Family Options Study

3-Year Impacts of Housing 

and Services Interventions for 

Homeless Families

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

3-Year Impacts of Housing 

and Services Interventions for 

Homeless Families

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Prepared by

Daniel Gubits

Marybeth Shinn

Michelle Wood

Stephen Bell

Samuel Dastrup

Claudia D. Solari

Scott R. Brown

Debi McInnis

Tom McCall

Utsav Kattel

Project quality advisors

Jill Khadduri

Jacob Klerman

Abt Associates, Inc.

In partnership with

Vanderbilt University

October 2016
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families ii

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors of this report gratefully acknowledge 

the efforts of many individuals who have assisted in 

carrying out the Family Options Study since it began 

in 2008. They particularly thank the Government Technical 

Representative (GTR), Anne Fletcher, for her unwavering 

guidance and support throughout all phases of the research. 

Other staff members at the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD), Office of Policy Development and 

Research (PD&R) have provided valuable guidance and technical oversight for the study. In particular, the authors thank 

Paul Dornan, the study’s former GTR, for his substantial input 

into the study’s design and specification of study interventions. 

HUD’s Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs has been 

an active partner in the design and implementation of the 

Family Options Study, and the study team is grateful for that 

office’s guidance and support in developing the study design 

and implementation plan. In addition, the authors thank Lynn 

Rodgers of PD&R for her assistance with acquiring HUD Public 

and Indian Housing Information Center (PIC) and Tenant 

Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS) data.

The authors also give special thanks to the families participating in the Family Options Study, who have continued to share 

their experiences and open their lives to the study team. 

The Family Options Study has benefited from the contributions 

of a number of technical experts. The study design reflects 

guidance from experts in random assignment methodology and 

from subject matter experts knowledgeable about and close 

to the operational realities of the homeless assistance services 

delivery system. The authors are especially grateful to Ellen 

Bassuk (Center for Social Innovation), Martha Burt (independent consultant), Dennis Culhane (University of Pennsylvania), 

Larry Orr (Johns Hopkins University), and Beth Weitzman 

(New York University) for their help in designing the study 

interventions and the research approach. 

Stephen Bell (Abt Associates) and Marybeth Shinn (Vanderbilt 

University) are the study’s Co-Principal Investigators, Michelle 

Wood (Abt Associates) is the Project Director, and Daniel 

Gubits (Abt Associates) is the study’s Director of Analysis. 

Implementing the study design required the efforts of a large 

team to recruit sites, develop site-specific implementation 

plans, and conduct random assignment. Brooke Spellman 

(Abt Associates) led the site recruitment and implementation 

activities, with contributions from site research liaisons Burt, 

Culhane, Shinn, Donald Chamberlin (independent consultant), Wendy Vaulton (formerly with the Center for Social 

Innovation), Matt White (Abt Associates), and Suzanne Zerger 

(formerly with the Center for Social Innovation). Satyendra Patrabansh (formerly with Abt Associates) designed the complex 

random assignment algorithm used to assign families, and Sage 

Computing developed the randomization software. Scott Brown 

(Vanderbilt University), Lauren Dunton, Nichole Fiore, and 

Meghan Henry (Abt Associates) monitored random assignment, 

collecting updates about the availability of intervention slots 

and the status of families enrolled in each intervention.

The Family Options Study involved an extensive field 

data-collection effort to collect information directly from study 

participants at several junctures. Abt SRBI led the participant 

data-collection activities under the direction of Ricki Jarmon 

and Brenda Rodriquez, the study’s survey director. Ashley 

Bradbury and Brianna Roche (Abt SRBI) and Debi McInnis (Abt 

Associates) also played key roles in coordinating and monitoring data-collection activities. Kathy Gill and Lynn Reneau (Abt 

SRBI) served as survey field managers and oversaw the 17 field 

interviewers working in the study sites. 

Samuel Dastrup (Abt Associates) led the cost data-collection 

efforts, assisted by Scott Brown, Burt, Dunton, Fiore, Katherine 

Buck (Abt Associates), and Galen Savidge (Abt Associates). 

Dunton and Claudia Solari (Abt Associates) managed the 

collection and analysis of Homeless Management Information 

System (HMIS) data from the 12 study sites, and Steven Brown 

(formerly with Abt Associates) coordinated analysis of HUD 

administrative data from PIC and TRACS. 

Under the direction of Gubits, Scott Brown (Vanderbilt 

University), Tom McCall, Utsav Kattel, Nancy McGarry, and 

Don Laliberty (Abt Associates) played key roles in estimating 

impacts using survey and administrative data. 

The study’s Co-Project Quality Advisors, Jill Khadduri and 

Jacob Klerman (Abt Associates), provided technical guidance 

throughout all phases of the project and thoughtful and constructive comments on this report. Missy Robinson (Abt Associates) did an excellent job producing this complex document.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families iii

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

The study would not be possible without the enthusiasm and 

dedication of local service providers, Continuum of Care (CoC) 

leaders, and public housing agencies in the 12 participating 

communities: (1) Alameda County, California; (2) Atlanta, 

Georgia; (3) Baltimore, Maryland; (4) Boston, Massachusetts; 

(5) the New Haven and Bridgeport regions of Connecticut; 

(6) Denver, Colorado; (7) Honolulu, Hawaii; (8) Kansas 

City, Missouri; (9) Louisville, Kentucky; (10) Minneapolis, 

Minnesota; (11) Phoenix, Arizona; and (12) Salt Lake City, 

Utah. The study team is grateful for their many contributions 

and continued commitment to the study. The study team 

also thanks the HMIS administrators in each of the CoCs for 

providing HMIS data for participating families.

A grant to Vanderbilt University by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver 

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 

supported child data collection and analysis for this study.

DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report are the views of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. government.

Acknowledgments
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families iv

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

FOREWORD

The 2010 release of Opening Doors: Federal Strategic 

Plan To Prevent and End Homelessness established 

an ambitious goal to end homelessness among 

children, families, and youth by 2020. Until now, the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has 

had little empirical evidence to guide its policy and program 

decisions toward achieving this goal. 

This report is the culmination of an 8-year research effort. 

Launched in 2008, HUD’s Family Options Study represents, 

to date, the most rigorously designed experimental study 

to determine the effectiveness and relative costs of different 

interventions that communities may implement to assist 

families experiencing homelessness—long term housing 

subsidy, project-based transitional housing, communitybased rapid re-housing, and usual care. More than 2,200 

homeless families, including more than 5,000 children, in 

12 communities were randomly assigned to one of these 

four interventions. The families were tracked for 3 years and 

were extensively interviewed at baseline, 20 months after 

random assignment, and again at 37 months after random 

assignment to assess outcomes related to housing stability, 

family preservation, adult well-being, child well-being, and 

self-sufficiency.

HUD released the short-term outcomes report in July 2015, 

documenting the outcomes of families 20 months after 

random assignment and presenting striking evidence of the 

power of offering a long-term subsidy, such as a voucher, 

to a homeless family in domains that extended far beyond 

housing stability. This current report, which documents 

outcomes of families 37 months after random assignment, 

amplifies the remarkable short-term findings, demonstrating 

once again the power of a long-term housing subsidy in 

conveying significantly improved housing outcomes to 

formerly homeless families. We also continue to see the 

radiating benefits to families of stable housing that were 

observed in the short-term outcomes, such as reductions in 

adult psychological distress, experiences of intimate partner 

violence, school mobility among children, food insecurity, 

and sleep and behavior problems in children. Offering a 

homeless family a voucher cost roughly $4,000 more than 

leaving families to find their own way out of shelter over 

the full 3-year followup period—a modest investment to 

achieve substantially better outcomes for both parents and 

children. Among the crisis interventions studied- including 

rapid re-housing, transitional housing, and emergency 

shelter—housing stability and other outcomes for families 

were relatively similar, but, as it was in the short-term study 

findings, rapid re-housing was the least costly intervention 

for communities to implement over the full 3-year followup 

period. 

The study findings, in both the short and long terms, provide clear evidence that, when long-term housing assistance 

is offered to families experiencing homelessness, families are 

able to both obtain and sustain stable housing and that this 

housing assistance can have a powerful impact on improving the lives of poor families and children. 

Katherine M. O’Regan

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development & Research

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families v

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms................................. xv

Executive Summary......................................................... xvi

Study Interventions.................................................. xvi

Random Assignment Design.................................... xvii

Meaning of Intention-to-Treat (ITT) Impact 

Estimates......................................................... xviii

Data Sources............................................................. xix

Hypothesized Effects of the Interventions.................. xx

Conceptual Framework for the SUB and CBRR 

Interventions............................................... xx

Hypotheses for Comparisons Involving the 

SUB and CBRR Interventions and Usual 

Care............................................................. xx

Conceptual Framework for the PBTH 

Intervention................................................ xxi

Hypotheses for Comparisons Involving the 

PBTH Intervention...................................... xxi

Baseline Characteristics of the Study Sample .......... xxii

Intervention Eligibility Screening and Family 

Decisions ......................................................... xxii

Study Findings Over the 3-Year Followup Period.... xxii

Usual Care Group During the Followup 

Period ...................................................... xxiii

Program Use for Pairwise Comparisons........... xxiv

Impact Estimates for Pairwise Comparisons.... xxvii

Do Certain Interventions Work Better When 

Offered to Families Facing Greater 

Difficulties?................................................ xxx

Intervention Costs............................................ xxx

Conclusions.......................................................... xxxiii

Chapter 1. Introduction......................................................1

1.1. The Research Sample ...........................................1

1.2. Interventions Studied and Rationales ...................3

1.3. Evaluation Design.................................................4

1.4. Findings From the Enrollment Phase....................6

1.5. Short-Term Findings (20 Months After Enrollment) .6

1.6. Questions for the 3-Year Analysis ........................7

1.7. Organization of the Report ...................................8

Chapter 2. Description of Usual Care (UC) and 

Outcomes Measured in the Study. ...............................9

2.1. The Emergency Shelter Experience of Usual 

Care (UC) Families...............................................9

2.1.1. Length of Time UC Families Spent in 

Emergency Shelters..................................9

2.2. Use of Other Homeless and Housing Assistance Programs by Usual Care (UC) Families......11

2.3. Outcomes for Families Randomly Assigned to 

Usual Care (UC).................................................13

2.3.1. Measures of Housing Stability ................13

2.3.2. Housing Stability of the UC Group .......14

2.3.3. Measures of Family Preservation ............16

2.3.4. Family Preservation in the UC Group ....17

2.3.5. Measures of Adult Well-Being................18

2.3.6. Adult Well-Being in the UC Group ........18

2.3.7. Measures of Child Well-Being ...............19

2.3.8. Characteristics of Focal Children in 

the UC Group........................................21

2.3.9. Characteristics of Focal Children by 

Age-Specific Outcomes in the UC Group..23

2.3.10. Measures of Self-Sufficiency ..................25

2.3.11. Self-Sufficiency Indicators for the UC 

Group....................................................27

2.4. Summary............................................................29

Chapter 3. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy 

(SUB) Compared With Usual Care (UC)....................30

3.1. Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Intervention..30

3.2. Program Use by Families in the Permanent 

Housing Subsidy (SUB) Versus Usual Care 

(UC) Comparison...............................................31

3.3. Impacts on Housing Stability in the Permanent 

Housing Subsidy (SUB) Versus Usual Care 

(UC) Comparison...............................................35

3.4. Impacts on Family Preservation in the 

Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Versus 

Usual Care (UC) Comparison.............................39

3.5. Impacts on Adult Well-Being in the Permanent 

Housing Subsidy (SUB) Versus Usual Care 

(UC) Comparison...............................................40
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families vi

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Table of Contents

3.6. Impacts on Child Well-Being in the Permanent 

Housing Subsidy (SUB) Versus Usual Care 

(UC) Comparison...............................................40

3.7. Impacts on Self-Sufficiency in the Permanent 

Housing Subsidy (SUB) Versus Usual Care 

(UC) Comparison...............................................41

3.8. Summary of the Permanent Housing Subsidy 

(SUB) Versus Usual Care (UC) Comparison 

Across Domains..................................................45

Chapter 4. Impacts of Community-Based Rapid ReHousing (CBRR) Compared With Usual Care (UC). ..47

4.1. Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing (CBRR) 

Intervention........................................................47

4.2. Program Use by Families in the CommunityBased Rapid Re-Housing (CBRR) Versus Usual 

Care (UC) Comparison.......................................48

4.3. Impacts on Housing Stability in the CommunityBased Rapid Re-Housing (CBRR) Versus Usual 

Care (UC) Comparison.......................................52

4.4. Impacts on Family Preservation in the 

Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing (CBRR) 

Versus Usual Care (UC) Comparison..................54

4.5. Impacts on Adult Well-Being in the CommunityBased Rapid Re-Housing (CBRR) Versus Usual 

Care (UC) Comparison.......................................55

4.6. Impacts on Child Well-Being in the CommunityBased Rapid Re-Housing (CBRR) Versus Usual 

Care (UC) Comparison.......................................56

4.7. Impacts on Self-Sufficiency in the CommunityBased Rapid Re-Housing (CBRR) Versus Usual 

Care (UC) Comparison.......................................56

4.8. Summary of the Community-Based Rapid 

Re-Housing (CBRR) Versus Usual Care (UC) 

Comparison Across Domains..............................59

Chapter 5. Impacts of Project-Based Transitional 

Housing (PBTH) Compared With Usual Care (UC). ..60

5.1. Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH) 

Intervention........................................................60

5.2. Program Use by Families in the Project-Based 

Transitional Housing (PBTH) Versus Usual 

Care (UC) Comparison.......................................61

5.3. Impacts on Housing Stability in the ProjectBased Transitional Housing (PBTH) Versus 

Usual Care (UC) Comparison.............................65

5.4. Impacts on Family Preservation in the ProjectBased Transitional Housing (PBTH) Versus 

Usual Care (UC) Comparison.............................66

5.5. Impacts on Adult Well-Being in the ProjectBased Transitional Housing (PBTH) Versus 

Usual Care (UC) Comparison.............................68

5.6. Impacts on Child Well-Being in the ProjectBased Transitional Housing (PBTH) Versus 

Usual Care (UC) Comparison.............................69

5.7. Impacts on Self-Sufficiency in the ProjectBased Transitional Housing (PBTH) Versus 

Usual Care (UC) Comparison.............................69

5.8. Summary of Project-Based Transitional 

Housing (PBTH) Versus Usual Care (UC) 

Comparison Across Domains..............................72

Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy 

(SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid 

Re-Housing (CBRR), SUB Compared With ProjectBased Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR 

Compared With PBTH ..............................................73

6.1. Analysis Samples for Pairwise Comparisons........73

6.2. The Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Versus 

Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing (CBRR) 

Comparison........................................................74

6.2.1. Program Use by Families in the SUBVersus-CBRR Comparison........................74

6.2.2. Impacts of the SUB Intervention 

Compared With the CBRR Intervention.....75

6.3. The Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Versus 

Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH) 

Comparison........................................................82

6.3.1. Program Use by Families in the SUBVersus-PBTH Comparison........................82

6.3.2. Impacts of the SUB Intervention 

Compared With the PBTH Intervention.....83

6.4. The Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR) Versus Project-Based Transitional 

Housing (PBTH) Comparison.............................90

6.4.1. Program Use by Families in the CBRRVersus-PBTH Comparison........................91

6.4.2. Impacts of the CBRR Intervention 

Compared With the PBTH Intervention.....92

Chapter 7. Impacts of Pooled Comparisons......................98
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families vii

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Table of Contents

Chapter 8. Do Certain Interventions Work Better When 

Offered to Families Who Face Greater Difficulties?....99

8.1. Descriptive Results for Psychosocial Challenges 

and Housing Barriers........................................100

8.2. Differential Impacts Depending on Psychosocial Challenges..................................................101

8.2.1. SUB Versus UC.......................................101

8.2.2. CBRR Versus UC ....................................101

8.2.3. PBTH Versus UC ....................................101

8.2.4. SUB Versus CBRR...................................101

8.2.5. SUB Versus PBTH...................................103

8.2.6. CBRR Versus PBTH.................................103

8.3. Differential Impacts Depending on Housing 

Barriers.............................................................104

8.3.1. SUB Versus UC.......................................104

8.3.2. CBRR Versus UC ....................................104

8.3.3. PBTH Versus UC ....................................104

8.3.4. SUB Versus CBRR...................................104

8.3.5. SUB Versus PBTH...................................104

8.3.6. CBRR Versus PBTH.................................106

8.4. Summary..........................................................106

Chapter 9. Intervention Costs.........................................107

9.1. Introduction and Review of Methodology.........107

9.1.1. Cost Data-Collection and Analysis 

Methodology ..........................................109

9.2. Per-Family Monthly Costs................................111

9.3. Cost of All Program Use During the Followup 

Period by Families Assigned to Each 

Intervention......................................................113

9.4. Monthly Cost of All Program Use at the Time 

of the Followup Survey by Families Assigned 

to Each Intervention.........................................115

Chapter 10. Conclusions................................................118

10.1. Questions Addressed in the 3-Year Analysis....118

10.2. Meaning of Intention-to-Treat Impact 

Estimates..........................................................119

10.3. Usual Care (UC).............................................121

10.4. Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) ................122

10.5. Community-Based Rapid Re-housing (CBRR).123

10.6. Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH)....124

10.7. Impacts by Level of Family Challenge.............125

10.8. Implications for Theory..................................125

10.9. Summary of Findings and Implications for 

Policy.............................................................125

Chapter 11. References...................................................127

Chapter 12. Additional reading ......................................130

Appendix A. Data Sources and Data Set Construction ......A1

A.1. Random Assignment Data ..................................A2

Family Options Study Sample............................A2

Eligibility Determination....................................A3

A.2. Baseline Data Collection.....................................A3

A.3. Enrollment Verification Data..............................A4

A.4. 6-, 12-, and 27-Month Tracking Surveys............A4

A.5. 20- and 37-Month Followup Adult Surveys ......A4

A.6. Focal Child Selection .........................................A5

Focal Child Selection..........................................A5

Focal Children Sample Sizes...............................A6

Parent-on-Child Module in the 37-Month 

Adult Survey................................................A9

A.7. 20- and 37-Month Followup Child Surveys.......A9

A.8. 20- and 37-Month Followup Child 

Assessments .................................................... A9

A.9. 20- and 37-Month Followup HOME 

Inventories ..................................................... A9

A.10. Qualitative Surveys ........................................A10

A.11. Additional Details About Surveys and Data 

Collection.........................................................A10

Implementation of 37-Month Data Collection....A10

Efforts To Improve Response Rates...................A11

Incentives.........................................................A11

Completion Rates.............................................A11

A.12. Administrative Data .......................................A13

HMIS Data........................................................A13

PIC and TRACS Data Files................................A14

NDNH Data......................................................A15

Child Welfare Agency Administrative Data.......A16

A.13. Program Usage Data File ................................A16

Appendix B. Construction of Outcomes...........................B1

B.1. Measures of Housing Stability ............................B1

B.2. Measures of Family Preservation.........................B2
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families viii

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Table of Contents

B.3. Measures of Adult Well-Being ............................B3

B.4. Measures of Child Well-Being ............................B6

Child Outcomes Across All Age Groups .............B6

Behavioral Strengths and Challenges ..................B6

Child Outcomes for Specific Age Groups............B8

B.5. Measures of Self-Sufficiency ............................B12

B.6. Measures of Earnings and Employment From 

NDNH Data......................................................B15

Data Cleaning and Processing...........................B15

Defining Outcomes...........................................B15

B.7. Measures of Formal Child Separations From 

Child Welfare Agency Records .........................B16

B.8. Program Use Outcomes....................................B16

Appendix C. Analysis Methods........................................ C1

C.1. Methodology..................................................... C1

Pooled Comparisons......................................... C1

Impact Estimation Model for Family and Adult 

Outcomes................................................... C2

Impact Estimation Model for Child Well-Being 

Outcomes................................................... C3

Impact Estimation Model for Moderator 

Analysis...................................................... C3

C.2. Covariates ........................................................ C3

Continuous Variables........................................ C4

Binary Variables................................................ C4

Binary Variables for Child Outcomes Only ....... C5

Additional Covariates for Pooled Comparisons 

and Selected Outcomes .............................. C5

C.3. Missing Data and Imputations........................... C5

C.4. Family/Adult Weights....................................... C5

C.5. Child Weights................................................... C6

C.6. Partial Paired t-Test for Differences in Means 

Between Followup Waves.................................. C7

C.7. Multiple Comparisons Adjustment for Confirmatory Hypothesis Tests.................................... C7

Statement of the Problem .................................. C7

Study Response to the Problem ......................... C8

Implementing the Multiple Comparisons 

Procedure ................................................... C8

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse ... D1

D.1. Introduction ..................................................... D1

Balance in Impact Comparison Groups After 

Nonresponse .............................................. D1

Respondents Versus Nonrespondents............... D1

Overview of Findings........................................ D1

D.2. Balance in Impact Comparison Groups After 

Nonresponse ..................................................... D2

Survey Nonresponse.......................................... D2

Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample by 

Impact Comparison.................................... D2

D.3. Respondents Versus Nonrespondents............. D14

Do Respondents Differ From Nonrespondents 

on Baseline Characteristics?...................... D14

Unweighted Impact Estimates......................... D29

Appendix E. Impacts on Use of Transitional Housing .......E1

Appendix F. Impact Estimates for Pooled Comparisons ...F1

Appendix G. Intervention Costs—Methodology, Sites, 

and Programs ........................................................... G1

G.1. Programs in the Cost Study .............................. G1

G.2. Elements of Program-Level per-Family Monthly 

Program Cost.................................................... G2

In-Kind and Partner Costs ................................ G3

Capital Costs .................................................... G4

Participant Contributions ................................. G4

G.3. Costs of SUB Intervention................................. G5

G.4. Calculating Costs.............................................. G5

Per-Family Monthly Program Cost.................... G6

Cost of All Program Use During the Followup 

Period......................................................... G6

Cost of All Program Use at the Time of the 

Followup Survey ........................................ G6

Appendix H. Supplemental Analyses............................... H1

Appendix I. Length of Baseline Stay in Emergency Shelter... I1
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families ix

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Table of Contents

List of Exhibits

Exhibit ES-1. Six Pairwise Comparisons Among the Four 

Interventions................................................. xvii

Exhibit ES-2. Total Number of Families Assigned to Each 

Intervention and Number of Followup 

Survey Respondents .................................... xviii

Exhibit ES-3. Data Sources Used in the Analysis of 3-Year 

Impacts .......................................................... xix

Exhibit ES-4. Program Use of UC Families for 32 Months 

After RA ....................................................... xxiii

Exhibit ES-5. SUB, CBRR, and PBTH: Program Use for 

32 Months After RA...................................... xxiv

Exhibit ES-6. Program Use Since RA for All Pairwise 

Impact Comparisons .................................... xxvi

Exhibit ES-7. Summary of Impacts for Six Policy 

Comparisons.............................................. xxviii

Exhibit ES-8. Cost of Program Use Since RA for Each 

Intervention Contrast .................................. xxxii

Exhibit 1-1. Location of Study Sites......................................2

Exhibit 1-2. Family Characteristics .......................................3

Exhibit 1-3. Six Pairwise Comparisons Among the Four 

Interventions.....................................................5

Exhibit 2-1. Length of Time Spent in Emergency Shelters 

by UC Families................................................10

Exhibit 2-2. Percent of UC Families With at Least 

1-Night Stay in Emergency Shelter During 

Month, by Number of Months After RA...........10

Exhibit 2-3. Program Use Since RA for UC Families............11

Exhibit 2-4. Program Use of UC Families for 32 Months 

After RA ..........................................................12

Exhibit 2-5. Housing Stability Outcomes for UC Families ..15

Exhibit 2-6. Homeless, Doubled Up, and Living in Own 

Place in the UC Group at 20 and 37 Months 

After RA ..........................................................16

Exhibit 2-7. Family Preservation Outcomes in the UC 

Group..............................................................17

Exhibit 2-8. Child Welfare Outcomes in the UC Group......18

Exhibit 2-9. Adult Well-Being Outcomes in the UC Group ..19

Exhibit 2-10. Child Well-Being Outcomes in the UC Group 

Measured for Children Across Age Groups......21

Exhibit 2-11. Child Well-Being Developmental Outcomes 

in the UC Group for Children in Specific 

Age Groups .....................................................24

Exhibit 2-12. Self-Sufficiency Outcomes in the UC Group....28

Exhibit 2-13. Work for Pay at 20 and 37 Months After RA 

in the UC Group .............................................29

Exhibit 2-14. Earnings and Employment in the UC Group ...29

Exhibit 3-1. Subsidy Type Provided by Site ........................31

Exhibit 3-2. SUB Versus UC: Program Use Since RA...........32

Exhibit 3-3. Number of Months of Subsidy Receipt 

During Followup Period by SUB Families 

Who Ever Used Offered Permanent Subsidy....33

Exhibit 3-4. SUB Versus UC: Program Use in Each 

Month of Followup Period ..............................34

Exhibit 3-5. SUB Versus UC: Impacts on Housing 

Stability at 37 Months .....................................36

Exhibit 3-6. SUB Versus UC: Percent of Families With 

Any Stay in Emergency Shelter and Any 

Permanent Housing Subsidy During Month, 

by Month After RA ..........................................38

Exhibit 3-7. SUB Versus UC: Impacts on Family Preservation at 37 Months ........................................39

Exhibit 3-8. SUB Versus UC: Impacts on Child Welfare 

Outcomes........................................................39

Exhibit 3-9. SUB Versus UC: Impacts on Adult WellBeing at 37 Months .........................................40

Exhibit 3-10. SUB Versus UC: Impacts on Child WellBeing Across Age Groups at 37 Months...........41

Exhibit 3-11. SUB Versus UC: Impacts on Child WellBeing Developmental Outcomes by Age 

Group at 37 Months........................................42

Exhibit 3-12. SUB Versus UC: Impacts on Self-Sufficiency 

at 37 Months...................................................43

Exhibit 3-13. SUB Versus UC: Earnings and Employment ....44
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families x

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Table of Contents

Exhibit 4-1. CBRR Versus UC: Program Use Since RA ........49

Exhibit 4-2. Number of Months of Rapid Re-Housing 

Receipt During Followup Period by CBRR 

Families Who Ever Used Rapid Re-housing.....50

Exhibit 4-3. CBRR Versus UC: Program Use in Each 

Month of Followup Period ..............................51

Exhibit 4-4. CBRR Versus UC: Impacts on Housing 

Stability at 37 Months .....................................52

Exhibit 4-5. CBRR Versus UC: Percent of Families With 

Any Stay in Emergency Shelter and Any 

Permanent Housing Subsidy During Month, 

by Number of Months After RA.......................53

Exhibit 4-6. CBRR Versus UC: Impacts on Family 

Preservation at 37 Months...............................54

Exhibit 4-7. CBRR Versus UC: Impacts on Child Welfare 

Outcomes........................................................54

Exhibit 4-8. CBRR Versus UC: Impacts on Adult 

Well-Being at 37 Months.................................55

Exhibit 4-9. CBRR Versus UC: Impacts on Child 

Well-Being Across Age Groups at 37 Months ..56

Exhibit 4-10. CBRR Versus UC: Impacts on Child 

Well-Being Developmental Outcomes by 

Age Group at 37 Months.................................57

Exhibit 4-11. CBRR Versus UC: Impacts on Self-Sufficiency 

at 37 Months...................................................58

Exhibit 4-12. CBRR Versus UC: Earnings and Employment..58

Exhibit 5-1. PBTH Versus UC: Program Use Since RA ........62

Exhibit 5-2. Number of Months of Transitional Housing 

Receipt During Followup Period by PBTH 

Families Who Ever Used TH ...........................63

Exhibit 5-3. PBTH Versus UC: Program Use in Each 

Month of Followup Period ..............................64

Exhibit 5-4. PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on Housing 

Stability at 37 Months .....................................66

Exhibit 5-5. PBTH Versus UC: Percent of Families With 

Any Stay in Emergency Shelter and Any 

Permanent Housing Subsidy During Month, 

by Number of Months after RA........................67

Exhibit 5-6. PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on Family 

Preservation at 37 Months...............................67

Exhibit 5-7. PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on Child Welfare 

Outcomes........................................................68

Exhibit 5-8. PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on Adult 

Well-Being at 37 Months.................................68

Exhibit 5-9. PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on Child 

Well-Being Across Age Groups at 37 Months ..69

Exhibit 5-10. PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on Child 

Well-Being Developmental Outcomes by 

Age Group at 37 Months.................................70

Exhibit 5-11. PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on Self-Sufficiency 

at 37 Months...................................................71

Exhibit 5-12. PBTH Versus UC: Earnings and Employment..71

Exhibit 6-1. Sample Sizes in the Six Pairwise Comparisons...74

Exhibit 6-2. SUB Versus CBRR: Program Use Since RA.......75

Exhibit 6-3. SUB Versus CBRR: Impacts on Housing 

Stability at 37 Months .....................................76

Exhibit 6-4. SUB Versus CBRR: Impacts on Family 

Preservation at 37 Months...............................77

Exhibit 6-5. SUB Versus CBRR: Impacts on Child 

Welfare Outcomes...........................................77

Exhibit 6-6. SUB Versus CBRR: Impacts on Adult 

Well-Being at 37 Months.................................78

Exhibit 6-7. SUB Versus CBRR: Impacts on Child 

Well-Being Across Age Groups at 37 Months ..79

Exhibit 6-8. SUB Versus CBRR: Impacts on Child 

Well-Being Developmental Outcomes by 

Age Group at 37 months.................................80

Exhibit 6-9. SUB Versus CBRR: Impacts on SelfSufficiency at 37 Months.................................81

Exhibit 6-10. SUB Versus CBRR: Earnings and Employment..81

Exhibit 6-11. SUB Versus PBTH: Program Use Since RA.......83

Exhibit 6-12. SUB Versus PBTH: Impacts on Housing 

Stability at 37 Months .....................................84

Exhibit 6-13. SUB Versus PBTH: Impacts on Family 

Preservation at 37 Months...............................85

Exhibit 6-14. SUB Versus PBTH: Impacts on Child 

Welfare Outcomes...........................................86

Exhibit 6-15. SUB Versus PBTH: Impacts on Adult 

Well-Being 37 Months.....................................86

Exhibit 6-16. SUB Versus PBTH: Impacts on Child 

Well-Being Across Age Groups at 37 Months ..87
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xi

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Table of Contents

Exhibit 6-17. SUB Versus PBTH: Impacts on Child 

Well-Being Developmental Outcomes by 

Age Group at 37 Months.................................88

Exhibit 6-18. SUB Versus PBTH: Impacts on SelfSufficiency at 37 Months.................................89

Exhibit 6-19. SUB Versus PBTH: Earnings and Employment..89

Exhibit 6-20. CBRR Versus PBTH: Program Use Since RA.....91

Exhibit 6-21. CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Housing 

Stability at 37 Months .....................................92

Exhibit 6-22. CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Family 

Preservation at 37 Months...............................93

Exhibit 6-23. CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Child 

Welfare Outcomes...........................................93

Exhibit 6-24. CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Adult 

Well-Being at 37 Months.................................94

Exhibit 6-25. CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Child 

Well-Being Across Age Groups at 37 Months ..95

Exhibit 6-26. CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Child 

Well-Being Developmental Outcomes by 

Age Group at 37 Months.................................96

Exhibit 6-27. CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on SelfSufficiency at 37 Months.................................97

Exhibit 6-28. CBRR Versus PBTH: Earnings and 

Employment....................................................97

Exhibit 7-1. Sample Sizes in the Four Pooled Comparisons..98

Exhibit 8-1. Percentage of Adult Respondents Reporting 

Psychosocial Challenges at the Time of 

Study Enrollment (for families interviewed 

at 37 months)................................................100

Exhibit 8-2. Percentage of Adult Respondents Reporting 

That a Condition Was a Big or Small 

Problem in Finding a Place To Live at the 

Time of Study Enrollment (for families 

interviewed at 37 months).............................100

Exhibit 8-3. Impacts at 37 Months Moderated by 

Baseline Psychosocial Challenges Index.........102

Exhibit 8-4. Impacts at 37 Months Moderated by 

Baseline Housing Barriers Index ....................105

Exhibit 9-1. Programs Included in the Estimates of 

Monthly Costs...............................................109

Exhibit 9-2. Average Per-Family Monthly Cost of 

Supportive Services and Housing or Shelter 

Across Program Types...................................111

Exhibit 9-3. Summary Statistics of Per-Family Monthly 

Program Cost by Program Type.....................112

Exhibit 9-4. Comparison of Cost Summary Statistics 

Across Program Types...................................113

Exhibit 9-5. Cost of Program Use Since RA for Each 

Intervention Contrast ....................................114

Exhibit 9-6. Average Per-Family Monthly Costs for 

Program Use at Time of the Followup 

Survey, by Comparison .................................116

Exhibit 10-1. Summary of Statistically Significant Impact 

Results by Policy Comparison: Executive 

Summary Outcomes 37 Months After RA......120

Exhibit A-1. Data Sources Used in the Study.......................A1

Exhibit A-2. Sample Enrollment Period and Number of 

Families Enrolled by Intervention and Site ......A3

Exhibit A-3. Length of Time From Random Assignment 

to the 37-Month Followup Survey...................A5

Exhibit A-4. Focal Child Sample Distribution, by Site and 

Intervention Group at 37 Months....................A7

Exhibit A-5. Overall Family Options Study Survey 

Completion Rates..........................................A12

Exhibit A-6. Survey Response Status for Family Options 

Study Baseline and Followup Surveys............A12

Exhibit A-7. Total Number of Families Assigned to Each 

Intervention and Number of Followup 

Survey Respondents ......................................A12

Exhibit A-8. Survey Response Status for Family Options 

Study Baseline, Followup, and Tracking 

Surveys..........................................................A13

Exhibit A-9. HMIS Participation Rates for Emergency 

Shelter and Transitional Housing Providers 

in the Study Sites, 2011.................................A14

Exhibit A-10. HMIS Match Rates With the Family Options 

Sample by Site Through 37 Months...............A14

Exhibit A-11. Sample Families in PIC/TRACS Data and 

Those Assigned to the SUB Intervention in 

PIC/TRACS Data by Site Through 37 Months...A15

Exhibit A-12. Program Types and Their Data Sources in 

the Program Usage Data ................................A17

Exhibit A-13. Data Source Reliability by Program Use Data 

Item...............................................................A17
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xii

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Table of Contents

Exhibit B-1. Children’s Completion Rates at 37 Months 

for WJ III Letter-Word Identification and 

Applied Problems Tests...................................B9

Exhibit C-1. Confirmatory Hypothesis Tests in 37-Month 

Analysis.......................................................... C9

Exhibit D-1. Survey Nonresponse Incidence by Impact 

Comparison—37-Month Adult Survey........... D2

Exhibit D-2. Characteristics Examined in Baseline 

Equivalency Testing ....................................... D3

Exhibit D-3. Summary of Equivalence Testing in Impact 

Comparisons, 37-Month Adult Survey ........... D3

Exhibit D-4. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for SUB Versus UC Impact Comparison, 

37-Month Adult Survey.................................. D4

Exhibit D-5. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for CBRR Versus UC Impact Comparison, 

37-Month Adult Survey.................................. D5

Exhibit D-6. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for PBTH Versus UC Impact Comparison, 

37-Month Adult Survey.................................. D6

Exhibit D-7. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for SUB Versus CBRR Impact Comparison, 

37-Month Adult Survey.................................. D7

Exhibit D-8. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for SUB Versus PBTH Impact Comparison, 

37-Month Adult Survey.................................. D8

Exhibit D-9. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for CBRR Versus PBTH Impact Comparison, 

37-Month Adult Survey.................................. D9

Exhibit D-10. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for SUB + CBRR + PBTH Versus UC Impact 

Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey........... D10

Exhibit D-11. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for SUB + PBTH Versus CBRR Impact 

Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey........... D11

Exhibit D-12. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for SUB + CBRR Versus PBTH Impact 

Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey........... D12

Exhibit D-13. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for CBRR + PBTH Versus SUB Impact 

Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey........... D13

Exhibit D-14. Summary of Equivalence Testing of 

37-Month Respondents Versus Nonrespondents, by Assigned Intervention......... D14

Exhibit D-15. Summary of Baseline Equivalence Testing 

of 37-Month Respondents Versus Nonrespondents, by Impact Comparison ............ D14

Exhibit D-16. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents for 

SUB, 37-Month Adult Survey ....................... D15

Exhibit D-17. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents for 

CBRR, 37-Month Adult Survey..................... D16

Exhibit D-18. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents for 

PBTH, 37-Month Adult Survey..................... D17

Exhibit D-19. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents for 

UC, 37-Month Adult Survey......................... D18

Exhibit D-20. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents 

for SUB Versus UC Impact Comparison, 

37-Month Adult Survey................................ D19

Exhibit D-21. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents 

for CBRR Versus UC Impact Comparison, 

37-Month Adult Survey................................ D20

Exhibit D-22. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents 

for PBTH Versus UC Impact Comparison, 

37-Month Adult Survey................................ D21

Exhibit D-23. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents 

for SUB Versus CBRR Impact Comparison, 

37-Month Adult Survey................................ D22

Exhibit D-24. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents 

for SUB Versus PBTH Impact Comparison, 

37-Month Adult Survey................................ D23

Exhibit D-25. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents for 

CBRR Versus PBTH Impact Comparison, 

37-Month Adult Survey................................ D24

Exhibit D-26. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents 

for SUB + CBRR + PBTH Versus UC Impact 

Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey........... D25
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xiii

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Table of Contents

Exhibit D-27. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents 

for SUB + PBTH Versus CBRR Impact 

Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey........... D26

Exhibit D-28. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents 

for SUB + CBRR Versus PBTH Impact 

Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey........... D27

Exhibit D-29. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents 

for PBTH + CBRR Versus SUB Impact 

Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey........... D28

Exhibit D-30. Executive Summary Impact Estimates, 

Estimated Without Nonresponse Weights.... D29

Exhibit E-1. SUB Versus UC: Impacts on Use of ES and 

TH in Months 0 to 32 After RA .......................E2

Exhibit E-2. CBRR Versus UC: Impacts on Use of ES and 

TH in Months 0 to 32 After RA .......................E2

Exhibit E-3. PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on Use of ES and 

TH in Months 0 to 32 After RA .......................E3

Exhibit E-4. SUB Versus CBRR: Impacts on Use of ES 

and TH in Months 0 to 32 After RA.................E3

Exhibit E-5. SUB Versus PBTH: Impacts on Use of ES 

and TH in Months 0 to 32 After RA.................E4

Exhibit E-6. CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Use of ES 

and TH in Months 0 to 32 After RA.................E4

Exhibit F-1. SUB+CBRR+PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on 

Housing Stability at 37 Months .......................F2

Exhibit F-2. SUB+CBRR+PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on 

Family Preservation at 37 Months ...................F2

Exhibit F-3. SUB+CBRR+PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on 

Adult Well-Being at 37 Months.......................F3

Exhibit F-4. SUB+CBRR+PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on 

Child Well-Being Across Age Groups at 37 

Months............................................................F3

Exhibit F-5. SUB+CBRR+PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on 

Child Well-Being Developmental Outcomes 

by Age Group at 37 Months ............................F4

Exhibit F-6. SUB+CBRR+PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on 

Self-Sufficiency at 37 Months ..........................F5

Exhibit F-7. SUB+CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on 

Housing Stability at 37 Months .......................F6

Exhibit F-8. SUB+CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on 

Family Preservation at 37 Months ...................F6

Exhibit F-9. SUB+CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Adult 

Well-Being at 37 Months.................................F7

Exhibit F-10. SUB+CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Child 

Well-Being Across Age Groups at 37 Months ..F7

Exhibit F-11. SUB+CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Child 

Well-Being Developmental Outcomes by 

Age Group at 37 Months.................................F8

Exhibit F-12. SUB+CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on 

Self-Sufficiency at 37 Months ..........................F9

Exhibit F-13. SUB+PBTH Versus CBRR: Impacts on 

Housing Stability at 37 Months .....................F10

Exhibit F-14. SUB+PBTH Versus CBRR: Impacts on 

Family Preservation at 37 Months .................F10

Exhibit F-15. SUB+PBTH Versus CBRR: Impacts on Adult 

Well-Being at 37 Months...............................F11

Exhibit F-16. SUB+PBTH Versus CBRR: Impacts on Child 

Well-Being Across Age Groups at 37 Months...F11

Exhibit F-17. SUB+PBTH Versus CBRR: Impacts on Child 

Well-Being Developmental Outcomes by 

Age Group at 37 Months...............................F12

Exhibit F-18. SUB+PBTH Versus CBRR: Impacts on 

Self-Sufficiency at 37 Months ........................F13

Exhibit F-19. CBRR+PBTH Versus SUB: Impacts on 

Housing Stability at 37 Months .....................F14

Exhibit F-20. CBRR+PBTH Versus SUB: Impacts on 

Family Preservation at 37 Months .................F14

Exhibit F-21. CBRR+PBTH Versus SUB: Impacts on Adult 

Well-Being at 37 Monthss .............................F15

Exhibit F-22. CBRR+PBTH Versus SUB: Impacts on Child 

Well-Being Across Age Groups at 37 Months...F15

Exhibit F-23. CBRR+PBTH Versus SUB: Impacts on Child 

Well-Being Developmental Outcomes by 

Age Group at 37 Months...............................F16

Exhibit F-24. CBRR+PBTH Versus SUB: Impacts on 

Self-Sufficiency at 37 Months ........................F17
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xiv

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Table of Contents

Exhibit G-1. Number of Programs From Which Cost 

Data Were Collected and Presence of SUB 

Intervention by Study Site .............................. G2

Exhibit G-2. Cost Data Collection Categories and 

Associated Item Prompts................................ G2

Exhibit G-3. Determining Inclusion of External Services .... G3

Exhibit G-4. Valuing In-Kind Services................................ G4

Exhibit G-5. Program Level Average per Family Cost 

Calculations.................................................... G5

Exhibit H-1. SUB Versus UC: Program Use From 19th 

Month After RA Until 37-Month Survey 

Response Month............................................. H1

Exhibit H-2. CBRR Versus UC: Program Use From 19th 

Month After RA Until 37-Month Survey 

Response Month............................................. H2

Exhibit H-3. PBTH Versus UC: Program Use From 19th 

Month After RA Until 37-Month Survey 

Response Month............................................. H2

Exhibit H-4. SUB Versus CBRR: Program Use From 19th 

Month After RA Until 37-Month Survey 

Response Month............................................. H3

Exhibit H-5. SUB Versus PBTH: Program Use From 19th 

Month After RA Until 37-Month Survey 

Response Month............................................. H3

Exhibit H-6. CBRR Versus PBTH: Program Use From 

19th Month After RA Until 37-Month 

Survey Response Month ................................. H4

Exhibit H-7. Housing Stability Outcomes for the SUB 

RA Group by Use of the Offered Permanent 

Subsidy .......................................................... H4

Exhibit H-8. Housing Stability Outcomes for the CBRR 

RA Group by Use of Rapid Re-Housing .......... H5

Exhibit H-9. Housing Stability Outcomes for the PBTH 

RA Group by Use of Transitional Housing...... H5

Exhibit I-1. Impacts on Length of Baseline Stay in 

Emergency Shelter............................................I1
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xv

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AFCARS Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting 

System

CBRR priority access to community-based rapid re-housing 

CoC Continuum of Care (program); continuum of care 

(generic)

FMR Fair Market Rent 

HAP Housing Assistance Payment 

HCV Housing Choice Voucher program 

HMIS Homeless Management Information System 

HPRP Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing 

Program 

HTKS Head, Toes, Knees, Shoulders

ITT intention-to-treat

PBTH priority access to project-based transitional housing 

PHA public housing agency 

PIC Public and Indian Housing Information Center 

PTSD post-traumatic stress disorder

RA random assignment

SHP Supportive Housing Program

SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

SUB priority access to permanent housing subsidy 

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

TRACS Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System 

UC usual care

WIC Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 

Women, Infants, and Children
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xvi

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development undertook the Family Options Study to gather evidence about which types of housing and services 

programs work best for homeless families. The study examines 

the effects of three types of programs—permanent housing subsidies, community-based rapid re-housing, and project-based 

transitional housing—compared with one another and with 

the usual care available to homeless families. The three types of 

programs are distinguished from one another by the duration 

of housing assistance and the type and intensity of social 

services provided to families. Usual care consists of emergency 

shelter and housing or services that families can access without 

immediate referral to a program that would provide them with 

a place to live.

From September 2010 through January 2012, 2,282 families 

enrolled in the Family Options Study across 12 communities1

after spending at least 7 days in emergency shelter. After 

providing informed consent and completing a baseline survey, 

the families were randomly assigned to one of four groups: 

(1) SUB, in which families have priority access to a permanent 

housing subsidy; (2) CBRR, in which families have priority 

access to community-based rapid re-housing; (3) PBTH, in 

which families have priority access to project-based transitional 

housing; or (4) UC, in which families have access to usual 

care homeless and housing assistance but do not have priority 

access to any particular program. Random assignment yielded 

groups of families with no systematic differences in baseline 

characteristics. Families were free to take up the program 

to which they were offered priority access or to make other 

arrangements, so each group used a mix of programs. Nonetheless, patterns of program use among the groups of families 

contrasted substantially. The study therefore provides a strong 

basis for conclusions about the relative impacts of the interventions on several aspects of family well-being.2

At 20 months after random assignment, the Family Options 

Study produced important and, in some cases, surprising findings (see Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing 

and Services Interventions for Homeless Families; hereafter, the 

Short-Term Impacts report; Gubits et al., 2015); however, 20 

months is not a long enough period to evaluate the effects of 

temporary programs that can last up to 18 months (as with CBRR 

programs) or 24 months (as with PBTH programs). Some 

families may not have received a full dose of the temporary 

assistance by the time of the short-term analysis at 20 months, 

so different findings may emerge during a longer period. In 

addition, some families were still in these temporary programs 

at 20 months, so they may have different outcomes after leaving.

This report presents the analysis of the 3-year impacts of the 

three interventions in five domains related to family well-being: 

(1) housing stability, (2) family preservation, (3) adult wellbeing, (4) child well-being, and (5) self-sufficiency. The report 

also describes the relative costs of the interventions based on 

program use during the 3-year followup period. 

The 3-year analysis addresses three primary questions.

1. What programs do families who experience homelessness 

use during a 3-year period, and how does assignment to an 

intervention that offers priority access to a particular kind of 

program affect this program use? 

2. At 3 years after random assignment, what are the relative 

effects of the three active interventions compared with usual 

care and of the active interventions compared with each other? 

3. What are the cumulative costs of the interventions during 

the 3 years following random assignment? 

Study Interventions

The study examines four interventions, to which families are 

randomly assigned:

1. The SUB intervention offers families a permanent housing 

subsidy, usually a housing choice voucher, which could include 

assistance to find housing but no other supportive services. 

1

 The 12 communities participating in the study are Alameda County, California; Atlanta, Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Bridgeport and New Haven, 

Connecticut; Denver, Colorado; Honolulu, Hawaii; Kansas City, Missouri; Louisville, Kentucky; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Phoenix, Arizona; and Salt Lake City, Utah. 

2

 Two previous reports provide information about the Family Options Study: the Interim Report: Family Options Study (Gubits et al., 2013), which documented study implementation findings and baseline characteristics of the research sample, and the Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless 

Families (Gubits et al., 2015), which presents findings from the 20-month impact analysis.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xvii

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Executive Summary

2. The CBRR intervention offers families temporary rental 

assistance, potentially renewable for up to 18 months, paired 

with limited, housing-focused services to help families find 

and rent conventional, private-market housing. 

3. The PBTH intervention offers families temporary housing 

for up to 24 months in agency-controlled buildings or 

apartment units, paired with intensive supportive services. 

4. The UC intervention did not offer priority access to any 

type of homeless or housing assistance. Families assigned 

to the UC intervention could use any housing or services 

in the community that a family could access in the absence 

of immediate referral to the other interventions. The UC 

intervention typically included at least some additional stay 

in the emergency shelter from which families were enrolled.

The study team analyzed all six possible contrasts among these 

four interventions, as shown in Exhibit ES-1. The order of 

the presentation of findings for the pairwise comparisons is 

reflected in the alphabetic ordering of the arrows (for example, 

discussion begins with “Contrast A” between the SUB intervention and the UC intervention).

Random Assignment Design

To be eligible for the study, families had to include at least one 

child age 15 or younger and had to have resided in emergency 

shelter for 7 or more days. The study team excluded families 

who left shelter in fewer than 7 days because the three interventions examined may not be necessary for families who can 

resolve a housing crisis quickly. As soon as was feasible after 

the 7-day mark, the study team randomly assigned families to 

the SUB, CBRR, PBTH, or UC group. 

In the original random assignment design, each family was to 

have had a chance of being assigned to all four groups (SUB, 

CBRR, PBTH, and UC). A number of factors prevented the 

study from being implemented exactly as planned. First, all 

four interventions were offered in only nine sites. Two sites 

(Atlanta and Baltimore) did not offer the SUB intervention and 

one site (Boston) did not offer the PBTH intervention. Second, 

interventions were available to families only in cases in which 

at least one provider of the intervention type had an available 

slot. Third, some service providers had unique eligibility 

requirements for families. Before random assignment, the study 

team screened families for eligibility for the providers that had 

Exhibit ES-1. Six Pairwise Comparisons Among the Four Interventions
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xviii

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Executive Summary

available slots using criteria specified by the providers. The 

purpose of this screening was to minimize the likelihood of 

assigning families to interventions they would not be eligible to 

receive. As a result, for an intervention option to be available 

to a family undergoing random assignment, at least one slot 

had to be open at an intervention provider for which the family 

met provider-specific eligibility requirements. All families were 

eligible for usual care by definition. 

These factors cumulatively led to situations in which most 

study families did not have all four options available to them 

at the time of random assignment. Of the 2,282 families 

enrolled in the study, 264 families had two randomization 

options, 1,544 families had three randomization options, and 

474 had all four randomization options available. All analyses 

were conducted pairwise, contrasting an active intervention 

with another active intervention or with the usual care. Only 

families who were eligible for both interventions in a pairwise 

comparison (for example, the SUB and CBRR interventions) 

and were randomized to one of them were included in each 

comparison. Hence, each comparison can be thought of as an 

experiment between two well-matched groups that differ only 

in the intervention to which they were assigned. 

Exhibit ES-2 shows the total number of families assigned to 

each intervention. The exhibit also shows the number of families who responded to the followup survey conducted a median 

of 37 months after random assignment; this set of families is 

included in the impact analyses in this report.3 Altogether, 

1,621 families (71 percent of the sample) completed both the 

20- and 37-month surveys.4

Meaning of Intention-to-Treat (ITT) 

Impact Estimates 

The inherent strength of the experimental research design 

employed in the Family Options Study is the assurance that 

the groups that are created through the random assignment 

process will be similar to each other in all respects except 

for their priority access to a particular type of homeless or 

housing assistance program. This assurance means that that 

subsequent differences in outcomes (beyond the bounds of 

chance sampling variability) reflect the relative impact of those 

interventions. 

The Family Options Study tests for the impacts of three different 

potential emphases in federal or local assistance policy to homeless 

families: (1) What impact would priority access to project-based 

transitional housing (offered to the PBTH group) have on 

families in shelter who are not able to resolve their episodes of 

homelessness quickly? (2) How does this policy compare with 

providing access to community-based rapid re-housing (offered 

to the CBRR group)? (3) How does it compare to permanent 

housing subsidies (offered to the SUB group)? In each case, 

the corresponding policy question is, “What impact would this 

policy emphasis have on the outcomes of families in shelter 

relative to usual care or another policy emphasis?” 

The 3-year followup data for study participants tell what would 

happen if each of these ways of targeting offers and access were 

pursued as federal or local policy—for the families actually 

studied in the target communities. The pairwise comparisons 

between active interventions show the impact of offering families priority access to one type of program rather than another. 

The data also allow for the comparison of each option with the 

mix of programs that the homeless assistance systems provided 

at the time of the study (that is, the programs available to the 

UC group). The pairwise comparisons between active interventions and usual care show the impact of referring a family to a 

specific type of program compared with the impact of letting 

families pursue any available assistance on their own.

The analysis in this report measures the impact of having been 

offered a particular type of program regardless of whether the 

family involved actually received the program assistance. The 

findings reflect the real way in which the homeless assistance 

system interacts with families, in that families are offered 

Exhibit ES-2. Total Number of Families Assigned to Each Intervention and Number of Followup Survey Respondents 

Intervention Families Assigned Families Responding to the 

37-Month Followup Survey Response Rate (%)

Permanent housing subsidy (SUB) 599 501 83.6

Community-based rapid re-housing (CBRR) 569 434 76.3

Project-based transitional housing (PBTH) 368 293 79.6

Usual care (UC) 746 556 74.5

Total 2,282 1,784 78.2

Sources: Random assignment records; Family Options Study 37-month followup survey

3

 The median time from random assignment to the followup survey was 37 months. The minimum time was 32 months and the maximum was 50 months. 

4

 Gubits et al. (2015) analyzed short-term impacts of the interventions. The study team attempted to contact families for the study’s first followup survey beginning in the 

18th month after random assignment. The median time from random assignment to the followup survey was 20 months. The followup period reported in Gubits et al. 

(2015) is thus 20 months, but the followup survey is sometimes referred to as the 18-month survey.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xix

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Executive Summary

assistance rather than mandated to accept the assistance being 

offered. Whether families participate in a program to which 

they have gained priority access through their randomly 

assigned intervention reflects the relative desirability and 

accessibility of the programs for families within the context of 

the other options they may choose to pursue on their own. 

As the report shows, in the 3 years after random assignment, 

a substantial number of families did not use the program to 

which they were given priority access, and some used other 

programs. The full experimental sample for a given intervention 

collectively shows how different forms of housing assistance are 

used when families are given priority access to one particular 

program type while simultaneously having the freedom to use 

other forms of assistance available in their communities. Including 

all the families randomly assigned to the UC group similarly 

reveals the range of programs used when no priority access 

is provided. The programs (including the programs offered 

by the interventions examined in this study) that UC families 

used exist in communities and would each continue to exist 

even with a stronger federal or local push for only one of them. 

Thus, the full-sample comparisons between randomly assigned 

interventions—known as “intention to treat,” or ITT, impact 

estimates—provide the best guide to policymakers in a messy, 

complex world and are reported here as the main study findings.

Data Sources

The bulk of the impact findings documented in this report is 

drawn from the 1,784 families who responded to the 37-month 

followup survey and is based on data from several sources 

described in Exhibit ES-3.5

Exhibit ES-3. Data Sources Used in the Analysis of 3-Year Impacts

Study implementation records

Random assignment enrollment data Random assignment enrollment data contain identifiers for enrolled families, responses to eligibility screening questions, information about intervention availability at the time of random assignment, and random assignment result.

Study families

Baseline survey The baseline survey conducted immediately before random assignment provides information about the adult 

respondent and the family. The study team defined covariates from these data and included them in impact models 

to improve the precision of impacts estimates. 

Tracking surveys Tracking surveys conducted 6, 12, and 27 months after random assignment contain updated contact information 

and details about family composition and housing status.

20- and 37-month followup surveys The 20- and 37-month followup surveys with adult respondents measure family outcomes. Adults reported on 

themselves and up to two children, called focal children, who were part of the family at the time of study enrollment. 

Focal children were randomly selected within specified age groups.

37-month child assessments Child assessments, which were conducted with focal children ages 3 years, 6 months to 7 years, 11 months in 

conjunction with the adult followup survey, measure child well-being outcomes.

37-month child survey The child survey, conducted with focal children ages 8 to 17 years in conjunction with the adult followup survey, 

measures child well-being outcomes.

Study intervention providers

Enrollment verification data Enrollment verification data collected from program providers measure use of the assigned intervention for each 

family.

Program information Program information about the housing and services offered during the study period collected from intervention 

providers describes the interventions.

Cost information Cost information collected from intervention providers measures costs of overhead, rental assistance, facility operations, supportive services, and capital costs.

Administrative data systems

HMIS records Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) records, collected from the communities where families enrolled, 

provide indicators of study families’ participation in homeless assistance programs.

HUD’s PIC records HUD’s Public and Indian Housing Information Center (PIC) records measure receipt of housing assistance from the 

Housing Choice Voucher program, public housing programs, and project-based voucher programs.

HUD’s TRACS records HUD’s Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS) records measure receipt of housing assistance 

through project-based Section 8 programs.

Child welfare records State and local child welfare agency records (using Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System 

[AFCARS] reporting definitions) on formal foster care placements and adoptions measure family separations and 

unifications. 

Quarterly wage records National Directory of New Hires data on quarterly wages measure employment and earnings.

5

 Impact findings from administrative earnings records are drawn from the full study sample of 2,282 families. Impact findings from administrative child welfare records 

are drawn from the full study samples of 5 of the 12 sites (951 families).
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xx

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Executive Summary

Hypothesized Effects of the 

Interventions

The study team developed hypotheses about the potential 

effects of the interventions based on the conceptual framework 

underlying the SUB, CBRR, and PBTH interventions. Chapter 3 

of the Short-Term Impacts report (Gubits et al., 2015) discusses 

the theoretical framework in detail. The interventions reflect 

different implicit theories about the nature of family homelessness and the approaches best suited to address the problem. 

These implicit theories arise from different understandings of 

the origins of homelessness, the needs of homeless families, the 

effect of family challenges on achieving residential stability, and 

the appropriate role of the homeless assistance system.

Some theories posit that household challenges—for example, 

trauma, substance use problems, mental health issues, lack of 

job skills—must be addressed first for families to succeed in 

housing. Others posit that progress on these issues is likely 

to be achieved only after families are stabilized in permanent 

housing. 

These different theories and different perceptions of the 

homeless assistance system’s role result in different emphases 

among three central goals of interventions for homeless 

families: (1) ending the immediate episode of homelessness 

and preventing returns to shelter; (2) fostering longer-term 

residential stability; and (3) promoting nonhousing outcomes, 

including self-sufficiency, family preservation, and adult and 

child well-being. 

Conceptual Framework for the SUB and 

CBRR Interventions

It is appropriate to consider the conceptual rationales for the 

SUB and CBRR interventions together because proponents of 

both permanent housing subsidies and community-based rapid 

re-housing believe that the key goal of homeless interventions 

should be ending homelessness swiftly, reducing the number of 

families who return to shelter, and restoring families to housing 

stability. This position follows from the view that family homelessness is largely a consequence of housing costs that outstrip 

the incomes of poor families, a problem that housing subsidies 

can solve. Subsidies—whether the permanent housing subsidies 

of the SUB intervention or the temporary housing subsidies of 

the CBRR intervention—can help families obtain and maintain 

stable housing. 

Permanent housing subsidies were not created as a response 

to homelessness. Instead, they already existed as an element of 

the broader social safety net at the time the homeless assistance 

system began to expand into its current configuration in the 

late 1980s. Resource constraints mean that, outside the context 

of this study, a permanent housing subsidy is rarely accessible 

by families at the outset of an episode of homelessness unless 

they already have a place near the top of a waiting list. By contrast, 

community-based rapid re-housing was developed specifically 

as a response to homelessness. Unless resources devoted to 

permanent housing subsidies are vastly increased, this assistance 

is unlikely to become widely available to families at the time 

they are experiencing homelessness. Thus, proponents of rapid 

re-housing argue that limited resources dedicated to homelessness could be stretched to create the best outcomes for 

the most people by making subsidies temporary (Culhane, 

Metraux, and Byrne, 2011). 

Proponents of rapid re-housing emphasize restoring families to 

conventional housing as swiftly as possible (the “rapid” in rapid 

re-housing), thereby reducing time staying in shelter and on 

the street, which they see as harmful. In addition, they focus on 

preventing returns to homelessness. Proponents of permanent 

housing subsidies focus more on long-term stability and question whether the short-term subsidies that rapid re-housing 

provides are sufficient to foster such stability. Proponents of 

rapid re-housing argue that a temporary subsidy may induce 

families to strive to become economically self-sufficient sooner. 

Unlike permanent housing subsidies, rapid re-housing offers 

some services focused on housing and self-sufficiency. 

Advocates of both types of subsidies acknowledge that homeless families, like other poor families, must contend with a 

variety of challenges, but these advocates believe that such 

challenges are better addressed by mainstream community 

agencies rather than by specialized homeless services. Proponents of both types of subsidies argue that stable housing 

provides a platform from which families can address other 

problems on their own using community resources, if they 

need to and choose to do so, while reserving scarce housing 

dollars for housing. Thus, the stability that either a short-term 

or permanent housing subsidy provides may have radiating 

effects on other aspects of family well-being.

For comparisons involving the SUB and CBRR interventions 

and usual care, the study team developed four hypotheses that 

derive from this conceptual framework. 

Hypotheses for Comparisons Involving the 

SUB and CBRR Interventions and Usual Care

SUB Versus UC

Relative to the UC intervention, the SUB intervention will 

reduce shelter use and improve housing stability and may 

improve family preservation, adult well-being, and child 

well-being. 
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xxi

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Executive Summary

CBRR Versus UC

Relative to the UC intervention, the CBRR intervention will 

reduce shelter use and may improve housing stability, employment and earnings, family preservation, adult well-being, and 

child well-being. It will reduce the length of the shelter stay at 

the time of study entry and may be less costly. 

SUB Versus CBRR

Relative to the CBRR intervention, the SUB intervention will 

reduce shelter use and improve housing stability and may 

improve family preservation and adult and child well-being.

Relative to the SUB intervention, the CBRR intervention will 

reduce the length of the shelter stay at the time of study entry 

and will be less costly. It may improve employment and earnings. 

Conceptual Framework for the PBTH 

Intervention

Proponents of transitional housing have a different understanding of the origins of family homelessness and the appropriate 

role of the homeless assistance system than do proponents of 

permanent housing subsidies and rapid re-housing. Although 

the housing market is difficult for poor families, most families 

do not experience homelessness. Proponents of transitional 

housing emphasize that many families who do become homeless have barriers in addition to poverty that make it difficult 

for them to secure and maintain housing. Thus, housing subsidies alone may be insufficient to ensure housing stability and 

other desirable outcomes, particularly for families who have 

been in shelter for at least 7 days (for example, Bassuk and 

Geller, 2006). Family needs may arise from poverty, health, 

disability, or other problems that led to homelessness to begin 

with or from the disruptive effects of homelessness on parents 

and children.

The premise for project-based transitional housing is that, by 

addressing these barriers and needs in a supervised residential 

setting, PBTH programs lay the best foundation for ongoing 

stability. Basing their work on family needs, case managers coordinate the services (on site or by referral) to lay the essential 

groundwork for later independence. 

Different PBTH programs focus on different issues, but all 

provide supportive services designed to reduce barriers to 

housing, enhance adults’ well-being, and bolster adults’ ability 

to manage in ordinary housing after they leave programs (Burt, 

2010). Practitioners’ goals for project-based transitional housing, as documented in the literature (for example, Burt, 2006), 

thus extend beyond housing stability to adult well-being and 

aspects of family self-sufficiency. Although some PBTH programs provide services directly to children, family preservation 

and child outcomes are usually seen as more distal outcomes. 

Given this conceptual framework for project-based transitional 

housing, the study team defined five hypotheses about the 

potential effects of the PBTH intervention when compared with 

usual care and with the SUB and CBRR interventions.

Hypotheses for Comparisons Involving the 

PBTH Intervention

PBTH Versus UC

Relative to the UC intervention, the PBTH intervention will 

reduce shelter use and improve housing stability, employment, 

earnings, education, and adult well-being and may improve 

family preservation and child well-being.

PBTH Versus SUB

From the perspective of transitional housing proponents: Relative 

to the SUB intervention, the PBTH intervention will improve 

employment, earnings, education, and adult well-being and 

may improve long-term housing stability, family preservation, 

and child well-being. 

From the perspective of permanent housing subsidy proponents: Relative to the PBTH intervention, the SUB intervention 

will reduce shelter use and improve housing stability and 

may improve family preservation, adult well-being, and child 

well-being.

PBTH Versus CBRR

From the perspective of transitional housing proponents: 

Relative to the CBRR intervention, the PBTH intervention will 

improve employment, earnings, education, and adult wellbeing and may improve long-term stability, family preservation, 

and child well-being. 

From the perspective of rapid re-housing proponents: Relative 

to the PBTH intervention, the CBRR intervention will reduce 

shelter use and may improve housing stability, family preservation, adult well-being, child well-being, employment, and 

earnings. It will reduce the length of time families spend in 

places not meant for human habitation and in shelters, which 

are costly. 

Even if the longer housing subsidies of the SUB intervention or 

the more extensive social services of the PBTH intervention are 

important for some families, an important question is whether 

all families need such intensive involvement in the homeless 

assistance system. Thus, the study team also developed hypotheses that the more intensive interventions would have larger 

effects on outcomes for families who faced more psychosocial 

challenges and housing barriers.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xxii

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Executive Summary

Baseline Characteristics of the 

Study Sample 

At the time of random assignment, characteristics of the 2,282 

families who enrolled in the Family Options Study were similar 

to characteristics of families who experience homelessness 

nationwide. This observation is true even though the sites were 

not a randomly selected sample of communities. 

The typical family in the study consisted of an adult woman, a 

median of 29 years old, living with one or two of her children 

in an emergency shelter. At baseline, 30 percent of families 

had more than one adult present. Nearly all families who had 

two adults present were headed by couples, and 10 percent 

of families had a partner living elsewhere. As in other studies 

of homelessness among families, members of minority groups 

were overrepresented, even in proportion to the poverty 

population. 

A plurality of families (43 percent) had only one child with 

them in the shelter, and one-half of the families were with a 

child younger than age 3. Most families in the study (79 percent) were not homeless immediately before entering the shelter from which they were recruited into the study. About 63 

percent of family heads in the study, however, had experienced 

homelessness at some other point in their lifetime, with 16 

percent of adult respondents having experienced homelessness 

as a child. An even greater proportion (85 percent) indicated 

they lived doubled up at some point as an adult, defined in the 

survey as “staying with family or friends because you couldn’t 

find or afford a place of your own.”

Most family heads were not working at the time of random 

assignment (83 percent), and more than one-half had not 

worked for pay in the previous 6 months. The median annual 

household income of all families in the study at baseline was 

$7,410. Many reported they either had a poor rental history 

(26 percent had been evicted) or had never been a leaseholder 

(35 percent). Nearly one in three reported either post-traumatic 

stress disorder or serious psychological distress, and 21 percent 

reported a disability that prevents or limits work. 

Intervention Eligibility Screening 

and Family Decisions 

The Interim Report: Family Options Study (hereafter the Interim 

Report; Gubits et al., 2013) examined intervention availability 

and family eligibility at randomization for the 2,282 families 

in the Family Options Study. Both availability of interventions 

and family eligibility, according to screening before random 

assignment, were most constrained for the PBTH intervention. 

The CBRR intervention was more available than the SUB 

intervention but had slightly more restrictive eligibility 

requirements. Thus, it was more difficult for families to meet 

the eligibility criteria of the programs that are ordinarily part of 

the homeless assistance system (PBTH and CBRR) than for the 

programs that are not (SUB programs). 

For a family to use the type of program offered to the group to 

which it had been assigned, it had to (1) pass an eligibility determination conducted by the specific program to which it was 

referred and (2) choose to take up the program. The Interim 

Report (Gubits et al., 2013) found that some of the families who 

passed the initial screening by the study were later deemed 

ineligible by the programs to which they were referred and 

thus were denied services in the program to which they were 

given priority access. Other fully eligible families chose not to 

take up the program to which they were given priority access. 

Compared with the CBRR and SUB interventions, the PBTH 

intervention had both the highest proportion of families found 

ineligible after random assignment and the highest proportion 

of families who chose not to take up the program to which they 

were given priority access. Considering both initial screening 

by the study and later eligibility screening by programs, the 

SUB intervention was the most accessible to families and the 

PBTH intervention was the least accessible. 

The Interim Report (Gubits et al., 2013) concluded that homeless assistance programs in the study communities imposed 

eligibility criteria that hampered their ability to serve families 

in shelter who needed the assistance. Even when programs had 

space available, the programs often screened out families in 

shelter based on eligibility criteria such as insufficient income, 

substance abuse, criminal histories, and other factors that presumably contributed to the families’ homelessness. Moreover, 

families who are homeless do not always pursue the programs 

offered to them, which suggests that some programs deliver 

assistance that some families perceive as less valuable to them 

than other alternatives available in their communities.

Study Findings Over the 3-Year 

Followup Period

The Short-Term Impacts report (Gubits et al., 2015) presented 

findings about the study families and impacts of the interventions at 20 months after random assignment. The body of the 

current report presents findings about the families and interventions 17 months later, at 37 months after random assignment. The results from both time points are important. Some 

impacts that were detected at 20 months are not detected in the 

37-month analysis. Other impacts are detected at 37 months 

but were not apparent at the earlier point. Impacts found at 

either point in time hold importance when considering the 

relative benefits of the interventions during 3 years of study. 
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xxiii

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Executive Summary

Usual Care Group During the Followup Period 

Program Use of the Usual Care Group 

Inasmuch as the experiences of families in the 12 study communities reflect families’ experiences in the nation more 

broadly, the experiences of families assigned to the UC group 

inform policymakers about what typically happens to families 

who have been in shelter for at least 7 days and who do not 

receive priority access to any type of designated assistance. On 

average, families assigned to the UC group spent 4 months 

in emergency shelter during the 37-month followup period. 

Exhibit ES-4 shows the proportions of UC families who used 

different types of programs in each month during the first 

32 months after random assignment (the longest period for 

which the study team has data for all families). It breaks out 

four categories: (1) any permanent housing subsidy, including 

mainstream housing programs and permanent supportive 

housing; (2) rapid re-housing rental assistance; (3) transitional 

housing; and (4) emergency shelter. 

For some families assigned to the UC group, the emergency 

shelter stay was the only interaction with the homeless or housing 

assistance systems. As Exhibit ES-4 shows, however, most 

UC families ultimately found their way to other types of 

assistance. Of the UC families who responded to the 3-month 

followup survey, 20 percent received rapid re-housing and 30 

percent received transitional housing at some time during the 

3-year followup period. Considering all forms of permanent 

subsidy (housing choice vouchers, public housing, permanent 

supportive housing, a project-based voucher, or assistance in a 

Section 8 project), even without priority access, 37 percent of UC 

families used some form of permanent subsidy for an average of 

19 months at some point during the 3-year followup period.6

Exhibit ES-4. Program Use of UC Families for 32 Months After RA

Emergency shelter

Transitional housing

Rapid re-housing

Any permanent housing subsidy

Unknown/no program use

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of UC families using program type in month (percent)

Month after RA

UC = usual care.

RA = random assignment.

Notes: This exhibit shows program use for all families assigned to UC who responded to the 37-month survey. Complete Program Usage Data for 37-month respondent families 

are available only through month 32 after random assignment. Families who have more than one type of program use in a calendar month are counted fractionally in each type.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data

6

 In the entire study, 746 families were randomly assigned to the UC group. Of these families, 556 responded to the followup survey and are the families shown in 

Exhibit ES-4. Different subsets of these 556 families form the comparison groups for SUB, CBRR, and PBTH.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xxiv

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Executive Summary

This percentage continued to grow over time, whereas use of 

other housing programs declined. By the time of the followup 

survey (not shown in Exhibit ES-4) more than one-half of the 

UC families (60 percent) were not using any type of assistance 

measured, nearly one-third (30 percent) were using some type 

of permanent housing, and the remainder were using emergency 

shelter, rapid re-housing, or transitional housing.

Outcomes of the Usual Care Group 

UC families were not faring well 20 months after enrollment 

in the study. One-half had spent at least 1 night homeless or 

doubled up in the 6 months before the 20-month survey or 

had been in shelter in the past 12 months. In the 6 months 

before the survey, 15 percent of families had been separated 

from a child who was with the family in shelter at study outset, 

and one-fourth of these separated children were in foster care. 

At the time of the survey, 32 percent of family heads reported 

fair or poor health, 15 percent reported alcohol dependence or 

substance abuse, and 12 percent had experienced intimate partner 

violence in the past 6 months. Less than one-third of UC family 

heads (31 percent) were working for pay and previous-year 

total family income was only about $9,000 per year—much 

less than what is needed to rent market-rate housing for a 

family in most communities. 

At 37 months after random assignment, UC families still faced 

substantial challenges, although, on average, their circumstances had improved somewhat since the 20-month survey. Of the 

whole group, 39 percent had spent at least 1 night homeless 

or doubled up in the 6 months before the 37-month survey or 

had been in shelter in the past 12 months, 18 percent reported 

being homeless in the 6 months before the 37-month survey, 

and 5 percent were in emergency shelter in the survey month. 

A little more than two-thirds (69 percent) of families were living in their own house or apartment (up from 58 percent at 20 

months). Physical health, substance use, and intimate partner 

violence were at levels similar to those at 20 months. Only 

37 percent of family heads were working for pay in the week 

before the survey. Median annual cash income from all sources 

for the previous calendar year was about $12,000, and nearly 

one-half of the families (47 percent) were food insecure.

Program Use for Pairwise Comparisons

The three panels of Exhibit ES-5 show the use of programs 

by the SUB, CBRR, and PBTH groups in each of the first 32 

months of the followup period (the period for which complete 

data are available). Program use for each group is initially 

dominated by the program to which families were offered priority access. The SUB group was offered permanent assistance, 

and most families were still using the permanent subsidy they 

were offered by the end of the followup period. The CBRR and 

PBTH groups were offered temporary assistance, and, by the 

end of the followup period, most families had ceased using the 

temporary assistance they were offered (earlier for the CBRR 

group than for the PBTH group, as expected, because of typical 

program lengths). In both the CBRR and PBTH groups, the 

proportions of families using permanent housing subsidies 

grew steadily during the followup period.

Exhibit ES-5. SUB, CBRR, and PBTH: Program Use for 32 Months After RA

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of SUB families using program type in month

Month after RA

Emergency shelter

Transitional housing

Rapid re-housing

Any permanent housing subsidy

Unknown/no program use
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xxv

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Executive Summary

Exhibit ES-5. SUB, CBRR, and PBTH: Program Use for 32 Months After RA (continued)

Emergency shelter

Transitional housing

Rapid re-housing

Any permanent housing subsidy

Unknown/no program use

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of CBRR families using program type in month

Month after RA

Emergency shelter

Transitional housing

Rapid re-housing

Any permanent housing subsidy

Unknown/no program use

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of PBTH families using program type in month (percent)

Month after RA

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy.

RA = random assignment

Notes: This exhibit shows program use for all SUB, CBRR, and PBTH families who responded to the 37-month survey. Complete Program Usage Data for 37-month respondent 

families are available only through month 32 after random assignment. Families who have more than one type of program use in a calendar month are counted fractionally in each 

type.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xxvi

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Executive Summary

Exhibit ES-6 documents the program use of the study families 

who responded to the 37-month followup survey—the sample 

for the longer-term impact analysis (and same sample shown 

in Exhibit ES-5). The exhibit shows the percentages of families 

who ever participated in several types of housing assistance 

programs between random assignment and the followup survey 

response. The columns in Exhibit ES-6 are organized by pairwise comparison. The exhibit displays the number of families 

included in each comparison (see row 10) and details their 

program use during the followup period (see rows 1 to 9). It 

accounts for eight types of programs:

1. Permanent housing subsidies offered to the SUB group 

(housing choice vouchers, public housing in Honolulu, and 

project-based vouchers in Bridgeport).

2. Rapid re-housing (that is, the temporary subsidies offered to 

the CBRR group).

3. Transitional housing.7

4. Permanent supportive housing.

5. Public housing in places other than Honolulu.

6. Project-based vouchers and units in Section 8 projects in 

places other than Bridgeport.

7. Any permanent subsidy (that is, any of the programs that 

comprise the SUB intervention in this study, permanent 

supportive housing, public housing, or project-based 

vouchers and units in Section 8 projects).

8. Emergency shelter. 

The experimental contrasts in use of these programs are 

depicted in the exhibit. The exhibit also shows (see row nine) 

the proportion of families who used no homeless or housing 

assistance and no emergency shelter after the first 6 months 

after random assignment. 

Exhibit ES-6 shows that the intervention assignments created 

substantial contrasts in program use, particularly in the use of 

programs that reflect the intended contrast (the shaded boxes). 

For example, in the SUB-versus-UC comparison, 83 percent of 

families assigned to the SUB intervention used the permanent 

housing subsidies they were offered, whereas only 13 percent 

of families assigned to the UC group used these permanent 

Exhibit ES-6. Program Use Since RA for All Pairwise Impact Comparisons 

Type of Homeless or Housing Assistance Percent of Families Who Ever Used Program Type From RA to 37-Month Followup Surveya

SUB UC CBRR UC PBTH UC SUB CBRR SUB PBTH CBRR PBTH

Permanent housing subsidies offered to the SUB groupb 83.2 12.7 9.8 12.2 9.6 10.6 82.3 9.8 82.3 7.2 6.7 8.7

Rapid re-housingc 11.4 22.9 58.5 22.5 13.7 17.8 14.7 60.5 5.7 12.0 54.6 15.8

Transitional housingd 7.4 28.9 23.2 27.5 53.2 34.6 7.4 19.8 9.4 49.5 30.7 53.4

Permanent supportive housing 3.0 10.7 9.8 11.7 11.0 11.6 3.9 11.6 2.1 11.6 9.2 10.7

Public housing 1.6 10.3 10.7 9.8 8.3 8.5 1.1 10.9 1.6 8.2 11.5 9.1

Project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects 1.5 6.1 5.6 6.3 6.2 7.2 1.1 7.0 1.7 7.2 4.8 6.1

Any permanent housing subsidye 88.4 37.9 35.4 37.9 33.0 34.7 87.4 38.4 86.6 30.9 32.3 33.3

Emergency shelterf 84.4 89.5 90.7 90.0 83.6 89.7 84.9 90.4 87.9 83.0 88.1 86.5

No use of homeless or housing programsg 5.1 24.3 9.2 24.4 18.1 26.9 4.5 9.5 7.1 20.5 14.3 16.8

N 501 395 434 434 293 259 362 290 215 201 180 184

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

RA = random assignment.

a

 Percentage of families who ever used a type of assistance program during the period from the month of RA to the month of 37-month followup survey response (median period 

duration: 38 calendar months). Percentages do not add to 100 because some families used more than one program type during the followup period.

b Subsidies offered to the SUB group are housing choice vouchers plus site-specific programs offered to families assigned to the SUB group in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and Honolulu, Hawaii.

c

 Temporary subsidies offered to the CBRR group.

d All types of transitional housing, including those offered to the PBTH group.

e

 Includes the types of permanent subsidy offered to the SUB group plus permanent supportive housing, public housing, and project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects.

f

 All families were in emergency shelter at RA. Percentages less than 100 percent for ever used emergency shelter are because of missing data on shelter use.

g

 Indicates no use of the first six program types in this table during any of the followup period and no use of emergency shelter after the first 6 months after RA. No use in the month 

of followup survey response indicates no use of any of these seven program types.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data

7

 Some transitional housing programs are based in projects or facilities that families leave after exiting the program. These programs are studied here, hence the term project-based 

transitional housing. Other transitional housing programs use residential units in the community so that families can “transition in place” to unassisted housing without having 

to move after supports are no longer needed. Transition-in-place programs of this sort share many of the same characteristics of CBRR programs, so they were not included as 

programs to which PBTH families could be directed after random assignment. The team made this decision to provide a stronger contrast between the PBTH and CBRR interventions studied. Some PBTH programs to which families were offered priority access provided units in the community (called “scattered-site” units) without the opportunity 

to transition in place. The Homeless Management Information System records, an important data source for observing program use, unfortunately do not distinguish between 

project-based and transition-in-place transitional housing. Therefore, some of the transitional housing use shown in Exhibit ES-6 may have been in transition-in-place units.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xxvii

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Executive Summary

housing subsidies. The durations of assistance were also longer 

for the assigned interventions (not shown in the exhibit). In 

the SUB-versus-UC comparison, families assigned to the SUB 

intervention who used the offered permanent housing subsidies 

did so for an average of 31 months, whereas UC families who 

used these subsidies without priority access used them for only 

21 months, on average. These findings generally reflect the 

longer time it took UC families to obtain access to permanent 

housing subsidies, if they did so at all. Considering all forms of 

permanent subsidy, Exhibit ES-6 shows that 38 percent of UC 

families in the SUB-versus-UC comparison used any form of 

permanent subsidy during the followup period compared with 

88 percent of families assigned to the SUB intervention.

In the CBRR-versus-UC comparison, the contrast in use of rapid 

re-housing rental assistance is smaller than for the SUB-versusUC comparison. Of families assigned to the CBRR group, 59 

percent used the offered assistance during the followup period 

compared with 23 percent of their counterparts in the UC group 

for this comparison. Families assigned to the CBRR group 

who used rapid re-housing programs did so for an average of 

8 months, the same length of time that UC families without 

priority access to CBRR used rapid re-housing programs. Similar 

proportions of CBRR and UC families used any form of permanent subsidy (35 and 38 percent, respectively). 

In the PBTH-versus-UC comparison, 53 percent of families 

assigned to the PBTH group used transitional housing during 

the followup period and 35 percent of UC families also used 

transitional housing. PBTH families who used transitional 

housing of any kind did so for an average of 15 months, 

whereas the UC families who used transitional housing without 

priority access did so for 11 months, on average. Altogether, 33 

percent of families assigned to the PBTH group used any form 

of permanent subsidy compared with 35 percent of UC families 

in the PBTH-versus-UC comparison.

Impact Estimates for Pairwise Comparisons

Before seeing the results of the impact analysis, the study team 

prespecified impacts on 18 key outcomes in the six pairwise 

comparisons to present in this executive summary. That step 

was taken to prevent the selective presentation of statistically 

significant results in the executive summary from among the 

84 outcomes examined for each comparison in the body of the 

report (534 impact estimates). The outcomes deemed most 

central to the study and those anticipated a priori to be most 

likely to be affected by the interventions were selected for this 

executive summary presentation. Impacts on the full set of 

outcomes are presented in Chapters 3 through 6 of the report. 

Exhibit ES-7 reports estimated 3-year impacts for the 18 prespecified outcomes for each pairwise comparison. The exhibit rows 

are organized into five panels corresponding to each outcome 

domain. The exhibit columns show the mean value of each 

outcome for the entire UC group, followed by impact estimates 

for each outcome in each of the six pairwise comparisons. Asterisks to the right of the impact estimates denote the statistical 

significance of the differences between the two groups being 

compared, with more asterisks indicating higher levels of 

statistical significance.

Within each domain, Exhibit ES-7 presents impacts on three 

or four outcomes. For the first four outcome domains (housing 

stability, family preservation, adult well-being, and child wellbeing), the outcomes are specified so that lower values indicate 

improvements. That is, for these domains, impact estimates with 

negative values indicate reductions in unfavorable outcomes 

or improvements for families. For the self-sufficiency domain, 

the goals of the interventions are to achieve higher values for 

each outcome. Thus, positive values for self-sufficiency impact 

estimates indicate improvements. Detailed definitions for the 

full set of outcomes appear in Chapter 2 and Appendix B of the 

report.

The results of the pairwise comparisons appear in the following 

sections. 

SUB Versus UC

The most notable effect of the SUB intervention relative to the 

UC intervention was its reduction in homelessness and doubling 

up. Assignment to the SUB intervention reduced the proportion 

of families who had a shelter stay in months 7 to 18 by almost 

one-half and in months 21 to 32 by more than three-fourths. At 

both the 20-month and 37-month followup points, assignment 

to the SUB intervention reduced by more than one-half the proportion of families who reported having spent at least 1 night 

in shelter or in places not meant for human habitation in the 

past 6 months, increased the proportion of families living in 

their own place by 15 percentage points, and reduced the 

number of places the families lived in the past 6 months. 

Additional effects occurred for some family preservation and 

child and adult well-being indicators. At 20 months, assignment 

to the SUB intervention reduced the proportion of families 

separated from a child present at baseline (10 percent in SUB 

families compared with 17 percent in UC families). This effect 

was not detected in the 3-year analysis. At 37 months (but not 

found earlier), assignment to the SUB intervention increased 

separations from the spouse or partner present at baseline 

(48 percent in SUB families compared with 34 percent in UC 

families). Assignment to the SUB intervention also improved 

some of the measures of adult well-being preselected for the 

executive summary presentation. At 20 months, assignment 

to the SUB group reduced psychological distress, reduced 
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xxviii

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Executive Summary

Exhibit ES-7. Summary of Impacts for Six Policy Comparisons 

Mean ITT Impact Estimates

Outcome All UC 

Group

SUB 

vs. UC

CBRR 

vs. UC

PBTH 

vs. UC

SUB 

vs. CBRR

SUB 

vs. PBTH

CBRR 

vs. PBTH

Housing stability (intervention goal: lower values)

At least 1 night homelessa or doubled up in past 6 months or in shelter 

in past 12 monthsb (%) [confirmatory]

38.6 – 21.1*** 1.9 0.3 – 20.4*** – 24.4*** – 3.1

At least 1 night homelessa or doubled up in past 6 months (%) 34.9 – 18.2*** 1.8 0.2 – 15.5*** – 22.1*** – 2.8

Number of places lived in past 6 months 1.59 – 0.25*** 0.03 – 0.03 – 0.14** – 0.31*** 0.09

Any stay in emergency shelter in months 7 to 18 after RA (%) 17.3 – 14.3*** – 2.5 – 6.0** – 12.8*** – 5.5** 1.6

Family preservation (intervention goal: lower values)

Family has at least one child separated in past 6 monthsc (%) 16.7 – 3.3 – 0.5 2.0 – 2.2 – 8.1** – 3.2

Spouse/partner separated in past 6 months, of those with spouse/partner 

present at RAd (%) [limited base]

38.1 13.4** 8.6 11.7 – 6.6 0.3 0.5

Family has no child reunified, of those families with at least one child 

absent at RAe (%) [limited base]

66.3 – 6.8 – 3.4 4.1 – 9.8 – 21.0 – 0.1

Adult well-being (intervention goal: lower values)

Health in past 30 days was poor or fair (%) 31.4 3.1 1.3 – 0.7 0.1 – 2.2 – 1.0

Psychological distressf 0.00 – 0.11* – 0.02 – 0.01 0.01 – 0.11 – 0.20**

Alcohol dependence or drug abuse in past 6 monthsg (%) 11.3 – 2.1 – 1.7 2.8 1.8 – 0.6 – 7.1**

Experienced intimate partner violence in past 6 months (%) 10.5 – 4.0* – 1.6 – 1.1 – 1.8 – 1.2 0.2

Child well-being (intervention goal: lower values)

Number of schools attended since RAh 2.10 – 0.15** 0.02 0.06 – 0.26*** – 0.22* 0.01

School absences in past month (ages 5 to 17 years)i 1.06 – 0.08 – 0.19 – 0.19 0.09 – 0.15 – 0.17

Poor or fair health (%) 5.9 2.0 – 0.6 – 0.0 1.0 – 2.9 – 2.2

Behavior problemsj 0.59 – 0.23** – 0.20** – 0.06 0.06 – 0.25* – 0.23*

Self-sufficiency (intervention goal: higher values)

Work for pay in week before survey (%) 37.0 – 0.9 0.5 0.6 – 0.6 – 2.0 – 3.8

Total family income ($) 12,099 – 883 – 505 – 191 – 901 – 1,230 – 1,745

Household is food secure (%) 53.2 9.6*** 4.2 1.9 2.6 12.8*** 11.6**

Number of families 556 895 868 551 652 414 363

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care. 

ITT = intention-to-treat. RA = random assignment.

*/**/*** Impact estimate is significantly different from 0 at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, using a two-tailed t-test (not adjusted for multiple comparisons).

a

 The definition of “homeless” in this report includes stays in emergency shelters and places not meant for human habitation. It excludes transitional housing. Additional impacts on 

the use of transitional housing are provided in Appendix E.

b After adjustment for multiple comparisons, the impact on the confirmatory outcome is statistically significant at the .01 level for the SUB-versus-UC, SUB-versus-CBRR, and SUBversus-PBTH comparisons.

c

 Percentage of families in which a child who was with the family at baseline became separated from the family in the 6 months before the 37-month survey.

d Percentage of families in which a spouse or partner who was with the family at baseline became separated from the family in the 6 months before the 37-month survey.

e

 Percentage of families in which at least one child was separated from the family at baseline where no child was reunited with the family at the time of the 37-month survey.

f

 Psychological distress is measured with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) and ranges from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater distress. Impacts shown as 

standardized effect sizes. Effect sizes were standardized by dividing impacts by standard deviation for the UC group.

g

 Measures evidence of alcohol dependence or drug abuse using responses to the Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS-4) and six items from the Drug Abuse Screening Test 

(DAST-10).

h

 Number of schools outcome is topcoded at 4 or more schools.

i

 Absences outcome is defined as 0 = no absences in past month; 1 = one to two absences; 2 = three to five absences; 3 = six or more absences. This parent-reported outcome 

was collected from only the first 38 percent of parents surveyed due to an error in data collection.

j

 Behavior problems outcome is measured as the standardized Total Difficulties score from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, or SDQ.

Notes: Impact estimates are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Appendix B for outcome definitions.

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey; Program Usage Data

evidence of alcohol and drug problems, and halved intimate 

partner violence compared with usual care. In the 3-year analysis, 

reductions in psychological distress and intimate partner 

violence were still evident.

Assignment to the SUB group also caused improvements in a 

few of the child well-being measures shown in Exhibit ES-7. 

Relative to usual care, assignment to the SUB intervention 

reduced the number of schools that children attended since 

random assignment (evident at both time points). Assignment 

to the SUB group also reduced the number of school absences 

(at 20 months only) and reduced the number of behavior 

problems reported by parents (at 37 months only). 

At 20 months after random assignment, assignment to the 

SUB group, when compared with usual care, reduced the 

proportion of family heads working in the week before the 

survey by 6 percentage points. This result is consistent with 
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xxix

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Executive Summary

economic theory, given that housing subsidies lessened the 

need for disposable income. A reduction was not evident at the 

time of the 37-month survey, although reports of work activity 

between the followup points showed that the proportion of 

family heads with any work effort between the surveys was 

reduced by 6 percentage points (not shown in the exhibit).

Assignment to the SUB intervention caused improvements in 

food security, increasing the percentage of households classified 

as food secure by 10 percentage points relative to usual care at 

both followup points. 

CBRR Versus UC

Almost no evidence of assignment to the CBRR intervention 

differentially affecting outcomes compared with assignment to 

the UC intervention appears at either 20 or 37 months of the 

followup period across the domains of housing stability, family 

preservation, and adult and child well-being. It is most striking 

that, relative to usual care, priority access to the temporary rental 

assistance offered in the CBRR intervention does not show impacts 

on subsequent stays in shelter or places not meant for human 

habitation during the 3-year followup period. Indications about 

consequences for children are limited, with assignment to the 

CBRR intervention leading to a reduction in school or childcare 

absences compared with usual care (at 20 months only) and in 

parent-reported behavior problems (at 37 months only). 

At 20 months, relative to usual care, assignment to the CBRR 

intervention improved food security and family income (with 

previous-year income for CBRR families about $1,100 more 

than for UC families). Neither of these effects was evident at 

37 months.

PBTH Versus UC

Compared with the UC intervention, assignment to the PBTH 

intervention improved housing stability but showed no evidence 

of impact in other domains. Assignment to the PBTH intervention 

reduced the proportion of families who had a stay in emergency shelter in months 7 to 18 after random assignment from 27 

to 19 percent (a much smaller impact than that of assignment 

to the SUB intervention relative to usual care). Assignment to 

the PBTH intervention also reduced the proportion of families 

who had any stay in emergency shelter in months 21 to 32 

after random assignment. This time period corresponds to the 

last full year observed for all sample members but overlaps a 

portion of the 24-month period that families could have stayed 

in transitional housing. For outcomes occurring further along 

in the followup period, no evidence indicates that assignment 

to the PBTH intervention is superior to usual care regarding 

housing stability. Besides housing stability, the study yields 

no evidence of effects of assignment to the PBTH intervention 

relative to usual care in other domains at either point in time. 

The lack of impacts on adult well-being and family self-sufficiency 

are particularly noteworthy here, given the emphasis placed 

by PBTH programs on delivering supportive services in these 

areas. None of the eight indicators examined for results in these 

domains showed any impact from assignment to the PBTH 

intervention compared with usual care, nor did assignment to 

the PBTH intervention provide better family preservation or 

child well-being outcomes than usual care. Overall, 3 years after 

assignment, the study did not find evidence that the goals of this 

distinctive approach to assisting families facing unstable housing situations were achieved relative to leaving families to find 

their way out of shelter without priority access to any program. 

SUB Versus CBRR

The most noteworthy effect of assignment to the SUB group 

relative to assignment to the CBRR group was improved housing stability. Relative to assignment to the CBRR intervention, 

assignment to the SUB intervention reduced the proportion of 

families who had a shelter stay or an experience of homelessness 

or doubling up—producing effects, at both followup points, 

nearly as large as those from the SUB-versus-UC comparison 

covered previously. By the time of the 37-month survey, the 

improvement in housing stability seems largely driven by a 

reduction in doubling up, rather than in shelter stays or in places 

not meant for human habitation (not shown in the exhibit). At 

both followup points, the greater stability afforded by assignment to the SUB intervention was also evidenced in a reduction 

in the number of places families lived in the past 6 months 

relative to assignment to the CBRR intervention. 

At 20 months, other scattered effects shown in the SUB-versusCBRR comparison mostly suggest more favorable outcomes 

for families assigned to the SUB intervention. In particular, 

assignment to the SUB intervention relative to assignment to 

the CBRR group reduced separations of spouses and partners, 

intimate partner violence, and the number of schools attended 

by children; however, it also reduced total prior-year income 

for the family.

At the later followup point, the study found few statistically 

significant differences outside the housing stability domain. Of 

the impacts detected at 20 months in this comparison, only the 

reduction in the number of schools attended was evident at 37 

months. 

SUB Versus PBTH

In most respects, the measured effects of assignment to the 

SUB intervention compared with assignment to the PBTH 

intervention mirror those found in the previous SUB-versusUC comparison. At both of the study’s followup points, the 

most noteworthy effect of assignment to the SUB intervention 

relative to the PBTH intervention is its greater prevention of 
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xxx

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Executive Summary

stays in shelter or places not meant for human habitation in 

each 6-month window before the followup surveys and in 

its reduction in doubled-up housing situations. The greater 

stability afforded by assignment to the SUB intervention was 

evidenced in a reduction in the number of places families lived 

in the past 6 months compared with assignment to the PBTH 

intervention. 

At 20 months, the SUB-versus-PBTH comparison showed 

effects on family preservation, adult well-being, and child 

well-being. The most notable effects of assignment to the SUB 

group relative to assignment to the PBTH group were a reduction in the proportion of families who had a child separation 

in the past 6 months, a decrease in the psychological distress 

reported by family heads, and a reduction in the number of 

schools that children attended since random assignment. The 

3-year analysis found two of these three effects: (1) reductions 

in child separation and in the number of schools attended and 

(2) an additional reduction in child behavior problems. No effects on adult well-being were found at the later followup point.

In the self-sufficiency domain at 20 months, the study found 

that assignment to the SUB group relative to assignment to the 

PBTH group caused a reduction in work effort. Assignment 

to the SUB intervention reduced the proportion of family 

heads who worked at 20 months (from 36 to 25 percent) and 

reduced average prior-year income from $10,500 to $9,000. 

These effects were not found at 37 months. At both followup 

points, the additional resources represented by the permanent 

housing subsidy served to increase food security relative to 

assignment to the PBTH intervention.

CBRR Versus PBTH

The CBRR-versus-PBTH comparison does not yield a strong 

pattern of effects across the study domains. In particular, no 

evidence indicates an effect on housing stability or family 

preservation. The CBRR-versus-PBTH comparison, however, 

yields statistically significant effects for four of the outcomes 

selected for the executive summary presentation in the adult 

well-being, child well-being, and self-sufficiency domains. 

All these significant results favored assignment to the CBRR 

intervention. In the adult well-being domain, at both followup 

points, assignment to the CBRR intervention reduced the 

proportion of adult respondents reporting alcohol dependence 

or drug abuse in the past 6 months and lowered the amount of 

psychological distress for family heads relative to assignment to 

the PBTH intervention. Assignment to the CBRR intervention 

also reduced the proportion of family heads reporting poor 

or fair health (at 20 months only), reduced parent-reported 

child behavior problems (at 37 months only), and reduced the 

proportion of families who are food insecure (at both followup 

points).

Do Certain Interventions Work Better 

When Offered to Families Facing Greater 

Difficulties?

A central question motivating the Family Options Study is 

whether some interventions work better than other interventions 

for families who had particular characteristics. The previously 

described study findings show that, on average, the SUB intervention had substantial impacts relative to the other interventions, 

not only for housing stability but also for outcomes in other 

domains. Do all families who experience homelessness need 

a deep permanent housing subsidy, however, or might some 

do as well on their own, in usual care, or with the shorter and 

often shallower subsidies of offered in the CBRR intervention? 

Conversely, although, on average, assignment to the PBTH 

intervention had few impacts relative to other interventions, 

might some families who face more challenges benefit more 

from its intensive social services? The more general form of 

these questions is whether the relative benefits of the longer 

term or more intensive interventions (SUB and PBTH) might 

increase as families’ reported difficulties increase. Because of 

the number of family characteristics that could lead to differential effects of interventions, the study team confined analyses 

of impact variations to two broad categories of family characteristics, summarized in indices of psychosocial challenges 

and barriers to housing. The study team examined whether the 

impact of the interventions relative to each other and to usual 

care increased as families’ scores on these indices increase.

It is clear that families in this study experience high levels of 

both psychosocial challenges and barriers to housing, which 

was by design: the study enrolled families only after they had 

spent at least 7 days in shelter. The examination of these potential moderator effects at 20 and 37 months does not provide 

appreciable evidence that any of the interventions studied work 

comparatively better for families who have more psychosocial 

challenges or housing barriers than for families who face fewer 

difficulties. As a result, the study’s clearest guidance for policy 

for all types of families at the 3-year followup point consists of 

the main study results on overall impacts.

Intervention Costs

The Family Options Study interventions were intended to vary 

in both intensity and duration. The permanent housing subsidies offered to the SUB group provided a deep rental subsidy, 

limiting families’ contributions to rent and utilities to about 30 

percent of monthly adjusted income. SUB programs did not 

provide supportive services, but the rental subsidy was for an 

indefinite duration. PBTH programs provided intensive housing 

and services support for a relatively long duration. CBRR programs provided a short-term rental subsidy with more limited 
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xxxi

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Executive Summary

supportive services, while emergency shelter programs often 

offered intensive supportive services and housing for a limited 

time. The study team compared the costs of the interventions 

using two measures of cost:

1. Per-family monthly cost of using a particular type of 

program (for example, permanent housing subsidies of the 

type offered to SUB families).

2. Per-family cost of all programs used by those assigned to 

an intervention (that is, the SUB, CBRR, PBTH, and UC 

interventions) during the 3-year followup period. 

The first measure provides information about the relative costs 

of funding different types of programs. The second measure 

provides context for interpreting the impacts of the contrasting 

results of random assignment—that is, the impact of assignment to a particular intervention presented in the pairwise 

comparisons in Chapters 3 through 6. This latter measure reflects the combined cost of all homeless and housing assistance 

program types that families in each pairwise comparison used 

during the 3-year followup period, those offered by the study 

and other types as well. 

Per-Family Monthly Program Cost

Emergency shelter programs had the highest average per-family 

monthly program cost—about $4,800—of all the types of 

programs examined. Supportive services made up 63 percent 

of emergency shelter costs, the highest share among the four 

program types considered. PBTH programs had an average 

cost per family per month of participation of about $2,700, 

with supportive services constituting, on average, 42 percent 

of those costs. Permanent subsidy programs cost, on average, 

about $1,200 per month per participating family. The cost of 

SUB programs consisted wholly of the cost of housing, because 

permanent subsidy programs do not provide supportive 

services. CBRR programs had the lowest per-family per-month 

cost, averaging about $900. Housing costs made up, on average, 72 percent of CBRR program costs.

Costs of the individual local programs that made up these 

averages varied considerably. PBTH programs and emergency 

shelters had the greatest variation, driven largely by variation 

in supportive services costs across local providers but also 

by variation in capital costs and administrative expenses. For 

the 24 PBTH programs examined in the cost analysis, average 

per-family monthly program cost ranged from $1,300 to $6,300. 

Average per-family monthly program cost for the 45 emergency 

shelter programs examined ranged from $1,900 to $9,200.

Variation in rapid re-housing and permanent subsidy costs 

from one local program to another was driven largely by housing costs. For the 12 CBRR programs in the cost analysis, the 

average per-family monthly program cost ranged from $550 to 

$1,400. Across the 10 sites where permanent housing subsidies 

were offered to families assigned to the SUB group, the average 

per-family per-month cost of subsidy program participation 

ranged from $770 to $2,100, largely reflecting differences in 

the local cost of rental housing. 

Total Costs of Programs Used During the 3-Year 

Followup Period

Exhibits ES-4, ES-5, and ES-6 show how families assigned to 

the four interventions used different mixes of homeless and 

housing assistance programs during the 3 years studied. The 

study team combined information about program use with 

per-family monthly program costs to estimate the total costs of 

programs used by families in each intervention group in each of 

the six pairwise comparisons. 

At 20 months after random assignment, the study found that 

the per-family cost of all program use by families assigned usual 

care was about $30,000. The cost of all program use of all types 

for families assigned to the SUB intervention was about the 

same as that for families assigned to usual care, slightly more 

than that for families assigned to the CBRR intervention, and 

clearly less than that for PBTH families. The near-equivalent 

cost of program use for families assigned to the SUB intervention 

compared with usual care at the 20-month followup survey 

resulted from the higher use of permanent housing subsidies 

being offset by the decreased use of relatively expensive emergency shelter and transitional housing programs by families 

assigned to the SUB intervention. In a similar way, the costs of 

total program use for families assigned to the SUB and CBRR 

interventions were nearly equivalent, because the greater use 

of permanent subsidy programs by SUB families was offset by 

the greater use of transitional housing, emergency shelter, and 

other programs by CBRR families. At 20 months after random 

assignment, the cost of all program use for families assigned to 

the CBRR intervention was clearly less than that for families in 

either the UC group or the PBTH group.

Cost results at 37 months after random assignment appear in 

Exhibit ES-8. The exhibit shows that total program use cost 

about $41,000 for families assigned to usual care. The cost of 

all program use during 37 months for families assigned to the 

SUB intervention was about $3,800 (9 percent) more than for 

comparable families assigned usual care. This difference arises 

out of a growing differential between the average monthly costs 

of all program use in the SUB and UC groups. At the time of 

the 20-month survey, this monthly differential was only $20 

(the difference between $1,086 for the SUB group and $1,066 

for the UC group). At the time of the 37-month survey, the 

monthly differential had reached $136 ($978 for the SUB group 

compared with $842 for the UC group). In other comparisons 

involving the SUB intervention, families assigned to the SUB 
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xxxii

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Executive Summary

Exhibit ES-8. Cost of Program Use Since RA for Each Intervention Contrast

$50,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$30,000

$45,902

SUB vs. UC CBRR vs. UC PBTH vs. UC

SUB vs. CBRR SUB vs. PBTH CBRR vs. PBTH

$42,134

$38,144

$42,167

$40,130 $38,722

SUB

N = 501

Assigned intervention and pairwise comparison

Assigned intervention and pairwise comparison

Panel B

Panel A

UC

N = 395

CBRR

N = 434

UC

N = 434

PBTH

N = 293

UC

N = 259

SUB

N = 362

CBRR

N = 290

SUB

N = 215

PBTH

N = 201

CBRR

N = 180

PBTH

N = 184

$25,000

$20,000

$15,000

$10,000

$5,000

Other SUB CBRR PBTH ES

$0

$50,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$30,000

$25,000

$20,000

$15,000

$10,000

$5,000

$0

Cost of program use since RA Cost of program use since RA

$45,668

$41,743

$44,895

$40,793

$30,479

$40,269

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. ES = emergency shelter. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to 

permanent housing subsidy. UC = usual care.

RA = random assignment.

Notes: Averages are for all 37-month survey respondents in each pairwise comparison and are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent full comparison sample. Cost estimates assume a site-specific average cost per month based on the Family Options Study cost data and HUD administrative data. The other category refers to other permanent 

housing subsidies and includes permanent supportive housing, public housing, and project-based assistance (project-based vouchers or Section 8 projects).

Sources: Family Options Study cost data; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Public and Indian Housing Information Center, Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System, and Financial Data Schedule records (SUB); Family Options Study Program Usage Data

group have about 9 percent higher average costs during the 

first 37 months than families assigned to the CBRR group and 

10 percent higher than families assigned to the PBTH group. 

In other comparisons involving the PBTH group, the high monthly 

cost of transitional housing programs results in a higher average cost of all programs used for families assigned to the PBTH 
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families xxxiii

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Executive Summary

group compared with families assigned to either the UC or 

CBRR group. On the other hand, in each of the three comparisons involving the CBRR intervention, families assigned to the 

CBRR group have the lowest average cost for all programs used. 

The largest difference is for the CBRR group compared with the 

PBTH group, in which the high monthly cost and greater use 

of transitional housing programs for the latter group results in 

a nearly $10,000 difference in average cost of all program use 

for comparable families. For CBRR-versus-UC and SUB-versusCBRR, CBRR families have an average cost of all programs 

used that is $4,000 (roughly 10 percent) less than the cost of 

program use for those assigned to the other interventions. 

Conclusions

The Family Options Study’s random assignment design for 

measuring intervention impacts is a stronger design than that of 

other studies of programs for homeless families. Evidence from 

the study’s 3-year analysis provides important new information 

about what happens to families who experience homelessness 

in the absence of any special offers of assistance. It also 

provides information about the impact of assignment to three 

active interventions: SUB, CBRR, and PBTH. 

A clear finding from the study is that homelessness is expensive 

for families and communities. Even without priority access 

to assistance, families in 12 communities used housing and 

services programs costing about $41,000, on average, during 

a period of a little more than 3 years. Despite this considerable 

public (and in some cases private) investment, many families 

who had been in shelter for at least a week at the outset of 

the study were still not faring well 3 years later. Well over 

one-third had been homeless or doubled up recently, nearly 

one-half were food insecure, and incomes averaged less than 

two-thirds of the poverty threshold. The high cost of homeless 

services suggests that prevention efforts with low per-family 

costs—if they were effective—would not need to be tightly 

targeted to just the families who would otherwise experience 

homelessness in order to save resources.

The longer-term evidence from the Family Options Study 

indicates that having priority access to deep permanent housing 

subsidies produces substantial benefits for families. More than 

one-third of families assigned to any intervention found their 

way to permanent housing subsidies, but families given priority 

access to that assistance obtained subsidies sooner. Providing 

priority access to permanent housing subsidies cost 9 percent 

more than not giving families any priority offer during a 3-year 

followup period, and it suppressed work effort by about 6 percentage points during the second half of that period; however, 

it had substantial benefits. Assignment to the SUB intervention 

group more than halved most forms of residential instability, 

improved multiple measures of adult and child well-being, and 

reduced food insecurity. 

The 3-year evidence shows that families randomly assigned to 

the CBRR group do about as well as families assigned to the UC 

group but at substantially lower cost, mainly because assignment to the CBRR group lowers the rate at which families use 

costly transitional housing programs. Assignment to the PBTH 

group has few advantages over other types of assistance. In 

addition, the study does not provide appreciable evidence that 

intervention impacts differ according to families’ psychosocial 

challenges or housing barriers at baseline, whatever form of 

active assistance is prioritized. 

The 3-year findings lend support for the underlying theoretical 

model for permanent housing subsidies. The striking impacts 

of assignment to the SUB group in reducing subsequent stays 

in shelter and places not meant for human habitation provide 

support for the view that, for most families, homelessness is a 

housing affordability problem that can be remedied with permanent housing subsidies without specialized homeless-specific 

psychosocial services. The findings also provide support for 

the more tentative theoretical proposition that resolving homelessness would have a radiating impact, given the short-term 

impacts found for assignment to the SUB intervention on family 

preservation, adult well-being, and school stability compared 

with the impacts of usual care and the continuing effects on 

adult and child well-being and self-sufficiency after 3 years. 

The short-term findings provided less support for the theoretical model underlying the PBTH intervention. PBTH programs 

are intended to address the root causes of homelessness by 

providing social services packaged with housing assistance. The 

short-term analysis did not provide evidence that assignment 

to the PBTH intervention achieved that goal. Assignment to the 

PBTH intervention led to modest reductions in homelessness 

when compared with usual care during the period that some 

families were still in transitional housing, but effects on housing stability did not last until 3 years, and assignment to the 

PBTH intervention did not produce effects in other aspects of 

family well-being during the longer term.

The Family Options Study suggests that families who experience homelessness can successfully use and retain housing 

vouchers, and that having priority access to deep permanent 

housing subsidies has considerable benefits at some additional 

cost. The homeless assistance system does not currently 

provide immediate access to such subsidies for most families in 

shelter, although more than one-third of families without priority access nevertheless obtained permanent housing subsidies 

during a 3-year followup period.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 1

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

CHAPTER 1.

INTRODUCTION

As part of its mission, the U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD) has supported a 

range of programs to provide shelter and services for 

families experiencing homelessness. The Department has also 

engaged in partnerships with other federal agencies to focus 

resources on eradicating homelessness. Opening Doors: Federal 

Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness, released in 2010 

by the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, articulates 

this collective commitment and lists four goals, one of which 

is to “prevent and end homelessness for families, youth, and 

children by 2020” (USICH, 2010, 2015).

During a 12-month period ending September 2015, nearly 

155,000 families with children in the United States (502,521 

people) stayed in emergency shelters or transitional housing 

programs (HUD, 2015).8 Although most homeless individuals 

are single men, about one-third (34 percent) of the sheltered 

homeless population are members of families (12-month estimate). 

To develop evidence on which to base policy decisions, HUD 

launched the Family Options Study in 2008, awarding a 

contract to Abt Associates, Vanderbilt University, and several 

other partners. The Department intends the results of this study 

to support its efforts to help families leave homelessness and to 

create housing stability and other positive outcomes for families 

who have experienced homelessness, including family preservation, adult well-being, child well-being, and self-sufficiency.

The Family Options Study examines the effects of three types 

of programs—permanent housing subsidies, community-based 

rapid re-housing, and project-based transitional housing—

compared with one another and with the usual care available 

to homeless families. The three types of programs are distinguished from one another by the duration of housing assistance 

and the type and intensity of social services provided to 

families. Usual care consists of emergency shelter and housing 

or services that families can access without immediate referral 

to a program that would provide them with a place to live.

To be specific, the study randomly assigned a sample of 2,282 

families in 12 sites to one of three active interventions or to usual 

care. The Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing 

and Services Interventions for Homeless Families (hereafter, the 

Short-Term Impacts report; Gubits et al., 2015) presented 20-month 

impact estimates, documenting how families were faring roughly 

1 1/2 years after random assignment. This report presents estimates of longer-term impacts at the point of 3 years after random 

assignment to the interventions studied.9 This report also 

presents information about the relative costs of the three active 

interventions and emergency shelter. The analysis presented in 

this report uses survey and administrative data for the sample 

of 1,784 families and 2,665 children from the 12 sites who 

responded to a followup survey approximately 37 months after 

random assignment (henceforth referred to as the 37-month 

followup survey). 

The balance of this chapter characterizes study families and 

interventions, describes the design of the study, summarizes 

findings from the enrollment phase, and recaps the short-term 

impacts of the interventions for families in the first 20 months 

after random assignment. The chapter closes with a discussion 

of the questions that motivate this longer-term analysis. 

1.1. The Research Sample 

The study team recruited 12 sites (displayed in Exhibit 1-1) to 

conduct the study. The 12 study sites represent a diverse range 

of geographic locations, size, population, and housing and 

labor market characteristics. Although not a randomly selected 

sample of communities, the sites are varied in geography and 

conditions that are related to homelessness. The sites are located 

in all four of the Census Bureau-designated regions in the country.10

At study entry, characteristics of the 2,282 families who enrolled 

in the Family Options Study were similar to characteristics 

of families who experience homelessness nationwide. This 

8

 AHAR 2015 Part 2, 2015.

9

 Gubits et al. (2015) report the short-term impacts of the Family Options Study in Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families (Gubits et al., 2015). Two other reports provide information about the Family Options Study: the Revised Data Collection and Analysis Plan: Family Options Study

(Gubits et al., 2012), which describes the research design and analysis plan, and the Interim Report: Family Options Study (Gubits et al., 2013), which documents study 

implementation findings and baseline characteristics of the research sample.

10 For more detail on the study sites and baseline characteristics of the research sample, see the Interim Report: Family Options Study (Gubits et al., 2013).
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 2

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 1. Introduction

Exhibit 1-1. Location of Study Sites

Minneapolis, MN

Boston, MA

Bridgeport and

New Haven, CT

Honolulu, HI

Alameda County, CA

Baltimore, MD

Atlanta, GA

Louisville, KY

Kansas City, MO

Denver, CO

Salt Lake City, UT

Phoenix, AZ

observation is true even though the sites were not a randomly 

selected sample of communities. This section briefly summarizes the study sample (Exhibit 1-2). Additional details about the 

baseline characteristics of the research sample are provided in 

the Interim Report: Family Options Study (hereafter, the Interim 

Report; Gubits et al., 2013) and the Short-Term Impacts report 

(Gubits et al., 2015). 

The typical family in the study consisted of an adult woman, 

who was a median of 29 years old and lived with one or two 

of her children in an emergency shelter. In about one-fourth 

of the families at least one child was separated from the family 

at the time of enrollment and was living with other relatives, 

with friends, or in foster care. At baseline, 30 percent of families 

had more than one adult present. Nearly all families who had 

two adults present were headed by couples, and 10 percent 

of families had a partner living elsewhere. As in other studies 

of homelessness among families, members of minority groups 

were overrepresented, even in proportion to the poverty 

population. 

A plurality of families (43 percent) had only one child with 

them in the shelter, and one-half of the families were with a 

child younger than age 3. Most families in the study (79 percent) were not homeless immediately before entering the shelter from which they were recruited into the study. About 63 

percent of family heads in the study, however, had experienced 

homelessness at some other point in their lifetime, with 16 

percent of adult respondents having experienced homelessness 

as a child. An even greater proportion (85 percent) indicated 

they lived doubled up at some point as an adult, defined in the 

survey as “staying with family or friends because you couldn’t 

find or afford a place of your own.”

Most family heads were not working at the time of random 

assignment (83 percent), and more than one-half had not 

worked for pay in the previous 6 months. The median annual 

household income of all families in the study at baseline was 

$7,410. Many reported they either had a poor rental history 

(26 percent had been evicted) or had never been a leaseholder 

(35 percent). Nearly one in three reported either post-traumatic 

stress disorder or serious psychological distress.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 3

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 1. Introduction

Exhibit 1-2. Family Characteristics 

Family Characteristic Percent of Adult Respondents/ Percent of Families/Years

Family composition

Adults

Adult respondent is female 91.8

Median age of adult respondent 29.0 years

Children

1 child present in shelter 43.2

2 children present in shelter 30.2

3 children present in shelter 15.3

4 or more children present in shelter 11.2

At least 1 child present in shelter younger than age 3 50.4

Mother is pregnant 9.8

At least 1 child not present in shelter 23.9

Housing instability and history of homelessness

Homelessness history

Previous episode of homelessness 62.9

Total homelessness in life Median: 6 months

Doubled up history

Ever doubled up as adult because could not pay rent 84.7

Time doubled up in past 5 yearsa Median: 1 year

Income stability and disability 

Employment history of adult respondentsb

No work past 1 week 82.9

No work past 6 months 57.1

No work past 1 year 45.0

No work past 2 years 30.3

Family income during the past year

20th percentile $2,880

50th percentile (median) $7,410

80th percentile $15,000

Barriers to increasing income or finding housing

Exposure to violence and mental health

Domestic violence by spouse or partner as an adult 49.0

PTSD symptoms 21.6

Psychological distress 22.1

Previous housing history—problems finding housing

History of evictionc 25.9 big or small problem

Never a leaseholderc 34.8 big or small problem

PTSD = post-traumatic stress disorder.

a

 Time doubled up in past 5 years or time doubled up since age 18 for respondents ages 18 to 22 years.

b Rows are not mutually exclusive.

c

 Information was collected on history of eviction and never having been a leaseholder only if the respondent thought these factors presented a problem in finding a place to live.

Note: Sample size = 2,282.

Source: Family Options Study baseline survey

1.2. Interventions Studied and 

Rationales 

The Family Options Study compares three active interventions 

with one another and with usual care in the communities 

where families were recruited: 

1. Assignment to the SUB intervention provided priority access 

to a permanent housing subsidy, usually a housing choice 

voucher that paid the difference between 30 percent of families’ incomes and their housing costs in conventional private 

market housing. Families did not receive any other dedicated 

services but were free to obtain whatever social services 

might be available in their communities. The rationale for 

permanent housing subsidies is that homelessness is an economic problem that subsidies can address. Once stabilized 

in housing, families can address other nonhousing needs, 

such as employment services or connections to benefits, 

with community-based providers. Families could continue 

receiving housing assistance as long as they remained eligible 

and followed program rules, such as paying their share of 
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 4

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 1. Introduction

the rent and living in housing that passes a housing-quality 

inspection. Families in homeless shelters do not ordinarily 

have immediate access to housing choice vouchers, which 

are not typically part of the homeless assistance system.

2. Assignment to the CBRR intervention provided priority 

access to temporary rental assistance to help families find 

and rent conventional, private-market housing, paired with 

limited services focused on housing and self-sufficiency. 

Rental assistance, which had to be renewed every 3 months 

and could last up to 18 months (median stay for study 

families was 8 months), was structured differently in 

different communities. All programs assessed family needs 

at the outset and developed formal services plans focused 

on housing and self-sufficiency. Case managers adjusted 

these services plans based on quarterly reassessments 

conducted to determine whether to renew the rental 

assistance. Case management ratios varied, but averaged 

36 families per case manager, with most families meeting 

with the case manager monthly. Although rapid re-housing 

was an emerging practice at the time families enrolled in 

the study, the programs studied were consistent with the 

core components in guidelines HUD issued in 2012.11 The 

rationale for community-based rapid re-housing is that, 

although homelessness is largely an economic problem, 

the role of the homeless assistance system should be to get 

families into conventional housing as rapidly as possible 

with the minimum intervention necessary to prevent returns 

to shelter. 

3. Assignment to the PBTH intervention provided priority 

access to temporary housing for up to 24 months (the 

median stay for study families lasted 13 months), coupled 

with more intensive social services in supervised programs.12

The rationale for project-based transitional housing is 

that families who experience homelessness have a variety 

of additional challenges (mental health or substance 

issues, lack of job experience or skills, domestic violence, 

parenting challenges) that must be addressed before families 

can succeed in independent housing. Families received 

comprehensive assessments at the outset of the program 

and most programs provided housing placement assistance, 

self-sufficiency services, employment or training assistance, 

life skills, mental and physical health care, parenting, 

child advocacy and substance abuse services, as needed. 

Most services were provided by case managers (with an 

average ratio of 20 families to each case manager, almost 

twice the intensity of community-based rapid re-housing), 

but services could also be provided by other agency staff 

or through dedicated linkages with other agencies. 

4. Assignment to the UC intervention provided no priority 

access to programs but consisted of whatever housing or 

services a family accessed in the absence of immediate 

referral to the programs offered to families assigned to the 

other interventions. Because all families were recruited 

from emergency shelter, usual care typically consisted 

of continued stays in the emergency shelter from which 

families were enrolled, until families were able to make other 

arrangements on their own or with the assistance of service 

providers. Families in shelters also received case management and services similar to those received by families in the 

PBTH group (with an average ratio of 16 families per case 

manager, although this varied considerably from shelter to 

shelter). Families in the UC group found their way into a 

variety of housing and services programs (see Chapter 2). 

For more information about the interventions studied in the 

Family Options Study see Chapter 2 and Appendix B in the 

Interim Report (Gubits et al., 2013), Chapters 6 to 8 in the 

Short-Term Impacts report (Gubits et al., 2015), and short 

papers on the SUB and CBRR interventions.13

1.3. Evaluation Design

In each study site, the study team recruited families who had 

stayed in emergency homeless shelters for at least 7 days. The 

study team excluded families who left shelter in fewer than 

7 days, because the more intensive interventions considered in 

this study may not be necessary for families who can resolve a 

housing crisis quickly. 

In the original design of the study, each family was to have a 

chance of being assigned to all four groups (SUB, CBRR, PBTH, 

and UC). A number of factors prevented the study from being 

implemented as planned. First, all four intervention were 

offered in only nine sites. Two sites (Atlanta and Baltimore) 

did not offer the SUB intervention, and one site (Boston) did 

not offer the PBTH intervention. Second, interventions were 

available to families only in cases when at least one provider of 

the intervention type had an available slot. Third, some service 

providers had unique eligibility requirements for families. 

11 See http://usich.gov/population/families/core-components-rrh/. See also Wood (forthcoming).

12 To distinguish transitional housing from community-based rapid re-housing, the Family Options Study examined project-based transitional housing (PBTH), rather than 

scattered-site transitional housing programs that sometimes allow families to assume the lease or “transition in place” at the end of the program. Some PBTH programs 

included in the study provided units in the community (called “scattered site” units) without the opportunity to transition in place when assistance ended.

13 Solari and Khadduri (forthcoming), Wood (forthcoming).
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 5

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 1. Introduction

Before random assignment, the study team screened families 

for eligibility for the providers that had available slots based 

on criteria specified by the providers. The purpose of this 

screening was to minimize the likelihood of assigning families 

to interventions they would not be eligible to receive.14 As a 

result, for an intervention option to be available to a family 

undergoing random assignment, at least one slot had to be 

open at an intervention provider for which the family met 

provider-specific eligibility requirements. All families were 

eligible for usual care by definition. 

Families were randomly assigned among available interventions 

and all analyses compare families who were eligible for both 

interventions in a comparison and randomized to one of them. 

Thus, for example, all families who had no PBTH program 

available at the time of random assignment in their site or who 

were ineligible for all available PBTH programs were excluded 

from comparisons involving the PBTH intervention and either 

usual care or one of the other interventions. This random 

assignment design assures that comparisons of interventions 

involve well-matched groups and that any (statistically 

significant) observed differences in outcomes can be attributed 

to the differential assignment families received and not to any 

preexisting differences among the families. Following random 

assignment, the study team analyzed the baseline characteristics 

of the sample to confirm that the different sets of families assigned to each intervention were indeed equivalent. The Interim 

Report (Gubits et al., 2013) describes these analyses. 

Assignment to an intervention meant that families were given 

priority access to specific programs that had a place reserved 

for them and expected them to enroll. Families were not 

required to enroll in the programs. If families did not take up 

the offered program, they stayed at the shelter from which they 

were enrolled until they were able to make other arrangements, 

either on their own or with the assistance of social service 

providers at the shelter or elsewhere. Families assigned to each 

intervention actually used a variety of programs, but they were 

more likely to use a program when they got a priority offer to 

it than when they did not, as described in the analysis of the 

pairwise comparisons in Chapters 3 through 6. Exhibit 1-3 

illustrates the six pairwise comparisons. To investigate the impact of offers of priority access to programs, the impact analysis 

includes all families who received priority offers, regardless of 

whether they used them.15

Exhibit 1-3. Six Pairwise Comparisons Among the Four Interventions

14 See the Interim Report (Gubits et al., 2013) for a detailed description of the eligibility screening conducted before random assignment. 

15 See Appendix C for details of the methods used to estimate impacts.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 6

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.4. Findings From the Enrollment 

Phase

The Interim Report (Gubits et al., 2013) concluded that homeless assistance programs in the study communities imposed 

eligibility criteria that hampered their ability to serve families 

in shelter who needed the assistance. Even when programs had 

space available, the programs often screened out families in 

shelter based on eligibility criteria such as insufficient income, 

substance abuse, criminal histories, and other factors that presumably contributed to the families’ homelessness. Screening 

out was most common for PBTH programs and least common 

for SUB programs. Moreover, families who are homeless do 

not always choose to pursue the programs offered to them, 

which suggests that some programs deliver assistance that some 

families perceive as less valuable to them than other alternatives 

available in their communities.

1.5. Short-Term Findings (20 Months 

After Enrollment)

The Short-Term Impacts report (Gubits et al., 2015) examined 

20-month impacts of intervention assignment for 73 outcomes 

in five domains: (1) housing stability, (2) family preservation, 

(3) adult well-being, (4) child well-being, and (5) self-sufficiency. 

In the absence of priority access to a specific program, families 

assigned to the UC group were not faring well 20 months after 

enrollment in the study. One-half had spent at least 1 night 

homeless or doubled up in the 6 months before the 20-month 

survey16 or had been in shelter in the past 12 months. In the 

6 months before the survey, 15 percent of families had been 

separated from a child who was with the family in shelter at 

study outset, and 4 percent had children in foster care. At the 

time of the survey, 15 percent reported alcohol dependence 

or substance abuse, and 12 percent had experienced intimate 

partner violence in the past 6 months. Children had attended 

two schools, on average, in the past 20 months and were 

absent, on average, about 1 day per month. Less than one-third 

of UC families (31 percent) were working for pay, and total 

family income was only $9,067 per year—much less than what 

is needed to rent market-rate housing for a family in most 

communities. 

Relative to assignment to the UC group, assignment to the SUB 

group caused striking improvements in families’ outcomes in 

the first 20 months after random assignment. Having priority access to permanent housing subsidies—compared with priority 

access to community-based rapid re-housing and project-based 

transitional housing and with usual care reduced homelessness, 

doubling up, and residential mobility across multiple measures. 

Impacts of assignment to the SUB intervention radiated beyond 

housing. Compared with assignment to the UC group, assignment to the SUB group reduced the number of separations 

of children from parents and adult drug abuse, psychological 

distress, and domestic violence, and it improved food security. 

Assignment to the SUB group also reduced the number of schools 

children attended and their absences from school, although 

effects on other child outcomes were more sparse. The salutary 

effects of assignment to the SUB intervention extended across 

all five of the outcome domains when compared with assignment to the UC group; however, heads of these families exerted 

less work effort compared with families assigned to the UC 

group. In the week before the 20-month survey, 30 percent of 

UC families were working for pay compared with 24 percent of 

families assigned to the SUB group. 

The striking impacts of assignment to the SUB intervention in 

reducing subsequent stays in shelter and places not meant for 

human habitation provided support for the view that, for most 

families, homelessness is a housing affordability problem that 

can be remedied with permanent housing subsidies without 

specialized homeless-specific psychosocial services. The 

findings also provided support for the theoretical proposition 

that resolving homelessness would have a radiating impact, 

given the short-term impacts found for assignment to the SUB 

intervention on family preservation, adult well-being, school 

stability, and food security compared with usual care.

Considering costs through 20 months (all that was possible as 

of that analysis), the benefits of having priority access to permanent housing subsidies were achieved at comparable cost with 

that of usual care, slightly higher costs than priority access to 

community-based rapid re-housing, and at substantially lower 

cost than priority access to project-based transitional housing. 

CBRR families had housing outcomes similar to those of 

families assigned to the UC group. Relative to families assigned 

to the UC group, however, the cost of all program use for 

families assigned to the CBRR group was lower than for families 

assigned to the UC group, mainly because assignment to the 

CBRR intervention lowered the rate at which families used costly transitional housing programs in the first 20 months after 

random assignment. At the time of the short-term analysis, the 

three major advantages of assignment to the CBRR intervention 

over other interventions were (1) the comparatively low cost of 

the CBRR intervention, (2) the greater income observed among 

16 Gubits et al. (2015) analyzed short-term impacts of the interventions. The study team attempted to contact families for the study’s first followup survey beginning in the 

18th month after random assignment. The median time from random assignment to the followup survey was 20 months. The followup period reported in Gubits et al. 

(2015) is thus 20 months, but the followup survey is sometimes referred to as the 18-month survey.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 7

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 1. Introduction

families assigned to the CBRR group compared with income 

among families assigned to the UC group, and (3) greater work 

effort compared with families assigned to the SUB group.17

Assignment to the PBTH group led to modest reductions in 

homelessness when compared with assignment to the UC 

group (during a period when many families were still in the 

PBTH programs to which they received priority access), but it 

did not produce effects in other aspects of family well-being. 

The short-term findings provided little support for the theoretical model that project-based transitional housing would 

produce better results by addressing families’ psychosocial 

issues in supervised settings. Finally, although the statistical 

power for these tests was low, the short-term results showed 

no evidence that intervention impacts differed according to 

families’ psychosocial challenges or housing barriers whatever 

type of programs were offered to families. Overall, considering 

the cost of all program use in the first 20 months for families 

assigned to the PBTH group, the PBTH intervention was more 

costly and, at the 20-month followup point, had few advantages over other programs. 

1.6. Questions for the 3-Year 

Analysis 

The 3-year analysis addresses one primary question about 

program use and two primary questions about impacts: 

1. What programs do families who experience homelessness 

use during a 3-year period, and how does assignment to an 

intervention that offers priority access to a particular kind of 

program affect this program use? 

2. At 3 years after random assignment, what are the relative 

effects of the three active interventions compared with usual 

care and of the active interventions compared with each 

other? 

3. What are the cumulative costs of the interventions during 

the 3 years following random assignment? 

Longer-term followup is often desirable in assessing the effects 

of social policy interventions and is especially so in the case of 

the Family Options Study. To evaluate the effects of temporary 

assistance that can last up to 18 months (CBRR programs) or 

24 months (PBTH programs), 20 months is not a long enough 

period. Some families may not have received a full dose of a 

temporary intervention by the time of the 20-month followup 

analysis, and anxieties about the impending end of a program 

or disruption from having recently moved at the time of the 

20-month survey could have depressed families’ outcomes in 

the CBRR and PBTH interventions. To the extent that assignment to interventions strengthen families or set the foundation 

for later success, as theorized by proponents of project-based 

transitional housing, new findings may emerge at 3 years. In 

a similar way, increases in incomes observed at 20 months 

for CBRR families may set families on a positive trajectory of 

sustained benefit from that intervention. On the other hand, to 

the extent that the reduction in homelessness seen for PBTH 

families at 20 months was a temporary consequence of still 

being in PBTH programs at that time, impacts may fade. This 

3-year analysis enables the study team to examine outcomes 

well after families reach the time limits for these temporary 

programs. Longer-term analysis is also important to measure 

impacts that may take longer than 20 months to emerge, such 

as those on child well-being outcomes. 

The Short-Term Impacts report (Gubits et al., 2015) found that 

families assigned to all interventions used a variety of programs. 

The 3-year analysis updates information about the ways that 

having priority access to particular interventions affected patterns of use. In the case of permanent housing subsidies, which 

can last as long as families comply with program requirements, 

it was not clear at 20 months whether families would successfully renew leases and sustain tenancies. The 3-year analysis 

addresses whether families assigned to the SUB group are 

able to retain the assistance. Emergency shelters, transitional 

housing programs, and rapid re-housing programs frequently 

attempt to enroll their families on waiting lists for permanent 

housing. Longer-term followup can also show whether these 

programs serve as way stations to more permanent housing 

subsidies.

Finally, the Short-Term Impacts report (Gubits et al., 2015) 

found that that, after 20 months, the cost of all the programs 

used by families assigned to the SUB group was about the same 

as for families assigned to the UC group. Because the subsidies 

tested in the SUB intervention are permanent, whereas the CBRR 

and PBTH interventions are time limited, there is good reason 

to expect that the relative costs of interventions may change 

when analyzed over a longer followup period. The current 

report examines these costs cumulatively for a full 3 years after 

random assignment. 

17 The Short-Term Impacts report (Gubits et al., 2015) also presented results showing that assignment to the CBRR group led to more rapid departures from emergency 

shelter than assignment to the UC group by about 2 weeks, but those departures were not more rapid than for families assigned to the SUB group or to the PBTH group. 

Revised analysis using updated Program Usage Data on length of emergency shelter stays, however, has resulted in changes to the findings about length of initial shelter 

stay. For the full study sample (not limited to 20-month survey respondents), families assigned to the CBRR group left shelter, on average, 1 week faster than families 

assigned to the UC group. This difference is not statistically significant. The results of the revised analysis are in Appendix I.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 8

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 1. Introduction

In sum, the analyses presented in the report give evidence 

about the relative impacts and costs of the interventions 3 years 

after random assignment. The report describes what housing 

and services interventions families in the 12 communities engage in when they receive no special priority offer of assistance, 

and how those UC families are faring 3 years after random assignment. It also examines the relative impacts of priority offers 

of permanent housing subsidies, temporary rapid re-housing 

assistance, and project-based transitional housing compared 

with usual care and with each other at that same time point. 

1.7. Organization of the Report

The balance of this report is organized as follows. Chapter 2 

describes the experiences of the UC group. It also defines the 

outcomes derived from participant surveys and administrative 

data that are used to estimate intervention effects. Chapters 3 

through 6 then present findings about the relative impacts of 

the four interventions, organized by six pairwise comparisons. 

In particular, Chapter 3 provides impact measures for assignment to the SUB intervention compared with usual care, for 

the five domains of housing stability, family preservation, adult 

well-being, child well-being, and self-sufficiency. Chapter 4 

presents findings from the comparison of assignment to the 

CBRR intervention with usual care in the five domains, and 

Chapter 5 does so for the comparison of the PBTH intervention 

with usual care. Chapter 6 turns to the other pairwise comparisons of the three active interventions, reporting impacts of SUB 

compared with CBRR, SUB compared with PBTH, and CBRR 

compared with PBTH. Chapter 7 discusses results about the 

relative impacts of groups of interventions to illuminate other 

policy questions. Chapter 8 explores the variability of impacts 

across types of families, using indices related to psychosocial 

challenges and housing barriers constructed for each family. 

Chapter 9 describes the relative costs of the interventions. 

Chapter 10 discusses study conclusions. 

Several technical appendixes support the report. Appendix A 

provides details about the data sources and data set construction. Appendix B discusses the construction of adult and child 

well-being outcomes. Appendix C presents technical details regarding the samples and analysis methods. Survey nonresponse 

analysis is documented in Appendix D. Appendix E presents 

supplemental tables showing use of transitional housing during 

the followup period. Appendix F presents exhibits showing 

the results of the pooled comparisons. Appendix G presents 

technical details about the cost data collection and analysis.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 9

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

CHAPTER 2.

DESCRIPTION OF USUAL CARE (UC) AND 

OUTCOMES MEASURED IN THE STUDY

Evidence from the Family Options Study informs 

policymakers not only about the effects of assignment 

to the active interventions—permanent housing 

subsidy (SUB), community-based rapid re-housing (CBRR), 

and project-based transitional housing (PBTH)—but also about 

the experiences of families assigned to remain in usual care 

(UC) after 7 days in emergency shelter. The types of homeless 

and housing assistance programs that the UC families use and 

indicators of their well-being 3 years after study enrollment are 

instructive. These findings show how families in the 12 study 

communities navigate the housing and homeless assistance 

systems and how they fare if they do not receive priority access 

to one of the active interventions. 

This chapter describes the types of programs—both emergency shelters and other housing and homeless assistance 

programs—that UC families used during the followup period 

and the timing of their use of those programs. The chapter 

also introduces the outcomes examined in the impact analysis 

(reported in Chapters 3 through 6) and presents levels of these 

outcomes for UC families, the benchmarks against which the 

impacts of other interventions are measured.

2.1. The Emergency Shelter Experience of Usual Care (UC) Families

Usual care for this study consisted of whatever program services 

UC families were able to access on their own following a stay 

in emergency shelter of at least 7 days, without special referral 

to one of the study’s active interventions. All families were 

recruited for the study from emergency shelters.18

Because families assigned to the UC group were not explicitly 

provided other assistance, all UC families remained in emergency shelter until they navigated their way out or until they 

reached the shelters’ length-of-stay limits. Emergency shelter 

staff may have provided some assistance to UC families in leaving shelter, but the study team asked shelter staff not to actively 

help UC families enter SUB, CBRR, or PBTH programs.

Across all 12 study sites, 746 families were randomly assigned 

to the UC group from 56 emergency shelters.19 Of these 746 

families, 556 (75 percent) responded to the 37-month followup 

survey and are therefore included in the impact analysis in this 

report. We refer to these 556 families as the UC respondent 

families.

2.1.1. Length of Time UC Families Spent in 

Emergency Shelters 

The Program Usage Data collected for the study from various 

sources indicate the time that study families spent in emergency 

shelter during the followup period.20 These data show that UC 

respondent families stayed in emergency shelter for a mean 

of 4 months and a median of 3 months during the followup 

period.21 Exhibit 2-1 shows the distribution of total month 

durations in emergency shelter across all shelter stays during 

18 A description of the UC program environment, including profiles of the housing and supportive services provided by the emergency shelters from which study participants were drawn, is provided in Chapter 5 of the Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families (Gubits et al., 2015).

19 One family was enrolled into the study from a 57th shelter, but this family was not assigned to the UC group. 

20 See Appendix A for details of how the sources of program usage were combined into a single data set. Missing data on emergency shelter stays bias the counts of total 

time spent in emergency shelter somewhat downward. The baseline stay in emergency shelter does not appear in the Program Usage Data (largely based on data from the 

Homeless Management Information Systems) for 16.7 percent of UC respondent families. 

21 The mean and median are computed with weights to adjust for survey nonresponse, so that the respondent families represent all 746 families assigned to the UC group. 

The length of the followup period is from the month of random assignment to the month of the followup survey response (median 38 calendar months included in followup period). Most families had only one spell in emergency shelter, wherein spells are separated by at least 1 calendar month with no emergency shelter stay. The weighted 

percentage of families with zero spells (that is, missing data on the spell when they were recruited from shelter at baseline and also no subsequent spell recorded in the 

Homeless Management Information System Program Usage Data) is 10.2 percent, with one spell is 63.7 percent, with two spells is 18.7 percent, with three spells is 5.0 

percent, and with four or more spells is 2.4 percent.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 10

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 2. Description of Usual Care (UC) and Outcomes Measured in the Study

Exhibit 2-1. Length of Time Spent in Emergency Shelters 

by UC Families 

Number of Months 

(with at least 1 night stay) 

in Emergency Shelter 

During Followup Perioda

Percent of 

UC Respondent Familiesb

(N = 556)

0.00c 11.1

Less than 1 month 18.9

1 to 1.99 15.4

2 to 2.99 14.1

3 to 3.99 8.6

4 to 4.99 4.8

5 to 5.99 5.7

6 to 6.99 4.1

7 to 7.99 2.8

8 to 8.99 2.1

9 to 11.99 4.6

12 to 14.99 3.4

15 to 17.99 2.3

18 to 23.99 0.9

24 and above 1.3

UC = usual care.

a

 Total time spent in emergency shelter is calculated from entry and exit dates in 

Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) and survey data. Missing data on 

emergency shelter stays bias the counts of total months spent in emergency shelter 

somewhat downward. The baseline stay in emergency shelter does not appear in the 

Program Usage Data for 16.7 percent of UC respondent families. 

b Percentages are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent all 746 UC families.

c

 Of UC respondent families, 11.1 percent do not have any emergency shelter stay (at 

baseline or after baseline) in the HMIS Program Usage Data, even though all families 

were recruited from emergency shelters. These families are among the 16.7 percent 

of UC respondent families whose baseline stay in emergency shelter does not appear 

in the data. The other 5.6 percent of UC respondent families (16.7–11.1=5.6) whose 

baseline stay in emergency shelter does not appear in the data have at least one stay 

in emergency shelter after baseline and so are included in the rows below the 0.00 

months row.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data 

the followup period. About 60 percent of UC families stayed in 

emergency shelter for fewer than 3 months during the followup 

period. Another 19 percent stayed between 3 and 6 months 

during the followup period, and 21 percent stayed 6 or more 

months. Only 2 percent stayed in emergency shelter for 18 or 

more months. 

Exhibit 2-2 shows the percentage of UC families who have at 

least 1 night in emergency shelter during the month for each 

month after random assignment. A second line shows the 

percentage of UC families who have not left the initial stay in 

shelter each month. The exhibit shows that most families had 

left emergency shelter by the 3rd or 4th month after random 

assignment. The exhibit shows that only about 17 percent of 

UC families are in any emergency shelter by the 6th month 

after random assignment. Past this point, the percentage drops 

slowly and, by 32 months after random assignment (the longest 

period for which the study team has data for all families), 

about 4 percent of UC families are in emergency shelter. From 

Exhibit 2-2, which also shows almost no UC families still in 

their baseline emergency shelter stay by the 32nd month, it is 

possible to deduce that almost all the families in shelter in the 

32nd month after random assignment had returned to shelter 

after a departure. A third line in the exhibit shows the percentage of UC families using any form of permanent subsidy each 

month after random assignment. The exhibit illustrates that the 

proportion of families assigned to the UC group who use shelter declines as the proportion who use any form of permanent 

Exhibit 2-2. Percent of UC Families With at Least 1-Night Stay in Emergency Shelter During Month, by Number of 

Months After RA

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Percent of families 

Month after RA

All UC families in emergency shelter

UC families with any form of permanent housing subsidy

UC families 

who have 

not left shelter

since RA 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

UC = usual care.

RA = random assignment.

Notes: Percentages are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent all UC families in the study. Missing data on emergency shelter stays bias the percentages somewhat downward. The baseline stay in emergency shelter does not appear in the data for 16.7 percent of UC respondent families. The missing data rate for subsequent stays in emergency 

shelter is unknown.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 11

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 2. Description of Usual Care (UC) and Outcomes Measured in the Study

subsidy increases. By 32 months after random assignment, 

nearly 30 percent of UC families were receiving some form of 

permanent subsidy. 

2.2. Use of Other Homeless and 

Housing Assistance Programs by 

Usual Care (UC) Families

For some families assigned to the UC group, emergency shelters 

were the families’ only interaction with the homeless assistance 

or housing subsidy system. Other UC families found their way 

into permanent housing subsidies, rapid re-housing, and transitional housing programs on their own. Exhibit 2-3 shows the use 

of homeless and housing programs by UC families during the 

followup period. The exhibit shows eight types of programs.

•	 Subsidy (that is, the programs comprising the SUB

intervention in this study: housing choice vouchers; public 

housing in Honolulu, Hawaii; and project-based vouchers in 

Bridgeport, Connecticut).

•	 Rapid re-housing (that is, programs offered to families

assigned to the CBRR intervention).

•	 Transitional housing (both non-“transition-in-place” and

“transition-in-place”).

•	 Permanent supportive housing.

•	 Public housing in places other than Honolulu.

•	 Project-based vouchers or Section 8 projects in places other

than Bridgeport.

•	 Any form of permanent housing subsidy (that is, any of

the programs that comprise the SUB intervention in this 

study, permanent supportive housing, public housing, or 

project-based vouchers and Section 8 projects).

•	 Emergency shelter.

All families enrolled in the study while staying in emergency 

shelter. By the 7th month after random assignment, most UC 

families had departed from emergency shelter. Exhibit 2-3 shows 

information on the proportion of UC families who did not use 

emergency shelter again and did not use any of the other programs 

during the entire followup period. For one-fourth of the UC families, 

the initial stay in emergency shelter is the only use of housing 

or homeless assistance observed during the followup period. 

The first column of Exhibit 2-3 shows the percentage of 

UC families who ever used a type of program between the 

month of random assignment and the month of the followup 

survey response. This column shows that, during this entire 

period, 20 percent of UC families received rapid re-housing 

assistance (at least once) and 30 percent of UC families received 

transitional housing (at least once). Altogether, more than 

one-third (37 percent) of UC families received some sort of 

Exhibit 2-3. Program Use Since RA for UC Families 

Type of Homeless or Housing Assistance

Percent Ever Used 

From RA to 37-Month 

Followup Surveya

Number of Months Used From RA to 

37-Month Followup Survey, if Ever Used 

Type of Housing Assistance

Percent Used in 

Month of Followup 

Survey Response

UC

UC

UC

Mean Median

Permanent housing subsidies offered to the SUB group 11.7 19.0 19.5 9.7

Rapid re-housing 20.4 7.6 6.0 1.5

Transitional housing 29.8 12.0 10.0 4.2

Permanent supportive housing 11.0 16.9 15.5 7.6

Public housing 9.8 18.3 17.5 7.6

Project-based vouchers or Section 8 projects 6.5 18.9 17.5 5.2

Any permanent housing subsidyc 36.6 19.4 19.5 29.9

Emergency shelterd 89.8 4.4 2.8 5.2

No use of homeless or housing programse 25.3 — — 60.0

N 556 — — 556

UC = usual care.

RA = random assignment. 

a

 Percentage of families who ever used a type of assistance program during the period from the month of RA to the month of the 37-month followup survey response (median 

period duration: 37 months). Percentages do not add to 100 because some families use more than one program type during the followup period.

b Subsidies offered to the SUB group are housing choice vouchers plus site-specific programs offered to families assigned to the SUB group in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and Honolulu, Hawaii.

c

 Any form of permanent housing subsidy includes the types of permanent subsidy offered to the SUB group, permanent supportive housing, public housing, and project-based 

vouchers/Section 8 projects.

d All families were in emergency shelter at random assignment. The percentage less than 100 is because of missing data on shelter use.

e

 Indicates no use of the six program types in this table during any of the followup period and no use of emergency shelter after the first 6 months after RA. No use in the month of 

followup survey response indicates no use of any of these seven program types.

Notes: Percentages are regression adjusted, controlling for site and randomization ratio. Percentages, means, and medians are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent full 

comparison sample.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 12

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 2. Description of Usual Care (UC) and Outcomes Measured in the Study

permanent subsidy during the followup period—accessing the 

subsidy, public housing, permanent supportive housing, or 

project-based housing assistance programs. 

The second and third columns of Exhibit 2-3 show the mean 

and median number of months of program usage for those 

families who used the program. The number of months of use of 

rapid re-housing (median 6 months) and transitional housing 

(median 10 months) during the study period are consistent 

with the expected durations of these program types. Also 

consistent with expectations are higher median use for all types 

of permanent housing subsidies compared with other types 

of programs—20 months for the subsidy intervention defined 

for the study, 18 months for public housing and project-based 

vouchers or Section 8 projects, and 16 months for permanent 

supportive housing, during the study period.

The fourth column of Exhibit 2-3 shows the percentage of families 

who used a program type in the month of the followup survey 

response. Although the study team expects that many outcomes 

in the report will be influenced by assistance received at any 

point during the entire followup period, some outcomes will 

be most strongly influenced by assistance that is received at the 

time of the followup survey response. By the time of the followup 

survey, 60 percent of UC families were not receiving any of the 

assistance shown in the exhibit. Nearly one-third of the families 

(30 percent) were receiving some form of permanent subsidy, 

5 percent were using emergency shelter assistance, 4 percent 

were using transitional housing, and 2 percent were using rapid 

re-housing. Altogether, 82 percent of families who ever used a 

form of permanent subsidy were still doing so at the time of the 

survey. By contrast, 7 percent who ever used rapid re-housing 

were still using it at the time of the survey and 14 percent 

who ever used transitional housing assistance were still using 

the assistance at the time of the survey. Thus, most families 

who ever used either rapid re-housing or transitional housing 

assistance were no longer using it at the time of the followup 

survey, whereas most UC families who accessed permanent 

assistance were still receiving it.

Exhibit 2-4 provides a more detailed characterization of the 

timing of program use by the families in the UC group. This 

exhibit shows the proportions of families within the UC group 

who received different types of assistance during each calendar 

month for the first 32 months after random assignment.22

As shown here, the UC group used a mix of program types 

coming out of emergency shelter. The UC families’ use of rapid 

re-housing had greatly diminished by month 20 (the followup 

period for the Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of 

Exhibit 2-4. Program Use of UC Families for 32 Months After RA

Emergency shelter

Transitional housing

Rapid re-housing

Any permanent housing subsidy

Unknown/no program use

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of CBRR families using program type in month

Month after RA

UC = usual care.

RA = random assignment.

Notes: This exhibit shows program use for all families assigned to UC who responded to the 37-month survey. Complete Program Usage Data for 37-month respondent families 

are available only through month 32 after random assignment. Families who have more than one type of program use in a calendar month are counted fractionally in each type.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data

22 Month 32 is the latest month for which the study team has data for all the families who responded to the 37-month survey. 
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 13

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 2. Description of Usual Care (UC) and Outcomes Measured in the Study

Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families report; 

Gubits et al. [2015]). Their use of transitional housing continued past this point, only beginning to decrease in the third 

year. Use of permanent housing subsidies steadily increased 

throughout the followup period. Slightly more than 20 percent 

of UC families were receiving some form of permanent subsidy 

20 months after random assignment and nearly 30 percent 

were receiving some form of permanent subsidy 32 months 

after random assignment. Some UC families may have been 

on waiting lists for permanent housing subsidies at the time of 

random assignment and others may have entered waiting lists 

after random assignment.23

2.3. Outcomes for Families Randomly 

Assigned to Usual Care (UC)

Having just discussed the patterns of program use for the UC 

respondent families during the 37-month followup period, the 

chapter now turns to a discussion of the outcomes examined in 

the Family Options Study impact analysis. This section serves 

the dual purpose of (1) introducing the outcomes examined in 

the impact analysis and (2) describing the outcomes of families 

assigned to the UC group who responded to the 37-month 

followup survey. The section is organized according to the five 

outcome domains: (1) housing stability, (2) family preservation, (3) adult well-being, (4) child well-being, and (5) selfsufficiency. Each outcome domain first includes the specific 

outcomes considered (including how they are measured) and 

then presents the outcomes for the UC respondent families. 

Changes in measured outcomes between the study’s earlier 

20-month followup point and the current 37-month window 

occasionally are noted, along with their statistical significance. 

This information about the status of UC respondent families 

3 years after study entry is important for policymakers. The 

data from the Family Options Study show how families in the 

12 communities fare after an episode of emergency shelter 

use when they do not receive an immediate offer of assistance 

through one of the active interventions. Appendix B provides 

additional technical details regarding the construction of the 

outcome measures from survey and administrative data.24

2.3.1. Measures of Housing Stability

The study team defined several outcomes related to homelessness and housing stability and used information from the 

followup survey and Program Usage Data to measure these 

indicators. The study team developed eight measures related 

to housing stability and homelessness experienced during the 

followup period. The following bullet points list the concepts 

of interest, how the study team operationalized the concept, 

during what period it is defined, and the data sources used to 

measure the indicator. 

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

of families). This outcome measures the percentage of 

families who reported having spent at least 1 night in a 

shelter or a place not meant for human habitation in the 

6 months before the 37-month followup survey.25 This 

measure is based on responses to the followup survey. 

•	 At least 1 night doubled up in the past 6 months (percent of families). This outcome measures the percentage 

of families who reported having spent at least 1 night in the 

6 months before the 37-month survey living with a friend 

or relative because they could not find or afford a place of their 

own. This outcome is intended to measure episodes in which 

families reported the doubled-up living situations that may 

precede or follow a stay in emergency shelter. This outcome 

is measured from responses to the followup survey. 

•	 At least 1 night homeless or doubled up in the past

6 months (percent of families). This outcome measures 

the percentage of study families who reported either of the 

previous two outcomes.

•	 Any stay in emergency shelter in the past 6 months

(percent of families). This measure is the percentage of 

families who spent at least 1 night in emergency shelter in 

the 6 months before the survey. The measure is based on 

the Program Usage Data (see Appendix A) and is primarily 

taken from the Homeless Management Information System 

(HMIS), but it also uses survey data. 

23 Note that the exhibit does not indicate the two-way flows of families moving into and out of these program types from month to month. Instead, it reflects only the overall usage level in a given month. Though most programs showed positive participation in all 32 reported months, no individual family necessarily remained in the same 

program for the entire followup period.

24 The Revised Data Collection and Analysis Plan: Family Options Study (Gubits et al., 2012) provides additional details about the selection of outcome domains. Chapter 3 

of the Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families (Gubits et al., 2015) addresses the theoretical framework for the 

interventions and hypothesized effects on the outcome domains. 

25 See 24 CFR 91.5. HUD defines homelessness as living in a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide temporary living arrangement (including congregate shelters, transitional housing, and hotels and motels paid for by charitable organizations or by federal, state, or local government programs for low-income 

individuals). In the followup survey, the study team asked survey respondents if, during the 6 months before the survey, they had spent at least 1 night staying in shelters, 

institutions, or places not typically used for sleeping, such as on the street, in a car, in an abandoned building, or in a bus or train station. The survey question excluded 

stays in transitional housing from the question because project-based transitional housing is one of the study interventions.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 14

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 2. Description of Usual Care (UC) and Outcomes Measured in the Study

•	 Any stay in emergency shelter in months 21 to 32 after

random assignment (percent of families). This measure 

is the percentage of families who spent at least 1 night in 

emergency shelter during the period 21 to 32 months after 

random assignment. The measure is based on the Program 

Usage Data. This time period is the latest 1-year period for 

which data are available for all families. 

•	 Number of days homeless in the past 6 months. This 

outcome measures the average number of days spent in 

shelters or places not meant for human habitation in the 

6 months before the survey. It is measured from survey data. 

•	 Number of days doubled up in the past 6 months. This 

outcome measures the average number of days spent living 

with friends or relatives in the 6 months before the survey. It 

is measured from survey data.

•	 Number of days homeless or doubled up in the past

6 months. This outcome sums the previous two outcomes.

Because housing stability is the central outcome domain for the 

study, the study team designated a small set of impact comparisons and hypothesis tests related to housing stability as the 

confirmatory set.26 For this purpose, the analysts constructed 

a single composite outcome for the 37-month followup point. 

This binary outcome is defined as “at least one return to homelessness” measured from both the followup survey and Program 

Usage Data. 

•	 Confirmatory outcome. At least 1 night spent staying 

in a shelter or a place not meant for human habitation or 

doubled up during the past 6 months at the time of the 

survey (measured from survey data) OR any stay in emergency shelter in the 12 months before the date of the survey 

(measured from Program Usage Data).

The analysts also used data from the followup survey to construct outcomes pertaining to the type of living arrangements at 

the time of the followup survey, the number of places families 

lived, and housing quality. All these measures are from the 

followup survey. 

•	 Living in own house or apartment at the time of the

survey (percent of families). Survey respondents are considered to have independent housing if they rented or owned 

their own housing at the time of the survey. (Housing owned 

or rented by a “boyfriend/girlfriend, fiancé or significant 

other” is not counted as living in the respondent’s own house 

or apartment). This outcome measures the percentage of 

families who reported living in their own house or apartment, either with or without housing assistance. 

•	 Living in own house or apartment at the time of the

survey with no housing assistance (percent of families).

This outcome measures the percentage of families who 

reported living in their own house or apartment at the time 

of the survey and who were not receiving housing assistance. 

•	 Living in own house or apartment at the time of the

survey with housing assistance (percent of families).

This outcome measures the percentage of families who 

reported living in their own house or apartment at the time 

of the survey and who were receiving housing assistance to 

help pay the rent. 

•	 Number of places families lived in the past 6 months.

This outcome measures the number of places the family 

lived in the 6 months before the survey. The number of 

places families lived is top-coded at six places.

•	 Persons per room. This outcome measures housing crowding 

using information collected from the adult respondent about 

the number of rooms in the housing unit (not counting 

kitchens, hallways, and bathrooms) and the number of 

people living in the housing unit. Housing situations with 

more than one person per room are considered crowded. 

•	 Housing is of fair or poor quality (percent of families).

This outcome measures the percentage of families reporting 

that the condition of their housing at the time of the survey 

was fair or poor.27

2.3.2. Housing Stability of the UC Group 

Exhibit 2-5 shows the values of these indicators for the UC 

group. The exhibit displays the average value of each outcome 

measured for the 556 families assigned to the UC group who 

responded to the 37-month followup survey.28 The UC group 

displays substantial housing instability during the followup 

period. Based on responses to the survey, 18 percent of UC 

families reported having been homeless in the 6 months before 

the survey, with homeless defined as spending at least 1 night 

in shelter or in places not meant for human habitation. Based 

26 The motivation for designating a confirmatory set of outcomes is based on considerations of multiple comparisons; that is, the problem of interpreting individual 

statistical tests when a large number of tests are conducted. See Appendix C for a discussion of the study’s approach to the multiple comparisons problem, the role of the 

confirmatory outcome in this approach, and the details of the adjustment procedure. 

27 The housing-quality outcome is measured with self-reported assessments of housing condition. This outcome should not be interpreted as representing housing quality 

as determined by third-party inspections, such as those conducted as part of HUD’s Housing Quality Standards process.

28 Outcome values are weighted for survey nonresponse so the responses represent all families randomly assigned to the UC group.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 15

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 2. Description of Usual Care (UC) and Outcomes Measured in the Study

Exhibit 2-5. Housing Stability Outcomes for UC Families 

Outcome UC Group

Mean Value (Standard Deviation)

Homeless or doubled up during followup period

At least 1 night homelessa or doubled up in past 6 months or in shelter in past 12 months (%) 38.6 (56.5)

At least 1 night homeless or doubled up in past 6 months (%) 34.9 (55.2)

At least 1 night homeless in past 6 months (%) 18.1 (44.7)

At least 1 night doubled up in past 6 months (%) 28.5 (52.3)

Any stay in emergency shelter in past 6 months (%) 8.6 (32.6)

Any stay in emergency shelter in months 21 to 32 after RA (%) 17.3 (43.8)

Number of days homeless or doubled up in past 6 months 47.7 (86.1)

Number of days homeless in past 6 months 18.5 (55.8)

Number of days doubled up in past 6 months 33.3 (73.0)

Housing independence

Living in own house or apartment at followup (%) 69.0 (53.6)

Living in own house or apartment with no housing assistance (%) 41.1 (57.1)

Living in own house or apartment with housing assistance (%) 27.9 (52.0)

Number of places lived

Number of places lived in past 6 monthsb 1.6 (1.2)

Housing quality

Persons per room 1.6 (1.3)

Housing quality is poor or fair (%) 31.5 (53.8)

UC = usual care.

RA = random assignment.

a

 The definition of “homeless” in this report includes stays in emergency shelters and places not meant for human habitation. It excludes transitional housing.

b The number of places lived in the past 6 months is topcoded at 6 places. 

Notes: N = 556. See Appendix B for details on outcome specifications and values. Means and standard deviations are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. 

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey; Program Usage Data for three measures including emergency shelter

on Program Usage Data, 9 percent of UC families had stayed in 

emergency shelter at some point during the same 6-month time 

period. Looking at a longer time period, about 17 percent of 

UC families had stayed in emergency shelter during months 21 

to 32 after random assignment.29

UC families also reported other experiences that indicate 

housing instability 37 months after random assignment. More 

than one-fourth of UC families (28 percent) said they spent at 

least 1 night living with friends or relatives because they could 

not find or pay for housing in the 6 months before the survey. 

More than one-third (35 percent) of UC families reported 

spending at least 1 night either homeless or doubled up in the 

6 months before the survey. 

Measuring housing stability using the confirmatory outcome 

revealed that 39 percent of UC families spent at least 1 night 

homeless or doubled up in the 6 months before the survey or 

in emergency shelter in the 12 months before the survey. Taken together, these indicators show that families assigned to the 

UC group were experiencing a substantial degree of housing 

instability 37 months after study enrollment. 

Exhibit 2-6 shows the mean values for three key outcomes for 

the UC respondents to the 20-month and 37-month surveys. 

The proportion of UC families who reported being homeless in 

the past 6 months declined by a statistically significant amount, 

from 24 percent to 18 percent. The proportion who reported 

being doubled up in the past 6 months did not change significantly between the two time points; it equaled approximately 

30 percent at each time point. The UC families had improved 

housing stability over time as measured by the third outcome, 

living in own house or apartment. At 20 months, 58 percent 

of the families were living in their own place. This proportion 

increased significantly, to 69 percent of families, at the later 

followup point.30

29 The proportion of families using emergency shelter during the past 6 months is only about one-half of those reporting being homeless in the past 6 months. This 

discrepancy is likely due to two factors: (1) some of the homelessness captured in the survey measure is for stays in places not meant for human habitation rather than in 

emergency shelter, and (2) measurement error in the survey (recall bias) and Program Usage Data (lack of coverage of all local shelters in HMIS records and lack of coverage for families who moved away from the community where they enrolled in the study). The relative importance of these factors is unknown. 

30 These results are based on a partial paired t-test. See Appendix C for additional details about the test.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 16

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 2. Description of Usual Care (UC) and Outcomes Measured in the Study

Exhibit 2-6. Homeless, Doubled Up, and Living in Own 

Place in the UC Group at 20 and 37 Months After RA 

24%

***

***

31%

58%

18%

29%

69%

10

0

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

At least 

1 night homeless 

in past 6 months (%)

Percent

At least 

1 night doubled up

in past 6 months (%)

Living in own house

or apartment

at time of survey (%)

20-month survey 37-month survey

UC = usual care.

RA = random assignment.

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

Notes: See Appendix B for details on outcome specifications and values. Means are 

weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

Sources: Family Options Study 20-month followup survey and 37-month followup survey.

2.3.3. Measures of Family Preservation

Family preservation refers to separation and reunification of 

family members. The study team collected detailed information 

about changes in family composition during the followup 

period. The study team collected names and ages of family 

members with the adult respondent in shelter at the time of 

random assignment. Interviewers also collected information 

about family members the adult respondent considered part 

of the family but who were separated from the family at the 

time of random assignment. Then, during the 37-month 

followup survey, the study team collected information on the 

whereabouts of all family members reported at baseline. The 

team also collected information about new family members 

who joined the family since the previous survey. The family 

preservation analysis examines impacts on five outcomes.

The study team used information on changes in family composition to construct outcomes measuring recent separations of 

family members who were present at baseline. 

•	 The family has at least one child separated in the past

6 months (percent of families). This outcome measures 

the percentage of families for whom a child who had been 

with the family in shelter was separated from the family at 

any time in the 6 months before the 37-month followup 

survey. This outcome includes both formal (that is, by 

a child welfare agency) and informal separations from 

the family and both ongoing and new separations in this 

period. To exclude children who had reached the legal 

age of adulthood before the separation, the outcome is 

based on children who are less than 18 years, 6 months at 

the time of the followup survey. The time period for this 

outcome, 6 months before the survey, thus included at 

least some time before the children reached adulthood. 

•	 The family has at least one foster care placement in

the past 6 months (percent of families). This outcome 

measures the percentage of families who reported that a 

child was in a formal foster care placement or was adopted 

by another family at any time in the 6 months before the 

37-month survey. It includes both new and ongoing foster care 

placements. This outcome excludes informal arrangements 

in which a child may have stayed with friends or family 

members, but it includes adoptions of children by another 

family. 

•	 Spouse or partner separated in the past 6 months, of

those with a spouse or partner present at the time of

random assignment (percent of families). This outcome 

measures the percentage of families in which a spouse or 

partner who had been with the family in shelter at baseline 

was separated from the family at any time in the 6 months 

before the 37-month survey. The outcome is measured only 

for families in which a spouse or partner was present at 

baseline (151 families) and includes both new and ongoing 

separations.

The team also constructed the following family reunification 

outcomes that measure the return of family members who had 

been separated from the family at baseline. 

•	 The family has at least one child reunified, of those

families who had at least one child absent at the time of

random assignment (percent of families). This outcome 

measures the percentage of families in which a child who 

had been living apart from the family at baseline had 

rejoined the family at the time of the 37-month followup 

survey. This outcome is measured only for families in which 

a child was separated from the family at the time of random 

assignment (107 families). 

•	 Spouse or partner reunified (percent of families). This 

outcome measures the percentage of families in which a 

spouse or partner who was separated from the family at 

baseline had rejoined the family at the time of the 37-month 
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 17

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 2. Description of Usual Care (UC) and Outcomes Measured in the Study

followup survey. This outcome is measured only for families 

in which a spouse or partner was separated from the family 

at the time of random assignment (55 families). 

In addition to constructing the outcomes measured from the 

37-month followup survey, the study team also estimated 

impacts on two family preservation outcomes measured from 

child welfare administrative data that use Adoption and Foster 

Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) reporting 

definitions. The team was able to negotiate data use agreements 

in five of the sites (Alameda County, Baltimore, Kansas City, 

Minneapolis, and Phoenix) to obtain data on out-of-home 

placements for children in the study sample. The administrative 

data measure formal out-of-home placements that family heads 

may have been reluctant to acknowledge to the interviewer. The 

child welfare administrative records also permitted the team to 

measure the duration of child separations, including those that 

may have started or ended between surveys. These administrative 

data thus provide an important supplement to the self-reported 

family preservation measures collected in the survey. 

The study team constructed two outcome measures for the five 

sites that provided child welfare administrative data. 

•	 Any formal separations from a child (percent of families). This outcome measures the percentage of families 

who experienced any formal, out-of-home placements of 

any children after random assignment. The length of the 

followup period was approximately 3 years but varied by 

site, ranging from 1,046 days to 1,123 days after random 

assignment.

•	 Total number of days during the followup period that

the family was separated from at least one child. This 

outcome counts the total number of days the family was 

separated from at least one child. The outcome includes days 

separated from children who were with the family at the 

time of random assignment and children who were not with 

the family at the time of random assignment.

2.3.4. Family Preservation in the UC Group

Exhibit 2-7 presents the values of the family preservation 

outcomes for the UC group. Across the UC group, 17 percent 

of families had a child with the family in shelter at the time 

of the baseline survey who was separated from the family at 

any time during the 6 months before the 37-month followup 

survey. Only 3 percent of the UC families reported formal 

placements in foster care. Among UC families in which a child 

was separated at the time of random assignment, 34 percent 

reported that the child had rejoined the family at the time of 

the 37-month survey. 

Of families who reported a spouse or partner present at 

baseline, 38 percent experienced separation from that spouse 

or partner at any time in the 6 months before the 37-month 

followup survey. Of the families who had a spouse or partner 

separated at baseline, 21 percent reported that the spouse or 

partner had rejoined the family. 

Exhibit 2-8 shows the mean values of outcomes measured in 

the child welfare agency records collected from 5 of the 12 

study sites. Of the UC family heads in these sites, 12 percent 

had a formal child separation that began after random assignment. This proportion is notably higher than the survey-reported 

rate of formal separations in the 6 months before the 37-month 

followup survey. The average total number of days during the 

followup period that UC family heads were formally separated 

from at least one child was 83 days. For those UC family 

heads with any formal separation (14.0 percent, not shown in 

exhibit), the average number of days separated from at least 

one child was 594 days, or about 20 months out of the 3-year 

followup period.

Exhibit 2-7. Family Preservation Outcomes in the UC Group

Outcome UC Group

Mean Value (%) (Standard Deviation)

Current or recent separations of family members present at baseline

Family has at least one child separated in past 6 months (%) (N = 545) 16.7 (43.3)

Family has at least one foster care placement in past 6 monthsa (%) (N = 550) 3.4 (20.9)

Spouse/partner separated in past 6 months, of those with spouse/partner present at RA (%) (N = 151) 38.1 (57.7)

Reunification of family members reported as separated at baseline

Family has at least one child reunified, of those families with at least one child absent at RA (%) (N = 107) 33.7 (55.4)

Spouse/partner reunified, of those with spouse/partner absent at RA (%) (N = 55) 20.7 (46.3)

UC = usual care.

RA = random assignment.

a

 Foster care placement outcome includes any children (present at baseline) who are placed in foster care or adopted by another family at the time of followup.

Notes: N = 556. See Appendix B for details on outcome specifications and values. Means and standard deviations are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 18

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 2. Description of Usual Care (UC) and Outcomes Measured in the Study

Exhibit 2-8. Child Welfare Outcomes in the UC Group

Outcome UC Group

Mean Value (%) (Standard Deviation)

Had a formal child separation that began after RA (%) 12.3 (32.9)

Total days during followup separated from at least one childa 83.4 (244.2)

UC = usual care.

RA = random assignment.

a

 Includes separations started before and after RA. Length of followup varies by site. Alameda County = 1,075 days. Baltimore = 1,071 days. Kansas City = 1,069 days. 

Minneapolis = 1,046 days. Phoenix = 1,123 days.

Notes: N = 292. See Appendix B for details on outcome specifications and values.

Source: State child welfare agency records

2.3.5. Measures of Adult Well-Being

The study team included outcomes measuring several aspects 

of well-being for the adult respondent in the study families. 

The outcomes address physical health, mental health, symptoms 

of trauma, substance use, and experience with domestic violence. 

All these outcomes are measured in the followup survey. 

Adult Physical Health 

Health in the past 30 days was poor or fair (percent of

family heads). Adult respondents provided self-reported 

assessments of their physical health in the 37-month followup 

survey. The outcome measures the percentage of families in 

which the adult respondent reported poor or fair health (rather 

than good, very good, or excellent health) in the 30 days before 

the survey. 

Adult Mental Health 

The team measured two outcomes related to adult mental health. 

•	 Goal-oriented thinking. This outcome is measured with 

a modified version of the State Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 

1996). Scores range from 1 to 6, with higher scores representing higher levels of positive, goal-oriented thinking. 

•	 Psychological distress. The study team used the Kessler 

Psychological Distress Scale (K6) to measure nonspecific 

psychological distress in the 30 days before the survey 

(Kessler et al., 2003). The scale ranges from 0 to 24, with 

higher scores indicating greater psychological distress.

Adult Trauma Symptoms

•	 Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms

(percent of family heads). This outcome measures the 

percentage of families in which the adult respondent 

experienced symptoms of PTSD in the 30 days before the 

survey. The study team used responses to the 17 items about 

PTSD symptoms from the Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic 

Scale, or PDS, to make this determination. 

Adult Substance Use

•	 Alcohol dependence (percent of family heads). This 

outcome measures the percentage of families in which the 

adult respondent displayed evidence of alcohol dependence 

based on self-reported behavior in the past 6 months. Adult 

respondents were asked to report on the four items in the 

Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen, or RAPS4 (Cherpitel, 2000). 

An affirmative answer to any of the four items indicates 

dependence.

•	 Drug abuse (percent of family heads). This outcome 

measures the percentage of families in which the adult 

respondent showed evidence of drug abuse based on 

self-reported behavior in the past 6 months. Evidence of a 

drug problem was measured using six items from the Drug 

Abuse Screening Test, or DAST-10 (Skinner, 1982). An 

affirmative answer to any of the six items indicates abuse. 

•	 Alcohol dependence or drug abuse (percent of family

heads). This outcome measures the percentage of families 

in which the adult respondent displayed evidence of alcohol 

dependence or drug abuse. 

Experience of Intimate Partner Violence

•	 Experienced intimate partner violence in the past 6 months.

(percent of family heads). The outcome measures the 

percentage of adult respondents reporting experience of 

intimate partner violence in the 6 months before the survey. 

The survey asks whether the adult respondent had been 

physically abused or threatened with violence by a person 

he or she was romantically involved with, such as a spouse, 

boyfriend or girlfriend, or partner in the 6 months before the 

survey.

2.3.6. Adult Well-Being in the UC Group

Exhibit 2-9 shows the mean values of the adult well-being 

outcomes for the UC group measured in the 37-month 

survey. Nearly one-third (31 percent) of the adult respondents 

described their health as fair or poor. Across the UC group, 17 

percent of adult respondents in UC families experienced psychological distress, and 23 percent gave survey responses that 

indicate symptoms of PTSD. These rates of PTSD and serious 

psychological distress for homeless families are substantially 

higher than national rates of PTSD (5.2 percent for women and 
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 19

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 2. Description of Usual Care (UC) and Outcomes Measured in the Study

Exhibit 2-9. Adult Well-Being Outcomes in the UC Group

Outcome UC Group

Mean Value (Standard Deviation)

Maternal physical health

Health in past 30 days was poor or fair (%) 31.4 (53.8) 

Maternal mental health

Goal-oriented thinkinga 4.50 (1.14)

Psychological distress scoreb 7.20 (6.73)

Symptoms of serious psychological distress (%) 17.33 (43.89)

Maternal trauma symptoms

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in past 30 days (%) 22.9 (48.7)

Maternal substance use

Alcohol dependence or drug abusec (%) 11.3 (36.7) 

Alcohol dependencec (%) 8.3 (31.9)

Drug abusec (%) 5.1 (25.5)

Experience of intimate partner violence

Experienced intimate partner violence in past 6 months (%) 10.5 (35.5)

UC = usual care.

a

 Goal-oriented thinking is measured with a modified version of the State Hope Scale and ranges from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive, goal-oriented 

thinking.

b Psychological distress is measured with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) and ranges from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater distress.

c

 Alcohol dependence is measured with the Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS-4), and drug abuse is measured with six items from the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10). 

Both are measured for the 6 months before the 37-month survey.

Notes: N = 556. See Appendix B for details on outcome specifications and values. Means and standard deviations are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey

1.8 percent for men)31 and serious psychological distress (3.9 

percent for women and 2.9 percent for men) (CDC, 2012a).32

Of UC families, 8 percent of adult respondents gave survey 

responses that indicate alcohol abuse in the 6 months before 

the survey, and 5 percent of respondents gave survey responses 

that indicate a history of drug abuse during the same period. 

These rates are substantially lower than those reported (using 

different measures) by homeless adults in families to the U.S. 

Census Bureau’s National Survey of Homeless Assistance 

Providers and Clients, or NSHAPC (18 percent for alcohol use 

problems and 38 percent for drug use problems within the past 

year; Burt et al., 2001). In another study of homeless families, 

Rog and Buckner (2007) reported that 12 percent of adult 

respondents had used illicit drugs in the past year. Both studies 

measured substance use at the time families were in shelter, 

using different measures. Rates for Family Options Study 

families during the baseline shelter stay were more comparable 

to the Rog and Buckner (2007) figure. At the Family Options 

Study baseline, 11 percent indicated alcohol abuse and 14 

percent of family heads reported drug use in the past year.33

Regarding incidence of intimate partner violence, 11 percent 

of the adult respondents in the UC group reported having 

experienced intimate partner violence in the 6 months before 

the 37-month survey. This percentage is substantially lower 

than figures reported in other studies, but other studies report 

on experience of such violence during a longer period of time 

(and often use more detailed measures). At enrollment, 49 

percent of the Family Options Study sample reported having 

experienced violence during their entire adulthood.

2.3.7. Measures of Child Well-Being 

The study team collected several types of data to measure outcomes associated with child well-being. For all focal children, 

parents reported on children’s school or childcare enrollment; 

attendance; grades; grade completion; experiences at childcare, 

preschool, or school; behavior at school or childcare; and 

attitudes about school or childcare. Parents also reported on 

prosocial behaviors and emotional and behavioral problems 

of children with the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaires 

(SDQ; Goodman, 1997) and also on children’s health, access to 

31 The statistic for PTSD is the national 12-month prevalence rate as measured in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R), which was fielded in 2001 and 

2002. The NCS-R used a different instrument to measure PTSD than did the Family Options Study. See Harvard Medical School (2012).

32 The statistic for national rate of serious psychological distress is from the 2011 National Health Interview Survey. This survey used the same measure of psychological 

distress as used in the Family Options Study (CDC, 2012a).

33 See the Interim Report: Family Options Study (Gubits et al., 2013) for additional detail about the study sample at the time of random assignment.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 20

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 2. Description of Usual Care (UC) and Outcomes Measured in the Study

health care, and sleep disruptions, which are associated with 

a variety of emotional and behavioral disorders (Dahl and 

Harvey, 2007). Additional instruments were tuned to children’s 

developmental stage. Children 12 to 66 months of age were 

assessed with the Ages and Stages Questionnaires (ASQ-3)—a 

family of questionnaires used to measure gross and fine motor 

skills, social development, communication, and problemsolving, as observed by parents (Squires et al., 2009). The adult 

respondent completed the ASQ-3 form. Study staff assessed 

children from 3 years, 6 months to 7 years, 11 months of age 

with the Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III) letter-word identification and applied problems scales (Woodcock, McGrew, 

and Mather, 2001), which are early indicators of verbal and 

quantitative/analytic skills, respectively. Children in this age 

group also completed the Head Toes Knees Shoulders (HTKS) 

task. HTKS assesses self-regulation, in which children must 

remember rules and inhibit incorrect responses (for example, 

by following instructions to touch their head when the interviewer says “touch your toes”). 

Finally, the study team conducted surveys with children from 

8 years to 17 years, 11 months of age measuring anxiety, fears, 

and substance use. This array of measures, along with the parental report, captured the most likely mental health consequences 

of homelessness and behavioral responses thereto. Parental 

reports of behavior for this age group included arrests or police 

involvement. Youth reported on school effort to supplement 

parental reports of functioning in the key developmental domain 

of school. Youth also completed the Children’s Hope Scale 

(Snyder et al., 1997), a measure of goal-oriented thinking. 

Child Well-Being Measures From Parental Report 

Across Age Groups 

The study team used the parent-reported information on focal 

children to construct the following child well-being outcomes 

that are measured for children across age groups.34 All these 

outcomes are measured in the 37-month adult followup survey.

Child education

•	 Number of schools attended since random assignment.

This outcome is measured from parental reports on the 

37-month survey. The outcome indicates the total number of 

schools a child attended since random assignment. (Change 

in school could be because of grade completion, residential 

move, or another reason.) The outcome is measured using 

a count of 1 to 4. Number of schools is top coded at four or 

more schools. 

•	 Grade completion—not held back (percent of focal

children). This outcome is measured from the parent survey 

and defined for children who have been in school at any 

time since random assignment and who are less than age 18 

at the time of the 37-month survey. The outcome measures 

the percentage of these children who have not repeated a 

grade level and have not been prevented from moving on to 

the next grade level since random assignment. 

•	 School grades. This outcome measures the parent’s 

assessment of the child’s school grades for the most recently 

completed term. The outcome uses a 4-point scale ranging 

from 1 (mostly Ds and Fs) to 4 (mostly As). 

Health

•	 Poor or fair health (percent of focal children). This 

outcome measures the parent’s assessment of the child’s 

health at the time of the 37-month followup survey. The 

outcome measures the percentage of children with poor or 

fair health (rather than good, very good, or excellent health), 

based on the parent’s assessment.

•	 Well-child checkup in the past year (percent of focal

children). This outcome measures the percentage of focal 

children who received a physical examination or well-child 

checkup in the year before the 37-month survey, based on 

the parental report. 

•	 Child has a regular source of health care (percent of

focal children). This outcome measures the percentage of 

focal children who had a regular provider of health care at 

the time of the 37-month followup survey, based on the 

parental report. 

•	 Sleep problems. This outcome measures the parental report 

on the frequency of two indicators of sleep problems—

tiredness on waking and tiredness during the day. The outcome is measured using a score of 1 to 5, with higher values 

indicating a greater frequency of these sleep problems. 

Behavioral challenges and strengths

•	 Behavior problems. The followup survey included the 

SDQ, a battery of items about the behavioral strengths and 

difficulties of children. This outcome is measured as the 

nationally standardized score from the SDQ. The parent 

reported on focal children’s behavior using the SDQ. The 

total problem score measures emotional symptoms, conduct 

problems, hyperactivity, and peer problems. The reported 

34 The study team analyzes child outcomes in this report somewhat differently than for the Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions 

for Homeless Families (Gubits et al., 2015). For example, school absences in the past month, positive school experiences, positive school attitudes, and school conduct 

problems were collected for only the first 38 percent of parents surveyed due to an error in data collection. Parallel questions for younger, preschool aged children were 

collected from all parents. These outcomes are thus analyzed and presented separately by child age group. In addition, preschool and school enrollment are analyzed and 

presented by age group. See Appendix B for additional information about the child outcomes.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 21

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 2. Description of Usual Care (UC) and Outcomes Measured in the Study

scores are standardized by age and gender so that children 

can be compared with their peers in a national sample. 

Higher scores indicate greater behavior problems.

•	 Prosocial behavior. Parents reported on focal children’s 

prosocial behavior. Prosocial behavior refers to positive 

actions that benefit others. Prosocial behavior is measured 

for the study using the parental report to the SDQ prosocial 

domain and is a nationally standardized score. Higher scores 

indicate greater prosocial behavior.

2.3.8. Characteristics of Focal Children in 

the UC Group

Exhibit 2-10 displays the values of the just-described outcomes 

for focal children in the UC group. 

School and Childcare 

Children had attended 2.1 schools, on average, since random 

assignment, which means one school change, on average, in 

3 years. School mobility is associated with lower levels of academic achievement.35 Furthermore, only 91 percent of children 

had completed all the grade levels in which they were enrolled 

by the end of the school year; that is, 9 percent had been held 

back since random assignment. The grades that children earned 

in school, as reported by parents, averaged 3.06 on a scale 

wherein 3 is mostly Bs and 4 is mostly As.

Health

Parents reported that 6 percent of children in the UC group 

were in fair or poor health 37 months after random assignment. 

This percentage is similar to 5 percent of poor children but is 

higher than 1 percent of nonpoor children younger than age 18 

in the National Health Interview Survey in 2012. The proportion of study children who had a regular source of medical care 

was similar to the national rate for poor children (92 percent 

compared with the national rate of 95 percent; Bloom, Jones, 

and Freeman, 2013). Only 91 percent of children in the UC 

group had received a well-child checkup in the year before 

the 37-month survey. Parents reported that children rarely 

had trouble waking up or were tired during the day (2.18 on a 

5-point scale, wherein 2 indicates rarely).

Behavioral Challenges and Strengths

Children in the UC group scored markedly higher than national norms on behavioral problems (0.59 standard deviations 

in the national data) and somewhat lower (0.24 standard 

deviations) on prosocial behavior.

Child Well-Being Outcomes for Specific Age Groups 

The study team constructed the following child well-being 

outcomes measured only for specific age groups.36

Exhibit 2-10. Child Well-Being Outcomes in the UC Group Measured for Children Across Age Groups 

Outcome UC Group

Mean Value (Standard Deviation)

Child education

Number of schools attended since random assignmenta 2.10 (1.18)

Grade completion—not held back (%) 91.0 (38.2)

School gradesb 3.06 (1.14)

Child physical health

Poor or fair health (%) 5.9 (31.0)

Well-child checkup in past year (%) 90.6 (38.4)

Child has regular source of health care (%) 91.7 (36.4)

Sleep problemsc 2.18 (1.46)

Child behavioral strengths and challenges

Behavior problemsd 0.59 (1.69)

Prosocial behaviore – 0.24 (1.43)

UC = usual care.

a

 Number of schools outcome is topcoded at 4 or more schools. 

b School grades outcome is defined as 1 = mostly Ds or Fs, 2 = mostly Cs, 3 = mostly Bs, and 4 = mostly As. 

c

 Sleep problems outcome ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating more frequent tiredness on waking and during the day. 

d Behavior problems outcome is measured as the standardized Total Difficulties score from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). 

e

 Prosocial behavior is measured as the standardized prosocial domain score from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).

Notes: Sample sizes vary by outcome. See Appendix B for details on outcome specifications and values. Means and standard deviations are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey (parent report)

35 National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2010).

36 Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families (Gubits et al., 2015) also examined low birth weight for randomly selected 

focal children born since random assignment. The study team did not reanalyze this outcome in the 37-month analysis because only an additional 10 focal children born 

since random assignment were newly selected at the time of the 37-month survey. Therefore, results would have been almost identical to those previously reported.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 22

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 2. Description of Usual Care (UC) and Outcomes Measured in the Study

Ages 2 years to 5 years37

•	 Preschool or Head Start enrollment (percent of focal

children). This parent-reported outcome measures the 

percentage of children in the age range who were enrolled in 

preschool, center-based childcare, or Head Start at the time 

of the 37-month followup survey.38

•	 Childcare or preschool absences in the past month. This 

outcome is measured from parental reports of the number 

of absences from childcare or preschool in the month before 

the survey. The outcome is measured using a scale of 0 to 3, 

with 0 indicating no absences, 1 indicating 1 to 2 absences, 

2 indicating 3 to 5 absences, and 3 indicating 6 or more 

absences.

•	 Positive childcare or preschool experiences. This outcome 

measures the parent’s assessment of the child’s childcare or 

preschool experiences, rating them as mostly positive (=1), 

both positive and negative (=0), or mostly negative (=-1). 

•	 Positive childcare or preschool attitudes. This outcome 

measures the parent’s assessment of the child’s attitude toward 

childcare or preschool. The parent was asked to rate how 

much the child likes childcare or preschool. The outcome 

uses a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).

•	 Childcare or preschool conduct problems (percent of

focal children). This outcome measures whether the parent 

reports having been contacted by the child’s childcare or 

preschool provider regarding the child’s conduct problems 

or if the child was suspended or expelled. 

Ages 2 years to 5 years, 6 months

•	 Met developmental milestones (percent of focal

children). This outcome is defined as the percentage of 

focal children who scored above the typical developmental 

thresholds on the five domains measured in the parentreported ASQ-3.39

Ages 3 years, 6 months to 7 years

•	 Verbal ability. This outcome is measured as the nationally 

standardized score from the WJ III letter-word identification 

test. The study team administered the assessment to focal 

children ages 3 years, 6 months to 7 years.

•	 Math ability. This outcome is measured as the nationally 

standardized score from the WJ III applied problems 

test. The study team administered the assessment to focal 

children ages 3 years, 6 months to 7 years. 

•	 Executive functioning (self-regulation). This outcome is 

measured using the HTKS developmental assessment, measuring inhibitory control, attention, and working memory. 

The study team administered the assessment to children ages 

3 years, 6 months to 7 years. 

Ages 5 years to 17 years40

•	 School enrollment (percent of focal children). This 

outcome is measured for children ages 5 to 17 years, using 

the parental report. It measures the percentage of children 

ages 5 to 17 who were enrolled in school at the time of the 

37-month followup survey. 

•	 School absences in the past month. This outcome is measured from the parental report of the number of absences 

from school in the month before the survey. The outcome 

is measured using a scale of 0 to 3, with 0 indicating no 

absences, 1 indicating 1 to 2 absences, 2 indicating 3 to 5 

absences, and 3 indicating 6 or more absences.

•	 Positive school experiences. This outcome measures the 

parent’s assessment of the child’s school experiences, rating 

them as mostly positive (=1), both positive and negative 

(=0), or mostly negative (=-1).

•	 Positive school attitudes. This outcome measures the parent’s 

assessment of the child’s attitude toward school. The parent 

was asked to rate how much the child likes school or childcare. The outcome uses a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not 

at all) to 5 (very much).

•	 School conduct problems (percent of focal children).

This outcome measures whether the parental reports having 

been contacted by the child’s school or childcare provider 

regarding the child’s conduct problems or if the child was 

suspended or expelled.

In this age group, the last four outcomes about school-aged 

children (school absences, school experiences, school attitudes, 

and school conduct problems) were collected from only the 

37 This age group includes focal children who were ages 4 years or younger on the September 1st before the 37-month survey. These children had thus not reached 5 years 

of age (typical school age) in the school year corresponding to the 37-month survey. 

38 Though this enrollment outcome is named differently than the school enrollment outcome for children ages 5 to 17 years, the two outcomes are defined identically. For 

this younger group, enrollment is overwhelmingly in preschool or center-based childcare. For the older group, enrollment is overwhelmingly in school. 

39 In the 20-month data collection, the ASQ-3 was collected for focal children who were less than 3 years, 6 months of age. To capture the same set of children at the later 

followup point, the outcome was collected for focal children who were up to 5 years, 6 months of age.

40 This age group includes focal children who were ages 5 to 17 years on the September 1st before the 37-month parent survey and who were no older than 17 years at the 

time of the survey. These children were thus typical school age in the school year corresponding to the 37-month survey.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 23

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 2. Description of Usual Care (UC) and Outcomes Measured in the Study

first 38 percent of parents surveyed due to an error in data 

collection. The parallel outcomes for younger, preschool-aged 

children were collected from all parents. Because of the discrepancy in data collection between the two age groups, these 

outcomes are analyzed separately according to age group.

Ages 8 years to 17 years

Older children were surveyed about a broader array of developmental outcomes. For focal children between the ages of 8 and 

17 at the time of the 37-month followup data collection, the 

study team measured five outcomes from the child survey and 

one from the parental report. 

•	 Anxiety. This outcome is measured using the A-Trait scale 

from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children, or 

STAIC (Spielberger et al., 1973). Scores range from 20 to 60, 

with higher scores indicating greater anxiety. 

•	 Fears. This outcome is measured using the Children’s Fear 

Scale (Ramirez, Masten, and Samsa, 1991). Scores range 

from 33 to 99, with higher scores indicating more fear. 

Children were asked to indicate the extent to which they 

had 33 different fears. 

•	 Substance use. This outcome, which combines data using 

23 items from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC, 2012c) Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United 

States, 2011, measures whether the child had used tobacco, 

alcohol, or marijuana in the past 30 days or had ever used 

other substances—cocaine, inhalants, or steroids (ages 8 

to 17) or ecstasy, methamphetamine, heroin, controlled 

prescription drugs, or injected drugs (ages 13 to 17 only). 

•	 Goal-oriented thinking. This outcome is measured with 

a modified version of the Children’s Hope Scale (Snyder et 

al., 1997), which measures positive, goal-oriented thinking. 

Scores range from 6 to 30, with higher scores indicating 

greater hope. 

•	 School effort in the past month. On the child survey, 

respondents were asked to report on how hard they worked 

in the month before the survey during the school day and 

on homework. The outcome measure ranges from 1 to 4, 

with higher scores indicating greater effort at school and on 

homework. 

•	 Arrests or police involvement in the past 6 months

(percent of focal children). This outcome is measured 

using the parental report about whether the child had any 

problems that involved the police contacting the parent and 

whether the child had been arrested in the 6 months before 

the followup survey. 

2.3.9. Characteristics of Focal Children by 

Age-Specific Outcomes in the UC Group

Exhibit 2-11 displays the values of the outcomes described 

previously for focal children in the UC group.

Ages 2 years to 5 years

Among children ages 2 years to 5 years in the UC group, 39 

percent were enrolled in center-based care, preschool, or Head 

Start. Children in this age group scored 0.8, on average, for 

absences from preschool or childcare in the past month, wherein 0 indicates no absences and 3 indicates 6 or more absences. 

(During the summer, parents reported on the most recent 

month of enrollment.) Parents reported that children had 

mostly positive experiences in preschool or childcare (0.8 on 

a 3-point scale wherein 0 indicates both positive and negative 

experiences, 1 indicates mostly positive experiences and -1 indicates mostly negative experiences). Parents also reported that 

children liked preschool or childcare, averaging 4.5 on a scale 

wherein 4 is pretty much and 5 is very much. Parents reported 

that about 5 percent of the children had conduct problems 

necessitating some contact from preschool or childcare.

Ages 2 years to 5 years

By parental report, only 72 percent of children met the developmental cutoff score in all five domains of ASQ-3. This rate 

was somewhat less than the national rate of 77 to 86 percent 

used by the creators of the ASQ-3 instrument.41 Children were 

least likely to meet age standards for fine motor development 

and most likely to meet standards for gross motor development, with performance in the communication, problemsolving, and personal-social domains falling in between.

Ages 3 years, 6 months to 7 years

Children ages 3 years, 6 months to 7 years were assessed 

directly with two subscales of the WJ III test of cognitive 

abilities, with scores compared with national age norms. Given 

the large association of family income with reading and math 

ability (for example, Miller, Votruba-Drzal, and Setodji, 2013), 

it is not surprising that children in the UC group scored about 

one-third of a standard deviation below national norms on 

both letter-word identification (a measure of verbal ability) and 

applied problems (an early measure of math ability).

Children also completed the HTKS test of self-regulation or 

executive functioning, with a mean score of 17.8 out of a 

possible 40. The mean score was substantially lower than in a 

normative sample of largely middle-class children in Michigan 

and Oregon (27.45 out of 40) of the same mean age, although 

both the age range and the variability of scores for children in 

41 Squires et al. (2009).
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 24

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 2. Description of Usual Care (UC) and Outcomes Measured in the Study

Exhibit 2-11. Child Well-Being Developmental Outcomes in the UC Group for Children in Specific Age Groups 

Outcome UC Group

Mean Value (Standard Deviation)

Ages 2 to 5 yearsa

Preschool or Head Start enrollmentb 39.0 (61.7)

Child care or preschool absences in past monthc 0.8 (1.1)

Positive child care or preschool experiencesd 0.8 (0.5)

Positive child care or preschool attitudese 4.5 (0.8)

Child care or preschool conduct problemsf 5.2 (27.5)

Ages 2 years to 5 years, 6 months

Met developmental milestonesg (%) 72.1 (59.2)

Ages 3 years, 6 months to 7 years

Verbal abilityh – 0.33 (1.49)

Math abilityi – 0.30 (1.30)

Executive functioningj (self-regulation) 17.8 (23.9)

Ages 5 to 17 yearsk

School enrollmentb 97.9 (19.2)

School absences in past monthc,r 1.1 (1.3)

Positive school experiencesd,r 0.5 (0.8)

Positive school attitudese,r 4.1 (1.5)

School conduct problemsf,r 30.3 (62.5)

Ages 8 to 17 years

Anxietyl 35.5 (10.9)

Fearsm 63.6 (21.0)

Substance usen (%) 7.4 (38.2)

Goal-oriented thinkingo 22.1 (6.8)

School effort in past monthp 2.8 (1.1)

Arrests or police involvement in past 6 monthsq (%) 8.4 (38.2)

UC = usual care.

a

 Includes focal children who were age 4 years or younger on September 1 before the 37-month parent survey.

b Outcome defined as enrollment in preschool, center-based child care, or school.

c

 Absences outcome is defined as 0 = no absences in past month, 1 = one to two absences, 2 = three to five absences, 3 = six or more absences.

d Positive childcare or school experiences outcome is defined as -1 = mostly negative experiences, 0 = both positive and negative experiences, 1 = mostly positive experiences.

e

 Positive childcare or school attitudes outcome is parent report of how much child likes school and ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating greater like of school.

f

 Childcare or school conduct problems outcome is defined as 0 = no conduct problems reported to parent, 1 = parent contacted about conduct problems or suspension or expulsion from school or childcare center.

g

 Met developmental milestones outcome is defined as scoring above the typical development cutoffs in all domains of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3).

h

 Verbal ability outcome is the nationally standardized score from the Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III) letter-word Identification test. 

i

 Math ability outcome is the nationally standardized score from the WJ III applied problems test. 

j

 Executive functioning outcome is the Head Toes Knees Shoulders (HTKS) score and ranges from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating greater executive functioning.

k

 Includes focal children who were ages 5 to 17 years on September 1 before the 37-month parent survey and no older than 17 years at the time of the survey.

l

 Anxiety (child report) is measured using the A-Trait scale from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC). Scores range from 20 to 60, with higher scores indicating 

greater anxiety. 

m Fears outcome (child report) is the score from the Fears Scale and ranges from 33 to 99, with higher scores indicating more fear.

n

 Substance use (child report) is measured with 23 items from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey. 

o

 Goal-oriented thinking (child report) is measured with a modified version of the Children’s Hope Scale and ranges from 6 to 30, with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive, goal-oriented thinking.

p School effort outcome (child report) ranges from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater effort during school day and on homework.

q Arrests or police involvement in past 6 months is from parent report. 

r

 This parent-reported outcome was collected from only the first 38 percent of parents surveyed due to an error in data collection.

Notes: Sample sizes vay by outcome. See Appendix B for details on outcome specifications and values. Means and standard deviations are weighted to adjust for survey and 

assessment nonresponse.

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey; ASQ-3; WJ III; HTKS assessment; Family Options Study 37-month child survey

our sample were larger (fall scores from Ponitz et al., 2009). 

Children in our study scored about the same as in the control 

group of an intervention study involving low-income, multiracial, multiethnic children in San Diego, California (Layzer, 

2014).

Ages 5 years to 17 years

Among school-age children ages 5 to 17 years, 97.9 percent 

were enrolled in school at the time of the 37-month survey. 

This rate is similar to the national enrollment rate (92.9 to 97.8 

percent for children ages 7 to 17; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

2014). Children in the 5-to-17 age group scored 1.1, on average, 
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 25

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 2. Description of Usual Care (UC) and Outcomes Measured in the Study

for absences from school in the past month, wherein 0 indicates 

no absences and 3 indicates 6 or more absences. Most children 

in the UC group (70 percent) had no conduct problems at 

school, but the balance (30 percent) did have problems that led 

to the school’s contacting the parent or suspending or expelling 

the child. 

Ages 8 years to 17 years

Children’s scores on the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for 

Children—STAIC measure, a general measure of worries, (mean 

of 35.5) were somewhat less than those in the normative sample 

of fourth graders from the test originators (36.3 for males and 

38.1 for females; Spielberger, 1970) and further were less than 

those in a large sample of disadvantaged Black children from a 

large metropolitan school district (40.0 for males and 40.26 for 

females; Papay and Hedl, 1978). A score of 40 would reflect an 

average answer of “sometimes” on a 3-point scale from “hardly 

ever” to “often” across all items.

Across 33 specific fears, rated on a scale from “not at all” to 

“a lot,” children averaged slightly less than “some,” or 63.6, at 

the 37-month followup survey (a consistent answer of “some” 

would yield a score of 66). The fears most commonly rated 

“a lot” (by more than one-half of the youth) were “I worry 

about my brothers and sisters,” “I worry about my parents,” 

and “I worry about myself.” 

Substance use in the UC group was quite low by comparison 

with national norms. (Our data are self-reported, but so are the 

corresponding national norms from CDC (2012c). Only 7 percent of children ages 8 to 17 in the UC group reported having 

used tobacco, alcohol, or marijuana in the past 30 days or had 

ever used more serious drugs. The CDC provides norms for 

children in grades 9 through 12, to which the 13- to 17-yearold youth in the study are compared.42 Study youth were less 

likely to have smoked (8 versus 22 percent), used alcohol (11 

versus 35 percent), or used marijuana (10 versus 23 percent) in 

the past 30 days. 

The measure of goal-oriented thinking, a version of the Children’s Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1997), measures both belief in 

one’s ability to solve problems and reach goals and belief about 

esteem or efficacy. The version in this study used a slightly 

different scoring format than the original. The average score of 

22.1 indicates answers closer to having these beliefs “most of 

the time,” or 24, than “a lot of the time,” or 18. 

For school effort, children rated how hard they worked on 

homework and during the school day, with an average of 2.8 

on a 4-point scale wherein 2 is “could have done a little better” 

and 3 is “did about as well as you could.”

Parents reported that 8 percent of children ages 12 to 17 had 

had a problem that involved the police contacting the parent or 

had been arrested in the 6 months before the 37-month survey.

2.3.10. Measures of Self-Sufficiency 

The impact analysis examines relative effects of the four interventions on several outcomes pertaining to self-sufficiency. The 

study team used the 37-month followup survey to construct 

five categories of self-sufficiency outcomes: (1) employment, 

(2) sources of income, (3) receipt of education or training, 

(4) food security, and (5) economic hardship. 

Employment 

The study team used responses to the adult followup survey to 

construct six outcomes regarding employment status.

•	 Work for pay in the week before the survey (percent of

family heads). This outcome measures the percentage of 

survey respondents who reported working for pay in the 

week before the 37-month followup survey. 

•	 Any work for pay since the 20-month survey (percent

of family heads). This outcome measures the percentage 

of survey respondents who reported working for pay at any 

time since the date of their 20-month survey. It is defined 

only for families who responded to both 20-month and 

37-month followup surveys.

•	 Months worked for pay since the 20-month survey

(includes partial months). This outcome is a count of the 

months worked since random assignment, including partial 

months. It is defined only for families who responded to 

both 20-month and 37-month followup surveys.

•	 Any work for pay since random assignment (percent of

family heads). This outcome measures the percentage of 

survey respondents who reported working for pay at any 

time since random assignment. 

•	 Months worked for pay since random assignment

(includes partial months). This outcome is a count of the 

months worked since random assignment, including partial 

months. 

•	 Hours of work per week at current main job. For adult 

respondents who had more than one job in the week before 

the 37-month survey, the main job is defined as the job at 

which she or he usually worked the most number of hours 

per week. 

42 Kann et al. (2014).
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 26

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 2. Description of Usual Care (UC) and Outcomes Measured in the Study

Income Sources and Amounts

The study team also constructed outcomes that measure the 

percentage of families who reported receiving income from each of 

the following sources in the month before the survey. The family heads reported whether anyone in the family had received 

income from each of the following sources in the past month. 

•	 Earnings.

•	 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

•	 Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI).

•	 Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

•	 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

•	 Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,

Infants, and Children (WIC). 

The study team also constructed two other outcomes related to 

income. 

•	 Annualized earnings from the main job. This outcome 

measures the annualized value of current earnings from the 

job reported at the time of the 37-month survey. This value 

usually represents either the product of the reported hourly 

wage and usual hours per week multiplied by 52 weeks or 

the reported usual weekly earnings multiplied by 52 weeks. 

By construction, the measure ignores any seasonality in 

earnings. 

•	 Total family income. This outcome measures total family 

income from all sources for the calendar year preceding the 

survey (2013 for all respondents). 

Education and Training

The analysts constructed five outcomes pertaining to participation in education and training activities during the followup 

period. The followup survey asked respondents whether they 

had participated in any education or training activities since 

random assignment and, if so, how many weeks they spent 

in such programs. For up to six programs reported, sample 

members reported on the type of program. The study team 

used this information to construct the following education and 

training outcomes. 

•	 Participated in any school or training lasting 2 weeks

or more since random assignment (percent of family

heads). This outcome measures the percentage of families in 

whom the adult respondent reported having participated in 

any type of school or training lasting 2 or more weeks since 

random assignment. 

•	 Number of weeks in training programs since random

assignment.

•	 Participated in school lasting 2 weeks or more since

random assignment (percent of family heads). This 

outcome measures the percentage of families in whom the 

adult respondent reported having participated in school or 

academic training lasting 2 weeks or more since random 

assignment. School or academic training is defined as attending a regular high school directed toward a high school 

diploma; preparing for a general educational development, 

or GED, examination; taking courses at a 2-year or 4-year 

college; or taking graduate courses.

•	 Participated in basic education lasting 2 weeks or more

since random assignment (percent of family heads).

This outcome measures the percentage of families in whom 

the adult respondent reported having participated in basic 

education lasting 2 or more weeks since random assignment. 

Basic education is defined as nonvocational adult education, 

literacy training, or English as a second language not 

directed toward a degree.

•	 Participated in vocational education or training lasting

2 weeks or more since random assignment (percent of

family heads). This outcome measures the percentage of 

families in whom the adult respondent reported having 

participated in vocational education or training lasting 2 or 

more weeks since random assignment. Vocational education 

or training is defined as business or technical schools, 

employer- or union-provided training, or military training in 

vocational skills (not military skills).

Food Security 

The analysis examines impacts of the interventions on food 

security for two outcomes.

•	 Household is food insecure (percent of families). This 

outcome measures the percentage of families determined 

“food insecure” at the time of the followup survey according 

to criteria used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA).43

•	 Food insecurity scale. This outcome measures the food 

insecurity level of each family based on responses to the 

USDA food security questions included on the followup 

survey. The food insecurity scale ranges from 0 to 6, with 

higher values indicating greater food insecurity.44

43 See Nord, Andrews, and Carlsen (2005). The assessment of food insecurity is based on two USDA short-form metrics, which are scores assigned to a household based on 

answers to six survey questions. 

44 See Appendix B for further details on the construction of this outcome.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 27

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 2. Description of Usual Care (UC) and Outcomes Measured in the Study

Economic Hardship 

The study team also measured the economic hardship reported 

by each family at the time of the 37-month followup survey 

on a measure derived from Pearlin and Schooler (1978). The 

outcome, expressed as an economic stress scale, measures the 

extent of hardship using responses about the frequency with 

which the family said they experienced an inability to afford 

medical care the family needed, clothing the family needed, leisure activities the family wanted, or rent. The economic stress 

scale also takes into account the adult respondent’s assessment 

of the family’s monthly finances; that is, whether they usually 

have some money left over at the end of the month, barely 

enough to make ends meet, or not enough to make ends meet. 

Earnings and Employment From Administrative Data 

In addition to the self-sufficiency outcomes constructed from 

survey data, the study team measured three employment and 

earnings outcomes from administrative records. Under a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services’ Office of Child Support Enforcement 

(OCSE), HUD matched the Family Options Study to quarterly 

wage records maintained by HHS. These records are part of 

the larger National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) database, 

administered by the OCSE. To adhere to privacy protections 

that govern the use of the NDNH data for research purposes, 

HUD personnel analyzed these data and provided results to the 

study team. 

The Family Options Study obtained quarterly earnings for the 

study sample for the period covering the second quarter of 

2013 through the third quarter of 2015. This calendar period 

provided data for the full study sample that corresponds 

with the 11th through 14th quarters after the quarter of 

random assignment. This 1-year period covered by the NDNH 

earnings data is approximately 32 to 44 months after random 

assignment and includes the date of 37-month followup survey 

response for nearly all the survey respondents. 

The study team constructed three outcomes from the NDNH 

quarterly wage data.

•	 Total earnings in quarters 11 to 14 after random assignment. This outcome measures the sum of all earnings for 

each family head in the 11th through 14th quarters after the 

quarter of random assignment. The outcome is measured 

in 2015, quarter 3 dollars. Because earnings are available 

for four consecutive quarters for all families, the earnings 

measure is not subject to seasonality bias.

•	 Any employment in quarters 11 to 14 after random

assignment (percent of families). This outcome measures 

the percentage of family heads with any employment in 

quarters 11 to 14 after the quarter of random assignment, as 

indicated by the presence of any earnings during the quarter.

•	 Number of quarters employed in quarters 11 to 14 after

random assignment. This outcome counts the total number 

of quarters that the family head was employed during 

quarters 11 to 14 after the quarter of random assignment. 

The team measured this outcome using the number of 

quarters in which the NDNH data indicated that the family 

head had earnings.

2.3.11. Self-Sufficiency Indicators for the 

UC Group

Exhibit 2-12 displays the values of the self-sufficiency outcome 

measures for the UC group. More than one-third (37 percent) 

of the adult respondents in these families reported working for 

pay in the week before the survey, and 72 percent said they 

had worked for pay at some time since random assignment. 

The adult respondents in the UC group spent an average 

of 13.1 months working for pay since random assignment. 

Including respondents who were not working at all, they 

worked an average of 11.8 hours per week at the current job, 

and annualized earnings from the current job averaged $6,414. 

The 37 percent of UC families who were working at the time 

of the survey worked an average of 32 hours per week, had 

hourly earnings of $10.57,45 and had annualized earnings for 

the current job of $18,125.

Exhibit 2-13 shows the proportion of families working for 

pay and having any work since random assignment to the 

UC group. A statistically significant higher proportion of UC 

families (37 percent) were working at the 37-month survey 

than either at baseline (17 percent) or at the 20-month survey 

(31 percent). The proportion that had performed any work 

for pay since random assignment also significantly increased 

between 20 and 37 months, from 61 percent to 72 percent. 

The large difference46 between the proportions working for pay 

at the surveys and those who had worked for pay at any point 

since random assignment shows that a sizable proportion of the 

family heads are working intermittently. 

Families in the UC group reported median cash income 

from all sources of $12,099 for the calendar year before the 

37-month survey (2013 for all families), higher than the 

45 The average hourly earnings were calculated for those who reported wages on an hourly, a weekly, or a biweekly basis (representing 89 percent of those working for pay 

at the time of the followup survey).

46 Results are based on partial paired t-tests. See Appendix C for more details about the test.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 28

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 2. Description of Usual Care (UC) and Outcomes Measured in the Study

Exhibit 2-12. Self-Sufficiency Outcomes in the UC Group

Outcome UC Group

Mean Value (Standard Deviation)

Employment status

Work for pay in week before survey (%) 37.0 (56.0)

Any work for pay since 20-month surveya (%) 63.6 (48.2)

Months worked for pay since 20-month surveya,b 7.2 (7.9)

Any work for pay since RA (%) 72.3 (51.9)

Months worked for pay since RAb 13.1 (15.5)

Hours of work per week at current main jobc 11.8 (19.3)

Income sources and amounts

Annualized current earnings ($) 6,414 (12,250)

Total family income ($) 12,099 (13,102)

Anyone in family had earnings in past month (%) 50.1 (58.0)

Anyone in family received TANF in past month (%) 22.9 (48.7)

Anyone in family received SSDI in past month (%) 9.1 (33.3)

Anyone in family received SSI in past month (%) 14.8 (41.2)

Anyone in family received SNAP/food stamps in past month (%) 81.6 (44.9)

Anyone in family received WIC in past month (%) 23.0 (48.8)

Education and training

Participated in 2 weeks or more of any school or training since RA (%) 38.8 (56.5)

Number of weeks in school or training programs since RA 8.5 (20.2)

Participated in 2 weeks or more of school since RA (%) 11.5 (37.0)

Participated in 2 weeks or more of basic education since RA (%) 2.2 (16.9)

Participated in 2 weeks or more of vocational education since RA (%) 14.3 (40.5)

Food security

Household is food insecure (%) 46.8 (57.8)

Food insecurity scaled 1.94 (2.42)

Economic stressors

Economic stress scalee – 0.11 (0.57)

UC = usual care.

RA = random assignment. SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SSDI = Social Security Disability Insurance. SSI = Supplemental Security Income. TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

a

 Includes only families who responded to both 20-month and 37-month followup surveys; not weighted for survey nonresponse.

b Number of months worked for pay includes partial calendar months.

c

 Hours of work per week includes those not currently working (that is, those with 0 hours of work per week).

d Food insecurity scale ranges from 0 to 6, with higher values indicating higher food insecurity.

e

 Economic stress scale ranges from – 1 to 1, with higher values indicating higher economic stress.

Notes: N = 556. See Appendix B for details on outcome specifications and values. Means and standard deviations are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey

amount reported at the 20-month survey ($9,067) and at 

baseline ($7,410). The 2013 federal poverty threshold for 

three-person households (the median family size for study 

families) was $18,769 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). 

Regarding sources of income in the month before the 37-month 

survey, the UC families reported a high rate of SNAP receipt 

(82 percent). Other sources of income reported were earned 

income (50 percent of families), TANF (23 percent), WIC (23 

percent), SSI (15 percent), and SSDI (9 percent). 

More than one-third (39 percent) of the adult respondents in 

the UC families said they had participated in 2 or more weeks 

of school or training since random assignment. On average, 

families in the UC group said they spent 8.5 weeks in education or training activities. Nearly one-half (47 percent) of UC 

families met USDA criteria for food insecurity at the time of the 

37-month followup survey.47

Exhibit 2-14 shows the means for the earnings and employment outcomes measured in the administrative quarterly wage 

records. The mean value of earnings during the 11th through 

47 The proportion of UC families who met criteria for food insecurity at the time of the 20-month survey was nearly identical, at 45.9 percent. Due to a programming error, 

this proportion was erroneously reported as 35.5 percent in the Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families (Gubits et 

al., 2015; Exhibit 5-13).
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 29

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 2. Description of Usual Care (UC) and Outcomes Measured in the Study

Exhibit 2-13. Work for Pay at 20 and 37 Months After RA 

in the UC Group

17%

31%

61%

37%

72%

10

0

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Work for pay in week before survey (%)

Percent

Any work for pay since RA (%)

Baseline 20-month survey 37-month survey

***

**

RA = random assignment.

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

Notes. See Appendix B for details on outcome specifications and values. Means are 

weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

Sources: Family Options Study baseline survey, 20-month followup survey, and 

37-month followup survey

14th quarters after the quarter of random assignment for UC 

family heads was $5,555. About 57 percent of UC family heads 

had any employment during this 1-year period. The average 

number of quarters with employment during this 1-year period 

for all UC family heads was 1.7 quarters, and the average 

number of quarters with employment for UC families who had 

any employment during the year was 2.9 quarters. 

2.4. Summary

The experiences of families who did not receive a special offer 

of assistance at the time of random assignment tell how families 

in the 12 study communities navigate the housing and homeless assistance system and how they fare 3 years after entering 

emergency shelter. This chapter examined patterns of program 

use and outcomes for families assigned to the UC group who 

responded to the 37-month followup survey. 

Emergency shelters in this study were the entry points into 

homeless assistance in each site. Families randomly assigned 

to the UC group typically remained in emergency shelter and 

sought whatever assistance was available in the community. 

UC families stayed in emergency shelter for an average of 4 months 

during the followup period. For about one-fourth of families 

assigned to the UC group, the emergency shelter where families 

were recruited was the families’ only interaction with the homeless assistance or housing subsidy system during the 3-year 

followup period. The remainder found their way to other 

types of assistance. In the 3 years after random assignment, 

20 percent of UC families received rapid re-housing assistance 

and 30 percent received transitional housing. Altogether, more 

than one-third (37 percent) of those in the UC group received 

some sort of permanent housing subsidy during the followup 

period—accessing either the subsidy intervention defined for 

the study, public housing, permanent supportive housing, or 

project-based housing assistance programs. Families in the 

UC group who received permanent housing subsidies tended 

to retain them. Most UC families (82 percent) who ever used 

a permanent subsidy in the 3-year followup period were still 

receiving the assistance at the time of the 37-month survey. 

Overall, UC families were not faring that well at 37 months 

after random assignment, although they were somewhat better 

off, on average, than at 20 months. Of the whole group, 18 

percent reported being homeless in the 6 months before the 

37-month survey, 5 percent were in emergency shelter in the 

survey month, and 69 percent were living in their own house 

or apartment. Only 37 percent of family heads had worked for 

pay in the week before the survey. Median annual cash income 

from all sources for the calendar year before the survey was 

about $12,000. 

The 37-month outcomes presented in this chapter for the UC 

families provide the benchmarks against which the study team 

estimated impacts of the active interventions. The next chapter 

presents the impacts of priority access to the permanent housing subsidy intervention compared with usual care.

Exhibit 2-14. Earnings and Employment in the UC Group 

Outcome UC Group

Mean Value (%) (Standard Deviation)

Earnings in quarters 11 to 14 after RA (2015Q3$) 5,555 (9,366)

Any employment in quarters 11 to 14 after RA (%) 57.5 (49.5)

Number of quarters employed in quarters 11 to 14 after RA 1.7 (1.7)

UC = usual care.

RA = random assignment.

Notes: N = 746. See Appendix B for details on outcome specifications and values. 

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 30

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

CHAPTER 3.

IMPACTS OF PERMANENT HOUSING 

SUBSIDY (SUB) COMPARED WITH 

USUAL CARE (UC)

T his chapter presents estimates of the impact of the 

permanent housing subsidy (SUB) intervention relative to usual care. The goal of the analyses presented 

in this chapter is to determine the extent to which being offered 

a permanent housing subsidy on a priority basis (that is, not 

having to enroll in and reach the top of waiting lists for subsidy 

assistance) increases families’ housing stability and improves 

other family outcomes 3 years after receiving the priority offer. 

The analysis presented in the Family Options Study: Short-Term 

Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless 

Families (hereafter, the Short-Term Impacts report; Gubits et al., 

2015) showed that assignment to the SUB intervention caused 

striking improvements in housing stability relative to usual care 

in the first 20 months after random assignment. The 20-month 

impact analysis also found that, compared with usual care, 

the benefits of having priority access to permanent housing 

subsidies extended beyond housing stability to other outcome 

domains of family preservation, adult well-being, child 

well-being, and self-sufficiency. Assignment to the SUB intervention reduced child separations, increased adult well-being, 

and reduced the number of schools that children attended. 

Assignment to the SUB intervention also reduced labor market 

engagement 20 months after random assignment but improved 

food security and reduced economic stress. Longer-term 

effects beyond this window hold particular importance for the 

SUB-versus-UC comparison, given the long-term support that 

permanent housing subsidies provide.

This chapter begins with a brief description of the assistance 

offered to the families assigned to the SUB intervention. It 

then reviews the extent to which families in both the SUB 

and UC groups used permanent housing subsidies and other 

housing and services programs available to them in the study 

sites during the course of the followup period. Then, the core 

sections of the chapter present the 3-year effects of being 

offered the SUB intervention (compared with usual care) on 

outcomes within each of the study domains: housing stability, 

family preservation, adult well-being, child well-being, and 

self-sufficiency. The final section is a summary of the 3-year 

impacts of the SUB intervention relative to usual care.

3.1. Permanent Housing Subsidy 

(SUB) Intervention 

The SUB intervention provided priority access to rental 

assistance without a time limit, typically in private-market 

housing.48 The permanent housing subsidies offered to families 

assigned to the SUB group could include housing placement 

assistance but not ongoing social services. The SUB intervention was available in 10 of the 12 study sites. The subsidies 

were provided by 18 local and state public housing agencies 

(PHAs), with some sites having more than 1 participating PHA. 

All the housing assistance included in the SUB intervention is 

considered permanent—that is, families can continue receiving 

housing assistance as long as they remain eligible and follow 

program rules, such as paying their share of the rent and living 

in housing that passes a housing-quality inspection. In all 

sites, recipients of the subsidy had to participate in the annual 

recertification of their income that would determine their share 

of the rent and the amount of the housing assistance payment 

made to the owner of the housing. 

In 8 of the 10 sites, the SUB intervention provided priority 

access to a tenant-based voucher provided by one or more 

PHAs through the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, 

as shown in Exhibit 3-1. One site also offered some permanent 

48 Chapter 6 of the Short-Term Impacts report (Gubits et al., 2015) provides additional details about the SUB intervention.contract with a property owner for specified units 

and for a specified term. Recipients of this type of assistance also pay 30 percent of adjusted monthly income for rent.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 31

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 3. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

Exhibit 3-1. Subsidy Type Provided by Site 

Type of Subsidy Number of Participating Subsidy Programs 

With This Type of Subsidy

Percent of Families Assigned to 

Subsidy Intervention of This Type (N = 599)

Tenant-based voucher 16 92

Project-based voucher 1 3

Public housing 1 6

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.

Sources: Program data; random assignment enrollment data

housing subsidies through public housing units,49 and another 

offered some project-based vouchers.50 Tenant-based vouchers 

made up 92 percent of all family referrals.

The HCV program is the federal government’s largest housing 

assistance program, providing rental subsidies to more than 

2 million households across the country.51 Participants in the 

study who were assigned to the SUB intervention, accepted by 

the PHA, and issued a voucher were free to use the voucher to 

rent a housing unit of their choice in the private rental market 

as long as it met HUD’s Housing Quality Standards and had a 

rent that the PHA determined to be reasonable when compared 

with the rents of unassisted units in the same housing market. 

The voucher assistance subsidized the monthly rent for the 

unit, and the amount that the subsidy provided was the payment standard established by the PHA (or the unit’s actual rent, 

if lower) minus 30 percent of the family’s adjusted monthly 

income.52

3.2. Program Use by Families in the 

Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) 

Versus Usual Care (UC) Comparison

Each impact comparison in the study may be thought of as a 

distinct experiment or test. This chapter addresses only the 

comparison between the SUB intervention and usual care, 

without reference to the families who were randomized to the 

community-based rapid re-housing (CBRR) and project-based 

transitional housing (PBTH) interventions. In total, 1,139 

families took part in the test of the SUB intervention versus 

usual care. These families all had the SUB intervention and 

usual care available to them at the time of random assignment 

and were assigned to one of these two interventions; 599 

families were assigned to the SUB group, and 540 families were 

assigned to the UC group.53 Of these 1,139 families, 896 (501 

SUB families and 395 UC families), or 79 percent, responded 

to the 37-month followup survey and are included in the SUBversus-UC impact comparison reported in this chapter. The 

current section describes the extent to which these 501 SUB 

families used the SUB intervention and other types of homeless 

and housing assistance during the followup period. Parallel 

information is presented for the 395 included UC families.

Exhibit 3-2 shows the use of eight types of homeless and 

housing programs. The first column shows the percentage of 

the 501 families assigned to the SUB intervention who ever 

used each program type during the followup period. The top 

row (shaded in the exhibit) shows the takeup of the permanent 

housing subsidies offered to the SUB group by the families 

assigned to that group; 83.2 percent of families assigned to the 

SUB group received the permanent subsidy they were offered 

at some point during the 37-month followup period—meaning 

they successfully leased a housing unit with a voucher or 

moved into an assisted housing unit.54 The second column correspondingly shows the percentage of the 395 families assigned 

49 In Honolulu, Hawaii, the subsidy intervention consisted of 33 units of public housing provided by the state PHA and 10 units of tenant-based rental assistance provided 

by the City and County of Honolulu Department of Community Services. Public housing units are owned and managed by the PHA. Like voucher program participants, 

tenants in public housing pay 30 percent of adjusted monthly income for rent. The city’s tenant-based rental assistance program that provided five permanent housing 

subsidy units for the study operates much like the HCV program.

50 In Bridgeport, Connecticut, which together with New Haven, Norwalk, and Stamford made up one of the study sites, the subsidy intervention was provided through 15 

units of project-based vouchers. PHAs can use up to 20 percent of their HCV program funding for project-based assistance, under which a PHA enters into an assistance 

contract with a property owner for specified units and for a specified term. Recipients of this type of assistance also pay 30 percent of adjusted monthly income for rent.

51 http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/cfo/reports/2013/main_toc.

52 Payment standards are adjusted for the number of bedrooms in the unit. The total rent payment that the PHA uses to calculate the subsidy includes an estimate of the 

cost of utilities paid for by the tenant. Details regarding the calculation of housing assistance payments under the HCV program are in 24 CFR Part 982.505.

53 In the entire study, 746 families were randomly assigned to the UC group. Only 540 of these families had the SUB intervention available to them when they were 

randomized, however. Therefore, only those 540 UC families are part of the SUB-versus-UC comparison sample. All 599 families randomly assigned to the SUB group had 

usual care available to them when they were randomized, so all are part of the SUB-versus-UC comparison sample.

54 All percentages, means, and medians in the exhibit are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse and, hence, as best as possible, represent the full experimental sample 

of 1,139 families. The findings on program use are thus in line with similarly weighted impact estimates provided later in the chapter. Appendix D provides details about 

the nonresponse analysis and adjustments.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 32

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 3. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

Exhibit 3-2. SUB Versus UC: Program Use Since RA

Type of Homeless or Housing Assistance

Percent Ever Used 

From RA to 37-Month 

Followup Surveya

Number of Months Used From 

RA to 37-Month Followup Survey, 

if Ever Used Type of Assistance

Percent Used in 

Month of Followup 

Survey Response

SUB UC

SUB UC

SUB UC

Mean Median Mean Median

Permanent housing subsidies offered to the SUB groupb 83.2 12.7 31.0 32.5 20.7 21.5 68.4 10.8

Rapid re-housingc 11.4 22.9 5.6 4.5 7.8 6.5 0.3 1.8

Transitional housingd 7.4 28.9 9.0 6.0 11.4 10.0 0.9 3.7

Permanent supportive housing 3.0 10.7 11.3 9.5 15.1 12.5 2.3 6.9

Public housing 1.6 10.3 22.7 24.5 19.3 18.5 1.4 7.6

Project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects 1.5 6.1 14.3 12.5 18.8 19.5 0.8 5.4

Any permanent housing subsidye 88.4 37.9 30.2 32.5 19.5 19.5 73.0 30.5

Emergency shelterf 84.4 89.5 3.0 2.0 4.6 2.9 1.7 5.4

No use of homeless or housing programsg 5.1 24.3 — —- — — 24.1 59.1

N 501 395 — — — — 501 395

SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. UC = usual care.

RA = random assignment.

a

 Percentage of families who ever used a type of assistance program during the period from the month of RA to the month of 37-month followup survey response (median period 

duration: 38 calendar months). Percentages do not add to 100 because some families used more than one program type during the followup period.

b Subsidies offered to the SUB group are housing choice vouchers plus site-specific programs offered to families assigned to the SUB group in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and Honolulu, Hawaii.

c

 Temporary subsidies offered to the CBRR group.

d All types of transitional housing, including those offered to the PBTH group.

e

 Includes the types of permanent subsidy offered to the SUB group plus permanent supportive housing, public housing, and project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects.

f

 All families were in emergency shelter at RA. Percentages less than 100 percent for ever used emergency shelter are because of missing data on shelter use.

g

 Indicates no use of the first six program types in this table during any of the followup period and no use of emergency shelter after the first 6 months after RA. No use in the month 

of followup survey response indicates no use of any of these seven program types.

Notes: Percentages are regression adjusted, controlling for site and randomization ratio. Percentages, means, and medians are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent full 

comparison sample.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data

to the UC group who ever used each program type during the 

followup period.55 The top row of the second column shows 

that 12.7 percent of the UC families received the permanent 

housing subsidy offered to the SUB group during the followup 

period, presumably through the regular process of coming off 

waiting lists and leasing units during the course of 3 years.

The next five rows of the exhibit show participation in other 

nonshelter types of homeless and housing assistance programs. 

For all programs other than SUB programs, use is higher for the 

UC group than for the SUB group, presumably because the UC 

group did not have the SUB intervention easily available and 

so turned to other types of assistance. The second and third 

rows show use of rapid re-housing and transitional housing. 

Continuing to focus for the moment on the first two columns 

of overall participation figures, 23 percent of UC families found 

their way to rapid re-housing assistance at some point during 

the 37-month followup period, and 29 percent found their 

way to transitional housing. The next three rows of the exhibit 

show the use of permanent housing subsidies to which neither 

families randomly assigned to the SUB group nor families 

assigned to the UC group had priority access: permanent supportive housing, public housing, and project-based vouchers/

Section 8 projects.56 Both SUB and UC families found their way 

to these programs. It is not surprising that that finding their 

way to the programs was more common for the UC families 

who did not have priority access to a permanent housing 

subsidy through the study’s SUB intervention. The seventh 

row shows the use of any type of permanent housing subsidy, 

which includes the permanent subsidy programs offered to the 

SUB group, permanent supportive housing, public housing, 

and project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects. Nearly twofifths (37.9 percent) of UC families obtained some form of 

permanent subsidy during the followup period. 

The eighth row shows the use of emergency shelter during 

the followup period. All study families started in emergency 

shelter; however, the numbers in this row are largely based on 

administrative data, which was missing for some of the study 

families. Nonetheless, the exhibit shows a contrast between 

55 The percentages in rows one through six and row eight of these columns are not mutually exclusive, because some families used more than one program type during the 

followup period. Row seven is a summary of rows one, four, five, and six.

56 Although project-based vouchers and Section 8 projects are distinct programs, the distinction is not relevant to this analysis; therefore, use of these programs is reported 

collectively.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 33

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 3. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

SUB and UC families. The ninth and final row shows the 

percentages of families in the SUB and UC groups who used 

none of the six nonshelter types of programs shown in the 

exhibit during the 37-month followup period and who did not 

use emergency shelter from the 7th month after random assignment onward. These families made no use of the homeless 

assistance system after their initial shelter stay. About 5 percent 

of SUB families and one-fourth of UC families fall into this group. 

The mean and median numbers of months of use for each 

program type are also shown in the exhibit (third and fourth 

columns for SUB families, fifth and sixth columns for UC 

families) for only those families who ever used a given program 

type.

57 As one might expect, given that housing subsidies were 

readily available to SUB families, the number of months of SUB 

intervention use is higher for participating SUB families (median of 33 months) than for the 12.7 percent of UC families who 

used the permanent housing subsidies offered to the SUB group 

by coming off waiting lists for assisted housing (median of 22 

months). Almost none of the SUB families used the permanent 

subsidy for less than 12 months, and the vast majority used it 

for 31 months or more (shown in Exhibit 3-3). For most other 

program types, median durations of use are longer for the UC 

group than for the SUB group.

Whereas the previous columns consider all experience from 

between randomization and the survey, the last two columns 

consider the program use as of the month of the 37-month 

survey. Although most outcomes in the report are expected to 

be influenced by assistance received during the entire followup 

period, some outcomes will be particularly strongly influenced 

by assistance received at the time of the followup survey 

response. The first row of the seventh column shows that 68 

percent of SUB families received permanent housing subsidies 

offered to the SUB group in the month they responded to the 

37-month followup survey. Whereas the use of temporary 

assistance programs had fallen off by the time of the followup 

survey, 31 percent of UC families compared with 73 percent of 

SUB families were receiving some form of permanent subsidy. 

Most UC families (59 percent) were not participating in a 

homeless or housing program at the time they responded to the 

followup survey compared with 24 percent of SUB families. 

Exhibit 3-4 provides a more detailed picture of the timing of 

program use by the families in the SUB-versus-UC comparison.58 The top panel shows the proportions of families within 

the SUB group who are receiving different types of assistance 

Exhibit 3-3. Number of Months of Subsidy Receipt During 

Followup Period by SUB Families Who Ever Used Offered 

Permanent Subsidy

10

0

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0.25 to 2.75

3 to 5.75

6 to 8.75

9 to 11.75

12 to 14.75

15 to 17.75

18 to 20.75

21 to 23.75

24 to 26.75

27 to 29.75

30 or more

Percent of SUB families who ever used SUBa

Number of months of SUB receipt

SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

a

 Percentages are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent all families in comparison sample.

Note: N = 419.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data

during each calendar month for the first 32 months after random assignment.59 It is not surprising that program use for SUB 

families is dominated by permanent housing subsidies. More 

notable is that the use of permanent housing subsidies continued at a high level throughout the followup period, falling off 

only slightly over time, suggesting that most families were able 

to comply with rules imposed by landlords and by the subsidy 

program. SUB families also made some use of other programs.

The bottom panel shows the proportions of program use over 

time for the UC families in the SUB-versus-UC comparison. 

Compared with the SUB group, the UC group made more 

extensive use of programs other than permanent housing 

subsidies following their initial stay in emergency shelter. The 

UC families’ use of rapid re-housing had largely ended by 

month 20, but their use of transitional housing continued past 

this point, only beginning to decrease in the third year (month 

25 and following). Use of permanent housing subsidies steadily 

increased throughout the followup period for the UC group, 

because families used regular waiting list processes rather than 

the study’s priority access to gain admittance to those programs; however, it remained well under one-half of the level of 

57 Hence, 0 values are not used in computing the means, nor do they pull downward the medians of the various distributions.

58 Exhibit 3-4 is closely related to the analysis of the costs of this pairwise comparison presented in Chapter 9. The reader should note that the exhibit does not indicate the 

two-way flows of families moving into and out of these program types from month to month. Instead, it reflects only the overall usage level in a given month.

59 Month 32 is the latest month for which the study team has data for all the families who responded to the 37-month survey.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 34

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 3. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

Exhibit 3-4. SUB Versus UC: Program Use in Each Month of Followup Period

Panel A: Program Use of SUB Families for 32 Months After RA

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of families using program type in month

Month after RA

Emergency shelter

Transitional housing

Rapid re-housing

Any permanent housing subsidy

Unknown/no program use

Panel B: Program Use of UC Families for 32 Months After RA

Emergency shelter

Transitional housing

Rapid re-housing

Any permanent housing subsidy

Unknown/no program use

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of families using program type in month

Month after RA

SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. UC = usual care.

RA = random assignment.

Notes: Families who have more than one type of program use in a calendar month are counted fractionally in each type. 

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 35

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 3. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

use of permanent housing subsidies by the SUB families, who 

got priority access to such programs. Appendix Exhibit H-1 

shows additional information about program use in the second 

half of the followup period, from month 19 after random 

assignment until the month of the 37-month survey response.

Exhibits 3-2 and 3-4 show that most families assigned to the 

SUB group used permanent housing subsidies after departing 

from emergency shelter. Nevertheless, a small proportion of 

SUB families used other programs in addition to the program 

to which they were offered priority access, which is consistent 

with the design of the study: families were not required to use 

the programs offered to the group to which they were assigned 

and were also not forbidden from using other programs that 

were available to them in their community. The intent of the 

study was to maximize use of the programs offered in the assigned group (in this case, maximize use of the SUB programs 

by the SUB families) and thereby to create as wide a contrast as 

possible between program mixes for the different assignment 

groups (in this case, SUB versus UC). As shown in the exhibits, 

the mix of programs used was very different for the SUB group 

than for the UC group. The contrast in usage is large, with 

83.3 percent of SUB families using the programs that were 

part of the SUB intervention compared with 12.9 percent of 

UC families. Considering all forms of permanent subsidy, 

(permanent housing subsidies offered to the SUB group, permanent supportive housing, public housing, and project-based 

assistance), the contrast between the two groups is 88 percent 

compared with 38 percent, a somewhat narrower gap but still 

large. This difference in the use of permanent housing subsidies 

by the SUB and UC groups is large enough that concerns 

about the study’s ability to detect an impact in the presence of 

nonparticipation and crossover are minimal. 

As is conventional in random assignment analyses, the goal 

here is to estimate the intention-to-treat (ITT) impact—that 

is, the impact of offering a program to families, regardless 

of whether they actually use that program (or some other 

program). The remainder of this chapter reports estimated 

impacts in the various outcome domains that—if statistically 

significant—can be causally attributed to the offer of a permanent housing subsidy to the families randomly assigned to the 

SUB group at the start of the followup period in contrast with 

no such privileged access being available to UC families.

3.3. Impacts on Housing Stability 

in the Permanent Housing Subsidy 

(SUB) Versus Usual Care (UC) 

Comparison

Proponents of permanent housing subsidies view the lack of 

housing affordability as the root cause of homelessness among 

families and believe that, because families who experience 

homelessness are very poor, they are likely to require long-term 

rental subsidies to become stably housed.60 The SUB-versusUC comparison in the current study provides a direct test of 

this hypothesis by measuring the effects of making the SUB 

programs easily available to families compared with a situation 

in which permanent housing subsidies are relatively difficult to 

access in the near term. 

At 20 months after random assignment, the priority access to a 

permanent housing subsidy provided to the SUB group had a 

strong positive effect on housing stability. What do the housing 

stability effects of assignment the SUB intervention at 3 years 

after random assignment tell? 

Exhibit 3-5 shows the experimentally based evidence of effects 

on homelessness, housing independence, residential moves, 

and housing quality at 37 months. All the rows of the exhibit 

(and other impact exhibits in the balance of this report) have 

the same format. The first three columns of the exhibit provide 

information about the SUB families—the number of families 

with data on a particular outcome and the mean value and 

standard deviation of the outcome. The next three columns 

provide the corresponding information for the UC families 

included in this particular pairwise comparison.61 The seventh 

column is the difference between the mean value (or proportion) of the SUB families and the mean value (or proportion) of 

the UC families, referred to as the impact of assignment to SUB 

relative to usual care.62 Asterisks to the right of this column 

denote the statistical significance of the impact estimate, with 

more asterisks indicating higher levels of statistical significance. 

The eighth column of the exhibit contains the standard error 

of the impact estimates, which is used to test for statistical 

significance and can be used to construct a confidence interval 

around the impact estimate. The results are weighted to adjust 

for survey nonresponse.

The last column shows the standardized effect size of the 

impact, calculated by dividing the impact estimate by the standard deviation of the outcome for all study families assigned to 

60 For further discussion of hypotheses about the SUB intervention, see Chapter 3 of the Short-Term Impacts report (Gubits et al., 2015).

61 The UC families in this comparison are those who could have been randomized to the SUB group. The mean values of outcomes for all UC families are shown in Chapter 2.

62 As explained in Appendix C, the mean values and the impact estimate are regression adjusted for baseline covariates.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 36

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 3. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

Exhibit 3-5. SUB Versus UC: Impacts on Housing Stability at 37 Months 

Outcome

SUB UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Homelessness or doubled up during the followup period

At least 1 night homelessb or doubled up (past 6 mo.) or in shelter in past 

12 months (%) [confirmatory]c

500 17.0 (36.7) 395 38.1 (48.5) – 21.1*** (3.0) – 0.37

At least 1 night homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months (%) 500 15.8 (35.3) 395 34.0 (47.3) – 18.2*** (2.9) – 0.33

At least 1 night homelessb in past 6 months (%) 500 8.9 (27.8) 395 17.6 (37.8) – 8.6*** (2.3) – 0.20

At least 1 night doubled up in past 6 months (%) 501 11.4 (30.8) 395 28.0 (44.8) – 16.6*** (2.7) – 0.32

Any stay in emergency shelter in past 6 months (%) [Program Usage Data] 501 3.3 (17.1) 395 8.1 (26.9) – 4.9*** (1.7) – 0.15

Any stay in emergency shelter in months 21 to 32 after RA (%) [Program 

Usage Data]

501 4.6 (20.9) 395 18.8 (38.4) – 14.3*** (2.3) – 0.33

Number of days homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months 499 18.6 (48.1) 393 47.5 (74.1) – 28.9*** (4.5) – 0.33

Number of days homelessb in past 6 months 500 8.7 (33.3) 395 18.9 (48.1) – 10.2*** (2.9) – 0.18

Number of days doubled up in past 6 months 500 11.7 (38.4) 393 33.3 (63.6) – 21.5*** (3.7) – 0.29

Housing independence

Living in own house or apartment at followup (%) 501 84.7 (35.9) 395 69.1 (46.3) 15.5*** (2.9) 0.29

Living in own house or apartment with no housing assistance (%) 500 14.2 (34.9) 392 40.0 (48.7) – 25.8*** (3.1) – 0.45

Living in own house or apartment with housing assistance (%) 500 70.4 (45.6) 392 29.2 (46.1) 41.2*** (3.2) 0.80

Number of places lived

Number of places lived in past 6 monthsd 501 1.3 (0.8) 395 1.6 (1.1) – 0.2*** (0.1) – 0.20

Housing quality

Persons per room 479 1.2 (0.6) 375 1.6 (1.2) – 0.4*** (0.1) – 0.31

Housing quality is poor or fair (%) 478 28.8 (44.8) 374 32.5 (46.8) – 3.7 (3.2) – 0.07

SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. UC = usual care. 

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

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

a

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

b The definition of “homeless” in this report includes stays in emergency shelters and places not meant for human habitation. It excludes transitional housing.

c

 After adjustment of multiple comparisons, the impact on the confirmatory outcome is statistically significant at the .01 level for the SUB-versus-UC comparison.

d The number of places lived in past 6 months is topcoded at 6 places.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey; Program Usage Data

the UC group.63 The standardized effect size is thus a measure 

of impact relative to natural variability in the outcome. Such 

standardized effect sizes are a conventional way to compare 

impact magnitudes across outcomes and domains with different 

scales. For example, one may compare the standardized effect 

sizes for housing stability outcomes in Exhibit 3-4 with those 

for other outcomes in other domains shown in this chapter. 

Standardized effect sizes may also allow for the size of effects 

found in this study to be compared with the size of effects on 

similar outcomes that are defined differently in other studies. 

Exhibit 3-5 shows that the SUB intervention reduced stays in 

shelter or places not meant for human habitation in the period 

before the 37-month survey by a large amount. The first row 

of the exhibit shows evidence for the confirmatory outcome of 

the study. The outcome is constructed from a combination of 

survey and Program Usage Data: (1) at least 1 night in shelter 

or a place not meant for human habitation or doubled up in 

the past 6 months (from the followup survey), or (2) at least 

1 night in emergency shelter in the past 12 months (from the 

study’s Program Usage Data). Of the families assigned to the 

UC group, 38 percent experienced one of these two situations. 

For the SUB group, that proportion was 17 percent, representing a reduction in homelessness of 21 percentage points, more 

than one-half of the homelessness measured by this outcome 

for the UC group. This impact is highly statistically significant 

(even after the adjustment for multiple comparisons applied to 

this confirmatory outcome).64

63 The standard deviations for the entire UC group are shown in Chapter 2. The entire UC group is used in computing effect sizes so that the effect sizes across impact 

comparisons will have common metrics.

64 The study estimates impacts on this confirmatory outcome for each of the six paired comparisons and four pooled comparisons. Seven of these estimates (impacts in 

the six paired comparisons and the pooled SUB+CBRR+PBTH-versus-UC comparison) have been prespecified as “confirmatory tests.” A multiple comparison procedure is 

performed to compute adjusted p-values for these tests to reduce the possibility of chance findings of statistical significance. See Appendix C for a discussion of the study’s 

approach to the multiple comparisons problem, the role of the confirmatory outcome in this approach, and the details of the adjustment procedure.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 37

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 3. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

The next three rows present results for three outcomes constructed solely from survey data: (1) at least 1 night homeless 

or doubled up in the past 6 months, (2) at least 1 night homeless in the past 6 months, and (3) at least 1 night doubled up in 

the past 6 months. The impact estimates in these three rows of 

the exhibit show that, compared with usual care, the SUB intervention caused substantial, statistically significant reductions 

in all three of these survey-based measures of homelessness.65

The next row uses a different data source—largely Homeless 

Management Information System (HMIS) data—to measure 

the proportion of families using at least 1 night of emergency 

shelter during the same period of the 6 months before the 

survey response.66 Access to the SUB intervention reduced the 

proportion by more than one-half, from 8 to 3 percent.67

The sixth row of Exhibit 3-4 shows the impact on any stay 

in emergency shelter in months 21 to 32 after random 

assignment, which is the latest 12-month period for which data 

are available for every survey respondent family.68 About 19 

percent of UC families spent at least 1 night in emergency shelter during this period. Only 5 percent of SUB families spent at 

least 1 night in emergency shelter during this time, a reduction 

of 14 percentage points. Thus, with the availability of a housing 

subsidy, the shelter usage rate in this period was reduced by 

three-fourths.

Exhibit 3-6 provides a more detailed characterization of the 

timing of emergency shelter stays for SUB and UC families. 

For reference, it also shows month-by-month usage of any 

permanent housing subsidy in the two groups. 

The Program Usage Data are missing the initial stay in emergency 

shelter for about 20 percent of families. The study team has no 

reason to believe, however, that missing data rates are associated 

with randomly assigned group (that is, data are equally likely to 

be missing for the SUB group and the UC group), leaving little 

concern about bias in the comparison of stay rates between the 

two groups. The Program Usage Data show a gap beginning to 

emerge between the shelter use of SUB and UC families in the 

third month after study entry, a gap that reaches 8 percentage 

points by the fifth month, with 15 percent of SUB families having 

at least 1 night in shelter (black line) compared with 23 percent 

of UC families (dark gray line). This slight lag in the emergence 

of a gap is consistent with the need for families assigned to 

the SUB group to have their incomes verified and to find and 

lease a unit—see the rising rate of permanent housing subsidy 

use along the light gray line in the exhibit. Families may have 

remained in shelter during that process. A gap of 6 to 9 percentage points remains through the 24th month. From the 10th 

month onward, the share of SUB families in shelter is much less 

than one-half the proportion of UC families.

The last three homelessness outcomes examined (see again 

Exhibit 3-5) measure the number of days in the past 6 months 

that a family was homeless or doubled up. Assignment to the 

SUB group reduced the amount of time spent homeless or doubled up by an average of 4 weeks in the past 6 months relative 

to assignment to the UC group.69

The housing independence outcomes in the next panel of 

Exhibit 3-5 measure whether a family lived in its own house 

or apartment at the time of the followup survey, either with or 

without housing assistance. The SUB intervention increased the 

proportion of families living in their own dwelling place from 

69 to 85 percent relative to usual care. This difference is the 

net result of two opposing effects. As would be expected, the 

proportion of SUB families living in their own places without 

housing assistance (14 percent) was much lower than the 

corresponding proportion for UC families (40 percent). By 

contrast, and more than offsetting that effect, the proportion of 

65 All impacts in this table, with the exception of the first row, are considered exploratory and are not adjusted for the presence of multiple comparisons. Likewise, all 

impacts in other study domains are also considered exploratory.

66 Outcomes regarding shelter stays are based on study Program Usage Data; these outcomes are described in Appendix A.

67 The proportions of families using emergency shelter during the past 6 months are less than one-half of those reporting being homeless in the past 6 months. This 

discrepancy is likely due to two factors: (1) some of the homelessness captured in the survey measure is for stays in places not meant for human habitation rather than in 

emergency shelter, and (2) measurement error in the survey (recall bias) and Program Usage Data (lack of coverage of all local shelters in HMIS records and lack of coverage for families who moved away from the community where they enrolled in the study). The relative importance of these factors is unknown.

68 Although most families have longer followup than 32 months, the families with the shortest survey followup periods responded to the survey in their 32nd month after 

random assignment. Therefore, Program Usage Data for survey respondents are available for the full respondent sample only through month 32 after random assignment.

69 Dividing the average number of days spent homeless or doubled up in the past 6 months for SUB families by the percentage who experienced either state (18.6 

days/0.158 = 117.7 days) reveals that those who did experience either state spent 118 days, on average, either homeless or doubled up in the past 6 months. Performing 

the same calculation for UC families (47.5 days/0.34 = 139.7 days) reveals that UC families who experienced either state spent more time (139 days), on average, either 

homeless or doubled up in the past 6 months than did families assigned to the SUB group. These calculations show that about 1 week of the overall 4-week difference is 

explained by the difference in proportions experiencing homelessness or doubled up, and the other 3 weeks are explained by a difference in the average length of time 

spent homeless or doubled up conditional on having experienced either state.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 38

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 3. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

Exhibit 3-6. SUB Versus UC: Percent of Families With Any Stay in Emergency Shelter and Any Permanent Housing 

Subsidy During Month, by Month After RA

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Percent of families 

Month after RA

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

SUB: Used any permanent housing subsidy

UC: Used any permanent housing subsidy

UC: Used emergency shelter SUB: Used emergency shelter

SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. UC = usual care. 

RA = random assignment.

Notes: Percentages are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent all families in the SUB-versus-UC comparison sample. Missing data on emergency shelter stays bias the 

percentages somewhat downward. The baseline stay in emergency shelter does not appear in the data for 16.7 percent of UC respondent families. The missing data rate for 

subsequent stays in emergency shelter is unknown. Any permanent housing subsidy includes the permanent subsidy programs offered to the SUB group, permanent supportive 

housing, public housing, and project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data

SUB families living in their own places with housing assistance 

(70 percent) was much higher than the corresponding proportion for UC families (29 percent).70

The stability offered by the SUB intervention also reduced the 

average number of places where families lived during the past 

6 months from 1.6 to 1.3. Because this outcome has a lower 

bound of 1 (the family had to have lived in at least one place), 

the UC group mean of 1.6 compared with 1.3 for the SUB 

group means that the SUB intervention reduced the number 

of moves during the final 6 months of the followup period 

by almost one-half (42 percent, when using more digits than 

shown in Exhibit 3-5).71

The last two rows in Exhibit 3-5 show how the SUB intervention affected the nature of the housing occupied by study 

families as of the 37-month followup survey by considering 

the number of persons per room (a measure of crowding) and 

residence in poor-quality housing. The number of persons 

per room is a standard proxy for overcrowding. The SUB 

70 Although the survey response indicates that 70 percent of the SUB families were living in their own house or apartment with housing assistance at the time of the survey, 

the Program Usage Data show that the proportion of families using permanent housing subsidies offered to the SUB group, public housing, or project-based vouchers in 

the survey month is 73 percent. This discrepancy between response to the survey item and the Program Usage Data (largely based on HUD administrative records for these 

program types) suggests some measurement error in one or both of these data sources.

71 This outcome counts each place in which the family lived only once. Thus, it is not technically the same as the number of moves plus one additional place lived. It is 

possible for a family to move out of a place (for example, a housing unit shared with friends or relatives) and then move back into the same unit during the 6-month period. Its interpretation as a measure of housing instability, however, is essentially the same.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 39

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 3. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

intervention reduced the number of persons per room from 1.6 

to 1.2. Nearly one-third (31 percent) of UC families reported 

poor or fair housing at the 37-month survey, as did 28 percent 

of families assigned to the SUB group; the difference is not 

statistically significant. 

In sum, the SUB intervention had a strong, positive effect on 

housing stability compared with usual care for every measure 

considered, except for housing quality.

3.4. Impacts on Family Preservation 

in the Permanent Housing Subsidy 

(SUB) Versus Usual Care (UC) 

Comparison

Any effects of assignment to the SUB intervention on family 

preservation would be expected to be indirect, via the effects 

on housing stability. To test for effects of priority access to a 

permanent housing subsidy on family preservation, Exhibit 3-7 

reports estimated impacts on family preservation from the SUBversus-UC comparison.

At 20 months after random assignment, relative to usual 

care, assignment to the SUB intervention reduced recent and 

ongoing child separations and foster care placements among 

children who were with the family in shelter at baseline. 

Exhibit 3-7 shows that no such effects were evident 37 months 

after random assignment. 

At 37 months, assignment to the SUB intervention increased 

separations of spouses and partners who had been with the 

family in shelter at baseline (a result that was not found at the 

earlier followup point). Of SUB families, who had a spouse or 

partner present at baseline, 48 percent experienced a separation 

of that spouse in the past 6 months at the latter followup point, 

compared with 34 percent of UC families. It is not clear whether this increase in separations is beneficial or detrimental to 

SUB families. No impacts were detected at either time point on 

family reunifications with children or partners among the much 

smaller group of families separated in these ways at baseline.

Exhibit 3-8 reports impacts on outcomes from the child welfare 

agency administrative data collected in 5 of the 12 study sites. 

No effect is detected on either the proportion of family heads 

Exhibit 3-7. SUB Versus UC: Impacts on Family Preservation at 37 Months 

Outcome

SUB UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Current or recent separations of family members present at baseline

 Family has at least one child separated in past 6 months (%) 486 13.5 (34.1) 389 16.9 (35.9) – 3.3 (2.6) – 0.08

 Family has at least one foster care placement in past 6 monthsb (%) 492 3.0 (17.2) 392 4.2 (18.6) – 1.1 (1.4) – 0.05

 Spouse/partner separated in past 6 months, of those with spouse/partner 

present at RA (%)

125 47.8 (49.9) 116 34.3 (48.7) 13.4** (6.5) 0.23

Reunification of family members reported as separated at baseline

 Family has at least one child reunified, of those families with at least one 

child absent at RA (%)

95 44.1 (49.9) 78 37.3 (48.6) 6.8 (8.0) 0.12

 Spouse/partner reunified, of those with spouse/partner absent at RA (%) 51 29.3 (45.1) 34 17.2 (41.0) 12.1 (10.9) 0.26

SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. UC = usual care. 

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

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

a

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

b Foster care placement outcome includes any children (present at baseline) who are placed in foster care or adopted by another family at the time of followup.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey

Exhibit 3-8. SUB Versus UC: Impacts on Child Welfare Outcomes 

Outcome

SUB UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Had a formal child separation that began after RA (%) 262 8.8 (27.8) 250 10.7 (31.6) – 1.9 (2.6) – 5.80

Total days during followup separated from at least one childb 262 52.9 (182.9) 250 71.2 (228.7) – 18.3 (15.8) – 0.07

SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. UC = usual care. 

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

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

a

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

b Includes separations started before and after RA. Length of followup varies by site. Alameda County = 1,075 days. Baltimore = 1,071 days. Kansas City = 1,069 days. 

Minneapolis = 1,046 days. Phoenix = 1,123 days.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions. Sample limited to five sites where child welfare records were collected (Alameda County, Baltimore, Kansas City, Minneapolis, and Phoenix).

Source: State child welfare agency records
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 40

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 3. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

with a formal child separation that began after random assignment or on the total days during the followup period of being 

separated from at least one child.

3.5. Impacts on Adult Well-Being 

in the Permanent Housing Subsidy 

(SUB) Versus Usual Care (UC) 

Comparison

The SUB intervention did not include services related to adult 

well-being.72 Even so, Exhibit 3-9 provides evidence of two 

longer-run impacts in this domain. At the 37-month point, 

having priority access to a permanent housing subsidy reduced 

psychological distress, relative to usual care, by about onetenth of a standard deviation and intimate partner violence by 

one-third. In combination with the effect of assignment to the 

SUB intervention on increased separation from partners (shown 

in the previous section), it is plausible that access to permanent 

housing subsidies enabled family heads to leave abusive 

relationships. This interpretation is consistent with qualitative 

evidence from the evaluation presented in the Effects of Housing 

Vouchers on Welfare Families.

73

Reductions in psychological distress and intimate partner 

violence for SUB families were also evident at 20 months after 

random assignment (the Short-Term Impacts report [Gubits et 

al., 2015]; Exhibit 3-9). At that earlier point, relative to usual 

care, improvements in three other outcomes—goal-oriented 

thinking, alcohol dependence, and the combined measure 

of alcohol dependence and drug abuse—were detected. No 

effects on these outcomes were found 37 months after random 

assignment. 

3.6. Impacts on Child Well-Being 

in the Permanent Housing Subsidy 

(SUB) Versus Usual Care (UC) 

Comparison

Any effects of assignment to the SUB intervention on child 

well-being would be expected to be indirect and to occur 

through the substantial effect of priority access to a permanent 

housing subsidy on housing stability. At 20 months, having 

priority access to a permanent housing subsidy led to positive 

effects relative to usual care on two outcomes—reducing children’s recent absences from school and reducing movements 

Exhibit 3-9. SUB Versus UC: Impacts on Adult Well-Being at 37 Months 

Outcome

SUB UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Adult physical health

 Health in past 30 days was poor or fair (%) 500 32.2 (46.5) 394 29.1 (45.5) 3.1 (2.9) 0.06

Adult mental health

 Goal-oriented thinkingb 495 4.45 (1.04) 394 4.51 (0.95) – 0.06 (0.07) – 0.05

 Psychological distressc 499 6.69 (5.56) 393 7.42 (5.80) – 0.73* (0.38) – 0.11

Adult trauma symptoms

 Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in past 30 days (%) 496 22.7 (41.6) 391 23.6 (42.0) – 0.8 (2.9) – 0.02

Adult substance use

 Alcohol dependence or drug abused (%) 500 12.3 (32.3) 393 14.4 (35.3) – 2.1 (2.4) – 0.06

 Alcohol dependenced (%) 501 8.8 (28.0) 394 10.7 (30.9) – 1.9 (2.1) – 0.06

 Drug abused (%) 500 4.3 (19.6) 394 6.3 (24.4) – 2.0 (1.6) – 0.08

Experience of intimate partner violence

 Experienced intimate partner violence in past 6 months (%) 498 7.8 (26.3) 392 11.8 (32.5) – 4.0* (2.2) – 0.12

SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. UC = usual care.

ITT = intention-to-treat. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error.

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

a

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

b Goal-oriented thinking is measured with a modified version of the State Hope Scale and ranges from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive, goal-oriented 

thinking.

c

 Psychological distress is measured with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) and ranges from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater distress.

d Alcohol dependence is measured with the Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS-4), and drug abuse is measured with six items from the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10). 

Both are measured for the 6 months before the 37-month survey.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey

72 Services related directly to housing, such as assistance with searching for housing and negotiating with landlords, were permitted but not required. 

73 Mills et al. (2006).
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 41

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 3. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

among schools—but, overall, it appeared to have little effect 

on child well-being. At 37 months, the study team found a 

handful of favorable effects and one single adverse effect. 

Considering first the outcomes measured across age groups 

(Exhibit 3-10), for children in the SUB families, the analysis 

continues to find a reduction in the number of schools attended 

since random assignment relative to children in UC families. 

The reduction—one fewer school move for every six children—

is not independent of the effect observed at 20 months, 

because this outcome measures school mobility since random 

assignment. In addition, children in the SUB group had fewer 

sleep problems, fewer behavior problems, and more prosocial 

behavior at 37 months, all based on the parental report. The 

size of these effects, scored on multi-item scales, ranges from 

0.11 to 0.13 standard deviations. 

Exhibit 3-11 shows estimated impacts on outcomes measured 

by age group. Young children in families assigned to the SUB 

group have more positive childcare or preschool attitudes and 

older children have more positive school attitudes than their 

counterparts in the UC families. Children ages 3.5 to 7 years 

in SUB families, however, have lower executive functioning as 

measured by the Head Toes Knees Shoulders assessment, by 

0.12 standard deviations.

Overall, across 29 outcomes in the child well-being domain, 

7 effects reach statistical significance, 6 of them favoring the 

SUB group, indicating a positive effect of the SUB intervention 

compared with the usual care on child well-being. 

3.7. Impacts on Self-Sufficiency in 

the Permanent Housing Subsidy 

(SUB) Versus Usual Care (UC) 

Comparison

By increasing housing stability, assignment to the SUB intervention may plausibly have indirect effects on family self-sufficiency 

relative to usual care. In particular, the opportunity to obtain 

stable housing with a sharply and permanently lower burden 

for housing costs may enable adult family members to transfer 

attention from staying housed to issues of employment and 

earnings and even enhancing their skills through education 

and training participation. On the other hand, the ability to 

obtain housing with limited out-of-pocket costs (30 percent 

of income) makes available household financial resources go 

further—lessening the pressure to work, earn, and acquire 

new skills and education. Unlike the other active interventions 

studied in this report, the programs offered to families assigned 

to the SUB intervention do not include case management 

guidance or referrals to services intended to increase skills or 

encourage work.

The Short-Term Impacts report (Gubits et al., 2015) found that, 

in the first 20 months after random assignment, assignment 

to the SUB intervention reduced some important aspects of

family self-sufficiency relative to usual care and increased 

others. Assignment to the SUB intervention caused reductions 

in the proportion of family heads working at the time of the 

Exhibit 3-10. SUB Versus UC: Impacts on Child Well-Being Across Age Groups at 37 Months 

Outcome

SUB UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Child education

 Number of schools attended since RAb 588 1.9 (0.9) 460 2.0 (0.9) – 0.2** (0.1) – 0.13

 Grade completion (not held back) (%) 485 92.53 (27.54) 377 89.54 (30.15) 2.99 (2.20) 0.08

 School gradesc 443 3.1 (0.9) 332 3.1 (0.8) 0.0 (0.1) 0.04

Child physical health

 Poor or fair health in past 30 days (%) 678 7.9 (25.2) 532 5.9 (23.8) 2.0 (1.8) 0.07

 Well-child checkup in past year (%) 677 88.8 (31.2) 529 91.5 (29.0) – 2.7 (2.0) – 0.07

 Child has regular source of health care (%) 677 91.6 (26.2) 530 90.9 (28.5) 0.6 (2.4) 0.02

 Sleep problemsd 678 1.99 (1.04) 533 2.19 (1.09) – 0.19** (0.08) – 0.13

Child behavioral strengths and challenges

 Behavior problemse 638 0.44 (1.26) 506 0.67 (1.26) – 0.23** (2.4) – 0.06

 Prosocial behaviorf 640 – 0.15 (1.11) 509 – 0.30 (1.09) 0.16** (2.1) – 0.06

SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. UC = usual care.

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

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

a

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

b Number of schools outcome is topcoded at 4 or more schools.

c

 School grades outcome is defined as 1 = mostly Ds or Fs, 2 = mostly Cs, 3 = mostly Bs, 4 = mostly As.

d Sleep problems outcome ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating more frequent tiredness upon waking and during the day.

e

 Behavior problems outcome is measured as the standardized Total Difficulties score from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).

f

 Prosocial behavior is measured as the standardized prosocial domain score from the SDQ.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey (parent report)
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 42

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 3. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

Exhibit 3-11. SUB Versus UC: Impacts on Child Well-Being Developmental Outcomes by Age Group at 37 Months 

Outcome

SUB UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Ages 2 to 5 yearsb

 Preschool or Head Start enrollmentc (%) 211 35.6 (48.9) 170 42.3 (49.6) – 6.7 (5.5) – 0.11

 Child care or preschool absences in past monthd 86 0.86 (0.96) 71 0.75 (0.84) 0.11 (0.16) 0.09

 Positive child care or preschool experiencese 89 0.89 (0.37) 73 0.81 (0.40) 0.08 (0.06) 0.16

 Positive child care or preschool attitudesf 90 4.74 (0.70) 72 4.53 (0.73) 0.21** (0.10) 0.25

 Child care or preschool conduct problemsg (%) 93 7.3 (29.7) 74 4.5 (19.9) 2.9 (4.3) 0.10

Ages 2 years to 5 years, 6 months

 Met developmental milestonesh (%) 183 72.0 (44.1) 154 73.5 (45.9) – 1.6 (5.9) – 0.03

Ages 3 years, 6 months to 7 years

 Verbal abilityi 254 – 0.18 (1.01) 184 – 0.34 (1.03) 0.16 (0.14) 0.12

 Math abilityj 253 – 0.21 (0.99) 186 – 0.25 (0.93) 0.04 (0.11) 0.04

 Executive functioningk (self-regulation) 248 16.08 (16.19) 179 18.45 (16.63) – 2.36* (1.27) – 0.12

Ages 5 to 17 yearsl

 School enrollmentc (%) 470 98.6 (11.2) 365 97.3 (14.7) 1.3 (1.2) 0.07

 School absences in past monthd,m 195 0.93 (0.91) 139 1.01 (1.00) – 0.08 (0.13) – 0.06

 Positive school experiencese,m 196 0.56 (0.58) 140 0.51 (0.62) 0.05 (0.08) 0.05

 Positive school attitudesf,m 195 4.21 (1.09) 140 3.98 (1.14) 0.22* (0.13) 0.15

 School conduct problemsg,m (%) 197 22.9 (41.1) 142 30.8 (46.1) – 7.9 (5.6) – 0.13

Ages 8 to 17 years

 Anxietyn 285 35.27 (7.51) 221 35.07 (7.85) 0.20 (0.75) 0.02

 Fearso 287 63.31 (14.34) 222 62.02 (14.84) 1.29 (1.27) 0.07

 Substance usep (%) 283 4.20 (20.19) 219 6.91 (26.82) – 2.71 (2.24) – 0.07

 Goal-oriented thinkingq 277 21.96 (5.10) 214 22.10 (4.86) – 0.13 (0.54) – 0.02

 School effort in past monthr 283 2.82 (0.77) 218 2.86 (0.78) – 0.04 (0.08) – 0.04

 Arrests or police involvement in past 6 monthss (%) 152 9.24 (27.05) 123 10.57 (28.65) – 1.32 (3.99) – 0.03

SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. UC = usual care.

ITT = intention-to-treat. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error.

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

a

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

b Includes focal children who were ages 4 years or younger on the September 1 before the 37-month parent survey.

c

 Preschool or Head Start enrollment outcome is defined as enrollment in preschool, center-based child care, or school.

d Absences outcome is defined as 0 = no absences in past month, 1 = one to two absences, 2 = three to five absences, 3 = six or more absences.

e

 Positive child care, preschool, or school experiences outcome is defined as – 1 = mostly negative experiences, 0 = both positive and negative experiences, 1 = mostly positive 

experiences.

f

 Positive child care, preschool, or school attitudes outcome is parent report of how much child likes school and ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating greater like of 

school.

g

 Child care, preschool, or school conduct problems outcome is defined as 0 = no conduct problems reported to parent, 1 = parent contacted about conduct problems or suspension or expulsion from school or child care center.

h

 Met developmental milestones outcome is defined as scoring above the typical development cutoffs in all domains of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3).

i

 Verbal ability outcome is the nationally standardized score from the Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III) letter-word identification test.

j

 Math ability outcome is the nationally standardized score from the WJ III applied problems test.

k

 Executive functioning outcome is the Head Toes Knees Shoulders (HTKS) score and ranges from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating greater executive functioning.

l

 Includes focal children who were ages 5 to 17 years on the September 1 before the 37-month parent survey and no older than 17 years at the time of the survey.

m This parent-reported outcome was collected from only the first 38 percent of parents surveyed due to an error in data collection.

n

 Anxiety (child report) is measured using the A-Trait scale from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC). Scores range from 20 to 60, with higher scores indicating 

greater anxiety.

o

 Fears outcome (child report) is the score from the Fears Scale and ranges from 33 to 99, with higher scores indicating more fear.

p Substance use (child report) is measured with 23 items from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

q Goal-oriented thinking (child report) is measured with a modified version of the Children’s Hope Scale and ranges from 6 to 30, with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive, goal-oriented thinking.

r

 School effort outcome (child report) ranges from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater effort during school day and on homework.

s

 Arrest or police involvement in past 6 months is from parent report.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression-adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey non-response. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey (parent report); Family Options Study 37-month child survey (child report); ASQ-3; WJ III; HTKS
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 43

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 3. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

20-month survey compared with usual care, proportion with 

any employment since random assignment, and average number of months worked since random assignment. 

Even with the reduction in work effort, however, SUB families 

appeared to be in a better financial position than UC families 

20 months after random assignment: the additional resources 

represented by the housing subsidy improved the food security 

of SUB families and decreased economic stress. 

Exhibit 3-12 shows effects on self-sufficiency outcomes for the 

SUB-versus-UC comparison during the longer, 37-month followup period. Of the 22 outcomes examined, 8 had statistically 

significant effects. No effects are evident on either working 

for pay at the time of the survey (first row) or the proportion 

of families who had any earnings in the past month (ninth 

row); however, during the period between the 20-month and 

37-month surveys, the study team finds a reduction in work 

effort in the proportion who performed any work for pay (a 

Exhibit 3-12. SUB Versus UC: Impacts on Self-Sufficiency at 37 Months 

Outcome

SUB UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Employment status

 Work for pay in week before survey (%) 500 35.7 (48.2) 395 36.6 (48.3) – 0.9 (3.2) – 0.02

 Any work for pay since 20-month surveyb (%) 466 58.2 (49.3) 346 64.1 (48.3) – 5.9* (3.3) – 0.12

 Months worked for pay since 20-month surveyb,c 464 6.6 (7.8) 343 7.5 (8.0) – 1.0* (0.6) – 0.12

 Any work for pay since RA (%) 500 67.9 (46.2) 394 73.7 (44.8) – 5.7** (2.8) – 0.11

 Months worked for pay since RAc 494 11.4 (13.3) 386 13.1 (13.3) – 1.7** (0.8) – 0.11

 Hours of work per week at current main jobd 498 10.6 (16.2) 395 11.7 (16.5) – 1.0 (1.1) – 0.05

Income sources and amounts

 Annualized current earnings ($) 491 5,817 (10,173) 387 6,066 (9,720) – 249 (676) – 0.02

 Total family income ($) 470 10,933 (9,420) 383 11,816 (10,387) – 883 (689) – 0.07

 Anyone in family had earnings in past month (%) 501 45.8 (49.9) 395 49.3 (50.1) – 3.6 (3.3) – 0.06

 Anyone in family received TANF in past month (%) 501 29.6 (45.4) 395 25.2 (44.2) 4.4 (2.9) 0.09

 Anyone in family received SSDI in past month (%) 498 7.8 (26.6) 395 9.0 (30.2) – 1.2 (1.8) – 0.04

 Anyone in family received SSI in past month (%) 501 14.0 (34.7) 395 13.6 (34.4) 0.4 (1.8) 0.01

 Anyone in family received SNAP/Food Stamps in past month (%) 501 82.2 (38.6) 395 81.4 (38.9) 0.8 (2.7) 0.02

 Anyone in family received WIC in past month (%) 501 25.4 (43.4) 395 24.4 (43.8) 1.0 (2.9) 0.02

Education and training

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of any school or training since RA (%) 499 38.2 (48.7) 394 40.6 (49.0) – 2.3 (3.3) – 0.04

 Number of weeks in school/training programs since RA 496 7.3 (14.7) 389 8.9 (17.5) – 1.6 (1.1) – 0.08

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of school since RA (%) 499 13.0 (33.2) 394 12.1 (32.2) 0.8 (2.3) 0.02

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of basic education since RA (%) 499 2.5 (15.3) 394 2.7 (17.2) – 0.2 (1.0) – 0.01

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of vocational education since RA (%) 499 10.4 (31.6) 394 16.5 (36.5) – 6.1*** (2.3) – 0.15

Food security 

 Household is food insecure (%) 501 38.9 (48.9) 395 48.5 (50.0) – 9.6*** (3.5) – 0.17

 Food insecurity scalee 499 1.58 (2.00) 394 2.04 (2.11) – 0.46*** (0.14) – 0.19

Economic stressors

 Economic stress scalef 497 – 0.22 (0.44) 394 – 0.10 (0.49) – 0.12*** (0.03) – 0.21

SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. UC = usual care.

ITT = intention-to-treat. RA = random assignment. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error. SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SSDI = Social Security 

Disability Insurance. SSI = Supplemental Security Income. TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children.

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

a

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

b Includes only families who responded to both 20-month and 37-month followup surveys; not weighted for survey nonresponse.

c

 Number of months worked for pay includes partial calendar months.

d Hours of work per week includes those not currently working (that is, those with 0 hours of work per week).

e

 Food insecurity scale ranges from 0 to 6, with higher values indicating higher food insecurity.

f

 Economic stress scale ranges from – 1 to 1, with higher values indicating higher economic stress.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 44

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 3. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

reduction of 6 percentage points) and in the average number 

of months worked in this period (a reduction of 1 month).74

During the entire followup period since random assignment, 

having priority access to a permanent housing subsidy reduced 

the proportion with any work for pay by 6 percentage points 

and reduced the average number of months worked by about 

2 months compared with usual care. 

The Short-Term Impacts report (Gubits et al., 2015) found a 

reduction in working for pay and in the proportion of families 

who had earnings at 20 months after random assignment. The 

37-month analysis does not find statistically significant impacts 

on these two outcomes. Given our relatively small sample sizes, 

however, the study team is unable to confirm that the effects 

of assignment to the SUB intervention in these areas at the 

37-month point are smaller than they were at the 20-month point. 

Administrative data provide another opportunity to examine 

intervention effects on earnings and employment of family heads. 

Exhibit 3-13 shows impact estimates on outcomes for the 11th 

through 14th calendar quarters following the quarter of random 

assignment. Assignment to the SUB group relative to assignment 

to the UC group reduced the proportion of family heads with 

any employment during this year from 57.5 percent to 52 percent. 

The magnitude of this effect on employment is consistent with 

the effects found in survey data on employment over the 37-month 

followup period and in the period since the 20-month survey. 

The analysis of administrative data finds no effect on either 

total earnings during the year or the number of quarters employed (that is, with positive earnings) during the year. 

The second section of Exhibit 3-12 shows no longer-run effect 

of assignment to the SUB group on total family income in 

the previous calendar year. The family income measure does 

not include the value of the housing subsidy provided by the 

voucher or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 

benefits. The analysis also finds no effect on receipt of public 

assistance through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; 

SNAP; Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 

Infants, and Children; Social Security Disability Insurance; or 

Supplemental Security Income benefits. 

The third section of Exhibit 3-12 shows impacts on education 

and training since random assignment. Having priority access 

to a permanent housing subsidy did not cause a detectable 

impact on the proportion of family heads who participated 

in any type of school or training during the 37-month period 

but did appear to cause a reduction in the share that engaged 

in vocational education (10 percent of SUB families compared 

with 16 percent of UC families). 

Although no effect on total income was evident, the financial 

position of SUB families appears to have improved with access 

to a permanent housing subsidy compared with UC families at 

37 months after random assignment. Assignment to the SUB 

intervention lowered the share of households classified as food 

insecure from 49 to 39 percent and reduced the average score 

on a food insecurity scale by a 0.19 standardized effect size. 

These results are not surprising: total household resources—

including both cash income (which did not differ between 

groups) and the value of the housing subsidies—were much 

higher for the SUB families. Some of these additional resources 

appear to have been spent on food, thus decreasing food 

insecurity. Assignment to the SUB intervention also reduced 

economic stress (measured through survey items that asked 

about the frequency of not being able to afford rent, medical 

care, clothing, and so on) by 0.12 points on a scale from -1 to 1. 

Exhibit 3-13. SUB Versus UC: Earnings and Employment 

Outcome

SUB UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Earnings in quarters 11 to 14 after RA (2015Q3$) 579 5,658 (9,005) 517 5,555 (9,366) 103 (559) 0.01

Any employment in quarters 11 to 14 after RA (%) 579 52.0 (50.0) 517 57.5 (49.5) – 5.5* (3.0) – 0.11

Number of quarters employed in quarters 11 to 14 after RA 579 1.6 (1.7) 517 1.7 (1.7) – 0.1 (0.1) – 0.05

SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. UC = usual care.

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

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

a

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

Note: See Chapter 2 and Appendix B for outcome definitions.

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

74 Outcomes for the period between the surveys are available for analysis for only those family heads who responded to both the 20-month and 37-month waves of the 

surveys. Measures specific to the period between the 20-month and 37-month surveys were collected for only those who had been 20-month survey respondents. Family 

heads who did not respond to the 20-month survey were asked questions about the entire followup period since random assignment, reporting information that could not 

be broken out by a narrower time window.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 45

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 3. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

3.8. Summary of the Permanent 

Housing Subsidy (SUB) Versus Usual 

Care (UC) Comparison Across 

Domains

Having priority access to a permanent housing subsidy produced a notable difference in program use during the 3 years 

after random assignment between SUB and UC families. Of all 

families assigned to the SUB group, 83 percent received the 

housing subsidies offered to families assigned to the SUB group 

at some point in the followup period compared with 13 percent 

of families assigned to the UC group. On a broader measure of 

receipt of any type of permanent housing subsidy, the contrast 

was also large: 88 percent for the SUB group compared with 38 

percent for the UC group. 

This contrast in program use led to notable impacts on the 

housing experiences of SUB families compared with UC families at 37 months after random assignment. The most striking 

effect of assignment to the SUB intervention relative to usual 

care was its prevention of a substantial share of subsequent 

stays in shelter or places not meant for human habitation. Of 

families assigned to the SUB group, 17 percent spent at least 

1 night homeless or doubled up in the 6 months before the 

37-month followup survey or at least 1 night in emergency 

shelter in the 12 months before the survey compared with 

38 percent of families assigned to the UC group. That is, 

assignment to the SUB group after 7 days in emergency shelter 

reduced subsequent homelessness by more than one-half. Assignment to the SUB group also caused substantial, statistically 

significant reductions in all other measures of homelessness 

at the 3-year followup point: the proportion of families who 

experienced (1) at least 1 night in a shelter or a place not 

meant for human habitation in the past 6 months, (2) at least 

1 night doubled up in the past 6 months, (3) at least 1 night in 

a shelter or places not meant for human habitation or doubled 

up in the past 6 months, and (4) at least one stay in emergency 

shelter in months 21 to 32 after random assignment. 

The effects of priority access to a permanent housing subsidy 

were also evident at the 3-year followup point for measures of 

housing independence. Altogether, 85 percent of SUB families 

were living in their own house or apartment compared with 69 

percent of UC families. As expected, however, the proportion 

of SUB families living in their own dwelling place without 

housing assistance (14 percent) is much lower than the corresponding proportion of UC families (40 percent). Assignment 

to the SUB intervention also reduced the average number of 

places where families lived in the past 6 months and housing 

crowding relative to usual care. In contrast with the short-term 

findings, no improvement in housing quality was evident. 

The Short-Term Impacts report (Gubits et al., 2015) found notable indirect benefits of having priority access to a permanent 

housing subsidy for several family preservation indicators 

and adult well-being measures 20 months after random 

assignment. A few of these indirect effects are evident 3 years 

after random assignment. At that point, having priority access 

to a permanent housing subsidy reduced psychological distress 

and intimate partner violence relative to usual care, the latter a 

one-third reduction. In the family preservation domain, shortterm reductions in child separations and foster care placements 

are not detected at 37 months; however, assignment to the SUB 

group at that point caused more separations between spouses 

and partners relative to usual care, an effect not detected in the 

20-month analysis.

Some positive effects of priority access to a permanent housing 

subsidy on child development are evident at 37 months. The 

analysis continues to find a reduction in the number of schools 

attended since random assignment and also newly evident 

effects of more positive school attitudes, fewer sleep problems, 

fewer behavior problems, and more prosocial behavior. No 

effects were found on direct measures of verbal and math 

ability for younger children or on self-reported outcomes of 

mental health, school effort, and delinquent behavior for older 

children. The study team finds one adverse effect of priority 

access to a permanent housing subsidy on the executive 

functioning of children ages 3.5 to 7 years. This single adverse 

effect is difficult to interpret in light of the other detected 

effects of assignment to the SUB intervention, all of which are 

improvements in well-being.

In the self-sufficiency domain, the study team finds evidence 

that having priority access to a permanent housing subsidy 

reduced work effort during the full 3-year followup period and 

during the second half of the followup period. The team did 

not find evidence of a reduction in the proportion of family 

heads working for pay at the time of the 37-month survey or 

of a reduction in the proportion of families who had earnings 

income at that point—both of which were observed 20 months 

after random assignment. Given the relatively small sample sizes, the team was unable to confirm that the effect of assignment 

to the SUB intervention on work effort at the 37-month point 

was smaller than it was at the 20-month point. The 37-month 

analysis finds no effect of priority access to a permanent 

housing subsidy on receipt of any type of public assistance or 

disability benefits. 

Families assigned to the SUB group appear be in a better financial position than UC families 3 years after random assignment. 

Without counting housing assistance as income, no difference 

in income is evident however, the housing assistance is valuable. The freed-up resources appear to lead to an improvement 
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 46

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 3. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

in the food security of SUB families, lowering the percentage of 

households classified as food insecure from 36 to 28 percent 

relative to UC families, and to a decrease in economic stress. 

Overall, evidence suggests that families assigned to the SUB 

group continue to benefit substantially from having priority 

access to permanent housing subsidy assistance 3 years after 

random assignment in multiple domains. Families assigned to 

the SUB group at that point had greater housing stability, less 

psychological distress, less intimate partner violence, better 

child outcomes, less food insecurity, and less economic stress 

than their counterparts assigned to the UC group. Chapter 6 

addresses how the SUB intervention compares with the two 

other active interventions: CBRR and PBTH.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 47

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

CHAPTER 4.

IMPACTS OF COMMUNITY-BASED 

RAPID RE-HOUSING (CBRR) COMPARED 

WITH USUAL CARE (UC)

T his chapter presents estimates of the impact of 

assignment to the community-based rapid re-housing 

(CBRR) intervention relative to usual care in the study 

communities. The goal of the analyses presented in this chapter 

is to determine the extent to which an offer of temporary rental 

assistance to help families exit shelter rapidly increases families’ 

housing stability and improves other family outcomes 3 years 

after receiving the offer.

At 20 months after random assignment, assignment to the 

CBRR group did not affect housing stability, family preservation, or adult well-being compared with assignment to the UC 

group. Assignment to the CBRR group may have had some 

consequences for children compared with assignment to the 

UC group, but the indications were limited and mixed in 

direction. Assignment to the CBRR group did lead to improved 

family income in the year before the 20-month survey (annual 

family income was about $1,100 higher for families assigned to 

the CBRR group), greater food security, and increased receipt 

of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits.75

This chapter begins with a brief description of the assistance 

offered to the families assigned to the CBRR intervention. It 

then reviews the extent to which families in both the CBRR and 

UC groups used temporary subsidies and other housing and 

services programs available to them in the study sites during 

the course of the followup period. Then, the core sections of 

the chapter present the 3-year effects of being assigned to the 

CBRR group (compared with being assigned to the UC group) 

on outcomes within each of the study domains: housing stability, family preservation, adult well-being, child well-being, 

and self-sufficiency. The final section summarizes the 3-year 

impacts of the CBRR intervention relative to usual care. 

4.1. Community-Based Rapid 

Re-Housing (CBRR) Intervention

The CBRR intervention provides program participants with 

priority access to temporary rental assistance (usually for 7 to 

8 months) and limited services focused on housing search 

assistance, self-sufficiency, and basic services coordination.76

The programs studied largely conformed to standards that 

HUD and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness later 

established for rapid re-housing programs in guidance issued 

in 2012.77 The CBRR intervention was available in all 12 study 

sites and was provided by 27 CBRR programs across the sites. 

Nearly all the CBRR providers in the Family Options Study 

were community-based nonprofit organizations. The only 

exceptions were in Louisville, Kentucky, and Phoenix, Arizona, 

where city government agencies provided CBRR programs. 

CBRR programs were funded by the rapid re-housing component of the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing 

75 Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families (Gubits et al., 2015) also presented results showing that assignment to 

the CBRR group led to more rapid departures from emergency shelter than assignment to the UC group by about 2 weeks, but not more rapid departures than for families 

assigned to the SUB, group or to the PBTH group. Revised analysis using updated Program Usage Data on length of emergency shelter stays, however, has resulted in 

changes to the findings about length of initial shelter stay. For the full study sample (not limited to 20-month survey respondents), families assigned to the CBRR group 

left shelter, on average, 1 week faster than families assigned to the UC group. This difference is not statistically significant. The results of the revised analysis are shown in 

Appendix I. 

76 Chapter 7 of Gubits et al., 2015 provides additional details about the CBRR intervention. The adjective “community-based” in the name of the intervention is intended to describe the usual providers of the assistance. The study does not distinguish different types of rapid re-housing programs and so the terms community-based rapid 

re-housing assistance and rapid re-housing assistance are used interchangeably in the text.

77 http://usich.gov/population/families/core-components-rrh/.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 48

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 4. Impacts of Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing (CBRR) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

Program (HPRP) in all the sites except one.78, 79 The HPRP rapid 

re-housing funding could be used to provide rental assistance 

(up to 18 months), security deposits, utility deposits and payments, help with moving costs, and hotel and motel vouchers. 

HPRP also could fund case management for participating 

families. As defined by the study, families are considered to 

have used rapid re-housing assistance only when they have 

received rental assistance. (This rental assistance was usually 

accompanied by other HPRP-funded assistance, including some 

case management.) Any rental assistance paid for with HPRP 

funds had to meet rent reasonableness standards, and units had 

to pass a habitability inspection. The inspection requirements 

were slightly less stringent than the Housing Quality Standards 

required for the Housing Choice Voucher program form of 

permanent housing subsidy (SUB). 

4.2. Program Use by Families 

in the Community-Based Rapid 

Re-Housing (CBRR) Versus Usual 

Care (UC) Comparison

Each impact comparison in the study may be thought of as a 

distinct experiment or test. This chapter addresses only the 

comparison between the CBRR intervention and usual care, 

without reference to the families who were randomized to the 

SUB or PBTH interventions. In total, 1,144 families took part 

in the test of the CBRR intervention versus usual care. These 

families all had both the CBRR intervention and usual care 

available to them at the time of random assignment and were 

assigned to one of these two interventions; 569 families were 

assigned to the CBRR group, and 575 families were assigned 

to the UC group.80 Of these 1,144 families, 868 (434 CBRR 

families and 434 UC families), or 76 percent, responded to 

the 37-month followup survey and are included in the CBRRversus-UC comparison reported in this chapter. The current 

section describes the extent to which these 434 CBRR families 

used rapid re-housing and other types of homeless and housing 

assistance during the followup period. Parallel information is 

also presented for the 434 included UC families.

Exhibit 4-1 shows the use of eight types of homeless and housing assistance programs. The first column shows the percentage 

of families assigned to the CBRR group who ever used each 

program type during the followup period. The second row 

(shaded in the exhibit) shows the takeup of rapid re-housing 

by the families assigned to that intervention; 58.5 percent of 

families referred to a CBRR program received rapid re-housing 

assistance at some point during the followup period—usually 

meaning they followed up on the referral, were deemed eligible 

by the program, found a housing unit, and received one of the 

types of temporary rental assistance offered to families assigned 

to the CBRR intervention.81, 82

The second column shows the percentage of families assigned 

to the UC group who ever used each program type during 

the followup period.83 The shaded row of the second column 

shows that 22.5 percent of the UC families received rapid 

re-housing assistance during the followup period, despite not 

being given priority access to rapid re-housing. These families 

may have sought rapid re-housing rental assistance after learning of its availability (perhaps from friends or family members) 

or they may have already been clients of the community-based 

nonprofit organizations that administered the local CBRR 

programs.84

The first row of the exhibit and rows three through six show 

participation in other nonshelter types of homeless and housing 

assistance programs. The seventh row shows participation 

in any form of permanent subsidy. Any form of permanent 

housing subsidy includes the permanent subsidy programs offered to the SUB group, permanent supportive housing, public 

housing, and project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects. Of the 

UC families in the CBRR-versus-UC comparison, 38 percent 

found their way to permanent housing subsidy programs and 

78 HPRP was authorized through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Across the nation, communities received $1.5 billion in HPRP funding, a one-time 

funding stream available for 3 years from program inception, to provide homelessness prevention and rapid re-housing assistance to individuals and families facing homelessness.

79 In Boston, the CBRR intervention was funded by the State of Massachusetts. The Boston programs offered assistance very similar to HPRP, although rental assistance 

could be provided for longer periods. The Minneapolis and Salt Lake City CBRR programs supplemented HPRP funds with state funds and other ARRA funds, respectively.

80 In the entire study, 746 families were randomly assigned to the UC group. Only 575 of these families had the CBRR intervention available to them when they were randomized, however. Therefore, only those 575 UC families are part of the CBRR-versus-UC comparison sample. All 569 families randomly assigned to the CBRR intervention during the course of the study had usual care available to them, so all are part of the CBRR-versus-UC comparison sample.

81 All percentages, means, and medians in the exhibit are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse and, hence, as best as possible, represent the full sample of 1,144 families assigned to this experimental contrast. The findings on program use are thus in line with similarly weighted impact estimates provided subsequently in the chapter.

82 The rapid re-housing use in the table for the CBRR group also includes a small number of CBRR families who did not use the rapid re-housing assistance when initially 

offered, but who did use rapid re-housing rental assistance at a later time during the followup period.

83 The percentages in the first seven rows of these columns are not mutually exclusive because some families used more than one program type during the followup period.

84 Emergency shelter staff committed to not referring UC families to active interventions to which they did not have priority access. This commitment may not have been 

upheld in all cases.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 49

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 4. Impacts of Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing (CBRR) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

Exhibit 4-1. CBRR Versus UC: Program Use Since RA 

Type of Housing Assistance

Percent Ever Used 

From RA to 37-Month 

Followup Surveya

Number of Months Used From RA to 

37-Month Followup Survey, 

if Ever Used Type of Assistance

Percent Used in 

Month of Followup 

Survey Response

CBRR UC

CBRR UC

CBRR UC

Mean Median Mean Median

Permanent housing subsidies offered to the SUB groupb 9.8 12.2 20.0 21.5 19.2 19.5 8.5 10.2

Rapid re-housingc 58.5 22.5 8.0 7.5 7.8 6.5 2.3 1.1

Transitional housingd 23.2 27.5 9.9 7.5 11.6 9.0 4.2 3.3

Permanent supportive housing 9.8 11.7 15.9 12.0 17.3 17.0 6.7 8.0

Public housing 10.7 9.8 18.1 18.5 18.7 16.5 9.4 8.2

Project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects 5.6 6.3 18.4 17.5 17.3 15.5 5.3 4.8

Any permanent housing subsidye 35.4 37.9 18.3 18.5 19.2 19.5 29.7 31.1

Emergency shelterf 90.7 90.0 4.3 2.5 4.6 2.8 2.6 5.2

No use of homeless or housing programsg 9.2 24.4 — — — — 61.3 59.9

N 434 434 — — — — 434 434

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. UC = usual care.

RA = random assignment.

a

 Percentage of families who ever used a type of assistance program during the period from the month of RA to the month of 37-month followup survey response (median period 

duration: 38 calendar months). Percentages do not add to 100 because some families used more than one program type during the followup period.

b Subsidies offered to the SUB group are housing choice vouchers plus site-specific programs offered to families assigned to the SUB group in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and Honolulu, Hawaii.

c

 Temporary subsidies offered to the CBRR group.

d All types of transitional housing, including those offered to the PBTH group.

e

 Includes the types of permanent subsidy offered to the SUB group plus permanent supportive housing, public housing, and project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects.

f

 All families were in emergency shelter at RA. Percentages less than 100 percent for ever used emergency shelter are because of missing data on shelter use.

g

 Indicates no use of the first six program types in this table during any of the followup period and no use of emergency shelter after the first 6 months after RA. No use in the month 

of followup survey response indicates no use of any of these seven program types.

Notes: Percentages are regression adjusted, controlling for site and randomization ratio. Percentages, means, and medians are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent full 

comparison sample.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data

27 percent found their way to transitional housing—despite the 

lack of preferential access to those programs through the study. 

The proportions of the CBRR group that used programs other 

than rapid re-housing programs are roughly similar to those of 

the UC group; thus, assignment to the CBRR group did not act 

as a conduit to permanent subsidies to a greater extent than did 

being in the UC group.85 The ninth row shows the percentages 

of families in the CBRR and UC groups who used none of the 

six types of programs during the 37-month followup period

and did not use emergency shelter from the 7th month after 

random assignment onward. About 9 percent of CBRR families 

and 24 percent of UC families fall into this group.

The mean and median number of months of use for each 

program type are also shown in the exhibit (third and fourth 

columns for CBRR families, fifth and sixth columns for UC 

families) for only those families who ever used a given program 

type.

86 The number of months of rapid re-housing assistance 

use (median of 8 months) for the families assigned to the CBRR 

group is similar to that of the 23 percent of UC families who 

received rapid re-housing assistance (median of 7 months).87

Additional detail about the use of the rapid re-housing by 

CBRR families is shown in Exhibit 4-2. This exhibit shows that 

nearly one-half (49 percent) of CBRR families who used rapid 

re-housing did so for less than 7 months, and 86 percent did 

so for less than 12 months.88 These relatively short periods of 

use may be surprising, given that the program rules permit use 

of rapid re-housing for up to 18 months. Instead, these short 

periods of use reflect the reality of how the program was being 

administered in the study sites and how families were using it.

85 Although proportions that used any permanent housing subsidy are similar in the CBRR and UC groups, Exhibit 4-5 shows that assignment to the CBRR group caused 

some delay in the use of permanent housing subsidies.

86 Hence, 0 values are not factored into the means, nor do they pull downward the medians of the various distributions.

87 Because the distribution of receipt durations is nonnormal (shown in Exhibit 4-2), the study team used the median rather than the mean to describe the typical length of 

rapid re-housing rental assistance receipt.

88 By policy, HPRP-funded rapid re-housing assistance was limited to 18 months. Exhibit 4-2 shows that very few families received community-based rapid re-housing for 

longer periods.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 50

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 4. Impacts of Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing (CBRR) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

Exhibit 4-2. Number of Months of Rapid Re-Housing 

Receipt During Followup Period by CBRR Families Who 

Ever Used Rapid Re-housing 

2

0

4

6

8

10

12

14

0.25 to 1.75

2 to 2.75

3 to 3.75

4 to 4.75

5 to 5.75

6 to 6.75

7 to 7.75

8 to 8.75

9 to 9.75

10 to 10.75

11 to 11.75

12 to 12.75

13 to 13.75

14 to 14.75

15 to 15.75

16 to 16.75

17 to 17.75

18 to 18.75

19 or more

Percent of CBRR families 

who ever used rapid re-housinga

Number of months of rapid re-housing receipt

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. 

a

 Percentages are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent all families in comparison sample.

Note: N = 252.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data

Whereas the previous columns consider all experience between 

randomization and the survey, the last two columns consider 

program use as of the month of the 37-month survey. Although 

most outcomes in the report are expected to be influenced by 

assistance received during the entire followup period, some 

outcomes will be particularly strongly influenced by assistance 

received at the time of the followup survey response. The 

second row of the seventh and eighth columns shows that, in 

both the CBRR and UC groups, rapid re-housing assistance had 

ended by the followup survey for most of the families who ever 

received it. Most CBRR families (61 percent) and UC families 

(60 percent) were not participating in a homeless or housing 

program at the time they responded to the followup survey. 

Thus, differences are expected in the outcomes of CBRR and 

UC families only to the extent that these outcomes reflect a 

lasting influence of families having been offered temporary 

rental assistance to help them leave homelessness. 

Exhibit 4-3 provides a more detailed picture of the timing of 

program use by the families in the CBRR-versus-UC comparison. The top panel shows the proportions of families within 

the CBRR group who are receiving different types of assistance 

during each calendar month for the first 32 months after 

random assignment.89, 90 It is not surprising that, in the first 

10 months after random assignment, program use for CBRR 

families is dominated by rapid re-housing. After this period, 

however, use of rapid re-housing declines steadily. After month 

16, all program use levels off, with only about 40 percent of 

families using any type of program in any month. The use of 

permanent housing subsidies steadily increases throughout the 

followup period and accounts for more than one-half of the 

remaining program use after month 18. 

The bottom panel shows the proportions of program use over 

time for the UC families. Compared with the CBRR group, 

the UC group used rapid re-housing much less (as engineered 

by the study) and used transitional housing and permanent 

housing subsidies somewhat more extensively following their 

initial stay in emergency shelter. After about month 18, the 

total and by-type program use of the UC group is similar to 

that of the CBRR group. Appendix Exhibit H-1 shows additional information about program use in the second half of the 

followup period, from month 19 after random assignment until 

the month of the 37-month survey response.

As Exhibits 4-1 and 4-3 make clear, the CBRR families used a 

range of programs in addition to the program to which they 

were referred by the study, a pattern that is consistent with 

the design of the study. Families were not required to use the 

program to which they were given priority access and were also 

not forbidden from using other programs that were available 

to them in their community. The intent of the study was to 

maximize use of the programs to which families assigned to the 

intervention were given priority access (in this case, maximize 

use of rapid re-housing by the CBRR families) and to create 

the largest possible contrast between the program mixes of 

different assignment groups (in this case, CBRR versus UC). As 

shown in the exhibit, the use of rapid re-housing was different 

for the CBRR and UC groups. The contrast in usage of rapid 

re-housing—58.5 percent for CBRR families and 22.5 percent 

for UC families—is sizable, although smaller than the analogous contrast between the SUB and UC groups (where use of 

some form of permanent subsidy was higher for both groups). 

As is conventional in random assignment analyses, our goal 

is to estimate the intention-to-treat (ITT) impact—that is, the 

impact of offering a program to families, regardless of whether 

they actually used that program (or some other program). This 

goal is consistent with the policy option of making a treatment 

available to a family but not requiring the family to use that 

treatment. 

89 Month 32 is the latest month for which the study team has data for all the families who responded to the 37-month survey.

90 Exhibit 3-4 is closely related to the analysis of the costs of this pairwise comparison presented in Chapter 9. The reader should note that the exhibit does not indicate the 

two-way flows of families moving into and out of these program types from month to month. Instead, it reflects only the overall usage level in a given month.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 51

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 4. Impacts of Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing (CBRR) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

Exhibit 4-3. CBRR Versus UC: Program Use in Each Month of Followup Period

Panel A: Program Use of CBRR Families for 32 Months After RA

Emergency shelter

Transitional housing

Rapid re-housing

Any permanent housing subsidy

Unknown/no program use

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of families using program type in month

Month after RA

Panel B: Program Use of UC Families for 32 Months After RA

Emergency shelter

Transitional housing

Rapid re-housing

Any permanent housing subsidy

Unknown/no program use

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of families using program type in month

Month after RA

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. UC = usual care.

RA = random assignment.

Notes: Families who have more than one type of program use in a calendar month are counted fractionally in each type. 

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 52

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 4. Impacts of Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing (CBRR) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

Because not all families randomly assigned to the CBRR group 

used rapid re-housing and because some families assigned to 

the UC group did use rapid re-housing, the true ITT impact 

is likely smaller than it would have been had the gap in rapid 

re-housing usage been wider (assuming that rapid re-housing 

truly has a nonzero impact on families who use it). In particular, the difference in the use of rapid re-housing by the CBRR 

and UC groups is narrow enough, given the relatively small 

sample size available for analysis, that the study may have failed 

to detect as statistically significant one or more ITT impacts 

large enough to be of policy importance.

The remainder of this chapter reports estimated impacts in the 

various outcome domains that—if statistically significant—can 

be causally attributed to the offer of a temporary housing 

subsidy with light case management to the families randomly 

assigned to the CBRR group at the start of the followup period 

in contrast with no such directed referral or privileged access 

being available to UC families.

4.3. Impacts on Housing Stability 

in the Community-Based Rapid 

Re-Housing (CBRR) Versus Usual 

Care (UC) Comparison 

Proponents of community-based rapid re-housing share a 

view with the proponents of permanent housing subsidies: the 

lack of housing affordability is the root cause of homelessness 

among families. Because permanent housing subsidies are 

constrained by limited appropriations, proponents of rapid 

re-housing argue that limited resources dedicated to homelessness could be stretched to create the best outcomes for the 

most people by making subsidies temporary. The CBRR-versusUC comparison offers evidence on whether priority access 

to the temporary subsidies is an effective tool for improving 

housing stability relative to usual care. 

Exhibit 4-4 shows the impacts of assignment to the CBRR 

group on homelessness, housing independence, residential 

moves, and housing quality. Relative to assignment to the UC 

Exhibit 4-4. CBRR Versus UC: Impacts on Housing Stability at 37 Months 

Outcome

CBRR UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Homelessness or doubled up during the followup period

 At least 1 night homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months or in shelter in 

past 12 months (%) [confirmatory]c

434 39.7 (48.8) 434 37.8 (48.5) 1.9 (3.6) 0.03

 At least 1 night homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months (%) 434 35.5 (47.7) 434 33.7 (47.2) 1.8 (3.5) 0.03

 At least 1 night homelessb in past 6 months (%) 434 16.8 (36.6) 434 17.0 (37.4) – 0.1 (2.8) 0.00

 At least 1 night doubled up in past 6 months (%) 434 30.5 (45.8) 434 27.6 (44.8) 2.8 (3.3) 0.05

 Any stay in emergency shelter in past 6 months (%) [Program Usage Data] 434 6.8 (24.2) 434 8.8 (28.0) – 2.0 (2.2) – 0.06

 Any stay in emergency shelter in months 21 to 32 after RA (%) [Program 

Usage Data]

434 16.3 (36.2) 434 18.8 (38.8) – 2.5 (2.9) – 0.06

 Number of days homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months 433 50.2 (74.1) 431 46.2 (73.6) 4.0 (5.6) 0.05

 Number of days homelessb in past 6 months 434 15.7 (41.6) 434 18.5 (48.4) – 2.8 (3.7) – 0.05

 Number of days doubled up in past 6 months 433 38.4 (66.7) 431 31.7 (61.4) 6.7 (4.7) 0.09

Housing independence

 Living in own house or apartment at followup (%) 434 68.8 (46.7) 434 69.3 (46.2) – 0.6 (3.4) – 0.01

 Living in own house or apartment with no housing assistance (%) 432 39.4 (48.6) 431 41.3 (49.1) – 1.9 (3.5) – 0.03

 Living in own house or apartment with housing assistance (%) 432 29.9 (45.9) 431 27.8 (45.4) 2.0 (3.3) 0.04

Number of places lived

 Number of places lived in past 6 monthsd 434 1.6 (1.0) 434 1.6 (1.1) 0.0 (0.1) 0.02

Housing quality

 Persons per room 412 1.6 (1.3) 411 1.6 (1.2) 0.0 (0.1) 0.03

 Housing quality is poor or fair (%) 415 30.4 (45.9) 410 34.5 (47.2) – 4.1 (3.6) – 0.08

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. UC = usual care. 

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

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

a

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

b The definition of “homeless” in this report includes stays in emergency shelters and places not meant for human habitation. It excludes transitional housing.

c

 After adjustment of multiple comparisons, the impact on the confirmatory outcome is not statistically significant at the .10 level for the CBRR-versus-UC comparison.

d The number of places lived in past 6 months is topcoded at 6 places.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey; Program Usage Data
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 53

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 4. Impacts of Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing (CBRR) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

group, at the 3-year followup survey, assignment to the CBRR 

group does not appear to reduce homelessness in this sample 

of families. 

None of the eight impact estimates for homelessness and 

doubled-up outcomes is statistically different from 0. Assignment to the CBRR group has no effect on the proportion of 

families experiencing homelessness 3 years after random 

assignment in measures based on the survey, based on Program 

Usage Data, or based on a combination of the two. The estimates 

also provide no evidence of effects on the number of days spent 

homeless or doubled up in the 6 months before the 37-month 

followup survey. Nearly two-fifths of both the CBRR group 

(39.7 percent) and the UC group (37.8 percent) reported being 

homeless or doubled up in the past 6 months or appeared in 

shelter records for the past year at the time of the followup 

survey. The last six rows of Exhibit 4-4 show that assignment 

to the CBRR group has no effect on three measures: housing 

independence, the number of places families lived, and housing 

quality relative to assignment to the UC group. 

One main goal of the CBRR intervention is to reduce the use 

of emergency shelter. Exhibit 4-5 shows the month-by-month 

impacts of random assignment to the CBRR group versus the 

UC group on the proportions of families who had at least 1 night 

in emergency shelter and with use of any permanent housing 

subsidy. Compared with proportions of the UC group, similar 

proportions of the CBRR group used emergency shelter in most 

months. Only during some months within the 1st year after 

random assignment does it appear that assignment to the CBRR 

group diverts families from using emergency shelter relative to 

assignment to the UC group.91

Exhibit 4-5. CBRR Versus UC: Percent of Families With Any Stay in Emergency Shelter and Any Permanent Housing 

Subsidy During Month, by Number of Months After RA

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Percent of families 

Month after RA

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CBRR: Used any permanent housing subsidy

UC: Used any permanent housing subsidy

UC: Used emergency shelter

CBRR: Used 

emergency shelter

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. UC = usual care. 

RA = random assignment.

Notes: Percentages are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent all families in the SUB-versus-UC comparison sample. Missing data on emergency shelter stays bias the 

percentages somewhat downward. The baseline stay in emergency shelter does not appear in the data for 16.7 percent of UC respondent families. The missing data rate for 

subsequent stays in emergency shelter is unknown. Any permanent housing subsidy includes the permanent subsidy programs offered to the SUB group, permanent supportive 

housing, public housing, and project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data

91 CBRR proportions in emergency shelter are lower than those of the UC group by statistically significant amounts (each at the .10 level) in months 3, 5, and 11.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 54

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 4. Impacts of Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing (CBRR) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

Although having priority access to rapid re-housing appears to 

have little effect on the use of emergency shelter, it does appear 

to reduce the use of permanent housing subsidies (including 

permanent supportive housing programs and mainstream 

housing programs) during the first half of the followup period. 

The proportions of the CBRR families using any permanent 

housing subsidy are about 6 percentage points lower than the 

corresponding proportions for the UC families in months 6 to 14 

(and are statistically significantly different in months 2 to 14). 

These differences disappear in the second half of the followup 

period, when use of permanent housing subsidies by the CBRR 

group catches up to that of the UC group.

Overall, it appears that the offer of priority access to rapid 

re-housing for the CBRR families has no effect on housing stability 

during the 37-month followup period relative to usual care. 

4.4. Impacts on Family Preservation 

in the Community-Based Rapid 

Re-Housing (CBRR) Versus Usual 

Care (UC) Comparison 

Any effects of assignment to the CBRR group on family preservation would be expected to be indirect, via increases in housing 

stability, but no such effects were detected. Exhibit 4-6 shows 

that no evidence from survey data is found of longer-term 

effects on family separations from children or from spouses or 

partners who were with the family at baseline. Nor is evidence 

found of effects on reunifications of the much smaller number 

of family members who were separated from the family at 

baseline. No effect was detected on foster care placements.

Exhibit 4-7 shows impacts on outcomes from the child welfare 

agency administrative data collected in 5 of the 12 study sites. 

No effect is detected on the proportion of family heads with a 

formal child separation that began after random assignment. 

Exhibit 4-6. CBRR Versus UC: Impacts on Family Preservation at 37 Months 

Outcome

CBRR UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Current or recent separations of family members present at baseline

 Family has at least one child separated in past 6 months (%) 430 15.3 (35.9) 424 15.8 (35.6) – 0.5 (2.6) – 0.01

 Family has at least one foster care placement in past 6 monthsb (%) 430 3.8 (18.4) 428 3.2 (17.2) 0.6 (1.6) 0.03

 Spouse/partner separated in past 6 months, of those with spouse/partner 

present at RA (%)

110 44.8 (49.0) 112 36.2 (48.9) 8.6 (7.2) 0.15

Reunification of family members reported as separated at baseline

 Family has at least one child reunified, of those families with at least one 

child absent at RA (%)

80 35.0 (49.3) 82 31.6 (45.8) 3.4 (7.4) 0.06

 Spouse/partner reunified, of those with spouse/partner absent at RA (%) 41 31.3 (44.9) 46 21.1 (40.1) 10.2 (10.8) 0.22

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. UC = usual care. 

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

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

a

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

b Foster care placement outcome includes any children (present at baseline) who are placed in foster care or adopted by another family at the time of followup.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey.

Exhibit 4-7. CBRR Versus UC: Impacts on Child Welfare Outcomes 

Outcome

CBRR UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

 Had a formal child separation that began after RA (%) 220 10.5 (30.7) 194 11.3 (31.8) – 0.7 (2.9) – 2.24

 Total days during followup separated from at least one childb 220 47.4 (176.3) 194 76.7 (247.9) – 29.3* (15.5) – 0.12

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. UC = usual care. 

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

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

a

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

b Includes separations started before and after RA. Length of followup varies by site. Alameda County = 1,075 days. Baltimore = 1,071 days. Kansas City = 1,069 days. Minneapolis = 1,046 days. Phoenix = 1,123 days.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions. Sample limited to five sites where child welfare records were collected (Alameda County, Baltimore, Kansas City, Minneapolis, and Phoenix).

Source: State child welfare agency records
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 55

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 4. Impacts of Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing (CBRR) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

The study team did find an effect on total time with any separation. Assignment to the CBRR group reduced the total number 

of days separated from at least one child during the 3-year 

followup period by 29 days. This difference represents a reduction of about 5 months for those family heads who experienced 

a separation.92 The study team investigated whether this effect 

was associated with the particular 5 sites where administrative 

data were collected. In the survey data, the team finds a reduction 

of 10 percentage points for CBRR families versus UC families 

for the subsample of these 5 sites on the proportion of family 

heads with any foster care or adoption. The magnitude of this 

effect contrasts with the estimate for the full sample of less than 

1 percentage point (shown in the first row of Exhibit 4-6). This 

evidence shows that the effect detected in the administrative 

data may arise because the analysis sample is limited to these 

particular 5 sites. The study team therefore suspects that the 

effect in 5-site administrative data does not generalize to all 

12 sites.

4.5. Impacts on Adult Well-Being 

in the Community-Based Rapid 

Re-Housing (CBRR) Versus Usual 

Care (UC) Comparison 

The theory and goals of the CBRR intervention compared with 

those of usual care do not hypothesize important effects on 

adult well-being. Consistent with this expectation, 20 months 

after random assignment, no differences were detected between 

the CBRR and UC groups on any measure of adult well-being. 

Because having priority access to the temporary subsidies of the 

CBRR intervention did not lead to improvements in well-being 

in the short term, one would not expect longer-term benefits 

to emerge well after the subsidies ended, and, indeed, they 

did not. As shown in Exhibit 4-8, no evidence indicates 3-year 

impacts on any measure of adult physical or mental health, 

trauma or intimate partner violence, or substance dependence 

or abuse.

Exhibit 4-8. CBRR Versus UC: Impacts on Adult Well-Being at 37 Months 

Outcome

CBRR UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Adult physical health

 Health in past 30 days was poor or fair (%) 433 31.5 (46.2) 434 30.2 (45.8) 1.3 (3.1) 0.02

Adult mental health

 Goal-oriented thinkingb 429 4.46 (0.98) 431 4.57 (0.98) – 0.10 (0.07) – 0.09

 Psychological distressc 432 6.74 (5.63) 433 6.90 (5.72) – 0.16 (0.39) – 0.02

Adult trauma symptoms

 Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in past 30 days (%) 430 20.8 (39.7) 433 21.3 (41.7) – 0.5 (3.0) – 0.01

Adult substance use

 Alcohol dependence or drug abused (%) 433 9.3 (29.3) 433 11.1 (31.7) – 1.7 (2.2) – 0.05

 Alcohol dependenced (%) 433 7.5 (26.9) 434 7.9 (26.9) – 0.4 (2.0) – 0.01

 Drug abused (%) 433 3.0 (15.8) 433 4.7 (22.0) – 1.8 (1.4) – 0.07

Experience of intimate partner violence

 Experienced intimate partner violence in past 6 months (%) 434 7.6 (26.5) 433 9.2 (29.9) – 1.6 (2.0) – 0.05

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. UC = usual care. 

ITT = intention-to-treat. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error.

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

a

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

b Goal-oriented thinking is measured with a modified version of the State Hope Scale and ranges from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive, goal-oriented 

thinking.

c

 Psychological distress is measured with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) and ranges from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater distress.

d Alcohol dependence is measured with the Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS-4), and drug abuse is measured with six items from the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10). 

Both are measured for the 6 months before the 37-month survey.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey.

92 Dividing mean number of days separated by the proportion of family heads with at least one separation (not shown) results in an average of 443 days for CBRR family 

heads with at least one separation compared with an average of 585 days for UC family heads.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 56

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 4. Impacts of Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing (CBRR) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

4.6. Impacts on Child Well-Being 

in the Community-Based Rapid 

Re-Housing (CBRR) Versus Usual 

Care (UC) Comparison 

Any effects of assignment to the CBRR group on child wellbeing would be expected to be indirect, via increases in housing 

stability. Given the lack of effect of assignment to the CBRR 

group on housing stability compared with the UC group at 

37 months, the study team would not expect strong effects on 

child well-being, and, indeed the team finds none. The team 

finds evidence of one effect on outcomes measured across age 

groups—children in the CBRR group have lower behavior 

problems with an effect size of 0.12 standard deviations 

(Exhibit 4-9). The study team finds no evidence of age-specific 

effects (Exhibit 4-10). With 1 significant effect out of 29—fewer 

than would be expected by chance—the team concludes that 

assignment to the CBRR group had little effect on children’s 

well-being relative to assignment to the UC group.

4.7. Impacts on Self-Sufficiency in 

the Community-Based Rapid ReHousing (CBRR) Versus Usual Care 

(UC) Comparison 

Any effects of assignment to the CBRR group on family selfsufficiency relative to assignment to the UC group would be 

expected to be indirect. In particular, spending 4 to 6 months 

in stable housing within families’ own communities with a 

sharply lower burden of housing costs could enable adult family members to concentrate more on employment and earnings 

and even enhance their skills through education and training 

participation. In some CBRR programs, case management 

guidance and referrals may further enhance efforts at work and 

access to resources that make families more self-sufficient.

For the 37-month period following families’ assignment to the 

CBRR intervention, the analysis shows significant effects of assignment to the CBRR intervention on 2 of 20 outcomes examined, 

or about the number that would be expected by chance alone 

(see Exhibit 4-11). Assignment to the CBRR intervention led 

to increased participation in Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF) in the month before the 37-month survey (28 

percent of families assigned to the CBRR group reported receiving TANF compared with 21 percent of families assigned to the 

UC group). Assignment to the CBRR intervention also reduced 

family heads’ participation in 2 or more weeks of vocational 

education in the 3-year period since random assignment compared with usual care. In other self-sufficiency areas, most notably 

in the subdomains of employment, income, and food security, 

the study team finds no evidence of impacts of assignment 

to the CBRR group relative to assignment to the UC group. 

Exhibit 4-12 shows impact estimates from administrative data 

on outcomes for quarters 11 to 14 after the quarter of random 

assignment. The analysis of administrative data finds no effect 

Exhibit 4-9. CBRR Versus UC: Impacts on Child Well-Being Across Age Groups at 37 Months 

Outcome

CBRR UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Child education

 Number of schools attended since RAb 514 2.1 (1.0) 521 2.1 (0.9) 0.0 (0.1) 0.01

 Grade completion (not held back) (%) 427 91.52 (28.51) 428 92.48 (26.33) – 0.96 (2.01) – 0.03

 School gradesc 399 3.1 (0.9) 387 3.1 (0.9) 0.0 (0.1) 0.00

Child physical health

 Poor or fair health in past 30 days (%) 597 5.5 (22.5) 581 6.1 (24.4) – 0.6 (1.6) – 0.02

 Well-child checkup in past year (%) 597 90.8 (28.9) 580 90.0 (28.6) 0.8 (2.3) 0.02

 Child has regular source of health care (%) 598 93.7 (23.8) 580 92.6 (25.7) 1.0 (1.9) 0.03

 Sleep problemsd 597 2.08 (1.03) 583 2.19 (1.10) – 0.12 (0.08) – 0.08

Child behavioral strengths and challenges

 Behavior problemse 576 0.38 (1.22) 560 0.58 (1.28) – 0.20** (0.10) – 0.12

 Prosocial behaviorf 577 – 0.18 (1.13) 561 – 0.23 (1.10) 0.06 (0.09) 0.04

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. UC = usual care. 

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

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

a

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

b Number of schools outcome is topcoded at 4 or more schools.

c

 School grades outcome is defined as 1 = mostly Ds or Fs, 2 = mostly Cs, 3 = mostly Bs, 4 = mostly As.

d Sleep problems outcome ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating more frequent tiredness upon waking and during the day.

e

 Behavior problems outcome is measured as the standardized Total Difficulties score from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).

f

 Prosocial behavior is measured as the standardized prosocial domain score from the SDQ.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey (parent report)
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 57

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 4. Impacts of Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing (CBRR) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

Exhibit 4-10. CBRR Versus UC: Impacts on Child Well-Being Developmental Outcomes by Age Group at 37 Months 

Outcome

CBRR UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Ages 2 to 5 yearsb

 Preschool or Head Start enrollmentc (%) 187 36.8 (49.0) 169 38.0 (49.3) – 1.2 (6.0) – 0.02

 Child care or preschool absences in past monthd 63 0.55 (0.89) 73 0.90 (0.93) – 0.34 (0.22) – 0.31

 Positive child care or preschool experiencese 65 0.86 (0.38) 74 0.80 (0.37) 0.06 (0.09) 0.13

 Positive child care or preschool attitudesf 65 4.42 (0.92) 74 4.62 (0.66) – 0.19 (0.17) – 0.23

 Child care or preschool conduct problemsg (%) 69 5.9 (28.4) 75 5.6 (22.6) 0.3 (5.3) 0.01

Ages 2 years to 5 years, 6 months

 Met developmental milestonesh (%) 169 73.3 (44.6) 155 67.6 (46.9) 5.7 (6.6) 0.10

Ages 3 years, 6 months to 7 years

 Verbal abilityi 195 – 0.20 (1.01) 191 – 0.33 (1.02) 0.14 (0.12) 0.11

 Math abilityj 194 – 0.27 (0.81) 193 – 0.31 (0.90) 0.04 (0.10) 0.03

 Executive functioningk (self-regulation) 185 16.05 (16.35) 189 17.40 (16.35) – 1.35 (1.48) – 0.07

Ages 5 to 17 yearsl

 School enrollmentc (%) 413 97.3 (15.4) 417 97.4 (14.5) – 0.2 (1.5) – 0.01

 School absences in past monthd,m 141 0.82 (0.95) 143 1.01 (0.93) – 0.19 (0.14) – 0.15

 Positive school experiencese,m 140 0.52 (0.58) 145 0.45 (0.60) 0.06 (0.08) 0.07

 Positive school attitudesf,m 141 4.16 (1.13) 145 4.16 (1.07) 0.00 (0.12) 0.00

 School conduct problemsg,m (%) 140 24.7 (44.6) 147 32.9 (46.8) – 8.2 (5.7) – 0.13

Ages 8 to 17 years

 Anxietyn 263 35.61 (7.21) 260 35.27 (7.48) 0.34 (0.69) 0.03

 Fearso 266 64.27 (14.39) 260 63.47 (14.72) 0.80 (1.31) 0.04

 Substance usep (%) 260 5.97 (23.36) 253 8.63 (29.36) – 2.67 (2.72) – 0.07

 Goal-oriented thinkingq 255 22.53 (4.68) 251 22.52 (4.27) 0.01 (0.47) 0.00

 School effort in past monthr 262 2.70 (0.82) 255 2.81 (0.78) – 0.10 (0.08) – 0.10

 Arrests or police involvement in past 6 monthss (%) 151 9.31 (28.14) 148 8.27 (26.32) 1.04 (3.41) 0.03

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. UC = usual care. 

ITT = intention-to-treat. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error.

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

a

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

b Includes focal children who were ages 4 years or younger on the September 1 before the 37-month parent survey.

c

 Preschool or Head Start enrollment outcome is defined as enrollment in preschool, center-based child care, or school.

d Absences outcome is defined as 0 = no absences in past month, 1 = one to two absences, 2 = three to five absences, 3 = six or more absences.

e

 Positive child care, preschool, or school experiences outcome is defined as – 1 = mostly negative experiences, 0 = both positive and negative experiences, 1 = mostly positive 

experiences.

f

 Positive child care, preschool, or school attitudes outcome is parent report of how much child likes school and ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating greater like of 

school.

g

 Child care, preschool, or school conduct problems outcome is defined as 0 = no conduct problems reported to parent, 1 = parent contacted about conduct problems or suspension or expulsion from school or child care center.

h

 Met developmental milestones outcome is defined as scoring above the typical development cutoffs in all domains of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3).

i

 Verbal ability outcome is the nationally standardized score from the Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III) letter-word identification test.

j

 Math ability outcome is the nationally standardized score from the WJ III applied problems test.

k

 Executive functioning outcome is the Head Toes Knees Shoulders (HTKS) score and ranges from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating greater executive functioning.

l

 Includes focal children who were ages 5 to 17 years on the September 1 before the 37-month parent survey and no older than 17 years at the time of the survey.

m This parent-reported outcome was collected from only the first 38 percent of parents surveyed due to an error in data collection.

n

 Anxiety (child report) is measured using the A-Trait scale from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC). Scores range from 20 to 60, with higher scores indicating 

greater anxiety.

o

 Fears outcome (child report) is the score from the Fears Scale and ranges from 33 to 99, with higher scores indicating more fear.

p Substance use (child report) is measured with 23 items from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

q Goal-oriented thinking (child report) is measured with a modified version of the Children’s Hope Scale and ranges from 6 to 30, with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive, goal-oriented thinking.

r

 School effort outcome (child report) ranges from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater effort during school day and on homework.

s

 Arrest or police involvement in past 6 months is from parent report.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression-adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey non-response. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey (parent report); Family Options Study 37-month child survey (child report); ASQ-3; WJ III; HTKS.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 58

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 4. Impacts of Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing (CBRR) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

Exhibit 4-11. CBRR Versus UC: Impacts on Self-Sufficiency at 37 Months 

Outcome

CBRR UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Employment status

 Work for pay in week before survey (%) 434 39.6 (49.2) 434 39.1 (48.8) 0.5 (3.4) 0.01

 Any work for pay since 20-month surveyb (%) 406 62.2 (48.0) 387 66.5 (47.9) – 4.2 (3.4) – 0.09

 Months worked for pay since 20-month surveyb,c 406 7.3 (7.8) 383 7.6 (7.9) – 0.3 (0.5) – 0.04

 Any work for pay since RA (%) 434 75.1 (41.6) 433 75.2 (44.0) – 0.1 (3.0) 0.00

 Months worked for pay since RAc 430 14.4 (13.4) 420 13.9 (13.6) 0.5 (0.8) 0.03

 Hours of work per week at current main jobd 433 12.8 (17.2) 433 12.7 (16.9) 0.1 (1.2) 0.01

Income sources and amounts

 Annualized current earnings ($) 425 7,127 (11,047) 422 7,154 (11,183) – 27 (748) 0.00

 Total family income ($) 415 11,837 (9,299) 423 12,343 (11,782) – 505 (725) – 0.04

 Anyone in family had earnings in past month (%) 434 50.4 (50.0) 434 51.4 (50.1) – 1.1 (3.5) – 0.02

 Anyone in family received TANF in past month (%) 434 28.0 (44.4) 434 21.4 (41.6) 6.6** (2.9) 0.13

 Anyone in family received SSDI in past month (%) 434 10.7 (29.0) 434 9.1 (31.1) 1.6 (2.0) 0.05

 Anyone in family received SSI in past month (%) 434 13.8 (34.6) 434 14.1 (36.6) – 0.3 (2.2) – 0.01

 Anyone in family received SNAP/Food Stamps in past month (%) 434 82.9 (36.6) 434 82.3 (38.8) 0.6 (2.7) 0.01

 Anyone in family received WIC in past month (%) 434 25.9 (44.7) 434 23.9 (42.5) 2.0 (3.0) 0.04

Education and training

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of any school or training since RA (%) 434 39.5 (49.3) 433 39.7 (48.7) – 0.2 (3.4) 0.00

 Number of weeks in school/training programs since RA 425 7.4 (16.5) 425 8.9 (16.8) – 1.5 (1.2) – 0.07

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of school since RA (%) 433 7.9 (27.6) 433 10.9 (30.6) – 2.9 (2.0) – 0.08

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of basic education since RA (%) 433 3.7 (19.4) 433 2.4 (15.8) 1.3 (1.2) 0.07

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of vocational education since RA (%) 433 10.5 (32.0) 433 14.6 (35.1) – 4.1* (2.4) – 0.10

Food security and 

 Household is food insecure (%) 434 40.2 (48.8) 434 44.4 (49.8) – 4.2 (3.6) – 0.07

 Food insecurity scalee 434 1.70 (2.05) 432 1.87 (2.07) – 0.18 (0.15) – 0.07

Economic stressors

 Economic stress scalef 431 – 0.15 (0.50) 433 – 0.13 (0.49) – 0.02 (0.03) – 0.03

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. UC = usual care. 

ITT = intention-to-treat. RA = random assignment. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error. SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SSDI = Social Security 

Disability Insurance. SSI = Supplemental Security Income. TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children.

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

a

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

b Includes only families who responded to both 20-month and 37-month followup surveys; not weighted for survey nonresponse.

c

 Number of months worked for pay includes partial calendar months.

d Hours of work per week includes those not currently working (that is, those with 0 hours of work per week).

e

 Food insecurity scale ranges from 0 to 6, with higher values indicating higher food insecurity.

f

 Economic stress scale ranges from – 1 to 1, with higher values indicating higher economic stress.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey

Exhibit 4-12. CBRR Versus UC: Earnings and Employment 

Outcome

CBRR UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

 Earnings in quarters 11 to 14 after RA (2015Q3$) 557 6,591 (10,587) 553 6,167 (9,966) 424 (629) 0.04

 Any employment in quarters 11 to 14 after RA (%) 557 57.7 (49.5) 553 58.7 (49.2) – 0.9 (3.0) – 0.02

 Number of quarters employed in quarters 11 to 14 after RA 557 1.7 (1.7) 553 1.7 (1.7) 0.0 (0.1) 0.01

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. UC = usual care. 

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

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

a

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

Note: See Chapter 2 and Appendix B for outcome definitions.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 59

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 4. Impacts of Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing (CBRR) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

of assignment to the CBRR group relative to assignment to the 

UC group on total earnings, the proportion of family heads employed, or the number of quarters employed during the year.

4.8. Summary of the CommunityBased Rapid Re-Housing (CBRR) 

Versus Usual Care (UC) Comparison 

Across Domains

In the CBRR-versus-UC comparison, 59 percent of families 

assigned to the CBRR group and 23 percent of families assigned 

to the UC group received rapid re-housing rental assistance. 

This contrast in program use did not lead to notable differences 

in experiences between the CBRR and UC families during the 

longer term. The vast majority of the evidence—involving dozens of outcomes in five domains—suggests equivalent results 

for housing stability, family preservation, adult well-being, 

child well-being, and self-sufficiency, with or without privileged access to rapid re-housing through the CBRR intervention 

after 7 days in shelter. 

It is most striking that, relative to usual care, the study team 

did not find evidence that assignment to the CBRR intervention 

affected housing stability at the 37-month followup point. 

Chapter 6 reports about how the CBRR intervention compares 

with the other two active interventions: SUB and PBTH.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 60

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

CHAPTER 5.

IMPACTS OF PROJECT-BASED 

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING (PBTH) 

COMPARED WITH USUAL CARE (UC)

T his chapter presents estimates of the impact of assignment to the PBTH intervention relative to usual care in the study communities. The goal of the analyses 

presented in this chapter is to determine the extent to which 

being offered priority access to a unit in a PBTH program 

increases families’ housing stability and improves other family 

outcomes 3 years after receiving the offer. 

The analysis reported in the Family Options Study: Short-Term 

Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 

(hereafter, the Short-Term Impacts report; Gubits et al., 2015) 

found that, at 20 months after random assignment, assignment 

to the PBTH group reduced the proportion of families who 

reported stays in shelters or places not meant for human 

habitation in the 6 months before the survey. Assignment to 

the PBTH group also reduced the proportion of families who 

had a stay in emergency shelter during months 7 to 18 of the 

followup period. These findings may have reflected the fact that 

about 22 percent of families assigned to the PBTH group were 

using transitional housing at the time of the 20-month survey. 

In the four other outcome domains, the vast majority of indicators examined at that time revealed little difference between the 

families in the PBTH group and families in the UC group. 

This chapter begins with a brief description of the assistance 

offered to the families assigned to the PBTH intervention. It 

then reviews the extent to which families in both the PBTH and 

UC groups used transitional housing and other housing and 

services programs available to them in the study sites during 

the course of the followup period. Then, the core sections of 

the chapter present the 3-year effects of being assigned to the 

PBTH group (compared with being assigned to the UC group) 

on outcomes within each of the study domains: housing stability, family preservation, adult well-being, child well-being, 

and self-sufficiency. The final section summarizes the 3-year 

impacts of the PBTH intervention relative to usual care.

5.1. Project-Based Transitional 

Housing (PBTH) Intervention

The PBTH intervention provides families with priority access 

to supervised programs in which they stay for a finite period of 

time (usually limited to no more than 24 months) and during 

which they are provided case management and a wide array 

of services identified through an assessment of family needs. 

Services may be offered directly by case managers or other 

staff or via referral to other providers. The PBTH intervention 

was offered to study families in all but one study site and was 

provided by 46 PBTH programs across the sites.93

Transitional housing is intended to prepare families for permanent housing by providing services that help overcome barriers 

to housing stability and address other psychosocial needs 

that the family may have. For this study, the team selected 

transitional housing programs that provide housing primarily 

in “project-based” facilities or housing units. The study’s definition excluded programs that allow for families to “transition 

in place” in private-market apartments or single-family homes, 

taking over responsibility for the housing unit’s lease toward or 

at the end of the program of transitional assistance. The study 

excluded transition-in-place programs to generate a strong 

contrast between project-based transitional housing and community-based rapid re-housing (CBRR) programs, which also 

are time limited and use scattered-site housing units in which 

the family can stay and pay the rent at the end of the CBRR 

program. The study’s PBTH intervention referred a few families 

to transitional housing programs with scattered-site locations, 

but, at program completion (or when the family reached the time 

limit), families were required to relocate to other housing units.

The PBTH programs studied often received funding from federal Supportive Housing Program (SHP) grants, which results 

in some consistency across PBTH programs. For instance, the 

93 The PBTH intervention was not offered in Boston. Also, the PBTH intervention was very limited in Minneapolis, with only four families randomly assigned to the PBTH 

group. Further details about the PBTH intervention are provided in Chapter 8 of the Short-Term Impacts report (Gubits et al., 2015). 
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 61

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 5. Impacts of Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

SHP grant limits transitional housing assistance to 24 months, 

funds a broad range of supportive services, and sets parameters 

for the way in which programs must calculate participant rent 

contributions when they choose to require them; however, not 

all the PBTH programs in the study receive funding from SHP 

grants. Most PBTH programs have a wide range of funding 

sources, including private foundation grants and local fundraising proceeds. Some programs are faith based, and many of 

those programs are completely privately funded.

All PBTH programs in the study provide only temporary housing assistance. The study team allowed any time limit on tenure 

but specifically sought programs that offered at least 6 months 

of assistance. Nearly all programs provided a maximum of 24 

months of assistance. Programs offering referrals to permanent 

housing assistance at the end of the transitional housing period 

were included in the PBTH intervention for the study, but programs that guaranteed permanent assistance were not included.

5.2. Program Use by Families in the 

Project-Based Transitional Housing 

(PBTH) Versus Usual Care (UC) 

Comparison

Each impact comparison in the study may be thought of as a 

distinct experiment or test, and this chapter addresses only 

the comparison between the PBTH group and the UC group, 

without reference to the families who were randomly assigned 

to the SUB or CBRR intervention. In total, 707 families took 

part in the test of the PBTH intervention versus usual care. All 

these families had both project-based transitional housing and 

usual care available to them at the point of random assignment 

and were assigned to one of these two interventions; 368 

families were assigned to the PBTH group and 339 families 

were assigned to the UC group.94 Of those 707 families, 552 

(293 PBTH families and 259 UC families), or 78 percent, 

responded to the 37-month followup survey and are included 

in the PBTH-versus-UC impact comparison reported in this 

chapter. The current section describes the extent to which the 

293 PBTH families used transitional housing and other types of 

homeless and housing assistance during the followup period. 

This section also presents parallel information for the 259 

included UC families. The data on program use do not distinguish between subtypes of transitional housing and include 

transition-in-place assistance, so this section uses “transitional 

housing” rather than “ project-based transitional housing” to 

describe the broader category of assistance.

Exhibit 5-1 shows the use of eight types of homeless and housing assistance programs. The first column shows the percentage 

of families assigned to the PBTH group who ever used each 

program type during the followup period. The third row (shaded in the exhibit) shows the use of some type of transitional 

housing by the families assigned to the PBTH group; 53.2 

percent of families in the PBTH group received transitional 

housing assistance at some point during the followup period—

meaning they either followed up on the referral and moved 

into the PBTH facility or entered another transitional housing 

program.95, 96

The second column shows the percentage of families assigned 

to the UC group who ever used each program type during 

the followup period.97 The shaded row of the second column 

shows that 34.6 percent of the UC families received transitional 

housing assistance during the followup period, despite not 

being given priority access to transitional housing programs. 

The study team requested that emergency shelter staff not refer 

UC families to one of the active interventions. Nevertheless, as 

shown in the exhibit, some families did learn about transitional 

housing programs in their communities, and these programs 

had program slots available at some point during the followup 

period. 

Rows one, two, and four through six of the exhibit show 

participation in other nonshelter types of homeless and housing 

assistance programs. The seventh row shows participation 

in any form of permanent subsidy. Any form of permanent 

subsidy includes the permanent subsidy programs offered to 

the SUB group, permanent supportive housing, public housing, 

and project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects. Of the UC 

families in the PBTH-versus-UC comparison, 35 percent found 

their way to permanent housing subsidy programs and 18 

percent found their way to rapid re-housing, despite the lack 

of preferential access to those programs through the study. 

94 In the entire study, 746 families were randomly assigned to the UC group, but only 339 of those families had project-based transitional housing available to them when 

they were randomized. Therefore, only those 339 UC families are part of the PBTH-versus-UC comparison sample. All 368 families randomly assigned to the PBTH group 

during the course of the study had usual care available to them, so all are part of the PBTH-versus-UC comparison sample.

95 All percentages, means, and medians in the exhibit are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse and, hence, as best as possible, represent the full experimental sample 

of 707 families. The findings here on program use are thus in line with similarly weighted impact estimates provided later in the chapter.

96 The unweighted number of 37-month respondent PBTH families who used transitional housing during the followup period is 160 families. Of those, 88 families were 

confirmed by enrollment verification to have used the program to which they were referred by the study. It is not known how many of the other 72 families received 

project-based transitional housing or some other form of transitional housing.

97 The percentages in the first six rows of these columns are not mutually exclusive because some families used more than one program type during the followup period.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 62

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 5. Impacts of Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

Exhibit 5-1. PBTH Versus UC: Program Use Since RA 

Type of Homeless or Housing Assistance

Percent Ever Used 

From RA to 37-Month 

Followup Surveya

Number of Months Used From RA to 

37-Month Followup Survey, 

if Ever Used Type of Assistance

Percent Used in 

Month of Followup 

Survey Response

PBTH UC

PBTH UC

PBTH UC

Mean Median Mean Median

Permanent housing subsidies offered to the SUB groupb 9.6 10.6 14.0 10.5 17.1 17.5 7.4 7.9

Rapid re-housingc 13.7 17.8 7.4 6.5 6.9 6.0 0.7 1.8

Transitional housingd 53.2 34.6 14.5 13.0 10.9 7.5 9.3 6.2

Permanent supportive housing 11.0 11.6 16.3 14.0 17.8 15.5 7.6 8.3

Public housing 8.3 8.5 17.4 17.5 17.4 17.5 7.1 5.8

Project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects 6.2 7.2 17.5 17.5 18.3 13.5 3.9 5.4

Any permanent housing subsidye 33.0 34.7 17.2 16.5 19.3 19.5 26.0 27.1

Emergency shelterf 83.6 89.7 3.3 2.2 4.4 2.7 3.5 4.3

No use of homeless or housing programsg 18.1 26.9 — — — — 61.5 61.5

N 293 259 — — — — 293 259

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. UC = usual care. 

RA = random assignment.

a

 Percentage of families who ever used a type of assistance program during the period from the month of RA to the month of 37-month followup survey response (median period 

duration: 38 calendar months). Percentages do not add to 100 because some families used more than one program type during the followup period.

b Subsidies offered to the SUB group are housing choice vouchers plus site-specific programs offered to families assigned to the SUB group in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and Honolulu, Hawaii.

c

 Temporary subsidies offered to the CBRR group.

d All types of transitional housing, including those offered to the PBTH group.

e

 Includes the types of permanent subsidy offered to the SUB group plus permanent supportive housing, public housing, and project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects.

f

 All families were in emergency shelter at RA. Percentages less than 100 percent for ever used emergency shelter are because of missing data on shelter use.

g

 Indicates no use of the first six program types in this table during any of the followup period and no use of emergency shelter after the first 6 months after RA. No use in the month 

of followup survey response indicates no use of any of these seven program types.

Notes: Percentages are regression adjusted, controlling for site and randomization ratio. Percentages, means, and medians are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent full 

comparison sample.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data

The proportions of the PBTH group that used programs other 

than transitional housing programs are roughly similar to those 

of the UC group.98 The ninth row shows the percentages of 

families in the PBTH and UC groups who used none of the 

seven types of programs during the followup period and did 

not use emergency shelter from the 7th month after random 

assignment onward. About 18 percent of PBTH families and 27 

percent of UC families fall into this group.

The mean and median numbers of months of use for each 

program type are also shown in the exhibit (third and fourth 

columns for PBTH families, fifth and sixth columns for UC 

families) for only those families who ever used a given program 

type.

99 As one might expect, given that transitional housing 

was readily available to PBTH families, the number of months 

of transitional housing use is higher for the families assigned 

to the PBTH group (median of 13 months) than for the 35 

percent of UC families who found their way to transitional 

housing (median of 8 months) at some point during the 

followup period. Additional detail about the use of transitional 

housing assistance by PBTH families is shown in Exhibit 5-2. 

The exhibit shows that, although the median family who used 

transitional housing did so for 13 months, about 31 percent 

used transitional housing for 20 or more months and 10 

percent used transitional housing for 30 or more months. So 

even though nearly all PBTH providers in the study generally 

limited assistance to 24 months, some families participated for 

a longer period.

Whereas the previous columns consider all experience between 

randomization and the survey, the last two columns of Exhibit 5-1 

consider the program use as of the month of the 37-month 

survey. Although most outcomes in the report are expected to 

be influenced by assistance received during the entire followup 

period, some outcomes are expected to be particularly strongly 

influenced by assistance received at the time of the followup 

survey response. The shaded row of the seventh column shows 

that transitional housing assistance had ended by the followup 

98 Although proportions that used any permanent housing subsidy are similar in the PBTH and UC groups, Exhibit 5-5 shows that assignment to the PBTH group caused 

some delay in the use of permanent housing subsidies.

99 Hence, 0 values are not factored into the means, nor do they pull downward the medians of the various distributions.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 63

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 5. Impacts of Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

Exhibit 5-2. Number of Months of Transitional Housing 

Receipt During Followup Period by PBTH Families Who 

Ever Used TH

2

0

4

6

8

10

12

14

0.25 to 1.75

2 to 3.75

4 to 5.75

6 to 7.75

8 to 9.75

10 to 11.75

12 to 13.75

14 to 15.75

16 to 17.75

18 to 19.75

29 to 21.75

22 to 23.75

24 to 25.75

26 to 27.75

28 to 29.75

30 or more

Percent of PBTH families who ever used THa

Number of months of TH receipt

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. TH = transitional housing.

a

 Percentages are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent all families in comparison sample.

Note: N = 160.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data

survey for most PBTH families (83 percent) who ever received 

it and for most UC families (82 percent) who ever received 

it.100 In the month of the followup survey response, 9 percent 

of PBTH families (and 6 percent of UC families) were still 

in transitional housing. About one-fourth of the families in 

both groups were receiving some form of permanent housing 

subsidy in the month of the followup survey. Most PBTH and 

UC families (62 percent for both groups) were not participating 

in a homeless or housing program at the time they responded 

to the followup survey. Thus, differences are expected in the 

outcomes of PBTH and UC families only to the extent that 

these outcomes reflect a lasting influence of families having 

been offered temporary rental assistance to help them leave 

homelessness. 

Exhibit 5-3 provides a more detailed picture of the timing of 

program use by the families in the PBTH-versus-UC comparison. The top panel shows the proportions of families within the 

PBTH group who received different types of assistance during 

each calendar month for the first 32 months after random 

assignment.101, 102 It is not surprising that, in the first half of the 

followup period, program use for PBTH families is dominated 

by transitional housing. In the second half, the use of transitional housing declines steadily. After month 24, all program 

use levels off, with only about 36 to 38 percent of families 

using any type of program in any month. The use of permanent 

housing subsidies steadily increases throughout the followup 

period and accounts for more than one-half of monthly program use after month 26 and two-thirds of monthly program 

use in month 32. 

The bottom panel shows the proportions of program use over 

time for the UC families. Compared with the PBTH group, the 

UC group used transitional housing much less (the result the 

study design attempted to achieve) and used rapid re-housing 

and permanent housing subsidies somewhat more extensively 

following their initial stay in emergency shelter. Total program 

use levels off after the first year, with only a little less than 

40 percent of UC families using any type of program in any 

month. Appendix Exhibit H-3 shows additional information 

about program use in the second half of the followup period, 

from month 19 after random assignment until the month of the 

37-month survey response.

As Exhibits 5-1 and 5-3 make clear, the PBTH families used a 

range of programs in addition to the program to which they 

were referred by the study, a pattern that is consistent with 

the design of the study. Families were not required to use the 

program to which they were given priority access and were also 

not forbidden from using other programs that were available 

to them in their community. The intent of the study was to 

maximize use of the programs offered to families assigned to the 

PBTH intervention (in this case, maximize use of the PBTH programs by the PBTH families) and to create the largest possible contrast between the program mixes of different assignment groups 

(in this case, PBTH versus UC). As shown in the exhibits, the 

use of transitional housing was different for the PBTH and 

UC groups. The contrast in use of transitional housing—53.2 

percent for PBTH families and 34.6 percent for UC families—is 

sizable, although smaller than the analogous contrast in either 

the SUB-versus-UC or CBRR-versus-UC comparisons. 

As is conventional in random assignment analyses, the goal in 

this study is to estimate the intention-to-treat (ITT) impact—

that is, the impact of offering a program to families, regardless 

of whether they actually used that program (or some other 

100 Because 9.3 percent of PBTH families were still using transitional housing in the followup survey month, and because 53.2 percent had used transitional housing at 

some point during the followup period, it can be calculated that 1 – (9.3/53.2) = 82.5 percent of PBTH families who used transitional housing at some point had stopped 

using it by the survey month. A similar calculation, 1 – (6.2/34.6), yields 82.1 percent for UC families.

101 Month 32 is the latest month for which the study team has data for all the families who responded to the 37-month survey. 

102 Exhibit 5-3 is closely related to the analysis of the costs of this pairwise comparison presented in Chapter 9. The reader should note that the exhibit does not indicate 

the two-way flows of families moving into and out of these program types from month to month. Instead, it reflects only the overall usage level in a given month.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 64

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 5. Impacts of Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

Exhibit 5-3. PBTH Versus UC: Program Use in Each Month of Followup Period

Panel A: Program Use of PBTH Families for 32 Months After RA

Emergency shelter

Transitional housing

Rapid re-housing

Any permanent housing subsidy

Unknown/no program use

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of families using program type in month

Month after RA

Panel B: Program Use of UC Families for 32 Months After RA

Emergency shelter

Transitional housing

Rapid re-housing

Any permanent housing subsidy

Unknown/no program use

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of families using program type in month

Month after RA

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. UC = usual care.

RA = random assignment.

Note: Families who have more than one type of program use in a calendar month are counted fractionally in each type.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 65

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 5. Impacts of Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

program). This goal is consistent with the policy option of 

making a treatment available to a family but without the ability 

to require a family to use that treatment. 

Because not all families randomly assigned to the PBTH group 

used transitional housing and because some families assigned to 

the UC group did use transitional housing, the true ITT impact 

is likely smaller than it would have been had the gap in transitional housing usage been wider (assuming that transitional 

housing truly has a nonzero impact on families who use it). In 

particular, given the relatively small sample size available for 

analysis, the difference in the use of transitional housing by 

the PBTH and UC groups is narrow enough that the study may 

have failed to detect as statistically significant one or more ITT 

impacts large enough to be of policy importance.

The remainder of the chapter reports estimated impacts in the 

various outcome domains that—if statistically significant—can 

be causally attributed to the offer of project-based transitional 

housing to the families randomly assigned to the PBTH group 

in contrast with no such directed referral or privileged access 

being available to families randomly assigned to the UC group.

5.3. Impacts on Housing Stability 

in the Project-Based Transitional 

Housing (PBTH) Versus Usual Care 

(UC) Comparison 

Proponents of project-based transitional housing emphasize 

that most families who become homeless have barriers that 

make it difficult for them to secure and maintain housing. 

Thus, housing subsidies alone may be insufficient to ensure 

housing stability and other desirable outcomes. Family needs 

may arise from poverty, health, disability, or other problems 

that led to homelessness to begin with or from the disruptive 

effects of homelessness on parents and children. Proponents of 

project-based transitional housing believe that, by addressing 

these barriers and needs in a supervised residential setting, 

PBTH programs lay the best foundation for ongoing stability. 

The services offered by the PBTH programs would be expected 

to affect stability, adult well-being, and self-sufficiency directly 

and affect family preservation and child well-being more indirectly. The PBTH-versus-UC comparison offers evidence about 

whether this approach improves stability and other family 

outcomes 3 years after random assignment. 

The Short-Term Impacts report (Gubits et al., 2015) found 

that assignment to the PBTH group reduced the proportion of 

families who reported stays in shelters or places not meant for 

human habitation in the 6 months before the 20-month survey. 

Assignment to the PBTH intervention also reduced the proportion of families who had a stay in emergency shelter during 

months 7 to 18 of the followup period. These findings may 

reflect the fact that about 22 percent of families assigned to the 

PBTH group were using transitional housing at the time of the 

20-month survey compared with only 10 percent of families 

assigned to the UC group. 

Exhibit 5-4 shows the impacts of assignment to the PBTH intervention on homelessness, housing independence, residential 

moves, and housing quality 3 years after random assignment, 

compared with usual care.103 The 37-month analysis finds a 

difference between the PBTH and UC groups on only a single 

homelessness measure—the proportion of families who had a 

stay in emergency shelter during months 21 to 32 after random 

assignment. Assignment to the PBTH group reduced this proportion relative to assignment to the UC group by 6 percentage 

points, from 15 to 9 percent. The analysis did not find evidence 

of impact on any other indicators of homelessness, housing 

independence, number of moves, or housing quality.

Exhibit 5-5 shows the month-by-month impacts on the proportion of families who had at least 1 night in emergency shelter 

during the month. This exhibit illustrates that a somewhat lower 

proportion of the PBTH group was in emergency shelter during 

most of the followup period compared with the proportion of 

the UC group.104 This reduction in shelter use, however, mostly 

disappears by the end of the followup period. Therefore, the 

reduction in shelter use observed during months 21 to 32 after 

random assignment can be attributed largely to a difference 

during months 21 to 26. The lack of a statistically significant 

difference in shelter use during the 6 months before the followup survey (shown in the fifth row of Exhibit 5-4) is further 

evidence that the reduction in shelter use observed in earlier 

months had faded by the end of the third year. These findings 

support the proposition that reductions in study-defined homelessness and shelter use observed in the short-term survey were 

a direct consequence of the differential in transitional housing 

use deliberately induced by the study, rather than a difference 

in post-program stability. 

103 The homeless outcomes in this study diverge from the homeless definition final rule in that they do not include stays in transitional housing in their definitions of being 

homeless. Additional impacts on the use of transitional housing during the followup period are provided in Appendix E. 

104 Statistically significant differences appear in 16 of the 32 calendar months (months 2 to 8, 13, 17 to 23, and 25). Because of missing data on baseline stays, less than 

100 percent of all PBTH and UC families are observed in shelter during month 0 (the calendar month of random assignment). The difference in the month 0 (significant at 

the .05 level) should be considered a chance difference. The difference in unobserved initial shelter stays should be increasingly unrelated to differences observed later in 

the followup period (because the initial shelter stays that are unobserved in the data become increasingly likely to have ended as time elapsed in the followup period).
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 66

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 5. Impacts of Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

Exhibit 5-4. PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on Housing Stability at 37 Months 

Outcome

PBTH UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Homelessness or doubled up during the followup period

 At least 1 night homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months or in shelter in 

past 12 months (%) [confirmatory]c

292 40.5 (49.4) 259 40.2 (49.2) 0.3 (4.7) 0.01

 At least 1 night homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months (%) 292 37.7 (48.9) 259 37.5 (48.5) 0.2 (4.7) 0.00

 At least 1 night homelessb in past 6 months (%) 293 18.6 (39.9) 259 18.3 (38.3) 0.3 (3.6) 0.01

 At least 1 night doubled up in past 6 months (%) 292 29.2 (45.8) 259 31.7 (46.8) – 2.5 (4.4) – 0.05

 Any stay in emergency shelter in past 6 months (%) [Program Usage Data] 293 7.3 (26.4) 259 6.3 (25.5) 1.1 (2.4) 0.03

 Any stay in emergency shelter in months 21 to 32 after RA (%) 

[Program Usage Data]

293 9.1 (29.4) 259 15.1 (35.8) – 6.0** (2.9) – 0.14

 Number of days homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months 292 46.8 (72.6) 258 49.3 (74.4) – 2.5 (6.9) – 0.03

 Number of days homelessb in past 6 months 293 14.5 (44.1) 259 16.1 (44.2) – 1.6 (4.0) – 0.03

 Number of days doubled up in past 6 months 292 34.6 (64.2) 258 35.9 (65.4) – 1.3 (6.1) – 0.02

Housing independence

 Living in own house or apartment at followup (%) 293 65.0 (47.5) 259 71.6 (46.0) – 6.6 (4.2) – 0.12

 Living in own house or apartment with no housing assistance (%) 292 40.0 (49.3) 257 47.1 (49.7) – 7.2 (4.4) – 0.13

 Living in own house or apartment with housing assistance (%) 292 25.0 (43.2) 257 24.1 (44.0) 0.9 (3.7) 0.02

Number of places lived

 Number of places lived in past 6 monthsd 290 1.6 (1.0) 259 1.6 (1.0) 0.0 (0.1) – 0.03

Housing quality

 Persons per room 275 1.8 (1.3) 243 1.7 (1.3) 0.0 (0.1) 0.01

 Housing quality is poor or fair (%) 273 34.3 (47.2) 243 30.2 (45.4) 4.1 (4.5) 0.08

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. UC = usual care. 

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

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

a

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

b The definition of “homeless” in this report includes stays in emergency shelters and places not meant for human habitation. It excludes transitional housing.

c

 After adjustment of multiple comparisons, the impact on the confirmatory outcome is not statistically significant at the .10 level for the PBTH-versus-UC comparison.

d The number of places lived in past 6 months is topcoded at 6 places.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey; Program Usage Data

Exhibit 5-5 also shows month-by-month impacts on the use 

of any form of permanent housing subsidy for the PBTH and 

UC families. The exhibit shows that, throughout most of the 

followup period, smaller proportions of PBTH families received 

assistance from permanent housing subsidies (including permanent supportive housing programs and mainstream housing 

programs) compared with proportions of UC families. Families 

assigned to the PBTH group presumably were pursuing PBTH 

referrals they received at the time of random assignment and 

were thus less inclined to seek permanent subsidy assistance 

than were their counterparts in the UC group. The proportions 

of the PBTH families using any permanent housing subsidy 

are about 4 percentage points lower than the corresponding 

proportions for the UC group in months 6 to 16 (and are statistically significantly different in month 6 and months 8 to 10). 

The reduction disappears by the end of the followup period, 

when use of permanent housing subsidies by the PBTH group 

catches up to that of the UC group.

5.4. Impacts on Family Preservation 

in the Project-Based Transitional 

Housing (PBTH) Versus Usual Care 

(UC) Comparison 

Exhibit 5-6 shows the impacts of assignment to the PBTH 

group relative to impacts of assignment to the UC group 

regarding family preservation outcomes. Any effects of 

assignment to the PBTH group on family preservation would be 

expected to be indirect, arising via effects on housing stability, 

self-sufficiency, and adult well-being. At 3 years after random 

assignment, no evidence of effects on family separations from 

children or from spouses or partners who were with the family 

at baseline was found. Nor was evidence of effects on reunifications of the much smaller number of family members who 

were separated from the family at baseline found. No effect was 

detected on foster care placements.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 67

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 5. Impacts of Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

Exhibit 5-5. PBTH Versus UC: Percent of Families With Any Stay in Emergency Shelter and Any Permanent Housing 

Subsidy During Month, by Number of Months after RA Percent of families 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Month after RA

PBTH: Used any permanent housing subsidy

UC: Used any permanent housing subsidy

UC: Used emergency shelter

PBTH: Used 

emergency 

shelter

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. UC = usual care. 

RA = random assignment. 

Notes: Percentages are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent all UC families in the study. Missing data on emergency shelter stays biases the percentages somewhat 

downward. The baseline stay in emergency shelter does not appear in the data for 18.7 percent of UC respondent families. The missing data rate for subsequent stays in emergency 

shelter is unknown. 

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data

Exhibit 5-6. PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on Family Preservation at 37 Months 

Outcome

PBTH UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Current or recent separations of family members present at baseline

 Family has at least one child separated in past 6 months (%) 283 20.9 (40.9) 252 18.9 (38.7) 2.0 (3.5) 0.05

 Family has at least one foster care placement in past 6 monthsb (%) 286 3.2 (19.3) 255 4.6 (19.4) – 1.4 (1.8) – 0.07

 Spouse/partner separated in past 6 months, of those with spouse/partner 

present at RA (%)

82 38.9 (47.3) 80 27.1 (47.1) 11.7 (7.8) 0.20

Reunification of family members reported as separated at baseline

 Family has at least one child reunified, of those families at least one child 

absent at RA (%)

56 40.6 (49.9) 54 44.7 (48.2) – 4.1 (11.3) – 0.07

 Spouse/partner reunified, of those with spouse/partner at RA (%) 28 24.9 (47.6) 28 23.6 (35.6) 1.3 (14.0) 0.03

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. UC = usual care. 

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

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

a

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

b Foster care placement outcome includes any children (present at baseline) who are placed in foster care or adopted by another family at the time of followup.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 68

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 5. Impacts of Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

Exhibit 5-7 reports impacts on outcomes from the child welfare 

agency administrative data collected in 5 of the 12 study sites. 

No effect was detected on either the proportion of family 

heads with a formal child separation that began after random 

assignment or on the total days during the followup period of 

being separated from at least one child.

5.5. Impacts on Adult Well-Being 

in the Project-Based Transitional 

Housing (PBTH) Versus Usual Care 

(UC) Comparison 

Adult well-being is a central focus of PBTH programs, and 

the theory underlying project-based transitional housing 

suggests that focusing on psychosocial challenges in supervised 

settings lays the groundwork for later success in independent 

housing. At 20 months, little evidence indicated that focusing 

on psychosocial challenges could have a direct effect on 

psychosocial outcomes (that is, the first step in the theory); the 

PBTH intervention affected only 1 outcome of 8 in the adult 

well-being domain—reducing drug abuse. Nearly one-fourth 

(22 percent) of families assigned to the PBTH group were in 

transitional housing programs at the 20-month followup survey, and, given median stays of 12 months, others had left only 

recently. It is thus plausible that additional benefits of intensive 

services provided in PBTH programs may emerge during the 

longer term. As shown in Exhibit 5-8, at 37 months, evidence 

again indicates impact on only one outcome; assignment to 

the PBTH intervention reduced the proportion of family heads 

Exhibit 5-7. PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on Child Welfare Outcomes 

Outcome

PBTH UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

 Had a formal child separation that began after RA (%) 177 14.9 (35.5) 157 16.9 (37.9) – 2.0 (4.0) – 6.03

 Total days during followup separated from at least one childb 177 97.5 (258.2) 157 116.4 (282.8) – 18.8 (25.7) – 0.08

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. UC = usual care. 

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

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

a

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

b Includes separations started before and after RA. Length of followup varies by site. Alameda County = 1,075 days. Baltimore = 1,071 days. Kansas City = 1,069 days. 

Minneapolis = 1,046 days. Phoenix = 1,123 days.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions. Sample limited to five sites where child welfare records were collected (Alameda County, Baltimore, Kansas City, Minneapolis, and Phoenix).

Source: State child welfare agency records

Exhibit 5-8. PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on Adult Well-Being at 37 Months 

Outcome

PBTH UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Adult physical health

 Health in past 30 days was poor or fair (%) 291 32.1 (46.0) 258 32.8 (47.8) – 0.7 (4.1) – 0.01

Adult mental health

 Goal-oriented thinkingb 287 4.41 (1.04) 258 4.38 (1.02) 0.03 (0.09) 0.03

 Psychological distressc 292 6.75 (5.49) 258 6.83 (5.76) – 0.07 (0.45) – 0.01

Adult trauma symptoms

 Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in past 30 days (%) 291 16.9 (39.2) 256 23.5 (43.2) – 6.6* (3.5) – 0.14

Adult substance use

 Alcohol dependence or drug abused (%) 293 13.4 (34.4) 258 10.6 (31.2) 2.8 (2.8) 0.07

 Alcohol dependenced (%) 293 10.4 (30.8) 258 7.4 (25.5) 3.0 (2.5) 0.09

 Drug abused (%) 293 5.3 (23.4) 259 6.1 (23.4) – 0.8 (2.1) – 0.03

Experience of intimate partner violence

 Experienced intimate partner violence in past 6 months (%) 292 7.5 (27.0) 258 8.5 (29.6) – 1.1 (2.4) – 0.03

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. UC = usual care. 

ITT = intention-to-treat. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error.

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

a

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

b Goal-oriented thinking is measured with a modified version of the State Hope Scale and ranges from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive, goal-oriented 

thinking.

c

 Psychological distress is measured with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) and ranges from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater distress.

d Alcohol dependence is measured with the Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS-4), and drug abuse is measured with six items from the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10). 

Both are measured for the 6 months before the 37-month survey.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 69

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 5. Impacts of Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder 

(PTSD) by 7 percentage points relative to a proportion of 24 

percent in the UC group. No evidence indicates that assignment to the PBTH group had an effect on the other measures 

of physical or mental health, intimate partner violence, or 

substance dependence or abuse relative to usual care. 

5.6. Impacts on Child Well-Being 

in the Project-Based Transitional 

Housing (PBTH) Versus Usual Care 

(UC) Comparison 

The theory behind project-based transitional housing suggests 

that effects of assignment to the PBTH group on children may 

take longer to develop, particularly if the PBTH intervention 

influences housing stability or adult well-being. In the absence of 

widespread effects of the PBTH intervention on these outcomes, 

as shown in previous sections, however, it is unsurprising that the 

team finds no impact on child well-being. None of the 9 crossage tests in Exhibit 5-9 and 2 of the 20 age-specific tests in 

Exhibit 5-10 reach statistical significance, 1 in each direction: 

young children in families assigned to the PBTH group show 

lower levels of executive functioning, but older children show 

more goal-oriented thinking. Given the small number of effects 

and their inconsistent direction, results are best interpreted as 

showing little overall impact on child well-being.

5.7. Impacts on Self-Sufficiency 

in the Project-Based Transitional 

Housing (PBTH) Versus Usual Care 

(UC) Comparison 

Along with housing stability and adult well-being, self-sufficiency 

is also a central focus of PBTH programs. The 20-month analysis found no effects of assignment to the PBTH group on any of 

the self-sufficiency outcomes examined. Exhibit 5-11 shows a 

significant impact on only 1 of the 20 self-sufficiency outcomes 

during the 3-year followup period; assignment to the PBTH 

reduced the number of weeks that family heads reported having participated in school or training programs since random 

assignment by 3.5 weeks. Families assigned to the UC group in 

this comparison reported 8.9 weeks in school or training since 

random assignment and families assigned to the PBTH group 

reported 5.4 weeks. 

Exhibit 5-12 shows impact estimates from administrative data 

on outcomes for quarters 11 to 14 after the quarter of random 

assignment. The analysis of administrative data finds no effect 

of assignment to the PBTH group relative to assignment to the 

UC group on total earnings, the proportion of family heads employed, or the number of quarters employed during the year.

Simply by chance, the study team would have expected effects 

on some outcomes. Thus, an effect on only 1 of 23 outcomes is 

Exhibit 5-9. PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on Child Well-Being Across Age Groups at 37 Months 

Outcome

PBTH UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Child education

 Number of schools attended since RAb 340 2.2 (1.0) 301 2.1 (0.9) 0.1 (0.1) 0.05

 Grade completion (not held back) (%) 286 86.68 (33.62) 252 91.35 (27.69) – 4.66 (3.02) – 0.12

 School gradesc 253 3.0 (0.9) 230 3.1 (0.9) – 0.0 (0.1) – 0.03

Child physical health

 Poor or fair health in past 30 days (%) 395 5.9 (21.4) 347 5.9 (22.2) 0.0 (2.2) 0.00

 Well-child checkup in past year (%) 395 88.7 (32.1) 346 91.2 (28.2) – 2.5 (2.9) – 0.07

 Child has regular source of health care (%) 391 88.2 (29.3) 350 90.3 (26.7) – 2.1 (3.8) – 0.06

 Sleep problemsd 394 2.17 (1.10) 349 2.28 (1.09) – 0.11 (0.10) – 0.08

Child behavioral strengths and challenges

 Behavior problemse 375 0.53 (1.19) 325 0.59 (1.29) – 0.06 (0.12) – 0.03

 Prosocial behaviorf 375 – 0.26 (1.22) 327 – 0.34 (1.13) 0.07 (0.10) 0.05

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. UC = usual care. 

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

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

a

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

b Number of schools outcome is topcoded at 4 or more schools.

c

 School grades outcome is defined as 1 = mostly Ds or Fs, 2 = mostly Cs, 3 = mostly Bs, 4 = mostly As.

d Sleep problems outcome ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating more frequent tiredness upon waking and during the day.

e

 Behavior problems outcome is measured as the standardized Total Difficulties score from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).

f

 Prosocial behavior is measured as the standardized prosocial domain score from the SDQ.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey (parent report)
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 70

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 5. Impacts of Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

Exhibit 5-10. PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on Child Well-Being Developmental Outcomes by Age Group at 37 Months 

Outcome

PBTH UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Ages 2 to 5 yearsb

 Preschool or Head Start enrollmentc (%) 118 33.3 (48.3) 104 41.7 (49.1) – 8.4 (6.6) – 0.14

 Child care or preschool absences in past monthd 46 0.59 (0.80) 40 0.74 (1.04) – 0.15 (0.21) – 0.14

 Positive child care or preschool experiencese 51 0.77 (0.53) 43 0.83 (0.39) – 0.06 (0.10) – 0.13

 Positive child care or preschool attitudesf 50 4.34 (1.16) 42 4.57 (0.80) – 0.23 (0.23) – 0.28

 Child care or preschool conduct problemsg (%) 55 9.0 (33.6) 43 9.9 (29.4) – 0.9 (5.8) – 0.03

Ages 2 years to 5 years, 6 months

 Met developmental milestonesh (%) 99 64.4 (47.7) 95 70.7 (45.3) – 6.3 (7.3) – 0.11

Ages 3 years, 6 months to 7 years

 Verbal abilityi 133 – 0.42 (1.06) 115 – 0.28 (1.10) – 0.13 (0.17) – 0.10

 Math abilityj 133 – 0.35 (1.00) 116 – 0.28 (1.12) – 0.07 (0.17) – 0.06

 Executive functioningk (self-regulation) 121 15.51 (15.77) 108 19.76 (16.75) – 4.25** (1.86) – 0.21

Ages 5 to 17 yearsl

 School enrollmentc (%) 279 95.8 (14.5) 247 99.1 (11.0) – 3.4 (2.7) – 0.17

 School absences in past monthd,m 102 0.95 (0.94) 97 1.14 (1.04) – 0.19 (0.15) – 0.15

 Positive school experiencese,m 105 0.54 (0.64) 98 0.38 (0.67) 0.16 (0.10) 0.19

 Positive school attitudesf,m 105 4.13 (1.09) 98 4.06 (1.14) 0.07 (0.14) 0.05

 School conduct problemsg,m (%) 105 27.7 (45.8) 98 27.3 (46.7) 0.3 (6.9) 0.01

Ages 8 to 17 years

 Anxietyn 168 34.88 (7.72) 158 35.81 (6.98) – 0.93 (0.95) – 0.09

 Fearso 171 62.65 (14.68) 158 64.62 (14.21) – 1.97 (1.58) – 0.10

 Substance usep (%) 163 10.00 (32.91) 152 8.62 (29.01) 1.38 (3.79) 0.04

 Goal-oriented thinkingq 161 22.75 (4.98) 150 21.55 (4.73) 1.21* (0.64) 0.19

 School effort in past monthr 170 2.74 (0.84) 155 2.75 (0.74) – 0.01 (0.08) – 0.01

 Arrests or police involvement in past 6 monthss (%) 83 15.65 (36.57) 91 9.31 (26.79) 6.34 (4.82) 0.17

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. UC = usual care. 

ITT = intention-to-treat. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error.

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

a

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

b Includes focal children who were ages 4 years or younger on the September 1 before the 37-month parent survey.

c

 Preschool or Head Start enrollment outcome is defined as enrollment in preschool, center-based child care, or school.

d Absences outcome is defined as 0 = no absences in past month, 1 = one to two absences, 2 = three to five absences, 3 = six or more absences.

e

 Positive child care, preschool, or school experiences outcome is defined as – 1 = mostly negative experiences, 0 = both positive and negative experiences, 1 = mostly positive 

experiences.

f

 Positive child care, preschool, or school attitudes outcome is parent report of how much child likes school and ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating greater like of 

school.

g

 Child care, preschool, or school conduct problems outcome is defined as 0 = no conduct problems reported to parent, 1 = parent contacted about conduct problems or suspension or expulsion from school or child care center.

h

 Met developmental milestones outcome is defined as scoring above the typical development cutoffs in all domains of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3).

i

 Verbal ability outcome is the nationally standardized score from the Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III) letter-word identification test.

j

 Math ability outcome is the nationally standardized score from the WJ III applied problems test.

k

 Executive functioning outcome is the Head Toes Knees Shoulders (HTKS) score and ranges from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating greater executive functioning.

l

 Includes focal children who were ages 5 to 17 years on the September 1 before the 37-month parent survey and no older than 17 years at the time of the survey.

m This parent-reported outcome was collected from only the first 38 percent of parents surveyed due to an error in data collection.

n

 Anxiety (child report) is measured using the A-Trait scale from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC). Scores range from 20 to 60, with higher scores indicating 

greater anxiety.

o

 Fears outcome (child report) is the score from the Fears Scale and ranges from 33 to 99, with higher scores indicating more fear.

p Substance use (child report) is measured with 23 items from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

q Goal-oriented thinking (child report) is measured with a modified version of the Children’s Hope Scale and ranges from 6 to 30, with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive, goal-oriented thinking.

r

 School effort outcome (child report) ranges from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater effort during school day and on homework.

s

 Arrest or police involvement in past 6 months is from parent report.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression-adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey non-response.

See Chapter 2 and Appendix B for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey (parent report); Family Options Study 37-month child survey (child report); ASQ-3; WJ III; HTKS
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 71

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 5. Impacts of Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

Exhibit 5-11. PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on Self-Sufficiency at 37 Months 

Outcome

PBTH UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Employment status

 Work for pay in week before survey (%) 293 38.3 (49.0) 259 37.7 (48.3) 0.6 (4.1) 0.01

 Any work for pay since 20-month surveyb (%) 259 56.5 (49.5) 221 63.6 (48.7) – 7.1 (4.4) – 0.15

 Months worked for pay since 20-month surveyb,c 257 7.1 (8.3) 219 7.8 (8.6) – 0.7 (0.8) – 0.09

 Any work for pay since RA (%) 293 70.1 (45.0) 259 71.5 (46.1) – 1.4 (3.8) – 0.03

 Months worked for pay since RAc 290 13.3 (13.7) 252 14.3 (14.6) – 1.0 (1.2) – 0.07

 Hours of work per week at current main jobd 292 12.6 (18.0) 259 12.2 (16.5) 0.5 (1.5) 0.02

Income sources and amounts

 Annualized current earnings ($) 288 7,429 (12,113) 252 6,367 (9,966) 1062 (962) 0.09

 Total family income ($) 290 12,987 (11,654) 247 13,178 (11,338) – 191 (1,038) – 0.01

 Anyone in family had earnings in past month (%) 293 54.6 (49.9) 259 55.0 (50.0) – 0.4 (4.3) – 0.01

 Anyone in family received TANF in past month (%) 292 24.9 (43.0) 259 21.1 (40.4) 3.8 (3.8) 0.08

 Anyone in family received SSDI in past month (%) 293 8.0 (26.4) 259 9.0 (29.1) – 1.0 (2.2) – 0.03

 Anyone in family received SSI in past month (%) 292 13.4 (33.7) 259 15.2 (38.6) – 1.8 (2.5) – 0.04

 Anyone in family received SNAP/Food Stamps in past month (%) 292 82.1 (38.9) 259 86.1 (35.5) – 4.0 (3.0) – 0.09

 Anyone in family received WIC in past month (%) 292 28.1 (46.0) 259 24.7 (42.8) 3.5 (3.8) 0.07

Education and training

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of any school or training since RA (%) 290 35.8 (48.4) 259 37.7 (48.4) – 1.8 (4.5) – 0.03

 Number of weeks in school/training programs since RA 289 5.4 (12.3) 254 8.9 (17.3) – 3.5** (1.6) – 0.17

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of school since RA (%) 290 9.8 (30.5) 259 12.1 (32.1) – 2.3 (3.1) – 0.06

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of basic education since RA (%) 290 2.3 (13.0) 259 1.0 (12.4) 1.3 (1.2) 0.07

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of vocational education since RA (%) 290 9.5 (30.5) 259 11.6 (31.1) – 2.1 (2.9) – 0.05

Food security and 

 Household is food insecure (%) 293 46.0 (49.8) 259 47.9 (50.1) – 1.9 (4.6) – 0.03

 Food insecurity scalee 289 1.87 (2.02) 257 1.90 (2.04) – 0.02 (0.19) – 0.01

Economic stressors

 Economic stress scalef 290 – 0.13 (0.51) 257 – 0.11 (0.47) – 0.02 (0.04) – 0.04

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. UC = usual care. 

ITT = intention-to-treat. RA = random assignment. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error. SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SSDI = Social Security 

Disability Insurance. SSI = Supplemental Security Income. TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children.

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

a

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

b Includes only families who responded to both 20-month and 37-month followup surveys; not weighted for survey nonresponse.

c

 Number of months worked for pay includes partial calendar months.

d Hours of work per week includes those not currently working (that is, those with 0 hours of work per week).

e

 Food insecurity scale ranges from 0 to 6, with higher values indicating higher food insecurity.

f

 Economic stress scale ranges from – 1 to 1, with higher values indicating higher economic stress.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey

Exhibit 5-12. PBTH Versus UC: Earnings and Employment 

Outcome

PBTH UC ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

 Earnings in quarters 11 to 14 after RA (2015Q3$) 349 6,496 (10,179) 314 5,690 (9,365) 806 (759) 0.08

 Any employment in quarters 11 to 14 after RA (%) 349 56.1 (49.7) 314 57.1 (49.6) – 1.0 (3.9) – 0.02

 Number of quarters employed in quarters 11 to 14 after RA 349 1.7 (1.7) 314 1.7 (1.7) 0.0 (0.1) – 0.01

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. UC = usual care. 

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

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

a

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

Note: See Chapter 2 and Appendix B for outcome definitions.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 72

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 5. Impacts of Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH) Compared With Usual Care (UC)

probably best interpreted as resulting from chance and not as 

evidence of an effect of assignment to the PBTH intervention. 

The team therefore concluded that no evidence indicates 

self-sufficiency effects for assignment to the PBTH group relative 

to assignment to the UC group at the 3-year followup survey.

5.8. Summary of Project-Based 

Transitional Housing (PBTH) Versus 

Usual Care (UC) Comparison Across 

Domains

For the PBTH-versus-UC comparison, 53 percent of families 

assigned to the PBTH group and 35 percent of families assigned 

to the UC group accessed transitional housing during the 

followup period. This contrast in program use is smaller than 

for other comparisons of active interventions with usual care.105

By 3 years after random assignment, having priority access to 

project-based transitional housing led to generally equivalent 

housing stability outcomes as did usual care. By this point, 

the reduction in emergency shelter use that was observed 

through most of the followup period had disappeared. In the 

adult well-being domain, assignment to the PBTH intervention 

reduced the proportion of family heads experiencing PTSD 

symptoms relative to usual care. Apart from this beneficial 

effect, the vast majority of indicators in the adult well-being, 

family preservation, child well-being, and self-sufficiency 

domains revealed equivalent results among families who were 

assigned to the PBTH group and families who were assigned to 

the UC group. 

The general lack of impacts on adult well-being and family 

self-sufficiency is noteworthy, given the emphasis placed by 

PBTH programs on delivering help and improvement in these 

domains. Only 2 of the 28 indicators examined for results 

in this respect showed any impact from assignment to the 

PBTH intervention. Overall, evidence did not emerge 3 years 

after random assignment to the PBTH group that the goals of 

project-based transitional housing as a distinctive approach 

to assisting families facing unstable housing situations had 

been achieved. One potential reason for the lack of statistically 

significant effects in the PBTH-versus-UC comparison is that 

services similar to those that the PBTH intervention provided 

were, in many cases, available to families in emergency shelter. 

Chapter 6 reports about how the PBTH intervention compares 

with the other two active interventions: SUB and CBRR.

105 Although the takeup rate for PBTH programs provides a weaker test of the intervention than might be hoped for, the low takeup of transitional housing on the part of 

many families assigned to the PBTH group is of policy interest. It is not clear to what extent this low takeup represents families who decline programs or programs that decline families. Qualitative data from a small number of families in this study (80 in all, 19 assigned to the PBTH group) suggest that both processes were important. When 

families declined offers, the location of programs was often an issue. Families offered permanent housing subsidies and community-based rapid re-housing had more 

opportunity to live in neighborhoods of their choice that were near jobs, children’s schools, and support networks (Fisher et al., 2014).
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 73

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

CHAPTER 6.

IMPACTS OF PERMANENT HOUSING 

SUBSIDY (SUB) COMPARED WITH 

COMMUNITY-BASED RAPID REHOUSING (CBRR), SUB COMPARED 

WITH PROJECT-BASED TRANSITIONAL 

HOUSING (PBTH), AND CBRR 

COMPARED WITH PBTH

T his chapter presents 37-month impact estimates 

for the three pairwise comparisons of interventions 

that do not involve usual care. These pairwise 

comparisons contrast assignment to the SUB, CBRR, and PBTH 

interventions with each other. In each of these comparisons, 

the goal is to determine the extent to which, 3 years after study 

entry, priority access to a particular type of program leads to 

better, worse, or no different family outcomes than those experienced by families who were eligible for that type of program 

but were offered priority access to another type of program. 

The chapter begins with a brief description of the analysis 

samples for these comparisons. Next, it addresses the SUBversus-CBRR comparison, first showing how much families in 

the SUB and CBRR groups used housing and services programs 

available to them, and then presenting effects on outcomes in 

the five study domains. The same set of information is then 

presented in turn for the SUB-versus-PBTH and CBRR-versusPBTH comparisons.

6.1. Analysis Samples for Pairwise 

Comparisons

As addressed previously in this report, families were included 

in comparisons of two interventions only if they passed the 

initial screening for an available slot for each intervention and 

were assigned to one of the interventions. This approach ensures that the groups of families being compared are as similar 

as possible. It also means, however, that the group of families 

representing each intervention differs, depending on the group 

with which it is compared. For example, the group of SUB 

families in the SUB-versus-CBRR comparison overlaps but is 

not identical to the group of SUB families in the SUB-versusPBTH comparison.106 If the group of families representing an 

intervention were always the same, then the results for any 

comparison of interventions could be logically deduced from 

the comparison of each intervention with usual care. Since the 

groups of families representing an intervention are not always 

the same, it is not possible to logically deduce the results of the 

comparisons from the comparisons of each intervention with 

usual care. Some signs and magnitudes of estimates differ from 

those suggested by the comparisons with usual care. Thus, 

this chapter describes the pairwise comparisons of the active 

interventions with each other. 

Exhibit 6-1 shows the number of families who are included 

in the various pairwise comparisons that comprise the entire 

study. Each column of the exhibit shows the number of 

families on both sides of a particular comparison. Each row 

shows how the number of families representing a particular 

intervention varies by pairwise comparison. 

106 By definition, usual care was available to all study families. Therefore, the samples of SUB, CBRR, and PBTH families in the comparisons with UC families contain all the 

families assigned to those interventions. The samples in the three pairwise comparisons of the active interventions with each other are subsets of these larger samples.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 74

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

Exhibit 6-1. Sample Sizes in the Six Pairwise Comparisons 

Assigned 

Intervention

Sample Size in Pairwise Comparisona

SUB 

Versus 

UC

CBRR

Versus 

UC

PBTH

Versus 

UC

SUB

Versus 

CBRR

SUB

Versus 

PBTH

CBRR

Versus 

PBTH

SUB 501 — — 362 215 —

CBRR — 434 — 290 — 180

PBTH — — 293 — 201 184

UC 395 434 259 — — —

Total 896 868 552 652 416 364

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

a

 Sample sizes are numbers of families who responded to the 37-month followup survey.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey

6.2. The Permanent Housing 

Subsidy (SUB) Versus CommunityBased Rapid Re-Housing (CBRR) 

Comparison 

The SUB-versus-CBRR comparison contrasts the permanent 

housing subsidy of the SUB intervention with the temporary 

rental assistance (usually lasting 7 to 8 months, but potentially 

renewable for up to 18 months) of the CBRR intervention. Both 

these interventions provided priority access to the rental subsidy, and both required families to engage in a housing search to 

locate a suitable private-market rental unit.107 The supportive 

services provided in the SUB intervention were limited to 

assistance with finding housing. The services offered by CBRR 

providers were also focused on the housing search. In addition 

to case management and assistance with housing search, CBRR 

programs provided services such as assistance obtaining public 

benefits and financial literacy/money management information 

to most of the families assigned who used the rapid re-housing 

program to which they received priority access. 

The subsidy in both interventions represented a substantial 

fraction of monthly rent. Beyond the length of the subsidy, a few 

differences in the administration of the programs are noteworthy. 

A standard formula set the subsidy amount in SUB programs, 

but subsidy determination in CBRR programs varied among 

providers, typically allowing for at least some case manager 

discretion in setting the subsidy amount. To continue to receive 

rapid re-housing assistance, families had to have incomes below 

certain thresholds. Most CBRR programs asked questions about 

income every 3 months as part of the recertification process to 

assess continued need for assistance. This frequency was much 

greater than the annual income recertification that providers of 

a permanent housing subsidy required.

6.2.1. Program Use by Families in the SUBVersus-CBRR Comparison

Exhibit 6-2 shows the use of eight types of homeless and 

housing programs by the 362 SUB families and 290 CBRR 

families analyzed in the SUB-versus-CBRR comparison.108

The first column shows the same general pattern of usage for 

these SUB families as for all SUB families (see Exhibit 3-2 in 

Chapter 3). Likewise, the proportions of these CBRR families 

shown in the second column are similar to the proportions of 

all CBRR families (see Exhibit 4-1 in Chapter 4). The first two 

columns show that 82 percent of families assigned to the SUB 

group used the permanent housing subsidies they were offered 

and 61 percent of CBRR families used rapid re-housing rental 

assistance at some point during the period of observation. The 

number of months of program use during the whole followup 

period (in columns three through six) and the proportions 

using a particular program in the month of the followup survey 

response (in columns seven and eight) are also similar to those 

in the previous exhibits. A large difference between the groups 

exists in the proportion of families participating in any program 

during the month of the followup survey, with 75 percent of 

SUB families participating in some program (most using permanent housing subsidies they were offered) and only 42 percent 

of CBRR families participating in any type of program. 

As expected, because of priority access to permanent housing 

subsidies, the proportion that ever used any form of permanent 

subsidy was higher for families assigned to the SUB group (87 

percent) than for families assigned to the CBRR group (38 percent). At the 37-month survey, 72 percent of SUB families were 

using some form of permanent housing subsidy compared with 

33 percent of CBRR families. This differential is 15 percentage 

points narrower than it was at the time of the 20-month survey, 

107 The minimal share (about 8 percent) of SUB families provided with public housing in Honolulu or with project-based vouchers in Bridgeport did not need to engage in 

housing searches.

108 The SUB-versus-CBRR comparison sample consists of 435 families assigned to the SUB group and 382 families assigned to the CBRR group. Of those 817 families, 362 

SUB families and 290 CBRR families (80 percent) responded to the 37-month followup survey.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 75

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

Exhibit 6-2. SUB Versus CBRR: Program Use Since RA 

Type of Homeless or 

Housing Assistance 

Percent Ever Used 

From RA to 37-Month 

Followup Surveya

Number of Months Used 

From RA to 37-Month Followup Survey, 

if Ever Used Type of Assistance

Percent Used in 

Month of Followup 

Survey Response

SUB CBRR SUB CBRR SUB CBRR

Mean Median Mean Median

Permanent housing subsidies offered to the 

SUB groupb

82.3 9.8 31.2 32.5 20.7 21.5 67.4 8.4

Rapid re-housingc 14.7 60.5 6.1 4.5 8.8 7.5 0.3 2.6

Transitional housingd 7.4 19.8 7.3 5.3 9.1 7.5 0.9 4.1

Permanent supportive housing 3.9 11.6 11.4 9.5 16.1 12.0 3.1 8.0

Public housing 1.1 10.9 23.3 24.5 19.4 18.5 1.2 10.0

Project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects 1.1 7.0 11.1 14.5 16.9 17.5 0.6 6.4

Any permanent housing subsidye 87.4 38.4 30.3 32.5 18.7 18.5 72.3 32.6

Emergency shelterf 84.9 90.4 3.0 2.0 4.6 2.3 1.8 2.5

No use of homeless or housing programsg 4.5 9.5 — — — — 24.7 58.3

N 362 290 — — — — 362 290

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

RA = random assignment.

a

 Percentage of families who ever used a type of assistance program during the period from the month of RA to the month of 37-month followup survey response (median period 

duration: 38 calendar months). Percentages do not add to 100 because some families used more than one program type during the followup period.

b Subsidies offered to the SUB group are housing choice vouchers plus site-specific programs offered to families assigned to the SUB group in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and Honolulu, Hawaii.

c

 Temporary subsidies offered to the CBRR group.

d All types of transitional housing, including those offered to the PBTH group.

e

 Includes the types of permanent subsidy offered to the SUB group plus permanent supportive housing, public housing, and project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects.

f

 All families were in emergency shelter at RA. Percentages less than 100 percent for ever used emergency shelter are because of missing data on shelter use.

g

 Indicates no use of the first six program types in this table during any of the followup period and no use of emergency shelter after the first 6 months after RA. No use in the month 

of followup survey response indicates no use of any of these seven program types.

Notes: Percentages are regression adjusted, controlling for site and randomization ratio. Percentages, means, and medians are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent full 

comparison sample.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data

when use of permanent housing subsidies had decreased for 

the SUB group (by 5 percentage points) and had increased for 

the CBRR group (by 10 percentage points).

6.2.2. Impacts of the SUB Intervention 

Compared With the CBRR Intervention

The study team hypothesizes that assignment to the SUB 

intervention relative to assignment to the CBRR intervention 

will reduce homelessness and improve housing stability. The 

hypothesis is based on the premise that many of the very poor 

families who experience homelessness will need long-term 

rental subsidies to remain stably housed. The magnitude of 

this expected difference has been unknown before this study, 

however. Differential effects on more distal outcomes are 

theorized to depend on the magnitude of the housing stability 

effect. To the extent that permanent housing subsidies provide 

greater residential stability or reduce parental stress (stemming 

from moves or from fear of homelessness) more than temporary 

subsidies do, the benefits of assignment to the SUB intervention 

in other areas such as child well-being and family preservation 

may be larger than the effects of the CBRR intervention. 

Although assistance from CBRR programs is temporary rather 

than permanent, its emphasis on restoring families to conventional housing as swiftly as possible leads the team to expect 

that, relative to assignment to the SUB intervention, assignment 

to the CBRR intervention will reduce the length of the shelter 

stay at the time of study entry. 

The Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing and 

Services Interventions for Homeless Families (hereafter, the Short-Term 

Impacts report; Gubits et al., 2015) found that, 20 months after 

random assignment, assignment to the SUB intervention reduced 

homelessness and doubling up compared with assignment to the 

CBRR intervention. It also led to having more families living in 

their own place and experiencing fewer residential moves. In 

domains other than housing stability, the SUB intervention had 

a few beneficial impacts compared with the CBRR intervention, 

but it reduced family income and work for pay. Both interventions reduced the length of the initial shelter stay by the 

same amount—about one-half month. The remainder of this 

section presents the impact evidence of how these interventions 

compare at 3 years after random assignment.

Impacts on Housing Stability in the SUB-VersusCBRR Comparison 

Exhibit 6-3 shows the effect on housing stability of being 

assigned to the SUB group relative to being assigned to the 

CBRR group. The first panel of Exhibit 6-3 shows that, relative 

to assignment to the CBRR intervention, assignment to the SUB 
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 76

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

Exhibit 6-3. SUB Versus CBRR: Impacts on Housing Stability at 37 Months 

Outcome

SUB CBRR ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Homelessness or doubled up during the followup period

 At least 1 night homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months or in shelter in 

past 12 months (%) [confirmatory]c

362 17.2 (37.2) 290 37.6 (48.2) – 20.4*** (3.6) – 0.36

 At least 1 night homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months (%) 362 16.1 (35.9) 290 31.7 (46.8) – 15.5*** (3.6) – 0.28

 At least 1 night homelessb in past 6 months (%) 362 10.0 (29.2) 290 13.8 (33.8) – 3.8 (2.8) – 0.09

 At least 1 night doubled up in past 6 months (%) 362 11.2 (31.0) 290 26.5 (44.4) – 15.3*** (3.3) – 0.29

 Any stay in emergency shelter in past 6 months (%) [Program Usage Data] 362 3.8 (18.6) 290 4.6 (20.0) – 0.8 (1.9) – 0.02

 Any stay in emergency shelter in months 21 to 32 after RA (%) [Program 

Usage Data]

362 5.2 (22.3) 290 18.0 (37.2) – 12.8*** (2.9) – 0.30

 Number of days homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months 361 19.9 (50.5) 289 44.3 (71.7) – 24.4*** (5.4) – 0.28

 Number of days homelessb in past 6 months 362 10.0 (35.8) 290 13.6 (40.3) – 3.6 (3.5) – 0.06

 Number of days doubled up in past 6 months 361 12.8 (41.0) 289 32.9 (64.6) – 20.1*** (4.5) – 0.27

Housing independence

 Living in own house or apartment at followup (%) 362 82.6 (37.2) 290 71.2 (46.5) 11.4*** (962) 0.09

 Living in own house or apartment with no housing assistance (%) 361 15.4 (36.3) 288 38.2 (47.9) – 22.7*** (1,038) – 0.01

 Living in own house or apartment with housing assistance (%) 361 67.0 (46.8) 288 33.6 (47.3) 33.3*** (4.3) – 0.01

Number of places lived

 Number of places lived in past 6 monthsd 362 1.3 (0.8) 290 1.5 (1.0) – 0.1** (0.1) – 0.12

Housing quality

 Persons per room 346 1.2 (0.5) 277 1.5 (1.2) – 0.3*** (0.1) – 0.25

 Housing quality is poor or fair (%) 345 26.9 (44.0) 278 28.2 (45.2) – 1.3 (3.8) – 0.02

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

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

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

a

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

b The definition of “homeless” in this report includes stays in emergency shelters and places not meant for human habitation. It excludes transitional housing.

c

 After adjustment of multiple comparisons, the impact on the confirmatory outcome is statistically significant at the .01 level for the SUB-versus-CBRR comparison.

d The number of places lived in past 6 months is topcoded at 6 places.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey; Program Usage Data

intervention caused reductions in six of the nine homelessness 

and doubled-up measures examined. Relative to assignment 

to the CBRR intervention, assignment to the SUB intervention 

reduced the confirmatory outcome of being homeless or 

doubled up in the past 6 months or in emergency shelter in the 

past 12 months from 38 to 17 percent. This effect represents a 

20-percentage-point reduction, more than one-half of the prevalence in the CBRR group. This reduction appears to be largely 

driven by a decrease in doubling up—caused by assignment 

to the SUB group—rather than by a decrease in homelessness. 

Of families assigned to the SUB group in this comparison, 11 

percent spent at least 1 night doubled up in the 6 months before the survey compared with 27 percent of families assigned 

to the CBRR group, a reduction by more than one-half. The 

impact estimates for survey measures of homelessness (stays in 

emergency shelter and places not meant for human habitation) 

are smaller than those for the doubling-up outcomes and are 

not statistically significant. 

The impact estimates for emergency shelter outcomes based 

on Program Usage Data tell a mixed story. During months 

21 to 32 after random assignment (the last 12 months with 

data available for all study families), assignment to the SUB 

group reduced the proportion of families who had a stay in 

emergency shelter from 18 to 5 percent relative to assignment 

to the CBRR group. No difference is detected in the proportions 

of SUB and CBRR groups using emergency shelter during the 

6 months before the followup survey (different months relative 

to random assignment for each family but centered around 

months 32 to 37). This latter finding in combination with the 

survey estimates on homelessness suggests that the effect of 

assignment to the SUB intervention (relative to assignment to 

the CBRR intervention) on emergency shelter use faded near 

the end of the 3-year followup period because of a reduction in 

shelter use over time by CBRR families.

The second panel of Exhibit 6-3 shows that, relative to assignment to the CBRR intervention, assignment to the SUB intervention 

increases the proportion of families living in their own house 

or apartment (with or without assistance) at the 37-month 

followup point from 71 to 83 percent. At 3 years after random 

assignment, SUB families are much less likely (23 percentage 

points) than CBRR families to be living in their own place with 

no housing assistance and much more likely (33 percentage 

points) to be living in their own place with housing assistance. 
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 77

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

The third panel of the exhibit shows that SUB families had 

greater residential stability than did CBRR families in the 

months before the 37-month survey, reducing the number of 

places families lived in the past 6 months by 0.1 places. The 

bottom panel of the exhibit shows that SUB families were living 

in less crowded conditions than were CBRR families, with an 

average of 1.2 persons per room compared with 1.5 persons 

per room for CBRR families. As at 20 months after random 

assignment, no difference in housing quality was observed.

Impacts on Family Preservation in the SUB-VersusCBRR Comparison 

Any differential effects of the SUB intervention compared with 

the CBRR intervention of family preservation would be expected to be indirect, via the substantial differential effects on housing stability. Exhibit 6-4 shows that, compared with assignment 

to the CBRR group, assignment to the SUB group had no effect 

in the survey data on family separations or reunifications in the 

6 months before the 37-month followup survey.

Exhibit 6-5 shows impacts on outcomes from the child welfare 

agency administrative data collected in 5 of the 12 study sites. 

The study team finds an effect on the proportion of family 

heads with a formal child separation that began after random 

assignment. Assignment to the SUB group reduced the proportion 

by 6 percentage points from a mean of 11 percent for those 

assigned to the CBRR group. This effect contrasts with the effect 

of close to zero found on the survey measure of the proportion 

of family heads with a formal child separation that began after random assignment in both the full sample (Exhibit 6-4) and the 

subsample of the five sites where child welfare administrative 

data were collected (not shown). The reasons for the discrepancy between the survey and administrative impact estimates 

are not clear. No effect was detected on the total days separated 

from at least one child.

Impacts on Adult Well-Being in the SUB-VersusCBRR Comparison 

As with family preservation, any differential effects of the SUB 

intervention compared with the CBRR intervention on adult 

well-being would be expected to be indirect, via the substantial 

differential effects on housing stability. The Short-Term Impacts 

report (Gubits et al., 2015) observed that, compared with 

assignment to the CBRR group, assignment to the SUB group 

Exhibit 6-4. SUB Versus CBRR: Impacts on Family Preservation at 37 Months 

Outcome

SUB CBRR ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Current or recent separations of family members present at baseline

 Family has at least one child separated in past 6 months (%) 353 14.2 (34.9) 288 16.4 (35.7) – 2.2 (3.1) – 0.05

 Family has at least one foster care placement in past 6 monthsb (%) 356 3.6 (18.8) 288 4.2 (16.5) – 0.6 (1.7) – 0.03

 Spouse/partner separated in past 6 months, of those with spouse/partner 

present at RA (%)

89 43.3 (50.1) 77 49.9 (50.1) – 6.6 (8.3) – 0.11

Reunification of family members reported as separated at baseline

 Spouse/partner reunified, of those with spouse/partner absent at RA (%) 76 39.4 (49.7) 47 29.6 (47.1) 9.8 (11.0) 0.17

 Living in own house or apartment with no housing assistance (%) 40 30.4 (46.4) 22 26.6 (45.6) 3.8 (19.6) 0.08

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

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

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

a

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

b Foster care placement outcome includes any children (present at baseline) who are placed in foster care or adopted by another family at the time of followup.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey

Exhibit 6-5. SUB Versus CBRR: Impacts on Child Welfare Outcomes 

Outcome

SUB CBRR ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

 Had a formal child separation that began after RA (%) 171 5.6 (23.5) 175 11.1 (31.2) – 5.6* (3.0) – 16.93

 Total days during followup separated from at least one childb 171 42.4 (188.1) 175 47.6 (177.7) – 5.2 (13.9) – 0.02

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

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

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

a

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

b Includes separations started before and after RA. Length of followup varies by site. Alameda County = 1,075 days. Baltimore = 1,071 days. Kansas City = 1,069 days. Minneapolis = 1,046 days. Phoenix = 1,123 days.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions. Sample limited to five sites where child welfare records were collected (Alameda County, Baltimore, Kansas City, Minneapolis, and Phoenix).

Source: State child welfare agency records
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 78

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

reduced the proportion of families who reported post-traumatic 

stress disorder symptoms in the month before the 20-month 

survey and also reduced the incidence of intimate partner 

violence by more than one-half. 

Exhibit 6-6 shows the adult well-being results for the SUBversus-CBRR comparison for the longer followup period. The 

37-month analysis shows no evidence that assignment to the 

SUB group had differential effects on any measure of physical 

or mental health, intimate partner violence, or substance dependence or abuse compared with assignment to the CBRR group. 

Impacts on Child Well-Being in the SUB-VersusCBRR Comparison 

Exhibit 6-7 shows the effects of assignment to the SUB group 

relative to assignment to the CBRR group on child well-being 

outcomes measured across all ages. Given the impact of 

assignment to the SUB intervention relative to assignment to 

the CBRR intervention on residential stability at both 20 and 

37 months, it is not surprising that the SUB intervention has 

an effect on school mobility (approximately one fewer school 

moves since random assignment for every four children in 

families assigned to the SUB group). Only one other effect (for 

two out of nine) appears in the child outcomes assessed across 

age groups, also in the school domain (first panel of Exhibit 6-7)—

children in the SUB group had slightly better grades. Because 

this impact did not appear in the SUB-versus-UC comparison, 

it is perhaps best thought of as a random variation. No effects 

were found on child physical health or on behavioral strengths 

and challenges.

Only 3 of 20 age-specific outcomes shown in Exhibit 6-8 show 

effects, one for younger children ages 2 to 5 and two for the 

older 8- to 17-year-old age group. Younger children in the SUB 

group had more absences from childcare or preschool than did 

young children in the CBRR group. Older children in the SUB 

group were less than one-half as likely to use substances (3 versus 8 percent) but reported less goal-oriented thinking (effect 

size of 0.26) than did children in the CBRR group. Again, these 

impacts were not evident in the SUB-versus-UC comparison. 

Of the 5 statistically significant effects, 3 favored the SUB group 

and 2 favored the CBRR group. Only the impact on school mobility 

was apparent in the SUB-versus-UC comparison.109 The others 

are, therefore, probably best interpreted as random variations.

Exhibit 6-6. SUB Versus CBRR: Impacts on Adult Well-Being at 37 Months 

Outcome

SUB CBRR ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Adult physical health

 Health in past 30 days was poor or fair (%) 362 30.9 (46.3) 289 30.8 (45.5) 0.1 (3.5) 0.00

Adult mental health

 Goal-oriented thinkingb 357 4.47 (1.06) 287 4.49 (0.99) – 0.02 (0.08) – 0.02

 Psychological distressc 360 6.72 (5.68) 289 6.64 (5.70) 0.08 (0.45) 0.01

Adult trauma symptoms

 Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in past 30 days (%) 357 22.4 (41.6) 287 19.1 (38.6) 3.3 (0.1) – 0.12

Adult substance use

 Alcohol dependence or drug abused (%) 361 11.4 (32.1) 289 9.6 (30.1) 1.8 (2.5) 0.05

 Alcohol dependenced (%) 362 8.7 (28.4) 289 7.6 (27.6) 1.2 (2.2) 0.04

 Drug abused (%) 361 3.6 (18.7) 289 3.1 (15.4) 0.5 (1.6) 0.02

Experience of intimate partner violence

 Experienced intimate partner violence in past 6 months (%) 361 7.1 (25.9) 290 8.9 (26.5) – 1.8 (2.3) – 0.05

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

ITT = intention-to-treat. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error.

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

a

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

b Goal-oriented thinking is measured with a modified version of the State Hope Scale and ranges from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive, goal-oriented 

thinking.

c

 Psychological distress is measured with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) and ranges from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater distress.

d Alcohol dependence is measured with the Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS-4), and drug abuse is measured with six items from the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10). 

Both are measured for the 6 months before the 37-month survey.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey

109 This reduction in school mobility is also corroborated by reductions in the average number of places lived by SUB families relative to CBRR families in the 6-month 

periods before the followup surveys.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 79

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

Exhibit 6-7. SUB Versus CBRR: Impacts on Child Well-Being Across Age Groups at 37 Months 

Outcome

SUB CBRR ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Child education

 Number of schools attended since RAb 417 1.9 (0.9) 325 2.1 (0.9) – 0.3*** (3.5) 0.00

 Grade completion (not held back) (%) 339 91.17 (28.44) 269 92.63 (28.01) – 1.46 (0.08) – 0.02

 School gradesc 311 3.1 (0.9) 252 3.0 (0.9) 0.1* (0.45) 0.01

Child physical health

 Poor or fair health in past 30 days (%) 485 7.4 (24.9) 396 6.4 (23.9) 1.0 (2.3) 0.03

 Well-child checkup in past year (%) 482 89.1 (30.3) 395 91.8 (27.7) – 2.8 (2.4) – 0.07

 Child has regular source of health care (%) 484 90.9 (25.9) 396 94.3 (23.9) – 3.4 (2.5) – 0.09

 Sleep problemsd 483 1.98 (1.03) 396 2.05 (1.01) – 0.07 (0.08) – 0.05

Child behavioral strengths and challenges

 Behavior problemse 458 0.45 (1.28) 378 0.39 (1.20) 0.06 (0.11) 0.03

 Prosocial behaviorf 459 – 0.21 (1.16) 379 – 0.19 (1.16) – 0.02 (0.10) – 0.02

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

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

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

a

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

b Number of schools outcome is topcoded at 4 or more schools.

c

 School grades outcome is defined as 1 = mostly Ds or Fs, 2 = mostly Cs, 3 = mostly Bs, 4 = mostly As.

d Sleep problems outcome ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating more frequent tiredness upon waking and during the day.

e

 Behavior problems outcome is measured as the standardized Total Difficulties score from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).

f

 Prosocial behavior is measured as the standardized prosocial domain score from the SDQ.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey (parent report)

Impacts on Self-Sufficiency in the SUB-VersusCBRR Comparison 

The Short-Term Impacts report (Gubits et al., 2015) found that, 

20 months after random assignment, assignment to the SUB 

group reduced work for pay, earnings, and family income relative to assignment to the CBRR group. Assignment to the SUB 

group also decreased economic stress. Exhibit 6-9 shows the 

effects on self-sufficiency outcomes in the SUB-versus-CBRR 

comparison at the 3-year followup point. The study team finds 

that assignment to the SUB intervention caused differential 

effects on 2 of the 20 outcomes examined. Families assigned to 

the SUB group worked, on average, nearly 2 months less than 

families assigned to the CBRR group during the 3-year followup 

period. Given that this differential is of comparable magnitude 

to the effect detected at 20 months and that the estimates for 

impacts on work since the 20-month followup point and at 37 

months are small and statistically insignificant, it appears that 

the reduction in work effort apparent at 20 months faded after 

that point. At the 37-month followup point, the study team 

finds no evidence that assignment to the SUB group relative 

to assignment to the CBRR group affected annualized current 

earnings or total family cash income or sources of income. 

Exhibit 6-10 shows impact estimates from administrative data 

on outcomes for quarters 11 to 14 after the quarter of random 

assignment. The analysis of administrative data finds no effect 

of assignment to the SUB group relative to assignment to the 

CBRR group on total earnings, the proportion of family heads 

employed, or the number of quarters employed during the year.

Turning back to Exhibit 6-9, assignment to the SUB group 

increased the proportion of families who said they participated 

in 2 or more weeks of school since random assignment (14 percent of SUB families, 8 percent of CBRR families). Because this 

magnitude is larger than would be expected, given the point 

estimates in the SUB-versus-UC and CBRR-versus-UC comparisons, 

it is perhaps best thought of as a random variation. Overall, 

the study team finds some evidence that assignment to the SUB 

group decreased work effort relative to assignment to the CBRR 

group during the entire 3-year followup period, but the team 

did not find that this effect was still present at the 3-year followup point. The team also did not find evidence of effects on 

earnings, family income, nonhousing public assistance receipt, 

food security, or economic stress at the 3-year followup point.

Summary of SUB-Versus-CBRR Comparison Across 

Domains 

For the SUB-versus-CBRR comparison, the study engineered a 

notable contrast in the mix of program use during the 37-month 

followup period. At 3 years after random assignment, 82 percent 

of SUB families had ever used the permanent housing subsidies 

they were offered compared with only 10 percent of CBRR families in this comparison who used these subsidies. Altogether, 

61 percent of CBRR families had ever used rapid re-housing 
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 80

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

Exhibit 6-8. SUB Versus CBRR: Impacts on Child Well-Being Developmental Outcomes by Age Group at 37 months 

Outcome

SUB CBRR ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Ages 2 to 5 yearsb

 Preschool or Head Start enrollmentc (%) 156 37.1 (48.7) 135 28.7 (47.0) 8.4 (5.9) 0.14

 Child care or preschool absences in past monthd 64 0.85 (0.89) 38 0.43 (0.86) 0.42* (0.24) 0.38

 Positive child care or preschool experiencese 67 0.79 (0.40) 40 0.86 (0.41) – 0.07 (0.11) – 0.14

 Positive child care or preschool attitudesf 67 4.68 (0.73) 40 4.52 (0.93) 0.16 (0.23) 0.19

 Child care or preschool conduct problemsg (%) 70 11.6 (32.0) 43 6.2 (32.4) 5.3 (9.2) 0.19

Ages 2 years to 5 years, 6 months

 Met developmental milestonesh (%) 136 67.7 (45.7) 121 75.0 (43.8) – 7.3 (6.0) – 0.13

Ages 3 years, 6 months to 7 years

 Verbal abilityi 175 – 0.11 (1.02) 134 – 0.26 (1.03) 0.14 (0.11) 0.11

 Math abilityj 173 – 0.22 (1.00) 134 – 0.35 (0.86) 0.13 (0.12) 0.11

 Executive functioningk (self-regulation) 172 14.97 (16.00) 129 15.20 (16.11) – 0.23 (1.43) – 0.01

Ages 5 to 17 yearsl

 School enrollmentc (%) 330 98.0 (13.4) 263 96.6 (19.2) 1.4 (1.6) 0.07

 School absences in past monthd,m 156 0.90 (0.90) 107 0.81 (0.99) 0.09 (0.15) 0.07

 Positive school experiencese,m 157 0.58 (0.59) 107 0.50 (0.57) 0.08 (0.08) 0.09

 Positive school attitudesf,m 157 4.29 (1.05) 107 4.10 (1.13) 0.19 (0.14) 0.13

 School conduct problemsg,m (%) 158 22.3 (40.8) 106 26.6 (44.8) – 4.3 (6.0) – 0.07

Ages 8 to 17 years

 Anxietyn 207 35.56 (7.63) 167 34.80 (7.63) 0.76 (0.84) 0.07

 Fearso 208 62.45 (14.32) 169 64.36 (14.40) – 1.91 (1.63) – 0.10

 Substance usep (%) 206 2.80 (18.16) 165 8.30 (26.05) – 5.50** (2.73) – 0.15

 Goal-oriented thinkingq 203 21.54 (5.24) 162 23.23 (4.74) – 1.70*** (0.61) – 0.26

 School effort in past monthr 208 2.84 (0.76) 165 2.78 (0.83) 0.06 (0.10) 0.06

 Arrests or police involvement in past 6 monthss (%) 117 7.93 (25.35) 94 8.68 (28.05) – 0.75 (4.11) – 0.02

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

ITT = intention-to-treat. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error.

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

a

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

b Includes focal children who were ages 4 years or younger on the September 1 before the 37-month parent survey.

c

 Preschool or Head Start enrollment outcome is defined as enrollment in preschool, center-based child care, or school.

d Absences outcome is defined as 0 = no absences in past month, 1 = one to two absences, 2 = three to five absences, 3 = six or more absences.

e

 Positive child care, preschool, or school experiences outcome is defined as – 1 = mostly negative experiences, 0 = both positive and negative experiences, 1 = mostly positive 

experiences.

f

 Positive child care, preschool, or school attitudes outcome is parent report of how much child likes school and ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating greater like of 

school.

g

 Child care, preschool, or school conduct problems outcome is defined as 0 = no conduct problems reported to parent, 1 = parent contacted about conduct problems or suspension or expulsion from school or child care center.

h

 Met developmental milestones outcome is defined as scoring above the typical development cutoffs in all domains of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3).

i

 Verbal ability outcome is the nationally standardized score from the Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III) letter-word identification test.

j

 Math ability outcome is the nationally standardized score from the WJ III applied problems test.

k

 Executive functioning outcome is the Head Toes Knees Shoulders (HTKS) score and ranges from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating greater executive functioning.

l

 Includes focal children who were ages 5 to 17 years on the September 1 before the 37-month parent survey and no older than 17 years at the time of the survey.

m This parent-reported outcome was collected from only the first 38 percent of parents surveyed due to an error in data collection.

n

 Anxiety (child report) is measured using the A-Trait scale from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC). Scores range from 20 to 60, with higher scores indicating 

greater anxiety.

o

 Fears outcome (child report) is the score from the Fears Scale and ranges from 33 to 99, with higher scores indicating more fear.

p Substance use (child report) is measured with 23 items from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

q Goal-oriented thinking (child report) is measured with a modified version of the Children’s Hope Scale and ranges from 6 to 30, with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive, goal-oriented thinking.

r

 School effort outcome (child report) ranges from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater effort during school day and on homework.

s

 Arrest or police involvement in past 6 months is from parent report.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

See Chapter 2 and Appendix B for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey (parent report); Family Options Study 37-month child survey (child report); ASQ-3; WJ III; HTKS
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 81

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

Exhibit 6-9. SUB Versus CBRR: Impacts on Self-Sufficiency at 37 Months 

Outcome

SUB CBRR ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Employment status

 Work for pay in week before survey (%) 362 36.3 (48.0) 290 36.9 (48.7) – 0.6 (3.9) – 0.01

 Any work for pay since 20-month surveyb (%) 336 59.4 (49.3) 271 61.1 (48.6) – 1.7 (3.9) – 0.04

 Months worked for pay since 20-month surveyb,c 334 7.0 (7.9) 271 7.4 (8.2) – 0.4 (0.6) – 0.05

 Any work for pay since RA (%) 362 69.3 (46.4) 290 74.1 (42.0) – 4.9 (3.5) – 0.09

 Months worked for pay since RAc 357 12.4 (13.8) 288 14.1 (13.6) – 1.7* (1.0) – 0.11

 Hours of work per week at current main jobd 362 11.2 (16.4) 289 11.9 (17.2) – 0.8 (1.4) – 0.04

Income sources and amounts

 Annualized current earnings ($) 357 6,114 (10,296) 285 6,432 (11,288) – 318 (828) – 0.03

 Total family income ($) 340 11,097 (9,734) 277 11,998 (9,448) – 901 (757) – 0.07

 Anyone in family had earnings in past month (%) 362 47.5 (49.9) 290 47.1 (50.1) 0.4 (4.0) 0.01

 Anyone in family received TANF in past month (%) 362 27.9 (44.8) 290 32.0 (46.2) – 4.1 (3.7) – 0.08

 Anyone in family received SSDI in past month (%) 360 7.4 (27.3) 290 10.7 (27.6) – 3.3 (2.4) – 0.10

 Anyone in family received SSI in past month (%) 362 13.3 (35.1) 290 16.1 (35.9) – 2.9 (2.7) – 0.07

 Anyone in family received SNAP/Food Stamps in past month (%) 362 79.4 (40.2) 290 82.7 (37.8) – 3.3 (3.4) – 0.08

 Anyone in family received WIC in past month (%) 362 23.9 (43.0) 290 26.9 (45.3) – 3.0 (3.4) – 0.06

Education and training

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of any school or training since RA (%) 361 38.3 (48.7) 290 37.8 (48.6) 0.5 (4.1) 0.01

 Number of weeks in school/training programs since RA 358 7.4 (14.3) 283 7.6 (16.9) – 0.2 (1.2) – 0.01

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of school since RA (%) 361 13.6 (33.4) 290 8.2 (27.1) 5.4** (2.6) 0.14

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of basic education since RA (%) 361 3.0 (17.2) 290 4.5 (21.5) – 1.5 (1.6) – 0.09

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of vocational education since RA (%) 361 10.3 (31.1) 290 12.0 (33.8) – 1.7 (2.5) – 0.04

Food security 

 Household is food insecure (%) 362 38.5 (49.0) 290 41.1 (49.3) – 2.6 (4.0) – 0.04

 Food insecurity scalee 360 1.59 (2.03) 290 1.75 (2.05) – 0.16 (0.16) – 0.06

Economic stressors

 Economic stress scalef 360 – 0.24 (0.45) 287 – 0.20 (0.48) – 0.04 (0.04) – 0.07

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

ITT = intention-to-treat. RA = random assignment. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error. SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SSDI = Social Security 

Disability Insurance. SSI = Supplemental Security Income. TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children.

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

a

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

b Includes only families who responded to both 20-month and 37-month followup surveys; not weighted for survey nonresponse.

c

 Number of months worked for pay includes partial calendar months.

d Hours of work per week includes those not currently working (that is, those with 0 hours of work per week).

e

 Food insecurity scale ranges from 0 to 6, with higher values indicating higher food insecurity.

f

 Economic stress scale ranges from – 1 to 1, with higher values indicating higher economic stress.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey

Exhibit 6-10. SUB Versus CBRR: Earnings and Employment 

Outcome

SUB CBRR ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

 Earnings in quarters 11 to 14 after RA (2015Q3$) 426 5,578 (8,907) 373 6,322 (10,414) – 745 (711) – 0.08

 Any employment in quarters 11 to 14 after RA (%) 426 51.5 (50.0) 373 56.8 (49.6) – 5.3 (3.6) – 0.11

 Number of quarters employed in quarters 11 to 14 after RA 426 1.6 (1.7) 373 1.6 (1.7) – 0.1 (0.1) – 0.05

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

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

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

a

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

Note: See Chapter 2 and Appendix B for outcome definitions.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 82

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

compared with 15 percent of SUB families. In the month of the 

followup survey response, 72 percent of SUB families were using any form of permanent subsidy compared with 33 percent 

of CBRR families and use of temporary subsidies had largely 

ended (less than 3 percent in both groups).

These differences in program participation led to notable 

improvements in housing stability for families assigned to the 

SUB group compared with assignment to the CBRR group. 

Only 5 percent of SUB families compared with 18 percent of 

CBRR families spent at least 1 night in an emergency shelter 

during months 21 to 32 after random assignment. After month 

32, it appears that the main preventive effect of assignment 

to the SUB intervention relative to assignment to the CBRR 

intervention is in the reduction of the proportion of families 

experiencing doubling up rather than in the reduction of stays 

in emergency shelter or places not meant for human habitation. 

Assignment to the SUB group relative to assignment to the 

CBRR group, reduced the proportion of families who had at 

least 1 night doubled up in the 6 months before the 37-month 

survey from 27 to 11 percent. Compared with assignment to 

the CBRR intervention, the SUB intervention also increased the 

proportion of families living in their own house or apartment 

at the time of the followup survey from 71 to 83 percent, 

reduced crowding, and reduced the number of places where 

families lived in the past 6 months. No evidence was found that 

assignment to the SUB group affected either the proportion of 

families who reported homelessness (using the survey measure 

of homelessness) or the proportion with an emergency shelter 

stay (measured by Program Usage Data) during the 6-month 

period before the survey. 

The SUB-versus-CBRR comparison shows that, at 3 years 

after random assignment, assignment to the SUB intervention 

instead of to the CBRR intervention had no effect on any of 

the outcomes examined in the family preservation and adult 

well-being domains. The study team finds a few effects in the 

child well-being domain but finds no pattern favoring either 

the SUB or CBRR intervention. The lower number of schools 

attended since random assignment due to assignment to the 

SUB group is perhaps the most credible of these effects, given 

its consistency with the reduction in the number of schools 

children attended found in the SUB-versus-UC comparison and 

the reduction in the number of places families lived found in 

this SUB-versus-CBRR comparison. 

In the self-sufficiency domain, the study team finds some evidence that assignment to the SUB group decreased work effort 

relative to assignment to the CBRR group during the entire 

3-year followup period, but the team did not find evidence that 

this effect was still present at the 3-year followup point. The 

team also did not find evidence of effects on earnings, family 

income, nonhousing public assistance receipt, food security, or 

economic stress at the 3-year followup point.

Overall, do the families assigned to the SUB group appear to 

be doing better at 37 months after random assignment than 

the families assigned to the CBRR group? In some important 

respects, the answer is “yes.” The SUB families, on average, are 

experiencing less doubling up, are more likely to live in their 

own place, and are living in less crowded conditions than are 

CBRR families. Should SUB families, over time, give up the 

permanent housing assistance to which they were given preferential access by the study—or if increasing numbers of CBRR 

families find their way to permanent housing subsidies—these 

differences may shrink in the future. 

6.3. The Permanent Housing 

Subsidy (SUB) Versus ProjectBased Transitional Housing (PBTH) 

Comparison 

The SUB-versus-PBTH comparison contrasts the permanent 

housing subsidy of the SUB intervention with the temporary 

housing (up to 24 months, with a median stay of 13 months 

during this followup period) in agency-controlled units paired 

with intensive supportive services of the PBTH intervention. 

PBTH programs offer comprehensive case management and 

provide many supportive services directly. These services are 

entirely absent from the SUB intervention.

6.3.1. Program Use by Families in the SUBVersus-PBTH Comparison

Exhibit 6-11 shows the use of eight types of homeless and 

housing programs by the 215 SUB families and 201 PBTH 

families analyzed in the SUB-versus-PBTH comparison during 

the 37-month followup period.110 The first column shows some 

modest differences in the general pattern of usage for these SUB 

families compared with all SUB families (shown in Exhibit 3-2 in 

Chapter 3).111 The proportions of these PBTH families shown 

in the second column are similar to the proportions of all 

PBTH families (shown in Exhibit 5-1 in Chapter 5). The first 

110 The SUB-versus-PBTH comparison sample consists of 256 families assigned to the SUB group and 240 families assigned to the PBTH group. Of those 496 families, 215 

SUB families and 201 CBRR families (84 percent) responded to the 37-month followup survey.

111 When compared with all SUB families, this subset of SUB families is somewhat less likely to ever use rapid re-housing (6 percent rather than 11 percent).
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 83

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

two columns show that 82 percent of families assigned to the 

SUB group used the permanent housing subsidies they were 

offered and 50 percent of families assigned to the PBTH group 

used transitional housing. The number of months of program 

use (in columns three through six) and the proportions using 

the program in the month of the followup survey response (in 

columns seven and eight) are largely similar to those in the 

previous exhibits. As a result, a large difference exists in the 

proportion of families participating in some program during 

the survey month, with 74 percent of SUB families doing 

so (most receiving a permanent housing subsidy offered to 

the SUB group) and less than one-half of PBTH families (39 

percent) participating in any program. 

As expected, because of priority access to permanent housing 

subsidies, the proportion that ever used a permanent subsidy 

was higher for families assigned to the SUB group (87 percent) 

than for families assigned to the PBTH group (31 percent). At 

the 37-month survey, 70 percent of SUB families were using 

some form of permanent housing subsidy compared with 27 

percent of PBTH families. This differential is 16 percentage 

points narrower than it was at the time of the 20-month survey. 

Use of permanent housing subsidies had decreased for the SUB 

group (by 5 percentage points) and had increased for the PBTH 

group (by 11 percentage points).

6.3.2. Impacts of the SUB Intervention 

Compared With the PBTH Intervention

The SUB and PBTH interventions are based on divergent views 

about the package of housing assistance and services that homeless 

families need. The premise of permanent housing assistance as 

an intervention is that family homelessness is centrally a housing affordability problem. From the perspective of permanent 

housing subsidy proponents, by addressing this problem with 

permanent housing assistance, assignment to the SUB intervention should reduce homelessness and improve housing stability 

relative to assignment to the PBTH intervention. By this means, 

it may improve family preservation, adult well-being, and child 

well-being. By reducing the proportion of income that must be 

devoted to housing costs, it may improve self-sufficiency. 

By contrast, the premise for transitional housing as an 

intervention is that most families who become homeless have 

additional barriers that make it difficult for them to secure and 

maintain housing. The services offered in transitional housing 

address psychosocial problems and barriers to housing stability 

and attempt to put families on track for better employment 

and earnings. By this means, proponents of project-based 

transitional housing expect that assignment to the PBTH intervention will improve long-term housing stability, employment, 

Exhibit 6-11. SUB Versus PBTH: Program Use Since RA 

Type of Homeless or 

Housing Assistance 

Percent Ever Used 

From RA to 37-Month 

Followup Surveya

Number of Months Used 

From RA to 37-Month Followup Survey, 

if Ever Used Type of Assistance

Percent Used in 

Month of Followup 

Survey Response

SUB PBTH SUB PBTH SUB PBTH

Mean Median Mean Median

Permanent housing subsidies offered to the 

SUB groupb

82.3 7.2 31.4 33.5 13.1 11.5 65.8 6.5

Rapid re-housingc 5.7 12.0 3.7 3.5 9.2 10.5 0.4 0.9

Transitional housingd 9.4 49.5 10.9 8.0 14.8 13.0 1.0 7.3

Permanent supportive housing 2.1 11.6 7.2 8.0 15.3 12.5 1.2 8.6

Public housing 1.6 8.2 22.5 20.5 17.9 15.5 1.5 6.9

Project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects 1.7 7.2 15.6 14.5 16.4 13.5 1.2 4.6

Any permanent housing subsidye 86.6 30.9 30.8 33.5 17.3 15.5 69.7 26.7

Emergency shelterf 87.9 83.0 2.6 1.9 3.5 2.3 2.5 5.2

No use of homeless or housing programsg 7.1 20.5 — — — — 26.4 60.7

N 215 201 — — — — 215 201

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy.

RA = random assignment.

a

 Percentage of families who ever used a type of assistance program during the period from the month of RA to the month of 37-month followup survey response (median period 

duration: 38 calendar months). Percentages do not add to 100 because some families used more than one program type during the followup period.

b Subsidies offered to the SUB group are housing choice vouchers plus site-specific programs offered to families assigned to the SUB group in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and Honolulu, Hawaii.

c

 Temporary subsidies offered to the CBRR group.

d All types of transitional housing, including those offered to the PBTH group.

e

 Includes the types of permanent subsidy offered to the SUB group plus permanent supportive housing, public housing, and project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects.

f

 All families were in emergency shelter at RA. Percentages less than 100 percent for ever used emergency shelter are because of missing data on shelter use.

g

 Indicates no use of the first six program types in this table during any of the followup period and no use of emergency shelter after the first 6 months after RA. No use in the month 

of followup survey response indicates no use of any of these seven program types.

Notes: Percentages are regression adjusted, controlling for site and randomization ratio. Percentages, means, and medians are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent full 

comparison sample.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 84

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

earnings, education, and adult well-being relative to assignment 

to the SUB intervention and may improve family preservation 

and child well-being. 

The Short-Term Impacts report (Gubits et al., 2015) found that, 

20 months after random assignment, assignment to the SUB 

group reduced homelessness and doubling up compared with 

assignment to the PBTH group. It also led to cases in which 

more families lived in their own place and made fewer residential moves. In domains other than housing stability, assignment 

to the SUB intervention had several beneficial impacts—reduced 

separations from children, increased reunifications with children, 

lowered psychological distress, lowered number of schools 

attended, and decreased food insecurity and economic stress—

compared with assignment to the PBTH intervention but 

reduced family income and work for pay. The remainder of this 

section presents the impact evidence of how these interventions 

compare at 3 years after random assignment.

Impacts on Housing Stability in the SUB-VersusPBTH Comparison

Exhibit 6-12 shows the effect on housing stability of being 

assigned to the SUB group relative to being assigned to the 

PBTH group. The effects of the SUB intervention relative to 

the PBTH intervention 3 years after random assignment are 

favorable, large, and statistically significant on all homelessness 

outcomes.112 Assignment to the SUB group reduced the confirmatory outcome of being homeless or doubled up in the past 

6 months or in emergency shelter in the past 12 months from 

41 to 17 percent relative to assignment to the PBTH group. This 

impact represents a reduction of 24 percentage points, more 

than one-half of the prevalence for the PBTH families. The next 

three rows show large reductions in the proportions of families 

experiencing subsequent stays in shelter or places not meant 

for human habitation and doubling up in the past 6 months. 

The preventive effect of assignment to the SUB intervention 

on doubling up was particularly strong; 30 percent of PBTH 

Exhibit 6-12. SUB Versus PBTH: Impacts on Housing Stability at 37 Months 

Outcome

SUB PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Homelessness or doubled up during the followup period

 At least 1 night homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months or in shelter in 

past 12 months (%) [confirmatory]c

214 16.8 (38.7) 200 41.1 (49.5) – 24.4*** (4.6) – 0.43

 At least 1 night homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months (%) 214 15.7 (37.5) 200 37.8 (48.9) – 22.1*** (4.6) – 0.40

 At least 1 night homelessb in past 6 months (%) 214 9.0 (29.8) 201 20.1 (40.4) – 11.1*** (3.6) – 0.25

 At least 1 night doubled up in past 6 months (%) 215 11.2 (32.7) 200 29.9 (46.4) – 18.7*** (4.4) – 0.36

 Any stay in emergency shelter in past 6 months (%) [Program Usage Data] 215 3.9 (20.1) 201 9.1 (28.6) – 5.2* (2.7) – 0.16

 Any stay in emergency shelter in months 21 to 32 after RA (%) [Program 

Usage Data]

215 4.4 (21.1) 201 9.9 (30.0) – 5.5** (2.7) – 0.13

 Number of days homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months 214 16.3 (51.5) 200 48.6 (72.8) – 32.3*** (6.7) – 0.37

 Number of days homelessb in past 6 months 214 7.0 (34.0) 201 16.7 (43.9) – 9.7** (4.0) – 0.17

 Number of days doubled up in past 6 months 215 8.5 (38.9) 200 35.2 (65.0) – 26.6*** (6.1) – 0.36

Housing independence

 Living in own house or apartment at followup (%) 215 84.9 (36.6) 201 66.3 (47.3) 18.5*** (4.6) 0.34

 Living in own house or apartment with no housing assistance (%) 214 16.3 (36.6) 200 41.0 (49.3) – 24.7*** (4.6) – 0.43

 Living in own house or apartment with housing assistance (%) 214 68.7 (46.5) 200 25.3 (43.7) 43.4*** (4.5) 0.84

Number of places lived

 Number of places lived in past 6 monthsd 215 1.3 (0.9) 199 1.7 (1.1) – 0.3*** (0.1) – 0.25

Housing quality

 Persons per room 208 1.3 (0.7) 188 1.7 (1.2) – 0.4*** (0.1) – 0.31

 Housing quality is poor or fair (%) 207 28.1 (44.8) 186 32.2 (47.1) – 4.1 (5.1) – 0.08

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

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

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

a

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

b The definition of “homeless” in this report includes stays in emergency shelters and places not meant for human habitation. It excludes transitional housing.

c

 After adjustment of multiple comparisons, the impact on the confirmatory outcome is statistically significant at the .01 level for the SUB-versus-PBTH comparison.

d The number of places lived in past 6 months is topcoded at 6 places.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey; Program Usage Data

112 The homeless outcomes in this study diverge from the homeless definition final rule in that they do not include stays in transitional housing in their definitions of being 

homeless. Additional impacts on the use of transitional housing during the followup period are provided in Appendix E.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 85

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

families experienced doubling up in the 6 months before the 

survey compared with only 11 percent of SUB families. Assignment to the SUB group, relative to assignment to the PBTH 

group, also reduced the proportions of families who had a stay 

in emergency shelter during months 21 to 32 after random 

assignment and during the 6 months before the survey by more 

than one-half (each by about 5 percentage points). 

The second panel of the exhibit shows that assignment to the 

SUB group increases the proportion of families living in their 

own house or apartment (with or without assistance) at the 

time of the followup survey from 66 to 85 percent relative 

to assignment to the PBTH group. SUB families are much 

less likely (25 percentage points) than are PBTH families to 

be living in their own place with no housing assistance and 

much more likely to be living in their own place with housing 

assistance (41 percentage points).

The third panel of the exhibit shows that SUB families had 

greater residential stability than did PBTH families in the months 

before the survey. Assignment to the SUB intervention reduced 

the number of places families lived in the past 6 months by 

0.3 places. Some of this effect is likely because some PBTH 

families moved out of transitional housing at the end of their 

program participation.

The bottom panel of the exhibit shows that SUB families were 

living in less crowded conditions than were PBTH families, 

with an average of 1.3 persons per room compared with 

1.7 persons per room for PBTH families. Compared with 

assignment to the PBTH group, assignment to the SUB group 

had no effect on the housing quality that families reported at 

the time of the 37-month survey. 

Impacts on Family Preservation in the SUB-VersusPBTH Comparison 

The Short-Term Impacts report (Gubits et al., 2015) found that, 

at the 20-month followup point, families assigned to the SUB 

group had fewer separations from children and more reunifications 

with separated children and separated spouses and partners 

than did families assigned to the PBTH group. Exhibit 6-13 

shows the effects on family preservation in the SUB-versus-PBTH 

comparison at the 3-year followup point. As at 20 months, 

assignment to the SUB intervention compared with assignment 

to the PBTH intervention, reduced the proportion of families 

who had at least one child separation at 37 months after 

random assignment. No evidence of effects was found for any 

of the other family preservation measures from survey data at 

37 months. Neither was evidence of effects found for family 

preservation measures from the five-site administrative data on 

formal child separations (Exhibit 6-14). 

Impacts on Adult Well-Being in the SUB-VersusPBTH Comparison 

Exhibit 6-15 shows effects at 37 months on adult well-being 

outcomes for the SUB-versus-PBTH comparison. The beneficial 

effects of assignment to the SUB intervention on mental 

health found at 20 months were not apparent at 37 months. 

Assignment to the SUB group also led to equivalent results as 

for assignment to the PBTH group on measures of physical, 

intimate partner violence, and substance dependence or abuse.

Exhibit 6-13. SUB Versus PBTH: Impacts on Family Preservation at 37 Months 

Outcome

SUB PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Current or recent separations of family members present at baseline

 Family has at least one child separated in past 6 months (%) 208 15.2 (35.2) 194 23.3 (41.6) – 8.1** (4.0) – 0.19

 Family has at least one foster care placement in past 6 monthsb (%) 210 3.8 (18.0) 195 4.6 (22.1) – 0.8 (2.0) – 0.04

 Spouse/partner separated in past 6 months, of those with spouse/partner 

present at RA (%)

65 39.1 (49.7) 56 38.8 (48.9) 0.3 (9.9) 0.00

Reunification of family members reported as separated at baseline

 Family has at least one child reunified, of those families with at least one 

child absent at RA (%)

47 54.0 (50.5) 37 33.1 (49.2) 21.0 (13.8) 0.37

 Spouse/partner reunified, of those with spouse/partner absent at RA (%) 23 26.0 (47.0) 21 22.8 (43.6) 3.2 (15.6) 0.07

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

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

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

a

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

b Foster care placement outcome includes any children (present at baseline) who are placed in foster care or adopted by another family at the time of followup.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 86

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

Exhibit 6-14. SUB Versus PBTH: Impacts on Child Welfare Outcomes 

Outcome

SUB PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

 Had a formal child separation that began after RA (%) 138 11.8 (32.1) 144 15.8 (36.8) – 4.0 (4.2) – 12.06

 Total days during followup separated from at least one childb 138 70.4 (218.9) 144 97.8 (253.5) – 27.5 (24.0) – 0.11

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

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

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

a

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

b Includes separations started before and after RA. Length of followup varies by site. Alameda County = 1,075 days. Baltimore = 1,071 days. Kansas City = 1,069 days. 

Minneapolis = 1,046 days. Phoenix = 1,123 days.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions. Sample limited to five sites where child welfare records were collected (Alameda County, Baltimore, Kansas City, Minneapolis, and Phoenix).

Source: State child welfare agency records

Exhibit 6-15. SUB Versus PBTH: Impacts on Adult Well-Being 37 Months 

Outcome

SUB PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Adult physical health

 Health in past 30 days was poor or fair (%) 214 30.4 (45.9) 199 32.6 (46.8) – 2.2 (4.9) – 0.04

Adult mental health

 Goal-oriented thinkingb 210 4.48 (0.99) 195 4.39 (1.08) 0.09 (0.11) 0.08

 Psychological distressc 214 6.67 (5.78) 200 7.41 (5.50) – 0.74 (0.57) – 0.11

Adult trauma symptoms

 Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in past 30 days (%) 211 22.9 (41.7) 199 23.1 (40.9) – 0.2 (4.3) 0.00

Adult substance use

 Alcohol dependence or drug abused (%) 215 16.3 (35.2) 201 16.9 (35.2) – 0.6 (3.8) – 0.02

 Alcohol dependenced (%) 215 12.6 (31.0) 201 12.7 (30.7) – 0.2 (3.4) – 0.01

 Drug abused (%) 215 5.1 (20.1) 201 6.8 (24.7) – 1.6 (2.5) – 0.06

Experience of intimate partner violence

 Experienced intimate partner violence in past 6 months (%) 213 9.0 (29.2) 200 10.2 (29.4) – 1.2 (3.1) – 0.03

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy.

ITT = intention-to-treat. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error.

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

a

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

b Goal-oriented thinking is measured with a modified version of the State Hope Scale and ranges from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive, goal-oriented 

thinking.

c

 Psychological distress is measured with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) and ranges from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater distress.

d Alcohol dependence is measured with the Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS-4), and drug abuse is measured with six items from the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10). 

Both are measured for the 6 months before the 37-month survey.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey

Impacts on Child Well-Being in the SUB-VersusPBTH Comparison 

Of 9 impact estimates on outcomes, 4 measured across ages 

(Exhibit 6-16), and 2 of 20 impact estimates on age-specific 

outcomes (Exhibit 6-17) reached statistical significance, all 

favoring children in families assigned to the SUB group rather 

than to the PBTH group. The cross-age impacts are clustered 

in the school domain: children assigned to the SUB group 

had fewer school moves, are 7 percentage points more likely 

to be on track for grade completion, and have higher grades 

(an average of 0.20 higher on a 4.0 scale). In addition, parents 

reported fewer behavioral problems for children in SUB 

families compared with those in PBTH families. Young children 

ages 3.5 to 7 in the SUB group show higher verbal ability (first 

panel of Exhibit 6-17) and older children ages 8 to 17 report 

lower substance use than children in the PBTH group. Some 

of these effects (higher grades, higher verbal ability, and lower 

substance abuse) are not observed in the SUB-versus-UC comparison and have magnitudes larger than would be expected 

from the SUB-versus-UC and PBTH-versus-UC comparisons. 

These three effects are thus perhaps best thought of as random 

variations. Overall, the study team finds scattered beneficial 

effects on child well-being from assignment to the SUB group 

relative to assignment to the PBTH group.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 87

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

Exhibit 6-16. SUB Versus PBTH: Impacts on Child Well-Being Across Age Groups at 37 Months 

Outcome

SUB PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Child education

 Number of schools attended since RAb 251 1.9 (0.9) 229 2.1 (1.0) – 0.2* (0.1) – 0.18

 Grade completion (not held back) (%) 208 93.87 (22.43) 191 86.76 (33.82) 7.11** (3.32) 0.19

 School gradesc 188 3.2 (0.8) 171 3.0 (0.9) 0.2** (0.1) 0.18

Child physical health

 Poor or fair health in past 30 days (%) 299 6.2 (26.2) 263 9.1 (24.6) – 2.9 (2.9) – 0.09

 Well-child checkup in past year (%) 299 90.3 (29.6) 263 89.3 (31.9) 1.0 (3.1) 0.03

 Child has regular source of health care (%) 299 91.6 (27.7) 260 89.2 (29.0) 2.4 (3.7) 0.07

 Sleep problemsd 300 2.05 (1.06) 263 2.19 (1.13) – 0.14 (0.11) – 0.10

Child behavioral strengths and challenges

 Behavior problemse 279 0.40 (1.21) 250 0.64 (1.25) – 0.25* (0.15) – 0.15

 Prosocial behaviorf 280 – 0.10 (1.03) 250 – 0.29 (1.23) 0.19 (0.13) 0.13

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy.

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

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

a

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

b Number of schools outcome is topcoded at 4 or more schools.

c

 School grades outcome is defined as 1 = mostly Ds or Fs, 2 = mostly Cs, 3 = mostly Bs, 4 = mostly As.

d Sleep problems outcome ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating more frequent tiredness upon waking and during the day.

e

 Behavior problems outcome is measured as the standardized Total Difficulties score from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).

f

 Prosocial behavior is measured as the standardized prosocial domain score from the SDQ.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey (parent report)

Impacts on Self-Sufficiency in the SUB-VersusPBTH Comparison 

The Short-Term Impacts report (Gubits et al., 2015) found that, 

20 months after random assignment, assignment to the SUB 

group reduced work for pay, earnings, and family income relative to assignment to the PBTH group. Assignment to the SUB 

intervention also reduced food insecurity and economic stress, 

however, relative to assignment to the PBTH intervention. 

Exhibit 6-18 shows statistically significant effects on 5 of the 20 

self-sufficiency outcomes examined in the SUB-versus-PBTH 

comparison at the 3-year followup survey. The study team did 

not find an effect on the proportion of family heads working for 

pay at the time of the 37-month survey or on the proportion 

with any work for pay since the 20-month survey. Also no 

detected effect exists on the proportion with any work for pay 

since random assignment (and the point estimate is minus 

2 percentage points), suggesting that the gap in work effort 

apparent at 20 months has largely disappeared. 

Exhibit 6-19 shows impact estimates from administrative data 

on outcomes for quarters 11 to 14 after the quarter of random 

assignment. The analysis of administrative data finds no effect 

of assignment to the SUB group relative to assignment to the 

PBTH group on total earnings, the proportion of family heads 

employed, or the number of quarters employed during the year.

The 20-month analysis detected higher overall participation 

in school or training for SUB families compared with PBTH 

families. This difference is not found at 37 months, but two 

other effects are detected at the later time point (Exhibit 6-18): 

SUB families had a higher average number of weeks in school 

or training since random assignment (9 weeks) than did PBTH 

families (6 weeks) and a higher proportion with at least 2 weeks 

in a school program (16 percent versus 10 percent). These 

results are surprising, because most PBTH providers incorporated some kind of employment training into their programs 

(although this training may have been less than 2 weeks).

The fourth and fifth panels of Exhibit 6-18 show that, as 

it was at 20 months, assignment to the SUB intervention 

lowered food insecurity and economic stress at 37 months 

after random assignment. Relative to assignment to the PBTH 

group, assignment to the SUB group reduced the proportion 

of families who were food insecure from 47 to 34 percent and 

reduced the average level of food insecurity by a standardized 

effect size of 0.24. Likewise, the final row of the exhibit shows 

that assignment to the SUB group reduced economic stress by a 

standardized effect size of 0.18.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 88

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

Exhibit 6-17. SUB Versus PBTH: Impacts on Child Well-Being Developmental Outcomes by Age Group at 37 Months 

Outcome

SUB PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Ages 2 to 5 yearsb

 Preschool or Head Start enrollmentc (%) 103 34.8 (49.4) 76 37.5 (48.9) – 2.7 (7.1) – 0.04

 Child care or preschool absences in past monthd 40 0.95 (1.04) 33 0.55 (0.79) 0.39 (0.26) 0.35

 Positive child care or preschool experiencese 41 0.79 (0.43) 36 0.84 (0.55) – 0.05 (0.11) – 0.12

 Positive child care or preschool attitudesf 42 4.62 (0.86) 35 4.76 (0.95) – 0.14 (0.16) – 0.16

 Child care or preschool conduct problemsg (%) 44 4.5 (25.5) 38 11.0 (34.3) – 6.6 (6.4) – 0.24

Ages 2 years to 5 years, 6 months

 Met developmental milestonesh (%) 89 68.0 (46.2) 65 69.6 (46.5) – 1.5 (8.5) – 0.03

Ages 3 years, 6 months to 7 years

 Verbal abilityi 120 – 0.16 (1.08) 89 – 0.59 (1.13) 0.43* (0.22) 0.33

 Math abilityj 120 – 0.24 (1.08) 88 – 0.48 (1.08) 0.24 (0.18) 0.20

 Executive functioningk (self-regulation) 114 16.72 (16.25) 79 14.14 (15.81) 2.58 (2.21) 0.13

Ages 5 to 17 yearsl

 School enrollmentc (%) 198 99.2 (12.2) 189 98.4 (14.4) 0.9 (0.9) 0.05

 School absences in past monthd,m 81 0.83 (0.94) 66 0.98 (0.87) – 0.15 (0.20) – 0.12

 Positive school experiencese,m 81 0.58 (0.52) 66 0.54 (0.66) 0.03 (0.10) 0.04

 Positive school attitudesf,m 80 4.23 (1.06) 66 4.01 (1.18) 0.22 (0.20) 0.15

 School conduct problemsg,m (%) 81 26.5 (44.1) 66 23.6 (44.1) 2.9 (8.3) 0.05

Ages 8 to 17 years

 Anxietyn 112 34.83 (6.95) 114 34.31 (7.94) 0.51 (1.32) 0.05

 Fearso 113 61.89 (14.82) 115 60.86 (15.10) 1.03 (2.12) 0.05

 Substance usep (%) 109 3.01 (22.91) 107 17.08 (35.83) – 14.06*** (5.26) – 0.39

 Goal-oriented thinkingq 106 21.98 (4.74) 106 22.99 (5.13) – 1.00 (0.74) – 0.16

 School effort in past monthr 110 2.68 (0.82) 114 2.69 (0.86) – 0.01 (0.13) – 0.01

 Arrests or police involvement in past 6 monthss (%) 59 7.57 (28.09) 48 13.43 (33.42) – 5.87 (8.05) – 0.15

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy.

ITT = intention-to-treat. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error.

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

a

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

b Includes focal children who were ages 4 years or younger on the September 1 before the 37-month parent survey.

c

 Preschool or Head Start enrollment outcome is defined as enrollment in preschool, center-based child care, or school.

d Absences outcome is defined as 0 = no absences in past month, 1 = one to two absences, 2 = three to five absences, 3 = six or more absences.

e

 Positive child care, preschool, or school experiences outcome is defined as – 1 = mostly negative experiences, 0 = both positive and negative experiences, 1 = mostly positive 

experiences.

f

 Positive child care, preschool, or school attitudes outcome is parent report of how much child likes school and ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating greater like of 

school.

g

 Child care, preschool, or school conduct problems outcome is defined as 0 = no conduct problems reported to parent, 1 = parent contacted about conduct problems or suspension or expulsion from school or child care center.

h

 Met developmental milestones outcome is defined as scoring above the typical development cutoffs in all domains of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3).

i

 Verbal ability outcome is the nationally standardized score from the Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III) letter-word identification test.

j

 Math ability outcome is the nationally standardized score from the WJ III applied problems test.

k

 Executive functioning outcome is the Head Toes Knees Shoulders (HTKS) score and ranges from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating greater executive functioning.

l

 Includes focal children who were ages 5 to 17 years on the September 1 before the 37-month parent survey and no older than 17 years at the time of the survey.

m This parent-reported outcome was collected from only the first 38 percent of parents surveyed due to an error in data collection.

n

 Anxiety (child report) is measured using the A-Trait scale from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC). Scores range from 20 to 60, with higher scores indicating 

greater anxiety.

o

 Fears outcome (child report) is the score from the Fears Scale and ranges from 33 to 99, with higher scores indicating more fear.

p Substance use (child report) is measured with 23 items from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

q Goal-oriented thinking (child report) is measured with a modified version of the Children’s Hope Scale and ranges from 6 to 30, with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive, goal-oriented thinking.

r

 School effort outcome (child report) ranges from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater effort during school day and on homework.

s

 Arrest or police involvement in past 6 months is from parent report.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

See Chapter 2 and Appendix B for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey (parent report); Family Options Study 37-month child survey (child report); ASQ-3; WJ III; HTKS
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 89

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

Exhibit 6-18. SUB Versus PBTH: Impacts on Self-Sufficiency at 37 Months 

Outcome

SUB PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Employment status

 Work for pay in week before survey (%) 214 37.6 (47.8) 201 39.6 (49.3) – 2.0 (4.9) – 0.04

 Any work for pay since 20-month surveyb (%) 203 61.0 (49.1) 174 59.3 (49.1) 1.8 (5.1) 0.04

 Months worked for pay since 20-month surveyb,c 202 6.9 (7.8) 173 7.2 (8.3) – 0.3 (0.8) – 0.04

 Any work for pay since RA (%) 214 72.2 (45.2) 201 74.2 (44.2) – 2.0 (4.3) – 0.04

 Months worked for pay since RAc 210 12.5 (13.4) 199 13.6 (13.7) – 1.1 (1.2) – 0.07

 Hours of work per week at current main jobd 213 11.7 (15.9) 200 13.4 (18.8) – 1.7 (1.8) – 0.09

Income sources and amounts

 Annualized current earnings ($) 209 6,539 (9,835) 198 8,292 (13,045) – 1,754 (1,217) – 0.14

 Total family income ($) 201 12,107 (10,068) 199 13,337 (12,164) – 1,230 (1,043) – 0.09

 Anyone in family had earnings in past month (%) 215 45.3 (49.8) 201 53.5 (49.9) – 8.1 (5.1) – 0.14

 Anyone in family received TANF in past month (%) 215 28.2 (46.0) 200 26.9 (43.7) 1.3 (4.4) 0.03

 Anyone in family received SSDI in past month (%) 213 7.0 (25.6) 201 7.0 (25.5) 0.0 (2.4) 0.00

 Anyone in family received SSI in past month (%) 215 14.5 (33.7) 200 12.7 (34.8) 1.8 (3.0) 0.04

 Anyone in family received SNAP/Food Stamps in past month (%) 215 79.1 (39.7) 200 80.8 (40.1) – 1.6 (4.1) – 0.04

 Anyone in family received WIC in past month (%) 215 26.3 (44.5) 200 31.5 (46.2) – 5.2 (4.6) – 0.10

Education and training

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of any school or training since RA (%) 213 39.8 (49.5) 199 38.7 (48.9) 1.1 (5.1) 0.02

 Number of weeks in school/training programs since RA 210 8.5 (15.9) 198 5.6 (12.7) 2.9* (1.5) 0.14

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of school since RA (%) 213 15.9 (35.3) 199 10.2 (31.4) 5.7* (3.3) 0.15

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of basic education since RA (%) 213 1.1 (11.8) 199 1.1 (10.0) 0.0 (1.2) 0.00

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of vocational education since RA (%) 213 9.2 (31.7) 199 11.7 (32.1) – 2.4 (3.1) – 0.06

Food security 

 Household is food insecure (%) 215 34.4 (48.3) 201 47.2 (49.8) – 12.8*** (4.9) – 0.22

 Food insecurity scalee 214 1.42 (1.92) 198 2.00 (2.03) – 0.58*** (0.20) – 0.24

Economic stressors

 Economic stress scalef 212 – 0.23 (0.46) 199 – 0.12 (0.50) – 0.11*** (0.05) – 0.18

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

ITT = intention-to-treat. RA = random assignment. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error. SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SSDI = Social Security 

Disability Insurance. SSI = Supplemental Security Income. TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children.

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

a

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

b Includes only families who responded to both 20-month and 37-month followup surveys; not weighted for survey nonresponse.

c

 Number of months worked for pay includes partial calendar months.

d Hours of work per week includes those not currently working (that is, those with 0 hours of work per week).

e

 Food insecurity scale ranges from 0 to 6, with higher values indicating higher food insecurity.

f

 Economic stress scale ranges from – 1 to 1, with higher values indicating higher economic stress.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey

Exhibit 6-19. SUB Versus PBTH: Earnings and Employment 

Outcome

SUB PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

 Earnings in quarters 11 to 14 after RA (2015Q3$) 241 5,508 (8,486) 230 6,391 (9,810) – 883 (863) – 0.09

 Any employment in quarters 11 to 14 after RA (%) 241 54.8 (49.9) 230 57.4 (49.5) – 2.6 (4.6) – 0.05

 Number of quarters employed in quarters 11 to 14 after RA 241 1.6 (1.7) 230 1.7 (1.7) – 0.1 (0.2) – 0.04

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy.

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

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

a

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

Note: See Chapter 2 and Appendix B for outcome definitions.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 90

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

Summary of the SUB-Versus-PBTH Comparison 

Across Domains 

For the SUB-versus-PBTH comparison, the randomization 

resulted in a notable contrast in the mix of program use 

during the 37-month followup period. At 3 years after random 

assignment, 82 percent of SUB families had ever used the 

permanent housing subsidies they were offered (compared 

with only 7 percent of PBTH families who had ever used these 

subsidies) and 50 percent of PBTH families had ever used 

transitional housing (compared with 9 percent of SUB families). 

In the month of the followup survey response, 70 percent 

of SUB families were using some type of permanent housing 

subsidy compared with 27 percent of PBTH families. Of PBTH 

families, 7 percent were using transitional housing during 

this month compared with only 1 percent of SUB families. 

These differences in program participation led to marked 

differences between the experiences of SUB families and PBTH 

families in several areas. The most noteworthy effect of the 

SUB intervention relative to the PBTH intervention was in its 

greater prevention of homelessness. Only 17 percent of SUB 

families compared with 41 percent of PBTH families spent 

at least 1 night in an emergency shelter, in a place not meant 

for human habitation, or doubled up in the past 6 months 

or had a stay in emergency shelter in the 12 months before 

the survey. This effect was driven by a large reduction (19 

percentage points) in the proportion experiencing doubling 

up. Also, only 4 percent of SUB families compared with 10 

percent of PBTH families spent at least 1 night in emergency 

shelter in months 21 to 32 after random assignment. 

Compared with assignment to the PBTH intervention, assignment to the SUB intervention also increased the proportion of 

families living in their own house or apartment at the time of 

the followup survey from 66 to 85 percent. The greater stability 

afforded by the permanent housing subsidies offered to SUB 

families was evidenced in a reduction in the number of places 

families lived in the past 6 months and a reduction in the 

number of schools that children attended since study entry. 

The SUB-versus-PBTH comparison yields a handful of statistically significant effects in the family preservation, child wellbeing, and self-sufficiency domains, almost all of which favor 

assignment to the SUB group. Among these domains, the most 

notable effects of assignment to the SUB intervention relative to 

assignment to the PBTH intervention are an 8-percentage-point 

reduction in the proportion of families who had a child separation in the past 6 months (from 23 to 15 percent), a decrease 

in the number of schools children attended, an increase in 

children’s grade completion, and a decrease in the proportion 

of families who were food insecure (from 47 to 34 percent). 

The lower average work effort of SUB families relative to PBTH 

families found at 20 months is not apparent at 37 months.

Overall, do the families assigned to the SUB group appear to be 

doing better at 37 months after random assignment than the 

families assigned to the PBTH group? In many ways, the answer 

is “yes.” The SUB families, on average, are experiencing less 

homelessness and being doubled up, are more likely to live in 

their own place, and are living in less crowded conditions than 

are PBTH families. SUB families are also more food secure, have 

children who move among schools less and have better grade 

completion, and have less economic stress. Most of the ways 

in which SUB families appear to be doing better than PBTH 

families, with the exception of some of the scattered effects on 

children’s well-being, may fade over time if SUB families give 

up the permanent housing subsidies to which they had priority 

access or if increasing numbers of PBTH families find their way 

to permanent housing subsidies.

6.4. The Community-Based Rapid 

Re-Housing (CBRR) Versus ProjectBased Transitional Housing (PBTH) 

Comparison

The CBRR-versus-PBTH comparison contrasts having priority 

access to temporary private-market rental assistance and 

modest case management of the CBRR intervention with having 

priority access to temporary, agency-controlled housing paired 

with intensive supportive services of the PBTH intervention. 

Although both interventions provide temporary assistance, the 

length of assistance differs. CBRR program assistance is usually 

provided for 7 to 8 months and is potentially renewable for up 

to 18 months. PBTH program assistance provides housing for 

up to 24 months, with average stays of 13 months during the 

3-year followup period. PBTH programs offer comprehensive 

case management and provide many supportive services 

directly. Some services beyond assistance with housing search, 

largely focused on self-sufficiency, were offered to about 

three-fourths of CBRR families, in general, with lower intensity 

than services offered to PBTH families. Employment and 

training services were offered by nearly all PBTH programs 

(representing 92 percent of families assigned to the PBTH 

group) but by only a minority of CBRR programs (representing 

37 percent of families assigned to the CBRR group), and most 

PBTH programs offered services that addressed psychosocial 

challenges (see the Short-Term Impacts report [Gubits et al., 

2015]). The CBRR case managers typically served about 36 

families each, roughly twice as many families as the typical 

PBTH case manager.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 91

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

6.4.1. Program Use by Families in the 

CBRR-Versus-PBTH Comparison

Exhibit 6-20 shows the use of eight types of homeless and 

housing programs by the 180 CBRR families and 184 PBTH 

families analyzed in the CBRR-versus-PBTH comparison.113

The first column shows some differences in the general pattern 

of usage for these CBRR families compared with all CBRR 

families (shown in Exhibit 4-1 in Chapter 4). Compared with 

the proportion among all families randomly assigned to the 

CBRR group, lower proportions of the CBRR families in this 

pairwise comparison used rapid re-housing (55 compared with 

59 percent), a permanent housing subsidy of the type offered 

to families assigned to the SUB group (7 compared with 10 percent), and any form of permanent subsidy (32 compared with 

35 percent). Compared with the proportion among all families 

assigned to the CBRR group, a higher proportion of CBRR families in this comparison used transitional housing (31 compared 

with 23 percent), and a higher proportion used no homeless 

or housing assistance program (including emergency shelter) 

during the followup period (14 compared with 9 percent). 

The proportions of PBTH families using various types of programs shown in the second column are similar to the proportions 

of all PBTH families shown in Exhibit 5-1 in Chapter 5. The 

first two columns show that 55 percent of families assigned to 

the CBRR group used rapid re-housing (whereas only 16 percent of PBTH families did so) and 53 percent of PBTH families 

used transitional housing (whereas 31 percent of CBRR families 

did so). The number of months of program use (in columns three 

through six) and the proportions using the program in the 

month of the 37-month followup survey response (in columns 

seven and eight) are largely similar to those in the exhibits in 

the chapters that address PBTH-versus-UC and CBRR-versusUC comparisons. By the followup survey month, less than onehalf of both groups are participating in any program. Of the 

CBRR families, 37 percent are participating in some program 

in the survey month compared with 40 percent of the PBTH 

families.114 Only 3 percent of CBRR families were receiving 

rapid re-housing in the survey month and 9 percent of PBTH 

families were receiving transitional housing at this point.

Exhibit 6-20. CBRR Versus PBTH: Program Use Since RA 

Type of Homeless or 

Housing Assistance 

Percent Ever Used 

From RA to 37-Month 

Followup Surveya

Number of Months Used 

From RA to 37-Month Followup Survey, 

if Ever Used Type of Assistance

Percent Used in 

Month of Followup 

Survey Response

CBRR PBTH CBRR PBTH CBRR PBTH

Mean Median Mean Median

Permanent housing subsidies offered to the 

SUB groupb

6.7 8.7 24.7 26.5 15.7 10.5 6.8 6.2

Rapid re-housingc 54.6 15.8 7.1 6.5 6.8 4.5 2.7 0.4

Transitional housingd 30.7 53.4 10.0 6.5 14.0 12.0 5.1 9.1

Permanent supportive housing 9.2 10.7 17.2 15.5 15.9 14.5 7.6 6.8

Public housing 11.5 9.1 16.7 16.5 19.0 20.5 10.1 8.2

Project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects 4.8 6.1 19.2 18.5 16.5 17.5 4.9 3.8

Any permanent housing subsidye 32.3 33.3 18.9 18.5 17.4 17.5 29.3 25.1

Emergency shelterf 88.1 86.5 3.7 2.4 3.2 2.2 2.8 2.0

No use of homeless or housing programsg 14.3 16.8 — — — — 60.1 63.4

N 180 184 — — — — 180 184

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

RA = random assignment. 

a

 Percentage of families who ever used a type of assistance program during the period from the month of RA to the month of 37-month followup survey response (median period 

duration: 38 calendar months). Percentages do not add to 100 because some families used more than one program type during the followup period.

b Subsidies offered to the SUB group are housing choice vouchers plus site-specific programs offered to families assigned to the SUB group in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and Honolulu, Hawaii.

c

 Temporary subsidies offered to the CBRR group.

d All types of transitional housing, including those offered to the PBTH group.

e

 Includes the types of permanent subsidy offered to the SUB group plus permanent supportive housing, public housing, and project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects.

f

 All families were in emergency shelter at RA. Percentages less than 100 percent for ever used emergency shelter are because of missing data on shelter use.

g

 Indicates no use of the first six program types in this table during any of the followup period and no use of emergency shelter after the first 6 months after RA. No use in the month 

of followup survey response indicates no use of any of these seven program types.

Notes: Percentages are regression adjusted, controlling for site and randomization ratio. Percentages, means, and medians are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent full 

comparison sample.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data

113 The CBRR-versus-PBTH comparison sample consists of 232 families assigned to the CBRR group and 239 families assigned to the PBTH group. Of those 471 families, 

180 CBRR families and 184 PBTH families (77 percent) responded to the 37-month followup survey.

114 These proportions of families participating in any program are calculated by subtracting from 100 percent the proportions with no use of programs in the survey month 

(shown in the exhibit).
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 92

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

6.4.2. Impacts of the CBRR Intervention 

Compared With the PBTH Intervention

Hypotheses about rapid re-housing and project-based transitional 

housing arise from divergent views about the needs of families 

who experience homelessness and the package of housing 

assistance and services best suited to address these needs. 

Rapid re-housing attempts to return families quickly to the 

private rental market, with modest services directed toward 

housing and self-sufficiency to help them stay there. From the 

perspective of community-based rapid re-housing proponents, 

this rapid return to the private rental market should be the 

primary objective of homeless interventions. Assignment to 

the CBRR intervention is thus expected to reduce the length of 

the shelter stay from the time of study entry. The CBRR intervention is also expected to reduce homelessness relative to the 

PBTH intervention and may improve housing stability, family 

preservation, adult well-being, child well-being, employment, 

and earnings. Proponents of project-based transitional housing 

emphasize that most families who become homeless have 

additional barriers that make it difficult for them to secure and 

maintain housing. The services in project-based transitional 

housing programs are designed to address these barriers and 

lay the foundation for later housing stability. Consistent with 

this perspective, project-based transitional housing proponents 

expect that the PBTH intervention will improve long-term 

housing stability, employment, earnings, education, and adult 

well-being relative to assignment to the CBRR intervention and 

may improve family preservation and child well-being. Because 

the PBTH intervention addresses barriers to housing stability 

and attempts to put families on track for better employment 

and earnings, many project-based transitional housing proponents 

would expect outcomes in these domains. This section presents 

the 3-year experimental impact evidence on these divergent 

expectations.

Impacts on Housing Stability in the CBRR-VersusPBTH Comparison 

Exhibit 6-21 shows the effect on housing stability of being 

assigned to the CBRR group relative to being assigned to the PBTH 

group. The exhibit shows significant impacts on only 1 of 

14 outcomes examined. The analysis shows no evidence that 

assignment to the CBRR group relative to assignment to the 

PBTH group led to differential experiences of homelessness, 

doubling up, or use of emergency shelter at 37 months after 

random assignment. 

Exhibit 6-21. CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Housing Stability at 37 Months 

Outcome

CBRR PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Homelessness or doubled up during the follow up period

 At least 1 night homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months or in shelter in 

past 12 months (%) [confirmatory]c

180 40.1 (49.7) 183 43.2 (49.7) – 3.1 (6.2) – 0.06

 At least 1 night homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months (%) 180 35.6 (48.8) 183 38.4 (49.0) – 2.8 (6.0) – 0.05

 At least 1 night homelessb in past 6 months (%) 180 20.2 (40.5) 184 19.8 (41.0) 0.5 (4.9) 0.01

 At least 1 night doubled up in past 6 months (%) 180 30.3 (46.9) 183 28.3 (45.7) 2.0 (5.7) 0.04

 Any stay in emergency shelter in past 6 months (%) [Program Usage Data] 180 7.9 (26.9) 184 4.9 (23.8) 3.0 (2.9) 0.09

 Any stay in emergency shelter in months 21 to 32 after RA (%) [Program 

Usage Data]

180 12.8 (33.5) 184 11.2 (31.9) 1.6 (4.0) 0.04

 Number of days homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months 180 50.4 (75.7) 183 44.7 (71.4) 5.7 (9.1) 0.07

 Number of days homelessb in past 6 months 180 16.2 (45.8) 184 16.5 (45.8) – 0.4 (5.3) – 0.01

 Number of days doubled up in past 6 months 180 36.4 (67.2) 183 30.7 (60.7) 5.7 (7.8) 0.08

Housing independence

 Living in own house or apartment at followup (%) 180 66.4 (47.7) 184 68.1 (47.0) – 1.7 (5.8) – 0.03

 Living in own house or apartment with no housing assistance (%) 179 37.7 (48.9) 184 41.3 (48.9) – 3.6 (5.4) – 0.06

 Living in own house or apartment with housing assistance (%) 179 29.3 (44.4) 184 26.4 (45.1) 2.9 (5.2) 0.06

Number of places lived

 Number of places lived in past 6 monthsd 180 1.7 (1.1) 181 1.6 (1.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.07

Housing quality

 Persons per room 168 2.0 (1.6) 175 1.7 (1.3) 0.3 (0.2) 0.25

 Housing quality is poor or fair (%) 171 25.2 (44.2) 175 35.4 (48.0) – 10.1* (5.4) – 0.19

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

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

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

a

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

b The definition of “homeless” in this report includes stays in emergency shelters and places not meant for human habitation. It excludes transitional housing.

c

 After adjustment of multiple comparisons, the impact on the confirmatory outcome is statistically significant at the .01 level for the SUB-versus-PBTH comparison.

d The number of places lived in past 6 months is topcoded at 6 places.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey; Program Usage Data
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 93

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

The bottom three panels of the exhibit show no statistically 

significant differences between CBRR and PBTH families in 

housing independence at the time of the 37-month followup 

survey or number of residential moves in the 6 months before 

the survey. Families assigned to the CBRR group were less 

likely to report poor or fair housing quality than were families 

assigned to the PBTH group (24 compared with 34 percent).

Impacts on Family Preservation in the CBRRVersus-PBTH Comparison 

Exhibit 6-22 shows the effects on family preservation in the 

CBRR-versus-PBTH comparison. The study team finds no 

evidence of differential effects of these interventions on family 

separations or reunifications in the survey data at 37 months, 

although the numbers, particularly in the case of reunifications 

of family members separated at the time of the baseline survey, 

were too small to yield a strong test. The study team also finds 

no evidence of effects on measures of formal child separations 

in the child welfare administrative data from five sites 

(Exhibit 6-23).

Impacts on Adult Well-Being in the CBRR-VersusPBTH Comparison 

Exhibit 6-24 shows statistically significant effects on 3 of 

the 8 adult well-being outcomes in the CBRR-versus-PBTH 

comparison. All three significant effects show the CBRR intervention produced more favorable outcomes than did the PBTH 

intervention at 37 months after random assignment.

Assignment to the CBRR group led to lower levels of psychological distress than for families assigned to the PBTH group, 

with an effect size of 0.19. Having priority access to CBRR 

programs compared with PBTH programs also reduced the 

number of families who reported drug abuse, from 5.6 to 2.0 

percent, and the number reporting either alcohol dependence 

or drug abuse, from 14.5 to 7.4 percent. These results are 

surprising, because PBTH programs have an explicit focus 

on adult well-being. No longer-term differences exist on the 

remaining five measures of physical and mental health, intimate 

partner violence, or alcohol dependence. 

Exhibit 6-22. CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Family Preservation at 37 Months 

Outcome

CBRR PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Current or recent separations of family members present at baseline

 Family has at least one child separated in past 6 months (%) 178 16.7 (37.0) 177 20.0 (40.4) – 3.2 (4.3) – 0.07

 Family has at least one foster care placement in past 6 monthsb (%) 178 5.7 (22.0) 179 2.1 (14.8) 3.6 (2.8) 0.17

 Spouse/partner separated in past 6 months, of those with spouse/partner 

present at RA (%)

62 30.1 (45.0) 44 29.6 (46.2) 0.5 (9.7) 0.01

Reunification of family members reported as separated at baseline

 Family has at least one child reunified, of those families with at least one 

child absent at RA (%)

46 44.8 (49.8) 33 44.8 (50.6) 0.1 (13.3) 0.00

 Spouse/partner reunified, of those with spouse/partner absent at RA (%) 19 14.5 (45.2) 15 43.3 (45.8) – 28.9 (26.8) – 0.61

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

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

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

a

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

b Foster care placement outcome includes any children (present at baseline) who are placed in foster care or adopted by another family at the time of followup.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey

Exhibit 6-23. CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Child Welfare Outcomes 

Outcome

CBRR PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

 Had a formal child separation that began after RA (%) 101 14.1 (34.7) 98 14.1 (35.2) 0.0 (5.3) 0.04

 Total days during followup separated from at least one childb 101 57.9 (197.6) 98 106.8 (282.4) – 48.9 (30.2) – 0.20

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

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

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

a

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

b Includes separations started before and after RA. Length of followup varies by site. Alameda County = 1,075 days. Baltimore = 1,071 days. Kansas City = 1,069 days. 

Minneapolis = 1,046 days. Phoenix = 1,123 days.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions. Sample limited to five sites where child welfare records were collected (Alameda County, Baltimore, Kansas City, Minneapolis, and Phoenix).

Source: State child welfare agency records
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 94

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

Exhibit 6-24. CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Adult Well-Being at 37 Months 

Outcome

CBRR PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Adult physical health

 Health in past 30 days was poor or fair (%) 179 31.8 (47.1) 184 32.8 (46.6) – 1.0 (5.4) – 0.02

Adult mental health

 Goal-oriented thinkingb 177 4.41 (0.98) 183 4.36 (1.07) 0.05 (0.13) 0.04

 Psychological distressc 179 6.13 (5.62) 184 7.44 (5.82) – 1.32** (0.66) – 0.19

Adult trauma symptoms

 Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in past 30 days (%) 179 18.7 (37.5) 183 21.1 (41.8) – 2.4 (4.7) – 0.05

Adult substance use

 Alcohol dependence or drug abused (%) 179 7.4 (28.6) 184 14.5 (36.0) – 7.1** (3.4) – 0.19

 Alcohol dependenced (%) 179 7.3 (27.8) 184 11.9 (33.2) – 4.5 (3.1) – 0.14

 Drug abused (%) 179 2.0 (14.8) 184 5.6 (23.8) – 3.6* (2.0) – 0.13

Experience of intimate partner violence

 Experienced intimate partner violence in past 6 months (%) 180 8.8 (28.5) 184 8.6 (29.8) 0.2 (3.5) 0.01

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

ITT = intention-to-treat. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error.

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

a

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

b Goal-oriented thinking is measured with a modified version of the State Hope Scale and ranges from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive, goal-oriented 

thinking.

c

 Psychological distress is measured with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) and ranges from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater distress.

d Alcohol dependence is measured with the Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS-4), and drug abuse is measured with six items from the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10). 

Both are measured for the 6 months before the 37-month survey.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey

Impacts on Child Well-Being in the CBRR-VersusPBTH Comparison 

Differential effects of the CBRR and PBTH interventions on 

child well-being would be expected to be indirect, via effects 

on housing stability, self-sufficiency, and adult well-being, 

which were modest. 

Exhibit 6-25 shows the cross-age impacts of assignment to the 

CBRR group rather than to the PBTH group for child well-being. 

Of nine results examined, two reach statistical significance, 

both favoring the CBRR group. Children in families assigned to 

the CBRR group were 9 percentage points more likely to have a 

regular source of health care than were children in PBTH families (panel 2). They also have lower levels of behavior problems 

by parental report (0.13 standard deviations, panel 3). Of 20 

age-specific results in Exhibit 6-26, 1 reached significance. As 

shown in panel 3 of Exhibit 6-26, children of ages 8 to 17 in 

the CBRR group reported less school effort (one-fourth of the 

distance between “could have tried a little harder” and “tried 

about as hard as you could,” on average) than did children in 

the PBTH group. Overall, out of 29 results examined, 3 were 

significant and none showed a clear pattern of effects.

Impacts on Self-Sufficiency in the CBRR-VersusPBTH Comparison 

Exhibit 6-27 shows 1 statistically significant effect on 20 

self-sufficiency outcomes examined in the CBRR-versus-PBTH 

comparison. Compared with assignment to the PBTH group, 

assignment to the CBRR group led to improvements in food 

security at the time of the survey (46 percent of PBTH families 

reported being food insecure compared with 35 percent of 

CBRR families).115 This effect is somewhat surprising, because 

the 37-month analysis provides no evidence that assignment to 

the CBRR group led to differential effects on work effort or other measures of self-sufficiency when compared with assignment 

to the PBTH group. Exhibit 6-20 (in a previous section) shows 

similar levels of receipt of permanent housing subsidies, so it is 

not apparent that CBRR families have the additional financial 

resources that would be the expected mechanism by which 

food security is increased.

Exhibit 6-28 shows impact estimates from administrative data 

on outcomes for quarters 11 to 14 after the quarter of random 

assignment. The analysis of administrative data finds no effect 

of assignment to the CBRR group relative to assignment to the 

115 The improvement in food security is almost identical to the reduction from 45.7 to 33.8 percent (-11.9 percentage points) found in a corrected analysis of the 20-month 

survey data.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 95

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

Exhibit 6-25. CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Child Well-Being Across Age Groups at 37 Months 

Outcome

CBRR PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Child education

 Number of schools attended since RAb 206 2.2 (1.0) 212 2.2 (1.0) 0.0 (0.1) 0.01

 Grade completion (not held back) (%) 176 91.40 (28.00) 176 88.64 (31.83) 2.76 (3.54) 0.07

 School gradesc 163 3.0 (0.9) 155 3.0 (0.9) 0.0 (0.1) 0.00

Child physical health

 Poor or fair health in past 30 days (%) 244 3.5 (18.9) 248 5.7 (21.5) – 2.2 (2.7) – 0.07

 Well-child checkup in past year (%) 245 91.7 (29.2) 248 90.3 (29.6) 1.4 (3.3) 0.04

 Child has regular source of health care (%) 245 95.4 (20.8) 246 86.1 (31.3) 9.2** (4.3) 0.25

 Sleep problemsd 244 2.07 (1.02) 247 2.17 (1.08) – 0.10 (0.11) – 0.07

Child behavioral strengths and challenges

 Behavior problemse 236 0.26 (1.13) 233 0.49 (1.16) – 0.23* (0.12) – 0.13

 Prosocial behaviorf 236 – 0.12 (1.07) 233 – 0.20 (1.17) 0.08 (0.13) 0.05

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

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

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

a

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

b Number of schools outcome is topcoded at 4 or more schools.

c

 School grades outcome is defined as 1 = mostly Ds or Fs, 2 = mostly Cs, 3 = mostly Bs, 4 = mostly As.

d Sleep problems outcome ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating more frequent tiredness upon waking and during the day.

e

 Behavior problems outcome is measured as the standardized Total Difficulties score from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).

f

 Prosocial behavior is measured as the standardized prosocial domain score from the SDQ.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey (parent report)

PBTH group on total earnings, the proportion of family heads 

employed, or the number of quarters employed during the year.

Summary of the CBRR-Versus-PBTH Comparison 

Across Domains 

For a number of reasons, the CBRR-versus-PBTH comparison 

offers a weaker test than do the other pairwise comparisons in 

the study. The number of families in this comparison sample 

is the lowest of the pairwise comparisons, and so it provides 

less statistical power than the other tests.116 In addition, takeup 

rates for the programs offered in the assigned interventions 

offered in the assigned groups—53 percent for PBTH families 

and 55 percent for CBRR families—are somewhat lower than 

for other comparisons.

The CBRR-versus-PBTH comparison yields a somewhat enigmatic pattern of effects across the five study domains. Of the 

eight statistically significant effects found in this comparison, 

six show more favorable outcomes for assignment to the 

CBRR intervention and two show more favorable outcomes for 

assignment to the PBTH intervention. Of the eight outcomes 

on which statistically significant impacts in this comparison 

were found, only three had statistically significant impacts 

detected in any other study comparison (psychological distress, 

children’s behavior problems, and proportion of families 

who are food insecure). It seems surprising that outcomes on 

which no impacts were detected in comparisons with the SUB 

intervention (which had stronger contrasts in program use 

and clear patterns of impacts) would show differentials in the 

CBRR-versus-PBTH comparison (which has a weaker contrast 

in program use). Therefore, the three effects on psychological 

distress, children’s behavior problems, and proportion of 

families who are food insecure—all of which show favorable 

impacts of assignment to the CBRR intervention relative to assignment to the PBTH intervention—seem the least likely to be 

due to chance. Given the relatively few statistically significant 

results for this comparison, however, the study team hesitates 

to draw strong conclusions for this comparison.

116 The smaller comparison sample is, in large part, a result of the greater selectivity of PBTH programs, leading to the absence of the PBTH intervention from the randomization sets of 356 families. See Gubits et al. (2013), Exhibit 3-5, for more information on the relative selectivity of SUB, CBRR, and PBTH programs.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 96

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

Exhibit 6-26. CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Child Well-Being Developmental Outcomes by Age Group at 37 Months 

Outcome

CBRR PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Ages 2 to 5 yearsb

 Preschool or Head Start enrollmentc (%) 75 34.7 (47.9) 79 30.9 (48.1) 3.8 (8.6) 0.06

 Child care or preschool absences in past monthd 24 0.45 (0.93) 29 0.74 (0.82) – 0.29 (0.36) – 0.26

 Positive child care or preschool experiencese 24 0.99 (0.00) 31 0.75 (0.51) 0.23 (0.14) 0.49

 Positive child care or preschool attitudesf 24 4.57 (0.76) 30 4.41 (1.10) 0.16 (0.32) 0.19

 Child care or preschool conduct problemsg (%) 26 1.6 (0.0) 33 11.8 (36.4) – 10.2 (10.3) – 0.37

Ages 2 years to 5 years, 6 months

 Met developmental milestonesh (%) 59 69.6 (48.3) 69 59.2 (48.8) 10.4 (11.0) 0.18

Ages 3 years, 6 months to 7 years

 Verbal abilityi 78 – 0.27 (1.13) 85 – 0.43 (0.97) 0.16 (0.22) 0.13

 Math abilityj 75 – 0.41 (0.92) 85 – 0.46 (1.07) 0.05 (0.21) 0.04

 Executive functioningk (self-regulation) 69 14.35 (16.45) 81 15.46 (15.29) – 1.12 (2.47) – 0.05

Ages 5 to 17 yearsl

 School enrollmentc (%) 171 98.8 (10.8) 169 94.2 (17.0) 4.6 (4.2) 0.24

 School absences in past monthd,m 55 0.79 (0.91) 63 0.96 (0.96) – 0.17 (0.18) – 0.13

 Positive school experiencese,m 54 0.50 (0.57) 66 0.56 (0.61) – 0.06 (0.15) – 0.07

 Positive school attitudesf,m 55 4.08 (1.11) 66 4.14 (1.05) – 0.05 (0.19) – 0.04

 School conduct problemsg,m (%) 54 27.1 (45.2) 66 33.8 (47.5) – 6.6 (9.1) – 0.11

Ages 8 to 17 years

 Anxietyn 109 34.75 (7.13) 103 35.61 (7.45) – 0.86 (1.17) – 0.08

 Fearso 111 64.16 (14.83) 105 63.90 (14.75) 0.26 (1.62) 0.01

 Substance usep (%) 108 4.74 (23.01) 100 8.84 (31.45) – 4.09 (4.12) – 0.11

 Goal-oriented thinkingq 105 22.39 (4.48) 100 22.84 (4.72) – 0.45 (0.72) – 0.07

 School effort in past monthr 109 2.42 (0.79) 104 2.69 (0.82) – 0.27** (0.12) – 0.25

 Arrests or police involvement in past 6 monthss (%) 58 13.55 (32.86) 57 16.54 (38.37) – 2.99 (7.34) – 0.08

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

ITT = intention-to-treat. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error.

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

a

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

b Includes focal children who were ages 4 years or younger on the September 1 before the 37-month parent survey.

c

 Preschool or Head Start enrollment outcome is defined as enrollment in preschool, center-based child care, or school.

d Absences outcome is defined as 0 = no absences in past month, 1 = one to two absences, 2 = three to five absences, 3 = six or more absences.

e

 Positive child care, preschool, or school experiences outcome is defined as – 1 = mostly negative experiences, 0 = both positive and negative experiences, 1 = mostly positive 

experiences.

f

 Positive child care, preschool, or school attitudes outcome is parent report of how much child likes school and ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating greater like of 

school.

g

 Child care, preschool, or school conduct problems outcome is defined as 0 = no conduct problems reported to parent, 1 = parent contacted about conduct problems or suspension or expulsion from school or child care center.

h

 Met developmental milestones outcome is defined as scoring above the typical development cutoffs in all domains of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3).

i

 Verbal ability outcome is the nationally standardized score from the Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III) letter-word identification test.

j

 Math ability outcome is the nationally standardized score from the WJ III applied problems test.

k

 Executive functioning outcome is the Head Toes Knees Shoulders (HTKS) score and ranges from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating greater executive functioning.

l

 Includes focal children who were ages 5 to 17 years on the September 1 before the 37-month parent survey and no older than 17 years at the time of the survey.

m This parent-reported outcome was collected from only the first 38 percent of parents surveyed due to an error in data collection.

n

 Anxiety (child report) is measured using the A-Trait scale from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC). Scores range from 20 to 60, with higher scores indicating 

greater anxiety.

o

 Fears outcome (child report) is the score from the Fears Scale and ranges from 33 to 99, with higher scores indicating more fear.

p Substance use (child report) is measured with 23 items from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

q Goal-oriented thinking (child report) is measured with a modified version of the Children’s Hope Scale and ranges from 6 to 30, with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive, goal-oriented thinking.

r

 School effort outcome (child report) ranges from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater effort during school day and on homework.

s

 Arrest or police involvement in past 6 months is from parent report.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse.

See Chapter 2 and Appendix B for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey (parent report); Family Options Study 37-month child survey (child report); ASQ-3; WJ III; HTKS
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 97

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY Chapter 6. Impacts of Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB) Compared With Community-Based Rapid Re-Housing 

(CBRR), SUB Compared With Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH), and CBRR Compared With PBTH

Exhibit 6-27. CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Self-Sufficiency at 37 Months 

Outcome

CBRR PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Employment status

 Work for pay in week before survey (%) 180 36.6 (48.9) 184 40.4 (48.4) – 3.8 (5.1) – 0.07

 Any work for pay since 20-month surveyb (%) 166 59.9 (48.8) 169 59.5 (49.5) 0.3 (5.4) 0.01

 Months worked for pay since 20-month surveyb,c 166 6.5 (7.5) 168 7.8 (8.6) – 1.3 (0.9) – 0.16

 Any work for pay since RA (%) 180 72.3 (43.4) 184 71.9 (45.4) 0.4 (4.5) 0.01

 Months worked for pay since RAc 179 13.9 (13.2) 183 14.3 (14.2) – 0.4 (1.3) – 0.03

 Hours of work per week at current main jobd 180 12.4 (17.3) 184 12.7 (17.1) – 0.3 (1.8) – 0.02

Income sources and amounts

 Annualized current earnings ($) 176 6,808 (10,823) 182 7,535 (11,394) – 727 (1,221) – 0.06

 Total family income ($) 170 11,161 (9,110) 182 12,906 (10,608) – 1,745 (1,170) – 0.13

 Anyone in family had earnings in past month (%) 180 50.8 (50.0) 184 54.4 (50.1) – 3.6 (5.4) – 0.06

 Anyone in family received TANF in past month (%) 180 26.2 (43.1) 184 23.3 (43.1) 2.9 (4.8) 0.06

 Anyone in family received SSDI in past month (%) 180 9.6 (26.9) 184 7.5 (27.4) 2.1 (2.9) 0.06

 Anyone in family received SSI in past month (%) 180 11.9 (32.2) 184 13.2 (33.2) – 1.3 (3.4) – 0.03

 Anyone in family received SNAP/Food Stamps in past month (%) 180 80.5 (36.9) 184 85.4 (37.5) – 5.0 (4.0) – 0.11

 Anyone in family received WIC in past month (%) 180 28.3 (46.2) 184 32.0 (46.4) – 3.7 (5.2) – 0.07

Education and training

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of any school or training since RA (%) 180 37.1 (48.9) 183 36.5 (48.5) 0.6 (5.3) 0.01

 Number of weeks in school/training programs since RA 176 6.9 (16.6) 182 5.2 (10.7) 1.7 (1.7) 0.08

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of school since RA (%) 179 8.6 (27.8) 183 9.6 (30.6) – 1.0 (3.4) – 0.03

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of basic education since RA (%) 179 1.8 (14.8) 183 3.3 (16.3) – 1.5 (2.0) – 0.09

 Participated in 2 weeks or more of vocational education since RA (%) 179 6.6 (24.1) 183 9.9 (30.6) – 3.3 (3.3) – 0.08

Food security 

 Household is food insecure (%) 180 34.6 (47.3) 184 46.2 (50.1) – 11.6** (5.5) – 0.20

 Food insecurity scalee 180 1.46 (1.86) 182 1.76 (2.04) – 0.29 (0.21) – 0.12

Economic stressors

 Economic stress scalef 178 – 0.14 (0.51) 183 – 0.13 (0.54) – 0.01 (0.06) – 0.02

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

ITT = intention-to-treat. RA = random assignment. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error. SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SSDI = Social Security 

Disability Insurance. SSI = Supplemental Security Income. TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children.

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

a

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

b Includes only families who responded to both 20-month and 37-month followup surveys; not weighted for survey nonresponse.

c

 Number of months worked for pay includes partial calendar months.

d Hours of work per week includes those not currently working (that is, those with 0 hours of work per week).

e

 Food insecurity scale ranges from 0 to 6, with higher values indicating higher food insecurity.

f

 Economic stress scale ranges from – 1 to 1, with higher values indicating higher economic stress.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey

Exhibit 6-28. CBRR Versus PBTH: Earnings and Employment 

Outcome

CBRR PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

 Earnings in quarters 11 to 14 after RA (2015Q3$) 224 6,233 (10,781) 227 5,254 (9,233) 979 (949) 0.10

 Any employment in quarters 11 to 14 after RA (%) 224 54.8 (49.9) 227 51.7 (50.1) 3.1 (4.8) 0.06

 Number of quarters employed in quarters 11 to 14 after RA 224 1.6 (1.7) 227 1.5 (1.7) 0.1 (0.2) 0.04

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

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

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

a

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

Note: See Chapter 2 and Appendix B for outcome definitions.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 98

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

CHAPTER 7.

IMPACTS OF POOLED COMPARISONS

I

n addition to conducting the six pairwise comparisons, the 

study team combined assignment groups in various ways 

to examine additional comparisons. In the design phase of 

the study, the study team identified four questions as being of 

interest to HUD.

1. What is the impact of having priority access to any kind of 

housing subsidy for homeless families (permanent housing 

subsidy [SUB] + community-based rapid re-housing [CBRR] 

+ project-based transitional housing [PBTH]) compared with 

the impact of the usual care offered in the community?

2. What is the impact of having priority access to a housing 

subsidy with heavy services provided to homeless families 

(PBTH) compared with the impact of having priority access 

to housing subsidies with light or no services (SUB + CBRR)? 

3. What is the impact of assignment to interventions that offer 

programs that are more costly (SUB + PBTH) compared with 

the impact of assignment to groups that offer a less costly 

intervention (CBRR)?

4. What is the impact of having priority access to a housing 

subsidy that has no time limit (SUB) compared with the 

impact of having priority access to housing subsidy programs that have time limits (CBRR + PBTH)? 

One benefit of pooling the three interventions and usual care 

in impact comparisons is that it provides larger sample sizes 

for analysis. A family was included in a pooled comparison 

if its randomization set included at least one intervention on 

each side of the impact comparison. For example, a family was 

included in the SUB + PBTH comparison with CBRR if it had 

the opportunity to be assigned to the CBRR group and to either

the SUB or PBTH group.117 Exhibit 7-1 shows the number of 

families who are included in the comparisons used to address 

the preceding questions.

The study team’s examination of the impact results from the 

four pooled comparisons unexpectedly yielded little useful 

information on the questions posed. Instead, all the estimates 

appear to be dominated by the relatively large effects of the permanent housing subsidies offered in the SUB assignment group 

when compared with any of the other assignment groups, no 

matter how the different randomly assigned interventions are 

grouped. Therefore, the results of the pooled comparisons are 

not addressed here in the body of the report; rather, the results 

are provided in Appendix F, with no additional discussion.

Exhibit 7-1. Sample Sizes in the Four Pooled Comparisons 

Assigned Intervention Sample Size in Pooled Comparisona

SUB + CBRR + PBTH vs. UC SUB + CBRR vs. PBTH SUB + PBTH vs. CBRR CBRR + PBTHvs. SUB

SUB 501 — — 463

CBRR 434 — 382 —

PBTH 293 290 — —

UC 556 — — — 

395 (SUB+CBRR) 546 (SUB+PBTH) 491 (CBRR+PBTH)

Total 1,784 685 928 954

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

a

 Sample sizes are number of families who responded to the 37-month followup survey.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey

117 The randomization sets that provided the opportunity to be assigned to the CBRR group and to either the SUB or PBTH groups were {SUB, CBRR, PBTH, UC}, {SUB, 

CBRR, UC}, and {CBRR, PBTH, UC}.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 99

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

CHAPTER 8.

DO CERTAIN INTERVENTIONS WORK 

BETTER WHEN OFFERED TO FAMILIES 

WHO FACE GREATER DIFFICULTIES? 

Previous chapters of this report have examined which 

interventions work best, on average, across all families 

in the study. This chapter asks whether some interventions work better than others for families who have greater 

needs, measured at the outset of the study. 

The theory behind the interventions suggests that some types 

of programs may be especially effective for families who have 

two types of needs: psychosocial challenges, such as domestic 

violence, psychological distress, or disability, and housing 

barriers, such as lack of employment, lack of income to pay 

rent, or poor credit histories. Project-based transitional housing 

programs—with their extensive services—are designed to address families’ psychosocial challenges. It is therefore plausible 

that families facing more of those challenges may benefit, even 

if families who have fewer psychosocial challenges do no better 

than UC families. Because addressing these issues is thought to 

lay the foundation for success in housing, differential benefits 

of project-based transitional housing for families who have 

more challenges may extend to other domains. The paucity of 

effects of assignment to the PBTH intervention, on average, may 

mask differential effects for families who have greater needs.

In a similar way, although the benefits of assignment to the 

SUB intervention are substantial across domains, it is possible 

that not all families need long-term subsidies; families who 

have relatively few housing barriers may do as well with the 

less intensive CBRR programs or usual care. Because many 

PBTH programs provide job training and the SUB programs 

provide housing despite low incomes caused by poor health or 

disability, each of those types of programs may be especially 

successful with families who have both types of needs. Conversely, CBRR programs, with shorter subsidies and fewer services, may benefit families facing fewer psychosocial challenges 

or housing barriers but may be insufficient for families who 

have higher levels of needs. The general form of this hypothesis 

is that the more intensive programs may have larger impacts 

for families who have greater needs; the less intensive CBRR 

programs may have larger impacts for families who have fewer 

needs.

This chapter explores whether, 37 months after random assignment, relative impacts vary depending on these two types of 

family needs. The study team found no evidence of differential 

intervention impacts for families who had different levels of 

need 20 months after random assignment, but it is possible 

that such impacts would take longer to emerge. To evaluate 

this possibility, the study team created indices of psychosocial 

challenges and housing barriers measured at the time of the 

baseline survey and examined whether the impact of the three 

interventions relative to each other and to usual care increases 

as families’ scores on these indices increase. Because the 

interventions are presented to families as packages, the study 

team considered differential effects across the array of outcomes 

preselected for inclusion in the executive summary.

Differential impact for any particular outcome could take more 

than one form. It is possible that one intervention in a pairwise 

comparison would be superior for that outcome for families 

who have greater needs and the other would be superior for 

families who have lower needs. This form may be most likely in 

a pair in which no average impact is found for that comparison. 

As an alternative, one intervention in the pair may always be 

superior for a particular outcome, but its superiority would 

be less marked for families who have greater or lower needs. 

This form may be most likely for a pair in which a substantial 

intervention impact is found, on average.

Patterns in measured impacts by level of need also require 

subtle statistical interpretation. For each comparison (for example, SUB versus PBTH) and each need index—psychosocial 

challenges, housing barriers—the study team conducted 18 

statistical tests of whether impacts are different for families 

who have higher or lower needs, 1 for each of the 18 primary 

outcome measures featured in the analysis. With this number 

of tests, even if the indexes have no true relationship to 

impacts, the chance of a statistically significant result on 1 or 

more tests is very high. A single test has a 10-percent chance 

of a “false positive” result of this kind. Among 18 statistically 

independent tests, the odds of at least one “false positive” 
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 100

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 8. Do Certain Interventions Work Better When Offered to Families Who Face Greater Difficulties? 

when no true relationship is present goes up to 85 percent. To 

guard against overinterpreting findings in this circumstance, 

the study team does not credit apparently significant results as 

evidence of real differences in impact by need level unless 4 or 

more of the 18 test results show significant findings at the .10 

level—something that, with independent tests, has only a .098 

(that is, very close to the .10 level used in the balance of the 

report) chance of occurring absent any true relationship. Thus, 

for a given need index and comparison, this report discusses 

only the findings if significant results appear for 4 or more of 

the 18 tested outcomes. Given the positive dependence among 

the tests (because all are based on the same sample of families 

for any given comparison, and outcomes are associated with 

one another), the study team cannot be sure that every such 

case has an extremely low likelihood of reflecting only chance 

differences,118 but, in exploratory analyses this approach seems 

a reasonable standard for exercising caution in interpreting 

statistical results. If the number of statistically significant 

results exceeds 4 out of 18 for a given comparison, the study 

team then examined the patterns of results and whether they 

conform to the hypothesis that the more intensive intervention 

will have larger impacts for needier families—those with higher 

levels of challenges or barriers. 

8.1. Descriptive Results for 

Psychosocial Challenges and 

Housing Barriers 

The psychosocial challenge index is a count of the number 

of nine potential psychosocial challenges reported by families 

at the baseline survey just before random assignment. As 

shown in Exhibit 8-1, the most common challenge, by far, 

was experiencing domestic violence, affecting one-half of 

respondents (at some time in adulthood), with having current 

poor or fair health and being in foster care or an institution 

as a child affecting more than one-fourth of families. Having 

psychological distress, a disability, drug or alcohol dependence, 

and a child with a disability each affected about one-fifth of the 

respondents. Overall, families experienced an average of 2.2 

challenges at study entry. 

The housing barriers index is a count of the number of 15 

potential barriers reported by families at the baseline survey. 

Families reported an average of 6.5 housing barriers. As shown 

in Exhibit 8-2, both insufficient income to pay rent and inability 

to pay a security deposit or first and last month’s rent were almost 

universal. Four-fifths of families cited lack of current employment as a barrier, three-fourths cited poor credit history, and 

two-thirds cited lack of transportation to look for housing. 

Exhibit 8-1. Percentage of Adult Respondents Reporting 

Psychosocial Challenges at the Time of Study Enrollment 

(for families interviewed at 37 months) 

Psychosocial Challenges Percent

Domestic violence 50.0

Poor or fair health 30.9

In foster care or institution as child 26.9

Severe psychological distress 22.1

Disability 21.6

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 21.6

Drug abuse or alcohol dependency 21.2

Child with disability 17.5

Past felony 11.1

Notes: Although psychosocial challenges were measured at baseline, percentages 

differ slightly from the short-term impacts report because a somewhat different group 

of families responded to the 37-month survey. Sample reported is the 1,784 families 

who responded to the 37-month survey.

Source: Family Options Study baseline survey

Exhibit 8-2. Percentage of Adult Respondents Reporting 

That a Condition Was a Big or Small Problem in Finding a 

Place To Live at the Time of Study Enrollment (for families 

interviewed at 37 months) 

Housing Barriers

Percent 

Reporting 

Big or Small 

Problem

Not enough income to pay rent 96.4

Inability to pay a security deposit or first/last month’s rent 93.3

Not currently employed 79.8

Poor credit history 73.5

Lack of transportation to look for housing 65.5

No reference from past landlords 43.6

Past eviction 39.4

No rent history at all 38.3

Recently moved to a community and no local rent history 32.2

Problems with past landlords 18.6

Three or more children in the household 17.6

Racial discrimination 17.1

Past lease violations 15.9

Someone in the household less than 21 years old 8.6

Teenagers in the household 5.9

Notes: Although housing barriers were measured at baseline, percentages differ 

slightly from the short-term impacts report because a somewhat different group of 

families responded to the 37-month survey. Sample reported is the 1,784 families who 

responded to the 37-month survey.

Source: Family Options Study baseline survey

118 Positive statistical dependence among the test results, as opposed to total statistical independence, raises the probability of 4 or more statistically significant results 

among 18 tests above .098 by some amount. Explicit adjustment of test findings for the multiple comparisons involved here would take this dependence into account, 

but here—and in other exploratory analyses in this report—that extent of protection against “false positive” conclusions is judged to be overly cautious and complex; only 

when judging impacts on the evaluation’s confirmatory outcome (at least 1 night homeless or doubled up in the past 6 months or in shelter in the past 12 months) does 

the study team apply such strict and explicit checks on the multiple comparison risk involved.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 101

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 8. Do Certain Interventions Work Better When Offered to Families Who Face Greater Difficulties? 

The indices of challenges and barriers were positively correlated,119

indicating that families who have high levels of challenges were 

also somewhat more likely to have high levels of barriers, and 

vice versa. The two indices reflect separate but related measures 

of the difficulties families face. 

8.2. Differential Impacts Depending 

on Psychosocial Challenges

Exhibit 8-3 shows the estimated size of the impact of each 

comparison (for example, SUB versus UC) for families who 

have low and high levels of challenge. Low challenge is set at 

the 20th percentile of challenge, and high challenge is set at 

the 80th percentile. The 20th percentile is one challenge (out 

of nine challenges; that is, more than 20 percent of families 

reported one or fewer challenges). The 80th percentile is four 

challenges. The asterisks in the exhibit reflect whether the 

variation in impact by the level of each psychosocial challenge 

is statistically significant. 

For example, the first row considers impacts for the confirmatory outcome of at least 1 night homeless or doubled up in 

the past 6 months or at least 1 night in shelter in the past 12 

months. In the first pair of columns, the impact of assignment 

to the SUB intervention compared with usual care is estimated 

to be a reduction of 23.8 percentage points in this outcome for 

families who have a low challenge level and 17.1 percentage 

points for families who have a high challenge level. The average 

effect is very large and significant, as reported previously in 

Chapter 3, and the impact remains very large and significant 

for those with low and high challenges. The difference between 

these two impacts, however, is not significant.

8.2.1. SUB Versus UC

Assignment to the SUB intervention would be expected to 

have greater impact relative to usual care for families who have 

higher numbers of psychosocial challenges, even if the SUB 

programs do not address these challenges directly. Families 

who have fewer challenges may be able to manage without 

long-term help; however, no evidence of differential impact 

was indicated. None of the 18 tests for differences in impact 

magnitude between low and high challenge levels reached statistical significance. The substantial average differences between 

assignment to the SUB intervention and usual care shown 

in previous chapters held across both levels of psychosocial 

challenges. 

8.2.2. CBRR Versus UC 

The CBRR intervention, offering short-term subsidies and 

low-intensity services focused on housing and self-sufficiency, 

may be insufficient for families who have high levels of 

psychosocial challenges. It would be expected to work better 

compared with usual care for families who have fewer challenges. Only 1 of 18 tests was statistically significant—slightly fewer 

than would be expected by chance alone if no true impact 

variation occurred. Previous chapters found little impact of 

assignment to the CBRR intervention relative to usual care on 

average, and no evidence here indicates that assignment to the 

CBRR intervention worked better for families who have a lower 

number of challenges.

8.2.3. PBTH Versus UC 

As the intervention that is designed to address psychosocial 

challenges directly through the provision of intensive services 

in a supervised facility, PBTH would be expected to have greater impact relative to usual care for families who have higher 

levels of challenges. Addressing these challenges is thought to 

lay the foundation for success in housing and self-sufficiency. 

None of the 18 tests of differential impact, however, reached 

statistical significance. Previous chapters found little impact of 

assignment to the PBTH intervention relative to usual care, and 

no evidence indicates that impact differs depending on the level 

of psychosocial challenges families face.

8.2.4. SUB Versus CBRR 

The SUB intervention, offering priority access to a permanent 

housing subsidy, would be expected to have greater impact 

on housing stability than assignment to the CBRR intervention 

for all families, but especially for those whose psychosocial 

challenges threaten that stability. To the extent that housing is 

a platform for families to deal with other challenges they face, 

the radiating impact of assignment to the SUB intervention 

observed in earlier chapters may be especially marked for families who have more challenges. With only 1 of 18 statistically 

significant findings—slightly fewer than would be expected 

by chance alone—the study team concludes that the impacts 

families experience from assignment to the SUB intervention 

compared with assignment to the CBRR intervention do not 

differ for families who have different levels of challenges. 

119 r = .23, p < .001 for the sample interviewed at 37 months.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 102

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 8. Do Certain Interventions Work Better When Offered to Families Who Face Greater Difficulties? 

Exhibit 8-3. Impacts at 37 Months Moderated by Baseline Psychosocial Challenges Index 

Outcome SUB vs. UC CBRR vs. UC PBTH vs. UC SUB vs. CBRR SUB vs. PBTH CBRR vs. PBTH

Impact at Low Versus High 

Challenge Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High

Housing stability

At least 1 night homeless or 

doubled up in past 6 months 

or in shelter in past 12 months 

(%) [confirmatory]

– 23.8 – 17.1 3.1 – 0.6 5.7 – 4.2 – 20.7 – 21.5 – 29.2 – 12.8** 0.6 – 4.4

At least 1 night homeless or 

doubled up in past 6 months 

(%)

– 19.6 – 16.4 3.2 – 1.9 6.2 – 5.3 – 15.2 – 16.9 – 28.7 – 8.8*** 1.7 – 5.5

Number of places lived in past 6 

months

– 0.21 – 0.29 0.06 – 0.04 0.00 – 0.05 – 0.16 – 0.13 – 0.40 – 0.14 0.14 0.04

Any stay in emergency shelter in 

months 21 to 32 after random 

assignment (%)

– 15.0 – 13.6 – 2.9 – 0.4 – 6.5 – 3.6 – 11.9 – 15.2 – 6.0 – 4.4 2.2 – 0.3

Family preservation

Family has had at least one child 

separated in past 6 monthsa (%) 

– 4.2 – 2.4 0.2 – 0.8 1.6 1.7 – 2.9 – 1.6 – 7.5 – 8.7 0.1 – 8.8

Spouse/partner separated in 

past 6 months, of those with 

spouse/partner present at 

RAb (%)

10.3 17.4 9.1 7.9 6.7 18.3 – 13.5 7.7 – 8.9 25.3** 5.2 – 8.0

Family has no child reunified, 

of those families with at least 

one child absent at RAc (%) 

[limited base] (%) 

– 5.9 – 9.9 – 5.6 – 9.9 2.4 – 1.7 – 18.9 – 11.0 – 18.3 – 21.7 11.5 – 2.1

Adult well-being

Health in past 30 days was poor 

or fair (%)

0.7 8.1 – 2.2 8.2** 0.5 – 1.7 – 1.9 3.7 – 5.3 2.8 – 4.0 10.2*

Psychological distressd – 0.92 – 0.41 – 0.36 – 0.23 0.12 – 0.52 – 0.14 0.67 – 0.95 0.33 – 1.46 – 0.07

Alcohol dependence or drug 

abusee (%) 

– 1.6 – 2.7 – 1.0 – 3.7 2.1 4.2 1.3 3.1 – 2.4 1.3 – 5.9 – 11.8

Experienced intimate partner 

violence in past 6 months (%)

– 3.7 – 4.7 – 3.2 1.3 – 0.6 – 2.0 2.2 – 8.6** – 4.9 5.2* – 3.7 7.4*

Child well-being

Number of schools attended 

since RAf

– 0.18 – 0.12 0.04 0.01 – 0.03 0.17 – 0.23 – 0.32 – 0.17 – 0.26 0.04 0.05

School absences in past month 

(ages 5 to 17 years)g

– 0.14 0.01 – 0.18 – 0.12 – 0.07 – 0.36 0.15 0.00 – 0.21 – 0.10 – 0.29 – 0.05

Poor or fair health (%) 3.0 0.8 1.4 – 2.7 – 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.8 – 1.2 – 3.4 0.5 – 4.8

Behavior problemsh – 0.24 – 0.18 – 0.14 – 0.15 0.01 – 0.15 0.02 0.01 – 0.22 – 0.14 – 0.24 – 0.06

Self-sufficiency

Work for pay in week before the 

survey (%)

– 2.2 1.9 – 1.0 2.2 1.6 3.8 1.7 – 2.3 – 8.1 0.1 – 9.2 – 1.0

Total family income ($) – 453 – 1,367 – 982 27 – 37 153 – 1,095 – 1,139 – 953 – 2,534 – 1,922 – 838

Household is food secure (%) 10.9 6.4 6.4 0.9 5.5 – 1.5 – 2.4 6.9 13.0 8.7 5.8 19.0

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

RA = random assignment.

*/**/*** Impact magnitude varies significantly with level of [psychological or housing barriers] challenge at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, using a two-tailed t-test. 

a

 Measures the percentage of families in which a child who was with the family at baseline was separated from the family in the 6 months before the 37-month survey.

b Measures the percentage of families in which a spouse or partner who was with the family at baseline was separated from the family in the 6 months before the 37-month survey.

c

 Percentage of families in which at least one child was separated from the family at baseline where no child was reunited with the family at the time of the 37-month survey. 

d Psychological distress is measured with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) and ranges from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater distress. 

e

 Alcohol dependence is measured with the Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS-4), and drug abuse is measured with six items from the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10).

f

 Number of schools outcome is topcoded at 4 or more schools. 

g

 Absences outcome is defined as 0 = no absences in past month; 1 = one to two absences; 2 = three to five absences; 3 = six or more absences. This parent-reported outcome 

was collected from only the first 38 percent of parents surveyed due to an error in data collection.

h

 Behavior problems outcome is measured as the standardized Total Difficulties score from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).

Notes: The low estimate is calculated at the 20th percentile of the moderator in the full sample and the high estimate is calculated at the 80th percentile of the moderator. Impact 

mean difference estimates are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B for outcome 

definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-Month Followup Survey
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 103

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 8. Do Certain Interventions Work Better When Offered to Families Who Face Greater Difficulties? 

8.2.5. SUB Versus PBTH

Because the PBTH intervention offers priority access to 

programs that address psychosocial challenges more directly 

than the SUB intervention does, proponents of project-based 

transitional housing would expect it to be especially beneficial 

for families who have higher numbers of these challenges. 

Some evidence supports this proposition. Of the 18 tests for 

differential impacts by psychosocial challenge level, 4 reached 

statistical significance, and the direction of differential effects 

is consistent: the benefit from assignment to the SUB group 

relative to assignment to the PBTH group is smaller for families 

who have more challenges than it is for families who have 

fewer challenges. This degree of contrast suggests more than 

chance variability in the data and signals that further attention 

to the 4 specific findings involved is warranted.

In the housing stability domain, assignment to the SUB group 

rather than to the PBTH group remained beneficial overall, but 

the benefits were stronger for families who have fewer challenges. 

Assignment to the SUB group reduced the confirmatory outcome 

(at least 1 night homeless or doubled up in the past 6 months 

or in shelter in the past 12 months) by 13 percentage points for 

families who have more psychosocial challenges and by 29 percentage points for families who have fewer challenges. Results 

for the associated outcome of at least 1 night homeless or doubled up in the past 6 months were parallel: assignment to the 

SUB group rather than to the PBTH group led to a reduction of 

9 percentage points for families facing more challenges and 29 

percentage points for families who face fewer challenges. 

In the adult well-being domain, families who have more challenges 

benefited more from assignment to the PBTH intervention than 

from assignment to the SUB intervention, but families who 

have fewer challenges experienced the opposite, benefiting 

more from assignment to the SUB intervention than from 

assignment to the PBTH intervention. Assignment to the PBTH 

intervention rather than to the SUB intervention reduced 

experiences of intimate partner violence modestly (5 percentage 

points) for families who have high levels of challenges but 

increased them by about the same amount for families who 

have low levels. 

The finding of differential impact in the family preservation 

domain is more difficult to interpret. Assignment to the PBTH 

intervention rather than to the SUB intervention increased 

recent separations of spouses and partners among the subset of 

families who had a partner with the family in shelter at the outset of the study by 9 percentage points for families who have 

fewer challenges but reduced them by 25 percentage points for 

families who have more challenges. Separation outcomes are 

correlated with baseline intimate partner violence overall, but 

especially for families assigned to the SUB group.120 It is plausible that the subsidy intervention enabled some family heads to 

leave abusive relationships who would not have done so with 

assignment to the PBTH group. Because baseline interpersonal 

violence is the most prevalent of the psychosocial challenges, 

these women are more likely to be in the high challenge group.

A caveat here is that none of the differential effects for the SUBversus-PBTH comparison were found at 20 months. Further, 

the theory behind project-based transitional housing would 

lead one to expect this same pattern of findings for the PBTHversus-UC comparison and the CBRR-versus-PBTH comparison 

as for the SUB-versus-PBTH comparison. None of the tests 

for differential impacts in the housing or family preservation 

domain reach significance for these comparisons, and the 

nonsignificant results are in different directions. The lack of 

replication across time points and comparisons suggests that 

findings may be due to chance. The finding that assignment to 

the PBTH intervention is more likely to reduce intimate partner 

violence for families facing more challenges is replicated in the 

CBRR-versus-PBTH comparison (at 37 months only), however. 

All these factors led the study team to considerable caution 

about these results. 

If the results in this comparison are accepted as reflecting true 

differential impact rather than chance findings, what should the 

conclusion be? Considering the set of 18 outcomes as a whole, 

even among families facing high levels of challenges, one 

would prefer the SUB intervention to the PBTH intervention 

regarding all the housing stability outcomes and regarding 

other dimensions such as child separations, number of schools 

children attended, and food security for which the SUB 

intervention had uniformly more positive impacts than the 

PBTH intervention across levels of psychosocial challenges. 

Regarding intimate partner violence, however, assignment to 

the PBTH intervention was superior to assignment to the SUB 

intervention for those families who have more psychosocial 

challenges. Assignment to the PBTH intervention also led to 

fewer separations of spouses and partners for families who have 

more challenges. 

8.2.6. CBRR Versus PBTH

As the intervention offering intensive social services in a 

supervised facility, PBTH would be expected to have greater 

impact relative to the CBRR intervention for families who have 

120 r = .42 between interpersonal violence at baseline and separation at 37 months for SUB families.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 104

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 8. Do Certain Interventions Work Better When Offered to Families Who Face Greater Difficulties? 

more psychosocial challenges. Of 18 results here, 2 reached 

statistical significance. Both are in the same direction of less 

favorable impacts for families in the high challenge group who 

were assigned to the CBRR group rather than to the PBTH 

group. One of these effects is a greater reduction in intimate 

partner violence for families who have more challenges who 

are assigned to the PBTH group rather than to the CBRR group. 

Because the number of effects is not more than would be 

expected by chance alone, however, the study team concludes 

that the size of impacts families experience from assignment to 

the CBRR intervention compared with assignment to the PBTH 

intervention does not appear to vary by the level of psychosocial challenges.

8.3. Differential Impacts Depending 

on Housing Barriers

Exhibit 8-4 illustrates possible differential impacts of interventions based on the number of housing barriers families reported 

at study entry. It shows the estimated size of the impact for a 

given policy contrast (for example, the SUB intervention versus 

usual care) for families who have low and high barriers, again 

using cutoffs at the 20th and 80th percentiles of barriers. For 

housing barriers, the 20th percentile is 4.0 barriers and the 

80th percentile 8.6 barriers. As in the previous section on psychosocial challenges, the asterisks reflect whether the variation

in impact by level of housing barriers is statistically significant. 

Also, as in that section, the study team considers both the 

number of statistically significant findings and their patterns in 

interpreting whether results show real evidence.

8.3.1. SUB Versus UC 

By providing priority access to permanent housing subsidies, 

assignment to the SUB intervention would be expected to have 

greater impact relative to usual care for families who have 

higher housing barriers, such as lack of income to pay rent or 

security deposits, lack of employment, or poor credit. Such 

families may not otherwise be able to access stable housing. 

No evidence, however, supported this hypothesis. Of the 18 

comparisons, 2 were statistically significant—not more than 

would be expected by chance alone—and they were in opposite directions. The substantial average differences between 

assignment to the SUB intervention and usual care shown in 

previous chapters hold across families facing different numbers 

of housing barriers.

8.3.2. CBRR Versus UC 

The CBRR programs offered to families assigned to the CBRR 

intervention, as the least intensive of the active interventions, 

would be expected to work best compared with usual care families who have lower barriers to housing. Temporary subsidies 

may not be sufficient to overcome greater housing barriers. Of 

18 tests, 2 were statistically significant, both in the predicted 

direction, but because 2 does not exceed the number of statistically significant findings expected by chance alone, the study 

team cannot conclude that the impacts of assignment to the 

CBRR intervention versus usual care varies with the number of 

housing barriers. 

8.3.3. PBTH Versus UC 

The services that PBTH programs provide may directly address 

housing barriers by helping with job training or restoration of 

credit. They more generally address issues such as substance 

abuse or psychological distress that may interfere with employment or create problems with landlords. Thus, assignment 

to the PBTH intervention would be expected to have greater 

impact relative to usual care for families who have more 

housing barriers. Only 2 of the 18 tests conducted reached 

significance—not more than would be expected by chance 

alone if no true impact variation occurred—and they are in 

opposite directions. Previous chapters found little impact of 

assignment to the PBTH intervention relative to usual care, and 

no evidence indicates that impact differs depending on the level 

of housing barriers families face.

8.3.4. SUB Versus CBRR 

The permanent and often deeper housing subsidies that the 

SUB programs provide would be expected to have a greater 

impact than the temporary and shallower subsidies of the 

CBRR programs for families who have more housing barriers. 

Of the 18 tests, 3 reached statistical significance—less than 

the threshold of 4 for interpretation—and the direction of the 

effects was not consistent. The study team therefore cannot 

conclude that the size of impacts families experience from 

assignment to the SUB intervention compared with assignment 

to the CBRR intervention differs for families who have different 

numbers of housing barriers.

8.3.5. SUB Versus PBTH

Because housing subsidies overcome many barriers to housing, 

proponents of the permanent housing subsidy would expect it 

to be especially beneficial for families who have more of these 

barriers. Proponents of project-based transitional housing make 

the opposite prediction. The 1 statistically significant result out 

of 18—fewer than would be expected by chance alone—fails to 

confirm either proposition and is best interpreted as chance.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 105

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 8. Do Certain Interventions Work Better When Offered to Families Who Face Greater Difficulties? 

Exhibit 8-4. Impacts at 37 Months Moderated by Baseline Housing Barriers Index 

Outcome SUB vs. UC CBRR vs. UC PBTH vs. UC SUB vs. CBRR SUB vs. PBTH CBRR vs. PBTH

Impact at Low Versus 

High Challenge Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High

Housing stability

At least 1 night homeless or 

doubled up in past 6 months or 

in shelter in past 12 months (%) 

[confirmatory]

– 19.3 – 23.1 4.8 – 1.8 – 2.5 5.1 – 19.4 – 21.9 – 22.8 – 23.5 – 0.4 – 2.3

At least 1 night homeless or doubled 

up in past 6 months (%)

– 16.3 – 20.4 4.7 – 2.7 – 4.7 6.8 – 15.7 – 15.4 – 19.1 – 23.1 4.1 – 6.9

Number of places lived in past 6 

months

– 0.17 – 0.32 0.10 – 0.07 – 0.06 0.01 – 0.16 – 0.12 – 0.39 – 0.21 0.13 0.05

Any stay in emergency shelter in 

months 21 to 32 after random 

assignment (%)

– 12.0 – 16.7 – 0.2 – 3.5 – 2.8 – 7.5 – 11.1 – 15.4 – 7.6 – 2.9 – 2.2 5.5

Family preservation

Family has had at least one child 

separated in past 6 monthsa (%) 

– 6.6 – 1.3 – 1.5 0.8 – 5.5 7.9** – 2.8 – 2.0 – 13.8 – 3.5 – 0.7 – 6.8

Spouse/partner separated in past 

6 months, of those with spouse/

partner present at RAb (%)

7.6 19.0 7.8 5.1 6.9 13.7 – 10.1 – 4.7 – 16.1 16.7* 2.6 – 1.2

Family has no child reunified, of 

those families with at least one 

child absent at RAc (%) [limited 

base] (%) 

– 7.3 – 9.8 – 7.3 – 7.2 – 4.4 1.6 – 12.9 – 19.7 – 22.0 – 19.3 4.6 1.8

Adult well-being

Health in past 30 days was poor or 

fair (%)

2.1 4.9 – 3.7 7.5* – 4.5 2.8 4.8 – 3.9 – 0.2 – 4.8 – 0.4 2.1

Psychological distressd – 1.58 0.02** – 1.13 0.36** – 0.29 – 0.15 0.59 – 0.16 – 1.22 0.09 – 0.88 – 1.61

Alcohol dependence or drug abusee

(%) 

– 2.6 – 2.1 0.5 – 5.2 3.1 2.1 – 2.2 5.2 – 0.2 – 2.0 – 8.1 – 8.9

Experienced intimate partner 

violence in past 6 months (%)

– 6.0 – 2.8 1.3 – 4.9 0.3 – 2.8 – 6.5 2.0** – 4.0 1.5 – 1.8 2.1

Child well-being

Number of schools attended since 

RAf

0.05 – 0.32*** 0.06 – 0.01 0.04 0.04 – 0.04 – 0.44*** – 0.13 – 0.29 0.20 – 0.09

School absences in past month 

(ages 5 to 17 years)g

0.08 – 0.15 – 0.22 – 0.14 – 0.07 – 0.25 0.11 0.06 – 0.15 – 0.15 – 0.54 0.08**

Poor or fair health (%) 0.0 3.4 0.1 – 1.1 1.5 – 1.6 0.4 0.7 – 5.6 – 0.1 – 5.2 0.3*

Behavior problemsh – 0.25 – 0.22 – 0.24 – 0.15 – 0.05 – 0.07 0.11 – 0.03 – 0.27 – 0.19 – 0.20 – 0.24

Self-sufficiency

Work for pay in week before the 

survey (%)

1.0 – 1.8 2.6 – 0.8 1.6 3.8 – 2.9 1.4 – 8.1 – 1.2 – 4.2 – 5.6

Total family income ($) – 2,039 196 – 1,400 368 – 1,795 1,841* – 2,695 – 86* – 952 – 2,053 – 1,381 – 1,663

Household is food secure (%) 10.6 8.3 6.0 2.9 1.1 3.5 2.7 0.6 20.0 6.1 10.1 12.8

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

RA = random assignment.

*/**/*** Impact magnitude varies significantly with level of [psychological or housing barriers] challenge at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, using a two-tailed t-test. 

a

 Measures the percentage of families in which a child who was with the family at baseline was separated from the family in the 6 months before the 37-month survey.

b Measures the percentage of families in which a spouse or partner who was with the family at baseline was separated from the family in the 6 months before the 37-month survey.

c

 Percentage of families in which at least one child was separated from the family at baseline where no child was reunited with the family at the time of the 37-month survey. 

d Psychological distress is measured with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) and ranges from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater distress. 

e

 Alcohol dependence is measured with the Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS-4), and drug abuse is measured with six items from the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10).

f

 Number of schools outcome is topcoded at 4 or more schools. 

g

 Absences outcome is defined as 0 = no absences in past month; 1 = one to two absences; 2 = three to five absences; 3 = six or more absences. This parent-reported outcome 

was collected from only the first 38 percent of parents surveyed due to an error in data collection.

h

 Behavior problems outcome is measured as the standardized Total Difficulties score from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).

Notes: The low estimate is calculated at the 20th percentile of the moderator in the full sample and the high estimate is calculated at the 80th percentile of the moderator. Impact 

mean difference estimates are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B for outcome 

definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-Month Followup Survey
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 106

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 8. Do Certain Interventions Work Better When Offered to Families Who Face Greater Difficulties? 

8.3.6. CBRR Versus PBTH

As the intervention offering more intensive services that address 

housing barriers directly and indirectly, PBTH would be expected to have greater impact relative to the CBRR intervention 

for families who have higher housing barriers. For families who 

have fewer barriers, temporary subsidies may suffice. Of 18 

tests here, 2 reach statistical significance, both in the predicted 

direction, but this is not more than would be expected by 

chance alone. Thus, the study team cannot conclude that the 

size of the impacts families experience from assignment to the 

CBRR intervention compared with assignment to the PBTH 

intervention differ for families who have different numbers of 

housing barriers.

8.4. Summary

On average, the families in this study reported high numbers of 

psychosocial challenges and even higher numbers of barriers to 

housing at the time they entered the study after having spent at 

least 7 days in an emergency shelter. At the same time, families 

varied in the number of challenges and barriers they reported. 

This chapter examined whether any of the interventions works 

comparatively better for families depending on the difficulties 

they face. 

With one exception, the study team found no statistically 

convincing evidence that any of the interventions works 

comparatively better or worse for families who face more 

psychosocial challenges or housing barriers than for families 

who face fewer difficulties. The exception was that, for certain 

outcomes, the benefit from assignment to the SUB intervention 

relative to assignment to the PBTH intervention is smaller for 

families who have more psychosocial challenges than it is for 

families who have fewer challenges. In particular, the ability of 

assignment to the SUB intervention to produce greater long-run 

housing stability than assignment to the PBTH intervention 

was less pronounced (though still present) for families who 

have a high level of psychosocial challenges at baseline than for 

families who have a low level of challenges. Consistent with the 

theory behind project-based transitional housing, assignment 

to the PBTH intervention actually did more than assignment 

to the SUB intervention to reduce separations from spouses 

and partners and intimate partner violence at 37-months for 

families who have higher levels of psychosocial challenges. 

(An alternate interpretation is that assignment to the SUB 

intervention enabled respondents to leave abusive partners.) 

Still, across the full range of outcomes examined at 37 months, 

families who have high levels of psychosocial challenge at 

baseline experienced many benefits of assignment to the SUB 

intervention compared with assignment to the PBTH intervention regarding additional housing stability outcomes, child 

separations, children’s school mobility and behavior problems, 

and household food security, where differential impacts by 

challenge level did not emerge. 

The study team cannot completely rule out the possibility 

of further differential effects related to families’ difficulties at 

baseline—doing so would require larger sample sizes than 

are available in the study. At this point, however—with the 

exception of a small subset of outcomes in the SUB-versusPBTH comparison when considering families who have high 

psychosocial challenge—the main results in previous chapters 

about impacts across all families provide the study’s clearest 

guidance for policy and practice.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 107

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

CHAPTER 9.

INTERVENTION COSTS

T his chapter documents the costs of providing the 

housing or shelter and supportive services in the programs associated with the interventions—permanent 

housing subsidies (SUB), community-based rapid re-housing 

(CBRR), project-based transitional housing (PBTH), and usual 

care (UC)—in the Family Options Study and the total costs 

incurred by families in each pairwise comparison. The goal of 

the 3-year cost analysis was to determine the relative costs of 

studied interventions taking into account all programs used in 

the 3 years since random assignment.

For decisionmakers who design and implement policy to 

address homelessness among families, information about the 

relative costs of the active interventions and usual care in this 

study is a critical complement to findings about their relative 

impacts. To assess the relative costs of the interventions, it 

is crucial to understand both the cost per month for each 

program to which families were given priority access and the 

overall cost to all providers of shelter and housing assistance of 

giving families priority access to a particular type of program. 

This chapter begins by reviewing the concepts and methods 

used to analyze and describe program costs.121 Then, Section 

9.2 presents estimates of per-family monthly costs for each 

program type. To estimate the cost of the use of programs of all 

types, the study team summed monthly cost estimates over observed program use in the 37-month followup period. Section 

9.3 presents these estimates of the cost of all program use for 

families randomly assigned to groups that offered priority access to each program type, or assignment to usual care. Finally, 

Section 9.4 reports the monthly cost of observed program use 

at the time of the 37-month followup survey.

The Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing and 

Services Interventions for Homeless Families (hereafter, the 

Short-Term Impacts report; Gubits et al., 2015) reported that 

the per-family monthly cost of emergency shelter varied 

considerably by program type. Per-family monthly costs were 

highest for emergency shelter programs and lowest for rapid 

re-housing programs (the programs to which families assigned 

to the CBRR intervention were referred). In the first 20 months 

after random assignment, the Short-Term Impacts report (Gubits 

et al., 2015) also found that total program use for families 

assigned to the SUB intervention cost about the same as total 

program use for families assigned to usual care and slightly 

more than for families assigned to the CBRR intervention. Costs 

of program use for SUB families were clearly less than for families assigned to the PBTH group. The nearly equivalent cost of 

assignment to the SUB group compared with assignment to the 

UC group in the first 20 months was driven by both decreased 

time in emergency shelter and decreased use of relatively more 

costly PBTH programs for families assigned to the SUB group. 

The costs of total program use for families assigned to the SUB 

and CBRR interventions were similar because the greater use 

of SUB programs by families assigned to the SUB intervention 

was offset by the greater use of transitional housing, emergency 

shelter, and other programs by CBRR families. 

The study team anticipated that costs for families assigned to 

the SUB intervention, which provides priority access to housing 

assistance that is not time limited, may begin to outpace costs 

for families assigned to interventions that offered priority 

access to time-limited assistance. In Section 9.3, the study team 

presents a finding that this is indeed the case. Average costs 

of all program use during the entire 3-year followup period 

are now about $4,000 more for families assigned to the SUB 

intervention than for families assigned to each of the other interventions. Assignment to the CBRR intervention now results 

in average costs during the followup period that are about 

$4,000 less than assignment to usual care (and also to the SUB 

intervention) and about $10,000 less than assignment to the 

PBTH intervention.

9.1. Introduction and Review of 

Methodology

The objective of the Family Options Study is to provide 

evidence to support decisions of policymakers, planners, 

and practitioners who address homelessness among families. 

Although much of the study is focused on estimating relative 

effects of three active interventions and usual care, such 

121 Chapter 12 of the Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families (Gubits et al., 2015) provides additional details 

about the cost analysis.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 108

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 9. Intervention Costs

estimates are only one input into decisions about homelessness 

policy. Because of differences in the type of housing or shelter 

provided, the duration of assistance, and the range and 

intensity of supportive services offered, the programs associated 

with each active intervention vary in cost. The extent to which 

families who are provided priority access to a particular type of 

program use that assistance or find their way to a different type 

of assistance (or no assistance of any type) is also fundamental 

to establishing the relative cost of the interventions studied.

This chapter reports on the costs of providing the housing and 

services in the programs associated with the three active interventions: SUB, CBRR, and PBTH. First, the chapter presents 

the unit costs of the programs to which families were given 

priority access and the costs of emergency shelters from which 

families were enrolled in the study. These costs represent the 

ongoing costs of providing assistance to a family at SUB, CBRR, 

PBTH, and emergency shelter programs that participated in the 

study. The chapter also reports the cost of all use of shelter and 

housing assistance programs, regardless of how families found 

their way to those programs, imputed using the unit costs of 

the study programs. These costs estimate the cost of the SUB, 

CBRR, PBTH, and UC interventions in which families received 

priority access to a particular program or usual care and then 

would proceed to access a variety of programs and program 

types. For this cost concept, the study team imputes costs of 

all types of shelter or housing assistance reported in the study’s 

Program Usage Data. That cost concept includes the costs of 

emergency shelter programs to provide information on the 

cost of continued stays in emergency shelter following families’ 

enrollment in the study and also the costs of any subsequent 

returns to shelter during the period between random assignment and the 37-month followup survey.

Throughout this chapter, the study team refers to SUB, CBRR, 

PBTH, and UC interventions when referencing the fact that 

families were randomly assigned to receive priority access 

to a particular program type (or in the case of usual care, no 

priority access). When referencing the cost of the programs to 

which families are given priority access or the shelter programs 

where families were enrolled in the study, the study team refers 

to SUB, CBRR, PBTH and emergency shelter programs.

122

This chapter presents analyses for three concepts of cost: 

(1) per-family monthly program cost, (2) cost of all program 

use during the 37-month followup period, and (3) monthly 

cost of all program use at the time of the 37-month followup 

survey.

1. Per-family monthly program cost. Per-family monthly 

program cost is the cost of all resources used to provide 

shelter or housing and services to a family during the course 

of a month because they are receiving assistance through a 

particular SUB, CBRR, PBTH, or emergency shelter program. 

The study team developed these costs by cataloging and 

valuing the housing or shelter dimension of each program 

(capital and operating costs or rent) and also the services 

dimension (the personnel, space, and materials used to 

provide services) in each of 81 study programs at the time 

when study families initially received assistance. 

2. Cost of all program use during the followup period. The 

second cost measure accounts for costs of all programs 

that families used during the 37-month followup period. 

Families given priority access to a particular type of program 

through random assignment nonetheless used multiple 

programs—both the program type to which they were given 

priority access and other program types. This cost includes 

the expense of providing housing or shelter and associated 

assistance (services) to study families during the time 

between random assignment and the 37-month followup 

survey. This cost concept represents the cost to the homeless 

services and housing assistance system of the SUB, CBRR, 

and PBTH interventions—priority access to a particular 

program type—and the cost of program use for usual care. 

3. Monthly cost of all program use at the 37- month followup 

survey. The monthly cost of all program use at the 37-month 

followup survey considers the average per-family monthly 

program cost of programs from which families were receiving assistance at the time of the followup survey. Receiving 

priority access to one program type may make it more or 

less likely that the family will use other housing or homeless 

assistance programs in the medium and long terms. As a 

result, giving families priority access to a particular program 

type today can change the cost of assistance they receive 

months and years into the future. This chapter reports the 

averages of this point-in-time cost calculated for each of the 

study’s six pairwise comparisons 37 months after random 

assignment.

122 The monthly cost of the programs that make up the three active interventions represents the cost of actually providing assistance to families who take up programs 

associated with the assigned intervention. The monthly cost of emergency shelter programs is not the cost of providing usual care, because usual care includes whatever 

housing subsidies or supportive services families were able to obtain without receiving priority access to one of the active interventions. Because it was not feasible to 

determine the extent and costs of any assistance beyond what was provided by the emergency shelter program for per-family monthly program costs, the study team reports 

costs associated with emergency shelter only rather than all costs associated with the usual care. For the cost of all program use during the 37-month followup period and the 

cost of program use at the time of followup, the study team does estimate the cost of other program use for families assigned to the UC group.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 109

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 9. Intervention Costs

9.1.1. Cost Data-Collection and Analysis 

Methodology

This section provides a brief review of the cost data-collection 

and analysis methodology. Appendix G provides greater detail.

To calculate the costs of the SUB, CBRR, PBTH, and emergency 

shelter programs, the study team attempted to include all 

resources that are used to provide the housing or shelter and 

the services that are part of the programs. Thus, the study 

team included services provided by partners that are not in the 

programs’ budget, when those services are an integral part of 

the program—for example, because participants in the program 

have preferential access to the services. The cost concept also 

includes the monetary equivalent of in-kind donations of 

services and materials and includes capital costs incurred for 

housing and shelter.123

The study team collected cost data from more than one-half 

of the programs that initially agreed to provide the study’s 

interventions. Estimates of per-family monthly costs for each 

program type are calculated from these data. These estimates 

are then used to estimate costs for all shelter and housing assistance programs that study families ultimately used (including 

for programs that did not participate in the study). The study 

team had two aims in selecting programs to include in the cost 

analysis. First, programs that served the most study families 

were selected so that cost estimates would be more likely to 

reflect assistance study families actually received. Second, costs 

of programs of each intervention type offered at each site were 

included, so that cost estimates would reflect variation in the 

housing or shelter and services provided across programs. 

Exhibit 9-1 shows the counts of programs used to develop the 

per-family monthly cost estimates. The programs selected for 

the cost analysis represent more than 85 percent of study families who accepted a study referral to CBRR and PBTH programs 

and more than 90 percent of families assigned to the UC group 

from shelter programs. The issue of selecting programs did not 

arise for the SUB intervention because administrative data were 

available for all SUB programs in the study. 

For CBRR, PBTH, and emergency shelter programs, the study 

collected costs at the program level and normalized the costs by 

the number of families served by the program (as opposed to 

tying particular housing units or shelter beds and specific supportive services to study families directly). These program-level 

costs can be thought of as the average cost of providing 

Exhibit 9-1. Programs Included in the Estimates of 

Monthly Costs 

Program Type Number of Programs Used 

To Produce Cost Estimates

Permanent subsidies offered to the SUB 

group

10 sites 

(administrative data)

Rapid re-housing programs offered to the 

CBRR group

12

Project-based transitional housing programs 

offered to the PBTH group

24

Emergency shelter programs 45

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access 

to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing 

subsidy.

Notes: For the 10 sites with the SUB intervention, average costs are calculated from 

household-level administrative data by site for families who received services from 

the SUB providers. The SUB intervention was not available to families in Atlanta or 

Baltimore.

housing or shelter and services to a typical family served by the 

program. The primary source for cost data for rapid re-housing, 

transitional housing, and emergency shelter programs was 

audited expense statements. Program budgets, staffing lists, 

partner commitment letters, and program staff estimates of 

labor and material costs of any services not reflected in expense 

statements supplemented these statements. Cost data were 

collected for the program fiscal year that overlapped most 

closely with the time in which study families actually received 

assistance from the programs. Because this initial period of 

assistance was largely completed at the time of the 20-month 

period, the study team continues to use per-family monthly 

program cost estimates based on this initial data period for the 

cost estimates calculated in this chapter. These estimates are the 

same as those reported in the Short-Term Impacts report (Gubits 

et al., 2015), with adjustments for inflation, where appropriate. 

The study team developed program costs for permanent 

housing subsidies using HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center (PIC) and Tenant Rental Assistance Certification 

System data covering Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) costs 

for all SUB families who received permanent housing subsidies 

and Financial Data Schedule data for the administrative 

costs of the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program. For 

costs of a permanent housing subsidy, as in the Short-Term 

Impacts report (Gubits et al., 2015), the study team used cost 

estimates from HUD administrative data systems for families 

who were assigned to the SUB intervention and took up the 

permanent housing subsidies offered to SUB families. For this 

123 This approach to estimating costs is different from the approaches in previous studies that calculate the costs of homelessness. Many studies in recent decades sought to 

compare the cost of supportive housing for chronically homeless individuals or families with mainstream healthcare and public safety costs of managing this population in 

the absence of supportive housing. An introduction to and overview of this literature are provided in Culhane et al. (2007). By contrast, this analysis focuses on the costs 

incurred, not by other systems or services, but by the programs providing shelter or housing and related services to homeless families. A complete cost-benefit analysis, 

which is not part of the study design, would include estimates of cost offsets to other systems and of all costs of services that study participants may have received from 

providers that were not involved with the study, and it would also include an attempt to monetize the benefits associated with differences in impacts.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 110

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 9. Intervention Costs

report, monthly costs are recalculated for the entire 37-month 

period.124 Those costs are composed of household-level monthly 

HAPs and site-level costs of administering the HCV program. 

The database for the cost calculation for this report includes 

data from more recent PIC records that cover the period between the 20- and 37-month followup surveys and also data for 

months 1 to 20 used in the Short-Term Impacts report (Gubits 

et al., 2015). Costs are estimated using the data for the SUB 

families who are also included in the reports of impacts (400), 

a slightly smaller sample than was available at 20 months (454). 

The cost analysis considered costs in two broad categories:

1. Housing or shelter costs refer to the rental cost—either observed or estimated—of the space used to provide housing 

or shelter and program services and to any maintenance or 

other facility operation costs (including durable items such 

as furnishings). The rental cost is net of any rent payments 

made by the family.

2. Supportive services costs refer to the cost of any services 

other than housing or shelter provided as an integral part of 

the program, including case management and any cash or 

in-kind assistance (for example, meals provided in emergency 

shelters). 

Two other categories of costs are measured and included in 

the calculation of housing or shelter costs and of services costs. 

Additional detail is shown for these two types of costs because 

they provide information on the typical structure of homeless 

assistance programs:

1. Administrative and overhead costs include management 

salaries; legal, accounting, and other professional services; 

and program support costs, such as insurance premiums and 

agency and association fees. Administrative and overhead 

costs are divided among supportive services and housing or 

shelter costs according to the cost types’ relative share of total 

costs so that they are included in the two broad categories.

2. In-kind and partner costs include any costs of housing or 

shelter and supportive services provided to families because 

they participate in a program. These costs are not provided 

by the program itself, and, as a result, are not included in 

program financial statements. Common examples include 

onsite health or mental health providers funded by an 

outside agency, community volunteers providing a variety of 

services, and consumer goods donated to program clients. 

The importance of these costs varies widely from program to 

program. When present, they typically are part of the cost of 

supportive services provided by a program. In some cases, 

however, housing or shelter costs include the costs of labor, 

such as handyman services, or of facilities used regularly for 

program activities that were provided in kind. In other cases, 

accounting, legal, or administrative services were provided 

in kind or by partners. In each case, the study team apportioned the cost to the appropriate category.

The study team estimated the cost of all program use since 

random assignment by multiplying the average site-level 

per-family monthly program cost for each program type by 

the number of months of assistance of each respective type 

provided to each family between random assignment and the 

family’s followup survey, as observed in the Program Usage 

Data. The imputed cost of all program use during the followup 

period for each family is then the sum of these monthly costs 

times months of assistance for each program type. 

Program Usage Data measured the number of months each 

family received seven types of homeless or housing assistance 

programs: (1) subsidy, (2) rapid re-housing, (3) transitional 

housing, (4) emergency shelter, (5) permanent supportive housing, 

(6) public housing, and (7) project-based housing assistance 

(project-based vouchers or Section 8 projects). (See Chapters 3 

through 6 for more information on program use, particularly the 

respective “Program Use Since Random Assignment” exhibits.) 

Translating the number of months of assistance received 

into the cost of all housing and services programs used since 

random assignment requires a few assumptions. First, many 

families accessed shelter or housing and related services from 

programs not included in the cost data collection. The study 

team valued all stays at programs that matched a “type” from 

a study at the site-level average of the per-family monthly program cost. So, assistance from any rapid re-housing program 

was valued at the sites’ average per-family monthly cost for 

CBRR programs, and assistance from any transitional housing 

program was valued at the site’s average per-family monthly 

cost for PBTH programs. In a similar way, site-level costs for 

the SUB intervention are used as a proxy for the costs of housing choice vouchers used by all families in the study, including 

those not assigned to the SUB intervention.125

124 This recalculation was done to allow for the possibility that changing family incomes or rental market conditions may influence average housing assistance payments 

for vouchers during the 3-year followup period. The updated monthly program cost estimate for SUB programs ultimately increased by only $10. Monthly assistance costs 

for other program types may also have changed during the followup period, suggesting that our estimates for subsidies and the SUB intervention are more precise than for 

other program types and interventions.

125 Because Atlanta and Baltimore did not offer the SUB intervention, per-family monthly program costs were not calculated in these sites for SUB programs. An additional 

site (Minneapolis) did not have adequate takeup of project-based transitional housing to support cost data collection. In these sites, the study team uses study-level average 

per-family monthly program costs as a proxy to allow cost of all program use since random assignment estimates to include the families who found their way to these 

program types without study assistance.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 111

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 9. Intervention Costs

Three of the program types that families used—permanent 

supportive housing, public housing, and project-based housing 

assistance (project-based vouchers or Section 8 projects)—are 

not associated with study interventions and were not included 

in the cost data collection. The study team did not collect cost 

data from these types of programs. Instead, under the assumption that they have similar program and cost structures, the 

study team used site-level average PBTH per-family monthly 

program costs as a proxy for the monthly cost of permanent 

supportive housing. SUB program costs are used as a proxy for 

the costs of public housing and project-based assistance.

These estimated costs of all program use for each family are 

then averaged across random assignment outcomes within 

each of the study’s six pairwise comparisons. This chapter 

reports averages of this amount (calculated using the same 

nonresponse weights used in the impact analyses) for each of 

the study’s pairwise comparisons. Thus, this estimate provides 

a total cost of housing or shelter and services that reflects the 

different mixes of program types used that resulted from a family’s being randomly assigned to a group that provided priority 

access to a particular program type.

For monthly costs of all program use at the followup survey, 

the study team made the same assumptions to impute the 

monthly cost of observed program use for that month. The 

average of the cost of each of the various types of programs 

families were observed or reported using in the month in which 

they participated at the time of the followup survey was calculated as the site-level per-family monthly program cost for that 

intervention. Again, averages were calculated over the study 

impact sample. This cost concept does not consider the length 

of program use, but rather averages per-family monthly program costs by the observed point-in-time average frequencies 

of program use by study families in each intervention group. 

Observed emergency shelter stays, in particular, may last less 

than a month.

9.2. Per-Family Monthly Costs

This section summarizes per-family monthly costs for SUB, 

CBRR, PBTH, and emergency shelter programs. The interventions examined in the Family Options Study were intended to 

vary in both intensity and duration. SUB programs provide a 

deep housing subsidy of indefinite duration but no supportive 

services. CBRR programs provide a short-term, typically shallower housing subsidy with some supportive services. PBTH 

programs provide a place to stay and extensive services support 

for a relatively long duration. Finally, emergency shelter 

programs often offer extensive supportive services and a place 

to stay, typically for a very limited time. 

Monthly costs of serving a typical family vary considerably 

by program type. Exhibit 9-2 presents the average per-family 

monthly program cost for each type of program. SUB programs, on average, cost slightly less than $1,200 per family 

per month and consist wholly of the cost of housing, because 

this intervention provides no supportive services. Unlike the 

other program types, the study team used newly available data 

to update the costs for SUB programs, as detailed previously. 

The monthly cost (adjusted to 2013 dollars) did not change 

substantially in the interval between the 20- and 37-month 

followup surveys. The updated estimate is $10 higher than the 

original. In no study site did costs for SUB programs change by 

more than 3 percent.126

CBRR programs have the lowest per-family monthly program 

cost among the program types, with a program average of 

slightly less than $900. Housing costs, on average, make up 

72 percent of CBRR program costs. PBTH programs have an 

average per-family monthly program cost of slightly more than 

$2,700, with supportive services, on average, constituting 42 

percent of PBTH program costs. 

Exhibit 9-2. Average Per-Family Monthly Cost of Supportive Services and Housing or Shelter Across Program Types

$0

$1,000

SUB

Supportive services Housing or shelter

CBRR PBTH ES

$1,172 $880

$2,706

$4,819

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

Average monthly cost per family

CBRR = rapid re-housing programs offered to the CBRR group. ES = emergency 

shelter. PBTH = transitional housing programs offered to the PBTH group. SUB = 

permanent housing subsidies offered to the SUB group.

Sources: Family Options Study cost data (CBRR, PBTH, and ES); U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, Public and Indian Housing Information Center, Tenant 

Rental Assistance Certification System, and Financial Data Schedule records (SUB)

126 In Honolulu, where the SUB intervention consisted largely of public housing placement, cost estimates are based on Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and increased by 7 percent.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 112

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 9. Intervention Costs

The results for the costs of all program use during the followup 

period reported in the next section are greatly influenced by 

the finding that emergency shelter programs are much more 

costly than other program types. Emergency shelter programs 

have the highest per-family monthly program cost for both 

supportive services and housing or shelter, which, on average, 

total slightly more than $4,800, four times the per-family 

monthly cost of SUB programs, more than five times the cost of 

CBRR programs, and almost twice the cost of PBTH programs. 

Supportive services make up 63 percent of emergency shelter 

costs, the highest share among the four program types. The 

higher monthly cost of housing or shelter for emergency 

shelter programs reflects both program structure and the 

approach to classifying costs. Emergency shelters tend to have 

higher per-family levels of facility staffing and expenditure for 

maintenance and materials than do PBTH programs or than 

what is reflected by the rents CBRR and SUB programs pay. 

In addition, housing or shelter costs include the capital cost 

value of all physical space provided by the program, including 

facilities such as classrooms, case management offices, kitchens, 

and dedicated childcare centers.127

Within each study intervention, the study team also found 

substantial variation in the costs of the individual programs. 

Exhibit 9-3 shows this variation among per-family monthly 

program costs for each program type. PBTH and emergency 

shelter programs have substantial variation, driven largely by 

variation in supportive services costs but also by variation in 

capital costs and administrative expenses. For the 24 PBTH 

programs in the cost analysis, per-family monthly program 

cost ranges from slightly more than $1,260 to slightly less than 

$6,300. Per-family monthly program cost for the 45 emergency 

shelter programs ranges from $1,900 to slightly more than 

$9,000.

Variation in CBRR and SUB costs across programs is driven 

largely by housing costs. For the 12 CBRR programs in the cost 

analysis, per-family monthly program cost ranges from slightly 

more than $550 to slightly less than $1,400. Across the 10 

sites with the SUB intervention, average per-family monthly 

program cost ranges from $777 to $2,250, largely reflecting 

differences in the local cost of rental housing. 

Differences in the nature of the CBRR, PBTH, SUB, and emergency 

shelter programs are reflected in the differences in average costs 

across the programs. Exhibit 9-4 reports summary statistics 

for the four program types. CBRR and SUB programs provide 

assistance for private market housing. In both cases, but particularly 

for SUB programs, the cost of housing assistance is driven by 

local housing market conditions, as measured by Fair Market 

Rent (FMR). Even though the CBRR programs provide some 

supportive services in the form of housing placement and limited 

case management assistance, CBRR program costs are lower 

than SUB program costs on a per-month average basis, because 

CBRR program assistance is sometimes a fixed amount that is 

less than typical HAPs provided by vouchers in the same site, 

and, in many cases, the subsidy declines the longer the family 

receives CBRR program assistance.

PBTH programs and emergency shelters are similar to each 

other and distinct from CBRR and SUB programs in that they 

provide a mix of housing or shelter and supportive services. In 

fact, many PBTH and emergency shelter programs that study 

team members visited for cost data collection are operated by 

the same agency; in a number of instances, PBTH and emergency 

shelter programs are distinguished only by length of stay, and 

families in both programs receive the same supportive services and 

live in the same facility. Other emergency shelters are distinct 

in providing congregate shelter or shared rooms for sleeping, 

Exhibit 9-3. Summary Statistics of Per-Family Monthly Program Cost by Program Type 

Program Type

Per-Family Monthly Program Cost Summary Statistic

Programs Enrolled 

Families

Mean 

($)

Min

($)

25th pct 

($)

Median 

($)

75th pct 

($)

Max 

($)

Permanent subsidies offered to the SUB group 10 400 1,172 777 833 1,101 1,392 2,250

Rapid re-housing programs offered to the CBRR group 12 268 880 563 713 847 977 1,388

Project-based transitional housing programs offered to the PBTH group 24 107 2,706 1,261 1,738 2,352 3,535 6,292

Emergency shelter programs 45 667 4,819 1,888 3,907 4,352 5,786 9,170

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy.

Notes: CBRR, PBTH, and emergency shelter statistics are calculated from program-level cost estimates, weighted by the number of study families who enrolled in the program; 

SUB statistics are calculated from household-level data. For CBRR, PBTH, and emergency shelter, the number of families is study families who, based on enrollment verification 

data, enrolled in the programs used to estimate monthly costs; for SUB, the number of families is study families assigned to SUB who are 37-month followup survey respondents 

and who also have administrative records used to calculate SUB costs.

Sources: Family Options Study cost data (CBRR, PBTH, and ES); U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Public and Indian Housing Information Center, Tenant 

Rental Assistance Certification System, and Financial Data Schedule records (SUB)

127 This study’s finding of higher monthly costs for family shelter programs than for other homeless assistance program types is consistent with previous estimates reported 

in HUD’s Costs Associated With First-Time Homelessness for Families and Individuals (Spellman et al., 2010), which found emergency shelter monthly costs for families were 

higher than transitional housing costs and higher than the local Fair Market Rent (FMR) in three of four cities. By contrast, shelters serving individuals had costs that, on 

average, were equal to or substantially lower than transitional housing costs and the FMR.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 113

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 9. Intervention Costs

Exhibit 9-4. Comparison of Cost Summary Statistics Across Program Types 

SUB 

Programs

CBRR 

Programs

PBTH 

Programs

Emergency 

Shelter 

Programs

Housing or shelter shares (%) 100 72 58 38

Supportive services share (%) 0 28 42 62

Partner and in-kind share (included in shelter or supportive services cost as relevant) (%) 0 Two sites: 1, 3 8 15

Ten sites: 0

Administrative and overhead cost share (included in both housing and supportive services costs) (%) 9 11 14 16

Per-family monthly program cost ($) 1,172 880 2,706 4,819

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

Notes: Housing and supportive services shares add to 100. Partner and in-kind share and administrative share are included in housing and supportive services.

Sources: Family Options Study cost data (CBRR, PBTH, and ES); U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Public and Indian Housing Information Center, Tenant 

Rental Assistance Certification System, and Financial Data Schedule records (SUB)

whereas PBTH (and SUB and CBRR) programs largely provide 

families with private units. Partner and in-kind resources 

represent a greater share of costs, on average, for emergency 

shelter programs than for PBTH programs. In general, the study 

team finds that PBTH programs relied more than did emergency shelter programs on partner organizations to provide 

professional services such as counseling or mentoring, whereas 

emergency shelter programs were more likely to use volunteer 

and in-kind resources.

9.3. Cost of All Program Use During 

the Followup Period by Families 

Assigned to Each Intervention 

Having presented costs per month in a given program type 

in Section 9.2, this section presents estimates of the total cost 

during the 37-month followup period after being randomly 

assigned to an intervention that provided priority access to a 

particular program type. This total cost includes the cost of the 

program to which priority access was given, if the family used 

that program, and to other programs of various types that families accessed on their own. These estimates can be thought of as 

the costs of achieving the relative impacts of the interventions 

reported in Chapters 3 through 6. Receiving priority access to 

a particular type of program both increased the rate at which 

families used that program and affected the rate at which families used other types of shelter and housing assistance programs 

during the followup period. 

These estimates use the per-family monthly program costs, 

together with the observed patterns of program usage reported 

in Chapters 3 through 6, to construct estimates of total costs of 

the mix of homeless or housing assistance programs that served 

study families assigned to each of the interventions in the 

period between random assignment and the followup survey. 

The study team examined these costs of all program use associated 

with the combination of assistance that the families received 

for each of the six pairwise comparisons (see Exhibit 1-3 in 

Chapter 1 for an overview of the pairwise comparisons): 

•	 SUB versus UC.

•	 CBRR versus UC.

•	 PBTH versus UC.

•	 SUB versus CBRR.

•	 SUB versus PBTH.

•	 CBRR versus PBTH.

As reported in Chapters 3 through 6, different sets of families 

took part in each of the study’s pairwise comparisons. Exhibit 9-5 

presents the average cost of all program use during the followup period for the families in each comparison. Each bar is made up 

of segments that reflect the cost of the average use of different 

program types during the followup period. Each segment is the 

average cost of observed use of the program type by families 

assigned to the intervention within the pairwise comparison. 

Looking across all the pairwise comparisons, whenever families 

are assigned to the SUB or PBTH interventions, costs of SUB or 

PBTH program use represent the highest share of the cost of all 

program use. Substantial emergency shelter costs remain even 

in these instances, however, and costs of emergency shelter 

use represent the highest cost share whenever families are 

not assigned to the SUB or PBTH interventions. This finding 

illustrates that, when families have been in shelter for 7 or 

more days, substantial shelter costs are associated with assisting 

all families up until the time they leave the emergency shelter 

either to use a program to which they were given priority 

access or to go somewhere else. Differences also exist across 

interventions in the incidence of return to shelter during the 

followup period, the second factor determining the amount of 

shelter costs within the cost of all program use.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 114

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 9. Intervention Costs

Exhibit 9-5. Cost of Program Use Since RA for Each Intervention Contrast

$50,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$30,000

$45,902

SUB vs. UC CBRR vs. UC

Program type

PBTH vs. UC

SUB vs. CBRR SUB vs. PBTH CBRR vs. PBTH

$42,134

$38,144

$42,167

$40,130 $38,722

SUB

N = 501

Assigned intervention and pairwise comparison

Assigned intervention and pairwise comparison

Panel B

Panel A

UC

N = 395

CBRR

N = 434

UC

N = 434

PBTH

N = 293

UC

N = 259

SUB

N = 362

CBRR

N = 290

SUB

N = 215

PBTH

N = 201

CBRR

N = 180

PBTH

N = 184

$25,000

$20,000

$15,000

$10,000

$5,000

Other SUB CBRR PBTH ES

$0

$50,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$30,000

$25,000

$20,000

$15,000

$10,000

$5,000

$0

Cost of program use since RA Cost of program use since RA

$45,668

$41,743

$44,895

$40,793

$30,479

$40,269

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. ES = emergency shelter. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to 

permanent housing subsidy. UC = usual care.

RA = random assignment.

Notes: Averages are for all 37-month survey respondents in each pairwise comparison and are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent full comparison sample. Cost estimates assume a site-specific average cost per month based on the Family Options Study cost data and HUD administrative data. The other category refers to other permanent 

housing subsidies and includes permanent supportive housing, public housing, and project-based assistance (project-based vouchers or Section 8 projects).

Sources: Family Options Study cost data; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Public and Indian Housing Information Center, Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System, and Financial Data Schedule records (SUB); Family Options Study Program Usage Data
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 115

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 9. Intervention Costs

Total costs for the average family in the SUB-versus-UC 

pairwise comparison are shown in the far left set of stacked bar 

charts in panel A of Exhibit 9-5. The total cost for the average 

family assigned to the UC group in the study is $42,134. When 

the cost includes the cost of all program use for each set of 

families—families assigned to the SUB group versus families 

assigned to the UC group—the total average cost per family 

assigned to the SUB group is almost $3,800 more than for 

families assigned to the UC group. In the first 20 months after 

random assignment (see the Short-Term Impacts report), this 

difference was only about $500. The Short-Term Impacts report 

discussed the potential for cost of all program use for families 

assigned to the SUB group to eventually outpace the costs for 

families assigned to the UC group, and this has happened, with 

SUB intervention costs now 9 percent higher than UC costs 

during the entire followup period. 

The SUB-versus-UC comparison reveals how assignment to 

the SUB group compared with assignment to the UC group 

altered the composition of housing assistance programs used 

and their associated costs. The average emergency shelter cost 

for families assigned to the UC group during the full 3-year 

period was, on average, 1.7 times that of families assigned to 

the SUB group. UC families also frequently found their way to 

other permanent housing programs (mostly public housing in 

this instance, which is assumed to have the same monthly cost 

as SUB programs) and to relatively costly PBTH programs. The 

decreased use of programs providing project-based transitional 

housing, rapid re-housing, and emergency shelter by families 

assigned to the SUB group outweighs much of the increased 

use of SUB programs. 

In the SUB-versus-CBRR comparison, the cost of program 

use since random assignment for families assigned to the SUB 

group is about 9 percent higher, on average, than for families 

assigned to the CBRR group. Compared with the 20-month 

findings, the cost ordering changes for only one pairwise 

comparison—the SUB-versus-PBTH comparison. During the 

3-year followup period, average costs of all program use for 

families assigned to the SUB group are 10 percent higher than 

for families assigned to the PBTH group, whereas total costs for 

families assigned to the PBTH group were 10 percent higher at 

the earlier followup point. Compared with costs of assignment 

to the PBTH intervention, costs of assignment to the SUB 

intervention continued to grow with time as families used permanent housing subsidies with no time limit at a much greater 

rate, while costs associated with taking up PBTH programs 

came to an end without being fully offset by increases in shelter 

or other program use.

In the other two contrasts containing the PBTH intervention, 

the high monthly cost of PBTH programs results in a higher 

average cost of all programs used for families assigned to the 

PBTH intervention compared with assignment to other interventions. As at 20 months, in each of the three comparisons 

involving the CBRR intervention, families assigned to the CBRR 

intervention have the lower average cost of all programs used. 

For example, in the CBRR-versus-UC comparison, families 

assigned to the CBRR group used less transitional housing, less 

emergency shelter than families assigned to the UC group. The 

largest difference is in the CBRR-versus-PBTH comparison, in 

which the high cost and greater use of PBTH programs results 

in a nearly $10,000 difference in average cost of all program 

use for families assigned to the respective interventions. For 

the CBRR-versus-UC and SUB-versus-CBRR comparisons, 

CBRR families have an average cost of all programs used that 

is $4,000 less than the program costs of those assigned to the 

other interventions. 

9.4. Monthly Cost of All Program 

Use at the Time of the Followup 

Survey by Families Assigned to 

Each Intervention 

Exhibit 9-6 shows the monthly costs of all program use in the 

month of the followup survey for each pairwise comparison. 

This analysis uses the per-family monthly program cost for 

each type of program and information about the mix of 

program types families were using at the time of the 37-month 

followup survey. As discussed in Chapters 3 through 6, the 

mix of programs used during the month of the followup survey 

is different than the mix of program use observed during the 

entire followup period. For example, in the SUB-versus-UC 

comparison, among families assigned to the UC group, 23 

percent used rapid re-housing during the followup period, 

but only 2 percent were using rapid re-housing at the time of 

the survey. In a similar way, 29 percent of UC families in the 

SUB-versus-UC comparison used transitional housing at some 

time during the followup period, but only 4 percent were doing 

so at the time of the survey. Altogether, 38 percent of families 

assigned to the UC group used a permanent housing subsidy 

during the followup period, and 31 percent were using a permanent housing subsidy at the time of the survey. The monthly 

costs at the time of the followup survey provide an indication 

of how costs for the interventions may diverge in the future due 

to differing trends in use of the different program types. 

Exhibit 9-6 shows that, in contrasts involving the CBRR 

intervention, costs of program use for families assigned to the 

CBRR intervention are lower than for families assigned to the 

SUB intervention (by $192), the UC intervention (by $152), 

and the PBTH intervention (by $61). This finding reflects the 
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 116

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 9. Intervention Costs

Exhibit 9-6. Average Per-Family Monthly Costs for Program Use at Time of the Followup Survey, by Comparison

$1,200

$978

SUB vs. UC CBRR vs. UC

Program type

PBTH vs. UC

SUB vs. CBRR SUB vs. PBTH CBRR vs. PBTH

$842

$688

$840 $778 $804

SUB

N = 501

Assigned intervention and pairwise comparison

Assigned intervention and pairwise comparison

Panel B

Panel A

UC

N = 395

CBRR

N = 434

UC

N = 434

PBTH

N = 293

UC

N = 259

SUB

N = 362

CBRR

N = 290

SUB

N = 215

PBTH

N = 201

CBRR

N = 180

PBTH

N = 184

$1,000

$800

$600

$400

$200

Other SUB CBRR PBTH ES

$0

$1,200

$1,000

$800

$600

$400

$200

$0

Cost of program use in survey month Cost of program use in survey month

$950

$758

$998

$862

$630 $691

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. ES = emergency shelter. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to 

permanent housing subsidy.

Notes: Averages are for all 37-month survey respondents in each arm of each pairwise comparison and are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent full comparison sample. 

Cost estimates assume a site-specific average cost per month based on the Family Options Study cost data and HUD administrative data. The other category refers to other permanent housing subsidies and includes permanent supportive housing, public housing, and project-based assistance (project-based vouchers or Section 8 projects). 

Sources: Family Options Study cost data (CBRR, PBTH, and ES); U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Public and Indian Housing Information Center, Tenant 

Rental Assistance Certification System, and Financial Data Schedule records (SUB); Family Options Study Program Usage Data

differences in the prevalence of shelter use, transitional housing, and permanent housing subsidies during the month of the 

followup survey.128

In all contrasts involving the SUB intervention, the costs of program use during the month of the followup survey are higher 

for families assigned to the SUB intervention. Compared with 

costs of program use for families assigned to usual care, costs 

of program use for families assigned to the SUB intervention 

($978) were $136 higher in the month of the followup survey 

than for families assigned to usual care ($842). The greater 

incidence of use of programs providing permanent housing 

subsidies among families assigned to the SUB intervention 

outweighed the higher cost associated with more frequent use 

of shelter and PBTH programs by families assigned to usual care. 

The monthly costs of program use at the time of the followup 

survey for families assigned to the SUB intervention were $136 

higher than for families assigned to the PBTH intervention 

and were $192 higher than for families assigned to the CBRR 

intervention. In the month of the 20-month followup survey 

(see Exhibit 12-20 in the Short-Term Impacts report [Gubits et al., 

2015]), the average per-family monthly cost of program use for 

128 As noted previously, the study team used the per-family monthly cost estimated for emergency shelters to approximate program costs at the time of the followup survey. 

In reality, these emergency stays may be shorter or longer than 1 month.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 117

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 9. Intervention Costs

families assigned to the SUB intervention was only $20 more 

than for families assigned to usual care ($1,086 for families 

assigned to the SUB intervention and $1,066 for families assigned 

to usual care). This differential had grown to $136 at the time of 

the 37-month survey, as shown in Exhibit 9-6 ($978 for families 

assigned to the SUB intervention and $842 for families assigned 

to the UC intervention). In the month of the 20-month survey, 

the cost of program use for families assigned to the SUB intervention was $88 higher than for families assigned to the PBTH 

intervention and $102 higher than for families assigned to the 

CBRR intervention. 

Costs for families assigned to the PBTH intervention are $26 

a month less than costs for UC families in the month of the 

followup survey. Compared with families assigned to the 

CBRR intervention, however, families assigned to the PBTH 

intervention have higher costs of program use in the month of 

the survey. 

It is not clear how expected future costs of homeless or housing 

assistance will compare across the interventions. It is important 

to note that families receiving permanent housing assistance, 

mostly through HCV or public housing programs, will continue to accrue monthly costs indefinitely. Families assigned to 

usual care or the other interventions, however, may continue to 

experience greater housing instability than their counterparts 

assigned to the SUB group. This instability could result in 

higher future costs from subsequent use of relatively more 

expensive shelter and transitional housing programs.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 118

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

CHAPTER 10.

CONCLUSIONS

H UD launched the Family Options Study in 2008 to 

fill a gap in knowledge about which housing and 

services interventions work best for families experiencing homelessness. Based on the 3-year analysis, this report 

provides evidence about the relative effects of priority access to 

permanent housing subsidies (SUB), community-based rapid 

re-housing (CBRR), and project-based transitional housing 

(PBTH) compared with one another and with usual care (UC) 

(in which families had no priority access to any program but 

were left on their own to find their way out of shelter). After 

spending at least 7 days in emergency shelter, nearly 2,300 

families in 12 sites across the country were randomly assigned 

to one of these four interventions. Random assignment 

produced well-matched groups of families, with no systematic 

differences in baseline characteristics. 

Families were free to take up the programs to which they were 

given priority access or make other arrangements on their own, 

so families in each group used a mix of programs. Nonetheless, 

the study generated substantial contrasts in program use during 

the followup period because the families’ program choices 

were influenced strongly by the particular offer of priority 

access they received from the study. Random assignment and 

the subsequent contrasts in program use provide a strong 

basis for drawing conclusions about the relative impacts of the 

alternative interventions on several aspects of family well-being 

3 years after random assignment. 

This chapter begins by describing the questions that guide 

this 3-year analysis. Then for UC and each of the three active 

interventions, the chapter describes program use, family outcomes (for UC) or impacts (for active interventions, compared 

with UC and one another), and program costs. The chapter 

concludes with implications for theory and policy.

10.1. Questions Addressed in the 

3-Year Analysis 

The 3-year analysis addresses three primary questions: 

1. What programs do families who experience homelessness 

use during a 3-year period, and how does assignment to an 

intervention that offers priority access to a particular kind of 

program affect this program use? 

2. At 3 years after random assignment, what are the relative 

effects of the three active interventions compared with usual 

care and of the active interventions compared with each 

other? 

3. What are the cumulative costs of the interventions during 

the 3-years following random assignment? 

Longer-term followup is often desirable in assessing the effects 

of social policy interventions and is especially desirable in the 

case of the Family Options Study. To evaluate the effects of 

priority access to temporary programs that can last up to 18 

months (CBRR) or 24 months (PBTH), 20 months is not a long 

enough period. Some families may not have received a full dose 

of a temporary program by the time of the 20-month followup 

analysis, and anxieties about the impending end of a program 

or disruption from having recently moved at the time of the 

20-month survey could have depressed families’ outcomes in 

the CBRR and PBTH interventions. To the extent that priority 

access to a particular type of program strengthens families or 

sets the foundation for later success, as theorized by proponents of PBTH programs, new findings may emerge at 3 years. 

In a similar way, increases in incomes observed at 20 months 

for CBRR families may set families on a positive trajectory of 

sustained benefit from that intervention. On the other hand, to 

the extent that the reduction in homelessness seen for PBTH 

families at 20 months was a temporary consequence of still 

being in PBTH programs at that time, impacts may fade. This 

3-year analysis enables the study team to examine outcomes 

well after families reach the time limits for these temporary 

programs. Longer-term analysis is also important to measure 

impacts that may take longer than 20 months to emerge, such 

as those on child well-being outcomes. 

The Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing and 

Services Interventions for Homeless Families (hereafter, the ShortTerm Impacts report; Gubits et al., 2015) found that families 

assigned to all four interventions used a variety of programs. 

The 3-year analysis updates information about the ways that 

having priority access to particular interventions affected patterns of use. In the case of permanent housing subsidies, which 

can last as long as families comply with program requirements, 

it was not clear at 20 months whether families would successfully renew leases and sustain tenancies. The 3-year analysis 
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 119

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 10. Conclusions

addresses whether families assigned to the SUB group are 

able to retain the assistance. Emergency shelters, transitional 

housing programs, and rapid re-housing programs frequently 

attempt to enroll their families on waiting lists for permanent 

housing. Longer-term followup can also show whether these 

programs serve as way stations to permanent housing subsidies.

Finally, the Short-Term Impacts report (Gubits et al., 2015) 

found that, after 20 months, the cost of all the programs used 

by families assigned to the SUB group was about the same as 

for families assigned to the UC group. Because the subsidies 

offered in the SUB programs are permanent, whereas the CBRR 

and PBTH programs are time limited, there was good reason 

to expect that the relative costs of interventions may change 

during a longer followup period. The current report examines 

these costs cumulatively over an average of 37 months after 

random assignment. 

10.2. Meaning of Intention-to-Treat 

Impact Estimates 

The inherent strength of the experimental research design 

employed in the Family Options Study is the assurance that 

the groups that are created through the random assignment 

process will be similar to each other in all respects except for 

their priority access to a particular type of homeless or housing 

assistance program. This assurance means that subsequent differences in outcomes (beyond the bounds of chance sampling 

variability) reflect the relative impact of those interventions. 

The Family Options Study tests for the impacts of three 

different potential emphases in federal or local assistance policy 

to homeless families: (1) What impact would priority access 

to project-based transitional housing (offered to the PBTH 

group) have on families in shelter who are not able to resolve 

their episodes of homelessness quickly? (2) How does this 

policy compare with providing access to community-based 

rapid re-housing (offered to the CBRR group)? (3) How does 

it compare to permanent housing subsidies (offered to the 

SUB group)? In each case, the corresponding policy question 

is, “What impact would this policy emphasis have on the 

outcomes of families in shelter relative to usual care or another 

policy emphasis?” 

The 3-year followup data for study participants tell what would 

happen if each of these ways of targeting offers and access were 

pursued as federal or local policy—for the families actually 

studied in the target communities. The pairwise comparisons 

between active interventions show the impact of offering families priority access to one type of program rather than another. 

The data also allow for the comparison of each option with the 

mix of programs that the homeless assistance systems provided 

at the time of the study (that is, the programs available to the 

UC group). The pairwise comparisons between active interventions and usual care show the impact of referring a family to a 

specific type of program compared with the impact of letting 

families pursue any available assistance on their own.

The analysis in this report measures the impact of having been 

offered a particular type of program regardless of whether the 

family involved actually received the program assistance. The 

findings reflect the real way in which the homeless assistance 

system interacts with families, in that families are offered assistance rather than mandated to accept the assistance being offered. Whether families participate in a program to which they 

have gained priority access through their randomly assigned 

intervention reflects the relative desirability and accessibility 

of the programs for families within the context of the other 

options they may choose to pursue on their own. 

As the report shows, in the 3 years after random assignment, 

a substantial number of families did not use the program to 

which they were given priority access, and some used other 

programs. The full experimental sample for a given intervention 

collectively shows how different forms of housing assistance are 

used when families are given priority access to one particular 

program type while simultaneously having the freedom to 

use other forms of assistance available in their communities. 

Including all the families randomly assigned to the UC group 

similarly reveals the range of programs used when no priority 

access is provided. The programs (including the programs 

offered by the interventions examined in this study) that UC 

families used exist in communities and would each continue 

to exist even with a stronger federal or local push for only one 

of them. Thus, the full-sample comparisons between randomly 

assigned interventions—known as “intention-to-treat,” or ITT, 

impact estimates—provide the best guide to policymakers in a 

messy, complex world and are reported here as the main study 

findings.129 Exhibit 10-1 displays a summary of the impact findings for the 18 outcomes included in the executive summary.

129 All this said, evidence of the effects of a particular program type on families who actually use that approach (for example, the effect of rapid re-housing on the families who 

use the CBRR programs) compared with equivalent families who do not use the approach would have high value to the homeless assistance field. Such information is important, not because any federal or local policy action could actually create such a contrast for the population of all shelter-housed families, but because efforts to improve 

a particular intervention model need to be based on knowledge of what participating in that model actually does for families compared with not participating. This report 

does not provide such information because some assumptions necessary to calculate these effects do not appear to hold true for the study sample.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 120

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 10. Conclusions

Exhibit 10-1. Summary of Statistically Significant Impact Results by Policy Comparison: Executive Summary Outcomes 

37 Months After RA

Statistically Significant ITT Impact Estimates

Outcome SUB 

vs. UC

CBRR 

vs. UC

PBTH 

vs. UC

SUB 

vs. CBRR

SUB 

vs. PBTH

CBRR 

vs. PBTH

Effect

Sizea

Effect

Sizea

Effect

Sizea

Effect

Sizea

Effect

Sizea

Effect

Sizea

Housing stability (intervention goal: lower values)

At least 1 night homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months or in shelter 

in past 12 monthsc (%) [confirmatory]

ê – 0.37 ê – 0.36 ê – 0.43

At least 1 night homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months (%) ê – 0.33 ê – 0.28 ê – 0.40

Number of places lived in past 6 months ê – 0.20 ê – 0.12 ê – 0.25

Any stay in emergency shelter in months 7 to 18 after RA (%) ê – 0.33 ê – 0.14 ê – 0.30 ê – 0.13

Family preservation (intervention goal: lower values)

Family has at least one child separated in past 6 monthsd (%) ê – 0.19

Spouse/partner separated in past 6 months, of those with spouse/partner 

present at RAe (%) [limited base]

éf 0.23

Family has no child reunified, of those families with at least one child 

absent at RAg (%) [limited base]

Adult well-being (intervention goal: lower values)

Health in past 30 days was poor or fair (%)

Psychological distressh ê – 0.11 ê – 0.19

Alcohol dependence or drug abuse in past 6 monthsi (%) ê – 0.19

Experienced intimate partner violence in past 6 months (%) ê – 0.12

Child well-being (intervention goal: lower values)

Number of schools attended since RAj ê – 0.13 ê – 0.22 ê – 0.18

School absences in past monthk (ages 5 to 17 years)

Poor or fair health (%)

Behavior problemsl ê – 0.13 ê – 0.12 ê – 0.15 ê – 0.13

Self-sufficiency (intervention goal: higher values)

Work for pay in week before survey (%)

Total family income ($)

Household is food secure (%) é 0.17 é 0.22 é 0.20

Number of families 895 868 551 652 414 363

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care. 

ITT = intention-to-treat. RA = random assignment.

a

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

b The definition of “homeless” in this report includes stays in emergency shelters and places not meant for human habitation. It excludes transitional housing. Additional impacts on 

the use of transitional housing are provided in Appendix E.

c

 After adjustment for multiple comparisons, the impact on the confirmatory outcome is statistically significant at the .01 level for the SUB-versus-UC, SUB-versus-CBRR, and SUBversus-PBTH comparisons.

d Percentage of families in which a child who was with the family at baseline became separated from the family in the 6 months before the 37-month survey.

e

 Percentage of families in which a spouse or partner who was with the family at baseline became separated from the family in the 6 months before the 37-month survey.

f

 Assignment to SUB increased spouse/partner separations relative to UC. Separations may have allowed family heads to leave relationships in which they had experienced intimate 

partner violence. 

g

 Percentage of families in which at least one child was separated from the family at baseline and no child was reunited with the family at the time of the 37-month survey.

h

 Psychological distress is measured with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) and ranges from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater distress. Impacts shown as 

standardized effect sizes. Effect sizes were standardized by dividing impacts by standard deviation for the UC group.

i

 Measures evidence of alcohol dependence or drug abuse using responses to the Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS-4) and six items from the Drug Abuse Screening Test 

(DAST-10).

j

 Number of schools outcome is topcoded at 4 or more schools.

k

 Absences outcome is defined as 0 = no absences in past month; 1 = one to two absences; 2 = three to five absences; 3 = six or more absences. This parent-reported outcome 

was collected from only the first 38 percent of parents surveyed due to an error in data collection.

l

 Behavior problems outcome is measured as the standardized Total Difficulties score from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, or SDQ.

Notes: This exhibit displays findings that are statistically significant at the .10 level or more. Blank cells indicate that no statistically significant impact was detected. Impact estimates 

are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Appendix B for outcome definitions.

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey; Program Usage Data
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 121

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 10. Conclusions

10.3. Usual Care (UC)

Emergency shelters in this study were the entry points into 

homeless assistance in each site. Families randomly assigned to 

the UC group did not receive priority access to any program, 

although a range of supports were available to them if accessed 

by the family’s own initiative. In fact, UC families typically remained in emergency shelter for some additional time, seeking 

whatever assistance was available in the community. Thus, the 

experiences of UC families reflect how the homeless assistance 

systems work in the 12 communities studied when families 

in shelter were not given priority access to another homeless 

or housing assistance program. The study provides valuable 

information about what types of assistance families use without 

special offers of assistance and how families who have spent at 

least 7 days in shelter progress over time. 

UC families (that is, families to whom random assignment 

did not give priority access to any active intervention) spent 

substantial periods of time in emergency shelter after random 

assignment. UC families spent an average of 4 months in emergency shelter in the 3 years following random assignment, almost 

all of it as part of their initial shelter stays. More than one-half 

(60 percent) of UC families spent less than 3 months in emergency shelter cumulatively, 19 percent spent 3 to 6 months, 

and 21 percent spent more than 6 months in emergency shelter 

during the followup period.

Emergency shelters offered a range of supportive services. 

The shelters studied provided a range of supportive services 

in primarily congregate settings (dorms or other group living 

situations). All the shelters offered comprehensive needs assessments, case management, supportive services, and referrals 

to other programs. Shelters in some instances also offered 

supportive services such as access to physical health care, 

employment training, child advocacy, life skills training, mental 

health care, and parenting services.

UC families participated in homeless and housing assistance 

programs at fairly high rates and many were able to access 

and retain permanent housing subsidies. In the 3-year 

followup period, some families assigned to the UC group did 

not use any other form of homeless or housing assistance 

besides shelters, but most did. The study found that, even 

without having priority access to a permanent housing subsidy 

during the 37-month follow-up period, more than one-third 

(37 percent) of UC families were able to obtain some form of 

permanent subsidy130 and used it for an average of 19 months. 

Not only were families assigned to the UC group able to obtain 

permanent housing subsidies, they also retained the assistance. 

That is, the study found that most families (82 percent) who 

obtained a permanent housing subsidy during the followup 

period were still using that subsidy at the time of the followup 

survey. Families assigned to the UC group also used other 

forms of assistance. Slightly less than one-third received transitional housing and 20 percent received rapid re-housing at 

some point during the followup period. At 3 years after random 

assignment, 40 percent were still using some form of assistance.

At 3 years after random assignment, UC families had, on 

average, made modest improvements in circumstances since 

the 20-month followup point but still experienced substantial 

housing instability, low incomes, and low rates of employment. Nearly one-fifth of UC families reported at least 1 night 

homeless in the 6 months before the 37-month survey. This 

proportion is smaller than that at the 20-month followup point 

but indicates that families were still experiencing substantial 

instability. More than one-third (37 percent) of UC families 

were working in the week before the 37-month survey, a higher proportion than at baseline or at the time of the 20-month 

followup survey. Median annual cash income from all sources 

for the calendar year before the survey was about $12,000, 

less than two-thirds of the federal poverty threshold for a 

three-person family in the study in the same year (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2013). 

At the 37-month followup point, a substantial number of UC 

families experienced poor outcomes in the studied domains. 

Altogether, 17 percent had been separated from a child who 

was with the family at the time of random assignment, and 

3 percent had a child in foster care. Of UC family heads, nearly 

one-third reported poor or fair health, 11 percent reported 

alcohol dependence or substance abuse, and 11 percent had 

experienced intimate partner violence in the past 6 months. 

Children had attended more than two schools in the past 3 years 

and parents reported behavior problems well above national 

averages. At the time of the survey, nearly one-half of UC 

families (47 percent) were food insecure. 

UC families incurred substantial costs. The study found that 

the emergency shelter programs that the UC families used cost 

slightly more than $4,800 per family per month. Of this total, 

63 percent was for supportive services. Altogether, costs of all 

the homeless and housing programs and associated services 

that families assigned to the UC group accessed—whether 

in a shelter or in active programs—were about $40,000 per 

family during the 3-year followup period compared with about 

$30,000 in accumulated costs through 20 months. Further, the 

130 These subsidies include the permanent housing subsidies offered to the SUB group, permanent supportive housing, public housing, and project-based assistance and 

Section 8 projects.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 122

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 10. Conclusions

cost of all program use for families in the UC group, particularly in the month of the 37-month followup survey, was a little 

more than $800, roughly 20 percent less than the monthly 

cost of program use at the time of the 20-month survey. Thus, 

UC families continued to incur costs for housing assistance between months 21 through 37, but the rate of cost accumulation 

had slowed by the 3-year followup point. 

10.4. Permanent Housing Subsidy 

(SUB) 

In most cases, the families assigned to the SUB intervention 

were given priority access to a housing choice voucher, and 

they may have been offered housing search assistance (they 

were not offered ongoing social services). The permanent 

housing subsidies offered to SUB families are not generally 

accessible to families while in emergency shelter unless families 

reach the top of waiting lists for subsidies during that period. 

Against that circumstance, what does the Family Options 

Study tell about offering homeless families priority access to 

permanent housing subsidies?

When permanent housing subsidies are available to families 

in shelter, they take it up at high rates and continue to use 

it for a sustained period. SUB programs were the least likely 

of the active interventions studied to exclude families because 

of eligibility rules. For example, only 2 percent of families in 

the study were disqualified from random assignment to the 

SUB group because of answers to screening questions asked 

by study staff. Of the families randomly assigned to the SUB 

group, however, 11 percent were found to be ineligible after 

random assignment. Altogether during the 3-year followup 

period, 83 percent of respondent families assigned to the SUB 

group at some point used the permanent subsidy that was 

offered.131 Most families assigned to the SUB group who used 

their offered permanent subsidy continued using it to the end 

of the followup period. Among those who ever used their 

offered permanent housing subsidy, the average duration was 

31 months. In addition to the 83 percent of families assigned to 

the SUB group who used the permanent subsidy to which they 

had priority access, some families assigned to the SUB group 

used other forms of permanent subsidy to which they did not 

have priority access, bringing the total who used any form of 

permanent subsidy to 88 percent. By the time of the 37-month 

followup survey, 73 percent were still receiving some form of 

permanent subsidy. Smaller proportions of families assigned 

to the SUB group used rapid re-housing (11 percent) and transitional housing (7 percent) at some point during the 3 years, 

with some overlap among the three groups.132

Compared with the CBRR and PBTH interventions and with 

usual care, assignment to the SUB intervention caused improvements in housing stability 3 years after random assignment.

Having priority access to permanent housing subsidies reduced 

the proportion of families with a stay in shelter or places not 

meant for human habitation in the 6 months before the 37-month 

survey by more than one-half when compared with assignment 

to the PBTH group or with assignment to the UC group. Assignment to the SUB group also led to notable improvements in 

other aspects of housing stability relative to assignment to the 

UC group and both of the other groups, reducing the incidence 

of doubling up, subsequent emergency shelter stays, housing 

crowding, and number of places families lived during the followup period. Compared with assignment to the CBRR group, 

however, the study team did not detect an effect of assignment 

to the SUB group on the proportion of families who reported 

homelessness in the 6 months before the 37-month followup 

survey. The study did not find evidence that assignment to 

the SUB group caused changes in the quality of housing that 

families reported at the time of the 37-month followup survey 

compared with assignment to any of the other groups. 

The benefits of assignment to the SUB intervention relative 

to assignment to the PBTH intervention and to usual care extended beyond housing stability at the 3-year followup point. 

At 3 years after random assignment, the benefits of having 

priority access to permanent housing subsidies compared with 

usual care extended beyond housing stability, with reductions 

in adult psychological distress and in intimate partner violence 

(a reduction of one-third in this indicator). Assignment to 

the SUB group increased separations of spouses and partners 

relative to assignment to the UC group and reduced child separations relative to assignment to the PBTH group. Assignment 

to the SUB group reduced the number of schools attended 

by children relative to assignment to all the other groups. 

Compared with assignment to the UC group, assignment to 

the SUB group led to improvements in other areas of child 

well-being, with reductions in behavior and sleep problems 

and with improvements in prosocial behavior. Relative to 

assignment to the PBTH group, assignment to the SUB group 

led to greater school grade completion. Some impacts of the 

131 The takeup rate presented here is the proportion of all survey respondent families assigned to the SUB group who used the permanent housing subsidy assistance that 

was offered. A voucher “success rate” refers to the proportion of families who were issued a voucher who leased up with a unit. The Interim Report: Family Options Study

(Gubits et al., 2013) reported a success rate of 94 percent, based on information about voucher issuance collected through the end of random assignment. This rate is 

higher than the 69-percent success rate found by Finkel and Buron (2001).

132 For example, the same family may have used permanent housing subsidies and project-based transitional housing at different points during the followup period.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 123

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 10. Conclusions

SUB intervention relative to usual care observed at 20 months 

(for example, reductions in adult alcohol dependence or drug 

abuse, reductions in separations and foster care placements of 

children, and increases in children’s school attendance) were 

no longer evident at 37 months, perhaps because more UC 

families had stabilized in housing. Even if these findings are 

short term, they should be considered among the benefits of 

assignment to the SUB group during the full 3-year period.

Compared with assignment to the UC group, assignment 

to the SUB group reduced labor market engagement in the 

second half of the followup period. Compared with their 

counterparts assigned to the UC group, the heads of families 

assigned to the SUB group worked less during the full 3-year 

followup period and in the second half of the followup period 

(in the time from the 20- to the 37-month followup surveys). 

In the UC group, 64 percent of family heads had worked for 

pay at some point during the second half of the followup period, but only 58 percent of those in the SUB group had done 

so. These employment effects were not evident in comparisons 

of the SUB intervention with the CBRR or PBTH intervention. 

In comparisons of the SUB intervention with the CBRR and 

PBTH interventions and usual care, the study did not detect 

differences in the proportion of family heads in the SUB group 

who worked in the week before the survey or the proportion of 

families who had earnings in the month before the survey. 

Compared with assignment to the PBTH and UC groups, assignment to the SUB group improved food security. The study 

did not detect effects of assignment to the SUB group on annual 

family cash income relative to assignment to any of the other 

interventions but showed that assignment to the SUB intervention improved family food security relative to assignment to the 

PBTH intervention and to usual care. Families assigned to the 

SUB group also reported less economic stress in the 6 months 

before the 3-year followup survey compared with PBTH and 

UC families.

During the 3-year followup period, the cost of all program use 

for families assigned to the SUB group exceeded that of families assigned to the CBRR, PBTH, and UC groups by roughly 

9 to 10 percent. On average, SUB programs cost about $1,200 

per family per month, which is lower than the corresponding 

monthly costs for emergency shelter and PBTH programs but 

higher than the monthly cost for CBRR programs. During the 

3-year period, however, SUB families used programs (usually 

permanent housing subsidies) to a much greater extent than 

did the families assigned to the other interventions. As a consequence, compared with the average cost of all program use for 

each of the CBRR, PBTH, and UC groups, the average cost of all 

program use for families assigned to the SUB group was about 

$4,000 higher than for families in the other interventions. Assignment to the SUB group costs about 10 percent more (about 

$4,000), on average, than assignment to the PBTH group and 

about 9 percent more than assignment to the CBRR or UC 

groups during the study period. That is, the substantial gains 

in housing stability and other outcomes associated with assignment to the SUB intervention come at some additional cost. In 

the month of the 37-month survey, the cost of program use for 

families assigned to the SUB group was higher than for families 

assigned to any of the other groups by 15 to 25 percent. This 

differential in monthly cost of program use is greater than what 

was observed at the earlier, 20-month followup survey. In the 

month of the 20-month survey, the cost of program use for 

SUB families was 2 percent higher than that for UC families 

and 8 to 9 percent higher than that for PBTH families or CBRR 

families. 

10.5. Community-Based Rapid 

Re-housing (CBRR)

The CBRR intervention offered priority access to short-term 

rental assistance lasting up to 18 months (median length of 

use was 8 months) to rent private-market housing. CBRR programs also offered limited case management services focused 

on housing and self-sufficiency. CBRR programs typically 

received funding from the Homelessness Prevention and Rapid 

Re-Housing Program, or HPRP. What do the findings from the 

3-year assessment tell about this intervention?

Takeup of offered rapid re-housing was relatively low. Of 

families randomly assigned to the CBRR group, 59 percent 

used rapid re-housing rental assistance during the 37-month 

followup period, a rate that is much lower than the 83-percent 

takeup rate for SUB programs in that random assignment group. 

Qualitative research suggested that the short duration of CBRR 

programs—or uncertainty about its duration—made some 

families reluctant to use CBRR programs (Fisher et al., 2014). 

Families assigned to the CBRR group were able to use and 

retain permanent housing subsidies. Families assigned to 

the CBRR group used multiple forms of permanent housing 

subsidies during the 3-year followup period (35 percent 

across all types of permanent subsidy). It does not appear that 

assignment to the CBRR group led to greater use of permanent 

housing subsidies compared with assignment to the UC 

group, but CBRR families began using the permanent housing 

subsidies later in the followup period than their counterparts in 

the UC group. By the 37-month followup survey, 30 percent of 

CBRR families and 31 percent of UC families were using some 

form of permanent subsidy. The rate of retention of permanent 

housing subsidies among families who used them was similar 

for all three groups. About one-fourth of the families assigned 

to the CBRR group (23 percent) also used transitional housing.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 124

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 10. Conclusions

The CBRR intervention resulted in outcomes equivalent to 

those observed with usual care but was less effective than 

the SUB intervention in preventing subsequent stays in 

shelters and doubling up and in improving other aspects of 

housing stability. The study found that having priority access 

to community-based rapid re-housing was equivalent to usual 

care—and was substantially less effective than having priority 

access to a permanent housing subsidy—in reducing subsequent stays in shelters and doubling up and in improving other 

aspects of housing stability. Having priority access to rapid 

re-housing had little impact on outcomes in other domains 

compared with usual care.

The CBRR intervention has the lowest monthly cost of the 

active interventions studied, and total costs of all programs 

used during the 3-year followup period for those assigned to 

the CBRR group were lower than those of families assigned 

to the SUB, PBTH, and UC groups. CBRR programs had a 

lower per-family monthly cost than those of PBTH and SUB 

programs, averaging about $900. Housing costs comprised, 

on average, 72 percent of these costs. The total cost of all programs used by CBRR families during the 3 years after random 

assignment was, on average, about $4,000 less than the cost of 

program use for SUB and UC families and about $10,000 less 

than cost of program use for PBTH families. 

10.6. Project-Based Transitional 

Housing (PBTH)

The PBTH intervention offered priority access to housing for 

up to 24 months, coupled with a wide array of social services. 

The study focused on transitional housing provided in agencycontrolled settings (although some PBTH families were referred 

to programs with scattered-site units; in all cases, families were 

required to move from their units when assistance ended). 

All the PBTH programs studied offered comprehensive case 

management, assessed family needs, and offered direct services 

and dedicated referrals to outside providers to address those 

needs. PBTH programs offered access to employment training, 

life skills, mental health care, parenting skills, and physical 

health care. The scope of needs addressed in PBTH programs 

was similar to that of emergency shelters. During the followup 

period, 53 percent of families assigned to the PBTH group used 

that form of assistance for an average duration of 15 months. 

What lessons does the Family Options Study provide about the 

PBTH intervention?

Takeup of project-based transitional housing programs was 

relatively low. PBTH providers were more selective than either 

SUB or CBRR providers regarding the families they would 

serve. Nearly one-fourth (23 percent) of families considered for 

the study did not pass the initial screening for PBTH programs 

that took place before random assignment, and 18 percent of 

those who passed and were assigned to the PBTH group were 

subsequently screened out as ineligible by the transitional 

housing programs to which they were referred. Of the families 

assigned to the PBTH group, 53 percent used some form of 

transitional housing during the 3-year followup period. This 

low level of takeup reflects a combination of family choices and 

program eligibility restrictions, with some families deemed ineligible by the programs to which they were offered priority access and some families choosing not to use the PBTH assistance 

offered. Qualitative interviews suggest that the fixed location of 

PBTH units may be a barrier to takeup when assigned locations 

are not close to families’ schools, work, transportation, and 

support networks, or when families perceive the facilities to be 

in bad neighborhoods (Fisher et al., 2014). 

Families assigned to the PBTH group were able to use and retain permanent housing subsidies even without having priority 

access to that type of assistance. One-third of families assigned 

to the PBTH group used some form of permanent housing 

subsidy during the followup period, despite not receiving 

priority access to that form of assistance. More than one-fourth 

of families assigned to the PBTH group were still receiving 

some type of permanent subsidy at the time of the 37-month 

followup survey. Families assigned to the PBTH group used 

these other forms of permanent housing subsidies at about the 

same rate as did families assigned to the UC group, but families 

assigned to the PBTH group began using permanent housing 

subsidies later in the followup period than did UC families. 

Having priority access to transitional housing programs thus 

did not lead to greater use of permanent housing subsidies 

than did usual care by the end of the followup period. Some 

families assigned to the PBTH group also used rapid re-housing 

programs (14 percent).

Assignment to the PBTH intervention reduced stays in 

emergency shelter in the final year of the followup period 

compared with usual care but did not lead to other effects on 

housing stability and did not lead to effects on other aspects 

of family well-being. Compared with usual care, assignment 

to the PBTH intervention reduced the proportion of families 

who had stays in emergency shelter in months 21 to 32 after 

random assignment. Program Usage Data show that families 

assigned to the PBTH group were more likely than UC families 

to still be using PBTH programs in this period.) The study 

finds no evidence of other effects of assignment to the PBTH 

intervention on other indicators of housing stability, housing 

independence, or housing quality at the 3-year followup 

survey. The study also does not find evidence that assignment 

to the PBTH group led to effects on any of the other domains 

examined compared with assignment to the UC group. 
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 125

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 10. Conclusions

The PBTH programs cost less than emergency shelters on a 

per-family, per-month basis, and total costs for PBTH families 

during the 3-year period after random assignment are less 

than for families assigned to the SUB group and greater than 

for families assigned to the UC and CBRR groups. PBTH 

programs cost about $2,700 per family per month, with 

supportive services constituting 42 percent of these costs. This 

monthly cost is less than that of emergency shelter but is more 

than the monthly costs for SUB and CBRR programs. The cost 

of all program use by PBTH families during the 3-year followup 

period was lower by $4,100 than the average total cost for SUB 

families, modestly higher by $1,400 than that for UC families, 

and substantially higher by $9,800 than that for CBRR families. 

Assignment to the PBTH group did not lead to longer-term 

effects on family well-being. The 3-year analysis does not provide evidence of longer-term effects of assignment to the PBTH 

group. The study finds no evidence that, despite its inclusion 

of psychosocial services, assignment to the PBTH intervention 

led to improvements in family preservation, adult well-being, 

or child well-being relative to usual care at 37 months. Among 

families eligible for both the PBTH and CBRR interventions, 

assignment to the PBTH intervention was less successful 

than assignment to the CBRR intervention in reducing adult 

psychological distress, child behavior problems, and family 

food insecurity. 

10.7. Impacts by Level of Family 

Challenge

Families participating in the Family Options Study experienced 

numerous psychosocial challenges and housing barriers. 

The study yielded scant evidence that, during the 37-month 

followup period, any of the interventions studied works 

comparatively better for families who had more psychosocial 

challenges or housing barriers at baseline than for families who 

faced fewer difficulties. Nor did the reverse pattern occur. As 

a result, the study’s clearest guidance for policy for all types of 

families in the medium term consists of the main study results 

on overall impacts.

10.8. Implications for Theory

In addition to findings on the effects of priority access to the 

three active interventions (relative to usual care and relative 

to each other) and on intervention costs, the Family Options 

Study is also informative about the various theories underlying 

the active interventions. This section draws out implications in 

this area.

Study findings lend support for the underlying theoretical 

model for permanent housing subsidies. The striking impacts 

of assignment to the SUB group in reducing subsequent 

stays in shelters or places not meant for human habitation 

provide support for the view that homelessness is for many 

families a housing affordability problem that can be remedied 

with permanent housing subsidies—without specialized 

homeless-specific psychosocial services. The larger set of 

findings on this active intervention also provides some support 

for the theoretical proposition that resolving homelessness, 

when that impact can be achieved, has a radiating impact on 

adult and child well-being and food security compared with 

usual care. 

Few study findings support the theoretical model underlying 

project-based transitional housing. Project-based transitional 

housing is intended to address psychosocial challenges and 

housing barriers by providing social services. The study does 

not provide evidence that this intervention accomplished that 

result. Although assignment to the PBTH intervention reduced 

homelessness at the 20-month followup point and reduced the 

number of emergency shelter stays through month 32, when 

compared with usual care, it did not produce effects in other 

aspects of family well-being.

10.9. Summary of Findings and 

Implications for Policy

The Family Options Study’s random assignment design for 

measuring intervention impacts is a stronger design than that of 

other studies of programs for homeless families. Evidence from 

the study’s 3-year followup survey provides important new 

information about what happens to families who experience 

homelessness in the absence of any special offers of assistance. 

It also provides information about the impact of assignment to 

three particular interventions: SUB, CBRR, and PBTH. 

A clear finding from the study is that homelessness is expensive 

for families and communities. Even without priority access 

to assistance, families in 12 communities used housing and 

services programs costing about $40,000, on average, during 

a period of a little more than 3 years. Despite this considerable 

public (and in some cases private) investment, many families 

who had been in shelter for at least 7 days at the outset of 

the study were still not faring well 3 years later. More than 

one-third had been homeless or doubled up recently, nearly 

one-half were food insecure, and incomes averaged less than 

two-thirds of the poverty threshold. The high cost of homeless 

services suggests that prevention efforts with low per-family 

costs—if they were effective—would not need to be tightly 

targeted to just the families who would otherwise experience 

homelessness in order to save resources.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 126

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 10. Conclusions

The longer-term evidence from the Family Options Study 

presented in this report indicates that having priority access to 

deep permanent housing subsidies produces substantial benefits for families. More than one-third of families assigned to 

the CBRR, PBTH, or UC groups found their way to permanent 

housing subsidies, but families given priority access to that assistance obtained subsidies sooner. Providing priority access to 

subsidies costs 9 percent more than not giving families any priority offer during a 3-year followup period, and it suppressed 

work effort by about 6 percentage points during the second 

half of that period; however, it had substantial benefits. Assignment to the SUB group reduced by more than one-half most 

forms of residential instability, improved multiple measures of 

adult and child well-being, and reduced food insecurity. 

The 3-year evidence shows that families randomly assigned to 

the CBRR group do about as well as families assigned to the UC 

group but at 9 percent lower costs, mainly because assignment 

to the CBRR intervention lowers the rate at which families use 

costly transitional housing programs. Assignment to the PBTH 

intervention has few advantages over other types of assistance. 

In addition, the study does not provide appreciable evidence 

that intervention impacts differ according to the number of 

families’ psychosocial challenges or housing barriers at baseline.

The Family Options Study suggests that families who experience homelessness can successfully use and retain housing 

vouchers, and that having priority access to deep permanent 

housing subsidies has considerable benefits at some additional 

cost. The homeless assistance system does not currently 

provide immediate access to such subsidies for most families in 

shelter, although more than one-third of families without priority access nevertheless obtained permanent housing subsidies 

during a 3-year followup period.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 127

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

CHAPTER 11.

REFERENCES

Angrist, Joshua D., and Jören-Steffen Pischke. 2008. Mostly 

Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton, 

NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bassuk, Ellen L., and Stephanie Geller. 2006. “The Role of 

Housing and Services in Ending Family Homelessness,” 

Housing Policy Debate 17 (4): 781–806. 

Bloom, Barbara, Lindsey I. Jones, and Gulnur Freeman. 

2013. “Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Children: National Health Interview Survey, 2012.” National Center for 

Health Statistics, Vital Health Stat 10 (258): 1–73.

Burt, Martha R. 2006. Characteristics of Transitional Housing 

for Homeless Families: Final Report. Prepared for the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of 

Policy Development and Research. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

———. 2010. Life After Transitional Housing for Homeless 

Families. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and 

Research. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Burt, Martha R., Laudan Y. Aron, and Edgar Lee, with Jesse 

Valente. 2001. Helping America’s Homeless: Emergency Shelter 

or Affordable Housing? Washington, DC: Urban Institute 

Press.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

2012a. Early Release of Selected Estimates Based on Data 

From the 2011 National Health Interview Survey. Available 

at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/

earlyrelease201206_13.pdf. Accessed July 2012.

———. 2012b. 2011 National Health Interview Survey 

Instrument. ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/Health_Statistics/NCHS/

Survey_Questionnaires/NHIS/2011/English/qadult.pdf. 

Accessed September 2016.

———. 2012c. 2011 State and Local Youth Risk Behavior 

Survey. http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/yrbs/pdf/

questionnaire/2011_hs_questionnaire.pdf. 

———. 2012d. CDC Youth Risk Behavioral Surveillance 

Survey Results. http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/

results.htm.

———. 2014. National Center for Health Statistics. 

VitalStats. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/vitalstats/

VitalStats_Births.htm.

Cherpitel, Cheryl J. 2000. “A Brief Screening Instrument for 

Problem Drinking in the Emergency Room: The RAPS-4,” 

Journal of Studies on Alcohol 61 (3): 447–449.

Culhane, Dennis P., Stephen Metraux, and Thomas Byrne. 

2011. “A Prevention-Centered Approach to Homelessness 

Assistance: A Paradigm Shift?” Housing Policy Debate 21 (2): 

295–315.

Culhane, Dennis P., Stephen Metraux, Jun Min Park, Maryanne Schretzman, and Jesse Valente. 2007. “Testing a Typology of Family Homelessness Based on Patterns of Public 

Shelter Utilization in Four U.S. Jurisdictions: Implications 

for Policy and Program Planning,” Housing Policy Debate 18 

(1): 1–28.

Dahl, Ronald E., and Alison G. Harvey. 2007. “Sleep in 

Children and Adolescents with Behavioral and Emotional 

Disorders,” Sleep Medicine Clinics 2: 501–511.

Finkel, Meryl, and Larry Buron. 2001. Study on Section 8 

Voucher Success Rates: Vol. 1 Quantitative Study of Success Rates 

in Metropolitan Areas. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development.

Fisher, Benjamin W., Lindsay S. Mayberry, Marybeth Shinn, 

and Jill Khadduri. 2014. “Leaving Homelessness Behind: 

Housing Decisions Among Families Exiting Shelter,” Housing 

Policy Debate 24 (2): 364–386.

Goodman, Robert N. 1997. “The Strengths and Difficulties 

Questionnaire: A Research Note,” Journal of Child Psychology 

and Psychiatry 38: 581–586.

Greene, William H. 2003. Econometric Analysis: Fifth Edition. 

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gubits, Daniel, Marybeth Shinn, Stephen Bell, Michelle 

Wood, Samuel Dastrup, Claudia D. Solari, Scott R. Brown, 

Steven Brown, Lauren Dunton, Winston Lin, Debi McInnis, 

Jason Rodriguez, Galen Savidge, and Brooke E. Spellman. 

2015. Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing 

and Services Interventions for Homeless Families. Washington, 

DC: Government Printing Office.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 128

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 11. References

Gubits, Daniel, Brooke Spellman, Lauren Dunton, Scott 

Brown, and Michelle Wood. 2013. Interim Report: Family 

Options Study. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and 

Research. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Gubits, Daniel, Brooke Spellman, Debi McInnis, Stephen 

Bell, and Michelle Wood. 2012. Revised Data Collection and 

Analysis Plan: Family Options Study. Prepared for the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of 

Policy Development and Research. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Harvard Medical School. 2012. “NCS–R Twelve-Month Prevalence Estimates: Table 2, 12–Month Prevalence of DSM-IV/

WMH-CIDI Disorders by Sex and Cohort 1 (n=9282).” National Comorbidity Survey (NCS) and National Comorbidity 

Survey Replication (NCS–R). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. http://www.hcp.med.harvard.edu/ncs/ftpdir/

NCS-R_12-month_Prevalence_Estimates.pdf. 

Huber, Peter J. 1967. “The Behavior of Maximum Likelihood 

Estimates Under Nonstandard Conditions.” In Proceedings 

of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and 

Probability, edited by Lucien M. Le Cam, Jerzy Neyman, and 

Elizabeth L. Scott. Berkeley, CA: University of California 

Press, Vol. 1: 221–233.

Kann, Laura, Steve Kinchen, Shari L. Shanklin, Katherine 

H. Flint, MA, Joseph Hawkins, William A. Harris, Richard 

Lowry, Emily O’Malley Olsen, Tim McManus, David Chyen, 

Lisa Whittle, Eboni Taylor, Zewditu Demissie, Nancy Brener, 

Jemekia Thornton, John Moore, PhD, Stephanie Zaza. 

(2014). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance – United States, 2013. 

MMWR. 63(ss-4):1-168. Accessed April 4, 2016. http://

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6304.pdf.

Kessler, Ronald C., Peggy R. Barker, Lisa J. Colpe, Joel 

F. Epstein, Joe C. Gfroerer, Eva Hiripi, Mary J. Howes, 

Sharon-Lise T. Normand, Ronald W. Manderscheid, Ellen 

E. Walters, and Alan M. Zaslavsky. 2003. “Screening for 

Serious Mental Illness in the General Population,” Archives of 

General Psychiatry 60 (2): 184–189.

Layzer, Carolyn. 2014. Personal communication. Associate, 

Abt Associates.

Little, Roderick J.A. 1986. “Survey Non-Response Adjustments for Estimates of Means,” International Statistical Review

54 (2): 139–157.

McGrew, Kevin S., Fredrick A. Shrank, and Richard W. Woodcock. 2007. “Technical Manual.” Woodcock-Johnson Normative Update. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Miller, Portia, Elizabeth Votruba-Drzal, and Claude M. Setodji. 

2013. “Family Income and Early Achievement Across the 

Urban-Rural Continuum,” Developmental Psychology 49 (8): 

1452–1465.

Mills, Gregory, Daniel Gubits, Larry Orr, David Long, Judith 

Feins, Bubul Kaul, Michelle Wood, Amy Jones, Cloudburst 

Consulting, and the QED Group. 2006. Effects of Housing 

Vouchers on Welfare Families: Final Report. Prepared for the 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Policy Development and Research. Washington, 

DC: Government Printing Office.

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2010. 

Student Mobility: Exploring the Impact of Frequent Moves on 

Achievement: Summary of a Workshop. Committee on the Impact of Mobility and Change on the Lives of Young Children, 

Schools, and Neighborhoods. Board on Children, Youth, 

and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and 

Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Nord, Mark, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlsen. 2005. 

Household Food Security in the United States, 2004. ERS 

Food Assistance and Nutrition Report No. ERR11. Washington, 

DC: Government Printing Office.

Papay, James, and John Hedl, Jr. 1978. “Pyschometric Characteristics and Norms for Disadvantaged Third and Fourth 

Grade Children on State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children,” 

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 6 (1): 115–120.

Pearlin, Leonard, and Carmi Schooler. 1978. “The Structure of Coping,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 19 (1): 

2–21.

Ponitz, Claire C., Megan M. McClelland, Jamaal S. Matthews, and Frederick J. Morrison. (2009) “A Structured 

Observation of Behavioral Self-Regulation and Its Contribution to Kindergarten Outcomes,” Developmental Psychology

45 (3): 605–619.

Ponitz, Claire E. Cameron, Megan E. McClelland, Abigail 

M. Jewkes, Carol McDonald Connor, Carrie L. Farris, and 

Fredrick J. Morrison. 2007. “Touch Your Toes! Developing 

a Direct Measure of Behavioral Regulation in Early Childhood,” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23: 141–158.

Ramirez, Mary Louise, Ann S. Masten, and D. M. Samsa. 

1991. Fears in Homeless Children. Paper presented at the 

Biennial Meeting for the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 129

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 11. References

Rog, Debra J., and John C. Buckner. 2007. Toward Understanding Homelessness: The 2007 National Symposium on 

Homelessness Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning 

and Evaluation; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

Schochet, Peter. 2009. “An Approach for Addressing the 

Multiple Testing Problem in Social Policy Impact Evaluations,” Evaluation Review 33 (6): 539–567.

Skinner, Harvey A. 1982. “The Drug Abuse Screening Test,” 

Addictive Behavior 7 (4): 363–371.

Snyder, C. Richard, Betsy Hoza, William E. Pelham, Michael 

Rapoff, Leanne Ware, Michael Danovsky, Lori Highberger, 

Howard Ribenstein, and Kandy J. Stahl. 1997. “The Development and Validation of the Children’s Hope Scale,” Journal 

of Pediatric Psychology 22 (3): 399–421.

Snyder, C. Richard, Susie C. Sympson, Florence C. Ybasco, 

Tyrone F. Borders, Michael A. Babyak, and Raymond L. 

Higgins. 1996. “Development and Validation of the State 

Hope Scale,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70: 

321–335.

Solari, Claudia D., and Jill Khadduri. Forthcoming. Family 

Options Study: How Families Use Housing Choice Vouchers. Short paper. Washington, DC: U.S. Housing and Urban 

Development.

Spellman, Brooke, Jill Khadduri, Brian Sokol, and Joshua 

Leopold. 2010. Costs Associated With First-Time Homelessness 

for Families and Individuals. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy 

Development and Research. Washington, DC: Government 

Printing Office.

Spielberger, Charles D., Richard L. Gorsuch, Robert E. 

Lushene, Peter R. Vagg, and G. A. Jacobs. 1973. State-Trait 

Anxiety Inventory for Children. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

Squires, Jane, Diane Bricker, Elizabeth Twombly, LaWanda 

Potter. (2009). ASQ-3 User’s Guide. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. 

Brookes Publishing Co., Inc. 

United States Census Bureau. 2013. Poverty Thresholds: 

Preliminary Estimate of Weighted Average Poverty Thresholds 

for 2015. https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/

threshld/. Accessed April 4, 2016.

———. 2014. School Enrollment: CPS October 2014—

Detailed Tables. https://www.census.gov/hhes/school/data/

cps/2014/tables.html#NAV_1460391502_6.

———. 2013. U.S. Rental Housing Finance Survey. 

huduser.gov/portal/datasets/rhfs/home.html#about.

U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

Forthcoming. Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) 

to Congress: Part 2 – Estimates of Homelessness in the U.S. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Public and Indian Housing (HUD-PIH). 2004. 

“Form HUD-50058 Instruction Booklet.” http://www.hud.

gov/offices/pih/systems/pic/50058/pubs/ib/ib_final_0601.

pdf accessed 10/5/2016.

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. 

(2015). Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and 

End Homelessness. Accessed September 15, 2016. https://

www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/USICH_

OpeningDoors_Amendment2015_FINAL.pdf. 

White, Halbert. 1980. “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity,” Econometrica 48: 817–830.

———. 1984. Asymptotic Theory for Econometricians. 

Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Wood, Michelle, Marybeth Shinn, Scott R. Brown, Douglas 

Walton and Daniel Gubits. Forthcoming. Community-Based 

Rapid Re-housing. Short paper. US Department of Housing 

and Urban Development. 

Woodcock, Richard W., Kevin S. McGrew, and Nancy Mather. 

2001. Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Rolling 

Meadows, IL: Riverside.

World Health Organization (WHO). 2011. “International 

Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health 

Problems.” 10th Revision. Vol. 2. Instruction Manual. http://

www.who.int/classifications/icd/ICD10Volume2_en_2010.

pdf?ua=1.

Youth in Mind. 2012. “Information for Researchers and 

Professionals About the Strengths & Difficulties Questionnaires.” http://www.sdqinfo.com/.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 130

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

CHAPTER 12.

ADDITIONAL READING

Adam, Emma K. 2004. “Beyond Quality: Parental and 

Residential Stability and Children’s Adjustment,” Current 

Directions in Psychological Science 13: 210–213.

Allison, Paul D. 2002. Missing Data. University Paper No. 

136. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Angrist, Joshua D., Guido W. Imbens, and Donald B. Rubin. 

1996. “Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental 

Variables,” Journal of the American Statistical Association 91: 

444–472. 

Angrist, Joshua D., and Alan B. Krueger. 1992. “The Effect 

of Age at School Entry on Educational Attainment: An 

Application of Instrumental Variables With Moments From 

Two Samples,” Journal of the American Statistical Association

87 (418): 328–337.

———. 1995. “Split-Sample Instrumental Variables Estimates of the Return to Schooling,” Journal of Business and 

Economic Statistics 13 (2): 225–235.

Bassuk, Ellen L., John C. Buckner, Linda F. Weinreb, Angela 

Browne, Shari S. Bassuk, Ree Dawson, and Jennifer N. 

Perloff. 1997. “Homelessness in Female-Headed Families: 

Childhood and Adult Risk and Protective Factors,” American 

Journal of Public Health 87 (2): 241–248.

Bassuk, Ellen L., Carmela J. DeCandia, Alexander 

Tsertsvadze, and Molly K. Richard. 2014. “The Effectiveness 

of Housing Interventions and Housing and Service Interventions on Ending Family Homelessness: A Systematic Review,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 84 (5): 457–474. 

Bassuk, Ellen L., Jennifer N. Perloff, and Ree Dawson. 2001. 

“Multiply Homeless Families: The Insidious Impact of Violence,” Housing Policy Debate 12 (2): 299–320. 

Bassuk, Ellen L., Lenore L. Rubin, and Alison M. Lauriat. 

1986. “Characteristics of Sheltered Homeless Families,” 

American Journal of Public Health 76 (9): 1097–1101.

Bassuk, Ellen L., Linda F. Weinreb, John C. Buckner, Angela 

Browne, Amy Salomon, and Shari S. Bassuk. 1996. “The 

Characteristics and Needs of Sheltered Homeless and LowIncome Housed Mothers,” Journal of the American Medical 

Association 276 (8): 640–646.

Beatty, Alexandra S. 2010. Student Mobility Exchange: Exploring the Impact of Frequent Moves on Achievement: Summary of a 

Workshop. Washington, DC: National Research Council and 

Institute of Medicine, Committee on the Impact of Mobility 

and Change on the Lives of Young Children, School, and 

Neighborhoods.

Buckner, John C. 2008. “Understanding the Impact of 

Homelessness on Children: Challenges and Future Research 

Directions,” American Behavioral Scientist 51: 721–736.

Buckner, John C., and Ellen L. Bassuk. 1997. “Mental Disorders and Service Utilizations Among Youths From Homeless 

and Low-Income Housed Families,” Journal of American 

Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 36 (7): 890–900.

Buckner, John C., Ellen L. Bassuk, Linda Weinreb, and Margaret Brooks. 1999. “Homelessness and Its Relation to the 

Mental Health and Behavior of Low-Income School Aged 

Children,” Developmental Psychology 35: 246–257.

Buckner, John C., William R. Beardslee, and Ellen L. Bassuk. 

2004. “Exposure to Violence and Low-Income Children’s 

Mental Health: Direct, Moderated, and Mediated Relations,” 

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 74: 413–423.

Burt, Martha R., Laudan Y. Aron, Toby Douglas, Jesse Valente, 

Edgar Lee, and Britta Iwen. 1999. Homelessness: Programs 

and the People They Serve. Findings of the National Survey 

of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients. Prepared for 

the Interagency Council on Homelessness. Washington, DC: 

Government Printing Office.

Burt, Martha R., Carol L. Pearson, and Ann Elizabeth 

Montgomery. 2005. Strategies for Preventing Homelessness. 

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. 

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Burt, Martha R., Dave Pollack, Abby Sosland, Kelly S. 

Mikelson, Elizabeth Drappa, Kristy Greenwalt, and Patrick 

Sharkey. 2002. Evaluation of Continuums of Care for Homeless 

People. Washington DC: Urban Institute; Fairfax, VA: ICF 

Consulting.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 131

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 12. Additional Reading

Burt, Martha R., and Brooke Spellman. 2007. Changing 

Homeless and Mainstream Service Systems: Essential Approaches 

to Ending Homelessness. Developed for the National Symposium on Homelessness Research. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Chen, Edith. 2004. “Why Socioeconomic Status Affects the 

Health of Children: A Psychosocial Perspective,” Current 

Directions in Psychological Science 13 (3): 112–115.

Chetty, Raj, and Nathanial Hendren. 2015. The Impacts of 

Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility: Childhood 

Exposure Effects and County-Level Estimates. Unpublished 

paper.

Chetty, Raj, Nathanial Hendren, and Lawrence F. Katz. 

2015. The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on 

Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity 

Experiment. NBER Working Paper No. 21156. Cambridge, 

MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence Katz. Forthcoming. The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on 

Children: New Evidence From the Moving to Opportunity 

Experiment. American Economic Review.

Coley, Rebekah Levine, Tama Leventhal, Alicia Doyle Lynch, 

and Melissa Kull. 2013. “Relations Between Housing Characteristics and the Well-Being of Low-Income Children and 

Adolescents,” Developmental Psychology 49 (9): 1775–1789.

Cowal, Kristin, Marybeth Shinn, Beth C. Weitzman, Daniela 

Stojanovic, and Larissa Labay. 2002. “Mother-Child Separations Among Homeless and Housed Families Receiving 

Public Assistance in New York City,” American Journal of 

Community Psychology 30 (5): 711–730.

Culhane, Dennis P. 1992. “The Quandaries of Shelter Reform: An Appraisal of Efforts to ‘Manage’ Homelessness,” 

Social Service Review 66: 428–440.

Culhane, Dennis P., Wayne D. Parker, Barbara Poppe, 

Kennen S. Gross, and Ezra Sykes. 2007. Accountability, CostEffectiveness, and Program Performance: Progress Since 1998. 

Developed for the National Symposium on Homelessness 

Research. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Eggers, Fredrick J., and Fouad Moumen. 2013. Analysis 

of Trends in Household Composition Using American Housing 

Survey Data. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and 

Research. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Evans, Gary. 2004. “The Environment of Child Poverty,” 

American Psychologist 55: 77–92.

Fantuzzo, John W., Whitney A. LeBoeuf, Chin-Chin Chen, 

Heather L. Rouse, and Dennis P. Culhane. 2012. “The 

Unique and Combined Effects of Homelessness and School 

Mobility on the Educational Outcomes of Young Children,” 

Educational Researcher 41 (9): 393–402.

Finkel, Meryl, Meghan Henry, Natalie Matthews, Brooke 

Spellman, and Dennis Culhane. Forthcoming. Evaluation of 

the Rapid Re-housing Demonstration Program: Final Report. 

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. 

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Glazerman, Steven, Dan Levy, and David Myers. 2003. 

Nonexperimental Versus Experimental Estimates of Earnings 

Impacts. Unpublished paper submitted to the Annals of the 

Academy of Political and Social Sciences. 

Hayes, Maureen A., Megan Zonneville, and Ellen L. Bassuk. 

2013. The SHIFT Study: Final Report. Waltham, MA: The 

National Center on Family Homelessness.

Herbers, Janelle E., J.J. Cutuli, Laura M. Supkoff, David Heistad, 

Chi-Keug Chan, Elizabeth Hinz, and Ann S. Masten. 2012. 

“Early Reading Skills and Academic Achievement Trajectories 

of Students Facing Poverty, Homelessness and High Residential Mobility,” Educational Researcher 41 (9): 366–374.

Huntington, Nicholas, John C. Buckner, and Ellen L. Bassuk. 

2008. “Adaptation in Homeless Children: An Empirical 

Examination Using Cluster Analysis,” American Behavioral 

Scientist 51 (6): 737–755.

Institute for Children and Poverty. 2010. “National Survey 

of Programs and Services for Homeless Families.” http://

www.icphusa.org/PDF/reports/ICP_Massachusetts_Brief.pdf.

Jacob, Brian, Max Kapustin, and Jens Ludwig. 2014. Human 

Capital Effects of Anti-Poverty Programs: Evidence from 

a Randomized Housing Voucher Lottery. NBER Working 

Paper 20164. http://www.nber.org/papers/w20164.

Jacob, Brian A., and Jens Ludwig. 2012. “The Effects of Housing Assistance on Labor Supply: Evidence from a Voucher 

Lottery,” American Economic Review 102 (1): 272–304.

Khadduri, Jill. 2008. Housing Vouchers Are Critical for Ending 

Family Homelessness. Washington, DC: Homelessness Research Institute.

Kish, Leslie. 1965. Survey Sampling. New York: Wiley.

Locke, Gretchen, Jill Khadduri, and Ann O’Hara. 2007. 

“Housing Models.” In Toward Ending Homelessness: The 2007 

National Symposium on Homelessness Research, edited by 

Locke, Gretchen, Jill Khadduri, and Ann O’Hara. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 132

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 12. Additional Reading

Lowenstein, Amy E., Noemi Altman, Patricia M. Chou, Kristen 

Faucetta, Adam Greeney, Daniel Gubits, Jorgen Harris, JoAnn 

Hsueg, Erika Lundquist, Charles Michalopoulos, and Vinh Q. 

Nguyen. 2014. A Family-Strengthening Program for Low-Income 

Families: Final Impacts from the Supportive Healthy Marriage 

Evaluation, Technical Supplement. OPRE Report 2014-09B. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Administration of Children and Families, Office of 

Planning, Research and Evaluation.

Masten, Ann S., Janette E. Herbers, Christopher D. Desjardins, 

J.J. Cutuli, Christopher M. McCormick, Julianna K. Sapienza, Jeffrey D. Long, and Philip D. Zelazo. 2012. “Executive 

Function Skills and School Success in Young Children 

Experiencing Homelessness,” Educational Researcher 41 (9): 

375–384.

Masten, Ann S., Donna Miliotis, Sandra A. Graham-Bermann, 

Mary Louise Ramirez, and Jennifer Neemann. 1993. “Children 

in Homeless Families: Risks to Mental Health and Development,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61: 

335–343.

Matsudaira, Jordan D., and Rebecca M. Blank. 2013. “The 

Impact of Earnings Disregards on the Behavior of Low-Income 

Families,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 33 (1): 

7–35.

Mayberry, Lindsay S., Marybeth Shinn, Jessica Gibbons 

Benton, and Jasmine Wise. 2014. “Families Experiencing 

Housing Instability: The Effects of Housing Programs on 

Family Routines and Rituals,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 84 (1): 95–109.

Mayfield, Jim, Callie Black, and Barbara E.M. Felver. 2012. 

Employment Outcomes Associated with Rapid Re-Housing Assistance for Homeless DSHS Clients in Washington State. Seattle: 

Washington State Department of Social and Health Services.

McLoyd, Vonnie C. 1990. “The Impact of Economic Hardship on Black Families and Children: Psychological Distress, 

Parenting, and Socioemotional Development,” Child Development 61 (2): 311–346.

McLoyd, Vonnie C. 1998. “Socioeconomic Disadvantage and 

Child Development,” American Psychologist 53: 185–204.

Mehana, Majida, and Arthur J. Reynolds. 2004. “School 

Mobility and Achievement: A Meta-Analysis,” Children and 

Youth Services Review 26: 93–119.

National Alliance to End Homelessness (NAEH). 2012. “Rapid Re-Housing Successes.” http://www.endhomelessness.org/

library/entry/rapid-re-housing-successes.

Northwest Institute for Children and Families. 2007. Evaluation of the Sound Families Initiative: Final Findings Summary: 

A Closer Look at Families’ Lives During and After Supportive 

Transitional Housing. Seattle: University of Washington 

School of Social Work.

Obradović, Jolena, Jeffrey D. Long, J.J. Cutuli, Chi-Keung 

Chan, Elizabeth Hinz, David Heistad, and Ann S. Masten. 

2009. “Academic Achievement of Homeless and Highly 

Mobile Children in an Urban School District: Longitudinal 

Evidence on Risk, Growth, and Resilience,” Development and 

Psychopathology 21 (02): 493–518.

O’Flaherty, Brendan. 2009. Homelessness as Bad Luck: Implications for Research and Policy. New York: Columbia University.

Orr, Larry L. 1999. Social Experiments: Evaluating Public Programs With Experimental Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Park, Jung M., Stephen Metraux, Gabriel Broadbar, and Dennis P. Culhane. 2004. “Child Welfare Involvement Among 

Children in Homeless Families,” Child Welfare 83: 423–436.

Pribesh, Shana, and Douglas B. Downey. 1999. “Why Are 

Residential and School Moves Associated with Poor School 

Performance?” Demography 36 (4): 521–534.

Puma, Michael J., Robert B. Olsen, Stephen H. Bell, and 

Cristofer Price. 2009. “What To Do When Data Are Missing 

in Group Randomized Controlled Trials.” NCEE 2009-0049. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 

Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

Rafferty, Yvonne, and Marybeth Shinn. 1991. “The Impact 

of Homelessness on Children,” American Psychologist 46: 

1170–1179.

Rafferty, Yvonne, Maybeth Shinn, and Beth C. Weitzman. 

2004. “Academic Achievement Among Formerly Homeless 

Adolescents and Their Continuously Housed Peers,” Journal 

of School Psychology 42 (3): 179–199.

Rodriguez, Jason. 2013. Homelessness Recurrence in Georgia. 

Atlanta: Georgia Department of Community Affairs, State 

Housing Trust Fund for the Homeless.

Rog, Debra J., Kimberly McCombs-Thornton, Ariana M. 

Gilbert-Mongelli, Consuelo Brito, and C. Scott Holupka. 

1995. “Implementation of the Homeless Families Program: 

2. Characteristics, Strengths, and Needs of Participant Families,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65 (4): 514–528.
3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 133

FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

Chapter 12. Additional Reading

Rog, Debra J., and Marjorie Gutman. 1997. “The Homeless 

Families Program: A Summary of Key Findings.” In To Improve Health and Health Care: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Anthology, edited by Stephen L. Isaacs and James R. 

Knickman. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers: 209–231.

Rog, Debra J., and Frances L. Randolph. 2002. “A Multisite 

Evaluation of Supported Housing: Lessons Learned from 

Cross-Site Collaboration,” New Directions for Evaluation 94: 

61–72.

Shinn, Marybeth, Andrew L. Greer, Jay Bainbridge, Jonathan 

Kwon, and Sara Zuiderveen. 2013. “Efficient Targeting of 

Homelessness Prevention Services for Families,” American 

Journal of Public Health 103 (S2): S324–S330. 

Shinn, Marybeth, Judith S. Schteingart, Nathaniel Chioke 

Williams, Jennifer Carlin-Mathis, Nancy Bialo-Karagis, Rachel 

Becker-Klein, and Beth C. Weitzman. 2008. “Long-Term 

Associations of Homelessness with Children’s Well-Being,” 

American Behavioral Scientist 51: 789–810.

Shinn, Marybeth, Beth C. Weitzman, Daniela Stojanovic, 

James R. Knickman, Lueila Jimenez, Lisa Duchon, Susan 

James, and David H. Krantz. 1998. “Predictors of Homelessness Among Families in New York City: From Shelter 

Request to Housing Stability,” American Journal of Public 

Health 88 (11): 1651–1657.

Shinn, Marybeth. 2014. Most Homeless Families Just Need 

Affordable Housing. Washington, DC: National Alliance to 

End Homelessness. 

Snyder, C. Richard, Lori M. Irving, and John R. Anderson. 

1991. “Hope and Health: Measuring the Will and the Ways.” 

In The Handbook of Social and Clinical Psychology: The Health 

Perspective, edited by C. Richard Snyder and Donelson R. 

Forsyth. Elmsford, New York: Pergamon Press: 285–307.

Snyder, Thomas D., and Sally A. Dillow. 2013. Digest of 

Education Statistics 2012. NCES 2014-05. U.S. Department 

of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Government 

Printing Office.

Steffen, Barry L., Shaun Bucholtz, Marge Martin, David A. 

Vandenbroucke, and Yunn-Gann David Yao. 2013. Worst 

Case Housing Needs 2011: Report to Congress. Prepared for 

the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Policy Development and Research. Washington, 

DC: Government Printing Office.

Thompson, Dianne T. 2007. “Evaluating Length of Stay in 

Assisted Housing Programs: A Methodological Note,” Cityscape 9 (1): 217–238.

Tsai, Jack, Wesley Kasprow, and Robert Rosenheck. 2011. 

“Exiting Homelessness Without a Voucher: A Comparison 

of Independently Housed and Other Homeless Veterans,” 

Psychological Services 8 (2): 114–122.

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness 

(USICH). 2010. “Opening Doors: Homelessness Among 

Families.” http://www.usich.gov/usich_resources/fact_sheets/

opening_doors_homelessness_among_families_fact_sheet/. 

Accessed September 2015.

Voight, Adam, Marybeth Shinn, and Maury Nation. 2012. 

“The Longitudinal Effects of Residential Mobility on the 

Academic Achievement of Urban Elementary and Middle 

School Students,” Educational Researcher 41 (9): 385–392.

Waldfogel, Jane. 2001. “International Policies Toward Parental Leave and Child Care,” The Future of Children 11 (1): 99–111.

Weinreb, Linda, Robert Goldberg, Ellen L. Bassuk, and Jennifer Perloff. 1998. “Determinants of Health and Service Use 

Patterns in Homeless and Low-Income Housed Children,” 

Pediatrics 102: 562.

Weitzman, Beth C. 1989. “Pregnancy and Childbirth: Risk 

Factors for Homelessness?” Family Planning Perspectives 21 

(4): 175–178.

Weitzman, Beth C., and Carolyn Berry. 1994. Formerly 

Homeless Families and the Transition to Permanent Housing: 

High-Risk Families and the Role of Intensive Case Management 

Services. Final Report to the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. New York: New York University, Robert F. Wagner 

Graduate School of Public Service, Health Research Program.

Westfall, Peter H., Randall Tobias, and Russell Wolfinger. 

2011. Multiple Comparisons and Multiple Tests Using SAS. 

Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

Wong, Yin-Ling, Dennis P. Culhane, and Randall Kuhn. 1997. 

“Predictors of Exit and Reentry Among Family Shelter Users 

in New York City,” Social Service Review 71 (3): 441–462.

Wood, Michelle, Jennifer Turnham, and Gregory Mills. 

2008. “Housing Affordability and Family Well-Being: Results from the Housing Voucher Evaluation,” Housing Policy 

Debate 19 (2): 367–412. 

Yoshikawa, Hirokazv, J. Lawrence Aber, and William R. Beardslee. 2012. “The Effects of Poverty on the Mental, Emotional, 

and Behavioral Health of Children and Youth: Implications 

for Prevention,” American Psychologist 67: 272–284.

Yudko, Errol, Olga Lozhkina, and Adriana Fouts. 2007. “A 

Comprehensive Review of the Pyschometric Properties of 

the Drug Abuse Screening Test,” Journal of Substance Abuse 

Treatment 32: 189–198.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 1

A

APPENDIX A.

DATA SOURCES AND DATA SET 

CONSTRUCTION

T his appendix describes the data sources, data collection procedures, completion rates, and data processing procedures used in the Family Options Study. The 

study uses data from study families, intervention providers, and 

administrative data systems (see Exhibit A-1). 

Exhibit A-1. Data Sources Used in the Study 

Data Source Collection Process Data Source Collects or Measures...

From study implementation

Random assignment 

enrollment data (n = 2,282)

•	Recorded in web-based enrollment and random

assignment tool, based on information entered by field 

interviewer and point-in-time intervention availability

•	 Name, date of birth, and Social Security number of family

head and spouse or partner

•	 Eligibility screening responses

•	 Intervention availability at random assignment

•	Random assignment result

From study families

Baseline survey (n = 2,282) •	 In-person survey (40 minutes) conducted immediately

before random assignment

•	 Completed for the full sample of families randomly

assigned

•	Demographic characteristics

•	Preshelter housing

•	 Housing barriers

•	 Homelessness history

•	 Employment

•	 Family composition

•	 Income and income sources

•	 Family head: physical health

•	 Family head: mental health, experiences of trauma, and

other psychosocial challenges

6-, 12-, and 27- month 

tracking surveys (6-month 

n = 1,671; 12-month 

n = 1,632; 27-month 

n = 1,159)

•	 Telephone survey (10 minutes) conducted 6, 12, and 27

months after random assignment 

•	 Family composition

•	 Current housing status

•	Use of homeless and housing programs

20-month and 37-month 

followup adult surveys 

(20-month n = 1,857; 

37-month n = 1,784)

•	 In-person or telephone survey (60 minutes) conducted

at least 18 months after random assignment (July 2012 

to October 2013)

•	 In-person or telephone survey (60 minutes) conducted

at least 32 months after random assignment (March 

2014 to December 2014)

•	 Current housing status

•	 Experience of homelessness

•	Use of homeless and housing programs

•	 Housing quality and affordability of current unit

•	 Employment and earnings

•	 Income and income sources

•	Material hardship

•	 Family composition and preservation

•	Adult well-being

•	 Child well-being (for up to two focal children)

•	Receipt of services

20-month and 

37-month followup child 

assessments 

•	 In-person child assessments (50 minutes) conducted

for focal children who were ages 3 years, 6 months to 

7 years, 11 months

•	 Collection attempted only if family head responded to

followup adult survey

•	 Verbal ability (Woodcock-Johnson III letter-word identification

test; 20-month n = 876; 37-month n = 832)

•	Math ability (Woodcock-Johnson III applied problems test;

20-month n = 846; 37-month n = 833)

•	Self-regulation (Head Toes Knees Shoulders assessment;

20-month n = 780; 37-month n = 798)

20-month and 37-month 

followup child survey 

(20-month n = 930; 

37-month n = 1,058)

•	 In-person or telephone survey (30 minutes) conducted

for focal children who were ages 8 to 17 years

•	 Collection attempted only if family head responded to

followup adult survey

•	Mental health

•	 Experiences of traumatic events

•	Substance use

•	School effort

•	Arrests or police involvement
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 2

A

Appendix A. Data Sources and Data Set Construction

Exhibit A-1. Data Sources Used in the Study (continued)

Data Source Collection Process Data Source Collects or Measures...

From study intervention providers

Enrollment verification 

data

•	Study team verified (by telephone and e-mail) whether

families enrolled in the programs to which they were 

referred 

•	 Conducted from September 2010 to September 2012

•	Use of assigned intervention program

Program information •	Study team conducted site visits and staff interviews

•	 Conducted from June 2011 to April 2012

•	Provider information

•	 Characteristics of housing assistance

•	 Characteristics of services

Program cost information •	Study team conducted site visits and staff interviews

•	 Collected audited expense statements, program

budgets, staffing lists, partner commitment letters, 

and program staff estimates of costs not reflected in 

expense statements

•	 Conducted from November 2012 to August 2013

•	Overhead costs

•	Rental assistance costs

•	 Facility operations costs

•	Supportive services costs

•	 Capital costs

From administrative data systems

Homeless Management 

Information System (HMIS)

•	 Individual-level records collected from community and

government administrators of the HMIS (one or more 

per site)

•	Participation in homeless assistance programs covered

in HMIS at the site where families enrolled (including 

emergency shelter, rapid re-housing, transitional housing, 

and permanent supportive housing)

HUD Public and Indian 

Housing Information 

Center (PIC) 

•	 Individual-level data collected from HUD •	Receipt of housing assistance through HUD’s Housing

Choice Voucher and public housing programs 

HUD Tenant Rental 

Assistance Certification 

System (TRACS)

•	 Individual-level data collected from HUD •	Receipt of housing assistance through project-based

Section 8 programs

State and local child 

welfare agency records 

•	 Individual-level data collected from state and local

child welfare agencies (use Adoption and Foster Care 

Analysis and Reporting System definitions)

•	 Formal foster care placements and adoptions

National Directory of New 

Hires

•	 Individual-level data collected from centralized system

administered by the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services Office of Child Support Enforcement 

(OCSE) through agreement between HUD and OCSE

•	Quarterly earnings records

From combination of sources

Program Usage Data •	 Combines data from nine sources: enrollment

verification; 6-, 12-, 20-, 27- and 37-month surveys; 

HMIS; HUD PIC; and TRACS

•	Participation in seven types of homeless and housing

assistance programs (by calendar month after random 

assignment)

Notes: All surveys conducted with family head collected or updated family contact information for tracking purposes. Additional information about program cost data collection 

provided in Appendix G. Child assessment and child survey sample sizes are number of nonmissing observations in analysis data and exclude collected data that were not usable 

for analysis.

A.1. Random Assignment Data

The study team created a secure website to support the 

enrollment and random assignment of families into the Family 

Options Study. Local site interviewers used the random 

assignment website to— 

•	 Document that the adult respondent provided informed

consent.

•	 Enter the personal identifiers for the adult respondent and a

spouse/partner, if applicable.

•	 Check that intervention providers had openings available

in their programs, making it possible to conduct random 

assignment. 

•	 Document that the baseline survey was complete.

•	 Randomly assign the family to available intervention groups.

The Interim Report: Family Options Study provides additional 

details about the enrollment process.

Family Options Study Sample 

The study enrolled 2,282 families across 12 sites between September 2010 and January 2012. Exhibit A-2 shows the timing 

of sample enrollment and the enrollment numbers by site and 

intervention group. Of the 2,282 families who enrolled in the 

study, 1,784 completed the 37-month adult survey. 
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 3

A

Appendix A. Data Sources and Data Set Construction

Exhibit A-2. Sample Enrollment Period and Number of Families Enrolled by Intervention and Site 

Site Enrollment Period

Families Randomly Assigned, by Intervention (N) Total (N) CBRR PBTH SUB UC

Alameda County Sep 2010–Jan 2012 56 49 76 77 258

Atlanta Oct 2010–Jan 2012 73 41 — 75 189

Baltimore Mar 2011–Jan 2012 20 17 — 21 58

Boston Feb 2011–Jan 2012 53 — 64 64 181

Connecticut* Oct 2010–Dec 2011 73 18 47 76 214

Denver Jan 2011–Jan 2012 8 23 76 65 172

Honolulu Oct 2010–Jan 2012 44 66 43 65 218

Kansas City Oct 2010–Jan 2012 30 42 53 50 175

Louisville Apr 2011–Jan 2012 18 24 32 35 109

Minneapolis Nov 2010–Jan 2012 52 4 62 63 181

Phoenix Oct 2010–Dec 2011 62 65 71 81 279

Salt Lake City Sep 2010–Oct 2011 80 19 75 74 248

Total 569 368 599 746 2,282

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care. 

* Includes the cities of New Haven and Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Source: Random assignment records

Eligibility Determination 

To maximize the likelihood that families would be accepted by 

the assigned intervention program, the study team conducted 

screening before random assignment. The study team collected 

each program’s eligibility requirements and developed eligibility screening questions. The study team administered the 

eligibility screening questions to families after informed consent 

but before random assignment. For each family, the study 

team asked only the eligibility screening questions relevant to 

the programs in that site that had openings available. A family 

was eligible for random assignment to an intervention if the 

adult respondent’s answers to the screener questions met the 

eligibility requirements for at least one participating provider 

of that intervention with an available program slot at the time 

of random assignment. The screener questions improved the 

likelihood that families would be eligible for the assigned 

intervention.1 The study team retained data on the eligibility 

screening response. The Interim Report provides additional 

details about eligibility determination. 

A.2. Baseline Data Collection

Study enrollment took place in the emergency shelters where 

the families were staying. Enrollment began in September 2010 

and was completed in January 2012. Local field interviewers 

conducted enrollment. The interviewer informed families about 

the study. If the family consented to participate in the study, 

the interviewer then asked eligibility screening questions for 

programs that had available program slots. If eligible for available interventions,2

 the interviewer then administered the baseline survey using Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing, 

or CAPI, software. On average, it took families 40 minutes to 

complete the baseline survey. The baseline survey covered family composition, demographic characteristics, housing stability, 

history of homelessness, employment, income, and health. The 

study team collected baseline survey data in the shelter where 

the family was staying at the time of random assignment.

In families with only one adult present, that individual was 

interviewed. For families headed by couples, the study team 

requested to interview the woman. Two reasons explain this 

preference: (1) some homeless assistance programs exclude 

men, and in cases of family separations the children are more 

likely to remain with the mother; and (2) some outcome measures such as psychological distress have different distributions 

for men and women in the population at large, so this preference results in having greater homogeneity in the sample.3

The covariates, discussed in Appendix C.1, were derived from 

the baseline survey responses. The Interim Report provides 

further details about the baseline survey and data collection. 

1

 After random assignment and referral to a program, families were required to complete the program’s regular eligibility determination process, including, in some cases, 

criminal background checks, drug testing, and income verification. 

2

 Initially, families had to eligible for available program slots in at least two active interventions in order to proceed with random assignment. In August 2011, this rule was 

changed so that families needed only to be eligible for an available program slot in only one active intervention in order to proceed with random assignment.

3

 In the full study sample of 2,282 families, 524 adult baseline respondents of the 626 families headed by couples (84 percent) were women. In the 37-month respondent 

sample of 1,784 families, 398 baseline adult respondents of the 471 families headed by couples at baseline (85 percent) were women.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 4

A

Appendix A. Data Sources and Data Set Construction

A.3. Enrollment Verification Data

The study team collected information from study programs to 

document enrollment in the assigned intervention. The study 

team contacted study programs regularly (weekly or monthly) 

to inquire about the status of families who had been referred 

to their programs after random assignment. This information is 

referred to as the enrollment verification data. The study team 

collected the following information.

•	 Whether the study family made contact with the program to

which they were referred.

•	 Whether the family was accepted by the program (enrolled).

•	 Whether the family actually moved into a housing unit using

that assistance.

•	 For families who were accepted by the program but did not

move in, the reason for not using the assistance. 

The calls were made throughout the enrollment period—

September 2011 to January 2012—and continued through 

September 30, 2012, 9 months after the last family enrolled. 

These enrollment verification data were used in the Program 

Usage Data file, discussed in Section A.13. The Interim Report

provides additional details about the enrollment verification 

process.

A.4. 6-, 12-, and 27-Month Tracking 

Surveys

During the followup period the study team conducted brief 

tracking surveys 6, 12, and 27 months after enrollment. 

These surveys lasted an average of 10 minutes and collected 

updated contact information for the adult respondent and 

secondary contacts. The tracking surveys also collected data 

on the current living situation, receipt of housing assistance, 

and family composition for each family. Local site interviewers 

administered the tracking surveys using CAPI technology. In 

most sites, the interviewer was the same person who administered the baseline survey. Because the tracking surveys were 

relatively short, most participants opted to complete the survey 

by telephone rather than in person. 

A.5. 20- and 37-Month Followup 

Adult Surveys 

The 20- and 37-month followup data collection efforts each 

included an adult survey, child survey, and child assessments. 

The 20- and 37-month adult surveys collected information on 

these topics about the adults. 

•	 Housing situation.

•	 Housing quality and affordability.

•	 Employment.

•	 Income source and total family income.

•	 Education and training.

•	 Economic hardship.

•	 Food security.

•	 Family composition.

•	 Family separation and reunification.

•	 Physical health.

•	 Behavioral health.

•	 Substance use.

•	 Service receipt.

The adult survey also asked several questions about the focal 

children in a parent-on-child module. The parent-on-child 

module asked about these topics— 

•	 Child education.

•	 Child health.

•	 Child behavior.

•	 Family routines.

The study attempted to complete the 37-month adult survey 

with all 2,282 family heads, whether or not they completed a 

survey at 20 months. For families headed by couples, the same 

adult interviewed at baseline was interviewed at followup. At 

both 20- and 37-months, the adult survey took an average of 

60 minutes to complete. 

For the 37-month data collection, a minimum of 31.5 months 

elapsed between the date of random assignment and the date 

of the followup survey. The analysis period, during which all 

impacts were estimated, was thus between 31.5 and 50 months 

after random assignment for most families (Exhibit A-3).
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 5

A

Appendix A. Data Sources and Data Set Construction

Exhibit A-3. Length of Time From Random Assignment to 

the 37-Month Followup Survey 

Duration (months) Number of 

Families Percent

31 to 31.99 8 0.5

32 to 32.99 39 2.2

33 to 33.99 99 5.6

34 to 34.99 236 13.2

35 to 35.99 247 13.9

36 to 36.99 210 11.8

37 to 37.99 276 15.5

38 to 38.99 220 12.3

39 to 39.99 125 7.0

40 to 40.99 130 7.3

41 to 41.99 92 5.2

42 to 42.99 43 2.4

43 to 43.99 27 1.5

44 to 44.99 8 0.5

45 to 45.99 11 0.6

46 to 46.99 5 0.3

47 to 47.99 5 0.3

48 to 48.99 1 0.1

49 to 49.99 2 0.1

Median: 37.2 months (1,130.5 days)

Mean: 37.4 months (1,137.8 days)

Minimum: 31.6 months (961 days)

Maximum: 49.9 months (1,518 days)

Notes: N = 1,784. Percentages are unweighted. Month length is assumed to be 

365/12 = 30.42 days. Duration is from random assignment to survey end date.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup data

A.6. Focal Child Selection 

During the 20-month adult survey,4 the study team randomly 

selected up to two focal children per family. For families who 

completed both the 20- and 37-month adult surveys, the 

study team attempted the 37-month child data collection with 

the focal children selected at the 20-month survey. For the 

163 37-month respondent families that did not complete the 

20-month survey, the survey team selected up to two focal 

children at the beginning of the 37-month adult survey. This 

section discusses the focal child selection process and the 

number of focal children in the 37-month analysis sample. 

Focal Child Selection

To analyze impacts on child well-being, the study team selected 

up to two focal children for each family who completed the 

adult survey. This section describes the process for selecting 

focal children at the time of the 20-month survey and 

additional focal children (for families that did not respond to 

the 20-month survey) at the time of the 37-month survey. Of 

the 3,001 focal children selected in the study, 2,794 (93 percent) were selected at the time of the 20-month survey and 207 

(7 percent) were selected at the time of the 37-month survey.

The focal child selection process oversampled children who were 

ages 3 to 17, and with the family at both baseline and followup, 

in order to maximize the number of children from whom data 

were directly collected (in the child assessments and child survey). 

The oversampling criterion of being with the family at baseline 

was included so that oversampled children would be directly 

affected by the study’s random assignment. Children needed 

to be with the family at followup for the study team to attempt 

collection of child assessments or the child survey. (The study 

did not attempt to locate children separated from the family.)

Two types of children were considered for focal child selection. 

First, all children identified at baseline—those in shelter with the 

adult at random assignment and those who were “part of the 

family” but not in shelter with the adult at enrollment—were 

eligible for focal child selection. If focal child sample selection 

had been restricted to children identified at baseline, the focal 

child sample could have been defined before the start of the 

followup data collection. The study team expanded the focal 

child selection criteria, however, to include children who were 

born after random assignment. The study team referred to these 

children as “newborns.” Because newborns could not be identified before the start of the followup data collection, the study 

team administered the focal child selection screener during the 

followup survey. To ensure that all newborns had a chance to 

be selected as focal children, the study team generated a randomly ordered list of all the children identified at baseline plus 

two slots for up to two newborn children. During the screener 

section of the survey, the children were screened in the random 

order for focal child selection. 

To be selected as a focal child, each child had to first meet 

these two criteria.

1. The child was one of the following—

a. Listed as a child on the household roster from the 

baseline survey.5

b. Identified as a newborn, by the adult respondent in the 

focal child screener section.6

4

 Gubits et al. (2015) analyzed short-term impacts of the interventions. The study team attempted to contact families for the study’s first followup survey beginning in the 

18th month after random assignment. The median time from random assignment to the followup survey was 20 months. The followup period reported in Gubits et al. 

(2015) is thus 20 months, but the followup survey is sometimes referred to as the 18-month survey.

5

 On the baseline survey, the team collected children’s ages but not dates of birth, and all children on the household roster were age 17 or younger. The roster included 

children who the adult respondent thought were part of the family, even if they were not in the shelter with the respondent. All randomly assigned families had at least one 

child age 15 or younger.

6

 Screener question 1: “Between [random assignment date] and [6 months before today’s date] have you (given birth to/fathered) a child?”
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 6

A

Appendix A. Data Sources and Data Set Construction

2. For those children selected at the 20-month survey, the 

child had to be at least 12 months of age but younger than 

18 years of age, as confirmed in the focal child screener. For 

those children selected at the 37-month survey, the child 

had to be at least 30 months of age but younger than 18 

years of age.

After the potential child was confirmed eligible for selection 

based on the first two criteria, the screener determined if the 

adult respondent was knowledgeable enough about the child’s 

activities in the past 30 days to answer the parent-on-child 

module. The screener made this determination using the next 

series of questions, indicating the third criterion for selection 

eligibility. 

3. The child was one of the following—

a. Living in the same household as the adult respondent “at 

least half of the time” or “all of the time” at the followup 

point.7

b. The parent spent time with the child frequently and was 

at least somewhat familiar with the child’s activities.8,9

The preceding criteria constitute the minimal selection criteria. 

If possible, the first focal child would also meet these additional 

criteria.

4. The child’s age at the followup survey was greater than or 

equal to 3 years, 6 months. 

5. The child was living with the parent in the shelter at baseline.

6. The child was living in the same household as the parent 

“at least half of the time” or “all of the time” at the followup 

survey.10

Potential focal children were then classified into one of three 

types.

•	 Type 1: Met all the minimal criteria; was at least 3 years,

6 months of age but younger than 18 years of age; was living 

in the shelter with the adult respondent at enrollment; and 

lived with the respondent “at least half of the time” or “all of 

the time” at the time of the followup survey. 

•	 Type 2: Met the minimal criteria, but did not meet the

additional criteria.

•	 Type 3: Did not meet the minimal criteria.

The focal child selection process worked as follows.

•	 If the parent had any Type 1 children, the study team

randomly selected one as “Focal Child A.” Next, if the parent 

had any other Type 1 or Type 2 children, the study team 

randomly selected one as “Focal Child B.”

•	 If the parent had no Type 1 children but did have at least

one Type 2 child, then the study team did not select a “Focal 

Child A” but randomly selected one Type 2 child as “Focal 

Child B.” Next, if the parent had any other Type 2 children, 

the study team randomly selected one as “Focal Child C.”

•	 If the parent had only Type 3 children, a focal child was not 

selected.

Focal Child A criteria excluded newborns and focal children 

who were not living with the respondent at least half of the 

time. This exclusion helped to maximize the number of families 

in which focal child selection included at least one focal child 

for whom direct child data collection (child assessments or 

child survey) was possible.

The focal child screening (confirmation/collection of date 

of birth and collection of information for other criteria) was 

performed for each child in turn, following the randomly 

ordered list, until two focal children were selected. After two 

focal children were selected, the focal child screening ceased. 

Therefore, collection of information for screening criteria other 

than date of birth was not performed for every child in the 

respondent study families. 

Focal Children Sample Sizes

At the 20-month survey, 1,857 families completed the adult 

survey. Of these families, 1,744 had at least one focal child 

selected, resulting in a total of 2,784 focal children.11 About 

530 children screened for selection as focal children were 

living with the family head less than half of the time (out of 

7

 The point-in-time question to the parent was, “Do you currently live in the same household as [child name] ...?” It was not a question about the entire period between 

baseline and followup.

8

 Two criteria had to be satisfied. First, the parent spent “1 or more hours a day” with the child at least a few times a week during the month before the followup survey. 

Second, during that month, the parent “always,” “usually,” or “sometimes” knew at least two of the following: (1) how the child spent time when not in school or childcare, 

(2) which other kids the child spent time with, (3) whether the child had finished her/his schoolwork or studying, and (4) which TV programs the child watched. 

9

 Although children who lived with the family less than half of the time were eligible to be selected as focal children if the parent spent time with the child frequently 

and the parent was at least somewhat familiar with the child’s activities, only a few such children were in the sample. Only 60 of the 2,784 focal children selected at the 

20-month survey and 15 of the 207 children selected at the 37-month survey were with the family less than half of the time. 

10 This criterion is the same as criterion 3a. The difference is that the minimal criteria accept either 3a or 3b, whereas the additional criteria require 3a.

11 No focal child was selected in 130 families, mainly because children were no longer residing with the respondent and the respondent did not know enough about the 

child’s activities during the previous 30 days to respond properly and also because the children aged out of the age range by the time of the followup survey.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 7

A

Appendix A. Data Sources and Data Set Construction

about 4,200 total children screened). Of those children, the 

family head was knowledgeable about only 60 of the children. 

In accordance with the focal child selection protocol, those 

60 children were selected as focal children (along with 2,724 

other selected focal children who were living with the family 

head at least half of the time). During analysis, however, it was 

decided that such a small number of children would not allow 

for estimates to generalize to the whole group of largely absent 

children. Therefore, the 60 children were not included in 

impact analyses. As a result, the 20-month child impact results 

generalize only to children living with the family head half of 

the time or more at the time of the adult survey.

All together 2,665 focal children were selected for the 1,784 

adult respondents to the 37-month survey. Of those, 207 were 

newly selected at the 37-month survey because the family had 

not completed the 20-month survey and 2,458 were selected 

during the 20-month survey. The study team excluded 156 

focal children from the impact analysis because they were not 

living with the family head at least half of the time when the 

adult completed the survey.12 As a result, the 37-month child 

impact results also generalize only to children living with the 

family head half of the time or more at the time of the adult 

survey. 

At the 37-month followup survey, the study team selected focal 

children between ages 18 years and 19 years, 5 months. Parents 

were asked questions in the parent on child module about 

the transition to adulthood for these older focal children. The 

adult respondents reported on whether the focal children had 

children of their own, were employed, as well as their marital 

status. Exhibit A-4 shows the focal child sample sizes by age 

group and intervention group for the 2,665 focal children at 

the 37-month followup. Details on variations in focal child 

selection and corresponding child weights are included in 

Appendix C.3.

Exhibit A-4. Focal Child Sample Distribution, by Site and Intervention Group at 37 Months 

Site Name Intervention 

Group

Focal Child Age (N) Total 

Focal Child 

Sample 

(N)

2 Years to 

3 Years, 

5 Months

3 Years, 6 Months 

to 5 Years, 

6 Months

5 Years, 7 Months 

to 7 Years, 

11 Months

8 Years to 

17 Years, 

11 Months

18 Years to 

20 Yearsa

Alameda County CBRR 7 14 12 19 2 54

PBTH 6 11 18 20 1 56

SUB 8 26 23 36 2 95

UC 5 12 17 39 1 74

Total 26 63 70 114 6 279

Atlanta CBRR 2 16 15 46 3 82

PBTH 3 8 11 33 1 55

UC 5 13 14 47 6 85

Total 10 37 40 125 10 222

Baltimore CBRR 1 2 7 21 0 31

PBTH 2 4 2 8 0 16

UC 2 5 4 15 0 26

Total 5 11 13 44 0 73

Boston CBRR 5 13 17 26 5 66

SUB 13 15 17 37 4 86

UC 7 21 22 30 2 82

Total 25 49 56 93 11 234

Connecticutb CBRR 6 20 7 37 6 76

PBTH 3 3 6 9 1 22

SUB 5 14 7 28 3 57

UC 5 16 17 38 2 78

Total 19 53 37 112 12 233

12 At the time of the 37-month survey, children in families who had not been 20-month respondents were screened for focal child selection. Focal children in families 

who had been 20-month respondents (and so had been previously selected) were screened to determine whether data collection should be attempted. Data collection was 

attempted if children were either currently living with the family at least half of the time or if the parent spent time with the child frequently and was at least somewhat 

familiar with the child’s activities. Of 286 children newly screened for focal child selection, 85 were living with the family less than half of the time, and 15 of them were 

selected as focal children (because the parent was sufficiently knowledgeable about their daily activities). In addition, 141 of the 2,458 focal children previously selected 

were with their families less than half of the time at 37 months. Among these children, the parent was sufficiently knowledgeable about their daily activities to be asked 

to provide a parent report. Therefore, of the 156 children excluded for being with the family less than half of the time, some data are available for 56 children (15 newly 

selected children plus 41 previously selected children).
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 8

A

Appendix A. Data Sources and Data Set Construction

Exhibit A-4. Focal Child Sample Distribution, by Site and Intervention Group at 37 Months (continued)

Site Name Intervention 

Group

Focal Child Age (N) Total 

Focal Child 

Sample 

(N)

2 Years to 

3 Years, 

5 Months

3 Years, 6 Months 

to 5 Years, 

6 Months

5 Years, 7 Months 

to 7 Years, 

11 Months

8 Years to 

17 Years, 

11 Months

18 Years to 

20 Yearsa

Denver CBRR 0 3 3 4 0 10

PBTH 4 7 5 10 0 26

SUB 5 20 24 42 4 95

UC 3 21 10 34 1 69

Total 12 51 42 90 5 200

Honolulu CBRR 6 17 12 22 3 60

PBTH 8 15 25 36 2 86

SUB 8 15 15 19 2 59

UC 9 20 14 36 4 83

Total 31 67 66 113 11 288

Kansas City CBRR 2 5 2 19 1 29

PBTH 6 6 5 29 2 48

SUB 5 16 11 34 2 68

UC 7 8 8 23 1 47

Total 20 35 26 105 6 192

Louisville CBRR 2 4 2 9 0 17

PBTH 0 10 7 10 0 27

SUB 5 7 10 14 1 37

UC 4 9 12 20 2 47

Total 11 30 31 53 3 128

Minneapolis CBRR 2 16 20 29 3 70

PBTH 0 1 1 4 0 6

SUB 7 18 24 27 1 77

UC 7 15 20 33 2 77

Total 16 50 65 93 6 230

Phoenix CBRR 4 19 15 33 1 72

PBTH 7 11 14 46 5 83

SUB 5 13 22 46 5 91

UC 8 11 14 41 4 78

Total 24 54 65 166 15 324

Salt Lake City CBRR 5 18 12 43 6 84

PBTH 2 4 5 10 0 21

SUB 5 9 19 49 4 87

UC 6 14 14 33 3 70

Total 18 45 50 135 13 262

Overall CBRR 42 147 124 308 30 651

PBTH 41 80 99 214 12 446

SUB 66 153 172 332 29 752

UC 68 165 166 389 28 816

Grand total 217 545 561 1,243 99 2,665

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care. 

a

 Includes three respondents older than 19 years, 5 months. The respondents were ages 19 years, 6 months; 19 years, 7 months; and 20 years, 0 months. No data collection was 

conducted on the three respondents over age 19 years, 5 months. 

b Includes the cities of New Haven and Bridgeport, Connecticut. 

Sources: Family Options Study baseline survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 9

A

Appendix A. Data Sources and Data Set Construction

Parent-on-Child Module in the 37-Month 

Adult Survey

In the parent-on-child module, the adult respondent provided 

information about school attendance, academic performance, 

behavior, health, and family routines. All focal children who 

were the subject of parent reports at 37 months were between 

the ages of 24 months and 19 years, 5 months at the time of the 

37-month parent survey. If a focal child’s CAPI-calculated age 

was 12 months to 5 years, 6 months, the interviewer administered 

the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3) to the adult as part of 

the parent-on-child module. If a focal child’s CAPI-calculated 

age was 3 years to 17 years, 11 months, the interviewer administered the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).

The ASQ-3 is a family of questionnaires that assess gross and 

fine motor skills, social development, communication, and 

problem solving as observed by parents (Squires and Bricker, 

2009).13 The ASQ-3 took an average of 10 minutes to complete. 

The questionnaire was self-administered for in-person adult 

surveys. For surveys conducted by phone, the questionnaire 

was administered to the adult by phone. Details on the component questions of the ASQ-3 and scoring are in Appendix B.4. 

The SDQ is a behavioral and personality assessment. The questionnaire addresses child emotional symptoms, conduct problems, 

hyperactivity, peer problems, and prosocial behavior. Adult 

respondents completed this questionnaire for focal children 

between ages 3 years and 17 years, 11 months. Details on the 

component questions of the SDQ and scoring are in Appendix B.5. 

A.7. 20- and 37-Month Followup 

Child Surveys

The study team administered the 20-month and 37-month followup 

child surveys to focal children who were between ages 8 years 

and 17 years, 11 months at the time of the corresponding parent survey. Interviewers administered the survey using CAPI, with 

surveys lasting 30 minutes on average. Surveys were conducted 

either in person or by telephone. The child survey asked questions about anxiety using the A-Trait scale from the State-Trait 

Anxiety Inventory for Children, or STAIC (Spielberger et al., 

1973); fears (Ramirez, Masten, and Samsa, 1991); substance 

use (CDC, 2012); school attendance, effort, and disciplinary 

problems; and goal-oriented thinking using a modified version 

of the Children’s Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1997). Details on 

the component questions and scoring are in Appendix B. 

A.8. 20- and 37-Month Followup 

Child Assessments

The study team administered the 20-month and 37-month 

child assessment tests to focal children who were between the 

ages of 3 years, 6 months and 7 years, 11 months at the time 

of the corresponding parent survey. These assessments were 

the Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III) and the Head Toes Knees 

Shoulders (HTKS) assessments. 

The WJ III assessment consisted of two tests. The first was the 

Letter-Word Identification test and the second was the Applied 

Problems test (McGrew, Shrank, and Woodcock, 2007). These 

tests are subtests of educational achievement from the broader 

WJIII battery of tests measuring verbal and quantitative/analytic 

skills. The WJ III tests were administered in person and took an 

average of 30 minutes to complete per child. Details on scoring 

the WJ III tests are in Appendix B.5.

The HTKS assessment (Pontiz et al., 2007) measures selfregulation, in which children must remember rules and inhibit 

incorrect responses. HTKS was conducted in person and 

separately for each focal child. The HTKS took an average of 15 

minutes per child to administer. Details on scoring HTKS are in 

Appendix B.5. 

A.9. 20- and 37-Month Followup 

HOME Inventories

When 20- and 37-month followup surveys were conducted in 

person in the family’s home, interviewers on the study team 

completed an observation form based on a subset of questions 

from the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) inventory. The HOME inventory questions 

used were based on observation-only items about parent-child 

interactions.14 The questions on the HOME inventory form 

asked about interactions between the adult taking the adult 

survey and each focal child.15 For purposes of the HOME 

inventory tool, the interviewer was instructed to explicitly 

praise each child during the adult survey and observe the 

adult respondent’s reaction. The interviewer praised each focal 

child up to four times throughout the survey until the adult 

expressed reaction. The HOME inventory data were not used in 

analyses in this report. 

13 The interviewers used the ASQ-3 online age calculator to determine which questionnaire to administer.

14 The full HOME inventory contains three types of items: (1) items asked about during a survey, (2) items either asked about during a survey or observed, and (3) items 

based only on observation. The form was based on observation-only HOME inventory items that were related to parent-child interactions. 

15 In most cases for in-person surveys, the focal children were present, but, in some cases, they were not and interactions may not have been observed.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 10

A

Appendix A. Data Sources and Data Set Construction

A.10. Qualitative Surveys

In 2011, the study team conducted indepth surveys with 80 

families (20 families assigned to each intervention) in four sites: 

Alameda County, California; Bridgeport and New Haven, Connecticut; Kansas City, Missouri; and Phoenix, Arizona. Surveys 

were administered in person 3 to 10 months after random assignment (6.4 months on average), usually in the respondent’s 

place of residence. The qualitative data collection was designed 

to collect information to answer the following questions.

1. How do families make housing decisions?

2. What are families’ experiences (challenges) navigating the 

housing service system?

3. What explains separations of parents from children and 

partners from each other? 

4. How do housing situations influence family processes?

A team of two interviewers met with families to conduct 

indepth surveys, lasting an average of 2 hours. The surveys 

covered the following topics.

1. Current housing situation, satisfaction with current situation, housing payments, and number of addresses since 

study enrollment.

2. Subsidy use.

3. Eligibility and takeup of assigned intervention, including 

reasons for not using the assigned intervention assistance.

4. Service receipt and satisfaction.

5. Household composition—child and spouse separations and 

reunifications.

6. Family processes and rituals.

The study team audio recorded the surveys and prepared 

handwritten notes. The team transcribed the survey summaries 

and coded them using NVivo software. The qualitative data 

identified factors that influenced the family’s housing decisions 

as they left shelter (Fisher et al., 2014). These qualitative data 

were used to interpret impact findings presented in Family 

Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families. 

A.11. Additional Details About 

Surveys and Data Collection

This section provides additional details on the surveys and data 

collection process and results. The following section summarizes the topics covered in each of the aforementioned survey 

instruments, the household members supplying different data 

components, and implementation strategies for the 37-month 

followup data collection. This section also discusses the study 

team’s efforts to maximize response rates, incentives to participate in the study, and a summary of overall response rates. 

Implementation of 37-Month Data 

Collection

The 37-month followup data collection began in March 2014 

and concluded in December 2014. Field interviewers conducted 

the followup surveys. Field managers recontacted 10 percent 

of all respondents and administered a brief “validation questionnaire” to assure that the survey was done with the correct 

respondent and that the interviewer followed proper protocols. 

The 37-month followup adult survey data collection process 

included—

1. Locating—reviewing contact history.

2. Adult informed consent—renewing consent for the adult 

respondent.

3. Adult survey administration—including focal child selection.

•	 If no focal child selected, data collection concluded here. 

•	 If at least one focal child selected then data collection 

continued.

4. Consent to release information

Focal child data collection steps included—

1. Parental permission—required before interviewers could 

contact focal children.

2. Child assent—if focal child was ages 8 years to 17 years, 

11 months.

3. Child data collection.

•	 Parent completes ASQ-3 and SDQ (focal child ages 

12 months to 5 years, 6 months).

•	 Child assessments with focal child ages 3 years, 6 months 

to 7 years, 11 months.

•	 Child survey with focal child ages 8 years to 17 years, 

11 months.

4. HOME inventory by the interviewer.

At the time of the survey, interviewers first renewed consent with 

the adult sample member. Study participants completed a participation agreement when they enrolled in the study, providing 

their informed consent to participate in the research study. The 

team renewed consent with participating families at 37 months 
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 11

A

Appendix A. Data Sources and Data Set Construction

to remind them of the voluntary nature of participation, the 

study requirements, and risks of participation. The renewed 

consent form introduced the child data collection component. 

The interviewer also asked adult respondents for permission to 

send their and their child’s personally identifying information 

(PII) back to HUD, of which 1,590 adults consented to send 

their own PII and 1,468 consented to send their child’s PII. 

When consent was renewed, interviewers administered the 

adult survey to the respondent.Although the survey instrument 

was designed to be conducted in person, 797 (44.7 percent) of 

adult respondents chose to do the survey by phone. In-person 

surveys were conducted in a variety of locations, both inside 

and outside the respondent’s residence. Local interviewers 

completed all adult surveys using laptops equipped with CAPI 

technology. 

If at least one focal child was selected for the study, interviewers 

reviewed the parental permission form with adult respondents 

after completing the adult survey. Adult respondents could 

decline study participation for focal children independently of 

whether they granted permission for another focal child in the 

family. If the focal child was 12 months to 5 years, 6 months 

of age, the adult respondent was asked to complete the ASQ-3 

and all items in the parent-on-child module of the adult survey 

pertaining to children in that age range. 

If a focal child was age 3 years, 6 months to 7 years, 11 months, 

the interviewer made an appointment to meet with the adult respondent and the focal child to conduct the child assessments. 

After obtaining adult permission, interviewers also requested 

focal child permission to conduct the child assessments. In 

total, 44 attempts to administer the child assessments were 

refused by either the adult or focal child. All child assessments 

were completed in person. 

Interviewers directly contacted focal children ages 8 years to 

17 years, 11 months to make an appointment to administer the 

child survey. Before beginning the child survey, interviewers 

reviewed the child assent form with the respondent and, if 

assent was granted, proceeded to conduct the survey. Not all 

focal children decided to participate. In total, 83 attempts to 

administer the child survey were refused by either the parent 

or focal child. Like the adult survey, a substantial percentage 

of the older focal children (45.8 percent) preferred to do the 

survey by telephone. 

Efforts To Improve Response Rates

The study team used a variety of methods to maintain current 

contact information on study families, with an effort to minimize 

participant burden. Study families were contacted quarterly. 

The contacts ranged from a call (3 months and 24 months after 

random assignment) to a mailing (at 9,15, and 21 months 

after random assignment) to a more intensive tracking survey 

(at 6, 12, and 27 months after random assignment). 

Incentives

All respondents received an incentive payment in appreciation 

for their time spent to complete the data collection. Adults who 

completed the baseline survey received a $35 money order. 

Each time the adult participant responded to a tracking effort, 

they received a $15 money order. Adults who completed the 

20-month followup survey received a $50 money order. Adults 

also received a $15 money order on behalf of each child who 

completed the child assessments or the child survey. Adults 

who completed the 37-month adult survey received a $50 

money order, they also received a $25 money order on behalf 

of each child who completed the child assessments or child 

survey at 37 months.

Completion Rates

Exhibit A-5 shows the overall completion rates for each participant data collection effort. The completion rate represents the 

number of completed surveys as a percentage of the total cases 

attempted. The analytic response rate is applicable only to the 

focal child data collection components (child assessment and 

child survey components). 

The final enrollment for the study was 2,282 families, which 

was the sample base for all the data collection efforts. The 

37-month followup adult survey achieved a 78.2 percent 

completion rate. During the 37-month followup period, 7 adult 

respondents were confirmed deceased, with 11 others determined deceased prior to the 37-month data collection release. 

Child data collection could be done only after an adult survey 

was completed because focal child selection occurred as part 

of the adult survey. Further, the adult respondent had to give 

parental permission before the child data collection could 

commence. The child completion rates are based on the 

number of completed child components as a percentage of the 

focal children selected in households with a completed adult 

survey. Because an adult survey was completed with only 81 

percent of the adult sample at 20-months and 78 percent of the 

adult sample at 37-months, the child data collection analytic 

response rates are lower, after adjusting for the households 

without completed adult surveys. 

Exhibits A-6, A-7, and A-8 show the number and percentage of 

families who responded to study surveys. Among sample families, nearly one-third (32.1 percent) responded to all six survey 

efforts. Of enrolled families, 71.0 percent of families (1,621 

families) completed the 20-month and 37-month surveys. 
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 12

A

Appendix A. Data Sources and Data Set Construction

Exhibit A-5. Overall Family Options Study Survey Completion Rates 

Sample Released 

(N)

Cases Completed 

(N)

Completion Rate

(%)

Analytic Response 

Rate (%)

Baseline 2,282 2,282 100 100

6-month tracking 2,282 1,671 73.2 73.2

12-month tracking 2,282 1,632 71.5 71.5

20-month adult 2,282 1,857 81.4 81.4

20-month ASQ-3 577 549 95.1 77.4

20-month HTKS 1,079 780 72.3 58.8

20-month WJ III Letter-Word 1,079 876 81.2 66.1

20-month WJ III Applied Problems 1,079 846 78.4 63.8

20-month child survey 1,128 945 83.8 68.2

27-month tracking 2,282 1,149 50.4 50.4

37-month adult 2,282 1,784 78.2 78.2

37-month ASQ-3 762 672 88.2 68.9

37-month HTKS 1,106 798 72.2 56.4

37-month WJ III Letter-Word 1,106 832 75.2 58.8

37-month WJ III Applied Problems 1,106 833 75.3 58.9

37-month child survey 1,243 1,083 87.1 68.1

ASQ-3 = Ages and Stages Questionnaire. HTKS = Head Toes Knees Shoulders. WJ III = Woodcock-Johnson III.

Sources: Family Options Study baseline survey; 6-month tracking survey; 12-month tracking survey; 20-month adult survey; 20-month child assessments; 20-month child survey; 

27-month tracking survey; 37-month adult survey; 37-month child assessments; 37-month child survey

Exhibit A-6. Survey Response Status for Family Options Study Baseline and Followup Surveys 

Baseline Survey 20-Month Adult 

Survey

37-Month Adult 

Survey

Families

(N) Percent

1 0 0 262 11.5

1 0 1 163 7.1

1 1 0 236 10.3

1 1 1 1,621 71.0

TOTAL 2,282 100

Notes: 1 = completed. 0 = not completed.

Sources: Family Options Study baseline survey; 20-month followup survey; 37-month followup survey

Exhibit A-7. Total Number of Families Assigned to Each Intervention and Number of Followup Survey Respondents

Intervention Families 

Assigned

20-Month Survey 37-Month Survey Both 20- and 37-Month 

Surveys

Number of 

Respondents

Response 

Rate (%)

Number of 

Respondents

Response 

Rate (%)

Number of 

Respondents

Response 

Rate (%)

SUB 599 530 88.5 501 83.6 467 78.0

CBRR 569 455 80.0 434 76.3 406 71.4

PBTH 368 294 79.9 293 79.6 259 70.4

UC 746 578 77.5 556 74.5 489 65.5

Total 2,282 1,857 81.4 1,784 78.2 1,621 71.0

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care. 

Sources: Random assignment records; Family Options Study 20- and 37-month followup surveys
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 13

A

Appendix A. Data Sources and Data Set Construction

Exhibit A-8. Survey Response Status for Family Options Study Baseline, Followup, and Tracking Surveys 

Baseline 

Survey

6-Month Tracking 

Survey

12-Month 

Tracking 

Survey

20-Month Adult 

Survey

27-Month Tracking Survey37-Month Adult 

Survey Families Response Rate (%)

1 0 0 0 0 0 129 5.7

1 0 0 0 0 1 41 1.8

1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.0

1 0 0 0 1 1 8 0.4

1 0 0 1 0 0 30 1.3

1 0 0 1 0 1 42 1.8

1 0 0 1 1 0 4 0.2

1 0 0 1 1 1 88 3.9

1 0 1 0 0 0 24 1.1

1 0 1 0 0 1 15 0.7

1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.0

1 0 1 0 1 1 6 0.3

1 0 1 1 0 0 37 1.6

1 0 1 1 0 1 52 2.3

1 0 1 1 1 0 6 0.3

1 0 1 1 1 1 127 5.6

1 1 0 0 0 0 56 2.5

1 1 0 0 0 1 28 1.2

1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0.0

1 1 0 0 1 1 10 0.4

1 1 0 1 0 0 27 1.2

1 1 0 1 0 1 64 2.8

1 1 0 1 1 0 10 0.4

1 1 0 1 1 1 111 4.9

1 1 1 0 0 0 49 2.2

1 1 1 0 0 1 37 1.6

1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0.0

1 1 1 0 1 1 18 0.8

1 1 1 1 0 0 94 4.1

1 1 1 1 0 1 398 17.4

1 1 1 1 1 0 28 1.2

1 1 1 1 1 1 739 32.4

Total 2,282 100

Notes: 1 = completed. 0 = not completed. 

Sources: Family Options Study baseline survey; 6-month tracking survey; 12-month tracking survey; 20-month followup survey; 27-month tracking survey; 37-month followup 

survey

A.12. Administrative Data 

The Family Options Study used two main sources of administrative data: (1) the Homeless Management Information System 

(HMIS) data from each study site and (2) HUD’s Public and 

Indian Housing Information Center (PIC) and Tenant Rental 

Assistance Certification System (TRACS) data. Each source of 

administrative data is described in the following sections. 

HMIS Data

An HMIS16 is the electronic information system designated by 

the local Continuum of Care (CoC) program to record data on 

all people served within a CoC’s shelter, housing, and service 

system for individuals and families experiencing homelessness. 

Agencies collect information directly from people they serve 

and enter the data into their CoC’s HMIS.

Exhibit A-9 shows the HMIS participation rates for the CoCs 

containing our sample sites based on information reported 

by communities to HUD in the spring of 2011. HMIS bed 

participation refers to the percentage of beds that are covered 

in the HMIS. Thus, for example, data on clients staying in 

83 percent of the beds designated for families in emergency 

shelters in Alameda County that are participating in the study 

are included in HMIS.

The study team used HMIS records to measure use of 

emergency shelter, rapid re-housing, transitional housing, and 

permanent supportive housing (PSH) and the length of time 

families spent in these housing programs. 

16 See http://www.hudexchange.info/hmis for more information on HMIS. 
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 14

A

Appendix A. Data Sources and Data Set Construction

Exhibit A-9. HMIS Participation Rates for Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing Providers in the Study Sites, 2011 

Study Site

HMIS Bed Participation Rates for 

All Providers in the CoC (%)

HMIS Bed Participation Rates 

for Providers in the Study (%)

ES TH ES TH

Alameda County 53 93 83 93

Atlanta 86 87 100 85

Baltimore 88 98 100 98

Boston 91 96 86 NA

Connecticut* 94–100 78–100 100 100

Denver 100 100 100 100

Honolulu 96 92 100 100

Kansas City 100 100 100 100

Louisville 80 100 100 100

Minneapolis 84 81 100 68

Phoenix 96 95 100 89

Salt Lake City 100 96 100 96

CoC = Continuum of Care. ES = emergency shelter. HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. NA = not available. TH = transitional housing. 

* This study site comprises four CoCs in the New Haven/Bridgeport, Connecticut area; therefore, the figures reported for CoC coverage represent the range of coverage levels in 

these four CoCs.

Note: All “beds” (that is, program slots) enumerated in this table are considered “beds for families” by the CoCs.

Source: HUD Homeless Data Exchange, or HDX

HMIS data elements supplied by sites were— 

•	 Project entry date.

•	 Project exit date.

•	 Project name.

•	 Project type.

Providers enter a new HMIS record for every new entry into a 

program. Thus, for people who receive more than one episode 

of assistance, HMIS contains multiple records per person. Providers ask clients entering programs to provide PII, but clients 

are not required to comply to receive services. Exhibit A-10 

shows the number and percentage of families in the sample 

that were identified in the site’s HMIS. A family is considered 

matched in the HMIS if at least one program record was found 

for the head of household in the HMIS data received and time 

of program use occurred after the random assignment date. 

The study team gathered supplementary shelter program-use 

data for Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Boston, Massachusetts. 

Hennepin County provided records for emergency shelters that 

were not covered in the Minneapolis HMIS. The State of Massachusetts Office of Community Development provided records 

of Emergency Assistance program use that were not covered in 

the Boston HMIS. In addition, the Connecticut HMIS data were 

provided by the Bridgeport and New Haven CoCs separately. 

Exhibit A-10. HMIS Match Rates With the Family Options 

Sample by Site Through 37 Months 

Site Original

Sample (N)

Sample 

Families

in HMIS (N)

Sample 

Families

in HMIS (%)

Alameda 258 228 88.4

Atlanta 189 180 95.2

Baltimore 58 54 93.1

Boston 181 181 100.0

Connecticut* 214 191 89.3

Denver 172 148 86.0

Honolulu 218 213 97.7

Kansas City 175 170 97.1

Louisville 109 102 93.6

Minneapolis 181 176 97.2

Phoenix 279 275 98.6

Salt Lake City 248 202 81.5

All sites 2,282 2,120 92.9

HMIS = Homeless Management Information System.

*Includes the cities of New Haven and Bridgeport, Connecticut. 

Source: HMIS

PIC and TRACS Data Files

The study team used extracts from two HUD administrative 

data systems, PIC and TRACS. PIC data were used to measure 

sample members’ receipt of housing assistance from one of 

three programs—public housing, the Housing Choice Voucher 

program, and project-based voucher assistance.17 TRACS data 

were used to track information regarding program entry and 

exit for project-based Section 8 programs.18 PIC and TRACS 

data measure use of the permanent housing subsidies offered to 

families assigned to the SUB intervention.

17 HUD Form 50058 describes the full list of variables available in the PIC data and is accessible on line at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=50058.pdf.

18 Documentation on the TRACS data is accessible on line at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/housing/mfh/trx/trxdocs. 
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 15

A

Appendix A. Data Sources and Data Set Construction

HUD provided the data in 26 PIC and 26 TRACS quarterly 

extracts. The quarterly extracts cover the period from March 

2009 through June 2015 and cover the effective date period 

from January 1, 2008, until June 30, 2015. Together, the 52 

quarterly extracts contain information on 919 study families. 

For families using vouchers, the study team used PIC data 

to identify the date on which the household began to receive 

rental assistance, referred to as the lease-up date. The program 

admission date, effective date of the action, program type code, 

and program action code were the major variables used from 

the PIC extracts to determine the timing of new admissions 

(versus annual reexaminations, interim reexaminations, or 

other actions).19

Depending on the type of action recorded in PIC, the date 

of program admission is either the same as or earlier than 

the effective date of action. For new admissions, the date of 

admission and the effective date of action are normally the 

same. When they differ, the effective date is considered the 

better indicator of lease up, because the effective date refers to 

either the signing of the lease or the actual occupancy of the 

unit (as opposed to, for instance, the issuance of the voucher 

to the participant). Among records of actions other than new 

admissions, some effective dates fell up to a year after the date 

of random assignment.20 Therefore, for action types other than 

new admission, the date of program admission was consistently 

used as the date of lease up. Exhibit A-11 summarizes the 

number of sample families who were matched in PIC/TRACS 

and the number assigned to the SUB intervention matched in 

PIC/TRACS.

NDNH Data

HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) 

collected de-identified quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH), maintained by the Office of 

Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) within the Administration 

for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. The NDNH maintains up to eight quarters of 

quarterly wage data from state workforce agencies and federal 

agencies.21 Between June 2015 and March 2016, the study 

team sent quarterly matching files with family head name and 

Social Security Number to OCSE. OCSE matched these files to 

the quarterly wage records, then stripped the PII and replaced 

with a randomly generated person identification code. In June 

2016, the study team sent a pass-through file with several data 

elements to OCSE, which again removed PII and replaced 

with the randomly generated person identification code. All 

data sets were then transferred to PD&R. The study team did 

Exhibit A-11. Sample Families in PIC/TRACS Data and Those Assigned to the SUB Intervention in PIC/TRACS Data by 

Site Through 37 Months 

Sample Families in 

PIC/TRACS (N)

All Families Assigned 

to SUB (N)

All Families Assigned 

to SUB in 

PIC/TRACS (N)

Percent SUB-Assigned 

Families in 

PIC/TRACS

Alameda County 108 76 70 92.1

Atlanta 35 0 0 NA

Baltimore 22 0 0 NA

Boston 122 64 58 90.6

Connecticut* 90 47 42 89.4

Denver 95 76 63 82.9

Honolulu 72 43 30 69.8

Kansas City 78 53 38 71.7

Louisville 45 32 21 65.6

Minneapolis 75 62 45 72.6

Phoenix 89 71 63 88.7

Salt Lake City 88 75 54 72.0

All sites 919 599 484 80.8

NA = not available. PIC = Public and Indian Housing Information Center. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. TRACS = Tenant Rental Assistance Certification 

System.

*Includes the cities of New Haven and Bridgeport, Connecticut

Source: PIC/TRACS data

19 An action is the administrative transaction that triggers the completion of the HUD Form 50058 that is submitted to PIC. The 50058 includes 14 action codes: new admission, annual reexamination, interim reexamination, portability move-in, portability move-out, end of participation, other change of unit, Family Self-Sufficiency/Welfare 

to Work addendum, annual reexamination, issuance of voucher, expiration of voucher, flat rent annual update, annual Housing Quality Standards inspection, and historical 

adjustment.

20 This lapse in time might occur, for instance, if the housing authority simply failed to record the new admission but recorded a subsequent action. 

21 Established in accordance with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the NDNH database was developed to assist state child 

support agencies in locating parents and enforcing child support orders. The NDNH contains quarterly wage, new hire, and unemployment information. The Family 

Options Study used only quarterly wage information. 
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 16

A

Appendix A. Data Sources and Data Set Construction

not have direct access to the data; instead, we sent statistical 

analysis programs to staff at PD&R, who ran the programs on 

their servers and produced results. Summary results were then 

transferred to the study team for analysis and reporting. 

OSCE provided HUD with four extracts of de-identified quarterly wage records. Although we anticipated that each extract 

would contain eight calendar quarters of data, we found that 

only seven quarters in each extract appeared to have complete 

data. Each extract contained various other quarters with reported wages, but the number of observations in these quarters 

was significantly lower than the number of observations in the 

seven complete quarters. Due to these limitations, the study 

team decided to use only the seven quarters with complete 

data from each of the extracts. Across all extracts received from 

OCSE, complete data for the study sample was collected for 10 

calendar quarters, from 2013Q2 to 2015Q3. Details about outcomes constructed with these data are provided in Appendix B. 

Child Welfare Agency Administrative Data

To understand what data are available from child welfare 

agencies, it is helpful to understand the federal reporting 

requirements of child welfare programs. For children under the 

care and supervision of the child welfare agency (or adopted 

under the auspices of the agency), states are required to submit 

semi-annually de-identified, case-level data to the Adoption 

and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), 

maintained by the Children’s Bureau of the Administration of 

Children and Families. The de-identified nature of the AFCARS 

data makes it impossible to link these records to the study 

sample. Therefore, the study looked to state and local agencies 

to obtain information on formal out-of-home placements. 

Out of the 12 study sites, the study team sought to acquire 

child welfare data from eight agencies where it was determined 

feasible. Among those, the following five agencies provided 

child welfare data. 

•	 Alameda County Department of Social Services (Alameda

County site). 

•	 Arizona Department of Child Safety (Phoenix site).

•	 Maryland Department of Human Resources, Social Services

Administration (Baltimore site).

•	 Minnesota Department of Human Services, Child Safety and

Permanency Division (Minneapolis site).

•	 Missouri Department of Social Services, Children’s Division

(Kansas City site).

The data obtained from these five agencies used AFCARS reporting definitions to ensure the information collected was—to 

the extent possible—defined consistently across the five sites. 

The minimum information requested from each site was—

•	 Start and end dates of each removal or placement.

•	 Reason for discharge or placement end.

•	 Date of termination of parental rights.

•	 Child date of birth.

Because child welfare data were obtained from only the state—

or, in the case of Alameda County, the county—in which an 

individual was randomly assigned, individuals with children in 

out-of-home care under the care of another child welfare agency are not considered in the analysis. It is therefore possible 

that the records collected understate the overall level of formal 

separations because they miss separations occurring outside the 

state or county the parent was randomly assigned.

A.13. Program Usage Data File 

The study used several types of information to document 

the types of assistance families received during the followup 

period. Enrollment verification data, tracking and followup 

surveys, and administrative data, each described previously in 

Appendix A, were combined to form a Program Usage Data file, 

with information about program use for every month starting 

at the date of random assignment through the date of the adult 

survey. This section describes how the study team created 

the Program Usage Data file, which contains data on the full 

sample of 2,282 families enrolled in the study.22

The study team gathered family-level information on program 

entry dates, program exit dates, and program types using eight 

data sources collected by the Family Options Study. The data 

sources are—

1. Enrollment verification data. 

2. 6-month tracking survey. 

3. 12-month tracking survey.

4. 20-month followup adult survey. 

5. 27-month tracking survey.

6. 37-month followup adult survey.

7. HMIS.

8. PIC/TRACS.

22 For the Short-Term Impacts report, the study team prepared program usage data for the 1,857 families who completed the 20-month followup survey. For the current 

report, the study team entirely recreated program usage data for all 2,282 study families, using data sources available at the time of the earlier report plus a second round of 

HMIS data collection, six more quarterly extracts of PIC and TRACS records, the 27-month tracking survey, and the 37-month followup survey.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 17

A

Appendix A. Data Sources and Data Set Construction

Each data source has information about program use since 

the date of random assignment. The data sources vary in the 

amount of time they cover. For example, the administrative 

data and the 37-month survey cover the full analysis period, 

but the tracking surveys and enrollment verification cover only 

part of the period.

The study team considered data from all eight sources when 

compiling family histories of program use. In many cases, the 

same instance of program use by a family was recorded in more 

than one data source. In some of these cases, the multiple data 

sources were in complete agreement. In other cases, the data 

sources had discrepant information about entry dates, exit 

dates, and/or program type. 

To resolve conflicting information across data sources, the 

study team devised a system of decision rules. The fundamental 

rule for cleaning the data was that two instances of program use 

could not overlap, forcing the study team to clean dates that 

indicated the family was in two or more programs simultaneously. 

The study team ranked the data sources in the order believed 

to contain the most to least reliable program use information. 

Perceived reliability of the data sources varied by data item—

program entry date, exit date, and type. Exhibit A-13 summarizes the reliability ratings. 

The study team considered the program entry date from the 

enrollment verification data most reliable because the team 

collected these data directly from the participating program 

Exhibit A-12. Program Types and Their Data Sources in the Program Usage Data

Program Type Data Sources

Emergency shelter • HMIS recordsa

• 6-, 12-, 20-, 27-, and 37-month surveys

Permanent housing subsidies offered to the SUB groupb • HUD PIC and TRACS records

• Enrollment verification records (for referred program)

• 6-, 12-, 20-, 27-, and 37-month surveys

Rapid re-housing • HMIS records

• Enrollment verification records (for referred program)

• 6-, 12-, 20-, 27-, and 37-month surveys

Transitional housingc • HMIS records

• Enrollment verification records (for referred program)

• 6-, 12-, 20-, 27-, and 37-month surveys

Permanent supportive housing • HMIS records

• 6-, 12-, 20-, 27-, and 37-month surveys

Public housing • HUD PIC and TRACS records

• 6-, 12-, 20-, 27-, and 37-month surveys

Project-based vouchers or Section 8 projects • HUD PIC and TRACS records

• 6-, 12-, 20-, 27- and 37-month surveys

SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy.

HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. PIC = Public and Indian Housing Information Center. 

TRACS = Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System.

a

 The study team collected HMIS records covering homeless assistance programs in the 12 study communities. The HMIS data thus cover program use only in the 12 communities 

and do not cover program use outside the site jurisdiction determined at baseline. Altogether, 12.3 percent of families (219 families) interviewed for the 37-month interview were 

residing in a different state from the address indicated at baseline. The proportion of families interviewed in different states varied by site from 5.2 percent in Boston to 28.5 percent 

in Kansas City. 

b Subsidies offered to the SUB group are housing choice vouchers plus site-specific programs offered to families assigned to SUB group in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and Honolulu, 

Hawaii. The site-specific non-housing choice voucher programs were public housing in Honolulu, Hawaii, and project-based vouchers in Bridgeport, Connecticut. In other sites, 

these programs are coded separately.

c

 The transitional housing program type represents both project-based and scattered-site varieties of transitional housing, including transition-in-place units.

Exhibit A-13. Data Source Reliability by Program Use Data Item 

Program Use Data Item Higher Reliability Lower Reliability

Program entry date Enrollment verification 

HMIS; PIC/TRACS

20- and 37-month followup surveys; tracking surveys

Program exit date HMIS; PIC/TRACS 20- and 37-month followup surveys; tracking surveys;

tracking surveys; enrollment verification

Program type Enrollment verification 

HMIS; PIC/TRACS

20- and 37-month followup surveys; tracking surveys

HMIS = Homeless Management Information System. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. PIC = Public and Indian Housing Information Center. 

TRACS = Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System.

Sources: Enrollment verification data; 6-month tracking survey; 12-month tracking survey; 20-month followup survey; 27-month tracking survey, 37-month followup survey, HMIS; 

PIC/TRACS
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 18

A

Appendix A. Data Sources and Data Set Construction

specifically about the study families. The administrative data—

HMIS and PIC/TRACS—were also treated as highly reliable, 

second to the enrollment verification. The administrative data 

are maintained by communities and HUD. Program entry date 

information from the tracking surveys and 20- and 37-month 

followup surveys was considered less reliable because of 

recall error. If entry date information was available only in the 

surveys, the study team considered program entry dates closest 

to survey dates as more reliable than other older entry dates 

because they would have lower recall error. 

The study team considered the program exit date from the 

administrative data to be most reliable. The exit date from 

the enrollment verification data was considered least reliable 

because data were not collected for a long enough period to record an exit date. The tracking surveys also contained missing 

exit date information if the family was in a housing program 

at the time of those surveys and could suffer from recall error. 

The 37-month followup information on exit dates covered the 

full study period but could still suffer from recall error. 

The study team considered the program type data from the 

enrollment verification as the most reliable because these providers were involved in the study to represent an intervention 

program type. Program type data from administrative sources 

were considered to also be highly reliable, second to the enrollment verification data. The study team worked closely with 

the HMIS administrators to accurately code programs. Data 

from PIC/TRACS were also considered highly reliable because 

data are maintained by HUD. Program type information in 

the 20- and 37-month followup and tracking surveys were 

considered to be least reliable because of recall error and likely 

lack of knowledge of the program type beyond the name of the 

program. 

Basing its analysis on these and other site-specific rules, 

the study team manually determined which records and 

information were preserved that most accurately reflected the 

program use history of a family. These data were converted 

into the Program Usage Data file, which contained one record 

per family. The Program Usage Data file contained a series of 

monthly indicator binary variables reflecting the period from 

the month of random assignment through either the month of 

the 37-month survey date (for 37-month survey respondents) 

or through the month of the 1,129th day after the date of 

random assignment (for 37-month survey nonrespondents).23

The study team prepared a separate set of indicator variables 

for several program types: emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid re-housing, permanent housing subsidies offered to 

the SUB group, PSH, public housing, and Section 8 projects/

project-based vouchers. An indicator variable was set equal to 1 

to indicate that the study family used a particular program type 

at least 1 day during the month, or it was set equal to 0 to indicate no use of that program type in that month. The Program 

Usage Data file was constructed to complement the outcomes 

reported in the 20- and 37-month followup adult surveys. 

Therefore, information provided by administrative data beyond 

the month of the 37-month followup survey response was not 

incorporated into the file.

These data are known to miss at least some program use. The 

baseline stay in emergency shelter does not appear in the data 

for 18.3 percent of survey respondent families. The missing data rate for subsequent stays in emergency shelter is unknown. 

The study team expects that HMIS records on communitybased rapid re-housing, transitional housing, and permanent 

housing to be at least as complete as the baseline emergency 

shelter records (at least 82 percent). Because the data on these 

three program types also rely on the program usage files compiled from multiple sources including enrollment verification 

(for the referred program) and up to five self-reports (three 

tracking interviews and two followup interviews), the study 

team expects the vast majority of program spells of these types 

to be captured in the data. 

The data on use of subsidy, public housing, and project-based 

vouchers or Section 8 projects should be essentially complete 

because they are based on HUD administrative records. Additional detail about the construction of outcomes based on the 

Program Usage Data is provided in Appendix B.

23 The median survey start date for 37-month survey respondents is 1,129 days after the date of random assignment.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 1

B

APPENDIX B.

CONSTRUCTION OF OUTCOMES

T his appendix describes how the study team constructed 

outcome measures from the 37-month followup survey 

and administrative data. It supplements information 

in Chapter 2. The section is organized by outcome domain: 

housing stability, family preservation, adult well-being, child 

well-being, and self-sufficiency. 

B.1. Measures of Housing Stability 

Homelessness during followup period. The study team 

developed seven measures related to homelessness experienced 

during the 37-month followup period. 

•	 At least 1 night homeless or doubled up during past

6 months. This binary variable is constructed from responses 

to Questions A9 and A11. It measures the percentage of 

study families who reported spending at least 1 night during 

the 6 months before the 37-month followup survey either 

homeless (residing in a shelter or institution or staying in 

a place not meant for human habitation, such as the street, 

car, abandoned building, or train station) or living with 

a friend or relative because they could not find or afford 

a place of their own. The survey item explicitly excluded 

transitional housing. 

•	 At least 1 night homeless during past 6 months. This 

binary variable is constructed from responses to Question A9. 

It measures the percentage of families who reported having 

spent at least 1 night in a shelter or place not meant for 

human habitation in the 6 months before the 37-month 

followup survey. This outcome does not include stays in 

transitional housing. 

•	 At least 1 night doubled up during past 6 months.

This binary variable is constructed from responses to 

Question A11. It measures the percentage of families who 

reported spending at least 1 night in the 6 months before the 

37-month followup survey living with a friend or relative 

because they could not find or afford a place of their own. 

•	 Any stay in emergency shelter in past 6 months. This 

binary variable is constructed using Program Usage Data and 

is primarily taken from the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) but also uses survey data. This measure 

is the percentage of families who spent at least 1 night in 

emergency shelter in the 6 months before the 37-month 

followup survey. 

•	 Any stay in emergency shelter in months 21 to 32 after

random assignment. This binary variable is constructed 

using Program Usage Data. Families with program usage 

records that indicate a stay in emergency shelter in the 

period from 21 to 32 months after random assignment are 

coded as 1. The time period is the latest 1-year period for 

which survey data are available for all families in the impact 

analysis sample. HMIS records were the source of most (92 

percent) of the data for emergency shelter stays. The tracking 

and followup surveys also provided information on stays in 

emergency shelter. 

•	 Number of days homeless or doubled up in the past

6 months. This continuous variable is constructed from 

responses to Questions A10a1 to A10a3 and A12a1 to 

A12a3. The outcome measures the total number of days 

spent homeless or doubled up in the 6 months before the 

37-month followup survey. This outcome does not reflect 

stays in transitional housing. 

•	 Number of days homeless during past 6 months. This 

continuous variable is constructed from responses to 

Questions A10a1 to A10a3. The outcome measures the 

average number of days spent in shelters or places not meant 

for human habitation in the 6 months before the 37-month 

followup survey. It is measured from survey data. This 

outcome does not reflect stays in transitional housing. 

•	 Number of days doubled up during past 6 months. This 

continuous variable is constructed from responses to Questions A12a1 to A12a3. The outcome measures the average 

number of days spent living with friends or relatives in the 

6 months prior to the survey. It is measured from survey data. 

Confirmatory outcome. The study team constructed a single 

composite binary outcome for the 37-month followup point. 

This outcome is defined as “at least one return to homelessness” 
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 2

B

Appendix B. Construction of Outcomes

in the year before the 37-month survey measured from both 

the followup survey and Program Usage Data. 

•	 At least 1 night spent staying in a shelter or a place not

meant for human habitation or doubled up during the past 

6 months at the time of the survey (measured from survey 

data) OR any stay in emergency shelter in the 12 months 

prior to the date of the survey (measured from Program 

Usage Data).

If either of the two binary outcomes were coded as 1, the composite confirmatory outcome was also coded as 1. The lengths 

of time in the reference periods for this outcome (6 months for 

survey component, 12 months for Program Usage Data) are the 

same as for the confirmatory outcome in Family Options Study: 

Short-Term Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for 

Homeless Families.

Housing independence. The study team used data from the 

adult survey to construct three outcomes pertaining to the 

type of living arrangements at the time of the followup survey, 

number of places lived, and housing quality. All these measures 

are from the followup survey.

•	 Living in own house or apartment at time of survey. This 

binary variable is constructed from responses to Question A4a, 

which asks if the respondent is currently living in a house 

or apartment that he or she owns or rents. The interviewer 

instructed the respondent not to include his or her parent’s 

or guardian’s home or apartment. Survey respondents are 

considered to have independent housing if they rented or 

owned their own housing at the time of the survey. (Housing 

owned or rented by a “boyfriend/girlfriend, fiancé or significant other” is not counted as living in the respondent’s own 

house or apartment). This outcome measures the percentage 

of families who reported living in their own house or 

apartment, either with or without housing assistance. 

•	 Living in own house or apartment at time of survey

with no housing assistance. This binary variable is based 

on responses to Question A4a about living situation and 

Questions A7 and A8 about receipt of housing assistance at 

the time of the 37-month followup survey. The outcome is 

assigned a value of 1 for respondents who answered Question A4a to indicate they were living in a house or apartment 

that they own or rent and who answered no to Questions A7 

and A8 about whether they received housing assistance. This 

outcome measures the percentage of families who reported 

living in their own house or apartment at the time of the 

survey and were not receiving housing assistance. 

•	 Living in own house or apartment at time of survey with

housing assistance. This binary variable is constructed 

from responses to Question A4a about living situation and 

Questions A7 and A8 about receipt of housing assistance at 

the time of the 37-month followup survey. The outcome is 

assigned a value of 1 for respondents who answered Question A4a to indicate they were living in a house or apartment 

that they own or rent and who answered yes to Questions A7 

and A8 about whether they received housing assistance. This 

outcome measures the percentage of families who reported 

living in their own house or apartment at the time of the survey 

and were receiving housing assistance to help pay the rent. 

Number of places lived. The study team also measured an outcome related to housing instability during the followup period 

using the parent survey. 

•	 Number of places lived in the past 6 months. This continuous variable is constructed from responses to Question 

A13. The outcome measures the number of places the family 

lived in the 6 months before the survey. The variable is 

top-coded at six places. A value of 7 means that the adult 

respondent reporting having lived in six or more places in 

the 6 months before the survey. 

Housing quality. The housing domain also includes two 

outcomes measuring the quality of sample members’ housing at 

the time of the 37-month followup survey. 

•	 Persons per room. This continuous variable is based on 

responses to Question B7 (number of rooms not including 

kitchens, bathrooms, and hallways) and Questions B1A_1 

to B1A_14 and B3a and B3b (number of persons living 

with the adult respondent). The outcome was constructed 

by dividing the number of people by the number of rooms. 

Housing situations with more than one person per room are 

considered crowded.

•	 Housing quality is poor or fair. This binary variable is 

based on responses to Question B8. Respondents were asked 

to rate the condition of their current house or apartment as 

either excellent, good, fair, or poor. This outcome measures 

the percentage of families self-reporting that the condition of 

their housing at the time of the survey was fair or poor. 

B.2. Measures of Family 

Preservation 

The study team collected detailed information about the composition of the study families and changes in family composition 

that occurred during the followup period. The study team collected 

names and ages of family members with the adult respondent 

in shelter at the time of enrollment and of family members who 

were not with the adult respondent at enrollment but whom 

the adult respondent considered to be part of the family. Then, 

at the 37-month followup survey, the study team collected 
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 3

B

Appendix B. Construction of Outcomes

information on the whereabouts of all family members reported 

at baseline and about new family members who had joined 

the family since the previous survey. This section describes the 

outcomes constructed from these data. 

•	 Family has at least one child separated in past 6 months.

This binary variable is constructed from items in Section D 

of the 37-month followup survey and from information 

gathered from Section E of the baseline survey. This variable 

measures the percentage of families for whom a child who 

had been with the family in shelter was separated from the 

family at any time in the 6 months before the 37-month 

followup survey. This outcome includes both formal (that is, 

with the involvement of a child welfare agency) and informal 

separations from the family, and both ongoing and new 

separations in this period. The outcome is based on children 

who are less than 18 years, 6 months at the time of followup 

in order to exclude children who had reached the legal age 

of adulthood before the separation. The time period for this 

outcome, 6 months before the survey, thus included at least 

some time before the children reached adulthood. 

•	 Family has at least one foster care placement in the past

6 months. This binary variable is constructed from items 

in Section D of the 37-month followup survey. It measures 

the percentage of families who reported that a child was in 

a formal foster care placement or adopted by another family 

at any time in the 6 months prior to the 37-month survey. 

It includes both new and ongoing foster care placements. 

This outcome excludes informal arrangements in which a 

child may have stayed with friends or family members but 

includes adoptions of children by another family. 

•	 Spouse/partner separated in past 6 months, of those with

a spouse/partner present at random assignment. This 

binary variable is constructed from items in Section D of 

the 37-month followup survey and Section E of the baseline 

survey. This outcome measures the percentage of respondent 

families in which a spouse or partner who had been present 

at baseline (458 families) became separated in the 6 months 

before the 37-month followup survey. The outcome includes 

both new and ongoing separations.

The team also constructed the following two family reunification outcomes that measure the return of family members who 

had been reported as separated from the family at baseline. 

•	 Family has at least one child reunified, of those families

with at least one child absent at random assignment.

This binary variable is constructed from Section D of the 

37-month followup survey and Section E of the baseline 

survey. It measures the percentage of families in which a 

child who had been living apart from the family at baseline 

had rejoined the family at the time of the 37-month followup survey. This outcome is measured only for respondent 

families in which a child was separated from the family at 

the time of random assignment (339 families). 

•	 Spouse or partner reunified, of those spouse or partner

absent at random assignment. This binary variable is 

taken from Section D of the 37-month followup survey and 

Section E of the baseline survey. It measures the percentage 

of families in which a spouse or partner who was separated 

from the family at baseline had rejoined the family at the 

time of the 37-month followup survey. This outcome is 

measured only for respondent families in which a spouse or 

partner was separated from the family at the time of random 

assignment (175 families). 

B.3. Measures of Adult Well-Being 

The study team used the adult survey to construct the 

following outcomes measuring several aspects of well-being for 

the adult respondent: adult physical health, adult behavioral 

health, adult trauma symptoms, adult substance abuse, and 

experience of intimate partner violence.

Adult physical health in past 30 days was poor or fair. This 

binary variable is constructed from responses to Question E1. 

The outcome measures the percentage of families in which the 

adult respondent reported poor or fair health in the 30 days 

before the survey. Response options were excellent, very good, 

good, fair, or poor. The outcome value is 1 if respondents rated 

health as fair or poor. 

Goal-oriented thinking. The adult survey collected six items 

of the State Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1996) in Questions E2a 

to E2f. Participants respond to each item using a 6-point scale. 

1 = definitely false. 

2 = mostly false. 

3 = somewhat false. 

4 = somewhat true. 

5 = mostly true. 

6 = definitely true.

The items are—

1. If I should find myself in a jam, I could think of many ways 

to get out of it.

2. At the present time, I am energetically pursuing my goals.

3. There are lots of ways around any problem that I am facing 

now.

4. Right now I see myself as being pretty successful.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 4

B

Appendix B. Construction of Outcomes

5. I can think of many ways to reach my current goals.

6. At this time, I am meeting the goals that I have set for myself.

The study team created a score for the State Hope Scale if the 

respondent answered at least four of the six items. For each 

respondent, the analysts averaged the responses given. This 

process yields measures ranging from 1 to 6 with higher scores 

indicating greater hope. The adult State Hope Scale measures 

Snyder’s cognitive model of hope which defines hope as “a 

positive motivational state that is based on an interactively 

derived sense of successful (a) agency (goal-directed energy), 

and (b) pathways (planning to meet goals)” (Snyder, Irving, 

and Anderson, 1991: 287). 

Psychological distress. This continuous variable is the Kessler 6 

(K6) Psychological Distress Scale (Kessler et al., 2003). It is 

derived from six survey items (Questions E31 to E36). The 

respondents were asked how much of the time in the past 30 

days they had felt each of six measures of distress— 

1. Nervous?

2. Hopeless?

3. Restless or fidgety?

4. So depressed that nothing could cheer you up?

5. That everything was an effort?

6. Worthless?

Responses options were—

1 = all of the time. 

2 = some of the time. 

3 = a little of the time. 

4 = none of the time. 

The study team created a score for each respondent if the respondent answered at least four of the items (imputing values for 

missing items with the mean value of the nonmissing items). 

Scores were reversed such that a response of all of the time 

= 4, most of the time = 3, some of the time = 2, a little of the 

time = 1, and none of the time = 0. The scores were summed, 

creating a continuous indicator of psychological distress. The 

score ranges from 0 to 24 with higher values indicating greater 

psychological distress. 

Exhibit 2-9 in Chapter 2 reports the percent of family heads 

reporting symptoms of serious psychological distress. That 

measure was derived from the continuous distress scale using 

a cutoff of 13 (scores of 13 and over were coded to indicate 

serious psychological distress). This score was the optimal 

cutoff point for the general population sample in the Kessler et 

al. (2003) validation study.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. This binary outcome is constructed from responses to Questions E4a to 

E4q. It measures the presence of PTSD symptoms in adult respondents in the 30 days before to the survey. These questions 

are the Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale (PDS) assessment 

that is designed to aid in the detection and diagnosis of PTSD. 

The PDS assessment parallels DSM-IV® diagnostic criteria for a 

PTSD diagnosis and may be administered repeatedly over time 

to help monitor changes in symptoms. 

Respondents were asked to report on how much each of the 

following items had bothered them in the 30 days prior to the 

survey.

Subset 1.

E4a. Repeated, disturbing memories, thoughts, or images of a 

stressful experience?

E4b. Repeated, disturbing dreams of a stressful experience?

E4c. Suddenly acting or feeling as if stressful experiences were 

happening again (as if you were reliving it)?

E4d. Feeling very upset when something reminded you of a 

stressful experience?

E4e. Having physical reactions (for example, heart pounding, 

trouble breathing, or sweating) when something reminded you 

of a stressful experience?

Subset 2.

E4f. Avoid thinking about or talking about the stressful experiences or avoid having feelings related to it?

E4g. Avoid activities or situations because they remind you of a 

stressful experience?

E4h. Trouble remembering important parts of the stressful 

experience?

E4i. Loss of interest in things that you used to enjoy?

E4j. Feeling distant or cut off from other people?

E4k. Feeling emotionally numb or being unable to have loving 

feelings for those close to you?

E4l. Feeling as if your future will somehow be cut short?

Subset 3.

E4m. Trouble falling or staying asleep?

E4n. Feeling irritable or having angry outbursts?

E4o. Having difficulty concentrating?

E4p. Being “super alert” or watchful on guard?

E4q. Feeling jumpy or easily startled?
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 5

B

Appendix B. Construction of Outcomes

Responses options were— 

1 = not at all.

2 = a little bit.

3 = moderately.

4 = quite a bit.

5 = extremely.

The PTSD outcome was created if the respondent answered at 

least 12 of the 17 items. The first step in scoring the responses 

was to assess if the respondent was symptomatic on each item. 

Responses of 3 = moderately, 4 = quite a bit, or 5 = extremely 

to any of the items indicate the respondent is symptomatic and 

receive a value of 1. If a respondent answered 1 = not at all or 

2 = a little bit to an item they were assessed as not symptomatic 

and received a value of 0. 

The 17 items were then divided into subscales.

•	 Subscale B: sum of 5 items in Subset 1: a–e.

•	 Subscale C: sum of 7 items in Subset 2: f–l.

•	 Subscale D: sum of 5 items in Subset 3: m–q.

To receive a value of 1 for the PTSD binary variable, the 

respondent had to be symptomatic on one or more items in 

subscale B, three or more items in subscale C, and on two or 

more items in subscale D. This measure of PTSD was also collected at baseline and serves as a covariate scored in the same 

manner (see Appendix C). 

Adult substance abuse. The study team measured three 

outcomes related to substance abuse in the 6 months before the 

survey. The first is a binary variable indicating alcohol dependence, the second is a binary variable indicating drug abuse, 

and the third is a binary variable indicating alcohol dependence 

or drug abuse. 

Alcohol dependence. This outcome is constructed from responses to Questions E5 through E8 in the 37-month followup 

survey, which asked the following four items in the Rapid 

Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS-4; Cherpitel, 2000).

E5. Do you sometimes take a drink in the morning when you 

first get up?

E6. During the past 6 months, has a friend or family member 

ever told you about things you said or did while you were 

drinking that you could not remember?

E7. During the past 6 months, have you had a feeling of guilt 

or remorse after drinking?

E8. During the past 6 months, have you failed to do what was 

normally expected of you because of drinking?

An affirmative answer to any of the items indicates an alcohol 

problem. 

The Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen is a five-item instrument, 

derived from other screens, that is designed to maximize sensitivity while maintaining good specificity. The RAPS-4, a further 

refinement of the five-item instrument, asks if an individual felt 

guilt after their drinking (Remorse), could not remember things 

said or did after drinking (Amnesia), failed to do what was 

normally expected after drinking (Perform), or had a morning 

drink (Starter). 

Drug abuse. This outcome is constructed from responses to 

Questions E10a through E10h. The survey instrument included 

six items regarding use of illegal drugs, all of which are part 

of the short version of the Drug Abuse Screening Test, or 

DAST-10 (Skinner, 1982; Yudko, Lozhkina, and Fouts, 2007). 

The following six items were asked of respondents in relation 

to the 6 months before the survey date.1

E10a. Have you used more than one drug at a time?

E10b. Have you had “blackouts” or “flashbacks” as a result of 

drug use?

E10e. Have you ever not spent time with your family or missed 

work because of drug use?

E10f. Have you engaged in illegal activities in order to obtain 

drugs?

E10g. Have you ever experienced withdrawal symptoms as a 

result of heavy drug intake?

E10h. Have you had medical problems as a result of drug use 

(for example memory loss, hepatitis, convulsions, bleeding?)

An affirmative answer to any of these six items indicates a drug 

problem. 

Alcohol dependence or drug abuse. If the respondent is 

determined to have an alcohol problem or a drug problem, 

the outcome alcohol dependence or drug abuse is assigned a 

value of 1. This outcome measures the percentage of families 

in which the adult respondent displayed evidence of alcohol 

dependence or drug abuse in the 6 months before the survey. 

Experienced intimate partner violence in the past 6 months

prior to survey. This binary variable is based on responses 

to Question E11. E11 asks if, in the past 6 months, the adult 

respondent has been physically abused or threatened with 

1

 Respondents were also asked about two additional items related to drug use that are not used in the DAST-10 and were not used to create the drug abuse outcome. E10c 

asked, “Have your friends or relatives known or suspected that you used drugs?” and E10d asked, “Have you ever lost friends because of drugs?” 
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 6

B

Appendix B. Construction of Outcomes

violence by a person with whom she/he was romantically 

involved, such as a spouse, boy/girlfriend, or partner. The outcome measures the percentage of adult respondents reporting 

experience of intimate partner violence in the 6 months prior 

to the survey.

B.4. Measures of Child Well-Being 

The study team used information reported by the parent about 

the focal children to construct the following child well-being 

outcomes across all age groups. 

Child Outcomes Across All Age Groups

Child Education

•	 Number of schools attended since random assignment.

This continuous variable is based on responses to Question F12a. 

The number of schools is top-coded at four or more schools. 

The values of the outcome are— 

1 = one school.

2 = two schools.

3 = three schools.

4 = four or more schools.

•	 Grade completion—not held back. This binary variable 

is based on responses to Question F12b From the parent 

survey and defined for children who have been in school at 

any time since random assignment and who are less than 

age 18 at the time of the 37-month survey. The outcome 

measures the percentage of these children who have not 

repeated a grade level and have not been prevented from 

moving on to the next grade level since random assignment.

•	 School grades. This continuous outcome was constructed 

using responses to Question F12c. The parent was asked to 

describe the child’s grades in the most recently completed 

school term. The outcome uses a 4-point scale with the 

following values.

1 = mostly Ds and Fs.

2 = mostly Cs.

3 = mostly Bs.

4 = mostly As. 

Health

•	 Poor or fair health. This binary outcome is based on 

responses to Question F18, which asks the parent to assess 

the child’s health at the time of the 37-month followup 

survey. Allowable responses were excellent, very good, good, 

fair, or poor. The outcome has a value of 1 if responses were 

poor or fair. 

•	 Well-child checkup in past 12 months. This binary 

outcome is based on responses to Question F19. Parents are 

asked whether outcome measures the percentage of focal 

children who received a physical examination or well-child 

checkup in the year prior to the 37-month followup survey. 

•	 Child has regular source of health care. This binary 

outcome is based on responses to Question F18a. This 

outcome measures the percentage of focal children who had 

a regular provider of health care at the time of the 37-month 

followup survey, based on the parent’s report.

•	 Sleep problems. This continuous variable is based on 

responses to Questions F26i, F26j, and F26k. The parent is 

asked to report on the frequency of two indicators of sleep 

problems—tiredness on waking and tiredness during the 

day. The allowable responses are— 

1 = almost always.

2 = most days.

3 = sometimes.

4 = rarely.

5 = almost never.

The questions are worded as follows.

Would you say that...

[CHILD] has difficulty waking up in the morning?

[CHILD] has difficulty waking up on school days?

[CHILD] is tired during the day?

To create the outcome, the study team reverse-coded the 

response options (for example, almost never = 1; almost 

always = 5). The value of the outcome thus ranges from 

1 to 5 with higher values indicating greater frequency of 

these sleep problems. 

Behavioral Strengths and Challenges 

•	 Behavioral problems. This continuous variable is based on 

the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). The SDQ 

is a behavioral and personality assessment with a battery 

of items about the behavioral strengths and difficulties of 

children. The total problem score measures emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity, and peer problems. 

The outcome is measured using responses to Questions F21 

(for 3-year-olds), F22 (4- to 10-year-olds), and F23 (11- to 

17-year-olds) on the parent survey. Parents indicated whether 

a series of statements were not true, somewhat true, or certainly 

true for the child during the 6 months before the survey. 

The reported scores are standardized by age and gender, so 

that children can be compared with their peers in a national 

sample. Higher scores indicate greater behavior problems.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 7

B

Appendix B. Construction of Outcomes

•	 Prosocial behavior. This continuous variable is measured as 

the nationally standardized prosocial score from the SDQ. 

The SDQ test was administered to parents during the parent 

survey, asking about all focal children between ages 3 years 

and 17 years, 11 months. Parents were asked the same questions for all focal children, although the wording of some 

questions varied depending on the age group: 3-year-olds 

(Question F21a–y), 4- to 10-year-olds (Question F22a–y), 

and 11- to 17-year-olds (Question F23a–y). 

The SDQ contains 25 questions split into five sections: emotional 

symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems, 

and prosocial. Each section asks a set of five descriptions 

related to the aforementioned section headings. The responses to the descriptions are 1 = not true, 2 = somewhat true, 

and 3 = certainly true. The items from each section follow. 

•	 Emotional symptoms—

− Often unhappy, depressed, or tearful.

− Often complains of headaches, stomach-aches, or sickness.

− Many worries or often seems worried.

− For children ages 11 to 17: Nervous in new situations; 

easily loses confidence. For children ages 3 to 10: Nervous 

or clingy in new situations; easily loses confidence.

− Many fears; easily scared.

•	 Conduct problems— 

− For children ages 4 to 17: Often lies or cheats. For children 

age 3: Often argumentative with adults.

− Often loses temper.

− Generally well behaved; usually does what adults request.

− For children ages 11 to 17: Often fights with other youth or 

bullies them. For children ages 3 to 10: Often fights with 

other children or bullies them.

− For children ages 4 to 17: Steals from home, school, or 

elsewhere. For children age 3: Can be spiteful to others.

•	 Hyperactivity—

− Easily distracted; concentration wanders. 

− Restless, overactive; cannot stay still for long.

− Constantly fidgeting or squirming.

− For children ages 4 to 17: Thinks things out before acting. 

For children age 3: Can stop and think things out before acting.

− For children ages 4 to 17: Good attention span; sees work 

through to the end. For children age 3: Good attention 

span; sees tasks through to the end.

•	 Peer problems— 

− Generally liked by other youth/children.

− For youth ages 11 to 17: Would rather be alone than with 

other youth. For children ages 3 to 10: Rather solitary; 

prefers to play alone.

− Has at least one good friend.

− Picked on or bullied by other youth/children.

− Gets along better with adults than with other children.

•	 Prosocial— 

− Considerate of other people’s feelings. 

− For children ages 11 to 17: Shares readily with other youth; 

for example, shares books, games, and food. For children 

ages 3 to 10: Shares readily with other children; for example, 

shares toys, treats, and pencils.

− Helpful if someone is hurt, upset, or feeling ill.

− Kind to younger children.

− Often offers to help others (parents, teachers, other children).

The descriptions are more often worded with negative 

valence—”not true” = 0 points, “somewhat true” = 1 point, 

and “certainly true” = 2 points—such that more negative behaviors or tendencies are given more points. Some questions 

are worded with positive valence, however, such as “Generally liked by other children.” Questions of a positive valence 

are scored so that “not true” is given 2 points, “somewhat 

true” is given 1 point, and “certainly true” is given 0 points. 

This scoring arrangement is such that higher scores for the 

Total Difficulties score indicate more negative behavior. 

Each of the five sections is given an individual score ranging 

from 0 to 10. Only the first four sections are included in the 

overall Total Difficulties score; the prosocial scale is excluded. The Total Difficulties score has a range from 0 to 40. 

To compute a total score, at least two-thirds (three of five) 

of the questions within each domain had to be answered. If 

one or two items were missing within a domain, the average 

score of those items was multiplied by 5 to impute the 

total score for that domain. If more than three items in any 

domain were missing, both the domain score and the total 

problems score were counted as missing. The scores were 

also standardized by age and gender. 
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 8

B

Appendix B. Construction of Outcomes

Child Outcomes for Specific Age Groups

Ages 2 to 5 Years2

•	 Preschool or Head Start enrollment. This binary variable 

measures whether a child within the specified age range 

(2 to 5 years) was enrolled in preschool or center-based 

childcare at the time of the 37-month followup survey and 

is based on responses to Questions F10a and F11_2 on the 

parent survey.3 The adult respondent was first asked about 

the number of different childcare arrangements or schools 

the child had been in for at least 10 hours a week at the time 

of the 37-month survey (F10a). If the child had at least one 

arrangement, the respondent was then asked to describe the 

type of care from the following list.

− Family-based care in someone’s home with other children.

− Preschool- or center-based care.

− Childcare provided in my home.

If the response was preschool- or center-based care, then the 

indicator for preschool or Head Start enrollment was coded 

as yes. 

•	 Child care or preschool absences in past month. This 

variable is treated as continuous based on responses to Question F13 for children ages 1 year, 6 months to 17 years, 11 

months. Respondents were asked to report on the number 

of days the child missed school in the month prior to the 

survey (or the past month of school if the survey is conducted during the summer [F6_4]). The outcome is measured 

using a scale of 0 to 3: 0 = no absences, 1 = 1 to 2 absences, 

2 = 3 to 5 absences, 3 = 6 or more absences. 

•	 Positive child care or school experiences. This variable 

is based on responses to F17, in which parents assess the 

child’s childcare or school experiences, using these ratings— 

1 = mostly positive. 

0 = both positive and negative. 

-1 = mostly negative.

•	 Positive child care or preschool attitudes. This continuous 

variable is constructed from responses to Question F16 in 

which the parent assesses the child’s attitude toward school 

or childcare. The question is worded as follows.

How much does your child like school/childcare? The 

response options were—

1 = not at all. 

2 = not very much. 

3 = some. 

4 = pretty much. 

5 = very much. 

•	 Child care or preschool conduct problems. This binary 

variable is based on responses to Questions F14 and F16. The 

outcome measures whether or not the parent reports having 

been contacted by the child’s school or childcare provider 

regarding the child’s conduct problems or if the child was 

suspended or expelled. The outcome uses the following values.

0 = no calls to parent.

1 = parent got reports of bad conduct or suspension/expulsion.

Ages 2 Years to 5 Years, 6 Months 

•	 Met developmental milestones. This outcome is defined 

as scoring above the typical developmental cutoffs in all five 

domains of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3). This 

binary variable indicates if the child passed all five domains 

in the ASQ-3 corresponding to his or her age. The study used 

9 versions of the ASQ-3 for children ages 23 to 66 months. 

In the 20-month data collection, the ASQ-3 was collected for 

focal children less than 3 years, 6 months. In order to capture 

the same set of children at the later followup point, the outcome 

was collected for focal children up to age 5 years, 6 months.

The ASQ-3 is a developmental assessment for children of ages 

from 1 month to 5 years, 6 months. At 37 months, the study 

team administered the test to the parents, asking about all focal 

children up to age 5 years, 6 months. The test was typically 

administered directly after the parent survey. 

The study team administered 9 versions of the test across the 

age groups. 

•	 The 24-month test for focal children ages 23 months through 

25 months, 15 days.

•	 The 27-month test for focal children ages 25 months and 

16 days through 28 months, 15 days.

•	 The 30-month test for focal children ages 28 months and 

16 days through 31 months, 15 days.

•	 The 33-month test for focal children ages 31 months and 

16 days through 34 months, 15 days.

2

 This age group includes focal children who were ages 4 years or younger on the September 1 prior to the 37-month survey. These children had thus not reached 5 years of 

age (typical school age) in the school year corresponding to the 37-month survey. 

3

 Although this enrollment outcome is named differently than the school enrollment outcome for children ages 5 to 17 years, the two outcomes are defined identically. For 

this younger group, enrollment is overwhelmingly in preschool or center-based childcare. For the older group, enrollment is overwhelmingly in school.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 9

B

Appendix B. Construction of Outcomes

•	 The 36-month test for focal children ages 34 months and 

16 days through 38 months, 30 days.

•	 The 42-month test for focal children ages 39 months 

through 44 months, 30 days.

•	 The 48-month test for focal children ages 45 months 

through 50 months, 30 days.

•	 The 54-month test for focal children ages 51 months 

through 56 months, 30 days.

•	 The 60-month test for focal children ages 57 months 

through 66 months, 30 days.

The test is structured the same for each version of the test, although 

the questions differ. Each test has six sections: (1) communication, (2) gross motor, (3) fine motor, (4) problemsolving, 

(5) personal-social, and (6) overall. The first five sections have 

six questions that can be answered “yes,” “sometimes,” or 

“not yet.” The last section—Overall—has between 8 and 10 

open-ended questions that are not included in the final score. 

Each “yes” answer receives 10 points, “sometimes” answer 

receives 5 points, and “not yet” answer receives 0 points. The 

scores for each section range from 0 to 60. A raw score was 

calculated separately for each of the five sections. A section is 

scored when at least four of the six questions in the section 

are answered. When all six questions are answered, the scores 

from those six available answers are summed together. When a 

section has four or five answers, the missing scores are assigned 

a value derived from the average of the available scores, and all 

six scores are summed. 

The ASQ-3 has national norms for scores for each domain by 

each age version and a raw score that can be used as a diagnostic cutoff point for the domain set at two standard deviations 

below the mean. Scores greater than the cutoff are considering 

“passing,” whereas scores at or below the cutoff may indicate 

the potential presence of a developmental delay in that domain 

and can be used for making a referral for a more comprehensive assessment. The team calculated z-scores for each domain 

by subtracting the domain raw score from the national domain 

mean (for the appropriate age version) and dividing by the 

national domain standard deviation. For the outcome measure, 

raw scores in each domain were compared with the cutoff 

scores and scores above the cutoff were counted as passing. The 

outcome then was whether children passed all valid domains. 

If children were missing one of the five domains, they were still 

included in the outcome and were assessed on whether they 

passed all four nonmissing domains. 

A small number (19 of 697, or 2.7 percent) of cases had discrepancies between the age of the child in our survey and the 

version of the ASQ-3 administered. In 15 of the 19 cases, the 

structure of the ASQ-3 survey allowed for imputation of scores, 

resulting in a final missing data rate of less than 1 percent (0.6 

percent) because of age-version discrepancies (details about 

imputation and missing data are available on request).

Ages 3 Years, 6 Months to 7 Years

•	 Verbal ability. This outcome is measured as the nationally 

standardized score from the Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III) 

Letter-Word Identification test. 

•	 Math ability. This outcome is measured as the nationally 

standardized score from the WJ III Applied Problems test. 

The study team administered two tests from the WJ III tests of 

achievement to eligible sample children ages 3 to 7 years—the 

Letter-Word Identification test, with 76 possible questions, 

and the Applied Problems test, with 63 possible questions. The 

interviewers began tests at Question1 regardless of age. Interviewers did not calculate final raw scores in the field because it 

is subject to error. The analysis team independently calculated 

raw scores. 

For both the Letter-Word Identification and Applied Problems 

tests, the study team calculated raw scores based on a series of 

rules. First, children were allowed to refuse the test either at the 

beginning or during the test. Refusals were coded as missing 

test scores. The raw score was a sum of all the correct answers, 

starting at Question 1, until the child answered six consecutive 

questions incorrectly. Each question was weighted the same, 

with a value of “1” indicating a correct response and a value of 

“0” indicating an incorrect response. 

Exhibit B-1 shows the final distribution of the number of 

children who completed the WJ III tests. 

Exhibit B-1. Children’s Completion Rates at 37 Months 

for WJ III Letter-Word Identification and Applied Problems 

Tests

WJ III Test Distribution N Percent

Total children completed WJ III 850 100.0

Both tests (letter-word identification and 

 applied problems) completed

815 95.9

Only letter-word identification test completed 17 2.0

Only applied problems test completed 18 2.1

WJ III = Woodcock-Johnson III.

Source: Family Options Study Child Assessment Data
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 10

B

Appendix B. Construction of Outcomes

The study team entered raw scores into the WJ III Compuscore 

software to calculate z-scores that are age and gender adjusted.4

Raw scores were entered into “Woodcock-Johnson III Test of 

Academic Achievement—Form A” for “Standard Battery” tests 1 

and 10, where test 1 is the Letter-Word Identification test and 

test 10 is the Applied Problems test. 

The study team exported the key information into an Excel file 

and entered raw scores into the WJ III Compuscore software 

that converts raw scores into the z-scores used in report 

analyses. Data from the Excel file were copied and pasted rather 

than entered manually into Compuscore to reduce data entry 

error. Within the Compuscore software, the following information was entered: first name, gender, study identification 

number and date of birth, and date of testing. On exporting 

data from the Compuscore software, the “Norm Basis” of age 

and the “Standard Set” of scores were selected for inclusion in 

the export, resulting in a comma-delimited file that includes, 

among the standard set of scores, the z-score of each test for 

each child. 

•	 Executive functioning (self-regulation). This outcome is 

measured with the score on the Head Toes Knees Shoulders 

(HTKS) assessment. 

HTKS is a development assessment testing inhibitory control, 

attention, and working memory. The study team administered 

this test directly to focal children ages 3 years, 6 months to 

7 years, 11 months. All children were given the same test, 

regardless of age. 

The test consists of 20 questions divided into two parts. The test 

began with a demonstration of the exercise in which the children were instructed to touch their toes when they were told to 

“touch your head” and to touch their head when told to “touch 

your toes,” in effect doing the opposite of what they were told. 

After some practice and repeated reminders to make sure that 

the children understood the instructions, the assessment began. 

The first 10 questions instructed the children to “touch your 

head” or “touch your toes.” The responses to “touch your head” 

would be for the child to touch his or her toes (the correct 

response), to motion toward touching his or her head and then 

correct him/herself and touch his or her toes (a self-corrected 

response), or to touch his or her head (the incorrect response). 

Each correct response received 2 points, each self-corrected 

response received 1 point, and each incorrect response received 

0 points. If a child had 6 or more incorrect responses in the first 

10 questions, the test was discontinued. 

Children who answered 5 or fewer of the 10 questions incorrectly moved to the second set of 10 questions. For the second 

part, children were instructed to touch their knees when told 

to “touch your shoulders” and to touch their shoulders when 

told to “touch your knees.” This principle of doing the opposite 

of what is told was the same for this part of the test—the only 

change was the body part touched. The children were taken 

through a second demonstration in which they practiced 

touching their knees when told to touch their shoulders and 

touching their shoulders when instructed to touch their knees. 

After practice and only one reminder, the second set of 10 

questions began. 

In the second set of 10 questions, children received all four 

instructions—touching the head when instructed to touch the 

toes and vice versa and touching the shoulders when instructed 

to touch the knees and vice versa, adding to the complexity 

of the test. The scoring was the same, with correct responses 

receiving 2 points, self-corrected responses receiving 1 point, 

and incorrect responses receiving 0 points. 

Missing values were imputed if two-thirds of the overall 

questions children were administered were nonmissing. The 

scores assigned to these missing values were the average from 

the answered items multiplied by the total number of trials 

each child was eligible for, so that, if a child were administered 

10 trials, the imputation would be the average score of the 

answered items times 10. Children could receive a total score 

of between 0 and 40 points from the 20 questions. 

Ages 5 to 17 Years5

In this age group, the last four outcomes about school-aged 

children (school absences, school experiences, school attitudes, 

and school conduct problems) were collected from only the 

first 38 percent of parents surveyed due to an error in data 

collection. The parallel outcomes for younger, preschool-aged 

children were collected from all parents. Because of the discrepancy in data collection between the two age groups, these 

outcomes are analyzed separately by age group.

•	 School enrollment. This binary variable is based on responses to Questions F6, F8, and F9. The adult respondent 

was asked about enrollment of children ages 5 to 17 years 

in school (ages 5 to 17). If the respondent answered yes or 

volunteered information that the child is homeschooled or 

on summer/school vacation and the response to the child’s 

highest grade or year of school completed was not that they 

were currently in any form of childcare or preschool (F8), 

4

 Reference the WJ III technical manual for details about the z-score (McGrew, Shrank, and Woodcock, 2007).

5

 This age group includes focal children who were ages 5 to 17 years on the September 1st prior to the 37-month parent survey and no older than 17 years at the time of the 

survey. These children were thus typical school age in the school year corresponding to the 37-month survey.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 11

B

Appendix B. Construction of Outcomes

then enrollment was indicated as yes. Also, if the respondent 

indicated that the child’s highest grade or year of school that 

he or she ever completed was the 12th grade and the child 

received a high school diploma, then school enrollment was 

also indicated as yes. 

•	 School absences in past month. This variable is treated as 

continuous based on responses to Question F13 for children 

ages 5 to 17 years. Respondents were asked to report on 

the number of days the child missed school in the month 

prior to the survey (or the past month of school if the survey 

is conducted during the summer [F6_4]). The outcome is 

measured using a scale of 0 to 3: 0 = no absences, 1 = 1 to 2 

absences, 2 = 3 to 5 absences, 3 = 6 or more absences. 

•	 Positive school experiences. This variable is based on 

responses to F17, in which parents assess the child’s school 

experiences, using these ratings— 

1 = mostly positive. 

0 = both positive and negative. 

-1 = mostly negative.

•	 Positive school attitudes. This continuous variable is 

constructed from responses to Question F16 in which 

the parent assesses the child’s attitude toward school. The 

question is worded as follows.

How much does your child like school/childcare? The 

response options were—

1 = not at all. 

2 = not very much. 

3 = some. 

4 = pretty much. 

5 = very much. 

•	 School conduct problems. This binary variable is based on 

responses to Questions F14 and F16. The outcome measures 

whether or not the parent reports having been contacted by 

the child’s school regarding the child’s conduct problems or 

if the child was suspended or expelled. The outcome uses 

the following values.

0 = no calls to parent.

1 = parent got reports of bad conduct or suspension/

expulsion.

Ages 8 to 17 Years

The study team collected information from children and youth 

ages 8 to 17 years on the child survey from which several outcome measures were constructed. The outcomes are described 

in this section. 

•	 Anxiety. Question A1 on the child survey is used to create 

an indicator of anxiety. Question A1 is the A-Trait scale 

from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children, or 

STAIC (Spielberger et al., 1973). Scores range from 20 

to 60, with higher scores indicating greater anxiety. The 

scale is proprietary, so only a partial list is shown here. 

Respondents reported on the frequency with which they 

felt several items using these response options—

1 = hardly ever.

2 = sometimes.

3 = often.

Examples of the items are—

− I worry about making mistakes.

− I have trouble deciding what to do.

− I worry about things that may happen.

•	 Fears. This outcome is based on responses to Questions 

B1 to B33 of the child survey. Respondents reported on the 

extent to which they had fears using these response options.

1 = not at all.

2 = some.

3 = a lot.

Questions B1 to B33 asked about the following fears: 

spiders, getting sick, being robbed, having no friends, dogs, 

what will happen in the future, having no place to live, 

something bad happening to people in my family, snakes, 

getting bad grades, people fighting, being teased, what 

other people think of me, being hit by a car or truck, drug 

dealers, being alone, flunking school, gangs, being lost, 

rats, that other children/tweens will not want to play/spend 

time with me, police, having no place to sleep, dying, 

nightmares, being hungry, having no food to eat, being sent 

to the principal, guns, fire, losing my favorite stuff, I worry 

about my parents, I worry about my brothers and sisters, 

I worry about myself. This outcome is measured using 

the Fears Scale (Ramirez, Masten, and Samsa, 1991). The 

response scores were summed, yielding total scores ranging 

from 33 to 99, with higher scores indicating greater fear. 

•	 Substance use. This outcome has values of 0 to 2 and is 

based on responses to Questions D6 to D23 on the child 

survey. The outcome is measured with 23 items from the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2011 Youth 

Risk Behavior Survey. This outcome measures whether 

the child had used tobacco, alcohol, or marijuana in the 

past 30 days or had ever used other substances (cocaine, 

inhalants, steroids—ages 8 to 17—or ecstasy, meth, heroin, 

controlled prescription drugs, or injected drugs—ages 13 

to 17 only). 
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 12

B

Appendix B. Construction of Outcomes

•	 Goal-oriented thinking. This outcome is measured using 

responses to Questions G1 to G6 on the child survey. These 

items are a modified version of the Children’s Hope Scale 

(Snyder et al., 1997) which measures positive, goal-oriented 

thinking. Scores range from 6 to 30 with higher scores 

indicating greater hope. Respondents indicated how 

frequently they felt six items using these response options—

1 = none of the time.

2 = a little of the time. 

3 = a lot of the time.

4 = most of the time. 

5 = all of the time.

The six items were—

1. You think you are doing pretty well.

2. You can think of many ways to get the things in life that 

are most important to you.

3. You are doing just as well as other kids your age.

4. When you have a problem, you can come up with lots of 

ways to solve it.

5. You think the things you have done in the past will help 

you in the future.

6. Even when others want to quit, you know you can find 

ways to solve the problem.

•	 School effort in past month. This outcome is constructed 

from responses to Questions E4 and E5. Respondents were 

asked two questions about their school effort in the month 

before the child survey. The outcome measure ranges from 

1 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater effort at school 

and on homework.

Response options were—

1 = could have done a lot better. 

2 = could have done a little better.

3 = did about as well as you could.

4 = did very well; could not have done better.

The questions are worded—

In the last month, how hard have you worked on your 

homework?

In the last month, how hard have you tried to work during 

the school day?

•	 Arrests or police involvement in past 6 months. This 

binary outcome is constructed from responses from the 

parent to Questions F24 and F25 on the parent survey. 

Parents were asked whether the child had been arrested in 

the 6 months before the adult survey and whether the focal 

child had had any problems that involved the police contacting the parent in the 6 months before the adult survey. 

B.5. Measures of Self-Sufficiency 

The impact analysis examines effects of the four interventions 

on several outcomes related to self-sufficiency of sample members. 

These outcomes pertain to employment status (adult respondent), 

income sources (family), participation in education and training 

(adult respondent), food security (family), and economic hardship (family). 

Employment status. Adult respondents reported on work activity 

in the week before the 37-month followup survey. If they had 

completed the 20-month survey, they were asked if they had 

worked since the month of their 20-month survey response. If 

they had not completed the 20-month survey, they were asked 

whether they had worked at any time since random assignment. 

Those who had worked since the 20-month survey/random 

assignment answered questions about the number of jobs held 

since the 20-month survey/random assignment and the number 

of months worked since the 20-month survey/random assignment. Sample members who reported having worked for pay in 

the week before the 37-month followup survey were asked to 

provide details about the number of hours worked per week and 

earnings at the main job. The study team used this information 

to construct six outcomes.

•	 Work for pay in the week before the survey. This binary 

variable is based on responses to Question C1. This outcome 

measures the percentage of survey respondents who reported 

working for pay in the week prior to the 37-month followup 

survey. 

•	 Any work for pay since 20-month survey. This binary 

variable is based on responses to Question C2. This outcome 

measures the percentage of survey respondents who reported 

working for pay at any time since the date of their 20-month 

survey. It is defined only for families who responded to both 

20-month and 37-month followup surveys.

•	 Months worked for pay since 20-month survey (includes

partial months). This binary variable is based on responses 

to Question C2. This outcome is a count of the months 

worked since random assignment, including partial months. 

It is defined only for families who responded to both 

20-month and 37-month followup surveys.

•	 Any work for pay since random assignment. This binary 

variable is based on responses to Question C2 in the 37-month 

survey and (for 20-month respondents) Question C2 in the 

20-month survey. This outcome measures the percentage of 

survey respondents who reported working for pay at any time 

since random assignment. 
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 13

B

Appendix B. Construction of Outcomes

•	 Months worked for pay since random assignment (includes

partial months). This continuous variable is based on responses 

to Question C4 in the 37-month survey and (for 20-month 

respondents) Question C4 in the 20-month survey. This 

outcome is a count of the months worked since random 

assignment, including partial months. Respondents who reported 

that they had not worked since random assignment were 

assumed to have worked 0 months since random assignment. 

•	 Hours of work per week at current main job. This continuous variable is based on responses to Question C5.6

 For 

adult respondents who had more than one job in the week 

prior to the 37-month survey, the main job is defined as the 

job at which she or he usually worked the most number of 

hours per week. For adult respondents who said they did 

not work in the week before the survey, the number of hours 

worked was assumed to be 0. 

Income sources and amounts. Question C12 on the 37-month 

followup survey asked whether the respondent or anyone in 

the respondent’s family received income from various sources 

or various types of government assistance in the past month. 

The study team constructed outcomes that measure the percentage of families who reported receiving income from each of 

the following sources in the month prior to the survey. 

•	 Earnings.

•	 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

•	 Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI).

•	 Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

•	 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). 

•	 Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 

Infants, and Children (WIC). 

The study team also constructed two other outcomes related to 

income. 

•	 Annualized earnings from the main job. This continuous 

variable is based on responses to Questions C6 through C11 

about wages paid at the main job. The outcome measures 

the annualized value of current earnings from the main job 

reported at the time of the 37-month survey. This value 

usually represents either the product of the reported hourly 

wage and usual hours per week multiplied by 52 weeks or 

the reported usual weekly earnings multiplied by 52 weeks. 

By construction, the measure ignores any seasonality in 

earnings. For adult respondents who said they did not work 

in the week before the survey, the annualized earnings are 

assumed to be 0. 

•	 Total family income. Adult respondents were asked in 

Questions C13 through C19 to estimate total annual income 

for the family from all sources for the most recently completed calendar year preceding the 37-month followup survey 

(2013 for all respondents). The study team used responses 

to these questions to construct a continuous outcome variable 

measuring total annual family income for the family. 

Education and training. The study team used the adult survey 

to construct five outcomes pertaining to participation in education and training activities during the followup period. Adult 

respondents indicated whether they had participated in any 

education or training activities since random assignment, and, 

if so, how many weeks they spent in such programs. For up to 

six programs reported, sample members reported on the type 

of program, using the following response options. 

1 = regular high school, directed to high school (HS) diploma.

2 = preparation for a general educational development (GED) 

exam.

3 = 2-year college directed toward a degree.

4 = 4-year college directed toward a degree.

5 = graduate courses.

6 = college courses not directed toward a degree.

7 = vocational education outside a college (business or 

technical schools, employer or union-provided training, or 

military training in vocational but not military skills). 

8 = nonvocational adult education not directed toward a degree 

(basic education, literacy training, English as a second 

language).

9 = job search assistance, job finding, orientation to the world 

of work. 

The study team used this information to construct the following education and training outcomes. 

•	 Participated in any school or training lasting 2 weeks

or more since random assignment. This binary variable is 

constructed from responses to Question C24. This outcome 

measures the percentage of families in whom the adult 

respondent reported having participated in any type of school 

or training lasting 2 or more weeks since random assignment. 

•	 Number of weeks in school or training programs since

random assignment. This continuous variable is based on 

responses to Question C27. 

6

 If the respondent reported having more than one job, the interviewers instructed the respondent to provide the number of hours worked at the main job. The main job was 

defined as the job at which the respondent usually worked the most number of hours per week. 
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 14

B

Appendix B. Construction of Outcomes

•	 Participated in 2 weeks or more of school since random

assignment. This binary variable is based on responses to 

Question C26. School or academic training is defined as 

regular high school directed toward a high school diploma, 

preparation for a GED exam, 2-year college, 4-year college, 

or graduate courses. 

•	 Participated in 2 weeks or more of basic education since

random assignment. This binary variable is constructed 

from responses to Question C26. Basic education is defined 

as nonvocational adult education such as basic education, 

literacy training, or English as a second language) not 

directed toward a degree. 

•	 Participated in 2 weeks or more of vocational education

or training since random assignment. This binary variable 

is constructed from responses to Question C26. Vocational 

education or training is defined as vocational education 

outside a college such as business or technical schools, 

employer- or union-provided training, or military training in 

vocational skills (not military skills). 

Food security. The study team collected information about food 

security on the adult survey in Questions C28 through C32. 

C28a. The first statement is “We couldn’t afford to eat balanced 

meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you 

in the last 30 days?

C28b. The second statement is: “The food that I bought just 

didn’t last, and I didn’t have money to get any more.” 

Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the 

last 30 days?

C29. In the past 30 days, did you or other adults in your 

household ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals 

because there wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

C30. In the last 30 days, did you ever eat less than you felt 

you should because there wasn’t enough money to buy 

food? (Yes/No)

C31. In the last 30 days, were you ever hungry but didn’t eat 

because you couldn’t afford enough food? (Yes/No)

C32. In the last 30 days, did you or other adults in your 

household ever not eat for a whole day because there 

wasn’t enough money for food? (Yes/No)

These six items are the same six items that were asked in the 

followup survey of the Effects of Housing Vouchers on Welfare 

Families study (Mills et al., 2006). Five of these six items are 

included in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) “short 

form” measure of food security.7 Item C32 is included in the 

18-item U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module, but not 

in the “short-form” measure. The excluded item from the “shortform” measure is an item that would be asked after C29: “In the 

last 30 days, how many days did this happen?” (__ days). 

Items C30 and C31 were asked only of family heads if the 

response to item C29 was “Yes.” If a family head responded 

“No” to item C29, responses of “No” were imputed for items 

C30 and C31 for the purposes of creating food security items 

(and so were not considered missing). 

Household is food insecure. The first outcome is a binary 

variable that equals 1 if a household was “food insecure” according to criteria used by the USDA. Survey respondents were 

asked a series of questions used by USDA and the U.S. Census 

Bureau to measure food security. Two or more affirmative 

answers to these questions meant that a household was considered “insecure” at the time of the followup survey. (Responses 

to C28a and C28b of either “often true” or “sometimes true” 

were considered affirmative answers.) 

Food insecurity scale. This outcome measures the food 

insecurity level of each family based on responses to the USDA 

food security questions included on the followup survey. The 

outcome was defined as the total number of affirmative answers 

to the six items. The food insecurity scale ranges from 0 to 6, 

with higher values indicating greater food insecurity. 

Economic stress. The study team also measured the economic 

hardship reported by each family at the time of the 37-month 

followup survey on a measure derived from Pearlin and 

Schooler (1978). Questions 33a through 33d asked the adult 

respondents to report on the frequency with which the family 

experienced four items related to economic hardship in the 

6 months before the survey. The response options were (1 = 

never; 2 = once in a while; 3 = fairly often; and 4 = very often). 

The question was worded as follows.

How often does it happen that you do not have enough money 

to afford— 

•	 The kind of medical care your family should have?

•	 The kind of clothing your family should have?

•	 The leisure activities your family wants?

•	 Your rent?

7

 See Nord, Andrews, and Carlsen (2005). Our assessment of food insecurity is based on two USDA “short form” metrics, which are scores assigned to households based on 

answers to six survey questions. 
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 15

B

Appendix B. Construction of Outcomes

Question C34 asked how the family’s finances usually work out 

at the end of the month, with these possibly response codes—

1 = some money left over. 

2 = just enough money to make ends meet. 

3 = not enough money to make ends meet. 

For both questions, higher values indicate higher economic stress. 

The economic stress outcome is calculated for cases in which 

four of the five items (Question 33a through 33d and Question 34) 

are nonmissing. For Questions 33a through 33d, the responses 

were recoded into a scale ranging from less economically 

stressed to more economically stressed where 1 = -1, 2 = -0.33, 

3 = 0.33, 4 = 1. For Question 24, responses were recoded as 

1 = -1, 2 = 0, 3 = 1. The nonmissing recoded responses were then 

averaged. The economic stress scale ranges from -1 to 1, with 

higher values indicating higher economic stress. The outcome, 

expressed as an economic stress scale, measures the extent of 

hardship using the responses about the frequency with which 

the family said they experienced an inability to afford medical 

care the family needed, clothing the family needed, leisure 

activities the family wanted, or rent. The economic stress scale 

also takes into account the adult respondent’s assessment of the 

family’s monthly finances; that is, whether they usually have 

some money left over at the end of the month, barely enough 

to make ends meet, or not enough to make ends meet. 

B.6. Measures of Earnings and 

Employment From NDNH Data 

The study team defined various earnings and employment 

outcomes using data from the National Directory of New Hires 

(NDNH). This section provides details of the steps required 

to clean and prepare the data for analysis and the definition of 

outcomes generated from the NDNH data. 

Data Cleaning and Processing

Prior to creating the final outcomes, the study team undertook 

a variety of cleaning and other data preparation steps. OSCE 

provided HUD with four extracts (pulled from the NDNH 

database June 2015, October 2015, January 2016, and March 

2016) of de-identified quarterly wage records. The extracts 

contain indicators for person, state, quarter, and firm, as well as 

the date when OCSE processed the record.8 We found several 

instances of multiple records for a given person, at the same 

firm, in a single state and quarter in the same extract. In these 

cases, we used only the record with the most recent processed 

date, under the assumption that more recent data would have 

the most recently updated information.9 After removing these 

duplicate records, the study team aggregated records in each 

extract to the person, state, and quarter level. We then merged 

the data in the extracts together to create a single file at the 

person, state, and quarter level. When quarters overlapped, we 

kept data in the most recent extract (again, under the assumption that more recent data would have more recently updated 

information). Finally, we summed across state to produce a file 

at the person-quarter level.

At this point, we implemented various data cleaning rules. We 

observed a handful of records with quarterly earnings greater 

than $25,000. Based on the study sample of homeless families, 

the study team decided that such observations likely do not 

represent actual wages, but instead are the result of data entry 

errors. As a result, quarterly earnings greater than $25,000 

were recoded to missing values and excluded from analysis. 

On the other side of the wage scale, the study team observed a 

number of very low quarterly earnings. The team reasoned that 

earnings below some minimum threshold likely do not reflect 

meaningful employment, but rather a one-time payment or 

other data anomaly. We selected a minimum threshold of $58 

(equal to the earnings a worker would receive by working a 

single 8-hour day at the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour), 

and recoded earnings below this threshold to $0. 

Any individuals without a record in the aggregate person-quarter 

file was deemed to have zero earnings for that quarter. We 

adjusted wages to constant 2015Q3 dollars according to the 

Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, or CPI-U, 

produced by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Finally, we 

considered an individual to be “employed” in a given quarter if 

they have positive earnings in that quarter (after all the adjustments to earnings described in this section).

Defining Outcomes

We defined outcomes using reference periods based on time 

since random assignment (rather than on calendar time). Because participants in the Family Options Study were randomly 

assigned between 2010Q3 and 2012Q1, different families have 

different intervals relative to random assignment of collected 

data. For the earliest enrolled families, data are available in 

quarters 11 to 20 after random assignment (using the convention that the calendar quarter in which random assignment 

took place is quarter “0”). For the latest enrolled families, data 

are available in quarters 5 to 14 after random assignment. 

8

 Firms were identified with a randomly generated numeric code. This code allowed the study team to understand when different records contained information from the 

same employer. 

9

 Some records were missing a firm code. Because we could not be certain whether these records had been updated by a more recent record (through match on person, 

firm, state, and quarter), these records were always kept.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 16

B

Appendix B. Construction of Outcomes

The study team decided to define outcomes for the sample for 

the entire period 11 to 14 quarters after random assignment 

(rather than defining outcomes for each quarter). This interval 

provides for complete data for the entire sample, and contains 

exactly four quarters of observations to smooth out seasonal 

effects. Three outcomes were defined.

1.	Earnings in quarters 11 to 14 after RA (2015Q3$). This 

outcome is the sum of quarterly earnings during the 11th 

to 14th quarters after the quarter of random assignment. 

Amounts are in 2015, Quarter 3 dollars. 

2.	Any employment in quarters 11 to 14 after RA. This 

outcome indicates whether the individual was employed 

(that is, had positive earnings) in any of the four quarters in 

the period.

3.	Number of quarters employed in quarters 11 to 14 after

RA. This outcome measures the number of quarters in the 

period in which the individual was employed (this outcome 

could have a value of 0 to 4).

Impacts were estimated for six comparisons: SUB versus UC, 

CBRR versus UC, PBTH versus UC, SUB versus CBRR, SUB 

versus PBTH, and CBRR versus PBTH. Due to limitations 

designed to protect the confidentiality of NDNH data, the study 

team used only indicators for the site randomization ratio as a 

covariate for estimating impacts.

B.7. Measures of Formal Child 

Separations From Child Welfare 

Agency Records 

The study collected child welfare agency records for families 

in five sites. The coverage periods for these data go through 

November or December of 2014. To determine the length 

of the followup period for each site, the study team used the 

minimum followup duration in each site, which was the date 

of the last random assignment until the end of the coverage 

period. A followup end date was then calculated for each family 

head by adding the length of the followup period to their date 

of random assignment. For example, the followup period for 

a family randomly assigned on January 1, 2011 in Baltimore 

would end on December 6, 2013—1070 days (or 35 months) 

after random assignment.10

The notion of an out-of-home spell is a key construct in the 

child welfare literature used to measure the length of time a 

child is separated from his or her parent. It begins with the 

day the child is removed from his or her parent and ends 

when the child returns to the parent’s custody, is placed with 

a permanent caregiver through legal guardianship or adoption, 

reaches the age of majority, or some other permanent living 

arrangement. Defined as a continuous period a child is under 

the care of the child welfare agency, one spell can include 

multiple out-of-home placements. Additionally, a child who 

subsequently reenters out-of-home care after exiting out-ofhome care will have multiple spells.

The definition of an out-of-home spell in the Family Options 

Study differs somewhat from the definition commonly found 

in the literature. Although entrance to the spell is the same, in 

the study definition, spells end only when a child is reunified 

with his or her family or when the child reaches his or her 18th 

birthday. The spell does not end when the child leaves outof-home care because of adoption or guardianship. Using this 

spell definition and consistent followup periods within site, we 

defined two outcomes for the family head based on the child 

welfare agency data.

1.	Had a formal child separation that began after random

assignment. This outcome indicates whether the head has 

any child separation in the administrative data that begins 

after random assignment during the site-specific followup 

period. It does not include separations that began prior to 

random assignment. 

2.	Total days during followup separated from at least one

child. This outcome measures the total number of days 

during the site-specific followup period when the family 

head was separated from at least one child, as measured in 

the administrative data. This measure includes all formal 

separations started either before or after random assignment.

B.8. Program Use Outcomes 

The study team used the Program Usage Data to create the outcomes reported in the report’s program use exhibits. The study 

team created each type of program use outcome for each of seven 

program types: (1) permanent housing subsidies offered to the 

SUB group, (2) rapid re-housing rental assistance, (3) transitional 

housing, (4) permanent supportive housing (PSH), (5) public 

housing, (6) project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects, and 

(7) emergency shelter.

•	 Ever used a particular program type. These series of 

binary variables were coded as 1 if any monthly binary 

indicator from the calendar month of random assignment 

to the calendar month of the 37-month followup survey 

response indicated use of the program type. 

10 The followup periods are Alameda County=1,075 days, Baltimore=1,071 days, Kansas City=1,069 days, Minneapolis=1,046 days, and Phoenix=1,123 days. 
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 17

B

Appendix B. Construction of Outcomes

•	 Used a particular program type in the survey month.

These series of binary variables were coded as 1 if the 

monthly binary indicator from the calendar month of the 

37-month followup survey response indicated use of the 

program type. 

•	 Number of months of use of a particular program type.

These continuous variables were defined using assumptions 

about how families use the various homeless and housing 

programs. Because the monthly indicator variables in the 

Program Usage Data are coded as 1 if a particular program 

was used at least 1 night of a particular calendar month, simply 

counting the number indicator variables equal to 1 would 

systematically inflate measures of program use. The study 

team assumed—

− Entry to all program types could happen at any time 

during the month.

− Exits from transitional housing and PSH could happen at 

any time during the month. 

− Exits from SUB, CBRR, public housing, and project-based 

vouchers/Section 8 projects always happened at the end 

of the month, because assistance is provided in monthly 

increments.

These assumptions were developed and confirmed with 

practitioners in the field. In addition, the study team assumed 

all stays in the followup survey month (for all program types) 

extended to the end of the month, because the end of the observation “window” was an artifact of data collection. A single 

“stay” of a program type was identified in the data by month 

indicators before and after a stay with no use of that particular 

program type. Using these assumptions as a basis for correcting 

counts meant— 

For stays longer than 1 month—

•	 Subtracting 1 month from counts of calendar months for 

emergency shelter, transitional housing, and PSH stays.

•	 Subtracting 1/2 month for stays in SUB, CBRR, public 

housing, and project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects.

For stays that lasted a single calendar month—

•	 Stays for transitional housing, and PSH were shortened to 

1/4 month (1/4 month is the expected length assuming that 

entry and exit are equally likely at any point in the month).

•	 Stays for SUB, CBRR, public housing, and project-based 

vouchers/Section 8 projects were shortened to 1/2 month 

(1/2 month is the expected length assuming that entry is 

equally likely at any point in the month and that exit occurs 

at the end of the month).

In the Program Usage Data prepared for the Short-Term Impacts

report, emergency shelter stays were processed using the 

same assumptions as transitional housing and PSH. In the 

new Program Usage Data prepared for this report, durations 

in emergency shelter are based on entry and exit dates in the 

source data for emergency shelter (92 percent of which was 

from HMIS records), rather than on adjusted counts of monthly 

dummy variables for emergency shelter use. Durations in days 

are converted into durations in months by multiplying day 

durations by (12/365). Therefore, the measures of numbers of 

months of emergency shelter use in this report are prepared 

in a different manner than the duration measures for all other 

program types. As emergency shelter is the program type most 

likely to have stays of less than a month, it is the program 

type where the method of adjusted counts of monthly dummy 

variables is most likely to be biased upward (when a family has 

short stays in shelter in consecutive months). Given the high 

monthly costs of emergency shelter, basing emergency shelter 

durations on actual entry and exit dates is particularly important to guard against upward bias in program cost estimates.

Appendix E shows impact estimates for additional program use 

outcomes. The outcomes that measure any use of a particular 

program type (or types) during months 0 to 32 or months 7 to 

32 are coded as 1 if any monthly binary indicator during the 

relevant time period indicated use of the program type (or types). 

The outcomes that measure number of months of emergency 

shelter or transitional housing during months 0 to 32, number 

of months of emergency shelter during months 0 to 32, and 

number of months of transitional housing during months 0 to 

32 are created in a nearly identical manner to the number of 

months outcomes described previously. The only difference is 

how transitional housing stays that include the 32nd month 

after random assignment are counted. If the 33rd month 

indicator showed use of the transitional housing, then it was assumed that the transitional housing stay continued through the 

end of the 32nd month. If the 33rd month indicator showed no 

use of transitional housing, then it was assumed that the stay 

ended at some point during the month. For transitional housing stays of more than 1 month that included the 32nd month, 

either a full month in the 32nd month was counted (if the stay 

continued to the 33rd month) or 1/2 month in the 32nd month 

was counted (if the stay did not continue to the 33rd month). 

For single-calendar-month transitional housing stays in the 

32nd month, either 1/2 month in the 32nd month was counted 

(if the stay continued to the 33rd month) or 1/4 month in the 

32nd month was counted (if the stay did not continue to the 

33rd month). The durations in emergency shelter stays are 

measured with entry and exit dates in the source data.

Appendix I shows impacts on the length of the baseline stay 

in emergency shelter (for families with a baseline stay in the 
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 18

B

Appendix B. Construction of Outcomes

Program Usage Data). These lengths of stay begin at random 

assignment and are based on exit dates in the source data, rather than on adjusted counts of monthly dummy variables. This 

outcome construction differs from that used in the Short-Term 

Impacts report, when the length of baseline stay in emergency 

shelter was based on adjusted counts of monthly dummy 

variables.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 1

C

APPENDIX C.

ANALYSIS METHODS

T his appendix provides details about the impact 

estimation used in the report, including covariates 

used in the impact models, imputation of missing 

data, family/adult weights, child weights, and the multiple 

comparisons adjustment for confirmatory hypothesis tests.

C.1. Methodology 

This report presents separate impact estimates for each of the 

6 pairwise comparisons of a single assignment group to another 

assignment group, plus 4 additional comparisons of pooled 

assignment groups to a single assignment group (see Exhibit 1-1 

and Chapters 3 through 6). The four assignment groups are 

(1) SUB, in which families have priority access to a permanent 

housing subsidy; (2) CBRR, in which families have priority 

access to community-based rapid re-housing; (3) PBTH, in 

which families have priority access to project-based transitional 

housing; or (4) UC, in which families do not have priority 

access to any particular program. All 10 comparisons have been 

analyzed separately using the same basic estimation model.

Pooled Comparisons

•	 What is impact of having priority access to any kind of 

housing subsidy for homeless families (SUB + CBRR + 

PBTH) compared with the impact of usual care (UC)?

•	 What is the impact of having priority access to a housing 

subsidy with heavy services on homeless families (PBTH) 

compared with the impact of having priority access to a 

housing subsidy with light or no services (SUB + CBRR)?

•	 What is the impact of having priority access to interventions 

that are more costly (PBTH + SUB) compared with the 

impact assignment to a group that offers a less-costly 

intervention (CBRR)? 

•	 What is the impact of having priority access to a housing 

subsidy with no time limit (SUB) compared with the 

impact of having priority access to interventions that offer a 

time-limited housing subsidy (PBTH + CBRR)?

The explanation of the estimation model begins with some 

terminology that describes how random assignment was 

implemented in this study. Enrollment and random assignment 

was a multistep process. The PBTH, CBRR, and (in some 

sites) SUB interventions had multiple service providers in 

each site. Before random assignment, the number of slots 

currently available at all providers for each of the interventions 

was assessed. An intervention was deemed available if at least 

one slot at one provider of that intervention in the site was 

currently available. After an intervention was determined to be 

available, the interviewer asked the family a series of questions 

to assess provider-specific eligibility for the available interventions and programs. A family was considered eligible for a 

particular intervention if the household head’s responses to the 

eligibility questions showed that the family met the eligibility 

requirements for at least one provider of that intervention that 

currently had an available slot. For example, some programs 

required that families have a source of income that would allow 

for them to pay rent on their own within a designated period 

of time. The study team thus asked families if they wanted to 

be considered for programs with such an income requirement. 

Other programs required families to pay a monthly program 

fee, and the screening question asked if families wanted to be 

considered for programs with this type of requirement. 

Other programs required participants to demonstrate sobriety, 

pass criminal background checks, or agree to participate in case 

management or other services. The study team asked screening 

questions for these questions that ascertained families’ willingness to be considered for programs with these requirements. 

To undergo random assignment, a family needed to be eligible 

for at least one available intervention in addition to UC.1 Based 

on this approach to random assignment, each family has a 

randomization set.

1

 Altogether, 183 of the screened families were not eligible for any available interventions besides UC. These families were not enrolled in the study.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 2

C

Appendix C. Analysis Methods

The set of interventions to which it was possible for a family to 

be assigned was determined by considering both the availability 

of the intervention and the assessed eligibility of the family. In 

the study, each family has one of seven possible randomization 

sets. These sets are {PBTH, SUB, CBRR, UC}, {PBTH, SUB, UC}, 

{PBTH, CBRR, UC}, {SUB, CBRR, UC}, {PBTH, UC}, {SUB, 

UC}, and {CBRR, UC}.

The randomization set of each family determines the pairwise 

comparisons in which the family is included. A family is included 

in the pairwise comparisons of its assigned intervention with 

the other interventions in its randomization set. For example, 

families assigned to the PBTH intervention with randomization 

set {PBTH, SUB, UC} are included in these two pairwise comparisons: PBTH versus UC; and SUB versus PBTH. 

Impact Estimation Model for Family and 

Adult Outcomes

For each pairwise comparison, the study team estimated impacts 

for the sample of families who (1) had both interventions in 

their randomization set and (2) were randomly assigned to one 

of the two interventions. The team used multivariate regression 

to increase the precision of our impact estimates and to adjust 

for any chance imbalances between assignment groups on 

background characteristics (Orr, 1999). 

Consider two interventions q and r (for example, PBTH versus 

SUB), where the second option (r) is treated as the base case. 

Then, the impact on an outcome Y (for example, at least 1 night 

homeless or doubled up during past 6 months, working for 

pay in week before survey, or adult psychological distress) of 

intervention q relative to intervention r is estimated through 

Equation 1 for those families who had both options q and r as 

possible assignments, and were assigned to one of them. The 

estimation equation was— 

(1) ,

where

Ui= outcome Y for family i,

T

q, i = indicator variable that equals 1 if family i was assigned to 

intervention q, 

d

q, r = average impact of being assigned to intervention q

relative to being assigned to intervention r,

Ci = a vector of background characteristics2 of family i,

I

k, i = indicator variable for “site-RA regime”3 k for family i,

ei = residual for family i (assumed mean-zero and i.i.d. [independently and identically distributed]), 

a

q, r = a constant term, and

bq, r = other regression coefficients.

The estimate of the impact parameter d

q, r

 is the intentionto-treat, or ITT, estimate. For the pairwise comparisons, it is 

an estimate of the average effect of being offered intervention q

rather than intervention r. The average effect is taken over all 

families in the q,r comparison, regardless of whether families 

actually participated in the intervention to which they were 

assigned.

This model assumes that the true impact of intervention q

relative to intervention r is homogeneous across sites. The 

impact parameter is thus implicitly a weighted average of the 

point estimates of site-level impacts, with each site-level impact 

weighted by the number of families in the site.

A slight modification of this model is used to estimate impacts 

in the pooled comparisons. In that modification, additional 

site-RA regime covariates are included, and q represents being 

offered one of two or three interventions rather than a single 

intervention. 

Standard Errors

The model described previously was estimated using weighted 

least squares, or WLS, and heteroskedasticity-consistent 

standard errors, also known as robust standard errors (that 

is, Huber-Eicker-White robust standard errors; see Greene, 

2003; Huber, 1967; and White 1980, 1984). Heteroskedastic 

residuals would arise if some types of families have higher 

variability in their outcomes (even conditional on covariates) 

than other families or if the different interventions themselves 

influence this variability. Furthermore, this study uses the 

linear probability model for binary outcomes, rather than a 

logit or probit model, because of the ease of interpretation of 

least squares parameter estimates. The linear probability model, 

however, induces heteroskedasticity (Angrist and Pischke, 

2008). To address this potential heteroskedasticity, robust 

standard errors were estimated and used in tests of statistical 

significance. These standard errors are appropriate for making 

2

 These background characteristics are listed in Appendix C.

3

 Of the 12 sites, 10 had a single random assignment regime during the 15-month study enrollment period. The remaining 2 sites changed random assignment probabilities a single time each, creating 14 site-RA regime groups. The equation includes 13 indicator variables and omits 1. These indicator variables are included so that the 

impact estimate is based on within-site comparisons.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 3

C

Appendix C. Analysis Methods

inferences about intervention effects for the sites in this study. 

The standard errors do not take into account variability in 

site-level effects, however, and so are not appropriate for 

generalizing results to other sites. 

Adult Survey Nonresponse Weights

The adult survey achieved a 78-percent response rate at the 

37-month followup. Nonresponse raises two concerns. First, 

nonresponse to a followup survey used to measure outcomes 

presents a challenge to the internal validity of the study if the 

intervention groups (that is, PBTH, SUB, CBRR, and UC) have 

different patterns of nonresponse. 

Second, followup survey nonresponse can threaten the 

generalizability of results to the entire enrolled sample if survey 

nonrespondents differ from respondents, even if they do so 

symmetrically across randomization arms. To address both of 

these issues, the analysis team prepared a set of weights based 

on family characteristics measured in the baseline survey that 

attempt to adjust for adult survey nonresponse for each pairwise comparison.4

 The weights were used in estimating impacts 

on all family and adult outcomes. 

Impact Estimation Model for Child 

Well-Being Outcomes

The estimation model for impacts on child well-being outcomes 

differs from the model described previously in two respects. 

First, the standard errors are modified to accommodate the fact 

that some child well-being impact regressions include two children from the same family. To allow for correlation between 

impacts on children in the same family, the model estimates 

the robust standard errors clustered within family. Second, to 

address the process by which individual child observations 

came to be included in impact regressions, the weighting 

strategy includes more steps. The child weights are the product 

of three components.

1. The adult survey nonresponse weight. 

2. The inverse probability of being selected as a focal child. 

3. A child nonresponse (to child assessment or child survey) 

weight (conditional on the parent being an adult survey 

respondent).

The aim of the analysis is to represent equally all children in 

all study families. Therefore, the focal children from families 

with more children receive more weight in the analysis of child 

well-being than the focal children from families with fewer 

children. 

Impact Estimation Model for Moderator 

Analysis

The moderator analysis presented in Chapter 8 presents evidence on whether the study interventions are more effective for 

families with different levels of psychosocial needs or housing 

barriers. The estimation model for the moderator analysis is—

(2) ,

where all terms appearing in Equation 1 have the same definition, 

Mi= potential moderator index variable (either psychosocial 

challenges or housing barriers) for family i, 

p

q, r = change in impact of being assigned to intervention q

relative to being assigned to intervention r associated with a 

one-unit change in M index, and

g q, r = other regression coefficient.

The potential moderator index variable, M, is entered in the 

model both alone and interacted with treatment, T. 

The test of statistical significance of the p

q, r coefficient serves 

as the test for whether impacts differ significantly according to 

the M index. Standard errors and weights for family, adult, and 

child outcomes are the same as in the main impact estimation.

C.2. Covariates 

Covariates in the impact models improved the precision of 

the estimates. Because individuals were randomly assigned to 

control and treatment groups, the addition of these covariates 

does not affect the expected value of the estimate. All covariates 

had to be characteristics that were known (or determined) 

before randomization. In selecting covariates, the study team 

considered (1) the importance of the variable in predicting the 

outcomes of interest, (2) the extent of variation on the variable 

for the sample, and (3) the completeness of the data. 

A full set of covariates measured in the baseline survey was 

included in the impact models for housing stability, adult 

well-being, and self-sufficiency outcomes. Because of smaller 

sample sizes, more-limited sets of covariates were included in 

the impact models for family preservation and child outcomes. 

The superscript “a” indicates those covariates included in the 

impact model for family preservation outcomes. The superscript 

“b” indicates those covariates included in the impact model for 

child outcomes.

4

 The construction of weights to address survey nonresponse is discussed in Little (1986).
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 4

C

Appendix C. Analysis Methods

Continuous Variables

•	 Age of family head at baseline (linear), age squared (quadratic).

•	 Number of children with family in shelter.

•	 Annualized current earnings. 

•	 Family income (linear categories: ≥ $0 to < $5,000; $5,000 

to < $10,000; $10,000 to < $15,000; $15,000 to < $20,000; 

$20,000 to < $25,000; ≥ $25,000; and income categories 

squared). 

•	 Total years stayed with family or friends because of economic necessity in past 5 years as an adult.

•	 Total years previously homeless in your life before entering 

the current shelter.

Binary Variables

•	 Race/ethnicity (categories: White; Black or African-American; 

Asian, Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific Islander; Hispanic 

or Latino; other). 

•	 Gender.

•	 Marital status (categories: divorced; married; single/never 

married; widowed). 

•	 Children of a certain age group (categories: family has a 

child younger than age 1; family has a child between age 

1 and 5 years; family has a child between age 13 and 17 

years). 

•	 Children not with family in shelter at baseline (categories: 

any child; two or more children). 

•	 Number of children with family in shelter (categories: one 

child; two children; three children; four or more children). 

•	 Have a spouse or partner that is with the family in shelter at 

baseline.

•	 Have a spouse or partner that is not with the family in 

shelter at baseline.

•	 Pregnant at baseline.

•	 Any health problems (has self-reported poor health; has 

diabetes; has anemia; has high blood pressure; has heart 

disease; had a stroke; has hepatitis/liver problems; has 

arthritis, rheumatism, joint problems; has chest infection, 

cold, cough, bronchitis; has pneumonia; has tuberculosis; 

has cancer; has problems walking, a lost limb, or other 

mobility impairment; has gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, chlamydia, other sexually transmitted diseases; is HIV (Human 

Immunodeficiency Virus) positive; has AIDS (Acquired 

Immune Deficiency Syndrome); uses drugs intravenously; 

has other medical condition).

•	 Severe psychological distress at baseline.

•	 Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms at baseline.

•	 A child family member has a disability or an adult family 

member has a disability that limits or prevents work for pay. 

•	 Family head has a disability that limits or prevents working 

for pay. 

•	 Substance abuse problems (drug or alcohol).

•	 Highest level of education (categories: less than a high 

school diploma; high school diploma; more than a high 

school diploma or general educational development).

•	 Working for pay at baseline.

•	 Ever worked for pay.

•	 Unemployment (categories: no work in the past 6 months; 

no work in the past 24 months).

•	 Receipt of various types of public assistance at baseline 

(categories: any health insurance—Medicaid, state health 

insurance, State Children’s Health Insurance Program; 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP; Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability 

Income (SSDI); Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 

or TANF; unemployment insurance; Special Supplemental 

Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children). 

•	 Family income is under $5,000.

•	 Owned or rented own house or apartment before entering 

shelter.

•	 Number of months since family had a regular place to stay 

and months squared. 

•	 Previously stayed with family or friends because of economic 

necessity.

•	 Previously experienced homelessness. 

•	 Past evictions, lease violations, or problems with a landlord.

•	 Ever convicted of a felony. 

•	 Ever been in foster care as a child (foster home, group home, 

or any other kind of institution).

•	 Ever homeless as a child.

•	 Ever experienced intimate partner violence in adulthood. 
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 5

C

Appendix C. Analysis Methods

•	 Ineligible families (categories: 1 to 7, indicating the family 

was not eligible for an available treatment group).

•	 Site location × random assignment regime interaction terms 

(categories: Alameda County; Atlanta; Baltimore; Boston; 

Connecticut; Denver; Honolulu; Kansas City; Louisville-1; 

Louisville-2; Minneapolis; Phoenix; Salt Lake City-1; Salt 

Lake City-2).

Binary Variables for Child Outcomes Only

•	 Focal child age.

•	 Focal child gender.

Additional Covariates for Pooled 

Comparisons and Selected Outcomes

In addition to including these sets of covariates, the impact 

models for the pooled comparisons (SUB + CBRR + PBTH versus UC, SUB + CBRR versus PBTH, SUB + PBTH versus CBRR, 

and CBRR + PBTH versus SUB) included interaction terms 

between site/random assignment regime and randomization 

set (to correctly control for differing random assignment ratios 

across sites and assignment groups).

Finally, a few outcomes included one or two additional 

covariates to control for closely related baseline variables (when 

these baseline variables were not already included in the main 

covariate set). 

•	 Outcome: anyone in family had earnings in past month; 

extra covariate: anyone in family had earnings at baseline.

•	 Outcomes: anyone in family received SSI in past month, 

anyone in family received SSDI in past month; extra 

covariate: anyone in family received SSI at baseline.

•	 Outcome: adult health in past 30 days was poor or fair; 

extra covariates: adult health in past 30 days was poor, adult 

health in past 30 days was fair.

•	 Outcomes: alcohol dependence or drug abuse, alcohol 

dependence, drug abuse; extra covariates: drug abuse at 

baseline, behavioral health problem at baseline.

•	 Outcomes: goal-oriented thinking, psychological distress, 

PTSD symptoms in past 30 days; extra covariate: behavioral 

health problem at baseline.

C.3. Missing Data and Imputations

Although respondents were asked to complete all questions 

from the baseline survey, some data in the Family Options 

Study remained missing. Overall, most covariates used in 

the imputation models had no missing data. Only eight of 

the covariates had more than 1 percent missing data and 

no covariates had more than 5 percent missing. To account 

for missing data on covariates, the study team used a single 

stochastic imputation using SAS’s PROC MI to impute missing 

covariate values.5 This method assigns values to missing 

variables using a regression model that predicts the value of the 

missing variable based on other characteristics of the sample 

member and the responses of other study participants who are 

similar. The characteristics used in the imputation include all 

covariates used in the impact model. 

C.4. Family/Adult Weights

The study achieved a 78.2-percent response rate for the 

37-month followup survey. Nonresponse raises two concerns. 

First, nonresponse to a followup survey used to measure outcomes presents a challenge to the internal validity of the study 

if the intervention groups (that is, SUB, CBRR, PBTH, and 

UC) have different patterns of nonresponse. Second, followup 

survey nonresponse can threaten the generalizability of results 

to the entire enrolled sample if survey nonrespondents differ 

from respondents, even if they do so symmetrically across randomization arms. Appendix D provides analysis of nonresponse 

to the 37-month followup survey. 

To address both of these issues, the study team prepared 10 

sets of weights that adjusted for adult survey nonresponse to 

the 37-month survey—1 set for each pairwise and pooled comparison.6

 The weights were used in the impact regressions for 

the outcomes in this report that are defined at the family level 

and at the adult respondent level. These weights were constructed by, (1) for each intervention group within a pairwise 

comparison (or each side of a pooled comparison), separately 

regressing a dummy variable for survey response on the same 

baseline characteristics included in the impact model and using 

the results to generate a propensity to respond for each family;7

(2) for each intervention group within a pairwise comparison 

(or each side of a pooled comparison), dividing each group into 

5

 Single stochastic imputation adds a random error term to every imputed value so that the data do not have artificially low variability. This varying component is randomly 

drawn from a distribution with the same variance as the observed values.

6

 The construction of weights to address survey nonresponse is discussed in Little (1986).

7

 The purpose of the nonresponse regressions was purely predictive, rather than inferential, which implied that the number of covariates in the model was not of concern 

(as it was in the impact regressions). Thus, rather than using single stochastic imputation to address missing covariate values for the nonresponse regressions, all missing 

values were imputed as the value “0”. Then, in addition to the impact model baseline covariates, the regression models also included dummy variables that indicated when 

values for covariates were missing. 
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 6

C

Appendix C. Analysis Methods

quintiles based on its modeled propensity; (3) within each intervention group-quintile, the total number of sample families 

in the quintile divided by the number of respondent families 

in the quintile calculated the weights for respondents. This last 

step raises the representation of respondent families to the level 

of the full sample in the weighted data, thereby restoring the 

composition of the analysis data to that of the full sample on 

the factors used to estimate propensities to respond.

C.5. Child Weights

The study team prepared 50 sets of weights to be used for 

estimating impacts on child outcomes in the 37-month data—

5 sets for each of the 10 pairwise and pooled comparisons. 

The 5 sets of weights correspond to the 5 types of data used to 

construct child outcomes.

1. Parent-report survey data (from the 37-month adult survey).

2. Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3) data.

3. Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III) assessment data.

4. Head Toes Knees Shoulders (HTKS) assessment data.

5. Child survey data.

The weights for the parent-reported outcomes were calculated 

as—

CWPRij = FamilyNonResponseWeighti × ChildSelectionWeightij , 

where—

CWPRij = the child weight for parent-reported outcomes for 

child j in family i.

FamilyNonResponseWeighti = the family/adult nonresponse 

weight for family i (described in Section C.3).

ChildSelectionWeightij = the inverse probability of being selected 

as a focal child for child j in family i. (The focal child selection 

process is described in Appendix A, Section A.6.) 8

The weights for other types of outcomes were calculated as—

CW[data source]ij = CWPRij × ChildNonResponseWeight[data 

source]ij ,

where— 

CW[data source]ij = the child weight for [data source] (either 

ASQ-3, WJ III, HTKS, or child survey) for child j in family i.

ChildNonResponseWeight[data source]ij = the child nonresponse 

weight for [data source] for child j in family i.

The child nonresponse weights were calculated in a three-step 

process: (1) for each intervention group within a pairwise 

comparison (or each side of a pooled comparison), separately 

regressing a dummy variable for unit response to the questionnaire, assessment, or survey on a limited set of predictors9

 and 

using the results to generate a propensity to respond for each 

child to the particular instrument; (2) for each intervention 

group within a pairwise comparison (or each side of a pooled 

comparison), dividing the group into quintiles based on its modeled propensity; (3) within each intervention group-quintile, 

calculating the nonresponse weight for the respondents the 

weighted total number of focal children in the quintile divided 

by the weighted number of respondent children in the quintile, 

where the weights were the child selection weights (inverse 

probability of focal child selection). The construction of the 

child weights from family nonresponse weights, focal child 

selection weights, and child nonresponse weights implies that, 

for all child outcomes, the respondent samples are weighted 

to represent all the appropriately aged children in all study 

families.10

8

 Section A.6 notes that after two focal children were selected for a family, the focal child screening ceased. Therefore, collection of information for screening criteria other 

than date of birth was not performed for every child in the study families. For “nonscreened” children, the study team used other information collected in the survey about 

whether each child was currently living with the family to determine ex-post eligibility for selection (to calculate selection probabilities for selected children). It was assumed 

that children currently living with the family would be eligible for focal child selection (if age was in targeted range), and it was assumed that children not currently living 

with the family would be ineligible (regardless of age). The assumption of ineligibility for unscreened children not currently living with the family was based on the fact that 

most screened children who were not currently living with the family did not meet the extra criteria necessary for eligibility: for 89 percent of these children, the parent either 

did not regularly spend time with the child or was not at least somewhat familiar with the child’s activities.

9

 The relatively small sample sizes for each collection instrument necessitated a smaller set of predictor variables than that used to create family/adult nonresponse weights. 

The predictors included: child’s age, child’s gender, parent respondent’s age, parent respondent’s gender, parent’s race/ethnicity (categories: White; Black or African-American; 

Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; Hispanic or Latino; other), children not with family in shelter at baseline (categories: any child; two or more children), 

children of a certain age group (categories: family has a child younger than 1 year, a child ages 1 to 5 years, a child ages 13 to 17 years), parent’s substance abuse problems 

(drug or alcohol), parent ever convicted of a felony, family income category, family income under $5,000, number of children with the family at baseline, whether the adult 

respondent has a spouse or partner at baseline (either in shelter or not in shelter), parent had previously experienced homelessness, parent working for pay at baseline, and 

site location × random assignment regime interaction terms.

10 An implicit assumption in this weighting method is that, within an adult survey response propensity quintile, the distribution of numbers and ages of children in the 

families who did not respond at all to the 37-month adult survey is the same as that of the families who did respond to the 37-month adult survey. 
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 7

C

Appendix C. Analysis Methods

C.6. Partial Paired t-Test for 

Differences in Means Between 

Followup Waves

Chapter 2 presents statistical tests for a few outcomes for 

differences between the 20-month mean UC group value and 

the 37-month mean UC group value. Because the respondent 

samples at the two followup waves are not identical, the appropriate statistical test is the partial paired t-test, where “partial” 

refers to the partially overlapping samples for the two means.11

The variance of the difference between the two sample means 

is—

Let 1 x denote the estimated mean from the first sample of size 

1 n . Let 2 x denote the proportion from the second sample of 

size n2 . We are interested in testing the difference between the 

two sample means. We can write the estimated variance of the 

difference between the two sample mean as 

.

Under simple random sampling, the variance of the difference 

can be written as 

 .

( )1 v x is the estimated variance of the first mean based on a 

sample of 1 n units, ( ) 2 v x is the estimated variance of the 

second proportion based on n2 units, and m is the number of 

families who are in the analysis samples at both followup waves 

(that is, the “overlap”). The correlation (rx1x2) is estimated 

based on the overlap.

The square root of the variance gives the standard error of the 

difference in the two means, which can be used in a statistical 

test recognizing that we have overlapping samples and they are 

not independent.

.

Test Statistic is—

.

The p-value of the observed value of t is calculated from the 

t-distribution with n–2 degrees of freedom.

C.7. Multiple Comparisons 

Adjustment for Confirmatory 

Hypothesis Tests

Statement of the Problem

Simply stated, the multiple comparisons problem is that, as the 

number of hypothesis tests conducted grows, the likelihood 

of finding a statistically significant impact somewhere among 

the tested outcomes simply by chance increases far above the 

desired risk level for producing false positive results. This 

multiple comparisons problem is particularly salient for the 

Family Options Study because the number of hypothesis tests 

performed is extremely large (a total of 840 tests). 

Because the study design is based on four intervention groups, 

the study examines impacts in six pairwise comparisons and 

four pooled comparisons. For each of these comparisons, 

the study looks at five outcome domains (housing stability, 

self-sufficiency, adult well-being, child well-being, and family 

preservation), with each domain containing several outcome 

variables. 

The multiple arms, multiple domains, and multiple outcomes 

cumulatively generate an extremely large number of hypothesis 

tests in the main impact analysis (10 comparisons × 84 outcomes in the 5 outcome domains = 840 tests). 

Given this large number of tests, the probability of finding 

an impact, even in the case of no true impacts, is quite large, 

well above the nominal 10-percent level. In particular, the 

probability of finding at least one significant impact at the .10 

level in k independent tests when all true impacts are 0 is given 

by Equation 3.

(3) Prob(min p ≤ .10 | all true impacts = 0) = 1– 0.90k.

Thus, if 10 independent tests are performed, then the probability 

of finding at least one significant impact at the .10 level—often 

taken as the litmus test for a “successful” intervention—when 

all true impacts are equal to 0 is 1–0.9010=0.65; that is, about 

two-thirds of the time one would conclude an unsuccessful 

intervention is successful. When 20 independent tests are performed, the probability is 0.88; that is, nearly 9 times out of 10. 

In fact, with hundreds of tests, it is nearly certain to spuriously 

detect a “successful” intervention, even if the intervention was 

not truly “successful” for any outcome.12

This probability of finding at least one significant impact (or 

more generally, rejecting at least one null hypothesis) when all 

11 This test is described in Kish (1965). 

12 Although the study team does not expect the hundreds of hypothesis tests performed in this report to be independent, the likelihood of at least one spurious finding of 

statistical significance will still be extremely high.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 8

C

Appendix C. Analysis Methods

true impacts equal 0 (or more generally, when all null hypotheses are true) in a “family” of k tests is called the familywise 

error rate (FWER). In general, the FWER decreases as the k test 

statistics used become more correlated (that is, the outcome 

measures tested become more closely related), leading to 

somewhat less risk of false positive conclusions than indicated 

in the previous numerical estimates. Many multiple comparison 

adjustment procedures have been devised to keep the FWER 

at or below the desired level (such as 0.05 or 0.10), some of 

which take account of correlation among outcomes.

Study Response to the Problem 

The study team took two steps to address the multiple comparisons problem.

Adjust the standard of evidence used to declare a subset of

individual impact estimates statistically significant. The study 

team divided the hypothesis tests into a small set of 7 “confirmatory” tests and a much larger set of 833 “exploratory” tests. The 

team then used a multiple comparisons procedure to adjust the 

results of the 7 confirmatory tests to maintain the integrity of the 

statistical inferences made at the confirmatory level.

1.	Prespecify impacts to present in the executive summary.

The study team prespecified the impacts on 18 key outcomes in the 6 pairwise comparisons (for 108 total impact 

estimates) to present in the executive summary before seeing 

the results. This step was taken to prevent the selective 

presentation of statistically significant results in the executive 

summary.

The first step hinges on the definition and implications of 

confirmatory hypothesis tests. Following Schochet (2009), the team 

defined confirmatory hypothesis tests as those tests that “assess how 

strongly the study’s prespecified central hypotheses are supported by the data,” (Schochet, 2009: 549). Statistically significant 

findings from confirmatory hypothesis tests are considered 

definitive evidence of a nonzero intervention impact, effectively 

ending debate on whether the intervention achieved an impact 

in the study sites. All other hypothesis test results are deemed 

exploratory. For these tests, statistically significant impacts constitute suggestive evidence of possible intervention effects. 

Before beginning analysis, HUD determined that the housing 

stability domain is the most important outcome domain for the 

study. Therefore, the study team designated seven hypothesis 

tests related to housing stability as confirmatory. These 

hypothesis tests were conducted for—

•	 The six pairwise policy comparisons and one pooled 

comparison (PBTH + SUB + CBRR versus UC).

•	 A single composite outcome indicating a stay in emergency 

shelter or a place not meant for human habitation or an 

experience of doubling up. This outcome was constructed 

from two binary outcomes within the housing stability 

domain.

1. At least 1 night spent in emergency shelter or a place not 

meant for human habitation or doubled up during the 

past 6 months at the time of the followup survey (from 

the adult survey).

2. Any stay in emergency shelter in the past 12 months at 

the time of the followup survey (from Program Usage 

Data, largely based on Homeless Management Information System, or HMIS, records).

The six pairwise comparisons were included to assess the 

relative effectiveness of the interventions in contributing to 

housing stability (thereby addressing the study’s first research 

question stated in Section 1.4). The study team also included 

the pooled comparison of PBTH + SUB + CBRR versus UC 

because it provided evidence on whether a housing subsidy of 

any type improved housing stability. Using two sources of data 

to construct this outcome enabled the study team to measure 

housing stability as robustly as possible and made use of all 

available data on return to homelessness. 

Implementing the Multiple Comparisons 

Procedure 

The p-values on the seven impact coefficients were adjusted to 

account for the presence of seven confirmatory tests. The team 

chose the Westfall-Young resampling method as the procedure 

to control the FWER at a .10 level for the seven tests.13 This 

procedure was chosen for the additional statistical power (relative to Bonferroni-type methods) it was expected to provide in 

tests of a binary outcome variable. 

The Westfall-Young resampling method involves reassigning 

each study family to the interventions in its randomization 

set (using the original assignment probabilities in effect for 

the family at random assignment) many times to form many 

sample replicates. For each replicate, the seven impacts on the 

confirmatory outcome were recalculated, as follows.

In notation, let—

A, B, C, D, E, F, G = seven impact estimates on the confirmatory outcome.

13 Westfall-Young methods are described in Westfall, Tobias, and Wolfinger (2011).
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 9

C

Appendix C. Analysis Methods

p-values from t-tests 

of impact estimates. These values are the “raw,” unadjusted 

p-values for each impact estimate.

The impact estimates were then placed in the order of their raw 

p-values.

IMPACT1, IMPACT2, IMPACT3, IMPACT4, IMPACT5, IMPACT6, 

IMPACT7 = the impact estimates in order of their raw p-values. 

IMPACT1 is the impact estimate with the smallest raw p-value 

and IMPACT7 is the impact estimate with the largest raw p-value.

 = 

raw p-values in order from smallest to largest.

Then, some large number R (the study used 20,000) permutation replicates were formed. Within each replicate sample, 

study families were reassigned to the interventions in their 

randomization sets using the original probabilities. For each 

replicate, the seven impacts were estimated, producing seven 

p-values.

Next, the adjusted p-values were calculated as follows—

where is the p-value for an impact estimate in a 

particular replicate.

Exhibit C-1 shows the unadjusted and adjusted p-values for the 

study’s seven confirmatory hypothesis tests.

Exhibit C-1. Confirmatory Hypothesis Tests in 37-Month Analysis

Pairwise or Pooled 

Comparison

ITT Impact on “at Least 1 Night Homelessa or Doubled 

Up (past 6 months) or in Shelter (past 12 months)” (%) p-Value 

(unadjusted)

p-Value

(adjusted for multiple 

comparisons) Impact (SE)

SUB vs. UC – 21.1 (3.0) < 0.0001 < 0.0001

CBRR vs. UC 1.9 (3.6) 0.6057 0.9416

PBTH vs. UC 0.3 (4.7) 0.9480 0.9480

SUB vs. CBRR – 20.4 (3.6) < 0.0001 < 0.0001

SUB vs. PBTH – 24.4 (4.6) < 0.0001 < 0.0001

CBRR vs. PBTH – 3.1 (6.2) 0.6127 0.9416

SUB + CBRR + PBTH vs. UC – 8.6 (2.6) 0.0008 0.0041

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care. 

ITT = intention-to-treat. SE = standard error.

a

 The definition of “homeless” in this report includes stays in emergency shelters and places not meant for human habitation. It excludes transitional housing.

Notes: Impact estimates are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Appendix B for outcome definition. 

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey; Program Usage Data
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 1

D

APPENDIX D.

ANALYSIS OF 37-MONTH SURVEY 

NONRESPONSE

D.1. Introduction

The impact estimates in this report are based on outcome measures derived largely from the 37-month adult followup survey. 

This appendix analyzes the extent to which survey nonresponse 

influenced these estimates. Not all study families completed the 

followup survey, which successfully gathered information for 

1,784 of the 2,282 families who enrolled in the study. This appendix addresses whether, in light of this nonresponse, impact 

estimates are (1) internally valid in the sense that the families 

in the sides of each impact comparison remain comparable and 

(2) likely valid for the entire study sample after weighting to 

account for nonresponse.1

Balance in Impact Comparison Groups 

After Nonresponse

The Family Options Study randomly assigned families to study 

interventions so that differences in outcomes among families 

who received different interventions would be attributable 

to assignment to the intervention. The Interim Report: Family 

Options Study presented evidence confirming that random 

assignment successfully produced equivalent samples when 

comparing the treatment groups within each of the six pairwise 

impact comparisons in the study. This equivalence testing was 

conducted on all families participating in the study, however. 

It is possible that whether a family responded to the followup 

survey was influenced by the treatment to which they were 

assigned in ways that could disrupt this balance. This possibility, in turn, is indicative of whether families in each side of 

the impact comparisons are comparable—sometimes referred 

to as the study’s “internal validity.” We assess the extent to 

which nonresponse affected internal validity by addressing the 

following two questions.

1. What were the response rates for the Family Options Study 

37-month followup survey, and how did they vary between 

assignment groups in pairwise comparison samples?

2. Did the analysis sample remain balanced for each impact 

comparison after nonresponse?

Respondents Versus Nonrespondents

Survey nonresponse may also be related to participant 

characteristics such that families who respond to the survey 

are not comparable with families who do not. If this difference 

was the case, and if the study findings differ on the same 

characteristics that relate to survey respondents, then the study 

findings may not be applicable to the entire sample including 

nonrespondents. To assess the extent to which findings are 

likely applicable to nonrespondents in addition to respondents, 

we address the two following questions.

1. Do respondents and nonrespondents have systematic 

differences in observable baseline characteristics? 

2. How were the main results of this report affected by the use 

of nonresponse analysis weights?

Overview of Findings 

In general, the analysis presented in this appendix (1) indicates 

that the impact results in the Family Options Study remain 

internally valid after survey nonresponse and (2) provides 

nondefinitive evidence that the impact results may be applicable to the entire study sample. We find that response rates do 

vary based on the treatment to which families were assigned. 

Response rates were slightly lower for families assigned to 

usual care (UC) compared with those for the three active 

interventions. Response rates for the UC group ranged from 

73.1 to 76.4 percent, depending on the impact comparison. 

The permanent housing subsidy (SUB) group had the highest 

response rate: 83.6 percent (for all SUB families. These differences indicate the importance of our second analysis assessing 

internal validity—a comparison of baseline characteristics 

for each side of each impact comparison. Here we find that, 

although nonresponse patterns somewhat degraded the baseline equivalence samples as reported in the Interim Report for 

comparisons involving the priority access to community-based 

rapid re-housing (CBRR) group, omnibus test results including 

all our comparison characteristics suggest no systematic 

differences between sides of the impact comparisons, with the 

exception of the CBRR-versus-UC comparison.

1

 This appendix parallels Appendix D from Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families. The tabulations here are based 

on response to the 37-month followup survey whereas the appendix to the Short-Term Impacts report was based on response to the 20-month followup survey.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 2

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Turning to our analysis relevant to the applicability of study 

findings to the entire baseline sample, we find some evidence 

that baseline characteristics do predict survey response, 

which suggests that respondents and nonrespondents may be 

systematically different. This finding in part motivates the use 

of survey nonresponse weights, as described in Appendix C, 

Section C.3. In this appendix, we present estimates calculated 

without the nonresponse weights for the study’s headline 

outcomes. Substantive differences between impact estimates 

calculated with and without the nonresponse weights would 

indicate that impacts for nonrespondents (which cannot be 

estimated) may differ from those estimated in the study for 

respondents. The estimates did not vary substantially from the 

weighted estimates. Although not definitive, this finding serves 

as evidence that the impact results may be applicable to the 

entire study sample.

D.2. Balance in Impact Comparison 

Groups After Nonresponse

This section presents two analyses that address the threat to 

the internal validity of the study’s impact findings of survey 

nonresponse. To assess the extent to which the groups in each 

impact comparison remain comparable after nonresponse, 

this section first reports and compares response rates for each 

treatment group of each impact comparison. Next, the section 

presents an analysis of the balance on baseline characteristics 

for each impact comparison within the analysis sample of 

37-month survey respondents. 

Survey Nonresponse

What were response rates for the Family Options Study 

37-month followup survey, and how did the rates vary between 

pairwise comparison samples? Exhibit D-1 reports the number 

of respondents to the followup survey by impact comparison. 

Results based on raw response rates for each impact comparison suggest that, relative to assignment to UC, assignment to 

the CBRR, project-based transitional housing (PBTH), or SUB 

group increased the propensity to respond to the followup survey. Participants assigned to SUB were most likely to respond 

to the followup survey, with an overall response rate of 83.6 

percent. For each impact comparison, the study team tests for 

a statistically significant difference between the two assignment 

groups in the response rates. The team found a statistically 

significant difference in the response rates of the two groups in 

two of the six pairwise comparisons (SUB versus UC and SUB 

versus CBRR) and in two of the four pooled comparisons. In 

these cases, it is particularly relevant to test for differences in 

baseline characteristics across the sides of the comparisons.

Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample 

by Impact Comparison

Did the analysis sample remain balanced for each impact 

comparison after nonresponse? The second step in the analysis 

of the comparability of both sides of each impact comparison is 

a comparison of baseline characteristics. If the balance in observable characteristics between groups at baseline remained after 

nonresponse, survey nonresponse was not related to observable 

characteristics and therefore was unlikely to be related to unobservable characteristics. In that case, impact estimates remained a 

valid comparison of the effect of receiving different interventions 

on the particular outcome for the survey respondent population.

Exhibit D-2 lists the baseline characteristics that are compared 

within each impact comparison. These characteristics were 

the same baseline characteristics used to demonstrate baseline 

equivalence in the Interim Report, and were chosen because they 

were either major demographic characteristics or they were 

baseline measures in the study’s five outcome domains.

This section reports results from statistical tests performed to 

determine both if groups being compared differed on the each 

of the baseline characteristics described previously and if the 

combined set of characteristics suggested the groups differed 

(an omnibus F-test). As a review of the baseline equivalence 

findings of the full baseline sample, the Interim Report reported 

Exhibit D-1. Survey Nonresponse Incidence by Impact 

Comparison—37-Month Adult Survey

Baseline 

Families

Adult 

Surveys 

Completed

Response 

Rate (%) Chi sq

Pairwise comparisons 2,282 1,784 78.2

SUB versus 599 501 83.6 ***

UC 540 395 73.1

CBRR versus 569 434 76.3

UC 575 434 75.5

PBTH versus 368 293 79.6

UC 339 259 76.4

SUB versus 435 362 83.2 ***

CBRR 382 290 75.9

SUB versus 256 215 84.0

PBTH 240 201 83.8

CBRR versus 232 180 77.6

PBTH 239 184 77.0

Pooled comparisons

SUB + CBRR + PBTH 1,536 1,228 79.9 ***

versus UC 746 556 74.5

SUB + PBTH 674 546 81.0

versus CBRR 494 382 77.3

SUB + CBRR 488 395 80.9

versus PBTH 363 290 79.9

CBRR + PBTH 622 491 78.9 **

versus SUB 551 463 84.03

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access 

to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing 

subsidy. UC = usual care. 

Note: Significantly different response rates are indicated for p-value *** < .01 and ** < .05.

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month adult survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 3

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-2. Characteristics Examined in Baseline Equivalency Testing

Baseline Characteristic at the Time of Random Assignment

Age of household head

Gender

Marital status

Race/ethnicity

Educational attainment

Number of adults in family

Number of children in family

Worked for pay in past week

Previously convicted of a felony

Family annual income

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by adult respondent as “big problems” in 

finding housing. The maximum number of barriers was 19. The 19 possible barriers 

were (1) not having enough income to pay rent, (2) inability to pay a security deposit 

or first/last month’s rent, (3) lack of transportation to look for housing, (4) poor credit 

history, (5) racial discrimination, (6) not being currently employed, (7) no rent history at 

all, (8) recently moved to community and no local rent history, (9) no reference from past 

landlords, (10) a past eviction, (11) problems with past landlords, (12) past lease violations, (13) having problems with police, (14) having a criminal record or background, 

(15) having a felony drug record, (16) having three or more children in the household, 

(17) having teenagers in the household, (18) having someone in the household under 

21 years old, and (19) having someone in the household who has a disability.

b The seven major life challenges measured were (1) psychological distress, (2) posttraumatic stress disorder, (3) felony conviction, (4) experience of domestic violence, 

(5) childhood separation (foster care, group home, or institutionalization), (6) self-reported 

medical condition, and (7) substance abuse.

Source: Family Options baseline survey—reproduced from Exhibit 4-9 of Interim Report: 

The Family Options Study

statistically significant differences in the SUB-versus-UC and 

CBRR-versus-UC comparisons in educational attainment and in 

the PBTH-versus-CBRR group in age of household head. Only 

the CBRR-versus-UC comparison had a p-value of the omnibus 

F-test that indicated statistically significant differences in the 

two groups at the .05 level. This result suggested an “unlucky” 

division of families into the CBRR and UC interventions. 

Differences in means and percentages for individual variables, 

however, were not substantively large. 

As reported in Exhibit D-3, slightly different results emerge 

for baseline equivalency testing for the sample of survey 

respondents as compared with the results for the full baseline 

Previously homeless (before 

 current spell)

Previously lived in doubled up housing

Number of barriers in finding 

 housinga

Household head has a child 

 under 18 living elsewhere

Number of major life challenges 

 facedb

sample of study participants. Specifically, analyzing the baseline 

characteristics of 37-month respondents detects additional characteristics with significant differences for a number of pairwise 

comparisons. However, the omnibus F-test statistic continues 

to be significant in the CBRR-versus-UC comparison only and 

observed characteristics differences remain small in magnitude.

For the sample of survey respondents, differences across 

groups within the pairwise impact comparison are observed for 

educational attainment in the SUB-versus-UC, CBRR-versus-UC, 

CBRR-versus-PBTH, and two of the grouped comparisons. Age 

differed across samples in the SUB-versus-CBRR and SUB + 

PBTH-versus-CBRR comparisons. An omnibus F-test continued 

to indicate the responding samples differed on observable baseline characteristics for the CBRR-versus-UC comparison, with 

statistically significant differences for educational attainment, 

number of children, and income. Three baseline characteristics 

are also individually statistically different across groups for the 

CBRR-versus-PBTH comparison, although the omnibus F-test 

was not statistically significant. Each of the other pairwise and 

pooled comparisons also had either one or two characteristics 

that had a statistically significant difference across groups.

Taken together, these comparisons indicate that, although nonresponse patterns somewhat degraded the baseline equivalence 

samples as reported in the Interim Report for comparisons involving the CBRR intervention, omnibus tests results including all 

our comparison characteristics suggests no systematic differences 

between sides of the impact comparisons, with the exception of 

the CBRR-versus-UC comparison. Recall that this comparison 

was found to have an “unlucky” draw with statistically significant but relatively small-in-magnitude difference in baseline 

characteristics for the entire study sample. Exhibits D-4 through 

D-13 report the summary statistics for baseline characteristics 

for each side of each comparison—which, together, is the information summarized in Exhibit D-3.

Exhibit D-3. Summary of Equivalence Testing in Impact Comparisons, 37-Month Adult Survey

Pairwise Impact Comparison

Number of 

Characteristics With 

Significant Differences 

(out of 15; a = 0.10)

Characteristic(s) With 

Significant Difference

p-Value of Omnibus 

F-test

SUB versus UC 1 Educational attainment 0.852

CBRR versus UC 3 Educational attainment, number of children, income 0.002

PBTH versus UC 1 Worked for pay 0.283

SUB versus CBRR 2 Average age, child living elsewhere 0.570

SUB versus PBTH 1 Child living elsewhere 0.478

CBRR versus PBTH 3 Educational attainment, number of adults, ever doubled up 0.295

SUB + CBRR + PBTH versus UC 2 Educational attainment 0.235

SUB + PBTH versus CBRR 2 Average age, ever doubled up 0.304

SUB + CBRR versus PBTH 1 Educational attainment 0.135

CBRR + PBTH versus SUB 2 Race/ethnicity, child living elsewhere 0.689

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 4

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-4. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for SUB Versus UC Impact Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey 

Characteristic SUB UC Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 501 395

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.08 0.10 – 0.02 0.79

21–24 years 0.22 0.21 0.01

25–29 years 0.23 0.24 – 0.01

30–34 years 0.19 0.16 0.03

35–44 years 0.20 0.21 – 0.01

45 years and older 0.08 0.09 0.00

Mean age (years) 30.47 30.79 – 0.32 0.67

Gender (percent)

Female 0.93 0.92 0.01 0.56

Male 0.07 0.08 – 0.01

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.74 0.70 0.04 0.17

Married or marriage-like situation 0.26 0.30 – 0.04

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.37 0.38 – 0.02 0.84

White, not Hispanic 0.21 0.22 – 0.01

Hispanic 0.24 0.23 0.01

Other 0.19 0.17 0.02

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.34 0.41 – 0.07 0.08 *

High school diploma/GED 0.39 0.33 0.06

More than high school diploma 0.26 0.25 0.01

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.73 0.69 0.04

2 or more adults 0.27 0.31 – 0.04 0.20

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.44 0.43 0.00 0.93

2 children 0.32 0.33 – 0.01

3 children 0.15 0.15 – 0.01

4 children or more 0.09 0.08 0.02

Missing data 0.01 0.01 0.00

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.13 0.14 – 0.02 0.30

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.12 0.11 0.00 0.82

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.32 0.34 – 0.02 0.96

$5,000–9,999 0.32 0.29 0.03

$10,000–14,999 0.16 0.17 – 0.01

$15,000–19,999 0.07 0.08 0.00

$20,000–24,999 0.04 0.04 0.00

$25,000 or more 0.05 0.05 0.00

Missing data 0.03 0.02 0.01

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.62 0.66 – 0.04 0.23

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.84 0.87 – 0.03 0.26

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.92

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.24 0.23 0.01 0.63

Number of major life challengesb 1.60 1.60 0.00 0.75

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 0.745 F-test p-value = 0.852

SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. UC = usual care.

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment. 

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test). 

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 5

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-5. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for CBRR Versus UC Impact Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey

Characteristic CBRR UC Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 434 434

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.13

21–24 years 0.18 0.21 – 0.02

25–29 years 0.24 0.22 0.01

30–34 years 0.18 0.15 0.04

35–44 years 0.24 0.23 0.01

45 years and older 0.06 0.11 – 0.05

Mean age (years) 30.62 31.25 – 0.62 0.77

Gender (percent)

Female 0.92 0.93 – 0.01 0.51

Male 0.08 0.07 0.01

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.87

Married or marriage-like situation 0.25 0.25 0.00

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.50 0.43 0.06 0.24

White, not Hispanic 0.18 0.20 – 0.02

Hispanic 0.18 0.22 – 0.04

Other 0.15 0.15 0.00

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.30 0.38 – 0.08 0.01 **

High school diploma/GED 0.41 0.32 0.08

More than high school diploma 0.29 0.29 0.00

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.72 0.73 – 0.01

2 or more adults 0.28 0.27 0.01 0.76

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.40 0.43 – 0.03 0.05 *

2 children 0.31 0.32 – 0.01

3 children 0.14 0.16 – 0.02

4 children or more 0.15 0.08 0.06

Missing data 0.01 0.01 0.00

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.18 0.21 – 0.02 0.44

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.10 0.11 – 0.01 0.65

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.29 0.33 – 0.04 0.09 *

$5,000–9,999 0.32 0.25 0.07

$10,000–14,999 0.19 0.17 0.02

$15,000–19,999 0.09 0.09 0.00

$20,000–24,999 0.03 0.06 – 0.03

$25,000 or more 0.06 0.07 – 0.01

Missing data 0.02 0.03 – 0.01

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.62 0.63 – 0.01 0.78

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.88 0.86 0.02 0.36

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.42 0.47 – 0.05 0.15

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.21 0.22 – 0.01 0.74

Number of major life challengesb 1.46 1.66 – 0.19 0.44

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 1.890 F-test p-value = 0.002

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. UC = usual care. 

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment.

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test). 

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 6

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-6. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for PBTH Versus UC Impact Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey 

Characteristic PBTH UC Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 293 259

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.10 0.06 0.04 0.38

21–24 years 0.15 0.16 – 0.01

25–29 years 0.26 0.22 0.05

30–34 years 0.19 0.21 – 0.02

35–44 years 0.21 0.25 – 0.04

45 years and older 0.09 0.10 – 0.01

Mean age (years) 30.95 32.31 – 1.36 0.58

Gender (percent)

Female 0.90 0.93 – 0.03 0.27

Male 0.10 0.07 0.03

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.94

Married or marriage-like situation 0.32 0.32 0.00

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.41 0.42 – 0.01 0.96

White, not Hispanic 0.19 0.18 0.01

Hispanic 0.15 0.14 0.01

Other 0.25 0.26 – 0.01

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.37 0.41 – 0.04 0.59

High school diploma/GED 0.36 0.33 0.03

More than high school diploma 0.27 0.26 0.01

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.68 0.67 0.01

2 or more adults 0.32 0.33 – 0.01 0.85

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.40 0.42 – 0.02 0.48

2 children 0.29 0.27 0.02

3 children 0.19 0.20 – 0.01

4 children or more 0.12 0.10 0.03

Missing data 0.00 0.01 – 0.01

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.17 0.23 – 0.06 0.07 *

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.10 0.15 – 0.04 0.11

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.29 0.30 – 0.01 0.61

$5,000–9,999 0.26 0.23 0.03

$10,000–14,999 0.18 0.17 0.01

$15,000–19,999 0.13 0.10 0.03

$20,000–24,999 0.05 0.07 – 0.02

$25,000 or more 0.05 0.07 – 0.01

Missing data 0.03 0.06 – 0.02

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.61 0.65 – 0.04 0.36

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.83 0.84 – 0.02 0.62

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.44 0.45 – 0.01 0.79

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.23 0.24 – 0.01 0.70

Number of major life challengesb 1.69 1.64 0.04 0.89

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 1.062 F-test p-value = 0.380

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. UC = usual care. 

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment.

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test).

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 7

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-7. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for SUB Versus CBRR Impact Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey

Characteristic SUB CBRR Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 362 290

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.08 0.12 – 0.03 0.46

21–24 years 0.21 0.19 0.02

25–29 years 0.23 0.23 0.00

30–34 years 0.19 0.19 0.01

35–44 years 0.19 0.22 – 0.02

45 years and older 0.09 0.06 0.03

Mean age (years) 30.56 30.13 0.43 0.07 *

Gender (percent)

Female 0.94 0.92 0.02 0.27

Male 0.06 0.08 – 0.02

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.75 0.76 0.00 0.98

Married or marriage-like situation 0.25 0.24 0.00

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.39 0.44 – 0.06 0.32

White, not Hispanic 0.22 0.23 – 0.01

Hispanic 0.24 0.20 0.04

Other 0.16 0.13 0.03

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.36 0.33 0.03 0.77

High school diploma/GED 0.40 0.42 – 0.02

More than high school diploma 0.25 0.25 0.00

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.73 0.71 0.02

2 or more adults 0.27 0.29 – 0.02 0.54

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.44 0.42 0.03 0.51

2 children 0.32 0.32 0.00

3 children 0.13 0.12 0.02

4 children or more 0.10 0.13 – 0.04

Missing data 0.00 0.01 0.00

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.14 0.16 – 0.02 0.39

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.79

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.33 0.30 0.03 0.61

$5,000–9,999 0.32 0.33 – 0.02

$10,000–14,999 0.17 0.19 – 0.02

$15,000–19,999 0.06 0.08 – 0.02

$20,000–24,999 0.05 0.02 0.02

$25,000 or more 0.06 0.05 0.00

Missing data 0.01 0.01 0.00

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.63 0.64 – 0.01 0.89

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.84 0.88 – 0.04 0.14

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.46 0.41 0.05 0.22

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.25 0.19 0.06 0.09 *

Number of major life challengesb 1.61 1.49 0.12 0.65

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 0.938 F-test p-value = 0.570

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

GED =general educational development. RA = random assignment.

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test).

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 8

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-8. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for SUB Versus PBTH Impact Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey

Characteristic SUB PBTH Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 215 201

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.07 0.09 – 0.02 0.46

21–24 years 0.24 0.17 0.07

25–29 years 0.21 0.26 – 0.05

30–34 years 0.19 0.20 – 0.01

35–44 years 0.19 0.19 0.00

45 years and older 0.10 0.08 0.02

Mean age (years) 30.82 30.58 0.24 0.73

Gender (percent)

Female 0.93 0.90 0.03 0.28

Male 0.07 0.10 – 0.03

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.69 0.68 0.01 0.80

Married or marriage-like situation 0.31 0.32 – 0.01

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.35 0.37 – 0.02 0.31

White, not Hispanic 0.20 0.24 – 0.04

Hispanic 0.22 0.15 0.07

Other 0.23 0.24 – 0.01

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.29 0.31 – 0.02 0.86

High school diploma/GED 0.43 0.40 0.02

More than high school diploma 0.28 0.28 0.00

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.67 0.68 – 0.01

2 or more adults 0.33 0.32 0.01 0.88

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.42 0.40 0.02 0.35

2 children 0.34 0.31 0.03

3 children 0.17 0.19 – 0.02

4 children or more 0.07 0.10 – 0.04

Missing data 0.01 0.00 0.01

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.18 0.13 0.05 0.15

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.14 0.11 0.03 0.36

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.29 0.30 – 0.01 0.56

$5,000–9,999 0.31 0.28 0.03

$10,000–14,999 0.17 0.18 – 0.01

$15,000–19,999 0.07 0.12 – 0.05

$20,000–24,999 0.06 0.05 0.01

$25,000 or more 0.05 0.04 0.01

Missing data 0.05 0.03 0.02

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.64 0.60 0.04 0.35

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.84 0.82 0.02 0.66

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.98

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.28 0.20 0.08 0.07 *

Number of major life challengesb 1.59 1.74 – 0.15 0.70

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 0.995 F-test p-value = 0.478

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment. 

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test).

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 9

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-9. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for CBRR Versus PBTH Impact Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey

Characteristic CBRR PBTH Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 180 184

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.07 0.09 – 0.03 0.60

21–24 years 0.16 0.13 0.03

25–29 years 0.28 0.25 0.03

30–34 years 0.22 0.21 0.00

35–44 years 0.22 0.22 0.00

45 years and older 0.06 0.10 – 0.04

Mean age (years) 30.73 31.51 – 0.77 0.33

Gender (percent)

Female 0.91 0.91 – 0.01 0.80

Male 0.09 0.09 0.01

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.66 0.73 – 0.08 0.11

Married or marriage-like situation 0.34 0.27 0.08

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.47 0.43 0.03 0.86

White, not Hispanic 0.16 0.17 – 0.01

Hispanic 0.12 0.14 – 0.02

Other 0.26 0.26 0.01

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.29 0.41 – 0.11 0.05 **

High school diploma/GED 0.39 0.29 0.10

More than high school diploma 0.32 0.30 0.01

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.63 0.73 – 0.09

2 or more adults 0.37 0.27 0.09 0.05 *

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.40 0.41 – 0.01 0.78

2 children 0.29 0.27 0.02

3 children 0.14 0.17 – 0.03

4 children or more 0.16 0.15 0.01

Missing data 0.01 0.00 0.01

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.23 0.21 0.02 0.62

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.11 0.10 0.01 0.81

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.27 0.28 – 0.01 0.93

$5,000–9,999 0.29 0.26 0.03

$10,000–14,999 0.20 0.18 0.02

$15,000–19,999 0.11 0.13 – 0.02

$20,000–24,999 0.04 0.05 – 0.02

$25,000 or more 0.07 0.06 0.01

Missing data 0.03 0.04 – 0.01

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.63 0.61 0.01 0.79

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.91 0.83 0.07 0.04 **

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.45 0.43 0.02 0.69

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.28 0.22 0.06 0.18

Number of major life challengesb 1.33 1.68 – 0.35 0.25

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 1.130 F-test p-value = 0.295

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

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment. 

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test).

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 10

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-10. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for SUB + CBRR + PBTH Versus UC Impact Comparison, 

37-Month Adult Survey 

Characteristic SUB, CBRR, PBTH UC Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 1,228 556

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.52

21–24 years 0.19 0.20 – 0.01

25–29 years 0.24 0.23 0.01

30–34 years 0.19 0.16 0.03

35–44 years 0.22 0.23 – 0.01

45 years and older 0.08 0.10 – 0.02

Mean age (years) 30.64 31.22 – 0.59 0.90

Gender (percent)

Female 0.92 0.93 – 0.01 0.50

Male 0.08 0.07 0.01

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.73 0.73 0.00 0.96

Married or marriage-like situation 0.27 0.27 0.00

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.73

White, not Hispanic 0.19 0.19 0.00

Hispanic 0.20 0.21 – 0.02

Other 0.19 0.17 0.02

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.34 0.39 – 0.06 0.02 **

High school diploma/GED 0.39 0.33 0.06

More than high school diploma 0.27 0.28 0.00

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.71 0.71 0.00

2 or more adults 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.98

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.41 0.44 – 0.03 0.26

2 children 0.31 0.31 – 0.01

3 children 0.15 0.15 0.00

4 children or more 0.12 0.08 0.03

Missing data 0.00 0.01 0.00

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.16 0.19 – 0.03 0.15

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.11 0.11 – 0.01 0.64

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.30 0.33 – 0.03 0.46

$5,000–9,999 0.30 0.26 0.04

$10,000–14,999 0.18 0.17 0.00

$15,000–19,999 0.09 0.08 0.01

$20,000–24,999 0.04 0.06 – 0.02

$25,000 or more 0.06 0.06 0.00

Missing data 0.03 0.03 – 0.01

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.62 0.64 – 0.02 0.39

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.92

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.44 0.46 – 0.02 0.33

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.23 0.22 0.00 0.88

Number of major life challengesb 1.57 1.66 – 0.09 0.72

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 1.169 F-test p-value = 0.235

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care. 

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment.

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test).

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 11

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-11. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for SUB + PBTH Versus CBRR Impact Comparison, 37-Month 

Adult Survey

Characteristic SUB, PBTH CBRR Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 546 382

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.09 0.10 – 0.01 0.49

21–24 years 0.18 0.18 0.00

25–29 years 0.24 0.24 0.00

30–34 years 0.20 0.19 0.01

35–44 years 0.20 0.23 – 0.03

45 years and older 0.09 0.06 0.03

Mean age (years) 30.88 30.44 0.44 0.05 **

Gender (percent)

Female 0.93 0.92 0.01 0.50

Male 0.07 0.08 – 0.01

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.75 0.74 0.01 0.75

Married or marriage-like situation 0.25 0.26 – 0.01

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.40 0.47 – 0.06 0.26

White, not Hispanic 0.20 0.19 0.01

Hispanic 0.21 0.18 0.02

Other 0.19 0.16 0.03

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.37 0.31 0.06 0.11

High school diploma/GED 0.36 0.41 – 0.05

More than high school diploma 0.27 0.28 – 0.02

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.73 0.70 0.04

2 or more adults 0.27 0.30 – 0.04 0.22

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.43 0.40 0.04 0.38

2 children 0.31 0.32 – 0.01

3 children 0.15 0.13 0.01

4 children or more 0.11 0.15 – 0.04

Missing data 0.00 0.01 0.00

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.16 0.18 – 0.01 0.62

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.11 0.11 0.00 1.00

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.32 0.29 0.02 0.88

$5,000–9,999 0.30 0.32 – 0.02

$10,000–14,999 0.18 0.19 – 0.01

$15,000–19,999 0.08 0.09 0.00

$20,000–24,999 0.05 0.03 0.02

$25,000 or more 0.06 0.06 0.00

Missing data 0.02 0.02 0.00

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.95

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.84 0.88 – 0.04 0.06 *

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.45 0.42 0.03 0.42

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.24 0.22 0.02 0.47

Number of major life challengesb 1.63 1.45 0.18 0.40

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 1.114 F-test p-value = 0.304

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment.

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test).

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 12

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-12. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for SUB + CBRR Versus PBTH Impact Comparison, 37-Month 

Adult Survey

Characteristic SUB, CBRR PBTH Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 395 290

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.07 0.10 – 0.03 0.51

21–24 years 0.20 0.15 0.05

25–29 years 0.25 0.26 – 0.01

30–34 years 0.20 0.19 0.01

35–44 years 0.21 0.21 – 0.01

45 years and older 0.08 0.09 – 0.01

Mean age (years) 30.78 30.98 – 0.20 0.55

Gender (percent)

Female 0.92 0.90 0.01 0.56

Male 0.08 0.10 – 0.01

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.68 0.69 – 0.01 0.78

Married or marriage-like situation 0.32 0.31 0.01

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.40 0.41 0.00 0.90

White, not Hispanic 0.18 0.19 – 0.01

Hispanic 0.17 0.15 0.02

Other 0.25 0.25 0.00

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.29 0.37 – 0.08 0.09 *

High school diploma/GED 0.41 0.36 0.05

More than high school diploma 0.30 0.27 0.03

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.66 0.68 – 0.02

2 or more adults 0.34 0.32 0.02 0.58

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.41 0.40 0.01 0.41

2 children 0.32 0.29 0.03

3 children 0.16 0.19 – 0.03

4 children or more 0.11 0.12 – 0.01

Missing data 0.01 0.00 0.01

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.21 0.17 0.03 0.28

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.13 0.10 0.02 0.35

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.28 0.29 – 0.01 0.62

$5,000–9,999 0.30 0.26 0.04

$10,000–14,999 0.18 0.18 0.00

$15,000–19,999 0.08 0.13 – 0.04

$20,000–24,999 0.05 0.05 0.00

$25,000 or more 0.06 0.05 0.01

Missing data 0.04 0.03 0.00

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.64 0.61 0.02 0.56

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.87 0.82 0.04 0.11

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.45 0.44 0.01 0.79

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.28 0.23 0.05 0.12

Number of major life challengesb 1.47 1.69 – 0.22 0.38

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 1.293 F-test p-value = 0.135

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment.

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test).

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 13

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-13. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for CBRR + PBTH Versus SUB Impact Comparison, 37-Month 

Adult Survey

Characteristic CBRR, PBTH SUB Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 491 463

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.11 0.08 0.03 0.36

21–24 years 0.18 0.22 – 0.05

25–29 years 0.24 0.23 0.02

30–34 years 0.19 0.19 0.00

35–44 years 0.21 0.20 0.01

45 years and older 0.07 0.08 – 0.01

Mean age (years) 30.32 30.39 – 0.07 0.22

Gender (percent)

Female 0.91 0.93 – 0.02 0.16

Male 0.09 0.07 0.02

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.73 0.74 – 0.01 0.69

Married or marriage-like situation 0.27 0.26 0.01

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.41 0.37 0.05 0.08 *

White, not Hispanic 0.23 0.21 0.02

Hispanic 0.18 0.24 – 0.06

Other 0.18 0.18 – 0.01

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.32 0.35 – 0.02 0.77

High school diploma/GED 0.41 0.40 0.02

More than high school diploma 0.26 0.26 0.01

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.70 0.72 – 0.02

2 or more adults 0.30 0.28 0.02 0.43

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.41 0.44 – 0.03 0.71

2 children 0.32 0.32 0.00

3 children 0.15 0.14 0.00

4 children or more 0.12 0.10 0.03

Missing data 0.00 0.01 0.00

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.15 0.14 0.01 0.64

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.11 0.12 – 0.01 0.52

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.30 0.32 – 0.02 0.57

$5,000–9,999 0.31 0.31 0.00

$10,000–14,999 0.19 0.17 0.01

$15,000–19,999 0.10 0.07 0.03

$20,000–24,999 0.04 0.05 – 0.01

$25,000 or more 0.05 0.06 – 0.01

Missing data 0.02 0.03 – 0.01

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.62 0.63 – 0.01 0.76

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.86 0.84 0.01 0.57

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.43 0.46 – 0.03 0.38

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.20 0.25 – 0.05 0.05 **

Number of major life challengesb 1.59 1.61 – 0.02 0.66

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 0.854 F-test p-value = 0.700

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment. 

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test).

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 14

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

D.3. Respondents Versus 

Nonrespondents

This section provides evidence regarding whether the impacts 

estimated on the sample of 37-month survey respondents are 

applicable to the entire study population, including nonrespondents. We present results of two analyses. The first assesses 

whether respondents and nonrespondents have systematic 

differences in observable baseline characteristics. The second 

compares unweighted impact estimates with the weighted 

impact estimates presented in the body of the report.

Do Respondents Differ From Nonrespondents on Baseline Characteristics?

Do respondents and nonrespondents to the 37-month adult survey have systematic differences in observable baseline characteristics? Exhibit D-14 summarizes the results of tests from exhibits 

D-16 to D-19 comparing baseline characteristics of 37-month 

respondents and nonrespondents for each intervention. For SUB 

and PBTH the joint F-test on all characteristics in a regression 

indicated that the set of baseline characteristics were not jointly 

significant in predicting nonresponse. Consistent with the results 

discussed previously, six baseline characteristics differed for 

families assigned to CBRR that responded to the survey from 

those that did not, with a correspondingly large test statistic for 

the omnibus F-test. For families assigned to UC, two baseline 

characteristics had statistically significant average differences, 

with an 0.08 p-value of the joint omnibus F-test. 

Exhibit D-15 summarizes the results of tests from exhibits D-20 

to D-29 comparing 37-month respondents and nonrespondents. Among the pairwise comparison samples, comparisons 

containing CBRR had two or three baseline characteristic 

averages that had differences for response as opposed to nonresponse that were statistically significant, whereas the other 

three pairwise comparison samples had one differing characteristic. Meanwhile, omnibus F-tests indicated that baseline 

characteristics were generally predictive of nonresponse across 

the comparison samples, with all but two meeting a .10 p-value 

threshold. Taken together, these tests suggest that respondents 

seemed to systematically differ from nonrespondents.

The magnitude of these statistically significant differences is 

reported in Exhibits D-16 through D-29. When differences 

were statistically significant relative to nonrespondents, participants who responded to the followup survey were more often 

more educated, less likely to have a child living elsewhere, and 

more often had been doubled up before.

Exhibit D-14. Summary of Equivalence Testing of 37-Month Respondents Versus Nonrespondents, by Assigned 

Intervention 

RA 

Result

Number of Baseline Characteristics With 

Significant Differences Between 

Respondents and Nonrespondents (out of 15; a = 0.10)

Characteristic(s) With 

Significant Difference

p-Value of 

Omnibus F-test

SUB 0 None 0.76

CBRR 6 Marital status, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, 

 felony conviction, doubled up, major challenges

0.00

PBTH 3 Age, gender, prior homeless, child elsewhere 0.43

UC 2 Children, ever homeless 0.08

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care. 

RA = random assignment. 

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey 

Exhibit D-15. Summary of Baseline Equivalence Testing of 37-Month Respondents Versus Nonrespondents, by Impact 

Comparison 

Pairwise Impact Comparison sample 

(response and nonresponse 

compared for both treatment groups)

Number of characteristics 

with significant differences 

(out of 15; a = 0.10)

Characteristic(s) With 

Significant Difference

p-Value of 

Omnibus F-test

SUB versus UC 1 Educational attainment 0.47

CBRR versus UC 3 Educational attainment, number of children, annual income 0.04

PBTH versus UC 1 Worked for pay 0.19

SUB versus CBRR 2 Age, child elsewhere 0.00

SUB versus PBTH 1 Child elsewhere 0.31

CBRR versus PBTH 3 Educational attainment, number of adults, doubled up 0.03

SUB + CBRR + PBTH versus UC 1 Educational attainment 0.00

SUB + PBTH versus CBRR 2 Age, doubled up 0.00

SUB + CBRR versus PBTH 1 Educational attainment 0.01

PBTH + CBRR versus SUB 2 Race/ethnicity, child elsewhere 0.00

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey 
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 15

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-16. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents for SUB, 37-Month 

Adult Survey

Characteristic Respondents Nonrespondents Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 501 98 84%

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.79

21–24 years 0.22 0.17 0.05

25–29 years 0.23 0.26 – 0.03

30–34 years 0.19 0.23 – 0.05

35–44 years 0.20 0.18 0.02

45 years and older 0.08 0.07 0.01

Mean age (years) 30.47 30.39 0.08 0.90

Gender (percent)

Female 0.93 0.90 0.04 0.20

Male 0.07 0.10 – 0.04

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.74 0.70 0.04 0.45

Married or marriage-like situation 0.26 0.30 – 0.04

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.37 0.29 0.08 0.14

White, not Hispanic 0.21 0.30 – 0.09

Hispanic 0.24 0.20 0.04

Other 0.19 0.21 – 0.03

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.34 0.42 – 0.08 0.36

High school diploma/GED 0.39 0.35 0.05

More than high school diploma 0.26 0.23 0.03

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.73 0.68 0.05

2 or more adults 0.27 0.32 – 0.05 0.34

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.44 0.50 – 0.06 0.61

2 children 0.32 0.26 0.06

3 children 0.15 0.16 – 0.02

4 children or more 0.09 0.08 0.01

Missing data 0.01 0.00 0.01

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.14 0.10 0.04 0.31

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.11 0.12 – 0.01 0.81

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.32 0.34 – 0.02 0.25

$5,000–9,999 0.32 0.29 0.03

$10,000–14,999 0.16 0.14 0.02

$15,000–19,999 0.07 0.04 0.03

$20,000–24,999 0.04 0.10 – 0.06

$25,000 or more 0.05 0.07 – 0.02

Missing data 0.03 0.02 0.01

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.62 0.62 – 0.01 0.92

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.84 0.84 0.01 0.85

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.45 0.44 0.01 0.88

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.24 0.32 – 0.07 0.12

Number of major life challengesb 1.60 1.85 – 0.25 0.30

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 0.812 F-test p-value = 0.761

SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment. 

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test).

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 16

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-17. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents for CBRR, 37-Month 

Adult Survey

Characteristic Respondents Nonrespondents Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 434 135 76%

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.09 0.07 0.02 0.83

21–24 years 0.18 0.21 – 0.03

25–29 years 0.24 0.21 0.02

30–34 years 0.18 0.21 – 0.03

35–44 years 0.24 0.24 0.00

45 years and older 0.06 0.04 0.02

Mean age (years) 30.62 30.36 0.26 0.81

Gender (percent)

Female 0.92 0.88 0.04 0.15

Male 0.08 0.12 – 0.04

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.75 0.68 0.07 0.10 *

Married or marriage-like situation 0.25 0.32 – 0.07

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.50 0.37 0.13 0.05 **

White, not Hispanic 0.18 0.23 – 0.05

Hispanic 0.18 0.19 – 0.01

Other 0.15 0.21 – 0.07

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.30 0.42 – 0.12 0.03 **

High school diploma/GED 0.41 0.33 0.07

More than high school diploma 0.29 0.24 0.05

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.72 0.67 0.05

2 or more adults 0.28 0.33 – 0.05 0.25

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.40 0.50 – 0.10 0.12

2 children 0.31 0.30 0.01

3 children 0.14 0.09 0.05

4 children or more 0.15 0.10 0.05

Missing data 0.01 0.01 – 0.01

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.18 0.20 – 0.02 0.68

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.10 0.16 – 0.06 0.04 **

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.29 0.31 – 0.02 0.40

$5,000–9,999 0.32 0.31 0.01

$10,000–14,999 0.19 0.13 0.06

$15,000–19,999 0.09 0.08 0.01

$20,000–24,999 0.03 0.07 – 0.04

$25,000 or more 0.06 0.07 – 0.01

Missing data 0.02 0.01 0.00

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.62 0.64 – 0.01 0.79

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.88 0.79 0.09 0.01 **

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.42 0.35 0.08 0.12

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.21 0.28 – 0.07 0.11

Number of major life challengesb 1.46 1.85 – 0.39 0.00 ***

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 1.915 F-test p-value = 0.002

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. 

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment. 

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test).

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 17

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-18. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents for PBTH, 37-Month 

Adult Survey

Characteristic Respondents Nonrespondents Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 293 75 80%

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.19

21–24 years 0.15 0.17 – 0.02

25–29 years 0.26 0.23 0.04

30–34 years 0.19 0.28 – 0.09

35–44 years 0.21 0.24 – 0.03

45 years and older 0.09 0.03 0.07

Mean age (years) 30.95 30.75 0.20 0.75

Gender (percent)

Female 0.90 0.83 0.08 0.06 *

Male 0.10 0.17 – 0.08

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.68 0.63 0.06 0.36

Married or marriage-like situation 0.32 0.37 – 0.06

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.41 0.35 0.06 0.62

White, not Hispanic 0.19 0.25 – 0.06

Hispanic 0.15 0.16 – 0.01

Other 0.25 0.24 0.01

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.37 0.33 0.04 0.74

High school diploma/GED 0.36 0.36 0.00

More than high school diploma 0.27 0.31 – 0.04

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.68 0.61 0.06

2 or more adults 0.32 0.39 – 0.06 0.31

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.40 0.40 0.00 1.00

2 children 0.29 0.28 0.01

3 children 0.19 0.20 – 0.01

4 children or more 0.12 0.12 0.00

Missing data 0.00 0.00 0.00

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.17 0.28 – 0.11 0.03 **

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.10 0.16 – 0.06 0.16

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.29 0.27 0.02 0.83

$5,000–9,999 0.26 0.24 0.02

$10,000–14,999 0.18 0.19 0.00

$15,000–19,999 0.13 0.12 0.01

$20,000–24,999 0.05 0.08 – 0.03

$25,000 or more 0.05 0.04 0.01

Missing data 0.03 0.07 – 0.03

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.61 0.55 0.07 0.29

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.83 0.81 0.01 0.80

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.44 0.41 0.03 0.68

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.23 0.32 – 0.09 0.09 *

Number of major life challengesb 1.69 1.45 0.24 0.42

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 1.029 F-test p-value = 0.428

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. 

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment. 

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test).

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 18

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-19. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents for UC, 37-Month 

Adult Survey

Characteristic Respondents Nonrespondents Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 556 190 75%

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.28

21–24 years 0.20 0.19 0.00

25–29 years 0.23 0.28 – 0.05

30–34 years 0.16 0.17 – 0.01

35–44 years 0.23 0.24 – 0.01

45 years and older 0.10 0.07 0.02

Mean age (years) 31.22 31.38 – 0.15 0.22

Gender (percent)

Female 0.93 0.92 0.02 0.46

Male 0.07 0.08 – 0.02

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.73 0.67 0.06 0.13

Married or marriage-like situation 0.27 0.33 – 0.06

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.42 0.40 0.02 0.77

White, not Hispanic 0.19 0.23 – 0.03

Hispanic 0.21 0.22 – 0.01

Other 0.17 0.15 0.01

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.39 0.42 – 0.02 0.84

High school diploma/GED 0.33 0.33 0.00

More than high school diploma 0.28 0.26 0.02

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.71 0.67 0.05

2 or more adults 0.29 0.33 – 0.05 0.23

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.44 0.41 0.03 0.02 **

2 children 0.31 0.26 0.06

3 children 0.15 0.16 – 0.01

4 children or more 0.08 0.17 – 0.08

Missing data 0.01 0.01 0.00

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.19 0.14 0.05 0.13

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.11 0.09 0.02 0.36

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.18

$5,000–9,999 0.26 0.30 – 0.04

$10,000–14,999 0.17 0.14 0.04

$15,000–19,999 0.08 0.11 – 0.02

$20,000–24,999 0.06 0.06 – 0.01

$25,000 or more 0.06 0.06 0.00

Missing data 0.03 0.00 0.03

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.64 0.56 0.08 0.06 *

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.85 0.84 0.02 0.56

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.46 0.42 0.04 0.32

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.22 0.25 – 0.03 0.43

Number of major life challengesb 1.66 1.52 0.14 0.66

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 1.378 F-test p-value = 0.085

UC = usual care. 

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment. 

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test).

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 19

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-20. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents for SUB Versus UC 

Impact Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey

Characteristic Respondents Nonrespondents Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 896 243 79%

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.79

21–24 years 0.22 0.20 0.01

25–29 years 0.23 0.27 – 0.04

30–34 years 0.17 0.20 – 0.03

35–44 years 0.21 0.20 0.01

45 years and older 0.09 0.07 0.02

Mean age (years) 30.61 30.51 0.11 0.67

Gender (percent)

Female 0.93 0.92 0.01 0.56

Male 0.07 0.08 – 0.01

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.72 0.69 0.03 0.17

Married or marriage-like situation 0.28 0.31 – 0.03

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.37 0.33 0.04 0.84

White, not Hispanic 0.21 0.27 – 0.06

Hispanic 0.24 0.22 0.02

Other 0.18 0.18 0.00

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.37 0.42 – 0.05 0.08 *

High school diploma/GED 0.37 0.35 0.02

More than high school diploma 0.26 0.23 0.03

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.71 0.67 0.04

2 or more adults 0.29 0.33 – 0.04 0.20

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.43 0.44 – 0.01 0.93

2 children 0.32 0.27 0.05

3 children 0.15 0.15 0.00

4 children or more 0.09 0.13 – 0.04

Missing data 0.01 0.00 0.01

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.15 0.12 0.04 0.30

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.82

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.33 0.35 – 0.02 0.96

$5,000–9,999 0.31 0.31 0.00

$10,000–14,999 0.17 0.15 0.02

$15,000–19,999 0.07 0.07 0.00

$20,000–24,999 0.04 0.07 – 0.02

$25,000 or more 0.05 0.05 0.00

Missing data 0.03 0.01 0.02

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.63 0.59 0.05 0.23

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.86 0.85 0.01 0.26

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.45 0.42 0.02 0.92

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.24 0.27 – 0.04 0.63

Number of major life challengesb 1.60 1.68 – 0.08 0.75

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 0.996 F-test p-value = 0.474

SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. UC = usual care. 

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment. 

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test).

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 20

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-21. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents for CBRR Versus UC 

Impact Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey

Characteristic Respondents Nonrespondents Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 868 276 76%

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.13

21–24 years 0.19 0.20 – 0.01

25–29 years 0.23 0.25 – 0.02

30–34 years 0.16 0.19 – 0.03

35–44 years 0.23 0.24 – 0.01

45 years and older 0.09 0.06 0.03

Mean age (years) 30.94 30.72 0.22 0.77

Gender (percent)

Female 0.93 0.91 0.02 0.51

Male 0.07 0.09 – 0.02

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.75 0.68 0.07 0.87

Married or marriage-like situation 0.25 0.32 – 0.07

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.46 0.40 0.06 0.24

White, not Hispanic 0.19 0.22 – 0.03

Hispanic 0.20 0.19 0.01

Other 0.15 0.19 – 0.04

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.34 0.42 – 0.07 0.01 **

High school diploma/GED 0.37 0.33 0.04

More than high school diploma 0.29 0.25 0.04

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.72 0.68 0.05

2 or more adults 0.28 0.32 – 0.05 0.76

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.42 0.47 – 0.05 0.05 *

2 children 0.31 0.26 0.05

3 children 0.15 0.12 0.03

4 children or more 0.11 0.14 – 0.02

Missing data 0.01 0.01 0.00

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.19 0.18 0.02 0.44

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.10 0.12 – 0.02 0.65

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.09 *

$5,000–9,999 0.28 0.30 – 0.01

$10,000–14,999 0.18 0.13 0.05

$15,000–19,999 0.09 0.11 – 0.02

$20,000–24,999 0.05 0.07 – 0.02

$25,000 or more 0.07 0.08 – 0.01

Missing data 0.02 0.01 0.02

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.63 0.60 0.03 0.78

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.87 0.82 0.05 0.36

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.45 0.39 0.05 0.15

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.22 0.28 – 0.06 0.74

Number of major life challengesb 1.56 1.66 – 0.10 0.44

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 1.498 F-test p-value = 0.038

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. UC = usual care. 

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment. 

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test).

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 21

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-22. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents for PBTH Versus UC 

Impact Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey

Characteristic Respondents Nonrespondents Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 552 155 78%

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.38

21–24 years 0.16 0.20 – 0.04

25–29 years 0.24 0.25 0.00

30–34 years 0.20 0.21 – 0.01

35–44 years 0.23 0.25 – 0.02

45 years and older 0.10 0.05 0.05

Mean age (years) 31.59 31.06 0.52 0.58

Gender (percent)

Female 0.92 0.86 0.06 0.27

Male 0.08 0.14 – 0.06

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.68 0.62 0.06 0.94

Married or marriage-like situation 0.32 0.38 – 0.06

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.41 0.34 0.08 0.96

White, not Hispanic 0.18 0.25 – 0.06

Hispanic 0.15 0.19 – 0.04

Other 0.25 0.23 0.02

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.39 0.41 – 0.02 0.59

High school diploma/GED 0.35 0.32 0.03

More than high school diploma 0.26 0.27 – 0.01

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.67 0.59 0.08

2 or more adults 0.33 0.41 – 0.08 0.85

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.41 0.39 0.02 0.48

2 children 0.28 0.30 – 0.01

3 children 0.19 0.15 0.04

4 children or more 0.11 0.15 – 0.04

Missing data 0.00 0.01 0.00

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.20 0.21 – 0.01 0.07 *

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.12 0.14 – 0.02 0.11

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.61

$5,000–9,999 0.24 0.28 – 0.03

$10,000–14,999 0.18 0.15 0.03

$15,000–19,999 0.11 0.10 0.01

$20,000–24,999 0.06 0.08 – 0.02

$25,000 or more 0.06 0.06 0.00

Missing data 0.05 0.03 0.01

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.63 0.53 0.10 0.36

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.62

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.45 0.46 – 0.02 0.79

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.23 0.28 – 0.05 0.70

Number of major life challengesb 1.67 1.48 0.19 0.89

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 1.233 F-test p-value = 0.188

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. UC = usual care. 

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment. 

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test).

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 22

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-23. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents for SUB Versus 

CBRR Impact Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey

Characteristic Respondents Nonrespondents Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 652 165 80%

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.10 0.08 0.01 0.46

21–24 years 0.20 0.17 0.03

25–29 years 0.23 0.24 – 0.01

30–34 years 0.19 0.24 – 0.05

35–44 years 0.20 0.20 0.00

45 years and older 0.08 0.06 0.02

Mean age (years) 30.37 30.42 – 0.05 0.07 *

Gender (percent)

Female 0.93 0.90 0.03 0.27

Male 0.07 0.10 – 0.03

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.75 0.68 0.08 0.98

Married or marriage-like situation 0.25 0.32 – 0.08

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.41 0.28 0.13 0.32

White, not Hispanic 0.22 0.29 – 0.07

Hispanic 0.22 0.19 0.03

Other 0.14 0.24 – 0.09

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.35 0.39 – 0.05 0.77

High school diploma/GED 0.40 0.36 0.05

More than high school diploma 0.25 0.25 0.00

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.73 0.68 0.04

2 or more adults 0.27 0.32 – 0.04 0.54

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.43 0.54 – 0.11 0.51

2 children 0.32 0.26 0.06

3 children 0.13 0.11 0.02

4 children or more 0.11 0.08 0.03

Missing data 0.00 0.01 0.00

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.15 0.12 0.03 0.39

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.11 0.15 – 0.04 0.79

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.32 0.35 – 0.02 0.61

$5,000–9,999 0.33 0.26 0.06

$10,000–14,999 0.18 0.13 0.05

$15,000–19,999 0.07 0.07 0.00

$20,000–24,999 0.04 0.10 – 0.06

$25,000 or more 0.05 0.08 – 0.03

Missing data 0.01 0.01 0.00

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.63 0.62 0.01 0.89

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.86 0.80 0.06 0.14

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.44 0.39 0.05 0.22

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.22 0.33 – 0.10 0.09 *

Number of major life challengesb 1.55 1.92 – 0.36 0.65

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 1.920 F-test p-value = 0.002

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment.

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test).

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 23

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-24. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents for SUB Versus 

PBTH Impact Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey

Characteristic Respondents Nonrespondents Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 416 80 84%

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.46

21–24 years 0.20 0.24 – 0.03

25–29 years 0.24 0.26 – 0.02

30–34 years 0.19 0.24 – 0.05

35–44 years 0.19 0.18 0.01

45 years and older 0.09 0.05 0.04

Mean age (years) 30.70 29.98 0.73 0.73

Gender (percent)

Female 0.91 0.88 0.04 0.28

Male 0.09 0.13 – 0.04

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.69 0.70 – 0.01 0.80

Married or marriage-like situation 0.31 0.30 0.01

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.36 0.21 0.15 0.31

White, not Hispanic 0.22 0.34 – 0.12

Hispanic 0.19 0.18 0.01

Other 0.24 0.28 – 0.04

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.30 0.38 – 0.07 0.86

High school diploma/GED 0.42 0.35 0.07

More than high school diploma 0.28 0.28 0.01

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.68 0.63 0.05

2 or more adults 0.32 0.38 – 0.05 0.88

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.41 0.44 – 0.03 0.35

2 children 0.32 0.25 0.07

3 children 0.18 0.21 – 0.03

4 children or more 0.08 0.10 – 0.02

Missing data 0.00 0.00 0.00

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.16 0.23 – 0.07 0.15

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.13 0.14 – 0.01 0.36

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.30 0.34 – 0.04 0.56

$5,000–9,999 0.30 0.29 0.01

$10,000–14,999 0.18 0.14 0.04

$15,000–19,999 0.09 0.08 0.02

$20,000–24,999 0.06 0.08 – 0.02

$25,000 or more 0.05 0.04 0.01

Missing data 0.04 0.05 – 0.01

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.62 0.56 0.06 0.35

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.83 0.85 – 0.02 0.66

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.45 0.48 – 0.03 0.98

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.24 0.25 – 0.01 0.07 *

Number of major life challengesb 1.66 1.59 0.07 0.70

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 1.118 F-test p-value = 0.306

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment.

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test).

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 24

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-25. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents for CBRR Versus 

PBTH Impact Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey

Characteristic Respondents Nonrespondents Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 364 107 77%

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.60

21–24 years 0.14 0.18 – 0.03

25–29 years 0.27 0.22 0.04

30–34 years 0.21 0.24 – 0.03

35–44 years 0.22 0.28 – 0.06

45 years and older 0.08 0.05 0.03

Mean age (years) 31.12 31.36 – 0.24 0.33

Gender (percent)

Female 0.91 0.84 0.07 0.80

Male 0.09 0.16 – 0.07

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.70 0.62 0.08 0.11

Married or marriage-like situation 0.30 0.38 – 0.08

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.45 0.39 0.06 0.86

White, not Hispanic 0.16 0.24 – 0.08

Hispanic 0.13 0.16 – 0.03

Other 0.26 0.21 0.05

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.35 0.36 – 0.01 0.05 **

High school diploma/GED 0.34 0.36 – 0.03

More than high school diploma 0.31 0.27 0.04

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.68 0.59 0.09

2 or more adults 0.32 0.41 – 0.09 0.05 *

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.40 0.41 – 0.01 0.78

2 children 0.28 0.35 – 0.07

3 children 0.16 0.16 0.00

4 children or more 0.15 0.08 0.07

Missing data 0.00 0.00 0.00

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.22 0.28 – 0.06 0.62

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.11 0.14 – 0.03 0.81

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.27 0.22 0.05 0.93

$5,000–9,999 0.27 0.28 – 0.01

$10,000–14,999 0.19 0.18 0.01

$15,000–19,999 0.12 0.12 0.00

$20,000–24,999 0.05 0.10 – 0.06

$25,000 or more 0.07 0.06 0.01

Missing data 0.03 0.04 0.00

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.62 0.54 0.08 0.79

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.87 0.79 0.08 0.04 **

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.44 0.37 0.07 0.69

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.25 0.31 – 0.06 0.18

Number of major life challengesb 1.51 1.47 0.04 0.25

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 1.556 F-test p-value = 0.033

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

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment. 

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test).

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 25

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-26. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents for SUB + CBRR + 

PBTH Versus UC Impact Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey

Characteristic Respondents Nonrespondents Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 1,784 498 78%

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.52

21–24 years 0.19 0.19 0.00

25–29 years 0.24 0.25 – 0.01

30–34 years 0.18 0.21 – 0.03

35–44 years 0.22 0.23 – 0.01

45 years and older 0.08 0.06 0.03

Mean age (years) 30.82 30.81 0.01 0.90

Gender (percent)

Female 0.93 0.89 0.04 0.50

Male 0.07 0.11 – 0.04

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.73 0.67 0.06 0.96

Married or marriage-like situation 0.27 0.33 – 0.06

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.42 0.36 0.06 0.73

White, not Hispanic 0.19 0.24 – 0.05

Hispanic 0.20 0.20 0.00

Other 0.18 0.19 – 0.01

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.35 0.41 – 0.05 0.02 **

High school diploma/GED 0.37 0.34 0.03

More than high school diploma 0.27 0.26 0.02

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.71 0.66 0.05

2 or more adults 0.29 0.34 – 0.05 0.98

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.42 0.45 – 0.03 0.26

2 children 0.31 0.27 0.04

3 children 0.15 0.15 0.01

4 children or more 0.11 0.12 – 0.02

Missing data 0.01 0.01 0.00

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.15

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.11 0.13 – 0.02 0.64

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.31 0.32 – 0.01 0.46

$5,000–9,999 0.29 0.29 0.00

$10,000–14,999 0.18 0.14 0.03

$15,000–19,999 0.09 0.09 0.00

$20,000–24,999 0.05 0.08 – 0.03

$25,000 or more 0.06 0.06 – 0.01

Missing data 0.03 0.02 0.01

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.63 0.59 0.03 0.39

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.85 0.82 0.03 0.92

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.45 0.40 0.04 0.33

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.23 0.28 – 0.06 0.88

Number of major life challengesb 1.60 1.66 – 0.06 0.72

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 2.146 F-test p-value = 0.000

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care. 

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment.

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test).

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 26

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-27. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents for SUB + PBTH 

Versus CBRR Impact Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey

Characteristic Respondents Nonrespondents Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 928 240 79%

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.09 0.07 0.02 0.49

21–24 years 0.18 0.18 0.01

25–29 years 0.24 0.23 0.00

30–34 years 0.20 0.24 – 0.04

35–44 years 0.21 0.22 – 0.01

45 years and older 0.08 0.06 0.02

Mean age (years) 30.70 30.70 0.00 0.05 **

Gender (percent)

Female 0.93 0.87 0.05 0.50

Male 0.07 0.13 – 0.05

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.74 0.65 0.09 0.75

Married or marriage-like situation 0.26 0.35 – 0.09

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.43 0.33 0.10 0.26

White, not Hispanic 0.20 0.29 – 0.09

Hispanic 0.20 0.17 0.03

Other 0.18 0.22 – 0.04

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.35 0.38 – 0.03 0.11

High school diploma/GED 0.38 0.37 0.01

More than high school diploma 0.27 0.26 0.02

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.72 0.65 0.06

2 or more adults 0.28 0.35 – 0.06 0.22

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.42 0.49 – 0.07 0.38

2 children 0.31 0.30 0.01

3 children 0.14 0.13 0.02

4 children or more 0.13 0.09 0.04

Missing data 0.00 0.00 0.00

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.62

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.11 0.15 – 0.04 1.00

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.88

$5,000–9,999 0.31 0.26 0.05

$10,000–14,999 0.18 0.16 0.02

$15,000–19,999 0.09 0.09 0.00

$20,000–24,999 0.04 0.09 – 0.05

$25,000 or more 0.06 0.07 – 0.01

Missing data 0.02 0.03 – 0.01

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.63 0.60 0.03 0.95

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.86 0.81 0.04 0.06 *

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.44 0.40 0.04 0.42

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.23 0.32 – 0.08 0.47

Number of major life challengesb 1.56 1.74 – 0.18 0.40

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 1.989 F-test p-value = 0.001

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment.

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test).

Source: Family Options Baseline Survey; 18-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 27

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-28. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents for SUB + CBRR 

Versus PBTH Impact Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey

Characteristic Respondents Nonrespondents Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 685 166 80%

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.51

21–24 years 0.18 0.20 – 0.02

25–29 years 0.25 0.23 0.02

30–34 years 0.20 0.24 – 0.05

35–44 years 0.21 0.25 – 0.05

45 years and older 0.09 0.05 0.04

Mean age (years) 30.87 31.02 – 0.15 0.55

Gender (percent)

Female 0.91 0.86 0.05 0.56

Male 0.09 0.14 – 0.05

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.68 0.65 0.03 0.78

Married or marriage-like situation 0.32 0.35 – 0.03

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.40 0.31 0.09 0.90

White, not Hispanic 0.19 0.27 – 0.08

Hispanic 0.16 0.17 – 0.01

Other 0.25 0.25 0.00

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.33 0.37 – 0.05 0.09 *

High school diploma/GED 0.39 0.36 0.03

More than high school diploma 0.28 0.27 0.01

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.66 0.61 0.06

2 or more adults 0.34 0.39 – 0.06 0.58

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.41 0.42 – 0.01 0.41

2 children 0.30 0.30 0.00

3 children 0.17 0.18 – 0.01

4 children or more 0.11 0.10 0.02

Missing data 0.00 0.00 0.00

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.19 0.25 – 0.06 0.28

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.12 0.13 – 0.02 0.35

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.28 0.29 0.00 0.62

$5,000–9,999 0.28 0.28 0.00

$10,000–14,999 0.18 0.14 0.04

$15,000–19,999 0.10 0.09 0.01

$20,000–24,999 0.05 0.10 – 0.05

$25,000 or more 0.06 0.05 0.00

Missing data 0.04 0.04 – 0.01

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.63 0.54 0.08 0.56

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.85 0.81 0.04 0.11

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.44 0.42 0.02 0.79

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.26 0.28 – 0.02 0.12

Number of major life challengesb 1.56 1.51 0.06 0.38

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 1.676 F-test p-value = 0.013

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment.

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test).

Source: Family Options Baseline Survey; 18-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 28

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Exhibit D-29. Equivalence at Baseline of Analysis Sample for Respondents Versus Nonrespondents for PBTH + CBRR 

Versus SUB Impact Comparison, 37-Month Adult Survey

Characteristic Respondents Nonrespondents Difference Significance Level Stars

Number of families 954 219 81%

Age of household head at RA (percent)

Less than 21 years old 0.09 0.07 0.02 0.36

21–24 years 0.20 0.18 0.02

25–29 years 0.24 0.25 – 0.01

30–34 years 0.19 0.24 – 0.05

35–44 years 0.20 0.20 0.00

45 years and older 0.08 0.05 0.02

Mean age (years) 30.35 30.34 0.01 0.22

Gender (percent)

Female 0.92 0.88 0.04 0.16

Male 0.08 0.12 – 0.04

Marital status (percent)

Single (never married/widowed/separated/divorced) 0.73 0.69 0.04 0.69

Married or marriage-like situation 0.27 0.31 – 0.04

Race/ethnicity (percent)

Black/African American, not Hispanic 0.39 0.26 0.13 0.08 *

White, not Hispanic 0.22 0.30 – 0.08

Hispanic 0.21 0.19 0.02

Other 0.18 0.25 – 0.07

Educational attainment (percent)

Less than high school diploma 0.33 0.38 – 0.05 0.77

High school diploma/GED 0.40 0.35 0.05

More than high school diploma 0.26 0.26 0.00

Number of adults in family (percent)

1 adult 0.71 0.67 0.04

2 or more adults 0.29 0.33 – 0.04 0.43

Number of children in family (percent)

1 child 0.42 0.50 – 0.08 0.71

2 children 0.32 0.26 0.06

3 children 0.14 0.14 0.01

4 children or more 0.11 0.10 0.01

Missing data 0.01 0.00 0.00

Worked for pay past week (percent) 0.14 0.16 – 0.01 0.64

Ever convicted of a felony (percent) 0.11 0.15 – 0.04 0.52

Family annual income (percent)

Less than $5,000 0.31 0.33 – 0.02 0.57

$5,000–9,999 0.31 0.27 0.04

$10,000–14,999 0.18 0.15 0.03

$15,000–19,999 0.08 0.08 0.01

$20,000–24,999 0.04 0.09 – 0.05

$25,000 or more 0.05 0.06 – 0.01

Missing data 0.02 0.03 0.00

Ever been homeless before (percent) 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.76

Ever been doubled up before (percent) 0.85 0.81 0.04 0.57

Major barrier to finding housinga 0.44 0.41 0.03 0.38

Child under 18 living elsewhere (percent) 0.22 0.31 – 0.08 0.05 **

Number of major life challengesb 1.60 1.85 – 0.25 0.66

F-test on all characteristics except site F value = 2.024 F-test p-value = 0.001

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

GED = general educational development. RA = random assignment. 

* .10 level. ** .05 level. *** .01 level.

a

 Barriers to finding housing were reported by family heads as “big problems” in finding housing. The maximum number of barriers is 19.

b The seven major life challenges measured are: psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, felony conviction, experience of domestic violence, childhood separation 

(foster care, group home, or institutionalization), medical condition, and substance abuse.

Notes: Each row reports the proportion of each group with the characteristic. Chi-square tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups for all 

characteristics except mean age, for which a t-test is used. The F-test is of the joint significance of all listed characteristics in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression also includes site indicators (which are not included in the joint test).

Sources: Family Options Baseline Survey; 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 29

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

Unweighted Impact Estimates

How were the main results of this report affected by the use of 

nonresponse analysis weights? As discussed in Appendix C, the 

study team used nonresponse weights to produce all estimates in 

this report. This methodology is motivated in part by the finding 

in the previous section that for most impact comparisons, 

respondents and nonrespondents differed systematically on a 

number of baseline characteristics. Survey nonresponse weights 

adjust impact estimates such that the analysis sample reflects the 

observable characteristics of the baseline sample. This adjustment represents a “correction,” however, only insofar as impacts 

vary with observable participant characteristics. The impact 

models also controlled for observable baseline characteristics. 

Together, these measures adjust the impact estimates to reflect 

potential differences between the groups in each comparison 

that could have been induced by nonresponse. In this section, 

we look for evidence of such variation by comparing the study’s 

headline impact estimates to estimates that do not use survey 

nonresponse weights. The results are also presented for completeness for readers interested in the unadjusted estimates.

Exhibit D-30 presents these unadjusted estimates, which are 

comparable to Exhibit ES-7 in the executive summary. Changes 

Exhibit D-30. Executive Summary Impact Estimates, Estimated Without Nonresponse Weights

Mean ITT Impact Estimates

Outcome All UC 

Group

SUB 

vs. UC

CBRR 

vs. UC

PBTH 

vs. UC

SUB 

vs. CBRR

SUB 

vs. PBTH

CBRR 

vs. PBTH

Housing stability (intervention goal: lower values)

At least 1 night homelessa or doubled up in past 6 months or in shelter 

in past 12 monthsb (%) [confirmatory]

38.3 – 20.9*** 1.4 1.1 – 19.9*** – 25.7*** – 3.0

At least 1 night homelessa or doubled up in past 6 months (%) 34.4 – 18.2*** 1.6 1.4 – 16.4*** – 23.8*** – 3.1

Number of places lived in past 6 months 1.58 – 0.23*** 0.05 – 0.04 – 0.16** – 0.33*** 0.09

Any stay in emergency shelter in months 7 to 18 after RA (%) 17.1 – 14.1*** – 2.6 – 6.2** – 11.9*** – 6.0** 1.8

Family preservation (intervention goal: lower values)

Family has at least one child separated in past 6 monthsc (%) 15.6 – 2.7 – 0.1 2.1 – 0.7 – 7.3* – 3.6

Spouse/partner separated in past 6 months, of those with spouse/partner 

present at RAd (%) [limited base]

38.4 12.9** 7.1 9.9 – 7.2 1.2 – 1.9

Family has no child reunified, of those families with at least one child 

absent at RAe (%) [limited base]

67.3 – 6.6 – 3.8 1.6 – 5.3 – 17.2 – 5.3

Adult well-being (intervention goal: lower values)

Health in past 30 days was poor or fair (%) 31.0 2.7 0.8 – 2.7 – 1.2 – 2.2 – 0.8

Psychological distressf 0.00 – 0.13** – 0.02 – 0.03 – 0.06 – 0.10 – 0.27**

Alcohol dependence or drug abuse in past 6 monthsg (%) 11.4 – 2.3 – 1.9 2.1 1.9 0.5 – 6.4*

Experienced intimate partner violence in past 6 months (%) 10.8 – 4.5** – 1.8 – 2.1 – 1.8 – 0.9 – 0.6

Child well-being (intervention goal: lower values)

Number of schools attended since RAh 2.08 – 0.15** 0.04 0.05 – 0.23*** – 0.16 0.03

School absences in past month (ages 5 to 17 years)i 0.98 – 0.04 – 0.09 – 0.16 – 0.02 – 0.11 – 0.23

Poor or fair health (%) 5.8 1.1 – 0.8 – 0.4 0.8 0.7 – 0.7

Behavior problemsj 0.58 – 0.22*** – 0.21** – 0.11 0.00 – 0.20 – 0.21*

Self-sufficiency (intervention goal: higher values)

Work for pay in week before survey (%) 37.8 – 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.1 – 1.5 – 3.6

Total family income ($) 12,117 – 853 – 758 – 234 – 409 – 1,324 – 1,850

Household is food secure (%) 53.4 8.9*** 3.5 2.2 3.2 13.0*** 11.6**

Number of families 556 895 868 551 652 414 363

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care. 

ITT = intention-to-treat. RA = random assignment.

*/**/*** Impact estimate is significantly different from 0 at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, using a two-tailed t-test (not adjusted for multiple comparisons).

a

 The definition of “homeless” in this report includes stays in emergency shelters and places not meant for human habitation. It excludes transitional housing. Additional impacts on 

the use of transitional housing are provided in Appendix E.

b After adjustment for multiple comparisons, the impact on the confirmatory outcome is statistically significant at the .01 level for the SUB-versus-UC, SUB-versus-CBRR, and SUBversus-PBTH comparisons.

c

 Percentage of families in which a child who was with the family at baseline became separated from the family in the 6 months before the 37-month survey.

d Percentage of families in which a spouse or partner who was with the family at baseline became separated from the family in the 6 months before the 37-month survey.

e

 Percentage of families in which at least one child was separated from the family at baseline and no child was reunited with the family at the time of the 37-month survey.

f

 Psychological distress is measured with the Kessler 6 (K6) scale and ranges from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater distress. Impacts shown as standardized effect 

sizes. Effect sizes were standardized by dividing impacts by standard deviation for the UC group.

g Measures evidence of alcohol dependence or drug abuse using responses to the Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS-4) and six items from the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10).

h

 Number of schools outcome is topcoded at 4 or more schools.

i

 Absences outcome is defined as 0 = no absences in past month; 1 = one to two absences; 2 = three to five absences; 3 = six or more absences. This parent-reported outcome 

was collected from only the first 38 percent of parents surveyed due to an error in data collection.

j

 Behavior problems outcome is measured as the standardized Total Difficulties score from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, or SDQ.

Notes: Impact estimates are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Appendix B for outcome definitions.

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey; Program Usage Data
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 30

D

Appendix D. Analysis of 37-Month Survey Nonresponse

to coefficient signs, magnitudes, and statistical significance are 

minimal. In every case, the 95-percent confidence intervals 

associated with impact coefficients estimated without nonresponse weights included the coefficient estimates in the main 

weighted specification, with intervals largely overlapping. 

Changes of sign (that is, from positive to negative) were limited 

to coefficients that were both close in magnitude to zero and 

estimated as statistically insignificant. Changes in statistical 

significance were minor.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 1

E

APPENDIX E.

IMPACTS ON USE OF 

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING

T his appendix contains impacts on nine additional 

outcomes related to use of transitional housing as well 

as emergency shelter during the 37-month followup 

period. These outcomes more closely measure the impact of 

random assignment to contrasting interventions on homelessness as defined in the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance 

Act and Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and 

End Homelessness. That Act includes residence in a transitional 

housing program as one type of homelessness. The additional 

outcomes are— 

1. Any use of emergency shelter or transitional housing in 

months 0 to 32 after random assignment (percentage of 

families).

2. Any use of emergency shelter during months 0 to 32 after 

random assignment (percentage of families). 

3. Any use of transitional housing in months 0 to 32 after 

random assignment (percentage of families).

4. Number of months using emergency shelter or transitional 

housing in months 0 to 32 after random assignment. 

5. Number of months using emergency shelter in months 0 to 

32 after random assignment.

6. Number of months using transitional housing in months 0 to 

32 after random assignment.

7. Any use of emergency shelter or transitional housing in 

months 7 to 32 after random assignment (percentage of 

families).

8. Any use of emergency shelter in months 7 to 32 after 

random assignment (percentage of families).

9. Any use of transitional housing in months 7 to 32 after 

random assignment (percentage of families). 

The new outcomes are measured with Program Usage Data. 

They differ from outcomes in the analyses of housing stability 

provided in Chapters 3 through 6, which did not consider use 

of transitional housing, either separately or in conjunction with 

the use of emergency shelter.

This appendix includes six exhibits, one for each pairwise comparison: (1) priority access to permanent housing subsidy (SUB) 

versus usual care (UC), (2) priority access to communitybased rapid re-housing (CBRR) versus UC, (3) priority access to 

project-based transitional housing (PBTH) versus UC, (4) SUB 

versus CBRR, (5) SUB versus PBTH, and (6) CBRR versus PBTH. 

For comparisons involving PBTH (Exhibits E-3, E-5, and E-6), 

impacts on the use of transitional housing in part reflects 

takeup of the assigned intervention encouraged and facilitated 

for the PBTH group—but not the other group included in the 

comparison—by the study design.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 2

E

Appendix E. Impacts on Use of Transitional Housing

Exhibit E-1. SUB Versus UC: Impacts on Use of ES and TH in Months 0 to 32 After RA

Outcome

SUB UC ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Any use of ES or TH during months 0 to 32

Any use of emergency shelter or transitional housing during 

months 0 to 32 after RA (%)

501 85.6 (36.3) 395 91.9 (25.3) – 6.3 *** (2.1) – 0.20

Any use of emergency shelter during months 0 to 32 after RA (%) 501 84.5 (37.4) 395 88.5 (29.9) – 4.0 * (2.3) – 0.11

Any use of transitional housing during months 0 to 32 after RA (%) 501 7.0 (26.2) 395 28.4 (44.2) – 21.3 *** (2.7) – 0.41

Number of months of ES and TH during months 0 to 32

Number of months of emergency shelter and transitional housing 

use during months 0 to 32 after RA

501 3.0 (4.5) 395 7.0 (8.0) – 4.0 *** (0.5) – 0.43

Number of months of emergency shelter use during 

months 0 to 32 after RA

501 2.5 (3.0) 395 3.9 (5.2) – 1.4 *** (0.2) – 0.26

Number of months of transitional housing use during 

months 0 to 32 after RA

501 0.5 (3.2) 395 3.1 (6.5) – 2.6 *** (0.4) – 0.33

Any use of ES or TH during months 7 to 32

Any use of emergency shelter or transitional housing during 

months 7 to 32 after RA (%)

501 15.7 (36.5) 395 47.9 (50.1) – 2.2 *** (3.0) – 0.56

Any use of emergency shelter during months 7 to 32 after RA (%) 501 13.8 (34.1) 395 36.7 (48.6) – 22.9 *** (2.9) – 0.41

Any use of transitional housing during months 7 to 32 after RA (%) 501 4.4 (21.4) 395 23.9 (41.7) – 19.4 *** (2.5) – 0.39

SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. UC = usual care.

ES = emergency shelter. ITT = intention-to-treat. RA = random assignment. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error. TH = transitional housing.

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

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

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Appendix B for outcome 

definitions.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data

Exhibit E-2. CBRR Versus UC: Impacts on Use of ES and TH in Months 0 to 32 After RA

Outcome

CBRR UC ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Any use of ES or TH during months 0 to 32

Any use of emergency shelter or transitional housing during 

months 0 to 32 after RA (%)

434 92.8 (24.6) 434 91.9 (26.5) 0.9 (1.9) 0.03

Any use of emergency shelter during months 0 to 32 after RA (%) 434 90.4 (28.6) 434 89.4 (30.5) 0.9 (2.1) 0.03

Any use of transitional housing during months 0 to 32 after RA (%) 434 21.7 (41.6) 434 27.8 (44.9) – 6.1 ** (3.0) – 0.12

Number of months of ES and TH during months 0 to 32

Number of months of emergency shelter and transitional housing 

use during months 0 to 32 after RA

434 5.9 (7.4) 434 7.0 (8.0) – 1.1 ** (0.5) – 0.12

Number of months of emergency shelter use during 

months 0 to 32 after RA

434 3.7 (4.6) 434 4.0 (5.1) – 0.3 (0.3) – 0.05

Number of months of transitional housing use during 

months 0 to 32 after RA

434 2.1 (5.5) 434 3.0 (6.6) – 0.8 ** (0.4) – 0.11

Any use of ES or TH during months 7 to 32

Any use of emergency shelter or transitional housing during 

months 7 to 32 after RA (%)

434 43.8 (49.6) 434 48.6 (50.0) – 4.8 (3.6) – 0.08

Any use of emergency shelter during months 7 to 32 after RA (%) 434 35.7 (47.7) 434 38.0 (48.7) – 2.4 (3.5) – 0.04

Any use of transitional housing during months 7 to 32 after RA (%) 434 17.3 (38.1) 434 22.8 (42.0) – 5.4 * (2.8) – 0.11

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. UC = usual care. 

ES = emergency shelter. ITT = intention-to-treat. RA = random assignment. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error. TH = transitional housing.

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

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

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Appendix B for outcome 

definitions.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 3

E

Appendix E. Impacts on Use of Transitional Housing

Exhibit E-3. PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on Use of ES and TH in Months 0 to 32 After RA

Outcome

PBTH UC ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Any use of ES or TH during months 0 to 32

Any use of emergency shelter or transitional housing during 

months 0 to 32 after RA (%)

293 95.1 (20.6) 259 92.9 (24.8) 2.2 (2.1) 0.07

Any use of emergency shelter during months 0 to 32 after RA (%) 293 82.5 (37.7) 259 88.8 (32.1) – 6.3 ** (3.0) – 0.17

Any use of transitional housing during months 0 to 32 after RA (%) 293 52.3 (49.9) 259 33.9 (47.8) 18.3 *** (4.5) 0.35

Number of months of ES and TH during months 0 to 32

Number of months of emergency shelter and transitional housing 

use during months 0 to 32 after RA

293 10.1 (9.6) 259 7.0 (8.5) 3.0 *** (0.8) 0.32

Number of months of emergency shelter use during 

months 0 to 32 after RA

293 2.7 (3.5) 259 3.7 (4.9) – 1.0 *** (0.3) – 0.19

Number of months of transitional housing use during 

months 0 to 32 after RA

293 7.4 (9.6) 259 3.3 (7.3) 4.1 *** (0.7) 0.52

Any use of ES or TH during months 7 to 32

Any use of emergency shelter or transitional housing during 

months 7 to 32 after RA (%)

293 58.3 (49.3) 259 46.9 (50.1) 11.4 ** (4.5) 0.20

Any use of emergency shelter during months 7 to 32 after RA (%) 293 24.5 (43.1) 259 32.6 (47.3) – 8.1 ** (4.0) – 0.15

Any use of transitional housing during months 7 to 32 after RA (%) 293 43.2 (49.8) 259 26.6 (45.1) 16.6 *** (4.4) 0.33

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. UC = usual care. 

ES = emergency shelter. ITT = intention-to-treat. RA = random assignment. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error. TH = transitional housing.

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

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

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Appendix B for outcome 

definitions.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data

Exhibit E-4. SUB Versus CBRR: Impacts on Use of ES and TH in Months 0 to 32 After RA

Outcome

SUB CBRR ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Any use of ES or TH during months 0 to 32

Any use of emergency shelter or transitional housing during 

months 0 to 32 after RA (%)

362 85.7 (35.9) 290 91.7 (26.5) – 6.1 ** (2.6) – 0.19

Any use of emergency shelter during months 0 to 32 after RA (%) 362 84.6 (36.7) 290 90.5 (27.6) – 5.9 ** (2.7) – 0.16

Any use of transitional housing during months 0 to 32 after RA (%) 362 7.5 (25.4) 290 18.9 (39.5) – 11.4 *** (2.7) – 0.22

Number of months of ES and TH during months 0 to 32

Number of months of emergency shelter and transitional housing 

use during months 0 to 32 after RA

362 3.0 (4.1) 290 5.6 (7.0) – 2.6 *** (0.4) – 0.28

Number of months of emergency shelter use during 

months 0 to 32 after RA

362 2.5 (3.2) 290 4.0 (5.1) – 1.5 *** (0.3) – 0.28

Number of months of transitional housing use during 

months 0 to 32 after RA

362 0.5 (2.5) 290 1.6 (4.4) – 1.1 *** (0.3) – 0.14

Any use of ES or TH during months 7 to 32

Any use of emergency shelter or transitional housing during 

months 7 to 32 after RA (%)

362 15.9 (37.0) 290 43.6 (49.8) – 27.7 *** (3.8) – 0.48

Any use of emergency shelter during months 7 to 32 after RA (%) 362 14.5 (35.4) 290 36.0 (48.2) – 21.5 *** (3.7) – 0.39

Any use of transitional housing during months 7 to 32 after RA (%) 362 4.7 (20.6) 290 15.9 (37.2) – 11.3 *** (2.4) – 0.23

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

ES = emergency shelter. ITT = intention-to-treat. RA = random assignment. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error. TH = transitional housing.

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

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

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Appendix B for outcome 

definitions.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 4

E

Appendix E. Impacts on Use of Transitional Housing

Exhibit E-5. SUB Versus PBTH: Impacts on Use of ES and TH in Months 0 to 32 After RA

Outcome

SUB PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Any use of ES or TH during months 0 to 32

Any use of emergency shelter or transitional housing during 

months 0 to 32 after RA (%)

215 88.7 (33.2) 201 93.4 (20.7) – 4.7 (3.2) – 0.15

Any use of emergency shelter during months 0 to 32 after RA (%) 215 88.4 (34.2) 201 81.3 (36.7) 7.1 * (3.8) 0.20

Any use of transitional housing during months 0 to 32 after RA (%) 215 9.2 (29.1) 201 49.3 (50.1) – 40.2 *** (4.3) – 0.77

Number of months of ES and TH during months 0 to 32

Number of months of emergency shelter and transitional housing 

use during months 0 to 32 after RA

215 3.0 (5.1) 201 9.8 (9.7) – 6.8 *** (0.8) – 0.72

Number of months of emergency shelter use during 

months 0 to 32 after RA

215 2.1 (2.8) 201 2.8 (3.8) – 0.7 ** (0.3) – 0.12

Number of months of transitional housing use during 

months 0 to 32 after RA

215 0.9 (4.1) 201 7.0 (9.8) – 6.1 *** (0.7) – 0.77

Any use of ES or TH during months 7 to 32

Any use of emergency shelter or transitional housing during 

months 7 to 32 after RA (%)

215 11.3 (32.7) 201 58.5 (49.3) – 47.2 *** (4.5) – 0.82

Any use of emergency shelter during months 7 to 32 after RA (%) 215 7.0 (27.0) 201 26.8 (43.9) – 19.9 *** (4.0) – 0.36

Any use of transitional housing during months 7 to 32 after RA (%) 215 6.3 (23.9) 201 40.4 (49.6) – 34.1 ** (4.0) – 0.69

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

ES = emergency shelter. ITT = intention-to-treat. RA = random assignment. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error. TH = transitional housing.

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

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

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Appendix B for outcome 

definitions.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data

Exhibit E-6. CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Use of ES and TH in Months 0 to 32 After RA

Outcome

CBRR PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Any use of ES or TH during months 0 to 32

Any use of emergency shelter or transitional housing during 

months 0 to 32 after RA (%)

180 92.3 (26.0) 184 94.9 (20.4) – 2.6 (2.6) – 0.08

Any use of emergency shelter during months 0 to 32 after RA (%) 180 86.9 (32.2) 184 86.0 (37.0) 1.0 (3.7) 0.03

Any use of transitional housing during months 0 to 32 after RA (%) 180 30.9 (46.4) 184 51.4 (49.8) – 20.4 *** (5.7) – 0.39

Number of months of ES and TH during months 0 to 32

Number of months of emergency shelter and transitional housing 

use during months 0 to 32 after RA

180 6.1 (8.3) 184 9.6 (9.6) – 3.4 *** (1.0) – 0.37

Number of months of emergency shelter use during 

months 0 to 32 after RA

180 3.2 (4.0) 184 2.6 (3.4) 0.6 (0.4) 0.11

Number of months of transitional housing use during 

months 0 to 32 after RA

180 2.9 (6.5) 184 6.9 (9.5) – 4.0 *** (0.9) – 0.51

Any use of ES or TH during months 7 to 32

Any use of emergency shelter or transitional housing during 

months 7 to 32 after RA (%)

180 42.2 (49.5) 184 55.4 (49.4) – 13.2 ** (5.5) – 0.23

Any use of emergency shelter during months 7 to 32 after RA (%) 180 30.1 (46.2) 184 25.0 (43.7) 5.1 (5.3) 0.09

Any use of transitional housing during months 7 to 32 after RA (%) 180 22.4 (42.1) 184 42.7 (50.0) – 20.3 *** (5.3) – 0.41

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

ES = emergency shelter. ITT = intention-to-treat. RA = random assignment. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error. TH = transitional housing.

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

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

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Appendix B for outcome 

definitions.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 1

F

APPENDIX F.

IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR POOLED

COMPARISONS

List of Exhibits

Exhibit F-1. SUB+CBRR+PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on 

Housing Stability at 37 Months ....................F-2

Exhibit F-2. SUB+CBRR+PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on 

Family Preservation at 37 Months ................F-2

Exhibit F-3. SUB+CBRR+PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on 

Adult Well-Being at 37 Months....................F-3

Exhibit F-4. SUB+CBRR+PBTH Versus UC: Impacts 

on Child Well-Being Across Age Groups at 

37 Months....................................................F-3

Exhibit F-5. SUB+CBRR+PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on 

Child Well-Being Developmental Outcomes 

by Age Group at 37 Months .........................F-4

Exhibit F-6. SUB+CBRR+PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on 

Self-Sufficiency at 37 Months .......................F-5

Exhibit F-7. SUB+CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on 

Housing Stability at 37 Months ....................F-6

Exhibit F-8. SUB+CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on 

Family Preservation at 37 Months ................F-6

Exhibit F-9. SUB+CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on 

Adult Well-Being at 37 Months....................F-7

Exhibit F-10. SUB+CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on 

Child Well-Being Across Age Groups at 

37 Months....................................................F-7

Exhibit F-11. SUB+CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on 

Child Well-Being Developmental Outcomes 

by Age Group at 37 Months .........................F-8

Exhibit F-12. SUB+CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on 

Self-Sufficiency at 37 Months .......................F-9

Exhibit F-13. SUB+PBTH Versus CBRR: Impacts on 

Housing Stability at 37 Months ..................F-10

Exhibit F-14. SUB+PBTH Versus CBRR: Impacts on 

Family Preservation at 37 Months ..............F-10

Exhibit F-15. SUB+PBTH Versus CBRR: Impacts on 

Adult Well-Being at 37 Months..................F-11

Exhibit F-16. SUB+PBTH Versus CBRR: Impacts on 

Child Well-Being Across Age Groups at 

37 Months..................................................F-11

Exhibit F-17. SUB+PBTH Versus CBRR: Impacts on 

Child Well-Being Developmental Outcomes 

by Age Group at 37 Months .......................F-12

Exhibit F-18. SUB+PBTH Versus CBRR: Impacts on 

Self-Sufficiency at 37 Months .....................F-13

Exhibit F-19. CBRR+PBTH Versus SUB: Impacts on 

Housing Stability at 37 Months ..................F-14

Exhibit F-20. CBRR+PBTH Versus SUB: Impacts on 

Family Preservation at 37 Months ..............F-14

Exhibit F-21. CBRR+PBTH Versus SUB: Impacts on 

Adult Well-Being at 37 Months..................F-15

Exhibit F-22. CBRR+PBTH Versus SUB: Impacts on 

Child Well-Being Across Age Groups at 

37 Months..................................................F-15

Exhibit F-23. CBRR+PBTH Versus SUB: Impacts on 

Child Well-Being Developmental Outcomes 

by Age Group at 37 Months .......................F-16

Exhibit F-24. CBRR+PBTH Versus SUB: Impacts on 

Self-Sufficiency at 37 Months .....................F-17
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 2

F

Appendix F. Impact Estimates for Pooled Comparisons

Exhibit F-1. SUB+CBRR+PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on Housing Stability at 37 Months

Outcome

SUB+CBRR+PBTH UC ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Homelessness or doubled up during the follow up period

At least 1 night homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months or in 

shelter in past 12 monthsc (%)

1,226 30.3 (46.0) 556 38.9 (48.7) – 8.6 *** (2.6) – 0.15

At least 1 night homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months (%) 1,226 27.7 (44.7) 556 34.8 (47.5) – 7.1 *** (2.5) – 0.13

At least 1 night homelessb in past 6 months (%) 1,227 13.8 (34.5) 556 18.0 (38.4) – 4.2 ** (2.0) – 0.10

At least 1 night doubled up in past 6 months (%) 1,227 22.0 (41.4) 556 28.4 (45.1) – 6.4 *** (2.3) – 0.12

Any stay in emergency shelter in past 6 months (%) 

[Program Usage Data]

1,228 5.2 (22.2) 556 8.5 (27.8) – 3.2 ** (1.4) – 0.10

Any stay in emergency shelter in months 21 to 32 after RA (%) 

[Program Usage Data]

1,228 9.6 (29.5) 556 17.6 (37.7) – 8.1 *** (1.9) – 0.19

Number of days homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months 1,224 36.1 (66.1) 553 47.5 (74.0) – 11.4 *** (3.9) – 0.13

Number of days homelessb in past 6 months 1,227 12.3 (39.2) 556 18.4 (48.2) – 6.1 ** (2.4) – 0.11

Number of days doubled up in past 6 months 1,225 26.2 (57.5) 553 33.1 (62.3) – 6.8 ** (3.4) – 0.09

 Housing independence

Living in own house or apartment at followup (%) 1,228 74.3 (43.7) 556 69.1 (46.3) 5.2 ** (2.4) 0.10

Living in own house or apartment with no housing assistance (%) 1,224 29.2 (45.4) 553 41.4 (49.1) – 12.2 *** (2.5) – 0.21

Living in own house or apartment with housing assistance (%) 1,224 45.2 (49.8) 553 27.6 (45.2) 17.6 *** (2.4) 0.34

Number of places lived

Number of places lived in past 6 monthsd 1,225 1.5 (1.0) 556 1.6 (1.0) – 0.1 (0.1) – 0.06

Housing quality

Persons per room 1,166 1.5 (1.1) 526 1.6 (1.2) – 0.1 ** (0.1) – 0.10

Housing quality is poor or fair (%) 1,166 30.5 (45.8) 525 32.7 (46.8) – 2.2 (2.6) – 0.04

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

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

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

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

b The definition of “homeless” in this report includes stays in emergency shelters and places not meant for human habitation. It excludes transitional housing.

c

 After adjustment of multiple comparisons, the impact on the confirmatory outcome is statistically significant at the .01 level for the SUB+CBRR+PBTH-versus-UC comparison.

d The number of places lived in past 6 months is topcoded at 6 places.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey; Program Usage Data

Exhibit F-2. SUB+CBRR+PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on Family Preservation at 37 Months

Outcome

SUB+CBRR+PBTH UC ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Current or recent separations of family members present at baseline

Family has at least one child separated in past 6 months (%) 1,199 15.9 (36.5) 545 17.0 (36.3) – 1.1 (2.0) – 0.02

Family has at least one foster care placement in past 6 monthsb (%) 1,208 3.4 (18.1) 550 3.5 (17.3) – 0.1 (1.1) 0.00

Spouse/partner separated in past 6 months, of those with spouse/

partner present at RA (%)

317 42.1 (49.0) 151 34.8 (48.8) 7.3 (5.0) 0.12

Reunification of family members reported as separated at baseline

Family has at least one child reunified, of those families with at least 

one child absent at RA (%)

231 40.6 (49.5) 107 35.7 (47.1) 4.9 (6.2) 0.09

Spouse/partner reunified, of those with spouse/partner absent at 

RA (%)

120 28.1 (45.3) 55 22.1 (40.4) 5.9 (9.0) 0.13

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

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

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

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

b Foster care placement outcome includes any children (present at baseline) who are placed in foster care or adopted by another family at the time of followup.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 3

F

Appendix F. Impact Estimates for Pooled Comparisons

Exhibit F-3. SUB+CBRR+PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on Adult Well-Being at 37 Months

Outcome

SUB+CBRR+PBTH UC ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Adult physical health

Health in past 30 days was poor or fair (%) 1,224 31.3 (46.3) 555 30.8 (46.3) 0.5 (2.4) 0.01

Adult mental health

Goal-oriented thinkingb 1,211 4.46 (1.02) 553 4.52 (0.98) – 0.06 (0.05) – 0.06

Psychological distressc 1,223 6.75 (5.57) 554 7.07 (5.79) – 0.33 (0.29) – 0.05

Adult trauma symptoms

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in past 

 30 days (%)

1,217 20.9 (40.4) 552 22.5 (41.8) – 1.6 (2.2) – 0.03

Adult substance use

Alcohol dependence or drug abused (%) 1,226 11.3 (31.8) 554 11.9 (31.8) – 0.5 (1.7) – 0.01

Alcohol dependenced (%) 1,227 8.6 (28.3) 555 8.8 (27.3) – 0.2 (1.5) – 0.01

Drug abused (%) 1,226 3.9 (19.4) 555 5.2 (21.9) – 1.3 (1.2) – 0.05

Experience of intimate partner violence

Experienced intimate partner violence in past 6 months (%) 1,224 7.6 (26.5) 553 10.7 (31.1) – 3.1 * (1.6) – 0.09

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

ITT = intention-to-treat. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error.

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

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

b Goal-oriented thinking is measured with a modified version of the State Hope Scale and ranges from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive, goal-oriented 

thinking.

c

 Psychological distress is measured with the Kessler 6 (K6) scale and ranges from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater distress.

d Alcohol dependence is measured with the Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS-4), and drug abuse is measured with six items from the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10). 

Both are measured for the 6 months before the 37-month survey.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey

Exhibit F-4. SUB+CBRR+PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on Child Well-Being Across Age Groups at 37 Months

Outcome

SUB+CBRR+PBTH UC ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Child education

Number of schools attended since RAb 1,442 2.1 (0.9) 655 2.1 (0.9) – 0.0 (0.1) – 0.01

Grade completion (not held back) (%) 1,198 90.85 (29.47) 539 91.05 (28.24) – 0.20 (1.72) – 0.01

School gradesc 1,095 3.1 (0.9) 485 3.1 (0.9) 0.0 (0.1) 0.01

Child physical health

Poor or fair health in past 30 days (%) 1,670 6.3 (23.4) 743 5.7 (23.4) 0.6 (1.3) 0.02

Well-child checkup in past year (%) 1,669 89.5 (30.6) 741 91.0 (29.1) – 1.5 (1.7) – 0.04

Child has regular source of health care (%) 1,666 91.8 (26.2) 742 91.6 (27.1) 0.2 (1.8) 0.01

Sleep problemsd 1,669 2.06 (1.05) 744 2.20 (1.09) – 0.14 ** (0.06) – 0.10

Child behavioral strengths and challenges

Behavior problemse 1,589 0.45 (1.23) 709 0.59 (1.25) – 0.15 ** (0.07) – 0.09

Prosocial behaviorf . . (.) . . (.) . (.) .

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

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

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

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

b Number of schools outcome is topcoded at 4 or more schools.

c

 School grades outcome is defined as 1 = mostly Ds or Fs, 2 = mostly Cs, 3 = mostly Bs, 4 = mostly As.

d Sleep problems outcome ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating more frequent tiredness upon waking and during the day.

e

 Behavior problems outcome is measured as the standardized Total Difficulties score from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).

f

 Prosocial behavior is measured as the standardized prosocial domain score from the SDQ.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey (parent report)
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 4

F

Appendix F. Impact Estimates for Pooled Comparisons

Exhibit F-5. SUB+CBRR+PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on Child Well-Being Developmental Outcomes by Age Group at 

37 Months

Outcome

SUB+CBRR+PBTH UC ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Ages 2 to 5 yearsb

Preschool or Head Start enrollmentc (%) 516 37.1 (48.7) 223 37.3 (49.6) – 0.2 (4.4) 0.00

Child care or preschool absences in past monthd 195 0.73 (0.92) 93 0.76 (0.91) – 0.03 (0.14) – 0.03

Positive child care or preschool experiencese 205 0.83 (0.42) 97 0.82 (0.39) 0.01 (0.06) 0.02

Positive child care or preschool attitudesf 205 4.57 (0.90) 96 4.50 (0.69) 0.07 (0.11) 0.08

Child care or preschool conduct problemsg (%) 217 7.7 (30.3) 98 6.9 (24.1) 0.7 (3.5) 0.03

Ages 2 years to 5 years, 6 months

Met developmental milestonesh (%) 451 71.1 (45.1) 204 70.4 (45.7) 0.6 (5.0) 0.01

Ages 3 years, 6 months to 7 years

Verbal abilityi 582 – 0.23 (1.02) 246 – 0.34 (1.04) 0.11 (0.10) 0.08

Math abilityj 580 – 0.27 (0.94) 249 – 0.30 (0.95) 0.03 (0.09) 0.03

Executive functioningk (self-regulation) 554 16.00 (16.16) 239 18.41 (16.39) – 2.41 ** (1.10) – 0.12

Ages 5 to 17 yearsl

School enrollmentc (%) 1,162 97.9 (13.6) 525 97.6 (13.7) 0.3 (1.0) 0.02

School absences in past monthd,m 438 0.89 (0.93) 176 1.04 (0.98) – 0.15 (0.10) – 0.12

Positive school experiencese,m 441 0.54 (0.59) 178 0.47 (0.63) 0.08 (0.07) 0.09

Positive school attitudesf,m 441 4.17 (1.10) 178 4.06 (1.12) 0.11 (0.10) 0.07

School conduct problemsg,m (%) 442 25.0 (43.4) 180 30.7 (46.6) – 5.7 (4.4) – 0.09

Ages 8 to 17 years

Anxietyn 716 35.39 (7.45) 328 35.17 (7.53) 0.22 (0.56) 0.02

Fearso 724 63.29 (14.43) 329 62.95 (14.75) 0.34 (0.98) 0.02

Substance usep (%) 706 6.00 (24.95) 321 7.30 (27.80) – 1.30 (2.01) – 0.04

Goal-oriented thinkingq 693 22.39 (4.92) 316 22.22 (4.65) 0.17 (0.38) 0.03

School effort in past monthr 715 2.76 (0.81) 323 2.80 (0.78) – 0.04 (0.06) – 0.04

Arrests or police involvement in past 6 monthss (%) 386 9.99 (29.83) 181 8.36 (25.89) 1.63 (3.04) 0.04

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

ITT = intention-to-treat. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error.

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

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

b Includes focal children who were ages 4 years or younger on the September 1 before the 37-month parent survey.

c

 Preschool or Head Start enrollment outcome is defined as enrollment in preschool, center-based child care, or school.

d Absences outcome is defined as 0 = no absences in past month, 1 = one to two absences, 2 = three to five absences, 3 = six or more absences.

e

 Positive child care, preschool, or school experiences outcome is defined as – 1 = mostly negative experiences, 0 = both positive and negative experiences, 1 = mostly positive 

experiences.

f

 Positive child care, preschool, or school attitudes outcome is parent report of how much child likes school and ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating greater like of 

school.

g

 Child care, preschool, or school conduct problems outcome is defined as 0 = no conduct problems reported to parent, 1 = parent contacted about conduct problems or suspension or expulsion from school or child care center.

h

 Met developmental milestones outcome is defined as scoring above the typical development cutoffs in all domains of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3).

i

 Verbal ability outcome is the nationally standardized score from the Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III) letter-word identification test.

j

 Math ability outcome is the nationally standardized score from the WJ III applied problems test.

k

 Executive functioning outcome is the Head Toes Knees Shoulders (HTKS) score and ranges from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating greater executive functioning.

l

 Includes focal children who were ages 5 to 17 years on the September 1 before the 37-month parent survey and no older than 17 years at the time of the survey.

m This parent-reported outcome was collected from only the first 38 percent of parents surveyed due to an error in data collection.

n

 Anxiety (child report) is measured using the A-Trait scale from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC). Scores range from 20 to 60, with higher scores indicating 

greater anxiety.

o

 Fears outcome (child report) is the score from the Fears Scale and ranges from 33 to 99, with higher scores indicating more fear.

p Substance use (child report) is measured with 23 items from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

q Goal-oriented thinking (child report) is measured with a modified version of the Children’s Hope Scale and ranges from 6 to 30, with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive, goal-oriented thinking.

r

 School effort outcome (child report) ranges from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater effort during school day and on homework.

s

 Arrest or police involvement in past 6 months is from parent report.

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey (parent report); Family Options Study 37-month child survey (child report); ASQ-3; WJ III; HTKS
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 5

F

Appendix F. Impact Estimates for Pooled Comparisons

Exhibit F-6. SUB+CBRR+PBTH Versus UC: Impacts on Self-Sufficiency at 37 Months

Outcome

SUB+CBRR+PBTH UC ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Employment status

Work for pay in week before survey (%) 1,227 38.5 (48.7) 556 37.2 (48.5) 1.2 (2.5) 0.02

Any work for pay since 20-month surveyb (%) . . (.) . . (.) . (.) .

Months worked for pay since 20-month surveyb,c . . (.) . . (.) . (.) .

Any work for pay since RA (%) 1,227 71.6 (44.4) 555 73.7 (45.0) – 2.1 (2.2) – 0.04

Months worked for pay since RAc 1,214 13.2 (13.5) 542 13.6 (13.5) – 0.4 (0.6) – 0.02

Hours of work per week at current main jobd 1,223 12.2 (17.0) 555 12.0 (16.8) 0.2 (0.9) 0.01

Income sources and amounts

Annualized current earnings ($) 1,204 6,810 (10,983) 542 6,531 (10,759) 279 (536) 0.02

Total family income ($) 1,175 11,762 (9,994) 536 12,314 (11,331) – 552 (548) – 0.04

Anyone in family had earnings in past month (%) 1,228 49.8 (50.0) 556 50.4 (50.0) – 0.6 (2.6) – 0.01

Anyone in family received TANF in past month (%) 1,227 27.0 (44.5) 556 22.7 (42.4) 4.3 ** (2.2) 0.09

Anyone in family received SSDI in past month (%) 1,225 8.7 (27.4) 556 8.7 (29.9) – 0.1 (1.4) 0.00

Anyone in family received SSI in past month (%) 1,227 14.1 (34.4) 556 14.4 (36.0) – 0.3 (1.5) – 0.01

Anyone in family received SNAP/Food Stamps in past month (%) 1,227 82.1 (38.0) 556 81.8 (39.0) 0.4 (2.0) 0.01

Anyone in family received WIC in past month (%) 1,227 26.2 (44.5) 556 24.3 (42.5) 1.9 (2.2) 0.04

Education and training

Participated in 2 weeks or more weeks of any school or training 

since RA (%)

1,223 38.8 (48.9) 555 39.3 (48.8) – 0.5 (2.5) – 0.01

Number of weeks in school/training programs since RA 1,210 7.1 (14.9) 546 8.8 (17.0) – 1.7 * (0.9) – 0.08

Participated in 2 weeks or more weeks of school since RA (%) 1,222 10.6 (30.7) 555 11.8 (31.5) – 1.3 (1.7) – 0.03

Participated in 2 weeks or more weeks of basic education since RA (%) 1,222 2.7 (16.5) 555 2.1 (15.7) 0.6 (0.7) 0.03

Participated in 2 weeks or more weeks of vocational education 

since RA (%)

1,222 10.7 (31.5) 555 15.0 (34.6) – 4.2 ** (1.8) – 0.10

Food security and hunger

Household is food insecure (%) 1,228 40.9 (49.1) 556 46.2 (49.9) – 5.3 ** (2.7) – 0.09

Food insecurity scalee 1,222 1.71 (2.03) 554 1.91 (2.08) – 0.21 * (0.11) – 0.09

Economic stressors

Economic stress scalef 1,218 – 0.18 (0.48) 554 – 0.12 (0.49) – 0.06 ** (0.02) – 0.10

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

ITT = intention-to-treat. RA = random assignment. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error. SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SSDI = Social Security 

Disability

Insurance. SSI = Supplemental Security Income. TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 

Children.

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

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

b Includes only families who responded to both 20-month and 37-month followup surveys; not weighted for survey nonresponse.

c

 Number of months worked for pay includes partial calendar months.

d Hours of work per week includes those not currently working (that is, those with 0 hours of work per week).

e

 Food insecurity scale ranges from 0 to 6, with higher values indicating higher food insecurity.

f

 Economic stress scale ranges from – 1 to 1, with higher values indicating higher economic stress.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 6

F

Appendix F. Impact Estimates for Pooled Comparisons

Exhibit F-7. SUB+CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Housing Stability at 37 Months

Outcome

SUB+CBRR PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Homelessness or doubled up during the follow up period

At least 1 night homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months or in 

shelter in past 12 months (%)

394 28.8 (45.7) 289 42.5 (49.5) – 13.7 *** (4.1) – 0.24

At least 1 night homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months (%) 394 26.2 (44.3) 289 38.9 (49.0) – 12.7 *** (4.1) – 0.23

At least 1 night homelessb in past 6 months (%) 394 14.9 (35.5) 290 20.1 (40.1) – 5.2 * (3.2) – 0.12

At least 1 night doubled up in past 6 months (%) 395 20.6 (41.0) 289 29.2 (46.0) – 8.7 ** (3.9) – 0.17

Any stay in emergency shelter in past 6 months (%) 

[Program Usage Data]

395 5.8 (23.4) 290 7.4 (26.5) – 1.5 (2.0) – 0.05

Any stay in emergency shelter in months 21 to 32 after RA (%) 

[Program Usage Data]

395 8.5 (27.7) 290 10.2 (29.6) – 1.7 (2.4) – 0.04

Number of days homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months 394 33.9 (65.8) 289 48.5 (72.8) – 14.6 ** (6.1) – 0.17

Number of days homelessb in past 6 months 394 12.1 (40.0) 290 17.0 (44.3) – 4.9 (3.4) – 0.09

Number of days doubled up in past 6 months 395 22.6 (55.4) 289 34.3 (64.5) – 11.6 ** (5.4) – 0.16

Housing independence

Living in own house or apartment at followup (%) 395 75.6 (42.9) 290 65.9 (47.5) 9.7 ** (3.9) 0.18

Living in own house or apartment with no housing assistance (%) 393 27.2 (44.2) 289 40.8 (49.3) – 13.5 *** (3.9) – 0.24

Living in own house or apartment with housing assistance (%) 393 48.7 (50.1) 289 25.0 (43.1) 23.6 *** (3.9) 0.46

Number of places lived

Number of places lived in past 6 monthsc 395 1.5 (1.0) 287 1.6 (1.0) – 0.1 (0.1) – 0.09

Housing quality

Persons per room 376 1.6 (1.2) 272 1.7 (1.3) – 0.1 (0.1) – 0.09

Housing quality is poor or fair (%) 378 27.4 (44.4) 270 33.2 (47.2) – 5.8 (4.0) – 0.11

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

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

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

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

b The definition of “homeless” in this report includes stays in emergency shelters and places not meant for human habitation. It excludes transitional housing.

c

 The number of places lived in past 6 months is topcoded at 6 places.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey; Program Usage Data

Exhibit F-8. SUB+CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Family Preservation at 37 Months

Outcome

SUB+CBRR PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Current or recent separations of family members present at baseline

Family has at least one child separated in past 6 months (%) 386 15.0 (36.0) 280 21.5 (41.1) – 6.5 ** (3.1) – 0.15

Family has at least one foster care placement in past 6 monthsb (%) 388 4.8 (19.9) 283 3.1 (19.4) 1.7 (1.7) 0.08

Spouse/partner separated in past 6 months, of those with spouse/

partner present at RA (%)

127 33.3 (47.8) 81 36.6 (47.4) – 3.3 (7.5) – 0.06

Reunification of family members reported as separated at baseline

Family has at least one child reunified, of those families with at 

least one child absent at RA (%)

93 48.7 (50.0) 56 38.6 (49.9) 10.1 (10.2) 0.18

Spouse/partner reunified, of those with spouse/partner absent 

at RA (%)

42 31.0 (45.7) 27 35.4 (46.5) – 4.4 (15.7) – 0.09

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

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

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

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

b Foster care placement outcome includes any children (present at baseline) who are placed in foster care or adopted by another family at the time of followup.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 7

F

Appendix F. Impact Estimates for Pooled Comparisons

Exhibit F-9. SUB+CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Adult Well-Being at 37 Months

Outcome

SUB+CBRR PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Adult physical health

Health in past 30 days was poor or fair (%) 393 31.9 (46.4) 288 30.8 (46.1) 1.1 (3.9) 0.02

Adult mental health

Goal-oriented thinkingb 387 4.45 (0.99) 284 4.39 (1.04) 0.06 (0.09) 0.05

Psychological distressc 393 6.38 (5.72) 289 6.95 (5.51) – 0.57 (0.44) – 0.08

Adult trauma symptoms

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in past 

30 days (%)

390 19.8 (39.9) 288 19.0 (39.4) 0.8 (3.3) 0.02

Adult substance use

Alcohol dependence or drug abused (%) 394 11.4 (32.5) 290 14.0 (34.5) – 2.6 (2.7) – 0.07

Alcohol dependenced (%) 394 9.4 (29.6) 290 10.8 (31.0) – 1.4 (2.4) – 0.04

Drug abused (%) 394 3.3 (17.9) 290 5.5 (23.5) – 2.3 (1.6) – 0.08

Experience of intimate partner violence

Experienced intimate partner violence in past 6 months (%) 393 8.9 (28.9) 289 7.7 (27.1) 1.2 (2.4) 0.03

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

ITT = intention-to-treat. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error.

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

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

b Goal-oriented thinking is measured with a modified version of the State Hope Scale and ranges from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive, goal-oriented 

thinking.

c

 Psychological distress is measured with the Kessler 6 (K6) scale and ranges from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater distress.

d Alcohol dependence is measured with the Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS-4), and drug abuse is measured with six items from the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10). 

Both are measured for the 6 months before the 37-month survey.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey

Exhibit F-10. SUB+CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Child Well-Being Across Age Groups at 37 Months

Outcome

SUB+CBRR PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Child education

Number of schools attended since RAb 457 2.1 (1.0) 336 2.1 (1.0) – 0.1 (0.1) – 0.05

Grade completion (not held back) (%) 384 93.01 (25.16) 284 87.60 (33.72) 5.42 ** (2.53) 0.14

School gradesc 351 3.1 (0.9) 251 3.0 (0.9) 0.1 (0.1) 0.09

Child physical health

Poor or fair health in past 30 days (%) 543 5.3 (23.2) 389 6.3 (21.6) – 1.0 (2.1) – 0.03

Well-child checkup in past year (%) 544 90.6 (29.4) 389 89.8 (32.3) 0.7 (2.5) 0.02

Child has regular source of health care (%) 544 93.4 (24.9) 385 88.2 (29.5) 5.1 (3.3) 0.14

Sleep problemsd 544 2.08 (1.04) 388 2.14 (1.10) – 0.06 (0.08) – 0.04

Child behavioral strengths and challenges

Behavior problemse 515 0.36 (1.17) 370 0.54 (1.19) – 0.18 * (0.10) – 0.11

Prosocial behaviorf 516 – 0.11 (1.05) 370 – 0.25 (1.22) 0.14 (0.09) 0.10

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

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

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

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

b Number of schools outcome is topcoded at 4 or more schools.

c

 School grades outcome is defined as 1 = mostly Ds or Fs, 2 = mostly Cs, 3 = mostly Bs, 4 = mostly As.

d Sleep problems outcome ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating more frequent tiredness upon waking and during the day.

e

 Behavior problems outcome is measured as the standardized Total Difficulties score from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).

f

 Prosocial behavior is measured as the standardized prosocial domain score from the SDQ.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey (parent report)
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 8

F

Appendix F. Impact Estimates for Pooled Comparisons

Exhibit F-11. SUB+CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Child Well-Being Developmental Outcomes by Age Group at 

37 Months

Outcome

SUB+CBRR PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Ages 2 to 5 yearsb

Preschool or Head Start enrollmentc (%) 178 36.3 (48.7) 114 33.8 (48.2) 2.6 (5.8) 0.04

Child care or preschool absences in past monthd 64 0.70 (1.01) 44 0.73 (0.81) – 0.03 (0.22) – 0.03

Positive child care or preschool experiencese 65 0.89 (0.36) 49 0.76 (0.54) 0.13 (0.09) 0.27

Positive child care or preschool attitudesf 66 4.60 (0.82) 48 4.52 (1.07) 0.08 (0.18) 0.10

Child care or preschool conduct problemsg (%) 70 4.1 (20.4) 53 8.9 (34.2) – 4.8 (5.9) – 0.17

Ages 2 years to 5 years, 6 months

Met developmental milestonesh (%) 148 69.4 (47.0) 95 68.8 (47.5) 0.6 (7.1) 0.01

Ages 3 years, 6 months to 7 years

Verbal abilityi 198 – 0.20 (1.10) 131 – 0.48 (1.06) 0.28 (0.18) 0.21

Math abilityj 195 – 0.30 (1.02) 131 – 0.36 (1.01) 0.06 (0.15) 0.05

Executive functioningk (self-regulation) 183 15.64 (16.28) 120 15.12 (15.80) 0.52 (1.98) 0.03

Ages 5 to 17 yearsl

School enrollmentc (%) 369 98.9 (11.6) 277 95.4 (14.6) 3.5 (2.5) 0.18

School absences in past monthd,m 136 0.79 (0.92) 102 0.95 (0.94) – 0.16 (0.13) – 0.13

Positive school experiencese,m 135 0.57 (0.54) 105 0.55 (0.64) 0.02 (0.09) 0.02

Positive school attitudesf,m 135 4.21 (1.08) 105 4.12 (1.09) 0.09 (0.15) 0.06

School conduct problemsg,m (%) 135 27.1 (44.4) 105 28.2 (45.8) – 1.2 (6.8) – 0.02

Ages 8 to 17 years

Anxietyn 221 35.14 (7.02) 166 35.02 (7.72) 0.12 (0.95) 0.01

Fearso 224 63.39 (14.83) 169 62.02 (14.76) 1.37 (1.45) 0.07

Substance usep (%) 217 4.11 (22.91) 161 10.74 (33.09) – 6.63 ** (3.25) – 0.18

Goal-oriented thinkingq 211 22.26 (4.62) 159 22.83 (5.00) – 0.57 (0.56) – 0.09

School effort in past monthr 219 2.59 (0.81) 168 2.71 (0.84) – 0.12 (0.10) – 0.11

Arrests or police involvement in past 6 monthss (%) 117 10.98 (30.47) 83 15.07 (36.57) – 4.08 (5.76) – 0.11

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

ITT = intention-to-treat. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error.

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

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

b Includes focal children who were ages 4 years or younger on the September 1 before the 37-month parent survey.

c

 Preschool or Head Start enrollment outcome is defined as enrollment in preschool, center-based child care, or school.

d Absences outcome is defined as 0 = no absences in past month, 1 = one to two absences, 2 = three to five absences, 3 = six or more absences.

e

 Positive child care, preschool, or school experiences outcome is defined as – 1 = mostly negative experiences, 0 = both positive and negative experiences, 1 = mostly positive 

experiences.

f

 Positive child care, preschool, or school attitudes outcome is parent report of how much child likes school and ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating greater like of 

school.

g

 Child care, preschool, or school conduct problems outcome is defined as 0 = no conduct problems reported to parent, 1 = parent contacted about conduct problems or suspension or expulsion from school or child care center.

h

 Met developmental milestones outcome is defined as scoring above the typical development cutoffs in all domains of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3).

i

 Verbal ability outcome is the nationally standardized score from the Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III) letter-word identification test.

j

 Math ability outcome is the nationally standardized score from the WJ III applied problems test.

k

 Executive functioning outcome is the Head Toes Knees Shoulders (HTKS) score and ranges from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating greater executive functioning.

l

 Includes focal children who were ages 5 to 17 years on the September 1 before the 37-month parent survey and no older than 17 years at the time of the survey.

m This parent-reported outcome was collected from only the first 38 percent of parents surveyed due to an error in data collection.

n

 Anxiety (child report) is measured using the A-Trait scale from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC). Scores range from 20 to 60, with higher scores indicating 

greater anxiety.

o

 Fears outcome (child report) is the score from the Fears Scale and ranges from 33 to 99, with higher scores indicating more fear.

p Substance use (child report) is measured with 23 items from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

q Goal-oriented thinking (child report) is measured with a modified version of the Children’s Hope Scale and ranges from 6 to 30, with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive, goal-oriented thinking.

r

 School effort outcome (child report) ranges from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater effort during school day and on homework.

s

 Arrest or police involvement in past 6 months is from parent report.

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey (parent report); Family Options Study 37-month child survey (child report); ASQ-3; WJ III; HTKS
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 9

F

Appendix F. Impact Estimates for Pooled Comparisons

Exhibit F-12. SUB+CBRR Versus PBTH: Impacts on Self-Sufficiency at 37 Months

Outcome

SUB+CBRR PBTH ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Employment status

Work for pay in week before survey (%) 394 37.5 (48.3) 290 38.8 (48.9) – 1.3 (4.0) – 0.02

Any work for pay since 20-month surveyb (%) 369 60.6 (48.9) 256 57.9 (49.5) 2.7 (3.9) 0.06

Months worked for pay since 20-month surveyb,c 368 6.8 (7.7) 254 7.3 (8.3) – 0.5 (0.6) – 0.06

Any work for pay since RA (%) 394 72.4 (44.4) 290 72.1 (44.9) 0.3 (3.3) 0.01

Months worked for pay since RAc 389 13.3 (13.3) 287 13.8 (13.7) – 0.5 (1.0) – 0.03

Hours of work per week at current main jobd 393 12.0 (16.6) 289 12.7 (18.0) – 0.7 (1.4) – 0.04

Income sources and amounts

Annualized current earnings ($) 385 6,594 (10,302) 285 7,534 (12,128) – 940 (969) – 0.08

Total family income ($) 371 12,009 (9,631) 287 12,936 (11,711) – 926 (812) – 0.07

Anyone in family had earnings in past month (%) 395 49.2 (50.0) 290 53.3 (49.9) – 4.1 (4.0) – 0.07

Anyone in family received TANF in past month (%) 395 26.2 (44.8) 289 25.6 (43.1) 0.6 (3.6) 0.01

Anyone in family received SSDI in past month (%) 393 8.8 (26.2) 290 7.6 (26.5) 1.1 (2.1) 0.03

Anyone in family received SSI in past month (%) 395 13.3 (33.0) 289 12.8 (33.9) 0.6 (2.5) 0.01

Anyone in family received SNAP/Food Stamps in past month (%) 395 81.0 (38.4) 289 82.2 (39.0) – 1.2 (3.0) – 0.03

Anyone in family received WIC in past month (%) 395 27.7 (45.2) 289 29.6 (46.0) – 1.9 (3.7) – 0.04

Education and training

Participated in 2 weeks or more weeks of any school or training 

since RA (%)

393 40.4 (49.2) 287 36.9 (48.4) 3.5 (4.0) 0.06

Number of weeks in school/training programs since RA 386 8.0 (16.2) 286 5.7 (12.4) 2.3 ** (1.2) 0.12

Participated in 2 weeks or more weeks of school since RA (%) 392 12.3 (32.2) 287 9.6 (30.6) 2.7 (2.5) 0.07

Participated in 2 weeks or more weeks of basic education since RA (%) 392 1.5 (13.3) 287 2.2 (13.1) – 0.7 (1.2) – 0.04

Participated in 2 weeks or more weeks of vocational education 

since RA (%)

392 8.1 (28.6) 287 11.0 (30.2) – 2.8 (2.6) – 0.07

Food security and hunger

Household is food insecure (%) 395 34.4 (47.8) 290 46.7 (49.9) – 12.3 *** (4.1) – 0.21

Food insecurity scalee 394 1.44 (1.89) 286 1.90 (2.03) – 0.47 *** (0.17) – 0.19

Economic stressors

Economic stress scalef 390 – 0.19 (0.48) 287 – 0.14 (0.51) – 0.05 (0.04) – 0.09

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

ITT = intention-to-treat. RA = random assignment. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error. SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SSDI = Social Security 

Disability

Insurance. SSI = Supplemental Security Income. TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 

Children.

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

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

b Includes only families who responded to both 20-month and 37-month followup surveys; not weighted for survey nonresponse.

c

 Number of months worked for pay includes partial calendar months.

d Hours of work per week includes those not currently working (that is, those with 0 hours of work per week).

e

 Food insecurity scale ranges from 0 to 6, with higher values indicating higher food insecurity.

f

 Economic stress scale ranges from – 1 to 1, with higher values indicating higher economic stress.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 10

F

Appendix F. Impact Estimates for Pooled Comparisons

Exhibit F-13. SUB+PBTH Versus CBRR: Impacts on Housing Stability at 37 Months

Outcome

SUB+PBTH CBRR ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Homelessness or doubled up during the follow up period

At least 1 night homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months or in 

shelter in past 12 months (%)

545 25.8 (43.6) 382 40.4 (48.9) – 14.6 *** (3.4) – 0.26

At least 1 night homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months 

(%)

545 23.3 (42.3) 382 35.5 (47.7) – 12.2 *** (3.3) – 0.22

At least 1 night homelessb in past 6 months (%) 546 13.1 (34.1) 382 16.0 (36.2) – 2.8 (2.6) – 0.06

At least 1 night doubled up in past 6 months (%) 545 16.9 (37.7) 382 31.0 (45.8) – 14.1 *** (3.0) – 0.27

Any stay in emergency shelter in past 6 months (%) 

[Program Usage Data]

546 4.2 (20.5) 382 5.6 (23.8) – 1.4 (1.6) – 0.04

Any stay in emergency shelter in months 21 to 32 after RA (%) 

[Program Usage Data]

546 7.4 (26.1) 382 16.8 (36.4) – 9.4 *** (2.5) – 0.22

Number of days homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months 544 28.1 (59.8) 381 49.6 (73.6) – 21.6 *** (4.9) – 0.25

Number of days homelessb in past 6 months 546 11.8 (39.6) 382 14.6 (41.1) – 2.8 (3.1) – 0.05

Number of days doubled up in past 6 months 544 18.5 (49.3) 381 38.7 (66.1) – 20.2 *** (4.3) – 0.27

Housing independence

Living in own house or apartment at followup (%) 546 77.8 (41.4) 382 68.8 (46.8) 9.1 *** (3.2) 0.17

Living in own house or apartment with no housing assistance (%) 545 24.8 (42.4) 380 36.9 (48.2) – 12.1 *** (3.2) – 0.21

Living in own house or apartment with housing assistance (%) 545 52.9 (49.8) 380 32.4 (46.5) 20.5 *** (3.4) 0.40

Number of places lived

Number of places lived in past 6 monthsc 543 1.4 (0.9) 382 1.6 (1.0) – 0.1 ** (0.1) – 0.11

Housing quality

Persons per room 521 1.3 (0.9) 362 1.6 (1.3) – 0.3 *** (0.1) – 0.23

Housing quality is poor or fair (%) 520 30.1 (45.5) 365 30.2 (45.7) – 0.1 (3.3) 0.00

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

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

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

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

b The definition of “homeless” in this report includes stays in emergency shelters and places not meant for human habitation. It excludes transitional housing.

c

 The number of places lived in past 6 months is topcoded at 6 places.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey; Program Usage Data

Exhibit F-14. SUB+PBTH Versus CBRR: Impacts on Family Preservation at 37 Months

Outcome

SUB+PBTH CBRR ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Current or recent separations of family members present at baseline

Family has at least one child separated in past 6 months (%) 530 15.9 (36.9) 379 15.6 (35.8) 0.3 (2.6) 0.01

Family has at least one foster care placement in past 6 monthsb (%) 535 3.2 (17.6) 379 4.5 (18.9) – 1.2 (1.4) – 0.06

Spouse/partner separated in past 6 months, of those with spouse/

partner present at RA (%)

133 37.3 (49.3) 106 43.9 (48.7) – 6.6 (6.6) – 0.11

Reunification of family members reported as separated at baseline

Family has at least one child reunified, of those families with at 

least one child absent at RA (%)

109 40.6 (49.8) 72 36.0 (47.9) 4.6 (9.0) 0.08

Spouse/partner reunified, of those with spouse/partner absent 

at RA (%)

55 32.8 (45.8) 35 23.7 (45.8) 9.2 (15.3) 0.20

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

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

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

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

b Foster care placement outcome includes any children (present at baseline) who are placed in foster care or adopted by another family at the time of followup.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 11

F

Appendix F. Impact Estimates for Pooled Comparisons

Exhibit F-15. SUB+PBTH Versus CBRR: Impacts on Adult Well-Being at 37 Months

Outcome

SUB+PBTH CBRR ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Adult physical health

Health in past 30 days was poor or fair (%) 546 31.1 (46.3) 381 32.8 (46.6) – 1.7 (3.1) – 0.03

Adult mental health

Goal-oriented thinkingb 540 4.43 (1.07) 379 4.47 (0.98) – 0.04 (0.07) – 0.03

Psychological distressc 544 6.87 (5.74) 381 6.67 (5.64) 0.20 (0.38) 0.03

Adult trauma symptoms

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in past 

30 days (%)

540 22.0 (41.6) 379 18.9 (38.9) 3.0 (2.8) 0.06

Adult substance use

Alcohol dependence or drug abused (%) 545 12.5 (33.5) 381 9.4 (30.4) 3.1 (2.1) 0.08

Alcohol dependenced (%) 546 9.7 (30.1) 381 7.8 (28.2) 1.9 (1.9) 0.06

Drug abused (%) 545 4.5 (20.5) 381 2.7 (16.0) 1.8 (1.3) 0.07

Experience of intimate partner violence

Experienced intimate partner violence in past 6 months (%) 545 7.7 (27.3) 382 8.8 (26.9) – 1.1 (1.9) – 0.03

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

ITT = intention-to-treat. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error.

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

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

b Goal-oriented thinking is measured with a modified version of the State Hope Scale and ranges from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive, goal-oriented 

thinking.

c

 Psychological distress is measured with the Kessler 6 (K6) scale and ranges from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater distress.

d Alcohol dependence is measured with the Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS-4), and drug abuse is measured with six items from the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10). 

Both are measured for the 6 months before the 37-month survey.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey

Exhibit F-16. SUB+PBTH Versus CBRR: Impacts on Child Well-Being Across Age Groups at 37 Months

Outcome

SUB+PBTH CBRR ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Child education

Number of schools attended since RAb 629 2.0 (0.9) 444 2.1 (1.0) – 0.1 ** (0.1) – 0.12

Grade completion (not held back) (%) 515 90.48 (29.64) 370 92.16 (28.15) – 1.68 (2.14) – 0.04

School gradesc 466 3.1 (0.9) 347 3.0 (0.9) 0.1 (0.1) 0.05

Child physical health

Poor or fair health in past 30 days (%) 733 7.1 (23.8) 524 5.2 (22.5) 2.0 (1.8) 0.06

Well-child checkup in past year (%) 730 89.7 (30.0) 524 91.4 (28.9) – 1.7 (2.2) – 0.05

Child has regular source of health care (%) 730 89.9 (27.9) 525 94.5 (23.2) – 4.5 ** (2.2) – 0.12

Sleep problemsd 730 2.04 (1.05) 524 2.08 (1.03) – 0.04 (0.07) – 0.03

Child behavioral strengths and challenges

Behavior problemse 691 0.48 (1.24) 506 0.38 (1.20) 0.11 (0.09) 0.06

Prosocial behaviorf 692 – 0.21 (1.16) 507 – 0.18 (1.12) – 0.04 (0.09) – 0.02

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

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

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

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

b Number of schools outcome is topcoded at 4 or more schools.

c

 School grades outcome is defined as 1 = mostly Ds or Fs, 2 = mostly Cs, 3 = mostly Bs, 4 = mostly As.

d Sleep problems outcome ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating more frequent tiredness upon waking and during the day.

e

 Behavior problems outcome is measured as the standardized Total Difficulties score from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).

f

 Prosocial behavior is measured as the standardized prosocial domain score from the SDQ.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey (parent report)
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 12

F

Appendix F. Impact Estimates for Pooled Comparisons

Exhibit F-17. SUB+PBTH Versus CBRR: Impacts on Child Well-Being Developmental Outcomes by Age Group at 

37 Months

Outcome

SUB+PBTH CBRR ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Ages 2 to 5 yearsb

Preschool or Head Start enrollmentc (%) 235 35.1 (48.4) 168 34.3 (48.4) 0.8 (5.3) 0.01

Child care or preschool absences in past monthd 93 0.81 (0.88) 53 0.47 (0.87) 0.35 * (0.19) 0.31

Positive child care or preschool experiencese 98 0.78 (0.44) 55 0.89 (0.36) – 0.11 (0.09) – 0.23

Positive child care or preschool attitudesf 97 4.64 (0.86) 55 4.49 (0.90) 0.15 (0.19) 0.17

Child care or preschool conduct problemsg (%) 103 10.5 (33.4) 59 6.7 (28.1) 3.8 (6.2) 0.14

Ages 2 years to 5 years, 6 months

Met developmental milestonesh (%) 205 64.9 (46.8) 149 72.9 (44.8) – 8.0 (5.9) – 0.14

Ages 3 years, 6 months to 7 years

Verbal abilityi 260 – 0.20 (1.00) 173 – 0.29 (1.02) 0.08 (0.12) 0.06

Math abilityj 258 – 0.28 (1.03) 173 – 0.38 (0.83) 0.10 (0.11) 0.09

Executive functioningk (self-regulation) 253 15.20 (15.77) 165 15.51 (16.35) – 0.30 (1.28) – 0.01

Ages 5 to 17 yearsl

School enrollmentc (%) 499 97.2 (14.7) 359 97.3 (16.5) – 0.1 (1.7) – 0.01

School absences in past monthd,m 219 0.95 (0.92) 141 0.76 (0.95) 0.19 (0.13) 0.15

Positive school experiencese,m 223 0.57 (0.59) 140 0.51 (0.58) 0.06 (0.08) 0.07

Positive school attitudesf,m 223 4.22 (1.05) 141 4.10 (1.13) 0.13 (0.12) 0.08

School conduct problemsg,m (%) 224 25.2 (43.1) 140 27.0 (44.6) – 1.9 (5.2) – 0.03

Ages 8 to 17 years

Anxietyn 310 35.38 (7.59) 230 35.18 (7.35) 0.20 (0.73) 0.02

Fearso 313 63.03 (14.49) 232 63.71 (14.52) – 0.67 (1.24) – 0.03

Substance usep (%) 306 4.44 (23.57) 226 5.94 (22.47) – 1.50 (2.25) – 0.04

Goal-oriented thinkingq 303 22.01 (5.08) 223 22.91 (4.73) – 0.90 * (0.52) – 0.14

School effort in past monthr 312 2.78 (0.79) 228 2.71 (0.81) 0.07 (0.08) 0.07

Arrests or police involvement in past 6 monthss (%) 174 11.46 (30.54) 130 8.84 (29.06) 2.63 (4.14) 0.07

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

ITT = intention-to-treat. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error.

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

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

b Includes focal children who were ages 4 years or younger on the September 1 before the 37-month parent survey.

c

 Preschool or Head Start enrollment outcome is defined as enrollment in preschool, center-based child care, or school.

d Absences outcome is defined as 0 = no absences in past month, 1 = one to two absences, 2 = three to five absences, 3 = six or more absences.

e

 Positive child care, preschool, or school experiences outcome is defined as – 1 = mostly negative experiences, 0 = both positive and negative experiences, 1 = mostly positive 

experiences.

f

 Positive child care, preschool, or school attitudes outcome is parent report of how much child likes school and ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating greater like of 

school.

g

 Child care, preschool, or school conduct problems outcome is defined as 0 = no conduct problems reported to parent, 1 = parent contacted about conduct problems or suspension or expulsion from school or child care center.

h

 Met developmental milestones outcome is defined as scoring above the typical development cutoffs in all domains of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3).

i

 Verbal ability outcome is the nationally standardized score from the Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III) letter-word identification test.

j

 Math ability outcome is the nationally standardized score from the WJ III applied problems test.

k

 Executive functioning outcome is the Head Toes Knees Shoulders (HTKS) score and ranges from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating greater executive functioning.

l

 Includes focal children who were ages 5 to 17 years on the September 1 before the 37-month parent survey and no older than 17 years at the time of the survey.

m This parent-reported outcome was collected from only the first 38 percent of parents surveyed due to an error in data collection.

n

 Anxiety (child report) is measured using the A-Trait scale from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC). Scores range from 20 to 60, with higher scores indicating 

greater anxiety.

o

 Fears outcome (child report) is the score from the Fears Scale and ranges from 33 to 99, with higher scores indicating more fear.

p Substance use (child report) is measured with 23 items from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

q Goal-oriented thinking (child report) is measured with a modified version of the Children’s Hope Scale and ranges from 6 to 30, with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive, goal-oriented thinking.

r

 School effort outcome (child report) ranges from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater effort during school day and on homework.

s

 Arrest or police involvement in past 6 months is from parent report.

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey (parent report); Family Options Study 37-month child survey (child report); ASQ-3; WJ III; HTKS
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 13

F

Appendix F. Impact Estimates for Pooled Comparisons

Exhibit F-18. SUB+PBTH Versus CBRR: Impacts on Self-Sufficiency at 37 Months

Outcome

SUB+PBTH CBRR ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Employment status

Work for pay in week before survey (%) 546 37.2 (48.1) 382 37.7 (48.9) – 0.5 (3.3) – 0.01

Any work for pay since 20-month surveyb (%) 505 58.7 (49.3) 358 62.7 (48.3) – 3.9 (3.3) – 0.08

Months worked for pay since 20-month surveyb,c 502 7.1 (8.2) 358 7.3 (8.1) – 0.2 (0.5) – 0.02

Any work for pay since RA (%) 546 69.7 (46.0) 382 74.5 (42.2) – 4.9 * (2.9) – 0.09

Months worked for pay since RAc 540 13.1 (13.9) 379 14.1 (13.6) – 1.0 (0.8) – 0.07

Hours of work per week at current main jobd 546 11.5 (16.6) 381 12.4 (17.2) – 0.9 (1.2) – 0.05

Income sources and amounts

Annualized current earnings ($) 539 6,526 (10,676) 373 6,698 (11,127) – 171 (743) – 0.01

Total family income ($) 522 11,885 (10,057) 364 11,772 (9,436) 113 (694) 0.01

Anyone in family had earnings in past month (%) 546 49.7 (50.0) 382 48.1 (50.1) 1.5 (3.4) 0.03

Anyone in family received TANF in past month (%) 546 26.2 (44.2) 382 28.9 (44.8) – 2.7 (3.1) – 0.05

Anyone in family received SSDI in past month (%) 544 7.8 (27.3) 382 11.4 (28.9) – 3.6 * (2.1) – 0.11

Anyone in family received SSI in past month (%) 546 13.4 (34.5) 382 14.1 (34.9) – 0.7 (2.2) – 0.02

Anyone in family received SNAP/Food Stamps in past month (%) 546 81.7 (39.3) 382 81.8 (37.2) – 0.1 (2.7) 0.00

Anyone in family received WIC in past month (%) 546 26.5 (44.2) 382 27.7 (45.5) – 1.3 (2.9) – 0.03

Education and training

Participated in 2 weeks or more weeks of any school or training 

since RA (%)

544 37.4 (48.6) 382 40.7 (49.2) – 3.3 (3.3) – 0.06

Number of weeks in school/training programs since RA 540 6.6 (13.2) 373 7.9 (17.0) – 1.3 (1.1) – 0.07

Participated in 2 weeks or more weeks of school since RA (%) 544 12.1 (32.5) 381 8.8 (27.4) 3.2 (2.0) 0.09

Participated in 2 weeks or more weeks of basic education since RA (%) 544 3.1 (16.9) 381 3.7 (20.1) – 0.7 (1.3) – 0.04

Participated in 2 weeks or more weeks of vocational education 

since RA (%)

544 10.3 (30.9) 381 11.1 (32.0) – 0.8 (2.1) – 0.02

Food security and hunger

Household is food insecure (%) 546 42.1 (49.5) 382 40.0 (48.9) 2.1 (3.5) 0.04

Food insecurity scalee 542 1.69 (2.04) 382 1.66 (2.02) 0.03 (0.14) 0.01

Economic stressors

Economic stress scalef 543 – 0.20 (0.49) 379 – 0.17 (0.49) – 0.03 (0.03) – 0.05

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

ITT = intention-to-treat. RA = random assignment. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error. SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SSDI = Social Security 

Disability

Insurance. SSI = Supplemental Security Income. TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 

Children.

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

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

b Includes only families who responded to both 20-month and 37-month followup surveys; not weighted for survey nonresponse.

c

 Number of months worked for pay includes partial calendar months.

d Hours of work per week includes those not currently working (that is, those with 0 hours of work per week).

e

 Food insecurity scale ranges from 0 to 6, with higher values indicating higher food insecurity.

f

 Economic stress scale ranges from – 1 to 1, with higher values indicating higher economic stress.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 14

F

Appendix F. Impact Estimates for Pooled Comparisons

Exhibit F-19. CBRR+PBTH Versus SUB: Impacts on Housing Stability at 37 Months

Outcome

CBRR+PBTH SUB ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Homelessness or doubled up during the follow up period

At least 1 night homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months or in 

shelter in past 12 months (%)

490 38.6 (48.8) 462 17.4 (37.5) 21.2 *** (2.9) 0.38

At least 1 night homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months 

(%)

490 34.6 (47.7) 462 15.8 (36.1) 18.8 *** (2.9) 0.34

At least 1 night homelessb in past 6 months (%) 491 15.7 (36.8) 462 9.7 (28.8) 6.0 *** (2.2) 0.13

At least 1 night doubled up in past 6 months (%) 490 28.3 (45.2) 463 11.0 (31.3) 17.3 *** (2.6) 0.33

Any stay in emergency shelter in past 6 months (%) 

[Program Usage Data]

491 5.7 (24.0) 463 3.9 (17.7) 1.8 (1.5) 0.06

Any stay in emergency shelter in months 21 to 32 after RA (%) 

[Program Usage Data]

491 13.9 (34.6) 463 5.4 (21.8) 8.5 *** (2.0) 0.20

Number of days homelessb or doubled up in past 6 months 489 46.1 (72.1) 461 18.1 (49.4) 27.9 *** (4.2) 0.32

Number of days homelessb in past 6 months 491 13.7 (41.8) 462 9.5 (34.6) 4.2 * (2.5) 0.07

Number of days doubled up in past 6 months 489 34.9 (64.7) 462 10.5 (39.3) 24.4 *** (3.8) 0.33

Housing independence

Living in own house or apartment at followup (%) 491 68.8 (46.8) 463 83.8 (36.5) – 15.1 *** (2.9) – 0.28

Living in own house or apartment with no housing assistance (%) 488 38.5 (48.5) 462 16.1 (36.1) 22.4 *** (2.9) 0.39

Living in own house or apartment with housing assistance (%) 488 30.5 (46.0) 462 67.6 (46.4) – 37.0 *** (3.1) – 0.72

Number of places lived

Number of places lived in past 6 monthsc 489 1.6 (1.0) 463 1.4 (0.9) 0.2 *** (0.1) 0.17

Housing quality

Persons per room 465 1.6 (1.2) 442 1.2 (0.6) 0.4 *** (0.1) 0.29

Housing quality is poor or fair (%) 464 32.0 (46.0) 441 27.6 (44.7) 4.4 (3.2) 0.08

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

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

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

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

b The definition of “homeless” in this report includes stays in emergency shelters and places not meant for human habitation. It excludes transitional housing.

c

 The number of places lived in past 6 months is topcoded at 6 places.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey; Program Usage Data 

Exhibit F-20. CBRR+PBTH Versus SUB: Impacts on Family Preservation at 37 Months

Outcome

CBRR+PBTH SUB ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Current or recent separations of family members present at baseline

Family has at least one child separated in past 6 months (%) 482 18.3 (38.3) 449 14.8 (34.8) 3.5 (2.6) 0.08

Family has at least one foster care placement in past 6 monthsb (%) 483 4.0 (19.0) 454 3.4 (17.9) 0.6 (1.3) 0.03

Spouse/partner separated in past 6 months, of those with spouse/

partner present at RA (%)

133 47.6 (49.6) 119 39.5 (49.9) 8.1 (6.6) 0.14

Reunification of family members reported as separated at baseline

Family has at least one child reunified, of those families with at 

least one child absent at RA (%)

84 32.3 (47.8) 92 44.9 (50.1) – 12.6 (9.3) – 0.22

Spouse/partner reunified, of those with spouse/partner absent 

at RA (%)

43 25.0 (44.1) 49 31.9 (45.6) – 6.9 (12.8) – 0.15

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

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

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

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

b Foster care placement outcome includes any children (present at baseline) who are placed in foster care or adopted by another family at the time of followup.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 15

F

Appendix F. Impact Estimates for Pooled Comparisons

Exhibit F-21. CBRR+PBTH Versus SUB: Impacts on Adult Well-Being at 37 Monthss

Outcome

CBRR+PBTH SUB ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Adult physical health

Health in past 30 days was poor or fair (%) 488 30.6 (46.0) 462 30.9 (46.4) – 0.3 (2.9) – 0.01

Adult mental health

Goal-oriented thinkingb 482 4.47 (1.03) 457 4.48 (1.05) – 0.01 (0.07) – 0.01

Psychological distressc 489 6.93 (5.62) 461 6.59 (5.56) 0.33 (0.36) 0.05

Adult trauma symptoms

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in past 

30 days (%)

486 20.1 (39.5) 458 22.3 (41.5) – 2.2 (2.7) – 0.04

Adult substance use

Alcohol dependence or drug abused (%) 490 11.6 (32.3) 462 13.3 (32.7) – 1.6 (2.3) – 0.04

Alcohol dependenced (%) 490 8.8 (28.9) 463 10.1 (28.4) – 1.2 (2.1) – 0.04

Drug abused (%) 490 4.1 (19.8) 462 4.4 (19.9) – 0.3 (1.4) – 0.01

Experience of intimate partner violence

Experienced intimate partner violence in past 6 months (%) 490 8.8 (27.7) 460 8.2 (26.5) 0.7 (1.9) 0.02

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

ITT = intention-to-treat. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error.

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

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

b Goal-oriented thinking is measured with a modified version of the State Hope Scale and ranges from 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive, goal-oriented 

thinking.

c

 Psychological distress is measured with the Kessler 6 (K6) scale and ranges from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater distress.

d Alcohol dependence is measured with the Rapid Alcohol Problems Screen (RAPS-4), and drug abuse is measured with six items from the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10). 

Both are measured for the 6 months before the 37-month survey.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey

Exhibit F-22. CBRR+PBTH Versus SUB: Impacts on Child Well-Being Across Age Groups at 37 Months

Outcome

CBRR+PBTH SUB ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Child education

Number of schools attended since RAb 554 2.1 (1.0) 533 1.9 (0.9) 0.2 *** (0.1) 0.19

Grade completion (not held back) (%) 460 89.67 (30.60) 439 92.88 (26.76) – 3.20 (2.08) – 0.08

School gradesc 423 3.0 (0.9) 403 3.1 (0.9) – 0.1 (0.1) – 0.10

Child physical health

Poor or fair health in past 30 days (%) 659 7.0 (24.2) 620 7.5 (25.2) – 0.5 (1.8) – 0.02

Well-child checkup in past year (%) 658 90.7 (29.4) 619 89.3 (30.7) 1.4 (2.0) 0.04

Child has regular source of health care (%) 656 92.1 (26.1) 619 91.0 (26.5) 1.1 (2.2) 0.03

Sleep problemsd 659 2.10 (1.06) 620 2.00 (1.04) 0.10 (0.07) 0.07

Child behavioral strengths and challenges

Behavior problemse 628 0.49 (1.22) 582 0.48 (1.27) 0.02 (0.09) 0.01

Prosocial behaviorf 629 – 0.23 (1.19) 584 – 0.19 (1.12) – 0.04 (0.08) – 0.03

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

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

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

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

b Number of schools outcome is topcoded at 4 or more schools.

c

 School grades outcome is defined as 1 = mostly Ds or Fs, 2 = mostly Cs, 3 = mostly Bs, 4 = mostly As.

d Sleep problems outcome ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating more frequent tiredness upon waking and during the day.

e

 Behavior problems outcome is measured as the standardized Total Difficulties score from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).

f

 Prosocial behavior is measured as the standardized prosocial domain score from the SDQ.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey (parent report)
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 16

F

Appendix F. Impact Estimates for Pooled Comparisons

Exhibit F-23. CBRR+PBTH Versus SUB: Impacts on Child Well-Being Developmental Outcomes by Age Group at 

37 Months

Outcome

CBRR+PBTH SUB ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Ages 2 to 5 yearsb

Preschool or Head Start enrollmentc (%) 211 31.6 (47.7) 199 35.4 (48.9) – 3.8 (4.9) – 0.06

Child care or preschool absences in past monthd 71 0.57 (0.83) 80 0.86 (0.94) – 0.29 * (0.16) – 0.26

Positive child care or preschool experiencese 76 0.79 (0.48) 83 0.85 (0.38) – 0.06 (0.08) – 0.13

Positive child care or preschool attitudesf 75 4.53 (0.94) 84 4.73 (0.69) – 0.20 (0.15) – 0.24

Child care or preschool conduct problemsg (%) 81 9.3 (33.1) 87 9.8 (30.6) – 0.5 (5.9) – 0.02

Ages 2 years to 5 years, 6 months

Met developmental milestonesh (%) 186 72.1 (44.7) 173 68.3 (44.6) 3.8 (5.3) 0.07

Ages 3 years, 6 months to 7 years

Verbal abilityi 223 – 0.41 (1.07) 229 – 0.18 (1.03) – 0.24 * (0.12) – 0.18

Math abilityj 222 – 0.37 (0.96) 228 – 0.24 (1.01) – 0.13 (0.11) – 0.11

Executive functioningk (self-regulation) 208 15.32 (16.02) 223 15.54 (16.06) – 0.22 (1.30) – 0.01

Ages 5 to 17 yearsl

School enrollmentc (%) 452 96.9 (17.3) 424 98.6 (11.8) – 1.7 (1.2) – 0.09

School absences in past monthd,m 173 0.87 (0.94) 195 0.93 (0.91) – 0.06 (0.13) – 0.05

Positive school experiencese,m 173 0.49 (0.61) 196 0.58 (0.58) – 0.09 (0.07) – 0.11

Positive school attitudesf,m 173 4.09 (1.14) 195 4.25 (1.09) – 0.17 (0.13) – 0.11

School conduct problemsg,m (%) 172 24.0 (44.4) 197 23.8 (41.1) 0.2 (5.2) 0.00

Ages 8 to 17 years

Anxietyn 281 34.92 (7.75) 259 35.18 (7.53) – 0.25 (0.76) – 0.03

Fearso 284 62.58 (14.69) 260 62.94 (14.48) – 0.36 (1.39) – 0.02

Substance usep (%) 272 9.83 (30.44) 257 2.94 (20.28) 6.89 *** (2.17) 0.19

Goal-oriented thinkingq 268 23.19 (4.90) 252 21.67 (5.11) 1.52 *** (0.55) 0.24

School effort in past monthr 279 2.78 (0.84) 258 2.76 (0.77) 0.02 (0.08) 0.02

Arrests or police involvement in past 6 monthss (%) 142 9.71 (29.92) 142 9.93 (27.91) – 0.22 (4.02) – 0.01

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

ITT = intention-to-treat. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error.

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

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

b Includes focal children who were ages 4 years or younger on the September 1 before the 37-month parent survey.

c

 Preschool or Head Start enrollment outcome is defined as enrollment in preschool, center-based child care, or school.

d Absences outcome is defined as 0 = no absences in past month, 1 = one to two absences, 2 = three to five absences, 3 = six or more absences.

e

 Positive child care, preschool, or school experiences outcome is defined as – 1 = mostly negative experiences, 0 = both positive and negative experiences, 1 = mostly positive 

experiences.

f

 Positive child care, preschool, or school attitudes outcome is parent report of how much child likes school and ranges from 1 to 5, with higher values indicating greater like of 

school.

g

 Child care, preschool, or school conduct problems outcome is defined as 0 = no conduct problems reported to parent, 1 = parent contacted about conduct problems or suspension or expulsion from school or child care center.

h

 Met developmental milestones outcome is defined as scoring above the typical development cutoffs in all domains of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3).

i

 Verbal ability outcome is the nationally standardized score from the Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III) letter-word identification test.

j

 Math ability outcome is the nationally standardized score from the WJ III applied problems test.

k

 Executive functioning outcome is the Head Toes Knees Shoulders (HTKS) score and ranges from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating greater executive functioning.

l

 Includes focal children who were ages 5 to 17 years on the September 1 before the 37-month parent survey and no older than 17 years at the time of the survey.

m This parent-reported outcome was collected from only the first 38 percent of parents surveyed due to an error in data collection.

n

 Anxiety (child report) is measured using the A-Trait scale from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children (STAIC). Scores range from 20 to 60, with higher scores indicating 

greater anxiety.

o

 Fears outcome (child report) is the score from the Fears Scale and ranges from 33 to 99, with higher scores indicating more fear.

p Substance use (child report) is measured with 23 items from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

q Goal-oriented thinking (child report) is measured with a modified version of the Children’s Hope Scale and ranges from 6 to 30, with higher scores indicating higher levels of positive, goal-oriented thinking.

r

 School effort outcome (child report) ranges from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating greater effort during school day and on homework.

s

 Arrest or police involvement in past 6 months is from parent report.

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey (parent report); Family Options Study 37-month child survey (child report); ASQ-3; WJ III; HTKS
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 17

F

Appendix F. Impact Estimates for Pooled Comparisons

Exhibit F-24. CBRR+PBTH Versus SUB: Impacts on Self-Sufficiency at 37 Months

Outcome

CBRR+PBTH SUB ITT Impact Effect 

Sizea

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Employment status

Work for pay in week before survey (%) 491 39.2 (48.9) 462 36.5 (48.0) 2.7 (3.2) 0.05

Any work for pay since 20-month surveyb (%) 445 60.8 (48.7) 433 58.8 (49.4) 2.0 (3.2) 0.04

Months worked for pay since 20-month surveyb,c 444 7.4 (8.2) 431 6.8 (7.9) 0.6 (0.5) 0.07

Any work for pay since RA (%) 491 73.8 (42.9) 462 69.9 (46.3) 3.9 (2.7) 0.08

Months worked for pay since RAc 487 14.1 (13.6) 456 12.2 (13.5) 1.9 ** (0.8) 0.12

Hours of work per week at current main jobd 489 13.1 (17.8) 461 11.4 (16.5) 1.7 (1.1) 0.09

Income sources and amounts

Annualized current earnings ($) 483 7,511 (12,048) 454 6,355 (10,376) 1,156 (747) 0.09

Total family income ($) 476 12,632 (10,696) 434 11,430 (9,535) 1,202 * (666) 0.09

Anyone in family had earnings in past month (%) 491 50.8 (50.0) 463 46.9 (49.9) 3.9 (3.3) 0.07

Anyone in family received TANF in past month (%) 490 28.2 (45.2) 463 28.4 (45.3) – 0.2 (2.9) 0.00

Anyone in family received SSDI in past month (%) 491 9.1 (26.7) 460 7.0 (26.5) 2.1 (1.9) 0.06

Anyone in family received SSI in past month (%) 490 15.5 (35.4) 463 13.8 (35.0) 1.7 (2.1) 0.04

Anyone in family received SNAP/Food Stamps in past month (%) 490 81.1 (38.8) 463 80.7 (38.9) 0.5 (2.7) 0.01

Anyone in family received WIC in past month (%) 490 28.8 (45.6) 463 25.8 (43.6) 3.0 (2.9) 0.06

Education and training

Participated in 2 weeks or more weeks of any school or training 

since RA (%)

489 38.1 (48.7) 461 38.5 (48.9) – 0.4 (3.3) – 0.01

Number of weeks in school/training programs since RA 481 7.0 (15.3) 458 7.6 (15.0) – 0.6 (1.0) – 0.03

Participated in 2 weeks or more weeks of school since RA (%) 489 9.3 (28.9) 461 13.4 (33.7) – 4.1 * (2.2) – 0.11

Participated in 2 weeks or more weeks of basic education since RA (%) 489 3.3 (17.8) 461 2.3 (15.9) 0.9 (1.2) 0.05

Participated in 2 weeks or more weeks of vocational education 

since RA (%)

489 12.2 (33.1) 461 10.5 (31.4) 1.7 (2.1) 0.04

Food security and hunger

Household is food insecure (%) 491 44.5 (49.5) 463 37.3 (48.7) 7.2 ** (3.3) 0.12

Food insecurity scalee 488 1.89 (2.04) 461 1.52 (1.99) 0.37 *** (0.13) 0.15

Economic stressors

Economic stress scalef 486 – 0.17 (0.49) 460 – 0.24 (0.45) 0.07 ** (0.03) 0.12

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

ITT = intention-to-treat. RA = random assignment. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error. SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SSDI = Social Security 

Disability

Insurance. SSI = Supplemental Security Income. TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 

Children.

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

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

b Includes only families who responded to both 20-month and 37-month followup surveys; not weighted for survey nonresponse.

c

 Number of months worked for pay includes partial calendar months.

d Hours of work per week includes those not currently working (that is, those with 0 hours of work per week).

e

 Food insecurity scale ranges from 0 to 6, with higher values indicating higher food insecurity.

f

 Economic stress scale ranges from – 1 to 1, with higher values indicating higher economic stress.

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics and are weighted to adjust for survey nonresponse. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B 

for outcome definitions.

Source: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 1

G

APPENDIX G.

INTERVENTION COSTS— 

METHODOLOGY, SITES, 

AND PROGRAMS

T his appendix provides greater detail on the cost analysis 

methodology and the sites and programs in the cost 

analysis. The study team calculated costs using primary data collected from transitional housing, rapid re-housing, 

and emergency shelter programs. The study team sought to 

capture costs of all program inputs consistently across each 

program type. The study team used administrative data to estimate costs for vouchers and public housing offered to families 

assigned to the permanent housing subsidy (SUB) intervention. 

The first four sections of this appendix describe the process 

of determining the per-family monthly program cost for each 

program in the cost study, referred to as the program-level perfamily monthly program cost. Section G.1 reviews the programs 

in the cost study. Section G.2 describes the elements of the 

per-family monthly program cost relevant to the transitional 

housing, rapid re-housing, and emergency shelter programs. 

Section G.3 reviews the approach used to calculate the per-family 

monthly program cost for the SUB intervention, and section G.4 

reviews the calculation for the other program types. Section G.5 

reviews how the study team averaged these program-level perfamily monthly program costs to derive the average per-family 

monthly program cost for each program type for the entire study 

and for study sites. This section also reviews how the study 

team combined per-family monthly program costs with study 

families’ observed program usage to calculate the other two types 

of costs addressed in Chapter 9 of the report: (1) cost of all program use during the followup period, and (2) monthly cost of all 

program use in the month of the 37- month followup survey. 

G.1. Programs in the Cost Study

The study team collected cost data at a large subset of rapid 

re-housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelter programs that participated in the study in the 12 study sites. The 

study team purposefully selected programs from each site in 

which a substantial number of study families had enrolled or, 

in the case of emergency shelter, programs with a high number 

of families recruited for the study. 

We attempted to collect cost data from all programs in which at 

least one study family enrolled and either (1) at least five study 

families were referred to the program or (2) the number of families referred was among the top three for the program type in 

the site. As such, the estimates were more likely to include larger 

programs that were able to make spaces available to study families and that study families were willing to accept. Collectively, 

the programs selected for the cost analysis represented more 

than 85 percent of study families who accepted a study referral 

to CBRR and PBTH programs, and more than 90 percent of 

families assigned to usual care (UC) from emergency shelters.

Cost estimates are based on detailed reviews of 81 CBRR, PBTH, 

and emergency shelter programs providing housing or services 

to homeless families across the 12 sites, plus administrative 

data (both at the household and public housing agency [PHA] 

level) covering the 10 sites providing permanent housing subsidies offered through the SUB intervention. The data collected 

from these programs represent a valuable contribution to the 

understanding of the cost of providing services to homeless 

families using each of the interventions studied and emergency 

shelter. Exhibit G-1 reports the number of programs in which 

the study team collected cost data. Sites that offered the SUB 

intervention are also indicated in Exhibit G-1.

As described in The Family Options Study Interim Report, families 

were enrolled in the study from September 2010 through 

January 2012. Then, depending on which group a family was 

assigned to, families may have received housing and services 

from the program associated with their intervention for either 

days or weeks (shelter), months (rapid re-housing and transitional housing), or years (transitional housing or permanent 

subsidies). We designed the cost analysis to be representative 

of the approximate timeframe when families were most likely 

to be enrolled in the programs. The study team collected cost 

data for the full-year period that best aligned with the time 

period in which most families were referred to the program and 

that overlapped with the program’s financial recordkeeping. 

Most often (48 programs) this period was fiscal year 2011. We 

adjusted all costs using local consumer price index measures of 

inflation so that all estimates are reported in 2013 dollars.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 2

G

Appendix G. Intervention Costs—Methodology, Sites, and Programs

Exhibit G-1. Number of Programs From Which Cost Data 

Were Collected and Presence of SUB Intervention by 

Study Site 

Site

Number of 

CBRR 

Programs

Numberof 

PBTH 

Programs

Number of 

ES 

Programs

SUB Site

Alameda County 1 3 7 Yes

Atlanta 1 * 1 2 No

Baltimore 1 2 3 No

Boston 1 — 5 Yes

Connecticut* 1 2 7 Yes

Denver 1 2 5 Yes

Honolulu 1 5 5 Yes

Kansas City 1 * 3 3 Yes

Louisville 1 1 2 Yes

Minneapolis 1 — 1 Yes

Phoenix 1 4 4 Yes

Salt Lake City 1 1 1 Yes

Total 12 24 45 10

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. ES = emergency shelter. PBTH = 

project-based transitional housing. SUB = permanent housing subsidy. 

* This study site comprises four Continuums of Care in New Haven and Bridgeport, 

Connecticut.

Notes: Pooled data from multiple CBRR programs were reported for Atlanta and Kansas City. PBTH was not offered in Boston, and enrollment in PBTH in Minneapolis did 

not support cost-data collection. SUB was not offered in Atlanta and Baltimore.

Source: Family Options Study cost data

G.2. Elements of Program-Level 

per-Family Monthly Program Cost

The methodology was designed to collect comprehensive 

program costs. Both to ensure that the study team collected all 

costs associated with proving program services and to allow 

for analysis comparing program structure, the study team 

collected costs in five high-level cost categories: (1) overhead, 

(2) rental assistance, (3) facility operations, (4) supportive 

services, and (5) capital costs. Exhibit G-2 shows the cost categories and how typical line items were sorted within categories. 

The study team collected cost data for CBRR, PBTH, and 

emergency shelter programs from the programs directly. The 

study team reviewed these categories and all program activities 

with key program operations and agency accounting staff using 

a standardized protocol and data collection tools that were 

adapted from previous studies, including HUD’s Cost of Homelessness Study (Spellman et al., 2010). Our primary source of 

cost information for all inputs except capital costs and in-kind 

and partner costs was audited expense statements. These 

statements were supplemented by program budgets, staffing 

lists, partner commitment letters, and program staff estimates 

of labor and material costs of any services not reflected in 

expense statements. To further ensure all program services 

were recognized as costs, interviews also reviewed program 

calendars and case management approaches for each age group 

of program residents.

To clarify and simplify comparisons across intervention programs for reporting our findings in Chapter 9, we collapsed the 

five cost-data collection categories into two broad designations: 

(1) housing or shelter and (2) supportive services. 

1. Housing or shelter refers to the rental cost—either observed 

or estimated—of the space used to provide housing or 

shelter and program services and also any maintenance or 

other facility operation costs (including durable items such 

as furnishings). This rental cost is net of any rent payments 

made by the family.

Exhibit G-2. Cost Data Collection Categories and Associated Item Prompts

Supportive Services Housing or Shelter

Agency Overhead Program/Assistance 

Expenses

Rental Assistance 

for Client Housing

Facility Operating 

Costs (project-based 

programs)

Property Value or 

Lease Expenses

Administrative staff 

• Salaries

• Fringe

• Other staff-related costs

Advertising

Audit

Accounting

Legal 

Management fee

Leasing & utilities 

 (prorated agency)

Miscellaneous office

 expenses

Payroll taxes

Indirect or allocated costs

Supportive services staff

• Salaries

• Fringe

• Other staff-related costs

Staff transportation

Program supplies

Activities

Housing placement

Employment search

Direct support

• Food

• Clothing

• Furniture

• Transportation

• Education

• Cash

• Other

Lease of client housing

Electric

Gas

Water/sewer

Other

Family contributions

Housing operations staff

• Salaries

• Fringe

• Other

Trash removal

Landscaping

Exterminating

Painting and decorating

Property Insurance

Real estate taxes

Repairs

Supplies

Furnishing equipment

Other

Market rate lease of client, 

 program, and administrative 

 property

Estimate of rental rate of 

 owned or donated property

Estimate of rental rate of 

 owned or donated propertyFacility rent (or capital cost) 

for space used for supportive services
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 3

G

Appendix G. Intervention Costs—Methodology, Sites, and Programs

2. Supportive services costs refer to any services other than 

shelter or housing provided as an integral part of the 

program, including case management, and any cash or inkind assistance (for example, meals provided in emergency 

shelters). 

Additional detail is reported in Chapter 9 for two other 

categories—(1) administrative and overhead costs and (2) in-kind 

and partner costs—because they provide information on typical 

program structures.

1. Administrative and overhead costs include management 

salaries; legal, accounting, and other professional services; 

and program support costs, such as insurance premiums and 

agency and association fees. Administrative and overhead 

costs are divided among supportive services and housing 

and shelter costs according to the cost types’ relative share 

of total costs so that they are included in the two broad 

categories.

2. In-kind and partner costs include any costs of housing or 

shelter or supportive services provided to families because 

they participate in a program. These costs are not provided 

by the program, and, as a result, are not included in program 

financial statements. Common examples include onsite 

health or mental health providers funded by an outside 

agency, community volunteers providing a variety of 

services, and consumer goods donated to program clients. 

The importance of these costs varies widely from program to 

program. When present, they typically are part of the cost of 

supportive services provided by a program. In some cases, 

however, housing or shelter costs include the costs of labor, 

such as handyman services, or of facilities used regularly 

for program activities that were provided in kind. In other 

cases, accounting, legal, or administrative services were 

provided in kind or by partners. In each case, the study team 

apportioned the cost to the appropriate category.

The next section provides additional detail regarding the assessment of in-kind and partner costs and capital costs and detail 

about our treatment of participant contributions.

In-Kind and Partner Costs

The study team reviewed all services that were provided to families because they were enrolled in the program to ensure that 

we were accounting for all inputs consistently across programs 

and across interventions, whether the assistance was provided 

directly by the program or in kind by a partner or volunteer.

The analysis, however, does not include the costs of every 

social service accessible to or encountered by program 

participants. The study team did not gather costs for services 

provided or made available by virtue of a families’ housing or 

socioeconomic status alone, regardless of their enrollment in 

a particular program. Rather, costs were included for housing 

or shelter, goods, and services provided to families explicitly 

because they were enrolled in the study program. The analysis 

included only the partner services and in-kind assistance that 

resulted from a dedicated relationship with the program and 

were accessed by at least 20 percent of eligible families (as 

determined by interviews with program staff). In addition, the 

analysis included any services that programs cited as critical to 

the mission or core approach, regardless of participation rates. 

Exhibit G-3 provides examples of services that our approach 

did and did not include when identifying partner and in-kind 

costs.

When inputs were provided by an external partner or through 

in kind donations, the study team estimated the value of the 

program input using the following resources, as available—

•	 Program documentation (such as an audit estimate of 

in-kind services value). 

•	 Costs of a similar service or item paid for by the program or 

by another program at the site.

•	 External documentation, such as Bureau of Labor Statistics 

data on local wages or publicly listed costs for the goods or 

services.

Examples of partner and in-kind services and resources used to 

determine an associated cost are listed in Exhibit G-4.

Exhibit G-3. Determining Inclusion of External Services 

Included—On Site Not Included—On Site

A health clinic sends a doctor and a nurse practitioner to the program site to 

conduct weekly screenings and checkups.

A volunteer organization holds parenting classes in a common area, 

but less than 20 percent of parents attend. 

Included—Off Site Not Included—Off Site

A Head Start school reserves and guarantees priority slots for all appropriately 

aged children from the program.

If a client expresses interest, case managers refer her to an external 

job training program run by the local workforce board.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 4

G

Appendix G. Intervention Costs—Methodology, Sites, and Programs

Exhibit G-4. Valuing In-Kind Services 

Example Estimation Approach

Partnering organization sends substance-abuse counselor to program to hold 

 weekly meetings with residents.

Program has an equivalent social worker with a substance-abuse 

 specialization on staff. This hourly wage rate is applied to level of 

effort by partner staff.

Health clinic sends team of nurse practitioners monthly to offer basic 

 preventative health care and checkups. 

Clinic sends leverage letter detailing the estimated costs of the nurses’ 

 time and medical supplies. 

Local church contributes a move-in packet for each family, including furniture 

 and kitchenware. 

Program estimates the value of each packet at $500 per client.

YMCA nearby holds five slots in its summer camp for children staying in 

 program’s shelter.

YMCA website lists costs for summer camp activities. 

Area nonprofit organization sends a dentist to conduct exams for all parents 

 and children once per year.

Bureau of Labor Statistics’ median wage for a dentist in that state is 

 applied to the level of effort by the dentist.

YMCA = Young Men’s Christian Association.

The approach used to valuing partner and in-kind staff is 

conservative in that it applies estimated labor rates to partner 

and in-kind level of effort, but it does not apply an overhead 

cost multiplier to that rate. The logic of this approach is an 

assumption that the program’s existing overhead infrastructure 

could absorb any additional administrative cost associated with 

directly funding this partner or in-kind service were the service 

to be provided by the program.

Capital Costs

Accounting for capital costs associated with the physical space 

used to provide client housing and program services is critical 

to establishing comparable costs within and across programs. 

For some programs this accounting was fairly straightforward. 

A few programs rent client housing units, program services, 

space, or administrative office space at market rates, providing 

direct market-rate estimates of the cost of facilities used by 

the program. At other programs, where client client-housing 

facilities are unique and different from typical housing stock, 

estimating a cost of ongoing occupancy of the space used for the 

program was more nuanced. For example, a congregate shelter 

in an otherwise industrial neighborhood or in the basement of 

a downtown historic religious sanctuary is not comparable with 

any space that would be rented at a market rate. Other space is 

provided at an in-kind discount; for example, office space owned 

by a municipality is leased at effectively no cost to the program. 

For cases in which market rates were not paid by the organization directly, the study team took an opportunity-cost approach 

to valuing space used to provide housing and services. We 

specifically relied on the following resources to derive annual 

capital cost estimates, as available1—

•	 Program’s or donor’s stated annual value of the occupied space.

•	 A 5-percent annual cost of capital applied to a total property 

value estimate; for example, a property value estimate from a 

recent appraisal or sales price-based insurance estimate.

•	 HUD’s published Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a comparable 

number of units as the space used by the program, adjusted 

for maintenance costs.

•	 Readily available estimates of market rent for similar nearby 

properties, adjusted for maintenance costs; for example, 

similar units or properties listed publicly for rent next door 

or reasonable rental estimates from similar neighboring 

properties provided by Zillow.

When rental value was imputed, either using comparable 

properties or local FMR, an estimate of net rent—the opportunity cost of interest—was imputed as 55 percent of the gross 

rent. This deflation was based on an analysis of data from the 

Residential Housing Finance Survey (RHFS; HUD, 2014b). Our 

analysis of the RHFS indicated an average 45-percent expense 

ratio for market-rate rental properties with between 5 and 49 

units—the relevant size properties for the size of buildings used 

by programs in our analysis. 

Participant Contributions

Of the 45 shelters in the cost analysis, 8 required shelter participants to pay some set amount or percent of income as rent. Of 

the 24 transitional housing programs, 21 required rental payments.2

 This analysis reports program costs net of these contributions. Annual program costs were reduced specifically by 

the amount of any participant contributions before determining 

1

 In developing this approach, we used multiple methods for facilities where data were available. Estimates for the same property resulting from different methods were 

remarkably similar (typically within 5 to 10 percent), which gives us confidence that a particular choice of property valuation method does not introduce material variation 

into our cost estimates.

2

 A few programs return mandatory participant savings as cash on their exit. Because funds dispersed are exactly offset by the participant contributions, we do not include 

these transactions as program costs.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 5

G

Appendix G. Intervention Costs—Methodology, Sites, and Programs

per-family averages, which conceptually is consistent with 

reporting the net costs to society of providing assistance. 

From a practical standpoint, this procedure allows for a closer 

comparison across program types. The actual family rental 

payments for families receiving rapid re-housing or subsidy 

assistance were unknown (For SUB, we know households’ expected rent contribution, but we do not observe actual payment 

to landlords.) Reducing costs by tenant rent for project-based 

transitional housing and emergency shelter programs makes the 

resulting estimates more comparable with rapid re-housing and 

permanent subsidy costs. As such, costs reported in Chapter 9 

were net of any participant contributions. 

The pattern of participant contributions was similar across sites, 

with the exception of project-based transitional housing in 

Hawaii, where family contributions averaged slightly less than 

$480 per family per month across the five programs. Among 

the 8 remaining sites (16 programs) in which families in 

project-based transitional housing programs pay some rent, the 

average monthly per-family rent is $144. For the 8 emergency 

shelters at which families pay some rent or program fee, the 

average per-family per-month contribution is $105.

All costs were reported net of any family contributions.

G.3. Costs of SUB Intervention

The approach to collecting cost data for the SUB intervention 

differed from that outlined previously for the CBRR and PBTH 

programs and for emergency shelters. Because the SUB intervention offered priority access to permanent housing assistance 

provided by PHAs, mostly in the form of a housing choice 

voucher, administrative data sources available to HUD were an 

efficient source of cost information. 

The cost of housing assistance was calculated directly from 

household-level administrative data for each study family 

assigned to the SUB group who received SUB assistance. These 

HUD Public and Indian Housing Information Center data 

contain move-in dates and housing assistance payments (HAPs) 

made on behalf of the family. To determine site-level and overall average HAP, we averaged these household HAPs, weighting 

households by the number of days of assistance received. These 

site-level HAPs were then inflated to account for administrative 

costs. Annual PHA financial reports provided information on 

the total administrative costs for the voucher program in each 

of the 18 PHAs that participated in the Family Options Study.3

G.4. Calculating Costs

For CBRR, PBTH, and emergency shelter programs, the study 

team collected or calculated costs for the entire program, 

typically for a fiscal year. Translating this total program cost 

into a per-family unit cost required determining the number 

of families assisted at a time for PBTH and emergency shelter 

programs, and, for CBRR programs, the average number of 

months of assistance provided to each family. For PBTH and 

emergency shelter programs,

.

The number of families served at a time is determined from 

program reports of the number of units and occupancy rate for 

unit-based facilities and the number of beds—typical family 

size—and occupancy rate for congregate facilities.

For rapid re-housing programs, the study team divided total 

program costs by the total number of months of rent supported 

by the program for all families in the program during the period for which costs were collected. In some cases, we received 

program administrative data from which we calculated the 

number of months of assistance directly. For other providers, 

programs provided us total program expenditures, total 

number of households assisted, and average number of months 

of housing provided by the assistance. Exhibit G-5 reviews the 

cost calculation for each program type.

Exhibit G-5. Program Level Average per Family Cost Calculations

Program Type Program Level Average per-Family Monthly Cost Calculation

Emergency shelter ((Total annual program cost)/12)/typical number of families assisted at a time

CBRR programs (Total annual program costs)/total family-monthsa of rent subsidized with funds

PBTH programs ((Total annual program cost)/12)/typical number of families served at a time

Voucher program assistance offered to the 

 SUB group

Average observed per family per month rental subsidy for sample families scaled by PHA administrative 

 cost rate

Public housing program assistance offered 

 to the SUB group 

Average per family per month costs with imputed rental value for sample families scaled by PHA 

 administrative cost rate

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

PHA = public housing authority.

a

 “Family-month” means a rent is a subsidy for one family for 1 month.

3

 For families in Honolulu who were assigned to SUB and received permanent subsidies from public housing programs, the study team imputed the cost of providing the 

public housing unit using the Honolulu FMR discounted to reflect typical maintenance costs together with average observed maintenance and actual administrative costs.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 6

G

Appendix G. Intervention Costs—Methodology, Sites, and Programs

This per-family monthly program cost for each program in the 

cost study is used to calculate each of our four cost concepts; 

(1) average per-family monthly program cost, (2) program cost 

per stay during the followup period, (3) cost of all program use 

during the followup period, and (4) monthly program cost of 

all program use at the 18-month followup survey. 

Per-Family Monthly Program Cost

Chapter 9 reports per-family monthly program cost averaged 

across all programs included in the cost analysis. As noted 

previously, this group of programs is a subset of all programs in 

the Family Options Study. One aim in selecting programs was 

to produce cost estimates that reflected the assistance that study 

families actually received. To be consistent with this aim—to calculate average per-family monthly program costs—we weighted 

program-level per-family monthly program costs by the number 

of study families who actually enrolled in the program after being 

referred to the program by the study for PBTH and CBRR programs. To be consistent with this approach for emergency shelter 

programs, we weighted program-level costs by the number of 

families assigned to the UC group at each shelter in the cost 

study. SUB costs were averaged directly from family-level data, 

weighted by the number of days a family received assistance.

Cost of All Program Use During the 

Followup Period

The per-family monthly program cost is calculated from 

program-level data points. By contrast, the study team estimated the cost of all program use during the followup period 

from family-level data points multiplied by site-level per-family 

monthly program cost estimates. This approach is used because 

average costs of all program use during the followup period 

are calculated for each of the six pairwise comparisons in the 

study—a concept that is based on families assigned to intervention rather than families referred to particular programs.

This approach requires two additional assumptions. First, 

site-level per-family monthly program costs for each of our 

four program types are used as cost estimates for a month of 

assistance at any program of that type.4 For example, all transitional housing programs in a site have the same per-family 

monthly program cost as the site-level average PBTH program 

cost estimated using program-level costs reported in Chapter 

9. Second, the study data track families’ use of permanent 

supportive housing (PSH), public housing, and project-based 

housing assistance that was not provided to families assigned to 

the SUB intervention nor included in the cost analysis. Under 

the assumption that they have similar program and cost structures, the estimates reported in this section use site-level PBTH 

program costs as a proxy for the cost of PSH and SUB costs 

as a proxy for the costs of public housing and project-based 

housing assistance.

To calculate the average cost of all program use during the 

followup period for the families on each side of each pairwise 

comparison, we first multiplied each family’s observed duration 

in each program type with the site-level average per-family 

monthly program cost of providing that type of assistance. After 

summing all program types a family uses during the followup 

period, we averaged this family-level cost of all program use 

during the followup period over all families in each assignment 

group, using the same nonresponse weights used in the impact 

analysis.

Cost of All Program Use at the Time of the 

Followup Survey

To calculate the cost of all program use at the time of the 

followup survey, we average the site-level average per-family 

monthly program cost for the program type in the site in which 

a family was receiving assistance (if any) at the time of the 

37-month followup survey. As with the per-family monthly 

cost measure, site-level average per-family monthly program 

costs are calculated with weights for the number of study families who accepted an assignment to the programs. Associating 

site-level program type costs with assistance study families are 

receiving at the time of the followup survey requires the same 

two assumptions described previously for cost of all program 

use during the followup period. First, site-level per-family 

monthly program costs for each of our four program types are 

used as cost estimates for a month of assistance at any program 

of that type. Second, the study data track families’ use of PSH, 

public housing, and project-based housing assistance that was 

not associated with the study or included in the cost analysis.

We calculate the cost of all program use at the time of the 

followup survey by averaging these site-level cost estimates 

that we associate with the assistance families are receiving. 

These averages are calculated over families on each side of each 

impact comparison using the same survey nonresponse used in 

the impact analysis.

4

 Atlanta and Baltimore did not offer the SUB intervention and per-family monthly program costs were not calculated in these sites for SUB programs. An additional site 

(Minneapolis) did not have adequate takeup of PBTH programs to support cost data collection. In these sites, the study team uses study-level average per-family monthly 

program costs as a proxy to allow for cost of all program use since random assignment estimates to include the families who found their way to these program types without 

study assistance.
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 1

H

APPENDIX H.

SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSES

T his appendix provides exhibits from supplemental 

analyses conducted for the Family Options Study. 

Exhibits H-1 through H-6 show information about the 

use of homeless and housing assistance programs in the latter 

part of the 37-month followup period, from months 21 to 32 

after the month of random assignment. The analysis of program 

use presented in Chapters 2 through 6 examined the extent to 

which families in each of the policy comparisons used seven 

types of homeless and housing assistance programs at any time 

during the entire 37-month followup period. For completeness, 

and to supplement the program use analysis reported in 

Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing and Services 

Interventions for Homeless Families for the first 20 months after 

random assignment, the study team also tabulated program use 

for months 21 to 32 after random assignment. 

Exhibits H-7, H-8, and H-9 provide updates to three nonexperimental analyses presented in the Short-Term Impacts report. 

Exhibits 6-6, 7-7, and 8-10 in the Short-Term Impacts report showed 

comparisons of outcomes for families assigned to priority access 

to (1) permanent housing subsidy (SUB), (2) community-based 

rapid re-housing (CBRR), and (3) project-based transitional 

housing (PBTH) who did and did not use the programs to 

which they received priority access. The study team also tabulated 37-month outcomes for these groups of families as shown 

in Exhibits H-7, H-8, and H-9. Neither the differences nor 

the similarities between the groups’ outcomes can be causally 

attributed to the use of the SUB, CBRR, or PBTH programs 

because use of the programs was not randomly assigned.

Exhibit H-1. SUB Versus UC: Program Use From 19th Month After RA Until 37-Month Survey Response Month

 Type of Housing Assistance

Percent Ever Used 

From 19th Month 

After RA to 37-Month 

Followup Surveya

Number of Months Used From 19th Month 

After RA to 37-Month Followup Survey, if 

Ever Used Type of Housing Assistance

Percent Used in 

Month of Followup 

Survey Response

SUB UC SUB UC SUB UC

Mean Median Mean Median

Permanent housing subsidies offered to the 

SUB groupb

78.5 12.0 17.9 19.0 15.7 18.0 68.4 10.8

Rapid re-housing (CBRR) 1.3 6.1 3.7 3.5 5.6 4.5 0.3 1.8

Transitional housing 3.8 17.7 7.9 8.0 8.2 7.5 0.9 3.7

Permanent supportive housing 2.8 8.5 10.1 9.5 12.1 12.5 2.3 6.9

Public housing 1.5 9.8 17.9 18.0 13.4 16.0 1.4 7.6

Project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects 1.3 5.9 9.3 14.5 13.7 15.5 0.8 5.4

Any form of permanent housing subsidyc 83.9 34.5 17.6 18.0 14.6 17.0 73.0 30.5

Emergency shelterd 6.4 22.8 3.6 2.4 3.5 2.4 1.7 5.4

No use of homeless or housing programse 11.2 42.1 — — — — 24.1 59.1

N 501 395 — — — — 501 395

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. UC = usual care. 

RA = random assignment.

a

 Percentage of families who ever used a type of assistance program during the period from the 19th calendar month after the month of RA to the month of the 37-month followup 

survey response. Percentages do not add to 100 because some families used more than one program type during the followup period.

b Subsidies offered to the SUB group are housing choice vouchers plus site-specific programs offered to families assigned to the SUB group in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and Honolulu, Hawaii.

c

 Any form of permanent housing subsidy includes the types of permanent subsidy offered to the SUB group, permanent supportive housing, public housing, and project-based 

vouchers/Section 8 projects.

d All families were in emergency shelter at RA. Percentages less than 100 are because of missing data on shelter use.

e

 Indicates no use of the six program types in this table during any of the followup period and no use of emergency shelter after the first 6 months after RA. No use in the month of 

followup survey response indicates no use of any of these seven program types.

Notes: Percentages are regression adjusted, controlling for site and randomization ratio. Percentages, means, and medians are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent full 

comparison sample.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 2

H

Appendix H. Supplemental Analyses

Exhibit H-2. CBRR Versus UC: Program Use From 19th Month After RA Until 37-Month Survey Response Month

 Type of Housing Assistance

Percent Ever Used 

From 19th Month 

After RA to 37-Month 

Followup Surveya

Number of Months Used From 19th Month 

After RA to 37-Month Followup Survey, if 

Ever Used Type of Housing Assistance

Percent Used in 

Month of Followup 

Survey Response

CBRR UC CBRR UC CBRR UC

Mean Median Mean Median

Permanent housing subsidies offered to the 

SUB groupb

9.8 11.5 15.6 18.0 15.0 17.0 8.5 10.2

Rapid re-housing (CBRR) 7.1 5.7 7.4 7.5 6.4 6.5 2.3 1.1

Transitional housing 12.9 15.5 7.7 6.5 8.2 6.5 4.2 3.3

Permanent supportive housing 8.9 9.9 12.8 11.5 13.3 14.5 6.7 8.0

Public housing 10.7 9.3 14.1 16.5 13.7 15.5 9.4 8.2

Project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects 5.4 5.7 14.4 17.0 12.1 14.0 5.3 4.8

Any form of permanent housing subsidyc 34.4 34.8 14.4 16.5 14.4 16.5 29.7 31.1

Emergency shelterd 20.9 22.8 3.2 2.0 3.4 2.2 2.6 5.2

No use of homeless or housing programse 44.0 42.6 — — — — 61.3 59.9

N 434 434 — — — — 434 434

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. UC = usual care. 

RA = random assignment.

a

 Percentage of families who ever used a type of assistance program during the period from the 19th calendar month after the month of RA to the month of the 37-month followup 

survey response. Percentages do not add to 100 because some families used more than one program type during the followup period.

b Subsidies offered to the SUB group are housing choice vouchers plus site-specific programs offered to families assigned to the SUB group in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and Honolulu, Hawaii.

c

 Any form of permanent housing subsidy includes the types of permanent subsidy offered to the SUB group, permanent supportive housing, public housing, and project-based 

vouchers/Section 8 projects.

d All families were in emergency shelter at RA. Percentages less than 100 are because of missing data on shelter use.

e

 Indicates no use of the six program types in this table during any of the followup period and no use of emergency shelter after the first 6 months after RA. No use in the month of 

followup survey response indicates no use of any of these seven program types.

Notes: Percentages are regression adjusted, controlling for site and randomization ratio. Percentages, means, and medians are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent full 

comparison sample.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data

Exhibit H-3. PBTH Versus UC: Program Use From 19th Month After RA Until 37-Month Survey Response Month

Type of Housing Assistance

Percent Ever Used 

From 19th Month 

After RA to 37-Month 

Followup Surveya

Number of Months Used From 19th Month 

After RA to 37-Month Followup Survey, if 

Ever Used Type of Housing Assistance

Percent Used in 

Month of Followup 

Survey Response

PBTH UC PBTH UC PBTH UC

Mean Median Mean Median

Permanent housing subsidies offered to the 

SUB groupb

8.6 9.7 10.6 9.5 12.9 17.0 7.4 7.9

Rapid re-housing (CBRR) 6.2 6.4 5.3 3.5 5.2 4.5 0.7 1.8

Transitional housing 25.8 19.1 9.6 8.5 7.9 6.5 9.3 6.2

Permanent supportive housing 10.1 9.6 13.3 14.0 14.4 17.0 7.6 8.3

Public housing 8.0 8.5 14.3 17.0 13.2 15.5 7.1 5.8

Project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects 5.3 6.1 13.1 12.5 13.2 13.5 3.9 5.4

Any form of permanent housing subsidyc 31.1 31.5 13.1 14.5 14.5 17.0 26.0 27.1

Emergency shelterd 16.2 18.9 2.0 1.1 3.5 2.2 3.5 4.3

No use of homeless or housing programse 43.4 44.0 — — — — 61.5 61.5

N 293 259 — — — — 293 259

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care. 

RA = random assignment.

a

 Percentage of families who ever used a type of assistance program during the period from the 19th calendar month after the month of RA to the month of the 37-month followup 

survey response. Percentages do not add to 100 because some families used more than one program type during the followup period.

b Subsidies offered to the SUB group are housing choice vouchers plus site-specific programs offered to families assigned to the SUB group in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and Honolulu, Hawaii.

c

 Any form of permanent housing subsidy includes the types of permanent subsidy offered to the SUB group, permanent supportive housing, public housing, and project-based 

vouchers/Section 8 projects.

d All families were in emergency shelter at RA. Percentages less than 100 are because of missing data on shelter use.

e

 Indicates no use of the six program types in this table during any of the followup period and no use of emergency shelter after the first 6 months after RA. No use in the month of 

followup survey response indicates no use of any of these seven program types.

Notes: Percentages are regression adjusted, controlling for site and randomization ratio. Percentages, means, and medians are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent full 

comparison sample.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 3

H

Appendix H. Supplemental Analyses

Exhibit H-4. SUB Versus CBRR: Program Use From 19th Month After RA Until 37-Month Survey Response Month

 Type of Housing Assistance

Percent Ever Used 

From 19th Month 

After RA to 37-Month 

Followup Surveya

Number of Months Used From 19th Month 

After RA to 37-Month Followup Survey, if 

Ever Used Type of Housing Assistance

Percent Used in 

Month of Followup 

Survey Response

SUB CBRR SUB CBRR SUB CBRR

Mean Median Mean Median

Permanent housing subsidies offered to the 

SUB groupb

77.4 9.6 18.3 19.0 16.6 18.0 67.4 8.4

Rapid re-housing (CBRR) 1.9 7.4 3.8 5.0 7.9 8.0 0.3 2.6

Transitional housing 3.9 11.4 7.7 8.0 7.3 7.5 0.9 4.1

Permanent supportive housing 3.6 11.3 10.1 9.5 12.6 11.5 3.1 8.0

Public housing 1.1 10.9 16.8 15.0 15.7 17.0 1.2 10.0

Project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects 0.8 6.7 11.9 14.5 13.2 17.0 0.6 6.4

Any form of permanent housing subsidyc 83.0 37.9 17.9 19.0 14.8 17.0 72.3 32.6

Emergency shelterd 7.6 21.7 3.7 2.7 3.5 2.3 1.8 2.5

No use of homeless or housing programse 11.9 42.2 — — — — 24.7 58.3

N 362 290 — — — — 362 290

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

RA = random assignment.

a

 Percentage of families who ever used a type of assistance program during the period from the 19th calendar month after the month of RA to the month of the 37-month followup 

survey response. Percentages do not add to 100 because some families used more than one program type during the followup period.

b Subsidies offered to the SUB group are housing choice vouchers plus site-specific programs offered to families assigned to the SUB group in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and Honolulu, Hawaii.

c

 Any form of permanent housing subsidy includes the types of permanent subsidy offered to the SUB group, permanent supportive housing, public housing, and project-based 

vouchers/Section 8 projects.

d All families were in emergency shelter at RA. Percentages less than 100 are because of missing data on shelter use.

e

 Indicates no use of the six program types in this table during any of the followup period and no use of emergency shelter after the first 6 months after RA. No use in the month of 

followup survey response indicates no use of any of these seven program types.

Notes: Percentages are regression adjusted, controlling for site and randomization ratio. Percentages, means, and medians are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent full 

comparison sample.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data

Exhibit H-5. SUB Versus PBTH: Program Use From 19th Month After RA Until 37-Month Survey Response Month

Type of Housing Assistance

Percent Ever Used 

From 19th Month 

After RA to 37-Month 

Followup Surveya

Number of Months Used From 19th Month 

After RA to 37-Month Followup Survey, if 

Ever Used Type of Housing Assistance

Percent Used in 

Month of Followup 

Survey Response

SUB PBTH SUB PBTH SUB PBTH

Mean Median Mean Median

Permanent housing subsidies offered to the 

SUB groupb

76.1 7.1 18.1 19.0 10.6 8.5 65.8 6.5

Rapid re-housing (CBRR) 0.5 6.7 3.5 3.5 5.5 2.5 0.4 0.9

Transitional housing 5.3 23.2 7.5 3.5 9.4 8.5 1.0 7.3

Permanent supportive housing 2.1 10.8 7.2 8.0 13.6 12.5 1.2 8.6

Public housing 1.6 7.8 18.5 20.5 14.5 15.5 1.5 6.9

Project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects 1.7 5.8 9.0 14.5 12.8 15.0 1.2 4.6

Any form of permanent housing subsidyc 81.2 30.1 17.7 19.0 13.6 15.5 69.7 26.7

Emergency shelterd 6.5 18.7 4.6 2.4 2.1 1.2 2.5 5.2

No use of homeless or housing programse 13.4 45.2 — — — — 26.4 60.7

N 215 201 — — — — 215 201

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

RA = random assignment.

a

 Percentage of families who ever used a type of assistance program during the period from the 19th calendar month after the month of RA to the month of the 37-month followup 

survey response. Percentages do not add to 100 because some families used more than one program type during the followup period.

b Subsidies offered to the SUB group are housing choice vouchers plus site-specific programs offered to families assigned to the SUB group in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and Honolulu, Hawaii.

c

 Any form of permanent housing subsidy includes the types of permanent subsidy offered to the SUB group, permanent supportive housing, public housing, and project-based 

vouchers/Section 8 projects.

d All families were in emergency shelter at RA. Percentages less than 100 are because of missing data on shelter use.

e

 Indicates no use of the six program types in this table during any of the followup period and no use of emergency shelter after the first 6 months after RA. No use in the month of 

followup survey response indicates no use of any of these seven program types.

Notes: Percentages are regression adjusted, controlling for site and randomization ratio. Percentages, means, and medians are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent full 

comparison sample.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 4

H

Appendix H. Supplemental Analyses

Exhibit H-6. CBRR Versus PBTH: Program Use From 19th Month After RA Until 37-Month Survey Response Month

 Type of Housing Assistance

Percent Ever Used 

From 19th Month 

After RA to 37-Month 

Followup Surveya

Number of Months Used From 19th Month 

After RA to 37-Month Followup Survey, if 

Ever Used Type of Housing Assistance

Percent Used in 

Month of Followup 

Survey Response

CBRR PBTH CBRR PBTH CBRR PBTH

Mean Median Mean Median

Permanent housing subsidies offered to the 

SUB groupb

6.8 7.0 17.4 19.0 12.7 15.0 6.8 6.2

Rapid re-housing (CBRR) 6.9 5.6 6.6 6.5 6.6 4.0 2.7 0.4

Transitional housing 15.5 27.2 8.2 7.5 9.3 7.5 5.1 9.1

Permanent supportive housing 8.7 9.6 13.7 15.5 13.1 14.0 7.6 6.8

Public housing 11.5 9.1 13.7 16.5 14.6 18.0 10.1 8.2

Project-based vouchers/Section 8 projects 4.9 4.7 16.6 18.0 14.1 12.5 4.9 3.8

Any form of permanent housing subsidyc 31.8 30.4 14.9 17.0 13.6 14.5 29.3 25.1

Emergency shelterd 17.6 15.5 3.1 2.0 2.2 1.1 2.8 2.0

No use of homeless or housing programse 46.0 42.8 — — — — 60.1 63.4

N 180 184 — — — — 180 184

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

RA = random assignment.

a

 Percentage of families who ever used a type of assistance program during the period from the 19th calendar month after the month of RA to the month of the 37-month followup 

survey response. Percentages do not add to 100 because some families used more than one program type during the followup period.

b Subsidies offered to the SUB group are housing choice vouchers plus site-specific programs offered to families assigned to the SUB group in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and Honolulu, Hawaii.

c

 Any form of permanent housing subsidy includes the types of permanent subsidy offered to the SUB group, permanent supportive housing, public housing, and project-based 

vouchers/Section 8 projects.

d All families were in emergency shelter at RA. Percentages less than 100 are because of missing data on shelter use.

e

 Indicates no use of the six program types in this table during any of the followup period and no use of emergency shelter after the first 6 months after RA. No use in the month of 

followup survey response indicates no use of any of these seven program types.

Notes: Percentages are regression adjusted, controlling for site and randomization ratio. Percentages, means, and medians are weighted for survey nonresponse to represent full 

comparison sample.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data

Exhibit H-7. Housing Stability Outcomes for the SUB RA Group by Use of the Offered Permanent Subsidy

 Outcome

Families Assigned to SUB 

Who Never Used the Offered 

Permanent Subsidy

Families Assigned to SUB 

Who Ever Used the Offered 

Permanent Subsidy 

N = 82 N = 419

Homelessness or doubled up during the followup period

At least 1 night homelessa or doubled up in past 6 months or in shelter in past 

12 months (%)

40.7 11.2 †

At least 1 night homelessa or doubled up in past 6 months (%) 38.3 10.0 †

At least 1 night homelessa in past 6 months (%) 24.7 5.3 †

At least 1 night doubled up in past 6 months (%) 26.8 7.4 †

Any stay in emergency shelter in past 6 months (%) 12.2 1.2 †

Any stay in emergency shelter in months 21 to 32 after RA (%) 20.7 1.4 †

Number of days homelessa or doubled up in past 6 months 45.6 11.9 †

Number of days homelessa in past 6 months 26.4 4.9 †

Number of days doubled up in past 6 months 27.9 7.5 †

Housing independence

Living in own house or apartment at followup (%) 72.0 87.4 †

Living in own house or apartment with no housing assistance (%) 46.3 7.9 †

Living in own house or apartment with housing assistance (%) 25.6 79.4 †

Number of places lived

Number of places lived in past 6 monthsb 1.8 1.2 †

Housing quality

Persons per room 1.4 1.2 †

Housing quality is poor or fair (%) 32.9 25.1 

SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy.

RA = random assignment.

† Difference in means is statistically significant at 0.10 level. 

a

 The definition of “homeless” in this report includes stays in emergency shelters and places not meant for human habitation. It excludes transitional housing.

b The number of places lived in past 6 months is topcoded at 6 places.

Notes: Outcome means are unweighted. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B for outcome definitions.

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey; Program Usage Data
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 5

H

Appendix H. Supplemental Analyses

Exhibit H-8. Housing Stability Outcomes for the CBRR RA Group by Use of Rapid Re-Housing

 Outcome

Families Assigned to CBRR Who 

Never Used Rapid Re-housing

Families Assigned to CBRR Who 

Ever Used Rapid Re-housing

N = 182 N = 252

Homelessness or doubled up during the followup period

At least 1 night homelessa or doubled up in past 6 months or in shelter 

in past 12 months (%)

34.6 42.1

At least 1 night homelessa or doubled up in past 6 months (%) 31.9 36.9

At least 1 night homelessa in past 6 months (%) 14.8 16.7

At least 1 night doubled up in past 6 months (%) 26.9 31.7

Any stay in emergency shelter in past 6 months (%) 6.6 6.0

Any stay in emergency shelter in months 21 to 32 after RA (%) 13.2 17.1

Number of days homelessa or doubled up in past 6 months 44.3 51.3

Number of days homelessa in past 6 months 16.0 13.0

Number of days doubled up in past 6 months 32.9 40.2

Housing independence

Living in own house or apartment at followup (%) 62.1 72.2 †

Living in own house or apartment with no housing assistance (%) 27.5 46.0 †

Living in own house or apartment with housing assistance (%) 34.6 26.8 †

Number of places lived

Number of places lived in past 6 monthsb 1.5 1.6

Housing quality

Persons per room 1.7 1.6

Housing quality is poor or fair (%) 26.1 31.0

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. 

RA = random assignment.

† Difference in means is statistically significant at 0.10 level. 

a

 The definition of “homeless” in this report includes stays in emergency shelters and places not meant for human habitation. It excludes transitional housing.

b The number of places lived in past 6 months is topcoded at 6 places.

Notes: Outcome means are unweighted. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B for outcome definitions.

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey; Program Usage Data

Exhibit H-9. Housing Stability Outcomes for the PBTH RA Group by Use of Transitional Housing

 Outcome

Families Assigned to PBTH Who 

Never Used Transitional Housing

Families Assigned to PBTH Who 

Ever Used Transitional Housing

N = 133 N = 160

Homelessness or doubled up during the followup period

At least 1 night homelessa or doubled up in past 6 months or in shelter 

in past 12 months (%)

40.2 43.1

At least 1 night homelessa or doubled up in past 6 months (%) 35.6 41.9

At least 1 night homelessa in past 6 months (%) 16.5 22.5

At least 1 night doubled up in past 6 months (%) 30.3 29.4

Any stay in emergency shelter in past 6 months (%) 7.5 7.5

Any stay in emergency shelter in months 21 to 32 after RA (%) 9.8 9.4

Number of days homelessa or doubled up in past 6 months 46.0 50.1

Number of days homelessa in past 6 months 13.0 19.1

Number of days doubled up in past 6 months 35.4 33.1

Housing independence

Living in own house or apartment at followup (%) 72.9 60.0 †

Living in own house or apartment with no housing assistance (%) 50.8 36.6 †

Living in own house or apartment with housing assistance (%) 22.0 29.7

Number of places lived

Number of places lived in past 6 monthsb 1.5 1.7

Housing quality

Persons per room 1.8 1.7

Housing quality is poor or fair (%) 31.1 31.6

PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. 

RA = random assignment.

† Difference in means is statistically significant at 0.10 level. 

a

 The definition of “homeless” in this report includes stays in emergency shelters and places not meant for human habitation. It excludes transitional housing.

b The number of places lived in past 6 months is topcoded at 6 places.

Notes: Outcome means are unweighted. See Chapter 2 and Appendix B for outcome definitions.

Sources: Family Options Study 37-month followup survey; Program Usage Data
FAMILY OPTIONS STUDY

3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families 1

I

APPENDIX I.

LENGTH OF BASELINE STAY IN 

EMERGENCY SHELTER

T his appendix updates analysis presented in Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families about the relative 

impacts of the interventions on the length of time families remain in emergency shelter after random assignment. Exhibit I-1 

presents this information for each of the six policy comparisons 

(SUB versus UC, CBRR versus UC, PBTH versus UC, SUB versus 

CBRR, SUB versus PBTH, and CBRR versus PBTH).

The results presented in this appendix reflect three important 

revisions from the analysis conducted for the Short-Term 

Impacts report.

1. The findings presented here are for the full sample of 2,282 

families. Updated Program Usage Data permit examination 

of the length of baseline stay outcome for the full sample, 

whereas the Short-Term Impacts report included findings 

only for the sample that responded to the 20-month survey 

(1,857 families). The updated findings are thus more robust, 

because they account for the entire study sample.

2. The outcome, length of baseline stay in emergency shelter,

has been measured more precisely than was done in the 

Short-Term Impacts report. As described in Appendix B, 

the outcome analyzed is measured as the count of days in 

emergency shelter converted to months and is based on exit 

dates in the source data. In the previous analysis, measures 

were based on adjusted counts of monthly dummy variables, 

wherein each dummy variable indicated a calendar month 

during which at least 1 night of shelter stay was observed for 

a family. 

3. The Program Usage Data were entirely recreated for the 

37-month analysis in order to make use of updated extracts 

from the Homeless Management Information System 

(HMIS), Public and Indian Housing Information Center, 

and Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System and 

newly available data from the 27-month tracking survey and 

37-month followup survey. Updated data (particularly from 

HMIS) and revisions to data cleaning procedures may have 

resulted in some changes to the Program Usage Data used to 

measure length of baseline stay. 

The Short-Term Impacts report presented results showing 

that assignment to priority access to community-based rapid 

re-housing (CBRR) led to more rapid departures from emergency shelter than usual care (UC) by about 2 weeks, but it did 

not lead to more rapid departures than for families assigned 

to priority access to permanent housing subsidy (SUB) or to 

project-based transitional housing (PBTH). Revised analysis 

using updated Program Usage Data on length of emergency 

shelter stays shown in this appendix has resulted in changes to 

the findings about length of initial shelter stay, however. For 

the full study sample, families assigned to CBRR left shelter 

on average 1 week faster than families assigned to UC. This 

difference is not statistically significant. 

Exhibit I-1. Impacts on Length of Baseline Stay in Emergency Shelter 

Comparison First Assignment Group Second Assignment Group ITT Impact

N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

SUB vs. UC 466 2.54 (2.57) 430 3.12 4.27 – 0.58 *** (0.20)

CBRR vs. UC 453 2.87 (4.31) 456 3.09 4.24 – 0.23 (0.24)

PBTH vs. UC 281 2.51 (3.35) 272 2.74 3.40 – 0.23 (0.26)

SUB vs. CBRR 336 2.56 (2.75) 306 3.27 4.84 – 0.70 ** (0.28)

SUB vs. PBTH 198 1.99 (2.26) 183 2.71 3.69 – 0.71 ** (0.29)

CBRR vs. PBTH 181 2.43 (3.53) 185 2.69 3.24 – 0.26 (0.32)

CBRR = priority access to community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = priority access to project-based transitional housing. SUB = priority access to permanent housing subsidy. 

UC = usual care.

ITT = intention-to-treat. SD = standard deviation. SE = standard error.

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

Notes: Impact estimates and outcome means are regression adjusted for baseline characteristics. See Appendix B for outcome definitions. All study sample families with an observed emergency shelter stay that includes random assignment date are included in the analysis.

Source: Family Options Study Program Usage Data