD-determined Fair Market Rent (FMR) and 25 percent

Housing Program, a prototype housing voucher program

of income, provided the family lived in housing that met

initiated by amendments to the Housing Act of 1937—while

health and safety standards. Payments for the supply

EHAP was ongoing (HUD, n.d. [1980]). Donna Shalala,

experiment ran until 1984 (a 10-year commitment) to better Assistant Secretary for PD&R from 1977 to 1980, during approximate the market effects of a longstanding subsidy

the Carter Administration, recal ed internal debate at HUD

program, but the evaluation phase ended after 5 years

as to whether to fol ow through on the voucher study,

(HUD, 1980).

because it was a “Republican program.” PD&R felt that

it was the most important housing study in a generation

Altogether, the three prongs of EHAP were designed to

and pursued the study. Shalala recounted that the findings

answer various questions about the effects of a housing

showed a difference in effectiveness of the voucher

al owance such as: How many families will make use of the

program depending on particular characteristics of the low-

al owance payments? What kind of housing will they choose income household served, such as whether it was an elderly in terms of quality and price, and in what neighborhoods?

household or a large family (Foote, 1995).

How will the family al ocate its housing al owance payment

toward improved housing quality or reduced housing cost

burden? How will housing markets respond to the demand

created by additional purchasing power? How and at

8

Demonstrating Affordable Housing Construction

While the two subsidy programs were operating side by

Techniques (Again) and Testing a Voucher Concept

side, PD&R undertook a study that randomly assigned

eligible families to one or the other. This Freestanding

When President Reagan came to office in 1981, he

Housing Voucher Demonstration was conducted from

created the President’s Commission on Housing to

1985 through 1988 and fol owed a sample of more than

recommend federal housing and mortgage finance

12,000 families in 16 cities for 1 year (Shroder, 2000).

interventions that would “strengthen the ability of the

Under the voucher payment formula, the government paid

private sector to maximize opportunities for homeownership

a fixed subsidy to bridge the gap between 30 percent of

and provide adequate shelter for all Americans” and

tenant income and the FMR for the area, and the tenant’s

would reform current housing programs (HUD, 1983:

rent contribution varied depending on the landlord’s actual

10–12). The commission recommended immediately

rental charge. Under the certificate payment formula, tenant

replacing low-income housing production programs

contributions were a fixed percentage of income and the

with a housing voucher program; deregulating housing

government’s subsidy payment varied with the landlord’s

production generally; having state and local government

rental charge (up to a maximum reasonable rent for the

deregulate land use, zoning, building, and infrastructure

area). A major finding was that both certificate and voucher

standards that were excessively costly; and opening

holders tended to seek housing in a Section 8 submarket,

up the housing finance industry to additional private

which had more influence on landlord rents than did a

sources of mortgage credit (HUD, 1983). In keeping

voucher holder’s interest in securing housing at a lower

with these recommendations, a new “Affordable Housing

rent so as to have a smal er monthly contribution (Shroder,

Demonstration Program” was instituted at HUD to

2000).

again research and encourage cost-saving methods for

constructing affordable housing and, more specifical y,

Further Housing Construction Studies: Affordable

to encourage public-private coalition building and local

Housing Barriers to Innovative Building

regulatory reform while compiling and disseminating best

Technologies

practices along these lines. The demonstration produced

Operation BREAKTHROUGH had sought to demonstrate

32 projects in cities across the United States and a list of

ways to make housing production quicker and less costly

publications geared toward state and local governments

through two rubrics—innovative construction methods and

and builders, with guidance on cost-saving methods in new

overcoming local market and regulatory barriers to low-cost

housing construction (HUD, 1984).

housing construction—but it emphasized the former in its

The commission’s emphasis on tenant-based housing

use of mass manufacturing techniques. The Affordable

vouchers was not overlooked. The first tenant-based

Housing Demonstration Program in the 1980s had focused

subsidy program, Section 8 Existing Housing, had been

on the latter. In 1990, a similar effort to study ways to

created by the Housing and Community Development Act

make housing more affordable by reducing the costs

of 197413 and was known as the “certificate” program. The

of development and construction would also emphasize

Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 198314 created,

local barriers over technological innovation. In 1990, HUD

on a temporary basis, a similar tenant-based subsidy

Secretary Jack Kemp convened a commission on regulatory

that had a different payment formula and was cal ed the

barriers to affordable housing production at the request of

“voucher” program. The latter was made permanent by the

President George H.W. Bush. PD&R contributed staff to

Housing and Community Development Act of 1987.15 The

the effort, and HUD published the commission’s final report

two programs would be merged into one by the Quality

in 1991. The task was to survey the problem of regulatory

Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998,16 also known

barriers (federal, state, and local land use; zoning; building

as the Public Housing Reform Act.

and construction codes; and permitting processes and

fees) and recommend ways to remedy the problem to make

housing more affordable.

13 12 U.S.C. 1706e.

14 Pub. L. 98–479, 98 Stat. 2218 (Oct. 17, 1984).

15 Pub. L. 100–242, 101 Stat. 1815 (Feb. 5, 1988).

16 Pub. L. 105–276, Title V (Oct. 21, 1998).

9

The final report (Advisory Commission, 1991) found that

In the late 1970s, PD&R had engaged in research on

the cost of housing production was adversely affected by

energy conservation in housing (in cooperation with the

macroeconomic conditions, by local regulation arising from

Department of Energy and other agencies), including new

what it characterized as NIMBY (standing for “Not In My

energy-efficient residential structures. PATH would be a

Backyard”) resistance to community growth and social and

larger and more heavily budgeted initiative that incorporated

racial integration, and by regulation for valid public purposes a related concern. HUD’s submission to Congress that nonetheless do not take sufficient account of the costs

explaining its FY 2000 budget requests described the

imposed on housing production (such as federal and state

PATH initiative as a key component of the administration’s

environmental regulation). As requested, the commission

program to improve the technology infrastructure of the

recommended specific policy options to address local

United States and reduce carbon emissions. “The goals of

regulatory barriers to producing affordable housing. Yet it

the partnership are to reduce the time to market of new

went on to distinguish the inquiry pertinent to affordable

technologies, cutting the energy use and the environmental

housing for low- and very low-income households. It

impact of new homes, increasing housing durability,

concluded that although regulatory barriers may exacerbate

reducing natural hazard risk and reducing the monthly cost

housing affordability general y, poverty was the main

of new housing” (HUD, n.d. [1999]). The renewed housing

reason housing was unaffordable for this population. Thus,

technology initiative thus emphasized housing affordability

addressing regulatory barriers could not be expected to

as a function of the cost to live in and maintain it, rather

resolve “housing affordability” across the board.

than to construct it, and technological innovation geared

toward construction quality and sustainability rather than

What had been dropped in these post-Operation

industrial production.

BREAKTHROUGH studies, however—building

technologies—was taken up again in the late 1990s

In its later years, after a 2002 assessment of the PATH

under the Clinton Administration. In 1998, PD&R became

project by NRC, the PATH initiative increased its emphasis

lead coordinator of an initiative cal ed the Partnership for

on finding ways to remove regulatory barriers to the

Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH).

widespread use of innovative housing technologies.

The goal of barrier removal was then on a par with

PATH developed out of meetings convened by the White

dissemination of information on technological advances

House in 1994 to derive a set of national construction

and support for housing technology R&D. In PD&R’s self-

goals (Martin, 2005). The residential construction industry,

review of the initiative in 2005, it admitted that preceding

represented by home builders, code officials, product

years of PATH activities had lacked organization and

manufacturers, federal researchers across the cabinet,

focus, in part because of the few PD&R staff available to

and other interested parties, developed a research plan

lead the Partnership effort (Martin, 2005). Congress no

for implementing those goals for the housing sector. PATH

longer funded PATH starting in 2007, and its activities

was the outgrowth of those proposals. Its concern with

wound down in 2008. Through 2015, a website catalogued

building technologies did not focus solely on innovative

the resources on advanced building technologies and

ways to reduce construction costs. PATH was initial y

practices that emerged from the decade-long public-

meant to mimic innovation projects in the U.S. Department

private partnership (www.pathnet.org). Although that online

of Energy, like ENERGY STAR and Building America, and

resource is no longer active, information about building

focus on improving the housing product by making it less

healthy, energy-efficient homes, and addressing barriers

costly to live in, more energy efficient, more resistant to

to affordable housing construction, is available on PD&R’s

decay or disaster, and safer. Its core conceptual basis

online information hub (huduser.gov).

was that “innovative technologies can improve housing

performance” resulting in social benefits, and that the slow

pace of innovation in the housing industry required federal

intervention (Martin, 2005: 11).

10

The Next Big Social Experiment—Subsidies Not Only

The Gautreaux program had not been a randomized

To Live in a Decent Home, but for a Decent Home in

experiment, however, so the studies reporting on its positive

a Suitable Environment

outcomes were undermined by methodological problems

The EHAP and Section 8 Existing Housing evaluations of

and could not provide clear evidence about the effects of

the 1970s had asked many questions about the feasibility

moving to different neighborhoods (Shroder and Orr, 2012).

and advisability of subsidizing decent housing for low-

PD&R staff therefore developed a demonstration program

income households through direct cash al owances or

that would rigorously test the effects of a Gautreaux-type

housing vouchers. Beginning in 1994, PD&R initiated

mobility program.

another large experiment and demonstration that gave

HUD proposed language to Congress to authorize the

housing vouchers to low-income families to move from

demonstration program. Congress enacted it largely as

high-poverty to low-poverty neighborhoods. This effort

proposed in the Housing and Community Development

was the Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing (MTO)

Act of 1992,17 except it narrowed the target population

demonstration program.

to residents of public and assisted housing rather than

The impetus for this project was not a commission, but a

including unassisted households (Shroder and Orr, 2012).

growing body of social science literature analyzing court-

PD&R initially implemented the demonstration through

ordered programs instituted in the 1970s and 1980s to

a contract with an outside research organization, Abt

remedy segregated public housing in various cities. The

Associates, Inc. Together, PD&R staff and researchers from

most significant program was the court-ordered Gautreaux

Abt designed an experiment that directly and rigorously

Assisted Housing Program in Chicago, which began as a

tested whether moves to low-poverty areas could bring

demonstration in 1976 before being formalized in a 1981

about positive changes in the lives of poor families by

consent decree (Roisman and Botein, 1993). In a class-

randomly assigning participants so that selection bias of

action lawsuit begun in 1966 as Gautreaux v. Chicago

the participant family would not undermine comparisons

Housing Authority, both the housing authority and HUD

made based on all test groups as a whole (Orr et al., 2003;

were found liable for racial segregation in Chicago’s

Shroder and Orr, 2012).

public housing. The litigation was long and complex but

MTO ran in five large cities (Baltimore, Maryland, Boston,

ultimately resulted in a consent decree in 1981 requiring

Massachusetts, Chicago, Illinois, Los Angeles, California,

HUD to establish and fund a program to provide more

and New York City) where 4,608 families enrol ed between

than 7,000 families with tenant-based Section 8 vouchers

September 1994 and August 1998. Like the EHAP

and mobility counseling to move to either majority-White

research project, the critical feature of MTO’s research

or racial y mixed neighborhoods throughout the Chicago

design was random assignment of the families who joined

metropolitan area.

the demonstration. In MTO, each family was randomly

By the beginning of the 1990s, research on the effects of

assigned to one of three groups. (1) The experimental group

the Gautreaux program was showing positive effects from

was offered housing vouchers that could be used only in

the participants’ moves to predominantly White suburbs

low-poverty neighborhoods (where less than 10 percent

(Shroder and Orr, 2012). A plaintiffs’ attorney in Gautreaux

of the population was poor). Local counseling agencies

approached HUD and Congress and, citing these studies,

helped the experimental group members to find and lease

suggested HUD repeat the Gautreaux program in other

units in qualifying neighborhoods. (2) The Section 8 group

metropolitan areas. Congress and the George H.W. Bush

was offered vouchers according to the regular rules and

Administration were amenable to the idea but decided to

services of the Section 8 program at that time, with no

focus on the initiative as one of poverty deconcentration

geographical restriction and no special assistance. (3)

rather than racial desegregation. Other social science

The control group members were not offered vouchers but

studies of the time had also found strong associations

continued to live in public housing or receive other project-

between living in high-poverty areas and negative

based housing assistance (Orr et al., 2003).

outcomes (Shroder and Orr, 2012).

17 Pub. L. 102–550, Sec. 152, 106 Stat. 3672, 3716 (Oct. 28, 1992).

11

PD&R’s work on MTO was planned, long range, and

physical and mental health benefits from the intervention.

integrated with the wider public and private research

Not only was psychological distress notably diminished, but

community, which generated further agglomeration of

extreme obesity and diabetes were reduced by 40 percent

evidence and analyses on neighborhood effects for life

(Ludwig, 2012).

outcomes. MTO col ected a broader range of information

about outcomes of the intervention, expanding the

In 2015, however, MTO data that PD&R made available to

original query into economic and educational outcomes,

the wider research community provided for the development

on which the congressional call for the study focused,

of new evidence of the impacts of the mobility intervention.

to include questions about physical and mental health

MTO data at a micro level are general y unavailable to

outcomes. PD&R expanded the fol owup data col ection

outside researchers because of privacy concerns, but

for this purpose by coordinating with researchers funded

PD&R could recently provide such data to academic

by an array of other agencies and private foundations

researchers under control ed conditions. Analyzing these

(Sanbonmatsu et al., 2011).

data along with tax data, the outside researchers were

able to provide new evidence that, contrary to the previous

MTO was designed with short- and long-range outcome

findings of no economic or educational benefits, MTO

evaluation periods. In 2003, an Interim Impacts Evaluation

moves actual y provided for a significant improvement in

(Orr et al., 2003) reported that moving to lower-poverty

col ege attendance rates and earning for children who

neighborhoods had significant positive impacts on personal

were younger than age 13 when their families moved and

safety, housing quality, mental health, and obesity among

that these children lived in lower-poverty neighborhoods

adults and on mental health, staying in school, delinquency,

as adults and were less likely to become single parents

and risky behavior among teenage girls. The evaluation

(Chetty, Hendren, and Katz, 2015).

showed some negative effects on boys’ behavior, however,

and no statistical y significant effects on employment

outcomes for adults or educational achievement for

children. Only marginal improvements were found in the

quality of schools attended.

In 2011, PD&R published the analysis of long-term effects

from the MTO demonstration (Sanbonmatsu et al., 2011).

The results showed that MTO moves led to sustained

improvements in housing quality and in neighborhood

environment, such as its socioeconomic composition and

safety. Mental and physical health improvements were

sustained, but MTO had no detectable impacts on work,

earnings, or other economic impacts for adults. Youth

showed similar gender difference in responses to MTO

at the long-range as they had at the interim evaluation

(Sanbonmatsu et al., 2011).

The 2012 issue of PD&R’s social science journal,

Cityscape, was devoted to analyses of the MTO

demonstration by various researchers and academics. By

that time, MTO had provided data for a number of different

insights about neighborhood effects and bases for further

investigations (Ludwig, 2012). Although the analyses by

that point had not found positive impacts on economic

and educational achievement, the data showed significant

12

Decline and (Temporary?)

Renewal of Budgetary Resources

Congressional and White House priorities nudged PD&R’s

mil ion to $23 mil ion) and nearly doubled again to $45

big-picture research questions over the years, as they did

mil ion in both 1971 and 1972. Most of this funding went to

the budgetary resources with which PD&R had to do its

the planning and development of prototype housing sites

research work. The first decade was very kind to PD&R

under Operation BREAKTHROUGH. Appropriations jumped

and its predecessor research office in terms of financial

again to $53 mil ion for 1973, at which point the research

resources. In nominal dol ars, the appropriations for HUD’s

office merged with the policy and program evaluation

“Research and Technology” account, which funds all PD&R division to become PD&R. From 1973 through 1979, one-activities other than staff salaries and expenses, were

fourth of PD&R’s average funding of $55 mil ion went to

larger in the 1970s than they would be again, at least until

activities under EHAP. From 1975 through 1979, another

HUD sought to augment them beginning in 2010 with

21 percent on average went to housing and housing market

funds transferred from other program accounts under a

surveys, including the AHS. PD&R’s funding would never

Transformation Initiative (TI).

again be as high or represent as large a proportion of HUD’s

total budget as it did from 1969 through 1974. Figures 1

Appropriations for PD&R’s predecessor office more than

and 2 show the contrast between these early years and the

doubled in nominal terms from 1969 to 1970 (from $11

rest of PD&R’s history.

Figure 1. Share of HUD Budget Authority Appropriated for Research and Analysis Activities (Excluding Salaries and Expenses): 1970–2015

1.2%

1.0%

ER 0.8%

AH

ST 0.6%

E

UDGB 0.4%

0.2%

0%

6

9

70

73

76

79

82

85

88

91

94

97

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

2000

2003

200

200

2012

2015

Notes: For 1970 through 1974, the Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) appropriation is reduced by $6.5 million to approximate salaries and expenses that were appropriated separately in 1975 and 1976 and subsequently through a departmentwide administrative account. For 2006 through 2009, appropriations earmarked for community development grants to certain universities, but funded through PD&R’s appropriations account, are excluded from the calculations.

Sources: Compiled from historical tables in the U.S. budget of total appropriations by agency (OMB, 2015); U.S. budget appendixes showing appropriations to offices within the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for 1971

through 2010 (OMB, 1970–2009); data in HUD’s congressional justifications accompanying its fiscal year 2016 budget requests (HUD, n.d. [2015a]); and PD&R administrative records (HUD, 2006).

13

Figure 2. PD&R Appropriation (Excluding Salaries and Expenses): 1969–2015 (constant 2015 dol ars) 300

S

250

N

Earmarked for PATH

IOL

TI

IL

PD&R appropriation without PATH or TI

M

200

N I

$DETS 150

UJD

-A

ION

100

TAL

INF

50

0

7

9

69

71

73

75

77

79

81

83

85

87

89

91

93

95

97

99

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

2001 2003 2005 200

200

2011 2013 2015

PATH = Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing. PD&R = Office of Policy Development and Research. TI = Transformation Initiative.

Note: Inflation adjustment uses the Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Sources: Compiled from historical tables in the U.S. budget of total appropriations by agency (OMB, 2015); U.S. budget appendixes showing appropriations to offices within the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for 1971

through 2010 (OMB, 1970–2009); data in HUD’s congressional justifications accompanying its fiscal year 2016 budget requests (HUD, n.d. [2015a]); and PD&R administrative records (HUD, 2006).

Figure 2 shows the appropriations for PD&R in dol ar

the amounts proposed when it passes an appropriations

amounts adjusted for inflation to represent constant 2015

bill for the President’s signature. Indeed, PD&R’s budgetary

dol ars. The portion of each appropriation from 1999

resources over the years show some marked changes

through 2006 that was earmarked for the PATH project

with changes in the White House, even though Congress’

is distinguished, as is the supplement to PD&R’s budget

appropriation decisions would have impacted those levels

resources in 2010 through 2014 that was transferred from

as wel .

other program’s appropriations under HUD’s TI.

Figure 3 charts PD&R’s share of the total HUD budget from

Each year’s appropriation of funds for a federal program

1975 through 2015. Figure 4 charts changes in the average

or office like PD&R result from an interplay between

dol ar amounts appropriated and share of HUD’s total

the President’s budget request (generally submitted to

budget devoted to PD&R across periods under different

Congress a year and a half before the fiscal year for which

presidents and their HUD Secretaries. Figure 4 then shows

funds are sought) and Congress’ agreement or changes to

averages across administrations.

14

Figure 3. Share of HUD Budget Authority Appropriated for PD&R: 1975–2015

0.3%

ER 0.2%

AH

STE

UDGB 0.1%

0%

7

9

75

79

81

83

85

87

89

91

93

95

97

99

1977

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

2001

2003

2005

200

200

2011

2013

2015

PD&R = Office of Policy Development and Research.

Sources: Compiled from historical tables in the U.S. budget of total appropriations by agency (OMB, 2015); U.S. budget appendixes showing appropriations to offices within the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for 1971

through 2010 (OMB, 1970–2009); data in HUD’s congressional justifications accompanying its fiscal year 2016 budget requests (HUD, n.d. [2015a]); and PD&R administrative records (HUD, 2006).

Figure 4. Average PD&R Appropriation and Share of HUD Budget Authority Across Administrations SN 300

0.3%

IOL

Average PD&R appropriation (including Transformation Initiative)

IL

250

Average PD&R share of HUD budget authority

MN

E

I

R

$

200

0.2%

A

D

H

ET

S

S

TE

UJ 150

D

UDG

-A

B

100

0.1%

IONTAL 50

INF

0

0%

9

77

81 )

89

93

97 s)

)

74–19

Jackson)

78–19

ynn & Hills)

82–19

90–19

94–19

98–2001

19

19

(Reagan/Pierce)

19

.Bush/Kemp)

19

19

2002–2004

(Clinton/Cuomo)

.Bush/Martinez)

19

2005–200

.Bush/

2010–2015

(Ford/L

(Clinton/Cisnero

(G.H.W

(G.W

(G.W

(Carter/Harris & Landrieu

(Obama/Donovan & Castro

PD&R = Office of Policy Development and Research.

Note: Inflation adjustment uses the Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Sources: Compiled from historical tables in the U.S. budget of total appropriations by agency (OMB, 2015); U.S. budget appendixes showing appropriations to offices within the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for 1971

through 2010 (OMB, 1970–2009); data in HUD’s congressional justifications accompanying its fiscal year 2016 budget requests (HUD, n.d. [2015a]); and PD&R administrative records (HUD, 2006).

15

PD&R’s budgetary resources reached a new low point

and often severely limit the methodologies PD&R can

in 2008, as both a dol ar amount and as a share of HUD

use” (NRC, 2008: 2). It also noted how PD&R’s budget

resources. For developing the federal knowledgebase about reductions resulted in cutbacks on the scale and frequency housing and community development issues, PD&R was

of the AHS and other basic housing data infrastructure,

al otted $28.4 mil ion, which constituted about 0.06 percent thereby “compromising their usefulness for understanding of HUD’s total budget in that year. The funding was barely

market conditions and trends” (NRC, 2008: 2).

enough to fund PD&R’s annual fixed costs of mandatory

housing market surveys—including the AHS, the Survey of

In 2009, the Obama Administration made its first budget

New Home Sales and Completions, the Survey of Market

requests for the government’s 2010 appropriations. The

Absorption of Multifamily Units, and the Survey of New

President’s budget sought a dramatic increase in PD&R’s

Manufactured Housing Placements (estimated at $25

budgetary resources by raising PD&R’s direct appropriation

million)

to $50 mil ion and by supplementing the appropriation

18—and research dissemination activities, including

operating a research clearinghouse and publishing a

with a transfer of up to 1 percent of other HUD program

scholarly journal and two other research periodicals

appropriations as part of a Transformation Initiative (TI) to

(estimated at $5 mil ion; HUD, n.d. [2007]).

improve HUD’s performance across the board (HUD, n.d.

[2009]). HUD’s justifications to Congress for requesting

At this point of disinvestment in PD&R’s work, NRC

these PD&R resources quoted NRC’s 2008 report to

reported on its evaluation of PD&R (NRC, 2008). Congress

make the case that “PD&R needs additional financial and

had commissioned the evaluation in HUD’s FY 2006

intel ectual resources to al ow it to continue and expand

appropriations act.19 The House of Representatives’

its current role in analyzing existing and proposed HUD

Committee on Appropriations issued instructions for the

programs, and it requires resources to play a larger role

NRC evaluation in a report accompanying the act. These

in the national research community on a wider range of

instructions indicated that at least some members of

housing and urban development policy issues” (HUD,

Congress doubted whether HUD’s research office should

n.d. [2009]: Q-2). The justification appears to have been

continue in existence. The House report asked NRC to

successful.

“recommend the future of HUD’s research program” and

to “examine the elimination of an in house research office,

For FY 2010, Congress increased PD&R’s appropriation to

if the [NRC] sees no long-term value to HUD specific

$48 mil ion and authorized the transfer of funds to PD&R’s

research or that HUD related research can or should be

use with the result that PD&R was al otted $115.5 mil ion,

done by other Departments.”

or slightly more than 0.25 percent of HUD’s total budget

20

authority. Congress continued to authorize transferring a

Contrary to House members’ doubts, however, NRC found

small fraction of other HUD program funds to be used for

that most of PD&R’s work was high quality, relevant, timely,

research and program evaluations, but PD&R was al otted

and useful. In addition, although Congress had directed

no more than $60 mil ion on average from FY 2011 through

NRC not to offer budget recommendations, the NRC report

FY 2014 (HUD, n.d. [2015a]).

emphasized how PD&R’s financial and staff resources

had eroded over the preceding years and concluded

With the additional resources provided by appropriations

that PD&R “could lead the nation’s ongoing process

and the TI, PD&R began implementing many of the

of learning, debate, and experimentation about critical

recommendations in NRC’s 2008 report. One result was

housing and urban development challenges,” but only with

PD&R’s new HUD Research Roadmap: FY 2014–FY 2018,

more adequate funding (NRC, 2008: 3). NRC found that

published in 2013, which set out an agenda of priority

“current budget levels make it infeasible to launch large-

research projects, demonstrations, and program evaluations

scale research initiatives or rigorous program evaluations

that PD&R developed through a year-long process of

consultations with outside academics, practitioners,

18 The average annual cost for mandatory housing, housing market, and

and policymakers from all levels of government (HUD,

FMR surveys was $24.2 mil ion in the 5 years before 2008 (NRC, 2008).

19 Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary,

2013). Begun in 2011, this new process responded to

the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act,

NRC’s criticism that PD&R’s agenda-setting process

2006. Pub. L. 109–115, 119 Stat. 2455.

20 House Report 109–153 (June 24, 2005): 103–104.

16

was too insular. Before then, PD&R queried the assistant its research to the wider community of researchers,

secretaries and staff of HUD’s various program areas

practitioners, and the public. PD&R redesigned its Internet

(for example, the offices of Public and Indian Housing,

portal, HUDUSER.org (now HUDUSER.gov), to improve

Community Planning and Development, Fair Housing

and simplify the ability of users to search for and download

and Equal Opportunity, and Housing-Federal Housing

any of the multitude of research papers and publications

Administration), asking their suggestions for needed

maintained in PD&R’s research clearinghouse.22 It began

studies. PD&R and the program office heads would

to hold and webcast panel discussions on the latest

prioritize the suggested projects and determine which

research from PD&R. It developed mobile applications for

could be accomplished with available funding (NRC, 2008).

quick access to its national housing market data. It also

In contrast, the new process asked for “timely research

reconfigured its slate of electronic and print periodicals

questions relevant to HUD’s mission” from within and

by creating an online magazine, The Edge, with news of

without HUD, then solicited ideas for study projects and

research studies and findings and with case studies of

revised and prioritized the projects through external and

recent housing and community development projects.

internal consultations (HUD, 2013).

In 2011, PD&R published the first issue of a quarterly

publication, Evidence Matters, each issue of which

The additional funding also enabled PD&R to respond to

incorporates articles by experts within and without HUD.

NRC’s recommendation for an increased level of large-

PD&R also continues to publish the scholarly journal

scale studies. PD&R initiated seven such large, multiyear

Cityscape 23 three times a year, both electronical y and in

studies between 2010 and 2015, each of which used

print (HUD, 2012).

research methodologies designed to make reliable causal

inferences.21 Two-thirds of PD&R’s research funding for this In FY 2015, however, Congress directed TI funds elsewhere period was devoted to these studies (O’Regan, 2015).

within HUD, so PD&R saw no supplement to its resources.24

For FY 2016, HUD again requested authority to transfer

PD&R was also able to restore the AHS to its historical

funds to PD&R through the TI to raise PD&R’s resources to

sampling levels, with a full complement of extra

approximately 0.19 percent of HUD’s total budget in 2015,

metropolitan-area surveys, and to augment the data

explaining to Congress that even this level of investment in

col ection as recommended by the NRC report. (See the

HUD’s research arm would trail behind the investment in

discussion of AHS in the section “The American Housing

comparable federal research offices. HUD found that the

Survey.”) PD&R partnered with the U.S. Postal Service

share of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s resources

(USPS) to incorporate USPS data on vacant addresses

that went to its research divisions was nearly seven times

into HUD’s research and in 2010 created a data-matching

more (1.3 percent); the share of the U.S. Department

file, updated quarterly, to enable researchers to refine

of Education’s resources that went to its Institute of

the al ocation of census data between small areas by

Education Sciences was five times as great (0.9 percent);

connecting ZIP+4 and U.S. Census Bureau geographies

and the Strategic Highway Research Program at the U.S.

(HUD, n.d. [2015c]). It began developing a web-based

Department of Transportation had a 0.2 percent share

“storefront,” enabling HUD staff, grantees, and the general

of program resources (still more than PD&R’s requested

public to search and use HUD’s catalog of geospatial

amount; HUD, 2012).

information and mapping resources (HUD, 2014).

22 PD&R established the HUD USER Clearinghouse in 1978 as the

PD&R also put its new resources to work on NRC’s

primary source for federal government information on housing-related

recommendations for improving how PD&R disseminates

and urban development topics. In 1995, PD&R added an online portal for

the information clearinghouse, HUDUSER.org (Vreeke et al., 2001). The

website provides direct public access to an extensive collection of internally and external y produced research reports, PD&R publications, and PD&R’s 21 The seven studies are: (1) the Evaluation of the Family Self-Sufficiency public-access data sets.

Program; (2) Pre-Purchase Counseling Demonstration and Impact

23 PD&R published the first issue of Cityscape in 1994. The journal

Evaluation; (3) Family Options Study; (4) Rent Reform Demonstration;

publishes original scholarly research and analyses in refereed and

(5) Housing Discrimination Studies (HDS); (6) Housing Choice Voucher

unrefereed sections. The journal averaged 640,000 electronic downloads

Program Administrative Fee Study; and (7) Assessment of American Indian,

from HUDUSER.org in 2011 and 2012 (HUD, 2014).

Alaska Native, and Native Hawai an Housing Needs. The first four of these

24 In FY 2010, the TI added $67.5 mil ion to PD&R’s $48 mil ion

studies use random assignment, HDS uses the paired-testing research

appropriation for $115.5 mil ion; the combined total resources in FYs 2011

methodology pioneered by PD&R in 1977, and the Administrative Fee Study through 2014 averaged $60 mil ion. PD&R’s budget in FY 2015 was $50

uses random motion sampling techniques (O’Regan, 2015).

mil ion and lacked a TI supplement (HUD, n.d. [2015a]).

17

Evolving Data

Housing and community development data are inevitably

cal ed the American Housing Survey.

central to PD&R’s role as a national center for research

and policy development. Notwithstanding shifting policy

The AHS is real y two surveys: one of the national

priorities from Congress and the White House that directed

housing stock and another of metropolitan housing stock.

PD&R’s analyses in one direction or another, PD&R has

The metropolitan-area surveys original y included 60

continued to build up relevant data resources for internal

metropolitan areas surveyed every 3 years (on a rotation of

and public use over its nearly 50-year history. Some of

20 metropolitan-area surveys per year). Budget constraints

the data sets are primarily for use in the operation of HUD

reduced the number and frequency. Through the 2000s,

programs, such as data on Fair Market Rents (FMR) used

a shrinking PD&R budget required reducing the sample

in HUD’s Section 8 housing voucher program. Other data

size (the number of homes surveyed) for the nationwide

sets are primarily for use by researchers and policymakers

report of housing conditions and reducing the number and

inside and outside HUD, providing longitudinal and current

frequency of metropolitan-specific reports derived from

information about the nation’s housing conditions and

adding home surveys focused in a metropolitan area to

housing and related markets. According to NRC, “providing

produce statistical y significant results specific to that area.

public-use data sets is arguably one of PD&R’s most

In 2005, it had become 21 metropolitan areas surveyed

important functions,” as it is necessary not only for the

at 6-year intervals; that is, on a rotation of 7 metropolitan

administration of HUD programs, but for making informed

areas surveyed every 2 years (Eggers and Thackeray, 2007).

policy decisions and for supporting independent research

In 2008, NRC recommended that this critical resource be

on housing and urban policy issues that develop the public

made more effective by renewing its metropolitan-area data

policy discourse (NRC, 2008: 117). The three examples

to former levels, oversampling HUD-assisted households to

that fol ow show the evolution of PD&R’s data resources.

generate reliable data specific to that type of housing, and

adding questions to some of the surveys (so-cal ed “topical

The American Housing Survey

modules”) designed to address timely policy questions

A notable example of PD&R’s development of (and ability

(NRC, 2008). When PD&R’s financial resources increased

to develop) housing-related data and analysis through

in 2010, PD&R implemented these recommendations.

the thick and thin of budget constraints is one of PD&R’s

The AHS is still biennial, but the number of metropolitan-

premier data sets, the AHS. It tracks the same sample

area surveys is now 60, and they are all surveyed every 4

housing units over time (albeit updated to account for newly

rather than every 6 years (on biennial rotation; HUD, n.d.

available stock). This survey of the housing stock is the

[2015c]). As NRC recommended, PD&R also added an

only national data set with detailed information about the

oversampling of HUD-assisted housing to provide reliable

characteristics and condition of individual housing units, the

statistics on HUD-assisted tenants’ views of the condition

households living in them, housing costs (including utilities),

of their housing. Beginning in 2013, PD&R created topical

and neighborhoods. It is heavily used inside and outside

modules, extending the questions in a subset of the

HUD (NRC, 2008). It is funded by PD&R and col ected by

surveys to provide information on subjects such as public

the Census Bureau with questionnaires and sample sets

transportation, disaster preparedness, and neighborhood

produced under PD&R’s guidance. In 1971, PD&R began

characteristics (HUD, 2012; 2014).

working with the Census Bureau to create the then-annual

survey, creating its sampling frame, questionnaires, and

survey procedures. The first survey, then known as the

Annual Housing Survey, took place in 1973. From 1973

to 1981 it remained an annual survey and data col ection.

From that point it became a biennial survey, so that it is now

18

Housing Discrimination

HDS2012 found that the most blatant forms of housing

discrimination had declined since HDS1977, in that well-

Another notable example of PD&R’s role in developing the

qualified minority homeseekers were general y as likely as

housing-related knowledge base is its work on housing

wel -qualified White homeseekers to get an appointment

discrimination research. In 1968, the Kerner Commission

and be shown at least one available housing unit. It found

had emphasized the role of racial discrimination and

that subtler forms of discrimination persist, however, in that

segregated living patterns as a source of the riots that

minority homeseekers are told about and shown fewer

were erupting in cities across the country. Also in 1968,

homes and apartments than White homeseekers. It found

Congress enacted the Fair Housing Act,25 which included

no substantial differences in the incidence or severity of

a provision for HUD to administer its programs so as

discrimination across metropolitan areas or regions of

to affirmatively further the goal of eliminating housing

country, suggesting a nationwide problem (Turner et al.,

discrimination. PD&R has helped HUD respond to the

2013). HDS2012 also expanded on previous investigations

housing and urban concerns raised so pointedly in that

by assessing the extent to which a tester’s race or ethnicity

era by creating, integrating, and making more usable

was identifiable by name and speech (as in an e-mail or on

national data sources on the nature and extent of housing

a phone cal ) and in person. The study found that minorities

discrimination in the United States over the years.

whose ethnicity is more readily identifiable—either by name,

PD&R has made significant contributions to the body

by speech, or in person—experience more discrimination

of knowledge on housing discrimination in the United

than those who may be mistaken for White homeseekers

States with its Housing Discrimination Studies (HDS).

(Turner et al., 2013).

The HDS are a series of nationwide paired-testing studies

Expanding on these investigations into trends of racial and

that monitor trends in racial and ethnic discrimination in

ethnic discrimination, PD&R is also investigating housing

both rental and home sales markets approximately once

discrimination against same-sex couples, families with

each decade. PD&R conducted such studies in 1977,

children, people with physical disabilities, people with

1989, 2000, and 2012 (Fudge, 2014). The paired-testing

mental disabilities, and people who pay for housing with

methodology, in which two people, one White and the other

HUD voucher assistance. In 2015, for example, PD&R

a minority, pose as equal y qualified homeseekers and

published the results of the first national paired-testing

inquire about available homes or apartments, measures the

study of housing discrimination against people who are

extent to which the testers receive unequal treatment from

deaf or hard of hearing and against people who use

housing providers.

wheelchairs. Focusing on housing searches conducted

The 2012 HDS (HDS2012) conducted more than

with telecommunication relay services (used by people

8,000 tests in a national y representative sample of

who are deaf or hard of hearing) or searches for accessible

28 metropolitan areas. Rather than emphasizing gross

buildings and housing units (sought by people who use

measures of differential treatment, as had previous national

wheelchairs), the study found evidence of systematic

studies, HDS2012 focused on the net measure—the

unfavorable treatment (Levy et al., 2015).

difference between the share of tests in which the White

PD&R has also compiled data in a usable form to help

tester was favored over the minority and the share in which

HUD grantees analyze housing discrimination problems

the Black, Hispanic, or Asian tester was favored. HDS2012

in their jurisdictions. In 2013, PD&R began a major effort

used this approach because analysis during the past 25

to provide data and analytical tools to help state and local

years strongly suggests that gross measures reflect a

governments and public housing agencies that receive HUD

number of random distinctions and that net measures more

grant funding to assess the extent of fair housing choice

accurately reflect the systematic disadvantages faced by

in their jurisdictions and regions so that the grantees may

minority homeseekers (Turner et al., 2013).

make informed decisions about strategies for overcoming

the deleterious effects of discrimination. The effort was

in support of HUD’s revision of regulations implementing

25 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90–284, 82 Stat. 73 (April these grantees’ statutory duty to affirmatively further fair

11, 1968).

19

housing, known as the AFFH regulations. PD&R created

The LIHTC program has become the primary source of

an integrated system of national y uniform data (including

federal investment in low-income housing production,

geographic and mapping tools) that the grantees can use

subsidizing the construction of more units than all other

to complete a local assessment of fair housing. PD&R

active programs combined (NRC, 2008).28 The LIHTC

created local and regional y scalable data sets describing

was created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986,29 which

(1) patterns of integration and segregation; (2) racial y and

replaced various tax provisions favoring rental housing

ethnical y concentrated areas of poverty; (3) access to

with a program of credits for the production of rental

community assets such as education, employment, low-

housing targeted to lower-income households. LIHTC is

poverty neighborhoods, transportation, and environmental

administered by state housing agencies (and a few large

health; (4) disproportionate housing burdens (such as cost

metropolitan housing agencies) with oversight by the

as a percentage of income or inadequate plumbing); and

Treasury Department’s tax division, the Internal Revenue

(5) housing disparities for individuals with disabilities and

Service. Each state or metropolitan credit-al ocating

families with children.26

agency is provided a share of federal tax credits based

on population to disburse to property owners for the

PD&R compiled and linked census data, HUD

acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental

administrative data from various public and assisted

housing. The credits are general y sold to outside investors

programs, and other PD&R data sets drawn from relevant

to raise initial development funds for a project.

programs or activities under the direction of other agencies

(such as data on Low-Income Housing Tax Credit

PD&R undertook a study very early in the LIHTC program

[LIHTC] program housing projects, discussed in the next

based on a sample of properties developed in 1987 and

section). PD&R created, for example, two transportation-

1988, but very little new research was available after this

based indices from its widely used Location Affordability

initial work until PD&R began creation of its National LIHTC

Index, or LAI, database. The indices measure the cost

Database (Buron et al., 2000).

of transportation (including car trips) for residents in

different areas and the availability of public transit. Other

In 1993, then-Assistant Secretary for PD&R Michael

data that PD&R created for the AFFH assessments help

Stegman explained in an interview that no systematic

gauge residents’ access to proficient schools, employment

information was available about where tax credit housing

opportunities, and environmental health hazards (HUD,

was located (for example, inside or outside cities) or the

2015). In addition to creating relevant data sets, PD&R also

kind of households it was serving. Although the Treasury

built a platform that grantees can use to translate the data

Department (and state housing finance agencies that

into maps to facilitate analysis of locational distinctions in

distribute and monitor the use of the housing tax credits),

the information. PD&R anticipates future development of

rather than HUD, administer the program, Stegman

the data and mapping tools.

explained that PD&R was in the process of developing a

27

database of LIHTC projects in order to be able to answer

Housing Produced by the Low-Income Housing Tax

basic questions about its housing-relevant effects and to

Credit Program

make it available for systematic research by outside entities

with the resources to do so (Hartman, 1993).

The LIHTC database that PD&R has integrated into the

data and data tools provided for community fair housing

In 1996, PD&R published a report (Abt, 1996) describing

analyses is a good example of PD&R’s role in the evolution

the state of its LIHTC database, which then comprised

of key housing-related information.

all LIHTC projects placed in service from 1992 through

1994, their locations, and descriptive variables such as

project size and whether the project was newly constructed

26 See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Affirmatively

Furthering Fair Housing Assessment Tool: Solicitation of Comment—60-

28 Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the average yearly

Day Notice Under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 79 Federal Register

tax expenditure for LIHTC for 2014 through 2018 to be $10.1 bil ion.

57949, 57950–57951 (Sept. 26, 2014).

Although this amount is significant by comparison with HUD’s total annual

27 See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Affirmatively

budget (currently averaging $46 bil ion), it is a small fraction of annual tax Furthering Fair Housing Assessment Tool: Solicitation of Comment—30-expenditure on the federal income tax deduction for mortgage interest and

Day Notice Under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 80 Federal Register

real estate taxes, which currently averages $148.8 bil ion (JCT, 2014).

42108, 42111 (July 16, 2015).

29 Pub. L. 99–514, 100 Stat. 2085 (Oct. 22, 1986).

20

or rehabilitated. It explained that PD&R was making the

through 2013 and units in about 1,300 projects that had

database available on its website as part of PD&R’s effort

been placed in service between 1987 and 2012 (HUD, n.d.

to enable and encourage the entire research and policy

[2015b].

community to use the data for high-quality research. The

universe of LIHTC projects identified in the database then

The AHS, data related to housing discrimination, and

al owed appropriate sample frames for further studies on

the LIHTC database show a longstanding and ever-

characteristics of LIHTC tenants and owners. PD&R made

evolving agglomeration of data and analyses initiated and

the database available on its website in 1997. It currently

maintained by PD&R on issues critical to HUD’s mission.

contains information on the size, unit mix, and locations of

This knowledge base has continued to grow despite

40,502 projects comprising 2.6 million housing units placed resource constraints and other political pressures.

in service between 1987 and 2013 (HUD, n.d. [2015b]).

The LIHTC database remains the primary data source

available on the federal program, and researchers have

used it to, for example, make inferences about the effect

of tax credit housing on neighborhood poverty rates and

housing prices (Belsky and Nipson, 2010).

With the enactment of the Housing and Economic Recovery

Act of 2008, or HERA,30 Congress required that state

housing agencies administering the LIHTC program submit

demographic and economic data on LIHTC tenants to HUD.

PD&R began working with the state agencies to develop

processes for compiling and transmitting tenant data that

PD&R could combine into a national data set. Congress

authorized, but never appropriated, funds to support a

new data col ection system. HUD and the state agencies

therefore developed a system for col ecting, compiling, and

transmitting standardized data through an iterative, back-

and-forth process, which took time (Hol ar, 2014).

HUD published data submission standards in early

2010, but during the first several annual col ections few

states were able to submit information from a majority of

properties, units, or tenants. By 2014, PD&R was able to

report summary tables of state tenant data as of December

2012, although it nonetheless reported certain caveats on

the coverage of the data, which are not complete for some

states or for certain tenant-characteristic variables. The

report is structured to focus readers on the areas in which

the geographic and tenant characteristic data coverage is

most complete (Hol ar, 2014).

At the same time, PD&R continues to update the unit

information in the LIHTC database each year. In 2015,

for example, the database added units placed in service

30 Pub. L. 110–289, 122 Stat. 2654 (July 30, 2008).

21

Conclusion

In 1969, a commission of the National Academy Sciences

cities as it is to do something for them, the cities might

reported that precious little research and social science

not be in their present plight” (NRC, 1969: 1). PD&R grew

knowledge explored what was causing or could be done

out of this gap in knowledge. It has been nudged this way

to improve the lived environment of the great number of

and that in research projects to accomplish the large task

people that inhabited U.S. cities, which were in such a state

of learning about the nation’s cities (and metropolitan and

of decline that people were rioting, repeatedly. The report

rural communities) and people’s housing environments

pul ed no punches when it opined: “Had the launching of

in those communities, yet still built up a significant (and

urban programs been accompanied by the understanding

accessible) federal hub for that ongoing learning.

that it is virtual y as important to learn about the nation’s

22

References

Abt Associates, Inc. (Abt). 1996. Development and Analysis of the National Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Database.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

http://www.huduser.gov/Datasets/lihtc/report.pdf.

Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing (Advisory Commission). 1991. “Not In My Back Yard”: Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing. Report to President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Jack Kemp. HUD-5806. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. http://www.huduser.gov/Publications/pdf/NotInMyBackyard.pdf.

Belsky, Eric S., and Meg Nipson. 2010. Long-Term Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Policy Questions. Cambridge, MA:

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. http://www.urban.org/research/publication/long-term-low-

income-housing-tax-credit-policy-questions.

Buron, Larry, Sandra Nolden, Kathleen Heintzi, and Julie Stewart. 2000. Assessment of the Economic and Social Characteristics of LIHTC Residents and Neighborhoods: Final Report. Report prepared by Abt Associates, Inc.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

http://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/affhsg/lihtc.html.

Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence F. Katz. 2015. The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence From the Moving to Opportunity Experiment. NBER Working Paper No. 21156. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w21156.

Eggers, Frederick J., and Alexander Thackeray. 2007. 32 Years of Housing Data. Revised. Report prepared by Econometrica, Inc. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. http://www.huduser.gov/datasets/ahs/ahs_taskc.pdf.

Foote, Joseph. 1995. “As They Saw It: HUD’s Secretaries Reminisce About Carrying Out the Mission,” Cityscape 9 (3): 71–92.

Fudge, Keith. 2014. “Paired Testing and the Housing Discrimination Studies,” Evidence Matters Spring/Summer 2014.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

http://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/EM_Newsletter_spring_2014.pdf.

Hartman, Chester. 1993. “Shelterforce Interview: Michael Stegman,” Shelterforce 16 (6). Orange, NJ: National Housing Institute. http://www.nhi.org/policy/stegman.html.

Hol ar, Michael K. 2014. Understanding Whom the LIHTC Program Serves: Tenants in LIHTC Units as of December 31, 2012. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. http://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/hsgfin/understanding_LIHTC.html.

Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). 2014. “Estimates of Federal Tax Expenditures for Fiscal Year 2014–2018,” JCX-97-14. Table 1: 22–34. Washington, DC: The Joint Committee on Taxation. https://www.jct.gov/publications.

html?func=startdown&id=4663.

23

Levy, Diane K., Margery A. Turner, Rob Santos, Doug Wissoker, Claudia L. Aranda, Rob Pitingolo, Helen Ho, and Urban Institute. 2015. Discrimination in the Rental Housing Market Against People Who Are Deaf and People Who Use Wheelchairs: National Study Findings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

http://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/fairhsg/hds_disability.html.

Ludwig, Jens. 2012. “Guest Editor’s Introduction,” Cityscape 14 (2): 1–28.

Martin, Carlos. 2005. “PATH—Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing: Program Review & Strategy, Performance Metrics, & Operating Plan, Draft.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (NACCD). n.d. [1968]. Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. Washington, DC: Natl. Criminal Justice Reference Service, Natl. Institute of Justice.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/8073NCJRS.pdf.

National Commission on Urban Problems (NCUP). 1968. Building the American City: Report of the National Commission on Urban Problems to the Congress and to the President of the United States. House Document No. 91-34.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. https://bulk.resource.org/gao.gov/89-117/00004F44.pdf.

National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering (NRC). 1969. A Strategic Approach to Urban Research and Development: Social and Behavioral Science Considerations. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

. 2008. Rebuilding The Research Capacity at HUD. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12468.html.

O’Regan, Katherine. 2015. “HUD’s Research Capacity at 50,” The Edge, An Online Magazine. Sept. 14, 2015. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

http://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_frm_asst_sec_091415.html.

Orr, Larry, Judith D. Feins, Robin Jacob, Erik Beecroft, Lisa Sanbonmatsu, Lawrence F. Katz, Jeffrey B. Liebman, and Jeffrey R. Kling. 2003. Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration: Interim Impacts Evaluation. Report prepared by Abt Associates Inc. and National Bureau of Economic Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

http://www.huduser.gov/Publications/pdf/MTOFul Report.pdf.

President’s Committee on Urban Housing (PCUH). 1968. A Decent Home: The Report of the President’s Committee on Urban Housing. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

http://www.michaelcarliner.com/files/Kaiser68_Decent_Home.pdf.

Roisman, Florence Wagman, and Hilary Botein. 1993. “Housing Mobility and Life Opportunities,” Clearinghouse Review 27

(4): 335.

Sanbonmatsu, Lisa, Jens Ludwig, Larry F. Katz, Lisa A. Gennetian, Greg J. Duncan, Ronald C. Kessler, Emma Adam, Thomas W. McDade, and Stacy Tessler Lindau. 2011. Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration Program: Final Impacts Evaluation. Report prepared by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

http://www.huduser.gov/publications/pdf/MTOFHD_ful report_v2.pdf.

Shroder, Mark D. 2000. “Social Experiments in Housing,” Cityscape 5 (1): 237–259.

24

Shroder, Mark D., and Larry L. Orr. 2012. “Moving To Opportunity: Why, How, and What Next?” Cityscape 14 (2): 31–56.

Turner, Margery Austin, Rob Santos, Diane K. Levy, Doug Wissoker, Claudia Aranda, Rob Pitingolo, and The Urban Institute.

2013. Housing Discrimination Against Racial and Ethnic Minorities 2012. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

http://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/fairhsg/hsg_discrimination_2012.html.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). n.d. [1967]. Statistical Yearbook 1966. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/003911453.

. n.d. [1968]. Secretarial Briefing Book. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

. n.d. [1969]. 1968 HUD Statistical Yearbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/003911453.

. n.d. [1970]. 1969 HUD Statistical Yearbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/003911453.

. n.d. [1971]. 1970 HUD Statistical Yearbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/003911453.

. n.d. [1972]. 1971 HUD Statistical Yearbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/003911453.

. n.d. [1975]. Feedback Operation Breakthrough: Phase II, Prototype Construction and Demonstration. Vol. 4.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

. n.d. [1980]. 1979 Statistical Yearbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/003911453.

. n.d. [1999]. “HUD’s FY 2000 Budget Summaries—Policy Development and Research: Research and Technology.”

http://archives.hud.gov/budget/fy00/summary/pdandr/randt.cfm.

. n.d. [2007]. Congressional Justifications for FY 2008 Budget Estimates. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Chief Financial Officer.

http://archives.hud.gov/budget/fy08/cjs/part2/pdr/researchtech.pdf.

. n.d. [2009]. Congressional Justifications for 2010 Estimates. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Chief Financial Officer.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=DOC_12324.pdf.

. n.d. [2015a]. FY 2016 Congressional Justifications. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Chief Financial Officer.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=FY16-CJE-EntireFile.pdf.

. n.d. [2015b]. “Revisions to the LIHTC Database.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. http://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/lihtc.html.

25

. n.d. [2015c]. Guide to HUD User Data Sets. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdf/Guide-to-HUD-User-Data-Sets.pdf.

. 1980. Experimental Housing Al owance Program: Conclusions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

. 1983. 1982 National Housing Production Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy and Development.

http://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/affhsg/nat_housing_prod_rprt_1982.html.

. 1984. Affordable Housing Demonstration Program Briefing Book. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

. 2006. “Table of Appropriations for Research and Technology, 1948–2007.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

. 2012. HUD’s Office of Policy Development & Research Biennial Report FY 2011–2012: Building for the Future.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

http://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/other/biennial_2011_2012.html.

. 2013. HUD Research Roadmap: FY 2014–FY 2018. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

http://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdf/Research_Roadmap.pdf.

. 2014. HUD’s Office of Policy Development & Research Biennial Report FY 2013–2014: Moving Forward.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

http://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/other/biennial_2013_2014.html.

. 2015. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Data Documentation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

http://www.huduser.gov/portal/affht_pt.html - affhassess-tab.

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1976. Operation Breakthrough: Lessons Learned About Demonstrating New Technology. PSAD-76-173. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/120/117465.pdf.

. 1983. Report To The Honorable Charles B. Rangel Chairman, Subcommittee On Oversight Committee On Ways And Means, House of Representatives. GAO/IPE-83-4. Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. General Accounting Office.

http://gao.gov/assets/140/139668.pdf.

U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 1970–2009. “Fiscal Year 1971” through “Fiscal Year 2010,” Budget of the United States Government—Appendix. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/?id=233.

. 2015. “Fiscal Year 2016,” Budget of the U.S. Government—Historical Tables. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2016-TAB/pdf/BUDGET-2016-TAB.pdf.

26

Von Hoffman, Alexander. 2010. Cal ing Upon the Genius: Housing Policy in the Great Society, Part Three. W10-6.

Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.

http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/w10-6_von_hoffman.pdf.

Vreeke, Andrew, Laura Mil ion, Carolee Gearhart, Tony Cain, Barbara A. Haley, and Vivienne Liu. 2001. Assessment of the Usefulness of the Products of the Office of Policy Development and Research. Report prepared by Aspen Systems Corporation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. http://www.huduser.gov/portal//Publications/pdf/assess.pdf.

HUD Office of Policy Development and Research

Lynn M. Ross, AICP, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development Rachelle L. Levitt, Director, Research Utilization Division

Perrin Wright, Author, on detail from the Office of General Counsel 27

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

January 2016

Document Outline

- Introduction

- The Late 1960s: Urban Crisis and Research by Advisory Commission

- The Beginnings of PD&R

- From Technological Research and Development to Social Experimentation and Back Again, and Again

- Decline and (Temporary?) Renewal of Budgetary Resources

- Evolving Data

- Conclusion

- References

Table of Contents

Introduction

The Late 1960s: Urban Crisis and Research by Advisory Commission

The Beginnings of PD&R

From Technological Research and Development to Social Experimentation and Back Again, and Again

Decline and (Temporary?) Renewal of Budgetary Resources

Evolving Data

Conclusion

References