Study Details | Pathways to Work

24960-Study of Housing Vou

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a low-attrition randomized controlled trial with no known issues that suggest the findings cannot be attributed to the intervention.

Intervention: Chicago Section 8 Housing Vouchers

Services provided:

Housing

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

The study focuses on families in Chicago that applied to receive Section 8 housing vouchers from Chicago Housing Authority Corporation, Inc. (CHAC) in July 1997. All income-eligible applicants were randomly assigned positions on a waiting list in August 1997, and those on the waiting list were offered a voucher when one became available. A total of 82,607 families applied and were determined to be eligible for a voucher based on their income. The first 35,000 applicants were put on an active waiting list, and the first 18,110 were offered a voucher by May 2003 and formed the intervention group for this study. The comparison group included applicants assigned to lottery numbers 35,001 to 82,607, who were informed that they would not receive a housing voucher through CHAC within three years of application. The analysis excluded applicants who were on the active waiting list but were not offered a voucher through CHAC (those assigned to lottery numbers 18,111 to 35,000), as well as applicants who were older than 65, had a self-reported disability, or were living in public housing at the time of the application.

Time period of study:

Eligible households applied in July 1997 and were offered vouchers from August 1997 to August 1998; the wait list was interrupted by a lawsuit, but voucher offers resumed in early 2000 and continued through May 2003. Outcomes were examined through the end of 2005.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase very long-term earnings, Increase very long-term employment, Decrease very long-term benefit receipt

Other outcome domains examined:

Residential stability; neighborhood environment

Study funded by:

The National Consortium on Violence Research, the Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research, Smith Richardson Foundation, and the William T. Grant Foundation

Results

View table help Need more context or definitions for the table below? View the table help to get insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Intervention group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase very long-term earnings	Average quarterly earnings	Quarters 1–34	High	3,291.02	3,162.16	-128.86	2007 dollars	42,358
Increase very long-term employment	Average quarterly employment rate	Quarters 1–34	High	5.92	4.52	-1.40	percentage points	42,358
Decrease very long-term benefit receipt	Average quarterly rate of AFDC/TANF receipt	Quarters 1–34	High	14.60	15.20	0.60	percentage points	42,358
Decrease very long-term benefit receipt	Average quarterly rate of Medicaid receipt	Quarters 1-34	High	46.00	48.70	2.70	percentage points	42,358
Decrease very long-term benefit receipt	Average quarterly rate of receipt of any public benefits	Quarters 1–34	High	40.00	42.30	2.30	percentage points	42,358
Decrease very long-term benefit receipt	Average quarterly rate of SNAP/Food Stamp receipt	Quarters 1–34	High	37.50	40.50	3.00	percentage points	42,358

Short-term outcomes are those measured 18 months or fewer after participants are first offered services. Long-term outcomes are those measured between 18 months and 5 years after participants are first offered services. Very long-term outcomes are those measured 5 years or more after participants are first offered services.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the intervention. We do not display findings that rate low.

Findings key:

A moderate-to-large favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large favorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that might be due to chance
A favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A favorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that might be due to chance
An unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
An unfavorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size or direction
A finding of no effect that might be due to chance

Favorable findings are impacts in a direction that is socially desirable. Statistical significance indicates the likelihood that a study finding is due to the intervention, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the intervention produced a sufficiently large change in the outcome. An impact receives this designation if the standardized effect size is equal to or greater than 0.25 or equal to or less than -0.25.

Sample characteristics

The study sample included heads of households who applied for housing vouchers in Chicago, were younger than 65, did not have a self-reported disability, and were not living in public housing at the time of application. The average annual household income was around $14,000 (2007 dollars), and about 41 percent of applicants received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits at baseline. On average, sample members were 32 years old. The majority (94 percent) were Black, and 88 percent were female. About 9 percent were married, and more than half (57 percent) were employed at baseline. The racial and ethnic categories sum to more than 100 percent because the authors reported race and ethnicity separately; that is, they reported the percent of the sample who were Hispanic or Latino of any race, as well as the percent of the sample who were Black or White.

Age

Mean age

32 years

Sex

Female	88%
Male	12%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	94%
White	3%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	4%

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.

Family status

Married

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	57%
Were eligible for or receiving cash assistance	41%
Had low incomes	100%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Chicago Housing Authority Corporation (CHAC)

Program history:

Housing vouchers had been offered before the program, but the wait list was opened in July 1997 after 12 years of being closed.

Intervention services:

Participants were offered a Section 8 housing voucher through CHAC, which they could use to subsidize rent for housing leased in the private market. The voucher value was equal to the difference between either the fair market rent amount or the selected unit's rent (whichever was lower) and 30 percent of the family's adjusted income (income included earnings and TANF benefits but excluded certain other income). The average fair market rent was $12,000 per year, and the average maximum subsidy based on income and fair market rent was $8,265 per year (in 2007 dollars).

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

Applicants in the comparison group were informed that they would not receive a housing voucher through the CHAC program within three years of application. Families could receive housing vouchers from other sources—for example, if they were eligible based on disability status, ethnicity, or risk of housing issues leading to parent–child separation.

Service receipt duration:

Participants could use their housing vouchers indefinitely unless their annual incomes exceeded around $43,000 (in 2007 dollars), at which point the subsidy began phasing out; that is, they received smaller subsidies as their incomes increased.

Intervention funding:

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Study publications

Jacob, Brian A., and Jens Ludwig (2012). The effects of housing assistance on labor supply; Evidence from a voucher lottery, The American Economic Review 102(1): 272-304.

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

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

Study of Chicago Section 8 Housing Vouchers