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),  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 Family Well-Being

Quantitative Findings

Local Retention Rates

Quantitative Findings National versus Local Outcomes

National versus Local Findings - Demographics Ch. Co. Respondents (N = 54 ) National Sample (N = 443,291) Average Household Size Average Age of Head of Household 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 642.6%40.5% Percent of Two-Parent Households*29.6%17.4% Percent of Single-Mother Households66.7%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) X 2 Value Health Hardship No Health Insurance9.3%31.7%12.54* Didn’t See Doctor40.7%6.7%99.75* Didn’t See Dentist50.0%16.8%42.43* Food Hardship Not Enough Food27.8%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) X 2 Value Savings Savings 3x Monthly Poverty Threshold1.9%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 Support46.3%67.2%10.71* Friend Support40.7%57.7%6.34* Community Support31.5%33.6%0.11 Environmental Capital Satisfied with Neighborhood64.8%88.5%29.93* *Statistically significant at the.000 level.

Additional Local Findings – Material Well-being Number of HouseholdsPercentage of Households Health Hardship Index No Health Hardship (0)2138.9% % % Most Severe Health Hardship (3)35.6% Food Hardship Index No Food Hardship (0)611.1% % % Most Severe Food Hardship (3)1425.9% Bill-paying Hardship Index No Bill-paying Hardship (0)713.0% % % % Most Severe Bill-paying Hardship (4)1425.9%

Additional Local Findings – Future Orientation Number of HouseholdsPercentage of Households Human Capital Index Low Human Capital (0)47.4% % % High Human Capital (3)47.4% Social Capital Index Low Level of Social Capital (0)1935.2% % % High Level of Social Capital (3)814.8% Environmental Capital Index* Low Level of Environmental Capital (0)12.5% 125.0% % % High Level of Environmental Capital (5)1435.0% *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

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 Change Health 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

 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

 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