Interesting Experiment in Sweden

According to this, many drivers will like mass transit more than they think.  I, of course, fully support getting more drivers off the roads into the buses and the trains.  Less traffic for me.

Vouchers in Wisconsin

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, always an indispensable source of information on federal issues, has released some new information.

First up is a state-by-state summary of federal rental assistance.  The Wisconsin fact sheet points out that only a small number of Wisconsin's renters are assisted by federal assistance, and with that comes additional risk:

When housing costs consume more than half of household income, low-income families are at greater risk of becoming homeless. Point-in-time surveys suggest that at least 6,525 people are homeless in Wisconsin.

The housing voucher data for Wisconsin shows that 91% of vouchers were used in Wisconsin, in line with the national average.  But that missing 9% means that 1,824 less families received assistance.  This page shows data over the past few years for each public housing authority.

The top public housing authorities in terms of voucher usage for 2010:

• Chippewa County at 100% (382 Vouchers)
• Eau Claire at 100% (405 Vouchers)
• Fond Du Lac County at 100% (430 Vouchers)
• Eau Claire County at 99% (219 of 221 Vouchers)
• Dodge County at 99% (151 of 152 Vouchers)
• Beloit Community Development at 97% (577 of 598 Vouchers)
• WHEDA at 97% (1,326 of 1,366 Vouchers)
• Winnebago County at 97% (401 of 413 Vouchers)
• Portage County at 97% (242 of 250 Vouchers)

And the public housing authorities that are not doing so well at voucher utilization:

• Platteville at 79% (101 of 128)
• Oconto County at 78% (57 of 73 Vouchers)
• Marshfield Community Deveopment at 76% (72 of 95 Vouchers)
• Sauk County at 74% (220 of 298 Vouchers)
• Burnett County at 73% (24 of 33 Vouchers)
• Taylor County at 70% (21 of 30 Vouchers)
• Dodgeville at 70% (56 of 80 Vouchers
• Wausau at 61% (265 of 435 Vouchers)

While I'd like to offer my kudos to the housing authorities that are doing a good job of utilizing their vouchers, especially year after year, the housing authorities that are not fully utilizing their vouchers simply has to do a better job.  That's something the local advocates need to take a part in. 

Wausau's 61% is simply horrenous when there is so much demand for vouchers, and all the more puzzling since they were at 98% in 2004 and kept utilizing less and less each year.  Same with Sauk County, going from 100% in 2004 to 74% in 2010. Taylor from 97% to 70%.  What's going on with those and other housing authorities? 

Update:  I'm getting some pushback on this, pointing out that the budget authority for the vouchers can be very different than the number "allocated".  A few years ago, HUD changed to a different system in which PHAs are given a specific budget number rather than a commitment to fund the assigned number of vouchers.  I'm trying to follow up with CBPP on this, and I should have a fuller explanation on this in the near future.

Update 2:  New blog post on this.

Freeloaders & Mooches

In the comment sections in newspaper websites, which are ruled by cruel people, I constantly see people complaining about freeloaders and moochers.

I doubt this is what they had in mind, but I also doubt they'll be nearly as outraged.

Family Self Sufficiency Award announced

On Thursday (Sept 22), the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced awards for the Housing Choice Voucher Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program.  FSS programs are designed to assist people receiving Housing Choice Vouchers ("Section 8 Vouchers") obtain employment that would eventually lead them to be more economically independent.  There is a similar FSS program for public housing residents.

FSS program services may include, but are not limited to:

• child care
• transportation
• education
• job training and employment counseling
• substance/alcohol abuse treatment or counseling
• household skill training
• homeownership counseling

HUD awarded $60 million across the nation, including $566,120 in Wisconsin.

Appleton Housing Authority $49,600

Brown County Housing Authority $135,462

City of Kenosha Housing Authority $67,266

Dane County Housing Authority $38,572

Dunn County Housing Authority $18,698

Housing Authority of Racine County $66,190

Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee $69,000

Sauk County Housing Authority $52,332

Winnebago County Housing Authority $69,000

HUD believes that the program works, and issued a new report evaluating the program.

After 4 years in the FSS program, 24 percent of the study participants completed program requirements and graduated from FSS. When the study ended, 37 percent had left the program without graduating and 39 percent were still enrolled in FSS. Program graduates were more likely to be employed than other exiters or the still-enrolled participants. Program graduates also had higher incomes, both when they enrolled in FSS and when they completed the program, than participants with other outcomes.

At first take, having more drop-outs than graduates isn't exactly a picture of a rousing success.  The report states that 31 of 63 who left the program did so involuntarily; they were removed due to violations of either FSS agreement (such as showing up for review meetings) or due to voucher program violations.  Others left the program for various reasons, usually due to family & work obligations making it difficult to keep in contact with the FSS staff person.  The fact that keeping in contact seems to be a big factor for those who leave the program involuntarily and for those who leave voluntarily makes me wonder if the FSS program couldn't have better outcomes if the FSS staff showed more flexibility.  My limited experience with the rental assistance program is that they tend to tell people, "show up at this date & time, or else."

Outcomes were generally positive for those who graduated from the program, with some clues for improved program efficiency.

This study finds that the financial benefits are substantial for participants who remain in and graduate from the FSS program. The study also highlights certain personal and program characteristics that tend to make families more successful in FSS. (For example, those with higher levels of education at enrollment did better.) These findings suggest approaches that program administrators can take to target FSS services more effectively.