Family Unification Program

Family Self Sufficiency (FUP-FSS)

Demonstration Evaluation

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research

Disclaimer

The contents of this report are the views of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. Government.

RESEARCH REPORT

Family Unification Program-Family

Self-Sufficiency (FUP-FSS)

Demonstration Evaluation

Claudia Solari

Mike Pergamit

Mark Treskon

Mica O’Brien

Amy Rogin

Matt Gerken

Annelise Loveless

Martena Reed

Urban Institute

Amy Dworsky

Chapin Hal

December 2021

Acknowledgments

This report was funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The authors would like to express special gratitude to Mindy Ault, our Contracting Officer Representative, for her diligence, flexibility during a trying time in the world, and guidance. The early leadership of Martha Galvez and the thoughtful review and feedback from Mary Cunningham and Nancy Pindus is also appreciated. The authors are grateful to them and to all the funders who make it possible for Urban Institute to advance its mission.

The contents of this report are the views of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. Government.

Foreword

For youth aging out of the foster care system, the transitional period between ages 18 and 24 can be especially challenging to navigate, leaving them at high risk for homelessness. One study that followed up with a large sample of youth aging out of foster care found that by the time they were 23 or 24 years old, almost 30 percent of the youth reported that they had been homeless for at least one night since exiting foster care (Courtney et al., 2010).

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has been testing different approaches to preventing or ending homelessness for youth who have aged out of foster care. This study reports on one of those approaches, the Family Unification Program–Family Self-Sufficiency (FUP-FSS) Demonstration, which was undertaken in the summer of 2016 to test whether combining housing choice vouchers for eligible youth under the Family Unification Program (FUP) with financial empowerment services under the Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program could improve outcomes for youth aging out of foster care.

The FUP-FSS Demonstration has three broad goals: (1) provide stable affordable housing for youth; (2) connect them with services to support economic improvement; and (3) facilitate asset building through the FSS

escrow. The statutory authority for the FUP-FSS Demonstration comes from HUD’s fiscal year 2015

Appropriation, which instructed HUD to “carry out a demonstration testing the effectiveness of combining vouchers for homeless youth under the Family Unification Program... with assistance under the Family Self-Sufficiency program.” The authorizing language also provided the Secretary of HUD with flexibility to waive certain requirements within the existing FUP statutory language and established a set of criteria for PHAs wishing to participate in the demonstration, as well as a requirement for HUD to “monitor and evaluate the demonstration and report on whether the demonstration helped homeless youth achieve self-sufficiency.” Fifty-one PHAs participated in the demonstration.

The youth who take part in this demonstration face numerous challenges, and this study sheds light on how HUD can best support them. Although participation by youth in the demonstration has been low, the report found that demonstration sites that received new voucher awards in 2018 and 2019 used a sizable number of the new vouchers for youth. The study also found that youth need time to deal with past trauma, learn life skills, and become self-sufficient. In addition to increasing the availability of vouchers for youth, the demonstration provided extra months of housing assistance. Participants in the demonstration made use of those extra months, a positive finding given the population’s high risk of homelessness. Participants also indicated that they found value in the case management and FSS supports. However, implementation of the demonstration and collaboration between public housing authorities and public child welfare agencies varied from site to site.

FOREWORD

iii

This study will inform our continuing efforts to find the most effective strategies for preventing or quickly resolving homelessness among youth as they leave foster care.

Todd Richardson

General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

iv

FOREWORD

Contents

List of Exhibits

vi

Executive Summary

viii

Background

1

Research Questions

7

Methodology

8

Results

12

PHA/ PCWA Participation and Agency Characteristics

12

Participant Characteristics

22

Demonstration Implementation

26

Col aboration: PHAs, PCWAs, and Other Partners

39

Youth Voice

44

Youth Demonstration Participation

49

Short-Term Outcomes for Youth: Length of Stay and Income over Time

51

Staff Reflections

54

Conclusions

55

Appendix A: FUP-FSS Participant PHAs

61

Appendix B: Research Questions

63

Appendix C: Administrative Data Approach

67

Appendix D: Administrative Data Tables

72

Appendix E: Interview Coding

76

Appendix F: PHA Survey Protocol

77

Appendix G: PCWA Survey Protocol

103

Appendix H: PHA Staff Interview Protocol

118

Appendix I: PCWA Staff Interview Protocol

127

Appendix J: Community Service Provider Interview Protocol

135

Appendix K: Continuum of Care (CoC) Interview Protocol

143

Appendix L: Youth Participant Interview Protocol

152

References

159

CONTENTS

v

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1. Locations of FUP-FSS Demonstration Sites

5

Exhibit 2. HUD’s Foster Youth to Independence Initiative

6

Exhibit 3. Survey Completion

9

Exhibit 4. Interviews

10

Exhibit 5. PHA-Reported Reasons for Serving FUP-Eligible Youth

13

Exhibit 6. PHA-Reported Reasons for Joining Demonstration

14

Exhibit 7. Housing Assistance Portfolio Size for PHAs Participating in FUP, 2020

15

Exhibit 8. Comparisons between Demonstration and Non-Demonstration PHAs (Averages), 2020 16

Exhibit 9. Summary Statistics for Three Cluster Analysis Groups (Averages), 2020

17

Exhibit 10. Number of FUP Youth at Demonstration PHAs by Year, 2016–20

18

Exhibit 11. Number of FUP-FSS Youth at Demonstration Sites, 2016–20

19

Exhibit 12. Demonstration Sites’ Average FUP Youth by FY 2017–2019 Al ocations

20

Exhibit 13. PHA-Reported Lease-up Success

21

Exhibit 14. PHA-Reported Time to Lease Up

21

Exhibit 15. PHA-Reported Lease-Up Challenges

22

Exhibit 16. Housing Costs for FUP-FSS Youth at Demonstration PHAs

23

Exhibit 17. Demographic Characteristics of FUP-FSS Youth at Demonstration PHAs, 2020

24

Exhibit 18. Income Characteristics of FUP-FSS Youth at Demonstration PHAs, 2020

25

Exhibit 19. Average Household Income for New FUP-FSS Youth at Demonstration PHAs,

2016–20

25

Exhibit 20. PHA-Reported Provision of Demonstration Information to Youth

29

Exhibit 21. PCWA-Reported Referral Source

29

Exhibit 22. PCWA-Reported FUP-FSS Demonstration Marketing Approach

30

Exhibit 23. PCWA-Reported Assessment of Demonstration Effectiveness

31

Exhibit 24. PHAs’ Initial Expectations for the Demonstration

33

Exhibit 25. PHA-Reported Service Challenges

34

Exhibit 26. PHA-Reported Implementation Challenges

35

Exhibit 27. PHA-Reported FSS Service Alteration

38

Exhibit 28. PHA-Reported FUP Partnerships

40

Exhibit 29. PHA-Reported Meetings with PCWAs on FUP

41

Exhibit 30. PCWA-Reported Partnerships with PHAs

42

Exhibit 31. PHA-Reported Training Topics for PCWA Staff

43

vi

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 32. PHA-Reported PCWA Training Topics for PHA Staff

44

Exhibit 33. Length of Time Receiving Housing Assistance before Exit for FUP Youth

51

Exhibit 34. Length of Time Until Exit from Housing Assistance

52

Exhibit 35. Mean Incomes by Cohort over Time, 2017–20

53

Exhibit A.1 PHA Context

61

Exhibit B.1 Research Questions and Subquestions

63

Exhibit D.1 Summary Statistics of Demonstration PHAs, 2020

72

Exhibit D.2 Comparisons Between FUP-FSS Youth and Other Groups, 2020

74

Exhibit D.3 Comparison of Demonstration and Non-Demonstration FUP Youth Within

Demonstration Sites

75

Exhibit D.4 Time Until Housing Exit, FUP Youth at Demonstration PHAs Only

75

Exhibit E.1 Interview Coding

76

EXHIBITS

vii

Executive Summary

Youth1 aging out of foster care have a complicated pathway when transitioning to adulthood; without support from family members or other adults, they often struggle to achieve self-sufficiency and are particularly at risk of experiencing homelessness. To address these challenges, HUD, pursuant to congressional authorization in the 2015 HUD appropriations act, created a demonstration to combine the youth component of the Family Unification Program (FUP) with the Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program. The FUP-FSS Demonstration was designed to test whether combining these two federal programs could improve outcomes for youth who age out of foster care and are at risk of or currently experiencing homelessness.

FUP vouchers are special purpose2 housing choice vouchers (HCVs) meant to create housing stability, whereas FSS aims to increase economic independence. Sites participating in the demonstration were allowed to offer the FSS program to youth with a FUP voucher. In this sense, the demonstration is less about piloting a new program and more about determining whether the combination of these two distinct programs could help youth better sustain housing and longer-term self-sufficiency.

Created in 1990 and first funded in 1992, FUP provides vouchers to families and, since 2000, to youth who age out of foster care. HUD awards FUP vouchers to public housing agencies (PHAs) that partner with public child welfare agencies (PCWAs) and Continuums of Care (CoCs). PCWAs verify child welfare involvement or history of foster care and refer eligible families and youth to the PHAs; the PHAs then determine eligibility for rental assistance and provide eligible families or youth with vouchers. CoCs identify youth who self-identify as having a history in foster care and are experiencing homelessness or are at risk of homelessness and refer them to the PCWA for verification. FUP provides vouchers to youth who have attained at least 18 years and not more than 24 years of age who have left foster care, or will leave foster care within 90 days, in accordance with a transition plan described in section 475(5)(H) of the Social Security Act, and is homeless or is at risk of becoming homeless at age 16 or older. Unlike FUP family vouchers, youth vouchers are time limited by statute (initially 18 months; presently, 36 months). As with any HCV program participant, the FUP youth participant generally pays 30 percent of their monthly adjusted income toward rent, and the housing subsidy covers the remainder.

FSS (also created in 1990 and first funded in 1992) provides families with a program coordinator to help them achieve self-sufficiency through earned income, end any reliance on welfare cash assistance, and meet a set of individualized goals. HUD-assisted families who voluntarily participate in FSS sign a Contract of Participation 1 Young people are referred to as “youth” in this report to align with FUP terminology.

2 Special purpose vouchers are those provided for by Congress in the federal budget to serve specific populations.

viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

(CoP), which generally covers a period of 5 years but may be extended for up to 2 years for good cause by the PHA. 3 The contract specifies rights, responsibilities, goals, and services in the participant’s Individual Training and Services Plan (ITSP). In addition to providing services related to education and employment, FSS offers an escrow account in which any increases in the amount a participant pays in rent that are attributable to increases in earned income are set aside for later use by the participant. The FUP-FSS Demonstration allowed PHAs to extend the FSS program to youth with FUP vouchers. Although the FSS program has existed for three decades, it was not designed specifically with youth in mind, so questions remain about how well the program’s model addresses the needs of FUP youth.

HUD intended the FUP-FSS Demonstration to build on the existing collaborations between PHAs and PCWAs from FUP and extend the partnership with other local service providers, such as CoCs. Whereas FUP youth rental assistance vouchers have a 36-month time limit, youth participating in FUP-FSS receive an extension for rental assistance for the length of the FSS Contract of Participation, which usually lasts 5 years (resulting in the housing subsidy extended typically up to 2 additional years, with the possibility of further extensions). The demonstration, which involves 51 PHAs, was first authorized in HUD’s fiscal year (FY) 2015 appropriations and announced in 2016; as of 2020, 705 youth had participated in the FUP-FSS Demonstration.

HUD contracted with the Urban Institute and its partner, Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, to evaluate the FUP-FSS Demonstration’s implementation and short-term effectiveness in helping youth aging out of foster care move toward self-sufficiency. As part of the evaluation, the researchers analyzed administrative data, surveyed PHA and PCWA staff, and interviewed program staff and youth participants.

Key Findings

Key findings related to take-up, implementation, and short-term outcomes include the following:



Overal demonstration participation—more broadly, the use of FUP vouchers for youth—is increasing but remains low. PHAs often allocate most of their FUP vouchers to families rather than youth. However, PHAs that received new FUP voucher awards in recent years have higher rates of youth participating in FUP and the demonstration.

3 The Growth Act, which went into effect in May 2022, specifies that FSS participants must fulfill their Contract of Participation (CoP) obligations no later than 5 years after the first re-examination of income after the execution date of the CoP. This was not in effect for participants during the period of study. For more information on the Growth Act, see:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-05-17/pdf/2022-09528.pdf.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ix



In practice, PHAs and PCWAs are less collaborative than envisioned. Most of the PCWA staff interviewed are not familiar with the FSS program despite the participation of a PHA in their jurisdiction in the demonstration. They generally described their primary role as verifying youth eligibility for FUP and indicated that they often have little interaction with youth in FUP; relationships between PHAs and PCWAs are often strained. PHA staff noted that PCWA staff often do not refer youth to FUP or inform them about FSS. Sites where PHA and PCWA staff meet more regularly report more positive relationships.



Implementation approaches to the demonstration vary among sites:

o The timing of enrol ment in FSS varies by site. Some sites encourage youth to enroll in the FSS

program shortly after they lease up, whereas other sites wait until later in their FUP term. Some PHAs strategically time FSS enrollment to increase the length of the housing subsidy and continuity of services.

o Moving to Work (MTW) PHAs use the flexibility they are afforded to refine how FUP and FSS

are administered. MTW sites reported that youth in FUP-FSS were able to use their housing subsidy longer than 5 years. MTW sites had various additional financial supports they reported offering to their youth, with examples including tuition assistance, assistance with security deposits, rental supplements to help them move to areas with more expensive housing (for participants with children), and financial incentives for maintaining a job or staying in school.

o Sites that assign al youth to a single FSS program coordinator report that they have well-engaged youth. PHA staff report that the FSS program coordinators can employ specific skills in working with these youth, including gaining their trust, using trauma-informed approaches, and addressing the unique needs of this population.

o Some PHAs adapted their FSS program to better align with youth needs. PHA staff interviewed noted that making adaptations to address the unique needs of youth appears to help agencies more successfully engage youth participants in services to meet their Individual Training and Service Plan goals, and staff can better support youth in their journey toward self-sufficiency. Adaptations include: having the FSS program coordinator actively recruit youth, using a trauma-informed approach, engaging with youth on their terms, advocating for youth to employers and landlords, and recognizing small accomplishments.



The number of youth interviewed was limited, but they reported valuing the FSS services and support they received. Although a small, unrepresentative group of nine, most of the youth interviewed reported seeing value in the FUP-FSS Demonstration. Many were drawn to the demonstration’s extended FUP voucher term and the escrow account, and they described their FSS program coordinator as playing an x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

important and positive role in their lives, yet they also identified a range of challenges associated with stabilizing their housing and becoming self-sufficient.



Findings on initial short-term outcomes indicate that FUP-FSS youth tend to stay in subsidized housing longer than FUP-only youth. Additionally, to date, the average income trajectory over time of demonstration participants is similar to that of other FUP youth, which could be because very few FUPFSS youth have graduated from FSS and the demonstration. Therefore, it is too soon to draw conclusions about the relationship between demonstration participation and income.

Recommendations

This report offers policy and program recommendations for FUP for youth and FUP-FSS for youth. Youth cannot access FSS without first successfully leasing up a housing unit with a FUP voucher, so the success of FUP-FSS depends as much on FUP program improvements as it does FSS program improvements.

FUP for Youth Recommendations



To improve the take-up of any special purpose vouchers targeted to former foster youth, the authors recommend adding new al ocations of special purpose vouchers. 4 Evidence revealed higher participation rates of youth in FUP among sites with recent FUP awards. When the demonstration began in 2016, no new FUP awards had been made to PHAs since 2011; thus, sites had the use of existing FUP

vouchers only when they turned over. However, demonstration sites that received new FUP voucher awards in 2018 and 2019 used a sizable number of the new vouchers for youth. Providing new allocations of special purpose vouchers for former foster youth, through such programs as FUP or the Foster Youth to Independence (FYI) Initiative, would further ensure more consistent and stable take-up of those vouchers by youth and would therefore increase enrollment in FSS if contingent on voucher lease-up.



The time limit of the FUP voucher for youth, currently set by statute, should be extended beyond 36

months by Congress, if not eliminated, in line with the rules for families in FUP. 5 PHA and PCWA 4 Special purpose vouchers are Housing Choice Vouchers provided by Congress in the federal budget to serve specific populations, such as FUP or the Foster Youth to Independence (FYI) Initiative. A list of special purpose vouchers can be found here: https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/hcv/programs_and_initiatives.

5 Federal legislation passed in December 2020 (the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021) included language on a new law, the Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities Act (see https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ260/PLAW-

116publ260.pdf). HUD released an official notice implementing and providing guidance on the Act in January 2022 (see

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/01/24/2022-01285/implementation-of-the-fostering-stable-housing-

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xi

staff and youth agree that youth participants need more time to deal with past trauma, catch up on learning life skills, and reach self-sufficiency.



PHAs should help with the FUP application process and better support FUP youth in leasing up housing units with their vouchers. The requirements are extensive, such as the need for documents youth may not have easy access to, and the formal language used was reported by youth and staff as being difficult for the youth to understand. Furthermore, PHA survey respondents reported that the most common reason youth do not successfully lease up is because they could not find a qualifying housing unit within the allowable search time. Housing navigators can provide critical guidance and services to those who have never had to submit a formal application or searched for housing before, such as providing information on how to complete the voucher application and where to search for housing units in the appropriate price range. Housing navigators could also help youth with transportation to unit visits and to translate contract language so that youth understand what could result in termination of the lease agreement. A housing navigator role could be added as a requirement in the PHA-PCWA collaboration to help bridge a gap that has been noted as a limitation by program staff.



PHAs should increase landlord recruitment to support the acceptance of youth as tenants. PHAs should be actively encouraged to build partnerships with landlords or management companies to promote the acceptance of FUP youth as tenants. This approach may include offering incentives, such as covering rent while landlords bring units up to housing quality standards or building reputational capital by accepting community responsibility for youth who aged out of foster care and need subsidized housing.



The 18 months of minimum required supportive services for FUP youth should be extended and expanded. Staff and youth agree that FUP youth need longer and deeper services, such as learning basic life skills that may not have been imparted to them—e.g., financial literacy—and mental health treatment to manage past trauma. In addition, staff and youth reported that after exiting foster care, youth still face unresolved issues with credit fraud, which is often a barrier to securing housing, employment, and student loans and takes time to clear.

Family Unification Program-Family Self-Sufficiency Recommendations



The FSS Contract of Participation, currently limited to 5 years by statute, should be lengthened by Congress, giving youth more time to receive FSS services with an FSS program coordinator. Youth

opportunities-amendments). Although some report recommendations are consistent with the provisions of this Act, the PHAs involved in this study did not operate under the new specifications of this law during the study, and the report recommendations are based on the study findings.

xii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

reported that having an advocate and someone to help them achieve their goals is critically important to them. Staff reported that youth participants have limited basic life skills and insufficient knowledge of how to navigate the education system and the labor market to maximize their growth and development.



Programs should have a dedicated FSS program coordinator to serve al FUP-FSS youth. At sites that had all youth reporting to the same FSS program coordinator, PHA staff reported that youth were more engaged in the program and were better meeting their goals. Having one FSS program coordinator ensured that the coordinator could learn more about what youth need and the adaptations in administration required to better serve the participants.



PCWAs should be required to train FSS program coordinators on the needs of youth leaving foster care. Only 34 percent of PHA survey respondents reported receiving training on the characteristics of youth who age out of foster care and their housing or other service needs. PCWAs are most familiar with this population, and they understand the needs of these youth and the strategies and trauma-informed approaches needed to work with them most effectively. Training can improve FSS enrollment and enable FSS program coordinators to better meet youth needs, aiding in their success in FUP-FSS. Training will also inform PHAs on adapting FSS programming to help youth achieve their goals; it should be administered in addition to the training resources offered by HUD. 6 The HUD-provided online training could be enhanced and better advertised to increase use.



PHA staff and supportive service providers should provide information on the FSS program to youth referred by PCWAs since they are in the best position to market the FSS program to youth once they are enrol ed in FUP. Before youth are referred to FUP, PCWAs could better inform them about the availability of FUP and FSS. However, PCWA caseworkers have limited access to youth once they exit foster care; few, if any, older youth are on their caseloads. Marketing the demonstration to youth who have aged out of foster care will be more effective if PHAs provide information, such as a list of frequently asked questions with answers, to those who have more contact with transition-age youth—likely, the caseworkers in independent living programs or other transition programs. This more realistic expectation of responsibility may also reduce the tension in the relationship between the PHA and PCWA staff.

6 For an overview of FSS, see “Welcome to the Family Self-Sufficiency Program Online Training,”

https://www.hudexchange.info/trainings/fss-program-online-training/, and for a guidebook on best practices, see

“Administering an Effective Family Self-Sufficiency Program,” https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/FSS-

Program-Guidebook.pdf.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

xiii

Background

Youth aging out of foster care face a range of issues as they transition to adulthood and independent living, and housing presents an especially profound challenge (Fernandes-Alcantara and McCarty, 2021). About one-third of youth who had been in foster care at age 17 experienced homelessness between ages 17 and 21. 7 Although several federal programs are designed to meet the needs of these youth, a single, coordinated federal strategy or universally available program does not exist.

The Family Unification Program-Family Self-Sufficiency (FUP-FSS) Demonstration was authorized in HUD’s fiscal year (FY) 2015 appropriations and announced in 2016. 8 The demonstration was designed to test whether combining two existing federal programs—the youth component of FUP, which provides housing choice vouchers (HCVs) to eligible families and youth to create housing stability, and the FSS program, which aims to increase economic independence—could improve outcomes for youth who have aged out of foster care and are at risk of or currently experiencing homelessness. At its core, the demonstration allows participating sites to offer youth with FUP vouchers access to the FSS program; it is less a stand-alone program and more a linkage between two distinct already-existing programs.

The Family Unification Program

FUP was created in 1990 as a part of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act. 9 First funded in 1992, the program is targeted to families for whom a lack of adequate housing is a primary risk factor for out-of-home care placement or a primary reason a child in out-of-home care cannot be returned home. The program’s original goals were to prevent children from entering foster care and facilitate the reunification of families whose children were in foster care by addressing the housing needs of these families. A 2000 amendment expanded eligibility to youth between 18 and 21 who had left foster care at age 16 or older (or would be leaving foster care 7 Authors’ calculations based on the National Youth in Transition Database.

8 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public and Indian Housing, “Subject: Family Unification Program and Family Self Sufficiency Demonstration,” PIH Notice 2016-01, January 15, 2016,

https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/PIH2016-01.PDF.

9 Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, Public Law No. 101–625, 104 Stat. 4079 (1990),

https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/senate-bill/566/text.

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

1

within 90 days) and were homeless or at imminent risk for homelessness. 10 This expansion was intended to prevent homelessness among youth as they transition from foster care into adulthood.

HUD awards FUP vouchers to public housing agencies (PHAs) that partner with public child welfare agencies (PCWAs) and Continuums of Care (CoCs)11 through a competitive process. 12 Within this collaborative framework, PHAs provide families or youth with vouchers; PCWAs determine eligibility for FUP and refer eligible families and youth to the PHAs. CoCs identify youth who self-report that they were formerly in foster care and are at risk of or are experiencing homelessness and refer them for FUP through the PCWA, which verifies the youth’s eligibility for FUP, and then to the PHA to determine eligibility for rental assistance for all youth referrals. PHAs may decide how to allocate their FUP vouchers between families and youth.

The implementation and effectiveness of FUP for families have been the focus of several studies. One randomized controlled trial found that FUP participation by families involved with the child welfare system decreased the likelihood of out-of-home placements by 16 percentage points over 10 months (Fowler and Chavira, 2014). A quasi-experimental study found that child welfare cases were closed significantly faster for families participating in FUP than for those in a comparison group (Pergamit, Cunningham, and Hanson 2017).

The FUP special purpose vouchers13 were originally focused on offering housing vouchers to unify families involved in the child welfare system. FUP for youth has some key differences: vouchers are time limited by statute, and the PCWA is required to offer a minimum of 18 months of supportive services to participants. These services14

are described in the 2019 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) as needing to include—

10 See “Congressional Record—Senate,” October 12, 2000, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2000-10-

12/pdf/CREC-2000-10-12-pt1-PgS10299-2.pdf#page=34. For an overview of FUP, see “Family Unification Program (FUP),”

https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/hcv/family.

11 CoCs are not single organizations but groups of representatives of local organizations and agencies that coordinate local housing and service delivery to reduce homelessness. See “CoC Program Interim Rule,” July 2012,

https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/2033/hearth-coc-program-interim-rule/.

12 PHAs that were awarded FUP vouchers in FY 2017, FY 2018, and FY 2019 were required to partner with local CoCs, an approach that can increase referrals of eligible youth through coordinated entry.

13 Special purpose vouchers are Housing Choice Vouchers specifically provided for by Congress in the federal budget to serve specific populations. FUP is one form of special purpose vouchers, as it is intended to serve those in specific circumstances within the child welfare system. Other special purpose vouchers include HUD’s Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) program to serve veterans experiencing homelessness, non-elderly disabled (NED) vouchers, and, as of 2019, FYI vouchers for the Foster Youth to Independence Initiative. A guide to using special purpose vouchers is offered by the US

Interagency Council to End Homelessness:

https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/PHA_SpecialPurposeVouchers.pdf.

14 Based on the 2019 NOFA for FUP, the following is a more detailed description of what services need to be included: 1. Basic life skills information/counseling on money management, use of credit, housekeeping, proper nutrition/meal preparation, and access to health care—e.g., doctors, medication, and mental and behavioral health services. 2. Counseling on compliance with 2

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

1. Basic life skills information or counseling on various topics, including how to access health care.

2. Counseling on compliance with program and rental lease requirements.

3. Assurances to landlords to help FUP youth to rent with a voucher.

4. Job preparation and attainment counseling.

5. Educational and career advancement counseling.

The efficacy of this program for youth who have experienced family separation and have exposure to the foster care system has not been proven. A 2014 study of FUP for youth, conducted to better understand whether the time limited program was serving youth well, found implementation successes and challenges (Dion et al., 2014). Most youth receiving vouchers were able to successfully lease up, and the program offered supportive services, although the quality of those services was unknown. Programs characterized by more cross-agency coordination and communication tended to be more active and successful (Dion et al., 2014).

Low levels of participation were (and continue to be) a key challenge for the FUP for youth program. The 2014

study found that only 91 of the 195 PHAs operating FUP had awarded any vouchers to youth formerly in foster care during the previous 18 months. Two factors likely contributed to the low levels of participation. First, the number of youth referred to PHAs by PCWAs was generally low, at least partly due to extended foster care, which allows youth to stay in care and be housed until age 21. Second, FUP youth vouchers, unlike family vouchers, were originally limited to 18 months, which did not align with regular annual lease terms and was insufficient to allow youth to achieve housing or economic stability. It also meant that vouchers initially awarded to youth could be awarded to families after 18 months. Because family FUP vouchers are not time limited, in the absence of a formal youth set-aside, FUP vouchers would increasingly go to families (Dion et al., 2014).

Recent changes to FUP have attempted to address some of these issues. In 2016 the FUP youth voucher time limit was extended by Congress from 18 to 36 months, and the maximum eligibility age was extended from age 21 to 24. In addition, the CoC became a required local partner to aid in the identification of eligible youth no longer in foster care who are at risk of or are experiencing homelessness. Although the number of youth participants has increased in recent years, they still represent a small share of FUP voucher recipients overall.

rental lease requirements and with HCV program participant requirements, including assistance/referrals for assistance on security deposits, utility hook-up fees, and utility deposits. 3. Providing such assurances to owners of rental property as are reasonable and necessary to assist a FUP-eligible youth in renting a unit with a FUP voucher. 4. Job preparation and attainment counseling—e.g., where to look/how to apply, dress, grooming, relationships with supervisory personnel, etc. 5. Educational and career advancement counseling regarding attainment of a general equivalency diploma (GED); attendance/financing of education at a technical school, trade school or college; including successful work ethic and attitude models. Additional points to their NOFA score are offered to sites if they offer more than 18 months of supportive services.

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

3

The Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program

The FSS program—created by the same 1990 Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act that created FUP, also administered by HUD—coordinates services to help families increase their earned income, reduce their dependence on subsidies, and achieve economic independence. 15 HUD-assisted families, who voluntarily participate, sign an FSS Contract of Participation. The FSS contract, which generally covers a period of 5 years but may be extended for up to 2 years for good cause by the PHA, specifies rights, responsibilities, goals, and services in the family’s Individual Training and Services Plan (ITSP). The family works with an FSS program coordinator to complete selected intermediate and long-term goals, such as participating in job training and employment counseling, obtaining childcare, increasing financial literacy, and participating in homeownership counseling.

One of the benefits of the FSS program is the interest-bearing escrow accounts established by the PHA for participating families. In traditional voucher programs, participants contribute approximately 30 percent of their income to rent. If their income increases, the amount of rent they are expected to pay also goes up. When an FSS

participant’s earned income increases, any increased rental payments attributable to this increased earned income are placed in an interest-bearing escrow account. The PHA may determine whether families can access a portion of their escrow funds during the program contract term for purposes consistent with the Contract of Participation, although not all PHAs choose to allow early withdrawal of funds. After program graduation, at the end of the contract term, families may access all their escrow funds and use them for any purpose.

Evaluations of the FSS program have yielded mixed results, although participating families have been shown to experience an increase in income and benefit from frequent contact with service coordinators (de Silva et al., 2011). The interim report from an ongoing FSS evaluation (Verma et al., 2021) has found increased participation in employment-related services, especially services related to education and financial literacy, and a steady shift from part-time to full-time employment.

Although the FSS program has existed for three decades, it is not clear whether the program, as designed, can effectively address the needs of FUP-eligible youth and help them achieve their goals.

The FUP-FSS Demonstration

The FUP-FSS Demonstration is designed to build on existing FUP and FSS programming; strengthen the collaboration among PHAs, PCWAs, and other partners; and provide additional support for youth. As a part of the 15 For more information on FSS, see “Administering an Effective Family Self-Sufficiency Program,”

https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/FSS-Program-Guidebook.pdf, and “Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program,” https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/hcv/fss.

4

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

demonstration, the time limit on rental assistance was extended to correspond with the length of the FSS contract.

Although no funds or additional FUP vouchers have been allocated for the demonstration, participating PHAs already had FUP allocations, and additional FUP allocations have subsequently been made to some agencies.

Nationwide, 51 PHAs applied to be demonstration sites, and HUD approved all of them. Three of the 51 sites are statewide; the remainder are municipal or county based (exhibit 1; also see appendix A). Youth enrollment began after July 2016, as vouchers became available with a turnover of existing FUP vouchers (HUD did not award new FUP vouchers until November 2018). As of 2020, administrative data indicate 582 demonstration participants, measured as households with FUP youth vouchers also participating in FSS, across 45 demonstration sites. As of 2020, 705 youth had participated in the demonstration. Six demonstration sites did not have youth with FUP

vouchers.

Overall, the demonstration is a new and relatively small-scale effort that links housing assistance to services that promote self-sufficiency. (See exhibit 2 for a description of HUD’s Foster Youth to Independence initiative, an even newer program that also combines housing assistance with supportive services.) EXHIBIT 1.

Locations of FUP-FSS Demonstration Sites

Source: Authors

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

5

EXHIBIT 2.

HUD’s Foster Youth to Independence Initiative

In July 2019, HUD launched the Foster Youth to Independence (FYI) initiative, 16 which provides housing vouchers to PHAs to prevent or end homelessness among youth who are at least 18 years but not more than 24

years of age (not yet reached their 25th birthday) who have been in foster care. FYI vouchers can be used for a maximum of 36 months17 and include supportive services to assist youth on their journey toward self-sufficiency.

Like FUP, FYI requires a partnership between a PHA and a PCWA. PCWAs refer potential participants to the PHAs, verify their involvement in foster care, and provide or secure supportive services. PHAs verify eligibility for the housing subsidy and provide the vouchers. HUD also strongly encourages other partners, including CoCs, to participate, both to assist in the identification of eligible youth and to match youth to services.

When the program was first announced, FYI vouchers were available only to PHAs that did not have FUP

allocations. However, in October 2020, the program was opened to all PHAs with housing choice vouchers. PHAs with existing FUP or FYI awards can request FYI vouchers if they meet the utilization requirements set forth in the applicable notice.

PHAs can obtain FYI vouchers in two ways: through a noncompetitive process in which PHAs can request assistance on a rolling basis and through a competitive process offering additional vouchers:

• Through the noncompetitive process, PHAs can request up to 25 FYI vouchers per fiscal year. PHAs that meet the utilization requirements in the applicable notice can request up to an additional 25 vouchers in a fiscal year, with a maximum of 50.

• As of December 2021, the competitive process has included one Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), with an application deadline of March 22, 2021. Under that NOFA, PHAs could request between 3 and 75

vouchers (depending on the agency’s overall number of vouchers).

As of December 2021, there are 1,901 effective FYI vouchers across 200 PHAs in 38 states. 18

16 For more information, see “FYI Vouchers for the Foster Youth to Independence Initiative”

https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/hcv/fyi, and “HUD’s Foster Youth to Independence (FYI) Initiative, ” https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/PIH2021-26.pdf.

17 The Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities (FSHO) entitles FUP or FYI youth who first lease a unit after the date of enactment of FSHO (December 27, 2020) to an extension of the 36-month time limit for up to an additional 24 months if they meet certain requirements.

18 According to Public and Indian Housing Information Center (PIC) and Voucher Management System (VMS) data provided by HUD.

6

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

The FUP-FSS Demonstration Evaluation

HUD contracted with the Urban Institute and its partner, Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, to evaluate the FUP-FSS Demonstration. The evaluation examined whether the combination of FUP and FSS, along with the extension of the time youth can retain their housing vouchers, has contributed to closer and more productive partnerships between PHAs, PCWAs, and other youth-focused organizations involved in addressing the housing and self-sufficiency needs of youth aging out of foster care, and whether the program shows promise for improving short-term participant outcomes. As part of the evaluation, the researchers analyzed administrative data, surveyed PHA and PCWA staff, and interviewed program staff and youth program participants. Two caveats should be kept in mind when interpreting results—

1. Outcomes discussed are preliminary because the demonstration did not start until 2016, and FSS Contracts of Participation last 5 years; participation rates have been low, and very few youth have graduated from the program.

2. The data collection for this evaluation occurred in 2020 and 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic; site visits were not feasible, and remote interviews were substituted for in-person data collection. Many agencies were grappling with pandemic-related stresses that limited their capacity to respond to the research team’s queries; despite these limitations, early successes and challenges for the demonstration were identified.

Research Questions

This evaluation builds on past studies of FUP and FSS for families and youth to better understand how a combination of housing and self-sufficiency supports may lead to improved outcomes for youth aging out of foster care. The evaluation research questions are organized into eight main topic areas (see appendix B for a more detailed set of research sub-questions that are addressed in the report): 1. PHA/PCWA participation and agency characteristics

a. What is the motivation for participation in the demonstration?

b. What are the characteristics of participating PHAs?

c. What does overall demonstration participation look like?

d. What are lease-up patterns?

2. Participant characteristics

a. What are the housing costs for demonstration participants?

b. What are the demographic characteristics of demonstration participants?

c. What are the income characteristics of demonstration participants?

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

7

3. Demonstration implementation

a. What are the child welfare and FSS support system contexts for FUP-FSS youth?

b. How are FUP-FSS programs structured and implemented, and how much do program models vary?

c. How do PHAs, PCWAs, and other partners determine eligibility and identify FUP-eligible youth?

d. Do PCWAs market or promote the demonstration to potentially eligible youth?

e. What have been the major early implementation successes?

f. What are the challenges and/or barriers to implementing the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

g. Do youth aging out of foster care have unique needs or require unique services?

4. Collaboration: PHAs, PCWAs, and other partners

a. What are the PCWA staff perspectives on the demonstration?

b. What community partnerships are being engaged in by agencies?

c. Has the FUP-FSS partnership led to more meaningful collaboration generally between PHAs, PCWAs, and other partners?

5. Youth voice

a. How do youth navigate and perceive FUP and FUP-FSS?

b. Do youth feel that FUP and FSS meet their needs?

6. Youth demonstration participation

a. What do PHA staff report are the goals youth pursue, and how do PHA and PCWA staff believe youth benefit from the demonstration?

b. What services are youth using in the program?

7. Short-term outcomes for youth: length of stay and income over time

a. How does demonstration participants’ length of stay in subsidized housing compare with that of nonparticipants?

b. How do the incomes of demonstration participants compare with those of nonparticipants over time?

8. Staff reflections

a. What are staff ideas for FUP-FSS Demonstration improvements?

Methodology

This evaluation uses a mixed-methods approach relying on data from a range of sources that includes an analysis of HUD’s Public and Indian Housing Information Center (PIC) and Voucher Management System (VMS) data; the researchers also reviewed PHA FSS Action Plans—which provide details on FUP-FSS Demonstration activities and approaches—a web-based survey of PHA and PCWA representatives from all 51 participating sites, and 8

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

virtual interviews with PHA and PCWA staff from 13 participating sites and youth participants from 4

participating sites.

Administrative Data

The researchers analyzed administrative data from 2016 through 2020, the first 5 years of the demonstration, and included all PHAs with a FUP allocation—both those participating in the demonstration and those not participating. The goal of this analysis was to examine, to the extent possible, the characteristics and contexts of PHAs participating in the demonstration, the characteristics of youth with FUP-FSS vouchers, and any early outcomes. This analysis also explored short-term outcomes for FUP youth, focusing on the length of time in subsidized housing—as a head of household—and changes in household income. The report additionally includes a detailed discussion of the administrative-data analysis approach in appendix C, and some detailed administrative tables referenced in the main text are in appendix D.

Survey

Two surveys were administered—one for PHAs and one for PCWAs—using an online survey platform (Qualtrics) to key PHA and PCWA staff at all 51 demonstration sites. The PHA survey protocol is in appendix F; the PCWA survey protocol is in appendix G. For exhibits showing survey results in the main text, some phrasing was altered for clarity; the appendixes include phrasing exactly as worded in surveys sent to respondents. The surveys were open from October 14, 2020, through May 1, 2021. Outreach included multiple rounds of emails and phone calls to identified staff and email outreach from HUD and the Children’s Bureau in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The overall response rate was 63 percent for the PHA survey and 39 percent for the PCWA survey (exhibit 3). The lower response rate for the PCWA survey is likely attributable to PCWAs’ comparatively low level of active involvement in the demonstration, especially at sites where youth participation in FUP and FSS were limited.

EXHIBIT 3.

Survey Completion

PHAs

PCWAs

Status

Count

Share

Count

Share

Complete

32

63%

20

39%

Incomplete

10

20%

8

18%

Not started

/ opted out

9

18%

23

43%

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

9

Total

51

100%

51

100%

Source: Authors

Interviews

The researchers developed and conducted interviews with staff and youth across 13 demonstration sites; interview protocols are included in appendixes H through L. The initial plan was to conduct telephone interviews with PHA and PCWA staff at 10 demonstration sites and visit the other three sites, where in-person interviews with additional staff and with youth would be conducted. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, interviews were instead conducted virtually across all 13 sites. To maximize youth engagement, youth were included for sites initially slated for staff interviews only.

Sites were selected on the basis of PHA characteristics (using administrative data) and geographic diversity. Given the overall low demonstration participation rate, sites that administrative data indicated had active FUP-FSS

programs were prioritized, as were visits to sites with the largest number of FUP-FSS youth to maximize the pool of potential youth interviewees. Overall, 60 staff interviews were conducted across 13 sites, and 9 youth interviews were conducted across 4 sites (exhibit 4). See appendix E for descriptive tables, indicating the frequency with which topics were discussed during staff interviews, by site.

EXHIBIT 4.

Interviews

Respondents

Interview Sites ( n = 10)

Site-Visit Sites ( n = 3)

Total Interviews

PHA staff

24 staff from 10 PHAs

15 staff from 3 PHAs

39

PCWA staff

12 staff from 8 PCWAs

4 staff from 3 PCWAs

16

Partner staff

0 staff from partner agencies

5 staff from partner agencies

5

Youth

2 youth from 2 sites

7 youth from 2 sites

9

Total interviews

38

31

69

Note: Interviews were conducted via Zoom for both interview and site-visit sites.

Source: Authors

The results presented in this report are based on the collective perspectives of either the staff or the youth who were interviewed across the 13 sites; these are two of the key staff roles in the operation of FUP and FSS:

• The supportive services provider administers the 18 months’ minimum of supportive services, coordinated by the PCWA that must be offered to all youth in FUP. This person is often not on the PCWA staff 10

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

because they must close the child welfare case after the youth leaves foster care; this work is often contracted out to an independent living program19 or another service provider.

• The FSS program coordinator is the PHA staff person who administers the services provided to all youth who sign a Contract of Participation in the FSS program; the role of the FSS program coordinator is outlined by HUD. 20

In some cases, this report makes a distinction between the staff interviewed by type of agency—i.e., PHA, PCWA, or partner agency—or among different type of staff who interact directly with youth; this report may also refer to a

“PHA administrator,” who is someone more involved with the oversight or operations of the voucher program or the PHA more broadly but is aware of or involved in the demonstration. PCWA interviews were conducted with the FUP liaison, who does not work directly with youth but helps manage the FUP referral process by receiving referrals of potentially eligible youth from PCWA caseworkers or other sources, confirms that the youth meet FUP

youth eligibility requirements, and shares their names with the PHA to confirm that they meet HCV eligibility requirements.

This report refers to services offered through the FUP and FSS programs in the following ways:

• Supportive services are the case management services that must be offered to youth enrolled in FUP that lasts at least 18 months. 21

• FSS services are provided in a variety of formats meant to help youth achieve the goals specified in their ITSPs; these services may include coaching participants, conducting needs assessments, providing referrals to services and training, and helping participants stay on track to achieve their goals.

19 Independent living services are offered to youth in foster care starting at age 16, although states can offer them to individuals as young as 14. Youth are eligible to receive these services through age 21, even if they leave foster care. The independent living program is funded through the John H. Chafee Foster Care Program for Successful Transition to Adulthood, and many states augment those funds with state funding. If a state has extended foster care, either federally funded or with comparable requirements, it can use Chafee funds to offer independent living services to youth up to age 23.

20 See “Module 2.1: Overview of the FSS Program Coordinator Position.” In Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) Program Training, https://www.hudexchange.info/trainings/fss-program-online-training/2.1-fss-program-coordinator.html.

21 Only youth in FUP who aged out of foster care must be offered 18 months of supportive services. Independent living services may be offered but are not required.

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

11

Results

This report presents results organized around eight themes of the research questions: 1. Public Housing Agency (PHA)/Public Child Welfare Agency (PCWA) participation and characteristics.

2. Participant characteristics.

3. Demonstration implementation.

4. Collaboration: PHAs, PCWAs, and other partners.

5. Youth voice.

6. Youth demonstration participation.

7. Short-term outcomes for youth: length of stay and income over time.

8. Staff reflections.

PHA/PCWA Participation and Agency Characteristics

What is the motivation for participation in the demonstration?

In general, PHAs initiated and led the process of applying to participate in the demonstration. According to the PCWA staff interviewed, the PCWAs did not play a role in the decision to apply to be a demonstration site; most knew about FUP but were not familiar with the demonstration. This unfamiliarity could reflect that PCWAs may no longer be providing case management or other supportive services by the time FUP youth enroll in the FSS

program, particularly at sites that delay enrollment until later in the voucher term.

Deciding to participate in the demonstration is a two-part process for PHAs. First, they must decide to use some of their vouchers to serve youth. Second, they must decide to participate in the FUP-FSS Demonstration. The most common reasons PHAs gave for serving FUP-eligible youth (exhibit 5) focused on unmet needs (for example, needs not being met in the community) and agency priorities (for example, serving former foster youth is an agency or community priority, or linking supportive services to housing is an agency priority).

12

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

EXHIBIT 5.

PHA-Reported Reasons for Serving FUP-Eligible Youth

What are the reasons your agency (PHA) decided to serve FUP-eligible youth?

Responses

Count

Share of

Respondents

Needs not being met in community

19

61%

Foster care is priority for

agency/community

18

58%

Linking supportive services to housing is

agency priority

17

55%

Many youth aging out of foster care

15

48%

Homelessness among former foster youth

14

45%

Serving youth generally is priority for

agency/community

14

45%

Priority for PCWA

14

45%

HUD requirements

9

29%

PCWA has resources

9

29%

Other

2

6%

n = 31.

Note: Respondents could select more than one response.

Source: 2020–2021 PHA Survey

The most common reason surveyed PHAs gave for participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration specifically was the opportunity to provide extended vouchers (84 percent of respondents), followed by the importance of linking housing to self-sufficiency supports (71 percent). More than half of survey respondents (55 percent) indicated that serving youth formerly in foster care was an agency or community priority. About two-fifths (42 percent) of PHAs stated that addressing the service needs of youth was a PCWA priority (exhibit 6).

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

13

EXHIBIT 6.

PHA-Reported Reasons for Joining Demonstration

What are the reasons your agency (PHA) decided to join the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

Responses

Count

Share of Respondents

The opportunity to provide an extended FUP-FSS

Demonstration voucher of up to 5 years

26

84%

Short-term housing without additional self-sufficiency

supports won’t reduce the probability of homelessness

22

71%

among former foster youth

Addressing the service needs of former foster youth is a

priority for the agency or community

17

55%

Addressing the service needs of former foster youth is a

priority for the PCWA

13

42%

Self-sufficiency service needs of former foster youth are

not being met in other ways in the community

13

42%

n = 31.

Source: 2020–2021 PHA Survey

The PHA and PCWA staff, who were interviewed with open-ended questions about why they applied to become a demonstration site, offered four primary reasons for their application. The first and most important was the opportunity to provide youth with rental assistance beyond the 36 months provided by the FUP voucher. Staff noted that 3 years of housing subsidies was not enough time for youth to achieve housing stability or self-sufficiency. This observation is consistent with the survey results and with HUD’s informational webinar about the demonstration, which highlighted the extension of rental assistance as a key reason that sites might want to apply. 22

The second reason was the escrow account. Staff see the escrow account as a way for youth to increase their financial stability and invest in their future. The third reason for applying was the ability to provide youth with wraparound services and support. Although FUP youth are eligible for 18 months minimum of supportive services, the demonstration provides youth with the benefit of FSS services for the life of their FSS contract, allowing for additional services and for a longer term. The final reason for applying to become a demonstration site was the possibility it would better reach youth who are often difficult to engage. One PHA administrator expressed the potential benefits as follows:

It’s a great idea. We see that youth have the potential to reach self-sufficiency. This can be a blip in their lives, and we can set them up. This demo gives them a little more time for the support so they can complete measurable and impactful steps like education or certificates. Even more time developmentally. Also, creating incentives and monetary resources to be able to focus on the voiced goals and plans and work toward self-sufficiency by having the incentive and the money 22 HUD, 2016, “Youth Family Unification and Family Self-Sufficiency Demonstration Informational Webinar,”

https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/HUDFUPFSSDEMOWEBINARPPT.PDF.

14

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

to rent on their own or buy a car. The more time with the assistance, the incentive, and the money. Money is a concrete barrier because they can’t even make it into the housing market. We see that when FUP is done, not everyone is set up for that success, so this allows us to bring this opportunity to them. This is what we’ve heard from our partners as well.

What are the characteristics of participating PHAs?

The 51 demonstration PHAs tend to be larger than non-demonstration PHAs with FUP participants. In 2020, the demonstration PHAs had an average of 14,607 subsidized units. Non-demonstration PHAs with FUP youth had an average of 7,961 subsidized units. Non-demonstration PHAs with FUP vouchers but no FUP youth had an average of 3,263 subsidized units (exhibit 7). To the extent that portfolio size is related to capacity, these figures suggest that PHAs deciding to participate in the demonstration tend to be larger ones. These larger PHAs may have more resources and staffing to take on a new initiative.

EXHIBIT 7.

Housing Assistance Portfolio Size for PHAs Participating in FUP, 2020

Count

Share of Total

Public housing

units

5,956

43%

Demonstration PHAs

Vouchers

8,651

57%

Total

14,607

Public housing

Non-demonstration PHAs

units

2,284

24%

with FUP youth

Vouchers

5,677

76%

Total

7,961

Public housing

Non-demonstration PHAs

units

750

23%

without FUP youth

Vouchers

2,513

77%

Total

3,263

Source: Authors’ analysis of HUD PIC 2020 and Picture of Subsidized Households Demonstration and non-demonstration PHAs had small differences in average Fair Market Rent (FMR), average county poverty rate, and average youth (ages 16–24) unemployment rate (exhibit 8) during the period under study.

Demonstration PHAs were in counties with somewhat higher average FMRs, on average, than non-demonstration PHAs, whereas county poverty rates and youth unemployment rates were similar. Although the higher average FMRs for demonstration PHAs may mean that agencies in higher-cost housing markets may be more inclined to recognize the importance of providing housing opportunities for area youth, the patterns found for other community-based variables do not indicate any clear relationship between local context and demonstration participation.

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

15

The race and ethnicity profile of residents was similar for those in demonstration and non-demonstration PHAs, although, for both all households and for FUP youth, demonstration PHAs had, on average, a higher share of Hispanic residents and a lower share of White residents than did non-demonstration PHAs.

EXHIBIT 8.

Comparisons between Demonstration and Non-Demonstration PHAs (Averages), 2020

Non-

Demonstration

Demonstration

PHAs

PHAs

Totals

50

352

2-bedroom Fair Market Rent

$1,381

$1,195

County unemployment rate for 16–24-year-olds

9%

10%

County poverty rate

11%

12%

Race/ethnicity of all households (%)

Black or African-American

50%

49%

White

24%

29%

Hispanic, any race

22%

18%

American Indian / Alaska Native

4%

3%

Asian

1%

1%

Race/ethnicity of FUP youth (%)

Black or African-American

49%

48%

Hispanic, any race

24%

16%

White

22%

32%

Asian

4%

4%

American Indian / Alaska Native

2%

1%

Notes: Fifty Demonstration PHAs reported data in PIC. The Housing Authority of the City of Beaumont, Texas, did not report in PIC and has been excluded from this analysis. Averages and medians for income figures are of those with non-missing data. Dollars are nominal dollar amounts.

Source: Authors’ analysis of HUD PIC 2020 and HUD FMR FY2020

To understand how similar demonstration PHAs are to one another, the researchers used a cluster analysis to identify three groups of demonstration PHAs based on the similarity of their characteristics in 2020 (exhibit 9) and included averages for non-demonstration PHAs for comparison. 23



Group 1 (low participation) includes the 12 PHAs with the lowest numbers of FUP youth and minimal numbers of youth also participating in FSS.



Group 2 (medium participation) includes 25 PHAs. Almost half of FUP youth at these sites participate in FSS.



Group 3 (high participation) includes 11 PHAs with larger participation numbers. These sites have more FUP youth on average, and about two-thirds of those youth participate in FSS.

23 A cluster analysis of 2019 data was used to identify candidates for subsequent interview outreach. Although the patterns remained similar in both years, some PHAs did switch categories. Also, the New York City Housing Authority, in Group 1, skews the total PHA unit average for that group.

16

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

Low participation (Group 1) and medium participation (Group 2) demonstration PHAs have lower average FMRs ($1,300 and $1,200, respectively) than those in the high participation group (Group 3), for which the average FMR

is about $2,000. (For a full list of PHAs by group with 2020 characteristics, see appendix exhibit D.1.) One characteristic of note among demonstration sites is that the FUP youth are more likely to be Hispanic than the broader PHA population (including all households), especially in group 3, in which 27 percent of FUP youth identify as Hispanic compared with 11 percent of the overall PHA population.

EXHIBIT 9.

Summary Statistics for Three Cluster Analysis Groups (Averages), 2020

Demonstration PHAs

Non-

Group 1 (Low Group 2 (Medium Group 3 (High Demonstration

Characteristics

Participation)

Participation) Participation)

PHAs

Number of PHAs in group

12

25

11

352

Number of FUP youth

1

16

57

2

Total PHA units a

25,593

5,836

16,966

3,842

2-bedroom Fair Market Renta

$1,334

$1,153

$1,996

$1,195

Unemployment rate for 16- to

24-year-oldsa

9.6%

10%

7%

10%

Share of FUP youth participating

in FSSa

31%

45%

65%

N/A

Household income

$16,650

$15,438

$17,199

$15,597

Race/ethnicity of all households (%)

Hispanic, any race

47%

14%

11%

18%

Black or African-American

29%

57%

60%

49%

White

25%

27%

19%

29%

American Indian or Alaska Native

1%

1%

8%

3%

Asian

1%

1%

2%

1%

Race/ethnicity of FUP youth (%)

Black or African-American

36%

55%

45%

48%

White

36%

24%

21%

32%

Hispanic, any race

27%

19%

27%

16%

Asian

0%

2%

5%

4%

American Indian / Alaska Native

0%

1%

2%

1%

a Indicators are used to identify the clusters. Three demonstration PHAs are excluded because of missing data in PIC: the Housing Authority of the City of Beaumont, Texas; the Pickaway Metropolitan Housing Authority; and the Housing Authority of the City of New Albany.

Sources: Authors’ analysis of HUD PIC 2000; 2013–2019 American Community Survey 1-year estimates (using linear interpolation to estimate 2020); HUD FMR FY 2000; Picture of Subsidized Households 2020

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

17

What does overall demonstration participation look like?

In 2020, 13 percent of the 7,986 FUP vouchers allocated to the 51 demonstration sites were issued to youth (appendix exhibit D.1 has information on individual demonstration sites). According to HUD administrative data, 45 demonstration sites out of 51 had issued at least one FUP voucher to youth as of the end of 2020 (exhibit 10).

Using FSS program information in HUD’s PIH (Public and Indian Housing) Information Center (PIC) data, 582

youth participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration in 2020 were identified (exhibit 10), with the number of FUPFSS youth varying considerably by site (from 0 to 90). The number of PHAs with FUP youth steadily increased from the beginning of the demonstration in 2016 to 2020, leading to more youth with FUP vouchers and more youth participating in FSS. The share of FUP youth enrolled in the demonstration also varies by site: of the 16

demonstration sites with 10 or more FUP-FSS youth in 2020, 8 sites had participation rates at or near 100 percent, but 3 had participation rates of less than 50 percent.

EXHIBIT 10.

Number of FUP Youth at Demonstration PHAs by Year, 2016–20

FSS Participation

Number of FUP

Share of FUP

Youth

Youth

PHAs with FUP

Participating in

Participating in

Youth

FUP Youth

FSS

FSS

2016

23

436

15

3%

2017

35

671

178

27%

2018

42

762

338

44%

2019

44

908

487

54%

2020

45

1,047

582

56%

Notes: Amounts shown include all households with the “FUP-Y” flag selected in administrative data as FUP youth. FSS participants are those with both the FUP-Y flag and the “FSS Participation” flag selected. Non-FSS households are those with the FUP-Y flag but not the FSS flag.

The housing authority in Beaumont, Texas, did not report data in PIC and is excluded from this analysis.

Source: Authors’ analysis of HUD PIC, 2016–2020

By 2020, 74 percent of demonstration PHAs had at least one youth participating in the demonstration (exhibit 11).

However, among demonstration PHAs with at least one FUP-FSS youth, participation rates were generally low.

As of 2020, 13 of the 51 demonstration sites had zero youth demonstration participants. These sites also tend to have low numbers of FUP youth overall. Ten of these 13 sites had fewer than five youth with FUP vouchers; 5 had zero. These numbers indicate that low FUP-FSS participation rates among youth are part of a broader context of overall low use of FUP for youth (exhibit 11).

18

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

EXHIBIT 11.

Number of FUP-FSS Youth at Demonstration Sites, 2016–20

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Demonstration sites ( N = 50)

Share with 0 FUP-FSS youth

88%

54%

36%

34%

26%

Share with at least 1 FUP-FSS youth

12%

46%

64%

66%

74%

Number of FUP-FSS youth at demonstration

sites with at least 1 FUP-FSS youth

Mean

3

8

11

15

16

Median

2

4

6

8

8

Minimum

1

1

1

1

1

Maximum

7

39

53

59

90

Notes: Fifty demonstration PHAs reported data in PIC. The Housing Authority of the City of Beaumont, Texas, did not report in PIC and has been excluded from this analysis.

Source: Authors’ analysis of HUD PIC, 2016–2020

PHAs choose how to allocate their vouchers between families and youth. PIC data indicate that most vouchers are allocated to families. When the demonstration began, no new FUP awards had been made since 2011; thus, demonstration sites could offer FUP only to a few youth as existing vouchers turned over. New vouchers were awarded in 2018 and 2019 in response to two HUD Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs). To examine whether having more vouchers to offer youth would increase FUP-FSS participation, the researchers compared youth voucher allocations and FUP-FSS participation between the 15 sites that received new voucher awards and the 36 sites that did not receive new awards.

Sites with new FUP voucher awards received between 40 and 151 (an average of 81) new vouchers during the FY

2017–19 period. In 2020, these sites administered, on average, 26 FUP vouchers to youth, up from an average of just under 8 in 2017 (exhibit 12). Sixty-eight percent of vouchers to FUP youth at these sites were going to FUPFSS youth in 2020. Sites without new voucher awards administered, on average, 19 vouchers to FUP youth in 2020, up from 16 in 2017. Forty-seven percent of vouchers to FUP youth at these sites were going to FUP-FSS

youth in 2020. These findings indicate a positive association between receiving new FUP awards and the use of FUP vouchers for youth and FUP-FSS participation more specifically.

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

19

EXHIBIT 12.

Demonstration Sites’ Average FUP Youth by FY 2017–2019 Al ocations

30

h 25

P yout 20

FU of

18

15

ber

9

num 10

16

age 5

Aver

8

8

10

0

2017

2020

2017

2020

Sites with new FUP allocations

Sites with no new FUP allocations

FUP youth (not FSS)

FUP-FSS

Note: Of the 51 demonstration sites, 36 had no new FUP allocations in the FY 2017–2019 awards, and 15 had new FUP allocations.

Source: Authors’ analysis of HUD PIC, 2017 and 2020

What are lease-up patterns?

In general, youth with FUP vouchers have been able to lease up during their initial voucher search term. Two-thirds of the 30 PHAs surveyed reported that almost all or more than half of youth with FUP vouchers were able to lease up (exhibit 13). However, 10 PHAs reported that about half, less than half, or almost no FUP-eligible youth leased up in their initial search term; many PHAs offer extensions past the initial search term.

20

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

EXHIBIT 13.

PHA-Reported Lease-up Success

What proportion of FUP-eligible youth at your agency (PHA) are able to successfully lease up before their initial voucher search term expires?

Count

Share of

Respondents

Almost all

11

37%

More than half

9

30%

About half

6

20%

Less than half

2

7%

Almost none

2

7%

Totals

30

100%

n = 30.

Note: Percentages may not total to 100 due to rounding.

Source: 2020–2021 PHA Survey

Just over half of the surveyed PHAs indicated that youth took, on average, about the same amount of time to lease up as other HCV participants (exhibit 14). However, 40 percent of PHAs reported that it took youth more time, on average, to lease up.

EXHIBIT 14.

PHA-Reported Time to Lease Up

How does the amount of time youth who have been issued a FUP voucher typically need to lease up compare to the amount of time standard Section 8 HCV program participants need?

Count

Percent of

respondents

Youth typically require MORE time to

lease up

12

40%

Youth typically require ABOUT THE

SAME amount of time to lease up

16

53%

Youth typical y require LESS time to

lease up

2

7%

n = 30.

Note: One PHA staff member who responded “don’t know” is excluded.

Source: 2020–2021 PHA Survey

The most common reason Public Housing Agency survey respondents provided for why youth do not successfully lease up is voucher search term expiration (63 percent). Other reasons include not showing up for voucher briefings after their application is accepted (33 percent) and not completing applications (30 percent) (exhibit 15). Although this survey question does not indicate how common these failures are, when there is a failure to lease up, these are the most common reasons given, and it indicates that the issue seems to be taking place during the housing search.

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

21

EXHIBIT 15.

PHA-Reported Lease-Up Chal enges

What are the most common reasons youth who are referred don’t lease up?

Reason

Count

Share of

Respondents

Youth do not lease up before

voucher expires

17

63%

Youth do not show up for

briefing

9

33%

Youth do not complete

application

8

30%

Other

7

26%

Application denied

1

4%

n = 27.

Note: Respondents were asked to select all reasons that applied.

Source: 2020–2021 PHA Survey

Only 3 of 32 PHAs surveyed indicated that they provide any housing search assistance to youth who are issued a FUP voucher beyond what they provide to standard HCV participants. In the interviews, several staff members, including seven supportive services provider staff and three PHA staff, commented that a major challenge for youth is finding a qualifying housing unit to lease up with a FUP voucher within the allowable search time. These staff members highlighted various reasons for this challenge, including limited availability of affordable housing and hesitation by landlords to rent to youth who have limited rental histories or poor credit scores. Staff from two sites, one at a social services provider and the other at a PHA, noted that landlords often discriminate against youth, who are perceived as riskier tenants, citing poor credit score or lack of rental history to deny youth.

Participant Characteristics

This report examines housing costs and demographic and income characteristics for FUP-FSS youth. To control for PHA characteristics, a comparative analysis for a subset of PHAs that have non-negligible numbers of both FUPFSS youth and non-FSS youth in FUP is also provided. 24

24 This analysis includes agencies with at least three FUP youth in each of three categories: FUP-FSS youth, non-FSS youth in FUP at demonstration PHAs, and FUP youth at non-demonstration PHAs. A comparison of the three groups is also presented in appendix exhibit D.2. However, due to substantial differences in the characteristics of PHAs, results should be interpreted with caution, and differences should not be interpreted as being attributable only to youth-level characteristics.

22

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

What are the housing costs for demonstration participants?

The mean rent for FUP-FSS youth in 2020 was $1,252, slightly higher than the median (exhibit 16). At the 13

demonstration sites with significant numbers of both FUP-FSS and non-FSS youth in FUP, FUP-FSS youth have somewhat higher (statistically significant) mean gross rents, on average, than non-FSS youth in FUP ($1,276

versus $1,163).

EXHIBIT 16.

Housing Costs for FUP-FSS Youth at Demonstration PHAs

FUP-FSS Youth at

Demonstration

PHAs

Gross rent (2020)

Mean

$1,252

Median

$1,145

Total tenant payment (2019)

Mean

$237

Median

$159

Housing Assistance Payment (2020)

Mean

$1,080

Median

$1,038

Notes: Averages and medians are of those with non-missing data. Dollars are nominal dollar amounts.

Source: Authors’ analysis of HUD PIC, 2019–2020

What are the demographic characteristics of demonstration participants?

More than half of FUP-FSS youth are Black or African-American, and 21 percent are Hispanic (exhibit 17). At the 13 sites with non-negligible numbers of FUP-FSS and non-FSS youth in FUP, a somewhat, but not statistically significant, higher share of FUP-FSS participants are Black or Hispanic (appendix exhibit D.3).

FUP-FSS youth are, on average, 23 years old (exhibit 17); 69 percent are between 20 and 24, with 20 percent older than 24. 25 Comparisons within sites with non-negligible numbers of both FUP-FSS youth and non-FSS youth in FUP indicate little difference between the groups (appendix exhibit D.3).

Of FUP-FSS youth at demonstration sites, 71 percent are female, on average. Within a subset of demonstration sites that have non-negligible numbers of FUP-FSS youth and non-FSS youth in FUP, the share of females is statistically significantly higher among youth in FUP-FSS than those non-FSS youth in FUP (71 percent versus 62

percent (appendix exhibit D.3)).

25 These data were for all FUP-FSS youth in 2020 and include new and existing FUP youth.

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

23

EXHIBIT 17.

Demographic Characteristics of FUP-FSS Youth at Demonstration PHAs, 2020

FUP-FSS Youth at

Demonstration PHAs

Totals

593a

Race/ethnicity (%)

Black or African-American

53%

White

22%

Hispanic, any race

21%

Asian

2%

American Indian / Alaska Native

2%

Age (in years)

Younger than 18

0%

18

0.2%

19

4%

20

7%

21

21%

22

20%

23

16%

24

12%

Older than 24

20%

Mean age

23

Median age

22

Sex (%)

Female

71%

Male

29%

a The total of 593 is based on the PIC individual-level dataset, but when discussing total demonstration participation elsewhere in the report, 582

is used because it is the number arrived at using the PHA-level dataset.

Source: Authors’ analysis of HUD PIC, 2020

What are the income characteristics of demonstration participants?

On average, the household income of FUP-FSS youth is $9,257. Those with relatively high earnings skew this average, so it is important to note that the median is $5,200 (exhibit 18); less than one-third of FUP-FSS youth have earnings, which may be related to youth being enrolled in school or training programs.

24

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

EXHIBIT 18.

Income Characteristics of FUP-FSS Youth at Demonstration PHAs, 2020

Total annual income

Mean

$9,257

Median

$5,200

Wage income (of those with wage income)

Mean

$20,485

Median

$18,678

Share of FUP youth reporting wage income

31%

Notes: Averages and medians are for youth with non-missing data. Dollars are not adjusted for inflation.

Source: Authors’ analysis of HUD PIC, 2020

The average annual household income for new FUP-FSS youth has varied since 2016: it remained relatively stable, around $7,000, between 2017 and 2020 but dropped closer to $5,000 in 2020 (exhibit 19). The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic likely played a role in these differences. Analyzing 2020 data only at the nine demonstration PHAs with non-negligible numbers of both groups and with income data for these participants, there is no statistically significant difference for income at entry between FUP-FSS and non-FSS youth in FUP (appendix exhibit D.3).

EXHIBIT 19.

Average Household Income for New FUP-FSS Youth at Demonstration PHAs, 2016–20

$8,000

$7,464

$7,050

$7,162

$7,000

$6,288

$6,000

$5,366

$5,000

$4,000

$3,000

$2,000

$1,000

$0

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Source: Authors’ analysis of HUD PIC, 2016–2020

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

25

Demonstration Implementation

These questions target the context within which demonstration sites operate and ask program-level questions on the implementation experiences of public housing agencies (PHAs) and public child welfare agencies (PCWAs).

What are the child welfare and FSS support system contexts for FUP-FSS youth?

Child welfare systems vary by state, which can affect how programs serving youth in foster care are implemented.

For example, many states extend foster care beyond age 18, usually to age 21. To date, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has approved the extension of foster care using federal Title IV-E funds in 26

states and six federally recognized tribes (Government Accountability Office, 2019). Of the 51 sites in the demonstration, 40 are in extended foster care states (appendix exhibit D.5). Furthermore, whereas some states operate a centralized, state-based child welfare system, others operate a more independent, county-based system. 26

Of the demonstration sites, 30 operate in state-based systems, and 21 operate in county-based systems.

How are FUP-FSS programs structured and implemented, and how much do program models vary?

Interviews highlighted several dimensions along which implementation of the demonstration varies across sites.

First, some sites encourage youth to enroll in the FSS program shortly after they lease up. Staff from these sites noted that early enrollment gives youth time to build trust in their FSS program coordinator and establish goals on which to focus. They believe that any additional needs youth might have—e.g., physical or mental health services, financial literacy, learning how to care for a home—can be addressed while youth are setting and making progress toward their broader self-sufficiency goals—e.g., education, employment, transportation. Staff at these sites noted the value of building trust with their FSS program coordinator early, having a stable adult27 in their life, and the opportunity to start an escrow account early with more time to accrue interest. At these sites, most youth have access to a housing voucher for 5 years (the life of the Contract of Participation). Other sites wait until later in the FUP term to encourage youth to enroll in FSS, although they accept FUP youth at any time who want to be in the program. Of these sites, some tend to encourage youth to enroll in FSS after their 18 months of eligibility for FUP

supportive services end because it can maximize the length of time youth are connected to someone they can turn to for support and services while also gaining some time for the housing subsidy. At these sites, most youth will 26 See HHS, “State vs. County Administration of Child Welfare Services,” 2018,

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/services/.

27 It is important to note that the 18 months minimum of supportive services coordinated through the PCWA often involves multiple staff across more than one agency.

26

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

have access to a housing voucher for 6.5 years. Other sites encourage enrollment in FSS near the end of the initial 36-month FUP voucher term because it can maximize the length of time youth are eligible for rental assistance.

Staff at sites that delay youth enrollment in FSS said that youth first need to face and deal with their past and manage basic wellness issues before they can start to focus on their future self-sufficiency. At these sites, most youth have access to a housing voucher for 8 years. Youth at all sites can request an extension of up to 2 years “for good cause.” 28 This extension means that, although uncommon, some youth could receive a maximum of 10 years of housing subsidy at demonstration sites.

Second, all demonstration sites provide participants with escrow accounts through their FSS program, but the rules for accessing the funds in those accounts vary across sites. Some sites allow participants to access funds in their escrow accounts while they are still in the FSS program; the funds can be used for goal-related activities, such as buying textbooks, paying tuition, purchasing a car, or buying business supplies. This option can remove small barriers to goal achievement and help youth feel more independent; however, the FSS programs make it clear to youth that these funds are not “free money.” They have a process for applying to access funds, and requests may be granted or denied. Other sites do not allow participants to access funds until after they graduate from the FSS

program because they want to maximize the assets available to youth when they graduate.

Third, demonstration sites with a larger number of FUP vouchers for youth have more structured program support and a youth-specific focus in the administration of FSS services. These sites tend to have a single FSS program coordinator manage all their FUP youth cases, giving the FSS program coordinator more exposure to youth with history in the foster care system and allowing them to refine approaches to building trust and addressing the unique needs of these youth. Some FSS program coordinators at these larger sites employ trauma-informed approaches.

One coordinator shared that they had foster system experience, enabling them to build trust and better understand the emotional and mental barriers these youth face in pursuing life goals.

Finally, 5 PHAs among the 13 sites whose staff were interviewed are also Moving to Work (MTW) sites and are afforded more flexibility in administering FUP—and thereby the FUP-FSS Demonstration—compared with the 8

non-MTW PHAs. Youth at the MTW sites can retain their housing vouchers for more than 5 years and may be eligible for other financial supports, including tuition assistance, assistance with security deposits, rental supplements to move to areas with more expensive housing (if they have children), and financial incentives for maintaining a job or staying in school. One MTW site staff member explained—

If you have a new job and keep it for a month, then you get $300 cash, and then if you keep it for four months, you get another $300, and that is timed for when the rent increase would come. The short-term payments don’t count as FSS payments, but at five months, we create a savings 28 The FSS guidebook explains the time limits under the FSS Contract of Participation (p. 7):

https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/FSS-Program-Guidebook.pdf.

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

27

account, and it gets $200 a month for every month you work, up to $5,000 when you can cash out.

Other ways in which MTW sites can be more flexible include allowing youth to self-certify their income and reducing the frequency of annual recertifications for households in which a member has a disability. One MTW

site is considering waiving the rule on Social Security number verification, which HUD relaxed during the pandemic.

Also, the ways in which staff and youth reported that youth could accumulate funds in their escrow accounts were beyond increased earned income. One MTW site matches the amount that youth save in their savings accounts; others match the increased share of rent youth pay when their income increases. Some sites offer youth financial incentives in the form of additions to their escrow accounts for sustaining jobs for longer periods, staying in school longer, or improving their credit scores.

How do PHAs, PCWAs, and other partners determine eligibility and identify FUP-eligible youth?

Youth eligible for FUP are automatically eligible for FSS at all the demonstration sites whose staff were interviewed. The interviews revealed that sites often have multiple sources of FUP referrals, including the PCWA, but also local providers, such as independent living programs and the CoCs, through their coordinated entry system within the Homeless Management Information System, which gathers data on individuals’ ages, history of foster care, and housing status. A few sites noted the PHA as a source of referral as well. HUD requires that the PCWA take responsibility for verifying that each youth meets the eligibility requirement that they aged out of foster care, no matter the source of the referral. 29 As noted earlier, some demonstration sites encourage FUP youth to enroll in FSS later in their FUP term, but if a youth seeks out the FSS program earlier, they are enrolled.

The PHA survey respondents reported that the most common way youth are provided with information about the demonstration is during the voucher briefing and orientation sessions, followed by direct outreach to FUP-eligible youth (exhibit 20). It is less common for PCWAs to provide youth with information before they leave foster care, for PHAs to provide information during recertification, or for partner organizations to provide information.

29 At one site, the PHA staff mentioned that the statewide PCWA employee who had signed their original contract said they could no longer take responsibility for verifying eligibility and instructed them to use a more local child welfare office.

However, the PHA was not able to engage the local office, and all youth referrals for FUP were halted. This site is currently investigating the use of Foster Youth to Independence vouchers.

28

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

EXHIBIT 20.

PHA-Reported Provision of Demonstration Information to Youth

How do FUP-eligible youth learn about the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

Information Source

Count

Share of

Respondents

Information provided in voucher briefings /

orientations

20

63%

Direct outreach to FUP-eligible youth about FUP-FSS

15

47%

Information provided by the PCWA before youth

leave foster care

12

38%

Information provided at recertification

10

31%

Recruitment/referral through partner organizations

10

31%

Other

1

3%

n = 32.

Note: Respondents were asked to select all that applied.

Source: 2020–2021 PHA Survey

Nearly all PCWA survey respondents reported that child welfare caseworkers identify FUP-eligible youth (exhibit 21); more than half of respondents noted that FUP-eligible youth are also identified by independent living workers, CoC partners, aftercare service providers, and other community-based organizations.

EXHIBIT 21.

PCWA-Reported Referral Source

How does your agency (PCWA) identify FUP-eligible youth?

Referral Source

Count

Share of

Respondents

Child welfare caseworkers

14

88%

Independent living workers

12

75%

CoC partners

10

63%

Aftercare service providers

9

56%

Other community-based agencies

9

56%

Self-referral by youth

7

44%

Youth housing programs

5

31%

PHA

2

13%

Juvenile justice system

2

13%

Other state or local agencies

1

6%

n = 16.

Note: Respondents were asked to select all that applied.

Source: 2020–2021 PCWA Survey

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

29

Do PCWAs market or promote the demonstration to potentially eligible youth?

Most PCWAs responding to the survey said they market or promote the demonstration30 to potential participants (exhibit 22). This marketing generally takes place during discharge planning meetings or when a youth is referred to FUP, although other examples were provided. However, the PCWA survey results about promoting the demonstration are inconsistent with what interviewed PCWA staff reported. In fact, most PCWA staff interviewed had limited awareness of the demonstration beyond their familiarity with FUP; perhaps because youth are not eligible for FSS unless they are leased up with a FUP voucher and the PCWAs focus on FUP. Even youth issued a FUP voucher struggle to use it before the initial search time expires; with high PCWA staff turnover, the concept of the demonstration may also have been lost along the way.

EXHIBIT 22.

PCWA-Reported FUP-FSS Demonstration Marketing Approach

Yes

No

Does your agency do anything to market or promote

the FUP-FSS Demonstration to potential youth

9

4

participants?

If yes, does it do so by sharing information with them

…

… during the discharge planning meetings?

8

0

… when the youth is referred to FUP?

7

1

… some other time? (If yes, please specify.)

5

0

n = 13.

Note: Written responses for “some other time” were “case planning meetings, meetings with PAL” [the Texas Preparation for Adult Living program]; “during independent living / permanency meetings;” “every 6 months / TILP” [Transitional Independent Living Plan]; “family involvement meeting;” and “emailing every child welfare team when vouchers are available.”

Source: 2020–2021 PCWA Survey

What have been the major early implementation successes?

PHA and PCWA staff provided assessments of the effectiveness of the demonstration without addressing the longer-term impacts for youth. Overall, surveyed PHA and PCWA staff indicated that the demonstration as implemented is working as intended. Representatives of 19 PHAs reported that the demonstration supports the self-sufficiency goals of youth; one said it is not working as intended; and staff from 12 PHAs did not answer this question. Staff from 10 of 12 PCWAs indicated that the demonstration is working as intended for youth aging out of foster care. However, PCWA survey respondents indicated that the demonstration is more effective at helping youth achieve stable housing than helping them progress toward becoming self-sufficient (exhibit 23).

30 The survey question assumed that PCWAs market or promote FUP and FSS together as a demonstration. The survey question did not separately ask about the promotion of FUP from the promotion of FSS.

30

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

EXHIBIT 23.

PCWA-Reported Assessment of Demonstration Effectiveness

In your opinion, how effective is the FUP-FSS Demonstration at helping youth…

Achieve Become

Stable

Self-

Housing Sufficient

Very effective

7

1

Somewhat

effective

4

10

Not at all effective

1

1

Don’t know

3

3

n = 15.

Source: 2020–2021 PCWA Survey

Through the course of interviews with PHA and PCWA staff, several factors contributing to successful demonstration implementation were brought to light. First, although all the sites provide youth with a written description of the FSS program during the FUP voucher briefing, several PHA staff noted that recruitment requires making a connection with the youth and helping them understand the benefit of the FSS program. Some sites encourage FSS program participation by having the FSS program coordinator attend the voucher briefing to talk about FSS or by calling youth who have expressed interest in FSS after they have successfully leased up. As one FSS program coordinator said, “Sometimes it seems like the best thing I can do is give them a call.”

At another site, the PHA provides training to PCWA caseworkers about the demonstration and its flexibility—for example, the ability to “meet youth where they are.” PCWA caseworkers are then able to educate youth about the demonstration and everything it has to offer.

Another factor that was noted by PHA staff as key to implementation success is a strong relationship between the FSS program coordinator and the participants. PHA staff noted that youth are more likely to remain engaged in the program and communicate their needs if they trust the FSS program coordinator. They also noted that developing this trust can be difficult for youth who experienced placement instability and other trauma while in foster care; the FSS program coordinator must overcome those barriers to create a safe space for trust to develop. At one site, the caseworkers from the various community programs offering FUP supportive services introduce youth to the FSS

program coordinator to help build trust in this new relationship and promote program engagement. Other strategies that sites use to build these relationships include—

• Having an FSS program coordinator who works specifically with youth.

• Providing trauma-informed care.

• Being flexible.

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

31

One FSS program coordinator explained—

One of the benefits is really just for the individual to connect with one person versus a variety of individuals and getting confused about the different programs that we have.

Using trauma-informed approaches31 and motivational interviewing32 can facilitate youth engagement and keep youth focused on their goals. One FSS program coordinator had experienced homelessness as a youth and was familiar with the struggle to survive, which helped build trust and relate to the youth being served. In some cases, FSS program coordinators advocate for youth to help employers or landlords understand that youth are working hard to improve their lives. These FSS program coordinators who engage closely with youth participants report working to build youth self-esteem, guide them in setting achievable goals, and help them navigate setbacks so as not to feel overwhelmed. Also important is a strong relationship between the PHA and local partners, including colleges, job programs, financial services institutions, and other service providers. PHAs whose staff invest in building strong ties with community organizations report that they can better connect youth with the services they need. PHA staff note that partnerships can also open doors for youth, give them opportunities to pursue education and employment, and streamline the referral process so they can more quickly engage in services. One PHA hosted a resource fair for youth, with 36 vendors, including credit agencies, healthcare centers, local colleges, transportation services, homeownership agencies, car dealerships, and employment service providers.

What are the challenges and barriers to implementing the FUP-FSS

Demonstration?

Although most PHA survey respondents indicated that they thought FUP-FSS participation was meeting initial expectations, a significant minority, 42 percent, did not (exhibit 24). A larger share of survey respondents in PHAs with higher participation (groups 2 and 3) indicated that participation had met expectations compared with those in PHAs with lower participation (group 1). However, three of the six respondents in the low-program-participation category noted they thought FUP-FSS participation did meet initial standards, indicating that not all agencies expected high participation levels in the first place.

31 For more information on integrating trauma-informed care into organizational culture, see Lisa Dubay, Rachel A. Burton, and Marni Epstein, Early Adopters of Trauma-Informed Care: An Implementation Analysis of the Advancing Trauma-Informed Care Grantees (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2018). https://www.urban.org/research/publication/early-adopters-trauma-

informed-care.

32 HUD’s online training for the FSS program addresses trauma-informed care and motivational interviewing in the advanced case management and coaching techniques section: https://www.hudexchange.info/trainings/fss-program-online-training/2.1-

fss-program-coordinator.html.

32

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

EXHIBIT 24.

PHAs’ Initial Expectations for the Demonstration

In your opinion, has FUP-FSS participation by eligible youth met your agency’s initial expectations?

Group 1 (low

Group 2

Group 3 (high

program

(medium

program

Total

Share

participation)

program

participation)

participation)

Yes

3

7

4

14

58%

No

3

5

2

10

42%

n = 24.

Source: 2020–2021 PHA Survey

PHAs were also asked about challenges in serving youth in FUP. Factors related to the availability and accessibility of adequate and affordable housing were perceived as more of a challenge than factors related to administrative practices or costs (exhibit 25). Challenges highlighted by the most PHA survey respondents were the availability of affordable rental housing, 87 percent considered it a major challenge or somewhat of a challenge, and the 36-month voucher time limit; 69 percent considered it a major challenge or somewhat of a challenge.

Because this question was about youth in FUP, and the FUP-FSS Demonstration allows for the voucher time limit to extend, it is not known from this survey if respondents believe the time with the voucher for youth in FUP-FSS

is still a challenge. However, the PHA staff interviewed consistently agreed that even with the extended voucher time limit through the demonstration, youth participants still did not have enough time to achieve self-sufficiency.

Other factors seen as somewhat of a challenge or a major challenge by more than half of PHA respondents included limited availability of quality housing and relationships with landlords and property managers. Challenges relating to capacity or administrative issues were generally seen as less acute; these issues included staffing resources, competition with FUP family vouchers, administrative and service costs, waiting list procedural issues, and the voucher application process.

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

33

EXHIBIT 25.

PHA-Reported Service Challenges

Factors that may affect your agency’s ability to serve FUP-eligible youth: Not a Challenge

Somewhat of a

Chal enge

Major Challenge

Factor

Count

Share of

Respondents

Count

Share of

Respondents

Count

Share of

Respondents

Availability of affordable

rental housing

4

13%

12

40%

14

47%

The 36-month time limit on

FUP youth assistance

9

31%

9

31%

11

38%

Service provision costs

18

60%

5

17%

7

23%

Staffing resources

17

57%

6

20%

7

23%

Not enough vouchers

available for youth

17

59%

5

17%

7

24%

Availability of quality

housing

11

37%

13

43%

6

20%

Coordination with PCWA

17

59%

8

28%

4

14%

Duration of the housing

search process

15

50%

11

37%

4

13%

Relationships with landlords

/ property managers

13

43%

14

47%

3

10%

Complexity of leasing

process (for initial units and

20

67%

7

23%

3

10%

unit changes)

Need to provide vouchers to

families limits the availability

19

66%

8

28%

2

7%

of vouchers for youth

Administrative costs

22

73%

6

20%

2

7%

Waiting list procedures and

administration

25

83%

4

13%

1

3%

Duration of the voucher

application process

21

70%

8

27%

1

3%

Coordination with a CoC

partner

21

72%

8

28%

0

0%

n = 30.

Source: 2020–2021 PHA Survey

Similarly, when it comes to the demonstration implementation, PHA survey respondents see factors related to youth participation (referrals, recruitment, and desire to participate) as more of a challenge than factors related to services and capacity (limited FSS program capacity and lack of appropriate self-sufficiency services) (exhibit 26).

34

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

EXHIBIT 26.

PHA-Reported Implementation Chal enges

Factors that may affect your agency’s ability to implement the FUP-FSS Demonstration: Not a Challenge

Somewhat of a

Factor

Chal enge

Major Challenge

Count

Share of

Respondents Count

Share of

Respondents

Count

Share of

Respondents

Number of FUP-

eligible youth

11

39%

9

32%

8

29%

referred to PHA

FUP-eligible youth do

not want to

participate in the

12

43%

11

39%

5

18%

FUP-FSS

Demonstration

Difficulty recruiting

FUP youth

participants into the

8

29%

16

57%

4

14%

FUP-FSS

Demonstration

Limited capacity of

PHA’s FSS program

to accept more

22

79%

2

7%

4

14%

participants

Lack of appropriate

self-sufficiency

services in the

19

68%

9

32%

0

0%

community to meet

FUP youth needs

n = 28.

Source: 2020–2021 PHA Survey

All PHA staff, and most PCWA staff who were interviewed, noted that the time-limited nature of the housing voucher is a barrier to successful demonstration implementation. Youth become discouraged when they are unable to achieve their goals before their voucher times out; the loss of rental assistance—hence, the loss of their housing—sets them back.

Another barrier to successful demonstration implementation is the difficulty of recruiting youth. Some youth are frustrated with government agencies and uninterested in yet another program with added responsibilities. One PCWA staff member said that youth who opt out do not want to keep “working with the system.” Among the most common reasons, PHA staff mentioned that youth opt out of the demonstration is their wanting to achieve self-sufficiency on their own and being tired of being monitored.

A third barrier is limited referrals to FUP or FSS that result from a lack of knowledge about the demonstration among PCWA caseworkers due to high turnover rates. PHA staff believe that if PCWA caseworkers were more aware of the demonstration, they could “sell” it to youth early, resulting in higher take-up rates. One PHA staff member noted—

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

35

When they [the PCWA caseworkers] leave, you lose those contacts. You’ve got to spread the word about the program because you go there one month, and six months later, they’re all gone.

You sit there waiting for referrals to come in, and you’ve got new people there that you’ve got to retrain about what is FUP.

Another PHA staff member said—

When you have a consistent staff in place, the communication is better. The process flow is better. Your referrals are coming in better. When people have changed, department heads are changing, and then [PCWA caseworkers] are not quite sure where referrals are going and who to refer, then your referrals may slow up.

The PHA staff interviewed noted that marketing FSS only during the voucher briefing, when youth are overwhelmed by all the information presented to them and distracted by concerns with homelessness, is not sufficient. Staff noted that by the time youth reach the end of the voucher briefing, “they just want keys.” Enrolling youth often requires persistent outreach rather than one-time marketing and requires more than an informational sheet.

PHA staff mentioned that a lack of sufficient services for youth and burdensome program requirements make it hard to meet youth participants’ needs and retain them. Several PHA staff mentioned that supportive services providers do not have the capacity to engage youth for as long as they need. One PHA staff member noted that retaining youth in FUP is challenging due to the extensive requirements for youth, such as recertifications and informing the PHA of every change of employment and shift in income. Youth also require a high level of engagement and reminders from PHA staff to help them through the recertification procedures; staff are limited in their capacity to help them meet those needs. Furthermore, many PHA staff noted that youth participants also have unique needs requiring adaptations of the program to better meet those needs and allow FSS program coordinators to serve youth better.

Do youth aging out of foster care have unique needs or require unique services?

UNIQUE YOUTH NEEDS

FUP-FSS youth have unique needs because of their prior history of abuse or neglect and their experiences in the foster care system, which often include placement instability and other significant trauma. The Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth revealed that two-fifths of the study population (youth in foster care at age 17) had experienced four or more placements, and 60 percent had been in at least one group placement setting (Courtney, Terao, and Bost, 2004). An evaluation of the Life Skills Training program in Los Angeles reported that youth in the study population (youth in foster care at age 17) had experienced an average of 5.7

different out-of-home placements and had been removed from their homes an average of 1.3 times. The evaluation 36

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

sample’s youth spent an average of 8.5 years in out-of-home placements, with a median of roughly 7.8 years spent in care (Courtney et al., 2008). In line with these studies’ findings, an FSS program coordinator highlighted that the youth they work with had been placed in several different homes by the time they aged out of foster care, and it is hard for these youth to imagine what housing stability might look like and what the benefits; could be. This FSS

program coordinator said—

How can you know what stability is? Unless you taste a lime, how do you know it’s sour? It’s a struggle to know what stability … means.

Public Housing Agency (PHA) staff interviewed across the sites noted that although some families participating in FSS may have experienced similar housing instability, it is much more common among participating youth and should be considered when determining how services are administered and goals are set.

Some youth participants lack basic independent living skills and are experiencing many things for the first time while in the FSS program. One PHA staff member said the youth are “starting fresh in the world” when they have aged out of foster care. These youth may not know how to open a savings account, apply for a job, or obtain a driver’s license, or they may not have been taught to drive or to keep an apartment clean. They are often unaccustomed to living alone and have no experience dealing with a landlord. The PHA staff member noted that older participants and other FSS families usually have at least some basic life skills, such as having been to a bank, applied for a job, or driven a vehicle; the lack of basic life skills distinguishes participating youth.

In addition, PHA staff reported that FUP-FSS youth often present with a range of needs that went unaddressed during their time in foster care. These needs include mental health services to treat problems originating from past trauma (such as post-traumatic stress disorder, eating disorders, anxiety, and depression) and basic medical and dental care. PHA and PCWA staff and youth participants noted that helping youth meet all these needs can strain both the supportive services providers and the FSS program coordinators. Although other FSS participants also have unaddressed issues, older participants’ needs tend not to be as severe as those of participating youth, according to staff.

Finally, FSS program coordinators noted that follow-through and communication can be a challenge for youth participants, particularly if they lack consistent access to a phone or computer, and because they tend to lack trust in adults, particularly government workers who are monitoring them for a program. PHA staff noted that it takes time for staff to build trust with the youth and mentioned that due to their past experience, youth could interpret adult attention as monitoring and controlling, and it is harder for them to understand that their FSS program coordinator is there to help them meet their self-identified goals. Multiple PHA staff members reported that participating youth, like many individuals in their late teens and early 20s, are not particularly responsible and do FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

37

not follow through. Although followup can be a problem for all FSS participants, staff noted that it is especially true for participant youth.

ADAPTATIONS TO MEET UNIQUE YOUTH NEEDS

Survey responses indicated that about one-third of the PHAs (10) alter FSS services to meet the needs of FUP-FSS

youth (exhibit 27). Alteration is more common in medium- and high-participation demonstration sites than in sites with low participation (where only one in seven PHAs reported altering FSS services).

EXHIBIT 27.

PHA-Reported FSS Service Alteration

Has your agency altered your FSS services to meet the needs of FUP-FSS participating youth?

Group 1 (low

Group 2

Group 3

participation)

(medium

(high

Total

participation) participation)

No

6

11

2

19

Yes

1

5

4

10

Total

7

16

6

29

n = 29.

Source: 2020–2021 PHA Survey

PHA survey respondents reported altering FSS services in a variety of ways, including developing additional partnerships with other community service providers (five agencies), altering the mode of interaction between FSS

program coordinators and youth (five agencies), and adapting the Individual Training and Services Plan (ITSP) for youth (five agencies). Two agencies each reported changing the frequency of meetings with FSS program coordinators and adapting FSS graduation requirements for youth.

The PHA staff interviewed noted that making adaptations to address the unique needs of youth appears to help staff more successfully engage youth participants in services to meet their ITSP goals, and staff can better support youth in their journey toward self-sufficiency. Adaptations include increasing the frequency of contact, providing more intensive FSS services, and being flexible concerning expectations. One PHA has built strong relationships with partner agencies that have experience working with youth. Another PHA has responded to the lack of independent living skills among FUP-FSS youth by engaging them in more intentional conversations about how to be a respectful tenant and by providing free classes on how to make cleaning supplies.

Because youth tend to disengage when they find that the staff are overbearing or micromanaging, FSS program coordinators said that giving youth autonomy in setting their goals and supporting their achievement of whatever goals they set for themselves are key to sustaining youth engagement. One FSS program coordinator noted—

38

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

Really, it’s not about us and our agenda. It’s about what individuals want to do and meeting them where they’re at.

Collaboration: PHAs, PCWAs, and Other Partners

What are the PCWA staff perspectives on the demonstration?

The interviewed PCWA staff were often not directly involved in the demonstration. They described their primary role as verifying youth eligibility for FUP. They have little interaction with youth in the demonstration as they transition to the FSS program or even within FUP itself. PCWAs are required to provide youth with supportive services, which may include case management, for a minimum of 18 months through FUP. However, several PCWAs included for staff interviews contract these services out, meaning that PCWA staff have little involvement with youth after their FUP referral. One PCWA staff member noted that their community partners have large caseloads and may have limited capacity to offer the level of case management some youth might need.

Furthermore, participating youth are not required to engage in the supportive services provided with the FUP

voucher, which could be another reason why many PCWA staff interviewed were unfamiliar with the demonstration.

Some sites use funds obtained through the John H. Chafee Foster Care Program for Successful Transition to Adulthood to provide supportive services to youth after they enter FUP. These funds can be used up to age 21.

However, youth staying in extended federal foster care may remain in care until age 21. The Family First Prevention Services Act of 2018 extended eligibility for Chafee-funded services to age 23 in states with federally funded (or equivalent) extended foster care. This policy change could help PCWAs provide supportive services to youth after their 21st birthday (Brewsaugh, Richardson, and Loveless, 2021).

The few PCWA staff members who knew about the demonstration noted that its benefits include the voucher extension and the provision of additional supports during the transition to adulthood. However, consistent with feedback from other interviews conducted, these PCWA staff members were skeptical about many youth becoming self-sufficient.

At one site, PCWA staff suggested that providing youth with more information about the services and supports available through the demonstration, including the escrow account, could increase youth engagement. The staff believes that youth do not fully understand what the escrow account is and how they can use it.

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

39

What community partnerships are being engaged in by agencies?

About 40 percent of the surveyed PHAs indicated partnering with a CoC provider to identify FUP-eligible youth; 15 agencies receiving new FUP voucher allocations in FY 2017 to 2019 were required to do so. However, these partnerships are not a primary source of referrals, and PHA staff noted that they do not have specific and regular meetings with the CoC provider alone.

The PHA survey reveals a range of engagement with other local partners (exhibit 28). Two-thirds of respondents indicated partnering with community service providers to provide services to FUP-FSS youth. Of that group, about 40 percent (7 of 17) indicated that they had established new partnerships with local providers to serve FUP-FSS

youth. Two of the three sites that participated in more in-depth interviews have partner agencies to administer social services. They both communicate regularly with their respective housing authorities to discuss specific client issues and have been given a specific contact name.

EXHIBIT 28.

PHA-Reported FUP Partnerships

Yes

No

Count

Share of

Respondents

Count

Share of

Respondents

Does your agency partner with a

CoC to administer FUP? (n=28)

11

39%

17

61%

Does your agency currently partner

with community service providers to

provide self-sufficiency services to

17

68%

8

32%

FUP-FSS youth? (n=25)

Has your agency established any

new partnerships with community

service providers specifically to

7

41%

6

35%

provide self-sufficiency services to

FUP-FSS youth? (n=17)*

* Includes two “don’t know” responses and two nonresponses; only PHAs responding to the question are included in the n. Only the 17 PHAs answering “yes” in the second question were asked the third question.

Source: 2020–2021 PHA Survey

Some PHA staff mentioned having the CoC as an active partner; having the CoC as a partner was required in the past two HUD NOFAs for FUP awards. The main role of the CoC, according to PHA staff, is to identify FUP-eligible youth through the coordinated entry system. This step can help identify youth experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness and those who self-report as having been in foster care.

40

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

Has the FUP-FSS partnership led to more meaningful collaboration generally between PHAs, PCWAs, and other partners?

Of PHA survey respondents, only half (15 of 30) indicated having regular meetings with the PCWA about serving FUP youth, whether participants in the demonstration or FUP youth more broadly (exhibit 29). Seven respondents indicated having regular meetings on the FUP-FSS Demonstration specifically. High-participation programs (group 3) were the most likely to report meeting regularly on FUP or FUP-FSS (5 of 6) and on the demonstration specifically (3 of 6).

EXHIBIT 29.

PHA-Reported Meetings with PCWAs on FUP

At any point since the start of demonstration participation, has your agency had regular meetings with the PCWA about serving FUP or FUP-FSS eligible youth?

Group 1 (low

Group 2

Group 3

participation)

(medium

(high

Total

Response

participation) participation)

No, we have not had regular meetings.

3

11

1

15

Yes, on FUP generally.

3

3

2

8

Yes, on FUP generally and on the FUP-FSS

Demonstration program.

1

2

0

3

Yes, on the FUP-FSS Demonstration program.

0

1

3

4

n = 30.

Source: 2020–2021 PHA Survey

PCWA survey respondents indicated that the demonstration has been more likely to lead to increased communications with the PHA than to operational changes (exhibit 30). Although the low PCWA survey response rate prohibits extrapolation to the larger PCWA universe, the PCWAs whose representatives responded tend to partner with demonstration sites with high participation rates.

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

41

EXHIBIT 30.

PCWA-Reported Partnerships with PHAs

Yes

No

Has the way the partnership between

your agency and the PHA operates

changed since the FUP-FSS

4

9

Demonstration began?

Has there been more communication

between your agency and the PHA since

9

4

the FUP-FSS Demonstration began?

Have there been more meetings between

your agency and the PHA since the FUP-

7

6

FSS Demonstration began?

n = 13.

Source: 2020–2021 PCWA Survey

Most of the staff interviewed described the relationship between the PHA and PCWA as strained. Consistent with the survey findings, PHA staff noted that PCWA staff fail to refer youth to FUP or inform them about the demonstration. PHAs acknowledge that they need to provide PCWAs with more frequent training due to high PCWA staff turnover. Representatives of sites where PHA and PCWA staff meet more regularly report more positive relationships. One PCWA staff member reported—

In the [quarterly] meeting, we share success stories and suggestions for trainings for FUP recipients … [These meetings are] a good forum to educate about each other’s programs.

Several PHA and PCWA staff noted that having the name of someone to go to supports having a productive partnership. One PHA staff member said —

We meet every month [with the PCWA]. We know each other and are comfortable calling or emailing each other for assistance.

Staff also noted that, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, standard interactions and communication between the agencies were more limited.

On average, PHA survey respondents reported providing PCWAs with more training than they reported receiving from PCWAs. Most PHA representatives reported providing training on topics such as FUP eligibility, other FUP

requirements, leasing processes, and the voucher timeline (exhibit 31). Seventy-five percent of PHA survey respondents reported providing an overview of the FUP-FSS Demonstration, and 81 percent highlighted the extended voucher timeline. Yet fewer were likely to report training PCWAs on some FSS-specific topics, including the Contract of Participation, ITSP, and escrow account. Lack of key information could contribute to the PCWAs’

limited marketing of the FSS program to FUP-eligible youth.

42

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

EXHIBIT 31.

PHA-Reported Training Topics for PCWA Staff

On which of the following topics does your staff provide the PCWA with training?

Yes

No

Topic

Count

Share of

Respondents

Count

Share of

Respondents

FUP voucher eligibility

23

82%

5

18%

Other FUP requirements

23

82%

5

18%

FUP-FSS extended voucher

timeline

22

81%

5

19%

Housing search and lease-up

processes within FUP

21

75%

7

25%

Overview of the FUP-FSS

Demonstration program

21

75%

7

25%

FSS Contract of Participation

14

52%

13

48%

FSS escrow account

13

48%

14

52%

Tracking and reporting

requirements associated with

12

46%

14

54%

FUP

FSS ITSP

10

38%

16

62%

ITSP = Individual Training and Services Plan.

n = 28.

Note: Respondents were asked to select all that applied.

Source: 2020–2021 PHA Survey

Sixty-six percent of PHA survey respondents reported receiving training from PCWAs on referral practices; 45

percent reported receiving training on how FUP-eligible youth are identified (exhibit 32). Notably, only 34 percent reported receiving training on the characteristics of youth who age out of foster care and their housing or other service needs, which is key to understanding how to adapt an FSS program for this population. No more than one-third reported receiving training on any of the other topics. HUD offers online training on the FSS program, including best practices for program operations and administration, service plan and approach, goal setting and advancement, case management, and increasing earnings and building financial capacity. However, none of the staff interviewed referred to this online training tool, nor were they explicitly asked about it in the survey or during interviews.

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

43

EXHIBIT 32.

PHA-Reported PCWA Training Topics for PHA Staff

On which of the following topics does the PCWA provide your staff with training?

Yes

No

Topic

Count

Share of

Respondents

Count

Share of

Respondents

How [the PCWA] refers FUP-

eligible youth to your agency

19

66%

10

34%

How [the PCWA] identifies FUP-

eligible youth

13

45%

16

55%

Characteristics of youth who

age out of foster care and their

10

34%

19

66%

housing or other service needs

Types of housing search

assistance provided to FUP-

eligible youth by [the PCWA] or

8

28%

21

72%

partner providers

Types of supportive services

provided to FUP-eligible youth

by [the PCWA] or partner

8

28%

21

72%

providers

Other (specify)

3

10%

3

10%

n = 29.

Note: Respondents were asked to select all that applied.

Source: 2020–2021 PHA Survey

Youth Voice

This section highlights the voices of nine youth with lived experience with FUP-FSS. These youth aged out of foster care and are participating in or recently graduated from the FUP-FSS Demonstration. They represent four sites, but the majority (six of the nine) come from just one. This concentration of interviews at one site limits exposure to the range of demonstration administrative features and staff, but the individual experiences of these youth provide a valuable perspective.

How do youth navigate and perceive FUP and FUP-FSS?

MOTIVATION TO ENROLL AND APPLICATION PROCESS

Several of the youth interviewed learned about FUP while experiencing homelessness or being “on the verge” of homelessness; some were parents struggling to care for themselves and their children, and the FUP program came

“with lots of resources.” Most youth had heard about the program through their PCWA-referred supportive services provider, such as an independent living coordinator or a counselor at a YMCA. One youth had heard about FUP directly from the PHA.

44

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

Although a few youth had difficulty recalling the FUP application process, most of the youth interviewed remembered it as being relatively easy. However, those youth received help with the application from their caseworkers. One youth described it as “far too long” and suggested “put[ting] everything in layman’s terms” so the youth can understand it.

All the youth were motivated to participate in FUP because of the housing subsidy. One youth compared FUP to the broader HCV program and thought FUP would provide an opportunity to develop more responsibility: It kind of reminded me of Section 8 a little bit because my bio mom was part of Section 8. So it kind of had the same feelings as Section 8, but there’s limitations to this one more than just the Section 8 one—the time limit and general area it can be used for—but it’s a beneficial housing voucher for many people. Especially for me. I was coming out of the extended foster care system, so I didn’t have much money set aside because I never really knew how to do a budget or anything like that. This was a great opportunity to have a place of my own and also, at the same time, it would allow me to learn the responsibilities more than what I learned during my independent living transitional housing program.

After completing the FUP application, the youth participated in the voucher briefing. Through that briefing, they learned more about the voucher, including how long it lasts and where it can be used. Some youth participants mentioned that they remembered receiving information about the FSS program during the voucher briefing.

Several youth were drawn to FSS because it would allow them to retain the FUP voucher longer. They expressed how challenging it is to earn enough money to cover rent and how important that subsidy is to help maintain their housing. The subsidy is especially important for youth who are in school, who have additional childcare expenses, or who are in low-wage jobs. The youth were also attracted to the FSS escrow account. One had used escrow funds to purchase a vehicle. Another was planning to use the escrow funds to make a downpayment on a house. One youth participant said—

My time with the program, I think, is over February 2022, according to contracts. So that is very soon. I have extended my lease with my apartment up to six months … With my income now, I do make enough to pay my rent. What I plan on doing, though, is I started looking at houses in the [local] area. And I’ve been also looking into first-time homebuyer programs. That’s what my plan is to do, is to put a plan together and execute it. It’s not all the way together, but I have an idea of what I want to do … At least about the minimum, ten to twelve thousand is a good deposit for a first-time homebuyer. Some people get more; it’s different for different people. It’s based off of your income. So as long as you have an income, that money will keep accumulating.

So I think they gave us a five-year contract, so mine is about to come to an end soon, but over five years, you would think if I had a job consistently for five years and 200 [dollars] is going in every month, 200 times 12 times 5—that’s a good amount of money … They give us the best advice possible, but it’s up to you to take it and be serious with it.

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

45

One youth participant was motivated to enroll in FSS by the prospect of having someone who could hold them accountable (but not tell them what to do), remind them of tasks that they needed to complete, serve as a

“cheerleader,” and connect them to resources.

HOUSING SEARCH

Finding housing was primarily the youths’ responsibility. One youth participant mentioned doing independent online searches on general websites that list apartments for rent, and another mentioned looking at the classifieds section of the newspaper. Some youth mentioned receiving assistance with their housing search from their independent living counselor or case manager at a transitional housing program. One youth participant mentioned that their city was expensive, so they could afford housing only in certain areas, and explained why this made finding housing difficult—

It was pretty difficult because I didn’t just think about the voucher, using it for the apartment, but I was also thinking about the apartment—what would happen after if I didn’t have my voucher or if my voucher ran out or something like that. Could I still afford this apartment if I really wanted to? Stuff like that. But with the [city] housing voucher, there’s a limitation on the area, and I don’t know if you know, but [this city] is not cheap to live in. I had to look [in this specific vicinity], but even then, I found limited areas that were available. I even looked at the low-income HUD housing website, where they have all sorts of different apartments that take these vouchers, but the waiting lists for them are one-, two-, three-, four-year-long waiting lists. I pretty much found a studio that was borderline [in the allowed area]. Even then, that was the cheapest I could find—a studio for like a thousand dollars not including utilities.

Youth from the same site reported receiving assistance furnishing their apartments, once they had leased up, from a local nonprofit organization targeting foster care children and youth. Most youth had not had problems paying rent before the COVID-19 pandemic; several said they lost their jobs or started working fewer hours because of the pandemic. One youth described not “getting any money at a point. I had to pay for rent or food—that was my situation.” Several of the youth reported being behind in rent because of the pandemic but expected to be able to catch up on or get help with rent soon.

All the youth interviewed were housed; several had moved from their first apartment. Those who had moved typically did so because they wanted to live in a larger unit or a “better” neighborhood, although one youth had moved to flee an abusive partner. Another youth had moved multiple times and was now living in a house.

46

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

Do youth feel that FUP and FSS meet their needs?

PROGRESS TOWARD GOALS

All youth interviewed had identified self-sufficiency goals with support from their FSS program coordinators.

These goals included finding or maintaining a job, starting or returning to college, rebuilding credit, purchasing a vehicle, and obtaining a driver’s license. Some youth had found jobs that matched their interests or skills; importantly, they had maintained these jobs, something they had not done in the past, and one participant said—

[Before the program], I couldn’t hold a job. No matter where I worked, I didn’t like where I worked; it wasn’t my thing, and I wanted to keep bouncing from job to job. That was the biggest barrier for me. [I couldn’t hold a job because] it wasn’t what I loved to do. I love to cook. I love to bake. I’m a chef where I am now. That’s what I love to do—that’s what I’ve always wanted to do since I was 12 years old. And now I’m doing it, and that’s what I love.

Another youth participant, who had previously struggled to stay employed due to conflicts with coworkers, described her goals—

One, to get a car; two, to maintain employment; and three, to stay employed. Once I get a job, I have to stay employed. I had an issue with when I get a job, I would get into an altercation, or I didn’t like that they didn’t pay me my paycheck when they said they would; I would get upset, and I would quit. So, it’s not even just about having employment or being able to get a job; it’s can you keep a job … I achieved all three of those goals. One goal is [a] never-ending goal: staying employed.

This youth completed security training and is working as a security officer.

Other youth participants interviewed were struggling with education or employment; one youth participant had been preparing to enroll in college before the pandemic began but, at the time of the interview, was working at two jobs and no longer had time to go back to school. Two youth participants acknowledged that the demonstration offered a wide range of services to help them achieve their goals, but they lacked the motivation to take advantage of that support.

BARRIERS TO SELF-SUFFICIENCY

Some youth described personal barriers to self-sufficiency. One youth participant said that youth in foster care are

“lost” and need to “know who they are.” This youth described her personal growth journey: That was definitely me. I was just now, within the last year, finding out who I was as a person.

During the COVID situation, I decided to go on a full cleanse … I did a full meditated thing, and with that, I was able to find out who I am, and how I am, and basically fall in love with myself again. I think that’s the biggest thing I see in foster care: people are just lost because no one taught them to identify who they are. They’re listening to this and that around them; they are just trying to find their pathway … I’m here, but I need to keep going on that pathway. I feel like you don’t truly stop learning about yourself . . I didn’t know who I was as a person because I didn’t FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

47

have that opportunity growing up, and I needed to take that time to know what strengths and qualities I offered to myself and the world around me.

Another youth participant highlighted a need for mentors who “have already been through what they[‘ve] been through” and can guide them along.

Other youth participants noted barriers that were more systemic, including a lack of mental and behavioral health supports. One participant said—

Speaking from experience, I’ve seen a lot of mental health problems that people have and young people battling addiction on the streets. So I think definitely more mental health resources and resources just for young people dealing with addiction and poverty [are needed].

Other youth participants pointed to a need for assistance with childcare and transportation. One youth obtained a driver’s license after receiving help through FSS in getting a learner’s permit and paying for the driving test.

Youth participants also regarded 5 years of rental assistance as inadequate, particularly for those who needed mental health services and time to recover from trauma. One youth, who noted that “those 5 years can be gone in the blink of an eye,” suggested that the time limit be based on individual circumstances.

When asked specifically about how the demonstration could be improved, youth often suggested advertising it more broadly because they had not been aware of it before applying for FUP. They also mentioned offering more services for a longer time, including more mental health resources or resources for those dealing with addiction.

ROLE OF FSS PROGRAM COORDINATORS

Youth reported having regular contact with their FSS program coordinators, typically interacting three to four times a month by telephone or via email (not in person because of the COVID-19 pandemic). FSS program coordinators inform youth about their escrow account and connect them to employment opportunities and resources, such as a COVID-19 relief fund or supports for youth who have been in foster care. Youth frequently mentioned their FSS program coordinator’s “positive attitude” and “positive aura,” which gave them the confidence to continue progressing toward their goals, and one youth participant noted the FSS program coordinator’s willingness to go above and beyond what is required:

Even if it is something outside of their job description, if it’s something that you need help with, they still will do whatever they can to look for those resources for you. For example, with childcare stuff—that’s not in their job description to help you find childcare, but they are still trying to help me with that.

48

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

Youth Demonstration Participation

This section of the report details staff reflections and perceptions on FUP-FSS youth participation.

What do PHA staff report are the goals youth pursue, and how do PHA and PCWA staff believe youth benefit from the demonstration?

GOALS

PHA staff reported needing to find the right balance between encouraging youth to set ambitious, longer-term goals and encouraging them to set short-term attainable goals so that they do not feel overwhelmed.

PHA staff noted that youth participants’ goals often center around education or employment. Education is seen as a means to increase income. Multiple frontline staff stated that they encourage youth to further their education as much as possible—which can include anything from obtaining a general equivalency diploma to earning a master’s degree. Employment goals are initially focused on finding and maintaining a job and then progressing to more gainful employment.

Financial wellness is also a common goal for youth. PHA staff mentioned that many youth do not have a credit history, have a poor credit score, or have had a relative fraudulently open an account in their name. PHA staff noted that the financial wellness steps FSS program coordinators work on with youth participants include setting up savings and checking accounts, making regular payments on credit cards, and clearing previous medical debt or credit fraud. 33 PHA staff also noted that youth are often motivated to get their credit in order because they want to start a small business or buy a home.

Securing personal transportation is also a key goal youth set, as a large share of youth exiting foster care lack a driver’s license or car, which can be a major barrier to education, employment, and ultimately, self-sufficiency.

33 PCWAs are required by law to provide youth in foster care who are age 14 and older a copy of their consumer credit report annually and to ensure that they receive assistance in interpreting the credit report and resolving any inaccuracies (see “The Credit Check Requirement for Youth in Foster Care: Q&A on Implementation,” February 2015,

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c3e3494e2ccd19ef929d5f7/t/5c40da4eb9144379954b2291/1547754063323/YouthCredit

CheckToolkit-QA.pdf). This credit check requirement also applies to youth in foster care beyond their 18th birthday. The requirements are specified by the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act of 2011 (Public Law No. 112–

34, 125 Stat. 369, https://www.congress.gov/112/plaws/publ34/PLAW-112publ34.pdf), and the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act of 2014 (Public Law No. 113–183, 128 Stat. 1919,

https://www.congress.gov/113/plaws/publ183/PLAW-113publ183.pdf).

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

49

DEMONSTRATION BENEFITS FOR YOUTH

PHA and PCWA staff identified the longer term of housing assistance as the primary benefit of the demonstration for youth. They mentioned that the extra time is crucial to helping youth achieve stability. One PCWA staff said—

For youth who are able to be successful on the voucher, yes, I think it’s a huge difference.

Extending the length of time that youth can remain on the voucher is huge.

Both PHA and PCWA staff also noted the importance of offering youth ongoing support and training which give youth time to connect with resources they might not otherwise be able to access. PHA staff also highlighted the escrow account as a great way for youth to build assets. Escrow accounts reward participants for achieving goals, staying enrolled in school, maintaining employment, saving money, and increasing their income. Escrow balances vary, but PHA staff reported that successful participants have been able to graduate with thousands of dollars in savings. PHA staff also reported that youth commonly use their escrow funds to pay a security deposit, purchase a car, or make a downpayment on a house. In addition, several staff members observed that youth who participate in the demonstration experience an increased sense of agency and self-confidence as a result of achieving their goals and becoming more self-sufficient.

What services are youth using in the program?

According to the PHA staff interviewed, youth typically receive some form of services for the duration of their involvement in the demonstration. These services vary depending on individual needs and change over time as the youth progress toward their goals. Most FSS program coordinators reported meeting with youth participants once a month on average, the same frequency with which they meet with FSS families. However, meetings may occur more frequently with youth participants who need more support, particularly when they first enroll in the FSS

program.

PHA staff noted that most of the FSS services youth participants receive are related to education (for example, college navigators or one-time financial assistance with books), job training (for example, apprenticeship programs), or employment (for example, workforce boards, résumé writing, interview preparation, or job search assistance). PHA staff mentioned that FSS program coordinators also provide or connect youth to other services, including financial wellness classes, tenant education courses, parenting classes, assistance obtaining a driver’s license or other identification documentation, and help finding childcare. Staff at two sites identified credit assistance and financial literacy courses as the most important services they offer to youth.

50

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

Short-Term Outcomes for Youth: Length of Stay and

Income over Time

The demonstration is still in its early stages, which complicates efforts to examine outcomes indicative of youth progress toward self-sufficiency. The researchers analyzed two short-term outcomes by using the available administrative data: length of time in subsidized housing and change in income over time. The first analysis aimed to identify developing patterns in how long demonstration participants are staying in assisted housing, with the expectation that they would be staying longer, on average, than nonparticipants. The second aimed to identify developing pathways to self-sufficiency by examining how incomes for demonstration participants are changing over time compared with those for nonparticipants.

How does demonstration participants’ length of stay in subsidized housing compare with that of nonparticipants?

FUP-FSS youth receive housing assistance for a longer period than FUP-only youth (exhibit 33). FUP-FSS youth who exited federally assisted housing between 2017 and 2020 had been in subsidized housing for 497 days, on average, compared with 399 days for FUP-only youth at demonstration PHAs and 406 days for FUP-only youth at non-demonstration PHAs. The median length of stay in subsidized housing was also longer for FUP-FSS youth, at 445 days, compared with 350 days for FUP-only youth at demonstration PHAs and 364 days for FUP-only youth at non-demonstration PHAs.

EXHIBIT 33.

Length of Time Receiving Housing Assistance before Exit for FUP Youth

FUP-FSS Youth at

FUP Youth (Non-FSS)

FUP Youth at Non-

Demonstration PHAs

at Demonstration PHAs

Demonstration PHAs

Days between Entry and Exit

Mean

497

399

406

Median

445

350

364

Number of

FUP youth

162

296

331

with exit data

Notes: Figures include only FUP youth who exited from assistance in 2017, 2018, 2019, or 2020. Forty-three FUP youth at non-demonstration PHAs were flagged as participating in FSS.

Source: Authors’ analysis of HUD PIC, 2016–2020

Exhibit 34 compares the length of stay in subsidized housing for FUP-FSS youth, FUP-only youth at demonstration PHAs, and FUP-only youth at non-demonstration PHAs. The vertical axis shows the percentage of youth remaining in subsidized housing at a given point on the horizontal axis. FUP-FSS youth exit at a slower rate than FUP-only youth. For example, after 1,000 days, more than 75 percent of FUP-FSS youth remain, compared with FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

51

only 50 percent of FUP-only youth at demonstration sites and about 60 percent of FUP youth at non-demonstration sites. It is not surprising that demonstration participants are staying in subsidized housing longer, and divergence grows over time, as the extension of the FUP voucher is a key component of the demonstration.

EXHIBIT 34.

Length of Time Until Exit from Housing Assistance

Non-FSS FUP Youth at Demonstration PHAs

FUP-FSS Youth at Demonstration PHAs

FUP Youth at Non-Demonstration PHAs

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Days

Note: The data for non-FSS FUP youth (at both demonstration and non-demonstration PHAs) top-coded at 1,095 days (36 months).

Source: Authors’ analysis of HUD PIC, 2017–2020

A regression technique, the Cox proportional-hazards model, was used to determine factors associated with length of time in subsidized housing. Overall, even controlling for other factors, findings revealed that FUP-FSS youth tend to stay in subsidized housing longer than FUP-only youth. Other factors associated with an increased length of stay include higher vacancy rates, higher county poverty rates, and higher county youth unemployment rates. Of these factors, higher vacancy rates may seem counterintuitive, as lower vacancy rates would indicate a more constricted housing market; it may be another proxy for weaker local economic conditions or indicate omitted variable bias. Fair Market Rents and participant household incomes are not related to the length of stay (appendix exhibit D.4).

52

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

How do the incomes of demonstration participants compare with those of nonparticipants over time?

To identify whether or not participation in FUP-FSS is affecting youth incomes over time, a cohort analysis was conducted comparing the incomes of FUP-FSS youth and non-FSS youth in FUP over time; this analysis focused on FUP youth who obtained housing in 2017, 2018, and 2019 (exhibit 35) and who had incomes reported in PIC in 2020. Two findings stand out. First, even with this subset of FUP youth, initial incomes for FUP-FSS youth are lower than those of non-FSS youth in FUP (although the differences are much smaller in the 2019 cohort, and the few cases in which demonstration sites have both participants and nonparticipants indicate that within sites, differences at entry are not significant; see appendix exhibit D.3). Second, there are indications that incomes may be increasing more quickly for demonstration participants than for nonparticipants, at least for the 2018 and 2019

cohorts. The demonstration is new, and, at most, 4 years of income data are available. This is a preliminary analysis, and the disruptions caused by COVID-19 in 2020 cannot be overstated. Finally, it is possible that, with a longer voucher period, at least some FUP-FSS youth may be more willing to engage in education and forego some forms of employment in the short term.

EXHIBIT 35.

Mean Incomes by Cohort over Time, 2017–20

Percent change, entry to

2017

2018

2019

2020

2020

Demonstration PHA FUP-FSS,

New 2017 (n=11)

$6,694

$4,948 $10,010 $10,533

57%

Demonstration PHA FUP-FSS,

New 2018 (n=31)

$6,865

$9,144 $12,174

77%

Demonstration PHA FUP-FSS,

New 2019 (n=24)

$9,168 $12,916

41%

Demonstration PHA non-FSS

FUP youth, New 2017 (n=31

$10,185 $12,253 $12,848 $16,169

59%

Demonstration PHA non-FSS

FUP youth, New 2018 (n=40)

$12,094 $14,625 $19,025

57%

Demonstration PHA non-FSS

FUP youth, New 2019 (n=45)

$10,683 $13,271

24%

Non-demonstration PHA FUP,

New 2017 (n=17)

$8,432 $10,845

$9,657 $12,035

43%

Non-demonstration PHA FUP,

New 2018 (n=21)

$8,166 $11,673 $12,006

47%

Non-demonstration PHA FUP,

New 2019 (n=93)

$9,463 $12,171

29%

Notes: Figures include FUP youth voucher holders with any reported income in 2020. Not adjusted for inflation. Each “New 201X” row refers to a cohort of participants newly entering the program in that calendar year.

Source: Authors’ analysis of HUD PIC, 2017–2020

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

53

Staff Reflections

PHA and PCWA staff were asked during the interviews for their reflections on the demonstration and how it might be improved. PHA staff consistently noted that youth need more time to deal with the trauma they have experienced and to access mental health services before starting down the path toward self-sufficiency. As one PHA staff member said—

I don’t know if three years is enough … you’re dealing with a group of people that have had very negative life experiences, and it’s like, you’ve got to learn the positive to get where they need to be. I don’t want to undersell people because I’ve seen some phenomenal success stories out of FUP . . but that’s an extraordinary individual to do that.

Some would extend the term for housing assistance; others would eliminate the time limit altogether so that youth are treated the same as FUP families or other HCV participants. Given the current time limit, one PHA staff member suggested that requiring youth to learn money management skills and become financially literate could help them maintain stable housing in the future.

Staff members have different opinions about who they think can benefit most from FUP-FSS. Two PHA staff members suggested expanding FUP eligibility requirements so that youth who are motivated and doing well can participate, such as youth with higher incomes. As one explained—

Some of our kids that have jobs make too much money, so they can’t use the FUP voucher.

Again, we’re trying to help the ones that are trying to help themselves. Those are the ones that get denied.

Another PHA staff member suggested making eligibility criteria less stringent for youth who may be struggling, such as those with criminal backgrounds.

PHA staff also offered suggestions for addressing the housing needs of youth. One idea was to provide FUP youth with project-based housing, which would help youth who struggle to find landlords willing to rent to them and would provide a sense of community. Alternatively, PHAs could partner with landlords so that a small group of youth could live in the same building.

Both PCWA and PHA staff noted that youth would be better served if FSS were promoted to them early. As noted above, PHA staff feel that PCWA staff should do more to promote the FSS program, and one PCWA staff member agreed that they should promote FSS before youth are referred to FUP.

Finally, staff from both PHAs and PCWAs noted that more resources are needed to provide youth participants with the intensity of case management and other supports they need. As one PHA staff member said. “They’re just going day by day. When you see them, there’s so much work that needs to be poured into them to get them to really get to the level, but we don’t have the resources to do that.”

54

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

Conclusions

This section presents featured findings from this evaluation and recommendations for program improvements and reflects on future research that could build on this work.

Featured Findings

Take-up of the Family Unification Program by youth is low, even at many demonstration sites. The requirement that youth in Family Self-Sufficiency first be leased up with a FUP voucher has several implications: Low FUP

numbers lead to low potential FUP-FSS numbers and indicate that a key challenge for increasing FUP-FSS

participation is that sites have very few eligible youth with whom to work. However, as findings revealed that sites with recent FUP voucher awards show higher rates of FUP use by youth and higher FUP-FSS participation, setting aside new FUP vouchers may lead to increased take-up for FUP-FSS.

Low FUP-FSS enrollment and limited FUP take-up among youth more generally are also related to the limited engagement between Public Child Welfare Agencies (PCWAs) and Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) on these initiatives. PCWAs, although tasked with identifying FUP-eligible youth, are not familiar with FSS and are not actively recruiting FUP-eligible youth for the FUP-FSS Demonstration. More generally, PHA staff interviewed noted that PCWAs have high caseworker turnover and cannot keep up with the training to keep active staff informed of the FSS opportunity. Most PHA staff noted a strained relationship with the PCWAs for this reason.

But PCWAs are limited in their ability to keep in touch with youth, as their cases close upon their exit from foster care. PCWA caseworkers may refer youth to FUP during transition planning, but even if they inform youth about FSS, the decision to enroll is several months away. The demonstration, therefore, has unrealistic expectations for the role of the PCWA in the administration of FSS.

Sites with one designated FSS program coordinator for all FUP-FSS youth tend to have participants who are more engaged in the demonstration and better able to achieve their goals. This approach seems effective, as the FSS

program coordinator builds more exposure and experience working with youth and is better positioned to learn how best to approach and service these youth. FSS program coordinators interviewed at these sites noted the importance of trauma-informed approaches in dealing with youth, and they were more actively engaged in youth recruitment to FSS and ensuring that youth participants did not feel monitored but rather supported in achieving their self-determined goals. These sites tended to be ones with larger numbers of FUP youth, suggesting that they have more resources and structure in place to address youth in their administration of FUP and FSS.

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

55

The approaches sites take to encourage FSS enrollment for youth vary. Some demonstration sites encourage FUP

youth to enroll in FSS early, believing that the sooner youth start working on their goals, the better off they will be.

Other sites wait to enroll FUP youth later in their voucher tenure, closer to the 18-month end of supportive services or the expiration of the voucher, to strategically extend the length of services or the length of the voucher.

Representatives of sites that engage early emphasize the importance of building a trusting relationship between the youth and the FSS program coordinator and note that developing the ability to make and work toward goals will help youth manage other life challenges. Representatives of sites that engage later argue that eligible youth have other life issues to manage before they can focus on self-sufficiency.

Although they are a small and unrepresentative group, most of the youth interviewed said they are using the FUPFSS Demonstration to help them meet their goals; learn life skills; and secure independent transportation, gainful employment, educational attainment, and financial savings. All but one youth expressed gratitude for the opportunity to benefit from extra support. Even two youth who lacked the motivation to take advantage of the FSS

services were grateful for the opportunity. Most youth interviewed had the same FSS program coordinator, so their responses may be specific to that person; however, the youth were especially trusting of their FSS program coordinator, who held them accountable in a supportive way, advocated for them in various aspects of their lives, helped them build confidence in their ability to meet their goals, and actively worked in the community to generate meaningful opportunities tied to the priorities they expressed.

PHA and PCWA staff, and youth, indicated that the voucher length is inadequate to meet the needs of participating youth and should be extended or the time limit removed entirely. Although administrative data suggest that FUPFSS youth stay in subsidized housing less than 17 months on average, interview respondents consistently mentioned that the voucher time allotted is not sufficient for youth to achieve self-sufficiency. Furthermore, staff and youth also said that the length and depth of services are not adequate to help youth meet all their goals, as these individuals have acute and unresolved past trauma and untreated mental health issues and, especially, limited life skills and familiarity with how to successfully navigate education systems and the labor market and maintain housing.

Some sites have recognized the unique needs of youth eligible for FUP and have adapted their FSS program administration and services to account for these needs. These adaptations are likely to help the sites be more effective in recruiting and serving youth by better appealing to youth at their life stage and more effectively building trust so that youth engage and are more receptive to services. Adaptations include having the FSS program coordinator take a more active role in outreach for FSS recruitment, using a trauma-informed approach to serving youth, engaging with youth on their terms, advocating for youth to employers and landlords, and recognizing that small accomplishments by youth are still steps toward their goals.

56

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

Recommendations

This report offers policy and program recommendations for FUP youth and FUP-FSS for youth. Because youth cannot access FSS without first successfully leasing up a housing unit with a FUP voucher, the success of FUPFSS depends both on FUP program improvements and on FSS program improvements.

To improve the take-up of FUP by youth, the authors recommend new allocations of special purpose vouchers. The findings of this report show evidence of higher FUP participation rates among youth at sites with recent FUP

awards; allocating more special purpose vouchers will increase the opportunities for youth.

The time limit of the FUP voucher for youth should be extended beyond 36 months, if not eliminated, in line with the rules for families in FUP. 34 However, to determine how much to extend the voucher, further research should be conducted on the factors that lead youth to leave FUP before the full term of the voucher. It is important to understand the extent to which youth become income ineligible for the voucher or whether they give it up because the voucher’s restrictions are not compatible with their needs. The program may not be properly meeting the needs of youth, and FUP may be too restrictive to allow the benefit of the voucher to outweigh the costs of abiding by its terms.

Youth should be offered more assistance with the FUP application process and, once issued a voucher, with the housing search. The voucher application requirements are extensive, and the phrasing is formal and in language that may be difficult for youth to understand. FUP youth should also be offered more support in leasing up housing units with their vouchers. Youth should be provided support in the housing search and lease-up processes, given their lack of experience with these activities. A housing navigator can provide FUP youth with critical guidance on both the FUP application and where to begin the search process, how to find units in their price range, and how to approach landlords. They can also offer transportation assistance to visit units and attend landlord meetings. Lease agreements can be complicated documents, and a housing navigator can help translate the contract language into something accessible, ensuring that youth know the rules they are expected to follow to sustain their lease and avoid eviction. A housing navigator should be a required part of the FUP program for youth who is supplied by the PHA but has an integral role in the PHA-PCWA partnership. For example, the FUP liaison at the PCWA could include the housing navigator in the referral process to the PHA so the navigator is informed of what is being 34 Federal legislation passed in December 2020 (the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021) included language on a new law, the Fostering Stable Housing Opportunities Act (see https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ260/PLAW-116publ260.pdf).

HUD released an official notice (available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/01/24/2022-

01285/implementation-of-the-fostering-stable-housing-opportunities-amendments) implementing and providing guidance on the Act in January 2022. Some report recommendations are consistent with the provisions of this Act (for example, an extension of the FUP voucher term, an FSS enrollment requirement for FUP youth, accommodating unique youth needs). However, the PHAs involved in this study were not yet operating under the new specifications of this law during the study.

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

57

requested. The navigator can then contact the youth to see what help the youth needs in filling out the application and can ensure that all aspects of the application requirements are completed. With respect to housing search assistance, of the PHA survey respondents, 63 percent noted that the main reason youth do not successfully lease up with a FUP voucher is their failure to secure a unit before the housing search term expires. Also, about 90

percent of surveyed PHAs do not offer youth any additional housing search assistance beyond the offerings to all HCV participants.

PHAs should be actively encouraged to build partnerships with landlords or management companies to promote the acceptance of FUP youth as tenants. This approach may include offering incentives, such as covering rent while landlords bring units up to Housing Quality Standards, or building reputational capital by accepting community responsibility for FUP youth.

The authors recommend that the 18 months minimum of required supportive services by PCWAs for FUP youth be extended and expanded. Staff and youth agree that FUP youth need longer and deeper services, such as learning basic life skills that may not have been imparted to them—e.g., financial literacy—and mental health treatment to manage past trauma. In addition, staff and youth reported that youth still face unresolved issues with credit fraud after exiting foster care, which is often a barrier to securing housing, employment, and student loans; it also takes time to clear. Another means to lengthen services would be for Congress to increase the length of the FSS Contract of Participation, giving youth more time to receive FSS services with an FSS program coordinator. Having an advocate and someone to help them achieve their goals is critically important for youth, particularly those who have limited exposure to basic life tools and knowledge of navigating education systems and the labor market to maximize growth and development.

Programs should have a dedicated FSS program coordinator who serves all the FUP-FSS youth. Sites that have all youth reporting to the same FSS program coordinator are more engaged in the program and find that youth are better meeting their goals. Although the FUP-FSS Demonstration sites are not large enough to have an FSS

program coordinator serve only youth, some assign all youth to the same FSS program coordinator, even if that individual also holds a caseload of FSS families. This approach ensures that the one FSS program coordinator can better learn about youth needs and determine what adaptations in the administration of the program will allow the site to better serve its youth participants.

PCWAs should be required to provide training to FSS program coordinators on the needs of youth leaving foster care. PCWAs are most familiar with this population of youth, and they understand their needs and the strategies and trauma-informed approaches needed to work with them most effectively. This training can improve FSS

enrollment and enable FSS program coordinators to be more informed and better serve youth, supporting increased youth success in FUP-FSS. The training can also show PHAs how to adapt their FSS program administration to 58

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

better help youth achieve their goals. This training should be in addition to the training resources offered by HUD, 35 and the training schedule should reflect the frequency of staff turnover in the FSS program coordinator role.

Similarly, PHA staff could use these opportunities and others to remind PCWA staff about the demonstration and let youth know early that FUP and FSS are resources for them to consider in their transition plan. PCWAs can be more effective at marketing the demonstration if PHAs provide information (such as answers to frequently asked questions) to those individuals with more contact with transition-age youth—such as PCWA independent living workers, who work with youth to prepare them for the transition out of foster care.

After youth have exited foster care, PHA staff and supportive services providers, rather than PCWA staff, are in the best position to market FUP and FSS. Given that PHA staff reported that youth trying to get FUP are distracted by securing housing because they are experiencing or are at imminent risk of homelessness, it seems unlikely that knowledge of the FSS program would make much difference at the time of the voucher briefing alone. The PHA should be responsible for ensuring that the FSS program coordinator attends voucher briefings and follows up with youth after they lease up. Staff providing the 18 months minimum of supportive services required by FUP are also in a strong position to encourage FUP youth to enroll in FSS.

Future Research

This evaluation identifies program model components worth testing to offer concrete recommendations for a more effective program structure. Some model components are at the PHA’s discretion. First, some sites push to enroll youth in FSS early in their FUP term, whereas others wait until later. Staff offered compelling arguments during their interviews for each approach; it is unclear from this initial study which might be more effective.

Second, some sites allow participants to access their escrow accounts for goal-related expenses, and other sites allow access to the funds only upon FSS graduation or the termination of their FSS participation. Although best practices are discussed in the FSS guidebook, 36 the impact of the timing of account access on youth outcomes can be tested empirically. Further research into the best approaches to building savings—in terms of combinations that help maximize escrow account size while also motivating youth more toward achieving their goals—would highlight effective strategies to help youth achieve economic stability. Findings regarding the Jim Casey Youth 35 See “Welcome to the Family Self-Sufficiency Program Online Training, ” https://www.hudexchange.info/trainings/fss-

program-online-training/, and for a guidebook on best practices, see “Administering an Effective Family Self-Sufficiency Program,” https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/FSS-Program-Guidebook.pdf.

36 See “Administering an Effective Family Self-Sufficiency Program,” https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/FSS-

Program-Guidebook.pdf.

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

59

Opportunities Initiative’s Opportunity Passport, a matched-savings approach, could also help identify how to optimize use of the escrow account for youth in FSS. 37

Third, some sites have more than one FSS program coordinator but assign all youth participants to just one, whereas other sites spread them across multiple staff. It is important to determine whether consolidating youth to one contact is notably more effective or not.

This evaluation also suggests some potential tests of required program features not currently at the PHA’s discretion. Although many staff and youth noted during their interviews that the voucher time limit is too short, the analyses show that many FUP youth do not complete the full 36-month term. FUP-only youth stay enrolled in FUP

for about 13 months on average, and FUP-FSS participants stay on average about 16 to 16.5 months. Youth also expressed during interviews that they left the demonstration early due to challenges around household size specifications under the voucher for those who want a roommate; the burden of recertifications or reporting of income changes; limited access to neighborhoods in which youth want to live due to limitations in price range covered by local payment standards, or landlords willing to accept these youth as tenants; or other program requirements. Future research should survey youth who leave FUP early to better understand their motivations for leaving. This study did not gather the perspectives of FUP youth who opted not to enroll in FSS or opted not to enroll in FUP at all. A better understanding of why youth found these opportunities unappealing can help shape these programs to better meet the needs of youth facing challenging life circumstances. A possible investigation into the voucher time limit could also include offering some sites vouchers that are time unlimited, as are family vouchers, so that tests comparing sites with and without time limits can be conducted.

Finally, the FUP-FSS Demonstration sites have youth enrolled, but few have graduated. A longer-term evaluation of youth graduates of the demonstration can better determine whether these youth were able to maintain housing following graduation, whether they completed educational degrees, whether they secured careers (and both their level of income and the income potential for their field), what they used their escrow funds for, and whether they were able to meet their longer-term goals of self-sufficiency. Consistent and systematic collection of exit data would assist in these analyses and help identify the specific pathways people are taking out of assisted housing.

Staff also suggested that the program’s ability to point to successful graduates could encourage other youth to enroll in FSS, so future research should also explore how youth take-up rates are affected by having had successful graduates that can attest to the value of the program.

37 See “The Opportunity Passport: Building Assets for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care,”

https://assets.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/JCYOI-TheOpportunityPassport-2009.pdf#page=3.

60

FUP - FSS EVALUATION REPORT

Appendix A: FUP-FSS

Participant PHAs

EXHIBIT A.1

PHA Context

Extended

State/County

Moving to Foster Care to

PCWA

PHA Code

State

PHA Name

Work Site

Age 21

Structure

AZ001

AZ

City of Phoenix Housing

Department

State

AZ004

AZ

Housing and Community

Development Tucson

State

CA003

CA

Oakland Housing Authority

X

X

County

CA014

CA

Housing Authority of the

County of San Mateo

X

X

County

CA026

CA

Housing Authority of the

County of Stanislaus

X

X

County

CA027

CA

Housing Authority of the

County of Riverside

X

County

CA028

CA

Fresno County Housing

Authority

X

County

CA035

CA

Housing Authority of the City

of San Buenaventura

X

County

CA072

CA

Housing Authority of the

County of Santa Cruz

X

County

CA076

CA

Housing Authority of the City

of Santa Barbara

X

County

CA094

CA

Orange County Housing

Authority

X

County

CA125

CA

Vacavil e Housing Authority

X

County

CO041

CO

Fort Collins Housing

Authority

County

CO911

CO

Colorado Division of Housing

County

DE901

DE

Delaware State Housing

Authority

X

State

FL003

FL

Tampa Housing Authority

State

FL079

FL

Broward County Housing

Authority

State

HI003

HI

City and County of Honolulu

X

State

IL002

IL

Chicago Housing Authority

X

X

State

IL025

IL

Housing Authority of Cook

County

X

State

IL056

IL

Lake County Housing

Authority

X

State

IL083

IL

Winnebago County Housing

Authority

X

State

IL101

IL

DuPage Housing Authority

X

X

State

IN012

IN

New Albany Housing

Authority

X

State

APPENDIX

61

MD002

MD

Housing Authority of

Baltimore City

X

X

State

MD015

MD

Prince Georges County

Housing Authority

X

State

MD032

MD

Carroll County Housing

Authority

X

State

ME901

ME

Maine State Housing

Authority

X

State

MI001

MI

Detroit Housing Commission

X

State

MN002

MN

Minneapolis Housing

Authority

X

X

County

MO004

MO

Housing Authority of St.

Louis County

State

NC012

NC

Housing Authority of

Winston-Salem

X

County

Western Piedmont Council of

NC

Governments Regional

X

County

NC159

Housing Authority

NJ054

NJ

Lakewood Housing Authority

X

State

NY005

NY

New York City Housing

Authority

X

County

NY041

NY

Rochester Housing Authority

X

County

NY091

NY

Town of Amherst/Belmont

Housing Resources for WNY

X

County

OH059

OH

Pickaway Metropolitan

Housing Authority

X

County

OK002

OK

Oklahoma City Housing

Authority

State

OR002

OR

(Home Forward) Housing

Authority of Portland

X

X

State

OR011

OR

Housing Authority of the City

of Salem

X

State

TX004

TX

Fort Worth Housing Authority

X

State

TX007

TX

Housing Authority of the City

of Brownsvil e

X

State

TX023

TX

Housing Authority of the City

of Beaumont

X

State

TX431

TX

Tarrant County Housing

Assistance Office

X

State

UT003

UT

Housing Authority of the

County of Salt Lake

State

UT004

UT

Housing Authority of Salt

Lake City

State

WA001

WA

Seattle Public Housing

Authority

X

X

State

WA008

WA

Vancouver Housing Authority

X

X

State

WI003

WI

City of Madison Community

Development Authority

X

County

WI214

WI

Dane County Housing

Authority

X

County

Source: Authors

62

APPENDIX

Appendix B: Research Questions

EXHIBIT B.1

Research Questions and Subquestions

PHA/PCWA Participation

What was the initial motivation for PHAs to apply to participate in

What motivated participation in the

the demonstration?

demonstration?

How did the PHAs define their need for this demonstration?

How do participating PHAs compare to PHAs that administer

FUP vouchers but did not apply for the demonstration?

What are the characteristics of

Are there differences between groups in terms of how long

participating PHAs?

they’ve administered FUP, total households served, FUP and

FSS program sizes, staff tenures and qualifications, regional

locations, jurisdictional characteristics, or Moving to Work

(MTW) status?

How many youth participate in the FUP-FSS program? What

What does overall demonstration

percentage of all FUP youth participate in FSS?

participation look like?

Is there a relationship between FUP allocations and FUP-FSS

participation?

What are lease-up patterns?

What are the barriers to leasing up?

Participant Characteristics

What are the housing costs for

What are the housing characteristics of demonstration

demonstration participants?

participants?

How many youth participate in the FUP-FSS program? What

percentage of all FUP youth participate in FSS?

What are the demographic characteristics How do FUP-FSS participants compare in terms of age, gender, of demonstration participants?

race/ethnicity, household composition, income, employment,

and educational status to FUP youth who opt out of the

demonstration?

What are the income characteristics of

What incomes do demonstration participants have at entry and

demonstration participants?

over time?

Demonstration Implementation

What are the child welfare and FSS

Are PHAs located in extended foster care states?

support system contexts for FUP-FSS

Is coordination with a local county PCWA or a single state-level

youth?

PCWA?

When did the PHAs start enrolling youth in the demonstration?

How are FUP-FSS programs structured

What is the structure of the escrow program?

and implemented, and how much do

program models vary?

For PHAs with MTW status, do MTW flexibilities allow agencies

to adapt their programs or services to better meet the needs of

FUP-FSS youth?

How do PHAs, PCWAs, and other

What internal and external sources help PCWAs identify FUP-

partners determine eligibility and identify

eligible youth?

FUP-eligible youth?

How are youth referred to the PHA?

APPENDIX

63

Do they ever refer themselves, are they referred

by caseworkers, are they identified through a centralized

review process, or are there other mechanisms?

Do PCWAs market or promote the

Do they do this as part of the transition planning process?

demonstration to potentially eligible

What do they tell the youth about the benefits of enrolling in FUP

youth?

and in FSS?

Have more youth been referred to FUP?

Have more youth enrolled in FSS, compared to prior to

the demonstration and compared to all PHAs administering

FUP?

What have been the major early

implementation successes?

Have youth sustained their participation in FSS?

How is the demonstration being implemented?

What features and strategies work better than others?

Have youth made progress toward their FUP-FSS goals?

Have there been chal enges to recruiting or referring youth

(either by PCWAs or by PHAs recruiting existing FUP youth)?

If participation is low, what does the PHA attribute this to?

What are the challenges and barriers to

Are appropriate services available through the PHAs or through

implementing FUP-FSS for youth?

referrals to local service providers?

What challenges do PHA staff such as voucher case managers

or FSS coordinators face in engaging with and meeting the

needs of FUP-FSS youth?

How do the FSS goals of FUP youth compare to those of other

FSS participants?

How do the service needs of FUP-FSS youth compare to those

of other FSS participants, and how have PHAs responded?

How do the housing and self-sufficiency services provided

to FUP youth compare to those provided to other FSS

participants?

How do programs that serve youth adapt to these unique

needs?

Do youth aging out of foster care have

unique needs or require unique services?

How does the trauma youth have experienced influence their

needs?

Have participating PHAs adapted their FSS or FUP programs to

address youth needs?

How does having been “system-involved” affect the ability of

youth to engage in services, develop self-efficacy, and move to

self-sufficiency?

How do the housing search and self-sufficiency

service needs of FUP youth compare to those of other FSS

participants?

Col aboration: PHAs, PCWAs, and Other Partners

What are the PCWA staff perspectives on What role, if any, did the PCWA play in the decision to apply to the demonstration?

be a demonstration site?

64

APPENDIX

Has the PCWA’s role changed since the demonstration began?

Does the PCWA stil refer FUP-eligible youth to

this demonstration? Why or why not?

Has the demonstration made the PCWA more or less likely to

refer youth?

What are PCWAs’ suggestions for improving the program?

What needs to change for the program to be more effective?

Are PHA/PCWA partnerships newly established or continuations

What community partnerships are being

of previous FUP or other partnerships?

engaged in by agencies?

Who are the main community partners?

Has the demonstration affected coordination and col aboration

between PHAs and PCWAs?

Have PHAs and PCWAs developed or increased engagement,

such as reviews of the status of their FUP collaboration?

Have PHAs and PCWAs developed cross-agency training on

FUP-FSS?

Has the demonstration resulted in other col aborations?

Has the FUP-FSS partnership led to more

meaningful collaboration generally

Has the demonstration affected the coordination and

between PHAs, PCWAs, and other

collaboration between the PHA and the PCWA?

partners?

Have they developed or increased engagement such as reviews

of the status of their FUP?

Have they developed cross-agency trainings on FUP-FSS? Has

the demo resulted in other collaborations?

What is the current referral status?

What challenges were noted in the partnership between the PHA

and PCWA in the operation of the demonstration?

Is the CoC a partner to the PHA/PCWA

If so, what, if any, barriers does the CoC encounter for referring

collaboration?

youth?

Youth Voice

What are the self-sufficiency goals of youth enrol ed in the

demonstration, and do they feel they are achieving them?

How do youth learn about the demonstration?

How are they recruited for and referred to FUP-FSS, and what

factors influenced their decisions to participate or not to

How do youth navigate and perceive FUP participate?

and FUP-FSS?

How do PHAs recruit and engage youth in the demonstration?

Is the extended FUP-FSS voucher time period a motivating

factor for participation?

Are the case management services offered by FSS a motivating

factor?

Did the program help them obtain housing?

Do youth feel that FUP and FSS meet

their needs?

What is their experience working with case managers and

service providers?

APPENDIX

65

How often are youth meeting with program staff?

Has the program helped them maintain their housing?

Do they feel they are making progress toward their goals?

Are youth sustaining FSS participation?

Has the program enabled them to pursue education and

employment opportunities that would have otherwise been

unattainable or difficult to attain?

What do youth identify as working well?

What do they identify as needing improvement, and how can the

demonstration better meet their needs?

What challenges to increased self-sufficiency do youth

experience while participating in the demonstration, and how

have they addressed those challenges?

How do they think their life experiences have affected their

ability to benefit from the demonstration?

How do they think the demonstration deals with the impact of

their life experiences?

Youth Demonstration Participation

What are the self-sufficiency goals of youth enrol ed in the

demonstration, and do those youth feel they are achieving

What do PHA staff report are the goals

them?

youth pursue, and how do PHA and

PCWA staff believe youth benefit from the Do PHA staff feel that participating in the demonstration has demonstration?

been beneficial, and if so, how?

What are the perceived benefits and challenges to participation?

For how long are youth receiving services?

To what community services are FUP-FSS youth referred?

What services are youth using in the

program?

What activities are the youth engaged in to meet their FSS

requirements?

How often are youth meeting with program staff?

Short-Term Outcomes for Youth: Length of Stay and Income over Time

How does demonstration participants’

What is the average length of FUP participation for those

length of stay in subsidized housing

enrol ed in the demonstration, and how does that compare to the

compare with that of nonparticipants?

participation time of those who opt out of FSS?

How do the incomes of demonstration

participants compare with those of

How do incomes of FUP-FSS participants over time compare to

nonparticipants over time?

incomes of FUP-only youth?

Staff Reflections

What were staff ideas for FUP-FSS

Demonstration improvements?

66

APPENDIX

Appendix C: Administrative

Data Approach

Data and Analysis Overview

The administrative data analysis relied on a mix of data sources and a combination of PHA- and household-level analyses. The researchers used PHA-level analysis to determine the characteristics of PHAs participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration and how they compared both with the characteristics of PHAs not participating in the demonstration and with the characteristics of their surrounding counties. The household-level analysis considered the characteristics and outcomes of participants in the FUP-FSS Demonstration compared to the characteristics of other youth participating in FUP. Our data sources included the following.



HUD’s Inventory Management System / Public and Indian Housing Information Center (PIC): PIC provides longitudinal data on individuals and households living in federally subsidized rental housing. PHAs use HUD forms 50058, 50058-MTW, and 50058-MTW Expansion to report information on assisted individuals and households. Records are entered for individuals and households at key moments related to the administration of housing assistance, including at entry, at recertification, and at exit. The dataset includes demographic characteristics of individuals and households, income information, locations, types of assistance programs, and FSS information. Unique household identifiers allow for the tracking of individuals and households over time and across PHAs.



HUD’s Voucher Management System (VMS): VMS manages and tracks the number of vouchers each PHA uses on a monthly basis. VMS also includes information on monthly spending on vouchers.

VMS data do not break out FUP youth vouchers from other FUP vouchers, so the data are not useful in determining exact program participation numbers. However, VMS’s monthly collection allows for the identification of discrepancies or changes as they develop in the broader FUP program, as well as which PHAs appear to have FUP allocations.



Other public data: To provide local housing and employment market context, American Community Survey one-year estimates were used for every year from 2013 through 2019 to pull information on PHAs located in counties with 65,000 people or more. 38 Information pulled included age, educational attainment, median household income, median gross rent, housing occupancy and tenure, poverty, race and ethnicity, total population, and unemployment. The researchers also pulled HUD Fair Market Rents. To describe the urbanization of counties, U.S. Department of Agriculture 2013 Rural-Urban 38 Twenty-seven demonstration PHAs were located in counties with fewer than 65,000 people in 2020 and were thus not included in the American Community Survey data we extracted.

APPENDIX

67

Continuum Codes were utilized to categorize counties as metropolitan, non-metropolitan, or rural. 39

There were 28 PHAs with missing Rural-Urban Continuum Codes, which will be discussed in greater detail below.

Creating a PHA-Level Dataset

The researchers developed a PHA-level dataset to describe the characteristics of PHAs participating in the demonstration as well as the characteristics of nonparticipating PHAs. HUD provided quarterly PIC extracts for every year from 2013 to 2020. The four quarterly extracts were combined into one file and sorted those household-level records by their effective date, or the date the reported record became active, by year. To ensure that these yearly files reflected the household’s FUP youth status across the entire year, households were flagged as FUP youth if they had been indicated as such in PIC at any point in the year. Each household’s last record for each relevant year was retained, and earlier records from those same years were removed. The resulting yearly household-level files were then collapsed to the level of the PHA to create variables of interest.

Because there are cases in which PIC flags households as FUP youth even at PHAs without any FUP

allocations, the researchers analyzed VMS data to identify PHAs without FUP allocations. A PHA was classified as not having a FUP allocation in a year if its monthly FUP voucher counts in VMS were all zero for the entire year. Using this list of PHAs, the PHAs that were mistakenly indicated as having FUP youth in PIC

over the course of a year were identified and recoded. If a PHA on this list was not represented in HUD’s list of PHAs with FUP awards, 40 and if it had two or fewer households identified as FUP youth in the year, incorrect data reporting was assumed, and the PHA’s FUP youth count was set to zero for that year. Across all PHAs from 2013 to 2020, this process resulted in setting 86 yearly FUP youth counts to zero, representing about 11

PHAs per year and 37 unique PHAs.

As the yearly PHA files were created, the counties in which each PHA’s households were reported to be living were recorded. This information was then used to determine each PHA’s “primary county,” or the county in which the majority of the PHA’s assisted households were living. The researchers used the PHA’s primary county to add the public data to the PHA-level data, including American Community Survey data, data on HUD

39 Metropolitan counties are counties located in metro areas, as defined by the Office of Management and Budget. Nonmetropolitan counties are counties with an urban population of at least 2,500. Rural counties are counties that are either completely rural or that have an urban population of less than 2,500.

40 “FUP Awards – All Years,” HUD Office of Public and Indian Housing, accessed June 20, 2020,

https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PIH/documents/FUP_Awards_All%20Years_PDF.pdf.

68

APPENDIX

Fair Market Rents, and Rural-Urban Continuum Codes. Linear interpolation was used to project American Community Survey estimates for 2020.

Creating a Household-Level Dataset

A household-level dataset was developed to describe the characteristics of FUP youth. To start, all records were pulled for households flagged as FUP youth across all quarterly PIC extracts from 2013 to 2020. Before extracting these records, a confirmation check was done to ensure all records for households flagged as FUP

youth by quarter were included, in case the FUP youth identifier had for some reason not been applied to all of the household’s quarterly extracts. This process created a household-level dataset containing 31,054 records of households that had been flagged as FUP youth between 2013 and 2020.

HUD pulled the quarterly PIC extracts from 2013 to 2020 separately for PHAs participating in the Moving to Work (MTW) Demonstration and for PHAs not participating in the MTW Demonstration. The MTW PIC

extracts posed a challenge in that special purpose voucher information, which includes the flag identifying households as FUP youth, was not available in extracts prior to the third quarterly extract of 2017. To address this issue, the researchers identified the households at MTW PHAs that had been flagged as FUP youth in extracts starting with the third quarterly extract of 2017 and “recovered” their earlier records from previous quarterly extracts. This added an additional 1,208 records to the household-level dataset containing 31,054

records, bringing the total to 32,262 records.

The next step was to determine which of the earlier records of households at MTW PHAs should remain. By reviewing all the households’ earlier records, the researchers determined that a portion of those records could predate participation in the FUP youth program. For those households, the researchers pulled the admission date of the first record in an extract starting with or after the third quarterly extract of 2017. If this admission date did not match the admission of the earlier records, the record was eliminated. Of the 1,208 records recovered for households at MTW PHAs, this process eliminated 172, reducing the household-level dataset from 32,262

to 32,090 records. Because these earlier records were not formally coded as FUP youth, they were only included in the household-level dataset for the sake of exploring variation over time in household characteristics. They were not included in the calculation of FUP youth counts in the PHA-level dataset.

As described above in the section on the creation of the PHA-level dataset, some households were flagged as FUP youth at PHAs that did not have a FUP allocation in a year. Using VMS data, the researchers set 86 PHA yearly FUP youth counts to zero from 2013 to 2020 in the PHA-level dataset. Households that had been at PHAs with FUP youth counts set to zero in the PHA-level dataset were dropped from the household-level APPENDIX

69

dataset. This eliminated an additional 252 records from the household-level dataset, bringing the total number of records to 31,838. Lastly, the researchers removed records if they were either an exact duplicate of another record or records that had no meaningful variation in variables of interest from one record to the next. The majority of the 31,838 records were in fact identified as duplicates in this way. After removing the duplicate records, the researchers ended with a final household-level dataset containing 12,374 records. Public data was then added to compare the characteristics of FUP youth participants to the characteristics of their surrounding counties using the PHA-level dataset.

Data Challenges

Inconsistent reporting, and the fact that there was no indicator in the data for FUP-FSS participation, made it difficult to clearly identify youth participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration. Also, as discussed earlier in the report, special purpose voucher information was not available in the quarterly PIC extracts for households at MTW PHAs prior to the third quarter of 2017. In response to these challenges, the researchers included multiple robustness checks, defining likely participants narrowly or broadly, to ensure that all FUP-FSS

participants were accounted for.

In both the PHA- and household-level datasets, the review process started with a broad accounting of FUP

youth, identifying households in HUD PIC data that had a special purpose voucher type of “FUPY” as participating in the FUP program. 41 This most inclusive approach was used to identify youth participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration, treating all households flagged as FUP youth in HUD PIC data for demonstration PHAs as participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration, and FUP youth served by non-demonstration PHAs as participating in the traditional FUP program.

Since not all FUP youth at demonstration PHAs may be participating in the demonstration, FSS information in HUD PIC data was then used to distinguish between FUP-FSS Demonstration participants and nonparticipants at demonstration PHAs. FSS participation was broadly defined as youth participating in FSS if at least one of the following criteria was met:

• They were flagged as an FSS participant through an FSS indicator.

• They had a positive FSS credit, balance, or disbursement amount.

• They had a non-missing FSS effective date.

• They had recorded information as to whether they had completed their FSS contract.

41 As detailed above, households were excluded if identified as FUP youth that had been at a PHA without a FUP allocation in a given year.

70

APPENDIX

• They had information on the PHA executing their FSS contract.

• They had non-missing information on an FSS report.

• They had a non-missing FSS contract start date, FSS contract end date, or FSS contract extension date.

APPENDIX

71

Appendix D: Administrative

Data Tables

EXHIBIT D.1

Summary Statistics of Demonstration PHAs, 2020

2-

Average

Share of

Bedroom

Share of FUP Income for

FUP

Demons

Cluster

Number

Total

Fair

Unemployment

Youth

FUP Youth Allocation

tration

Analysis

of FUP

PHA

Market

Rate for 16- to

Participating Household

Used by

PHA

Group

Youth

Units

Rent

24-Year-Olds

in FSS

s

Youth

AZ001

2

39

8,507

$1,173

9.5%

21%

$14,205

21%

AZ004

1

0

6,307

$949

6.6%

0%

$11,589

0%

CA003

3

17

15,359

$2,239

6.5%

100%

$18,115

35%

CA014

3

23

4,941

$3,339

3.3%

100%

$21,420

24%

CA026

2

20

5,584

$1,105

10.7%

65%

$18,123

9%

CA027

2

8

9,965

$1,289

15.3%

13%

$17,705

4%

CA028

2

43

6,233

$980

16.6%

51%

$16,426

18%

CA035

1

1

2,102

$1,943

5.3%

100%

$19,549

8%

CA072

3

9

5,588

$2,519

6.2%

22%

$22,532

5%

CA076

1

3

2,808

$2,324

12.8%

67%

$21,897

5%

CA094

3

32

11,206

$2,216

8.6%

19%

$19,703

12%

CA125

1

2

1,245

$1,589

6.7%

0%

$19,983

4%

CO041

2

11

1,380

$1,244

3.0%

82%

$14,232

22%

CO911

3

173

7,409

$1,566

6.2%

28%

$12,743

62%

DE901

2

47

1,152

$1,044

7.4%

96%

$10,996

94%

FL003

2

11

11,167

$1,206

5.7%

18%

$15,011

2%

FL079

2

23

6,226

$1,528

7.4%

70%

$16,616

6%

HI003

3

82

5,086

$2,160

14.2%

29%

$21,051

82%

IL002

3

97

73,370

$1,248

11.6%

93%

$11,011

14%

IL025

2

13

14,055

$1,248

11.6%

0%

$17,624

7%

IL056

2

5

3,680

$1,248

9.8%

20%

$16,447

2%

IL083

2

12

1,145

$828

11.8%

17%

$12,559

109%

IL101

1

1

3,114

$1,248

7.9%

0%

$17,917

1%

IN012

—

0

1,529

$872

—

0%

$13,486

0%

MD002

3

18

27,635

$1,376

4.5%

100%

$16,043

18%

MD015

3

57

6,419

$1,707

4.9%

39%

$21,757

13%

MD032

1

1

733

$1,376

11.2%

100%

$16,581

4%

ME901

2

9

4,569

$1,327

17.8%

56%

$12,669

8%

MI001

2

13

9,765

$977

9.3%

92%

$16,465

17%

MN002

2

11

11,762

$1,214

6.3%

18%

$17,231

11%

MO004

2

38

7,793

$905

9.8%

97%

$12,775

21%

NC012

2

13

6,245

$763

19.2%

0%

$12,209

13%

NC159

1

0

1,245

$712

2.7%

0%

$11,336

0%

NJ054

2

13

1,133

$1,639

8.0%

31%

$27,697

10%

NY005

1

0 269,589

$1,951

20.0%

0%

$18,599

0%

NY041

1

0

12,438

$972

7.7%

0%

$16,574

0%

NY091

2

8

5,654

$843

5.0%

88%

$14,172

2%

OH059

--

2

769

—

—

0%

$12,635

9%

OK002

1

11

7,556

$906

10.6%

9%

$11,241

18%

OR002

2

57

12,240

$1,495

9.0%

89%

$10,949

30%

OR011

3

1

3,321

$1,001

19.0%

100%

$15,584

1%

TX004

2

6

6,792

$1,165

8.3%

17%

$13,896

13%

TX007

1

1

2,831

$760

10.3%

0%

$12,889

1%

72

APPENDIX

2-

Average

Share of

Bedroom

Share of FUP Income for

FUP

Demons

Cluster

Number

Total

Fair

Unemployment

Youth

FUP Youth Allocation

tration

Analysis

of FUP

PHA

Market

Rate for 16- to

Participating Household

Used by

PHA

Group

Youth

Units

Rent

24-Year-Olds

in FSS

s

Youth

TX431

2

8

3,037

$1,165

8.3%

25%

$16,281

5%

UT003

2

25

3,259

$1,176

12.5%

56%

$13,987

15%

UT004

2

6

3,288

$1,176

12.5%

83%

$14,188

9%

WA001

3

58

17,374

$2,099

6.9%

100%

$13,865

21%

WA008

2

8

3,186

$1,495

11.0%

100%

$17,445

7%

WI003

2

10

2,770

$1,186

4.9%

0%

$15,761

10%

WI214

1

1

1,379

$1,186

4.9%

0%

$17,302

2%

Note: Share of FUP allocation is calculated as the quotient of FUP youth in 2020 and FUP awards across all years.

Source: Authors’ analysis of HUD PIC.

APPENDIX

73

EXHIBIT D.2

Comparisons Between FUP-FSS Youth and Other Groups, 2020

FUP-FSS Youth FUP Youth (Non-

FUP Youth at

at

FSS) at

Non-

Demonstration

Demonstration

Demonstration

PHAs

PHAs

PHAs

Number of FUP youth

593a

447

880

Race/ethnicity

Black or African-American

53%

43%

47%

White

22%

23%

32%

Hispanic, any race

21%

27%

16%

Asian

2%

6%

4%

American Indian / Alaska Native

2%

2%

1%

Age

Younger than 18

0%

0%

0%

18

0.2%

2%

5%

19

4%

9%

12%

20

7%

16%

15%

21

21%

20%

18%

22

20%

16%

15%

23

16%

15%

9%

24

12%

6%

5%

Older than 24

20%

15%

19%

Age

Mean

23

22

24

Median

22

22

21

Sex

Female

71%

72%

77%

Male

29%

28%

23%

Total annual incomeb

Mean

$9,257

$9,207

$9,239

Median

$5,200

$6,000

$7,026

Wage income (of those with wage income)

Mean

$20,485

$19,215

$15,963

Median

$18,678

$17,214

$14,182

Share of FUP youth reporting wage income

31%

34%

37%

Gross rent

Mean

$1,252

$1,169

$1,047

Median

$1,145

$1,081

$992

Total tenant payment (2019)

Mean

$236

$240

$235

Median

$151

$132

$153

Housing Assistance Payment

Mean

$1,080

$926

$902

Median

$1,038

$872

$876

Notes: a Total of 593 is based on the PIC individual-level dataset; when discussing total demonstration participation, 582—the number arrived at using the PHA-level dataset—was used. b Averages and medians for income figures are of those with non-missing data. Dollars are nominal dollar amounts.’

Source: Authors’ analysis of HUD PIC, 2019 and 2020.

74

APPENDIX

EXHIBIT D.3

Comparison of Demonstration and Non-Demonstration FUP Youth Within Demonstration Sites FUP Youth

(non-

FUP-FSS

Demonstration)

Youth

T Statistic

PHAs

Mean % Black

33%

36%

-0.58

13

Meant % Hispanic

26%

31%

-0.91

13

Mean % female

62%

71%

-2.35

13

Mean age

22.9

23.1

-0.27

13

Mean rent

$1,163

$1,276

-3.38

13

Mean income at entry

$14,089

$13,208

0.50

9

Mean wage at entry

$16,080

$13,338

1.37

9

Note: Only PHAs with 3 or more youth in both the FUP-FSS and FUP youth (non-demonstration) categories are included in the analysis.

Source: Authors’ analysis of HUD PIC, 2020.

EXHIBIT D.4

Time Until Housing Exit, FUP Youth at Demonstration PHAs Only

Variables

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Demonstration PHA, FUP-FSS participant

0.352***

0.347***

0.329***

(0.0564)

(0.0568)

(0.0544)

Total annual household income

1.000

1.000

(9.02e-06)

(9.08e-06)

County rental vacancy rate

0.00909

0.00374*

(0.0266)

(0.0120)

2-bedroom Fair Market Rent

0.999***

0.999***

(0.000218)

(0.000263)

County poverty rate

0.00774*

(0.0216)

County unemployment rate, youth ages 16–24

0.430

(0.993)

2018

0.356***

0.385***

0.391***

(0.0907)

(0.100)

(0.104)

2019

0.0856***

0.105***

0.106***

(0.0342)

(0.0423)

(0.0432)

2020

0.333***

0.440***

0.407***

(0.0960)

(0.128)

(0.123)

Number of observations

2,484

2,429

2,429

* p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01

Notes: Estimates are derived from Cox proportional hazards. All regressions are clustered at the household level. Standard errors in parentheses. The omitted FUP participant group is demonstration PHA, FUP participant not participating in FSS. The omitted year group is 2017.

Source: Authors’ analysis of HUD PIC, 2017–2020; American Community Survey one-year estimates; HUD FMR.

APPENDIX

75

Appendix E: Interview Coding

The table below reflects the total number of topical interview excerpts coded by main topic for each site.

EXHIBIT E.1

Interview Coding

ounty,

*

rge’s C

eo

ounty, TX

o

e

eo

ar

it

o

ake

at

t C

aw

ne

t L

M

tle*

ran

hicag

olorado*

el

tro

onolulu

ai

rtland, OR

C

C

D

De

Fresn

H

M

Po

Prince G MD

Sal

San

Seat

Tar

Total

A. Demonstration

application

13

6

5

3

2

0

4

10

2

2

6

9

5

67

B. FUP-FSS program

model

11

33

28

12

14

5

11

41

12

18

24

89

22

320

C. FUP-FSS youth

services and

10

27

11

14

9

7

15

38

12

9

19

56

19

246

implementation

D. Referral and

application

13

31

9

16

3

6

9

30

13

9

17

42

32

230

E. Unique

considerations/needs

5

1

7

4

0

4

10

9

4

6

1

26

16

93

F. Outcomes

5

16

4

2

8

1

3

8

1

2

10

18

6

84

G. Col aboration/

partnerships

10

6

9

3

5

5

3

22

6

3

8

29

16

125

H. Reflections

8

12

6

7

5

5

5

20

7

7

3

26

8

119

I. PCWA context

3

4

4

3

0

5

0

6

5

6

4

3

7

50

Note: * indicates “site visit” sites. One transcript from Salt Lake was included in the analyses, but the count of excerpts coded from that transcript is not included in this table.

Source: Authors’ tabulations.

76

APPENDIX

Appendix F: PHA Survey Protocol

FUP-FSS Demonstration Evaluation

Public Housing Agency Survey

[To be entered into Qualtrics on-line survey data collection program]

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has contracted with the Urban Institute, with Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago as their subcontractor, to learn how communities are implementing the Family Unification Program—Family Self-Sufficiency (FUP-FSS) Demonstration to serve youth who were formerly in foster care. The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization based in Washington, DC that conducts research on social policy and practice. The information gathered for the evaluation will be used to help HUD understand how FUP-FSS has been implemented; the effectiveness of partnerships among the participating housing authorities, public child welfare agencies, and other organizations that collaborate on the Demonstration; the agencies’ experiences with implementation; and short-term outcomes for participating youth. We are not evaluating your agency or its programs.

As part of this project, the research team is conducting a voluntary web-based survey of public housing agencies (PHAs) and public child welfare agencies (PCWAs) in communities that are participating in the FUPFSS Demonstration. Your PHA was selected because your agency is participating in the FUP-FSS

Demonstration. All responses will be kept confidential, meaning we will not disclose them in any way that would identify you.

The purpose of this survey is to learn how FUP vouchers are being used with FSS services to address the needs of youth who were formerly in foster care, and to identify any unique benefits or challenges your PHA has experienced implementing FUP-FSS and serving this population in partnership with your PCWA, CoC, and/or other community service partners. It includes questions about how you have implemented the FUP-FSS

Demonstration; your agency’s collaboration with your PCWA, CoC, and other local partners; the way FUP and FUP-FSS eligible youth are identified and referred; and your experiences administering FUP-FSS services for youth participants.

If your agency has contracted with separate organization(s) to administer FUP for youth or FUP-FSS, please note that some questions may be better addressed by your contractors. You may wish to ask them to provide you with the relevant information. Similarly, if other staff within your agency work with FUP-FSS participants, you may wish to consult with these staff to complete relevant survey questions.

APPENDIX

77

This survey should take about 30 minutes to complete. If you cannot complete the survey in one sitting, you may save your place in the survey and finish it at a later time. Please note, however, that the survey needs to be completed by _________________. Participation in this survey is voluntary. Responses wil be kept confidential.

If you decide to participate, thank you in advance. Your responses will help HUD better understand how communities are using the FUP-FSS Demonstration to address the needs of youth who have aged out of foster care.

Please contact Michael Pergamit at (202) 261-5276 or mpergamit@urban.org, at the Urban Institute with any questions about the survey.

78

APPENDIX

PHA Survey

I. PHA AND RESPONDENT BACKGROUND INFORMATION (FOR PHA RESPONDENT)

1. Public Housing Agency (PHA) Name

2. PHA ID Number

3. So that we know who in [FILL WITH Q1] is the primary person coordinating responses to this survey, please provide your contact information:

Name

Position

Phone Number

Email

4. How long have you been employed by [FILL WITH Q1] (in any position or title)?

5. A single PHA may partner with multiple Public Child Welfare Agencies (PCWAs) to administer the Family Unification Program - Family Self-Sufficiency Demonstration (FUP-FSS). How many PCWAs does your PHA currently partner with to administer the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

[IF Q5 =1 SKIP to Q8]

6. [IF Q5>1] What are the names of those PCWAs? Please enter al .

• A.

• B.

• C.

• D.

• E.

• F.

• G.

APPENDIX

79

7. Among the PCWA partners that you identified, which one has referred the most youth to the FUP-FSS

Demonstration? For the purpose of this survey, questions related to your PCWA partner wil refer to this PCWA.

Select one.

 A.

 B.

 C.

 D.

 E.

 F.

 G.

II. BACKGROUND ON THE PHA’S FAMILY UNIFICATION PROGRAM (FUP)

8. Has your agency EVER issued a FUP voucher to a youth?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q12

9. What was the MOST RECENT year in which your agency, or an agency you work with to administer the FUP, issued a FUP voucher to a youth?

YEAR

10. As of [TODAY’S DATE], how many FUP-eligible youth are currently enrol ed in the FUP?

NUMBER OF VOUCHERS

11. Do you provide FUP-eligible youth with tenant-based vouchers, project-based assistance, or both?

 Tenant-based

 Project-based

 Both

12. (IF Q8=NO): Why hasn’t your agency issued a FUP voucher to a youth?

Select all that apply

 Too few youth age out of foster care in this community

 Housing needs of youth who age out of foster care are being met in other ways

 Agency prefers to devote all of its FUP vouchers to families

 36-month time limit for FUP-eligible youth would create an excessive burden for your agency 80

APPENDIX

 PCWA does not have the resources to provide the required support services

 Lack of or weak working relationship with a PCWA

 Lack of referrals from a PCWA

 Any other reasons (SPECIFY)

 Don’t know

III. BACKGROUND ON THE FUP-FSS DEMONSTRATION

The questions in this next section ask about your FUP-FSS Demonstration.

13. Has your agency ever enrol ed eligible youth in the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q16

 Don’t know SKIP TO END

14. As of [TODAY’S DATE] How many youth have enrol ed in the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

NUMBER OF FUP-FSS DEMO PARTICIPANTS

15. When did your agency first begin enrol ing youth in the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

MONTH/YEAR

 Don’t know

16. (IF Q13=No): From your perspective, why haven’t youth been enrol ed in the FUP-FSS Demonstration to date?

Select all that apply

 [PHA’s] FSS program is not equipped to serve the needs of youth exiting foster care

 Self-sufficiency needs of youth who age out of foster care are being met in other ways

 The community does not have the resources to provide the required support services

 To date, FUP-eligible youth have not opted to participate in the FUP-FSS

Demonstration

 Any other reasons (SPECIFY)

 Don’t know

APPENDIX

81

A. CURRENT FUP FOR YOUTH AND FUP-FSS MODULE

I. PHA’S HISTORICAL USE OF FUP FOR YOUTH AND THE FUP-FSS

DEMONSTRATION

The questions in this section ask about your agency’s history with FUP.

17. Does your PHA administer the FUP or do you contract with another organization to administer it?

 Your PHA administers the FUP

 Another organization administers the FUP

If another agency administers your FUP, please note that some questions may be better addressed by that

contractor. You may wish to ask your contractor to provide the relevant information.

18. What are the reasons your agency decided to serve FUP-eligible youth?

Select all that apply

 HUD requirement that FUP vouchers be used to serve FUP-eligible youth

 Many youth age out of foster care in this community

 Housing needs of former foster youth are not being met in other ways in your community

 Homelessness among former foster youth is a big problem in your community

 Addressing the housing needs of former foster youth is a priority for your agency or your community

 Addressing the housing needs of youth generally is a priority for your agency or your community

 Addressing the housing needs of former foster youth is a priority for the PCWA

 Linking supportive services to subsidized housing is a priority for your agency

 PCWA has the resources to provide the required support services

 Other (SPECIFY)

 Don’t know

The questions in this section ask about your agency’s history with the FUP-FSS Demonstration.

19. Does your PHA administer the FSS Program or do you contract with another organization to administer it?

 Your PHA administers the FSS Program

 Another organization administers the FSS Program

If another agency administers your FSS Program, please note that some questions may be better addressed by that

contractor. You may wish to ask your contractor to provide the relevant information.

20. What are the reasons your agency decided to join the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

Select all that apply

82

APPENDIX

 The opportunity of an extended FUP-FSS Demonstration voucher of up to 5 years

 Self-sufficiency service needs of former foster youth are not being met in other ways in your community

 Short-term housing without additional self-sufficiency supports won’t reduce the probability of homelessness among former foster youth

 Addressing the service needs of former foster youth is a priority for your agency or your community

 Addressing the service needs of former foster youth is a priority for the PCWA

 Other (SPECIFY)

 Don’t know

II. FUP and FUP-FSS ADMINISTRATION

A.

FUP IDENTIFICATION, REFERRAL, AND ELIGIBILITY

The next few questions are about the FUP referral process and FUP eligibility determination.

21. Does [PCWA Name] pre-screen youth for voucher eligibility prior to referring them to your agency?

 Yes

 No

 Don’t know

22. Does your agency have an expedited or streamlined eligibility determination process for FUP-eligible youth who have been referred by [PCWA Name]?

 Yes

 No

23. Does your agency exclude youth from eligibility for FUP vouchers for any of the following reasons?

YES

NO

a. Rent or utility arrears

1 

0 

b. Drug convictions

1 

0 

c. Other types of criminal convictions

1 

0 

24. How many referrals for FUP-eligible youth did your agency receive from [PCWA Name] since [FILL

AWARD DATE from MODULE A Q9]?

NUMBER OF REFERRALS

25. How many of the FUP-eligible youth who were referred to your agency since [FILL AWARD DATE from MODULE A Q9 ] were found to be eligible for a FUP voucher?

NUMBER OF REFERRALS WHO WERE ELIGIBLE

APPENDIX

83

26. [IF Module A Q9 <= 2019] Thinking back to the previous year, what percentage of youth who were issued a

FUP voucher successful y leased-up since [FILL AWARD DATE from MODULE A Q9]?

PERCENTAGE OF YOUTH ISSUED A VOUCHER WHO LEASED UP

27. What are the most common reasons youth who are referred don’t lease-up?

Select all that apply

 Do not complete application

 Application is denied

 Do not show up for voucher briefing

 Do not lease up before voucher expires

 Other (SPECIFY)

B.

FUP HOUSING SEARCH AND SELECTION

The next set of questions asks about the housing search process for FUP-eligible youth who have had a voucher briefing.

28. How much time is a youth initial y given to lease-up once a FUP voucher has been issued? We are interested in the initial voucher search term for FUP-eligible youth.

Select one only

 60 days

 90 days

 120 days

 More than 120 days

29. What proportion of FUP-eligible youth is able to successful y lease up before their initial voucher search term expires?

Select one only

 Almost all

 More than half

 About half

 Less than half

 Almost never

 Don’t know

30. How often does your agency grant an extension to FUP-eligible youth whose initial voucher search term is going to expire?

Select one only

 Almost always

 More than half of the time

 About half of the time

84

APPENDIX

 Less than half of the time

 Almost never

 Don’t know

31. How does the amount of time youth who have been issued a FUP voucher typical y need to lease up compare to the amount of time standard Section 8 HCV Program participants need?

Select one only

 Youth typically require MORE time to lease up

 Youth typically require ABOUT THE SAME amount of time to lease-up

 Youth typically require LESS time to lease up

 Don’t know

The next few questions are about your agency’s housing search assistance 32. Which of the fol owing types of housing search assistance does your agency (or a partner provider) provide to youth who have been issued a FUP voucher? Please do not include assistance that is only provided by

[PCWA Name] or [CoC NAME].

YES

NO

a. Provide information about different neighborhoods

1 

0 

b. Take youth on neighborhood tours

1 

0 

c. Transport youth to visit housing units

1 

0 

d. Provide a listing of vacant rental units

1 

0 

e. Refer youth to property managers/landlords known to accept FUP vouchers 1 

0 

f. Work with landlords/property managers to help youth secure housing

1 

0 

g. Provide information about tenant rights and responsibilities

1 

0 

h. Provide information about subsidized housing including eligibility requirements 1 

0 

i. Provide information about public transportation services

1 

0 

j. Help youth locate housing near school or work

1 

0 

k. Other (SPECIFY)

1 

2 

33. Does your agency provide housing search assistance to youth who have been issued a FUP voucher that it does NOT also provide to standard Section 8 HCV Program participants? Please do not include housing search assistance that is only provided by [PCWA Name] or [CoC NAME].

 Yes

 No

 Don’t know

APPENDIX

85

34. Does your agency provide FUP-eligible youth with:

YES

NO

a. Pre-move counseling?

1 

0 

b. Post-move counseling?

1 

0 

35. [IF Q34a=1 OR Q34b=1 THEN ASK] What does this counseling include?

YES

NO

a. Information about tenant rights and responsibilities

1 

0 

b. Information about budgeting

1 

0 

c. Information about credit

1 

0 

d. Information about landlord mediation

1 

0 

e. Information about the benefits of living in low-poverty areas (low-poverty areas are areas where the poverty rate is 10% or less)

1 

0 

f. Other (SPECIFY)

1 

2 

C.

FUP-FSS IDENTIFICATION, REFERRAL AND ELIGIBILITY

36. How do FUP-eligible youth learn about the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

Select all that apply

YES

NO

a. Information is provided by the PCWA before youth leave foster care

1 

0 

b. Information is provided in voucher briefings/orientations

1 

0 

c. Information is provided at recertification

1 

0 

d. Direct outreach to FUP-eligible youth about FUP-FSS

1 

0 

e. Recruitment/referral through partner organizations

1 

0 

f. Other (Please specify)

1 

0



37. Is the FUP-FSS Demonstration offered to all FUP-eligible youth?

 Yes

 No

 Don’t know

86

APPENDIX

38. Does your PHA have specific FUP-FSS eligibility requirements for FUP-eligible youth?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q37

 Don’t know SKIP TO 37

39. Which youth are eligible to participate in the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

Select all that apply

YES

NO

a. New FUP youth who receive voucher issuances

1 

0 

b. Existing FUP youth participants

1 

0 

c. FUP-eligible youth that meet specific service needs such as education or employment assistance

1 

0 

D.

FUP YOUTH AND FUP-FSS STAFFING

40. Is a dedicated [PHA name] staff person assigned to FUP youth?

 Yes

 No

 Don’t know

41. Is a dedicated [PHA name] staff person assigned to the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

 Yes

 No

 Don’t know

42. Do FSS and FUP voucher staff coordinate to serve FUP-FSS participating youth?

 Yes

 No

 Don’t know

 N/A (same person)

43. How frequently do FUP and FSS staff communicate about FUP-FSS participants?

 More than once a month

 Monthly

APPENDIX

87

 Quarterly

 Bi-annually

 Annually

 Other

 Don’t know

 N/A (same person)

E.

FUP-FSS DATA COLLECTION

44. How do case managers track their interactions with FUP-FSS youth?

 In HUD 50058 reporting

 In an internal case management system

 Case managers track their interactions manually

 Case managers do not track their interactions with FUP-FSS participants

 Other (Specify)

45. How often are data for FUP-FSS participants recorded?

 More than once a month

 Monthly

 Quarterly

 Bi-annually

 Annually

 After every interaction with a case manager

 Don’t know

 Other:

46. What types of data are tracked for FUP-FSS participants

Select all that apply

 Enrollment in FUP-FSS

 FSS service use

88

APPENDIX

 Referrals to FSS services

 Progress towards individual FSS goals

 Escrow account balances

 The data tracked varies by participant

 We do not track data for FUP-FSS participants

 Other:

F.

FSS SERVICES AVAILABLE TO FUP-FSS DEMONSTRATION PARTICIPANTS

47. How frequently do FSS case managers meet with FUP-FSS Demonstration participants?

 More than once a month

 Monthly

 Quarterly

 Bi-annually

 Annually

 Varies by participant

 Don’t know

 Other:

48. How do FSS case managers interact with participants?

Select all that apply

 In-person

 By phone

 By email

 Through written progress report submissions from the FSS participants

 Other

 Don’t know

49. Which of the fol owing self-sufficiency related services does your agency (or a partner provider) provide to FUP-FSS Demonstration participants?

DON’T

YES

NO

KNOW

a. Financial counseling and management

1 

0 

2 

b. Job search assistance

1 

0 

2 

APPENDIX

89

c. Education and vocational training

1 

0 

2 

d. Homeownership preparation

1 

0 

2 

e. Long term housing planning

1 

0 

2 

f. Job training

1 

0 

2 

g. Childcare assistance

1 

0 

2 

h. Transportation assistance

1 

0 

2 

i. Case management

1 

0 

2 

j. Other (SPECIFY)

1 

0 

2 

50. Has your agency altered your FSS services to meet the needs of FUP-FSS participating youth?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q52

 Don’t know SKIP TO Q52

51. How has [PHA] altered its FSS services to meet the needs of FUP-FSS participating youth?

YES

NO

a. Developed additional partnerships with community service providers to meet FUP-FSS youth needs

1 

0 

b. Changed frequency of meetings with FSS case managers for FUP-FSS

participants

1 

0 

c. Altered mode of interaction between case managers and FUP-FSS youth 1 

0 

d. Adapted Individual Training and Services Plan (ITSP) goal-setting process for FUP-FSS youth

1 

0 

e. Adapted graduation requirements for FUP-FSS youth

1 

0 

f. Other

1 

0 

90

APPENDIX

G. Exiting FUP-FSS Assistance

The next set of questions is about the period just before and after FUP-eligible youth reach their time limit on the receipt of housing assistance. If youth are participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration, that time limit is the length of the FSS Contract of Participation (typical y five years). Otherwise that time limit is 36 months.

52. How often do youth who are not participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration and are approaching that 36-month limit enter the FUP-FSS Demonstration to extend their eligibility for housing assistance payments?

 Never

 Occasionally

 Frequently

 Always or almost always

 Don’t know

53. Which of the following does your PHA do for FUP youth not participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration as they approach their 36-month limit?

Please do NOT include counseling or other assistance that the PCWA provides.

YES

NO

a. Provide information about other housing programs available through your agency 1 

0 

b. Provide information about housing programs administered by community-based agencies

1 

0 

c. Provide information about different neighborhoods

1 

0 

d. Take youth on neighborhood tours

1 

0 

e. Transport youth to visit housing units

1 

0 

f. Provide listings of vacant rental units

1 

0 

g. Refer youth to property managers/landlords

1 

0 

h. Other (SPECIFY)

1 

0

54. [IF Q53a – Q53h = 1] Does your agency or another entity with which your agency contracts provide that same counseling or assistance to FUP-FSS participants as they approach the end of their FSS Contract of Participation?

 Yes

 No

 Don’t know

APPENDIX

91

III. OTHER HOUSING OPTIONS FOR FOSTER YOUTH AGING OUT

The next set of questions is about your public housing and Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher waiting lists.

A.

PUBLIC HOUSING

55. Does your agency currently administer a public housing program?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q62

 Don’t know SKIP TO Q62

56. Has your agency established local preference categories for its public housing waiting list?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q62

 Don’t know SKIP TO Q62

57. Does your agency have a local preference on its public housing waiting list for youth who have aged out of foster care?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q62

58. Is there a limit on the number of youth who have aged out of foster care who can be given preference on the public housing waiting list?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q62

59. What is that limit?

LIMIT ON YOUTH AGED OUT OF FOSTER CARE

60. [IF Q56=1] Does your agency rank order preferences to establish a hierarchy of applicants within your system of preferences?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q62

61. [IF Q60=YES] Where do youth who have aged out of foster care fal in the ranking of preference categories?

Select one only

 Top third

 Middle third

 Bottom third

92

APPENDIX

B.

SECTION 8 HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

62. Has your agency established local preference categories for its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program waiting list?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q66

63. Does your agency have a local preference on its Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher waiting list for youth who have aged out of foster care?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q66

64. Is there a limit on the number of youth who have aged out of foster care who can be given preference on the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher waiting list?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q66

65. What is that limit?

LIMIT ON YOUTH AGED OUT OF FOSTER CARE

66. How would you describe the current status of your agency’s Section 8 HCV waiting list?

Select one only

 Completely open (i.e., accepting applications)

 Open for some groups

 Completely closed (i.e., not accepting applications)

67. How many months has your agency’s Section 8 HCV waiting list been [FILL RESPONSE FROM Q65]?

MONTHS

IV. PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES USING FUP and FUP-FSS

The questions in this section ask about the chal enges your agency has faced and the progress it has made in serving FUP-eligible youth and implementing the FUP-FSS Demonstration.

68. Below is a list of factors that may affect your agency’s ability to serve FUP-eligible youth. Please indicate how much of a chal enge each factor presents/has presented to your agency.

Select one per row

NOT A

SOMEWHAT OF

MAJOR

CHALLENGE

A CHALLENGE CHALLENGE

a. Need to provide vouchers to families limits vouchers

for youth

1 

2 

3 

b. Availability of affordable rental housing

1 

2 

3 

APPENDIX

93

c. Availability of quality housing

1 

2 

3 

d. The 36-month time limit on FUP youth assistance

1 

2 

3 

e. Coordination with [PCWA NAME]

1 

2 

3 

f. Coordination with [CoC NAME]

1 

2 

3 

g. Administrative costs

1 

2 

3 

h. Service provision costs

1 

2 

3 

i. Staffing resources

1 

2 

3 

j. Wait list procedures and administration

1 

2 

3 

k. Relationships with landlords/property managers

1 

2 

3 

l. Duration of the voucher application process

1 

2 

3 

m. Duration of the housing search process

1 

2 

3 

n. Complexity of leasing process (for initial units and

unit changes)

1 

2 

3 

o. Not enough vouchers available for youth

1 

2 

3 

p. Other (SPECIFY)

1 

2 

3 

69. In your opinion, has FUP-FSS participation by eligible youth met [PHA’s] initial expectations?

 Yes

 No

 Don’t know

70. Below is a list of factors that may affect your agency’s ability to implement the FUP-FSS Demonstration.

Please indicate how much of a chal enge each factor presents/has presented to your agency.

Select one per row

NOT A

SOMEWHAT OF

MAJOR

CHALLENGE

A CHALLENGE CHALLENGE

a. The number of FUP-eligible youth referred to

[PHA]

1 

2 

3 

b. Difficulty recruiting FUP youth participants into

the FUP-FSS Demonstration

1 

2 

3 

c. FUP-eligible youth do not want to participate in

the FUP-FSS Demonstration

1 

2 

3 

d. Limited capacity of [PHA’s] FSS program to

accept more participants

1 

2 

3 

e. Lack of appropriate self-sufficiency services in

the community to meet FUP youth needs

1 

2 

3 

f. Other (SPECIFY)

1 

2 

3



94

APPENDIX

B. PARTNER PCWA: CONTACT INFORMATION AND COLLABORATION

I.

PARTNER PCWA COLLABORATION

The questions in this section ask about your agency’s partner Public Child Welfare Agency (PCWA).

[If Q5>1 SKIP to Q72]

71. We have the following information about the contact at your partner PCWA. Please review it and let us know if it is correct.

Name: [PCWA NAME]

Contact Person: [NAME OF PCWA CONTACT PERSON]

Title: [TITLE OF PCWA CONTACT PERSON]

Telephone Number: [TELEPHONE NUMBER OF PCWA CONTACT PERSON]

Email Address: [EMAIL ADDRESS OF PCWA CONTACT PERSON]

Is all of the above information correct?

 Yes SKIP TO Q77

 No

 Don’t know

72. What is the name of your partner public child welfare agency (PCWA)? If you partner with more than one PCWA, please write the name of the agency that has referred the most youth to the FUP-FSS

Demonstration. For the purpose of this survey, questions related to your PCWA partner wil refer to this PCWA.

73. Who is your contact person at the PCWA? Please indicate below the person at your partner PCWA that you contact the most.

74. What is this person’s title/position?

75. What is your contact person’s telephone number?

76. What is your contact person’s email address?

APPENDIX

95

The next few questions are about your agency’s col aboration with your PCWA partner. It is possible that your agency may contract, partner, or have other relationships with outside agencies to help provide services. We wil refer to al of these outside agencies as partner agencies or partner providers.

77. How familiar are you with each of the fol owing?

Select one per row

NOT AT

VERY SOMEWHAT

ALL

a. Characteristics of youth who age out of foster care and their housing needs

2 

1 

0 

b. [PCWA Name]’s procedures for identifying FUP-eligible youth

2 

1 

0 

c. [PCWA Name]’s procedures for referring FUP-eligible youth to your

agency

2 

1 

0 

d. Types of housing search assistance provided to FUP-eligible youth by

[PCWA Name] or partner providers

2 

1 

0 

e. Types of supportive services provided to FUP-eligible youth by

[PCWA Name]’s or partner providers

2 

1 

0



78. On which of the fol owing topics does [PCWA Name] provide your staff with training?

YES

NO

a. Characteristics of youth who age out of foster care and their housing or other service needs

1 

0 

b. How [PCWA Name] identifies FUP-eligible youth

1 

0 

c. How [PCWA Name] refers FUP-eligible youth to your agency

1 

0 

d. Types of housing search assistance provided to FUP-eligible youth by [PCWA Name] or partner providers

1 

0 

e. Types of supportive services provided to FUP-eligible youth by [PCWA Name]

or partner providers

1 

0 

f. Other (SPECIFY)

1 

0



79. [IF ANY OF MODULE C Q78a THROUGH Q78f=YES, THEN ASK] How often does a training occur?

Select one only

 Once after vouchers were awarded

 Annually

 Twice a year

 Quarterly

 More than once per quarter

 Don’t know

96

APPENDIX

80. On which of the fol owing topics does your staff provide [PCWA Name] with training?

YES

NO

a. FUP voucher eligibility

1 

0 

b. Other FUP requirements

1 

0 

c. Housing search and lease-up processes within the FUP

1 

0 

d. Tracking and reporting requirements associated with the FUP

1 

0 

e. Overview of the FUP-FSS Demonstration program

1 

0 

f. FUP-FSS extended voucher timeline

1 

0 

g. FSS Contract of Participation (CoP)

1 

0 

h. FSS Individual Training and Services Plan (ITSP)

1 

0 

i. FSS escrow account

1 

0 

j. Other (SPECIFY)

1 

0 

81. [IF ANY OF MODULE C Q80a THROUGH Q80j=YES, THEN ASK] How often does a training occur?

Select one only

 Once after vouchers were awarded

 Annually

 Twice a year

 Quarterly

 More than once per quarter

 Don’t know

82. At any point since [FILL AWARD DATE from MODULE A Q9], has your agency had regular meetings with [PCWA Name] about serving FUP or FUP-FSS eligible youth?

Select all that apply

 Yes, on FUP generally.

 Yes, on the FUP-FSS Demonstration program.

 No, we have not had regular meetings. SKIP TO 85.

83. [IF Q82=YES on FUP general y] Since [FILL AWARD DATE from MODULE A Q9], how often have the FUP meetings been held? If the frequency of these meetings has changed, think back to when you were meeting most regularly.

Select one only

 Weekly

 Monthly

APPENDIX

97

 Quarterly

 Twice a year

 Annually

 Other (SPECIFY)

84. [IF Q82=YES on FUP-FSS] Since [FILL AWARD DATE from MODULE A Q9], how often have the FUPFSS meetings been held? If the frequency of these meetings has changed, think back to when you were meeting most regularly.

Select one only

 Weekly

 Monthly

 Quarterly

 Twice a year

 Annually

 Other (SPECIFY)

85. Apart from any regular meetings, since [FILL AWARD DATE from MODULE A Q9], how often has your agency communicated with [PCWA Name] about serving FUP-eligible youth general y (either by phone, email, or in-person)? If the frequency of this communication has changed, think back to when you were communicating most regularly.

Select one only

 Daily

 Weekly

 Monthly

 Quarterly

 Other (SPECIFY)

85a. Since [FILL AWARD DATE from MODULE A Q9], how often has your agency communicated with

[PCWA Name] about serving FUP-FSS youth specifical y (either by phone, email, or in-person)? If the frequency of this communication has changed, think back to when you were communicating most regularly.

Select one only

 Daily

 Weekly

 Monthly

 Quarterly

 Other (SPECIFY)

98

APPENDIX

II.

PARTNER CoC: COLLABORATION

86. Does [PHA NAME] partner with a Continuum of Care (CoC) to administer the Family Unification Program (FUP)?

 Yes

 No (SKIP to SECTION IV)

 Don’t know (SKIP TO SECTION IV)

86a. We understand that a single PHA may partner with multiple CoCs to administer FUP. How many CoCs does your agency currently partner with to administer FUP?

87. What is/are the name(s) of this/these CoC(s)?

• A.

• B.

• C.

• D.

• E.

• F.

• G.

88. [If 86a>1] Among the CoCs you partner with, which do you communicate with the most frequently about FUP-FSS? For this survey, we wil refer to your partnership with this CoC. (Enter the CoC’s name).

The next few questions ask about your agency’s col aboration with [CoC NAME].

89. At any point since [FILL AWARD DATE from MODULE A Q9], has your agency had regular meetings with [CoC NAME] about serving FUP-eligible youth?

 Yes

 No (SKIP TO Q91)

90. Since [FILL AWARD DATE from MODULE A Q9], how often have these meetings been held? If the frequency of these meetings has changed, think back to when you were meeting most regularly.

Select one only

 Weekly

 Monthly

APPENDIX

99

 Quarterly

 Twice a year

 Annually

 Other (SPECIFY)

91. [IF Q89=YES] Apart from any regular meetings, since [FILL AWARD DATE from MODULE A Q9], how often has your agency communicated with [CoC NAME] about serving FUP-eligible youth (either by phone, email, or in-person)? If the frequency of this communication has changed, think back to when you were communicating most regularly.

[IF Q89=NO] Since [FILL AWARD DATE from MODULE A Q9], how often has your agency communicated with [CoC NAME] about serving FUP-eligible youth (either by phone, email, or in-person)?

If the frequency of this communication has changed, think back to when you were communicating most regularly.

Select one only

 Daily

 Weekly

 Monthly

 Quarterly

 Other (SPECIFY)

IV.

PARTNER COMMUNITY SERVICE PROVIDERS: COLLABORATION

We understand that PHAs may partner with community service providers to administer Family Self-Sufficiency program services. These questions relate to the self-sufficiency services available to FUP-FSS Demonstration participants through community partners.

92. Does your agency currently partner with community service providers to provide self-sufficiency services to FUP-FSS youth?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q96

 Don’t know SKIP TO Q96

93. How many community service providers does your agency currently partner with to administer the FUPFSS Demonstration?

94. What is/are the name(s) of this/these provider(s)?

• A.

• B.

100

APPENDIX

• C.

• D.

• E.

• F.

• G.

95. Has [PHA] established any new partnerships with community service providers specifical y to provide self-sufficiency services to FUP-FSS youth?

 Yes

 No

 Don’t know

96. From your perspective, are the services currently available to serve FUP-FSS youth working as intended to support participating youths’ self-sufficiency goals?

 Yes

 No

 Don’t know

97. Are additional services needed to serve FUP-FSS youth needs?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO END

 Don’t know SKIP TO END

98. [If Q97=YES] Which additional services are needed to meet the needs of FUP-FSS youth?

Select all that apply

a. Financial counseling and management



b. Job search assistance



c. Education and vocational training



d. Homeownership preparation



e. Job training



f. Childcare assistance



g. Transportation assistance



h. Long-term housing planning



i. Case management



APPENDIX

101

j. Other (SPECIFY)



END Thank you for your time. We appreciate your responses. They wil help HUD better understand the FUP-FSS Demonstration.

102

APPENDIX

Appendix G: PCWA Survey Protocol

Public Child Welfare Agency (PCWA) Survey

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has contracted with the Urban Institute and with Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, as their subcontractor, to learn how communities are using the Family Unification Program– Family Self Sufficiency (FUP-FSS) Demonstration to serve youth who were formerly in foster care. The Urban Institute is a nonpartisan nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that conducts research and program evaluations on social policy and practice. The information gathered for the evaluation will be used to help HUD understand how FUP-FSS has been implemented, the effectiveness of partnerships among the participating housing authorities, public child welfare agencies, and other organizations that collaborate on the demonstration, the agencies’ experiences with implementation, and short-term outcomes for participating youth. We are not evaluating your agency or its programs.

As part of this project, the research team is conducting a voluntary web-based survey of public housing agencies (PHAs) and public child welfare agencies (PCWAs) in communities that are participating in the FUPFSS Demonstration. Your partnering PHA indicated that it is currently collaborating with your agency to serve youth through the FUP-FSS Demonstration. All responses will be kept confidential, meaning we will not disclose them in any way that would identify you.

The purpose of this survey is to learn how FUP vouchers are being used with self-sufficiency services to address the needs of youth who were formerly in foster care, and to identify any unique benefits or challenges your agency has experienced implementing FUP-FSS and serving this population in partnership with your PHA, CoC, and/or other community service partners. It includes questions about how you have implemented the FUP-FSS Demonstration, your agency’s collaboration with your PHA and other partners, the way FUP and FUP-FSS eligible youth are identified and referred, and your experiences administering services for youth participants.

If your agency has contracted with separate organization(s) to provide services to FUP youth or FUP-FSS

participants, please note that some questions may be better addressed by your contractors. You may wish to ask them to provide you with the relevant information.

This survey should take about 30 minutes to complete. If you cannot complete the survey in one sitting, you may save your place in the survey and finish it at a later time. Please note, however, that the survey needs to be APPENDIX

103

completed by _________________. Participation in this survey is voluntary. Responses wil be kept confidential.

If you decide to participate, thank you in advance. Your responses will help HUD better understand how communities are using the FUP-FSS Demonstration to address the needs of youth who have aged out of foster care.

Please contact Michael Pergamit at (202) 261-5276 or mpergamit@urban.org at the Urban Institute with any questions about the survey.

104

APPENDIX

PCWA SURVEY

1.

Public Child Welfare Agency (PCWA) Name:

2.

State in which PCWA is located:

3. So that we know who in [FILL WITH Q1] is responding to this survey, please provide your contact information:

Name

Position

Phone Number

Email

4.

For how many years have you been employed by [FILL WITH Q1] (in any position or title)?

5.

A single PCWA may partner with multiple PHAs to administer the Family Unification Program (FUP) - Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Demonstration. How many PHAs does your PCWA currently partner with to administer the FUP-FSS

Demonstration?

6.

What are the names of that/those PHA(s)?

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

We wil ask you a series of questions about each of the PHAs your agency partners with to administer the FUP-FSS Demonstration.

7.

In what year did your agency first partner with [PHA(n)] to serve FUP-eligible youth? Drop down with years 8.

In what year did your agency first partner with [PHA(n)] to serve FUP-eligible families? Drop down with years

APPENDIX

105

For the next few questions, please think about the number of youth in foster care in the jurisdiction(s) served by the [PHA(n)]. If you do not have information about the number of youth in foster care in the jurisdiction, please provide information about the number of youth in foster care at the county or state level.

9. What jurisdiction are you reporting on?

10. Approximately how many youth currently in foster care in [JURISDICTION] are 16-17 years old?

11. Approximately how many youth currently in foster care in [JURISDICTION] are 18-20 years old?

12. During your state’s most recent fiscal year, approximately how many youth in

[JURISDICTION] “aged out” of foster care? By “aged out,” we mean exited foster care at age 18 or older without achieving permanency through reunification, adoption or legal guardianship.

SET UP LOOP: Q13-Q26 ASK ABOUT EACH PHA NAMED IN Q6A—Q6E. LOOP THROUGH

EACH PHA(n).

The next few questions are about your agency’s col aboration with [PHA(n)].

13. Do your agency and [PHA(n)] set aside a specific number of FUP vouchers for youth?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q15

 Don’t know SKIP TO Q15

14.

How many FUP vouchers does your agency and [PHA(n)] set aside for youth?

106

APPENDIX

15.

Does [PHA(n)] provide your staff with training on the following?

YES

NO

a. FUP eligibility

1 

0 

b. FUP voucher briefings

1 

0 

c. Tracking and reporting requirements associated with the FUP

1 

0 

d. Section 8/Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program eligibility

1 

0 

e. Housing search and lease-up processes within the Section 8 HCV Program 1 

0 

f. Overview of the FSS program

1 

0 

g. FSS Contract of Participation (CoP)

1 

0 

h. Individual Training and Services Plan (ITSP)

1 

0 

i. FSS escrow account

1 

0 

j. OTHER

Specify

1 

0 

16. [If ANY OF Q15a THROUGH Q15j=YES, THEN ASK] How often does this training occur?

 Once after vouchers were awarded

 Annually

 Twice a year

 Quarterly

 More than once per quarter

 Don’t know

17.

Does your staff provide [PHA(n)] with training on the fol owing?

YES NO

0

a. Characteristics of youth who age out of foster care and their housing needs 1 



0

b. How your agency identifies FUP-eligible youth

1 



0

c. How your agency refers FUP-eligible youth to [PHA(n)]

1 



0

d. Types of housing search assistance provided to FUP-eligible youth by your agency or a partner agency 1 



0

e. Types of supportive services provided to FUP-eligible youth by your agency or a partner agency 1  

f. OTHER

Specify

1 

0



18. [FOR ANY OF Q17a THROUGH Q17f=YES, THEN ASK] How often does this training occur?

 Once after vouchers were awarded

 Annually

 Twice a year

 Quarterly

APPENDIX

107

 More than once per quarter

 Don’t know

19. Does your agency meet regularly with [PHA(n)] about serving FUP-eligible youth?

 Yes

 No

SKIP TO Q21

 Don’t know SKIP TO Q21

20. How often are these meetings held?

 Weekly

 Monthly

 Quarterly

 Twice a year

 Annually

 Don’t know

21. Apart from any regular meetings, how often does your agency communicate with [PHA(n)] about serving FUP-eligible youth (either by phone, email, or in-person)?

 Daily

 Weekly

 Monthly

 Quarterly

 Other (SPECIFY)

 Don’t know

22. Does [PHA(n)] notify your agency once youth have been issued a FUP voucher?

 Yes

 No

23. Has the way the partnership between your agency and [PHA(n)] operate(s) changed since the FUP-FSS Demonstration began?

 Yes

 No

 Don’t know

24.

Has there been more communication between your agency and [PHA(n)]

since the FUP-FSS Demonstration began?

 Yes

 No

 Don’t know

25. Have there been more meetings between your agency and [PHA(n)] since the FUP-FSS Demonstration began?

 Yes

 No

 Don’t know

26. Have there been more cross-agency trainings involving your agency and

[PHA(n)] since the FUP-FSS Demonstration began?

 Yes

 No

 Don’t know

END OF LOOP

108

APPENDIX

The next few questions are about the process your agency uses to identify FUP-eligible youth.

27.

How does your agency identify FUP-eligible youth?

Select all that apply

 Youth are referred by child welfare caseworkers

 Youth are referred by independent living workers

 Youth are referred by your partner CoC

 Youth are referred by a Public Housing Authority

 Youth are referred by youth housing programs

 Youth are referred by aftercare service providers

 Youth are referred by juvenile justice system

 Youth are referred by other state or local agencies

 Youth are referred by other community-based agencies

 Youth refer themselves

 Other (SPECIFY)

28.

Please rank order the THREE most common ways your agency identifies FUP-eligible youth.

Assign a rank of 1 to the most common way, a rank of 2 to the second most common way and a rank of 3 to the third most common way. [SHOW ONLY SELECTED ITEMS FROM Q27]

___Youth are referred by child welfare caseworkers

___Youth are referred by independent living workers

___Youth are referred by your partner CoC

___Youth are referred by a Public Housing Authority

___Youth are referred by youth housing programs

___Youth are referred by aftercare service providers

___Youth are referred by juvenile justice system

___Youth are referred by other state or local agencies

___Youth are referred by other community-based agencies

___Youth refer themselves

___Other (SPECIFY)

29.

Are ALL FUP-eligible youth identified by your agency referred to the Public Housing Authority for FUP?

 Yes SKIP TO Q32

 No

 Don’t know

APPENDIX

109

30.

What percentage of the FUP-eligible youth your agency identifies are referred to the Public Housing Authority for FUP?

 Less than 25%

 25-50%

 51-75%

 76-100%

 Don’t know

31.

Below is a list of factors that could affect the likelihood that your agency wil refer a youth for FUP. For each factor, please indicate if it would make your agency (1) more likely to refer a youth for FUP, (2) less likely to refer a youth for FUP, or (3) if it would have no effect.

MORE

NO

LIKELY LESS LIKELY EFFECT

a. Youth is homeless or precariously housed

1 

2 

0 

b. Youth has never held a job

1 

2 

0 

c. Youth is age 21 or older

1 

2 

0 

d. Youth has a mental health condition

1 

2 

0 

e. Youth has NOT completed high school

1 

2 

0 

f. Youth identifies as lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgender

1 

2 

0 

g. Youth is pregnant or parenting

1 

2 

0 

h. Youth has a disability

1 

2 

0 

i. Youth is enrolled in an education or training program

1 

2 

0 

j. Youth is involved with the juvenile justice system

1 

2 

0 

k. Youth is currently employed

1 

2 

0 

l. Youth has a criminal record

1 

2 

0 

m. Youth has a substance use problem

1 

2 

0 

32.

Before issuing a FUP voucher, the PHA must inform youth how the FUP works and what its requirements are. They must also provide information about the availability of the FUP-FSS

Demonstration. This meeting is cal ed a briefing. How frequently does someone from your agency attend this briefing with the youth?

 Almost always

 More than half of the time

 About half of the time

 Less than half of the time

 Almost never

33.

Does your agency do anything to market or promote the FUP-FSS Demonstration to potential youth participants?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q35

 Don’t know SKIP TO Q35

34. What does your agency do to market or promote the FUP-FSS Demonstration to potential youth participants? Select al that apply

110

APPENDIX

 Share information about the FUP-FSS Demonstration during discharge planning meetings

 Share information about the FUP-FSS Demonstration when youth are referred

 Child welfare caseworkers share information about the FUP-FSS Demonstration

 Independent living workers share information about the FUP-FSS Demonstration

 Other (Specify)

The next set of questions is about the period just before and after FUP-eligible youth reach their time limit on the receipt of housing assistance payments. If youth are participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration, that time limit is the length of the FSS Contract of Participation (typical y five years). Otherwise that time limit is 36

months.

35.

Which of the following does your agency (or a partner agency) do for youth NOT participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration as they approach their 36-month limit? Please do NOT include transitional counseling or other assistance that a Public Housing Authority provides.

YES

NO

a. Provide information about other housing programs available through your agency 1 

0 

b. Provide information about housing programs administered by community-based agencies

1 

0 

c. Provide information about different neighborhoods

1 

0 

d. Take youth on neighborhood tours

1 

0 

e. Transport youth to visit housing units

1 

0 

f. Provide a listing of vacant rental units

1 

0 

g. Refer youth to property managers/landlords

1 

0 

h. Other (SPECIFY)

1  0 

36. [IF Q35a – Q35h = 1] Does your agency or another entity with which your agency contracts provide that same transitional counseling or other assistance to youth who ARE participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration as they approach the end of their FSS Contract of Participation?

 Yes

 No

 Don’t know

We are interested in learning more about options other than the FUP-FSS Demonstration available to youth who have aged out of foster care in [JURISDICTION]. FOR EACH OF THE QUESTIONS IN THIS

SECTION WE ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN WHAT IS AVAILABLE TO YOUTH WHO ARE NOT

PARTICIPATING IN THE FUP-FSS DEMONSTRATION.

37. Are youth who are not participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration eligible for any type of ONGOING

ASSISTANCE from your agency to help them with their housing or other living expenses?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q41

 Don’t SKIP TO Q41

APPENDIX

111

38.

What type of ONGOING ASSISTANCE are they eligible for to help them with their housing or other living expenses?

Select all that apply

 Help paying for rent

 Help paying for utilities

 Help paying for food

 Other (SPECIFY)

39. For how many months of ongoing assistance are they eligible for to help them with their housing or other living expenses?

MONTHS

40. At what age do youth become ineligible for ONGOING ASSISTANCE from your agency to help them with their housing or other living expenses?

 21st birthday

 22nd birthday

 23rd birthday

 Other (SPECIFY)

41. Are youth who are not participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration eligible for any type of ONE-TIME OR EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE from your agency to help them with their housing or other living expenses?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q44

 Don’t know SKIP TO Q44

42. What type of ONE-TIME OR EMERGENCY assistance are they eligible for to help them with their housing or other living expenses?

Select all that apply

 Help paying for rent

 Help paying for utilities

 Help paying for food

 First-month’s rent

 Security deposit

 Utility deposit

 Moving expenses

 Other (SPECIFY)

43.

At what age do youth become ineligible for ONE-TIME OR EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE from your agency to help them with their housing or other living expenses?

 21st birthday

 22nd birthday

 23rd birthday

 Other (SPECIFY)

112

APPENDIX

44.

Are youth who are not participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration eligible for any type of housing advocacy or housing search assistance provided by your agency or another agency with which your agency contracts?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q46

 Don’t know SKIP TO Q46

45.

Which of the following types of housing advocacy or housing search assistance does your agency or

another entity your agency contracts with provide to youth who are not participating in the FUP-FSS

Demonstration?

YES

NO

a. Provide information about different neighborhoods/communities

1 

0 

b. Take youth on neighborhood tours

1 

0 

c. Transport youth to visit housing units

1 

0 

d. Provide a listing of vacant rental units

1 

0 

e. Refer youth to property managers/landlords known to accept FUP vouchers 1 

0 

f. Work with landlords/property managers to help youth secure housing

1 

0 

g. Provide information about tenant rights and responsibilities

1 

0 

h. Provide information about subsidized housing including eligibility requirements 1 

0 

i. Provide information about public transportation services

1 

0 

j. Help youth locate housing near school or work

1 

0 

k. Other (SPECIFY)

1

0





46.

Are youth who are not participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration eligible for any type of supportive services provided by your agency or another entity with which your agency contracts?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q49

 Don’t know SKIP TO Q49

47.

Which of the fol owing types of supportive services are they eligible for?

 Case management

 Independent living skills training

 Other (SPECIFY)

APPENDIX

113

48.

Which of the following housing options are available to youth who are not participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

Available

Available,

within the

but waiting

Not

Don’t

next six

list is more available know

months

than six

months

a. Scattered-site or semi-supervised apartments (Youth live alone or with a roommate in an apartment rented from a private

1 

2 

3 

4 

landlord).

b. Clustered or supervised apartments (youth live alone or with a roommate in an apartment located in an agency-owned building

1 

2 

3 

4 

with 24/7 supervision).

c. Shared homes (several youth live together in and take

responsibility for an agency-owned or –rented house, with

1 

2 

3 

4 

minimal supervision or live-in adults).

d. Adult-roommate apartments (youth share an apartment with an

adult who serves as a mentor).

1 

2 

3 

4 

e. Host homes (youth rent a room and share facilities in a home that is not licensed for foster care).

1 

2 

3 

4 

f. Boarding homes (youth live in a room and share kitchen

facilities with minimal supervision).

1 

2 

3 

4 

g. Subsidized housing (youth live in an apartment and the

government covers part of the rent).

1 

2 

3 

4 

h. Public housing

1 

2 

3 

4 

i. Other (SPECIFY)

1 

2 

3 

4 

The next few questions ask for your opinion about how wel the FUP-FSS Demonstration is working for youth who have aged out of foster care.

49.

In your opinion, is the FUP-FSS Demonstration working as intended for youth who have aged out of foster care?

 Yes

 No

 Don’t know

50. In your opinion, how effective is the FUP-FSS Demonstration at helping youth achieve stable housing?

 Very effective

 Somewhat effective

 Not at all effective

 Don’t know

114

APPENDIX

51.

In your opinion, how effective is the FUP-FSS Demonstration at helping youth become self-sufficient?

 Very effective

 Somewhat effective

 Not at all effective

 Don’t know

The final set of questions is about the child welfare system in your state.

The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 extended the age of Title IV-E–

eligibility from 18 to 21 years old for foster youth who meet at least one of the fol owing criteria:

• Completing secondary education or a program leading to an equivalent credential;

• Enrolled in an institution which provides postsecondary or vocational education;

• Participating in a program or activity designed to promote, or remove barriers to, employment;

• Employed for at least 80 hours per month

• Incapable of doing any of the above due to a medical condition

52. Does your state have an approved plan to extend Title IV-E (federal) foster care beyond age 18?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q54

 Don’t know SKIP TO Q54

53. To what age does your state extend Title IV-E (federal) foster care?

 19th birthday

 20th birthday

 21st birthday

54. Does your state extend state-funded foster care beyond age 18?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q57

 Don’t know SKIP TO Q57

55. To what age does your state extend state-funded foster care?

 19th birthday

 20th birthday

 21st birthday

 22nd birthday

 23rd birthday

56. Under what conditions does your state extend state foster care?

Select all that apply

 Youth is completing high school

 Youth has a physical or mental disability or other special needs

 Youth is receiving treatment for a mental health or substance abuse problem

 Youth is pregnant or parenting

 Court has determined that it is in the best interest of the youth

 Other (SPECIFY)

APPENDIX

115

57.

Are there any circumstances under which your state al ows young people who have been emancipated or discharged to independent living to re-enter foster care before their 21st birthday?

 Yes

 No

 Don’t know

58. Federal law requires that youth receive assistance with transition planning during the 90 days prior to the date on which they wil age out of foster care.

Does this transition planning typically begin more than 90 days prior to the date on which youth wil age out?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q60

 Don’t know SKIP TO Q60

59. How many months before a youth ages out of care does this transition planning typical y begin?

 3 to 6 months

 7 to 12 months

 13 to 18 months

 More than 18 months

 Don’t know

60. Does your agency use federal Chafee funds to cover the cost of housing for youth who are no longer in foster care?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO Q62

 Don’t know SKIP TO Q62

61. What percentage of your agency’s Chafee funds are used to cover housing costs?

 10 or less%

 11-20%

 21-30%

 Don’t know

62. Does your agency allow youth who have an Education and Training Voucher (ETV) to help them pay for their postsecondary education use that voucher to cover their housing costs?

 Yes

 No SKIP TO END

 Don’t know SKIP TO END

63. What percentage of the youth who receive ETVs use their ETVs to cover housing costs?

 0%

 1% to 24%

 25-50%

 51-75%

 76-100%

 Don’t know

64. Do youth ever combine ETVs and FUP vouchers to cover their housing costs while going to school?

 Yes

 No

 Don’t know

116

APPENDIX

END Thank you for your time. We appreciate your responses. They wil help HUD better understand how communities that are using the FUP-FSS Demonstration to serve youth who were in foster care.

APPENDIX

117

Appendix H: PHA Staff Interview

Protocol

FUP-FSS Demonstration Evaluation

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY STAFF

Consent Script for Public Housing Authority Staff

On-Site and phone interviews

Before we begin, I want to tell you a few things about this study and your participation in it. Please feel free to ask me any questions you might have. We will also provide you a copy of this information.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has contracted with the Urban Institute, and with Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago as their subcontractor, to learn how communities are using the Family Unification Program (FUP) – Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) Demonstration (or FUP-FSS for short) to serve youth who were formerly in foster care. The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization based in Washington, DC that conducts research and program evaluations on social policy and practice . The information gathered for the evaluation will be used to help HUD understand how FUP-FSS has been implemented; the effectiveness of partnerships among the participating housing authorities, public child welfare agencies, and other organizations that collaborate on the Demonstration; the agencies’ experiences with implementation; and short-term outcomes for participating youth. We are not evaluating your agency or its role in the Demonstration.

As part of this process, we are talking with representatives from public housing agencies (or PHAs) participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration, along with their partner child welfare agencies. In a small number of communities, we may also talk to Continuum of Care partners and other partner agencies that make referrals or provide FUP-FSS services. You or another staff member from your agency completed a survey earlier this year about how the FUP-FSS Demonstration is being used to serve youth in your community. Based on the results of that survey, we identified the Demonstration in your community as a promising one for further study.

If you agree to participate in a voluntary interview, a pair of researchers will ask you some questions about the FUP-FSS Demonstration, including questions about your collaboration with [PCWA name], the challenges 118

APPENDIX

associated with serving youth, your perspective on the Demonstration, and how well the Demonstration meets the needs of youth.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. Participating or choosing not to participate will in no way affect your interactions with the Federal Government, including HUD, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and/or any other federal agencies. The interview will last about 60 minutes. The interview does not include sensitive questions beyond your experiences with the FUP-FSS Demonstration. That being said, you may choose to skip any questions you don’t want to answer, and you may stop participating in the interview at any time. With your permission, we will audio record the interview to have an accurate record of what is said. One of the researchers will be taking detailed notes, but we will not identify your name in our notes. We may contact you after the interview to ask for clarification.

We will make every effort to protect your confidentiality, and will not disclose information that you share in any way that would identify you. We will not allow anyone outside the research team to listen to the audio recordings or review the notes we take. Information provided to us will be reported in the aggregate by role, organization type or other broad categories. Individuals will not be identified by name or title. When we report our findings, we will combine the information we gather from everyone we talk to and present it in a way that does not allow the responses of individuals to be easily identified. However, we may identify the agency you work for, and unique roles could allow an individual to indirectly attribute a statement to you. Although we are taking steps to mitigate potential risks, there is a chance that you could be identified through a combination of survey responses and interview findings. We believe this risk to be minimal and will protect your identity by removing specific identifiers in our interview transcripts, only reporting findings in the aggregate, and not attributing comments or quotes to you unless we have your permission to do so.

You will be provided a document that answers questions about the FUP-FSS Demonstration Evaluation and the interviews we are conducting. After you review, you can decide if you still want to participate. We want to be sure that you freely consent to participate in this interview and that you are aware that you are not obligated to answer any questions you do not wish to answer.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STUDY OR TODAY’S DISCUSSION?

MAY WE PROCEED WITH THE DISCUSSION OF YOUR FUP-FSS DEMONSTRATION?

APPENDIX

119

Interview Guide for Public Housing Authority Staff

DO YOU CONSENT TO BE RECORDED?

[If consented to recording: I will turn on the audio recorder and begin the interview now and we can get started]

Introduction

We are interested in how your agency launched and implemented your FUP-FSS Demonstration for youth, and how you collaborate with [PCWA name] or other partners to serve FUP-FSS youth. We know that you may use FUP to serve families but we would like to focus on youth for our conversation today, and specifically on the FUP-FSS Demonstration.

Do you have questions before we continue?

Do you consent to be recorded?

[If consented to recording] I am going to turn on the recorder now, and we can get started.

1. Please tell me about yourself.

• What is your position at the PHA?

o What are your primary responsibilities?

• How long have you held this position?

• How much of your time do you spend on FUP youth?

• How much of your time do you spend on the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

2. [PHA name’s] FUP youth participation.

• When did [PHA] start enrolling youth in FUP?

• How many youth are currently enrolled in FUP?

• Are youth provided tenant-based vouchers, project-based assistance, or both?

3. Thinking about the FUP-FSS Demonstration specifically.

• When did [PHA] start enrolling youth in the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

• Since joining the Demonstration, how many FUP youth have enrolled in the Demonstration?

o How many are currently enrolled?

o What proportion of eligible FUP youth participate in the Demonstration?

120

APPENDIX

4. [PHA’s] Motivation for FUP-FSS participation.

• From your perspective, what factors motivated [PHA name] to apply to participate in the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

• Who at [PHA name] was involved in the decision to apply for the demonstration?

• What was your perspective on the demonstration when it first began?

• Why did you feel the demonstration was needed [or not needed]?

o In what ways did you think youth would benefit from the demonstration?

o What, if any, reservations did you have about the demonstration?

• In what ways has your perspective on the demonstration changed since it began?

5. FUP-FSS program structure.

• Who else at your agency is involved in administering FUP-FSS?

o What are their roles? PROBE FOR:

 Who else at your agency is involved with voucher issuance and lease up?

 Who else at your agency is involved with FSS services to FUP youth?

 Is a dedicated staff person assigned to FUP youth?

 Is a dedicated staff person assigned to the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

o Are FSS coordinators staffed by the PHA or by partner organizations?

• [If different HCV and FSS staff] How do FSS and FUP voucher staff coordinate to serve youth?

o How frequently do FUP and FSS staff communicate about FUP-FSS

participants?

6. FUP-FSS referral and enrollment.

• How do FUP-eligible youth learn about the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

o Is FSS offered to all FUP-eligible youth?

 Is the Demonstration offered to both existing FUP youth as well as those with new issuances?

o If not offered to all FUP-eligible youth, which FUP youth are offered the opportunity to participate in the Demonstration?

 Does your PHA have specific FUP-FSS eligibility requirements?

 If yes, what are they?

o Does [PHA] market or promote the Demonstration to potentially eligible youth?

 If so, how?

 What do you tell youth about the benefits of enrolling in FUP-FSS?

o Does the PCWA play a role in identifying youth for FUP-FSS?

 If yes, describe their role.

o How else are youth referred for FUP-FSS participation?

• Do you or your PCWA partner set aside a certain number of vouchers for youth?

• (if yes:) On what basis do you allocate FUP vouchers to youth?

o Probe: Who decided the priority?

 Is it primarily you [the PHA] or [PCWA] that decides the allocation?

o How, if at all, do these priorities differ from those for the voucher waitlist?

• (if no:) How do you determine when to offer a voucher to a youth versus a family?

o Probe: Are families prioritized before youth for FUP?

APPENDIX

121

o Probe: Based on need, first-come/first-served?

 (If based on need) Which youth does your agency prioritize?

• Do you have a preference in your administrative plan for youth aging out of foster care?

7. Experience implementing the FUP-FSS Demonstration.

• Has FUP-FSS participation take-up by eligible youth met [PHA’s] initial expectations?

o How so?

 [If no] What do you attribute low FUP-FSS participation to?

 [If yes] What do you attribute the success to?

• Have there been challenges to recruiting youth for the Demonstration?

o If yes, what are they?

• From your perspective, what are benefits to FUP youth participating in the FUP-FSS

Demonstration?

o Probe for: extended voucher timeline, escrow account, case management, FSS

goal-setting, FSS services, other?

• From your perspective, what are common reasons youth opt out of FUP-FSS?

8. PHA/PCWA/community partner collaboration.

Now we would like to discuss your agency’s relationship with the [PCWA] and other local partners, and how the Demonstration has affected it.

PCWA partnership:

How successful would you say [PHA’s] relationship is with [PCWA]?

o What factors have contributed to that success?

• What barriers to collaboration have your agency and [PCWA] encountered?

o How has your agency dealt with those barriers?

• How has the FUP-FSS Demonstration affected coordination and collaboration between

[PHA] and [the PCWA]?

o To what extent have you developed or increased your engagement with the PCWA?

 In what ways?

• Have you developed any cross-agency trainings on FUP-FSS?

o If yes, what are the trainings focused on?

• How often do you interact with PCWA staff about FUP-FSS?

o Have referrals for youth from the PCWA increased since the launch of the Demonstration?

• What else, if anything, do you think could be done to improve [PHA’s] relationship with

[PCWA]?

CoC partnership:

• Is the CoC a partner to the [PHA/PCWA] collaboration?

o If the CoC is a partner:

 How, if at all, has the CoC’s involvement impacted FUP-eligible youth referrals?

122

APPENDIX

 How, if at all, has the CoC’s involvement impacted services available to FUP

youth, or FUP-FSS youth?

• [If CoC is a partner], who at [CoC name] and agencies funded through the CoC are responsible for FUP-eligible youth?

• How has the FUP-FSS partnership affected collaboration or coordination between the PHA and the CoC?

Community partners:

• Are there other key partner organizations that you work with to serve FUP-FSS youth?

o If so, please describe the roles of each of these partners.

o If so, who at [partner name] is responsible for serving FUP-FSS participants?

• Were these partnerships in place before your agency’s FUP or FUP-FSS programs launched (note to interviewer: distinguish if started before FUP, after FUP but before FUP-FSS, or after FUPFSS)?

• How has the FUP-FSS partnership affected collaboration or coordination between the PHA and community partners?

9. [MTW ONLY] Role of MTW status in the FUP-FSS Demonstration.

Please describe how, if at all, your agency’s MTW status impacts the FUP-FSS program.

• Did MTW status influence [PHA name’s] decision to participate in the demonstration?

o If so, how?

• Have any MTW flexibilities been applied for the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

o If so, how?

• Do MTW flexibilities allow [PHA] to adapt programs or services to better meet FUPFSS youth needs?

o If so, how?

[For PHA staff with no direct engagement with FUP-FSS youth or service provision SKIP TO

Q14 (e.g., executive directors, senior leadership)]

10. Engaging FUP-FSS Demonstration participants.

[For staff with direct engagement with youth]

• How does serving youth aging out of foster care differ from serving other demographics?

• What are unique considerations to engaging and serving FUP-FSS youth participants as compared to families or older adults?

o [For HCV staff] for housing assistance?

o [For FSS staff] for self-sufficiency services?

• In your experience working with FUP youth, how does the trauma they have experienced influence their service needs?

o How does having been “system-involved” affect youths’ ability to move towards self-sufficiency?

• What are unique considerations for serving participants who are parents?

• How have you tried to address the needs of FUP-FSS youth?

• How has [PHA] adapted its services to meet the needs of youth exiting foster care?

APPENDIX

123

o For example, have voucher program policies been adapted?

 [Probe for issuance or orientation procedures, search times, search assistance, occupancy requirements]

o For example, have FSS services been adapted?

 [Probe for educational services, case management model, other

supportive services]

11. Services available to youth participating in FUP-FSS, and FUP youth service needs.

Regarding services for FUP youth:

• What, if any, housing search assistance does your agency provide to youth with FUP vouchers?

• How does [PHA] help FUP youth retain/maintain housing once they are leased-up?

• What additional supportive services does [PHA] provide directly to youth who lease-up with a FUP voucher?

• What services, if any, do partner agencies provide to FUP youth?

o The PCWA or its contracted agencies?

o The CoC?

o Other community partners?

• How, if at all, does your agency coordinate the provision of these supportive services?

• Are youth required to participate in any of these services?

o [If yes] What are the consequences of not participating?

• How has [PHA] adapted its housing services to meet the needs of FUP youth?

Regarding services for FUP-FSS Demonstration participants:

• How do FSS staff engage with FUP youth?

o How often do FSS case managers meet with FUP-FSS participants?

o How do FSS case managers interact and communicate with participants? (phone, in-person, email)

 When and how often is each mode used?

o How does engagement differ for FUP-FSS youth versus other FSS participants?

 In frequency or mode?

 In approach to setting self-sufficiency goals?

• Please describe FUP-FSS youths’ Individual Training and Services Plan (ITSP) goals.

o To what extent do FUP-FSS goals focus on education versus employment?

o How do goals vary for FUP-FSS youth compared to other FSS participants?

o How do FSS service needs vary for FUP-FSS youth compared to other FSS

participants?

• What self-sufficiency services, if any, does [PHA name] provide directly to FUP-FSS youth?

• To which FSS-related community services are FUP-FSS youth referred, if any?

• Are youth required to participate in services?

• How, if at all, does [PHA] coordinate self-sufficiency services for FUP youth?

o Probe for: how do services connect to supports provided by [PHA’s] FSS

coordinator?

• How has [PHA] adapted its FSS program to address FUP-FSS youth needs?

12. Data and tracking outcomes:

• How do [PHA] staff track their engagements with FUP-FSS youth?

124

APPENDIX

o What types of information do you collect?

o Who is responsible for data collection?

o From whom do you collect the information?

o How do you use the information?

 [Request a copy of data tracking tools]

• How do [PHA] staff report FUP-FSS participant information to HUD?

o Are FUP-FSS participants uniquely identified in 50058? Other reporting?

 If yes: How are they identified?

• How do [PHA] staff track outcomes for FUP-FSS youth?

o Probe for: formal or informal tracking tools (excel shared by case managers, by individual case manages?)

 If yes: What outcomes are tracked?

• Probe for: Escrow account balances?

 If yes: How frequently are they tracked (e.g. monthly, semi-annually)?

• [Request a copy of any outcomes tracking tools]

13. Early outcomes.

We would like to hear your perspective on any early implementation outcomes.

• For youth: o In what ways has participation benefitted FUP-FSS participants?

o In what ways has participation been challenging for FUP-FSS participants?

o Have youth sustained their participation in FSS?

o Have FSS case managers or program partners identified any early trends or progress towards FUP-FSS participants’ contracts/goals?

o How, if at all, has average length of FUP participation varied for those enrolled in the Demonstration compared to FUP youth who are not participating in the Demonstration?

o Have case managers identified any early trends in FUP-FSS participants’ ability to sustain their housing?

14. Reflections.

As we approach the end of our conversation, we'd like to ask you to reflect on your experience with using FUP-FSS to serve youth and provide any recommendations you may have about how this combination of services could be improved.

• In what ways has participation in the Demonstration been beneficial to [PHA]?

• In what ways has participation in the Demonstration been challenging to [PHA]?

o What advice, if any, do you have for other PHAs about using [FUP/FUP-FSS] to serve youth?

o Are there lessons you would share about using FSS to serve youth?

• What do you think could be done to encourage more PHAs to use a program model similar to the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

• What changes do you think are needed to make a similar program more effective?

15. Closing.

Thank you for taking the time to talk with me today.

• Is there anything that I did not ask about that you think I should know about your experience with the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

APPENDIX

125

• Are there any community partners or other PHA staff that you think we should talk to?

• Do you have any final questions for me about the study?

126

APPENDIX

Appendix I: PCWA Staff Interview

Protocol

FUP-FSS Demonstration Evaluation

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR PUBLIC CHILD WELFARE AGENCY STAFF

Consent Script for Public Child Welfare Agency Staff

On-Site and phone interviews

Before we begin, I want to tell you a few things about this study and your participation in it. Please feel free to ask me any questions you might have. We will also email/give you a copy of this information.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has contracted with the Urban Institute, and with Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago as their subcontractor, to learn how communities are using the Family Unification Program – Family Self Sufficiency (FUP-FSS) Demonstration to serve youth who were formerly in foster care. The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization based in Washington, DC that conducts research and program evaluations on social policy and practice. The information gathered for the evaluation will be used to help HUD understand how FUP-FSS has been implemented, the effectiveness of partnerships among the participating housing authorities, public child welfare agencies, and other organizations that collaborate on the Demonstration, the agencies’ experiences with implementation, and short-term outcomes for participating youth. We are not evaluating your agency or its role in the Demonstration.

As part of this process, we are talking with representatives from public housing agencies that are participating in the FUP-FSS demonstration, along with their partner child welfare agencies. In a small number of communities, we may also talk to Continuum of Care partners and other partner agencies that make referrals or provide FUP-FSS services. You or another staff member from your agency completed a survey earlier this year about how the FUP-FSS Demonstration is being used to serve youth in your community. Based on the results of that survey, we identified the Demonstration in your community as a promising one for further study.

If you agree to participate in a voluntary interview, a pair of researchers will ask you some questions about the FUP-FSS Demonstration, including questions about your collaboration with [PHA name], the challenges associated with serving youth, your perspective on the Demonstration, and how services could be improved to better meet the needs of youth.

APPENDIX

127

Taking part in this interview is completely voluntary. Participating or choosing not to participate will in no way affect your interactions with the Federal Government including HUD, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and/or any other federal agencies. The interview will last about 60 minutes. The interview does not include sensitive questions beyond your experiences with the FUP-FSS Demonstration. That being said, you may choose to skip any questions you don’t want to answer and you may stop participating in the interview at any time. With your permission, we will audio record the interview to have an accurate record of what is said. One of the researchers will be taking detailed notes, but we will not include your name in our notes. We may contact you after the interview to ask for clarification.

We will make every effort to protect your confidentiality, and will not disclose information that you share in any way that would identify you. We will not allow anyone outside the research team to listen to the audio recordings or review the notes we take. Information provided to us will be reported in the aggregate by role, organization type or other broad categories. Individuals will not be identified by name or title. When we report our findings, we will combine the information we gather from everyone we talk to and present it in a way that does not allow the responses of individuals to be easily identified. However, we may identify the agency you work for, and unique roles could allow an individual to indirectly attribute a statement to you. Although we are taking steps to mitigate potential risks, there is a chance that you could be identified through a combination of survey responses and interview findings. We believe this risk to be minimal and will protect your identity by removing specific identifiers in our interview transcripts, only reporting findings in the aggregate, and not attributing comments or quotes to you unless we have your permission to do so.

We will give you a document that answers questions about the FUP-FSS Demonstration Evaluation and the interviews we are conducting. After you review, you can decide if you still want to participate. We want to be sure that you freely consent to participate in this interview and that you are aware that you are not obligated to answer any questions you do not wish to answer.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STUDY OR TODAY’S INTERVIEW?

DO YOU CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE INTERVIEW?

128

APPENDIX

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR PUBLIC CHILD WELFARE AGENCY STAFF

DO YOU CONSENT TO BE RECORDED?

[If consent is provided] I will now turn on the recorder to begin recording our conversation.

Introduction

We are interested in learning how your agency collaborates with [PHA NAME] to serve youth who were formerly in foster care through the FUP-FSS Demonstration. We know that you may work with multiple PHAs but we would like to focus on [PHA NAME] for this discussion.

Please tell me about yourself.

• What is your position at the agency?

• What are your primary responsibilities?

• Is FUP one of your primary responsibilities?

• How much of your time do you spend on FUP?

• Is anyone else at your agency involved in the administration of FUP?

• What is their role?

Partnership with PHA

Let’s start by talking about your agency’s partnership with [PHA NAME].

• Can you tell me about your agency's partnership with [PHA NAME]?

• When did your agency begin partnering with [PHA NAME] to administer FUP?

• When did your agency begin partnering with [PHA NAME] to serve youth?

• Would you describe your partnership with [PHA NAME] as successful?

 Why or why not?

• Has your agency's partnership with [PHA NAME] changed since the FUP-FSS demonstration began?

• IF YES: In what way has your partnership changed?

 Has the way in which your agencies work together changed?

 Has the frequency of meetings between your agencies changed?

 Has the way in which your agencies communicate with one another changed?

 Has the frequency with which your agencies communicate with one another changed?

• IF YES: To what do you attribute these changes?

APPENDIX

129

• Can you tell me about the communication your agency has with [PHA name] about serving youth through the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

• Has your agency developed any trainings for PHAs around the self-sufficiency needs of FUP-eligible youth since the FUP-FSS demonstration began?

• IF YES: What topics do those trainings cover?

• IF YES: How frequently are those trainings held?

• Has the FUP-FSS demonstration led to other collaborations between your agency and [PHA NAME]?

• IF YES: Can you tell me about those other collaborations?

PCWA Perspective on Demonstration

Next we'd like to talk about your perspective on the FUP-FSS demonstration.

• What role, if any, did your agency play in the decision to apply to be a FUP-FSS Demonstration site?

• What were your thoughts about the Demonstration when it began?

• Prompt: What were your thoughts on the need for the Demonstration?

• Prompt: What were your thoughts on the Demonstration’s potential to benefit youth?

• How has your perspective on the demonstration changed since it began?

Identification and Referral of FUP-Eligible Youth

Now we'd like to talk about how your agency identifies FUP-eligible youth to [PHA NAME].

• How does your agency identify FUP-eligible youth?

• From what sources inside your agency do you receive referrals?

• From what sources outside your agency do you receive referrals?

• From which of these sources does your agency receive the majority of referrals?

• Do FUP-eligible youth ever refer themselves?

• Does your agency refer ALL FUP-eligible youth who are identified to [PHA NAME]?

• IF NO: How does your agency decide which youth to refer?

• IF NO: Are certain types of youth prioritized? IF YES: Which youth?

• IF NO: What are the most common reasons FUP-eligible youth are not referred?

• How do FUP-eligible youth learn about the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

 What do you tell youth about the benefits of enrolling in FUP-FSS?

130

APPENDIX

• Who is involved in deciding how to allocate vouchers between families and youth?

• Do you or your PHA partner set aside a certain number of vouchers for youth?

o (if yes:) On what basis do you allocate FUP vouchers to youth?

o Probe: Who decided the priority?

 Is it primarily you [the PCWA] or [PHA] that decides the allocation?

o How, if at all, do these priorities differ from those for the voucher waitlist?

• (if no:) How do you determine when to offer a voucher to a youth versus a family?

o Probe: Are families prioritized before youth for FUP?

o Probe: Based on need, first-come/first-served?

 (If based on need) Which youth does your agency prioritize?

• What kind of communication does your agency have with [PHA NAME] after a FUP-eligible youth is referred?

• Do your agency and [PHA NAME] have a process for reviewing the status of youth who have been referred to FUP?

• IF YES: What is the review process?

• Is your agency still referring FUP-eligible youth to [PHA NAME]?

• Why or why not?

• IF YES: Are youth still being referred for the FUP-FSS demonstration?

• Has being a demonstration site changed the likelihood that your agency will refer FUP-eligible youth to [PHA NAME] in the future?

• Why or why not?

Marketing/Promoting the Demonstration

Next we'd like to talk about how your agency promotes or markets the Demonstration to youth.

• Does your agency market/promote the FUP-FSS Demonstration to potentially eligible youth?

• IF YES: Can you tell me how your agency markets/promotes FUP-FSS?

• IF YES: What marketing/promotional materials do you use? (Ask for copies)

• IF YES: How were those marketing/promotional materials developed?

• Are youth informed about the FUP-FSS Demonstration as part of their transition planning process?

• IF YES: What information do youth receive about the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

• IF YES: Who is responsible for providing youth with this information?

Assistance with Application and Housing Search

Now let’s talk about the FUP application process.

APPENDIX

131

• Do youth receive assistance with the FUP application process from your agency?

• Approximately how long does it take youth to complete the application process?

• How frequently do youth fail to complete the application process?

• What are the most common reasons youth fail to complete the application process?

• How frequently are youth denied a voucher after successfully completing the application process?

• What are the most common reasons youth are denied a voucher?

• Does someone from your agency typically attend the voucher briefing with youth whose eligibility has been confirmed?

• What typically happens during that voucher briefing?

• What information do youth receive about the FUP-FSS Demonstration during the briefing?

• What type of housing search assistance, if any, does your agency provide to youth who have been issued a FUP voucher?

• What are the most significant barriers to leasing up faced by youth who have been issued a FUP

voucher?

• How has the local housing market affected the ability of youth with FUP vouchers to lease up?

• How frequently do youth who have been issued a FUP voucher fail to lease up?

• What are the most common reasons youth who have been issued a voucher fail to lease up?

Supportive Services

Next we’d like to talk about the supportive services your agency is required to offer youth who have leased up with a FUP voucher.

• Can you tell me about the supportive services your agency provides to youth who have leased up with a FUP voucher?

• Does your agency provide these services or are they provided by one or more contractors?

• IF CONTRACTOR: Tell me about the contractor(s) that provide those services?

• For how long are these services typically provided?

• How often do youth who have leased up with a FUP voucher participate in the supportive services your agency provides?

• What proportion of youth participate in services?

• Which services do youth participate in most often?

132

APPENDIX

• In your opinion, which of the supportive services that your agency offers to youth who have leased up are the most essential?

• Why do you think these are the most essential services?

• In your opinion, are there other supportive services youth need after they lease-up that your agency does not provide?

• IF YES: What are those services?

• Does participation in the FSS program affect the uptake of the supportive services that your agency provides?

• IF YES: In what way?

Data and Evaluation

Now let’s talk about tracking youth participation in the FUP-FSS Demonstration.

• Does your agency collect any information about youth participating in the FUP-FSS

Demonstration?

• IF YES: What types of information does your agency collect?

• IF YES: From whom is that information collected?

• IF YES: How is that information collected?

• IF YES: Who is responsible for collecting that information?

• IF YES: How does your agency use that information?

• IF NO: Why not?

• IF NO: Is your agency considering the collection of information about youth participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

Evaluating the Demonstration

Now let’s talk about how the FUP-FSS Demonstration is working.

• In what ways do you think the FUP-FSS Demonstration is working as intended?

• In what ways do you think the FUP-FSS Demonstration is not working as intended?

• How effective do you think the FUP-FSS Demonstration is at meeting the needs of youth?

• How effective do you think the FUP-FSS Demonstration is at helping youth achieve stable housing?

• How effective do you think the FUP-FSS Demonstration is at helping youth become self-sufficient?

• What changes do you think are needed to make the demonstration more effective?

• What changes do you think are needed to make the demonstration more effective at helping youth achieve stable housing?

• What changes do you think are needed to make the demonstration more effective at helping youth become self-sufficient?

• What other suggestions do you have for improving the program?

APPENDIX

133

Context

Next let’s talk about other types of housing assistance available to youth who have aged out of care.

• Is finding and maintaining stable housing a challenge for youth in [SITE]?

• What are the biggest challenges they face?

• What services or supports do youth need most to find and maintain stable housing?

• Who is typically responsible for addressing the housing needs of youth during the transition planning process?

• In addition to referring FUP-eligible youth to [PHA NAME], what does your agency do to help youth address their housing needs after they age out of care?

• Does your agency provide youth with any housing assistance?

• IF YES: How does your agency fund the housing assistance it provides?

• What housing programs besides FUP serve youth in [SITE]?

• Does your agency ever refer FUP-eligible youth to those programs?

• IF YES: Under what circumstances does your agency refer FUP-eligible youth to those programs?

• IF YES: How often do you refer youth to these programs?

• IF YES: How often are these programs able to address the housing needs of the youth your agency refers?

• IF STATE HAS EXTENDED FOSTER CARE TO AGE 21: Has the extension of foster care to age 21 affected how your agency uses FUP to serve youth?

• IF YES: Can you tell me how this has affected your agency’s use of FUP to serve youth?

Reflections

Finally, we'd like you to reflect on your experience with the FUP-FSS Demonstration.

• What are the biggest challenges your agency has encountered with the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

• What lessons have you learned from the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

Closing

Thank you for taking the time to talk with me today.

• Is there anything else you think I should know about the FUP-FSS Demonstration that I didn’t ask you about?

• Do you have any final questions for me about the study?

134

APPENDIX

Appendix J: Community Service

Provider Interview Protocol

FUP-FSS Demonstration Evaluation

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE PROVIDER STAFF

Consent Script for Community Service Provider Staff

On-Site interviews

Before we begin, I want to tell you a few things about this study and your participation in it. Please feel free to ask me any questions you might have. We will also email you a copy of this information.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) contracted with the Urban Institute, and with Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago as their subcontractor, to learn about how communities are using the Family Unification Program and Family Self-Sufficiency (FUP-FSS) Demonstration to serve youth who were formerly in foster care. The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization based in Washington, DC that conducts research and program evaluations on social policy and programs. The information gathered for the evaluation will be used to help HUD understand how FUP-FSS has been implemented, the effectiveness of partnerships among the participating housing authorities, public child welfare agencies, and other organizations that collaborate on the Demonstration, the agencies’ experiences with implementation, and short-term outcomes for participating youth. We are not evaluating your organization or its role in the Demonstration.

As part of this process, we are talking with representatives from public housing agencies (PHAs) participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration, along with their partner child welfare agencies. In a small number of communities, we will also talk to Continuum of Care partners and other organizations such as yours that provide services to FUP-FSS participants.

If you agree to participate in a voluntary interview, a pair of researchers will ask you some questions about the FUP-FSS Demonstration, including questions about services provided to FUP-FSS youth, your collaboration with [PHA name], ways in which serving youth may differ from serving other groups, successes or challenges APPENDIX

135

you may have encountered serving youth, and lessons learned. The discussion will take about 60 minutes. We may contact you after the interview to ask for clarification.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. Participating or choosing not to participate will in no way affect your interactions with the Federal Government, including HUD, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and/or any other federal agencies. The interview will last about 60 minutes. The interview does not include sensitive questions beyond your experiences with the FUP-FSS Demonstration. That being said, you may choose to skip any questions you don’t want to answer and you may stop participating in the interview at any time. With your permission, we will audio record the interview to have an accurate record of what is said. One of the researchers will be taking detailed notes, but we will not identify your name in our notes. We may contact you after the interview to ask for clarification.

We will make every effort to protect your confidentiality, and will not disclose information that you share in any way that would identify you. We will not allow anyone outside the research team to listen to the audio recordings or review the notes we take. Information provided to us will be reported in the aggregate by role, organization type or other broad categories. Individuals will not be identified by name or title. When we report our findings, we will combine the information we gather from everyone we talk to and present it in a way that does not allow the responses of individuals to be easily identified. However, we may identify the agency you work for, and unique roles could allow an individual to indirectly attribute a statement to you. Although we are taking steps to mitigate potential risks, there is a chance that someone could identify you through a combination of survey responses and interview findings. We believe this risk to be minimal and will protect your identity by removing specific identifiers in our interview transcripts, only reporting findings in the aggregate, and not attributing comments or quotes to you unless we have your permission to do so.

You will be provided a document that answers questions about the FUP-FSS Demonstration Evaluation and the interviews we are conducting. After you review, you can decide if you still want to participate. We want to be sure that you freely consent to participate in this interview and that you are aware that you are not obligated to answer any questions you do not wish to answer.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STUDY OR TODAY’S DISCUSSION?

MAY WE PROCEED WITH THE DISCUSSION?

136

APPENDIX

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE PROVIDER STAFF

DO YOU CONSENT TO BE RECORDED?

[If consented to recording] I will turn on the audio recorder and begin the interview now and we can get started]

Introduction

We are interested in your collaboration with [PHA name] and any collaboration you may have with

[PCWA name] and [CoC lead organization name] in serving youth participating in [PHA name’s]

FUP-FSS Demonstration program. We know that you may work with other child welfare agencies and housing agencies or CoCs, but we would like to focus on these. Also, we know that you may also serve families receiving FUP vouchers, but we would like to just focus on youth participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration for our conversation today.

Do you have questions before we continue?

Now, please tell me about your organization and your position here.

• What are the main activities of your organization?

• What is your position?

o Please describe your primary responsibilities.

• What services does your agency provide to help FUP-FSS youth?

o Do you provide services to both FUP youth and other [PHA] FSS program participants?

• How much of your time do you spend on FUP-FSS youth?

• Are you the main staff person responsible for FUP-FSS Demonstration program services?

o If no: who else is responsible? What is/are their role(s)?

Service Partnership Development

Now let's talk a bit about your partnership with [PHA name] and other service partners involved in administering FUP and related services.

• Please describe your relationship with [PHA name].

APPENDIX

137

[If a substantial relationship exists, ask the following]

• How long have you had this relationship?

• When did you begin partnering to provide services for FUP-FSS youth?

• Was it your agency that approached [PHA name], or did [PHA name] approach you or did someone else approach you?

• What led to your decision to enter this partnership with [PHA]?

• What are your goals for the partnership?

• Do you have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or a contract in place with [PHA name]

that includes language around providing services to youth with FUP vouchers?

• [If yes] What are you required to do? What is [PHA name] required to do?

Service Coordination with Partners

Now we'd like to discuss your coordination with the agencies and organizations that are partners on the local FUP-FSS Demonstration to provide services to FUP-FSS youth: [PHA name], [PCWA name], and [CoC lead organization name].

• How do you coordinate services for FUP-FSS youth with these partner agencies?

• Do you have a point of contact at the partner agencies/organizations to address issues around FUP-FSS youth?

o [Probe for each organization: PHA, PCWA, CoC]

o [If not] Would having a single point of contact be helpful?

• Has your organization assigned a point of contact at partner agencies to reach out to with questions about serving FUP-FSS youth?

• How and how often do you typically communicate with partner agencies/organizations?

o Does your organization have regular meetings with these partners?

 [If no] Do you think it would be helpful to meet regularly? Why?

 [If yes] Please describe those meetings.

• How often do you meet?

• What topics do you typically communicate about?

o Please describe any other communication beyond regular meetings that you have with partner agencies/organizations on providing services to FUP-FSS youth.

 Do you think there should be more communication, less communication, or is the amount about right? Why?

138

APPENDIX

• Do any partner agencies/organizations provide training to staff at your organization around providing services to FUP-FSS youth?

o [If yes] Please describe the training.

o [If no] Would this type of training be helpful? What topics would be helpful to cover?

• How successful overall would you describe your organization's relationship with your partner agencies/organizations?

o Please describe any factors that have contributed to successful collaboration.

o Please describe any barriers to collaboration that have come up and how you have dealt with them.

o What else, if anything, do you think could be done to improve these relationships?

Referral and Application

Now we'd like to learn more about any involvement you have in referring youth for FUP-FSS.

• Do you identify and refer youth who might be eligible for FUP, or for the FUP-FSS

Demonstration?

[If yes, ask the following]

• How does your organization identify FUP-FSS eligible youth?

Supportive Services provided to FUP-FSS demonstration participants

We'd like to know about the supportive or self-sufficiency related services you and other agencies provide to youth who have leased-up and are participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration.

• What, if any, supportive services does your organization provide directly to FUP-FSS

Demonstration youth? Probe for:

• Financial counseling/management?

• Job search assistance?

• Job training?

• Educational or vocational training?

• Transportation assistance?

• Childcare assistance?

• On-going case management?

• Long-term housing planning?

• Other?

• How long are you providing services to youth?

• When are these services typically provided?

• [Probe for] Frequency, length of time spent with youth, regularity of meetings APPENDIX

139

• Are these services also available to FUP youth who are not participating in the Demonstration?

• Do partner agencies/organizations provide any additional supportive services to FUP-FSS

Demonstration participants?

• If yes, please describe those services.

• What, if any, special support do you or your partner agencies target toward youth who are parenting?

• How, if at all, does your organization coordinate services with partner organizations?

• Are there additional services that youth need that your organization or partners do not provide?

If yes, please describe these services.

Engaging FUP-FSS demonstration participants.

We'd like to know about your perspective on any unique considerations for serving FUP-FSS

Demonstration participants.

• How does serving youth aging out of foster care differ from serving other demographics?

• For housing assistance?

• For self-sufficiency services?

• What are some of the unique considerations for serving FUP youth or FUP-FSS participants who are parents?

• In your experience working with FUP youth, how does the trauma they have experienced influence their service needs?

• How does having been “system-involved” affect youths’ ability to move towards self-sufficiency?

• Can you tell me about ways your organization has tried to address the needs of FUP-FSS

youth?

• In what ways, if any, has [community service provider] needed to adapt services to meet the needs of youth exiting foster care?

Funding FUP-FSS Services

• What are your funding sources for self-sufficiency services for FUP-FSS youth?

• How, if at all, does your budget constrain your ability to provide the services you think FUPFSS youth need?

140

APPENDIX

Data

Now we'd like to hear about your process for tracking client information.

• Do you track what services you provide FUP-FSS youth in a data system?

[If track client data, ask the following]

• What type of data system do you use to record client data for the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

• What types of information do you track?

• [Probe for: services received, referrals made, dates received, progress on dimensions of independent living]

• How do you use the information you collect?

Community Context

Please tell us some more about how the community context you work in affects how you serve FUPFSS youth.

• How has the local housing market affected your ability to help youth meet their housing needs?

• Please describe the social services landscape. How widely available are self-sufficiency related services for youth?

• [Probe for] job search, job training, financial counseling, educational or vocational services.

Reflections

As we approach the end of our conversation, we'd like to ask you to reflect on your experience with the FUP-FSS Demonstration and provide any recommendations you may have.

• What do you think is working well?

• What do you think could have been done better to implement the demonstration?

APPENDIX

141

Closing

Thank you for taking the time to talk with me today.

• Is there anything that I did not ask that you think I should know about your experience, FUP

youth, or FUP-FSS Demonstration participants?

• Do you have any final questions for me about the study, or about the research team?

• Is there anyone else you think we should be sure to talk to about the FUP-FSS

Demonstration?

142

APPENDIX

Appendix K: Continuum of Care

(CoC) Interview Protocol

FUP-FSS Demonstration Evaluation

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR CONTINUUM OF CARE (COC)

Consent Script for Continuum of Care (CoC)

In-person interviews with CoC lead organization director/senior administrator

Before we begin, I want to tell you a few things about this study and your participation in it. Please feel free to ask me any questions you might have. We will also email you a copy of this information.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) contracted with the Urban Institute, and with Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago as their subcontractor, to learn about how communities are using the Family Unification Program and Family Self-Sufficiency (FUP-FSS) Demonstration to serve youth who were formerly in foster care. The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization based in Washington, DC that conducts research and program evaluations on social policy and practice. The information gathered for the evaluation will be used to help HUD understand how FUP-FSS has been implemented, the effectiveness of partnerships among the participating housing authorities, public child welfare agencies, and other organizations that collaborate on the Demonstration, the agencies’ experiences with implementation, and short-term outcomes for participating youth. We are not evaluating your organization or its role in the Demonstration.

As part of this process, we are talking with representatives from public housing agencies (PHAs) participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration, along with their partner child welfare agencies. In a small number of communities, we will talk to service providers and other Continuum of Care partners that provide services to FUP-FSS participants.

If you agree to participate in a voluntary interview, a pair of researchers will ask you some questions about the FUP-FSS Demonstration, including questions about services provided to FUP-FSS youth, your collaboration with [PHA name], ways in which serving youth may differ from serving other groups, successes or challenges APPENDIX

143

you may have encountered serving youth, and lessons learned. The discussion will take about 60 minutes. We may contact you after the interview to ask for clarification.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. Participating or choosing not to participate will in no way affect your interactions with the Federal Government, including HUD, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and/or any other federal agencies. The interview will last about 60 minutes. The interview does not include sensitive questions beyond your experiences with the FUP-FSS Demonstration. That being said, you may choose to skip any questions you don’t want to answer and you may stop participating in the interview at any time. With your permission, we will audio record the interview to have an accurate record of what is said. One of the researchers will be taking detailed notes, but we will not identify your name in our notes. We may contact you after the interview to ask for clarification.

We will make every effort to protect your privacy confidentiality, and will not disclose information that you share in any way that would identify you. We will not allow anyone outside the research team to listen to the audio recordings or review the notes we take. Information provided to us will be reported in the aggregate by role, organization type or other broad categories. Individuals will not be identified by name or title. When we report our findings, we will combine the information we gather from everyone we talk to and present it in a way that does not allow the responses of individuals to be easily identified. However, we may identify the agency you work for, and unique roles could allow an individual to indirectly attribute a statement to you. Although we are taking steps to mitigate potential risks, there is a chance that you could be identified through a combination of survey responses and interview findings. We believe this risk to be minimal and will protect your identity by removing specific identifiers in our interview transcripts, only reporting findings in the aggregate, and not attributing comments or quotes to you unless we have your permission to do so.

You will be provided a document that answers questions about the FUP-FSS Demonstration Evaluation and the interviews we are conducting. After you review, you can decide if you still want to participate.

We want to be sure that you freely consent to participate in this interview and that you are aware that you are not obligated to answer any questions you do not wish to answer.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STUDY OR TODAY’S DISCUSSION?

MAY WE PROCEED WITH THE DISCUSSION?

144

APPENDIX

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR CONTINUUM OF CARE (COC) LEAD

ORGANIZATION STAFF

DO YOU CONSENT TO BE RECORDED?

[If consented to recording] I am going to turn on the tape recorder now, and we can get started.

Introduction

Today we’d like to talk to you about how [CoC lead organization name] collaborates with [PHA name]

and [PCWA name] to serve FUP-FSS Demonstration participants. We know that you may work with other housing authorities and other child welfare agencies, but we would like to just focus on these for our conversation today.

Background

I’m going to ask some questions about [CoC name] and your position here.

• What is your position at [CoC lead organization name]?

o What are your primary responsibilities?

o How much time do you spend on youth homelessness?

o How much time do you spend on FUP?

o How much time do you spend on the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

• Are you the primary staff person responsible for FUP/FUP-FSS within [CoC lead organization name]?

• [If no] Who would that be?

o What is/are their role(s)?

• What type of entity is [CoC lead organization name]? (E.g., local government, non-profit service provider, entity created solely to distribute CoC funds)

• What are the main activities [CoC lead organization name] engages in?

• Does [CoC lead organization name] do outreach to homeless youth in the community?

o If so, how do you do this?

• How is [CoC lead organization name]’s coordinated entry system structured?

o How is participant intake and assessment coordinated among service providers?

APPENDIX

145

i. Are there ways in which intake and assessment differ for youth and adults?

ii. [If yes] Can you tell me about that?

Involvement in FUP and FUP-FSS

Now, I have some questions about [CoC lead organization name]’s involvement with FUP and the FUP-FSS Demonstration.

• What were some of [CoC lead organization name]’s motivations to become involved with FUP?

o When did your agency first become involved with FUP?

• What were some of your agency’s motivations to become involved with the FUP-FSS

Demonstration?

o When did your agency become involved with the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

Community Context

Now we'd like to hear your insight on the community context in which you are serving FUP youth.

• Can you tell us about the homeless youth population in [PHA jurisdiction]?

o What are common demographic or other traits?

o What are the most common causes of homelessness for this population?

• Approximately how many homeless youth ages 18 to 24 come through coordinated entry each year in [PHA jurisdiction]?

• Do homeless youth come through other entry points, aside from coordinated entry?

o How many youth do not come through the coordinated entry system?

o Are there other ways these homeless youth can get services?

• Please describe the availability of housing services for homeless youth in [PHA’s jurisdiction]?

o What housing resources other than FUP are available for homeless youth through the CoC?

o Are there housing service providers for youth that are not funded by the CoC?

o [If yes] What types of organizations are those providers?

o [If yes] How did it come to be that these services are not funded by the CoC?

• What self-sufficiency related resources other than FUP-FSS are available for homeless youth through the CoC? (for example, financial counseling, job search, job training, education/vocational training, case management?)

146

APPENDIX

• Can you tell me about any regulatory or statutory barriers to serving youth in [PHA jurisdiction]?

o If yes, how does that interact with the work of [CoC name]?

Identifying FUP-Eligible Youth

Now, I have some questions about how CoC-funded agencies identify youth who are potentially eligible for FUP.

• What, if any, role does [CoC lead organization name] have in this process?

• Which CoC-funded agencies are involved in identifying potentially FUP-eligible youth?

• How do CoC-funded agencies identify potentially FUP-eligible youth?

• Do these agencies use a common assessment tool?

o If so, what assessment tool do they use?

o Are there other assessment tools they use?

o How does that assessment tool/s help these agencies identify potentially FUP-eligible youth?

• Does either [CoC lead organization name] or these agencies match HMIS data to child welfare data to identify youth who had been in foster care?

o [If so] How often are participants matched?

Referring Potentially FUP-Eligible Youth

Now, I have some questions about how CoC-funded agencies refer potentially FUP-eligible youth to

[PCWA name].

• Did [CoC lead organization name] work with [PCWA name] to establish a process for identifying and referring potentially FUP-eligible youth to [PCWA name]?

o [If yes] Please describe how this came about.

o Did [CoC lead organization name] work with [PHA name] or [PCWA name] to establish a process for identifying potentially FUP-FSS eligible youth?

o What role does [CoC lead organization name] have in these referral processes?

• How is the FUP referral process integrated into your coordinated entry system?

• How long have CoC-funded agencies been referring youth who may be FUP-eligible to

[PCWA name]?

APPENDIX

147

• Approximately how many potentially FUP-eligible youth have CoC-funded agencies referred to [PCWA name] since [most recent voucher award date]?

• To your knowledge, do CoC-funded agencies ever not refer a potentially FUP-eligible youth to the [PCWA name}?

• If so, under what circumstances would these agencies not refer a potentially FUP-eligible youth to the [PCWA name]?

• Do CoC-funded agencies ever refer a potentially FUP-eligible youth to another housing program instead of FUP?

• [If yes] What other program(s) do they refer potentially FUP-eligible youth to?

• What factors might lead CoC-funded agencies to refer potentially FUP-eligible youth to those programs instead of FUP?

How, if at all, do CoC-funded agencies prioritize youth for FUP referrals who are currently child welfare-engaged versus highest-need homeless youth who were previously in foster care?

Service Provision

Now, I have some questions about services provided to youth with FUP vouchers by CoC-funded programs.

• Do CoC-funded programs provide any housing assistance services to FUP-eligible youth?

o [If yes] What kinds of services are provided to youth by CoC funded programs?

• Voucher application assistance?

• Housing search assistance?

• Cash assistance? (E.g., help paying security deposit and application fees)

• Landlord assurances?

• Move-in services?

• On-going case management?

• What are your funding sources for these services?

• Do CoC-funded programs provide any post-lease-up self-sufficiency related services to FUP

youth?

o [If yes] What kinds of services are provided to youth by CoC funded programs?

• Financial counseling/management?

• Job search?

• Job training?

• Educational or vocational training?

• Transportation assistance?

• Childcare assistance?

148

APPENDIX

• On-going case management?

• Long-term housing planning (e.g., in preparation for when voucher assistance ends)?

• Other services?

• How long after lease-up are you and other agencies providing supportive services to youth?

o To what extent does this vary?

• What proportion of youth who lease up with FUP are eligible for services from CoC-funded programs? What makes them eligible?

o Do services vary for FUP-FSS Demonstration participants?

o [If yes] How so?

Partnership with PHA, PCWA and Other Collaborating Agencies

Please tell us about how [CoC lead organization name] collaborates with [PHA name] and [PCWA name] as FUP-FSS partners.

• How did [CoC lead organization name]’s collaboration with [PHA name] and [PCWA name]

come about?

o Did someone at [PHA name] or [PCWA name] reach out to [CoC lead organization name] or did [CoC lead organization name] initiate the relationship?

• Has [CoC lead organization name] ever collaborated with either the [PHA name] or [PCWA name] before?

o [If yes] What was the nature of that collaboration?

• Is there a single point of contact at these agencies to address issues around serving youth participating in FUP-FSS?

o [If no] For FUP youth generally?

o [If no] Would having a single point of contact be helpful?

 Why or why not?

• Does [CoC lead organization name] have a single point of contact for partner agencies to reach out to with questions about serving youth?

• What does [CoC lead organization name]’s Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, for the FUP-FSS demonstration with [PHA name] and [PCWA name] require of each party?

o [Probe] prioritization of FUP youth, coordination of referrals, integration into coordinated entry system, identification of services funded through CoC, quarterly meetings, common goals and standards of success

o How, if at all, do you update your MOU to reflect changes in activities?

• How does [CoC lead organization name] coordinate with [PHA name] and [PCWA name] to serve youth participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

APPENDIX

149

• How often does [CoC lead organization name] typically communicate with [PHA name] or

[PCWA name] about FUP-FSS?

o What are those communications typically about?

o Do you think there should be more communication, less communication, or is the amount about right?

• How often does [CoC lead organization name] meet with [PHA name] or [PCWA] about FUP-FSS?

o What are those meetings typically about?

• What training, if any, does [CoC lead organization name] provide to the [PCWA name] or

[PHA name]?

o How often does the [CoC lead organization name] provide this training?

• What training, if any, does the PHA provide to [CoC lead organization name] and/or CoC-funded agencies?

o Which organizations are involved in these trainings?

o How often does [PHA name] provide this training?

• What training, if any, does [PCWA name] provide to [CoC lead organization name] and/or CoC-funded agencies?

o Which organizations are involved in these trainings?

o How often does [PCWA name] provide this training?

• [If the PHA and/or PCWA only trains the CoC lead organization] How, if at all, do you pass along information from these trainings to CoC-funded agencies?

• How would you characterize [CoC lead organization name]’s relationship with [PHA name]?

o Are respective roles and responsibilities clear?

o In your perspective, is there a sense of common mission?

• How would you characterize [CoC lead organization name]’s relationship with [PCWA name]?

o Are respective roles and responsibilities clear?

o Is there a sense of common mission?

Funding FUP-FSS Partnership

Next, we have a question about your funding sources for services provided to FUP-FSS participants, specifically.

• What CoC funds are used to cover the cost of supportive services for youth participating in the FUP-FSS demonstration?

150

APPENDIX

Implementation Challenges

We’d also like to hear about challenges you may have experienced as a FUP-FSS Demonstration partner.

• What challenges have [CoC lead organization name] and CoC-funded agencies encountered as part of the FUP-FSS Demonstration partnership?

o How did your agency overcome those challenges?

• What, if any, aspects of the partnership do you consider to be successful?

o What factors facilitated the success of the partnership?

Reflections

As we approach the end of our conversation, we'd like to ask you to reflect on your experience with the FUP-FSS Demonstration and provide any recommendations you may have.

• What do you think is working well with the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

• What do you think could have been done better to implement the Demonstration?

• Are there any changes that would help CoCs use FUP-FSS more effectively?

Closing

Thank you for taking the time to talk with me today.

• Is there anything that I did not ask that you think I should know about your role or the FUPFSS partnership?

• Do you have any final questions for me about the study?

APPENDIX

151

Appendix L: Youth Participant

Interview Protocol

FUP-FSS Demonstration Evaluation

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR YOUTH FUP-FSS PARTICIPANTS

Consent Script for Youth FUP-FSS Demonstration Interviews

On-Site interviews

Before we begin, I want to tell you a few things about this study and your participation in it. Please feel free to ask me any questions you might have. We will also email/give you a copy of this information.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) contracted with the Urban Institute and with Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, as their subcontractor, to learn about how the Family Unification Program - Family Self-Sufficiency (FUP-FSS) Demonstration has been working. The Urban Institute is a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, DC that conducts research on social policy and practice with the goal of expanding opportunities for all people. The information gathered will be used to help HUD

understand how the demonstration is being carried out and what the outcomes of participating youth are in the short-term.

You have been invited to participate in this interview because you were eligible to participate in the FUP-FSS

Demonstration. If you agree to participate in an interview, a pair of researchers will ask you some questions about your experiences with the FUP-FSS demonstration, including how you learned about the demonstration, why you decided to participate or not to participate, and what help you have received through the demonstration if you participated in it.

Taking part in this interview is completely voluntary. Participating or choosing not to participate will have no effect on your participation in the FUP-FSS Demonstration or on any services you are eligible to receive. The interview will last about 60 minutes. You may choose to skip any questions you don’t want to answer and you may stop participating in the interview at any time. With your permission, we will audio record the interview to have an accurate record of what is said. One of the researchers will be taking detailed notes. We may contact you after the interview to ask for clarification. You will receive a $25 gift card as a thank you.

152

APPENDIX

We will make every effort to protect your privacy to the extent permitted by law. We will not allow anyone outside the research team to listen to the audio recordings or review the notes we take. Our notes will not include your name. We will combine what you tell us about your experiences with the FUP-FSS Demonstration with what several other young people here in [PHA jurisdiction] and in 2 other locations tell us. If we quote you, we won’t include your name or any other information that could be used to identify you.

We will give you a document that answers questions about the FUP-FSS Demonstration Evaluation and the interviews we are conducting. After you review the document, you can decide if you still want to participate.

We want to be sure that you freely consent to participate in this interview and that you are aware that you are not required to answer any questions you do not want to answer. Additionally, your decision to participate or not and your responses to our questions will in no way affect any services you are eligible for or receiving.

[Provide FUP-FSS Demonstration Evaluation INFORMATION FOR YOUTH ABOUT THE FUP-FSS

DEMONSTRATION STUDY]

APPENDIX

153

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR YOUTH

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STUDY OR TODAY’S INTERVIEW?

DO YOU CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE INTERVIEW?

DO YOU CONSENT TO BE RECORDED?

[If consented to recording]: I am turning on the tape recorder now so we can get started.

Today we’d like to talk to you about your experiences with the Family Unification Program - Family Self-sufficiency (FUP-FSS) Demonstration.

1. Are you a FUP-FSS Demonstration participant?

o [IF NO: verify participation in FUP youth]

o IF YES: How long have you been participating in FUP-FSS?

o How long have you been participating in FUP youth?

Learning about FUP

Let’s start by talking about how you first learned about Family Unification Program, which is also known as FUP. FUP provides housing vouchers from a public housing authority and other services to youth who were formerly in foster care.

• Can you tell me how you first learned about FUP?

o Prompt: When did you first learn about FUP (e.g., part of transition planning process; after leaving care)?

o Prompt: From whom did you first learn about FUP (e.g., caseworker)?

• What were you told about FUP when you first learned about it?

o Prompt: What were you told about the benefits of participating in FUP?

• What did you think about FUP when you first learned about it?

Learning about FSS Program

Now let’s talk about the Family Self Sufficiency Program, which is also known as the FSS Program. The FSS

Program provides case management and other services to help youth become self-sufficient.

• Did you learn about the FSS program at the same time you first learned about FUP?

o IF NO: When did you first learn about the FSS program?

• What were you told about the FSS program when you first learned about it?

154

APPENDIX

o Prompt: What were you told about the benefits of participating in the FSS program?

• What did you think about the FSS program when you first learned about it?

Decision to participate in the FUP-FSS Demonstration

Next let’s talk about your decision to participate in the FUP-FSS demonstration.

• Can you tell us about your decision to participate in the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

o [IF PARTICIPATING IN THE DEMO]:

o What motivated you to participate?

 Prompt: Potential to keep your housing voucher for more than 36 months?

 Prompt: Case management services offered by the FSS program?

 Prompt: Connections to education, employment and other services?

 Prompt: Potential to build up savings that you can use when you graduate?

o What was the most important reason you decided to participate?

o [IF NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE DEMO]:

o Can you tell us about your decision not to participate in the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

o What factors influenced your decision not to participate?

o What was the most important reason you decided not to participate?

 Prompt: Are there other services available in the community?

 Prompt: Do you not need the services because you are working or in school?

 Prompt: Did you not want to participate in yet another program?

o How much thought did you give to participating in the Demonstration?

o What, if anything, would have changed your mind about participating in the Demonstration?

FUP Application and Orientation

Now let’s talk about your experience with the FUP application and orientation.

• Can you tell us about the application process?

o Did you experience any challenges filling out the application?

o IF YES: What challenges did you experience?

o Did you receive any help filling out the application?

o IF YES: What was the most useful help that you received?

o IF NOT: What kind of help would have been useful to you?

• What happened during the orientation you attended before your FUP voucher was issued?

o Was the information you received about FUP during that orientation useful?

o What information did you receive about the FSS program during that orientation?

 How useful was this information?

APPENDIX

155

Assistance Finding Housing

Next, let’s talk about finding a place to live with your FUP voucher.

• Can you tell us about your experience finding a place to live with your FUP voucher?

o PROMPT: How easy or difficult was finding a place to live?

• What challenges did you face trying to find a place to live with your FUP voucher?

• Did you receive any help finding a place to live?

o What type of help did you receive?

o Who provided that help?

Other Housing Assistance

Now let’s talk about other help with housing you might have received.

• Besides help finding a place to live, have you received any other help with your housing? For example, did you receive help with security deposits, utilities, moving expenses, furniture, or household items?

o IF YES: What other help with your housing have you received?

o IF YES: Who provided that help?

o IF NO: Did/do you need additional help with your housing?

 IF YES: What additional help with your housing did/do you need?

Housing Stability

Next I’d like to talk about the stability of your housing.

• Would you describe yourself as stably housed?

o Why or why not?

• How many times have you moved since you first leased up with your FUP voucher?

• Have you ever not been able to pay your portion of the rent since you first leased up with your FUP voucher?

• Do you think the [FUP program or FUP-FSS Demonstration] has helped you maintain stable housing?

o IF YES: How has the program helped you maintain stable housing?

o IF NO: What additional help do you need to maintain stable housing?

• How do you think you will pay for your housing once the housing assistance you receive because of your FUP voucher [and FUP-FSS participation] ends?



[For FUP youth not participating in FUP-FSS SKIP to Section 16]

Participating in FSS

Next I would like to talk about your participation in the FSS component of FUP-FSS.

• When did you start participating in the FSS program?

156

APPENDIX

Self-Sufficiency Goals

FSS participants have an Individual Training and Services Plan (ITSP) that includes their self-sufficiency goals.

• Can you tell us about your self-sufficiency goals?

o What motivated you to choose these goals?

o Tell me about any help you received choosing your goals?

 Prompt: What kind of help did you receive?

 Prompt: What, if any, additional help would have been useful?

Case Management

FSS participants are assigned a case manager to help them access the services they need to achieve their self-sufficiency goals.

• What has working with your FSS case manager been like?

o What kind of help, if any, does your FSS case manager provide?

o How frequently do you meet with your FSS case manager?

 How frequently would you like to meet with your case manager?

o Do you think your FSS case manager can help you achieve your FSS goals?

 Why or why not?

Connections to Services and Resources

FSS c ase managers connect FSS participants to the services or other resources they need to achieve their education, employment or other self-sufficiency goals.

• What, if any, services or other resources have you been referred to by your FSS case manager?

• For how long did/have you participate(d) in these services?

• Have these services or other resources helped you achieve your FSS goals?

Chal enges to Self Sufficiency

Earlier I asked you about your self-sufficiency goals. Now let’s talk about the progress you [made/are making]

toward those goals.

• Can you tell me about the progress [you made/you are making] towards your self-sufficiency goals?

• What are the biggest barriers to achieving those goals?

• How [did the FSS program help/is the FSS program helping] you overcome these barriers?

• What else could the program [have done/do] to help you overcome these barriers?

FUP-FSS Demonstration Promotion

Imagine for a moment that another young person asked you about the FUP-FSS Demonstration.

APPENDIX

157

• What would you tell this young person about FUP-FSS?

• What do you think is the best way to let other young people who are eligible for FUP-FSS know about the opportunity?

Reflections

Finally, we'd like you to reflect on your experience with FUP-FSS.

• How do you think you [have benefited/are benefiting] from participating in the FUP-FSS

Demonstration?

• What [did/do] you find most useful about participating in the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

• What [did/do] you like least about the FUP-FSS Demonstration?

• What, if anything, would you change about the FUP-FSS Demonstration to make it easier for young people to participate?

• What could the Demonstration do differently to better meet the needs of young people who want to participate in it?



[For FUP youth participating in FUP-FSS SKIP to Section 17]

Self-Sufficiency

Many young people need assistance to help them become self-sufficient. Let’s talk about any assistance you are receiving and any assistance you might need.

• What kind of assistance, if any, are you receiving from [CHILD WELFARE AGENCY NAME]

to help you become self-sufficient?

o Prompt: FUP supportive services

o Prompt: [Chafee services, using local service name]

o Prompt: Education and Training Voucher (ETV)

• Can you tell me about some of the biggest barriers to your becoming self-sufficient?

• What additional assistance, if any, would help you become self-sufficient?

Closing

Thank you for your participation in the interview.

• FOR YOUTH WHO ARE/WERE FUP-FSS DEMONSTRATION PARTICIPANTS: Is there

anything else you think I should know about the FUP-FSS Demonstration that I didn’t ask you about?

• FOR YOUTH WHO WERE NOT FUP-FSS DEMONSTRATION PARTICIPANTS: Is there

anything else you think I should know about helping youth become self-sufficient that I didn’t ask you about?

• Do you have any final questions for me about the study?

158

APPENDIX

References

Brewsaugh, Katrina, Audrey Richardson, and Annelise Loveless. 2021. State Approaches to Extending Chafee Services to Age 23: Insights to Inform a Learning Agenda. OPRE Report #2021-169. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation.

Courtney, Mark E., Sherri Terao, and Noel Bost. 2004. Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Conditions of Youth Preparing to Leave State Care. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.

Courtney, Mark E., Andrew Zinn, Erica Zielewski, Roseana Bess, Karin Malm, Matthew Stagner, and Mike Pergamit. 2008.

Evaluation of the Life Skills Training Program Los Angeles County, California: Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.

Courtney, Mark E, A. Dworsky, Joann Lee, and Melissa Raap. 2010. Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Ages 23 and 24. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children.

de Silva, Lalith, Imesh Wijewardena, Michelle Wood, and Bulbul Kaul. 2011. Evaluation of the Family Self-Sufficiency Program: Prospective Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

Dion, M. Robin, Rebecca Kleinman, Jackie Kauff, and Amy Dworsky. 2014. The Family Unification Program: A Housing Resource for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.

Fernandes-Alcantara, Adrienne L., and Maggie McCarty. 2021. Housing for Former Foster Care Youth: Federal Support.

Report R46734. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

Fowler, Patrick J., and Dina Chavira. 2014. “Family Unification Program: Housing Services for Homeless Child Welfare–

Involved Families,” Housing Policy Debate 24 (4): 802–14.

Government Accountability Office. 2019. Foster Care: States with Approval to Extend Care Provide Independent Living Options for Youth up to Age 21. Report to the Subcommittee on Worker and Family Support, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. GAO-19-411. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.

Pergamit, Mike, Mary Cunningham, and Devlin Hanson. 2017. “The Impact of Family Unification Housing Vouchers on Child Welfare Outcomes,” American Journal of Community Psychology 60 (1–2): 103–13.

Verma, Nandita, Stephen Freedman, Betsy L. Tessler, Barbara Fink, and David Navarro. 2021. Work, Engagement, and Well-Being at the Midpoint: Findings from the Family Self-Sufficiency Evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

REFERENCES

159

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

October 2022

Document Outline

Family Unification Program Family Self Sufficiency (FUP-FSS) Demonstration Evaluation

Disclaimer

Acknowledgments

Foreword

Contents

List of Exhibits

Executive Summary

Key Findings

Recommendations

Background

The Family Unification Program

The Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program

The FUP-FSS Demonstration

The FUP-FSS Demonstration Evaluation

Research Questions

Methodology

Administrative Data

Survey

Interviews

Results

PHA/PCWA Participation and Agency Characteristics

Participant Characteristics

Demonstration Implementation

Collaboration: PHAs, PCWAs, and Other Partners

Youth Voice

Youth Demonstration Participation

Short-Term Outcomes for Youth: Length of Stay and Income over Time

Staff Reflections

Conclusions

Featured Findings

Recommendations

Future Research

Appendix A: FUP-FSS Participant PHAs

Appendix B: Research Questions

Appendix C: Administrative Data Approach

Appendix D: Administrative Data Tables

Appendix E: Interview Coding

Appendix F: PHA Survey Protocol

Appendix G: PCWA Survey Protocol

Appendix H: PHA Staff Interview Protocol

Appendix I: PCWA Staff Interview Protocol

Appendix J: Community Service Provider Interview Protocol

Appendix K: Continuum of Care (CoC) Interview Protocol

Appendix L: Youth Participant Interview Protocol

References