How Ethno-Racialized Residential Histories and Support Networks Shape Residential Stratification for Housing Voucher Holders

Abstract

Within more than a century’s worth of literature on housing inequalities, a new wave of research has emerged on the residential mobility process, which scholars frame as a key mechanism for understanding racial/ethnic residential stratification. The social structural sorting perspective (SSSP) offers recent theoretical innovations that highlight the potential role of segregated social dynamics, especially residential histories (the homes and neighborhoods in which people have lived over time and their experiences there, including discrimination) and social networks, as under-examined contributors to mobility outcomes (Krysan & Crowder, 2017). The SSSP adds these new dimensions to traditionally theorized causes of racial/ethnic residential segregation—group differences in economic resources, exposure to racial discrimination (Alba & Logan, 1993), and preferences for same-race/ethnicity neighbors (Clark, 1986)—and reminds us that this complex web of forces likely works together rather than in siloes to perpetuate residential inequalities. In this work, I employ the SSSP to assess ethno-racial differences in the role of residential histories and social networks, as well as the more traditionally theorized socioeconomic status and residential preferences, in the residential mobility process for people using housing vouchers in King County, WA. This research site expands the geographic scope of the literature, which has much more established bodies of work related to older and more segregated midwestern and northeastern U.S. cities. I also expand the SSSP in two ways. First, I incorporate the experience of migration, which may moderate the link between ethno-racialization and socioeconomic status, exposure to discrimination, and social networks, which in turn shape residential priorities, the housing search, and ultimately residential outcomes. Second, I incorporate the role of not only personal contacts within social networks, but also institutional actors who can shape the residential mobility process. The primary data for this dissertation came from semi-structured interviews with 54 parents or grandparents living with at least one person under the age of 18 and using a housing voucher in King County. I also used administrative data from two local housing agencies, the King County Housing Authority and the Seattle Housing Authority, as well as neighborhood (tract) data from the U.S. Census. These data are helpful for analyzing residential dynamics for voucher users, as well as for identifying prospective interview participants and fleshing out their sociodemographic and residential backgrounds. In Chapter 2, colleagues and I set the stage for the deeper, qualitative work by quantitatively analyzing the likelihood of moving and destination neighborhood ethno-racial isolation and poverty rates. The results suggest that there are ethno-racialized residential disparities across these outcomes that persist despite the inclusion of controls, which is consistent with past literature about voucher holders and the broader U.S. population (e.g., Crowder & South, 2005; Logan, 2013; South, Crowder, & Chavez, 2005; Wang & Walter, 2018). We complemented the quantitative data with information from interviews, which helps clarify the impacts of discrimination, social networks, and lived experiences in shaping racial/ethnic disparities in locational attainment. Chapter 3 delves into residential priorities (the home and neighborhood conditions people prefer, where they would like to live in the future, and what they anticipate will happen) and their connection to residential histories and social networks, as well as how policymakers understand “good” neighborhoods. Substantial research suggests that certain housing and socioeconomic neighborhood conditions, such as hazards or crowding within a home or a high neighborhood poverty rate, negatively impact families’ wellbeing, with particular emphasis on children’s health, socioeconomic, and other outcomes (e.g., Chetty, Hendren, & Katz, 2016; Evans, 2006). This perhaps fuels the assumption that homes in neighborhoods without these characteristics are, or should be, universally preferred, and bolsters arguments for housing policies and programs that move people into these areas (e.g., Bergman, Chetty, DeLuca, Hendren, Katz, & Palmer, 2019; Edin, DeLuca, & Owens, 2012). However, there is reason to believe this assumption may not hold up across the board. As the SSSP suggests, communities have been segregated over time and it is likely that differences in the conditions they are exposed to throughout their residential histories correspond to differences in residential priorities. The geographic concentration of social networks may also matter, as people choose homes that are close or further away from people they know (e.g., Spring, Ackert, Crowder, & South, 2017). Since the U.S.’s legacy of structural racism and ethnocentrism implies that residential histories and social networks are ethno-racialized, it stands to reason that the spaces that movers know and like will be ethno-racialized, too (Krysan & Crowder, 2017). Through interviews and supplemental administrative and census data, I find some consistency between policymakers’ and researchers’ understandings of “good” homes and neighborhoods and what residents prioritize, as well as key discrepancies that vary across ethno-racialized groups’ residential histories. This incongruence appeared more pronounced for people of color when considering neighborhood destinations, which highlights the disproportionate burden they may face when mobility programs encourage them to move to lower-poverty areas. Housing program providers should take this seriously and revisit the extent to which moving to “better” neighborhoods should be prioritized over place-based initiatives that seek to increase resource equity across neighborhoods. Such attention could help maintain access to community ties and amenities in lower-income neighborhoods that are nonetheless desirable to some residents for the social benefits, familiarity, and other resources available. In addition to shaping priorities, social networks can shape residential outcomes when family, friends, and other people we interact with may provide various forms of support through the moving process. Chapter 4 contributes to the literature by being among the first to examine ethno-racialized forms of help that households receive during the process of moving homes from personal (e.g., family, friends, acquaintances) and/or institutional contacts (e.g., a caseworker, a staff member at a doctor office). As expected, the results reveal racial/ ethnic differences in the help participants received and what it meant for neighborhood destinations. Further, it points to the importance of institutional support for shaping where some people move.