Evaluating the Impacts of Affordable Housing on Housing Security and Family Functioning

• In Event: Programs and Policies to Support Families Experiencing Challenge

Abstract

Affordable housing is out of reach for millions of families across the United States (Pagaduan, 2021). Housing insecurity - consisting of unaffordability and poor-quality housing - has negative consequences for both family functioning (Leventhal & Newman, 2010) and children’s development (Coley et al., 2013; Newman & Holupka, 2016). Given housing’s ubiquitous influence, it is critical to evaluate the effectiveness of programs that aim to reduce housing insecurity among families. The current study used data from the New York City Housing and Neighborhood Study (NYCHANS; Gaumer, 2021), which leveraged the housing lottery in NYC to conduct a multi-site randomized control trial of affordable housing. The lottery is primarily aimed at households that do not qualify for housing vouchers or public housing, but who otherwise could not afford to live in a high cost of living city. Families who were offered housing were in the “treatment” group and those who were eligible, but not offered housing were in the “control” group. We investigated treatment effects on affordability and housing quality, as well as distal outcomes like parenting quality and family routines.

The current study included 625 households with children (261 treatment and 364 control). Participants were primary caregivers (85% female; Mage = 33-years-old at time of application to the housing lottery). Most participants were either Hispanic (47%) or Black (40%) and, on average, families reported an annual family income of $32,930. An omnibus F-test of joint significance revealed no significant difference between household and caregiver characteristics across treatment and control groups at the time of application.

Families applied to one of 13 sites through the housing lottery, and data from their housing applications were collected. Follow-up interviews were conducted four to seven years after families were informed about whether they were selected in the lottery. Caregivers completed a 90-min survey; only data on affordability, quality, parenting, and family routines were included in the present study. We used two dichotomous indicators of housing unaffordability: rent-burden (>30% of income spent on rent) and severe rent-burden (>50% of income spent on rent). Housing quality was assessed by number of reported maintenance deficiencies (e.g., pests, mold). Caregivers also completed the warmth and rejection subscales of the Parent as a Social Context Questionnaire (Skinner et al., 2005) to measure parenting quality and were asked about four family routines (e.g., regular bedtime, family dinners).

We analyzed group differences by regressing each outcome variable on condition (i.e., treatment or control) and a set of lottery variables that affected the probability of selection (e.g., disability status, municipal employee); models also included weights to account for site, household size, and unit income limit. Results indicated that families in the treatment condition reported higher-quality housing and were less likely to be rent burdened. However, there were no group differences on severe rent burden, parenting quality, or family routines. These findings suggest that affordability remains an issue for those at the highest-risk (severely rent-burdened), and additional supports beyond housing may be needed to influence family outcomes.

Authors

• Rebecca Distefano, Roger Williams University
  Presenting Author

• Elyzabeth Gaumer, New York City

• Daniel Goldstein, New York City

• Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Columbia University