Study Details | Pathways to Work

27880-Study of Santa Clara

Study quality: Low

Low

Reason for the rating: This study received a low study quality rating because the effect of the program cannot be disentangled from the effect of another factor that was also present during the program.

Program: Santa Clara Housing Authority (SCCHA) Rent Reform

Characteristics of study participants:

Public benefits recipients

Services provided:

Housing supports and subsidies, Legal assistance

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Methods and Standards Protocol version used for review: Version 1.0

Learn about our protocol

Study design

Design:

Quasi-experimental design

Study group formation:

The program group consisted of 16,133 non-elderly, nondisabled adults who were affected by the Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) rent reform, across 7,111 households. (Elderly or disabled adults were also potentially affected but were not examined because their employment and earnings behaviors were assumed to be less flexible to the policy change). The comparison group consisted of 17,942 non-elderly, nondisabled adults representing 8,388 households selected from three other public housing authorities bordering Santa Clara County that had not implemented the rent reform as of July 2013 but might have been otherwise similar. These were the Housing Authority of the County of Alameda, the Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo, and the San Francisco Housing Authority. Evaluators compared employment and earnings outcomes before and after the onset of the policy change between SCCHA Housing Choice Voucher recipients and comparison Housing Choice Voucher recipients pooled together across the three comparison public housing authorities. The analysis relied on earnings and employment data from both groups dating back four years before the SCCHA rent reform and extending four years after the SCCHA rent reform. The program and comparison groups included those who had available administrative data on quarterly employment and earnings during this period.

Time period of study:

The program was implemented in September 2013; evaluators measured outcomes through June 2017.

Pathways to Work only reports results from studies with a study quality rating of high or moderate.

Sample characteristics

Age

Mean age	36 years
Young adults (age 16-24)	32%
Adults (age 25+)	68%

Sex

Female	65%
Male	35%

Race and ethnicity

Black or African American	28%
White, not Hispanic	13%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	30%
Another race	29%

The race and ethnicity categories may sum to more than 100 percent if the authors reported race and ethnicity separately; in these cases, we report the category White, rather than White, not Hispanic.

Employment and public benefit status

Public benefits recipients	100%
Had low incomes	100%
Cash assistance recipients	12%

Program implementation

Implementing organization:

SCCHA

Program services:

Beginning in September 2013, tenant contribution rates for families receiving Housing Choice Vouchers through SCCHA increased from about 27 percent to 35 percent of unadjusted income. (SCCHA subsequently reduced this rate to 32 percent one year later.) In addition, the new rent policy eliminated all allowances and deductions (for example, child care and medical expenses) for determining required contributions, and reduced the number of bedrooms on a household's voucher for some families. (Before the program, separate bedrooms were provided for household members older than age 5 in different generations, genders, or family relations; after the reform, one bedroom was allocated to the head of household plus partner and an additional bedroom was allocated for every two additional household members.) SCCHA offered a hardship exemption policy that allowed households to temporarily include child care or medical deductions in their tenant contribution for up to 90 days after the start of the rent reform. In addition, SCCHA provided financial assistance to cover rental payments or security deposits and free legal services to prevent eviction that might have resulted from the policy change.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

The comparison group participants were selected from families receiving housing vouchers from the Housing Authority of the County of Alameda, the Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo, and the San Francisco Housing Authority. These neighboring county public housing authorities did not alter tenant contribution rate policies (which remained at about 27 percent of unadjusted income) during the program period.

Study publications

Castells, Nina (2020). Evaluating the effects of Santa Clara County Housing Authority's rent reform, Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/SantaClaraMTW.html.

View the glossary for more information about these and other terms used on this page.

Pathways to Work refers to programs by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some program names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.

Return to top

Study of Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) Rent Reform