It’s long been accepted –
with little science to back it up – that people should spend roughly a third of
their income on housing. It turns out, that’s about how much a low-income
family should spend to optimize their children’s brainpower.
Johns Hopkins University
researchers explored the effects of affordable housing on the cognitive
development, physical health, and emotional wellbeing of children living in
poverty. Though how much a family spent on housing had no affect on a child’s
physical or social health, when it came to cognitive ability, it was a game
changer.
When a family spent more
than half of their income on housing, their children’s reading and math ability
tended to suffer, found Sandra J. Newman, a Johns Hopkins professor of policy
studies, working with researcher C. Scott Holupka. Children’s cognitive
abilities also took a hit a hit when families spent less than 20 percent of
their income on housing.
“Families spending about
30 percent of their income on housing had children with the best cognitive
outcomes,” said Newman, who is also director of the university’s Center on
Housing, Neighborhoods and Communities. “It’s worse when you pay too little and
worse when you pay too much.”
The researchers relied on
data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and its Child Development
Supplements as well as data from the 2004-2009 Consumer Expenditure Surveys.
They focused on families with incomes at or below 200 percent of the federal
poverty guideline.
The findings are
highlighted in two new journal articles, Housing affordability and investments
in children, published in the Journal of Housing Economics, and Housing
affordability and child well-being, published in Housing Policy Debate.
More than 88 percent of
renters with the lowest incomes spent more than 30 percent of their income on
rent, according to the 2009 American Community Survey. And the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development’s latest report on affordable housing states
household incomes must be at least 105 percent of the area median for a family
to find decent, affordable housing units.
Families that spent most
of their money on housing spent less on things like books, computers and
educational outings needed for healthy child development, Newman and Holupka
found. Families that didn’t invest enough in housing likely ended up in the
sort of distressed neighborhoods and inadequate dwellings that can also take a
toll on children.
“The markedly poorer
performance of children in families with extremely low housing cost burdens
undercuts the housing policy assumption that a lower housing cost burden is
always best,” Newman said. “Rather than finding a bargain in a good
neighborhood, they’re living in low-quality housing with spillover effects on
their children’s development.”
Newman and Holupka found
families who had obtained truly affordable housing, spending roughly 30 percent
of their income on it, did indeed spend more money on enrichment for their
kids.
When a family moved from
spending more than half of its income on housing to the 30 percent ideal, they
invested an average of $98 more on their children, the researchers found. Not a
lot of money, but enough to make a difference. Even when families increased the
amount spent on housing — from spending 10 percent of their income to 30
percent — they spent about $170 more on child enrichment.
“People are making
trade-offs,” Holupka said, “and those trade-offs have implications for their
children.”
No comments:
Post a Comment