Boston University



COMMUNITY-DRIVEN ENVIRONMENTAL REDEVELOPMENT AND THE FLOW OF TAX-INCENTIVIZED FUNDINGA project by students of the Boston University course “Research for Environmental Agencies and Organizations”This work follows research presented to officials of the city of Boston and shared with the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council in Fall of 2018. The report, Transforming Environmental Justice Neighborhoods into Green Communities, contained recommendations for achieving justice for disadvantaged, highly impacted communities. In the present study, we narrow our focus on eco-gentrification and assess the possibility for improving impacted neighborhoods while mitigating the impacts of rising land values and rental prices. We asked: what policies are necessary so that redevelopment of environmental justice neighborhoods can occur responsibly, in a way that benefits the existing population and does not cause displacement?Consulting the EPA’s Environmental Justice program, we learned about Opportunity Zones (OZs). OZs were established as a form of tax-incentivized funding for low-income districts, as part of the federal tax reform in 2017. We wondered whether OZs could be used, now or in the future, to help impacted communities, and what can be done to bring about community-driven re-development. We hope that this report will be useful to cities and that greater attention will be given to strategies for avoiding gentrification and re-developing responsibly. With our focus on the Greater Boston Area, we drafted the following letter to the Boston city government:Dear Boston City government, Thank you for your commitment to making Boston a greener city. As the city continues to develop new greening projects and implement ideas for re-development, we hope due notice will be taken of the unanticipated consequences re-development may bring. Eco-gentrification threatens vulnerable communities, such as Environmental Justice communities. Many residents face the risk of being displaced when their neighborhoods are improved. Opportunity Zones have arisen as a way of incentivizing development in selected districts. We believe that they could cause gentrification and that a concerted effort to implement anti-displacement policies is necessary. We hope that such efforts can be tailored and designed for each district to truly benefit the existing populations. Our research leads us to believe that the best kind of development is that which is community-driven and considers the perspectives of the existing residents in the community where development is to occur. Transforming EJ neighborhoods into green communities is achievable. We believe that preventing the displacement of the people in those communities is also feasible.Sincerely, Aseel Alharthi, Christopher Reyes, Cory SeremetisEnvironmental Justice Research TeamResearch for Environmental Agencies and OrganizationsGE 532 Spring 2019AcknowledgementsWe thank the students who created the Fall 2018 report, whose research we follow up on, as well as the EPA Director of Environmental Justice, Matthew Tejada, whose request prompted us to look at Opportunity Zones, which led us to think more broadly about what can be done to aid impacted communities. We thank Andrea Campbell, Catalina Vielma, David Radcliffe, and Maureo Fernandez y Mora for their expert opinions and guidance on discussing community-driven redevelopment and tax-incentivized funding. We would also like to thank Richard Reibstein, our professor for the course, who gave us constant input and also helped guide us in our research. The course GE532 of the Earth and Environment Department is taught every semester at Boston University with the aim of having students work together on research that benefits the environmental or public health missions of governmental or nonprofit agencies and organizations. All class projects for the class Research for Environmental Agencies and Organizations can be found posted at bu.edu/rccp and any questions or comments regarding this report can be directed to Rick Reibstein at rreibste@bu.edu. Eco-gentrification and Impacted CommunitiesEnvironmental gentrification, also known as eco-gentrification, occurs when residents are displaced from their homes because re-development of a neighborhood causes rising property values. It can be an unintentional result of greening initiatives. For example, the building of the High Line in New York City transformed the socioeconomics of the neighborhoods involved, creating new opportunities but also causing some small businesses and low to moderate-income residents to have to relocate elsewhere. Intended to serve existing residents, greening projects tend to drive out those living there (Haffner, 2015). It is necessary to couple these urban greening efforts with anti-displacement efforts. Urban areas often include environmental justice communities - vulnerable populations shown to have shorter life expectancies, higher cancer rates, greater infant mortality, and a greater likelihood to be exposed to hazardous chemicals, such as lead paint (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2009). Eco-gentrification can have significant impacts on the health of these already impacted groups when they are forced to relocate. According to the CDC, women, children, the elderly, the poor, and members of ethnic or racial minority groups are at increased risk to the negative consequences of gentrification. EJ Communities in Massachusetts. As established in the state’s Environmental Justice Policy updated in 2017 by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA), a census block can be labeled as an EJ Community if it meets at least one of three criteria: a median low income, a large population of minority groups, and/or English isolation (a neighborhood where few people speak fluent English). Using data from the 2010 census, the EEA constructed a map that distinguishes EJ communities by the criteria that defines them as EJ (). It is worth noting that EJ communities are not distinguished by environmental factors, but rather by demographics, and the assumption is made that the two coincide. The definition of what makes an EJ community EJ is currently under debate in the Senate due to the limitations it poses in terms of where money allocated for EJ purposes can be sent (Fernandez y Mora).Overview of Opportunity ZonesOpportunity Zones (OZs) are designated districts where a newly established company or LLC may receive tax breaks on any capital gains earned within that location until 2027. They were established as part of the Investing in Opportunity Act of 2017, an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. According to the bill, governors had 90 days from the day the bill was enacted to determine what districts they wanted to have as OZs. After receiving notifications from the governors during the “Determination Period”, Treasury Secretaries had 30 days to consider the governors’ selections and approve them. Extensions of either the “Determination Period” or the “Consideration Period” could be made for up to 30 days at the governors’ request. If a Secretary were to fail to approve a district tract, the tract would automatically become an OZ at the end of the “Consideration Period” unless it was found to be unqualified. Additionally, if the governor failed to choose tracts by the end of the “Determination Period”, secretaries were responsible for designating tracts as OZs. Generally, the number of tracts chosen per state could not exceed 25 percent of the number of low-income communities in the state and qualified OZs had to consist of mainly low-income communities. Five percent of census tracts that were not low-income could be designated as OZs, but they had to be contiguous with low-income communities to qualify. Governors were encouraged to nominate tracts that were already the focus of economic development initiatives and that had already demonstrated success with targeted development programs such as empowerment zones. Locations with a significant amount of business closures or relocations were also recommended (“Investing in Opportunity”). The bill was introduced jointly by Senators Tim Scott and Cory Booker and Congressmen Pat Tiberi and Ron Kind, who believed that Americans should have equal access to economic opportunity and who wanted to revitalize economically distressed communities that suffered from a lack of economic growth by means of investment and new business growth (Economic Innovation Group, 2017). Under the act, investors do not pay tax the first year and actually get to defer taxes for eight years. This deferring allows for the money to be available and an additional return to be earned. Furthermore, if the money remains in an Opportunity Fund for ten years, all of the gain earned is considered tax-free (The Innovative CPA Group).With the limited guidance that the Investing in Opportunity Act offers, states and cities have taken different approaches in implementing OZs and promoting investment and development within them. Some states, including Michigan and New York, emphasized aligning OZs with existing programs, which is a recommendation given in the bill (Economic Innovation Group, 2017). Maryland, in particular the city of Baltimore, took a similar stand, selecting districts as OZs that coincide with existing development programs such as Maryland Arts and Entertainment Districts, Enterprise Zones, and RISE Zones (Duncan, 2018; MCEDC, 2019). Whereas some states like Colorado focused on boosting entrepreneurship in rural communities, other states such as Massachusetts focused on revitalizing historic downtowns and city centers with almost half of their OZs in “Gateway Cities” that have struggled to draw in new investment (Lettieri, 2018). Although the bill has prospects for success at spurring development, concern has arisen over whether OZs could lead to eco-gentrification. This has caused cities like Boulder, CO to refuse the implementation of OZs. Although there are OZs located in Boulder, the city has restricted development within the OZ districts except for development related to housing or healthcare. Unfortunately, restricting development could have negative impacts for the economy and growth of the city. “If you ban certain things, you get rid of opportunities. People don’t want to live in places where things are banned” (Vielma). Opportunity Zones in MassachusettsOZs were intended to benefit impacted communities. As such, it was hypothesized that the new OZ districts would closely align with the existing EJ communities. As a result of our conversation with the EPA’s EJ Director, we took the initiative to examine the relationship of OZs and EJ communities and used ArcGIS to overlay where both sets of districts are located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. A broad glance at these districts throughout Massachusetts appeared to disprove our hypothesis. OZs, which were designated in the counties of Berkshire, Franklin, Worcester, Hampshire, Hampden, Middlesex, Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Bristol, Plymouth, and Barnstable, seemingly did not coincide with EJ communities. It is important to note that although many OZs are located in “Gateway Cities”, they are not necessarily located in EJ communities within those cities.Taking a closer look at the Greater Boston area, we noticed the same trend. Districts selected as OZs did not coincide well with EJ communities. Additionally, contamination, typically associated with EJ communities, was found to not be prevalent in the designated OZs that did not overlap with EJ communities. Taking an even closer look at neighborhoods in the southern portion of the Greater Boston area, comprising Jamaica Plain, Roxbury, Dorchester, Mattapan, Hyde Park, and Roslindale, revealed two new findings. Initially, we noticed that some districts that were almost entirely designated as EJ communities lacked OZs. Additionally, of the districts chosen as OZs within the Greater Boston area, some were actually areas that would not be able to be developed. Dorchester and Hyde Park, which are mostly designated as EJ, lack any OZs. Meanwhile the small contiguous OZs found between Roxbury, Jamaica Plain, Mattapan, and Roslindale are located in Franklin Park and several small cemeteries, places that cannot possibly be developed.As with all other states, upon the enactment of the Investing in Opportunity Act, Massachusetts had 60-90 days to select and approve OZ districts. Given the short timeframe, Governor Baker tasked City of Boston officials to pick the OZs within Boston. Mayor Walsh’s Administration was given three weeks to make their nominations. The city could have selected up to 20 percent of income-eligible census tracts, but the Walsh Administration made the decision to limit the scope of the areas selected to areas with public housing developments and areas they were fully aware could not be developed, as we noted in our maps (Forry, 2018). They chose to include the Boston Harbor Islands, Franklin Park, and several cemeteries, because they were apprehensive about the threat of gentrification in other areas (Turesky, 2018). City Council President Andrea Campbell, whose constituents include the residents of Dorchester, Mattapan, Jamaica Plain, and Roslindale, believes an opportunity was missed. With plenty of opportunities for investment in Mattapan and Dorchester and money being the missing link, OZs could have been the key to bringing in private dollars as well as city dollars to promote development (Turesky, 2018). Fostering Community-led RedevelopmentIn response to the Walsh Administration’s perspective on Opportunity Zones and their decision to not fully utilize the opportunity in OZs, we sought out ways for OZs to be used as a tool for community development without being a segue to gentrification and displacement of residents. We also looked at what could be done to bring about community-driven re-development outside of OZs. Selection of OZs in combination with allocations by states for other government programs that benefit low-income households, such as Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, impact objectives of creating new living-wage jobs and affordable housing, and consideration of environmental issues as a factor in OZ selection would all allow for OZs to better be used for community development (Hall, 2018). Re-development and greening of neighborhoods directly result in increased property values. “It is impossible to stop value increasing when you improve an area” (Vielma). To combat the resulting increased rent, cities can establish rent stabilization programs, as has already been done in some communities. Local small business assistance and loan subsidies for green development are additional methods that could aid businesses impacted by increased rent prices and at risk of being driven elsewhere. “Cities have tools and resources to nudge capital in the right direction” and are capable of getting local entrepreneurship to succeed (Vielma). Affordable housing efforts, assistance with rent, legal assistance to tenants, financial assistance for low-income property owners, assistance to small businesses, efforts to create employment and educational opportunities, development that serves the community, such as local food, health and community centers, and the many programs run by community development centers all deserve more attention if we are to succeed in keeping residents in areas that undergo redevelopment. Funding to community land trusts, which enables residents to buy into ownership and allows for development that is of interest to the community to take place, is an example of a strategy that may require some reinvention to be effective. It is an option generally available to suburban and rural areas. Given that “smaller cities are at a disadvantage” in terms of their ability to attract investment (Radcliffe), land trusts may be a viable option for promoting re-development. For urban areas, it seems the window of opportunity to buy land trusts is over due to the inhibition created by high land costs. Urban land trusts would have been a great option in the 1990s when prices were relatively less expensive (Vielma). However, opportunities to organize trusts using innovative approaches may still exist. Community engagement in the development process is perhaps the most important method that can be implemented to aid impacted communities. Communities have been proven to do a lot better with a civic infrastructure. Oftentimes decisions are made in isolation from community members by those who are not representative of those in the community, and it can have unintentional and sometimes detrimental outcomes (Radcliffe). Had the Walsh Administration engaged with communities, OZs might have had the opportunity to benefit Boston neighborhoods (Forry, 2018). Due to the limited time frame to select OZs, however, most states did not talk to or engage with constituents about their perspectives (Vielma). Investment in community outreach leads to positive community responses and healthier, more vibrant communities. Simply put, “civic engagement leads to investment” (Radcliffe). SummaryEco-gentrification is a phenomenon that affects vulnerable populations, such as Environmental Justice communities. Concern for eco-gentrification should be raised in most instances involving re-development, but this concern should not prevent all development. Different methods can be taken to mitigate the risk of gentrification. In Massachusetts, Opportunity Zones, approximately half of which are located in “Gateway Cities”, could potentially be used to promote investment and development and to help impacted communities. Although OZs may have been a missed opportunity in the city of Boston, there are alternate options to stimulate development. Communities themselves are the most important resource to combating gentrification and bolstering development. Engaging with communities on decisions and listening to the perspectives of constituents would inhibit unwanted outcomes to decisions and make sure that communities are aware of the potential consequences of development projects. Preventing the displacement of residents is just as important as transforming EJ neighborhoods into green communities. Given that women and children are especially impacted by such displacement, we recommend a special focus on redevelopment strategies as they pertain to women, particularly single mothers.Special Focus: Women and Environmental JusticeGender equality and women’s rights are paramount to attaining sustainable development. Feminist environmentalists argue that a relationship exists between unsustainable and unequal development and the marginalizing of women, indigenous peoples, and other groups. According to the United Nations Sustainable Development Report, women are affected differently by virtue of their gendered roles in the economy and society. Gender equality and women's rights are being inadequately framed as 'mainstreaming' concerns, rather than as a transformative necessity for the realization of sustainable development (United Nations, 2013). Understanding this injustice through a feminist perspective is important for overcoming environmental sexism. Nature can be viewed concurrently among other general categories (i.e. society, politics and economics) as a feminist issue. An understanding of nature and environmental concerns can help one critically understand women's oppression – both are linked with unjustified domination or exploitation. Therefore, we can define ecofeminism as a philosophical and political movement that combines ecological concerns with feminist ones. Environmental sexism, i.e. ecological feminism or green sexism, places a gender justice lens on environmental justice. This is important when discussing topics surrounding oppression, access to resources, and utilization of resources. Though there are many theoretical approaches to these issues, we believe a simple and clear guide to humane policy must include a focus on the vulnerable populations that are often neglected. Women, and single mothers in particularly, play a pivotal role in environmental justice communities.Problem: Women and Housing Affordability Single mothers and their children live primarily in metropolitan areas, and within such areas, in central cities. However, studies have shown that they are not attracted to central city living. According to Dr. Lane and Dr. Mulroy (1992), most single mothers across all socioeconomic classes want their children to attend good schools located in safe neighborhoods. Single mothers are ultimately looking for the highest status neighborhood that is within their financial budget. When their needs conflict with their children's needs, single mothers overwhelmingly favor the housing environment that is best for their children. As rent has continued to increase, issues of gentrification – relocation and displacement, which lead to issues of safety and homelessness, have become more difficult to resolve, and have greatly impacted single mothers. Recognizing and tackling these issues are crucial in order to create better urban environments. Overcoming Civic Isolation Because single women – and particularly mothers – are often living in civic isolation, community engagement is of great concern. Concerted engagement of key players (i.e. community engagement officers) with those who are directly affected (i.e. single mothers) by the process of policy-making or implementation can immensely benefit EJ communities. Community engagement officers can develop ongoing, permanent relationships with women and ensure that there exists meaningful participation of women's and social programs in the design, monitoring, and evaluation of development policies and programs. These professionals, working for nonprofits or municipalities, can be charged with affirmatively seeking out vulnerable members of the community who are otherwise not engaged in or aware of community events, for the purpose of developing and applying a collective vision for the benefit of a community. Moreover, they can be tasked with documenting community concerns in order to develop strategies beneficial for the community.A municipality that adopts a policy of community development and promotes active outreach to engage those least likely to have the time, resources, and knowledge to step forward themselves, can create a better, organized vision for all stakeholders. Staff can be charged with assessing and reducing risks to existing vulnerable populations as a substantive goal, and with implementing measures to increase public awareness and involvement as a procedural norm. Such programs can, by bringing the vulnerable together with the influential, result in strategies that avoid conflicts and foster decision-making that better addresses the needs of both future and current populations. System Analysis of Actors In taking a systems analysis approach, private sector and non-profit local, state and federal government development services can be viewed as actors that hold responsible roles in relation to the affected individuals in an area. Analyzing these roles and recognizing who is part of the discussion – who is key to or even just involved with or consulted in decision-making - makes visible who is currently not part of the discussion. From this starting point, we may be able to muster the political will and perhaps the know-how on how to get those who are not involved involved. Our goal to build a reasonable and inclusive civic infrastructure that ensures all stakeholders are part of the conversation should begin with connecting those who are dependent on the systems to those who play important parts in the functioning of those systems. Creating a map of civic infrastructures in these communities is an example of a first step in organizing the effort. This can be formal or informal, but it should attempt to form a picture of who is impacted by current operations and who can benefit from better urban planning. It should also identify the roles of key actors so that they may better understand the responsibilities that flow from the power their roles provide to them. Geomapping these connections includes statistical numbers regarding economic development, safety, and crime, as well as a vulnerability scale of EJ communities involved. A better visual understanding for all stakeholders can serve in developing common understanding of how to overcome existing and future problems. Childcare Modern single mothers often work full time, and some try to balance work and school. Providing good child care resources is thus a starting point for improving lives and enabling single mothers to remain in improving communities. When good childcare is not affordable single mothers have to make due or choose to not work, which impacts their ability to remain in a neighborhood that is experiencing rising land values. There are several financial assistance programs for childcare that help families pay for or subsidize the cost of childcare. The Child Care Aware of America Organization utilizes a map to determine locations within the United States that offer assistance with childcare for low-income families. One of these programs, the Massachusetts Head Start Association, focuses on providing care and child development services to low-income families and their kids up to the age of 5. Despite the existence of these programs, a lack of awareness on how to access these resources inhibits their use. Additional work can be done to develop such programs, to make them easily accessible, and to promote the programs at civic meetings, primary and secondary schools, medical offices, grocery stores, work places, and community centers. Subsidies, such as tax breaks, and other forms of assistance, can be used to develop more child-care resources. Special efforts, such as city-wide partnerships with those who run childcare services, can improve the quality and economic sustainability of the services, benefitting both businesses and local economies, while at the same time helping the single mothers that are dependent on the services.Monitoring Housing and Preventing Homelessness More in-depth exploration of housing circumstances and of the stresses associated with high housing cost burden, overcrowding, inadequate housing quality, bad indoor air quality, persistent contamination, high rates of asthma and lead poisoning, inadequate transportation, and poor food resources should be a priority for urban governments. It is not enough to help single mothers keep their homes, but to also ensure the safety, quality and sustainability of their homes for their children and themselves. Frequent monitoring to ensure adequate access to basic resources is also necessary. These efforts should involve quantitative measurements, such as the geomapping described above that is used to better visualize the role of systems and responsible actors. In a similar manner, the state of affected housing and related circumstances can be visualized to better understand the state of life quality and to track the progress or lack thereof that results from special initiatives to improve lives. Many states have adopted environmental justice and other policies to improve the lives of the urban poor, but these cannot be expected to work without measurements to assess their implementation. These measurements can in turn be used to adjust and improve strategies in order to achieve desirable results. Many programs currently exist to assist homeless individuals and families, but initiatives must be taken to prevent homelessness from occurring in the first place. Homelessness creates additional issues and risks, such as potential loss of healthcare and occupation, which can have negative impacts on health. A preventive approach to homelessness is less costly than a reactive approach that responds to displacement after it has already occurred. Moreover, it helps reduce costs overall and results in better utilization of governmental and state resources. Other ActionsAn increase of funding to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) federal assistance program can immensely benefit single mothers and their families and reduce other stressors that potentially may arise. A network of easily-accessed emergency shelters is needed in case all efforts fail and a family becomes homeless. The network should include services and subsidies to assist with re-entering the housing and job markets and provide services to assist with retention. Funds provided to the shelter network, thus, must not be used only for sheltering the homeless, but also for providing security deposits to landlords and utility companies and covering expenses related to job attainment.Finally, just as we considered the potential for tax breaks to improve areas in need of redevelopment earlier on in the report, here we consider the value of tax breaks directly aimed at helping the poor. Anyone who works and has a child or dependent that cannot be left alone may qualify for the child and dependent care tax credit. This credit, based on income, subsidizes a percentage of child care costs. Additional breaks for those who show the initiative to start a small business, for those who wish to improve their education, for those who want to buy property and maintain it, for those who wish to engage in an activity that benefits others in the community, and for those who simply need help in managing difficult living situations should also be under consideration as part of a comprehensive approach to community development.Future DirectionsThis report, based on initial research conducted for the report Transforming Environmental Justice Neighborhoods into Green Communities, focused on eco-gentrification and impacts on women and children, overcoming civic isolation. Future studies can focus more in-depth on the actions needed to engage residents and achieve these stated purposes of the Commonwealth’s EJ policy: Enhancing residents’ participation in decision-makingFacilitating residents’ connections with relevant resourcesPublic transit and amenitiesClean jobs and local economic developmentUrban greeningHealthy homesCleaning up contaminated sitesAll merit more focus. This report barely scratches the surface and we hope it inspires further work in these areas. All the issues stated above are interrelated and discussion on any one topic we expect will provide the chance for illuminating others and enable a more thorough understanding.Works CitedCenters for Disease Control and Prevention. “Health Effects of Gentrification.” Healthy Places, 15 Oct. 2009, , Ian. “Maryland chooses dozens of struggling neighborhoods statewide for new federal 'Opportunity Zone' tax breaks.” The Baltimore Sun, 20 Apr. 2018, business/bs-md-opportunity-zones-20180420-story.htmlEconomic Innovation Group. “The Investing in Opportunity Act Factsheet.” Investing in Opportunity Act, 6 Feb. 2017, investing-in-opportunity-act-factsheet-c068deba2b2eFernandez y Mora, Maureo. Personal conversation. 17 April 2019.Forry, Bill. “Fed tax program eyed for growth in ‘Opportunity Zones’.” Dorchester Reporter, 12 Dec. 2018, zonesHaffner, Jeanne. “The Dangers of Eco-Gentrification: What's the Best Way to Make a City Greener?” The Guardian, 6 May 2015, may/06/dangers-ecogentrification-best-way-make-city-greenerHall, Lisa. “In the Land of OZ (Opportunity Zones) Who Will Benefit?” Georgetown University Beeck Center, 13 Mar. 2018, zones-benefit/Lettieri, John W. “The Promise of Opportunity Zones.” Economic Innovation Group, 16 May 2018, . “Environmental Justice Communities in Massachusetts.” , . info-details/environmental-justice-communities-in-massachusettsMontgomery County Economic Development Corporation. “Federal Tax Incentives to Spur Community Growth in Montgomery County.” Opportunity Zones, 5 Feb. 2019, , David. Personal conversation. 17 April 2019.The Innovative CPA Group. “3 Tax-Saving Benefits of Opportunity Zones .” The Innovative CPA Group, , Jason. “Andrea Campbell Calls Boston's Opportunity Zones A Missed Opportunity.” WGBH News, 18 Dec. 2018, andrea-campbell-calls-bostons-opportunity-zones-a-missed-opportunityUnited States, Congress, House. Investing in Opportunity Act. 115th-congress/senate-bill/293/text. 115th Congress, 1st Session, HR 828. Vielma, Catalina. Personal conversation. 17 April 2019.Sources on Feminism: 2005, “Ecofeminism and Environmental Ethics: A Materialist Ecofeminist Perspective”, in Zimmerman et al. 2005: 208–227. Child Care Aware (Massachusetts). (n.d.). Retrieved from Warren, Karen J., "Feminist Environmental Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Gender Equality, Women’s Rights and Women’s Priorities: Recommendations for the proposed Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Post-2015 Development Agenda (Rep.). United Nations. (2013, September). Retrieved Mulroy, Elizabeth A. and Lane, Terry S. (1992) "Housing Affordability, Stress And Single Mothers: Pathway To Homelessness," e Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare: Vol. 19: Iss. 3, Article 4. Available at: ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download