The Relationship between Affordable Housing and Neighborhood Child Maltreatment Rates: A Geospatial Analysis

Background and Purpose: Housing insecurity precipitated by economic hardship often contributes to families being investigated for child maltreatment which suggests a lack of affordable housing options within neighborhoods. Furthermore, a growing body of research has established a link between concentrated disadvantage (i.e., poverty, unemployment) at the neighborhood level and higher rates of child maltreatment however, little is known about how access to affordable housing within neighborhoods is associated with child maltreatment rates. The nation’s two largest affordable housing programs are the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. These programs are designed to increase the nation’s stock of affordable housing however, these properties are often located in disadvantaged neighborhoods potentially limiting their benefits to families. The research questions framing this study were: (1) What is the spatial relationship between neighborhood housing burden and child maltreatment rates? (2) What is the spatial relationship between the availability of federal housing programs and neighborhood child maltreatment rates?

Method: This study employed a cross sectional ecological design in which census tract was used as a proxy for neighborhood. Secondary sociodemographic and housing data was analyzed from the U.S. Census American Community Survey, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the California Child Welfare Indicators Project for 2,342 census tracts in Los Angeles County, CA. A concentrated disadvantage index was created using the following variables: poverty rate, unemployment rate, percentage of households utilizing public assistance, percentage of single female-headed households, percentage of individuals identifying as Black, and percentage of individuals who moved in the last year. Concentrated affluence was measured as the percentage of families in each neighborhood earning over 100K annually. Housing burden was measured as the average percentage of income spent on rent by households in each neighborhood. Access to federal housing programs was measured by the number of HCV properties and the number of LIHTC properties per 100 low income renter households. Child maltreatment was measured as the number of reports per 1,000 children in each neighborhood. The data analysis method used was spatial regression.

Results: Concentrated disadvantage, greater housing burden, and higher numbers of HCV properties was associated with higher rates of child maltreatment. Concentrated affluence was associated with lower rates of child maltreatment. The spatial error model accounted for about 40% of the variance in rates of child maltreatment.

Conclusions/Implications: Neighborhoods in which households were on average paying more income in rent had higher rates of child maltreatment however, higher numbers of HCV properties were positively associated with rates of child maltreatment. One explanation for this finding is the well documented placement of HCV properties in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Social workers should advocate for inclusionary zoning policies that expand affordable housing options within high resource areas. Partnerships between child welfare agencies and housing organizations should be enhanced to assist families in navigating complex application processes and to identify and prioritize high risk families in need of housing.