| Millions of individuals and families in the United States do not have access to stable housing. During the financial crisis of 2008, several new housing assistance programs were implemented by the U.S. federal government, in an attempt to prevent a large increase in evictions, foreclosures, and residential instability across the nation. This dissertation focuses on understanding (i) the impacts of these programs in terms of children and families' homelessness, residential instability, and health care access, and (ii) the trade-offs faced by state agencies when implementing these programs.;The focus is on two federal housing programs: The Homeless Prevention and Rapid-Rehousing Program (HPRP) of 2009, and The Hardest Hit Fund (HHF) of 2010. Both programs were designed to reduce the risks of undesired moves and residential instability during the financial crisis that started in 2008. Whereas HPRP was mainly designed to provide short-term financial assistance to families renting and at risk of becoming homeless, HHF was designed to help unemployed homeowners avoid foreclosure of their properties. In three empirical chapters, this dissertation finds that homeless prevention program can reduce low-income families' homelessness and residential instability significantly, whereas mortgage assistance programs can reduce the need for public health insurance for low-income homeowners. This dissertation also shows that state agencies promoting a more equal access to federal programs can promote higher equity of access through the use of different grant allocation mechanisms, but at the cost of creating delays in program implementation. This work contributes to housing policy debates about the effectiveness of homelessness and foreclosure prevention programs, and to the public administration literature by providing and testing an explanation as to why and when performance trade-offs arise. |
