Skip to main content
eScholarship
Open Access Publications from the University of California

The Ralph and Goldy Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies was established to promote the study, understanding and solution of regional policy issues, with special reference to Southern California. Areas of study include problems of the environment, urban design, housing, community and neighborhood dynamics, transportation and local economic development. The Center was founded in 1988 with a $5 million endowment from Ralph and Goldy Lewis. In addition to income from the Lewis Endowment, the Center is supported by private and corporate foundation gifts and grants, individual donors, and research grants from a variety of governmental agencies. The Center sponsors a lecture/seminar series, as well as workshops and conferences focusing on Southern California, in an effort to build bridges to the local community.

Some working papers are not available electronically but a link is provided to the Lewis Center website for ordering instructions. (http://lewis.sppsr.ucla.edu/WorkingPapers.html)

Cover page of Does the Los Angeles region have too many vacant homes?

Does the Los Angeles region have too many vacant homes?

(2020)

In recent years, vacant homes have increasingly been identified as a potential indicator of speculation or otherwise underutilized housing stock. Recently constructed market-rate and mixed-income housing, in particular, has been cast as villain in this debate, with relatively high vacancy rates taken as a sign that this type of housing isn’t needed. Using Los Angeles as a case study, this working paper explores the nature, extent, and causes of housing vacancy, and draws conclusions about what should be done about vacant homes in high-cost locations like L.A. Analyzing multiple data sources with varying jurisdictional boundaries, I find that Los Angeles vacancy rates rank among the lowest in the nation, and are lower today than they were for most of the past 15 years. The types of vacancies in the city and metro area (“market” and “non-market” vacancies) also appear in similar proportion to other jurisdictions. And, accounting for the lease-up periods of newly constructed buildings, vacancy rates in the booming neighborhood of Downtown Los Angeles are similar to those of the rest of the city. It is suggested that proposals such as vacancy taxes may achieve modest reductions to vacancy, but will do little to address the needs of overcrowded households, super-commuters, or future generations, among others.

Cover page of Evaluating ADU/Homelessness Programs

Evaluating ADU/Homelessness Programs

(2019)

In response to a worsening homelessness crisis, Los Angeles City and County have recently looked to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) — small second homes on the same lot as a single-family home — as a part of the solution. Pilot programs in both jurisdictions offer homeowners subsidies for ADU construction in exchange for housing a person experiencing homelessness for between three and 10 years. In this paper, I evaluate the scalability, longevity, efficacy, political feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of these programs compared to traditional multifamily supportive housing. In doing so, I employ the metric of cost per year of affordability, to compare cost- effectiveness for programs of varying duration. I find that while ADU programs may be more politically feasible and have moderate potential to be scaled up, they will encounter significant difficulties in reaching that potential. They lack the longevity of traditional supportive housing, will either prove less cost-effective or will depend on homeowner contributions that may not materialize, and will have mixed effects on quality of life for formerly unhoused residents, among other hurdles. With private lenders still wary of the ADU market, greater scale and cost-effectiveness may be achieved by fostering private ADU investment, offering fee waivers to homeowners who agree to house a person experiencing homelessness, and supporting unhoused residents more directly with housing vouchers.

Cover page of Neighborhood Effects on HIV Testing: A Multi-Level Analysis

Neighborhood Effects on HIV Testing: A Multi-Level Analysis

(2003)

Only one study has explored geographic variations in HIV-testing and one possible regional characteristic correlated with that variation, leaving many potential regional characteristics unexamined. This paper explores geographic disparities in HIV-testing and eleven neighborhood characteristics as potential correlates of those disparities, controlling for individuals’ characteristics.

Cover page of The 2000 Census Undercount in Los Angeles County

The 2000 Census Undercount in Los Angeles County

(2002)

This working paper reports the findings from an analysis of the estimated undercount of the population in the 2000 Census for Los Angeles County. The Bureau of the Census improved its performance for 2000 relative to 1990, but the enumeration was not complete. The are three key findings: 1) Los Angeles County has a disproportionate number of the undercounted population; 2) the undercounted population is unevenly distributed within Los Angeles County across neighborhoods, varying across neighborhoods from -0.3% to 5.9%; and 3) neighborhoods with the highest under-count rates tend to be poor and predominantly minority, and have a relatively large number of children. Because of the geographic differences, disadvantaged neighborhoods and populations are at risk of being under-represented, under-served, and under-funded.

Cover page of The Integrating (and Segregating) Effect of Charter, Magnet, and Traditional Elementary Schools: The Case of Five California Metropolitan Areas

The Integrating (and Segregating) Effect of Charter, Magnet, and Traditional Elementary Schools: The Case of Five California Metropolitan Areas

(2002)

For most children the racial composition of their neighborhood determines the racial composition of their school. Segregated housing patterns translate into a highly segregated educational system, which can then result in disparities in educational opportunities and an institutionalized mechanism for the reproduction of racial inequality. To better understand the extent to which the racial composition of charter and magnet schools deviates from their neighborhood composition, we analyze public elementary schools in five California metropolitan. Our findings suggest that individual schools can expose children to a more racially integrated or segregated educational environment than their local neighborhood. Magnet schools, on average, provide students with a more integrated environment than the local neighborhood, while charter schools provide a more segregated environment.

Cover page of Technical Supplement to Economic Needs of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in Distressed Areas: Establishing Baseline Information

Technical Supplement to Economic Needs of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in Distressed Areas: Establishing Baseline Information

(2002)

This technical supplement provides the tables and maps upon which the analysis included in the report for the Economic Development Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce, "Economic Needs of Asian Americans and Pacific Islander in Distressed Areas” was based. contains detailed neighborhood profiles and maps of low-income APA areas in the following MSAs: Chicago, Long Beach (Little Phnom Pen), Los Angeles (Koreatown), Lowell, New Orleans, New York City (Chinatown), New York City (Jackson Heights), Orange County (Little Saigon), Sacramento, Saint Paul, San Francisco (Chinatown), Seattle, Stockton (Cambodian), Stockton (Filipino), Hawaii Study Area, Oahu, Hawaii Study Area, Molokai and San Francisco (Samoan).

Cover page of Economic Needs of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in Distressed Areas: Establishing Baseline Information

Economic Needs of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in Distressed Areas: Establishing Baseline Information

(2002)

This report provides baseline statistics needed for policy-oriented research on disadvantaged Asian-Pacific Americans (APAs) neighborhoods. We profile 17 poor APA neighborhoods across the United States and provide insights from a survey of community-based organizations (CBOs). The neighborhood profiles reveal diverse neighborhood characteristics, including variations in economic base, size, and ethnic composition. In spite of substantial differences, some common features are seen. Most neighborhoods are linguistically isolated immigrant communities with low educational attainment and low earnings. This report is the final product from a grant made by the Economic Development Administration to the National Coalition on Asian Pacific Americans Community Development (NCAPACD), the Little Tokyo Service Center and UCLA's Asian American Studies Center who contracted the Lewis Center out to conduct the survey.

Cover page of Job Access and Work Among Autoless Adults in Welfare in Los Angeles

Job Access and Work Among Autoless Adults in Welfare in Los Angeles

(2002)

Lack of auto ownership is frequently cited as a major barrier to welfare recipients’ transition to work. The importance of accessible job opportunities in employment outcomes has not, however, been empirically analyzed for welfare recipients who do not own automobiles. This study analyzes the effect of job accessibility on employment outcomes for autoless adults on welfare in Los Angeles. Two important components of this analysis are the computation of job-access measures that take into account travel modes and the incorporation of the job-access measures into multinomial logit models. The job-access measures show a considerable disparity in the number of spatially accessible job opportunities for auto users and transit users. The multinomial logit analysis indicates that for autoless welfare recipients, improving transit-based job accessibility significantly enhances the employment probability, although it does not make a significant difference in the probability of earning $4,500 or more per year. The analysis further reveals that the job-access effect is greater for autoless welfare recipients than for auto-owning recipients. Certain policy implications suggested by the empirical findings are discussed.