Rent Reform Demonstration

This report presents results through the first triennial recertification (covering more than 3 and a half years of follow-up) on the new rent policy’s impacts on labor market and housing-related outcomes based on administrative data and data from a long-term follow-up survey conducted approximately 42 months after the new rent policy took effect. The results indicate that, when the findings for all four PHAs are combined, the new policy did not increase tenants’ employment or average earnings in unemployment insurance covered jobs during the 42-month follow-up. The story varied somewhat across locations, however, with some positive effects on earnings and employment in Lexington and San Antonio, which were not consistent or sustained, no effects in Washington, D.C., and the continuation of negative impacts seen previously in Louisville. The new rent policy’s hardship remedies were essential for protecting many families from an excessive rent burden. The alternative rent policy had little effect on overall material or financial well-being, causing no undue harm or improvement. There were three other notable impacts for PHAs and families in the treatment group: 1) The new rent policy reduced the frequency and need for time consuming actions related to regular and interim changes in families’ income through the triennial recertification and limited interim recertifications; 2) A majority of tenants responding to the long-term follow-up survey in the alternative rent group favored the new rent policy (70.6 percent), particularly the triennial recertification; and 3) The new rent rules led families to retain their housing assistance longer and, therefore, receive larger housing subsidies.

This report presents early results (covering more 12 to 18 months of follow-up) on the new rent policy’s effects, or “impacts,” on household heads’ labor market and housing-related outcomes. The results indicate that, when the findings for all four PHAs are combined, the new policy generated a small statistically significant increase in the quarterly employment rate of heads of households. When findings for all of the PHAs except Washington, D.C., are combined, there is a small statistically significant increase in both quarterly employment rates and Year 1 average annual earnings. The story, however, varied substantially across locations. There were some positive effects on earnings in Lexington, on earnings and employment in San Antonio, but not in Louisville and Washington, D.C. The report also presents other early effects on housing subsidies, tenure in the voucher program, PHA administrative actions, and some preliminary subgroup findings.

This report presents interim results (covering more than 2 years of follow-up) on the new rent policy’s effects, or “impacts,” on families’ labor market and housing-related outcomes, receipt of other government benefits, and use of homelessness services. It also uses in-depth qualitative interviews with PHA staff and tenants to explore their experiences with and views of the new policy. The results indicate that, when the findings for all four PHAs are combined, the new policy did not generate statistically significant increases in tenants’ average earnings during the available follow-up period. The story varied substantially across locations, however, with some positive effects on earnings in Lexington and San Antonio, but not in Louisville and Washington, D.C. The report also presents other impacts on housing subsidies, tenure in the voucher program, receipt of other government benefits, PHA administrative costs, and PHA and tenant experiences with the alternative rent model.

This report provides a detailed explanation of the alternative rent model, a description of the demonstration implementation, and an outline of the preliminary baseline information and survey data that had already been gathered from the assisted families participating in the study.