A TERNER CENTER REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2020 Recession And .
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2020Recession and Recovery:The Critical Role of HousingAssistance in PromotingEconomic Security forLow-Income HouseholdsAUTHOR:CAROLINA REID, FACULTY RESEARCH ADVISORRESEARCH ASSISTANT:BEATRIZ STAMBUK-TORRESCopyright 2020 Terner Center for Housing InnovationFor more information on the Terner Center, see our website atwww.ternercenter.berkeley.edu
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2020As the nation confronts its greatesteconomic downturn since the GreatDepression, concerns related to housingaffordability and stability loom large. Anestimated 12–15 million renters are likely to beimmediately affected by job or income lossesfrom the COVID-19 pandemic.1 Although notnews to the 20 million renters who have longfaced housing insecurity owing to high housingcosts,2 the pandemic and resulting job losseshave raised concerns about the lack of housingrental subsidies, particularly for lower-incomehouseholds.Research has shown that housing securityand affordability promote economic stability.It is hard to find or keep a job when you faceeviction or involuntary moves.3 In addition,high housing costs and housing instability canlimit opportunities for economic advancement,negatively affect children’s ability to do wellin school,4 and contribute to poor health.5Government support for subsidized housing—including the construction of new units andtenant-based subsidies—is therefore criticalto building a platform for household financialstability and well-being. However, evidence forhow affordable housing influences economicmobility is still limited, and most studies focuson public housing residents or on recipientsof Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV), a keyhousing subsidy for low-income families.6Missing is evidence for how residents livingin properties funded by the Low-IncomeHousing Tax Credit (LIHTC) fare over time,7despite LIHTC units composing the largestshare of the subsidized housing stock in theUnited States today.8In this research brief we explore the factors thatinfluence renters’ economic circumstancesover time by analyzing longitudinal data onCalifornia families living in subsidized housingmanaged by Eden Housing, a nonprofitaffordable housing developer. The data spanhouseholds who moved into a subsidizedunit between 2003 and 2019 and representtwo different types of housing subsidies:LIHTC rental units and units subsidizedby the Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (HUD), such as Housing ChoiceVouchers or public housing (e.g., projectbased Section 8 units).The analysis provides a unique window intohow lower-income households fare in timesof economic growth and decline and underscores the importance of housing subsidies instabilizing households who are either unableto work or who are working in lower-wagejobs. The findings are particularly importantgiven that lower-income households arelikely to experience the current recessionmore profoundly (and for a longer time) thanhigher-income households, as their jobs andincomes are inherently less secure and theyare less likely to have the necessary savings tofall back on.9The analysis points to three importantfindings. First, housing assistance is critical tostabilizing low-income households, especiallythose who are unlikely to ever see theirincomes match market rents. In particular,seniors, people with disabilities living onfixed incomes, and very low-income workersneed greater subsidies than LIHTC alonecan provide. The research lends support forexpanding housing vouchers and preservingand expanding the public housing stock tosecure against evictions and homelessness,particularly in high-cost states like Californiawhere market rents far outstrip monthlyincomes.Second, for working households, housingstability is associated with household incomegrowth over time. The number of years in anEden property is positively associated withincreased income, even after controllingfor other factors. We find that from 2004 to2019, employed residents living in subsidized housing saw their household incomesrise substantially, from 37,693 in 2004 to2
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2020 47,969 in 2019, or just over 20 percent in realterms. These gains occurred across housingsubsidy types and racial-ethnic groups andare influenced by household composition(e.g., a second adult going to work), labormarket factors (such as whether the economywas growing or shrinking), and neighborhoodconditions. Although more research is neededto assess the causal effect of affordable housingon these income gains, the data neverthelessdemonstrate an association between housingsecurity and income growth. This stands instark contrast to the narrative that housingsubsidies create a disincentive to work anddepress earnings.10However, the analysis also shows that thesepotential gains are constrained by labor andhousing market conditions. Almost all incomegains accrue to those households makingmore than 40,000. For households earning 25,000 or less, incomes since 2003 remainedlargely flat, and many households have yet torecover from the last recession. Of particularrelevance for the current moment, low-incomehouseholds are particularly vulnerable toincome losses during economic downturns.During the Great Recession, more than onein three Eden households saw their incomesdecline by more than 10 percent from one yearto the next, and one in four saw their incomesdecline by more than 30 percent.Third, the tenuous economic circumstancesof lower-wage workers are exacerbated whenviewed alongside local housing costs. In 2019,even Eden residents with higher incomeswould find market-rate apartments unaffordable. California’s continued failure to buildenough housing—especially for moderate-income households—means that even whenhouseholds do see sustained income gains,leaving subsidized housing likely entailstrading an affordable, high-quality home for asubstandard or overcrowded home at a significantly higher cost, undermining households’ability to move up the housing ladder.These findings, while limited to only asegment of California’s subsidized rentalhouseholds, are particularly relevant giventhe likely long-term impact that COVID-19will have on lower-income renters. Even asthe labor market shows modest improvements in jobless claims, the path to recoveryfor lower-income households and householdsof color will likely be significantly longer.11 Thecumulative impact of not investing enough inaffordable housing production and preservation, coupled with the continued lack of a boldfederal response to COVID-19’s disruptionsin the rental market, will exacerbate housinginsecurity among lower-income renters andpotentially push more into homelessness.The evidence presented here demonstratesthe value of subsidized housing in ensuringthat lower-income families can stay in theirhomes even during economic crises and inproviding a much needed hedge against thelack of mobility at the lower end of the labormarket.Data and MethodsBefore discussing the findings in detail andoffering policy recommendations, we firstdescribe our data and methods. This reportdraws on data provided by Eden Housing,which manages more than 10,000 units in100 properties across California. One of thelargest mission-driven, affordable housingdevelopers in the state, Eden Housing servesapproximately 22,000 low-income residents.In addition to developing housing, EdenHousing manages its own properties andprovides resident services.Eden’s resident property management database includes all the existing records for properties from 1982 until 2019. The data usedhere are structured as a monthly panel at thehousing unit level. At least once a year, theadministrative data are updated to reflect anychanges in household composition, income, or3
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2020rent levels. These annual re-certifications arerequired to ensure compliance with housingsubsidy program rules, though they can occurat different points during the year. The database is also updated when a resident moves inor out or when resident elect to notify Eden ofa change to their status. In addition to time-series data on changes to resident incomes,the data set includes the resident’s age, raceand ethnicity, gender, information about thesubsidy source attached to the unit, incomesources, and rent paid.One of the advantages of the Eden data setis that it includes residents living in unitscovered by different types of housing subsidies,including HUD’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program, project-based Section 8 units,USDA Rural Development, and the LIHTCprogram. Rent calculations in LIHTC unitsoperate differently from those in the otherprograms. Under the LIHTC program, rentsare set at the unit level (most commonly at alevel that would be affordable to a householdat either 50 or 60 percent of the area’s medianincome) and do not change with householdincome. In other words, the subsidy is calculated based on the unit rather than the incomeof the resident. In other government-subsidized programs, in contrast, rents are generally set at 30 percent of the tenant’s incomeand rise or fall in sync with that income. Inaddition, some residents living in a LIHTC unitalso have a Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) tohelp offset rents. In this case, the voucher paysthe difference between the LIHTC rent and 30percent of the household income.To construct the longitudinal data set, wecreated a unique ID for each resident basedon their household ID, name, and birthdate. This allowed us to track residents andhouseholds even when they changed units.The rolling nature of rent re-certifications,coupled with data entry errors often foundin administrative data, required that wemake some assumptions when using thedata. Where possible, we imputed missinginformation for race-ethnicity and genderusing data from either previous or subsequentyears. In addition, rather than focusing ouranalysis on the monthly panel, we simplifiedthe data set by averaging incomes and rentsfor each calendar year.12 We also matched eachproperty to its corresponding census tract andmerged in information from the U.S. Censusand American Community Survey based onthe observation year.13Table 1 provides basic characteristics of Edenresidents for the year they moved into theproperty (baseline). The sample includes 9,864unique households with 26,452 residentsacross 126 properties. There is significantracial and ethnic diversity across the sample.The sample has a greater share of Latinx (40.3percent) and Black (23.5 percent) residentsthan for LIHTC projects statewide. Thepercentage of non-Hispanic White residentsmore closely mirrors the state.14 Approximately58 percent of Eden’s residents are female.Only 13.4 percent of the population is overage 70, consistent with Eden’s focus on familyhousing. Thirteen percent of residents havea disability or receive Supplemental Security4
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2020Table 1: Descriptive Characteristics (at move in) of Eden ResidentsRace-EthnicityNo.% Unit SubsidyNo.%Non-Hispanic White4,06616.7 HUD Subsidized1,85618.8Black5,71923.5 LIHTC6,40564.9Latinx9,83140.3 LIHTC HUD1,60316.3Asian and Pacific Islander4,06616.79303.8OtherAgeChild (under 18)Move in Date10,08638.1 Before 20002252.3Young Adult (18-25)3,45913.1 2000–20066166.2Adult (25-70)9,36135.4 2007–20113,33333.8Senior (over 70)3,54613.4 After 20125,69057.7Has a Disability3,50413.3GenderNumber of IndividualsFemale15,37158.1 Number of HouseholdsMale11,03641.7420.2No response26,4529,8645
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2020Income (SSI), though Eden staff believe thisis likely an underestimate of those with adisability. Nearly 98 percent of households inthe data set moved in after 2000, the result ofboth resident attrition and the expansion ofEden’s portfolio of new properties.The LIHTC program funds approximately65 percent of the units in Eden’s portfolio,while HUD and rural development subsidyprograms cover 19 percent. For simplicity,we refer to these HUD and rural developmentunits—which as noted above set rents basedon household income—as “HUD subsidized”units. Another 16 percent of units includelayered subsidies, which means that the unitwas financed by the LIHTC program but thehousehold also uses an HCV or other sourceof HUD funds to cover the difference betweenhousehold income and LIHTC rents. We referto these as “LIHTC HUD” units.The data reveal significant differences in thepopulation living in LIHTC-subsidized unitsversus other forms of subsidized housing.Table 2 presents descriptive characteristicsfor residents across the three subsidy types.Consistent with O’Regan and Horn, we findthat the average income of LITHC residentsis significantly higher than those living inother forms of subsidized housing.15 This islargely because the deeper subsidy availablein the other programs allows developers tohouse lower-income households and, as aresult, average rents are significantly lower.In addition, we find that residents living inHUD-subsidized units are older, have fewerhousehold members, and are more likely to havea disability than those living in LIHTC units.Employment rates also differ substantially:68.6 percent of households in a LIHTC unitare employed compared with just 16.2 percentof those living in a HUD-subsidized unit. Themajority of residents in HUD-subsidized unitsare either retired or receiving SSI.6
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2020Table 2: Differences in Eden Resident Characteristics Across Subsidy Types (at move in)LIHTCHUD SubsidizedLIHTC HUDRace-EthnicityNon-Hispanic .0%27.2%17.9%Asian and PacificIslander12.7%34.9%14.9%3.9%3.8%3.2%Child (under 18)42.3%20.6%28.7%Young adult (18-25)14.9%6.6%8.1%Adult (25-70)36.5%27.0%36.6%Senior (over 70)6.4%45.8%26.6%Has a 6.7%11.7%7.9% 35,873 15,785 17,866 995 333 3462.41.61.6OtherAgePrimary Income SourceEmploymentReceives TANF/UnemploymentSocial Security/PensionAverage HouseholdIncomeAverage RentAverage HouseholdSize7
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2020FindingsWe first present descriptive data on trendsin income for Eden residents over time. Wethen turn to a regression model that can helpexplain which factors influence both household income and the likelihood that a household’s income changes over time. A number offactors influence income changes, includingcomposition of the household (for example, if ateenager graduates and enters the workforce),the age of the resident (as wages increase withyears of experience), or neighborhood characteristics. A regression model allows us tocontrol for those differences and highlight theconditions associated with better economicoutcomes for lower-income households livingin subsidized housing.Residents’ circumstances varyby different types of subsidizedhousing.Among employed households (defined asa household with at least one adult in thelabor force), residents living in LIHTC unitshave significantly higher incomes than thoseliving in a HUD-subsidized unit (Table 3).This is true for households receiving SSI orretirement benefits as well. This demonstratesa significant limitation of the LIHTC program:especially in a high-cost area, LIHTC rents areoften too high to be affordable to householdsearning less than 50 percent of the areamedian income (AMI). In addition, while onaverage employed households saw an increasein their incomes, retired and SSI households’real income remained flat overall or evendeclined. The analysis shows the importanceof the income-based subsidies that HCV andproject-based Section 8 programs provide,especially for households who are unlikely toexperience wage gains over time.For employed households, theGreat Recession dampened incomessignificantly; however, California’seconomic expansion after 2013 ledto significant household incomegrowth.Figure 1 shows the importance of macroeconomic conditions to financial well-being.Between 2009 and 2013, Eden residentson average saw flat or declining householdincomes. However, all households with atleast one employed adult saw increases inincome after 2014. Average LIHTC incomesrose from 41,649 in 2014 to 56,275 in 2019,a nearly 30 percent increase in just five years.Employed residents living in HUD-subsidizedunits also have experienced income gains inrecent years, but their incomes were morenegatively affected by the recession, such thatthe uptick after 2014 did not lead to as visiblegains as for LIHTC households.Table 3: Differences in Average Household Income by Subsidy and Income Type, Based on Move In/LastObservationLIHTCMove InHUD SubsidizedMoveOut/LastObservationMove InMoveOut/LastObservationLIHTC HUDMove InMoveOut/LastObservationEmployed 40,458 46,997 26,200 29,571 28,083 34,323Retired 24,535 22,867 16,003 15,223 16,650 17,042SSI 21,021 19,640 13,869 13,006 14,918 14,136Other 27,680 24,344 9,204 9,913 11,233 11,229Notes: Dollar values adjusted for inflation.8
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2020Figure 1: Household Income Trends, Employed Households, 2004–201960,000Household Income ( 0052004-LIHTC HUDNote: Analysis only includes households with at least one working adult.Income gains are not just from newhouseholds with higher incomesmoving in.In Figure 2, we present data on householdincome changes over time, stratified by theyear that the household moved into an Edenproperty. One hypothesis is that because AMIshave risen in many parts of California, theaverage income of households in subsidizedhousing might rise when new households withhigher incomes move in. We find the opposite:in recent years, the average income at move-infor employed households has been somewhatlower than for previous cohorts, and all cohortssaw meaningful increases in their householdincomes over time. Interestingly, the gainsappear to be higher for households who havelived in Eden properties for a longer periodof time, suggesting that housing stabilitymay play an important role in economicadvancement.All racial-ethnic groups saw incomegains over time, although AfricanAmerican residents have the lowesthousehold incomes on average.Figure 3 presents data on the difference inaverage household income by race-ethnicity ofthe household head between when a residentmoved in and either moved out or at last observation. On average, household incomes rose byapproximately 30 percent. Black and “Other”households saw the greatest gains (34 and 38percent, respectively). Non-Hispanic Whitessaw the smallest gains (30 percent). However,Black households still had the lowest incomesof any racial-ethnic group, though some of thiscan be explained by smaller households andfewer earners.9
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2020Figure 2: Income Trends for Eden Households by Year Moved In, 2005–201970,000Household Income ( 2019)60,00050,0002003/2004 Cohort2005/2006 Cohort2007/2008 Cohort2009/2010 Cohort2011/2012 Cohort2013/2014 CohortMoved in 2015 or Later40,00030,00020,00010,00002005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010201120122013201420152016201720182019Note: Analysis only includes households that moved into a property after 2002 and that include at least one working adult.Figure 3: Average Household Incomes for Residents at Move-In and Last Observation, by Race-Ethnicity50,00045,00040,000Household Income ( an and Pacific IslanderBlackMove InLatinxNon-Hispanic WhiteOtherMove Out or Last ObservationNote: Analysis only includes households with at least one working adult.10
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2020California’s labor market providesvery little upward income mobilityfor working households in lowerwage jobs. 65,000 in 2010—which represents the topone-fifth of Eden residents—saw even strongergrowth, with average household incomesrising to nearly 100,000 by 2019.Despite these positive findings, income gainsare almost entirely concentrated among households earning more than 40,000 when theymoved in. The findings are stark: for households earning less than 40,000 (the medianfor the sample), income growth has been flat,demonstrating the lack of an economic ladderfor workers in lower-paid jobs (Figure 4). Inparticular, for households earning less than 25,000 a year, incomes declined duringthe recession and never fully recovered.In contrast, households earning above themedian saw their incomes rise significantly.Households earning approximately 40,000when they moved into a subsidized unit sawlittle growth during the recession, but duringthe recovery their incomes rose to just under 60,000. Households earning an average ofLower-income workers experiencedsignificant wage volatility.Qualitative research with LIHTC residentsrevealed another downside to contemporarylabor markets. Not only are incomes oftenlow with no pathways to economic advancement, but the jobs are also often short-termand uncertain.16 The Eden data confirm thisvolatility. Between 2010 and 2013, more than35 percent of households living in Eden properties experienced a year-over-year decline ofmore than 10 percent in their incomes (Figure5), and one-quarter of households experienced a drop of more than 30 percent. Yetincome volatility is not limited to economicdownturns. Even during California’s strongeconomic recovery between 2014 and 2019,Figure 4: Average Annual Household Income for Employed Households by Income Percentile120,000Household Income ( 2019)100,00080,00060,00040,00020,00002003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20115th Percentile25th PercentileMedian2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 201975th Percentile95th PercentileNote: Analysis only includes households with at least one working adult.11
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2020Figure 5: Percent of Employed Households Whose Income Declined from the Prior Year, 12Loss of at Least 10 Percent2013201420152016201720182019Loss of at Least 30 PercentNote: Analysis only includes households with at least one working adult.more than 25 percent of employed householdsexperienced income losses of greater than 10percent from one year to the next.This level of income volatility is one of thefactors that makes low-income families in theprivate market vulnerable to eviction, andprovides evidence that housing affordabilityand income are inextricably linked. Althoughaffordable housing providers do evict tenants(e.g., for nonpayment of rent or violating leaseterms), we find no differences in evictionrates by subsidy type for Eden residents, nordo we find that eviction rates rose during therecession. For residents with a HUD-subsidy,their rents will also go down if they experiencesustained declines in their household income,ensuring that their rents remain affordable.For LIHTC residents, mission-driven affordable housing owners like Eden often work withresidents to ensure that any income declinesdo not lead to eviction, for example, reducingrent or establishing a repayment plan to helphouseholds get back on their feet.17However, a prolonged recessioncould put these households at risk.One of the concerns flagged in earlier reportson LIHTC subsidies is that precisely becauserents are set at the unit level and not byhousehold income, LIHTC residents maybe cost-burdened despite living in “affordable” housing. We find that in 2019, approximately 40 percent of LIHTC households werecost-burdened—paying more than 30 percentof their income on rent—and 13.5 percentwere severely cost-burdened, paying morethan 50 percent of their income on rent. Incontrast, fewer than 3 percent of residents inHUD-subsidized units were cost-burdened(Figure 6). The higher cost burdens for LIHTCresidents could lead to higher eviction ratesif they lost a job owing to COVID-19. Thestructure of the LIHTC subsidy obligates thedeveloper to repay debt on the property, andthe financial viability of the property can be atrisk if residents cannot pay their rent. Without12
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2020Figure 6: Cost Burden by Subsidy Type, 20191009080Percent of Households706050403020100LIHTCHUD SubsidizedNot Cost-BurdenedCost-BurdenedLIHTC HUDSeverely Cost-BurdenedFigure 7: Comparison Between Eden Residents’ Rents and Market Rents, 2019HUD SubsidizedLIHTC HUDLIHTCMedian Rent (ACS)Market Rent (Zillow)05001,0001,5002,0002,5003,000Monthly Rent ( 2019)13
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2020other forms of subsidy, significant economicdownturns (like that anticipated as a result ofCOVID-19) could lead to higher eviction rateseven for residents in LIHTC-subsidized units.However, households’ circumstances would besignificantly worse if they were renting in theprivate market. Figure 7 illustrates the difference between the monthly rents that residentsin our sample pay (in 2019) and typical marketrents in those same cities. In the cities whereEden properties are located, average rents(based on a five-year rolling average for allrented units) are approximately 1,700, whilenew rental properties on the market are, onaverage, 2,800 a month.While the results point to the clearbenefits of subsidized housing, theyalso show the failures of California’sbroader housing market to providesufficient housing options forfamilies at different income levels.Despite significant economic advancementamong the top 25 percent of Eden’s households, high market rents in California meanthere is little incentive—or opportunity—toleave a subsidized unit for the private market.For those Eden residents with a listed reasonfor moving, only 4 percent were able to moveinto the private rental market or buy a home.Table 4 shows the median and average lengthof tenure for Eden households, as well as whatpercentage of households in each cohort wasstill present in 2019. Although we see variation across cohorts, a significant share ofhouseholds remains in subsidized housing.While multiple factors are associated with household income andchanges over time, the strength ofthe labor market is a critical determinant of economic well-being.Table 5 presents the results of two separate regression models, each structured asa random effects linear regression. The firstmodel, in Panel A, examines the factors associated with how much a household earns inany given year. The second model, in PanelB, examines the factors associated with howmuch a household’s income changes overtime, measured as the change between whena household moves into an Eden property andwhen they leave (or 2019, if they are still livingin an Eden unit). We exclude households withonly retired adults or adults receiving SSI.Table 4: Length of Tenure of Eden Households by Move-In DateTotalMedian YearsPercent Still inUnitAverage YearsMoved in Prior to 2003234191748.7%2003/2004 Cohort182101040.7%2005/2006 Cohort5024623.3%2007/2008 Cohort8654627.8%2009/2010 Cohort8025536.4%2011/2012 Cohort9417550.6%2013/2014 Cohort1,1565466.4%Moved in 2015 or Later2,3952288.9%Notes: Dollar values adjusted for inflation.14
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2020Table 5: Household Income and Changes in Household Income Over TimePanel A: Household IncomePanel B: Change in Household Income Over TimeEstimateHousehold HeadEstimateHousehold HeadAge214.46 *** AgeAge Squared-167.1-2.31 *** Age Squared1.2Race/Ethnicity (comparison: Non-Hispanic White)Race/Ethnicity (comparison: Non-Hispanic 5.69Asian-1,028.09Asian109.14Household CompositionHousehold CompositionHousehold Size1,289.36 *** Household SizeNumber of Working Adults9,099.21 *** Added Working AdultLost Working AdultSubsidy (comparison: HUD Subsidized)LIHTCLIHTC HUDNumber of Years in EdenProperty13,904.00 ***-9,552.77 ***Subsidy (comparison: HUD Subsidized)13,349.74 *** LIHTC2,952.77601.35 ***Neighborhood CharacteristicsPoverty Rate980.51 ***LIHTC HUDNumber of Years in EdenProperty1,880.34-1,931.171,098.73 ***Neighborhood Characteristics-51.98 *** Poverty RateUnemployment Rate-60.77Unemployment Rate39.26Percent People of Color71.42 *** Percent People of Color-19.12Percent Homeowners66.75 *** Percent Homeowners-32.84Poverty Rate IncreasedEconomic Expansion (post2013)2,914.62 ***Economic Expansion (post2013)Note: Analysis only includes households with at least one working adult. *** p-value .0001, ** .001, * .01.-69.31-1,906.19 *5,200.72 ***15
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2020The results in Table 5 point to the factors thatare associated with household income for residents living in subsidized housing. Householdcomposition, in particular, plays a critical rolein both household income and change overtime. Not surprisingly, larger households andhouseholds with more employed adults havehigher household incomes. We also find thatthe most important factor in rising incomesis adding an earner to the household—forexample, when a child grows up and enters theworkforce or a nonworking adult gets a job. Incontrast, losing an earner (e.g., from retirement or divorce) leads to a significant loss ofhousehold income.Age is also associated with higher householdincomes (the older the household head thegreater the probability of higher incomes),though as residents get older the effect of ageis lessened (age squared). Age is not statistically significant in the model for change overtime.18 We do not find any statistically significant differences in either household income orthe likelihood of household income gains overtime for Black or Latinx households comparedwith non-Hispanic White households. Whenwe do not control for household size, Latinxhouseholds see higher income gains over time,and Blacks and Asians see lower gains, reinforcing the importance of multiple earners tohousehold income.While LIHTC household incomes are substantially higher than for HUD-subsidized andHUD LIHTC units, the subsidy type is notassociated with whether a house
Eden property is positively associated with increased income, even after controlling for other factors. We find that from 2004 to 2019, employed residents living in subsi-dized housing saw their household incomes
A TERNER CENTER REPORT - MARCH 2020 4 between the information presented in the application and in the staff report, we deferred to the data in the staff report. However, it is important to note that these data reflect the developer’s estimates of project costs at time of application, and not the final costs after the development is completed.
Mercy Housing acting as the developer. It is expected to be completed in July 2021. A TERNER CENTER REPORT - FEBRUARY 2021 3 This brief assesses 833 Bryant's develop-ment process to date, with a specific focus on: (i) understanding how timelines and costs for 833 Bryant compare to San Fran -
3. "Floral Design Workshops" 4. 2006 Master Gardener Trainee Class Roundup 5. "Back to Your Roots," the Southeastern Regional Master Gardener Conference Happy September 1 September 14 September 15 September 17 September 19 September 20 September 24 September 26 September
ASX Group Monthly Activity Report – September 2020 Listings and Capital Raisings In September 2020, total capital raised was 7.9 billion, up 46% on the previous corresponding period (pcp). Listings and Capital Raisings September 2020 Month September 2019 Month September 2020 Financial YTD September 2019 Financial YTD
Calendar of Torah and Haftarah Readings 5776-5778 - 2 - DATES OF FESTIVALS 5776 2015-16 5777 2016-17 5778 2017-18 Erev 1st Day Rosh Hashanah 1 Tishri 13 September 2 October 20 September 1st Day Rosh Hashanah 1 Tishri 14 September 3 October 21 September 2nd Day Rosh Hashanah 2 Tishri 15 September 4 October 22 September Kol Nidre 10 Tishri 22 September 11 October 29 September
akuntansi musyarakah (sak no 106) Ayat tentang Musyarakah (Q.S. 39; 29) لًََّز ãَ åِاَ óِ îَخظَْ ó Þَْ ë Þٍجُزَِ ß ا äًَّ àَط لًَّجُرَ íَ åَ îظُِ Ûاَش
Collectively make tawbah to Allāh S so that you may acquire falāḥ [of this world and the Hereafter]. (24:31) The one who repents also becomes the beloved of Allāh S, Âَْ Èِﺑاﻮَّﺘﻟاَّﺐُّ ßُِ çﻪَّٰﻠﻟانَّاِ Verily, Allāh S loves those who are most repenting. (2:22
API –1.0.0 System Reads (user accounts, labor codes, and other configruations) Customer Read Equipment Read Equipment Hour Meter Write Product Read Inventory Read Work Order Read / Write Time Read / Write File Read / Write Web hooks for: Work Order status changes Work Order confirmations (tech, customer .
