The Housing Initiative at Penn and Penn’s Department of Psychology are collaborating with the City of Philadelphia on PHLHousing+, a three-year rental assistance pilot that provides monthly cash transfers to 301 low-income families. Researchers from both departments are evaluating how the cash assistance compares to traditional housing vouchers and how the program affects youth well–being.
Housing Initiative at Penn Faculty Director Vincent Reina, who studies low–income housing policy, explains that the project compares cash transfers with the Housing Choice Voucher program. Families typically receive a subsidy ensuring they pay no more than 30% of their income toward rent. There are limitations to the current system, though, including administrative barriers, long wait times, and finding landlords who will accept vouchers. It’s a “dual take–up challenge,” he says.
Unconditional cash for rent is almost nonexistent in U.S. housing policy. Most assistance programs (like vouchers or public housing) pay landlords directly or impose strict rules on how funds can be used. The idea of simply giving families cash and trusting them to secure stable housing runs against decades of policy assumptions. Earlier federal housing programs have, however, included more flexible, cash–based components, which informed the design of this pilot.
Philadelphia is one of the first cities in the country to test whether no–strings–attached payments can function as effectively as traditional rental subsidies. Matthew Fowle, the project’s director of research, says he was struck by how closely the outcomes of the cash and voucher groups aligned.
“There’s this expectation that low–income families might use cash on frivolous things,” Fowle said. “But we’re seeing very similar reductions in eviction and homelessness among families receiving cash compared to those with vouchers, which really suggests that people are using the money to stabilize [their] housing.”
The program also integrates psychological research with housing policy. “Children and families exist in a context, and that context is sometimes shaped by the kind of social policies that they encounter locally and at the state level and nationally,” says Professor Sara Jaffee, Chair of Penn’s Psychology Department. “There’s a lot of data showing that housing insecurity, poor housing quality, [and] the kind of financial insecurity that goes along with being unable to afford housing is a real source of stress for children and for families, and that has impacts on mental health.”
Jaffee’s team surveys participating households every six months. They collect caregiver reports on depression, anxiety, perceived stress, and more. Parents also report on children’s emotional and behavioral functioning. To avoid overburdening families, measures of child emotional and behavioral health are alternated with questions about children’s physical health.
They’ve had significant early findings: “Rates of forced moves drop by anywhere from 60 to 75% in our cash group, and they drop by about 50% in our voucher group,” says Jaffee. “Rates of homelessness in our cash group also drop by a really substantial degree.”
She also says the team has seen reductions in reported serious housing quality problems in both the cash and voucher groups. Reina notes that reductions in housing cost burdens appeared to correspond with the improvements families reported.
Fowle also recalled an early interview that stuck with him: a household that received its first cash payment just days before an eviction hearing. “They used the money to pay the back rent they owed and completely prevent the eviction,” Fowle said. “It was a wonderful example of how the cash came at the perfect time to stabilize someone’s housing.”
The team is examining how different approaches may suit different types of households. “There are multiple models that work to promote housing security,” Jaffee explains. “Housing authorities could have kind of a toolbox of housing assistance tools, and they could target the right housing assistance program with the right family.” The study could show whether housing programs influence other systems, such as contact with Child Protective Services, given how often poverty-related allegations intersect with housing conditions in Philadelphia.
The study highlights how important cross–departmental work can be, and how Penn’s academic environment can be helpful in facilitating it. “One of the things that I love about Penn is that it really does promote interdisciplinary research,” says Jaffee. “It’s been really great to bring in undergraduates who have these interests that span urban studies and psychology, and [they] have been really instrumental in helping us with different parts of the study.”
PHLHousing+ is funded for three years. After the pilot ends, researchers plan to continue following families through a separate grant to understand longer-term effects on housing and youth outcomes.
