Evaluation of the Family Self-Sufficiency Program

by HUD USER

U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Ofﬁce of Policy Development and Research
Retrospective Analysis,
1996 to 2000

Evaluation of the
Family Self-Sufficiency Program
Retrospective Analysis,
1996 to 2000
Prepared for
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Policy Development and Research
Prepared by
Robert C. Ficke
Andrea Piesse
WESTAT
Rockville, MD
In collaboration with
Johnson, Bassin, and Shaw (JBS)
Silver Spring, MD
April 2004

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the many individuals who contributed to the conduct of this
evaluation. From Westat, Stephen Dietz served as the Corporate Office, senior analyst, and close
adviser to the study team. Michael Shea led the case study site visits to seven high-performing
FSS programs. Dwight Brock designed the statistical models for measuring changes in income
over time for the FSS participant and comparison group panels. Joyce Powell and Kelly
Longnecker developed the computer programs for analyzing the many HUD administrative data
sets that served as a basis for the evaluation. Amy Krietz edited the manuscript for accuracy,
consistency, and clarity, including the graphic presentation of the evaluation’s findings. From
Johnson, Bassin, and Shaw (JBS), Connie Campos and Clay Adiele spent many hours
conducting the site visits and documented their findings from the interviews with FSS program
staff, community partner agency personnel, and participating tenants. HUD’s Office of Policy
Development and Research staff provided considerable support for this study, including Robert
Gray, who supplied the longitudinal data sets for the evaluation, and Jennifer Stoloff, our project
officer.
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the
opinions or policies of the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S.
Government.

Table of Contents
Section Page

Executive Summary....................................................................................................ix

1. Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1

Scope of the Report........................................................................................ 2

Sources of Data.............................................................................................. 3

2. Characteristics of FSS Participants.......................................................................... 5

Family Structure, Gender, and Disability Status............................................ 6

Age Patterns................................................................................................... 8

Race and Hispanic Origin .............................................................................. 9

Income Sources and Amounts ..................................................................... 10

Education and Employment......................................................................... 14

Service Needs of FSS Participants............................................................... 16

Characteristics of People Exiting FSS ......................................................... 19

3. FSS Outcomes........................................................................................................ 25

Comparing FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants.............................. 26

Design of the Retrospective Analysis.......................................................... 27

Changes in Key Outcomes Between 1996 and 2000 ................................... 30

Multivariate Analysis................................................................................... 37

Within-Group Analysis of FSS Participants................................................ 43

Changes in Participants’ Education Levels.................................................. 48

Education Levels of Non-FSS Participants.................................................. 49

4. Characteristics and Compliance Levels of FSS Programs..................................... 51

Number of PHAs With FSS Programs......................................................... 52

Changes in the Number of FSS Programs Over Time ................................. 53

Size and Scope of FSS Programs................................................................. 54

Increases in FSS Enrollment........................................................................ 55

Compliance With Minimum FSS Enrollment Requirements ...................... 56

5. Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 59

Obtain Their First Job or Obtain a Higher-Paying Job ................................ 59

Gain Independence From Public Assistance................................................ 59

Obtain a High School Diploma or Higher Education Degree...................... 60

Accomplish Similar Goals ........................................................................... 60

Appendix A.
Detailed Tables ................................................................................................ A-1

Appendix B.

Multifamily Tenant Characteristics System (MTCS) Record Layout ..............B-1

Appendix C.

Descriptive Statistics for the Participant and Non-FSS Participant
Model, 1996 ......................................................................................................C-1

Appendix D.

Descriptive Statistics for the FSS Participant (Within-Group) Model, 1996 .. D-1

v

List of Tables
Table Page
1. Family Structure, Gender, and Disability Status of FSS Participants,

Septem ber 2000 ................................................................................................ 7

2. Gender Differences and Disability Prevalence by Family Structure Among FSS
Participants, September 2000............................................................................ 8
3. Age Cohorts of FSS Participants, September 2000 ................................................ 8

4. Race and Hispanic Origin of FSS Participants, September 2000 ........................... 9

5. Gender Differences by Race and Ethnicity Among Participants in the HUD Family

Self-Sufficiency Program, September 2000 ..................................................... 9

6. Average Annual Income of FSS Participants by Source, September 2000 ............ 10

7. Gender Differences in Average Annual Income of FSS Participants by Source,

September 2000 ................................................................................................ 11

8. Annual Income of FSS Participants, September 2000............................................ 12

9. Variation in Income of FSS Participants by Selected Characteristics,

Septem ber 2000 ................................................................................................ 12

10. Educational Attainment of FSS Participants, September 2000 .............................. 14

11. Employment Status of FSS Participants, September 2000 ..................................... 15

12. Service Needs of FSS Participants, September 2000.............................................. 17

13. Meeting Service Needs of FSS Participants, September 2000 ............................... 19

14. Reasons for Exiting FSS, September 2000............................................................. 20

15. Characteristics of Participants Exiting FSS, September 2000................................ 21

16. Escrow and Income Amounts for Participants Exiting FSS, September 2000....... 22

17. Number and Percent of Participants Exiting FSS by Source of Income and

Reason for Exit, September 2000 ..................................................................... 23

18. Model Predicting Relative Change in Income (Log)…………………………….. 41

19. Estimated Percent Increase in Income, 1996 Through 2000 .................................. 43

20. Model Predicting Relative Change in Income (Log) Within FSS Group……… ... 45

21. Number of Participants Who Left the FSS Programs in 2000, Regardless of

Start Date, by Education Level and Reason for Exit ........................................ 48

22. Changes in FSS Participants’ Education Levels, 1996 Through 2000 ................... 49

23. Education Level of FSS Participants Compared to All HCV Tenants ................... 50

24. Number of FSS Programs by Type of Subsidy, September 2000........................... 53

25. Number of FSS Programs by Type of Subsidy, 1998 Through 2000..................... 53

26. Characteristics of FSS Programs, September 2000 ................................................ 55

27. Compliance With Minimum FSS Enrollment Requirements, 2000 to 2001 .......... 57

vi

List of Figures
Figure Page
1. Changes in Median Income for Single-Parent FSS Participants and

Non-Participants in the HCV Program, 1996 to 2000 ...................................... 30

2. Changes in Income Sources for Single-Parent FSS Participants and

Non-Participants in the HCV Program, 1996 to 2000 ...................................... 32

3. TANF Recipients: Changes in Median Income of Single-Parent FSS

Participants and Non-Participants in the HCV Program,

1996 to 2000 ..................................................................................................... 34

4. Number of Children in Single-Parent Households: FSS Participants

and Non-Participants in the HCV Program, 1996 ............................................ 36

5. Ages of Children in Single-Parent Households: FSS Participants and

Non-Participants in the HCV Program, 1996 ................................................... 37

vii

viii

Executive Summary
The Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program was enacted in 1990 with the goal of helping
families in subsidized housing reduce their reliance on public assistance and gain economic
independence.
1
To determine if that goal is in fact attainable, the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) commissioned a study of the FSS program that examined levels
of education, employment, earnings, and assets among the participants. FSS fosters partnerships
between public housing agencies (PHAs) and many other agencies and organizations serving the
community. The purpose of these partnerships is to help PHAs expand their role to include
providing access to services related to education, job training and placement, transportation, and
child care. This report describes the FSS program and the change in self-sufficiency among those
participating in the program using data for the period from 1996 through 2000.
Designed to serve people in public housing and the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program
(formerly called Section 8 tenant-based assistance), FSS programs provide individual case
management, help participants further their education and find jobs, provide support services
such as child care and transportation, and offer monetary incentives that promote financial
independence. PHAs develop and implement FSS action plans that define community
partnerships as providers of opportunities and services that may lead to participants’ economic
self-sufficiency.
HUD-approved action plans outline local PHAs’ policies and procedures for operating FSS
programs in their communities. The plans describe how PHAs will manage individual cases, set
participants’ goals for training and services, and provide financial incentives through escrow
savings accounts.
At the time of the study, approximately 1,400 PHAs managed FSS programs for 52,350 actively
enrolled families. Some PHAs follow strict federal guidelines, others exceed the minimum
1
The FSS program was authorized by the National Affordable Housing Act (NAHA) of 1990, also known as the Cranston-Gonzalez Act. The
program was modified by Congress in 1992 and 1998.
ix

requirements in operating optional FSS programs for HCV and public housing families, and still
others have not established FSS programs.
2
Role of the Public Housing Agency
The PHA operates under the direction of an FSS coordinating committee, a local group
consisting of representatives of welfare agencies, employment security offices, family assistance
organizations, elected officials, private businesses, and other community leaders. Community
partnership building is the primary function of the committee, and HUD-specified community
partnership-building activities are integral to the FSS program and are essential for program
success.
The PHA must provide case management, maintain escrow accounts, evaluate requests to
withdraw escrow funds while the family is enrolled in FSS, determine whether a family has
successfully completed the contract, and provide the family with the escrow funds plus interest.
To meet these requirements, and using HUD funding, the PHA hires an FSS coordinator, who
directs the program, and helps build community coalitions that support participants’ self-
sufficiency efforts.
Although the 1990 legislation (since amended) establishing the FSS program called for minimum
enrollment levels, HUD has consistently encouraged PHAs to offer communities more than the
legislation requires. The required minimum enrollments were based on the number of HCV and
public housing units that PHAs reserved over a defined period of time minus the number of
families that successfully complete the FSS program. Given the patterns of such reservations,
which involved very few new public housing units, the FSS program enrolled a much higher
proportion of the HCV tenant population than the public housing population. Beyond these
minimum requirements, PHAs may voluntarily establish or expand FSS programs for their HCV
and public housing tenants. HUD promotes such voluntary participation by funding escrow
accounts and FSS coordinators to support additional programs and participants.
2
Federal regulations (24CFR984) require some PHAs to operate FSS programs of a specified minimum size, usually for HCV tenants.
x

Participants in the Family Self-Sufficiency Program
A family interested in participating in the FSS program meets with FSS program staff to develop
a contract of participation, which sets goals for employment, earnings, education, possible
homeownership, and other accomplishments. The family signs a contract for 5 years, with a
possible extension of up to 2 years. To complete the program successfully, a family must seek
and maintain employment and no longer receive cash payments from Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF), formerly Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), or state
general income assistance at the time they receive FSS account disbursements. The two main
participant benefits of the FSS program are individual case management and an escrow savings
account.
The FSS program provides each participating family with a case manager who develops a
contract of participation and plan for individual training and services, and who helps the family
gain access to support services such as child care, transportation, education, and job training
programs.
The escrow account helps participating families build savings. Families who are in the HCV
program or live in public housing pay a defined percentage of their income for rent. The amount
of rent is adjusted regularly to reflect changes in income. FSS program participants in good
standing with the program, however, can get a refund of some or all of their rent increases that
result from a rise in income during the period of FSS participation. FSS program participants
continue to pay the same percentage of their income for rent, but the difference between their
current rent and their rent at the time of contract execution is deposited in the escrow account,
which the PHA manages. The amount of the FSS credit deposited in the escrow account is 30
percent of the monthly adjusted income for a voucher holder less the family rent,
3
which is
defined as the amount of rent being paid at the date of contract execution with the FSS program.
Family median income may exceed 50 percent of area median, but the FSS credit cannot reflect
amounts higher than that level of income. On completion of the contract, or if a major need
3
T he inco me a mount for public housing r esidents is based on “t otal tenant paym ent,” but ot herwise the calculations ar e identica l
(24CFR984.305).
xi

arises before then (such as a car repair necessary for getting to work), the family can draw on the
funds. Families completing their FSS contract receive the full amount in their account plus
interest.
Objectives of the Study
The objectives of the Family Self-Sufficiency Program Evaluation were to (1) establish a
descriptive profile of FSS program participants, including their demographic characteristics,
education level, employment, and service needs; (2) describe FSS program size and scope
nationwide, including FSS program operations, partnerships, services provided, and innovative
practices in serving participants; (3) report FSS program outcomes, including incidence of
completion and changes in education, employment, and sources and amounts of income; and (4)
compare FSS participant families with similar families not enrolled in FSS programs.
Study Approach, Sources of Data, and Report Organization
The FSS program study analyzed data on individual FSS participants from HUD’s 1996–2000
Multifamily Tenant Characteristics System (MTCS), part of the Public and Indian Housing
Information Center. The data, which come from HUD Form 50058 and the FSS addendum,
describe the characteristics of participants and show changes in employment, earnings, and other
outcomes over the 5-year period. MTCS files contain detailed data on each family in the HCV
and public housing programs, including household characteristics, demographic information on
each family member, and sources and amounts of individual income. The MTCS FSS addendum
file also provides information such as participants’ years of schooling, service needs,
employment status, receipt of Medicaid and Food Stamps, escrow account balances, and
completion rates for contracts of participation. In addition to analyzing the data, the evaluation
team conducted site visits to seven PHAs with FSS programs. During the visits, the team
interviewed staff and conducted participants’ focus groups. The site visits identified various
program models and suggest explanations for the enrollment and outcome patterns observed in
the MTCS data analysis.
Data gathered through MTCS and information gleaned from site visits are interpreted and
presented in this report.
xii

Findings From the Study
1. Profile of FSS participants
As of the year 2000, more than 1,400 FSS programs were serving over 52,000 tenants
nationwide. The findings from the study paint the profile of FSS participants as single mothers
between the ages of 25 and 44, mostly White and African American. The annual median income
from all sources for participants was only $12,000, compared to the U.S. median income of
$45,000 a year. More than two-thirds of participants had income from wages, but only about half
were employed. The educational profile of participants revealed that most had graduated from
high school, yet education and training constituted the greatest service need.
2. Description of FSS program size and scope
The number of FSS programs and tenants was primarily a function of the legislative enrollment
requirements that accompanied any additional HCV and public housing units that PHAs received
between 1993 and 1998. Only about half of HCV programs, and very few public housing
programs, had such a requirement, and for those that did, the FSS obligations, and therefore
enrollments, were quite small. Although the past 2 years (from 1998 to 2000) have not seen a
significant increase in the number and percent of HCV and public housing FSS programs in
PHAs, the number of people participating in the program rose by two-thirds. According to
HUD’s Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP), nearly half of the HCV programs
with an enrollment mandate were at or near full compliance.
The evaluation team learned from both the MTCS data and site visits that FSS program size and
scope varied, depending on the creativity and enabling environments of the PHAs operating the
local programs. The team learned, for example, that the extensive use of PHA partnerships with
other community agencies resulted in providing many of the services that FSS program
participants received, consistent with the program’s enabling legislation. Yet many PHAs moved
beyond the minimum requirements of the mandate. The team learned during site visits, for
example, that some PHAs garnered other funds from state and local sources to support additional
staff, such as case managers and job developers, whose attention to individual families enriches
the FSS program. Case managers identify needs and arrange for services that participants
xiii

require, such as technical training, transportation, and child care. Job developers establish
relationships with prospective employers, counsel FSS participants, facilitate job placement, and
provide post-employment support to encourage job retention and long-term success.
During the site visits, the evaluation team also learned that several PHAs had created separate
administrative units within the housing authority that combined multiple supportive services and
sources of funds, including FSS, other welfare-to-work initiatives, and service coordinators for
the elderly and people with disabilities, among other public and private programs that PHAs had
initiated through their own fundraising efforts. This administrative structure enabled the PHAs to
hire a core staff of case managers and other personnel to address a wide range of tenants’ needs
in a coordinated, cost-effective manner.
3. FSS program outcomes and comparison of FSS and non-FSS participants
Findings from the study show that FSS participants experienced increased levels of financial
success. For comparisons of FSS program participants and non-FSS participants, a statistical
model controlled for differences that may have existed between the two groups, such as
geographic distribution, age, race/ethnicity, gender, 1996 earnings levels, and attrition rates over
time. The results confirmed substantially higher income increases experienced by FSS program
participants compared to non-FSS participants.
For example, participants who enrolled in the FSS program in 1996 experienced a 72 percent
median income increase by the year 2000, from $6,936 to $11,960. Among a comparison group
of non-FSS participants, the increase was only half as large at 36 percent, rising from $6,606 in
1996 to $8,996 in 2000. Likewise, for the panel of FSS program participants followed during the
evaluation, the percent of income coming from employment earnings, versus transfer payments
such as TANF/AFDC, rose from 51 percent in 1996 to 74 percent in 2000. The corresponding
rise among the comparison group of non-FSS participants was from 47 percent in 1996 to 63
percent in 2000.
Of those completing their FSS contracts, about half had been in the program for more than 4
years, while the rest had participated for 2 to 3 years. The median escrow account disbursement
for participants completing their contracts was $3,351.
xiv

Consistent with the ultimate goals of FSS, during the site visits the evaluation team learned that
people completing their contracts had used their escrow account funds for many self-sufficiency
purposes, including college tuition and down payments on a home.
Another finding showed an extremely large increase in median income among FSS participants
who were receiving TANF/AFDC benefits at the time of enrollment in 1996. Median income
more than doubled for these participants, far outstripping the gain in median income for the non-
FSS participant TANF/AFDC group. As a possible explanation for this rise, the site visits
showed that local TANF programs provided intensive support for their own clientele in the area
of education, training, and job development, including FSS participants.
Unavailability of education data for the non-FSS participants, however, prevented the evaluation
from controlling for this very significant predictor of income increases. An analysis of education-
level data among all HCV tenants below age 65, from the 1993 American Housing Survey,
suggests that working-age tenants in the HCV program, overall, had lower average education
levels than did FSS participants, which may have given the participants an advantage and
explained some of the differences. However, this under-65 HCV tenant population differed
demographically from the FSS participants. For example, most FSS participants were single
parents, and only 12 percent lived in households without children, compared to 30 percent for
HCV tenants under age 65 overall. The group without children, both FSS participants and non-
FSS participants, had lower incomes than their single-parent counterparts, suggesting lower
levels of education as well.
Because this study was not controlled, with random assignment of tenants to each panel, other
differences, such as in levels of motivation, could have existed between the two groups. Such
factors, however, had not manifested themselves as differences in levels of employment and
income or receipt of welfare benefits for the two groups in 1996, suggesting that the FSS
participant and comparison groups were very similar at baseline.
Conclusions
Consistent with the goals of the FSS program, the results of the MTCS data analysis showed that
program participants derived considerable benefits from their enrollment. FSS participants’
xv

income rose substantially over time, compared to non-FSS participants, and the escrow accounts
provided often-sizable cash disbursements for education, transportation, and other uses. As a
benefit to the PHAs as well as participants, FSS programs encouraged the development of
community partnerships that helped address a range of tenant needs beyond the provision of
affordable housing.
Both the MTCS data analysis and the site visits confirmed the presence of viable FSS programs
and positive participant outcomes. According to the SEMAP assessments, nearly half of HCV
programs with an FSS requirement have met virtually all enrollment obligations, and many more
could be in full compliance if they realized relatively small increases in participant levels. The
large increases in participant enrollments between 1998 and 2000 also showed that, through such
efforts as its SEMAP assessments, HUD could affect a substantial rise in participation levels and
compliance with the FSS mandates. The presence of voluntary enrollments also has
demonstrated that FSS participation is not limited to the statutory requirements.
Still, the FSS program appears to be underutilized, given the number of PHAs that do not operate
a voluntary program or have not met their enrollment obligations, according to the SEMAP data.
Service integration efforts such as FSS effectively combine multiple categorical programs, such
as housing assistance and employment initiatives, into coordinated community partnerships.
Such efforts help ensure the availability of a broad spectrum of support for the many special
population groups that live in HUD-subsidized housing. The FSS program provides an excellent
opportunity for many additional PHAs and tenants to realize these benefits.
xvi

1. Introduction
FSS programs, which are operated by local public housing agencies (PHAs), help people in
public housing and the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, formerly called Section 8
tenant-based assistance, achieve economic independence by raising their levels of education,
employment, earnings, and assets. This report presents both a descriptive overview and a
retrospective analysis of the FSS program, covering the 5-year period from 1996 through 2000.
The purpose of the report is to provide a summary of the program and an analysis of changes in
self-sufficiency among the participants over time.
The FSS program was authorized by the National Affordable Housing Act (NAHA) of 1990, also
known as the Cranston-Gonzalez Act. The purpose of the FSS program is to enable families to
reduce their reliance on HUD subsidies and other forms of public assistance by offering a range
of monetary and service supports to help improve their financial well-being.
To this end, the program calls for PHAs to develop an FSS action plan, establish a coordinating
committee with other agencies in the community to promote job development, and enter into a
contract of participation with people in the program, setting individual goals and objectives and a
timetable for achieving economic self-sufficiency. The FSS program is designed to link
participants with a range of supportive services, such as job counseling and placement, education
and training, transportation, and child care, among others. As an important feature of the
program, FSS also provides a financial incentive in the form of an escrow account to help
participants build cash assets. HUD, through the PHA, contributes funds to this account that are
generally equal to any increases in rental payments resulting from an increase in earned income
during the period of FSS program participation. The potential accumulation of sizable escrow
account balances, in conjunction with a range of services, makes FSS a major catalyst for
economic independence in HUD programs.
While the FSS program is designed to help families in HUD housing become economically
independent, it also has been an impetus for expanding the role of PHAs beyond traditional
housing assistance, to include service coordination and arranging for a broad range of tenant
supports, usually through community partner agencies and alternative sources of funding.
1

The FSS program is one of the earliest and most comprehensive of HUD’s self-sufficiency
efforts, initiated more than 10 years ago. Traditionally, the FSS program has been an HCV
tenant-based initiative because more PHAs incurred an obligation under the enabling legislation
to operate HCV-based FSS programs than to operate public housing-based FSS programs.
Specifically, the legislation required that any expansion in the number of HCV and public
housing units that the PHA received also be accompanied by a corresponding increase in the
number of FSS participants. Such increases in housing units occurred primarily in the HCV
program. The 1998 Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act (QHWRA) eliminated future
requirements for FSS enrollments beyond October 20, 1998, and reduced any existing
obligations by the number of participants who successfully complete their contracts of
participation after this date. Additional information about the FSS program, including detailed
PHA and participant requirements, is available at:
www.hudclips.org/sub_nonhud/html/pdfforms/7420g23.pdf
Scope of the Report
This report begins with a description of FSS program participants, using information available
from HUD’s administrative records. The demographic profile serves as a comparison between
program participants and non-FSS participants. It is followed by a longitudinal analysis
comparing changes in income, employment, and reliance on public assistance among FSS
program participants and a similar group of non-FSS participants over the 1996–2000 period.
This 5-year analysis also included a multivariate model that controlled for differences between
the two groups, such as the number and ages of children; participant’s age, race, and ethnicity;
location of residence; and length of time in subsidized housing. Not all potentially relevant
factors, such as education and motivation, could be controlled, however, because not all the data
are available for both groups.
Next, the report presents a summary of the FSS HCV and public housing programs. It shows the
number and percentage of PHAs that operate an FSS program and the extent of compliance with
the legislative requirements. This report also refers to seven site visits that the project team
conducted to complement the quantitative analysis of the HUD data files. The report ends with a
set of conclusions about the effectiveness of the FSS program and recommendations for
2

expanding FSS to additional PHAs and participants. Finally, Appendix A contains detailed tables
of the characteristics of FSS participants and programs.
Sources of Data
This report is based on an analysis of data from HUD’s Multifamily Tenant Characteristics
System (MTCS) files for 1996 through 2000, which come from HUD Form 50058 and contain
detailed individual-level information on all people in the HCV and public housing programs,
including FSS participants and non-FSS participants. The MTCS consists of three major
components: (1) a basic record with the type of housing subsidy, providing distinctions between
the HCV and public housing programs; (2) a family record with demographic information on all
household members, such as birth date, gender, race/ethnicity, and relationship to the household
head; and (3) an income record showing the sources and amounts of income for each person in
the household, including receipt of welfare benefits and employment earnings.
The MTCS files also include an FSS addendum record for each participant, showing the status of
participation (initial enrollment, continuing progress, or exit from the program, including final
contract completion status), education level, employment status, FSS start date, specific services
that participants need and are receiving, and escrow account dollar amounts. A listing of
variables in the MTCS and FSS addendum files appears in Appendix C. Additional information
is available at: www.hud.gov/offices/pih/systems/pic/50058/.
To establish a 1996 baseline panel for the longitudinal analysis, the study team first identified the
number of participants who had a 1996 FSS start date using the FSS addendum records. The
team then matched the FSS participant records with the 1996 MTCS basic/family/income records
to identify the type of housing subsidy, demographic characteristics, and income information for
the family.
The study team also conducted seven site visits to high-performing FSS programs in different
parts of the country, which provided qualitative information and insights that helped explain
some of the patterns from the MTCS data analysis. During the site visits, members of the team
interviewed staff and participants to identify factors that might explain successful FSS program
operations and participant outcomes.
3

The study team also consulted with HUD’s MTCS database administrator to ensure consistency
between the analysis in this report and the various MTCS tabulations published by HUD
concerning the FSS program. Specifically, the study team defined current enrollment in FSS as
the number of households for which the PHA had submitted an FSS addendum enrollment or
progress form, but not an exit record, with an effective date within the federal fiscal year of
interest. Unless otherwise stated, the source of data for each of the tables is the MTCS for the
year(s) indicated. Through a count of the Individual Training and Services Plans, the study team
found that the number of FSS participants was virtually identical to the number of households.
This finding indicates usually only one participant per family, usually the household head;
therefore, the counts of FSS households, household heads, families, and participants, which
appear in this report, are virtually the same.
The total figures in the various tables of the report may include data that are missing for the
specific subgroups, such as age or education. For this reason, the sum of these subgroups may be
smaller than the total figures. The percentages are based on the available data, and figures may
not equal 100 percent because of rounding.
4

2. Characteristics of FSS Participants
The following section identifies the number and characteristics of people enrolled in the FSS
program as of 2000. It provides a socioeconomic and demographic profile of the participant
population, which is essential for understanding the circumstances and outcomes of those in the
FSS program.
Total FSS Enrollment
Of the approximately 52,000 people participating in FSS, most (87 percent) were in the HCV
program, while 13 percent lived in public housing. This pattern is consistent with the HCV focus
of FSS, given the legislative requirements of the program. Key characteristics of program
participants include the following:
• Most participants (68 percent) were single mothers between the ages of 25 and 44.
• More than half (51 percent) were White, while 47 percent were African American, and 3
percent were of other races.
• Approximately 7 percent had a physical, mental, or emotional disability.
• The participants were 44.6 percent not employed, 31.6 percent employed full time, and
23.8 percent employed part time
• Average annual participant income, from all sources, was about $12,000, 73 percent of
which came from employment and 27 percent from various transfer payments, such as
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), formerly Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC), and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
• More than one-fifth (22 percent) had less than a high school education, while about half
(47 percent) had a high school diploma, and nearly one-third (30 percent) had at least
some post-secondary education.
• Education and training constituted the greatest service need, at 60 percent of all
participants, followed by job search and placement support at 55 percent, child care at 29
percent, and transportation at 22 percent.
5

• Both the MTCS data and the site visits confirmed the extensive use of PHA partnerships
with other community agencies to provide many of the services that participants received,
consistent with the FSS program’s enabling legislation.
• During the site visits, the study team also found that several PHAs had created separate
administrative units within the housing authority, which combined multiple supportive
services and sources of funds, including FSS, other welfare-to-work initiatives, and
service coordinators for the elderly and people with disabilities, among other public and
private programs that PHAs had initiated through their own fundraising efforts. This
administrative structure enabled the PHA to hire a core staff of case managers and other
personnel to address a wide range of tenant needs in a coordinated, cost-effective manner.
• Nearly half (47 percent) of the 1,826 people successfully completing their FSS contracts
of participation in 2000 were in the program for more than 4 years, while more than one-
quarter (29 percent) participated for 2 or 3 years at the time they completed their
contracts.
• Median annual family income for people successfully completing their contracts was
$17,264, compared to $6,360 for those who were asked to leave and $8,112 for people
who left voluntarily. The median escrow account disbursement for participants
completing their contracts was $3,351.
Family Structure, Gender, and Disability Status
FSS program participation follows demographic patterns consistent with the profile of all
working-age tenants in HUD-subsidized housing. As shown in Table 1, most FSS participants
(77 percent) were single parents with minor children living in the household. Two-parent
households made up 11 percent of the FSS enrollment, and 12 percent of the participants lived in
households without children. FSS participants without children constituted a unique subgroup in
the program; Appendix A, Tables A-21A and A-21B and the narrative below present detailed
information on their demographic characteristics.
The variations in living arrangements of FSS participants suggest that the family context is
important to consider when describing and assessing FSS program activities and outcomes, and
the tables below show similarities and differences according to family status. For example, the
data suggest that child care is an extremely important supportive service for single parents
pursuing education and employment opportunities through FSS.
6

Table 1 shows that virtually all people enrolled in FSS (91 percent) were women, which is true
for both the HCV and public housing FSS programs. Tables A-19A and B and A-20A and B
provide a detailed demographic profile of males versus females enrolled in the FSS program.
Table 1. Family Structure, Gender, and Disability Status of FSS Participants,
September 2000
Total HCV Public Housing
Family structure
77% 78% 75% Single-parent households
Two-parent households 11% 10% 13%
Single adult living alone 8% 8% 8%
Other, unrelated adults; no children 4% 5% 4%
Gender
9% 8% 11%Male
Female 91% 92% 89%
Disability status
7% 8% 5%With a disability
Without a disability
93% 92% 95%
Table 1 also shows that 7 percent of FSS participants had a physical, mental, or emotional

disability, which varied somewhat between the HCV and public housing tenants (8 and 5

percent, respectively). Studies have shown that people with disabilities have lower levels of

employment and income than people without disabilities, making this group an important focus

for the FSS program.
4
Tables A-27A and A-27B provide a detailed profile of FSS participants

with disabilities.

Table 2 shows how participants’ family structure varies by gender. Males were less likely to be
part of single-parent households than females, at 67 versus 85 percent. At the same time, males
were more likely than females to be living alone, at 23 versus 8 percent. At 27 percent, males
were more likely to live in households without children, compared to 11 percent for females.
4
McNeil, John, Employment, Earnings, and Disability, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, July 2000.
7

Table 2. Gender Differences and Disability Prevalence by
Family Structure Among FSS Participants, September 2000
Family structure
Male Female With a
Disability
Without a
Disability
Single-parent households 67% 85% 40% 80%
Two-parent households 6% 4% 6% 11%
Single adult living alone 23% 8% 23% 5%
Other adults, no children 4% 3% 4% 4%
Table 2 also shows how family status varies by disability. FSS participants with a disability are
more than four times as likely to be living alone and half as likely to be living in households with
children, as are people without a disability. People with a disability make up nearly one-third (31
percent) of the FSS participants who live alone or in households without children (see Tables A-
7 and A-27A).
Age Patterns
Consistent with the single-parent profile and employment focus of FSS, Table 3 shows that
three-quarters of participants fell into the 25–44 age group. Only 10 percent of FSS participants
were under the age of 25, while 14 percent were in the 45–64 age category, and 1 percent were
age 65 or over. This suggests that most participants had some opportunity to gain both work
experience and life skills.
Table 3. Age Cohorts of FSS Participants, September 2000
Age cohort Total HCV Public Housing
18–24 10% 9% 14%
25–34 38% 38% 39%
35–44 37% 37% 32%
45–54 12% 13% 11%
55–64 2% 2% 3%
65+ 1% 1% 1%
8

Race and Hispanic Origin
Table 4 shows that in 2000 about half (51 percent) of FSS participants were White, 46 percent
were African American, and 3 percent were of other races. African American participants in FSS
represented a somewhat higher percentage of the public housing group than in the HCV program
(56 versus 45 percent, respectively), a pattern that mirrors the public housing program as a
whole. FSS participants of Hispanic origin represented 16 percent, illustrating a pattern that was
fairly consistent across the HCV and public housing programs.
Table 4. Race and Hispanic Origin of FSS Participants, September 2000
Race and Ethnicity Total HCV Public
Housing
Race
51% 53% 39% White
African American 46% 45% 56%
American Indian/Alaska Native 1% 1% 2%
Asian American/Pacific Islander 2% 2% 4%
Ethnicity—Hispanic 16% 15% 17%
Table 5 shows how these race and ethnicity patterns varied by gender for the FSS participant
population. For example, two-thirds of the male participants were White and 25 percent were
African American, compared to about one-half (49 and 48 percent, respectively) of females. This
pattern is influenced somewhat, however, by higher rates of Asian and Pacific Islanders among
males than females, at 7 and 1 percent, respectively.
About one-quarter (26 percent) of the m ale participants w ere of Hispanic origin, versus 15

percent of females. People of Hispanic origin m ay be of any race and are included in the racial

figures as well.

Table 5. Gender Differences by Race and Ethnicity
Among Participants in the HUD Family Self-
Sufficiency Program, September 2000
Demographic Characteristics Male Female
Race
67% 49% White
African American 25% 48%
American Indian/Alaska Native 2% 1%
Asian American/Pacific Islander 7% 1%
Ethnicity—Hispanic 26% 15%
9

Table 7. Gender Differences in Average Annual Income of
FSS Participants by Source, September 2000
Total Family Enrollment Male Female
Average annual income by source $12,416 $11,668
Employment earnings 73% 73%
TANF 6% 9%
Child support 1% 7%
SSI 6% 3%
Social Security 8% 3%
Unemployment benefits 2% 2%
Other nonwage sources 3% 2%
General assistance 1% 1%
Pension 1% 0%
Indian trust per capita 0% 0%
In addition to the presentation in Tables 6 and 7, other ways of showing income source
information for FSS participants are available. For example, while only 9 percent of participants’
income came from TANF, 23 percent of people enrolled in the FSS program received income
from this source (see Table A-7B). At the same time, child support payments constituted only 7
percent of participants’ income, but 23 percent of those enrolled in FSS received such payments.
While 73 percent of all participants’ income came from wages or self-employment, only 63
percent of all participants received income from this source. Male-female similarities and
differences were evident in these patterns as well. For example, 12 percent of males received
income from TANF, compared to 24 percent for females (see Tables A-19B and A-20B). Males,
however, had an overall reliance on transfer payments, including SSI and Social Security
benefits, that were higher than females. Only 3 percent of males received income from child
support, versus 25 percent for females.
Concerning total income levels, Table 8 shows that more than half (52 percent) of FSS
participants had annual incomes between $5,000 and $15,000, while 18 percent received less
than $5,000 annually and 30 percent had incomes of $15,000 or more per year. While the mean
income was $11,730, the median figure, or midpoint in the income spectrum, was $10,356.
11

Table 8. Annual Income of FSS Participants, September 2000
Participants’ Income Total HCV Public Housing
< $5,000 18% 18% 24%
$5,000 < 10,000 30% 31% 26%
$10,000 < 15,000 22% 22% 21%
$15,000 < 20,000 16% 16% 16%
$20,000 < 25,000 9% 9% 9%
$25,000 and more 5% 5% 4%
Mean income $11,730 $11,795 $11,273
Median income $10,356 $10,394 $10,128
Table 9 shows how income varied according to the above demographic characteristics.
Table 9. Variation in Income of FSS Participants by Selected
Characteristics, September 2000
Characteristic Income
Median Mean
Total FSS participants $10,356 $11,730
Gender
$10,800 $12,416 Male
Female $10,304 $11,668
Race/ethnicity
$10,084 $11,583 White
African American $10,606 $11,815
Hispanic $11,100 $12,284
FSS participants without children $8,206 $9,622
Receipt of TANF $6,869 $8,012
With a disability $8,112 $9,116
Tables A-16A through A-27B contain detailed data for each FSS participant subgroup. For
example, the median income of males was only about $500 higher than that of females ($10,800
and $10,304, respectively) (see Tables A-19A and A-20A). Median income for White and
African American participants was nearly identical as well, at $10,084 versus $10,606,
respectively (see Tables A-16A and A-17A). A similar pattern was observed for those of
Hispanic origin, who had a median income of $11,100, compared to $10,356 for all participants
(see Table A-16A). These income patterns by gender, race, and ethnicity contrast markedly with
statistics for the total U.S. population, but tenants in subsidized housing must meet standard low-
income eligibility guidelines, which explains the similarities.
12

Table 1 shows about 12 percent of the FSS participant population lived alone or in households
without children (see Tables A-21 and A-21B for a detailed profile of this group), in contrast to
the majority of FSS participants who were parents with children in the household. This is an
interesting, atypical group, and Table 9 shows that the median income of this cohort was
considerably lower than that of the entire population of FSS participants, at $8,206 versus
$10,356, respectively. Table A-21A shows this group also had a higher percentage of males than
the overall FSS population (21 versus 9 percent, respectively), and that they were considerably
older (52 percent were age 45 and above, compared to 15 percent for the full participant pool).
The race, ethnicity, and education levels for this group, however, did not differ markedly from
FSS participants overall.
The next subgroup in Table 9 consists of those who received payments from the TANF program.
This group had a much lower median income than did participants in general ($6,869 versus
$10,356, respectively). Appendix A, Table A-26A, also shows that more members of this group
were single parents than were participants overall—90 percent (Table A-26A) versus 77 percent
(Table A-7A)—and most of the remaining members of the TANF participants were part of two-
parent families. TANF recipients also had a lower level of education than did FSS participants
overall. For example, 30 percent of TANF recipients had less than a high school education (see
Table A-26A), compared to 22 percent of all FSS participants (see Table A-1). Also, consistent
with the income security focus of the program, only 28 percent of the TANF group’s income
came from employment earnings, compared to 73 percent for all participants.
In addition to imposing pressure to leave welfare for work, TANF benefits will decrease over
time for both FSS participants and non-FSS participants as their children age and the family no
longer qualifies for assistance. (See Figure 2 in the next section, which discusses this issue more
fully.) This group, however, is clearly in need of substantial support to achieve self-sufficiency,
given its relatively low levels of education and employment, compared to other FSS participants.
The last group in Table 9 consists of people with disabilities. With a median of just $8,112, this
cohort had incomes that were lower than all groups, other than TANF recipients. Table A-27B
shows this group also received a larger percentage of its income from SSI and Social Security
13

payments, at 36 and 32 percent respectively, than did FSS participants overall, with amounts of 4

and 3 percent respectively.

Regardless of income amounts, Table A-27B also shows that nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of
FSS participants with a disability received SSI benefits and 46 percent received Social Security
payments (some people were eligible for both of these programs). This reflected a high reliance
on the disability benefits provided by these two programs, usually provided when the recipient
was unable to work. Consistent with this pattern, the percentage of income from employment
earnings was only 17 percent for FSS participants with disabilities, compared to 73 percent for
all people enrolled in the program.
Education and Employment
Table 10 shows that as of 2000, about half (47 percent) of FSS participants were high school
graduates, more than one-fifth (22 percent) had less than a high school education, and nearly
one-third (30 percent) had at least some college. The FSS addendum reports identify years of
schooling, which appear in parentheses, and the categories of educational attainment assume that
12 years denotes a high school graduate. While the percentage of high school graduates was
about the same for both the HCV and public housing FSS programs (at about half), participants
in public housing were less likely to have a high school diploma than those in the HCV program
(29 versus 21 percent, respectively, had less than a high school education). Conversely, FSS
participants in the HCV program were more likely to have at least some college than those in
public housing (32 versus 22 percent, respectively).
Table 10. Educational Attainment of FSS Participants, September 2000
Total HCV Public
Housing
Less than high school (&lt; 12 years) 22% 21% 29%
High school graduate (12 years) 47% 47% 49%
Some college (13 - 15 years) 26% 27% 20%
College graduate (16+ years) 4% 5% 2%
Tables A-19A and A-20A show very few differences in the education levels between males and
females. The exception was the percentage of college graduates, in which the rate for male
14

participants was 8 percent versus 4 percent for females. Education has a powerful influence on
FSS program outcomes, such as income increases, escrow account balances, and successful
completion of the contracts of participation, as the longitudinal analysis in the next section
confirms.
Concerning employment, Table 11 shows that more than half (56 percent) of FSS participants
were working either full time (32 percent) or part time (24 percent), and 45 percent were not
employed. This pattern varied somewhat between the HCV and public housing participants in
FSS. Those in public housing had higher rates of full-time employment than did participants in
the HCV program (35 versus 31 percent, respectively). As an apparent contradiction, Table 10
above shows that despite their higher levels of full-time employment, public housing participants
had slightly lower mean and median income figures (from all sources) than those in the HCV
program. Table A-7B shows this difference is a function of different TANF payment amounts.
HCV participants derived 10 percent of their income from TANF, with an average annual benefit
of $4,854, compared to 7 percent for those in public housing, in which the average benefit was
$3,673. This pattern occurred for the other transfer payment programs (that is, SSI, Social
Security, and general assistance), but to a much smaller degree than for TANF. When comparing
mean earnings from employment for the two groups, the amounts were nearly identical, at
$13,572 and $13,512, respectively, for public housing and HCV participants (figures derived
from Tables A-8B and A-26B).
Table 11. Employment Status of FSS Participants, September 2000*
Total HCV Public Housing
Employed full time (32+ hours/week) 32% 31% 35%
Employed part time 24% 24% 20%
Not employed 45% 44% 44%
*The FSS addendum figures differ from the 63 and 37 percent, respectively, of participants with and without
employment earnings, when using to the MTCS Basic/Family/Income files. The study team attributed these
inconsistencies to anomalies in the FSS addendum data. The FSS addendum data allow distinguishing between part-
time and full-time employment, which explains their use here.
The high levels of unemployment among the FSS participants are not surprising, for once
sustained employment occurred, many participants had achieved their goals and successfully
15

exited from the program. The tables covering FSS exits, below, show how these employment
patterns varied considerably for participants depending on their reasons for leaving FSS.
Service Needs of FSS Participants
The contract of participation identifies the specific services that participants need to achieve their
goals under the FSS program, and PHAs report these service needs to HUD on the FSS
addendum form, using a standard list (see Table 12). Among all participants enrolled in the FSS
program as of 2000, 73 percent had identified and reported at least one service need.
5
The most common of these service needs were education and training (60 percent of all
participants), job search and placement (55 percent), child care (29 percent), and transportation
(22 percent). Participants with a need for child care had an average of two children who required
this service.
During the site visits, the research team discussed how the PHAs, with their primary focus on
affordable housing, were able to identify and provide for the broad range of services that the FSS
program requires. Service provision was particularly problematic because PHAs often had
neither the staff nor the funding to provide this support. The FSS legislation and HUD
regulations recognized this resource limitation and called for the development of the FSS
Coordinating Committee (see Introduction) as a vehicle for bringing together a range of
community agencies, in conjunction with the HCV and public housing programs, to help foster
economic self-sufficiency among people receiving HUD subsidies. The HUD-funded FSS
coordinator usually functioned as the coordinating committee’s staff and encouraged support
from the community agencies to address participants’ service needs.
5
It is not possible to determine from the FSS addendum data whether the 27 percent of participants with no service needs constitute missing data
or individuals who did not have a need for any of the listed services. The percentages, however, are based on the total FSS enrollment.
16

Table 12. Service Needs of FSS Participants, September 2000
Total family enrollment
Number Percent
52,350 100%
Total with service needs identified 38,286 73%
Services
Education/training 31,378 60%
General equivalency diploma (GED) 7,354 14%
High school 4,008 8%
Post secondary 15,147 29%
Vocational/job training 21,417 41%
Job search/placement 28,604 55%
Transportation 11,599 22%
Health services 9,284 18%
Number of families needing child care 15,154 29%
Number of children needing child care 28,758
Average number of participants’ children needing child care 1.9
The FSS coordinator also provided some level of case management, but with potentially several
hundred program participants to support, this position was frequently limited to partnership
building and managerial duties, including tapping outside funding to provide the actual case
management and supportive services that FSS participants needed to succeed. Case management
is an essential component of the FSS program; it identifies the service needs of FSS participants
and arranges for the delivery of services. (See summary of services in Table 12.) During focus
groups, which the research team conducted during the site visits, FSS participants cited case
management and the services they received to the same extent as the escrow accounts as their
reasons for enrollment in the program. The research team also found that to enhance service
delivery, several of the PHAs visited had created separate administrative units within the housing
authority, which combined multiple supportive services, including FSS, other welfare-to-work
initiatives, and service coordinators for the elderly and people with disabilities, among other
programs and funding streams, both public and private. Such enhancements enabled the PHA to
hire a core staff of case managers and other personnel to address a wide range of tenant needs in
a coordinated, cost-effective manner.
17

Table 13 shows the degree to which participants were receiving the services they needed to help
achieve their self-sufficiency goals. The FSS addendum includes information on not only a
family’s need for specific services, but also whether the needs were being met, and if so, what
agency was providing the services, either the PHA or another partner organization. This
information on meeting service needs is distinct from the participants’ ultimate achievement of
specific self-sufficiency goals (for example, completing high school or securing a job), which for
these FSS participants, may not have occurred as of 2000. Chapter 3, FSS Outcomes, addresses
the degree to which FSS participants have fully met their self-sufficiency goals.
The site visits provided considerable insights into the range of services that FSS participants
received, either directly from the PHA’s FSS program staff, or through other community groups.
For example, all of the sites visited had arrangements with local community colleges or other
training organizations to enhance the knowledge and skills of FSS participants. These education
and training services covered specific areas of expertise, such as a certification in computer
network administration, as well as basic skills, including classes in business communications and
mathematics.
According to the FSS addendum, the only services that were meeting the needs of more than half
of the participants were child care (58 percent) and assistance in completing a high school
education (51 percent). For all other services, needs were being met for less than half of the FSS
participants. For example, only 39 percent of FSS participants who needed post-secondary
education services and 45 percent of participants who needed transportation were having these
needs met.
This means that most participants were not receiving all the services they needed to pursue and
ultimately achieve their self-sufficiency goals. As of 2000, however, most participants were still
in the process of pursuing these goals; for example, nearly half (49 percent) had been in the FSS
program for less than 2 years (see Table A-1).
18

Table 13. Meeting Service Needs of FSS Participants, September 2000
Service Needs
Total With Service
Needs Identified
Percent Whose Service Needs
Are Being Met
Through
FSS
By
Others
Total
Education/training 31,378 30% 18% 47%
GED 7,354 28% 14% 42%
High school 4,008 35% 16% 51%
Post secondary 15,147 24% 14% 39%
Vocational/job training 21,417 28% 16% 44%
Job search/placement 28,604 32% 16% 48%
Transportation 11,599 30% 15% 45%
Health services 9,284 27% 21% 48%
Number of families needing child care 15,154 31% 27% 58%
The use of outside agency support for meeting participants’ service needs, as the NAHA
legislation requires, was also confirmed by the analysis of MTCS and FSS addendum data. For
example, Table 13 shows that among FSS participants whose child care needs were being met,
the FSS program arranged with other agencies to provide this service for nearly half of these
individuals.
Characteristics of People Exiting FSS
Table 14 shows the number of people who exited the FSS program and the reasons they left.

Some of the FSS participants successfully completed their contract of participation, while others

were asked to leave or left voluntarily. In addition to the 52,350 participants enrolled in the FSS

program as of September 2000, another 4,632 left the program during that year. Of the total that

exited, 42 percent successfully completed their contract and met the employment, earnings, and

other goals agreed to with the PHA. An additional 26 percent were asked to leave, and 22

19

percent left voluntarily. The FSS contract expired for 9 percent of the participants who left the
program, and 1 percent left because services were unavailable.
6
Table 14. Reasons for Exiting FSS,
September 2000
Total people exiting FSS 4,632
Completed contract 42%
Voluntary exit 22%
Asked to leave 26%
Contract expired 9%
Services not available 1%
Table 15 shows several characteristics of people who left the FSS program, according to their
reason for exiting. In keeping with the goals of the FSS program, 62 percent of those who
successfully completed their contract were employed full time, compared to only 18 percent for
those who were asked to leave and 27 percent for those who left voluntarily. By way of
comparison, 26 percent of people who enrolled in the FSS program during the year ending
September 30, 2000, were employed full time at the time they entered the program (see Table A-
5).
Education levels were highly correlated with these employment and exit patterns. Among those
who completed their contracts, 38 percent had at least some college education, compared to only
15 percent of those who were asked to leave and 29 percent of those who left voluntarily. In the
same vein, only 15 percent of those who completed their contracts had less than a high school
education, compared to 35 percent of those who were asked to leave and 24 percent of those who
left voluntarily. High school graduates composed about half of the exit cohort across all the exit
categories.
Of those who completed their contracts, 32 percent had been in the FSS program for more than 5

years, compared to only 13 percent for those who left voluntarily and 9 percent of those who

6
Information on the reason for exit was missing for 9 percent of the participants who left, and the percents are based on the nonmissing values.
Data for the exit category of Home Ownership were unavailable because of FSS reporting anomalies, according to the HUD MTCS database
administrator.
20

were asked to leave. FSS participant contract periods typically run for 5 years, with an option for
up to 2 more.
Table 15. Characteristics of Persons Exiting FSS, September 2000
Characteristic
Total* Reason for Exit**
Completed
Contract
Voluntary
Exit
Asked To
Leave
Services
Unavailable
Contract
Expired
Total number of participants 4,632 1,826 967 1,154 40 405
Employment status 4,594 1,788 906 1,123 33 366
Employed full time (32+ hrs/wk) 39% 62% 27% 18% 46% 23%
Employed part time 17% 15% 22% 15% 20% 24%
Not employed 44% 23% 51% 67% 34% 53%
Educational attainment 4,178 1,731 794 1,028 32 323
Less than high school (< 12 years) 23% 15% 24% 35% 16% 23%
High school graduate (12 years) 48% 47% 47% 50% 50% 44%
At least some college (13+ years) 30% 38% 29% 15% 34% 33%
Length of time enrolled in FSS 4,545 1,799 948 1,146 39 396
1 year or less 7% 2% 13% 9% 21% 2%
>1 to 2 years 19% 13% 25% 28% 46% 4%
>2 to 3 years 20% 20% 21% 25% 4% 3%
>3 to 4 years 17% 19% 15% 20% 17% 3%
>4 to 5 years 11% 14% 12% 9% 0% 4%
>5 to 6 years 16% 20% 8% 7% 5% 44%
>6 to 7 years 7% 8% 3% 2% 8% 26%
>7 to 8 years 4% 4% 2% 0% 0% 15%
* Includes cases with missing data on reason for exit (individual row figures will add to less than row total).
** Data on the exit category of Home Ownership were missing from the 2000 MTCS file.
An incentive exists to remain in the FSS program for as long as possible to build escrow account
balances from the increased earnings that participants often receive over time. The site visits
showed, however, that this incentive to remain in the FSS program for a relatively long time is
balanced by a desire to complete the contract when escrow account balances are high.
Participants want access to the funds to cover school tuition payments or home purchases, among
other uses. Because duration periods for FSS can vary substantially according to the reasons for
leaving the program, Table 15 presents exit data for all people who left FSS in 2000, regardless
of when they started.
Table 16 presents information on FSS participants’ escrow accounts and income for each of the
exit categories. Consistent with their relatively long periods in the FSS program, those who
successfully completed their contracts of participation had the largest escrow account balances
and monthly contributions at the time of exit, as well as the highest incomes.
21

Of those who completed their contracts, 37 percent had escrow accounts and 43 percent had
already received disbursements covering some or all of their accumulated funds.
7
The median
escrow account balance for participants who completed their contracts was $3,076, compared to
$757 for those who were asked to leave and $845 for those who left voluntarily (essentially no
escrow account disbursements were available for people who did not complete their contracts,
and these amounts, which were small, remained with the PHA). The median escrow account
disbursement was $3,351 for people who had completed their contracts and had already received
some or all of their funds. The median income of participants completing their FSS contracts was
$17,264, compared to $6,360 for participants who were asked to leave the program, $8,112 for
people who left voluntarily, and $8,484 for people whose contracts had expired.
While only 1,826 people completed their FSS contracts during 2000, the relatively high income
and escrow amounts of these individuals constituted a substantial benefit.
Table 16. Escrow and Income Amounts for Participants Exiting FSS, September 2000
Escrow and Income
Total* Reason for Exit**
Completed
Contract
Voluntary
Exit
Asked To
Leave
Services Not
Available
Contract
Expired
Participant exits 4,632 1,826 967 1,154 40 405
Percent with an escrow account 29% 37% 27% 12% 25% 41%
Median account balance $1,870 $3,076 $845 $757 *** $1,567
Median monthly credit $204 $239 $151 $162 *** $148
Percent receiving disbursements 20% 43% *** *** *** ***
Median amount of disbursements $3,066 $3,351 *** *** *** ***
Median income $11,436 $17,264 $8,112 $6,360 *** $8,484
* Includes missing data on reasons for exit (individual row figures will add to less than row total).
** Data on the exit category of Home Ownership are missing from the MTCS file because of reporting anomalies.
*** Numbers are too small for computing meaningful figures.
Table 17 shows the sources of income for people leaving FSS for each exit category reported by
the PHAs. One goal of the FSS program is movement from welfare to work, and those who
successfully completed their contracts of participation were much less reliant on public
7
The study team assumed that the distinction between escrow account balance and disbursements is a function of when the PHA prepared and

submitted the FSS addendum for people who had completed their contracts. If the PHA prepared the FSS addendum before disbursing the

escrow account balance, then these participants are included in the 37 percent of people who completed their contracts and had escrow

accounts. If the escrow account disbursements occurred before preparation of the FSS addendum, then these participants are included in the 43

percent of people who completed their contracts and received disbursements.

22

3. FSS Outcomes
This section presents the results of the retrospective analysis, showing changes in FSS participant
employment and income between 1996 and 2000, compared to a similar group of non-FSS
participants. Key outcomes from the evaluation include the following:
• FSS participants who enrolled in the program in 1996 experienced a 72 percent median
income increase by 2000, from $6,936 to $11,960. Among a comparison group of non-
FSS participants, the increase was only half as large at 36 percent, rising from $6,606 in
1996 to $8,996 in 2000.
• For this FSS participant panel, the percent of income coming from employment earnings,
versus transfer payments such as TANF/AFDC, rose from 51 percent in 1996 to 74
percent in 2000. The corresponding rise among the comparison group of non-FSS
participants was from 47 percent in 1996 to 63 percent in 2000.
• A large increase occurred in median income among FSS participants who were receiving
TANF/AFDC benefits at the time of enrollment in 1996. Median income more than
doubled for these FSS participants, rising 102 percent between 1996 and 2000, from
$5,880 to $11,892.
• The non-FSS participant TANF/AFDC group experienced income increases as well, but
they were less pronounced than among FSS participants, rising 60 percent, from $5,880
to $9,412 between 1996 and 2000.
• The site visits showed that local TANF programs provided intensive support for their
own clientele, including FSS program participants, in the areas of education, training, and
job development. The extent of such support was considerable, and in many of the sites
visited, the PHA used the TANF program for many of the job-related services that FSS
participants received.
• For the FSS participant and non-FSS participant comparisons, a statistical model
controlled for differences that may have existed between the two groups, such as
geographic distribution, age, race/ethnicity, gender, 1996 earnings levels, and attrition
rates over time. The results confirmed the substantially higher income increases
experienced by FSS participants.
• Unfortunately, education data were not available for the non-FSS participants, which
prevented the model from controlling for this very significant predictor of income
increases. An analysis of education level data among all HCV tenants under age 65, from
the 1993 American Housing Survey (AHS), did suggest that working-age tenants in the
HCV program had lower average education levels than did FSS participants, which could
have explained some of the differences. However, this AHS data included many single
adults without children, who contrasted markedly with the single-parent profile of FSS
participants.
• In this study, tenants were not randomly assigned to control and treatment panels, which
means unobserved differences, such as levels of motivation, could have existed between
the two groups. Such factors, however, did not manifest themselves as differences in
levels of employment and income or receipt of welfare benefits for the two groups in
25

1996, suggesting that the FSS participant and comparison groups were very similar at
baseline.
• Consistent with the ultimate goals of FSS, during the site visits the research team found
that people completing their contracts had used their escrow account funds for self-
sufficiency purposes, including college tuition and down payments on a home.
Comparing FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants
The evaluation design included not only a descriptive analysis of FSS participants, as presented
thus far, but also a comparison with non-FSS participants in the HCV and public housing
programs. Of particular interest were differences in the degree of self-sufficiency between the
two groups, such as earnings from employment versus receipt of public assistance payments.
The demographic profile of FSS program participants is quite distinct, consisting primarily of
single parents with minor children living in the household. This contrasts markedly with the
characteristics of all people in the HCV and public housing programs, many of whom are elderly
and not part of the labor force (see Tables A-8A and A-8B). Even among those under the age of
65, substantial differences existed between participants and non-FSS participants in family status
and household composition. For example, in 2000, 12 percent of FSS participants under age 65
in the HCV program lived in households without children, compared to 30 percent of non-FSS
participants in this age group; in public housing, the differences were 11 percent and 38 percent,
respectively.
9
For this reason, age alone was not an appropriate criterion for constructing two
groups for comparison purposes.
The study team selected the single-parent population in the HCV and public housing programs
for comparing FSS participants and non-FSS participants. This single-parent cohort covered
most FSS participants, and it helped ensure a very similar demographic profile for the two
groups when testing for a correlation between FSS participation and self-sufficiency.
For this single-parent group, Table A-9A shows that for virtually all demographic characteristics,
the profile of FSS participants and non-FSS participants was very similar in 2000. For example,
9
Source: 2000 MTCS; original tabulations from HUD administrative data.
26

half of the HCV single-parent tenants in the FSS program were White and half were African
American, compared to 44 percent and 54 percent, respectively, for non-FSS participants.
Approximately 98 percent of the HCV single-parent FSS participants were female, compared to
97 percent for the HCV single-parent non-FSS participants. For the other demographic
categories of Hispanic origin and age, FSS participant and non-FSS participant differences for
single parents were quite small. This pattern of similarity held for the public housing program as
well.
The only characteristics from the MTCS file that varied substantially between single-parent FSS
participants and non-FSS participants were the sources and amounts of income, and Table A-9B
illustrates these differences. As the table shows, of those participating in the HCV program, FSS
program participants had higher incomes and derived more of this income from wages, including
self-employment, than did non-FSS participants. In 2000, the median FSS participant income
among single parents in the HCV program was $10,725, compared to $8,700 for non-FSS
participants. Among the FSS participants, 63 percent had income from employment, compared to
50 percent of non-FSS participants. Child support also was somewhat more frequently cited as
an income source among FSS participants than among non-FSS participants (28 versus 23
percent). In the HCV program, single-parent FSS participants rely less on public assistance
benefits and other transfer payments than do non-FSS participants. Such benefits include TANF
(26 versus 30 percent), SSI (6 versus 13 percent), and Social Security (5 versus 9 percent). These
patterns were similar for public housing tenants.
The higher level of employment and income among FSS participants, compared to similar non-
FSS participants, is an important finding from the cross-sectional analysis of the 2000 data. A
possible conclusion is that the employment and earnings differences were a function of
enrollment in the FSS program, which the longitudinal analysis in the following section
describes and reinforces.
Design of the Retrospective Analysis
To support the retrospective analysis, HUD supplied extensive data from the MTCS, including
the Basic, Family, Income, and FSS addendum files, for the period 1996 through 2000. These
files consisted of the full HUD Form 50058 data set for both the HCV and public housing
27

programs (see Appendix B, MTCS Record Layout, for the contents of the 50058 data set). These
files contained separate records for every household member, providing an opportunity to
identify and track changes in the sources and amounts of income for both FSS participants and
an otherwise similar group of non-FSS participants over time.
The 1996–2000 period was one of substantial growth in the economy and dramatic increases in
employment and earnings, even among low-income people not participating in the FSS program,
especially those subject to the employment requirements of welfare reform. As with any
longitudinal study, it is important to include a reasonable comparison group as a benchmark, in
this case for income improvements that occurred without FSS participation. The FSS program
evaluation was not an experimental design. It did not randomly assign eligible participants from
a common pool to a treatment and a control group. The extensive body of social science research
literature, however, offers many quasi-experimental study designs as viable alternatives, virtually
all of which call for a pretest and post-test among a participant and comparison group.
10
The
retrospective analysis used a quasi-experimental design.
Most people in the FSS program were single parents between the ages of 25 and 44 with young
children in the household. For this reason, it was important to exclude from the comparison
group those people who did not fit this demographic profile, such as the elderly, who make up a
substantial portion of the HCV and public housing constituency, but who had almost no
representation among FSS participants. Families without children in the household were also
excluded because, while some in the FSS program do fit this profile (12 percent), this group was
still atypical among participants, while quite common among the general under-age-65 HCV and
public housing tenant population (30 and 38 percent, respectively).
11
Therefore, including this
group could have introduced bias when making comparisons between FSS participants and non-
FSS participants.
10
Trochim, William M. The Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2nd Edition. Internet WWW page, at URL:
http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/index.htm (version current as of August 2, 2000).
11
Source: 2000 MTCS; original tabulations from HUD administrative data.
28

For all these reasons, the study used data for single-parent FSS participants and non-FSS
participants when comparing changes in self-sufficiency and economic independence over time
between the two groups. Moreover, because so few FSS participants were in public housing, the
study used only voucher holders for the comparative analysis.
Still, although the comparison group was similar to the FSS group in terms of age and family
composition, it is possible the groups differed in other characteristics that may have affected the
outcomes discussed here. For example, because the comparison group members were not in the
FSS program, they may be less motivated than were FSS participants.
29

Figure 1. Changes in Median Income for Single-Parent

FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants in the

HCV Program, 1996-2000

$8,172
$11,960
$9,962
$6,936
$11,238
$8,996
$8,736
$8,252
$7,464
$6,606
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
$11,000
$12,000
I
n
c
o
m
e
FSS Participants
Non-FSS Participants
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
# of FSS Participants
4,080
2,537 1,947
1,710 1,946
# of Non-FSS Participants 289,418 156,806 112,888 110,240 123,612
Changes in Key Outcomes Between 1996 and 2000
Figure 1 compares changes in median income for a panel of single-parent FSS participants and

non-FSS participants in the HCV program, which was drawn in 1996 and tracked through 2000,

using MTCS and FSS addendum data for those years.

The participant panel consisted of single-parent household heads that had enrolled in the FSS
program in 1996, while the comparison group panel included all non-FSS participant single-
parent household heads who were HCV tenants during that year. A comparison between the two
groups showed that both had been in the HCV program for similar lengths of time, averaging
approximately 2 years.
Tables A-11A and A-11B show the demographic and income profile for the two groups was very
similar in 1996. Attrition from the panels, which occurred when people left the HCV program
altogether, also followed similar patterns for FSS participants and non-FSS participants (52
30

versus 57 percent, respectively).
12
People who exited the FSS program for any reason but
remained in the HCV program were retained in the FSS panel to assess the long-term impact of
FSS participation.
Between 1996 and 2000, FSS participants experienced a 72 percent increase in their median
income, from $6,936 to $11,960. Among non-FSS participants, the increase was half as large, at
36 percent, rising from $6,606 in 1996 to $8,996 in 2000. While these differences are significant,
it is important to view them with caution. This was not a controlled experimental design with
random assignment of equally motivated individuals to each group. Such factors as the
propensity to participate in the FSS program and the willingness to pursue the employment and
earnings goals in the contract of participation are unknown for the comparison group and may
lead to biased results. For example, FSS participants appear to have had higher levels of
education than non-FSS participants, a factor highly correlated with income increases over time
(see Table 23 later in this report). FSS participants also could have had more work experience or
other unmeasured characteristics, such as motivation, that are correlated with higher incomes.
The lack of complete information for both groups and the nonexperimental design may lead to
inaccurate estimates. Since this is the best available data on the FSS program, however, it is still
worthwhile to conduct the analysis and discuss the results.
At the 1996 baseline these educational differences, and possibly other differences, between the
two groups had not manifested themselves as distinctions in either the total amount of income or
the percent of income coming from employment versus transfer payments, such as TANF and
SSI. Both groups had been in the HCV program for similar amounts of time (an average of about
2 years), suggesting that they had similarly benefited from stable, affordable housing. Tables A-
11-A and A-11B show the baseline median incomes; income distribution; percentage of income
from work and welfare payments; and age, gender, and race/ethnicity profile of the two groups
were almost the same in 1996. Except for income, the two groups remained very similar
regarding age, gender, and race/ethnicity for each year through 2000 (see Tables A-11A through
12
See the counts at the bottom of Figure 1 and Appendix A, Tables A-11A through A-15B for attrition rates, overall, and according to
demographic characteristics. Also, improvements in the MTCS data files for 2000 resulted in more matches with the 1996 baseline panels than
for 1998 and 1999.
31

A-15B). A multivariate model simultaneously controlled for these and other characteristics, and
the results confirming this pattern, appear in the next subsection.
Another goal of the FSS program is movement from welfare to work, and Figure 2 uses the same
two groups as Figure 1 to show changes in the percentage of income coming from two source
categories: (1) employment earnings and (2) transfer payments, such as TANF, unemployment
benefits, general assistance, SSI, and Social Security. For the panel of FSS participants, the
percentage of income coming from earnings rose from 51 percent in 1996 to 74 percent in 2000.
The corresponding rise among the comparison group of non-FSS participants was from 47
percent in 1996 to 63 percent in 2000.
Conversely, the percentage of income from transfer payments for FSS participants fell from 41
Figure 2. Changes in Income Sources for Single-Parent FSS Participants and Non-FSS

Participants in the HCV Program, 1996-2000

Percent of Income
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
74.1%
62.8%
28.5%
16.5%
50.7%
61.9%
70.4%
74.5%
46.5%
51.6%
58.6%
62.0%
29.4%
32.9%
40.1%
45.4%
40.8%
29.6%
20.6%
16.4%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Earnings - FSS Participants
Earnings - Non-Participants
Transfers - Non-Participants
Transfers - FSS Participants
32

percent in 1996 to 17 percent in 2000. For the comparison group, the rate dropped from 45
percent in 1996 to 29 percent in 2000. Much of the transfer payment income came from
TANF/AFDC, where eligibility is based on the number of children in the household. Over the
1996–2000 period, many of these children passed the age of eligibility, which explains some of
the drop in receipt of transfer payments over time for both groups. Moreover, the 1996–2000
period coincided with the advent of welfare reform, when the federal government and states
placed severe time limits on receipt of public assistance and encouraged recipients to move from
welfare to work. While both groups showed a substantial drop in reliance on transfer payments,
FSS participants were far more likely to reduce their dependence on public assistance than were
non-FSS participants. (See Tables A-14B through A-15B for additional detail.)
The retrospective research design attempted to control for the variations that existed within and
between the two groups that otherwise may have influenced the results. Within the FSS panel,
for example, participants who were asked to leave or left voluntarily had been in the program for
a relatively short time compared to those who completed their contracts (see Table 15 above).
This selective continuation in the FSS program by relatively high-income participants, compared
to the low-income dropouts, could have skewed the results in Figures 1 and 2 by exaggerating
the increase in FSS participant income over time, including the percentage coming from
earnings, relative to non-FSS participants. The study controlled for such tendencies by using the
MTCS HCV income data for all panel members from 1996 through 2000, regardless of FSS exit
status or dates. MTCS income data continued to be available for participants even after they left
the FSS program. Except for those who left the HCV program altogether, this helped avoid the
selectivity problem. In addition, the patterns of attrition from the HCV program were similar for
the two groups over the 1996–2000 period.
Another finding was the extremely large increase in median income over time among FSS
participants who were receiving benefits from TANF/AFDC at the time of enrollment in 1996
(see Figure 3). While this participant subgroup began with a lower median income than did all
FSS participants, at $5,880 versus the $6,936 amount from Figure 1, by 2000 it was nearly the
same, at $11,892 versus $11,960, respectively, for FSS participants who were receiving
TANF/AFDC support in 1996, compared to all participants.
33

Median income more than doubled for FSS participants who were receiving TANF/AFDC in
1996, rising 102 percent through 2000. By design, people who were receiving TANF/AFDC
support in 1996 remained in this panel, whether or not they stopped receiving these benefits at
some point before 2000. As with Figure 1, this analysis used a comparison group of non-FSS
participants to show what changes had occurred among a similar group of single parents in the
HCV program. While the non-FSS participant TANF/AFDC group experienced income
increases as well, they were less pronounced than for the FSS participants who were receiving
these welfare benefits in 1996.
The 1996 baseline median income for the TANF/AFDC comparison group panel of non-FSS
participants was identical to the amount for participants, at $5,880. By 2000, this non-FSS
participant income figure had climbed to $9,412—an increase of 60 percent.
Figure 3. TANF Recipients: Changes in Median Income of Single-Parent FSS

Participants and Non-FSS Participants in the HCV Program, 1996-2000

11,892
12,000
11,000
M

e

d

10,000
i

a

n

9,000
I

n
8,000

c

o

m 7,000

e

6,000
5,880
7,354
10,303
9,135
9,412
8,663
7,968
6,821
5,880
FSS participants
Non-FSS participants
5,000
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
1,512 1,122 1,053 1,133 # of FSS participants 2,318
89,129 64,008 63,225 72,025 # of Non-FSS participants 157,426
The same caveats for Figure 1 apply to Figure 3, for this was not a controlled experiment. As a
possible explanation for this dramatic income increase for both FSS participants and non-FSS
participants who were receiving TANF/AFDC in 1996, the site visits showed that local TANF
34

programs provided intensive support for their own clientele in the area of job development. The
extent of such support was considerable, and in many of the sites visited, the PHA relied on the
TANF program for much of the funding and many of the employment-related services that FSS
participants received. For example, in one site, the TANF program provided the PHA with a
$459,000 grant to hire eight case managers/job developers to support 509 FSS participants
enrolled in the program. During the site visits, we also found that many TANF programs
required their beneficiaries, if they were in HCV and public housing programs, to enroll in FSS,
given the of employment support and Escrow Accounts. Figure 3 suggests that this collaboration
between FSS and TANF programs, or at least the common goals of the two programs, helped
make the large income increases in Figure 3 possible.
As large as these amounts are, the increases in income and employment earnings for the 1996
FSS participant, compared to the non-FSS participants, may actually have been greater than
Figures 1 through 3 show. Such a difference may exist because many FSS participants who
successfully completed their contracts stayed in the program for more than 5 years (32 percent,
as Table 15 shows), a term that exceeds the period covered by the longitudinal analysis. These
data suggest that even by 2000, many of the potentially successful FSS participants from the
1996 panel did not have sufficient time to complete their contracts, although the substantial
interim increases in employment and earnings do appear in the chart. Also, it is possible that
people whose incomes rose substantially may no longer have qualified for the HCV program,
removing the most successful members from the panel over time (because MTCS data were no
longer available for them if they left subsidized housing altogether). Potentially countering the
patterns in Figures 1 through 3, however, the recent downturn in the economy, which occurred
after the period covered by the analysis, may also have negatively influenced FSS participant and
non-FSS participant income patterns for the period after 2000, a subject appropriate for
additional analysis.
35

Focusing on single-parents families in the HCV program helps increase comparability between
the 1996 panels of FSS participants and non-FSS participants, but differences still could have
existed between the two groups that might have explained the propensity to participate in the
FSS program and experience income increases. For example, at the 1996 baseline, FSS
participants may have had fewer children or older children than the comparison group, increasing
their ability to leave home for work. As Figures 4 and 5 show, however, these patterns for
children were nearly the same for both FSS participants and the comparison group as of the 1996
baseline period. For example, approximately one-third of both groups had one child, and another
one-third had two children. The mean age of children in FSS households was 6, compared to 8
for non-FSS participants.
Figure 4. Number of Children in Single-Parent Households:

FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants in the HCV Program, 1996

Percent
of
Families
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
FSS Participants
Non-Participants
1 2 3 45+
Number of Children per Household
36

Figure 5. Ages of Children in Single-Parent Households:

FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants in the HCV Program, 1996

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Percent of Families
FSS Participants
Non-Participants
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Ages of Children
Multivariate Analysis
Many variables other than FSS program participation might have explained the substantial
difference in income increases between the two groups. These potentially influential variables
include family size, ages of children, and most important, the selective continuation in (or exiting
from) the HCV program by one group or the other according to income, which could have
skewed the results. To mitigate the influence of such factors, the study used a multivariate model
to simultaneously control for these variables when determining the relationship between FSS
participation and income increases over time. The model also included the HUD region of each
group, which helped control for any differences in the general geographic distribution of FSS
participants versus the comparison group.
The initial selection of these variables was essentially a function of what data were available
from the MTCS. The analysis then eliminated those variables that were not significant predictors
of income increases over time, while using the remaining variables in the final analysis.
37

The key research question was whether changes in income over time were significantly different
for FSS participants and the comparison group of non-FSS participants once other possible
explanations were taken into account. For this analysis, FSS participants consisted of a panel of
single-parent HCV tenants who enrolled in the FSS program in 1996, and the comparison group
was single-parent non-FSS participants in the HCV program in 1996. The group of FSS
participants was largely self-selected (most FSS enrollments were voluntary), and therefore
participants in general may have been different from non-FSS participants. Unfortunately, no
data were available on which to base a propensity adjustment of the sort that attempts to account
for such inherent differences. For instance, researchers do not know if individuals in the
participant group were more motivated to find employment than were their non-FSS participant
counterparts. Another major hurdle to answering the key question satisfactorily is the fact that
education data were not available for the non-FSS participants. Yet it is widely recognized that
education is a very important predictor of income. The omission of education data and other
possibly important but unmeasured predictors also means that the results of the statistical
modeling must be interpreted with caution.
For this multivariate model, the research team identified a panel of single-parent HCV FSS
participants who started the program in 1996, and tracked these individuals’ incomes through
2000. Similarly, a panel of single-parent HCV non-FSS participants was tracked over the same
period. It is important to realize that because of dropouts (and to a lesser extent, missing
administrative records), data were not available for every year on all individuals. This lack of
data makes it difficult to compare in a meaningful way aggregate measures of group income
changes for participants and non-FSS participants, because in each case fewer individuals make
up the group in 2000 than in 1996. For this reason, and to control for as many explanatory factors
as possible, it was necessary to model income changes over time at the individual level. Once
analyzed in this way, individuals who dropped out of the respective groups were equally as
important in determining the model as were individuals for whom the full 5 years of data were
available. The research team simply used as many years’ worth of data as were available for each
individual. When developing a model that describes an individual’s change in income over time,
the concept of who selectively dropped out of the participant or non-FSS participant group was
not relevant because researchers were no longer measuring change at the aggregated group level.
38

Because data from the same individual tends to be correlated over time—in this case income
from 1996 through 2000—it was important that any an alysis take account of this source of
variation. This motivated the research team’s choice to use the SAS Proc Mixed procedure (a
linear mixed effect regression model), which is designed to analyze exactly this type of repeated
measures data. To avoid making unfounded assumptions, researchers specified the most general
covariance structure possible for the parameters of the mixed model. SAS Proc Mixed is a
computationally intensive procedure; therefore, to complete the analysis in a reasonable
timeframe, the research team took a simple random sample of the non-FSS participants. This
sample was approximately the same size as the entire panel of FSS participants. The resulting
dataset, including both participants and non-FSS participants, contained 7,273 individuals,
approximately half from each group.
The dependent variable in the model was:
⎛ Incomeat time t ⎞
log⎜ ⎟
⎝
Incomeat time0
⎠
where
Income at time t is the head of household’s total income in the given year, and
Income at time 0 is the head of household’s total income in 1996.
The log transformation of the relative change in income is a standard one used in econometric
literature and helps to satisfy model normality assumptions.
The research team considered the FSS addendum and MTCS demographic (Family) variables as
possible predictors of change in head of household income. Frequencies for these variables
appear in Appendix C.
• Time (0 = 1996, …, 4 = 2000)
• FSS Participant Indicator (Yes, No)
• Interaction of Time * FSS Participant Indicator
• Age of Participant
• Gender of Participant (Male, Female)
• Race of Participant (White, African American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian,
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander)
• Ethnicity of Participant (Hispanic or Latino, not Hispanic or Latino)
39

• Number of Dependents in Household (includes children under 18 years of age, people
with disabilities, and full-time students of any age)
• Number of Children Under 18 Years of Age in Household
• Number of Children Under 5 Years of Age in Household
• Average Age of Children Under 18 Years in Household
• Age of Youngest Child in Household
• HUD Region
Of particular interest are the coefficients of the FSS participant indicator and the time*participant
interaction in the model, and if these coefficients are significantly different from zero.
The full model described above was successfully fit using SAS Proc Mixed and the following
predictor variables were identified as being significant:
• Time (0 = 1996, …, 4 = 2000)
• FSS Participant Indicator (Yes, No)
• Interaction of Time * FSS Participant Indicator
• Gender of Participant (Male, Female)
• Race of Participant (White, African American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian,
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander)
• HUD Region
A simplified model was then refit, using only these significant predictors. Table 18 shows the
coefficients of the variables in the model, their standard errors, t-statistics, and associated p-
values.
Because FSS participation, gender, race, and region are all categorical variables, the solution to
the model provides coefficients for all but the last level of each of these variables. Hence the
intercept term incorporates the coefficients relevant to the characteristics non-FSS participant,
male, White, Region 10.
40

Table 18. Model Predicting Relative Change in Income (Log)
Variable Coefficient Standard Error p-value
Intercept -0.09422 0.05873 0.1087
Time 0.07669 0.006718 <.0001
FSS participant 0.06675 0.02442 0.0063
Time* participant
interaction
0.02683 0.009420 0.0044
Gender—female 0.1498 0.04295 0.0005
Race—African
American
-0.03009 0.01696 0.0760
Race—American
Indian/Alaskan Native
0.01329 0.09656 0.8905
Race—Asian -0.1383 0.07100 0.0514
HUD Region 01 -0.00976 0.04768 0.8378
HUD Region 02 -0.06832 0.04755 0.1508
HUD Region 03 0.02461 0.04851 0.6120
HUD Region 04 0.04436 0.04458 0.3197
HUD Region 05 0.01055 0.04438 0.8121
HUD Region 06 0.04718 0.04721 0.3177
HUD Region 07 -0.02373 0.05048 0.6383
HUD Region 08 0.07835 0.06092 0.1984
HUD Region 09 -0.1067 0.04317 0.0135
The coefficients of both the FSS participant indicator and the time*participant interaction are
positive and highly significant, which indicates that FSS participants experience greater increases
in income than do non-FSS participants, and that over time the differences become more
pronounced. To estimate the size of these effects, it is necessary to transform back from the log
form of the dependent variable that was used. The model can be written as follows, where Y
t
represents income at time t:
⎛ Y
t
⎞
log
⎜
⎜
⎟
⎟=−0.094 + 0.077 * t + 0.067 * participant + 0.027 * t * participant + 0.150 * female +Λ
Y
⎝ 0 ⎠
Y
t
= exp(− 0.094 + 0.077 * t + 0.067 * participant + 0.027 * t * participant + 0.150 * female +Λ )
Y
0
Y
t
= exp(− 0.094)* exp(0.077 * t)* exp(0.067 * participant)* exp(0.027 * t * participant)* exp(0.150 * female)*Λ
Y
0
41

The benefit of simply being an FSS participant is represented by the factor exp(0.067) = 1.069.
(It should be borne in mind, however, that this factor may be capturing more than simply the
influence of participation in the program, but may be confounded with unmeasured
characteristics of the participants (such as motivation to succeed, etc.) The benefit of still being
an FSS participant in 2000 (time t = 4) is an additional factor of exp(0.027*4) = 1.114. Thus, in
2000, the combined benefit of being an FSS participant is 1.069*1.114 = 1.19. The correct
interpretation is that a person’s relative increase in income from 1996 to 2000 is greater by a
factor of 1.19 if she/he is an FSS participant.
As an example, consider a White female head of household living in Region 10 (the Pacific
Northwest). If she was a non-FSS participant, her relative increase in income from 1996 to 2000
was estimated to be as follows:
Y
4
= exp(− 0.094)*exp(0.077* 4)*exp(0.067*0)*exp(0.027 * 4*0)*exp(0.150*1)
Y
0
= 0.910*1.361*1*1*1.162
= 1.44
(Recall that it is not necessary to explicitly include factors accounting for this individual’s race
(White) and region (10), because these levels of race and region were incorporated into the
model intercept.)
If she was an FSS participant, however, her relative increase in income from 1996 to 2000 was
estimated to be as follows:
Y
4
= exp(− 0.094)*exp(0.077 * 4)*exp(0.067*1)*exp(0.027 * 4*1)*exp(0.150*1)
Y
0
= 0.910*1.361*1.069*1.114*1.162
= 1.71
By comparing these relative increases, one can see that they satisfy the equation 1.44*1.19 =
1.71, as claimed. As a non-FSS participant, therefore, this individual’s income is expected to
have increased 44 percent by 2000, and as an FSS participant, her income was expected to have
increased by 71 percent during the same period.
To further illustrate the overall results of the model, Table 19 shows income increases for the
two primary racial groups (White and African American) and for all geographic areas of the
42

country (according to HUD region). While this confirms that outcomes vary by demographic
characteristics—for example, White participants fare better than African Americans—the main
purpose of Table 19 is to show that FSS participants consistently experience higher income
increases than the comparison group.
Table 19. Estimated Percent Increase in Income, 1996 Through 2000
HUD Region White Female
FSS Participant
White Female
Non-FSS
Participant
African
American
Female FSS
Participant
African American
Female Non-FSS
Participant
Region 1 69% 42% 64% 38%
Region 2 60% 34% 55% 30%
Region 3 75% 47% 70% 43%
Region 4 79% 50% 73% 46%
Region 5 73% 45% 68% 41%
Region 6 79% 51% 74% 46%
Region 7 67% 40% 62% 36%
Region 8 85% 55% 79% 51%
Region 9 54% 29% 49% 25%
Region 10 71% 44% 66% 39%
Within-Group Analysis of FSS Participants
It was acknowledged that one of the more critical caveats regarding the comparative analysis of
income change among FSS participants and non-FSS participants was the unavailability of
education data for the non-FSS participants, preventing the use of this important factor as a
predictor variable in the above model. Education data, however, were available for most FSS
participants and, therefore, enabled researchers to look at the significance of education within
this particular group. For this analysis, researchers were able to use 2,998 FSS participants with
available education data (again HCV, single-parent participants) who started the program in
1996.
The dependent variable was the same as that used in the comparative analysis, namely:
log
⎛
⎜
⎝

Income at time t ⎞
⎟
⎠

Income at time 0
where
43

Income at time t is the participant’s total income in the given year (1997, 1998, 1999, or
2000), and
Income at time 0 is the participant’s total income in 1996.
The log transformation of the relative change in income is a standard one used in econometric
literature and helps to satisfy model distributional assumptions.
The research team considered the FSS addendum and MTCS demographic (Family) variables as
possible predictors of change in head of household income. Frequencies for these variables
appear in Appendix D.
• Time (0 = 1996, …, 4 = 2000)
• Education (years of formal schooling)
• Age of Participant
• Gender of Participant (Male, Female)
• Race of Participant (White, African American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian,
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander)
• Ethnicity of Participant (Hispanic or Latino, not Hispanic or Latino)
• Number of Dependents in Household (includes children under 18 years of age, people
with disabilities, and full-time students of any age)
• Number of Children Under 18 Years of Age in Household
• Number of Children Under 5 Years of Age in Household
• Average Age of Children Under 18 Years of Age in Household
• Age of Youngest Child in Household
• HUD Region
The full model described above was successfully fit using SAS Proc Mixed and the following
predictor variables were identified as being significant:
• Time (0 = 1996, …, 4 = 2000)
• Education (years of formal schooling)
• Gender of Participant (Male, Female)
• Race of Participant (White, African American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian,
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander)
• HUD Region
A simplified model was then refit, using only these significant predictors. Table 20 shows the
coefficients of the variables in the model, their standard errors, t-statistics, and associated p-
values.
44

Table 20. Model Predicting Relative Change in Income (Log)
Within FSS Group
Variable Coefficient Standard Error p-value
Intercept -0.5069 0.1301 <.0001
Time 0.09945 0.008061 <.0001
Education 0.03587 0.007279 <.0001
Gender—female 0.1438 0.07910 0.0691
Race—African
American
-0.05449 0.02941 0.0641
Race—American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
0.1400 0.1611 0.3851
Race—Asian -0.1455 0.1656 0.3794
HUD Region 01 0.06016 0.07147 0.4000
HUD Region 02 -0.01046 0.07186 0.8843
HUD Region 03 0.2038 0.07636 0.0077
HUD Region 04 0.1477 0.06649 0.0264
HUD Region 05 0.08992 0.06427 0.1619
HUD Region 06 0.1296 0.07311 0.0765
HUD Region 07 0.02471 0.07159 0.7300
HUD Region 08 0.1412 0.09286 0.1284
HUD Region 09 -0.05656 0.06393 0.3764
As with the previous model, gender, race, and region are all categorical variables, and the
solution to the model provides coefficients for all but the last level of each of these variables.
Hence, the intercept term incorporates the coefficients relevant to the characteristics: male,
White, Region 10.
The coefficient of the education predictor is positive and highly significant. This indicates that
FSS participants with greater education levels experience higher increases in income. To
estimate the size of this effect, it is necessary to transform back from the log form of the
dependent variable that was used. The model can be written as follows, where Y
t
represents
income at time t:
⎛ Y
t
⎞
log
⎜
⎜
⎟
⎟=−0.507 + 0.099 * t + 0.036 * education + 0.144 * female +Λ
Y
⎝ 0 ⎠
Y
t
= exp(− 0.507 + 0.099 * t + 0.036 * education + 0.144 * female +Λ )
Y
0

Y
t

= exp(− 0.507)* exp(0.099 * t)* exp(0.036 * education)* exp(0.144 * female)*Λ
Y
0
45

The benefit of additional years of schooling is represented by the factor exp(0.036*education).
Noting that exp(.036) = 1.037, the correct interpretation is that a participant’s relative increase
in income from 1996 to 2000 was greater by a factor of (1.037)^X, if she/he had an
additional X years of formal schooling.
As an example, consider the same White female head of household FSS participant living in
Region 10. If she had 11 years of formal schooling, her relative increase in income from 1996 to
2000 was estimated to be as follows:
Y
t
= exp(− 0.507)* exp(0.099 * 4)* exp(0.036 *11)* exp(0.144*1)
Y
0
= 0.602*1.486*1.486*1.155
= 1.54
(Recall that it is not necessary to explicitly include factors accounting for this individual’s race
(White) and region (10), as these levels of race and region were incorporated into the model
intercept.)
If she had an additional 1 year of formal schooling (that is, 12 years altogether), however, her
relative increase in income from 1996 to 2000 was estimated to be as follows:
Y
t
= exp(− 0.507)*exp(0.099* 4)*exp(0.036*12)* exp(0.144*1)
Y
0
= 0.602*1.486*1.540*1.155
= 1.59
By comparing these relative increases, one can see that they satisfy the equation 1.54*(1.037)^1
= 1.59, as claimed. So with 11 years of education, this individual’s income was expected to have
increased 54 percent by 2000, and with 12 years of education, her income was expected to have
increased by 59 percent during the same period. Illustrating the effect of very low levels of
46


formal education, if this individual had only a ninth grade education, her income was expected to
have increased only 43 percent between 1996 and 2000.
Consistent with this analysis, Table 15 above shows that educational attainment was highly
correlated with successful completion of the contracts of participation. Because the 1996–2000
period may not have allowed sufficient time for the successful completion of the FSS program
by the 1996 enrollees, the research team used data from Table 15 (which show all exits in 2000,
regardless of when FSS participation began) to test the relationship between levels of education
and types of exits from the FSS program.
For all FSS participants who left the program in 2000, regardless of when they began, the
evaluation team analyzed the strength of the association between education level and reason for
exiting the program. To avoid small cell numbers, researchers looked only at those individuals
whose reason for exit was a completed contract, a voluntary exit, or a request to leave. For cases
in which more than one of these reasons was recorded, precedence was given to completed
contract, followed by asked to leave, followed by voluntary exit, and only one reason was
considered.
13
The following two-way table (Table 21) summarizes the results.
The standard chi-square test of independence between education and reason for exit gives
χ
2
= 239.8 , with a p-value < 0.0001. Very strong evidence shows that the two variables are
associated in some way. Given that some meaning to the ordering of the variables (from low to
high education, and from an undesirable to a desirable program outcome) exists, however, it also
makes sense to test for a linear association between the two. Using the appropriate test statistic,
the Mantel-Haenszel chi-square statistic, for this data, its value is 234.7, with a p-value < 0.0001.
Therefore, strong evidence indicates a linear association between education and reason for exit.
It is obvious from consideration of the table that higher education levels are more likely to lead
to completed contracts. Another measure of association is the phi coefficient, which can be
thought of as a correlation coefficient for comparing categorical variables. Its value is 0.26 (on a
scale from –1 to 1) and supports the conclusions already made.
13
Duplication was the result of errors in the FSS addendum data.
47

Table 21. Number of Participants Wh o Left the FSS Program in 2000,
Regardless of Start Date, by Education Level and Reason for Exit
Education Level Asked To Leave Voluntary Exit Completed
Contract
Total
Less than high school 359 35% 194 24% 256 15% 809 23%
High school graduate 515 50% 370 47% 820 47% 1,705 48%
Some college 137 13% 190 24% 514 30% 841 24%
College graduate 17 2% 40 5% 141 8% 198 6%
Total 1,028 100% 794 100% 1,731 100% 3,553 100%
Changes in Participants’ Education Levels
Table 22 shows that education levels changed very little for FSS participants between 1996 and
2000. The percentage of participants in each of the four education categories was nearly identical
over this period. This means that while education was a powerful predictor of success in the FSS
program, it was not in itself an outcome of participation.
FSS participants, however, may have been gaining useful job skills that were not reflected in the
acquisition of formal degrees. The FSS addendum form identifies only years of formal schooling
and not any occupational skills training that participants received, tailored to the particular needs
of local labor markets, which research has shown is most effective in assisting low-income
people to increase their levels of employment and earnings.
14
During the site visits, for example,
the FSS staff interviewed described many training programs, such as computer network
administration, that resulted in job placements for the participants, but these were likely not
reflected in the MTCS data. For this reason, Table 22 may understate the true level of education
and training that participants received from the FSS program.
14
Barnow, Burt S., and Christopher T. King, eds. Improving the Odds: Increasing the Effectiveness of Publicly Funded Training. The Urban
Institute Press, Washington, DC, 2000, p 338.
48

Table 22. Changes in FSS Participants’ Education Levels,
1996 Through 2000
Education Level*
1996 2000**
Number Percent Number Percent
Total 9,891 100% 8,859 100%
Less than high school 2,047 21% 1,747 20%
High school graduate 4,562 46% 3,964 45%
Some college 2,824 29% 2,664 30%
College graduate 458 5% 484 6%
* Includes all participants who enrolled in 1996, including HCV and public housing programs.
** Status as of 2000, regardless of exit date or latest date of data availability.
Education Levels of Non-FSS Participants
While education information was unavailable for the 1996 comparison group panel, a HUD
analysis of the 1993 American Housing Survey (AHS) data identified the education levels of
working-age tenants (persons under age 65) in the HCV program overall.
15
The study team
assumed that the 3-year difference between the periods covered by the two data sets, 1993 versus
1996, did not substantially influence the comparability of these education figures. However, the
AHS data covered all HCV tenants under age 65, while the FSS participant panel for the
longitudinal analysis included only single-parent families.
Table 23 shows that a smaller percentage of this FSS HCV participant panel had less than a high
school education than did all HCV household heads under age 65, according to the 1993 AHS
data (19 versus 30 percent, respectively). At the same time, both groups had a similar rate of high
school education, at 46 versus 44 percent, respectively. According to the AHS, however, 26
percent of all HCV tenants under age 65 had at least some college education, compared to 34
percent for the 1996 panel of FSS participants in the HCV program . Therefore, differences
between FSS participants and all HCV tenants were at the low and high end of the education
spectrum.
15
McGough, Duane. Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 1993. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Washington, DC 20410, May 1997, pp. 31 and 104.
49

Table 23. Education Level of FSS Participants Compared to All HCV
Tenants
Education Level
Single-Parent 1996 FSS
HCV Panel
All 1993 HCV
Household Heads
< 65
Total population 1,987 988,000
Less than high school 19% 30%
High school graduate 46% 44%
Some college 30% 19%
College graduate 4% 7%
Total 100% 100%
Source: 1996 MTCS FSS Addendum and 1993 American Housing Survey
In summary, Table 23 shows that people in FSS were more likely to have reached higher levels
of education than those in the comparison group. With their more advanced education, program
participants were in a stronger position than non-FSS participants to compete in the workplace
and realize income increases over time. Consistent with this pattern, higher education led to more
successful contract completions (see Table 16 above). It may also be assumed that non-FSS
participants who achieved higher levels of education experienced substantial increases in their
incomes over time, while those at the lower education levels struggled to gain income (see
Figure 1 above). The absence of education data for the comparison group, however, prevented
the study team from testing this hypothesis.
As a cautionary note, it is likely that the single parents included in the 1993 AHS data set had

higher incomes, and therefore higher education levels, than the full group of HCV tenants under

age 65. For example, single parents in the HCV program, virtually all of whom were under age

65, had a mean income of $10,214 in the year 2000, versus $9,628 for HCV tenants under age 65

overall.
16
Therefore, the educational differences between the two single-parent panels in the

longitudinal analysis may be much less than Table 23 suggests.

16
Source, 2000 MTCS; original tabulations from HUD administrative data sets.
50

4. Characteristics and Compliance Levels of FSS Programs
This section identifies the number of HCV and public housing programs that have an FSS
program component, and it shows variations in the size of participant enrollments, relative to the
legislative requirements. Highlights of the study findings in this section are as follows:
• As of 2000, more than 1,400 FSS programs were serving more than 52,000 tenants,
nationwide. This represented approximately 43 percent of HCV programs and 12 percent
of public housing programs.
• The number of FSS programs and tenants is primarily a function of the legislative
enrollment requirements that accompanied any additional HCV and public housing units
that PHAs received between 1993 and 1998. Only about half of all HCV programs, and
very few public housing programs, had such a requirement, and for those that did, the
FSS obligations, and therefore enrollments, were quite small.
• Half of the HCV FSS programs had fewer than 5 percent of their voucher holders
enrolled in the program.
• Nearly 150 PHAs reported enrolling 15 percent or more of their HCV tenants in the FSS
program.
• While the number and percent of HCV and public housing FSS programs in PHAs has
not increased substantially over the past several years (from 1998 to 2000), a two-thirds
increase has occurred in the number of people participating in the program, rising from
31,263 in 1998 to 52,350 in 2000.
• According to HUD’s Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP), among
HCV programs with an enrollment mandate, 49 percent were at or near full compliance,
almost 26 percent were in partial compliance, and approximately 26 percent were not
complying with their FSS requirements.
• Some PHAs have also established FSS programs beyond the minimum legislative
mandates; for example, 70 HCV programs had exceeded their required FSS participation
levels by more than 3,500 tenants, and another 139 HCV programs without any FSS
obligation had enrolled 1,156 participants as of 2000.
At the outset, it is important to present several caveats and identify limitations of the data that
served as the basis for analysis in this section. Specifically, HUD has prepared a preliminary
listing of the HCV units, from 1993 to 1998, which carried an FSS enrollment obligation,
51

consistent with the NAHA and QHWRA legislation. This list is still subject to review by HUD’s
field offices, primarily to reflect the exceptions that individual HCV programs have received
from these FSS mandates. HUD allows exceptions for several reasons, including the lack of:
supportive services, funding for administrative costs, cooperation by units of state and local
government, or interest of families.
17
For this reason, the list may substantially overstate the FSS
participant level requirements for many PHAs, as well as for the HCV program overall.
Nonetheless, this list represents the only source of information about FSS enrollment obligations
for the HCV program.
The primary purpose for using information from this list is to identify the patterns associated
with the FSS enrollment requirements. In particular, the list shows that the vast majority (80
percent) of HCV programs with an FSS enrollment requirement are responsible for less than one-
quarter (24 percent) of the total FSS obligation that accompanied increases in HCV units
between 1993 and 1998. Conversely, over three-quarters (76 percent) of the FSS enrollment
requirement is concentrated in just 20 percent of the HCV programs that carry an obligation.
Even without the pending adjustments to the obligation figures, most HCV programs have
relatively small, unmet FSS enrollment requirements and can satisfy them with comparatively
small numbers of new participants. While the HUD listing of FSS obligations likely overstates
the current enrollment requirements, the MTCS and FSS addendum data may understate the
levels of current FSS participation, due to underreporting. In combination, these two data sets
show an unmet level of FSS enrollment, relative to the requirements, that is potentially much
higher than is actually the case.
Number of PHAs With FSS Programs
Table 24 shows that of the approximately 2,500 HCV programs operated by PHAs in 2000, 43
percent reported active FSS participation. In addition, approximately 12 percent of the more than
3,000 public housing programs had tenants actively enrolled in the FSS program. For the purpose
of this analysis, active FSS programs were those associated with the 52,350 current participants
for the year 2000; that is, those programs in which the PHAs had submitted FSS addendum
17
www.hudclips.org/sub_nonhud/html/pdfforms/7420g23.pdf
52

forms to HUD covering either participant enrollment or progress for the 12-month period ending
September 30, 2000. The number of HCV and public housing programs with an existing FSS
component is somewhat less than the percentage with an obligation under the statutory
requirements. For example, 55 percent of all HCV programs had an FSS enrollment obligation as
of 2000, but according to the administrative records, only 43 percent were actually running an
FSS program (some of which were voluntary); these figures may converge when HUD makes
final edits to its current obligation listing.
Table 24. Number of FSS Programs by Type of Subsidy,
September 2000
Type of Subsidy Number Percent
Total number of HCV programs
Number of HCV programs with FSS
2,493
1,064 43%
Total number of public housing programs
Number of public housing programs with FSS
3,073
354 12%
Source: Derived from MTCS
Changes in the Number of FSS Programs Over Time
Table 25 shows how the number of HCV and public housing FSS programs has changed during

the years 1998 to 2000. In 1999, the rates were the same for both HCV and public housing

programs, at 43 and 12 percent, respectively. In 1998, 39 percent of the HCV and 10 percent of

the public housing programs had active FSS participation. Concerning increases between 1998

and 2000, the count of HCV FSS programs rose by 15 percent, from 922 to 1,064. During the

same period, a 31 percent increase occurred in the number of public housing FSS programs,

rising from 271 to 354; but this relatively large percentage increase is a function of the extremely

low number of public housing FSS programs. Clearly, there was little increase in the number and

percentage of HCV programs with an FSS component, and consistent with the legislative

mandates, public housing continued to make up only a small portion of participating agencies.

Table 25. Number of FSS Programs by Type of Subsidy, 1998 Through 2000
Type of Subsidy
1998 1999 2000
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total number of HCV programs
Number of HCV programs with FSS
2,359
922 39%
2,443
1,051 43%
2,493
1,064 43%
Total number of public housing programs
Number of public housing programs with FSS
2,748
271 10%
3,053
372 12%
3,073
354 12%
Source: Derived from MTCS
53

Size and Scope of FSS Programs
According to figures derived from the MTCS and FSS addendum data, the size of FSS programs
varies substantially, but most PHAs enroll relatively few participants, covering only a small
percentage of their tenant population. As shown in Table 26, about one-third (31 percent) of all
HCV FSS programs had enrolled fewer than 25 FSS participants, while 15 percent had enrolled
between 25 and 50 participants. Thirty percent, however, did report enrolling 100 or more of
their HCV tenants in FSS programs. For public housing programs, more than half (51 percent) of
the FSS programs had fewer than 25 participants, while 15 percent had more than 100 tenants
enrolled in the program.
The number of tenants enrolled in FSS programs was a function of legislative mandates plus any
voluntary enrollments. For most HCV programs with an FSS program mandate, the enrollment
requirement was quite small. For example, as of 2000, 40 percent of HCV programs with an
obligation had an enrollment requirement of 25 or fewer participants, and for 10 percent it was
between 25 and 50 participants. The low level of FSS participation in the public housing
program was a function of the very small obligation level.
Relative to the total number of families in subsidized housing, most FSS programs were quite
small as well. For example, half of the HCV FSS programs had fewer than 5 percent of their
HCV tenants enrolled in the program. Some exceptions were evident, however; nearly 150 PHAs
reported enrolling 15 percent or more of their HCV tenants in FSS programs. These patterns
generally followed variations in FSS program enrollment requirements. These patterns are
consistent with the figures in the subsection on compliance below, which show similar variations
in the size of FSS obligations among PHAs.
Among public housing FSS programs, three-fifths had fewer than 5 percent of their tenants
enrolled in the program, but a small number (46 public housing programs) had more than 15
percent of their residents participating in FSS programs.
54

Compliance With Minimum FSS Enrollment Requirements
Through SEMAP, HUD ranks HCV programs according to a range of performance criteria. One
measure is the extent of compliance with minimum enrollment levels of the FSS program, as the
NAHA and QHWRA laws specify (see Introduction). In 2001, HUD conducted SEMAP
assessments for 1,659 HCV programs, 887 of which had an existing FSS enrollment
requirement. Among those with this FSS mandate, 403 (45.4 percent) were essentially in full
compliance, with a score of 10, using criteria that Table 27 describes. Nearly one-quarter (213,
or 24 percent), however, had a score of 0, signifying a very low level of compliance with the
minimum FSS requirements. Another 226 HCV programs (25.5 percent) had a midrange FSS
SEMAP score of 5, indicating partial compliance, and 1.5 percent and 3.6 percent had scores of 3
and 8, respectively, as shown in the table.
The study team identified which of the HCV programs with a score of 0 had at least some level
of FSS program participation, using MTCS and FSS addendum data. The team found that nearly
half (97, or 46 percent) of these low-compliance HCV programs had an existing FSS component,
as of 2000, with a median enrollment of nine participants. The remaining 166, or 54 percent,
reported no FSS program participation during that year. Again, underreporting on the FSS
addendum forms may influence these figures.
While 887 HCV programs received an FSS SEMAP score, the FSS program assessment
component was not applicable for another 772 HCV programs that did not have an FSS program
enrollment obligation, which provided an opportunity to identify how many of the programs had
a voluntary FSS component. Of the 772 HCV programs, 126 (16 percent) reported some FSS
program participation.
56

58

5. Conclusions
The FSS legislation and HUD regulations stated four major requirements that formed the basis
for the evaluation design and the conclusions from this study.
18
The FSS program aims to help
people in the HCV and public housing programs achieve the following:
1. Obtain their first job or obtain a higher-paying job.
2. Gain independence from public assistance.
3. Obtain a high school diploma or higher education degree.
4. Accomplish similar goals that will help the family obtain economic independence.
Obtain Their First Job or Obtain a Higher-Paying Job
FSS program participants experienced substantial increases in both their rates of employment
and their earnings over the 5-year period covered by the evaluation. Between 1996 and 2000, the
percentage of participant income from employment rose from 47 percent to 74 percent. The
comparison group did not fare nearly so well, with their initial level of income from employment
at 45 percent, rising to 63 percent. Participant median income also increased from $6,936 in 1996
to $11,960 in 2000. The comparison group increased its income from $6,606 to $8,996 over this
same period. While attrition could have influenced some of these changes, a statistical model,
which controlled for many factors that could have otherwise biased the findings, reached similar
conclusions.
Gain Independence From Public Assistance
FSS program participants experienced a sharp drop in reliance on public assistance benefits. For
participants entering in 1996, 57 percent received income from TANF/AFDC, accounting for 33
percent of total participant income at that time. By 2000, only 23 percent of this group continued
to receive TANF benefits, and this source made up just 9 percent of the panel’s total income.
Among the comparison group, 54 percent received benefits from TANF/AFDC in 1996, which
18
www.hudclips.org/sub_nonhud/html/pdfforms/7420g23.pdf
59

accounted for 30 percent of their total income. By 2000, 27 percent of this group still received
TANF benefits, accounting for 11 percent of their total income. Welfare Reform, which began in
1996, contributed to the decline in reliance on public assistance for both groups, as did the loss
of eligibility when some of the children in these households reached the age of 18.
Obtain a High School Diploma or Higher Education Degree
As shown in the FSS addendum data, formal education levels did not improve among FSS
participants between 1996 and 2000. In 1996, 21 percent of FSS participants had less than a high
school education. Four years later, this figure had dropped only slightly to 20 percent. At the
same time, the percentage that had only a high school diploma remained very similar for 1996
and 2000, at 46 and 45 percent, respectively. Participants with some college constituted 29
percent in 1996 and 30 percent in 2000, while the corresponding figures for college graduates
were 5 percent and 6 percent, respectively.
During the site visits, the research team documented many instances of skills training that did not
necessarily lead to either a high school diploma or college degree. The PHA staff reported that
training focusing on a particular area of expertise, such as computer network administration,
would yield far greater short-term benefits than would a formal education curriculum. The
research team found very high employment placement rates among the sites with such training
programs, suggesting that FSS participants receive very tangible, effective educational benefits.
The reporting categories in the FSS addendum form, however, did not allow such skills training
to be reflected.
Accomplish Similar Goals
In addition to gaining an increase in employment and earnings, FSS participants who
successfully completed the program received escrow account funds representing 30 percent of
any income increases they received during the period of participation. At the same time, more
than 1,400 HCV and public housing programs were operating an FSS program component as of
2000, providing important support services in conjunction with housing assistance for their low-
income tenant population. Tenants enrolled in FSS programs reported that access to case
60

management and a wide range of employment-related services helped encourage their
participation as much as the escrow accounts.
Given that both FSS participants and PHAs achieved positive outcomes, FSS programs have the
potential to provide similar benefits for many additional HCV and public housing programs and
the tenants they serve.
61

Appendix A
Detailed Tables

Appendix A: Detailed Tables of Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Participants
Table
A-1. FSS Participants General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000
A-2. Service Needs of FSS Participants, September 2000
A-3. Characteristics of FSS Participants, by Educational Attainment, September 2000
A-4. Characteristics of (Current) FSS Participants, by Length of Time in the Program, September 2000
A-5. Comparison Among Enrollment, Progress, and Exit Reports, September 2000
A-6. Exit Information, September 2000
A-7A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000
A-7B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Source of Income
A-8A. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 2000
A-8B. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 2000, Source of Income
A-9A. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 2000, Single Parents
A-9B. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 2000, Single Parents, Source of Income
A-10. FSS Programs, September 2000
A-11A. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 1996, Single Parents
A-11B. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 1996, Single Parents, Source of Income
A-12A. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 1997, Panel of 1996 Enrollees, Single Parents
A-12B. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 1997, Panel of 1996 Enrollees, Single Parents, Source of Income
A-13A. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 1998, Panel of 1996 Enrollees, Single Parents
A-13B. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 1998, Panel of 1996 Enrollees, Single Parents, Source of Income
A-14A. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 1999, Panel of 1996 Enrollees, Single Parents
A-14B. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 1999, Panel of 1996 Enrollees, Single Parents, Source of Income
A-15A. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 2000, Panel of 1996 Enrollees, Single Parents
A-15B. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 2000, Panel of 1996 Enrollees, Single Parents, Source of Income
A-16A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, White
A-16B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, White, Source of Income
A-17A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, African American
A-17B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, African American, Source of Income
A-18A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Hispanic
A-18B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Hispanic, Source of Income
A-19A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Male
A-19B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Male, Source of Income
A-20A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Female
A-20B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Female, Source of Income
A-21A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Households With No Children
A-21B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Households With No Children, Source of Income
A-22A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Less Than a High School Education
A-22B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Less Than a High School Education, Source of Income
A-23A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, High School Graduate
A-23B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, High School Graduate, Source of Income
A-24A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Some College
A-24B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Some College, Source of Income
A-25A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, College Graduate
A-25B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Source of Income, College Graduate
A-26A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, TANF (AFDC) as a Source of Income
A-26B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, TANF (AFDC) as a Source of Income, Source of Income
A-27A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, With Disabilities
A-27B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, With Disabilities, Source of Income
Note: SSI = Supplemental Security Income
TANF (AFDC) = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, formerly Aid to Families With Dependent Children
PHA = Public housing agency
A-3

Table A-2. Service Needs of FSS Participants, September 2000*
Service needs
Total with
service needs
identified
Needs met
through FSS
Needs met
by others
Total needs met
Number Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment 52,350
No. of families with service needs identified 38,286 15,475 40.4 10,180 26.6 25,655 67.0
Education/training 31,378 9,387 29.9 5,484 17.5 14,871 47.4
General equivalency diploma (GED) 7,354 2,071 28.2 1,029 14.0 3,100 42.2
High school 4,008 1,391 34.7 638 15.9 2,029 50.6
Postsecondary 15,147 3,682 24.3 2,178 14.4 5,860 38.7
Vocational/job training 21,417 6,002 28.0 3,332 15.6 9,334 43.6
Job search/placement 28,604 9,200 32.2 4,590 16.0 13,790 48.2
Transportation 11,599 3,493 30.1 1,691 14.6 5,184 44.7
Health services 9,284 2,514 27.1 1,942 20.9 4,456 48.0
Child care
No. of families needing child care 15,154 4,632 30.6 4,130 27.3 8,762 57.8
No. of children needing child care 28,758 8,686 30.2 8,149 28.3 16,835 58.5
Average no. of children per family needing child care 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.9
*Column percents total more than 100 because of participants who have multiple service needs.
A-6

Table A-3. Characteristics of FSS Participants, by Educational Attainment, September 2000
Characteristic Education (number and percent distribution)
Total* Less than
high school
High school
graduate
Some
college
College
graduate
Total no. of families enrolled 52,350 9,393 20,023 11,142 1,762
Percentage 100 100 100 100
Employment status (non-missing employment/education data) 48,938 9,135 19,937 11,142 1,750
Employed full time (32+ hours/week) 15,475 28.7 34.6 33.2 32.5
Employed part time 11,657 24.7 25.3 27.8 29.7
Not employed 21,806 46.6 40.0 39.0 37.9
No. of families with service needs identified 38,286 86.1 80.6 85.1 84.3
Education/training 31,378 79.9 63.3 68.9 84.3
GED 7,354 55.2 5.6 3.3 2.9
High school 4,008 24.9 4.9 2.7 3.1
Postsecondary 15,147 22.8 29.9 48.5 36.4
Vocational/job training 21,417 55.2 47.7 38.7 28.9
Job search/placement 28,604 64.9 61.1 63.4 65.9
Transportation 11,599 29.7 24.8 24.3 21.1
Health services 9,284 19.5 19.7 22.6 23.6
Child care
No. of children needing child care 28,758 33.5 32.5 37.5 29.7
Average no. of children per family needing child care 2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7
No. of families with service needs met 18,674 37.6 39.7 44.8 47.3
Education/training 11,872 26.2 23.0 29.9 47.3
GED 3,100 16.3 2.6 1.8 1.8
High school 2,029 7.7 2.5 1.5 1.9
Postsecondary 5,860 4.5 8.0 19.4 20.9
Vocational/job training 9,334 15.2 16.9 16.0 14.3
Job search/placement 13,790 23.1 25.3 25.8 30.0
Transportation 5,184 9.3 9.0 10.0 9.4
Health services 4,456 6.8 7.8 9.9 11.2
Child care
No. of children needing child care 16,835 31.4 37.9 41.1 33.4
Average no. of children per family needing child care 3 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.3
*The total includes missing education-level cases.
A-7

Table A-5. Comparison Among Enrollment, Progress, and Exit Reports, September 2000
Characteristic Enrollment Progress Exit
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total FSS family enrollment, progress, exits 20,262 32,092 4,632
Employment status 17,381 100.0 31,562 100.0 4,594 100.0
Employed full time (32+ hours/week) 4,578 26.3 10,898 34.5 1,799 39.2
Employed part time 3,649 21.0 8,009 25.4 785 17.1
Not employed* 9,154 52.7 12,655 40.1 2,010 43.8
Educational attainment of household head 14,262 100.0 28,062 100.0 4,178 100.0
Less than high school (<12 years) 3,455 24.2 5,938 21.2 952 22.8
High school graduate (12 years) 6,962 48.8 13,065 46.6 2,000 47.9
Some college (13–15 years) 3,784 26.5 8,884 31.7 1,200 28.7
College graduate (16 years or more) 61 0.4 175 0.6 26 0.6
Assistance received by family (Food Stamps and/or Medicaid) 10,929 53.9 20,024 62.4 2,338 50.5
Food Stamps 9,485 46.8 16,840 52.5 1,938 41.8
Medicaid 9,674 47.7 18,180 56.6 2,092 45.2
Length of time enrolled in FSS NA NA 30,771 100.0 4,545 100.0
Less than 1 year NA NA 3,661 11.9 244 5.4
1–<2 years NA NA 8,081 26.3 820 18.0
2–<3 years NA NA 7,456 24.2 938 20.6
3–<4 years NA NA 5,138 16.7 772 17.0
4–<5 years NA NA 3,378 11.0 483 10.6
5 years or more
FSS escrow account information
NA NA 3,057 9.9 1,288 28.3
No. of families with escrow account NA NA 15,230 47.5 1,318 28.5
Average account balance NA NA $2,324 $3,145
Average monthly credit NA NA $247 $264
No. of families receiving disbursements NA NA 1,297 4.0 902 19.5
Average amount of disbursements NA NA $3,702 $4,221
No. of families with service needs identified 13,010 64.2 25,279 78.8 3,962 85.5
Education/training 10,628 81.7 20,753 82.1 3,218 81.2
GED 2,681 25.2 4,673 22.5 822 25.5
High school 1,369 12.9 2,639 12.7 312 9.7
Postsecondary 4,980 46.9 10,167 49.0 1,255 39.0
Vocational/job training 7,410 69.7 14,010 67.5 2,145 66.7
Job search/placement 9,326 71.7 19,280 76.3 3,214 81.1
Transportation 3,988 30.7 7,614 30.1 901 22.7
Health services
Child care
2,838 21.8 6,448 25.5 721 18.2
No. of families needing child care 5,015 38.5 10,139 40.1 1,228 31.0
No. of children needing child care 9,429 19,329 2,291
Average no. of children per family needing child care 1.9 1.9 1.9
*This FSS addendum figure differs from the 37 percent of participants without employment earnings, using the Multifamily Tenant Characteristics System (MTCS)
Basic/Family/Income files. The study team attributed these inconsistencies primarily to anomalies in the FSS addendum files. Fo r the years 1996–1998, for example, PHAs
checked multiple-employment status items that were mutually exclusive (for example, employed full time and unemployed). These multiple responses stopped occurring in the
year 2000 in the FSS addendum files. The study team, however, still considers these data to have potential problems. Nonetheless, for showing relative differences within the
group of FSS participants, as of 2000 the tables (for example, Table A-6, showing employment status by reasons for exit) do use these FSS addendum employment data.
A-9

Table A-6. Exit Information, September 2000
Characteristic
Exits* Reason for exit (number and percent distribution)
Number Percent
Completed
contract
Voluntary
exit
Asked
to leave
Services
not
available
Contract
expired
Total family enrollment 4,632 1,826 967 1,154 40 405
Employment status
(Total with non-missing employment status) 4,594 1,788 906 1,123 33 366
Employed full time (32+ hours/week) 1,799 39.2 62.3 27.6 18.4 45.7 22.7
Employed part time 785 17.1 14.5 21.8 14.6 20.0 24.0
Not employed** 2,010 43.8 23.2 50.6 67.0 34.3 53.2
Educational attainment of household head
(Total with non-missing years of education) 4,178 100.1 1,731 794 1,028 32 323
Less than high school (<12 years) 952 22.8 14.8 0.6 34.9 15.6 22.9
High school graduate (12 years) 2,000 47.9 47.4 2.0 50.1 50.0 43.7
Some college (13–15 years) 1,002 24.0 29.7 1.3 13.3 21.9 28.5
College graduate (16 years or more) 224 5.4 8.1 0.4 1.7 12.5 5.0
Length of time enrolled in FSS 4,545 1,799 948 1,146 39 396
1 year or less 296 6.5 12.9 12.9 9.1 20.5 1.5
>1–2 years 863 19.0 23.6 23.6 27.3 43.6 3.3
>2–3 years 897 19.7 21.1 21.1 24.5 5.1 3.3
>3–4 years 771 17.0 15.4 15.4 20.2 17.9 3.3
>4–5 years 498 11.0 12.4 12.4 8.9 0.0 3.5
>5–6 years 736 16.2 8.5 8.5 7.6 5.1 44.2
>6–7 years 319 7.0 3.4 3.4 1.9 7.7 25.5
>7–8 years 161 3.5 2.5 2.5 0.4 0.0 15.4
>8–9 years 4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
*The total figures include missing data on the reason for exit. Therefore, the sum of the component figures will be less than the total.
**This FSS addendum figure differs from the 37 percent of participants without employment earnings, using the Multifamily Tenant Characteristics System (MTCS)
Basic/Family/Income files. The study team attributed these inconsistencies primarily to anomalies in the FSS addendum files. Fo r the years 1996–1998, for example, PHAs
checked multiple-employment status items that were mutually exclusive (for example, employed full time and unemployed). These multiple responses stopped occurring in the
year 2000 in the FSS addendum files. The study team, however, still considers these data to have potential problems. Nonetheless, for showing relative differences within the
group of FSS participants, as of 2000 the tables (for example, Table A-6, showing employment status by reasons for exit) do use these FSS addendum employment data.
A-10

Table A-7B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Source of Income*
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment 52,350 44,563 6,791
Source of income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total heads of household 45,530 39,792 5,738
Pension 273 0.6 225 0.6 48 0.8
Own business 451 1.0 414 1.0 37 0.6
Social Security 3,010 6.6 2,675 6.7 335 5.8
Military pay 45 0.1 37 0.1 8 0.1
SSI 3,588 7.9 3,169 8.0 419 7.3
Federal wage 806 1.8 661 1.7 145 2.5
TANF (AFDC) 10,474 23.0 9,315 23.4 1,159 20.2
PHA wage 42 0.1 22 0.1 20 0.3
General assistance 891 2.0 789 2.0 102 1.8
Other (regular) wage 27,474 60.3 23,959 60.2 3,515 61.3
Child support 10,652 23.4 9,447 23.7 1,205 21.0
Unemployment benefits 1,435 3.2 1,285 3.2 150 2.6
Indian trust/per capita 7 0.0 7 0.0 0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 1,792 3.9 1,571 3.9 221 3.9
Source of income Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent
Pension 5,389 0.3 5,258 0.3 6,003 0.4
Own business 7,814 0.7 7,746 0.7 8,576 0.5
Social Security 5,834 3.3 5,865 3.3 5,585 2.9
Military pay 3,209 0.0 3,258 0.0 2,986 0.0
SSI 5,281 3.5 5,321 3.6 4,978 3.2
Federal wage 12,867 1.9 12,949 1.8 12,492 2.8
TANF (AFDC) 4,723 9.3 4,854 9.6 3,673 6.6
PHA wage 14,830 0.1 12,981 0.1 16,864 0.5
General assistance 4,070 0.7 3,965 0.7 4,883 0.8
Other (regular) wage 13,581 69.9 13,585 69.4 13,551 73.6
Child support 3,310 6.6 3,322 6.7 3,212 6.0
Unemployment benefits 6,993 1.9 7,084 1.9 6,211 1.4
Indian trust/per capita 6,649 0.0 6,649 0.0 . 0.0
Other nonwage sources 5,391 1.8 5,669 1.9 3,415 1.2
*Column percents may total more than 100 because each person can have more than one income source.
A-12

Table A-8B. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 2000, Source of Income*
Characteristic
Section 8
FSS participants
Section 8
Non-FSS participants
Public Housing
FSS participants
Public Housing
Non-FSS participants
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment 44,563 1,370,694 6,791 1,026,785
Source of income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total heads of household 39,792 1,235,570 5,738 919,732
Pension 225 0.6 45,968 3.7 48 0.8 75,882 8.3
Own business 414 1.0 6,858 0.6 37 0.6 10,176 1.1
Social Security 2,675 6.7 339,678 27.5 335 5.8 357,809 38.9
Military pay 37 0.1 1,273 0.1 8 0.1 1,847 0.2
SSI 3,169 8.0 325,389 26.3 419 7.3 233,040 25.3
Federal wage 661 1.7 13,843 1.1 145 2.5 9,774 1.1
TANF (AFDC) 9,315 23.4 224,610 18.2 1,159 20.2 129,016 14.0
PHA wage 22 0.1 1,274 0.1 20 0.3 1,460 0.2
General assistance 789 2.0 35,439 2.9 102 1.8 28,210 3.1
Other (regular) wage 23,959 60.2 437,410 35.4 3,515 61.3 250,591 27.2
Child support 9,447 23.7 158,435 12.8 1,205 21.0 61,012 6.6
Unemployment benefits 1,285 3.2 20,721 1.7 150 2.6 9,971 1.1
Indian trust/per capita 7 0.0 226 0.0 0 0.0 177 0.0
Other nonwage sources 1,571 3.9 59,573 4.8 221 3.9 47,863 5.2
Source of income Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent
Pension 5,258 0.3 3,925 1.6 6,003 0.4 4,464 4.2
Own business 7,746 0.7 6,717 0.4 8,576 0.5 3,633 0.5
Social Security 5,865 3.3 6,654 19.6 5,585 2.9 6,928 30.7
Military pay 3,258 0.0 4,358 0.0 2,986 0.0 4,758 0.1
SSI 5,321 3.6 4,998 14.1 4,978 3.2 4,515 13.0
Federal wage 12,949 1.8 11,431 1.4 12,492 2.8 11,127 1.3
TANF (AFDC) 4,854 9.6 4,492 8.8 3,673 6.6 3,936 6.3
PHA wage 12,981 0.1 11,016 0.1 16,864 0.5 14,998 0.3
General assistance 3,965 0.7 2,994 0.9 4,883 0.8 2,543 0.9
Other (regular) wage 13,585 69.4 11,994 45.5 13,551 73.6 12,188 37.8
Child support 3,322 6.7 3,157 4.3 3,212 6.0 2,973 2.2
Unemployment benefits 7,084 1.9 6,607 1.2 6,211 1.4 6,461 0.8
Indian trust/per capita 6,649 0.0 2,729 0.0 0.0 2,488 0.0
Other nonwage sources 5,669 1.9 4,043 2.1 3,415 1.2 3,289 1.9
*Column percents may total more than 100 because each person can have more than one income source.
A-14

Table A-9B. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 2000, Single Parents, Source of Income*
Characteristic
Section 8
FSS participants
Section 8
Non-FSS participants
Public Housing
FSS participants
Public Housing
Non-FSS participants
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total Single Parents family enrollment 34,568 721,790 5,108 402,030
Source of income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total, Single Parents 31,700 652,966 4,490 352,860
Pension 93 0.3 4,893 0.7 25 0.6 4,435 1.3
Own business 269 0.8 3,923 0.6 25 0.6 4,018 1.1
Social Security 1,483 4.7 58,029 8.9 174 3.9 30,689 8.7
Military pay 25 0.1 423 0.1 3 0.1 327 0.1
SSI 1,760 5.6 84,254 12.9 268 6.0 40,244 11.4
Federal wage 545 1.7 9,957 1.5 108 2.4 5,618 1.6
TANF (AFDC) 8,423 26.6 198,048 30.3 1,081 24.1 116,044 32.9
PHA wage 16 0.1 956 0.1 16 0.4 745 0.2
General assistance 467 1.5 14,754 2.3 76 1.7 10,728 3.0
Other (regular) wage 19,367 61.1 317,813 48.7 2,692 60.0 152,657 43.3
Child support 9,002 28.4 149,412 22.9 1,152 25.7 57,995 16.4
Unemployment benefits 1,014 3.2 15,203 2.3 111 2.5 6,046 1.7
Indian trust/per capita 6 0.0 109 0.0 0 0.0 35 0.0
Other nonwage sources 1,160 3.7 28,202 4.3 154 3.4 18,172 5.1
Source of income, Single Parents Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent
Pension 6,125 0.1 6,009 0.4 6,681 0.3 4,751 0.7
Own business 7,627 0.5 7,019 0.4 8,692 0.4 4,388 0.6
Social Security 5,486 2.1 5,841 5.1 5,055 1.8 5,482 5.4
Military pay 3,229 0.0 4,244 0.0 2,708 0.0 4,997 0.1
SSI 5,472 2.5 5,623 7.2 5,153 2.8 5,510 7.1
Federal wage 12,970 1.9 11,856 1.8 12,150 2.6 11,741 2.1
TANF (AFDC) 4,750 10.5 4,424 13.3 3,588 7.8 3,938 14.7
PHA wage 13,986 0.1 11,489 0.2 16,349 0.5 13,049 0.3
General assistance 4,741 0.6 3,930 0.9 4,896 0.7 3,273 1.1
Other (regular) wage 13,775 70.2 12,531 60.3 13,614 73.3 12,045 59.1
Child support 3,346 7.9 3,181 7.2 3,211 7.4 2,981 5.6
Unemployment benefits 7,238 1.9 6,809 1.6 6,451 1.4 6,685 1.3
Indian trust/per capita 7,246 0.0 2,741 0.0 3,099 0.0
Other nonwage sources 4,944 1.5 4,030 1.7 3,124 1.0 3,451 2.0
*Column percents may total more than 100 because each person can have more than one income source.
A-16

Table A-11B. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 1996, Single Parents, Source of Income*
Characteristic
Section 8
FSS participants
Section 8
Non-FSS participants
Number Percent Number Percent
Total Single Parents family enrollment 4,080 289,418
Source of income Number Percent Number Percent
Total, Single Parents 4,079 289,365
Pension 8 0.2 1,982 0.7
Own business 16 0.4 886 0.3
Social Security 156 3.8 24,474 8.5
Military pay 2 0.0 200 0.1
SSI 196 4.8 33,470 11.6
Federal wage 48 1.2 3,658 1.3
TANF (AFDC) 2,336 57.3 156,314 54.0
PHA wage 0 0.0 0 0.0
General assistance 52 1.3 6,316 2.2
Other (regular) wage 1,629 39.9 99,350 34.3
Child support 978 24.0 63,419 21.9
Unemployment benefits 96 2.4 4,842 1.7
Indian trust/per capita 0 0.0 59 0.0
Other nonwage sources 523 12.8 29,609 10.2
Source of income, Single Parents Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent
Pension 3,374 0.1 4,063 0.4
Own business 7,109 0.3 5,392 0.2
Social Security 4,433 2.1 4,926 5.3
Military pay 2,480 0.0 3,529 0.0
SSI 4,988 3.0 5,074 7.5
Federal wage 9,582 1.4 9,539 1.5
TANF (AFDC) 4,705 33.2 4,388 30.4
PHA wage 0.0 0.0
General assistance 4,085 0.6 3,870 1.1
Other (regular) wage 9,938 49.0 10,136 44.6
Child support 2,338 6.9 2,170 6.1
Unemployment benefits 6,420 1.9 5,771 1.2
Indian trust/per capita . 0.0 2,332 0.0
Other nonwage sources 951 1.5 1,272 1.7
*Column percents may total more than 100 because each person can have more than one income source.
A-19

Table A-12B. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 1997, Panel of 1996 Enrollees, Single Parents, Source of Income*
Characteristic
Section 8
FSS participants
Section 8
Non-FSS participants
Number Percent Number Percent
Total Single Parents family enrollment 2,537 156,806
Source of income, Single Parents Number Percent Number Percent
Pension 5 0.2 1,098 0.7
Own business 15 0.6 784 0.5
Social Security 117 4.6 14,897 9.5
Military pay 3 0.1 157 0.1
SSI 122 4.8 20,385 13.0
Federal wage 23 0.9 2,038 1.3
TANF (AFDC) 1,182 46.6 73,699 47.0
PHA wage 0 0.0 0 0.0
General assistance 30 1.2 3,293 2.1
Other (regular) wage 1,286 50.7 61,782 39.4
Child support 637 25.1 35,281 22.5
Unemployment benefits 53 2.1 2,666 1.7
Indian trust/per capita 0 0.0 0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 368 14.5 16,778 10.7
Source of income, Single Parents Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent
Pension 4,847 0.1 4,248 0.3
Own business 5,805 0.3 6,063 0.3
Social Security 4,567 2.1 5,501 5.9
Military pay 0.0 0.0
SSI 5,716 2.8 5,429 8.0
Federal wage 13,054 1.2 10,307 1.5
TANF (AFDC) 4,916 22.8 4,559 24.2
PHA wage 0.0 0.0
General assistance 4,021 0.5 3,826 0.9
Other (regular) wage 11,953 60.4 11,209 49.8
Child support 2,754 6.9 2,519 6.4
Unemployment benefits 6,420 1.4 5,938 1.1
Indian trust/per capita 0.0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 1,054 1.5 1,285 1.6
*Column percents may total more than 100 because each person can have more than one income source.
A-21

Table A-13B. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 1998, Panel of 1996 Enrollees, Single Parents, Source of Income*
Characteristic
Section 8
FSS participants
Section 8
Non-FSS participants
Number Percent Number Percent
Total Single Parents family enrollment 1,947 112,888
Source of income Number Percent Number Percent
Total, Single Parents 1,947 112,854
Pension 3 0.2 707 0.6
Own business 16 0.8 886 0.8
Social Security 91 4.7 11,189 9.9
Military pay 3 0.2 73 0.1
SSI 85 4.4 15,628 13.8
Federal wage 23 1.2 1,537 1.4
TANF (AFDC) 684 35.1 43,015 38.1
PHA wage 0 0.0 15 0.0
General assistance 24 1.2 2,297 2.0
Other (regular) wage 1,175 60.3 51,282 45.4
Child support 478 24.6 25,089 22.2
Unemployment benefits 50 2.6 2,401 2.1
Indian trust/per capita 1 0.1 42 0.0
Other nonwage sources 205 10.5 8,689 7.7
Source of income, Single Parents Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent
Pension 4,557 0.1 4,371 0.3
Own business 7,069 0.5 8,562 0.7
Social Security 5,443 2.2 5,891 5.8
Military pay 0.0 0.0
SSI 5,579 2.1 5,599 7.7
Federal wage 12,242 1.2 11,761 1.6
TANF (AFDC) 4,961 14.8 4,620 17.5
PHA wage 0.0 0.0
General assistance 4,088 0.4 3,650 0.7
Other (regular) wage 13,314 68.4 12,428 56.1
Child support 3,453 7.2 2,989 6.6
Unemployment benefits 6,141 1.3 6,234 1.3
Indian trust/per capita 0.0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 1,916 1.7 2,081 1.6
*Column percents may total more than 100 because each person can have more than one income source.
A-23

Table A-14B. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 1999, Panel of 1996 Enrollees, Single Parents, Source of Income*
Characteristic
Section 8
FSS participants
Section 8
Non-FSS participants
Number Percent Number Percent
Total Single Parents family enrollment 1,710 110,240
Source of income Number Percent Number Percent
Total, Single Parents 1,676 108,524
Pension 7 0.4 836 0.8
Own business 29 1.7 1,121 1.0
Social Security 93 5.5 11,236 10.4
Military pay 1 0.1 62 0.1
SSI 88 5.3 16,956 15.6
Federal wage 23 1.4 1,602 1.5
TANF (AFDC) 464 27.7 32,957 30.4
PHA wage 2 0.1 60 0.1
General assistance 17 1.0 2,188 2.0
Other (regular) wage 1,038 61.9 52,372 48.3
Child support 465 27.7 25,073 23.1
Unemployment benefits 45 2.7 2,507 2.3
Indian trust/per capita 0 0.0 18 0.0
Other nonwage sources 70 4.2 5,146 4.7
Source of income, Single Parents Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent
Pension 2,068 0.1 4,234 0.3
Own business 10,388 1.4 9,007 0.9
Social Security 5,296 2.3 5,779 5.7
Military pay 0.0 0.0
SSI 4,996 2.1 5,512 8.2
Federal wage 14,692 1.6 12,820 1.8
TANF (AFDC) 4,805 10.5 4,575 13.3
PHA wage 14,458 0.1 11,190 0.1
General assistance 3,337 0.3 3,786 0.7
Other (regular) wage 14,489 71.2 12,812 59.1
Child support 3,425 7.5 3,069 6.8
Unemployment benefits 5,394 1.1 6,592 1.5
Indian trust/per capita 0.0 2,559 0.0
Other nonwage sources 5,127 1.7 3,467 1.6
*Column percents may total more than 100 because each person can have more than one income source.
A-25

Table A-15B. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 2000, Panel of 1996 Enrollees, Single Parents, Source of Income*
Characteristic
Section 8
FSS participants
Section 8
Non-FSS participants
Number Percent Number Percent
Total Single Parents family enrollment 1,946 123,612
Source of income Number Percent Number Percent
Total, Single Parents 1,904 122,457
Pension 3 0.2 974 0.8
Own business 24 1.3 863 0.7
Social Security 102 5.4 13,202 10.8
Military pay 0 0.0 70 0.1
SSI 129 6.8 20,948 17.1
Federal wage 27 1.4 1,751 1.4
TANF (AFDC) 445 23.4 32,529 26.6
PHA wage 0 0.0 104 0.1
General assistance 17 0.9 2,727 2.2
Other (regular) wage 1,181 62.0 60,390 49.3
Child support 549 28.8 28,932 23.6
Unemployment benefits 62 3.3 3,044 2.5
Indian trust/per capita 0 0.0 23 0.0
Other nonwage sources 84 4.4 5,368 4.4
Source of income, Single Parents Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent
Pension 4 0.0 4,369 0.3
Own business 6,891 0.7 7,296 0.5
Social Security 5,532 2.3 5,786 5.8
Military pay 0.0 4,786 0.0
SSI 5,374 2.8 5,567 8.9
Federal wage 12,619 1.4 12,477 1.7
TANF (AFDC) 5,111 9.1 4,585 11.3
PHA wage 0.0 11,346 0.1
General assistance 3,486 0.2 3,560 0.7
Other (regular) wage 15,303 72.4 13,189 60.6
Child support 3,478 7.6 3,145 6.9
Unemployment benefits 7,586 1.9 6,839 1.6
Indian trust/per capita 0.0 2,034 0.0
Other nonwage sources 5,049 1.7 3,812 1.6
*Column percents may total more than 100 because each person can have more than one income source.
A-27

Table A-16A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, White
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment, race reported 51,350 44,560 6,790
Total White family enrollment 26,022 23,376 2,646
White family enrollment as percentage of total
Ethnicity
50.7 52.5 39.0
Total White family reported 26,022 23,376 2,646
Hispanic 7,524 28.9 6,443 27.6 1,081 40.9
Not Hispanic
Educational attainment of household head
18,498 71.1 16,933 72.4 1,565 59.1
Total White family reported 21,690 19,457 2,233
Less than high school (<12 years) 4,614 21.3 4,017 20.6 597 26.7
High school graduate (12 years) 9,742 44.9 8,713 44.8 1,029 46.1
Some college (13–15 years) 6,125 28.2 5,592 28.7 533 23.9
College graduate (16 years or more)
Gender
1,209 5.6 1,135 5.8 74 3.3
Total White family reported 26,022 23,376 2,646
Male 2,989 11.5 2,576 11.0 413 15.6
Female
Age cohort
23,033 88.5 20,800 89.0 2,233 84.4
Total White family reported 26,022 23,376 2,646
Under 18 36 0.1 33 0.1 3 0.1
18–24 2,740 10.5 2,399 10.3 341 12.9
25–34 9,494 36.5 8,456 36.2 1,038 39.2
35–44 9,643 37.1 8,750 37.4 893 33.7
45–54 3,327 12.8 3,035 13.0 292 11.0
55–64 623 2.4 566 2.4 57 2.2
65+ 159 0.6 137 0.6 22 0.8
62+
Family status
240 0.9 211 0.9 29 1.1
Total White family reported
Households With Children
26,022 23,376 2,646
Single-parent households 18,197 69.9 16,628 71.1 1,569 59.3
Two-parent households
Households With No Children
3,504 13.5 3,036 13.0 468 17.7
Single adult and no other household member 3,106 11.9 2,587 11.1 519 19.6
Two adults (head of household and spouse/co-head); no children 323 1.2 291 1.2 32 1.2
Other (head of household and other nonspouse/co-head); no children 892 3.4 834 3.6 58 2.2
Head-of-household income reported (from all sources) 23,391 21,082 2,309
Less than $5,000 4,151 17.7 3,679 17.5 472 20.4
$5,000<$10,000 7,438 31.8 6,799 32.3 639 27.7
$10,000<$15,000 5,227 22.3 4,723 22.4 504 21.8
$15,000<$20,000 3,532 15.1 3,153 15.0 379 16.4
$20,000<$25,000 1,812 7.7 1,613 7.7 199 8.6
$25,000 and more 1,231 5.3 1,115 5.3 116 5.0
Mean income 11,583
Median income 10,084
A-28

Table A-16B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, White, Source of Income*
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment, race reported
Total White family enrollment
51,350
26,022
44,560
23,376
6,790
2,646
Source of income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total heads of household, White income reported 23,206 20,902 2,304
Pension 135 0.6 121 0.6 14 0.6
Own business 307 1.3 294 1.4 13 0.6
Social Security 1,653 7.1 1,512 7.2 141 6.1
Military pay 33 0.1 28 0.1 5 0.2
SSI 1,732 7.5 1,579 7.6 153 6.6
Federal wage 338 1.5 296 1.4 42 1.8
TANF (AFDC) 5,079 21.9 4,648 22.2 431 18.7
PHA wage 15 0.1 8 0.0 7 0.3
General assistance 335 1.4 296 1.4 39 1.7
Other (regular) wage 14,194 61.2 12,725 60.9 1,469 63.8
Child support 6,204 26.7 5,647 27.0 557 24.2
Unemployment benefits 726 3.1 644 3.1 82 3.6
Indian trust/per capita 1 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 811 3.5 734 3.5 77 3.3
Source of income, White Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent
Pension 4,466 0.2 4,425 0.2 4,821 0.3
Own business 7,594 0.9 7,680 0.9 5,649 0.3
Social Security 5,936 3.7 5,955 3.8 5,732 3.0
Military pay 0.0 0.0 3,318 0.1
SSI 5,037 3.3 5,068 3.4 4,713 2.7
Federal wage 13,275 1.7 13,236 1.6 13,548 2.1
TANF (AFDC) 4,733 9.0 4,812 9.3 3,884 6.3
PHA wage 14,386 0.1 0.0 20,147 0.5
General assistance 3,748 0.5 3,680 0.5 4,261 0.6
Other (regular) wage 13,045 69.0 13,015 68.5 13,302 73.4
Child support 3,540 8.2 3,529 8.3 3,649 7.6
Unemployment benefits 6,603 1.8 6,718 1.8 5,697 1.8
Indian trust/per capita 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 5,849 1.8 5,998 1.9 4,431 1.3
*Column percents may total more than 100 because each person can have more than one income source.
A-29

Table A-17A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, African American
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment, race reported 51,350 44,560 6,790
Total African American family enrollment 23,790 19,989 3,801
African American family enrollment as percentage of total
Ethnicity
46.3 44.9 56.0
Total African American family reported 23,790 19,989 3,801
Hispanic 339 1.4 297 1.5 42 1.1
Not Hispanic
Educational attainment of household head
23,451 98.6 19,692 98.5 3,759 98.9
Total African American family reported 18,871 15,869 3,002
Less than high school (<12 years) 4,315 22.9 3,403 21.4 912 30.4
High school graduate (12 years) 9,463 50.1 7,934 50.0 1,529 50.9
Some college (13–15 years) 4,625 24.5 4,098 25.8 527 17.6
College graduate (16 years or more)
Gender
468 2.5 434 2.7 34 1.1
Total African American family reported 23,790 19,989 3,801
Male 1,118 4.7 888 4.4 230 6.1
Female
Age cohort
22,672 95.3 19,101 95.6 3,571 93.9
Total African American family reported 23,790 19,989 3,801
Under 18 24 0.1 20 0.1 4 0.1
18–24 2,250 9.5 1,667 8.3 583 15.3
25–34 9,538 40.1 8,022 40.1 1,516 39.9
35–44 8,633 36.3 7,456 37.3 1,177 31.0
45–54 2,751 11.6 2,353 11.8 398 10.5
55–64 471 2.0 374 1.9 97 2.6
65+ 123 0.5 97 0.5 26 0.7
62+
Family status
185 0.8 142 0.7 43 1.1
Total African American family reported
Households With Children
23,790 19,989 3,801
Single-parent households 19,275 81.0 16,322 81.7 2,953 77.7
Two-parent households
Households With No Children
1,067 4.5 846 4.2 221 5.8
Single adult and no other household member 2,299 9.7 1,836 9.2 463 12.2
Two adults (head of household and spouse/co-head); no children 143 0.6 118 0.6 25 0.7
Other (head of household and other nonspouse/co-head); no children
Head-of-household income (from all sources)
1006 4.2 67 4.3 139 3.7
Total African American family reported 21,149 17,990 3,159
Less than $5,000 4,124 19.5 3,279 18.2 845 26.7
$5,000<$10,000 5,881 27.8 5,116 28.4 765 24.2
$10,000<$15,000 4,429 20.9 3,778 21.0 651 20.6
$15,000<$20,000 3,627 17.1 3,134 17.4 493 15.6
$20,000<$25,000 2,000 9.5 1,709 9.5 291 9.2
$25,000 and more 1,088 5.1 974 5.4 114 3.6
Mean income 11,815
Median income 10,606
A-30

Table A-17B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, African American, Source of Income*
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment, race reported
Total African American family enrollment
51,350
23,790
44,560
19,989
6,790
3,801
Source of income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total heads of household, African American income reported 20,978 17,837 3,141
Pension 129 0.6 99 0.6 30 1.0
Own business 127 0.6 105 0.6 22 0.7
Social Security 1,310 6.2 1,127 6.3 183 5.8
Military pay 12 0.1 9 0.1 3 0.1
SSI 1,749 8.3 1,503 8.4 246 7.8
Federal wage 435 2.1 342 1.9 93 3.0
TANF (AFDC) 4,939 23.5 4,278 24.0 661 21.0
PHA wage 27 0.1 14 0.1 13 0.4
General assistance 506 2.4 461 2.6 45 1.4
Other (regular) wage 12,520 59.7 10,636 59.6 1,884 60.0
Child support 4,234 20.2 3,626 20.3 608 19.4
Unemployment benefits 685 3.3 620 3.5 65 2.1
Indian trust/per capita 2 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 924 4.4 790 4.4 134 4.3
Source of income, African American Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent
Pension 6,433 0.3 6,285 0.2 6,922 0.6
Own business 8,512 0.4 8,076 0.3 10,592 0.7
Social Security 5,739 3.0 5,769 3.0 5,552 3.0
Military pay 0.0 0.0 0.0
SSI 5,441 3.8 5,505 3.8 5,051 3.6
Federal wage 12,691 2.2 12,861 1.9 12,067 3.3
TANF (AFDC) 4,532 9.0 4,735 9.4 3,221 6.2
PHA wage 15,077 0.2 0.0 15,096 0.6
General assistance 4,000 0.8 3,973 0.8 4,279 0.6
Other (regular) wage 14,114 71.2 14,214 70.7 13,551 74.3
Child support 2,967 5.1 2,998 5.1 2,784 4.9
Unemployment benefits 7,371 2.0 7,457 2.1 6,551 1.2
Indian trust/per capita 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 4,871 1.8 5,221 1.9 2,809 1.1
*Column percents may total more than 100 because each person can have more than one income source.
A-31

Table A-18A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Hispanic
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment, ethnicity reported 51,350 44,560 6,790
Total Hispanic family enrollment 8,000 6,859 1,141
Hispanic family enrollment as percentage of total
Race
15.6 15.4 16.8
Total Hispanic family reported 8,000 6,859 1,141
White 7,524 94.1 6,443 93.9 1,081 94.7
African American 339 4.2 297 4.3 42 3.7
American Indian/Alaska Native 67 0.8 58 0.8 9 0.8
Asian American/Pacific Islander
Educational attainment of household head
70 0.9 61 0.9 9 0.8
Total Hispanic family reported 5,680 4,789 891
Less than high school (<12 years) 2,066 36.4 1,697 35.4 369 41.4
High school graduate (12 years) 2,331 41.0 1,978 41.3 353 39.6
Some college (13–15 years) 1,132 19.9 973 20.3 159 17.8
College graduate (16 years or more)
Gender
151 2.7 141 2.9 10 1.1
Total Hispanic family reported 8,000 6,859 1,141
Male 1,169 14.6 974 14.2 195 17.1
Female
Age cohort
6,831 85.4 5,885 85.8 946 82.9
Total Hispanic family reported 8,000 6,859 1,141
Under 18 11 0.1 11 0.2 0 0.0
18–24 740 9.3 592 8.6 148 13.0
25–34 2,783 34.8 2,330 34.0 453 39.7
35–44 3,038 38.0 2,661 38.8 377 33.0
45–54 1,130 14.1 996 14.5 134 11.7
55–64 230 2.9 210 3.1 20 1.8
65+ 68 0.9 59 0.9 9 0.8
62+
Family status
107 1.3 96 1.4 11 1.0
Total Hispanic family reported
Households With Children
8,000 6,859 1,141
Single-parent households 5,056 63.2 4,538 66.2 518 45.4
Two-parent households
Households With No Children
1,400 17.5 1,170 17.1 230 20.2
Single adult and no other household member 1,088 13.6 745 10.9 343 30.1
Two adults (head of household and spouse/co-head); no children 144 1.8 131 1.9 13 1.1
Other (head of household and other nonspouse/co-head); no children
Head-of-household income (from all sources)
312 3.9 275 4.0 37 3.2
Total Hispanic family reported 7,159 6,170 989
Less than $5,000 1,018 14.2 797 12.9 221 22.3
$5,000<$10,000 2,158 30.1 1,903 30.8 255 25.8
$10,000<$15,000 1,702 23.8 1,466 23.8 236 23.9
$15,000<$20,000 1,261 17.6 1,093 17.7 168 17.0
$20,000<$25,000 613 8.6 537 8.7 76 7.7
$25,000 and more 407 5.7 374 6.1 33 3.3
Mean income 12,284
Median income 11,100
A-32

Table A-18B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Hispanic, Source of Income*
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment, ethnicity reported
Total Hispanic family enrollment
51,350
8,000
44,560
6,859
6,790
1,141
Source of income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total heads of household, Hispanic income reported 7,098 6,112 986
Pension 24 0.3 23 0.4 1 0.1
Own business 66 0.9 62 1.0 4 0.4
Social Security 343 4.8 304 5.0 39 4.0
Military pay 2 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0
SSI 367 5.2 330 5.4 37 3.8
Federal wage 97 1.4 73 1.2 24 2.4
TANF (AFDC) 1,971 27.8 1,788 29.3 183 18.6
PHA wage 12 0.2 6 0.1 6 0.6
General assistance 127 1.8 112 1.8 15 1.5
Other (regular) wage 4,456 62.8 3,809 62.3 647 65.6
Child support 1,321 18.6 1,133 18.5 188 19.1
Unemployment benefits 279 3.9 235 3.8 44 4.5
Indian trust/per capita 1 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 312 4.4 284 4.6 28 2.8
Source of income, Hispanic Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent
Pension 3,267 0.1 3,409 0.1 0.0
Own business 10,201 0.8 10,510 0.8 5,404 0.2
Social Security 5,931 2.3 5,974 2.3 5,598 2.0
Military pay 0.0 0.0 0.0
SSI 5,701 2.4 5,687 2.4 5,828 2.0
Federal wage 11,822 1.3 11,725 0.9 12,116 2.6
TANF (AFDC) 5,393 12.2 5,549 12.8 3,867 6.4
PHA wage 15,386 0.2 0.0 20,214 1.1
General assistance 4,375 0.6 4,171 0.6 5,900 0.8
Other (regular) wage 13,754 70.4 13,895 69.4 12,921 76.1
Child support 3,033 4.6 3,026 4.5 3,074 5.3
Unemployment benefits 6,227 2.0 6,384 2.0 5,386 2.2
Indian trust/per capita 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 8,255 3.0 8,561 3.2 5,152 1.3
*Column percents may total more than 100 because each person can have more than one income source.
A-33

Table A-19A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Male
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment, gender reported 51,353 44,562 6,791
Total Male family enrollment 4,496 3,760 736
Male family enrollment as percentage of total
Race
8.8 8.4 10.8
Male family reported 4,496 3,760 736
White 2,990 66.5 2,577 68.5 413 56.1
African American 1,118 24.9 888 23.7 230 31.3
American Indian/Alaska Native 65 1.5 52 1.4 13 1.8
Asian American/Pacific Islander
Ethnicity
323 7.2 243 6.5 80 10.9
Total Male family reported 4,496 3,760 736
Hispanic 1,169 26.0 974 25.9 195 26.5
Not Hispanic
Educational attainment of household head
3,327 74.0 2,786 74.1 541 73.5
Male family reported 3,379 2,788 591
Less than high school (<12 years) 843 24.9 677 24.3 166 28.1
High school graduate (12 years) 1,520 45.0 1,215 43.6 305 51.6
Some college (13–15 years) 755 22.3 655 23.5 100 16.9
College graduate (16 years or more)
Age cohort
261 7.7 241 8.6 20 3.4
Total Male family reported 4,496 3,760 736
Under 18 6 0.1 6 0.2 0 0.0
18–24 245 5.4 189 5.0 56 7.6
25–34 1,108 24.6 924 24.6 184 25.0
35–44 1,703 37.9 1,422 37.8 281 38.2
45–54 1,039 23.1 881 23.4 158 21.5
55–64 296 6.6 258 6.9 38 5.2
65+ 99 2.2 80 2.1 19 2.6
62+
Family status
139 3.1 114 3.0 25 3.4
Total Male family reported
Households With Children
4,496 3,761 735
Single-parent households 3,008 66.9 2,452 65.2 556 75.6
Two-parent households
Households With No Children
261 5.8 218 5.8 43 5.9
Single adult and no other household member 1,052 23.4 932 24.8 120 16.3
Two adults (head of household and spouse/co-head); no children 9 0.2 8 0.2 1 0.1
Other (head of household and other nonspouse/co-head); no children
Head-of-household income (from all sources)
166 3.7 151 4.0 15 2.0
Total Male family reported 3,839 3,228 611
Less than $5,000 492 12.8 420 13.0 72 11.8
$5,000<$10,000 1,279 33.3 1,117 34.6 162 26.5
$10,000<$15,000 836 21.8 696 21.6 140 22.9
$15,000<$20,000 636 16.6 513 15.9 123 20.1
$20,000<$25,000 348 9.1 279 8.6 69 11.3
$25,000 and more 248 6.5 203 6.3 45 7.4
Mean income 12,416
Median income 10,800
A-34

Table A-19B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Male, Source of Income*
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment, gender reported
Total Male family enrollment
51,353
4,496
44,562
3,760
6,791
736
Source of income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total heads of household, Male income reported 3,817 3,207 610
Pension 89 2.3 72 2.2 17 2.8
Own business 83 2.2 75 2.3 8 1.3
Social Security 532 13.9 471 14.7 61 10.0
Military pay 20 0.5 14 0.4 6 1.0
SSI 515 13.5 467 14.6 48 7.9
Federal wage 58 1.5 40 1.2 18 3.0
TANF (AFDC) 444 11.6 401 12.5 43 7.0
PHA wage 2 0.1 2 0.1 0 0.0
General assistance 151 4.0 138 4.3 13 2.1
Other (regular) wage 2,265 59.3 1,844 57.5 421 69.0
Child support 107 2.8 90 2.8 17 2.8
Unemployment benefits 162 4.2 124 3.9 38 6.2
Indian trust/per capita 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 193 5.1 172 5.4 21 3.4
Source of income, Male Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent
Pension 4,650 0.9 4,501 0.9 5,283 1.1
Own business 9,111 1.6 9,572 1.7 4,790 0.5
Social Security 7,117 8.0 7,122 8.3 7,076 5.3
Military pay 2,788 0.1 2,991 0.1 2,315 0.2
SSI 5,381 5.8 5,417 6.1 5,032 3.0
Federal wage 13,788 1.7 13,603 1.1 14,199 3.1
TANF (AFDC) 5,848 5.5 5,964 5.8 4,765 2.5
PHA wage 12,856 0.1 12,856 0.1 0.0
General assistance 3,545 1.1 3,239 1.1 6,792 1.1
Other (regular) wage 14,489 69.2 14,324 67.1 15,213 78.3
Child support 2,310 0.5 2,252 0.5 2,617 0.5
Unemployment benefits 6,592 2.3 6,697 2.1 6,249 2.9
Indian trust/per capita 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 8,067 3.3 8,326 3.5 5,942 1.5
*Column percents may total more than 100 because each person can have more than one income source.
A-35

Table A-20A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Female
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment, gender reported 51,353 44,562 6,791
Total Female family enrollment 46,857 40,802 6,055
Female family enrollment as percentage of total
Race
91.2 91.6 89.2
Total Female family reported 46,857 40,802 6,055
White 23,035 49.2 20,802 51.0 2,233 36.9
African American 22,673 48.4 19,101 46.8 3,572 59.0
American Indian/Alaska Native 498 1.1 411 1.0 87 1.4
Asian American/Pacific Islander
Ethnicity
651 1.4 488 1.2 163 2.7
Total Female family reported 46,857 40,802 6,055
Hispanic 6,841 14.6 5,895 14.4 946 15.6
Not Hispanic
Educational attainment of household head
40,016 85.4 34,907 85.6 5,109 84.4
Total Female family reported 38,401 33,449 4,952
Less than high school (<12 years) 8,376 21.8 6,945 20.8 1,431 28.9
High school graduate (12 years) 18,268 47.6 15,842 47.4 2,426 49.0
Some college (13–15 years) 10,268 26.7 9,268 27.7 1,000 20.2
College graduate (16 years or more)
Age cohort
1,489 3.9 1,394 4.2 95 1.9
Total Female family reported 46,857 40,802 6,055
Under 18 47 0.1 40 0.1 7 0.1
18–24 4,873 10.4 3969 9.7 904 14.9
25–34 18,462 39.4 15975 39.2 2,487 41.1
35–44 17,103 36.5 15186 37.2 1,917 31.7
45–54 5,295 11.3 4724 11.6 571 9.4
55–64 890 1.9 758 1.9 132 2.2
65+ 187 0.4 150 0.4 37 0.6
62+
Family status
328 0.7 267 0.7 61 1.0
Total Female family reported
Households With Children
46,857 40,802 6,055
Single-parent households 39,574 84.5 34,572 84.7 5,002 82.6
Two-parent households
Households With No Children
1,848 3.9 1,497 3.7 351 5.8
Single adult and no other household member 3,946 8.4 3,413 8.4 533 8.8
Two adults (head of household and spouse/co-head); no children 107 0.2 89 0.2 18 0.3
Other (head of household and other nonspouse/co-head); no children
Head-of-household income (from all sources)
1,382 2.9 1,231 3.0 151 2.5
Total Female family reported 42,068 36,917 5,151
Less than $5,000 7,941 18.9 6,653 18.0 1,288 25.0
$5,000<$10,000 12,471 29.6 11,139 30.2 1,332 25.9
$10,000<$15,000 9,097 21.6 8,026 21.7 1,071 20.8
$15,000<$20,000 6,775 16.1 5,972 16.2 803 15.6
$20,000<$25,000 3,629 8.6 3,172 8.6 457 8.9
$25,000 and more 2,155 5.1 1,955 5.3 200 3.9
Mean income 11,668
Median income 10,304
A-36

Table A-20B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Female, Source of Income*
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment, gender reported
Total Female family enrollment
51,353
46,857
44,562
40,802
6,791
6,055
Source of income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total heads of household, Female income reported 41,720 36,591 5,129
Pension 184 0.4 153 0.4 31 0.6
Own business 368 0.9 339 0.9 29 0.6
Social Security 2,480 5.9 2,206 6.0 274 5.3
Military pay 25 0.1 23 0.1 2 0.0
SSI 3,073 7.4 2,702 7.4 371 7.2
Federal wage 748 1.8 621 1.7 127 2.5
TANF (AFDC) 10,031 24.0 8,915 24.4 1,116 21.8
PHA wage 40 0.1 20 0.1 20 0.4
General assistance 741 1.8 652 1.8 89 1.7
Other (regular) wage 25,213 60.4 22,118 60.4 3,095 60.3
Child support 10,546 25.3 9,358 25.6 1,188 23.2
Unemployment benefits 1,273 3.1 1,161 3.2 112 2.2
Indian trust/per capita 7 0.0 7 0.0 0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 1,600 3.8 1,400 3.8 200 3.9
Source of income, Female Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent
Pension 5,747 0.2 5,615 0.2 6,398 0.4
Own business 7,522 0.6 7,342 0.6 9,621 0.5
Social Security 5,561 2.8 5,599 2.8 5,253 2.5
Military pay 0.0 0.0 0.0
SSI 5,264 3.3 5,304 3.3 4,971 3.3
Federal wage 12,795 2.0 12,906 1.8 12,250 2.8
TANF (AFDC) 4,673 9.6 4,803 9.9 3,631 7.2
PHA wage 14,929 0.1 0.0 16,864 0.6
General assistance 4,186 0.6 4,129 0.6 4,605 0.7
Other (regular) wage 13,500 70.0 13,525 69.6 13,323 73.0
Child support 3,320 7.2 3,333 7.3 3,221 6.8
Unemployment benefits 7,044 1.8 7,126 1.9 6,199 1.2
Indian trust/per capita 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 5,075 1.7 5,350 1.8 3,150 1.1
*Column percents may total more than 100 because each person can have more than one income source.
A-37

Table A-21A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Households With No Children
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment, family status reported 51,353 44,562 6,791
Total Households With No Children 6,299 5,512 787
Households With No Children enrollment as percentage of total
Race
12.3 12.4 11.6
Total Households With No Children reported 6,299 5,512 787
White 3,235 51.4 2,993 54.3 242 30.7
African American 2,917 46.3 2,391 43.4 526 66.8
American Indian/Alaska Native 53 0.8 48 0.9 5 0.6
Asian American/Pacific Islander
Ethnicity
94 1.5 80 1.5 14 1.8
Total Households With No Children reported 6,299 5,512 787
Hispanic 806 12.8 732 13.3 74 9.4
Not Hispanic
Educational attainment of household head
5,493 87.2 4,780 86.7 713 90.6
Total Households With No Children reported 4,903 4,282 621
Less than high school (<12 years) 1,106 22.6 925 21.6 181 29.1
High school graduate (12 years) 2,264 46.2 1,954 45.6 310 49.9
Some college (13–15 years) 1,161 23.7 1,055 24.6 106 17.1
College graduate (16 years or more)
Gender
372 7.6 348 8.1 24 3.9
Total Households With No Children reported 6,299 5,512 787
Male 1,339 21.3 1,188 21.6 151 19.2
Female
Age cohort
4,960 78.7 4,324 78.4 636 80.8
Total Households With No Children reported 6,299 5,512 787
Under 18 6 0.1 6 0.1 0 0.0
18–24 279 4.4 213 3.9 66 8.4
25–34 598 9.5 502 9.1 96 12.2
35–44 2,124 33.7 1,890 34.3 234 29.7
45–54 2,289 36.3 2,049 37.2 240 30.5
55–64 757 12.0 650 11.8 107 13.6
65+ 246 3.9 202 3.7 44 5.6
62+
Head-of-household income (from all sources)
364 5.8 302 5.5 62 7.9
Total Households With No Children reported 5,272 4,693 579
Less than $5,000 911 17.3 813 17.3 98 16.9
$5,000<$10,000 2,491 47.2 2,236 47.6 255 44.0
$10,000<$15,000 967 18.3 853 18.2 114 19.7
$15,000<$20,000 552 10.5 479 10.2 73 12.6
$20,000<$25,000 240 4.6 208 4.4 32 5.5
$25,000 and more 111 2.1 104 2.2 7 1.2
A-38

Table A-21B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Households With No Children, Source of Income*
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment, family status reported
Total Households With No Children
52,350
6,299
44,563
5,512
6,791
787
Source of income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total heads of household,
Households With No Children income reported 5,242 4,663 579
Pension 131 2.5 110 2.4 21 3.6
Own business 70 1.3 69 1.5 1 0.2
Social Security 1,153 22.0 1,019 21.9 134 23.0
Military pay 7 0.1 5 0.1 2 0.3
SSI 1,285 24.5 1,180 25.3 105 18.0
Federal wage 65 1.2 50 1.1 15 2.6
TANF (AFDC) 137 2.6 132 2.8 5 0.9
PHA wage 7 0.1 4 0.1 3 0.5
General assistance 311 5.9 300 6.4 11 1.9
Other (regular) wage 2,664 50.8 2,335 50.1 329 56.0
Child support 142 2.7 137 2.9 5 0.9
Unemployment benefits 165 3.1 153 3.3 12 2.1
Indian trust/per capita 1 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 308 5.9 262 5.6 46 7.9
Source of income, Households With No Children Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent
Pension 4,733 1.2 4,600 1.0 5,429 2.0
Own business 4,658 0.6 4,591 0.6 9,306 0.2
Social Security 6,433 14.7 6,451 14.7 6,294 15.0
Military pay 3,955 0.1 0.0 4,956 0.2
SSI 4,959 12.6 5,013 13.0 4,349 8.1
Federal wage 12,419 1.6 11,505 0.9 15,467 4.1
TANF (AFDC) 3,543 1.0 3,587 1.0 2,381 0.2
PHA wage 12,548 0.2 9,652 0.0 16,410 0.9
General assistance 2,576 1.6 2,604 1.6 1,816 0.4
Other (regular) wage 11,512 60.8 11,573 60.2 11,080 65.0
Child support 2,719 0.8 2,676 0.8 3,891 0.3
Unemployment benefits 6,495 2.1 6,547 2.2 5,827 1.2
Indian trust/per capita 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 4,440 2.7 4,747 2.8 2,692 2.2
*Column percents may total more than 100 because each person can have more than one income source.
A-39

Table A-22A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Less Than a High School Education
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment, educational attainment reported 41,775 36,233 5,542
Total enrollment, family with Less Than a High School Education 9,218 7,622 1,596
Family with Less Than a HS Education enrollment as percentage of total
Race
22.1 21.0 28.8
Total, family with Less Than a HS Education reported 9,218 7,622 1,596
White 4,614 50.1 4,017 52.7 597 37.4
African American 4,315 46.8 3,403 44.6 912 57.1
American Indian/Alaska Native 101 1.1 78 1.0 23 1.4
Asian American/Pacific Islander
Ethnicity
188 2.0 124 1.6 64 4.0
Total, family with Less Than a HS Education reported 9,218 7,622 1,596
Hispanic 2,066 22.4 1,697 22.3 369 23.1
Not Hispanic
Gender
7,152 77.6 5,925 77.7 1,227 76.9
Total, family with Less Than a HS Education reported 9,218 7,622 1,596
Male 843 9.1 677 8.9 166 10.4
Female
Age cohort
8,375 90.9 6,945 91.1 1,430 89.6
Total, family with Less Than a HS Education reported 9,218 7,622 1,596
Under 18 13 0.1 10 0.1 3 0.2
18–24 1,156 12.5 855 11.2 301 18.9
25–34 3,500 38.0 2,909 38.2 591 37.0
35–44 3,111 33.7 2,639 34.6 472 29.6
45–54 1,110 12.0 944 12.4 166 10.4
55–64 275 3.0 222 2.9 53 3.3
65+ 53 0.6 43 0.6 10 0.6
62+
Family status
88 1.0 67 0.9 21 1.3
Total, family with Less Than a HS Education reported
Households With Children
9,218 7,622 1,596
Single-parent households 7,004 76.0 5,820 76.4 1,184 74.2
Two-parent households
Households With No Children
1,108 12.0 877 11.5 231 14.5
Single adult and no other household member 667 7.2 548 7.2 119 7.5
Two adults (head of household and spouse/co-head); no children 69 0.7 61 0.8 8 0.5
Other (head of household and other nonspouse/co-head); no children
Head-of-household income (from all sources)
370 4.0 316 4.1 54 3.4
Total, family Less Than a HS Education reported 8,065 6,766 1,299
Less than $5,000 1,918 23.8 1,522 22.5 396 30.5
$5,000<$10,000 2,591 32.1 2,217 32.8 374 28.8
$10,000<$15,000 1,808 22.4 1,534 22.7 274 21.1
$15,000<$20,000 1,088 13.5 920 13.6 168 12.9
$20,000<$25,000 451 5.6 382 5.6 69 5.3
$25,000 and more 209 2.6 191 2.8 18 1.4
Mean income 10,151
A-40

Table A-22B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Less Than a High School Education, Source of Income*
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment, educational attainment reported
Total family with Less Than a High School Education
41,775
9,218
36,233
7,622
5,542
1,596
Source of income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total heads of household, Less Than a HS Education income reported 7,977 6,686 1,291
Pension 38 0.5 31 0.5 7 0.5
Own business 55 0.7 50 0.7 5 0.4
Social Security 532 6.7 462 6.9 70 5.4
Military pay 5 0.1 5 0.1 0 0.0
SSI 779 9.8 663 9.9 116 9.0
Federal wage 101 1.3 84 1.3 17 1.3
TANF (AFDC) 2,307 28.9 1,928 28.8 379 29.4
PHA wage 2 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.1
General assistance 147 1.8 129 1.9 18 1.4
Other (regular) wage 4,411 55.3 3,684 55.1 727 56.3
Child support 1,626 20.4 1,395 20.9 231 17.9
Unemployment benefits 240 3.0 200 3.0 40 3.1
Indian trust/per capita 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 297 3.7 256 3.8 41 3.2
Source of income, Less Than a HS Education Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent
Pension 4,583 0.2 4,390 0.2 5,436 0.3
Own business 9,102 0.6 9,031 0.6 9,811 0.4
Social Security 5,592 3.7 5,666 3.8 5,103 2.9
Military pay 0.0 0.0 0.0
SSI 5,399 5.2 5,446 5.3 5,130 4.9
Federal wage 11,474 1.4 11,721 1.4 10,254 1.4
TANF (AFDC) 4,335 12.4 4,511 12.7 3,439 10.7
PHA wage 0.0 0.0 12,979 0.1
General assistance 4,172 0.8 4,001 0.8 5,395 0.8
Other (regular) wage 12,138 66.2 12,210 65.4 11,772 70.5
Child support 2,907 5.8 2,941 5.9 2,703 5.1
Unemployment benefits 5,954 1.8 6,252 1.9 4,465 1.5
Indian trust/per capita 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 4,993 1.8 5,185 1.9 3,796 1.3
*Column percents may total more than 100 because each person can have more than one income source.
A-41

Table A-23A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, High School Graduate
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment, educational attainment reported 41,775 36,233 5,542
Total High School Graduate family enrollment 19,786 17,055 2,731
HS Graduate family enrollment as percentage of total
Race
47.4 47.1 49.3
Total HS Graduate family reported 19,786 17,055 2,731
White 9,742 49.2 8,713 51.1 1,029 37.7
African American 9,463 47.8 7,934 46.5 1,529 56.0
American Indian/Alaska Native 223 1.1 174 1.0 49 1.8
Asian American/Pacific Islander
Ethnicity
358 1.8 234 1.4 124 4.5
Total HS Graduate family reported 19,786 17,055 2,731
Hispanic 2,331 11.8 1,978 11.6 353 12.9
Not Hispanic
Gender
17,455 88.2 15,077 88.4 2,378 87.1
Total HS Graduate family reported 19,786 17,055 2,731
Male 1,520 7.7 1,215 7.1 305 11.2
Female
Age cohort
18,266 92.3 15,840 92.9 2,426 88.8
Total HS Graduate family reported 19,786 17,055 2,731
Under 18 23 0.1 22 0.1 1 0.0
18–24 2,093 10.6 1,732 10.2 361 13.2
25–34 7,776 39.3 6,649 39.0 1,127 41.3
35–44 7,295 36.9 6,398 37.5 897 32.8
45–54 2,184 11.0 1,910 11.2 274 10.0
55–64 344 1.7 286 1.7 58 2.1
65+ 71 0.4 58 0.3 13 0.5
62+
Family status
108 0.5 88 0.5 20 0.7
Total HS Graduate family reported
Households With Children
19,786 17,055 2,731
Single-parent households 15,608 78.9 13,547 79.4 2,061 75.5
Two-parent households
Households With No Children
1,914 9.7 1,554 9.1 360 13.2
Single adult and no other household member 1,388 7.0 1,178 6.9 210 7.7
Two adults (head of household and spouse/co-head); no children 153 0.8 130 0.8 23 0.8
Other (head of household and other nonspouse/co-head); no children
Head-of-household income (from all sources)
723 3.7 646 3.8 77 2.8
Total HS Graduate family reported 17,752 15,433 2,319
Less than $5,000 3,329 18.8 2,816 18.2 513 22.1
$5,000<$10,000 5,043 28.4 4,444 28.8 599 25.8
$10,000<$15,000 3,847 21.7 3,356 21.7 491 21.2
$15,000<$20,000 3,076 17.3 2,670 17.3 406 17.5
$20,000<$25,000 1,614 9.1 1,403 9.1 211 9.1
$25,000 and more 843 4.7 744 4.8 99 4.3
Mean income 11,777
A-42

Table A-23B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, High School Graduate, Source of Income*
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment, educational attainment reported
Total High School Graduate family enrollment
41,775
19,786
36,233
17,055
5,542
2,731
Source of income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total heads of household, HS Graduate income reported 17,622 15,314 2,308
Pension 105 0.6 88 0.6 17 0.7
Own business 167 0.9 150 1.0 17 0.7
Social Security 1,058 6.0 950 6.2 108 4.7
Military pay 13 0.1 9 0.1 4 0.2
SSI 1,251 7.1 1,103 7.2 148 6.4
Federal wage 358 2.0 310 2.0 48 2.1
TANF (AFDC) 3,445 19.5 3,012 19.7 433 18.8
PHA wage 17 0.1 8 0.0 9 0.4
General assistance 299 1.7 266 1.7 33 1.4
Other (regular) wage 11,068 62.8 9,603 62.7 1,465 63.5
Child support 4,446 25.2 3,946 25.8 500 21.7
Unemployment benefits 563 3.2 504 3.3 59 2.6
Indian trust/per capita 5 0.0 5 0.0 0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 626 3.6 534 3.5 92 4.0
Source of income, HS Graduate Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent
Pension 5,793 0.3 6,054 0.3 4,444 0.3
Own business 7,010 0.6 7,193 0.6 5,396 0.3
Social Security 5,643 2.9 5,704 3.0 5,108 2.1
Military pay 0.0 0.0 3,631 0.1
SSI 5,145 3.1 5,178 3.2 4,899 2.7
Federal wage 13,176 2.3 13,297 2.3 12,394 2.2
TANF (AFDC) 4,318 7.2 4,401 7.4 3,743 6.1
PHA wage 14,701 0.1 0.0 18,662 0.6
General assistance 3,827 0.6 3,762 0.6 4,354 0.5
Other (regular) wage 13,605 72.5 13,587 72.0 13,720 75.9
Child support 3,305 7.1 3,297 7.2 3,369 6.4
Unemployment benefits 6,944 1.9 6,977 1.9 6,660 1.5
Indian trust/per capita 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 5,045 1.5 5,346 1.6 3,300 1.1
*Column percents may total more than 100 because each person can have more than one income source.
A-43

Table A-24A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Some College
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment, educational attainment reported 41,775 36,233 5,542
Total family with Some College enrollment 11,022 9,922 1,100
Some College family enrollment as percentage of total
Race
26.4 27.4 19.8
Total family with Some College reported 11,021 9,921 1,100
White 6,125 55.6 5,592 56.4 533 48.5
African American 4,625 42.0 4,098 41.3 527 47.9
American Indian/Alaska Native 137 1.2 121 1.2 16 1.5
Asian American/Pacific Islander
Ethnicity
134 1.2 110 1.1 24 2.2
Total family with Some College reported 11,021 9,921 1,100
Hispanic 1,132 10.3 973 9.8 159 14.5
Not Hispanic
Gender
9,889 89.7 8,948 90.2 941 85.5
Total family with Some College reported 11,022 9,922 1,100
Male 755 6.8 655 6.6 100 9.1
Female
Age cohort
10,267 93.2 9,267 93.4 1,000 90.9
Total family with Some College reported 11,022 9,922 1,100
Under 18 8 0.1 7 0.1 1 0.1
18–24 855 7.8 755 7.2 100 9.1
25–34 4,391 39.8 3,931 39.6 460 41.8
35–44 4,255 38.6 3,864 39.0 391 35.5
45–54 1,327 12.0 1,195 12.3 132 12.0
55–64 156 1.4 142 1.5 14 1.3
65+ 30 0.3 28 0.3 2 0.2
62+
Family status
47 0.4 44 0.5 3 0.3
Total family with Some College reported
Households With Children
11,022 9,922 1,100
Single-parent households 8,942 81.1 8,083 81.5 859 78.1
Two-parent households
Households With No Children
919 8.3 784 7.9 135 12.3
Single adult and no other household member 761 6.9 688 6.9 73 6.6
Two adults (head of household and spouse/co-head); no children 44 0.4 40 0.4 4 0.4
Other (head of household and other nonspouse/co-head); no children
Head-of-household income (from all sources)
356 3.2 327 3.3 29 2.6
Total family with Some College reported 10,003 9,029 974
Less than $5,000 1,738 17.4 1,558 17.3 180 18.5
$5,000<$10,000 2,683 26.8 2,467 27.3 216 22.2
$10,000<$15,000 2,030 20.3 1,835 20.3 195 20.0
$15,000<$20,000 1,697 17.0 1,526 16.9 171 17.6
$20,000<$25,000 1,057 10.6 930 10.3 127 13.0
$25,000 and more 798 8.0 713 7.9 85 8.7
Mean income 12,732
Median income 11,364
A-44

Table A-24B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, Some College, Source of Income*
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment, educational attainment reported
Total family with Some College enrollment
41,775
11,022
36,233
9,922
5,542
1,100
Source of income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total heads of household, Some College income reported 9,921 8,947 974
Pension 53 0.5 46 0.5 7 0.7
Own business 120 1.2 113 1.3 7 0.7
Social Security 597 6.0 547 6.1 50 5.1
Military pay 24 0.2 21 0.2 3 0.3
SSI 670 6.8 610 6.8 60 6.2
Federal wage 173 1.7 150 1.7 23 2.4
TANF (AFDC) 1,742 17.6 1,604 17.4 138 14.2
PHA wage 7 0.1 4 0.0 3 0.3
General assistance 156 1.6 136 1.6 20 2.1
Other (regular) wage 6,402 64.5 5,734 64.6 668 68.6
Child support 2,714 27.4 2,455 27.8 259 26.6
Unemployment benefits 324 3.3 304 3.4 20 2.1
Indian trust/per capita 1 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 417 4.2 374 4.2 43 4.4
Source of income, Some College Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent
Pension 5,036 0.2 4,552 0.2 8,217 0.4
Own business 8,382 0.8 8,056 0.8 13,639 0.7
Social Security 6,001 2.8 5,986 2.8 6,161 2.4
Military pay 2,763 0.1 0.0 2,359 0.1
SSI 5,076 2.7 5,103 2.7 4,798 2.2
Federal wage 13,365 1.8 13,258 1.7 14,060 2.5
TANF (AFDC) 4,431 6.1 4,457 6.2 4,130 4.4
PHA wage 23,435 0.1 22,921 0.0 24,121 0.6
General assistance 3,763 0.5 3,602 0.5 4,859 0.8
Other (regular) wage 14,473 73.4 14,434 73.0 14,806 76.5
Child support 3,613 7.8 3,613 7.9 3,612 7.2
Unemployment benefits 7,815 2.0 7,850 2.1 7,277 1.1
Indian trust/per capita 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 5,237 1.7 5,483 1.8 3,097 1.0
*Column percents may total more than 100 because each person can have more than one income source.
A-45

Table A-25A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, College Graduate
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment, educational attainment reported 41,775 36,233 5,542
Total College Graduate family enrollment 1,749 1,634 115
College Graduate family enrollment as percentage of total
Race
4.2 4.5 2.1
Total College Graduate family reported 1,748 1,633 115
White 1,209 69.2 1,135 69.5 74 64.3
African American 468 26.8 434 26.6 34 29.6
American Indian/Alaska Native 29 1.7 27 1.7 2 1.7
Asian American/Pacific Islander
Ethnicity
42 2.4 37 2.3 5 4.3
Total College Graduate family reported 1,748 1,633 115
Hispanic 151 8.6 141 8.6 10 8.7
Not Hispanic
Gender
1,597 91.4 1,492 91.4 105 91.3
Total College Graduate family reported 1,749 1,634 115
Male 260 14.9 240 14.7 20 17.4
Female
Age cohort
1,489 85.1 1,394 85.3 95 82.6
Total College Graduate family reported 1,749 1,634 115
Under 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
18–24 45 2.6 44 2.7 1 0.9
25–34 513 29.3 482 29.5 31 27.0
35–44 718 41.1 672 41.1 46 40.0
45–54 384 22.0 354 21.7 30 26.1
55–64 68 3.9 63 3.9 5 4.3
65+ 21 1.2 19 1.2 2 1.7
62+
Family status
28 1.6 26 1.6 2 1.7
Total College Graduate family reported
Households With Children
1,749 1,634 115
Single-parent households 1,161 66.4 1,081 66.2 80 69.6
Two-parent households
Households With No Children
216 12.3 205 12.5 11 9.6
Single adult and no other household member 253 14.5 234 14.3 19 16.5
Two adults (head of household and spouse/co-head); no children 17 1.0 16 1.0 1 0.9
Other (head of household and other nonspouse/co-head); no children
Head-of-household income (from all sources)
102 5.8 98 6.0 4 3.5
Total College Graduate family enrollment 1,587 1,480 107
Less than $5,000 224 14.1 210 14.2 14 13.1
$5,000<$10,000 424 26.7 400 27.0 24 22.4
$10,000<$15,000 315 19.8 288 19.5 27 25.2
$15,000<$20,000 227 14.3 216 14.6 11 10.3
$20,000<$25,000 163 10.3 151 10.2 12 11.2
$25,000 and more 234 14.7 215 14.5 19 17.8
Mean income 14,357
Median income 12,150
A-46

Table A-25B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, College Graduate, Source of Income*
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment, educational attainment reported
Total College Graduate family enrollment
41,775
1,749
36,233
1,634
5,542
115
Source of income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total heads of household, College Graduate income reported 1,575 1,468 107
Pension 16 1.0 13 0.9 3 2.8
Own business 40 2.5 39 2.7 1 0.9
Social Security 152 9.7 142 9.7 10 9.3
Military pay 2 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.9
SSI 144 9.1 142 9.7 2 1.9
Federal wage 31 2.0 30 2.0 1 0.9
TANF (AFDC) 167 10.6 157 10.7 10 9.3
PHA wage 1 0.1 1 0.1 0 0.0
General assistance 26 1.7 24 1.6 2 1.9
Other (regular) wage 1,006 63.9 928 63.2 78 72.9
Child support 410 26.0 389 26.5 21 19.6
Unemployment benefits 54 3.4 52 3.5 2 1.9
Indian trust/per capita 1 0.1 1 0.1 0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 66 4.2 58 4.0 8 7.5
Source of income, College Graduate Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent
Pension 5,432 0.4 5,849 0.3 3,624 0.7
Own business 7,368 1.3 7,498 1.3 2,280 0.1
Social Security 6,726 4.5 6,719 4.5 6,821 4.1
Military pay 0.0 0.0 2,286 0.1
SSI 5,007 3.2 5,060 3.2 1,233 0.1
Federal wage 18,833 2.6 18,941 2.7 15,600 0.9
TANF (AFDC) 4,648 3.4 4,691 3.5 3,974 2.4
PHA wage 16,848 0.1 16,848 0.1 0.0
General assistance 3,469 0.4 3,463 0.4 3,546 0.4
Other (regular) wage 16,224 72.2 16,141 71.5 17,206 81.0
Child support 4,139 7.5 4,096 7.6 4,935 6.3
Unemployment benefits 8,187 2.0 8,175 2.0 8,502 1.0
Indian trust/per capita 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 8,165 2.4 8,506 2.4 5,693 2.7
*Column percents may total more than 100 because each person can have more than one income source.
A-47

Table A-26A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, TANF (AFDC) as a Source of Income
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment, source of income reported 45,530 39,792 5,738
Total family enrollment with TANF (AFDC) as a Source of Income 10,474 9,315 1,159
TANF (AFDC) as a Source of Income family enrollment as percentage of total 23.0 23.4 20.2
Race: Total family with TANF (AFDC) as a Source of Income reported 10,474 9,315 1,159
White 5,055 48.3 4,624 49.6 431 37.2
African American 4,945 47.2 4,287 46.0 658 56.8
American Indian/Alaska Native 143 1.4 124 1.3 19 1.6
Asian American/Pacific Islander 331 3.2 280 3.0 51 4.4
Ethnicity: Total family with TANF (AFDC) as a Source of Income reported 10,474 9,315 1,159
Hispanic 1,988 19.0 1,802 19.3 186 16.0
Not Hispanic 8,486 81.0 7,513 80.7 973 84.0
Educational attainment of household head: Total family with
TANF (AFDC) as a Source of Income reported
8,010 7,002 1,008
Less than high school (<12 years) 2,426 30.3 2,029 29.0 397 39.4
High school graduate (12 years) 3,591 44.8 3,139 44.8 452 44.8
Some college (13–15 years) 1,816 22.7 1,668 23.8 148 14.7
College graduate (16 years or more) 177 2.2 166 2.4 11 1.1
Gender: Total family with TANF (AFDC) as a Source of Income reported 10,474 9,315 1,159
Male 598 5.7 537 5.8 61 5.3
Female 9,876 94.3 8,778 94.2 1,098 94.7
Age cohort: Total family with TANF (AFDC) as a Source of Income reported 10,474 9,315 1,159
Under 18 12 0.1 12 0.1 0 0.0
18–24 1,494 14.3 1,228 13.2 266 23.0
25–34 4,155 39.7 3,673 39.4 482 41.6
35–44 3,597 34.3 3,292 35.3 305 26.3
45–54 1,059 10.1 975 10.5 84 7.2
55–64 137 1.3 119 1.3 18 1.6
65+ 19 0.2 15 0.2 4 0.3
62+ 34 0.3 28 0.3 6 0.5
Family status: Total family with TANF (AFDC) as a Source of Income reported
Households With Children
10,474 9,315 1,159
Single-parent households 9,376 89.5 8,310 89.2 1,066 92.0
Two-parent households
Households With No Children
956 9.1 868 9.3 88 7.6
Single adult and no other household member 66 0.6 63 0.7 3 0.3
Two adults (head of household and spouse/co-head); no children 11 0.1 11 0.1 0 0.0
Other (head of household and other nonspouse/co-head); no children
Head-of-household income (from all sources):
65 0.6 63 0.7 2 0.2
Total family with TANF (AFDC) as a Source of Income reported 10,474 9,315 1,159
Less than $5,000 3,276 31.3 2,651 28.5 625 53.9
$5,000<$10,000 4,352 41.6 4,021 43.2 331 28.6
$10,000<$15,000 1,778 17.0 1,653 17.7 125 10.8
$15,000<$20,000 749 7.2 697 7.5 52 4.5
$20,000<$25,000 232 2.2 218 2.3 14 1.2
$25,000 and more 87 0.8 75 0.8 12 1.0
Mean income 8,012 8,171 6,336
A-48

Table A-26B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, TANF (AFDC) as a Source of Income, Source of Income*
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment
Total family enrollment with TANF (AFDC) as a Source of Income
52,350
10,474
44,563
9,315
6,791
1,159
Source of income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total heads of household,
TANF (AFDC) as a Source of Income, income reported 10,474 9,315 1,159
Pension 21 0.2 18 0.2 3 0.3
Own business 34 0.3 32 0.3 2 0.2
Social Security 405 3.9 366 3.9 39 3.4
Military pay 4 0.0 4 0.0 0 0.0
SSI 888 8.5 814 8.7 74 6.4
Federal wage 111 1.1 100 1.1 11 0.9
TANF (AFDC) 10,474 100.0 9,315 100.0 1,159 100.0
PHA wage 2 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.1
General assistance 31 0.3 29 0.3 2 0.2
Other (regular) wage 2,492 23.8 2,278 24.5 214 18.5
Child support 1,137 10.9 1,026 11.0 111 9.6
Unemployment benefits 166 1.6 160 1.7 6 0.5
Indian trust/per capita 2 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 145 1.4 135 1.4 10 0.9
Source of income, TANF (AFDC) as a Source of Income Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent
Pension 5,231 0.1 5,688 0.1 2,489 0.1
Own business 5,310 0.2 5,489 0.2 2,440 0.1
Social Security 4,814 2.4 4,877 2.4 4,222 2.3
Military pay 0.0 0.0 0.0
SSI 5,858 6.3 5,949 6.4 4,858 5.0
Federal wage 9,088 1.2 8,999 1.2 9,893 1.5
TANF (AFDC) 4,723 59.7 4,854 59.7 3,673 59.3
PHA wage 0.0 0.0 12,979 0.2
General assistance 2,347 0.1 2,509 0.1 0.0
Other (regular) wage 8,887 26.7 8,810 26.5 9,707 28.9
Child support 1,243 1.7 1,246 1.7 1,216 1.9
Unemployment benefits 4,573 0.9 4,536 0.9 5,563 0.5
Indian trust/per capita 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 3,249 0.6 3,330 0.6 2,162 0.3
*Column percents may total more than 100 because each person can have more than one income source.
A-49

Table A-27A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, With Disabilities
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment 52,350 44,563 6,791
Total family W ith Disabilities enrollment 3,677 3,662 315
Family W ith Disabilities enrollment as percentage of total 7.0 8.2 4.6
Race: Total family W ith Disabilities reported 3,677 3,362 315
White 2,087 56.8 1,958 58.2 129 41.0
African American 1,490 40.5 1,326 39.4 164 52.1
American Indian/Alaska Native 40 1.1 33 1.0 7 2.2
Asian American/Pacific Islander 60 1.6 45 1.3 15 4.8
Ethnicity: Total family W ith Disabilities reported 3,677 3,362 315
Hispanic 326 8.9 300 8.9 26 8.3
Not Hispanic 3,351 91.1 3,062 91.1 289 91.7
Educational attainment of household head: Total family W ith Disabilities reported 2,987 2,745 242
Less than high school (<12 years) 691 23.1 622 22.7 69 28.5
High school graduate (12 years) 1,290 43.2 1,176 42.8 114 47.1
Some college (13–15 years) 772 25.8 722 26.3 50 20.7
College graduate (16 years or more) 234 7.8 225 8.2 9 3.7
Gender: Total family W ith Disabilities reported 3,677 3,362 315
Male 875 23.8 792 23.6 83 26.3
Female 2,802 76.2 2,570 76.4 232 73.7
Age cohort: Total family W ith Disabilities reported 3,677 3,362 315
Under 18 1 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0
18–24 92 2.5 77 2.3 15 4.8
25–34 611 16.6 557 16.6 54 17.1
35–44 1,443 39.2 1,347 40.1 96 30.5
45–54 1,037 28.2 943 28.0 94 29.8
55–64 376 10.2 329 9.8 47 14.9
65+ 117 3.2 108 3.2 9 2.9
62+ 175 4.8 155 4.6 20 6.3
Family status: Total family W ith Disabilities reported
Households With Children
3,677 3,362 315
Single-parent households 1,468 39.9 1,343 39.9 125 39.7
Two-parent households
Households With No Children
278 7.6 236 7.0 42 13.3
Single adult and no other household member 1,512 41.1 1,392 41.4 120 38.1
Two adults (head of household and spouse/co-head); no children 104 2.8 96 2.9 8 2.5
Other (head of household and other nonspouse/co-head); no children 315 8.6 295 8.8 20 6.3
Head-of-household income (from all sources): Total family W ith Disabilities reported 3,555 3,256 299
Less than $5,000 189 5.3 171 5.3 18 6.0
$5,000<$10,000 2,369 66.6 2,152 66.1 217 72.6
$10,000<$15,000 667 18.8 622 19.1 45 15.1
$15,000<$20,000 223 6.3 213 6.5 10 3.3
$20,000<$25,000 70 2.0 66 2.0 4 1.3
$25,000 and more 37 1.0 32 1.0 5 1.7
Mean income 9,116 726 8,390
Median income 8,112 1,213 6,899
A-50

Table A-27B. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000, With Disabilities, Source of Income*
Characteristic
Total Section 8 Public Housing
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total family enrollment
Total family enrollment W ith Disabilities
52,350
3,677
44,563
3,662
6,791
315
Source of income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total heads of household by type of income,
W ith Disabilities income reported 3,513 3,214 299
Pension 104 3.0 91 2.8 13 4.3
Own business 15 0.4 15 0.5 0 0.0
Social Security 1,623 46.2 1,484 46.2 139 46.5
Military pay 4 0.1 4 0.1 0 0.0
SSI 2,237 63.7 2,047 63.7 190 63.5
Federal wage 18 0.5 14 0.4 4 1.3
TANF (AFDC) 632 18.0 581 18.1 51 17.1
PHA wage 1 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0
General assistance 97 2.8 87 2.7 10 3.3
Other (regular) wage 578 16.5 534 16.6 44 14.7
Child support 307 8.7 288 9.0 19 6.4
Unemployment benefits 22 0.6 22 0.7 0 0.0
Indian trust/per capita 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 102 2.9 93 2.9 9 3.0
Source of income, With Disabilities Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent Avg $ Percent
Pension 5,023 1.6 4,940 1.6 6,266 3.3
Own business 2,707 0.1 2,707 0.1 0.0
Social Security 6,323 32.2 6,411 32.3 6,067 33.7
Military pay 0.0 2,199 0.0 0.0
SSI 5,105 35.8 5,113 35.6 4,783 36.3
Federal wage 13,101 0.7 12,426 0.5 15,461 2.5
TANF (AFDC) 3,891 7.7 3,894 7.8 3,309 6.7
PHA wage 0.0 12,000 0.0 0.0
General assistance 1,781 0.5 1,819 0.6 1,411 0.6
Other (regular) wage 9,066 16.4 9,252 16.5 8,024 14.1
Child support 3,088 3.0 3,069 3.1 2,770 2.1
Unemployment benefits 6,727 0.5 6,613 0.5 0.0
Indian trust/per capita 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other nonwage sources 4,062 1.3 4,326 1.4 2,304 0.8
*Column percents may total more than 100 because each person can have more than one income source.
A-51

Appendix B

Multifamily Tenant Characteristics System (MTCS)

Record Layout

B-2

Field no. Form
line
no.
New field name Field
length

BASIC RECORD

Database (DB) field
name
1 NA Section indicator 1 NA
2 NA Record number 5 NA
3 NA Date last modified 8 DATE-MODFD
4 1b. HA state 2 HACD(1-2)
5 1c. HA number 3 HACD(3-5)
6 1d. Program 2 PROG-TYPE
7 1e. Project state 2 PRJCD(1-2)
8 1f. Project/Originating HA number 3 PRJCD(3-5)
9 1g. Project number 3 PRJCD(6-8)
10 1h. Site number 3 PRJCDEXT
11 2a. Type of action 1 TRANS-TYPE
12 2b. Effective date of action 8 EFF-DT
13 2c. Date of admission to the program 8 ADMSN-DT
14 2d. Projected next re-exam date 8 NEXT-RXDT
15 2e. Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) participant, or in the
last year indicator
1 FAM-SUFFCY
16 2f. Use if instructed by HUD 5 NA
17 2g. HA use only 5
18 3n. Social Security number (SSN) of head of household 9 SSN
19 3r. Total number in household 2 HH-MBR-CNT
20 3s. Family subsidy status under noncitizen rule 1 SUB-NCTIZR
21 3t. Effective date of family subsidy 8 SUBS-DATE
22 3u. Former head of household SSN 9 SSN-PREV
23 4a. Date entered waiting list 8 WAITING-DT
24 4b. Zip code before admission 5 ZIPCD (1-5)
25 4b. Zip code plus 4 before admission 4 ZIPCD (6-9)
26 4c. Homeless-at-admission indicator 1 HLESS-IND
27 4d. Very-low-income limit indicator 1 VLOW-IND
28 5a. Unit address 40 UNIT-ADDR
29 5a. Unit apartment number 10 UNIT-APTNB
30 5a. Unit city 25 UNIT-CITY
31 5a. Unit state 2 UNIT-STCD
32 5a. Unit Zip code 5 UNIT-ZIPCD(1-5)
33 5a. Unit Zip code plus 4 4 UNIT-ZIPCD(6-9)
34 5b. Family mailing address 40 FAMLY-ADDR
35 5b. Family mailing apartment number 10 FAMLY-APTN
36 5b. Family mailing city 25 FAMLY-CITY
37 5b. Family mailing state 2 FAMLY-STCD
38 5b. Family mailing Zip code 5 FAMLY-ZIP(1-5)
39 5b. Family mailing Zip code plus 4 4 FAMLY-ZIP(6-9)
40 5c. Number of bedrooms in unit 1 BDRM-NBR
41 5d. HA-identified accessible unit indicator 1 HA-ACCIND
42 5e. Family-requested accessibility features 1 REQ-ACCESS
B-3

Field no. Form
line
no.
New field name Field
length

BASIC RECORD

Database (DB) field
name
43 5f(a). Has the family received requested accessibility
features: fully
1 REQ-ACCFUL
44 5f(b). Has the family received requested accessibility
features: partially
1 REQ-ACCPAR
45 5f(c). Has the family received requested accessibility
features: no
1 RCVD-ACC
46 5f(d). Has the family received requested accessibility
features: action pending
1 RCVD-ACCPN
47 6f. Total cash value of assets 6 TCASH-ASST
48 6g. Total anticipated income 6 TANT-INCOM
49 6h. Passbook rate 4 PASS-RATE
50 6i. Imputed asset income 6 IMP-INCOM
51 6j. Final asset income 6 NET-FM-ASS
52 7k. Reserved 5 NA
53 7m. Total annual income 6 HH-TOT-INC
54 8b. Reserved (medical percent) 4 NA
55 8c. Medical/disability threshold 5 M-COST-STD
56 8d. Total unreimbursed disability-assistance expense 5 DIS-ASSEXP
57 8e. Earnings in 7d made possible by disability-
assistance expense
5 EARN-DASST
58 8f. Allowable disability-assistance expense 5 DIS-DEDUCT
59 8g. Total out-of-pocket medical expense 6 YEARLY-MED
60 8h. Total disability-assistance and medical expenses 5 HAND-ASST
61 8i. Medical/disability-assistance allowance 5 M-ALLOWNCE
62 8j. Elderly/disability allowance 4 ELD-ALLWNCE
63 8k. Number of dependents 2 HH-DEPNDNT
64 8m. Allowance per dependent 3 PDENP-ALLW
65 8n. Dependent allowance 5 DENP-ALLW
66 8p. Yearly childcare cost that is not reimbursed 5 CHILD-EXPS
67 8q. Travel cost to work/school 4 TRAVL-COST
68 8r. Optional earned-income deduction 4 OPT-INCDED
69 8d(1). Maximum disability allowance 5 NA
70 8t. Reserved 5 NA
71 8u. Total allowances 6 TOT-ALLWCE
72 8v. Adjusted annual income 6 ADJ-AN-INC
73 9a. Total monthly income 6 TOT-MINC
74 9b. Reserved (percent of monthly income as decimal) 4 NA
75 9c. TTP if based on annual income 6 TTP-ANLINC
76 9d. Adjusted monthly income 6 ADJ-INC-30
77 9e. Reserved (percent of adjusted income as decimal) 4 NA
78 9f. TTP if based on adjusted annual income 5 TTP-ADJINC
79 9g. Welfare rent per month 5 WELFR-RENT
80 9h. Minimum TTP 3 TTP-MINMUM
81 9i. Reserved 5 NA
B-4

Field no. Form
line
no.
New field name Field
length

BASIC RECORD

Database (DB) field
name
82 9j. TTP 5 HIGH-11-13
83 9k. Most recent TTP 5 TTP-RECENT
84 1a. Agency name 25 AGENCY-NM
85 n/a No activity date 6 NA
86 NA Ages of people not listed—1 3 UNLIS-AGE1
87 NA Ages of people not listed—2 3 UNLIS-AGE2
88 NA Ages of people not listed—3 3 UNLIS-AGE3
89 NA Ages of people not listed—4 3 UNLIS-AGE4
90 NA Ages of people not listed—5 3 UNLIS-AGE5
91 NA Income from other source 6 HH-OTH-INC
92 NA Extra imputed income 6 EX-IMP-INC
93 NA Preference—substandard housing 1 PREF-SBSTD
94 NA Preference—homeless 1 PREF-HLESS
95 NA Preference—displaced 1 PREF-DISPL
96 NA Preference—rent above 50 percent 1 PREF-RNT50
97 NA Preference—local 1 PREF-LOCAL
98 NA Preference—none 1 PREF-NONE
99 NA Ownership 1 OWNERSHIP
100 NA Race 1 HHH-RACE
101 NA Ethnicity 1 HHH-ETHTY
102 NA Project number 14 NA
103 NA Security deposit 5 SEC-DEP
104 NA 10 percent of total monthly income
Head of the household middle initial
Citizenship
Region code
Field office code
State code
Head of household first name
Head of household last name
No bedroom number flag
No dependent flag
No total income flag
No TTP flag
5
1
1
2
2
2
20
20
1
1
1
1
MON-INC-10
MBR-INITL
CITIZEN-CD
RGCD
FOCD
STCD
MBR-FNAME
MBR-LNAME
NOBDNBR
NODEP
NOINC
NOTTP
B-5

Field no. Form
line
no.
New field name

Field no. Form
line
no.
New field name Field
length

FAMILY RECORD

DB field name
1 NA Section indicator NA
2 NA Record number NA
3 3a. Member number MEMBER-NBR
4 3b. Member last name MBR-LNAME
5 3c. Member first name MBR-FNAME
6 3d. Member middle initial MBR-INITL
7 3e. Member birth date MBR-BDATE
8 3g. Member sex code MEMBER-SEX
9 3h. Member relation code PERSON-TYP
10 3i. Member citizenship code CITIZEN-CD
11 3j. Member disability indicator DISABILITY
12 3k. Member race code RACE
13 3m. Member ethnicity code ETHNICITY
14 3n. Member SSN MEMBER-SSN
INCOME RECORD

DB field name
1 NA Section indicator 1 NA
2 NA Record number 5 NA
3 7a. Member number 2 MEMBER-NBR
4 7b. Income code 2 INCOME-SRC
5 NA Reserved
(calculation for HA)
5 NA
6 7d. Dollars per year 6 MBR-INCOME
7 7e. Adult earned income
excluded
6 INC-EXCLUD
8 7g. Earnings deductions 6 EARN-DEDCT
B-6

Field
no.
Form line
no.
New field name Field
length
5
10
15
20

25
30
35
FSS ADDENDUM RECORD

DB field name
1 NA Section indicator 1 NA
2 NA Record number 5 NA
3 16a. Category Enrollment Report indicator 1 ENROLL-RPT
4 16a. Category Progress Report indicator 1 PROGR-RPT
16a. Category Exit Report indicator 1 EXIT-RPT
6 16b (1r). Family received selection preference—Job Training
Partnership Act (JTPA) indicator
1 JTPA
7 16b (1). Family received selection preference number other
indicator
1 OTHER
8 16b (1). Family did not receive selection preference indicator 1 NONE
9 16b (2). Not employed indicator 1 EMPLOYED
16b (2). Employed full time indicator 1 FULL-TIME
11 16b (2). Employed part time indicator 1 PART-TIME
12 16b (3). Years of school completed by head of household 2 SCHOOL-YR
13 16b (4). Family currently receiving food stamps indicator 1 FOOD-STAMP
14 16b (4). Family currently receiving Medicaid indicator 1 MEDICAID
16b (5). Family currently receiving JTPA services indicator 1 RCVD-JTPA
16 16c (1). Initial start date of contract of participation 6 START-DATE
17 16c (2). Initial end date of contract of participation 6 END-DATE
18 16c (3). Contract extension date 6 EXT-DATE
19 16c (4). Number of family members with Individual Training and
Services Plan
2 FAMILY-NBR
16d (1). Current FSS account monthly credit 5 ACCT-MTHCR
21 16d (2). Current FSS account balance 5 ACCT-BAL
22 16d (3). Current FSS amount disbursed to the family 5 AMT-DISBUR
23 16e (a). GED-needs indicator (Y/N) 1 GED-NDS
24 16e (a). High school-needs indicator (Y/N) 1 HS-NDS
16e (a). Postsecondary-needs indicator (Y/N) 1 SEC-NDS
26 16e (a). Vocational/job training-needs indicator (Y/N) 1 VOC-NDS
27 16e (a). Job search/job placement-needs indicator (Y/N) 1 JS-NDS
28 16e (a). Transportation-needs indicator (Y/N) 1 TRANS-NDS
29 16e (a). Health services-needs indicator (Y/N) 1 HSRV-NDS
16e (a). Childcare needs (number of children) 1 CC-NDS
31 16e (b). GED needs met through FSS indicator (Y/N) 1 GED-RCV
32 16e (b). High school needs met through FSS indicator (Y/N) 1 HS-RCV
33 16e (b). Postsecondary needs met through FSS indicator (Y/N) 1 SEC-RCV
34 16e (b). Vocational/job training needs met through FSS indicator
(Y/N)
1 VOC-RCV
16e (b). Job search/job placement needs met through FSS
indicator (Y/N)
1 JS-RCV
36 16e (b). Transportation needs met through FSS indicator (Y/N) 1 TRANS-RCV
37 16e (b). Health services needs met through FSS indicator (Y/N) 1 HSRV-RCV
38 16e (b). Childcare needs met through FSS (number of children) 1 CC-RCV
B-7

Field
no.
Form line
no.
New field name Field
length

FSS ADDENDUM RECORD

DB field name
39 16e (c). GED needs met by others indicator (Y/N) 1 GED-METO
40 16e (c). High school needs met by others indicator (Y/N) 1 HS-METO
41 16e (c). Postsecondary needs met by others FSS indicator (Y/N) 1 SEC-METO
42 16e (c). Vocational/job training needs met by others FSS indicator
(Y/N)
1 'VOC-METO
43 16e (c). Job search/job placement needs met by others indicator
(Y/N)
1 JS-METO
44 16e (c). Transportation needs met by others indicator (Y/N) 1 TRANS-METO
45 16e (c). Health services needs met by others indicator (Y/N) 1 HSRV-METO
46 16e (c). Childcare needs met by others (number of children) 1 CC-METO
47 16f (1r). Completed contract participation indicator 1 CMPL-CONTR
48 16f (2). Left because moving to homeownership indicator 1 MOVE-HMIND
49 16f (3). Left voluntarily indicator 1 LEFT-VOLUN
50 16f (3). Asked to leave program indicator 1 ASK-LEAVE
51 16f (3). Left because essential service unavailable indicator 1 LEFT-UNAV
52 16f (3). Contract expired but family did not fulfill obligations
indicator
1 CONTR-EXPI
B-8

Appendix C

Descriptive Statistics for the FSS Participant and Non-FSS Participant Model, 1996

C-2

Descriptive Statistics for the FSS Participant and Non-FSS Participant Model, 1996

Frequency (N) Percent
FSS participant indicator (Y) 3,691 50.75
FSS participant indicator (N) 3,582 49.25
Male 247 3.40
Female 7,026 96.60
Hispanic 915 12.58
Non-Hispanic 6,358 87.42
African American 3,378 46.45
American Indian/Alaska Native 46 0.63
Asian 94 1.29
White 3,755 51.63
Number of dependents
0 51 0.70
1 2,418 33.25
2 2,544 34.98
3 1,435 19.73
4 548 7.53
5 190 2.61
6 52 0.71
7 19 0.26
8 11 0.15
9 2 0.03
10 2 0.03
11 1 0.01
HUD region
1 594 8.17
2 672 9.24
3 568 7.81
4 1,263 17.37
5 1,105 15.19
6 730 10.04
7 437 6.01
8 221 3.04
9 1,378 18.95
10 305 4.19
Number of children under 18 years
0 30 0.41
1 2,539 34.91
2 2,536 34.87
3 1,401 19.26
4 561 7.71
5 206 2.83
C-3

Descriptive Statistics for the FSS Participant and Non-FSS Participant Model, 1996 (cont'd)
Number of children under 5 years Frequency (N) Percent
0 4,135 56.85
1 2,366 32.53
2 681 9.36
3 86 1.18
4 4 0.05
5 1 0.01
Age of youngest child
1
0 492 6.76
1 680 9.35
2 637 8.76
3 666 9.16
4 663 9.12
5 575 7.91
6 536 7.37
7 464 6.38
8 378 5.20
9 340 4.67
10 318 4.37
11 307 4.22
12 265 3.64
13 241 3.31
14 217 2.98
15 201 2.76
16 143 1.97
17 120 1.65
20 30 0.41
Standard
deviation
Age of participant 7,273 33.59 8.33
Average age of children under 18 years
2
7,273 8.37 4.60
Income 7,273 $7,909.34 $5,032.45
1
Note that this variable was set equal to 20 if there were no children under 18 years of age in the household.
2
Note that this variable was set equal to 20 if there were no children under 18 years of age in the household.
C-4

Appendix D

Descriptive Statistics for the FSS Participant (within-group) Model, 1996

D-2

Descriptive Statistics for the FSS Participant (within-group) Model, 1996

Frequency (N) Percent
Male 83 2.77
Female 2,915 97.23
Hispanic 310 10.34
Non-Hispanic 2,688 89.66
African American 1,240 41.36
American Indian/Alaska
Native
19 0.63
Asian 23 0.77
White 1,716 57.24
Number of dependents
0 15 0.50
1 1,006 33.56
2 1,070 35.69
3 611 20.38
4 195 6.50
5 76 2.54
6 19 0.63
7 4 0.13
8 2 0.07
HUD region
1 242 8.07
2 272 9.07
3 193 6.44
4 475 15.84
5 504 16.81
6 257 8.57
7 242 8.07
8 106 3.54
9 519 17.31
10 188 6.27
Number of children under
18 years
0 8 0.27
1 1,043 34.79
2 1,069 35.66
3 597 19.91
4 199 6.64
5 82 2.74
D-3

Descriptive Statistics for the FSS Participant (within-group) Model, 1996 (cont'd)
Number of children under
5 years
Frequency (N) Percent
0 1,631 54.40
1 1,041 34.72
2 283 9.44
3 40 1.33
4 3 0.10
Age of youngest child
1
0 307 10.24
1 288 9.61
2 278 9.27
3 293 9.77
4 259 8.64
5 223 7.44
6 190 6.34
7 165 5.50
8 143 4.77
9 132 4.40
10 109 3.64
11 94 3.14
12 91 3.04
13 70 2.33
14 65 2.17
15 49 1.63
16 33 1.10
17 8 0.27
20
1
Note that this variable was set equal to 20 if there were no children under 18 years of age in the household.
D-4

Descriptive Statistics for the FSS Participant (within-group) Model, 1996 (cont'd)
Years of schooling Frequency (N) Percent
Missing
2
125 4.17
1 7 0.23
2 2 0.07
4 1 0.03
5 2 0.07
6 24 0.80
7 16 0.53
8 44 1.47
9 82 2.74
10 160 5.34
11 223 7.44
12 1,348 44.96
13 401 13.38
14 346 11.54
15 95 3.17
16 118 3.94
17 1 0.03
20 3 0.10
Standard deviation
Age of participant 2,998 32.31 7.14
Average age of children
under 18 years
3
2,998 7.93 4.49
Income 2,998 $7,964.21 $5,227.56
2
Note that education level was missing for some individuals at baseline; the education level was present for the years after the model was run.
3
Note that this variable was set equal to 20 if there were no children under 18 years of age in the household.
D-5

FIRST-CLASS MAIL
Ê
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
Ê
HUD
Ê
Permit No. G-795
Ê
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Ofﬁce of Policy Development and Research
Washington, DC 20410-0600
Ofﬁcial Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Return Service