Boosting Work and Earnings for Housing-Assisted Families Nandita Verma - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Boosting Work and Earnings for Housing-Assisted Families Nandita Verma PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 534c9e-MjhiN



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Boosting Work and Earnings for Housing-Assisted Families Nandita Verma

Description:

Boosting Work and Earnings for Housing-Assisted Families Nandita Verma Solutions 2013: National Conference on State and Local Housing Policy September 17, 2013 – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:80
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 26
Provided by: Jim115
Learn more at: http://www.nhc.org
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Boosting Work and Earnings for Housing-Assisted Families Nandita Verma


1
Boosting Work and Earnings for Housing-Assisted
Families Nandita 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
  • HUDs National FSS evaluation
  • HUDs 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

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
6
Pooled average quarterly earnings, 1998 cohort
(full implementation sites)
Figure pooled 1 Figure pooled 1 Figure pooled 1 Figure pooled 1 Figure pooled 1 Figure pooled 1 Figure pooled 1 Figure pooled 1 Figure pooled 1 Figure pooled 1 Figure pooled 1 Figure pooled 1 Figure pooled 1 Figure pooled 1

Mean Quarterly Earnings for the 1998 Able-Bodied Sample Mean Quarterly Earnings for the 1998 Able-Bodied Sample Mean Quarterly Earnings for the 1998 Able-Bodied Sample Mean Quarterly Earnings for the 1998 Able-Bodied Sample Mean Quarterly Earnings for the 1998 Able-Bodied Sample Mean Quarterly Earnings for the 1998 Able-Bodied Sample Mean Quarterly Earnings for the 1998 Able-Bodied Sample Mean Quarterly Earnings for the 1998 Able-Bodied Sample Mean Quarterly Earnings for the 1998 Able-Bodied Sample Mean Quarterly Earnings for the 1998 Able-Bodied Sample Mean Quarterly Earnings for the 1998 Able-Bodied Sample Mean Quarterly Earnings for the 1998 Able-Bodied Sample Mean Quarterly Earnings for the 1998 Able-Bodied Sample Mean Quarterly Earnings for the 1998 Able-Bodied Sample
3 sites pooled 3 sites pooled 3 sites pooled 3 sites pooled 3 sites pooled 3 sites pooled 3 sites pooled 3 sites pooled 3 sites pooled 3 sites pooled 3 sites pooled 3 sites pooled 3 sites pooled 3 sites pooled































Post-program period
1998 cohort focus of impact analysis
7
Earnings impacts through 7 years (full
implementation sites)
Site Site Avg. per year (2000 - 2006) Cumulative (2000 - 2006) Change ()

Pooled Pooled 1,300 9,099 16

Dayton 984 6,888 14

Los Angeles 1,176 8,233 15

St. Paul 1,883 13,181 19
         
All results statistically significant
8
Replication efforts
  • New York City
  • Now serving 4 public housing developments
  • A key feature of Mayor Bloombergs new
    Young Mens 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

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
  • 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

Does FSS increase work, earnings, other outcomes
(vs. control group)?
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
Outcome () FSS-Only Group FSS Incentives Group Difference (Impact) Difference (Impact)
Orientation 42.0 71.1 29.1
Case management 33.4 51.6 18.2
Linked to benefits/work supports 8.3 12.3 4.0
Began education or job training 7.9 13.8 5.9
Started employment 10.8 15.5 4.7
Continuous employment (30 days) 12.9 22.1 9.2
Any milestone 44.9 67.5 22.6
12
13

HPD sample Impacts on employment, 30 months
FSS-Only
FSSIncentives
Ever employed ()
Average per quarter ()
Ever employed ()
Average per quarter ()
13
14
HPD sample Impacts on earnings, 30 months
FSS-Only
FSSIncentives
Total Earnings
Total Earnings
Diff 550
Diff 503
14
15
HPD sample Impacts on earnings by subgroup, 30
months
FSS-Only FSS-Only FSS Incentives FSS Incentives
Impact() Change () Impact() Change ()
Full sample 503 2.8 551 3.1

Employment subgroups
Not working at baseline 1,658 24.3 3,102 45.4
Working at baseline -706 -2.4 -1,940 -6.5

SNAP subgroups
Receiving at baseline 2,056 15.2 1,261 9.3
Not receiving -2,127 -7.9 -704 -2.6


16
HPD sample Impacts on employment
Subgroup Not working at baseline
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
Statistical significance levels 1
percent 5 percent 10 percent.
18
19
NYCHA sample Subgroup impacts on earnings, 30
months
Incentives-Only Incentives-Only
Impact () Change ()
Full sample 1,452 8.3

Employment subgroups
Not working at baseline 1,375 17.1
Working at baseline 928 3.0

SNAP subgroups
Receiving at baseline 2,711 18.7
Not receiving -2,186 -8.8
20
NYCHA sample Impacts on earnings
Subgroup receiving food stamps at baseline
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 (FSSIncentives)
  • 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 HUDs 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
HUDs National FSS Evaluation
  • Randomized trial, starting June 2013
  • FSS-Only vs. Control (N2,000)
  • 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
HUDs 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)
About PowerShow.com