Evaluation of the Family Self-Sufficiency Program

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

Income Sources and Amounts A major goal of the FSS program is to enhance the level of earned income among PHA tenants.

Table 6 shows that FSS program participants had an average annual income of $11,730; 73

percent of the earnings came from employment and 19 percent came from various transfer

payments, such as TANF (9 percent), SSI (4 percent), Social Security (3 percent), unemployment

benefits (2 percent), and general assistance (1 percent).

Table 6. Average Annual Income of FSS Participants by Source, September 2000 Average Annual Income by Source Total HCV Public Housing $11,730 $11,795 $11,273 Employment earnings 73% 72% 77% TANF 9% 10% 7% Child support 7% 7% 6% SSI 4% 4% 3% Social Security 3% 3% 3% Unemployment benefits 2% 2% 1% Other nonwage sources 2% 2% 1% General assistance 1% 1% 1% Pension <1% <1% <1% Indian trust per capita <1% <1% <1% Another 7 percent of FSS participants’ income came from child support payments, and less than 2 percent came from other unearned sources. About half of FSS participants also received Food Stamps and half received Medicaid services (see Table A-1). Table 7 shows how these patterns varied by gender. For example, both male and female participants derived the same percentage of their income from employment earnings (73 percent), although males had a somewhat higher reliance on transfer payments than did females (23 versus 18 percent respectively). Females derived 50 percent more income from TANF benefits than did males, consistent with the single-parent family status patterns in the United States. The mean income for males ($12,416) is similar to, but slightly higher than, that for females ($11,668). 10

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

Evaluation of the Family Self-Sufficiency Program

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 (< 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

assistance as a source of income than those who left the program for other reasons. As a caveat, this pattern may be a function of time in the FSS program, as participants who completed their contracts had been in FSS for relatively long periods, and they may have exceeded maximum benefit durations, or their children may have become too old for the family to qualify for benefits, compared to the other exit categories. While this table does not show changes in participant income sources over time, it does illustrate how these sources differ markedly by the reasons for leaving the FSS program. For example, consistent with FSS requirements, virtually none (only 3 percent) of people who completed their contracts was receiving TANF payments at the time of exit, compared to 31 percent of those who were asked to leave and 25 percent of people who left voluntarily. 8 Only 3 percent of people who completed their contract received SSI payments, compared to 13 percent of those who were asked to leave and 14 percent of people who left voluntarily. Probably as a function of their single-parent family status, the percentage of people receiving child support payments was fairly constant across the exit categories, at about 25 percent. Table 17. Number and Percent of Participants Exiting FSS by Source of Income and Reason for Exit, September 2000 Sources of Income Total Exits Reason for Exit Completed Contract Voluntary Exit Asked To Leave Services Unavailable Contract Expired Total participants 4,632 1,826 922 1,132 39 377 Percent with each source* Pension 1% <1% 1% <1% <1% 1% Own business 1% 2% 1% 1% <1% 1% Social Security 8% 4% 10% 10% 20% 12% Military pay <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% SSI 10% 3% 14% 13% 17% 19% Federal wage 1% 2% 1% 1% <1% 2% TANF 16% 3% 25% 31% 17% 21% PHA wage <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% General assistance 1% <1% 2% 1% <1% 2% Other (regular) wage 63% 86% 48% 37% 53% 51% Child support 25% 26% 28% 23% 13% 25% 8 The exit information came from the FSS addendum form, while the income source data came from the MTCS Income file, both covering the federal Fiscal Year 2000 period. The study team attributes the small percentages of TANF and state general assistance as sources of income for people completing their contracts to slight applicable date variations in these two data sets. Per regulations in place as of 2000, FSS participants could not complete their contracts or receive any escrow account disbursements if they were still receiving these welfare benefits. 23

Table 17. Number and Percent of Participants Exiting FSS by Source of Income and Reason for Exit, September 2000 (continued) Sources of Income Total Exits Reason for Exit Completed Contract Voluntary Exit Asked To Leave Services Unavailable Contract Expired Unemployment benefits 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% Indian trust per capita <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% Other nonwage sources 4% 3% 4% 5% 7% 3% *May add to more than 100 percent because each person may have more than one income source. 24

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

Evaluation of the Family Self-Sufficiency Program

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

Table 26. Characteristics of FSS Programs, September 2000 Program Characteristics HCV Public Housing Number of PHAs by size of FSS enrollment 1,064 354 1-<25 participants 31% 51% 25-<50 participants 15% 17% 50-<75 participants 12% 10% 75-<100 participants 11% 6% 100-<125 participants 6% 3% 125-<150 participants 4% 2% 150-<175 participants 3% 3% 175-<200 participants 3% 1% 200+ participants 14% 6% Number of PHAs by percent of all assisted housing families enrolled in FSS 1,064 354 < 5 percent of all assisted housing families 50% 59% 5-<10 percent of all assisted housing families 23% 19% 10-<15 percent of all assisted housing families 13% 8% 15-<20 percent of all assisted housing families 6% 5% 20+ percent of all assisted housing families 8% 8% Source: Derived from MTCS Increases in FSS Enrollment While the number and percentage of HCV and public housing FSS programs did not increase

substantially over the 1998–2000 period, a two-thirds increase occurred in the number of people

participating in the program. The number of FSS participants rose from 31,263 in 1998 and

44,210 in 1999 to 52,350 in 2000. The apportionment between HCV and public housing for all 3

years remained essentially the same, with the vast majority occurring in the HCV program.

According to HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research, this increase was primarily a function of the extensive accountability requirements that the Department established for a range of HCV program mandates, including FSS program participation. In particular, as part of SEMAP, HUD has established a measure of HCV compliance with FSS program enrollment requirements. In response, many HCV programs have focused attention on FSS participant recruitment and increased their enrollments substantially between 1998 and 2000. 55

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

Table 27. Compliance With Minimum FSS Enrollment Requirements, 2000 Through 2001 (N = 887 HCV Programs With FSS SEMAP Scores) Scoring Criteria > 80% of FSS slots filled & > 30% of FSS families have escrow balances 60-79% of FSS slots filled & > 30% of FSS families have escrow balances > 80% of FSS slots filled BUT < 30% of FSS families have escrow balances > 30% FSS families have escrow balances BUT < 60% of FSS slots are filled 60-79% of FSS slots filled BUT < 30% of FSS families have escrow account balances < 60% of mandatory FSS slots are filled & < 30% of FSS families have escrow account balances 10 points 8 points 5 points. 3 points 0 points 403 PHAs 32 PHAs 226 PHAs 13 PHAs 213 PHAs 45.4% 3.6% 25.5% 1.5% 24.0% Source: Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP), 2000–2001 As a caveat, only 1,659 (or 67 percent) of the approximately 2,500 HCV programs received a SEMAP assessment during 2000-2001. This covered 887 (or 65 percent) of the 1,367 HCV programs with an FSS program obligation. Among the excluded PHAs were 201 with an FSS program (some of them voluntary), representing 18,159 participants, or 41 percent of all HCV tenants who were in the FSS program at that time. The study team also identified the extent to which PHAs with an FSS program obligation had exceeded their enrollment requirements. The team found 70 such FSS programs that had enrolled a combined total of more than 3,500 tenants beyond the minimum mandates. In addition, as of 2000, 139 HCV programs without an enrollment obligation (126 covered by SEMAP, plus 13 others) had established FSS programs, serving 1,156 participants. 57

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

Evaluation of the Family Self-Sufficiency Program

Table A-1. FSS Participants* General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000 Characteristic Total** Section 8 Public Housing Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total family enrollment 52,350 44,563 6,791 Employment status (non-missing employment data) 48,938 100.0 41,526 100.0 6,475 100.0 Employed full time (32+ hours/week) 15,475 31.6 12,916 31.1 2,280 35.2 Employed part time 11,657 23.8 10,228 24.6 1,317 20.3 Not employed*** 21,806 44.6 18,382 44.3 2,878 44.4 Educational attainment of household head 42,320 100.0 36,233 100.0 5,542 100.0 Less than high school (<12 years) 9,393 22.2 7,622 21.0 1,596 28.8 High school graduate (12 years) 20,023 47.3 17,055 47.1 2,731 49.3 Some college (13–15 years) 11,142 26.3 9,922 27.4 1,100 19.8 College graduate (16 years or more) 1,762 4.2 1,634 4.5 115 2.1 Assistance received by family (Food Stamps and/or Medicaid) 30,950 59.1 26,341 59.1 4,112 60.6 Food Stamps 26,322 50.3 22,307 50.1 3,599 53.0 Medicaid 27,852 53.2 23,829 53.5 3,564 52.5 Length of time enrolled in FSS 49,188 100.0 41,797 100.0 6,411 100.0 Less than 1 year 11,832 24.1 9,846 23.6 1,596 24.9 1–<2 years 12,101 24.6 10,144 24.3 1,842 28.7 2–<3 years 9,814 20.0 8,313 19.9 1,377 21.5 3–<4 years 7,124 14.5 6,093 14.6 836 13.0 4–<5 years 4,686 9.5 4,103 9.8 470 7.3 5 years or more FSS escrow account information 3,631 7.4 3,298 7.9 290 4.5 No. of families enrolled in FSS 1 year or more 37,356 31,951 4,815 No. of families with escrow account 17,171 46.0 14,722 46.1 2,285 47.5 Average account balance $2,230 $2,281 $1,912 Average monthly credit $235 $240 $207 No. of families receiving disbursements 1,195 3.2 963 3.0 214 4.4 Average amount of disbursements Individual Training & Services (IT&S) plan information $2,684 $2,958 $1,518 No. of family members with Individual Training & Services (IT&S) plan 49,831 42,067 6,768 No. of households with IT&S plan No. of IT&S plans (FSS participants) per household 45,754 39,070 5,727 1 plan 43,183 94.4 37,165 95.1 5,091 88.9 2 plans 1,782 3.9 1,355 3.5 402 7.0 3 plans or more 789 1.7 550 1.4 234 4.1 *For purposes of this analysis, current FSS participants are defined as people for whom a public housing agency (PHA) submitted an FSS addendum enrollment form or progress form (but not an exit form) during the 12-month period ending September 30, 2000. **This includes missing FSS data on the type of subsidy program. Therefore, the sum of the Section 8 and Public Housing figures is 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-5

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-4. Characteristics of (Current) FSS Participants, by Length of Time in the Program, September 2000 Characteristic Length of time in FSS (number and percent distribution) Number 1+ years <1 year 1–<2 years 2–<3 years 3–<4 years 4–<5 years 5+ years Total no. of families enrolled 49,188 37,356 11,832 12,101 9,814 7,124 4,686 3,631 Percentage of total families enrolled 75.9 24.1 24.6 20.0 14.5 9.5 7.4 Employment status 47,520 35,984 11,536 11,807 9,493 6,758 4,470 3,456 Employed full time (32+ hours/week) 15,306 33.4 28.4 33.7 33.9 32.0 31.4 36.6 Employed part time 11,339 24.1 23.1 24.0 24.4 24.2 23.3 24.2 Not employed* 20,875 42.5 48.4 42.3 41.7 43.8 45.3 39.1 Educational attainment of household head 41,602 31,925 9,677 10,628 8,589 5,785 3,810 3,113 Less than high school (<12 years) 9,252 22.0 23.0 22.1 22.1 23.5 22.0 18.6 High school graduate (12 years) 19,721 46.9 48.9 49.5 47.4 44.7 44.4 44.4 Some college (13–15 years) 10,899 26.7 24.5 24.7 26.4 27.4 28.6 30.9 College graduate (16 years or more) Assistance received by family 1,730 4.3 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.4 5.0 6.1 (Food Stamps and/or Medicaid) 30,024 60.1 64.0 64.6 61.0 54.7 56.4 58.3 Food Stamps 25,513 60.0 65.8 61.7 59.6 58.3 59.7 58.7 Medicaid FSS escrow account information 26,978 54.0 57.6 58.0 54.3 49.1 50.9 53.2 No. of families enrolled in FSS 1 year or more 18,220 46.0 8.9 32.0 47.2 52.3 58.6 60.4 No. of families with escrow account 2,132 2,230.0 529.0 1,012.0 1,649.0 2,429.0 3,301.0 3,930.0 Average account balance 235 235.0 236.0 220.0 219.0 242.0 238.0 299.0 Average monthly credit 1,216 3.2 0.2 0.9 2.6 4.0 5.5 8.0 No. of families receiving disbursements 2,654 2,684.0 968.0 1,707.0 2,381.0 2,443.0 2,728.0 3,510.0 No. of families with service needs identified 37,611 76.3 77.1 78.8 76.2 71.9 75.5 77.4 Education/training 30,827 62.6 62.8 64.8 61.8 58.5 63.1 65.1 GED 7,235 14.3 15.9 16.1 13.9 12.7 13.7 13.7 High school 3,891 8.5 6.1 7.4 8.0 9.7 9.9 8.9 Postsecondary 14,881 29.6 32.2 33.1 29.0 25.6 26.5 31.6 Vocational/job training 21,052 43.0 42.1 44.9 41.8 40.3 43.8 44.3 Job search/placement 28,092 57.7 55.4 58.5 59.3 54.2 58.1 56.5 Transportation 11,425 23.0 23.9 24.9 21.7 21.0 23.2 23.8 Health services Child care 9,162 18.3 19.7 21.8 18.8 13.5 14.8 18.8 No. of children needing child care 28,640 56.9 62.4 64.5 58.5 50.1 49.4 50.5 Average no. of children per family needing child care 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 *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-8

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-7A. General Profile (Heads of Household), September 2000 Characteristic Total Section 8 Public Housing Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total family enrollment 52,350 44,563 6,791 Race: Total reported 51,350 100.0 44,560 100.0 6,790 100.0 White 26,022 50.7 23,376 52.5 2,646 39.0 African American 23,790 46.3 19,989 44.9 3,801 56.0 American Indian/Alaska Native 564 1.1 464 1.0 100 1.5 Asian American/Pacific Islander 974 1.9 731 1.6 243 3.6 Ethnicity: Total reported 51,350 100.0 44,560 100.0 6,790 100.0 Hispanic 8,000 15.6 6,859 15.4 1,141 16.8 Not Hispanic 43,350 84.4 37,701 84.6 5,649 83.2 Educational attainment of household head 41,775 100.0 36,233 100.0 5,542 100.0 Less than high school (<12 years) 9,218 22.1 7,622 21.0 1,596 28.8 High school graduate (12 years) 19,786 47.4 17,055 47.1 2,731 49.3 Some college (13–15 years) 11,022 26.4 9,922 27.4 1,100 19.8 College graduate (16 years or more) 1,749 4.2 1,634 4.5 115 2.1 Gender 51,353 100.0 44,562 100.0 6,791 100.0 Male 4,496 8.8 3,760 8.4 736 10.8 Female Age cohort 46,857 91.2 40,802 91.6 6,055 89.2 Total reported 51,353 100.0 44,562 100.0 6,791 100.0 Under 18 63 0.1 56 0.1 7 0.1 18–24 5,116 10.0 4,157 9.3 959 14.1 25–34 19,549 38.1 16,877 37.9 2,672 39.3 35–44 18,824 36.7 16,626 37.3 2,198 32.4 45–54 6,336 12.3 5,607 12.6 729 10.7 55–64 1,167 2.3 997 2.2 170 2.5 65+ 298 0.6 242 0.5 56 0.8 62+ 453 0.9 368 0.8 85 1.3 Family status Households With Children 51,353 100.0 44,562 100.0 6,791 100.0 Single-parent households 39,676 77.3 34,568 77.6 5,108 75.2 Two-parent households Households With No Children 5,378 10.5 4,482 10.1 896 13.2 Single adult; no other household member 4,001 7.8 3,452 7.7 549 8.1 Two adults (head of household and spouse/co-head); no children 376 0.7 332 0.7 44 0.6 Other (head of household and other nonspouse/co-head); no children 1,922 3.7 1,728 3.9 194 2.9 Family income (from all sources) 51,353 100.0 44,562 100.0 6,791 100.0 Less than $5,000 10,985 21.4 8,918 20.0 2,067 30.4 $5,000<$10,000 13,192 25.7 11,789 26.5 1,403 20.7 $10,000<$15,000 10,427 20.3 9,177 20.6 1,250 18.4 $15,000<$20,000 8,097 15.8 7,116 16.0 981 14.4 $20,000<$25,000 4,794 9.3 4,170 9.4 624 9.2 $25,000 and more 3,858 7.5 3,392 7.6 466 6.9 Mean income 12,052 12,199 11,079 Median income 10,692 10,800 9,641 Head-of-household income (from all sources) 45,900 100.0 40,139 100.0 5,761 100.0 Less than $5,000 8,433 18.4 7,073 17.6 1,360 23.6 $5,000<$10,000 13,749 30.0 12,256 30.5 1,493 25.9 $10,000<$15,000 9,930 21.6 8,719 21.7 1,211 21.0 $15,000<$20,000 7,409 16.1 6,483 16.2 926 16.1 $20,000<$25,000 3,977 8.7 3,451 8.6 526 9.1 $25,000 and more 2,402 5.2 2,157 5.4 245 4.3 Mean income 11,730 11,795 11,273 Median income 10,356 10,394 10,128 A-11

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-8A. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 2000 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 Race: Total reported 44,560 100.0 1,370,473 100.0 6,790 100.0 1,026,669 100.0 White 23,376 52.5 760,405 55.5 2,646 39.0 506,614 49.3 African American 19,989 44.9 561,653 41.0 3,801 56.0 489,830 47.7 American Indian/Alaska Native 464 1.0 12,017 0.9 100 1.5 6,574 0.6 Asian American/Pacific Islander 731 1.6 36,398 2.7 243 3.6 23,651 2.3 Ethnicity: Total reported 44,560 100.0 1,370,483 100.0 6,790 100.0 1,026,669 100.0 Hispanic 6,859 15.4 215,860 15.8 1,141 16.8 181,584 17.7 Not Hispanic 37,701 84.6 1,154,623 84.2 5,649 83.2 845,085 82.3 Gender: Total reported 44,562 100.0 1,370,666 100.0 6,791 100.0 1,026,781 100.0 Male 3,760 8.4 227,821 16.6 736 10.8 239,685 23.3 Female 40,802 91.6 1,142,845 83.4 6,055 89.2 787,096 76.7 Age cohort: Total reported 44,562 100.0 1,370,673 100.0 6,791 100.0 1,026,783 100.0 Under 18 56 0.1 2,338 0.2 7 0.1 1,851 0.2 18–24 4,157 9.3 123,647 9.0 959 14.1 119,412 11.6 25–34 16,877 37.9 350,726 25.6 2,672 39.3 186,464 18.2 35–44 16,626 37.3 362,145 26.4 2,198 32.4 177,103 17.2 45–54 5,607 12.6 210,735 15.4 729 10.7 137,780 13.4 55–64 997 2.2 122,153 8.9 170 2.5 127,658 12.4 65+ 242 0.5 198,929 14.5 56 0.8 276,515 26.9 62+ 368 0.8 231,238 16.9 85 1.3 315,583 30.7 Family status: Total reported Households With Children 44,562 100.0 1,370,694 100.0 6,791 100.0 1,026,785 100.0 Single-parent households 34,568 77.6 721,801 52.7 5,108 75.2 402,032 39.2 Two-parent households Households With No Children 4,482 10.1 103,240 7.5 896 13.2 59,707 5.8 Single adult and no other household member 3,452 7.7 421,548 30.8 549 8.1 465,395 45.3 Two adults (head of household and spouse/co-head); no children 332 0.7 44,481 3.2 44 0.6 41,944 4.1 Other (head of household and other nonspouse/co-head); no children 1,728 3.9 79,624 5.8 194 2.9 57,707 5.6 Family income (from all sources) 44,562 100.0 1,370,673 100.0 6,791 100.0 1,026,783 100.0 Less than $5,000 8,918 20.0 244,638 17.8 2,067 30.4 237,548 23.1 $5,000<$10,000 11,789 26.5 588,881 43.0 1,403 20.7 459,110 44.7 $10,000<$15,000 9,177 20.6 282,566 20.6 1,250 18.4 179,679 17.5 $15,000<$20,000 7,116 16.0 146,029 10.7 981 14.4 77,768 7.6 $20,000<$25,000 4,170 9.4 65,056 4.7 624 9.2 34,651 3.4 $25,000 and more 3,392 7.6 43,503 3.2 466 6.9 38,027 3.7 Mean income 12,199 9,950 11,079 9,148 Median income 10,800 8,352 9,641 7,308 Head-of-household income (from all sources) 40,139 100.0 1,253,513 100.0 5,761 100.0 926,943 100.0 Less than $5,000 7,073 17.6 204,303 16.3 1,360 23.6 178,908 19.3 $5,000<$10,000 12,256 30.5 633,307 50.5 1,493 25.9 485,611 52.4 $10,000<$15,000 8,719 21.7 235,024 18.7 1,211 21.0 154,076 16.6 $15,000<$20,000 6,483 16.2 112,062 8.9 926 16.1 61,433 6.6 $20,000<$25,000 3,451 8.6 45,546 3.6 526 9.1 25,039 2.7 $25,000 and more 2,157 5.4 23,271 1.9 245 4.3 21,876 2.4 Mean income 11,795 9,349 11,273 8,791 Median income 10,394 7,872 10,128 7,188 A-13

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-9A. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 2000, Single Parents 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 Race 34,568 721,790 5,108 402,030 Total reported 34,566 100.0 721,700 100.0 5,107 100.0 401,984 100.0 White 17,181 49.7 315,147 43.7 1,859 36.4 143,316 35.7 African American 16,688 48.3 388,678 53.9 3,040 59.5 249,030 62.0 American Indian/Alaska Native 350 1.0 6,747 0.9 81 1.6 3,208 0.8 Asian American/Pacific Islander Ethnicity 347 1.0 11,128 1.5 127 2.5 6,430 1.6 Total reported 34,566 100.0 721,706 100.0 5,107 100.0 401,984 100.0 Hispanic 4,772 13.8 114,324 15.8 762 14.9 75,254 18.7 Not Hispanic Gender 29,794 86.2 607,382 84.2 4,345 85.1 326,730 81.3 Total reported 34,568 100.0 721,790 100.0 5,108 100.0 402,030 100.0 Male 818 2.4 22,945 3.2 161 3.2 16,204 4.0 Female Age cohort 33,750 97.6 698,845 96.8 4,947 96.8 385,826 96.0 Total reported 34,568 100.0 721,790 100.0 5,108 100.0 402,030 100.0 Under 18 46 0.1 1,428 0.2 6 0.1 1,086 0.3 18–24 3,539 10.2 98,445 13.6 815 16.0 90,991 22.6 25–34 14,531 42.0 283,664 39.3 2,215 43.4 142,477 35.4 35–44 13,121 38.0 238,298 33.0 1,631 31.9 105,012 26.1 45–54 3,036 8.8 74,046 10.3 386 7.6 39,495 9.8 55–64 266 0.8 18,446 2.6 46 0.9 14,935 3.7 65+ 29 0.1 7,463 1.0 9 0.2 8,034 2.0 62+ Family income (from all sources) 49 0.1 10,881 1.5 17 0.3 11,335 2.8 Total reported 34,568 100.0 721,790 100.0 5,108 100.0 402,030 100.0 Less than $5,000 7,111 20.6 170,162 23.6 1,697 33.2 144,830 36.0 $5,000<$10,000 8,925 25.8 224,440 31.1 1,041 20.4 117,096 29.1 $10,000<$15,000 7,287 21.1 161,867 22.4 941 18.4 72,761 18.1 $15,000<$20,000 5,672 16.4 96,569 13.4 713 14.0 37,145 9.2 $20,000<$25,000 3,280 9.5 43,651 6.0 448 8.8 16,197 4.0 $25,000 and more 2,293 6.6 25,101 3.5 268 5.2 14,001 3.5 Mean income 11,986 10,343 10,434 8,757 Median income Head-of-household income (from all sources) 10,798 9,100 9,035 6,986 Total reported 31,986 100.0 662,993 100.0 4,510 100.0 356,505 100.0 Less than $5,000 5,781 18.1 146,157 22.0 1,187 26.3 115,947 32.5 $5,000<$10,000 9,083 28.4 234,423 35.4 1,073 23.8 121,163 34.0 $10,000<$15,000 7,016 21.9 144,794 21.8 930 20.6 63,909 17.9 $15,000<$20,000 5,368 16.8 84,030 12.7 708 15.7 32,296 9.1 $20,000<$25,000 2,924 9.1 35,897 5.4 419 9.3 13,411 3.8 $25,000 and more 1,814 5.7 17,692 2.7 193 4.3 9,779 2.7 Mean income 11,996 10,128 11,144 8,810 Median income 10,725 8,700 9,984 7,020 A-15

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-10. FSS Programs, September 2000 Characteristic Section 8 Public Housing Number Percent Number Percent Total no. of PHAs in United States, by type of subsidy 2,493 3,073 Total no. of PHAs with FSS programs, by type of subsidy 1,064 354 No. of PHAs by size of FSS enrollment 100.0 100.0 1–<25 participants 330 31.0 181 51.0 25–<50 participants 164 15.0 61 17.0 50–<75 participants 123 12.0 37 10.0 75–<100 participants 119 11.0 23 6.0 100–<125 participants 68 6.0 11 3.0 125–<150 participants 42 4.0 7 2.0 150–<175 participants 37 3.0 11 3.0 175–<200 participants 29 3.0 3 1.0 200+ participants 152 14.0 20 6.0 No. of PHAs by percent of all assisted housing tenants in FSS Less than 5 percent of all assisted housing tenants/residents 529 50.0 210 59.0 5–<10 percent of all assisted housing tenants/residents 245 23.0 68 19.0 10–<15 percent of all assisted housing tenants/residents 143 13.0 29 8.0 15–<20 percent of all assisted housing tenants/residents 65 6.0 19 5.0 20 percent and more of all assisted housing tenants/residents 82 8.0 28 8.0 A-17

Table A-11A. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 1996, Single Parents Characteristic Section 8 FSS participants Section 8 Non-FSS participants Number Percent Number Percent Total Single Parents family enrollment Race 4,080 289,418 Total reported 4,070 288,814 White 2,276 55.9 142,687 49.4 African American 1,733 42.6 137,940 47.8 American Indian/Alaska Native 26 0.6 2,789 1.0 Asian American/Pacific Islander Ethnicity 35 0.9 5,398 1.9 Total reported 4,077 288,997 Hispanic 488 12.0 37,255 12.9 Not Hispanic Gender 3,589 88.0 251,742 87.1 Total reported 4,077 289,274 Male 136 3.3 9,869 3.4 Female Age cohort 3,941 96.7 279,405 96.6 Total reported 4,080 289,418 Under 18 11 0.3 1,612 0.6 18–24 579 14.2 37,816 13.1 25–34 1,994 48.9 126,742 43.8 35–44 1,276 31.3 91,776 31.7 45–54 205 5.0 23,106 8.0 55–64 11 0.3 5,980 2.1 65+ 4 0.1 2,386 0.8 62+ Family income (from all sources) 5 0.1 3,566 1.2 Total reported 4,080 289,418 Less than $5,000 1,097 26.9 82,438 28.5 $5,000<$10,000 1,697 41.6 115,172 39.8 $10,000<$15,000 757 18.6 56,643 19.6 $15,000<$20,000 334 8.2 23,189 8.0 $20,000<$25,000 134 3.3 7,983 2.8 $25,000 and more 61 1.5 3,993 1.4 Mean income 8,723 8,585 Median income Head-of-household income (from all sources) 7,278 7,284 Total reported 4,080 289,418 Less than $5,000 1,228 30.1 93,164 32.2 $5,000<$10,000 1,749 42.9 121,363 41.9 $10,000<$15,000 674 16.5 48,459 16.7 $15,000<$20,000 274 6.7 18,097 6.3 $20,000<$25,000 114 2.8 5,825 2.0 $25,000 and more 41 1.0 2,510 0.9 Mean income 8,106 7,814 Median income 6,936 6,606 A-18

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-12A. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 1997, Panel of 1996 Enrollees, Single Parents Characteristic Section 8 FSS participants Section 8 Non-FSS participants Number Percent Number Percent Total Single Parents family enrollment Race 2,537 156,806 Total reported 2,530 156,531 White 1,425 56.3 77,529 49.5 African American 1,075 42.5 74,420 47.5 American Indian/Alaska Native 13 0.5 1,361 0.9 Asian American/Pacific Islander Ethnicity 17 0.7 3,221 2.1 Total reported 2,535 156,639 Hispanic 308 12.1 20,326 13.0 Not Hispanic Gender 2,227 87.9 136,313 87.0 Total reported 2,537 156,733 Male 84 3.3 5,044 3.2 Female Age cohort 2,453 96.7 151,689 96.8 Total reported 2,537 156,806 Under 18 7 0.3 1,829 1.2 18–24 248 9.8 18,598 11.9 25–34 1,208 47.6 67,652 43.1 35–44 911 35.9 50,707 32.3 45–54 154 6.1 13,151 8.4 55–64 5 0.2 3,441 2.2 65+ 4 0.2 1,428 0.9 62+ Family income (from all sources) 5 0.2 2,117 1.4 Total reported 2,537 156,806 Less than $5,000 506 19.9 36,448 23.2 $5,000<$10,000 939 37.0 60,171 38.4 $10,000<$15,000 516 20.3 34,302 21.9 $15,000<$20,000 331 13.0 16,384 10.4 $20,000<$25,000 145 5.7 6,073 3.9 $25,000 and more 100 3.9 3,428 2.2 Mean income 10,562 9,516 Median income Head-of-household income (from all sources) 8,824 8,100 Total reported 2,537 156,806 Less than $5,000 546 21.5 40,575 25.9 $5,000<$10,000 986 38.9 63,731 40.6 $10,000<$15,000 501 19.7 31,098 19.8 $15,000<$20,000 287 11.3 13,927 8.9 $20,000<$25,000 141 5.6 4,902 3.1 $25,000 and more 76 3.0 2,573 1.6 Mean income 10,040 8,876 Median income 8,172 7,464 A-20

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-13A. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 1998, Panel of 1996 Enrollees, Single Parents Characteristic Section 8 FSS participants Section 8 Non-FSS participants Number Percent Number Percent Total Single Parents family enrollment Race 1,947 112,888 Total reported 1,946 112,744 White 1,060 54.5 54,228 48.1 African American 867 44.6 55,318 49.1 American Indian/Alaska Native 5 0.3 845 0.7 Asian American/Pacific Islander Ethnicity 14 0.7 2,353 2.1 Total reported 1,947 112,788 Hispanic 260 13.4 15,265 13.5 Not Hispanic Gender 1,687 86.6 97,523 86.5 Total reported 1,946 112,874 Male 80 4.1 3,722 3.3 Female Age cohort 1,866 95.9 109,152 96.7 Total reported 1,947 112,888 Under 18 3 0.2 445 0.4 18–24 134 6.9 6,169 5.5 25–34 871 44.7 43,835 38.8 35–44 753 38.7 44,063 39.0 45–54 171 8.8 13,464 11.9 55–64 12 0.6 3,536 3.1 65+ 3 0.2 1,376 1.2 62+ Family income (from all sources) 4 0.2 2,066 1.8 Total reported 1,947 112,888 Less than $5,000 293 15.0 21,481 19.0 $5,000<$10,000 621 31.9 40,261 35.7 $10,000<$15,000 437 22.4 26,804 23.7 $15,000<$20,000 304 15.6 14,407 12.8 $20,000<$25,000 164 8.4 6,097 5.4 $25,000 and more 128 6.6 3,838 3.4 Mean income 12,287 10,547 Median income 10,786 9,153 Head-of-household income (from all sources) 1,947 112,888 Less than $5,000 320 16.4 23,974 21.2 $5,000<$10,000 658 33.8 43,647 38.7 $10,000<$15,000 427 21.9 24,242 21.5 $15,000<$20,000 286 14.7 12,451 11.0 $20,000<$25,000 153 7.9 4,994 4.4 $25,000 and more 103 5.3 3,580 3.2 Mean income 11,763 10,078 Median income 9,962 8,252 A-22

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-14A. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 1999, Panel of 1996 Enrollees, Single Parents Characteristic Section 8 FSS participants Section 8 Non-FSS participants Number Percent Number Percent Total Single Parents family enrollment Race 1,710 110,240 Total reported 1,710 110,196 White 879 51.4 49,223 44.7 African American 809 47.3 57,810 52.5 American Indian/Alaska Native 13 0.8 809 0.7 Asian American/Pacific Islander Ethnicity 9 0.5 2,354 2.1 Total reported 1,710 110,198 Hispanic 201 11.8 14,501 13.2 Not Hispanic Gender 1,509 88.2 95,697 86.8 Total reported 1,710 110,240 Male 45 2.6 3,330 3.0 Female Age cohort 1,665 97.4 106,910 97.0 Total reported 1,710 110,240 Under 18 2 0.1 409 0.4 18–24 77 4.5 3,499 3.2 25–34 690 40.4 39,012 35.4 35–44 753 44.0 45,961 41.7 45–54 177 10.4 15,649 14.2 55–64 10 0.6 4,055 3.7 65+ 1 0.1 1,655 1.5 62+ Family income (from all sources) 4 0.2 2,430 2.2 Total reported 1,710 110,240 Less than $5,000 271 15.8 19,858 18.0 $5,000<$10,000 461 27.0 36,667 33.3 $10,000<$15,000 338 19.8 25,726 23.3 $15,000<$20,000 304 17.8 15,630 14.2 $20,000<$25,000 178 10.4 7,451 6.8 $25,000 and more 158 9.2 4,908 4.5 Mean income 13,146 11,151 Median income Head-of-household income (from all sources) 11,960 9,756 Total reported 1,710 110,240 Less than $5,000 289 16.9 21,424 19.4 $5,000<$10,000 491 28.7 41,380 37.5 $10,000<$15,000 345 20.2 23,785 21.6 $15,000<$20,000 298 17.4 13,779 12.5 $20,000<$25,000 177 10.4 6,139 5.6 $25,000 and more 110 6.4 3,733 3.4 Mean income 12,600 10,449 Median income 11,238 8,736 A-24

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-15A. FSS Participants and Non-FSS Participants, September 2000, Panel of 1996 Enrollees, Single Parents Characteristic Section 8 FSS participants Section 8 Non-FSS participants Number Percent Number Percent Total Single Parents family enrollment Race 1,946 123,612 Total reported 1,946 123,612 White 945 48.6 53,922 43.6 African American 977 50.2 66,050 53.4 American Indian/Alaska Native 12 0.6 960 0.8 Asian American/Pacific Islander Ethnicity 12 0.6 2,680 2.2 Total reported 1,946 123,611 Hispanic 265 13.6 18,100 14.6 Not Hispanic Gender 1,681 86.4 105,511 85.4 Total reported 1,946 123,612 Male 67 3.4 3,746 3.0 Female Age cohort 1,879 96.6 119,866 97.0 Total reported 1,946 123,612 Under 18 1 0.1 393 0.3 18–24 48 2.5 2,327 1.9 25–34 720 37.0 40,102 32.4 35–44 882 45.3 52,777 42.7 45–54 270 13.9 20,506 16.6 55–64 22 1.1 5,364 4.3 65+ 3 0.2 2,143 1.7 62+ Family income (from all sources) 8 0.4 3,202 2.6 Total reported 1,946 123,612 Less than $5,000 230 11.8 18,865 15.3 $5,000<$10,000 497 25.5 40,036 32.4 $10,000<$15,000 398 20.5 29,092 23.5 $15,000<$20,000 356 18.3 18,727 15.1 $20,000<$25,000 240 12.3 9,709 7.9 $25,000 and more 225 11.6 7,183 5.8 Mean income 14,436 11,931 Median income Head-of-household income (from all sources) 13,048 10,428 Total reported 1,946 123,612 Less than $5,000 272 14.0 22,320 18.1 $5,000<$10,000 545 28.0 45,713 37.0 $10,000<$15,000 414 21.3 26,725 21.6 $15,000<$20,000 350 18.0 16,463 13.3 $20,000<$25,000 222 11.4 7,855 6.4 $25,000 and more 143 7.3 4,536 3.7 Mean income 13,034 10,719 Median income 11,960 8,996 A-26

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

Evaluation of the Family Self-Sufficiency Program

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

Evaluation of the Family Self-Sufficiency Program

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 Requested July 2005 Ê