fair housing conference highlights

8/14/2019 Fair Housing Conference Highlights

1/7

1

The Next Forty Years of Fair Housing:Developing an Agenda for Integration in the 21st Century

Conference HighlightsOctober 7, 2008

Conference Goals

The year 2008 marks 40 years since the passageof the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The Act protectsindividual rights and fosters residential integration.This forward-looking conference focused onresearch, policies, and programs that move beyondanti-discrimination enforcement to examinethe other barriers to integration. More than 70

researchers, policymakers, and community leadersfrom universities, government, and non-protorganizations aended this conference and workedtoward an action agenda for the future.

Racial residential segregation persists at very highlevels in the Chicago region, and in cities throughoutthe United States; and it has declined only modestlyin the 40 years since the Fair Housing Act waspassed. The causes of segregation are many andcomplexincluding the persistence of illegal racial/ethnic discrimination, as well as complicated paerns

of racial residential preferences and individualbehaviors. Much aention over the last 40 years hasrightfully been aimed at enforcementtesting for,and litigating againstillegal discrimination. But,one of the goals of the Act was also to armativelyfurther integration. As we move to the next 40 yearsof fair housing, in addition to continued diligencetowards enforcement, there is a need to pay aentionto eorts to foster integration. Over the course of thisday-long conference, the participants learned aboutthe complexities of these issues, heard research aboutthe paerns that create barriers to integration, anddebated policy measures aimed at the larger goal ofencouraging integration. What follows is a summaryof some of the discussion prompted by the followingquestions: How have policies worked to perpetuatesegregation and what policies could help fosterintegration? What are the challenges to integration atthe individual behavioral level, and what programsare working to overcome those barriers?

This document is arranged thematically, makingconnections between the presentations shared atthe conference. The rst theme is public policy andhousing integration and the second theme is individuabehaviors and integration.

Theme #1: Public Policy and HousingIntegration.

The conference included discussion of housing policiesat three levels: federal (Tegeler), state (Yarbrough),and local (Puente).

Philip Tegeler, a civil rights aorney with the Povertyand Race Research Action Council, began by observingthat federal housing policies must be aentive to theways in which the paerns, causes, and consequencesof segregation in one metropolitan area may be quitedierent than those in another. Furthermore, thatmetropolitan housing segregation is at the nexus ofstructural racismthat is, racial dierences in quality

of life, health care, education, employment, justice, andthe likeare shaped substantially by where one lives.

Tegeler described the three main federal housingprograms (Low Income Tax Credit Program; HousingChoice Voucher Program (formerly Section 8); andPublic Housing), noting that there is no such thing asa segregation-neutral federal housing policy. First, asthe largest aordable housing development programin the country, the Low Income Tax Credit Program isthe worst oender in terms of promoting segregation.This program steers funds to predominately poor and

minority neighborhoods, which means that aordablehousing units are built in low-opportunity ratherthan high-opportunity communities. Second, theHousing Choice Voucher program provides housingvouchers that, in theory, facilitate movement of lowincome and minority families to high-opportunityareas.1 But current guidelines make it harder tomove to high-opportunity areas, in part because

1 High opportunity communities provide services that improve the quality of

life of their residents, including strong educational institutions, employment

choices, quality childcare, affordable housing, access to health care and reliable

transportation.


2/7

2

the critical funds that provide housing counselinghave been virtually stripped from the programsbudgets. Third, public housing has been undergoingsubstantial redevelopment in many metropolitanareasbut at this point Tegeler estimates a $30-$40billion dollar shortfall in funding for these projects.Where redevelopment has occurred, the questionremains whether future public housing projects willsimply perpetuate the isolated character of the pastand present, or whether new developments willbe located so as to provide residents with accessto greater opportunities for jobs, education, andgenerally higher quality of life. Looking ahead,Tegeler observed that the current nancial crisis andthe housing policies that emerge from it must beviewed through the lens of who will benet from theinux of federal dollarsand whether its eects willbe segregation or integration promoting.

Karen Yarbrough, Illinois State Representative

from the 7th District, focused her discussion onher eorts to pass legislation in the state of Illinoisthat would prohibit a form of discrimination that,while not directly related to race/ethnicity, has adisproportionate impact on people of color, andlimits housing choices in a way that promotessegregation. Specically, she has proposedlegislation to prohibit property owners fromdiscriminating against potential tenants solely onthe basis of source of income. This means thatindividuals whose source of income is, for example,child support, SSI, welfare, housing choice vouchers,

among others, could not be denied housing on thatbasis. At present, property owners may discriminateon this basis, contributing to the concentration ofindividuals whose source of income is, for example,Housing Choice Vouchers, into minority and high-poverty areas. The legislation would providetraining for property owners who violate the bill, andwould apply only to rentals. Yarbroughs previousaempts to pass this legislation were defeated, withthe real estate industry being a principal opponent.She noted that several states (California, Connecticut,Maine, Massachuses, Minnesota, New Jersey, North

Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, andWisconsin) and the District of Columbia have someform of ban on source of income discrimination, andshe intends to re-introduce this legislation.

Sylvia Puente, Director of the Center for MetropolitanChicago Initiatives at the University of Notre DamesInstitute for Latino Studies, focused her presentationon municipal housing policies with particularaention to their eects on Latinos. She placed herremarks in context by describing key features of the

metropolitan Chicago Latino population: (1) as of2006, 20 percent of the Chicago metropolitan areais Latino, making it the largest minority group inthe region; (2) projections indicate that the Latinopopulation will continue to grow; (3) as of 2006, moreLatinos live in the suburbs than live in the city; and(4) 56 percent of Latinos in the Chicago metropolitanarea are homeowners, compared to 78 percent ofwhites and 43 percent of African Americans.

In light of this context, Puente noted that issuesof fair housing are somewhat dierent for Latinosand African Americans. From the standpoint ofthe Latino community, she identies the issueof aordability as paramount. One of her keyconclusions is the mismatch between the kinds ofhousing that are being built (large single-familyhomes) and the current and projected future demand(small single-family homes). She argues that the lackof aordable housing of the type most in demand,

has a particular impact on Latino families, and thatit can lead to overcrowding. Thus, overcrowdingis not always a choice, but has roots in economicrealities, larger family size, and cultural issues. Incrafting municipal housing ordinances, she notesthat there should be a balance between public safetyand individual rights and an emphasis on culturallysensitive education and problem-solving rather thanpunitive actions. Puente concluded by observing thatsome practices by municipalities related to housingordinances, such as selective enforcement (targetingLatino families), midnight raids, biased denitions of

what a family is, and solely punitive responses, areproblematic.

Organizations eforts to address policychallenges and housing integrationRepresentatives from three housing policy andadvocacy organizations in the Chicago area providedreections on their organizations activities and thechallenges they faced.

Sharon Legenza, Director of Housing Action Illinois

(HAI), was pleased to participate in a conferencefocused on tools to achieving integration, and notexclusively on enforcement. HAI focuses aentionon aordability issues in general, with the hope thatan increase in aordable housing will translate intoincreases in integration. In addition to providingtechnical training and assistance (most recentlytraining counselors who assist individuals facingforeclosure), the organization has education,organizing, and advocacy missions.


3/7

3

Among its advocacy tools, it has developedHousingmaers.net, a listserve that individualscan join to receive legislative alerts when importantissues related to housing are being discussed by thestate lawmakers.

Legenza identied several challenges related toeective policies designed to further housingintegration. First, she suggested that it is unclearhow the typical practice in recent policiesofusing income as a proxy for racehelps or hindersthe work. What is the likelihood that increasingaordable housing will translate into greaterintegration? She noted that shifting the focus toincome, allowed us to no longer talk about the veryreal issues of race and the role of racial prejudicein creating barriers to integration, crippling ourintegration eorts. Legenza then raised a seriesof questions to consider in the work for integratedcommunities.

What is meant by integration? Is our goal regionalaverages or is there some other denition? Withoutknowing what we are aiming for, she observed, itis dicult to sell it to policymakers and the public.How do we make sure housing policies target fundsto high-opportunity (white or high-income) areas tocreate housing opportunities for low-income people,but also not ignore the very real resource needs ofmajority-minority and high-poverty areas?

Ruben Feliciano represented the Latino Policy Forum,

an organization that seeks to raise awareness and bestrategic partners for addressing issues related to theLatino community. Feliciano, like Puente, remindedthe audience that housing segregation is not simply ablack-white issue, and that any discussion of housingpaerns must include the large and growing Latinopopulation in the region. He pointed to severalcurrent issues that aect housing and the Latinocommunity, which his organization is working tosolve. First, there are the challenges of gentrication.Feliciano reminded us that gentrication is a awedvehicle to achieve integration; residents often

suer in the process of gentrication. Specically,in gentrifying communities, can we ensure thatin realizing an individuals desire for integration,we are not in turn displacing poorer residents ofcolor? Second, the Latino Policy Forum is alsoconcerned about the foreclosure crisis, and howit will dierentially aect the Latino community.One pressing concern is about how the foreclosuresin the Latino community put people on the brinkof homelessness and a need to live together toavoid this. Third, he echoed Puentes discussion

of concerns about the selective and discriminatoryenforcement of occupancy rules.

John Petruszak, Vice President of the Chicago AreaFair Housing Alliance (CAFHA), described CAFHAas an association of non-prots and others, thatworks to develop and support programs that furtherfair housing by combating discrimination andpromoting diversity. Petruszak focused on a numberof CAFHA studies that were a vehicle for providinginformation and highlighting the fair housing-relatedchallenges facing our region. These reports focuson problems in housing policy and programs. Oneexamined the Federal Housing Authority, and drewaention to the ways in which government programssupported housing discrimination. Another analyzedthe Housing Choice Voucher program and foundthat this program, despite the name, often lackedreal housing choices for its recipients. Most recently,on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Fair

Housing Act, CAFHA published a report thatdocumented current paerns of discrimination in thesix-county region and oered a blueprint for change.Petruszak concluded by noting that public policyaddressing housing has failed to adequately addresshousing integration, as the original act mandated.

Theme #2: Individual Behaviors andHousing Integration.

One of the goals of this conference was to explorehow the aitudes and behaviors of homeseekers

can help or hinder the creation of integratedneighborhoods. Three of the panelists presentedresearch ndings related to three main topics: racialpreferences and prejudice, racial blind spots inknowledge about communities, and social class-related dynamics. Each pointed to barriers toneighborhood integration, but also pointed topossible opportunities for dismantling segregation.Three executive directors from Chicago-areaorganizations shared their experiences working toovercome these barriers.

Camille Charles, University of Pennsylvania,began by situating peoples aitudes about livingin integrated neighborhoods in the context ofracial aitudes more generally. She pointed to thepersistence of negative racial stereotypes (notingthat all groups hold negative stereotypes of eachother), dierences in beliefs about why inequalityexists (whites tend to fault the groups themselvesand to deny the persistence of discrimination, whileracial minorities view systemic and structural causesas pervasive), a tendency to prefer continued social


4/7

4

distance from other racial groups, and the generalsense that American society is a zero-sum game, sothat racial groups constitute a possible threat and asource of competition to ones own racial group.

Using data from a Los Angeles survey of whites,blacks, Asians, and Latinos, Charles reported thatwhites were the only group to construct as theirideal neighborhood, one where their own groupwas more than 50 percent. But interestinglyandreecting a possible opportunityrespondents ofall races and ethnicities identied as their ideal,neighborhoods that were far more diverse than thosein which they actually live. But all groups are notconsidered equally desirable neighbors. Specically,African Americans are the group most likely tobe excluded entirely from a respondents idealneighborhood: 20 percent of whites drew an idealneighborhood that did not include a single AfricanAmerican resident. African Americans, for their part,

are the most interested in integration; but whites,Asians, and Latinos are all least likely to includeAfrican Americans in their ideal neighborhood.

Charles also found that racial residential preferencesare not so much a function of class (a desire to stayaway from poor people in general) or ethnocentrism(a desire to be around ones own group), but rather,they areespecially for whitesa function ofracial prejudice against other groups. In addition,among racial/ethnic minorities, she found thatperceiving whites as tending to discriminate

decreases the level of integration in their preferredneighborhood. However, there is an exception tomany of these paernsimmigrants hold a verydierent preference structure compared to native-born Americans. And whereas new immigrantsprefer less integration in large part because ofissues of adaptation to a new country rather thanto negative racial aitudes (though they hold thesenegative aitudes, they do not predict whether onewill want to live in an integrated neighborhood), onceimmigrants have been in the United States for at leastve years, there appears to be an internalization of

negative racial aitudes. At this point, the negativeracial aitudes begin to function much as they do forthe native-born population: as an important factor inreducing interest in integration.

In conclusion, Charles suggested that strategiesthat get communities working together to createstably integrated neighborhoods are important.Additionally, aggressive public relationscampaignsfocused on the value added by diversityand the desirable characteristics of integrated

neighborhoodsmay be useful. Armativemarketing that signals to people of color thatoverwhelmingly white communities would welcomethem as new residents are also clearly important.She concluded by pointing out that white aitudesshifted only after the passage of major civil rightslegislation; so enforcing policies and making it clearthat discrimination is not permissible may go a longway toward changing some of the negative aitudesthat shape these preferences.Maria Krysan, University of Illinios at Chicago, builton Charles discussion of the way in which aitudesare a barrier to integration by directing aentionto another dimension: racial blind spots. Thisis the idea that residential choices that are eitherintegration- or segregation-promoting may be inpart a reection of racial dierences in knowledgeabout various kinds of communities. Specically, ifpeople know nothing about a community then it is

dicult (though not impossible) to move into it. Andif whites, blacks, and Latinos know about dierentkinds of communitiesand if that knowledge isshaped by the racial composition of the communitythen these blind spots may contribute to segregation-promoting housing choices.Reporting on data from the 2004-2005 Chicago AreaStudy, Krysan highlighted the following paerns.For the most part, whites, blacks, and Latinos all tendto know more about communities in which theirco-ethnics live. But African Americans and Latinos,

relative to whites, know about a broader range ofdierent kinds of communitiesracially mixed andracially segregated alike. For African Americans andLatinos, the few blind spots are communities thatare both predominately white and geographicallydistant from the city, thus creating a barrier to thepossible integration of communities like this. Butthere are plenty of predominately white communitiesabout which African Americans do not have blindspots relative to whites; as such, there are clearlyother barriersperhaps discrimination or perhapsnegative knowledge about how African Americans

are treated in these communities.

For their part, whites are far less likely than Latinosor African Americans to know about heavily AfricanAmerican communities. But what is troubling,from the standpoint of encouraging integration, isthat whites blind spots also include communitiesthat are racially mixed (either with Latinos orAfrican Americans)even those where whites arein the majority. To remain stably integrated, ofcourse, communities like this must have housing


5/7


6/7

6

be replicated on the scale needed to address theproblem. In the absence of that standard, what canwe do about overcoming the kinds of problemsidentied by Charles and Krysans research? Howcan we promote integration in a way that is perhapsnot as eective, but nevertheless more practical?

Massa noted that integration is not the topneighborhood characteristic that homeseekers thinkabout when looking for a place to liverather itis good schools, short commuting time, proximityto families and friends, and an assortment ofother community characteristics. Technologicalinnovations now mean that there is plenty ofinformation about communities and neighborhoodsthat individual homeseekers could use to ndtheir ideal community. But this information isscaered throughout dozens of websites, making itexceedingly dicult for everyday users to access.This was true both of individual homeseekers and

also of housing counselors who, working withHousing Voucher clients, for example, did not haveaccess to comprehensive information that they couldshare with clients about how their lives would bedierentand presumably beerin a communitythat met their needs.

MoveSmart.org will provide a wealth of information,via a single website. Its features will include anintuitive interface, data that are easy to read andunderstand, and statistics reported in a meaningfulway. Rather than reporting, for example, a poverty

rate for a community, the poverty rate will bedescribed as average or below average forthe region. The community features will includeneighborhood amenities, neighborhood opportunities(aordable housing options, community-basedorganizations, social service organizations), andquality of life indicators. Homeseekers rstanswer a series of demographic questions andother preferences about community features andamenities that they most wantas well as what theycan live with. The user will then receive a list ofmatches, sorted from highest to lowest, and include

information about whether the move would add tothe diversity of the community.

Massa concluded that enforcement of fair housingis only half of the equation; tackling the problem ofsegregation requires innovative, cost-eective, andsustainable solutions. Until housing seekers areempowered with information, they will continue tomake poor choices. The mission of MoveSmart.org isto provide that information.

Executive Director John Petruszak of the SouthSuburban Housing Center (SSHC) said the centerserves more than 100 communities in the southsuburbs and has operated for 32 years with amission to promote stable integration by operatingfair housing enforcement and housing counselingservices. The experiences of the SSHC are anexample of the dynamic nature of housing, the needto maintain constant vigilance, and the complex andever-changing challenges to integrated communities.Even after decades of working to enforce fair housingand eliminate housing discrimination, the SSHCreceived 250 complaints in the most recent yearsdata, and 85 percent of those were based on race.The challenges the south suburbs are facing includewhite ight and a high concentration of predatorylending and foreclosures. In the current nancialcrisis, the south suburbs have been particularly hardhit, accounting for the highest rate of foreclosuresin the region. Petruszak observed that there is

a tremendous need for both homeownershipand mortgage counseling services and that themost eective organizations providing this areexperiencing funding cuts. In addition, given theconcentration of sub-prime mortgage products in thisarea, there is a strong need for counseling programs.

Recommendations

One of the most exciting sessions during theconference was the opportunity for the participantsactivists, academics, and policymakersto strategize

together about the future agendas for policymakers,researchers, and grassroots organizations.

Participants discussed priorities for each group andmade the following recommendations:

For Policymakers

Enforce fair housing laws with sanctions thatare behavior specic, and that extend to homeowners, landlords, and developers.

Expand the budget for enforcement andarmative furthering of fair housing.

Educate their constituents (and themselves) aboutfair housing compliance.

Create policy solutions that address the negativeeducational and occupational disparities resultingfrom housing segregation.


7/7

7

For Researchers

Studies should be conducted that answer thefollowing research questions:

What do real people (not housing audit testers)experience when they look for housing? Andhow do the networks used in this process shapepaerns of integration or segregation?

What are the benets and liabilities ofintegration?

What has to happen so that communities areaccessible to all kinds of people? What are thebarriers to housing experienced by dierentgroups (e.g., the disabled, poor, minorities, etc.)?

How does housing mix (rentals, single familyhomes, condominiums, etc.) inuence paerns of

integration and segregation?

What does it mean to have choice in housing?

For Grassroots Organizations

Grassroots organizations should:

Create an educational campaignin collaborationwith places of worship and schoolsto informdierent groups of people (i.e., disabled, low-income, people of color, and minorities) of their

rights and the benets of integrated communities.

Sponsor public hearings to allow all kinds ofpeople to tell their stories.

Develop outreach and education strategiesfor real estate agencies, lending and insuranceinstitutions, planners, and developers to discussthe impact of their actions and practices incommunities.

Conclusion

On December 9, the National Commission on FairHousing and Equal Opportunity released a report,The Future of Fair Housing (www.nationalfairhousing.org/Portals/33/reports/Future_of_Fair_Housing.PDF)which outlines the ndings of its investigation of thestate of fair housing.

During a series of hearings throughout the nation,the Commission determined that despite stronglegislation, past and ongoing discriminatory practices

in the nations housing and lending markets continueto produce levels of residential segregation that resultin signicant disparities between minority and non-minority households in access to good jobs, qualityeducation, homeownership aainment and assetaccumulation.The report calls for strong fair housing enforcementan important component in the work that mustbe done to create integrated high-opportunitycommunities. Equal to the need for enforcementis the need for us to continue to deal with theaitudes and behaviors that inuence the creation ofsegregated communities and identify ways to breakdown these paerns and processes so that one of thevisions of the original Fair Housing Actintegratedcommunitiescan be realized.

To continue the work and conversation begunat the conference, the organizers created a

website, IntegrationAgenda.org (hp://www.integrationagenda.org). It is organized into foursections: Learnre-live the conference throughvideos, slideshows, and extensive notes; Participatepledge to support the Integration Agenda andyoull become an editor of one of three workingdocuments focused on public policy, grassrootsorganizations, and research; Advancehelp makestable diversity real by endorsing the campaignand advocating on behalf of policies that promoteintegration; and Blogstay up to date on the latestnews and developments on building stable, diverse

neighborhoods.

fair housing conference highlights

Documents