Presentation on theme: "FORMERLY HOUSING-INSECURE FAMILIES IN SUBSIDIZED HOUSING: Julie Lowell, Ph.D. November 12, 2014 An exploratory study of family well-being after experiencing."— Presentation transcript:
FORMERLY HOUSING-INSECURE FAMILIES IN SUBSIDIZED HOUSING: Julie Lowell, Ph.D. November 12, 2014 An exploratory study of family well-being after experiencing housing instability
Family Housing Instability Homelessness concerns in the midst of the Great Recession (December 2007-June 2009) National responses Housing Prevention and Rapid Rehousing Program (HPRP), Vermont responses Rapid re-housing and prevention assistance
The Question What is the impact of rapid re-housing or homelessness prevention on family well-being three to four years after the intervention for families with a Housing Choice Voucher (HCV)? Compare local well-being results to national HCV households Explore families’ perceived changes in well-being from the time they experienced housing instability to the present Explore elements affecting changes in well-being, including role of the HCV
Framework and Measures of Family Well-being Subjective Well-Being Material Well-Being Future Orientation Family Well-Being
Local Retention Rates
Quantitative Findings National versus Local Outcomes
National versus Local Findings - Demographics Ch. Co. Respondents (N = 54 ) National Sample (N = 443,291) Average Household Size Average Age of Head of Household Families with All-White Household Members*61.1%34.0% Families with All-Black Household Members*27.8%51.6% Percent of Families with Children Under 642.6%40.5% Percent of Two-Parent Households*29.6%17.4% Percent of Single-Mother Households66.7%70.6% Percent of Families Whose Head of Household is a U.S. Citizen* 79.6%99.9% *Represents a statistically significant difference between Chittenden Co. and National Data at.000 level.
National versus Local Findings – Material Well-being Ch. Co. Respondents (N = 54) National Sample (N = 443, 291) X 2 Value Health Hardship No Health Insurance9.3%31.7%12.54* Didn’t See Doctor40.7%6.7%99.75* Didn’t See Dentist50.0%16.8%42.43* Food Hardship Not Enough Food27.8%12.0%12.83* Food Did Not Last 81.5% 35.0%51.16* Couldn’t Afford Balanced Meals 72.2% 28.4%51.00* Bill-Paying Hardship Did Not Meet Essential Expenses 81.5% 46.3%26.86* Did Not Pay Rent 42.6% 15.7%29.39* Did Pay Utilities 74.1% 45.6%17.67* Phone Disconnected Due to Past Due 53.7% 18.1%46.32* Income Hardship HH Income < Poverty Line 64.8% 66.0%.034 *Statistically significant at the.000 level.
National versus Local Findings – Future Orientation Ch. Co. Respondents (N = 54) National Sample (N = 443, 291) X 2 Value Savings Savings 3x Monthly Poverty Threshold1.9%33.7%24.47* Human Capital High School Diploma or Higher 79.6% 83.8%0.71 In Education or Training Program 20.4% 17.7%0.26 Employed 46.3% 46.7%0.00 Social Capital Family Support46.3%67.2%10.71* Friend Support40.7%57.7%6.34* Community Support31.5%33.6%0.11 Environmental Capital Satisfied with Neighborhood64.8%88.5%29.93* *Statistically significant at the.000 level.
Additional Local Findings – Material Well-being Number of HouseholdsPercentage of Households Health Hardship Index No Health Hardship (0)2138.9% % % Most Severe Health Hardship (3)35.6% Food Hardship Index No Food Hardship (0)611.1% % % Most Severe Food Hardship (3)1425.9% Bill-paying Hardship Index No Bill-paying Hardship (0)713.0% % % % Most Severe Bill-paying Hardship (4)1425.9%
Additional Local Findings – Future Orientation Number of HouseholdsPercentage of Households Human Capital Index Low Human Capital (0)47.4% % % High Human Capital (3)47.4% Social Capital Index Low Level of Social Capital (0)1935.2% % % High Level of Social Capital (3)814.8% Environmental Capital Index* Low Level of Environmental Capital (0)12.5% 125.0% % % High Level of Environmental Capital (5)1435.0% *Number of households is smaller for this variable as two questions did not apply to all families, and were thus not answered.
Additional Local Findings – Subjective Well-being
Interviewed Families’ Characteristics 20 households interviewed 4 prevention; 16 rapid re-housing 9 employed 7 substance abuse history 12 with personal transportation 5 previously in abusive situations; 6 previously doubled-up
Changes Since Stabilizing Housing – Subjective Well-being Agents of Change Education Employment Social Networks Government Programs Public School System Living Unit Finances Administration of Public Benefits Voucher Changes in Subjective Well-being Standard of Living +++/−+/− − + Health ++ − + Achievements in Life +++ − + Personal Relationships ++++/−+/− Safety +/−+/− +
Changes Since Stabilizing Housing – Material Well-being Agents of Change Health Education Employment Social Networks Government Programs Public School System Living Unit Finances Administration of Public Benefits Transportation Voucher Changes in Material Well-being Health Access +++ −− + Bill-Paying /−+/− −−− +
Changes Since Stabilizing Housing – Future Orientation Agents of Change Health Education Social Networks Government Programs Public School System Living Unit Administration of Public Benefits Transportation Voucher Changes in Future Orientation Credit + Employment Education ++++ Service Provider Relationship (Social Capital) + − Neighborhood Satisfaction +/−+/− −
Address benefit cliff Client-centered approach to benefit administration Improve Family Self-Sufficiency program outreach Safeguard EITC, Medicaid, and CHIP
Policy Implications Continued Address cost of transportation Expand access to affordable housing Improve benefits and minimum wages
Stable housing improves family well-being Well-being improves to a certain level before plateauing Basic needs must be better supported in our society Supportive housing needs to be developed Families give back to community as positions improve Landlords play important role in family well-being