Moving to Work

Retrospective

A Picture of Moving to Work

Agencies’ Housing Assistance

Housing Choice and Self-

Sufficiency Outcomes at

Moving to Work Agencies

The Impact of the Moving to

Work Demonstration on the

Per Household Costs of

Federal Housing Assistance

Evaluating the Effects of

Santa Clara County Housing

Authority’s Rent Reform

Moving to Work Agencies’

Use of Project-Based

Voucher Assistance

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

Visit PD&R’s website

www.huduser.gov

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

Housing Choice and

Self-Sufficiency Outcomes

at Moving to Work Agencies

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development

Prepared by:

Mark Treskon

Matthew Gerken

Martha M. Galvez

URBAN INSTITUTE

April 2021

A

cknowledgments

Acknowledgments

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

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

The authors appreciate the extensive feedback and support that Elizabeth Rudd, the government technical representative for the Moving to Work (MTW) Retrospective Evaluation, provided

throughout the course of this project. In addition, the authors thank Lynn Rodgers and Lydia Taghavi for their assistance in the data col ection and cleaning process. The authors acknowledge the support of the MTW Expert Panel in the design and analysis of this work and technical readers, including Breno Braga, Ingrid Gould El en, and Roberta Graham. Finally, the authors thank readers from MTW agencies who reviewed a draft version of this report.

Disclaimer

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

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

Foreword

Foreword

The Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration, launched in 1996, gives participating public housing agencies (PHAs) the flexibility to design and test new ways of providing housing assistance if the new policies are intended to achieve one or more of the fol owing statutory objectives: (1) to reduce cost and achieve greater cost effectiveness in federal expenditures; (2) to give incentives to families with children where the head of household is working, seeking work, or preparing for work; and (3) to increase housing choices for low-income families. This study, one of six reports produced by HUD’s retrospective evaluation of MTW, investigates the impact of MTW on housing choice and self-sufficiency outcomes.

The same flexibilities that make MTW potential y attractive to PHAs also make interventions

tougher to evaluate. This evaluation assesses the impact of MTW on outcomes related to the

demonstration’s statutory objectives through the use of an innovative Comparative Interrupted Time Series (CITS) approach that sums up the impacts of diverse policies implemented by agencies to see if these efforts produced similar outcomes. This study represents the most exhaustive effort yet to examine the aggregate effects of MTW on housing choice and self-sufficiency.1

The study finds suggestive evidence of positive impacts from MTW on three self-sufficiency

measures: (1) the share of MTW-assisted households with income gains after entry into assisted housing (albeit from a lower baseline); (2) the share of work-able households reaching minimal Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) standards; and (3) the share of those households who

subsequently leave assistance. Though promising, the impacts observed were moderate and

deserve further study.

HUD is currently expanding the MTW demonstration to add 100 new agencies, as directed by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016. This expansion provides the opportunity to implement and test strategies that will inform the design of future rental assistance initiatives and support HUD’s efforts to enable MTW and traditional agencies to serve a greater number of eligible

families.

Todd Richardson

General Deputy Assistant Secretary

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

1 The data in this report reference MTW agencies that were designated as of December 15, 2015.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

Contents

Contents

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

Preview of Results ..............................................................................................................................................................3

Structure of This Report ....................................................................................................................................................4

Literature Review ...................................................................................................................................6

Housing Choice ................................................................................................................................................................ 6

Defining the Housing Choice Objective .............................................................................................................. 6

Measuring MTW Housing Choice Outcomes ......................................................................................................7

Self-Sufficiency ................................................................................................................................................................. 8

Defining the Self-Sufficiency Objective ............................................................................................................... 8

Measuring MTW Self-Sufficiency Outcomes ...................................................................................................... 8

Context and Goals of the Present Study ..................................................................................................................... 9

Methods ................................................................................................................................................11

Research Questions..........................................................................................................................................................11

Comparative Interrupted Time Series (CITS) Analysis .............................................................................................11

Analysis Time Periods .....................................................................................................................................................12

Data .....................................................................................................................................................................................13

HUD Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Information Center (PIC) Data .......................................................14

PHA Performance Measure Indicators ................................................................................................................14

Supplemental HUD-Assisted Unit Counts .........................................................................................................15

Decennial Census and American Community Survey (ACS) ........................................................................15

Database of MTW Activities ..................................................................................................................................15

Sampling .............................................................................................................................................................................15

MTW-Status Group Selection ................................................................................................................................15

MTW Activity-Specific Groups ...............................................................................................................................15

Overlap Across MTW Agency Groups ................................................................................................................16

Comparison Group Selection ................................................................................................................................16

Outlier Sensitivity Analysis .....................................................................................................................................16

Outcome Measures ........................................................................................................................................................ 17

Housing Choice Outcome Measures .................................................................................................................. 17

Self-Sufficiency Outcome Measures ...................................................................................................................18

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

iv

Contents

Results .................................................................................................................................................22

Detailed Findings: Housing Choice Outcomes .......................................................................................................23

Do MTW Agencies Create More Housing Opportunities Relative to Traditional Agencies? ..............24

To What Extent are Households Served by MTW Agencies Reaching Lower-Poverty, Higher

Opportunity Neighborhoods Than Households Served by Traditional Agencies? ................................ 27

To What Extent are Households Served by MTW Agencies Living in Higher Quality Public

Housing Dwellings Relative to Households in Traditional Agencies? .......................................................29

Summary of Housing Choice Outcomes ...........................................................................................................30

Detailed Findings: Self-Sufficiency Outcomes ........................................................................................................32

How do Incomes of Work-Able Households Served by MTW Agencies Compare to Those

Served by Traditional Agencies? ........................................................................................................................32

How Does the Use of Escrow Accounts as a Tool for Promoting Self-Sufficiency Differ

Between MTW and Traditional Agencies? .......................................................................................................35

Are Existing Work-Able Households in MTW Agencies Moving to Minimal Housing Subsidy

at Greater Rates Than Households at Traditional Agencies? ...................................................................... 37

Are Existing Work-Able Households in MTW Agencies Making Positive Exits From Housing

Assistance at Greater Rates Than Households at Traditional Agencies?.................................................40

Summary of Self-Sufficiency Outcomes .................................................................................................................... 43

Discussion and Conclusions ................................................................................................................45

Implications for Research ..............................................................................................................................................46

Appendix A: MTW Agencies ...............................................................................................................A-1

Appendix B: Ongoing Initiatives Related to Statutory Objectives .......................................................B-1

Appendix C: MTW Agencies by Activity-Specific Groups .....................................................................C-1

Appendix D: Methodology ...................................................................................................................D-1

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses .................................................................................... E-1

Appendix F: References ...................................................................................................................... F-1

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

v

List of Exhibits

List of Exhibits

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

Exhibit 2: The Moving to Work Retrospective Evaluation .............................................................................5

Exhibit 3: Data Sources .........................................................................................................................................13

Exhibit 4: Assisted Rental Housing Programs .................................................................................................14

Exhibit 5: Do Moving to Work Agencies Encourage Housing Choice?....................................................18

Exhibit 6: Do Moving to Work Agencies Promote Self-Sufficiency? ....................................................... 20

Exhibit 7: Moving to Work Agencies by Analysis Group ............................................................................. 21

Exhibit 8: Share of Households That Are New: MTW-Status Group and Comparison Group .........24

Exhibit 9: Share of Households That Are New: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output,

MTW-Status Group ............................................................................................................................................... 25

Exhibit 10: Share of Households That Are New: MTW Housing Choice Activity-Specific Group

and Comparison Group ...................................................................................................................................... 26

Exhibit 11: Share of Households That Are New: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output,

MTW Activity-Specific Group ............................................................................................................................ 26

Exhibit 12: Share of Tenant-Based Voucher Households in Low-Poverty Tracts: MTW-Status

Group and Comparison Group ..........................................................................................................................27

Exhibit 13: Share of Tenant-Based Voucher Holders in Low-Poverty Tracts: Comparative

Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW-Status Group .................................................................................. 28

Exhibit 14: Share of Tenant-Based Voucher Households in Low-Poverty Tracts:

MTW Activity-Specific Group and Comparison Group ............................................................................... 28

Exhibit 15: Share of Tenant-Based Voucher Holders in Low-Poverty Tracts: Comparative

Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW Activity-Specific Group ............................................................... 29

Exhibit 16: PASS Score (Housing Quality): MTW-Status Group and Comparison Group ................... 30

Exhibit 17: PASS Score (Housing Quality): Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW-

Status Group .......................................................................................................................................................... 30

Exhibit 18: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Analysis: Summary of Housing Choice

Outcomes, MTW-Status Group ...........................................................................................................................31

Exhibit 19: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Analysis: Summary of Housing Choice

Outcomes, MTW Activity-Specific Group ........................................................................................................32

Exhibit 20: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Total Annual Incomes Higher Than

at Housing Assistance Entry: MTW-Status Group and Comparison Group ...........................................33

Exhibit 21: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Total Annual Incomes Higher Than

at Housing Assistance Entry: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW-Status Group ..34

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

vi

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 22: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Total Annual Incomes Higher Than

at Housing Assistance Entry, MTW Activity-Specific Group and Comparison Group .........................35

Exhibit 23: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Total Annual Incomes Higher

Than at Housing Assistance Entry: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output,

MTW Activity-Specific Group .............................................................................................................................35

Exhibit 24: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Escrow: MTW-Status Group

and Comparison Group .......................................................................................................................................36

Exhibit 25: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Escrow: Comparative

Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW-Status Group ...................................................................................36

Exhibit 26: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Minimal HAP: MTW-Status Group

and Comparison Group ......................................................................................................................................37

Exhibit 27: Share of Existing Work-Able Households with Minimal HAP: Comparative

Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW-Status Group ...................................................................................38

Exhibit 28: Share of Existing Work-Able Households with Minimal HAP: MTW Activity-

Specific Group and Comparison Group ..........................................................................................................39

Exhibit 29: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Minimal HAP: Comparative

Interrupted Times Series Output, MTW Activity-Specific Group ..............................................................39

Exhibit 30: Share of Minimal-HAP Households Who Leave: MTW-Status Group

and Comparison Group ...................................................................................................................................... 40

Exhibit 31: Share of Minimal-HAP Households Who Leave: Comparative Interrupted Time

Series Output, MTW-Status Group ....................................................................................................................41

Exhibit 32: Share of Minimal-HAP Households Who Leave: MTW Activity-Specific Group

and Comparison Group .......................................................................................................................................42

Exhibit 33: Share of Minimal-HAP Households Who Leave: Comparative Interrupted Time

Series Output, MTW Activity-Specific Group .................................................................................................42

Exhibit 34: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Analysis: Summary of Self-Sufficiency

Outcomes for MTW-Status Group .....................................................................................................................43

Exhibit 35: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Analysis: Summary of Self-Sufficiency

Outcomes for MTW Activity-Specific Group ..................................................................................................44

Exhibit A: MTW Agency Program Entries and Exits ...................................................................................A-1

Exhibit B1: Ongoing Housing Choice Initiatives ..........................................................................................B-1

Exhibit B2: Ongoing Self-Sufficiency Initiatives .........................................................................................B-2

Exhibit C: Activities Used to Select MTW Activity-Specific Group Agencies ......................................C-1

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

vi

Introduction

Introduction

agencywide funding source and, through a

planning and approval process with HUD,

can be exempted from a number of public

housing and Housing Choice Voucher (HCV)

The Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration

program regulations and restrictions.2 The

gives a small set of public housing agencies

original MTW demonstration launched in 1996,

(PHAs) funding and policy flexibility not

and as of 2018 there were 39 active MTW

available to traditional PHAs. PHAs who join

agencies (appendix A).3 HUD executed MTW

MTW may combine operating, capital, and

agreements at 11 different points between

tenant-based assistance funds into a single

1998 and 2013 (see exhibit 1).

Exhibit 1: Timeline of Moving to Work Agreements

1999

Cambridge

2004

Oakland

Delaware

2008

Greene

Alaska

Greene and

High Point

Baltimore

Keene

High Point

San Bernardino

Lawrence-Douglas County

left

San Jose

demonstration

Lincoln

Santa Clara County

Louisville

San Diego (reentered)

Massachusetts

2001

Portage

New Haven

Portland

Philadelphia

2010

San Antonio

Champaign County

2013

Tulare County

Tacoma

2003

Columbus

Vancouver

Atlanta

Fairfax

Washington, DC

2011

Holyoke

1998

2000

King County

Boulder

Reno

Minneapolis

Chicago

Lexington-

San Diego

Pittsburgh

San Diego left

2007

Fayette

Seattle

San Mateo

demonstration

Charlotte

Orlando

Note: Year shown is the year Moving to Work contracts were executed.

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

MTW agencies can use flexibilities to

as cost effectiveness, self-sufficiency, and

implement activities that further the

housing choice.4

demonstration’s three statutory objectives,

which are to (1) reduce cost and achieve

This study focuses on MTW agencies’

greater cost effectiveness in federal

success meeting the statutory objectives to

expenditures, (2) give incentives to families

increase housing choice and encourage self-

with children where the head of household

sufficiency. It is one of six studies included

is working, seeking work, or is preparing for

in the HUD-sponsored MTW Retrospective

work by participating in job training, and (3)

Evaluation (exhibit 2). A separate study (Stacy

increase housing choices for low-income

et al., 2020) focuses on the statutory objective

families. These objectives are referred to

of cost effectiveness.

2 Throughout this report, we refer to housing agencies with MTW designation as MTW agencies and housing agencies without MTW designation as traditional PHAs.

3 The 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act authorized HUD to grant MTW designation to an additional 100 agencies by approximately 2022. For more information on the MTW demonstration, as well as the MTW Expansion, see https:/ www.hud.gov/mtw.

4 See Public Law Section 204 C(3) (A-E): http:/ www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ134/pdf/PLAW-104publ134.pdf (p. 283). Agencies participating in MTW are also required to have at least 75 percent of admitted families be very-low income, create a rent policy encouraging self-sufficiency and employment, assist “substantially” the same number of low-income families and maintain a similar family mix as they would have otherwise, and ensure housing meets quality standards determined by HUD.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

1

Introduction

A goal of this study is to explore

HUD administrative data and a unique

methodologies that allow us to examine

database of publicly available MTW Annual

household-level housing choice and self-

Plans.

sufficiency outcomes for MTW agencies as a

group. A persistent question for researchers

We use Comparative Interrupted Time Series

and policymakers is whether MTW leads

(CITS) analysis to compare MTW agencies

to improved individual- or household-level

and traditional PHAs in terms of three housing

outcomes related to the program’s statutory

choice outcomes and four self-sufficiency

objectives. Evaluating aggregate effects of

outcomes. The housing choice measures

MTW is chal enging, however, because of

include (1) newly admitted households as the

the complex nature of the demonstration. For

share of all households, (2) the share of tenant-

example, MTW designation does not suggest

based or Housing Choice Voucher (HCV)

a single required or discrete intervention

households in low-poverty census tracts, and

(also cal ed “treatment”) designed to affect

(3) a measure of the quality of public housing

a particular individual- or household-level

units at a given PHA. The self-sufficiency

outcome. Instead, designation is intended

outcomes include (1) the share of existing

to encourage agencies to innovate with

work-able households with rising income, (2)

strategies tailored to their local conditions.

the percent of work-able households with

Each MTW agency can use its MTW

an escrow account, (3) the share of existing

flexibilities to pursue activities that may have

work-able households with housing assistance

different outcome goals and are executed at

payment (HAP) below $50, and (4) the share

different scales. The statutory objectives are

of existing work-able households leaving

not explicitly defined by HUD, and agencies

assistance in the year after attaining minimal

may identify their own definitions—which

HAP. These measures are drawn from the

may vary even within the same agency for

literature and from information available in the

different programs or activities. Agencies are

agencies’ MTW annual reports describing their

expected to experiment with policy reforms

activities and goals. (See exhibits 5 and 6 for

or housing assistance models that respond

details.)

to local contexts and needs. Final y, the MTW

For analysis, we created different groups

agencies themselves vary widely in terms

of MTW agencies to capture two different

of the year they received MTW designation,

possible mechanisms of MTW’s impact on

total households served, local housing

housing choice and self-sufficiency. The group

market characteristics, the mix of housing

of agencies selected because they received

assistance provided, the characteristics of

MTW designation is referred to as the “MTW-

assisted households, the context in which

status” group of agencies. The groups of

they received the MTW designation, and their

agencies selected because they enacted

goals.

activities with a broad scope that promote

As a result of these chal enges, little research

housing choice and/or self-sufficiency are

measures aggregate effects of MTW

referred to as “MTW activity-specific” groups.

designation on the statutory objectives. The

• The “MTW-status” group includes agencies

current study seeks to expand the sparse

that joined MTW between 2008 and 2011,

literature on aggregate MTW effects by

regardless of the types of MTW activities

introducing an approach that is more rigorous

they have engaged in; this group represents

and comprehensive than has been applied

the impact of simply receiving MTW

previously, using a combination of longitudinal

designation.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

2

Introduction

• The “MTW activity-specific” groups

Preview of Results

include agencies that had significant

activities directly related to one or more

The CITS results suggest that MTW status

of the seven housing choice and/or self-

is positively associated with one measure of

sufficiency measures in this study; these

housing choice—increasing new admissions

groups represent the impact of using MTW

into assisted housing—and may be positively

flexibilities to implement activities expected

associated with another—improved quality

to increase housing choice or encourage

of public housing. It may also improve self-

self-sufficiency.

sufficiency—defined as income increasing at

all and income increasing to a level that results

The first group tests whether receiving

in minimal or zero housing subsidy for work-

MTW designation may trigger policy or

able households. None of the CITS results

programmatic changes that, while diverse,

show a negative impact of MTW status on

all similarly influence housing choice and

housing choice or self-sufficiency outcomes.

self-sufficiency outcomes. In this scenario,

MTW designation in itself is the intervention

to be evaluated. Since MTW agencies are

We sort findings of the CITS analyses into

not required to pursue all the objectives and

three categories and consider both statistical

may approach each objective differently,

significance and substantive significance.

however, it may be more appropriate to

Statistical significance indicates that

define a treatment group as the MTW

differences observed between MTW agencies

agencies that explicitly pursue activities

and traditional PHAs is probably not due to

related to the statutory objectives. In this

chance; substantive significance refers to

alternative approach, the fact of receiving

the meaningfulness of the differences for

MTW designation is less important than the

understanding policy implications. In other

type and scope of activities an agency has

words, a difference may be statistical y

implemented.

significant but too smal , of too short a

duration, or too unclear to provide insights for

The CITS analysis measures post-treatment

policy. The three categories are—

(i.e., after receiving MTW designation) levels

and trends in the seven outcomes for the

1. Notable results where there is a clear and

MTW agencies versus comparison groups

statistically significant distinction between

of traditional PHAs to identify statistical y

an MTW group and its comparison group.

significant differences. Groups of comparison

2. Moderate results where the divergence

traditional PHAs were selected based on

between the MTW group and the

having pre-treatment levels and trends for a

comparison group is statistical y

given measure that are similar to levels and

significant, but there is little substantive

trends in the Moving to Work groups. If MTW

difference compared to the traditional

has measurable effects, the MTW groups’

PHAs.

outcomes would be expected to diverge from

3. Null/Neutral results, where findings are

those of the comparison groups.

either not statistical y significant or too

unclear to interpret.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

3

Introduction

We find notable evidence for one of the

Structure of This Report

housing choice measures: the share of new

households served. MTW agencies increased

The next section of this report reviews the

their share of new households relative to

literature related to the MTW housing choice

comparison agencies. This was true for

and self-sufficiency statutory objectives. This

both the MTW-status group and the MTW

is fol owed by methods, results, discussion,

activity-specific group composed of agencies

and conclusions sections. The report includes

engaged in activities intended to increase

five appendices. Appendix A lists the MTW

housing choice.

agencies, their year of entry (and exit, if

applicable), and a few notes on specifics of

We find moderate evidence of promising

their MTW agreements. Appendix B provides

trends for three self-sufficiency measures.

the count of ongoing activities related to

The share of households with income gains

housing choice and self-sufficiency for

increased more at MTW agencies than at

all MTW agencies. Appendix C presents

traditional agencies. Also, among MTW

information on activities undertaken by

agencies with broad initiatives intended

MTW agencies. Appendix D is a detailed

to increase self-sufficiency, the share of

methodological discussion of our analytic

households with minimal rental subsidies

approach. Final y, appendix E presents

increased more than at traditional agencies,

individual MTW agency results for the housing

and so did the share of households receiving

choice and self-sufficiency variables used

minimal subsidies who subsequently exited

in this report. These agency snapshots are

the HCV program. These findings, however,

provided as points of reference, useful for

are not statistical y robust. Despite increases

viewing agency-level outcomes within the

in the share of households with income gains

context of the larger MTW groups. The agency

at MTW agencies, the total share of such

snapshots are not definitive evaluations of

households remained greater at traditional

each agency’s progress toward meeting the

agencies. The percentage of households

MTW statutory objectives.

that earn enough to receive minimal rental

assistance is very smal , so while statistical y

significant, the substantive significance of this

finding is unclear.

We find no substantive evidence of

differences between MTW and traditional

PHAs in the poverty rate of tenant-based

voucher households’ locations, public housing

quality, or share of households with Family

Self-Sufficiency program escrow accounts.

No CITS results indicate a negative impact

of MTW status on housing choice or self-

sufficiency outcomes.

Considered together, the CITS results suggest

positive impacts of MTW on the number of

new households served and some promising

but inconclusive findings related to improved

self-sufficiency outcomes.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

4

Introduction

Exhibit 2: The Moving to Work Retrospective Evaluation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

5

Literature Review

Literature Review

Defining the Housing Choice

Objective

Oppenheimer, Haberle, and Tegeler (2013)

Of interest to this study is research that

considered the extent to which 13 MTW

describes how individual agencies define the

agencies located in highly segregated

housing choice and self-sufficiency objectives,

areas promoted housing choice through

as well as research that measures individual-

mobility efforts, and the extent to which they

or household-level impacts of MTW agency

were working to prevent residential racial

efforts. HUD does not define what constitutes

segregation. Using staff interviews and

increasing housing choice or promoting

MTW reports, they found that some PHAs

self-sufficiency in the context of the MTW

defined activities as related to neighborhood

demonstration (GAO, 2012; 2018), although the

mobility that were not necessarily tied to

self-sufficiency objective language in the MTW

neighborhood mobility or fair housing goals.

statute discusses employment goals.

Such activities included self-sufficiency efforts

We identified seven relevant published

that could indirectly affect movement to new

studies, in addition to the relevant

neighborhoods through economic mobility—

studies forthcoming through HUD’s MTW

and redevelopment of assisted housing in

Retrospective Evaluation. The studies

high-poverty areas that may reinforce existing

reviewed here mostly document how MTW

residential segregation.

agencies define housing choice or self-

Khadduri et al. (2014) surveyed and

sufficiency and the activities implemented

interviewed MTW agency staff and

to achieve these objectives. There is very

conducted document review to identify MTW

little research comparing MTW agencies

innovations related to the statutory objectives.

with traditional PHAs in terms of impacts on

They identified three types of initiatives

housing choice and self-sufficiency.

relevant to housing choice: increasing the

quantity and quality of affordable housing,

Housing Choice

promoting residential stability, and improving

geographical choice. They described several

With one exception, studies of MTW and

categories of activities within each initiative,

housing choice are primarily descriptive.

which informed the performance measure

These studies show that most MTW agencies

outcomes examined separately by Buron et

have pursued the housing choice objective,

al. (2017). Buron et al. (2017), in turn, found

but that there is wide variation in how housing

that MTW agencies perform better than

choice is defined and what the efforts entail

comparable traditional agencies on some

(Buron et al., 2017; Galvez et al., forthcoming;

performance measures related to housing

Galvez, Gourevitch, and Docter, forthcoming;

choice and worse on others, and that MTW

Galvez, Simington, and Treskon, 2017;

agencies have found success in areas that

Khadduri et al., 2014; Oppenheimer, Haberle,

cannot be compared well to traditional

and Tegeler, 2013; and Webb, Frescoln,

agencies—such as the use by MTW agencies

and Rohe, 2015). The exception to purely

of local, non-traditional assistance to stabilize

descriptive studies is Buron et al. (2017). This

hard-to-serve populations (see exhibit 4 for a

study quantitatively assessed the impact of

description of local, non-traditional assistance).

MTW status on several measures of affordable

housing quality and quantity at one point in

Webb, Frescoln, and Rohe (2015) categorized

time.

MTW activities as they related to each of

the statutory objectives by scanning MTW

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

6

Literature Review

annual reports and then soliciting MTW

than the traditional PHAs on some measures

agency staff feedback on their categorization.

and comparably or worse on others.

They included activities that required MTW

policy flexibilities as well as activities that

Specifical y, in relation to comparison PHAs,

the agencies could have implemented

Buron et al. (2017) found that MTW agencies

without MTW flexibility. They found similarly

had lower average voucher utilization rates

diverse categories of MTW agencies’ efforts

but comparable public housing occupancy

to increase housing choice: broadening

rates, higher average physical inspection

supportive housing options, improving

scores, a higher average number of units

access to high-opportunity neighborhoods,

with unmet capital needs but a statistical y

administering assistance to households at risk

significant smaller share of total public housing

of foreclosure, project-basing units, improving

units with unmet capital needs, and a higher

access to housing, landlord outreach, and

average number of units preserved, defined

promoting homeownership programs.

as transactions to refinance, recapitalize,

or strengthen the financing of units or to

Galvez, Simington, and Treskon (2017)

improve housing development conditions.

examined all 39 MTW agencies’ 2015 annual

They also assessed how well MTW agencies

plans. They identified a total of 187 ongoing

expanded the geographic scope of assisted

activities from 37 MTW agencies that indicated

housing, considering portability, project-

increasing housing choice as an objective—

basing of units, and neighborhood poverty

with 45 of these activities (from 24 agencies)

rates. They found that MTW agencies, with

related to neighborhood mobility. These

respect to comparison PHAs, ported-out a

included activities that restricted moves

smaller share of vouchers, had a higher share

(by limiting households’ ability to move to a

of project-based units, and had comparable

different PHA jurisdiction) and some activities

neighborhood poverty rates for voucher

intended to encourage moves to low-poverty

holders.

areas.

As part of HUD’s MTW retrospective

Measuring MTW Housing Choice

evaluation, Galvez, Gourevitch, and Docter

(forthcoming) and Galvez et al. (forthcoming)

Outcomes

also examined the total number of households

Buron et al. (2017) developed performance

served by MTW and traditional agencies and

measures to assess agency-level outcomes

the locations of MTW-assisted households.

for MTW agencies in 2014, compared against

Galvez et al. (forthcoming) focused specifically

a subset of traditional PHAs. They created

on PBV-assisted units. Both studies compared

five measures of increasing the quantity

MTW agencies to comparably sized traditional

and quality of affordable housing: voucher

PHAs. These studies found that location

utilization and public housing occupancy,

patterns for MTW-assisted households

public housing physical inspection scores,

resemble those of households assisted by

unmet public housing capital needs, the

traditional PHAs. MTW-assisted households

amount of affordable housing preserved, and

lived in neighborhoods with an average

the amount of local, non-traditional assistance

poverty rate that was almost identical to that

that MTW agencies provide. Looking at data

of households served through comparably

for one point in time, 2014, they found mixed

sized traditional agencies. Results were

results, with MTW agencies performing better

consistent across the tenant-based voucher

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

7

Literature Review

(TBV), PBV, and public housing programs.5

Defining the Self-Sufficiency

Galvez et al. (forthcoming) compared PBV

Objective

location outcomes using measures that

adjust for regional differences and find that,

Khadduri et al. (2014) defined self-sufficiency

relative to the average neighborhood in their

as increased earnings of work-able assisted

jurisdictions (approximated as primary county),

households, and focused on initiatives

MTW-assisted PBV units are in neighborhoods

supporting, incentivizing, or requiring work.

with a greater concentration of poverty than

As with the housing choice performance

either PBV units at traditional PHAs or TBV

measures, Buron et al.’s (2017) analyses built

units at MTW agencies.

off Khadduri’s (2014) assessment to develop

performance measures for agencywide

Finally, Galvez, Gourevitch, and Docter

outcomes related to self-sufficiency for

(forthcoming) found that MTW agencies added

MTW agencies in 2014. They identified three

relatively more households between 2008

measures of increasing self-sufficiency:

and 2016 compared to traditional comparison

earnings growth among nonelderly/

agencies, whose assistance remained fairly

nondisabled households, the share of

flat over the same time period.

households without reported earnings, and

length of stay in assisted housing.

Self-Sufficiency

As with housing choice, Webb, Frescoln,

Five published studies explored MTW efforts

and Rohe (2015) categorized activities

to encourage self-sufficiency (Buron et al.,

found in MTW annual reports that sought to

2017; Khadduri et al., 2014; McClure, 2017;

promote self-sufficiency. They found that self-

Castel s, 2020; Rohe, Webb, and Frescoln,

sufficiency efforts at MTW agencies included

2015; and Webb, Frescoln, and Rohe, 2015).

case management and self-sufficiency

Three of these studies assessed MTW

programming (such as through Family Self-

agencies as a group, while Rohe, Webb,

Sufficiency programs and similar models),

and Frescoln (2015) and Castel s (2020)

escrow accounts and other incentives to

evaluated the impacts of self-sufficiency-

promote work through work requirements,

related efforts at individual MTW agencies.

time limits on housing assistance, training and

The studies tend to measure self-sufficiency

vocational programming, and initiatives to

primarily in terms of MTW agency efforts to

improve educational and health outcomes.

increase employment and income over time

and to transition households off of housing

Measuring MTW Self-Sufficiency

assistance. They consider a variety of outcome

Outcomes

measures, including change in earnings, share

Rohe, Webb, and Frescoln (2015) evaluated

of tenants employed, housing assistance

the impact on employment and evictions

subsidy amounts, length of stay in assisted

of a mandatory work requirement policy

housing, and move-outs.

at one Moving to Work agency (Charlotte

Housing Authority) across five public

housing developments. They created several

outcome measures: percentage of tenants

at minimum rent, percentage of tenants

employed, the number and rate of positive

5 An abundance of literature documents the locations of PHA-assisted units—particularly in relation to the Housing Choice Voucher program—but these studies do not break out MTW agencies specifical y to determine if MTW agencies have improved location outcomes. See for example, national and state housing data fact sheets and similar ongoing analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (http:/ www.cbpp.org/research/national-and-

state-housing-data-fact-sheets), Devine et al.(2003), and McClure, Schwartz, and Taghavi (2015).

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

8

Literature Review

and negative move-outs, and the share of

in MTW), households at MTW agencies, and

residents identifying the work requirement

households served by several project-based

as fair in a survey. Using data from 2011 to

programs, including the Section 8 project-

2014, they found the work requirements to

based program, Section 202/8, Section

be associated with statistical y significant

202/811 Project Rental Assistance Contracts

increases in employment when coupled with

and Section 202/162 Project Assistance

case management and services, as well as

Contracts. He calculated household length of

with an increased rate of positive move-

stay using household date of admission and

outs. Case management alone, when not

date of exit, and for each of the programs,

coupled with work requirements, did not

reported the average length of stay for

have any statistically significant impacts on

households by year of exit. He found that the

employment.

average length of stay had increased over

time for all programs, including for HCV-

Buron et al. (2017) matched each MTW agency

assisted households at MTW agencies. He

with three to five traditional agencies based

then calculated the average and median

on several characteristics, including number

length of stay across the years available

of housing choice vouchers and number

for each program. Compared with the

of public housing units, the county poverty

other categories of assisted households he

rate and unemployment rate, the county

explored, McClure found, in contrast to Buron

median income of renters, and each public

et al. (2017), that HCV-assisted households

housing agency’s two-bedroom fair market

at MTW agencies had a higher average and

rent. Across performance measures, they

median length of stay than both HCV-assisted

calculated averages for the MTW agencies

and public housing households at traditional

and the comparison traditional agencies.

agencies. However, data were available

They found that household earnings at

across the entire 1995–2015 period for the

MTW agencies were more likely to increase

HCV and public housing programs, and only

than household earnings at comparable

over the 2006–2015 period for HCV-assisted

agencies, and that MTW agencies had a

households at MTW agencies. The fewer

smaller share of households with no earnings.

years of data for the MTW agencies may make

They also found that HCV households on

comparisons of average and median lengths

average had a shorter length of stay at MTW

of stay across years misleading.

agencies than at comparison agencies. MTW

agencies, however, also had a higher share

The studies suggest a diversity of outcome

of households with decreasing earnings than

measures, and some preliminary findings of

at comparison agencies. They recommended

positive impacts of MTW related to the self-

examining the share of households with

sufficiency objective (income and employment

positive exits as an additional performance

gains). Evidence is mixed on length of stay in

measure but acknowledged that many PHAs

assisted housing and on differences for MTW

do not currently track data on the nature of

agencies compared with traditional PHAs

exits from assistance.

for outcomes related to increasing housing

choice. Only one study, Buron et al. (2017),

McClure (2017) examined the length of

has attempted to assess the impact of the

time that cohorts of assisted households

MTW demonstration on housing choice and

stay in assisted housing across several

self-sufficiency outcomes using a comparison

categories separately: HCV households

group of matched traditional PHAs. The study,

(excluding households in MTW), public

however, was limited to assessing outcomes

housing households (excluding households

in 2014.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

9

Literature Review

Context and Goals of the

agency group is compared with a matched

Present Study

group of traditional PHAs for a set of seven

outcomes measures.

This study asks: are MTW agencies, because

of their participation in MTW, more effective

This study’s design incorporates the diversity

at increasing housing choice and self-

of MTW implementation while focusing on the

sufficiency than comparable traditional PHAs?

effects of MTW as a whole. It does not attempt

Considered together, the existing literature

to address whether a single initiative or single

finds substantial diversity in how MTW

agency has had success in increasing housing

agencies interpret and approach the statutory

choice or self-sufficiency, but whether MTW

objectives and identifies a wide range of

overall is having an aggregate effect across

measures to capture housing choice and self-

MTW agencies. Using two groupings of

sufficiency impacts. This diversity presents

MTW agencies to analyze multiple research

a major methodological chal enge: how to

questions and outcome measures and to

measure the impact of MTW when each MTW

examine trends over time, it is the most

agency interprets the statutory objectives in

comprehensive and systematic effort to date

its own way and implements unique activities

to examine MTW’s overall effects on housing

to pursue the objectives. There is no reason

choice and self-sufficiency outcomes.

to assume that all MTW agencies would

impact housing choice and self-sufficiency

in the same ways or that their efforts would

result in similarly measurable outcomes.

Further, even if agencies pursue the same

type of outcome—for example, increasing

employment and earnings of HCV-assisted

households—they may do so using a wide

variety of activities.

We address this chal enge by selecting the

MTW groups for analysis in two different

ways. First, we argue that receiving the MTW

designation could trigger policy changes that

are diverse yet similarly influence housing

choice and self-sufficiency outcomes. To

reflect this notion, we select one group

of MTW agencies based on when they

received the MTW designation. Second,

we acknowledge that having an impact on

statutory objectives may require more explicit

efforts through specific MTW activities. To

reflect this possibility, we identify groups of

MTW agencies based on their engagement

in broadly defined efforts to increase housing

choice or to encourage self-sufficiency. In

separate analysis steps, each type of MTW

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

10

Methods

Methods

d. Are existing work-able households in

MTW agencies making positive exits

from housing assistance at greater

rates than households at traditional

Research Questions

agencies?

We answer three research questions for

housing choice and four research questions

Comparative Interrupted Time

for self-sufficiency. These questions address

Series (CITS) Analysis

the different ways that MTW agencies may

CITS analysis compares changes over time

define and approach the housing choice

in an outcome measure for a group that

and self-sufficiency objectives. The research

experienced a treatment to changes for a

questions are listed below.

matched comparison group that did not get

1. Do MTW agencies promote housing

the treatment. If a treatment has an effect,

choice?

the outcomes for the treatment group would

be expected to diverge from those of the

a. Do MTW agencies create more housing

comparison group in the time period after

opportunities relative to traditional

the treatment.6 The CITS comparative model

agencies?

is a type of multivariate regression: it tests

b. To what extent are households

for a change in differences in an outcome

served by MTW agencies reaching

between two groups at two points in time

lower-poverty, higher-opportunity

(level differences), and it tests for differences

neighborhoods than households

in trends during two time periods (slope or

served by traditional agencies?

trend differences). In this study, the outcome

c. To what extent are households served

measures are indicators of housing choice and

by MTW housing agencies living in

self-sufficiency. The treatment is defined in

higher quality public housing dwel ings

two ways: (1) receiving MTW designation or (2)

relative to households in traditional

receiving MTW designation and implementing

agencies?

significant activities to promote housing

choice and/or self-sufficiency. As noted above,

2. Do MTW agencies promote self-

the group of agencies selected because

sufficiency?

they received MTW designation is referred

a. How do incomes of existing work-

to as the “MTW-status” group of agencies.

able households served by MTW

The groups of agencies selected because

agencies compare with those served by

they enacted activities with a broad scope

traditional agencies?

that promote housing choice and/or self-

b. How does the use of escrow accounts

sufficiency are referred to as “MTW activity-

as a tool for promoting self-sufficiency

specific” groups.

differ between MTW and traditional

CITS analyses rely on multiple years of

agencies?

pre- and post-treatment data. Pre-treatment

c. Are existing work-able households

data create a baseline for analysis and are

in MTW agencies moving to minimal

used to identify a comparison group of

housing subsidy at greater rates than

traditional PHAs. Levels and trends of housing

households at traditional agencies?

choice and self-sufficiency indicators at the

6 See Bloom (2001), Bloom et al. (2005), Somers et al. (2013), St. Clair, Cook, and Hal berg (2014), and Linden (2015) for examples of CITS analysis and methodological discussion.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

11

Methods

comparison traditional PHAs should be similar

section later, identifies cases where a single

to levels and trends at MTW agencies during

MTW agency drives statistically significant

the pre-treatment time period.7

results. In these cases, we drop the outlier

agency from our analysis and conduct a

After identifying the comparison group

secondary sensitivity analysis to ensure there

of traditional PHAs, the impact of MTW

are no other outlier agencies.

on housing choice and self-sufficiency

indicators is examined by considering

whether post-treatment outcomes at the

Analysis Time Periods

MTW agency groups diverge in a statistical y

The MTW-status group includes the nine MTW

significant manner from those of the matched

agencies that signed an MTW agreement

comparison groups of traditional agencies,

between 2008 and 2011 (see exhibit 1).

either in terms of immediate divergence in the

The MTW activity-specific groups include

level or changes in the slope (or trend) of the

agencies that implemented activities related

indicator in question .

to improving housing choice (15 agencies,

It is important to examine both levels and

five of which are also in the MTW-status

trends because it is possible for a policy

group) or self-sufficiency (18 agencies, 6 of

to have an immediate effect on the level

which are also in the MTW-status group)

of an indicator (say, hypothetical y, a policy

between 2009 and 2012. Together, the three

mandating immediate enrol ment in an

groups represent 24 unique MTW agencies.

escrow program for all households). Policies

To account for the time required to start

implemented over time, however—for

implementing MTW initiatives, the analysis

example, a policy to encourage voucher

is broken up into three periods: the time up

moves to lower-poverty neighborhoods

to 2009 is the pre-treatment period, 2010–

implemented for new admissions and movers

2012 is an initial post-treatment period, and

only—may not create a significant immediate

2013–2016 is a second post-treatment period.

divergence between the MTW group and the

Sampling is discussed in detail in the sampling

comparison group but may lead to divergent

section below.

trends over time. Additional y, regular year-

In general, the pre-treatment period for the

over-year variation in indicator levels may be

MTW-status group is 2001–2009—roughly

unrelated to a policy change. This variability

7 to 10 years prior to the agencies’ MTW

may result in a misleading statistical y

designation—since reliable data are available

significant finding with a small group of

in the Public and Indian Housing Information

treatment agencies in which individual-agency

Center (PIC) for these agencies for this time

variations can be influential (such as in this

period. The MTW activity-specific groups’

study). For these reasons, assessing how

pre-treatment period is 2007–2009—roughly

trends diverge over multiple years is important

1 to 3 years prior to the implementation of

because it accounts for changes that may only

specific activities. The shorter pre-treatment

show up incremental y over time, and because

time period is due to data limitations for the

a multiple-year trendline smooths out single-

agencies in the MTW activity-specific group

year variations or irregularities.

that received MTW designation prior to 2008

Final y, an outlier sensitivity analysis,

when MTW agency administrative data in PIC

discussed in more detail in the sampling

tend to be unreliable. See Galvez, Gourevitch,

7 For individual MTW agency-level analyses, we use propensity score matching to identify comparison traditional PHAs as opposed to matching on pre-intervention levels and trends for outcomes of interest. See appendix E for detailed output.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

12

Methods

and Docter (forthcoming) for a discussion of

trend for the MTW group to that of the

data quality and reporting issues.8

comparison group.

We have two post-treatment periods intended

• Post-Treatment Period 2 is 2013–2016

to capture two possible timelines for when

and reflects the period where MTW-status

impacts of MTW on our outcomes of interest

group agencies have had MTW status

may be measurable:

for at least 1 year, and activities started

by agencies in the MTW activity-specific

• Post-Treatment Period 1 is 2010–2012

groups have al been implemented for

and reflects an initial post-treatment

at least 1 year. In the CITS analysis, the

period when impacts may begin to

level difference compares the change

emerge fol owing when MTW-status

from 2012 (the last year of the initial

group agencies first joined the program

implementation treatment period) to 2013

(between 2008 to 2011) or the MTW

for the MTW group with the change for the

activity-specific groups first enacted

comparison group. The trend difference

relevant activities (between 2009 to 2012).

compares the 2013–2016 trend for the

In the CITS analysis, we measure changes

MTW group versus the comparison group.

and differences in outcome levels and

trends. The level difference compares the

Data

change from 2009 (the last pre-treatment

year) to 2010 for the MTW group to that

Exhibit 3 identifies the five data sources used

of the comparison group. The trend

in this study and time periods of availability.

difference compares the 2010–2012

Exhibit 3: Data Sources

Source

Years

Data Unit of Availability

Description

Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Infor-

mation Center (PIC) characteristics of

HUD PIC Data

2001–2016; 2007–2016

for MTW Agencies

Household, PHA

assisted housing units and residents,

with household, PHA and census

tract identifiers

PHA Performance Measures

2001–2016

PHA

Public housing Physical Assessment

Subsystem (PASS) scores

Supplemental HUD Assisted

Unit Counts

2009–2016

PHA

Counts of local, non-traditional

households (MTW agencies only)

Decennial Census and Ameri-

can Community Survey (ACS)

2001–2015

Census tract, Census region

Demographic data

MTW Retrospective Evalua-

Documents describing MTW planned

tion Database of MTW Annual 2015

PHA

and implemented activities through

Plans and Reports

2015

MTW = Moving to Work. PASS = Physical Assessment Subsystem. PHA = Public housing agency. PIC = Public and Indian Housing Information Center. PIH = Public and Indian Housing.

Source: American Community Survey and Decennial Census data obtained from IPUMS database (Manson et al. 2018) 8 Although MTW agency data is generally limited prior to 2008 (when reporting requirements changed for MTW agencies) we assessed PIC data coverage and quality for 2007 for the agencies in our MTW activity-specific group and found them to be reliable for that year.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

13

Methods

HUD Public and Indian Housing (PIH)

characteristics and locations (see exhibit 4 for

Information Center (PIC) Data

a description of housing assistance programs).

Unique household identifiers allow us to track

PHA staff regularly report detailed information

movement across assistance programs, exits

on every assisted household to HUD through

from assistance over time, and movement

the PIC data system, using HUD’s Form

across census tracts over time. PIC data for

50058 and HUD-Form 50058 MTW.9 We

PHAs national y were provided by HUD for

use household-level PIC data for MTW and

the retrospective MTW evaluation for 1995

traditional PHAs for 2001 through 2016 to

through 2016. Data for MTW agencies are not

identify total household counts and shares of

available prior to 2008, however.10

households in each assistance program (HCV

and public housing) and to identify household

Exhibit 4: Assisted Rental Housing Programs

Public housing. Originating in 1937, public housing is the nation’s oldest housing subsidy program. Today, there are approximately 1.1

million public housing units. Public housing units are owned and managed by PHAs, and tenants pay rent directly to a PHA each month.

Households must have income below 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) to qualify for public housing, but PHAs are required to target at least 40 percent of new admissions to families at or below the Extremely Low-Income Limit.11 Additionally, housing authorities often give preference to households that are homeless, elderly and/or disabled, or that are working families. Most families in public housing pay 30 percent of their income in rent or a minimum rent of up to $50 per month.

Housing Choice Vouchers. The HCV program provides rental assistance to approximately 2.3 million low-income households annually. HUD requires that not less than 75 percent of families admitted to a PHA’s HCV program in a year have incomes at or below the Extremely Low-Income limit. The HCV program includes tenant- and project-based voucher assistance. For both types of voucher assistance, households typically pay 30 percent of their income or a minimum rent of up to $50 per month.

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

The program allows households to rent housing in any jurisdiction where a PHA administers an HCV program and a landlord will accept a voucher.

• Project-Based Vouchers (PBVs): PBVs are attached to specific units and properties through contracts with property managers or owners who rent units to eligible families. The rent is subsidized by the PHA through the PBV. Like with a TBV, the tenant pays a portion of the rent and the PHA pays a portion of the rent. In some cases, PHAs own the PBV properties. Contracts between the PHA and property owners may be for up to 20 years for PBV-assisted units.

Local, non-traditional programs. MTW agencies can implement local, non-traditional activities that fall outside of the traditional HCV

and public housing programs. Local, non-traditional programs include programs that use MTW funds to provide a rental subsidy to a third-party entity (that is, other than a landlord or tenant) that manages intake and administration of the subsidy program (known as sponsor-basing). Local non-traditional programs also include programs in which a PHA uses MTW funds to act as a mortgager; to ac-quire, renovate, and/or build units that are not public housing or HCV units (for example tax credit partnerships); and to provide services not otherwise permitted or that are provided to nonresidents.

PHA Performance Measure

determined by an inspection satisfying HUD’s

Indicators

Uniform Physical Condition Standards. A PHA

can receive a maximum PASS score of 40

We use Physical Assessment Subsystem

points. The PASS score is one component of

(PASS) scores as indicators of public housing

a larger Public Housing Assessment System,

agency performance for analysis of housing

or PHAS score, which HUD uses to assess

quality and standards. PASS scores only

how well PHAs manage their public housing

apply to a PHA’s public housing stock and are

programs.

9 The Form 50058 for traditional agencies can be found here: https:/ www.hud.gov/sites/documents/50058.PDF. The HUD-50058 Form MTW can be found here: https:/ www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_10236.PDF.

10 MTW agencies did not consistently report household information into HUD’s PIC system prior to 2008, resulting in significant gaps in the administrative data available for agencies that received MTW designation in the first 10 years of the demonstration.

11 The Extremely Low-Income (ELI) Limit was set at 30 percent of Area Median Income until 2014, when the definition was changed so that ELI limit is 30

percent of AMI or the poverty threshold established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, whichever is greater.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

14

Methods

Supplemental HUD-Assisted Unit

sufficiency. The first group of agencies, the

Counts

MTW-status group, tests whether MTW

status triggers changes that are diverse yet

HUD’s Moving to Work office provided data on

nevertheless tend to increase housing choice

the number of households assisted through

and self-sufficiency. The MTW activity-specific

MTW local, non-traditional housing assistance

groups, as detailed later, are composed of

programs. These units are not included in PIC

agencies engaged in activities expected to

data and are added to each MTW agency’s

affect a particular indicator.

total household counts.

Decennial Census and American

MTW-Status Group Selection

Community Survey (ACS)

The MTW-status group includes the

nine MTW agencies that signed an MTW

We use publicly available tract-level census

agreement between 2008 and 2011 (see

data (Manson et al., 2018) to assign poverty

exhibit 1).12 Restricting our MTW-status

rates to each household’s census tract

sample to the nine agencies that signed

location, to identify the number and percent

MTW agreements for the first time between

of assisted households living in lower-poverty

2008 and 2011 ensures there are multiple

neighborhoods. We use 2011–2015 ACS

years of PIC data for both pre- and post-

5-year estimates to identify tract poverty rates.

MTW designation periods. It also coincides

with the implementation of MTW Standard

Database of MTW Activities

Agreements in 2008, which standardized

For the MTW Retrospective Evaluation we

terms of MTW participation, reporting, and

created an agency-level database of MTW

MTW flexibilities across agencies. Agencies

activities and flexibilities based on information

that joined MTW in 2013 were excluded

reported in the 2015 MTW annual plans and

from this analysis, as they had at most only 3

reports. The 2015 MTW plans and reports

years of data available to measure post-MTW

include information on all MTW activities

outcomes. Given the realities of the initiative

implemented, such as activity name, activity

approval process and implementation

status, year proposed, implementation

timeframe, it was not reasonable to expect

year, the authorization(s) involved, activity

measurable effects by 2016.

description, and the statutory objectives that

the activity addresses. We use this information

MTW Activity-Specific Groups

to identify significant housing choice and self-

To measure the effects of MTW activities

sufficiency activities implemented between

(rather than MTW designation) on outcomes

2009 and 2012.

of interest we identified MTW agencies that

engaged in activities with the potential to have

Sampling

measurable effects on outcomes during the

analysis period. To identify these agencies

The goal of sampling was to create a group

and activities we used the database and

of MTW agencies chosen solely for having

taxonomy of MTW activities constructed for

received MTW designation and groups

the MTW evaluation and identified agencies

composed of MTW agencies engaged

that, between 2009 and 2012, implemented

in activities expected to impact selected

MTW activities related to improving housing

indicators of housing choice and self-

choice or self-sufficiency, regardless of when

12 We exclude one agency (Baltimore) from the MTW Status Group due to data quality issues and due to its early participation in MTW as part of the Jobs Plus program.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

15

Methods

they joined MTW. We focused on activities

Overlap Across MTW Agency Groups

implemented between 2009 and 2012

Some of the nine agencies in the MTW-status

because this window al owed for at least 3

group also implemented activities related to

years of pre-treatment data (2007, 2008, and

housing choice and self-sufficiency between

2009), even for agencies without complete

2009 and 2012 and are included in one

PIC data prior to 2007, and al owed for 4 years

or both MTW activity-specific groups. For

of post-treatment data (2013, 2014, 2015, and

example, Charlotte, San Bernardino, Santa

2016) to reliably identify any divergence in

Clara/San Jose, and Tacoma are in all three

trends over time.

groups, as all joined between 2008 and

Database review identified 143 activities

2011 and undertook activities related to both

related to either housing choice or self-

housing choice and self-sufficiency between

sufficiency active as of 2015 (the final year

2009 and 2012. As these two analyses

of reports we reviewed) and that were

reflect different approaches to measuring the

implemented between 2009 and 2012. We

effects of MTW, we believe using inclusive, if

further reviewed MTW plans and reports to

overlapping, categories is the best analytic

restrict this sample of activities to those that

approach.

were agencywide and were substantial y

implemented during the 2009-and-2012

Comparison Group Selection

period. Specifical y, we eliminated activities

Comparative Interrupted Time Series analyses

that were pilots or narrowly targeted to

typical y assess levels and trends for the

specific properties or populations; we retained

comparison and treatment groups in a pre-

initiatives that were likely to impact assisted

treatment period for selected indicators

households agencywide and across housing

to ensure comparison groups are similar

programs (affecting at least 25 percent of al

and appropriate. We limit our comparison

assisted households).

traditional PHAs to those with more than

We identified 42 activities likely to affect

500 households to exclude small PHAs.13 We

outcomes related to housing choice and

select agencies that closely resemble average

self-sufficiency at the agency level (appendix

MTW group pre-treatment levels and trends

C lists these activities by agency). Agencies

for each outcome measure of interest. We

engaged in these activities were selected

use a Stata protocol that selects a matched

into the MTW activity-specific groups. These

comparison group based on pre-treatment

include—

levels and trends, discussed in more detail in

appendix D.

• Fifteen MTW agencies that undertook

significant housing choice activities.

Outlier Sensitivity Analysis

• Eighteen MTW agencies that undertook

Testing for outliers—agencies with extreme

significant self-sufficiency activities.

values that could be causing significant

For each outcome measure analyzed, the

results but not representing the group

number of agencies in the MTW activity-

very well—was conducted using a “leave-

specific group includes only agencies

one-out” cross validation test, running the

implementing activities specifically relevant to

CITS analysis repeatedly for each outcome

that measure (see exhibit 7).

measure, dropping one MTW agency from

the sample for each run. Significant results

13 Galvez, Gourevitch, and Docter (forthcoming) document that MTW agencies tend to be larger than traditional comparison PHAs, and that larger PHAs tend to more closely resemble MTW agencies than smaller traditional agencies in terms of program mix and local housing market characteristics.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

16

Methods

for any given outcome or group were not

may be interpreted as expanding the range of

general y affected when any one MTW

neighborhood locations accessible to low-

agency was dropped from a sample, which

income households—particularly low-poverty

increases confidence in the robustness of

neighborhoods. Finally, agencies may define

the findings. When a single agency did drive

expanding choice as improving the quality of

statistical y significant findings, we dropped

public housing units.

the agency from the analysis and note this

fact in our detailed results. In these cases, we

1. The share of all households assisted that

conducted a secondary outlier analysis using

are newly admitted to the PHA in each year.

the same “leave-one-out” approach for the

We identify newly admitted households as

smal er MTW group (with the outlier agency

the share of all households served by an

removed). These secondary analyses returned

MTW agency that had an action code in PIC

no additional outliers and suggest our results

data (HUD Form 50058 field 2a) associated

are robust.

with a new admission.14 We focus on new

admissions as an indicator of agencies’

Outcome Measures

ability to expand the pool of households

they serve over time. Agencies with a higher

Measures that capture housing choice and

share of their total assistance going to newly

self-sufficiency outcomes were selected

admitted households are arguably expanding

from an initial set of 20 indicators identified

opportunities for low-income households to

in the literature and from our scan of MTW

benefit from housing assistance.

activities reported in agency annual plans.

In col aboration with HUD and expert

2. The share of tenant-based voucher holders

advisors the list was narrowed to the seven

that live in low-poverty neighborhoods

most appropriate, measurable, and distinct

each year.

measures. Exhibits 3 and 4 list the outcome

We define low-poverty neighborhoods as

measures for each housing choice and self-

census tracts with poverty rates below 10

sufficiency research question.

percent. This threshold is commonly used

to approximate neighborhood quality in

Housing Choice Outcome Measures

the neighborhood effects and assisted

Housing choice measures in this study include

housing location literature (Galvez, 2010).

(1) the share of all households assisted that are

The relationships between poverty rates

newly admitted to the PHA in each year, (2)

and health and economic outcomes are wel

the share of tenant-based HCV holders that

documented, and census tract poverty rates

live in low-poverty neighborhoods each year,

are commonly relied on as a proxy for overal

and (3) the average PASS scores in each year.

neighborhood quality—particularly at very low

and very high levels (Galster, 2010).

These measures reflect three common ways

MTW agencies approach and interpret the

3. Average PASS scores in each year.

housing choice objective. PHAs may view

We measure public housing quality using

expanding housing availability and the

PHA average PASS scores, which are based

number of low-income households served as

on physical inspections to determine if public

expanding housing choice. Or, housing choice

housing units are decent, safe, sanitary, and in

14 We consider a household as having entered PHA assistance in a year if they have an action code that denotes a new admission (action code 1), a portability move-in (action code 4), or (in cases where no entry code exists for a households) a historical readjustment (action code 14). In cases where the household’s first appearance in the dataset does not have an action code associated with an entry, we consider that household to be newly assisted in that year.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

17

Methods

good repair. PASS scores use a 40-point scale.

or UPCS, on a sample of units within a given

Inspections are conducted in accordance with

development; scores are rol ed up into a

HUD’s Uniform Physical Condition Standards,

composite PHA-level score.

Exhibit 5: Do Moving to Work Agencies Encourage Housing Choice?

Research Questions

Data Source

Outcome Variable

Outcome Definition

a. Do MTW agencies create more housing

Newly admitted house-

Share of households with

opportunities relative to traditional agen-

PIC: all program

holds as a share of all

50058 field 2c action codes

cies?

types

households

1, 4, or 14.

b. To what extent are households served

by MTW agencies reaching lower-poverty, PIC: tenant-based

Share of tenant-based

Percent of tenant-based

higher-opportunity neighborhoods than

vouchers; ACS /

voucher households

voucher households in cen-

households served by traditional agen-

Decennial Census

in low- poverty census

sus tracts with poverty rates

cies?

tracts

no higher than 10 percent

c. To what extent are households served

PIC/ REAC: pub-

by MTW agencies living in higher quality

lic housing and

Physical Assessment

Average PASS score per

public housing dwellings relative to house- multifamily assisted

Subsystem (PASS)scores agency per year

holds in traditional agencies?

housing

ACS = American Community Survey. MTW = Moving to Work. PASS = Physical Assessment Subsystem. PIC= Public and Indian Housing Information Center.

REAC = Real Estate Assessment Center.

Source: ACS and Decennial Census data obtained from IPUMS database (Manson et al. 2018) Self-Sufficiency Outcome Measures

appropriate match with the traditional agency

We examine four self-sufficiency outcome

comparison group.

measures (exhibit 6). These include (1) the

These measures reflect common MTW agency

share of work-able households in a PHA with

goals. PHAs may, for example, encourage self-

incomes higher than they had in their first year

sufficiency by promoting work and through

of housing assistance (their year of entry),

increases in wage income. They may also,

(2) percent of existing work-able households

for instance, promote household savings

reported to have a Family Self-Sufficiency

and incentivize employment and prepare

(FSS) program escrow account, (3) share of

households for independence through FSS

existing work-able households whose housing

programs. FSS programs are designed to

assistance payment declines over time to

enable assisted families to increase earned

below $50, and (4) share of these existing

income and reduce dependency on welfare

work-able households with low HAP subsidies

and housing assistance. These programs

who leave PHA assistance in the year after

include an interest-bearing escrow account

attaining minimal HAP.

established by the PHA for each participating

Existing households are those that were

family. If participating households increase

already receiving assistance from a PHA in

their income through wages, the resulting

a given year and exclude newly admitted

additional rent payment due to the PHA

households. New households were excluded

are instead credited to the family’s escrow

from the analysis to control for the possibility

account—which is available to the family

that MTW agencies could change admission

upon graduation from the FSS program.

approaches, potentially leading to a shift in

Final y, various efforts to encourage work and

new household characteristics and a less

income gains may be reflected in the share

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

18

Methods

of households that reach sufficient income to

4. The share of existing work-able households

receive minimal rent subsidies from the PHA

with minimal HAP subsidies who leave

and ultimately exit assistance.

PHA assistance in the year after attaining

1. The share of existing work-able households

minimal HAP.

with total annual incomes higher in a post-

The final and related measure is the extent to

treatment period than in their year of entry.

which these households that reach minimal

We measure whether households work more

HAP subsequently exit assisted housing.

after agencies join MTW by identifying the

We measure this as the share of households

share of work-able (non-elderly and without a

who attained a minimal HAP and then leave

disability) households that have total annual

subsidized housing in the fol owing year.

incomes higher than they did in their first

We calculate exits in two ways. First, we

year of housing assistance (their year of

use PIC action codes that signify an end of

admission recorded in PIC). Since it is possible

participation or portability move-out. Second,

that MTW status could be associated with

we identify exits as cases where there is no

changes in the overall composition of newly

recertification record for at least 1 year after

admitted households, we only include existing

attaining minimal HAP. That is, if a household

households in this analysis.

reaches minimal HAP and does not have

2. The share of existing work-able households

another record in PIC for at least 1 year, we

with FSS program escrow accounts.

count that household as having exited for our

purposes.15

We measure FSS participation as the share

of existing work-able households that have

an escrow account with a positive escrow

account balance. We use the escrow account

measure to indicate the extent to which MTW

agencies are engaging in the FSS program

differently than traditional PHAs.

3. The share of existing work-able households

whose HAPs declined over time to below

$50.

We measure whether households approach

the income limit for their MTW agency or PHA

(and may no longer be eligible for subsidies)

as the share of existing work-able households

that reach zero or minimal housing subsidy

payments (i.e., HAP). We define “minimal” as

a HAP of less than $50, based on our analysis

of HAP amounts for assisted households as

reported in HUD PIC data provided for the

MTW evaluation.

15 Some MTW agencies may use their MTW flexibilities to switch to 2- or 3-year recertifications—typical y for elderly or disabled households with fixed incomes. There is no comprehensive accounting of MTW agency recertification schedules, and it was not possible to refine our exit measure to account for possible 2- or 3-year recertifications for subgroups of MTW agencies or households. We focus on work-able households, which generally are recertified more frequently. But it is nevertheless possible that we incorrectly assign exits to a small number of work-able households who do not appear in administrative data for 1 to 2 years because of 3-year recertifications. If so, we would be slightly overestimating positive exits for these MTW

agencies.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

19

Methods

Exhibit 6: Do Moving to Work Agencies Promote Self-Sufficiency?

Research Question

Data

Outcome Variable

Outcome Definition

Source

a. How do incomes of existing

Percent of existing work-able households in a

work-able households served

Share of existing work-able given year with total annual incomes higher than

by MTW agencies compare to

PIC

households with rising in-

at their year of entry into housing assistance (in

those served by traditional agen-

come over time (annualized 2016 dollars—adjusted for inflation). Includes

cies?

rate of change)

only households assisted at the point of the

PHA’s MTW designation.

b. How does the use of escrow

Percent of existing work-able households with a

accounts as a tool for promoting

Percent of work-able

non-zero FSS program escrow account balance.

self-sufficiency differ between

PIC

households reported to

Includes only households assisted at the point

MTW and traditional agencies?

have an escrow account

of the PHA’s MTW designation.

c. Are existing work-able house-

holds in MTW agencies moving

Share of existing work-able Percent of existing work-able households with

to minimal housing subsidy at

PIC

households with housing

a HAP below $50. Includes only households

greater rates than households at

assistance payment (HAP)

assisted at the point of the PHA’s MTW designa-

traditional agencies?

below $50

tion.

d. Are existing work-able

Percent of work-able households who reach a

households in MTW agencies

Share of existing work-able HAP below $50 and that exit in the following

making positive exits from hous-

households leaving PHA in year (exit defined as having exit code or house-

ing assistance at greater rates

PIC

year after attaining minimal hold missing in subsequent year). Includes only

than households at traditional

HAP

households assisted at the point of the PHA’s

agencies?

MTW designation.

FSS = Family Self Sufficiency. HAP = Housing Assistance Payment. MTW = Moving to Work. PHA = Public housing agency. PIC = Public and Indian Housing Information Center.

Note: “Existing” households are households that are not new entrants to housing assistance in a given year.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

20

Methods

Exhibit 7: Moving to Work Agencies by Analysis Group

MTW Activity-Specific:

MTW Activity-Specific:

Housing Choice

Self-Sufficiency

New

household

Income

Name

MTW Status

share

Poverty

Quality

increasing

Escrow

HAP

Alaska

AK





Oakland

CA





San Mateo

CA







San Bernardino

CA











Tulare

CA







Santa Clara/San

Jose

CA









San Diego

CA











Boulder

CO



Orlando

FL







Chicago

IL





Champaign

IL







Louisville

KY





Lexington

KY



Massachusetts

MA





Minneapolis

MN





Charlotte

NC















Lincoln

NE



Portage

OH







Portland

OR





Pittsburgh

PA







San Antonio

TX



King County

WA







Tacoma

WA









Vancouver

WA







MTW = Moving to Work.

Notes: Although it was initially selected in 1999, we include Charlotte as part of the MTW Status Group because it signed an MTW agreement in December 2007

and has been active in MTW for a similar length of time as others in this group. Names in the table are shorthand labels indicating the location of the MTW agency.

Most MTW agencies have the name of their city, county, or state in their full name, but not all. Portland’s housing authority, for example, is named Home Forward.

Source: Activities related to statutory objectives identified through MTW agency Annual Plans Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

21

Results

Results

Moderate Findings:

• The share of work-able households with

incomes higher than at entry: Both the

In this section, we provide an overview of our

MTW-status group and the MTW activity-

main findings for each outcome measure and

specific group had a statistically significant

Moving to Work agency group, by housing

and increasing share of households with

choice and self-sufficiency objective. The

income gains over the 2013–2016 period,

clearest finding is that, over the study period,

relative to their comparison groups. This

MTW agencies increased the share of their

came after a decline relative to comparison

households that were newly admitted more

groups between 2010 and 2012 (the decline

than did traditional agencies. This measure is

was statistical y significant for the MTW-

an indicator of an agency’s capacity to serve

status group). However, in 2016 the share

more households over time, either through

of households with increasing incomes was

growth or increased turnover. This finding

roughly similar for the MTW and comparison

is statistical y significant for the MTW-status

groups. Additional years of analysis would

group and for the MTW activity-specific group

help determine if, after 2016, agencies in the

composed of agencies engaged in activities

MTW groups have continued to outpace the

expected to increase households served.

comparison groups, reverted to a matched

There is also some evidence that assisted

trend, or experienced a relative decline.

households’ incomes were more likely to

increase at MTW agencies than at traditional

• Positive exits and reduction in HAP for

agencies. Finally, MTW-assisted households

households: Households in the MTW-status

were more likely to exit assistance after

group were more likely to subsequently exit

obtaining a low level of subsidy—but this

assistance than were similar households in

finding is weak, and there is no difference

the comparison group—but there was no

between MTW agencies and comparison

significant divergence between the MTW

agencies in the share of households that

group and its comparison group for the

reach minimal housing subsidy. There is no

share of existing work-able households

difference between MTW and traditional

achieving minimal HAP in the first place.

agencies in the likelihood that housing

Households in the MTW activity-specific

choice voucher recipients live in low-poverty

group saw statistically significant increases

neighborhoods or public housing quality.

relative to households in comparison groups

Households at MTW agencies and traditional

for both the share of households reaching

PHAs are also equal y likely to have positive

minimal HAP and those subsequently exiting

balances in their FSS escrow accounts.

housing assistance. For both traditional

and MTW agencies, however, households

Notable Findings:

achieving minimal HAP represented a very

•

small portion of their assisted populations

The share of new households served: Both

(7 percent or less). This means that the

the MTW-status group and the MTW activity-

measure of those with minimal HAP who

specific group had statistically significant

leave assistance is based on relatively few

increasing shares of new households

households.

served, relative to comparison groups,

during the 2013–2016 period. By 2016,

the share of new households served in

both MTW groups exceeded that of their

comparison groups.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

22

Results

Null/Neutral Findings:

results marked with asterisks. Specifical y,

•

the tables present the coefficient, standard

Share of TBV households in low-poverty

error, t-statistic, and indicator of statistical

tracts: Neither MTW group saw significant

significance for the CITS output, which

divergence from its respective comparison

includes the fol owing estimates:

group during the analysis period.

• Average PASS score: The MTW-status

• Initial MTW group level: the initial

group did have a statistically significant

analysis-year level for the MTW group.

increase in average PASS scores compared

• Baseline MTW group trend: the pre-

to the comparison group between 2012

treatment trend for the MTW group.

and 2013. This seems to reflect the end of

• Initial level difference: the initial analysis-

a lagging pattern in which average scores

year level difference between the MTW

for the comparison group increased earlier

group and the comparison group.

than they did for the MTW group, however.

There were not enough MTW agencies

• Pre-treatment trend difference: trend

undertaking initiatives clearly related to

through 2009, the last pre-treatment year.

public housing quality to complete an MTW

• Post-treatment period 1 level difference:

activity-specific group analysis.

the 2009 to 2010 1-year change.

• Share of work-able households with escrow

• Post-treatment period 1 trend difference:

accounts: Between 2009 and 2010, the

the 2010–2012 trend.

share of work-able households with escrow

• Post-treatment period 2 level difference:

accounts remained steady for MTW-status

the 2012 to 2013 1-year change.

group but increased for the comparison

group, resulting in a statistically significant

• Post-treatment period 2 trend difference:

relative decrease. Subsequently, the share

the 2013–2016 trend.

of work-able households with escrow

accounts increased for both the MTW and

Detailed Findings: Housing

the comparison group but did not diverge

Choice Outcomes

in a statistical y significant way. There were

not enough MTW agencies undertaking

Our housing choice analyses include:

initiatives clearly related to escrow accounts

• For the MTW-status group:

to conduct an MTW activity-specific group

» Nine MTW agencies that executed

analysis.

MTW agreements between 2008 and

Below, we present the results in detail. This

2011.

includes a short narrative discussion of each

• For the MTW activity-specific groups:

analysis, a line graph showing trends over

time for each of the MTW agency groups and

»Twelve MTW agencies engaged in

their comparison group, and a regression table

activities expected to increase the

presenting results from the CITS analysis. The

share of new households served; and

line graphs include vertical markers indicating

»Six MTW agencies engaged in

the two post-treatment start years: 2010 and

activities expected to increase the

2013. The regression tables present results

share of tenant-based voucher holders

for two outcome measures (post-treatment

in low-poverty census tracts.

trend difference and post-treatment level

Because only three MTW agencies engaged

difference) for each of the post-treatment

in activities related to increasing housing

outcome periods, with statistical y significant

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

23

Results

quality, we do not measure outcomes for an MTW

MTW-Status Group (N=9)

activity-specific group defined by engagement in

The share of households that were new

efforts to improve housing quality.

admissions averaged between 8 percent and

17 percent annual y between 2001 and 2013, for

Do MTW Agencies Create More Housing

both MTW status and comparison PHAs (exhibit

Opportunities Relative to Traditional

8). During the pre-treatment period and the initial

Agencies?

2010–2012 post-treatment period, differences

• Outcome measure: the share of MTW agency

between the MTW group and the comparison

assisted households that are new admissions

group were not statistical y significant. During

into an assisted housing program.

the 2013–2016 post-treatment period, however,

the share of new households in MTW agencies

This measure is an indicator of an agency’s

increased sharply from 10 percent to over 15

capacity to serve more households over time,

percent (with most of the increase between 2014

either through growth or increased turnover.

and 2015), while the comparison group share did

Rather than count the new households served, to

not increase. This divergence was statistical y

control for the size of a PHA we examine the share

significant (exhibit 9).

of households that are new admissions each year.

Exhibit 8: Share of Households That Are New: MTW-Status Group and Comparison Group

18%

16%

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

MTW-status Group: Predicted

Traditional Agencies: Predicted

MTW-status Group: Actual

Traditional Agencies: Actual

MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

24

Results

Exhibit 9: Share of Households That Are New: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW-Status Group Coefficient

Standard Error

T-stat

Initial MTW group level

0.140

0.006

24.39

Baseline MTW group trend

-0.006

0.001

-6.12

Initial level difference

-0.0001

0.013

-0.01

Pre-treatment trend difference

0.0002

0.003

0.06

Post-treatment period 1 level difference

0.025

0.019

1.31

Post-treatment period 1 trend difference

-0.002

0.005

-0.43

Post-treatment period 2 level difference

-0.017

0.015

-1.14

Post-treatment period 2 trend difference

0.023***

0.006

3.62

Agency count

9 MTW: 18 traditional

* p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01

MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

MTW Activity-Specific Group—New

As of 2016, the share of households that were

Households (N=13)

new was nearly identical for both the MTW

We identified 13 MTW agencies undertaking

group and the comparison group (12 percent),

activities with the potential to affect the

but with the MTW group more clearly trending

number of new households and analyzed

upward.

12.16 The first year of analysis for this indicator

is 2007.

Although the initial and final numbers for the

MTW group and the comparison group were

similar, the pathways the two groups took

varied significantly (exhibit 10). During the

2010–2012 post-treatment period, the share

of households that were new dropped more

for the MTW group than for the comparison

group, although this was not a statistical y

significant difference (exhibit 11). During the

2013–2016 period, however, the share of

households that were new in the MTW group

increased relative to the comparison group.

This finding was statistical y significant. By

2016, the MTW group had a higher share of

new households than the comparison group.

16 After conducting the outlier sensitivity analysis, we removed Vancouver, Washington from the analysis, which drove the 2008–2012 period results, even as the 2013–2016 results remained similar. Vancouver’s effect was largely the result of a likely data irregularity, as 74 percent of households were indicated as being “new” in 2010 (versus 8 percent in 2009 and 14 percent in 2011).

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

25

Results

Exhibit 10: Share of Households That Are New: MTW Housing Choice Activity-Specific Group and Comparison Group 16%

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0% 2007 2008 2009 2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

MTW-status Group: Predicted

Traditional Agencies: Predicted

MTW-status Group: Actual

Traditional Agencies: Actual

MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

Exhibit 11: Share of Households That Are New: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW Activity-Specific Group

Coefficient

Standard Error

T-stat

Initial MTW group level

0.123

0.008

15.30

Baseline MTW group trend

-0.013

0.007

-1.78

Initial level difference

0.002

0.009

0.24

Pre-treatment trend difference

0.001

0.180

0.86

Post-treatment period 1 level difference

-0.005

0.022

-0.21

Post-treatment period 1 trend difference

-0.010

0.012

-0.82

Post-treatment period 2 level difference

-0.0002

0.009

-0.01

Post-treatment period 2 trend difference

0.023**

0.009

2.39

Agency count

12 MTW: 14 traditional

* p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01

MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

26

Results

To What Extent are Households

MTW-Status Group (N=9)

Served by MTW Agencies Reaching

For the MTW-status group, the share of

Lower-Poverty, Higher Opportunity

households in low-poverty census tracts

Neighborhoods Than Households

dipped somewhat between 2005 and 2011

Served by Traditional Agencies?

before increasing again through 2016 (exhibit

• Outcome measure: the share of tenant-

12). The comparison group fol owed a similar

based voucher households in low-poverty

pathway, dropping during the 2010–2013

period but increasing more quickly relative

census tracts.

to the MTW group between 2013 and 2016.

These differences were not statistical y

significant (exhibit 13).17

Exhibit 12: Share of Tenant-Based Voucher Households in Low-Poverty Tracts: MTW-Status Group and Comparison Group 25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

MTW-status Group: Predicted

Traditional Agencies: Predicted

MTW-status Group: Actual

Traditional Agencies: Actual

MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

17 Results of the outlier sensitivity analysis were consistent. Removing Boulder, Colorado, produced some significant results, but results from a secondary outlier sensitivity analysis (excluding Boulder and then removing remaining PHAs one at a time) resulted in no significant findings.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

27

Results

Exhibit 13: Share of Tenant-Based Voucher Holders in Low-Poverty Tracts: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW-Status Group

Coefficient

Standard Error

T-stat

Initial MTW group level

0.177

0.014

12.86

Baseline MTW group trend

-0.008

0.005

-1.49

Initial level difference

0.007

0.014

0.53

Pre-treatment trend difference

0.001

0.005

0.16

Post-treatment period 1 level difference

-0.005

0.019

-0.25

Post-treatment period 1 trend difference

0.009

0.013

0.66

Post-treatment period 2 level difference

0.004

0.028

0.14

Post-treatment period 2 trend difference

-0.024

0.017

-1.40

Agency count

8 MTW: 6 traditional

* p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01

MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

MTW Activity-Specific Group—Low-

was relatively stable at about 15 percent, then

Poverty Neighborhoods (N=6)

dropped between 2010 and 2013, and then

The share of households in low-poverty tracts

increased between 2013 and 2016. There

was nearly identical for the MTW activity-

were no statistically significant differences

specific group and the comparison agencies

between the MTW group and the comparison

across the 2006–2016 analysis period (exhibit

group (exhibit 15).

14). During the pre-treatment period, the share

Exhibit 14: Share of Tenant-Based Voucher Households in Low-Poverty Tracts: MTW Activity-Specific Group and Comparison Group

16%

14%

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

MTW-status Group: Predicted

Traditional Agencies: Predicted

MTW-status Group: Actual

Traditional Agencies: Actual

MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

28

Results

Exhibit 15: Share of Tenant-Based Voucher Holders in Low-Poverty Tracts: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW Activity-Specific Group

Coefficient

Standard Error

T-stat

Initial MTW group level

0.114

0.006

18.85

Baseline MTW group trend

0.001

0.002

0.55

Initial level difference

-0.002

0.007

-0.30

Pre-treatment trend difference

0.002

0.003

0.62

Post-treatment period 1 level difference

-0.006

0.010

-0.63

Post-treatment period 1 trend difference

-0.006

0.007

-0.79

Post-treatment period 2 level difference

0.006

0.017

0.36

Post-treatment period 2 trend difference

0.007

0.010

0.70

Agency count

5 MTW; 16 traditional

* p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01

MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

To What Extent are Households

reached an average score of 34 prior to 2012,

Served by MTW Agencies Living

so the substantive significance of this result

in Higher Quality Public Housing

is minimal.

Dwellings Relative to Households in

Traditional Agencies?

• Outcome measure: public housing physical

assessment subsystem (PASS) scores.

We present the grouped CITS analysis for

PASS scores for the MTW-status group

only because there are too few (only three)

agencies to build an activity-specific group

that had started activities potential y affecting

PASS scores during the 2009–2012 period.

MTW-Status Group (N=9)

PASS scores for the MTW-status group and

the comparison group remained steady

between 2001 and 2010. During the 2010–

2012 post-treatment period, scores for both

groups increased before decreasing again

between 2013 and 2016 (exhibit 16). Between

2012 and 2013, the average PASS score for

the MTW group increased from about 30 to

34, a statistical y significant increase relative

to the comparison group (exhibit 17). The

comparison group, however, had already

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

29

Results

Exhibit 16: PASS Score (Housing Quality): MTW-Status Group and Comparison Group

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

MTW-status Group: Predicted

Traditional Agencies: Predicted

MTW-status Group: Actual

Traditional Agencies: Actual

MTW = Moving to Work. PASS = Physical Assessment Subsystem.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

Exhibit 17: PASS Score (Housing Quality): Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW-Status Group Coefficient

Standard Error

T-stat

Initial MTW group level

25.571

0.923

27.70

Baseline MTW group trend

-4.600 E-15

0.360

0.00

Initial level difference

-0.838

0.956

-0.88

Pre-treatment trend difference

0.033

0.369

0.09

Post-treatment period 1 level difference

-0.400

1.508

-0.27

Post-treatment period 1 trend difference

-1.533

1.215

-1.26

Post-treatment period 2 level difference

7.093**

2.766

2.56

Post-treatment period 2 trend difference

0.813

1.517

0.54

Agency count

9 MTW; 7 traditional

* p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01

MTW = Moving to Work. PASS = Physical Assessment Subsystem.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

Summary of Housing Choice

effects in the second post-treatment period

Outcomes

on increasing the share of new households

served (for MTW-status and MTW activity-

Considered together, the impacts of MTW on

specific groups) and increasing PASS scores

housing choice outcomes were generally nul ,

(MTW-status group). Exhibits 18 and 19

but there were statistical y significant positive

summarizes these results.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

30

Results

MTW-Status Group. MTW status was

2012 and 2013, relative to the comparison

associated with a statistical y significant

group. There was no statistically significant

increase in the share of new households

divergence between the MTW-status group

served during the 2013–2016 post-treatment

and the comparison group regarding the share

period, relative to the comparison group. MTW

of households in low-poverty census tracts

status was also associated with a statistical y

(exhibit 18).

significant increase in the average PASS

score, a measure of housing quality, between

Exhibit 18: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Analysis: Summary of Housing Choice Outcomes, MTW-Status Group Group size

Post-Treatment Period 1

Post-Treatment Period 2

(2010–2012)

(2013–2016)

MTW Group Comparison

Level

Trend

Level

Trend

Group

Share of households that

are new

9

18

+

-

-

+***

Share of tenant-based

voucher households in

9

6

-

+

+

-

low-poverty tracts

Average PASS score

9

7

-

-

+**

+

* p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01

MTW = Moving to Work. PASS = Physical Assessment Subsystem.

Note: Signs indicate where the level and trend at the MTW agencies are in relation to the trend at the comparison group agencies. For the post-treatment level,

“-” indicates that the MTW group outcome at the time measured was lower, and “+” indicates that it was higher. For the post-treatment trend, “-” indicates that the trend at the MTW agencies increased less (or decreased more), and “+” indicates that the trend at the MTW agencies increased more (or decreased less). If the level or the trend is not statistically significant, then we conclude that outcome measures were the same at MTW and comparison group agencies.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

MTW Activity-Specific Group. Being in the

MTW activity-specific group is associated

with a statistical y significant increase in the

share of new households served during the

2013–2016 post-treatment period, relative

to the comparison group. There was no

statistical y significant divergence between

the MTW-status group and the comparison

group regarding the share of households in

low-poverty census tracts (exhibit 19). We

do not analyze PASS outcomes for the MTW

activity-specific group because only three

MTW agencies undertook activities during

the 2009–2012 period that could have had a

measurable effect on PASS scores.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

31

Results

Exhibit 19: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Analysis: Summary of Housing Choice

Outcomes, MTW Activity-Specific Group

Post-treatment Period 1 Post-treatment Period 2

Group size

(2010–2012)

(2013–2016)

MTW Group

Comparison

Group

Level

Trend

Level

Trend

Share of households

that are new

12

14

-

-

-

+**

Share of tenant-based

voucher households

6

16

-

-

+

+

in low-poverty tracts

Average PASS score

3

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

* p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01

MTW = Moving to Work. NA = data not available. PASS = Physical Assessment Subsystem. TBV = tenant-based voucher.

Note: Signs indicate where the level and trend at the MTW agencies are in relation to the trend at the comparison group agencies. For the post-treatment level,

“-” indicates that the MTW group outcome at the time measured was lower, and “+” indicates that it was higher. For the post-treatment trend, “-” indicates that the trend at the MTW agencies increased less (or decreased more), and “+” indicates that the trend at the MTW agencies increased more (or decreased less). If the level or the trend is not statistically significant, then we conclude that outcome measures were the same at MTW agencies and comparison group agencies.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

Detailed Findings: Self-

»Eighteen MTW agencies engaged in

Sufficiency Outcomes

activities expected to result in positive

exits from assistance (measured as

The MTW agencies in our self-sufficiency

reaching minimal HAP and exiting after

outcome analyses include:

reaching minimal HAP).

• MTW-status Group:

As with PASS scores, we do not include

»Nine MTW agencies that executed

an agency-specific analysis of escrow

MTW agreements between 2008 and

accounts because only three MTW agencies

2011 for measures of escrow account

implemented activities related to this activity

use, reaching minimal Housing

during the analysis period.

Assistance Payment (HAP), and exiting

after reaching minimal HAP.

How do Incomes of Work-Able

»

Households Served by MTW

Seven MTW agencies from this

Agencies Compare to Those Served

MTW-status group for the measure

of income gains by work-able

by Traditional Agencies?

households, as we exclude two

• Outcome measure: the share of assisted

agencies based on data limitations and

existing work-able households that have

sensitivity analysis results.

total annual incomes higher than at housing

• MTW Activity-Specific Groups:

assistance entry.

»Thirteen MTW agencies engaged

MTW-Status Group (N=7)

in activities expected to encourage

We drop two agencies from our MTW-status

increasing income.

group: one agency because of missing

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

32

Results

income data and the other because our

After 2013, the share of households with

sensitivity analyses suggested that including

incomes higher than their baseline year

it biased our grouped results.18 Of the seven

increased for both groups. This increase for

MTW agencies analyzed here, the share

the MTW group was comparatively larger

of households with income greater than at

than it was for the comparison group, and this

housing assistance entry remained between

difference was statistically significant (exhibit

50 and 60 percent during the 2001–2009

21). This increase al owed MTW agencies to

pre-treatment period for both the MTW-

regain the losses of the previous period and

status group and the comparison group.

catch up to and converge with the level of the

Between 2010 and 2012, the two groups

traditional public housing authorities (PHAs)

diverged somewhat: both saw a decrease in

by 2016.

this measure between 2010 and 2011, but the

drop was more pronounced and statistical y

significant for the MTW group (exhibit 20).

Exhibit 20: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Total Annual Incomes Higher Than at Housing Assistance Entry: MTW-Status Group and Comparison Group

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

MTW-status Group: Predicted

Traditional Agencies: Predicted

MTW-status Group: Actual

Traditional Agencies: Actual

MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

18 We removed Champaign because of missing income data for some of the analysis period years. We removed Charlotte based on the results of the outlier sensitivity analysis, as it influenced the statistical significance of both the 2009–2010 level change and the 2010–2012 trend change. See appendix E.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

33

Results

Exhibit 21: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Total Annual Incomes Higher Than at Housing Assistance Entry: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW-Status Group

Coefficient

Standard Error

T-stat

Initial MTW group level

0.558***

0.007

80.80

Baseline MTW group trend

-0.001

0.001

-0.45

Initial level difference

-0.0003

0.011

-0.03

Pre-treatment trend difference

0.0001

0.002

0.03

Post-treatment period 1 level difference

-0.013

0.013

-1.04

Post-treatment period 1 trend difference

-0.016*

0.010

-1.69

Post-treatment period 2 level difference

-0.009

0.020

-0.44

Post-treatment period 2 trend difference

0.031**

0.012

2.57

Agency count

7 MTW; 21 traditional

* p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01

MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

MTW Activity-Specific Group—Increase

Income (N=13)

We analyzed 13 MTW agencies involved

in activities with the potential to have an

effect on household incomes. The share of

households with income higher than their first

year of assistance dropped for both the MTW

and the comparison group between 2009

and 2011 (exhibit 22); this drop, coinciding

with the great recession, was somewhat more

pronounced for the MTW group than for the

comparison group, although the difference

was small and not statistically significant

(exhibit 23).

During the 2013–2016 period, the share of

households with income higher than their first

year of assistance increased for both groups;

the increase for the MTW group was larger

and statistically significant when compared

with the comparison group.19 As with the

MTW-status group analysis, the MTW activity-

specific group agencies caught up to the

traditional agency group in 2016.

19 We exclude Chicago from this analysis, as the outlier sensitivity analysis results found it to have a significant effect on the grouped results: with Chicago included, the 2013–2016 trend findings were not significant. Excluding Chicago, a secondary sensitivity analysis (sequentially removing each of the PHAs remaining in the group) produced consistently significant and positive results.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

34

Results

Exhibit 22: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Total Annual Incomes Higher Than at Housing Assistance Entry, MTW

Activity-Specific Group and Comparison Group

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

MTW-status Group: Predicted

Traditional Agencies: Predicted

MTW-status Group: Actual

Traditional Agencies: Actual

MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

Exhibit 23: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Total Annual Incomes Higher Than at Housing Assistance Entry: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW Activity-Specific Group

Coefficient

Standard Error

T-stat

Initial MTW group level

0.544***

0.003

208.72

Baseline MTW group trend

0.001

0.002

0.26

Initial level difference

-0.003

0.012

-0.22

Pre-treatment trend difference

-0.002

0.010

-0.16

Post-treatment period 1 level difference

-0.014

0.020

-0.67

Post-treatment period 1 trend difference

-0.004

0.013

-0.28

Post-treatment period 2 level difference

0.002

0.014

0.16

Post-treatment period 2 trend difference

0.014*

0.008

1.71

Agency count

14 MTW; 77 traditional

* p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01

HAP = Housing Assistance Payment. MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

How Does the Use of Escrow

We present the grouped CITS analysis for

Accounts as a Tool for Promoting

escrow accounts only for the MTW-status

Self-Sufficiency Differ Between MTW

group, because only three MTW agencies

and Traditional Agencies?

reported activities with the potential to

•

influence escrow use during our study period,

Outcome measure: the share of existing

and a group of three is too small for analysis.

work-able households with Family Self-

Sufficiency program escrow accounts (a

proxy for FSS program participation).

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

35

Results

MTW-Status Group (N=9)

the comparison group. Subsequently, the

We find no evidence that MTW agencies are

share of work-able households with escrow

more likely to have work-able families with

accounts increased for both groups but did

escrow accounts than traditional agencies.

not diverge in a statistical y significant way.

The one statistically significant divergence

Findings were robust to sensitivity analyses. In

between the MTW group and the comparison

general, the share of households with escrow

group was that, between 2009 and 2010, the

accounts is smal : for the MTW-status group

share of work-able households with escrow

it has remained between roughly 2 and 5

accounts remained steady for MTW-status

percent. The share has varied over time, with

group but increased for the comparison

peaks for both the MTW-status group and the

group. This resulted in a statistical y significant

comparison group in 2005 and again in 2016

decrease for the MTW group relative to

(exhibits 24 and 25).

Exhibit 24: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Escrow: MTW-Status Group and Comparison Group 8%

7%

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

MTW-status Group: Predicted

Traditional Agencies: Predicted

MTW-status Group: Actual

Traditional Agencies: Actual

MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

Exhibit 25: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Escrow: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW-Status Group

Coefficient

Standard Error

T-stat

Initial MTW group level

0.044***

0.003

15.84

Baseline MTW group trend

-0.001

0.001

-1.18

Initial level difference

0.001

0.009

0.09

Pre-treatment trend difference

-6.21e-06

0.002

-0.00

Post-treatment period 1 level difference

-0.009

0.011

-0.79

(continued)

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

36

Results

Exhibit 25: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Escrow: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW-Status Group (Continued)

Coefficient

Standard Error

T-stat

Post-treatment period 1 trend difference

-0.009*

0.005

-1.79

Post-treatment period 2 level difference

0.018

0.013

1.36

Post-treatment period 2 trend difference

0.008

0.008

1.00

Agency count

9 MTW: 9 traditional

* p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01

CITS = Comparative Interrupted Time Series. MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

Are Existing Work-Able Households

MTW-Status Group (N=9)

in MTW Agencies Moving to Minimal

The share of households at minimal HAP was

Housing Subsidy at Greater Rates Than

smal : general y remaining under 2 percent

Households at Traditional Agencies?

prior to 2010 for both the MTW-status group

We measure positive exits in two ways: this

and the comparison group (exhibit 26).

section examines the share of work-able

Between 2010 and 2016, the share increased

households who did not start assistance with

to close to 7 percent for the MTW-status group

minimal HAP but subsequently reach minimal

and close to 3 percent for the comparison

HAP. The subsequent section examines

group. The difference, however, was not

whether the households that reach minimal

statistically significant (exhibit 27). This finding

HAP then leave assistance.

was robust to sensitivity analyses.

• Outcome measure: the share of existing

work-able households who approach

minimal HAP (less than $50).

Exhibit 26: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Minimal HAP: MTW-Status Group and Comparison Group 8%

7%

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

MTW-status Group: Predicted

Traditional Agencies: Predicted

MTW-status Group: Actual

Traditional Agencies: Actual

HAP = Housing Assistance Payment. MTW = Moving to Work.

Note: 2008 was omitted from the analysis due to data irregularities.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

37

Results

Exhibit 27: Share of Existing Work-Able Households with Minimal HAP: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW-Status Group

Coefficient

Standard Error

T-stat

Initial MTW group level

0.032***

0.004

8.32

Baseline MTW group trend

-0.002***

0.001

-3.23

Initial level difference

-0.002

0.007

-0.34

Pre-treatment trend difference

-0.0004

0.001

0.31

Post-treatment period 1 level difference

-0.026

0.035

-0.74

Post-treatment period 1 trend difference

0.020

0.021

0.98

Post-treatment period 2 level difference

-0.004

0.029

-0.13

Post-treatment period 2 trend difference

-0.019

0.021

-0.92

Agency count

9 MTW: 9 traditional

* p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01

HAP = Housing Assistance Payment. MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

MTW Activity-Specific Group—Minimal

Final y, outlier sensitivity analysis indicated

Hap (N=17)

that one agency (Chicago) affected the

For the Moving to Work activity-specific

significance of results. A secondary outlier

group, the share of households with minimal

sensitivity analysis (excluding Chicago)

HAP also remained relatively small during the

retained consistent results, so we omit

analysis period, exceeding 6 percent during

Chicago from the analysis here.

2008 and in 2016 (exhibit 28). Many MTW

agencies and traditional PHAs reported a

1-year spike of families with minimal HAP in

2008, which may reflect a data reporting or

quality issue for that year.

In the MTW group, the share of households

with minimal HAP increased between

2012 and 2013 while staying stable for

the comparison group; this difference was

statistical y significant (exhibit 29). This result

should be treated with caution for several

reasons. First, the difference between the

MTW group agencies and comparison PHAs

was quite small (less than 2 percentage

points in 2016). In addition, for both the MTW

agencies and comparison traditional PHAs,

the total number of households included in

this measure tends to be very smal .

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

38

Results

Exhibit 28: Share of Existing Work-Able Households with Minimal HAP: MTW Activity-Specific Group and Comparison Group 30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

MTW-status Group: Predicted

Traditional Agencies: Predicted

MTW-status Group: Actual

Traditional Agencies: Actual

HAP = Housing Assistance Payment. MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

Exhibit 29: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Minimal HAP: Comparative Interrupted Times Series Output, MTW Activity-Specific Group

Coefficient

Standard Error

T-stat

Initial MTW group level

0.116***

0.031

3.75

Baseline MTW group trend

-0.002

0.022

-0.10

Initial level difference

-0.058

0.043

-1.35

Pre-treatment trend difference

0.004

0.034

0.12

Post-treatment period 1 level difference

0.045

0.070

0.65

Post-treatment period 1 trend difference

-0.010

0.035

-0.30

Post-treatment period 2 level difference

0.033**

0.015

2.16

Post-treatment period 2 trend difference

0.006

0.008

0.73

Agency count

17 MTW; 8 traditional

* p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01

HAP = Housing Assistance Payment. MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

39

Results

Are Existing Work-Able Households

group both between 2009 and 2010 and

in MTW Agencies Making Positive

again between 2012 and 2013, resulting in a

Exits From Housing Assistance at

17-percentage-point difference between the

Greater Rates Than Households at

two groups by 2016 (exhibit 30); both of these

Traditional Agencies?

relative increases were statistically significant

(exhibit 31). As noted earlier, households

• Outcome measure: The share of work-

reaching minimal HAP are a small share of

able households who leave assisted

all households, so these percentages reflect

housing in the year after reaching minimal

a small subset of all households served.

HAP.

For instance, in 2016, about 74 percent of

MTW-Status Group

all work-able households in the MTW group

with minimal HAP left assistance, but only 6

The share of households in the MTW group

percent had reached minimal HAP in the first

with minimal HAP who left assisted housing

place.

increased relative to those in the comparison

Exhibit 30: Share of Minimal-HAP Households Who Leave: MTW-Status Group and Comparison Group 90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

MTW-status Group: Predicted

Traditional Agencies: Predicted

MTW-status Group: Actual

Traditional Agencies: Actual

HAP = Housing Assistance Payment. MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

40

Results

Exhibit 31: Share of Minimal-HAP Households Who Leave: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW-Status Group Coefficient

Standard Error

T-stat

Initial MTW group level

0.699***

0.021

33.17

Baseline MTW group trend

-0.007

0.005

-1.40

Initial level difference

-0.002

0.069

-0.03

Pre-intervention trend difference

0.0002

0.014

0.02

Post-intervention period 1 level difference

0.121*

0.069

1.7

Post-intervention period 1 trend difference

-0.048

0.038

-1.28

Post-intervention period 2 level difference

0.187**

0.083

2.24

Post-intervention period 2 trend difference

0.037

0.036

1.04

Agency count

9 MTW; 21 traditional

* p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01

HAP = Housing Assistance Payment. MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

MTW Activity-Specific Group—Exit

2. Between 2010 and 2012, the share of

Assistance With Minimal HAP (N=17)

households with minimal HAP who left

For the 17 agencies analyzed in the MTW

housing assistance remained relatively

activity-specific group, the share of existing

steady for the MTW group and increased

work-able households reaching minimal HAP

for the comparison group; this trend toward

and subsequently leaving assistance has

a shrinking gap with (that is, a relative

remained relatively steady between 2007

decrease in relation to) the traditional PHAs

and 2016—and as of 2009 has remained

was statistically significant.

consistently higher than the share for the

3. Between 2012 and 2013, the share of

comparison group of traditional public housing

households in the MTW group with minimal

authorities (exhibit 32).

HAP who left assisted housing increased,

while the share of these households in

We dropped one MTW agency (Tulare) from

the comparison group who left remained

this analysis based on our outlier sensitivity

relatively steady; this divergence was

analysis, which indicated that Tulare

statistically significant.

influenced the significance outcomes; a

secondary outlier sensitivity analysis omitting

4. Between 2013 and 2016, the share of

Tulare resulted in consistent statistical y

households with minimal HAP who left

significant effects. Compared with the group

housing assistance increased for both

of traditional agencies, four post-treatment

groups, but the increase for the MTW group

level and trend differences for the MTW group

relative to the comparison group was larger

were statistically significant (exhibit 33):

and statistically significant.

1. The share of households with minimal HAP

who left assisted housing increased for the

MTW group between 2009 and 2010, while

dropping for the comparison group.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

41

Results

Exhibit 32: Share of Minimal-HAP Households Who Leave: MTW Activity-Specific Group and Comparison Group 90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

MTW-status Group: Predicted

Traditional Agencies: Predicted

MTW-status Group: Actual

Traditional Agencies: Actual

HAP = Housing Assistance Payment. MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

Exhibit 33: Share of Minimal-HAP Households Who Leave: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW Activity-Specific Group

Coefficient

Standard Error

T-stat

Initial MTW group level

0.666***

0.012

54.33

Baseline MTW group trend

-0.039***

0.011

-3.60

Initial level difference

0.012

0.031

0.38

Pre-treatment trend difference

0.012

0.026

0.48

Post-treatment period 1 level difference

0.144***

0.053

2.73

Post-treatment period 1 trend difference

-0.084**

0.036

-2.34

Post-treatment period 2 level difference

0.155***

0.050

3.12

Post-treatment period 2 trend difference

0.050**

0.021

2.39

Agency count

17 MTW: 81 traditional

* p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01

HAP = Housing Assistance Payment. MTW = Moving to Work.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

42

Results

Summary of Self-Sufficiency

• MTW status is associated with a statistical y

Outcomes

significant relative decrease in the share

of work-able households with total income

Findings for self-sufficiency outcomes were

higher than at entry for the period between

general y either null or indicated some positive

2009 and 2010. This was fol owed by a

effect from MTW status. Two statistical y

statistically significant increasing trend

significant results aligned for both MTW

during the subsequent 2013–2016 period.

groups: the share of work-able households

By 2016, the MTW group level had caught

with total incomes higher than at entry for

up to the level of the comparison group.

the 2013–2016 period and the share of

• MTW status is associated with a statistical y

households with minimal HAP who exited

significant relative decrease in the share of

housing assistance.

work-able households with escrow accounts

MTW-status Group. For the MTW-status group,

during the 2010–2012 period.

we find no significant divergence from the

• MTW status is associated with a statistical y

comparison groups regarding the share of

significant relative increase in the share of

work-able households attaining minimal HAP

work-able households with minimal HAP

(exhibit 34):

who then left assistance between both

2009 and 2010 and between 2012 and

2013.

Exhibit 34: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Analysis: Summary of Self-Sufficiency Outcomes for MTW-Status Group Group size

Post-treatment Period 1

Post-treatment Period 2

(2010–2012)

(2013–2016)

MTW

Comparison

Level

Trend

Level

Trend

Group

Group

Share of work-able house-

holds with total annual

8

14

-

-*

-

+**

incomes higher than at entry

Share of work-able house-

holds with escrow account

9

3

-

-*

+

+

Share of households attaining

minimal HAP

9

11

-

+

-

-

Share of households with

minimal HAP who exit

9

15

+*

-

+**

+

* p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01

HAP = Housing Assistance Payment. MTW = Moving to Work.

Note: Signs indicate where the level and trend at the MTW agencies are in relation to the trend at the comparison group agencies. For the post-treatment level,

“-” indicates that the MTW group outcome at the time measured was lower, and “+” indicates that it was higher. For the post-treatment trend, “-” indicates that the trend at the MTW agencies increased less (or decreased more), and “+” indicates that the trend at the MTW agencies increased more (or decreased less). If the level or the trend is not statistically significant, then we conclude that outcome measures were the same at MTW agencies and comparison group agencies.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

43

Results

MTW Activity-Specific Group. For the MTW

percent for the MTW activity-specific group

activity-specific group, we find multiple

versus 4.5 percent for its comparison group.

statistically significant findings (exhibit 35):

• The share of existing work-able households

• For the share of work-able households with

who left housing assistance after attaining

total income higher than at entry, the MTW

minimal HAP diverged in multiple ways

activity-specific group is associated with

from such households in the comparison

a statistically significant increasing trend

group. This included statistically significant

during the 2013–2016 period.

relative increases in the share of work-able

•

households with minimal HAP who then left

Being in the MTW activity-specific group is

assistance between both 2009 and 2010

associated with an increase between 2012

and between 2012 and 2013, a relative

and 2013 in the share of existing work-able

decrease between 2010 and 2012, and a

households attaining minimal HAP. The

relative increase between 2013 and 2016.

share remains smal : as of 2016, it was 6.1

Exhibit 35: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Analysis: Summary of Self-Sufficiency Outcomes for MTW

Activity-Specific Group

Group size

Post-treatment Period 1

Post-treatment Period 2

(2010–2012)

(2013–2016)

MTW Group

Comparison

Level

Trend

Level

Trend

Group

Share of work-able house-

holds with total annual

incomes higher than at

13

83

-

-

+

+*

entry

Share of work-able house-

holds with escrow account

3

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Share of households attain-

ing minimal HAP

17

8

+

-

+**

+

Share of households with

minimal HAP who exit

17

74

+***

-**

+***

+**

* p<0.10 ** p<0.05 *** p<0.01

HAP = Housing Assistance Payment. MTW = Moving to Work. NA = data not available.

Note: Signs indicate where the level and trend at the MTW agencies are in relation to the trend at the comparison group agencies. For the post-treatment level,

“-” indicates that the MTW group outcome at the time measured was lower, and “+” indicates that it was higher. For the post-treatment trend, “-” indicates that the trend at the MTW agencies increased less (or decreased more), and “+” indicates that the trend at the MTW agencies increased more (or decreased less). If the level or the trend is not statistically significant, then we conclude that outcome measures were the same at MTW agencies and comparison group agencies.

Source: Analysis of HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

44

Discussion and Conclusions

Discussion and

For results related to reaching minimal HAP

and subsequent exits from assistance, the

Conclusions

outcome measures must be treated cautiously

because they reflect relatively small numbers

of households and can be sensitive to smal

Overal , results from this study indicate that

changes—which means the substantive value

there are some signs of a positive relationship

of differences between groups may be limited

between MTW and several housing choice

even when they are statistically significant.

and self-sufficiency related outcomes.

Additional tracking over a longer time period

Between 2013 and 2016, newly assisted

can help clarify if positive trends have

households represented a larger share of

continued. In-depth analyses of the individual

the MTW agencies’ assisted households

agencies included in our MTW activity-specific

compared with traditional PHAs. This outcome

sample would also be useful to assess what

had the most consistent and substantive

might be happening on the ground.

effects in our analyses across both MTW

agency treatment groups. Results are also

Final y, results were null for the MTW status

consistent with Galvez, Gourevitch, and

and activity-specific groups for our remaining

Docter’s (forthcoming) descriptive findings

three outcome measures. These include the

that the 39 MTW agencies added more

share of tenant-based voucher households

new households to their assisted housing

in low-poverty tracts, average Physical

portfolios between 2008 and 2016 while the

Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores, and

number added by traditional PHAs remained

the share of work-able households with

flat.

escrow accounts. There were no statistical y

significant results for the poverty share.

Results for three additional outcome measures

The share of work-able households with

related to improving self-sufficiency (income

escrow accounts increased after 2009 for

gains over time for assisted households

the comparison group but only after 2012 for

and two measures related to positive exits

the MTW group; this resulted in a statistical y

from assistance) are positive but preliminary.

significant divergence during the initial post-

Specifically, for the share of households with

treatment period, but given subsequent trends

income gains over time, the MTW agencies

and the relatively small difference between

initial y lagged behind the traditional PHAs

groups it is more a lagging indicator than one

before catching up to the comparison PHAs

of continuing significance. For PASS scores,

by the end of 2016. Achieving this parity

which increased over time for both the MTW-

with traditional PHAs may itself be a positive

status group and the comparison group,

outcome. Updating the current analyses with

the one statistically significant divergence

additional years of HUD administrative data

appears to be more of a lagging trend than an

will help assess whether the promising trend

MTW-specific effect: the increase was similar

has continued and MTW agencies have begun

over time for both groups, but happened later

to outpace the comparison group, whether

for the MTW-status group. It may also be the

they have remained in parity, or if they have

case that participation in the Rental Assistance

again fallen behind.

Demonstration program during our study time

period—which al ows housing authorities

to convert public housing to project-based

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

45

Discussion and Conclusions

vouchers or project-based rental assistance—

outcome measures, such as positive exits from

removed the most distressed public housing

assisted housing or income gains over time,

units from some of the MTW agencies’

may be more appropriate for a status group

portfolios. If so, this could have resulted in an

approach because they speak to a common

apparent improvement in the PASS score for

MTW agency objectives, and changes may be

remaining units. Galvez et al. (forthcoming)

triggered through a variety of MTW agency

find that MTW agencies are more likely than

efforts. Our status group included just 9 of the

comparison PHAs to convert public housing

39 agencies that received MTW designation

units through RAD. The relationship between

as of 2018 because of missing administrative

RAD conversions and public housing quality

data for agencies that received MTW

merits future research.

designation prior to 2008. Future research

using the status group approach, however,

Implications for Research

could include the four agencies that received

designation in 2013 and the 100 agencies that

This study is the most exhaustive effort to

are expected to be designated through the

date to examine the aggregate effects of

MTW expansion.

MTW on housing choice and self-sufficiency

outcomes. A chal enge of this work was that

Second, this work provides a useful starting

assessing aggregate effects can be at odds

point for additional research focused on

with the inherent diversity of MTW agencies,

our selected MTW agencies that explores

activities, and local contexts. We adjusted

or refines the findings documented in this

for the complexity of the MTW program by

report. For example, qualitative work with the

selecting outcome measures that appear

MTW agencies that increase their assisted

relevant to a wide range of MTW agencies and

household portfolio over time can help identify

selecting two treatment group of agencies—

whether they attribute the growth to specific

one group of agencies that received MTW

flexibilities, policy reforms, or initiatives

designation at roughly the same time and

that al ow them to maximize the number of

another group of agencies engaged in specific

households served. This descriptive work

activities relevant to our outcomes of interest.

can help identify practices that may be useful

This approach provides a novel and useful

to test rigorously at other PHAs and lay the

framework for future research interested in

foundation for more rigorous, targeted MTW

capturing aggregate effects of MTW status

agency level or grouped impact analyses.

or activities for current and future cohorts of

In addition, as noted, ongoing quantitative

MTW agencies.

analysis of the measures found to have

promising results can help shed light on

First, we found both commonalities and

whether the positive trends continue. For this

differences between the two MTW agency

study, we had access to data through 2016.

grouping approaches. Both approaches may

By 2020, data will be available to assess an

be useful in different contexts, and some

additional outcomes period for the agencies

measures are more appropriate for status

already included in our analyses and for

versus activity-specific treatment group

7 post-period years for the four agencies

approaches. For example, measures of Family

that received designation in 2013. Similarly,

Self Sufficiency program participation or

our assessment of MTW agency activities

public housing quality improvements may

presented in appendix E provides a starting

benefit from activity-specific analyses because

point for more comprehensive agency-level

they require MTW agencies to be engaged in

analyses. Our grouped analysis approach

narrowly focused efforts or programs. Other

could not be as closely tailored to the diversity

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

46

Discussion and Conclusions

of MTW agency contexts as an agency-by-

about both existing agencies and new

agency analysis. A rigorous assessment of

agencies included in the MTW expansion.

outcomes for the individual agencies in our

activity-specific samples would require an

indepth accounting of local agency contexts,

goals, and programs—both to measure

outcomes precisely and to select appropriate

traditional comparison PHAs.

Third, it is clear from this study and others

that MTW agencies are undertaking many

varied and experimental activities, using a

range of approaches and in diverse local

contexts. Considerable work has been done

through the MTW retrospective evaluation

and other research to emphasize the breadth

of activities, partnerships, and goals the

MTW agencies are engaged in. Even when

care is taken to adjust for the diversity of

agencies and approaches, however, an

aggregate approach sheds little light on which

innovative practices might be taken to scale.

Additional rigorous research is needed on

individual MTW agency initiatives to tease

out promising activities or uses of MTW

flexibilities that hold the most promise to help

achieve the MTW program’s housing choice

or self-sufficiency goals. Examples of such

research include the study of the Santa Clara

Housing Authority conducted through the

retrospective MTW evaluation (Castel s, 2020);

Webb, Frescoln, and Rohe’s (2015) study of

work requirements at the Charlotte Housing

Authority; and the randomized control trial

study currently in progress at the Seattle and

King County, Washington’s neighborhood

mobility program.20 Other future work should

highlight promising Moving to Work agency

practices through mixed-methods research,

case studies of individual agency efforts, or

analyses of common approaches.

Final y, improved data and reporting

requirements and the use of randomized

control trials will greatly improve knowledge

20 For information on the Creating Moves to Opportunity program and research, see: http:/ creatingmoves.org/research/.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

47

Appendix A: MTW Agencies

Appendix A: MTW Agencies

Exhibit A: MTW Agency Program Entries and Exits

Agency

Year

Year

Exit

Notes

Selected

Signed

Birmingham

1996

1999

Never signed agreement

Cambridge

1996

1999

-

Chattanooga

1996

2003

Jobs-Plus demonstration only

Cherokee Nation

1996

1999

Never signed agreement

Cuyahoga

1996

2003

Jobs-Plus demonstration only

Dayton

1996

2003

Jobs-Plus demonstration only

Delaware

1996

1999

-

Greene

1996

2004

High Point

1996

2004

Keene

1996

1999

-

Lawrence-Douglas County

1996

1999

-

Lincoln

1996

1999

-

Los Angeles

1996

2003

Jobs-Plus demonstration only

Los Angeles County

1996

1999

Never signed agreement

Louisville

1996

1999

-

Massachusetts

1996

1999

-

Minneapolis

1996

1998

-

Portage

1996

1999

-

Portland

1996

1999

-

San Antonio

1996

1999

-

Original agreement was a small demonstration

San Diego

1996

1998/2009

2003 (rejoined Originally signed MTW agreement in 1996; termi-

in 2009)

nated in 2003 but rejoined in 2009.

San Mateo

1996

2000

-

Seattle

1996

1998

-

Stevens Point

1996

1999

Never signed agreement

Tampa

1996

1999

Never signed agreement

Tulare County

1996

1999

-

Utah Consortium

1996

1999

Never signed agreement

Vancouver

1996

1999

-

Charlotte

1999

2006

-

Interim agreement first signed in December 2006;

original agreement signed in December 2007

Pittsburgh

1999

2000

-

Atlanta

2000

2003

-

District of Columbia

2000

2003

-

King County

2000

2003

-

New Haven

2000

2001

-

Oakland

2000

2004

-

(continued)

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

A-1

Appendix A: MTW Agencies

Exhibit A: MTW Agency Program Entries and Exits (continued)

Agency

Year

Year

Exit

Notes

Selected

Signed

Philadelphia

2000

2002

-

Chicago

2000

2000

-

Baltimore

2008

2008 (see

note)

-

Joined 1996 as Jobs-Plus; participation ended in

2003 and re-joined 2008

Alaska

2008

2008

-

San Bernardino

2008

2008

-

San Jose

2008

2008

-

Santa Clara

2008

2008

-

Orlando

2009

2011

-

Tacoma

2009

2010

-

Champaign County

2009

2010

-

Boulder

2010

2011

-

Lexington

2010

2011

-

Columbus

2012

2013

-

Agreement executed in July 2013

Fairfax

2012

2013

-

Agreement executed in November 2013

Holyoke

2012

2013

-

Agreement executed in November 2013

Reno

2012

2013

-

Agreement executed in June 2013

MTW = Moving to Work.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

A-2

Appendix B: Ongoing Initiatives Related to Statutory Objectives

Appendix B: Ongoing to either housing choice or self-sufficiency

initiatives. This list reflects a systematic

Initiatives Related to review of MTW agency plans, done as a part

of the larger Urban MTW evaluation, up to

Statutory Objectives FY2015, and categorizes activities by statutory

objective, activity type, activity status, and

authorization category. Counts are for all MTW

agencies, not only those analyzed for this

Appendix exhibits B1 and B2 present the

report.

count of ongoing activities that MTW agencies

specified in their annual reports as related

Exhibit B1: Ongoing Housing Choice Initiatives

Activity type

Count

Local, non-traditional program (rental subsidy)

28

Local, non-traditional program (housing development)

20

Comprehensive PBV activities that incorporate multiple flexibilities

19

Local, non-traditional program (service provision)

9

Acquisition of public housing without prior HUD approval

8

Increase in household mobility

8

Local payment standards

7

Waitlist policies

7

Affordability at lease-up cap increase

6

Eligibility requirement alterations

5

Elimination of 25-percent development cap

4

Local homeownership program (voucher)

4

Time limit on housing assistance or occupancy

4

Alternate competitive process

3

Creation of local contracts/forms (for PBV program)

3

Elimination of 20-percent portfolio cap

3

Establishment of partnerships

3

Local, non-traditional program (homeownership)

3

Other resident services initiative

3

Preference alterations

3

HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. PBV = Project-Based Voucher.

Source: Counts of ongoing activities as described in agency MTW plans (active as of 2015) using the database created in the retrospective MTW evaluation, not including activities where activity type could not be identified. This table shows only activities appearing three or more times. Total number of active activities, including those occurring once or twice, is 186.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

B-1

Appendix B: Ongoing Initiatives Related to Statutory Objectives

Exhibit B2: Ongoing Self-Sufficiency Initiatives

Activity type

Count

Local, non-traditional program (service provision)

26

Alternate policy on the inclusion/exclusion of income to calculate rent

12

Alternate FSS program

11

Local, non-traditional program (rental subsidy)

11

Increase of minimum rent for work-able households

7

Work requirement

7

Establishment of partnerships

6

Mandatory FSS policy

6

Time limit on housing assistance or occupancy

5

Comprehensive rent reform activities

4

Earned Income Disregard (EID) alternative

4

Alternate recertification schedule for work-able households

3

EID elimination

3

Flat rent by $ or %

3

FSS = Family Self Sufficiency.

Source: Counts of ongoing activities as described in agency MTW plans (active as of 2015) using the database created in the retrospective MTW evaluation, not including activities where activity type could not be identified. This table shows only activities appearing three or more times. Total number of active activities, including those occurring once or twice, is 142.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

B-2

Appendix C: MTW Agencies by Activity-Specific Groups

Appendix C: MTW Agencies

by Activity-Specific Groups

Exhibit C: Activities Used to Select MTW Activity-Specific Group Agencies

PHA

Initiative Name

Start

Housing

year

Activity

Self-

sufficiency

choice

Simplification of Utility

Allowance Schedules

2011

Alternate utility calculation

(simplification/right-size)

Y

Alaska Housing Finance

Corporation

Raise HCV Maximum Fam-

ily Contribution at Lease-Up

2012

Affordability at lease-up cap

to 50 Percent

increase

Y

2009-7 Increase Acquisi-

tion and Rehabilitation

Acquisition of public hous-

of Existing Multi-Family

2009

ing without prior HUD

Y

Properties

approval

2009-8 Land Acquisition

Acquisition of public hous-

Charlotte Housing

for Future Use

2009

ing without prior HUD

Y

Authority

approval

2009-4 Community Based

Rental Assistance

2009

Local, non-traditional pro-

gram (rental subsidy)

Y

2010-1 Rent Reform and

Alternate income verifi-

Work Requirement

2010

cation policy and work

Y

requirement

Chicago Housing

2009-2: Public Housing

Authority

Work Requirement

2009

Work requirement

Y

Mandatory Local Family

Self-Sufficiency Program

2011

Mandatory FSS policy

Y

Housing Authority of

Champaign County

Tiered Flat Rents and Mini-

mum Rents by Bedroom

2011

Flat rent by $ or %

Y

Size

Home Forward (Port-

Measures to improve the

land, OR)

rate of voucher holders

2010

Alternate lease

Y

who successfully lease-up

Housing Authority of the Modified Rent Policy for the

City of Pittsburgh

Section 8 Housing Choice

2011

Mandatory FSS policy

Y

Voucher Program

Minimum Rent

2010

Increase of minimum rent

for work-able households

Y

Five-Year Lease Assistance

Housing Authority of

Program (formerly Term

2012

Time limit on housing as-

sistance or occupancy

Y

the County of San

Limits)

Bernardino

Comprehensive PBV

Local PBV Program

2010

activities that incorporate

Y

multiple flexibilities

Local Payment Standards

2012

Local payment standards

Y

(continued)

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

C-1

Appendix C: MTW Agencies by Activity-Specific Groups

Exhibit C: Activities Used to Select MTW Activity-Specific Group Agencies (continued)

PHA

Initiative Name

Start

Housing

year

Activity

Self-

sufficiency

choice

Change Automatic

Creation of local contracts/

Termination of HAP Contact

2012

Y

forms (other)

from 180 to 90 Days

Housing Authority

Commitment of MTW

of the County of San

Funds for Leveraging in

Local, non-traditional

Mateo

the Creation of Additional

2012

program (housing

Y

Affordable Housing in San

development)

Mateo County

2012-5: Expand Tenant

Services at HACSC- or

Local, non-traditional

2012

Y

Affiliate-Owned Affordable

program (service provision)

Housing Properties

Santa Clara County

2012-3 Create Affordable

Housing Authority /

Agency conducted

Housing Acquisition and

2012

Y

Housing Authority of

inspections

Development Fund

the City of San Jose

2012-4: Create Affordable

Housing Preservation Fund

Streamlining of

2012

Y

for HACSC and Affiliate

development

Owned Properties

King County Housing

Community Choice

Increase in household

2012

Y

Y

Authority

Program

mobility

Lexington-Fayette

HCV Tenant-Based Special

Time limit on housing

Urban County Housing

2012

Y

Partners Programs

assistance or occupancy

Authority

Lincoln Housing

Local, non-traditional

RentWise Tenant Education

2012

Y

Authority

program (service provision)

Louisville Metropolitan

Mandatory Case

2010

Mandatory FSS policy

Y

Housing Authority

Management

Massachusetts

Department of Housing Rent Simplification

2012

EID alternative

Y

and Community

Development

Alternate policy on the

2010-1: Public Housing

2011

inclusion/exclusion of

Y

Works Family Incentive

Minneapolis Public

income to calculate rent

Housing Authority

2009-6: Section 8 HCV

Increase in household

2010

Y

Mobility Voucher Program

mobility

(continued)

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

C-2

Appendix C: MTW Agencies by Activity-Specific Groups

Exhibit C: Activities Used to Select MTW Activity-Specific Group Agencies (continued)

PHA

Initiative Name

Start

Housing

year

Activity

Self-

sufficiency

choice

Program Extension for

Increase time a household

Households Receiving $0

2010

may remain in unit at the

Y

Oakland Housing

HAP

ceiling rent/zero HAP

Authority

Eliminate Caps on PBV

Allocations

2012

Elimination of 20% portfolio

cap

Y

Orlando Housing

$225 Rent Floor for Non-

Authority

elderly and Nondisabled

2012

Increase of minimum rent

Households

for work-able households

Y

Portage Metropolitan

Housing Authority

Maximum Rent

2009

Set maximum rent

Y

Y

San Antonio Housing

Preservation and Expansion

Authority

of Affordable Housing

2011

RHF related activity

Y

Adopt a local interim certifi-

cation policy

2011

Alternate income verifica-

tion policy

Y

Acquisition of additional

Acquisition of public hous-

affordable units

2010

ing without prior HUD

Y

San Diego Housing

approval

Commission

Development of public

Acquisition of public hous-

housing units using a com-

2010

ing without prior HUD

Y

bination of funds

approval

Choice Communities Com-

ponent

2010

Comprehensive rent reform

activities

Y

Local Policies for Work-Able

Households

2012

Comprehensive rent reform

activities

Y

Tacoma Housing

Authority

Creation and Preservation

Local, non-traditional

of Affordable Housing:

2012

program (housing develop-

Y

ment)

Encourage Self Sufficiency

and Transition of Pre-

1999 Families to the MTW

2009

Mandatory FSS policy

Y

Tulare County Housing Program

Authority

Development of Additional

Acquisition of public hous-

Affordable Housing

2009

ing without prior HUD

Y

approval

Renter Education Required

for Applicants

2009

Eligibility requirement

alterations

Y

Y

Vancouver Housing

Authority

Simplified utility allowance

schedule in HCV program

2009

Alternate utility calculation

FY

(simplification/right-size)

Y

Y

EID = Earned Income Disregard. FSS = Family Self Sufficiency. HACSC = Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. HAP = Housing Assistance Payment.

HCV = Housing Choice Voucher. MTW = Moving to Work. PBV = Project-Based Voucher. PHA = Public housing agency. RHF=Replacement Housing Factor Fund Grants.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

C-3

Appendix D: Methodology

Appendix D:

is discussed in more detail in this report’s

methodology chapter above.

Methodology

Second, we address the timing-related

condition by dividing the post-treatment

years into two distinct periods: an initial

Comparative Interrupted Time Series analysis

implementation period from 2009 to 2012,

involves observing and analyzing an outcome

and a subsequent mature implementation

variable over multiple periods before and after

period from 2013 to 2016. The initial

the introduction of an intervention expected

implementation period includes every year

to interrupt that variable’s level or trend. If an

where MTW agencies in our sample either

intervention has an effect, the post-treatment

joined MTW or implemented an activity

series will have a different level or slope than

related to housing choice or self-sufficiency.

the pre-treatment series. CITS analyses rely

During this period, not every agency in the

on multiple years of pre- and post-treatment

grouped analysis would have already joined

data to measure both levels and trends of

MTW or implemented a new activity, so we

the indicators of interest. More years of data

expect MTW-related results from this initial

help uncover cyclical patterns and control

period of analysis to be relatively weaker. By

for potential outlier years. Pre-treatment data

the later 2013–2016 period, all agencies in our

points are especial y important because they

grouped samples would have already joined

create a baseline set of levels and trends

MTW or would have implemented potential y

for analysis and are also used to identify a

significant policies. It is in this period where

comparison group.

we would expect any MTW-related effects to

be more robust. Third, our grouped analysis

To be valid, CITS requires three conditions:

compares the MTW groups of agencies with a

1. The policy intervention (also cal ed

group of traditional agencies with similar pre-

“treatment” in this report) must be

treatment levels and trends for the indicators

consequential.

of interest. This comparison group varies

by indicator. The pre-treatment levels and

2. It must be implemented at one time.

trends for a given indicator of the averaged

3. The selected comparison group needs to

MTW group are used to match with traditional

be in a similar context.

public housing agencies that have similar

We account for consequentiality by analyzing

pre-treatment levels and trends. We discuss

the effects of MTW in two ways. The first,

the procedure in more detail below. This

measuring the effects of MTW status, is

matching process does not generally include

designed to ask this exact question. The

other agency characteristics.21 The diversity

second, measuring the effect of MTW

of MTW agencies in a given group (such as

activities, is limited to agencies that not only

their relative size, household characteristics,

implemented activities related to housing

housing mix, and geographic contexts)

choice or self-sufficiency but is also further

means that any matching indicators beyond

limited to activities that could plausibly

the indicators of interest would be based on

affect a given outcome of interest through

composite averages. This would result in a

an intended effect on a sizeable share of the

comparison group of traditional agencies less

agency’s households. This selection process

closely matched on pre-treatment levels and

trends of the indicator of interest, but more

21 We include percent of households in public housing as a control variable for the housing quality indicator and share of households that are work-able as a control variable for the share of work-able households with minimal Housing Assistance Payment. We do this to improve the matching process for those indicators.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

D-1

Appendix D: Methodology

closely matched on the composite averages of

to pre-treatment, and

other indicators.22 Our CITS model takes the

following form:23

e = a random error term.

t

Y = β + β T +β X +β X T + β Z+ β ZT + β

The differences in the level (β ) and the

4

t

0

1 t

2

t

3

t t

4

5

t

6

ZX + β ZX T +e

slope (β ) between the Moving to Work

5

t

7

t t

t

group and the comparison group of matched

Where:

agencies represent the outcomes of the

matching analysis, designed to result in a

X = a dummy variable measuring treatment

t

matched group with no statistically significant

(0=pre-treatment; 1=post-treatment)

differences in either the level or the trend.

Y = the value of the outcome variable in year

t

The matched group of traditional agencies

t ,

identified for a given indicator was identified

T = the number of years since the start of

through a Stata protocol (itsamatch) designed

t

treatment,

to identify a comparison group based on

balanced pre-treatment levels (β ) and trends

4

Z = a dummy variable for treatment

(β ), with balance defined by a minimum

5

assignment (treatment = 1; control = 0),

significance value (p-value). Our baseline

indicator of significance was a p-value greater

β = the level (intercept) for the control group,

0

than 0.10. For indicators with relatively little

β = the slope of the baseline trend for the

variation across agencies, initial matching

1

control group,

produced too many matches to result in a

successful analysis, so in those cases we

β = the change in the level of the outcome

2

increased the minimum p-value stepwise

that occurs in the period immediately

using an iterative process.

fol owing the introduction of the treatment,

The outcome indicators analyzed in this report

β = the difference between pre-treatment

3

represent a subset of all those considered

and post-treatment slopes of the outcome,

for the analysis. Our selection of a final set of

β = the difference in the level of the outcome

indicators was based on an effort to remove

4

variable between treatment and controls

redundancy and select indicators that could

prior to the intervention,

be measured rigorously with available data.

In addition, other studies included in the

β = the difference in the slope of the

retrospective MTW evaluation are assessing

5

outcome variable between treatment and

the total number of households served

controls prior to the intervention,

by MTW agencies. The list of indicators

considered but excluded from our final

β = the difference between treatment and

6

analyses are—

control groups in the level of the outcome

variable immediately post-treatment,

• Housing choice—

»

β = the difference between treatment and

Measuring whether MTW agencies are

7

control groups in the slope/trend of the

serving more households (selected

outcome variable post-treatment compared

indicator: share of households that

are new): number of total households

22 Our agency-by-agency analyses, presented in appendix E, however, do use propensity score matching techniques based on agency characteristics to further refine comparison groups. For these analyses, because the comparison group is being matched to a single MTW agency, introducing other characteristics to refine matching is appropriate.

23 This largely fol ows Linden (2015).

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

D-2

Appendix D: Methodology

served, annual change in the number

of total households, number of new

households.

» Measuring whether households in

MTW agencies are reaching lower-

poverty neighborhoods (selected

indicator: share of tenant-based

vouchers in low-poverty census tracts):

average census tract poverty rate

of assisted households (all voucher

households), share of households

in low-poverty census tracts (al

households; all voucher households).

• Self-sufficiency—

» Measuring MTW’s effect on household

income (selected indicator: share of

existing work-able households with

total household income higher than

year of entry, controlling for inflation):

share of work-able households (new

and existing) with any wage income,

share of work-able households with

wage income higher than year of entry,

average work-able household income

(new and existing), share of work-able

households with decreasing income.

» Measuring MTW’s effect on self-

sufficiency programming uptake

(selected indicator: share of existing

work-able households with escrow

account): of households with an

escrow account, the average dollar

amount in escrow account.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

D-3

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Appendix E:

The comparison group for each agency is

different for each indicator (because they are

Individual MTW

matched on levels and trends of the selected

indicator) and range in size from as little as

Agency Analyses

1 to more than 25 (see the row “Matches” in

the exhibits). The comparison groups are also

different depending on whether the analysis

year (i.e., the year that the treatment begins)

We present individual-level analyses for all

is the year after the agency joined MTW

MTW agencies included in this study. The list

or the year after the agency implemented

of activities used to select MTW agencies

specific activities. The column heading in the

for the MTW activity-specific groups is in

table indicates which definition of treatment

exhibit C.

is being used: “MTW-status” shows data

For the individual-level analyses, we use

based on the year after the agency joined

propensity score matching to create a pool

the MTW demonstration and “MTW activity-

of comparison traditional PHAs for each

specific” shows data based on the year after

MTW agency. Specifical y, we generate

the agency implemented specific activities

25 traditional PHA matches (again only

intended to promote housing choice or self-

including traditional PHAs with more than 500

sufficiency.

households) using the 2008 values for the

Note that the analysis could not be run for al

share of housing assistance that was tenant-

indicators because of missing or unreliable

based, total households, and the Fair Market

data. Baltimore appears in Appendix

Rent (FMR). For each outcome measure,

E, but it was not included in any of the

we then apply propensity score matching,

grouped analyses in this study because the

selecting traditional agencies from the 25

data needed for selected indicators was

that most closely match the pre-treatment

deemed unreliable.

levels and trends of the MTW agency. In

some cases, this matching process resulted

in a comparison group with significantly

different pre-treatment levels and/or trends

for an outcome measure, suggesting a poor

match. For these cases, we broadened the

comparison group by selecting a pool of 100

traditional comparison PHAs using propensity

score matching based only on the 2008

share of housing assistance that was tenant-

based. This gave us a larger pool of potential

matches, so that we could choose comparison

agencies that were closer to the MTW agency

on pre-treatment measures.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

E-1

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Here is a key to the row labels:

Category

Category of activity (housing choice or self-sufficiency) and group type (MTW-status

or MTW activity-specific)

Indicator

The selected indicator of housing choice or self-sufficiency

Summary

2012

Values for selected indicators for the agency in 2012

2016

Values for selected indicators for the agency in 2016

First Year

The first year for which we have PIC data for the analysis

Starting Value The value of the indicator in the First Year

Linear Trend

Pre

The MTW agency’s trend on the indicator before the analysis year

Post

The MTW agency’s trend on the indicator after the analysis year

CITS Output

Pre Trend

Estimate of difference between MTW and comparison trend before analysis year

Post Trend

Estimate of difference between MTW and comparison trend after analysis year

Pre Level

Estimate of difference between MTW and comparison level before analysis year

Post Level

Estimate of difference between MTW and comparison level after analysis year

Post Trend Sig p-value for difference between MTW and comparison trend after analysis year

(analogous to a difference of differences)

Post Level Sig p-value for difference between MTW and comparison level after analysis year

Analysis Year The year of the treatment (i.e., year after joining MTW or year after activities were first implemented)

CITS p-value Indicates if the overall model has a statistical y significant relationship with the dependent variable

Matches

The number of traditional PHAs in the comparison group

These individual agency results are provided

as a point of reference and are useful for

identifying agencies where outcomes differ

from the larger MTW agency group. The

agency-level information are snapshots of

agency-level activity and are not intended to

be definitive evaluations of agency progress

towards the statutory objectives or activities.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

E-2

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Alaska Housing Finance Corporation

Housing Choice

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

6,680

910

21.6%

76.2%

$1,053

$23,131

$27,247

Summary

2016

7,343

1,415

19.7%

76.5%

$1,292

$25,277

$34,025

Category

Housing Choice (MTW activity-specific)

Self-Sufficiency (MTW-status)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

workable house-

are new*

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)*

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow

HAP

HAP that leave

2012

13.9%

30

2016

20.2%

34

Summary

First Year

2001

2005

Starting Value

24.1%

25

Pre

-0.01

0.62

Linear Trend

Post

0.04

1.40

Constant

-0.01

0.86

Pre Trend

0.003

-0.32

Post Trend

0.02

3.55

Pre Level

0.02

0.26

Post Level

-0.04

2.61

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.000

0.104

Post Level Sig.

0.041

0.559

Analysis Year

2013

2013

CITS p-value

0.1

0.3

Matches

33

9

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For indicators with an asterisk, this matching process resulted in a comparison group with significantly different pre-treatment trends and/or levels. For these cases we broadened the comparison group by selecting a universe of 100 traditional comparison PHAs and conducting propensity score matching based only on the 2008 share of total households with tenant-based vouchers. For MTW activity-specific CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after the most recent activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O U S I

H N

O G

U C

S I H

N O

G I C

C E

H A

O

HIN

C

O D

E

U SS

AI

H E

N

O LUF

D

G S-CIS

S U

E

NL

H F

O

G F-

IC IS

C CU

E

H I E

FA

O I N

F I

NC C

D

E Y

I A

ES O

N

E U

C

L F

D T

Y-SC

SE O

OUL M

UFTF- ECI

S S

CU

OI A

E

F T

MFE

NI M

S

C Y

I T

A

E W

T

O

N C

U A

MT

Y G

TC E

W

O

O N

U C

A

MT EI

G

C E

S

O SN

A CT

M I

E E

S S

M T

A W

T A

M G

T E

WN

C

A I

G E S

N C I E S

7 2 7 2

7 2 7 2

E-3

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Alaska Housing Finance Corporation

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency

Fair Market Rent Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

(FMR) (2016

dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

6,680

910

21.6%

76.2%

$1,053

$23,131

$27,247

Summary

2016

7,343

1,415

19.7%

76.5%

$1,292

$25,277

$34,025

Category

Housing Choice (MTW activity-specific)

Self-Sufficiency (MTW-status)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable households

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)

with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow

HAP

HAP that leave

2012

13.9%

30

47.7%

2.7%

2.7%

50.7%

2016

20.2%

34

60.9%

1.2%

9.1%

89.9%

Summary

First Year

2001

2005

2001

2001

2001

2001

Starting Value

24.1%

25

56.1%

0.0%

3.0%

51.6%

Pre

-0.01

0.30

0.002

0.003

0.01

-0.01

Linear Trend

Post

0.002

1.51

-0.002

0.001

0.01

0.09

Constant

-0.014

0.50

-0.004

0.01

0.02

0.02

Pre Trend

0.004

-0.10

-0.004

-0.001

-0.002

-0.002

Post Trend

-0.005

0.46

-0.003

0.001

0.01

0.08

Pre Level

0.04

-0.30

0.01

-0.004

0.03

0.04

Post Level

0.02

-2.67

0.03

0.004

-0.01

-0.24

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.561

0.293

0.879

0.857

0.451

0.000

Post Level Sig.

0.686

0.061

0.608

0.731

0.901

0.004

Analysis Year

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

CITS p-value

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.01

0.2

Matches

4

5

10

10

3

19

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For MTW status CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

H O U S I

H N

O G

U C

S I H

N O

G I C

C E

H A

O

HIN

C

O D

E

U SS

AI E

N

H L

OF

D

G

H-

U S

S

CO

H U

EI L

HO F

O

NS

H F-

IG

U S

O

HIS

CN

HCU

E

C

U

O

H

G

HI

H

O

NSHE

FAC

GI

UU

OO N

F

O N

SU

O I

NH

SU C

D

CGN

SS

U ISY

I E

O

HG

N I

C

NES

G

NN

EA

C

O I

HC

G

N

G H

OC

LN

EC

G

O

H ous

UFI

CT

Y

H-

D

A

E

O

H

C C

S

C

HS

NAE

I

O IO

H i

OU

C

O n

OU

E

DNCI

O EII g

FLS

D

A E

CC C

MTF E

CECI

N-

ES

AA

E E ho

S

CLE

D

N

A

OI

N

A E

U

F -

LS

DN

A ic

A

MFS

E

D

N D

N e

TE

N-

DFLE

S

D a

M

S

CI

UFE YC

F-

LSS n

ULET

A IFSL

EE dTOEI

F-F-F

LL S

W

C

F

USIS-

F

U

NIF- e

MT

CEF

UU

SS- lAIFS fTYF

U -G

C

N

U

EF S

CE

W

O

C

F

UI

F uffic

NIN

OYE

C

F I

F

CI

CF C

A

MUE

Y

NI

C I

G

T

O C

EI ie

E

S

NEI

CU

OYC

NEE nc

SN

OT

N

AC

NCT

UO

Y

N Y

CC y

TI

MY

C O

E

OC

U

Y YS

MTU

O ut

M

O TA

E

CT

UU

OO c

WS

MOC

TU o

U

TEC m

AM

S

M

OC

T E

O

CC e

GT

T

M

O

AS

M

O sET E

M

O at

N

W

M A

S

EE

MM T

SEE M

C

MA

S I

A A

S E

W

TA

S o

G S

W

MTA T

A v

E

AT

M i

M

T n

NGA

W

T

M g

CE

T

M I

GT

M t

NE

A

WT

WT o

EC

GA

W W

S

N

W IAE

C

EGA

W I

G

A oS

NEE

G

A r

EC

G kSI

NN

EE

G A

E

C IC

NN g

SI

N E

C I

C eS

EE

I

C I nc

S S

EE S ie

S s

7 3 7 3

7 3

7 3 7 3 73 7 3

7 3

7 3

77 37

3 3

E-4

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Boulder Housing Partners

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

1,233

85

28.4%

63.9%

$1,032

$19,121

$19,447

Summary

2016

1,297

219

3.8%

63.8%

$1,381

$21,584

$24,653

Category

Housing Choice (MTW-status)

Self-Sufficiency (MTW-status)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow

HAP

HAP that leave

2012

6.9%

30.8%

26

53.4%

7.2%

1.0%

75.0%

2016

17.0%

26.0%

N/A

60.5%

4.3%

16.4%

85.5%

Summary

First Year

2001

2005

2005

2001

2002

2001

2001

Starting Value

11.9%

36.4%

24

57.5%

4.5%

1.3%

75.0%

Pre

-0.004

-0.01

0.17

-0.01

-0.001

0.001

-0.04

Linear Trend

Post

0.04

-0.01

2.50

0.01

-0.004

0.03

0.01

Constant

-0.01

-0.03

0.87

-0.01

-0.002

0.005

-0.03

Pre Trend

0.003

0.01

-0.22

-0.002

0.001

-0.004

-0.01

Post Trend

0.03

-0.02

2.22

-0.003

-0.004

0.03

-0.01

Pre Level

-0.01

-0.02

0.97

-0.01

0.03

-0.01

0.14

Post Level

-0.03

0.10

-9.04

-0.03

-0.01

0.04

0.19

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.009

0.085

0.003

0.870

0.578

0.000

0.805

Post Level Sig.

0.263

0.033

0.000

0.501

0.535

0.183

0.185

Analysis Year

2012

2012

2012

2012

2012

2012

2012

CITS p-value

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.0001

0.2

Matches

16

2

9

1

7

4

3

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. We removed 2015 and 2016 from the analysis for housing quality due to missing data. For these MTW status analyses, the analysis year is the year after joining the MTW

demonstration.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O UHS I

O N

UHG

S I

O C

N

U

H H

G

S I

O O

C

N

U IS

H C

H

GI

O E

OC

NU I

HAC

H

GS I N

E

O

C

O U

HH D

I

HA

HGS

OO

H

CI

U

O

H S

N

E

O

U I

CS

O

UE

NIS

U I

USL

DC

HS

U

A

GINS F

S

N

EI

N

OGI

N-EI

C

N

G

NSL

D

A

G

C

H

G

N U

GFS

NE

C

G

G

C

OHCF

-E

DI

HC F

SL

AC

O

H I

O

HIUF

SNE

O

H CF-

ED

CI

OI

C ISLI

O

A

ECE

F EIIU

FS E

C N

C

NCF

-E

AA E

A C

IF

SL

DA

NN

AAY

EI

UFS

D

A

N-

N

D

N

N

C

FEO

C

IFS

D

N E

I

LS

D U

YC

UF

EE

S

D S

E

N-

LSET

I

FELFS

LE

SLC

O

CELFIU

-

FE -F

L O

U

YL

NC

S-

FSI

FS-FM

TC

USC

OY

E

FUS-IFUSE

O

U NC

F

FU S

TOCI

F

U IF

F CEF

FIA

MI E

UYI

C I

FICT

NIS

OTEEI

C

C

ONI

EM

A

MEIE

O

U

Y

NE

CN

E T

S

T

CN

O

YC

NW

MYM

A

YE

C O

U

YC Y S

OYA

T M

UU

OO

O G

W

M

A

CE

TT

U

OU

U E

T

T

OC

U SC

T

U N

AM

T A

M

OO

CC

T

C C

G

W T

EM

O

C I

E

O

S

M

O E

N

AW

E

M

OM

M SC

G

M

M

ASE

M

EI

EA

TS E

N

AA

S S

A S

G

W

TA

A

MTA

CE

A IT

A

T E

N

A

MM

T T

MS

C

G

W

T

M

MT IE

T

M E

A

W

TT

M

T S

N

W

W

T C

GA

WIE

A

W

A E

GG

A A

A S

NE

AE

G

A

C

G I

NEG E

C

NN

E

N SI

CNI

C E

C

NCIS

EI

C I

CE S

EI S

EE

E S S

7 4 7 4 74

7 4 7 4 7 4 77 47 4

7 4

77

7 4 4

E-5

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Charlotte Housing Authority

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

10,957

913

35.6%

59.1%

$827

$14,536

$15,222

Summary

2016

10,144

1,861

23.2%

57.6%

$864

$13,886

$16,602

Category

Housing Choice (MTW activity-specific)

Self-Sufficiency (MTW activity-specific)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable households

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)

with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow

HAP

HAP that leave

2012

9.9%

9.1%

31

50.4%

2.6%

1.8%

47.7%

2016

19.5%

10.9%

23

49.2%

32.1%

5.6%

71.4%

Summary

First Year

2001

2001

2005

2001

2002

2001

2001

Starting Value

15.4%

11.2%

24

47.0%

1.1%

3.0%

10.8%

Pre

-0.01

0.001

0.29

0.01

0.004

-0.001

0.02

Linear Trend

Post

0.01

0.003

-0.07

0.01

0.06

-0.004

-0.001

Constant

-0.01

0.002

0.20

0.01

0.004

0.01

0.001

Pre Trend

0.002

0.002

0.20

0.0003

0.001

-0.01

0.02

Post Trend

0.004

0.001

0.74

-0.005

0.05

0.01

-0.05

Pre Level

-0.0220

-0.06

-0.27

-0.01

-0.01

-0.02

-0.17

Post Level

0.02

-0.03

-3.65

-0.03

-0.07

0.15

0.14

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.511

0.936

0.716

0.613

0.000

0.622

0.113

Post Level Sig.

0.325

0.682

0.429

0.327

0.076

0.013

0.286

Analysis Year

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

CITS p-value

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.01

0.2

Matches

11

7

3

4

4

4

11

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For MTW activity-specific CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after the most recent activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O U S

H I

O N

U G

S

H I

O C

NU

H H

GS

O O

IU I

C

NS

H C

HGI

OE

O

N

UI

C A

GC

H

H SINEO

C

OHHD

I

HG

UO

HH

H

AC

S

O SN

OE

OI

U

OI

U

O E

C C

NS

UI

S

UU

U L

DHI

US

A

GSS

SIIFSN

EIS

O

NII

N -EI

C

G

N S

A

G

NL

DCH

N

GG U

GFS

NE

C

G

C F-E

D

OH

C I

HCF

SLS

AC

O

H IN

O

H C

UFEI

OF

EI- C

O I

O I

L

DC E

F

S AECIS

EC

C NC

U- ESE

NA

E E CI

F

AF

U

L

DA

N

A Y

EI

NF

FSD

N

A

N NC-

D O

C

EI

F

DSL

S

D

D U

Y

EC

UF

E

SS S

SET

NIF-LE

SE

EL C

OC

EFSLI-

FLL

LF O

U

Y

N-F C

CF

S-

FSM

TI- C

OYEF

USS

SU E

U N

IF

UF S

OT

OC

CF I

FF

F IFA

MC

UEFIE

Y

CIF I

C T

TS

O

NE

IC I

C I

C

OEI

E M

A

M

NEE

O

UY

NEN

N T

S

M

T

C

NN

NC W

Y

C M

C

O A

EU

YY

C S

OY A

T

O

M

U

OG

W

AC

U

OT

EU

O

U E

MTS

OCT

U

T N

A

T C

T W

M

T

CA

MO

C

TC

CO

TEOA

O S

M

O

M G

WE

M

MAS

E

M

ME

E E

AT

SEES N

G

A

SS

A C

E

WA

M

TAA

AT IT E

N

AM

T S

C

G

M I

WT

M

TE

ET

M

T S

N

A

WT

W C

G

W I

A

W E

EG

A

A S

NE

GAG

G C

E

GG

G I

NE EC

NEN

N S

NI

CNC E

CC

CIIS

EIIIE

E

SES

E S

7 5 75 75 75 7 5

77

7

5

7 5

7 5

E-

C

G I

E 6ENS CIES

7 5 7 5

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Charlotte Housing Authority

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency

Average household

Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars) income (new workable)

(2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

dollars)

2012

10,957

913

35.6%

59.1%

$827

$14,536

$15,222

Summary

2016

10,144

1,861

23.2%

57.6%

$864

$13,886

$16,602

Category

Housing Choice (MTW activity-specific)

Self-Sufficiency (MTW-status)

Share of TBV

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing work-

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

households in low-

Housing quality

workable households

workable households

are new

poverty census

(PASS)

with increasing

workable households

able households with

with minimal HAP that

tracts

income

with escrow

minimal HAP

leave

2012

9.9%

9.1%

31

50.4%

2.6%

1.8%

47.7%

2016

19.5%

10.9%

23

49.2%

32.1%

5.6%

71.4%

Summary

First Year

2001

2001

2005

2001

2002

2001

2001

Starting Value

15.4%

11.2%

24

47.0%

1.1%

3.0%

10.8%

Pre

-0.01

0.01

0.60

0.01

0.01

-0.001

0.04

Linear Trend

Post

0.01

-0.002

0.43

-0.01

0.04

0.004

0.01

Constant

-0.01

-0.01

1.33

0.012

0.01

-0.002

0.01

Pre Trend

-0.0004

0.02

-0.33

-0.002

0.002

0.001

0.04

Post Trend

0.01

-0.02

-0.63

-0.009

0.03

0.01

-0.03

Pre Level

-0.02

-0.07

0.11

-0.003

-0.02

-0.02

-0.20

Post Level

0.003

-0.07

1.40

0.01

-0.06

-0.03

-0.05

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.075

0.213

0.551

0.218

0.001

0.308

0.459

Post Level Sig.

0.863

0.225

0.628

0.829

0.228

0.574

0.763

Analysis Year

2008

2008

2008

2008

2008

2008

2008

CITS p-value

0.2

0.1

0.01

0.3

0.1

0.01

0.2

Matches

11

6

3

5

3

2

8

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For MTW status CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

H O UHS I

O N

U

H G

S

OH I

U C

NS

O H

G

IU

H O

N

O C

S I I

G

UHC

H

NS IE

O

CG

O

H

H I

H

NUOAC

O

CGSU

O

H N

EI

H S

UO

H D

C

NIS

HA

COI

UH

EI

H

GNS

U

O

HS

N

C

OG

NI

O

H E

A

UI

C

GNU

O L

D S

NC

HIUF

SD

AEO

C

GS NIS-E

H

G I

HIS

NCL

A

OC

G

NN U

CFE

DI

O

H G

N

NEIC

G F

-LS

CC

O

H

G F

SE

DEI

H

AE

OCI

C IU-LS

CO

H C

HF

SE

NAA

CIO

H I-

D

N EC

OE

F

UL IIS

NAECN

C

FS

DFU-E

D

AC

NE C

IF

SL

D

N

A E Y

EC N

A I

F

UL

E

DA

NIF-

SN O

C

E

L

DF

S

FE

N I-

FE

D H

U

Y

NIUS-

LS D EFL ous

T

CSEI

FU-FLESC

O

Y

NF

U C

EF-F

SLE i

USL n

IFO

-T

OY

N

F

ULIF g

CU

CI

F

U-- C

M

ISC-T

OY

ESI

C

F

US IF

S ho

E

O

NF

US

C

U

EEIF

U

MT

ONICF ic

CIA

FE

OC

U

NEI

FF e

M

Y T

CN

E

F I a

CTS

YI

C E

OC

Y

NI

C I n

OA

E S

M

O

C

EI d

M

UT

N

O

YEN

E S

T A

EYCS

M

UUOC

N e

W

M

T

C E

TT

O

C l

Y

U

Y f

A

CY -

TSCU

Y S

OA

MT

O uffic

O G

WT

A

M E

OC

TUOE

M

TS

MM

O

C

UUN

A

W EC

T

U

TE

O ie

TC

GA

M

S SM

C nc

AE

OCI

E

WTA

OE

N

G A

SE

M

O

O y

E

A

W

T T

S

M O

SC

E

MAI

N

G A

M

MT

EE ut

S E

TC

M

SSI

G

TS c

S

W

A

NTM

A o

EC

WA m

T S

M I

A

W

T

NT

T e

EC

AA

W

M

s

G

M SIG

W

M at

ET E

GA

T

M S

EEA

T M

N

W

N

G

W C

NE

G

W o

A I

CN

E

A v

GEI

G

A i

N n

ES

E

CGIE

G g

S

C

NE EI tE

NN o

S

C I

N

C W

SI

C E

C I o

SE r S k Agencies

C I E S

E S

7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 77

66 767

6767 7 6

7 6

E-7

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Chicago Housing Authority

Self-Sufficiency

Average household

Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars) income (new workable)

(2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

dollars)

2012

57,894

4,277

33.0%

60.7%

$1,001

$18,258

$19,313

Summary

2016

66,387

7,815

26.0%

65.3%

$1,176

$18,557

$19,006

Category

Housing Choice

Self-Sufficiency (MTW activity-specific)

Share of TBV

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing work-

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that households in low-

Housing quality

workable households

workable households

are new

poverty census

(PASS)

with increasing

workable households

able households with

with minimal HAP that

tracts

income

with escrow*

minimal HAP

leave

2012

52.9%

2.7%

1.1%

47.9%

2016

50.6%

0.80%

3.3%

72.4%

Summary

First Year

2007

2007

2007

2007

Starting Value

59.1%

5.4%

1.5%

55.8%

Pre

-0.07

-0.01

0.11

0.08

Linear Trend

Post

0.01

-0.003

-0.04

-0.01

Constant

0.02

-0.01

-0.001

-0.003

Pre Trend

-0.0003

-0.01

-0.001

-0.07

Post Trend

0.01

-0.0004

-0.04

0.05

Pre Level

0.01

0.03

-0.11

0.01

Post Level

-0.10

0.01

0.28

0.38

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.476

0.954

0.679

0.343

Post Level Sig.

0.156

0.458

0.212

0.018

Analysis Year

2010

2010

2010

2010

CITS p-value

0.2

0.1

0.01

0.2

Matches

2

8

1

9

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For indicators with an asterisk, this matching process resulted in a comparison group with significantly different pre-treatment trends and/or levels. For these cases we broadened the comparison group by selecting a universe of 100 traditional comparison PHAs and conducting propensity score matching based only on the 2008 share of total households with tenant-based vouchers. For MTW activity-specific CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after the most recent activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O U S I N G C H H

O O

H

I U

O

H

C E SU

O

H I

HAN

S

U

O IS

ONG

N

UIS

UD

H IC

G

NS

O ISH

C

G

NU G

NE

U O

H

C

S G

LI

S IH

C

FNC

OC-

N I

HEC

OS

G I

H

G

O

U A

E

CI

O

C I

F N

A

EC

H E

C

F

HID

N

A EC

O I

O AIS

D

NC

AEE

NS

DE

N

E LS

D

N F

E ALE

DCA -

SY

N S

FLES -

DU

FES

L

D-L

O FU

S

F - FUS-T

E IS

L C

F

U

C I

F I

F

UO-E

CIFSI

FS NE

CIF

MI

U C

N

E

CEIS

F YC

N

EI

F I

F EAIO

Y

C

N YC

NTI

C U

O Y

CE TU

O Y

MN CT

U

O

T O

C

T

U

OW

Y M

O

CT

U TA

OE

M

O

CC

O S

G

UE

M

O

U

OE

T E-

A

SE

M

N

C T

SE

M C8

A

O S

EI

O M

T

A S TA

E

M T

M

A

SE

E W

T

M

S

S T

MA A

W

M

A

T G

A

W

T EG

A

W

W

M NE

G

A

T C

N

E

G

AW IE

G

W E

C

N I

EAS

AE

C

N I

N

GSE

C

GIE SE

CEI SE

N S

C IE

I S

E

S

7 7

7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

7 7

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Home Forward (Portland)

Housing Choice

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

12,276

954

23.2%

71.6%

$931

$17,308

$19,650

Summary

2016

12,594

1,340

17.6%

77.6%

$1,208

$19,486

$21,609

Category

Housing Choice (MTW activity-specific)

Self-Sufficiency

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow

HAP

HAP that leave

2012

7.8%

4.9%

34

2016

10.8%

13.5%

35

Summary

First Year

2007

2006

2005

Starting Value

23.8%

9.4%

27

Pre

-0.04

-0.01

0.64

Linear Trend

Post

0.004

0.02

0.54

Constant

-0.04

-0.01

1.60E-14

Pre Trend

-0.02

-0.002

-3.40E-14

Post Trend

0.02

0.004

0.54

Pre Level

0.03

-0.003

4.50

Post Level

0.02

-0.011

-3.86

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.207

0.609

0.562

Post Level Sig.

0.601

0.571

0.314

Analysis Year

2011

2011

2011

CITS p-value

0.1

0.01

0.1

Matches

2

3

2

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For these MTW activity-specific CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after the most recent activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O U S

H I N

O UGS

H I

O C

N

U

H H

G

S

O O

IU I

C

NS

H C

H

GI

OE

N

OC

U A

IH

G

H SIN

C E

O

C

O D

I

HG

U

AC

S SE

OI IE

N

C C

N L

D

H

A

G F

ES

N

O -I

C S

ED

ACHU

L NFS

E F

O-E

D IF

SL

AC I

NC

UFE- I

FL

D E

F

S ASN

I-C

US

E

N C

FIF

U

L

D Y

EIF

FS C-O

NEC

I

FSL U

Y

EC

UF T

NIF- C

O

C

EFSI O

U

Y

N

U C

CFM

TI C

OYE

F E

U N

I S

OT

OC

C I A

M

C

UY

E T

EO

TN

SC

O M

A

M E

O

UY T

S

M

T W

C

O A

EU

MS

O A

T

MG

W

ACT

E E

M S

O N

A

TM

C

G

W

A

TE IE

T SE

A

W S

NG

MA

C I

E

AT E

N

G SE

W

M

C ITE

N

A S

C

GI

W E

E S

N

A C

G I E

E S

N C I E S

7 8 78 78 7 8 78 78

E-9

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Housing Authority of Baltimore City

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

25,444

2,178

43.3%

48.7%

$1,287

$18,947

$21,200

Summary

2016

26,574

3,086

33.5%

57.5%

$1,298

$17,454

$21,079

Category

Housing Choice (MTW activity-specific)

Self-Sufficiency (MTW-status)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

workable house-

are new*

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts*

(PASS)*

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income*

holds with escrow*

HAP*

HAP that leave*

2012

8.6%

12.8%

26

57.4%

1.0%

0.3%

67.7%

2016

11.7%

16.1%

24

56.4%

1.2%

4.2%

76.1%

Summary

First Year

2008

2008

2008

2008

2007

2007

2007

Starting Value

39.1%

9.0%

20

49.7%

1.6%

8.9%

84.2%

Pre

-0.12

0.01

0.00

0.03

-0.002

-0.02

-0.04

Linear Trend

Post

-0.001

0.01

0.68

0.004

0.0001

-0.001

-0.01

Constant

-0.01

0.01

-1.53E-14

0.06

0.0001

0.001

-0.11

Pre Trend

-0.04

0.01

6.51E-14

0.002

-0.001

-0.03

-0.01

Post Trend

0.04

0.003

0.51

-0.002

0.001

0.02

-0.02

Pre Level

0.23

-0.03

-5.50

-0.03

0.01

0.03

0.06

Post Level

-0.12

0.02

-1.80

0.06

-0.004

0.06

0.17

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.066

0.559

0.675

0.872

0.759

0.684

0.761

Post Level Sig.

0.070

0.434

0.510

0.018

0.371

0.579

0.079

Analysis Year

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

CITS p-value

0.00001

0.00001

0.3

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.4

Matches

8

17

6

14

17

1

37

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For indicators with an asterisk, this matching process resulted in a comparison group with significantly different pre-treatment trends and/or levels. For these cases we broadened the comparison group by selecting a universe of 100 traditional comparison PHAs and conducting propensity score matching based only on the 2008 share of total households with tenant-based vouchers. The CITS analysis for housing quality and for share of existing workable households with escrow had a statistically significant treatment levels at the 0.01 level of significance, and the share of existing households with increasing income had a statistically significant pre-treatment level at the 0.05 level of significance. For these MTW status CITS analyses, the analysis year is two years after joining the MTW demonstration, because using one year after joining produces poor pre-intervention matches due to too few pre-intervention years.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

E-10

H O U S

H I

O N

U G

S IC

N H

G O

HCI

O C

HUEOS IACN

NE H O

H U

O SUIN

S I G

N C

G H

C O

H IC

O I E

C A

E N

A D

N DS E

S L

E F

L -FS-U

S F

U F

F IFCII

C EIN

E C

N Y

C

Y O

U

O T

U C

T O

C M

O E

M S

E

S A

T

A

T M TW AGEN CIES

7799

HH G

HD

O

OH

A

U C

OH S

N

U

O E

S

U HS

U

O L

D

ISI OIS

U FS

NN IN -E

G

GCNI S

NL

C

E

G

N U

GF

C C

G

G F-

H AC F

S

O

H N

HH

C I

OH

H C

U

I

O I DF

CC I

O I

O I

E S

C

O E

FI I

E E

C NC

AAL

E

C E CI

N F

AA

E Y

E

N -NN

A

A

N

D

D S O

C

S U

DN

D

D U

Y

E

S F

SS

D T

L

E F

LE IL

E

S C

O

-

F F

LE O

U

S

- I-F

L -F

F M

T

S ES-C

UU N

U

S- E

F F

FSCF

U S

OF

F

U

IFIYFA

M

CC IFEC

IF TS

IIOI

CI I

EE U

C M

EA

NN TN

EIE

E T

CCC

N W

N M

Y

Y OY

CC

C Y

Y A

T

O

MOO

Y G

W

U

O E

T

UOS

UU

O E

C

T TU

U N

A

C C

T C

T

T C

G

OOT

M

C

O

C IE

O EN

MM

O S

E S

E T

E

M

M

CE ISE

E E

S W

SS

S S

A T

A A

TA TG

MM

A TT

T E

TT

M N

WT

MM

M C

WT T I

A

W E

G

A W

W SE

G

A A G

A E

GG

G N

EE

E C

NN

N I

C E

IC IS

EE

E

SS

S

7 9 7 9

7 9

7

7 9

9

H O U

HSI

O N

U G

S I C

N

H H

G

O OC

U ISC

HI E

O

N IA

C

G N

EC DA

H S

N

O I E

DCL EF

S -EASLU

F

N - FS

D FUSIC

F

E LIFEI

F -N

C IS CEUY

NF FO

C Y

I U

C I T

OE C

UN O

TC M

CY E

OOS

M

U A

E S

T T C M

A T

O T

M W

M

E T

S A

W

A G

T E

A N

G

M C

ET I

N

WEC SIA ES

G EN C

E I

N E

C

N SI

C I ES

E S

7 9

7 97 9

7 97 9

77 9 9

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Housing Authority of Champaign County

Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

1,995

142

19.5%

79.2%

$838

$11,133

$15,149

Summary

2016

2,058

411

19.5%

72.3%

$824

N/A

N/A

Category

Housing Choice

Self-Sufficiency (MTW activity-specific)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable households

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)

with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow

HAP

HAP that leave

2012

52.2%

0.3%

2.7%

38.5%

2016

56.9%

0.6%

12.2%

77.9%

Summary

First Year

2001

2001

2001

2001

Starting Value

46.6%

0.0%

1.7%

42.9%

Pre

0.01

-0.01

0.004

-0.02

Linear Trend

Post

0.01

0.001

0.02

0.09

Constant

0.01

0.001

-0.0001

-0.02

Pre Trend

-0.002

-0.01

0.01

0.00

Post Trend

-0.01

0.01

0.01

0.08

Pre Level

0.02

0.05

0.01

-0.03

Post Level

0.05

-0.02

-0.04

-0.02

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.321

0.078

0.127

0.001

Post Level Sig.

0.453

0.480

0.554

0.903

Analysis Year

2012

2012

2012

2012

CITS p-value

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

Matches

1

11

1

22

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For MTW activity-specific CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after the most recent activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H H

O O

HU U

OSIS

U IS

N N

IG G

N C

G C

H H

CO O

HI I

O

C C

IE E

C

E

A A

N N

AD D

N S

D S

E E

SL L

EF F

L- -

FS S

-U U

SF F

UFIFI

C C

I EI E

N N

C C

Y Y

O O

U U

T T

C C

O O

MM

E E

S S

A A

T T

MM

T T W

W

A A

G G

E E

N N

C C

I EI E

S S

8 8

80 0

0

H

H O U S I N G C H O I C E A N D S E L F - S U F F I C I E N C Y O U T C O M E S A T M T W A G E N C I E S

8 0

O

H U

OH S

U

H ISO

O N

IU

U G

NS

S I GIC N

N H

CG

G O

H CI

O C

IH E

CO EIA

C N

AE D

NA

D S

N E

SD L

E F

LS -

FE S

-L U

SF -F

USF

FUIF

U CI

F ICFEIIN

EC I C

NE Y

CN

Y O

C YU

O T

UO C

TU O

C O

T C O M E S A T M T W A G E N C I E S

8 0

8 0

E

MM-1

EE 1S SA TA TM T

M W

T

W A

G

A E

G N

E C

N I

C E

I S

E S

8 0

8 0

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Housing Authority of Champaign County

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

1,995

142

19.5%

79.2%

$838

$11,133

$15,149

Summary

2016

2,058

411

19.5%

72.3%

$824

N/A

N/A

Category

Housing Choice (MTW-status)

Self-Sufficiency (MTW-status)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)*

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow

HAP

HAP that leave

2012

7.1%

8.4%

34

52.2%

0.3%

2.7%

38.5%

2016

20.0%

18.8%

38

56.9%

0.6%

12.2%

77.9%

Summary

First Year

2001

2005

2005

2001

2001

2001

2001

Starting Value

12.7%

6.8%

26

46.6%

0.0%

1.7%

42.9%

Pre

-0.002

0.003

0.57

0.01

-0.005

0.01

-0.02

Linear Trend

Post

0.02

0.02

1.00

0.016

-0.0011

0.019

0.07

Constant

-0.01

0.002

-0.26

0.01

0.002

0.0001

-0.01

Pre Trend

0.002

-0.00005

-0.65

-0.004

-0.01

0.01

-0.01

Post Trend

0.01

0.02

2.13

-0.004

0.01

0.01

0.06

Pre Level

-0.01

-0.004

-0.60

0.03

0.05

-0.001

-0.002

Post Level

-0.002

0.005

4.25

0.05

-0.02

-0.07

0.03

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.572

0.040

0.007

0.599

0.256

0.356

0.014

Post Level Sig.

0.952

0.816

0.022

0.190

0.439

0.405

0.889

Analysis Year

2011

2011

2011

2011

2011

2011

2011

CITS p-value

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

Matches

12

5

14

1

11

1

23

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For indicators with an asterisk, this matching process resulted in a comparison group with significantly different pre-treatment trends and/or levels. For these cases we broadened the comparison group by selecting a universe of 100 traditional comparison PHAs and conducting propensity score matching based only on the 2008 share of total households with tenant-based vouchers. The CITS analysis for housing quality used percent public housing as a control variable to produce a better pre-intervention match, but still had a statistically significant pre-treatment trend at the 0.05 level of significance. We also removed 2015 from the analysis for housing quality due to missing data. For MTW status CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after joining the MTW demonstration.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O U S

H IN

O G

U S

H IC

O H

NUG

HSO

I

O I

C

N

U

H C

H

G

SOE

I

ON

U A

I

CG

S

H N

C

H IE

O D

N

OCIG

U

HH A

HS

OS

C I

O

HHE

NE

OC

U

H I

N

U

O

HOL

DAC

H

S

OIS

U

O F

G SE

O

U I

U -

N

U IC

NNSS

EDAC

GNI

S IU

L

H

G F

N

E G

N F

SC-

O

G I

C

G FS

ED

GL

A

H H

C I

CC

C C

UFS

NE

OH

C -

O

H I

HI

F

EDO

H E

F

SL A

CCI

OIN

IU

F

SE

O -E

N E

CI

C C

C I

FSL

D

AA

EC EY

E

F I

U

F

NA

E -

S

NA O

NCFD

A CIF

S

E

A

D

NNU

L Y

EI

U

NF

SS

D

N DT

N

CFED I-ES C

OE

FLSI

SLS O

U

Y

F -

FL

EE

E

N

C-LM

TO

C

IFLE

SLF

S-

F - E

CU

YI

US--

NSS

O

FT

CF

U

S

O

CIFU A

MCU

YEI

F

UIF

U FT

EO

N

CFI

CFI S

OI

F M

CEIA

M

CUY

N

EICI

C T

E

O IC

N

EEIW

SEM

C

OY

C

NN

E Y

C

N

N

M

AE

O

UC A

T

SO

Y

CC YG

W

MA

OY E

CUO

Y E

U

MTS

O

O N

A

T C

T

UU

O E

MC

T

UC

G

W

M

A

UE

O

T -1

TIE

T

OCA

T S

M

O

CC 2

E

OS

NG

W

MA

E

MOO CE

M IE

TSS

M E

A

E

M

M S

NG

W

ASE

E S

M

AS

CTS I

EAT

A E

N T

AA

A SC

G

W

MM

TT

T I

ET E

N

A

T

MMSC

G

W

T

M

WT ITE

EAA

W

WS

N

GA

W

W CE

GA IE

G

A E

NN

GG

G S

CN

EE

E I

C EI

C

NN S

E

N ICC S

C EI IS

E S

E S

8 1 8 1 8 1 8 1

8 1 8 1 8 1

8 18 1

88

8 1 1 1

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh

Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

10,306

950

44.5%

55.0%

$724

$15,701

$18,085

Summary

2016

10,605

1,115

41.2%

54.9%

$827

$17,126

$18,500

Category

Housing Choice

Self-Sufficiency (MTW activity-specific)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)*

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow*

HAP

HAP that leave

2012

55.4%

4.7%

1.6%

53.0%

2016

60.7%

1.0%

3.7%

58.6%

Summary

First Year

2001

2002

2001

2001

Starting Value

51.3%

2.2%

1.8%

32.9%

Pre

0.001

0.001

0.002

0.002

Linear Trend

Post

0.01

-0.010

0.01

0.01

Constant

0.001

0.0008

0.01

0.00

Pre Trend

-0.001

-0.001

0.00

0.01

Post Trend

-0.0005

-0.013

0.01

-0.04

Pre Level

-0.003

-0.004

-0.02

-0.05

Post Level

0.043

0.031

0.03

0.08

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.941

0.00

0.404

0.052

Post Level Sig.

0.031

0.004

0.399

0.499

Analysis Year

2012

2012

2012

2012

CITS p-value

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.2

Matches

7

38

5

9

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For indicators with an asterisk, this matching process resulted in a comparison group with significantly different pre-treatment trends and/or levels. For these cases we broadened the comparison group by selecting a universe of 100 traditional comparison PHAs and conducting propensity score matching based only on the 2008 share of total households with tenant-based vouchers. For these MTW activity-specific CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after the most recent activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H

H

O

O

U

U

S

S I I

N N G

G

C C H

H

O

O

I

I C C E

E

A A N

N

D

D

S S E

E

L

L

F

F - -

S S U

U

F

F

F

F I I C

C

I

I E E N

N

C

C Y

Y

O

O U

U T

T C

C O

O M E

M E S

S

A

A T

T

M T

M T W

W A

A G

G E

E N

N C

C I

I E

E S

S

8 2

8

2

H

H

H O U S I N G C H O I C E A N D S E L F - S U F F I C I E N C Y O U T C O M E S A T M T W A G E N C I E S

8 2

O

OH U

U

H S

O SI

O IU

U N

NS

S I G

GI N

N C

CG

G H

H C O

O

C IH I

H C

COIE

EI CA

AE N

N A D

D

A N

N S

SD E

E L

LS F

FE -

-L S

SF U

U-SF

F F

F

U IIFCFIIIECN

I ECNY

NC

C O

Y UOTUC

U O

TCO M ES A T M TW A GEN C IES

8 2

E

O

C -1

M

O E3

E S

M EA

S TA M

T T

MW

T A

W GAEGNECNI

C E

IC IS

EE

SS

8 28

8 2

2

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

10,550

1,429

12.4%

79.1%

$1,201

$20,877

$19,341

Summary

2016

11,240

1,968

5.3%

78.6%

$1,187

$22,700

$23,037

Category

Housing Choice (MTW activity-specific)

Self-Sufficiency (MTW activity-specific)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable households

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)

with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow

HAP*

HAP that leave

2012

13.5%

7.3%

32

38.1%

1.4%

1.2%

69.6%

2016

17.5%

6.4%

36

44.5%

2.6%

7.3%

90.7%

Summary

First Year

2001

2005

2005

2001

2002

2001

2001

Starting Value

11.4%

6.4%

20

46.9%

0.4%

2.7%

47.9%

Pre

-0.005

0.001

1.30

-0.02

-0.003

-0.003

0.001

Linear Trend

Post

0.01

0.002

0.80

0.01

0.003

0.02

0.03

Constant

-0.01

-0.0005

1.34

-0.012

0.0005

0.001

-0.02

Pre Trend

-0.001

0.003

-0.10

-0.0004

-0.004

-0.005

0.01

Post Trend

0.01

-0.01

0.97

-0.04

0.005

0.02

0.02

Pre Level

0.02

-0.01

0.71

-0.02

0.02

-0.002

-0.03

Post Level

0.07

-0.01

-1.21

-0.01

0.01

0.06

0.19

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.571

0.005

0.155

0.007

0.427

0.000

0.451

Post Level Sig.

0.039

0.455

0.532

0.864

0.621

0.000

0.029

Analysis Year

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

CITS p-value

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

Matches

20

2

15

2

5

14

20

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For indicators with an asterisk, this matching process resulted in a comparison group with significantly different pre-treatment trends and/or levels. For these cases we broadened the comparison group by selecting a universe of 100 traditional comparison PHAs and conducting propensity score matching based only on the 2008 share of total households with tenant-based vouchers. The MTW activity-specific CITS analysis for share of existing workable households with minimal HAP had a statistically significant pre-treatment trend at the 0.01 level of significance. For MTW activity-specific CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after the most recent activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O U SHI N

O G

U

H SC

OI H

N

U

HSO

GI

O I

N

U C

CG

S

H E

HI

O

N A

O

C

U IGS

H N

C

H IO D

E

OCNU

H I

H

HGS

OS

A

C I

O

HHE

N

E

OU

H I

CN

U

O

HOLAC

H

S

OIS

U

O F

D

GU EIS

U -S

N

U

OC

NNI

S S

IE

DA

IGN

S IUL

N

C

H

G G

N F

SEC

O

G I

C

G F-

ED

GL

H AH

C IS

CC

C C

U

F

SNE

OH

C -

O

H I

HI

ED

O

H E

FSL

C ACI

OIN

FEI

O I

US-

N E

C

C C

FS

E

C L

D

AA

C EY

IF EI

UF

NA

E

ES

NA O

N

CF-

D

A IFS

E

A

D

NNU

CEI

L

NF

SS

D

N DT

YN

C-

E

D

D I

FES CE

F

S

LLSO

OYI

U

F -

FL

EE

E

NC-LM

UFLT

O

CI

FSL E

F

S--ECU

YI

US-- SS

FT

NCF

U

S

OCI

FUA

M

CU

F

UY

EI

F

UI

UF

F TE

O

N

CFI

CFI IFM

S

OCEI

M

CU

Y

N

EICI

C T

A

E

O IC

N

EEIW

T

SE

C

NEMC

OY

N Y

C

N

N

AE

UC A

MTS

OO

Y

CC YG

TA

MCU

OO

Y E

W

MEO

T

U

O T

T

OS

U

O C

UE

NAW

M

A

MO

C

T

UT

U -1

CETI

G

OCE

TC

SC4

E

A

M

OOSNG

WA

E

MOO C

ME

E

MT

SS

M I

A

E

MEE

NG

W

AS

E

ES S

CE

AS

MT

S IT

A E

N

A T

AA

A SC

G

W

MM

TT

T IE

T E

A

T

MMS

NG

W

T

M

WT CTIEA

W E

A

W

W

W S

N

GG

A A CEAIE

G

A E

NN

GG

G S

CN

EE

E I

C EI

C

NN S

E

N ICC S

C EI IS

E S

E S

8 3 8 3 8 3 8 3 8 3 8 3

8 3

8 38 3

88

8 3 3 3

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

10,550

1,429

12.4%

79.1%

$1,201

$20,877

$19,341

Summary

2016

11,240

1,968

5.3%

78.6%

$1,187

$22,700

$23,037

Category

Housing Choice (MTW-status)

Self-Sufficiency (MTW-status)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts*

(PASS)

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow

HAP

HAP that leave

2012

13.5%

7.3%

32

38.1%

1.4%

1.2%

69.6%

2016

17.5%

6.4%

36

44.5%

2.6%

7.3%

90.7%

Summary

First Year

2001

2005

2005

2001

2002

2001

2001

Starting Value

11.4%

6.4%

20

46.9%

0.4%

2.7%

47.9%

Pre

-0.02

0.0005

1.20

-0.003

-0.002

-0.01

-0.02

Linear Trend

Post

0.02

-0.003

1.5

0.01

0.002

0.01

0.05

Constant

-0.01

0.002

1.20

-0.003

0.003

0.01

-0.01

Pre Trend

-0.01

-0.004

0.60

0.001

-0.001

0.01

-0.02

Post Trend

0.02

-0.01

-0.71

-0.02

-0.001

0.02

0.05

Pre Level

0.03

-0.005

1.60

-0.02

0.02

0.05

0.02

Post Level

0.004

0.03

-5.75

-0.05

-0.03

0.05

0.26

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.001

0.168

0.617

0.090

0.859

0.012

0.036

Post Level Sig.

0.867

0.126

0.299

0.242

0.172

0.259

0.006

Analysis Year

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

CITS p-value

0.1

0.001

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.05

0.2

Matches

17

9

1

10

15

1

14

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For indicators with an asterisk, this matching process resulted in a comparison group with significantly different pre-treatment trends and/or levels. For these cases we broadened the comparison group by selecting a universe of 100 traditional comparison PHAs and conducting propensity score matching based only on the 2008 share of total households with tenant-based vouchers. For MTW status CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after joining the MTW demonstration.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O U S I N G C H O I C E A N D S E L F - S U F F I C I E N C Y O U T C O M E S A T M T W A G E N C I E S

8 4

H O U S

H IONUGS

H ICN

O HG

U

HSO

I

O I

CN

U C

HG

S

H E

I

O

ON

H A

I

CG

U S

ON

C

HE

IU

HHD

OCI

NS

OO

H

H

A

HGIU

H S

C N

U

OO

O E

NE

O I

CS

U

U L

D

GIS

U AC

H

NSFSE

C

NI

SII-

N

O

GN

N S

EDA

IH

G

N G

N U

LC

GF

N

OC

G F

SE -I

H H

CC FS

ED

C L

C

A

OH

H IE

O

H C

UF

SN I

O

O-

CI

OII

FED

AE

C

O E

FSLI N

CC N

I

CC

U

FSEE-D

A E C

A I

FS

E L

NAA Y

E

FS

N

A I

UF

DN

AN ED

N O

NF-

N C

C IFS

LS

D D

D U

Y

EI

F

D -L

E

S S T

N

CS I

FSL

EE C

OE

FU-

L

E L

L O

UYIF

S-

F

LF

NCS-

F- M

T-IF

U-C

O

C

SEIF

US

S E

U

YF

U

U

CF

U S

O

UT

NIF

U

OCEIFFA

MCU

CY

N

FIC

F IT

EO

I C

EI

C I

C

SE

CI M

O

NIA

M

CU

YEE C

NE T

E

OOY

C

NN

N W

SMCU

Y

CC Y

CY

M

AET

OYA

TS

O

C

UO

OG

W

A

MO

T

UU

OUE

MEC

TUA

T

T

U

S

M

CT W

M

O

T A

E

O

CC

C S

M

O

O A

T

M

O E

O G

W

M

AS

E

MM

M E

MEE

ST

TE SSN

AM

AST

A

S C

G

W T

AA T

AAI

ETT E

N

AW

MM

T SC

G

TT

M

M IEAT

M E

WT

W

T S

N

GA

W

W

C

E

WIG

A E

NG

AA

A S

CE

G

AG I

GE

NN

EE S

C IC

N

N EI

C

NC SEI

CI SEIE SE S

S

8 4 8 4 84

8 4 8 4

8 4

88 4

8 4

4

E

NG-1

C IE 5ESN CIES

8 4 8 4

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

4,616

152

0.7%

96.2%

$1,991

$21,558

$28,927

Summary

2016

4,555

409

0.7%

98.9%

$2,289

$26,737

$32,756

Category

Housing Choice (MTW activity-specific)

Self-Sufficiency (MTW activity-specific)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow

HAP

HAP that leave

2012

3.3%

57.3%

32

49.4%

0.0%

0.9%

55.0%

2016

9.1%

46.9%

N/A

58.2%

0.0%

4.3%

54.2%

Summary

First Year

2003

2007

2005

2003

2003

2003

2003

Starting Value

9.8%

61.7%

26

56.5%

1.0%

0.7%

43.8%

Pre

-0.002

-0.010

1.43

-0.01

-0.0003

0.003

0.02

Linear Trend

Post

0.02

-0.027

-2.00

0.03

0.00

-0.01

-0.09

Constant

-0.003

-0.02

0.73

-0.005

0.0005

0.001

-0.003

Pre Trend

0.002

0.01

0.13

-0.002

0.0001

0.001

0.02

Post Trend

0.004

-0.04

-1.63

0.01

-0.001

-0.01

-0.17

Pre Level

-0.01

-0.001

1.51

0.01

0.001

-0.004

-0.01

Post Level

-0.02

0.03

5.80

-0.001

-0.02

0.05

0.20

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.347

0.210

0.225

0.458

0.689

0.070

0.000

Post Level Sig.

0.434

0.704

0.014

0.959

0.143

0.299

0.105

Analysis Year

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

CITS p-value

0.2

0.0001

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

Matches

15

6

6

5

8

2

1

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. We removed 2015 and 2016 from the analysis for housing quality due to missing data. For these MTW activity-specific CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after the most recent activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O H

U O

S I U

NS

H I

G N

C

O GH

U

H S

O C

O

IU

HH

I

NS O

CI

O E

G U

HI C

N CA

G

S I

O EN

H U

HH

H

O

C

N

HHA

D

HIH

G

SHU

O

H N

O

U S

COC

U

O D

E

EI

U IH

GS

US

USI LC

NISI

SNSF

AE

O

CG

NI E

G-

N IH

N

NGLS

D

AC

G G

GC FU

N

E

OH

C -

S IC

C

H S

FE

DA

C

O

HH

H U

F I

H I

LS

N

E

O

OOF

C

F

CI

OI

C -

EDAICFI

ECS

L

ECIES

N CN

U

FA E-ED

E

A AIF

N

AAE

C

SF

LSN

A N

YI

U

FE

DN

N F-

DC

O

CSL

DIF

D SYEI

U

FES-LSE

UCF

EE

L O

T

NIF

SFL

E -LFU

C

EI

UFF

S-

F T

O

YN

C- IF

U

SS

-SUC

M

O

CEIFU

S OE

U

YC

UF

N

FI

FFM

SC

F

T

O

ECIFCIE

A

CU

YI

NCCIST

O

C

EI

CEIE

ON

E A

M

CU

YE C

N T

ME

OOYC

N

TS

C M

W

C

M

CYE

O

U Y

Y

O T

AS

TU

O W

A

T

M

C

O G

AE

O

T

UU

UT

M

CTA

ET

TS

MO

C

T W

M

A

E

C

O S

M

OO

O T

T

O A

E

MM

M E

E G

W

M

SE E TS

E EA

T A

S

S

A NG

W

M

T

A

A C

AE

T

T I

A

M

T

M E

NG

WT

M S

C

MET

M I

A

W

T E

N

T

W

WSC

GA

W

W

W

A

EIAE

N

G

AA

G S

C

E

GG

G IN

E

G E

EN

N S

C

N I

NNC E

C I

CCESE

II S

EE S S

8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 88

8

58 5

8 5

5

E-

G

N C 16

E N

I E C

S I ES

8 5 85

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara / Housing Authority of the City of San Jose Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

17,744

760

0.1%

92.1%

$1,697

$19,102

$24,395

Summary

2016

16,381

705

0.0%

91.0%

$1,994

$24,260

$27,387

Category

Housing Choice (MTW activity-specific)

Self-Sufficiency (MTW activity-specific)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)*

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow

HAP

HAP that leave

2012

4.3%

37.7%

16

42.5%

1.7%

0.5%

70.7%

2016

4.4%

41.7%

37

54.3%

0.5%

2.4%

71.6%

Summary

First Year

2001

2005

2005

2001

2002

2001

2001

Starting Value

17.5%

47.4%

26

59.1%

4.2%

1.7%

40.4%

Pre

-0.01

-0.01

0.53

-0.01

-0.004

0.001

0.02

Linear Trend

Post

0.01

0.02

0.00

0.04

-0.001

0.00

0.01

Constant

-0.01

-0.004

-0.14

-0.01

-0.002

0.0001

0.01

Pre Trend

0.004

-0.01

-0.93

-0.001

-0.002

0.001

0.01

Post Trend

-0.00002

0.05

0.93

0.01

-0.002

-0.003

-0.22

Pre Level

-0.02

-0.03

-2.75

-0.03

0.005

-0.01

0.06

Post Level

-0.06

0.06

23.68

0.004

-0.01

0.02

0.42

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.997

0.374

0.713

0.603

0.711

0.342

0.006

Post Level Sig.

0.058

0.601

0.000

0.925

0.275

0.409

0.022

Analysis Year

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

CITS p-value

0.1

0.0001

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.4

Matches

24

3

2

3

3

3

2

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For indicators with an asterisk, this matching process resulted in a comparison group with significantly different pre-treatment trends and/or levels. For these cases we broadened the comparison group by selecting a universe of 100 traditional comparison PHAs and conducting propensity score matching based only on the 2008 share of total households with tenant-based vouchers. The CITS analysis for housing quality used percent public housing as a control variable to produce a better pre-intervention match. For MTW activity-specific CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after the most recent activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O U S

H I N

O G

UH

S C

I

O H

N

U

HSO

G

O I IC

N

U CG

S

H E

HI

O

O

N A

C

UIGS

H N

C

H IOH D

E

OC I

NUO

HH

HGS

H S

AC I

U

OO

H E

N

E

OU I

CN

SOUL

DA

C

H

IS

U I

UF

G

USE

N

S IS

S -

S

N

OC

G

NIISEDA

I G

N U

L N

C

HG

N

G F

FS

EO

C

G - I

HCF

ECS

DL

C

AO

HC I

CH C

U

F

SNE

OH

H -

H CI

OIF

ED

O EF

SL

O

AE

C

OI ICN

IU

FS

E

C -

NA E

C C

CFE

E ISL

DN

A

E YE

F

AI

UF

N

AA

A

S

D

ANO

N

CF-

N IFS

E

D D

N U

CEI

L F

ES

D

D T

YS

N

CLEI

F-S

SEC

O

SE

F

SL

E -L

E O

U

YI

U

FL

LF

NC

S-F M

TO

CI

FS-

F E

F

US- E

CU

YIF

US

S

US

O

UT

NCF

UI

UF

OCI

F A

M

CU

Y

E

CIFI

FFI T

EO

F N

FE

CFIIC S

CIM

M

C

OEIU

CY

NEI

I T

AE

O

N CN

E W

TSC

N

MC

O

YNY

NC

C

C

M

AE

UO

Y

C AT

S

O Y

Y

O G

U A

MCT

U

O E

W

ME

OU T

T

OC

U S

UTE

N

A

M

O

C

TT

TC-1

C

G

W

M

AE

O

C I T

M

O

C 7

E

EA

S

OE

M

O S

NG

WA

E

M C

MS

E

M I

ET EE

N

A

ASE S

S SC

G

W

T

AS

MA

TI

ET

AAE

N

A

M

T T

T SC

G

WT

M

T

MIET

M E

A

WT

M S

NG

W

T

C

A

WIE

W

W E

G

AA

W S

NE

GA

AG

CE

G I

NG

GEEC

N

E SI

C

N EIC

N SE

C IC

C S

EI

E S

E S

S

8 6 8 6 8 6

8 6 8 6 8 6 8 6

8 6

8

8 6

8 6

6

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara / Housing Authority of the City of San Jose Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

17,744

760

0.1%

92.1%

$1,697

$19,102

$24,395

Summary

2016

16,381

705

0.0%

91.0%

$1,994

$24,260

$27,387

Category

Housing Choice (MTW-status)

Self-Sufficiency (MTW-status)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

workable households

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

with minimal HAP

income

holds with escrow

HAP

that leave

2012

4.3%

37.7%

16

42.5%

1.7%

0.5%

70.7%

2016

4.4%

41.7%

37

54.3%

0.5%

2.4%

71.6%

Summary

First Year

2001

2005

2005

2001

2002

2001

2001

Starting Value

17.5%

47.4%

26

59.1%

4.2%

1.7%

40.4%

Pre

-0.01

-0.02

-2.40

-0.01

-0.002

0.002

0.02

Linear Trend

Post

-0.02

0.004

4.00

0.01

-0.003

0.00

-0.02

Constant

-0.01

-0.005

-2.00

-0.01

0.0002

0.02

0.02

Pre Trend

-0.01

-0.02

-1.40

0.01

-0.0002

-0.02

0.003

Post Trend

-0.01

0.04

4.26

-0.0003

-0.01

0.02

-0.03

Pre Level

0.01

0.10

-0.90

-0.03

0.01

0.04

-0.05

Post Level

0.11

0.02

-3.50

-0.08

-0.005

0.16

0.32

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.160

0.050

0.002

0.980

0.257

0.098

0.116

Post Level Sig.

0.007

0.686

0.438

0.118

0.833

0.018

0.000

Analysis Year

2010

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

2009

CITS p-value

0.1

0.000001

0.01

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.4

Matches

19

15

1

4

3

2

12

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. The CITS analysis for housing quality used percent public housing as a control variable to produce a better pre-treatment match. The MTW status CITS analysis for share of TBV households in low-poverty census tracts had a statistically significant pre-treatment level at the 0.05 level of significance. For MTW status CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after joining the MTW demonstration for the MTW status CITS analysis of share of total households that are new, 2010 is used as the analysis year rather than 2009 due to data quality.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O U S

H IONUGS

H I

O C

N

U

H H

G

SO O

IU I

C

N

H C

H

G

S I

O EO

NU I

CHAC

H

GS I

H NE

O

C

OHH

H D

IHG

U

H S

U

OO

HO

ACIOSNE

OC

S

U

O I

UUE I

N

SUIS

US

S L

D

HIS

A

CG

NNIIIFS

N

E

G

N

N

ON-I

C

GG

NGS

E L

D

AC

G

G

H

G U

CFS

NE

HC

C

O

C F-E

DI

O

HH

CH F

SL

ACI

O

H

H ISNEC

OOC

UI

OF

F -

ED

E

IIICISL

C AECE

F

C E

C I

FSA E

E

E N

EC

U

NE F

-EN

AA

A CI

AF

SL

D

A D

NN

ANY

EI

UF

N-

S D

N NCFES

D

D O

DC

IF

S

D I

LES S U

Y

EC

UFLEES

S E

E T

NI

F-L FS

EL-

LLC

O

CE

LIS-F

LF

FF O

U

Y

U-F-

NCS-I

F

US-S M

TSC

O

CUSY

E

F

UIF

UU E

U

U NC

F

UIF

F S

OTOC

FIFIF

F I I

FIA

MY

CIE

CU

E EI

CC T

ICS

OTO

NN

E

CEI

IE E CEM

A

M

NE E

O

UY

CN

N C

NTTS

T

YC

NC YCW

CM

MC

OY

YA

E

O

U

O Y

Y

S

O A

T

T

U

O

O A

MC

T

UU

OU

UU T

EO

C

TT

UT

SCTCM

O

CA

M

OO

C

CO T

E

MM

O

O W

SE

M

M SE

MM

M E

MASE

ESA

T

A

S S

S G

W

T

A AA T

AA E

M

AT

A

T

T N

A

T

M

T T

M C

G

WT

MM

M

M

M TIE

W

TT

T E

A

W

T S

NG

A

W

W

W

C

W IE

G

AA

AE

GA

AGS

NE

GG

G

GE C

NEE

E I

NE E

CN

NIC

NSE

NI

CC

C

C I SEI

C IIEE S

EE SE

SS

S

8 7 8 7 8 78 7

8

8 7

88

7 78

77

7

E

G

W

M -1

ETN

A 8C

G

W IEEN

A S

G

C I E S

E N C I E S

8 7 8 7

8 7

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

King County Housing Authority

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

13,805

1,463

15.4%

71.7%

$1,148

$24,551

$23,003

Summary

2016

15,233

1,420

15.3%

70.2%

$1,523

$22,287

$26,146

Category

Housing Choice (MTW activity-specific)

Self-Sufficiency (MTW activity-specific)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

workable households

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

with minimal HAP

income

holds with escrow

HAP

that leave*

2012

10.7%

29.4%

38

47.9%

2.6%

0.5%

64.0%

2016

9.5%

34.2%

39

58.6%

0.2%

19.5%

80.5%

Summary

First Year

2008

2001

2007

2007

2007

2007

2008

Starting Value

22.7%

47.1%

25

63.3%

2.1%

2.2%

92.2%

Pre

-0.01

-0.02

2.79

-0.02

0.001

-0.003

-0.03

Linear Trend

Post

0.01

0.02

0.30

0.04

-0.01

0.04

-0.03

Constant

-0.01

-0.02

2.18

-0.03

-0.0001

-0.01

-0.11

Pre Trend

-0.01

0.01

0.80

0.001

0.001

0.01

0.06

Post Trend

0.01

0.01

0.10

-0.003

-0.009

0.04

-0.07

Pre Level

0.05

0.04

0.05

0.018

0.001

-0.01

0.15

Post Level

0.02

0.004

-1.53

-0.003

0.003

-0.02

-0.16

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.465

0.591

0.922

0.711

0.01

0.029

0.181

Post Level Sig.

0.587

0.946

0.611

0.908

0.698

0.639

0.358

Analysis Year

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

CITS p-value

0.003

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

Matches

25

3

16

1

6

3

5

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For indicators with an asterisk, this matching process resulted in a comparison group with significantly different pre-treatment trends and/or levels. For these cases we broadened the comparison group by selecting a universe of 100 traditional comparison PHAs and conducting propensity score matching based only on the 2008 share of total households with tenant-based vouchers. For these MTW activity-specific CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after the most recent activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O U S

H I

ONU

H G

SO ICN

UHH

G

S I

OO

NUI

C

H C

H

GS I

O E

O

C

N

U

HIAC

H

G

S I

O

H N

E

OC

U

O

HHH

H D

IHOCH

G

S

OOI

U

O

AU

O S

N

E

S

U

OC

NIS

U EIG

S

U ISL

D

H

N

AC

SINI

N FS

NE

OC

G

N

G

N - I

G S

E L

D GAC

H

G

GCUF

SN

E

O

H

C

H

C F-

ED

IO

HHF

SL

ACI

O

H I

O IFS

N

EC

O C

U F

-ED

ICI

C ISL

C

AE

C E

F I

UFS

N

A

E E N

C

F-ED

AA

A CI

F

SL D

NN

AN Y

EIUFS

N -

D

N

DN

CF

ES

DO

C

IS

D E

F

LSS

S U

YN

IUFESC

SF-

LL

EET

C

EIF

S

FL-LC

OY

EIUS-

F -

F O

U

- N

CF

SS-

S I

USM

TF

U C

OCE

S I

FF

UU E

U

YF

N

CIF S

OTOC

IFIIF CEIICA

MYE

O

UI

C

NIC TS

O

CN

EEI

E

M

ENM

C

NA

EO

U

Y

N

CC

N T

S

TY

C

OY

C W

CM

A

M

Y EO

U

O

Y

YO T

O A

T

U

O

SM

CT

UU

OU G

W

M

AEOC

TT

UT E

TS

C W

O

C A

MC E

OO

C

O

M

O A

T

S

M E

MEG

W

M

A

S

EE

M SEE

ET

A

S S N

A

ST

AA

A C

G

W

M

T

A

T IET E

A

MM

M S

NG

W

T

MMT

T

MCT I

E

W

T E

N

A

W

W SC

GA

W

WA

AI

EG

A E

N

GG

AG S

EE

GE

CNI

N

E E

C

NNCS

I

C

NI

C

EICS

EEI

E SE SE S S

8 8 8 8 8 8 88

8 8

8 8 8 8 8

EN

A -1

C

G IE9ENS CIES

8 8 8 8

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Lexington-Fayette Urban County Housing Authority

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

4,506

361

31.6%

68.4%

$692

$13,557

$15,948

Summary

2016

4,800

523

26.4%

67.9%

$796

$14,891

$16,978

Category

Housing Choice (MTW-status)

Self-Sufficiency (MTW-status)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

workable households

census tracts

(PASS)*

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow*

with minimal HAP

HAP that leave

2012

8.0%

12.5%

30

55.4%

0.1%

3.0%

79.4%

2016

12.5%

21.8%

29

67.8%

1.4%

4.2%

47.5%

Summary

First Year

2007

2007

2005

2007

2007

2007

2007

Starting Value

13.3%

11.2%

27

64.0%

1.6%

1.9%

100.0%

Pre

-0.004

0.001

0.37

-0.01

-0.003

-0.02

-0.06

Linear Trend

Post

0.01

0.03

-0.40

0.04

0.002

-0.004

-0.09

Constant

0.003

-0.001

0.46

-0.01

-0.002

-0.02

-0.13

Pre Trend

0.002

0.01

-0.24

-0.001

-0.001

-0.004

-0.002

Post Trend

0.01

0.02

0.01

0.02

0.0004

-0.01

-0.10

Pre Level

0.01

-0.02

0.67

0.03

0.004

0.01

0.09

Post Level

-0.03

0.06

-2.23

-0.01

-0.01

0.06

0.14

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.284

0.290

0.989

0.122

0.899

0.723

0.060

Post Level Sig.

0.147

0.206

0.223

0.779

0.295

0.260

0.517

Analysis Year

2012

2012

2012

2012

2012

2012

2012

CITS p-value

0.1

0.03

0.4

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

Matches

15

5

11

7

10

2

4

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For indicators with an asterisk, this matching process resulted in a comparison group with significantly different pre-treatment trends and/or levels. For these cases we broadened the comparison group by selecting a universe of 100 traditional comparison PHAs and conducting propensity score matching based only on the 2008 share of total households with tenant-based vouchers. For these MTW status CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after joining the MTW demonstration.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O U S

H I N

O G

U S

H IC

OHH

NU O

GS

O IUICHCH

NS I E

G

O

O

NU A

I

CGS

H N

C

H IE

C

OHD

N

H

O IH

UO A

GS

OHS

CO

IU

O

H E

NEI

C

O

N

S

U L

DC

HISU F

AEO

GS

NISI-

SN I

NIS

ED

A

C

G

N

G

N U

L

CG

N NE

HCG

G F

F

G -

SD

OH

C FS

EI A

HH

C ILS

C

OHC

UFE

NIO

H IF-

D

C

O EF

S

L A

ICICN

IU

FC-

S E

N

E

C C

C

AE I

FSL

D

AA

E Y

E

FU

NAI

F

A F-

SD

N O

NCE

D

NNIF

SS

D

D U

CIL

DY

E

S

DF

ES

DST

CE NI

F-LES C

OE

FSLI

FEL O

UY

N

LC

-LS

-FL-FM

T

SF-O

CI

F-EF

U

S-SE

CYS I

F

US S

O

U

NCF

U

T

OCIIFA

MC

UYE

F IF

F T

EO

N

IC S

O

EICM

CI A

MO

U

IY

N

EIE

IE T

E C

N

ENW

SC

N

M E

C

O

Y Y

C

M

A

O

UYAT

SY T

OY G

A

M

O E

C

UO E

WT

U

MT

U T

U S

OT

U

C

UT W

M

A

M

O

TC

T C

TC T

E

O A

S

M

O

MM

O G

WE

M

MA

E SE

M EA

T

SES

E N

G

W

AS

S

S C

E

M

T

A

T

AAIAT

T E

N

M

T

T S

C

G

WT

M

M I

E

ME

T

M S

N

A

WT C

G

W IA

WE

EA

WAS

N

GG

A C

EGI

EG E

G NN

E

E S

CNIC

N

W A G E N C I EI

C S

EE

CII

C

SESE S

S

S

8 9 8 9

8 9 8 9

8 9

8 98 9

9

9

8 9

E

N

A -2

C

G IE 0

E S

N C I E S

8 9 8 9

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Lincoln Housing Authority

Housing Choice

Fair Market Rent Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

(FMR) (2016

dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

3,857

499

9.0%

90.8%

$695

$16,127

$18,410

Summary

2016

3,818

541

9.4%

89.1%

$762

$19,354

$22,336

Category

Housing Choice (MTW activity-specific)

Self-Sufficiency

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable households

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)

with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow

HAP

HAP that leave

2012

12.9%

13.4%

36

2016

14.2%

16.6%

38

Summary

First Year

2007

2007

2006

Starting Value

23.5%

20.3%

27

Pre

-0.02

-0.02

1.61

Linear Trend

Post

0.021

0.02

0.70

Constant

-0.01

-0.01

1.35

Pre Trend

-0.01

-0.01

0.26

Post Trend

0.03

0.02

-2.75

Pre Level

0.04

-0.01

1.47

Post Level

-0.0004

-0.005

-2.75

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.044

0.279

0.172

Post Level Sig.

0.993

0.914

0.467

Analysis Year

2013

2013

2013

CITS p-value

0.2

0.00001

0.1

Matches

5

14

9

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For these MTW activity-specific CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after the most recent activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O U S

H I

ONU

H GS

O I C

N

UHH

G

S I O

O NUI

C

H C

H

GS I

OE

C

O

N

UHA

IHGSIN

C

OE

O I

C

ND

UC

H

GS AIS

E

O E

NI

C

N L

D

AH

G

C F

S

NE

O -D I

C S

E AC

H U

L F

SNE

OF-

ED

I FS

L

AC IFSNEC

U-E I

FS

DAE

FU

L N

IFSNC

F-E CI

FSL

D I Y

EC

UFS F-EO

NICE

F

SL UY

N

IUF T C

C-I

FSC

OY

E

F I O

U NC

U F M

T

OIC

CE

F I E

UY NCS

O

TCI

C

O A

MO

U

Y

E T

E

N

S

M

OC M

CA

EO

U

Y T

ST W

A

MC

O E

U

MT

O A

T

ST MG

W

MA

CE E

T

O AW

S M

M

AEAT SG

E

WA

M N

A

T C

G

W

MIE E

A

T S

NG

W C IE E

A S

NG

C IEES

N

C I E S

9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0

ENG-2

C IE 1ESN CIES

9 0 90

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Louisville Metro Housing Authority

Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

13,877

875

31.6%

66.5%

$730

$15,971

$18,411

Summary

2016

14,419

1,623

31.2%

66.5%

$817

$16,265

$18,384

Category

Housing Choice

Self-Sufficiency (MTW activity-specific)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable households

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)

with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow

HAP

HAP that leave

2012

55.3%

0.1%

1.9%

68.3%

2016

58.0%

0.04%

2.7%

53.8%

Summary

First Year

2006

2006

2006

2006

Starting Value

58.7%

6.3%

2.5%

88.2%

Pre

-0.002

-0.01

-0.003

-0.04

Linear Trend

Post

0.01

-0.0001

0.003

-0.01

Constant

0.003

-0.01

-0.002

-0.05

Pre Trend

-0.01

-0.01

-0.002

-0.0001

Post Trend

-0.001

0.01

0.002

-0.02

Pre Level

-0.01

0.03

-0.04

0.05

Post Level

0.07

0.02

0.06

0.07

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.953

0.182

0.810

0.716

Post Level Sig.

0.013

0.347

0.154

0.694

Analysis Year

2011

2011

2011

2011

CITS p-value

0.3

0.01

0.0001

0.2

Matches

9

4

4

17

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For these MTW activity-specific CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after the most recent activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O

H

HH

H U

O

H

O S

OU

O

U IS

U

S N

SIIS

U SG

IN

NI

N

N

G C

G

N G H

C

G

C

C O

CH

HH

C

H I

O

H

O C

OII

O E

OCI

CIC

C

E A

EC E N

EA

A A D

AN

A

N

NN

D S

D DES

DS S LE

SS

E FL

EE

L -F

L

F S-

F

- U

S-

S F

SU

U F

U

F IF

F C

FFIIF IC

C E

CIIC N

EI

EE C

EN

N Y

C

N

C

C

Y O

Y Y

Y U

O

O

O T

OU

O

U C

T

U

T O

C

T

C C

TC M

O

OO

CO E

M

M S

E

M

E E

S A

S S T

A

A

A

T M

T T T

M

M W

T

M

T T

T

W A

W

W G

A

A E

AG

AA

G N

E

G

E C

EN

N IC

N

C E

CIIC S

EI

E S

E

S S

9 1

9

9 1

9

1 1

1

E-22

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development

Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

21,926

1,459

0.0%

88.4%

$1,431

$21,292

$22,382

Summary

2016

23,748

2,017

0.0%

81.9%

$1,567

$20,192

$23,574

Category

Housing Choice

Self-Sufficiency (MTW activity-specific)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow

HAP

HAP that leave

2012

51.4%

4.5%

2.1%

42.7%

2016

56.6%

3.7%

2.0%

48.4%

Summary

First Year

2001

2002

2001

2001

Starting Value

53.6%

2.5%

1.9%

50.8%

Pre

-0.001

0.001

0.002

-0.02

Linear Trend

Post

0.02

-0.003

0.002

0.06

Constant

-0.002

0.001

0.002

-0.02

Pre Trend

0.002

-0.0004

0.002

0.001

Post Trend

-0.01

-0.01

-0.005

0.05

Pre Level

-0.01

-0.003

-0.01

-0.04

Post Level

-0.01

0.01

-0.003

-0.22

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.481

0.752

0.389

0.034

Post Level Sig.

0.834

0.835

0.962

0.017

Analysis Year

2013

2013

2013

2013

CITS p-value

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

Matches

3

4

4

14

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For these MTW activity-specific CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after the most recent activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O

HH

H U

OO

HH

HO S

U

OO

OU IS

UUN

IS

UU

S ISG

NN

ISI

N

G

NC

G

N

G

GH

CC

G

C O

HH

CC

CH I

O

H C

I

O

H

O I

OE

CI

O I

C E

CCA

E

CC

E EN

AA

E

A D

NN

AA

AN

D

N S

D

ND

D E

S

D

DS L

E

SS F

LEE

S -F

LL

EFS-

FF

L U

S-S

-

F -

S F

USS

SU F

F

UU IF

U C

IF

F IFI

CFI EI

C

CCN

EIEI

CEI C

NN

EE

EN Y

CC

NN

NC YCO

Y

C

Y Y U

OO

Y

O T

U

OO

OU C

T

U T

UU

UT O

CC

TT

TC M

OO

CC

C O

O E

M

OO

M S

E

MM S

E

MEA

S

EE

S ST

A S

A T

AAM

T

AA

T T T

M

T

M W

T

M T

MTT

M

WTA

W

W

WG

AA

W

A E

GAA

AG N

E

G E

GG

GE C

NN

EE

EN I

CNEI

C

CC

N S

EII

CE SEI S

EE

ES S S

9 2

9 2

99 2

99

2 2 2

E-23

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Minneapolis Public Housing Authority

Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

12,502

995

53.9%

37.0%

$945

$16,533

$17,696

Summary

2016

12,688

879

53.3%

37.8%

$1,027

$19,335

$20,922

Category

Housing Choice

Self-Sufficiency (MTW activity-specific)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow

HAP

HAP that leave

2012

51.5%

0.7%

0.7%

80.0%

2016

62.4%

0.3%

1.5%

68.1%

Summary

First Year

2001

2002

2001

2001

Starting Value

46.2%

0.1%

0.8%

31.0%

Pre

0.002

0.0002

-0.0003

0.01

Linear Trend

Post

0.03

-0.001

0.002

-0.04

Constant

0.003

0.001

0.01

0.0001

Pre Trend

-0.00004

-0.0003

-0.01

-0.0001

Post Trend

0.02

-0.004

0.01

-0.05

Pre Level

-0.02

0.001

-0.01

0.05

Post Level

0.020

-0.01

0.08

0.21

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.015

0.437

0.425

0.022

Post Level Sig.

0.431

0.541

0.257

0.024

Analysis Year

2012

2012

2012

2012

CITS p-value

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

Matches

12

10

1

19

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For these MTW activity-specific CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after the most recent activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O

HH

H U

O

H S

U

O

O I

USN

S I

S

USG

N

SII

N

N C

G

N

G H

C

G

G

C O

HC

C H

C

H IH

OC

O

H I

O E

C

OI

O I

C

C A

EC

E

C N

A

E

A D

N

A

A

N S

D

N

D ES

D LE

SSFL

ESE-F

LE S-

FL U

S

-F -

S F

US

S F

UU

U I

FFC

F I

F I

FCE

CII

C N

E

IC I

E C

NE

E Y

CN

N

C O

YC

Y U

O

Y

O T

U

O

O C

T

UUC

T

U T

T O

C

CO M

O

OM E

M

ME SE

ES

S A

S

A T

A

AT

T M

T T

M T

M

MT W

T

TW

W A

W

W

A G

A

AG E

G

GE N

E

EN C

N

NC II

C E

CICI

E SE

ES S

S

9

9 39

93 3

3

E

OO-2

M E

M 4SE AS TA MT TMWT A

W G

A E

G N

E C

N I E

C I SE S

9 3

9 3

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Oakland Housing Authority

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

14,189

810

11.9%

80.1%

$1,466

$20,333

$23,041

Summary

2016

15,124

830

11.4%

71.4%

$2,103

$21,988

$26,610

Category

Housing Choice (MTW activity-specific)

Self-Sufficiency (MTW activity-specific)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income*

holds with escrow

HAP

HAP that leave

2012

6.0%

7.6%

36

48.3%

0.6%

2.2%

40.0%

2016

5.8%

9.7%

36

58.4%

1.3%

5.3%

59.5%

Summary

First Year

2001

2007

2005

2001

2002

2001

2001

Starting Value

7.8%

7.0%

19

53.0%

1.3%

1.0%

47.9%

Pre

0.002

0.002

2.78

-0.02

-0.001

0.01

0.01

Linear Trend

Post

0.0004

0.01

-0.30

0.03

0.002

0.01

0.01

Constant

-0.002

0.0005

1.43

0.005

-0.00002

0.01

0.001

Pre Trend

0.01

-0.0001

1.00

-0.03

-0.001

0.001

0.02

Post Trend

-0.010

-0.005

-1.50

0.06

0.001

0.002

-0.01

Pre Level

-0.02

-0.001

-7.36

0.06

-0.004

-0.01

-0.05

Post Level

-0.08

0.02

3.00

0.11

0.01

0.01

-0.22

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.131

0.445

0.281

0.016

0.167

0.418

0.529

Post Level Sig.

0.172

0.246

0.672

0.154

0.023

0.502

0.054

Analysis Year

2013

2013

2013

2011

2011

2011

2011

CITS p-value

0.1

0.00001

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.2

Matches

9

9

11

1

8

10

15

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For indicators with an asterisk, this matching process resulted in a comparison group with significantly different pre-treatment trends and/or levels. For these cases we broadened the comparison group by selecting a universe of 100 traditional comparison PHAs and conducting propensity score matching based only on the 2008 share of total households with tenant-based vouchers. For these MTW activity-specific CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after the most recent activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O U S

H I

ONU

H G

SO ICN

UHH

G

S I

OO

NUI

C

H C

H

GS I

O E

O

C

N

U IAC

H

G

S INE

OC

O

H D

IC

H

G

U

O

H

ASU

HS

N

EI

OH

OCS

O EI

N

OUU

OO L

D

H

ACG

N

S

UI

UUSFS

NE

O

S ISS

S - IC

G

N IS

E L

D

N

ACGNU

HCF

SN

E

G

N

G F-

ED

O

HC

G IC

C F

SL

AC

O

H

C IFS

N

HH

H C

U F

-ED

O

HH

CI

O I

SL E

O E

F

A

O I

UFS

CC

II N

C

F-E

N

A

EC E

C C

IFSLDNA

E

E Y

EIUF

A -S

D

N

A

N

CF

N

A O

C

ISE

NE

F

D

NL

S D

N U

YN

IU

D C

E

DFL

SS

D ST

CIF-

EE

SS

S C

OY

EI

S-

LL

EE

E O

U NC

USLL

LFI

F -FFM

TFC

OCE

-FF

USF-S-S

S E

U

YIS NF

UU

S S

OTOC

CI

FUIF

U C

F A

MY

C E

O

U

EF IIF TS

O

NE

CI

F IC

MI

CM

CA

E

NCO

UY

EIC

I E

IE T

S

T

NE Y

N W

CM

NA

M

O

N EO

C Y

CC

NC T

U

OY

C A

T

Y

SYM

TU

O

Y G

W

M

AE

CTU

OO

O E A

TS

O

C

U

OU

U W

U A

M

OC

TT

UTT

TC

MCCA

T

E

C

OS

MO

C G

W

M

O

E

M

OO E

S T

AE

MM

M N

A

TSE

ASE C

G

WT S SA IE

MA A E

AT

M

T T

A S

NGT

T

T

C

WI

E

M

M E

NA

WT

MM

M SC

T TT

T I

GA

W E

W E

G

W

W S

N

AE

A A

A CN

GG

AA I

EGG

GEE

CN

E S

IC

NN

N

ENS

IC I

C

EI

C S

EIE

E S

EE S S

9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4

9 4

9 4

99

9 49 44

4

ENG-2

C I

E 5

E

NS

C I E S

8 8 8 8

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Orlando Housing Authority

Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

5,044

721

32.2%

65.6%

$978

$18,370

$19,286

Summary

2016

5,211

604

28.3%

68.6%

$1,003

$16,646

$20,113

Category

Housing Choice

Self-Sufficiency (MTW activity-specific)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow*

HAP

HAP that leave

2012

55.9%

0.6%

1.3%

42.9%

2016

59.3%

0.1%

2.0%

59.0%

Summary

First Year

2001

2002

2001

2001

Starting Value

59.5%

3.6%

1.9%

87.2%

Pre

-0.002

-0.004

0.0001

-0.03

Linear Trend

Post

0.02

-0.002

0.003

0.02

Constant

-0.001

-0.001

-0.002

-0.03

Pre Trend

0.0003

-0.003

0.003

-0.01

Post Trend

0.01

0.002

-0.01

-0.01

Pre Level

0.02

0.01

-0.005

0.07

Post Level

-0.03

0.01

-0.06

0.09

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.252

0.691

0.226

0.725

Post Level Sig.

0.538

0.671

0.204

0.392

Analysis Year

2013

2013

2013

2013

CITS p-value

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

Matches

3

8

1

8

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For indicators with an asterisk, this matching process resulted in a comparison group with significantly different pre-treatment trends and/or levels. For these cases we broadened the comparison group by selecting a universe of 100 traditional comparison PHAs and conducting propensity score matching based only on the 2008 share of total households with tenant-based vouchers. The MTW activity-specific CITS analysis for share of existing workable households with escrow had a statistically significant pre-treatment trend at the 0.05 level of significance. For MTW activity-specific CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after the most recent activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O

H U

O

HHH

H S

U

OO

H IS

U

O N

IS

UU

USG

NI

S ISI G

NINC

G

NN

N H

C

G G O

H

CC C

C I

O

HH

C CI

O

H

H E

CI

O I

O ECIA E

CC

C N

A

E E D

N

AAA

A

D

N

ANS

D

NN

N E

S

D

DL

ES

D S F

LES

SE-FL

EE

E S-F

LL

L U

S-

F -F F

U

SS- F

F

UU

S IF

U

U CIF

F

U IC

F EIC

F IN

EI

C IC C

N

EEI Y

C

NN

E Y

C

NO

Y

CC

CYU

O

Y Y T

U

OO C

T

UU

O E

C

TT

U -2

OTM

O

CTO

CC

C 6

E

M

OO

O S

E

MM

O SE

M

M A S

E

M E

E T

A S S TAM

T

AA

A T

A T

M T W

T

M T

MM

M

W

T A

W

T G

A

W

W E

G

AA N

E

GG

A C

N

EE

G IC

NE EIC

NN

N S

EI

C I

C SE

CII S

EIE

E S

E S

9 5

9 59 5

99

9 5

9 5

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Orlando Housing Authority

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

5,044

721

32.2%

65.6%

$978

$18,370

$19,286

Summary

2016

5,211

604

28.3%

68.6%

$1,003

$16,646

$20,113

Category

Housing Choice (MTW-status)

Self-Sufficiency (MTW-status)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

workable households

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts*

(PASS)

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

with minimal HAP

income

holds with escrow*

HAP

that leave

2012

14.3%

2.5%

37

55.9%

0.6%

1.3%

42.9%

2016

11.6%

4.2%

37

59.3%

0.1%

2.0%

59.0%

Summary

First Year

2001

2005

2005

2001

2002

2001

2001

Starting Value

8.7%

9.6%

23

59.5%

3.6%

1.9%

87.2%

Pre

0.003

-0.010

2.00

0.00

-0.004

0.00

-0.04

Linear Trend

Post

-0.004

0.004

-0.10

0.010

-0.0015

0.002

0.04

Constant

-0.002

-0.01

0.75

0.002

0.0005

-0.003

-0.03

Pre Trend

0.004

-0.003

0.89

-0.002

-0.004

0.01

-0.01

Post Trend

-0.01

0.001

0.64

0.01

0.003

-0.01

0.01

Pre Level

-0.02

-0.01

-2.09

0.03

0.02

-0.01

0.07

Post Level

0.04

-0.01

1.16

-0.003

0.004

-0.07

0.04

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.051

0.924

0.657

0.243

0.501

0.124

0.699

Post Level Sig.

0.100

0.702

0.789

0.945

0.760

0.227

0.641

Analysis Year

2012

2012

2012

2012

2012

2012

2012

CITS p-value

0.1

0.01

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

Matches

14

24

10

1

8

1

11

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For indicators with an asterisk, this matching process resulted in a comparison group with significantly different pre-treatment trends and/or levels. For these cases we broadened the comparison group by selecting a universe of 100 traditional comparison PHAs and conducting propensity score matching based only on the 2008 share of total households with tenant-based vouchers. The MTW-status CITS analysis for share of existing workable households with escrow had a statistically significant pre-treatment trend and level at the 0.05 level of significance. For MTW status CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after joining the MTW demonstration.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O U

HSI

O N

U G

S

H I

O C

NU

H H

GSO O

IC

U I

NS

H C

HGIO E

O

NU I

C A

C

H

GS

H IN

EO

C

OH D

A

IHG

UO

H CSHS

NE

OC

I

U

OOH

H ED

IN

S

U

O I

U

O L

H

A

CG

S

O

U I

S

U F

SN

E

NI

U

OS

UI-EIC

G

NNS

S ISL

D

AC G

NI U

F

H

NS

NE

C

GN

NG

G F

-E

D

OC

G I

HC

G F

SL

AC

O

HH

C I

U

SNC

HC

FF

O

H-

ED

H CI

OH

H IL

O

O E

FSCI

OIFS

AE

C

O N

C

UECIF

-E

NA

EC

CEC

ISECF

LDN

AA E

E Y

E I

UF -S

N

A A

A

NC

F

D

N

A O

C

AIFSE

D

N IL

S

D

N U

Y

E

UES

D

ND

D

CFST

NI

D F

-LEES S

S C

OCEISFLE-L

EEO

UYFLET

N

CFLI

S--FL

L M

FC

O

CFY

EF

U

SS--SEO

U

NI

F

UU

S-S S

T

O

C

CFUSI

FU

M

FUA

FE

CU

YEIF

FI

F TS

OTO

NIE

CIFI

CF CIM

A

M

CEI

C E

O

UY

NECII

E T

T

C

NNE SE

NW

M

MCY

N A

EO

O Y

C

NY

C

N S

UO

CYA

T

C

YM

TOY

Y G

WM

AE

C

U

O T

U

O O

O E

T

T

U

O

S

O

UC

TUE

N

AM

T

UA

O

C

UC

T

U -2

C

G

W

TC TE

O

C

T I

E S

M

OC

CO7

E

N

A

M

OOSC

G

W

M

MAE

M

O IE

T

E

M E

TSE

M A

SSS

AN

W SE T

AS

GCE

M

AS IA

T E

N

TM

TA T

A S

C

GWT

M

T IE

M E

TT

MM

M S

NA

W

T

M

C

WT I

GA

WT E

EA

W

W S

N

GA

W

A C

E

GG

AA

AGI

N

EE

G EC

N

G

GE S

EIC

NN

E EI

C

N SEI

C

N I

C S

ECII

E S

E SE

E S

S

9 6 9 6 9 6

9 6

9 6 96

9 69 6

99 69 69

9 6

6 6

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Portage Metropolitan Housing Authority

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

2,239

202

15.0%

71.0%

$776

$13,530

$14,600

Summary

2016

2,218

233

15.2%

68.8%

$786

$14,639

$15,907

Category

Housing Choice (MTW activity-specific)

Self-Sufficiency (MTW activity-specific)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow*

HAP

HAP that leave*

2012

9.0%

10.0%

29

48.8%

2.4%

2.0%

68.2%

2016

10.5%

8.3%

31

48.5%

1.0%

10.6%

75.9%

Summary

First Year

2007

2007

2007

2007

2007

2007

2007

Starting Value

10.8%

14.1%

27

46.3%

1.0%

3.2%

92.5%

Pre

-0.01

-0.01

0.00

0.01

0.004

0.016

-0.02

Linear Trend

Post

0.01

-0.01

1.39

0.002

-0.003

0.006

-0.01

Constant

-0.02

0.004

-1.88E-14

0.02

0.0023

-0.005

1.09E-14

Pre Trend

0.01

-0.01

9.65E-14

-0.02

0.004

0.03

0.001

Post Trend

-0.01

-0.002

1.49

-0.01

-0.01

-0.03

-0.06

Pre Level

-0.005

0.01

1.00

-0.02

0.01

-0.01

-0.02

Post Level

-0.06

0.04

-3.07

0.12

-0.01

-0.02

0.47

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.408

0.792

0.155

0.657

0.076

0.341

0.171

Post Level Sig.

0.001

0.056

0.194

0.063

0.221

0.809

0.016

Analysis Year

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

CITS p-value

0.1

0.001

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.01

0.3

Matches

12

10

14

2

7

2

1

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For indicators with an asterisk, this matching process resulted in a comparison group with significantly different pre-treatment trends and/or levels. For these cases we broadened the comparison group by selecting a universe of 100 traditional comparison PHAs and conducting propensity score matching based only on the 2008 share of total households with tenant-based vouchers. The MTW activity-specific CITS analysis of the share of existing workable households with escrow had a statistically significant pre-treatment level at the 0.05 level of significance. For these MTW activity-specific CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after the most recent activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O U S

H I N

O UGS

H I

OC

NH

UGS

H O

I

O I

C

N

U C

H

G

S

H E

IO

OC

N

H A

IH

G

UON

CS E

IU

H D

OCI

NS

O

HH

AC

HIO

H

H S

G

H N

UO E

NE

OU IC

S

OUL

D

GSU

U

ACI

U F

SSE

HC

N

SI

S -

NI

O

G

NI S

EDAI

H G

NN

N U

L FS

N

CO

G

G F

C-E

EI

HCF

SL

DC

H

O

C I

AE

HHC

UFS

O

H -E

NCI

O I

FA

O E

F

SL

DE

CI CIN

I

NEC

UF

C-

SA E

C C

DEI

FS

E N

A

E Y

E

FAIU

LSNA

A

FE

DNO

NCF

NC

DI-

NF

NS

L D

N U

Y

EIFS

D -

ES T

N

CLESIFS

SEC

O

CEF

U

FLE-FL

E O

U

YIL

N

FS-F

F M

T

CFS-

F C

O

CI-

USSE

U

Y

EF

US

C

US

OT

NI

FUIF

U

OE

FFA

MCU

CN

CI

F I

F T

EO

YCI EICI S

CI

CM

E

CI A

M

C

OY

NIE

N

E T

UES

OO

CC

N W

T

NY

N A

MC

U

Y

C

C

C

MET

O

Y A

TS

O

Y C

O G

W

UA

MT

U

OO

O E

O

MT

U A

T

C

U S

M

T

U E

N

CG

W

M

E

OC

T -2

C

A

OC IE

SA

T

M

OO

M

O

O 8

E S

NG

W

AE

MM

M

C

MTE

M IE

SE

E E

AT SE SS

NG

W

MT

A

S

CT

A I

E

TA

A E

N

A

M

T T SG

W T

M

C

MIA

T

ME

E

W

MT

MT

M S

N

G

T

W

T C

EA

WWI

A

W

W E

N

GG

A AS

C

E

A

A IE

G

G E

N

G S

C

NN

E I

C

N E

NIC

N S

EI

C I

C S

EI

ES

E S

S

9 7 97 97 97 97

9 7 99

77

99

97

97

7

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

San Antonio Housing Authority

Housing Choice

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

21,519

2,649

33.1%

64.7%

$794

$10,282

$13,604

Summary

2016

20,930

2,340

31.9%

66.5%

$929

$12,683

$14,876

Category

Housing Choice (MTW activity-specific)

Self-Sufficiency

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable households

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)

with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow

HAP

HAP that leave

2012

12.3%

4.2%

31

2016

11.2%

8.5%

32

Summary

First Year

2001

2001

2005

Starting Value

12.2%

7.7%

22

Pre

0.008

0.001

1.40

Linear Trend

Post

0.004

0.01

0.30

Constant

0.004

0.004

1.16

Pre Trend

0.01

-0.003

-0.02

Post Trend

0.01

0.01

0.07

Pre Level

-0.01

-0.06

0.05

Post Level

-0.10

0.03

-1.78

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.603

0.485

0.944

Post Level Sig.

0.108

0.378

0.647

Analysis Year

2012

2012

2012

CITS p-value

0.1

0.05

0.1

Matches

4

11

4

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For these MTW activity-specific CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after the most recent activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O U

H SI

O N

U G

S

H I

O C

NU

H H

G

O

S O

C

IUH I

NS C

HGI

O E

O

NU I

CS

H A

CH

G I

O N

E

C

N

O

U D

A

I

H

GS I CS

NE

O I

CN E

D C

HGL

AEF

SN

O I

C -EASL

D

C

H U

F

ES

N

O IF

-E

D

A F

SLS

C I

U

NE CF

FE -

D IF

L

A E

SI

FSN N

C

U-S

ED C

IFL EF

UY

SIF-E

NCO

C

SI

FLUU

Y

EC

F F- T

NIFS C

OC

EIU O

U

NCT

YF CIM

C

OY

E

F I E

O

U

NC ST

O

CI

MY

E A

E

C

U N T

S

O

TC

C M

A

M

U

Y E

OT T

T S

MC

O W

M

A

EO

U

ST A

T

MC G

W

AE T

O E

M

S N

ATM

A

M EC

G E

W

TS I E

N

A

W

M

AS

C

G T IA

T E

E S

N

G

W

M C

ET I

A E

NG

WS

C IE E

A S

NG

C IEES

N

C I E S

9 8 9 8 9 8

9 8 9 8 9 8

E-29

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

San Diego Housing Commission

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

14,986

982

0.5%

98.3%

$1,440

$22,921

$22,978

Summary

2016

16,445

1,213

1.1%

94.8%

$1,499

$24,747

$26,143

Category

Housing Choice (MTW activity-specific)

Self-Sufficiency (MTW activity-specific)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow

HAP

HAP that leave

2012

6.6%

11.0%

34

42.9%

1.0%

1.0%

66.7%

2016

7.6%

19.9%

38

53.9%

2.5%

7.3%

37.4%

Summary

First Year

2001

2005

2005

2001

2002

2001

2001

Starting Value

5.6%

13.8%

24

49.0%

5.3%

1.2%

31.1%

Pre

-0.01

0.0004

1.07

-0.02

-0.004

0.002

0.01

Linear Trend

Post

0.004

0.02

1.00

0.03

0.004

0.01

-0.08

Constant

-0.01

0.005

0.57

-0.01

-0.0005

0.003

-0.01

Pre Trend

-0.002

-0.005

-0.57

-0.002

-0.003

0.001

0.02

Post Trend

0.01

0.03

1.61

0.003

0.002

0.01

-0.12

Pre Level

0.01

-0.04

0.60

0.005

-0.001

-0.01

-0.05

Post Level

0.02

0.06

4.56

-0.08

0.01

0.12

0.08

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.402

0.229

0.011

0.834

0.854

0.839

0.000

Post Level Sig.

0.484

0.497

0.011

0.190

0.696

0.130

0.456

Analysis Year

2011

2011

2011

2012

2012

2012

2012

CITS p-value

0.1

0.0001

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

Matches

22

4

4

12

5

13

16

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For these MTW activity-specific CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after the most recent activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O U S

H I N

O G

U

HS C

I H

O N

H O

U G

SO I

I C

U

H C

SOE

N HI

G O

N

U A

CIG

S

H N

CI

OHHD

H E

OC

N G

UOO

H

H

HS S

IAI

UU

O E

C N

OCS

OUI

N

SU L

E DC

HGI

SIF

A

U

SE

O

NNI

N -

S

I IC

G

N S

N EA

C

G

N GU

DL

HN

E

CC

GC F

G F

OHCI

H

C F

S -E

C S

DA C

O

H I

O

H C

LHU

S

NEI

O

CI

OCI

F F

E

DC E

-

O I F

L A

EC

C N

SS

C IF E-E

NA A C

UCF

A

E IS

L

DN

A YE

U

F

AS

D

NN -

D

N O

F I N

FE

N

DF

SL

S

D

DS U

C C

S

D I

U F

EE

S T

I Y

E FL

S

C-ELI

LE C

N O

EE

FSLI-

F

L O

CL U

N

C

US

-FS-

F M

YF TC

IF-EF

UU

S E

CY

S N

IFF

U S

O O

C

F

U I

F

O

CIFA

UFMU

Y

E

CI

FC I

C T

T C E

INI

C I

CE

OS

OEI M

C

C I CU

EY

NN

EN

N T

MAO

E T

CC

N W

ETSYC

N

M

C

O

Y Y

M

E

O

U

Y A

AY T

ST

O

U

OG

M

UA

OE

CT

UU

O E

T W

M

O TU TS

OC N

A

M

O

CC

T C

T G

M

A

OE

OO

C I

C T

T

M

O E

W E S

M

O

MS

N

W

MA

EE

M

AM C

GT

SESI

EA

TS

ASE

N

W

AT

A ASC

G

M

TAA ETN

ATMM

T

M C

G

W

T

M

T

MI

ETE

N

A

WT

W

W SC

G

W I

AA

W E

EGAGS

NE

GG

A C

EGEI

NEN E

C

NN

E SI

C

NI

C E

CCIES

EIIE S

E S

E

S

9 9

I E S

S

9 9 99 99

9 9 9 9 9 9

9 9 9

9 9

E-30

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Tacoma Housing Authority

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

4,986

585

17.8%

65.7%

$971

$18,328

$16,429

Summary

2016

5,247

929

8.2%

65.3%

$1,126

$18,761

$23,272

Category

Housing Choice (MTW activity-specific)

Self-Sufficiency (MTW activity-specific)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

workable households

census tracts

(PASS)

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow*

with minimal HAP

HAP that leave

2012

11.7%

7.4%

32

45.1%

2.6%

0.8%

50.0%

2016

18.0%

13.2%

24

58.3%

0.3%

3.1%

68.3%

Summary

First Year

2001

2005

2005

2001

2002

2001

2001

Starting Value

15.4%

6.2%

24

56.5%

1.7%

1.9%

63.4%

Pre

-0.003

0.005

1.18

-0.01

0.002

-0.004

-0.01

Linear Trend

Post

0.01

0.002

-3.10

0.04

-0.005

0.004

-0.02

Constant

-0.01

-0.0001

1.30

-0.003

0.002

0.002

-0.01

Pre Trend

0.00004

0.002

-0.22

-0.002

0.0004

-0.01

0.001

Post Trend

0.01

-0.01

-2.38

0.01

-0.01

0.01

-0.02

Pre Level

0.004

-0.01

0.48

0.004

-0.002

0.01

0.03

Post Level

0.05

0.03

0.69

-0.01

-0.03

0.05

0.01

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.379

0.308

0.048

0.576

0.055

0.516

0.671

Post Level Sig.

0.012

0.050

0.847

0.911

0.006

0.195

0.939

Analysis Year

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

CITS p-value

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.01

0.2

Matches

21

1

9

9

20

2

15

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For indicators with an asterisk, this matching process resulted in a comparison group with significantly different pre-treatment trends and/or levels. For these cases we broadened the comparison group by selecting a universe of 100 traditional comparison PHAs and conducting propensity score matching based only on the 2008 share of total households with tenant-based vouchers. For MTW activity-specific CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after the most recent activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O U S

H I N

O G

UH

S C

I

O H

N

U

H O

G

S I

O IC

N

U CS

H E

H

GI

O

O

N

UAI

CS

H N

C

H

G IO

H D

E

OC

N

HI

U

OH H

GS

H S

AC

OI

UO

H E

NE

OC

SU

O I

N

U

OHL

D

H

S

UISUF

A

CG

N

OSISS-S

N

E

OI

GNI

U SED

IC G

NS

N U

L

A

N

CH

GIE

G F

FS

N

G

O

H

CC

N F

-IS

EDH

CG

A

OH

C IL

CH C

UF

S

NE

O I

O

HC IF-

ED

O E

OF

SL

E

H A

CICICNI

U

FS

EE

C

O -

N

A C EIC

CF

E ISL

D

N

AA

E

C YE

F

A I

UF

D

N

AA

E S

N NO

NCF

-E

D

N IS

D

N

A U

CE

F

DI

L F

ESS

D

N T

YLS

N

CF-

EE

SS

D C

O

IFL

EE

FS-L

ESO

U

Y

IFN

LC

S-

FL-F

E M

T

O

C

IF

US-

FLEF

SS

- E

CY

FI

UUS-US

O

U NC

FUIFUS

TO

CI

F A

MCY

E

CI

FUIF T

EO

U N

CI

F I

C S

TI

C

F M

OI M

C

E

CU

C

NIYC

N

EEI T

AE

O

NN

EI W

TS

YCE MC

OY

C

NY

CC

N

C

M

AEU

OY A

OYT

SU

O

Y

C G

OA

MCT

U

O

Y E

W

M

E

U

O O

CT

U NA

T

TS

UT M

CTA

M

OO

CC

T

U TT

E

M

OO

CCW

SEM

M

OSE

MO

M

AE

M A

T

SE SE

M SG

W

TA

S S

E AE

MT

ST

A N

A

T

M

A TA TC

G

W

T

MM

T

MIE

T

M EN

A

WT

M T

M SGA

WT

WT

C

W I

W

WE

EG

AA

WAS

NE

GG

AA CNE

G

A I

EG E

C

N

E

G I

N

E S

CC

NN

E

N

EIS

CE

I

CC

N IS

EEI

C I SE SE S S

1 0 0 1 0 0 10101 0

11 0

01 0 0

0

ECGW-3

I E

EA 1S

N C

G IEENS

C I E S

1 0 0 100 100

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Tacoma Housing Authority

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

4,986

585

17.8%

65.7%

$971

$18,328

$16,429

Summary

2016

5,247

929

8.2%

65.3%

$1,126

$18,761

$23,272

Category

Housing Choice (MTW-status)

Self-Sufficiency (MTW-status)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable households

census tracts

(PASS)

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

with escrow

HAP

HAP that leave

2012

11.7%

7.4%

32

45.1%

2.6%

0.8%

50.0%

2016

18.0%

13.2%

24

58.3%

0.3%

3.1%

68.3%

Summary

First Year

2001

2005

2005

2001

2002

2001

2001

Starting Value

15.4%

6.2%

24

56.5%

1.7%

1.9%

63.4%

Pre

-0.01

0.002

0.86

-0.003

0.004

-0.004

0.001

Linear Trend

Post

0.02

0.01

-1.06

0.03

-0.01

0.003

-0.03

Constant

-0.01

0.001

0.31

0.003

0.001

0.01

-0.01

Pre Trend

-0.0004

0.002

-0.16

0.0004

0.003

-0.01

0.003

Post Trend

0.02

0.002

-2.22

0.02

-0.014

0.01

-0.03

Pre Level

0.00

-0.01

-0.13

0.00

-0.004

0.03

0.01

Post Level

0.01

0.01

7.00

-0.10

-0.019

0.07

0.06

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.002

0.627

0.054

0.004

0.046

0.201

0.347

Post Level Sig.

0.790

0.644

0.021

0.000

0.200

0.327

0.534

Analysis Year

2011

2011

2011

2011

2011

2011.00

2011

CITS p-value

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

Matches

21

1

4

11

5

1

16

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For MTW status CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after joining the MTW demonstration.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

H O U S I N G C H H

O ous

I C E in

g

A C

N ho

D ic

S E eL a

F n

- d

S S

U e

F lF f-I S

C uffic

I E N ie

C nc

Y y

O O

U ut

T c

C o

O m

M es

E at

S M

A T ov

M in

T g t

W o

A W

G o

E rk

N A

C I g

E e

S nc

ies

1 0 1

H O U S

H I

ON

U G

S

H I

O C

N

U

H H

G

S

O O

IUH I

C

NS C

H

GI

O E

O

N

U

HI

C A

SC

H

G I

O

HN

E

O

CU

H D

IH

GS

O

H I

U

ACU

O

HSNE

OS

UI

CN S

UE C

HG

UI

S

OSL

D

NS

ANI

U

N FSN

E

O

N SI

C

GN -

G

NI

G S

EAL

D

C

H G

NCU

C FS

NEC

O

HC

GHF-E

DI

H

C

A

OF

SL

HS

CI

O

H

C IF

NEOHC

U

C

O F-

EDEI

C IS

L

A

OECE

FS

CI EI

NA

E N

EC

U-

CAFS

EDN

A EC

IFU

L

A

NN

A Y

EI

S

DF-

D

N

A NCESDNO

SCI

FL

D SIU

E

SDU

Y

EC

FSF

E-

L

S L

EET

NIFS

LES -FLC

O

C

EIU

LES-

FFLO

U

Y

NC-

S IFU

S- M

T

CFS-

U C

OY

E

UI

FF

UU

S E

U

NC

F IF

U S

OT

O

CIC

F IF

EICA

MC

U

YICFE

NI

CC T

T

CS

OOC

EI

C

NEI

NM

EA

MUY

N E

O

NT

CC

N

E TS

MC

O

Y

C YC

N W

Y M

A

EO

U Y

C Y

O ST

O A

T

U

MC

U

O G

W

M

AEO

T

OC

T

U E

TT

S

UTC

C N

AM

A

M

OO

C

T C

O C

G

W

EM

O TS

O

M I

E

ME

M

O EN

A

W

M

A

S

E

M S

G SE

M S

CTE I

E

AS

AENG

W

T

A S TSE

MTA

TA

CTI

A

TMTE

NGT

M

M S

C

WE

T T

MM IEN

A

WT

W

T

W SG

WW

C

A

W IE

A

W E

GG

AA

S

NE

AE

GG CE

G I

NE

NE

C

N

E SI

C

N I

C

N EICS

E

CI SE SES

1 0 1 101 1 01

1 01 1 01 101

1 0

1 1

0

1 10

11

E-32

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Tulare County Housing Authority

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

4,512

656

19.6%

79.7%

$758

$22,199

$26,358

Summary

2016

4,786

577

19.8%

79.9%

$758

$25,076

$29,844

Category

Housing Choice (MTW activity-specific)

Self-Sufficiency

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts*

(PASS)

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow

HAP*

HAP that leave

2012

15.1%

4.2%

38

51.9%

0.0%

0.3%

100.0%

2016

13.7%

3.6%

37

60.9%

0.0%

6.1%

98.0%

Summary

First Year

2007

2007

2007

2007

2007

2007

2007

Starting Value

23.1%

6.1%

29

66.7%

0.0%

0.6%

84.6%

Pre

-0.03

0.01

0.00

-0.03

0.00

-0.002

-0.04

Linear Trend

Post

-0.0004

-0.01

0.75

0.02

0.00

0.01

-0.002

Constant

-0.05

0.01

-2.59E-14

0.01

1.51E-17

-0.01

-0.27

Pre Trend

-0.01

0.01

6.60E-14

-0.04

-7.20E-17

0.004

-0.16

Post Trend

0.01

-0.03

0.66

0.05

-0.004

-0.002

0.13

Pre Level

0.04

-0.0002

6.40

0.04

-0.0001

-0.15

0.14

Post Level

0.03

-0.02

-2.09

0.002

0.003

0.10

0.87

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.738

0.034

0.712

0.072

0.026

0.986

0.401

Post Level Sig.

0.523

0.360

0.624

0.968

0.344

0.656

0.024

Analysis Year

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

CITS p-value

0.1

0.01

0.1

0.1

0.01

0.0001

0.2

Matches

7

3

5

11

4

1

2

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. For indicators with an asterisk, this matching process resulted in a comparison group with significantly different pre-treatment trends and/or levels. For these cases we broadened the comparison group by selecting a universe of 100 traditional comparison PHAs and conducting propensity score matching based only on the 2008 share of total households with tenant-based vouchers. The CIT analysis for housing quality used percent housing as a control variable to produce a better pre-intervention match, but still had a statistically significant pre-treatment level at the 0.01 level of significance. For these MTW activity-specific CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after the most recent activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

H O U S I N G C H O I C E A N D S E L F - S U F F I C I E N C Y O U T C O M E S A T M T W A G E N C I E S

1 0 2

H O U S

H I N

O UG

HS I

O CN

U HG

S

H IO

N

O I

CU

H C

H

GS

O EOC

IU NA

I C

HG

S

H INE

O

OH D

ICG

UO

HH

A

CHS

O SNECI

UO

HOE

OS

U

OI

NS

U

O

H L

DA

H

U C

GIS

UOFS

NE

O

NNI

SI-E I

C

GN

U S

DL A

CH

GS

NNIU

F

SN

E

C

G

GO

C

GN F-

EA

I

HC F

SL

D

HC

G COH IUFS

NI

O

HCF-

ECE

D

H CI

OOIS AECI

OH E

FLII

US E

COCN

CF

FNC-E

A

CI EC

IL

D

AEC E

FS I

NA YC

U

FN

EA-SDN

A

NIFE

D

N O

C

S

NAEFU

L

S

N S

D

D

NU

YIF

E

D

NC

F-L

E

SDSTOCIFSL

E

S ECY

EIU

-FL

E L

ES O

U C-FLET

N

SIFS-L M

C

OU-U

CEFS-YI

F

US

F -

S E

OT

NCF

UUSSC

O

CIFF

U

MYE

CI

F

U AE

O

U NI

C

F I

F T

ST

O

EI

CF CEI

C

MC

NI

C M

AE

UYI

C TS

O

C

NN

EI T C

O

Y

CN

E W

M

A

M Y

CC

NT

E

O

UO

Y

C C

Y T

Y STOYA

MC

UU

O

Y

OG

W

MA

ET

O T

OS

OC

UU

O TCOMES AT MTW AGENCIES

1 0 2

EEA MCTT

UU -3

N

G

W

A

OC

T

ME

O

T CE

CT

TC S

M

OC3

AI E

M

O E

NG

W

MAS

E

M

O S

C

M IETS

EM EN

A

E SE ESC

G

WA

S

M

TS I T

A E

EATM

T

AAS

NG

M

T

TT CE

WTMI

TME

N

A

W

T

MM TS

C

G

WT T I

A

W E

EG

A

W

W

W S

N E

G

AA CE

G

AA I

N

G EC

N

EG SIC

NE EIC

NN S

EI

CC S

EII S

EE S

SS

1 0120 2 1 0 2

1 0 21 02

1 0 2

1 0

1 2

0

11

1 20

1 2

0 2 2

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Vancouver Housing Authority

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency

Average household Average household

Indicator

Total households

New households

Share public

income (new

income (existing

housing

Share TBV

Fair Market Rent

(FMR) (2016 dollars)

workable) (2016

workable) (2016

dollars)

dollars)

2012

3,263

329

12.9%

77.0%

$931

$15,041

$19,567

Summary

2016

3,196

382

0.0%

79.8%

$1,208

$16,583

$22,779

Category

Housing Choice (MTW activity-specific)

Self-Sufficiency (MTW activity-specific)

Share of TBV house-

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Share of existing

Indicator

Share of total that

Housing quality

workable house-

workable house-

workable house-

are new

holds in low-poverty

workable house-

census tracts

(PASS)

holds with increasing

holds with minimal

holds with minimal

income

holds with escrow

HAP

HAP that leave

2012

10.1%

12.0%

34

50.3%

3.7%

2.2%

81.0%

2016

12.1%

29.0%

N/A

68.0%

5.2%

7.8%

78.8%

Summary

First Year

2005

2005

2005

2005

2005

2005

2005

Starting Value

13.9%

19.3%

28

45.1%

1.0%

3.1%

87.5%

Pre

0.07

-0.01

-0.14

0.01

-0.001

0.002

-0.07

Linear Trend

Post

-0.07

0.02

2.40

0.04

0.01

0.01

0.03

Constant

-0.02

-0.01

-0.40

0.02

0.001

0.03

-0.06

Pre Trend

-0.01

-0.004

0.20

-0.002

-0.002

-0.01

-0.03

Post Trend

-0.05

0.02

-1.45E-14

0.05

0.005

0.02

0.01

Pre Level

0.03

0.02

2.80

-0.02

0.004

0.01

0.08

Post Level

0.32

0.06

0.07

-0.05

0.01

0.01

0.26

CITS Output

Post Trend Sig.

0.203

0.043

1.000

0.004

0.164

0.608

0.860

Post Level Sig.

0.056

0.293

0.985

0.336

0.508

0.952

0.083

Analysis Year

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

2010

CITS p-value

0.1

0.01

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.2

Matches

6

2

3

1

8

1

6

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

Post

Trend Lines

Notes: We use a two-step matching process for this analysis. First, each MTW agency was matched with a universe of 25 comparison traditional PHAs (with more than 500 total households in 2008) using propensity score matching for the total number of households (including MTW local, non-traditional assistance), the share of total households with tenant-based vouchers, and the HUD Fair Market Rent, all for 2008. Second, CITS analyses were run for each indicator, selecting comparison agencies from the propensity score matching universe that most closely matched the MTW agency’s pre-treatment levels and trends for the given indicator. We removed 2014, 2015, and 2016 from the analysis for housing quality due to missing data. For these MTW activity-specific CITS analyses, the analysis year is the year after the activity’s implementation year. For PHAs with multiple significant housing choice or self-sufficiency activities, the analysis year is the year after the most recent activity’s implementation year.

Source: 2001-2016 HUD PIC data for characteristics of households served, 2001-2016 Census/ACS data for poverty measures, HUD Physical Assessment Subsystem (PASS) scores for housing quality, and HUD counts of MTW local, non-traditional assistance included in total households served.

H O U S I N G C H O H

I ous

C E in

A g

N C

D ho

S ic

E L eF a

- n

S d

U S

F e

F I lf-

C S

I uffic

E N C ie

Y nc

O y O

U T ut

C c

O om

M E eS s at

A M

T o

M v

T ing

W t

A o W

G E o

N rk

C A

I E g

S e

ncies

1 0 3

H O U S I

H N

O G

U

H C

S

O I H

N

U S

H O

GI

O INU

H C

CGS

O E

H IU CNA

OS

H IH

GNC

HO

N

OHH

H D

E

OI

C

UO

H

GS

O

O C

H

UI

O

H S

AE

C

UU

O O

U E

N

O

NIS

UIH

S

U LD

AC

G

NIS

U IF

NS

N NE

O

NI

G -S

N

C

GG

N

G SE

D

C G

N

A

H

G UL

CSN

E G

C

O

H

CCF

FEAI

O

HH

CC

H F

-L

D

H

CI

OO

H

O ISFS

NEI

HOCU

C

O-E

D

CI

O

C IFS AECIE

CF

LSA

E E

C N

EI

UF

N F-

EAA

E

A C

CS

L

DN

AIF

NA

N YEI

U

D-

S

DD

NN

D CFSE DO

NIS

D E

FU

LES

D

S U

CESN

IF

FLS

E -L

EE

S T

Y

CFLE IFS-FL

E CO

CE

IUS-

F -F

L- OU

YCF NIF

SS-

SS-M

T

O

C

EF

US N

F

USIF

FU E

C

U

Y CIFF

F S

O

T

CIC

FIFI CYEICFA

MO

U NEI

CI IC

I T

ET

OC

N

EEI

CE SMCUNEM

YC

N

E A

EO

T Y

CC

N

C TT

S CO

Y

Y

C W

A

M E

O

UO

Y

O

MTS

U

O A

T

O

MUE

CT

U

O

U G

W

M

A

T

US

O

C

T

U

TT

U E

C T

CO

C N

A

W

M

M

O

CE

M

O

O C

G

T

OT

OSE

MM

O

M IEA

M ENG

W

MA

SE

M SE S

EE

TA

SS

C I

A E

NG

W

T

M

TA S

C

TE

A

T I

T

MEN

GT

MM

M SE

WTT

M

T

C I

WT E

N

A

W

W S

C

G

AA

W I

A E

EGG

AAS

N

E

GG

G C

N

EE

G

E I

NE E

C

N I

C

NSEI

C I

CI S

E

CEI

E SE S

E S

1 0 31 0 31 0 3 1 031 0 3 1 0130

11

1 3

00

1

0 303 30 3

E-34

Appendix F: References

Appendix F: References

Bloom, Howard. 2001. Measuring the Impacts of Whole-

Galvez, Martha M., Jasmine Simington, and Mark Treskon.

School Reforms: Methodological Lessons from

2017. Moving to Work and Neighborhood

an Evaluation of Accelerated Schools. New

Opportunity. Washington, DC: The Urban

York: MDRC. October. http:/ www.mdrc.org/

Institute.

publication/measuring-impacts-whole-school-

reforms.

Galvez, Martha M., Ruth Gourevitch, and Benny Docter.

forthcoming. A Picture of Moving to Work

Bloom, Howard, James A. Riccio, Nandita Verma, and

Agencies’ Housing Assistance. Washington,

Johanna Walter. 2005. Promoting Work in Public

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Housing: The Effectiveness of Jobs-Plus. New

Development, Office of Policy Development and

York: MDRC. https:/ files.eric.ed.gov/ful text/

Research.

ED484619.pdf.

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

Buron, Larry, Melissa Vandawalker, Tyler Morril , Jil

Matthew Gerken. forthcoming. Moving to

Khadduri, Jeffrey Lubel , and Azim Shivji. 2017.

Work Agencies’ Use of Project-Based Voucher

Testing Performance Measures for the MTW

Assistance. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

Program. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

of Housing and Urban Development, Office of

https:/ www.housingcenter.com/wp-content/

Policy Development and Research.

uploads/2017/09/testing_performance_

measures_for_the_mtw_program.pdf.

Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2012. “Moving

to Work Demonstration: Opportunities Exist to

Castel s, Nina. 2020. Evaluating the Effects of Santa

Improve Information and Monitoring.” GAO-12-

Clara County Housing Authority’s Rent Reform.

490. https:/ www.gao.gov/assets/600/590226.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing

pdf.

and Urban Development, Office of Policy

Development and Research.

2018. “Rental Housing: Improvements

Needed to Better Monitor the Moving to

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

Work Demonstration, Including Effects on

Lydia B. Taghavi. 2003. Housing Choice Voucher

Tenants.” GAO-18-150.https:/ www.gao.gov/

Location Patterns: Implications for Participant

assets/690/689583.pdf.

and Neighborhood Welfare. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Khadduri, Jill, Melissa Vandawalker, Rebecca Cohen, and

Development, Office of Policy Development and

Jeffrey Lubel . 2014. Innovations in the Moving

Research .

to Work Demonstration. Cambridge, MA: Abt

Associates. https:/ www.abtassociates.com/

Galster, George C. 2010. The Mechanism(s) of

sites/default/files/migrated_files/b8bd4434-

Neighborhood Effects: Theory, Evidence, and

4303-408e-b696-874f821e66ea.pdf.

Policy Implications. Paper for presentation

at ESRC Seminar “Neighbourhood Effects:

Linden, Ariel. 2015. “Conducting Interrupted Time-

Theory and Evidence.” St. Andrew’s University,

Series Analysis for Single- and Multiple-Group

Scotland, UK. February 5–6, 2010 . http:/ www.

Comparisons,” The Stata Journal 15 (2): 480–

clas.wayne.edu/multimedia/usercontent/File/

500. http:/ lindenconsulting.org/documents/

Geography%20and%20Urban%20Planning/G.

ITSA_Article.pdf.

Galster/St_AndrewsSeminar-Mechanisms_of_

neigh_effects-Galster_2-23-10.pdf.

Manson, Steven, Jonathan Schroeder, David Van Riper,

and Steven Ruggles. 2018. “IPUMS National

Galvez, Martha M. 2010. What Do We Know About

Historical Geographic Information System:

Housing Choice Voucher Program Location

Version 13.0 Database.” Minneapolis: University

Outcomes. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

of Minnesota. http:/ doi.org/10.18128/D050.V13.0.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

F-1

Appendix F: References

McClure, Kirk. 2017. “Length of Stay in Assisted

Stacy, Christina, Josh Leopold, Daniel Teles, Ruth

Housing.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department

Gourevitch, Alyse D. Oneto, Yipeng Su,

of Housing and Urban Development, Office

and Matthew Gerken. 2020. The Impact of

of Policy Development and Research. https://

the Moving to Work Demonstration on the

www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/

Per Household Costs of Federal Housing

LengthofStay.pdf.

Assistance. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Housing and Urban Development, Office of

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

Policy Development and Research.

2015. “Housing Choice Voucher Location

Patterns a Decade Later,” Housing Policy St. Clair, Travis, Thomas Cook, and Kel y Hal berg. 2014.

Debate 25 (2): 215–233 . https:/ www.

“Examining the Internal Validity and Statistical

tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10511482.20

Precision of the Comparative Interrupted

14.921223.

Time Series Design by Comparison with a

Randomized Experiment,” American Journal of

Oppenheimer, Sarah, Megan Haberle, and Philip

Evaluation 35 (3): 311–327 .

Tegeler. 2013. “Increasing Housing Choices:

How Can the MTW Program Evolve to Achieve

Webb, Michael D., Kirstin Frescoln, and William M.

its Statutory Mandate? ” http:/ www.prrac.org/

Rohe 2015. Innovation in Public Housing: The

pdf/MTW-HousingOpportunity.pdf.

Moving to Work Demonstration. Chapel Hil ,

NC: Center for Urban and Regional Studies,

Rohe, Wil iam M., Michael D. Webb, and Kirstin P.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hil .

Frescoln. 2015. “Work Requirements in Public

https:/ curs.unc.edu/files/2015/01/The-Moving-

Housing: Impacts on Tenant Employment

to-Work-Demonstration-Center-for-Urban-and-

and Evictions,” Housing Policy Debate 26 (6):

Regional-Studies-Report.pdf.

909–927 .

Somers, Marie-Andrée, Pei Zhu, Robin Jacob, and

Howard Bloom. 2013. The Validity and

Precision of the Comparative Interrupted

Time Series Design and the Difference-in-

Difference Design in Educational Evaluation.

New York: MDRC. Working paper . http:/ www.

mdrc.org/sites/default/files/validity_precision_

comparative_interrupted_time_series_design.

pdf.

Housing Choice and Self-Sufficiency Outcomes at Moving to Work Agencies

F-2

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

April 2021

Document Outline

_Hlk18666866

_Hlk36645194

_Hlk59023301

_Hlk13033016

_Hlk34219611

_Hlk36645222

_Hlk18666281

_Hlk36645243

_Hlk13033188

_Hlk13033194

_Hlk36645576

_Hlk18654652

_Hlk13033081

_Hlk13033086

_Hlk13033107

_Hlk13033111

_Hlk13033115

_Hlk13033120

_Hlk13033124

Exhibit 1: Timeline of Moving to Work Agreements

Exhibit 2: The Moving to Work Retrospective Evaluation

Exhibit 3: Data Sources

Exhibit 4: Assisted Rental Housing Programs

Exhibit 5: Do Moving to Work Agencies Encourage Housing Choice?

Exhibit 6: Do Moving to Work Agencies Promote Self-Sufficiency?

Exhibit 7: Moving to Work Agencies by Analysis Group

Exhibit 8: Share of Households That Are New: MTW-Status Group and Comparison Group

Exhibit 9: Share of Households That Are New: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW-Status Group

Exhibit 10: Share of Households That Are New: MTW Housing Choice Activity-Specific Group and Comparison Group

Exhibit 11: Share of Households That Are New: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW Activity-Specific Group

Exhibit 12: Share of Tenant-Based Voucher Households in Low-Poverty Tracts: MTW-Status Group and Comparison Group

Exhibit 13: Share of Tenant-Based Voucher Holders in Low-Poverty Tracts: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW-Status Group

Exhibit 14: Share of Tenant-Based Voucher Households in Low-Poverty Tracts: MTW Activity-Specific Group and Comparison Group

Exhibit 15: Share of Tenant-Based Voucher Holders in Low-Poverty Tracts: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW Activity-Specific Group

Exhibit 16: PASS Score (Housing Quality): MTW-Status Group and Comparison Group

Exhibit 17: PASS Score (Housing Quality): Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW-Status Group

Exhibit 18: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Analysis: Summary of Housing Choice Outcomes, MTW-Status Group

Exhibit 19: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Analysis: Summary of Housing Choice Outcomes, MTW Activity-Specific Group

Exhibit 20: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Total Annual Incomes Higher Than at Housing Assistance Entry: MTW-Status Group and Comparison Group

Exhibit 21: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Total Annual Incomes Higher Than at Housing Assistance Entry: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW-Status Group

Exhibit 22: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Total Annual Incomes Higher Than at Housing Assistance Entry, MTW Activity-Specific Group and Comparison Group

Exhibit 23: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Total Annual Incomes Higher Than at Housing Assistance Entry: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW Activity-Specific Group

Exhibit 24: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Escrow: MTW-Status Group and Comparison Group

Exhibit 25: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Escrow: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW-Status Group

Exhibit 26: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Minimal HAP: MTW-Status Group and Comparison Group

Exhibit 27: Share of Existing Work-Able Households with Minimal HAP: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW-Status Group

Exhibit 28: Share of Existing Work-Able Households with Minimal HAP: MTW Activity-Specific Group and Comparison Group

Exhibit 29: Share of Existing Work-Able Households With Minimal HAP: Comparative Interrupted Times Series Output, MTW Activity-Specific Group

Exhibit 30: Share of Minimal-HAP Households Who Leave: MTW-Status Group and Comparison Group

Exhibit 31: Share of Minimal-HAP Households Who Leave: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW-Status Group

Exhibit 32: Share of Minimal-HAP Households Who Leave: MTW Activity-Specific Group and Comparison Group

Exhibit 33: Share of Minimal-HAP Households Who Leave: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Output, MTW Activity-Specific Group

Exhibit 34: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Analysis: Summary of Self-Sufficiency Outcomes for MTW-Status Group

Exhibit 35: Comparative Interrupted Time Series Analysis: Summary of Self-Sufficiency Outcomes for MTW Activity-Specific Group

Exhibit A: MTW Agency Program Entries and Exits

Exhibit B1: Ongoing Housing Choice Initiatives

Exhibit B2: Ongoing Self-Sufficiency Initiatives

Exhibit C: Activities Used to Select MTW Activity-Specific Group Agencies

Introduction

Preview of Results

Structure of This Report

Literature Review

Housing Choice

Defining the Housing Choice Objective

Measuring MTW Housing Choice Outcomes

Self-Sufficiency

Defining the Self-Sufficiency Objective

Measuring MTW Self-Sufficiency Outcomes

Context and Goals of the Present Study

Methods

Research Questions

Comparative Interrupted Time Series (CITS) Analysis

Analysis Time Periods

Data

HUD Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Information Center (PIC) Data

PHA Performance Measure Indicators

Supplemental HUD-Assisted Unit Counts

Decennial Census and American Community Survey (ACS)

Database of MTW Activities

Sampling

MTW-Status Group Selection

MTW Activity-Specific Groups

Overlap Across MTW Agency Groups

Comparison Group Selection

Outlier Sensitivity Analysis

Outcome Measures

Housing Choice Outcome Measures

Self-Sufficiency Outcome Measures

Results

Detailed Findings: Housing Choice Outcomes

Do MTW Agencies Create More Housing Opportunities Relative to Traditional Agencies?

To What Extent are Households Served by MTW Agencies Reaching Lower-Poverty, Higher Opportunity Neighborhoods Than Households Served by Traditional Agencies?

To What Extent are Households Served by MTW Agencies Living in Higher Quality Public Housing Dwellings Relative to Households in Traditional Agencies?

Summary of Housing Choice Outcomes

Detailed Findings: Self-Sufficiency Outcomes

How do Incomes of Work-Able Households Served by MTW Agencies Compare to Those Served by Traditional Agencies?

How Does the Use of Escrow Accounts as a Tool for Promoting Self-Sufficiency Differ Between MTW and Traditional Agencies?

Are Existing Work-Able Households in MTW Agencies Moving to Minimal Housing Subsidy at Greater Rates Than Households at Traditional Agencies?

Are Existing Work-Able Households in Mtw Agencies Making Positive Exits From Housing Assistance at Greater Rates Than Households at Traditional Agencies?

Summary of Self-Sufficiency Outcomes

Discussion and Conclusions

Implications for Research

Appendix A: MTW Agencies

Appendix B: Ongoing Initiatives Related to Statutory Objectives

Appendix C: MTW Agencies by Activity-Specific Groups

Appendix D: Methodology

Appendix E: Individual MTW Agency Analyses

Appendix F: References