The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential

The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential

The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability GABRIEL PIA CHILD TRENDS [email protected] CONTEXT Both the federal government and communities have invested heavily in permanent supportive housing (PSH) over the last decade. The PSH inventory grew 88 percent between 2007 and 2017, and the inventory dedicated to people with chronic patterns of homelessness grew 294 percent (and 34% just since 2016). Source: Gabriel Pia The steady declines in the number of people experiencing homelessness in families with children can be attributed, in HUD, The 2018 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress. part, to federal and local in rapid rehousing The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Childreninvestments Residential 2 Instability programs.

CONTEXT The number of homeless students has increased significantly in the last 10 years. Approximately 1.5 million students are homeless. Number of Students (in Thousands), Ages 6-18, who were Homeless. By 1600 Living Situation: School Years 2004-05 to 2013-14 Around seven million 1400 people were doubled up Total 1200 1000 Doubled up 800 600 400 200 0 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Shelters Hotel/Motel Unsheltered Not 2016-17 reported Source: Child Trends, data from National Center for Homeless Education. The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Gabriel Pia Instability

with family and friends, the most common prior living situation before becoming homeless. Poor households living doubled up is 52 percent higher now than in 2007 (National Alliance to End Homelessness) 3 CONTEXT These counts include people who are temporarily sheltered (those who are living in emergency shelters, transitional housing programs, or put up in motels through a social service program). Gabriel Pia The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 4 CONTEXT The age at which a person is most likely to be found in a homeless shelter in the United States is infancy. Annual Percentage Rates of Shelter Use By Age (National) 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4%

0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% Gabriel Pia Source: Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress and Census Bureau The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 5 CONTEXT Children who lack a stable home are vulnerable to a number of adverse outcomes (Child Trends DataBank 2015) Homeless children develop moderate to severe acute and chronic health problems, and less access to medical and dental care. (Bassuk et al., 1997; Buckner, 2008; Haveman et al. 1991; Mohanty & Raut, 2009). Unpredictable and undesired moves from ones home negatively influence childrens development and well-being (Grant et al., 2013; Buckner, 2008). Children experiencing residential instability show lower vocabulary skills, more behavioral problems, increased high school drop-out rates, and lower adult educational attainment, when compared to children living in stable households (Sandstrom & Huerta, 2013). Gabriel Pia The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 6

CONTEXT While renters are becoming poorer, the supply of housing that is affordable and available is shrinking. Gabriel Pia The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 7 CONTEXT The median asking rent on new apartments was $1,381 per month in 2015, well out of reach for the typical renter earning $35,000 a year. Gabriel Pia The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 8 CONTEXT: POLICIES Type of Prevention Does it prevent homelessness? Does it improve outcomes? Primary Prevention Universally available programs such as affordable housing or vouchers.

Yes Yes (family preservation, domestic violence, stress, substance abuse, school attendance). Secondary programs Rapid rehousing, transitional housing, or homeless prevention (financial assistance), seek to identify and end an episode of homelessness very quickly. Rapid-rehousing: Conflicting (more likely No) Rapid-rehousing: No impact (but only one study). Homeless Prevention: Some evidence Homeless Prevention: No studies Transitional Housing: Mostly Yes Transitional Housing: Some evidence in childrens outcomes. Conflicting evidence. Tertiary programs Target long-term homelessness or housing problems, aiming to reduce the impacts of longer term housing needs.

Gabriel Pia Yes The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 9 HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION There has been a redirection in the nations homelessness assistance policies (Culhane, Metraux, and Byrne, 2011). Homelessness prevention policies are still in their infancy and there is little scientific knowledge for its implementation. (Apicello 2010). Long-term commitment to homelessness prevention has been evident in the United Kindom, Germany, and Finland, where primary prevention is approached as expanded access to housing and a serious response to family homelessness (Fitzpatrick, Johnsen, & Watts, 2012; Szeintuch, 2017). Gabriel Pia The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 10 HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION New York Citys Homebase: Family shelter entries decreased on average in 5-11 percent the neighborhoods in which Homebase was operating. (Goodman et al. 2016). Chicagos Homelessness Prevention Call Center:

Individuals requesting assistance when funding is available are 76% less likely to enter a homeless shelter (Evans, Sullivan and Walskog 2016) Family Options Study is the largest experimental study of housing interventions of varying intensity. No significant differences in outcomes between rapidrehousing and shelter care (Gubits et al. 2016). Significant differences between vouchers and shelters. Gabriel Pia The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 11 THE HOMELESS PREVENTION AND RAPID RE-HOUSING PROGRAM The first ever large-scale homelessness prevention program in U.S. history ($1.5 billion). Started in September 2009 and lasted for three years. Largely targeted individuals who were not necessarily homeless or living in a shelter, but at risk of becoming homeless. Activities: Gabriel Pia Financial assistance (such as rental assistance, utility deposits, and moving costs assistance). Housing relocation and stabilization services (such as case management, outreach, legal services, and housing search). Data collection and evaluation. The Impact of Homeless

Prevention on Children Residential Administrative costs (capped at 5 percent Instability of the grants) 12 DATA AND ANALYSIS Homeless student counts for 26 states and 5,148 public school districts from school years 2005-06 to 2013-2014. No common definition for the concept of residential instability (Cotton & Schwartz-Barcott, 2016; Priester, Foster, & Shaw, 2016). Most authors would agree that housing instability is at least an antecedent to homelessness (Cunningham, Harwood, & Hall, 2010; Priester, Foster, & Shaw, 2016). Previous research has recognized different forms of housing instability, such as moving frequently, foreclosure, doubling up, episodic homelessness, or moving because of housing costs (Priester, Foster, & Shaw, 2016; Gilman et al., 2003). Gabriel Pia The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 13 DATA AND ANALYSIS These states account

for 850,00 homeless students, or 67% of the homeless population in 2014. Percentage of homeless students 2013-14 1.8% 1.5% States included Not included Source: Institute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness, and National Center for Homeless Education. Gabriel Pia The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 14 DATA AND ANALYSIS Homeless students per 100 students in states with and without data available for the period. School years 2006-07 to 2013-14. 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% Included states 1.5% Not included

1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Source: Institute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness, and National Center for Homeless Education. Gabriel Pia The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 15 DATA AND ANALYSIS for district i, and school year t. School years 2005-2006 to 2013-2014. it: the percentage of students counted as homeless in district i. HPRPit:

Dummy for districts with an HPRP provider in the county. Dummy for districts within 10 miles of an HPRP provider. Dummy for districts within 20 miles of an HPRP provider. District fixed effects () and School year fixed effects (). ) and School year fixed effects (). ). Gabriel Pia Cit is a vector of time-variant district-level controls: Neighborhood Stabilization Fund, TANF Emergency, The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Unemployment rate, Rent Costs, Students in Free Lunch, NonInstability 16 THREATS TO VALIDITY Perhaps the biggest concerns with any identification strategy are the threats to internal validity is this really causal? For instance, if the money was allocated to poorer communities, these communities may implement other policies or strategies to palliate the effects of the recession. Upward Bias Similarly, if the money was allocated to poorer communities, these communities may have budgetary problems and cut other programs to address the effects of the recession. Downward Bias Gabriel Pia The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability

17 HPRP ALLOCATION The HPRP distributed the federal funding in a grant format to 535 states, urban counties, metropolitan cities, and U.S. territories based on the Community Development Block Grant Formula. CDBG: Heavy weight on Population and Number of Poor Individuals. Gabriel Pia The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 18 HPRP ALLOCATION As a consequence, the money did not always target the places in most need. Unemployment rate (%) in each school districts county in 2009 Model 1 Model 2 6.23 str Di Gabriel Pia n

si ci t Co . t.. n u str i D n si t ic Co u . nti .. str i D 6.05 5.98

5.83 n si t ic u Co n Model 3 . s.. e ti er h Ot ic si tr D ts str i D 6.04 6.02

n si t ic u Co n . s.. e ti er h Ot ic si tr D ts The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 19 HPRP ALLOCATION As a consequence, the money did not always target the places in most need. Students Homeless rate (%) in each school district in 2008-09

2.11 Model 1 Gabriel Pia 1.74 2.03 Model 2 1.91 1.92 3 Model 1.99 The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 20 HPRP ALLOCATION The funds did target larger communities. Average number of students in each school district in school year 2008-09 9,437 Model 2 Model 1 7,084 6,672 2,152

Gabriel Pia Model 3 2,096 1,642 The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 21 DATA AND ANALYSIS for district i, and school year t. School years 2005-2006 to 2013-2014. it: the percentage of students counted as homeless in district i. HPRPit: Dummy for districts with an HPRP provider in the county. Dummy for districts within 10 miles of an HPRP provider. Dummy for districts within 20 miles of an HPRP provider. District fixed effects () and School year fixed effects (). ) and School year fixed effects (). ). Gabriel Pia Cit is a vector of time-variant district-level controls: Neighborhood Stabilization Fund, TANF Emergency, The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Unemployment rate, Rent Costs, Students in Free Lunch, NonInstability 22

DATA AND ANALYSIS DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS School years 2005-2006 to 2013-2014. VARIABLES Homeless (%) HPRP in the County HPRP within 10 miles HPRP within 20 miles Unemployment Rate (%) Neighborhood Stabilization Program Emergency TANF State Relative Rent Costs Non-white Students (%) Students with Free Lunch (%) Households Renting (%) Distance (miles) Gabriel Pia (1) N (2) mean (3) sd (4) min (5) max 28,692

28,692 28,692 28,692 28,687 28,692 28,692 28,692 28,596 27,489 28,691 28,654 2.226 0.176 0.157 0.257 7.777 3.196 0.081 15.95 24.70 35.82 30.36 21.94 3.533 0.381 0.364 0.437 2.878 9.796 0.273 4.363 26.95 19.78

8.937 27.81 0 0 0 0 1.900 0 0 7.132 0 0 6.186 0.000214 68.39 1 1 1 28.90 250.3 1 58.01 100 100 80.89 324.2 The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 23 FALIFICATION TESTS

Falsification Tests (Pre-Trend analysis) VARIABLES HPRP*2006-07 HPRP*2007-08 HPRP*2008-09 School District Fixed Effects School Year Fixed Effects Observations Number of school districts R-squared (1) HPRP in the District 0.1148 (0.0865) 0.0972 (0.1058) -0.0922 (0.1140) Yes Yes 7,802 3,700 0.0257 Clustered Robust Standard Errors in parenthesis *** p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1 Gabriel Pia The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 24 DATA AND ANALYSIS

RESULTS Dependent Variable: Percentage of Homeless Students in a School District. (1) (2) (3) School Years 2005-2006 to 2013-2014. VARIABLES HPRP in the District HPRP in the County HPRP within 10 miles HPRP within 20 miles -0.1196*** (0.0396) HPRP within 10 miles -0.0946** (0.0451) HPRP within 20 miles -0.0951** (0.0480) School District Fixed Effects School Year Fixed Effects Mean Dependent Variable Pre HPRP

Observations R-squared Number of school districts Yes Yes 1.6 27,462 0.0737 5,148 Yes Yes 1.6 27,462 0.0735 5,148 Yes Yes 1.6 27,462 0.0735 5,148 Clustered Robust Standard Errors in parenthesis *** p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1 Gabriel Pia The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 25 FALSIFICATION TESTS The effect dissipates as the distance increases.

(1) HPRP within 30 miles VARIABLES HPRP within 30 miles (2) HPRP within 40 miles (3) HPRP within 50 miles -0.0899 (0.0605) HPRP within 40 miles 0.0220 (0.0724) HPRP within 50 miles School District Fixed Effects School Year Fixed Effects Observations R-squared Number of school districts Yes Yes Yes Yes

-0.0062 (0.0817) Yes Yes 27,462 0.0734 5,148 27,462 0.0733 5,148 27,462 0.0733 5,148 Clustered Robust Standard Errors in parenthesis *** p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1 Gabriel Pia The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 26 FURTHER ANALYSIS School District models in Counties with more 30% of households renting. Years 2005-2006 to 2012-2013. (1) HPRP in the District VARIABLES HPRP in the County

(2) HPRP within 10 miles (3) HPRP within 20 miles -0.1718*** (0.0653) HPRP within 10 miles -0.1410* (0.0744) HPRP within 20 miles School District Fixed Effects School Year Fixed Effects Mean Dependent Variable Observations R-squared Number of school districts Yes Yes 2.14 12,760 0.0794 2,753 Yes Yes 2.14

12,760 0.0792 2,753 -0.1894** (0.0916) Yes Yes 2.14 12,760 0.0793 2,753 Clustered Robust Standard Errors in parenthesis *** p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1 Gabriel Pia The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 27 FURTHER ANALYSIS Do the effects last after the program ends? VARIABLES HPRP in the County HPRP*2012-13 School District Fixed Effects Year Fixed Effects Observations R-squared Number of school districts (1) HPRP in the District

(2) HPRP within 10 miles (3) HPRP within 20 miles -0.1191** (0.0482) -0.0027 (0.0607) -0.0879** (0.0484) 0.0000 (0.0610) -0.0981** (0.0526) -0.0260 (0.0636) Yes Yes 27,462 0.0736 5,148 Yes Yes 27,462 0.0734 5,148

Yes Yes 27,462 0.0735 5,148 Clustered Robust Standard Errors in parenthesis *** p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1 Additional models with restricted and weighted sample showed similar results The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Gabriel Pia Instability 28 CONCLUSIONS Children who lack a stable home are vulnerable to a number of adverse outcomes. The number of families at risk being residentially unstable has increased in later years. Recent focus on Rapid-rehousing and Supportive housing may explain the decrease in homelessness in the U.S. However, we the little evidence we have shows that these programs may promote positive outcomes as we would expect. Gabriel Pia The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 29

CONCLUSIONS This study shows that homeless prevention programs can reduce residential instability in at least 8 percent. Previous studies have focused on New York and Chicago, which have their unique context and programs. Whereas the Family Options study provides evidence about the capacity of homeless prevention programs to lift families out of shelters, this study provides evidence about the impact of prevention programs on actually preventing homelessness and residential instability. Gabriel Pia In a context where rising numbers of low-income families struggle to pay rent, and expenditures on programs such as Section 8 or Public Housing falling over the last few years, homelessness prevention can provide a cost effective alternative to reduce the negative impacts of residential Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential instability, even ifThe only temporarily. Instability 30 THREATS TO VALIDITY Previous research shows that the spatial accessibility of service providers is an important determinant of service utilization among welfare recipients (Allard, Tolman & Rosen, 2003). Low-income families face limitations of public transportation systems and low car ownership rates (Herbst & Tekin, 2016). Distance to intake agencies may serve as a proxy for increased transaction costs and reduced information sharing for potential

beneficiaries in housing and health policies (Rusell et al. 2014; Andersen 1995; Collinsand Schmeiser; 2013). A qualitative study by HUD (2016) shows that in many cases potential program participants of HPRP were not aware of the program. Gabriel Pia The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 31 CDBG FORMULA Gabriel Pia The Impact of Homeless Prevention on Children Residential Instability 32

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Status update for Renaissance initiatives - June 2010

    Status update for Renaissance initiatives - June 2010

    Company Forum. July 2012. NFS Administrative shared service. Project overview. Co-brand logo area.A co-branding company's logo must be positioned within the borders of this shape
  • SOM 466 Project Planning - California State University ...

    SOM 466 Project Planning - California State University ...

    Project Planning * * Project Group of Activities Beginning, Middle, End Well-Defined End Result * Projects Example * Examples of Projects Construction Research and Development Design of New Product or Process Space Shuttle Wedding Can You Think of Projects? ......
  • Computer Security: Principles and Practice, 1/e

    Computer Security: Principles and Practice, 1/e

    remotely accessed services, such as Web and file transfer services. The server application. should not be granted the right to modify files, unless that function is specifically. required. A very common configuration fault seen with Web and file transfer. servers...
  • Hear a List of Available Assignments   Search for

    Hear a List of Available Assignments Search for

    To accept the assignment, Press To hear the assignment again, Press To reject this assignment and not hear it again, Press To listen to the next assignment, Press To replay a bypassed assignment, Press To return to the Main Menu,...
  • P4114 Bot Conversations for Apps Khuram Shahid Principal

    P4114 Bot Conversations for Apps Khuram Shahid Principal

    microsoft makes no warranties, express, implied or statutory, as to the information in this presentation. Call to action Leverage the new Speech capabilities for Bots
  • IAB QCF - Bookkeeping

    IAB QCF - Bookkeeping

    Incorrectly transferring totals from the books of prime entry into appropriate ledger accounts. Posting from an analysed Cash Book into ledger accounts is a particular problem. Incorrectly balancing off ledger accounts and entering balances on the Trial Balance. IAB QCF...
  • Advanced Placement Exam Open-Ended Prompt

    Advanced Placement Exam Open-Ended Prompt

    Advanced Placement Exam Open-Ended Prompt Basic Task. The open-ended prompt is a prompt designed to test the student's ability to apply a broad theme or technique to a major work (novel or play of LITERARY MERIT) that the student has...
  • Unit 2: Law Enforcement - Mr. Westwater&#x27;s History Class

    Unit 2: Law Enforcement - Mr. Westwater's History Class

    Miranda vs. AZ (1966) Miranda Rights. You have the right to remain silent. 2. If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.