The Thought Leadership Paper series launched in August 2012 as another path for Abt Associates’ talented staff to share their ideas with the world. The series includes working papers, white papers, and re-publications representing a rich diversity of thought leadership from across Abt Associates. Papers in the series undergo a peer review process.

"How Much Money Should Be Set Aside for Accruals in HUD’s Rental Assistance Demonstration?"

Abt Associates' Meryl Finkel examines the range of funds that Public Housing Authorities and other multifamily property owners currently set aside in their reserves for accrual of capital needs, describes why deposits to public housing replacement reserves typically are substantially lower than in other comparable properties, and explains why PHAs properties should be setting aside more funds up front

"The Moving to Opportunity Demonstration’s Impact on Health and Well-being Among High Dosage Participants"

Abt Associates’ Shawn Moulton and Laura R. Peck and independent consultant Keri-Nicole Dillman estimate the impact of the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) Fair Housing Demonstration Program for participants who spent more than half of their follow-up time in low poverty neighborhoods. They find that those who spend more time in lower poverty neighborhoodsexperience higher levels of neighborhood and housing quality, lower levels of psychological distress and depressive symptoms among adults, and higher levels of general health among children relative to their control group counterparts. 

Jacob Klerman explores Unemployment Insurance (UI) programs and possible reforms.  Specifically, the paper reviews the theory of UI, the details of American UI programs, and the evaluation evidence—from the U.S. and from Europe.  Drawing on this review, the paper considers the implications of secular and cyclical changes in the U.S. economy for the details of American Unemployment Insurance programs.

Laura Peck explores an approach to identify what specifically it is about a policy intervention that is responsible for any observed effects. Researchers and policymakers are increasingly dissatisfied with the “average treatment effect.” This paper recasts earlier work on analyzing “what works” as this call to action for evaluators and policy analysts: We can and should do better.

Stephen Bell and Laura Peck address concerns about social experiments.The authors explore 15 concerns about such experiments and find each of them less objectionable than is widely believed.