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.

Family Options Study

Long-term Tracking Project

Submitted by:

Debi McInnis

Daniel Gubits

Brenda Rodriguez

Scott Brown

Michelle Wood

Abt Associates

Foreword

The Family Options Study is a landmark research effort funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) between 2008 to 2016 that evaluated the impacts of different housing and service interventions to address family homelessness. In total, 2,282 families with over 5,000 children were enrolled into the study nationwide, randomly assigned to different housing and service interventions, and then followed over a period of three years to examine the relative effects of the interventions on a broad set of measures, ranging from housing stability to child well-being. The study produced strong evidence regarding the family-level impacts of different housing and service interventions to address family homelessness. Among the study’s findings was evidence that housing vouchers improved housing stability, reduced exposure to domestic violence, and lowered incidences of food insecurity. The study also demonstrated, however, that housing subsidies alone did not lead to materially different substance abuse, employment, or income outcomes compared to usual care. Additional research focused on understanding whether these impacts change over a longer period of observation is merited, and the Family Options Study- Long-Term Tracking Project lays the groundwork for future research efforts.

This report documents the results of an effort to re-establish contact with study families three years after the conclusion of the last round of primary data collection. The purpose of this outreach was to assess the viability of a future round of primary data collection with study families. All in all, the outreach effort was successful, with 75 percent of the total sample located, interviewed, or determined to have viable contact information for future followup.

The results of this tracking study pave the way for HUD to favorably consider the opportunity for continued followup with study families for the purpose of understanding the long-term impact of different interventions to address family homelessness.

Seth D. Appleton

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.

Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 2

2.

How Successful Was the Family Options Study Long-Term Tracking Effort? ....................... 5

2.1 Re-Engagement Letter and Contact Update Results .............................................................. 5

2.2 Tracking Survey Response Rates ........................................................................................... 6

2.3 Case Status by Site ................................................................................................................. 7

3.

What is the Research Value of 78-Month Survey Data? .......................................................... 10

3.1 What Data Was Collected in the 78-Month Tracking Survey? ............................................ 10

3.2 Are the Pairwise Comparison Samples Among 78-Month Respondents Balanced

Enough for Impact Analysis? ............................................................................................... 11

3.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 13

4.

What Is the Research Value of Consent-to-Use-PII Sample? .................................................. 14

4.1 What is the Status of the Consent-to-Use-PII Sample? ........................................................ 14

4.2 Potential Matching Data Sources ......................................................................................... 15

4.3 Are the Pairwise Comparison Samples Among 78-Month Respondents Balanced

Enough for Impact Analysis? ............................................................................................... 15

4.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 16

5.

What is the Expected Analytic Value of Another Followup Survey Collection? ................... 17

5.1 What Information Would be Collected in a Future Followup Survey? ............................... 17

5.2 Assessment of Feasibility of Another Followup Survey ...................................................... 17

5.3 Receipt of Housing Assistance ............................................................................................. 19

5.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 21

6.

Descriptive Analysis of the 78-Month Survey Sample .............................................................. 22

6.1 Who Responded to the 78-Month Survey? .......................................................................... 22

6.2 How Are the 78-Month Respondents Doing Overall? ......................................................... 25

6.2.1

What Is the Housing Status of Families Who Responded to the 78-Month

Survey? ................................................................................................................... 25

6.2.2

What is the Employment Status of Families that Responded to the 78-Month

Survey? ................................................................................................................... 36

6.2.3

How Much Internet Access Do 78-Month Survey Respondents Have? ................. 37

6.3 How Have 78-Month Respondent Outcomes Changed Over Time? ................................... 38

7.

Longer-Term Analysis of Employment and Earnings Impacts ............................................... 41

Appendix A: Summary of the Passive and Active Tracking Approach ......................................... A-1

i

A.1 Updating the Sample Management Database ....................................................................... A-1

A.2 Passive Tracking Efforts ....................................................................................................... A-2

A.3 Active Tracking Efforts ........................................................................................................ A-3

A.3.1.1 Incentives .............................................................................................................. A-5

Appendix B: 78-Month Tracking Survey Instrument ...................................................................... B-1

Appendix C: Additional Results of Long-Term Tracking ............................................................... C-1

Appendix D: Outcomes Measured in 78-Month Survey Data ......................................................... D-1

Appendix E: Frequencies from the 78-Month Tracking Survey ..................................................... E-1

Appendix F: Balance of Baseline Characteristics for Full Sample ................................................. F-1

Appendix G: Balance of Baseline Characteristics for 78-Month Respondent Sample .................. G-1

Appendix H: Balance of Baseline Characteristics for Consent-to-Use-PII Sample ....................... H-1

Appendix I: NDNH Impacts on Earnings and Employment by Calendar Quarter ...................... I-1

Appendix J: Statistics Related to Balance of Baseline Characteristics ........................................... J-1

8.

References .................................................................................................................................. 146

ii

Executive Summary

The Family Options Study is the largest experimental study of interventions serving homeless families that has been conducted. This large sample of homeless families provides a unique opportunity to examine the effects of the housing and services interventions tested in the study and to explore family dynamics and well-being over time.

From October 2017 to March 2018, Abt Associates conducted participant tracking to locate and interview the Family Options Study sample. The study team attempted to contact the study sample after more than 3

years without contact. The purpose of this participant tracking was to assess the viability of the study sample to support longer-term followup data collection. The tracking was not designed to provide a detailed set of new survey data, nor was it intended to produce longer-term impact estimates. The study team completed interviews with 49 percent of the study sample a median of 78 months after random assignment. In addition to completing interviews with 48.7 percent of the sample, the study team was able to locate (but not interview) an additional 10.6 percent of the sample and considers an additional 15.7

percent of the sample to have viable leads for future contact. In total, 75 percent of the sample was interviewed, located, or determined to have viable contact information during the 78-month effort.

The 78-month survey measured important outcomes. These data were used to describe the 78-month survey sample in this report.

Future research could assess whether the 78-month survey data can support impact analysis. The SUB

versus UC1 comparison holds the most potential for supporting impact analysis using 78-month outcomes.

The consent-to-use-PII2 sample is slightly more than three-fourths (76 percent) of the full sample.

Information on important outcomes (such as patterns of participation in programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP], Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF], and Medicaid) could be matched to the sample. The study team expects that when using nonresponse weights, one would be able to calculate internally valid impact estimates for all pairwise comparisons in addition to descriptive longitudinal analysis.

A future follow-up survey could provide more information on outcomes such as homelessness and doubling up, housing quality, family separations and reunifications, adult and child well-being, employment and income, and food security. Given that 75 percent of the sample was located or determined to have viable contact information during the 78-month participant tracking effort, the likelihood of achieving an overall response rate between 65 to 75 percent for a future survey seems high.

A response rate in that range would allow for valuable longitudinal analysis of family outcomes and would likely support impact analysis.

1 The SUB versus UC comparison includes the households in the study that were found eligible for both the SUB

intervention (in which families received priority access to a long-term housing subsidy, typically a Housing Choice Voucher) and the UC intervention (in which families received access to usual care homeless and housing assistance but did not have priority access to any particular program) and were randomly assigned to one of the two groups.

2 The consent-to-use-PII sample consists of those participants who provided consent to release their personally identifiable information (PII).

1

1. Overview

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sponsored the Family Options Study to develop evidence about which types of housing and services interventions work best for families who experience homelessness. The study, conducted by Abt Associates and its partner Vanderbilt University, compares the effects of three active interventions—long-term housing subsidy, short-term housing subsidy, and project-based transitional housing—with one another and with the usual care available to homeless families. The Family Options Study is the largest experimental study of interventions serving homeless families that has been conducted to date.

From September 2010 through January 2012, 2,282 families enrolled in the Family Options Study across 12 communities3 after spending at least 7 days in an emergency shelter. After providing informed consent and completing a baseline survey, the families were randomly assigned to one of four groups: 1. SUB (subsidy): families received priority access to a long-term housing subsidy, typically a Housing Choice Voucher (HCV).

2. CBRR (community-based rapid re-housing): families received priority access to a temporary housing subsidy, lasting up to 18 months, in the form of community-based rapid re-housing assistance.

3. PBTH (project-based transitional housing): families received priority access to a temporary, service-intensive stay, lasting up to 24 months, in a project-based transitional housing program.

4. UC (usual care): families received access to usual care homeless and housing assistance but did not have priority access to any particular program.

In the original design of the study, each family was to have a chance of being assigned to all four groups (SUB, CBRR, PBTH, or UC). A number of factors prevented the study from being implemented as planned. 4 As discussed in Chapter 3, to analyze the relative impacts of assignment to the four groups, families were included in pairwise comparisons for the interventions that were available to them at the time of random assignment and for which they were eligible. Families were free to take up their assigned interventions or to make other arrangements, so families used a mix of programs, often including programs other than the one to which they were given priority access. Nonetheless, patterns of program use among the groups of families contrasted substantially.

In the first 3 years after random assignment, the study team attempted to contact all enrolled families approximately every 3 months, using a combination of phone calls, letters, and passive tracking activities.

The team completed brief tracking surveys 6, 12, and 27 months after random assignment and conducted extensive followup surveys 20 and 37 months after random assignment. The experimental study design provides a strong basis for conclusions about the relative impacts of the interventions on several aspects 3

The 12 communities participating in the study are Alameda County, California; Atlanta, Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Bridgeport and New Haven, Connecticut; Denver, Colorado; Honolulu, Hawaii; Kansas City, Missouri; Louisville, Kentucky; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Phoenix, Arizona; and Salt Lake City, Utah.

4 See Gubits et al Interim Report: Family Options Study for more detail.

2

of family well-being. The study sample, and the rich set of data collected about their housing stability, family composition, adult well-being, child well-being, and self-sufficiency support rigorous, longitudinal research about the nature of family homelessness and its long-term consequences for adults and children.

The 6-, 12-, and 27-month tracking efforts were intended to remind the participants about the study and collect a few key data items (contact information, housing and employment status, and family composition). All families—except those confirmed deceased—were released for interviewing each wave, regardless of whether or not they completed the prior effort.

During the 20- and 37-month follow-up survey efforts, the interviewers followed a more intensive locating strategy with a longer field period for phone and in-person surveys. Interviewers made multiple call attempts and sent letters and emails to participants in an effort to contact them. The interviewers also visited the respondent and the family members and friends who the families provided as secondary contact persons in order to maximize response rates for the surveys.

In previous analyses, the Family Options Study examined the relative effects of the interventions over a three-year followup period. It is possible that some effects could emerge over a longer followup period.

Continued efforts to retain the sample and to gather new information about family experiences, use of homeless services, and family composition over a longer period could reap substantial benefits for researchers and policy makers who may want to examine longer term effects of the interventions, and to describe the dynamics among adults and children in families who experienced homelessness in 2010 to 2012.

The Family Options Study Long-Term Tracking Project is the first effort to re-engage participants since December 2014, although a few families contacted Abt to inquire about the study after the 37-month survey, the study team did not have any organized contact with the study families after the 37-month survey effort concluded.

The median response time for this long-term tracking data collection was 78 months after families were enrolled in the study and assigned to one of four intervention groups. 5 This long-term tracking effort had three objectives:

1. To increase the viability of a potential future followup data collection that HUD might conduct by a. Collecting contact information of family heads and secondary contact persons.

b. Obtaining informed consent from family heads to continue participation in the study.

2. To extend the study’s longitudinal database with information on

a. Current housing status and program use.

b. Recent experiences of homelessness and doubling up.

5 Originally, the team expected that the long-term tracking survey would be fielded roughly 72 months after random assignment. Because HUD received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance approximately six months later than originally planned, the tracking survey started later than originally anticipated. The median time from random assignment to survey completion for respondents was 2,378 days, or about 78 months (6 years and 6 months).

3

c. Recent program use.

d. Current employment status.

e. Current family composition and recent separations from family members.

3. To provide information to assess the feasibility of a future followup data collection and the expected usefulness of the collection for impact analysis.

Chapter 2 of this report summarizes the success of the re-engagement and tracking survey efforts. A description of the research value of the data collected in the 78-month survey is provided in Chapter 3.

Chapter 4 examines the research value of the consent-to-use-PII sample—those participants who provided consent to release their personally identifiable information (PII) to HUD at either the 37- or 78-month survey. Chapter 5 provides an assessment of the expected analytic value of a future survey. Chapter 6

presents a descriptive summary of some key outcome measures: first for the 78-month followup survey respondents overall and then for those in the usual care (UC) group only. Chapter 7 of this report provides an updated analysis of employment and earnings impacts using quarterly wage data from the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) through the 27th quarter after random assignment. 6 References are provided in Chapter 8. The report also contains nine technical appendices. Appendix A summarizes the team’s approach to conducting the tracking and survey data collection activities. Appendix B contains the 78-month survey instrument used in the study. Appendix C contains additional results of the long-term tracking effort. Appendix D displays all the outcomes measured in the 37-month impact analysis and indicates what can also be measured with the 78-month tracking survey data. Appendix E contains unweighted frequencies of all non-PII variables collected in the 78-month survey. Appendices F through H show the baseline balance for: (i) the full sample, (ii) the 78-month survey respondents, and (iii) the sample that consented to release PII to HUD. Finally, Appendix I provides a summary of statistics related to the balance of baseline characteristics for the same three groups as in Appendices F to H and Appendix J presents balance statistics for the pairwise comparisons within the full and 78-month samples.

6 As of June 2019, the final quarter of data available from the NDNH was the fourth quarter of 2018. The Family Options Study enrolled its last cohort of families in the first quarter of 2012. The fourth quarter of 2018

represents the 27th quarter after the quarter of random assignment for this last cohort. The study enrolled its earliest cohort of families in the third quarter of 2010. For this earliest cohort, the fourth quarter of 2018

represents the 33rd quarter after random assignment.

4

2. How Successful Was the Family Options Study Long-Term

Tracking Effort?

This chapter describes the results from (1) the re-engagement letter and contact update effort and (2) the 78-month tracking survey data collection. Section 2.1 discusses the response rate for the re-engagement letter and contact update request and compares the results with previous contact efforts. Section 2.2

analyzes the tracking survey response rates (by site and by intervention group) and final disposition summary. Section 2.3 summarizes the study team’s development of the four key case outcomes: complete, located not interviewed, still viable, and final unlocatable.

2.1

Re-Engagement Letter and Contact Update Results

Altogether, 2,282 families enrolled in the study and are included in the study sample. Of those, the family head of 18 families were confirmed deceased at the 37-month survey, leaving 2,264 families eligible for the 78-month survey. The team sent re-engagement letters to the 2,166 families for whom complete addresses were available7.

The re-engagement letter with the contact update request was the study team’s first attempt to directly contact study participants after approximately 3 years. The re-engagement letter included an update on all major study milestones, gave links to the 20-and 37-month followup reports, and explained the upcoming tracking survey. The letter also asked participants to update their contact information online, by mail, or by phone. (See exhibit A-2 in appendix A for more detail on the re-engagement letter.) Nearly one-half (46.8 percent) of the re-engagement letters were returned to the study team as undeliverable, indicating that addresses were out of date (see exhibit 2-1). This result confirmed that a higher percentage of the last known address and/or phone information for the family head was out-of-date than for previous tracking efforts.

We received updated contact information from 4.2 percent of the sample in response to the re-engagement letter. This response is substantially lower than in previous phases of the study (previous requests for address updates yielded an average of an 18- to 20-percent response). The lower response was likely due to the fact that there was a long period with no contact between the study and participants. During that time, study members may have relocated, so the mailing would not have been delivered. In other cases, the respondents may have received the mailing but had forgotten about the study and did not respond. It is also possible that some participants may have received the letter but chose not to re-engage with the study. Exhibit 2-1 shows the results of the re-engagement letter with the contact update request.

Exhibit 2-1.

Re-Engagement Letter and Contact Update Request Results

Re-Engagement Letters

Contact Updates

Total Letters

Total

Sent

Delivered

Undeliverable

Updates

By Web

By Mail

Number of Families

2,166

1,153

1,013

90

65

25

7 Re-engagement letters were not sent to those families who had missing or incomplete addresses for the family head or who had the family head confirmed as deceased. Removing these families from the sample reduced the sample for the re-engagement letters from 2,282 to 2,166.

5

Percent of Total Letters Sent

100

53.2

46.8

4.2

3.0

1.2

Source: Abt Associates 78-month tracking data

Site-by-site results of the re-engagement letter and contact update effort are shown in exhibit C-1, appendix C. Although other studies of similar populations have shown positive responses to online response options versus paper response options, exhibit 2-1 suggests that allowing Family Options Study participants to update their contact information online did not increase the response by a substantial amount.

2.2

Tracking Survey Response Rates

This section focuses on the results of the 78-month tracking survey data collection. The approach to data collection for the 78-month tracking survey differed from the 20- and 37-month followup surveys. Given the limited resources available for the 78-month tracking effort, the study team modified the data collection approach to maximize the response rate. Compared to the 78-month survey, the 20- and 37-month followup surveys involved a longer data collection period and more extensive in-person interviewing. To conduct the 20- and 37- month followup surveys, the study team released cases monthly based on the anniversary of the participant’s randomization into the study. 8 The rolling sample release resulted in a 16-month data collection period for the 20-month followup survey and a 10-month data collection period for the 37-month followup survey. 9

The 78-month survey had a much shorter data collection period—just 5.5 months. To ensure interviewers had enough time to work all cases efficiently, the team released all eligible cases for interviewing at the same time. This approach meant interviewers had far more cases to work simultaneously. To help streamline that process and conserve resources, the team also made changes to the mode of data collection. Although the prior followup survey efforts were designed to be done in-person, 40 percent or more of the completed cases for both followup (20-month and 37-month) surveys were done by telephone. Thus, the team designed the 78-month tracking survey as a true phone-to-field methodology—

targeting 80 percent of the completed interviews by telephone and the remaining 20 percent in-person.

See appendix A for more detail on the 78-month tracking survey data collection approach. As described throughout this chapter, the team located and or interviewed most of the participant families; however, if more time and resources were made available, the team would have had more opportunity to locate leads for survey completion.

Interviewers conducted the 78-month tracking survey data collection from October 2017 through March 2018. During that period, interviewers attempted to locate and interview 2,264 participants. Once interviewers made contact with the study participant, they had two tasks. First, the interviewers obtained participants’ consent to participate in the study and completed the 78-month tracking survey. When the tracking survey was completed, interviewers reviewed the consent-to-release personally identifiable information (PII) form with the respondent. This form grants permission to Abt to release the personal identifiers along with all survey and administrative data collected during the life of the study to the U.S.

8 A few monthly randomization cohorts were released in a cluster at the start and end of data collection to help reduce the overall data collection period.

9 The prior tracking surveys had a much shorter (12-week or 3-month) data collection period.

6

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Respondents could consent to the release of their PII and/or the PII of their children.

Interviewers completed this tracking interview with 1,103 study participants (48.7 percent of the 2,264

participants released for interviewing). The response rates varied across sites ranging from 40.9 percent (Phoenix) to 58.8 percent (Denver), as shown in exhibit 2-2.

Exhibit 2-2.

78-Month Tracking Survey Results by Site

Sites

Total Sample

Completes

Response Rate (%)

Alameda

257

124

48.2

Atlanta

187

96

51.3

Baltimore

57

25

43.9

Boston

181

75

41.4

Connecticut

214

110

51.4

Denver

170

100

58.8

Honolulu

216

99

45.8

Kansas City

172

82

47.7

Louisville

109

58

53.2

Minneapolis

181

95

52.5

Phoenix

276

113

40.9

Salt Lake City

244

126

51.6

Total

2,264

1,103

48.7

Source: Abt Associates 78-month tracking data

The response rates by intervention group ranged from 44.5 percent (project-based transitional housing

[PBTH]) to 55.1 percent (subsidy [SUB]), as shown in exhibit 2-3.

Exhibit 2-3.

78-Month Tracking Survey Results by Intervention Group

Total Sample

Completes

Response Rate (%)

CBRR

563

272

48.3

PBTH

364

162

44.5

SUB

595

328

55.1

UC

742

341

46.0

TOTAL

2,264

1,103

48.7

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. SUB = subsidy.

UC = usual care.

Source: Abt Associates 78-month tracking data

2.3

Case Status by Site

The long-term tracking study also offered the opportunity to assess the feasibility of locating the study participants again for a future longer-term followup study. At the end of the 78-month tracking survey data collection, the team reviewed the final dispositions and all case notes to assess the feasibility of locating these participants again in the future. The sample was categorized into four groups:

• Completed: In these cases, the interviewer was able to contact, obtain re-consent to continue the study, and complete interviews with the family head. The study team completed interviews with 48.7 percent of the sample.

7

• Located: These are cases for which the interviewer contacted the respondent but was unable to complete the interview. Reasons for non-interview include study participant being deceased, incarcerated, incapacitated, or unavailable during the study period; speaking only Spanish or some other language barrier; and refusals to participate. Altogether, the study team located 10.6

percent of the sample.

• Viable: These are cases where the review suggested that the study team possessed strong leads to locate the sample member. The interviewers believed they had the correct address, phone number, and /or valid email address; however, they were unable to make direct contact with the respondent. Cases with valid/current secondary contacts were also deemed viable because the interviewers would have a solid contact with which to start another round of data collection. The viable group constitutes 15.7 percent of the sample.

• Unlocatable: Cases deemed unlocatable are those where the study team was not able to locate or find viable leads for the family head during this wave of data collection. This group includes families with whom the team had no contact since baseline, those who only responded to tracking updates but not followup surveys, and those for whom all the contact information was outdated.

Altogether, 25 percent of the sample were classified as unlocatable.

Exhibit 2-4 shows the distribution for the entire sample in these four groups and exhibit 2-5 shows the distribution in each of the four assignment groups. Exhibit C-2 in appendix C shows the distribution in each of the study sites.

Exhibit 2-4.

Case Status for the Eligible Sample for the 78-Month Tracking Survey

Sample

Completed

Located

Determined

Unlocatable

Sum of

Viable

Completed,

Located, and

Viable

Number of

2,264

1,103

241

355

565

1,699

Families

Percent of

100.0

48.7

10.6

15.7

25.0

75.0

Total Sample

Source: Abt Associates 78-month tracking data

The results by case status are very encouraging, and the study team believes that 75 percent of the sample is still viable for a future survey data collection effort. Although the exhibit shows that the study team was unable to locate 25 percent of the sample, this lack of contact does not mean that those families should be dropped from future survey efforts. In all prior waves of data collection effort for this study, interviewers located some families who were not contacted in a previous wave. That was also the case in the 78-month tracking survey—55 of the 1,103 cases completed at 78 months (5 percent) were not interviewed at 37

months.

Exhibit 2-5.

Case Status by Assignment Group

Sample

Completed

Located (%)

Determined

Unlocatable

Sum of

(%)

Viable (%)

(%)

Completed,

Located and

Viable (%)

CBRR

563

48.3

10.5

15.3

25.9

74.1

PBTH

364

44.5

11.0

16.5

28.0

72.0

8

SUB

595

55.1

10.8

15.0

19.2

80.8

UC

742

46.0

10.5

16.2

27.4

72.6

Total

2264

48.7

10.6

15.7

25.0

75.0

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. SUB = subsidy.

UC = usual care.

Source: Abt Associates 78-month tracking data

Exhibit 2-6 shows the final dispositions of the 2,264 cases released for the 78-month tracking survey.

Exhibit 2-6:

78-Month Tracking Survey Final Disposition

Disposition

Total

Percent

Completed

Total Completed

1,103

48.7

Located

Respondent Refusal, Hard, FINAL

116

5.1

Language barrier – Spanish

48

2.1

Located, No Appointment

12

0.5

Homeless / living in shelter

18

0.8

Physically / mentally impaired – permanent

4

0.2

Respondent deceased – CONFIRMED

23

1.0

Appointment, Hard

1

0.0

Broken Appointment

1

0.0

Respondent incarcerated – Final

18

0.8

Total Located

241

10.6

Determined Viable

Total Viable

355

15.7

Unlocatable

Final – unlocatable

362

16.0

Case never found in main study

72

3.2

Low priority case, tracking completes only

131

5.8

Total Unlocatable

565

25.0

Total

2,264

100.00

Note: Based on all cases eligible for the 78-month tracking survey (N=2,264).

Source: Abt Associates 78-month tracking data

Based on tracking survey results, it is reasonable to expect that, with additional resources and effort, future data collection efforts could complete interviews with up to 75 percent of the Family Options Study sample. The next chapter considers the research that is possible with the data collected in the 78-month survey and the sample that completed the interview.

9

3. What is the Research Value of 78-Month Survey Data?

This chapter addresses the research value of the 78-month survey data. Section 3.1 provides an overview of the 78-month tracking survey and some preliminary results on key survey items. Then Section 3.2

discusses the internal validity of the pairwise impact comparison samples among the 78-month respondents.

3.1

What Data Was Collected in the 78-Month Tracking Survey?

The 78-month tracking survey collected the respondents’ current address, phone number, and email information. It also confirmed or updated the contact information for secondary contacts—friends or relatives who will always know how to reach the respondent. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) could use this contact information to locate and interview study participants should HUD choose to conduct additional data collection to collect detailed information on family outcomes.

The 78-month tracking survey also collected a small number of key outcome measures to supplement the information collected through the prior followup data collection efforts and augment the rich longitudinal database developed for the study. Appendix B contains the 78-Month Tracking Survey. Appendix D

shows all outcomes measured in the 37-month impact analysis and indicates whether the data are also available in the 78-month survey data. The 78-month tracking survey measured these outcomes using the same items collected in previous surveys:

• At least 1 night homeless or doubled up in the past 6 months (percent).

• At least 1 night homeless in the past 6 months (percent).

• At least 1 night doubled up in the past 6 months (percent).

• The number of days homeless or doubled up in the past 6 months.

• The number of days homeless in the past 6 months.

• The number of days doubled up in the past 6 months.

• Living in own house or apartment at followup (percent).

• Living in own house or apartment with no housing assistance (percent).

• Living in own house or apartment with housing assistance (percent).

• The family has at least one child separated in the past 6 months (percent).

• The family has at least one foster care placement in the past 6 months (percent).

• Spouse/partner separated in the past 6 months, of those with spouse/partner present at random assignment (percent).

• Work for pay in week before the survey (percent).

• Any work for pay since random assignment (percent).

Appendix E shows the tabulations of the unweighted responses to all survey items.

10

3.2

Are the Pairwise Comparison Samples Among 78-Month Respondents

Balanced Enough for Impact Analysis?

In the original random assignment design, each family was to have had a chance of being assigned to all four groups (subsidy [SUB], community-based rapid re-housing [CBRR], project-based transitional housing [PBTH], and usual care [UC]). A number of factors prevented the study from being implemented exactly as planned. As a result, most study families did not have all four options available to them at the time of random assignment. Of the 2,282 families enrolled in the study, 264 families had two randomization options, 1,544 families had three randomization options, and 474 had all four randomization options available. All analyses were conducted pairwise, contrasting an active intervention with another active intervention or with the usual care. Only families who were eligible for both interventions in a pairwise comparison (for example, the SUB and CBRR interventions) and were randomized to one of them were included in each comparison. Hence, each comparison can be thought of as an experiment between two well-matched groups that differ only in the intervention to which they were assigned.

The 78-month survey data are clearly valuable for descriptive purposes. The data on 1,103 respondent families can be merged with existing study data to conduct longitudinal analysis, as was done for some key outcomes in Section 6.3. It is not yet clear whether the data on the 48.7 percent of families who completed the survey can be weighted to plausibly represent the entire study sample. If this weighting is possible, sample outcomes at 78 months may be compared with the sample outcomes at baseline and 20

months and 37 months after random assignment. To determine whether nonresponse weights can be created so that the 78-month respondents can represent the full sample would involve a detailed analysis of the respondent characteristics, creation of provisional nonresponse weights, and assessment of how well baseline characteristics, 20-month outcomes, and 37-month outcomes match to the weighted 78-month sample. Undertaking this determination is beyond the scope of this project but could be pursued in future research efforts.

In addition to descriptive analysis, there is a question as to whether the 78-month survey data may be used to conduct a long-term impact analysis to assess the relative impacts of the interventions approximately 6.5 years after random assignment. No single survey response rate threshold will determine whether a followup sample can provide data for a robust impact analysis. Technically, any level of attrition to the sample of a random assignment study creates a threat of internal validity bias when estimating impacts for the sample. The presence of bias depends on the relationship between attrition and a particular outcome.

If attrition is unrelated to a particular outcome, then low response rates do not create internal validity bias.

For most outcomes, however, a relationship is expected to exist between attrition and the outcome. When attrition is related to the value of an outcome, overall attrition and differential attrition between assignment groups are examined in order to assess the threat of internal validity bias. 10

To assess whether the 78-month data could support impact analysis, the study team examined the baseline characteristics of the families in each pairwise comparison and tested for balance between assignment 10 An example of an outcome that may be related to attrition is current homelessness. One might assume that families who are currently experiencing homelessness would be more difficult to locate and therefore less likely to complete the survey. If this assumption holds true, and intervention groups have different survey completion rates, then analyzing reports of homelessness only among survey completers would produce a biased estimate of the impact on current homelessness.

11

groups. The study team also examined how well the overall attrition and differential attrition rates in each pairwise comparison meets What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards for tolerable threat of bias11.

Appendix F shows the baseline characteristics for the full sample pairwise comparisons, and appendix G

shows parallel tables for the 78-month respondent sample. Appendix J presents balance statistics for the pairwise comparisons within the full and 78-month samples. 12

Overall, it is not yet clear whether the 78-month survey data can support impact analysis. 13 The baseline characteristics are most in balance for the SUB versus UC comparison, so this is the comparison with the most potential for conducting impact analysis. Because the SUB versus UC comparison produced the most striking and robust findings in the 20- and 37-month impact analysis, questions about the long-term effects of priority access to long-term rent assistance might be particularly important for policymakers.

This comparison might be a high priority for long-term impact analysis. If impact analysis was pursued in the future, researchers would need to first create nonresponse bias weights and re-examine the balance in baseline characteristics for the weighted samples.

A recent white paper on attrition bias in randomized controlled trials (Deke, Sama-Miller, and Hershey, 2015) discusses how the level of acceptable bias differs with the size (measured in standard deviation units) of a substantively important impact. If a small impact matters, then a small level of bias is not tolerable. For the Family Options Study, a corresponding point might be important: if an expected impact is large, small bias may be tolerable. Some of the effects on housing stability found in the SUB versus UC

comparison are large (for example, in the SUB versus UC comparison, the reduction in the proportion of at least one night homeless or doubled up in the past 6 months is equivalent to 0.33 standard deviation units). For these outcomes, a higher level of bias may be tolerated if the bias is still expected to be small in relation to the magnitude of the impact. The key takeaway is that the final determination of whether the 78-month survey data can support impact analysis would need to be made not just separately for each pairwise comparison, but separately for each outcome to be tested in a particular pairwise comparison.

11 U.S. Department of Education. 2017.

12 Exhibit I-1 shows several balance statistics in addition to a determination of whether the attrition is tolerable according to WWC standards. The exhibit presents the p-values from omnibus tests of difference in baseline characteristics. When these p-values are less than 0.10, they indicate a rejection of equivalence in baseline characteristics. P-values larger than 0.10 are no guarantee of balance, however, because of the sample sizes in the 78-month respondent sample. Because the numbers of respondents in each pairwise comparison are relatively low, the omnibus tests of difference have relatively weak statistical power. Therefore, a failure to reject equivalence may be partially due to low statistical power rather than near-equivalence of characteristics.

13 Of the six pairwise comparisons, only two—CBRR versus UC and PBTH versus UC—meet WWC standards for tolerable threat of bias and then only when making optimistic assumptions about the relationship between attrition and outcomes. These are the two comparisons, however, where the omnibus F-statistic rejects equivalence in the unweighted baseline characteristics, which makes it more doubtful that these comparisons are suitable for impact analysis. The non-equivalence within the CBRR versus UC comparison also occurs within the full sample. The magnitude of imbalance within this comparison (seen in the average and median absolute values of characteristic difference) is noticeably higher than at baseline, however.

12

3.3

Conclusion

The 78-month survey measured important outcomes. Interesting descriptive analysis (particularly examining changes over time) for 78-month respondents is certainly possible, as shown in Chapter 6. It is not yet clear whether the 78-month survey data can support impact analysis. The SUB versus UC

comparison holds the most potential for supporting impact analysis using 78-month outcomes. That analysis—and the non-response analysis needed to be done along with it—is not feasible within the scope of this contract but could be pursued in the future.

Exhibit 3-1:

Ability of 78-Month Survey Sample to Support Various Analyses

Type of Analysis

Is It Possible?

Unweighted longitudinal analysis of 78-month respondents

Yes.

(how outcomes have changed over time for respondent

sample)

Weighted longitudinal analysis of average UC outcomes

Not yet clear. It is increasingly well-established—both

(how outcomes have changed over time for UC group)

theoretically and empirically—that nonresponse rates are a

poor predictor of nonresponse bias (Groves, 2006; Groves

and Peytcheva, 2008), but academic research has not

agreed on new measures or thresholds. Potential for analysis

is higher for outcomes that are less correlated with survey

response. Analysis necessary to address this question is

outside the scope of this contract but could be done in the

future. To conduct this analysis, nonresponse weights would

first need to be developed so that the 78-month respondent

sample could represent the full study sample to the extent

possible.

Impact analysis

Not yet clear. Potential is highest for the SUB versus UC

comparison housing stability outcomes (where large impacts

may lead to greater tolerance of threat of bias). Analysis

necessary to address this question is outside the scope of

this contract but could be done in the future. To conduct this

analysis, nonresponse weights would first need to be

developed so that the 78-month respondent sample could

represent the full study sample to the extent possible.

13

4. What Is the Research Value of Consent-to-Use-PII Sample?

This chapter addresses the research value of the consent-to-use-PII sample. This sample consists of family heads who gave consent at the time of the 37-month survey for their personally identifiable information (PII) to be shared with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and of those who gave consent at the time of the 78-month survey.

4.1

What is the Status of the Consent-to-Use-PII Sample?

Exhibit 4-1 shows the number of family heads from whom the study obtained consent for their PII to be shared with HUD.

Exhibit 4-1.

Consent Status at 37 Months and at 78 Months

PII= personally identifiable information.

The exhibit shows that 1,586 participants gave their consent to release their PII to HUD at the time of the 37-month data collection. An additional 146 participants that did not give consent at 37 months did give their consent to release their PII to HUD at 78 months. On the other hand, 76 of the participants who gave consent at 37-months did not renew their consent at 78 months. Thus, HUD will have access to PII to do additional administrative data matching for 1,656 of the 2,282 study participants (72.5 percent of the sample). 14 The consent to release collected at 37 months included a 5-year restriction on the use of PII.

This time restriction was not included in the consent to release information obtained at 78 months. Thus, there is no time restriction for the 864 participants that gave consent at both waves and the 146 that consented at 78 months. The remaining 646 that only gave consent at 37 months are subject to a 5-year limit, which expires December 2021.

14 The Abt team will submit to HUD an updated PII file at the end of this contract to replace the one submitted at 37 months. The new PII file contains records for the 1,656 who provided consent at the end of the 78-month contract or whose 37-month consent was still viable.

14

4.2

Potential Matching Data Sources

Administrative data matching would be possible for a substantial proportion of the study sample (72.5

percent) between now and December 2021. The central strength of administrative data is the ability to capture data on families that may otherwise be lost to future survey followup and—if needed—measure non-response bias of those families. Administrative data may also be used to augment survey data measuring similar outcomes by providing the ability to collect data for a large sample over an extended period of time. Administrative data can help researchers measure outcomes with greater accuracy compared with self-reported information, which could be sensitive to recall, interpretation, or other problems. Although it can be challenging to secure data-use agreements with administrative agencies—

especially at the state or local level—administrative data collection is often less expensive than survey data collection. This challenge is particularly relevant for the Family Options Study sample because the households are highly mobile, and many (13 percent) of those who responded to the 78-month tracking survey reported that they were living in a different state than the original 12 sites.

For the 20- and 37-month impact analyses, the Family Options Study analyzed outcomes that are measured with a range of administrative data. The study has examined receipt of housing assistance from HUD using data from the Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Information Center (PIC) and the Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS), use of homeless assistance services from Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), foster care placements from child welfare data, and employment and earnings from quarterly wage data from the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH).

For future analysis, depending on research questions about the long-term effects of the interventions, HUD might consider linking the study sample to other sources of administrative data such as public assistance records (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF] or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP]), Medicaid data (to measure health care utilization and expenditures), academic achievement data (National Center for Education Statistics), criminal history data, and child welfare records.

4.3

Are the Pairwise Comparison Samples Among 78-Month Respondents

Balanced Enough for Impact Analysis?

This section considers the types of analysis that could be conducted with long-term data for the consent-to-use-PII sample (hereafter called the “consent sample”). First, as with the 78-month respondent sample, descriptive longitudinal analysis for these family heads in the sample would be interesting and possible.

Second, the “response rate” of the consent sample (76.4 percent) makes it likely that the sample would be weighted to represent the full sample, and that weighted longitudinal analysis of the usual care (UC) group could be conducted.

Third, the section addresses whether the consent sample could support impact analysis. Appendix H

shows the baseline characteristics for the consent sample pairwise comparisons. Exhibit H-1 shows balance statistics for the pairwise comparisons. All comparisons are more balanced in the consent sample than in the 78-month respondent sample (seen in average and median absolute values of differences), and all are closer to the balance found in the full sample (seen in average and median differences from baseline differences). Five of the six comparisons meet the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standard for attrition bias under cautious assumptions of how attrition is related to outcomes, and the sixth (subsidy

15

[SUB] versus usual care [UC]) meets the standard under more optimistic assumptions. 15 Overall, it looks likely that the consent sample could support impact analysis. As with the 78-month respondent sample, the study team would want to create nonresponse weights and re-assess the balance in baseline characteristics before making a final determination.

4.4

Conclusion

The consent-to-use-PII sample is slightly more than three-fourths (76 percent) of the full sample.

Information on important outcomes (such as SNAP, TANF, and Medicaid participation) could be matched to the sample through 2021. It is expected that when using nonresponse weights, future researchers could calculate internally valid impact estimates for all pairwise comparisons in addition to descriptive longitudinal analysis.

Exhibit 4-2:

Ability of Consent-to-Use-PII Sample to Support Various Analyses

Type of Analysis

Is It Possible?

Unweighted longitudinal analysis of 78-month respondents in Yes, although not possible within the scope of this project, it the consent-to-use-PII sample (how outcomes have changed could be done in the future.

over time for respondent sample)

Weighted longitudinal analysis of average UC outcomes in

Seems likely. Would be confirmed after construction of

the consent-to-use-PII sample (how outcomes have changed nonresponse weights and re-assessment of balance of over time for UC group)

baseline characteristics between consent sample and full

sample. Construction of nonresponse weights is not possible

within the scope of this project but could be done in the

future.

Impact analysis with the consent-to-use-PII sample.

Seems likely. Would be confirmed after construction of

nonresponse weights and re-assessment of balance of

baseline characteristics within each pairwise comparison in

the consent sample. Construction of nonresponse weights is

not possible within the scope of this project but could be

done in the future.

PII = personally identifiable information. UC = usual care.

15 Although overall response rate is highest for the SUB versus UC comparison, the differential attrition is greater for this comparison than other comparisons. Under WWC standards, the greater differential attrition leads to a higher threat of bias.

16

5. What is the Expected Analytic Value of Another Followup Survey Collection?

This chapter discusses the potential research value of future followup survey data collection. Section 5.1

describes the information that could be collected in such a survey, assuming the survey instrument was similar to the instrument fielded at 20 and 37 months after random assignment. Section 5.2 discusses the potential for achieving a robust response rate in a future followup data collection effort. Section 5.3

examines the receipt of housing assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the full study sample during the period from December 2013 through March 2019

using administrative data from HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Information Center (PIC) and Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS).

5.1

What Information Would be Collected in a Future Followup Survey?

Appendix exhibits D-1 to D-5 show that most of the outcomes examined in the Short-Term and 3-Year impact reports were not measured by the 78-month tracking survey. If a future followup survey collected nearly identical items as the two followup surveys already conducted by the Family Options Study, however, most of these outcomes would be available for analysis.

• Housing stability: with the exception of the three outcomes heavily based on Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) data (confirmatory outcome, any stay in an emergency shelter in the past 6 months, and any stay in an emergency shelter in the latest 12-month period), all outcomes would be measured.

• Family preservation: all outcomes would be measured.

• Adult well-being: all outcomes would be measured.

• Child well-being: most outcomes would be measured except those based on direct child assessments (verbal ability, math ability, and executive functioning) and the child survey (anxiety, fears, substance use, goal-oriented thinking, and school effort in the past month).

• Self-sufficiency: details of current employment, income, food security, and economic stressors would be measured. Recent work history and training experiences would likely also be measured, but outcomes that measure employment and training since random assignment would likely not be measured (due to the difficulty of recall during a multi-year period).

5.2

Assessment of Feasibility of Another Followup Survey

The Family Options Study sample is viable for a future study because the study team had success in locating the sample or establishing viable leads to pursue. The study team completed interviews with 48.7

percent of the sample and confirmed location data for another 10.6 percent, resulting in confirmed locations for nearly 60 percent of the sample. In addition, after reviewing the pending cases with the interviewers, the study team is confident that reliable contact information was obtained for an additional 15.7 percent of the sample. In total, 75 percent of the sample was determined to still be viable. 16 As noted 16 Currently, 41 of the family heads have been identified as deceased. This finding means that a future full sample followup survey would attempt to collect information from 2,241 family heads. Of these remaining family

17

in Section 2.3, although 25 percent of the sample were unable to be located for the 78-month survey, the study team believes that it would be possible to locate some portion of this group in a future followup data collection effort. The experience with the 78-month survey offers evidence of this claim—roughly 5

percent of the households interviewed at 78-months were not interviewed at 37-months. Thus, there is reason to expect that some portion of the unlocated sample from the 78-month survey could be located in the future.

The study team’s experiences on prior waves of data collection were also considered when making this assessment. Exhibit 5-1 shows the completion rates to all the prior tracking surveys and the followup surveys at 20- and 37-months.

Exhibit 5-1.

Completion Rates to Prior Tracking Interviews

Sample (N)

Cases Completed (N)

Response Rate (%)

6-Month Tracking

2,282

1,671

73.2

12-Month Tracking

2,282

1,632

71.5

20-Month Followup

2,282

1,857

81.4

27-Month Tracking

1,863*

1,159

62.2

37-Month Followup

2,282

1,784

78.2

78-Month Tracking

2,282

1,103

48.3**

*Not all participants were released for the 27-month tracking interview. Initially, the data collection was delayed as the household roster information was processed after the 20-month data collection. To shorten the field period for the 37-month followup, the last few enrollment cohorts were released prior to their 36-month anniversary. The combination of the delay due to household roster processing and the early release for those cohorts left insufficient time to conduct the 27-month tracking effort for some families.

**Note—the response rates shown in exhibit 5-1 are based on the full sample (N=2,282). Thus, the response rate percentage shown in this exhibit for the 78-month tracking survey is 48.3 percent, compared with 48.7 percent previously reported for all cases eligible for the 78-month survey (N=2,264).

Sources: Family Options Study Followup survey data and 78-month tracking data The exhibit shows that the completion rates declined over time, with an 11-percentage-point drop between the 6-month tracking (73.2 percent response) and the 27-month tracking (61.7 percent). This drop in response rates occurred during a 21 month period—a shorter period than the time elapsed between the last contact with families and the start of the 78-month tracking data collection. The 6-, 12-, and 27-month tracking surveys occurred during a period when interviewers were in frequent contact with study participants due to the overall study data collection schedule. As families completed one data collection activity, interviewers informed participants about when to expect the next contact. That frequency of contact helped to keep families engaged in the study.

Although both the drop in response over time and the lack of recent frequent contact suggested that a substantially lower response rate to the 78-month tracking survey compared with the 27-month tracking survey might be expected, the drop was not as steep as anticipated. An 11-percentage-point drop heads, 1,676 (74.8 percent) either completed the 78-month survey, were located during the 78-month effort, or have contact information that the team has determined is still viable. The 1,676 family heads represent 73.4

percent of the original sample of 2,282.

18

occurred, however, during a 21-month period when frequent contact was maintained with the study participants. The drop between the 27 – and 78-month tracking surveys was only 13.9 percentage points—slightly under a 3-percentage-point drop during an additional 3 years. Allowing interviewers to work these cases longer—in a manner similar to the followup survey efforts—helped to minimize the drop-off in response.

While the study team believes that a long-term followup survey is feasible, the team suspects that the number of interviewer hours required to obtain a completed survey might be higher than was the case during the 37-month effort. The hours per complete in the 78-month effort were slightly higher than initially estimated (4 hours per complete by phone versus 3; 5.8 hours per complete in-person versus 5.5).

Some sites were substantially higher—Phoenix averaged 8.2 hours per complete, Boston averaged 10.5, and Hawaii averaged 7.4.

As discussed in previous chapters, no single response rate threshold will determine whether a future followup data collection can provide data for a robust impact analysis. The assessment of whether an impact analysis would deliver robust results will need to be based on the expected composition of the respondent sample and the non-response bias implied by that expected composition. Given the success of the 78-month survey effort at finding families and updating contact information with nearly one-half of the sample, a response rate to a future followup data collection could potentially exceed 70 percent. Given that impact analysis could potentially be supported with a response rate of roughly 40 percent (according to WWC standards), it seems likely that a followup effort of similar scale to the 20- and 37-month efforts would yield data that would support the calculation of internally valid impact estimates.

5.3

Receipt of Housing Assistance

During the course of the 78-month followup period, Abt collected data from HUD’s PIC and TRACS data systems to measure receipt of assistance from public housing, the Housing Choice Voucher Program, and the project-based voucher program. 17 The survey data collection team also used the addresses available in the PIC/TRACs extracts to augment the contact information available for the sample. To the extent that study families continue to receive housing assistance in the future, PIC/TRACS is expected to continue to be a valuable source of contact information for any future data collection activity.

This section examines the receipt of housing assistance measured in PIC and TRACS from December 2013 through March 2019. Specifically, this longitudinal analysis provides information on the proportion of families in each of the four study groups who received public housing, Housing Choice Vouchers, or project-based voucher assistance at four times: December 2013, December 2015, December 2017, and March 2019.

17 In the 20- and 37-month impact analyses, the study team constructed program usage data files using information from PIC and TRACS as well as HMIS and participants’ surveys. The program usage data files measured receipt of other types of long-term rent assistance such as permanent supportive housing and a range of other assistance. The analysis presented here uses only records from PIC and TRACs on receipt of public housing assistance, Housing Choice Vouchers, and project-based vouchers.

19

Exhibit 5-2.

Receipt of Housing Assistance over Time by Assignment Group

Receiving housing

Receiving housing

Receiving housing

Receiving housing

assistance as

assistance as

assistance as

assistance as

Assignment Full

recorded in

recorded in

recorded in

recorded in

Group

Sample

December 2013 PIC

December 2015 PIC

December 2017 PIC

March 2019 PIC

and TRACS extracts and TRACS extracts and TRACS extracts and TRACS extracts Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number Percent

CBRR

569

108

19.0

120

21.1

145

25.5

141

24.8

PBTH

368

52

14.1

72

19.6

65

17.7

74

20.1

SUB

599

409

68.3

356

59.4

310

51.8

286

47.7

UC

746

140

18.8

166

22.3

179

24.0

194

26.0

Total

2,282

709

31.1

714

31.3

699

30.6

695

30.5

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. PIC = Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Information Center. SUB = subsidy. TRACS = Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System.

UC = usual care. Note: Families were counted as receiving housing assistance if they were matched to extracts, and the type of effective action field indicated housing assistance receipt.

Source: PD&R PIC and TRACS extracts from September 2010 through March 2019.

Overall, about one-third of the study sample received HUD housing assistance, and the proportion held steady during the time period examined. The proportion of families assigned to the subsidy (SUB) group who received housing assistance is higher than in other assignment groups at each point, but the proportion declines over time. As of December 2013, 68 percent of families assigned to the SUB group were receiving housing assistance, but only 48 percent were receiving housing assistance by March 2019.

On the other hand, while the proportion of families in the other groups who receive housing assistance is substantially lower than for SUB families (because families in the other assignment groups did not receive priority access to a long-term rent subsidy), the proportion in the other groups increases over time.

For example, 19 percent of families assigned to community-based rapid re-housing (CBRR) were receiving housing assistance in December 2013, and this proportion increased to 25 percent by March 2019. Similar patterns hold for families assigned to project-based transitional housing (PBTH) and usual care (UC).

20

Exhibit 5-3 shows the percentage of families receiving housing assistance, as reported in four PIC and TRACS extracts by intervention group.

Exhibit 5-3:

Percentage of Households Receiving HUD Housing Assistance (PIC/TRACS) Over Time

80.0%

E 70.0%

60.0%

SISTANC

AS

50.0%

SINGU

CBRR

HO 40.0%

PBTH

SUB

30.0%

UC

E RECEIVINGAG

Total

20.0%

RCENTPE 10.0%

0.0%

2 0 1 3

2 0 1 5

2 0 1 7

2 0 1 9

PIC/TRACS EXTRACT DATE

PIC = Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Information Center. TRACS = Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System. Note: Families were counted as receiving housing assistance if they were matched to extracts and the type of effective action field indicated housing assistance receipt.

Source: Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) PIC and TRACS extracts from September 2010

through March 2019.

5.4

Conclusion

A future followup survey could provide more information on outcomes such as homelessness and doubling up, housing quality, family separations and reunifications, adult and child well-being, employment and income, and food security. Given that 75 percent of the sample for a future survey was located or determined to have viable contact information during the 78-month effort, the likelihood of achieving an overall response rate between 65 to 75 percent (or higher) seems high. A response rate in that range would allow for valuable longitudinal analysis of family outcomes and likely would support impact analysis.

21

6. Descriptive Analysis of the 78-Month Survey Sample

In this chapter, the 78-month survey data is used to describe the 1,103 respondents. Housing stability and employment outcomes for this group of respondents are examined 78 months after study enrollment. The analysis also examines three key outcomes for this group—homeless or doubled up in past 6 months, living in own housing, and employment status—at enrollment and at each followup point. The raw frequencies for each variable are provided in the 78-month survey in appendix E.

6.1

Who Responded to the 78-Month Survey?

Interviewers completed a 78-month tracking interview with 1,103 study families. This section includes an overview of who responded to the survey and the proportion of respondents who replied to the other followup survey efforts 20 and 37 months after randomization. Interviewers were able to complete interviews with families in all sites and in all intervention groups. Exhibit 6-1 shows the distribution of the 1,103 families by site and by intervention group.

Exhibit 6-1.

78-Month Tracking Survey Results by Site and Intervention Group

Characteristics of 78-Month Respondents

Number of Respondents

Total Respondents

1,103

Site

Alameda

124

Atlanta

96

Baltimore

25

Boston

75

Connecticut

110

Denver

100

Honolulu

99

Kansas City

82

Louisville

58

Minneapolis

95

Phoenix

113

Salt Lake City

126

Intervention Group

CBRR

272

PBTH

162

SUB

328

UC

341

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = project-based transitional housing.

SUB = subsidy. UC = usual care.

Source: Family Options Study baseline and 78-month surveys.

The team also looked at the proportion of the 78-month respondents who completed interviews during previous survey efforts. Exhibit 6-2 shows how many of the 1,103 78-month respondents were also respondents to the 20- and 37-month surveys.

22

Exhibit 6-2.

Response Patterns of the 78-Month Survey Respondents

Responded to

Responded to

Responded to

20-Month Survey 37-Month Survey

Both Surveys

N

Percent

N

Percent

N

Percent

78-Month Survey Respondents: Overall

78-Month Respondents (N=1,103)

1,024

92.8

1,048

95.0

987

89.5

78-Month Survey Respondents: UC Group Only

78-Month Respondents in the UC Group Only (N=341)

316

92.7

321

94.1

300

88.0

78-Month Survey Respondents: SUB Group Who Ever Used SUB

78-Month Respondents in the SUB Group Who Ever Used

263

95.6

268

97.5

256

93.1

SUB (N=275)

78-Month Survey Respondents: CBRR Group Who Ever Used RR

78-Month Respondents in the CBRR Group Who Ever

Used RR (N=174)

159

91.4

162

93.1

152

87.4

78-Month Survey Respondents: PBTH Group Who Ever Used TH

78-Month Respondents in the PBTH Group Who Ever Used

TH (N=98)

92

93.9

94

95.9

90

91.8

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. SUB = subsidy.

UC = usual care.

Note: All 1,103 respondents to the 78-month survey were also respondents to the baseline survey.

Source: Family Options Study 20-month, 37-month, and 78-month surveys.

Overall, 92.8 percent of the 78-month respondents were also respondents to the 20-month survey, 95.0

percent responded to the 37-month survey, and 89.5 percent responded to all three surveys. Looking only at the 78-month respondents in the usual care group, 92.7 percent responded to the 20-month survey, 94.1

percent responded to the 37-month survey, and 88.0 percent responded to all three surveys. Among the three intervention groups that were offered priority access, the response rate over time for those who actually used their assigned intervention was examined. 18 Among 78-month respondents in the subsidy (SUB) group, who used their long term rental assistance—93.1 percent responded at both, the 20- and 37-month followup. Of the 78-month respondents in the community-based rapid re-housing (CBRR) group who used rapid re-housing, 87.4 percent also responded to both the 20- and 37-month surveys, as did 91.8

percent of those in the project-based transitional housing (PBTH) group who used transitional housing.

As noted in Section 3.1, the 78-month tracking survey collected data necessary to measure a small number of housing and employment outcomes measured in previous surveys. This section provides some descriptive statistics separately for all 78-month respondents and for those 78-month respondents in the usual care (UC) group.

As discussed in Section 3.2, it is beyond the scope of the current project to construct the nonresponse weights and conduct the analysis necessary to determine whether the respondents to the 78-month survey can be weighted to represent the entire study sample. This descriptive summary of 78-month outcomes, therefore, cannot be compared with baseline, 20- and 37-month followup characteristics of the full study sample or the full UC group.

18 See full discussion on why data is reported only for those who used the intervention to which they were assigned.

23

In this section, the outcomes are described for 78-month respondents in the SUB, CBRR, and PBTH

assignment groups who actually took-up the intervention to which they were assigned by 37 months after random assignment. That is, for those 78-month respondents in the SUB group, the outcomes for the subset who actually used long-term rent assistance are described. The same set of descriptive statistics for those who took up their assigned PBTH or CBRR interventions are presented. These descriptions provide some insight into the outcomes of a particular group of families who used the assistance to which they were assigned. Any differences in outcomes across the groups of families cannot be interpreted as evidence of a causal impact of the use of one type of assistance over another, however. Because the use of SUB, CBRR, or PBTH was not randomly assigned, comparisons are fundamentally subject to selection bias. 19

The descriptive summaries focus on the following outcomes:

• At least 1 night homeless or doubled up in the past 6 months (percent).

• At least 1 night homeless in the past 6 months (percent).

• At least 1 night doubled up in the past 6 months (percent).

• Living in own house or apartment at followup (percent).

• Work for pay in the week before the survey (percent).

In the next subsection, these outcome measures are used to answer these questions about the 78-month survey respondents:

1. What are the housing status and current living situation of families who responded to the 78-month survey?

a. Have they participated in any housing programs?

2. What are the housing status and current living situation of families in the usual care group only who responded to the 78-month survey?

a. Have they participated in any housing programs?

3. What is the employment status of the group who responded to the 78-month survey?

a. How does that compare with their employment status at baseline?

4. What is the employment status for 78-month respondents in the UC group?

a. How does that compare with their employment status at baseline?

In Section 6.2, these key outcomes are described at the time of the 78-month survey for all 78-month survey respondents and separately for those families in the UC group. The families in the UC group were 19 In this situation, “selection bias” means that the families who used the SUB assistance offered to them were different at baseline from the families who used the CBRR assistance offered to them and the families who used the PBTH assistance offered to them. The SUB 78-month respondent families who used SUB are (295/595 =) 46 percent of all SUB families. The CBRR 78-month respondent families who used CBRR are (174/563=) 31

percent of all CBRR families. The PBTH 78-month respondent families who used PBTH are (98/364 =) 27

percent of all PBTH families. Because these sets of families were different from each other when random assignment took place, it is not known whether differences in outcomes at 78 months after random assignment are due to the different interventions offered at random assignment, pre-existing differences, or a combination of the two.

24

not given priority access to any particular type of assistance, so their outcomes are not influenced by any extra help to use any particular program. As noted previously, this information is also provided for 78-month respondents in the other three intervention groups if they took up their assigned intervention at any point in the first 37 months post-randomization. In Section 6.3, these outcomes are presented for the same subsets of participants at four points in time: (1) baseline; (2) the 20-month followup; (3) the 37-month followup; and (4) the 78-month survey.

6.2

How Are the 78-Month Respondents Doing Overall?

This section describes the housing status of the families who responded to the 78-month survey— first, housing stability is considered and then housing independence. In Section 6.2.3, the employment status of the 78-month survey respondents is described.

6.2.1

What Is the Housing Status of Families Who Responded to the 78-Month Survey?

This section focuses on two components of housing status for the 78-month survey respondents: housing stability and housing independence. The housing stability of the 78-month survey respondents specifically looks at those 78-month respondents who reported that they experienced homelessness or were doubled up in the 6 months prior to the 78-month interview. Respondents are considered to have independent housing if they rented or owned their own housing at the time of the survey.

Housing Stability

Those families “who have experienced homelessness or were doubled up” are defined here as those families who reported having spent at least 1 night in the 6 months before the followup survey either staying in a shelter or a place not meant for human habitation, or living with friends or relatives because they could not find or afford a place of their own.

The following exhibit 6-3 shows the housing stability outcomes for all 78-month survey respondents by whether or not they reported at baseline that they had previously experienced homelessness and whether they had experienced homelessness as a child.

As shown in exhibit 6-3, 11.5 percent of 78-month respondents reported being homeless for at least 1

night in the 6 months prior to the 78-month survey. During this same period, 15.3 percent of respondents reported being doubled up for at least 1 night, and 19.5 percent of respondents reported being either homeless or doubled up for at least 1 night. These measures were examined for correlations with any homelessness prior to baseline and experience of homelessness as a child. The measures of homeless in the last 6 months and homeless or doubled up in the last 6 months were both positively correlated with any homelessness prior to baseline. None of the measures were correlated with an experience of homelessness as a child.

25

Exhibit 6-3.

Cross-Tabulations of Homeless, Doubled-up, and Homeless or Doubled-up in Last 6 Months with (i) Previous Experience of Homelessness in Lifetime at Baseline and (ii) Family Head’s Experience of Homelessness as a Child (Under Age 18), for All 78-Month Survey Respondents

Homeless in Last 6 months at 78-

Total

Previously Experienced

Experienced Homelessness as a

Month Survey (%)

Homelessness in Lifetime at

Child (Under Age 18) (%)n.s.

Baseline (%) **

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

88.3

33.7

54.6

71.9

16.4

Yes

11.5

3.0

8.5

9.5

2.0

Refused

0.2

0.0

0.2

0.2

0.0

Don't Know

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Total

100.0

36.7

63.3

81.6

18.4

Doubled-up in Last 6 months at

Total

Previously Experienced

Experienced Homelessness as a

78-Month Survey (%)

Homelessness in Lifetime at

Child (Under Age 18) (%)n.s.

Baseline (%)n.s.

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

84.5

31.6

52.9

68.4

16.1

Yes

15.3

5.1

10.2

13.2

2.2

Refused

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.0

Don't Know

0.1

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.1

Total

100.0

36.7

63.3

81.6

18.4

Homeless or Doubled-up in Last

Total

Previously Experienced

Experienced Homelessness as a

6 Months at 78-Month Survey (%)

Homelessness in Lifetime at

Child (Under Age 18) (%)n.s.

Baseline (%)*

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

80.5

30.7

49.6

64.9

15.4

Yes

19.5

6.0

13.5

16.5

3.0

Refused/Don't Know

0.2

0.0

0.2

0.2

0.0

Total

100.0

36.7

63.3

81.6

18.4

Sample size = 1,103. **/* = Correlation is statistically significant at the .05/.01 level. n.s. = Correlation is not statistically significant at the .05 level.

Notes: All 1,103 respondents to the 78-month survey were also respondents to the baseline survey. The statistical significance levels are from chi-squared tests that excluded refused/don’t know responses (due to small cell counts).

Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. The homeless or doubled-up in the last 6 months prior to the interview is less than the sum of those who reported that they were homeless plus those who were doubled-up. This variance is because some participants reported that they were both homeless and doubled-up.

Source: Family Options Study baseline and 78-month surveys.

The homeless or doubled up status for those 78-month respondents in the UC group only was also examined. As shown in exhibit 6-4, 14.7 percent of UC respondents reported being homeless for at least 1

night in the 6 months prior to the 78-month survey. During this same period, 18.5 percent of UC

respondents reported being doubled up for at least 1 night, and 23.8 percent of UC respondents reported being either homeless or doubled up for at least 1 night. No correlations with any homelessness prior to baseline or experience of homelessness as a child were statistically significant among this smaller sample.

26

Exhibit 6-4.

Cross-Tabulations of Homeless, Doubled-up, and Homeless or Doubled-up in Last 6 Months with (i) Previous Experience of Homelessness in Lifetime at Baseline and (ii) Family Head’s Experience of Homelessness as a Child (Under Age 18), for 78-Month Survey Respondents in Usual Care Group

Homeless in Last 6 Months at 78-

Total

Previously Experienced

Experienced Homelessness as a

Month Survey (%)

Homelessness in Lifetime at

Child (Under Age 18) (%)n.s.

Baseline (%)n.s.

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

85.0

32.3

52.8

68.6

16.4

Yes

14.7

4.4

10.3

10.3

4.4

Refused

0.3

0.0

0.3

0.3

0.0

Don't Know

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Total

100.0

36.7

63.3

79.2

20.8

Doubled-up in Last 6 Months at

Total

Previously Experienced

Experienced Homelessness as a

78-Month Survey (%)

Homelessness in Lifetime at

Child (Under Age 18) (%)n.s.

Baseline (%)n.s.

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

80.9

30.8

50.2

63.6

17.3

Yes

18.5

5.9

12.6

15.3

3.2

Refused

0.3

0.0

0.3

0.3

0.0

Don't Know

0.3

0.0

0.3

0.0

0.3

Total

100.0

36.7

63.3

79.2

20.8

Homeless or Doubled-up in Last

Total

Previously Experienced

Experienced Homelessness as a

6 Months at 78-Month Survey (%)

Homelessness in Lifetime at

Child (Under Age 18) (%)n.s.

Baseline (%)n.s.

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

76.0

29.6

46.3

60.4

15.5

Yes

23.8

7.0

16.7

18.5

5.3

Refused/Don't Know

0.3

0.0

0.3

0.3

0.0

Total

100.0

36.7

63.3

79.2

20.8

Sample size = 341. **/* = Correlation is statistically significant at the .05/.01 level. n.s. = Correlation is not statistically significant at the .05 level.

Notes: All 341 Usual Care respondents to the 78-month survey were also respondents to the baseline survey. The statistical significance levels are from chi-squared tests that excluded refused/don’t know responses (due to small cell counts). Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

Source: Family Options Study baseline and 78-month surveys.

27

Finally, the homeless, doubled-up, and homeless or doubled-up status was examined for those 78-month survey respondents who were offered priority access to one of the other three intervention groups—SUB, CBRR, or PBTH— and who took up the assistance offered to them within the first 37 months after random assignment.

As discussed in Chapter 3, additional work that is beyond the scope of the current project is needed to create weights to adjust the 78-month survey sample for non-response. Additional work is also needed to determine whether, once weighted for non-response, the 78-month survey sample can support impact analysis. Within the scope of this project, there were not sufficient resources available to determine the feasibility of conducting impact analysis with the 78-month survey sample, nor (even if feasible) were there resources available to carry out such analysis. Thus, the unweighted 78-month survey data were used to describe outcomes for all 78-month survey respondents and all 78-month survey respondents assigned to the UC group. To describe outcomes for other groups of survey respondents, the focus was on respondents who were assigned to SUB, CBRR, and PBTH, who actually used the assigned assistance.

These participants who took up their assigned assistance were the focus because even unweighted, their outcomes have clear interpretation and are not confounded by outcomes for participants who did not use the assigned intervention.

As shown in exhibit 6-5, of the 78-month respondents assigned to the SUB group who used a long-term rent subsidy, 6.9 percent reported being homeless for at least 1 night in the 6 months prior to the 78-month survey. During this same period, 10.9 percent of respondents assigned to SUB who ever used a long-term rent subsidy reported being doubled up for at least 1 night, and 13.5 percent of them reported being either homeless or doubled up for at least 1 night. None of the measures were correlated with any homelessness prior to baseline or experience of homelessness as a child.

28

Exhibit 6-5.

Cross-Tabulations of Homeless, Doubled-up, and Homeless or Doubled-up in Last 6 Months with (i) Previous Experience of Homelessness in Lifetime at Baseline and (ii) Family Head’s Experience of Homelessness as a Child (Under Age 18), for 78-Month Survey Respondents in SUB Group Who Ever Used SUB

Between Random Assignment and the 37-Month Followup Survey

Homeless in Last 6 Months at 78-

Previously Experienced

Experienced Homelessness

Month Survey (%)

Total

Homelessness in Lifetime at

as a Child (Under Age 18)

Baseline (%)n.s.

(%)n.s.

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

93.1

34.9

58.2

74.9

18.2

Yes

6.9

2.2

4.7

6.2

0.7

Refused

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Don't Know

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Total

100.0

37.1

62.9

81.1

18.9

Doubled-up in Last 6 Months at

Previously Experienced

Experienced Homelessness

78-Month Survey (%)

Total

Homelessness in Lifetime at

as a Child (Under Age 18)

Baseline (%)n.s.

(%)n.s.

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

89.1

32.7

62.9

71.6

17.5

Yes

10.9

4.4

6.6

9.5

1.5

Refused

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Don't Know

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Total

100.0

37.1

62.9

81.1

18.9

Homeless or Doubled-up in Last

Previously Experienced

Experienced Homelessness

6 Months at 78-Month Survey (%)

Total

Homelessness in Lifetime at

as a Child (Under Age 18)

Baseline (%)n.s.

(%)n.s.

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

86.6

32.4

54.2

69.5

17.1

Yes

13.5

4.7

8.7

11.6

1.8

Refused/Don't Know

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Total

100.0

37.1

62.9

81.1

18.9

Sample size = 275. n.s. = Correlation is not statistically significant at the .05 level.

Notes: All 275 SUB user respondents to the 78-month survey were also respondents to the baseline survey. The statistical significance levels are from chi-squared tests that excluded refused/don’t know responses (due to small cell counts). Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

Source: Family Options Study baseline and 78-month surveys.

As shown in exhibit 6-6, of the 78-month respondents assigned to the CBRR group who had ever used rapid re-housing, 9.2 percent reported being homeless for at least 1 night in the 6 months prior to the 78-month survey. During this same period, 13.2 percent of the respondents assigned to CBRR who had ever used rapid re-housing, reported being doubled up for at least 1 night, and 17.2 percent of them reported being either homeless or doubled up for at least 1 night. The measure of homeless in the past 6 months was positively correlated with any homelessness prior to baseline. None of the other measures were positively correlated with experiences of homelessness prior to baseline or homelessness as a child.

29

Exhibit 6-6.

Cross-Tabulations of Homeless, Doubled-up, and Homeless or Doubled-up in Last 6 Months with (i) Previous Experience of Homelessness in Lifetime at Baseline and (ii) Family Head’s Experience of Homelessness as a Child (Under Age 18), for 78-Month Survey Respondents in CBRR Group Who Ever Used RR Between Random Assignment and the 37-Month Followup Survey

Experienced

Homeless in Last 6 Months at 78-Month Survey

Previously Experienced

Homelessness as a

(%)

Total

Homelessness in

Lifetime at Baseline (%)* Child (Under Age 18)

(%)n.s.

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

90.2

35.1

55.2

75.9

14.4

Yes

9.2

1.2

8.1

8.6

0.6

Refused

0.6

0.0

0.6

0.6

0.0

Don't Know

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Total

100.0

36.2

63.8

85.1

14.9

Previously Experienced

Experienced

Doubled-up in Last 6 Months at 78-Month Survey

Homelessness in

Homelessness as a

(%)

Total

Lifetime at Baseline

Child (Under Age 18)

(%)n.s.

(%)n.s.

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

86.8

31.6

55.2

73.6

13.2

Yes

13.2

4.6

8.6

11.5

1.7

Refused

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Don't Know

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Total

100.0

36.2

63.8

85.1

14.9

Previously Experienced

Experienced

Homeless or Doubled-up in Last 6 Months at 78-

Homelessness in

Homelessness as a

Month Survey (%)

Total

Lifetime at Baseline

Child (Under Age 18)

(%)n.s.

(%)n.s.

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

82.2

31.6

50.6

69.0

13.2

Yes

17.2

4.6

12.6

15.5

1.7

Refused/Don't Know

0.6

0.0

0.6

0.6

0.0

Total

100.0

36.2

63.8

85.1

14.9

Sample size = 174. **/* = Correlation is statistically significant at the .05/.01 level. n.s. = Correlation is not statistically significant at the .05 level.

Notes: All 174 CBRR user respondents to the 78-month survey were also respondents to the baseline survey. The statistical significance levels are from chi-squared tests that excluded refused/don’t know responses (due to small cell counts). Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

Source: Family Options Study baseline and 78-month surveys.

As shown in exhibit 6-7, of the 78-month respondents assigned to the PBTH group who had ever used transitional housing program assistance, 7.1 percent reported being homeless for at least 1 night in the 6

months prior to the 78-month survey. During this same period, 10.2 percent of the respondents assigned to the PBTH group who had ever used transitional housing assistance reported being doubled up for at least 1 night, and 14.3 percent of them reported being either homeless or doubled up for at least 1 night.

None of the measures was positively correlated with any homelessness prior to baseline or homelessness as a child.

30

Exhibit 6-7.

Cross-Tabulations of Homeless, Doubled-up, and Homeless or Doubled-up in Last 6 Months with (i) Previous Experience of Homelessness in Lifetime at Baseline and (ii) Family Head’s Experience of Homelessness as a Child (Under Age 18), for 78-Month Survey Respondents in PBTH Group Who Ever Used TH Between Random Assignment and the 37-Month Followup Survey

Previously Experienced

Experienced

Homeless in Last 6 Months at 78-Month Survey

Homelessness in

Homelessness as a

(%)

Total

Lifetime at Baseline

Child (Under Age 18)

(%)n.s.

(%)n.s.

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

92.9

37.8

55.1

70.4

22.5

Yes

7.1

2.0

5.1

7.1

0.0

Refused

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Don't Know

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Total

100.0

39.8

60.2

77.6

22.5

Previously Experienced

Experienced

Doubled-up in Last 6 Months at 78-Month Survey

Homelessness in

Homelessness as a

(%)

Total

Lifetime at Baseline

Child (Under Age 18)

(%)n.s.

(%)n.s.

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

89.8

33.7

56.1

68.4

21.4

Yes

10.2

6.1

4.1

9.2

1.0

Refused

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Don't Know

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Total

100.0

39.8

60.2

77.6

22.5

Previously Experienced

Experienced

Homeless or Doubled-up in Last 6 Months at 78-

Homelessness in

Homelessness as a

Month Survey (%)

Total

Lifetime at Baseline

Child (Under Age 18)

(%)n.s.

(%)n.s.

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

85.7

32.7

53.1

64.3

21.4

Yes

14.3

7.1

7.1

13.3

1.0

Refused/Don't Know

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Total

100.0

39.8

60.2

77.6

22.5

Sample size = 98. **/* = Correlation is statistically significant at the .05/.01 level. n.s. = Correlation is not statistically significant at the .05 level.

Notes: All 98 PBTH ever user respondents to the 78-month survey were also respondents to the baseline survey. The statistical significance levels are from chi-squared tests that excluded refused/don’t know responses (due to small cell counts). Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

Source: Family Options Study baseline and 78-month surveys.

Housing Independence.

Exhibit 6-8 shows the percentage of families who reported living in their own house or apartment regardless of whether or not they were receiving housing assistance. The exhibit shows the housing status for all 78-month survey respondents and for 78-month respondents in the UC group only.

31

Exhibit 6-8.

Housing Independence of 78-Month Survey Respondents

78-Month Respondents

All 78-Month

in the Usual Care

Outcome

Respondents

Group Only

Total Respondents:

1,103

341

Percent of 78-Month

Housing status

Percent of 78-Month

Respondents Overall Respondents Usual Care

Group Only

A house or apartment that you own or rent

83.0

79.5

Your partner’s (boy/girlfriend’s/fiancé’s, significant other’s) place 1.4

1.8

A friend or relative’s house or apartment, and paying part of the rent 5.3

6.2

A friend or relative’s house or apartment, but not paying part of the rent 4.3

4.4

Hotel or motel you pay for yourself

0.5

0.9

A permanent, transitional, or treatment program

2.1

1.5

Emergency shelter or voucher hotel or motel

1.6

3.2

A place not meant for human habitation (car, abandoned building, or

1.3

1.8

outside)

Other

0.6

0.9

Source: Family Options Study 78-month survey.

Exhibit 6-8 shows that 83.0 percent of all 78-month respondents were living in a house or apartment that they owned or rented. This proportion was 79.5 percent among those respondents in the UC group.

Exhibit 6-9 shows the same housing independence information as in exhibit 6-8, except exhibit 6-9 shows the 78-month respondents assigned to the SUB, PBTH, and CBRR groups who used the intervention to which they were assigned.

32

Exhibit 6-9.

Housing Independence of 78-Month Survey Respondents Who Used the

Intervention to Which They Were Randomly Assigned Priority Access

78-Month

78-Month Respondents

78-Month Respondents

Respondents in

in the CBRR Group Who in the PBTH Group Who

Outcome

the SUB Group

Ever Used RR

Ever Used TH

Who Ever

Used SUB

Sample Size:

275

174

98

Percent 78-Month

Percent of 78-Month

Percent of 78-Month

Respondents in

Respondents in the

Respondents in the

Housing Status

the SUB Group

CBRR Group Who Ever

PBTH Group Who Ever

Who Ever

Used RR

Used TH

Used SUB

A house or apartment that you own 89.5

81.6

83.7

or rent

Your partner’s

0.4

1.7

1.0

(boy/girlfriend’s/fiancé’s, significant

other’s) place

A friend or relative’s house or

2.9

8.1

4.1

apartment, and paying part of the rent

A friend or relative’s house or

2.2

5.2

6.1

apartment, but not paying part of

the rent

Hotel or motel you pay for yourself

0.4

0.6

0.0

A permanent, transitional, or

2.6

0.6

1.0

treatment program

Emergency shelter or voucher hotel

1.1

1.2

1.0

or motel

A place not meant for human

1.1

0.6

1.0

habitation (car, abandoned building,

or outside)

Other

0.0

0.6

2.0

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RR = rapid re-housing.

SUB = subsidy. TH = transitional housing. UC = usual care.

Source: Family Options Study 78-month survey.

The exhibit shows that 89.5 percent of all 78-month respondents assigned to SUB who used a long-term rent subsidy were living in a house or apartment that they owned or rented. This proportion was 81.6 percent among those respondents assigned to the CBRR group who used rapid re-housing (RR), and 83.7 percent for those who were assigned to the PBTH group and who ever used transitional housing assistance (TH).

A series of four items (a5, a6, a6a, and a6b)20 on the 78-month tracking survey asked about the current use of housing programs. While verifying the responses to these items with the Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Information Center (PIC) and the Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS) data has not been attempted, nor checked for consistency between program name (a6a) and program type (a6b), about one-half of the 1,103 respondents reported that they were currently receiving 20 See Appendix B for the 78-month Tracking Survey Instrument

33

some type of housing assistance at the time of the 78-month survey response. 21 The survey also asked about the use of programs prior to the current living situation within the past 6 months. Exhibit 6-10

shows that 3.0 percent of all respondents used a program prior to their current living situation within the past 6 months. This proportion was 4.1 percent for the UC respondents. Again, these data were examined for those 78-month respondents assigned to the SUB group who used a long-term rent subsidy, those assigned to the CBRR group who used rapid re-housing, and those assigned to the PBTH group who used transitional housing assistance. Of those assigned to SUB who used a long-term subsidy, 1.8 percent reported having used a program prior to the survey. The proportion for the rapid re-housing user group was 1.7 percent, and 1.0 percent for the transitional housing user group.

21 There were 536 affirmative responses to item a5 and an additional 29 affirmative responses to item a6, yielding 555 respondents who reported they were receiving some type of assistance at the time of the survey. This total is about one-half of the 1,103 respondents.

34

Exhibit 6-10.

Any Receipt of Additional Housing Assistance in 6 Months Prior to the 78-Month Survey for 78-Month Survey Respondents

P rogram Type Used in Last 6 Months NOT Including Place Living at Time of Interview Yes (%)

No (%)

Refused/Don't

Know (%)

78-Month Survey Respondents: Overall (N=1,103)

Shelter

1.2

98.5

0.4

Permanent supportive housing

0.7

98.8

0.5

Transitional housing program

0.8

98.7

0.5

Rapid re-housing (temporary rental assistance)

0.6

98.9

0.5

Long-term rent subsidy

1.1

98.4

0.5

Other housing assistance

0.6

98.8

0.5

Any type of program or assistance

3.0

97.0

0.0

78-Month Survey Respondents: UC Group Only (N=341)

Shelter

2.4

97.7

0.0

Permanent supportive housing

1.2

98.8

0.0

Transitional housing program

1.2

98.8

0.0

Rapid re-housing (temporary rental assistance)

1.2

98.8

0.0

Long-term rent subsidy

0.6

99.1

0.3

Other housing assistance

0.3

99.7

0.0

Any type of program or assistance

4.1

95.9

0.0

78-Month Survey Respondents: SUB Group Who Ever Used SUB (N=275)

Shelter

0.7

99.3

0.0

Permanent supportive housing

0.7

99.3

0.0

Transitional housing program

0.7

99.3

0.0

Rapid re-housing (temporary rental assistance)

0.4

99.6

0.0

Long-term rent subsidy

1.1

98.9

0.0

Other housing assistance

0.7

98.9

0.4

Any type of program or assistance

1.8

98.2

0.0

78-Month Survey Respondents: CBRR Group Who Ever Used RR (N=174)

Shelter

0.6

99.4

0.0

Permanent supportive housing

0.0

100.0

0.0

Transitional housing program

1.2

98.9

0.0

Rapid re-housing (temporary rental assistance)

0.0

100.0

0.0

Long-term rent subsidy

1.2

98.9

0.0

Other housing assistance

0.0

100.0

0.0

Any type of program or assistance

1.7

98.3

0.0

78-Month Survey Respondents: PBTH Group Who Ever Used TH (N=98)

Shelter

0.0

100.0

0.0

Permanent supportive housing

0.0

99.0

1.0

Transitional housing program

0.0

99.0

1.0

Rapid re-housing (temporary rental assistance)

0.0

99.0

1.0

Long-term rent subsidy

0.0

99.0

1.0

Other housing assistance

1.0

98.0

1.0

Any type of program or assistance

1.0

99.0

0.0

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RR = rapid re-housing.

SUB = subsidy. TH = transitional housing. UC = usual care.

Source: Family Options Study 78-month survey.

35

6.2.2

What is the Employment Status of Families that Responded to the 78-Month Survey?

In addition to housing status and housing independence, the team also collected data to measure employment for the 78-month survey respondents. Exhibit 6-11 shows that 51.5 percent of all 78-month respondents were working for pay in the week before the survey compared to only 17.8 percent who were working at baseline. The study team found a statistically significant correlation between employment at baseline and employment at 78 months. The results for the UC 78-month respondents were very similar.

An analysis of the 78-month respondents in the other three groups who used their assigned intervention yields similar results. Among the respondents in the SUB group who used a long-term rent subsidy, 49.1

percent were working for pay in the week before the survey compared with 15.3 percent who were working at baseline. The study team found a statistically significant correlation between employment at baseline and employment at 78-months for those who used a long-term subsidy. Among CBRR group respondents who used rapid re-housing, 58.1 percent were employed at the 78-month survey compared with 19.5 percent at baseline. The proportions for PBTH respondents who used transitional housing were 55.1 percent employed at 78 months and 15.3 percent employed at baseline. There was no statistically significant correlation between employment at baseline and employment at 78 months for those CBRR

group respondents who used rapid re-housing or for those PBTH group respondents who used transitional housing.

36

Exhibit 6-11.

Cross-Tabulations of Working for Pay at 78 Months with Working for Pay at Baseline for 78-Month Survey Respondents

Working for Pay in Week Before 78-Month Survey (%)

Total

Working for Pay in Week Before

Random Assignment (Baseline)

(%)

Yes

No

78-Month Survey Respondents: All (N=1,103)*

Yes

51.5

13.1

38.4

No

48.3

4.7

43.6

Refused

0.2

0.0

0.2

Don't Know

0.0

0.0

0.0

Total

100.0

17.8

82.2

78-Month Respondents: UC Group Only (N=341)*

Yes

50.4

15.3

35.2

No

49.6

5.0

44.6

Refused

0.0

0.0

0.0

Don't Know

0.0

0.0

0.0

Total

100.0

20.2

79.8

78-Month Survey Respondents: SUB Group Who Ever Used SUB (N=275)*

Yes

49.1

12.0

37.1

No

50.9

3.3

47.6

Refused

0.0

0.0

0.0

Don't Know

0.0

0.0

0.0

Total

100.0

15.3

84.7

78-Month Survey Respondents: CBRR Group Who Ever Used RR (N=174)

Yes

58.1

10.9

47.1

No

42.0

8.6

33.3

Refused

0.0

0.0

0.0

Don't Know

0.0

0.0

0.0

Total

100.0

19.5

80.5

78-Month Survey Respondents: PBTH Group Who Ever Used TH (N=98)

Yes

55.1

11.2

43.9

No

43.9

4.1

39.8

Refused

1.0

0.0

1.0

Don't Know

0.0

0.0

0.0

Total

100

15.3

84.7

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RR = rapid re-housing.

SUB = subsidy. TH = transitional housing. UC = usual care.

*Employment at 78 months has a statistically significant positive correlation with employment at baseline at the .0001

level for all 78-month respondents, those in the UC group, and those in the SUB group who used a long-term subsidy. The statistical significance levels are from chi-squared tests that excluded refused/don’t know responses (due to small cell counts).

Notes: All 1,103 respondents to the 78-month survey were also respondents to the baseline survey. Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

Source: Family Options Study baseline and 78-month surveys.

6.2.3

How Much Internet Access Do 78-Month Survey Respondents Have?

The study team also looked at how connected the 78-month respondents were to the internet. As shown in exhibit 6-12, most respondents (93.3 percent) had internet access by computer, phone, or tablet. Access through a phone or tablet was much more common than access through a home computer. Of the

37

respondents in the UC group, 92.4 percent reported they had internet access by computer, phone, or tablet.

Exhibit 6-12.

Internet Access of 78-Month Survey Respondents

Do you own a computer with internet access in the place you are living now? Do you have access to the internet through your phone or an iPad or tablet device?

Yes

No

Refused/

Don’t Know

78-Month Survey Respondents: All (N=1,103)

Own computer has internet access

39.8

60.2

0.0

Phone or tablet has internet access

91.9

8.1

0.0

Internet access by computer, phone, or

93.3

6.7

0.0

tablet

78-Month Respondents: UC Group Only (N=341)

Own computer has internet access

35.5

64.5

0.0

Phone or tablet has internet access

91.2

8.8

0.0

Internet access by computer, phone, or

92.4

7.6

0.0

tablet (Either C3 or C4)

78-Month Survey Respondents: SUB Group Who Ever Used SUB (N=275)

Own computer has internet access

41.8

58.2

0.0

Phone or tablet has internet access

94.2

5.8

0.0

Internet access by computer, phone, or

tablet

94.9

5.1

0.0

78-Month Survey Respondents: CBRR Group Who Ever Used RR (N=174)

Own computer has internet access

42.0

58.1

0.0

Phone or tablet has internet access

93.1

6.9

0.0

Internet access by computer, phone, or

tablet

95.4

4.6

0.0

78-Month Survey Respondents: PBTH Group Who Ever Used TH (N=98)

Own computer has internet access

49.0

51.0

0.0

Phone or tablet has internet access

86.7

13.3

0.0

Internet access by computer, phone, or

tablet

87.8

12.2

0.0

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RR = rapid re-housing.

SUB = subsidy. TH = transitional housing. UC = usual care.

Source: Family Options Study 78-month survey.

Among 78-month respondents in the SUB group who used a long-term rent subsidy and CBRR

respondents who used rapid re-housing, 95.4 percent reported that they had internet access with phone or tablet as the primary internet source. The proportion of respondents assigned to the PBTH group who used transitional housing that reported internet access by computer, phone, or tablet was 87.8 percent.

6.3

How Have 78-Month Respondent Outcomes Changed Over Time?

The study team also looked at values of three key outcomes for the 78-month survey respondents at four followup points: baseline, 20, 37, and 78 months after random assignment. Exhibit 6-13 shows these outcomes for all 78-month survey respondents and for all 78-month respondents who are in the UC group

38

only. The table then shows the same outcomes for those respondents in the other three intervention groups (SUB, CBRR, and PBTH) who used their assigned intervention. 22

Because all study participants completed the baseline survey, the number of cases reported for the baseline and the 78-month followup survey are identical—that is, both reflect the number of 78-month respondents. The number of cases for the 20- and 37-month followups, however, are lower for each respondent group because not all 78-month respondents responded to the 20- and 37-month followup surveys. Thus, the number of cases in exhibit 6-13 is 1,103 for baseline and 78-month followup but drops to 1,024 at 20-months and 1,048 at 37-months.

Exhibit 6-13 shows that, for all 78-month respondents, the percentage that spent at least 1 night homeless or doubled-up in the 6 months prior to the interview steadily decreased over time, from 29.2 percent at the 20-month followup to 19.5 percent at the 78-month followup. Similar trends can be seen for the 78-month respondents in the UC group and those in the CBRR and PBTH groups who used rapid re-housing and transitional housing, respectively. The trend is different for those in the SUB group who used a long-term rent subsidy; for that group, 8.8 percent had reported spending at least 1 night homeless or doubled-up in the 6 months prior to the 20-month survey, but the percentage increased to 13.5 percent by the 78-month followup survey.

The level of housing independence—those reporting that they lived in their own house or apartment--

increased steadily over time for all 78-month respondents in the SUB, CBRR, and PBTH groups who actually used their assigned intervention. Looking at employment trends over time for each respondent group, the study team also observed steady increases in the percentage of respondents who were working.

22 The comparisons shown in exhibit 6-13 are based on the participants who responded to the 78-month survey, and their response to previous surveys. Non-respondents to the 78-month survey are excluded from exhibit 6-13.

39

Exhibit 6-13.

Three Key Outcomes at Four Time Points, for 78-Month Survey Respondents All 78-Month Survey Respondents

Outcome

Baseline

20-Month Fol owup

37-Month Fol owup

78-Month

(N=1,103)

(N=1,024)

(N= 1,048)

Followup

(N=1,103)

At least 1 night homeless or doubled up in past

N/A

29.2

27.8

19.5

6 months (%)

Living in own house or apartment at followup

N/A

63.1

75.6

83.0

(%)

Work for pay in week before survey (%)

17.8

32.4

40.4

51.5

All 78-Month Survey Respondents—UC Group Only

Outcome

Baseline

20-Month Fol owup

37-Month Fol owup

78-Month

(N=341)

(N= 316)

(N= 321)

Followup

(N=341)

At least 1 night homeless or doubled up in past

N/A

37.0

31.8

23.8

6 months (%)

Living in own house or apartment at followup

N/A

58.5

72.3

79.5

(%)

Work for pay in week before survey (%)

20.2

30.7

39.9

50.4

78-Month Survey Respondents: SUB Group Who Ever Used SUB (45% of all assigned to SUB) 78-Month

Outcome

Baseline

20-Month Fol owup

37-Month Fol owup

(N-275)

(N=263)

(N= 268)

Followup

(N=275)

At least 1 night homeless or doubled up in past

6 months (%)

N/A

8.8

7.8

13.5

Living in own house or apartment at followup

(%)

N/A

79.5

88.8

89.5

Work for pay in week before survey (%)

15.3

25.1

38.8

49.1

78-Month Survey Respondents: CBRR Group Who Ever Used RR (31% of all assigned to CBRR) 78-Month

Outcome

Baseline

20-Month Fol owup

37-Month Fol owup

(N-174)

(N= 159)

(N=162)

Followup

(N=174)

At least 1 night homeless or doubled up in past

6 months (%)

N/A

35.2

37.7

17.2

Living in own house or apartment at followup

(%)

N/A

67.9

70.4

81.6

Work for pay in week before survey (%)

19.5

41.5

46.3

58.1

78-Month Survey Respondents: PBTH Group Who Ever Used TH (27% of al assigned to PBTH) Outcome

Baseline

20-Month Fol owup

37-Month Fol owup

78-Month

(N=98)

(N=92)

(N= 94)

Followup (N=98)

At least 1 night homeless or doubled up in past

6 months (%)

N/A

26.1

35.1

14.3

Living in own house or apartment at followup

(%)

N/A

42.4

67.0

83.7

Work for pay in week before survey (%)

15.3

41.3

44.7

55.1

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. N/A = data not available. PBTH = project-based transitional housing.

SUB = subsidy. UC = usual care.

Notes: All percentages are unweighted. Comparisons between samples are biased by self-selection into programs and nonresponse to the 78-month survey. The number of cases in the 20- and 37-month samples varies from baseline and 78-month followup because they are sensitive to response to those prior survey efforts.

Source: Family Options Study baseline, 20-, 37- and 78-month surveys.

40

7. Longer-Term Analysis of Employment and Earnings Impacts

The National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) maintained by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) contains quarterly wage information for all states. 23 In the Three-Year Impacts Report, the study team analyzed earnings and employment outcomes from the NDNH for the full study sample for the 11th to 14th calendar quarters after the calendar quarter of random assignment. In this report, the analysis is extended through the 27th quarter after random assignment. 24

Exhibit 7-1 shows the percent of the full usual care (UC) group who have positive earnings in each calendar quarter from the 11th to 27th quarters after random assignment. This percent rises from 42

percent in the 11th quarter to about 50 percent during the last 2 years of the period.

Exhibit 7-1. UC

Employment by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment

60

50

40

yed

plo

30

t Em

cen

Per 20

10

0

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Quarter after RA

RA = random assignment. UC = usual care.

23 For more information about the NDNH, see Gubits et al. (2016), appendix B.

24 As of June 2019, the final quarter of data available from the NDNH was the fourth quarter of 2018. The Family Options Study enrolled its last cohort of families in the first quarter of 2012. The fourth quarter of 2018

represents the 27th quarter after the quarter of random assignment for this last cohort. The study enrolled its earliest cohort of families in the third quarter of 2010. For this earliest cohort, the fourth quarter of 2018

represents the 33rd quarter after random assignment.

41

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

Exhibit 7-2 shows the average earnings of the full UC group in each calendar quarter from the 11th to 27th quarters after random assignment. The average earnings increase from about $1,600 in the 11th quarter to about $2,400 in the 27th quarter. These average earnings include those family heads with no earnings in the quarter. Because the employment level in each quarter is roughly one-half, the average earnings just for those families who have positive earnings is roughly twice the amounts shown here.

Exhibit 7-2.

UC Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment

3,000

2,500

2,000

4$)

1,500

(2018Q

ngs

Earni 1,000

500

0

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Quarter after RA

RA = random assignment. UC = usual care. Note: Dollar amounts are inflation-adjusted to 2018Q4 dollars.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

Exhibit 7-3 shows average earnings, percent of the sample employed, and number of quarters employed for the UC group over four, sequential one-year periods of time beginning with the 11th quarter after random assignment. The exhibit also includes outcomes for the most recent year of data available (the 24th to 27th quarters after random assignment), as well as the entire period for which data are available (the 11th to 27th quarters after random assignment). The average earnings for the UC group have increased from about $6,700 per year to about $9,500 per year during the period of time spanning from quarter 11 through quarter 27. The percent of the sample that are employed in any year has increased from 60.1 percent to 63.1 percent over the four-year time period. During the entire period of observation (from quarter 11 to 27 after RA), 79.4 percent of family heads had earnings in at least one quarter (i.e., had any employment). On average, family heads had positive earnings (i.e., had any employment) in 8 of the 17 calendar quarters.

42

Exhibit 7-3.

Mean Earnings and Employment Outcomes for UC Group

UC

Outcome

N

Mean

(SD)

Earnings (2018Q4$)

Quarters 11 to 14 after RA

692

$6,684

$10,787

Quarters 15 to 18 after RA

692

$8,061

$12,057

Quarters 19 to 22 after RA

692

$9,386

$13,301

Quarters 23 to 26 after RA

690

$9,437

$12,743

Quarters 24 to 27 after RA

691

$9,487

$12,805

Quarters 11 to 27 after RA

690

$35,615

$46,021

Any Employment (%)

Quarters 11 to 14 after RA

692

60.12

49.00

Quarters 15 to 18 after RA

692

61.85

48.61

Quarters 19 to 22 after RA

692

64.45

47.9

Quarters 23 to 26 after RA

690

62.90

48.34

Quarters 24 to 27 after RA

691

63.10

48.29

Quarters 11 to 27 after RA

690

79.42

40.46

Number of Quarters With Any Employment

Quarters 11 to 14 after RA

692

1.7

1.7

Quarters 15 to 18 after RA

692

1.9

1.7

Quarters 19 to 22 after RA

692

2.0

1.7

Quarters 23 to 26 after RA

690

2.0

1.8

Quarters 24 to 27 after RA

691

2.0

1.7

Quarters 11 to 27 after RA

690

8.1

6.3

RA = random assignment. SD = standard deviation. UC = usual care.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

Exhibits 7-4 to 7-9 present impact results for the six pairwise comparisons for the same set of outcomes shown for the UC group in exhibit 7-3. Some evidence was found that priority access to a long-term subsidy (SUB) continued to reduce the percent of family heads who are employed compared with UC

after the 14th quarter. The study team also found some evidence that priority access to a long-term SUB

reduced earnings, the percent of family heads who are employed, and the number of quarters employed compared with priority access to short-term subsidies (community-based rapid re-housing [CBRR]). The study team did not find any statistically significant results for other pairwise comparisons.

Exhibit 7-4 compares employment and earnings outcomes between the SUB and UC groups. As shown in the exhibit, there was no impact on earnings detected for any time period. There were negative impacts of about 5 percentage points on percent employed during the 11th to 14th quarters, 19th to 22nd quarters,

43

and 11th to 27th quarters. 25 In addition, there was no impact on the number of quarters employed detected for any time period.

Exhibit 7-4.

SUB Versus UC: Earnings and Employment

SUB

UC

ITT Impact

Effect

Outcome

N

Mean

(SD)

N

Mean

(SD) Impact (SE) Sizea

Earnings (2018Q4$)

Quarters 11 to 14 after RA

554 $6,331 $(9,728)

499 $6,126 $(10,059)

$205 $(614)

0.02

Quarters 15 to 18 after RA

553 $7,326 $(10,892)

499 $7,787 $(11,709) $-462 $(702) -0.04

Quarters 19 to 22 after RA

553 $8,856 $(12,495)

499 $9,252 $(12,912) $-396 $(785) -0.03

Quarters 23 to 26 after RA

553 $9,437 $(13,441)

498 $9,424 $(12,852)

$13 $(806)

0.00

Quarters 24 to 27 after RA

553 $9,832 $(13,758)

499 $9,524 $(12,903)

$308 $(818)

0.02

Quarters 11 to 27 after RA

553 $34,618 $(44,485)

498 $34,872 $(45,540) $-254 $(2,781) -0.01

Any Employment (%)

Quarters 11 to 14 after RA

554

54.3

(49.9)

499

59.5

(49.1)

-5.2*

(3.1) -0.11

Quarters 15 to 18 after RA

553

58.3

(49.4)

499

61.7

(48.7)

-3.4

(3.0) -0.07

Quarters 19 to 22 after RA

553

59.3

(49.2)

499

64.5

(47.8)

-5.2*

(3.0) -0.11

Quarters 23 to 26 after RA

553

58.9

(49.3)

498

61.7

(48.6)

-2.8

(3.0) -0.06

Quarters 24 to 27 after RA

553

60.5

(49.0)

499

62.0

(48.6)

-1.5

(3.0) -0.03

Quarters 11 to 27 after RA

553

74.6

(43.6)

498

79.8

(40.1) -5.3**

(2.6) -0.13

Number of Quarters With Any Employment

Quarters 11 to 14 after RA

554

1.6

(1.7)

499

1.7

(1.7)

-0.1

(0.1) -0.04

Quarters 15 to 18 after RA

553

1.7

(1.7)

499

1.9

(1.7)

-0.2

(0.1) -0.09

Quarters 19 to 22 after RA

553

1.9

(1.8)

499

2.0

(1.7)

-0.1

(0.1) -0.05

Quarters 23 to 26 after RA

553

1.8

(1.8)

498

1.9

(1.8)

-0.1

(0.1) -0.06

Quarters 24 to 27 after RA

553

1.9

(1.8)

499

1.9

(1.7)

-0.1

(0.1) -0.03

Quarters 11 to 27 after RA

553

7.6

(6.4)

498

8.0

(6.3)

-0.4

(0.4) -0.06

ITT = intention-to-treat. RA = random assignment. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error. SUB = subsidy. UC

= usual care.

*/**/*** Impact estimate is significantly different from 0 at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, using a two-tailed t-test.

a Effect size column shows standardized effect sizes, which were calculated by dividing impact by standard deviation for the entire UC group.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

Exhibits 7-4a and 7-4b show the pairwise comparisons of the average quarterly earnings and average employment rates, respectively, for participants in the SUB and UC groups. The exhibits showing the impact on earnings and employment status by calendar quarter, with 95-percent confidence for all pairwise comparisons, are shown in appendix I.

25 Gubits et al. (2016, Exhibit 3-13) reported a 5.5-percentage-point reduction in percent employed during quarters 11 to 14. The result here of 5.2 percentage points differs from that result for two reasons: (1) this result reflects corrected quarterly wage records that states have submitted to the NDNH since June 2016, and (2) the correction of an error in data cleaning made during the previous analysis. In the previous analysis, the study team incorrectly set the earnings of 25 SUB family heads and 18 UC family heads with missing NDNH data (due to non-verified name-SSN combinations) to $0 when they should have been set to missing. The current analysis corrects this error.

44

Exhibit 7-4a.

SUB vs. UC: Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment

3,000.00

2,500.00

2,000.00

4$)

1,500.00

(2018Q

ngs

1,000.00

Earni

500.00

0.00

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Quarter after RA

SUB

UC

RA = random assignment. SUB = subsidy. UC = usual care.

Note: Dollar amounts are inflation-adjusted to 2018Q4 dollars.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

45

Exhibit 7-4b.

SUB vs. UC: Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment 60

50

40

(pp)d

oyepl 30

Emnt

20

Perce

10

0

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Quarter after RA

SUB

UC

RA = random assignment. SUB = subsidy. UC = usual care.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

Pairwise comparisons of the SUB and CBRR groups are presented in exhibit 7-5. The exhibit shows a negative impact on earnings of $1,643 during the 15th to 18th quarters, in which the SUB households had significantly lower earnings than the CBRR households. No impacts on earnings were detected during other time periods examined. Negative impacts on the percent of participants employed were observed, showing a 7.7 percentage point difference between the SUB and CBRR households during the 19th to 22nd quarters and a 6.1 percentage point difference during the 11th to 27th quarters. A negative impact on the number of quarters in which participants were employed was also shown (0.2 quarters) during the 15th to 18th quarters. There were no impacts detected related to the number of households that were employed during the other time periods examined.

46

Exhibit 7-5.

SUB Versus CBRR: Earnings and Employment

SUB

CBRR

ITT Impact

Effect

Outcome

N

Mean

(SD)

N Mean

(SD)

Impact (SE) Sizea

Earnings (2018Q4$)

Quarters 11 to 14 after RA

409 $6,188 $(9,566) 362 $6,929 $(11,157)

$-741 $(775) -0.07

Quarters 15 to 18 after RA

408 $7,287 $(10,935) 362 $8,930 $(12,568) $-1,643* $(881) -0.14

Quarters 19 to 22 after RA

408 $9,066 $(12,873) 361 $9,824 $(13,728)

$-758 $(990) -0.06

Quarters 23 to 26 after RA

408 $9,600 $(14,059) 360 $10,151 $(13,754)

$-551 $(1,034) -0.04

Quarters 24 to 27 after RA

408 $9,984 $(14,388) 359 $10,364 $(13,707)

$-380 $(1,039) -0.03

Quarters 11 to 27 after RA

408 $34,791 $(45,353) 359 $37,698 $(47,507) $-2,907 $(3,485) -0.06

Any Employment (%)

Quarters 11 to 14 after RA

409

53.6

(49.9) 362

58.5

(49.4)

-4.8

(3.7) -0.10

Quarters 15 to 18 after RA

408

57.9

(49.4) 362

63.5

(48.3)

-5.6

(3.6) -0.12

Quarters 19 to 22 after RA

408

58.5

(49.3) 361

66.3

(47.5)

-7.7**

(3.6) -0.16

Quarters 23 to 26 after RA

408

58.1

(49.4) 360

60.6

(48.9)

-2.5

(3.6) -0.05

Quarters 24 to 27 after RA

408

59.6

(49.2) 359

61.0

(48.8)

-1.4

(3.6) -0.03

Quarters 11 to 27 after RA

408

73.3

(44.2) 359

79.4

(40.7)

-6.1*

(3.1) -0.15

Number of Quarters With Any Employment

Quarters 11 to 14 after RA

409

1.6

(1.7) 362

1.7

(1.7)

-0.1

(0.1) -0.04

Quarters 15 to 18 after RA

408

1.7

(1.7) 362

1.9

(1.7)

-0.2*

(0.1) -0.13

Quarters 19 to 22 after RA

408

1.9

(1.8) 361

2.1

(1.8)

-0.2

(0.1) -0.12

Quarters 23 to 26 after RA

408

1.8

(1.8) 360

2.0

(1.8)

-0.1

(0.1) -0.07

Quarters 24 to 27 after RA

408

1.9

(1.8) 359

2.0

(1.8)

-0.1

(0.1) -0.07

Quarters 11 to 27 after RA

408

7.5

(6.4) 359

8.1

(6.4)

-0.6

(0.5) -0.09

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. ITT = Intention-to-treat. RA = random assignment. SUB = subsidy. SD =

standard deviation. SE = standard error.

*/**/*** Impact estimate is significantly different from 0 at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, using a two-tailed t-test.

a Effect size column shows standardized effect sizes, which were calculated by dividing impact by standard deviation for the entire UC group.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

Exhibits 7-5a and 7-5b show the pairwise comparisons of the average quarterly earnings and average employment rates, respectively, for participants in the CBRR and UC groups.

47

Exhibit 7-5a.

CBRR vs. UC: Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment 3,000.00

2,500.00

2,000.00

4$)

1,500.00

(2018Q

ngs

1,000.00

Earni

500.00

0.00

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Quarter after RA

CBRR

UC

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. RA = random assignment. UC = usual care.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

48

Exhibit 7-5b.

CBRR vs. UC: Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment 60

50

(pp) 40

d

oyepl 30

Emnt

20

Perce

10

0

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Quarter after RA

CBRR

UC

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. RA = random assignment. UC = usual care.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

Exhibits 7-6 through 7-9 show similar findings for the following pairwise comparisons: CBRR vs. UC, PBTH vs. UC, SUB vs. PBTH, and CBRR vs. PBTH, respectively. Exhibits 7-6a through 7-9b depict the average earnings and employment rates by quarter for the same pairwise comparisons. Specifically, these comparisons show no impact on earnings or percent employed detected for any time period, nor was any impact on the number of quarters employed detected for any time period.

Exhibit 7-6.

CBRR Versus UC: Earnings and Employment

CBRR

UC

ITT Impact

Effect

Outcome

N

Mean

(SD)

N Mean

(SD)

Impact (SE) Sizea

Earnings (2018Q4$)

Quarters 11 to 14 after RA

544 $7,156 $(11,308) 539 $6,723 $(10,658)

$433

$(679)

0.04

Quarters 15 to 18 after RA

544 $8,693 $(12,785) 539 $8,278 $(12,485)

$416

$(789)

0.03

Quarters 19 to 22 after RA

543 $9,845 $(13,862) 539 $9,853 $(13,821)

$-8

$(857)

0.00

Quarters 23 to 26 after RA

542 $10,028 $(13,836) 537 $9,767 $(12,879)

$261

$(834)

0.02

Quarters 24 to 27 after RA

541 $10,206 $(13,725) 538 $9,724 $(12,841)

$482

$(829)

0.04

Quarters 11 to 27 after RA

541 $37,765 $(48,864) 537 $36,622 $(46,792) $1,144 $(2,988)

0.02

Any Employment (%)

Quarters 11 to 14 after RA

544

59.0

(49.3) 539

60.3

(48.9)

-1.2

(3.0) -0.02

Quarters 15 to 18 after RA

544

61.4

(48.8) 539

61.8

(48.6)

-0.4

(3.0) -0.01

Quarters 19 to 22 after RA

543

65.6

(47.7) 539

65.2

(47.5)

0.4

(2.9)

0.01

Quarters 23 to 26 after RA

542

60.6

(49.0) 537

64.9

(47.7)

-4.3

(3.0) -0.09

49

CBRR

UC

ITT Impact

Effect

Outcome

N

Mean

(SD)

N Mean

(SD)

Impact (SE) Sizea

Quarters 24 to 27 after RA

541

60.8

(48.9) 538

64.5

(47.8)

-3.6

(3.0) -0.08

Quarters 11 to 27 after RA

541

79.3

(40.8) 537

78.9

(40.5)

0.4

(2.5)

0.01

Number of Quarters With Any Employment

Quarters 11 to 14 after RA

544

1.7

(1.7) 539

1.7

(1.7)

0.0

(0.1)

0.01

Quarters 15 to 18 after RA

544

1.9

(1.7) 539

1.9

(1.7)

0.0

(0.1) -0.02

Quarters 19 to 22 after RA

543

2.0

(1.7) 539

2.0

(1.7)

0.0

(0.1)

0.02

Quarters 23 to 26 after RA

542

1.9

(1.8) 537

2.0

(1.7)

-0.1

(0.1) -0.05

Quarters 24 to 27 after RA

541

2.0

(1.8) 538

2.0

(1.7)

0.0

(0.1) -0.02

Quarters 11 to 27 after RA

541

8.1

(6.4) 537

8.2

(6.3)

-0.1

(0.4) -0.02

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. UC = usual care. ITT = Intention-to-treat. RA = random assignment. SD

= standard deviation. SE = standard error.

*/**/*** Impact estimate is significantly different from 0 at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, using a two-tailed t-test.

a Effect size column shows standardized effect sizes, which were calculated by dividing impact by standard deviation for the entire UC group.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

50

Exhibit 7-6a.

PBTH vs. UC: Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment

3,000.00

2,500.00

2,000.00

4$)

1,500.00

(2018Q

ngs

Earni 1,000.00

500.00

0.00

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Quarter after RA

PBTH

UC

PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RA = random assignment. UC = usual care.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

51

Exhibit 7-6b.

PBTH vs. UC: Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment 60

50

(pp) 40

d

oyepl 30

Emnt

20

Perce

10

0

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Quarter after RA

PBTH

UC

PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RA = random assignment. UC = usual care.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

52

Exhibit 7-7.

PBTH Versus UC: Earnings and Employment

PBTH

UC

ITT Impact

Effect

Outcome

N Mean

(SD)

N

Mean

(SD)

Impact (SE) Sizea

Earnings (2018Q4$)

Quarters 11 to 14 after RA

342 $7,047 $(10,853)

304 $6,307 $(10,499)

$740 $(838)

0.07

Quarters 15 to 18 after RA

342 $8,933 $(12,547)

304 $7,468 $(10,904) $1,465 $(913)

0.12

Quarters 19 to 22 after RA

341 $9,728 $(13,206)

304 $8,848 $(12,360)

$880 $(998)

0.07

Quarters 23 to 26 after RA

340 $9,850 $(13,640)

303 $9,318 $(12,910)

$532 $(1,049)

0.04

Quarters 24 to 27 after RA

340 $9,686 $(13,372)

304 $9,439 $(13,126)

$247 $(1,046)

0.02

Quarters 11 to 27 after RA

339 $36,310 $(44,054)

303 $34,148 $(45,236) $2,162 $(3,516)

0.05

Any Employment (%)

Quarters 11 to 14 after RA

342

57.3

(49.5)

304

58.9

(49.3)

-1.6

(3.9)

-0.03

Quarters 15 to 18 after RA

342

64.1

(48.1)

304

59.8

(49.1)

4.3

(3.8)

0.09

Quarters 19 to 22 after RA

341

63.6

(48.2)

304

63.2

(48.3)

0.3

(3.8)

0.01

Quarters 23 to 26 after RA

340

63.0

(48.4)

303

61.0

(48.8)

1.9

(3.8)

0.04

Quarters 24 to 27 after RA

340

62.0

(48.6)

304

60.9

(48.9)

1.2

(3.8)

0.02

Quarters 11 to 27 after RA

339

77.9

(41.6)

303

78.2

(41.3)

-0.4

(3.3)

-0.01

Number of Quarters With Any Employment

Quarters 11 to 14 after RA

342

1.7

(1.7)

304

1.8

(1.7)

0.0

(0.1)

-0.02

Quarters 15 to 18 after RA

342

2.0

(1.7)

304

1.9

(1.8)

0.1

(0.1)

0.08

Quarters 19 to 22 after RA

341

2.0

(1.8)

304

2.0

(1.7)

0.1

(0.1)

0.04

Quarters 23 to 26 after RA

340

2.1

(1.8)

303

1.9

(1.8)

0.2

(0.1)

0.09

Quarters 24 to 27 after RA

340

2.0

(1.8)

304

1.9

(1.7)

0.1

(0.1)

0.05

Quarters 11 to 27 after RA

339

8.3

(6.5)

303

8.0

(6.4)

0.3

(0.5)

0.04

ITT = Intention-to-treat. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RA = random assignment. SD = standard deviation. SE =

standard error. UC = usual care.

*/**/*** Impact estimate is significantly different from 0 at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, using a two-tailed t-test.

a Effect size column shows standardized effect sizes, which were calculated by dividing impact by standard deviation for the entire UC group.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

53

Exhibit 7-7a.

SUB vs. CBRR: Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment 3,000.00

2,500.00

2,000.00

4$)

1,500.00

(2018Q

ngs

Earni 1,000.00

500.00

0.00

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Quarter after RA

SUB

CBRR

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. RA = random assignment. SUB = subsidy.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

54

Exhibit 7-7b.

SUB vs. CBRR: Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment 60

50

40

(pp)d

oyepl 30

Emnt

20

Perce

10

0

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Quarter after RA

SUB

CBRR

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. RA = random assignment. SUB = subsidy.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

55

Exhibit 7-8.

SUB Versus PBTH: Earnings and Employment

SUB

PBTH

ITT Impact

Effect

Outcome

N Mean

(SD)

N

Mean

(SD)

Impact (SE) Sizea

Earnings (2018Q4$)

Quarters 11 to 14 after RA

234 $6,153 $(9,214)

228 $6,859 $(10,435)

$-706 $(933)

-0.07

Quarters 15 to 18 after RA

234 $7,340 $(10,202)

228 $8,648 $(11,946) $-1,309 $(1,056)

-0.11

Quarters 19 to 22 after RA

234 $8,566 $(11,548)

228 $9,437 $(13,112)

$-871 $(1,160)

-0.07

Quarters 23 to 26 after RA

234 $9,233 $(12,590)

227 $9,488 $(13,300)

$-255 $(1,232)

-0.02

Quarters 24 to 27 after RA

234 $9,593 $(12,684)

227 $9,380 $(12,931)

$213 $(1,215)

0.02

Quarters 11 to 27 after RA

234 $33,920 $(40,377)

227 $35,991 $(44,479) $-2,070 $(4,034)

-0.04

Any Employment (%)

Quarters 11 to 14 after RA

234

56.4

(49.7)

228

57.9

(49.4)

-1.5

(4.6)

-0.03

Quarters 15 to 18 after RA

234

60.7

(49.1)

228

64.0

(47.8)

-3.3

(4.5)

-0.07

Quarters 19 to 22 after RA

234

60.8

(49.1)

228

62.1

(48.3)

-1.3

(4.6)

-0.03

Quarters 23 to 26 after RA

234

63.2

(48.5)

227

60.8

(48.7)

2.4

(4.5)

0.05

Quarters 24 to 27 after RA

234

63.7

(48.4)

227

61.6

(48.5)

2.1

(4.5)

0.04

Quarters 11 to 27 after RA

234

78.7

(41.4)

227

78.8

(40.6)

0.0

(3.8)

0.00

Number of Quarters With Any Employment

Quarters 11 to 14 after RA

234

1.7

(1.7)

228

1.7

(1.7)

0.0

(0.2)

-0.02

Quarters 15 to 18 after RA

234

1.8

(1.7)

228

2.0

(1.7)

-0.2

(0.2)

-0.09

Quarters 19 to 22 after RA

234

1.9

(1.8)

228

1.9

(1.8)

0.0

(0.2)

-0.01

Quarters 23 to 26 after RA

234

1.9

(1.7)

227

2.0

(1.8)

-0.1

(0.2)

-0.05

Quarters 24 to 27 after RA

234

2.0

(1.7)

227

2.0

(1.8)

0.0

(0.2)

-0.02

Quarters 11 to 27 after RA

234

7.9

(6.2)

227

8.1

(6.4)

-0.2

(0.6)

-0.04

ITT = Intention-to-treat. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RA = random assignment.

SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error. SUB = subsidy.

*/**/*** Impact estimate is significantly different from 0 at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, using a two-tailed t-test.

a Effect size column shows standardized effect sizes, which were calculated by dividing impact by standard deviation for the entire UC group.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

56

Exhibit 7-8a.

SUB vs. PBTH: Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment 3,000.00

2,500.00

2,000.00

4$)

1,500.00

(2018Q

ngs

Earni 1,000.00

500.00

0.00

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Quarter after RA

SUB

PBTH

PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RA = random assignment. SUB = subsidy.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

57

Exhibit 7-8b.

SUB vs. PBTH: Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment 60

50

40

(pp)d

oyepl 30

Emnt

20

Perce

10

0

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Quarter after RA

SUB

PBTH

PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RA = random assignment. SUB = subsidy.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

58

Exhibit 7-9.

CBRR Versus PBTH: Earnings and Employment

CBRR

PBTH

ITT Impact

Effect

Outcome

N

Mean

(SD)

N

Mean

(SD)

Impact (SE) Sizea

Earnings (2018Q4$)

Quarters 11 to 14 after RA

218 $6,760 $(11,517)

222 $5,705 $(9,838) $1,055 $(1,024)

0.10

Quarters 15 to 18 after RA

218 $8,246 $(11,857)

222 $7,178 $(11,159) $1,068 $(1,101)

0.09

Quarters 19 to 22 after RA

217 $9,032 $(12,723)

221 $7,669 $(11,317) $1,362 $(1,123)

0.10

Quarters 23 to 26 after RA

217 $9,182 $(12,812)

221 $8,327 $(12,272)

$855 $(1,239)

0.07

Quarters 24 to 27 after RA

217 $9,527 $(12,846)

221 $8,146 $(12,130) $1,381 $(1,232)

0.11

Quarters 11 to 27 after RA

217 $34,864 $(43,919)

220 $29,384 $(37,365) $5,480 $(3,932)

0.12

Any Employment (%)

Quarters 11 to 14 after RA

218

56.2

(49.7)

222

53.0

(50.0)

3.2

(4.8)

0.07

Quarters 15 to 18 after RA

218

60.6

(49.0)

222

60.3

(49.0)

0.2

(4.7)

0.00

Quarters 19 to 22 after RA

217

62.5

(48.6)

221

58.1

(49.4)

4.5

(4.7)

0.09

Quarters 23 to 26 after RA

217

59.3

(49.3)

221

58.5

(49.3)

0.8

(4.8)

0.02

Quarters 24 to 27 after RA

217

59.9

(49.2)

221

57.1

(49.6)

2.8

(4.8)

0.06

Quarters 11 to 27 after RA

217

80.5

(39.6)

220

74.2

(43.9)

6.3

(4.0)

0.16

Number of Quarters with Any Employment

Quarters 11 to 14 after RA

218

1.6

(1.7)

222

1.6

(1.7)

0.1

(0.2)

0.04

Quarters 15 to 18 after RA

218

1.8

(1.7)

222

1.8

(1.7)

0.0

(0.2)

-0.03

Quarters 19 to 22 after RA

217

1.9

(1.7)

221

1.8

(1.7)

0.1

(0.2)

0.07

Quarters 23 to 26 after RA

217

1.9

(1.8)

221

1.9

(1.8)

0.0

(0.2)

0.01

Quarters 24 to 27 after RA

217

1.9

(1.8)

221

1.8

(1.8)

0.1

(0.2)

0.07

Quarters 11 to 27 after RA

217

7.7

(6.0)

220

7.4

(6.5)

0.2

(0.6)

0.04

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. ITT = Intention-to-treat. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RA

= random assignment. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error.

*/**/*** Impact estimate is significantly different from 0 at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, using a two-tailed t-test.

a Effect size column shows standardized effect sizes, which were calculated by dividing impact by standard deviation for the entire UC group.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

59

Exhibit 7-9a.

CBRR vs. PBTH: Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment 3,000.00

2,500.00

2,000.00

4$)

1,500.00

(2018Q

ngs

Earni 1,000.00

500.00

0.00

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Quarter after RA

CBRR

PBTH

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RA = random assignment.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

60

Exhibit 7-9b.

CBRR vs. PBTH: Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment 60

50

40

(pp)d

oyepl 30

Emnt

20

Perce

10

0

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Quarter after RA

CBRR

PBTH

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RA = random assignment.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

61

Appendix A: Summary of the Passive and Active Tracking Approach

Exhibit A-1 depicts the various activities conducted in support of the 78-month tracking and re-engagement effort. Each of the passive and active tracking activities is described further in sections A.1-A3.

Exhibit A-1.

78-Month Tracking and Re-Engagement Activity Flowchart

Update Sample

Passive Tracking--

Passive Tracking

78-Month

Management

Full Sample

Round 2--Case

Tracking Effort--

Database

•PIC and TRACS

Specific

Phase 1

•Append final

Updates

•Identify hardest to

•Mail FOS Study

household roster

•Other Database

locate cases

Update and

•Append address

Updates

•Submit them for

contact

information

individualized passive

information

tracking

request form

•Process results

78-Month Tracking

78-Month Tracking

Analyze tracking

Effort--Phase 2a

Efforts-Phase 2b

information

•Begin telephone

•Begin in-person

•Review tracking

locating

locating efforts

results

•If located:

•Obtain informed

•Prepare analysis

•Obtain informed

consent if located

memo summarizing

consent

•Complete tracking

the 78-month

•Complete tracking

survey if located

tracking results and

survey

•Document locating

assessment of

•Obtain consent to

results

feasibility of future

release PI to HUD

data col ection by

•Document Locating

HUD

Efforts

FOS = Family Options Study. PIC = Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Information Center (PIC). TRACS = Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System.

A.1 Updating the Sample Management Database

The survey team updated the sample management database prior to starting any tracking efforts. The team made updates to reflect the following information:

• The most recent address, phone numbers, and email addresses for each family—as of the 37-month followup survey effort.

• The fully updated household roster—as of the 37-month followup survey effort.

• The address history and secondary contact information collected during all the prior surveys and tracking data collection efforts.

• The randomization set size flag created for the 37-month data collection effort. This flag indicates the “hierarchy” or “analytic priority” for each case—because families with larger randomization A-1

set values can be used in more of the pairwise impact comparisons. Thus, as the survey team prioritized certain cases, the randomization set size flag was a key criterion.

A.2 Passive Tracking Efforts

Once the sample tracking database was updated, the team began passive tracking efforts—comprised of activities that do not require Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. As shown in exhibit A-1, the first rounds of passive tracking activities were conducted for the full study sample.

Step 1 was to collect and process new Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Information Center (PIC) and Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS) data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and provide information to the survey team to append to the sample database. HUD provided the team with four rounds of PIC and TRACS data, in October 2016, December 2016, August 2017, and January 2018. The survey team processed the results and appended the new information into the sample management database. After the first two extracts were appended to the database, the team created an extract containing the current or last known address. The study team submitted this extract to Accurint, a proprietary vendor.

The tracking strategy used two stages of Accurint passive tracking—the first was conducted prior to the active data collection; the second was done during the active data collection.

• Accurint Full Sample Processing: The study team first sent the full sample for batch processing to identify any address or phone updates that were available from sources such as the U.S. Post Office’s National Change of Address (NCOA) service and public phone listings, and to identify any new deceased cases using public death records. The study team appended updates received to the sample tracking database.

• Accurint Individual Searches: The study team conducted an additional Accurint search during the active survey effort and reviewed the status of all pending cases periodically to identify cases where interviewers had exhausted efforts with all the contact information available in the study records. The study team submitted these cases through a more detailed search of proprietary databases—where field staff members conduct individual searches for an updated address and phone data on a case-by-case basis. These proprietary databases contain public records such as driver’s license, vehicle registration, voter registration, and other consumer records. The study team provided any results obtained during these individual searches directly back to the field interviewers so they could attempt to locate and interview the participant.

A-2

A.3 Active Tracking Efforts

The final activity—the 78-month Tracking Survey—had three components—each involving direct contact with study participants (and therefore subject to OMB approval).

78-Month Tracking Survey: Interviewers began the 78-month tracking survey in October 2017 and worked the cases through the end of March 2018. Unlike prior data collection rounds, which included monthly sample releases, the full sample of 2,264 families was released at the start of the field period.

Releasing the full study sample at the beginning of the effort maximized the amount of time interviewers had to contact each family and doubled the length of the time window used in previous tracking surveys.

Having a longer time window to contact each family proved helpful in completing data collection during the 20- and 37-month data collection efforts and was vital for this study given the long period without contact.

There were three steps to the 78-month Tracking Survey effort:

• Step 1: Family Options Study Update.

• Step 2: Phone locating and interviewing.

• Step 3: In-person locating and interviewing.

Step 1: Family Options Study Update: One month prior to the start of the tracking interviews (September 2017), the study team mailed all study participants the Family Options Study Update. This update (i) thanked participants for their prior cooperation with the study; (ii) provided a summary of key highlights about the study (including links to the short-term and 3-year impact reports), and (iii) described the 78-month tracking survey. This letter also included the study toll-free number and instructions for how participants could update their contact information or schedule an interview appointment.

Because this letter was the first point of contact with study participants, it was a priority to make it as convenient as possible for them to respond. Participants were given three response options: 1. Mail: Participants could return the completed form by mail, using an enclosed prepaid envelope.

2. Phone: Participants could call toll-free and use their personal identification number (PIN) to update their information.

3. Online: Participants could visit the study weblink, enter their username and PIN, and update their information that way.

The study team mailed packages to 2,166 study participants (those with no contact since baseline, confirmed deceased, and those with no current address were not sent letters). See exhibit A-2 Family Options Study Update for more details.

Step 2: Phone Locating and Interviewing: Abt interviewers first called all phone numbers for the adult respondent. If they reached the participant, they attempted to obtain informed consent and complete the survey. If they couldn’t complete the survey at that time, they attempted to schedule a call-back appointment.

• If interviewers did not reach the adult respondent by phone after several attempts, they sent an email to explain the purpose of the contact. The email contained the study’s toll-free number for participants to call with questions or to schedule an appointment.

A-3



If a participant returned a call directly to the interviewer, the interviewer attempted to complete the survey. If the participant called into the study hotline, the staff took the updated contact information and passed it on to the interviewer to schedule an appointment or ideally complete the interview.

• If participants were not reached by email or phone after several attempts, interviewers:



Attempted to contact secondary contacts to gain updated information or at least pass on a request for the participant to call the study’s toll-free number.



Mailed study flyers and “sorry I missed you” cards to participants in an effort to encourage them to call the study’s toll-free number to complete the survey or schedule an interview appointment.



Repeated efforts to contact the respondent via email or text.

• At any point in the phone locating efforts, if an interviewer spoke to a participant on the phone, the interviewer would immediately attempt to complete the 78-month tracking survey. If that was not possible, they scheduled a call-back appointment. Interviewers completed 72.3 percent of the completed tracking surveys by telephone.

• Originally the team planned to assess the quality of the contact and secondary contact information after all phone efforts were exhausted. The team decided more frequent assessment of the phone effort was necessary, however.



On a weekly basis, the field management team met with the survey director to review the status of each case, discuss the locating steps taken to date, and determine the best course of action going forward.



The team reviewed pending cases by site, by assignment group, by hierarchy based on analytic priority, and by disposition to determine the most efficient way to maximize efforts going forward.



Once it was clear that all phone efforts were exhausted for a case, the team assessed the quality of the contact information for both respondents and secondary contacts and the analytic priority to determine which cases were good candidates for in-person followup.

• The study team put a priority on maximizing the location status for all pending cases, with particular emphasis placed on those with higher

analytic priority. These are cases with hierarchy values of 4, indicating the case was a family that had been eligible of all four interventions at the time of random assignment. These cases can be used in the highest number of analytic comparisons are thus the cases with the highest

analytic value. Cases with hierarchy status values of 3 were also

prioritized. Priority was also given to non-complete cases in sites where the overall location rate was lower.

A-4

Step 3: In-Person Locating and Interviewing: The survey director authorized interviewers to work a small percentage of cases in person. In-person efforts included traveling to the participant’s home to attempt to confirm the address—and, if possible, to complete the interview. Interviewers also travelled to the homes of secondary contacts looking for the study participant. Interviewers were able to leave personalized messages on the survey flyer or “sorry I missed you” cards behind for respondents.

• During the in-person locating and interviewing stage, interviewers were still able—and encouraged—to also continue their phone efforts. That is, very often, an active attempt at in-person locating results in a return phone call, email, or letter. Interviewers responded to any incoming requests and completed the interview wherever possible. As with the phone effort, once an interviewer located the participant, an immediate attempt was made to complete the interview.

A.3.1.1 Incentives

The study team provided modest incentives to participants that responded to requests for updated contact information or the tracking survey. Once all updates from the re-engagement mailing were processed and recorded in the sample database, participants who updated their contact information received a $5

incentive. This incentive was provided in the form of a Visa gift card. Adult participants that completed the 78-month tracking effort received a $25 Visa gift card.

A-5

Exhibit A-2: 78-Month Re-Engagement Letter Sent to Study Participants Family Options Study Update

DATE

«familyid»

Dear «r1» «r1a» «r1b»:

Hello again from the Family Options Study team! You became a participant in the Family Options Study in [RA MO/YR], when we interviewed you at «shelter» in «Site_Name_» as part of the study of housing and services interventions for families who experienced homelessness. The study is funded by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Abt Associates a private research firm is conducting the study. On behalf of HUD, the study team and our local

interviewers in each site we wish to thank you for your continuous participation and cooperation in our study!

Below are some highlights about the study and the data colection efforts you have participated in over the past several years:

 You are one of 2,282 families that enrol ed in the Family Options Study between September 2010 and January 2012. You are part of a very special group of families and your opinions are important to the study team.

 12 different communities! The Family Options Study took place in 12 communities across the United States.

 Two fol ow-up surveys complete! Between September 2010 and December 2014 we conducted two fol ow-up surveys with study participants. We interviewed just about 1800 study participants at each survey and collected data from more than 3,000 children.

 Looking Ahead! In September 2016, HUD started a new phase of the project to continue working with you—the Family Options Study participants—to learn more about your experiences since you enrol ed in the study. We will be calling all families in the study to complete a short 15 minute interview beginning in September 2017.

 We need your help! We would love to be able to interview you again to see how your life has changed since you first enrol ed in the study. Your experiences are unique and we want to be sure you are represented. Unfortunately, we can’t interview you if we can’t contact you. To help us contact you for the next interview we have enclosed a form that we would like you to review. Please check your address and telephone number on the fol owing page. Please make the appropriate corrections in one of the following ways:

 Return the completed form to us by mail, using the enclosed envelope.

 Call us toll-free at 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX and make sure to use your personal PIN [FAMILYID].

 Visit [WEBLINK] and enter your username: [USERNAME] and PIN[FAMILYID].

Also, please provide us with the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of one person outside your household who usual y know where to reach you. We would call these friends or relatives only if we cannot locate you at your address. Once we receive your updated contact information, we will mail you $5 in appreciation for your time.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely yours,

Brenda Rodríguez, Senior Survey Project Director

Michelle Wood, Study Project Director

Abt Associates

Abt Associates

Curious to learn more about what we have learned so far? See the reports here:

 First report: http://www.huduser.gov/portal/family_options_study.html

 Second report: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/Family-Options-Study-Ful -Report.pdf A-6

Appendix B: 78-Month Tracking Survey Instrument

OMB Clearance Number: 2528-0259

Expires: 08/31/2020

Introduction

Hello, my name is [ ]. I work for a company called Abt Associates. You might remember meeting with me or one of my colleagues a while back. At that time, I talked to you about a study that we are doing to find out about what kind of housing is best for families who experienced homelessness. This study is often referred to as the Family Options Study. Abt Associates is an independent research company, and we are helping the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to do this study.

When we last talked to you, I mentioned that I’d be getting in touch with you again to find out about your housing experiences. I’d like to ask you some questions now. The survey will take about 15 minutes to complete. You can stop the interview at any time. You can choose not to answer any question. The information you provide will be kept confidential and only used for research purposes. The collection of this information was approved by the Office of Management and Budget. At the end of the interview, I will give you $25, as a token of our appreciation.

PRA Burden Statement and Privacy Statement

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 2528-0259. The time required to complete this information collection is about 15 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

B-1

Section A:

Current Housing, Homelessness Since Previous Interview, Housing

Program Participation

First, I’d like to ask about where you are living/staying right now.

A1.

Can you please confirm the address of where you are living/staying now? [CAPI: PRE-FILL

WITH ADDRESS WHERE INTERVIEW IS TAKING PLACE. INTERVIEWER;

CONFIRM THAT INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND UPDATE AS NEEDED. PROBE

FOR BUILDING NAME IF APPLICABLE]

A1a.

Is there a complex/building name?

A1b.

Is there an apartment number?

A1c.

What city do you live in?

A1d.

What state do you live in?

A1e.

What is the zip code?

Refused…………………………….1 (1=checked, 0=not checked)

Don’t Know…………………………1 (1=checked, 0=not checked)

A2.

Is [A1 ADDRESS] the best address to reach you at?

YES ................................................................................................ 1 (SKIP TO A2f) NO .................................................................................................. 2

REFUSED ...................................................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW .............................................................................. 8

What is the best address to reach you at?

Street Address:

A2a.

Is there a complex/building name?

A2b.

Is there an apartment number?

A2c.

In what city?

A2d.

In what state?

A2e.

What is the zip code?

B-2

A2f. What is your home phone number, starting with the area code?

Telephone # with area code: (_______) ________-________

REFUSED ......................................................................................... -2

DON’T KNOW ................................................................................. -1

A2g. What is your cell phone number, starting with the area code?

Telephone # with area code: (_______) ________-________

REFUSED ......................................................................................... -2

DON’T KNOW ................................................................................. -1

A2h. Do we have your permission to text you at this number?

YES ................................................................................................ 1

NO ................................................................................................. 2

REFUSED ...................................................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW .............................................................................. 8

A2i. What is your email address?

IF VOLUNTEERED: RESPONDENT HAS NO EMAIL ........... 6

REFUSED ...................................................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW .............................................................................. 8

A2j. What is the best way for us to reach you for future data collection efforts?

EMAIL ........................................................................................... 1

HOME PHONE ............................................................................ 2

TEXT ............................................................................................. 3

CELL PHONE .............................................................................. 4

REFUSED ...................................................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW .............................................................................. 8

B-3

A3.

Which of the following best describes your current living situation?

Would you say you are living/staying in…

CAPI: SKIP TO A4 WHEN YES RESPONSE IS GIVEN

YES NO REF DK

A3a.

A house or apartment that you own or rent. THIS DOES NOT

1

2

7

8

INCLUDE YOUR PARENT’S or GUARDIAN’S HOME OR

APARTMENT

A3b.

Your partner’s (boy/girlfriends/fiancé, significant other’s) place.

1

2

7

8

A3c.

A friend or relative’s house or apartment, and paying part of the rent 1

2

7

8

[PROBE: THIS INCLUDES YOUR PARENT’S or GUARDIAN’S

HOUSE OR APARTMENT OR OTHER FRIEND OR RELATIVE’S

APARTMENT]

A3d.

A friend or relative’s house or apartment, but not paying part of the rent 1

2

7

8

[PROBE: THIS INCLUDES YOUR PARENT’S or GUARDIAN’S

HOUSE OR APARTMENT OR OTHER FRIEND OR RELATIVE’S

APARTMENT]

A3e.

A permanent housing program with services to help you keep your

1

2

7

8

housing (on site or coming to you) IF YES: COLLECT NAME OF

PROGRAM: < A3E_1_OTHER> _____ __________THEN SKIP

TO A4

A3f.

A transitional housing program IF YES COLLECT NAME OF

1

2

7

8

PROGRAM: <A2F_1_OTHER>

___________________________________ THEN SKIP TO A4

A3g.

A domestic violence shelter IF YES: SKIP TO A4

1

2

7

8

A3h.

An emergency shelter IF YES COLLECT NAME OF PROGRAM:

1

2

7

8

<A3H_1_OTHER>

___________________________________ THEN SKIP TO A4

A3i.

A voucher hotel or motel IF YES: SKIP TO A4

1

2

7

8

A3j.

A hotel or motel you pay for yourself IF YES: SKIP TO A4

1

2

7

8

A3k.

A residential drug or alcohol treatment program IF YES: SKIP TO

1

2

7

8

NOTE BEFORE A4

A3l.

Jail or prison IF YES: SKIP TO NOTE BEFORE A4

1

2

7

8

A3m.

A car or other vehicle IF YES: SKIP TO A4

1

2

7

8

A3n.

An abandoned building IF YES: SKIP TO A4

1

2

7

8

A3o.

Anywhere outside [PROBE: STREETS, PARKS, ETC.] IF YES: SKIP

1

2

7

8

TO A4

A3p.

OTHER  SPECIFY: <A3P_1_OTHER>: ______________________

1

2

7

8

IF YES, NO, DK OR: SKIP TO A4

CAPI: IF A3k or A3l=YES STOP INTERVIEW AND DISPLAY THE FOLLOWING SCRIPT: B-4

I’m sorry, but I am having difficulty calling up your record. I will resolve this issue with my supervisor. I will try to reschedule this appointment at that time.

BASE: ALL

A4.

How long have you lived in this place? You can tell me this answer in days, weeks, or months, whichever is easiest for you. [INTERVIEWER/CAPI: RECORD NUMBER OF DAYS, WEEKS, MONTHS. IF 0, RECORD THAT AS WELL.

<A4A1> NUMBER OF DAYS____________

<A4A2> NUMBER OF WEEKS

<A3A3> NUMBER OF MONTHS

REFUSED ......................................................................................... -2

DON’T KNOW ................................................................................. -1

A5.

Do you currently receive any governmental housing assistance, such as through public housing or Section 8 or Housing Choice Voucher?

YES ................................................................................................ 1 (SKIP TO A6a) NO ................................................................................................. 2

REFUSED ...................................................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW .............................................................................. 8

A6.

Are you paying lower rent because the Federal, state, or local government is paying for part of your rent?

YES ................................................................................................ 1

NO .................................................................................................. 2 (SKIP TO A7) REFUSED ...................................................................................... 7 (SKIP TO A7) DON’T KNOW .............................................................................. 8 (SKIP TO A7)

<A6A> BASE: BASE: A5=1 OR A6=1

A6a.

What is the name of the program that provides your housing assistance? This could be the place where you live or the program that helps you with your rent.

RECORD VERBATIM

REFUSED ...................................................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW

8

< A6B> BASE: A5=1 OR A6=1

B-5

A6b. Is this assistance a Section 8 or Housing Choice Voucher, or is the building you live in a public housing or a Section 8 project or some other type of assistance?

CAPI: ACCEPT ONE RESPONSE ONLY.

PUBLIC HOUSING ..................................................................... 1

A SECTION 8/HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER......................... 2

A SECTION 8/HCV PROJECT .................................................... 3

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING ....................................................... 4

LOW-INCOME HOUSING ......................................................... 5

HOMEBASE ................................................................................. 6

OTHER TYPE OF HOUSING ASSISTANCE ........................... 95

(SPECIFY): __< A6B_95_OTHER> Base: A6B = 95

REFUSED ..................................................................................... 97

DON’T KNOW ............................................................................. 98

A7.

Now, I’d like you to think about the last six months—that is, since [MONTH/YEAR SIX

MONTHS PRIOR TO INTERVIEW]. Were there any times when you were homeless in the last six months? By homeless, I mean times when you didn’t have a regular place to live and you were living in a homeless shelter or temporarily in an institution because you had nowhere else to go.

Homeless can also include living in a place not typically used for sleeping such as on the street, in a car, in an abandoned building, or in a bus or train station in the past six months.

Please do not include any time when you may have stayed with friends or relatives because you did not have your own place to stay. Please do not include times when you lived in a transitional housing program or a permanent housing program.

YES ................................................................................................ 1

NO .................................................................................................. 2 (SKIP TO A9) REFUSED ...................................................................................... 7 (SKIP TO A9) DON’T KNOW .............................................................................. 8 (SKIP TO A9) A8.

How many times were you homeless in the last six months?

[INTERVIEWER/CAPI: RECORD NUMBER OF TIMES THE PERSON WAS HOMELESS.]

NUMBER OF TIMES ____________________________________

REFUSED ..................................................................................... -1 (SKIP TO A9) DON’T KNOW ............................................................................. -2 (SKIP TO A9) BASE: A8≥1

B-6

A8a.

Thinking about all of the times you have been homeless in the past 6 months], What would you say is the total number of days, weeks, or months that you have been homeless in the past 6 months?

< A8a1>NUMBER OF DAYS____________

<A8A2> NUMBER OF WEEKS

<A8A3> NUMBER OF MONTHS

REFUSED

-2

DON’T KNOW

-1

A9.

Again, please think about the last six months—that is, since [MONTH/YEAR SIX MONTHS

PRIOR TO INTERVIEW]. Were there any times when you were living with a friend or relative because you could not find or afford a place of your own?

YES ................................................................................................ 1

NO .................................................................................................. 2 (SKIP TO A11) REFUSED .................................................................................................... 7 (SKIP TO A11) DON’T KNOW ............................................................................................. 8 (SKIP TO A11) A10.

Altogether, how much time in the past six months, would you say you spent living with a friend or relative because you could not find or afford a place of your own? You can tell me this answer in days, weeks, or months, whichever is easiest for you. [INTERVIEWER/CAPI: RECORD

NUMBER OF DAYS, WEEKS, MONTHS, YEARS. IF 0, RECORD THAT AS WELL].

< A10a1>NUMBER OF DAYS____________

<A10A2> NUMBER OF WEEKS

<A10A3> NUMBER OF MONTHS

REFUSED

-2

DON’T KNOW

-1

A11.

Again, please think about the past six months —that is, since [MONTH/YEAR SIX MONTHS

PRIOR TO INTERVIEW] and today, have you participated in any housing programs other than where you are living now? This could be a housing program where you lived or a program that helped you pay some or all of the rent in your own apartment or house.

YES ................................................................................................ 1

NO .................................................................................................. 2 (SKIP TO B1) REFUSED .................................................................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW ............................................................................................. 8

A12.

During the past six months, that is between [MONTH/YEAR SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO

INTERVIEW] and today, we are interested in knowing if you participated in any of the following B-7

types of programs. When answering these questions, please do not include the place you are living now. During the past six months, did you…

Program Type

YES

NO

REFUSED

DON’T KNOW

a. Spend at least one night in a shelter

because you did not have your own place to

stay?

b. Participate in a permanent supportive

housing program—a program that of ered

both housing and services?

c. Spend at least one night in a transitional

housing program?

d. Spend any time living in a place where you

received assistance paying your rent with

temporary rental assistance. This temporary

assistance could be a rapid re-housing or

the HPRP program.

e. Spend any time living in a place where your

rent was partial y covered by a rent subsidy

such as public housing, Section 8 or a

Housing Choice Voucher?

f. Receive any other form of housing

assistance? Please Specify:

_____________

B-8

Section B:

Family Composition

Now I’d like to ask you about the people in your family. I’ll ask you about people who are living with you now and your spouse/partner or children who are in your family but are not staying with you now.

B1. The last time we talked, [LIST FIRST NAMES AND DOB OF PEOPLE LIVING WITH

RESPONDENT AT TIME OF LAST INTERVIEW] were living with you/staying with you: Can you please tell me if each of them are staying with you now? If not, please tell me where they are currently staying, and how long they’ve been staying there.

LINES WILL BE ADDED TO THE TABLE AS NEEDED.

List of

B2. Is [B1a…B1e], who was born in

B3. IF NO TO

B4. IF NO TO B2 FOR ANY

family

[DOB MO/YR], staying with you now?

B2 FOR ANY

FAMILY MEMBER ASK: Where is

members

FAMILY

[B1a] living/staying now?

with

MEMBER ASK:

(SINGLE RESPONSE)

Responden

How long has it

t at last

<B2_X> (X=1-9)

been since [B1a]

NOTE TO FIELD INTERVIEWER:

interview

IF DOB=MISSING: Is [B1a…B1e],

lived/stayed with

PROBE FOR THE PLACE THE PERSON

who is about [AGE] years old, staying

you?

SPENDS MOST OF THE TIME.

with you now?

NOTE TO PROGRAMMER: IF

<B3_1_X>

AGE=MISSING/ DK, DISPLAY FULL

IF DOB AND AGE=MISSING:

Days

ANSWER LIST

Is [B1a…B1e], who is an [adult/child]

<B3_2_X>

staying with you now?

<HHMAGE_X> Age Calculation (0=

Weeks

less than 1yr, -1=Dk, -2=Ref)

<B3_3_X>

Months

<B4_X> Where living/Staying now?

<B4_6_OTHER_X> How long foster

care

(X=1-9)

<B4_95_OTHER_X> B4 Other Specify

(X=1-9)

B1a

YES (Ask B2A/B2B then SKIP TO

NEXT PERSON) ... 1

_____Days

IF B1d IS AN ADULT >15?

_____Weeks

A place of his/her own ...................... 1

NO ................................... 2

_____Month

With friends or relatives .................... 2

s

Refused…………………………………….

IF Bd IS A CHILD <15?

7

REFUSED -1

With child’s other parent ................... 3

Don’t

DK -2

With your own parents or in-laws ..... 4

Know………………………………...8

With other relatives ........................... 5

In foster care ..................................... 6

 How long in foster care? _________

Refused……………………………….7

Don’t

Know………………………………...8

OTHER: _______________ ........... 95

B-9

List of

B2. Is [B1a…B1e], who was born in

B3. IF NO TO

B4. IF NO TO B2 FOR ANY

family

[DOB MO/YR], staying with you now?

B2 FOR ANY

FAMILY MEMBER ASK: Where is

members

FAMILY

[B1a] living/staying now?

with

MEMBER ASK:

(SINGLE RESPONSE)

Responden

How long has it

t at last

<B2_X> (X=1-9)

been since [B1a]

NOTE TO FIELD INTERVIEWER:

interview

IF DOB=MISSING: Is [B1a…B1e],

lived/stayed with

PROBE FOR THE PLACE THE PERSON

who is about [AGE] years old, staying

you?

SPENDS MOST OF THE TIME.

with you now?

NOTE TO PROGRAMMER: IF

<B3_1_X>

AGE=MISSING/ DK, DISPLAY FULL

IF DOB AND AGE=MISSING:

Days

ANSWER LIST

Is [B1a…B1e], who is an [adult/child]

<B3_2_X>

staying with you now?

<HHMAGE_X> Age Calculation (0=

Weeks

less than 1yr, -1=Dk, -2=Ref)

<B3_3_X>

Months

<B4_X> Where living/Staying now?

<B4_6_OTHER_X> How long foster

care

(X=1-9)

<B4_95_OTHER_X> B4 Other Specify

(X=1-9)

B1b

YES (Ask B2A/B2B then SKIP TO

NEXT PERSON) ... 1

_____Days

IF B1d IS AN ADULT >15?

_____Weeks

A place of his/her own ...................... 1

NO ................................... 2

_____Month

With friends or relatives .................... 2

s

Refused…………………………………….

IF Bd IS A CHILD <15?

7

REFUSED -1

With child’s other parent ................... 3

Don’t

DK -2

With your own parents or in-laws ..... 4

Know………………………………...8

With other relatives ........................... 5

In foster care ..................................... 6

 How long in foster care? _________

Refused…………………………….7

Don’t

Know………………………………...8

OTHER: _______________ ........... 95

B1c

YES (Ask B2A/B2B then SKIP TO

_____Days

NEXT PERSON) ... 1

_____Weeks

IF B1d IS AN ADULT >15?

_____Month

A place of his/her own ...................... 1

NO ................................... 2

s

With friends or relatives .................... 2

Refused…………………………………….

REFUSED -1

IF Bd IS A CHILD <15?

7

DK -2

With child’s other parent ................... 3

Don’t

With your own parents or in-laws ..... 4

Know………………………………...8

With other relatives ........................... 5

In foster care ..................................... 6

 How long in foster care? _________

Refused……………………………….7

Don’t

Know………………………………...8

OTHER: _______________ ....... 9595

B-10

List of

B2. Is [B1a…B1e], who was born in

B3. IF NO TO

B4. IF NO TO B2 FOR ANY

family

[DOB MO/YR], staying with you now?

B2 FOR ANY

FAMILY MEMBER ASK: Where is

members

FAMILY

[B1a] living/staying now?

with

MEMBER ASK:

(SINGLE RESPONSE)

Responden

How long has it

t at last

<B2_X> (X=1-9)

been since [B1a]

NOTE TO FIELD INTERVIEWER:

interview

IF DOB=MISSING: Is [B1a…B1e],

lived/stayed with

PROBE FOR THE PLACE THE PERSON

who is about [AGE] years old, staying

you?

SPENDS MOST OF THE TIME.

with you now?

NOTE TO PROGRAMMER: IF

<B3_1_X>

AGE=MISSING/ DK, DISPLAY FULL

IF DOB AND AGE=MISSING:

Days

ANSWER LIST

Is [B1a…B1e], who is an [adult/child]

<B3_2_X>

staying with you now?

<HHMAGE_X> Age Calculation (0=

Weeks

less than 1yr, -1=Dk, -2=Ref)

<B3_3_X>

Months

<B4_X> Where living/Staying now?

<B4_6_OTHER_X> How long foster

care

(X=1-9)

<B4_95_OTHER_X> B4 Other Specify

(X=1-9)

B1d

YES (Ask B2A/B2B then SKIP TO

_____Days

NEXT PERSON) ... 1

_____Weeks

IF B1d IS AN ADULT >15?

NO ................................... 2

_____Month

A place of his/her own ...................... 1

s

With friends or relatives .................... 2

Refused…………………………………….

7

REFUSED -1

IF Bd IS A CHILD <15?

Don’t

DK -2

With child’s other parent ................... 3

Know………………………………...8

With your own parents or in-laws ..... 4

With other relatives ........................... 5

In foster care ..................................... 6

 How long in foster care? _________

Refused………………………………….

7

Don’t

Know………………………………...8

OTHER: _______________ ........... 95

B1e

YES (Ask B2A/B2B then SKIP TO

_____Days

NEXT PERSON) ... 1

_____Weeks

IF B1d IS AN ADULT >15?

_____Month

A place of his/her own ...................... 1

NO ................................... 2

s

With friends or relatives .................... 2

Refused…………………………………….

REFUSED -1

IF Bd IS A CHILD <15?

7

DK -2

With child’s other parent ................... 3

Don’t

With your own parents or in-laws ..... 4

Know………………………………...8

With other relatives ........................... 5

In foster care ..................................... 6

 How long in foster care? _________

Refused……………………………….7

Don’t

Know………………………………...8

OTHER: _______________ ......... 955

B-11

We would like to know if there are any other people living with you now, whom we haven’t talked about yet. We are especially interested in people that you consider part of your family. By part of your family, we mean those people who would go with you if you were to move.

B5. <B5> Are there any other people that you consider part of your family, living with you right now

whom we haven’t talked about?

YES ..................................................................................................... 1

NO ....................................................................................................... 2

SKIP TO C1

REFUSED ........................................................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW ................................................................................... 8

B5a.

How many of the people who we haven’t talked about yet, but are living with you right

now are adults, 18 years old or older? How many are children, 17 years old or younger?

<B5A1> NUMBER OF ADULTS ______________

<B5A2> NUMBER OF CHILDREN __________________

REFUSED ......................................................................................... -2

DON’T KNOW ................................................................................. -1

B6. Please tell me the first names of the adults who are living with you now whom we haven’t talked about. By adults, I mean people 18 years old or older. Do not include yourself.

<B6_X> (X=1-10)

B6a.

B6b.

B7. Please tell me the first names of the children who are living with you now whom we haven’t talked about. By children, I mean people 17 years old or younger. Please do not include children 18

years old or older.

<B7_X> (X=1-10)

B7a.

B7b.

B7c.

B7d.

B-12

Now I have some questions about these family members. Let’s start with the adults. MORE

COLUMNS WILL BE ADDED AS NEEDED.THESE ITEMS ARE ONLY COLLECTED FOR

FAMILY MEMBERS WHO HAVE JOINED THE FAMILY SINCE THE LAST INTERVIEW

FAMILY MEMBER 1 (B6a-X)

FAMILY MEMBER 3 (B7a-X)

B8.What is

HUSBAND OR WIFE ........ 1

HUSBAND OR WIFE ........ 1

[B6a/B7a]’s

LOVER/PARTNER ............ 2

LOVER/PARTNER ............ 2

relationship to you?

CHILD ................................ 3

CHILD ................................ 3

STEP-CHILD .................... 4

STEP-CHILD ..................... 4

<B8_X> (X=1-7)

FOSTER CHILD ................ 5

FOSTER CHILD ................. 5

CHILD OF LOVER/PARTNER 6

CHILD OF LOVER/PARTNER 6

SON- OR

SON- OR

DAUGHTER-IN-LAW ...... 7

DAUGHTER-IN-LAW ....... 7

MOTHER OR FATHER .... 8

MOTHER OR FATHER ..... 8

STEP-PARENT .................. 9

STEP-PARENT .................. 9

MOTHER- OR FATHER-IN-LAW

MOTHER- OR FATHER-IN-LAW

OR PARTNER'S PARENT10

OR PARTNER'S PARENT10

GRANDPARENT............. 11

GRANDPARENT ............. 11

BROTHER OR SISTER ... 12

BROTHER OR SISTER ... 12

BROTHER- OR

BROTHER- OR

SISTER-IN-LAW ............. 13

SISTER-IN-LAW ............. 13

GRANDCHILD ................ 14

GRANDCHILD ................ 14

OTHER RELATIVE ........ 15

OTHER RELATIVE ......... 15

B9 Is [B6a/B7a]

MALE ................................. 1

MALE ................................. 1

male or female?

FEMALE ............................ 2

FEMALE ............................. 2

REFUSED .......................... 7

REFUSED ........................... 7

<B9_X> (X=1-7)

DON’T KNOW .................. 8

DON’T KNOW ................... 8

B-13

FAMILY MEMBER 1 (B6a-X)

FAMILY MEMBER 3 (B7a-X)

B10 What is

[B6a/B7a]’s Date of

Birth?

<B10M_X> Month

___/___/_____

___/___/_____

<B10D_X> Day

MM DD YYYY

MM DD YYYY

<B10Y_X> Year

REFUSED ......................... -2

REFUSED ......................... -2

(X=1-7)

DON’T KNOW ................. -1

DON’T KNOW ................. -1

<B10AGE_X>

Added

variable/Used to

Calculate age of

DOB For B11.

(0=less than year, -

1=Don’t know, -2

refused)

_____________Age

_____________Age

IF REFUSED OR

DON’T KNOW

ASK B10a:

B10a: How old is

[NAME] now?

B-14

Section C:

Employment Status and Internet Usage:

Now I’d like to ask a couple of questions about your current employment.

C1.

Last week, did you do any work for pay?

YES

1 (SKIP TOC3)

NO

2

REFUSED ......................................................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW ................................................................................. 8

C2.

When was the last time (month/year) that you worked for pay?

___/___/_____

MM DD YYYY

REFUSED ...

-2

DON’T KNOW

-1

C3.

Do you have a computer with internet access in in the place you are living now?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED ............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................................................... 8

C4.

Do you have access to the internet through your phone or an iPad or tablet device?

YES ....................................................................................... 1

NO ........................................................................................ 2

REFUSED ............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................................................... 8

C5.

How often do you access the internet?

Every day .............................................................................. 1

4-5 days per week ................................................................. 2

2-3 days per week ................................................................. 3

Once a week .......................................................................... 4

Less than once a week........................................................... 5

Never ..................................................................................... 6

REFUSED ............................................................................. 7

DON’T KNOW ..................................................................... 8

B-15

Section D: Contact Information

SECONDARY CONTACT

[PROGRAMMER: LOOP THROUGH EXISTING SECONDARY CONTACTS TO CONFIRM CONTACT INFORMATION FOR

UP TO THREE SECONDARY CONTACTS. IF INFORMATION CAN’T BE CONFIRMED, IT WILL BE UPDATED. IF LESS

THAN THREE CONTACTS ARE AVAILABLE, WE WILL ASK FOR NEW CONTACTS.

To help us be able to get back in touch with you in the future, we would also like to review the names, telephone numbers and addresses of two people we talked about last time we spoke who will always know how to reach you. This information will be kept strictly confidential and will only be used if we are unable to contact you.

D1. When we last spoke on [you said that [CONTACT X] was a person who would always know where you are and how to reach you. Is [CONTACTX] still a person who does not live with you and will always know how to contact you?

Yes ................................................................................................................ 1

SKIP TO D3

No ................................................................................................................. 2

REFUSED .................................................................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW ............................................................................................ 8

D2. Could you please tell me the name of a person who does not live with you and will always know how to contact you?

Yes ................................................................................................................ 1

No ................................................................................ 2 SKIP TO CLOSING

REFUSED .................................................................................................... 7

DON’T KNOW ............................................................................................ 8

D2a.

What is his/her first name?

D2b.

What is his/her middle name?

D2c.

What is his/her last name?

D2d.

Does his/her name have a suffix?

D3. IF CONTACT #X CONFIRMED ASK: Is [CONTACT #1]’s address still:

DISPLAY FULL INFORMATION FROM THE SAMPLE FOR CONTACT 1

IF CONTACT #X IS NEW ASK:

What is (his/her) street address?

FIELD INTERVIEWER NOTE: PLEASE PROBE TO GET A FULL ADDRESS

Street address:

D12a.

Is there a complex/building name?

D12b. Is there an apartment number?

D12c.

In what city?

D12d. In what state?

D12e.

What is the zip code?

B-16

D4. What is (his/her) home phone number, starting with the area code?

Telephone # with area code: (_______) ________-________

□ NO HOME NUMBER AVAILABLE

D5. What is (his/her) cell phone number, starting with the area code?

Telephone # with area code: (_______) ________-________

□ NO CELL NUMBER AVAILABLE

D6. What is (his/her) email address?

□ NO EMAIL ADDRESS AVAILABLE

D7. What is (his/her) relationship to you?

Friend ............................................................................................................ 1

Relative ......................................................................................................... 2

OTHER (SPECIFY______________________________) ........................ 95

REFUSED ................................................................................................... 97

DON’T KNOW ........................................................................................... 98

Thank you very much for your time today. We will mail your $25 incentive payment. You should receive it within two-four weeks. Remember, we want to be able to reach you again in the future. If you move or change your phone number, please let us know. You can call 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX and leave a message with your PIN [FAMILYID].

B-17

Appendix C: Additional Results of Long-Term Tracking

Exhibit C-1.

Re-Engagement Letter and Contact Update Request Results by Site

Site

Re-Engagement Letters

Contact Updates

Total

Delivered

Undeliverable

Total

By Web

By Mail

Letters

(%)

(%)

Updates

(%)

(%)

Sent

(%)

Alameda

252

8.1

3.6

0.8

0.3

0.5

Atlanta

183

4.5

3.9

0.5

0.2

0.3

Baltimore

52

1.5

0.9

0.1

0.0

0.0

Boston

178

5.2

3.0

0.3

0.0

0.3

Connecticut

204

4.4

5.0

0.4

0.0

0.3

Denver

165

4.1

3.5

0.5

0.1

0.4

Honolulu

213

5.4

4.5

0.3

0.0

0.3

Kansas City

153

3.4

3.6

0.3

0.1

0.2

Louisville

102

2.6

2.1

0.4

0.1

0.3

Minneapolis

177

3.4

4.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

Phoenix

263

5.5

6.6

0.3

0.2

0.1

Salt Lake City

224

5.1

5.3

0.3

0.1

0.2

Total

2,166

53.2

46.8

4.2

3.0

1.2

Notes: All percentages based on the total number of letters sent out (2,166), not the total sample (2,264). Families with incomplete or missing addresses were excluded from the mailing.

Source: Abt Associates tracking data.

C-1

Exhibit C-2.

78-Month Tracking Survey Case Status by Site

Sites

Sample

Completed Located Determined Unlocatable

Sum of

(%)

(%)

Viable (%)

(%)

Completed,

Located and

Viable (%)

Alameda

257

48.2

8.9

9.3

33.5

66.5

Atlanta

187

51.3

10.2

16.0

22.5

77.5

Baltimore

57

43.9

21.1

1.8

33.3

66.7

Boston

181

41.4

28.2

17.7

12.7

87.3

Connecticut

214

51.4

10.3

10.7

27.6

72.4

Denver

170

58.8

6.5

31.2

3.5

96.5

Honolulu

216

45.8

9.3

19.4

25.5

74.5

Kansas City

172

47.7

12.8

14.0

25.6

74.4

Louisville

109

53.2

5.5

6.4

34.9

65.1

Minneapolis

181

52.5

14.4

22.7

10.5

89.5

Phoenix

276

40.9

6.5

17.0

35.5

64.5

Salt Lake City

244

51.6

4.5

12.7

31.1

68.9

Total

2,264

48.7

10.6

15.7

25.0

75.0

Source: Abt Associates 78-month tracking data.

C-2

Appendix D: Outcomes Measured in 78-Month Survey Data

The following exhibits show whether outcomes examined in the 3-year impact analysis are measured in the 78-month survey data.

Exhibit D-1.

37-Month Outcomes Measured in 78-Month Survey Data: Housing Stability

Outcome

Measured at 78

Months

Homelessness or Doubled Up during the Followup Period

At least 1 night homeless or doubled up (past 6 mo.) or in shelter in past 12 months (%) [Confirmatory]

NO

At least 1 night homeless or doubled up in past 6 months (%)

YES

At least 1 night homeless in past 6 months (%)

YES

At least 1 night doubled up in past 6 months (%)

YES

Any stay in emergency shelter in past 6 months (%)

NO

[Program Usage Data]

Any stay in emergency shelter in months 21 to 32 after RA (%) [Program Usage Data]

NO

Number of days homeless or doubled up in past 6 months

YES

Number of days homeless in past 6 months

YES

Number of days doubled up in past 6 months

YES

Housing Independence

Living in own house or apartment at followup (%)

YES

Living in own house or apartment with no housing assistance (%)

YES

Living in own house or apartment with housing assistance (%)

YES

Number of Places Lived

Number of places lived in past 6 months

NO

Housing Quality

Persons per room

NO

Housing quality is poor or fair (%)

NO

D-1

Exhibit D-2.

37-Month Outcomes Measured in 78-Month Survey Data: Family Preservation Outcome

Measured at 78

Months

Current or Recent Separations of Family Members Present at Baseline

Family has at least one child separated in past 6 months (%)

YES

Family has at least one foster care placement in past 6 months (%)

YES

Spouse/partner separated in past 6 months, of those with spouse/partner present at RA (%) YES

Reunification of Family Members Reported as Separated at Baseline

Family has at least one child reunified, of those families with at least one child absent at RA (%) YES

Spouse/partner reunified, of those with spouse/partner absent at RA (%) YES

RA = random assignment.

Exhibit D-3.

37-Month Outcomes Measured in 78-Month Survey Data: Adult Well-Being Outcome

Measured at 78

Months

Adult Physical Health

Health in past 30 days was poor or fair (%)

NO

Adult Mental Health

Goal-oriented thinking

NO

Psychological distress

NO

Adult Trauma Symptoms

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in past 30 days (%)

NO

Adult Substance Use

Alcohol dependence or drug abuse (%)

NO

Alcohol dependence (%)

NO

Drug abused (%)

NO

Experience of Intimate Partner Violence

Experienced intimate partner violence in past 6 months (%)

NO

D-2

Exhibit D-4.

37-Month Outcomes Measured in 78-Month Survey Data: Child Well-Being Outcome

Measured at 78

Months

Child Education

Number of schools attended since RA

NO

Grade completion (not held back) (%)

NO

School grades

NO

Child Physical Health

Poor or fair health in past 30 days (%)

NO

Well-child checkup in past year (%)

NO

Child has regular source of health care (%)

NO

Sleep problems

NO

Child Behavioral Strengths and Challenges

Behavior problems

NO

Prosocial behavior

NO

CHILD WELL-BEING DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOMES

Ages 2 to 5 Years

Preschool or Head Start enrollment (%)

NO

Child care or preschool absences in past month

NO

Positive child care or preschool experiences

NO

Positive child care or preschool attitudes

NO

Child care or preschool conduct problems (%)

NO

Ages 2 Years to 5 Years, 6 Months

Met developmental milestones (%)

NO

Ages 3 Years, 6 Months to 7 Years

Verbal ability

NO

Math ability

NO

D-3

Outcome

Measured at 78

Months

Executive functioning (self-regulation)

NO

Ages 5 to 17 Years

School enrollment (%)

NO

School absences in past month

NO

Positive school experiences

NO

Positive school attitudes

NO

School conduct problems (%)

NO

Ages 8 to 17 Years

Anxiety

NO

Fears

NO

Substance use (%)

NO

Goal-oriented thinking

NO

School effort in past month

NO

Arrests or police involvement in past 6 months (%)

NO

RA = random assignment.

D-4

Exhibit D-5.

37-Month Outcomes Measured in 78-Month Survey Data: Self-Sufficiency Outcome

Measured at 78 Months

Employment Status

Work for pay in week before survey (%)

YES

Any work for pay since 20-month survey (%)

YES

Months worked for pay since 20-month survey

NO

Any work for pay since RA (%)

YES

Months worked for pay since RA

NO

Hours of work per week at current main job

NO

Income Sources and Amounts

Annualized current earnings ($)

NO

Total family income ($)

NO

Anyone in family had earnings in past month (%)

NO

Anyone in family received TANF in past month (%)

NO

Anyone in family received SSDI in past month (%)

NO

Anyone in family received SSI in past month (%)

NO

Anyone in family received SNAP/Food Stamps in past month (%)

NO

Anyone in family received WIC in past month (%)

NO

Education and Training

Participated in 2 weeks or more of any school or training since RA (%) NO

Number of weeks in school/training programs since RA

NO

Participated in 2 weeks or more of school since RA (%)

NO

Participated in 2 weeks or more of basic education since RA (%)

NO

Participated in 2 weeks or more of vocational education since RA (%)

NO

Food Security

Household is food insecure (%)

NO

Food insecurity scale

NO

Economic Stressors

Economic stress scale

NO

D-5

RA = random assignment. TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SSDI = Social Security Disability Insurance. SSI = Supplemental Security Income. WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

D-6

Appendix E: Frequencies from the 78-Month Tracking Survey

A2iRFDK What is your Email Address: No EMAIL/Refused/Don’t Know

Cumulative

Cumulative

A2IREFDK_1

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

No Email

184

92.46

184

92.46

Refused

8

4.02

192

96.48

Don't Know

7

3.52

199

100.00

Frequency Missing = 904

A2J_1 What is the best way for us to reach you for future data collection efforts?: Email Cumulative

Cumulative

A2J_1

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Email

410

100.00

410

100.00

Frequency Missing = 693

A2J_2 What is the best way for us to reach you for future data collection efforts?: Home Phone Cumulative

Cumulative

A2J_2

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Home Phone

45

100.00

45

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,058

A2J_3 What is the best way for us to reach you for future data collection efforts?: Text Cumulative

Cumulative

A2J_3

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Text

491

100.00

491

100.00

Frequency Missing = 612

A2J_4 What is the best way for us to reach you for future data collection efforts?: Cel Phone Cumulative

Cumulative

A2J_4

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Cel Phone

702

100.00

702

100.00

Frequency Missing = 401

A2J_7 What is the best way for us to reach you for future data collection efforts?: Refused Cumulative

Cumulative

A2J_5

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Refused

0

N/A

0

N/A

Frequency Missing = 1,103

E-1

A2J_8 What is the best way for us to reach you for future data collection efforts?: Don’t Know Cumulative

Cumulative

A2J_6

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Don't Know

4

100.00

4

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,099

A3a Current living situation: A house or apartment that you own or rent.

Cumulative

Cumulative

A3A

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

915

82.96

915

82.96

No

188

17.04

1103

100.00

Frequency Missing = 0

A3b Current living situation: Your partner's place.

Cumulative

Cumulative

A3B

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

15

7.98

15

7.98

No

173

92.02

188

100.00

Frequency Missing = 915

A3c Current living situation: A friend or relative's house or apartment and paying part of the rent.

Cumulative

Cumulative

A3C

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

58

33.53

58

33.53

No

115

66.47

173

100.00

Frequency Missing = 930

A3d Current living situation: A friend or relative's house or apartment, BUT NOT paying part of the rent.

Cumulative

Cumulative

A3D

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

47

40.87

47

40.87

No

68

59.13

115

100.00

Frequency Missing = 988

A3e Current living situation: A permanent housing program with services to help you keep your housing (on site or coming to you).

Cumulative

Cumulative

A3E

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

11

16.18

11

16.18

No

56

82.35

67

98.53

Don't Know

1

1.47

68

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,035

E-2

A3e Current living situation: Other (specify) name of permanent housing program.

Cumulative

Cumulative

A3E_1_OTHER

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Bridge to Permanency

1

9.09

1

9.09

Bridgeport SUB transferred from MA

1

9.09

2

18.18

Hawaii Public Housing

1

9.09

3

27.27

Kansas City Housing Authority

1

9.09

4

36.36

Kansas City, KS Housing Authority

1

9.09

5

45.45

Keuiokalani

1

9.09

6

54.55

New Haven Housing Authority

1

9.09

7

63.64

Public Housing

1

9.09

8

72.73

Section 8

2

18.18

10

90.91

Shelter Care Plus

1

9.09

11

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,092

A3f Current living situation: A transitional housing program.

Cumulative

Cumulative

A3F

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

12

21.05

12

21.05

No

45

78.95

57

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,046

A3f Current living situation: Other (specify) name of transitional housing program.

Cumulative

Cumulative

A3F_1_OTHER

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Community Link

1

8.33

1

8.33

Community Teamwork Inc. (CTI) in Lowell, MA

1

8.33

2

16.67

Family Shelter

1

8.33

3

25.00

Hone Inc. Transitional Housing

1

8.33

4

33.33

Loving

1

8.33

5

41.67

Maililand

1

8.33

6

50.00

Matilda Cleveland

1

8.33

7

58.33

Ohana Ola

1

8.33

8

66.67

Onemalu

1

8.33

9

75.00

RAPID RE-HOUSING

1

8.33

10

83.33

YWCA Transitional Living Center

1

8.33

11

91.67

Serenity House

1

8.33

12

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,091

E-3

A3g Current living situation: A domestic violence shelter.

Cumulative

Cumulative

A3G

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

3

6.67

3

6.67

No

42

93.33

45

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,058

A3h Current living situation: An emergency shelter.

Cumulative

Cumulative

A3H

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

14

33.33

14

33.33

No

27

64.29

41

97.62

Refused

1

2.38

42

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,061

A3h Current living situation: Other (specify) emergency shelter.

Cumulative

Cumulative

A3H_1_OTHER

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

CASS

1

7.14

1

7.14

Civic Center

1

7.14

2

14.29

GRIP

1

7.14

3

21.43

Gateway

1

7.14

4

28.57

Harrison House

1

7.14

5

35.71

Midvale Family Road Home Shelter

1

7.14

6

42.86

Midvale Road Home

1

7.14

7

50.00

Salvation Army

2

14.29

9

64.29

Sunrise Village

1

7.14

10

71.43

Waianae Civic Center

1

7.14

11

78.57

adult shelter

1

7.14

12

85.71

che'el

1

7.14

13

92.86

human trafficking

1

7.14

14

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,089

A3i Current living situation: A voucher hotel or motel.

Cumulative

Cumulative

A3I

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

4

14.29

4

14.29

No

24

85.71

28

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,075

E-4

A3j. Current living situation: A hotel or motel you pay for yourself.

Cumulative

Cumulative

A3J

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

5

20.83

5

20.83

No

18

75.00

23

95.83

Don't Know

1

4.17

24

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,079

A3k Current living situation: A residential drug or alcohol treatment program.

Cumulative

Cumulative

A3K

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

No

19

100.00

19

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,084

A3l Current Living situation jail or prison.

Cumulative

Cumulative

A3L

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

No

19

100.00

19

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,084

A3m Current Living situation: A car or other vehicle.

Cumulative

Cumulative

A3M

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

7

36.84

7

36.84

No

12

63.16

19

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,084

A3n Current living situation: An abandoned building.

Cumulative

Cumulative

A3N

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

No

12

100.00

12

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,091

A3o Current living situation: Anywhere outside.

Cumulative

Cumulative

A3O

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

7

58.33

7

58.33

No

5

41.67

12

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,091

E-5

A3P Current living situation: Somewhere else?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A3P

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

4

80.00

4

80.00

No

1

20.00

5

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,098

A3P Current living situation: Somewhere else other (specify)?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A3P_1_OTHER

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

couch surfing

1

25.00

1

25.00

homeless shelter

1

25.00

2

50.00

school dorm

1

25.00

3

75.00

supportive housing

1

25.00

4

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,099

A4A1 How long have you lived in this place: Number of days

Cumulative

Cumulative

A4A1

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Refused

1

0.09

1

0.09

Don't Know

2

0.18

3

0.27

0

1070

97.01

1073

97.28

1

13

1.18

1086

98.46

2

4

0.36

1090

98.82

3

3

0.27

1093

99.09

4

3

0.27

1096

99.37

6

1

0.09

1097

99.46

7

1

0.09

1098

99.55

10

2

0.18

1100

99.73

12

1

0.09

1101

99.82

17

1

0.09

1102

99.91

23

1

0.09

1103

100.00

Frequency Missing = 0

E-6

A4A2 How long have you lived in this place: Number of weeks

Cumulative

Cumulative

A4A2

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Refused

1

0.09

1

0.09

Don't Know

2

0.18

3

0.27

0

1014

91.93

1017

92.20

1

25

2.27

1042

94.47

2

23

2.09

1065

96.55

3

23

2.09

1088

98.64

4

2

0.18

1090

98.82

5

4

0.36

1094

99.18

6

1

0.09

1095

99.27

8

3

0.27

1098

99.55

9

1

0.09

1099

99.64

10

1

0.09

1100

99.73

11

2

0.18

1102

99.91

51

1

0.09

1103

100.00

Frequency Missing=0

E-7

A4A3 How long have you lived in this place: Number of months

Cumulative

Cumulative

A4A3

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Refused

1

0.09

1

0.09

Don’t Know

2

0.18

3

0.27

0

56

5.08

59

5.35

1

27

2.45

86

7.80

2

38

3.45

124

11.24

3

41

3.72

165

14.96

4

31

2.81

196

17.77

5

35

3.17

231

20.94

6

42

3.81

273

24.75

7

20

1.81

293

26.56

8

23

2.09

316

28.65

9

21

1.90

337

30.55

10

17

1.54

354

32.09

11

16

1.45

370

33.54

12

97

8.79

467

42.34

13

11

1.00

478

43.34

14

11

1.00

489

44.33

15

10

0.91

499

45.24

16

6

0.54

505

45.78

17

1

0.09

506

45.87

18

37

3.35

543

49.23

19

5

0.45

548

49.68

20

11

1.00

559

50.68

22

5

0.45

564

51.13

23

1

0.09

565

51.22

24

99

8.98

664

60.20

25

2

0.18

666

60.38

26

4

0.36

670

60.74

27

3

0.27

673

61.02

28

5

0.45

678

61.47

29

4

0.36

682

61.83

30

18

1.63

700

63.46

33

2

0.18

702

63.64

34

7

0.63

709

64.28

35

3

0.27

712

64.55

36

84

7.62

796

72.17

37

1

0.09

797

72.26

38

3

0.27

800

72.53

39

1

0.09

801

72.62

40

3

0.27

804

72.89

E-8

A4A3 How long have you lived in this place: Number of months

Cumulative

Cumulative

A4A3

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

42

14

1.27

818

74.16

43

1

0.09

819

74.25

45

9

0.82

828

75.07

46

3

0.27

831

75.34

47

4

0.36

835

75.70

48

55

4.99

890

80.69

49

1

0.09

891

80.78

50

6

0.54

897

81.32

52

4

0.36

901

81.69

53

1

0.09

902

81.78

54

14

1.27

916

83.05

55

1

0.09

917

83.14

56

2

0.18

919

83.32

58

3

0.27

922

83.59

60

58

5.26

980

88.85

62

2

0.18

982

89.03

63

12

1.09

994

90.12

64

1

0.09

995

90.21

65

2

0.18

997

90.39

66

2

0.18

999

90.57

67

2

0.18

1001

90.75

69

1

0.09

1002

90.84

70

6

0.54

1008

91.39

71

4

0.36

1012

91.75

72

43

3.90

1055

95.65

73

2

0.18

1057

95.83

74

2

0.18

1059

96.01

75

1

0.09

1060

96.10

76

2

0.18

1062

96.28

78

3

0.27

1065

96.55

80

4

0.36

1069

96.92

81

3

0.27

1072

97.19

82

3

0.27

1075

97.46

84

17

1.54

1092

99.00

86

1

0.09

1093

99.09

92

1

0.09

1094

99.18

96

9

0.82

1103

100.00

Frequency Missing = 0

E-9

A5. Do you currently receive any governmental housing assistance such as through Public Housing, Section 8, or Housing Choice Voucher?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A5

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

536

48.59

536

48.59

No

564

51.13

1100

99.73

Refused

1

0.09

1101

99.82

Don't Know

2

0.18

1103

100.00

Frequency Missing = 0

A6. Are you paying lower rent because the Federal, State, or local government is paying for part of your rent?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A6

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

29

5.11

29

5.11

No

535

94.36

564

99.47

Refused

1

0.18

565

99.65

Don't Know

2

0.35

567

100.00

Frequency Missing = 536

E-10

A6a. What is the name of the program that provides your housing assistance?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A6A

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

ABC Housing

1

0.18

1

0.18

Alameda Point Collaborative

1

0.18

2

0.36

Al egany County Section 8

1

0.18

3

0.54

Allen Hill Apartments

1

0.18

4

0.73

Allen Hills Apartments

1

0.18

5

0.91

Al iance St Lutheran Social Services

1

0.18

6

1.09

Atlanta Children Shelter

1

0.18

7

1.27

Atlanta Housing Authority

5

0.91

12

2.18

Atlanta Public Housing

1

0.18

13

2.36

Atlanta Section A

1

0.18

14

2.54

Austin SUB

1

0.18

15

2.72

BOSTON HOUSING

14

2.54

29

5.26

BOSTON HOUSING - Transfer

1

0.18

30

5.44

BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY

7

1.27

37

6.72

BRIDGEPORT HOUSING

1

0.18

38

6.90

Baltimore County Shelter

1

0.18

39

7.08

Barkley Homes

1

0.18

40

7.26

Bash Housing Program

1

0.18

41

7.44

Boston Housing

23

4.17

64

11.62

Boston Housing - Georgetowne Development

1

0.18

65

11.80

Boston Housing Authority

1

0.18

66

11.98

Bridge to Permanency Program

1

0.18

67

12.16

CASS

1

0.18

68

12.34

COC housing Road Home

1

0.18

69

12.52

COC road home housing

1

0.18

70

12.70

CSB COBB SHELTER PLUS CARE

1

0.18

71

12.89

Charlestown Housing Authority

1

0.18

72

13.07

City of Mesa HUD Housing Program

1

0.18

73

13.25

City of Phoenix SUB

3

0.54

76

13.79

Coalition

1

0.18

77

13.97

Colorado Coalition

1

0.18

78

14.16

Community Housing Resources - Lottery

1

0.18

79

14.34

Community Links

1

0.18

80

14.52

County

1

0.18

81

14.70

Cowley County Housing Authority

1

0.18

82

14.88

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS

1

0.18

83

15.06

DHCD

1

0.18

84

15.25

DeKalb County Housing Authority

1

0.18

85

15.43

DeKalb Housing Authority

1

0.18

86

15.61

Denver Housing

1

0.18

87

15.79

E-11

A6a. What is the name of the program that provides your housing assistance?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A6A

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Douglas County Housing Authority

1

0.18

88

15.97

Englewood Housing

1

0.18

89

16.15

Everett Housing Authority

1

0.18

90

16.33

Family Service

1

0.18

91

16.52

Family Tree

2

0.36

93

16.88

Family Unification Program

1

0.18

94

17.06

Farmer's Program

1

0.18

95

17.24

Fulton County

1

0.18

96

17.42

Fulton County Housing Authority

1

0.18

97

17.60

GOLD MARK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

1

0.18

98

17.79

GRH

1

0.18

99

17.97

Georgia Housing

1

0.18

100

18.15

Glendale Public Housing

1

0.18

101

18.33

Glendour group- new haven housing authority

1

0.18

102

18.51

Gulf Breeze

1

0.18

103

18.69

HAWAI PUBLIC HOUSING

1

0.18

104

18.87

HOPE ATLANTA

1

0.18

105

19.06

HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER

1

0.18

106

19.24

HPH

4

0.73

110

19.96

HPHA

1

0.18

111

20.15

HSP Program, but expiring in 5 days so potentially homeless again

1

0.18

112

20.33

HUD

12

2.18

124

22.50

HUD Housing Leavenworth, KS

1

0.18

125

22.69

HUD Reduced Rent

1

0.18

126

22.87

HUD VASH

1

0.18

127

23.05

Haverhil Housing

1

0.18

128

23.23

Hawaii Housing Authority

1

0.18

129

23.41

Hawaii Public Housing

1

0.18

130

23.59

Hawaii Public Housing Authority

4

0.73

134

24.32

Hawthorne Low Income Rent

1

0.18

135

24.50

Home Inc.

1

0.18

136

24.68

Homes with Hope

1

0.18

137

24.86

Housing Authority

2

0.36

139

25.23

Housing Authority of New Mexico

1

0.18

140

25.41

Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles

1

0.18

141

25.59

Housing Choice Voucher

1

0.18

142

25.77

Housing Choice Voucher

1

0.18

143

25.95

Housing Choice Voucher DHA

1

0.18

144

26.13

Housing Choice Voucher

1

0.18

145

26.32

Housing Choice Voucher

1

0.18

146

26.50

E-12

A6a. What is the name of the program that provides your housing assistance?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A6A

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Housing: Section 8 - Voucher

1

0.18

147

26.68

Indiana Housing Authority

1

0.18

148

26.86

J D’Amelia

1

0.18

149

27.04

KAHILI Valley Homes

1

0.18

150

27.22

KAM IV

1

0.18

151

27.40

KAM IV Housing

1

0.18

152

27.59

KPT Housing

1

0.18

153

27.77

KPT Housing Authority

1

0.18

154

27.95

KTA Housing Authority, Kalihi Valley Homes

1

0.18

155

28.13

Kalihi Valley Authority

1

0.18

156

28.31

Kam IV

1

0.18

157

28.49

Kansas City Housing Authority

3

0.54

160

29.04

KeyStone Apartments

1

0.18

161

29.22

Kuhio Park Terrace

1

0.18

162

29.40

Kuhio Park Terrace B

1

0.18

163

29.58

LAWRENCE HOUSING

1

0.18

164

29.76

Leading the Way to Housing - Boston

1

0.18

165

29.95

Liberty Housing Authority

1

0.18

166

30.13

Low Income Housing

1

0.18

167

30.31

Low Income

1

0.18

168

30.49

MADISON PARK HOUSING

1

0.18

169

30.67

MSHDA

1

0.18

170

30.85

Mandela Gateway Apartments

1

0.18

171

31.03

Marian House

1

0.18

172

31.22

Maricopa County SUB

1

0.18

173

31.40

Maricopa SUB

4

0.73

177

32.12

Maricopa SUB

1

0.18

178

32.30

Marks Development

1

0.18

179

32.49

Mayor Wright Hawaii Public Housing

1

0.18

180

32.67

Mayor Wrights

1

0.18

181

32.85

Metro HRA

1

0.18

182

33.03

Metro Housing

1

0.18

183

33.21

Metro West

1

0.18

184

33.39

Modern Rehab Housing

1

0.18

185

33.58

Nanakuli Public Housing

1

0.18

186

33.76

Native American Connection SUB Housing

1

0.18

187

33.94

New Haven Housing

1

0.18

188

34.12

OACAC

1

0.18

189

34.30

Oakland Housing Authority, Public Housing

1

0.18

190

34.48

Onemalu Transitional Shelter

1

0.18

191

34.66

E-13

A6a. What is the name of the program that provides your housing assistance?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A6A

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

PK Management-Subsidized Housing

1

0.18

192

34.85

PPL

1

0.18

193

35.03

Palolo Housing

1

0.18

194

35.21

Palolo Project 50

1

0.18

195

35.39

Palolo Section 8

1

0.18

196

35.57

Palolo Valley Housing

1

0.18

197

35.75

Perkins Homes

1

0.18

198

35.93

Phoenix Section 8

1

0.18

199

36.12

Phoenix Sub

1

0.18

200

36.30

Pinal County Housing Department

1

0.18

201

36.48

Pololo Housing

1

0.18

202

36.66

Prichard Housing Board

1

0.18

203

36.84

Project Base

1

0.18

204

37.02

Project Base Voucher

1

0.18

205

37.21

Public Housing

2

0.36

207

37.57

Public Housing Authority Subsidy Program

1

0.18

208

37.75

Public Housing on School St.

1

0.18

209

37.93

Puuwai Momi Housing

1

0.18

210

38.11

R said she is waiting for Section 8

1

0.18

211

38.29

RAP

1

0.18

212

38.48

RAPID RE-HOUSING

1

0.18

213

38.66

Renaissance 88- under HUD

1

0.18

214

38.84

Road Home Palmer Court Section 8 Housing

1

0.18

215

39.02

Road House Continuum Care Housing

1

0.18

216

39.20

Rowan Homes

1

0.18

217

39.38

SECTION 8

1

0.18

218

39.56

Section 8 New Haven Housing Authority

1

0.18

219

39.75

SL County Section 8 Housing, SL County Public Housing

1

0.18

220

39.93

Salt Lake County Housing

2

0.36

222

40.29

Salt Lake County Section 8

1

0.18

223

40.47

Salt Lake County Section 8 Voucher

1

0.18

224

40.65

Salt Lake County Section 8 voucher

1

0.18

225

40.83

Scattered Sites

1

0.18

226

41.02

Section 8

41

7.44

267

48.46

Section 8 Arlington Housing Authority

1

0.18

268

48.64

Section 8 Beaumont Housing

1

0.18

269

48.82

Section 8 Choice Voucher

1

0.18

270

49.00

Section 8 HUD

1

0.18

271

49.18

Section 8 Housing

2

0.36

273

49.55

Section 8 Voucher

2

0.36

275

49.91

E-14

A6a. What is the name of the program that provides your housing assistance?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A6A

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Section 8 Shelter Plus

1

0.18

276

50.09

Section 8 Voucher Kansas City Housing Authority

1

0.18

277

50.27

Section 8-Choice Voucher-Salt Lake County

1

0.18

278

50.45

Section A Housing

1

0.18

279

50.64

Section House Choice Voucher

1

0.18

280

50.82

Shelter Care Plus

1

0.18

281

51.00

Shelter Care Voucher

1

0.18

282

51.18

Shelter Plus

2

0.36

284

51.54

Shelter Plus Care

2

0.36

286

51.91

TANF like cal works (gets $ & pays the rent)

1

0.18

287

52.09

TMC Voucher

1

0.18

288

52.27

The Georgia Department of Community Af airs

1

0.18

289

52.45

The Oklahoma City Housing Authority

1

0.18

290

52.63

Tide Water Apartments

1

0.18

291

52.81

Utah Housing-Road Home

1

0.18

292

52.99

Villages of Moa’e-Ku Low Income

1

0.18

293

53.18

Voucher

1

0.18

294

53.36

Voucher Cambrahil Townhomes

1

0.18

295

53.54

WELLESLEY HOUSING

1

0.18

296

53.72

Waima8a Housing

1

0.18

297

53.90

Waipahu Housing

1

0.18

298

54.08

Wellesley Housing Authority

1

0.18

299

54.26

Women Housing Coalition

1

0.18

300

54.45

Af ordable Permanent

1

0.18

301

54.63

Alameda City Section 8

1

0.18

302

54.81

Barton Village

1

0.18

303

54.99

Beechwood Gardens

1

0.18

304

55.17

Berkeley Food & Housing

1

0.18

305

55.35

Berkley Housing

1

0.18

306

55.54

Cal WORKS

1

0.18

307

55.72

Catholic Charities

1

0.18

308

55.90

Eden Housing

1

0.18

309

56.08

Eden, RHP

1

0.18

310

56.26

Elm City

1

0.18

311

56.44

Elm City Community

1

0.18

312

56.62

Family Centers

1

0.18

313

56.81

Federal Housing

1

0.18

314

56.99

Federal Housing Based on Income

1

0.18

315

57.17

Field Fee Continuing with Care

1

0.18

316

57.35

Hawai Public Housing Kaneohe

1

0.18

317

57.53

E-15

A6a. What is the name of the program that provides your housing assistance?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A6A

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Home Inc.

1

0.18

318

57.71

Housing Authority

2

0.36

320

58.08

Housing Choice Voucher

1

0.18

321

58.26

Housing Choice Voucher Section 8

1

0.18

322

58.44

Housing Choice Voucher Section 8

1

0.18

323

58.62

HUD

1

0.18

324

58.80

HUD Housing

1

0.18

325

58.98

HUD vas

1

0.18

326

59.17

ImmaCare

1

0.18

327

59.35

insperica

1

0.18

328

59.53

J D’Amelia and Assoc.

1

0.18

329

59.71

Jordan's House

1

0.18

330

59.89

Long Term Support of Housing, Shelter Care Plus

1

0.18

331

60.07

Low Income Housing

1

0.18

332

60.25

Low Market Rate

1

0.18

333

60.44

New Haven Housing

1

0.18

334

60.62

New Housing Authority

1

0.18

335

60.80

Norwalk housing authority

1

0.18

336

60.98

Norwalk Housing Authority

1

0.18

337

61.16

Project Base Housing

1

0.18

338

61.34

Project Based Section 8

1

0.18

339

61.52

Public Housing

8

1.45

347

62.98

Public Housing Punchbowl Homes

1

0.18

348

63.16

Public Program

1

0.18

349

63.34

RAP

1

0.18

350

63.52

RAP Program

1

0.18

351

63.70

ReStart

1

0.18

352

63.88

Road Home Section 8 Housing

1

0.18

353

64.07

Salt Lake County Housing

2

0.36

355

64.43

Salt Lake County Authority Section 8

1

0.18

356

64.61

Scatter Site Section 8

1

0.18

357

64.79

Season of Sharing

1

0.18

358

64.97

Section 8

1

0.18

359

65.15

Section 8

1

0.18

360

65.34

Section 8

1

0.18

361

65.52

Section 8

3

0.54

364

66.06

Section 8

159

28.86

523

94.92

Section 8 HUD

1

0.18

524

95.10

Section 8 House choice voucher

1

0.18

525

95.28

Section 8 So. NV Regional Housing Authority

1

0.18

526

95.46

E-16

A6a. What is the name of the program that provides your housing assistance?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A6A

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Section 8 Alameda City HA

1

0.18

527

95.64

Section 8 Alameda City Housing

1

0.18

528

95.83

Section 8 Alameda Housing

1

0.18

529

96.01

Section 8 Voucher

1

0.18

530

96.19

Section 8 Contra Costa Housing

1

0.18

531

96.37

Section 8 Housing

1

0.18

532

96.55

Section 8 of West Valley

1

0.18

533

96.73

Section 8

1

0.18

534

96.91

Shelter + Care

4

0.73

538

97.64

Shelter Care Plus

1

0.18

539

97.82

Shelter Plus Care

2

0.36

541

98.19

Shelter Plus Care- Road Home

1

0.18

542

98.37

St Stevens

1

0.18

543

98.55

Supportive Housing

1

0.18

544

98.73

The Connection

1

0.18

545

98.91

Through Daughter’s School - They Help Pay for Some of It

1

0.18

546

99.09

Trumbull Gardens

1

0.18

547

99.27

Trumbull Gardens

1

0.18

548

99.46

Voucher

1

0.18

549

99.64

Waterbury Housing Authority

1

0.18

550

99.82

Youth Continuum

1

0.18

551

100.00

Frequency Missing = 552

A6ARFDK. What is the name of the program that provides your housing assistance?: Refused /Don’t Know Cumulative

Cumulative

A6AREFDK_1

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Don't Know

14

100.00

14

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,089

E-17

A6b. Is this assistance a Section 8 or Housing Choice Voucher, or is the building you live in a public housing or a Section 8 Project, or some other assistance?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A6B

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Public Housing

97

17.17

97

17.17

Section 8/Housing Voucher

335

59.29

432

76.46

Section 8/HVC Project

33

5.84

465

82.30

Transitional Housing

9

1.59

474

83.89

Low Income Housing

47

8.32

521

92.21

HomeBASE

5

0.88

526

93.10

Other Housing Assistance

27

4.78

553

97.88

Don't Know

12

2.12

565

100.00

Frequency Missing = 538

E-18

A6b Is this assistance a Section 8 or Housing Choice Voucher, or is the building you live in a public housing or a Section 8 Project, or some other assistance?: Other type specify

Cumulative

Cumulative

A6B_95_OTHER

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

HSP

1

3.70

1

3.70

HUD

1

3.70

2

7.41

HUD Voucher

1

3.70

3

11.11

Holmeinc

1

3.70

4

14.81

Mental Health

1

3.70

5

18.52

PPL

1

3.70

6

22.22

Shelter Plus Care

1

3.70

7

25.93

TANF (Then Pays for Rent)

1

3.70

8

29.63

Temporary Assistance Income Based that Phases Out

1

3.70

9

33.33

Truman Medical Center Voucher Program

1

3.70

10

37.04

Woman Housing Coalition

1

3.70

11

40.74

Affordable Housing

1

3.70

12

44.44

Shelter + Care

1

3.70

13

48.15

Cheaper Rent

1

3.70

14

51.85

Daughter’s School

1

3.70

15

55.56

Group Residential Housing

1

3.70

16

59.26

Housing Plus Utilities

1

3.70

17

62.96

Local HUD Program

1

3.70

18

66.67

Low-Income

1

3.70

19

70.37

Mom's House

1

3.70

20

74.07

Reduced Rent According to Income (R has been in program for 5 years)

1

3.70

21

77.78

Rent goes 100 percent to Landlord

1

3.70

22

81.48

Shelter + Care

1

3.70

23

85.19

Shelter Plus Care

1

3.70

24

88.89

Subsidized Housing

1

3.70

25

92.59

Supportive Housing

1

3.70

26

96.30

Shelter + Care

1

3.70

27

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,076

A7. Were there any times you were homeless in the last 6 months?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A7

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

127

11.51

127

11.51

No

974

88.30

1101

99.82

Refused

2

0.18

1103

100.00

Frequency Missing = 0

E-19

A8. How many times were you homeless in the last 6 months?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A8_1

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Don’t Know

4

3.15

4

3.15

1

94

74.02

98

77.17

2

14

11.02

112

88.19

3

4

3.15

116

91.34

4

5

3.94

121

95.28

5

1

0.79

122

96.06

6

5

3.94

127

100.00

Frequency Missing = 976

A8A. What would you say is the total number of days, weeks, or months you have been homeless in the past 6 months.: Days Cumulative

Cumulative

A8A_1

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Refused

1

0.81

1

0.81

Don’t Know

2

1.63

3

2.44

0

111

90.24

114

92.68

1

1

0.81

115

93.50

120

1

0.81

116

94.31

13

1

0.81

117

95.12

3

1

0.81

118

95.93

30

1

0.81

119

96.75

4

1

0.81

120

97.56

5

1

0.81

121

98.37

60

2

1.63

123

100.00

Frequency Missing = 980

E-20

A8A. What would you say is the total number of days, weeks, or months you have been homeless in the past 6 months.: Weeks Cumulative

Cumulative

A8A_2

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Refused

1

0.81

1

0.81

Don't Know

2

1.63

3

2.44

0

105

85.37

108

87.80

1

4

3.25

112

91.06

2

6

4.88

118

95.93

3

2

1.63

120

97.56

5

1

0.81

121

98.37

6

1

0.81

122

99.19

8

1

0.81

123

100.00

Frequency Missing = 980

A8A. What would you say is the total number of days, weeks, or months you have been homeless in the past 6 months.: Months Cumulative

Cumulative

A8A_3

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Refused

1

0.81

1

0.81

Don't Know

2

1.63

3

2.44

0

21

17.07

24

19.51

1

20

16.26

44

35.77

12

1

0.81

45

36.59

18

1

0.81

46

37.40

2

10

8.13

56

45.53

3

14

11.38

70

56.91

4

8

6.50

78

63.41

5

4

3.25

82

66.67

6

36

29.27

118

95.93

60

1

0.81

119

96.75

8

2

1.63

121

98.37

9

2

1.63

123

100.00

Frequency Missing = 980

A9. Were there any times in the past 6 months when you were living with a friend or relative because you could not afford a place of your own?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A9

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

169

15.32

169

15.32

No

932

84.50

1101

99.82

Refused

1

0.09

1102

99.91

Don't Know

1

0.09

1103

100.00

Frequency Missing = 0

E-21

A10. Altogether, how may days, weeks, or months did you spend living with a friend or relative in the past 6 months?: Days Cumulative

Cumulative

A10_1

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Refused

4

2.37

4

2.37

0

156

92.31

160

94.67

1

1

0.59

161

95.27

10

2

1.18

163

96.45

120

1

0.59

164

97.04

2

2

1.18

166

98.22

3

1

0.59

167

98.82

70

1

0.59

168

99.41

9

1

0.59

169

100.00

Frequency Missing = 934

A10. Altogether, how may days, weeks, or months did you spend living with a friend or relative in the past 6 months?: Weeks Cumulative

Cumulative

A10_2

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Refused

4

2.37

4

2.37

0

151

89.35

155

91.72

1

1

0.59

156

92.31

2

8

4.73

164

97.04

3

3

1.78

167

98.82

4

1

0.59

168

99.41

6

1

0.59

169

100.00

Frequency Missing = 934

E-22

A10. Altogether, how may days, weeks, or months did you spend living with a friend or relative in the past 6 months?: Months Cumulative

Cumulative

A10_3

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Refused

4

2.37

4

2.37

0

13

7.69

17

10.06

1

11

6.51

28

16.57

12

7

4.14

35

20.71

14

1

0.59

36

21.30

18

1

0.59

37

21.89

2

16

9.47

53

31.36

24

4

2.37

57

33.73

3

26

15.38

83

49.11

36

1

0.59

84

49.70

4

17

10.06

101

59.76

48

1

0.59

102

60.36

5

17

10.06

119

70.41

6

46

27.22

165

97.63

8

2

1.18

167

98.82

9

2

1.18

169

100.00

Frequency Missing = 934

A11. In the past 6 months have you participated in any housing program other than where you are living now?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A11

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

34

3.08

34

3.08

No

1065

96.55

1099

99.64

Refused

3

0.27

1102

99.91

Don't Know

1

0.09

1103

100.00

Frequency Missing = 0

A12A. In the past 6 months did you participate in any of the following types of program: Spend at least one night in a shelter?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A12_1

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

13

34.21

13

34.21

No

25

65.79

38

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,065

E-23

A12B. In the past 6 months did you participate in any of the following types of program: In a permanent supportive housing program?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A12_2

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

8

21.05

8

21.05

No

29

76.32

37

97.37

Refused

1

2.63

38

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,065

A12C. In the past 6 months did you participate in any of the following types of program: At least one night in a transitional housing program?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A12_3

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

9

23.68

9

23.68

No

28

73.68

37

97.37

Refused

1

2.63

38

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,065

A12D. In the past 6 months did you participate in any of the following types of program: In a place where you received temporary rental assistance?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A12_4

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

7

18.42

7

18.42

No

30

78.95

37

97.37

Refused

1

2.63

38

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,065

A12E. In the past 6 months did you participate in any of the following types of program: In a place where you received a rent subsidy?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A12_5

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

12

31.58

12

31.58

No

24

63.16

36

94.74

Refused

2

5.26

38

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,065

A12F. In the past 6 months did you participate in any of the following types of program: Received any other form of housing assistance?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A12_6

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

7

18.42

7

18.42

No

29

76.32

36

94.74

Refused

1

2.63

37

97.37

Don't Know

1

2.63

38

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,065

E-24

A12F In the past 6 months did you participate in any of the following types of program: Received any other form of housing assistance: Please specify?

Cumulative

Cumulative

A12O

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Exido Housing

1

14.29

1

14.29

Some type of program that help you get a place, but it wasn't housing.

1

14.29

2

28.57

Travis L Williams Family Services

1

14.29

3

42.86

Utility alliance

1

14.29

4

57.14

Various churches help pay for motel room

1

14.29

5

71.43

church

1

14.29

6

85.71

shelter Safe House

1

14.29

7

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,096

Household Size

Cumulative

Cumulative

HHSIZE

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

1

136

12.33

136

12.33

10

17

1.54

153

13.87

11

9

0.82

162

14.69

12

2

0.18

164

14.87

13

1

0.09

165

14.96

14

1

0.09

166

15.05

15

1

0.09

167

15.14

17

1

0.09

168

15.23

2

222

20.13

390

35.36

3

227

20.58

617

55.94

4

176

15.96

793

71.89

5

142

12.87

935

84.77

6

81

7.34

1016

92.11

7

40

3.63

1056

95.74

8

28

2.54

1084

98.28

9

19

1.72

1103

100.00

Frequency Missing = 0

C1. Last week, did you do any work for pay?

Cumulative

Cumulative

C1

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

568

51.50

568

51.50

No

533

48.32

1101

99.82

Refused

2

0.18

1103

100.00

Frequency Missing = 0

E-25

C2 When was the last time you worked for pay?: Month

Cumulative

Cumulative

C2MM

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Never worked for pay

18

3.72

18

3.72

Don't Know

3

0.62

21

4.34

1

73

15.08

94

19.42

2

25

5.17

119

24.59

3

26

5.37

145

29.96

4

26

5.37

171

35.33

5

41

8.47

212

43.80

6

40

8.26

252

52.07

7

20

4.13

272

56.20

8

44

9.09

316

65.29

9

26

5.37

342

70.66

10

54

11.16

396

81.82

11

45

9.30

441

91.12

12

43

8.88

484

100.00

Frequency Missing = 619

E-26

C2 When was the last time you worked for pay?: Year

Cumulative

Cumulative

C2YY

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Never worked for pay

18

3.72

18

3.72

Don't Know

2

0.41

20

4.13

1980

1

0.21

21

4.34

1992

1

0.21

22

4.55

1994

1

0.21

23

4.75

1995

1

0.21

24

4.96

1997

2

0.41

26

5.37

1998

2

0.41

28

5.79

2000

2

0.41

30

6.20

2002

3

0.62

33

6.82

2003

2

0.41

35

7.23

2004

3

0.62

38

7.85

2005

2

0.41

40

8.26

2006

5

1.03

45

9.30

2007

12

2.48

57

11.78

2008

17

3.51

74

15.29

2009

15

3.10

89

18.39

2010

14

2.89

103

21.28

2011

12

2.48

115

23.76

2012

11

2.27

126

26.03

2013

14

2.89

140

28.93

2014

20

4.13

160

33.06

2015

43

8.88

203

41.94

2016

71

14.67

274

56.61

2017

187

38.64

461

95.25

2018

23

4.75

484

100.00

Frequency Missing = 619

C3. Do you own a computer with internet access in the place you are living now?

Cumulative

Cumulative

C3

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

439

39.80

439

39.80

No

664

60.20

1103

100.00

Frequency Missing = 0

E-27

C4. Do you have access to the internet through your phone or an iPad or tablet device?

Cumulative

Cumulative

C4

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

1014

91.93

1014

91.93

No

89

8.07

1103

100.00

Frequency Missing = 0

C4a. Do you have access to the internet outside of the place where you are living now?

Cumulative

Cumulative

C4A

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Yes

46

62.16

46

62.16

No

27

36.49

73

98.65

Don't Know

1

1.35

74

100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,029

C5. How often do you access the internet?

Cumulative

Cumulative

C5

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Every day

810

73.44

810

73.44

4-5 Days Per Week

71

6.44

881

79.87

2-3 Days Per Week

111

10.06

992

89.94

Once A Week

31

2.81

1023

92.75

Less Than Once A Week

40

3.63

1063

96.37

Never

38

3.45

1101

99.82

Don't Know

2

0.18

1103

100.00

Frequency Missing = 0

E-28

Appendix F: Balance of Baseline Characteristics for Full Sample

Table F-1.

Equivalence at Baseline of Full Sample within Three Pairwise Comparisons (SUB

versus UC, CBRR versus UC, and PBTH versus UC)

Characteristic (percent)

SUB

UC

p-

value

CBRR

UC

p-

value

PBTH

UC

p-

value

Number of families

599

540

569

575

368

339

Age of family head at RA

Less than 21 years old

8.0

8.3 0.798

9.0

8.0 0.078 *

8.7

5.6 0.403

21–24 years

21.4

21.1

18.8

20.3

15.5

17.7

25–29 years

23.0

25.0

23.2

23.7

25.5

22.7

30–34 years

19.5

16.3

19.2

15.1

20.9

19.5

35–44 years

19.9

21.1

24.1

23.0

21.5

24.8

45 years and older

8.2

8.1

5.8

9.9

7.9

9.7

Gender

Female

92.8

92.6 0.882

91.2

93.2 0.201

88.9

92.0 0.154

Male

7.2

7.4

8.8

6.8

11.1

8.0

Marital status

Single (never marr./wid./sep./div.)

73.5

69.4 0.135

73.6

73.0 0.818

67.1

66.4 0.834

Married or marriage-like situation

26.5

30.6

26.4

27.0

32.9

33.6

Race/ethnicity

Black/African American, not Hispanic

35.2

37.6 0.634

46.6

43.0 0.439

39.7

39.8 0.978

White, not Hispanic

22.0

22.8

19.0

20.3

20.4

19.2

Hispanic

23.7

23.3

18.1

21.2

15.2

15.9

Other

19.0

16.3

16.3

15.5

24.7

25.1

Educational attainment

Less than high school diploma

35.6

41.7 0.092 *

33.0

39.1 0.040 **

36.4

43.1 0.190

High school diploma/GED

38.6

33.7

39.0

32.5

36.1

31.6

More than high school diploma

25.9

24.6

27.9

28.3

27.4

25.4

Number of adults in family

1 adult

72.3

68.3 0.145

70.7

71.8 0.657

66.3

64.6 0.636

2 or more adults

27.7

31.7

29.3

28.2

33.7

35.4

Spouse/partner in shelter

25.5

29.6 0.124

26.7

26.4 0.914

30.7

32.2 0.680

Spouse/partner not present in shelter

10.2

8.7 0.396

10.5

11.1 0.748

10.6

9.4 0.610

Number of children in shelter with family

1 child

45.1

42.8 0.935

43.4

44.2 0.432

39.9

42.2 0.478

2 children

30.9

31.9

30.6

29.7

28.8

28.3

3 children

15.0

15.2

12.8

15.7

19.0

18.0

4 children or more

9.2

10.2

13.4

10.4

12.2

11.5

Child under age 1 in shelter

15.2

15.7 0.799

16.3

15.0 0.514

17.9

15.9 0.480

Child ages 1 to 5 in shelter

64.4

64.8 0.895

64.3

61.0 0.247

67.7

61.1 0.068 *

Child under 18 living elsewhere

25.4

23.1 0.383

23.2

23.7 0.855

24.5

23.9 0.862

Pregnant at baseline

10.0

8.7 0.449

7.4

8.0 0.692

11.4

10.3 0.644

Worked for pay last week

13.4

15.4 0.334

18.8

19.3 0.828

19.3

21.2 0.522

Not worked in past 6 months

58.9

61.5 0.381

54.1

56.2 0.483

56.3

57.8 0.676

Not worked in past 24 months

31.9

35.0 0.267

27.4

32.0 0.087 *

27.2

32.4 0.127

Family annual income

Less than $5,000

32.7

35.0 0.800

30.2

32.9 0.189

28.8

31.3 0.709

F-1

Characteristic (percent)

SUB

UC

p-

value

CBRR

UC

p-

value

PBTH

UC

p-

value

$5,000–9,999

32.2

30.9

31.8

26.4

27.7

26.5

$10,000–14,999

16.5

17.0

18.5

16.5

19.0

16.5

$15,000–19,999

7.3

8.1

8.8

10.4

12.8

10.9

$20,000–24,999

5.7

4.4

4.4

6.3

6.5

7.7

$25,000 or more

5.5

4.4

6.3

7.5

5.2

7.1

Ever been homeless before

63.6

64.1 0.870

63.4

62.4 0.721

61.7

62.8 0.754

Ever been doubled up before

84.5

86.7 0.295

85.9

85.7 0.922

82.3

84.4 0.472

Childhood experiences of family head

Experienced homelessness

16.4

17.4 0.638

15.5

16.2 0.740

16.6

15.6 0.735 **

In foster care, group home, or institution

28.7

23.5 0.047 **

26.9

24.5 0.355

31.3

21.5 0.004 *

Experienced intimate partner violence

as an adult

49.6

48.7 0.768

48.7

50.4 0.549

47.0

49.0 0.605

Health at baseline

Any health problems

59.8

61.7 0.513

59.1

64.3 0.063 *

50.8

57.2 0.089 *

Disability that limits working for pay

22.9

23.0 0.971

20.4

22.1 0.478

20.7

20.4 0.922

Serious psychological distress

23.0

23.0 0.976

18.3

24.9 0.006 ***

20.4

23.3 0.349

PTSD symptom criteria are met

21.9

22.6 0.770

20.9

24.3 0.161

22.6

24.2 0.609

Substance abuse problem (drug/alcohol)

18.9

22.8 0.105

20.7

18.3 0.286

24.5

22.1 0.466

Past eviction, lease violation, or

problems with a landlord

44.6

44.1 0.866

40.6

46.4 0.044 **

43.5

46.6 0.406

Ever convicted of a felony

11.5

10.7 0.678

11.4

10.4 0.588

11.4

14.2 0.276

Site

Alameda County

12.7

13.1

N/A

9.8

8.9

N/A

13.3

13.0

N/A

Atlanta

0.0

0.0

12.8

13.0

11.1

11.5

Baltimore

0.0

0.0

3.5

3.1

4.6

4.1

Boston

10.7

11.9

9.3

9.0

0.0

0.0

Connecticut

7.8

7.8

12.8

12.2

4.9

3.5

Denver

12.7

8.5

1.4

8.2

6.3

6.8

Honolulu

7.2

8.1

7.7

6.6

17.9

19.2

Kansas City

8.8

9.1

5.3

4.7

11.4

10.9

Louisvil e - 1st RA regime

2.2

2.6

0.7

2.1

2.7

1.8

Louisvil e - 2nd RA regime

3.2

3.7

2.5

3.1

3.8

3.2

Minneapolis

10.4

11.3

9.1

9.0

1.1

0.0

Phoenix

11.9

12.8

10.9

8.0

17.7

18.3

Salt Lake City - 1st RA regime

10.7

9.1

11.8

9.6

4.3

6.5

Salt Lake City - 2nd RA regime

1.8

2.0

2.3

2.4

0.8

1.2

F-test on all characteristics except site

F value

F value

F value

= 0.78 0.840

= 1.41 0.044 **

= 0.94 0.584

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. SUB = subsidy.

UC = usual care.

Notes: F-tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups (using the GLM procedure in the SAS statistical package, Type I sum of squares). The F-test reported in the bottom row tests the joint significance of all listed characteristics except site in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression uses all listed characteristics and site indicators as predictors.

*/**/*** Difference between assignment groups is statistically different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, using an F-test.

Source: Family Options Study baseline survey.

F-2

Table F-2.

Equivalence at Baseline of Full Sample within Three Pairwise Comparisons (SUB

versus CBRR, SUB versus PBTH, and CBRR versus PBTH)

Characteristic (percent)

SUB CBRR

p-

value

SUB PBTH

p-

value

CBRR PBTH

p-

value

Number of families

435

382

256

240

232

239

Age of family head at RA

Less than 21 years old

8.3

11.0 0.311

6.6

8.3 0.289

5.2

8.4

0.469

21–24 years

19.8

18.6

24.2

17.5

16.4

13.8

25–29 years

24.1

22.5

21.1

27.5

27.6

23.8

30–34 years

20.0

20.2

19.1

20.8

21.1

23.0

35–44 years

18.9

22.0

19.1

18.3

24.1

22.6

45 years and older

9.0

5.8

9.8

7.5

5.6

8.4

Gender

Female

93.6

90.8 0.138

92.6

88.3 0.107

89.7

89.1

0.850

Male

6.4

9.2

7.4

11.7

10.3

10.9

Marital status

Single (never marr./wid./sep./div.)

74.5

73.3 0.696

69.9

67.9 0.630

65.1

70.3

0.224

Married or marriage-like situation

25.5

26.7

30.1

32.1

34.9

29.7

Race/ethnicity

Black/African American, not Hispanic

37.5

40.1 0.758

32.4

34.6 0.311

44.4

43.1

0.902

White, not Hispanic

23.4

23.8

22.3

25.4

16.8

19.2

Hispanic

22.8

19.9

21.5

15.0

13.4

13.8

Other

16.3

16.2

23.8

25.0

25.4

23.8

Educational attainment

Less than high school diploma

36.3

34.6 0.866

31.6

31.3 0.940

31.5

39.3

0.094 *

High school diploma/GED

39.1

40.1

41.0

40.0

38.8

30.1

More than high school diploma

24.6

25.4

27.3

28.8

29.7

30.5

Number of adults in family

1 adult

72.9

70.4 0.429

67.2

66.7 0.902

62.1

69.9

0.072 *

2 or more adults

27.1

29.6

32.8

33.3

37.9

30.1

Spouse/partner in shelter

25.3

27.7 0.418

29.7

30.8 0.782

35.8

28.0

0.070 *

Spouse/partner not present in shelter

11.0

10.2 0.698

10.2

9.6 0.831

9.9

9.6

0.915

Number of children in shelter with family

1 child

46.2

45.5 0.223

43.8

39.6 0.312

40.9

40.6

0.791

2 children

31.3

31.2

32.8

30.0

30.6

28.5

3 children

13.6

10.7

16.8

20.0

14.7

17.2

4 children or more

9.0

12.8

7.0

10.4

13.8

13.8

Child under age 1 in shelter

15.2

17.3 0.407

17.2

17.1 0.976

16.8

16.3

0.885

Child ages 1 to 5 in shelter

63.7

66.0 0.487

65.6

70.8 0.214

66.8

65.7

0.796

Child under 18 living elsewhere

26.4

22.5 0.186

27.0

21.7 0.171

28.4

24.7

0.353

Pregnant at baseline

9.4

8.4 0.594

11.3

12.5 0.688

6.0

10.5

0.079 *

Worked for pay last week

12.6

16.0 0.167

17.6

15.8 0.604

25.0

22.2

0.468

Not worked in past 6 months

59.1

56.5 0.456

56.3

56.3 1.000

49.6

55.2

0.216

Not worked in past 24 months

32.0

28.5 0.280

30.1

27.1 0.462

26.7

28.0

0.749

Family annual income

Less than $5,000

34.0

31.7 0.404

31.3

29.6 0.345

27.6

25.9

0.908

$5,000–9,999

30.6

32.5

32.8

29.2

29.7

28.9

$10,000–14,999

17.0

17.8

16.8

19.2

19.4

19.2

F-3

Characteristic (percent)

SUB CBRR

p-

value

SUB PBTH

p-

value

CBRR PBTH

p-

value

$15,000–19,999

6.2

8.6

7.0

12.1

10.3

13.8

$20,000–24,999

6.2

3.7

6.6

6.7

6.0

6.3

$25,000 or more

6.0

5.8

5.5

3.3

6.9

5.9

Ever been homeless before

64.1

65.2 0.751

64.5

62.5 0.652

61.6

60.3

0.756

Ever been doubled up before

83.9

86.1 0.368

85.2

81.3 0.245

86.2

83.7

0.441

Childhood experiences of family head

Experienced homelessness

16.8

17.0 0.928

15.2

15.0 0.942

10.3

15.5

0.095 *

In foster care, group home, or

institution

29.9

28.5 0.667

27.0

33.8 0.100 *

25.0

29.7

0.250

Experienced intimate partner violence

as an adult

48.0

48.4 0.911

50.8

49.6 0.790

40.9

46.4

0.227

Health at baseline

Any health problems

58.6

60.2 0.639

58.2

51.3 0.121

53.4

48.5

0.283

Disability that limits working for pay

23.4

21.5 0.491

19.9

22.5 0.483

21.1

20.9

0.957

Serious psychological distress

23.4

18.3 0.068 *

21.5

21.7 0.961

16.8

19.7

0.420

PTSD symptom criteria are met

20.9

20.2 0.784

19.1

22.5 0.358

17.7

21.3

0.313

Substance abuse problem (drug/alcohol)

21.4

21.7 0.902

18.4

24.6 0.092 *

20.7

25.1

0.251

Past eviction, lease violation, or

problems with a landlord

45.5

40.3 0.127

46.1

44.2 0.667

42.2

42.7

0.923

Ever convicted of a felony

11.7

11.8 0.980

13.3

12.1 0.690

11.2

11.7

0.862

Site

Alameda County

11.0

13.4

N/A ***

17.2

20.0

N/A

13.4

10.9

N/A

Atlanta

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

17.7

17.2

Baltimore

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.2

6.3

Boston

12.2

13.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Connecticut

10.1

10.7

3.1

2.9

4.3

6.7

Denver

11.7

1.3

13.7

8.3

0.9

5.4

Honolulu

3.9

6.0

16.8

16.7

19.0

16.3

Kansas City

6.9

7.9

16.8

17.5

8.2

7.5

Louisvil e - 1st RA regime

2.8

1.0

1.2

2.9

0.4

2.5

Louisvil e - 2nd RA regime

4.1

3.4

4.3

5.4

3.4

4.6

Minneapolis

11.7

12.8

0.4

1.3

0.4

1.7

Phoenix

9.7

11.8

19.5

21.3

16.4

14.6

Salt Lake City - 1st RA regime

13.3

14.9

6.6

3.3

9.5

5.0

Salt Lake City - 2nd RA regime

2.5

2.9

0.4

0.4

1.3

1.3

F-test on all characteristics except site

F value

F value

F value

=

0.74 0.888

=

0.83 0.774

=

1.02

0.448

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. SUB = subsidy.

UC = usual care.

Notes: F-tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups (using the GLM procedure in the SAS statistical package, Type I sum of squares). The F-test reported in the bottom row tests the joint significance of all listed characteristics except site in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression uses all listed characteristics and site indicators as predictors.

*/**/*** Difference between assignment groups is statistically different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, using an F-test.

Source: Family Options Study baseline survey.

F-4

Appendix G: Balance of Baseline Characteristics for 78-Month

Respondent Sample

Table G-1.

Equivalence at Baseline of 78-Month Survey Sample within Three Pairwise Comparisons (SUB versus UC, CBRR versus UC, and PBTH versus UC)

Characteristic (percent)

SUB

UC

p-

value

CBRR

UC

p-

value

PBTH

UC

p-

value

Number of families

328

245

272

271

162

152

Age of family head at RA

Less than 21 years old

7.6

9.4 0.770

7.7

8.9 0.194

12.3

4.6 0.263

21–24 years

24.4

19.6

17.3

19.6

14.8

16.4

25–29 years

24.4

26.5

26.1

25.5

25.3

27.6

30–34 years

16.2

16.3

16.9

13.7

19.8

18.4

35–44 years

20.1

19.6

26.1

21.4

18.5

21.1

45 years and older

7.3

8.6

5.9

11.1

9.3

11.8

Gender

Female

94.5

93.9 0.746

94.1

95.2 0.568

92.6

93.4 0.776

Male

5.5

6.1

5.9

4.8

7.4

6.6

Marital status

Single (never marr./wid./sep./div.)

74.7

70.2 0.229

76.5

73.4 0.407

66.0

71.7 0.282

Married or marriage-like situation

25.3

29.8

23.5

26.6

34.0

28.3

Race/ethnicity

Black/African American, not Hispanic

38.1

38.4 0.551

52.6

41.0 0.038 **

38.9

41.4 0.964

White, not Hispanic

20.1

22.9

18.4

22.9

**

22.8

21.1

Hispanic

21.0

22.4

14.3

20.3

**

14.2

14.5

Other

20.7

16.3

14.7

15.9

**

24.1

23.0

Educational attainment

Less than high school diploma

33.5

39.2 0.073 *

28.7

36.2 0.066 *

29.6

44.1 0.027 **

High school diploma/GED

40.2

31.0

40.4

31.7

38.3

28.3

More than high school diploma

26.2

29.8

30.9

32.1

32.1

27.6

Number of adults in family

1 adult

74.4

70.2 0.263

72.4

71.2 0.751

66.0

70.4 0.411

2 or more adults

25.6

29.8

27.6

28.8

34.0

29.6

Spouse/partner in shelter

24.4

28.2 0.305

25.0

27.7 0.473

30.2

28.3 0.705

Spouse/partner not present in shelter

11.0

8.6 0.338

8.8

10.3 0.544

8.6

7.9 0.812

Number of children in shelter with family

1 child

47.9

42.9 0.762

41.9

43.5 0.101

40.1

40.8 0.576

2 children

31.7

33.9

30.9

35.4

31.5

27.6

3 children

12.5

14.3

12.1

12.9

15.4

18.4

4 children or more

8.2

9.0

15.4

8.1

13.0

13.2

Child under age 1 in shelter

14.3

16.3 0.507

16.9

13.7 0.284

15.4

11.8 0.359

Child ages 1 to 5 in shelter

64.0

64.5 0.908

60.7

63.5 0.494

67.3

60.5 0.216

Child under 18 living elsewhere

22.9

22.0 0.814

21.3

22.1 0.815

18.5

21.7 0.485

Pregnant at baseline

12.2

8.6 0.161

7.0

7.7 0.730

14.2

8.6 0.119

Worked for pay last week

14.6

18.4 0.228

19.5

20.7 0.728

16.0

27.0 0.019 **

Not worked in past 6 months

56.1

58.4 0.585

52.9

55.4 0.568

53.7

52.6 0.851

Not worked in past 24 months

29.6

34.7 0.190

28.7

31.7 0.431

25.9

33.6 0.142

G-1

Characteristic (percent)

SUB

UC

p-

value

CBRR

UC

p-

value

PBTH

UC

p-

value

Family annual income

Less than $5,000

33.8

36.7 0.923

31.6

35.4 0.573

30.9

35.5 0.652

$5,000–9,999

31.7

29.8

29.4

24.7

28.4

23.7

$10,000–14,999

16.2

15.5

19.5

17.0

16.7

17.1

$15,000–19,999

7.9

8.6

8.5

11.8

12.3

11.8

$20,000–24,999

6.1

4.5

4.4

4.8

7.4

4.6

$25,000 or more

4.3

4.9

6.6

6.3

4.3

7.2

Ever been homeless before

64.0

64.5 0.908

63.6

62.4 0.761

61.1

63.8 0.625

Ever been doubled up before

85.1

89.0 0.169

88.6

86.3 0.420

80.9

86.8 0.155

Childhood experiences of family head

Experienced homelessness

17.7

21.6 0.234

15.1

20.3 0.106

20.4

20.4 0.996

In foster care, group home, or institution

28.0

25.3 0.461

25.0

27.7 0.473

34.6

18.4 0.001 ***

Experienced intimate partner violence

as an adult

50.9

51.0 0.980

49.6

52.0 0.571

49.4

55.3 0.301

Health at baseline

Any health problems

61.6

68.2 0.102

62.9

71.2 0.035 **

52.5

66.4 0.012 **

Disability that limits working for pay

22.3

23.7 0.688

16.9

22.9 0.077 *

20.4

25.0 0.332

Serious psychological distress

21.3

23.3 0.581

16.9

25.8 0.010 ***

23.5

23.0 0.929

PTSD symptom criteria are met

20.4

22.4 0.556

21.3

22.1 0.815

22.8

24.3 0.756

Substance abuse problem (drug/alcohol)

20.7

21.2 0.885

18.8

18.1 0.838

19.1

17.1 0.644

Past eviction, lease violation, or

problems with a landlord

44.5

51.4 0.098 *

43.0

51.7 0.041 **

42.6

49.3 0.234

Ever convicted of a felony

12.5

11.4 0.695

9.6

10.3 0.760

10.5

11.8 0.707

Site

Alameda County

14.3

10.6

N/A *

9.9

8.1

N/A

13.0

10.5

N/A

Atlanta

0.0

0.0

15.8

11.8

13.0

10.5

Baltimore

0.0

0.0

2.9

2.6

4.3

4.6

Boston

8.2

11.8

7.0

9.6

0.0

0.0

Connecticut

10.1

7.3

14.3

9.2

4.9

3.3

Denver

13.1

10.6

1.5

10.0

9.3

10.5

Honolulu

7.0

8.6

7.4

7.0

16.0

19.7

Kansas City

8.2

7.8

4.4

4.8

14.2

8.6

Louisvil e - 1st RA regime

1.2

4.1

0.7

3.0

2.5

3.3

Louisvil e - 2nd RA regime

1.8

6.5

2.6

4.8

5.6

5.9

Minneapolis

11.6

11.4

9.9

8.9

0.0

0.0

Phoenix

11.3

9.8

8.8

8.1

12.3

13.8

Salt Lake City - 1st RA regime

10.7

8.6

11.4

8.5

4.3

6.6

Salt Lake City - 2nd RA regime

2.4

2.9

3.3

3.7

0.6

2.6

F-test on all characteristics except site

F value

F value

F value

= 0.87 0.707

= 1.34 0.082 *

= 1.56 0.021 **

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RA = random assignment. SUB =

subsidy. UC = usual care.

Notes: F-tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups (using the GLM procedure in the SAS statistical package, Type I sum of squares). The F-test reported in the bottom row tests the joint significance of al listed characteristics except site in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression uses al listed characteristics and site indicators as predictors.

*/**/*** Difference between assignment groups is statistical y dif erent from zero at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, using an F-test.

Source: Family Options Study baseline survey.

G-2

Table G-2.

Equivalence at Baseline of 78-Month Survey Sample within Three Pairwise Comparisons (SUB versus CBRR, SUB versus PBTH, and CBRR versus PBTH) Characteristic (percent)

SUB CBRR

p-

value

SUB PBTH

p-

value

CBRR PBTH

p-

value

Number of families

231

174

143

110

116

104

Age of family head at RA

Less than 21 years old

6.5

9.2 0.344

6.3

12.7 0.317

4.3

12.5 0.255

21–24 years

23.8

16.7

25.2

17.3

14.7

12.5

25–29 years

24.2

25.9

25.9

26.4

29.3

24.0

30–34 years

16.5

17.8

15.4

20.0

18.1

21.2

35–44 years

20.3

24.7

18.2

14.5

26.7

21.2

45 years and older

8.7

5.7

9.1

9.1

6.9

8.7

Gender

Female

94.8

93.7 0.626

93.7

91.8 0.562

93.1

93.3 0.961

Male

5.2

6.3

6.3

8.2

6.9

6.7

Marital status

Single (never marr./wid./sep./div.)

74.5

77.6 0.465

69.9

68.2 0.765

67.2

68.3 0.870

Married or marriage-like situation

25.5

22.4

30.1

31.8

32.8

31.7

Race/ethnicity

Black/African American, not Hispanic

39.4

46.6 0.229

38.5

34.5 0.154

51.7

41.3 0.329

White, not Hispanic

22.1

24.7

16.1

27.3

12.9

20.2

Hispanic

19.9

14.9

22.4

16.4

12.1

11.5

Other

18.6

13.8

23.1

21.8

23.3

26.9

Educational attainment

Less than high school diploma

32.9

30.5 0.871

32.2

26.4 0.563

27.6

32.7 0.526

High school diploma/GED

42.0

43.7

41.3

42.7

39.7

32.7

More than high school diploma

25.1

25.9

26.6

30.9

32.8

34.6

Number of adults in family

1 adult

73.6

75.3 0.698

67.8

68.2 0.953

62.9

69.2 0.322

2 or more adults

26.4

24.7

32.2

31.8

37.1

30.8

Spouse/partner in shelter

25.5

23.0 0.552

30.1

27.3 0.626

34.5

29.8 0.456

Spouse/partner not present in shelter

11.3

9.2 0.499

13.3

10.0 0.422

10.3

6.7 0.337

Number of children in shelter with family

1 child

48.9

45.4 0.287

46.9

40.9 0.318

43.1

42.3 0.838

2 children

30.3

31.0

35.0

31.8

25.9

29.8

3 children

11.7

9.8

14.0

17.3

14.7

12.5

4 children or more

9.1

14.4

4.9

10.0

16.4

15.4

Child under age 1 in shelter

14.3

19.0 0.205

13.3

16.4 0.491

18.1

13.5 0.344

Child ages 1 to 5 in shelter

62.3

62.6 0.950

65.7

71.8 0.300

58.6

65.4 0.299

Child under 18 living elsewhere

23.4

20.7 0.518

26.6

13.6 0.012 **

25.0

18.3 0.225

Pregnant at baseline

10.8

7.5 0.250

14.0

16.4 0.599

6.0

14.4 0.036 **

Worked for pay last week

13.9

16.1 0.528

17.5

10.0 0.089 *

23.3

20.2 0.578

Not worked in past 6 months

57.1

57.5 0.947

52.4

57.3 0.443

50.9

51.9 0.874

Not worked in past 24 months

30.7

31.6 0.850

28.0

30.0 0.723

28.4

26.9 0.799

Family annual income

Less than $5,000

35.5

33.9 0.567

32.2

31.8 0.984

31.0

28.8 0.716

$5,000–9,999

30.3

31.6

32.2

29.1

25.0

29.8

$10,000–14,999

16.9

19.5

17.5

17.3

19.8

15.4

G-3

Characteristic (percent)

SUB CBRR

p-

value

SUB PBTH

p-

value

CBRR PBTH

p-

value

$15,000–19,999

6.1

6.9

7.0

9.1

11.2

15.4

$20,000–24,999

6.1

2.3

7.7

9.1

6.0

6.7

$25,000 or more

5.2

5.7

3.5

3.6

6.9

3.8

Ever been homeless before

64.5

65.5 0.831

65.7

60.0 0.347

66.4

61.5 0.452

Ever been doubled up before

85.3

90.8 0.093 *

83.9

81.8 0.659

89.7

79.8 0.038 **

Childhood experiences of family head

Experienced homelessness

18.6

16.7 0.610

16.8

18.2 0.771

11.2

22.1 0.027 **

In foster care, group home, or

institution

28.6

24.1 0.315

25.9

36.4 0.072 *

23.3

33.7 0.085 *

Experienced intimate partner violence

as an adult

48.9

51.1 0.655

51.0

53.6 0.683

41.4

46.2 0.473

Health at baseline

Any health problems

61.5

61.5 0.996

60.8

52.7 0.194

57.8

51.0 0.307

Disability that limits working for pay

24.2

18.4 0.156

18.9

22.7 0.452

18.1

19.2 0.829

Serious psychological distress

22.1

16.7 0.173

21.0

25.5 0.401

18.1

23.1 0.357

PTSD symptom criteria are met

19.0

20.1 0.788

15.4

24.5 0.066 *

20.7

19.2 0.786

Substance abuse problem (drug/alcohol)

23.4

20.1 0.430

20.3

20.0 0.956

19.8

17.3 0.630

Past eviction, lease violation, or

problems with a landlord

45.0

41.4 0.462

45.5

46.4 0.885

43.1

39.4 0.577

Ever convicted of a felony

13.0

10.3 0.413

15.4

11.8 0.415

12.1

10.6 0.726

Site

Alameda County

11.7

15.5

N/A

19.6

18.2

N/A

11.2

8.7

N/A

Atlanta

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

24.1

20.2

Baltimore

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.6

5.8

Boston

10.0

10.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Connecticut

13.4

12.1

2.8

5.5

6.0

6.7

Denver

11.7

1.7

14.7

11.8

0.9

7.7

Honolulu

4.8

6.3

16.1

14.5

17.2

15.4

Kansas City

5.6

6.9

16.8

20.9

6.9

10.6

Louisvil e - 1st RA regime

1.7

1.1

0.7

2.7

0.0

1.9

Louisvil e - 2nd RA regime

2.2

3.4

2.1

7.3

4.3

7.7

Minneapolis

13.0

14.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Phoenix

9.1

10.3

19.6

17.3

13.8

8.7

Salt Lake City - 1st RA regime

13.4

12.6

7.0

1.8

12.1

5.8

Salt Lake City - 2nd RA regime

3.5

4.6

0.7

0.0

0.9

1.0

F-test on all characteristics except site

F value

F value

F value

=

0.83 0.773

=

1.14 0.274

=

0.89 0.668

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RA = random assignment. SUB =

subsidy. UC = usual care.

Notes: F-tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups (using the GLM procedure in the SAS statistical package, Type I sum of squares). The F-test reported in the bottom row tests the joint significance of al listed characteristics except site in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression uses al listed characteristics and site indicators as predictors.

*/**/*** Difference between assignment groups is statistical y dif erent from zero at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, using an F-test.

Source: Family Options Study baseline survey.

G-4

Appendix H: Balance of Baseline Characteristics for Consent-to-Use-PII Sample

Table H-1.

Equivalence at Baseline of Consent-to-Use-PII Sample within Three Pairwise Comparisons (SUB versus UC, CBRR versus UC, and PBTH versus UC)

Characteristic (percent)

SUB

UC

p-

value

CBRR

UC

p-

value

PBTH

UC

p-

value

Number of families

478

390

434

422

286

258

Age of family head at RA

Less than 21 years old

8.2

9.2 0.924

9.9

8.5 0.201

9.8

5.4 0.241

21–24 years

22.4

20.8

18.2

20.4

14.0

16.7

25–29 years

22.8

24.1

23.7

22.5

25.9

20.9

30–34 years

18.2

16.2

18.7

15.2

20.6

21.7

35–44 years

20.5

21.0

23.0

22.7

20.6

24.8

45 years and older

7.9

8.7

6.5

10.7

9.1

10.5

Gender

Female

93.5

92.6 0.583

92.4

93.4 0.578

90.2

93.0 0.241

Male

6.5

7.4

7.6

6.6

9.8

7.0

Marital status

Single (never marr./wid./sep./div.)

74.1

69.5 0.136

75.3

73.9 0.631

69.6

68.6 0.807

Married or marriage-like situation

25.9

30.5

24.7

26.1

30.4

31.4

Race/ethnicity

Black/African American, not Hispanic

36.0

37.4 0.948

48.6

42.2 0.299

41.6

41.1 0.965

White, not Hispanic

21.8

22.3

18.4

20.9

19.6

18.2

Hispanic

23.8

22.8

18.0

20.4

14.0

14.3

Other

18.4

17.4

15.0

16.6

24.8

26.4

Educational attainment

Less than high school diploma

34.9

41.8 0.057 *

31.1

38.9 0.023 **

36.4

42.2 0.372

High school diploma/GED

39.7

32.6

39.9

32.0

36.0

32.2

More than high school diploma

25.3

25.6

29.0

29.1

27.6

25.6

Number of adults in family

1 adult

73.2

68.5 0.124

71.7

71.6 0.975

68.5

67.1 0.714

2 or more adults

26.8

31.5

28.3

28.4

31.5

32.9

Spouse/partner in shelter

24.9

29.7 0.110

25.8

26.8 0.745

28.0

30.2 0.564

Spouse/partner not present in shelter

9.8

9.2 0.764

9.7

11.4 0.414

9.8

10.9 0.685

Number of children in shelter with family

1 child

44.8

42.6 0.955

41.7

43.6 0.314

40.9

42.2 0.640

2 children

32.4

32.3

30.9

31.8

29.0

27.5

3 children

14.2

15.6

13.8

15.4

17.8

19.0

4 children or more

8.8

9.5

13.8

9.2

12.2

11.2

Child under age 1 in shelter

14.6

15.9 0.609

16.6

14.5 0.384

18.2

15.5 0.407

Child ages 1 to 5 in shelter

64.4

65.6 0.711

63.8

62.8 0.752

66.8

60.5 0.127

Child under 18 living elsewhere

24.7

21.8 0.317

22.4

22.0 0.912

23.8

23.3 0.887

Pregnant at baseline

11.5

8.2 0.107

6.9

8.5 0.370

12.2

9.7 0.346

Worked for pay last week

13.4

16.9 0.146

18.7

20.6 0.468

17.5

23.3 0.095 *

Not worked in past 6 months

58.4

59.5 0.739

53.7

54.5 0.809

55.9

57.0 0.809

Not worked in past 24 months

30.3

34.6 0.179

27.9

31.0 0.305

28.0

32.2 0.288

H-1

Characteristic (percent)

SUB

UC

p-

value

CBRR

UC

p-

value

PBTH

UC

p-

value

Family annual income

Less than $5,000

32.0

35.6 0.844

30.0

33.6 0.121

29.0

31.4 0.925

$5,000–9,999

33.5

29.7

31.8

24.9

27.6

26.4

$10,000–14,999

16.5

16.4

19.8

17.8

19.2

17.1

$15,000–19,999

7.9

8.7

8.5

10.7

12.6

12.4

$20,000–24,999

4.8

4.4

3.7

5.9

6.6

6.2

$25,000 or more

5.2

5.1

6.2

7.1

4.9

6.6

Ever been homeless before

63.2

65.4 0.500

63.4

64.2 0.793

62.9

65.9 0.474

Ever been doubled up before

84.9

86.2 0.613

87.8

85.8 0.381

82.5

84.1 0.621

Childhood experiences of family head

Experienced homelessness

14.6

16.9 0.358

15.2

16.8 0.515

15.7

13.6 0.478

In foster care, group home, or institution

28.9

23.6 0.079 *

25.1

25.4 0.935

31.8

21.3 0.006 ***

Experienced intimate partner violence

as an adult

50.0

49.0 0.764

47.9

51.4 0.302

48.6

51.2 0.552

Health at baseline

Any health problems

60.5

62.1 0.632

59.7

66.4 0.041 **

49.3

58.9 0.025 **

Disability that limits working for pay

23.2

22.8 0.889

18.9

22.3 0.216

21.3

20.9 0.910

Serious psychological distress

22.4

23.1 0.809

16.4

25.4 0.001 ***

21.7

24.4 0.450

PTSD symptom criteria are met

21.1

22.8 0.549

20.7

24.9 0.144

23.4

25.6 0.561

Substance abuse problem (drug/alcohol)

18.8

22.8 0.148

20.3

19.2 0.688

25.9

22.5 0.359

Past eviction, lease violation, or

problems with a landlord

45.6

45.4 0.948

41.9

48.1 0.067 *

44.1

46.1 0.630

Ever convicted of a felony

11.7

10.5 0.576

10.1

10.7 0.799

10.8

13.6 0.333

Site

Alameda County

14.4

12.3

N/A

9.0

8.3

N/A

14.0

12.0

N/A

Atlanta

0.0

0.0

12.7

12.8

10.8

12.0

Baltimore

0.0

0.0

4.4

3.8

3.8

5.0

Boston

10.3

12.3

10.1

10.4

0.0

0.0

Connecticut

7.9

6.9

12.2

10.2

4.5

3.1

Denver

12.8

9.2

1.6

8.5

7.0

8.1

Honolulu

7.3

10.0

8.8

7.8

18.5

21.7

Kansas City

8.8

8.7

5.1

4.7

12.2

9.7

Louisvil e - 1st RA regime

2.1

3.1

0.7

2.4

2.1

1.9

Louisvil e - 2nd RA regime

2.1

4.4

2.3

3.6

4.5

4.3

Minneapolis

10.5

12.1

9.9

9.7

1.0

0.0

Phoenix

11.1

10.8

10.6

7.3

16.8

14.7

Salt Lake City - 1st RA regime

10.9

7.7

10.4

7.3

4.2

5.8

Salt Lake City - 2nd RA regime

1.9

2.6

2.3

3.1

0.3

1.6

F-test on all characteristics except site

F value

F value

F value

= 0.76 0.868

= 1.44 0.037 **

= 0.92 0.620

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RA = random assignment. SUB =

subsidy. UC = usual care.

Notes: F-tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups (using the GLM procedure in the SAS statistical package, Type I sum of squares). The F-test reported in the bottom row tests the joint significance of all listed characteristics except site in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression uses all listed characteristics and site indicators as predictors.

*/**/*** Difference between assignment groups is statistically different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, using an F-test.

Source: Family Options Study baseline survey.

H-2

Table H-2.

Equivalence at Baseline of Consent-to-Use-PII Sample within Three Pairwise Comparisons (SUB versus CBRR, SUB versus PBTH, and CBRR versus PBTH) Characteristic (percent)

SUB CBRR

p-

value

SUB PBTH

p-

value

CBRR PBTH

p-

value

Number of families

343

288

203

195

182

181

Age of family head at RA

Less than 21 years old

8.5

12.2 0.459

6.9

9.7 0.281

6.6

9.4 0.608

21–24 years

20.4

18.1

24.6

15.9

15.9

12.2

25–29 years

23.3

22.2

21.2

26.2

28.0

25.4

30–34 years

19.0

19.4

18.2

21.0

20.9

22.7

35–44 years

19.8

21.9

19.2

18.5

22.5

21.0

45 years and older

9.0

6.3

9.9

8.7

6.0

9.4

Gender

Female

93.6

92.0 0.439

92.1

89.2 0.323

90.7

91.2 0.868

Male

6.4

8.0

7.9

10.8

9.3

8.8

Marital status

Single (never marr./wid./sep./div.)

74.9

75.7 0.822

69.5

69.7 0.951

64.8

73.5 0.074 *

Married or marriage-like situation

25.1

24.3

30.5

30.3

35.2

26.5

Race/ethnicity

Black/African American, not Hispanic

38.5

43.1 0.565

35.0

37.4 0.277

46.2

43.6 0.959

White, not Hispanic

23.0

23.6

20.2

24.6

16.5

17.7

Hispanic

23.0

20.1

22.2

14.9

11.5

12.7

Other

15.5

13.2

22.7

23.1

25.8

26.0

Educational attainment

Less than high school diploma

35.6

34.0 0.919

31.0

31.3 0.863

29.1

39.2 0.080 *

High school diploma/GED

39.9

41.0

42.4

40.0

38.5

29.3

More than high school diploma

24.5

25.0

26.6

28.7

32.4

31.5

Number of adults in family

1 adult

73.2

71.9 0.711

67.5

69.7 0.629

62.1

72.4 0.036 **

2 or more adults

26.8

28.1

32.5

30.3

37.9

27.6

Spouse/partner in shelter

25.1

26.0 0.778

30.0

27.2 0.528

35.7

25.4 0.033 **

Spouse/partner not present in shelter

10.5

9.0 0.532

10.8

10.8 0.983

10.4

8.3 0.481

Number of children in shelter with family

1 child

45.5

43.4 0.291

43.3

40.5 0.360

41.2

42.5 0.785

2 children

32.7

31.9

34.5

30.8

29.1

26.0

3 children

12.8

11.5

16.3

18.5

14.3

16.6

4 children or more

9.0

13.5

6.4

10.3

15.4

14.9

Child under age 1 in shelter

15.2

18.4 0.270

15.8

16.4 0.861

17.0

16.6 0.907

Child ages 1 to 5 in shelter

63.0

65.3 0.543

66.5

70.3 0.422

65.9

65.2 0.882

Child under 18 living elsewhere

25.4

20.1 0.116

28.1

21.5 0.132

28.0

22.7 0.239

Pregnant at baseline

10.8

8.0 0.226

13.3

13.3 0.992

6.6

11.6 0.096 *

Worked for pay last week

13.1

16.0 0.304

16.3

12.8 0.333

23.6

21.5 0.635

Not worked in past 6 months

58.3

54.9 0.378

56.7

56.9 0.956

50.5

54.1 0.492

Not worked in past 24 months

30.3

29.2 0.749

28.6

28.2 0.936

29.7

28.2 0.753

Family annual income

Less than $5,000

33.8

31.3 0.481

29.6

30.3 0.596

26.9

27.6 0.854

$5,000–9,999

32.4

33.3

33.5

28.7

29.7

29.3

$10,000–14,999

16.9

19.4

17.7

19.0

21.4

18.2

H-3

Characteristic (percent)

SUB CBRR

p-

value

SUB PBTH

p-

value

CBRR PBTH

p-

value

$15,000–19,999

6.4

8.3

7.4

11.8

10.4

13.3

$20,000–24,999

5.0

2.4

6.9

7.2

4.4

6.1

$25,000 or more

5.5

5.2

4.9

3.1

7.1

5.5

Ever been homeless before

63.8

64.2 0.918

65.5

62.1 0.473

64.3

62.4 0.713

Ever been doubled up before

84.5

88.2 0.180

84.7

81.5 0.396

90.1

83.4 0.059 *

Childhood experiences of family head

Experienced homelessness

14.6

17.0 0.396

14.3

14.4 0.983

11.0

16.0 0.159

In foster care, group home, or institution

29.4

26.0 0.336

27.6

33.8 0.177

23.6

31.5 0.093 *

Experienced intimate partner violence

as an adult

48.1

48.3 0.968

50.2

49.7 0.920

41.2

48.1 0.188

Health at baseline

Any health problems

59.2

60.1 0.819

59.6

51.3 0.095 *

52.7

45.9 0.187

Disability that limits working for pay

23.9

19.8 0.208

20.2

23.6 0.414

19.2

21.0 0.675

Serious psychological distress

22.7

16.3 0.041 **

21.2

22.6 0.740

14.8

22.1 0.073 *

PTSD symptom criteria are met

19.2

20.1 0.775

18.7

24.1 0.191

17.6

22.1 0.279

Substance abuse problem (drug/alcohol)

21.3

21.2 0.975

18.7

27.7 0.034 **

20.9

25.4 0.304

Past eviction, lease violation, or

problems with a landlord

46.6

41.3 0.174

44.8

46.2 0.791

44.0

41.4 0.627

Ever convicted of a felony

11.7

11.1 0.826

14.3

11.8 0.463

11.0

11.0 0.985

Site

Alameda County

12.0

12.8

N/A ***

19.7

20.0

N/A

11.0

11.0

N/A

Atlanta

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

18.7

17.1

Baltimore

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

6.6

5.5

Boston

12.2

15.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Connecticut

10.5

10.1

1.5

2.6

4.9

6.6

Denver

11.1

1.4

14.3

8.7

0.5

5.5

Honolulu

4.7

6.9

17.2

16.4

20.9

18.2

Kansas City

6.4

7.6

17.7

17.9

7.7

7.7

Louisvil e - 1st RA regime

2.6

1.0

1.5

2.6

0.5

1.7

Louisvil e - 2nd RA regime

2.6

3.1

3.0

6.2

2.7

6.1

Minneapolis

12.2

14.2

0.5

1.0

0.5

1.7

Phoenix

9.6

11.8

18.2

21.5

15.9

13.3

Salt Lake City - 1st RA regime

13.4

12.5

5.9

3.1

9.3

5.0

Salt Lake City - 2nd RA regime

2.6

3.1

0.5

0.0

0.5

0.6

F-test on all characteristics except site

F value

F value

F value

=

0.80 0.808

=

0.83 0.770

=

1.05 0.388

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RA = random assignment. SUB =

subsidy. UC = usual care.

Notes: F-tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups (using the GLM procedure in the SAS statistical package, Type I sum of squares). The F-test reported in the bottom row tests the joint significance of all listed characteristics except site in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression uses all listed characteristics and site indicators as predictors.

*/**/*** Difference between assignment groups is statistically different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, using an F-test.

Source: Family Options Study baseline survey.

H-4

Appendix I: NDNH Impacts on Earnings and Employment by

Calendar Quarter

Exhibit I-1.

SUB vs. UC: Impact on Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment, with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

12.0%

10.0%

8.0%

6.0%

pp)d ( 4.0%

oyepl 2.0%

Em 0.0% 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

ercent -2.0%

n P -4.0%

ct opa -6.0%

Im

-8.0%

-10.0%

-12.0%

Quarter after RA

RA = random assignment. SUB = subsidy. UC = usual care.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

I-1

Exhibit I-2.

SUB vs. UC: Impact on Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment, with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

1000

800

600

4$) 400

(2018Q 200

arnings

0

n E

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

o -200

pactIm -400

-600

-800

Quarter after RA

RA = random assignment. SUB = subsidy. UC = usual care.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

I-2

Exhibit I-3.

CBRR vs. UC: Impact on Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment, with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

12.0%

10.0%

8.0%

6.0%

pp)d ( 4.0%

oyepl 2.0%

Em 0.0% 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

ercent -2.0%

n P -4.0%

ct opa -6.0%

Im

-8.0%

-10.0%

-12.0%

Quarter after RA

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. RA = random assignment. UC = usual care.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

I-3

Exhibit I-4.

CBRR vs. UC: Impact on Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment, with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

800

600

400

4$)

200

(2018Q

0

arnings

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

n E o -200

pactIm -400

-600

-800

Quarter after RA

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. RA = random assignment. UC = usual care.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

I-4

Exhibit I-5.

PBTH vs. UC: Impact on Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment, with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

16.0%

14.0%

12.0%

10.0%

8.0%

pp)d ( 6.0%

oye 4.0%

pl 2.0%

Em 0.0%

ercent -2.0%

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

n P -4.0%

ct o -6.0%

pa -8.0%

Im -10.0%

-12.0%

-14.0%

-16.0%

Quarter after RA

PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RA = random assignment. UC = usual care.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

I-5

Exhibit I-6.

PBTH vs. UC: Impact on Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment, with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

1200

1000

800

4$) 600

400

(2018Q

200

arningsn E 0

o

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

pact -200

Im

-400

-600

-800

Quarter after RA

PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RA = random assignment. UC = usual care.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

I-6

Exhibit I-7.

SUB vs. CBRR: Impact on Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment, with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

16.0%

14.0%

12.0%

10.0%

8.0%

pp)d ( 6.0%

oye 4.0%

pl 2.0%

Em 0.0%

ercent -2.0%

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

n P -4.0%

ct o -6.0%

pa -8.0%

Im -10.0%

-12.0%

-14.0%

-16.0%

Quarter after RA

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. RA = random assignment. SUB = subsidy.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

I-7

Exhibit I-8.

SUB vs. CBRR: Impact on Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random

Assignment, with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

1000

800

600

400

4$)

200

(2018Q

0

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

arnings -200

n E o -400

pact -600

Im

-800

-1000

-1200

Quarter after RA

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. RA = random assignment. SUB = subsidy.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

I-8

Exhibit I-9.

SUB vs. PBTH: Impact on Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment, with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

16.0%

14.0%

12.0%

10.0%

8.0%

pp)d ( 6.0%

oye 4.0%

pl 2.0%

Em 0.0%

ercent -2.0%

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

n P -4.0%

ct o -6.0%

pa -8.0%

Im -10.0%

-12.0%

-14.0%

-16.0%

Quarter after RA

PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RA = random assignment. SUB = subsidy.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

I-9

Exhibit I-10.

SUB vs. PBTH: Impact on Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment, with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

1500

1000

4$) 500

(2018Q

0

arnings

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

n E o -500

pactIm

-1000

-1500

Quarter after RA

PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RA = random assignment. SUB = subsidy.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

I-10

Exhibit I-11.

CBRR vs. PBTH: Impact on Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment, with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

16.0%

14.0%

12.0%

10.0%

8.0%

pp)d ( 6.0%

oye 4.0%

pl 2.0%

Em 0.0%

ercent -2.0%

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

n P -4.0%

ct o -6.0%

pa -8.0%

Im -10.0%

-12.0%

-14.0%

-16.0%

Quarter after RA

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RA = random assignment.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

I-11

Exhibit I-12.

CBRR vs. PBTH: Impact on Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment, with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

1500

1000

4$)

500

(2018Q

arningsn E 0

o

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

pactIm

-500

-1000

Quarter after RA

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. RA = random assignment.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires.

I-12

Appendix J: Statistics Related to Balance of Baseline Characteristics Exhibit J-1.

Summary of Statistics Related to Baseline Balance Characteristics and Attrition Ful Sample

78-Month Survey Sample

Consent-to-Use-PII Sample

SUB

CBRR

PBTH

SUB

CBRR

PBTH

SUB

CBRR

PBTH

Statistic

versus

versus

versus

versus

versus

versus

versus

versus

versus

UC

UC

UC

UC

UC

UC

UC

UC

UC

Omnibus F-statistic p-value

0.840

0.044

0.584

0.707

0.082

0.021

0.868

0.037

0.620

Largest positive dif erence (pp)

5.2

6.5

9.7

9.2

11.6

16.1

7.2

7.9

10.5

Largest negative dif erence (pp)

-6.1

-6.6

-6.7

-6.9

-8.9

-14.4

-6.9

-9.0

-9.6

Average absolute dif erence (pp)

1.5

1.9

1.9

2.2

2.8

3.4

1.8

2.1

2.2

Median absolute dif erence (pp)

1.2

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.6

2.9

1.3

1.8

2.1

Pct of chars <2% difference

62%

58%

56%

48%

40%

36%

62%

54%

46%

Avg. abs. diff from ful sample diff (pp)

1.6

2.1

3.1

0.9

1.2

0.9

Med. abs. diff from ful sample diff (pp)

1.4

1.8

2.5

0.8

1.2

0.6

WWC standard

Not meet

Low meet

Low meet

Low meet

High meet

High meet

Overall response rate (%)

50.3

47.5

44.4

76.2

74.8

76.9

Differential attrition (%)

-9.4

-0.7

0.8

-7.6

-2.9

-1.6

Statistic

SUB

SUB

CBRR

SUB

SUB

CBRR

SUB

SUB

CBRR

versus

versus

versus

versus

versus

versus

versus

versus

versus

CBRR

PBTH

PBTH

CBRR

PBTH

PBTH

CBRR

PBTH

PBTH

Omnibus F-statistic p-value

0.888

0.774

0.448

0.773

0.274

0.668

0.808

0.770

0.388

Largest positive dif erence (pp)

5.2

7.0

8.7

7.1

12.9

10.4

6.4

8.7

10.3

Largest negative dif erence (pp)

-3.9

-6.8

-7.9

-7.2

-11.2

-10.9

-4.6

-9.0

-10.3

Average absolute dif erence (pp)

1.6

2.2

2.4

2.3

3.2

3.5

1.8

2.4

3.1

Median absolute dif erence (pp)

1.9

2.1

2.5

2.5

3.1

3.8

1.7

2.5

2.6

Pct of chars <2% difference

52%

46%

46%

42%

34%

30%

52%

38%

40%

Avg. abs. diff from full sample dif (pp)

2.2

2.9

3.1

1.0

1.3

1.5

Med. abs. diff from ful sample diff (pp)

1.8

2.5

2.9

0.9

1.1

1.2

WWC standard

Not meet

Not meet

Not meet

High meet

High meet

High meet

Overall response rate (%)

49.6

51.0

46.7

77.2

80.2

77.1

Differential attrition (%)

-7.6

-10.0

-6.5

-3.5

2.0

-2.7

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. SUB = subsidy. UC = usual care. WWC = What Works Clearinghouse.

J-1

8. References

Deke, J., E. Sama-Miller, and A. Hershey. 2015. “Addressing Attrition Bias in Randomized Control Trials: Considerations for Systematic Evidence Reviews.” OPRE Report 2015-72. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families. https://homvee.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2019-

06/HomVEE-Attrition-White_Paper-7-2015.pdf

Groves, R. M. 2006. “Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys,” Public Opinion Quarterly 70 (5): 646–675.

Groves, R. M., and E. Peytcheva. 2008. “The Impact of Nonresponse Rates on Nonresponse Bias: A Meta-Analysis,” Public Opinion Quarterly 72 (2): 167–189.

Gubits, Daniel, Marybeth Shinn, Michelle Wood, Stephen Bell, Samuel Dastrup, Clauide D. Solari, Debi McInnis, Tom McCall, and Ustav Kattel. 2016. Family Options Study: Three Year Impacts of Housing and Services Intervenions for Homeless Families. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Gubits, Daniel, Brooke Spellman, Lauren Dunton, Scott Brown, and Michelle Wood. 2013. Interim Report: Family Options Study. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education. 2017. What Works Clearinghouse 4.0 Standards Handbook.

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/wwc_standards_handbook_v4.pdf.

146

Abt Associates

Family Options Study: Wave 1 Analysis Memo ▌pg. J-2

Document Outline

- Family Options Study Long-term Tracking Project

- Foreword

- Contents

- Executive Summary

- 1. Overview

- 2. How Successful Was the Family Options Study Long-Term Tracking Effort?

- 2.1 Re-Engagement Letter and Contact Update Results

- 2.2 Tracking Survey Response Rates

- 2.3 Case Status by Site

- 3. What is the Research Value of 78-Month Survey Data?

- 3.1 What Data Was Collected in the 78-Month Tracking Survey?

- 3.2 Are the Pairwise Comparison Samples Among 78-Month Respondents Balanced Enough for Impact Analysis?

- 3.3 Conclusion

- 4. What Is the Research Value of Consent-to-Use-PII Sample?

- 4.1 What is the Status of the Consent-to-Use-PII Sample?

- 4.2 Potential Matching Data Sources

- 4.3 Are the Pairwise Comparison Samples Among 78-Month Respondents Balanced Enough for Impact Analysis?

- 4.4 Conclusion

- 5. What is the Expected Analytic Value of Another Followup Survey Collection?

- 5.1 What Information Would be Collected in a Future Followup Survey?

- 5.2 Assessment of Feasibility of Another Followup Survey

- 5.3 Receipt of Housing Assistance

- 5.4 Conclusion

- 6. Descriptive Analysis of the 78-Month Survey Sample

- 6.1 Who Responded to the 78-Month Survey?

- 6.2 How Are the 78-Month Respondents Doing Overall?

- 6.2.1 What Is the Housing Status of Families Who Responded to the 78-Month Survey?

- 6.2.2 What is the Employment Status of Families that Responded to the 78-Month Survey?

- 6.2.3 How Much Internet Access Do 78-Month Survey Respondents Have?

- 6.3 How Have 78-Month Respondent Outcomes Changed Over Time?

- 7. Longer-Term Analysis of Employment and Earnings Impacts

- Appendix A: Summary of the Passive and Active Tracking Approach

- A.1 Updating the Sample Management Database

- A.2 Passive Tracking Efforts

- A.3 Active Tracking Efforts

- A.3.1.1 Incentives

- Appendix B: 78-Month Tracking Survey Instrument

- Section A: Current Housing, Homelessness Since Previous Interview, Housing Program Participation

- Section B: Family Composition

- Section C: Employment Status and Internet Usage:

- Section D: Contact Information

- Appendix C: Additional Results of Long-Term Tracking

- Appendix D: Outcomes Measured in 78-Month Survey Data

- Appendix E: Frequencies from the 78-Month Tracking Survey

- Appendix F: Balance of Baseline Characteristics for Full Sample

- Appendix G: Balance of Baseline Characteristics for 78-Month Respondent Sample

- Appendix H: Balance of Baseline Characteristics for Consent-to-Use-PII Sample

- Appendix I: NDNH Impacts on Earnings and Employment by Calendar Quarter

- Appendix J: Statistics Related to Balance of Baseline Characteristics

- 8. References

Table of Contents

Family Options Study Long-term Tracking Project

Foreword

Contents

Executive Summary

1. Overview

2. How Successful Was the Family Options Study Long-Term Tracking Effort?

2.1 Re-Engagement Letter and Contact Update Results

2.2 Tracking Survey Response Rates

2.3 Case Status by Site

3. What is the Research Value of 78-Month Survey Data?

3.1 What Data Was Collected in the 78-Month Tracking Survey?

3.2 Are the Pairwise Comparison Samples Among 78-Month Respondents Balanced Enough for Impact Analysis?

3.3 Conclusion

4. What Is the Research Value of Consent-to-Use-PII Sample?

4.1 What is the Status of the Consent-to-Use-PII Sample?

4.2 Potential Matching Data Sources

4.3 Are the Pairwise Comparison Samples Among 78-Month Respondents Balanced Enough for Impact Analysis?

4.4 Conclusion

5. What is the Expected Analytic Value of Another Followup Survey Collection?

5.1 What Information Would be Collected in a Future Followup Survey?

5.2 Assessment of Feasibility of Another Followup Survey

5.3 Receipt of Housing Assistance

5.4 Conclusion

6. Descriptive Analysis of the 78-Month Survey Sample

6.1 Who Responded to the 78-Month Survey?

6.2 How Are the 78-Month Respondents Doing Overall?

6.2.1 What Is the Housing Status of Families Who Responded to the 78-Month Survey?

6.2.2 What is the Employment Status of Families that Responded to the 78-Month Survey?

6.2.3 How Much Internet Access Do 78-Month Survey Respondents Have?

6.3 How Have 78-Month Respondent Outcomes Changed Over Time?

7. Longer-Term Analysis of Employment and Earnings Impacts

Appendix A: Summary of the Passive and Active Tracking Approach

A.1 Updating the Sample Management Database

A.2 Passive Tracking Efforts

A.3 Active Tracking Efforts

A.3.1.1 Incentives

Appendix B: 78-Month Tracking Survey Instrument

Section A: Current Housing, Homelessness Since Previous Interview, Housing Program Participation

Section B: Family Composition

Section C: Employment Status and Internet Usage:

Section D: Contact Information

Appendix C: Additional Results of Long-Term Tracking

Appendix D: Outcomes Measured in 78-Month Survey Data

Appendix E: Frequencies from the 78-Month Tracking Survey

Appendix F: Balance of Baseline Characteristics for Full Sample

Appendix G: Balance of Baseline Characteristics for 78-Month Respondent Sample

Appendix H: Balance of Baseline Characteristics for Consent-to-Use-PII Sample

Appendix I: NDNH Impacts on Earnings and Employment by Calendar Quarter

Appendix J: Statistics Related to Balance of Baseline Characteristics

8. References