Housing Policy | Use Cross-Subsidies to Support Mixed-Income Communities

Use Cross-Subsidies to Support Mixed-Income Communities

Goal: Increase the Availability of Affordable Homes
Role: Capitalize on Market Activity
Policy: Use Cross Subsidies to Support Mixed-Income Communities

What are cross-subsidies?

Nonprofit or mission-driven for-profit developers who build mixed-income developments can use profits from the sale or rental of market-rate homes to subsidize the costs of the affordable ones. Cross subsidies are not subsidies in the traditional sense -- people often think of subsidies as public financing. Cross subsidies use income from market-rate units to help finance affordable housing. Technically, developers and property owners do not directly finance the affordable units; they merely make the overall development more financially feasible by incorporating the market rate units, and therefore less reliant on public subsidies. The term "cross subsidies" relays the concept that mixed-income developments can use the market to effectively subsidize the financing gap created by selling or renting housing at below-market rates.

Depending upon the ratio of market-rate to affordable units and the strength of the market, many of these deals may still require some direct or indirect public subsidies. An example of a cross subsidized development would be a development project with market-rate condominium units and affordable for-sale or rental units that uses the profits from the sale of the market rate condominiums to fill the financing gap that is created by selling or renting the affordable units below their market value.

Cross subsidies work best when there is healthy demand for the market-rate units. A declining housing market with significantly lower sale prices and rents makes the use of cross-subsidies more challenging. For cross-subsidies to be effective in this context, they may need to be combined with other approaches. Making publicly owned land available for little or no cost, or increasing the allowable density of a development - often an incentive used in inclusionary zoning programs - may provide greater opportunities for profits on the market rate units that can offset the costs of affordable homes.

In areas with very high market rents for non-luxury homes, such developments can work without significant public subsidies or with only a modest subsidy. In other markets, the development of market-rate rental units may do little to close the financing gap on the affordable units. Determining the right ration of affordable to market-rate units and the right incentives for each market requires a thorough understanding of the market and real estate development fundamentals.

What problems does this policy solve?

As the federal funding available for affordable housing has declined in recent years, communities and developers have sought more cost-effective and market-based strategies for increasing the supply of affordable homes. The inclusion of market-rate units within a mixed-income development or community can make the development more financially feasible and less reliant on public subsidy through cross-subsidization.

Mixed-income housing also helps de-concentrate poverty as well. The high-density, high-crime public housing of the past has been viewed as a failed experiment in public policy. Mixed-income housing is seen as a more effective technique for integrating affordable housing within communities and creating more opportunities for low- and moderate- income residents to be successful. Mixed-income development can also be a vital part of neighborhood revitalization efforts, by spurring market-rate development and promoting racial and economic integration.

Solutions in Action

Timberlawn Crescent, North Bethesda MD -- photo courtesy of Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County

Timberlawn Crescent, in North Bethesda, Maryland is a mixed-income development providing 107 rental townhomes, as well as a community center, day care and outdoor recreation areas. Sixty percent of the units are affordable to low- and moderate-income residents and 40 percent are market-rate.

Developed by the Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County in 1991, Timberlawn Crescent uses a cross-subsidy from the market-rate units to help reduce the rents on more affordable units within the development. A strong rental market, combined with low land acquisition costs, tax-exempt financing, a property tax exemption and a state subsidy for the most affordable units, has helped make the development successful.

Learn more about using cross-subsidies to support mixed-income communities

Go back to learn about other policies that capitalize on market activity

Goal: Increase the Availability of Affordable Homes
Role: Capitalize on Market Activity
Policy: Use Cross Subsidies to Support Mixed-Income Communities

Where is this policy most applicable?

In its purest form, the cross-subsidy model uses income from market-rate units to provide affordable housing opportunities to low- and moderate-income families in a mixed-income context, reducing the need for public funds. As such, it works best in strong housing markets with high market rents and/or home prices.

Communities can employ cross-subsidies in a broader range of markets by combining this tool with other strategies to create innovative "hybrid" models. Donated land, low-cost financing or density bonuses can be used in weaker markets to make cross subsidies work more effectively. Whether in a strong or weak market, many jurisdictions choose to support mixed-income communities because they believe they are more sustainable and serve a broader public purpose.

Click on the links below to learn more about how cross subsidies work:

How do cross-subsidies support mixed-income communities?
Under certain market conditions, the profits associated with market-rate units can be great enough to subsidize development of affordable homes.

How can jurisdictions facilitate the use of cross-subsidies to create mixed-income communities?
By combining cross-subsidies with other incentives, communities have successfully used cross-subsidies in a wide array of markets.

What are the benefits of mixed-income communities?
The benefits of mixed-income communities extend beyond the increased availability of affordable homes.

Click here to view other resources on cross-subsidies

Goal: Increase the Availability of Affordable Homes
Role: Capitalize on Market Activity
Policy: Use Cross Subsidies to Support Mixed-Income Communities

How do cross-subsidies support mixed-income communities?

Casa del Sol, Palm Spring CA -- Photo courtesy of Washington Mutual

Under strong housing market conditions, the market-rate share of a mixed-income development can generate significantly more income than is necessary to cover costs for these units. These profits can fill the gap between income and expenses for the portion of units that are rented or sold at affordable (below-market) rates. This "pure" cross-subsidy model is likely to be viable only in strong markets, where rents and/or home prices are high enough to spin off profits to cross-subsidize the affordable units.

Up until the recent downturn in home prices, there appeared to be a significant number of markets in which cross-subsidies could work when the market-rate units were for-sale, rather than for-rent, because sales prices were high relative to rents.

Given the decline in home prices in many markets, it is likely to be a while before this type of "pure" cross-subsidy strategy will work well again in a broad range of markets. Still, not all areas are equally affected by the national downturn in home prices, and the market remains strong in some communities. In addition, some communities will come out of the slump before others.

Cross-subsidies in a purely rental context are more difficult to implement because in much of the country there is little profit to be made in non-luxury market-rate rental housing, and there appears to be little interest in mixing luxury and affordable rental homes. However, in strong rental markets, mixed-income rental developments can generate cross-subsidies that reduce the subsidies needed to support more affordable homes. This works especially well with modest incentives, such as density bonuses and land donation.

Solutions in Action

The mixed-income planned community of Nava Ade, located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, uses cross-subsidies to make 35 percent of its 513 units affordable to families earning a maximum of 120 percent of the area median income. Though the development was supported entirely by private funds, the city of Santa Fe made the project possible by relaxing its no-growth policy to incorporate the land into the city limits so the development would have access to water and sewer services. The planning commission was willing to take this step because it supported the developer's goal of providing affordable housing opportunities for moderate-income families in a mixed-income environment.

All of the community's homes are single-family, for-sale units containing three or four bedrooms. Designs are based primarily on the traditional southwestern adobe style, and all units include features and amenities usually associated with luxury homes. Demand for homes in Nava Ade has remained high since they first went on the market in 2001. [1]

You are currently reading:

How do cross-subsidies support mixed-income communities?

Other pages in this section:

How can jurisdictions facilitate the use of cross-subsidies to create mixed-income communities?
By combining cross-subsidies with other incentives, communities have successfully used cross-subsidies in a wide array of markets.

[1] Mixed-Income Housing: Myth and Fact. [PDF]. 2003. By Deborah L. Myerson. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.

Goal: Increase the Availability of Affordable Homes
Role: Capitalize on Market Activity
Policy: Use Cross Subsidies to Support Mixed-Income Communities

How Can Jurisdictions Facilitate the use of Cross-Subsidies to Create Mixed-Income Communities?

Cross subsidies are not a policy, per se. They are more the outcome of allowing or requiring affordable housing to be combined with market-rate housing, thereby making the overall development more financially feasible. This concept is at the heart of numerous affordable housing programs, a few of which are outlined here. While there are obvious financial advantages for a community employing cross-subsidies, in that these developments may require fewer public subsidies, many communities support mixing affordable and market-rate housing because they believe it to be more sustainable and fair.

Erin Place, Eagan MN -- Photo courtesy of LHB, Inc.

Click on the links below to read about various approaches for using additional subsidies to make cross-subsidies work:

The 80/20 program allows tax-exempt bonds to finance the construction of developments comprised of at least 20 percent affordable units

HOPE VI or other public housing funding can cover demolition and basic infrastructure costs

Using similar cross subsidies in other contexts, such as those typically adopted in inclusionary zoning programs

You are currently reading:

How can jurisdictions facilitate the use of cross-subsidies to create mixed-income communities?
By combining cross-subsidies with other incentives, communities have successfully used cross-subsidies in a wide array of markets.

Other pages in this section:

The 80/20 Program

Under the federally authorized 80/20 program, tax-exempt private activity bonds are issued to provide reduced-cost financing for rental development. In exchange for this preferential financing, developers agree to reserve at least 20 percent of the units for families with incomes below 50 percent of the area median income. Those affordable units are further financed through low-income housing tax credits, and, in strong markets, by cross-subsidies from the market-rate units. (In weaker markets, 80/20 deals are either not done, or done only with some additional subsidy for the affordable units.)

In 2002, New York City introduced a variant on the 80/20 program in which city-controlled funds are used to bring 30 percent of the units down to levels affordable to moderate income families. The result is a 50/30/20 structure, in which 50 percent of the units are rented at market, 30 percent are affordable to middle-income households (earning between 81 and 175 percent of AMI) and the remaining 20 percent are affordable to families with incomes below 50 percent of AMI.

Solutions in Action

Legacy Partners of Hollywood, California is in the process of erecting a 375-unit, mixed-income, mixed-use development in Hollywood which is expected to cost more than $260 million. The development will use an "80-20" structure in which 20 percent of units are affordable to households earning less than 50 percent of area median income and the remaining 80 percent rent at market rates. The Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency issued tax-exempt bonds to finance a low-interest mortgage. The tax-exempt bonds allow the development to leverage additional equity through the 4 percent Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. The relatively high rents for the market-rate units in the Los Angeles market, combined with the bonds and tax credits, make it financially possible to offer below-market rents on 20 percent of its units. [1]

HOPE VI and other Public Housing Financing

Many of the more recent examples of cross-subsidies involve HOPE VI, a federal program that provides large grants to help public housing authorities redevelop distressed public housing. The HOPE VI program has emphasized that redeveloped communities should target housing to families with a mix of incomes -- including moderate-income families as well as families paying market rents or purchasing market-rate homes -- and many HOPE VI sites have succeeded in achieving this goal.

By providing free or low-cost land and covering demolition and infrastructure expenses, HOPE VI grants help make it possible for the market-rate component of these developments (for-sale in some cases and rental in others) to generate profits that can provide a revenue source to cross-subsidize affordable units within the same development. Among the many prominent examples of mixed-income HOPE VI developments are Centennial Place in Atlanta, Georgia; Park Du Valle in Louisville, Kentucky; the Townhomes on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (pictured at right) ; and the massive Chicago Plan for Transformation, which is replacing some of the most challenging high-rise public housing in the country with smaller, mixed-income communities.

In light of the sharp reductions in HOPE VI funding in recent years, many housing authorities have started to do HOPE VI-like projects by borrowing against their expected revenue stream from the public housing capital fund -- one of two major federal funding streams for public housing. Capital fund financing gives housing authorities access to financing for the major capital investments needed to demolish distressed public housing developments and rebuild smaller, mixed-income developments, but does not replace the
component of the HOPE VI grant used for social services.

Solutions in Action

Photo courtesy of District of Columbia Housing Authority

The Townhomes on Capitol Hill, in Washington, D.C., is a mixed-income limited equity cooperative developed through the HOPE VI program. It consists of 147 units, 134 of which are affordable to residents earning less than 115 percent of AMI, and 13 of which are market-rate. Income from the market-rate homes cross-subsidizes the below-market homes, enabling the cooperative to operate without ongoing public funding. [2]

Visit the Gallery to learn more about the Townhomes on Capitol Hill.

The social services component is important to help maximize residents' opportunities for self-sufficiency, as well as to provide amenities that attract middle-income families to ensure a successful mixed-income development. By combining HUD's family self-sufficiency program -- a well-designed program that helps low-income families build assets and make progress toward self-sufficiency and homeownership -- with services provided by other community partners, housing authorities can ensure the provision of many of the same services that would have been provided with a HOPE VI grant.

In May 2009, HUD introduced the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative as part of the federal government�s Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request. The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative is intended to expand and build upon the HOPE VI program. In addition to supporting the redevelopment of distressed public housing projects, Choice Neighborhoods is envisioned to fund comprehensive community revitalization efforts that incorporate early childhood education, family economic self-sufficiency, green building and energy efficiency components. The Initiative will also target privately-owned properties assisted by HUD in addition to conventional public housing properties owned by the agency.

The initiative includes a request for $250 million in the FY 2010 budget, which is a $130 million increase over the HOPE VI budget for 2009. Although this funding has not been appropriated yet, Choice Neighborhoods could provide substantial funding to support development of mixed-income communities in both the public and private sector. It is unclear whether Choice Neighborhoods will replace HOPE VI or act as a complementary program or how much funding from either program will be used to support mixed-income developments in the future.

Back to top

Other Contexts

While many of the recent affordable developments with a cross-subsidy component have involved housing authorities, similar approaches could be adopted in other contexts. The key ingredient to making the market-rate component of a HOPE VI or HOPE VI-like project successful from a funding perspective is, essentially, free land and, in many cases, free infrastructure contributed by the city or county. Communities that wish to facilitate a mixed-income development with a market-rate component can achieve similar results outside of the public housing context by providing free or low-cost land and infrastructure.

Depending on the level of market rents, the contribution of land may free up a portion of the rents paid by market-rate tenants to provide a cross-subsidy to lower the rents on the other units. To achieve a further mix of incomes, communities can layer Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (4 percent or 9 percent) onto the affordable units, and public housing subsidies or project-based Section 8 vouchers onto a portion of the affordable units.

Over the last few years, however, the market for tax credits has not been particularly strong, which may make this a less effective means of promoting mixed-income housing at this time. Click here to learn more about the challenges of using Low-Income Housing Tax Credits for Mixed-Income Developments.

Another approach is to provide a density bonus through a voluntary or mandatory inclusionary zoning policy that allows developers to sell or rent more market-rate units than otherwise permitted, thus generating profits that can be used to cross-subsidize more affordable units.

Back to top

Solutions in Action

Photo courtesy of ULI Development Case Studies

Chatham Square, in Alexandria, Virginia is a mixed-income development located just blocks from the riverfront in the wealthy historic district of Old Town. Using HOPE VI funds and Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, the former 100-unit public housing complex was redeveloped in a partnership between the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority (ARHA) and the for-profit developer EYA.

Chatham Square now contains 100 high-end market-rate townhomes and 52 units of public housing, the facades of which are indistinguishable from one another and match the architectural style of the surrounding community.

Visit the Gallery to learn more about Chatham Square.

[1] Mixed-Income Goes Hollywood. April 2007. By Bendix Anderson. Affordable Housing Finance.

[2] The Future of Limited Equity Cooperatives [PDF]. 2007. By Kristin Perkins. Cornell Real Estate Review.

Goal: Increase the Availability of Affordable Homes
Role: Capitalize on Market Activity
Policy: Use Cross Subsidies to Support Mixed-Income Communities

Challenges of Using Low-Income Housing Tax Credits for Mixed-Income Developments

As the housing and economic crisis progressed in late 2008, the market for Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) weakened due to declining investor interest and need to reduce tax liabilities. This compromised the viability of tax credits as a major funding source for affordable and mixed-income rental developments. Congress is currently developing changes to the regulations governing LIHTCs, which may help to strengthen the market for them. However it may be some time before the tax credit market regains the prominence it had prior to the crisis.

Regardless of the current crisis, there are some challenges to using LIHTCs to finance the development of mixed-income housing that are inherent to the structure of the program and how developers and investors use it. Since LIHTCs are central to the development of non-luxury and affordable rental homes, addressing issues with the program is essential. The challenges reported by practitioners include the following:

In many states, mixed-income developments with a market-rate component do not score well enough under the state's allocation policies to obtain the competitive 9-percent Low-Income Housing Tax Credits; and,

Tax credit investors are less comfortable with developments that are not 100 percent tax credit eligible -- apparently because of the extra risk of keeping the market-rate units occupied and the challenges that market-rate units add to compliance monitoring.

While many states understand the value of creating mixed-income communities and the cross-subsidies they produce, they are also under significant pressure to create as much affordable housing as possible. Too often, with these competing demands, the easier route is to support the projects that produce the most affordable housing. In some cases, this may not be the best solution for a community.

States interested in promoting the increased use of cross-subsidies and development of mixed-income communities may wish to convene a task force comprised of nonprofit and for-profit developers of affordable homes, affordable housing advocates and tax credit investors to discuss what steps, if any, the state can take to better support these strategies. In particular, states should look at the tax credit allocation policies contained in their Qualified Allocation Plans.

Some possible steps both states and localities can take to facilitate the use of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits for mixed-income developments are:

Adopt tax credit allocation plans that prioritize mixed-income housing models;

Work with tax credit syndicators to determine how to make investors more receptive to mixed-income deals; and

Provide credit enhancement (e.g. partial loan guarantees) to mitigate the risks associated with market-rate units.

Click here to continue learning about how jurisdictions can facilitate the use of cross-subsidies to create mixed-income communities.

Goal: Increase the Availability of Affordable Homes
Role: Capitalize on Market Activity
Policy: Use Cross Subsidies to Support Mixed-Income Communities

What are the Benefits of Mixed-Income Communities?

The primary reason for the popularity of mixed-income housing among policy makers and developers is its perceived social benefits.
There appears to be widespread agreement among housing

practitioners that including a mix of incomes within a development can be helpful in creating a safe, healthy, and sustainable living environment for families. Unfortunately, very little research has been done to assess these claims. More research is necessary to determine the extent to which, and under what circumstances, mixed-income housing achieves its social goals. [1]

Practitioners recommend a mixed-income housing approach for the following reasons, among others:*

Deconcentration of poverty, and racial and socioeconomic integration -- High concentrations of poverty are associated with negative child and family outcomes. Many practitioners believe that mixed-income communities provide a safer environment that offers a greater range of positive role models and exposure to more job leads for area residents.

High quality of maintenance and amenities -- In order to attract market-rate tenants, mixed-income developments must be attractive and well-maintained, and must offer desirable amenities and services (i.e. pools, tennis courts, free parking, access to public transportation and job centers). As a result, lower-income tenants enjoy better quality homes and neighborhoods than they generally would in developments that are 100-percent subsidized. On the other hand, the need to provide such amenities may increase the cost of the affordable units, reducing the effectiveness of cross-subsidies to some degree.

Economic development -- When sited in "revitalizing" neighborhoods, mixed-income developments may be an effective tool for economic development. The influx of higher-income residents may lead to higher property values, better schools, improved access to transportation, and more retail options.

Political acceptance -- Mixed-income housing carries a political advantage in that the inclusion of market-rate housing makes "affordable housing" more acceptable to those who might otherwise oppose such projects.

What makes a mixed-income development successful?

A mixed-income development's ability to attract and keep residents depends on a number of factors, not all of which can be controlled (i.e. market conditions). Some common elements of success that designers of mixed-income housing should keep in mind include:

A convenient location with access to public transportation, job centers, and high quality schools.

Design that does not distinguish market-rate units from affordable units by either appearance or amenities, and that disperses units at all affordability levels throughout the development.

A continuum of income levels rather than a strict division between "market-rate" and "low-income" tenants.

A well-designed community that is attractive and fits seamlessly into the surrounding neighborhood. Many mixed-income developments include innovative "new urbanist" design features such as a pedestrian-friendly layout, ample outdoor space, and "green" buildings.

This section draws heavily from Increasing Access to Low-Poverty Areas by Creating Mixed-Income Housing. 2007. By Diane L. Houk, Erica Blake, and Fred Freiberg. New York, NY: Fair Housing Justice Center. Please see this resource for further information.

You are currently reading:

What are the benefits of mixed-income communities?

Other pages in this section:

*This section draws heavily from Mixed-Income Housing Developments: Promise and Reality. [PDF] 2002. By Alastair Smith. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University and Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation; and Mixed-Income Housing: Myth and Fact. [PDF] 2003. By Deborah L. Myerson. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute. Consult these resources for further information.

[1] Mixed-Income Housing: Myth and Fact. [PDF] 2003. Deborah L. Myerson. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.

Goal: Increase the Availability of Affordable Homes
Role: Capitalize on Market Activity
Policy: Use Cross Subsidies to Support Mixed-Income Communities

Key Resources

The following is a list of key resources on topics related to using cross-subsidies to support mixed-income communities. If you're aware of other resources that should be added, please contact us.

A Decade of HOPE VI: Research Findings and Policy Changes. [PDF] 2004. By Susan J. Popkin, Bruce Katz, Mary K. Cunningham, Karen D. Brown, Jeremy Gustafson, and Margery A. Turner. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
This report reviews the history of the HOPE VI program, describing its effects on public housing developments, public housing residents, and neighborhood conditions. The authors conclude that the program has been a success, but emphasize the need to increase assistance to low-income families, particularly through relocation and supportive services.

Increasing Access to Low-Poverty Areas by Creating Mixed-Income Housing. 2007. By Diane L. Houk, Erica Blake, and Fred Freiberg. New York: Fair Housing Justice Center.
This report examines 12 case studies of mixed-income housing located in low-poverty neighborhoods that previously lacked affordable housing options. The authors find that the factors most likely to spur mixed-income development in low-poverty neighborhoods are supportive state or local policies, land acquisition opportunities, the desire to create mixed-income housing as a community development strategy, and fair housing remedy mandates. Recommendations include expanding development and litigation tools and strengthening infrastructure for mixed-income housing.

Lake Parc Place: A Study of Mixed-Income Housing. [PDF] 1998. By James E. Rosenbaum, Linda K. Stroh, and Cathy A. Flynn. Housing Policy Debate 9(4): 703-740. Fannie Mae Foundation.
This article is a study of the Lake Parc mixed-income development, located in a high-poverty neighborhood of Chicago. The findings (based on interviews with residents) support many of the purported benefits of mixed-income housing: residents of different income levels interact with one another, higher-income residents are involved in the community, the rules are strongly enforced, and the development is safe and well-maintained.

Mixed-Income Housing as Pre-Commitment Strategy. [PDF] By Jeff Leslie. Harvard Law and Policy Review Online.
This article describes the federal programs that promote mixed-income housing, the theories of why mixed-income housing benefits low-income residents, and the problems with creating mixed-income housing.

Mixed-Income Housing Developments: Promise and Reality. [PDF] 2002. By Alastair Smith. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (Cambridge, MA) and Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (Washington, DC).
This paper examines the goals of mixed-income housing and the extent to which they are being met. While mixed-income housing is an effective strategy for supplying high-quality affordable homes and deconcentrating poverty, its ability to help families escape poverty is limited. The report outlines the considerations policymakers and developers should take into account when developing mixed-income housing.

Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for Success. [PDF] 1997. By Paul C. Brophy and Rhonda N. Smith. Cityscape 3(2): pp. 3-31.
This article uses seven case studies of successful mixed-income housing developments to form conclusions about the common factors that led to their success. The authors conclude that successful mixed-income communities tend to be well-designed and conveniently located, include a "critical mass" of market-rate units, and make no distinction in quality between market-rate and subsidized units.

Mixed-Income Housing in the Suburbs: Lessons from Massachusetts. [PDF] 2006. By Aaron Gornstein and Ann Virrilli. Citizens' Housing and Planning Association.
This report examines the history of mixed-income housing in Massachusetts and explores the extent to which it is achieving its goals.

Mixed-Income Housing: Myth and Fact. [PDF] 2003. By Deborah L. Myerson. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
This report debunks eight common myths about mixed-income housing, including that higher-income residents will not live near lower-income residents, that affordable housing is unattractive, and that mixed-income housing brings down nearby property values. Several successful mixed-income developments are profiled.

Mixed-Income Housing: Unanswered Questions. [PDF] 1997. By Alex Schwartz and Kian Tajbakhsh. Cityscape 3(2): pp. 71-92.
This article describes the types of mixed-income housing and identifies questions for further research. In particular, more information is needed on mixed-income housing's social effects, the types of markets in which mixed-income housing is most feasible, and the factors that make mixed-income developments successful.

Providing Affordable Family Housing and Reducing Residential Segregation by Income: A Systematic Review. [PDF] 2003. By Laurie M. Anderson, Joseph St. Charles, Mindy T. Fullilove, Susan C. Scrimshaw, Jonathan E. Fielding, Jacques Normand, and the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 24(3S): 47-68.
This article reviews the literature on mixed-income housing to determine its impact on the health of low-income families. Though the evidence is insufficient to reach a conclusion about health, the authors found that Section 8 vouchers improved safety by reducing exposure to crime.

Resident Success in Economically Integrated, Socially Diverse Housing. [PDF] 2006. By Patrick M. Costigan and Leo V. Quigley. The Community Builders, Inc.
This guide describes best practices in developing and managing mixed-income communities to maximize resident success.

Seven Strategies for Successfully Marketing and Stabilizing the Occupancy of Mixed-Income/Mixed-Race Properties. [PDF] 2006. By Kenneth D. Wade. NeighborWorks America.
This summary report, based on eight case studies of mixed-income developments, offers advice to developers, owners, and property managers on developing a successful mixed-income community.

Return to the Cross-Subsidies main page.