Housing and Housing Finance is a research focus of the Urban Institute. On this webpage there are links to various resources related to housing, such as Affordability, Credit Availability, Homelessness, and Multifamily Housing. Researchers at Urban analyze housing market trends as well as the efficacy of housing assistance programs to provide current information about the impacts of housing policy and finance to both policymakers and the public.

IMPACT 5000 is the District of Columbia Housing Authority’s (DCHA) initiative to increase support for the 5,000 children living in its properties. These children face several challenges, including food insecurity, economic uncertainty, and health issues. This resource includes materials from an event at Urban Institute at which a panel presented findings from a community needs assessment of residents of DCHA family properties.

Throughout the past three years, the National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices has provided technical assistance to Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Michigan, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming to develop statewide plans to improve outcomes and reduce cost of care for high-need, high-cost Medicaid enrollees. This road map from NGA can be used by states across the country that are interested in housing as an element of improved health and a reduction of costly health services.

As of November 2015, more than 2.5 million children, many younger than six years old, are homeless each year. This report from the Bassuk Center presents strategies to end family homelessness, including assessing all family members, addressing trauma, and providing permanent affordable housing.

This brief from Health Affairs discusses opportunities through Medicaid to address supportive housing needs. In addition, the brief highlights other tools provided by the Affordable Care Act that can support individuals with disabilities living in community settings.

Jobs-Plus is a place-based workforce development model to help public housing residents find employment. The model was tested in six cities between 1998 and 2006 and is now being replicated across the United States. This infographic from MDRC presents the history of the program, shows the evidence behind the approach, and describes its three core components: on-site employment services, rent-based work incentives, and community support for work.

This video from the 2016 Research and Evaluation Conference on Self-Sufficiency (RECS) describes the Family Options Study, which is a random assignment study examining the impact of housing and services for homeless families in twelve communities across the United States. Topics covered include the study design, findings from the first 18 months, and the services needs of the families involved in the study.

The Office of Family Assistance developed this guide to help state TANF agencies recognize the important role they have in identifying and serving families experiencing homelessness and families at risk of homelessness. It is intended to help states better assess for homelessness and housing instability during intake and formulate cohesive strategies with state and local homelessness providers and systems, such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-funded Continuums of Care (CoC).

This Congressional Research Service report explains the differences in work requirements, work incentives, and time limits between TANF, SNAP, and housing assistance. Federal law requires most able-bodied adults receiving SNAP to participate in work activities, and has a time limit of 3 months for every 36-month period for able-bodied adults without dependents who do not work at least 20 hours a week. SNAP also has a work incentive for employed participants to deduct some of their earned income, which results in slightly higher benefits. One key difference between SNAP and TANF is that SNAP work requirements apply to individuals, while in TANF, states have the discretion to determine whether work requirements apply to individuals or families.

Evidence suggests that neighborhoods matter for low-income individuals’ life trajectories. Extensive federal and foundation resources have been devoted to “place-based” strategies designed to help individuals by addressing the communities where they live. Two main strategies have emerged: 1) attempts to help people living in settings of concentrated poverty move to areas of economic opportunity, and 2) efforts to improve or preserve neighborhoods for current and future residents who have low incomes. This brief from MDRC summarizes information from recent studies of these strategies. For example, there were long-term benefits, such as higher incomes and college attainment, for children who were 12 or younger when their families moved to lower-poverty neighborhoods through the federal housing voucher program. However, encouraging low-income families to move to higher-income neighborhoods cannot be the only policy response. Instead, there must be complementary and interconnected strategies to improve neighborhoods for low-income residents and increase their mobility.