Is Rapid Rehousing for Transition-Aged Youth Less Effective in Most Structurally Disadvantaged Areas of LA County

• In Event: Strengthening Rapid Re-Housing Programs

Abstract

Transition-aged youth (TAY; ages 18–24) experiencing homelessness face high risks of recurrent housing instability, with lasting consequences for health, economic mobility, and criminal justice involvement. Rapid rehousing (RRH)—a time-limited housing intervention that provides short-term rental assistance and supportive services—has emerged as a promising intervention to support housing stability for this population. Yet a place-based lens is rarely applied when evaluating the effectiveness of RRH and other homelessness services. Thus, little is known about whether and why RRH’s housing stability impacts for TAY vary across neighborhood contexts. 

I hypothesize that RRH’s housing stability benefits are attenuated in structurally disadvantaged urban areas. This attenuation may partly reflect compositional differences, as higher-risk TAY—particularly those who are racially minoritized or have prior systems involvement—are disproportionately served in these areas. Yet even net of these individual-level factors, I expect diminished RRH effectiveness due to contextual constraints, including limited housing options, weaker labor markets and educational opportunities, and constrained social networks.

This study examines these hypotheses in a key epicenter of youth homelessness: Los Angeles County. Concretely, I assess whether RRH reduces recurrent homelessness among TAY in Los Angeles County overall and whether these estimated reductions vary between the most structurally disadvantaged areas—Service Planning Areas (SPAs) 4 and 6, which cover Central and South Los Angeles, respectively—and more advantaged areas. To this end, I leverage over a decade (2013–2023) of individual-level administrative data from the Los Angeles County Homelessness Management Information System (HMIS), covering nearly all homelessness services interactions overseen by Los Angeles County’s Continuum of Care.

To estimate RRH’s effectiveness, I specify linear probability models predicting the probability of recurrent homelessness after receiving RRH compared to the probability exhibited by those receiving a common alternative intervention: emergency shelter. Recurrent homelessness is defined as a return to emergency shelter or street outreach within two years of initially receiving either RRH or emergency shelter. Controls for individual-level demographics, prior homelessness, disability status, and prior system involvement are included in the models. I estimate interaction effects between RRH receipt and SPA 4/6 location to assess spatial heterogeneity in program impacts and run robustness checks that include replacing the recurrent homelessness outcome with HMIS destination codes that proxy housing stability (i.e., the probability of exiting emergency shelter or RRH service to a destination code indicating rented/owned housing) and employing inverse probability of treatment weighting methods. 

Consistent with prior work, preliminary evidence indicates that RRH reduces recurrent homelessness among TAY overall. Crucially, however, RRH is associated with smaller reductions in recurrent homelessness risk for TAY in SPAs 4/6 than for TAY in other areas of L.A. County, even after accounting for compositional differences in the populations served. If RRH is less effective in disadvantaged areas, targeted modifications to the program when deployed in the most structurally disadvantaged areas—such as longer subsidy durations and enhanced supportive services—may be necessary to foster sustained housing security among the most vulnerable TAY populations.

Author

• Jared Nathan Schachner, University of Southern California
  Presenting Author