Affordable housing is a critical piece in the puzzle of many other of the nation's most pressing challenges, including:

• Improving educational outcomes for our children
• Improving health outcomes for children and families
• Improving standards of living for working families
• Improving livability and reducing sprawl
• Reducing energy usage and improving the environment

A full appreciation of these connections is important for three reasons. First, it may lead to changes in housing policy to better support these other objectives. Second, it may lead to changes in these other policy areas to better support housing objectives. Third, it may help to expand support for affordable housing by increasing awareness of the importance of affordable homes among stakeholders focused on these other objectives.

The sections below briefly review each connection, with links to more detailed information.

In partnership with Enterprise Community Partners, the Center for Housing Policy has prepared a comprehensive review of available research on how affordable homes contribute to improved educational outcomes. The following are some of the findings of the research reviewed:

• Children who live in stable housing where they move less frequently are more likely to do better on reading and math tests and less likely to drop out of school than children who move regularly.
• Children who live in good housing conditions – in particular, housing free from pesticides, mold and cockroach infestation – are less likely to develop asthma and, as a result, to miss school.
• Children in families that receive housing assistance in the form of housing vouchers live in better neighborhoods and are less likely to move frequently, experience crowding and to miss school compared to children in families that do not receive vouchers.
• Children of homeowners scored up to 9 percent higher on math and up to 7 percent higher on reading tests than their peers in families that rented their homes.
  

Click here for links to both the full research review and a shorter summary of the research on the connections between housing and educational achievement.

In 2007, the Center for Housing Policy and Enterprise Community Partners released a comprehensive review of available research on how affordable homes contribute to improved health outcomes. The following are some of the findings of the research reviewed:

• Children who live in housing built before 1960 – approximately 14 million children under age 6 – are more likely to suffer from increased lead exposure and lead poisoning since older rental housing contains the highest levels of lead-based paint hazards.
• According to one study, children in families that receive housing assistance were approximately 50 percent less likely to suffer from iron deficiencies than children in low-income families that do not receive housing aid.
• Children of homeowners and their families achieve better physical and mental health outcomes compared to renters, including fewer long-term illnesses, as well as lower blood pressure and depression levels.
  

Click here for links to both the full research review and a shorter summary of the research on the connections between housing and health outcomes.

The fundamental promise of America is that if you work hard and play by the rules, you will earn a decent quality of life and generate expanded opportunities for yourself and your children. Today, the nation's ability to deliver on this promise has been undermined by increases in housing prices that have put homeownership and stable rental housing outside the reach of many workers. Certainly, changes in the economy and weaknesses in the educational system have also played major roles, but rising housing prices may well be the single biggest factor undermining the quality of life of middle-income families in a growing number of high-cost communities.

Over the ten-year period ending in the 3rd quarter of 2005, home prices virtually doubled, while the incomes of homeowners grew only 39 percent. Similarly, rents increased by 33 percent between 1995 and 2005, while renter incomes rose only 23 percent. [1] As a result, many working families can no longer afford to buy or rent a home near their place of work. The recent slow down has created a temporary window of opportunity for communities interested in addressing their housing challenges, but is unlikely to unwind housing prices sufficiently to bring them within reach of working families. For the latest data on the housing affordability challenges facing working families, see the Center for Housing Policy's Paycheck to Paycheck database.

Many advocates and policymakers are focused on improving wages for working families – a laudable goal that will certainly be helpful. However, in areas with severe constraints on the ability of the market to supply housing to meet rising demand – most high-cost markets – increases in salaries will most likely lead to higher housing prices, eating up a sizable share of the benefits of the higher wages. For this reason, in high-cost areas, it is essential to combine efforts to increase wages with efforts to reduce barriers to new development.

-----

[1] Home price trends calculated using the Freddie Mac Conventional Mortgage Home Price Index. All other data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 1995 and 2005 American Housing Survey, Tables 2-12 and 2-13.

The shortage of affordable housing plays a central role in producing sprawl, which in turn harms the environment. While other factors (schools, crime, etc.) also play a role, much of the leapfrog development that creates and aggravates sprawl is driven by families' search for affordable, amenity-rich homes. The increased energy usage associated with sprawl and other low-density development patterns has obvious implications for global warming and other related environmental challenges. Low-density development patterns also make it much more difficult to efficiently provide public transit.

Another outcome is a reduction in the quality of life for many Americans. The shortage of decent, affordable homes near job centers and public transit forces many families to endure longer commutes and higher transportation costs. The resulting sprawl leads to increases in traffic congestion and commute time for other residents, including those who are closer-in.

To address the challenges of sprawl and traffic congestion, among others, many communities have adopted smart growth principles that promote redevelopment of the urban core, more compact development, and increased public transit. Because shortages of well-located affordable housing play a central role in contributing to the problems sought to be addressed by smart growth, incorporating a strong affordable housing element into your smart growth plan can help to increase the likelihood that the plan will achieve its objectives.

For the same reason, in considering how to preserve open space and advance other smart growth principles, communities should remember that barriers to new development are a key factor driving up housing prices in many high-cost areas. A smart growth plan that ends up further constricting new development will actually harm rather than advance the overall goals of smart growth. The key to balancing these concerns is to accommodate new growth in a smarter manner, not to restrict overall growth.

Nearly 40 percent of the nation's energy is consumed by the buildings in which families live and the transportation they use to get to work and around town. [1] The energy-efficiency of these homes, as well as their proximity to jobs, retail and public transportation – which affect the number of vehicle miles traveled each day – are thus critical environmental issues that merit public attention. Land use policies that ensure that housing is well-located near job centers and public transit hubs along with energy-efficient construction practices can help reduce overall energy use and improve environmental outcomes.

At the same time, it is critical to consider the implications of these policies on housing affordability. While some energy-efficient construction techniques carry little or no cost, others are more costly and may drive up the price of housing. Similarly, land use policies that increase density around transit stops but do not focus on making some of those units affordable to moderate-income families may succeed in improving livability only for higher-income families.

Well-coordinated housing, energy and transportation policies can help working families to reduce their combined housing, energy and transportation cost burdens, freeing up funds for food, health care, higher education, and other important objectives. Such policies can also help to reduce overall energy usage by reducing the number of vehicle miles traveled. These policies also help to contain sprawl by reducing the incentives for moderate-income families to seek lower-cost housing in leapfrog developments at the periphery of the metropolitan area.

Click here to learn more about how to reduce energy usage, improve the environment and reduce the combined burden of housing, transportation, and utility costs.

-----

[1] Estimate based on Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 26. 2007. Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy. Tables 2.1 & 2.5.