Research Partnership
Cash assistance for housing
There is growing momentum among researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to explore the role of direct cash transfers in helping people access housing.
To understand the state of research and experimentation on direct cash transfers in the housing space, read our in-depth Policy Insight.
When delivering social safety net assistance to households, policymakers must decide what form transfers will take. On one end of the spectrum, transfers can be in-kind, meaning that the government itself provides housing, food, or other goods to an individual or community. At the other extreme, the government can make cash transfers directly to households, enabling them to buy goods and services but placing few or no restrictions on how the cash is spent. Other forms of transfers, such as vouchers, fall along the middle of this spectrum – they offer recipients some flexibility to choose among a limited set of goods or services.
Today, housing assistance in the U.S. rarely takes the form of a direct cash transfer. Instead, it is often an in-kind transfer (like public housing or permanent supportive housing) or a voucher that allows a household to rent a privately owned home and then pays the landlord on their behalf.
We care about exploring the potential of direct cash transfers for three main reasons.
- First, cash may be able to reduce the often heavy administrative costs associated with rapid rehousing, housing vouchers, public housing, or other forms of housing assistance.
- Second, in doing so, cash could increase landlords’ willingness to accept assisted tenants, possibly opening a larger range of homes and neighborhoods to assisted households.
- Third, it would allow households to take ownership of their decision-making and give them greater flexibility to confront their unique circumstances.
However, we also care about the potential risks associated with cash.
By removing the direct role the government currently plays in inspecting homes that receive public subsidy, it could expose households to unfavorable or unsafe conditions.
If tenants directly receive a cash subsidy, they may choose to use it for some purpose other than paying for housing, creating risks for both households and landlords.
TA fundamental question for policymakers designing cash-based assistance is whether recipients will be required to spend funds only on housing costs, or if they will have flexibility to use the cash for any type of expense. The answer to this question is what distinguishes housing-focused guaranteed income (GI) programs from direct rental assistance (DRA) programs:
DRA programs, by contrast, do require recipients to use the cash for housing costs. They may also impose consequences for participants who fall behind on rent or face eviction proceedings, such as ceasing their subsidy.dy, they may choose to use it for some purpose other than paying for housing, creating risks for both households and landlords.
GI programs may target people experiencing housing insecurity or calculate the subsidy to reflect housing costs, but the cash they provide is unconditional. There are no consequences for recipients if they choose not to spend the cash on housing.
There are two broad veins of experimentation with cash-based rental assistance: guaranteed income (GI) and direct rental assistance (DRA).
In GI experiments, the cash is unconditional – participants are not required to use it for housing expenses or consume a certain type of housing – but the underlying theory of change assumes the cash will allow households to maintain or improve their housing. The Lab’s Bay Area Thriving Families experiment and the Denver Basic Income Project, which target formerly homeless individuals and families and pay close attention to housing outcomes, are perhaps the most relevant examples and are described in greater detail in our Policy Insight. But other experiments have also generated evidence about the impact of GI on housing outcomes, including pilots in Compton, CA; Durham, NC; Newark, NJ; and many more.
DRA pilots have emerged to test whether paying subsidies directly to renters could improve outcomes for participants in existing housing assistance programs. Some DRA pilots emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic as a way to deliver emergency rental assistance; the DC Flex program in Washington, D.C. is an example of this. Others have focused on providing greater flexibility within the Housing Choice Voucher program. The Lab is partnering with housing authorities to design and evaluate DRA pilots, including in Montgomery County, MD and Reno, NV.
The Lab is at the cutting edge of research on cash assistance for housing.
Bay Area Thriving Families
As homelessness continues to rise, direct cash transfers have emerged as a promising tool to help vulnerable individuals afford housing and other basic needs. The Lab is helping to build the evidence base through Bay Area Thriving Families. Learn more about our large-scale, multi-year trial to understand whether providing cash to families exiting homelessness can help them achieve long-term housing stability.
Direct Rental Assistance
There is mounting interest in whether the flexibility of cash can address some of the persistent challenges associated with the federal government’s flagship form of rental assistance, the Housing Choice Voucher. Learn about the Lab’s work with housing authorities across the country to design, launch, and evaluate direct rental assistance pilots.