5
that Korean government can apply into making feasible low-income housing delivery systems and specific programs.
First, nonprofit organizations play a critical role in U.S. housing policy which is typically justified by the claim that their housing investments produce significant neighborhood spillover benefits (Ellen and Voicu, 2006). The justification is that affordable housing developed by nonprofit organizations, especially community-based nonprofits, generates significantly greater neighborhood spillover benefits than that developed by other providers (O’Regan and Quigley, 2000; Walker, 1993). Second, nonprofits offer strengths that in markets with asymmetric information, the non-distribution constraint will lead nonprofits to produce higher quality output than their for-profit counterparts (Hansmann, 1980). In addition, nonprofit missions often explicitly include community involvement and a desire to develop projects valued by their community (Frumkin, 2002). In sum, nonprofits are more likely to build housing that will be affordable permanently, not simply over the duration of the government subsidy (Koebel, 1998). Nonprofits, given their community service mission, are likely to serve needier tenants for instance, tenants with special needs and those whose― incomes fall at the low end of the allowable income spectrum (O’Regan and Quigley, 2000).
Nonprofit developers may be more apt to offer services and incorporate features into their housing like community rooms or other public spaces that all community residents not just tenants can enjoy. When the government “purchases” housing― ― services from developers, the hope is to get housing that provides sound shelter to tenants and that delivers benefits for the surrounding community. These neighborhood spillovers are external benefits that are not fully captured by individual owners and are highly difficult to measure. As such, for-profit developers have a clear incentive to under-provide them. By contrast, nonprofits, whose missions often explicitly include community involvement and revitalization, should be more likely to incorporate public
spaces and to use them to offer programming and social services open to the broader community. In summary, these justification and logics lead to the conclusion that nonprofit organizations will be more committed to building housing that generates sustained benefits for the larger community. Within this justification and context, this study from the case analysis of New Jersey provides strategies and guidelines for governmental officials and network managers to promote roles and functions of nonprofit organizations in the low-income housing delivery systems in Korea. There are several implications for Korean low-income housing services and programs.
First, a collaborative governance form in the case of New Jersey, network administrative organization (NAO), needs to be considered for Korean government in the network formation process. Especially, New Jersey’s collaborative governance system for the low-income housing services has significant implications for Korean low-income housing services to share government resources with nonprofit housing, particularly to support operation costs as well as project costs. It would be advantages for Korean central and local governments to make up financial challenges to support low-income housing services. In the sense, the Neighborhood Revitalization Tax Credit Program in New Jersey gives some ideas about how Korean governments encourage housing nonprofits to prepare and implement neighborhood revitalization plans and low-income housing strategies.
Second, the New Jersey’s collaborative housing network gives some ideas for Korean government and housing nonprofits to promote the ability of making effective collaborative housing partnerships with other sectors. These collaborative partnerships affect various activities from housing development to social services and economic development. Housing nonprofits collaborate with local police and other civic groups throughout activities of community capacity building and neighborhood watch programs. These activities in the communities have affected the affordability of housing and have joined with private enterprise to develop other social services (i.e.,
job training programs, or social welfare programs). These collaborative partnerships with other sectors can bring external benefits including higher quality of low-income housing services.
Third, this study also argues that trust and goal consensus can be two critical contingency factors for a successful collaborative governance, although other factors such as size and the nature of the task might be possible. Although Provan and Kenis (2008) make no claim that these are the only contingencies that are relevant, when we consider potential problems and issues in Korea, such as conflicts with government agencies and housing nonprofits and different goals even among housing nonprofits, trust and goal consensus will be more significant factors to explain successful adopting one of network governance forms over another for each low-income housing program as well as more critical to housing policy makers and network managers. Specifically, shared governance is most likely to be an effective form when trust is pervasive throughout the network because in the lack of trust, shared governance will not be effective since there will be little basis for collaboration among network members.
Goal consensus allows organizational participants to perform better than when there is conflict. In the absence of hierarchy, network participants are more likely to be involved and committed to the network and more likely to work together. There may be considerable variance across networks and network members regarding agreement on network-level goals and the extent to which organizational goals can be achieved through network involvement. Especially, the network administrative organization form requires greater involvement by at least a subset of network members. These participants (often, NAO governing board members) are typically committed to network-level goals and have a strategic involvement with the network as a whole.
Other network members are likely to be less committed and involved, with only modest goal consensus. It is the task of the NAO leader and staff to work with participants on a daily basis, resolving possible conflict and enhancing commitment
to the network and its goals. Thus, goal consensus may be quite strong in the NAO form.
Finally, this study provides best practices for improving capacities of central and local governments as well as housing nonprofit organizations. Specifically, this study can provide housing policy directions for low-income housing services and present guideline for implementing low-income housing programs, as well as give best practices for fostering nonprofit organizations providing low-income housing services.
Furthermore, this study expects that Korean governments use low-income housing spending efficiently through the collaborative governance system.
R ․ E ․ F ․ E ․ R ․ E ․ N ․ C ․ E
REFERENCE
Abravanel, Martin D., and Jennifer E. H. Johnson. 2000. The low-income Housing Tax Credit Program: A National Survey of Property Owners. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.
Alter, Catherine, and Jerald Hage. 1993. Organizations working together Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Basolo, V., 1999. The Impacts of Intercity Competition and Intergovernmental Factors on Local Affordable Housing Expenditures, Housing Policy Debate, 10(3): 659-688.
Bast, C. 2002. , low-income Housing Tax Credits 101, Real Estate Finance Journal, 17:3, 825.
Brass, Daniel J., Joseph Galaskiewicz, Henrich R. Greve, and Wenpin Tsai. 2004.
Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective.
Academy of Management Journal 47: 795 817.–
Bratt, R. G. 1991. Public Housing Authorities: Determining an Appropriate Role in a National Preservation Strategy, Housing Policy Debate, 2(2): 535-56.
Bratt, R. G. 2008. P Nonprofit and For-Profit Developers of Subsidized Rental Housing: Comparative Attributes and Collaborative Opportunities, Housing Policy Debate, 19(2): 323-365.
Calavita, N., K. Grimes and A. Mallach. 1997. Inclusionary Housing in California and New Jersey: A Comparative Analysis, Housing Policy Debate, 8(1):
79-108.
Davis, John E., editor. 1993. The Affordable City: Toward a Third Sector Housing Policy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Downs, A. 1991. The Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing: Its Behavior and Accomplishments, Housing Policy Debate, 2(4):
1095-1137.
Drazin, Robert., and Andrew H. Van de Ven. 1985. Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly 30:514 39.–
Ellen, I. G., & Voicu, I. (2006). Nonprofit housing and neighborhood spillovers.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(1), 31-52.
Feldman, R. 2002. The Affordable Housing Shortage: Considering the Problem, Causes and Solution, Banking and Policy Working Paper 02-02, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
Freeman, L. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215-239.
Freeman, Lance. 2004. Sitting Affordable Housing: Location and Neighborhood Trends of low-income Housing Tax Credit Developments in the 1990s.
Census 2000 Survey Series. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.
Gabriel, Stuart A. 1996. Urban Housing Policies in the 1990s. Housing Policy Debate. 7.4: 673-694.
Gerlach, Michael L. 1992. Alliance capitalism: The social organization of Japanese business Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Goodman, Paul S., and Johannes M. Pennings. 1977. New perspectives on organizational effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Graddy, Elizabeth A., and Bin Chen. 2006. Influences on the size and scope of networks for social service delivery. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16:533 52.–
Haar, C. M. 1997. Judges as Agents of Social Change: Can the Courts Break the Affordable Housing Deadlock in Metropolitan Areas?, Housing Policy Debate, 8(3): 633-50.
HUD. 2006. 2009. 2010. HUD Strategic Plan 2006-2010.
Huxham, Chris, and Siv Vangen. 2005. Managing to Collaborate London:
Routledge.
Inzerilli, Giorgio. 1990. The Italian perspective: Flexible organization and social management. International Studies of Management and Organization
20:6 21.–
Koebel, Theodore, Richard Steinberg, and Robert Dyck. 1998. Public-Private Partnership for Affordable Housing: Definitions and Applications in an International Perspective, in: Koebel, Theodore (Eds) Shelter and Society:
Theory, Research, and Policy for Nonprofit Housing, Chapter 3. pp.39-70.
Albany, State University of New York Press.
Jones, Candace, and Robert J. DeFillippi. 1996. Back to the future in film:
Combining industry and self-knowledge to meet career challenges of the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive 10 (4): 89 104.–
Larson, Andrea. 1992. Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly 37:76 104.–
Lazerson, Mark. 1995. A new phoenix? Modern putting-out in the Modena knitwear industry. Administrative Science Quarterly 40:34 59.–
Marcuse, P. 1986. Housing policy and the myth of the benevolent state, in: R.
Bratt, C. Hartman & A. Meyerson (Eds) Critical Perspectives on Housing (Philadelphia, Temple University Press).
Marcuse, P. 2001. The Liberal/Conservative Divide in the History of Housing Policy in the United States, Housing Studies, 16(6): 717-736.
McEvily, Bill, Vincenzo Perrone, and Akbar Zaheer. 2003. Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science 14:91 103.–
New York State. 2008. A Strategic Plan for Affordable Housing
Miller, K. T. 2001. Subsidized Housing for the low-income Functionally Disabled Elderly, Journal of Real Estate Literature, 9(1): 3-28.
Olsen, E. O. 2001. Housing Programs for low-income Households, Working Paper 8208, National Bureau of Economic Research.
O'Regan, K. M. and J. M. Quigley. 2000. Federal Policy and the Rise of Nonprofit Housing Providers, Journal of Housing Research, 11(2): 297-317.
Orlebeke, Charles J. 2000. The Evolution of low-income Housing Policy, 1949 to 1999. Housing Policy Debate, 11(2): 489-520.
Pendall, R. 2000. Why Voucher and Certificate Users Live In Distressed Neighborhoods, Housing Policy Debate, 11(4): 881-910.
Perrow, Charles. 1961. The analysis of goals in complex organizations. American Sociological Review 26:688 99.–
Powell, Walter W. 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In Research in organizational behavior, ed. Barry M. Staw and Cummings L. L., vol. 12, 295 336. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.–
Provan, K. and P. Kenis. 2008. Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 18:229 252.–
Provan, Keith G., and H. Brinton Milward. 2001. Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review 61:414 23.–
Rasey, Keith. 1993. The Role of Neighborhood-Based Housing Nonprofits in the Ownership and Control of Housing in U.S. Cities. In R. Allen Hays, editor,
Ownership, Control, and the Future of Housing Policy, chapter 9. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood.
Rohe, William M. and Michael A. Stegman. 1992. Public Housing Home Ownership: Will It Work and for Whom? American Planning Association Journal. 58(2):144-157.
Rubin, J.I., J. J. Seneca and J. G. Stotsky. 1990. Affordable Housing and Municipal Choice, Land Economics, 66(3): 325-340.
Sard, B. 2001. Housing Vouchers Should Be a Major Component of Future Housing Policy for the Lowest Income Families, Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 5(2): 89-110.
Sazama, G. W. 2000. Lessons From the History of Affordable Housing Cooperatives in the United States: A Case Study in American Affordable Housing Policy, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 59(4):
573-608.
Scott, J. (Ed.). (2000). Social network analysis. London: Sage.
Sirmans, G. Stacy and David A. Macpherson. 2003. The Value of Housing Characteristics. Washington, DC: National Association of Realtors.
Smith, D. A., 1999. Mark-to-Market: A Fundamental Shift in Affordable Housing Policy, Housing Policy Debate, 10(1): 143-182.
Stegman, M. A. 1995. Recent U.S. Urban Change and Policy Initiatives. Urban Studies, 32(10): 1601-1607.
Stegman, Michael A. 1992. The Excessive Effects of Creative Finance: Growing Inefficiencies in the Production of low-income Housing. Housing Policy Debate. 2(2): 357-375.
Teisman, G. R., & Klijn, E.-H. 2002. Partnership Arrangements: Governmental Rhetoric or Governance Scheme? Public Administration Review, 62(2): 197.
The Angora Group. 1992. California's Lower-income Housing Cooperatives. Research Report No. 8. Davis: Center for Cooperatives, University of California.
Uzzi, Brian. 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly 42:35 67.– Uzzi, Brian. 1999. Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: How social
relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. American Sociological Review 64:481 505.–
Van de Ven, Andrew H. 1976. On the nature, formation, and maintenance of relations among organizations. Academy of Management Review 1:24 36.– Wallace, J. E. 1995. Financing Affordable Housing in the United States, Housing
Policy Debate, 6(4): 785-814.
Wasserman, S.,& Galaskiewicz, J. (1994). Advances in social network analysis:
Research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust. 1994. Social network analysis: methods and application. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Willcox, R. 1994. Rochdale Principles and the Development of Housing Cooperatives since 1964. Cooperative Housing Journal of the National Association of Housing Cooperatives. Alexandria, Virginia. 4-9.
Wood, Michelle, Jennifer Turnham, and Gregory Mills. 2008. P Nonprofit and For-Profit Developers of Subsidized Rental Housing: Comparative Attributes and Collaborative Opportunities, Housing Policy Debate, 19(2): 367-412.
California Department of Housing and Community Development website:
www.hcd.ca.gov
California Division of Housing Policy Development website:
www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd
Florida Department of Community Affairs website:
www.dca.state.fl.us
Florida Division of Housing and Community Development website:
www.floridacommunitydevelopment.org
Florida Housing Finance Corporation website:
www.floridahousing.org
New Jersey Department of Community Affairs website:
www.state.nj.us/dca
New Jersey Division of Housing and Community Resources website:
www.state.nj.us/dca/divisions/dhcr
New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency website:
www.state.nj.us/dca/hmfa
New York Division of Housing and Community Renewal website:
www.dhcr.state.ny.us/index.htm)
New York State Housing Finance Agency website:
www.nyhomes.org/index.aspx?page=1
New York Trust Fund Corporation websites:
www.dhcr.state.ny.us/AboutUs/HTFC/about_htfc.htm
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
website:www.nonprofithousing.org/pages/who-we-are/contact-us-and-directions.html The Housing and Community Development Network of New Jersey:
http://www.hcdnnj.org
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development website:
www.dhcd.virginia.gov
Virginia Enterprise Initiative website:
www.dhcd.virginia.gov/communitydevelopmentrevitalization/Virginia_Enterprise_Initiative Virginia Housing Coalition website:
www.vahousingcoalition.org
K ․ O ․ R ․ E ․ A ․ N ․ S ․ U ․ M ․ M ․ A ․ R ․ Y
KOREAN SUMMARY
미국의 저소득층 주거지원 프로그램 서비스전달체계에 관한 연구 비영리주택조직의 역할을 중심으로
-
-최상옥 김혜승, , Max Stephenson, 전성제
한국의 현행 주거지원정책은 비수급빈곤층 차상위계층 등 정책의 혜택을 받,
지 못하는 사각지대가 크고 가구특성에 적합한 주거욕구 주거기준 혹은 주거비, (
부담 를 충분히 충족시키고 있지 못한 문제점을 지닌다 특히 주거지원서비스 전) .
달체계의 구조가 수직적이고 상의하달식이어서 수요자 위주의 주거복지서비스
를 제공하기에 미흡하다 그러나 보다 효과적인 주거지원서비스 전달체계가 구.
축된다면 현재와 동일한 재정지원 하에서도 현행 주거지원정책의 문제점을 어느
정도 해소할 수 있을 것이다 특히 주거지원서비스 전달체계 내에서 주거관련 비.
영리조직의 역할 강화는 주택정책의 실효성 제고에 상당한 역할을 할 것이다.
이에 본 연구에서는 주거관련 비영리조직의 역할 및 민관협력을 중심으로 미 국의 주거지원 프로그램 및 서비스전달체계의 현황 및 구체적 지역사례를 분석 함으로써 우리나라에 유용한 정책적 시사점을 도출하고자 하였다.
본 연구에서는 우선 문헌연구를 통해 저소득 주택정책의 리더십 변화 연방정(
부에서 지방정부로 를 개관하고) , Housing Choice Voucher Program, HOME
Investment Partnership program, HOPE VI program, Low Income Housing Tax Credit 등 미국의 주요 저소득 프로그램을 살펴보았다 다음으로 미국 개 주
program . 5
캘리포니아 뉴욕 뉴저지 플로리다 및 버지니아 의 저소득가구 주거지원서비스
( , , , )
전달체계를 파악하였다 그리고 뉴저지주를 사례로 저소득층 주거지원서비스 관.
련 조직담당자 인터뷰와 비영리주택조직을 대상으로 실시한 주거지원서비스 네 트워크에 대한 설문조사 결과를 토대로 저소득 주거지원서비스에 있어 협력 거 버넌스를 분석하였다.
뉴저지주의 협력거버넌스 사례분석으로부터의 시사점을 요약하면 다음과 같
다 첫째 한국 정부가 주거지원서비스 거버넌스 구축을 계획할 때 뉴저지 사례. ,
와 같은 네트워크 운영조직에 의한 네트워크(Network Administrative Organzation:
형태의 협력거버넌스를 고려할 필요가 있다고 판단된다 특히 뉴저지 사례
NAO) .
는 프로젝트 비용 뿐 아니라 운영비 지원까지를 포함하여 비영리주택조직의 주
택 및 커뮤니티 개발 활동을 지원할 필요가 있음을 제시하고 있다 또한 뉴저지.
주의 Neighborhood Revitalization Tax Credit Program 사례는 한국 정부가 비영리 주택조직이 커뮤니티 활성화 계획 및 저소득층 주거지원을 준비하고 수행하도록
고무시키는 방법을 예시해 준다 둘째 뉴저지의 협력적 주거 네트워크는 한국. ,
정부와 비영리조직이 다른 부문들과 효과적인 협력거버넌스를 만들 수 있는 좋
은 사례를 제시하고 있다 이러한 협력적 파트너십은 주택개발에서부터 사회서.
비스 및 경제개발에 이르는 다양한 활동에 영향을 준다 마지막으로 뉴저지 사례.
는 비영리주택조직 뿐 아니라 주거지원과 관련된 중앙 및 지방 정부의 역량을
강화하는데 좋은 사례를 제시하고 있다 따라서 이러한 방식을 통해 한국 정부가.
저소득주거지원을 위한 예산을 협력거버넌스 체계를 통해 보다 효율적으로 사용 하기를 기대한다.
￭ 색인어 비영리주택조직 주택정책 협력 거버넌스_ , ,