1 / 25

Boosting Work and Earnings for Housing-Assisted Families Nandita Verma

Boosting Work and Earnings for Housing-Assisted Families Nandita Verma. Solutions 2013: National Conference on State and Local Housing Policy September 17, 2013. MDRC. Not-for-profit social policy research organization Based in NYC and Oakland

noah
Download Presentation

Boosting Work and Earnings for Housing-Assisted Families Nandita Verma

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Boosting Work and Earnings for Housing-Assisted FamiliesNandita Verma Solutions 2013: National Conference on State and Local Housing Policy September 17, 2013

  2. MDRC • Not-for-profit social policy research organization • Based in NYC and Oakland • Rigorously evaluates (and sometimes helps design) innovative social policies • Pioneered large-scale random assignment evaluations of social programs • Mission: Build evidence to improve the lives of low-income families

  3. Topics • Broad issue • Helping housing subsidy recipients make progress toward economic security. • Making assisted housing a “platform” for interventions to improve work outcomes for low-income families • Evidence • Jobs-Plus: A place-based employment intervention for residents of public housing • Work Rewards: A demonstration for “Housing Choice Voucher” recipients • Future work • HUD’s National FSS evaluation • HUD’s Rent Reform demonstration

  4. Jobs-Plus Demonstration • Target group: Residents of public housing • Place-based employment intervention • Multi-component, “saturation” strategy • 3 components: • Employment and training services Convenient on-site “job centers” • New rent rules to “make work pay” Rent rises less as earnings grow • Community support for work • Neighbor-to-neighbor outreach • Public and private sponsors: • HUD, The Rockefeller Foundation, other public and private funders 4

  5. Jobs-Plus sites Diverse housing developments in 6 cities: Baltimore Chattanooga Dayton Los Angeles St. Paul Seattle Randomly allocated developments within each city to program and control groups Local partnerships and collaboration: • Public housing authorities • Welfare agencies • Workforce agencies • Residents • Other service agencies Mandatory partners 5

  6. Pooled average quarterly earnings, 1998 cohort* (full implementation sites) Post-program period *1998 cohort – focus of impact analysis

  7. Earnings impacts through 7 years (full implementation sites) All results statistically significant 7

  8. Replication efforts New York City • Now serving 4 public housing developments • A key feature of Mayor Bloomberg’s new “Young Men’s Initiative”: Will add up to 7 new Jobs-Plus sites San Antonio, Texas • Operating in public housing developments Obama administration (HUD) • Proposing federal expansion in new budget 8

  9. NYC Work Rewards Demonstration Testing 3 employment interventions for Housing Choice Vouchers recipients 2 NYC housing agencies • HPD: Dept. of Housing Preservation and Development • NYCHA: New York City Housing Authority Early impact results • 30 months for employment & earnings 9

  10. The 3 Interventions Does FSS increase work, earnings, other outcomes (vs. control group)? HPD Sample (Dept. of Housing Preservation and Development) 1. Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program • Employment and other service referrals • Asset-building (Escrow “savings” accounts) • 5-year program 2. FSS + workforce incentives • Cash rewards for: • Sustained full-time work: $150/month • Completed education/training • Paid every 2 months over 2 years NYCHA Sample (NYC Housing Authority) 3. Workforce incentives alone Do more immediate work incentives “add value” to effects of FSS alone? Do workforce incentives alone (“outside of” rent rules) increase work, earnings, other outcomes (vs. control group)? 10

  11. Findings from the FSS study

  12. HPD Sample Participation and services, 18 Months 12

  13. HPD sample Impacts on employment, 30 months FSS-Only FSS+Incentives Ever employed (%) Average per quarter (%) Ever employed (%) Average per quarter (%) Program Control 13

  14. HPD sample Impacts on earnings, 30 months FSS-Only FSS+Incentives Total Earnings Total Earnings Diff: $550 Diff: $503 Program Control 14

  15. HPD sample Impacts on earnings by subgroup, 30 months ††

  16. HPD sample Impacts on employment Subgroup: Not working at baseline Incentives end month 24 FSS + Incentives FSS-Only Note: Earnings include $0 for non-workers

  17. Findings From the Incentives-Only Study (NYCHA SAMPLE)

  18. NYCHA sample Impacts on employment and earnings, 30 months Ever employed (%) Total Earnings (%) Diff: $1,453 Diff: 3.9** Program Control Statistical significance levels: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. 18

  19. NYCHA sample Subgroup impacts on earnings, 30 months

  20. NYCHA sample Impacts on earnings Subgroup: receiving food stamps at baseline Incentives end month 24 Incentives-Only Note: Earnings include $0 for non-workers

  21. Conclusions and next steps • Early NYC test raises cautions about FSS-Only, but… • Longer follow-up to come (results could change) • Incentives may matter. Impressive earnings gains for: • Tenants not working at baseline (FSS+Incentives) • Tenants on food stamps at baseline (Incentives-Only) • Future reports: Survey analysis, longer-term impacts, and cost-benefit • National influence of Work Rewards: • Only available evidence on effects of FSS alone • Shaping HUD’s new national FSS evaluation (benchmark; guide for analysis) • Inspiration for planning a new supplemental test 21

  22. Observations on operating FSS • Employment services not always a primary focus • Staff more skilled in job placement than advancement coaching; “value added” for working participants unclear • Escrow and Section 8 difficult for CBO staff to understand and explain • Escrow marketing not well integrated into service delivery or payment milestones • Efforts to leverage existing CBO services and resources not as strong as envisioned DRAFT – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION 22

  23. NEW HUD-FUNDED EVALUATIONS

  24. HUD’s National FSS Evaluation Randomized trial, starting June 2013 • FSS-Only vs. Control (N=2,000) Number of housing authorities • ~ 20 PHAs in 6 to 8 states • Test FSS “as is” • Range of programs • Opportunity to confirm subgroup patterns observed in NYC Work Rewards

  25. HUD’s Rent Reform Demonstration Design new rent policy for voucher holders to: • Promote work and income reporting • Simplify rent rules for residents and PHAs • Reduce administrative burden for PHAs • Stay revenue neutral Randomized trial in 5 PHAs, starting July 2013 • Combined sample = 4,000 households: Existing rent rules (30% of income) vs. Alternative rent rules (TBD)

More Related