Moving to Work

Retrospective

A Picture of Moving

to Work Agencies’

Housing Assistance

Housing Choice and Self-

Sufficiency Outcomes at

Moving to Work Agencies

The Impact of the Moving to

Work Demonstration on the

Per Household Costs of

Federal Housing Assistance

Evaluating the Effects of

Santa Clara County Housing

Authority’s Rent Reform

Moving to Work Agencies’

Use of Project-Based

Voucher Assistance

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research Resear

Visit PD&R’s website

www.huduser.gov

to find this report and others sponsored by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). Other services of HUD USER, PD&R’s research information service, include listservs, special interest reports, bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources), access to public use databases, and a hotline (800-245-2691) for help accessing the information you need.

A Picture of Moving

to Work Agencies’

Housing Assistance

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development

Prepared by:

Martha M. Galvez

Ruth Gourevitch

Benny Docter

URBAN INSTITUTE

April 2021

A

cknowledgments

Acknowledgments

This report was funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). We are grateful to them and to all our funders, who make it possible for Urban to advance its mission.

The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Funders do not determine research findings or the insights and recommendations of Urban experts. Further information on the Urban Institute’s funding principles is available at urban.org/fundingprinciples.

The authors appreciate the extensive feedback and support that Elizabeth Rudd of the HUD Office of Policy Development & Research (PD&R) provided throughout the course of this evaluation. In addition, the authors thank Lynn Rodgers for her guidance and data expertise, as well as Lydia Taghavi of PD&R. We also thank Carol Star and David Hardiman for feedback on early iterations of this study. The authors acknowledge the support of the Moving to Work (MTW) Expert Panel in the design and analysis of this work, and feedback from MTW agencies on the final report. Lastly, the authors would like to thank Diane Levy, Daniel Teles, Mark Treskon, and Matthew Gerken for their feedback and assistance throughout this study.

Disclaimer

The contents of this report are the views of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. Government.

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

Foreword

Foreword

The Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration, launched in 1996, gives participating public housing agencies the flexibility to design and test new ways of providing housing assistance if the new policies are intended to achieve one or more of the fol owing statutory objectives: (1) to reduce cost and achieve greater cost effectiveness in federal expenditures; (2) to give incentives to families with children where the head of household is working, seeking work, or preparing for work; and (3) to increase housing choices for low-income families. This study, one of six reports produced by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s retrospective evaluation of MTW, describes the 39 MTW agencies participating in the demonstration in 2016, the households they serve, and the types of housing assistance they provide, and compares them to traditional public housing agencies.

“A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance” and its accompanying online feature make information about MTW agencies and how they differ from traditional public housing agencies easily available. The report documents that, compared to most public housing agencies, MTW agencies are larger, more often in densely populated cities instead of suburbs and exurbs, and more often located in housing markets with lower vacancy rates and higher housing costs.1

Nevertheless, in terms of rent burden, age, and household composition, MTW agencies and traditional public housing agencies serve the same types of households. In 2016, for example, the median rent burden (percentage of household income spent on rent) was the same (29 percent) at MTW and traditional agencies. The only notable difference in terms of households served is that MTW agencies serve a higher percentage of Black households. The main differences between MTW and traditional agencies documented in this report are that, between 2008 and 2016, traditional agencies’ use of project-based voucher assistance remained about the same, and the number of households served stayed steady or declined, while MTW agencies increased their use of project-based vouchers and increased the total number of households served, which an earlier report in the series associated with increased funding for MTW agencies above funding for non-MTW agencies.2

The online feature that accompanies this report, hosted by the Urban Institute, al ows users to examine the housing assistance provided by each MTW agency in 2008 and 2016 and to download the data underlying this report. Together, this report and the online feature offer unprecedented access to facts about the housing assistance provided by MTW agencies.

Todd Richardson

General Deputy Assistant Secretary

HUD Office of Policy Development and Research

1 The data in this report reference MTW agencies that were designated as of December 15, 2015. The group of MTW agencies designated after the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 is required by law to include many small agencies and will differ therefore in important ways from the agencies described in this report.

2 “The Impact of the Moving to Work Demonstration on the Per Household Costs of Federal Housing Assistance” shows that “PHAs receive, on average, 11 percent more funding from HUD after joining the MTW demonstration and assist 10 percent more households. Because these effects are of similar size, the effect of MTW status on cost per assisted household is negligible.”

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

Contents

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. viii

Data Sources and Limitations ....................................................................................................................................... ix

The Moving to Work Demonstration and Moving to Work Agencies ....................................................... 1

Moving to Work Housing Assistance ..................................................................................................... 4

Understanding the Increase in the Number of Moving-to-Work-Assisted Households ............................... 4

Relationship Between Funding and Moving to Work Status .................................................................................. 5

Assistance Provided by Moving to Work Agencies and Comparison Traditional Public Housing Agencies .... 7

Local, Non-Traditional Program Assistance ................................................................................................................ 9

Characteristics of Moving to Work Households .................................................................................... 11

Household Composition and Characteristics .......................................................................................................... 12

Household Income and Rent Burdens ....................................................................................................................... 12

Head of Household Race and Ethnicity..................................................................................................................... 14

Access to Low-Poverty Neighborhoods ................................................................................................ 16

Household Locations by Moving to Work Agency Characteristics .................................................................... 17

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 19

Appendix A ........................................................................................................................................ A-1

Data Sources .................................................................................................................................................................. A-1

Public and Indian Housing Information Center Data .................................................................................... A-1

Public and Indian Housing Information Center Data Quality .................................................................... A-1

Local, Non-Traditional Data ................................................................................................................................ A-2

U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey Data ........................................................................... A-2

Data Cleaning and Linking ......................................................................................................................................... A-3

Cleaning Public and Indian Housing Information Center Data................................................................. A-3

Linking Local, Non-Traditional and Census Data ......................................................................................... A-4

Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. A-4

Public Housing Agency Jurisdictions .............................................................................................................. A-4

Comparison Traditional Public Housing Agencies ...................................................................................... A-4

Total Assisted Households ................................................................................................................................. A-4

Housing Assistance Program Participation ................................................................................................... A-5

Household Composition and Demographic Characteristics..................................................................... A-5

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

iv

Contents

Head of Household Characteristics ................................................................................................................. A-6

Household Income, Work-Able Status, and Rent Burden .......................................................................... A-6

Neighborhood Quality for Assisted Households ......................................................................................... A-7

Appendix B: References ..................................................................................................................... B-1

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

v

List of Exhibits

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1: The Moving to Work Retrospective Evaluation ........................................................................... viii

Exhibit 2: The Moving to Work Demonstration ................................................................................................ 1

Exhibit 3: Timeline of Moving to Work Agreements ....................................................................................... 1

Exhibit 4: The Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher Programs ................................................ 2

Exhibit 5: Characteristics of Jurisdictions and Portfolios for Moving to Work Agencies, All Traditional

Public Housing Agencies, and Comparison Traditional Public Housing Agencies (2016) ...................... 3

Exhibit 6: Share of Assisted Households Served by Moving to Work and Traditional Public

Housing Agencies, 2008–2016 ......................................................................................................................... 4

Exhibit 7: Number of Households Assisted by Moving to Work Agencies, 2008–2016 ..................... 5

Exhibit 8: Change in Total Households Assisted by Moving to Work Agencies, 2008–2016 ........... 6

Exhibit 9: HUD Funding to Moving to Work Agencies and Traditional Public Housing Agencies,

2003–2017 ............................................................................................................................................................... 6

Exhibit 10: Share of Households Assisted by Moving to Work Agencies and Comparison

Traditional Public Housing Agencies by Program, 2016 .............................................................................. 7

Exhibit 11: The Rental Assistance Demonstration........................................................................................... 8

Exhibit 12: Moving to Work Assistance by Program Type, 2008–2016 ................................................... 8

Exhibit 13: Comparison Traditional Public Housing Agency Assistance by Program Type,

2008–2016 .............................................................................................................................................................. 8

Exhibit 14: Local, Non-Traditional Program Assistance ................................................................................. 9

Exhibit 15: Households Served Through Moving to Work Local, Non-Traditional Program

Assistance, 2010–2016 ......................................................................................................................................... 9

Exhibit 16: Number of Moving to Work Agencies Reporting Local, Non-Traditional Programs,

2010–2016 .............................................................................................................................................................. 10

Exhibit 17: Household Characteristics for Moving to Work and Comparison Traditional Public

Housing Agencies, 2008 and 2016.................................................................................................................. 11

Exhibit 18: Average Annual Income of Assisted Households for Moving to Work and Comparison

Traditional Public Housing Agencies, by Year, 2008–2016 ....................................................................... 12

Exhibit 19: Share of Assisted Households by Income Level for Moving to Work and Comparison

Traditional Public Housing Agencies, 2016 .................................................................................................... 13

Exhibit 20: Race and Ethnicity of Households Assisted by Moving to Work and Comparison

Traditional Public Housing Agencies, 2016 .................................................................................................... 14

Exhibit 21: Race and Ethnicity by Program Type at Moving to Work and Comparison Traditional

Public Housing Agencies, 2016 ......................................................................................................................... 15

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

vi

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 22: Average Poverty Rate of Census Tracts Containing Assisted Households by Program

Type for Moving to Work and Comparison Traditional Public Housing Agencies, 2016 .................... 16

Exhibit 23: Share of Assisted Households by Census-Tract Poverty Level for Moving to Work and

Comparison Traditional Public Housing Agencies, 2016 ............................................................................ 17

Exhibit 24: Average Poverty Rate of Census Tracts Containing Moving-to-Work-Assisted

Households by Type of City, Size of Agency, and Region of Country, 2016 ........................................ 18

Exhibit A1: Form 50058-Moving to Work Family Report Fields Used in Analysis ............................. A-8

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

vi

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

each of the 39 PHAs and provides access to

the data used in this report.

The data reveal that the assistance provided

This report describes the housing assistance

by MTW agencies closely resembles that

provided by the 39 public housing agencies

provided by similarly sized traditional PHAs.

(PHAs) with a Moving to Work (MTW)

In 2016, the MTW agencies and comparison

designation as of 2018. This report is one

traditional PHAs provided a similar mix of

of six companion studies included in the

public housing and Housing Choice Voucher

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

(HCV) program assistance and served

Development (HUD) MTW retrospective

households with similar characteristics. The

evaluation (exhibit 1) and provides the most

MTW agencies and comparison traditional

detailed descriptive assessment to date of the

PHAs also served households with similar

housing assistance MTW agencies provide.3

incomes, at similar income levels relative

We use HUD administrative data for 2008

to the local area median income, and with

through 2016 to describe the MTW agencies,

similar rent burdens. Households served by

the types of housing assistance they provide,

each set of agencies also tended to live in

and the households they serve. The data

neighborhoods with similar poverty rates.

include information about 584,947 unique

The administrative data also show that the

MTW-assisted households. The appendix

MTW agencies added new households to their

describes how we created and analyzed the

assistance portfolios at a faster rate than the

measures of housing assistance included

traditional PHAs, and MTW agencies served

in this report. In addition, an online feature

a larger share of households through project-

presents MTW agency-level information for

based voucher (PBV) assistance compared

selected measures of housing assistance for

with traditional PHAs.

Exhibit 1: The Moving to Work Retrospective Evaluation

The HUD-sponsored Moving to Work (MTW) Retrospective Evaluation includes six reports and an online data feature that examine different aspects of the MTW program and MTW agencies’ activities and performance under the program’s three statutory objectives.

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance describes MTW agencies, the assistance they provided, and the characteristics of the households they served in 2008 and 2016. A related online data feature provides access to MTW agency-level data.

Moving to Work Agencies’ Use of Funding Flexibility examines how agencies have used MTW funding flexibility, alone and with regula-tory waivers, and categorizes funding flexibility activities by their primary objectives—cost-effectiveness, self-sufficiency of assisted households, or increased housing choice for low-income families. The study includes an indepth examination of funding shifts for a subgroup of eight agencies.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies examines the extent to which MTW agencies meet two of the program’s three statutory objectives, increasing housing choice and promoting self-sufficiency for assisted households.

The Impact of the Moving to Work Demonstration on the Per Household Costs of Federal Housing Assistance examines how MTW

status affects the costs, to HUD, of providing housing assistance to households in the public housing and Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) programs.

Evaluating the Effects of Santa Clara County Housing Authority’s Rent Reform examines the impacts on work, earnings, and housing subsidies among assisted households of Santa Clara’s unique rent reform, which increased the proportion of income that households must pay toward rent.

Moving to Work Agencies’ Use of Project-Based Voucher Assistance examines multiple aspects of MTW agencies’ use of project-based voucher (PBV) assistance, including the share of assistance and HCV budget authority devoted to PBVs, the relationships between PBVs and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and Rental Assistance Demonstration programs, the locations of PBV-assisted units, and case studies of three agencies’ MTW goals and activities.

3 Throughout this report, we refer to PHAs with an MTW designation as “MTW agencies” and those without an MTW designation as “traditional PHAs.”

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

vi i

Executive Summary

This report does not explore potential

entry or processing errors. In addition, HUD

causal relationships between MTW status

provided data in 2018, and some PHAs may

and the descriptive measures included in

have updated their PIC or LNT data at some

this report. Two MTW evaluation studies

later point, resulting in slightly different counts

examine the extent to which MTW agencies

reflected in later data extracts or in records

meet the program’s statutory objectives of

of individual housing agencies. We worked

cost effectiveness (Stacy et al., 2020) and

closely with HUD to understand data quality

increasing housing choice and self-sufficiency

and coverage and any variations in reporting

for assisted households (Treskon, Gerken, and

for MTW compared with traditional PHAs.

Galvez, 2021).

We did not adjust or interpolate the data

to address any missing data points, but we

In the sections that fol ow, we first describe

omitted data or indicate in the text where we

MTW agencies’ housing markets, regional

know data quality or coverage is poor.

locations, and sizes. Then we describe the

number of households that MTW agencies

Minor variations in measures from year to year

serve, the increase in MTW-assisted

or between MTW and traditional PHAs must

households over time, and the mix of housing

be interpreted with caution. In addition, minor

programs that MTW agencies provide. Final y,

differences in trends for MTW and traditional

we describe selected characteristics of MTW-

PHAs may in part reflect different sample sizes

assisted households. Throughout this report,

for the two groups of PHAs. Because the MTW

we contrast MTW-provided assistance with

agency group is relatively small, reporting

assistance provided by a subset of traditional

errors for any single MTW agency in a given

PHAs to contextualize MTW agencies’ housing

year can disproportionately impact MTW

assistance activity.

group averages and trends.

Data Sources and Limitations

This report uses HUD Public and Indian

Housing (PIH) Information Center (PIC) data;

Voucher Management System (VMS) data;

HUD-provided counts of MTW local, non-

traditional (LNT) assistance; and U.S. Census

Bureau data. The appendix describes how

we cleaned the data and constructed each

of the measures included in this report and

discusses data quality and limitations in detail.

PIC data are available from HUD for 1995

through 2016 but are unreliable for MTW

agencies prior to 2008. For that reason, we

report only information for 2008 through

2016. Even for these years, however, the

data may be imprecise. Staff at more than

3,800 PHAs enter the data and upload it to

HUD for processing. In any given year, some

household records may be omitted from PIC

or dropped from our analyses due to data

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

ix

The Moving to Work Demonstration and Moving to Work Agencies

The Moving to Work

The first three MTW agencies executed

contracts with HUD in 1998, and the four

Demonstration and

newest MTW agencies executed contracts

in 2013 (see exhibit 3). One current MTW

Moving to Work

agency, the San Diego Housing Authority,

exited the demonstration in 2003 and later

Agencies

re-entered in 2008. Two PHAs, the Greene

Metropolitan Housing Authority and the

High Point Housing Authority, entered and

left the demonstration prior to 2008 and are

The Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration

excluded from this study.

al ows a small group of public housing

agencies (PHAs) to design and test innovative

As a group, the 39 MTW agencies differ from

strategies for providing housing assistance

traditional PHAs in several ways. First, most

(see exhibit 2). In 2018, 39 PHAs participated

traditional PHAs national y are in metropolitan

in the MTW demonstration.

areas, but MTW agencies tend to be in more

Exhibit 2: The Moving to Work Demonstration

The Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration was launched in 1996 to allow a subset of public housing agencies (PHAs) to implement innovative, locally designed strategies. MTW designation gives PHAs exemptions from many public housing and Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program requirements and provides unique financial flexibility that allows them to combine their public housing and HCV program funding from HUD into one fund.

PHAs can use their MTW flexibilities to implement activities that meet one or more of the demonstration’s three statutory objectives:

“reduce cost and achieve greater cost effectiveness in federal expenditures; give incentives to families with children where the head of household is working, is seeking work, or is preparing for work by participating in job training, educational programs, or programs that assist people to obtain employment and become economically self-sufficient; and increase housing choices for low-income families.”4

Exhibit 3: Timeline of Moving to Work Agreements

1999

Cambridge

2004

Oakland

Delaware

2008

Greene

Alaska

Greene and

High Point

Baltimore

Keene

High Point

San Bernardino

Lawrence-Douglas County

left

San Jose

demonstration

Lincoln

Santa Clara County

Louisville

San Diego (reentered)

Massachusetts

2001

Portage

New Haven

Portland

Philadelphia

2010

San Antonio

Champaign County

2013

Tulare County

Tacoma

2003

Columbus

Vancouver

Atlanta

Fairfax

Washington, DC

2011

Holyoke

1998

2000

King County

Boulder

Reno

Minneapolis

Chicago

Lexington-

San Diego

Pittsburgh

San Diego left

2007

Fayette

Seattle

San Mateo

demonstration

Charlotte

Orlando

Note: Year shown is the year Moving to Work (MTW) contracts were executed, which may differ from the year agencies were selected for MTW.

Source: Documents retrieved from HUD’s MTW portal, hud.gov/mtw

4 Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. Pub. L. No. 104-134, tit. II, § 204, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-281 (codified as amended at 42

U.S.C. § 1437f note).

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

1

The Moving to Work Demonstration and Moving to Work Agencies

densely populated cities as opposed to

for an overview of these two programs). As

suburban or exurban areas. Of the 39 MTW

of 2016, only 7 percent of MTW agencies

agencies, 24 are in the principal city of a

provided only one housing assistance

Metropolitan Statistical Area. Related to these

program, compared with 80 percent of al

differences in locations, MTW agencies tend

traditional PHAs.

to be in stronger housing markets compared

with traditional PHAs, as measured by lower

With the differences between MTW agencies

average vacancy rates and higher housing

and traditional PHAs in mind, we selected

costs (see exhibit 5).

a subset of traditional PHAs as a point of

comparison for the MTW agencies. This

In addition, MTW agencies tend to be larger

comparison group includes only traditional

than the typical PHA. None of the MTW

PHAs that have more than 750 assisted

agencies served fewer than 750 households

households in any year between 2008 and

in 2016 (the smal est MTW agency is Keene

2016. These larger traditional PHAs are in

Housing, which served approximately

slightly more expensive markets and more

780 households that year). In contrast,

densely populated counties and are more

approximately 80 percent of all traditional

likely to provide both public housing and HCV

PHAs serve fewer than 750 households.

assistance than smaller PHAs. Combined,

Smal er traditional PHAs may face different

the MTW and comparison traditional PHAs

constraints and costs than larger agencies.

represent about 21 percent of all PHAs

For example, Turnham et al. (2015) found

national y but account for three-fourths of al

that smal er PHAs (under 500 vouchers) had

PHA-assisted households in 2016. Exhibit

substantial y higher administrative costs per

5 presents selected housing market and

household than larger PHAs.

housing assistance portfolio characteristics of

MTW agencies, all traditional PHAs, and the

Final y, MTW agencies are more likely than

subset of traditional PHAs with at least 750

traditional PHAs to operate both public

households served annually that are included

housing and HCV programs (see exhibit 4

in the comparison group.

Exhibit 4: The Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher Programs

The public housing and the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) programs are the two largest low-income rental assistance programs administered by public housing agencies (PHAs).

Public Housing. Originating in 1937, public housing is the nation’s oldest housing subsidy program. Approximately 1.035 million public housing units are owned and managed by PHAs, and tenants pay rent directly to a PHA each month. Households must have income below 80 percent of the area median income (AMI) to qualify, but PHAs are required to target at least 40 percent of new admissions to households that meet HUD’s definition of extremely low-income, defined as below 30 percent of AMI or the poverty threshold established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, whichever is greater. Additionally, housing agencies often give preference to households that are homeless, elderly and/or disabled, or working families. Most families pay 30 percent of their income in rent or a minimum rent of up to $50 per month.

Housing Choice Vouchers. The HCV program provides rental assistance to approximately 2.3 million low-income households annually.

HUD requires that not less than 75 percent of families admitted to a PHA’s HCV program in a year have incomes at or below the extremely low-income limit. The program includes tenant- and project-based voucher assistance. For both types of vouchers, households typically pay 30 percent of their income or a minimum rent of up to $50 per month.

Tenant-Based Vouchers (TBVs): TBVs are provided to individuals or households to enable them to rent privately owned housing. Once a household receives a voucher from their local PHA, they have a minimum of 60 days to find a unit that meets federal quality standards and whose landlord will accept the voucher. When an HCV holder leases a unit, the HCV holder (that is, the tenant) pays a portion of the gross rent (rent plus any tenant-paid utilities), and the PHA pays a portion of the gross rent. The program allows households to rent housing in any jurisdiction where a PHA administers an HCV program and a landlord will accept a voucher.

Project-Based Vouchers (PBVs): PBVs are attached to specific units and properties through contracts with property managers or owners who rent units to eligible families. The rent is subsidized by the PHA through the PBV program. Like with TBV, the tenant pays a portion of the rent, and the PHA pays a portion of the rent. In some cases, PHAs own the PBV properties.

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

2

The Moving to Work Demonstration and Moving to Work Agencies

Exhibit 5: Characteristics of Jurisdictions and Portfolios for Moving to Work Agencies, All Traditional Public Housing Agencies, and Comparison Traditional Public Housing Agencies (2016)

Comparison Traditional PHAs

MTW Agencies

Traditional PHAs (All)

(> 750 HHs)

N=39

N=3,837

N=779

Total Assisted Households (2016)

435,205

3,626,708

2,451,254

Characteristics of PHA Jurisdictions (2011–2015, ACS 5-Year Estimates)

Average Population Density

4,914

1,852

3,548

Average Poverty Rate

16%

17%

17%

Median Rent

$961

$612

$768

Average Percent Rental Housing

39%

30%

35%

Average Vacancy Rate

10%

15%

12%

Average Pct. White, Non-Hispanic/Latino

63%

74%

67%

Average Pct. Black, Non-Hispanic/Latino

14%

12%

14%

Average Pct. Other Race, Non-Hispanic/

Latino

8%

4%

5%

Average Pct. Hispanic/Latino, Any Race

14%

10%

13%

PHA Portfolio Mix (2016)

Public Housing Only

0%

40%

1%

Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) Only

13%

40%

17%

Public Housing and HCVs

87%

20%

82%

ACS = American Community Survey. HH = households. MTW = Moving to Work. PHA = public housing agency.

Notes: Jurisdictions are approximated as the counties where the largest share of each PHA’s assisted households are located. Population density is the number of people per square mile. “Other” race category includes Asian, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islanders.

Sources: 2011–2015 ACS, 5-year data; HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

3

Moving to Work Housing Assistance

Moving to Work

Understanding the Increase

in the Number of Moving-to-

Housing Assistance

Work-Assisted Households

In 2016, the 39 MTW agencies served

In 2016, the 39 Moving to Work (MTW)

435,205 households, an increase of 60

agencies accounted for approximately 12

percent or 163,225 unique households during

percent of all households assisted by public

the 8-year study period (exhibit 7). Fifteen

housing agencies (PHAs; exhibit 6). The

PHAs joined the MTW demonstration during

share of all households served by MTW

the study period (six in 2008, two in 2010,

agencies increased from 8 percent in 2008

three in 2011, and four in 2013; see exhibit

to 12 percent in 2016. The increase in the

3). We include new agencies in our MTW

MTW share of all PHA-assisted households

sample starting in the first full year fol owing

reflects a combination of trends over time:

their MTW designation. For example, the six

increases in the number of agencies with an

agencies designated as MTW at some point in

MTW designation, a slight loss in the number

2008 appear in our MTW sample beginning in

of households served by the traditional PHAs,

2009.

and a moderate increase in the number of

The addition of the 15 new MTW agencies,

households served by MTW agencies after

and the households they served at the point

they joined the demonstration.

of MTW designation, account for roughly

three-fourths of the increase in households

Exhibit 6: Share of Assisted Households Served by Moving to Work and Traditional Public Housing Agencies, 2008–2016

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

92%

90%

90%

89%

89%

89%

88%

88%

88%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

8%

10%

10%

11%

11%

11%

12%

12%

12%

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

(24 MTWs) (30 MTWs) (30 MTWs) (32 MTWs) (35 MTWs) (35 MTWs) (39 MTWs) (39 MTWs) (39 MTWs) Traditional PHAs (N=3,837)

MTW

MTW = Moving to Work. PHA = public housing agency.

Notes: Includes all households assisted through public housing; housing choice vouchers; local, non-traditional assistance; and other unspecified program types.

PHAs are included as MTW beginning in the first calendar year after contracts are executed.

Sources: Urban Institute analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data; local, non-traditional program data A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

4

Moving to Work Housing Assistance

served during the study period (111,263

Authority of Columbus (Georgia) recorded

households or 74 percent of total growth).

declines in households served after the

The addition of six new MTW agencies to

point of MTW designation. Exhibit 8 shows

our sample in 2009—accounting for 67,489

changes in households served between 2008

assisted households—was the largest 1-year

and 2016 by MTW agencies grouped based

increase in MTW households served that

on when they executed agreements with

can be attributed to new agencies joining

HUD. The online feature that accompanies

the demonstration (exhibit 8). Increases due

this report provides PHA-level numbers of

to agencies joining MTW in later years are

households served between 2008 and 2016.

smaller (6,615 households from agencies that

executed MTW contracts in 2010; 10,698 from

Relationship Between

MTW contracts executed in 2011; and 15,404

from contracts executed in 2013).

Funding and Moving to Work

Status

The remaining growth reflects new

households added to MTW agencies’

As a group, MTW agencies received nearly

assisted housing portfolios between 2008

$2.3 bil ion in HUD funding in 2003 and $4.4

and 2016, with significant variation across

bil ion in 2017, accounting for 9 and 17 percent,

agencies and cohorts. For example, the

respectively, of all HUD funding to PHAs in

Atlanta Housing Authority reported an

those years (exhibit 9).5 The total funding

almost 5,000-household increase in assisted

provided to MTW agencies increased slightly

households between 2008 and 2016. Other

over time and as a share of all PHA funding.

MTW agencies, such as the Housing Authority

In contrast, funding to traditional PHAs

of Champaign County, had modest increases.

decreased from roughly $23.1 bil ion in 2003

Several agencies, such as the Housing

to $21.5 bil ion in 2017.

Exhibit 7: Number of Households Assisted by Moving to Work Agencies, 2008–2016

435,424

435,205

421,582

398,255

384,054

375,254

364,146

d

340,735

evre

s S

271,980

dlohesuol HatoT

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

(24 MTWs) (30 MTWs) (30 MTWs) (32 MTWs) (35 MTWs) (35 MTWs) (39 MTWs) (39 MTWs) (39 MTWs) MTW = Moving to Work.

Notes: Includes all households assisted through public housing; housing choice vouchers; local, non-traditional assistance; and other unspecified program types.

PHAs are included as MTW beginning in the first calendar year after contracts are executed.

Sources: Urban Institute analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data; local, non-traditional program data 5 Stacey et al. (2020) directly e

92% xamines t

90%he causal re

90% lationship b

89%etween MTW s

89%

tatus and t

89% he numbe

90%r of assisted h

90% ouseholds s

90% erved. We use the HUD

Financial Data Schedule (FDS) dataset developed for Stacey et al. (2020) to estimate the funding received by all 39 MTW agencies between 2003 and 2017. See Stacey et al. (2020) for a description of how PHA funding levels were identified, but note that their method includes PHAs as MTW agencies in the same year they sign an MTW agreement, as opposed to in the fol owing calendar year (the method applied in this report).

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

5

Moving to Work Housing Assistance

Exhibit 8: Change in Total Households Assisted by Moving to Work Agencies, 2008–2016

Total Assisted Households

Total Assisted

Difference in

Year MTW

MTW Agency

the Year MTW Contracts

Households in

Households Assisted

Contract Executed

(N)

were Executed

2016

Between Time Periods

Percent Change

1998 to 2007

24

271,982*

323,941

51,959

19%

2008

6

67,488

77,804

10,316

15%

2010

2

6,615

7,302

687

10%

2011

3

10,698

11,299

601

6%

2013

4

15,404

14,858

-546

-4%

MTW = Moving to Work. PHA = public housing agency.

* For agencies that executed MTW contracts between 1997 and 2007, the total assisted households shown in the year MTW contracts were executed column is the number of households assisted in 2008.

Notes: Includes all households assisted through public housing, housing choice vouchers, and other unspecified program types. PHAs are included as MTW

beginning in the first calendar year after contracts are executed.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data Exhibit 9: HUD Funding to Moving to Work Agencies and Traditional Public Housing Agencies, 2003–2017

HUD Funding to MTW

HUD Funding to all

Share of HUD Funding

MTW Agency

Agencies

Traditional Agencies

Allocated to MTW Agencies

(N)

2003

$2,335,942,273

$23,125,233,221

9%

22

2004

$2,880,298,542

$22,968,914,383

11%

23

2005

$3,099,464,306

$22,282,477,664

12%

24

2006

$3,038,859,385

$22,349,575,436

12%

24

2007

$3,175,640,215

$22,149,305,232

13%

24

2008

$3,268,879,633

$22,084,185,475

13%

25

2009

$3,992,215,337

$21,925,248,088

15%

29

2010

$4,297,130,473

$22,919,209,104

16%

30

2011

$4,315,533,967

$22,164,180,149

16%

32

2012

$4,208,962,565

$21,057,537,403

17%

35

2013

$4,104,554,510

$20,892,163,136

16%

35

2014

$4,242,998,614

$20,739,100,304

17%

39

2015

$4,363,418,112

$21,115,350,833

17%

39

2016

$4,415,498,374

$21,592,907,299

17%

39

2017

$4,390,927,949

$21,473,228,619

17%

39

MTW = Moving to Work. PHA = public housing agency.

Notes: Agency-level data are adjusted to account for missing data and inflation. HUD funding is defined as all HUD PHA operating and capital grants for public housing operating fund, public housing capital fund, and housing choice vouchers. The HUD funding metric excludes funding through the Special Purpose Voucher program. Traditional PHAs (N=3,673) exclude PHAs that joined the MTW demonstration at any time. PHAs are included as MTW agencies in the year their contract is executed.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of HUD Financial Data System data

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

6

Assistance Provided by Moving to Work Agencies and Comparison Traditional Public Housing Agencies Assistance Provided

Between 2008 and 2016, the share of public

housing assistance decreased among MTW

by Moving to

agencies (from 30 percent to 21 percent),

and the share of PBV housing assistance

Work Agencies

increased (from 4 percent to 12 percent).

In comparison, the share of public housing

and Comparison

(dropping from 29 to 27 percent) and PBV

assistance (rising from 2 to 4 percent)

remained fairly steady for the comparison

Traditional Public

traditional PHAs (exhibits 12 and 13).

Housing Agencies

A portion of the shift to voucher assistance

for both MTW and traditional PHAs may be

attributable to participation in the Rental

Assistance Demonstration (RAD; see exhibit

In 2016, about three-fourths of all housing

11). The RAD program, authorized under

assistance provided by the Moving to Work

the Consolidated and Further Continuing

(MTW) and comparison traditional public

Appropriations Act of 2012, al ows PHAs to

housing agencies (PHAs) was through

convert units to either PBVs or to project-

housing choice vouchers (HCVs; including

based rental assistance (PBRA). Between

tenant- and project-based vouchers), and the

2013 and 2016, more than 90,000 public

approximately one-fifth remaining was through

housing units converted to PBVs or PBRAs

public housing (exhibit 10).

through RAD; MTW agencies converted 11,327

MTW and comparison traditional PHAs

units. Most of the MTW public housing units

provided similar shares of tenant-

converted through RAD shifted to PBVs (77

based vouchers (TBVs). MTW agencies

percent). Among comparison traditional PHAs,

administered more project-based vouchers

about one-half of RAD conversions were to

(PBVs) compared with the traditional PHAs.

PBRAs.6

Exhibit 10: Share of Households Assisted by Moving to Work Agencies and Comparison Traditional Public Housing Agencies by Program, 2016

MTW Agencies

Comparison Traditional PHAs

N=39

N=779

Public Housing

21%

27%

Tenant-Based Vouchers

66%

69%

Project-Based Vouchers

12%

4%

MTW = Moving to Work. PHA = public housing agency.

Note: The comparison traditional PHA column includes traditional PHAs with >750 assisted households in the year reported.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data 6 See Galvez et al. (2021) for a detailed assessment of MTW agencies’ use of PBV assistance, including public housing conversions through RAD.

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

7

Assistance Provided by Moving to Work Agencies and Comparison Traditional Public Housing Agencies Exhibit 11: The Rental Assistance Demonstration

Congress authorized the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) in 2012 to stem the loss of public housing units due to lack of funding for repairs to deteriorated properties. RAD allows public housing agencies (PHAs) to convert public housing properties to project-based Section 8 contracts; this provides a more predictable long-term funding stream and allows PHAs to use a wide range of financing from both public and private sources to pay for rehabilitation of the properties. PHAs using RAD choose Section 8 contracts that are project-based vouchers (PBV) or project-based rental assistance (PBRA). As of this writing, HUD reports 113,540 public housing units have been converted through RAD, and many more units are in the process of being approved for RAD.

Exhibit 12: Moving to Work Assistance by Program Type, 2008–2016

100%

90%

80%

70%

66%

70%

69%

67%

66%

66%

66%

66%

66%

60%

50%

40%

30%

4%

4%

5%

8%

8%

9%

8%

11%

12%

20%

30%

26%

26%

25%

25%

25%

25%

10%

23%

21%

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Public housing

Project-based voucher

Tenant-based voucher

Note: N=39.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data Exhibit 13: Comparison Traditional Public Housing Agency Assistance by Program Type, 2008–2016

100%

90%

80%

70%

69%

70%

70%

69%

69%

68%

68%

68%

69%

60%

50%

40%

30%

2%

2%

2%

2%

3%

3%

3%

4%

4%

20%

29%

10%

29%

28%

28%

28%

28%

28%

27%

27%

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Public housing

Project-based voucher

Tenant-based voucher

Notes: N=779. Includes traditional PHAs with more than 750 assisted households in the year reported.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

8

Assistance Provided by Moving to Work Agencies and Comparison Traditional Public Housing Agencies Local, Non-Traditional

Both the number of PHAs administering LNT

Program Assistance

assistance and the number of households

receiving this form of assistance have

MTW agencies can design unique housing

increased over time (exhibits 15 and 16). As of

assistance models known as local, non-

2016, 23 MTW agencies served almost 10,000

traditional (LNT) programs. Traditional PHAs

households through LNT program assistance.

are not permitted to provide these types

of assistance. LNT programs include both

The extent to which MTW agencies use

tenant- and property-based assistance (see

LNT program assistance varies. The Atlanta

exhibit 14). Examples include rental subsidies

Housing Authority accounts for between

administered through third-party providers,

30 and 40 percent of all LNT assistance.

homeownership programs, and services to

Alternatively, MTW agencies in the District

people eligible for but not receiving public

of Columbia and Lincoln, Nebraska do not

housing or HCV assistance (HUD PIH, 2011).

provide any LNT assistance.

Exhibit 14: Local, Non-Traditional Program Assistance

Local, non-traditional (LNT) assistance is unique to Moving to Work (MTW) agencies and includes four forms of assistance: rental subsidy programs, including supportive housing programs; homeownership programs, such as programs where the public housing agency (PHA) acts as a mortgager; housing development programs, including gap financing and tax credit partnerships; and service provision, wherein the PHA provides self-sufficiency or supportive services. All four types of assistance target families with incomes at or below 80 percent of the area median and must meet the MTW program’s statutory objectives.

LNT assistance can be property- or tenant-based. Property-based assistance can include investments in property development or acquisi-tion or direct rental assistance for households residing in a property. Tenant-based LNT assistance is tied to individual households rather than a unit or property.

LNT assistance is not captured in administrative data systems. HUD’s MTW office tracks a total number of households served annually by each MTW agency. For these counts, HUD considers any assistance to be linked to a household regardless of whether the subsidy provided is shallow or deep, property-based or tenant-based, tied to a unit or an investment in a property.

Exhibit 15: Households Served Through Moving to Work Local, Non-Traditional Program Assistance, 2010–2016

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

MTW = Moving to Work.

Note: N=39.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of HUD local, non-traditional program data (received March 2018) A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

9

Assistance Provided by Moving to Work Agencies and Comparison Traditional Public Housing Agencies Exhibit 16: Number of Moving to Work Agencies Reporting Local, Non-Traditional Programs, 2010–2016

23

22

23

16

14

8

8

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of HUD local, non-traditional program data (received March 2018) A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

10

Characteristics of Moving to Work Households

Characteristics of

household composition, head of household

characteristics, income, and rent burdens for

Moving to Work

households served by MTW agencies and

traditional PHAs. In both 2008 and 2016,

Households

the two sets of agencies served households

of similar size and composition, with similar

incomes and similar rent burdens. MTW

agencies served larger shares of Black

Moving to Work (MTW) and comparison

households and fewer White and Hispanic/

traditional public housing agencies (PHAs)

Latino households compared with the

serve similar populations, with minimal

traditional PHAs. Measures are defined and

differences in household characteristics or

discussed in this report’s appendix.

trends in the types of households served

over time. Exhibit 17 presents measures of

Exhibit 17: Household Characteristics for Moving to Work and Comparison Traditional Public Housing Agencies, 2008 and 2016

MTW Agencies

Traditional PHAs

N=39

(>750 Households)

N=779

2008

2016

2008

2016

Households with more than one adult and no children

10%

12%

9%

10%

Households with one adult and no children

41%

46%

40%

45%

Households with children

49%

43%

51%

45%

Households with children ages 0–5

46%

39%

48%

41%

Households with children ages 6–17

44%

37%

43%

38%

Average number of children in households with children

1.3

1.1

1.3

1.1

Households with a disabled head of household

37%

43%

35%

40%

Households headed by an elderly individual (62 or older)

21%

27%

21%

25%

Single-parent households

45%

36%

46%

40%

Households headed by a female

79%

75%

81%

78%

Households headed by a White, non-Hispanic/Latino

20%

19%

30%

28%

Households headed by a Black, non-Hispanic/Latino

62%

60%

46%

48%

Households headed by an Asian, non-Hispanic/Latino

3%

5%

3%

2%

Households headed by a non-Hispanic/Latino of another race

1%

1%

1%

1%

Households headed by a Hispanic/Latino individual, any race

13%

15%

21%

21%

Work-able head of household

54%

48%

55%

51%

Total average annual income

$13,093

$14,394

$12,935

$14,412

Households with extremely low incomes (L30)

-

78%

-

74%

Median rent burden

26%

29%

26%

29%

MTW = Moving to Work. PHA = public housing agency.

Notes: Data for households with extremely low incomes using HUD’s income standards are only available for 2016 and exclude households that exited housing assistance in 2016. The measure of extremely low income used here is 30 percent of Area Median Income, labeled “L30.” See Brandly (2019) for information on definitions of extremely low income.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

11

Characteristics of Moving to Work Households

Household Composition and

of PHAs, with a marginal y larger decline

Characteristics

in both measures for the MTW agencies.

Similarly, the share of households headed by

As shown in exhibit 17, in both 2008 and 2016,

an elderly person increased at a slightly faster

the MTW agencies and comparison traditional

rate for MTW agencies between 2008 and

PHAs served households of similar size and

2016 compared with the traditional PHAs but

served similar shares of households with

was only 2 percentage points larger for MTW

children, with a disabled head of household,

agencies in 2016.

with a head of household over age 62 or

older, and with a female head of household.

Any differences between MTW agencies

Household Income and Rent

and comparison traditional PHAs for these

Burdens

measures in 2008 and 2016 tend to be within

MTW and comparison traditional PHA

1 to 3 percentage points.

households had similar average total

We see some changes in household

(unadjusted) incomes and median rent

characteristics or composition over time for

burdens in 2008 and 2016. The two sets

both sets of PHAs, with similar trends. For

of agencies also served similar shares of

example, the shares of households with

extremely low-income households.

children declined over time for both MTW and

Average household income increased over

traditional PHAs (by 8 percentage points for

time for each set of agencies. The MTW

MTW agencies and 7 percentage points for

households’ incomes were slightly lower

traditional PHAs). The shares of single-parent

on average than those of the comparison

households and work-able households have

traditional households in nearly every year in

also declined slightly over time for both sets

our analysis period (see exhibit 18).

Exhibit 18: Average Annual Income of Assisted Households for Moving to Work and Comparison Traditional Public Housing Agencies, by Year, 2008–2016

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

MTW PHAs

Comparison Traditional PHAs

MTW = Moving to Work. PHA = public housing agency.

Notes: MTW agencies: N=39. Traditional PHAs: N=779. Income is total household income.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

12

Characteristics of Moving to Work Households

Median rent burden for households served

family’s income meets local income limits of

by both the MTW agencies and comparison

30, 50, or 80 percent of area median income

traditional PHAs was about 29 percent

(AMI). In 2016, both MTW agencies and

between 2008 and 2016. A larger share of

comparison traditional PHAs served mainly

MTW-assisted households had rent burdens

extremely low-income (ELI) households—

between 27 and 29 percent during this

defined as households with incomes at or

period, while a larger share of households

below 30 percent of local AMI—with MTW

served by comparison traditional PHAs had

agencies serving a slightly larger share of

slightly higher rent burdens between 30 and

ELI households compared with comparison

32 percent.

traditional PHAs (78 percent and 74 percent,

respectively; see exhibit 19). The MTW

HUD calculates income limits annually that

and traditional PHAs served similar shares

determine eligibility for assisted housing

of very low-income households (30 to 50

programs, based on median family income

percent of AMI), low-income households (up

estimates and fair market rent definitions for

to 80 percent on AMI), and households with

metropolitan areas and at the county level for

incomes above 80 percent of AMI.

non-metropolitan areas. HUD’s PIH (Office of

Public and Indian Housing) Information Center

(PIC) data indicate whether each assisted

Exhibit 19: Share of Assisted Households by Income Level for Moving to Work and Comparison Traditional Public Housing Agencies, 2016

100%

4%

2%

5%

3%

90%

16%

80%

18%

70%

60%

50%

40%

78%

74%

30%

20%

10%

0%

MTW Agencies

Comparison Traditional PHAs

Extremely Low-Income

Very Low-Income

Low-Income

Not Low-Income

MTW = Moving to Work. PHA = public housing agency.

Notes: MTW agencies: N=39. Traditional PHAs: N=779. Data exclude households that exited assistance in 2016, as exiting households are missing income limits data. Income data reflect total household income. Income limits are based on Area Median Family Income estimates and Fair Market Rent area definitions at the metropolitan level, and the county level for non-metropolitan areas. Extremely Low Income = at or below 30 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) or the federal poverty threshold, whichever is greater; Very Low Income = 30 to 50 percent of AMI; Low income = 50 to 80 percent of AMI. Households with incomes above 80

percent of AMI are not considered to be low income. See www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html for more information on HUD income limits.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

13

Characteristics of Moving to Work Households

Head of Household Race and

and less likely to be White compared with

Ethnicity

the populations of the TBV or PBV program

participants. For the comparison traditional

In 2016, approximately 80 percent of

PHAs, TBV program participants are more

MTW agencies’ household heads were

likely to be Black compared with PBV and

Black, Hispanic/Latino, or Asian, with

public housing residents. Public housing

White household heads representing the

residents in traditional PHAs are more likely

remaining approximately 19 percent. For the

to be Hispanic/Latino than households

comparison traditional PHAs, approximately

served through other assistance programs or

72 percent of all household heads were

compared with MTW-assisted households.

non-White (exhibit 20).

For both sets of PHAs, Black households

represented the largest proportion of

assisted households overall and in each

program—although the racial and ethnic

composition varied by assistance program

(exhibit 21). Within MTW agencies, public

housing residents are more likely to be Black

Exhibit 20: Race and Ethnicity of Households Assisted by Moving to Work and Comparison Traditional Public Housing Agencies, 2016

MTW Agencies

Traditional PHAs

N=39

(>750 assisted households)

N=779 PHAs

1%

1%

15%

5%

19%

21%

28%

2%

60%

48%

White

Black

Asian

Hispanic

Other

MTW = Moving to Work. PHA = public housing agency.

Notes: Race and ethnicity information corresponds to the head of the household. Households are identified in HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data as belonging to a single race category. White, Black, Asian, and other race categories are exclusive of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. Hispanic/Latino household heads may be of any race.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

14

Characteristics of Moving to Work Households

Exhibit 21: Race and Ethnicity by Program Type at Moving to Work and Comparison Traditional Public Housing Agencies, 2016

100%

2%

1%

2%

1%

1%

1%

13%

12%

90%

16%

20%

18%

4%

30%

6%

80%

5%

2%

3%

70%

3%

60%

43%

55%

50%

50%

68%

57%

46%

40%

30%

20%

32%

29%

25%

10%

21%

20%

13%

0%

MTW Agencies

Traditional PHAs

MTW Agencies

Traditional PHAs

MTW Agencies

Traditional PHAs

Public Housing

Project-Based Vouchers

Tenant-Based Vouchers

White

Black

Asian

Hispanic/Latino

Other

MTW = Moving to Work. PHA = public housing agency.

Notes: MTW agencies: N=39. Traditional PHAs: N=779. Race and ethnicity information corresponds to the head of the household. Households are identified in HUD

Public and Indian Housing Information Center data as belonging to a single race category. White, Black, Asian, and other race categories are exclusive of Hispanic/

Latino ethnicity. Hispanic/Latino household heads may be of any race.

Source: Urban Institute analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

15

Access to Low-Poverty Neighborhoods

Access to

In 2016, households assisted by MTW

agencies lived in neighborhoods with an

Low-Poverty

average poverty rate of 28 percent, which was

nearly identical to the average for comparison

Neighborhoods

traditional households’ neighborhoods (see

exhibit 22, first column). This is lower than the

thresholds of 30 or 40 percent of residents

living in poverty that the literature typical y

Previous research shows that neighborhoods

associates with neighborhood distress, but

influence wellbeing and long-term success

substantially higher than the 10-percent

(Chetty and Hendren, 2015; Turner and

threshold typically considered to offer access

Gourevitch, 2017). To document the

to economic or educational opportunities

extent to which Moving to Work (MTW)

(Galvez, 2010).

assisted households access low-poverty

neighborhoods, we looked at their census-

Average neighborhood poverty rates for

tract locations in 2016 and calculated average

MTW and traditional public housing agencies’

tract-level poverty rates for al assisted

households also were nearly identical for

households with 2011–2015 American

each housing assistance program (exhibit 22).

Community Survey (ACS) data as a proxy for

Consistent with the literature on locations

overall neighborhood quality.

of PHA-assisted households (Devine et al.,

Exhibit 22: Average Poverty Rate of Census Tracts Containing Assisted Households by Program Type for Moving to Work and Comparison Traditional Public Housing Agencies, 2016

35%

30%

25%

20%

34%

33%

15%

28%

27%

28%

29%

27%

25%

10%

5%

0%

Total

Public housing

Project-based vouchers

Tenant-based vouchers

MTW Agencies

Comparison Traditional PHAs

MTW = Moving to Work. PHA = public housing agency.

Notes: MTW Agencies: N=39. Traditional PHAs: N=779. Excludes households with missing geographic tract identifiers in HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data.

Sources: Urban Institute analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data; 2011–2015 American Community Survey, 5-year data A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

16

Access to Low-Poverty Neighborhoods

2003; McClure, Schwartz, and Taghavi, 2015;

Household Locations by

Pendal , 2000), public housing households

Moving to Work Agency

lived in higher poverty neighborhoods

compared with housing choice voucher (HCV)

Characteristics

recipients (whether project-based vouchers

Among MTW-assisted households, residential

or tenant-based vouchers). This was the case

locations varied based on city type, PHA

for both MTW agencies and the comparison

size, and region of the country (exhibit 24).

traditional PHAs.

MTW agencies operating in central cities

Nearly identical shares of households assisted

tend to have households located in census

by MTW and comparison traditional PHAs

tracts with higher average poverty rates

lived in low-poverty tracts in 2016, while

compared with other MTW agencies (average

a slightly higher share of MTW-assisted

poverty rate of 30 percent compared to 23

households lived in high-poverty census

percent). Large MTW agencies also tend to

tracts. In 2016, only 15 percent of all MTW

have households in census tracts with higher

assisted households and 14 percent of

average poverty rates compared with smal er

comparison traditional agency assisted

MTW agencies (average poverty rate of 29

households lived in areas with census-tract

percent for PHAs with 10,000 or more assisted

poverty rates below 10 percent. Approximately

households annually compared to 19 percent

43 percent of all MTW households and 38

for PHAs with 1,250 or fewer households).

percent of households served by comparison

MTW-assisted households in the Midwest

traditional PHAs lived in areas with poverty

experience the highest average neighborhood

rates above 30 percent. See exhibit 23 for

poverty rates (33 percent on average), while

the shares of MTW and comparison agency

MTW households in the West experience the

households living in low-, moderate-, and

lowest (23 percent on average).

high-poverty census tracts.

Exhibit 23: Share of Assisted Households by Census-Tract Poverty Level for Moving to Work and Comparison Traditional Public Housing Agencies, 2016

Comparison

Traditional PHAs

MTW Agencies

(>750 Households)

N=39

N=739

Percent of households in low-poverty areas (<10%)

14%

15%

Percent of households in low-moderate poverty areas (10%–20%)

22%

24%

Percent of households in moderate-high poverty areas (21%–30%)

21%

23%

Percent of households in high-poverty areas (31%–40%)

19%

17%

Percent of households in extremely high-poverty areas (>40%)

24%

21%

MTW = Moving to Work. PHA = public housing agency.

Note: Excludes households that do not have geographic tract identifiers in the HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center dataset.

Sources: Urban Institute analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data; 2011–2015 American Community Survey 5-year data A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

17

Access to Low-Poverty Neighborhoods

Exhibit 24: Average Poverty Rate of Census Tracts Containing Moving-to-Work-Assisted Households by Type of City, Size of Agency, and Region of Country, 2016

35%

33%

30%

30%

30%

29%

29%

25%

25%

23%

23%

19%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Principal city

Other cities

500-1,250

1,251-10,000 10,001 or more

Midwest

Northeast

South

West

households

households

households

Notes: Principal city: N=24; Other cities: N=14. Size: 500–1,250 households: N=5; 1,251–10,000 households: N=19; 10,001 or more households: N=14. Regional designations are created by the U.S. Census Bureau. Regions: Midwest N=6; Northeast N=7; South N=11; West N=14. “Principal city” public housing agencies appear as the principal city in the Metropolitan Statistical Area name for 2015.

Sources: Urban Institute analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center; 2011–2015 American Community Survey, 5-year data A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

18

Conclusion

Conclusion

This study provides a detailed descriptive

analysis of restricted-use HUD administrative

data for 2008 through 2016 to describe the

housing assistance provided by the 39 public

housing agencies (PHAs) with Moving to Work

(MTW) designation as of 2016.

Considered together, findings show that MTW

agencies are larger and more likely to be in

dense urban areas than the typical traditional

housing authority. When measures of MTW

housing assistance are compared with those

of a subset of comparably sized traditional

PHAs, the MTW agencies provide a similar

mix of housing assistance, serve similar

populations, and have households located

in areas with similar levels of poverty. Some

characteristics, such as the share of single-

adult households and the share of work-able

households, have changed over time for both

MTW and traditional PHAs. Some differences

between MTW agencies and traditional

PHAs do emerge in the data. MTW agencies

provide more project-based housing choice

voucher (HCV) assistance compared with

traditional PHAs and appear to have added

new households to their assistance portfolios

between 2008 and 2016, whereas traditional

PHAs did not. In addition, the comparison

traditional PHAs served a larger proportion of

White households compared with the MTW

agencies. An accompanying online data

feature provides MTW agency-level data for

selected measures described in this report.

This study documents trends using HUD

administrative data and does not examine

how MTW agencies use their MTW flexibilities

or the extent to which their activities meet

the MTW program’s housing choice, self-

sufficiency, or cost-effectiveness goals. Five

additional MTW retrospective evaluation

studies examine MTW agencies’ activities and

outcomes in more detail (exhibit 2).

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

19

Appendix A

Appendix A

data entry, such as annual recertification,

change in household composition, or end of

participation. MTW agencies may use their

This appendix describes the data sources

MTW flexibility to update records on some or

used to create this report and the

all their assisted households less frequently

accompanying online feature and summarizes

(for example, conducting inspections and

the methods deployed to clean and analyze

income recertifications biennial y or up to

the data.

every 3 years).

The PIC data extracts used for this study

Data Sources

identify the PHA that provided housing

assistance to each household, whether the

We primarily use restricted-use Public and

household lived in public housing or received

Indian Housing (PIH) Information Center

a Housing Choice Voucher (HCV), the specific

(PIC) data provided by HUD for the Moving

type of HCV assistance received (project-

to Work (MTW) retrospective evaluation,

based, tenant-based, homeownership,

supplemented with additional HUD data for

certificates, or mod-rehab), relevant dates of

local, non-traditional (LNT) units and U.S.

each action and other program milestones (for

Census Bureau data.

example, program admission date, exit date,

dates of unit inspection), head of household

Public and Indian Housing

demographics (age, race and ethnicity, income,

Information Center Data

and marital status of householders, disability

Annual extracts of PIC data were provided

status), income information for the households

in 2018 by HUD for the years 1995 through

(monthly contributions toward rent, income,

2016. The poor data quality for years prior to

sources of income), and the household’s

2008, however, led us to restrict our analyses

census tract, and county and state Federal

to 2008 through 2016, when coverage and

Information Processing Standards (FIPS) codes.

quality improved substantially.

The PIC extracts provided by HUD for the

MTW evaluation do not reliably identify Special

PIC data are reported to HUD by individual

Purpose Vouchers (SPVs) for MTW agencies,

PHA staff through HUD’s “Family Report”

which may be either tenant- or project-based

Form 50058 or, for MTW agencies, Form

HCVs. Households receiving SPVs are included

50058-MTW.7 With some exceptions,

in HCV program counts but are not described

traditional PHAs are expected to provide

separately in this study.

Form 50058 information for every household

served on an annual basis from the point

Public and Indian Housing

a household enters an assisted housing

Information Center Data Quality

program to the point they exit—typical y

through annual income recertifications, but

Data coverage and reporting. Prior to 2007,

also periodical y if households experience

50058 data were not consistently reported

changes in household composition, housing

or captured in PIC for MTW agencies. Data

unit/program, or income. A total of 15

quality improved in 2008 when all MTW

different action codes available in the PIC

agencies began using the newly implemented

50058 data identify the specific reason for

MTW version of Form 50058.

7 See HUD’s 50058 information center webpage for 50058 Family Report forms and reporting guidance: www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_

housing/systems/pic/50058. See Moving to Work Question and Answer Document for information on MTW agency reporting, www.hud.gov/sites/

documents/MTW-QA-FORM50058.PDF.

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

A-1

Appendix A

Data quality and missing data. In any given

Picture reporting rate shows that between

year, records may be missing for households

97 and 99 percent of all assisted households

assisted by both MTW agencies and

were reported in Picture data during each

traditional PHAs. Most of the fields in the PIC

year of our study period. MTW agencies

data for our study period (2008 to 2016) are

tend to have lower reporting rates (between

missing less than 1 percent of household data.

86 and 90 percent annual y) compared with

Notable exceptions include the geographic

traditional PHAs during our study period.

identifiers provided for each household and

Households may be omitted from PIC because

information related to household income

of incomplete or inaccurate data entry or

limits. In 2016, about 5 percent of households

submission by PHAs, or possibly during data

(172,589 households) were missing tract or

processing at HUD. Minor variations year to

county information altogether in any given

year must be interpreted with caution. As

year. An additional 3 percent of households

noted, in some cases, MTW agencies are not

(87,896 households) did not directly match

required to report on every household each

U.S. Census Bureau census-tract codes

year (for example, if they do bi- or triennial

and thus could not be matched to American

recertification), which may explain the relative

Community Survey (ACS) data to identify the

underreporting in Picture annual data.

census-tract poverty rate.

Local, Non-Traditional Data

An exception regarding potential y missing

or incomplete data is for 2012, particularly

Households in LNT housing units are not

for MTW households’ gender and disability

reported through MTW Form 50058. MTW

status. In 2012, MTW agencies are missing

agencies describe their LNT program efforts

this information for between 5 and 8 percent

in MTW Annual Reports and directly to HUD’s

of all households. In general, 2011 through

MTW office. HUD provided total counts of

2013 data also show dips in total assisted

LNT units by MTW agency in March 2018, for

households for many MTW and traditional

2000 through 2016. No unit- or tenant-level

PHAs, with a return to pre-2012 levels in 2014.

information is available describing the specific

Several HUD staff suggested this may be

type of assistance provided, the households

related to the effects of sequestration in those

assisted through LNT housing, or their

years, but underreporting is also possible.

locations. HUD indicated that 2019 updates

We do not exclude this period or interpolate

to the agency-level LNT counts include

missing data, and changes in assistance

slight corrections for a small number of MTW

for the 2011-through-2013 period should be

agencies; these corrections are not included

interpreted with caution.

in this report.

One measure of data coverage is provided

U.S. Census Bureau American

by the publicly available Picture of Subsidized

Community Survey Data

Households (Picture) data—which is based

on data from PIC and HUD’s Tenant Rental

U.S. Census Bureau American Community

Assistance Certification System (TRACS)

Survey (ACS) data on census-tract level

data8—and includes a “reporting rate”

poverty rates, population density, median

measure that captures the percent of total

rents, rental housing stock, vacancy rates, and

households assisted that are included in

racial composition of residents were retrieved

any given annual data extract. Overall, the

from the National Historical Geographic

8 PIC contains data about households assisted through public housing and the HCV program; TRACS contains information on households assisted through HUD’s Multifamily programs, such as the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly.

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

A-2

Appendix A

Information System (NHGIS) at the census

the same PHA, with different action codes.

tract level for the years 2011–2015 (ACS 5-year

In these circumstances, we count the record

estimates).

and household information associated with

the earliest action date for the household, to

Data Cleaning and Linking

ensure we count each assisted household

only once within a PHA in any given year.

The PIC data for 1995 through 2016 were

Multiple records for a household are rare and

provided by HUD in 32 annual extracts with

account for less than 1 percent of the data.

information from 3,936 PHAs, including the

39 that signed an MTW contract with HUD

Assigning ported households to PHAs.

and were still in the MTW program in 2016

Households may be recorded as receiving

(extracts of data prior to 2008 included MTW

assistance from two PHAs in the same

and traditional PHAs together; after 2008,

year. Most commonly, this occurs because

extracts were split by agency designation).

households port out of one PHA’s jurisdiction

The separate files were appended to create

and into another and are reported to HUD by

a single household-level file for analysis,

two PHAs. Where port codes were recorded,

with a single record for each household

we assigned the household to the PHA that

in each year the household was assisted

received the ported household. In a smal

by a PHA. In total, the dataset contains

number of cases where action codes did not

information on 11,145,205 unique households

explicitly indicate that the households with

across 21 years, representing 29,918,014

duplicate records ported to a different PHA,

individuals. For 2016, the PIC data include

we coded the earlier action as an exit from the

584,947 unique households assisted by MTW

initial PHA and the later recorded action as an

agencies (1,256,296 individuals) and 3,334,135

entry to a receiving PHA—with the households

households assisted by traditional PHAs

assigned to the new PHA for the calendar

(6,991,320 individuals total).

year. This results in a small number (less than

10 percent) of households from both MTW and

Cleaning Public and Indian Housing

traditional PHAs that may be counted twice

Information Center Data

in a single calendar year because they were

served by more than one PHA.

Identifying unique households and

eliminating duplicate records. To gain an

Identifying net new admissions. We use the

accurate total household count for each year,

PIC action codes to determine if a household

we trim the PIC data so that each household

newly entered or exited housing assistance

is counted only once in each year. PHAs

within a certain PHA. We consider a

may enter multiple records in PIC for a single

household as having entered PHA assistance

household within a year if the household

in a year if they have an action code that

requires multiple PHA “actions.” For example,

denotes a new admission (action code 1), a

PHAs may enter data into PIC if a household’s

portability move-in (action code 4), or (in cases

income changes, they move or change

where no entry code exists for a household)

assistance programs or their household

a historical readjustment (action code 14). In

composition changes. A total of 15 different

cases where the household’s first appearance

PHA “action codes” are included in HUD data

in the dataset does not have an action code

to identify household data updates (50058

associated with an entry, we consider that

field 2a). Occasional y, the PIC annual research

household to be newly assisted in that year.

extracts provided by HUD contained multiple

records for the same household ID within

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

A-3

Appendix A

We consider a household as having exited

with a disabled head of household), we

a PHA’s assistance if they have an action

summarize or aggregate data reported in the

code that denotes an end of participation

PIC dataset.

(action code 6), a portability move-out of a

PHA (action code 5), or an expiration of a

Public Housing Agency Jurisdictions

voucher (action code 11). In cases where the

HUD administrative data does not identify

household does not appear in our dataset

PHA jurisdictions. To determine the population

for two or more consecutive years but does

density, poverty rate, median rent, share of

not have a record associated with an exit

rental housing, and vacancy rate for PHA

from assistance, we classify them as having

jurisdictions, we use PIC geocodes to identify

left assistance. We do not present findings

the county the PHA serves. In cases where

for 2016 because data necessary to assign

PHAs operate in more than one county, we

missing exit dates are unavailable. HUD staff

show characteristics for the county where

noted that a small number of MTW agencies

the largest share of the PHA’s assisted

may conduct recertifications every 3 years

households lived in 2016. We use U.S.

for some portion of their assisted households

Census region designations. We define any

(for example, elderly or disabled participants

PHA located in the named principal city in a

with fixed incomes). If so, some portion of

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) for 2015 as

these MTW households may be inaccurately

an urban/central city PHA.

considered exited from assistance if they

did not receive recertification within a 2-year

Comparison Traditional Public

period. This would result in an undercount of

MTW households.

Housing Agencies

MTW agencies appear to have more in

Linking Local, Non-Traditional and

common with the roughly 800 traditional

Census Data

PHAs that assisted 750 or more households

in 2016 than with smal er traditional PHAs

We linked the LNT data to the PIC dataset

(see exhibit 5 for comparisons between MTW

using the PHA-level identifier. No household-

agencies and traditional PHAs that assist more

level information is available for these

than 750 households). We limit the traditional

households.

PHA comparison group to those PHAs that

We downloaded publicly available 2011–2015

had more than 750 combined public housing

American Community Survey 5-year data

and HCV households in any given year in the

and linked to MTW and traditional household

8-year study period. For example, a PHA that

records using the tract, county, and state

served 750 households in 2010 but not in

geographic identifiers in the PIC datasets.

2009 is included in counts and analyses for

2010 but excluded from analyses for 2009.

Data Analysis

For the most part, the comparison PHA group

is constant over time.

We use HUD administrative data and U.S.

Census Bureau data to describe the MTW

Total Assisted Households

agencies and traditional PHAs and their

To calculate the number of assisted

jurisdictions. For information included in the

households by each PHA in each year, we

report and online feature (for example, total

summed all unique households in the dataset

assisted households, number of households

for each year. For MTW agencies, we present

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

A-4

Appendix A

the total number of households assisted by

Household Composition and

an MTW agency between 2008 and 2016

Demographic Characteristics

inclusive. MTW agencies are added to the

MTW sample and removed from the traditional

We describe assisted household composition,

PHA sample in the calendar year after they

characteristics of the household head, and

executed an MTW agreement.

select household members’ characteristics

for each year between 2008 and 2016 for al

Housing Assistance Program

MTW agencies and the comparison traditional

PHAs, and for the three main assistance

Participation

programs (public housing, TBVs, and PBVs).

We identify assisted households in each of

the three primary assistance types—public

As shown in exhibit A1, information on

housing, tenant-based HCVs, and project-

household demographic characteristics

based HCVs. We cannot identify households

comes from 50058 data fields. In some cases,

assisted through special purpose vouchers

we report information as it appears in the PIC

(for example, Family Unification Program or

dataset. In other cases, we manipulate the

HUD-Veteran Affairs Supportive Housing).

data to produce measures not included in the

PIC dataset. For simplicity, we refer mainly to

PIC data indicate whether a household was

the MTW 50058 fields in exhibit A1 and the

served through public housing, project-

detailed descriptions below. The MTW fields

based vouchers (PBVs), tenant-based

may differ from the traditional PHA version of

vouchers (TBVs), Section 8 rental certificates,

Form 50058 in some cases.

homeownership vouchers, or the moderate

rehabilitation program. The specific type of

Household Composition. We classify

program assistance is documented in PIC

households as (1) single adult households

differently for MTW and traditional PHAs: MTW

(age 18 and over), (2) households with two

PIC data extracts include a single variable

or more adults 18 and over without children,

indicating the type of program assistance the

and (3) households with children under 18.

household received (MTW Form 50058 field

Composition is calculated based on the

1c); traditional PHA data include a variable

number of members in the household and

identifying whether households received

their ages, through a combination of two

a voucher of any type or lived in a public

variables provided by HUD in the PIC data

housing unit, with a separate sub-code for

that identify (1) the number of people in a

the type of voucher each voucher-assisted

household and (2) individual household

household received (Form 50058 section 11

members’ ages.

and section 12). We created a single program

To determine if household members are

identification variable that reconciles the

youth under 18 or adults, we use text analysis

different reporting. For program-level counts,

to parse the PIC data “other members”

we classify Section 8 rental certificates as TBV

variable (MTW Form 50058 field 3f), which

assistance and the moderate rehabilitation

provides age by household member type

program as PBVs.9

(for example, youth, adult, elderly) for al

non-head of household members residing

in a unit. We create unique binary variables

to identify whether households have any

9 Per HUD’s website, the “moderate rehabilitation program provides project-based rental assistance for low income families” (see https://www.hud.

gov/hudprograms/sro). The Section 8 Rental Certificate program provides Section 8 certificates to PHAs, who use these funds to pay landlords the difference between a share of the household’s adjusted income and the rent of a unit (https://www.hud.gov/programdescription/cert8).

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

A-5

Appendix A

children residing in the unit in each year and

Household Income, Work-Able Status,

the age range of the children (ages 0–5 and

and Rent Burden

6–18). The indicator variables can be used

to calculate the total number of households

This study identifies the share of work-able

with children in MTW or traditional PHAs, by

households, average annual total income,

program, for every year of our study period.

total household income relative to the area

median income, and the median rent burden

Disabled head of household. We calculate the

for households over time.

share of households at MTW and traditional

PHAs headed by an individual who has a

Work-able households. We define work-able

disability. Disability status comes from the

households as those with an adult head of

MTW Form 50058 field 3j and from the head

household who is under 62 years old on the

of household table (MTW 50058 field 3a=01,

date of the recertification and who does not

head of household).

have a disability.

Single-parent households. We calculate the

Annual total household income. The PIC data

share of single-parent households using MTW

contains a variable reporting total household

Form 50058 field 3h, which identifies household

income on an annual basis. The total income

member relationships. We define single parents

is calculated on Form 50058 (MTW field

as household heads with a non-married marital

19i and standard MTW form 7i). We re-code

status and youth in their household.

households with negative income reported

in PIC to have zero income, as per HUD

Head of Household Characteristics

guidance that any negative income entry

indicates a reporting error in the PIC dataset.

We describe the trends in gender, age, race,

and ethnicity of household heads over time

Household income relative to the income

for MTW and traditional households using the

limits. The PIC dataset includes a variable

corresponding 50058 fields.

with the extremely low-income (L30), very

low-income (L50), and low-income limits

Age and gender. We describe head-of-

(L80) for each household.10 We identify the

household age as they are reported in the

number and share of all households whose

PIC dataset. Form 50058 classifies heads of

total income is below each income limit.

household as male or female.

Approximately 10 percent of income-limit

data is partial y missing for MTW agency

Race and Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. The PIC

households in any given year. Most of the

dataset has five racial categories and includes

households with missing income limit data

Hispanic or Latino ethnicity separately from

are households that exited within the year

race. We report four non-Hispanic race

(indicated by “end of participation” action

categories for household heads (White,

codes). When a household exits in a year,

non-Hispanic/Latino; Black, non-Hispanic/

their address data often is not entered, and

Latino; Asian, non-Hispanic/Latino; and “other

so the geocoding mechanisms needed

race,” non-Hispanic/Latino). The “other race”

to link the household to the income limits

combines Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

information cannot be executed. To correct

and American Indian/Alaska Native. We create

for missing data, we exclude households

a combined race and ethnicity measure,

with end of participation action codes for the

identifying Hispanics/Latinos of any race.

10 See Brandly (2019) for details on the definition of extremely low-income. In 2014, HUD changed the definition of extremely low-income to be below 30

percent of the area median income (AMI) or below the federal poverty threshold, whichever is greater. PIC data have an indicator for households with incomes below 30 percent of AMI (L30) for each year in our study, so we used the L30 measure to identify extremely low-income households.

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

A-6

Appendix A

analysis of income limits. As a robustness

check, we also ran the income limits analysis

using interpolated income limits data from

2015 for households with missing data and

got similar results.

Rent burden. We calculate each household’s

rent burden as their total annual contribution

toward rent divided by their total annual

income. For MTW agencies, the family

contribution toward rent variable is constructed

by HUD and includes the family’s contribution

toward utilities when applicable. This variable

is not included in the standard PIC data and

was provided by HUD for the purposes of

this study. To calculate the annual family

contribution toward rent for traditional PHAs,

we multiply the monthly contribution toward

rent as reported in PIC by 12 and divide this by

the total annual household income in PIC.

Neighborhood Quality for Assisted

Households

We use the 2011–2015 ACS census-tract

level poverty rates as a proxy for overal

neighborhood quality. While poverty level

does not capture the full extent to which

a neighborhood may expose residents to

crime, environmental hazards, high-quality

amenities, or economic or educational

opportunities, it remains a widely used proxy

for understanding neighborhood quality and

subsidized housing locations (see Talen and

Koschinsky, 2014; Owens, 2014). We calculate the average poverty rate for MTW and

traditional assisted households based on their

census-tract locations.

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

A-7

Appendix A

Exhibit A1: Form 50058-Moving to Work Family Report Fields Used in Analysis

Measures

MTW 50058 Fields

Calculation

Household size

3t. Total number of people in the household

—

Household composition

3t. Total number of people in the household

Individual households: total number of people = 1

3t. Household members age

Adult households with no children: Total number

of people >1; no members under age 18

Households with children: Total number of

people >1; 1 or more members below age 18

Number of children in a household 3f. Age of household members

Total number of household members below age

18

Single-parent households

3h. Relation of household member

HUD generated a “marital status” variable that

identifies whether there is a marital relation

Disabled household head

3j. Disability (Y/N)

The disability status of the head of household

Age of household head

3f. Age on effective date of action

—

Elderly household heads

3f. Age on effective date of action

Head of household is greater than or equal to 62

years old

Female-headed households

3g. Sex

Sex of household head is female

Head of household race/ethnicity

3k. Head of Household Race

Race is Black/African American, White, Asian,

American Indian/Alaskan Native, or Hawaiian/

Other Pacific Islander and ethnicity not Hispanic/

Latino

3m. Head of Household Ethnicity

Ethnicity is Hispanic or Latino (any race)

Work-able households

3j. Disability (Y/N)

Household heads who do not have a disability

3f. Age on effective date of action

and are 18 to 61 years old

Annual income

19i. Total annual income

—

Household income limit

Line 4d.

Household income (8y) is below the income limit

(4d)

Households with wage income

19b. Income code

Households with a wage income code

(code B, F, HA, M, or W in 50058 Form)

Rent Burden

Total Tenant contribution

HUD-created total household contribution toward

19a-f. Income

rent divided by household total annual income

22h. The PHA’s utility allowance for the unit

MTW = Moving to Work. PHA = public housing agency.

Note: Codes are from the MTW Form 50058 and in some cases may differ from those used in the standard 50058 Form.

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

A-8

Appendix B: References

Appendix B: References

Brandly, Chalita. 2019. “Extremely Low-

Pendal , Rolf. 2000. “Why Voucher and

Income: Has the New Measure Made

Certificate Users Live in Distressed

a Difference?” Cityscape: A Journal of

Neighborhoods,” Housing Policy Debate 11

Policy Development and Research 21 (3):

(4): 881–910.

389–409.

Stacy, Christina, Josh Leopold, Daniel

Chetty, Raj, and Nathaniel Hendren. 2015.

Teles, Ruth Gourevitch, Alyse D. Oneto,

The Impacts of Neighborhoods on

Yipeng Su, and Matthew Gerken. 2020.

Intergenerational Mobility: Childhood

The Impact of the Moving to Work

Exposure Effects and County-Level

Demonstration on the Per Household

Estimates. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Costs of Federal Housing Assistance.

University and the National Bureau of

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Economic Research.

Housing and Urban Development, Office

of Policy Development and Research.

Devine, Deborah J., Robert W. Gray, Lester

Rubin, and Lydia B. Taghavi. 2003.

Talen, Emily, and Julia Koschinsky. 2014. “The

Housing Choice Voucher Location

Neighborhood Quality of Subsidized

Patterns: Implications for Participants

Housing,” Journal of American Planning

and Neighborhood Welfare. Washington,

Association 80 (1): 67–82.

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development, Office of Policy

Treskon, Mark, Matthew Gerken, and Martha

Development and Research.

M. Galvez. 2021. Housing Choice and

Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving

Galvez, Martha M. 2010. What Do We Know

to Work Agencies. Washington, DC:

About Housing Choice Voucher Program

U.S. Department of Housing and

Location Outcomes? Washington, DC: Urban Development, Office of Policy

Urban Institute.

Development and Research.

Galvez, Martha M., Daniel Teles, Alyse D.

Turner, Margery Austin, and Ruth Gourevitch.

Oneto, and Matthew Gerken. 2021 .

2017. How Neighborhoods Affect

Moving to Work Agencies’ Use of Project-

the Social and Economic Mobility of

Based Voucher Assistance. Washington,

Their Residents. Washington, DC: U.S.

DC: Office of Policy Development and

Partnership on Mobility from Poverty, the

Research, U.S. Department of Housing

Urban Institute.

and Urban Development.

Turnham, Jennifer, Meryl Finkel, Larry Buron,

McClure, Kirk, Alex F. Schwartz, and Lydia B.

Melissa Vandawalker, Bulbul Kaul, Kevin

Taghavi. 2015. “Housing Choice Voucher

Hathaway, and Chris Kubacki. 2015.

Location Patterns a Decade Later,”

Housing Choice Voucher Program

Housing Policy Debate 25 (2): 215–33.

Administrative Fee Study: Final Report.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Owens, Ann. 2014. “Assisted Housing and

Housing and Urban Development.

Neighborhood Poverty Dynamics, 1977

to 2008,” Urban Affairs Review 52 (3):

287–322.

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

B-1

Appendix B: References

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD). 2006. “Moving to

Work Question and Answer Document.”

https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/

DOC_10237.PDF.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development, Office of Public and Indian

Housing (HUD PIH). 2011. “PIH Notice 2011-

45: Parameters for Local, Non-Traditional

Activities under the Moving to Work

Demonstration Program.” Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development, Office of Public and Indian

Housing https://www.hud.gov/program_

offices/administration/hudclips/notices/

pih/11pihnotices

A Picture of Moving to Work Agencies’ Housing Assistance

B-2

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

April 2021

Document Outline

Executive Summary

Data Sources and Limitations

The Moving to Work Demonstration and Moving to Work Agencies

Moving to Work Housing Assistance

Understanding the Increase in the Number of Moving-to-Work-Assisted Households

Relationship Between Funding and Moving to Work Status

Assistance Provided by Moving to Work Agencies and Comparison Traditional Public Housing Agencies

Local, Non-Traditional Program Assistance

Characteristics of Moving to Work Households

Household Composition and Characteristics

Household Income and Rent Burdens

Head of Household Race and Ethnicity

Access to Low-Poverty Neighborhoods

Household Locations by Moving to Work Agency Characteristics

Conclusion

Appendix A

Data Sources

Public and Indian Housing Information Center Data

Public and Indian Housing Information Center Data Quality

Local, Non-Traditional Data

U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey Data

Data Cleaning and Linking

Cleaning Public and Indian Housing Information Center Data

Linking Local, Non-Traditional and Census Data

Data Analysis

Public Housing Agency Jurisdictions

Comparison Traditional Public Housing Agencies

Total Assisted Households

Housing Assistance Program Participation

Household Composition and Demographic Characteristics

Head of Household Characteristics

Household Income, Work-Able Status, and Rent Burden

Neighborhood Quality for Assisted Households

Appendix B: References