Moving to Work, Landlord

Incentives Cohort Evaluation

First Interim Report

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

DISCLAIMER

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

Moving to Work, Landlord Incentives Cohort Evaluation

First Interim Report

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Prepared by

Meryl Finkel

Judy Geyer

Nishi Kumar

Anna Mahathey

Alyssa Andrichik

Hannah Thomas

Larry Buron

Laura Peck

Abt Associates

Phil Garboden

University of Hawai’i

September 11, 2023

Acknowledgments

The First Interim Report for the Evaluation of the Moving to Work Landlord Incentives cohort provides details on data collection and activities completed to date and planned for the remainder of the evaluation period.

The authors of this report gratefully acknowledge the efforts of many individuals who assisted us in conducting and analyzing this research. The evaluation team would like to thank our project officers at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Elizabeth Rudd and Paul Joice, for their input and guidance throughout the evaluation and on earlier versions of this report.

The evaluation team is also indebted to Henry Love, who recruited and engaged the Resident Expert Panel (REP), and to the members of the REP, who provided invaluable insights and guidance throughout the study design.

Many individuals at Abt Associates contributed to this evaluation and report. Ed Prestera and Holly Harris helped program and administer the baseline web survey. Tyler Morrill, Marci Schalk, Xueqi Zhou, and Keely Stater were key data programmers and analysts. Jill Khadduri, the evaluation’s Project Quality Reviewer, provided guidance and feedback through each phase of the evaluation and report. The team also appreciates Bry Pollack, Charmayne Walker, Audrey Hanbury, Elizabeth Tenly, Timothy Lara, and Christina Eng, who provided editing, production, and graphic design support.

Foreword

The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program is a federal housing assistance program that helps house 2.2 million low-income households stably and affordably. The HCV program depends on landlord participation to make privately owned units available to voucher holders; therefore, their participation determines the number of available units and their geographic distribution, which in turn affects tenant mobility, healthy housing, fair housing choice, and other HUD goals and strategies.

Moving to Work (MTW) is a demonstration program for public housing authorities (PHAs) that provides them the opportunity to design and test innovative, locally designed strategies that use Federal dollars more efficiently, help residents find employment and become self-sufficient, and increase housing choices for low-income families. In 2016, Congress authorized HUD to expand the MTW program to an additional 100 PHAs.

To develop practical knowledge about how HUD and public housing authorities (PHAs) can bring more landlords into the HCV program and based on the recommendations of the MTW

Expansion Research Advisory Committee, HUD designated one cohort of the MTW Expansion to study the impact of providing incentives to landlords on key outcomes for the HCV program and voucher holders. The additional flexibilities under MTW allow HUD to study an important trade-off between spending more subsidy on incentives that encourage landlord participation and using those funds to subsidize more households. Critical to that trade-off are these questions:

• Do the incentives improve lease-up for those households most in need of rental assistance?

• Do the incentives expand the number of landlords accepting vouchers and thus expand choice for tenants?

Twenty-eight small and medium-sized PHAs from across the country volunteered to participate in the Landlord Incentives cohort of the MTW Expansion (LI MTW). Each of the participating PHAs will implement at least two activities intended to make the HCV program more attractive to landlords in their service areas. These activities must fall into the following categories: wider payment standards than standard PHAs can offer; extra payments to landlords, such as signing bonuses or reimbursement for tenant-caused damages; and/or greater flexibility in timing of inspections. This report, the first of three, describes the study that will evaluate these activities.

The multi-year evaluation of the LI MTW cohort is an ambitious study that will describe the activities of the participating PHAs and track indicators of success—including numbers of participating landlords and HCV holders’ lease-up success rates—in the 28 service areas of the LI MTW PHAs and the service areas of 112 carefully selected comparison PHAs. The First Interim Report describes the research design, the MTW landlord incentives, the LI MTW

agencies and matched comparison PHAs, and the baseline measures of study outcomes.

MTW encourages an entrepreneurial spirit to think of and create solutions in a new way. MTW

agencies have directly influenced national policy for 25 years, paving the way for the future delivery of federally assisted housing. PHAs in the MTW demonstration have pioneered several innovative policy interventions that have been successful at the local level, and subsequently rolled out to the rest of the country’s PHAs. This latest cohort focused on landlord incentives continues this tradition of policy innovation benefiting residents of HUD-assisted housing. At HUD, we are eager to learn alongside the participating PHAs, the research team, and their state iii

and local partners about how we can continue to improve the HCV program and expand housing choice and opportunity for the low-income families that participate in it.

Solomon Greene

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

iv

Table of Contents

List of Exhibits ............................................................................................................................... vi

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... vii

Study Data .......................................................................................................................... ix

Study Sample .......................................................................................................................x

Key Takeaways ....................................................................................................................x

Goals of the Early Analysis .............................................................................................. xii

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Moving to Work ..........................................................................................................1

1.2 MTW Landlord Incentives Cohort ..............................................................................1

1.3 Research Questions .....................................................................................................3

1.4 Evaluation Overview ..................................................................................................4

1.5 Outcome Measures......................................................................................................5

1.6 Resident Expert Panel .................................................................................................6

1.7 Evaluation Schedule ....................................................................................................7

2. Data Collection ..........................................................................................................................9

2.1 Sources for This Report ..............................................................................................9

2.2 Data Collection for Future Reports ...........................................................................12

3. Study Sample ...........................................................................................................................19

3.1 Treatment PHAs........................................................................................................19

3.2 Comparison PHAs ....................................................................................................21

3.3 Outcome Measures at Baseline .................................................................................21

4. Interim Findings .......................................................................................................................28

4.1 Current Challenges Related to Landlord Engagement ..............................................28

4.2 Planned Incentives for MTW Agencies ....................................................................31

4.3 Comparable Incentives at Standard PHAs ................................................................34

4.4 Other Strategies for Landlord Engagement ..............................................................36

4.5 Implications for Process and Impact Studies ............................................................37

Appendix A. Resident Expert Panel ..............................................................................................39

A.1 Methodology .............................................................................................................39

A.2 Implementing REP Input ..........................................................................................41

A.3 Lessons Learned ........................................................................................................42

Appendix B. Evaluation Public Housing Agencies .......................................................................44

Appendix C. Qualitative Impact Protocol and Thematic Interview Approach Crosswalk ............48

References ................................................................................................................................59

v

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1-1. Locations of the Landlord Incentives Moving to Work Agencies ............................................ 2

Exhibit 1-2. Confirmatory Outcome Measures by Domain .......................................................................... 6

Exhibit 1-3. Exploratory Outcome Measures by Domain ............................................................................. 6

Exhibit 1-4. Data Collection by Study Year ................................................................................................. 7

Exhibit 1-5. Reporting and Deliverables by Study Year ............................................................................... 8

Exhibit 2-1. Primary Data Collection by Year and Sample at LI MTW Agencies and Comparison

PHAs ........................................................................................................................................................... 12

Exhibit 2-2. Topics for Interviews With Landlord Incentives MTW and Comparison Public

Housing Agencies ....................................................................................................................................... 14

Exhibit 3-1. Landlord Incentives Moving to Work Agency Characteristics ............................................... 19

Exhibit 3-2. Landlord Incentive Moving to Work Agencies’ Rental Vacancy, Median Rent, and

Source of Income Laws .............................................................................................................................. 20

Exhibit 3-3. Matching Criteria .................................................................................................................... 21

Exhibit 3-4. Landlord Participation at Landlord Incentives Moving to Work Agencies at Baseline ......... 21

Exhibit 3-5. Landlord Participation at Landlord Incentives MTW Agencies and Comparison PHAs

at Baseline ................................................................................................................................................... 23

Exhibit 3-6. Landlord Incentives Moving to Work Agency Success Rate at 180 Days ............................. 26

Exhibit 3-7. Landlord Incentives Moving to Work Agency Mean Search Time ........................................ 27

Exhibit 3-8. Success in Leasing at Landlord Incentives MTW Agencies and Comparison PHAs at

Baseline ....................................................................................................................................................... 27

Exhibit 4-1. Responses to the Question: Is your agency currently encountering any of the following

challenges related to recruiting or retaining landlords for the HCV program? ........................................... 28

Exhibit 4-2. Market Competitiveness ......................................................................................................... 29

Exhibit 4-3. Responses to the Question: Please confirm which landlord incentive your agency

intends to implement as part of your LI MTW program ............................................................................. 31

Exhibit 4-4. Responses to the Question: Does your PHA currently offer, or plan to offer in the next

fiscal year, any of the following to increase landlord participation in HCV? ............................................. 34

Exhibit 4-5. Responses to the Question: [Outside of your planned LI MTW incentives] Does your

agency currently provide any of the following resources or supports to engage landlords in the

Housing Choice Voucher program? ............................................................................................................ 36

Exhibit A-1. Summary of Resident Expert Panel Workshops .................................................................... 40

Exhibit B-1. List of 28 Landlord Incentives Moving to Work Agencies .................................................... 44

Exhibit B-2. List of 112 Comparison Group Public Housing Agencies ..................................................... 44

Exhibit B-3. Comparison of Baseline Characteristics of LI MTW and Comparison Public Housing

Agencies ...................................................................................................................................................... 46

Exhibit C-1. Interview Questions................................................................................................................ 48

vi

Executive Summary

The Moving to Work (MTW) Demonstration was authorized in 1996 under an Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act. Under the demonstration, public housing agencies (PHAs) are permitted to use U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding streams for Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) and public housing programs interchangeably and to implement waivers to standard program rules. The statutory objectives of MTW are to test approaches to providing housing assistance that—

• Reduce cost and achieve greater cost-effectiveness in federal expenditures.

• Give incentives to families with children when the head of household is working, seeking work, or preparing for work by participating in job training, education programs, or programs that assist people in obtaining employment and becoming economically self-sufficient.

• Increase housing choices for low-income families. 1

Initially, HUD awarded 30 PHAs MTW designation based on the 1996 legislation. In 2016, there were 39 MTW agencies. 2

In 2016, HUD was authorized to expand the demonstration to an additional 100 PHAs, 3 with a mandate to use the expansion to add to the evidence base about assisted housing by testing and evaluating the impact of specific program changes. HUD decided to implement the expansion in cohorts, with each cohort of new MTW agencies testing a different group of policy changes.

In January 2021, HUD published a request for applications for the Landlord Incentives (LI) cohort of the MTW expansion. 4 In this cohort, PHAs will implement incentives that encourage landlords to participate in the HCV program. As of the writing of this report (August 2023), 28

PHAs were participating in the LI cohort.

LI MTW agencies must adopt at least two incentives from HUD’s menu of nine landlord incentive options in three categories: payment standards flexibility, one-time financial incentives, and simplified inspections. The nine incentives are—

• Payment standards between 80 and 150 percent of the Small Area Fair Market Rents (SAFMRs).

• Payment standards between 80 and 120 percent of the Fair Market Rents (FMRs).

1 Specifically, the law states that the flexibilities are allowed to test approaches to providing housing assistance that

“reduce[s] cost and achieve[s] greater cost effectiveness in federal expenditures; give incentives to families with children where the head of household is working, 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” (See

https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ134/PLAW-104publ134.pdf).

2 Hereafter, these PHAs are referred to as the “initial 39 MTW agencies.”

3 Hereafter, the additional 100 MTW agencies are referred to as “MTW expansion agencies.” Any PHA not awarded MTW designation is referred to as a “standard PHA.” PHAs in the Landlord Incentives (LI) cohort are referred to as

“Landlord Incentives MTW agencies” or “LI MTW agencies.” When discussing methodology, LI MTW agencies are also referred to as “Treatment PHAs.” The comparison sample of PHAs selected as part of the evaluation are referred to as “comparison PHAs.” They are similar to LI MTW agencies but were not awarded MTW designation in any cohort.

4 PIH Notice 2021-03. That request for applications is available at

https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/2021-03pihn.pdf.

vii

• Vacancy loss of up to 1 month’s rent for renting a unit previously rented to a voucher household to a new voucher household.

• Vacancy loss of up to 1 month’s rent for renting a unit not previously rented to a voucher household to a voucher household.

• Damage claims of up to 2 months of contract rent.

• Signing bonuses of up to 1 month’s contract rent.

• Prequalifying unit inspections—that is, inspections of units that do not yet have a Request for Tenancy Approval.

• Alternative inspection schedules no less frequently than every 3 years.

• Alternative inspection schedules, eliminating initial inspection.

LI MTW agencies could propose additional incentives and other waivers for HUD’s approval as long as the waivers do not undermine the landlord incentives.

The MTW landlord incentives are intended to increase landlord participation in the HCV program and improve voucher holders’ ability to lease units. To understand the impacts of the MTW

landlord incentives and the ways the incentives might have caused these impacts, the mixed methods evaluation is made up of a process study, an impact study, and a cost study.

Specific research questions for each study are—

Impact Questions

• What are the impacts of the MTW landlord incentives on—

− Landlord participation in the HCV program?

− The success of households leasing units?

Process Questions

• Why did PHAs decide to apply for the MTW LI cohort?

• Among the PHAs receiving the MTW LI cohort designation (the evaluation’s treatment group), which landlord incentives did PHAs select from HUD’s menu of landlord incentives? Why did they choose these incentives? How did they implement the chosen incentives? To what extent did their choice of incentives and implementation vary by market conditions or other factors?

• Among PHAs without the MTW LI cohort designation (the evaluation’s comparison group), did they implement any HUD-permitted landlord incentives? If so, which incentives did they implement and why? How did they implement those incentives?

• To what extent were landlords aware of MTW incentives for landlords?

• To what extent did landlords’ willingness to accept vouchers for some or all units change in response to the incentives?

• Which MTW incentives were most important in motivating landlords to accept voucher holders?

• How did the community and housing market context in which PHAs implemented incentives affect any change in landlords’ willingness to rent to voucher holders?

viii

Cost Questions

• By how much did housing assistance per-unit costs change for LI MTW agencies that adjusted payment standards? 5

• For LI MTW agencies that offered financial incentives, what level of incentives did they offer landlords, and how often did they pay out particular incentives (for example, signing bonuses, damage payments, or reimbursements for vacancy loss)?

• For LI MTW agencies that simplified inspections, what administrative cost savings did the PHAs realize?

• For LI MTW agencies that increased success rates, what administrative cost savings did the PHAs realize?

Overall, the studies will allow estimates of how much landlord incentives implemented through the MTW Demonstration changed landlords’ willingness to rent to voucher holders, landlord participation in the HCV program, and the success with which voucher holders leased units. In addition, qualitative data from PHAs and landlords will help us understand how PHAs implemented MTW incentives, explore successes and challenges, and investigate similar incentives comparison PHAs may have implemented.

This interim report is the first on this evaluation. It describes the agencies in the LI cohort of the MTW expansion, the PHAs selected to serve as a comparison group in the evaluation research, research methods, and interim findings.

Study Data

This report relies on secondary data (already existing data) and primary data (the new data collected for this evaluation). The main secondary data sources are—

1. HUD’s Inventory Management System/Office of Public and Indian Housing Information Center database, which stores the data on program participants and landlords that PHAs submit through Form HUD-50058.

2. Applications that LI MTW agencies submitted to HUD to join the MTW LI cohort.

3. American Community Survey data.

In addition to the secondary data, this report relies on one primary data collection effort—a web survey of all LI MTW agencies and comparison PHAs. Future reports will rely on additional secondary and primary data sources, including web surveys, phone interviews, site visits, and landlord interviews.

Another important source of information for this evaluation is a resident expert panel (REP) comprising seven HCV holders recruited to provide input on research design, data collection, and interpretation of findings. Including a REP helps ensure that the research reflects the perspectives and experiences of the people that the HCV program serves. The REP is not intended to be representative of all HCV holders. Instead, it reflects the lived experiences and expertise of some HCV program participants. Between June 2022 and March 2023, the REP convened six times. As a result of input from the REP, some aspects of the data collection protocols were modified (see section A.2).

5 Throughout this document, the shorthand LI MTW agencies sometimes refers to PHAs in the MTW LI cohort.

ix

Study Sample

For each of the 28 LI MTW agencies, four comparison PHAs were selected to total 112 comparison PHAs for the impact analysis. Comparison PHAs were selected to match LI MTW agencies as closely as possible on a range of characteristics, including eligibility to apply to participate in this cohort, geographic region, whether or not their service area was subject to source of income laws, number of voucher households served, income limits, percentage of households with incomes less than $5,000 yearly, voucher success rate, HUD expenditure per unit-month leased, racial characteristics of tenants using vouchers, and area rental housing vacancy rate.

Key Takeaways

LI MTW agencies are still early implementing landlord incentives. In fact, only nine PHAs had signed MTW Supplements as of April 2023. 6 Therefore, this report describes LI MTW agencies and comparison PHAs at baseline and reports findings from the MTW applications and the baseline survey.

PHA Characteristics—LI Cohort

• LI MTW agencies range in size from about 800 to nearly 5,600 units.

• Six LI MTW agencies have only voucher programs (no public housing programs). For an additional 14 MTW agencies, vouchers make up more than 80 percent of their available housing subsidies. For the other 8 LI MTW agencies, vouchers make up between 47 and 77 percent of their available housing subsidies.

• The percentage of voucher households for whom earned income was a major source of income ranged from 10 to 40 percent.

• The percentage of elderly voucher households ranged from 30 to 84 percent.

• The rental markets LI MTW agencies covered ranged from a median rent of $793 to $2,083, and the rental vacancy rate ranged from 1 to 10 percent.

• In the year prior to receiving MTW designation, LI MTW agencies had an average success rate of 60 percent, with success rates ranging from 21 to 90 percent.

Challenges Recruiting, Retaining, and Engaging Landlords

LI MTW agencies and comparison PHAs were asked in the web survey to indicate which challenges (out of nine close-ended options) they faced with recruiting and retaining landlords. In most cases, LI MTW agencies were more likely to report that they were facing these challenges than comparison PHAs, although administrative baseline data suggest that LI MTW agencies and comparison PHAs have similar success rates and average times to leasing up. Other survey findings include—

• LI MTW agencies were more likely than comparison PHAs to report challenges associated with landlords’ negative perceptions of HCV tenants, payment standards set too low for the local 6 Expansion MTW agencies submit the MTW Supplement to the Annual PHA Plan annually. It describes MTW

activities the PHA is implementing or planning to implement in their upcoming fiscal year. PHAs also report on the MTW activities in the prior year so that HUD can monitor the MTW Demonstration program.

x

rental market, concerns with the HCV eviction and inspection policies, and delays in getting units leased.

• LI MTW agencies and comparison PHAs were similarly likely to report that a lack of rental housing supply was a challenge.

• LI MTW incentives are often part of a broader strategy for landlord engagement, including, among other things, hiring landlord liaisons and creating a landlord website. Both LI MTW

agencies and comparison PHAs often participate in landlord engagement activities.

• About 44 percent of LI MTW agencies hired a dedicated landlord liaison and had a partnership with a landlord industry group compared with about one-quarter of the comparison sites.

Planned Landlord Incentives

LI MTW agencies are required to implement at least two incentives from HUD’s menu of nine options.

• In the MTW application, LI MTW agencies indicated they would adopt four of the nine landlord incentives options on average, with the range being from two to eight.

• Most LI MTW agencies (92 percent) reported that they planned to implement one or more financial incentives, such as signing bonuses, damage claims, or vacancy loss payments.

• Signing bonuses were the most common LI MTW waiver that LI MTW agencies said they would pursue. These bonuses will be implemented in a variety of ways, such as incentivizing new landlords, incentivizing new units, or retaining current landlords.

• LI MTW agencies also plan to take advantage of one or more payment standard flexibilities (72

percent), including making changes to FMR payment standards (44 percent) and SAFMR

payment standards (32 percent).

• More than one-half of LI MTW agencies plan to take advantage of one or more inspection flexibilities (56 percent). The most common type of inspection flexibility these PHAs plan to implement is prequalifying inspections (48 percent).

Incentives Offered at Comparison PHAs

Even without MTW flexibility, standard PHAs can implement certain incentives for landlords that are similar to the MTW landlord incentives. Comparison PHAs responding to the web survey said that they offer financial incentives and inspection-related flexibility.

• About 20 percent of the comparison PHAs offer financial incentives, such as signing bonuses and damage claim payments.

• About 20 percent of the comparison PHAs offer some type of inspection flexibility, such as moving to biennial rather than annual inspections.

This information is useful for understanding the contrast between LI MTW agencies and comparison PHAs, the basis of the impact analysis.

REP Insights

The REP provided insights—based on direct experience finding and renting units with vouchers—

incorporated into the study design.

xi

• Questions to the PHA survey were added about communications between PHAs and voucher holders, the difficulty voucher holders face renting units, and PHAs screening of landlords.

• Questions were added to the onsite data collection protocols about the potential changes to inspection requirements on housing quality and any PHA plans to identify and address these changes should they arise.

Insights were gained about convening and engaging the REP. In anticipation of group member attrition, it is important to recruit a larger group than needed. Furthermore, maintaining regular contact is important to keep REP members engaged in the study.

Goals of the Early Analysis

The primary goal of this early analysis is to understand how both LI MTW agencies and comparison PHAs perceive the problems they face with landlord engagement in the HCV program and what they are currently doing (outside the scope of MTW) to address them. This information will provide valuable context for the impact and cost studies by clarifying how MTW landlord incentives differ from the current state of PHA operations for both groups. A secondary goal of this early analysis is to clarify the incentives that LI MTW agencies plan to implement as part of their MTW program.

xii

1. Introduction

1.1 Moving to Work

The Moving to Work (MTW) Demonstration was authorized in 1996 under an Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act. Under the demonstration, public housing agencies (PHAs) are permitted to use HUD funding streams for Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) and public housing programs interchangeably and to implement waivers to standard program rules.

The statutory objectives of MTW are to increase the cost-effectiveness of program operations and the self-sufficiency of residents and to broaden housing choice. 7 Initially, HUD awarded 30 PHAs MTW designation based on the 1996 legislation. By 2016, 39 MTW agencies existed.

In 2016, the U.S. Congress authorized HUD to expand the demonstration to an additional 100

PHAs and mandated HUD to use the expansion to test and evaluate the effects of specific flexibilities in assisted housing programs. HUD decided to expand in cohorts, with each cohort of new Landlord Incentives (LI) MTW agencies testing a different group of policy changes. To determine which policy changes should be tested and how to evaluate them, HUD created an MTW

Research Advisory Committee composed of researchers, PHA executive directors, and assisted household members. That committee recommended investigating how to engage more landlords, and thus, HUD designated the LI cohort.

1.2 MTW Landlord Incentives Cohort

In response to evidence of landlord resistance to HCV participation and with the advice of HUD’s MTW Research Advisory Committee, HUD decided to use one of the expansion cohorts to test the effectiveness of incentives for landlords to participate in the HCV program.

In January 2021, HUD published a request for applications for the LI cohort of the MTW

expansion. 8 In this cohort, the 28 participating PHAs will implement incentives to encourage landlord participation in the HCV program. 9

Exhibit 1-1 shows the locations of the 28 participating PHAs and their size per number of vouchers.

As the exhibit displays, participating PHAs are throughout the country. Chapter 3 presents details on the PHA study sample.

7 Specifically, the law states that the flexibilities are allowed to test approaches to providing housing assistance that

“reduce cost and achieve greater cost effectiveness in federal expenditures; give incentives to families with children where the head of household is working, 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” https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ134/PLAW-

104publ134.pdf.

8 PIH Notice 2021-03. The request for applications is available at

https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/2021-03pihn.pdf.

9 In January 2022, HUD announced that 29 PHAs were selected to participate in the LI cohort. After the announcement, one of the selected PHAs decided not to try to obtain MTW designation.

1

Exhibit 1-1. Locations of the Landlord Incentives Moving to Work Agencies PHAs participating in the LI cohort must adopt at least two incentives from HUD’s menu of the following nine options in three categories: payment standards flexibility, one-time financial incentives, and simplified inspections.

• Payment standards between 80 and 150 percent of the Small Area Fair Market Rents (SAFMRs). 10

• Payment standards between 80 and 120 percent of the Fair Market Rents (FMRs). 11

• Vacancy losses of up to 1 month’s rent for renting a unit previously rented to a voucher household to a new voucher household.

• Vacancy loss of up to 1 month’s rent for renting a unit not previously rented to a voucher household to a voucher household. This cohort-specific waiver is only available to agencies in the LI cohort.

• Damage claims of up to 2 months of contract rent.

• Signing bonuses of up to 1 month’s contract rent.

10 SAFMRs are FMRs calculated for ZIP Codes within metropolitan areas. Standard PHAs using SAFMRs can set the payment standard between 90 and 110 percent of the SAFMR. The SAFMR for each metropolitan area is at

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr/smallarea/index.html#final-rulemaking.

11 Standard PHAs can determine a payment standard between 90 and 110 percent of the FMR.

2

• Prequalifying unit inspections—that is, inspections of units that do not yet have a Request for Tenancy Approval.

• Alternative inspections scheduled no less frequently than every 3 years.

• Alternative inspection schedules, waiving initial inspections. This cohort-specific waiver is only available to agencies in the LI cohort.

PHAs could propose implementing additional incentives and other waivers for HUD’s approval as long as the waivers would not undermine the landlord incentives.

In September 2021, HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research contracted with Abt Associates in partnership with the University of Hawai′i and the University of Notre Dame to conduct an evaluation of the MTW LI cohort. This evaluation responds to the statutory mandate for using expansion cohorts to learn about housing assistance.

1.3 Research Questions

Landlord incentives are intended to increase landlord participation in the HCV program and improve voucher holders’ ability to lease qualifying units under the program. To fully understand the effects of the incentives and the mechanisms through which the incentives might have caused these effects, the evaluation is made up of an impact study, a process study, and a cost study.

The impact study will compare outcomes at LI MTW agencies with the outcomes at similar PHAs in a comparison sample that are not in the cohort to examine the extent to which enabling PHAs to implement landlord incentives through the MTW Demonstration changed (1) landlord participation in the HCV program and (2) the success with which voucher holders leased units (details follow in section 1.4).

The process study will describe landlord incentives that LI MTW agencies and PHAs in the comparison sample implemented. It will also describe how landlords relate to the HCV program and how the incentives LI MTW agencies implemented influenced that relationship.

The cost study will analyze the financial implications of landlord incentives. It will examine the direct financial costs to PHAs of the one-time payments for bonuses or damage reimbursements, changes in inspection costs stemming from changing inspection frequency, changes in voucher issuance costs if incentives affect success rates, and changes in Housing Assistance Payment costs (the rental subsidy payments PHAs make for voucher households) stemming from adjusting the payment standards or other incentives that change the costs of units rented.

Specific research questions for each study are—

Impact Questions

• What are the impacts of the MTW landlord incentives on—

− Landlord participation in the HCV program?

− The success of households leasing units?

Process Questions

• Why did PHAs decide to apply for the MTW LI cohort?

• Among the PHAs receiving LI MTW designation (the evaluation’s treatment group), which landlord incentives did PHAs select from HUD’s menu of landlord incentives? Why did they choose the incentives they did? How did they implement the chosen incentives? To what extent did their choice of incentives and implementation vary by market conditions or other factors?

3

• Among PHAs without LI MTW designation (the evaluation’s comparison group), did they implement any HUD-permitted landlord incentives? If so, which incentives did they implement and why? How did they implement those incentives?

• To what extent were landlords aware of incentives for landlords?

• To what extent did landlords’ willingness to accept vouchers for some or all units change in response to the incentives?

• Which incentives were most important in motivating landlords to accept voucher holders?

• How did the community and housing market context in which the PHA implemented the incentives affect any change in landlords’ willingness to rent to voucher holders?

Cost Questions

• By how much did housing assistance per-unit costs change for LI MTW agencies that changed payment standards? 12

• For LI MTW agencies that offered financial incentives, what level of incentives did they offer landlords, and how often did they pay out particular incentives (for example, signing bonuses, damage payments, or reimbursements for vacancy loss)?

• For LI MTW agencies that simplified inspections, what administrative cost savings did PHAs realize?

• For LI MTW agencies that increased success rates, what administrative cost savings did PHAs realize?

1.4 Evaluation Overview

To answer the research questions, the evaluation team is employing a quasi-experimental design with a matched comparison group to conduct a range of data collection and analysis activities.

Using baseline and followup measures, the team will compare LI MTW agency (treatment group) outcomes with comparison group PHA outcomes to estimate the effects of MTW landlord incentives.

1.4.1 Data Collection

This evaluation relies on both secondary data, or already existing data, and primary data, new data collected as part of this evaluation. Chapter 2 presents more details.

The main secondary data sources for this report include HUD’s Inventory Management System/Office of Public and Indian Housing Information Center (IMS/PIC) database, which stores the data that PHAs submit through the Form HUD-50058 that is completed for each household participating in the HCV program. 13 This report also relies on information from applications PHAs submitted to HUD to express interest in joining the MTW LI cohort and on data from the American Community Survey. Forthcoming reports will include additional secondary data sources. In addition to the secondary data, the team will collect data through web surveys, phone interviews, site visits, and landlord interviews. This report uses only one primary data source, the baseline web 12 Throughout this document, the shorthand LI MTW agencies refers to PHAs in the MTW LI cohort.

13 HUD Form 50058 is a module of IMS/PIC that collects, stores, and generates reports on all families participating in HCV or public housing programs. The form includes information on household demographics, income, payments, and landlords and is updated annually or when the household experiences certain changes. The form is at

https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/OCHCO/documents/50058.PDF.

4

survey of cohort and comparison PHAs. Future reports will include information collected from other primary sources.

1.4.2 Study Sample

Four comparison PHAs were selected for each LI MTW agency to total 112 comparison PHAs. The team selected comparison PHAs to match LI MTW agencies as closely as possible on a range of characteristics, including eligibility to apply to participate in this cohort, geographic region, whether their service area was subject to source of income laws, number of voucher households served, income limits, percentage of assisted households with incomes less than $5,000 a year, voucher success rate, HUD expenditure per unit-month leased, racial characteristics of tenants using vouchers, and area rental housing vacancy rate. As chapter 3 describes, the comparison PHAs are similar to LI MTW agencies across dimensions measured through secondary data.

1.5 Outcome Measures

Outcome measures for the impact study include impact estimates and related nonexperimental analyses. Two categories of outcomes exist. Confirmatory outcomes are prespecified as the key outcomes to report as evidence of the impact of landlord incentives. Exploratory outcomes are other outcomes that provide alternate ways to measure the same concepts as do the confirmatory outcomes or that amplify and provide context to help interpret the confirmatory outcomes. Unlike the prespecified confirmatory outcomes, exploratory outcomes might be revised as the analysis proceeds. Other exploratory outcomes may be added if the initial analysis indicates other measures can be informative. 14

This study focuses on three outcome domains relevant to understanding the impacts of MTW’s landlord incentives. The definitions and logic of these outcomes are as follows.

1. Landlord Willingness to Accept Vouchers, or “landlord willingness.” Landlords must be fundamentally willing to rent to voucher holders. If the intervention can increase landlords’

willingness to accept vouchers, then a shift in willingness is likely to lead both to landlords’

greater participation in the HCV program and to voucher households’ greater success in leasing units.

2. Landlord Participation in the HCV Program, or “landlord participation.” Landlord participation indicates not only landlord willingness to accept vouchers but actual participation in the program. Participation requires landlords having eligible units in which voucher holders choose to live. Landlords’ greater participation in the HCV program and the range of units they are willing to bring into the program imply greater opportunities for voucher holders to succeed in leasing.

3. Success of Voucher Holders in Leasing Units, or “success in leasing.” Landlords’ willingness to accept vouchers and their participation in the HCV program are not ends. The primary goal of the HCV program is to provide safe, affordable housing to households that need it. To that end, the greater success of voucher holders leasing units is more likely to lead to the HCV

14 The researchers judge confirmatory outcomes to be the best single measure in a domain to measure the success of LI MTW agencies. Prespecifying the confirmatory outcomes ensures that the authors do not judge the results after they are available, which is the most important outcome based on whether that outcome was affected. Exploratory outcomes will allow the team to identify and address other interesting findings that emerge.

5

program’s primary goal (indeed, that goal will not be achieved if voucher holders cannot use vouchers but, instead, must turn them back to the PHA).

Within these three outcome domains, one confirmatory outcome is defined for the domains of landlord participation and success in leasing (exhibit 1-2). Confirmatory measures of landlord willingness to rent to voucher holders will be discussed in subsequent reports but not in this report.

Across the three domains, eight exploratory outcome measures were developed (exhibit 1-3).

Exhibit 1-2. Confirmatory Outcome Measures by Domain

Domain

Confirmatory Outcome

Unit of Analysis

Data Source

Landlord

Number of new landlords per 100 new

Public housing

Participation voucher households

agency

IMS/PIC data

Success in

Percentage of new voucher holders who

IMS/PIC data, with

Leasing

lease units within 180 days of voucher

New voucher holders additional

issuance

validation

IMS/PIC = Inventory Management System/Office of Public and Indian Housing Information Center.

Exhibit 1-3. Exploratory Outcome Measures by Domain

Domain

Exploratory Outcome

Unit of Analysis

Data Sources

Landlord

• Number of landlords on PHA lists.

Public housing

Web survey, site

Willingness • Qualitative assessment of landlord

visits, and landlord

willingness based on interviews.

agency

interviews

• Number of participating landlords per 100

IMS/PIC data,

voucher households.

Geocoded

Landlord

• Number of new landlords per 100

Public housing

IMS/PIC and

Participation

voucher households.

TRACS data, and

• Dispersion of voucher units.a

agency

American

• Deconcentration of assisted housing.b

Community

• Types of landlords in voucher program.

Survey

Success in

• Average time between first issuance and New voucher holders

Leasing

lease up for successful voucher holders

who successfully

IMS/PIC data

within 180 days of issuance.

lease units

a Percentage of voucher households that would need to move census tracts for each tract to have the same share of renters who are voucher holders as the share of renters in the PHA service area.

b Percentage of new voucher lease ups in block groups in which less than 5 percent of total housing units are HUD-subsidized.

IMS/PIC = Inventory Management System/Office of Public and Indian Housing Information Center. TRACS =

Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System.

1.6 Resident Expert Panel

An important source of information for this evaluation is a resident expert panel (REP) comprising seven HCV holders recruited to provide input throughout the evaluation on research design, implementation, and interpretation of findings. Additional details on the recruitment and the REP

role are in appendix A.

Including an REP helps ensure that this research reflects the perspectives and experiences of the people the HCV program serves. The REP is not intended to be representative of all HCV holders.

Instead, it reflects the lived experiences and expertise of some HCV program participants. In the same way that some technical aspects of the research engage experts on technical topics, the team engaged the REP to draw on expertise based on members’ direct experience in the HCV program.

Between June 2022 and March 2023, the team met with the REP six times. The first two meetings focused on relationship building, listening to and respecting diverse views, and generally gaining an 6

understanding of these voucher holders’ experiences with landlords so those experiences might enrich the evaluation. Later meetings focused on aspects of the research design and data collection processes and materials, asking the REP for feedback grounded in members’ experience.

As a result of REP input, the team made a number of modifications to the data collection protocols and research approaches. In particular—

• As a result of REP feedback on the sometimes difficult process of obtaining and using HCVs, questions were added to the baseline web survey about the communications between PHAs and HCV applicants, including the role of third-party entities (for example, housing navigator organizations), and about common sticking points that lead to voucher holders not leasing up before the voucher expires (for example, incomplete paperwork, not finding units, and so on).

• REP members commented on the quality of some landlords in the program. As a result, questions were added to the baseline web survey about landlord screening and recruitment.

• REP members shared concerns about the unintended consequences of landlord incentives, especially the potential implications of fewer inspections for unit quality. To address this concern, questions were added to the telephone and second site visit data collections regarding observed effects on housing quality and any mitigation measures implemented as a result.

• REP members noted the importance of tenant feedback in designing incentives. As a result, questions were added to the LI MTW cohort baseline interview protocol about whether PHAs asked for tenant feedback in developing MTW applications.

Throughout the remainder of the evaluation, the team will host quarterly check-ins with the REP to provide evaluation status updates and seek the REP’s feedback on key evaluation components and deliverables. The team will also seek REP input on analysis findings and framing report sections.

1.7 Evaluation Schedule

This evaluation will cover a 5-year period from 2021 to 2026 that covers the baseline year (October 2021 to September 2022; exhibit 1-4), the year of MTW designation (2022), and 3 years following designation (2023 to 2025; exhibit 1-5).

Exhibit 1-4. Data Collection by Study Year

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Data Source

(Oct 2021– (Oct 2022– (Oct 2023– (Oct 2024– (Oct 2025–

Sep 2022) Sep 2023) Sep 2024) Sep 2025) Sep 2026)

Secondary Data











Public Housing Agency Data



Web survey





In-person interviews (site visits)





Phone interviews



Landlord Interview Data



Cost Study Data











7

Exhibit 1-5. Reporting and Deliverables by Study Year

Date

Report or Deliverable

Study Year 1 (October 2021–September 2022)

February 2022

Evaluation Research Design

July 2022

Data Collection and Analysis Plan

Study Year 2 (October 2022–September 2023)

March 2023

Data Collection Instruments and Approval

August 2023

First Interim Report

Study Year 3 (October 2023–September 2024)

October 2023

First Special Topic Brief

August 2024

Second Interim Report

Study Year 4 (October 2024–September 2025)

October 2024

Second Special Topic Brief

Study Year 5 (October 2025–September 2026)

October 2025

Third Special Topic Brief

September 2026

Final Report

September 2026

Data Deliverable

This first interim report covers the status and activities from the program’s launch through May 2023, which means it does not yet answer any evaluation research questions. It includes baseline descriptions of LI MTW agencies and comparison group PHAs and plans that LI MTW agencies have for implementing landlord incentives. The information in this report serves as the baseline against which the impact study will estimate the effects.

The second interim report (due in June 2024) will cover activities through early 2024, focusing on early implementation of incentives. Data sources for the second interim report will include updated administrative and primary data from the first round of site visits at the cohort group PHAs (conducted from May to September 2023) and telephone interviews with LI MTW agencies to be conducted in early 2024.

The final report (due in September 2026) will answer the evaluation’s impact and cost questions and rely on all data sources noted previously. It will include a followup web survey of all 28 LI MTW agencies and 112 comparison PHAs to be conducted in early 2025, site visits with all 28 LI MTW agencies and a subset of comparison PHAs to be conducted in summer 2025, and interviews with up to 400 landlords in a subset of LI MTW agencies and comparison PHAs to be conducted in conjunction with the site visits.

In addition to the interim and final reports, the team will produce three special topic briefs (topics yet to be determined) to enhance and expand on selected evaluation findings. Approximate timing for the special topic briefs will be one per year from 2024 through 2026.

8

2. Data Collection

This section summarizes the main data sources and the timing of data collection. Section 2.1

describes the data used for this first interim report. Section 2.2 describes the data that will be collected and analyzed for the second interim and final reports.

2.1 Sources for This Report

The secondary data used for this report include HUD’s Inventory Management System/Office of Public and Indian Housing Information Center (IMS/PIC) database for both the treatment and comparison group public housing agencies (PHAs), Moving to Work (MTW) applications for the treatment group PHAs, and the American Community Survey (ACS).

2.1.1 HUD’s PIH Information Center Database for Landlord Incentives MTW Agencies and

Comparison PHAs

This report uses HUD administrative data. The IMS/PIC database stores the data that PHAs submit through Form HUD-50058 completed for each household participating in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. The form records data each time households have interactions with PHAs, including individual and household-level demographics, sources and amounts of individual or household income, the PHA’s Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) for each unit, street address of each unit, and dates of voucher issuance and admission to and exit from the program. The IMS/PIC data also include information on voucher holders’ units and landlords.

Other modules in IMS/PIC document the number and location of each PHA’s public housing developments, buildings, and units.

The IMS/PIC database provides data to estimate rates for the two confirmatory outcomes: (1) number of new landlords per 100 new voucher households and (2) percentage of new voucher holders who lease units within 180 days of voucher issuance. In addition, the database provides data to describe the locations and characteristics of program units and the demographics of the HCV program’s participating households. For this first interim report, the team uses the IMS/PIC

data to describe these outcomes at baseline for the Landlord Incentives (LI) MTW agencies and comparison PHAs. Future reports will use these outcomes and others to measure the effects.

2.1.2 MTW Applications

LI MTW agencies must have an approved MTW Supplement before they can begin implementing MTW activities or waivers and then must complete an MTW Supplement annually. 15 The MTW Supplement provides information about the MTW waivers that LI MTW

agencies plan to implement in the coming year. It includes the specific waivers they are requesting, details on each specific activity and the MTW objective it addresses, and any related safe harbor waivers and hardship policies. As of April 5, 2023, only 9 of the 28 PHAs in the LI cohort had approved supplements.

Because only a small number of MTW Supplements have been approved to date, this report relies, instead, on information from the MTW applications that PHAs submitted to HUD to express interest in joining the LI cohort. HUD accepted applications from January 2021 to 15 Expansion MTW agencies submit the MTW Supplement to the Annual PHA Plan annually. It describes MTW

activities the PHA is implementing or planning to implement in the upcoming fiscal year. PHAs also report the MTW activities in the prior year so that HUD can monitor the MTW Demonstration program.

9

October 2021. In their applications, PHAs provided assessments of current program needs and challenges related to landlord participation, described any engagement tactics they had already implemented to attract landlords, and indicated which MTW landlord incentives they planned to implement.

The team analyzed MTW applications from all 28 LI MTW agencies. This process involved thematic coding, using NVivo qualitative analysis software, in which segments of text are assigned to various topics and subtopics. Key topics for coding included barriers to landlord participation in the HCV program, current strategies to engage landlords, and plans for MTW

landlord incentives. Some PHAs’ plans might have changed since initial application. As the team gathers more data about the implementation process, it will compare the evolution of PHA plans from initial application to implementation.

MTW applications and supplements have several important limitations. First, comparison group PHAs did not submit MTW applications. Understanding of HCV program challenges and landlord engagement strategies draws solely on PHA responses to the web survey administered at baseline (discussed in the next section). Second, for LI MTW agencies, MTW applications and the baseline survey represent different time points. MTW applications were submitted to HUD in 2021, whereas the surveys were fielded in 2023. PHAs’ plans and activities could have changed between these times, with important societal and economic shifts occurring during those 2 years.

Because the survey captures current information from both LI MTW agencies and comparison PHAs, this report relies primarily on survey findings, using the MTW applications to provide additional context and insights for LI MTW agencies.

2.1.3 HUD’s Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System

The Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS) provides information on multifamily rental assistance programs. For this evaluation, HUD uses TRACS to provide the team with the number of units assisted through multifamily rental assistance programs in each census block group. This information aids in the calculation of the outcome measuring deconcentrating of assisted housing.

2.1.4 Web Survey of MTW and Comparison PHAs at Baseline

The only primary data used for this interim report are web surveys at baseline for LI MTW

agencies and comparison PHAs. The surveys provide largely quantitative data and some limited qualitative information on PHAs’ programmatic challenges and efforts to engage landlords.

Surveys for LI MTW agencies and comparison PHAs differed slightly. LI MTW agencies were asked about the MTW incentives they planned to implement, and comparison PHAs were asked about any flexibilities or incentives for landlords they currently are implementing or have planned for the upcoming year.

Web surveys were fielded between April 3, 2023, and May 5, 2023. 16 Prior to the team sending the survey, HUD sent a letter to PHAs requesting survey participation. The team sent a survey link to each PHA executive director and asked them to identify the appropriate person or people to complete the survey. The team programmed surveys with Confirmit, using a mix of open- and close-ended items. The survey took approximately 30 minutes to complete. The team asked 16 This report contains web survey results submitted by May 5, 2023. The survey remained open beyond that date, and future reports will contain the baseline information from any subsequent respondents.

10

PHAs to respond to the survey within 2 weeks of receipt. The team sent three e-mail reminders during this 2-week period. After 2 weeks, the team followed up by phone and e-mail with LI MTW agencies that had not responded and with a subset of comparison PHAs that had been identified as potential “indepth” comparison PHAs. The HUD MTW office also sent reminder e-mails throughout the response period.

The survey gathered detailed information on incentives and program outcomes that was not available from secondary data sources. The survey captured information on the following.

• Number of Available Units. PHAs sometimes maintain lists of units available to voucher holders. These lists take many forms, including printed binders and online rental listing sites, such as Housing Collaborative (previously SocialServe) and AffordableHousing.com (formerly GoSection8). In the survey sent to LI MTW agencies and comparison PHAs, the team asked PHAs to provide the website with currently available units listed. If they do not have a website, the team asked them to provide a copy of their printed list. The number of units is an exploratory measure in the landlord willingness domain for the impact study. 17

• Voucher Success Rate. The survey asked PHAs to report voucher success rate for the same period for which the team computed their success rate using IMS/PIC data (July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021). In nearly all cases, the PHA-reported success rate differed substantially from the rate computed using IMS/PIC data. 18

• Details of MTW Incentives Offered at LI MTW Agencies. The team asked LI MTW

agencies to report on the incentives they planned to implement, including the timing of implementation for each incentive, total cost, and the number of payments for each direct financial incentive waiver, number and share of units receiving inspection flexibilities, and staff time reductions or other cost savings realized from inspection flexibilities.

• Details of Comparable Incentives Offered at Comparison PHAs. For comparison PHAs, the primary purpose of the survey is to understand whether PHAs implemented any landlord incentives or other initiatives on their own to increase landlord participation during the study period, and how those incentives or initiatives were targeted. This information is necessary for understanding the contrast between MTW and comparison PHAs. Topics on the comparison PHA survey included financial or administrative incentives offered, the timing of these incentives, how each incentive was targeted, uptake or reach of these incentives, and market context or local conditions that could have affected landlord willingness to accept vouchers or success rates.

As of May 5, 2023, 89 percent of LI MTW agencies (25 out of 28) had responded to the survey.

The response rate among comparison PHAs was 48 percent (54 out of 112). 19

Comparison group PHAs that responded to the survey were significantly larger than those that did not respond. The average number of vouchers among comparison PHA respondents was 3,285 versus 1,984 for comparison PHA nonrespondents. Other baseline characteristics—

17 The PHA web survey and early site visits indicate that PHA lists are often incomplete, not updated regularly, and not collected in a systematic manner. Future reports will provide additional information about the PHA list findings.

18 After reviewing both survey and administrative data on success rates, the team concluded that administrative data were more consistent and complete and chose to exclude survey data from the success rate analysis.

19 This first interim report includes web survey responses through May 5, 2023. Additional responses have come in since. Future reports using the baseline web survey will reflect the larger sample.

11

including housing market conditions, characteristics of tenant population, and program expenditures—were similar between comparison respondents and nonrespondents. Comparison PHA respondents tended to have larger programs than LI MTW agencies but were otherwise similarly matched on baseline characteristics.

The web survey findings will provide valuable descriptive information for the process study and important context for the impact study. They will also help the team prepare for site visits. The team will incorporate baseline survey responses into the summaries of PHA characteristics to be developed for site visitors prior to their visits.

2.1.5 ACS and Other Secondary Sources

This evaluation uses ACS data to assist in calculating several outcome variables. Census tract-level data allow the team to construct measures of median and first quartile poverty rates within a PHA’s service area. They also allow the team to construct measures of the rental housing stock across a PHA service area and, thus, calculate whether the percentage of voucher households in a census tract (out of all voucher households) is similar to the percentage of renter-occupied units in the census tract (out of all renter households in the PHA’s service area).

In addition to ACS, Poverty & Race Research Action Council data are used to identify the status of the source of income law as of 2021, that is, at the time of PHA application to the LI cohort.

These data show whether each PHA’s service area has laws against discrimination based on source of income. This variable is used to select comparison PHAs that have the same rules as LI MTW agencies with which they are compared.

2.2 Data Collection for Future Reports

Future reports will also rely on a range of primary and secondary data. The secondary data will include updates to the secondary data in this first interim report and information from MTW

Supplements, which are expected to be completed by the time the second interim report is due.

Exhibit 2-1 describes the primary data that will be collected and analyzed across the evaluation.

Exhibit 2-1. Primary Data Collection by Year and Sample at LI MTW Agencies and Comparison PHAs

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Activity

(Oct 2022–

(Oct 2023–

(Oct 2024–

(Oct 2025–

Sep 2023)

Sep 2024)

Sep 2025)

Sep 2026)

PHA in-person

Followup Interview:

interviews and

Baseline Interview:

LI MTW ( n = 28);

observations (site LI MTW ( n = 28)

Indepth comparison

visits)

( n = 22)

PHA phone

interviews

MTW ( n = 28)

Baseline Survey:

Followup Survey:

PHA web surveys LI MTW ( n = 28);

LI MTW ( n = 28);

Comparison ( n =

Comparison ( n =

112)

112)

20 landlords at each

Landlord

of the 13 LI MTW

interviews

agencies and 7

indepth comparison

PHAs

LI = Landlord Incentives. MTW = Moving to Work. PHA = public housing agency.

12

2.2.1 Site Visits

Site visits for in-person interviews and observations at all 28 LI MTW agencies will take place in year 2 and again in year 4 of the evaluation. In-person interviews and observations at the 22

“indepth” comparison PHAs and interviews with 20 landlords in each of 20 PHAs will take place in year 4 as part of the site visits.

The team will coordinate with PHAs to schedule site visits. In year 2, site visits will take place during 2 days, with one or two members of the team attending (depending on the size and complexity of the PHA). In year 4, site visits for PHA-only data collection will also take place during 2 days, with one or two members of the team attending. Site visits including data collection from both PHAs and landlords will take place during 4 days with two members of the team in attendance.

Site visit data collection will include—20

• PHA staff interviews to inform the process study and parts of the impact and cost studies.

• MTW program observations and related activities when possible.

• Neighborhood drive-throughs in PHAs’ service areas where HCV holders typically rent units.

• Program material and document collection if available.

The following describes the logistics of collecting different types of data from site visits.

Preparation for Site Visits. Prior to site visits, the team will review contextual and administrative data for each PHA. These data include baseline voucher success rates, lease-up times, market characteristics, web survey data, and (for LI MTW agencies only) landlord incentives described in the MTW application. The team will use these data to create a summary of the key characteristics of each PHA’s context, program, and landlord incentives.

In-Person Interviews. During site visits in years 2 and 4, the team will interview three to five PHA staff at each of the sites. Interviewees will include PHA and HCV program leadership, such as the executive director or director of the HCV program, client-facing staff such as caseworkers and housing navigators, the inspection manager or lead inspector, and staff responsible for landlord outreach and recruitment, such as landlord liaisons. The team might also include PHA partners and other stakeholders, such as local realtors who work with voucher households or organizations that provide housing navigation services. In initial communications with PHA sites, the team will confirm which staff and stakeholders will be most appropriate to interview.

Each interview will take 30 to 60 minutes, depending on the topic. With participants’ permission, interviews will be audio-recorded and transcribed.

Observations and Neighborhood Drive-Throughs. During site visits to LI MTW agencies in year 2 and MTW and indepth comparison PHAs in year 5, the team will conduct some tailored observations to gain more context and understanding of MTW programmatic activities and market context, depending on opportunities available during site visits. Observation activities could include attending PHA staff, landlord, and other stakeholder meetings; touring neighborhoods within the PHA’s service area; or shadowing key program staff. The team will 20 A list of data collection instruments is available at the Office of Budget and Management website

https://omb.report/omb/2528-0340.

13

work with PHA staff to determine the most appropriate and informative activities to attend. The team will take detailed notes of any observation activities.

2.2.2 Phone Interviews

The team will conduct phone interviews with all LI MTW agencies in year 3. As with site visits, the team will use existing data to compile a summary of key PHA characteristics prior to interviews. The team will schedule up to three interviews at each PHA. Two members of the team, a lead interviewer and a notetaker and ideally the same people who participated in PHA year-2 site visits, will attend each interview. Interviews will be approximately 30 minutes and will be audio recorded with participants’ permission and transcribed.

Talking to PHA staff allows for understanding of how PHAs implement landlord incentives and the kinds of opportunities and challenges they face using them. These insights will also give context to the impact and cost studies, highlighting factors that might have affected landlord incentives. For LI MTW agencies, the goal of the process study data collection (that is, interviews, observations, administrative data, and web survey) is to gather insights on the landlord incentives implementation and the implications for the HCV program. For comparison PHAs, interviews will provide clarity about other factors outside MTW that might drive changes in landlord participation.

For all PHA interviews, the team will use a semi-structured protocol that provides consistency while still allowing free-flowing conversation and unprompted participant insights. The extensive interview guide will describe all the discussion topics. Exhibit 2-2 provides an overview of key topics for each set of interviews. As chapter 1 noted, the resident expert panel provided input into the interview topics, including adding questions regarding relations with HCV holders, HCV holder input into the MTW application process, landlord screening, and unintended consequences of the incentives.

Exhibit 2-2. Topics for Interviews With Landlord Incentives MTW and Comparison Public Housing Agencies

Year,

Group, and

Topics

Mode

• Current rental market context and conditions.

• Current program performance, including confirmation of baseline voucher success rate and relations with housing choice voucher (HCV) holders.

• Relationships with landlords, landlord screening, landlord perception of public housing agencies (PHAs).

Year 2,

• PHA efforts to improve landlord participation and overall program performance.

MTW, in

• Motivations for applying to Landlord Incentives MTW cohort.

person

• Process for developing MTW applications, including any HCV holder input.

• Anticipated effect of incentives on landlords’ willingness and overall program performance.

• Anticipated implications of incentives for program operations.

• Plans for tracking incentive costs and inspections related to waivers.

• Other PHAs operating in PHA service area and any issues.

• Changes in rental market context since baseline.

Year 3,

• Changes in PHA leadership or operations since baseline.

MTW,

• Current program performance, including confirmation of updated voucher success phone

rate.

• Changes to MTW Plan or incentives since launch.

14

Year,

Group, and

Topics

Mode

• Challenges in implementing incentives.

• Reactions to incentives among landlords.

• Early changes in program performance.

• Cost indicators, including inspection data, not otherwise reported in secondary data (to inform cost study).

• Current rental market context and conditions.

• Current program performance, including confirmation of updated voucher success rate and any changes in relations with HCV holders.

• Changes from initial MTW Plan.

• Challenges and successes in implementing landlord incentives.

Year 4,

• Perceived effects of incentives on landlord willingness and overall program MTW, in

performance.

person

• Implications of incentives for program operations, including any unintended consequences.

• Plans for closing out incentives.

• Cost indicators, including inspection data, not otherwise reported in secondary data (to inform cost study).

• Other PHAs operating in PHA service area and any issues.

• Current rental market context and conditions.

Year 4,

• Current program performance, including confirmation of voucher success rate.

Indepth

• Relationship with landlords and landlord perception of PHA.

Comparison • PHA efforts to improve landlord participation and overall program performance.

PHAs, in

• Comparable incentives offered without MTW authority.

person

• Perceived effects of incentives on overall program performance.

• Other PHAs operating in PHA service area and any issues.

MTW = Moving to Work.

For the most part, the team will collect data about costs and program performance from secondary sources, including the MTW Supplement or web surveys (described in section 2.1).

However, year 3 phone interviews will also be an opportunity to confirm or clarify any important missing or incomplete indicators or that otherwise raise questions. The team will ask several questions about the specific costs of financial incentive waivers and any reduction in inspections from these waivers that the secondary data do not otherwise capture. This information will inform the cost study.

2.2.3 Landlord Data Collection

Landlords are the intermediaries between voucher holders and housing opportunities. Even in places where discrimination against voucher holders is illegal because of state or local source of income laws, the rental properties owner and managers’ level of support for the HCV program strongly contributes to the program’s success. The impact evaluation will allow the team to rigorously assess whether the incentives the LI cohorts offer caused a variety of outcomes, but it will provide no evidence of landlord awareness of the incentives, why or how certain incentives were or were not appealing to landlords, and what local context affected landlord response to the incentives. Qualitative data collection with landlords will help fill this information gap.

To better understand landlords’ responses to the new incentives and other barriers they face to HCV program participation, the team will interview up to 400 landlords in up to 20 sites (13 LI 15

MTW and 7 comparison PHAs). As the following describes in detail, interviews will include landlords who rent to voucher households and those who do not.

Qualitative data collection will take two approaches. The first, the thematic interview approach (TIA), will use best practices of indepth semi-structured interviewing to understand landlord decisionmaking within their market and policy contexts. The second, the qualitative impact protocol (QuIP), will discover whether landlords are aware of any MTW landlord incentives without asking about them directly, and if they are aware of the incentives, how they may have affected their behavior. The QuIP applies principles of causal analysis to qualitative data, an innovative approach that not only can confirm whether interventions work but also can help the team understand why interventions work. A unique aspect of QuIP is that it blinds the landlords as to the intervention being evaluated to remove any potential response bias. It draws out landlords’ decisionmaking about to whom they rent and assesses the relative importance of the landlord incentives within the ecosystem of other factors the landlords discuss.

TIA Landlord Interview Topics. Following best practices, each TIA interview will be free-flowing and responsive, allowing for unanticipated insights (DeLuca, Clampet-Lundquist, and Edin, 2016). Interviewers will be trained in empathetic engagement—that is, probing the respondent to provide narratives or stories rather than short answers or opinions. To ensure consistency, interviewers will have an extensive interview protocol that describes all the topics for discussion.

The TIA interview has three primary goals. First, it will explore what kind of landlord is being interviewed—property manager, property owner, large property owner, small property owner, and so on—so that the team can understand the level of decisionmaking landlords have about tenants. The team will also try to understand what kind of company interviewees work for (that is, property management company or property ownership company).

Second, the team will generally probe the HCV program and tenant selection, which will provide insights into landlord priorities in each topic without probing specific MTW landlord incentives.

Third, the team will ask about each MTW landlord incentive specifically, starting with those that the team understands to exist at that site.

Each interview will cover the following topics.

• Description of the landlord’s real estate portfolio: What types of properties do they own or manage? In what neighborhoods? How do they set rents? Characteristics of their renters.

• How the landlord got into real estate: How did they acquire their first property? What is their objective?

• Tenant recruitment and screening: How does the landlord market properties? What screening criteria do they use? What do they consider a “good” tenant?

• Voucher programs: What is the landlord’s experience with the HCV program? What factors do they consider regarding participation?

• If participating in the HCV program, what has their experience been (for example, the HAP

contract, rent ceilings, inspections, and tenant issues).

• If not participating in the HCV program, what knowledge do they have about it? What would need to change for them to participate?

• Landlord incentives: What has been their experience with [each incentive]? How did it change their business strategy? If they have no experience, what are their thoughts about 16

revised payment standards? Vacancy losses? Damage claims? Monetary incentives?

Inspection changes?

All audio recordings will be transcribed verbatim, then coded using NVivo qualitative coding software. Personally identifiable information will be redacted, and the team will choose a pseudonym to represent each landlord. In smaller markets, if necessary to preserve confidentiality in the evaluation’s reports, the team will take additional steps, such as modifying details of the type or location of the landlord’s property.

QuIP Landlord Interview Topics. The goal of the QuIP landlord interview is to elicit statements about what factors influence the landlord’s decisions about how to respond to voucher holders who inquire about renting a unit. As part of this exploration, the interviewer will draw out details about how particular factors influence landlords’ decisionmaking but will not ask direct questions about MTW landlord incentives.

The QuIP protocol is designed with anchor points for the landlord to reference that will match the timeline for when the landlord incentives might have influenced their decisionmaking. By discussing areas of behavior where the team would expect to see a change, rather than directly questioning the landlord about the incentives, researchers can assess what importance the landlord attributes in any reported behavior change to various contextual factors, including the incentives. Within this set of factors, the landlord might or might not mention landlord incentives as important in their decisionmaking.

The QuIP protocol is structured to cover the following topics. 21

• The landlord’s business structure and financial context.

• Characteristics of the neighborhoods where landlords rent and geographic dispersion of their properties.

• Social networks the landlord accesses.

• Relationship with and perception of local PHAs, state housing finance agencies, and any other government housing programs that might influence their rental business.

• Characteristics of their renter populations.

• Typical rental process (advertising, application, review, and decisionmaking).

• Risk management strategy, with questions specifically related to the incentives.

Because the QuIP interview protocol does not directly ask questions about landlord incentives unless the interviewee brings up these topics, it explores specific areas of interest in which potential behaviors are expected. The protocol topics are designed to review behavior changes within the incentive period and explore specific behavior changes within that timeframe, looking for the causes of those behavior changes. As a result, although the broad topics the QuIP protocol covers are similar to the TIA interview protocol, the specific research questions and protocol questions differ.

The QuIP protocol will prompt landlords to reflect on these topics as of late 2021 and early 2022, prior to landlord incentives implementation, then as of the date of the interview. Asking landlords to reflect on their experiences at two different times will help reveal how the landlord might have made changes during that period without the interviewer explicitly raising the topic 21 QuIP and TIA interviews do not always cover the same topics due to the different focus areas of the two approaches and to limit the length of each interview.

17

of the MTW landlord incentives. For example, if the topic is characteristics of their renter populations, the protocol will explore the different tenants to whom the landlord rented in 2022

and then whether those populations have changed (or not) as of the interview date. The protocol will have the interviewer ask the landlord to talk about what led to any changes described. It will guide the interviewer to drill down to the specifics of the landlord’s decisions so that the team can see whether any incentives mentioned caused observed changes in decisions.

Differences in Interview Approaches. The interview protocol design of QuIP is broad because QuIP is designed to elicit information about what is most important in rental market decisions to the landlord, rather than focusing all the attention on the intervention. Unlike the TIA protocol, which focuses specifically on landlord incentives, QuIP will reveal whether the incentives show up as important to the landlord in the broader context of other factors that influence landlord rental market decisions. Appendix C provides a crosswalk of QuIP and TIA interview questions.

18

3. Study Sample

This chapter begins by describing the characteristics and locations of public housing agencies (PHAs) participating in the Landlord Incentives (LI) cohort (section 3.1). Next, the section describes the selection of comparison PHAs and summarizes the data analysis results, comparing LI Moving to Work (MTW) agencies with comparison PHAs as of December 2020, 1 month prior to HUD publishing the request for applications for the LI cohort of the MTW expansion (section 3.2). 22

Section 3.3 describes MTW and comparison PHAs in terms of baseline values of the outcome measures on which the team plans to estimate the effects for calendar year 2024, 2 years after implementation begins. 23

3.1 Treatment PHAs

The 28 PHAs that applied, were admitted, and chose to remain in the LI cohort are quite varied.

The size of their voucher programs in 2021 ranged from 804 vouchers (Housing Authority of Florence, South Carolina) to 5,598 vouchers (Housing Authority of the City of Spokane, Washington; HUD, 2021). Their tenant populations also varied; for example, the percentage of voucher households with wages as a major source of income ranged from 10 percent (Housing Authority of the City of Spokane, Washington) to 40 percent (Housing Authority of the City of Norwalk, Connecticut), and the percentage of elderly voucher households ranged from 30

percent (Housing Authority of the City of Dothan, Alabama) to 84 percent (Spokane, Washington). 24 The percent of non-White tenants ranges from 19 percent (Spokane, Washington) to 94 percent (Florence, South Carolina). Exhibit 3-1 shows the distribution of these descriptive characteristics across LI MTW agencies, illustrating that the cohort represents a wide range of demographic and programmatic settings.

Exhibit 3-1. Landlord Incentives Moving to Work Agency Characteristics

Vouchers

Wages

Number of vouchers

Percentage where wages are a major source of income

Elderly

Non-White (“minority”)

Percentage that are elderly

Percentage that are non-White (“minority”)

PHA = public housing agency.

22 PIH Notice 2021-03.

23 If the reporting schedule permits, the final report will analyze the effects through December 2025.

24 An elderly household is defined as a household in which the head or co-head is aged 62 or older.

19

Note: The vertical height of the data in this exhibit is intended to differentiate between points and does not reflect any PHA characteristics.

As exhibit 1-1 illustrates, LI MTW agencies are throughout the country and, thus, span varied rental housing markets. Exhibit 3-2 shows the median rent in LI MTW agencies’ service areas, the rental unit vacancy rate, and whether the area falls under the jurisdiction of a law prohibiting housing discrimination on a source of income basis. Median rent among all renters in PHA service areas in 2021 ranged from $793 (Dothan, Alabama) to $2,083 (City of Alameda Housing Authority, California). Vacancy rates varied from 1 percent (Lewiston Housing Authority, Maine) to 10 percent (Dothan, Alabama; U.S. Census Bureau, 2021; HUD, 2023). 25

Exhibit 3-2. Landlord Incentive Moving to Work Agencies’ Rental Vacancy, Median Rent, and Source of Income Laws

25 Data source: 2021 American Community Survey 5-year estimates and HUD-provided PHA service area boundaries.

20

3.2 Comparison PHAs

Exhibit 3-3. Matching Criteria

The team selected four comparison PHAs for each LI

MTW agency. The comparison PHAs were selected

to be similar to LI MTW agencies with respect to the

• Eligibility to apply to participate in the

Landlord Incentives Moving to Work

several characteristics in exhibit 3-3. 26

cohort.

A balance test of 40 characteristics revealed only one

• Geographic region.

statistically significant difference between LI MTW

• Whether or not the service area was

subject to source of income laws.

agencies and comparison PHAs, which is fewer than

• Number of voucher households served.

the number of characteristics expected to be different

• Income limits.

due to chance alone. The characteristic on which the

• Percentage of households with

groups differ is the average time households spend on

incomes less than $5,000 a year.

the waiting list, which was not one of the matching

• Voucher success rate.

criteria. 27

• HUD expenditure per unit-month

leased.

3.3 Outcome Measures at Baseline

• Racial characteristics of tenants using

vouchers.

The team will assess a number of confirmatory and

• Area rental housing vacancy rate.

exploratory outcome measures during baseline data

collection activities.

3.3.1 Landlord Participation

The landlord participation domain includes one confirmatory and four exploratory measures of landlord participation in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. Exhibit 3-4 displays the range of values of these measures at LI MTW agencies at baseline. Exhibit 3-5 displays the average participation measures for LI MTW agencies and comparison PHAs, as well as the baseline difference in these averages.

Exhibit 3-4. Landlord Participation at Landlord Incentives Moving to Work Agencies at Baseline New Landlords, New Households

Participating Landlords

Number of new landlords per 100 new voucher households

Number of participating landlords per 100 voucher

households

New Landlords

Landlord Type: Corporate

Number of new landlords per 100 voucher households

Percentage of landlords that are corporate

26 The list of comparison PHAs is in exhibit B-1.

27 Exhibit B-2 describes the mean, minimum, and maximum values of these characteristics for LI MTW agencies and comparison PHAs.

21

Landlord Type: Single Family

Landlord Type: Below PHA Median Poverty

Percentage of landlords that lease at least one single-family

Percentage of landlords that lease at least one unit to a

unit to a voucher household

voucher household that is in a tract with a poverty rate below

the PHA service area’s median poverty rate

Dispersion of Voucher Units

Deconcentrating of Assisted Housing

Percentage of voucher households that would need to move

Percentage of new voucher lease ups in block groups in

census tracts for each tract to have the same share of

which less than 20 percent of all housing units are HUD

renters who are voucher holders as the share of renters in

subsidized

the PHA service area

PHA = Public housing agency.

Note: The vertical height of the data in this exhibit is intended to differentiate between points and does not reflect any PHA characteristics.

22

Exhibit 3-5. Landlord Participation at Landlord Incentives MTW Agencies and Comparison PHAs at Baseline

LI MTW Comparison

Outcome

Agencies

PHAs

Difference p-Value

( n = 28)

( n = 112)

Confirmatory

Number of new landlords per 100 new voucher

householdsa

8.3

6.8

1.5

0.495

Exploratory

Number of participating landlords per 100 voucher

householdsa

41.0

44.7

– 3.7

0.209

Number of new landlords per 100 voucher householdsa

5.2

5.1

0.1

0.952

Percentage of voucher householdsa that would need to

move census tracts for each tract to have the same

share of renters who are voucher holders as the share

37.2

40.3

– 3.1

0.250

of renters in the PHA service area ( dispersion of

voucher units)

Percentage of new voucher lease upsa in block groups

in which less than 20 percent of all housing units are

68.4

76.8

– 8.4

0.039

HUD-subsidized ( deconcentrating of assisted housing)

Types of Landlords in the Housing Choice Voucher

program

Percentage of landlords that are corporateb

40.9

38.9

2.0

0.301

Percentage of landlords that lease at least one

single-family unit to a voucher household

39.8

43.4

– 3.6

0.473

Percentage of landlords that lease at least one unit

to a voucher household that is in a tract with a

poverty rate below the PHA service area’s median

30.2

30.2

0.0

0.988

poverty rate

a This analysis considers only households with nonspecial purpose housing vouchers.

b Landlords identified as corporate if name contains “LLC,” “APT,” “HSG,” “HOUSING,” “CORP,”

“PARTNER,” “ASSOCIATION,” “LIMITED,” “MANAGEMENT,” “RESIDENCE,” “HOLDINGS,”

“INVESTMENT,” “INC,” “REAL ESTATE,” “RENTAL,” “ENTERPRISE,” “TRUST,” “REIT,” or derivatives of those. The team does not have data on owners’ property holdings, so owners’ real estate portfolio sizes are unknown. This approach is generally assumed to yield results that correlate fairly well with other approaches to counting large real estate holders, and no technique is yet a “gold standard” (An et al., 2022; Gomory, 2022; Hangen and O’Brien, 2022).

LI = Landlord Incentives. MTW = Moving to Work. PHA = public housing agency.

Notes: All measures are first calculated at the PHA level, then averaged across the PHAs in the analysis category (cohort and comparison). p-Values are the result of t-tests.

The confirmatory outcome measure in this domain is the number of new landlords per 100

new voucher households. It captures an expansion of the HCV program to new landlords by reflecting whether MTW landlord incentives draw in new landlords for new lease ups. For the baseline measure, “new landlord” is defined as any unique owner of an HCV unit leased to a new voucher household between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021, who was not listed as an owner of another HCV unit in that PHA’s records between January 2018 and December 2020—

that is, was not in that PHA’s records in the 3 years leading up to the offer to become part of the MTW LI cohort. 28 In the 2021 baseline year, 8.3 new landlords were per the 100 new voucher 28 This calculation excludes analysis of new voucher households that use a special purpose voucher. However, to be a “new” landlord to the PHA, the owner must not have leased to special purpose voucher holders either.

23

admissions at LI MTW agencies and 6.8 at the comparison PHAs. The difference is not statistically significant.

The exploratory outcome measures for landlord participation are as follows:

• The number of participating landlords per 100 voucher households provides the best perspective on the breadth of the pool of landlords providing housing units to the HCV

program. However, because the measure includes new and current voucher households and their landlords, it will be slow to change. “Participating landlords” is defined as the number of unique owners. This number is divided by the total number of households using vouchers.

In the 2021 baseline year, 41 landlords on average were per the 100 voucher households at LI MTW agencies, slightly fewer but not statistically significantly fewer than the 45 at the comparison PHAs.

• The number of new landlords per 100 voucher households reflects whether MTW

landlord incentives draw in new landlords for both (1) lease ups to new voucher households and (2) changes of address (moves) by tenured voucher households. This measure puts the number of new landlords, including new landlords of existing voucher households that move, in the context of the size of the entire HCV program, rather than relating it to newly admitted households. The team uses the same definition of “new landlord” used for the confirmatory measure. For this measure, the number of landlords is divided by the number of unique HCV

households served between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021. In the 2021 baseline year, approximately 5 new landlords on average were per the 100 voucher households in both LI MTW agencies and comparison PHAs, which is less than the number of new landlords per new voucher admissions.

• The dispersion of voucher units helps with the understanding of whether units are dispersed throughout the PHA’s service area in the same way that all rental housing units are dispersed.

The index measures the share of voucher households in a PHA’s service area that would need to move census tracts for each census tract to have the same share of renters who are voucher households as the share of renters for the whole area. 29 The team uses American Community Survey data to obtain the number of renters in each census tract within the PHA’s service area and geographic information system, or GIS, location and address information for each household in the HCV program. For the 2021 baseline year, 37 percent of voucher households at LI MTW agencies would have to move for them to be dispersed across census tracts in the same fashion that all renter households are dispersed (40 percent for comparison PHAs).

• The deconcentrating of the assisted housing measure captures the extent to which voucher units are clustered in neighborhoods or close to public housing or multifamily assisted housing. The measure is the percentage of new voucher lease ups in census block groups without substantial numbers of other voucher households or assisted housing units (public 29 This dispersion measure uses the same logic as the commonly used Racial Disparity Index. For more information on this index, see

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/release?rid=419#:~:text=The%20Racial%20Dissimilarity%20Index%20measures,Schmid

%20and%20Schrag%20%5B1947%5D.

24

housing and multifamily-assisted housing). 30 A “substantial” number of assisted housing units is defined as more than 20 percent of the housing units (rental units and owner-occupied units) in the census block group. About 68 percent of the voucher holders at LI MTW agencies live in block groups where less than 20 percent of total housing units are subsidized, as do 76 percent of voucher households at comparison PHAs. This difference (68

compared with 76 percent) is statistically significant (a p-value of .039, which is less than 0.1, indicates statistical significance). Comparison PHAs were not matched to LI MTW

agencies using any landlord participation measure, so it is not surprising that they do not match on all the landlord participation measures. This measure is the only one of the eight measures in exhibit 3-1 that is significantly statistically different. Fortunately, having these baseline data will allow the impact analysis to control for these baseline differences so that future estimates will not falsely attribute existing or baseline differences to the intervention.

• The analysis also compares the types of landlords of assisted households. As would be expected given prior research, exhibit 3-4 shows wide variation in landlord types across LI MTW agencies (Cossyleon, Garboden, and DeLuca, 2020; Garboden et al., 2018; Greif, 2022; Rosen, 2020). On average, 41 percent of landlords are corporate entities, roughly 40

percent lease at least one unit that is a single-family unit (one family under one roof), and 30

percent lease at least one unit in a tract with a poverty level below the PHA service area’s median poverty rate.

Several of these outcome measures are new to the housing evaluation literature and were developed specifically for the evaluation of LI MTW agencies. Exhibit 3-4 illustrates the distribution of these outcome measures across LI MTW agencies at baseline. The range and dispersion of PHAs across these distributions illustrate common and less common values that these measures may take.

3.3.2 Success in Leasing

Within the success in leasing outcome domain, the team has one confirmatory and one exploratory outcome. The impact analysis will test whether participation in the LI cohort changes households’ success in leasing up after they are issued vouchers (see exhibit 3-4). 31 PHAs’

30 The number of multifamily-assisted housing is obtained from the Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System data, and the number of public housing units is calculated using Public and Indian Housing Information Center data.

31 The New York University Furman Center provided these data. The team attempted to estimate success rates using data from PHAs in this study, but the data did not match the Furman Center-computed success rates for the same study period. This and the Furman Center analyses yielded the same number of new admissions, but the team could not replicate the number of issuances that the Furman Center restricted its analysis. The reason for the discrepancy is that the Furman Center had access to voucher records from all PHAs, not only PHAs in this study. This information allowed the Furman Center to narrow the selection of which issuances to study in a way that this team could not. In particular, with data from all PHAs, the Furman Center excluded issuances to households with prior histories in any public housing or voucher program. They also excluded those who end up being admitted to different PHAs. To align this team’s analysis with Furman Center’s methodology, in the future, the team will request two data pulls related to success rates: (1) All issuances and transactions at the PHAs in the study and (2) all transactions of persons with issuances in the first data pull regardless of PHA identification, which will include PHAs not in the MTW sample. An important discovery in this baseline data collection is that the administrative data and PHA-reported success rates do not align. Because they are not comparable, the team does not recommend using PHA-reported success rates in lieu of success rates estimated from administrative data—even in cases when the administrative data suggest that success rates are not reliably estimated, a departure from the Data Collection and 25

reporting of issuances is imperfect and can be incomplete. The team omits all issuances data from PHAs in which less than 80 percent of new admissions can be associated with an issuance (low reporting of issuances) or more than 15 percent of issuances result in lease up within 7 days (inaccurate reporting of issuance dates). 32

The confirmatory hypothesis test examines differences in the percentage of new voucher holders who lease units within 180 days of voucher issuance. In the year from July 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, LI MTW agencies had a lease-up rate of 60 percent on average. The share of issuances resulting in leases at comparison PHAs is not statistically different from that of LI MTW agencies at baseline. 33 Exhibit 3-6 illustrates that success rates at LI MTW agencies ranged from 21 to 90 percent and 11 to 96 percent at comparison PHAs. 34

Exhibit 3-6. Landlord Incentives Moving to Work Agency Success Rate at 180 Days PHAs = public housing agencies.

The exploratory hypothesis examines the average days between voucher issuance and lease up. This outcome is defined only for households that successfully lease up. As of baseline, the average time to lease up is about 77 days at LI MTW agencies and not detectably different at the comparison PHAs. Exhibit 3-7 displays the range of days to lease up.

Analysis Plan that suggested using success rate data that PHAs reported in instances with missing administrative data on issuances.

32 Of the 28 LI MTW agencies, 18 had data for success rates; 85 of the 112 comparison PHAs had data for success rates.

33 The difference of 5.7 percentage points is not statistically significant. Ultimately, the team may be able to detect an effect of this magnitude or larger as statistically significant because baseline data will not only be used as covariates, but more PHAs with issuance data may also meet data quality standards.

34 A very small number of issuances in some PHAs may influence low success rates.

26

Exhibit 3-7. Landlord Incentives Moving to Work Agency Mean Search Time PHAs = public housing agencies.

As the Executive Summary notes, the baseline qualitative research for this report highlights that LI MTW agencies were more likely to report that they were facing challenges with leasing up than comparison PHAs. The qualitative data do not align with administrative data that reveal that, if anything, LI MTW agencies had similar or even higher success rates on average compared with comparison PHAs, and lease ups happened just as quickly, if not more quickly, at LI MTW agencies than at comparison PHAs (exhibit 3-8). The team prefers the administrative data for drawing conclusions about the similarity or differences between LI MTW agencies and comparison PHAs, noting that PHA staff-reported challenges reflect their experience, attention, and priorities.

Exhibit 3-8. Success in Leasing at Landlord Incentives MTW Agencies and Comparison PHAs at Baseline

LI MTW

Comparison

Outcomes

Agencies

PHAs

Difference

p-

(n = 18)

(n = 85)

Value

Confirmatory

Percentage of new voucher holders who lease

units within 180 days of voucher issuancea

60.0

54.2

5.7%

.246

Exploratory

Average time between first issuance and lease

up for successful voucher holders within 180

77.1

86.4

9.3

.168

days of issuance (days)b

a By historical standards, both LI MTW agencies and comparison PHAs have relatively low success rates.

These success rates were measured during the COVID-19 pandemic, when rental markets were disrupted for a variety of reasons.

b Only measured for people who had a new admission within 180 days of issuance.

LI = Landlord Incentives. MTW = Moving to Work. PHAs = public housing agencies.

Notes: These data examine issuances between July 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021, issued to households that had not participated in the voucher program in the year prior to the issuance. These data are analyzed at PHA-level for PHAs with more than 80 percent of admission records that can be associated with an issuance, indicating “completeness” of their issuances records, and PHAs with no more than 15

percent of issuances resulting in lease up within 7 days, indicating accuracy of dates associated with issuance records. Eighteen of 28 LI MTW agencies and 85 of 112 comparison PHAs had issuance data that met these standards.

27

4. Interim Findings

As might be expected at this early stage in the Moving to Work (MTW) Demonstration, many Landlord Incentives (LI) MTW agencies have not yet implemented their chosen incentives.

Nonetheless, the data at this early stage can provide a picture of how their Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) programs are operating. The primary goal of this early analysis is to understand how both LI MTW agencies and comparison public housing agencies (PHAs) perceive the problems they face with landlord engagement in the HCV program and what they are currently doing outside the scope of MTW to address them. This information will provide valuable context for the impact and cost studies by clarifying how MTW incentives differ from the current state of PHA operations for both groups. A secondary goal of this early analysis is to clarify the incentives that LI MTW agencies plan to implement as part of their MTW programs.

This section describes early findings related to four key themes: (1) Current challenges related to landlord engagement; (2) planned incentives for MTW agencies; (3) comparable incentives at traditional PHAs; and (4) other strategies for engaging landlords.

Findings in this chapter rely on two data sources: web surveys of MTW and comparison PHAs at baseline and MTW applications from LI MTW agencies (see chapter 2 for details).

4.1 Current Challenges Related to Landlord Engagement

In the web surveys, LI MTW agencies and comparison PHAs were asked to identify key challenges in recruiting new landlords into and retaining existing landlords in the HCV program.

PHA staff responding to the survey reported (1) rental market conditions that make the program less appealing to landlords than renting to unsubsidized households, (2) landlords with negative attitudes toward the HCV program and HCV tenants, and (3) landlords finding the administrative processes of the HCV program to be burdensome. Exhibit 4-1 summarizes the survey responses.

Respondents could select more than one option.

Exhibit 4-1. Responses to the Question: Is your agency currently encountering any of the following challenges related to recruiting or retaining landlords for the HCV program?

LI MTW

Comparison

Responses

Agencies

PHAs

Difference

p-

( n = 25)

( n = 54)

Value

Limited supply of rental housing

92.0%

92.6%

– 0.6%

.999

Negative perceptions of HCV tenants among

landlords

92.0%

59.3%

32.7%

.003

Payment standards not competitive with market

rents

72.0%

37.0%

35.0%

.007

Landlord concerns about evictions or other

recourse for lease violations

60.0%

27.8%

32.2%

.012

Landlord concerns about HCV inspection process

60.0%

24.1%

35.9%

.003

Landlord concerns about delays in lease up

52.0%

25.9%

26.1%

.040

Negative perceptions of PHA or HUD among

landlords

44.0%

25.9%

18.1%

.125

Poor-quality housing and available rentals do not

meet inspection standards

28.0%

20.4%

7.6%

.565

Landlord concerns about timeliness of payment

28.0%

18.5%

9.5%

.384

Other—please describe

8.0%

9.3%

– 1.3%

1.000

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher. LI = Landlord Incentives. MTW = Moving to Work. PHAs = public housing agencies.

Note: p-Values computed using Fisher’s exact test.

28

Source: Year 2 LI MTW agency and comparison PHA web surveys, May 2023

Notably, for nearly every response option, LI MTW agencies were more likely than comparison PHAs to respond that the issue was a challenge for their agency. This pattern is unsurprising. LI MTW agencies were likely motivated to join the LI cohort, because they were already experiencing many of the challenges described in the survey. 35 It is also important to note that among comparison PHAs, respondents tend to operate larger HCV programs than do nonrespondents. Therefore, these results might not represent the challenges smaller PHAs face.

In their MTW applications, PHAs were asked to include a description of “common reasons why landlords do not accept vouchers.” PHAs often described these issues based on staff’s experiences and observations. Some PHAs also collected input directly from landlords through consultation sessions and surveys.

4.1.1 Market Factors

Nearly all respondents from the MTW and comparison groups cited the limited supply of rental housing as a challenge to recruiting and retaining landlords in the HCV program (92 percent for LI MTW agencies and 93 percent for comparison PHAs). In their MTW applications, PHAs frequently described the challenges of operating the HCV program in tight rental markets with few available units. Agencies noted that under these competitive market conditions, landlords have little motivation to work with voucher holders (exhibit 4-2). Exhibit 4-2. Market Competitiveness Moreover, some MTW applications described how these market

dynamics have eroded the community’s stock of affordable

Landlords in the area do not

need to rent to low-income

subsidized and unsubsidized units. One LI MTW agency described

families when high-income

how a strong “seller’s market” during the COVID-19 pandemic

families will frequently pay

drove many landlords who had previously accepted vouchers to

more than the advertised rent

sell their properties: “[Our program] relies heavily on the ‘mom

to secure a unit.

and pop’ single-family and small apartment buildings… this

~Public Housing Agency staff

segment of the rental market has been impacted by the increased

demand.”

Another LI MTW agency reported that many of the subsidized properties within its PHA service area are approaching the end of their affordability restrictions, and owners are converting to market-rate and no longer willing to accept vouchers.

Another market factor that drives landlord participation in the HCV program is whether the program payment standards are competitive with market rents. Payment standards determine the maximum rental subsidy that the PHA will pay, and thus, they are a critical tool for PHAs to expand the pool of units that are affordable to voucher holders. Payment standards that are not sufficiently competitive with market rents are a more frequent concern among LI MTW agencies 35 Although the survey revealed differences in the LI MTW cohort PHAs and comparison PHAs related to challenges to landlord engagement, these differences are not expected to limit the usefulness of the quasi-experimental design. The survey data were not a factor in selecting the matches for LI MTW agencies. In addition, because the information is collected at baseline and following implementation, the team will use a difference-indifference analysis approach. Thus, the analysis will consider changes in these measures and not absolute baseline levels. Moreover, survey responses reflect PHA priorities and interests. The administrative data actually suggest that LI MTW agencies have similar, if higher, success rates and similar, if faster, lease-up times compared with comparison PHAs (see section 3.3.2).

29

(68 percent) than among comparison PHAs (37 percent). In their MTW applications, PHAs also emphasized how more competitive payment standards could open up more options for voucher holders in high-opportunity neighborhoods where units are in extremely high demand. The team will further explore the connections between payment standards and rental housing supply in upcoming site visits.

In their MTW applications, some PHAs described how they have struggled to navigate these market dynamics for decades. Other PHAs reported that their local housing market was previously favorable for voucher holders but has become more competitive during the past few years. Some of these changes happened during the COVID-19 pandemic when some communities experienced dramatic increases in rental prices.

4.1.2 Landlord Attitudes Toward the HCV Program and Tenants

Many PHAs reported that landlords’ attitudes toward the HCV program and tenants pose a challenge to landlord recruitment and retention. In surveys, 92 percent of LI MTW agencies and 59 percent of comparison PHAs reported that negative perceptions of HCV tenants among landlords is a challenge. MTW applications further described how landlords often view HCV

tenants as “riskier” than other tenants. In particular, unit vandalism and other damages are frequently cited concerns, but it can often be difficult for PHAs to estimate the prevalence of such issues given that second-hand information also influences landlords (Garboden et al., 2018; Greif, 2022):

They are concerned that their units will get damaged by an HCV tenant either because they have experienced this themselves or have heard of others who have experienced this problem. [Landlord] stated that ‘some landlords have had ten, twenty, thirty thousand dollars of damages, and that’s hard to come back from.’

Not only are landlords concerned about damages and other issues with tenants, they also fear that they will have no recourse if they encounter these issues. In surveys, 60 percent of LI MTW

agencies and 26 percent of comparison PHAs reported that landlords’ concerns about eviction or other recourse for lease violations is a challenge. According to some MTW applications, landlords sometimes view the PHA as primarily an advocate for the tenant and worry that the PHA will not support them if they need assistance navigating challenges with tenants. One PHA noted: “Landlords believe that [the PHA] ‘does not get involved with tenant issues’ and when HCV tenants don’t follow the rules, there seems to be no recourse.” This perception further reinforced landlords’ belief that working with HCV is risky and that they lack an advocate within the agency (Garboden et al., 2018).

4.1.3 Administrative Processes

Most LI MTW agencies reported that the lease-up process is a significant barrier to landlord participation in the HCV program, notably the time that inspections add to the lease-up process.

In surveys, 60 percent of LI MTW agencies and 24 percent of comparison PHAs reported that landlords’ concerns about the inspection process are a challenge. Fifty-two percent of LI MTW

agencies and 26 percent of comparison PHAs reported that landlords’ concerns about delays in leasing up more generally are a challenge, too. Some MTW applications described the lease-up process as “burdensome” and “a hassle” for landlords. One PHA explained how these administrative barriers play out in a competitive real estate market, that landlords conduct a cost-30

benefit analysis of dealing with the bureaucracy that comes from the guaranteed rent versus dealing with a private market renter.

4.2 Planned Incentives for MTW Agencies

PHAs selected for the LI cohort are required to implement at least two incentives from HUD’s menu of nine options. Most LI MTW agencies reported in the survey that they plan to implement some kind of financial incentive, such as signing bonuses, damage claims, or vacancy loss payments. A smaller proportion of LI MTW agencies plan to take advantage of inspection flexibilities and payment standard changes. Exhibit 4-3 summarizes responses about planned incentives, categorized into three groups: financial incentives, payment standard incentives, and inspection incentives. Totals reflect the proportion of PHA respondents who selected at least one option within each group. Respondents could select more than one option.

Exhibit 4-3. Responses to the Question: Please confirm which landlord incentive your agency intends to implement as part of your LI MTW program

Incentives

LI MTW Agencies ( n = 25)

Financial incentives

92%

4.c. Other landlord incentives (i.e., signing bonuses)

76%

4.b. Damage claims

68%

4.a. Vacancy loss payments (i.e., HCV tenant to HCV tenant)

60%

4.2. Front-end vacancy loss payments (i.e., non-HCV tenant to HCV

tenant)

28%

Payment standards incentives

72%

2.b. Payment standards—Fair Market Rent

44%

2.a. Payment standards—Small Area Fair Market Rent

32%

Inspection incentives

56%

5.a. Prequalifying unit inspections

48%

5.d. Alternative inspection schedule

40%

4.1. Waiver of mandatory initial inspection

16%

HCV = housing choice voucher. LI = Landlord Incentives. MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Year 2 LI MTW agency web survey responses as of May 5, 2023

In their MTW applications, some LI MTW agencies described their initial plans for how each incentive will be structured and targeted. These plans might have evolved since those PHAs submitted their applications in 2021, and plans are subject to HUD approval. The first round of site visits (scheduled for mid-2023) will be an opportunity to gather more comprehensive and updated details on each PHA’s planned incentives, their implementation plan, and their motivations for selecting each incentive.

LI MTW agencies selected four of the nine MTW landlord incentives on average, with a range from two to eight incentives. However, some PHAs reported in their LI MTW applications that they hope to adopt additional incentives as they build administrative capacity and further develop their MTW programs.

The web survey also asked LI MTW agencies to indicate the start date for each incentive.

Results indicate that LI MTW agencies are at different stages of implementation. For the most part, PHAs plan to start implementing incentives in the spring and summer of 2023. Some PHAs have already implemented some incentives, and others do not anticipate implementing until early 2024. On average, LI MTW agencies anticipate launching financial incentives by the end of May 2023 and payment standards and inspection incentives by the end of August 2023.

31

4.2.1 Financial Incentives

Nearly all LI MTW agencies (92 percent) selected at least one financial incentive. The most popular incentive overall is Other Landlord Incentives (waiver 4.c), selected by 76 percent of LI MTW agencies. As HUD’s PIH Notice 2021-03 describes, PHAs that select waiver 4.c may provide “incentive payments up to 1 month of contract rent to incentivize landlords to join the HCV program (that is, a signing bonus).” The notice encourages but does not require LI MTW

agencies to limit payments to landlords not already participating in the HCV program.

Based on PHAs’ MTW application information, implementing the Other Landlord Incentives option (waiver 4.c) will vary significantly among PHAs. Many PHAs plan to closely follow the approach suggested in the MTW notice by targeting landlords new to the HCV program. Others have interpreted the incentive more broadly or in a more targeted way. Several PHAs plan to offer incentives to landlords already participating in the program who lease an additional unit to another voucher holder. Some PHAs also discussed targeting these incentives geographically, with the goal of attracting more landlords in high-opportunity neighborhoods to promote tenant mobility. Other examples include referral bonuses for landlords or other partners who successfully bring new landlords into the program, “welcome back” bonuses for landlords who previously participated in the HCV program, and bonuses for landlords whose units pass inspection on the first attempt.

Two PHAs noted in their MTW applications that they already offer signing bonuses or other financial incentives to new landlords. These incentives currently rely on state, local, or philanthropic funding sources, however. With MTW authority, PHAs can finance these incentives using Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) funds, which might be more sustainable and allow PHAs to offer larger bonuses.

Damage claims (waiver 4.b) are the second most popular incentive, selected by 68 percent of LI MTW agencies, followed by vacancy loss payments (waiver 4.a for a unit turning over from one HCV tenant to another HCV tenant), selected by 60 percent of LI MTW agencies. As section 4.1

noted, many LI MTW agencies reported that concerns about damages and delays in leasing up contribute to landlords’ perceptions that the HCV program is “risky.” As one PHA noted in its MTW application, these financial incentives have the potential to address such concerns:

“Providing a vacancy loss fund and a damage mitigation fund will also provide assurances to landlords in opportunity neighborhoods who may be reticent to join the HCV program due to misperceptions about the financial risk associated with accepting HCV tenants.”

Front-end vacancy loss payments (waiver 4.2) are somewhat less popular than other financial incentives; 28 percent of LI MTW agencies selected to implement this incentive. Such payments are to reimburse the landlord for periods of vacancy between a non-HCV tenant and an HCV

tenant, with the goal of encouraging more new landlords to join the program. Front-end vacancy loss is one of two “cohort-specific waivers,” available only to PHAs participating in the LI cohort. As such, it is possible that PHAs are less familiar with that incentive or require additional support to implement it. The team will explore this question further in site visits.

4.2.2 Payment Standards

MTW designation allows PHAs to implement payment standards between 80 and 120 percent of Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and 80 to 150 percent of Small Area Fair Market Rents (SAFMRs).

Seventy-two percent of LI MTW agencies selected payment standard flexibilities; 44 percent of 32

them plan to take advantage of FMR flexibility (waiver 2.b), and 32 percent plan to take advantage of SAFMR flexibility (waiver 2.a). The popularity of payment standard flexibilities is not surprising because most LI MTW agencies (72 percent) reported that payment standards that are not competitive with market rents are currently a challenge for their program. In their MTW

applications, LI MTW agencies emphasized that payment standards are an important tool for attracting landlords in high-opportunity areas: “There are many near-affordable rental units in these areas, and when payment standards in opportunity neighborhoods match market rents, a key financial disincentive for landlord participation in the HCV program will be removed.”

In the survey, MTW and comparison PHAs were asked to indicate their current payment standards for FMR or SAFMR. The responses indicate that most PHAs have already adopted the maximum standard permitted without MTW authority of 110 percent of FMR or SAFMR. Some PHAs currently exceed this standard, offering 120 percent of FMR or SAFMR, which may be because PHAs are taking advantage of temporary waivers available through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. 36

4.2.3 Inspection Flexibilities

Fifty-six percent of LI MTW agencies plan to adopt one or more of the inspection flexibilities.

The most common inspection flexibility is the prequalifying unit inspections (waiver 5.a), selected by 48 percent of LI MTW agencies. This incentive allows units to be inspected up to 90

days before move-in. This waiver can expedite the lease-up process, addressing one of the more common concerns from prospective landlords. One PHA noted in its MTW application that it already offered prequalifying inspections, but without MTW authority, the maximum time between inspection and move-in is limited to 30 days.

Forty percent of LI MTW agencies plan to offer alternative inspection schedules (waiver 5.d), which allow units to be inspected as infrequently as every 3 years. In their MTW applications, PHAs report that this waiver can help address landlords’ concerns about the sometimes burdensome inspection process while also making more efficient use of PHA resources. One PHA reported it had already adopted a biennial inspection schedule and that this approach had led to administrative cost savings.

Only 16 percent of LI MTW agencies selected the waiver of initial inspection (waiver 4.1). This waiver allows tenants to move into units that meet certain criteria without an initial inspection, which can further expedite the lease-up process for new landlords. 37 This second “cohort-specific” waiver is only available to the PHAs participating in the LI cohort. As these two new incentives are less established, PHAs might be hesitant to adopt them without additional evidence supporting them. PHAs also could be concerned about the risk of enrolling units that 36 In March 2020, HUD issued a series of waivers enabled through the CARES Act, including a waiver allowing PHAs to set payment standards of up to 120 percent of FMR as opposed to the standard 110 percent of FMR

maximum. This waiver has since been extended through December 2023. HUD Notice PIH 2022-30

(https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/PIH 2022-

30_Streamlined_Payment_Standard_HCV_Waivers_Notice.pdf).

37 To qualify for an initial inspection waiver, units must meet one of three criteria: (1) The unit is less than 5 years old; (2) the unit passed a Housing Quality Standards inspection or an equivalent inspection within the past 3 years; or (3) the unit is in a census tract with a poverty rate below 10 percent. HUD Notice PIH 2021-03

(https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/2021-03pihn.pdf).

33

are unsafe for tenants. The resident expert panel also raised concerns about this incentive and potential implications for unit safety.

4.3 Comparable Incentives at Standard PHAs

MTW designation gives PHAs additional administrative and funding flexibility to implement landlord incentives. However, even without MTW flexibility, PHAs that are not part of the MTW Demonstration are able to implement certain incentives that function similarly to the MTW landlord incentives. 38 The team sought to clarify whether comparison PHAs currently offer (or plan to offer) landlord incentives similar to those that LI MTW agencies offer.

Understanding this contrast between MTW and comparison PHAs is essential for interpreting the results of the impact and cost studies. Survey responses indicate that comparison PHAs do offer a range of incentives, including direct financial incentives and inspection flexibilities, which could influence landlord participation in the HCV program.

The web survey asked comparison PHAs whether they offer or plan to offer a variety of incentives. Respondents could select more than one option. Exhibit 4-4 summarizes the results and indicates whether each incentive is comparable with one of the MTW waivers. PHAs that indicated they offered an incentive were asked a series of followup questions about the design and implementation of the incentive. Survey responses have limited detail about each of the incentives. The team aims to collect more indepth information on comparison PHAs’ activities to engage landlords during the second round of site visits (the only round during with comparison PHA visits). 39

Exhibit 4-4. Responses to the Question: Does your PHA currently offer, or plan to offer in the next fiscal year, any of the following to increase landlord participation in HCV?

Incentives

Comparison PHAs Comparable Moving to Work Landlord

( n = 54)

Incentives Waiver

Financial Flexibilities

20%

Signing bonuses

17%

4.c. Other landlord incentives (i.e.,

signing bonuses)

Reimbursement for tenant-

caused damages

6%

4.b. Damage claims

4.a. Vacancy loss payments (i.e., HCV

Vacancy loss during turnover

4%

tenant to HCV tenant)

4.2. Front-end vacancy loss payments

(i.e., non-HCV tenant to HCV tenant)

Other financial flexibility

9%

Inspection flexibilities

20%

Pre-inspecting units

9%

5.a. Prequalifying unit inspections

Alternate inspection schedule

4%

5.d. Alternative inspection schedule

38 Standard PHAs were previously allowed to use Administrative Fee reserves and other non-HAP funding for landlord incentives. A June 2022 Notice (PIH 2022-18) now allows PHAs to use regular Administrative Fees for landlord incentives, and HUD communication indicates PHAs were encouraged to use Administrative Fees for landlord incentives in 2020. Sources: HUD communications on May 26, 2022; Administrative Fee Eligible Uses Notice (https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/PIH2022-18.pdf)

39 Although the survey revealed that many comparison PHAs also offer some incentives for landlord participation in the HCV program, it is not expected to limit the usefulness of the quasi-experimental design. As indicated previously, because survey data were not used in sample selection and information at baseline and following implementation is being collected, a difference-in-difference analysis approach will be used. Thus, the analysis will consider changes in these measures and not absolute baseline levels.

34

Incentives

Comparison PHAs Comparable Moving to Work Landlord

( n = 54)

Incentives Waiver

Waiving initial inspection

0%

4.1 Waiver of mandatory initial inspection

Other inspection flexibility

7%

Other flexibility

7%

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher. PHAs = public housing agencies.

Source: Year 2 comparison PHA web survey, May 2023

4.3.1 Financial Incentives

Twenty percent of comparison PHAs reported offering some type of direct financial incentive to encourage landlords to join the HCV program. Comparison PHAs that responded to the survey tended to have larger HCV programs than did nonrespondents. A larger program size (and, thus, more program resources) might make these types of incentives more feasible.

The most frequent type of financial incentive is landlord signing bonuses, offered (or planned to be offered) by 17 percent of comparison group PHAs. Signing bonuses range in value from $250

to $4,500. By comparison, MTW waiver 4.c, or Other Landlord Incentives, caps payments at 1

month’s rent. Although most comparison PHAs make signing bonuses available to all landlords, some target certain landlords; for example, landlords who rent to households that were experiencing homelessness prior to moving into the unit. A few comparison PHAs make this bonus available to existing landlords to encourage them to remain in the HCV program. Two comparison PHAs reported that their signing bonuses are only available to landlords participating in the Emergency Housing Voucher program or other special voucher programs, which are separate from the HCV program. Nonetheless, these PHAs offering signing bonuses could influence landlords’ perceptions of PHA programs and of tenants with vouchers more generally. In addition to the signing bonus, a few comparison PHAs offer some type of reimbursement for vacancy loss payments (6 percent) or tenant-caused damages (4 percent).

Across all three types of financial incentives, none of the comparison PHAs reported seeking a HUD waiver to implement the policy. Notably, nearly all comparison PHAs implemented these incentives during the COVID-19 pandemic, when many PHA service areas experienced an influx of federal, state, and local resources for rental housing. Most commonly, these incentives were supported using either Administrative Fees and Administrative Fee reserves or state and local dollars, including CARES Act funds.

In exhibit 4-4’s category of “other financial flexibility,” comparison PHAs reported offering security deposit assistance and a “lease buy-down” that allows tenants to lease units with rents that exceed payment standards. Although these programs are not directly comparable with MTW

incentives, they still can influence landlords’ perceptions of the HCV program and willingness to accept vouchers.

4.3.2 Inspection Flexibilities

Twenty percent of comparison PHAs offer some type of inspection flexibility to streamline the lease-up process for landlords. The most common type of inspection flexibility is prequalifying inspections, offered by 9 percent of the PHAs. Comparison PHAs reported they offer these inspections by request and that the inspection remains valid for 30 to 60 days, shorter than the 90

days the MTW prequalifying inspection waiver (waiver 5.c) offers.

Seven percent of comparison PHAs reported they offer less frequent inspections, generally biennial rather than the typical annual inspections. None of the comparison PHAs waive initial 35

inspections, which is unsurprising as that requires a cohort-specific MTW waiver. None of the PHAs offering inspection flexibilities sought waivers from HUD.

Several comparison PHAs reported offering “other inspection flexibility,” which are not directly comparable with those provided through MTW. Examples of “other” flexibilities included expedited inspections, weekend and after-hours inspections, and remote inspections. These incentives can make the inspection process less burdensome for landlords, which could in turn influence landlords’ willingness to participate in the HCV program.

4.4 Other Strategies for Landlord Engagement

A major question for the process study is understanding how and to what extent PHAs are making efforts to engage more landlords in the HCV program outside of the MTW incentives.

Survey responses and MTW applications reveal that MTW and comparison PHAs employ a range of strategies to improve landlords’ perceptions of and engagement in the HCV program.

The strategies include streamlining administrative processes to reduce burden on landlords, targeted to engage prospective landlords, and offering individualized support through a landlord liaison or other point-of-contact.

The web survey of treatment and comparison PHAs asked respondents to indicate what types of other resources and supports they offer to engage landlords. Respondents could select more than one response. Exhibit 4-5 summarizes their responses and provides greater detail about the standard PHA efforts that LI MTW agencies have implemented prior to LI cohort selection.

Exhibit 4-5. Responses to the Question: [Outside of your planned LI MTW incentives] Does your agency currently provide any of the following resources or supports to engage landlords in the Housing Choice Voucher program?

Responses

LI MTW Agencies

Comparison

( n = 25)

PHAs ( n = 54)

Difference

p-

Value

Direct deposit of rental payments to

landlords

100.0%

92.6%

7.4%

.302

Landlord-facing webpage

32.0%

38.9%

– 6.9%

.622

Partnerships with landlord industry

groups

44.0%

25.9%

18.1%

.125

Dedicated landlord liaison

44.0%

25.9%

18.1%

.125

Other—please describe

16.0%

25.9%

– 9.9%

.398

Landlord advisory board

8.0%

1.9%

6.1%

.234

LI = Landlord Incentives. MTW = Moving to Work. PHAs = public housing agencies.

Note: p-Values computed using Fisher’s exact test.

Source: Year 2 LI MTW agency and comparison PHA web surveys, May 2023

4.4.1 Streamlining Administrative Processes

Many PHAs work to overcome landlords’ perceptions that the program is a “hassle” by streamlining some of the landlord-facing program functions. Direct deposit was the most frequent strategy identified by the survey; 100 percent of LI MTW agencies and 93 percent of comparison PHAs reported they currently offer direct deposit. In their MTW applications, several LI MTW agencies also reported they have implemented an online portal through which landlords can quickly view the status of payments, schedule inspections, and submit lease documents. These efforts can also benefit the PHA by reducing the staff time required to initiate and monitor these processes.

36

4.4.2 Landlord Engagement and Outreach

A minority of MTW and comparison PHAs are adopting strategies to reach out to new landlords and encourage them to join the program. In surveys, 44 percent of LI MTW agencies and 26

percent of comparison PHAs reported they have built partnerships with landlord industry groups.

In MTW applications, LI MTW agencies described how they use these partnerships to recruit new landlords by making presentations, hosting workshops and information sessions, and distributing program information through newsletters and videos. Some PHAs reported these outreach efforts are an opportunity to “rebrand” the program to combat landlords’ negative perceptions. In addition to these outreach strategies, 32 percent of LI MTW agencies and 39

percent of comparison PHAs have a landlord-facing webpage to share general program information.

Only a limited number of PHAs have established avenues for landlord input and feedback.

Landlord advisory boards are relatively rare. Only 8 percent of LI MTW agencies and 2 percent of comparison PHAs have implemented them. Nonetheless, MTW applications indicate that LI MTW agencies value landlord feedback and often receive it informally through one-on-one interactions or through landlord events. As one LI MTW agency stated in its application, “The main strength of [the PHA’s] HCV program was, and continues to be, management and lease-up staff’s willingness and understanding of having landlords as partners in the program…a renewed focus on landlord input has become the chief point for improving the program and utilization rate.” About one-half of LI MTW agencies reported in their MTW application they had solicited direct feedback from landlords through surveys or focus groups to inform their initial MTW

plans.

4.4.3 Individualized Support for Landlords

A minority of PHAs offer individualized assistance to landlords to help them navigate program processes and address concerns as they arise. Forty-four percent of LI MTW agencies and 26

percent of comparison PHAs have a dedicated landlord liaison on staff. These staff generally serve as the primary point-of-contact for prospective and current landlords, supporting them throughout all stages of lease up and occupancy. As one PHA described in its MTW application,

“The Landlord Liaison listens to landlord concerns, addresses red tape, utilizes administrative flexibilities, and offers monetary incentives to landlords to accept voucher holders.” In addition to their role providing one-on-one support, liaisons also might be responsible for research on landlord needs, marketing and outreach efforts, and landlord training.

Some PHAs have established additional staff roles that aim to smooth the relationship between tenants and landlords, helping both parties navigate tensions that can arise during lease up and occupancy. In their MTW applications, several PHAs reported they have hired housing navigation specialists who help tenants find units, advise them on their rights and responsibilities as tenants, and coach them on how to best present the program to the landlord. A few PHAs have also hired housing counsellors or eviction specialists whose primary role is to mediate and resolve conflicts between tenants and landlords.

4.5 Implications for Process and Impact Studies

This early analysis of landlord-facing activities and landlord incentives at comparison and LI MTW agencies reveals some important findings that will inform how the team approaches upcoming site visits and the impact study.

37

First, survey results indicate that, even without MTW authority, public housing agencies can and do offer a range of incentives to encourage landlords to participate in the Housing Choice Voucher program. For many comparison PHAs, these incentives appear to be similar to those that LI MTW agencies offer. The details of implementation could be somewhat different. For example, MTW agencies can offer financial incentives funded through HAP funds, whereas traditional PHAs are unable to use HAP funds for this purpose. Despite these differences, these traditional PHAs can influence landlord participation in a similar manner to the MTW incentives.

Because responses to the survey of comparison PHAs at baseline are skewed toward larger PHAs, the results might overestimate how common such incentives are at standard PHAs.

Nonetheless, the availability of landlord incentives at comparison PHAs reduces the contrast between MTW and comparison PHAs, potentially making it less likely that the team will detect effects of the incentives the LI cohort implemented. However, LI MTW agencies all offer landlord incentives and are expected to implement at least two from HUD’s list of nine. LI MTW

agencies may also implement cohort-specific waivers. 40 As a result, LI MTW agencies and comparison PHAs will differ in regard to the extent of the landlord incentives offered. The final report will detail how comparison PHAs implemented their own landlord incentives, using this information to interpret the estimates.

Second, the survey results and MTW applications reveal that landlord incentives are not implemented in isolation. They are part of a broader range of efforts that PHAs have made to better support and engage landlords. A PHA’s programmatic and administrative supports for landlords—such as landlord liaisons or partnerships with industry groups—will likely influence landlords’ awareness of and response to the incentives. Initiatives that target tenants, such as housing navigators and mobility counselling, also could influence how landlords engage with PHAs by easing the process of finding tenants and could affect overall success rates and other outcome measures. The team plans to probe these broader program efforts during upcoming site visits to LI MTW agencies.

Finally, although the survey and MTW applications captured information on PHAs’ challenges related to landlord recruitment and retention, they do not capture information on PHAs’

motivations for selecting particular incentives or approaches. Exploring PHAs’ motivations will be a key focus for staff interviews during upcoming site visits. The team aims to understand why PHAs select the incentives they do, what constraints or limitations they consider, and how they anticipate the incentives will help them address the challenges they face in their HCV programs.

40 See section 1.2 for a list of cohort-specific waivers.

38

Appendix A. Resident Expert Panel

Longstanding racism and discrimination have created social inequities, including in access to housing, which disproportionally affect communities of color, leaving many individuals struggling to secure housing even when ample housing is available. To help ensure that the evaluation is responsive to that reality and to improve the authenticity of the data collection, the team recruited a resident expert panel (REP) of housing choice voucher (HCV) holders to provide input to the evaluation. This appendix provides details on REP recruitment and REP

member engagement in research design and data collection elements to date.

A.1 Methodology

A.1.1 Recruiting REP Members

The team used relationships with colleges, community-based organizations, and public housing agencies (PHAs) nationwide to recruit REP members using the following recruitment processes.

• Team staff reached out to a manager in the MyGoals for Employment Success coaching program in Houston, Texas, who in turn reached out to multiple program participants known to be HCV voucher holders and invited them to participate in the REP.

• Team staff reached out to a social worker at Michigan Medicine in Ann Arbor, Michigan, who in turn reached out to clients and invited them to participate in the REP.

• Team staff reached out to a senior program manager at the Mayor’s Office of Community Mental Health in New York, New York, who in turn reached out to clients and invited them to participate in the REP.

• Team staff reached out to a faculty member at State College of Florida, Sarasota, Florida, who in turn reached out to clients and invited them to participate in the REP.

The team followed up with the referred individuals via e-mail to set up one-on-one phone calls with each potential REP member to discuss the opportunity, expectations, and logistics. During this initial screening, the team asked potential members if they would like to move forward with REP participation and set up a time for the first workshop. Seven people originally agreed to REP participation, with four participants actively participating throughout the first year of engagement.

As part of the recruitment process, the team obtained consent of each REP member and discussed the logistics of compensation for participation. Each REP member also signed a nondisclosure agreement ahead of the first REP meeting. Even if REP members later leave the HCV program, which is possible or even likely during a 5-year window, they can continue participating in the panel.

REP members receive $50 honorariums for each workshop they attended in appreciation for their time preparing for and attending the session. The team also incentivized REP retention by providing an additional honorarium of $100 to REP members who attended the first five consecutive workshops.

39

A.1.2 Convening the REP

Engaging the REP included the following.

• Preworkshop check-ins with REP members between workshops offered an opportunity to debrief previous workshops and to prepare for the next.

• Organizing workshops served to onboard the REP members and discuss key evaluation topics. These meetings were recorded.

• Coordinating a debrief session with the full team on the REP’s insights and recommendations.

Exhibit A-1 shows the six formal workshops the team held with the REP between June 2022 and March 2023. Each session was 1 to 1½ hours in length, depending on the topic and purpose. The first two workshops were about relationship building, listening to and respecting diverse views, and generally gaining an understanding of these voucher holders’ experiences with landlords so those experiences might enrich the evaluation. These workshops helped establish the community and trust integral to working collaboratively with resident experts.

Exhibit A-1. Summary of Resident Expert Panel Workshops

Workshops Conducted

Session Goals

• Getting to know one another.

Workshop 1: Onboarding

• Mutual expectations for the future.

• Introduction to research, evaluation, and this evaluation’s design.

• Introduction to evaluation team.

Workshop 2: Narrative Workshop

• Introduction to resident expert panel (REP) members.

• Centering intersectionality and equity.

• Discussion around narratives of REP members’ experiences with landlords.

Workshop 3: Landlord Engagement

• Discussion in small groups of landlord engagement strategies.

• Discussion in full group of language used to engage landlords.

Workshop 4: Research Questions and

• Review evaluation research design.

Outcomes

• Discuss research questions.

• Discuss outcome measures.

Workshop 5: Landlord and Public Housing • Update on data collection (challenges and lessons).

Agency Interview Data Collection

• Review interview protocols and questions in small groups.

Workshop 6:

• Update on evaluation activities and statuses.

Interim Evaluation Update

• Discussion of current rental and landlord experiences.

Workshops 3, 4, and 5 focused on aspects of the research design and data collection processes and materials, asking REP members for feedback grounded in their experiences. In workshop 6, the team provided an interim update to REP members about the status and progress of the evaluation. REP members also shared their current rental and landlord experiences.

In addition to these formal workshops, the team often connected informally with REP members via text or phone call to check in about their lives and housing searches. Informal connection proved vital to maintaining relationships with REP members between formal workshops.

Throughout the remainder of the evaluation, the team plans to host quarterly check-ins with REP

members to update them on the status of the evaluation and get their feedback on key research components and deliverables. The team will seek REP members’ input on analysis findings and framing report sections.

40

A.2 Implementing REP Input

The goals of convening the REP are to help the team learn from people with lived expertise to improve the study design and understand the findings. The following describes some of the ways the team incorporated input from REP members into study design.

A.2.1 REP Members’ Expertise

REP members said that finding acceptable housing they can rent using vouchers has required them to become experts in the HCV program and gain sophisticated knowledge in how to best approach possible landlords about renting units as voucher holders. REP members acknowledged that their level of knowledge might not be typical of average voucher holders. In their experience, other voucher holders do not know the HCV program as intimately and, thus, might not be as strategic in their communications with landlords, which could create an even greater barrier to finding and maintaining using housing vouchers.

Throughout REP workshops, members gave their thoughts and feedback on the evaluation’s data collection efforts and protocols, referencing first-hand experience participating in the complex task of finding not only a unit that fits their budget and necessities but also landlords or rental companies willing to accept vouchers and work with PHAs. Since being recruited to the REP, four active REP members have been in the process of searching for new housing. Even with their expertise, some have had difficulties finding it. REP members discussed how nuanced the issue of finding housing is, citing that racism, sexism, classism, and family dynamics are barriers to finding housing.

A.2.2 Integrating REP Feedback in Research Protocols and Processes

REP members provided context to the entire process of finding housing with housing vouchers and four important sets of feedback that resulted in direct updates or alterations to the evaluation’s qualitative interview protocols.

1. REP members explained that the process of receiving housing vouchers or using vouchers can be convoluted or nonintuitive and is chronically delayed. As a response to that feedback, the team added two questions to the baseline Landlord Incentives (LI) Moving to Work (MTW) agency interview protocol and the year 4 comparison PHA interview protocol that cover—

• Communications between PHAs and voucher holders, including the role of third-party entities (for example, housing navigator organizations).

• The common “sticking points” that lead to voucher holders not leasing up before vouchers expire (for example, incomplete paperwork, not finding units, and so on).

2. REP members emphasized the importance of screening landlords who participate in the HCV

program. REP members believe PHAs do their due diligence in screening HCV program participants, and they think that PHAs should also screen to ensure that participating landlords will treat tenants with respect, respond promptly to maintenance requests, or otherwise be a good fit for the program. The team added two questions to the baseline LI MTW agency and the comparison PHA interview protocols to understand—

• The process that PHAs use to bring landlords into the HCV program, including any outreach and screening they do to ensure landlords are a good fit.

41

• The “sticking points” in the process of recruiting new landlords that can jeopardize a successful lease up (for example, inspections taking too long, landlords missing deadlines, PHA losing contact with landlords).

3. REP members shared their concerns about the unintended consequences of landlord incentives, especially the potential implications of fewer inspections for unit quality. To assess PHAs’ thinking about voucher holders’ perspectives on the landlord incentives, the team added questions on the topics listed in the following to the year 3 LI MTW agency phone and the year 4 LI MTW agency site visit interview protocols.

• Observed effects of incentives on housing quality.

• Any PHA mitigation efforts due to these unintended consequences.

4. REP members discussed the importance of tenant feedback in designing incentives. The team added questions to the baseline LI MTW agency interview protocol about whether the PHAs asked for tenant feedback when selecting which landlord incentives to implement. The team also added questions about tenant reactions to landlord incentives once implemented to the year 3 LI MTW agency phone and the year 4 LI MTW agency site visit interview protocols.

The REP is an important part of this evaluation. The feedback REP members provided, their varying experiences, and their expertise will continue informing the evaluation’s data collection and the team’s interpretation and reporting of evaluation results.

A.3 Lessons Learned

After recruiting, meeting, and engaging the REP members, the team identified some key lessons learned on how to organize a strong expert panel.

• Recruit and Engage the Panel During the Research Design Phase. REP members are those that landlord incentives and other HCV program alterations ultimately most affect.

Thus, they should be closely involved in a study designed to understand the effect of those incentives. For this evaluation, the team recruited and began engaging REP members after the evaluation had already been designed and approved by HUD. Then, REP members provided invaluable context and insight in the REP workshops based on their knowledge of and experience navigating the HCV program. The team was able to amend some evaluation documents after meeting with REP members, but it would have been easier to do with earlier REP involvement.

• Recruit More People Than Thought Needed. The team originally recruited seven people with experience participating in the HCV program, but only four ended up being consistently active REP participants. To build a larger REP earlier and ensure ample participation during each workshop, it would have been helpful to recruit three or four times as many people.

Given that the MTW evaluation is long-term, it could be difficult to maintain engagement with all the original REP members. The team expects the need to recruit additional REP

members later in the evaluation.

• Maintain Active and Continuous Engagement With the Panel. The team’s involvement with REP members was as successful as it was because the team intentionally built trusting relationships with REP members by providing ample support before and after each REP

workshop, checking in informally with REP members between workshops, and providing evaluation updates even when no significant evaluation activities were occurring.

42

Maintaining informal engagement with REP members will be crucial for ensuring and supporting their continued involvement throughout the evaluation. Intentional and frequent engagement is imperative for any evaluation and especially for this evaluation, given the long-term involvement the team seeks from the REP members.

43

Appendix B. Evaluation Public Housing Agencies

Exhibit B-1. List of 28 Landlord Incentives Moving to Work Agencies

# State

Public Housing Agency Name

# State

Public Housing Agency Name

1 AL Housing Authority of the City of Dothan

15 IL

Winnebago County Housing Authority

2 CA Berkeley Housing Authority

16 MA Brockton Housing Authority

3 CA Housing Authority of the City of Alameda

17 ME Lewiston Housing Authority

4 CA Housing Authority of the City of Santa Barbara 18 MI

Ann Arbor Housing Commission

5 CA Vacaville Housing Authority

19 NJ

Housing Authority of Bergen County

6 CO Housing Catalyst (Fort Collins)

20 OR Homes for Good (Lane County Housing Agency)

7 CO Jefferson County Housing Authority

21 PA Harrisburg Housing Authority

8 CT Norwalk Housing Authority

22 SC Housing Authority of the City of Spartanburg

9 CT Middletown Housing Authority

23 SC Greenville Housing Authority

10 GA Northwest Georgia Housing Authority

24 SC Housing Authority of Florence

11 HI

Hawai’i Public Housing Authority

25 TN

Knoxville Community Development Corporation

12 IL

Rockford Housing Authority

26 UT

Housing Authority of Salt Lake City

13 IL

Housing Authority of Joliet

27 WA Yakima Housing Authority

14 IL

Lake County Housing Authority

28 WA Spokane Housing Authority

Source: HUD (2022)

Exhibit B-2. List of 112 Comparison Group Public Housing Agencies

# State

Public Housing Agency

# State

Public Housing Agency

1 AL Greater Gadsden Housing Authority

57 MI

Benton Township Housing Commission

2 AZ Flagstaff Housing Authority

58 MI

Southfield Housing Commission

3 AZ Tempe Housing Authority

59 MI

Sterling Heights Housing Commission

4 CA National City Housing Authority

60 MI

Wyoming Housing Commission

5 CA City of Anaheim Housing Authority

61 MN

Clay County Housing & Redevelopment Authority

6 CA City of Benicia Housing Authority

62 MN

Worthington Housing & Redevelopment Authority

7 CA City of Long Beach Housing Authority

63 MN

Mankato Economic Development Authorities

8 CA City of Pasadena Department of Housing

64 MN

Public Housing Agency of the City of St. Paul

9 CA City of Pittsburgh Housing Authority

65 MS

Mississippi Regional Housing Authority No. V

10 CA County of Plumas Housing Authority

66 NC

Columbus County Public Housing Agency

11 CA County of Sacramento Housing Authority

67 NC

Economic Improvement Council Inc.

12 CA City of Hawthorne Housing Authority

68 NC

Lexington Housing Authority

13 CA Housing Authority of the City of Fresno

69 NC

Pender County Housing Department

14 CA Housing Authority of the City of Burbank

70 NC

Rowan County Housing Authority

15 CA Housing Authority of the City of Oxnard

71 NC

Sandhills Community Action Program Inc.

16 CA Housing Authority of the City of South Gate

72 ND

Great Plains Housing Authority

17 CA Housing Authority of the City of Vallejo

73 ND

Morton County Housing Authority

18 CA Housing Authority of the County Contra Costa

74 NH

Nashua Housing and Redevelopment Authority

19 CA Housing Authority of the County of Monterey

75 NJ

Passaic County Public Housing Authority

20 CA Housing Authority of the County of Ventura

76 NJ

Paterson Housing Authority

21 CA Orange County Housing Authority

77 NJ

Red Bank Housing Authority

22 CO Arvada Housing Authority

78 NJ

State of NJ Department of Community Affairs

23 CO Colorado Division of Housing

79 NJ

Union County Housing Authority

24 CO Englewood Housing Authority

80 NJ

Weehawken Housing Authority

25 CO Grand Junction Housing Authority

81 NY

City of New Rochelle Housing Authority

26 CO Housing Authority of the City and County of

Denver

82 NY

Jamestown Housing Authority

27 CO Housing Authority of the City of Fountain

83 NY

Town of Islip Housing Authority

28 CO Housing Authority of the City of Pueblo

84 NY

Town of Union Community Development

29 CO Lakewood Housing Authority

85 NY

Village of Waterford

30 CO Littleton Housing Authority

86 OH

Allen Metropolitan Housing Authority

44

# State

Public Housing Agency

# State

Public Housing Agency

31 CO Unison Housing Partners

87 OH

Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority

32 CT Greenwich Housing Authority

88 OH

Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority

33 CT Housing Authority of the Town of Stratford

89 OR

Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority

34 CT Manchester Housing Authority

90 OR

Housing Authority of Jackson County

35 CT Naugatuck Housing Authority

91 OR

Housing Authority of Yamhill County

36 CT West Haven Housing Authority

92 OR

Linn-Benton Housing Authority

37 FL Housing Authority of Brevard County

93 OR

Mid-Columbia Housing Authority

38 FL Jacksonville Housing Authority

94 PA

Allentown Housing Authority

39 FL Manatee County Housing Authority

95 PA

Carbon County Housing Authority

40 FL North Central Florida Regional Housing Agency 96 PA

Housing Authority of the City of Lancaster

41 GA Housing Authority of Savannah

97 PA

Housing Authority of Montour County

42 GA Housing Authority of the City of Augusta

98 SC

Housing Authority of Aiken

43 HI

City and County of Honolulu

99 SC

Housing Authority of Bennettsville

44 HI

Kauai County Housing Agency

100 SC

Housing Authority of Hartsville

45 IL

DuPage Housing Authority

101 SC

Housing Authority of Sumter

46 IL

Greater Metro Area Housing Authority of Rock

Island County

102 SC

Housing Authority of the City of Charleston

47 IL

Housing Authority of Elgin

103 SC

Housing Authority of York

48 IL

Housing Authority of Jefferson County

104 SC

South Carolina State Housing Authority

49 IL

Knox County Housing Authority

105 TN

Chattanooga Housing Authority

50 IL

McHenry County Housing Authority

106 TN

Tennessee Housing Development Agency

51 IN

Housing Authority of the City of Lafayette

107 UT

Housing Authority of Utah County

52 IN

Kokomo Housing Authority

108 WA Housing Authority City of Walla Walla

53 KY Housing Authority of Cynthiana

109 WA Housing Authority of Thurston County

54 MA Fall River Housing Authority

110 WA Housing Authority City of Longview

55 MA Leominster Housing Authority

111 WA Housing Authority of Snohomish County

56 MA Salem Housing Authority

112 WI

Beloit Housing Authority

Source: Abt Associates selection based on HUD-administrative and American Community Survey data 45

Exhibit B-3. Comparison of Baseline Characteristics of LI MTW and Comparison Public Housing Agencies Comparison ( n = 112)

LI MTW ( n = 28)

Label

Difference

in Means p-Value

Mean

Minimum Maximum

Mean

Minimum Maximum

Public Housing Agency (PHA) Characteristic

Has public housing program (Yes or No)

54.5

0 (No) 100 (Yes)

64.3

0 (No) 100 (Yes)

– 9.8 0.352

Average HUD expenditure per month

$802

$369

$1,894

$909

$488

$1,813

– $107 0.139

Number of subsidized units available

2,247

40

23,908

2,199

751

5,369

48.2 0.904

Number of vouchers

2,592

55

24,111

2,656

1,082

5,446

– 63.2 0.883

Housing Supply

PHA in geographic area with source of income nondiscrimination law

(Yes or No)

46.4

0 (No) 100 (Yes)

46.4

0 (No) 100 (Yes)

0 1.000

Median search duration for successful issuances within 180 days (days)a

57.7

17

127.1

59.7

43.2

84.8

– 2.0 0.506

Success rate within 180 days of voucher issuance (%)

66.5

35.8

98.0

68.0

45.5

95.0

– 1.5 0.548

Occupied units as the percentage of units available (%)

85.2

59

102

85.5

59

99

– 0.3 0.903

Percentage over housed (households with more bedrooms than people)

21.3

3

55

20.2

5

37

1.2 0.550

Average months on waiting list

31.4

1

133

24.4

10

79

7.0 0.090*

Percentage of households with 0- or 1-bedroom units (efficiencies and 1-

bedroom)

32.4

5

75

33.5

7

65

– 1.1 0.722

Percentage of households with 2-bedroom units

35.8

17

63

34.5

20

44

1.3 0.406

Percentage of households with 3-bedroom units or larger

31.7

2

68

31.9

11

59

– 0.3 0.926

Self-Sufficiency

Household income per year

$15,661

$9,480 $30,513

$15,517 $11,068 $21,864

$144 0.834

Percentage of households with income in the bracket of $1–$4,999 yearly

7.5

0

22

8.9

2

25

– 1.4 0.148

Percentage of households with income in the bracket of $20,000 or more

yearly

25.6

7

60

25.5

12

41

0.2 0.939

Percentage of households with income below 30% of family area median

income, adjusted for household size

76.6

57

94

77.4

63

87

– 0.8 0.584

Average family expenditure per month

$400

$241

$776

$400

$271

$613

$0 0.993

Percentage of households with most income from wages or business

24.8

8

53

24.5

10

40

0.3 0.870

Average months since joining the Housing Choice Voucher program

109.2

58

187

102.4

63

169

6.8 0.247

46

Comparison ( n = 112)

LI MTW ( n = 28)

Label

Difference

in Means p-Value

Mean

Minimum Maximum

Mean

Minimum Maximum

Neighborhood Characteristic

Percentage of households in owner-occupied single-family detached

homes in the census tracts where HUD-assisted families reside

50.8

9

71

48.4

9

69

2.5

0.425

Percentage of the population below poverty level in the census tracts

where HUD-assisted families reside

19.8

7

42

20.8

10

36

– 1.0

0.499

Minorities as percentage of total population in the census tracts where

HUD-assisted families reside

45.0

5

96

46.9

17

86

– 1.9

0.678

Average household income as a percentage of family area median

income, adjusted for household size

22.3

16

31

21.4

16

28

0.9

0.175

Homeowner vacancy rate in PHA Service Area (%)

1.4

0.1

3.9

1.1

0.1

3.4

0.2

0.110

Rental vacancy rate in PHA Service Area (among all total housing units)

(%)

4.61

1.03

12.01

4.51

1.11

12.33

0.10

0.819

Percentage of households paying 35% of income or more for gross rent

among occupied units paying rent (excluding units where it cannot be

38.9

22.4

52.2

37.8

29.4

44.7

1.1

0.181

computed)

Percentage of households in PHA Service Area that are families with own

children

27.1

18.0

44.1

26.9

20.2

35.1

0.1

0.903

Median income (2019 dollars) for families in PHA Service Area

$83,365 $39,315 $134,619 $90,388 $45,648 $140,924 – $7,023

0.119

Median rent for occupied units paying rent in PHA Service Area

$1,150

$598

$1,999

$1,198

$ 745

$1,961

– $48

0.535

30% Income limit, family of four

$26,680 $15,950 $45,150

$27,690 $16,750 $45,150 – $1,010

0.496

Fair market rent for 2-bedroom unit

$1,174

$663

$2,383

$1,185

$706

$2,383

– $11

0.919

Voucher Tenant Characteristic

Percentage of households in which a spouse is not present and 1 or more

children under 18 years are present

36.7

3

73

37.4

18

62

– 0.6

0.827

Percentage of households in which oldest head of household (HoH) is

aged 62 or older

29.8

6

82

28.0

13

50

1.8

0.471

Percentage of households in which the race of the HoH is non-White

61.3

4

100

64.9

19

95

– 3.5

0.521

Percentage of households that were in the program less than a year

8.6

1

34

10.2

3

20

– 1.6

0.153

Percentage of households below age 62 in which HoH has a disability

37.9

11

76

38.4

20

63

– 0.6

0.836

Percentage of households aged 62 or older in which HoH has a disability

66.7

25

100

64.7

27

83

2.0

0.548

Percentage of households headed by woman

79.5

59

100

77.0

62

94

2.5

0.197

a The sample size for median search duration is 24 treatment PHAs (4 had missing data) and 112 comparison PHAs (none had missing data).

LI = Landlord Incentives. MTW = Moving to Work.

Note: Shaded rows indicate characteristics used as matching criteria for the comparison PHA selection.

Sources: Calculations from HUD’s Pictures of Subsidized Housing dataset; Poverty & Race Research Action Council’s Source of Income laws database; Housing Inventory Portal data

47

Appendix C. Qualitative Impact Protocol and Thematic Interview Approach Crosswalk Exhibit C-1. Interview Questions

Qualitative Impact Protocol Interview Questions

Thematic Interview Approach Interview Questions

Background and Context

A.1. How long have you been in the rental property business? (They can

1. Tell me about your work.

answer how many years or since what year)

How did you get into it?

a. Are you a landlord, investor, or property manager? What is your primary role?

Are all your properties in [city]? If not, how long have you been in the business 2. What is your business structure? Do you have partners or employees? For property in [city]?

managers: Tell me about who works here with you. What are their responsibilities?

a. What types of decisions are you able to make? When do you need to check with the owner?

A.2. Tell me about the properties you own or manage in [insert PHA city].

3. Tell me about the properties you own/manage within [PHA jurisdiction name]. Note: We want a sense of their entire real estate portfolio. For smaller landlords, you will want to talk about each property individually. If that is unreasonable, you should have them talk about the types of properties they own or manage. It can be valuable to get a sense of specific properties of each type that you can refer to later for comparisons. For example, if they have some properties they expect to rent to voucher users and some they do not, some single-family homes and some in multifamily buildings, and properties that are clustered in certain areas. You will come back to these properties repeatedly for examples in later sections. For professional managers, only ask about properties that they manage. Their company may have a larger portfolio about which they will know very little.

How many properties/units do you own/manage in [insert PHA city]?

a. Tell me all about the building itself (structure, size, quality, condition, architecture, number of units, needed repairs)

For your properties in [insert name of city], which neighborhoods are the

b. Tell me all about the location (neighborhood, neighborhood reputation, proximity to properties located in?

amenities, demographics of neighborhood, safety, changes in neighborhood)

Tell me all about the buildings (structure, size, quality, condition, number of c. Tell me about the current renter(s) in that property (age, race, gender, family size, units).

income)

Tell me all about the locations (neighborhood, neighborhood reputation,

d. Is there currently a Section 8 voucher holder in that unit/building?

proximity to amenities, demographics of the neighborhood)

A.3. Tell me whether any of your properties have income or other restrictions on 4. Does the project have any sort of income or rent limits? Does it target a specific which tenants you can rent to.

population (elderly people and people with disabilities, etc.)? [ Note: Try to figure out, if possible, whether it’s a Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Property, Project Based Section 8, or other supply-side subsidy. Owners should know, managers may not.]

Is there an entity which requires those restrictions?

a. How does that impact your business? What are the requirements related to [ that subsidy]?

Can those restrictions be changed at all? If so, how?

b. Are there other things you do because you’re serving that population (for example, social programs, etc.)?

48

Qualitative Impact Protocol Interview Questions

Thematic Interview Approach Interview Questions

A.4. Do the restrictions on some of the units influence who you rent other units c. What are the challenges that come along with [owning/managing] that type of property?

in the property to?

N/A

5. Some landlords tend to do everything themselves, sweat equity, others think it’s more efficient to hire people to do particular tasks. How about for you?

N/A

Walk me through how you decide what to do yourself, and what to outsource. Tell me about the last thing you did yourself. Tell me about the last thing you hired someone to do. Probe Q: Do you employ a manager? Handyman? Real estate agent? How did you find these people?

A.5. Tell me about your tenants. How do you usually find tenants?

N/A

Probe:

N/A

What is your marketing strategy to find tenants?

N/A

What screening process do you use to determine tenants?

N/A

Financial and Business

B.1. First of all, taking your overall portfolio, can you tell me about your rental N/A

business’s overall financial picture in the last 4 years, so since the summer of

[year] when [anchor point]. Has income from rental:

Increased / Decreased/ Stayed the same

N/A

B.2. Now I’d like us to talk about each of your properties’ situation in a bit more N/A

depth. Tell me about the costs and income for up to four properties that you feel most familiar with. In [ insert name of city].

*Type of tenant *Have costs: increased / decreased/ stayed the same? If costs N/A

changed, why have they changed? *Has income:

increased / decreased/ stayed the same? If income changed, why? *Overall, is financial situation: improved/ worse/ the same? Any other reasons which have influenced this overall?

*B.3. Going back to your portfolio as a whole, has the business environment for N/A operating your properties: stayed the same, improved, or got worse over the last 3 years?

[Unless answered ‘stayed the same’ go to B4, if ‘stayed the same’ skip to

N/A

section C]

B.4. Can you tell me why you answered that way? What has changed in the

N/A

business environment to impact your costs and income?

(If they ask what you mean, then give an example of a city or state requirement, N/A such as fire code or similar, that has been changed to require less time, or cost to implement)

Ask for specific examples and then use the probe: “Can you tell me more about N/A that example?”

IF LANDLORD BECAME A LANDLORD WITHIN THE LAST 4 YEARS.

N/A

49

Qualitative Impact Protocol Interview Questions

Thematic Interview Approach Interview Questions

B.5. Tell me about the process of becoming a landlord in the last 4 years.

N/A

B.6. What were the financial considerations which influenced your decision to N/A

become a landlord? Please give me specific examples.

B.7. Since you became a landlord, has anything in the business environment N/A

impacted your costs and income?

Work Involved in Renting

C.1 . Tell me about your job. What are the tasks that you are responsible for?

6. [Even with the help] being a landlord must be a lot of work: Tell me everything you did I’m interested to hear about all the jobs that you do.

yesterday. Walk me through a typical day…

C.2. (If not mentioned before) What is your role in renting out units in the Probes: Visiting units, Screening tenants, repairs, eviction, investments.

property? Tell me about your day-to-day work in renting out units.

C.3. What pieces of the work of renting out units do other people in your

If they have a day job: So you need to juggle your day job on the one hand and all of those business manage?

responsibilities on the other. How do you make that work?

Probe: Describe for me any third parties, such as real estate agents or other N/A

similar entities, that you pay to help with work finding tenants and renting out units. What are the jobs they do to find tenants and rent out units? How much control do you have over that process?

C.4. Tell me about the work involved with renting out the units in the property.

1. Tell me about how you marketed your last vacant unit.

I’d like you to talk me through the most recent unit rental and what was involved in renting it out.

Did you have a target market? Who were you trying to rent this unit to?

a. Explain the benefits of listing there as opposed to [another place].

How did you advertise the unit?

I see a lot of advertisements for apartments and everyone seems to have a different strategy for what they put in the ad. How about for this unit?

What did you have to do to get the unit ready to rent?

Probe Q: What media outlets or networks did you use to advertise the unit?

How do you manage applications and screen tenants? By phone? E-mail?

Probe Q: Describe how you selected pictures, location, description, keywords.

Tell me about the criteria you are using to screen potential tenants? (for Probe Q: Tell me about your experiences working with real estate agents or other folks example, credit scores and references)

helping tenants find housing.

What other work is involved in renting the unit?

N/A

I want to think about the preparations and repairs you had to do to a unit when 2. So that’s how you marketed [the XYZ unit] last time it was vacant, can you tell me how you rented it out 4 years ago, and one you rented out recently. Let’s start with you marketed another unit, let’s call it ABC [or another word]? Are there other properties you the most recent unit. Tell me about a recent unit you rented out. What repairs marketed differently? Walk me through your decisionmaking process.

and changes or other maintenance work did you do to that unit? Is that typical for such a unit?

N/A

Key Probe: Is this process different for different types of units/properties/neighborhoods?

N/A

3. Going back to unit [your last vacant unit], what level of response did you get from your advertisement? Describe the people who inquired about the advertisement (age, race, income, family size).

N/A

Probes: Number of calls, number of visits within what time frame? How long did it take to fill the unit? How long was the unit vacant?

50

Qualitative Impact Protocol Interview Questions

Thematic Interview Approach Interview Questions

N/A

4. Tell me about the tenant who ended up getting [your last vacant unit]. How and why did you select them?

N/A

Tell me about the process. What types of background checks did you do (credit, rental history, income, criminal history)? What tools did you use to conduct the checks?

Now tell me about the unit you’re thinking about that you rented out 4 years N/A

ago. Can you share any details of the repairs and changes or other

maintenance work you did to that unit?

What changes, if any, have you noticed about the kinds of repairs and

N/A

maintenance that you do to units that you rent out?”

C.5. Have your company’s policies and procedures about renting out units in N/A

your property/ies changed in the last 4 years? Or stayed the same?

For any changes described, please tell me more about each of those changes. N/A For any changes described, please tell me what has happened to cause those N/A

changes.

For any changes described, please give me an example of how this might have N/A influenced how you go about leasing up a unit.

C.6. Has the amount of work involved with renting units in your property or N/A

properties changed in the last 4 years? Or stayed the same?

For any changes described, please tell me what has happened to cause those N/A

changes.

For any changes described, have those changes impacted the financial costs of N/A your property?

For any changes described, how have you managed the staffing of those

N/A

changes? For example, if they describe less work, have they let any staff go?

Or for increased changes, has this increased their need for staffing? Or meant existing staff have more tasks to manage?

Changes in Marketing of Units

D.1. Can you tell me how you typically market your available rental units? Is this N/A the same for every unit? Or does it differ according to which unit you are renting?

If it differs, can you tell me the different kinds of units you have, and how you N/A

market each one?

D.2. What type of tenant are you trying to get to apply to your units?

N/A

D.3. Has how you market your units changed in the last 4 years?

N/A

Changes in Perceptions of Tenants

E.1. Please tell me about the process of renting and marketing to tenants.

N/A

51

Qualitative Impact Protocol Interview Questions

Thematic Interview Approach Interview Questions

If you do not handle this, which staff member does? What does X staff member Note: Get clarity on the actual checks. A lot of landlords use vague language like do for marketing/renting to tenants?

“background check.” Also note if there are parts of these checks they pay more or less attention to.

E.2. What are you looking for in a tenant? Does this differ from building to N/A

building? Or unit to unit?

E.3. What do you look for that tells you you’ve found the right tenant?

5. Tell me about the tenant(s) who applied but did not get unit XYZ last time it was vacant.

Why?

Communication styles of tenant

N/A

Concrete qualifications like credit, income, etc.

6. Tell me about screening more generally… What is your standard process for screening tenants?

Other characteristics?

Probes: application fees, first come first serve, credit checks, criminal checks, rental history, visiting their current apartments, landlord references.

E.4. Tell me about your ideal tenant.

What were you looking for in the ideal tenant?

E.5. Have you had any experiences with tenants over the last 4 years (or since Key Probe: Tell me how this process is different for different types of you started being a landlord for newer landlords) that have changed how you units/properties/neighborhoods.

target who you rent to? If so, can you tell me about that/those experiences you’ve had that influenced this change?

E.6. Are there types of tenants who you used to avoid and who you are now

N/A

more open to renting to?

E.6. Has anything about what you look for in your ideal tenant changed over the 7. Some landlords tell us that they can tell everything about a person just by talking to them.

last 4 years since the summer of [year]?

Others say that you need to go through all the formal checks. How about for you?

E.7. Have you changed anything about what type of tenant you are looking for N/A

over the last 4 years?

E.8. Have you had any conversations with other landlords or colleagues over 8. Tell me about the unit that you have had the hardest time finding a tenant for. Tell me the the last 4 years that have changed who you target your units to rent to? If so, whole story.

can you tell me about those conversations?

What aspects of who you target your units to did you talk about?

Key Probes: Are some neighborhoods harder than others? Certain types of properties?

What specific characteristics of who you rent to did you change as a result of Key Probes: Did you consider listing the unit for voucher holders [if not already]?

those conversations?

N/A

9. Describe your ideal tenant for unit ABC. [repeat for a second unit] What are your “red flags?”

Programs Offered to Landlords

F.1. Can you tell me about any programs or initiatives that are being offered to N/A

landlords in the city or state that you know about?

Probes for each program/initiative mentioned:

N/A

What is the name of this program?

N/A

Who offers the program?

N/A

What does the program do for landlords?

N/A

52

Qualitative Impact Protocol Interview Questions

Thematic Interview Approach Interview Questions

F.2. Have you used any of the program or initiatives that are being offered to N/A

landlords in the city or state? If yes, what have your experiences been?

F.3. Did these programs or initiatives change anything about how you run your N/A

property? Or who you rent to? If so, how?

Changes in Renting Environment

G.1. Can you describe for me the overall environment in [name of city] for N/A

renting apartments.

G.2. How has this environment changed over the last 4 years since the summer N/A of [year]?

G.3. Is it easier? Or harder to rent an apartment to the renters that you target?

X

G.4. What factors influence whether it is easier or harder to rent your X

apartments?

Questions about Section 8

1. Tell me about your experience with the Housing Choice Voucher or

X

Section 8 programs. [Note: You may know whether they accept vouchers (from listing) but ask this question broadly regardless. This question will help you determine their level of involvement in the HCV program and place them into one of three categories: (1) landlords who actively recruit HCV tenants for some of their units; (2) landlords who are indifferent to the program; and (3) landlords who reject the program.]

Have you ever rented to a voucher-holding tenant? (If yes, answer questions 2– X

14. If no, skip to question 15.)

2. Tell me about how the Section 8 program works? [Play dumb. Ask this X

question regardless of whether or not they participate in the voucher program.]

How does the program set rent limits? For particular areas? For particular X

units?

Which PHA do you accept vouchers from?

X

4. Tell me about the logistics of renting to a tenant with a voucher? Tell me X

about the specific rules and regulations that make these tenants different from market rate tenants. [ Play dumb. Ask this question regardless of whether or not they participate in the voucher program. ]

How does the program set rent limits? For particular areas? For particular X

units?

Walk me the through the process and how it is different from market tenants.

X

How and when are you paid? What if a tenant doesn’t pay their portion?

X

Which PHA do you accept vouchers from?

X

[If the landlord accepts vouchers from more than one PHA] Are there things one X

PHA does that are different from another PHA?

53

Qualitative Impact Protocol Interview Questions

Thematic Interview Approach Interview Questions

5. Tell me about the PHA staff who you’ve interacted with.

X

Who are your contact people when you have a question or a problem?

X

Are there particular folks there who are a pleasure to work with? Tell me that X

story.

Tell me about a customer service experience that made you frustrated.

X

6. Tell me the story of your last voucher inspection, including the good, the bad, X

and the ugly.

What did you do to prepare for the inspection?

X

What sorts of things have you needed to repair because of an inspection? Are X

the inspectors fair? Do you know them? What about requirements related to

housing quality? Does anyone inspect the unit?

7. Tell me about Section 8 tenants. How are they different from market rate X

tenants?

Probe: How does it impact repairs and maintenance?

X

Probe: How does it impact length of tenure?

X

8. Did you advertise specifically to voucher holders for any of these units? Tell X

me more about that. Why does having a voucher holder in those units make

sense?

Probe: Sources to market to voucher holders.

X

Key Probe: Does Section 8/market vary between your different properties?

X

Probe: location, neighborhood, stock, condition.

9. What do you do differently when marketing to voucher holders? What types X

of characteristics make a unit attractive to voucher holders?

Probe: What about the physical unit? Do you do certain types of renovations if X

you’re targeting voucher holders?

10. Tell me about the kinds of things you can do to a property to get higher X

rents from the voucher program?

Probe: What sorts of units have rents closer or above the payment standard?

X

11. Tell me about the advantages and disadvantages of renting to voucher

X

holders.

No matter what they do, try to get them to articulate the advantages and

X

disadvantages.

Probe: Assurance that you will get the rent on time, government intervention, X

tenants, bureaucracy, inspections.

12. [If not covered already] Are there some units you prefer to rent to Section 8 X

households? How do you decide?

Probe: Neighborhood, unit quality, rents.

X

54

Qualitative Impact Protocol Interview Questions

Thematic Interview Approach Interview Questions

13. [If they own multi-unit properties] Sometimes landlords tell us that having X

one unit rented to voucher holders makes it harder to rent the other units in the building to market tenants. Tell me about your experience.

14. How does your screening process vary based on whether or not the

X

household has a voucher? Are there different techniques that make sense for different groups?

IF THEY SAY THEY HAVE NEVER RENTED TO A VOUCHER HOUSEHOLD

X

15. You said you’ve never rented to a voucher family…

X

15a. Have you ever been approached by a household with a voucher? Tell me

X

about the last time and your decision not to participate in the program.

Probe: How did they contact you?

X

Probe: At what stage did you realize they had a voucher?

X

Probe: What other qualities/deficits did they have?

X

Probe: Describe your decisionmaking process.

N/A

15b. Do you have any associates, friends, or colleagues who rent or have

N/A

rented to households with vouchers? Tell me what stories they have told you.

15c. [If nonparticipation is enthusiastic]: What would need to change about the N/A

program to get you to participate?

Landlord Incentives

N/A

[For each incentive offered by the PHA] We understand that [PHA] has a program related to

[the incentive]. Have you heard of it? [If they claim to have heard of it, ask questions 2

through 6.]

N/A

Tell me how you first heard about [the incentive]? Probes: word of mouth, from PHA, from tenant who applied.

N/A

How did you react when you first heard about the incentive? What were you first thoughts?

N/A

Some folks have said [the incentive] made them more enthusiastic about the program, while others felt like it wouldn’t really change their perspective. How was it for you?

N/A

Were there particular properties in your portfolio that you shifted towards the voucher program? Tell me about why it mattered for those properties in particular.

N/A

Were they new properties you acquired that you rented to HCV families because of the incentive?

N/A

[If they actually experienced/participated in the incentive, ask question 7 and 8.]

N/A

Tell me about your experience with [the incentive]. How exactly did it all work?

N/A

What could have made the incentive work better?

For possible incentives not implemented by PHA:

N/A

Now I want to talk about proposals that some people suggest would improve the voucher program.

N/A

Tell me your thoughts about [proposed incentive].

55

Qualitative Impact Protocol Interview Questions

Thematic Interview Approach Interview Questions

N/A

I know it’s hard to say, but can you think of particular opportunities the [proposed incentive]

would create? Can you give me an example of a problem that you’ve had with the HCV

program that the incentive would solve?

Revised Payment Standards (with or without Small Area Fair Market Rent) Note: For the general descriptive question, make sure they describe how the PHA determines rents (ideally both before and after any changes). Does it differ by neighborhood?

N/A

When you rent to a voucher household, how accurately are you able to predict what the rent would be? What are the factors that make for a higher rent determination?

N/A

Many landlords talk about how a higher payment standard might make a voucher worth participating in the HCV program for some units but not in others. What is your perspective on the payment standards across your portfolio?

N/A

Tell me about a particular unit (if any) that you acquired for which the new payment standards made it financially feasible.

Vacancy Loss (between or before first)

N/A

Note: For the general descriptive question, make sure they describe that they believe to be the process for payment during the approval period and/or how landlords can apply for gap payments.

N/A

Sometimes landlords say that they lose rent while they’re waiting for a voucher to be approved, or in the time between voucher holders. Has that been your experience? Tell me about a recent example.

N/A

Thinking about [particular unit(s)], roughly how long does it usually take between finding a voucher tenant and getting the first rental payment? [ If they participated prior to the incentives] How has that changed since the incentive?

N/A

[ If they took advantage of a gap payment] When you’re looking to replace a voucher tenant with another voucher tenant, how does that shift your marketing strategy? Tell me about the last unit you bridged; how did you market that property?

N/A

[ If they took advantage of a gap payment] Tell me about the applicant pool for [that unit]

during turnover. Did any market tenants apply? How did you manage that?

Damage Claims

N/A

Note: For the general descriptive question, make sure they describe how they understand the criteria for filing a claim. What requirements must be met; what’s the process like? How does it interact with retention of security deposit and/or small claims court?

N/A

[ If they rent to vouchers] Tell me about a time a voucher holder damaged a unit you own beyond the usual wear and tear. How did you handle that?

N/A

[ If participated] Did you file a claim? Tell me that story.

N/A

[If didn’t participate but program was available] Did you consider filing a claim for damage?

Tell me that story. What prevented you?

56

Qualitative Impact Protocol Interview Questions

Thematic Interview Approach Interview Questions

Monetary Incentives

N/A

Note: For the general descriptive questions, make sure they describe the specific amounts of the incentive and the eligibility criteria.

N/A

[ If participated] Were there particular units that you wouldn’t have rented to a voucher holder without this incentive? Describe the sorts of units where the incentive really shifted your thinking.

N/A

[ If didn’t participate with all units] Talk to me about the units for which the incentive wasn’t enough. What was it about them?

N/A

[ If didn’t participate with all units] Is there any reasonable incentive that would have shifted your decision on that unit?

Waiver of Initial Inspection / Prequalifying Unit Inspections / Alternative Inspection Schedule Note: For the general descriptive questions, make sure they describe the standard N/A

inspection process, the alternative process, and the criteria all for waiver, prequalification, alternative inspections.

N/A

[ If participated] Talk to me about the most recent inspection you had under the program. Tell me that whole story.

N/A

[ If participated] Were there certain units that it made sense to you to prioritize for the alternative / prequalification program? Explain your thinking.

N/A

[If didn’t participate / didn’t participate in all units] Tell me about your units that didn’t qualify.

What was it about those units that made them ineligible / not worth it?

N/A

[If participated] What strategies do you use to reduce turnover? Did the alternative process shift your approach?

General Incentives Questions

N/A

Are there other ways [the PHA] is working with landlords to increase participation? Tell me all the details.

N/A

Tell me about the last time you communicated with the PHA.

N/A

Does the PHA have a landlord advisory group or something similar? Tell me about that. [If they participate, spend more time on this question getting details of who attends and what they’ve talked about at the last several meetings.]

N/A

One of the questions we’re interested in is how we get the word out about incentives. What would you recommend if we wanted landlords like you to hear about something?

The Rental Market

N/A

So, we’re totally new to the area here, can you help us understand what the rental market looks like in [city]?

N/A

1. Tell us about [city’s] rental market.

N/A

Do different parts of the city have different rental markets? Who owns what where? Why?

57

Qualitative Impact Protocol Interview Questions

Thematic Interview Approach Interview Questions

N/A

To what degree do the different types of landlords in [location] engage with the voucher program? Tell me about the ones who specialize in the program.

N/A

2. Where is the rental market most competitive—are there places with few rental units, or very high demand? Key Probe: Where are Section 8 units in the greatest demand?

N/A

3. [If owner] In what areas are you considering buying more properties? Why or why not?

Closing Questions

X

1. If you could provide one recommendation to policymakers that would make you more likely to rent to HCV holders, what would it be?

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher. PHA = public housing agency.

Notes: “N/A” indicates that the protocol does not ask a comparable question. “X” indicates that the protocol asks the same question.

58

References

American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2009–2021). Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau.

An, Brian Y., Andrew Jakabovics, Anthony W. Orlando, and Seva Rodnyansky. 2022. Who Owns Urban America? A Methodology for Identifying Real Estate Owners. Unpublished paper.

Cossyleon, Jennifer E., Philip M. Garboden, and Stefanie DeLuca. 2020. Recruiting Opportunity Landlords: Lessons From Landlords in Maryland. Washington, DC: Poverty & Race Research Action Council. https://www.prrac.org/recruiting-opportunity-landlords-lessons-from-landlords-

in-maryland-june-2020/.

DeLuca, Stefanie, Susan Clampet-Lundquist, and Kathryn Edin. 2016. Coming of Age in the Other America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Garboden, Philip, Eva Rosen, Meredith Greif, Stefanie DeLuca, and Kathryn Edin. 2018. Urban Landlords and the Housing Choice Voucher Program: A Research Report. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Urban-Landlords-HCV-Program.pdf.

Greif, Meredith J. 2022. Collateral Damages: Landlords and the Urban Housing Crisis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Gomory, Henry. 2022. “The Social and Institutional Contexts Underlying Landlords’ Eviction Processes,” Social Forces 100 (4): 1774–1805.

Hangen, Forrest, and Daniel T. O’Brien. 2022. “Linking Landlords to Uncover Ownership Obscurity,” SocArXiv: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/anvke.

Rosen, Eva. 2020. The Voucher Promise: “Section 8” and the Fate of an American Neighborhood. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (HUD). 2023. “Estimated Housing Authority Service Areas. " https://hudgis-

hud.opendata.arcgis.com/content/119c6b9a2bac4f62a4a8c2e5a320a919/about.

———. 2021. “Picture of Subsidized Households.”

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/assthsg.html.

59

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

March 2024

Document Outline

- Moving to Work, Landlord Incentives Cohort Evaluation First Interim Report

- DISCLAIMER

- Acknowledgments

- Foreword

- Table of Contents

- List of Exhibits

- Executive Summary

- Impact Questions

- Process Questions

- Cost Questions

- Study Data

- Study Sample

- Key Takeaways

- PHA Characteristics—LI Cohort

- Challenges Recruiting, Retaining, and Engaging Landlords

- Planned Landlord Incentives

- Incentives Offered at Comparison PHAs

- REP Insights

- Goals of the Early Analysis

- 1. Introduction

- 1.1 Moving to Work

- 1.2 MTW Landlord Incentives Cohort

- 1.3 Research Questions

- Impact Questions

- Process Questions

- Cost Questions

- 1.4 Evaluation Overview

- 1.4.1 Data Collection

- 1.4.2 Study Sample

- 1.5 Outcome Measures

- 1.6 Resident Expert Panel

- 1.7 Evaluation Schedule

- 2. Data Collection

- 2.1 Sources for This Report

- 2.1.1 HUD’s PIH Information Center Database for Landlord Incentives MTW Agencies and Comparison PHAs

- 2.1.2 MTW Applications

- 2.1.3 HUD’s Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System

- 2.1.4 Web Survey of MTW and Comparison PHAs at Baseline

- 2.1.5 ACS and Other Secondary Sources

- 2.2 Data Collection for Future Reports

- 2.2.1 Site Visits

- 2.2.2 Phone Interviews

- 2.2.3 Landlord Data Collection

- 3. Study Sample

- 3.1 Treatment PHAs

- 3.2 Comparison PHAs

- 3.3 Outcome Measures at Baseline

- 3.3.1 Landlord Participation

- 3.3.2 Success in Leasing

- 4. Interim Findings

- 4.1 Current Challenges Related to Landlord Engagement

- 4.1.1 Market Factors

- 4.1.2 Landlord Attitudes Toward the HCV Program and Tenants

- 4.1.3 Administrative Processes

- 4.2 Planned Incentives for MTW Agencies

- 4.2.1 Financial Incentives

- 4.2.2 Payment Standards

- 4.2.3 Inspection Flexibilities

- 4.3 Comparable Incentives at Standard PHAs

- 4.3.1 Financial Incentives

- 4.3.2 Inspection Flexibilities

- 4.4 Other Strategies for Landlord Engagement

- 4.4.1 Streamlining Administrative Processes

- 4.4.2 Landlord Engagement and Outreach

- 4.4.3 Individualized Support for Landlords

- 4.5 Implications for Process and Impact Studies

- Appendix A. Resident Expert Panel

- A.1 Methodology

- A.1.1 Recruiting REP Members

- A.1.2 Convening the REP

- A.2 Implementing REP Input

- A.2.1 REP Members’ Expertise

- A.2.2 Integrating REP Feedback in Research Protocols and Processes

- A.3 Lessons Learned

- Appendix B. Evaluation Public Housing Agencies

- Appendix C. Qualitative Impact Protocol and Thematic Interview Approach Crosswalk

- References

Table of Contents

Moving to Work, Landlord Incentives Cohort Evaluation First Interim Report

DISCLAIMER

Acknowledgments

Foreword

Table of Contents

List of Exhibits

Executive Summary

Impact Questions

Process Questions

Cost Questions

Study Data

Study Sample

Key Takeaways

PHA Characteristics—LI Cohort

Challenges Recruiting, Retaining, and Engaging Landlords

Planned Landlord Incentives

Incentives Offered at Comparison PHAs

REP Insights

Goals of the Early Analysis

1. Introduction

1.1 Moving to Work

1.2 MTW Landlord Incentives Cohort

1.3 Research Questions

Impact Questions

Process Questions

Cost Questions

1.4 Evaluation Overview

1.4.1 Data Collection

1.4.2 Study Sample

1.5 Outcome Measures

1.6 Resident Expert Panel

1.7 Evaluation Schedule

2. Data Collection

2.1 Sources for This Report

2.1.1 HUD’s PIH Information Center Database for Landlord Incentives MTW Agencies and Comparison PHAs

2.1.2 MTW Applications

2.1.3 HUD’s Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System

2.1.4 Web Survey of MTW and Comparison PHAs at Baseline

2.1.5 ACS and Other Secondary Sources

2.2 Data Collection for Future Reports

2.2.1 Site Visits

2.2.2 Phone Interviews

2.2.3 Landlord Data Collection

3. Study Sample

3.1 Treatment PHAs

3.2 Comparison PHAs

3.3 Outcome Measures at Baseline

3.3.1 Landlord Participation

3.3.2 Success in Leasing

4. Interim Findings

4.1 Current Challenges Related to Landlord Engagement

4.1.1 Market Factors

4.1.2 Landlord Attitudes Toward the HCV Program and Tenants

4.1.3 Administrative Processes

4.2 Planned Incentives for MTW Agencies

4.2.1 Financial Incentives

4.2.2 Payment Standards

4.2.3 Inspection Flexibilities

4.3 Comparable Incentives at Standard PHAs

4.3.1 Financial Incentives

4.3.2 Inspection Flexibilities

4.4 Other Strategies for Landlord Engagement

4.4.1 Streamlining Administrative Processes

4.4.2 Landlord Engagement and Outreach

4.4.3 Individualized Support for Landlords

4.5 Implications for Process and Impact Studies

Appendix A. Resident Expert Panel

A.1 Methodology

A.1.1 Recruiting REP Members

A.1.2 Convening the REP

A.2 Implementing REP Input

A.2.1 REP Members’ Expertise

A.2.2 Integrating REP Feedback in Research Protocols and Processes

A.3 Lessons Learned

Appendix B. Evaluation Public Housing Agencies

Appendix C. Qualitative Impact Protocol and Thematic Interview Approach Crosswalk

References