This is a retrospective evaluation examining FSS program participation between January 1, 2010 to October 1, 2017 at HACP. All public housing and housing choice vouchers that participated in the FSS program at any point of time during the study period are included in the initial review of the FSS program. This evaluation uses an event history analysis framework to determine the outcomes of FSS participation, calculate the length of time that a household participated in the FSS program, and analyze the factors that could contribute to the likelihood that participant withdrew from the FSS program.
1.3.1 Research Question 1: What are the outcomes of the FSS program?
There are four possible outcomes of FSS participation: 1) completed the program; 2) withdrew from the program prior to completion; 3) moved from HACP housing, and thus left the program prior to completion; or 4) remained in the program on October 1, 2017, the last day of the study period. An analysis of the administrative data revealed the outcome for each of the households that enrolled in the FSS program on or after January 1, 2010. This question will determine the number of public housing and housing choice voucher households with each outcome of their FSS participation.
1.3.2 Research Question 2: When are FSS participants most likely to leave the FSS program?
A time-series analysis of entry to and exit from the FSS program during the study period determined whether there were any trends in entry and exit based on the calendar year. This analysis determined whether there were seasonal effects in the enrollment and termination of FSS participation.
After testing for seasonal effects, I determined whether there were identifiably points in the program when participants were more likely to leave by using an event history framework to analyze the length of program participation. The number of months that each household participated in the FSS program were calculated starting at 0, the month that the household enrolled in the FSS program and counting each month that the household remained until the household left the FSS program, moved from HACP housing, reached month 60 of FSS participation, or October 1, 2017, the last date of the study period. The number of households in the program at the beginning of each month from 0-60 were recorded in the life table. By examining the number of households that were enrolled in FSS from month 0 to 60, I determined whether there were certain points in the program when participants were more likely to withdraw from the program or move from HACP housing.
1.3.3 Research Question 3: What explains withdraw from the FSS program?
After determining whether and when FSS participants were most likely to withdraw from the program, I conducted further analysis of the factors that may impact a participant’s likelihood
of leaving the FSS program prior to completion. Based on the literature, I developed two hypotheses about possible explanations of FSS program attrition.
1.3.3.1 Hypothesis 1: Household Characteristics.
These characteristics include 1) whether there are children in the household, 2) change in household size during the program, 3) household income at time of FSS entry and, 4) location and moves within HACP housing during FSS participation. These characteristics may affect the length of program participation for the reasons explained below.
Participants with young children may be less likely to remain in the FSS program than households that do not have children because of childcare responsibilities. Changes in the household may represent changes in household responsibilities, as a wage earner may leave, or a child may join the family. These changes may shift household responsibilities and lead a participant to withdraw from the FSS program.
Participants with work experience and higher monthly incomes when they enrolled in the FSS program may be more likely to remain in the program than those who had lower incomes at the time of enrollment. It is possible that the FSS program may be more effective for households that aim to move from a job to a better job than for households that are trying to move from unemployment to employment.
Participants who reside in neighborhoods that are closer to HACP services or jobs, may be more likely to remain in the FSS program than households who live farther away. Additionally, participants from households that experience moves with the subsidized housing program or have changes in household composition may be less likely to remain in the FSS program. If the household moves within HACP housing from one public housing unit to another, or for voucher
program completion. It is possible that a household may move farther from or closer to HACP programs and resources. That move may impact the household’s access to services, transportation, or jobs.
1.3.3.2 Hypothesis 2: Program Characteristics.
There are three programmatic features that may impact the household’s likelihood of remaining in the program. The first programmatic feature is whether the household lives in public housing or has a housing choice voucher. Conventional wisdom is that public housing households are more likely to remain in the FSS program than those with vouchers because the public housing residents live closer to the services provided by the housing authority. Conversely, households with a housing choice voucher tend to earn higher salaries that their public housing counterparts, which may lead the voucher households to be more likely to remain in the FSS program.
The second programmatic feature that may impact a participant’s likelihood to withdraw from the FSS program is whether the household has escrow savings. Escrow savings is the main incentive for participants to remain in the FSS program, as it is an opportunity to accumulate savings, but if a household has not experienced an increase in income and has not accumulated savings in the escrow account, there is little incentive to remain in the program. For households that have been successful in the FSS program and have experienced an increase in income and have acquired escrow savings, they have an incentive to complete the 60-month program.
The third programmatic feature that may explain the likelihood of remaining in the FSS program is the increased minimum rent policy. This policy will be explained in detail in Chapter 3. HACP implemented an increased minimum rent policy for work-able public housing and housing voucher households that earned less than $6,000 per year. The increased minimum rent
to $150 per month and for housing choice voucher households from $50 per month to $150 per month. This policy went into effect in 2010 for public housing households and in 2011 for the housing choice voucher households. Households that paid the increased minimum rent of $150 prior to enrolling in the FSS program may be more likely to remain in the FSS program than household that did not pay the increased minimum rent prior to enrollment. If the household paid the increased minimum rent of $150 prior to enrolling in the FSS program was successful in the FSS program and experienced an increase in income, they will then have savings in the escrow account and may be more likely to remain in the program. If the household did not experience an increase in household income while enrolled in the FSS program, they may still be more likely to remain in the program so that they do not have to pay the increased minimum rent of $150 when they exit the FSS program. While that is a strong explanation for why those households may be more likely to remain in the FSS program, it is also possible that those households will be more likely to withdraw from the FSS program because they may be less interested in the program, and enrolled only to avoid paying the increased minimum rent. That reason alone may not be sufficient for keeping the participant in the program.
These research questions as well as the research design and methods will be presented in greater detail in chapter three.