Monday, November 4, 2019

The Center published the first report today in a six-part series that focuses on how laws and legal practices related to housing can influence the availability of quality, affordable housing in socially and racially diverse neighborhoods—and how policies can be better designed and deployed for maximum national impact.

“This series is an invaluable addition to the conversation about how where we live has an irrevocable impact on our health and well-being,” said author and Center Director Scott Burris, JD. “The series takes the first step in making the case for ‘health equity in housing’ as a top goal of the movement to create a Culture of Health in America.”

This first report explores the relationship between housing, neighborhood and health, and reviews old and new evidence about health, health equity and housing.

The reports in this series are:

  1. A Vision of Health Equity in Housing (Available today)
  2. Legal Levers for Health Equity in Housing: A Systems Approach (Available Nov. 12, 2019)
  3. Health Equity in Housing: Evidence and Evidence Gaps (Available Nov. 19, 2019);
  4. Creative People and Places Building Health Equity in Housing (Available Dec. 3, 2019)
  5. Governing Health Equity in Housing (Available Dec. 10, 2019)
  6. Health Equity through Housing: A Blueprint for Systematic Legal Action (Available early 2020)

The problems of unsafe and unaffordable housing in unhealthy neighborhoods have been with us for a long time. Housing and neighborhood conditions are the product of a complex system, which requires a systems approach to change. This is where health equity in housing comes in: Its positive, broad vision of healthy communities is a starting point for a systems approach.

This series, which was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Policies for Action Program, establishes a research agenda for legal epidemiology on housing and presents a roadmap for policymakers, advocates and others working in housing to guide decision-making by outlining existing evidence and identifying gaps in evidence.