Evaluating the Effects of Santa Clara County Housing Authority's Rent Reform: Final Report (Castells, 2020)

Study Profile What's in a study profile?
Causal Study Rating:
Low Causal Evidence
Study Type:
Causal Impact Analysis
Outcome Findings:
Earnings and wages: Low-No impacts
Employment: Low-No impacts
Citation
Castells, N. (2020). Evaluating the Effects of Santa Clara County Housing Authority's Rent Reform: Final Report. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. New York: MDRC.

Find original publication

There is no conflict of interest.

Highlights

  • The study's objective was to examine the impact of Santa Clara County Housing Authority’s (SCCHA) rent reform on employment and earnings.
  • The study used a difference-in-differences design with a matched comparison group. Using data from California's Unemployment Insurance system and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the author compared outcomes of treatment households to comparison households after the rent reform.
  • The study did not find statistically significant relationships between the SCCHA rent reform and employment or earnings.
  • This study receives a low evidence rating. This means we are not confident that any estimated effects would be attributable to the SCCHA rent reform; other factors are likely to have contributed. However, the study did not find statistically significant effects.

Intervention Examined

Moving to Work (MTW)

Features of the Study

Moving to Work (MTW) is a project supported by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that allows public housing agencies (PHAs) to change their policies and offer different programs and services to low-income families. The Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) used the flexibility of the MTW project to raise the contribution required from families to participate in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. The HCV program was created under the United States Housing Act of 1974 to help low-income families find affordable housing.

The study used a difference-in-differences design to compare the outcomes of households participating in the SCCHA HCV program with those in HCV programs in other counties, specifically the Housing Authority of the County of Alameda, the Housing Authority of the County of San Mateo, and the San Francisco Housing Authority. The comparison sites were selected through a three-stage process that evaluated county characteristics and individual demographics using federal and state data. The author used data from California's Unemployment Insurance (UI) system and the HUD Inventory Management System/Public and Indian Housing Information Center database. Data were collected from July 2009 to June 2013 (baseline) and July 2013 to June 2017 (follow-up). The author analyzed the outcomes of households in the SCCHA before and after the policy change, comparing them to the outcomes of households in the comparison PHAs.

The SCCHA sample had 7,111 households, and the comparison PHAs had 8,388 households. Both groups were made up of nonelderly, nondisabled adults. Each household had approximately two adults, with 65% having at least one child. Household incomes were between $17,000 and $18,500, and the average age of adults was 35. In the SCCHA group, 40% of households identified as Hispanic, while 41% of the comparison PHA households identified as Black, non-Hispanic. Participants in the SCCHA HCV program experienced the policy reforms, while those in the comparison counties did not.

Findings

Employment

  • The study did not find a statistically significant relationship between the SCCHA policy reforms and employment rates.

Earnings and wages

  • The study also did not find a statistically significant relationship between the SCCHA policy reforms and earnings.

Considerations for Interpreting the Findings

The authors compared employment and earnings of participants in the SCCHA HCV program and HCV participants in nearby counties. Because the analysis considered a policy operating in only one PHA, it is impossible to disentangle the effect of SCCHA’s policy reforms from the effect of county itself; this is known as a confounding factor. It is possible that some findings in the SCCHA group were based on other county-specific characteristics not included in the analyses. We cannot attribute the estimated effects with confidence to the rent reforms in SCCHA and not to other factors. Therefore, the study is not eligible for a moderate causal evidence rating, the highest rating available for nonexperimental designs.

Causal Evidence Rating

The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the program was implemented in only one county presenting a confounding factor. This means we are not confident that any estimated effects would be attributable to the SCCHA rent reforms; other factors are likely to have contributed. However, the study did not find statistically significant effects.

Reviewed by CLEAR: May 2026

Research Guidelines

Review Protocol: Living Systematic Annual Search and Review Protocol

Review Guidelines: Causal Evidence Guidelines