FORMERLY HOUSING-INSECURE FAMILIES IN SUBSIDIZED HOUSING:

Julie Lowell, Ph.D.

November 12, 2014

An exploratory study of family well-being after experiencing housing instability

Agenda

Background Research Questions Theoretical Framework Quantitative Findings Qualitative Findings Policy Implications Conclusion

Family Housing Instability

Homelessness concerns in the midst of the Great Recession (December 2007-June 2009)

National responses Housing Prevention and Rapid Rehousing Program

(HPRP), 2009-2012

Vermont responses Rapid re-housing and prevention assistance

Research Questions

The Question

What is the impact of rapid re-housing or homelessness prevention on family well-being three to four years after the intervention for

families with a Housing Choice Voucher (HCV)?

Compare local well-being results to national HCV households

Explore families’ perceived changes in well-being from the time they experienced housing instability to the present

Explore elements affecting changes in well-being, including role of the HCV

Theoretical Framework

Framework and Measures of Family Well-being

Subjective Well-Being

Material Well-Being

Future Orientation

FamilyWell-Being

Quantitative Findings

Local Retention Rates

Negative Exit Neutral Exit Positive Exit0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

All exiting households

Households who received pre-vention assis-tance

Households who received rapid rehousing assis-tance

Quantitative Findings

National versus Local Outcomes

National versus Local Findings - Demographics

Ch. Co. Respondents (N =

54)

National Sample

(N = 443,291)

Average Household Size 3.31 3.72

Average Age of Head of Household 37.17 38.26

Families with All-White Household Members*

61.1% 34.0%

Families with All-Black Household Members*

27.8% 51.6%

Percent of Families with Children Under 6 42.6% 40.5%

Percent of Two-Parent Households* 29.6% 17.4%

Percent of Single-Mother Households 66.7% 70.6%

Percent of Families Whose Head of Household is a U.S. Citizen*

79.6% 99.9%*Represents a statistically significant difference between Chittenden Co. and National Data at .000 level.

National versus Local Findings – Material Well-being

Ch. Co. Respondents (N

= 54)

National Sample (N = 443, 291)

X2 Value

Health Hardship

No Health Insurance 9.3% 31.7% 12.54*

Didn’t See Doctor 40.7% 6.7% 99.75*

Didn’t See Dentist 50.0% 16.8% 42.43*

Food Hardship

Not Enough Food 27.8% 12.0% 12.83*

Food Did Not Last 81.5% 35.0% 51.16*

Couldn’t Afford Balanced Meals 72.2% 28.4% 51.00*

Bill-Paying Hardship

Did Not Meet Essential Expenses 81.5% 46.3% 26.86*

Did Not Pay Rent 42.6% 15.7% 29.39*

Did Pay Utilities 74.1% 45.6% 17.67*

Phone Disconnected Due to Past Due 53.7% 18.1% 46.32*

Income Hardship

HH Income < Poverty Line 64.8% 66.0% .034*Statistically significant at the .000 level.

National versus Local Findings – Future Orientation

Ch. Co. Respondents (N

= 54)

National Sample (N = 443, 291)

X2 Value

Savings

Savings 3x Monthly Poverty Threshold

1.9% 33.7% 24.47*

Human Capital

High School Diploma or Higher 79.6% 83.8% 0.71

In Education or Training Program 20.4% 17.7% 0.26

Employed 46.3% 46.7% 0.00

Social Capital

Family Support 46.3% 67.2% 10.71*

Friend Support 40.7% 57.7% 6.34*

Community Support 31.5% 33.6% 0.11

Environmental Capital

Satisfied with Neighborhood 64.8% 88.5% 29.93*

*Statistically significant at the .000 level.

Additional Local Findings – Material Well-being

Number of Households Percentage of Households

Health Hardship Index    No Health Hardship (0) 21 38.9%1 15 27.8%2 15 27.8%Most Severe Health Hardship (3) 3 5.6%

Food Hardship IndexNo Food Hardship (0) 6 11.1%1 12 22.2%2 22 40.7%Most Severe Food Hardship (3) 14 25.9%

Bill-paying Hardship IndexNo Bill-paying Hardship (0) 7 13.0%1 6 11.1%2 7 13.0%3 20 37.0%Most Severe Bill-paying Hardship (4) 14 25.9%

Additional Local Findings – Future Orientation

Number of Households

Percentage of Households

Human Capital Index    Low Human Capital (0) 4 7.4%1 25 46.3%2 21 38.9%High Human Capital (3) 4 7.4%

Social Capital IndexLow Level of Social Capital (0) 19 35.2%1 14 25.9%2 13 24.1%High Level of Social Capital (3) 8 14.8%

Environmental Capital Index*Low Level of Environmental Capital (0) 1 2.5%1 2 5.0%2 4 10.0%3 4 10.0%4 15 37.5%High Level of Environmental Capital (5) 14 35.0%

*Number of households is smaller for this variable as two questions did not apply to all families, and were thus not answered.

Additional Local Findings – Subjective Well-being

Standard of

Liv-ing

Health

Achievements in Life

Personal

Re-la-tionships

Safety

Communit

y

Fu-ture Secu-rity

Spiritu-al-ity or

Re-li-gion

Personal

Wellbe-ing In-dex

0 20 40 60 80 100

Qualitative Findings

Interviewed Families’ Characteristics

20 households interviewed

4 prevention; 16 rapid re-housing

9 employed

7 substance abuse history

12 with personal transportation

5 previously in abusive situations; 6 previously doubled-up

Changes Since Stabilizing Housing – Subjective Well-being

Agents of Change

Education

Employment

Social Networks

Government Programs

Public School System

Living Unit

Finances

Administration of Public Benefits

Voucher

Changes in Subjective Well-being

Standard of Living + + +/− − +

Health + + − +

Achievements in Life + + + − +

Personal Relationships + + + +/−

Safety +/− +

Changes Since Stabilizing Housing – Material Well-being

Agents of Change

Health

Education

Employment

Social Networks

Government Programs

Public School System

Living Unit

Finances

Administration of Public Benefits

Transportation

Voucher

Changes in Material Well-being

Health Access + + + − − +

Bill-Paying + + + + + +/− − − − +

Changes Since Stabilizing Housing – Future Orientation

Agents of ChangeHealth

Education

Social Networks

Government Programs

Public School System

Living Unit

Administration of Public Benefits

Transportation

Voucher

Changes in Future Orientation

Credit +

Employment + + + + +

Education + + + +

Service Provider Relationship (Social Capital)

+ −

Neighborhood Satisfaction +/− −

Policy Implications

Policy Implications

Address benefit cliff

Client-centered approach to benefit administration

Improve Family Self-Sufficiency program outreach

Safeguard EITC, Medicaid, and CHIP

Policy Implications Continued Address cost of transportation

Expand access to affordable housing

Improve benefits and minimum wages

Conclusion

Conclusion

Stable housing improves family well-being

Well-being improves to a certain level before plateauing

Basic needs must be better supported in our society

Supportive housing needs to be developed

Families give back to community as positions improve

Landlords play important role in family well-being

Questions and Comments