In this paper I analyze the relationship between research and the process of about the importance of the research for policy-making process, along with. development to review the literature on the impact of research on . process between research and policy, shaped by multiple relations and reservoirs. that the relationship is straightforward, with good research designed to be relevant to policy, and its see research findings as central to their decision- making. towards both the policy process and how research might be relevant to this.
Housing assistance has routinely constituted well over one-half of the HUD budget. It differed from previous project-based subsidy programs in that the subsidy was explicitly based on the income of the assisted household. The commitment to an income-conditioned subsidy was derived in part from Housing in the Seventies U. Department of Housing and Urban Development,the major study of previous subsidy programs.
The study did not recommend enacting a program like Section 8 new construction, but its recommendation for income-conditioned subsidies became part of the program.
By the late s it was becoming clear to policy makers that the Section 8 New Construction Program was exceptionally expensive. The evaluation by Abt Associates Wallace et al.
With respect to outcomes, the evaluation found that the new construction program primarily served white elderly households and that few minority households participated; in contrast the certificate program was generally representative of the eligible population.
The recommendations of the commission report were adopted by the administration, and inCongress repealed the Section 8 New Construction Program.
The repeal applied to further projects. The inventory of Section 8 projects remained as assisted housing. By the early s, the question of whether and how to preserve these projects for their low-income residents became an important public policy concern. Like its predecessor program under Sectionthe subsidy contracts for Section 8 new construction had a year term, after which the owners could opt out of the program.
Looking for other ways to read this?
This study, with results published in andprovided the most extensive data yet available on the Section 8 inventory. In Congress enacted the Mark to Market Program to preserve as much of Section 8 inventory as financially reasonable and provide housing assistance for the residents of those projects whose owners chose to convert them to market-rent housing. Rents were marked down to the fair market rents for existing housing in the local market, thus lowering the subsidy.
In addition, the project mortgage was restructured so that the subsidies and tenant rents were sufficient to cover the payments on a new first mortgage; the remainder of the original mortgage became a second mortgage on which payments were to be made if funds were available or when the project was sold. Congressional staff who met with the committee identified this evaluation as an important resource for policy makers in the deliberations that led to the reauthorization of the program in One of the most important policy decisions in this area concerns how much of the total budget to allocate to individual programs.
Bridging Research and Policy in Development: Evidence and the Change Process
Good information about the comparative performance of different programs is essential for making good allocation decisions. This section assesses the past contribution of HUD-funded research on comparative performance to better inform decisions concerning the alloca- tion of the budget for rental housing assistance to particular programs, and it suggests some important opportunities for future contributions.
It focuses on the research on the cost of providing equally good housing under different programs. The available evidence, which is largely HUD funded, indicates that this is the largest difference in the performance of different housing programs.
When needlessly expensive methods of delivering housing assistance are used, many low-income households that could have been provided with adequate housing at an affordable rent within the current housing assis- tance budget continue to live in deplorable housing, and taxpayers pay unnecessarily high taxes to achieve that outcome. A Brief History Between andthe U.
Local public hous- ing authorities operated all of the projects built during the first 17 years.
Inthe federal government began to contract with private parties to build and operate projects for low-income households, while still continu- ing to build public housing projects. In Congress enacted Section 23, a program under which public housing authorities could lease apartments in existing private unsubsidized housing for the use of households that were eligible for public housing. This was the first program of tenant-based rental assistance in the United States.Process of Policy Formulation and Implementation and
It now serves about 43 percent of the low- income households that receive HUD rental assistance. Inthe Clinton administration proposed a sweep- ing reform of programs of low-income housing assistance that involved the gradual replacement of all project-based assistance with tenant-based vouchers. Inthe National Housing Policy Review Taskforce produced the first estimates of the cost-effectiveness of low-income housing pro- grams.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Two issues leapt out of the pages right from the start.
Firstly, researchers and policy-makers operate with different values, languages, time-frames, reward systems and professional ties to such an extent that they live in separate worlds. As a result, research-based evidence is often only a minor factor when policies for development are formulated and practices shaped, and too often new public policies are rolled out nationally with little trialling or evaluation.
Moreover, university researchers report structural barriers and disincentives to engaging in knowledge translation activities that might advise practice and policy formulation. Secondly, impact is regarded differently by each community, with academics fretting over publications, citation counts and journal impact factors, while practitioners look for actionable advice that can be put to use for increasing the effectiveness of public services and policy.
Beyond these underlying issues, several themes emerge from the literature.
Researchers must have the intent to influence policy and practice for their results to do so. Intent should be written into the research design, but in the absence of other aspects, it will have limited impact. Communication is the most cited factor for achieving impact; its various forms and processes, channels, timing and involvement pervading the literature and intermingling with the other themes.
Significantly, communication is regarded as much more than a mere conference presentation and peer-reviewed publication.
ICTs emerge as being instrumental for participant-driven production and communication of research as it unfolds; encompassing social media and other Web 2.