{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019528371407516582, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.9021739130434785, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Housing Low-Income Households: Lessons From the Sharing Economy?

The cost of operating, much less building, housing units that meet our quality standards in the United States far exceeds the ability of low-income households to pay. But the public dollars available fall far short of covering the subsidies required. Put simply, the math of the current U.S. subsidy system does not work. As a result, only one in four eligible households receive a housing subsidy, and three in four are often, quite literally, left out in the cold. Unless resources dramatically increase, or housing construction and operating costs significantly decline, policy makers and researchers need to identify and assess new and less costly ways to house people humanely and safely to reach a larger share of the vulnerable population. To this end, one critical area for housing policy research in the coming years is exploring whether there are lessons to be gleaned from the new “sharing” economy, exemplified by companies like Uber and Airbnb. Does the sharing economy offer promising new strategies for sharing housing and for sharing subsidies that would allow us to use existing resources to serve more of our needy households? What evidence do we need to answer this question? The wild success of Airbnb illustrates two important insights. First, there is excess capacity within our existing housing stock. Second, many people are willing to share their homes with others and forego some of their privacy, as long as they are compensated. These insights raise intriguing questions for low-income housing policy. Could we adapt the Airbnb model to help match lowand moderate-income households with people who have unused bedrooms in their homes? Would households be willing to share parts of their homes with others on a more permanent basis, rather than simply to visitors? And would they be willing to share with others if those others have lower incomes or different racial and ethnic backgrounds than their own? A key question for research is the implications of such greater living density on family and child well-being. Many families already live doubled-up in the homes of relatives and friends, yet there is no government program to provide subsidies to the hosts. We have little evidence about the consequences of such crowded arrangements. How much do children suffer as compared with having their own home? And similarly, how much better off are children living in a stable, although crowded, living arrangement than they would be in a series of temporary shelters? Depending on the answers to these questions, we might adjust the rules of the housing choice voucher program or create a new subsidy to compensate hosts.