Federal policy has increasingly sought to build financial capability, earnings, and assets of subsidized housing recipients.
Objective:
We conduct a benefit–cost analysis of the Denver Housing Authority’s (DHA) innovative Home Ownership Program (HOP), which incentivizes participants to increase earnings, build wealth, and purchase homes.
Research design, subjects, and measures:
In assessing HOP participant benefits (earnings, home-buying, and positive exits from DHA), we use parameter estimates from quasi-experimental methods (i.e., propensity score matching) that permit drawing causal inferences of program impacts. Impact estimates are robust to alternate model specification and mostly insensitive to omitted variable bias found in the social sciences. We deploy a comprehensive accounting framework, distinguishing benefits and costs accruing to program participants, nonparticipants (other citizens, taxpayers, and governments), and society as a whole. We use Monte Carlo simulation techniques to approximate distributions of benefit and cost parameters, thereby ascertaining how reliably participation in HOP yielded net benefits compared to if families had continued to receive housing assistance during the same period.
Results:
We estimate a net social benefit from HOP of US$6,015 per participant. The simulated standard deviation was only a third of this value and 99.9% of simulations returned positive net social benefits.
Conclusion:
We conclude with a high degree of statistical confidence that HOP produced substantial net benefits to society as a whole, program participants, and nonparticipants alike. HOP offers strong potential for poverty alleviation among housing subsidy recipients and should be replicated.
AbadieA.ImbensG. W. (2011). Bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 29, 1–11. doi:10.1198/jbes.2009.07333
2.
AnthonyJ. (2005). Family self-sufficiency programs: An evaluation of program benefits and factors affecting participants’ success. Urban Affairs Review, 41, 65–92.
BogdonA. S. (1999). What can we learn from previous housing-based self-sufficiency programs? In NewmanS. J. (Ed.), The home front: Implications of welfare reform for housing policy (pp. 149–174). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
5.
BravemanP.EgerterS.WilliamsD. R. (2011). The social determinants of health: coming of age. Annual Review of Public Health, 32, 381–298.
6.
CarlsonD.HavemanR.KaplanT.WolfeB. (2011). The benefits and costs of the Section 8 housing subsidy program: A framework and estimates of first-year effects, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30, 233–255.
7.
ClemmerR. (1984). Measuring welfare effects of in-kind transfers. Journal of Urban Economics, 15, 46–65.
8.
CondliffeS.LinkC. (2008). The relationship between economic status and child health: Evidence from the United States. American Economic Review, 98, 1605–1618.
9.
CookT.SteinerP. M. (2010). Case matching and the reduction of selection bias in quasi-experiments: The relative importance of pretest measures of outcomes, of unreliable measurement, and of mode of data analysis. Psychological Methods, 15, 56–68.
10.
CramerR.LubellJ. (2005). The Family Self-Sufficiency Program: A promising, low-cost vehicle to promote savings and asset building for recipients of federal housing assistance (Issue Brief #9).Washington, DC: New America Foundation.
11.
DastrupS.FreimanL.LubellJ.VillarrealM.WeissD. (2017). Interim cost-benefit analysis of the compass Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) program. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates.
12.
Denver Housing Authority (various years). Comprehensive Budget. Denver, CO: Housing Authority of the City and County of Denver, years 2001–2010 inclusive.
13.
de SilvaL.WijewardenaI.WoodM.BulbulK. (2011, February). Evaluation of the family self-sufficiency program: Prospective study. Washington, DC: Policy Development and Research, U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
14.
DiPasqualeD.GlaeserE. (1999). Incentives and social capital: Are home-owners better citizens?Journal of Urban Economics, 45, 354–384.
15.
DiPreteT. A.GanglM. (2004). Assessing bias in the estimation of causal effects: Rosenbaum bounds on matching estimators and instrumental variables estimation with imperfect instruments. Sociological Methodology, 34, 271–310.
16.
DowW.SchoeniR. (2008). Economic value of improving the health of disadvantaged Americans. Technical Report for Overcoming Obstacles to Health: Report from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to the Commission to Build a Healthier America. Retrieved January 21, 2013, fromhttp://www.commissiononhealth.org/PDF/7626470d-e944-4dfe-9f8c-3fd2dad98472
17.
FickeR. C.PiesseA. (2004). Evaluation of the Family Self-Sufficiency program: Retrospective analysis 1996–2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Poverty Development and Research.
18.
FuS. (2005). What has been capitalized into property values? (Working Paper CES-05-25). Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
19.
GalsterG. (1987). Homeowners and neighborhood reinvestment. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
20.
GalsterG. C.SantiagoA. M. (2015). Evaluating the potential of a natural experiment to provide unbiased evidence of neighborhood effects on health. Heath Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 15, 99–135.
21.
GalsterG. C.SantiagoA. M. (2017). Do neighborhood effects on low-income minority children depend on age? Evidence from a public housing natural experiment. Housing Policy Debate, 27, 584–610.
22.
GalsterG. C.SantiagoA. M.StackL. (2016). Elementary school difficulties of low-income Latino and African American youth. The role of geographic context. Journal of Urban Afffairs, 38, 477–502.
23.
GalsterG. C.SantiagoA. M.StackL.CutsingerJ. (2016). Neighborhood effects on secondary school performance of Latino and African American youth: Evidence from a natural experiment in Denver. Journal of Urban Economics, 93, 30–48.
24.
GeyerJ.FreimanL.LubellJ.VillarrealM. (2017). Evaluation of the compass Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) programs administered in partnership with public housing agencies in Lynn and Cambridge, Massachusetts. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates.
25.
GibsonK. J. (2003) Raising assets, earnings, and esteem: The Housing Authority of Portland’s Family Self-Sufficiency program. Paper presented at the 2003 IAFFE Conference on Feminist Economics. Barbados, West Indies: University of the West Indies.
26.
HeckmanJ.IchimuraH.ToddP. E. (1997). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training programme. Review of Economic Studies, 64, 605–654.
27.
HeckmanJ.IchimuraH.ToddP. E. (1998). Matching as an economic evaluation estimator. Review of Economic Studies, 65, 261–294.
28.
HeckmanJ.Navarro-LozanoS. (2004). Using matching, instrumental variables, and control functions to estimate economic choice models. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 30–57.
29.
HoD.ImaiK.KingG.StuartE. (2007). Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis, 15, 199–236.
McCarthyG.van ZandtS.RoheW. (2001). The economic benefits and costs of homeownership (Working Paper No. 01-02). Washington, DC: Research Institute for Housing America.
33.
MorganS. L.WinshipC. (2007). Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
MurrayM. (1975). The distribution of tenant benefits in public housing. Econometrica, 43, 771–788.
35.
NewmanS. J.SchnareA. B. (1988). Beyond bricks and mortar: Re-examining the purpose and effects of housing assistance. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
36.
NymanJ.BarleenN.DowdB.RussellD.CoonsS.SullivanP. (2007). Quality-of-life weights for the U.S. population. Medical Care, 45, 618–628.
37.
OlsenE. (2002). Housing programs for low-income households. In MoffittR. (Ed.), Means-tested transfer programs in the U.S. (pp. 365–441). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
38.
OlsenE.TylerC.KingJ.CarrilloP. (2005). The effects of different types of housing assistance on earnings and employment. Cityscape, 8, 163–187.
39.
ReederW. J. (1985). The benefits and costs of the Section 8 existing housing program. Journal of Public Economics, 26, 349–377.
40.
RiccioJ. A. (2007). Subsidized housing and employment: Building evidence about what works to improve self-sufficiency. New York: MDRC Working Paper.
41.
RoheW. (1995). Assisting residents of public-housing achieve self-sufficiency—An evaluation of Charlotte’s Gateway Families Program. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 12, 259–277.
42.
RoheW.KleitR. (1997). From dependency to self-sufficiency: An appraisal of the Gateway Transitional Families Program. Housing Policy Debate, 8, 75–108.
43.
RoheW.KleitR. (1999). Housing, welfare reform, and self-sufficiency: An assessment of the family self-sufficiency program. Housing Policy Debate, 10, 333–369.
44.
RoheW.StegmanM. (1991). Coordinating housing and social services: The new imperative. Carolina Planning, 17, 46–50.
45.
RosenbaumP. R. (2002). Observational studies (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
46.
SantiagoA. M.GalsterG. C. (2004). Moving from public housing to homeownership: Perceived barriers to program participation and success. Journal of Urban Affairs, 26, 297–324.
47.
SantiagoA. M.GalsterG. C.Santiago-San RomanA. H.TuckerC. M.KaiserA. A.GraceR. A.LinnA. T. H. (2010a). Foreclosing on the American Dream: The financial consequences of low-income homeownership. Housing Policy Debate, 20, 707–742.
48.
SantiagoA. M.GalsterG. C.KaiserA. A.Santiago-San RomanA. H.GraceR. A.LinnA. T. H. (2010b). Low-income homeownership: Does it necessarily mean sacrificing neighborhood quality to buy a home?Journal of Urban Affairs, 32, 171–198.
49.
SardB. (2001). The Family Self-Sufficiency Program: HUD’s best kept secret for promoting employment and asset growth. Washington, DC: Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
50.
SardB.LubellJ. (1999). How the statutory changes made by the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 may affect welfare reform efforts. Washington, DC: Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
51.
SardB.LubellJ. (2000). The increasing use of TANF and state matching funds to provide housing assistance to families moving from welfare to work. Washington, DC: Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
52.
SchoeniR.DowW.MillerW.PamukE. (2011). The economic value of improving the health of disadvantaged Americans. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 40, S67–S72.
53.
ShadishW.ClarkM. H.SteinerP. M. (2008). Can nonrandomized experiments yield accurate answers? A randomized experiment comparing random and nonrandom assignments. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103, 1334–1356.
54.
ShlayA. B. (1993). Family self-sufficiency and housing. Housing Policy Debate, 4, 457–495.
55.
ShlayA. B.HolupkaC. S. (1992). Steps toward independence—Evaluating an integrated service program for public-housing residents. Evaluation Review, 16, 508–533.
56.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1987). Project self-sufficiency: An interim report on progress and performance. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
57.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1988). Project self-sufficiency: A summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
58.
VermaN.TesslerB.MillerC.RiccioJ.RucksZ.YangE. (2012, December). Working toward self-sufficiency: Early findings from a program for housing voucher recipients in New York City. New York: MDRC.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
