Inclusionary zoning (IZ), also known as inclusionary housing, has become a popular policy tool that local jurisdictions use to increase the production of affordable housing. IZ ordinances either require or encourage builders of new residential developments to set aside a certain percentage of the housing units for low- or moderate-income residents. This pilot study examines how effective IZ programs are as a strategy to increase the supply of affordable housing and further other housing- and community-related goals in two study sites: Montgomery County, Maryland, and Fairfax County, Virginia. These programs were selected because they operate in the same metropolitan housing market and have been in place for decades. The design and structure of these programs, however, differ significantly and therefore offer potential insight into how contrasting approaches relate to outcomes. The research team collected data, including IZ ordinances and other relevant documents, program data, interviews with key stakeholders, and local housing-market statistics, to evaluate how well IZ strategies provide affordable housing options for low-income communities over time.

Over the past several years, a new philosophy has emerged within HUD that recognizes the importance of good design in the development of public housing. Simply giving people a roof over their heads is no longer enough. HUD now aims to boost community pride--and even revitalize distressed areas--through the provision of high quality housing for everyone. HUD's new philosophy also recognizes that involving citizens in decisions that will effect their lives helps build a long-term support structure to maintain the livability of neighborhoods in the future. This booklet provides examples of how to apply New Urbanist design principles to HOPE VI development and other urban revitalization projects. Communities striving to create neighborhoods of opportunity should consider these principles as one part of their strategy.

The extent to which faith-based organizations (FBOs) have been involved in social service, community development, and housing programs is not well understood. This report draws on interviews and research of knowledgeable scholars and practitioners in community development, and summarizes the current state of knowledge, the policy conclusions, and the major questions that ensue. Key findings include an overview of the non-worship activities of FBOs that highlights the diversity of activities they have undertaken and offers insight into their organizational capacity. The report also compares what community development corporations have learned about requisites of effective community development practice with the organizational capacity of FBOS. The implications of these findings for policy and research opportunities are explored.