Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

48
Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion 2012 Welfare-to-Work Conference Birmingham, UK

description

Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio. Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion 2012 Welfare-to-Work Conference Birmingham, UK. MDRC. Not-for-profit social policy research organization Based in NYC - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Page 1: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing

James A. Riccio

Centre for Economic and Social Inclusion2012 Welfare-to-Work Conference

Birmingham, UK

Page 2: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

MDRC

• Not-for-profit social policy research organization

• Based in NYC

• 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

2

Page 3: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Topics General theme: Is social housing a good “platform” for intervention to

improve work outcomes for low-income families? Evidence from the US:

• Jobs-Plus: A place-based employment intervention for residents of public housing (social housing)

Evidence from the UK:• ERA (Employment Retention and Advancement

demonstration): Results for social housing residentsMore evidence from the US:

• NYC Work Rewards demonstration for “Housing Choice Voucher” recipients (like Housing Benefit)

Final reflections 3

Page 4: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

National Jobs-Plus Demonstration

Target group: Residents of public housing (estates)• Place-based employment intervention

• Multi-component, “saturation” strategy

4

Page 5: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Origins of Jobs-Plus—poverty and place

Build mixed-income communities “from within”• Response to growing concentration of joblessness,

underemployment, welfare receipt, and poverty in public housing and surrounding neighborhoods

Public and private sponsors: • US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)• The Rockefeller Foundation • Other public and private funders

5

Page 6: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

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

Page 7: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Jobs-Plus model: Comprehensive approach

3 components:1. Employment and training services

Convenient on-site “job centers” 2. New rent rules to “make work pay”

Rent rises less as earnings grow3. Community support for work

Neighbor-to-neighbor outreach (“Community coaches” share info about work)

“Saturation-level” outreach and assistance- Aim to assistance all working-age residents

7

Page 8: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Job assistance and service brokering on-site, where people live

Creates easier opportunities and many informal opportunities to meet with, advise, encourage, and assist residents:

• Often on a “drop-in” basis at the Jobs-Plus office

•In the neighborhood (e.g., on a corner; at events)

• At residents’ homes

Staff closer to residents’ day-to-day lives

•More holistic understanding of family problems, support networks, and neighborhood conditions

1. Employment and training component

8

Page 9: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Making work “pay” for everyone through new rent rules

• With traditional “30-percent-of-income” rule, earnings are implicitly “taxed” at 30%

• New rent rules: “Flat/fixed” rents (with income-based rents as “safety net” if job loss)

2. Rent reform

9

Page 10: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Promote “neighbor-to-neighbor” support for work, with aid of resident outreach workers

“Building captains,” “community coaches…

• share information on job and training opportunities, other services, and financial incentives

• encourage participation in Jobs-Plus and employment

• add legitimacy to the program and open up further informal avenues of helping other residents

3. Community support for work

10

Page 11: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Foster integration of housing services and employment assistance

• Housing authorities promote employment from time new residents move in—message “comes with tenancy”

• Housing authorities link employment assistance with efforts to head off evictions over nonpayment of rent

• Housing authorities must transcend traditional, nearly exclusive focus on housing management

Community support for work (cont.)

11

Page 12: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

3 sites allowed “full test” of JP concept

Dayton, Los Angeles, and St. Paul: Positive effects• Offered and sustained the full Jobs-Plus “package”• Strong housing authority commitment• ~ 3 of 4 working-age residents took advantage of

services, rent incentives• Infused development with self-sufficiency message

Seattle: Positive short-term positive effects• Early exit from demo because of reconstruction

Baltimore and Chattanooga: No effects• Incomplete implementation

12

Page 13: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

1998 cohort = focus of impact analysis

• All nondisabled working-age residents

• Living in Jobs-Plus or comparison developments in October 1998 (random assignment of developments)

• Includes recent arrivals and longer-termers in 1998

• Includes those who moved or stayed after 1998

• Long-term comparative interrupted-time series analysis, using Unemployment Insurance wage records

• Sample size: Program Comparison Total 2,123 2,651 4,774 13

Page 14: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Pooled average quarterly earnings for the 1998 cohort (full implementation sites)

Figure pooled 1

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

Post-program period

Page 15: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Pooled average quarterly earnings for the 1998 cohort (full implementation sites)

Figure pooled 1

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

Post-program period

Page 16: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Pooled average quarterly earnings for the 1998 cohort (full implementation sites)

Figure pooled 1

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

Post-program period

Page 17: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Earnings impacts through 7 years (full implementation sites)

SiteAvg. per year (2000 - 2006)

Cumulative (2000 - 2006)

Change (%)

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

17

Page 18: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Earnings impacts for subgroups

Subgroup Per year (2000-2006)

Impact ($) Change (%) Full implementation sites:

TANF group (Welfare-recipients)

937*** 13%

Non-TANF group (Non-welfare recipients)

1,874*** 21%

Dayton only:

Black women (non-Hispanic)

1,206*** 17%

Los Angeles only: Hispanic men

3,494**

31%

Hispanic women

564

9%

St. Paul only:

S.E. Asian men

3,172**

31%

S.E. Asian women 2,297*** 29% 18

Page 19: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Earnings impacts by age group (during program)

Subgroup

Per year (2000-2003) Impact ($) Change (%)

Full implementation sites:

21 - 24 years old 1,921*** 22%

25 - 34 years old 1,323*** 14%

35 – 61 years old 756*** 11%

19

Page 20: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Replication effortsNew York City

• Now serving 3 large public housing developments• A key feature of Mayor Bloomberg’s new

“Young Men’s Initiative”: Will include up to 8 new Jobs-Plus sites

San Antonio, Texas• Operating on 1 large public housing

development

Obama administration (HUD) • Proposing federal expansion in new budget

20

Page 21: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

UK ERAUK Employment Retention and Advancement Demonstration

Impacts by housing status

• Focus today on ND25+ group (largest effects)

Page 22: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

22

Evaluation sponsor• UK Department for Work and Pensions (DWP)

US Research Partner• MDRC

UK research partners• Policy Studies Institute (PSI)• Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS)• National Institute for Economic & Social Research (NIESR)• Office for National Statistics (ONS)

Lessons traveled in both directions!

Transatlantic collaboration

Page 23: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

23

Unemployed and entering New Deal welfare-to-work program:

(1) New Deal Lone Parents (NDLP)

(2) New Deal 25-Plus (ND25+)

Working part-time (lone parents):(3) Working Tax Credit (WTC) group

UK ERA Target groups

Page 24: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

24

Operates within Jobcentre Plus centers• Separate staff• In some offices, separate post-employment teams

33-month program: • If unemployed at intake, get job placement

through New Deal w-t-w program (~ 9 months)

• Post-employment for all who work: 24+ months of “in-work” job coaching and support from “Advancement Support Advisors”

24 months of financial incentives

UK ERA model

Page 25: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

25

Retention bonus £ 400 3 times/yr for for sustained full-time work 2 yrs (£ 2,400 total)

Tuition assistanceif combine training + work £ 1,000

Tuition bonus if complete training up to £ 1,000

In-work emergency funds £ 300/worker

Financial incentives

Page 26: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

26

6 districts (Total N = 16,000 people):• 4 districts in England

– (E. Midlands, London, NE England, NW England)• 1 in Scotland• 1 in Wales

Spread across 58 local offices (where random assignment took place)

The pilot sites

Page 27: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

ND25+: Long-term unemployed at baseline

Random assignment

New Deal intake

ERA

Control

ERA New Deal

Welfare-to-work +advancement focus

Regular New Deal

Welfare-to-work

In-work support + incentives

JOB

JOB

Random assignment

PRE-employment

POST-employment

27

Page 28: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Months after Random Assignment

% E

mpl

oyed

Program group employment rates

WTC61%

28

Page 29: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

“Outcomes” vs. “impacts”

29

Target Group

Outcome Ranking

Sustained Impacts for Full Sample?

WTC lone parents Highest No

NDLP Medium No

ND25+ Lowest Yes

Page 30: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

30

ND25+: Long-term unemployed

Cumulative employment outcomes for ND25+ control group

Ever workedin 5 years Months worked

in 5 years

ERA Control ERA Control 30

Page 31: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

31

ND25+: Long-term unemployed

Impacts on employment outcomes

Ever workedIn 5 years

+ 1.1 months** (+ 8%)

+ 2.2 pp* (+ 4%)

Months workedin 5 years

ERA Control ERA Control

Page 32: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Tax Year

Control group

ND25+: Long-term unemployed

Impacts on earnings trendsEa

rnin

gs (£

)

32

Page 33: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Tax Year

Control group

ND25+: Long-term unemployed

Impacts on earnings trendsEa

rnin

gs (£

)

ERA group

5-year cumulative impact: £1,814 ** (+ 11%)

ERA ended for all by October 2007 (earlier for some)

33

Page 34: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

ND25+: Long-term unemployed

Impacts on ever worked within 5 years after random assignment

Family housing Social housing Private housing

ERA Control ERA Control ERA Control34

Page 35: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

35

ND25+: Long-term unemployed

Impacts on ever worked within 5 years after random assignment

Family housing Social housing Private housing

- 1.9

ERA Control ERA Control ERA Control

††

Page 36: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

36

ND25+: Long-term unemployed

Impacts on cumulative 5-year earnings,by housing status at baseline

Family housing Social housing Private housing

ERA Control ERA Control ERA Control

Page 37: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

37

ND25+: Long-term unemployed

Impacts on cumulative 5-year earnings,by housing status at baseline

Family housing Social housing Private housing

ERA Control ERA Control ERA Control

£703

Page 38: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

New York City’sWork Rewards Demonstration

Target group: Low-income households with “Housing Choice Vouchers” • Alternative to public housing

• Rent subsidies to help families pay rent in private housing market

• Tenants pay 30% of their income for rent

• Many don’t work, or are underemployed38

Page 39: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Evaluation goalsTesting 2 interventions: Do the interventions improve economic security?

1. Family Self Sufficiency Program (FSS)• Case management • “Escrow savings accounts” (asset-building)• 5-year program

2. FSS+ Workforce Incentives Incentives adapted from UK ERA• Cash rewards for full-time work: $150/month• Cash rewards for education/training completion• Rewards available for 2 years

39

Page 40: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Evaluation design: 3-way random assignment

Voucher-holders sign up

RandomAssignment

FSS-only

FSS + incentives

Control group

• Recruited volunteers from housing roster• N = 1,455 households; 1,603 adults

5 years of follow-up (ongoing)40

Page 41: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Cumulative impacts on earnings within 2.5 years after entering program

FSS-Only FSS + IncentivesImpact

($)Change

(%)Impact

($)Change

(%)

Full sample 503 2.8 551 3.1

41

Page 42: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Cumulative impacts on earnings within 2.5 years after entering program

FSS-Only FSS + IncentivesImpact

($)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 -1,904 -6.5 ††

42

Page 43: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Subgroup earnings trends

43

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11

Note: Earnings include $0 for non-workers

Subgroup: Not working at baseline

Control group

Page 44: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Subgroup earnings trends

44

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11

FSS + Incentives

FSS-Only

Note: Earnings include $0 for non-workers

Subgroup: Not working at baseline

Incentives end

Control group

Page 45: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

New federal study of FSS

• MDRC launching test of national Family Self-Sufficiency Program (FSS) in 15+ cities

• Opportunity to test whether subgroup patterns hold elsewhere.

• But no special workforce incentives (unless we can raise other funding)

45

Page 46: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Earlier US welfare-to-work studies

• Studies of mandatory welfare-to-work programs for lone parents in the US (from the 1990s, early 2000s) looked at housing subgroups

• General pattern: Effects of welfare-to-work programs were larger for welfare recipients living in public housing or with rent vouchers than for other welfare recipients without housing subsidies.

46

Page 47: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Final reflections• Growing evidence: Employment interventions can work

for public/social housing and other rent-assisted groups– Implement UK ERA for long-term unemployed in social housing?

• Encouragement for linking housing and work policies—and, hence, for inter-agency collaboration

• Strategies that combine services + incentives may work best

• Place-based interventions, such as Jobs-Plus, offer multiple avenues for engaging families

• However, strategies to promote work advancement remain elusive and call for more innovation and testing

47

Page 48: Increasing Work and Earnings Among Families in Social Housing James A. Riccio

Final reflections (continued)

• Building further evidence for policy US: – Longer-term impact testing of services, incentives, and

rent reform for subsidized tenants

– Study replication of Jobs-Plus in public housing

UK: – Confirm impact of ERA for long-term unemployed in social

housing under new welfare reform; test a refined model?

– Test a place-based work intervention (like Jobs-Plus)?

Both:

– Continue search for effective advancement strategies48