The Relationship between Government Assistance and Housing ...

Housing Studies, Vol. 20, No. 3, 383–399, May 2005

The Relationship between Government Assistance and Housing Outcomes among Extremely Low-income Individuals: A Qualitative Inquiry in Los Angeles GEOFFREY DEVERTEUIL Department of Geography, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

(Received September 2002; revised September 2004) ABSTRACT This paper illustrates the relationship between government assistance (housing subsidies and/or welfare payments) and housing outcomes, using qualitative methods and a sample of 25 extremely low-income, homeless women at an emergency shelter in Central Los Angeles. The paper seeks to illustrate three specific patterns (identified within the larger literature) to this complex and multifaceted relationship: (1) that the presence of housing subsidies promotes the most positive outcomes overall, such as stability and independence; (2) that, in the absence of housing subsidies, the predictability and amount of welfare become critical in promoting positive housing outcomes; and (3) housing outcomes are least positive for those lacking both housing subsidies and welfare payments. Results largely conformed to these expectations, although less so for the last pattern. KEY WORDS : Government assistance, welfare payments, housing subsidies, housing outcomes, extremely low-income individuals

Introduction Between 1999 and 2001, I volunteered at the Palms Mission, an emergency shelter for single women in Central Los Angeles stretched to its capacity. As its executive director told me: It’s an emergency shelter, so we pretty much have to take everyone who is homeless in. Many of our clients are mentally ill, but we have no counselor at this point. Cutbacks to welfare have been affecting those women. . . I don’t actually know what happens to most of the women once they have to leave, although we do see some return a year later, looking for shelter again. Correspondence Address: Geoffrey DeVerteuil, Department of Geography, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada. Tel: 204 474 8255 (office); Fax: 204 474 7699; Email: [email protected] ISSN 0267-3037 Print/1466-1810 Online/05/030383–17 q 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd DOI: 10.1080/02673030500062350

384

G. DeVerteuil

I found this setting both fascinating and troubling. Some of the women were mentally disabled, other victims of domestic violence, but most had simply hit difficult economic times. Their previous residential patterns reflected their vulnerabilities: many had moved from one place to another, cycling through a diverse array of residential settings, including other shelters, sober-living homes, jail, shared quarters with family or friends, transitional housing and even the street (Wolch & DeVerteuil, 2001). I was also interested in how the residential patterns of this extremely low-income population intersected with larger systems of governmental assistance, specifically housing subsidies (e.g. Section 8 vouchers, public housing) and/or welfare payments (e.g. local general assistance, federal/disability assistance), particularly within a context of the 1996 federal welfare reform. In effect, would the nature of government assistance—the presence/absence of subsidies and/or welfare payments, as well as the amount and predictability of welfare payments—make any difference at all in the women’s housing stability, the conditions of the neighborhoods they lived in, or time spent in institutionalized settings such as shelters? This paper illustrates the relationship between government assistance (housing subsidies and/or welfare payments) and housing outcomes, using qualitative methods and a sample of 25 homeless women at the Palms Mission. This population fitted the definition of ‘extremely low-income’ as defined by the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998, earning less than 30 per cent of area median income, which in Los Angeles was $15 400 in 1999 (Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2003b). Moreover, 24 of the 25 women suffered from ‘worst case’ needs for housing (as defined by HUD) at the time of their first interview—lacking any housing subsidy or assistance, spending more than 50 per cent of their incomes on rent (at the SRO Hotel adjoining the Palms Mission), or living in the shelter itself, which is considered ‘severely substandard housing’ (Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2003b, p. ix). Further, by their severe rent burden or severely substandard housing, all 25 met the conditions of ‘priority’ or ‘severe housing problems’ as defined by HUD, and would therefore have qualified for federal housing assistance preferences between 1988 and 1996 (Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2003b, A-39). Finally, they were all single, a subset of the larger poverty population that has tended to attract less attention in the post-welfare era, especially when compared to families with children. This research builds on and extends the broader housing literature that suggests a multifaceted and complex relationship between government assistance and housing outcomes. Using explicitly qualitative methods, this paper illustrates three key patterns to the assistance/housing relationship identified in the larger literature: (1) the presence of housing subsidies promotes the most positive outcomes overall, such as stability and independence; (2) that, in the absence of housing subsidies, the predictability and amount of welfare become critical in promoting positive housing outcomes; and (3) housing outcomes are least positive for those lacking both housing subsidies and welfare payments. The results from this qualitative study revealed a complex relationship between government assistance and housing outcomes that largely confirmed these expected patterns, although less so for the last pattern. Having no government assistance at all did not necessarily lead to negative housing outcomes, for a variety of reasons that included only a brief period of precarious housing compared to the other groups. Despite a variety of external factors, including strained family relationships, institutionalization, lack of employment, health problems and so forth, the case studies made clear the importance of

Government Assistance and Housing Outcomes . . . Low-income Individuals

385

government assistance, or the lack thereof, in housing outcomes. The conclusion of the paper emphasizes how recent welfare state restructuring is promoting the further defunding of the poor. Government Assistance and Housing Outcomes for Extremely Low-income Populations Within the US, federal housing subsidies for low-income individuals and families are not considered entitlements. Section 8 is the largest of the federally-funded assistance programs for tenants (Grigsby & Bourassa, 2003), and one which relies heavily on the private market. As a tenant-based subsidy, the Section 8 voucher (since 1999, the Housing Choice Voucher program) is issued by the local housing authority, and the individual then has 120 days to find an appropriate dwelling unit and a willing landlord. If a unit is found, the individual or family pays no more than 30 per cent of his/her monthly adjusted gross income on rent, with the authority paying the “. . . difference between that figure [30 per cent] and the amount the unit would rent for on the market, subject to an upper limit” (Grigsby & Bourassa, 2003, p. 987). In theory, Section 8 vouchers are not limited to specific geographic areas. In practice, Section 8 vouchers tend to cluster in marginal neighborhoods, due to the availability of units that meet ‘Fair Market Rents’ and willing landlords. Public housing, the second-largest housing subsidy program, is a critical program for families but less important for single people. These federal programs are supplemented by an uneven landscape of local subsidies that range from highlyinterventionist cities such as New York to more laissez-faire Sunbelt and suburban communities that provide little in the way of housing support for the poor (Van Ryzin & Kamber, 2002). The focus here is on cash welfare programs, as opposed to in-kind programs such as Food Stamps and Medicaid. Although Food Stamps is the largest and most universal program for the poor in the US, it does not provide cash benefits to spend on housing. Until the 1996 federal welfare reform, key welfare payment programs included Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and General Assistance (GA). AFDC consisted, at least until 1996 (when it was replaced by Temporary Assistance to Needy Families or TANF), of cash benefits to parents of children under 18 years old who have no (or limited) sources of income and minimal assets. Run by the Social Security Administration, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) provides cash benefits that guarantee a minimum level of income for needy aged, blind or disabled individuals. While there is no uniform definition that can cover the wide variety of programs, General Assistance (GA) usually involves “cash and in-kind assistance programs financed and administered entirely by the state, county, or locality in which they operate. They are designed to meet the short-term or ongoing needs of low-income persons ineligible for (or awaiting approval for) federally-funded cash assistance such as TANF or SSI” (Gallagher et al., 1999, p. 3). Since 1996, however, the entire federal welfare system has shifted substantially, especially for the former AFDC program. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) invoked three priorities: the placing of cumulative lifetime limits on TANF benefits; the restriction of access to benefits for certain groups, especially legal immigrants; and the gradual transition of TANF recipients into the workforce. Critically, PRWORA ended the entitlement to government assistance, reorienting resources away from income maintenance and towards job-first policies that

386

G. DeVerteuil

stressed ‘personal responsibility’ over the promises of ‘work opportunity’ (Peck, 2001). Finally, welfare program policy was devolved to the state level, thereby resulting in an increasingly patchwork system. A consistent factor throughout these significant changes has been the largely uncoupled nature of housing subsidies and welfare payments. The 1991 American Housing Survey indicated only about one in every four families receiving public assistance enjoyed some kind of housing subsidies (Koebel, 1997). In 1995, only 24 per cent of SSI recipients lived in public or subsidized rental housing (Daly & Burkhauser, 2000). Finally, according to the 1999 National Survey of America’s Families, only a third of TANF recipients received any kind of housing assistance (Zedlewski, 2002). These low proportions should come as no surprise, given that many housing assistance programs are run separately from cash welfare programs. Welfare recipients that do obtain housing assistance tend to rely on public housing or Section 8 vouchers, both of which are largely constrained to marginal neighborhoods. Housing outcomes for extremely low-income individuals and families, including housing quality, crowding, gross rent as a percentage of income, the degree of residential mobility/stability, and neighborhood conditions, can differ significantly according to different patterns of government assistance. Of course, government assistance does not work in isolation. Many other factors are present in determining housing outcomes, including personal networks (or the lack thereof), personal vulnerabilities, age and race. Nevertheless, the presence or absence of housing subsidies and/or welfare payments can make a critical difference in a poor person’s housing outcome. The paper will focus on three broad patterns prominent within the larger housing literature: (1) the presence of housing subsidies promotes the most positive outcomes, such as stability and independence; (2) that, in the absence of housing subsidies, the predictability and amount of welfare become critical in promoting positive housing outcomes, such that a program with higher and more stable benefits (like SSI) delivers more positive outcomes than GA, which offers fewer and less stable benefits; and (3) that housing outcomes are least positive for those lacking both housing subsidies and welfare payments. Various researchers (Shinn et al., 1998; Varady & Walker, 2003; Wong et al., 1997; Zedlewski, 2002) have noted the positive outcomes of housing subsidies for low-income individuals and families, including those on welfare. These outcomes included housing stability, better housing conditions in better neighborhoods, and lower probability for homeless individuals/families to fall back into homelessness. Indeed, the presence of a housing subsidy can make a huge difference for those suffering from homelessness. With large-scale shelter data in New York City, both Wong et al. (1997) and Shinn et al. (1998) found that homeless families were far less likely to re-enter shelters if they had received subsidized housing after the initial discharge from the system. Put another way, housing subsidies were the strongest predictors of housing stability. In a study of housing outcomes of 11 subsidy programs for low-income households in New York City, “. . . tenant-based Section 8 . . . emerges as the only subtenure that seems to produce affordability, encourage tenant mobility, and reduce overcrowding while performing better than the other subsidized low income programs on measures of housing quality, neighborhood physical blight, and sub-borough area crime” (Van Ryzin & Kamber, 2002, p. 215). Despite these positive outcomes, Section 8 suffers from several drawbacks, the most obvious being its insufficient nature. Across the US, waiting lists for Section 8 were approximately 23 months in 2000, a constraint exacerbated by the lack of willing landlords within a tightening rental market


387

(CHAPA, 2001; Williams, 2003). Even for those who did obtain a voucher, close to onethird were unable to secure an apartment within the 120 days period (Varady & Walker, 2003). Further, many Section 8 recipients end up trading housing stability for living in marginal neighborhoods (Van Ryzin & Kamber, 2002; Varady & Walker, 2003). Given that the majority of extremely low-income households do not enjoy housing subsidies, the amount and predictability of welfare then becomes important in helping to determine housing outcomes. It will be emphasized here the housing outcomes of two welfare programs that largely cater to extremely low-income individuals, SSI and GA. Initiated in 1972 by the federal government, the goal of SSI was to support needy individuals who were not expected to work, especially the aged. As time went on, a larger proportion of people with physical/mental disabilities filled the rolls, as well as the severely and chronically addicted. SSI benefits are disbursed primarily by the federal government, although many states provide a supplement (in 1998, 13 per cent of SSI expenditures were from the state level), as well as eligibility for Medicaid and Food Stamps. As of 1999, SSI was the second largest federal means-tested cash assistance program in the US (after Food Stamps), serving over 6.3 million people, primarily children and working-age adults with serious disabilities. In that year, “SSI beneficiaries with no countable income receive[d] the maximum monthly federal benefit rate (FBR), $500” (Daly & Burkhauser, 2000, p. 13). Although SSI is difficult to obtain—for example, it was estimated that only 6 per cent of the national homeless disabled population was receiving SSI in 1999 (Burns et al., 2003)—the sheer amount of aid, and its predictability, presumably ensured less problematic housing outcomes than for lower and less stable benefits (i.e. GA) or no benefits at all (Ozawa & Yoon, 2002). In a qualitative study, Goldstein et al. (2000) found that for some SSI (Drug Addiction and Alcoholism) recipients, benefits were absolutely essential in escaping destitution and homelessness, providing a modicum of independence: “These persons felt that they were receiving a check, paying their bills, taking care of themselves without having to burden friends or family” (p. 222). In contrast to the focused nature of SSI, GA is essentially a residual program, emerging during the Great Depression to serve indigent, unattached and seemingly able-bodied adults. Recipients range widely: young, able-bodied men who grew up in AFDC households, older workers who have exhausted their unemployment benefits, displaced homemakers (including former AFDC recipients for whom all of their children are over 18), as well as the truly disabled who fail to qualify for disability programs (Coulton et al., 1993; Stagner & Richman, 1986). The issues facing these different groups are not easily subsumed into a single program, and it is not surprising that GA acts as aid of last resort without a clear clientele or goal. Since GA is not federally mandated, provision is highly uneven: only 35 states in 1998 funded GA programs. Of these, 24 had statewide, uniform programs. As a result, GA emerges as a patchwork of locally-funded and administered programs designed at best to fill the gaps. Benefits are invariably low ($200 –$300 range a month), have been falling since the 1980s, and are subject to increasing eligibility requirements, especially for those considered ‘able-bodied’ (Gallagher et al., 1999). While the presence of GA benefits can act as a buffer against literal homelessness (Burt, 1992), studies have shown that the insufficient nature of GA benefits makes it difficult to obtain stable private housing in most large cities. In a longitudinal survey study of over 200 GA recipients in Cuyahoga County (Ohio), at least a quarter of recipients expressed difficulties in securing adequate housing, and close to half “lived with family or friends or shared housing with unrelated people” (Coulton et al., 1993, p. 34). In a survey-based,

388

G. DeVerteuil

longitudinal study of Chicago recipients ðn ¼ 400Þ; rent consumed an inordinate amount (40 per cent) of the GA benefit, forcing many recipients (43 per cent) to move in with family or friends (Stagner & Richman, 1986). In a large-scale study of cold/wet weather shelter utilization in Los Angeles County in 1999/2000 ðn ¼ 883Þ; more than twice as many homeless individuals relied on General Relief (17 per cent) than SSI (8 per cent) (Shelter Partnership, 2000). Just as housing subsidies can enable individuals to spend more on necessities beyond housing, and just as welfare payments can enable more spending on housing (Grigsby & Bourassa, 2003), the absence of both of these supports can make it tremendously difficult for extremely low-income individuals with severe housing problems to obtain basic housing. A common circumstance involved the loss of welfare payments, especially GA benefits, due to outright elimination or time-limits. In states ranging from Michigan (Danziger et al., 2001; Tourigny, 2001) to Minnesota (Johnson & Shepard, 1995), Ohio (Coulton, 1995), Pennsylvania (Halter, 1992) and California (DeVerteuil et al., 2002), GA was abolished or time-limited for so-called employable recipients. A slew of survey-based and ethnographic studies on the impacts of losing GA benefits (Halter, 1992; Hauser & Freedman, 1994; Johnson & Shepard, 1995; McDonald et al., 1993) indicated a variety of negative housing outcomes, including greater homelessness and precarious housing, as well as being forced to move in with family and/or friends. If homeless, former recipients engaged in a variety of survival techniques that initially began with family and/or friends but, as time went on, became increasingly reliant on scavenging and shelters (Halter, 1992). For those already homeless, several large-scale studies (Koegel et al., 1994; Wong et al., 1997) further suggested that the lack of welfare-based income (along with the obvious absence of a housing subsidy) makes it more difficult for single homeless individuals to exit homelessness, and makes it more likely that they will re-enter the shelter system after only brief and shallow exits. Expected Patterns of Housing Outcomes There is currently a lack of an explicitly exploratory, comparative and ethnographic study that would illustrate and flesh out these larger findings on the differing housing outcomes among different combinations and levels of government assistance. Building on several previous studies (Burt, 2001; DeVerteuil, 2003; Koebel, 1997; Van Ryzin & Kamber, 2002), the study here defined housing outcomes according to four variables: (1) residential mobility/stability; (2) degree of institutionalization; (3) circumstances of last setting before arriving at the shelter; and (4) poverty rates of residential census tracts. The mobility outcome essentially captured housing stability, with the assumption that stable housing is preferable to persistent mobility and/or unstable housing. The institutionalization outcome expressed the overall amount of time spent in institutional settings, in this case shelters, jails, prisons, hospitals, rehabs, halfway homes and sober-living homes. The rationale behind this outcome was that significant institutionalization reflects involuntary housing outcomes, a lack of independence, as well as increases the danger of becoming accommodated to an institutionalized way of life. The poverty outcome expressed the mean poverty rate of households in census tracts within which an individual residential pattern occurred, using 2000 census data and overlay analysis within a Geographic Information System (GIS). This outcome reflected the traditional assumption that significant time spent in very poor neighborhoods reflects an inability to avoid


389

a detrimental environment. Finally, the circumstance outcome described the housing options of the woman the night before arriving at the Palms Mission, as well as if individuals were cycling from one institutional setting to another. For instance, 60 per cent of single adults in Los Angeles County winter/wet weather shelters came from another organization/institution in 2002 (Burns et al., 2003). From these variables, as well as previous research findings from the larger literature, it was possible to derive three expected outcome patterns. First, those extremely lowincome individuals with housing subsidies and welfare payments will experience the most positive outcomes, including the most favorable circumstances, the most stable patterns, and the least time in institutions, although they will not be able to avoid spending time in high-poverty neighborhoods where subsidized housing clusters. Second, individuals on SSI will experience more positive outcomes than those on GA, including more favorable circumstances, less institutional time, less overall time in high-poverty neighborhoods, and more stable residential patterns. Third, individuals receiving neither housing subsidies nor welfare payments will suffer the least positive outcomes across all four variables, including the least stable residential patterns, the most institutionalization, spending inordinate amounts of time in the poorest neighborhoods, and the least favorable circumstances before arriving at the Palms Mission. As previously mentioned, the scope, amount and predictability of government assistance do not work in isolation to determine housing outcomes. Other factors exert influence, including personal networks (or the lack thereof), personal vulnerabilities (substance abuse, mental illness), age and race. However, the purpose of this ethnographic study was not to identify causal relationships between government assistance and housing outcomes, but rather to illustrate and flesh out larger scale relationships already proven in the larger literature. Undertaking the Research Overall, the methodological approach mirrored Bryman’s (1988, p. 130) “structured ethnography”: the small-scale, intensive investigation of specific a priori research questions, in this case, illustrating the previously identified housing outcome patterns, using a mixture of structured and open-ended interviews as well as ethnographic techniques. In this way, it was hoped to make analytic, rather than statistical, generalizations about the sample. Using this exploratory and ethnographic approach also shed additional light on the personal motivations and meanings behind government assistance and housing outcomes. The study relied on a small, purposive convenience sample that allowed an intensive focus on the relationship between government assistance and housing outcomes. Between October 1999 and June 2000, 25 women were interviewed at the Palms Mission, an emergency shelter in Central Los Angeles; each woman was paid $10 US for doing the interview. In order to obtain the interviews, I decided to immerse myself in the shelter setting, volunteering for the staff in order to optimize my interactions with the clients and increase the likelihood of obtaining interviews. This participant observation, in the form of taking fieldnotes while volunteering, emerged from the practical need to take advantage of all the time ‘hanging around’ while waiting to interview new clients. Although I had to carefully navigate the research barriers inherent in the Palms Mission, especially the factional divide between the staff and the clients, and the difficulties involved in being

390

G. DeVerteuil

a male researcher within a women’s shelter (see DeVerteuil, 2004), it was possible to observe how the women interacted with the shelter setting and staff, thereby partially countering the rather artificial nature of the interview. The purpose of the initial interview was twofold: to obtain basic personal information (e.g. welfare status, age, race, income, health, etc.) and to retrospectively reconstruct the last two years of residential patterns, using a biographical approach (May, 2000). In particular, the open-ended interviews concentrated on the sequence, mix, circumstances and perceptions of residential settings. In order to translate residential patterns into housing outcomes, a biographical approach was employed. The biographical approach involves the generation of detailed biographies of respondents’ experiences according to a variety of arenas (e.g. shelter, institutional use, employment, etc.), “tracing the connections between their experiences in each so as to develop a fuller understanding of the nature of the homelessness dynamic” (May, 2000, p. 613). Moreover, the biographical approach enabled detection of subtle changes to subsistence patterns, and recognized the importance of life stories while setting personal experiences within a longer time frame. A key methodological concern was the ability to draw links between personal experiences in the housing arena and larger structures (in this case, the role of government assistance). Dealing with this challenge involved patience on my part, as the respondents were unused to recognizing the relationship of structures such as the welfare system to their everyday experiences. In his study of street people in Greenwich Village, Duneier (1999) also recognized this dilemma: One of the greatest strengths of firsthand observation is also its greatest weakness. Through a careful involvement in people’s lives, we can get a fix on how their world works and how they see it. But the details can be misleading if they distract us from the forces that are less visible to the people we observe but which influence and sustain their behaviors. (p. 10) After the interviews, I was especially interested in elucidating the links between the structural and the personal. At the time of the retrospective interviews, the 25 women were divided into four mutually exclusive groups: (1) women currently on housing subsidies and welfare (in this case, Section 8 and SSI); (2) women currently on SSI (no housing subsidy), and who had not been on GA in the past two years (once a woman obtains SSI benefits, she does not lose them); (3) women currently, or at some point over the past two years, on GA (no housing subsidy), and who had never received SSI during that period; and (4) women who had received neither housing subsidies nor welfare. To illustrate each group, one woman’s residential pattern that was typical was chosen. Housing outcome data for each woman were also aggregated into the four groups, and weighted accordingly. Subsequent to the initial interview, I sought to re-interview the women within these four groupings bimonthly over a one-year period. Open-ended longitudinal interviews focused on residential patterns since the previous interview, and were intended to help situate (residential) decisions, strategies and patterns, as well as episodes of homelessness, as part of a suite of coping strategies (Hopper et al., 1985). Further, a longitudinal approach helped avoid the problem of taking single encounters as indicative of larger patterns, setting what initially appears to be self-defeating behavior into a broader context of longterm survival (Snow et al., 1994). Tracking strategies included the use of self-addressed


391

stamped postcards, status checks and sustained contact with a network of current and former shelter residents. Through these strategies, it was possible to re-interview 13 of the 25 women at least once, although the distribution would be uneven across the four groups, with the non-subsidy/non-welfare group being particularly hard to follow. Context of Los Angeles County Before expressing the results, it is necessary to consider the housing subsidy and welfare context for low-income individuals within Los Angeles County. During the time period of the research, housing subsidies in the County were entirely inadequate, exacerbating the already severe mismatch between demand and supply of affordable housing that pervades not only Los Angeles but also Western US more generally (Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2003b). Moreover, public housing has never been particularly popular, especially in comparison to more established East Coast and Midwest cities. In 2003, Los Angeles County had far fewer public housing units (10 424) than less populous New York City (163 046), Chicago (33 133) and Philadelphia (15 663) (Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 2003a), and had relatively under-funded local housing initiatives compared to many other large cities (Southern California Association of NonProfit Housing (SCANPH), 2003). Demand, however, was high for housing subsidies. The re-opening of the Section 8 vouchers list in 2000 prompted 153 000 families to sign up, or 10 per cent of Los Angeles City’s households (Los Angeles Housing Crisis Task Force (LAHCTF), 2000). Finally, public housing and Section 8 did tend to concentrate in heavily minority and poor neighborhoods (Southern California Studies Center, 2001). Federal SSI benefits are supplemented by the state, and payments in January 2003 for individuals ranged from $460 (disabled, household of another) to $925 (non-medical board and care) a month (Social Security Administration (SSA), 2003). SSI recipients are entitled to Medical (the California equivalent of Medicaid) and, for most, Food Stamps. PRWORA restricted benefits for several groups, including drug and alcohol addiction as well as certain non-citizens, and tightened disability criteria for children. In the wake of these restrictions, the State of California filled the gaps with its own program (CAPI— Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants) and the federal government also relaxed some of the restrictions on non-citizens who were receiving SSI in August 1996 (Daly & Burkhauser, 2000; DeVerteuil et al., 2003). General Relief (GR), the mandated California equivalent of GA, is intended for indigent, unattached individuals. Its marginal nature is obvious; in 1999, GR paid only $221 plus Food Stamps. In 1998, 60 per cent of Los Angeles County GR recipients were considered employable, 62 per cent were male, and 75 per cent were either African-American or Latino (LACEH & H, 1998). To explain these dismal outcomes, there must be an examination of the County reconfiguration of the GR system in the 1980s and 1990s, when caseloads (400 per cent increase between 1976 and 1993) and expenditures (900 per cent increase between 1980 and 1992) spiraled (DeVerteuil et al., 2002). Although the program distinguished between so-called employable and unemployable recipients, many of the strategies used to control costs targeted both groups equally, including indirect methods (e.g. quality control, increased penalties for non-conformance, etc.) and direct cuts to benefit levels in 1993, from $341 a month to a paltry $212. With the fear of federal welfare reform providing the impetus, the County decided in May 1997 to limit all those deemed employable to six months of aid in any one 12-month period. Recipients began to time out in February 1998.

392

G. DeVerteuil

Due to strong criticism, benefits were extended to nine months in February 1999 if the client participated in job training, the so-called General Relief Opportunities for Work (GROW) program, which is a ‘job-first’ program in line with other post-reform welfare-to-work initiatives. Thus, in direct contrast to most SSI recipients, GR clients in Los Angeles County have suffered through almost two decades of erratic, conditional and miserly payments.

Results Table 1 illustrates the differences among the four mutually exclusive groups, presumably ranked from the most favored group to the least, and includes the four aggregated housing outcomes as well as certain key demographic characteristics —age, ability and labor market experience. Group 1 was, not surprisingly, the rarest combination—housing subsidies and welfare, the former being particularly difficult to obtain in Los Angeles—and somewhat conformed to the expected pattern outlined in the literature. The mobility outcome measure was the second-lowest, and the circumstances outcome was positive (‘own apartment’), rather than shared quarters or arriving from another shelter. Conversely, the institutional outcome measure was the second-highest, and the poverty outcome ranked the highest, most likely because the Section 8 vouchers were geographically limited to high-poverty areas. This group was also the oldest, physically disabled and least attached to the labor market. The story of ‘JC’ illustrated more in-depth the experiences and challenges of this group. She spent 43 per cent of the retrospective period cycling across various institutional settings, including two shelters and transitional housing. Her instability began after the County made her redundant at Christmas 1994. In her words: Table 1. Housing outcomes and personal characteristics among the 25 women interviewed at the Palms Mission

Mobility outcome: Mean number of residences encountered Poverty outcome: Mean percentage of census tract poverty of residential patterns Circumstance outcome: Most common setting on night previous to arriving at the Palms Mission Institutional outcome: Mean proportion of time in institutionalized settings Mean age Proportion considering themselves physically disabled Mean length of time since last labor market participation

Group 1: Housing subsidy and welfare ðn ¼ 2Þ

Group 2: SSI (only) ðn ¼ 7Þ

Group 3: GR (only) ðn ¼ 9Þ

Group 4: No housing subsidy/welfare ðn ¼ 7Þ

6.5

7.14

9.0

5.3

67.3%

50.8%

55.1%

37.3%

homeless shelter

15.5%

shared quarters (apartment) 15.2%

55.5 2 of 2

52.6 5 of 7

41.4 3 of 9

38.2 0 of 7

198 months

111 months

29 months

13 months

own apartment

31.0%

shared quarters (apartment) 7.4%


393

I had been taking care of my mother, I had to put her in a nursing home, and I had to spend a good deal of money for that. She passed away in May 1994. . . I came down with congestive heart failure in 1996, and I almost died. . . my stamina was so low. Which is why I didn’t seek employment, so I started on GR, and moved in with my daughter and granddaughter. I wasn’t supposed to be in it [the apartment], I was the babysitter, and I kept a low profile, but somebody snitched, so I came to this shelter. When her time at the Palms Mission was up, she spent a week as a live-in helper for an elderly couple. Out of options and no longer eligible for GR because of time limits, she spent six weeks at the Good Shepard shelter for women. From there, she managed to move into the Transition House, which afforded another six months of time for minimum rent (once her GR was reinstated). She then managed to obtain SSI, which helped her secure a room at the SRO Hotel adjoining the Palms Mission shelter. At the time of the initial interview (November 1999), she was more secure than before, receiving SSI and staying at the SRO Hotel. Disgusted with the way the hotel was being run, she stopped paying rent in Spring 2000. Well before then, JC was planning her departure, applying for County and City public housing as well as a Section 8 voucher. Her previous knowledge of bureaucracies proved invaluable, and she was able to secure a Section 8 apartment just before her own eviction. JC was now closer to her children and quite content: “. . . I’ve been lucky. It’s [the hotel] served its purpose. I have a Section 8 and some money. It’s 1/3 of my income, I’ll be paying $197 for a $600 apartment”. The fortunate coupling of housing subsidy (Section 8) and welfare payments (SSI) ultimately helped stabilize JC’s residential patterns. As such, most of her longitudinal period was spent in stable housing, albeit in a very poor part of County. Group 2 (those with SSI but no housing subsidies) conformed to the expected pattern of having more favorable outcomes than the GR group. Women on SSI were less residentially mobile, spent time in less poor neighborhoods, were less likely to interact with institutional settings, and had more favorable circumstances than the women on GR. These outcomes were not surprising, given that SSI is more likely to ensure stable housing. The story of ‘Cricket’ expresses many of the key characteristics of the SSI group, including physical disability, difficulties in obtaining SSI in the first place, and weak attachments to the labor market. She is a 59-year-old Caucasian woman, originally from Harriman, Tennessee. She came from a poor background, one of 13 children, with an alcoholic father. She had always been self-sufficient, working a variety of low paying jobs until a stroke in 1993. During the retrospective period, Cricket’s relationship with her family was strained. Moreover, she was in generally poor health, still a heavy smoker despite having high blood pressure and a previous stroke. She had not worked since her stroke, supporting herself through an erratic mix of friends, bartering, General Relief (unemployable), and, eventually, SSI. She first became homeless in April 1998. This first episode was traumatic for her, but the structured and supportive environment improved her self-esteem. She used her time at the Good Shepard shelter to find an apartment near the University of Southern California campus, which she shared with a woman she met at the shelter. Luckily, this woman was receiving AFDC, because Cricket was only receiving $221 a month through GR. Unfortunately, the place was chaotic, and she could not easily leave given the limited residential options open to GR recipients. The roommate lost her AFDC when her son turned 18, and Cricket was homeless again.

394

G. DeVerteuil

Eventually, two circumstances would work in her favor: her decision to stay in the neighborhood, and that her SSI was now finally approved after six years of bureaucratic wait. Nonetheless, the whole process was very draining: It was very hard, I almost had to die [to get SSI] because they didn’t deem me disabled until they found out I had to have a heart operation, along with the vascular disease, the two together. They said I should have gotten it [SSI] before. Cricket found the neighborhood supportive and safe, and she was lucky to quickly find an opening at the Palms Mission. She used her time at the Palms Mission to save money and to rest. Soon thereafter, SSI enabled Cricket to obtain a room at the adjoining SRO Hotel. She was very happy to have her own place, with greater privacy and fewer rules. Unfortunately, in October 1999, her family in Tennessee phoned to say her brother was gravely ill. Upon hearing the news, Cricket took a bus back to Harriman, where she stayed for six months in a subsidized apartment that her family had obtained. She was also able to transfer her SSI. After her brother stabilized, Cricket decided to return to Los Angeles because of the weather. She had left with the understanding that a room would be available at the SRO Hotel. However, the manager reneged on her promise, and Cricket was forced once again to scramble for housing. Her first inclination was to contact a neighborhood friend, who was kind enough to let her stay with him until an apartment opened up in the building. Cricket moved into a studio apartment within the same building on 1 May 2000, and she was fortunate that the deposit was being waived. Indeed, the landlady was happy to have her as a tenant on SSI. In June 2000, she suffered severe blockages in her leg arteries, forcing her to spend 17 days in the County hospital. The post-surgery recuperation was difficult, so she decided to return to Tennessee, leaving the apartment with a friend. During her time in Tennessee, she lived in an apartment near her brother. Still receiving SSI, she spent the time physically recuperating from her surgery. However, Cricket wanted to return to California for the weather and the neighborhood she had left behind. After saying farewell to her brother, she returned to Los Angeles in early November, to the same apartment she had left with a friend back in August. Although comfortable with sharing the studio apartment, she was hoping to move into her own apartment in April 2001, a place across the street in a building where she knew the landlord. Overall, SSI payments played the role of stabilizer in Cricket’s residential patterns. Typical of Group 2, Cricket was fairly mobile, spent a fair amount of time in poor neighborhoods, and spent relatively less time in institutional settings. Group 3 (women on GR, without housing subsidies) also largely conformed to the expected patterns. Compared to the SSI group, women on GR were more mobile (the most in fact), more likely to live in poor neighborhoods, more likely to have spent the previous night in a shelter, and spent more time in institutional settings (again, the highest of any group). As will be seen, these largely negative outcomes were not only a product of low GR payments, but also losing GR entirely for long periods of time. The group was also younger, less likely to be physically disabled, and had more recent attachments to the labor market than women on SSI. The story of ‘Sis’ was instructive. Originally from Oklahoma, this 44-year-old Caucasian woman began the retrospective period in an apartment, but would subsequently suffer a series of dislocations that would bring her to Los Angeles. Sis grew up in Hanford, California (Central Valley). Her recent physical and mental health has been difficult, with


395

bouts of severe migraines and depression. She had not worked for four years, and had a strained relationship with her mother. In Spring 1999, Sis left her apartment in Hanford to participate with her mother in a counseling program. During that time, they stayed at two local motels, although in separate rooms. A typical day involved counseling sessions and group therapy. The program paid for each motel. Unable to reconcile, mother and daughter went their separate ways in July 1999. Sis went to Watts (in Los Angeles) to see her godmother. In her words, “I stayed there but I didn’t stay in the house . . . I slept in my car in the driveway. I just got tired of it and everything and that’s when I went to the Watts Labor Coalition and Action Committee [WLCAC] . . .”. During that time, Sis was trying to obtain SSI, and despite her physical and mental health problems her efforts were in vain. As a last resort, she applied and obtained General Relief (unemployable) benefits, which predictably did not pay sufficiently to obtain housing. WLCAC recommended several emergency shelters, including the Palms Mission. She arrived there in September 1999, but without much forethought. As she put it, “they [WLCAC] just told me that it was in a good area and that they know the place would be recommended . . .”. Her time at the Palms Mission was meant to be restorative, and for the most part it had been. She was excused from chores, and spent considerable time seeing her doctors, as well as attempting to obtain SSI. Given the time limits at the Palms Mission, however, and low GR payments, Sis was vulnerable to seeing her condition destabilize at the time of our retrospective interview in October 1999. During the longitudinal period, Sis’ residential patterns became less stable. She spent 79 per cent of the longitudinal year in institutional settings, ranging from emergency and domestic violence shelters to transitional housing. In particular, shelter stays were invariably set off by personal crises and/or financial disruptions. For instance, Sis spent 38 days in a shared apartment with her boyfriend in Watts in February 2000, but lost her GR during that time (due to certain documents not being filed on time), and suffered physical abuse at his hands. From there, Sis was forced to go to a domestic violence shelter for a month. Her residential pattern now seriously disrupted, she returned to the WLCAC, where she obtained a one-month hotel voucher in South-Central Los Angeles. After this, and as a last resort, she sought refuge at the Good Shepard shelter for women, spending the maximum six weeks there. She began volunteering for WLCAC as well, in the hopes of stabilizing her residential patterns. After several of these episodes, Sis was able to parlay her relationship with WLCAC to obtain longer-term, transitional housing for mentally-ill individuals (Summer 2000). Sharing an apartment, she paid $175 a month and could stay up to 18 months. While more stable, her rent consumes 80 per cent of her (GR) income, indicating once again how GR creates conditions of precarious housing. In desperation, she is still trying to obtain SSI, and if so hopes to move to her own apartment somewhere ‘safer’ and ‘nicer’. Her reliance on GR left her essentially destitute and unable to secure stable housing in a better area. Like Sis, Group 3 as a whole suffered worse mobility, circumstance and institutional outcomes than not only the SSI group, but all the other groups as well. For many of the GR-dependent women, the best they could manage was moving from one shelter to another in order to avoid literal homelessness. Finally, the housing outcomes of Group 4 (the seven women with neither housing subsidies nor welfare payments) actually fared better than predicted by the larger housing literature. The mobility, poverty and institutional outcomes were the most positive of the four groups. As will be seen, these unexpected patterns were most likely caused by a stronger attachment to the labor market, less time spent being vulnerable, and never

396

G. DeVerteuil

having been welfare-dependent in the first place. Originally from Korea, ‘Jennifer’ (30 years old) arrived in the US in 1992 with her husband. Divorced, she spent three-quarters of her two-year period living in a room at a friend’s house, supporting herself by working in a sweatshop and awning store. From there, she spent two months at a ‘Korean’ shelter in the Koreatown/Mid-Wilshire part of Los Angeles, just west of Downtown. This shelter was a private home with four other Korean women. It was a rather unsupervised setting, except for the strong religious overtones—the owner was a minister. During her time there, there was a lack of basic sundries, including shampoo and soap, and the food was invariably chicken. Moreover, Jennifer was forced to leave every morning, only to return in the evenings. As such, her residential patterns were highly structured by her ethnicity and income status. From there, she moved on to a mainstream (Catholic) shelter for another two months, albeit in a much poorer neighborhood. She was amazed at the quality: “Korean shelter very different. I’m very shocked, everyday meat, soap, token and transfer, shampoo, lotion, everyday kitchen night time, TV station . . . I’m thinking, ‘wow, American shelter is very good!’” Finally, after reaching her time limit, she ended up at the Palms Mission. When I interviewed her in Spring 2000, she could not find employment because Koreans did not want to hire someone who lived in a shelter. Equally frustrating was the lack of structure within this new surrounding. Unlike the previous shelter, the Palms Mission offers no counseling, no stringent rules, and no meaningful intervention in the clients’ lives. Without a strict staff, Jennifer feels that the other women are free to mock her lack of knowledge of American customs. Although facing unique circumstances because of her immigrant status, her housing outcomes were fairly typical of the group. She never depended on welfare, did not obtain housing subsidies, was not particularly mobile compared to the GR or even SSI groups, and spent relatively little overall time in institutional settings or poor neighborhoods. The lack of government supports, combined with a series of personal crises, led to a relatively late entry into homelessness during the two-year retrospective period. Indeed, all of the women in this group were fairly new to homelessness at the time of the initial interview, suggesting that a stable housing pattern was being replaced by an extremely vulnerable stage (this is partly conjecture, as it was particularly difficult to interview these women longitudinally). The relatively low poverty outcomes may be explained by the fact that most of the women, including Jennifer, spent most of the two-year period in wealthier areas, but by the end had drifted to poorer neighborhoods to access services, affordable housing and shelters. Implications of Case Study The results from this qualitative study revealed a multifaceted and complex relationship between government assistance and housing outcomes. Despite a variety of external factors, including strained family relationships, institutionalization, lack of employment, health problems and so forth, the case studies made clear the importance of government assistance, or the lack thereof, in housing outcomes. SSI and Section 8 certainly helped to stabilize JC’s housing situation. Cricket’s housing outcomes were improved by her reliance on SSI. For Sis, GR was an impediment to obtaining stable and quality housing outcomes, but one that was exacerbated by physical and mental health problems, domestic violence, family alienation, constrained personal networks and lack of employability. Jennifer’s lack of either welfare or subsidies made it quite difficult to obtain any kind of


397

housing outside of shelters, although this condition was only part of her problems, which included unemployment and immigrant status. The results of the small sample confirmed and fleshed out most of the key patterns and expectations identified in the larger literature, yet contradicted a few as well. First, the presence of housing subsidies was indeed advantageous, especially in a tight rental market such as Los Angeles. When combined with welfare payments, Section 8 effectively ensured stable housing outcomes, although two key drawbacks remained—the difficulties in obtaining subsidies, as well as the fact that subsidized housing tends to locate in poor neighborhoods. Second, SSI promoted more positive housing outcomes than GR, illustrating that the predictability and amount of welfare matters. In the sample, SSI recipients enjoyed relatively stable and minimally institutionalized housing outcomes, and those who obtained SSI after receiving GR were even able to improve their housing situation (i.e. JC’s story). Given the low payments, most GR recipients were forced to rely on very marginal and unstable housing, including emergency shelters. The erratic nature of GR payments also destabilized residential patterns over time, suggesting that losing GR is even worse than being on it, as well as worse than never being on it in the first place. Third, having no government assistance at all did not necessarily lead to negative housing outcomes, for a variety of reasons that included only a brief period of precarious housing compared to the other groups. The study also highlighted the importance of ethnographic approaches to understanding the relationship between government assistance and housing outcomes. Unlike larger studies, which can only glean details on personal residential choices through point-in-time surveys, an intensive, longitudinal and ethnographic approach can situate housing outcomes within a larger suite of personal, familial, health and welfare contexts. Such an approach also enabled a long-term view of the frequently ingenious subsistence patterns used by extremely low-income individuals, and avoided the pitfall of point-in-time surveys that only show what appear to be short-term pathological behavior.

Conclusions: Defunding the Poor The results of this research suggest that the very uneven system of housing subsidy and welfare assistance in Los Angeles County produced a very uneven roster of winners and losers in the housing arena. Given that all the women could be defined as suffering ‘priority’ or severe housing problems, the utter lack of housing subsidies speaks to the existence of an entirely inadequate government-supported housing policy for extremely low-income individuals. The 1996 federal welfare reform only exacerbated this penurious situation, making it more difficult for extremely low-income individuals to obtain welfare payments. Further, public housing and Section 8 subsidies have been under attack in the last decade, and these trends must also be understood as larger efforts to defund the poor. While public housing is being selectively and unevenly dismantled in various cities, under the auspices of the HOPE VI program (Hackworth, 2003), the already-insufficient Section 8 (which the current Bush administration has deemed ‘too expensive’) is being targeted by new federal funding formulas that would disadvantage renters in big cities, as well as being threatened with massive cuts beginning in the proposed 2005 fiscal year budget (Chen, 2004; National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2004). Future research needs to take into account these overarching constraints on extremely low-income individuals, especially as they navigate increasingly hostile urban housing markets (Hays, 2003).

398

G. DeVerteuil

References Bryman, A. (1988) Quantity and Quality in Social Research (London: Unwin Hyman). Burns, P., Flaming, D. & Haydamack, B. (2003) Homeless in LA: A Working Paper for the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness in Los Angeles County (Los Angeles: Economic Roundtable). Burt, M. (1992) Over the Edge: The Growth of Homelessness in the 1980s (Washington DC: The Urban Institute). Burt, M. (2001) Homeless families, singles and others: findings from the 1996 National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients, Housing Policy Debate, 12, pp. 737 –780. Chen, D. (2004) US seeks cuts in housing aid to urban poor, The New York Times, 22 September. Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA) (2001) Section 8 Voucher Study (Boston: CHAPA). Coulton, C. (1995) General Assistance Recipients in a Time-Limited Program: Employment and the Use of Benefits and Services (Cleveland, OH: Center for Urban Poverty and Social Change). Coulton, C., Crowell, L. & Verma, N. (1993) How time-limited eligibility affects General Assistance clients, Public Welfare, 4, pp. 29 –38. Daly, M. & Burkhauser, R. (2000) The Supplemental Security Income Program (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research). Danziger, S., Carlson, M. & Henly, J. (2001) Post-welfare employment and psychological well-being, Women and Health, 32, pp. 47–78. DeVerteuil, G. (2003) Homeless mobility, institutional settings, and the new poverty management, Environment and Planning A, 35, pp. 361 –379. DeVerteuil, G. (2004) Systematic inquiry into barriers to researcher access: evidence from a homeless shelter, The Professional Geographer, 56, pp. 372 –380. DeVerteuil, G., Lee, W. & Wolch, J. (2002) New spaces for the local welfare state? The case of General Relief in Los Angeles County, Journal of Social and Cultural Geography, 3, pp. 229–246. DeVerteuil, G., Sommer, H., Wolch, J. & Takahashi, L. (2003) The local welfare state in transition: welfare reform in Los Angeles County, in: D. Halle (Ed.) New York and Los Angeles: Politics, Society and Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Duneier, M. (1999) Sidewalk (New York: Strauss & Giroux Press). Gallagher, J., Uccello, C., Pierce, A. & Reidy, E. (1999) State General Assistance Programs in 1998 (Washington DC: The Urban Institute). Goldstein, P., Anderson, T., Schyb, I. & Swartz, J. (2000) Models of adaptation to termination of the SSI/SSDI addiction disability, Advances in Medical Geography, 7, pp. 215–238. Grigsby, W. & Bourassa, S. (2003) Trying to understand low income housing subsidies: lessons from the United States, Urban Studies, 40, pp. 973 –992. Hackworth, J. (2003) Public housing and the rescaling of regulation in the USA, Environment and Planning A, 35, pp. 531 –549. Halter, A. (1992) Homeless in Philadelphia: a qualitative study of the impact of state welfare reform on individuals, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 19, pp. 7–20. Hauser, S. & Freedman, H. (1994) Jobless, Penniless, often Homeless: State General Assistance Cuts Leave ‘Employables’ Struggling for Survival (Washington DC: Center on Social Policy and Law). Hays, S. (2003) Flat Broke with Children: Women in the Age of Welfare Reform (New York: Oxford University Press). Hopper, K., Susser, E. & Conover, S. (1985) Economies of makeshift: deindustrialization and homelessness in New York City, Urban Anthropology, 14, pp. 183–236. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (2003a) Public housing agency profiles. Available at http://www.hud. gov/offices/pih/systems/pic/haprofiles/ Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (2003b) Trends in Worst Case Needs for Housing, 1978– 1999 (Washington DC: Office of Policy Development and Research). Johnson, P. & Shepard, M. (1995) General Assistance: the impact on housing, employment, and service utilization of former recipients, Arete, 20, pp. 16 –25. Koebel, T. (1997) Housing conditions of low-income families in the private, unassisted housing market in the United States, Housing Studies, 12, pp. 201–213. Koegel, P., Burnam, M., Morton, S., Sullivan, J., Benjamin, B. & Duan, N. (1994) Course of homelessness among homeless adults in Los Angeles. Research presentation, RAND Institute, 2 November. Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness (LACEH & H) (1998) General Relief in Los Angeles County (Los Angeles: Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness).


399

Los Angeles Housing Crisis Task Force (LAHCTF) (2000) In Short Supply: Recommendations of the Los Angeles Housing Crisis Task Force (Los Angeles: LAHCTF). May, J. (2000) Housing histories and homeless careers: a biographical approach, Housing Studies, 15, pp. 613–638. McDonald, B., Parks, S., Conyers, G. & Mutchler, W. (1993) The Impact on Individuals and Communities of the Reductions in Social Services in Michigan in 1991–1992, Final Report (Lansing, MI: Michigan League for Human Services). National Low Income Housing Coalition (2004) Latest updates, 2 July 2004. Available at http://www.nlihc.org/ Ozawa, M. & Yoon, H. (2002) Social Security and SSI as safety nets for the elderly poor, Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 14, pp. 1–25. Peck, J. (2001) Workfare States (London: Guildford Press). Shelter Partnership (2000) A Report on Cold/Wet Weather Shelter Utilization in Los Angeles County (Los Angeles: Shelter Partnership, Inc.). Shinn, M., Weitzman, B., Stojanovic, D., Knickman, J., Jimenez, L., Duchon, L., James, S. & Krantz, D. (1998) Predictors of homelessness among families in New York City: from shelter request to housing stability, American Journal of Public Health, 88, pp. 1651–1657. Snow, D., Anderson, L. & Koegel, P. (1994) Distorting tendencies in research on the homeless, American Behavioral Scientist, 37, pp. 461–475. Social Security Administration (SSA) (2003) SSI in California, January 2003. Available at http://www.ssa.gov/ pubs/11125.html Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing (SCANPH) (2003) Affordable Housing Production: Comparing the Expenditures of Six US Cities (Los Angeles: SCANPH). Southern California Studies Center (2001) Sprawl Hits the Wall: Confronting the Realities of Metropolitan Los Angeles (Los Angeles and Washington DC: Southern California Studies Center and the Brookings Center). Stagner, R. & Richman, H. (1986) Re-examining the role of General Assistance, Public Welfare, pp. 26 –32. Tourigny, S. (2001) Some new killing trick: welfare reform and drug markets in a US urban ghetto, Social Justice, 28, pp. 49–71. Van Ryzin, G. & Kamber, T. (2002) Subtenures and housing outcomes for low income renters in New York City, Journal of Urban Affairs, 24, pp. 197–218. Varady, D. & Walker, C. (2003) Housing vouchers and residential mobility, Journal of Planning Literature, 18, pp. 17–30. Williams, A. (2003) ‘A Roof Over my Head’: Homeless Women and the Shelter Industry (Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado). Wolch, J. & DeVerteuil, G. (2001) Landscapes of the new poverty management, in: J. May & N. Thrift (Eds) TimeSpace (London: Routledge). Wong, Y., Culhane, D. & Kuhn, R. (1997) Predictors of exit and reentry among family shelter users in New York City, Social Service Review, 71, pp. 441 –462. Zedlewski, S. (2002) The Importance of Housing Benefits to Welfare Success (Washington DC: The Urban Institute).