1. 1 Vulnerable Families in Making Connections Neighborhoods Urban Affairs Association Conference April 24, 2008 Tom Kingsley and Chris Hayes The Urban Institute

2. 2 Vulnerables – The Issue Most families in MC neighborhoods not the “vulnerables” that are the intended focus of the initiative MC neighborhoods average 32% poor Need to identify and track vulnerables directly To interpret change reliably (indicators of well-being for vulnerables likely to differ from neighborhood averages) To better design and target services

3. 3 This briefing Recognize need to define “tiers of vulnerability” Groups along a continuum, most to least vulnerable All need some help – differences in extent and method of assistance Questions addressed Does wellbeing of these groups differ significantly? How did their circumstances change between surveys? How did their mobility differ? Did mobility affect changes in wellbeing

4. 4 Vulnerables – Definition 1 Renter families with children One or more of the following (barriers to self-sufficiency) Respondent disabled Child with poor health or disability Respondent lacks high school diploma Recognize important difference Families with only one, vs 2 or more adults

5. 5 Vulnerable share (Wave 1, Definition 1) 33% of all families with children 39% of those with only one adult%

6. 6 Vulnerable shares across sites Total vulnerables range: 17% to 41% 1-adult vulnerables range: 6% to 24%

7. 7 MC residents dominantly minority 1 adult vulnerables more likely to be black; 2+ adult more often Hispanic

8. 8 Vulnerables much more likely: to receive public assistance; to experience hardship

9. 9 Employment and savings accounts: Major gaps between vulnerables and other families

10. 10 Improvement between surveys Notable increase in stable jobs for 1 adult vulnerables

11. 11 Improvement between surveys Vulnerables also gain in savings and homeownership

12. 12 Major gaps in financial circumstances remain at Wave 2 e.g., savings of 1 adult vulnerables less than 10% that of other families

13. 13 Vulnerables: Higher overall mobility More likely to move to high-poverty neighborhoods

14. 14 Percent with stable employment Notable gains 1 adult vulnerables, all mobility categories

15. 15 Percent with savings accounts Again, gains for 1 adult vulnerables, all mobility categories

16. 16 Conclusions Vulnerables: Much worse position than other families, most indicators Reduced gap between surveys but still way behind Higher overall mobility than other families Movers much more likely to wind up in hi-pov. neigh. Those moving to hi-pov.: worst initial conditions, but gain Those moving to low-pov.: largest gains Implications Verifies need for varied program responses but with focus on vulnerables Need to reduce unwanted mobility in hi-pov. neigh