U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Office of Policy Development and Research 
Visit PD&R’s website 

www.huduser.org 

to find this report and others sponsored by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). Other services of 

HUD USER, PD&R’s research information service, include listservs, special interest reports, bimonthly publications (best 

practices, significant studies from other sources), access to public use databases, and a hotline (800-245-2691) for help 

accessing the information you need. 

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. 
Preface Preface i i

Preface

Given the significant investment HUD has made in transitional housing programs since 

enactment of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, it is important to evaluate the 

effectiveness of these programs. Transitional Housing has been an important element of the 

Department’s efforts to respond to the housing needs of homeless families and individuals 

through a continuum of care. This study examines whether transitional housing makes a 

difference in the lives of the families it serves and whether it is more effective for some homeless 

people than others. This study follows 179 families in 36 transitional housing (TH) programs 

within five communities for one year after leaving the program. 

FACTORS AFFECTING FAMILY OUTCOMES 

This study is one of the first to provide information about TH program impact, including details 

on different aspects of TH programs and their effect, if any, on family outcomes (housing 

stability, income and employment, and children’s school engagement and emotional health). The 

study cannot definitively answer whether or not TH programs make a difference in the lives of 

the families they serve, because it does not include a control group, nor does it have a sample 

large enough to support detailed analyses of subgroups. Nevertheless, TH programs, and certain 

characteristics of the programs, were found to be associated with positive outcomes. 

PROGRAM SIZE

Participants in smaller programs were more likely to have their own place at moveout and more 

likely to live with the same household members at the beginning and end of the follow-up year.

Participants in larger programs, in contrast, experienced higher levels of educational attainment 

at moveout. No other outcome was associated with program size. 

PROGRAM RESTRICTIVENESS 

The degree to which programs imposed rules and restrictions on clients did not affect family 

outcomes. Similarly, being a “low risk program,” that is, one that targets relatively highfunctioning families, or a “high risk program” and whether families experienced a very short 

period of homelessness or were at imminent risk but not homeless when entering TH had no 

differential impact on family outcomes. No relationship was found between the number of 

barriers to stability a family faces and how long that family stays in transitional housing or the 

outcomes of its stay. 

PATTERNS OF PROGRAM USE: IN SOME RESPECTS, STAYING IN TH LONGER BROUGHT 

IMPORTANT BENEFITS 

Longer stays in TH were associated with higher levels of educational attainment and 

employment at moveout and greater likelihood of continued employment during the follow-up 

period. Families spending more months in TH were significantly more likely to have a place of 
Preface Preface ii ii

their own for a whole year after leaving TH. Provider selection of less challenged families may 

play a role in this finding. In addition to time in TH, receipt of help for some specific issues was 

associated with better outcomes. For instance, mothers who got help with education and training 

earned higher wages one year later. 

HAVING A RENT SUBSIDY 

Having a rent subsidy at TH departure was crucial for two outcomes: having one’s own place at 

TH exit and limiting movement of members in and out of the household. However, subsidies 

had no measurable effect on education or employment outcomes or on children’s outcomes. 

OTHER INFLUENCES 

Local unemployment rates and cost of housing had some impact on family outcomes. Even 

under adverse conditions, though, TH programs may have smoothed out some of the barriers 

faced by homeless families. Very few personal characteristics of mothers in the sample made a 

difference for the outcomes examined by the study. And of five housing variables, only length 

of homelessness made a significant difference, and only on one outcome—the longer homeless, 

the more likely the family was not to have had its own place during the year following its 

stay in transitional housing. Personal characteristics played a greater role in education and 

employment outcomes. A history of addictions and domestic violence affected some outcomes, 

as did age and being nonwhite. The number of homeless episodes also took its toll, increasing 

the odds of not working at all during the follow-up year and of having lower wages at 12 months 

if one did work. 

OUTCOMES

SERVICE USE AND ECONOMIC STABILITY

The most-used services for the families studied included case management (91 percent), setting 

goals (81 percent), primary health care (73 percent), basic food supplies (70 percent), life skills 

training (66 percent), and employment (62 percent). Virtually all mothers who received services 

from TH programs found them to be helpful, and a much higher percentage of mothers worked 

after exiting the programs than had at program entry. Yet graduates of TH remained fragile 

economically, earning the same low median income of $12,000 at the 12-month follow-up as 

they had at program entry. A decline in the percentage of mothers receiving TANF, food 

stamps, and Medicaid a year after program exit may have contributed to this continued economic 

fragility. As the authors conclude, “A period of time in a transitional housing program does not 

change the basic reality of poor, relatively under-educated mothers’ earning power.” This is 

despite the fact that graduates of TH frequently receive program-funded supportive services for 

up to six months after graduation. 
Preface Preface iii iii

HOUSING STABILITY

Most family “graduates” of transitional housing maintained housing stability for the first year 

after departure from transitional housing. Eighty-six percent of families leaving TH moved 

directly from TH to their own places. Three in five mothers lived in their own places for the 

entire post-TH year. Only four of the families with 12-month interviews became homeless 

within the year following TH. Family membership was also much more stable in the year after 

TH, with 86 percent of families living with the same people at the 12-month follow-up as they 

had upon program exit. 

FAMILY HEALTH 

At program graduation, 21 percent of mothers said they had been treated for alcohol abuse and 

65 percent said they had been treated for drug abuse. Only five percent of women reported 

drinking in the year after TH, and only one mother reported drug use in the past six months. 

While one measure of mothers’ mental health did not change, another suggested that overall 

mental health problems declined. Children in the study families still had significant issues with 

level of school engagement, but experienced some positive behavioral changes. TH programs 

also contributed to family reunification: 42 percent of children not living with the mother when 

she entered TH rejoined the family during her stay. 

CONCLUSIONS

TH programs appear to help the families who use them to achieve some important goals, such as 

maintaining stable housing and treating substance abuse. Further, longer stays in TH may give 

families the opportunity to develop skills that seem to pay off in a higher probability of regular 

employment. Given the limitations of available data, the study could not determine whether the 

families would have achieved these same goals without the programs—surely some of them 

would have done so; but some would not. The study suggests the importance of encouraging 

more TH programs to target their considerable resources on the families with multiple barriers 

that would not have been able to accomplish as much on their own. 
Acknowledgments Acknowledgments iv iv

Acknowledgments 

Many people contributed to making this study a success. The partnership between Planmatics, 

Inc. and the Urban Institute, prime contractor and subcontractor, respectively, has been mutually 

supportive and productive. As the principals at the two partner organizations, Martha Burt of the 

Urban Institute and Lalith deSilva of Planmatics would especially like to thank the following: 

• At the Urban Institute, Karina Fortuny contributed mightily to the accuracy and 

completeness of the data from interviews with mothers in families leaving transitional 

housing, after which she devoted many hours to producing the analyses presented 

throughout the report. Kate Chambers did the same for the data from conversations with 

TH program directors. Kate Chambers and Alexandra Fiorillo conducted the interviews 

with TH program directors. Alexandra Fiorillo and Shinta Herwantoro helped assemble 

the initial versions of the family interviews, helped pretest them with local families, and 

persisted through the seemingly endless process of revising and perfecting. Janine Zweig 

contributed early on to the study design and interview structure. 

• At Planmatics, Inc., Lalith deSilva orchestrated the work of many people doing many 

different things. Imesh Wijewardena developed the data entry formats for all family 

surveys and compiled the original data sets before conveying them to the Urban Institute 

for analysis. Geoffrey Gilbert-Hamerling, Ph.D. of Polis Consulting Group, Inc., Santa 

Monica, California, coordinated the data collection effort, which was carried out in the 

study’s five communities by site liaisons and their teams. Assuring success in recruiting 

families, scheduling and conducting interviews, maintaining relationships with TH 

programs, and entering interview data were: 

o Anita Branan of Branan Consulting, Cleveland, Ohio 

o Cache Steinberg and Ritalinda D’Andrea of the Graduate School of Social Work, 

University of Houston, and Cathy Crouch of SEARCH, Houston, Texas 

o Heather Janisse of the Research Group on Homelessness, Wayne State University, 

Detroit, Michigan 

o Linda Rinaldi of Rinaldi and Associates, Seattle, Washington 

o Suzanne Lindsay, Corrine McDaniels, and Lisa Kwitzera of the Institute of Public 

Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 

• The staff of the many transitional housing programs who shared information about their 

programs and made it possible for us to recruit families for this study. 

• Our initial and continuing primary contacts in the five study communities, who worked 

with us initially, when we were recruiting communities, and subsequently to assure that 

we were able to connect with enough transitional housing programs and families to make 

the study a success. These include Ruth Gilcrest of the Cuyahoga County Human 

Services Department; Christina Riddle of the Michigan Coalition Against Homelessness, 

Anthony Love of the Coalition for the Homeless in Houston/Harris County; Sharon 

Johnson of the City of San Diego; and Kate Speltz of Homeless Housing Programs, King 

County Housing and Community Development and Eileen Denham of the Seattle Human 

Services Department. 
Acknowledgments Acknowledgments v v

• Staff of Abt Associates who shared with us information about transitional housing 

programs in communities participating in the Annual Homeless Assessment Report, 

which gave us the counts of transitional housing programs and units we needed to be able 

to select promising communities. 

• Sofia Herrera, who translated all the many versions of the family interviews into Spanish. 

• Paul Dornan, our Government Technical Representative from the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD), who has provided us with thoughtful feedback 

and guidance throughout the study. 

We appreciate the significant contributions that the above individuals made to carrying out the 

research and writing of this report. They are not responsible for any remaining errors or 

omissions. The findings and views herein are those of the contractors and authors. 

The contents of this report are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or 

policies of the Office of Program Development and Research, the U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, the U.S. Government, or the Urban Institute, its trustees, or funders. 
Contents Contents vi vi

Contents

Preface............................................................................................................................................. i 

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................ iv

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xi 

List of Figures............................................................................................................................. xiv

List of Appendices........................................................................................................................xv

Executive Summary: Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families.................... xvi

Diversity of Transitional Housing ........................................................................................... xvi 

This Study ................................................................................................................................ xvi 

 The Research Questions..................................................................................................... xvii 

 Logic Model....................................................................................................................... xvii 

 Sample Design .................................................................................................................. xviii 

Mothers’ Personal Characteristics ......................................................................................... xviii 

Family Housing and Homelessness History ............................................................................ xix 

Transitional Housing Program Characteristics..........................................................................xx

TH Program Services Used by Study Families..........................................................................xx

Housing After Leaving Transitional Housing Programs......................................................... xxi 

Mothers’ Education, Income, and Employment ..................................................................... xxii 

Mothers’ Mental and Emotional Problems............................................................................ xxiii 

Mothers’ Problems with Alcohol and Drugs ......................................................................... xxiii 

Children in TH Families........................................................................................................ xxiv 

The Bottom Line—Factors Affecting Family Outcomes...................................................... xxiv

 Program Size.......................................................................................................................xxv

 Program Restrictiveness or Creaming ...............................................................................xxv

 Patterns of Program Use .................................................................................................. xxvii 

 Other Influences—Community Context and Personal Characteristics............................ xxvii 

 Having a Rent Subsidy.................................................................................................... xxviii 

 The Bottom Line............................................................................................................. xxviii 

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview .......................................................................................1

Transitional Housing for Homeless Households .........................................................................1

 Evolution of Transitional Housing within the SHP................................................................2

 Growth of Transitional Housing .............................................................................................3

This Study ....................................................................................................................................4

The Study’s Research Questions .................................................................................................5

Logic Model.................................................................................................................................5

Recruiting TH Families................................................................................................................7

 Final Sample of Families and Interview Completion Rates ...................................................8 

Data Gathered and Structure of Data Analysis............................................................................9

The Rest of This Report.............................................................................................................10

Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study?.....................................................................13

Mothers’ Demographic Characteristics .....................................................................................13

 Race and Hispanic Origin .....................................................................................................15
Contents Contents vii vii

Children......................................................................................................................................16

 All Children ..........................................................................................................................16

 Mothers’ Pre-School and School-Age Children, with Her or Not at Moveout ....................17

Other Characteristics of Mothers at Moveout............................................................................19

 Primary Language.................................................................................................................19

 Health Conditions and Physical Disabilities.........................................................................20

 Criminal History ...................................................................................................................22

Chapter 3: Housing and Homelessness in the Year Before 

 Entering Transitional Housing ...............................................................................................25

Number of Times Homeless......................................................................................................26

Length of Homeless Episode Leading to TH.............................................................................26

Experiences in the 12 Months Before Entering TH...................................................................27

 Places Where the Families Stayed ........................................................................................28

 Number of Moves in 12 Months Before TH.........................................................................28

 Housing Quality and Financial Stress...................................................................................29

 Use of Emergency Shelters...................................................................................................30

 Living Situation Just Before Most Recent Homelessness ....................................................31

Factors Affecting Homelessness................................................................................................31

 Reasons and Experiences Leading to Homelessness............................................................31

 Were Children Homeless With Their Mothers? ...................................................................33

 Tenancy History....................................................................................................................33

Chapter 4: Transitional Housing Program Characteristics ....................................................35

Program Size..............................................................................................................................35

Length of Stay............................................................................................................................37

Staffing Intensity........................................................................................................................38

Other Program Characteristics...................................................................................................38

 TH Programs for Women Fleeing Domestic Violence.........................................................39

Getting a Housing Subsidy ........................................................................................................40

Associations Among TH Program Characteristics ....................................................................41

Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services

 Offered by Transitional Housing Programs..........................................................................43

Time in Transitional Housing ....................................................................................................43

Mothers’ Use of Transitional Housing Services........................................................................45

 Differences Across Study Communities...............................................................................46

 Where Mothers Got Services................................................................................................47

 Helpfulness of Assistance from TH Programs......................................................................49

 Mothers’ Participation in TH Program Activities.................................................................49

 Changes in Service Receipt Throughout the 12 Months of Follow-up Interviews...............50

Service Receipt Patterns ............................................................................................................53

 Services that Occur Together................................................................................................53

Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing.....................55

Moving to One’s Own Place......................................................................................................55

 Help Received and Problems Encountered...........................................................................55

Household Composition at Moveout .........................................................................................57
Contents Contents viii viii

Housing Costs and Issues at Moveout and 12 Months ..............................................................59

 Contract Rent and Rent Paid.................................................................................................59

 Getting a Housing Subsidy ...................................................................................................60

 Mothers’ Contribution to Rent..............................................................................................61

 Housing Hardship .................................................................................................................62

Patterns in the Year After TH....................................................................................................63

 Homelessness Following TH Program Exit..........................................................................63

 Housing Stability and Change ..............................................................................................63

 Household Composition Stability and Change During the Year After TH ..........................64

 Changes in Children Living in Household by 12 Months After Moveout ...........................65

 Satisfaction with Housing.....................................................................................................66

Chapter 7: Mothers’ Education..................................................................................................69

Education Completed.................................................................................................................69

 Changes in Education Completed by 12 Month Follow-up..................................................70

Vocational, Trade, and Business Programs ...............................................................................70

 Additional Programs Completed by 12 Month Follow-up ...................................................71

Help from TH Program for Education and Training .................................................................71

Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Material Support.....................73

Income, Income Sources, and Other Benefits............................................................................73

 The Situation When Leaving TH..........................................................................................73

 Income Level and Income and Benefit Sources One Year After TH ...................................76

Employment...............................................................................................................................79

 Employment History.............................................................................................................79

 Employment at TH Exit and Persistence in Employment ....................................................79

 Employment Status at 12 Months .........................................................................................80

 Time Commitment of Mothers’ Primary Job........................................................................82

 Wage Levels of Mothers’ Primary Job .................................................................................83

 Duration of Current Job ........................................................................................................84

 Health Insurance Coverage...................................................................................................85

Participation in the Informal Economy......................................................................................86

Mothers Not Working at 12 Months..........................................................................................87

Help from TH Program for Job Training and Finding Employment.........................................88

The Bottom Line—TH Program Mothers’ Earning Prospects ..................................................89

Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems............................................................................91

Mothers’ Mental Health Conditions ..........................................................................................91

 Suicidal Ideation and Attempts.............................................................................................94

 Use of Psychotropic Medications .........................................................................................94

 Combined Experiences .........................................................................................................95

 The ASI/mh Index.................................................................................................................96

Mental Health Treatment ...........................................................................................................97

 Help from TH Program for Mental or Emotional Conditions ..............................................98

Changes Between Moveout and 12 Month Follow-up ..............................................................99

 Cross-Site Comparisons......................................................................................................101

Chapter 10: Problems with Alcohol and Drugs ......................................................................103

Mothers’ Reports of Alcohol and Drug Use............................................................................103
Contents Contents ixix

Alcohol and Drug-Related Difficulties....................................................................................105

Alcohol or Drug Treatment......................................................................................................106

 Help from TH Program for Alcohol or Drug Problems......................................................108

Changes Between Moveout and 12 Month Follow-up ............................................................108

Chapter 11: Children.................................................................................................................111

Living Situation—All Minor Children ....................................................................................112

 Not Living with Mother at Moveout...................................................................................112

 Living with Mother at Moveout but Lived Apart at Some Earlier Time............................114

School Attendance and Engagement .......................................................................................115

 Changing Schools ...............................................................................................................116

 Being Late, Missing School, Being Suspended or Expelled ..............................................117

 Engagement in School ........................................................................................................117

Emotional Well Being..............................................................................................................119

Services That Children Received from TH Programs .............................................................120

 Differences Across Study Communities.............................................................................122

 Where Focal Children Got Services ...................................................................................122

 Helpfulness of Assistance from TH Programs....................................................................123

 Effects on Children of Participating in TH Program Services and Activities ....................124

 Changes in Service Receipt Throughout the 12-Month Follow-up Period.........................125

Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes...............................................127

Outcomes in the Analysis ........................................................................................................128

Predictive Factors in the Analysis............................................................................................130

 Community Characteristics.................................................................................................130

 Family Characteristics and Barriers....................................................................................131

 Program Factors..................................................................................................................134

Factors Affecting TH Family Outcomes..................................................................................135

 Interpreting Odds Ratios from Logistical Regressions versus 

 Coefficients from OLS or Tobit Regressions.....................................................................136

 Homelessness Following TH Program Exit........................................................................136

 Housing Outcomes..............................................................................................................137

 Household Composition Outcomes ....................................................................................140

 Educational and Employment Outcomes............................................................................142

 Children’s Outcomes ..........................................................................................................146

Summary and Implications ......................................................................................................148

 Program Size.......................................................................................................................149

 Program Restrictiveness or Creaming ................................................................................159

 Patterns of Program Use .....................................................................................................150

 Other Influences—Community Context and Personal Characteristics...............................150

 Having a Rent Subsidy........................................................................................................151

 The Bottom Line.................................................................................................................151

References...................................................................................................................................152

Appendix A: Acronyms Used in This Report..........................................................................154

Appendix B: Study Methods.....................................................................................................156

Sampling Strategy....................................................................................................................156
Contents Contents xx

Stage 1: Selecting Continuums of Care ...................................................................................156

Stage 2: Selecting TH Programs for Family Recruitment .......................................................157

Stage 3: Family Recruitment and Interviewing .......................................................................159

Analysis Strategy .....................................................................................................................162

The Moveout Moment Data Set...............................................................................................162

Follow-Up Data and Creating a Single Merged File ...............................................................163

Frequency and Cross-Tabulation Analyses .............................................................................163

Regression Analyses................................................................................................................164

Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview .................................................................................165

Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview ..............................................................................193

Appendix E: Chart Review .......................................................................................................218

Appendix F: Characteristics Of Transitional Housing For

 Homeless Families: Condensed Version ..............................................................................225
List of Tables xi

List of Tables 

Table 1: Summary of Family Outcomes.............................................................................. xxvi 

Table 2.1: Mothers’ Age at the Time of Leaving Transitional Housing Programs .................14 

Table 2.2: Mothers’ Marital Status at Moveout.......................................................................14 

Table 2.3: Mothers’ Race and Hispanic Origin .......................................................................15 

Table 2.4: All Children of Mothers in the Sample, by Age (0 to 17; 18 or older) ..................17 

Table 2.5: Mothers’ Minor Children, by Pre-School (age 0 to 5) or School 

 Age (6 to 17) and Whether Living with Mother at Moveout..................................18 

Table 2.6: Growing Up Speaking English and Language 

 Other than English Spoken in the Home Now........................................................20 

Table 2.7: Mothers’ Health Conditions and Physical Disabilities...........................................21 

Table 2.8: Children’s Health Conditions and Physical Disabilities.........................................22 

Table 2.9: Mothers’ Experiences with the Criminal Justice System .......................................23 

Table 3.1: Number of Times Homeless ...................................................................................25 

Table 3.2: How Long Homeless This Time.............................................................................26 

Table 3.3: Where Families Stayed During the 12 Months Before Entering TH......................27 

Table 3.4: Number of Moves in 12 Months Before Entering TH............................................28 

Table 3.5: Housing Quality and Financial Stress in the 

 12 Months Before Entering TH ..............................................................................29 

Table 3.6: Use of Emergency Shelters While Homeless Before TH Entry.............................29 

Table 3.7: Where Families Were Living Just Before They Became 

 Homeless the Time That Led to Entering TH.........................................................30 

Table 3.8: Experiences Leading to the Episode of Homelessness 

 Just Before Participation in TH...............................................................................31 

Table 3.9: Tenancy History......................................................................................................33 

Table 4.1: Family TH Program Size, Comparing Programs in the Study 

 Sample to Family TH Programs in Metropolitan Areas in 2006 ............................35 

Table 4.2: Maximum Length of Stay and Typical Length of 

 Stay for Successful Leavers ....................................................................................36 

Table 4.3: Staffing Ratios—Staff Members per Family, Weekdays .......................................38 

Table 4.5: Proportion of Families Leaving with a Housing Subsidy.......................................39 

Table 4.6: Associations Among TH Program Characteristics ................................................41 

Table 5.1: How Long Mothers Stayed in Transitional Housing..............................................43 

Table 5.2: Services that Mothers Used While in TH...............................................................44 

Table 5.3: Where Mothers Got Help for Their Service Issues While in TH ...........................47 

Table 5.4: Mothers’ Reports of How Helpful They Found the Assistance 

 They Received for Their Service Issues While in TH ............................................48 

Table 5.5: Number of Service Areas For Which Mothers Needed Help, 

 Time in TH Compared to 3, 6, and 12 Months After TH Exit................................50 

Table 5.6: Associations Among Specific Domains of Help 

 Received from TH Programs ..................................................................................53 

Table 6.1: Families Living in Their Own Place Immediately After TH Exit..........................54 

Table 6.2: Help Received from TH Program to Find or Secure Housing................................55 

Table 6.3: Problems Encountered in Finding a Place to Live..................................................56 

Table 6.4: Number of Adults in Household at Moveout Other Than the Mother ...................57 
List of Tables xii

Table 6.5: Number of Minor Children in Household at Moveout ...........................................58 

Table 6.6: Rent at Moveout and 12 Months Later...................................................................59 

Table 6.7 Mother Had a Housing Subsidy at TH Exit.............................................................60 

Table 6.8 Proportion of Mothers Who Personally Pay 

All the Rent the Household Pays ............................................................................61 

Table 6.9: Housing Hardship at the 12-Month Follow-Up, 

 and Receipt of Assistance .......................................................................................61 

Table 6.10: Housing Patterns During the 12 Months After Leaving TH.................................63 

Table 6.11: Household Composition During the 12 Months After Leaving TH.....................64 

Table 7.1: Highest Level of Education Completed at TH Entry and Exit ...............................67 

Table 7.2: TH Program Assistance with Education and Training ...........................................70 

Table 8.1: Household Income During the Month Before the Moveout Interview...................72 

Table 8.2: Income Sources During the 12 Months Before Moveout.......................................73 

Table 8.3: Noncash Benefits and Material Support Received 

 During the 12 Months Before Moveout..................................................................74 

Table 8.4: Household Income During the Month Before the 

 12-Month Follow-up Interview...............................................................................75 

Table 8.5: Income Sources During the 12 Months After Moveout .........................................75 

Table 8.6: Sources of Noncash Benefits and Material Support 

 During the 12 Months After Moveout ....................................................................76 

Table 8.7: Comparing Income Levels and Major Sources of Income and 

 Material Support Between Moveout and 12 Months Later.....................................76 

Table 8.8: Employment at Moveout and 12-month Follow-up ...............................................78 

Table 8.9: Types of Jobs Among Mothers Who Were Working at Moveout..........................79 

Table 8.10: Time Commitment of Jobs Among Mothers 

 Who Were Working at Moveout.............................................................................81 

Table 8.11: Wage Level of Jobs Among Mothers Who Were Working at Moveout, 

 and Mean and Median Hourly Wages at Moveout and 12-Months........................82 

Table 8.12: Duration of Jobs Among Mothers Who Were Working at Moveout ...................83 

Table 8.13: Health Insurance Coverage in Mothers’ Job at Moveout .....................................83 

Table 8.14: Participation in the Informal Economy at Moveout and 12 Months Later...........84 

Table 8.15: TH Program Assistance with Employment ..........................................................86 

Table 8.16: Summary of Employment Experiences in the Year Between 

 Moveout and the 12 Month Follow-Up Interview..................................................87 

Table 9.1: Mothers’ Reports of Mental Health Conditions .....................................................91 

Table 9.2: Mothers’ Reports of Suicidal Ideation or Attempt .................................................92 

Table 9.3: Mothers’ Reported Use of Psychotropic Medications............................................93 

Table 9.4: Mothers’ Reports of Number of Mental/Emotional Conditions 

 Experienced in the Month and Year Before First Interview and Lifetime .............94 

Table 9.5: Mothers’ Scores on Addiction Severity Index/Mental Health Scale......................95 

Table 9.6: Treatment for Mental/Emotional Conditions..........................................................96 

Table 9.7: Help with Mental/Emotional Conditions from TH Program..................................97 

Table 9.8: Change in Mental/Emotional Conditions Between 

 Moveout and 12 Month Follow-up .........................................................................99 

Table 10.1: Alcohol and Drug Use ........................................................................................101 
List of Tables xiii

Table 10.2: Alcohol or Drug Related Difficulties in 12 Months

 Before First Interview ..........................................................................................102 

Table 10.3: Treatment for Alcohol or Drug Problems...........................................................104 

Table 10.4: Help with Alcohol or Drug Problems from TH Program...................................105 

Table 10.5: Overlap of Alcohol and Drug Problems Reported at the Time 

 Mothers Left Transitional Housing.......................................................................106 

Table 11.1 Likelihood that Focal Child Was Late for or Missed School 

 Before, During, and Following TH.......................................................................113 

Table 11.2 School-Age Focal Children’s Engagement in School at Moveout 

 and Throughout the Follow-Up Year....................................................................114 

Table 11.3 Focal Children’s Behavioral and Emotional Problems During 

 Homelessness, at Moveout, and Throughout the Follow-Up Year.......................116 

Table 11.4: Services Used by Focal Children While in TH ..................................................117 

Table 11.5: Where Focal Children Got Help While in TH....................................................119 

Table 11.6: Mothers’ Reports of How Helpful They Found the Assistance 

 Their Children Received While in TH..................................................................120 

Table 11.7: Number of Service Areas For Which Focal Children Needed Help, 

 Time in TH Compared to 3, 6, and 12 Months After Leaving TH122 

Table 12.1: Housing and Economic Community Context.....................................................126 

Table 12.2: Associations Among Community Context Variables.........................................127 

Table 12.3: Associations Among Selected TH Family Characteristics.................................129 

Table 12.4: Housing Outcomes..............................................................................................135 

Table 12.5: Household Composition Outcomes ....................................................................137 

Table 12.6: Education and Employment Outcomes ..............................................................140 

Table 12.7: Focal Child School Engagement and Emotional Problems................................143 
List of Figures List of Figures xiv xiv

List of Figures 

Figure 1: Logic Model for Family TH Program Impact .............................................................. xiv

Figure 1.1: Logic Model for Family TH Program Impact ...............................................................6

Figure 6.1: Proportions of Mothers Very Satisfied with Housing.................................................66

Figure 11.1: Proportion of Mothers’ Minor Children Living Away From Her, By Gender and 

Age Group...................................................................................................................109

Figure 11.2: School Changes of School-Age Focal Children Before, During and

 Following TH..............................................................................................................112

Figure 12.1: Logic Model for Family TH Program Impact.........................................................124
List of Appendices List of Appendices xvxv

List of Appendices 

Appendix A Acronyms Used in This Report...............................................................................150

Appendix B Study Methods.........................................................................................................152

Appendix C Family Moveout Interview......................................................................................161

Appendix D Family Follow-Up Interview...................................................................................190

Appendix E Chart Review ...........................................................................................................215

Appendix F Characteristics of Transitional Housing For Homeless Families: Condensed 

Version ........................................................................................................................222
Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary xvi xvi 

Executive Summary: Life After Transitional Housing for 

Homeless Families 

Federal legislation to support the development of transitional housing programs for homeless 

people (TH) was first introduced in 1986, and ultimately incorporated into the first Stewart B. 

McKinney Act in 1987 as part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 

(HUD) Supportive Housing Program (SHP). HUD’s division of Community Planning and 

Development has had responsibility for the SHP since 1989, when a new administration brought 

all the McKinney Act housing programs together within the new Office of Special Needs 

Assistance Programs, which manages and directs the program. 

By 1996 there were about 4,400 transitional housing programs offering about 160,000 beds (Burt 

et al. 1999). By 2007 there were almost 7,300 transitional housing programs offering about 

211,000 beds. About 53 percent of the TH beds reported in 2007 are designated for families 

(HUD 2008), creating a capacity to serve about 40,000 families at a time. 

DIVERSITY OF TRANSITIONAL HOUSING 

One of the few statutory limitations placed on TH is that it cannot provide housing for more than 

24 months. Another requirement is that TH programs offer supportive services designed to help 

clients make the transition to regular housing. Beyond these basics, HUD has allowed the form 

of housing offered by TH programs, the populations served, and the structure and array of 

supportive services to vary widely. The housing may be project-based (in a single building or 

complex of buildings) or tenant-based (scattered-site), and since shortly after the program was 

enacted HUD has allowed “transition in place” formats that let clients stay in their program units 

and eventually take over the lease. TH projects may serve different homeless subgroups, 

including single adults with a variety of disabilities, families, domestic violence victims, and 

women seeking to regain custody of their children. TH projects may provide a wide array of 

services, depending on the needs of the population being served. Service configurations are 

flexible, including on site by program staff, on site by partner agencies, off site at other agencies, 

off site at client homes, multi-agency teams, and other approaches. 

THIS STUDY 

Despite its tremendous growth, transitional housing for families is in many ways terra incognita.

HUD spends a great deal of money to support transitional housing programs, but little is known 

about their scope, residents, array of services, and most important of all, impact on families’ 

ability to obtain and retain housing once they leave these programs. Given the great flexibility 

and growth in the transitional housing component of the SHP, HUD decided that formal and indepth research was needed to assess TH dynamics and performance and capture the culture and 

context of transitional housing projects for families. In 2005, to fill some of the gaps in 

knowledge about the nature and effectiveness of transitional housing for families, HUD’s Office 

of Policy Development and Research funded Planmatics, Inc. and its partner, the Urban Institute, 

to examine the effects of transitional housing on homeless families. In accord with HUD 
Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary xvii xvii 

directives, the families studied were those whom TH programs considered “successful 

graduates,” whatever that term meant within the program context. 

THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS 

1. What barriers to housing do homeless families face, and can families be differentiated 

into those with many barriers (who may be presumed to need TH) and those with few 

(who may be presumed not to need TH)? 

2. What happens to homeless families who are considered to have left transitional housing 

“successfully”?

3. What factors affect these families’ TH outcomes, including: 

a. Types and amounts of service from TH programs, and other program 

characteristics

b. Personal characteristics and housing barriers 

c. Contextual factors such as employment and housing markets? 

4. In addition to the three questions above, an earlier report (Burt 2006) addressed a fourth 

research question—How can the universe of TH programs be characterized and 

categorized, in relation to a program’s willingness and ability to address families with 

different types and levels of housing barriers as well as other? 

LOGIC MODEL 

These research questions can be incorporated into a logic model depicting a set of hypotheses or 

expectations about how TH produces outcomes for families, as we do in figure 1. Family assets 

and barriers (box 1) are expected to affect post-TH outcomes (arrow A), in the context of 

community characteristics (box 3), which also affect outcomes (arrow C). TH program 

interventions (box 2) work to increase family assets and reduce barriers (arrow B) and overcome 

the effects of community characteristics (arrow D). The study collected measures for each box 

in figure 1 to describe family, TH program, and community characteristics and family outcomes. 
Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary xviii xviii 

SAMPLE DESIGN

This study used a three-stage sampling strategy. Stage 1 involved selecting communities with 

enough TH capacity to supply the needed number of families and that also would provide 

variation in community and client characteristics. The five study communities were 

Cleveland/Cuyahoga County, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Houston and Harris and Benton 

Counties, Texas; San Diego City and County, California; and Seattle/King County, Washington. 

Together they gave the study two Midwest industrial cities; two Sunbelt cities, one in the South 

and one in the West; and a Northwest city. The five communities have highly varying rates of 

available housing and housing cost, public resources committed to housing subsidies and other 

public benefits and supports for poor families, and employment opportunities. They also 

promised to provide a sample of families with varied racial and ethnic backgrounds. 

Stage 2 involved selecting family TH programs operating within the five communities. To be 

included, a program had to have at least four family TH units, and most had more. Thirty-six TH 

programs contributed families to the study. We gathered information from these programs about 

their target populations, approach to helping families, staffing patterns, and other characteristics. 

Stage 3 involved recruiting families leaving the sampled TH programs, interviewing them at the 

time they left TH, and following them with interviews at 3, 6, and 12 months after they left TH. 

The study completed a first interview with 195 mothers and 12-month interviews with 179 

mothers, for a 92 percent 12-month completion rate. Data collection began in November 2005 

and ended in July 2007. 

The major dependent variables for this study were (1) family housing situation at 12 months and 

stability since moveout, (2) family income level and employment at 12 months, and (3) 

children’s school engagement and emotional health. Variables representing the boxes in figure 1 

were developed from interview responses and used in multivariate analyses to assess their 

relationship to family outcomes. Variables were included in analyses as independent variables to 

represent personal characteristics of the mother, public supports received, TH program 

characteristics, mother’s relationship to the TH program (e.g., how long the mother spent in the 

program, and the mother’s perception of the program’s overall helpfulness for herself and her 

children. CoC contextual variables were also included as independent variables. 

MOTHERS’ PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS (chapter 2) 

• Age. Mothers ranged in age from 18 through 60 when they left TH. Approximately onefifth of the sample was 20 to 24, another fifth was 25 to 29, and another fifth was 30 to 

34. Six percent were 18 or 19 and 12 percent were 45 or older.

• Marital status. Half of the mothers in this sample had never married, though all have 

children. Ten percent were married at TH exit. 

• Race/ethnicity. African-Americans comprised 52 percent of mothers in the study, white 

non-Hispanic women comprised 20 percent, and Hispanics comprised 19 percent. The 

remaining 9 percent were of various races. 

• Children. 27 percent of mothers had 1 child and another 27 percent had 2 children; 12 

percent had five or more children. With respect to children ages 0 to 17, who are one 
Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary xix xix 

focus of this study, 36 percent of families had 1 child in that age range, another 30 

percent had 2 children, 14 percent had 3, and 20 percent had 4 or more minor children. 

Minor children were with their mother during their pre-TH period of homelessness for 82 

percent of families. 

• Language. 92 percent of mothers grew up speaking English, 4 percent grew up speaking 

Spanish (compared to 19 percent who considered themselves Hispanic), and 4 percent 

grew up speaking another language. 

• Criminal justice involvement. Significant proportions of mothers had had some 

involvement with the criminal justice system, including 10 percent who had been in a 

juvenile justice facility, 34 percent who had spent at least one night in jail, and 15 percent 

who had a felony conviction. 

FAMILY HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS HISTORY (chapter 3) 

Findings for the study sample of families who had left a TH program successfully include: 

• Frequency and length of homelessness. Most mothers (58 percent) had been homeless 

only once, but 20 percent had been homeless three or more times. The mean length of 

the homeless spell leading to participation in a TH program was 7.6 months, with a 

median of 3.0 months. 18 percent had been homeless less than one day (including 9 

percent who had not been homeless at all but only “at imminent risk”); 14 percent had 

been homeless 12 months or more. 

• Living situations in year before TH. Only 36 percent of mothers had spent time in an 

emergency shelter in the 12 months before entering TH. By far the most common venues 

for study families during that period were a relative’s or friend’s place (65 percent) or 

their own place. Just before becoming homeless most recently, 58 percent had been 

living in their own house or apartment and 33 percent had been living with a relative or 

friend. Very few had spent any time in places not meant for habitation—9 percent in a 

vehicle and 4 percent in a “street” location—and none stayed in such places for more 

than a few days if they had their children with them. 

• Number of moves. One in four mothers had moved four or more times in the 12 months 

before TH. Conversely, 16 percent had not moved at all and 24 percent had moved only 

once.

• Tenancy history and housing hardship. 82 percent of mothers had ever had a lease in 

their own name or had owned their own place. Of these, 48 percent had been evicted, 64 

percent had had trouble paying the rent, and 11 percent had been accused of or charged 

with property damage to a rental unit. 

• Factors affecting homelessness. The factors mentioned by at least one in five mothers as 

leading to the families’ most recent homeless episode were (1) not being able to pay the 

rent or bills, and getting evicted for nonpayment—40 percent; (2) doubling-up with 

relatives or friends was too crowded, too hard—37 percent; (3) 36 percent—domestic 

violence; (4) conflict or tension with relatives—33 percent; and loss of income through 

job loss, cutback in hours, getting sick (22 percent). 
Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary xx xx 

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS (chapter 4) 

• Program size. Large family TH programs (those with 20+ units) are overrepresented in 

this study’s sample at 58 percent, compared to only 15 percent of family TH programs in 

all metropolitan areas in the United States. At 25 percent, the proportion of programs 

with 10-19 units is the same in this study as it is nationally. By design, the study has far 

fewer small programs (those with 9 or fewer units) than is typical in metropolitan areas 

(17 versus 61 percent). 

• Time in TH for successful leavers. 36 percent of successful leavers stay less than 12 

months in their TH program. 25 percent stayed exactly 12 months, 22 percent stayed 13 

to 18 months, and 17 percent stayed more than 18 months. 

• Staffing. Family/staff ratios varied widely among the 36 TH programs from which we 

recruited mothers—from one that had 1 or more staff members per family up to a couple 

that had more than one-tenth or less staff per family (1 program had 40 families per staff 

member). 

• Program model and population focus. 19 percent of programs used a scattered-site 

rather than a single-site (facility-based) housing model; 17 percent were domestic 

violence programs (about the same as in all U.S. metropolitan areas) and 11 percent were 

designed to serve homeless mothers who were pregnant or had just given birth. 

• Program restrictiveness. Most programs (86 percent) would not accept anyone with an 

active substance abuse problem, and 25 percent required at least six months of sobriety. 

22 percent of programs would not take mothers with severe and persistent mental illness 

unless it was well-controlled by medications. 

• Associations among program characteristics. The more units a family TH program 

has, the more likely it is to use a scattered-site housing model, to restrict program entry 

for people with severe and persistent mental illness and to have a relatively lower staffto-family ratio. Scattered-site programs are less likely than facility-based programs to 

have restrictions on active substance abuse, more likely to be domestic violence programs 

and to have a lower staff-to-family ratio and less staffing on evenings and weekends.

Programs where families stay in TH longer tend to have restrictions on mental illness but 

not on have lower staff-to-family ratios, and to have more families leave with a housing 

subsidy.

TH PROGRAM SERVICES USED BY STUDY FAMILIES (chapter 5) 

• Mothers’ length of stay. 7 percent of families in the study left TH after stays of no more 

than 3 months and another 19 percent had left within 6 months. 28 percent stayed more 

than 6 months up to 12 months, 33 percent stayed between 12 and 24 months, and 12 

percent stayed more than 24 months. 

• Most needed and used services. Services needed and used by 60 percent or more of TH 

families included case management (91 percent), setting goals (81 percent), primary 

health care (73 percent), basic food supplies (70 percent), life skills training (66 percent), 

and employment (62 percent). Mothers who did not get services mostly said they had not 
Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary xxi xxi 

needed them. Of these, TH services supplied most but primary health care was most 

likely to be accessed by families acting on their own. 

• TH program service helpfulness. Virtually all mothers who received services from TH 

programs found them to be helpful. Most said they were very helpful, but 12 to 20 

percent said they were somewhat helpful. Hardly anyone said they were not at all 

helpful. 

HOUSING AFTER LEAVING TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROGRAMS 

(chapter 6) 

• Post-TH homelessness. Only four families with 12-month interviews became homeless 

within the year following TH, representing 2.1 percent of the original sample of 195 and 

2.2 percent of the families with 12-month interviews. Even if every one of the 16 

families without 12-month interviews were also counted as homeless it would still mean 

that only 10.3 percent of study families became homeless again within a year after 

leaving TH. 

• Getting one’s own place. 86 percent of families leaving TH moved directly from TH to 

their own place. 80 percent said their TH program had helped them with a variety of 

housing-related matters. 

• Problems encountered. Affordability was the most prevalent problem, experienced by 

57 percent of mothers, followed by finding a place in a safe neighborhood. 

• Household composition. 73 percent of households consisted of the mother and one or 

more of her own children only; no other adult was present. Another 20 percent of 

households included a second adult, usually a spouse or partner. 7 percent included two 

or more adults other than the mother. 10 percent of TH families lived in households with 

other people’s children as well as their own. 

• Housing costs and subsidies. Contract rents for the housing occupied by families 

leaving TH averaged $634 a month across the five study communities, but ranged from a 

low of $521 in Cleveland to a high of $895 in San Diego. Rent levels were stable 

between TH exit and one year later. However, TH families paid an average of only $243 

a month out of their own pockets, thanks to the fact that 53 percent had a housing subsidy 

at the time they left TH. Means of out-of-pocket rents ranged from lows of $167 in 

Cleveland and Houston to a high of $401 in San Diego. Not much had changed at the 12-

month follow-up. 

• Housing hardship. In the year following TH exit, 34 percent of families had experienced 

times when they could not pay all of their utility bills, 20 percent had had trouble paying 

their rent at least once, and 15 percent reported both problems. Of those with problems, 

about half got help for them, from a variety of sources. 

• Housing stability and change. Three in five mothers lived in their own place for the 

entire post-TH year. 19 percent moved at least once, but always to their own place. At 

the less stable end of the continuum, 5 percent never had their own place or moved at 

least once to a place that was not their own. 2 percent experienced another episode of 

homelessness in the year following TH. 
Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary xxii xxii 

• Household stability and change. 86 percent of families lived with the same people at 

the 12-month follow-up as they had when they left TH. There may, however, have been 

some movement in and out between those dates, as more than one in four families 

experienced changes in household composition during the follow-up year, including 

children moving in and out, spouses and boyfriends moving in and out, and other changes 

that were often related to changing residences. 

MOTHERS’ EDUCATION, INCOME, AND EMPLOYMENT (chapters 7 

and 8) 

• Education. 29 percent of mothers already had a post-secondary credential or degree at 

TH entry; 47 percent had one when they left TH. Yet 23 percent had not completed high 

school at both entry and exit from TH. The most common areas in which mothers 

obtained a credential or degree were health care (medical/nursing/nurse assistant/health 

aide), business/financial, and information technology. 

• Income. The median family income from all sources was $1,000 in the month before 

mothers were first interviewed for the study, putting annual household income at $12,000 

or less for half of all study families. This is significantly less than the federal poverty line 

of $16,242 a year (in 2006) for a parent and two children. The mean was $1,194. 

Incomes at the 12-month follow-up were essentially the same. 

• Income sources. 81 percent of mothers had income from working in the year before the 

study first interviewed them; at the 12-month follow-up 78 percent reported the same. At 

moveout 53 percent of mothers had TANF—a proportion that had shrunk to only 24 

percent by a year later. 29 percent received child support at moveout and 28 percent did 

so at 12 months. Family and friends were also important sources of money at moveout 

(32 percent), but about one-third of the mothers who had this resource at moveout had 

lost it by the 12-month follow-up. Relatively few mothers received money from other 

sources.

• Noncash benefits. At moveout, 85 percent of mothers had food stamps, 81 percent had 

Medicaid, and 47 percent had WIC. By the 12-month follow-up only 67 percent had 

food stamps and 63 percent had Medicaid; only WIC receipt had increased, to 69 percent. 

Yet their incomes were not substantially higher at 12 months than at moveout, so the loss 

of food stamps and Medicaid would have left important gaps in their ability to meet basic 

needs.

• Employment. 18 percent of mothers were working at TH entry. By moveout 61 percent 

were working. Of mothers for whom we have 12-month data, 1 in 4 who were working at 

moveout had lost her job and was not working one year later, while 1 in 2 of the mothers 

not working at moveout was working one year later. 30 percent of mothers worked for 

the whole follow-up year at the same job, and another 9 percent worked the whole year 

but at two or more jobs. 44 percent had periods of unemployment, some long and some 

short, and 15 percent did not work at all during the entire follow-up year.

• Earning power and leaving poverty. The income and earnings prospects of the mothers 

in our sample greatly resemble those of other poor and near-poor mothers in the 

numerous studies that have examined the impacts of welfare reform on mothers’ 
Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary xxiii xxiii 

employment—not surprising, as about half of the mothers in our sample were themselves 

TANF participants at the time they left TH. It is very common for these women to hold 

jobs for relatively short periods of time, lose them, and move on to other jobs that are 

also short-lived. Welfare mothers and our mothers can and do work, but work does not 

usually raise them or their families out of poverty, nor does it make them able to afford 

housing without assistance. A period of time in a transitional housing program does not 

change the basic reality of poor, relatively under-educated mothers’ earning power. 

MOTHERS’ MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS (chapter 9) 

• Problems at moveout. The study used the Addiction Severity Index’s mental health 

scale (ASI/mh) to assess current and prior mental and emotional problems, including 

serious depression serious anxiety or tension; trouble understanding, concentrating, or 

remembering; hallucinations; trouble controlling violent behavior; serious thoughts of 

suicide, attempted suicide; and taking psychotropic medications. 26 percent of mothers 

reported one or more of these problems in the month before the first interview, 46 percent 

reported one or more in the year before the first interview, and 64 percent reported one or 

more in their lifetime. Despite these indications of fairly widespread mental health 

issues, only 38 percent had ever received mental health treatment. 

• Changes. The level of mental or emotional problems experienced in the month before the 

interview basically did not change between moveout and the 12-month follow-up. 65 

percent literally did not change and among those that did, about equal proportions 

reported fewer as reported more problems. However, the measure reflecting problems 

over a whole year did change, with more people reporting a decrease (27 percent) than 

reported an increase (15 percent). These findings are similar to those from longitudinal 

studies of people using HUD-funded permanent supportive housing programs—housing 

stability and income improve, but mental health and addictions status remain unchanged. 

MOTHERS’ PROBLEMS WITH ALCOHOL AND DRUGS (chapter 10) 

• Substance abuse issues. 37 percent of study mothers said they had used illegal drugs in 

the past, and 24 percent said there had been times in their life when they regularly drank 

to get drunk. In addition, 47 percent said they had negative effects of substance abuse 

and 22 percent said they had taken steps to reduce these effects while they were in TH. 

• Treatment. At moveout, 21 percent of mothers said they had been treated for alcohol 

abuse and 65 percent said they had been treated for drug abuse. 12-step programs were 

the most common treatment source, but 67 percent of those who received treatment for 

alcohol abuse had been in a residential treatment program and 72 percent of those who 

received treatment for drug abuse had been residential treatment. 

• Current behavior. Only 17 percent of mothers reported drinking any alcohol in the 12 

months before their first study interview, and only 5 percent reported doing so in the year 

after TH, so by their reports alcohol abuse appears to be well under control. At the 12-

month interview, only one mother reported any drug use “since we last talked,” which 

generally meant in the last six months. 
Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary xxiv xxiv 

CHILDREN IN TH FAMILIES (chapter 11) 

• Where children lived. The mothers in this sample had 438 minor children, of whom 34 

percent were preschool age (0 to 4) and the rest were school age (5 to 17). 15 percent of 

these children did not live with their mother at TH exit. Another 19 percent lived with 

her at moveout but had lived elsewhere at some point in the past. Older children were 

more likely than preschoolers to have lived apart from their mother as some point. 

• Reunification. 35 children (42 percent of those not with the mother when she entered 

TH) rejoined the family during TH. The TH program helped with 29 of these 

reunifications.

• School changes. School changes were much lower during and especially after TH than 

they had been in the year before TH. Only 2 percent of school-age children changed 

schools two or more times in the year after TH, compared to 9 percent during TH and 20 

percent in the year before TH, including while homeless. 

• School engagement. Focal children’s engagement in school appears to be lower than that 

of children in low-income families as measured in the National Survey of American 

Families (Ehrle and Moore 1999). In addition, school-age focal children appear to be less 

engaged in school at the 12-month follow-up interview than they were at TH exit. 

• Focal child’s emotional problems. More than two-thirds of mothers rated their 

preschool age children as having few or no emotional problems—a finding that did not 

differ significantly whether the time period being considered was during homelessness, 

while in TH, or after TH exit. For school-age children there was considerably more 

movement, from about half receiving very low ratings (very few problems) for the period 

of homelessness going up to about three-fourth at moveout and 12 months after TH exit. 

• Service receipt while in TH. Two-thirds of children in TH families participated in child 

care and half participated in mentoring relationships and recreational activities. About 

one-third got help with emotional and mental health issues, and about one in five got help 

dealing with the effects of family violence. In addition, children received health care, but 

mostly not from the TH program itself. 

• Behavioral changes. Areas of greatest positive change from before to after TH were 

getting along with peers, generally behaving well, and enjoying school. 

THE BOTTOM LINE—FACTORS AFFECTING FAMILY OUTCOMES 

(CHAPTER 12) 

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS 

Throughout the chapters of this report we have described many aspects of mothers and children 

in families that used TH. Most of these analyses have been reported overall and for each 

community, showing that while community context sometimes makes a difference, about equally 

often it does not. In this final chapter we selected six variables representing housing and 

household stability outcomes, five representing education and employment outcomes, and five 
Life After Transitional Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary xxv xx v 

representing children’s outcomes to use in analyses assessing the effects of TH program 

characteristics, TH program use, and other factors.

Ultimately, what HUD wanted to learn from this project was whether TH programs made a 

difference in the lives of the families they served. This study cannot provide definitive answers 

to that question because it does not have a control group of similar families that did not receive 

TH services, nor does it have a sample large enough to support detailed analyses of subgroups or 

even of equations containing more than about 10 variables. Nevertheless, we can say something 

about TH program impact based on the data we do have, including what aspects of TH programs 

appear not to make much difference to family outcomes. Reversing the order of discussion used 

for most of this chapter, we look first at the effects of TH program characteristics and patterns of 

use, then at other groups of variables. 

PROGRAM SIZE

As the reader may remember from chapter 4, the TH programs from which we drew our sample 

of families were very different from TH programs in urban areas nationwide in containing 

proportionally far more large programs and far fewer very small programs. For that reason we 

used “number of family units” as a variable in all of the regression analyses reported in this 

chapter, until it became very clear that program size did not matter for a particular outcome. The 

outcomes for which program size was an issue are: 

• Never having one’s own place. Participants in larger programs were less likely to have 

lived in their own place at any time during the year following TH exit. 

• Educational attainment at moveout. For this variable, larger programs did better. 

• No other outcome was associated with program size—families participating in small, 

medium, and large programs had equivalent outcomes for employment, children’s 

outcomes, and most household composition outcomes. 

PROGRAM RESTRICTIVENESS OR CREAMING 

We included a number of program characteristic variables to represent selective or excluding 

behavior on the part of programs, or targeting toward families with very specific issues. 

Selective behavior included screening out mothers with severe and persistent mental illness, 

those with active substance abuse, or those without a long period of sobriety. Specific family 

issues included domestic violence and pregnancy. In addition, we created two variables that 

generally characterized programs as targeting high risk or low risk families and a third variable 

to indicate that a family had been homeless for no more than 24 hours (and sometimes not at all) 

when they enrolled in a TH program. 

For the most part these variables did not make a difference for the outcomes we examined. 

Families using programs that placed restrictions and programs that did not do so seemed to do 

equally well on most outcomes; only for one children’s outcome were any of these indicators of 

restrictiveness significant. The same is true for the global characteristics of being a “low risk 

program” or a “high risk program” and for families experiencing little or no homelessness before 

entering TH. These latter families definitely had fewer barriers than families with a longer 

homeless spell; nevertheless they used TH programs for just as long, on average, as families with 

many more barriers and did not have significantly better or worse outcomes. 
Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary xxvi

Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary xxvi 
Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary xxvii xxvii

The lesson one could draw from this lack of impact of family barriers at the program level and 

for the most part also at the individual level is that if some TH programs can help clients with 

multiple barriers succeed, perhaps more should be trying to do so, engaging in relevant staff 

training, institutional culture change efforts, and the like to shift their programs toward families 

facing more challenges. 

PATTERNS OF PROGRAM USE

How families use a TH program appears to have had more influence on family outcomes than 

program characteristics or selectivity per se. It is interesting to note that education, employment, 

and to a lesser extent children’s outcomes rather than housing stability or household composition 

are the domains where that influence appears strongest. Families spending more months in TH 

had higher levels of educational attainment and employment at moveout and were more likely to 

have been employed for the entire follow-up period. They were also significantly less likely to 

go for a whole year after leaving TH without having a place of their own, and their children 

enjoyed better mental health a year after leaving TH. This finding, which corresponds to 

findings of a Wisconsin study of TH programs and families (Karpinski and Smith 2008), is not 

likely to be a function of family barriers that needed to be overcome, as variables representing 

those barriers were included in the same equations that identified time in TH as an important 

predictor variable. This pattern might suggest that very short programs—we had some with 

typical lengths of stay around four months, and families who stayed in TH less than three 

months—may be long enough to accomplish a goal such as learning to care for a newborn or 

overcoming the immediate impacts of domestic violence, but are not long enough to tackle the 

issues of human and social capital development that these mothers need for the long haul. 

In addition to time in TH, receipt of help for some specific issues was associated with better 

outcomes. For instance, mothers who got help with education and training were marginally more 

likely to be employed at 12 months and to have higher wages at that time. They also appear to 

have a lower educational level at moveout than mothers who did not get this help, but that may 

be because they started lower. Also, focal children who got help with emotional problems may 

have had fewer emotional problems a year after TH exit. Thus TH programs appear to 

contribute most to the more malleable aspects of family life such as employment and mental 

health, for which they offere specific assistance to help families make their own opportunities, 

while being less able to influence the hard realities of housing cost and availability in the local 

economy. 

OTHER INFLUENCES—COMMUNITY CONTEXT AND PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS 

Independent of anything that programs could do, the local unemployment rate and cost of 

housing had some effects on family outcomes. It would have been remarkable if they had not; 

even under adverse conditions, though, TH programs may have smoothed out some of the 

barriers that homeless families face in trying to get back on their feet. As noted above, we 

created an index of 15 family barriers, high scores on which indicate that a family would be 

considered hard to serve or higher risk while low scores would indicate families that are easier to 

serve or lower risk. But when we used that index by itself, without including in the analyses 

many of its component personal characteristics, it never did as well nor was it as informative, 

with one exception, as dropping the index, keeping the separate characteristics in the analysis, 

and seeing which ones bore the brunt of any observed effects. We were frequently struck by how
Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Executive Summary xxviii xxviii 

few personal characteristics of mothers in the sample consistently made a difference for the 

outcomes we examined (which may be a reason the index proved relatively unhelpful). Of the 

11 personal characteristics included in the analyses, only four made a difference on more than 

one of the six housing variables. Never having been married made it less likely that a mother 

would have her own place after TH exit, but more likely that she would live with only her 

children for the full year after leaving TH. Spending more time homeless before TH made it 

more likely that a mother would never have her own place during the post-TH year, and 

marginally less likely that she would move into her own place at TH exit. Having a history of 

mental health problems increased the odds that a family would move at least once in the post-TH 

year and decreased the odds that a mother would live with the same people for the whole year. 

Having a history of domestic violence also affected housing outcomes, increasing the likelihood 

that a mother lived only with her own children for the year after TH and marginally decreasing 

the odds of moving or living with the same people at TH exit and 12 months later. Personal 

characteristics of the mother were mostly unrelated to outcomes for focal children also. Only the 

mother’s lifetime mental health problems were significantly associated with two of these 

outcomes—the focal child’s emotional problems while homeless and at 12 months after leaving 

TH.

Personal characteristics played a greater role in education and employment outcomes. Here the 

number of homeless episodes took its toll, increasing the odds of not working at all during the 

follow-up year and of having lower wages at 12 months if one did work. More homeless 

episodes also had a marginally negative effect on being employed at moveout. Having been 

employed at TH program entry increased the level of reported wages at 12 months and was 

marginally related to higher educational attainment at TH program exit. 

HAVING A RENT SUBSIDY 

Having a rent subsidy is of paramount importance for several outcomes—having one’s own 

place at TH exit, living just with one’s own children all year, and not living in a complex 

household. It also has marginally significant effects on reducing moves in the post-TH year and 

on assuring that the household members living with the mother remain the same throughout the 

year. That is where its influence stops, however. It has no measurable effect on education or 

employment outcomes or on children’s outcomes. Nor does it have an impact indirectly, as there 

is little or no relationship between having one’s own place and children’s outcomes, for instance. 

These findings are compatible with other studies exploring the same issues (Mills et al. 2006; 

Rog and Buckner 2007; Schroder 2002; Stojanovic et al. 1999). 

THE BOTTOM LINE

TH programs appear to help the families who use them to achieve some important goals. We 

cannot tell with the data available whether the families would have achieved these same goals 

without the programs—surely some of them would have done so. But equally surely some of 

them would not. Programs that explicitly seek to serve multi-barrier families do not appear to 

achieve any worse outcomes than programs that screen out those same families. The important 

thing is to get these programs to target their considerable resources more on the families that 

would not have been able to accomplish as much on their own. 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview 1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview 

The concept of transitional housing has a long history in the fields of mental health and 

corrections, predating its application to the homeless arena by decades. State and local public 

mental health and corrections departments developed these residential programs to ease the 

transition back into regular housing for people leaving mental hospitals or prisons. Stevens 

(2005) describes the history of halfway houses for people leaving correctional settings and their 

transition quite recently into community residential centers. To use one state as an example, in 

1974 Ohio had 22 certified halfway houses for people leaving prison (Ohio Adult Parole 

Authority 2005). 

Policy makers in the mental health arena were also focusing on community-based residential and 

nonresidential services (Biegel and Naparstek 1982). In 1982 an American Psychiatric 

Association task force published a report, A Typology of Community Residential Services (APA 

1982), that sought to establish a common nomenclature for community residential programs 

located throughout the country serving people with serious mental illness. The task force had 

spent four years identifying, cataloging, and attempting to classify the many such programs in 

existence at that time. 

These community-based transitional programs were developed for many reasons, including a 

desire to avoid the high cost of institutional versus community-based care and the desire or legal 

obligation to maintain some intermediate level of supervision over people being released from 

institutions. One historical motivation for developing transitional community residential settings 

comes closest to the one driving the growth of transitional housing programs for homeless 

people. Officials running state agencies and institutions saw people fail in the community and 

return to institutions when they did not have the skills, connections, and supports that would help 

them establish themselves independently. Transitional programs were developed to increase the 

likelihood that those released from institutions would, once they “graduated” from a transitional 

program, be able to sustain independent living in the community. 

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FOR HOMELESS HOUSEHOLDS 

When homelessness first impressed itself on the national consciousness in the early 1980s, there 

was no such thing as transitional housing for homeless people. Even emergency shelters were 

few and far between, being run mostly by missions in run-down areas of big cities and 

accommodating mostly single men. The first expansion of homeless assistance took the form of 

more emergency shelter capacity. Only after several years of experience with people using 

emergency shelters did it become obvious that for some people emergency shelter would not be 

enough to help them leave homelessness. This recognition led to the application of transitional 

and permanent supportive housing concepts to the field of homelessness. 

Most transitional housing programs for homeless people that exist today specialize in serving 

households with sufficient barriers to getting or keeping housing that a period of stabilization, 

learning, and planning appear needed if they are ultimately to leave homelessness for good. 

These households may already have some history of leaving homelessness for housing but not 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview 2

being able to maintain the housing, or they may have characteristics that are strongly associated 

with losing housing in the absence of supportive services.

Federal legislation to support the development of transitional housing programs for homeless 

people was first introduced in 1986, and ultimately incorporated into the first Stewart B. 

McKinney Act in 1987. In 1989, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD), which had responsibility for transitional housing as well as several other homelessrelated housing programs under the Act, consolidated them into the Supportive Housing Program 

(SHP) and created the Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs to manage and direct the 

1

program.

EVOLUTION OF TRANSITIONAL HOUSING WITHIN THE SHP

In the original McKinney Act, both transitional housing (TH) and permanent supportive housing 

were established as demonstration programs. TH was intended to serve homeless families as 

well as people with serious mental illness or possibly long-standing substance abuse. Annual 

competitions for funds were nationwide, with each provider agency applying for and receiving 

grants based on its own ability to write applications and justify local need for the projects it 

wanted to develop. Some communities with a sophisticated provider network did very well in 

these competitions. These tended to be central cities, and their requests tended to be for 

programs to serve single homeless adults with disabilities, according to the original SHP 

concept. The process was not one that assured most communities of receiving funds for SHP 

projects.

The expectation underlying the SHP’s demonstration nature was that HUD would fund projects 

that would demonstrate their value to local communities, which would then take over the 

responsibility for ongoing funding. As the years went on and it became clear that local funding 

was not going to replace federal funding, the SHP shifted from a demonstration to a discretionary 

grants program and gradually took on the burden of renewal funding.

The statute governing the SHP in this form provides great flexibility as to how communities may 

conceptualize and implement transitional housing. One of the few statutory limitations placed on 

TH is that it can only provide housing for up to 24 months. Another requirement is that TH 

programs offer supportive services designed to help clients make the transition to regular 

housing, including the option that supportive services continue for up to six months after official 

program exit. 

HUD has allowed the form of housing offered by TH programs, the populations served, and the 

structure and array of supportive services to vary widely. The housing can be project-based (in a 

single building or complex of buildings) or tenant-based (scattered-site), and since shortly after 

the program was enacted HUD has allowed “transition in place” formats that let clients stay in 

their program units and eventually take over the lease, with supportive services being gradually 

reduced as a household’s need for them diminishes. TH projects can serve a variety of homeless 

populations, including single adults with a variety of disabilities, families, domestic violence 

1

 Appendix A contains a complete list of the acronyms used in this report. 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview 3

victims, and women seeking to regain custody of their children. TH projects may provide a wide 

array of services, depending on the needs of the population being served. Service configurations 

are flexible, including on site by program staff, on site by partner agencies, off site at other 

agencies, off site at client homes, multi-agency teams, and other approaches. 

With the shift to a discretionary grants program, HUD staff began to think about how they could 

promote a more balanced distribution of funds to communities that the national form of 

competition had left unfunded. On an experimental basis beginning in 1994, HUD developed the 

concept of a Continuum of Care (CoC), under which SHP applications would come from whole 

communities and be prioritized through community-wide assessment and planning processes that 

considered overall community needs. In 1996 HUD began requiring this CoC form of SHP 

application, coupling the requirement with an incentive—the pro rata share of SHP funds that 

would go to each community in the United States if it wrote a qualifying application. HUD 

published the pro rata shares in the Federal Register, allowing each community to see how much 

it could get if it submitted a qualifying application and how much would go to some other 

community if it did not apply. Gradually most communities in the country did apply, so that 

HUD now gets around 450 CoC applications a year. 

A deliberate consequence of the CoC approach has been that suburban and rural communities are 

as likely as central cities to apply for SHP funds, and to receive them if their applications score 

in the competitive range. Since a core principle of the CoC approach is that communities set 

their own priorities about how to use SHP resources, HUD began to see more applications for 

transitional housing for families and for domestic violence victims, who characterized suburban 

and rural homelessness much more than the single adult long-term homeless populations for 

which central cities are known.2

 As of 2005, about half of all transitional housing beds were 

designated to serve single adults and half were designated to serve families, including families 

fleeing domestic violence and families homeless for other reasons. 

GROWTH OF TRANSITIONAL HOUSING 

It took several years for communities to obtain funding for transitional housing programs and 

then to develop them and begin serving homeless people. By 1996, about eight years after the 

Supportive Housing Program first became law, transitional housing programs were a fact of life 

in many U.S. communities. The National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients 

estimated that 4,400 transitional housing programs were open and operating in February 1996, 

offering about 160,000 beds. About one-third of these programs served families exclusively, 

while about two-thirds served families among other types of clients (Burt et al., 1999, Chapter 

15).

Transitional housing programs have continued to expand. Almost 7,300 transitional housing 

programs existed in 2007, according to the Third Annual Homeless Assessment Report to 

Congress (HUD 2008). This number represents an increase of about 66 percent since 1996.

These programs were reported to offer about 211,000 beds, an expansion of about 32 percent in 

capacity. The expansion in programs being so much greater than the expansion in capacity 

2

 In addition, the law specified that a certain proportion of TH funds had to go for projects serving families. 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview 4

suggests that many of the newer programs are relatively small. About 53 percent of the TH beds 

reported in 2007 are designated for families (HUD 2008, table 4-2), creating a capacity to serve 

about 40,000 families at a time in transitional housing units (assuming three people per family, 

the national average). Fifty-five percent of all transitional housing programs, offering 62 percent 

of TH beds, are located in principal cities; the remaining programs are found in suburban and 

rural areas. Family TH programs comprise a somewhat larger proportion of all TH in suburban 

and rural areas than in principal cities. 

THIS STUDY 

Transitional housing for families is in many ways terra incognita. HUD spends a great deal of 

money to support transitional housing programs, but little is known about their scope, residents, 

array of services, and most important of all, impact on families’ ability to obtain and retain 

housing once they leave these programs. Information from Annual Progress Reports (APR) has 

provided HUD with some information on TH clients and their outcomes since the SHP began. 

Given the great flexibility and growth in the transitional housing component of the SHP, 

however, HUD decided that formal and in-depth research was needed to assess TH dynamics and 

performance and capture the culture and context of transitional housing projects for families. 

This research is also needed to assess the value of transitional housing as a housing model. Since 

resources to provide housing for homeless persons are limited, it is important to determine the 

efficacy of transitional housing as a housing model. If it were determined that permanent 

supportive housing (PSH) were a more effective housing approach, communities might choose to 

convert some HUD-funded TH units to PSH. However, current statutory requirements clearly 

limit such a conversion strategy at present since people do not have to be disabled to participate 

in transitional housing, but they do have to be disabled to access PSH. Transitional housing 

allows a family to be housed and given needed services until it can move into permanent 

housing. Once the family moves on, the transitional unit is freed up to house and support 

another family. 

Finally, there is a practical reason to explore the universe of transitional housing programs. The 

assumption underlying the development of TH is that some homeless people need more 

assistance than is available through emergency shelters before they will be able to sustain 

housing on their own. From this assumption follows the expectation that the households 

receiving TH should have significantly more barriers to getting and keeping housing than the 

average household coming through emergency shelters. In addition to being homeless, the 

household would be expected to have issues for which it needs the intensive supports offered by 

TH programs. These issues might include recovery from addictions, reunification with children 

and assumption of appropriate parental roles, stabilization of mental illness, or recovery from 

domestic violence, alone or in combination. The assumption behind TH programs is that if 

households get help with these issues before entering permanent housing, they might be expected 

to have better long-term housing outcomes. It is important to learn how many TH programs 

resemble this concept of TH, and how many differ from it and in what ways. 

In 2005, to fill some of the gaps in knowledge about the nature and effectiveness of transitional 

housing for families, HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research funded Planmatics, 

Inc. and its partner, the Urban Institute, to examine the effects of transitional housing on 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview 5

homeless families. In addition to the background and rationale for this study described above, 

this chapter provides the study’s research questions, its methods, and an overview of the 

remaining chapters. 

THE STUDY’S RESEARCH QUESTIONS 

This study was designed to answer the following research questions: 

1. How can the universe of TH programs be characterized and categorized, in relation to a 

program’s willingness and ability to address families with different types and levels of 

housing barriers as well as other factors. 

2. What barriers to housing do homeless families face, and can families be differentiated 

into those with many barriers (who may be presumed to need TH) and those with few 

(who may be presumed not to need TH)? 

3. What happens to homeless families who are considered to have left transitional housing 

“successfully”?

4. What factors affect these families’ TH outcomes, including: 

a. Types and amounts of service from TH programs, and other program 

characteristics

b. Personal characteristics and housing barriers 

c. Contextual factors such as employment and housing markets? 

LOGIC MODEL 

These research questions can be incorporated into a logic model depicting a set of hypotheses or 

expectations about how TH produces outcomes for families, as we do in figure 1.1. The leftmost 

box in figure 1.1 represents the characteristics of the families who come to TH programs, 

including their assets and any barriers they may have to reaching the TH program goals of 

obtaining and retaining housing. They clearly have some such barriers, because at the time they 

enter TH they are without housing. Some families have significantly more barriers than others. 

The effects of these family-specific barriers and assets on the odds of stably returning to housing 

are shown in figure 1.1 as Arrow A. 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview 6

Figure 1.1: Logic Model for Family TH Program Impact 

OUTCOMES A -Obtain housing; 

Family retain 12 months 

assets -Working; and TH characteristics, B earned income barriers plus practices, -Children services, and 

activities to engaged in D

promote goals school; 

emotionally well 

C

Housing cost and availability, employment opportunities

The characteristics, activities, and services of TH programs are expected to improve a homeless 

family’s chances of obtaining and retaining housing, which are the primary outcomes toward 

which most TH programs strive. One of the ways that TH programs are designed to do this is to 

increase their residents’ assets and most particularly reduce their barriers to housing—the effect 

shown by Arrow B. 

Barriers may be very simple, such as a family’s ignorance about how to search for housing or 

how to fill out a tenant application. A TH program may convey relevant skills and knowledge on 

which the family may act to locate and apply for housing. Barriers might be more difficult to 

resolve, such as poor credit or rental history, or a criminal record; a TH program would work to 

help the family eliminate or reduce these barriers. Finally, barriers may be very complex and 

assets few, such as when a parent has mental health, health, and/or substance abuse issues, there 

is violence in the home, children have significant problems, and so on. One would hope that TH 

programs have studied the assets and barriers of families for whom emergency shelter has not 

proved sufficient to return them to housing, and that they structure their interventions to address 

these factors, including finding ways to help the hardest-to-serve families with the most barriers. 

But it is also possible that TH programs decide what they can do and select families into their 

program based on an assessment of whether the family will benefit from what the TH program 

offers.

Our survey of TH programs was designed to determine which of these approaches of TH 

programs is more common, by examining the screening and entry criteria that TH programs 

employ and the array of services and supports they offer. A TH program might offer intensive 

counseling and supports to help address these issues. It might take the approach that assets 

should increase and barriers shrink before a family is placed in housing, or work on the 

alternative premise that housing placement should come first and all supports to retain housing 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview 7

should come after placement. An early project report (Burt 2006) describes characteristics of 

transitional housing programs themselves, some of which are used as predictors of post-TH 

success in the analyses presented in this report. 

The environment in which a TH program operates, especially housing cost and availability and 

employment opportunities, will exert a major effect on a family’s ability to get housing. Arrow 

C shows these effects. In addition to helping families change their assets and barriers, a TH 

program may work on altering these environmental factors by using a housing developer to 

establish good relationships with landlords, supporting families with transitional services once 

they move in, helping families get housing subsidies and jobs so they can meet rent obligations, 

and so on. These efforts to change environmental factors appear in Figure 1 as Arrow D. The 

sum of all forces acting together (all the arrows) is expected to affect the ultimate success of 

families in achieving housing stability, and hence the effectiveness of TH programs. 

We collected measures for each box in figure 1.1 and can describe family and TH program 

characteristics and family outcomes. We do not have a comparison or control group, so we 

cannot definitively test the strength and impact of each arrow. Further, as it turns out, many of 

the important changes that happened to families occurred while they were in TH rather than in 

the year following TH, and there are relatively few domains on which we have information about 

families at the time of TH entry and earlier, while they were homeless. We look at changes in 

these domains very carefully, and also examine post-TH changes where they occur. We can also 

report on the extent to which TH program client characteristics are the result of significant 

selection bias and how many TH programs orient their services toward the hardest-to-serve 

families. 

RECRUITING TH FAMILIES3

This study used a three-stage strategy to sample families leaving transitional housing programs. 

Because community characteristics may affect successful outcomes of TH programs at least as 

much as any efforts the programs or families make themselves, Stage 1 involved selecting 

communities, because we wanted to assure variation in community characteristics as well as in 

TH program and client characteristics. We used Continuums of Care as our “communities,” 

regardless of the types of jurisdictions they included. Our only constraint, and it was a big one, 

was that to be eligible for selection a community had to have at least 350 family TH beds (about 

120 family units) to assure a sufficient number of families leaving TH within the study’s 

recruitment period so we could meet our goals for sample size. Only 20 or 25 of the more than 

450 CoCs in the country met this size criterion, and of course they are all large urban CoCs. 

In Stage 2 we selected family TH programs operating within the CoCs. To be included a 

program had to have at least 4 family TH units, and most had more. In chapter 4 we compare the 

TH programs in our study with the array of TH programs nationwide so the reader will have a 

good sense of what they do and do not represent. We gathered information from TH programs 

about their target populations, approach to helping families, staffing patterns, and other 

characteristics, which we report briefly in chapter 4 and use in the final analyses for this study. 

3

 Appendix B describes study methods more fully than can be done in this chapter. 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview 8

In Stage 3 we recruited families leaving TH from the sampled TH programs, interviewed them at 

moveout or as close to moveout as we could get, and followed them until 12 months after their 

TH program exit. A detailed account of study methods will be found in Appendix B. Here we 

summarize the basics. 

Families leaving TH were recruited from TH programs in five CoCs that in combination gave us 

two Midwest industrial cities; two Sunbelt cities, one in the South and one in the West, and a 

Northwest city. It included CoCs with highly varying rates of available housing, public 

resources committed to housing subsidies, other public benefits and supports for poor families, 

and employment opportunities. It also promised to provide a sample of families with varying 

racial and ethnic backgrounds. The participating CoCs were: 

• Cleveland/Cuyahoga County, 

• Detroit (includes the Wayne County cities of Hamtramck and Highland Park, but not the 

rest of Wayne County), 

• Houston (includes Harris and Fort Bend Counties), 

• San Diego City and County, 

• Seattle/King County. 

In each of the five CoCs, we screened up to 15 family TH programs offering 11 or more beds (4 

or more units). In four CoCs this meant talking with every such family TH program, as the CoCs 

did not have 15 programs with 4 or more units. The fifth CoC had many more than 15 such 

programs, so we sampled 15 for screening across the range of program size from 4 to more than 

50 units. We screened 53 family TH programs in all. 

Of the 53 family TH programs screened, 36 participated in the family recruitment aspect of the 

study by referring one or more families with whom we completed at least one interview. We 

worked with seven family TH programs in four CoCs and eight programs in the remaining CoC. 

FINAL SAMPLE OF FAMILIES AND INTERVIEW COMPLETION RATES

The interview strategy called for interviewing families at moveout and 3, 6, and 12 months 

thereafter. We succeeded in recruiting 195 families into the study, meaning that we were able to 

complete a first interview with 195 mothers.4 However, only 117 of these interviews were 

completed within the first month or so after the family moved out of TH. The remaining 78 

families had already left TH at the time they were referred to the study. Some had been out of 

TH only two or three months, but a few had left fully nine months before we learned about them 

and were able to interview them. We developed a special “first interview” format for these 

“retrospective” families, to get information about their situation at moveout for selected variables 

as well as their current situation.5

4

 Families in the sample by study community are as follows: Cleveland—59; Detroit—28; Houston—36; San 

Diego—26; Seattle—46. 

5

 Recruitment began in early November 2005, with the expectation that we would recruit families prospectively—as 

they left TH—for three months (through February 28, 2006) and would also seek retrospective referrals—families 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview 9

Regardless of when we began to interview mothers, we were able to complete 12 month 

interviews with 179 of the 195 families in our sample (92 percent completion rate at 12 months). 

We also completed 130 3-month follow-up interviews (67 percent), 140 6-month interviews (72 

percent), and 43 9-month interviews (22 percent). Since we have the most complete data for the 

moveout period and for 12 months after moveout, our analysis strategy looks at family situations 

at moveout and changes in their situation at the 12 month point. We use the interviews 

representing intervening time points, when we have them, to gain insights into the stability or 

instability of family situations during their first year after leaving transitional housing.

DATA GATHERED AND STRUCTURE OF DATA ANALYSIS 

Interviews with mothers gathered information pertinent to different units of analysis.6 These 

included the mother (who was always the one completing the interview), the household, and the 

mother’s children. In addition, the oldest of the mother’s minor children living with her was 

selected as a “Focal Child” for the purpose of collecting more detailed information about 

children. As HUD was particularly interested in the relationship of stable housing to children’s 

stability in school, selecting the oldest child living with the mother as the Focal Child assured 

that we would have information about a reasonable number of school-age children. Examples of 

information collected about each unit of analysis are: 

• For the household—housing situation, household composition, total income, rent. 

• For the mother—age, race, Hispanic origin, marital status, primary language, health 

conditions and disabilities, housing and homeless history, education, employment, 

income and benefits, mental health and substance abuse issues, criminal history, and 

TH services received and their perceived usefulness. 

• For the mother’s children—number; whether minors or adults; whether with her in TH; 

and for minor children, gender, age, whether living with her or not post-TH, if living 

with her whether they had ever not lived with her, and if not living with her, whether 

she was working on reuniting with the child. 

• For the Focal Child—TH services received and perceived usefulness, health conditions 

and disabilities, and, for the year before entering TH and again for the year post-TH, 

school attendance and engagement (if school-age), and emotional health. 

The dependent variables for this study were (1) family housing situation at 12 months and 

stability since moveout, (2) family income level and employment at 12 months, and (3) 

that had left TH up to three months earlier (back to August 1, 2005)—to reach our goal of 300 families (60 per 

CoC). In reality, families left TH much more slowly than projected, so recruitment had to be extended through June 

30, 2006. Even with that extension, which more than doubled the prospective recruitment period, only one CoC 

came close to recruiting 60 families. Actual numbers of families completing at least one interview were 59 for 

Cleveland, 28 for Detroit, 36 for Houston, 26 for San Diego, and 46 for Seattle. 

6

 Appendix C contains the Family Moveout Interview protocol, Appendix D contains the Family Follow-Up 

Interview protocol, and Appendix E contains the protocol used for chart reviews of TH program case records. 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview 10

children’s school engagement and emotional health. Variables representing the boxes in figure 

1.1 were developed from interview responses and used in multivariate analyses to assess their 

relationship to family outcomes. Variables were included in analyses as independent variables to 

represent personal characteristics of the mother, public supports received, TH program 

characteristics, mother’s relationship to the TH program (e.g., how long the mother spent in the 

program and the mother’s perception of the program’s overall helpfulness for herself and her 

children). CoC contextual variables were also included as independent variables. 

A note on statistical significance—most chapters of the report contain tables showing responses 

on survey questions or new variables for the sample as a whole and also by study community.

Because of the small sample size overall (195) and the very small samples in some study 

communities (as low as 28 in Detroit), even seemingly large between-community differences 

may not be statistically significant. Usually it takes a difference of 19 or 20 percentage points to 

reach statistical significance in a comparison of one community to another, especially if the two 

communities being compared are ones with relatively few families. If the topic being presented 

is one that cuts the sample even further—for example, describing wages for mothers who are 

working—statistical significance is even more elusive. Our practice in the text of the report has 

been to describe only differences that are significant and to focus most on the results for the 

sample as a whole. 

THE REST OF THIS REPORT 

The rest of this report is organized as follows: the first two chapters describe the families in the 

sample, including basic information and housing and homeless histories. The next two chapters 

describe the intervention—TH program characteristics and the services that families received 

while in TH. Chapters 6 through 10 cover families’ post-TH experiences in a number of 

outcome domains, including housing, education, employment, mental health, and addictions.

For some of these domains we also have information about pre-TH status and status during TH 

and use this information to assess change over a longer period that spans pre- and post-TH 

situations. Chapter 11 looks at the children in the study families, including some children’s 

outcomes. The final chapters pull together study findings in an integrated analysis of TH 

program impact and implications for the future of transitional housing. The following 

paragraphs indicate the contents of each chapter in more detail. 

Information about families successfully leaving TH begins in chapter 2, which presents 

demographic and other basic descriptive characteristics of sample families. The latter 

include understanding how many children the mother has and whether they live with her, English 

language proficiency, health issues and physical disabilities of mother and children, and mother’s 

criminal history. 

Chapter 3 covers housing and homelessness histories before families entered transitional 

housing. For housing history we examine whether the mother ever had a lease in her own name, 

any history of evictions, and, in the 12 months before entering TH, whether she had trouble 

paying rent or utilities or had trouble getting enough food for her family due to inadequate 

income. We also look at the numbers and types of situations the family lived in during the year 

before entering TH. Homelessness history reported includes the number of times the mother has 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview 1111

been homeless, how old she was when she first became homeless, and information about her 

most recent episode of homelessness before entering TH. 

Chapter 4 describes the characteristics of TH programs contributing families to the sample 

that we think are most likely to affect family outcomes after TH. These include housing 

configuration, program size, maximum length of stay, staffing patterns, and several variables 

describing who the program will or will not accept. These program characteristics were 

incorporated as predictors (representing figure 1.1’s Arrow B) in the multivariate analyses we 

conducted to learn what factors affect family outcomes. 

Chapter 5 looks at the supportive services mothers received while in TH and in the following 

year. Mothers reported issues that they needed help with, whether they got that help and whether 

it came from the TH program or elsewhere, and the perceived usefulness of the help if they got 

it. Issues addressed include health care, drug/alcohol treatment, mental health care, job 

readiness, food/groceries, interpersonal relations, violence, case management, 

credit/debts/money problems, education, life skills, goal-setting, parenting, and reunification 

with children. Similar information on children’s receipt of TH services is reported in chapter 11. 

Chapter 6 looks at housing patterns following TH exit. Continuity and discontinuity in 

housing situations after leaving TH are explored, including any observed patterns such as quick 

achievement of stability, shaky beginnings followed by ultimate stability, never achieving stable 

housing but avoiding literal homelessness, or becoming homeless again. The chapter also 

examines rent levels and whether the family has a housing subsidy, changes in household 

composition, whether families have trouble paying rent or utilities (housing hardship), and 

satisfaction with current and any former living situations; changes in perceived privacy, space, 

safety, affordability, state of repair, neighborhood, overall satisfaction. 

Chapter 7 examines mothers’ educational attainment at moveout and changes over time. It 

also looks at mothers’ participation in and completion of education or training courses while in 

TH and thereafter. We also look at mothers’ perceptions of TH program impact on educational 

achievement. 

Chapter 8 focuses on mothers’ income, income sources (including employment), and 

noncash supports. It covers income, benefits receipt, and income sources during the 12 months 

before our first interview with the family and 12 months following TH program exit. It looks at 

cash and noncash sources of income and support from public programs and changing patterns of 

financial support during the year following program exit, including any shifts from public 

benefits to employment or to more earnings from employment. For employment we look at 

employment history, employment at moveout, and changes in employment within the first year 

post-TH. Employment history covers whether the mothers ever worked for pay, how old they 

were when they got their first job, the proportion of time they had spent working since age 16, 

and whether they were working or not when they entered TH. Information about jobs includes 

number and types, whether full or part time, whether regular or temporary/seasonal, how long 

the jobs lasted, hourly wage, and whether they carried health care coverage for self and/or 

children. For anyone not working at the time of an interview, or who had never worked, the 

chapter also reports reasons. 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview 12

Chapter 9 addresses mothers’ self-reports of their own mental or emotional problems,

including their own perceived mental health status and history, and any changes that have 

occurred since she left TH. We also report any mental health treatment the mothers have had, 

their perceptions of how useful TH was in helping them address their mental health problems, 

and any changes in mental health status during the 12 months after leaving TH. 

Chapter 10 focuses on mothers’ self-reports of their own issues with alcohol and drugs,

including past and present use and changes during and after TH. It also looks at any substance 

abuse treatment she may have received, the perceived usefulness of TH program services with 

respect to substance abuse and addictions, changes during the first year post-TH.

Chapter 11 describes our findings related to children in TH families, including the number of a 

mother’s minor and adult children and the age, gender, and living situation of all of her minor

children, whether living with her or not. For children living with the mother now who did not 

always live with her, it reports where the child(ren) lived, with whom, for how long, and whether 

the TH program helped with reunification. For minor children not living with the mother, it 

reports whether the mother is working on getting child back and whether program is helping. It 

also presents information on the Focal Children in study households, including their emotional 

condition while homeless and since leaving TH, and school-related issues for school-age Focal 

Children. Information about TH service use covers preventive (well-baby, vaccinations) health 

care, child care/nursery school/after school programs, help with schoolwork, recreational 

activities, mentoring, and dealing with violence. Mothers’ perceptions of overall TH program’s 

impact on her children’s attitudes and behavior are also reported. 

Chapter 12 presents our analysis of the impacts that TH programs may have on homeless 

families, structuring the analyses as much as possible to conform to the logic model presented in 

figure 1.1. It looks at the three major outcome domains of housing stability, income stability or 

improvement, and children’s attachment to and stability in school (for school-age children). For 

each domain, the chapter presents analyses of at least two outcome measures. For housing 

stability it looks at residence in the same place for the whole 12 months following TH exit and 

never having had a place of one’s own during the follow-up period. For employment it looks at 

changes in working between TH program entry, program exit, and the 12-month follow-up, and 

any shift in the proportion of family income that comes from employment. For school-age 

children it looks at stability in school (no school changes, consistent attendance) and engagement 

in school. It also looks at emotional well-being for children of all ages. Finally, it summarizes 

the findings of our analysis and discusses their implications for HUD policy and that of CoCs 

throughout the country. 
Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? 13

Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? 

This chapter provides an overview of the families that participated in this study. Mothers 

(n=195) in these families completed interviews describing their situation as they left their 

transitional housing program (moveout); 179 mothers (92 percent) also completed an interview 

approximately one year after exit (12-month follow-up). 

The chapter looks first at the mothers’ basic demographic characteristics—age, race/ethnicity, 

and marital status, including any changes in the latter between moveout and 12-month follow-up. 

It then describes the children associated with these mothers at moveout, whether under or over 

age 18, whether living with the mother or not. Any children born to the mothers during the 

follow-up period are also noted. Household composition is examined next, starting with the 

people who lived with the mother in her first residence after moveout and also reporting 

household composition at 12 months and any changes in between. Finally, the chapter reports 

physical disabilities affecting mothers and the children living with them, the language spoken in 

the mother’s family of origin, and the mother’s criminal history.7

MOTHERS’ DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS 

Mothers reported their age and marital status at moveout, their race, and whether or not they are 

of Hispanic origin. Table 2.1 shows the distribution of ages for all study communities taken 

together and separately for each community. The mothers ranged in age from 18 through 60 

when they left their transitional housing programs. Approximately one-fifth of the sample was 

20 to 24, another fifth was 25 to 29, and another fifth was 30 to 34. Six percent were 18 or 19 

and 12 percent were 45 or older. 

Comparing these mothers’ ages to national statistics on parents in homeless families, essentially 

the same proportion are 24 or younger (25 versus 26 percent) and 35 to 44 (26 versus 28 

percent). However, more study mothers are 45 or older (12 versus 4 percent) than is true 

nationally (Burt et al. 1999, appendix table 2.A1).8

7

 Because the samples of mothers from each community are small, it takes a difference of between 15 and 25 

percentage points to reach statistical significance at p < .05. Comparisons between the two communities with the 

largest samples, Cleveland with 59 mothers and Seattle with 46, will be significant at percentage point differences of 

15 to 20 percent. Comparisons between the two communities with the smallest samples, Detroit with 28 mothers 

and San Diego with 26, will be significant at percentage point differences of 20 to 25 percent. Comparisons at the 

tail ends of a distribution (e.g., 5 versus 20 or 80 versus 95 percent) are more likely to be statistically significant than 

comparisons in the middle that have the same percentage point difference (e.g., 40 versus 55 percent). In the text we 

make comparisons among communities; when differences reach statistical significance at p < .05 we describe those 

differences as statistically significant.

8

 National comparisons provided in this chapter come from Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve 

(Burt et al. 1999), the full technical report of findings from the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers 

and Clients (NSHAPC). Data were collected in 1996 and are thus more than a decade old; however, no more recent 

study exists that can provide a comparison to a national sample of homeless families. Therefore we use NSHAPC 

data to provide a national context of homeless families against which we can understand the similarities and 
Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? 14

Table 2.1: Mothers’ Age at the Time of Leaving Transitional Housing Programs 

(percentages) 

Age

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

18-19 6 7 25 0 0 0

20-24 19 24 11 15 8 24

25-29 20 15 14 17 31 26

30-34 18 17 7 22 12 26

35-44 26 22 21 33 42 17

45-54 10 15 18 6 4 7

55+ 2 0 4 6 4 0

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

The median age for the whole sample at moveout was 31, varying between 29 and 34 in the 

different communities. The slight differences in median age mask some relatively large 

differences in the younger and older mothers in the different communities. Detroit mothers were 

both the “youngest” and the “oldest” at moveout. One in four were 18 or 19 years old—a fact 

explained by the presence of several transitional housing programs in Detroit that focus on 

serving pregnant teenagers. At the same time, 22 percent of the Detroit mothers were 45 or older 

at moveout, and relatively few were in the middle age ranges. The mothers participating in the 

study from San Diego and Seattle included the fewest who were 45 or older at moveout—8 and 7 

percent, respectively. 

Table 2.2: Mothers’ Marital Status at Moveout 

(percentages) 

Marital status 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Never married 50 71 64 28 23 46

Currently married 10 2 4 14 27 13

Separated 17 10 11 39 15 13

Divorced 22 15 18 19 35 26

Widowed 1 2 4 0 0 0

Refused to answer <1 0 0 0 0 2

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

differences of the mothers and families in this study. Families in NSHAPC could have been living in any location; 

in fact at least 48 percent were living in transitional housing programs at the time they were interviewed. 
Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? 15

Half of the mothers in this sample had never married, though all have children. This proportion 

is somewhat higher than the national rate of 41 percent of parents in homeless families who had 

never married (Burt et al. 1999, appendix table 2.A1). As table 2.2 shows, only 10 percent were 

married at the time they left transitional housing, 17 percent were separated from a spouse, 22 

percent were divorced, and 1 percent were widowed. Mothers in Cleveland and Detroit were 

much less likely than those in Houston and San Diego ever to have married (29 and 36 percent in 

the first two cities had ever married, compared to 72 and 77 percent in the second two cities).

The higher marriage rate in Houston and San Diego likely is due to the higher proportion of 

Hispanic women in those study communities. Mothers in Seattle were in between, with 46 

percent having never married. 

Very few mothers changed their marital status between moveout and the 12 month follow-up. 

Three percent who had been married at moveout had divorced or separated a year later; the same 

proportion had gotten married between moveout and follow-up. At follow-up, 94 percent of 

mothers were still in the same marital status they had been at moveout. 

RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN

Communities were selected for this study with the intent of including mothers from different 

racial and ethnic backgrounds. As can be seen in table 2.3, which lists racial/ethnic 

combinations in order of frequency in the sample, half of the mothers in the study sample are 

African-American and not of Hispanic origin. In Cleveland and Detroit that percentage rises to 

71 and 82 percent, respectively, while only 15 percent of the mothers in San Diego are AfricanAmerican. Conversely, 19 percent of the whole sample reports Hispanic origin (regardless of 

race), but the proportion Hispanic in the different study cities is as low as 4 percent in Detroit 

and as high as 39 percent in San Diego. 

Table 2.3: Mothers’ Race and Hispanic Origin 

(percentages) 

Race/Hispanic origin 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Black, non-Hispanic 52 71 82 44 15 35

White, non-Hispanic 20 12 14 14 42 26

Hispanic, of any race 19 7 4 33 39 22

More than one race, 

non-Hispanic 6 10 0 6 0 6

American Indian/ 

Alaskan native 1 0 0 3 0 2

Asian/Pacific islander, 

non-Hispanic 2 0 0 0 4 9

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 
Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? 16

CHILDREN

Children are the defining feature of the households in this study, as a child must be present with 

a parent for a household to be considered a “homeless family.” Many of the families in this 

study had quite complicated household arrangements. Some of a mother’s children may not 

have lived with her, or may have moved in and out during the course of the study.9 Households 

sometimes also included children other than the mother’s biological children—among our 

families are four households that include only grandchildren10 and several households with 

children of other adult household members as well as the mother’s own children. These children 

of other adults may be a boyfriend’s children, or children of the adult relatives (brothers, 

aunts/uncles, cousins) with whom the mother is staying. 

In this section we present some very basic information about the children in the homeless 

families in our sample, returning in chapter 11 to a variety of issues related to children. We look 

here at the number of children a mother has, in total and by age group (0 to 17 or 18 and older).

We then look in a bit more detail and her children age 0 to 17, including whether they are boys 

or girls, and the number who live with the mother. 

ALL CHILDREN 

We look first at all of a mother’s children. Table 2.4 shows the proportion of families with 1, 2, 

3, 4, and 5 or more children (first panel), and breaks out the number of children age 0 to 17 

(second panel) and the number age 18 and older (third panel). Combining all communities, just 

over half the mothers (56 percent) have only one or two children, but just over one-fourth (27 

percent) have four or more children. Seattle families are most likely to be small (37 percent with 

only one child), and San Diego families are most likely to be large (41 percent with four or more 

children). 

With respect to the ages of children in sample families, all have minor children (age 0 to 17). 

Just over one third (36 percent) have only one minor child, but almost one in five (19 percent) 

have four or more minor children. Mothers with only one minor child are most common in 

Detroit and Seattle, while mothers with four or more minor children account for one third of San 

Diego families in the sample. Three-fourths of the mothers (74 percent) do not have any 

children age 18 or older. Mothers in Cleveland and Houston are most likely and mothers in 

Seattle are least likely to have adult children. 

Focal Children 

Instructions to interviewers were to take the oldest child living with the mother as the focal 

child—the child about whom we would ask detailed questions about living arrangements, service 

9

 In some cases these moves into and out of the household caused a change in the child being treated as the Focal 

Child—an issue we explore in chapter 11. 

10 That is, the person we are calling the “mother” is the biological mother of someone who is not in the household 

but who has children. At least some of those children are in the care and custody of their grandmother, who became 

homeless and participated in a TH program with those children. 
Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? 17

receipt, emotional health, and school-related issues. Of the 195 children selected as focal 

children (one per family), at moveout we counted 123 (61 percent) as school age—5 to 17—and 

72 (39 percent) were preschoolers—age 0 to 4. Among the school-age focal children, four had 

been 17 while in TH but had turned 18 by the time their family left TH. We treated these four as 

school-age and continued to ask mothers about them throughout the follow-up period. 

Table 2.4: All Children of Mothers in the Sample, by Age (0 to 17; 18 or older) 

(percentages) 

Number and age of 

children

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Number of children, any 

age

1 27 22 29 22 27 37

2 27 27 32 31 23 24

3 19 20 18 19 8 22

4 15 14 11 19 23 13

5 or more 12 17 10 9 19 4

Number of children ages 

0 to 17a

1 36 27 43 39 31 44

2 30 37 32 25 23 28

3 14 15 7 17 12 17

4 or more 20 21 18 19 34 11

Number of children 18 

and older 

0 74 69 71 69 77 85

1 14 20 14 17 12 7

2 or more 12 11 15 14 11 8

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

a Includes four 18-year-old children who were focal children, although they had turned 18 by the time the family left TH. 

We asked the gender of all of a mother’s minor children, any child age 18 who was the focal 

child for that family (four children), and any grandchildren in her custody and without their own 

parent being present. Thirty-one percent had no girl children under age 18, 43 percent had one, 

18 percent had two, and 8 percent had three or more minor girl children. Twenty-seven percent 

had no boy children under 18, 42 percent had one, 21 percent had two, and 10 percent had three 

or more minor boy children. We did not ask about gender for children age 18 and older, or for 

children of another adult living with the mother. 

MOTHERS’ PRE-SCHOOL AND SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN, WITH HER OR NOT AT MOVEOUT 

In keeping with the complexity of these families, we report the various combinations of preschool age (0 to 5 years) and school-age (6 to 17 years) children a mother has, and also whether 
Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? 18

they lived with her at moveout.11 As the first panel of table 2.5 shows, 28 percent of mothers in 

the sample have both pre-school and school-age children, 28 percent have only pre-school 

children, and 44 percent have only school-age children. San Diego has the highest proportion of 

mothers with both pre-school and school-age children and Seattle has the lowest proportion. San 

Diego has by far the lowest proportion of mothers with only pre-school children, and Cleveland 

has the lowest proportion of mothers with only school-age children. 

Table 2.5: Mothers’ Minor Children, by Pre-School (age 0 to 5) or School Age (6 to 17) 

and Whether Living With Mother at Moveout 

(percentages) 

Minor children’s age 

and living situation at 

moveout 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Mother hada

 Both pre-school and 

 school-age children

 Only pre-school age 

 children

 Only school age 

Children

28

28

44

34

31

36

21

32

46

25

25

50

50

8

42

15

37

48

Mother lived witha

 Both pre-school and 

 school-age children 

 Only her pre-school 

 child(ren) 

Only her school-age 

 child(ren) 

20

35

45

21

44

34

21

32

46

19

28

53

39

15

46

9

41

50

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

a Includes (1) 18-year-old children in four households who were Focal Children, although they had turned 18 by the time the family

left TH, and (2) grandchildren in four other households who were in the custody of the study (grand)mother but without the 

children’s mother being in the household. 

The second panel of table 2.5 shows the proportion of mothers who live with their minor children 

of various ages. Many of these mothers have minor children who did not live with them in 

transitional housing or in the housing they moved into when they left transitional housing. This 

can be seen in the generally lower proportions of mothers having both pre-school and school-age 

children who are living with children in both age groups. Overall, 28 percent of mothers have 

children in both age groups, but only 20 percent live with children in both age groups. This 

discrepancy is apparent in all study communities except Detroit. In Cleveland and Seattle, only 

about 60 percent of mothers who have children in both age groups are living with children in 

both age groups—a percentage that rises to about 77 percent in Houston and San Diego. 

11 Chapter 11 explores changes in children’s living situation between moveout and 12 months, and also looks at the 

situation of children who do not live with their mother. 
Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? 19

One can also see that the proportion of mothers who live only with pre-school children is 

generally a bit higher than the proportion who have only pre-school children. The same is true 

for mothers who live only with school-age children compared to those who have only school-age 

children. What is going on is that some of the children of mothers who have children in both age 

groups are not living with their mother, pushing the mothers into one or the other group of 

mothers who live only with pre-school or only with school-age children. 

OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF MOTHERS AT MOVEOUT 

PRIMARY LANGUAGE 

The ability to speak English makes it easier for people to navigate the communities they live in, 

and especially to get jobs that pay more and provide a chance for advancement. Transitional 

housing programs work to help mothers overcome various barriers they may have to getting and 

retaining housing. Where relevant, that assistance may include improving the mothers’ ability to 

use English in its spoken and written forms. We asked mothers what language was spoken in the 

home where they grew up, and what language they speak in the households where they live now.

Table 2.6 reports their answers. 

More than 9 in 10 mothers grew up speaking English, although they may also have spoken 

another language at home. More than 8 in 10 currently live in a home where English is spoken; 

the remainder speaks another language at home, although they may also speak English. As with 

some other basic household characteristics such as race/ethnicity, there is considerable variation 

in home language across the five study communities. All mothers in Cleveland and Detroit grew 

up speaking English, and only a few Cleveland families speak another language now. In 

Houston and San Diego, about 1 in 10 mothers did not grow up speaking English; Spanish was 

the most common other language spoken. In Houston, San Diego, and Seattle, significantly 

more mothers speak a non-English language at home now than grew up in a home where no 

English was spoken. Spanish is the most common non-English language named. Only in Seattle 

were languages other than English or Spanish identified as childhood or current languages.

Other languages, named by only one or two people in all sites combined, included Pacific island 

languages (Samoan and Tagalog), Middle Eastern/North African languages (Turkish, Farsi, 

Somali, Swahili), Creole (Haitian), and other European languages (French, German). 
Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? 20

Table 2.6: Growing Up Speaking English and 

Language Other than English Spoken in the Home Now 

(percentages) 

Language 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Did you grow up speaking 

English? If not, what 

language did you speak? 

English

Spanish

Other

92

4

4

100

0

0

100

0

0

89

11

0

88

8

4

80

4

16

Do you speak a language 

other than English in the 

home now? 

English

Spanish

Other

82

12

6

97

3

0

100

0

0

69

22

9

73

23

4

65

15

20

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

HEALTH CONDITIONS AND PHYSICAL DISABILITIES 

Health conditions and physical disabilities may be serious enough to limit a mother’s ability to 

work to support her family, which would increase the family’s risk of losing their post-TH 

housing. In addition, if children have serious health conditions or disabilities that affect their 

ability to attend school or participate in family or community activities. Certain health 

conditions might also affect a family’s ability to find appropriate housing, if the housing needs to 

be wheelchair accessible or otherwise accommodate handicaps or health conditions. Table 2.7 

gives mothers’ reports of any limitations they may have due to health conditions, as well as 

whether their conditions require special housing accommodations. Table 2.10 gives the same 

information about children, based on mothers’ reports. 

The first thing of note in both tables is the very high proportion of refusals to answer the 

questions—something that we did not encounter with most other questions, including those 

about criminal history that we report in table 2.9. For the whole sample, 39–41 percent refused 

to answer these questions for themselves and for their children. Detroit mothers were by far the 

most reluctant to answer these questions (71 percent refused), but even in the community with 

the lowest proportion of refusals, Seattle, 26 percent of mothers refused to answer these 

questions.
Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? 21

Table 2.7: Mothers’ Health Conditions and Physical Disabilities 

 (percentages) 

Limitations due to health 

conditions 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle 

Mother has current health limits in 

moderate activities such as 

moving a table or walking to the 

store or to school 

A lot 5 0 7 0 8 11

 A little 11 15 4 14 8 9

Not at all 44 49 18 50 35 54

 Refused to answer 40 36 71 36 50 26

Mother has current health limits in 

climbing several flights of stairs 

A lot 7 2 4 8 8 13

 A little 11 18 11 6 12 7

Not at all 41 42 14 50 31 54

 Refused to answer 41 37 71 36 50 26

Mother has physical disabilities 

that require special housing 

accommodation 

 A little 2 0 0 3 0 4

Not at all 57 64 29 61 46 70

 Refused to answer 41 36 71 36 54 26

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Only 2 percent of mothers said they had physical disabilities that required special housing, and 

only 1 percent said their children had such disabilities; these families were in Houston and 

Seattle. Five to 7 percent of mothers said their own health placed “a lot” of limits on their ability 

to do moderate activity or to climb several flights of stairs; 1–3 percent said the same for their 

children. Overall, 41–44 percent said they were “not at all” limited by their health, accounting 

for almost all of the mothers who answered the questions. 
Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? 22

Table 2.8: Children’s Health Conditions and Physical Disabilities 

 (percentages) 

Limitations due to health 

conditions 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle 

Child(ren) have current health 

limits in moderate activities such 

as moving a table or walking to 

the store or to school 

A lot 1 0 0 0 0 2

 A little 3 7 0 0 0 4

Not at all 55 56 29 64 50 67

 Refused to answer 41 37 71 36 50 26

Child(ren) have current health 

limits in climbing several flights 

of stairs 

 A little 3 7 0 0 0 4

Not at all 50 44 25 58 50 67

Child not walking yet 6 14 4 6 0 2

 Refused to answer 41 36 71 36 50 26

Child(ren) have physical 

disabilities that require special 

housing accommodation 

 A little 1 0 0 0 0 4

Not at all 57 61 29 64 50 70

 Refused to answer 39 39 71 36 50 26

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

CRIMINAL HISTORY

Having a criminal record—especially, having a felony conviction—can be a major barrier to 

obtaining housing. Many landlords check criminal history before deciding to rent an apartment, 

and many will not rent to people with recent criminal records. Even more daunting, the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, whose housing and rental subsidy resources 

are the main route out of homelessness for many families, has regulations prohibiting receipt of 

these resources by people with felony convictions in the last five years, as well as regulations 

relating to drug use and drug-related involvement with the criminal justice system. 
Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? 23

Table 2.9: Mothers’ Experiences with the Criminal Justice System 

 (percentages) 

Involvement with the 

criminal justice system 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle 

Were you ever placed in a 

juvenile justice facility, 

whether for committing a 

crime or for status reasons? 

Yes

 No 

 Refused to answer 

10

88

2

10

85

5

11

82

7

8

92

0

19

81

0

4

96

0

Have you ever been placed in 

an adult jail or prison for more 

than 24 hours at a time? 

Yes

 No 

 Refused to answer 

34

63

3

46

47

7

25

68

7

25

75

0

46

54

0

26

74

0

Have you ever been 

convicted of a felony? 

Yes

 No 

 Refused to answer 

15

83

2

22

75

3

11

82

7

11

89

0

8

92

0

15

85

0

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

These policies can be major barriers for homeless families seeking to return to housing, as 

addictions and their consequences are one of the primary reasons they became homeless in the 

first place, and one of the most common issues to be addressed in transitional housing programs. 

We did not ask the mothers in this study about drug convictions specifically, but we did ask 

about incarceration as a minor and as an adult, and whether the mother had ever been convicted 

of a felony. Table 2.9 gives their answers. 

Ten percent of TH mothers reported having spent some time in a juvenile justice facility, rising 

to 19 percent among San Diego mothers and falling to 4 percent among Seattle mothers. 

Significantly more mothers—34 percent—had spent at least one day in an adult jail or prison. 

This includes almost half the mothers (46 percent) in Cleveland and San Diego, and one-fourth 

of the mothers in Detroit, Houston, and Seattle. A felony conviction was reported by 15 percent 

of mothers, ranging from 22 percent of Cleveland mothers down to 8 percent of San Diego 

mothers. These results indicate that one out of every six or seven TH mothers in this sample 

may have trouble getting housing due to her criminal record. The study asked about assistance 

obtained from TH programs in overcoming this barrier, which we report in chapter 5 where we 

describe TH services and their perceived usefulness. 
Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? Chapter 2: Who Are the Families in This Study? 24
Chapter 3: Housing and Homelessness in the Year Before Entering Transitional Housing Chapter 3: Housing and Homelessness in the Year Before Entering Transitional Housing 25

Chapter 3: Housing and Homelessness in the Year Before 

Entering Transitional Housing 

This chapter describes mothers’ history of homelessness over their lifetime, then focuses 

specifically on the experiences of homelessness and housing instability that affected our 

transitional housing families in the 12-month period before they arrived at their TH program. 

For some whose homelessness was very short, this 12-month time frame will include periods of 

stable housing before becoming homeless. For some whose homelessness had lasted more than a 

year before arriving at their TH program, all aspects of that time period will represent 

homelessness in one guise or another. 

Knowledge of these mothers’ homeless histories and the pathways that led to their most recent 

homeless episode and thence to a transitional housing program is important from two 

perspectives. First, it helps us understand the challenges that TH programs work with their 

residents to overcome as well as the barriers that families may face in achieving stable housing 

once they leave TH. Second, it gives us some idea of the types of people accepted into TH 

programs. In doing so it may shed light on the controversy about whether TH programs are 

taking mostly “easy to serve” families. However, in raising this latter possibility we must 

remind the reader that our sample consists of families that TH programs considered “successful” 

graduates. We deliberately did not try to recruit and follow families that dropped out for various 

reasons after only a month or two in the program without achieving any of the goals that are 

typical for TH program families. So we might expect that the families in our sample would have 

some things going for them that might not characterize the hardest-to-serve families who 

experience lengthy or repeated homelessness. 

More than for any other issue we examine in this report, homeless patterns show some important 

differences across our five communities that we want to sketch out before looking at the details 

of homeless patterns in the tables to follow. In none of the communities are the patterns 

completely consistent—in fact, the families in two communities appear to split into two quite 

different groups—but the communities can still be characterized as follows: 

• Cleveland families—have fewer very short (less than 24 hours) and more long (12+ 

months) homeless episodes, less “never moved” while homeless, more job loss, and 

more involvement with drugs. 

• Detroit families—have more very short (less than 24 hours) and fewer multiple episode 

homeless histories, less domestic violence (DV), more who never used emergency 

shelters, but more affected by situations with relatives and friends, including loss of 

housing because a primary tenant stopped paying rent or lost the housing (i.e., 

dependency), and more jail. Many aspects of these histories go along with the younger 

average age of Detroit mothers. 

• Houston families—have more very short (less than 24 hours) and more “never moved 

while homeless” histories, less domestic violence, less use of emergency shelters (more 

never used them), and more living in their “own place” before TH. 
Chapter 3: Housing and Homelessness in the Year Before Entering Transitional Housing Chapter 3: Housing and Homelessness in the Year Before Entering Transitional Housing 26

• San Diego families—one group appears to have short spells with domestic violence 

involvement, and one group appears to have long spells, drugs, and jail. 

• Seattle families—one group appears to have high shelter and DV shelter use, more 

going from “own place” directly to homelessness, and the lowest dependency on others 

who were primary tenants, while another group has many moves in the year before 

entering TH to venues that were not their own.

NUMBER OF TIMES HOMELESS 

More than half of the mothers in our sample (58 percent) had only been homeless for the one 

time that ended in their participation in transitional housing. Thus the median number of times 

homeless was 1 for all sites and overall. The mean number of times homeless was almost double 

the median at 1.8 times, reflecting the effects of having quite a number of mothers who had been 

homeless multiple times. Differences among sites were not statistically significant, although it 

appears that San Diego mothers were most likely and Cleveland mothers were least likely to be 

in a first homeless episode. Table 3.1 displays these results. 

Table 3.1: Number of Times Homeless 

(percentages) 

Number of times 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Once (this time) 58 51 57 58 69 63

2 times 19 22 21 17 19 15

3 times 7 5 4 11 0 11

4 or more times 13 17 18 14 8 9

Not answered 3 5 0 0 4 2

Mean # of times 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.4 1.6

Median # of times 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

LENGTH OF HOMELESS EPISODE LEADING TO TH 

Eighteen percent of mothers reported a period of homelessness that lasted less than 24 hours, 

including some who said they were not homeless at all (table 3.2). One might well ask how this 

could happen with transitional housing programs, which are intended to serve only those families 

that have not been able to return to regular housing with only the resources of emergency shelters 

to help them—that is, families that clearly are homeless and need more than basic help to get 

back into housing. The mothers’ stories reveal that some TH programs accept families who are 

still in their own place but are within seven days of being evicted, as HUD rules allow. Thus 

they do not report their situation as “homeless.” A few mothers reported living with relatives 

while on the waiting list for a spot in a TH program serving pregnant women, and moving into 

TH when the spot opened up. A few other mothers described themselves as being in their own 

place but very behind on paying rent and facing eviction, and that a TH program paid their back 
Chapter 3: Housing and Homelessness in the Year Before Entering Transitional Housing Chapter 3: Housing and Homelessness in the Year Before Entering Transitional Housing 27

rent and enabled them to stay in their own place (where they still were when we interviewed 

them following TH exit). People in this category basically never spent a night in what HUD 

would define as literal homelessness, but qualify for these programs under HUD rules because 

they are within seven days of being evicted. This pattern was most likely to happen in Detroit 

and Houston, and least likely to happen in Cleveland and Seattle. Conversely, 55 and 58 percent 

of Cleveland and San Diego mothers, respectively, had been homeless at least six months before 

they entered TH, as was true for 39 percent of Seattle mothers—significantly more than the 8 to 

12 percent in Detroit and Houston who had been homeless this long. 

Table 3.2: How Long Homeless This Time 

(percentages) 

Length of 

homelessness 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Less than 1 day, 

including within 7 

days of eviction 

18 10 37 33 19 7

At least 1 day up to 1 

month 14 8 25 28 15 4

1 to 3 months 18 12 25 17 4 30

3 to 6 months 13 15 7 11 4 20

6 to 12 months 22 31 4 6 35 28

12 months or more 14 24 4 6 23 11

Mean # of months 7.6 11.3 2.2 3.0 10.8 7.9

Median # of months 3.0 7.0 0.6 1.0 8.0 4.0

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to100 percent due to rounding. 

EXPERIENCES IN THE 12 MONTHS BEFORE ENTERING TH 

We were interested in many aspects of our families’ housing and financial experiences during the 

year before they entered a transitional housing program that might potentially have contributed 

to their ultimate loss of housing. These included 

1. All the places that families stayed during that 12 months, and the number of moves they 

made 

2. The quality of their housing as indicated by overcrowding or lack of utilities or 

functioning bathroom facilities 

3. Financial stress as indicated by an inability to pay utility bills or the rent, or by food 

insecurity—not having enough food for oneself or one’s children 

4. Use of emergency shelters 

5. Families’ living situation just before they became homeless the time that ended in their 

TH program participation. 
Chapter 3: Housing and Homelessness in the Year Before Entering Transitional Housing Chapter 3: Housing and Homelessness in the Year Before Entering Transitional Housing 28

PLACES WHERE THE FAMILIES STAYED 

We asked mothers to tell us where they stayed in the 12 months before they entered TH—a 

period which for some mothers included time housed as well as time homeless. Mothers often 

reported staying in more than one type of place. On average, they named 2.6 types of place, and 

may also have moved several times within a single type such as moving from one relative’s 

house to another, Table 3.3 indicates that the homes of family and friends were the most 

commonly named places, with 65 percent of mothers spending time in these venues in the 12 

months before TH entry. One’s own house or apartment was almost as common, with 57 percent 

naming it—Cleveland, Detroit, and San Diego mothers were less likely to do so than Houston 

mothers. 

Table 3.3: Where Families Stayed During the 12 Months Before Entering TH 

(percentages) 

Where stayed 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Relative’s or friend’s place 65 69 68 53 62 70

Own house/apartment 57 46 50 75 50 67

Emergency sheltera

36 39 14 22 31 61

Boyfriend’s or partner’s place 21 24 21 22 12 20

Domestic violence sheltera

15 14 0 8 23 28

Hotel/motel self pay 15 19 4 6 19 22

Addiction treatment programa

13 20 7 11 23 2

Voucher hotel/motel 11 0 4 0 19 33

Different TH program 10 15 4 3 12 13

Vehicle 9 10 4 0 8 20

Jail or prisona

 4 10 0 0 4 2

Hospital 4 7 4 0 0 7

Other “street” locations 4 8 4 0 0 4

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries will sum to more than 100 percent since mothers 

could indicate multiple places they stayed in the year before TH. 

a More mothers than shown here spent time in this type of venue, as indicated by the narrative story of their homelessness. 

Only 36 percent of mothers said they spent time in an emergency shelter in the 12 months before 

entering TH, with mothers in Detroit and Houston least likely to name this venue and mothers in 

Seattle most likely to do so. Domestic violence shelters were most likely to be used by mothers 

in San Diego and Seattle, while Seattle mothers were most likely to have slept in a vehicle while 

homeless (20 percent). 

NUMBER OF MOVES IN 12 MONTHS BEFORE TH

Overall, 16 percent of families in this study never moved from the place they were living before 

they entered TH. This was least likely to occur in Cleveland and Seattle compared to the other 

three cities. At the other end of the spectrum, 25 percent of mothers moved 4 or more times in 

this 12-month period, including 3 percent who moved more than 10 times (table 3.4). The 

median number of moves was 1.5 for the whole sample and ranged from 0.6 in Detroit and 0.7 in 

Houston to 2.7 in Seattle. 
Chapter 3: Housing and Homelessness in the Year Before Entering Transitional Housing Chapter 3: Housing and Homelessness in the Year Before Entering Transitional Housing 29

Table 3.4: Number of Moves in 12 Months Before Entering TH 

(percentages) 

Number of moves 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Never moved, still in 

same place as before 

TH 16 10 21 28 19 9

1 time 24 19 48 33 4 20

2 times 21 22 14 19 38 15

3 times 14 24 7 8 15 11

4 to 10 times 22 22 11 11 23 35

More than 10 times 3 3 0 0 0 9

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to100 percent due to rounding. 

HOUSING QUALITY AND FINANCIAL STRESS 

Undesirable housing conditions are frequently associated with the living circumstances of 

families just before they became homeless, as are many signs of financial distress. We asked 

whether families had lived in overcrowded conditions in the year before entering TH and learned 

that one in four families (26 percent) had done so. As shown in table 3.5, families in San Diego 

were the most likely to have been overcrowded (45 percent), and those in Detroit and Houston 

were the least likely to have lived in overcrowded conditions. Living under circumstances that 

lacked basic amenities such as heat, light, or bathroom facilities was a less common experience, 

reported by only 14 percent of mothers. 

We measured housing hardship of a financial nature by asking whether the families had had 

times during the year before entering TH when they could not pay utility bills or the rent. More 

than half had had each experience, with slightly under half (48 percent) reporting both types of 

financial hardship. There is little variation among the sites, except for a lower rate of housing 

hardship in San Diego than was reported in the other communities. Among single parents with 

incomes at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL), the National Survey of 

American Families (Nelson 2004) found that 35 percent experienced housing hardship in 2004.

Our families are poorer—most have incomes at or below 100 percent of FPL—so it is not 

surprising that they are more likely to report housing hardship. 

Food insecurity was also notable among families during the year before they entered TH. The 

National Survey of American Families also measured this condition and found that 59 percent of 

low-income single parents (those with incomes at or below 200 FPL experienced food insecurity 

as measured by agreement with at least one of the same three questions we used in our survey of 

TH families. Our sample families are right in that range, with 30 percent agreeing with all three 

food insecurity questions. No significant differences occurred between sites. 
Chapter 3: Housing and Homelessness in the Year Before Entering Transitional Housing Chapter 3: Housing and Homelessness in the Year Before Entering Transitional Housing 30

Table 3.5: Housing Quality and Financial Stress in the 12 Months Before Entering TH 

(percentages) 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle 

Lived in overcrowded conditions 

(% yes) 

26 30 11 9 45 33

Lived in housing without utilities 

or bathroom facilities (% yes) 

14 16 11 21 14 9

Housing Hardship 

 Not able to pay utility bills (% 

yes) 

54 56 50 58 38 61

 Not able to pay rent (% yes) 56 59 57 61 42 57

 Had trouble paying both rent 

 and utilities (% yes) 48 53 46 56 31 48

Food Insecurity

 Worried that food would run 

 out before had money to buy

 more (% sometimes or often) 

57 59 57 64 46 57

Food just didn’t last and had 

 no money to buy more (%

 sometimes or often) 

50 47 50 56 42 52

Had to cut size of meals/skip 

meals because not enough 

 money (% sometimes or often) 

34 29 29 44 31 37

 % “sometimes” or “often” for all 

three

30 22 21 44 27 37

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to100 percent due to rounding. 

USE OF EMERGENCY SHELTERS 

Table 3.6 expands on the information we have about mothers’ use of emergency shelters. It 

confirms the evidence shown in table 3.3 that only about one in four Detroit and Houston 

mothers used emergency shelters at all, while three in four Seattle mothers spent some time in 

emergency shelters. 

Table 3.6: Use of Emergency Shelters While Homeless Before TH Entry 

(percentages) 

Shelter use 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

None of the time 53 54 79 72 42 26

Some to half the time 29 36 4 11 31 48

Most or all of the time 18 10 18 17 27 26

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to100 percent due to rounding. 
Chapter 3: Housing and Homelessness in the Year Before Entering Transitional Housing Chapter 3: Housing and Homelessness in the Year Before Entering Transitional Housing 31

LIVING SITUATION JUST BEFORE MOST RECENT HOMELESSNESS 

About three in five mothers were living in their own house or apartment before the homeless 

spell began that would lead them to TH, while half were living with relatives or friends.12

Seattle mothers were most likely to be living in their own place just before they became 

homeless. Detroit mothers were most likely to be living in a relative’s or friend’s place. 

Relatively few mothers (8 percent) were living with a boyfriend or partner, the exception being 

San Diego mothers, among whom one in five were doing so (this arrangement is probably related 

to their greater likelihood of identifying domestic violence as a reason for leaving the place they 

were living. Although it was an option in the question, no mothers reported a substance abuse 

treatment program as their location just before becoming homeless. 

Table 3.7: Where Families Were Living Just Before They Became Homeless 

the Time That Led to Entering TH 

(percentages) 

Where living 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Own house/apartment 58 56 43 58 58 72

Relative’s or friend’s place 33 39 54 36 19 20

Boyfriend’s or partner’s place 8 3 4 8 19 9

Other 1 3 0 3 4 0

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

FACTORS AFFECTING HOMELESSNESS 

At several points during our initial interviews with mothers, we asked about experiences that 

may have been factors in their homelessness, including self-perceived reasons for becoming 

homeless and their history of getting and keeping their own place (apartment or house) at some 

time in their life. 

REASONS AND EXPERIENCES LEADING TO HOMELESSNESS 

We asked directly about reasons for their homelessness, and also about places they had stayed 

prior to TH (already reported in tables 3.3 and 3.7). We also asked them to just “tell us your 

story” of how they got to TH, and recorded what they said. We coded the narrative they related, 

describing their pathways into TH, and combined the results with the information they provided 

about venues and reasons to create summary variables of their pre-TH homeless experiences. 

Table 3.8 displays the results, shown in descending order from experiences revealed by the most 

mothers to experiences revealed by the fewest mothers. 

12 The question (5u) read “Where were you living just before you become homeless or were without regular housing 

the most recent time?” Mothers may have lived in these venues during the 12 months before entering TH or before 

that—sometimes considerably before that, if their homelessness had lasted more than a year. 
Chapter 3: Housing and Homelessness in the Year Before Entering Transitional Housing Chapter 3: Housing and Homelessness in the Year Before Entering Transitional Housing 32

Table 3.8: Experiences Leading to the Episode of Homelessness

Just Before Participation in TH 

(percentages) 

Experiencesa

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Could not pay rent or bills, got 

evicted for nonpayment 

40 53 39 33 31 33

Living with relatives or friends, 

overcrowded, too hard 

37 58 25 22 46 26

Domestic violence, abuse 36 34 4 42 54 46

Conflict, tension with relatives 

where living 

33 29 50 31 31 30

Lost job, had hours cut, got 

sick and couldn’t work, etc. 

22 31 21 19 19 13

Drinking, doing drugs, went 

into treatment, other 

addictions-related 19 32 7 14 42 2

Lost housing because 

someone who paid the rent left 

or died, building was sold, fire, 

landlord was foreclosed on, 

building was condemned 

17 15 29 19 19 11

New baby, or pregnant 12 15 18 8 4 13

Some sense of choice— 

wanted own place, “it was 

time,” needed to be on own 11 14 18 11 0 9

Went to jail, was in jail 7 12 0 0 16 4

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries will sum to more than 100 percent since mothers often 

reported more than one relevant experience. Variables in this table that represent types of experience were created by 

combining information from questions about where mothers were living in the year before entering TH, their reasons for leaving 

their last residence, and their narrative description of how they got to TH. 

The top four experiences associated with eventual homelessness were losing housing because 

one could not pay the rent or bills, having to leave overcrowded conditions with relatives or 

friends, domestic violence and abuse, and conflict or tension with relatives leading to being 

asked to leave or even kicked out (e.g., by mother’s new husband or sister’s new boyfriend). As 

already noted with respect to table 3.3, domestic violence was rarely an issue in Detroit but a 

significant issue for at least one in three mothers in the other cities, whether or not they ever 

went to a shelter specifically for domestic violence victims. Conflict and tension with relatives 

was most likely in Detroit, while not being able to pay the rent was most common in Cleveland. 

Mothers in Cleveland and San Diego were most likely to cite overcrowded conditions while 

living with relatives, but without any overt mention of conflict. 

Seventeen percent of the mothers in this sample lost housing for reasons beyond their control. 

These included events that were truly external to their situations, such as the owner of their 

building selling it or losing it to foreclosure thereby forcing our families out of housing for which 

they were current on rent, or their building being destroyed by fire. Closer to home, mothers lost 

housing when they were not themselves the principal rent payer and may not have been paying 

anything toward their housing, but for one reason or other the person who was paying for 

housing no longer did so. These situations included divorce or other relationship dissolution, a 

relative dying or getting sick, a relative moving and having no room for her in the new place, or 
Chapter 3: Housing and Homelessness in the Year Before Entering Transitional Housing Chapter 3: Housing and Homelessness in the Year Before Entering Transitional Housing 33

a relative no longer being able to pay the rent so everyone became homeless (mom or dad or 

uncle went to jail). 

New pregnancies or babies were a factor in their homelessness for one mother in eight (12 

percent). New babies sometimes motivated mothers to go out on their own. They also 

sometimes motivated relatives with whom the mother had been living to suggest that the family 

in our sample was close to outstaying its welcome. 

One category in table 3.8 may strike readers as somewhat odd to include in a list of reasons for 

homelessness, but it occurred with sufficient frequency that we thought it was important to note. 

The “how I got to TH” stories and “other” reasons in some additional survey questions contained 

indications of self-motivation for 11 percent of mothers. These comments included “time to be 

on my own,” “wanted my own place,” “it was time,” “didn’t feel right living with my in-laws 

after I broke up with their son,” and even “I wanted a bigger apartment.” The Housing Choice 

Voucher study (Mills et al. 2006) confirms the tremendous pressure on extended families to form 

new households with parent and child leaving when housing assistance is offered. 

Finally, going to jail was a factor for 7 percent of mothers, almost all of whom were in Cleveland 

or San Diego where we also observed the highest level of admitted substance abuse. 

WERE CHILDREN HOMELESS WITH THEIR MOTHERS?

The last thing we asked mothers about their homeless histories was whether one or more of their 

children were with them while they were homeless most recently—that is, during the homeless 

episode that preceded TH entry. Eighty-two percent of mothers said their children were with 

them. Significantly fewer mothers in Cleveland than in Detroit, Houston, and Seattle had their 

children with them while homeless (68 versus 89, 94, and 85 percent, respectively). Mothers in 

San Diego, at 81 percent, were not significantly different from Cleveland due to small sample 

size. Given that all mothers in our sample had at least one of their children with them when they 

left TH,13 their TH programs were instrumental in helping many of these mothers reunify with 

their children. 

TENANCY HISTORY 

In some studies of family homelessness, notably the work of Shinn and her colleagues in New 

York City, an important predictor of eventual homelessness is whether a family was ever a 

primary tenant—that is, was a leaseholder or a home owner. Families that were primary tenants, 

having full responsibility for their own housing, were less likely to become homeless than 

families that had never achieved this level of independence. We therefore asked about 

experiences of primary tenancy among the families in our sample, as well as whether there had 

been problems paying the rent in their most recent residence, whether they had ever been evicted 

from a place they were living, and whether they had ever been accused of or charged with 

property damage to a place where they were living. Table 3.8 displays the results. 

13 One mother was receiving visits from her children and working toward reunification while in TH, but did not 

regain custody until several weeks after TH exit. 
Chapter 3: Housing and Homelessness in the Year Before Entering Transitional Housing Chapter 3: Housing and Homelessness in the Year Before Entering Transitional Housing 34

Table 3.9: Tenancy History 

(percentages) 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Ever had lease in own 

name or owned your 

place (% yes, n = 195) 

82 78 64 83 85 93

Had trouble paying rent in 

most recent place owned 

or leased (% yes of all 

who ever owned or 

leased (n = 159) 

64 61 72 70 55 65

Ever evicted (% yes of 

all who ever owned or 

leased (n = 159) 

48 57 67 50 45 33

Ever accused of or 

charged with property 

damage to a rental unit 

(% yes of all who ever 

owned or leased (n = 

159)

11 17 0 17 14 5

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to100 percent due to rounding. 

A surprising number of the families in our sample (82 percent) had held leases in their own name 

or owned their own homes. Detroit mothers were the least likely to have been primary tenants, 

and even among this group 64 percent had this history. More than 9 in 10 Seattle mothers had 

been primary tenants. Of the 159 families that had been primary tenants, 21 percent had leased 

or owned one place, 18 percent had leased or owned two places, and 61 percent had leased or 

owned three or more places. No differences were found across sites in the number of places 

leased or owned. Among the mothers who had been primary tenants, 64 percent had had 

difficulty paying the rent in the most recent place they leased or owned.

The last questions examined in table 3.9 concern mothers’ history of evictions or accusation of 

property damage—two experiences that can become major barriers to a family’s ability to get 

housing in the future. Forty-eight percent of sample mothers who had been primary tenants had 

been evicted at least once. Of these mothers (n=77), 53 percent had been evicted only once and 

40 percent had been evicted two or three times. Compared to San Diego and Seattle mothers, 

Cleveland and Detroit mothers were more likely to have experienced multiple evictions. 

Relatively few mothers (11 percent) had ever been accused of damaging the property they were 

renting.
Chapter 4: Transitional Housing Program Characteristics Chapter 4: Transitional Housing Program Characteristics 3535

Chapter 4: Transitional Housing Program Characteristics 

An early phase of this project gathered information from TH programs in the five participating 

communities. The first project report (Burt 2006) provided a good deal of information about TH 

programs in these communities.14 That report described tenant demographic characteristics, 

income and income sources, employment, disabilities, and the like. It also covered program 

characteristics, program outcomes, and programs practices with respect to follow-up services and 

documentation. Program characteristics included size, length of stay, staffing, eligibility criteria, 

expectations for tenant families, criteria for success, services offered, criteria for termination, and 

the like. 

We will be using a few selected program characteristics in our analysis of factors affecting 

outcomes for TH families, so it is appropriate that the reader know what these characteristics are 

and how many programs have each characteristic. We do this only for the 13 program variables 

we considered using for the regression analyses reported in chapter 12.

PROGRAM SIZE 

For a number of reasons, program size is the most problematic of the variables that describe the 

TH programs in this study. We were trying to accomplish three objectives at once as we 

recruited programs, and they were not entirely compatible: 

1. Use “typical” TH programs—we wanted our sample of programs to be as typical of TH 

programs countrywide as possible. The housing inventory charts (HICs) that each CoC 

submits with its annual HUD Supportive Housing Program application are the only 

consistent source of data that could tell us what was typical. We used the HICs from the 

five communities in the study to identify our sample. We also used national HIC data, 

supplied by Abt Associates, to determine the distribution of family TH programs by size 

(number of units) for the country as a whole. 

2. Get enough families for the sample—we were trying to recruit 60 families per 

community for a total of 300 families (we succeeded in recruiting 195 families). With a 

typical length of stay of 12 months and an original recruitment period of 6 months, a TH 

program with 3 units would have been unlikely to have any families leave within the 

recruitment period. Clearly, if our sample including a lot of small programs we would 

not have been able to recruit enough families for our sample. Therefore we selected 

communities that, according to their HIC, had at least 350 family TH beds (about 120 

family TH units). According to our calculations that number of units should have 

generated a large enough flow of families exiting TH programs during the recruiting 

period to let us fill our sample. We also set a minimum program size of 4 units and 

mostly recruited significantly larger programs where they existed. The consequence of 

14 Appendix F provides a condensed version of the projects report, “Characteristics of Transitional Housing 

Programs for Homeless Families,” which may be found in its entirety at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411369.
Chapter 4: Transitional Housing Program Characteristics Chapter 4: Transitional Housing Program Characteristics 3636

these methodological requirements is that we had to select the five communities for this 

study from no more than 20 or 25 CoCs with an adequate number of family TH beds, out 

of a total of more than 450 CoCs. 

3. Simplify recruitment—if TH programs were set up with centralized intake and case 

management for housing that counted as two or more “programs” on a HIC, we treated it 

as one program for recruitment purposes because we had to go to one office and talk with 

one set of case managers to access families from all the HIC-defined programs subsumed 

under the single intake and case management structure. Doing so gave us fewer but 

bigger “programs” as we defined a program. 

These study requirements and decisions mean that the communities we went to are atypical, 

being large and having hundreds of family TH beds (at least according to their HICs). And 

within those communities we took more large programs than small programs, again pushing our 

sample toward the end of the family TH program spectrum that has relatively fewer programs 

nationwide.15 Our practice of defining a “program” by its intake and case management structure 

rather than by the number of rows in a HIC also pushes our array of programs toward the large 

end.

Finally, HICs are not always entirely accurate. They sometimes include residential treatment 

programs, programs mislabeled as “family” when they are only for single women, programs 

mislabeled as TH when they are really extended-stay emergency shelters, and so on. The 

consequence for our purposes is that the comparison we are about to make between the sizes of 

TH programs in our sample and family TH programs in metropolitan areas is inaccurate to the 

extent that perhaps 5 to 10 percent of the programs in the HIC data should not be counted as 

family TH, and the way we counted a “program” shrank the number of programs to 13 percent 

fewer than appear in the HIC data. 

Table 4.1: Family TH Program Size, Comparing Programs in the Study Sample to 

Family TH Programs in Metropolitan Areas in 2006 

Program size, in units 

Study sample

 Number Percentage 

Distribution in 2006 

HICs from metro areas 

(n = 2,940) 

1-2 units 0 0 14%

3-9 units 6 17 47%

10-19 units 9 25 25%

20-29 units 10 28 8%

30-39 units 4 11 3%

40+ units 7 19 4%

Source: Urban Institute analysis of transitional housing program interviews; Abt Associates analysis of 2006 HIC data. Note: “for 

this analysis “metro areas” was defined to include “cities with more than 50,000 population.” Omitting these cities would make a 

very small difference, moving 1 percent of programs from the category “3 to 9 units” to the category “10 to 19 units.” 

15 In four of the five communities we worked with every available TH program of four or more units. In the fifth 

community we sampled TH programs because it had many more than we needed for recruitment. 
Chapter 4: Transitional Housing Program Characteristics Chapter 4: Transitional Housing Program Characteristics 3737

Nevertheless, the HIC data are the best we have for giving the reader an idea of how the TH 

programs from which families were recruited into this study compare to family TH programs in 

metropolitan areas nationwide.16 Theirs are the characteristics we will be using to see whether 

any TH program characteristic predicts family outcomes. So we present this comparison in table 

4.1. As can be seen, large family TH programs (those with 20+ units) are overrepresented in our 

sample at 58 percent, compared to only 15 percent of family TH programs in all metropolitan 

areas. The proportion of programs with 10-19 units is the same, and clearly we have far fewer 

small programs (those with 9 or fewer units) than is typical in metropolitan areas. 

LENGTH OF STAY 

The amount of time families stay in transitional housing programs may affect what TH programs 

are able to do for them, and therefore how much influence the programs are likely to have on 

their post-TH experiences. A family that only stays in a program for 3 months will not be able to 

take advantage of program offerings as much as a family that stays for 18 months. However, it 

may also be true that families staying only a short time in TH did not need as much help as those 

staying much longer. In that case length of stay will make no difference in post-TH outcomes. 

Finally, it may be true that families staying longer in TH are more likely to leave with a housing 

voucher, having had the time while in TH to apply and work their way to the head of the waiting 

list. If true, length of stay in TH will be associated with the positive outcome of post-TH success 

in retaining housing, because families staying longer will have a housing voucher at exit. 

Table 4.2: Maximum Length of Stay and Typical Length of Stay for Successful Leavers 

(percentages; n = 36) 

Length of stay Maximum Typical for 

successful leavers 

Less than 12 months 3 36

12 months 8 25

More than 12 up to 18 months 14 22

More than 18 months 75 17

Source: Urban Institute analysis of transitional housing program interviews. 

Table 4.2 describes the maximum length of stay, in months, allowed by the 36 TH programs 

from which the mothers in our sample were recruited. It also shows the actual average length of 

stay reported by programs of families that the programs considered “successful leavers”— 

meaning that at the time they left they had achieved at least some of their program goals, the 

16 We compare our sample of family TH programs to those in metropolitan areas nationwide because all of our 

communities are large cities and their surrounding urban counties. We defined “metropolitan areas” for this 

analysis to include the category “cities with populations of more than 50,000,” because some communities in our 

urban counties fit this description and we wanted to have them represented in the national comparison. Omitting 

these cities makes a very small difference in the distribution of family TH programs by size, moving 1 percent of 

programs from the category “3 to 9 units” to the category “10 to 19 units.” 
Chapter 4: Transitional Housing Program Characteristics Chapter 4: Transitional Housing Program Characteristics 3838

most important of which were having housing and having an income. Three out of four TH 

programs had maximum lengths of stay of more than 18 months—usually 24 months. Another 

14 percent allowed families to stay for up to 18 months, 8 percent had a maximum of 12 months, 

and 3 percent had a maximum of less than 12 months (1 program, with a maximum of 4 months). 

Despite these usually lengthy maximums, most families stayed for considerably shorter periods 

of time. Three in five families (61 percent) participating in these TH programs and considered 

by the programs to be successful leavers were gone by 12 months after program entry. Another 

22 percent stayed for 12 to 18 months, and only 17 percent stayed longer—usually the full 

amount of time allowed by the program. 

STAFFING INTENSITY 

It stands to reason that the more staff a program has available to work with a given number of 

families, the more help it will be able to focus on a particular family. More staff members also 

mean that a mother has greater flexibility and a greater likelihood of finding at least one staff 

member with whom she can work easily and productively. Family/staff ratios varied widely 

among the 36 TH programs from which we recruited mothers—from one that had more than one 

staff per family up to four that had 10 or more families per staff member (one program had 40 

families per staff member). Table 4.3 provides the details. 

Table 4.3: Staffing Ratios—Staff Members per Family, Weekdays 

Staff members on duty per family, weekdays Number of programs 

(n = 36) 

Proportion of programs 

1 or more staff members per family 1 3

0.50 to 0.99 staff member per family 5 14

0.25 to 0.49 staff member per family 10 28

0.11 to 0.24 staff member per family 16 44

0.10 or less staff member per family 4 11

Source: Urban Institute analysis of transitional housing program interviews. .

OTHER PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS 

In addition to basic information about TH programs such as their size, maximum length of stay, 

and staffing pattern, we selected eight other program characteristics that might make a difference 

for family outcomes, including staff availability, housing configuration (scattered site or facilitybased), and the types of clients selected. Table 4.4 shows the number and proportion of TH 

programs with each characteristic. 

Relatively few of the TH programs contributing families to our sample used a scattered-site 

housing configuration—only 7 programs (19 percent) used this housing model, with the rest 

housing their TH families in a building dedicated to housing families while they receive program 

services. Of the 29 facility-based programs, all but four had staff available on weekends, as did 

4 of the 7 scattered-site programs. In the latter, weekend staff were on-call rather than being on 

the premises, as participant apartments were spread throughout the city, but all participants knew 

how to reach staff if they were needed. All but five programs said they had staff available on 
Chapter 4: Transitional Housing Program Characteristics Chapter 4: Transitional Housing Program Characteristics 3939

weekday evenings and overnights. Three of the programs without such staff coverage were 

scattered-site, and two were facility-based. 

Table 4.4: Other Program Characteristics 

Characteristic Number (n = 36) Percentage “yes” 

Scattered site housing configuration 7 19

Staffed weekday evenings and nights with someone who is 

awake 31 86

Staffed on weekends 29 81

Program for women who are pregnant or with infants 4 11

Domestic violence program 6 17

Will not take anyone with mental illness unless well controlled 

by meds 8 22

Will not take active substance abusers 31 86

Requires at least 6 months of sobriety at program entry 9 25

Source: Urban Institute analysis of transitional housing program interviews. 

The TH programs that contributed families to our sample were quite varied in the types of 

mothers they were designed to help. Four were programs for pregnant women or those who had 

just given birth. Six were domestic violence programs and served only women fleeing battering 

situations. Eight programs would not take any mother with severe and persistent mental illness 

unless it was well-controlled by medications and the mother was compliant with treatment. Most 

programs (31 of 36) would not take active substance abusers; 9 of the 31 required mothers to 

have at least 6 months of sobriety before they would be accepted. Others had conditions that 

included successful completion of a drug treatment program or sobriety for a period less than six 

months. A few required a year or more of sobriety. All TH programs, whether they required a 

period of sobriety or not, required that any mother with a substance abuse history be committed 

to abstinence, to recovery, and to working on recovery in the program. 

The pervasiveness of these sobriety requirements means that the TH programs in this study were 

not going to serve the many mothers who were homeless with their children, had addiction 

problems, but had not yet reached a point of committing themselves to recovery. While these 

requirements are in many ways understandable from a TH perspective—the programs wanted to 

focus their intensive and costly resources on mothers who were committed to pursuing the 

common TH program goals of recovery, employment and income stability, and housing 

stability—the selection process nevertheless does mean that only the most motivated mothers are 

likely to get into family TH programs. 

TH PROGRAMS FOR WOMEN FLEEING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 

We saw in table 4.4 that 17 percent of the family TH programs in this study were domestic 

violence programs. Countrywide in 2006, 18 percent of family TH programs described 

themselves as domestic violence programs. In metropolitan areas that proportion is 16 percent 
Chapter 4: Transitional Housing Program Characteristics Chapter 4: Transitional Housing Program Characteristics 4040

and in nonmetropolitan communities it is 24 percent.17 So the family TH programs from which 

we recruited mothers for this study have basically the same proportion focused on domestic 

violence as is true for metropolitan areas nationally. 

GETTING A HOUSING SUBSIDY 

In past research on homeless families, having a housing subsidy is the single factor that has 

proved most important in their ability to retain housing once they leave homelessness. The 

availability of housing subsidies for families leaving TH is highly dependent on local policies. 

Communities vary greatly in the sheer number of subsidies they control as well as in their 

policies regarding the priority they assign to giving any available subsidies to homeless 

households. In addition, programs may vary in their connections to local housing authorities and 

their skill in helping their clients navigate the often turbulent waters of applying for a subsidy.

Among the participants in this study, only 8 percent of Houston mothers left TH with a housing 

subsidy, compared to 80 percent of Seattle mothers, as we discuss further in chapter 6. Looking 

at the subsidy issue from a program perspective rather than the perspective of the TH family, the 

36 programs contributing families to this study reported, on average, that 34 percent of their 

families had a housing subsidy when they left the program; the range was 0 to 100 percent. 

Table 4.5 provides the details. 

Table 4.5: Proportion of Families Leaving with a Housing Subsidy 

Proportion

Number of programs 

(n = 36) 

Proportion of programs 

0 to 10 percent 9 25

11 to 25 percent 8 22

25 to 50 percent 5 14

51 to 75 percent 9 25

More than 75 percent 5 14

Source: Urban Institute analysis of transitional housing program interviews. 

Nine TH programs reported very low receipt of housing subsidies—from 0 to 10 percent. Eight 

said that 11 to 25 percent of their families left with a subsidy, five reported subsidies for 25 to 50 

percent of their families, nine said that 51 to 75 percent of their families left with a subsidy, and 

five saw more than 75 percent of families leave with a subsidy. 

17 Urban Institute analysis of 2006 HIC data on family TH programs supplied by Abt Associate, Inc. 
Chapter 4: Transitional Housing Program Characteristics Chapter 4: Transitional Housing Program Characteristics 4141

ASSOCIATIONS AMONG TH PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS 

This chapter described program characteristics one at a time, and the last analysis looks at 

associations among individual TH program characteristics. Table 4.6 displays these associations, 

some of which are quite strong. The shaded cells in table 4.6 indicate that their correlations are 

significant at p < .01. We established the relatively high criterion for the significance of 

associations among program variables because we do this analysis at the level of TH families 

(N=195) rather than programs (N=36), so we wanted to compensate in part for the elevated 

significance levels that the larger N might generate. 

As can be seen in table 4.6, the more units a family TH program has, the more likely it is to use a 

scattered site housing model, to restrict program entry for people with serious mental illness, and 

to have a relatively lower staff-to-family ratio. Larger programs are also less likely to have a 

maternity focus. Scattered-site programs are less likely to have restrictions on active substance 

abuse, more likely to be domestic violence programs and a longer maximum length of stay (but 

not a longer typical length of stay), and to have a lower staff-to-family ratio and less staffing on 

evenings and weekends. 

Programs that restrict entry for people with serious mental illness also do so for active substance 

abusers, and require longer periods of sobriety before they will accept a family. They also have 

longer maximum and typical lengths of stay. Programs that will not take active substance 

abusers tend not to be domestic violence programs, and to have families that typically leave after 

a relatively short stay. 

Programs where families stay in TH longer tend to have restrictions on mental illness but not on 

substance abuse, to be domestic violence programs, to have lower staff-to-family ratios, and to 

have more families leave with a housing subsidy. 

We return in chapter 12 to the program variables just described. There we pull together all the 

factors potentially affecting post-TH success in regression analyses that will let us see what has 

actually influenced post-TH housing stability, employment, and children’s schooling and 

emotional well being. Before doing that, however, we need to understand what families received 

from TH programs, which is the focus of the next chapter. Thereafter we describe in separate 

chapters mothers’ pre- and post-TH experiences with housing, education, employment, 

emotional and mental health, and substance abuse issues. Chapter 11 is devoted to the 

experiences of the children in TH families while they were homeless, during TH, and in the year 

following TH. 
Chapter 4: Transitional Housing Program Characteristics 42

Chapter 4: Transitional Housing Program Characteristics 42

Table 4.6: Associations Among TH Program Characteristics 

program # 

units in

Scattered

site?

No

uncontrolled

ment. illness

No active

sub. abuse

6+ months

sobriety

Domestic

violence

Pregnant/

infants

Maximum

LOS

Typical LOS

Staff/family

ratio 

Staffed 24/7

weekdays

Staffed on

weekends

% leaving w.

hsg. subsidy 

# units in program --Scattered site? .470 --No uncontrolled mental illness .347 .012 --No active substance abuse -.056 -.462 .188 --At least 6 months sobriety .081 -.027 .391 .203 --Domestic violence program -.039 .300 -.108 -.708 -.126 --Pregnant/parenting program -.233 -.180 -.018 .105 .001 -.105 --

Maximum LOS .117 .192 .269 -.008 -.238 -.027 .106 --Typical LOS .149 .120 .340 -.273 .027 .261 -.167 .558 --Staff-to-family ratio -.410 -.302 -.170 .011 .158 .036 -.056 -.626 -.408 --Staffed 24/7 weekdays -.070 -.363 .036 .117 .058 -.003 .108 -.154 -.065 .269 --

Staffed on weekends -.031 -.248 .098 .161 .123 -.063 .131 -.198 -.228 .246 .826 --% of families leaving with housing subsidy -.147 -.153 .092 .144 .021 -.012 .220 .510 .357 -.160 .310 .165 --

Source: Urban Institute analysis of TH program information. Note: N=195. Program descriptors are attached to family data records; correlations represent associations 

among program variables as found in this sample of TH families. Correlations in shaded cells are significant at p < .01. 
Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs 4343

 Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services 

Offered by Transitional Housing Programs 

The whole point of transitional housing programs is to help families work through various 

barriers to housing stability. Supportive services of many types are the major mechanisms 

through which this help is offered. Measuring the impact of services received is a difficult 

business, regardless of the type of program or population being examined, because there are so 

many types of services and the frequency and intensity of services vary from person to person 

and over time. In addition, information about service use may come from program records or 

from service recipients, with each source introducing potential biases and areas of 

incompleteness. One may also obtain recipient perceptions of service helpfulness. Finally, there 

are intangibles such as a client’s relationship to a particular caseworker or counselor that may 

make the most difference of all but are very difficult to measure. Relatively little work has been 

done in the homeless arena to test the impact of specific services or service packages on 

outcomes for homeless households. 

For this study the service information we have comes from the mothers in TH families and 

reflects the type of service and mothers’ perceptions of its helpfulness, but there is nothing to 

indicate service frequency or intensity, nor do we have independent verification from program 

records about service use. For each of 14 potential barriers with which mothers might have 

needed help while in TH—physical health, addictions, mental health, employment, basic food, 

getting along with neighbors, dealing with violence, case management, dealing with credit 

problems, education, life skills, setting goals, parenting, and reunification with children not 

living with the mother—we asked mothers whether they needed help with the issue, whether 

they got assistance, and whether the assistance received was helpful. We did the same for eight 

issues for which children in TH might need help, looking specifically at services received by the 

Focal Child—basic health and health care while ill, mental health, child care, school work, 

recreation, mentoring, and dealing with violence in their lives. 

We look first at the time that families spent in TH, because as much as a TH program may have 

to offer, if mothers spend only brief periods in the program they are less likely to take advantage 

of the opportunities available for assistance. Once we understand how long mothers participated 

in TH programs, we look at the services they received and how helpful the mothers found these 

services to be. We end the chapter with an examination of service use patterns and differences 

among study communities in the types of services received. 

TIME IN TRANSITIONAL HOUSING 

Participation in transitional housing programs supported by HUD homeless grants is permitted 

for up to 24 months according to HUD regulations, but programs may set their own, shorter, time 

limits. Of the 36 programs from which we recruited mothers for this study, 27 have a maximum 

length of stay of 24 months, 5 allow up to 18 months, 3 allow 12 months, and 1 allows only 4 

months. We learned from TH providers (Burt 2006, table 2.4) that actual average length of stay 

for all TH families was about 12 months, regardless of what the program allowed. Fifteen 

percent of families left after 1 to 3 months, and another 17 percent left after 4 to 6 months. 
Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs 4444

These figures include families that left programs without completing program goals as well as 

the families that programs consider “successful leavers”—the latter being the families we 

selected for this study. 

Table 5.1 shows the actual length of stay of the TH mothers in this study’s sample, all of whom 

were considered to be successful leavers. Note that 26 percent of mothers left TH in six months 

or less—only slightly lower than the 32 percent of all TH families leaving within six months. 

Detroit mothers comprise many of these short-stay households, with 25 percent exiting within 

three months. 

Overall, stay lengths are pretty evenly distributed among the mothers in this sample, with as 

many staying 18 months or more as stayed 3 to 9 months. If anything, mothers in this sample 

stayed in TH a bit longer than the average length of stay that programs reported overall for their 

successful leavers (Burt 2006, table 2.4). Each mother’s length of stay in TH will be one of the 

variables we use in later chapters to predict their success once they leave TH. We will be 

looking to see whether the sheer amount of time they spend in TH makes a difference, over and 

above the types of assistance they receive in TH and the challenges to stable housing they 

brought with them into their TH program. 

Table 5.1: How Long Mothers Stayed in Transitional Housing 

 (percentages) 

Length of stay 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 193)a Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Less than 1 month 1 2 4 0 0 0

1 up to 3 months 6 3 25 3 8 0

More than 3 months up 

to 6 months 19 36 21 6 8 11

More than 6 months up 

to 9 months 11 15 11 8 0 15

More than 9 months up 

to 12 months 17 10 11 28 23 17

More than 12 months up 

to 18 months 15 14 7 14 39 11

More than 18 months up 

to 24 months 18 9 7 31 12 28

More than 24 months 12 10 14 11 8 17

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

a

 Entry dates are missing for two cases, 1 in Cleveland and 1 in San Diego. 
Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs 4545

MOTHERS’ USE OF TRANSITIONAL HOUSING SERVICES 

TH programs offer services while families are part of the program and also usually follow 

families for a period of time after they exit the program to offer support as needed to keep the 

families stabilized in housing. Table 5.2 shows the help that mothers reported receiving from 

their TH programs while enrolled in TH (column 1), whether they needed help in a particular 

area but did not get it (column 2), and their belief that they did not need help in an area (column 

3). Table 5.1 lists service areas needed by the most mothers at the top and those needed by the 

fewest mothers at the bottom. 

Case management was the only service needed and received by almost all mothers. Only 5 

percent of mothers said they did not need help from case management. Nine out of ten mothers 

(91 percent) said they got the help they needed, with 2 percent saying they needed help they did 

not get and 5 percent saying they did not need such help. The most surprising thing about 

mothers’ reports regarding case management is that some mothers said they did not get any—one 

would have thought that everyone in a TH program would have received case management. This 

may be a problem of what things are called—some programs may call interactions with a 

caseworker “counseling” while others call it “case management.” We did not ask separately 

about “counseling,” so we cannot tell whether this is a “naming” problem or a true absence of 

case management in a few cases. 

Table 5.2: Services that Mothers Used While in TH 

(percentages) 

Service areas 

Got help Needed help but 

did not get it 

Did not 

need help 

Unknown/ 

inappropriate 

Case management 91 2 5 2

Setting goals 81 4 13 2

Primary health care 73 6 20 1

Basic food supplies 70 1 27 2

Life skills training 66 7 26 2

Employment 62 5 31 2

Parenting 56 6 35 3

Mental health 45 4 49 2

Education 39 11 48 2

Restoring good credit 39 22 37 2

Dealing with violence 39 1 58 2

Getting along with neighbors 34 6 59 2

Addictions 20 0 78 2

Reunification 10 2 17 71

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: N = 195. Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due 

to rounding. 

Setting goals was an issue area for 85 percent of mothers, most of whom (81 percent) received 

the help they needed to establish goals and take steps to meet them. Almost as many (79 

percent) needed health care, with 73 percent receiving it. Assistance to obtain employment and 

learn life skills such as budgeting and time management were issue areas for 67 and 73 percent, 
Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs 4646

respectively, with most reporting that they got the help they needed. About three mothers in five 

(62 percent) said they needed help with parenting, and most of them got it. 

Other than reunification, with which very few families needed help because all their children 

lived with them or were adults, assistance handling addictions was the least frequently received 

service. Everyone who needed this type of help reported getting it, but 78 percent said they did 

not need it. Other areas for which fewer than half the mothers in our sample reported getting 

help included mental health (45 percent); education, dealing with violence, and fixing bad credit 

(all 39 percent); and getting along with neighbors (34 percent). 

Fixing bad credit is the only area in which a substantial proportion of mothers (22 percent) said 

they needed help but that the TH program was not able to give it. This failure may reflect the 

reality of the mothers’ credit histories coupled with their current earning power and behavior as 

much as it does the efforts of TH program caseworkers, credit being something one cannot fix 

quickly just by trying hard. 

The final column of table 5.1 shows “other” answers. Two mothers in Detroit consistently 

declined to answer questions about service needs and receipt. In addition, one or two mothers in 

other sites occasionally did not answer for a particular issue. With respect to getting help to 

reunify with minor children living elsewhere, this was not an issue for 71 percent of mothers 

since either all their children lived with them or the children living elsewhere were adults. 

DIFFERENCES ACROSS STUDY COMMUNITIES 

It is not easy to summarize cross-community differences on assistance received from TH 

programs because the three response categories for each service issue—received help, needed 

help but did not get it, and did not need help—all interrelate. As one goes up, the others go 

down. We therefore omit one response category—received help—and discuss only the 

proportion of mothers in different communities who reported that they needed help but did not 

get it and that they did not need help. Given the small sample sizes in the different communities, 

it takes a difference of 20 percentage points or more for responses from one community to be 

significantly different from those of another community. In consequence, relatively few crosssite comparisons reach the level of statistical significance. In the paragraphs below we discuss 

only those that do reach this level. As will be seen, the data reveal few consistent differences 

across communities. The most that might be said by way of generalization is that mothers in 

Seattle reported the most service areas for which they said they did not need help, and mothers in 

Detroit reported the most service areas for which they said they needed help but did not get it. 

No Need for Services 

Mothers in Seattle were the most likely to name service areas for which they did not need help.

They reported this response in significantly higher proportions than mothers in one or more other 

communities in four areas—life skills training, parenting, mental health, and getting along with 

neighbors. Higher proportions of mothers in San Diego than in one or more other communities 

identified case management, primary health care, and getting along with neighbors as service 

areas for which they did not need help. Mothers in Detroit and Houston were significantly more 

likely than mothers in other communities to report no need for help in two areas. For Detroit 

mothers these were case management and dealing with violence, while for Houston mothers they 

were primary health care and getting along with neighbors. 
Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs 4747

Conversely, mothers in Cleveland were more likely than mothers in other study communities to 

report a need for assistance in the areas of employment and addictions.18 Mothers from Detroit 

were most likely to report needing assistance in getting along with neighbors. Mothers in 

Houston were most likely to report needing help with getting enough food supplies. Mothers in 

San Diego were most likely to report a need for mental health services. 

Needing Services But Not Getting Them 

With one exception, mothers in Detroit are the only ones to name issue areas where they needed 

help but did not get it at levels significantly higher than found in one or more other study 

communities. These areas were life skills training, employment, education, and fixing bad 

credit. These would seem to be pretty basic areas for TH programs to address. The exception is 

mothers in Houston who were most likely to report that they needed but did not get help to fix 

bad credit histories. 

WHERE MOTHERS GOT SERVICES 

Not all of the service receipt shown in table 5.2 came from transitional housing programs. While 

they were enrolled in such programs, mothers also sometimes got services through their own 

efforts to connect with providers other than their TH program. We asked all mothers reporting 

that they received help to deal with an issue area whether they got that help from their TH 

program, on their own, or both. With rare exceptions mothers reported that the help came from 

their TH program, but getting help from both the program and on their own was not uncommon. 

Table 5.3 shows the proportion of all mothers receiving help who got it from the program, on 

their own, or both. The proportion getting help from any source is shown in the first column, 

and is the same as shown in table 5.2. 

18 The information in this paragraph is reported “positively,” as mothers saying they needed service in an area, but 

the variable upon which the information is based is actually responses saying they “did not need” the service. 

Rather than have an entire paragraph of double negatives (“the fewest mothers saying they did not need something), 

we chose to phrase the results positively (the most mothers saying they did need something). 
Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs 4848

Table 5.3: Where Mothers Got Help for Their Service Issues While in TH 

(percentages) 

Service areas 

Got help, any 

source

Of those who got help, proportion 

getting it from: 

TH program 

only

On their 

own 

Both 

Case management 91 92 1 7

Setting goals 81 75 6 19

Primary health care 73 13 73 13

Basic food supplies 70 67 7 26

Life skills training 66 94 3 3

Employment 62 65 16 19

Parenting 56 88 5 7

Mental health 45 69 18 13

Education 39 49 41 10

Restoring good credit 39 75 10 15

Dealing with violence 39 83 5 12

Getting along with neighbors 34 80 3 17

Addictions 20 60 15 25

Reunification 10 90 10 0

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Ns are different for each service area, depending 

on the proportion of mothers who got help in that area. Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

With the exceptions of primary health care and education, large majorities of mothers who got 

help with a service issue got it from their TH program. Areas in which the TH program was 

essentially the sole source of assistance—meaning that 10 percent or fewer mothers got help on 

their own—are case management, and life skills training, with parenting and dealing with 

violence close behind. These are service needs for which there usually are few if any obvious 

sources outside of programs such as transitional housing that are explicitly designed to help 

mothers establish stable patterns of functioning for their household.

Mothers who received primary health care—73 percent—mostly obtained it on their own, 

presumably because they already had a connection to primary care. Only one in four received 

primary health care from their TH program, either in conjunction with getting it on their own (13 

percent) or as a sole source (13 percent). 

For education, 59 percent of mothers who got help received it from their TH program, either 

solely (49 percent) or together with other sources (10 percent). As we will see in chapter 7, half 

of all mothers in our sample had either completed a vocational or educational program or 

certificate, many of them while in TH, or were still involved in courses at the time they left TH. 

These courses were in areas such as health care, business, information technology, and other 

areas that would be offered at local community colleges, vocational-technical schools, special 

training institutes, and similar venues, but would be too specialized to be offered by TH 

programs themselves. TH programs tend to offer preparation or classes focused on getting 

mothers up to a skill level where they can take courses leading to degrees or certificates, but not 

the degree or certificate courses themselves. 
Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs 4949

HELPFULNESS OF ASSISTANCE FROM TH PROGRAMS 

In general, mothers found the assistance they received while in TH to be helpful, with most of 

them saying it was very helpful and very few saying it was not at all helpful (table 5.4). These 

responses do not differentiate between the help offered directly by the TH program and the help 

that mothers accessed on their own. Areas where the help was most highly rated (85 percent or 

more said it was “very helpful”) included parenting, reunification, help with addictions, and 

provision of basic food supplies. Response patterns did not differ significantly by community. 

Table 5.4: Mothers’ Reports of How Helpful They Found the Assistance 

They Received for Their Service Issues While in TH 

(percentages) 

Service areas 

Got help, any 

source

Of those who got help, proportion 

saying it was: 

Very helpful Somewhat 

helpful

Not at all 

helpful

Case management 91 72 25 3

Setting goals 81 76 23 2

Primary health care 73 81 17 2

Basic food supplies 70 88 11 1

Life skills training 66 68 25 7

Employment 62 64 30 6

Parenting 56 95 5 0

Mental health 45 80 16 4

Education 39 84 13 3

Restoring good credit 39 76 20 4

Dealing with violence 39 82 18 0

Getting along with neighbors 34 74 26 0

Addictions 20 89 11 0

Reunification 10 95 5 0

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Ns are different for each service area, depending 

on the proportion of mothers who got help in that area. Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

MOTHERS’ PARTICIPATION IN TH PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

Mothers were asked about their participation in various activities offered by TH programs. 

These included social and recreational activities such as holiday events, field trips, birthday 

parties each month for everyone with a birthday that month, movie nights, and the like. We also 

asked about participation in support groups, which are usually an integral part of TH program 

life, and in “community” meetings similar to tenant councils or self-governance meetings, in 

which residents bring up and resolve issues ranging from building maintenance to disruptive 

behavior to planning a holiday party. 

Most mothers participated in at least some of these activities; across all sites only 7 percent said 

they had not done so. Participation levels were as follows, shown from highest to lowest: 

• Community meetings and holiday events—72 percent each 

• Social activities—65 percent 

• Support groups—57 percent 

• Field trips—41 percent. 
Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs 5050

There were striking differences across communities in levels of participation in these activities. 

In general, mothers in Cleveland, Detroit, and San Diego TH programs reported participation 

substantially higher than did mothers in Houston and Seattle TH programs. Differences were on 

the order of three-quarters of mothers in the first three communities versus about half the 

mothers in the remaining two communities reporting participation in the various activities. This 

pattern shifted slightly with respect to support group participation, with mothers in Detroit 

shifting more toward an in-between position and mothers in Seattle reporting participation rates 

significantly lower than mothers in any other community. Participation among mothers in 

Cleveland and San Diego remained at about the same levels as for other activities. About one in 

five mothers (19 percent) in Houston said they had not participated in any TH program activities 

of these types, compared to far fewer who stayed away completely in Cleveland (2 percent), 

Detroit (4 percent), and San Diego (0 percent). Eleven percent of Seattle mothers stayed away (a 

proportion that is not statistically different from responses in either the three lowest or the one 

highest community). 

CHANGES IN SERVICE RECEIPT THROUGHOUT THE 12 MONTHS OF FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS 

HUD allows transitional housing programs to use their TH resources to follow families for up to 

six months after program exit to offer any supports that families might need to help them get 

settled and stabilized in housing. Some TH programs choose to continue that follow-up beyond 

the time frame that HUD will pay for. Among the TH programs in study communities, 43 

percent follow families for 6 to 12 months after exit, another 36 percent track families for 4 to 6 

months after program exit, and 9 percent track for only 1 to 3 months. The remaining 11 percent 

track for 18 or 24 months, or tracking time depends on the family and its needs. 

In this section we look at the service areas in which mothers said they needed help at 3, 6, and 12 

months after TH program exit, whether they got it and from what source, and whether they found 

it helpful. The number of mothers interviewed at each of these time periods after TH exit varies 

considerably. We have 130 interviews for the 3-month period, 140 for the 6-month period, and 

178 for 12 months after moveout. We look first (table 5.5) at a summary for each follow-up time 

period of how many service areas a mother received help for and how many she needed help for 

but did not get it. Percentages in table 5.5 are based on the number of interviews at each time 

period; service levels at moveout are provided for comparison. 
Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs 5151

Table 5.5: Number of Service Areas For Which Mothers Needed 

Help, Time in TH Compared to 3, 6, and 12 Months After TH Exit 

(percentages) 

Number of service areas in 

which the mother: 

While in TH 

Project

(N=195) 

3

months

(N=130) 

6

months

(N=140) 

12

months

(N=178) 

Needed and got help 

0-2 3% 38% 49% 48%

3-5 23% 42% 35% 37%

6-8 39% 17% 15% 14%

9-11 31% 4% 1% 1%

12-14 5% 0% 0% 0%

Mean number of service areas 7.3 3.5 2.9 2.8

Median number of service areas 7 3 3 3

Needed but did not get help 

0-2 91% 85% 86% 85%

3-5 8% 12% 12% 12%

6-8 1% 3% 2% 3%

Mean number of service areas 0.8 1.3 1.1 1.1

Median number of service areas 0 1 1 1

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 

percent due to rounding. 

From the figures in table 5.5 it appears that levels of service need were highest while families 

were in TH, but dropped substantially after TH exit. Given that drop after exit, however, service 

need or use appears to have remained fairly steady at the new, lower, level during the full year 

following TH exit. Far more mothers did not name any service areas in which they needed help, 

or named only one or two, than was true for the time they were in TH. Conversely, far fewer 

mothers (75 versus 15 to 21 percent) identified six or more areas in which they needed help. The 

proportions saying they needed help who did not get it remained virtually unchanged from 

moveout to the 12-month follow-up. The means and medians for services received and services 

needed but not received tell the same story. 

Services Received After Leaving TH and Where They Came From 

While mothers’ need for services in various areas fell during the year following TH exit, it 

certainly did not disappear. More than half of all mothers reported needing and receiving help in 

three or more service areas. During follow-up interviews we asked the same questions we used 

at moveout pertaining to where mothers got services and whether they found them helpful. 

The three service areas with the highest levels of participation while mothers were in TH 

continued to be the areas of highest service receipt after leaving TH, although at significantly 

lower rates. These were case management, help with goal-setting, and primary health care. 

• 91 percent of mothers reported getting case management services while they were in TH. 

That proportion was 41 percent at 3 months, 32 percent at 6 months, and 30 percent at 12 
Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs 5252

months. Most of this case management continued to come from TH programs all the way 

up to the 12-month mark. 

• 81 percent of mothers reported getting help with setting goals while they were in TH. 

That proportion was 49 percent at 3 months, 44 percent at 6 months, and 48 percent at 12 

months. Unlike case management, which continued to come largely from TH programs, 

mothers gradually shifted their sources of help for goal-setting over time. At 3 months, 

39 percent were getting this assistance from their TH program while 68 percent got it 

elsewhere (some got it from both). By 12 months after moveout, only 19 percent of those 

getting help with goal-setting got it from their TH program while 85 percent got it 

elsewhere.

• During TH, 74 percent of mothers reported getting primary health care. Even while in 

TH they tended to get this care from sources other than their TH program, as we 

remarked in relation to table 5.2. Between moveout and 3 months, 65 percent had 

received primary health care, with only 11 percent getting it from their TH program. 

Sixty-two percent of mothers reported receipt of primary health care at their 6-month 

interview, with only 12 percent of these saying they got it from their TH program. At 12 

months 58 percent reported receiving primary care, of whom only 17 percent got it from 

their TH program. 

After these three most important service areas, reported need and receipt of services drops off 

sharply. Receipt of services in one area, basic food supplies, was reported by 29 to 32 percent of 

mothers at every follow-up period. In the first six months after leaving TH this need was met, 

for those who had it, in roughly equal proportions by the mothers’ TH program and other 

sources. As the time after leaving TH lengthened, fewer mothers (10 percent at 12 months) 

relied on their TH program for basic food supplies and more got them from other sources (22 

percent at 12 months). 

Employment and education were the only two remaining service areas for which mothers 

reported a consistent level of need for and receipt of services during their first post-TH year. At 

three months 31 percent of mothers had received employment services since moveout and 26 

percent had received educational services. These proportions shrank to 21 and 23 percent at 6 

months, rebounding a bit to 19 and 29 percent at 12 months. Not only did fewer mothers need or 

receive these services as time went on, but far fewer got them from their TH program than had 

done so when they were enrolled in TH. At most, 28 percent of those who got either 

employment-related or educational services got them from their TH program, with that 

proportion dipping as low as 8 percent and even zero in some time periods. 

Mental and emotional problems is the only other service area for which even 1 in 5 mothers 

reported need and receipt in the year after leaving TH. Those who did receive mental health 

services got them about equally from their TH program and through sources they accessed on 

their own. Most others were used by 10 or 12 percent of mothers, at most. But there does not 

seem to be a steady decline in service usage as the year progressed. Rather, service use levels 

remained roughly similar in each time period 
Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs 5353

Participation in TH Program Social and Support Activities After Exit 

While enrolled in TH, 93 percent of mothers participated in at least one of the program’s social 

or support activities, whether holiday events, field trips, social activities, support groups, or 

community governance meetings. Far fewer continued such participation once they left the 

program, but a consistent 26 to 30 percent did remain connected to their program through these 

mechanisms for at least a year. Communities differed considerably in the proportion of mothers 

who stayed connected. Cleveland mothers were consistently among the most likely to stay 

connected, being significantly more likely than mothers in any other community to continue 

participating in program activities at 6 and 12 months. In contrast, Seattle mothers were the least 

likely to do so, being significantly less likely than mothers in any of the other communities to 

maintain program connections at 6 and 12 months. Mothers in Detroit more closely resembled 

those in Cleveland than those in Seattle. Mothers in Houston and San Diego were more variable 

in their participation from one time period to another. 

SERVICE RECEIPT PATTERNS 

We will be using mothers’ descriptions of the types of help they received as predictors in chapter 

12, where we examine factors affecting TH family outcomes. In those analyses we will be 

asking whether help in a specific domain related to a major study outcome has any effect on that 

outcome. The major outcomes of interest are housing, work, education and training, and 

children’s well-being, so we will be interested in families’ receipt of services pertaining to 

housing, work, education, parenting, reducing barriers such as mothers’ mental health and 

substance abuse problems, and help with emotional issues and schoolwork for children.

One question we might ask about receipt of these particular services is whether TH programs in 

different communities had consistently different patterns of assistance. Such differences do in 

fact appear. Mothers from Cleveland TH programs had a significantly lower likelihood than 

mothers in other study communities of getting help with housing but a higher likelihood of 

getting help in many other domains, including addictions, work, and parenting, while their 

children were more likely to get help with school and with emotional problems. Mothers from 

Seattle TH programs, conversely, had a significantly lower likelihood of getting help in a number 

of domains, including addictions, mental health, work, parenting, and children for emotional 

problems, and were marginally less likely to get help with education and children’s schoolwork 

as well. No patterns stood out for the three remaining study communities, Detroit, Houston, and 

San Diego. 

SERVICES THAT OCCUR TOGETHER 

An interesting aspect of service receipt is “bundling” or “packaging.” The issue here is which 

services tend to go together, or from a different perspective, do mothers and children who need 

and receive one particular service also tend to need and receive one or more other types of 

service? The answer to that question among TH families in this study is “yes,” there are some 

significant correlations among. Table 5.6 shows associations of these variables to each other as 

well as variables indicating that mothers received assistance with addictions and mental or 

emotional problems. Correlations in shaded cells are significant at p < .05 or better. 
Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs Chapter 5: Use and Perceived Helpfulness of Services Offered by Transitional Housing Programs 5454

Table 5.6: Associations Among Specific Domains of Help Received 

from TH Programs 

Domain for which help 

received 

Addictions Mental healthWork Education/ training Parenting Emotional problems (child) Schoolwork (child)Housing 

Help to mother 

 Addictions -- -.104

 Mental health .133 -- -.042

Work .212 .208 -- -.054

Education .078 .205 .377 -- -.005

Parenting .116 .291 .290 .214 -- -.008

Help to focal child . .

 Emotional problems .091 .444 .140 ..167 .362 -- .044

School (school-age 

 focal children only) .042 .184 .180 .023 .139 .388 -- .026

Sources: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Correlations in shaded cells are significant at p < .05. 

The key finding revealed by the correlations in table 5.6 is that mothers who got help with 

employment also got assistance to reduce employment barriers (addictions, emotional problems, 

poor skills or credentials) and help with parenting, and their children received help with 

emotional problems and school (if they were school-age). The pattern is only slightly weaker for 

mothers who got help with emotional problems. Put another way, mothers either got help in 

many domains or got help in very few. 

It is also interesting to note that help with finding housing at the point of leaving TH, which we 

describe in chapter 6, has no significant association with any of the specific types of help 

described in the present chapter. This may be the case because most TH families needed this 

type of help and most of them got it (80 percent got at least one type of help with housing).

Correlations of help for housing with other help variables appear in the last column of table 5.6. 

We return to service receipt variables in chapter 12, where we use them in analyses looking at 

the factors that affect—or fail to affect—TH family outcomes. 
Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing 5555

Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After 

Transitional Housing 

The most important goal of TH programs is to prepare their participants to get and keep stable 

housing upon exit. Stability in housing over the 12 month period following exit from TH is the 

first outcome we will examine in chapter 12, where we focus on the impact of TH participation 

on family outcomes. In this chapter we describe the living situations of our families as they 

exited TH and over the course of the next 12 months, including the independence of their 

housing, how they got the housing, who lived in the household, and their satisfaction with their 

housing arrangements. 

MOVING TO ONE’S OWN PLACE 

Most families in this study moved to their own place upon leaving a transitional housing 

program, but there were some differences among sites in their ability to do so. Overall, 86 

percent moved to their own place, but this was true for only 75 percent of Detroit mothers and as 

many as 93 percent of Seattle mothers (table 6.1). The difference between Detroit and Seattle 

mothers is statistically significant, but no other between-community differences are significant.

Table 6.1: Families Living in Their Own Place Immediately After TH Exit 

(percentages) 

Living Arrangement 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Directly to own place, 

including people who 

stayed in the same 

place where they lived 

while in TH 

86 85 75 89 81 93

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. 

HELP RECEIVED AND PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED

Mothers leaving TH receive many kinds of help to find and secure housing, as shown in table 

6.2. Assistance included getting furniture and furnishings from the TH program, help finding an 

apartment, funds for security deposits or moving money, and negotiating with landlords, as well 

as other types of assistance. The most common type of help received was furniture and 

furnishings for one’s new place received by 52 percent of mothers—a proportion that did not 

differ substantially across sites. Thirty-nine percent of mothers got help finding an apartment; 

this type of help was significantly more available from TH programs in Seattle than in Cleveland 

and Houston. An equal proportion got money for deposits and moving expenses from their TH 

program; this was most likely to happen in Houston and least likely to happen in San Diego. 
Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing 5656

Table 6.2: Help Received from TH Program to Find or Secure Housing 

(percentage who got help) 

Type of help 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Furniture, furnishings 52 47 50 58 42 59

Finding the apartment 39 29 46 28 38 54

Deposits, moving money 39 32 36 61 19 46

Negotiating with landlord 19 19 14 25 8 26

Got at least one type of 

help 80 80 75 82 87 83

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Categories are not mutually exclusive, so cell entries sum to more 

than 100 percent. 

Relatively few TH mothers (19 percent) got help negotiating with landlords, with San Diego 

mothers receiving this type of help significantly less than those in Houston and Seattle. Only a 

few mothers (3 percent) got any other type of assistance with housing from their TH program. 

Although on average half or fewer mothers got specific types of help, four out of five mothers 

got help with at least one aspect of finding housing and moving in. 

The search for housing entailed overcoming a number of obstacles such as affordability, safety, 

size, and nearness to transportation. Past experiences of TH mothers also created obstacles, 

including bad credit, poor rental history, and criminal record. Mothers also reported responses 

from landlords that they perceived as discrimination. Table 6.3 displays the types of obstacles 

that mothers told us about, listed in order of frequency of mention. 

Affordability was the most commonly encountered problem, with 57 percent of mothers having 

had some issue with the cost of housing. Some even had this problem despite having a housing 

subsidy. Differences across communities were not significant. Finding a place in a 

neighborhood that mothers perceived to be safe was the next most frequently mentioned problem 

and was frequently a tradeoff with affordability—places a mother could afford were not 

particularly safe, in their view, and safe neighborhoods were not particularly affordable. The 

ability to find a place in a neighborhood whose safety satisfied study mothers varied 

considerably across communities, being a greater problem in Cleveland and Detroit than it was 

in Houston, San Diego, and Seattle. 

Bad credit, which overall affected the housing searches of 29 percent of mothers, was most 

severe in San Diego but was much less of a problem in Cleveland, Detroit, and Houston. 

Finding a big enough place for the whole family was least problematic in Houston and more of 

an issue in Cleveland; overall 27 percent of mothers cited this as a problem. 

Mothers reported landlord behavior they perceived to be discriminatory in a number of ways, 

including not wanting to rent to families with children, not being willing to take a housing 

voucher, and having income from welfare, as well as the more expected biases based on age and 

race/ethnicity. Overall, only about 15 percent of mothers reported discrimination; those in 
Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing 5757

Houston were least likely to mention any type of perceived discrimination as a problem while 

those in Detroit were most likely to do so. 

Table 6.3: Problems Encountered in Finding a Place to Live 

(percentages experiencing a problem) 

Finding a place... 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

I could afford 57 53 68 50 62 59

In a safe neighborhood 44 58 61 33 31 33

Given my bad credit 29 17 21 19 58 39

Big enough for all of us 27 39 32 11 27 22

Near transportation 23 36 29 17 4 17

Given my poor rental 

history 20 10 29 14 27 28

Getting information 

together for landlord 14 15 18 6 8 22

That would take kids 9 12 21 0 4 9

That did not discriminatea 7 3 7 3 12 13

Given my criminal record 5 3 0 8 4 7

Did not have a problem 20 17 7 31 15 26

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Categories are not mutually exclusive, so cell entries sum to more 

than 100 percent. 

a Mothers identified several bases for discrimination in addition to the bias against households with children, including being on

welfare, needing to use a subsidy voucher, age (being too young), and race/ethnicity. 

Very few mothers in this study reported that their criminal record (and 34 percent had one) was a 

significant barrier to finding housing. In addition to the problems we asked about specifically, a 

few mothers also mentioned that issues related to schools affected their housing search. These 

included their desire to find a place in a community where their kids would go to good schools, 

or finding a place close enough to their TH location that their kids could stay at the school they 

were currently attending. 

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION AT MOVEOUT 

At moveout, most mothers (73 percent) lived only with their children; no other adult lived in the 

household (table 6.4). Another 20 percent lived with one other adult. These second adults were 

most likely to be a partner or spouse, but occasionally they were the mother of young women 

who had just had a baby. The remaining 7 percent of TH families lived with two or more adults 

other than the mother, including three mothers and their children who lived with four or more 

adults. These latter situations involved mothers moving in with family members when they left 

TH, and occurred only in Houston and San Diego. 
Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing 5858

Table 6.4: Number of Adults in Household at Moveout Other Than the Mother 

(percentages) 

Number of adults in 

addition to mother 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

None 73 80 50 78 73 76

1 20 19 39 14 11 20

2 5 2 11 5 8 4

4 or more 2 0 0 3 8 0

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

As just noted, 27 percent of mothers lived with at least one other adult in their first residence 

after moveout. Six percent (of the whole sample) lived with a spouse, 7 percent lived with a 

partner, 6 percent lived with their own adult child(ren), 4 percent lived with their mother, 1 

percent lived with their father, 4 percent lived with at least one sibling, 3 percent lived with a 

friend, 2 percent lived with another adult relative, and 2 percent lived with nonrelatives.

All TH mothers lived with at least one of their own minor children at moveout, with one 

exception.19 In addition, 10 percent lived in a household with other people’s children. Table 6.5 

shows, in the first panel, how many of the TH mother’s own minor children lived with her at 

moveout. The second panel of table 6.5 shows the total number of minor children in the 

households of TH mothers in their first residence after moveout, whether the mother’s own 

children or the children of other household members. 

Almost half (46 percent) of TH mothers lived with one of their own minor children, 30 percent 

lived with two, and 24 percent lived with three or more of their own children. These families are 

smaller than NSHAPC families, among whom 40 percent included one child, 28 percent 

included two children, and 33 percent included three or more children (Burt et al. 1999, appendix 

table 2.A2). 

19 The exception was a mother who initially moved to temporary housing without her child; she was joined by her 

child when she moved to a permanent place about two months after moveout. 
Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing 5959

Table 6.5: Number of Minor Children in Household at Moveout 

 (percentages) 

Number of children 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Number of mother’s 

children living with her 

None 1 2 0 0 0 0

1 46 42 46 44 38 54

2 31 41 32 22 35 22

3 12 8 7 19 12 15

4 or more 11 7 14 15 15 9

Total number of 

children, including 

children of other 

household members 

None 1 2 0 0 0 0

1 42 42 36 39 35 52

2 32 39 39 28 31 24

3 11 7 4 14 19 15

4 or more 14 10 21 19 15 9

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

When the children of other household members are considered, the proportion of TH mothers 

living in households with only one child goes down to 42 percent and the proportion living in 

households with more children goes up slightly (since only 10 percent of TH families live in 

households with other people’s children, one should expect only small changes in these 

percentages). For each community, if one compares the proportions in the upper panel to those 

in the lower panel, one can see the shift from smaller to larger numbers of children, which occur 

most in Detroit, Houston, and San Diego. 

HOUSING COSTS AND ISSUES AT MOVEOUT AND 12 MONTHS 

CONTRACT RENT AND RENT PAID

Finding an affordable place to live was the problem that affected the most mothers upon leaving 

TH. We were able to determine the monthly contract rent for 176 mothers; contract rent means 

the rent for a house or apartment that the landlord gets, whether or not the household has a 

housing subsidy (“rent paid” is what the household pays, which, if the household has a subsidy, 

will be less than the contract rent). The remaining 19 mothers did not know the contract rent on 

their place of residence, mostly because they were not the primary tenant in those places and 

paid little or no rent to whomever held the lease or owned the housing. 

Contract rents in the second half of 2005 and the first half of 2006, when mothers in this study 

left TH, averaged $634 a month across our five communities, as shown in the first panel of table 
Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing 6060

6.6. Cleveland had the lowest average contract rents at $521 and San Diego had the highest at 

$895. Median rents—the midpoint of all rents paid—differed only slightly from the averages in 

most communities, but were a full $100 higher in Seattle, indicating that some people had 

managed to find housing at very low rents, bringing the average down. 

Nothing much had changed with respect to average contract rents in most study communities in 

the year after families left TH (second panel of table 6.6). Only on the west coast did they go up 

or down more than $15 or $20. In San Diego average rents went down by $72, or about 8 

percent, while in Seattle they went up by $77, which was an increase of 11.5 percent. 

Table 6.6: Rent at Moveout and 12 Months Later 

(in dollars) 

Total

Total—all 

communities 

Community

Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle 

Monthly contract rent at 

moveout (n=176)a

 Mean 634 521 566 615 895 667

Median 610 515 588 600 900 765

Rent paid at moveout by 

families with subsidies (n=103) 

Mean 243 167 203 167 401 294

Median 152 90 109 50 307 250

Monthly contract rent at 12-

month follow-up (n=176)a

 Mean 633 543 526 599 823 744

Median 655 595 580 603 930 800

Rent paid at 12-month followup by families with subsidies 

(n=103) 

Mean 223 116 248 180 468 287

Median 134 41 238 150 485 265

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. a Rent information is missing for 19 people at moveout and again at the 12-month follow-up. 

GETTING A HOUSING SUBSIDY 

In addition to showing average contract rents for housing occupied by TH families, table 6.4 

shows the greatly reduced amount of rent that families with a housing subsidy paid themselves. 

At moveout, having a subsidy reduced the rent paid to $243 a month or about 38 percent of the 

contract rent. In some communities the difference was even more dramatic. For instance, the 

very few families in Houston that were lucky enough to get a housing subsidy paid $167 a 

month, on average, for their housing. This was only 27 percent of the contract rent. The actual 

level of rent a family paid when it had a housing subsidy depended on the contract rent and the 

family’s own income. A housing subsidy pays the difference between contract rent and 30 

percent of a family’s income (families are assumed to be able to afford to pay 30 percent of their 

income for housing). Families bringing in less money will therefore pay less for their housing, 

with the subsidy making up the rest. Mothers in San Diego had higher monthly incomes and 
Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing 6161

therefore paid more for their housing even when they had a subsidy than mothers in most other 

communities. Again, rent paid did not change much over time. 

The contract rent and rent paid data in table 6.7 make abundantly clear that the single most 

important thing a mother can have when she leaves TH is a housing subsidy. Slightly more than 

half of the mothers in the sample (53 percent) had a subsidy when they left TH, but the odds that 

they would have one differed dramatically across study communities (table 6.5). Seattle mothers 

were the most likely to leave with a subsidy (80 percent)—significantly more than in any other 

community except Cleveland (68 percent). Mothers in Houston were less likely by far to get a 

subsidy, at 8 percent, than mothers in any other community. 

Table 6.7 Mother Had a Housing Subsidy at TH Exit 

(percentages) 

Subsidy 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Subsidy, of any type (% 

yes) 53 68 50 8 35 80

Section 8 15 5 18 3 19 33

State or local 27 58 18 0 8 26

 Other/don’t know type 11 5 14 6 8 22

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: last 3 rows may not sum to first row due to rounding. 

Many mothers with a subsidy did not know exactly what type of housing subsidy they had—a 

problem that research on housing costs and resources encounters frequently. Table 6.4 reports 

what our mothers said in answer to the question of what type of subsidy they had, but there is 

likely to be a good deal of error in the category “state or local.” Housing subsidies almost 

always come through a local housing authority, which people know because they must go to that 

agency to file their subsidy application. However, subsidy recipients usually have no idea 

whether the resources behind the subsidy come from federal, state, or local sources. Usually the 

resources are federal. Seattle is the only one of our communities that puts significant local 

resources into rent subsidies, from its Housing Tax Levy. 

MOTHERS’ CONTRIBUTION TO RENT

At moveout, three out of four mothers reported that they personally paid all the rent the 

household owed (table 6.8). This proportion did not change between moveout and 12 months for 

the sample as a whole. However, there was a good deal of shifting over time and across 

communities in the proportion of mothers paying all the rent. In Detroit and Cleveland, only 61 

to 63 percent of mothers paid all the rent at moveout, but the proportion had increased 

substantially—to 86 and 79 percent, respectively—by the 12-month interview. The situation was 

reversed in Houston and San Diego, where 81 and 77 percent paid all the rent, respectively, at 

moveout, but only 61 and 50 percent, respectively, did so at the 12-month follow-up. Only in 

Seattle did the proportion of mothers paying all the rent remain relatively stable for the year after 

TH. Among mothers not paying all the rent owed by the household, about half paid nothing and 

the other half paid about half the rent. 
Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing 6262

Table 6.8 Proportion of Mothers Who Personally Pay All the Rent the Household Pays 

(percentages) 

Proportion paying 

all...

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195/176) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

At moveout 74 63 61 81 77 91

At 12-month follow-up 75 86 79 61 50 85

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. 

HOUSING HARDSHIP 

As we saw in chapter 3, many families in this study had had trouble paying for rent or utilities in 

the year before they entered TH. At that time, 54 percent reported trouble paying for utilities, 56 

percent reported trouble paying rent, and 48 percent reported trouble paying both. We asked the 

same series of questions during the 12-month interview and report them in table 6.9. Clearly the 

proportion of families facing housing hardship declined. Only 15 percent of families had trouble 

with both rent and utilities at 12 months post-TH—a decline of 69 percent. The proportion 

having trouble paying rent declined by about two-thirds, from 56 to 20 percent. 

Trouble paying for utilities declined the least, from 54 to 34 percent—probably because housing 

subsidies took care of much of the difficulty with paying rent, but little help was available for 

utility bills. Table 6.9 also shows the proportion who, if they had problems paying rent or 

utilities, got help with making these payments. Overall about 53 percent of those who needed it 

got such help in the year after they left TH; the largest single category of assistance was for 

heating. Far fewer families received any help in Houston and San Diego than in the other three 

study communities. 

Table 6.9: Housing Hardship at the 12-Month Follow-Up, and Receipt of Assistance 

(percentages) 

Housing Hardship 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 176) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Not able to pay utility bills 

(% yes) 34 37 36 25 23 43

Not able to pay rent (% 

yes) 20 17 29 22 15 20

Had trouble paying both 

rent and utilities (% yes) 15 14 14 14 15 17

Of those with problems, 

proportion that got help 53 63 50 25 17 71

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. 
Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing 6363

PATTERNS IN THE YEAR AFTER TH 

Families could have experienced stability or change along a number of dimensions in the year 

following TH. Interviews approached these dimensions in several ways; researchers reviewed 

responses to many questions about housing and household composition across all of a mother’s 

interviews to develop summary measures of stability or change. We looked first at renewed 

homelessness, which was very rare. We next looked at patterns in terms of independence— 

whether a mother was in her own place or living in someone else’s place—and cohabitants— 

who lived with her. We also looked at how her own children moved in and out over the year.

Finally, we compare mothers’ satisfaction with their housing at three time points—just before 

she became homeless, while in TH, and in post-TH housing. 

HOMELESSNESS FOLLOWING TH PROGRAM EXIT

Repeated homelessness is the most obvious sign that a TH program has failed, so we report this 

information first. Homelessness was so rare among the 179 families with a 12-month follow-up 

interview that we could not do reliable analyses on it as a dependent variable. Only four of these 

families became homeless within the year following TH, representing 2.1 percent of the original 

sample of 195 and 2.2 percent of the families with 12-month interviews. Even if we were to 

count as homeless all 16 of the families we failed to follow through the entire 12 months after 

TH, we would still have only 20 families becoming homeless, or 10.3 percent of the families 

with which we began. This rate of post-TH homelessness compares favorably with the 12 

percent achieved by families using TH programs in Hennepin County, Minnesota (Burt, Pearson, 

and Montgomery 2005). 

HOUSING STABILITY AND CHANGE 

Three in five mothers went to their own place directly from TH (including those who were able 

to stay in the housing they occupied while in TH) and stayed there for the entire follow-up year.

This pattern was more likely to happen in Seattle than in any of the other study communities; 78 

percent of Seattle mothers went directly to their own place and stayed there, tracking pretty 

directly with the 80 percent who left TH with a housing subsidy. In the other four communities 

51 to 58 percent followed this pattern of independence and stability (table 6.10).
Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing 6464

Table 6.10: Housing Patterns During the 12 Months After Leaving TH 

(percentages) 

Pattern 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Own place, same place 

whole time 60 56 54 51 58 78

Own place after short 

stay somewhere else 4 7 11 0 0 2

Always own place, but 

moved one or more times 19 25 14 20 19 13

One or more moves, at 

least one being the 

family’s own place and 

one being a place not the 

family’s own 

13 10 14 23 19 7

Never in own place 5 7 7 6 8 0

Ever homeless during 12 

months post-TH 2 0 4 0 8 0

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries do not sum to 100 percent because the final three 

categories are not mutually exclusive. 

Another 4 percent of mothers went to their own place after a short stay somewhere else, usually 

while waiting for a housing voucher. Once in their own place they remained there for the rest of 

the study period. This pattern was most common in Detroit and did not occur at all in Houston 

or San Diego. Nineteen percent of mothers moved at least once but were always in their own 

place; no differences among communities were observable. This leaves 18 percent of mothers, 

almost one in five, who were either never in their own place (5 percent) or moved at least once 

during the follow-up year to a place that was not their own. Finally, 2 percent of the families in 

our sample experienced homelessness at some time during the 12-month follow-up period. 

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION STABILITY AND CHANGE DURING THE YEAR AFTER TH

Housing stability comes in two forms—living in the same place and living with the same people. 

Having looked at the stability of the housing unit above, we next look at the stability of the 

people living in the household. Table 6.11 shows that 86 percent of TH families lived with the 

same people one year after leaving TH as they did at moveout. This pattern is more common in 

Seattle and Cleveland, at 93 percent for both, than in San Diego at 73 percent, but no other intercity differences are significant. 

One stable pattern, experienced by 59 percent of all study families, was the mother and one or 

more of her children only, without any other adults. Another stable pattern, reported by 8 

percent of study mothers, involved the mother and child(ren) in TH families plus a spouse, 

partner, or boyfriend who was present during the whole post-TH year. 
Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing 6565

Table 6.11: Household Composition During the 12 Months After Leaving TH 

(percentages) 

Composition 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 179) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Lived with same 

people at 12 months 

as did at moveout 

86 93 79 80 73 93

Self and child(ren) 

only, whole time 59 65 43 63 45 64

Spouse/partner/ 

boyfriend present 

whole time 

8 4 11 3 9 14

Spouse/partner/ 

boyfriend present part 

of the time 

7 0 14 13 0 9

Multiple adults and/or 

other people’s children 

present in at least one 

residence since 

moveout

21 9 18 27 36 14

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Categories are not mutually exclusive, so cell entries may sum to 

more than 100 percent. 

Somewhat more than one in four families experienced some changes in household composition 

during the year following TH exit. In 6 percent, a spouse, partner, or boyfriend was present for 

part of the year but not the whole. These families included some in which the mother moved out 

of the spouse/partner/boyfriend’s place one or more times, or the spouse/partner/boyfriend came 

and went from the mother’s place one or more times. The larger category of families with 

changing membership involved TH families in which children came and went, and also those in 

which TH families moved into extended family households or into households with a spouse, 

partner, or boyfriend with his own children. As we learned earlier in this chapter, 10 percent of 

TH mothers and their children lived in households that included other people’s children as well 

as their own. 

CHANGES IN CHILDREN LIVING IN HOUSEHOLD BY 12 MONTHS AFTER MOVEOUT

Four out of five TH families (81 percent) did not experience any changes in the children living in 

the household between moveout and the 12 month follow-up. Six percent of TH families had a 

new baby within the year after leaving TH. Four percent had children move out, 6 percent had 

children move in, and 2 percent reported multiple changes (one or more children leaving and one 

or more other children moving in) during the year following TH exit. The final 2 percent (3 

families) completed only one interview, prohibiting any assessment of change. 
Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing 6666

SATISFACTION WITH HOUSING 

We asked mothers how satisfied they were with various aspects of their housing situation in the 

period just before they became homeless, while they were in TH, and in their post-TH housing. 

Mothers rated their housing overall, as well as the privacy they had in housing, the state of repair 

of the housing, the amount of living space they had, the safety of their neighborhood and of their 

own housing units, their opportunities to socialize where they were living, and the affordability 

of their housing. Satisfaction with the state of repair of the housing and the amount of living 

space available changed very little, hovering between 23 to 31 percent of mothers who were very 

satisfied with each of the three venues. Satisfaction with neighborhood safety was highest with 

pre-homeless housing and dropped for both TH program housing and post-TH housing. 

Satisfaction with opportunities for socializing was about the same for where the mothers lived 

before homelessness (22 percent very satisfied) and while in TH (28 percent very satisfied), but 

dropped considerably, to 11 percent, for post-TH housing.

Figure 6.1 illustrates the patterns for the remaining four aspects of housing satisfaction. Overall, 

mothers were least satisfied with their housing situation just before they became homeless, and 

felt their TH housing situation was a substantial improvement (line marked by diamonds in 

figure 6.1). Privacy actually suffered with the move to TH but improved greatly in post-TH 

housing (line marked by circles). 

Affordability was greatest in TH, largely because many TH programs do not charge mothers 

anything for living there; post-TH housing affordability was slightly and nonsignificantly worse 

than pre-homeless housing affordability, even with the housing subsidies that many mothers had. 

Finally, mothers’ perceptions of their and their family’s safety in their own place was 

considerably higher in TH than in their former housing, but was lowest in their post-TH housing. 
Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing 6767
Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing Chapter 6: Housing and Household Composition After Transitional Housing 6868
Chapter 7: Mothers’ Education Chapter 7: Mothers’ Education 69

Chapter 7: Mothers’ Education 

A mother’s educational level will make a big difference in her ability to earn an income adequate 

to support her family and keep them in housing. Not having a high school diploma usually 

places major limits on the types of jobs that people can get, so completion of high school is a 

significant step in educational attainment. Completion of further education that imparts specific 

job skills should increase a mother’s opportunities in the labor market, whether that education 

occurs in community colleges, four-year colleges, vocational-technical schools, apprenticeships, 

or through other means. 

EDUCATION COMPLETED 

We reviewed program records to learn what level of education mothers had completed at the 

time they entered a TH program, and asked mothers during our first interview with them (at the 

time of TH exit) to tell us the level of education they had completed and whether they were 

currently involved in further education or training. The same questions were asked at each 

follow-up interview, giving us a picture of changes in educational achievement during the year 

following exit from transitional housing. Table 7.1 presents study mothers’ educational 

attainment at the time they entered and the time they left transitional housing. 

Table 7.1: Highest Level of Education Completed at TH Entry and Exit 

(percentages) 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Education level entry exit entry exit entry exit entry exit entry exit entry exit

Less than high school 23 23 32 29 52 43 8 11 16 19 14 13

High school diploma or GED 38 31 34 34 22 25 51 19 56 42 30 35

Some post-high school/2-year 

degree 25 41 31 36 22 25 24 58 16 35 25 46

4-year college degree or more 4 6 0 2 0 7 8 11 0 4 9 7

Don’t know/not answered 10 0 3 0 4 0 8 0 12 0 23 0

Source: Urban Institute analysis of TH program case records for TH entry and family interview data for TH exit. Note: Cell entries may not 

sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Across all study sites, almost one in four mothers (23 percent) had less than a high school 

education when they entered transitional housing and when they left. At entry, 38 percent had a 

high school diploma or a GED; one in four had some post-high school training, certification, or 

associate’s degree; and 4 percent had a 4-year college degree or more education. Educational 

status program entry was not available for 10 percent of the mothers in this study. 
Chapter 7: Mothers’ Education Chapter 7: Mothers’ Education 70

By the time they had finished TH, more mothers had TH helps improve educational completed post-high school educational courses of one type credentials or another. Forty-one percent reported some post-high 

school degree or certificate, up from 25 percent at TH entry, • 29 percent of TH mothers had a and a few more mothers (6 versus 4 percent) had completed post-secondary credential when college. Educational attainment shifted upward, with slightly they entered TH 

less than a third (31 percent) having only a high school • 47 percent had one when they

left TH. diploma or GED. Also, at the time they left TH an additional 

4 percent of mothers were still involved in GED preparation 

classes and 1 percent were taking classes related to learning English as a second language. 

Communities differed significantly in the level of education at TH entry of study mothers and 

also in the amount of change in educational achievement occurring by the time mothers left TH. 

Mothers in Cleveland showed little change in educational attainment, but many mothers in 

Detroit, Houston, and San Diego took education and training courses to earn certificates or 

degrees. Mothers in Houston and San Diego were most likely to enter TH without a high school 

diploma or equivalent (more than half in each case) and to leave it with some post-high school 

degree or certificate. We cannot say the same with confidence for Seattle, though. While we can 

see that a higher proportion of mothers had some post-secondary education at TH exit than they 

had at entry, the large number of mothers for whom information is missing about education at 

program entry makes interpretation difficult. 

This level of educational attainment among study mothers at TH exit is significantly higher than 

the education reported by parents in homeless families nationally, among whom more than half 

(53 percent) had less than a high school education and only 24 percent had some post-secondary 

education or had completed college (Burt et al. 1999, appendix tables 3.A3). These higher levels 

of education, some of which owe something to the assistance provided by TH programs, should 

pay off for study mothers in the types of jobs they are able to obtain and the wage levels they are 

able to command. 

CHANGES IN EDUCATION COMPLETED BY 12 MONTH FOLLOW-UP

For 87 percent of the mothers in this study, their educational attainment had not changed 

between moveout and the 12 month follow-up. Among the remaining mothers, 2 percent had 

earned a high school diploma or GED, 4 percent had enrolled in college, 5 percent were still 

taking college classes, and 1 percent had completed a four-year college degree. No crosscommunity differences were significant. 

VOCATIONAL, TRADE, AND BUSINESS PROGRAMS 

Thirty-nine percent of mothers had completed a vocational, trade, or business program and 

another 12 percent were involved in vocational or business programs at the time they left 

transitional housing. Differences across communities were not significant. Mothers had 

completed or were still involved with the following types of programs at moveout: 
Chapter 7: Mothers’ Education Chapter 7: Mothers’ Education 71

• Medical/nursing/nurse assistant/health aide—15 percent completed, 1 percent taking 

classes

• Business/financial—8 percent completed, 4 percent taking classes 

• Computers/information technology—6 percent completed, 2 percent taking classes 

• Cosmetology—2 percent completed, 1 percent taking classes 

• Counseling/social work/other human services—none completed, 3 percent taking classes 

• Retail—2 percent completed, none taking classes 

• Other—6 percent completed, 1 percent taking classes. 

ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS COMPLETED BY 12 MONTH FOLLOW-UP

In the time between moving out of transitional housing and the 12 month follow-up, 21 percent 

of mothers completed an additional vocational, trade, or business program. Mothers in San 

Diego were less likely to have done so than mothers in Cleveland, Detroit, and Houston. Six 

percent completed courses related to medical/nursing/nurse assistant/health aide careers, 4 

percent completed courses in office administration, 3 percent completed a course related to 

computers and information technology, 1 percent completed English as a second language, and 7 

percent completed other training courses. 

At the 12 month follow-up, 31 percent of mothers were involved in ongoing training courses.

The distribution of careers they were pursuing was very similar to the distribution of courses 

already completed at moveout and 12 month follow-up. 

HELP FROM TH PROGRAM FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING 

One of the primary goals of TH programs is to improve their clients’ earning potential. With 

higher earnings, mothers are more likely to be able to keep their families in housing, as well as 

caring for them in other ways. As we just saw, about half the mothers in this study had only a 

high school diploma or GED or even less education at the end of their time in transitional 

housing. But about half of the mothers had more education than that, making them significantly 

better educated than the typical homeless family in the United States. Some of this educational 

attainment happened while mothers were in TH. Table 7.2 shows mothers’ responses to 

questions about whether they got assistance with education or vocational training while in TH, 

and whether found the assistance they got to be useful. 
Chapter 7: Mothers’ Education Chapter 7: Mothers’ Education 72

Table 7.2: TH Program Assistance with Education and Training 

(percentages) 

Education and 

training assistance 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Did you get help? 

No, didn’t need 

 No, needed but 

48 49 39 50 38 57

 didn’t get 11 5 29 14 8 8

 Yes, from program 19 24 11 14 46 9

 Yes, on my own 16 17 11 17 8 22

Yes, both 4 3 4 6 0 4

 Unknown 2 2 7 0 0 0

Of mothers receiving 

help, for how many 

was it...? 

 Not at all helpful 3 4 0 0 0 6

Somewhat helpful 13 15 14 0 0 31

Very helpful 84 81 86 100 100 63

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Across the study communities, 48 percent of mothers did not get help with educational or 

vocational advancement because they felt they did not need it. Another 11 percent felt they 

needed help in this area but they did not get it while in TH. About two in five mothers did get 

educational or vocational assistance; 19 percent got help from the TH program, almost as many 

(16 percent) got help on their own without involving the TH program, and 4 percent were aided 

through both channels. Mothers in San Diego were most likely to get help from their TH 

program and least likely to get it on their own, while mothers in Seattle reported the opposite 

pattern. 

Virtually all mothers said that the assistance they received to further their education or training 

was helpful. All mothers in Houston and San Diego said the assistance they got was very 

helpful. Seattle mothers were the least happy with the help they received, but even there most 

found the TH program assistance somewhat helpful. 
Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Material Support Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Materail Support 73

Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of 

Material Support 

A major goal of transitional housing programs is to help families increase their income to the 

point where they can afford housing. This is a very ambitious goal for most of the families who 

use TH programs, as many mothers lack the education, training, or experience that would qualify 

them for jobs that pay well. As we saw in chapter 7, almost one in four (23 percent) lacked a 

high school diploma or equivalent at the time they left TH, and another one in three (31 percent) 

had only a high school diploma. While most mothers in our sample who worked made more 

than minimum wage, the very large majority did not bring in enough from employment to raise 

their families out of poverty. Most would have needed help from a variety of sources to make 

ends meet. 

In this chapter we look at our families’ sources of cash income and other forms of material 

support at the time they left TH and one year later. Once we understand the basics about family 

income and resources, we focus on employment, which is one of the two key outcomes of this 

study for mothers. Most TH programs list housing and employment stability as the two 

components of what they consider a successful exit, making the assumption that steady income 

from employment will help mothers keep their housing. For employment, we explore mothers’ 

employment history and employment at TH entry, TH exit, and 12 months after leaving TH. 

INCOME, INCOME SOURCES, AND OTHER BENEFITS 

In 2006, the year that covered most of the data collection for this survey, it took a regular 

monthly income of $1,354 to reach the federal poverty line (FPL) of $16,242 a year for a parent 

and two children. TH programs try to prepare their participants to earn enough to exceed this 

level.

THE SITUATION WHEN LEAVING TH

We measured family income by asking about the month before the moveout and 12-month 

interviews. We measured sources of income and non-cash assistance by looking at the year 

before the moveout and 12-month interviews. As 54 percent of mothers spent less than a full 

year in TH and were often interviewed up to a month after they left their TH program, the “year 

before the moveout interview” information will likely cover some time while they were in 

emergency shelters, may also cover some time before they became homeless, and will cover a 

short time following program exit. The year before the 12-month follow-up is also the year after 

moveout, and we will usually refer to it as such. We look first at family income levels, then at 

sources.

As table 8.1 reveals, at most 22 percent of the mothers in this sample brought in enough to rise 

above the FPL, even when one considers all sources of income combined. Mothers in Houston 

and San Diego were most likely to do so. Across all communities the median family income for 

the month before the moveout interview was $1000, putting annual household income at $12,000 

or less for half the families in our sample. 
Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Material Support Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Materail Support 74

Table 8.1: Household Income During the Month Before the Moveout Interview 

(percentages) 

Past month income 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 190) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle 

$0 to $249 5 16 0 3 0 0

$250 to $499 12 16 22 0 4 15

$500 to $749 16 30 26 6 0 11

$750 to $999 15 11 11 12 15 24

$1000 to $1249 14 11 11 26 12 13

$1250 to $1499 6 2 7 3 12 11

$1500 to $1999 16 7 19 29 31 9

$2000 and up 15 9 4 21 27 17

Mean $1194 $808 $954 $1475 $1938 $1185 

Median $1000 $600 $800 $1480 $1550 $ 976 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: 5 mothers said they did not know their last month’s income Cell entries 

may sum to more than 100 percent due to rounding. 

Four out of five mothers got income from working at some time during the year before leaving 

TH (table 8.2). About half (53 percent) received welfare, meaning they were enrolled in their 

state’s version of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF). Other sources 

for about a third of families were financial assistance from family and friends and child support. 

Houston and San Diego mothers were the least likely to report TANF but Houston mothers were 

the most likely to report receiving child support payments. Mothers’ commitment to improving 

their earning power through education or training is reflected in the proportion receiving a 

stipend for participating in vocational training or getting financial aid to further their education. 
Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Material Support Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Materail Support 75

Table 8.2: Income Sources During the 12 Months Before Moveout 

(percentages) 

Sources

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle 

Income from working 81 76 75 94 92 74

Supplemental Security Income 9 7 14 6 2 9

Disability Income (SSDI) 4 2 11 3 4 2

Social Security 2 0 0 0 4 4

TANF (welfare) 53 53 75 22 28 61

General assistance 3 0 0 3 2 2

Stipend accompanying vocational 

training 8 10 4 6 7 7

School/financial aid 14 10 14 22 11 11

Unemployment insurance 5 7 4 3 4 4

Savings 5 2 7 14 2 2

Alimony 1 0 0 6 0 0

Child support 29 31 4 53 24 24

Family and friends 32 47 36 25 30 30

Veterans benefits 1 0 0 3 0 0

Other 7 5 0 10 5 5

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Mothers usually identified more than one income source received, so cell 

entries will sum to more than 100 percent. 

In addition to the sources of cash income reported in table 8.2, mothers also indicated that they 

received a variety of other resources by participating in noncash benefit programs such as 

Medicaid that served to supplement the relatively meager amount they could make from working 

(table 8.3). Eighty-five percent received food stamps—other than the housing subsidies that we 

report in chapter 6. A food stamp is the most common public resource received by these families, 

and the one that “feels” most like cash as it is usually accessed through the same electronic 

benefits card (which acts like a credit card) that states use to distribute TANF benefits. About 

half the families in our sample also supplemented their food supplies with WIC (the Special 

Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children), which supplies nutritious food 

for eligible pregnant and post-partum mothers and children aged five and younger. About one in 

three mothers also got food from food pantries and commodities programs, meaning that they did 

not get enough income and other benefits to cover their families’ food needs, and had to rely on 

sources of food meant for emergencies. 
Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Material Support Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Materail Support 76

Table 8.3: Noncash Benefits and Material Support Received 

During the 12 Months Before Moveout 

(percentages) 

Sources

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle 

Food stamps 85 93 89 75 73 85

WIC 47 56 46 39 42 43

Other food (pantries, commodities) 34 27 39 33 38 39

Child care subsidies 41 60 7 33 50 37

Medicaid 81 88 86 69 77 80

Local health program/SCHIP 29 76 11 8 12 4

Transportation 48 69 39 36 50 41

Hotel/motel voucher 4 2 0 6 4 9

Other 5 0 0 13 10 6

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Mothers usually identified more than one source of material support, so 

cell entries will sum to more than 100 percent. 

Four out of five families were enrolled in Medicaid, and 29 percent were enrolled in a local 

health insurance program or their state’s Children’s Health Insurance Program. Thus at 

moveout, most families had access to medical care when they needed it, which is a much happier 

state of affairs than is true generally for families with incomes at or below 200 percent of the 

federal poverty line, among whom 33 percent did not have health insurance in 2006, including 

41 percent of adults and 20 percent of children (Holahan and Cook 2007). Assistance with 

transportation was another area where many mothers in our sample received help. 

INCOME LEVEL AND INCOME AND BENEFIT SOURCES ONE YEAR AFTER TH

Mean and median incomes for the year after leaving TH are virtually identical to those for the 

year before. There was some movement in certain sites (e.g., median income was up by $100 in 

Cleveland and by almost $300 in Seattle), but in general not much changed (table 8.4).

Likewise, the most common sources of income and material support reported for the year before 

the moveout interview are the same as those reported for the year after moveout (tables 8.5 and 

8.6). However, the proportion of mothers getting income or support from the various sources has 

shifted, sometimes substantially. Table 8.7 compares the pre- and post-moveout sources, 

assembling information from tables 8.1 through 8.6 for the most important sources of support for 

families in all five sites taken together. 
Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Material Support Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Materail Support 77

Table 8.4: Household Income During the Month Before the 12-Month Follow-up Interview 

(percentages) 

Past month income 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 178) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle 

$0 to $249 5 10 0 0 0 7

$250 to $499 13 23 23 7 0 7

$500 to $749 15 23 19 0 0 20

$750 to $999 13 13 19 7 14 11

$1000 to $1249 16 13 15 28 24 7

$1250 to $1499 6 4 8 7 0 9

$1500 to $1999 15 6 12 24 33 14

$2000 and up 17 8 4 28 29 25

Mean $1204 $851 $935 $1543 $1578 $1381 

Median $1000 $700 $800 $1500 $1600 $1200 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may sum to more than 100 percent due to rounding. 

Table 8.5: Income Sources During the 12 Months After Moveout 

(percentages) 

Sources

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 178) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle 

Income from working 78 71 61 97 86 80

Supplemental Security Income 8 5 18 3 5 9

Disability Income (SSDI) 5 2 14 7 10 0

Social Security 1 0 0 0 0 2

TANF (welfare) 24 17 61 0 33 23

General assistance 2 0 4 0 0 5

Stipend accompanying vocational 

training 3 7 0 0 0 5

School/financial aid 10 13 4 17 10 7

Unemployment insurance 0 0 0 0 0 0

Savings 2 0 4 3 0 2

Alimony 1 0 3 0 0 0

Child support 28 36 11 30 33 23

Family and friends 19 32 25 7 0 19

Veterans benefits 1 0 0 3 0 0

Other 5 2 4 13 13 2

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Mothers usually identified more than one income source received, so cell 

entries will sum to more than 100 percent. 
Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Material Support Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Materail Support 78

Table 8.6: Sources of Noncash Benefits and Material Support

During the 12 Months After Moveout 

(percentages) 

Sources

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 178) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle 

Food stamps 67 85 79 38 48 65

WIC 69 56 75 93 71 65

Other food (pantries, commodities) 23 29 32 10 0 30

Medicaid 63 85 18 38 57 84

Local health program/SCHIP 34 91 7 10 24 0

Transportation 18 18 7 10 24 28

Hotel/motel voucher 1 0 0 0 11 0

Other 3 0 0 7 14 0

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Mothers usually identified more than one source of material support, so 

cell entries will sum to more than 100 percent. 

Table 8.7: Comparing Income Levels and Major Sources of Income 

and Material Support Between Moveout and 12 Months Later 

(percentages) 

Moveout 12-Month 

Follow-up 

Income from working 81 78

Supplemental Security Income 9 8

Disability Income (SSDI) 4 5

TANF (welfare) 53 24

Stipend accompanying vocational training 8 3

School/financial aid 14 10

Child support 29 28

Family and friends 32 19

Food stamps 85 67

Medicaid 81 63

Local health program/SCHIP 29 34

Mean income, past month $1194 $1204 

Median income, past month $1000 $1000 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Categories are not mutually exclusive 

so cell entries do not sum to 100 percent. 

The biggest shifts observable in table 8.7 are the steep reduction in reliance on TANF and the 

somewhat less dramatic but still substantial drops in receipt of food stamps, Medicaid, and 

financial support from family and friends. Half as many families relied on TANF in the year 

following TH exit as did so in the year before (24 versus 53 percent). Participation in food 

stamps and Medicaid was down 18 percentage points, meaning that about one in five mothers 

lost these benefits in the year following TH exit. These changes actually left many families 

worse off than they had been in the year before leaving TH, as they were not making much more 

from employment but they lost important supports for adequate food and health care. 
Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Material Support Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Materail Support 79

EMPLOYMENT 

Employment is one of the two key outcomes of this study. Most TH programs list housing and 

employment stability as the two components of what they consider a successful exit, making the 

assumption that steady income from employment will help mothers keep their housing. 

In their first interview we asked mothers about their work 

history and current job status. If they were working we asked 

what type of job(s) they held, how long the job(s) had lasted, 

Employment Increased More 

than Threefold During TH 

and what they made per hour. If they were not working, we • Only 18 percent of mothers 

asked about past jobs and about plans to look for work. At each were working at TH entry. 

subsequent interview we asked similar questions to determine • 61 percent were working at 

whether they still held the same job(s) or had begun or changed TH exit. 

employment. One mark of TH program impact is that only 18 

percent of mothers were working when they entered TH compared to 61 percent who were 

working when they left their TH program. An even higher percentage had some income from 

employment during the year before leaving the program, and again at 12 months following 

program exit. 

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 

All but one mother in our sample had been employed at some time in her life. Seventy percent 

of mothers had first worked for pay at age 16 or younger, with 9 percent starting to work at age 

13 or younger. Seventeen percent had their first job when they were 17 or 18, and only 14 

percent were 19 or older when they were first employed. 

In response to our question, “Since you were 16, how much of your life have you had a job?”, 42 

percent of mothers said “all or almost all of the time” and another 22 percent said “most of the 

time.” The remainder, 36 percent, had worked half the time or less, including 5 percent who said 

they had worked almost none or none of the time. Mothers in Houston were more likely than 

mothers in all but one other site to have worked “all or almost all” the time since they were 18. 

EMPLOYMENT AT TH EXIT AND PERSISTENCE IN EMPLOYMENT 

Table 8.8 presents mothers’ employment status at the time they left transitional housing as well 

as their employment status at the 12-month follow-up. Three out of five mothers were working 

at moveout (61 percent), the vast majority of whom (92 percent) held only one job. Mothers in 

Houston and San Diego were significantly more likely to be working at moveout (83 and 88 

percent, respectively) than mothers in the other three sites, where employment levels ran from 46 

to 54 percent. 
Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Material Support Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Materail Support 80

Table 8.8: Employment at Moveout and 12-month Follow-up 

(percentages) 

Employment status 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle 

Working at moveout (n=119) 61 46 50 83 88 54

Of those working at moveout: 

 Had 1 job at moveout 92 96 90 92 95 88

 Had 2 jobs at moveout 8 4 10 8 5 12

 Not working at 12 months 23 33 43 7 17 24

Working at 12 months 68 56 57 80 65 76

 Unknown at 12 monthsa 9 11 0 13 17 0

Not working at moveout (n=76) 39 54 50 17 12 46

Of those not working at moveout: 

 Not working at 12 months 47 44 64 0 67 52

 Working at 12 months 45 53 36 67 0 38

 Unknown at 12 monthsb 8 3 0 33 33 10

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. a 11 mothers lost to follow-up who did not complete a 12-month interview. 

b 6 mothers lost to follow-up who did not complete a 12-month interview. 

EMPLOYMENT STATUS AT 12 MONTHS

We can also see in table 8.8 the proportion of mothers whose employment status stayed the same 

from moveout to 12-month follow-up and the proportion whose status changed. Sixty percent of 

the starting sample (195 mothers) were still in the employment status at 12 months after leaving 

TH that they had been in at moveout, 31 percent had changed status, and 9 percent were 

unknown (lost to follow-up). 

Two-thirds of mothers who were working at moveout also held a job at follow-up. Of mothers 

not working at moveout, 47 percent were still not working at 12 months. Among mothers for 

whom we have both moveout and 12-month information (179 mothers), 4 percent more (7 

mothers) were working at follow-up than were working at moveout. On its surface this appears 

to be a very small shift, but it hides a good deal of movement and change in employment status. 

Still looking at the mothers for whom we have moveout and 12-month data, 1 in 4 of the 108 

mothers who were working at moveout had lost her job at some time in the year after moveout 

and was unemployed at 12 months, while almost 1 in 2 (49 percent) of the 70 mothers not 

working at moveout was working at 12 months. Thus we see that considerably more shifting 

into employment than shifting out of employment occurred—a fact masked by the larger group 

of mothers who were working at moveout. Nevertheless, the data also reveal how much 

difficulty some of these mothers have with sustaining employment. 

Types of Jobs 

A variety of jobs were listed on the interview forms to make it easy for interviewers to record 

common types of jobs for people leaving TH programs. These included things like health care 
Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Material Support Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Materail Support 81

work (nurse’s aide, home health care, adult care aide), food service work, clerical/administrative 

jobs, cleaning/housework, factory work, sales, management, and professional (registered nurse, 

accountant, teacher). There was also an “other” category, which asked for a description of the 

job held by the respondent if none of the standard answers applied.

We considered a number of ways to categorize jobs, and ultimately decided to use a scheme that 

captures the level of experience and education that a typical job requires in six categories. These 

are jobs for which a person needs: 

1. No specific experience or education (e.g., bagging groceries, odd jobs, manual labor, 

cleaning/housework, basic food service, child care) 

2. A high school diploma or equivalent and some (3 months) experience (e.g., farming, 

basic factory work, entry level sales) 

3. A year of post-high school education or training and 3 to 6 months experience (e.g., 

cashier, clerical/administrative, any kind of health aide, substance abuse counselor) 

4. Two years of post-high school education or training and 6 months or so of on-the-job 

training or apprenticeship (e.g., bookkeeper, various information technology jobs, 

laboratory technician) 

5. A 4-year college degree (e.g., teacher, social worker) 

6. More than a 4-year college degree. 

In describing mothers’ employment, we focus only on their primary job (the job they described 

first), since only eight mothers held a second job. Table 8.9 shows the characteristics of the jobs 

that mothers held as their primary work. 

Table 8.9: Types of Jobs Among Mothers Who Were Working at Moveout 

(percentages) 

Types of jobs 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 103) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle 

1. No experience needed 21 16 40 24 11 25

2. HS diploma, some experience 7 8 10 4 11 4

3. 1-year post-HS + experience 47 56 20 40 53 50

4. 2-yrs post-HS + experience 18 12 20 28 16 17

5-8. 4-year college degree or more 6 8 10 4 11 4

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Of 119 mothers who worked at moveout, 15 completed retrospective 

interviews that did not supply details on the jobs they held when they left TH, and one who completed a regular moveout interview did not 

provide job details. Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 
Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Material Support Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Materail Support 82

We have descriptions of primary jobs for 100 to 103 of the 119 mothers who held jobs at 

moveout.20 Most of these mothers (47 percent) held jobs in category 3, requiring a year of posthigh school training and some experience, as shown in table 8.9. Detroit mothers are the clear 

exception to this generalization, with a higher proportion holding category 1 jobs; sample sizes 

within communities are too small for this difference to reach statistical significance. Detroit 

mothers were generally younger than mothers in other communities (chapter 2) and were 

significantly less likely to have finished high school (chapter 7). These differences most likely 

account for the quality of jobs they were able to obtain. 

Types of Jobs at 12 Months 

Jobs held at 12 months show a very slight and nonsignificant shift toward ones requiring more 

training and experience. Ten percent of mothers held jobs requiring at least a college degree, 

compared to 6 percent at moveout, and 47 versus 40 percent held jobs requiring a year of posthigh school education. A few more mothers held second jobs (12 mothers compared to 8 at 

moveout), but these closely resembled their primary jobs with respect to experience and 

education requirements. 

TIME COMMITMENT OF MOTHERS’ PRIMARY JOB

Most mothers who work have regular full-time jobs (i.e., 30 or more hours a week). The lowest 

proportion working full time occurred in Cleveland and the highest proportion in San Diego (58 

and 78 percent, respectively), but small sample sizes mean these differences are not statistically 

significant (table 8.10). Regular part-time work is the next most frequently mentioned time 

commitment. Very few mothers are working in temporary or contract positions. In no 

community but San Diego are a fair proportion of mothers working in paid training or internship 

positions. No mothers hold these positions in Detroit and Houston. 

20 78 mothers were recruited into the sample two months or more after they had left transitional housing. These 

mothers completed retrospective first interviews so we could learn about their situation at the time of the interview 

and at the time they left TH. We were able to determine employment status at moveout for all of these 

“retrospective” mothers, but 15 did not supply details of their jobs from that time. In addition, one or more other 

mothers did not provide details on one or more aspects of their job. 
Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Material Support Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Materail Support 83

Table 8.10: Time Commitment of Jobs Among Mothers Who Were Working at Moveout 

(percentages) 

Time commitment 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 100) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle 

Full time regular (30+ hrs/wk) 65 58 60 68 78 63

Full time temporary or contract 

(30+ hrs/wk) 2 0 4 0 0 4

Part time regular (<30 hrs/wk) 24 29 30 28 6 25

Part-time temporary/contract 

(<30 hrs/wk) 5 8 10 0 6 4

Paid training or internship 4 4 0 0 11 4

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Of 119 mothers who worked at moveout, 15 completed retrospective 

interviews that did not supply details on the jobs they held when they left TH, and four who completed a regular moveout interview did 

not provide job details. Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

WAGE LEVELS OF MOTHERS’ PRIMARY JOB

Even working full time, if a mother works for only minimum wage or a bit above that, she will 

not earn enough to raise her family out of poverty or be able to afford rent in many communities. 

Census Bureau poverty thresholds (FPLs) for 2006 were $13,896 for a mother and one child, 

$16,242 for a mother and two children, and $21,546 for a mother and three children. The federal 

minimum wage in 2006 was $5.15. In two of our study states, Ohio and Texas, this was the 

minimum wage that prevailed during data collection for this study. The minimum wage set by 

state statute in California during 2006 was $8.75, in Michigan it was $8.95, and in Washington it 

was $7.61. Using 35 hours as the standard work week, a full-time worker at 35 hours would 

work 1,820 hours a year. At the federal minimum wage this would bring in $9,577—or only 68 

percent of FPL for a mother with one child. A mother in San Diego, Detroit, and Seattle 

working full time at minimum wage in her state would have made $12,285, $12,649, and 

$13,850 respectively. None of these mothers would have risen above the FPL; only mothers in 

Seattle would have come within a percent or two of FPL. 

Fortunately most mothers in our sample held jobs that paid more than minimum wage. Table 

8.11 shows the hourly wage that mothers reported for the jobs they held at the time they left 

transitional housing. On average, mothers made $9.77 an hour, which translates into $17,781 a 

year for full time work. The median wage was only slightly lower. With the exception of one 

mother in Cleveland, no one in our sample was working at less than federal minimum wage, 

including those who were in paid training or internships. About one in four were making $5.15 

to $7.79 an hour; the top of this range would have been above minimum wage in all states in this 

study. Almost three-fourths of mothers who were working when they left TH were making at 

least $7.80 an hour. Forty-two percent were making between $7.80 and $10.29 an hour, or 

between $14,600 and $19,000 a year. Eighteen percent were making $12.30 an hour or more, or 

at least $22,700 a year. The highest-paid mother in our sample made about $32,000 a year. 
Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Material Support Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Materail Support 84

Table 8.11: Wage Level of Jobs Among Mothers Who Were Working at Moveout, and 

Mean and Median Hourly Wages at Moveout and 12 Months 

(percentages, except for shaded rows) 

Hourly wage 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 100) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle 

<$5.15 an hour (less than minimum 

wage) 1 4 0 0 0 0

$5.15 to $7.79 an hour 26 28 56 32 22 9

$7.80 to 10.29 an hour 42 48 44 36 44 39

$10.30 to $12.89 an hour 13 8 0 16 17 17

$12.30 an hour or more 18 12 0 16 17 35

Mean hourly wage-moveout $9.77 $9.03 $7.76 $9.74 $10.16 $11.11

Median hourly wage-moveout $9.24 $8.25 $7.00 $9.26 $10.00 $10.25

Mean hourly wage-at 12 months $10.04 $9.42 $8.31 $9.62 $12.70 $10.76

Median hourly wage-at 12 months $9.00 $8.00 $7.00 $9.05 $11.20 $10.25

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Of 119 mothers who worked at moveout, 15 completed retrospective 

interviews that did not supply details on the jobs they held when they left TH, and three who completed a regular moveout interview did 

not provide job details. Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

The mean and median wages and the wage distribution differed considerably among study 

communities. Detroit mothers received considerably lower wages, on average ($7.76 an hour), 

while Seattle mothers received the highest wages ($11.11, on average). Hardly any Seattle 

mothers make less than $7.80 an hour, while only 44 percent of Detroit mothers make $7.80 or 

more. Second jobs, for the few who hold them, have roughly the same wage distribution. 

Wage Levels at 12 Months 

As can be seen in the last two rows of table 8.11, hourly wages at 12 months look very similar to 

those at moveout—not surprising given that the types of jobs that mothers hold at 12 months are 

very similar to the types they held at moveout. Study communities differed quite a bit in hourly 

wage changes—the mean and median hourly wage jumped 25 and 12 percent, respectively, and 

the mean hourly wage in Detroit went up 7 percent. But overall the mean hourly wage of jobs 

held at 12 months was only about 3 percent higher than the mean hourly wage of jobs held at 

moveout.

DURATION OF CURRENT JOB

About half of all mothers working at moveout had held their job for less than six months (table 

8.12). Mothers in Cleveland more than mothers in any other site had been in their current jobs 

for this relatively short period. Another one in four mothers (26 percent) had been working for 6 

to 12 months. Most of the mothers in these first two categories would have started working at 

their current job while in TH. It looks like mothers in Houston and San Diego were most likely 

to have jobs of long duration—two years or more—but the small sample sizes mean these 

differences are not statistically significant. 
Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Material Support Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Materail Support 85

Table 8.12: Duration of Jobs Among Mothers Who Were Working at Moveout 

(percentages) 

Duration 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 102) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle 

Less than 6 months 49 72 40 44 37 44

6 to 12 months 26 8 30 28 32 39

More than 1 year, up to 2 years 12 12 20 8 11 13

2 years or more 13 8 10 20 21 4

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Of 119 mothers who worked at moveout, 15 completed retrospective 

interviews that did not supply details on the jobs they held when they left TH, and two who completed a regular moveout interview did 

not provide job details. Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Duration of Jobs at 12 Months 

Given the number of mothers who were working at both moveout and the 12-month follow-up, it 

is not surprising that mothers had been at jobs longer at follow-up than was true at moveout. 

Jobs held for less than 6 months were down 10 percentage points (from 49 to 39 percent) and 

jobs held from 6 to 12 months were down 4 percentage points (from 26 to 21 percent). The 

difference was absorbed by mothers whose jobs a year after leaving TH had lasted a year or 

more—up to 39 percent from 25 percent. 

HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE 

A job that includes health insurance for employees is prized, as access to health care depends in 

large degree upon having insurance, and staying healthy can depend on receiving health care 

when needed. Table 8.13 shows the extent to which the jobs mothers held at moveout gave them 

and their children health insurance coverage. 

Table 8.13: Health Insurance Coverage in Mothers’ Job at Moveout 

(percentages) 

Duration 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 98) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle 

No 58 78 78 36 71 46

Yes, for mother only 10 4 11 12 18 8

Yes, for both mother and 

children 31 17 11 52 12 42

Don’t know 1 0 0 0 0 4

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Of 119 mothers who worked at moveout, 15 completed retrospective 

interviews that did not supply details on the jobs they held when they left TH, and six who completed a regular moveout interview did 

not provide job details. Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

More than half (58 percent) of all mothers employed at moveout were in jobs that did not offer 

coverage for themselves and their children. Only 10 percent got health insurance for themselves 

only. Mothers in Cleveland, Detroit, and San Diego were significantly more likely than mothers 
Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Material Support Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Materail Support 86

in Houston and Seattle to lack employer-sponsored health insurance entirely. Conversely 

mothers in Houston and Seattle were most likely to have insurance coverage for both themselves 

and their children. Having this coverage can bring great peace of mind to mothers concerned 

about their children’s health and may make the difference between being able to afford rent and 

having to make choices between paying rent and paying for medical care. 

Health Insurance at 12 Months 

About the same number of mothers worked in jobs without health insurance at the 12-month 

follow-up as had done so at moveout (61 and 58 percent, respectively). Among the mothers with 

employer-provided health insurance, there was an unfortunate shift to coverage only for the 

mother, not for her children. At moveout, 31 percent of working mothers had employer-based 

health insurance for themselves and their children, a proportion that slipped to 16 percent at 12 

months after moveout. Twenty-four percent of mothers had insurance for themselves alone, 

compared to 10 percent at moveout. 

PARTICIPATION IN THE INFORMAL ECONOMY 

Many families augment income from formal employment by doing things “on the side.”

Sometimes they get paid for these activities, always in cash, and sometimes they trade things 

they can do for things they need done for them. We asked mothers whether they participated in 

any aspect of this informal economy, focusing exclusively on things that are within the law.

Table 8.14 shows the responses at moveout and the 12-month follow-up, for things the mothers 

did for cash, things they “gave in trade,” and things they “got in trade.” Mothers could name 

multiple activities traded or done for pay. 

Table 8.14: Participation in the Informal Economy at Moveout and 12 Months Later 

(percentages) 

Did for cash Gave in trade Got in trade 

At moveout At 12 months At moveout At 12 months At moveout At 12 months 

Child care 10 10 13 8 6 5

Adult care 3 0 0 0 0 0

Hair styling 4 4 2 1 1 2

Cleaning 6 6 2 0 0 1

Laundry 3 2 1 1 1 0

Transportation 1 0 2 0 7 4

Shopping 2 1 1 1 3 2

Cooking 3 0 2 1 1 1

At least one of 

above 16 16 16 12 16 12

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Mothers could identify more than one activity done for pay or traded. 

Sixteen percent of mothers did one or more things for cash at moveout and likewise traded for 

similar things. Child care was the activity most commonly traded and done for pay. Cleaning 

was done for pay but not traded, and mothers seem to have received help with transportation but 
Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Material Support Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Materail Support 87

not been in a position to give it, either for pay or in trade. A few mothers did more than one of 

these activities for pay, but most of those responding reported only one traded activity. 

MOTHERS NOT WORKING AT 12 MONTHS 

Sixty-three mothers (35 percent of the mothers interviewed at 12 months) were not working at 

the 12-month interview. Half of these mothers had worked since last being interviewed—that is, 

within the past six months, or during the year after TH. Twenty percent had last worked 6 to 12 

months before their 12-month interview, and thus probably during the year after TH. Thirty 

percent had not worked since before they left TH. 

Among these 63 mothers, 35 percent were looking for work at the time of their 12-month 

interview. The remainder gave reasons for not working and not looking that closely resembled 

those given at moveout. Slightly fewer nonworking mothers mentioned job-related factors, 

indicating they had finished a school or training program or had otherwise acquired the training, 

skills, or experience to get the jobs they wanted. Access-related factors were also down a bit, 

especially transportation problems and unresolved child care responsibilities, although lack of 

child care was still an issue. On the other hand, a slightly higher proportion of mothers 

mentioned their own health and disability issues as reasons they were not working. 

• Job-related factors—in school or other training (24 vs. 31 percent),21 lack necessary 

schooling, training, skills, or experience (6 vs. 13 percent), jobs don’t pay enough (8 vs. 

13 percent), no jobs available in my line of work (5 vs. 8 percent) 

• Access-related factors— need flexible hours because of children (22 vs. 29 percent), 

transportation problems (15 vs. 25 percent), lack child care (17 vs. 15 percent) 

• Mother’s illness, injury, or disability—mental or emotional problems (14 vs. 17 percent), 

physical disability (19 vs. 13 percent), illness (14 vs. 10 percent), injury (3 vs. 6 percent) 

• Family-related matters—family responsibilities (14 vs. 15 percent), illness of family 

member (2 vs. 0 percent) 

• Other reasons—had enough income from other sources (5 vs. 8 percent), pregnant (3 vs. 

2 percent). 

No one said she was not interested in working or that she could not work because she was in a 

substance abuse treatment program. 

21 The first figure is from the 12-month interview, and is compared to the responses at moveout. Thus 24 percent of 

nonworking mothers gave their reason as being in school at the 12-month interview versus 31 percent who did so at 

moveout. 
Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Material Support Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Materail Support 88

HELP FROM TH PROGRAM FOR JOB TRAINING AND FINDING 

EMPLOYMENT 

As we saw in chapter 7, many mothers in TH programs are or have been involved in education or 

training to obtain credentials for jobs that will let them support their family and afford housing. 

After helping mothers to get this training, TH programs often provide assistance to find 

employment commensurate with these new credentials and skills. 

Table 8.15 shows mothers’ responses to questions about whether they got assistance with job 

training, job finding, and job retention while in TH, and whether found the assistance they got to 

be useful. 

Table 8.15: TH Program Assistance with Employment 

(percentages) 

Employment 

assistance 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Did you get help? 

No, didn’t need 

 No, needed but 

31 15 32 42 35 41

 didn’t get 5 5 11 3 0 4

 Yes, from program 41 71 25 28 50 15

 Yes, on my own 10 2 7 11 8 22

Yes, both 12 17 22 26 4 30

 Unknown 2 0 7 0 4 2

Of mothers receiving 

help, for how many 

was it...? 

 Not at all helpful 6 3 0 15 0 13

Somewhat helpful 30 43 36 5 19 29

Very helpful 64 54 64 80 81 58

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Across the study communities, 31 percent of mothers did not get help with employment because 

they felt they did not need it. Another 5 percent felt they needed help in this area but they did 

not get it while in TH. About three in five mothers (63 percent) did get assistance with jobrelated matters; 41 percent of these got help from the TH program only, 10 percent got help on 

their own without involving the TH program, and 12 percent were aided through both channels.

Mothers in Cleveland and San Diego were most likely to get help just from their TH program 

while many mothers in the other three communities got help with employment from both their 

TH program and other sources. 

Mothers were strongly favorable to the help they received on job-related matters. As was true 

with respect to education, mothers in Houston and San Diego were the most favorable, with four 

out of five who got this assistance saying it was very helpful. 
Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Material Support Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Materail Support 89

THE BOTTOM LINE—TH PROGRAM MOTHERS’ EARNING 

PROSPECTS

We developed a number of variables to summarize the consistency of mothers’ employment 

experiences in the year following their exit from transitional housing. The final table of this 

chapter, table 8.16, shows the results for the sample as a whole. About two mothers in five (39 

percent) were employed at moveout and stayed employed for the whole year thereafter. Most 

remained in the same job, but 23 percent (9 percent of the sample with 12-month interviews) 

changed jobs during the year. 

Table 8.16: Summary of Employment Experiences in the Year 

Between Moveout and the 12 Month Follow-Up Interview 

(percentages) 

Summary measures of employment 

Total—all 

communities 

(n = 179) 

Employed whole time at the same job 30

Employed whole time, more than one job 9

Periods of unemployment 

 Working most of the time 

 Working about half the time 

 Not working most of the time 

44

16

16

12

Unemployed whole time 15

Working at moveout but not working at 12 months 14

Not working at moveout but working at 12 months 17

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Categories are not mutually exclusive 

so cell entries do not sum to 100 percent. 

Another 44 percent of mothers with 12-month interviews experienced periods of unemployment 

during the year following TH. These mothers are fairly evenly divided among those who worked 

most of the time, about half the time, and relatively little of the time. Fifteen percent of mothers 

never worked during the whole 12 months after leaving TH; many of this group were not looking 

for work either, for a variety of reasons. Among the mothers who experienced periods of 

unemployment, about equal numbers were working at moveout but not at 12 months (14 percent) 

or vice versa (17 percent). 

The income and earnings prospects of the mothers in our sample greatly resemble those of other 

poor and near-poor mothers in the numerous studies that have examined the impacts of welfare 

reform on mothers’ employment. This is not surprising, as about half of the mothers in our 

sample were actually TANF participants at the time they left TH (the proportion varied 

significantly across sites at least partially as a consequence of state-level TANF policies). It is 

very common for these women to hold jobs for relatively short periods of time, lose them, and 

move on to other jobs that are also short-lived. Of the 195 mothers in our sample, 119 (69 

percent) were working when they left TH. Only half of these (59 mothers, 30 percent of the 

whole sample) worked at the same job throughout the 12-month follow-up period. Thus slightly 

more than half the women we interviewed (55 percent) had periods of alternating employment 

and unemployment during the follow-up year and may have held two or more jobs in that 12-

month period. 
Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Material Support Chapter 8: Mothers’ Income, Employment, and Sources of Materail Support 90

Welfare mothers and our mothers can and do work, but work does not usually raise them or their 

families out of poverty, nor does it make them able to afford housing without assistance. A

period of time in a transitional housing program does not change the basic reality of poor, 

relatively under-educated mothers’ earning power. Acs and Loprest (2007a) summarize the 

economic circumstances of welfare families after leaving TANF and document the persistence of 

poverty despite significant work effort. They also document the utility of a family’s continued 

receipt of food stamps in its ability to avoid returning to welfare (Acs and Loprest 2007b). Yet 

as we noted above, about half the families in this study that received food stamps at TH program 

exit were off the food stamp rolls by one year later and thus unable to fall back on this important 

supplemental resource. Mills et al.’s 2006 report of the results of HUD’s Welfare to Work 

Voucher Program shows the importance of housing subsidies in maintaining family housing 

stability. Having or not having a subsidy made much more difference to a household’s ability to 

remain stably housed than variations in household earnings. The same will be true for the 

mothers in this study, as will be seen in chapter 12. 
Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems 91

Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems 

A mother’s mental or emotional problems can be major barriers to functioning at a level that will 

allow her to maintain stable housing. There is a general perception that the parents in homeless 

families are not as likely as single homeless adults to experience mental illness (or addictions).

The image of homeless families that advocacy is most likely to project is one of financial 

setbacks rather than personal characteristics that increase the vulnerability to homelessness. 

Data from the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (Burt et al. 1999), 

still the only survey to report relevant information for homeless people throughout the nation 

despite its age, indicate otherwise. While less likely than single adults to report mental or 

emotional problems, the differences are not huge. For the past month, 35 percent of parents 

reported at least one mental health symptom compared to 42 percent of single adults; reports for 

past year and lifetime are 47 versus 56 percent and 65 versus 67 percent, respectively. Twentyfive percent of parents compared to 34 percent of single adults reported enough symptoms of 

mental or emotional distress to score above a clinical cutoff, indicating that prompt treatment 

was advisable (Burt et al. 1999, appendix table 8.A1). 

A mother’s mental or emotional problems may even be barriers to acceptance into a transitional 

housing program. Twenty-eight percent of TH programs screened for this study would not take 

mothers with severe and persistent mental illness. The mental or emotional problems of most 

homeless mothers do not rise to this level of “severe and persistent,” but they may still be 

sufficiently debilitating that they have a hard time caring for or supporting their families. This 

chapter examines the types of problems that mothers reported at the time they left transitional 

housing, as well as their past experiences with mental and emotional problems and treatment for 

them. It ends with changes in emotional or mental health conditions between moveout and the 

12 month follow-up.22

MOTHERS’ MENTAL HEALTH CONDITIONS 

The questions used to learn about mothers’ mental and emotional problems came from an 

instrument called the Addiction Severity Index (ASI).23 We inquired whether a mother had 

22 Because the samples of mothers from each community in this study are small, it takes a difference of between 15 

and 25 percentage points to reach statistical significance at p < .05. Comparisons between the two communities 

with the largest samples, Cleveland with 59 mothers and Seattle with 46, will be significant at percentage point 

differences of 15 to 20 percent. Comparisons between the two communities with the smallest samples, Detroit with 

28 mothers and San Diego with 26, will be significant at percentage point differences of 20 to 25 percent. 

Comparisons at the tail ends of a distribution (e.g., 5 versus 20 or 80 versus 95 percent) are more likely to be 

statistically significant than comparisons in the middle that have the same percentage point difference (e.g., 40 

versus 55 percent). In the text we make comparisons among communities; when differences reach statistical 

significance at p < .05 we describe those differences as statistically significant. 

23 The Addiction Severity Index is an instrument developed by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (Fureman, 

Parikh, Bragg, and McLellan, 1990). It contains subscales to measure a client’s level of problems with alcohol, 

drugs, and mental or emotional problems. Cutoff levels used in this report to indicate the need for clinical services 

are slight modifications of the means reported in Zanis, McLellan, Cnaan, and Randall (1994). 
Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems 92

experienced any of eight conditions and, if yes, the most recent time when they occurred. The 

conditions were: 

• Experienced serious depression 

• Experienced serious anxiety or tension 

• Experienced trouble understanding, concentrating or remembering 

• Experienced hallucinations (hearing voices or seeing things that you could not control or 

that others could not hear or see) 

• Experienced trouble controlling violent behavior 

• Had serious thoughts of suicide 

• Attempted suicide, and 

• Took prescribed medication for any psychological/emotional problem 

Table 9.1 shows the frequency with which mothers reported the first five conditions during their 

moveout interview. We present their responses within three time frames—past month, past year, 

and lifetime. “Past month” indicates that a mother experienced the condition within the 30 days 

before being interviewed for this study—usually including her last days in transitional housing.

“Past year” indicates that she experienced the condition within one year of being interviewed, 

including the past month. “Lifetime” indicates that she experienced the condition at some time 

in her life, including the past month and year. Past month and past year statistics exclude 27 

mothers who said “yes” to one or more conditions but did not specify a time period when these 

conditions happened, so we could not know whether they had occurred within the past month or 

past year. These 27 mothers are included in statistics pertaining to lifetime experiences because 

they clearly happened at some time during the person’s life even though we do not know exactly 

when. Therefore tables 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3 include a time period designated “yes, lifetime, 

including unspecified time.” Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Table 9.1 clearly reveals that as the time frame extends from past month to past year to lifetime, 

the number of mothers reporting these conditions increases, sometimes substantially. It is 

encouraging to note that relatively few mothers report any of these symptoms during the month 

before their moveout interview, despite having had far more experience with them during the 

previous year and especially over their lifetimes. Mothers are most likely to have experienced 

the first three conditions—serious depression, serious anxiety or tension, and trouble 

understanding, concentrating, or remembering (53, 46, and 39 percent, respectively, over their 

lifetime). Reports of past month experiences with these three conditions were much lower, 

however, ranging from 8 percent for depression to 13 percent for trouble understanding, 

concentrating, or remembering. We would hope and expect that mothers who just left 

transitional housing, having been viewed by program staff as exiting successfully, would report 

relatively low levels of disturbing emotional conditions. 
Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems 93

Table 9.1: Mothers’ Reports of Mental Health Conditions 

(percentages) 

Condition experienced 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Serious depression 

 Yes, past month 

 Yes, past year 

 Yes, lifetime, including 

unspecified time 

8

30

53

12

36

61

4

15

57

6

36

47

8

19

50

7

33

46

Serious anxiety or tension 

 Yes, past month 

 Yes, past year 

 Yes, lifetime, including 

unspecified time 

10

26

46

8

27

49

4

14

54

14

33

42

12

23

38

13

26

43

Trouble understanding, 

concentrating, or 

remembering

 Yes, past month 

 Yes, past year 

 Yes, lifetime, including 

unspecified time 

13

24

39

12

22

37

7

14

46

17

33

39

12

12

31

17

33

43

Hallucinations 

 Yes, past month 

 Yes, past year 

 Yes, lifetime, including 

unspecified time

 1 

3

8

0

5

14

0

4

14

0

3

6

0

0

0

2

2

2

Trouble controlling violent 

behavior 

 Yes, past month 

 Yes, past year 

 Yes, lifetime, including 

unspecified time 

1

4

12

2

8

19

0

0

21

3

6

6

0

0

4

0

2

6

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Percentages in this table are cumulative, mothers reporting a 

symptom during the past month are included in the statistic for past year symptoms, and both are included in lifetime symptoms. 

Past month and past year statistics exclude 27 mothers who said “yes” to one or more conditions but did not specify a time period

when they were experienced. These mothers are included in statistics pertaining to lifetime experiences. Cell entries may not sum 

to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Mothers were very unlikely to have experienced the last two conditions shown in table 9.1— 

hallucinations or periods when they had trouble controlling violent behavior (8 and 12 percent, 

respectively, over their lifetime). Lifetime rates for these two conditions were higher among 

mothers in Cleveland and Detroit than they were among mothers in the other three communities, 

reaching statistical significance in most cases. Past month rates were very low—only 1 percent, 

reported by only one mother in Cleveland and another in Houston. Past year rates were also low, 

with 3 to 4 percent of mothers reporting these experiences within the past year. Most mothers in 

the study would have been in TH in the past year time frame, but some would not yet have been 

in a TH program. 
Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems 94

SUICIDAL IDEATION AND ATTEMPTS 

People with severe depression are at high risk for suicide. Add to the problem of depression the 

condition of homelessness and you increase the risk considerably, as homeless people have made 

suicide attempts at rates five or six times those in the general population. In this study, 18 

percent of all mothers had thought of committing suicide at some time in their life, including 4 

percent who had these thoughts within the past year (table 9.2). Eleven percent had made at least 

one suicide attempt in their lives, with 1 percent having done so within the past year.24 Suicidal 

ideation and attempts vary greatly by study community, with more mothers in Cleveland and 

Detroit reporting both thoughts and attempts than mothers in the other three communities.

Seattle mothers were the least likely to report either thoughts or attempts, doing so at rates three 

to four times lower than mothers in Cleveland and Detroit; these differences were statistically 

significant. 

Table 9.2: Mothers’ Reports of Suicidal Ideation or Attempt 

(percentages) 

Condition 

experienced 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Serious thoughts of 

suicide 

Yes, past month 

 Yes, past year 

Yes, lifetime, 

including unspecified 

time

1

4

18

0

5

27

0

4

29

3

6

14

0

0

12

0

2

9

Attempted suicide 

Yes, past month 

 Yes, past year 

 Yes, lifetime, 

including unspecified 

time

 0 

1

11

0

2

17

0

0

21

0

0

3

0

0

7

0

0

4

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Percentages in this table are cumulative, mothers reporting a 

symptom during the past month are included in the statistic for past year symptoms, and both are included in lifetime symptoms. 

Past month and past year statistics exclude 27 mothers who said “yes” to one or more conditions but did not specify a time 

period when they were experienced. These mothers are included in statistics pertaining to lifetime experiences. Cell entries 

may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

USE OF PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATIONS 

Thirty-one percent of all mothers in the study had taken prescription medications for mental or 

emotional problems at some time in their lives. One in 10 were currently taking such 

medications (past month), and 15 percent had done so during the past year. Differences among 

communities are again apparent. Mothers in Cleveland, Detroit, and Houston have higher 

lifetime psychotropic medication use than mothers in San Diego and Seattle, but do not appear so 

different in their current or past year use. Mothers in Detroit are the most different, with none 

24 In the general population of adults, about 3 percent have ever attempted suicide. 
Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems 95

reporting past month use and only 4 percent reporting past year use, but 36 percent reporting 

lifetime use. However, most of this difference is likely due to the large proportion (25 percent) 

of Detroit mothers who did not give a time frame for their use of medications. They are counted 

in “lifetime” use but cannot be included in statistics showing past month or past year use. Eight 

percent of Cleveland and San Diego mothers did not give a time frame, while all mothers in 

Houston and Seattle did indicate when they took medications for mental or emotional problems. 

Table 9.3: Mothers’ Reported Use of Psychotropic Medications 

(percentages) 

Medication use 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Yes, past month 

 Yes, past year 

 Yes, lifetime, 

including unspecified 

time

10

15

31

12

19

37

0

4

36

11

19

38

12

15

27

11

17

24

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Percentages in this table are cumulative, mothers reporting a 

symptom during the past month are included in the statistic for past year symptoms, and both are included in lifetime symptoms. 

Past month and past year statistics exclude 27 mothers who said “yes” to use of psychotropic medications but did not specify a 

time period when they were experienced. These mothers are included for lifetime experiences. Cell entries may not sum to 100 

percent due to rounding. 

COMBINED EXPERIENCES 

Some mothers in this study reported more than one mental and emotional condition; the more 

such conditions a mother faces, the more likely it is that they will interfere with her ability to 

take care of her family and become self-sufficient. We examine this possibility by creating 

scales that count “1” for each of the eight mental or emotional conditions on the ASI that a 

mother reported for the past month, past year, and lifetime time frames. Scale values range from 

0 to 8, as shown in table 9.4. 
Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems 96

Table 9.4: Mothers’ Reports of Number of Mental/Emotional Conditions 

Experienced in the Month and Year Before First Interview and Lifetime

(percentages) 

Number of 

conditions 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 193) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Past montha

 None 74 69 84 76 74 74

1 13 20 11 3 16 13

2 5 4 5 9 5 2

3 7 6 0 12 0 9

4 2 2 0 0 5 2

5 or more 0 0 0 0 0 0

Past yeara

 None 54 55 68 46 68 49

1 16 12 10 15 16 23

2 9 10 21 9 5 5

3 9 10 0 15 5 9

4 9 8 0 15 5 9

5 or more 3 6 0 0 0 5

Lifetimeb

 None 36 32 35 36 42 37

1 12 12 8 11 8 17

2 11 9 12 14 8 15

3 16 12 15 19 27 11

4 12 12 12 14 11 11

5 or more 13 22 8 6 4 9

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. a Excludes 27 mothers who said “yes” to one or more conditions but did not specify a time period when they were experienced. 

b Includes 27 mothers who said “yes” to one or more conditions but did not specify a time period when they were experienced. 

Three out of four mothers (74 percent) did not report experiencing any of the eight mental or 

emotional conditions during the month before the moveout interview. The remaining 26 percent 

experienced one or more symptoms, with 9 percent reporting three or more conditions. Reported 

experiences increased for the past year time frame, with 46 percent of mothers reporting one or 

more conditions, including 21 percent who reported three or more conditions. Lifetime 

experiences were the highest, reversing the proportions for past month experiences. Three out of 

four mothers did report one or more conditions, and 41 percent reported experiencing three or 

more conditions during their lifetime. The proportion of mothers reporting zero or one 

experience in each time frame is very close to the proportion reported by NSHAPC; the mothers 

in the present sample may have been slightly more likely to report three or more experiences 

during the past year and lifetime time frames. 

THE ASI/MH INDEX

A set of questions asked of mothers form a scale called the Addiction Severity Index for mental 

health conditions (ASI/mh). The eight questions about mental or emotional conditions for which 
Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems 97

we just presented results are part of the scale. In addition, any mother who reported one or more 

of the eight conditions within the past 30 days was asked three further questions: the number of 

days within the past 30 days on which they experienced any of these psychological conditions, 

how troubled or bothered they are by these psychological conditions, and how important it was 

to them to get treatment or counseling for these conditions. 

Answers relevant to the past 30 days for these 11 questions (the eight “condition” questions and 

the three questions about number of days, level of concern, and importance of treatment) were 

combined following a formula provided by Fureman et al. (1990) to calculate an ASI/mh score 

for each client. ASI/mh scores of .25 and above were considered to indicate a current problem 

with mental health issues, based on analyses conducted by Zanis, McLellan, Cnaan, and Randall 

(1994) on a homeless population. Table 9.5 shows the ASI/mh scores of the mothers in this 

study at moveout. Only 14 percent scored above the .25 cutoff on the ASI/mh compared to 25 

percent of parents on the NSHAPC survey, suggesting that the immediate mental health of most 

mothers upon leaving transitional housing was pretty good. 

Table 9.5: Mothers’ Scores on Addiction Severity Index/Mental Health Scale 

(percentages) 

Score

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

0 72 66 82 69 77 74

> 0 but < 0.1 5 7 0 8 0 4

> 0.1 but < 0.2 7 10 7 3 8 4

> 0.2 but < 0.25 3 5 0 3 0 2

> 0.25 but < 0.3 2 2 4 0 4 2

> 0.3 but < 0.4 4 5 0 6 4 2

> 0.4 but < 0.5 4 0 0 6 4 11

> ,50 3 3 0 6 4 0

Unknown 1 2 7 0 0 0

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT 

As we saw above, about two-thirds of the mothers in this study reported times in their lives when 

they experienced mental or emotional conditions, including one in four who described current 

problems and almost half who described problems in the year before leaving transitional 

housing. Significantly fewer mothers indicated that they had ever received outpatient treatment 

or counseling for emotional or mental problems, whether from a clinic or a private doctor. 

Across all study communities, only 38 percent of mothers said they had received such treatment; 

treatment rates are very consistent across communities, as shown in table 9.6. 
Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems 98

Table 9.6: Treatment for Mental/Emotional Conditions

(percentages) 

Type, frequency, and 

recency of treatment 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 193) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Outpatient treatment 

ever 38 42 36 39 38 35

If yes (n = 73), how 

many times?

 Once

 2 or 3 

4 or more 

40

26

34

33

42

25

50

30

20

36

28

36

40

10

50

47

7

47

If yes, how recently? 

 Still in treatment 

 Within past month 

 1 to 6 months ago 

7 to 12 months ago 

 A year or more ago 

 Unknown 

29

5

22

8

25

11

25

4

33

8

17

13

0

10

10

0

40

20

57

7

7

7

14

7

20

0

30

20

20

10

33

7

20

7

27

7

Inpatient treatment ever 7 5 7 8 12 9

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Frequency of treatment for mental or emotional conditions, among those who reported some 

treatment, was pretty evenly distributed across those who had been in treatment once, two or 

three times, or four or more times (second panel of table 9.6). By “times,” the interview was 

clear that we were asking about a period during which the mother went to counseling or 

treatment, not every appointment she kept. Twenty-nine percent of mothers who reported any 

treatment were still in treatment at the time they left transitional housing, but this proportion 

varied considerably by community. None of the Detroit mothers were in treatment at moveout 

compared to more than half of Houston mothers and a third of Seattle mothers who had ever 

received treatment. 

The final row of table 9.6 reports the proportion of mothers who had ever been hospitalized for 

mental or emotional conditions. Hospitalization indicates a pretty high level of mental or 

emotional distress, as mental health practice for at least the last twenty years has been to avoid 

hospitalizing a person if it could in any way be avoided. Overall, 7 percent of study mothers had 

been hospitalized for psychiatric reasons; no differences were apparent between communities. 

HELP FROM TH PROGRAM FOR MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL CONDITIONS 

Overall, 46 percent of mothers said they had experienced one or more mental or emotional 

conditions in the year before leaving transitional housing (i.e., in the year before their moveout 

interview for this study). One might expect that they would turn to their TH program for 

assistance with handling these problems, and almost all of them did. Forty-five percent said they 

got help from their program for these issues. Another 49 percent said they did not need help, and 

a final 4 percent said they needed such help but could not get it from their program (3 percent did 

not answer the question). As can be seen in table 9.7, the only real standout in terms of 
Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems 99

community differences is San Diego, where significantly higher percentages of women needed 

and received help from their TH program than was true in the other communities where reported 

need was less. 

Table 9.7: Help with Mental/Emotional Conditions from TH Program

(percentages) 

Help received 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Did you get help? 

No, didn’t need 

 No, needed but 

49 49 54 44 27 63

 didn’t get 4 0 7 6 0 6

 Yes, from program 31 36 21 33 54 15

 Yes, on my own 8 7 4 6 15 11

Yes, both 6 8 7 11 0 2

 Unknown 3 0 7 0 4 4

Of mothers receiving 

help, for how many 

was it...? 

 Not at all helpful 5 3 11 0 0 15

Somewhat helpful 16 13 18 33 6 8

Very helpful 80 83 67 67 94 77

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Mothers who received assistance in handling mental or emotional conditions were most likely to 

feel that it was very helpful. Only 5 percent of mothers who got mental health services from 

their program found that assistance not at all helpful, while four out of five (80 percent) found it 

very helpful. Perceptions of helpfulness were highest in San Diego and lowest but still 

substantial in Detroit and Houston. 

CHANGES BETWEEN MOVEOUT AND 12 MONTH FOLLOW-UP 

The last thing we look at in this chapter is whether mothers’ emotional state changed between the 

time they left transitional housing and the 12-month follow-up. We do this for the 178 mothers 

who had a 12-month interview. The measure for change in “past month” conditions compares a 

mother’s answers for the month before her moveout interview, for most of which she would still 

have been in TH, with her answers for the month before her 12-month interview (first panel of 

table 9.8). We compare a mother’s ASI/mh score at moveout with her ASI/mh score at the 12-

month interview (third panel of table 9.8).25 The ASI/mh score reflects a person’s level of 

concern with emotional or mental health issues in the past 30 days, and as such covers a time 

frame similar to the “past month” measure. The measure for change in “past year” conditions 

compares a mother’s answers for the year before her moveout interview, during most or all of 

which she would have been in TH, with her answers for the year after she left TH, as recorded on 

her 12-month interview (second panel of table 9.8). The “past year” measure includes conditions 

experienced in the past month and recorded in the “past month” measure. For all three measures 

25 See above at table 9.5 for explanation of the ASI/mh score. 
Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems 100 100 

a reduction in the score means fewer emotional or mental health problems while an increase in

the score means more emotional or mental health problems. 

The modal finding for all three measures is that mothers’ emotional or mental health status did 

not change between moveout and the 12-month follow-up. Sixty-five percent had no change in 

the number of symptoms they reported for the past month, 60 percent had no change in their 

ASI/mh score, and 58 percent had no change in the number of symptoms they reported for the 

past year. Among those whose answers did reflect a change, about equal proportions 

experienced more and fewer symptoms on the “past month” and ASI/mh measures, suggesting 

that their emotional or mental health during their last month in TH, which was also the month 

spanning their final TH days and their first days back in the community, was about the same as 

their emotional or mental health a year later. 

On the measure of emotional or mental health issues during the past year, more people reported a 

drop in problem areas than reported an increase (27 versus 15 percent). This finding suggests 

that their emotional state during the year following TH exit was somewhat better than it had been 

during the year before they left TH. For the 36 percent of mothers whose TH stay lasted 9 or 

fewer months, their “past year” at moveout would also have encompassed a period of 

homelessness before they entered the TH program, which might have affected their answers. So 

it is encouraging to see that more than one-fourth of mothers had seen symptoms of depression, 

anxiety, and other signs of distress disappear by the end of their first year post-TH.
Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems 101 101 

Table 9.8: Change in Mental/Emotional Conditions 

Between Moveout and 12 Month Follow-up

(percentages) 

Change in 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Past month 

conditionsa

 Down 2 or more 8 6 5 12 8 8

Down 1 9 15 0 12 8 5

 No change 65 60 74 73 77 59

Up 1 12 13 21 4 8 13

Up 2 or more 6 6 0 0 0 15

ASI/mh scoreb

 - .15 or more 11 4 4 17 14 9

- .149 to .1 5 9 0 3 0 5

- .99 to .05 2 4 0 3 0 0

 no change (-.05 to 

 + .05) 

60 50 65 67 71 59

 + .99 to .05 2 4 0 3 0 0

+ .149 to .1 5 7 4 3 5 5

+ .15 or more 15 15 27 3 10 23

Past yeara

Down 2 or more 14 17 0 23 15 10

Down 1 13 11 11 19 8 15

 No change 58 55 74 46 69 59

Up 1 10 13 16 8 8 5

Up 2 or more 5 4 0 4 0 10

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. a N=144. Excludes 27 mothers who said “yes” to one or more conditions but did not specify a time period when they were 

experienced and 17 mothers who did not complete a 12-month interview. 

b N=178. Includes 27 mothers who said “yes” to one or more conditions but did not specify a time period when they were 

experienced but excludes 17 mothers who did not complete a 12-month interview. 

CROSS-SITE COMPARISONS 

Some cross-site differences exist in the two measures that reflect past month emotional status. 

Detroit and Seattle mothers were more likely to report an increase in emotional conditions that 

were problematic to them on both measures, while Houston mothers leaned more in the direction 

of reporting a decrease. On the “past year” measure of change, mothers in all sites but Detroit 

contributed to the greater proportion overall who reported improvements in their emotional state. 

Mothers in Detroit were about as likely to report an increase as a decrease, and also had the 

highest proportion with “no change”—significantly higher than in any site but San Diego. 
Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems Chapter 9: Mental and Emotional Problems 102 102 
Chapter 10: Problems with Alcohol and Drugs Chapter 10: Problems with Alcohol and Drugs 103 103 

Chapter 10: Problems with Alcohol and Drugs

A mother’s use or abuse of alcohol or illicit drugs can be a major barrier to functioning at a level 

that will allow her to maintain stable housing. As noted in chapter 9, the general public tends to 

think that parents in homeless families are not as likely as single homeless adults to experience 

addictions. The image of homeless families preferred by advocates is one of financial setbacks 

rather than personal characteristics that increase the vulnerability to homelessness. 

As was true for mental and emotional problems, data from the National Survey of Homeless 

Assistance Providers and Clients indicate that substantial proportions of parents in homeless 

families have lifetime experiences of heavy drinking and regular drug use. Although these 

problems are not as pervasive as among homeless single adults, nevertheless 40 percent of these 

homeless parents said there had been times in their lives when they “drank alcohol to get drunk 

three or more times a week,” and 46 percent said they had used illegal drugs regularly 

(“regularly” was defined as “three or more times a week”), a proportion only slightly lower than 

the 50 percent of parents who said they had used illegal drugs at all (Burt et al. 1999, appendix 

tables 8.A2 and 8.A4). 

A mother’s problems with alcohol or drugs are often barriers to acceptance into a transitional 

housing program. A full 89 percent of TH programs screened for this study would not take 

mothers who were active substance abusers, and 85 percent required mothers to be clean and 

sober at program entry. However, all programs expected to be dealing with substance abuse and 

addiction as a major challenge for their families. Their entry requirements pertained to the 

mother’s immediate circumstances, not to her history. Equal proportions of programs—22 

percent in each case—required at least 30 days, at least 90 days, and at least 180 days of 

sobriety. Nine percent required sobriety that had lasted a year or more. At the other extreme, 7 

percent required fewer than 30 days, including 4 percent with no requirements. An additional 11 

percent did not state their requirements in terms of days sober, but required either that a mother 

have successfully completed a drug treatment program or that she pass a drug test. 

This chapter examines the types of problems that mothers reported at the time they left 

transitional housing, as well as their past experiences with alcohol and drug use and related 

treatment. It ends with alcohol and drug-related changes between moveout and the 12 month 

follow-up. 

MOTHERS’ REPORTS OF ALCOHOL AND DRUG USE 

Each time they were interviewed, mothers were asked whether during their lifetime there had 

been times when they drank alcohol (beer, wine, or liquor) three or more times a week, and 

whether they had drunk alcohol to get drunk three or more times a week. If they said “no” to 

both questions, they skipped the rest of the alcohol-related questions except for whether they had 

drunk alcohol in the past 30 days (very few had). If they said “yes” to either question they were 

asked if they had drunk alcohol in the past 12 months. Table 10.1 shows their answers. 
Chapter 10: Problems with Alcohol and Drugs Chapter 10: Problems with Alcohol and Drugs 104 104 

Table 10.1: Alcohol and Drug Use 

(percentages) 

Question 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Drank alcohol 3+ times/ 

week--% yes 40 49 46 25 50 35

Drank to get drunk 3” 

times/ week--% yes 24 39 14 11 23 20

Answered “yes” to one or 

both questions 44 58 46 25 54 35

Drank alcohol in past 12 

months

 % asked question 

 % of those asked who 

Said “yes” 

44

38

58

26

46

31

25

78

54

29

35

56

Regularly used illegal 

drugs--% yes 37 51 25 25 46 30

At TH, took steps to 

reduce negative effects 

of substance use 

 No, no such effects

 No, though had effects 

Yes

 Refused/unknown 

51

25

22

3

59

0

37

3

4

79

7

11

67

17

17

0

50

8

42

0

59

26

15

0

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Overall, mothers in our sample were less likely than parents in NSHAPC families to have had 

periods when they regularly drank to get drunk. Only 24 percent had these periods, compared to 

40 percent for parents in NSHAPC families. Mothers in Cleveland stand out as the ones most 

likely to have “drunk to get drunk.” Mothers in Houston were the least likely to have said “yes” 

to both drinking-related questions.

Thirty-seven percent of all mothers in the study reported using illegal drugs regularly at some 

point in their lives—13 percent more than reported heavy alcohol use. Cleveland and San Diego 

mothers were more likely than Detroit and Houston mothers to have done so. 

All mothers, regardless of their reported problems with alcohol or drugs, were asked whether 

they had taken steps when they got to TH to reduce the negative effects of substance use. Half 

said they had not because they did not have any such effects. Another fourth said they had not 

taken steps, although they did not deny that they had experienced some effects from substance 

use. Failure to use TH to address addictions issues was by far most common among Detroit 

mothers and very uncommon among mothers in Cleveland and San Diego. Seattle mothers were 

also more likely than those in some other cities to have foregone assistance with substance abuse 

when they had some issues with alcohol or drugs. Twenty-two percent of study mothers said 

they did use TH program resources to help them address substance abuse issues—a response 

most common in Cleveland and San Diego. 
Chapter 10: Problems with Alcohol and Drugs Chapter 10: Problems with Alcohol and Drugs 105 105 

ALCOHOL AND DRUG-RELATED DIFFICULTIES 

Moderate use of alcohol and even occasional use of some illegal drugs is probably not going to 

be a major cause of initial or continued homelessness. But when use escalates to the level of 

abuse, people begin to experience difficulties that can make it difficult for them to maintain their 

own housing or continue to live with family members or friends who provide housing.

We assessed the level of disruptive problems associated with alcohol or drug use that mothers in 

this study experienced, using questions from standard measuring instruments designed to get at 

these issues. Seven questions asked mothers who reported drinking alcohol about difficulties 

they might have experienced related to drinking.26 They covered passing out, having blackouts, 

having tremors or shaking, having seizures or convulsions, not being able to stop drinking, being 

arrested related to drinking, and having problems with relatives due to drinking. The time frame 

for the questions was “the last 12 months,” because we wanted to learn about the level of 

difficulty mothers had recently experienced as a consequence of drinking. Table 10.2 reports the 

results.

Table 10.2: Alcohol or Drug Related Difficulties in 12 Months Before First Interview 

(percentages) 

Number of 

difficulties

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Alcohol-related 

symptoms (7) 

 % asked questions 

Of those asked, % 

reporting

21 15 25 25 23 20

None 63 67 29 67 50 89

One 5 0 14 11 0 0

Two 10 22 0 11 0 11

 Three or more 8 11 14 0 17 0

 Refused/unknown 15 0 43 11 33 0

Drug-related 

symptoms (8) 

 % asked questions 

Of those asked, % 

reporting

39 56 32 25 46 30

None 62 58 33 78 67 79

One 16 9 33 11 25 14

Two 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Three or more 14 24 12 11 8 0

 Refused/unknown 8 9 22 0 0 7

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

 These seven questions were selected from the 22 questions that make up the Michigan Alcohol Screening Test 

(MAST) on the basis of their high item-to-total score correlations. The MAST has long been one of the most widely 

used measures for assessing alcohol abuse. For additional information, see Selzer (1971) and Maisto, Connors, and 

Allen (1995). 

26
Chapter 10: Problems with Alcohol and Drugs Chapter 10: Problems with Alcohol and Drugs 106 106 

Relatively few mothers (21 percent across all study communities) were asked the questions about 

alcohol-related difficulties, because so few reported heavy use of alcohol in their lifetimes or any 

use in the last 12 months. Among those who were asked the questions, 63 percent said that they 

had never experienced any of the seven difficulties, and another 15 percent refused to answer the 

questions. The proportion of mothers reporting no difficulties was lowest in Detroit and highest 

in Seattle, but the number of mothers responding to these questions was so small that even 

differences that appear very large are not statistically significant.27

A second set of eight questions asked mothers who reported drug use about difficulties they 

might have experienced related to drugs.28 The questions were: using more than one drug at a 

time, having blackouts or flashbacks as a result of drug use, having friends or relatives know or 

suspect you used drugs, having lost friends because of drug use, neglecting family or missing 

work because of drug use, and engaging in illegal activities to obtain drugs, experienced 

withdrawal symptoms, or had medical problems because of drug use. As with the questions 

about difficulties related to drinking, the questions about drug-related difficulties focused on “the 

last 12 months.” 

More study mothers were asked the questions about drug-related difficulties than were asked 

about alcohol-related difficulties, because more reported illicit drug use than reported heavy 

alcohol consumption. Across all study communities 39 percent of mothers were asked the 

questions, and 30 percent of those asked said “yes” to one or more questions, splitting about 

equally between those who had one “yes” response and those who had three or more “yes” 

responses. Anyone with three or more “yes” responses to these questions in the 12 months 

before being interviewed clearly has problems with drugs that are quite recent, and that might 

interfere with their post-transitional housing functioning and stability. 

ALCOHOL OR DRUG TREATMENT 

Given the levels of heavy alcohol and especially illicit drug use among study mothers, we would 

expect to see that many had participated in substance abuse treatment of one type or another at 

some time in their lives. Many TH programs require participation in such treatment before they 

will accept mothers into their programs; TH programs also encourage continued participation in 

treatment or 12-step programs while mothers are in the program and after they leave, to help 

them maintain sobriety. Based on their answers about heavy alcohol use and use of illicit drugs, 

86 mothers (44 percent) were asked about treatment for alcohol abuse and 77 mothers (40 

percent) were asked about treatment for drug abuse. Table 10.3 gives the results. 

27 Comparisons to NSHAPC results are not possible for these questions because we asked them only of mothers who 

reported substantial alcohol and/or drug use whereas NSHAPC asked them of everyone, so percentages would not 

mean the same thing in the two studies. 

28 These eight questions were selected from the 20 questions that make up the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST) 

on the basis of their high item-to-total score correlations. The DAST is one of the most widely used screening tests 

for drug abuse and addiction (Gavin, Ross, and Skinner (1989). 
Chapter 10: Problems with Alcohol and Drugs Chapter 10: Problems with Alcohol and Drugs 107 107 

Table 10.3: Treatment for Alcohol or Drug Problems

(percentages) 

Type, frequency, and 

recency of treatment 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle 

Ever treated for alcohol 

abuse—% yesa 21 38 8 11 21 0

Location of treatment (% of 

those ever treated): 

 Alcoholics Anonymous

 Other outpatient 

Detox

 Hospital, not detox 

 Residential treatment 

program

81

62

14

5

67

100

55

16

8

68

100

0

0

0

100

100

100

100

0

100

33

100

0

0

33

0

0

0

0

0

Alcohol abuse treatment in 

last 12 months—% yes, of 

those ever treated 

question 

43 39 100 100 100 0

Ever treated for drug 

abuse—% yesb 65 73 56 56 92 36

Location of treatment (% of 

those ever treated): 

 12-step/Narcotics 

Anonymous

 Other outpatient 

Detox

 Hospital, not detox 

 Residential treatment 

Program

92

52

28

8

72

100

58

27

8

75

79

39

59

39

100

98

0

39

0

100

90

63

14

0

54

58

58

19

0

39

Drug abuse treatment in 

last 12 months—% yes, of 

those ever treated 

54 62 39 59 68 39

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. a

Asked only of people who answered “yes” to “used alcohol regularly” and/or “drank to get drunk 3 or more times a week” or who 

refused to answer; n=86. 

b

Asked only of people who answered “yes” to having used illegal drugs or who refused to answer; n=77. 

Twenty-one percent of the 86 study mothers who had a history of heavy alcohol use had been 

treated for alcohol abuse; of those ever treated, 43 percent participated in treatment within the 12 

months before their first interview for this study. Among the 77 mothers who had used illicit 

drugs, 65 percent had participated in some type of drug treatment; of those ever treated, 54 

percent had done so within the past 12 months. 

Table 10.3 shows, for those ever treated, the location of treatment separately for alcohol and drug 

problems. For alcohol-related problems, most people had gone to outpatient settings, of which 

Alcoholics Anonymous was the most commonly used, but almost as many had been in 

residential treatment programs. For drug-related problems, 12-step programs were close to 

universal and almost three-fourths of mothers who participated in treatment had been in 

residential programs. The high probability that mothers who needed them had been in residential 
Chapter 10: Problems with Alcohol and Drugs Chapter 10: Problems with Alcohol and Drugs 108 108 

treatment programs may be an artifact of program rules regarding sobriety, some of which 

require that mothers have completed such programs. 

HELP FROM TH PROGRAM FOR ALCOHOL OR DRUG PROBLEMS 

Given the prevalence of problems with alcohol and drugs among study mothers, one might 

expect that they would turn to their TH program for assistance with handling these problems, and 

many of them did. Seventeen percent of study mothers got help with substance abuse issues 

from their TH program, and 8 percent got help on their own. There is some overlap among these 

mothers, with 5 percent reporting that they got help both from the program and on their own. 

Cleveland and San Diego mothers were most likely to indicate that they needed help with 

substance abuse and that they got it from the program. 

Mothers who received assistance in handling substance abuse issues were overwhelmingly likely 

to feel that it was very helpful, and everyone felt that it helped at least somewhat. Perceptions of 

helpfulness were highest in San Diego and lowest but still substantial in Detroit and Houston. 

Table 10.4: Help with Alcohol or Drug Problems from TH Program

(percentages) 

Total—all 

communities 

Community 

(n = 195) Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle

Did you get help? 

No, didn’t need 

 No, needed but 

78 59 82 86 73 96

 didn’t get 1 0 4 0 0 0

 Yes, from program 12 25 4 8 19 0

 Yes, on my own 3 7 0 0 8 0

Yes, both 5 7 4 6 0 4

 Unknown 2 2 7 0 0 0

Of mothers receiving 

help, for how many was 

it...?

 Not at all helpful 0 0 0 0 0 0

Somewhat helpful 11 14 0 0 14 0

Very helpful 89 86 100 100 86 100

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

CHANGES BETWEEN MOVEOUT AND 12 MONTH FOLLOW-UP 

So few mothers reported on their moveout interviews that they drank alcohol or used drugs in the 

past 12 months that there is very little we can report by way of change. At moveout, only 9 

mothers reported sufficiently frequent alcohol use to be asked the MAST questions and 23 

reported some drug use and thus were asked the DAST questions (see table 10.2 and 

accompanying text). At the 12-month follow-up only nine mothers said they had drunk any 

alcohol in the past year, and only one had drunk enough to be asked the MAST questions. Also 

at this follow-up only one mother reported any drug use and thus was asked the DAST questions. 

These response rates are much too small to support further analysis. 
Chapter 10: Problems with Alcohol and Drugs Chapter 10: Problems with Alcohol and Drugs 109 109 

Despite the small numbers reporting any alcohol or drug use, we can track the relationship of 

reported alcohol or drug use at moveout and the likelihood of not completing a 12-month 

interview because we could not find the mother. The most likely reason for this is that the 

family had lost the housing where we last interviewed the mother. 

Table 10.5 shows the combined responses for alcohol and drug use at moveout. Shaded cells 

give the number and unshaded cells the percentage of mothers for each combination of alcohol 

use, drug use, and missing information. Ten percent (19 mothers) used both, 26 percent had used 

drugs but not alcohol, and 7 percent had used alcohol but not drugs.

Table 10.5: Overlap of Alcohol and Drug Problems 

Reported at the Time Mothers Left Transitional Housing 

Alcohol use, 12 

months before 

moveout 

No alcohol use, 12 

months before 

moveout 

Missing alcohol 

information at moveout 

% n % N % n

Drug use ever 10 19 26 50 2 3

No drug use ever 7 14 52 102 1 2

Missing drug information 

at moveout 0 0 2 3 1 2

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

We lost 17 mothers to follow-up (that is, we never got 12-month interviews for them), and 

wanted to see whether addictions might have contributed to our losing them. Using alcohol and 

drug involvement reported on all first interviews, we assessed whether mothers lost to follow-up 

were any more or less likely to have addictions issues than mothers we were able to follow for all 

12 months. As there did not appear to be any differential loss, we concluded that mothers’ 

substance abuse did not introduce bias into our ability to follow families for 12 months. 
Chapter 10: Problems with Alcohol and Drugs Chapter 10: Problems with Alcohol and Drugs 110 110
Chapter 11: Children Chapter 11: Children 111 111

Chapter 11: Children 

Many studies have confirmed the deleterious effects of homelessness on children, as well as the 

ways that being homeless as a child increases the odds that one will be homeless as an adult, as 

Rog and Buckner (2007) summarize in their contribution to the 2007 National Symposium on 

Homelessness Research. A study such as this one, which concerns homeless families, provides 

the opportunity to learn something about children’s experiences of TH and the ways that the 

supports available through TH may help them cope with being homeless and getting back into 

housing.

Some information about the children in families using transitional housing programs has 

appeared in a number of earlier chapters. In chapter 2 we described family size (the number of 

children in TH families) and briefly characterized children as pre-school or school-aged and 

whether they lived with their mother or not (tables 2.4 and 2.5). In chapter 3 we learned that 

most mothers (82 percent) had at least some of their children with them while they were 

homeless. For all of these analyses the mother or the family was the unit of analysis 

This chapter looks in more depth at the children in families using TH programs, mostly using the 

child as the unit of analysis, not the mother. Among them our 195 mothers had 438 minor 

children, of whom 34 percent were preschoolers and 66 percent were school age.29 We learned 

about the residential history of each minor child. We asked whether each child currently lived 

with the mother and had always done so, currently lived with her but had lived elsewhere for 

some period of time, or did not live with her. If there were periods of time during which the 

child did not live with her, we determined where the child lived, how long the child had been 

away from the mother, when the child rejoined the mother, and whether the TH program had 

aided reunification. For children not living with the mother we asked whether she was working 

on reunification. This information on children’s living situations was determined for all 438 

minor children of mothers in the sample. 

In addition to questions asked about all minor children, we selected a focal child from each 

family about whom we asked additional questions. Constraints on the length of interviews 

meant we could not ask detailed questions about every child; selection of a focal child for 

detailed data collection is a common survey strategy for getting details—one gets the details for 

every family, but only for one child in each family. Focal child selection can be completely 

random, but most often it has purposive elements related to the information the study most wants 

to obtain. Such was the case with this study. As explained in chapter 1, selection of the focal 

child depended on residential situation and age. The first criterion was that the minor child 

selected be living with the mother. We wanted accurate information about the child and the 

mother was more likely to have that information about a child living with her than one who lived 

elsewhere. The second criterion was school-age, if a school-age child was living with the 

mother. HUD was interested in the effects of TH participation on children’s engagement in 

school and patterns of school attendance, so we needed to maximize the number of focal children 

29 The 438 include several children whose 18th birthday occurred during the study’s follow-up period. We continue 

to count them as minors for analytic purposes. 
Chapter 11: Children Chapter 11: Children 112 112

about whom we could ask questions relevant to school. Therefore interviewers were instructed 

to select as the focal child the oldest minor child living with the mother at moveout. At moveout 

125 focal children were school-age, defined as age 5 to 17; the remaining 70 were preschoolers, 

ages 0 to 4. 

The survey asked about focal children’s service receipt during and after TH. Numerous 

questions inquired about the focal children’s relations with school—their attendance, the number 

of schools they had attended, and their engagement in school. A final topic of interest for focal 

children was their emotional health and wellbeing while homeless, while in TH, and during the 

year after TH. This chapter examines these last two issues—school and emotional wellbeing. 

LIVING SITUATION—ALL MINOR CHILDREN 

At moveout, 34 percent of the 438 minor children of TH families were preschool age and 66 

percent were school age. There were no significant differences in these proportions across 

communities. Slightly more were boys than girls (53 vs. 47 percent), again with no differences 

across communities. For those living with the mother we asked whether they had ever lived 

elsewhere and if yes, the circumstances. For those not living with the mother at moveout, we 

determined where they were living and how long they had been separated from their mother. 

NOT LIVING WITH MOTHER AT MOVEOUT

Overall, 15 percent of study mothers’ minor children did not live with her at the time the family 

moved out of TH. This happened more in Cleveland and San Diego than in Houston, as well as 

more in Cleveland than in Seattle; other between-site differences did not reach significance. 
Chapter 11: Children Chapter 11: Children 113 113

Figure 11.1 

Proportion of Mothers’ Minor Children Living Away from Her, 

by Gender and Age Group 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Male Female Preschool School-age 

Overall Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle 

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: N for males=234; N for females=204; N for preschool=148; 

N for school-age=290. 

Looking at living arrangements at moveout by gender (figure 11.1), male and female children are 

about equally likely to live away from their mother (16 and 13 percent, respectively). No 

differences are apparent in Cleveland, Detroit, and San Diego in the likelihood that male and 

female children will live elsewhere, but in Houston and Seattle mothers seem more inclined to 

keep their female children with them. 

Figure 11.1 also displays living arrangements at moveout by age group (figure 11.1). One can 

see that overall, far fewer preschool age children (6 percent) than school-age children (19 

percent) lived away from their mother. This was true in every study community, but 

communities nonetheless differed in the proportion of children living away. In Detroit, no 

preschool-age child lived away from their mother. The highest proportion of preschool-age 

children living away occurred in San Diego (10 percent). For school-age children the proportion 

living away was highest in Cleveland (34 percent) and San Diego (23 percent), and lowest in 

Houston (7 percent). 

Length of Separation and Living Arrangement While Separated 

Of the 65 children who were not living with their mother at moveout, 5 percent had been 

separated from their mother for up to six months. Another 11 percent had lived elsewhere for 7 

to 12 months. Fifteen percent had lived apart for more than one year up to two years. More than 

half, 52 percent, had not lived with their mother for more than two years at the time the mother 

left TH, including 20 percent who had not lived with the mother for five years or more. Mothers 
Chapter 11: Children Chapter 11: Children 114 114

had worked on reunification for 46 percent of these children, most commonly in Cleveland, 

Detroit, and Seattle, but reunification efforts had not resulted in children moving back in with 

their mother by the time the mothers left TH. Length of separation was not reported for 17 

percent of children living away from the mother at moveout. 

The 65 children living away from their mother at moveout were in the following circumstances: 

• 42 percent lived with their other parent 

• 14 percent lived with a grandparent—either the mother’s or the father’s parent(s) 

• 32 percent lived with other relatives 

• 2 percent were in foster care 

• The living arrangements of the remaining 9 percent were not reported. 

LIVING WITH MOTHER AT MOVEOUT BUT LIVED APART AT SOME EARLIER TIME

For the 373 minor children living with their mother at the time the family left TH, 23 percent (84 

children) had lived apart from the mother at some time in the past. As was true for all children in 

the study, among those currently living with their mother school-age children were twice as 

likely to have lived apart at some time in the past (28 percent) than preschool-age children (14 

percent). There were no differences in the proportion of boys and girls who now lived with their 

mother but had once lived apart.30

Forty-six percent of children living with their mother at moveout but who had ever lived 

elsewhere had been separated from their mother for up to six months. Another 15 percent had 

lived elsewhere for 7 to 12 months. Twenty-one percent had lived apart for more than one year 

up to two years. For the remainder, 18 percent, at some time before leaving TH they had not 

lived with their mother for more than two years. When not living with their mother, these 84 

children had stayed in the following circumstances: 

• 27 percent had lived with their father 

• 30 percent had lived with a grandparent—either the mother’s or the father’s parent(s) 

• 33 percent had stayed with other relatives 

• 9 percent had been in foster care. 

30 Ns of children in these circumstances, living with their mother at moveout but having lived apart at some time in 

the past, are too small in each community to support meaningful cross-community comparisons. 
Chapter 11: Children Chapter 11: Children 115 115

When Returned to Live with Mother 

Among children who had lived apart from their mother but who TH helps with reunification had returned by the end of TH participation, 42 percent came 

back while the family was in TH. The TH site assisted with • 35 children (42 percent of 

reunification for 29 of these 35 children. Nineteen percent of those living apart from the 

the children in question had already returned to the family mother at TH entry) rejoined 

before it became homeless and another 19 percent had returned the family during TH. 

while the family was homeless. Four percent returned after the • The TH program helped with 

29 of these reunifications. family left TH. The timing of return to the family was not 

reported for 17 percent of the children living with the mother at 

moveout but who had lived elsewhere for some period of time. 

Thus far we have tracked the whereabouts of all children in study families, seen that most of 

them lived with their mothers, and learned that TH programs contributed significantly to 

reunification with children living away from the family at the time they entered TH. We turn in 

the remainder of this chapter to issues for which we have information only for the focal child. 

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AND ENGAGEMENT 

Moving residences and changing schools can be extremely disruptive for children even when 

such moves have nothing to do with becoming homeless. Numerous studies, summarized by 

Pettit (2000), indicate that childhood moves are associated with poorer educational attainment, 

including getting worse marks, losing a grade, and dropping out of school. Children’s sense of 

place and social networks of friends and acquaintances are also disrupted, leading especially for 

adolescents to a weakened sense of identity. These changes are associated with any move, but 

become especially prevalent as moves become more frequent or are associated with family 

breakup.

If even stably housed children from intact families experience various forms of distress during 

and after a residential move, the circumstances leading to becoming homeless plus the 

circumstances of homelessness itself must add immeasurably to potential negative outcomes for 

the children of homeless families. We wanted to see whether participation in TH reduced the 

number of children exposed to the residential moves and school changes, even knowing that 

moving into and out of the TH program itself may be disruptive for children. In chapter 3 we 

saw that 84 percent of the families in our sample had moved at least once in the 12 months 

before entering TH, with 21 percent moving twice, 14 percent moving three times, and 25 

percent moving four or more times (table 3.4). Here we look at school changes for the 123 focal 

children who were of school age when they left TH. 

We describe first the school changes that children in study families experienced during the year 

before they moved into TH, while they were in TH, and during the year after TH, as reported by 

their mothers. We then look at changes in school-related behaviors, including being late for 

school, missing whole days of school, and engagement in school. The last is a measure 

summarizing the degree to which school-age focal children like school, do their schoolwork, and 

want to perform well in school. 
Chapter 11: Children Chapter 11: Children 116 116

CHANGING SCHOOLS 

Among the 123 school-age focal children in this study, 49 percent did not experience any school 

changes in the 12 months before they entered TH and 54 percent did not experience any school 

changes while in TH. Twenty-nine per cent changed schools once in the 12 months before TH 

while 35 percent did so while in TH. Figure 11.2 displays these patterns. The biggest difference 

between the pre-TH year and the period in TH occurs among those who changed schools two or 

more times—20 percent of school-age focal children did so before TH but only 9 percent did so 

during TH. School change information is not known for 2 percent of children, for both periods.

In going from TH to their post-TH housing, 36 percent of focal children had to change schools, 

but half did not.31 By 12 months after leaving TH, far fewer children were changing schools.

Seventy-three percent had not changed at all, 15 percent had changed once, and only 2 percent 

had changed two or more times. School change information was not known for 10 percent of 

school-age focal children because their mothers had not completed the 12-month interview. 

31 We do not know about school changes at the point of TH exit for 14 percent of school-age focal children because 

our first interview with the family occurred more than two months after the family left TH. 
Chapter 11: Children Chapter 11: Children 117 117

BEING LATE, MISSING SCHOOL, BEING SUSPENDED OR EXPELLED 

One would hope that transitional housing programs would have some influence on school 

attendance and behavior, reducing the likelihood that focal children would be late, would miss 

days of school entirely, or would be suspended or expelled from school. It does not appear that 

much change happened on these dimensions when comparing the 12 months before a family 

entered TH, the time in TH, and at the 12-month post-TH mark. Table 11.1 shows the data for 

being late or missing school. Proportions changed very little from one time period to another. 

The only school-related issue that does seem to have changed somewhat is suspensions and 

expulsions. During the year before entering TH, 19 percent of focal children were suspended or 

expelled from school. This proportion was still 16 percent while families were in TH, but went 

down to 10 percent at 12 months post-TH. 

Table 11.1 

Likelihood that Focal Child Was Late for or Missed School 

Before, During, and Following TH 

(percentages; n = 123) 

Behavior/issue 

Likelihood

Not at all 

likely

Somewhat 

likely

Very 

Likely

Unknowna

Being late for school 

 12 months before TH

 While in TH 

 At 12 months post-TH 

18

14

6

20

19

18

59

64

64

3

3

13

Missing for school 

 12 months before TH

 While in TH 

 At 12 months post-TH 

18

15

3

15

14

28

63

68

57

5

2

13

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. a

For 12 months post-TH we are missing information on being late for or missing school for 15 children, shown above as 

“unknown,” mostly because we do not have 12-month interviews from their mothers. 

ENGAGEMENT IN SCHOOL 

In addition to the obvious markers of being late for or skipping school, or being suspended or 

expelled, we asked mothers to respond to four statements about their school-age focal child that 

form a scale known as “Engagement in School.” The statements were: 

• FC cares about doing well in school 

• FC only works on schoolwork when forced to (reverse scored) 

• FC does just enough schoolwork to get by (reverse scored) 

• FC always does homework. 

Mothers were asked to indicate whether each statement was true of the focal child all of the time 

(scored 4), most of the time (scored 3), some of the time (scored 2), or none of the time (scored 

1). After reversing the scored on two items and adding all the scores, we divided the sum by the 

number of questions answered to get an average scale score ranging from 1 to 4. A lower score 

means less engagement in school; a higher score means more engagement in school. We have 
Chapter 11: Children Chapter 11: Children 118 118

this information for 70 school-age focal children at the time they left TH, for 76 at three months 

post-TH, for 86 at 6 months post-TH, and for 106 at 12 months post-TH. Unfortunately we do 

not have any information about focal children’s school engagement while in TH or for the period 

before TH, so we cannot examine what difference TH participation made in improving school 

engagement over the level it was during homelessness and TH enrollment. Analysis is only at 

the whole-study level, combining communities, as we do not have enough school-age youth the 

make between-communities comparisons viable. 

The Engagement in School Scale was adapted from the National Survey of American Families 

(NSAF), where it was used in three waves of data collection, in 1997, 1999, and 2002. After the 

first NSAF, methodological work was done to benchmark the scale, designating an average score 

of 2.5 or lower indicates low engagement with school and an average score of 3.75 as high 

engagement (Ehrle and Moore 1999). In the first NSAF, 21 percent of school-age children were 

reported to have low school engagement and 43 percent were reported to have high engagement. 

Low engagement was the case for more children from households with incomes less than 50 and 

100 percent of the federal poverty line (31 and 29 percent, respectively), those in single-parent 

households (29 percent), and those where the primary parent did not have a high school diploma 

or GED (32 percent). 

As the comparison for this study, we use the low engagement benchmark for children in families 

with below-poverty incomes—29 percent—because that income level corresponds most closely 

to the incomes of study families and the greatest concern is for increasing children’s school 

engagement. The first three columns of table 11.2 show the proportion of school-age focal 

children in this study with low school engagement at moveout (17 percent), at 3 months after TH 

(20 percent), at 6 months after TH (26 percent), and at 12 months after TH (25 percent). 

Table 11.2 

School-Age Focal Children’s Engagement in School at Moveout 

and Throughout the Follow-Up Year 

(percentages) 

Interview timing 

Engagement in School Scale Score 

1–1.5 1.5–2 2–2.5 2.5–3 3–3.5 3.5–4

At moveout (n=70) 1 4 12 24 22 37

At 3 months after moveout (n=76) 1 5 14 11 25 43

At 6 months after moveout (n=86) 1 11 14 14 8 52

At 12 months after moveout (n=106) 3 8 14 11 29 35

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 across rows due to 

rounding.

All “low engagement” proportions in table 11.2 are lower than the national statistics for children 

in poor families, but it also appears that focal children’s school engagement has, if anything, 

decreased in the year since leaving TH to bring the 6 and 12-month proportions very close to the 

national average. The conclusion that things changed for our focal children between moveout 

and 12 months post-TH is a difficult one to draw with certainty because, as is obvious from the 

changing Ns for each time period, a somewhat different subset of children was described at each 

follow-up period. Statistics for this study’s focal children approach the level of NSAF’s sample 
Chapter 11: Children Chapter 11: Children 119 119

of all school-age children for the 12-month follow-up, so it is possible that if we knew about the 

missing children at earlier periods we would not be perceiving change at all. 

EMOTIONAL WELL BEING 

Emotional well being was measured in this study by asking mothers to respond to statements 

about their focal child that form a scale known as “Child Behavioral and Emotional Problems 

Scale.” We used 9 statements for school-age children and 10 statements for preschool children. 

Mothers were asked to respond to these statements about “the period when you were homeless or 

without regular housing” and for “the last 30 days.” Statements were repeated at each follow-up 

interview, giving us a reading on the focal child’s emotional well being at moveout and at 

various points in the following year as well as during the period of homelessness. The 

statements were: 

• ...is uncooperative (preschool only) 

• ...has speech problems (preschool only) 

• ...has temper tantrums or a hot temper (preschool only) 

• ...has trouble sleeping (both preschool and school-age) 

• ...is unhappy, sad or depressed (both preschool and school-age) 

• ...is nervous or high-strung (high-strung means: easily upset, nervous, jumpy, or cries 

easily) (both preschool and school-age) 

• ...has trouble getting along with other kids (both preschool and school-age) 

• ...has trouble concentrating or paying attention for long (both preschool and school-age) 

• ...feels worthless or inferior (both preschool and school-age) 

• ...acts too young for his/her age (both preschool and school-age) 

• ...lies or cheats (school-age only) 

• ...does poorly at schoolwork (school-age only). 

Mothers were asked to indicate whether each statement was true of the focal child often (scored 

3), sometimes (scored 2), or not at all (scored 1). We divided the sum by the number of 

questions answered to get an average scale score ranging from 1 to 3. A lower score means 

fewer behavioral or emotional problems; a higher score means more problems. We have this 

information for 179 focal children for the period of homelessness, 121 at the time they left TH, 

for 131 at three months post-TH, for 137 at 6 months post-TH, and for 171 at 12 months postTH. As we have this information not just for the follow-up year but also for the family’s period 

of homelessness, we can examine changes from before to after TH participation in focal 

children’s behavioral and emotional problems. Analysis is only at the whole-study level, 

combining communities, as we do not have enough school-age youth the make betweencommunities comparisons viable. 

The Child Behavioral and Emotional Problems Scale was adapted from NSAF, where it was 

used in three waves of data collection, in 1997, 1999, and 2002. NSAF picked six statements 

from a larger scale used routinely by the National Health Interview Survey, which in turn were 

taken from the even larger Child Behavioral Checklist (Ehrle and Moore 1999). As we took 

more items from the NHIS and scored the scale in the opposite direction from the NSAF 

approach, we cannot make direct comparisons as we did with Engagement in School. However, 
Chapter 11: Children Chapter 11: Children 120 120 

we have developed equivalent cutoffs. Our scale has a range of 1 to 3; we consider a score of 1.5 

or below to indicate that the focal child has few or no emotional or behavioral problems, 

meaning that mothers answered at least five of the statements with “not at all” and the rest with 

“sometimes.” A score of 2.5 or higher indicates a high level of problems, meaning that mothers 

answered at least five of the statements with “often” and the rest with “sometimes.” Less 

extreme patterns of response, producing scores between 1.51 and 2.49, indicate a moderate level 

of problems. 

Table 11.3 displays the results. Mothers rated more than two-thirds of their preschool-age focal 

children as having few or no behavioral or emotional problems of the type measured by our 

scale. Most of the remainder were rated as having one or two problems sometimes; hardly any 

mothers saw their preschool age focal children as having a high level of problems. This pattern 

was the same regardless of the time period involved—during homelessness looks much the same 

as all other time 

periods. The story is 

not quite the same for 

school-age children. 

Only half (52 percent) 

were seen as having 

few or no problems 

while homeless, with 

9 percent being 

perceived by their 

mothers as exhibiting 

a high level of 

problems. Happily 

these ratings of 

school-age focal 

children had changed 

substantially by the 

time the family left 

TH. At moveout and 

throughout the followTable 11.3 

Focal Children’s Behavioral and Emotional Problems During 

Homelessness, at Moveout, and Throughout the Follow-Up Year 

(percentages) 

Focal child age group and time 

period

Behavioral and Emotional 

Problems Scale Score 

1–1.5 1.5–2 2–2.5 2.5–3

Preschool-age children 

 While homeless (n=64) 72 22 2 5

 At moveout (54) 70 28 0 2

 At 3 months after moveout (n=52) 73 27 0 0

 At 6 months after moveout (n=52) 69 29 2 0

 At 12 months after moveout (n=60) 68 28 2 0

School-age children 

 While homeless (n=115) 52 32 7 9

 At moveout (n=67) 78 21 1 0

 At 3 months after moveout (n=79) 77 20 3 0

 At 6 months after moveout (n=85) 76 18 6 0

 At 12 months after moveout (n=111) 77 18 4 2

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Percentages across rows may 

not sum to 100 across rows due to rounding. 

up year, at least threequarters of mothers with school-age focal children rated them as having few or no behavioral or 

emotional problems. 

SERVICES THAT CHILDREN RECEIVED FROM TH PROGRAMS 

In addition to services for mothers in homeless families, which we described in chapter 5, TH 

programs offer services and supports for the children in the families they serve. Questions about 

well-child health care and health care while ill, child care, recreational activities, mentoring, help 

with mental health issues, and dealing with violence in their lives were asked about all focal 

children, regardless of age. Inquiries about assistance with school or schoolwork were asked 

only if the focal child was of school age—at least five years old. The wording of questions about 
Chapter 11: Children Chapter 11: Children 121 121 

getting help with schoolwork, recreational activities, and mentoring are quite broad. We repeat 

the wording here so the reader may properly interpret some of the mothers’ answers: 

• Did [FC] participate in any recreational or fun activities such as games, sports, music or art, at an 

after-school, weekend, summer, or other program? 

• Did [FC] have a mentor or special adult other than you who did fun things with him/her? 

• Did [FC] participate in any activity to help him/her with school or schoolwork, such as tutoring or 

an after school or summer educational program? 

Table 11.4 shows the areas that mothers said were issues for their focal child and for which the 

child got help while the family was enrolled in TH (column 1), needed help in a particular area 

but did not get it (column 2), or did not need help in an area (column 3). Table 11.4 lists service 

areas for all focal children at the top and those only for school-age children at the bottom. 

In general, mothers reported that when their children needed the services we asked about, they 

got them. In five of the eight service areas, 4 percent or fewer said their child had a need that 

was not met with assistance from the TH program. Four out of five focal children received wellchild health care and half received medical care when they were ill, with mothers saying that the 

large majority of the rest did not need the service while in TH. Sixty-five percent of focal 

children received child care, 31 percent received help with emotional or mental problems, and 19 

percent received help dealing with interpersonal violence and its aftermath. 

Table 11.4: Services Used by Focal Children While in TH 

(percentages) 

Service areas 

Got help Needed help but 

did not get it 

Did not 

need help 

Unknown/ 

inappropriate 

Asked for all focal children 

 Well-child health care 80 2 17 1

Child care 65 4 29 1

Health care while ill 53 1 45 1

 Recreational activities/fun things 51 10 30 10

 Mentoring/special adult 49 9 33 9

Emotional/mental health 31 4 63 2

 Dealing with violence 19 4 68 10

Asked only for school-age focal 

children

 Help with school or schoolwork 28 8 28 36

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: N = 195 for service areas pertinent to all focal children; N = 

125 for school and schoolwork, pertinent only to school-age children. Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Need for help in the areas of recreational activities, mentoring, and help with schoolwork 

prompted a slightly higher proportion of mothers (8 to 10 percent) to say their child needed the 

help but did not get it. Mothers of most of the focal children who did not get help in a particular 

felt their child did not need it, being either too young (e.g., newborns, infants) or not affected by 

the problem (e.g., violence). 
Chapter 11: Children Chapter 11: Children 122 122 

DIFFERENCES ACROSS STUDY COMMUNITIES 

There are fewer differences across study communities with respect to focal children’s receipt of 

needed services than there were for their mothers. As with mothers, the small sample sizes in the 

different communities mean that relatively few cross-site comparisons reach the level of 

statistical significance. We discuss only those that do reach this level.

There are no significant differences at all across communities for four service areas affecting 

focal children—routine health care, child care, help with emotional or mental health problems, 

and help dealing with violence. Focal children in Cleveland and San Diego were more likely 

than those in Detroit, Houston, and Seattle to receive child care and mentoring. Otherwise, there 

are two or three service areas in which one or another community appears to be high or low on 

“no need” or “need but not get,” but these are few and far between, and without consistent 

pattern. 

WHERE FOCAL CHILDREN GOT SERVICES 

Not all of the focal children’s service receipt shown in table 11.4 came from transitional housing 

programs. While their families were enrolled in such programs, focal children also sometimes 

got services through their mother’s efforts to connect with providers or sources of support other 

than their TH program. We asked all mothers reporting that their focal child received help for an 

issue area whether that help came from their TH program, other sources, or both. Table 11.5 

shows the proportion of all focal children receiving help who got it from the program, from other 

sources, or both. The proportion getting help from any source is shown in the first column, and 

is the same as shown in table 11.4. 

As was true for mothers, health care for focal children was most likely to come from sources 

other than the TH program whether the care was routine well-child care or was treatment of 

acute conditions. More than 70 percent of the focal children who received medical care got it 

outside of the TH program. TH programs were the only source of health care for only 10 to 12 

percent of the focal children who got such help, although they were a secondary source of wellchild health care for 12 percent of focal children and of care while ill for 18 percent of focal 

children who got care. 
Chapter 11: Children Chapter 11: Children 123 123 

Table 11.5: Where Focal Children Got Help While in TH 

(percentages) 

Service areas 

Got help, any 

source

Of those who got help, proportion 

getting it from: 

TH program 

only

Other 

sources 

Both 

Asked for all focal children 

 Well-child health care 80 10 78 12

Child care 65 51 38 11

Health care while ill 53 12 71 18

 Recreational activities/fun things 51 65 27 8

 Mentoring/special adult 49 52 43 5

Emotional/mental health 31 69 23 8

 Dealing with violence 19 68 21 11

Asked only for school-age focal 

children

 Help with school or schoolwork 28 68 29 4

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: N = 195 for service areas pertinent to all focal children; 

N = 125 for school or schoolwork, pertinent only to school-age children. Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to 

rounding.

For child care and mentoring, about half of focal children who needed help got it from their TH 

program. For mentoring or establishing a relationship with a special adult, about half of focal 

children also got this support from sources outside of TH. For recreational activities, help with 

emotional or mental health issues, help with schoolwork, and help to deal with violence, their TH 

program was the only source of help for about two-thirds of focal children. 

HELPFULNESS OF ASSISTANCE FROM TH PROGRAMS 

In general, mothers found the assistance their children received while in TH to be helpful, with 

most of them saying it was very helpful and very few saying it was not at all helpful (table 11.6). 

These responses do not differentiate between the help offered directly by the TH program and 

the help that mothers accessed on their own. Areas where the help was most highly rated (90 

percent or more said it was “very helpful”) included child care, health care while ill, mentoring, 

and dealing with violence. Well-child health care and recreational activities were only one or 

two percentage points behind. Dealing with emotional and mental health problems was the 

service area where mothers felt the help their children received was least useful, but even in this 

area only 7 percent of mothers said the help was not at all useful to their child. 
Chapter 11: Children Chapter 11: Children 124 124 

Table 11.6: Mothers’ Reports of How Helpful They Found the Assistance Their 

Children Received While in TH 

(percentages) 

Service area 

Got help, any 

source

Of those who got help, proportion 

saying it was: 

Very helpful Somewhat 

helpful

Not at all 

helpful

Asked for all focal children 

 Well-child health care 80 88 11 1

Child care 65 94 5 1

Health care while ill 53 91 8 1

 Recreational activities/fun things 51 89 10 1

 Mentoring/special adult 49 92 8 0

Emotional/mental health 31 72 12 7

 Dealing with violence 19 92 8 0

Asked only for school-age focal 

children

 Help with school or schoolwork 28 85 11 4

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: N = 195 for service areas pertinent to all focal children; N = 

125 for school and schoolwork, pertinent only to school-age children. Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due to 

rounding.

EFFECTS ON CHILDREN OF PARTICIPATING IN TH PROGRAM SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES 

Mothers were asked whether they thought overall that participating in services or activities while 

in TH had been “excellent,” “very good,” “somewhat good,” or “not at all good.” Of mothers 

who answered this question (43 either refused or said they didn’t know), 86 percent felt the TH 

program had been either excellent or very good for their focal child. Thirteen percent said it had 

been “somewhat good,” and only 1 percent said it had been “not at all good.”

Mothers were also asked whether they had noticed any changes in their focal child’s behavior or 

attitudes since the child started participating in TH programs and/or activities. If the mothers 

reported changes they were asked whether the changes were mostly positive, both positive and 

negative, or mostly negative. Of mothers who answered this question (34 mothers either refused 

or said they didn’t know), 40 percent did not feel their focal child had changed at all while in 

TH. Of those who did feel their child had changed, 81 percent felt the changes were mostly 

positive, 17 percent felt the changes were mixed, and 2 percent felt the changes were mostly 

negative.

The final questions in this series asked mothers who reported changes about specific areas in 

which their child’s behavior might have been affected by TH services or activities and whether 

the child was better or worse in those areas. In most areas mothers reported little change for the 

worse and some change for the better. They said the focal child: 

• Got along with peers—69 percent better, 28 percent no change, 3 percent worse. 

• Got along with siblings—48 percent better, 47 percent no change, 5 percent worse. 
Chapter 11: Children Chapter 11: Children 125 125 

• Got along with adults—57 percent better, 39 percent no change, 4 percent worse. 

• Behaves, generally—68 percent better, 29 percent no change, 3 percent worse. 

• Behaves with parents—57 percent better, 35 percent no change, 8 percent worse. 

• Enjoys school—63 percent better, 32 percent no change, 5 percent worse. 

Areas of greatest positive change were getting along with peers, generally behaving well, and 

enjoying school. Interactions with siblings were the least likely to have improved, but even here 

almost half got along better.32

CHANGES IN SERVICE RECEIPT THROUGHOUT THE 12-MONTH FOLLOW-UP PERIOD 

As noted earlier in this chapter when we described mothers’ service receipt over time, HUD 

allows transitional housing programs to use their TH resources to follow families for up to six 

months after program exit to offer any supports that families might need to help them get settled 

and stabilized in housing. 

In this section we look at the service areas in which mothers said their focal child needed help at 

3, 6, and 12 months after TH program exit, whether they got it and from what source, and 

whether they found it helpful. The number of mothers interviewed at each of these time periods 

after TH exit varies considerably, as noted earlier in this chapter. In addition, we have somewhat 

fewer focal children in some time periods than in others because some focal children stopped 

living with their mother during the year following TH exit. Even though some interviewers 

picked another focal child for the remaining interview(s), we analyzed only data from the same 

focal child, as far as it went, to avoid confusing outcomes for one child with those of another. 

We have 129 focal children for the 3-month period (1 fewer than we have mothers), 138 for the 

6-month period (2 fewer than we have mothers), and 173 for 12 months after moveout (6 fewer 

than we have mothers). 

Table 11.7 reports a summary for each follow-up time period of the number of service areas for 

which a focal child received help and for how many the child needed help but did not get it.

Percentages in table 11.6 are based on the number of focal children at each time period; service 

levels for focal children at moveout are provided for comparison. 

From the figures in table 11.7 it appears that during the 12 months following exit from TH, focal 

children continued to need and use many services, although there is a shift from using an average 

of 3.8 services down to using 2.6 to 3.0 services. The median number of services received in 

every follow-up time period is three services. Unlike the pattern for mothers, in which levels of 

service need and use dropped substantially from the levels received while in TH, these results 

indicate only a slight drop in service need and receipt for children after they leave TH. The 

median number of service areas in which focal children needed but did not get help remained 

32 About half the focal children (46 percent) had no siblings, or no siblings in the home, so this question was not 

appropriate for them. 
Chapter 11: Children Chapter 11: Children 126 126 

substantially unchanged at “none” throughout the entire study period, from time in TH to the 12 

month follow-up. 

Table 11.7: Number of Service Areas For Which Focal Children Needed 

Help, Time in TH Compared to 3, 6,and 12 Months After Leaving TH 

(percentages) 

Number of service areas in 

which the focal child: 

While in TH 

Project

(N=193) 

3 months 

(N=129) 

6 months 

(N=138) 

12 months 

(N=173) 

Needed and got help 

0-1 11% 19% 20% 17%

2-3 37% 46% 43% 47%

4-5 33% 32% 28% 30%

6-8 19% 4% 9% 6%

Mean number of service areas 3.8 2.9 3.0 3.0

Median number of service areas 4 3 3 3

Needed but did not get help 

0-1 90% 80% 87% 85%

2-3 8% 16% 9% 11%

4-5 2% 3% 3% 3%

6-8 0% 1% 1% 0%

Mean number of service areas 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.6

Median number of service areas 0 0 0 0

Source: Urban Institute analysis of family interview data. Note: Cell entries may not sum to 100 percent due 

to rounding. 

For reasons that are not entirely clear, far fewer mothers answered the follow-up questions about 

each service area (where the child got assistance and whether the service was helpful) at the 3-, 

6-, and 12-month interviews than was the case for the moveout interview. On some questions in 

some sites as few as two or three mothers answered these questions. These low response rates 

coupled with the already small sample sizes mean that we have not reported results for these 

questions.
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 127 127 

Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes 

HUD’s overriding purpose in supporting this study has been to learn more about the ways that 

TH programs influence the families who use them. In chapter 1 we introduced the study’s major 

research questions: 

5. How can the universe of TH programs be characterized and categorized, in relation to a 

program’s willingness and ability to address families with different types and levels of 

housing barriers as well as other factors. 

6. What barriers to housing do homeless families face, and can families be differentiated 

into those with many barriers (who may be presumed to need TH) and those with few 

(who may be presumed not to need TH)? 

7. What happens to homeless families who are considered to have left transitional housing 

“successfully”?

8. What factors affect these families’ TH outcomes, including: 

d. Types and amounts of service from TH programs, and other program 

characteristics

e. Personal characteristics and housing barriers 

f. Contextual factors such as employment and housing markets? 

We presented a logic model of our analysis as figure 1.1 in chapter 1 to show the relationships 

we expected to explore among TH family outcomes, TH program characteristics, and other 

factors. We repeat that figure here to provide a clear picture of the associations we will be 

examining in this chapter (figure 12.1). 

We hypothesized that the characteristics, activities, and services of TH programs would 

influence a homeless family’s chances of obtaining and retaining housing, increasing educational 

attainment, and improving workforce participation, which are the primary outcomes toward 

which most TH programs strive. One of the ways that TH programs are designed to do this is to 

increase their residents’ assets and most particularly reduce their barriers to housing, so we 

included personal factors as indicators of barriers and assets. HUD was also interested to learn 

whether TH program participation affected children in TH families, stabilizing their school 

attendance, increasing school engagement, and improving their emotional well being. We also 

take account of community context by introducing variables reflecting housing, employment, 

and benefits availability into many analyses. 
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 128 128 

Figure 12.1: Logic Model for Family TH Program Impact 

OUTCOMES A -Obtain housing; 

Family retain 12 months 

assets -Working; and TH characteristics, B earned income barriers plus practices, -Children services, and 

activities to engaged in D

promote goals school; 

emotionally well 

C

Housing cost and availability, employment opportunities

OUTCOMES IN THE ANALYSIS 

Previous chapters focused on these outcomes have shown the changes experienced by many 

mothers and children in families leaving TH programs successfully. For this chapter we 

explored many specific variables that might have been used to represent the various TH program 

outcomes. The ones selected and described below are the ones in their outcome domains 

(housing, education and employment, children’s outcomes) that have strong face validity for 

either positive or negative outcomes and also show the clearest patterns of influence in relation 

to predictor variables. The chart below shows the dependent (outcome) variables we used to 

represent family outcomes in our assessment of TH program impact, including their name, 

definition, and how they are coded. 
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 129 129 

Dependent (Outcome) Variables Used in Analyses 

Variable name Definition Coding

Housing

 Own place Family moved to its own place at TH exit, (mother had 

lease) 

1=yes, 0=no

 Moved, not always to own 

place 

Family moved at least once in 12 months post-TH, lived at 

least once in someone else’s place 

1=yes, 0=no

 Never own place Family never had its own place during year after TH 1=yes, 0=no 

Household composition

 Always self & children only Mother lived with her own children and no one else, all year 1=yes, 0=no

 Same people at moveout 

and 12 months 

Household composition was the same at 12 months post-TH 

as it had been at moveout 

1=yes, 0=no

 Multiple adults/children Household included multiple adults and/or children in 

addition to respondent’s children 

1=yes, 0=no 

Mother’s Education and 

Employment

 Education at moveout Education completed by mother at TH exit 1=less than high 

school, 2=high school, 

3= some post-high 

school, 4=college 

degree 

 Employed at moveout Employed when left TH 1=yes, 0 = no 

 Always employed Employed during the whole year after TH 1=yes, 0 = no 

 Never employed Never employed during the whole year after TH 1=yes, 0 = no 

 Wages at 12 months Hourly wages from employment reported at 12 months Actual wages, 0 if not 

working 

Children’s Outcomes 

School engagement at 

moveout 

School-age focal child’s engagement with school at the time 

the family left TH 

Scale, range 1-4, 

high=more engaged 

School engagement at 12 

months 

School-age focal child’s engagement with school at 12 

months post-TH 

Scale, range 1-4, 

high=more engaged 

Emotional problems while 

homeless 

Focal child’s emotional problems while homeless Scale, range 1-3, 

high=more problems 

Emotional problems at 

moveout 

Focal child’s emotional problems at TH exit Scale, range 1-3, 

high=more problems 

Emotional problems at 12 

months 

Focal child’s emotional problems at 12 months post-TH Scale, range 1-3, 

high=more problems 

Variables representing the boxes in figure 1.1 were developed from interview responses and used 

in multivariate analyses to assess their relationship to family outcomes. Variables were included 

in analyses as independent variables to represent personal characteristics of the mother, public 

supports received, TH program characteristics, mother’s relationship to the TH program (e.g., 

how long the mother spent in the program, and the mother’s perception of the program’s 

helpfulness for herself and her children overall and in selected specific domains of assistance). 

Variables describing the policy, economic, and housing environments in the five study CoCs are 

included as independent variables to represent the larger context in which TH programs operated 

and to which families were seeking to return. 
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 130 130 

PREDICTIVE FACTORS IN THE ANALYSIS 

We present the predictive factors to be included in outcome analysis in an order reflecting the 

larger community environment first, personal characteristics of TH families second, and TH 

program characteristics third. This is the order in which we will test the various factors, letting 

environment and family characteristics explain what they can and then examining the effects of 

TH program efforts. 

COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS 

Communities usually have policies that, in the abstract, will make it more or less difficult for 

families leaving TH to achieve the housing, employment, and other outcomes of TH programs. 

As explained in chapter 1 and illustrated in figure 1.1, we selected communities for this study to 

obtain five that exhibited substantial differences on key characteristics that might reasonably be 

expected to affect TH family outcomes. We planned to include in the analysis of TH impact 

these community context variables, to see whether the community environment could explain a 

lot about TH program outcomes or whether the programs themselves were contributing 

something to help families take advantage of a relatively advantageous community context or 

overcome an adverse one. 

We chose six variables to characterize the community context; among them, three reflect the 

housing environment, two reflect the employment environment, and three reflect the general 

level of state generosity with public benefits for low-income families. Table 12.1 shows these 

variables and their levels for our five communities, making clear that we definitely achieved the 

goal of including a diverse group of communities in this study. 

Table 12.1: Housing and Economic Community Context 

Community Characteristic 

Community 

Cleveland Detroit Houston San Diego Seattle 

Rental vacancy rate, city/urbanized area, 2005 11.4 11.4 11.0 5.1 6.1

Fair market rent, 2 BR, metro area, 2006 $728 $826 $743 $1158 $840

Housing subsidy level, 2005 43% 28% 16% 37% 52%

Unemployment rate, county, 2006 7.2 13.7 5.3 4.0 3.9

State minimum wage, 2006 $7.00 $7.15 $5.85 $8.00 $8.07

TANF monthly income cutoff, 2006 $980 $811 $401 $981 $1090

Sources: 2006 county unemployment rate—Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov); 2005 city housing vacancy rate—American 

Community Survey statistics (www.census.gov); Fair Market Rent, 1 bedroom apartment, 2006—HUD (www.huduser.org); stateestablished minimum wage effective in 2006—www.statemaster.com; TANF income cutoff, 2006—welfare rules database, 

www.urban.org; housing subsidy level—average proportion of TH families leaving with a subsidy, according to TH programs (reported in 

chapter 4). 

The rental vacancy rate for the five cities/urbanized areas in 2005 ranged from 5.1 in San Diego 

to 11.4 in both Cleveland and Detroit; the fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment in 2006 

ranged from $728 in Cleveland to $1158 in San Diego; and the housing subsidy level ranged 

from a low of 16 percent in Houston to a high of 52 percent in Seattle. 

The annual 2006 unemployment rates for the five counties in this study ranged from 3.9 in 

Seattle to 13.7 in Detroit, while returns from working in the form of the minimum wage ranged 
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 131 131 

from $5.85 in Houston (the federal minimum, meaning the state had done nothing to increase it) 

to $8.07 in Seattle. The TANF income cutoff—the level of earnings above which a family is no 

longer eligible for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families—ranged from a low of $401 in 

Houston to a high of $1090 in Seattle. The Texas monthly income cutoff rate was less than half 

the level in any other community, helping to explain why so many of the Houston mothers in our 

sample were working. 

Associations among these six community context variables are very high, as table 12.2 reveals.

In communities where vacancy rates are low (i.e., not much housing is available to rent), rents 

are high and relatively few housing subsidies are available. Also, high unemployment, a low 

state-set minimum wage, high vacancies, and low rent (low FMR) go together, meaning the 

housing is there and it is not expensive in the abstract, but people are not working or are working 

at very low wages and therefore cannot afford even the lower rents associated with high 

vacancies. General state policy tendencies toward generous or limited public supports for lowincome households are clear in the very high correlations among the housing subsidy level, the 

state-set minimum wage, and the TANF income cutoff (states setting high cutoff levels do so 

with the explicit policy intent to reward work by letting families continue to receive benefits 

until their earnings reach a level close to or above poverty). 

Because the correlations among these community context variables are so high, we could not use 

them all in the regressions presented later in this chapter. To reduce multicollinearity we 

selected three of these six community context variables with fairly low intercorrelations for 

regression analysis. Two of these come from the domain of housing—the Fair Market Rent for 

2006 and the housing subsidy level—and one from the domain of employment—the 2006 annual 

average unemployment rate. The lowest correlation among these three variables is .112 and the 

highest is -.314. 

Table 12.2: Associations Among Community Context Variables Vacancy rate FMR, 2 bedroom Housing subsidy level Unemployment rate State minimum wage 

TANF incomecutoff

Rental vacancy rate, city/urbanized area, 2005 --

Fair market rent, 2 BR, metro area, 2006 -.768 --

Housing subsidy level, 2005 -.498 .112 --

Unemployment rate, county, 2006 .649 -.276 -.314 --

State minimum wage, 2006 -.792 .603 .817 -.237 --

TANF income cutoff, 2006 -.499 .289 .953 -.138 .891 --

Sources: See table 12.2. All correlations are significant at p < .001 except the two that are shown in unshaded 

cells.

FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS AND BARRIERS 

Previous chapters have described many characteristics of TH families. For the outcomes 

analysis to be presented below, we explored the associations of a wide range of family 
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 132 132 

characteristics with family outcomes to assess which ones would be most useful to include. We 

selected 11 family characteristics for further exploration in conjunction with community context 

and TH program variables.33 These 11, described in the chart below, were the variables 

describing family characteristics that were most strongly associated with one or more outcome 

variables and thus appeared most likely to contribute to the outcomes analyses. 

Family Characteristics Used in Analyses 

Variable name Definition Coding

Age Mother’s age at moveout, in years range=18 to 60 

Nonwhite Mother is a member of a racial or ethnic minority 1=yes, 0=no 

Never married Mother never married 1=yes, 0=no 

Employed at TH entry Mother was one of the 18 percent employed at the time she 

entered TH 

1=yes, 0=no 

Ever own lease Mother had at least one lease in her own name before TH 1=yes, 0=no 

Length of homelessness Number of months mother was homeless during the episode 

she experienced just before entering TH 

range=less than 1 to 

72 months 

Times homeless Number of times mother was homeless before entering TH range=1 to 11+ 

Addictions Addictions played a role in mother becoming homeless 1=yes, 0=no 

Mental health problems, 

lifetime 

Number of mental health symptoms mother reported 

experiencing in her lifetime, from ASI/mh 

range=0 to 8 

Domestic violence Domestic violence played a role in mother becoming homeless 1=yes, 0=no 

Jail Mother had been in jail at some time before entering TH 1=yes, 0=no 

Family Barriers Index 

Because there might be an intensifying or interactive effect of having many as opposed to few or 

no family barriers, we created an index of 15 family barriers, adding 1 to the index for each 

barrier in a family’s history. Many of these are the same barriers just discussed, but some are 

different as they were selected for the index to balance those that might be expected to affect 

housing, employment, and children’s outcomes: 

• Any child ever in foster care 

• Large family (4 or more kids) 

• Less than hs education 

• Since age 16, worked half of the time or less 

• Never was a primary tenant 

• Ever been evicted = 1 (0 if not asked the question) 

• In 12 months before entering th, moved 4 or more times 

• Addictions were among reasons for homelessness 

• History of regularly drinking to get drunk 

• History of using illegal drugs regularly 

• Reported one or more mental health symptoms in lifetime 

33 It would have been desirable to include a measure of education at program entry, in addition to employment. 

However, this information was not available for 13 percent of the mothers and missing data was seriously biased in 

terms of one community, so we decided not to use the variable. 
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 133 133 

• History of incarceration before homelessness 

• Has a felony conviction 

• Domestic violence a factor in becoming homeless 

• Mother was a teenager at time of TH exit – 18 or 19. 

This index has a potential range of 0 to 15 but in reality the highest score on the index was 8. 

Four percent of mothers scored 0, 10 percent scored 1, 19 percent scored 2, 17 percent scored 3, 

22 percent scored 4, 10 percent scored 5, 8 percent scored 6, 6 percent scored 7, and 4 percent 

scored 8. 

For the first time in this report, we gather these important family characteristics together and 

look at their associations. Table 12.3 displays the results. Age is associated with quite a few 

other family characteristics. Being older is associated with a greater likelihood of having been 

married and having had a lease in one’s own name, but also with having not worked in a long 

time, having addiction and mental health problems, and having more family barriers to stable 

reentry into the community. Nonwhite mothers are more likely never to have married but are 

less likely to have reported mental health or domestic violence problems or to have a high 

number of family barriers. Length of homelessness is associated with many barriers (addictions, 

mental health, jail) but not with age, race/ethnicity, or recent employment. The number of 

significant associations with the variable “family barriers” is high but expected since many of the 

other variables in table 12.3 contribute to the “family barriers” composite measure. 

Table 12.3: Associations Among Selected TH Family Characteristics 

Characteristic 

AgeNonwhite NevermarriedEmployed at entryOwn lease How long homeless Times homeless Addictions Mentalhealth probDomesticviolenceJail

Age, in years --

Nonwhitea -.107 --

Never marrieda -.509 .208 --

Employed at TH entrya .068 -.052 -.066 --

Has had lease in own namea .232 -.068 -.150 -.045 --

Length of homelessness, in months -.058 -.079 .063 -.009 .078 --

Times homeless -.027 -.111 .025 -.096 .024 .164 --

Addictions problemsa .189 .019 -.000 .125 .029 .302 .033 --

Mental health problems, lifetime .169 -.156 -.065 -.081 .081 .253 .340 .152 --

Domestic violence an issuea .116 -.181 -.215 -.094 .078 .093 .222 -.130 .144 --

Has been in jaila .029 -.021 -.021 .133 .019 .189 .059 .388 .030 -.117 --

Number of family barriers (0-15) .143 -.173 -.016 -.008 -.049 .361 .388 .519 .440 .208 .332

Source: Urban Institute analysis of TH family interview data. Note: N=195. Correlations in shaded cells are significant at p < .05. a

Dummy variable, for which 1 = true and 0 = not true. 

We used the family barriers index in regression analyses, and also used variables representing 

each barrier separately. In all cases, however, the family barriers index did not contribute as 

much to the various models or contributed less than one or more variables representing 

individual barriers. With one exception, we felt we gained more understanding of the factors 
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 134 134 

affecting outcomes from including just the few individual barriers that were significant, the 

family barriers index appears in only one of the regression analyses reported below. We also 

used it to create two program characteristic variables indicating a program’s proclivity to take 

mostly high or mostly low-barrier families. We discuss these two measures at the end of the next 

section, after describing the variables we use to characterize TH programs. 

PROGRAM FACTORS

The variables we use to characterize TH programs were described in chapter 4, along with their 

associations with each other (table 4.6). We do not repeat these analyses here, but list the 

program descriptors to refresh readers’ memories 

• Program size—the number of family units in the TH program 

• Scattered-site housing model—1 if scattered, 0 if facility-based 

• Does not take people with serious mental illness—1 if does not take, 0 if does 

• Does not take active substance abusers—1 if does not take, 0 if does take 

• Requires 6+ months sobriety—1 if yes, 0 if no 

• Is a domestic violence program—1 if yes, 0 if no 

• Is a maternity-focused program—1 if yes, 0 if no 

• Maximum length of stay—the maximum number of months the TH program allows 

• Typical length of stay for successful leavers—the number of months that families 

leaving successfully typically stay 

• Staff-to-family ratio on weekdays—the actual ratio, ranging from .05 of a staff person 

per family to more than 1.1 staff people per family 

• Staffed 24/7 weekdays—1 if yes, 0 if no 

• Staffed on weekends—1 if yes, 0 if no 

• Proportion of families leaving with a housing subsidy—the program’s experience of 

success in obtaining a housing subsidy for families leaving the year before this study. 

We included program size in all analyses, to see how important program size is to family 

outcomes. The TH programs from which we recruited families for this study are not very typical 

of family TH programs nationally, as we explained in chapter 4. They are all from urban areas, 

and large urban areas at that, while 30 percent of all TH programs reported to HUD are in 

nonmetropolitan areas. They also tend to be much larger than the typical family TH program for 

reasons having to do with practical data collection issues. We think of the program size variable 

as both a predictor and a control—if we discover that program size does not make a difference 

for many analyses, then the biases in our program selection may not be a serious hindrance to 

drawing conclusions for the larger universe of family TH programs. If program size is an

important predictor, then we will know to limit interpretations of this study’s results to programs 

similar to those we included in the study.

In addition to the program descriptors above, we included several variables summarizing what 

the mothers in our sample said about the services they received. Some of these were considered 

for all outcomes, although they were not ultimately included if they did not prove to be important 

predictors. These include a measure indicating the total number of areas in which a mother got 

help (out of 14) and the mother’s average rating of the helpfulness of the services she received.
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 135 135 

Other service variables were included only if they were relevant to the outcome being examined. 

For instance, a mother’s report that the program helped her get housing was used as a program 

variable in analyses to assess influences on housing outcomes, while help with employment and 

education were used as program variables in analyses to assess influences on employment and 

education outcomes, respectively. These variables were described in chapter 5, where we also 

presented the associations among them and between-community differences in service receipt 

patterns. 

High and Low Risk Programs 

We used the family barrier index described above to create a variable indicating a TH program’s 

propensity to take families with more or fewer barriers. We created a mean for each of the 36 

programs from which we recruited families, based on the family barrier index scores of the 

families in our sample from that program. These program means ranged from 1.875 to 6.00, and 

were distributed as follows: 

• 2.5 or lower 8 programs 

• 2.51 to 3.00 5 programs 

• 3.01 to 3.99 11 programs 

• 4.01 to 4.49 5 programs 

• 4.50 to 4.99 2 programs 

• 5.00 or higher 5 programs 

Based on these program means, we created two variables to indicate the risk level of the families 

that different programs take, on average. One dummy variable was coded 1 if the mean family 

barriers score of a program was 4.50 or higher (high risk program) and 0 otherwise. Seven 

programs focused on families with high risk (barrier) levels. The second variable was coded 1 if 

the mean family barriers score of a program was 2.50 or lower (low risk program) and 0 

otherwise. Eight programs focused on families with low risk (barrier) levels. The 21 programs 

with mean family barrier scores between 2.51 and 4.49 were coded 0 on both of these variables.

We used these program risk level variables in the analyses reported below. 

The variable “low risk program” was not correlated significantly with any family outcome, but 

the variable “high risk program” did show significant correlations with outcomes variables 

related to housing stability and household composition. We discuss these associations further 

when we present the results for those outcomes. 

FACTORS AFFECTING TH FAMILY OUTCOMES 

Finally we come to the analyses that are the whole point of this study—whether some aspects of 

TH programs make a difference for family outcomes. We also look at what other factors 

influence the same outcomes, alone or in combination with TH program characteristics and 

families’ use of TH services. Analyses of mothers’ outcomes were done using logistic 

regression for binary dependent variables (i.e., their format is yes/no, or 1/0); ordinary least 
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 136 136 

squares (OLS) regression for educational attainment, and tobit34 analysis for the children’s 

variables, which are all scales with a limited range, and for wages at 12 months, which has quite 

a number of zero values as we assigned these to mothers who were not working at the 12-month 

interview. Before we start, the reader should know that we used program size, the family 

barriers index, and high risk/low risk program variables in initial analyses for every dependent 

variable. They were dropped from most final models because they added little or no explanatory 

value—a point to which we return in a later section on program restrictiveness or creaming. 

INTERPRETING ODDS RATIOS FROM LOGISTICAL REGRESSIONS VERSUS COEFFICIENTS FROM 

OLS OR TOBIT REGRESSIONS 

We report odds ratios (OR) for logistic regression models and coefficients for OLS regression 

and tobit models. Because ORs and coefficients look similar but must be interpreted quite 

differently, we provide the following guidance before discussing the actual results. 

• Odds ratios: Odds ratios range from 0.00 to infinity, with 1.00 as the point at which the 

odds are considered equal (i.e., the variable has no effect). When looking at a logistic 

regression analysis, for which odds ratios are reported, the reader should know that an 

OR greater than 1 (e.g., 1.605) means the independent variable is positively associated

with the dependent variable, and the bigger the OR, the stronger the association. 

Conversely, an OR less than 1 (e.g., .853) means the independent variable is negatively

associated with the dependent variable and the smaller the OR the stronger the 

association. Thus an OR of 6.00 is stronger than an OR of 2.00, but an OR of .200 is 

stronger than an OR of .800. 

• OLS/tobit coefficients: OLS/tobit coefficients range from negative infinity to positive 

infinity, with 0.00 as the midpoint and the point at which an independent variable is 

presumed to have zero effect. When looking at an OLS or tobit analysis, for which 

coefficients are reported, the reader should know that a coefficient greater than 0.00 (e.g., 

0.456) means the independent variable is positively associated with the dependent 

variable and a coefficient less than 0.000 (e.g., -0.456) means the independent variable is 

negatively associated with the dependent variable. For both positive and negative 

coefficients, the bigger the coefficient the stronger the association. Thus a coefficient of 

0.800 is stronger than a coefficient of 0.200 and a coefficient of -0.800 is stronger than a 

coefficient of -0.200. 

HOMELESSNESS FOLLOWING TH PROGRAM EXIT

Repeated homelessness is the most obvious sign that a TH program has failed, so we report this 

information first. Homelessness was so rare among the 179 families with a 12-month follow-up 

interview that we could not do reliable analyses on it as a dependent variable. Only four of these 

families became homeless within the year following TH, representing 2.1 percent of the original 

34 Tobit is a regression procedure especially designed for distributions that are truncated on one or both ends—that 

is, they cannot assume a value lower or higher than a specified value, as happens with wages (one cannot make less 

than zero an hour) or scales (values on our school attachment scale cannot be less than 1 or more than 4). Tobit 

analysis provides unbiased estimates under these circumstances. 
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 137 137 

sample of 195 and 2.2 percent of the families with 12-month interviews. Even if we were to 

count as homeless all 16 of the families we failed to follow through the entire 12 months after 

TH, we would still have only 20 families becoming homeless, or 10.3 percent of the families 

with which we began. This rate of homelessness in the 12 months following TH exit compares 

favorably with the 12 percent achieved by families using TH programs in Hennepin County, 

Minnesota (Burt, Pearson, and Montgomery 2005). 

HOUSING OUTCOMES

The three dependent variables we used for housing outcomes are moving into one’s own place at 

the time one left TH (own place), moving at least once in the post-TH year including of which at 

least one move was to someone else’s place (not always own place), and never having had a 

place of one’s own during the entire post-TH year (never own place). Logistical regression 

results for these three variables appear in table 12.4. The first panel of the table shows the 

community context, the second panel shows mothers’ personal characteristics, the third panel 

shows program characteristics, and the fourth panel shows the types of help that mothers 

reported getting for themselves or their children from TH programs. The final table row shows 

whether the family had a housing subsidy when it left TH. Below the predictor variables is a 

panel showing the statistical significance and variance explained of each equation taken as a 

whole.

Moving to Own Place at TH Exit 

Looking first at own place (first column of table 12.4), one can see that having a housing subsidy 

makes it more than six times more likely that a family will move from TH directly to its own 

place (OR=6.192, p < .001). The five variables in the equation other than “has a subsidy,” 

account for 10.8 percent of the variance, while an equation containing all six variables reported 

in table 12.4 accounts for 19.9 percent of the variance in own place (Pseudo R2

, at bottom of 

table, = .199, LR Chi2

 = 31.21, p < .000). Thus “having a subsidy” adds 9.1 percent to the 

explained variance. 

Community context variables did not significantly affect own place, but two personal 

characteristics were associated and a third had a marginal effect. Having never married and 

being homeless longer before TH made it less likely that a mother would have her own place at 

TH exit, while being nonwhite made it marginally more likely that she would. No program 

characteristic significantly affected own place, but mothers who remained in TH longer were

marginally more likely to move into their own place at program exit. In all likelihood a longer 

stay in TH allows the time needed for public housing authorities to make a rental subsidy 

voucher available to the TH family. 

Not Always Having One’s Own Place 

No community context variable affected this outcome. Two personal characteristics had the 

greatest effect, but in opposite directions. Having had mental health problems in one’s lifetime 

made not always own place more likely, while having a history of domestic violence that 

contributed to one’s homelessness made this outcome less likely. Having a housing subsidy 

made it marginally less likely that a family would have to move, and sometimes to live in a place 

that belonged to someone else. The six variables in the final equation for not always own place 
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 138 138 

accounted for 13.6 percent of the variance, of which having a subsidy contributed 2.6 percent 

(Pseudo R2

 = .136, LR Chi2 = 19.24 p < .004). 

Never Having One’s Own Place for Entire Post-TH Year 

For never own place (third column of table 12.4), the predictors included in the final equation 

account for 37.6 percent of the variance (Pseudo R2

 = .376, LR Chi2 = 26.85 p < .000). For this 

variable the local unemployment rate made a difference; the higher the unemployment rate, the 

more likely it was that families leaving TH never had their own place for the whole post-TH 

year. Local housing costs were not related to any of the three housing outcomes. 

The longer mothers had been homeless before TH, the more likely they were to go for the whole 

post-TH year without ever having their own place. Also, the longer a mother was in TH, the less

likely she was to go a whole year without having her own place—the opposite, and 

complementary, finding to the effect of longer TH stays on own place. Having a housing 

subsidy, the most important single predictor for own place, remains in the final equation for 

never own place but is not significant. The only program characteristic related to own place was

program size; the larger the program the more likely a family was to go a whole year after 

leaving without its own place. 

To sum up our findings related to selected housing outcomes: 

• Our models explain 20 percent of the variance in having one’s own place at moveout, 

about 14 percent of the variance in moving during the post-TH year to someone else’s 

place, and 38 percent of the variance in never having had one’s own place during the 

entire 12-month follow-up period. 

• Having a housing subsidy makes the single biggest difference toward explaining own

place, while the time spent in TH is the variable most consistently associated with all 

three housing outcomes—probably because spending more time in TH makes having a 

housing subsidy at TH exit more likely. 

• One community context factor shows a relationship to never having had one’s own place.

A higher local unemployment rate increases the odds of never having one’s own place. 

Housing costs and subsidy levels are not related to these housing outcomes. 

• Among personal characteristics only length of homelessness makes a statistically 

significant difference, for never own place, for which it increases the odds; it is 

marginally negatively relating to having one’s own place at TH exit. One other personal 

characteristic, having never married, is negatively related to own place. Having mental 

health problems and experiencing domestic violence affect housing instability as 

measured by not always own place.

• Among program characteristics, the bigger the program the less likely families are to 

move to their own place at TH exit and the more likely they are never to have had their 

own place. 
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 139 139 
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 140 140 

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION OUTCOMES

In addition to examining the type and stability of the actual housing that TH families occupied 

after leaving TH, we looked at the stability of the households of which they were a part. We use 

three variables to represent this stability or instability. The first is the situation of a mother and 

her children living together for the whole time, with no one else in the household and no changes 

(always self and children only). The second variable indicates that the same people lived in the 

household at moveout and one year later, however many that might have been (same people 

beginning and end). People in addition to the mother and children were most likely a spouse, 

partner, or boyfriend, but could have been the mother’s mother, other relatives, or other people. 

The last variable indicates a situation of relatively high complexity—in the 12-month period 

following TH exit, the family lived with other adults (sometimes partners, sometimes sisters, 

uncles, or nonfamily members) and children other than the mother’s were present in the 

household (complex composition). Some of these arrangements exhibited instability in 

household composition as well, with adults, children, or both moving in or out. Table 12.5 

presents the results. 

Mother and Child(ren) Only, Whole Time 

Looking first at always self and children only (first column of table 12.5), one can see that taken 

together, the predictors included in the final equation account for 14.8 percent of the variance 

(Pseudo R2

 = 0.148, LR Chi2 = 35.41, p < .000). Having a housing subsidy makes this type of 

household significantly more likely, contributing 3.3 percent of the variance explained. A

number of personal characteristics also make a significant difference—being older, nonwhite, 

never having married, and being a victim of domestic violence make this housing configuration 

more likely. This configuration is also marginally more likely among families with shorter 

rather than longer homeless spells. Finally, a lower local unemployment rate was marginally 

associated with this housing outcome, and a lower fair market rent came very close to being 

associated.

Same Household Members, Beginning and End 

The final model for same people beginning and end (second column, table 12.5) accounts for 6.4 

percent of the variance (Pseudo R2

 = .064, LR Chi2 = 13.06, p < .023). No local economic or 

housing conditions were associated with this variable, nor did having a housing subsidy make a 

difference. Having problems with addiction made this outcome significantly less likely, and 

having mental health problems in one’s lifetime made it marginally less likely. The strongest 

predictor for this outcome is a TH program characteristic—being a program that focuses on 

families with many barriers to ending their homelessness. Most interesting is that programs that 

take on the hardest-to-serve families appear able to help these families maintain households with 

stable composition once they leave TH. 

Complex Household Composition 

The third variable in table 12.5 indicates the situation of families leaving TH who live in 

complex and sometimes changing households, in which the mothers who participated in TH may 

not have much autonomy or control. A high community unemployment rate made it more likely 

that TH families would live in households of this type while higher housing costs (reflected in 

higher fair market rents) also made this type of household marginally more likely. 
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 141 141 
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 142 142 

Among personal characteristics, only having been employed at the time a family entered TH is 

positively associated. Having a housing voucher makes it significantly less likely that a TH 

family will find itself in this situation. In an equation explaining 12.4 percent of the variance in 

complex composition (Pseudo R2 = .124, LR Chi2 = 23.53, p < .000), “having a subsidy” 

contributes 4 percent of the explained variance. No program characteristics or program use 

variables are significantly related to complex composition.

To sum up our findings related to selected household composition outcomes: 

• Our models explain 15 percent of the variance in always mother and children only, 6 

percent of the variance in always same people, and 12 percent of the variance in complex

composition. 

• Having a housing subsidy makes a significant, and substantial, difference in household 

stability, as measured by a mother living only with her own children all year as well as 

not living in a household with complex composition. 

• One community context factor showed a relationship to two household composition 

outcomes. A lower local unemployment rate increased the odds that a mother would live 

only with her own children for the whole post-TH year, and decreased the odds that she 

would live in a complex household. Housing costs remained in both of these equations 

but just failed to be marginally significant. 

• No personal characteristic was consistently associated with household composition 

outcomes. Age, race/ethnicity, marital status, and a history of domestic violence affected 

the first variable, having mental health and/or addictions problems affected the second, 

and being employed at TH program entry increased the likelihood of living in a complex 

household.

• Among program characteristics only being a program focused on families with many 

barriers made a difference, with families participating in such programs being more likely 

to live with the same people for the full post-TH year. Program helpfulness remained in 

the equations for the second and third household composition outcomes, but did not reach 

significance. 

EDUCATIONAL AND EMPLOYMENT OUTCOMES

Helping families achieve economic stability is a major goal of TH programs, equal to helping 

them achieve housing stability. Indeed, economic stability and ultimately self-sufficiency is the 

best way to assure that families will be able to get and keep housing. An associated outcome is 

improved educational attainment, including training in specific skills and acquisition of 

certificates or credentials that will help mothers gain employment. Only 18 percent of mothers 

in this sample were working when they entered TH but far more (61 percent) were working at 

TH exit. Many mothers completed educational degrees, courses, or certificates while in TH or 

were still pursuing these courses when they left and finished them during the next year. Far 

more changed for mothers with respect to education and employment during their time in TH 

than during the following year; it is only fair to credit TH programs with helping TH mothers 

reach these accomplishments. 
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 143 143 

We look at five outcomes with respect to education and employment. We first examine the level 

of education a mother had completed (education at moveout) and whether or not she was 

working (employed at moveout) at the time she left TH. We have this information for all 195 

mothers in our sample. At 12 months post-TH we look at mothers who worked for the entire 

post-TH year (always worked), mothers who never worked during the whole post-TH year (never 

worked), and wages at 12 months, assigning a wage of $0 to mothers who were not working at 

12 months post-TH (12-month wages). We have these post-TH outcomes for the 179 mothers 

who completed a 12-month interview. Table 12.6 displays the results. 

Educational Attainment at Moveout 

Educational attainment is not influenced by any community context variables but it is affected by 

several personal characteristics. Educational attainment at TH exit is associated with having 

been employed at entry and having had one’s own lease at some time before entering TH. 

Mothers participating in larger programs have higher levels of education at exit, probably as a 

result of staying in TH longer and using services in more domains. However, receiving help 

specifically with education and training is associated with a lower level of attainment at TH exit, 

possibly because these were the mothers who had very little education when they entered TH so 

that, even with what they gained in the program, they remained relatively less educated than othe 

mothers. The final model for education at moveout (first column of table 12.6) accounts for 23.5 

percent of the variance (F = 7.16, Adjusted R2

 = .235, p < .000). 

Employed at Moveout 

The final model for employed at moveout (second column of table 12.6) accounts for 18.5 

percent of the variance (Pseudo R2

 = .185, LR Chi2 = 48.27 p < .000). Two community context 

variables make a difference for this outcome, but oddly enough neither is the local 

unemployment rate. Mothers living in communities with slightly lower odds that mothers 

received housing subsidies and slightly higher FMRs for a two-bedroom apartment were more 

likely to be employed when they left TH. Spending more time in a TH program and having 

completed a higher level of education by TH exit appear to result in a greater likelihood of 

working at the time mothers left TH. In addition, programs that were less successful at getting 

their families a housing subsidy at program exit appeared to have mothers who were more likely 

to be employed at exit. 

Employed All 12 Months After TH 

For always worked (third column of table 12.6), we can account for 44.1 percent of the variance 

(Pseudo R2

 = .441, LR Chi2 = 106.37, p < .000). The strongest predictor for this outcome is the 

previous dependent variable (OR 36.285, p <.000)—mothers who were employed at TH exit 

were more likely to be employed all year, or conversely, mothers who were not employed at TH 

exit could not have been employed for all of the post-TH year. Two community context 

variables also make a difference for this outcome. A lower local unemployment rate is 

associated with a greater likelihood that mothers worked during the whole post-TH year, as is a 

lower availability of housing subsidies locally. In addition, mothers for whom domestic violence 

played a role in their homelessness were much less likely to have worked all year, while mothers 

who received help from their TH program in more areas and who specifically received help with 

education and training were marginally more likely to have done so. 
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 144 144 

Not Working All 12 Months After TH 

For never worked (fourth column of table 12.6), we can explain 26 percent of the variance 

(Pseudo R2

 = .260, LR Chi2 = 42.01, p < .000). The same two community context variables 

make a difference for this outcome as they did for always worked, but in the opposite direction. 

A higher local unemployment rate is associated with a higher likelihood that mothers did not 

work during the whole post-TH year, as is a higher availability of housing subsidies locally. In 

addition, three personal characteristics affect this variable. Being older, homeless more times, 
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 145 145 

and white rather than nonwhite are associated with higher odds of not having worked for the 

whole follow-up year. 

Wages 12 Months After TH 

For this variable we use the hourly wages that mothers completing 12-month interviews reported 

to us, or assigned a value of $0 to those who were not working. For 14 mothers who were

working but did not report an hourly wage, we assigned the mean wage, $10, reported by other 

mothers working at 12 months post-TH. We used tobit analysis rather than OLS regression 

because it is designed to provide unbiased estimates for situations in which the value of the 

dependent variable cannot go below or above a certain value. In our case, wages cannot go 

below zero, and we have a large number of zeros because 63 mothers were not working at 12 

months. The final model for 12-month wages (last column of table 12.6) accounts for 5.6 

percent of the variance (Pseudo R2

 = .056, LR Chi2 = 52.51, p < .000). Once again the two 

community context variables make a difference for this outcome. A lower local unemployment 

rate is associated with higher wages, as is a lower availability of housing subsidies locally. In 

addition, having being employed at entry and having received assistance from a TH program 

with education and training goes with higher wages at 12 months, while being homeless more 

times or for more months are associated with lower wages.

Summing up our findings related to education and employment outcomes: 

• Our models explain between 6 and 44 percent of the variance in education and 

employment outcomes. Some of these variables also help explain each other— 

educational level at moveout is related to being employed at moveout, and working at 

moveout is related to being employed all 12 months following TH. 

• Community context factors affected all employment outcomes, but not education at 

moveout. The lower the unemployment rate the more likely mothers were to have 

worked all 12 months, the less likely they were to have never worked during the followup year, and the higher their wages were at 12 months. Lower housing subsidy levels 

showed the same pattern of effects. 

• Different personal characteristics affected different education and employment outcomes, 

but only one, being employed at TH entry, appeared in three of the education and 

employment models and was a significant influence in two. The number of times a 

mother had been homeless appeared in models of all four employment outcomes as was 

significant in two of them. 

• No program characteristics consistently affected education and employment outcomes. 

However, family patterns of using TH programs and services did make a difference. 

More time spent in a TH program was associated with better education and employment 

outcomes, while receiving assistance with education and training affected education level 

at TH exit and made it marginally more likely that mothers would be employed all year 

post-TH and have higher wages at 12 months. 
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 146 146 

CHILDREN’S OUTCOMES

In addition to outcomes reflecting the whole family’s living situation and the mother’s 

employment, HUD was interested in what TH programs did for the children in participating 

families. One focus of HUD’s interest was on school engagement, which we can examine for the 

123 school-age focal children in the study. We looked at this variable at the time families left 

TH and again at 12 months (school engagement and school engagement 12). We also examined 

the mother’s reports of the focal child’s emotional problems while homeless, at moveout, and at 

the 12-month follow-up (problems-homeless, problems-moveout, and problems-12). This 

information is available for all 195 focal children at moveout and for the 179 focal children 

whose mothers completed a 12-month interview. As the reader may remember from chapter 11, 

all of these variables are scales comprised of the average of answers to several variables. For 

school engagement, scores range from 1 to 4, with higher values indicating the good outcome of 

more school engagement. For emotional problems, scores range from 1 to 3, with lower values 

indicating the good outcome of fewer or no problems. 

School Engagement at Moveout 

We can account for 7.5 percent of the variance in school engagement (Pseudo R2 = .075, LR Chi2

= 17.46, p < .002) at the time school-age focal children left TH. No community context variable 

affected this or any other variable reflecting children’s outcomes, but after trying several 

combinations of dummy variables representing the five cities in this study, the variable 

representing Houston compared to all other cities did have an effect on two of these variables. 

For school attachment at moveout, Houston mothers reported that their school-age focal child 

was significantly more engaged in school than was true for mothers in other study cities. A 

higher staff-to-family ratio and having a mother who had been in jail were also associated with 

more school engagement at moveout. The mother’s need for and receipt of help with parenting 

was marginally negatively related to this outcome. 

School Engagement at 12 Months 

We can account for 11 percent of the variance in school engagement-12 (Pseudo R2 = .109, LR 

Chi2

 = 34.01, p < .000), with the increase in explanatory power due largely to including school

engagement at moveout in the equation. By itself, school engagement at moveout accounts for 

15 percent of the variance in school engagement-12, with the remaining variables in the model 

accounting for a little less than 7 percent. Only one personal characteristic and one program 

characteristic are significant in this model. Participation in programs that require mothers to 

have at least six months of sobriety at entry appears to be associated with more school 

engagement at 12 months, while longer spells of homelessness have the opposite effect. 

FC’s Emotional Problems While Homeless 

We can account for 17.9 percent of the variance in problems-homeless (Pseudo R2 = .179, LR 

Chi2

 = 62.61, p < .000). Houston mothers were less likely to report such problems while 

homeless for their focal child. Ever-married mothers, those with more mental health problems 

themselves, and those participating in a TH program specializing in domestic violence reported 

more emotional problems while homeless for their focal child. It is safe to say that children in 

families using domestic violence programs were exposed to many negative influences before 

they got to TH that may or may not have been exacerbated by their mothers’ own emotional 

problems. This is the only outcome analyzed for which the family barriers index has a 
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 147 147 

significant impact over and above the effects of two of its component parts (never married and 

mother’s lifetime mental health problems). The more barriers the family has, the more problems 

the mother reports for the focal child during homelessness. In addition, mothers who rated their 

children as having more emotional problems while homeless used more different types of 

services while in TH. 
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 148 148 

FC’s Emotional Problems at Moveout 

We can account for 9.5 percent of the variance in problems-moveout (Pseudo R2 = .095, LR Chi2

= 10.64, p < .014). Emotional problems while homeless account for 6 percent of the variance in 

this outcome and nothing else is significantly related, suggesting that participation in TH may 

have smoothed out a lot of issues for children. 

FC’s Emotional Problems at 12 Months 

Our ability to account for the variance in problems-12 (Pseudo R2 = .304, LR Chi2 = 68.87, p < 

.000) is a lot greater than it was for problems-moveout. A bit more than half of this is due to the 

effect of problems-moveout on problems-12, accounting for 16 percent of the variance and 

clearly showing far greater continuity in emotional status than was true in the transition from 

homelessness to the immediate post-TH period. Mothers’ own mental health problems are a 

significant predictor (more mother’s problems, more child’s problems). Two variables reflecting 

program use are also significant—spending more time in TH and the mother’s rating of the 

helpfulness of TH services. A measure of help the focal child received for emotional problems 

while in TH is negatively related (more help, worse problems-12), which may suggest that the 

families who got help had particularly troubled children and that the troubles had not completely 

disappeared by 12 months post-TH. 

Summing up our findings related to children’s outcomes: 

• Our models explain between 7.5 and 30 percent of the variance in children’s outcomes. 

Inclusion of variable values at moveout in equations predicting 12-month outcomes help 

account for some of the higher adjusted R2

s.

• Community context factors had no effect on these children’s outcomes, but a dummy 

variable representing Houston compared to the other four cities did play a role in three of 

the five final models. 

• Among personal characteristics, longer periods of homelessness were associated with 

lower school engagement at 12 months, mother’s mental health problems in her lifetime 

affected focal children’s emotional problems while homeless and at 12 months, having a 

mother who had been married was associated with more emotional problems while 

homeless, and having a mother who had been in jail was association with greater school 

attachment at moveout. The effects of the mother’s personal characteristics on children’s 

outcomes tend to be inconsistent, with only marital status and mother’s lifetime mental 

health problems influencing two of the five children’s outcomes 

• No program characteristics consistently affected these children’s outcomes. However, 

emotional help received by focal children affects one or two outcomes. 

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS 

Throughout the chapters of this report we have described many aspects of mothers and children 

in families that used TH. Most of these analyses have been reported overall and for each 

community, showing that while community context sometimes makes a difference, about equally 

often it does not. In this final chapter we selected six variables representing housing and 

household stability outcomes, five representing education and employment outcomes, and five 
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 149 149 

representing children’s outcomes to use in analyses assessing the effects of TH program 

characteristics, TH program use, and other factors.

Ultimately, what HUD wanted to learn from this project was whether TH programs made a 

difference in the lives of the families they served. This study cannot provide definitive answers 

to that question because it does not have a control group of similar families that did not receive 

TH services, nor does it have a sample large enough to support detailed analyses of subgroups or 

even of equations containing more than about 10 variables. Nevertheless, we can say something 

about TH program impact based on the data we do have, including what aspects of TH programs 

appear not to make much difference to family outcomes. Reversing the order of discussion used 

for most of this chapter, we look first at the effects of TH program characteristics and patterns of 

use, then at other groups of variables. 

PROGRAM SIZE

As the reader may remember from chapter 4, the TH programs from which we drew our sample 

of families were very different from TH programs in urban areas nationwide in containing 

proportionally far more large programs and far fewer very small programs. For that reason we 

used “number of family units” as a variable in all of the regression analyses reported in this 

chapter, until it became very clear that program size did not matter for a particular outcome. The 

outcomes for which program size was an issue are: 

• Never having one’s own place. Participants in larger programs were less likely to have 

lived in their own place at any time during the year following TH exit. 

• Educational attainment at moveout. For this variable, larger programs did better. 

• No other outcome was associated with program size—families participating in small, 

medium, and large programs had equivalent outcomes for employment, children’s 

outcomes, and most household composition outcomes. 

PROGRAM RESTRICTIVENESS OR CREAMING 

We included a number of program characteristic variables to represent selective or excluding 

behavior on the part of programs, or targeting toward families with very specific issues. 

Selective behavior included screening out mothers with severe and persistent mental illness, 

those with active substance abuse, or those without a long period of sobriety. Specific family 

issues included domestic violence and pregnancy. In addition, we created two variables that 

generally characterized programs as targeting high risk or low risk families and a third variable 

to indicate that a family had been homeless for no more than 24 hours (and sometimes not at all) 

when they enrolled in a TH program. 

For the most part these variables did not make a difference for the outcomes we examined. 

Families using programs that placed restrictions and programs that did not do so seemed to do 

equally well on most outcomes; only for one children’s outcome were any of these indicators of 

restrictiveness significant. The same is true for the global characteristics of being a “low risk 

program” or a “high risk program” and for families experiencing little or no homelessness before 

entering TH. These latter families definitely had fewer barriers than families with a longer 

homeless spell; nevertheless they used TH programs for just as long, on average, as families with 

many more barriers and did not have significantly better or worse outcomes. 
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 150 150 

The lesson one could draw from this lack of impact of family barriers at the program level and 

for the most part also at the individual level is that if some TH programs can help clients with 

multiple barriers succeed, perhaps more should be trying to do so, engaging in relevant staff 

training, institutional culture change efforts, and the like to shift their programs toward families 

facing more challenges. 

PATTERNS OF PROGRAM USE

How families use a TH program appears to have had more influence on family outcomes than 

program characteristics or selectivity per se. It is interesting to note that education, employment, 

and to a lesser extent children’s outcomes rather than housing stability or household composition 

are the domains where that influence appears strongest. Families spending more months in TH 

had higher levels of educational attainment and employment at moveout and were more likely to 

have been employed for the entire follow-up period. They were also significantly less likely to 

go for a whole year after leaving TH without having a place of their own, and their children 

enjoyed better mental health a year after leaving TH. This finding, which corresponds to 

findings of a Wisconsin study of TH programs and families (Karpinski and Smith 2008), is not 

likely to be a function of family barriers that needed to be overcome, as variables representing 

those barriers were included in the same equations that identified time in TH as an important 

predictor variable. This pattern might suggest that very short programs—we had some with 

typical lengths of stay around four months, and families who stayed in TH less than three 

months—may be long enough to accomplish a goal such as learning to care for a newborn or 

overcoming the immediate impacts of domestic violence, but are not long enough to tackle the 

issues of human and social capital development that these mothers need for the long haul. 

In addition to time in TH, receipt of help for some specific issues was associated with better 

outcomes. For instance, mothers who got help with education and training were marginally more 

likely to be employed at 12 months and to have higher wages at that time. They also appear to 

have a lower educational level at moveout than mothers who did not get this help, but that may 

be because they started lower. Also, focal children who got help with emotional problems may 

have had fewer emotional problems a year after TH exit. Thus TH programs appear to 

contribute most to the more malleable aspects of family life such as employment and mental 

health, for which they offere specific assistance to help families make their own opportunities, 

while being less able to influence the hard realities of housing cost and availability in the local 

economy. 

OTHER INFLUENCES—COMMUNITY CONTEXT AND PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS 

Independent of anything that programs could do, the local unemployment rate and cost of 

housing had some effects on family outcomes. It would have been remarkable if they had not; 

even under adverse conditions, though, TH programs may have smoothed out some of the 

barriers that homeless families face in trying to get back on their feet. As noted above, we 

created an index of 15 family barriers, high scores on which indicate that a family would be 

considered hard to serve or higher risk while low scores would indicate families that are easier to 

serve or lower risk. But when we used that index by itself, without including in the analyses 

many of its component personal characteristics, it never did as well nor was it as informative, 

with one exception, as dropping the index, keeping the separate characteristics in the analysis, 

and seeing which ones bore the brunt of any observed effects. We were frequently struck by how
Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Fa Chapter 12: Influence of TH Programs on Family Outcomes mily Outcomes 151 151 

few personal characteristics of mothers in the sample consistently made a difference for the 

outcomes we examined (which may be a reason the index proved relatively unhelpful). Of the 

11 personal characteristics included in the analyses, only four made a difference on more than 

one of the six housing variables. Never having been married made it less likely that a mother 

would have her own place after TH exit, but more likely that she would live with only her 

children for the full year after leaving TH. Spending more time homeless before TH made it 

more likely that a mother would never have her own place during the post-TH year, and 

marginally less likely that she would move into her own place at TH exit. Having a history of 

mental health problems increased the odds that a family would move at least once in the post-TH 

year and decreased the odds that a mother would live with the same people for the whole year. 

Having a history of domestic violence also affected housing outcomes, increasing the likelihood 

that a mother lived only with her own children for the year after TH and marginally decreasing 

the odds of moving or living with the same people at TH exit and 12 months later. Personal 

characteristics of the mother were mostly unrelated to outcomes for focal children also. Only the 

mother’s lifetime mental health problems were significantly associated with two of these 

outcomes—the focal child’s emotional problems while homeless and at 12 months after leaving 

TH.

Personal characteristics played a greater role in education and employment outcomes. Here the 

number of homeless episodes took its toll, increasing the odds of not working at all during the 

follow-up year and of having lower wages at 12 months if one did work. More homeless 

episodes also had a marginally negative effect on being employed at moveout. Having been 

employed at TH program entry increased the level of reported wages at 12 months and was 

marginally related to higher educational attainment at TH program exit. 

HAVING A RENT SUBSIDY 

Having a rent subsidy is of paramount importance for several outcomes—having one’s own 

place at TH exit, living just with one’s own children all year, and not living in a complex 

household. It also has marginally significant effects on reducing moves in the post-TH year and 

on assuring that the household members living with the mother remain the same throughout the 

year. That is where its influence stops, however. It has no measurable effect on education or 

employment outcomes or on children’s outcomes. Nor does it have an impact indirectly, as there 

is little or no relationship between having one’s own place and children’s outcomes, for instance. 

These findings are compatible with other studies exploring the same issues (Mills et al. 2006; 

Rog and Buckner 2007; Schroder 2002; Stojanovic et al. 1999). 

THE BOTTOM LINE

TH programs appear to help the families who use them to achieve some important goals—most 

specifically, helping families change something about themselves as individuals or collectively 

such as education, employment, or personal interactions. We cannot tell with the data available 

whether the families would have achieved these same goals without the programs—surely some 

of them would have done so. But equally surely some of them would not. Programs that 

explicitly seek to serve multi-barrier families do not appear to achieve any worse outcomes than 

programs that screen out those same families. The important thing is to get these programs to 

target their considerable resources more on the families that would not have been able to 

accomplish as much on their own. 
References References 152 152 

REFERENCES

Acs, Gregory and Pamela Loprest. 2007a. TANF Caseload Composition and Leavers Synthesis 

Report. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. 

Acs, Gregory and Pamela Loprest. 2007b. Helping Women Stay Off Welfare. Washington, 

DC: Urban Institute. 

American Psychiatric Association Task Force on Community Residential Services. 1982. A

Typology of Community Residential Services: Report of the Task Force on Community 

Residential Services. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. 

Biegel, David, and Arthur Naparstek, eds. 1982. Community Support Systems and Mental 

Health. New York: Springer. 

Burt, Martha R. 2006. Characteristics of Transitional Housing Programs for Homeless Families. 

Washington, DC: Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411369.

Burt, Martha R., Carol Pearson, and Ann Elizabeth Montgomery. 2005. Strategies for 

Preventing Homelessness. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development. 

Burt, Martha R., Laudan Y. Aron, Toby Douglas, Jesse Valente, Edgar Lee, and Britta Iwen. 

1999. Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve—Technical Report. Washington, DC: 

Departments of Health and Human Services and Housing and Urban Development. 

Ehrle, Jennifer and Kristen Anderson Moore. 1999. 1997 NSAF: Benchmarking Child and 

Family Well-Being Measures. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Assessing the New Federalism, 

Methodology Paper # 6. Accessed September 22, 2008 at 

http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410137.

Holahan, John and Allison Cook. 2007. What Happened to the Insurance Coverage of Children 

and Adults in 2006? Washington, DC: Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. 

Accessed October 29, 2008 at http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7694.pdf.

Karpinski, Seth and Adam Smith. 2008. An Analysis of Transitional Housing Program 

Outcomes Using Individual and Program Level Factors. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of 

Commerce. 

Mills, Gregory, Daniel Gubits, Larry Orr, David Long, Judie Feins, and Bulbul Kaul. 2006. 

Effects of Housing Vouchers on Welfare Families. Washington, DC: Department of Housing and 

Urban Development. 

National Low Income Housing Coalition. 2004. Up Against a Wall: Housing Affordability for 

Renters. Washington, DC: author. Accessed December 1, 2004 at 

http://www.nlihc.org/pubs/uaw04/UpAgainstaWall.pdf.
References References 153 153 

Ohio Adult Parole Authority. 2005. Celebrating 40 Years of Public Safety. Columbus, OH, Ohio 

Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. 

Pettit, Becky. 2000. Moving and children’s social connections: The critical effects of context.

Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Center for Research on Child Well Being, Working 

Paper 98-04. 

Rog, Debra and John Buckner. 2007. “Homeless Families and Children.” Chapter 5 (pp. 5-1 

through 5-33) in Deborah Dennis, Gretchen Locke, and Jill Khadduri (eds.), Toward 

Understanding Homelessness: The 2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research. 

Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Housing and 

Urban Development. 

Schroder, Mark. 2002. “Does Housing Assistance Perversely Affect Self-Sufficiency? A 

Review Essay.” Journal of Housing Economics, 11, 381-417. 

Stevens, Dennis J. 2005. Community Corrections: An Applied Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 

Prentice-Hall.

Stojanovic, Daniela, Beth C. Weitzman, Marybeth Shinn, L.E. Labay, and N.P. Williams. 1999. 

“Tracing the Path Out of Homelessness: The Housing Patterns of Families After Exiting 

Shelters,” Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 199–208. 
Appendix A: Acronyms Used in This Report Appendix A: Acronyms Used in This Report 154 154 

Appendix A: Acronyms Used in This Report 

AHAR Annual Homeless Assessment Report—a report that HUD must submit to Congress 

every year, documenting changes in the homeless population and homeless services 

ASI/mh Addiction Severity Index mental health scale—a standardized measure of a person’s 

current and past emotional and mental health problems 

CoC Continuum of Care—an organization comprised of cities, counties, and sometimes 

whole states that is the entity through which HUD transitional housing and other 

homeless resources flow 

DAST Drug Abuse Screening Test—a standardized measure of a person’s current or past 

symptoms related to drug abuse 

FC Focal Child—for this study’s family surveys, the oldest child living with the mother 

who was 17 or younger at the time the family left transitional housing 

FPL Federal Poverty Level or Federal Poverty Line—the income level below which a 

household is officially “poor” in the United States 

GED General Equivalency Degree—for those without a high school diploma, a GED may 

be earned by taking a test to demonstrate proficiency in basic educational skills 

HIC Housing Inventory Chart—a list included in CoCs’ annual submissions to HUD for 

funding for homeless programs that identifies all emergency, transitional, and 

permanent supportive housing resources in a CoC. 

HUD The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

MAST Michigan Alcohol Screening Test—a standardized measure of a person’s current or 

past symptoms related to alcoholism and alcohol abuse 

NSHAPC National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients—second, and last, 

national survey of homeless people, conducted in 1996 

NSAF National Survey of American Families—survey conducted to assess the effects of 

welfare reform in the domains of income, employment, health and health insurance, 

child care, child welfare, child support, housing, and other areas. Three waves were 

conducted, in 1997, 1999, and 2002, with samples of about 45,000 families, 

oversampling for low-income families (below 200 percent of poverty). 

OR Odds Ratio—in the tables in chapter 12, these are the figures presented for every 

logistical regression model. They indicate the odds that a family with a given 

characteristic will experience a particular outcome. 
Appendix A: Acronyms Used in This Report Appendix A: Acronyms Used in This Report 155 155 

SHP Supportive Housing Program—the HUD funding source for transitional housing, 

administered by HUD’s Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs and Services. 

TANF Temporary Assistance to Needy Families—the federal welfare program for poor 

households with children 

TH Transitional Housing 
Appendix B: Study Methods Appendix B: Study Methods 156 156 

Appendix B: Study Methods 

SAMPLING STRATEGY

The research team used a three-stage strategy to sample families leaving transitional housing 

programs. Because community characteristics may affect successful outcomes of TH programs 

at least as much as any efforts the programs or families make themselves, Stage 1 involved 

selecting communities, because we wanted to assure variation in community characteristics as 

well as in TH program and client characteristics. We used Continuums of Care as our 

“communities,” regardless of the types of jurisdictions they include. In Stage 2 we selected TH 

programs operating within the CoCs. In Stage 3 we recruited families leaving TH from the 

sampled TH programs, interviewed them at moveout or as close to moveout as we could get, and 

followed them until 12 months after their TH program exit. 

STAGE 1: SELECTING CONTINUUMS OF CARE 

We sought between 5 and 10 CoCs that met three criteria: 

• Enough TH capacity to allow us to reach the family recruitment goal for each CoC of 60 

families leaving TH “successfully” within a three-month moveout window and a threemonth retrospective window; 

• With high HMIS coverage for their family emergency shelters. We wanted CoCs with a 

functioning HMIS for two purposes—to be able to check for return to homelessness once 

families leave TH, and to locate families for interviewing who have returned to the 

homeless assistance system when we cannot find them at their last residence. 

• Variation in housing and employment markets—especially seeking housing markets that 

have some availability for affordable housing. 

With respect to the first criterion, based on assumptions about rates of exit and the proportion of 

those that would be “successful” exits, we calculated that we would need communities with at 

least 350 family transitional housing beds (about 120 family units) to meet recruitment goals, 

and 500 to 700 or more beds would have been preferable. Information on bed counts for the 80 

counties participating in the Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) was available from 

HUD contractors at Abt Associates and QED, Inc. These communities include the nation’s 

largest cities, plus a random sample of all other counties. Abt/QED staff also recommended 

several other CoCs with high bed counts and good HMIS coverage for possible inclusion in our 

study.

The Abt/QED information indicated that the bed count criterion limited us to about 25 CoCs, as 

most CoCs have far fewer family TH units. Abt/QED staff also provided data on HMIS 

coverage for the same AHAR counties. When we added the criterion of HMIS coverage of 

family emergency shelter beds to the bed count criterion, the choices shrank even further, to 14.

To determine variation in housing opportunities, we assessed the level of housing affordability in 

these 14 CoCs against the criteria in Up Against A Wall: Housing Affordability for Renters, a 
Appendix B: Study Methods Appendix B: Study Methods 157 157 

publication of the National Low Income Housing Coalition (2004) that analyzes data from the 

2003 American Community Housing Survey. The 14 CoCs identified as the ones to be 

canvassed for possible participation represented a range of housing affordability according to the 

index developed in this publication. To determine variation in employment opportunities, we 

examined 2005 average unemployment rates provided on the Department of Labor’s Bureau of 

Labor Statistics website. The 14 CoCs represented a range of housing affordability for renters 

and employment opportunities, as required by our third criterion for CoC selection. 

Screening and Final Selection 

A final criterion for selection was that the CoC had to be willing to participate—someone with 

community-wide organizing responsibilities had to be interested, the organization managing the 

HMIS (if different from the CoC organizer) had to be interested, and a substantial number of the 

family TH providers had to be interested in and willing to refer families to us and allow us access 

to their client records (after receiving client permission to do so). 

We attempted to complete screening calls with key informants in these 14 potential CoCs. We 

eliminated three CoCs from consideration because we learned that they did not have enough 

family TH units for study purposes. We eliminated another four CoCs because we never got a 

response or had other interested CoCs with the same community-level characteristics. We 

followed up with the remaining seven CoCs, in three cases visiting the CoC and meeting with 

TH providers to explain the study and gain cooperation once the CoC organizers expressed 

strong interest. 

Through this screening process we selected the final five CoCs: 

• Cleveland/Cuyahoga County CoC, 

• Detroit CoC (includes the Wayne County cities of Hamtramck and Highland Park, but 

not the rest of Wayne County), 

• Houston CoC (includes Harris and Fort Bend Counties), 

• San Diego City and County, 

• Seattle/King County. 

This combination of CoCs gave us two Midwest industrial cities; two Sunbelt cities, one in the 

South and one in the West, and a Northwest city. It included CoCs with highly varying rates of 

available housing, public resources committed to housing subsidies, other public benefits and 

supports for poor families, and employment opportunities, as the data in table 12.1 made clear. 

It also promised to provide a sample of families with varying racial and ethnic backgrounds. 

STAGE 2: SELECTING TH PROGRAMS FOR FAMILY RECRUITMENT 

Our goal was to select 5 to 7 family TH programs from each of the 5 CoCs in this study (25 to 35 

TH programs total). To arrive at that number, we conducted screening interviews with up to 15 

family TH programs per CoC. We had the further criterion of program size—we did not screen 

or select programs with 10 or fewer beds (i.e., 1 to 3 families in residence at a time), because 

they would not have produced enough opportunity for recruitment to make inclusion worthwhile. 

For the four CoCs that had 15 or fewer family TH programs with at least 11 beds, we screened 

all of them for potential inclusion in the study. In the fifth CoC we stratified the programs by 

size and location (city vs. county) and randomly selected programs from each stratum for 
Appendix B: Study Methods Appendix B: Study Methods 158 158 

screening interviews. Ultimately, 36 TH programs contributed one or more families to the study 

sample. 

The Meaning of “A Program” in This Sample 

Because “program” means different things in different contexts, it is important for the reader to 

know what “a program” means for this study’s sample. We used the Housing Inventory Chart 

(HIC) from each CoC’s 2005 application to HUD for SHP funds as the first stage of program 

sampling—defining the program universe. As these charts are done for HUD, the relevant 

funding issue is the type of funding received (e.g., Supportive Housing Program, Housing 

Opportunities for People with AIDS, Shelter Plus Care), and the first year of the grant. Thus, an 

agency may have received two or more HUD grants, in different years, to do essentially the same 

thing with the same staff, but for more people. Thus the agency adds either facility-based or 

scattered-site units with the second grant, but still uses the same staff to assess eligibility, against 

the same eligibility criteria, and simply houses a family in the first available opening. 

For purposes of this study, we treated these two “programs” as one program, because for family 

recruitment purposes we needed to go to the same people to find out what was happening with 

the families. Thus, the 53 program interviews we completed cover more than 53 “programs” in 

the HIC sense, including:

• 8 in Cleveland covering 8 HIC programs 

• 7 in Detroit covering 9 HIC programs 

• 12 in Houston covering 12 HIC programs 

• 13 in San Diego covering 15 HIC programs, and 

• 13 in Seattle covering 16 HIC programs. 

Other discrepancies that exist between our interview sample and the programs listed under 

transitional housing in the HICs stem from misclassifications in the HICs. In four of the five 

CoCs, we pre-screened every program with 11 or more beds listed on the HIC as family 

transitional housing; in the fifth site we checked all listed programs of 11+ beds with the CoC 

convener and then conducted pre-screening calls with more than 20 programs. We also crosschecked our results with the CoC convener for the community and sometimes other 

knowledgeable people. After double- and triple-checking the nature of each program, we 

dropped the following types of programs from our list as not complying with the meaning of 

family transitional housing in HUD’s sense: 90-day substance abuse treatment programs, 

programs listed as “family” that turned out to be just for single women, programs that were 

essentially emergency shelters (less than three months expected length of stay with most people 

leaving sooner, little or no screening for families with intensive service needs, and relatively 

little by way of intensive services or supports), programs whose typical leaver went on to another 

TH program, programs strictly for refugees and asylum seekers, and, for obvious practical 

reasons, programs that had closed and programs that were not yet open. 

Collecting Data Describing Programs 

To gather the information we needed to describe family TH programs, we conducted screening 

interviews by telephone with the directors of all the programs in our sample. The program 

screener covered the following topics. 
Appendix B: Study Methods Appendix B: Study Methods 159 159 

• The housing configuration (single site, clustered scattered, completely scattered),

• Whether families need to move (transition in place vs. needing to move to another place), 

• Intake/screening criteria for families (do eligibility criteria include: sobriety or active 

substance abuse, serious mental illness or not, co-occurring disorders or not, HIV/AIDS, 

work history, housing history, housing barriers such as criminal record or multiple 

evictions, number/ages/gender of children, or domestic violence), 

• The proportion of families with successful exits, 

• The meaning of successful exit, 

• Who leaves without graduating, and why, 

• Length of stay information (the maximum allowed, the average for successful leavers, the 

average for others), 

• Supportive services while in TH, 

• Follow-up services information (official duration, average actual duration, attrition, what 

is offered), and 

• Housing and other outcomes known to the program. 

An earlier report described the 53 TH programs we screened (Burt 2006). A condensed version 

of this report is provided as appendix F of the present report. Chapter 4 of the present report 

describes the 36 TH programs that contributed families to the survey on the program variables 

used in the analyses reported in chapter 12. 

The study provided monetary compensation to programs participating in family recruitment for 

this study for the time and effort it took to assure successful family recruitment. 

STAGE 3: FAMILY RECRUITMENT AND INTERVIEWING 

We recruited local liaisons for each of the participating CoCs to work with TH programs, recruit 

families, conduct the family interviews, and enter the interview data for computerized analysis. 

In three CoCs the liaisons were associated with university research centers, while in two CoCs 

the liaisons were independent contractors. 

Liaisons came to the Urban Institute in Washington, DC for two days of training on study goals, 

TH program and family recruitment approaches and techniques, and administering the family 

interviews. They also received lists of TH programs that had been screened and were willing to 

participate, along with the relevant contact information. Upon returning to their home 

communities they approached these TH programs and worked out family recruitment techniques 

and structures. Four liaisons hired interviewers in addition to themselves to do a share of the 

actual family interviews. Those who hired interviewers conducted trainings for them on 

interviewing techniques and on the contents and special issues of the study’s interview protocols.

Liaisons also set up tracking systems to assure that follow-up interviews happened at appropriate 

times and that needed contact information was available for all families. 

Recruitment Procedures 

This study went through a full review by the Urban Institute’s Internal Review Board to assure 

that the procedures we would follow gave mothers adequate information about the study and 

obtained their informed consent to participate. The study also compensated mothers a total of 

$100 for their participation in four interviews—moveout and 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. 
Appendix B: Study Methods Appendix B: Study Methods 160 160 

Before a family could be referred to the study, the study had to be explained to her and her 

informed consent obtained for program staff to pass her name along to the liaisons. This work 

fell mostly on TH program staff because liaisons could not contact a mother until she had given 

her consent to participate. Liaisons were able to work out procedures with some programs to 

hold general recruitment sessions with several families about to leave TH, but this was not 

common. In such cases, the liaisons were able to explain the study and do the recruitment 

themselves, obtaining informed consent and then interviewing mothers before they left TH. This 

arrangement was not common, however.

Recruitment Goals and Schedule 

The study design called for recruiting 300 families leaving TH successfully—60 from each study 

community. Because none of the communities, as large as they were, had masses of families 

leaving TH in a short period of time, we designed recruitment to go “backward” as well as 

forward, in what began as a six-month recruitment window. Recruitment began on November 1, 

2005. Liaisons were expected to pick up families leaving TH for the next three months (through 

February 28, 2006) and also to pick up families retrospectively that had left TH during the three 

months between August 1 and October 31, 2005. 

Early in 2006 it was easy to see that we would not meet or even come close to our recruitment 

goals if we stopped recruiting according to the original plan. In consultation with the liaisons, 

who knew the pace of TH exit by then, we extended the prospective recruitment period until 

June 30, 2006, giving us a final recruitment period of 11 months. Liaisons also renewed their 

efforts to work 

with TH 

programs to 

increase referrals 

and sought the 

participation of 

additional TH 

programs to 

compensate for 

insufficient

referrals from 

some programs 

that had agreed to participate originally. These efforts yielded increased referrals of prospective 

families (those just leaving TH whom we would follow for a year) and also produced some 

additional retrospective families (those who had left TH after August 1, 2005 but who had not 

been referred earlier). Even with these efforts we were only able to recruit 195 families for the 

study, or about two-thirds of our goal. The table above shows the number of families recruited 

per CoC in the study, as well as the interviews they completed. 

Interviewing Schedules 

The most complicated aspect of family recruitment and interviewing involved the first interview 

with a family. We had three different forms for this first interview: 

• Partial: If a family was referred to the study before it left TH, interviewers could conduct 

the first interview before moveout. When this happened, interviewers used a form of the 
Appendix B: Study Methods Appendix B: Study Methods 161 161 

moveout interview we labeled “partial,” which asked about the housing situation the 

mother anticipated having once she and her family left the program, as they were not 

actually in their post-TH housing situation at the time of the first interview. Interviewers 

then checked at the first follow-up interview to see whether the anticipated housing was 

what the family actually moved to. Questions about all domains other than housing were 

the same as on the regular moveout interview. The first interviews for 23 families were 

partials.

• Moveout: This is the “standard” type of first interview, conducted with 94 families. It 

occurred shortly after the mother moved from TH into post-TH housing, or, for mothers 

who stayed in the same housing post-TH, when she officially exited the TH program. 

• Retrospective: For the 78 mothers who had left TH two or more months before study 

interviewers were able to contact and interview them, we used an interview form we 

labeled “retrospective.” The retrospective interview protocol asked about the family’s 

situation at the time of the interview, and also asked about the situation on several critical 

variables (housing, household composition), at the time the family left TH. However, we 

could not ask about everything twice (once for the current time and once for right after 

TH) or the interview would have been twice as long, so for some variables we are 

missing information about the immediate post-TH period for these retrospective families. 

Once a first interview was completed, of any type, interviewers were committed to obtaining 

follow-up interviews according to a schedule tied to the date of TH exit (not the date of the first 

interview). Thus, if they interviewed someone for the first time at three months post-TH, they 

were expected to conduct two more interviews, at six and 12 months post-TH. If they 

interviewed someone for the first time at six months post-TH, they would have conducted only 

one more interview, at 12 months. This strategy was designed to give us a full year post-TH to 

analyze with a consistent time frame, rather than following families for a year from when we 

first interviewed them regardless of the relationship of that first interview to TH exit. 

It was not uncommon for us to be missing one or more interviews for a family, but still to have 

information about the time of TH exit and 12 months later. Only 52 percent of the sample has 

four interviews at the times called for in the design. The rest either started later, with a 

retrospective interview, or missed one or more interviews between moveout and 12 months. The 

study design did not call for an interview nine months after TH exit, but we have 43 9-month 

interviews. This happened for two reasons. First, some families were referred to the study a 

very long time after they left TH, so their first interview, a retrospective one, took place at about 

nine months after TH exit and was followed three months later with a 12-month follow-up 

interview to correspond with the family’s full first year after TH. Second, some families had 

their first, retrospective, interview at six months post-TH and interviewers, thinking they were 

supposed to do a follow-up interview three months after their first interview, conducted 

interviews at nine months. Something similar happened for a few people whose first interviews 

were at three months post-TH; interviewers thought they were supposed to do four interviews per 

family, and thus conducted 9-month interviews. 
Appendix B: Study Methods Appendix B: Study Methods 162 162 

ANALYSIS STRATEGY 

THE MOVEOUT MOMENT DATA SET

Once data were entered and partially cleaned, we had to create a Moveout Moment data set that 

would merge relevant information from the regular moveout, partial moveout, and retrospective 

first interviews into a single file for analysis (these all came to us from data entry as separate data 

sets). We started with the structure of the regular moveout interview and made adjustments for 

partial and retrospective interviews. 

The partial interview was easiest to accommodate, as its structure was most similar to the 

moveout interview and it occurred within a few days before TH exit so the information was very 

pertinent to the moveout period. Responses to all questions from a partial moveout interview 

that corresponded to those on the moveout interview (90+ percent of questions) were brought 

into the Moveout Moment data set as they were. For the housing and household composition 

questions that were anticipatory, answers were coded into the Moveout Moment data set after 

checking that the mother’s plans for moveout had actually happened. If something happened to 

change those plans, the information about what actually happened was captured on the first 

follow-up interview. This correct information was coded into the Moveout Moment data set 

instead of the information from the partial moveout interview. 

Retrospective interviews were coded in several ways: 

• Current information reflected the point in time post-TH when the interview was actually 

done, and was coded as a 3-, 6-, or 9-month interview depending on the time post-TH. 

• Information that was identical to that on the regular moveout interview protocol was 

coded into the Moveout Moment data set; examples include homeless history and 

pathways to TH. 

• Information from questions on the retrospective interview protocol that explicitly asked 

whether something was the same as at TH exit and if not, what the actual situation was at 

TH exit contributed data to the Moveout Moment data set that was accurate for the time 

of TH exit. 

• With respect to including data in the Moveout Moment data set, the most difficult 

retrospective interview protocol questions to handle were the ones that referred to the 

present but did not ask whether the situation was the same at TH exit. For these we read 

through the interview and determined whether we had enough information to code 

something in the Moveout Moment or not. For example, if on a retrospective interview 

taking place at six months post-TH a mother said she was not working now but her last 

job ended three months ago and it had lasted six months, we coded her as working at TH 

exit. If she said she was working now and the job had lasted 10 months, we coded her as 

working at TH exit. If, however, she said she was working now but the job had only 

lasted three months, she was not asked whether she was working at TH exit and thus we 

had to code that variable as missing in the Moveout Moment data set. 
Appendix B: Study Methods Appendix B: Study Methods 163 163 

FOLLOW-UP DATA AND CREATING A SINGLE MERGED FILE

After creating the Moveout Moment data set, we merged the data from all follow-up interviews 

into a Final data set. Every family has one record in this Final data set, which contains 

information from every follow-up interview the family completed.35

We also merged other information into this Final data set: 

• Characteristics of the five study communities (described in chapter 12) 

• Program characteristics that we wanted to test for their potential impact on family 

outcomes (described in chapter 12) 

• Two questions from the chart reviews—employed or not at TH entry, and educational 

attainment at TH entry.

• New variables representing reasons for homelessness, housing, household composition, 

employment, and children’s outcomes. For most of these we had to read each family’s 

whole file, in hard copy, and make a coding decision about how to characterize the 

family. Examples include “the family had its own place after TH and lived there for the 

whole 12 months after TH exit,” “the household composition stayed the same for the 

whole 12 months after TH exit,” the mother worked the whole time in the post-TH year 

at the same job,” and the like. To code reasons for homelessness we examined responses 

to seven or eight questions including responses to the open-ended question “what 

happened?” in the housing and homeless history section of moveout and retrospective 

interviews, put together as complete a picture as possible, and coded all relevant factors. 

Children’s outcomes, which were all scales, were calculated from variables already in 

the data set. Findings for these new variables are described in chapters 4, 6, 8, and 11. 

Fifteen of the new variables are used as dependent variables in the regression analyses 

reported in chapter 12. 

FREQUENCY AND CROSS-TABULATION ANALYSES 

Most chapters of the report contain tables showing responses on survey questions or new 

variables for the sample as a whole and also by study community. Because of the small sample 

size overall (195) and the very small samples in some study communities (as low as 28 in 

Detroit), even seemingly large between-community differences may not be statistically 

significant. Usually it takes a difference of 19 or 20 percentage points to reach statistical 

significance in a comparison of one community to another, especially if the two communities 

being compared are ones with relatively few families. If the topic being presented is one that 

cuts the sample even further—for example, describing wages for mothers who are working— 

statistical significance is even more elusive. Our practice in the text of the report has been to 

describe only differences that are significant and to focus most on the results for the sample as a 

whole.

35 Because this Final data set is so huge, for purposes of the public use file we split it in two, making a Moveout 

Moment file and a Follow-Up file. 
Appendix B: Study Methods Appendix B: Study Methods 164 164 

REGRESSION ANALYSES 

Most decisions about variables to include in these analyses, and the analyses themselves, have 

been described in chapter 12. We used mean substitution for variables used in regression 

analyses because many variables had missing values for two or three cases which, in 

combination, would have reduced the usable sample size to an unacceptably small level. 
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 165 165 

Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 

This is the interview administered to every family that was interviewed shortly after leaving 

transitional housing. Slight modifications of this interview were used with families interviewed 

shortly before they left TH or more than two months after they left. We do not include 

appendixes for these modifications as the questions were similarly structured and the basic 

moveout interview contains the most complete set of questions and answer categories.
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 166
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 167
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 168
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 169
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 170
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 171
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 172
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 173
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 174
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 175
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 176
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 177
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 178
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 179
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 180
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 181
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 182
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 183
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 184
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 185
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 186
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 187
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 188
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 189
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 190
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 191
Appendix C: Family Moveout Interview 192
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 193 190 

Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 

This interview protocol was used for 3- 6- and 12-month follow-up interviews. 
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 194
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 195
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 196
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 197
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 198
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 199
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 200
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 201
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 202
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 203
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 204
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 205
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 206
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 207
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 208
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 209
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 210
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 211
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 212
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 213
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 214
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 215
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 216
Appendix D: Family Follow-Up Interview 217
Appendix E: Chart Review Appendix E: Chart Review 218 215 

Appendix E: Chart Review 

This form was used to gather information from TH program client case records. It had two 

purposes—(1) to obtain information about a family’s status at TH entry on critical variables such 

as education and employment, and (2) to gather information on the same issues at TH exit to

provide independent verification of answers given by interview respondents. We were able to 

get information on education and employment at entry for most families, but were not able to use 

the chart reviews for anything else because the amount of data missing from the charts was too 

great.
Appendix E: Chart Review 219
Appendix E: Chart Review 220
Appendix E: Chart Review 221
Appendix E: Chart Review 222
Appendix E: Chart Review 223
Appendix E: Chart Review 224
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 225 222 

Appendix F: Characteristics Of Transitional Housing For 

Homeless Families: Condensed Version 

This appendix provides a condensed version of a report on characteristics of family transitional 

housing programs that was completed in 2006 as an early product of this study. It includes the 

full introductory chapter, most of the tables from the original report but less text describing the 

results in the tables, and no summary chapter. 

The full 53-page report may be found at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411369.
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 226 223 

Characteristics of Transitional Housing 

for Homeless Families 

Final Report 

By

Martha R. Burt 

September 7, 2006 

Urban Institute 

2100 M Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20037 

www.urban.org 

The contents of this report are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or 

policies of the Office of Program Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, of Planmatics, Inc., or of the Urban Institute, its trustees, or funders. 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 227 224 

CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Introduction and Methods............................................................................1

Introduction............................................................................................................................... 227

Transitional Housing for Homeless Households .................................................................... 227

Evolution of Transitional Housing within the SHP ................................................................ 228

Growth of Transitional Housing ............................................................................................. 229

Need for Research................................................................................................................... 230

This Study and This Report .................................................................................................... 231

Methods...................................................................................................................................... 231

Stage 1 Sampling Design: Selecting Communities (CoCs).................................................... 231

Stage 2: Sampling Design for Selecting TH Programs from which to Recruit Exiting Families

................................................................................................................................................. 233

The Meaning of “A Program” in This Sample ................................................................... 233

Collecting Data Describing Programs ................................................................................ 234

Chapter 2: Program Characteristics ................................................................................................ 9

Basic Program Characteristics ................................................................................................ 235

Year Program Opened............................................................................................................. 235

Program Size........................................................................................................................... 235

Program Configuration and Need To Move ........................................................................... 236

Staffing Levels and Patterns ................................................................................................... 236

Maximum and Average Length of Stay.................................................................................. 237

Program Entry Procedures and Requirements ..................................................................... 237

Most Common Referral Sources............................................................................................. 237

Proportion of Applicants Accepted......................................................................................... 238

Characteristics Programs Require, Will Accept, or Will Reject............................................. 238

Sobriety Requirements........................................................................................................ 238

Restrictions Related to Children’s Number, Ages, and Gender ......................................... 239

The Most Common Reasons for Rejection......................................................................... 239

Chapter 3: Characteristics of Tenant Families........................................................................ 14

Length of Homelessness ......................................................................................................... 240

Where Families Were Before TH ........................................................................................... 241

Income and Benefits.................................................................................................................. 242

Income from Working............................................................................................................. 242

Income or Cash Equivalents from Public Programs............................................................... 242

Health Issues of Parents in TH Families................................................................................. 243

Mental Health Issues............................................................................................................... 243

Substance Abuse Issues .......................................................................................................... 244

Chapter 4: Program Services and Policies.................................................................................... 19
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 228 225 

Services Offered by Family TH PRograms ............................................................................ 245

Service Density ....................................................................................................................... 247

Three Top Agencies................................................................................................................ 247

Services that Families Use Most............................................................................................. 247

Important Aspects of Program Philosophy............................................................................. 248

Program Rules and Policies ..................................................................................................... 248

Policies About Alcohol, Drugs, and Criminal Activities........................................................ 249

Chapter 5: Program Outcomes and Indicators of Success............................................................ 23

“Successful” Program Exits..................................................................................................... 250

Time to Exit ............................................................................................................................ 251

Measuring Program Effectiveness........................................................................................... 251

Indicators of Effectiveness...................................................................................................... 251

Housing Outcomes .................................................................................................................... 252

Exits to Somewhere Other Than Permanent Housing ............................................................ 254

Type of Housing Subsidy........................................................................................................ 254

Unsuccessful Exits.................................................................................................................. 255

References......................................................................................................................................29
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 229 226 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Many individuals assisted us on this project; we would especially like to thank the following: 

• The staff and consultants to HUD’s Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs who 

helped us identify potential Continuums of Care and who made available to us the 2004 

CoC application Housing Activity Chart data for comparison to the family transitional 

housing programs in our sample. 

• The Continuum of Care conveners and support staff in the communities we contacted for 

potential participation, and especially those in the five selected communities for their 

assistance in developing final TH program lists and helping with program contacts. 

• The family TH program representatives who worked with us to complete the surveys on 

which this report is based. 

• HUD staff who provided very useful comments and feedback on earlier drafts, and 

helped with legislative and program history and implementation. 

• Kate Chambers and Alexandra Fiorillo, research assistants at the Urban Institute, who 

conducted the family TH program surveys, and Kate Chambers also for all the data 

analysis that contributed to this report. Also Dr. Janine Zweig, Senior Research Associate 

at the Urban Institute, for review and critical commentary on earlier drafts. 

We appreciate the significant contributions that the above individuals made to carrying out the 

research and writing of this report. They are not responsible for any remaining errors or 

omissions. The findings and views herein are those of the contractors and authors. 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 227 230

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND METHODS 

INTRODUCTION

The concept of transitional housing has a long history in the fields of mental health and 

corrections, predating its application to the homeless arena by decades. State and local public 

mental health and corrections departments developed these residential programs to ease the 

transition back into regular housing for people leaving mental hospitals or prisons. Stevens 

(2005) describes the history of halfway houses for people leaving correctional settings, and their 

transition quite recently into community residential centers. To use one state as an example, in 

1974 Ohio had 22 certified halfway houses for people leaving prison (Ohio Adult Parole 

Authority 2005). Policy makers in the mental health arena were also focusing on communitybased residential and nonresidential services during the 1970s and early 1980s (Biegel and 

Naparstek 1982). In 1982 an American Psychiatric Association task force published its report, A

Typology of Community Residential Services (APA 1984), which sought to establish a common 

nomenclature for residential programs serving people with serious mental illness located 

throughout the country. The task force had spent four years identifying, cataloging, and 

attempting to classify the many such programs in existence at that time. 

These community-based transitional programs were developed for many reasons, including a 

desire to avoid the high cost of institutional versus community-based care and a desire or legal 

obligation to maintain some intermediate level of supervision over people being released from 

institutions. One of the historical motivations for developing transitional community residential 

settings comes closest to the one driving the growth of transitional housing programs for 

homeless people. Officials running state agencies and institutions saw people fail in the 

community and return to institutions when they did not have the skills, connections, or supports 

that would help them establish themselves independently. Transitional programs were developed 

to increase the likelihood that those released from institutions would, once reinforced by the 

learning and development acquired during a period in a transitional program, be able to sustain 

independent living in the community. 

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING FOR HOMELESS HOUSEHOLDS

When homelessness first impressed itself on the national consciousness in the early 1980s, there 

was no such thing as transitional housing for homeless people. Even emergency shelters were 

few and far between, being run mostly by missions in run-down areas of big cities and 

accommodating mostly single men. The first expansion of homeless assistance took the form of 

more emergency shelter capacity. Only after several years of experience with people using 

emergency shelters did it become obvious that for some people emergency shelter would not be 

enough to help them leave homelessness for good. This recognition led to application of 

transitional and permanent supportive housing concepts to the field of homelessness. 

Most transitional housing programs for homeless people that exist today specialize in serving 

households with serious enough barriers to getting or keeping housing that a period of 

stabilization, learning, and planning appear needed if they are ultimately to leave homelessness 

and stay housed. These households may already have some history of leaving homelessness for 

housing but not being able to maintain the housing, or they may have characteristics that are 

known to lower the probability of being able to maintain housing without supports. 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 228 231

Federal legislation to support the development of transitional housing programs for homeless 

people was first introduced in 1986, and ultimately incorporated into the first Stewart B. 

McKinney Homeless Assistance Act in 1987 as part of the Supportive Housing Program (SHP). 

After a couple of years during which different SHP components authorized by the legislation 

were administered in different HUD offices, HUD created the Office of Special Needs 

Assistance Programs (SNAPS) in the division of Community Planning and Development to 

consolidate the pieces and manage and direct an integrated program. 

EVOLUTION OF TRANSITIONAL HOUSING WITHIN THE SHP

When the SHP was first conceived and enacted, both transitional housing (TH) and permanent 

supportive housing (PSH) were established as demonstration programs with a focus on serving 

people with chronic disabilities. Among other target populations, the first transitional housing 

programs served people with serious mental illness or possibly long-standing substance abuse. 

The original name of the permanent housing component of the SHP reflects this intent— 

“permanent housing for the handicapped homeless.” 

Annual competitions for SHP funds were nationwide, with each provider agency applying for 

and receiving grants based on its own ability to write applications and justify local need for the 

projects it wanted to develop. Some sophisticated providers did very well in these competitions. 

These tended to work in central cities, and their requests tended to be for programs to serve 

single homeless adults with disabilities, according to the original SHP concept. The process was 

not one that assured most communities of receiving funds for SHP projects, or even that funded 

projects were the highest priority use of additional resources for the communities that did receive 

grants.

The expectation underlying the SHP’s demonstration nature was that HUD would fund projects 

that would demonstrate their value to local communities, which would then assume 

responsibility for ongoing funding. As the years went on, it became clear that local funding was 

not going to replace federal funding. In 1992, Congress transformed the program from a 

demonstration to a permanent discretionary grants program and the SHP gradually took on the 

burden of renewal funding. 

The statute governing the SHP in this form provides great flexibility as to how communities can 

conceptualize and implement transitional housing. One of the few statutory limitations placed on 

TH is that it cannot provide housing for more than 24 months. Another requirement is that TH 

programs offer supportive services designed to help clients make the transition to regular 

housing, including the option that supportive services continue for up to six months after official 

program exit. 

HUD has allowed the form of housing offered by TH programs, the populations served, and the 

structure and array of supportive services to vary widely. The housing can be project-based (in a 

single building or complex of buildings) or tenant-based (scattered-site), and since shortly after 

the program was enacted HUD has allowed “transition in place” formats that let clients stay in 

their program units and eventually take over the lease, with supportive services being gradually 

withdrawn. TH projects can serve a variety of homeless populations, including single adults with 

a variety of disabilities, families, domestic violence victims, and women seeking to regain 

custody of their children. TH projects may provide a wide array of services, depending on the 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 229 232

needs of the population being served. Service configurations are flexible, including on-site by 

program staff, on-site by partner agencies, off-site at other agencies, off-site at client homes, 

multi-agency teams, and other approaches. Program administration ranges from simple to 

extremely complex. Some agencies manage all aspects of their TH programs, from capital 

development (if relevant) to building maintenance and operations, to services and supports. At 

the other extreme, some TH projects involve multiple organizations—for instance, a community 

development corporation could have renovated the building, a for-profit management company 

could do the maintenance and operations, the agency that “officially” runs the TH could do the 

case management, and one or more other agencies could have partnering agreements to provide 

on-site services such as health care, child care, or after-school activities. 

With the shift to a discretionary grants program, SNAPS staff began to think about how they 

could promote a more balanced distribution of funds to communities that the national form of 

competition had left unfunded. On an experimental basis beginning in 1994, HUD developed the 

concept of a Continuum of Care (CoC), under which SHP applications would come from whole 

communities and be prioritized through community-wide assessment and planning processes that 

considered overall community needs. In 1996 HUD began requiring this CoC form of SHP 

application, coupling the requirement with an incentive—the pro rata share of SHP funds that 

would go to each community in the United States if it wrote a qualifying application. HUD 

published the pro rata shares in the Federal Register, allowing each community to see how much 

it could get if it submitted a qualifying application, and how much would go to some other 

community if it did not apply. Gradually most communities in the country formed CoCs or 

joined existing ones. In 2005, HUD received applications from 475 CoCs. The number of CoCs 

applying in 2006 was 454, reflecting some degree of consolidation of smaller CoCs into larger 

ones.

A deliberate consequence of the CoC approach has been that smaller cities, suburban counties, 

and rural communities are as likely as central cities to apply for SHP funds, and to receive them 

if their application scores in the competitive range. Since a core principle of the CoC approach is 

that communities set their own priorities about how to use SHP resources, HUD began to see 

more applications for transitional housing for families and for domestic violence victims, who 

characterized suburban and rural homelessness much more than the single adult long-term 

homeless populations for which central cities are known. As of 2005, about half of all 

transitional housing beds are designated to serve single adults and half are designated to serve 

families, including families fleeing domestic violence and families homeless for other reasons. 

GROWTH OF TRANSITIONAL HOUSING 

It took several years for communities to obtain funding for transitional housing programs and 

then to develop and open them for business. By 1996, about eight years after the Supportive 

Housing Program first became law, transitional housing programs were a fact of life in many 

U.S. communities. The National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients estimated 

that 4,400 transitional housing programs were open and operating in February 1996, offering 

about 160,000 beds. About one-third of these programs served families exclusively, while 

another one-third served families among other types of clients (Burt et al. 1999, chapter 15).

The number of transitional housing programs has continued to expand. Over 7,000 transitional 

housing programs existed in 2004, according to the 495 CoCs that applied for HUD funding in 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 230 233

that year. This number represents an increase of about 60 percent since 1996. These programs 

were reported to offer 220,000 beds, an expansion of about 38 percent in capacity. The 

expansion in programs being so much greater than the expansion in capacity suggests that many 

of the newer programs are relatively small. About 53 percent of the beds reported in 2004 are 

designated for families, creating a capacity to serve about 40,000 three-person families at a time 

in transitional housing units. 

NEED FOR RESEARCH 

In the early years of the SHP, HUD commissioned some basic research to describe the programs 

being created with SHP funding. Results indicated that in 1992 TH programs were serving over 

10,000 households a year, of whom almost half were families with children. Programs also 

seemed to be having some impact—families who completed their TH program were twice as 

likely to move to stable housing as families who left TH early (Matulef et al., 1995). Further, the 

proportion employed had doubled by the time of program exit, and receipt of most types of 

public assistance had declined somewhat. 

Since that early research, HUD has used information from Annual Progress Reports (APRs) to 

gain more understanding of the clients served by SHP programs and the outcomes they achieve. 

Given the great flexibility and growth in the transitional housing component of the SHP, HUD 

decided to conduct additional research to more carefully assess TH dynamics and performance. 

A more formal assessment was needed to capture the culture and context of transitional housing 

projects for families. This research was also needed to assess the value of transitional housing as 

a housing model. Given limited resources to provide housing for homeless persons, it is 

important to determine the efficacy of transitional housing as a housing model. If it were 

determined that permanent supportive housing (PSH) were a more effective housing approach, 

communities might choose to convert some HUD-funded TH units to PSH.36

Finally, there is a practical reason to explore the universe of transitional housing programs. The 

assumption underlying the development of TH is that some homeless people need more 

assistance than is available through emergency shelters before they will be able to sustain 

housing on their own. From this assumption follows the expectation that the households 

receiving TH should have significantly more barriers to getting and keeping housing than the 

average household coming through emergency shelters. “Just” being homeless should not be a 

sufficient criterion for TH eligibility. The household should also have issues for which it needs 

the intensive supports offered by TH programs. These issues might include, alone or in 

combination, recovery from addictions, reunification with children and assumption of 

appropriate parental roles, or stabilization of mental illness. The assumption behind TH programs 

is that if households get help with these issues before entering permanent housing, they might be 

expected to have better long-term housing outcomes. We need to know how many TH programs 

resemble this concept of TH, and how many differ from it and in what ways. 

36 Current statutory requirements clearly limit such a conversion strategy at present, however, since people do not 

have to be disabled to participate in transitional housing, but having a disability is a requirement to access PSH. 

Transitional housing allows a family to be housed and receive needed services until permanent housing units 

become available; once the family moves on, the transitional unit is freed up to house and support another family. 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 231 234

THIS STUDY AND THIS REPORT 

This report was written in preparation for a larger study sponsored by HUD’s Office of Policy 

Development and Research, to examine the effects of transitional housing on homeless families. 

The larger study involves following a sample of homeless families for one year after they leave 

transitional housing, to understand what happens to them and the ways in which TH program 

participation may have helped them retain housing. Preparation for this work included surveys of 

transitional housing programs in five communities, to gather the information that would let us 

describe TH program elements. Characterizations of TH programs will be used as part of the 

ultimate analyses of this project—to determine their effects on family outcomes. 

Among the other uses of this program information, paramount is gaining a basic understanding 

of TH programs, residents, and outcomes as seen from the perspective of program directors.37

This report provides the relevant information. It answers the first research questions of this 

project:

1. How can the universe of TH programs be categorized, or at least understood, in relation 

to a program’s willingness to address families with different types and levels of housing 

barriers? What proportion of programs takes only the most housing-ready families, and 

what proportion work with families with many barriers? 

2. How can TH programs be categorized in relation to their service offerings? What is the 

expected length of time needed to “complete” the program? What is the range of 

maximum lengths of stay? What services are available? What must families do to stay in 

the program? 

METHODS

To select transitional housing programs to interview and ultimately from which to select families 

to follow, we used a three-stage sampling design. In Stage 1, we selected CoCs. During Stage 2, 

we screened and then selected TH programs within CoCs. In Stage 3, we recruited clients from 

the selected TH programs. This report presents what we learned as a result of the first two stages. 

STAGE 1 SAMPLING DESIGN: SELECTING COMMUNITIES (COCS)

We began at the CoC level for the practical reason that doing so grouped the programs and the 

families to be interviewed within a few limited geographical areas, making it possible to 

establish interviewing capabilities without prohibitive expense. We could thus recruit five or six 

TH programs per community and have five local liaisons responsible for interviewing, rather 

than spreading the same 25 or 30 programs and resources around 25 or 30 communities. We also 

wanted to begin at the CoC level so we could pick communities that together represented 

geographical diversity, a range of cultural and ethnic groups, economic expansion or contraction, 

and some variation in the housing markets. 

We looked for CoCs that met three criteria: 

37 The final report will address the same issues based on interview responses from former TH program clients. 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 232 235

• Enough TH capacity to allow us to reach our family recruitment goal for each CoC of 60 

families leaving TH within our recruitment period. 

• With high coverage for their family emergency shelters in their homeless management 

information system (HMIS). We wanted CoCs with a functioning HMIS for two 

purposes—to be able to check for return to homelessness once families leave TH, and to 

locate families for interviewing who have returned to the homeless assistance system 

when we cannot find them at their last residence. Also, if HMIS coverage of TH 

programs is high enough, we will be able to compare our sample to the universe of family 

TH users. Doing so will either increase our confidence that we had a representative 

sample of TH program families or let us know what biases exist in our sample. 

• Variation in housing and employment markets—especially seeking housing markets that 

have some affordable housing available, or that make housing affordable through housing 

subsidies. 

By making a series of assumptions about average lengths of stay, proportion of families that 

leave TH programs “successfully,” and the number of beds in the average TH family unit, we 

determined how many family TH beds a CoC would need to have for us to make our recruitment 

goals. That total was between 400 and 700 beds, depending on a number of other assumptions. 

Next we needed a source of information about communities and the number of their family TH 

beds, coupled with information about their HMIS. We turned to the database being maintained 

by the staff of Abt Associates working on the Annual Homeless Assistance Report (AHAR) 

project. For the AHAR, Abt staff had selected a random sample of 80 cities and counties 

representative of the whole country, and were in the process of assisting them with their HMIS 

and getting an accurate picture of their homeless assistance providers and beds. In fall and winter 

2004, Abt staff had just updated their database on emergency, transitional, and permanent 

supportive housing beds, for singles and families, in these 80 communities, and obtained an 

estimate of HMIS coverage. 

Abt staff have generously shared the resulting spreadsheet, giving us the first two pieces of 

information we needed about each county— (1) the number of emergency, TH, and PSH beds in 

the county (or possibly in the whole CoC), separately for individuals and families; and (2) how 

many of the beds in each category are currently covered by the HMIS. Thirteen counties had no 

providers at all; our attention focused on the remaining 67 counties, plus several communities 

with high HMIS coverage recommended to us by Abt staff. 

We identified 15 or 16 communities with potentially enough family TH and reasonably high 

HMIS coverage, and interviewed representatives to determine how feasible it would be to 

conduct family recruitment from their TH programs. If the initial discussions with CoC 

conveners or other knowledgeable people elicited enthusiasm, we scheduled in person or 

conference call meetings to explore further. Attending these meetings were CoC conveners or 

other contact people in the community, plus as many directors of TH programs as we could get 

to participate. We used these meetings and calls to describe the project, assess provider 

enthusiasm to cooperate, get a better handle on client flow and turnover, try to understand the 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 233 236

concept of “graduation” or “successful exit” as it applied locally, and answer any questions that 

providers or other CoC representatives might have. 

The result of these efforts was selection of five CoCs to participate in the study that as a group 

met our criteria for geographical, racial/ethnic, and economic diversity, and gave us the 

opportunity to include suburban as well as central city programs. All five CoCs also appeared to 

have an adequate number of family TH programs and projected client flow to meet the project’s 

family recruitment goals. The five CoCs are: 

• Cleveland and Cuyahoga County, Ohio; 

• Detroit and parts of Wayne County, Michigan; 

• Houston and Harris County, Texas; 

• San Diego City and County, California; 

• Seattle and King County, Washington. 

STAGE 2: SAMPLING DESIGN FOR SELECTING TH PROGRAMS FROM WHICH TO RECRUIT 

EXITING FAMILIES 

Our goal was to select five to seven family TH programs from each of the 5 CoCs in this study 

(25 to 35 TH programs total). To arrive at that number, we conducted screening interviews with 

up to 15 family TH programs per CoC. We had the further criterion of program size—we did not 

screen or select programs with 10 or fewer beds (i.e., one to three families in residence at a time), 

because they would not have produced enough opportunity for recruitment to make inclusion 

worthwhile. For the four CoCs that had 15 or fewer family TH programs with at least 11 beds, 

we screened all of them for potential inclusion in the study. In the fifth CoC we stratified the 

programs by size and location (city vs. county) and randomly selected programs from each 

stratum for screening interviews. 

The Meaning of “A Program” in This Sample 

Because “program” means different things in different contexts, it is important for the reader to 

know what “a program” means for this project’s sample. The Housing Activity Charts we used 

as the first pass at our sampling frame most often list programs in relation to funding. As these 

charts are done for HUD, the relevant funding issue is the type of funding received (e.g., 

Supportive Housing Program, Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS, Shelter +Care), and 

the first year of the grant. Thus, an agency may have received two or more HUD grants, in 

different years, to do essentially the same thing with the same staff, but for more people. Thus 

the agency adds either facility-based or scattered-site units with the second grant, but still uses 

the same staff to assess eligibility, against the same eligibility criteria, and simply houses a 

family in the first available opening. 

For purposes of this study, we treated these two “programs” as one program, because for family 

recruitment purposes we needed to go to the same people to find out what was happening with 

the families. Thus, the 53 program interviews we completed cover more than 53 “programs” in 

the Housing Activity Chart sense, including: 

• 8 in Cleveland covering 8 Housing Activity Chart programs 

• 7 in Detroit covering 9 Housing Activity Chart programs 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 234 237

• 12 in Houston covering 12 Housing Activity Chart programs 

• 13 in San Diego covering 15 Housing Activity Chart programs, and 

• 13 in Seattle covering 16 Housing Activity Chart programs. 

Other discrepancies that exist between our interview sample and the programs listed under 

transitional housing in the Housing Activity Charts stem from misclassifications in the Housing 

Activity Charts. In four of our five CoCs, we pre-screened every program with 11 or more beds 

listed as family transitional housing on the Housing Activity Charts; in the fifth site we checked 

all listed programs of 11+ beds with the CoC convener, and then conducted pre-screening calls 

with more than 20 programs. We also cross-checked our results with the CoC convener for the 

community and sometimes other knowledgeable people. After double- and triple-checking the 

nature of each program, we dropped the following types of programs from our list as not 

complying with the meaning of family transitional housing in HUD’s sense: 90-day substance 

abuse treatment programs, programs listed as “family” that turned out to be just for single 

women, programs that were essentially emergency shelters (less than three months expected 

length of stay with most people leaving sooner, little or no screening for families with intensive 

service needs, and relatively little by way of intensive services or supports), programs whose 

typical leaver went on to another TH program, programs strictly for refugees and asylum seekers, 

and, for obvious practical reasons, programs that had closed and programs that were not yet 

open.

Collecting Data Describing Programs 

To gather the information we needed to describe family TH programs, we conducted screening 

interviews by telephone with the directors of all the programs in our sample. The program 

interview covered the following topics (Appendix A provides the full Screener):

• The housing configuration (single site, clustered scattered, completely scattered),

• Whether families need to move (transition in place vs. needing to move to another place), 

• Intake/screening criteria for families (do eligibility criteria include: sobriety or active 

substance abuse, serious mental illness or not, co-occurring disorders or not, HIV/AIDS, 

work history, housing history, housing barriers such as criminal record or multiple 

evictions, number/ages/gender of children, or domestic violence), 

• The proportion of families with successful exits, 

• The meaning of successful exit, 

• Who leaves without graduating, and why, 

• Length of stay information (the maximum allowed, the average for successful leavers, the 

average for others), 

• Supportive services while in TH, 

• Follow-up services information (official duration, average actual duration, attrition, what 

is offered), and 

• Housing and other outcomes known to the program. 

The remainder of this report presents our findings with respect to these topics. 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 235 238

CHAPTER 2: PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS 

This chapter presents survey results for program characteristics. We first review basic 

characteristics such as program size, configuration (single facility, scattered site, mixed model, 

other), the need for a family to move once it has completed TH program offerings, how long the 

program has been open, staffing levels and patterns, and maximum and average lengths of stay. 

We then turn to the program entry process, including referral sources, entry requirements, and 

the likelihood that an applicant family will be accepted into the program. 

BASIC PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS

YEAR PROGRAM OPENED 

The family transitional housing programs in our sample are mostly experienced programs with 

five or more years of experience serving families. One-fourth opened in 1990 or earlier, another 

one-fourth opened between 1991 and 1995, about one-third opened between 1996 and 1999, and 

one in five opened in 2000 or later. The largest programs—those with 40 or more units, appear to 

be either quite new (38 percent opened in 2000 or later), or quite old (50 percent were open by 

1990). Opening dates for programs of other sizes are more evenly distributed over the time frame 

we examined, without any particular relationship between program size and opening year. 

PROGRAM SIZE

The most basic program characteristic 

is size—how many families the 

program is able to serve at one time. 

This is also the only program 

characteristic for which we can 

compare our sample to national data, 

using information from the 2004 CoC 

application Housing Activity Charts. 

We can therefore assess how 

representative our sample of family TH 

programs is of all family TH programs 

in the United States. Table 2.1 shows 

the relevant data, comparing the national distribution of family TH programs by size, as reported 

on Housing Activity charts, and the distribution of the 53 programs with screening interviews. 

Table 2.1: Family TH Program Size 

National Statistics Compared to Research Sample of 

TH Programs 

Program size, 

in number of 

family units 

National distribution 

of TH programs 

reported to HUD in 

2004 (n ~ 7,000) 

Programs with 

screening interviews 

for this research (n = 

53) 

3–9 units 57% 17% 

10–19 units 26% 38% 

20–29 units 9% 23% 

30–39 units 3% 7% 

40+ units 5% 15% 

100% 100% 

Nationally, more than half of family TH programs are very small, containing three to nine units 

(table 2.1, first column). Assuming three beds per unit, on average, these programs can serve 

between 9 to 27 people at a time. Only 5 percent of family TH programs across the nation have 

40 or more units. Among programs screened to be included in this research, however, 15 percent 

have 40 or more units and only 17 percent are very small. 

As a practical matter this project needed bigger projects to be able to meet our family recruitment 

goals, so we did not screen very small projects—those with 10 or fewer beds (three or fewer 

units). As table 2.1 shows, the distribution of screened programs has, by design, far fewer very 

small programs and significantly more programs with 10 or more units than is true nationally 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 236 239

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION AND NEED TO MOVE 

Transitional housing programs for families can assume a variety of housing configurations. They 

can be “single-site,” with one program facility dedicated to transitional housing and containing 

all the units that families in the program occupy. They can be “scattered-site,” with families 

living in apartments in whatever area or neighborhood they can find a place to stay, and with 

supportive services being offered either at a central program location, at their own home, or both. 

Some programs are “clustered-scattered,” with the program controlling a number of multi-unit 

buildings, usually of two to six units, on different blocks or in different neighborhoods, in which 

it houses families. Among the programs screened for this project, almost three in five (58 

percent) are single site, about one in four (26 percent) are scattered site, and 15 percent operate 

in the clustered-scattered configuration. Among programs screened for this project, 23 percent 

offer the option of transitioning in place. Program size is not systematically associated with 

either program configuration or the need to move at the end of program participation. 

STAFFING LEVELS AND PATTERNS 

Staffing levels and patterns are essential characteristics of any program. In TH, staff are often 

what makes “the difference” for a family in sustaining a commitment to do what it takes to leave 

homelessness. On average, the TH programs in our sample have 6.9 full-time staff, 2.4 part-time 

staff, and 7.6 full-time equivalents. They have 5.2 staff on duty during regular weekday hours, 

1.8 staff on duty on weekday evenings, and 1.4 staff on duty on weekends.

Staffing ratios for all programs combined were about two FTE per five family units. On average, 

during weekdays one staff person was on duty for every three units in the program. That 

proportion went down to 1 staff person for every 10 units for weekdays after hours, and 1 staff 

person for every 12 units on weekends. 

Bigger programs had more staff but not more staff per family. There is, in fact, a strong 

systematic negative relationship between program size and staffing ratio for every staffing 

measure—FTEs, day, evening, and weekend coverage. The smaller the program, the higher the 

staff-to-family ratio. Using weekend staffing ratios as an example, the average for all programs is 

1 staff to 12 units. The ratio for the smallest programs, with 3 to 9 units, is 1 staff to 7 units; for 

programs with 10 to 19 units, 20 to 39 units, and 40 or more units, the ratios are 1:12, 1:14, and 

1:20, respectively. Single-site programs have the highest staffing ratios regardless of which 

measure one uses, clustered-scattered configurations have the next-highest ratios in most 

categories, and completely scattered-site programs have the lowest ratios of all, although daytime 

coverage for the two scattered-site models is about the same. 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 237 240

MAXIMUM AND AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY

HUD rules allow TH programs to offer stays 

of up to 24 months. We asked program 

representatives how long their program 

allowed clients to stay—that is, their 

maximum length of stay. Table 2.3 shows 

their answers. The average maximum length 

of stay is 21 months (bottom row). Twothirds of family TH programs allow the HUD 

maximum of 24 months, 11 percent allow 

between 19 and 23 months, and 21 percent 

have maximums of 12 or fewer months. No program has an official maximum between 13 and 

Table 2.3: Maximum Length of Stay that 

Family TH Programs Allow (n = 53) 

Maximum length of stay, 

in months 

Percent of family TH 

programs allowing: 

12 or fewer months 21% 

13–18 months 0%

19–23 months 11% 

24 months 68% 

Mean number of months 21

18 months. 

Table 2.4: Length of Stay in Family TH 

Programs (n = 53) 

Leaving within... Proportion of families 

1–3 months 15% 

4–6 months 17% 

7–9 months 11% 

10–12 months 19% 

13–18 months 23% 

19–23 months 14% 

24 months 2%

Mean number of months 12

We also asked programs how long their 

families actually stay. Relatively few families 

take advantage of TH programs’ potential 

lengths of stay, as table 2.4 shows. The mean 

length of stay across programs is 12 months 

(bottom row of table 2.4). On average across 

programs, 15 percent of families leave within 1 

to 3 months, 17 percent leave within 4 to 6 

months, 11 percent leave within 7 to 9 months, 

and 19 percent leave within 10 to 12 months, 

totaling 62 percent of all families who leave 

TH programs within one year. Twenty-three percent leave after 13 to 18 months, 14 percent stay 

19 to 23 months, and, on average across the TH programs in our sample, only 2 percent stay the 

full 24 months that HUD allows. 

Some families accepted into TH programs never settle in and leave quickly. Some programs 

have quite a lot of these families—in one program out of six, more than 25 percent of families 

leave within one to three months of program entry (not shown in table). One thing we hope to 

learn from the family interviews being done for this study is whether these short stays satisfy the 

families’ needs and leave them able to find and keep housing, or whether some important needs 

go unmet when stays are this short. Most programs retain most of their families beyond this 

point, with 42 percent of programs having fewer than 5 percent of their families leave that 

quickly (not shown). Program size is definitely related to average length of stay. In the smaller 

programs—those with 19 or fewer units—more than half the families leave in less than 12 

months, while in the larger programs the modal length of stay is in the 13 to 18 month range. 

PROGRAM ENTRY PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS 

MOST COMMON REFERRAL SOURCES 

To get an idea of how TH families get to their programs, we asked providers to name the three 

most common sources of referral. At 89 and 79 percent respectively, shelters and community 

service providers are by far the most common sources that refer families to the TH programs in 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 238 241

our sample. Only two other sources were named by at least one in four programs—outreach 

workers (25 percent) and family or friends (28 percent). The survey specifically inquired about 

seven other potential referral sources—drop-in centers, soup kitchens/meal programs, police, 

clergy, criminal justice system sources, health care sources, and mental health care sources. No 

program said that soup kitchens were one of their top three referral sources. Between 2 and 9 

percent of programs named one of the remaining potential sources as one of their most common 

links to potential new clients. Program size did not make a difference for referral sources. 

PROPORTION OF APPLICANTS ACCEPTED 

We asked programs to tell us what proportion they accept of the families who approach or are 

referred to their program to see if they are eligible. One in four programs (25 percent) accept all 

or almost all referrals. This may be somewhat of an exaggeration, because some programs only 

consider families who have been prescreened by emergency shelters, so they are only 

approached by families they are likely to accept. At the other extreme, about twice as many 

programs (47 percent) accept only one-third or fewer of potential applicants. In between, 16 

percent of programs accept about three in every four referrals, and 12 percent of programs accept 

about half of the families who seek to participate. 

CHARACTERISTICS PROGRAMS REQUIRE, WILL ACCEPT, OR WILL REJECT 

One of the biggest decisions that any program serving homeless people makes is which people 

they will accept and which people they will refuse to serve. Some programs specialize, and will 

recruit and train staff with specific skills to be able to serve clients with specific characteristics. 

This is not to say that programs will reject families with the “harder” characteristics—in fact, 

some programs specialize in helping people with co-occurring mental illness and substance 

abuse disorders, or who have histories of being either victims or perpetrators of violence. As it is 

important to learn which family characteristics are acceptable to programs and which are highly 

likely to result in a rejected application, we asked program respondents to tell us which of a long 

list of characteristics are required by their program, acceptable but not required, or not acceptable 

(would result in rejection if known at entry). Table 2.5 presents the results. 

Sobriety Requirements 

Eighty-five percent of family TH programs require parents to be clean and sober at entry, and 89 

percent will reject active substance abusers. However, all programs expected to be dealing with 

substance abuse and addiction as a major challenge for their families. Their entry requirements 

pertain to the parent’s immediate circumstances, not to their history. Program representatives 

who indicated requirements related to sobriety were asked to describe their program’s policy on 

the length of sobriety required for acceptance. As treatment programs tend to operate in monthlong increments, the answers were mostly phrased in terms of “30 days,” 90 days,” and so on. 

Equal proportions of programs—22 percent in each case—require at least 30 days, at least 90 

days, and at least 180 days of sobriety. Nine percent require a year or more. At the other extreme, 

7 percent require fewer than 30 days, including 4 percent with no requirements. An additional 11 

percent do not state their requirements in terms of days sober. Rather, they require either that the 

person have successfully completed a drug treatment program or that she pass a drug test. 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 239 242

Table 2.5: Criteria for Selecting Program Clients 

(n = 53; percent of programs; rows add to 100%) 

Criterion: Required Acceptable Not acceptable 

18 or older 87 11 2

Reside in city/county where program located 23 77 0

Homeless (Living in a shelter or 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) 

91 9 0

Diagnosis of severe and persistent mental illness 

(SPMI)

0 72 28

SPMI plus a co-occurring diagnosis (substance abuse 

or major medical) 

0 68 32

Active substance abuser 0 11 89

Clean and sober at program entry 85 15 0

Has HIV/AIDS 2 96 2

Has felony criminal record 0 89 11

Has sexual offender criminal record 0 28 72

Has history that includes own violence against or 

abuse of children or adults 

2 47 51

Able to participate in developing and carrying out an 

appropriate treatment plan 

91 9 0

Has poor rental history, multiple evictions 100 0 0

Physical disabilities requiring accommodation (e.g., 

wheelchairs, ramps, sign language interpretation) 

0 89 13

Some history of working for pay 2 98 0

No history of working for pay 0 96 4

Restrictions based on number/ages/gender of children 62 38 0

History of victimization by domestic or sexual 

violence

21 79 0

Restrictions Related to Children’s Number, Ages, and Gender 

About three programs in five have restrictions related to the number, ages, and gender of 

children. Such restrictions vary greatly. Some have to do with the sheer size of the available 

housing units and the number of bedrooms each contains—examples include “no more than six 

children,” “no more than two children of each sex,” “two or three children,” and even “one 

child.” Other restrictions have to do with children’s ages. Some of these specify necessary ages, 

such as “one must be an infant” or “at least one under 14,” while others specify the ages they 

exclude, such as “none over age seven” or “no adult children—i.e., no child 18 or older.” Of the 

36 programs describing restrictions related to children’s characteristics, none described a strict 

criterion such as “only female children.” But eight programs (15 percent of all programs in the 

survey) mentioned restrictions for male children of certain ages. 

The Most Common Reasons for Rejection 

After going through the list of possible criteria shown in table 2.5 for accepting or rejecting 

clients, the survey asked respondents an open-ended question—to name the three top reasons for 

rejecting families applying to their program. Most responses fell into seven major categories: 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 240 243

1. Availability—the program had no units available at the time, or no units that would have 

fit the family applying. 

2. Unwillingness to commit to the participation requirements—families wanted the housing, 

but not the expectations for setting and working toward goals. 

3. Incomplete applications—families do not complete the application process, do not bring 

in the necessary papers, do not show up for appointments. 

4. Not fitting the type of program—not being homeless, for any of the programs, and not 

meeting specific criteria of specialized programs –not having children, not being a DV 

victim or still being involved with the abuser, not being a teenager, not being pregnant, 

having too many children or the wrong age children, and so on. 

5. Not fitting employment/self-sufficiency criteria—not working or being ready to work, 

not having an income or an expectation of one. 

6. Drug-related—failed drug tests, recent use, not completing drug treatment programs. 

7. If mentally ill, not stabilized on medications. 

CHAPTER 3: CHARACTERISTICS OF TENANT FAMILIES 

LENGTH OF HOMELESSNESS 

Programs were asked about how long their 

families had been homeless, for the spell of 

homelessness they were in when they came 

to the TH program and in terms of their 

lifetime, if the program knew. Table 3.1 

displays the results, first for current spells 

and then for all homeless spells taken 

together, including the current spell. Current 

spells of homelessness for most TH program 

families tend to be short. On average, 

programs report that 81 percent of their 

families had been homeless for less than a 

year when they came to the TH program. 

Another 11 percent had been homeless 

between 13 and 24 months. Conversely, only 

2 percent of families were in spells that had 

already lasted more than 60 months (five 

years)—a very long time for parent and 

children to be homeless. Programs did not 

know the pre-program length of the current 

homeless spell for 4 percent of the families 

they were serving. Lifetime homelessness was not known for many more families (30 percent). 

Table 3.1: Length of Current and 

Lifetime Homelessness of Families in 

TH Programs 

(n = 52) 

Spell length 

Average for all TH 

program families 

Current spell, up to 

enrollment in TH program 

0–12 months 81% 

13–24 months 11% 

25–60 months 2% 

More than 60 months 2%

Don’t know 4%

Lifetime, all spells 

including current spell 

0–12 months 45% 

13–24 months 16% 

25–60 months 6%

More than 60 months 4%

Don’t know 30% 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 241 244

A definite relationship exists between program size and client families’ length of homelessness. 

The smaller programs tend not to have any families whose homelessness at program entry has 

extended more than 24 months, and the norm is for spells of 12 or fewer months. The larger 

programs accommodate families who have been homeless longer, although even for them, 

families with spell lengths greater than 24 months are a relatively small proportion of the 

population they serve. 

WHERE FAMILIES WERE BEFORE TH

Program representatives were asked how many of their current families had been staying in 

various locations just before entering their program. Locations asked about included “the 

streets,” which included nonshelter referral sources such as drop-in, day, resource, or warming 

centers for homeless people; emergency shelters, safe havens (a phrase that has various meanings 

in different communities, often not corresponding to HUD’s Safe Haven programs), other TH 

programs, and “somewhere else.” Table 3.2 displays their answers. 

Looking first at the average proportion that entered TH programs from each source (bottom row 

of table 3.2), we can see that 57 percent of TH families, on average, came from emergency 

shelters. However, that leaves almost half of all families that come from other places, of which 

the most common after shelters is institutions, substance abuse or mental health treatment 

programs, and even regular housing. Thus a significant proportion of families entering TH are 

not coming in a lock-step pattern directly from emergency shelters. 

Emergency 

shelters are 

clearly the 

major source 

of families 

entering TH, 

with 17 percent 

of programs 

saying that all 

their families 

come from this 

source and 

only 8 percent 

saying that 

none of their 

families were 

in emergency 

shelter before 

coming to their 

program. “Somewhere else” is a surprisingly common sending source for TH families. Probably 

the most common such senders are substance abuse treatment programs, as quite a number of TH 

programs indicated that completing such programs was a prerequisite to entering their program. 

Also, for the approximately 9 percent of families that were not literally homeless just before 

entering TH, some may have come from conventional dwellings (i.e., from family or friends), or 

from institutions such as jails or hospitals. 

Table 3.2: Where Families Were Staying Just Before Entering 

TH

(n = 53, percentage of programs; columns sum to ~100 percent) 

Proportion of 

program families 

entering from: Streets,

including

drop-in and 

day centers 

Emergency 

shelters

Safe

havens

Other TH 

programs

Somewhere

else*

 None 58 8 70 60 34

 1–25% 38 23 21 28 36

 26–50% 2 13 6 9 13

 51–75% 2 17 4 0 11

 76–99% 0 23 0 0 6

 100% 0 17 0 2 0

Average proportion 

from each source 6 57 7 8 22

* E.g., institutions, conventional dwellings 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 242 245

INCOME AND BENEFITS 

 Program representatives were first asked what proportion of their current families has no cash 

income from any source. In 47 percent of the TH programs in this sample, all families have at 

least some cash income. The largest programs—those with 40 or more family units—were least 

likely to be in this group. However, among the 53 percent of programs in which some families 

had no income, the proportion of families with no income was not related to program size. 

INCOME FROM WORKING

One of the primary goals of transitional housing programs is to help families move toward selfsufficiency through employment. Although we did not include it as a specific eligibility criterion 

in our survey, many programs mentioned work-readiness as one of the things they look for in 

prospective families. One of the major reasons that programs give for rejecting an applicant is 

that a family does not meet the program’s work-ready standards, including at a minimum an 

interest in and willingness to 

seek work. We asked 

program representatives 

what proportion of their 

current families are actually 

employed. As can be seen in 

table 3.3, some considerable 

proportion of parents in TH 

families are working—34 

percent full time and 21 

percent part time, on 

average.

INCOME OR CASH

EQUIVALENTS FROM PUBLIC PROGRAMS 

Table 3.3: Involvement of TH Program Families in 

Work

(n = 53, percentage of programs; within panels, columns sum to ~100 percent) 

Proportion of program 

families working for pay Full-time

employme 

nt

Part-time

employment

Other work 

for pay 

 None 13 23 87

 1–25% 26 43 13

 26–50% 40 21 0

 51% or more 21 11 0

Mean proportion 34 21 1

When families have no income from working, programs usually try to help them qualify for 

public benefits. Many families arrive at TH programs already enrolled in public programs, as this 

is one of the tasks usually associated with emergency shelters. We asked whether families in TH 

programs received a variety of cash and noncash public benefits. Table 3.4 shows the proportion 

of TH program families that receive each of these benefits. 

It is clear from the data in table 3.4 that TH families rely mostly on TANF (or GA, but mostly 

TANF), food stamps, and Medicaid. On average across programs, 68 percent of families get food 

stamps, 56 percent are Medicaid beneficiaries, and 40 percent are enrolled in TANF. The 

relatively lower proportion of programs with all their families on TANF compared to those on 

food stamps and Medicaid (roughly half) probably reflects the work effort of many TH families 

combined with their ability to retain Medicaid benefits even after leaving TANF, and to access 

food stamps whether or not they are TANF beneficiaries. Only a handful of programs have less 

than 25 percent of their families on food stamps, and 70 percent have half or more of their 

families on these important benefits. 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 243 246

Table 3.4: Public Income and Benefits Sources of Families in TH Programs 

(n = 53, percentage of programs; within panels, columns sum to ~100 percent) 

Proportion of program 

families with income 

from: 

Cash income sources Noncash benefits 

TANF

or GA 

SSI DI Veterans 

Benefits

Food

Stamps

Medicaid Medicare

 None 23 38 75 89 8 23 87

 1–10% 8 38 21 8 0 2 6

 11–25% 11 21 4 4 4 6 4

 26–50% 24 4 0 0 19 9 0

 51–75% 15 0 0 0 17 17 0

 76–99% 8 0 0 0 32 15 2

 100% 11 0 0 0 21 25 2

Mean proportion 40 7 1 1 68 56 4

* E.g., institutions, conventional dwellings 

Low rates of DI participation reflect the relatively poor work histories of TH families, and low 

Medicare participation rates have more to do with benefit program eligibility rules than with TH 

program success in helping families to qualify. Further, the significant level of disability within 

these families is reflected in the 7 percent of households that already have SSI and another 5 

percent, on average, had applied. 

HEALTH ISSUES OF PARENTS IN TH FAMILIES 

Health issues can be major barriers on the road to stable housing and self-sufficiency for 

homeless families. We will know more about families’ health issues and disability levels once 

we have data from interviews directly with families. Currently we are able to report information 

from TH program representatives pertinent to the major illness-related subpopulation categories 

that HUD routinely asks about in its Continuum of Care applications. We look first at physical 

disabilities and HIV/AIDS, then at mental illnesses and emotional problems, and finally at 

alcohol and drug abuse issues. 

Families in the TH programs in our sample are relatively unlikely to have physical disabilities— 

4 percent, on average. Forty-five percent of programs reported that none of their current families 

had physical disabilities. Another 42 percent of programs reported that 1 to 10 percent of their 

families had physical disabilities, and 13 percent said that between 11 and 25 percent had 

physical disabilities. No further information is available as to the nature of these disabilities.

HIV/AIDS is even less common among TH families than physical disabilities. 

MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES 

On average, programs report that 16 percent of their families are currently affected by mental 

illness (table 3.5). Thirty-eight percent of family TH programs said that none of their current 

families had active mental health problems. About one third of the remaining programs said that 

10 percent or fewer families had mental health problems, another third gave a proportion 

between 11 and 25 percent, and the final third reported higher proportions, ranging from 26 to 99 

percent. On average, 13 percent of families in TH programs have co-occurring mental health and 

substance abuse problems. 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 244 247

Table 3.5: Mental Health Issues of Families in TH Programs 

(n = 53, percentage of programs) 

Proportion of 

program

families: 

Proportion: 

Currently

affected by 

mental

illness

Currently affected by cooccurring mental illness 

and substance abuse 

Currently taking 

medications for mental 

or emotional problems 

Ever

hospitalized for 

mental illness 

 None 38 49 13 38

 1–10% 19 9 15 30

 11–25% 23 23 30 11

 26–50% 9 13 25 6

 51–75% 9 4 9 2

 76–99% 2 0 0 2

 100% 0 0 0 0

 Don’t know 0 2 8 11

Mean proportion 16 13 24 9

Note: Columns sum to ~100 percent, but responses to second column (co-occurring) include people reported in 

first column (mental illness). 

SUBSTANCE ABUSE ISSUES

Abuse of alcohol, drugs, or both is a common antecedent of homelessness for single adults and 

families alike, as is continued use while homeless. The pervasiveness of substance abuse issues 

can be seen in table 3.6, which shows that 39 percent of TH program families, on average, have a 

history of substance abuse and every program has some of these families. Proportions are spread 

across the entire spectrum from 10 percent or fewer up to 100 percent.
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 245 248

Table 3.6: Substance Abuse Issues of Families in TH Programs 

(n = 53, percentage of programs) 

Proportion of 

program

families: 

Proportion: 

Have

history, 

but not 

now

active 

Currently affected by: Ever in residential treatment 

for substance abuse 

Alcohol 

Abuse

Drug 

Abuse

Co-occurring

substance abuse 

and mental illness 

Never Once 2–3

times

4+

times

 None 0 36 32 49 19 30 30 47

 1–10% 30 15 15 9 2 11 8 6

 11–25% 17 19 17 23 0 13 15 2

 26–50% 19 21 17 13 8 4 2 2

 51–75% 11 2 9 4 6 0 6 2

 76–99% 13 2 6 0 11 0 0 2

 100% 6 0 4 0 15 2 0 0

 Don’t know 4 2 0 2 40 40 40 40

Mean proportion 39 16 25 13 -- -- -- --

Note: Columns sum to ~100 percent (excluding means), but responses to third column (co-occurring) include 

people reported in first and second columns (alcohol abuse, drug abuse). 

At least one-fourth and possibly as many as two in five TH families are still struggling with 

recovery from substance abuse. Substance abuse issues appear from these data to be more 

prevalent among TH families than mental illness (the “co-occurring” column appears in both 

tables and shows the same data). Programs appear to have a good deal less knowledge about 

their families’ history of treatment for substance abuse than they do about current or past 

problems. 

CHAPTER 4: PROGRAM SERVICES AND POLICIES 

This chapter describes the services offered by family TH programs, and certain policies that 

affect the daily lives of participants. These include expectations for how tenants will spend their 

money, program rules about allowable and restricted behaviors, and criteria for dismissal. 

SERVICES OFFERED BY FAMILY TH PROGRAMS 

Supportive services are what make the difference between a transitional housing program and 

simple affordable housing. We asked program representatives about a broad range of supportive 

services that family TH programs might offer. We were particularly interested in how these 

services were organized and the implications of that organization for ease of access to the 

services and to staff who could assist with the more intensive services. We asked about three 

types of organization: 1) services offered at the program site, whether by program staff or staff of 

other organizations or agencies that come to the site to work with families; 2) services provided 

or available off-site, for which the off-site agency has a clear commitment to work with families 

from the program and has developed a smooth and speedy way to assure that families get what 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 246 249

they need; and 3) services available only by referral, where there is no prior agreement of the 

receiving agency to work with the TH program’s clients and no special route for those clients to 

take as they navigate the referral agency’s procedures. It is our belief that only the first two ways 

to organize service delivery comprise a “program” that includes the organized services. Any 

service just available by referral cannot be considered a part of the “TH program.” 

Table 4.1 shows the proportion of TH programs that offer the various services on our list, and 

how they organize these services. Services shaded in gray are ones that at least 75 percent of the 

TH programs in our sample offer on site—services that should probably be considered the 

programs’ “core” service component. The two services offered nearly universally on site are case 

management and budgeting/money management. Other services that at least 75 percent of 

programs offer on site include tenant stabilization, building support systems, help to access 

housing and entitlements, and daily living and conflict resolution skills. 

Services shaded in dark gray with white lettering are ones that at least 50 percent of TH 

programs offer only by referral. These include several health care services, veterans services, and 

representative payee services. We conclude that TH programs consider these services peripheral 

to the needs of their clients, or at least to the vast majority of their clients. 

Services with no shading are in between. Sometimes the pattern favors a combination of off-site 

but committed providers and referral only sources, as can be seen for several of the substance 

abuse services. Sometimes the pattern is a combination of on site and off site with commitment, 

as tends to be the case for children’s services and services related to family violence. 

Occasionally service access is pretty evenly spread over all three arrangements, as we see for 

legal services or preventing substance abuse relapses. 

Table 4.1: Services Available At or Through Family TH Programs 

(n = 53 programs; rows sum to ~ 100 percent) 

Service Type At

program

site

Off site, but 

clear

commitment 

By

referral 

ONLY 

Case management- -including referrals, assistance obtaining 

benefits, "whatever it takes" 

96 4 0

Tenant Stabilization- helps tenants learn to live in housing, do 

ADLs, get along with fellow tenants and the landlord, etc. 

87 4 9

Build Support Systems- help tenants create and participate in 

community within project, find supports externally 

89 9 2

Basic Needs- food, clothing 75 17 8

Mental Health- outpatient counseling, therapy, medications and 

meds management 

34 49 17

Medications monitoring and dispensing 21 19 60

General Health Care- for acute & chronic physical health conditions 15 32 53

HIV/AIDS- specialized health care 10 30 60

Substance Abuse- self-help options, harm reduction services 28 42 30

Substance Abuse- 12-step oriented treatment services 17 47 36

Relapse prevention and crisis intervention—substance abuse 28 42 30

Relapse prevention and crisis intervention—mental illness and 

emotional problems 

30 49 21

Employment related- assistance in job placement 60 28 11

Employment related- vocational training 19 51 30
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 247 250

Table 4.1: Services Available At or Through Family TH Programs 

(n = 53 programs; rows sum to ~ 100 percent) 

Service Type At

program

site

Off site, but 

clear

commitment 

By

referral 

ONLY 

Legal Services- related to civil (rent arrears, family law, uncollected 

benefits) or criminal (warrants, minor infractions, etc.) matters 

25 43 32

Assistance in accessing housing (the actual housing unit) 79 9 11

Assistance in accessing entitlements (including housing subsidies) 75 15 9

Veterans Services 4 25 72

Assistance in reuniting with family 60 15 25 

Daily living skills training 89 9 2

Conflict resolution training 75 17 8

Budgeting and money management training 96 4 0

Representative payee services 4 23 74

Children related- Tutoring, after-school, school-support 55 30 15

Children related- Child care 47 32 21

Family related- DV, PTSD, Trauma-related 55 34 11

SERVICE DENSITY 

Seventeen percent of programs offer 9 or fewer services on site, 21 percent offer between 10 and 

13 services, 28 percent offer 14 to 17 services, and 15 percent of programs offer more than 17 

services on site. None of the largest programs, those with 40 or more units, offer as few as 9 

services on site, while at least some programs in every other size category offer this few on-site 

services. Doing the same analysis for a combination of on-site and off-site-with-commitment 

services, we find that 21 percent of the programs offer 16 or fewer services, 26 percent offer 

between 17 and 20 services, and 53 percent offer 21 or more services. 

THREE TOP AGENCIES

Obviously, with off-site services contributing so much to family TH program offerings, it is 

important to know which other agencies these programs work with most. Respondents gave us 

agency names, but also described the types of agencies so we could integrate the results across 

sites and also know what services were being accessed from multi-service agencies. The most 

commonly identified partner agencies are those that offer: 

• Public benefits programs (welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, SSI); 

• Counseling and assistance with mental health and substance abuse problems, including 

medications; 

• Assistance with legal problems; and 

• Case management. 

SERVICES THAT FAMILIES USE MOST 

We asked family TH providers to name the services they thought families used most, both while 

in the program and during the follow-up period after they leave the program. Case management 

is the hands-down winner for services while in the program. In these family TH programs, case 

management usually involves the case manager and parent sitting down to develop a program 

plan with two or more goals to be achieved and steps needed to achieve them, followed by 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 248 251

regular meetings to assess progress, modify plans as needed, and develop strategies for barriers 

and bottlenecks. Other high-demand services include counseling of many types; employmentrelated services; and life skills training including budgeting and money management, crisis 

management, scheduling, and daily living skills. 

IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF PROGRAM PHILOSOPHY 

We asked program representatives what they thought were the most important things about their 

program that contributed to their ability to help families leave homelessness for good. This was 

an open-ended question and responses were highly variable. Some focused on very pragmatic 

things and others described things that related more to attitude and atmosphere. Among the 

pragmatic things that program representatives think are most useful are their training with 

respect to life skills, budgeting, money management, and planning. 

Linking parents to employment opportunities and supports is also high on the list, as are helping 

parents resolve legal issues and getting them on the rolls of relevant public benefits programs. 

Given the many challenges that TH families face if they are to achieve self-sufficiency, these 

links and supports are very important. Even if services are present in most communities, it is 

difficult for families to thread their way through all the steps needed to access them. TH case 

managers have this as one of their most important functions. 

With respect to the less concrete aspects of their programs, quite a number of respondents cited 

“empowerment” in a number of ways. Some just said “empowerment,” while others elaborated 

by describing their approach to helping parents take responsibility for themselves, stand up for 

themselves, identify problems and take control of solving them, and tailoring case plans to fit the 

individual family. Practice mechanisms that would promote empowerment included good and 

trusting relationships between staff and parents, high staff-to-family ratio so people could get to 

know one another well and appreciate individual differences, and wrap-around case 

management. 

PROGRAM RULES AND POLICIES 

We were interested in learning something about what life is like for a family in a TH program, so 

we asked several questions about what the housing is like, program rules, how families handle 

their money and expectations for them to contribute, and what would lead the program to dismiss 

a family. Two-thirds of family TH programs (68 percent) have common space where family 

members can hang out, have meetings, and talk casually with each other or staff. These spaces 

include living rooms, TV rooms, and sometimes on-site cafes. 

In 47 percent of family TH programs, families have a key to their own room. In 94 percent of 

programs, families and programs work out a written agreement stating their right to stay for a 

specified period and their obligations related to that stay (e.g., paying the rent, participating in a 

service plan). These documents could be a signed service plan, a lease, or some other form of 

agreement. 

Programs also have policies related to money. It is not uncommon for programs to charge 

families something for their residency. For instance, 47 percent of programs charge tenants 30 

percent of their income as rent; the smallest programs are more likely to do this than programs of 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 249 252

any other size. Another 13 percent of programs charge tenants 30 percent of their income as a 

service fee. In 6 percent of programs, tenants are expected to pay back rent once their benefits 

begin or they get a job. Finally, 32 percent of programs encourage tenants to save at least 30 

percent of their monthly income against future needs. Regardless of these provisions, however, 

all tenants manage their own money in 83 percent of programs, and only 8 percent of programs 

ask some tenants to have a representative payee. No program makes all tenants have a 

representative payee. Money management, especially paying rent and other required fees, is 

important to family TH programs; 67 percent will dismiss a family for persistent nonpayment. 

POLICIES ABOUT ALCOHOL, DRUGS, AND CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES 

Virtually all programs have rules banning the use of alcohol and drugs on their premises, and 

most also do not want their tenants doing these things when away from the program. In many but 

not all instances, violating these rules is grounds for dismissal from the program. Table 4.2 

shows these patterns. Of eight rule types pertaining to substance use and crime, 62 percent of 

programs had rules prohibiting all eight; no program had fewer than five such prohibitions. 

Table 4.2: Family TH Program Rules Related to Alcohol, Drugs, and Crime 

Activity 

On program premises Off program premises 

% with rule 

against 

% dismissing if 

rule violated 

% with rule 

against 

% dismissing if 

rule violated 

Use alcohol 81 75 63 60

Use illegal substances 100 92 98 81 

Illegal/criminal activity 100 94 96 73

Many programs give people multiple chances to break rules as long as they return and appear to 

be sincere in continuing to work on their case plan. But multiple violations and obvious 

indifference to participating in program activities and working toward plan goals will ultimately 

get families dismissed. Ninety-six percent of programs say they dismiss families for repeated 

noncompliance with service requirements and showing no interest in program participation. 

Programs also have rules to control verbal and physical abuse and disruptive or aggressive 

behavior. Every family TH program in our sample has rules against verbal abuse, physical abuse, 

and violence against staff or other tenants. Ninety-six percent of family TH programs will 

dismiss a family for disruptive or aggressive behavior toward staff, 92 percent will dismiss for 

the same behavior toward other tenants, and 65 percent will dismiss for the same behavior 

toward oneself. In addition, 87 percent of programs will dismiss a family for destroying property 

in the program building or in the family’s own unit, whether part of a program facility or a 

scattered-site apartment. 

We asked about 13 behaviors that might get a family evicted from a TH program. No program 

reported a policy of acting on all 13, but 37 percent say they would act on 10 or more such 

behaviors, and another 38 percent say they would act on 8 or 9 such behaviors. Expulsion 

appears to be most likely when tenant families break prohibitions against violence and criminal 

behavior.
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 250 253

CHAPTER 5: PROGRAM OUTCOMES AND INDICATORS OF 

SUCCESS

Most programs responding to our survey receive funding through HUD’s Supportive Housing 

Program, and thus are subject to the goals it sets and the outcomes and indicators it requires them 

to track. These include obtaining and retaining permanent housing; acquiring adequate income 

through employment, benefits, or both; increased self-determination; and achieving the 

maximum self-sufficiency possible. Programs also set their own goals and develop variations on 

HUD goals. 

“SUCCESSFUL” PROGRAM EXITS 

When asked what they consider to be a successful outcome for their families, TH providers 

usually give minor variations on “stable housing and a stable income source, preferably from 

employment.” 

• Virtually all programs identify “have permanent housing” or “move into permanent 

housing” as either their entire definition of success or the most important element. 

• The two elements most commonly mentioned along with permanent housing are having a 

stable income and completing the family’s program plan. 

o Income was usually specified as income from employment, but the occasional 

program also mentioned income from appropriate public benefit programs. 

o Most programs that referred to the family’s plan specified that it be completed, 

but several programs specified “complete at least 80 percent of the plan,” while 

one program specified completion of 2 out of 3 plan goals, and another specified 

50 percent completion. 

• Additional elements mentioned by some programs as part of their definition of success 

include staying clean and sober, addressing their mental illness, improved parenting 

(children better behaved), establishing credit and having savings, and making better 

decisions. Domestic violence programs identified staying away from the abuser or living 

violence-free as success. 

• About 10 percent of programs define success as only knowable after the family has left 

the program, requiring housing and other types of stability for six months or one year 

before considering the family a program success. 

These responses make it clear that family TH programs state goals that line up very well with 

HUD expectations, but it is also clear that many adopt as their own goals that go beyond the ones 

specified by HUD. 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 251 254

TIME TO EXIT 

Figures on time to exit shown in table 2.4 include all families the program serves—those who 

leave before the program thinks they are ready and who would not be considered successes as 

well as those who “graduate.” Table 5.1 shows what programs report as the average time in the 

program for the families that exited successfully. On average this time is 13 months, slightly 

higher than the overall average time 

for all families ever enrolled. In 4 

percent of programs, the average time 

to successful exit is three months or 

less; for 16 percent of programs it is 4 

to 6 months, for six percent of 

programs it is 7 to 9 months, and for 

27 percent of programs it is 10 to 12 

months. Thirty-one percent of 

programs say the average length of 

time in the program for families 

leaving successfully is between 13 

and 18 months. Only 16 percent of 

programs report an average length of 

Table 5.1: Average Time to a Successful Exit 

in Family TH Programs 

(n = 51, percentage of programs) 

Length of time: Proportion of programs reporting 

various average times to exit, for 

families leaving successfully 

 1–3 months 4%

 4–6 months 16% 

 7–9 months 6%

 10–12 months 27% 

 13–18 months 31% 

 More than 18 months 16% 

Average number of 

months to successful exit 13

stay longer than 18 months for 

successful exits. 

When asked what proportion of their families succeed, the average is 77 percent—very close to 

the 70 percent figure reported by TH programs in 1992 (Matulef 1995). Two out of three 

programs say that more than 70 percent succeed. Nine percent of programs report that 90 percent 

of their families exit successfully; 36 percent have between 81 and 90 percent successful exits, 

and 23 percent have 71 to 80 percent of families exit successfully. The remaining 32 percent of 

programs report success rates between 50 and 70 percent, with three-quarters of those being 

between 60 and 69 percent. There is a definite relationship between program size, with the 

smaller programs being more likely to say that 90 percent or more of their families succeed and 

the larger programs reporting success rates more in the 80-89 percent range. No larger programs 

reported 90+ percent success rates. 

MEASURING PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS 

HUD has been pushing more and more for the programs it funds to document their ability to 

produce the outcomes they are designed to produce. In the case of transitional housing programs 

for families, HUD is in substantial agreement with program goals—the outcomes of greatest 

interest are whether families move to permanent housing, whether they are able to stay in that 

housing, and whether they have income from employment. 

INDICATORS OF EFFECTIVENESS 

If they have HUD funding, family TH programs have some responsibility to offer follow-up 

services to families once they leave the program; with or without the stimulus of funding 

requirements, most programs would do some follow-up on their own. Forty-three percent of the 

family TH programs in our survey follow families for 6 to 12 months after exit, both to offer 

supportive services as needed and to track outcomes. Another 36 percent track families for 4 to 6 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 252 255

months after program exit, and 9 percent track for only 1 to 3 months. The remaining 11 percent 

track for 18 or 24 months, or tracking time depends on the family and its needs. Thus 54 percent 

of programs have the ability to document the extent of housing stability for at least six months 

following program exit—a more rigorous criterion of success than housing status at exit. 

The four most commonly tracked indictors of program effectiveness, all requested by HUD, are: 

• 98%—Where families go when they leave your program; 

• 89%—Whether families obtained a stable income source, if they did not have it at entry; 

• 85%—Whether families are still stable in housing a significant length of time after 

leaving the program; 

• 83%—Resources used by families to access permanent housing. 

About one-third to about three-quarters of family TH programs track other outcomes, depending 

on the goal: 

• 72%—Engagement with the program, such as tracking progress on case plans, 

involvement with case management, or other ways the program defines 

engagement; 

• 64%—Reasons why families are unable to access permanent housing; 

• 47%—Reduced or ended substance abuse; 

• 47%—Supportive reconnections with family or friends; 

• 36%—Stabilized on psychotropic medications for mental or emotional problems; 

• 32%—Keeping the types of people who usually drop out within the first month engaged 

enough to stay in the program for at least six months. 

HOUSING OUTCOMES 

The topic of greatest interest for family TH programs is—“Does homelessness end?” Table 5.2 

shows the destinations of families at program exit according to TH program records. The final 

row of the table gives the mean proportion of TH families with each of the housing outcomes we 

measured. On average, 70 percent of families went to permanent housing, with or without 

subsidies and supports (first three rows of table 5.2). The largest proportion of these (36 percent 

on average) went to conventional dwellings for which they did not have a rent subsidy and that 

were not permanent supportive housing (PSH—a program that offers both subsidy and supports). 

Twenty-two percent were lucky enough to receive a rent subsidy and to find regular housing in 

the community. A smaller proportion (13 percent) went to PSH.
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 253 256

Table 5.2: Destinations of Families in TH Programs at Program Exit 

(n = 52) 

Proportion of 

program families 

exiting to: 

Affordable permanent housing: Reunite

with 

family 

Health

institution 

(hospital, 

MH

facility) 

Criminal 

justice

institution 

Back to 

Without homelessness 

subsidy 

or

supports 

With

subsidy, 

without 

supports 

With

subsidy 

and 

supports* 

 None 17 27 51 24 88 78 50

 1–10% 10 24 20 33 10 22 42

 11–25% 17 18 12 43 0 0 6

 26–50% 31 20 8 0 2 0 2

 51–75% 12 10 10 0 0 0 0

 76–100% 13 2 0 0 0 0 0

Mean: 35 22 13 13 1 1 4

* This category may include permanent supportive housing in the HUD sense, but it mostly refers to people who 

leave TH programs with a rent subsidy and continue to receive support from the program. 

Table 5.3: Destinations of Families in TH Programs at Program Exit, by 

Community

(mean proportion of families) 

Mean Proportion of Program Families Exiting to: 

Study community 

Affordable permanent housing: Reunite

with 

family 

Health

institution 

(hospital, 

MH

facility) 

Criminal 

justice

institution 

Back to 

Without homelessness 

subsidy 

or

supports 

With

subsidy, 

without 

supports 

With

subsidy 

and 

supports* 

All sites combined 35 22 13 13 1 1 4

Cleveland/Cuyahoga 

County 21 14 19 16 1 2 7

Detroit 39 21 5 22 4 <1 6

Houston/Harris 

County 54 12 4 14 <1 2 4

San Diego City and 

County 35 28 14 10 <1 0 2

Seattle/King County 27 32 19 6 <1 <1 4

* This category may include permanent supportive housing in the HUD sense, but it mostly refers to people who 

leave TH programs with a rent subsidy and continue to receive support from the program. 

We just saw that, on average, 35 percent of the families leaving TH are assisted to do so by 

receiving a rent subsidy, which makes their housing affordable. The availability of rent subsidies 

in a local community is the major factor that is likely to affect this proportion—a factor that is 

known to vary widely among communities. Obtaining variability on housing affordability was 

one of the primary reasons why this study sought very distinctive communities from which to 

draw its family TH programs. One way to influence housing affordability is to make rent 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 254 257

subsidies available to needy households from public sources. Table 5.3 shows the various 

destinations and subsidy levels for families in different study communities. 

EXITS TO SOMEWHERE OTHER THAN PERMANENT HOUSING 

Program respondents were asked to identify the main reasons that their families are unable to 

move into permanent housing. We asked specifically about five different possible reasons, and 

programs also offered other reasons: 

• 74%—Lack of subsidies to make housing affordable (i.e., housing units are available, if 

the family could afford them); 

• 58%—Lack of housing that would be affordable, even if subsidies were available;

• 40%—Tenants’ condition remains too unstable; 

• 32%—Lack of housing with the appropriate supports; and 

• 25%—Tenants’ continued substance abuse. 

Among the reasons mentioned by programs spontaneously, lack of income is the most common. 

Respondents either said simply “lack of income,” or explained that a parent did not have the 

education or training to get a job paying enough to afford housing, or simply that the parent 

could not earn enough to pay for housing. Sometimes the response included the idea that had the 

parent stayed with the program longer she would not have faced such an extreme situation. Other 

reasons included people going back to their batterer, having really bad credit or criminal record 

so no landlord would accept them, and having too big a family for available units. 

TYPE OF HOUSING SUBSIDY 

The proportion of families leaving TH programs with a housing subsidy varies by a factor of 

Table 5.4: Types of Subsidies Obtained by Families Leaving TH Programs, by 

Community

(mean proportion of families. N = 49-51, depending on column) 

Study community 

Mean Proportion of Program Families Exiting to: 

Regular 

Section 8* 

Section 8—special 

homeless set-aside 

Shelter

Plus Care 

State/local 

housing 

subsidy 

Other** 

All sites combined 14 4 4 4 7

Cleveland/Cuyahoga County 13 5 16 2 2

Detroit 8 10 7 7 7

Houston/Harris County 6 <1 1 1 9

San Diego City and County 12 7 0 3 11

Seattle/King County 26 1 <1 5 3

*Includes tenant-based and project-based assistance, and an occasional unit in public housing. 

** Includes moves to housing created to be affordable to very low income renters, and some subsidies available 

through TH programs. 

three across the five communities in this study, from a low of 16 percent in Houston/Harris 
Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version Appendix F: Characteristics of Transitional Housing for Homeless Families: Condensed Version 255 258

County to a high of 51 percent in Seattle/King County. On average across all communities, 14 

percent of families leave with a regular Section 8 voucher,38 4 percent leave with a Section 8 setaside voucher, 4 percent leave with a S+C voucher, and 4 percent leave with a housing subsidy 

from state or local sources. An additional 7 percent leave with “other” subsidies, which include 

moving into housing created to be affordable to very low income households, and may also 

include some types of temporary assistance from TH programs. For housing subsidies, the 

community where a TH program is located makes a big difference, as table 5.4 shows. 

UNSUCCESSFUL EXITS 

In the TH programs in our sample, on average 23 percent of families do not have successful 

exits. About half of these families leave on their own, and the other half are asked to leave. The 

average length of stay of these 23 percent of families is about 6 months. 

We asked program representatives about the most common reasons that families leave on their 

own accord, and the most common reasons that the program asks them to leave. Only one reason 

overlaps the two groups—not wanting to comply with program requirements, or repeated failure 

to comply and general disinterest in the program. Some respondents said that families will leave 

“voluntarily” when it becomes clear that they are about to be asked to leave. 

Other reasons for voluntary departure are that the family got a job with sufficient income to 

afford housing, got a rent subsidy that meant they could afford housing, or reunited with family. 

The first two of these reasons for early departure seem like the same events that characterize 

successful exits and are desirable program outcomes. If these programs consider families leaving 

under these circumstances to be “failures,” they must have expectations for what families need to 

accomplish that go beyond these two basics. “Reuniting with family” sometimes means moving 

in with a mother or sister, but also means going back to a batterer—clearly not a good outcome. 

There are relatively few reasons that family TH programs ask families to leave, but these few are 

widespread. The most commonly mentioned reasons are repeated noncompliance with program 

requirements, relapse into active substance abuse, and violence or threats of violence toward 

other tenants or staff. Often all of these will pertain at once to the family asked to leave. 

CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

Whole summary chapter omitted. 

 The full 53-page report may be found at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411369.

38 This category includes project-based and tenant-based vouchers, and may also include some public housing units 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Office of Policy Development and Research 

Washington, DC 20410-6000 

March 2010