 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Achieving Real Benefit for Low-Income Working Families
Evaluations of EAH programs attest that they are much more effective at meeting the housing needs of moderate-income workers rather than low-income ones. In high-cost housing markets, the level of assistance typically offered by EAH programs cannot bridge the affordability gap faced by lower-income employees. In areas where median home prices are $200,000–$300,000, $3,000 in down-payment assistance may be a significant bonus for middle-income workers who would be able to afford housing otherwise, but will do little to help low-income workers purchase their first home. In this context, homebuyer assistance programs may be inappropriate and rental assistance might be more effective, but employers are generally more apt to help employees purchase than rent homes because homeownership is an asset-building strategy. These factors should be taken into account in deciding what components will be most effective.
Avoiding Gentrification and Displacement
By creating increasing ownership rates and bringing new housing investment into a neighborhood, EAH can increase gentrification pressures in a community. The designers of EAH programs need to anticipate that their strategies will be successful and build in program elements to ensure that existing residents are able to benefit as neighborhood conditions improve. Two ways to help ensure that displacement does not occur are to offer assistance to existing non-employee residents who would be threatened by displacement and to restrict employee assistance to lower-income, rather than mid- or management-level employees. EAH may be most effective in this regard when combined with local government income-targeted programs such as HOME and CDBG, ensuring that lower-income workers benefit. As noted, community oversight is also a necessary component to help ensure that EAH does not become a force of displacement.
 |
 |
 |