The Family Self-Sufficiency Program Evaluation

Project

Overview

Project Overview

The Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program is the main federal program for increasing employment and earnings and reducing reliance on government subsidies among recipients of housing subsidies. Created in 1990, FSS is administered by state and local public housing agencies with funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In 2014, HUD allocated $75 million for public housing agencies to administer FSS to about 65,000 participants nationwide. Roughly 81 percent of FSS participants are housing voucher holders. .

FSS is a voluntary case-management and asset-building program that provides incentives to work. Participants are connected to services that can help them prepare for, find, and advance in work. Voucher recipients generally pay 30 percent of their income in rent (with the government making up the balance); as their earnings rise, so does their rent. FSS allows families to build savings while paying more in rent — the increase in a tenant’s share of rent is deposited into an interest-bearing “escrow account” maintained by the housing authority and paid to the participant when he or she completes the program.

In March 2012, HUD commissioned MDRC to conduct a national evaluation of FSS, building on MDRC’s New York City Work Rewards project, the first random assignment test of an FSS program. The national evaluation will provide evidence regarding the effectiveness of a variety of FSS programs in a diverse set of cities and local contexts.

STATUS: Current

Basics

Issue: Work and Income Security

Focus Area: Housing/Community Initiatives, Work Support and Asset Building

Population: Populations with Low Incomes

Focus Population: People in Public Housing, People in Low-Wage Jobs, People Who Are Unemployed or Underemployed

Locations: California, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas

Intervention: Case Management, Asset Building, Financial Incentives, Employment Services

Agenda, Scope, <br> & Goals

Agenda, Scope, and Goals

This evaluation will make it possible to assess, with a high degree of rigor, whether FSS is helping families achieve economic independence and improve their quality of life.

Study enrollment targeted about 2,600 voucher holders, who have been randomly allocated in equal numbers to two groups: (1) a group that receives the FSS program (case management plus escrow savings) and (2) a control group not enrolled in FSS and not entitled to receive the escrow savings. Sample members will be tracked for at least three years after study entry.

STATUS: Current

Basics

Issue: Work and Income Security

Focus Area: Housing/Community Initiatives, Work Support and Asset Building

Population: Populations with Low Incomes

Focus Population: People in Public Housing, People in Low-Wage Jobs, People Who Are Unemployed or Underemployed

Locations: California, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas

Intervention: Case Management, Asset Building, Financial Incentives, Employment Services

Design, Sites, & <br> Data Sources

Design, Sites, and Data Sources

The comprehensive evaluation is structured around three research components.

An impact study: The impact analysis will examine the program’s effects on a wide range of outcomes, including participants’ employment, earnings, family income, benefit receipt, poverty, material hardship, and other indicators of quality of life. It will also assess whether FSS produces different effects for different types of participants across different housing authorities and local conditions. The impact study will draw on baseline surveys, unemployment insurance wage records (for employment and earnings outcomes), housing authority records, and survey data.

An implementation and process study: This component will describe the FSS programs implemented by the different housing authorities in the study. The analysis will examine the processes by which families are recruited into the program (and the evaluation) and screened, the roles and responsibilities of the housing authorities’ key partners in serving those families, the priority levels the staffs and families attach to different program outcomes (for example, shorter-term or longer-term employment, skills building, and financial management), the methods used to market and administer the escrow asset-building component, and the variety of ways in which the programs try to engage participants in self-sufficiency activities. This component will draw on the housing authorities’ program management information systems and reports on specified performance indicators, field observations, and interviews with staff members and participants.

A cost-benefit study: This study will compare the costs of operating the FSS program with the economic benefits it produces. MDRC will calculate the costs of alternative services that people in the control group receive on their own (for example, education or training courses), and thereby estimate the net government expenditure on employment-related services for program participants. Survey data will permit a full accounting of the program’s effects on economic outcomes, which will in turn help determine whether the government and taxpayers experience a positive “return on investment,” and whether participants in the program are better off economically after other effects are taken into account, such as losses of certain transfer benefits and increases in tax payments and work-related expenses.

Voucher holders from 18 housing authorities across the country are participating in this evaluation:

Housing Authority of the County of Alameda
Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles
Housing Authority of the County of Riverside
Orange County Housing Authority
Deerfield Beach Housing Authority
Housing Authority of the City of Fort Lauderdale
Baltimore County Office of Housing
Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County
Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri
Youngstown Metropolitan Housing Authority
Jersey City Housing Authority
Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority
Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority
Lucas Metropolitan Housing Authority
Dallas Housing Authority
Fort Worth Housing Authority
Houston Housing Authority
Tarrant County Housing Assistance Office

STATUS: Current

Basics

Issue: Work and Income Security

Focus Area: Housing/Community Initiatives, Work Support and Asset Building

Population: Populations with Low Incomes

Focus Population: People in Public Housing, People in Low-Wage Jobs, People Who Are Unemployed or Underemployed

Locations: California, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas

Intervention: Case Management, Asset Building, Financial Incentives, Employment Services

Funders & <br />Partners

Funders

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Partners

Branch Associates

M. Davis and Company, Inc.

Ingrid Gould Ellen, New York University

John Goering, Baruch College, City University of New York

MDRC Staff

Nandita Verma
Senior Fellow, Economic Mobility, Housing, and Communities
Since joining MDRC in 1996, Verma has been involved with the design, analysis, and management of a wide range of evaluation projects. She currently oversees the evaluation of the Chicago New Communities Program, a multi-method assessment of a complex community development initiative underway in 16 communities.
More »
James A. Riccio
Principal Research Fellow
As Principal Research Fellow, Riccio spearheads the development of new projects, particularly in the areas of economic mobility, housing, and communities.
More »
Donna Wharton-Fields
Senior Fellow, Economic Mobility, Housing, and Communities
Wharton-Fields, a Senior Fellow, has more than 15 years of experience in community development and urban planning. Her current work is focused on the Opportunity NYC project, a new demonstration program designed to reduce inter-generational poverty in New York City.
More »
Betsy L. Tessler
Senior Associate, Economic Mobility, Housing, and Communities
Tessler has 20 years of experience with operations and implementation research at MDRC, focusing on employment, training, and career and technical education among low-wage workers and individuals receiving housing and food assistance.
More »
Stephanie Rubino
Operating Director, Economic Mobility, Housing, and Communities
Rubino has more than 20 years of experience in project management and over 10 years in social policy research.
More »
David Navarro
Research Associate, Youth Development, Criminal Justice, and Employment
Navarro, a research associate in MDRC’s California office, has over 31 years of experience as an information services and operations liaison for over 60 sites, covering 21 evaluations and demonstrations of innovative programs to help low-income people become self-sufficient.
More »
Michelle Ware
Senior Associate, Postsecondary Education
Ware, who came to MDRC in 2006, works predominantly on projects designed to reveal ways to improve college access, persistence, and success for low-income and underprepared students.
More »
Joshua Vermette
Research Associate, Economic Mobility, Housing, and Communities
Joshua Vermette is a quantitative researcher in the Economic Mobility, Housing, and Communities policy area.
More »