DISCLAIMER

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

or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. Government.
Family Options Study 

Long-term Tracking Project

 

Submitted by:

Debi McInnis

Daniel Gubits

Brenda Rodriguez

Scott Brown

Michelle Wood

Abt Associates 
Foreword

The Family Options Study is a landmark research effort funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD) between 2008 to 2016 that evaluated the impacts of different housing and 

service interventions to address family homelessness. In total, 2,282 families with over 5,000 children 

were enrolled into the study nationwide, randomly assigned to different housing and service interventions, 

and then followed over a period of three years to examine the relative effects of the interventions on a 

broad set of measures, ranging from housing stability to child well-being. The study produced strong 

evidence regarding the family-level impacts of different housing and service interventions to address 

family homelessness. Among the study’s findings was evidence that housing vouchers improved housing 

stability, reduced exposure to domestic violence, and lowered incidences of food insecurity. The study 

also demonstrated, however, that housing subsidies alone did not lead to materially different substance

abuse, employment, or income outcomes compared to usual care. Additional research focused on 

understanding whether these impacts change over a longer period of observation is merited, and the 

Family Options Study- Long-Term Tracking Project lays the groundwork for future research efforts. 

This report documents the results of an effort to re-establish contact with study families three years after 

the conclusion of the last round of primary data collection. The purpose of this outreach was to assess the 

viability of a future round of primary data collection with study families. All in all, the outreach effort 

was successful, with 75 percent of the total sample located, interviewed, or determined to have viable 

contact information for future followup. 

The results of this tracking study pave the way for HUD to favorably consider the opportunity for 

continued followup with study families for the purpose of understanding the long-term impact of different 

interventions to address family homelessness. 

Seth D. Appleton

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
i

Contents 

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

1. Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. References .................................................................................................................................. 146 
1

Executive Summary

The Family Options Study is the largest experimental study of interventions serving homeless families 

that has been conducted. This large sample of homeless families provides a unique opportunity to 

examine the effects of the housing and services interventions tested in the study and to explore family 

dynamics and well-being over time. 

From October 2017 to March 2018, Abt Associates conducted participant tracking to locate and interview 

the Family Options Study sample. The study team attempted to contact the study sample after more than 3 

years without contact. The purpose of this participant tracking was to assess the viability of the study 

sample to support longer-term followup data collection. The tracking was not designed to provide a 

detailed set of new survey data, nor was it intended to produce longer-term impact estimates. The study 

team completed interviews with 49 percent of the study sample a median of 78 months after random 

assignment. In addition to completing interviews with 48.7 percent of the sample, the study team was able 

to locate (but not interview) an additional 10.6 percent of the sample and considers an additional 15.7

percent of the sample to have viable leads for future contact. In total, 75 percent of the sample was

interviewed, located, or determined to have viable contact information during the 78-month effort. 

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

survey sample in this report. 

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

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

outcomes.

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

Information on important outcomes (such as patterns of participation in programs such as the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP], Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF], 

and Medicaid) could be matched to the sample. The study team expects that when using nonresponse 

weights, one would be able to calculate internally valid impact estimates for all pairwise comparisons in 

addition to descriptive longitudinal analysis. 

A future follow-up survey could provide more information on outcomes such as homelessness and 

doubling up, housing quality, family separations and reunifications, adult and child well-being, 

employment and income, and food security. Given that 75 percent of the sample was located or 

determined to have viable contact information during the 78-month participant tracking effort, the 

likelihood of achieving an overall response rate between 65 to 75 percent for a future survey seems high. 

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

would likely support impact analysis.

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

intervention (in which families received priority access to a long-term housing subsidy, typically a Housing Choice 

Voucher) and the UC intervention (in which families received access to usual care homeless and housing assistance but 

did not have priority access to any particular program) and were randomly assigned to one of the two groups. 

2 The consent-to-use-PII sample consists of those participants who provided consent to release their personally 

identifiable information (PII).
2

1. Overview 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sponsored the Family Options Study to 

develop evidence about which types of housing and services interventions work best for families who 

experience homelessness. The study, conducted by Abt Associates and its partner Vanderbilt University, 

compares the effects of three active interventions—long-term housing subsidy, short-term housing 

subsidy, and project-based transitional housing—with one another and with the usual care available to 

homeless families. The Family Options Study is the largest experimental study of interventions serving 

homeless families that has been conducted to date. 

From September 2010 through January 2012, 2,282 families enrolled in the Family Options Study across 

12 communities3 after spending at least 7 days in an emergency shelter. After providing informed consent 

and completing a baseline survey, the families were randomly assigned to one of four groups: 

1. SUB (subsidy): families received priority access to a long-term housing subsidy, typically a

Housing Choice Voucher (HCV). 

2. CBRR (community-based rapid re-housing): families received priority access to a temporary 

housing subsidy, lasting up to 18 months, in the form of community-based rapid re-housing

assistance. 

3. PBTH (project-based transitional housing): families received priority access to a temporary, 

service-intensive stay, lasting up to 24 months, in a project-based transitional housing program. 

4. UC (usual care): families received access to usual care homeless and housing assistance but did not 

have priority access to any particular program. 

In the original design of the study, each family was to have a chance of being assigned to all four groups 

(SUB, CBRR, PBTH, or UC). A number of factors prevented the study from being implemented as 

planned.4 As discussed in Chapter 3, to analyze the relative impacts of assignment to the four groups, 

families were included in pairwise comparisons for the interventions that were available to them at the 

time of random assignment and for which they were eligible. Families were free to take up their assigned 

interventions or to make other arrangements, so families used a mix of programs, often including 

programs other than the one to which they were given priority access. Nonetheless, patterns of program 

use among the groups of families contrasted substantially. 

In the first 3 years after random assignment, the study team attempted to contact all enrolled families 

approximately every 3 months, using a combination of phone calls, letters, and passive tracking activities. 

The team completed brief tracking surveys 6, 12, and 27 months after random assignment and conducted 

extensive followup surveys 20 and 37 months after random assignment. The experimental study design 

provides a strong basis for conclusions about the relative impacts of the interventions on several aspects 

3 The 12 communities participating in the study are Alameda County, California; Atlanta, Georgia; Baltimore, 

Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Bridgeport and New Haven, Connecticut; Denver, Colorado; Honolulu, 

Hawaii; Kansas City, Missouri; Louisville, Kentucky; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Phoenix, Arizona; and Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 

4

 See Gubits et al Interim Report: Family Options Study for more detail.
3

of family well-being. The study sample, and the rich set of data collected about their housing stability, 

family composition, adult well-being, child well-being, and self-sufficiency support rigorous, longitudinal 

research about the nature of family homelessness and its long-term consequences for adults and children. 

The 6-, 12-, and 27-month tracking efforts were intended to remind the participants about the study and 

collect a few key data items (contact information, housing and employment status, and family 

composition). All families—except those confirmed deceased—were released for interviewing each 

wave, regardless of whether or not they completed the prior effort. 

During the 20- and 37-month follow-up survey efforts, the interviewers followed a more intensive 

locating strategy with a longer field period for phone and in-person surveys. Interviewers made multiple 

call attempts and sent letters and emails to participants in an effort to contact them. The interviewers also 

visited the respondent and the family members and friends who the families provided as secondary 

contact persons in order to maximize response rates for the surveys. 

In previous analyses, the Family Options Study examined the relative effects of the interventions over a 

three-year followup period. It is possible that some effects could emerge over a longer followup period. 

Continued efforts to retain the sample and to gather new information about family experiences, use of 

homeless services, and family composition over a longer period could reap substantial benefits for 

researchers and policy makers who may want to examine longer term effects of the interventions, and to 

describe the dynamics among adults and children in families who experienced homelessness in 2010 to 

2012. 

The Family Options Study Long-Term Tracking Project is the first effort to re-engage participants since 

December 2014, although a few families contacted Abt to inquire about the study after the 37-month 

survey, the study team did not have any organized contact with the study families after the 37-month 

survey effort concluded. 

The median response time for this long-term tracking data collection was 78 months after families were 

enrolled in the study and assigned to one of four intervention groups.5 This long-term tracking effort had 

three objectives:

1. To increase the viability of a potential future followup data collection that HUD might conduct by

a. Collecting contact information of family heads and secondary contact persons. 

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

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

a. Current housing status and program use. 

b. Recent experiences of homelessness and doubling up. 

5

 Originally, the team expected that the long-term tracking survey would be fielded roughly 72 months after 

random assignment. Because HUD received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance 

approximately six months later than originally planned, the tracking survey started later than originally 

anticipated. The median time from random assignment to survey completion for respondents was 2,378 days, or 

about 78 months (6 years and 6 months).
4

c. Recent program use. 

d. Current employment status. 

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

3. To provide information to assess the feasibility of a future followup data collection and the 

expected usefulness of the collection for impact analysis.

Chapter 2 of this report summarizes the success of the re-engagement and tracking survey efforts. A 

description of the research value of the data collected in the 78-month survey is provided in Chapter 3. 

Chapter 4 examines the research value of the consent-to-use-PII sample—those participants who provided 

consent to release their personally identifiable information (PII) to HUD at either the 37- or 78-month 

survey. Chapter 5 provides an assessment of the expected analytic value of a future survey. Chapter 6 

presents a descriptive summary of some key outcome measures: first for the 78-month followup survey 

respondents overall and then for those in the usual care (UC) group only. Chapter 7 of this report provides 

an updated analysis of employment and earnings impacts using quarterly wage data from the National 

Directory of New Hires (NDNH) through the 27th quarter after random assignment.6

 References are 

provided in Chapter 8. The report also contains nine technical appendices. Appendix A summarizes the 

team’s approach to conducting the tracking and survey data collection activities. Appendix B contains the 

78-month survey instrument used in the study. Appendix C contains additional results of the long-term 

tracking effort. Appendix D displays all the outcomes measured in the 37-month impact analysis and 

indicates what can also be measured with the 78-month tracking survey data. Appendix E contains 

unweighted frequencies of all non-PII variables collected in the 78-month survey. Appendices F through 

H show the baseline balance for: (i) the full sample, (ii) the 78-month survey respondents, and (iii) the 

sample that consented to release PII to HUD. Finally, Appendix I provides a summary of statistics related 

to the balance of baseline characteristics for the same three groups as in Appendices F to H and Appendix 

J presents balance statistics for the pairwise comparisons within the full and 78-month samples.

6 As of June 2019, the final quarter of data available from the NDNH was the fourth quarter of 2018. The Family 

Options Study enrolled its last cohort of families in the first quarter of 2012. The fourth quarter of 2018 

represents the 27th quarter after the quarter of random assignment for this last cohort. The study enrolled its 

earliest cohort of families in the third quarter of 2010. For this earliest cohort, the fourth quarter of 2018 

represents the 33rd quarter after random assignment.
5

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

Tracking Effort? 

This chapter describes the results from (1) the re-engagement letter and contact update effort and (2) the 

78-month tracking survey data collection. Section 2.1 discusses the response rate for the re-engagement 

letter and contact update request and compares the results with previous contact efforts. Section 2.2 

analyzes the tracking survey response rates (by site and by intervention group) and final disposition 

summary. Section 2.3 summarizes the study team’s development of the four key case outcomes: 

complete, located not interviewed, still viable, and final unlocatable. 

2.1 Re-Engagement Letter and Contact Update Results

Altogether, 2,282 families enrolled in the study and are included in the study sample. Of those, the family 

head of 18 families were confirmed deceased at the 37-month survey, leaving 2,264 families eligible for 

the 78-month survey. The team sent re-engagement letters to the 2,166 families for whom complete 

addresses were available7

. 

The re-engagement letter with the contact update request was the study team’s first attempt to directly 

contact study participants after approximately 3 years. The re-engagement letter included an update on all 

major study milestones, gave links to the 20-and 37-month followup reports, and explained the upcoming 

tracking survey. The letter also asked participants to update their contact information online, by mail, or 

by phone. (See exhibit A-2 in appendix A for more detail on the re-engagement letter.)

Nearly one-half (46.8 percent) of the re-engagement letters were returned to the study team as 

undeliverable, indicating that addresses were out of date (see exhibit 2-1). This result confirmed that a 

higher percentage of the last known address and/or phone information for the family head was out-of-date 

than for previous tracking efforts. 

We received updated contact information from 4.2 percent of the sample in response to the re-engagement 

letter. This response is substantially lower than in previous phases of the study (previous requests for 

address updates yielded an average of an 18- to 20-percent response). The lower response was likely due 

to the fact that there was a long period with no contact between the study and participants. During that 

time, study members may have relocated, so the mailing would not have been delivered. In other cases, 

the respondents may have received the mailing but had forgotten about the study and did not respond. It is 

also possible that some participants may have received the letter but chose not to re-engage with the 

study. Exhibit 2-1 shows the results of the re-engagement letter with the contact update request. 

Exhibit 2-1. Re-Engagement Letter and Contact Update Request Results

Re-Engagement Letters Contact Updates

Total Letters 

Sent Delivered Undeliverable

Total 

Updates By Web By Mail

Number of Families 2,166 1,153 1,013 90 65 25

7 Re-engagement letters were not sent to those families who had missing or incomplete addresses for the family head 

or who had the family head confirmed as deceased. Removing these families from the sample reduced the sample 

for the re-engagement letters from 2,282 to 2,166. 
6

Percent of Total Letters Sent 100 53.2 46.8 4.2 3.0 1.2

Source: Abt Associates 78-month tracking data 

Site-by-site results of the re-engagement letter and contact update effort are shown in exhibit C-1, 

appendix C. Although other studies of similar populations have shown positive responses to online 

response options versus paper response options, exhibit 2-1 suggests that allowing Family Options Study 

participants to update their contact information online did not increase the response by a substantial 

amount. 

2.2 Tracking Survey Response Rates

This section focuses on the results of the 78-month tracking survey data collection. The approach to data 

collection for the 78-month tracking survey differed from the 20- and 37-month followup surveys. Given 

the limited resources available for the 78-month tracking effort, the study team modified the data 

collection approach to maximize the response rate. Compared to the 78-month survey, the 20- and 37-

month followup surveys involved a longer data collection period and more extensive in-person 

interviewing. To conduct the 20- and 37- month followup surveys, the study team released cases monthly 

based on the anniversary of the participant’s randomization into the study.8 The rolling sample release 

resulted in a 16-month data collection period for the 20-month followup survey and a 10-month data 

collection period for the 37-month followup survey.9

 

The 78-month survey had a much shorter data collection period—just 5.5 months. To ensure interviewers 

had enough time to work all cases efficiently, the team released all eligible cases for interviewing at the 

same time. This approach meant interviewers had far more cases to work simultaneously. To help 

streamline that process and conserve resources, the team also made changes to the mode of data 

collection. Although the prior followup survey efforts were designed to be done in-person, 40 percent or 

more of the completed cases for both followup (20-month and 37-month) surveys were done by 

telephone. Thus, the team designed the 78-month tracking survey as a true phone-to-field methodology—

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

See appendix A for more detail on the 78-month tracking survey data collection approach. As described 

throughout this chapter, the team located and or interviewed most of the participant families; however, if 

more time and resources were made available, the team would have had more opportunity to locate leads 

for survey completion. 

Interviewers conducted the 78-month tracking survey data collection from October 2017 through March 

2018. During that period, interviewers attempted to locate and interview 2,264 participants. Once 

interviewers made contact with the study participant, they had two tasks. First, the interviewers obtained 

participants’ consent to participate in the study and completed the 78-month tracking survey. When the 

tracking survey was completed, interviewers reviewed the consent-to-release personally identifiable 

information (PII) form with the respondent. This form grants permission to Abt to release the personal 

identifiers along with all survey and administrative data collected during the life of the study to the U.S. 

8

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

reduce the overall data collection period.

9

 The prior tracking surveys had a much shorter (12-week or 3-month) data collection period.
7

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Respondents could consent to the release of 

their PII and/or the PII of their children. 

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

participants released for interviewing). The response rates varied across sites ranging from 40.9 percent 

(Phoenix) to 58.8 percent (Denver), as shown in exhibit 2-2. 

Exhibit 2-2. 78-Month Tracking Survey Results by Site

Sites Total Sample Completes Response Rate (%)

Alameda 257 124 48.2

Atlanta 187 96 51.3

Baltimore 57 25 43.9

Boston 181 75 41.4

Connecticut 214 110 51.4

Denver 170 100 58.8

Honolulu 216 99 45.8

Kansas City 172 82 47.7

Louisville 109 58 53.2

Minneapolis 181 95 52.5

Phoenix 276 113 40.9

Salt Lake City 244 126 51.6

Total 2,264 1,103 48.7

Source: Abt Associates 78-month tracking data 

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

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

Exhibit 2-3. 78-Month Tracking Survey Results by Intervention Group 

 Total Sample Completes Response Rate (%)

CBRR 563 272 48.3

PBTH 364 162 44.5

SUB 595 328 55.1

UC 742 341 46.0

TOTAL 2,264 1,103 48.7

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

UC = usual care.

Source: Abt Associates 78-month tracking data 

2.3 Case Status by Site

The long-term tracking study also offered the opportunity to assess the feasibility of locating the study 

participants again for a future longer-term followup study. At the end of the 78-month tracking survey 

data collection, the team reviewed the final dispositions and all case notes to assess the feasibility of 

locating these participants again in the future. The sample was categorized into four groups:

• Completed: In these cases, the interviewer was able to contact, obtain re-consent to continue the 

study, and complete interviews with the family head. The study team completed interviews with 

48.7 percent of the sample.
8

• Located: These are cases for which the interviewer contacted the respondent but was unable to 

complete the interview. Reasons for non-interview include study participant being deceased, 

incarcerated, incapacitated, or unavailable during the study period; speaking only Spanish or 

some other language barrier; and refusals to participate. Altogether, the study team located 10.6

percent of the sample. 

• Viable: These are cases where the review suggested that the study team possessed strong leads to 

locate the sample member. The interviewers believed they had the correct address, phone number, 

and /or valid email address; however, they were unable to make direct contact with the 

respondent. Cases with valid/current secondary contacts were also deemed viable because the 

interviewers would have a solid contact with which to start another round of data collection. The 

viable group constitutes 15.7 percent of the sample.

• Unlocatable: Cases deemed unlocatable are those where the study team was not able to locate or 

find viable leads for the family head during this wave of data collection. This group includes 

families with whom the team had no contact since baseline, those who only responded to tracking 

updates but not followup surveys, and those for whom all the contact information was outdated. 

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

Exhibit 2-4 shows the distribution for the entire sample in these four groups and exhibit 2-5 shows the 

distribution in each of the four assignment groups. Exhibit C-2 in appendix C shows the distribution in 

each of the study sites. 

Exhibit 2-4. Case Status for the Eligible Sample for the 78-Month Tracking Survey

Sample Completed Located Determined 

Viable 

Unlocatable Sum of 

Completed, 

Located, and 

Viable 

Number of 

Families

2,264 1,103 241 355 565 1,699

Percent of 

Total Sample

100.0 48.7 10.6 15.7 25.0 75.0

Source: Abt Associates 78-month tracking data 

The results by case status are very encouraging, and the study team believes that 75 percent of the sample 

is still viable for a future survey data collection effort. Although the exhibit shows that the study team was 

unable to locate 25 percent of the sample, this lack of contact does not mean that those families should be 

dropped from future survey efforts. In all prior waves of data collection effort for this study, interviewers 

located some families who were not contacted in a previous wave. That was also the case in the 78-month 

tracking survey—55 of the 1,103 cases completed at 78 months (5 percent) were not interviewed at 37 

months. 

Exhibit 2-5. Case Status by Assignment Group 

Sample Completed 

(%)

Located (%) Determined 

Viable (%)

Unlocatable 

(%)

Sum of 

Completed, 

Located and 

Viable (%)

CBRR 563 48.3 10.5 15.3 25.9 74.1

PBTH 364 44.5 11.0 16.5 28.0 72.0
9

SUB 595 55.1 10.8 15.0 19.2 80.8

UC 742 46.0 10.5 16.2 27.4 72.6

Total 2264 48.7 10.6 15.7 25.0 75.0

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

UC = usual care.

Source: Abt Associates 78-month tracking data

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

Exhibit 2-6: 78-Month Tracking Survey Final Disposition

Disposition Total Percent

Completed

Total Completed 1,103 48.7 

Located

Respondent Refusal, Hard, FINAL 116 5.1

Language barrier – Spanish 48 2.1

Located, No Appointment 12 0.5

Homeless / living in shelter 18 0.8

Physically / mentally impaired – permanent 4 0.2

Respondent deceased – CONFIRMED 23 1.0

Appointment, Hard 1 0.0

Broken Appointment 1 0.0

Respondent incarcerated – Final 18 0.8

Total Located 241 10.6

Determined Viable

Total Viable 355 15.7

Unlocatable

Final – unlocatable 362 16.0

Case never found in main study 72 3.2

Low priority case, tracking completes only 131 5.8

Total Unlocatable 565 25.0

Total 2,264 100.00

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

Source: Abt Associates 78-month tracking data 

Based on tracking survey results, it is reasonable to expect that, with additional resources and effort, 

future data collection efforts could complete interviews with up to 75 percent of the Family Options Study 

sample. The next chapter considers the research that is possible with the data collected in the 78-month 

survey and the sample that completed the interview. 
10

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

This chapter addresses the research value of the 78-month survey data. Section 3.1 provides an overview 

of the 78-month tracking survey and some preliminary results on key survey items. Then Section 3.2

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

respondents. 

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

The 78-month tracking survey collected the respondents’ current address, phone number, and email 

information. It also confirmed or updated the contact information for secondary contacts—friends or 

relatives who will always know how to reach the respondent. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) could use this contact information to locate and interview study participants should 

HUD choose to conduct additional data collection to collect detailed information on family outcomes. 

The 78-month tracking survey also collected a small number of key outcome measures to supplement the 

information collected through the prior followup data collection efforts and augment the rich longitudinal 

database developed for the study. Appendix B contains the 78-Month Tracking Survey. Appendix D 

shows all outcomes measured in the 37-month impact analysis and indicates whether the data are also 

available in the 78-month survey data. The 78-month tracking survey measured these outcomes using the 

same items collected in previous surveys: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Spouse/partner separated in the past 6 months, of those with spouse/partner present at random 

assignment (percent).

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

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

Appendix E shows the tabulations of the unweighted responses to all survey items. 
11

3.2 Are the Pairwise Comparison Samples Among 78-Month Respondents 

Balanced Enough for Impact Analysis?

In the original random assignment design, each family was to have had a chance of being assigned to all 

four groups (subsidy [SUB], community-based rapid re-housing [CBRR], project-based transitional 

housing [PBTH], and usual care [UC]). A number of factors prevented the study from being implemented 

exactly as planned. As a result, most study families did not have all four options available to them at the 

time of random assignment. Of the 2,282 families enrolled in the study, 264 families had two 

randomization options, 1,544 families had three randomization options, and 474 had all four 

randomization options available. All analyses were conducted pairwise, contrasting an active intervention 

with another active intervention or with the usual care. Only families who were eligible for both 

interventions in a pairwise comparison (for example, the SUB and CBRR interventions) and were 

randomized to one of them were included in each comparison. Hence, each comparison can be thought of 

as an experiment between two well-matched groups that differ only in the intervention to which they were 

assigned. 

The 78-month survey data are clearly valuable for descriptive purposes. The data on 1,103 respondent 

families can be merged with existing study data to conduct longitudinal analysis, as was done for some 

key outcomes in Section 6.3. It is not yet clear whether the data on the 48.7 percent of families who 

completed the survey can be weighted to plausibly represent the entire study sample. If this weighting is 

possible, sample outcomes at 78 months may be compared with the sample outcomes at baseline and 20 

months and 37 months after random assignment. To determine whether nonresponse weights can be 

created so that the 78-month respondents can represent the full sample would involve a detailed analysis 

of the respondent characteristics, creation of provisional nonresponse weights, and assessment of how 

well baseline characteristics, 20-month outcomes, and 37-month outcomes match to the weighted 78-

month sample. Undertaking this determination is beyond the scope of this project but could be pursued in 

future research efforts. 

In addition to descriptive analysis, there is a question as to whether the 78-month survey data may be used 

to conduct a long-term impact analysis to assess the relative impacts of the interventions approximately 

6.5 years after random assignment. No single survey response rate threshold will determine whether a 

followup sample can provide data for a robust impact analysis. Technically, any level of attrition to the 

sample of a random assignment study creates a threat of internal validity bias when estimating impacts for 

the sample. The presence of bias depends on the relationship between attrition and a particular outcome. 

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

For most outcomes, however, a relationship is expected to exist between attrition and the outcome. When 

attrition is related to the value of an outcome, overall attrition and differential attrition between 

assignment groups are examined in order to assess the threat of internal validity bias.10 

To assess whether the 78-month data could support impact analysis, the study team examined the baseline 

characteristics of the families in each pairwise comparison and tested for balance between assignment 

10 An example of an outcome that may be related to attrition is current homelessness. One might assume that 

families who are currently experiencing homelessness would be more difficult to locate and therefore less likely 

to complete the survey. If this assumption holds true, and intervention groups have different survey completion 

rates, then analyzing reports of homelessness only among survey completers would produce a biased estimate of 

the impact on current homelessness.
12

groups. The study team also examined how well the overall attrition and differential attrition rates in each 

pairwise comparison meets What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards for tolerable threat of bias11. 

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

shows parallel tables for the 78-month respondent sample. Appendix J presents balance statistics for the 

pairwise comparisons within the full and 78-month samples.

12

Overall, it is not yet clear whether the 78-month survey data can support impact analysis.13 The baseline 

characteristics are most in balance for the SUB versus UC comparison, so this is the comparison with the 

most potential for conducting impact analysis. Because the SUB versus UC comparison produced the 

most striking and robust findings in the 20- and 37-month impact analysis, questions about the long-term 

effects of priority access to long-term rent assistance might be particularly important for policymakers. 

This comparison might be a high priority for long-term impact analysis. If impact analysis was pursued in 

the future, researchers would need to first create nonresponse bias weights and re-examine the balance in 

baseline characteristics for the weighted samples. 

A recent white paper on attrition bias in randomized controlled trials (Deke, Sama-Miller, and Hershey, 

2015) discusses how the level of acceptable bias differs with the size (measured in standard deviation 

units) of a substantively important impact. If a small impact matters, then a small level of bias is not 

tolerable. For the Family Options Study, a corresponding point might be important: if an expected impact 

is large, small bias may be tolerable. Some of the effects on housing stability found in the SUB versus UC 

comparison are large (for example, in the SUB versus UC comparison, the reduction in the proportion of 

at least one night homeless or doubled up in the past 6 months is equivalent to 0.33 standard deviation 

units). For these outcomes, a higher level of bias may be tolerated if the bias is still expected to be small 

in relation to the magnitude of the impact. The key takeaway is that the final determination of whether the 

78-month survey data can support impact analysis would need to be made not just separately for each 

pairwise comparison, but separately for each outcome to be tested in a particular pairwise comparison.

11 U.S. Department of Education. 2017.

12 Exhibit I-1 shows several balance statistics in addition to a determination of whether the attrition is tolerable 

according to WWC standards. The exhibit presents the p-values from omnibus tests of difference in baseline 

characteristics. When these p-values are less than 0.10, they indicate a rejection of equivalence in baseline 

characteristics. P-values larger than 0.10 are no guarantee of balance, however, because of the sample sizes in 

the 78-month respondent sample. Because the numbers of respondents in each pairwise comparison are 

relatively low, the omnibus tests of difference have relatively weak statistical power. Therefore, a failure to 

reject equivalence may be partially due to low statistical power rather than near-equivalence of characteristics. 

13 Of the six pairwise comparisons, only two—CBRR versus UC and PBTH versus UC—meet WWC standards 

for tolerable threat of bias and then only when making optimistic assumptions about the relationship between 

attrition and outcomes. These are the two comparisons, however, where the omnibus F-statistic rejects 

equivalence in the unweighted baseline characteristics, which makes it more doubtful that these comparisons 

are suitable for impact analysis. The non-equivalence within the CBRR versus UC comparison also occurs 

within the full sample. The magnitude of imbalance within this comparison (seen in the average and median 

absolute values of characteristic difference) is noticeably higher than at baseline, however. 
13

3.3 Conclusion

The 78-month survey measured important outcomes. Interesting descriptive analysis (particularly 

examining changes over time) for 78-month respondents is certainly possible, as shown in Chapter 6. It is 

not yet clear whether the 78-month survey data can support impact analysis. The SUB versus UC 

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

analysis—and the non-response analysis needed to be done along with it—is not feasible within the scope 

of this contract but could be pursued in the future. 

Exhibit 3-1: Ability of 78-Month Survey Sample to Support Various Analyses

Type of Analysis Is It Possible?

Unweighted longitudinal analysis of 78-month respondents 

(how outcomes have changed over time for respondent 

sample)

Yes.

Weighted longitudinal analysis of average UC outcomes 

(how outcomes have changed over time for UC group)

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

theoretically and empirically—that nonresponse rates are a 

poor predictor of nonresponse bias (Groves, 2006; Groves 

and Peytcheva, 2008), but academic research has not 

agreed on new measures or thresholds. Potential for analysis 

is higher for outcomes that are less correlated with survey 

response. Analysis necessary to address this question is 

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

future. To conduct this analysis, nonresponse weights would 

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

sample could represent the full study sample to the extent 

possible.

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

comparison housing stability outcomes (where large impacts 

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

necessary to address this question is outside the scope of 

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

analysis, nonresponse weights would first need to be 

developed so that the 78-month respondent sample could 

represent the full study sample to the extent possible.
14

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

This chapter addresses the research value of the consent-to-use-PII sample. This sample consists of family 

heads who gave consent at the time of the 37-month survey for their personally identifiable information

(PII) to be shared with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and of those who 

gave consent at the time of the 78-month survey.

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

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

shared with HUD.

Exhibit 4-1. Consent Status at 37 Months and at 78 Months 

PII= personally identifiable information.

The exhibit shows that 1,586 participants gave their consent to release their PII to HUD at the time of the 

37-month data collection. An additional 146 participants that did not give consent at 37 months did give 

their consent to release their PII to HUD at 78 months. On the other hand, 76 of the participants who gave 

consent at 37-months did not renew their consent at 78 months. Thus, HUD will have access to PII to do 

additional administrative data matching for 1,656 of the 2,282 study participants (72.5 percent of the 

sample).14 The consent to release collected at 37 months included a 5-year restriction on the use of PII. 

This time restriction was not included in the consent to release information obtained at 78 months. Thus, 

there is no time restriction for the 864 participants that gave consent at both waves and the 146 that 

consented at 78 months. The remaining 646 that only gave consent at 37 months are subject to a 5-year 

limit, which expires December 2021.

14 The Abt team will submit to HUD an updated PII file at the end of this contract to replace the one submitted at 

37 months. The new PII file contains records for the 1,656 who provided consent at the end of the 78-month 

contract or whose 37-month consent was still viable. 
15

4.2 Potential Matching Data Sources

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

percent) between now and December 2021. The central strength of administrative data is the ability to 

capture data on families that may otherwise be lost to future survey followup and—if needed—measure 

non-response bias of those families. Administrative data may also be used to augment survey data 

measuring similar outcomes by providing the ability to collect data for a large sample over an extended 

period of time. Administrative data can help researchers measure outcomes with greater accuracy 

compared with self-reported information, which could be sensitive to recall, interpretation, or other 

problems. Although it can be challenging to secure data-use agreements with administrative agencies—

especially at the state or local level—administrative data collection is often less expensive than survey 

data collection. This challenge is particularly relevant for the Family Options Study sample because the

households are highly mobile, and many (13 percent) of those who responded to the 78-month tracking 

survey reported that they were living in a different state than the original 12 sites. 

For the 20- and 37-month impact analyses, the Family Options Study analyzed outcomes that are 

measured with a range of administrative data. The study has examined receipt of housing assistance from 

HUD using data from the Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Information Center (PIC) and the 

Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS), use of homeless assistance services from

Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), foster care placements from child welfare data, and 

employment and earnings from quarterly wage data from the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH). 

For future analysis, depending on research questions about the long-term effects of the interventions,

HUD might consider linking the study sample to other sources of administrative data such as public 

assistance records (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF] or the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program [SNAP]), Medicaid data (to measure health care utilization and expenditures), 

academic achievement data (National Center for Education Statistics), criminal history data, and child 

welfare records. 

4.3 Are the Pairwise Comparison Samples Among 78-Month Respondents 

Balanced Enough for Impact Analysis?

This section considers the types of analysis that could be conducted with long-term data for the consentto-use-PII sample (hereafter called the “consent sample”). First, as with the 78-month respondent sample, 

descriptive longitudinal analysis for these family heads in the sample would be interesting and possible. 

Second, the “response rate” of the consent sample (76.4 percent) makes it likely that the sample would be 

weighted to represent the full sample, and that weighted longitudinal analysis of the usual care (UC) 

group could be conducted. 

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

shows the baseline characteristics for the consent sample pairwise comparisons. Exhibit H-1 shows 

balance statistics for the pairwise comparisons. All comparisons are more balanced in the consent sample 

than in the 78-month respondent sample (seen in average and median absolute values of differences), and 

all are closer to the balance found in the full sample (seen in average and median differences from 

baseline differences). Five of the six comparisons meet the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standard 

for attrition bias under cautious assumptions of how attrition is related to outcomes, and the sixth (subsidy 
16

[SUB] versus usual care [UC]) meets the standard under more optimistic assumptions.15 Overall, it looks 

likely that the consent sample could support impact analysis. As with the 78-month respondent sample, 

the study team would want to create nonresponse weights and re-assess the balance in baseline 

characteristics before making a final determination. 

4.4 Conclusion

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

Information on important outcomes (such as SNAP, TANF, and Medicaid participation) could be 

matched to the sample through 2021. It is expected that when using nonresponse weights, future 

researchers could calculate internally valid impact estimates for all pairwise comparisons in addition to 

descriptive longitudinal analysis. 

Exhibit 4-2: Ability of Consent-to-Use-PII Sample to Support Various Analyses

Type of Analysis Is It Possible?

Unweighted longitudinal analysis of 78-month respondents in 

the consent-to-use-PII sample (how outcomes have changed 

over time for respondent sample)

Yes, although not possible within the scope of this project, it 

could be done in the future. 

Weighted longitudinal analysis of average UC outcomes in 

the consent-to-use-PII sample (how outcomes have changed 

over time for UC group)

Seems likely. Would be confirmed after construction of 

nonresponse weights and re-assessment of balance of 

baseline characteristics between consent sample and full 

sample. Construction of nonresponse weights is not possible 

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

future.

Impact analysis with the consent-to-use-PII sample. Seems likely. Would be confirmed after construction of 

nonresponse weights and re-assessment of balance of 

baseline characteristics within each pairwise comparison in 

the consent sample. Construction of nonresponse weights is 

not possible within the scope of this project but could be 

done in the future.

PII = personally identifiable information. UC = usual care.

15 Although overall response rate is highest for the SUB versus UC comparison, the differential attrition is greater 

for this comparison than other comparisons. Under WWC standards, the greater differential attrition leads to a 

higher threat of bias.
17

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

Collection?

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

describes the information that could be collected in such a survey, assuming the survey instrument was 

similar to the instrument fielded at 20 and 37 months after random assignment. Section 5.2 discusses the 

potential for achieving a robust response rate in a future followup data collection effort. Section 5.3 

examines the receipt of housing assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) in the full study sample during the period from December 2013 through March 2019 

using administrative data from HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Information Center 

(PIC) and Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS). 

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

Appendix exhibits D-1 to D-5 show that most of the outcomes examined in the Short-Term and 3-Year 

impact reports were not measured by the 78-month tracking survey. If a future followup survey collected 

nearly identical items as the two followup surveys already conducted by the Family Options Study, 

however, most of these outcomes would be available for analysis. 

• Housing stability: with the exception of the three outcomes heavily based on Homeless 

Management Information System (HMIS) data (confirmatory outcome, any stay in an emergency 

shelter in the past 6 months, and any stay in an emergency shelter in the latest 12-month period), 

all outcomes would be measured.

• Family preservation: all outcomes would be measured.

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

• Child well-being: most outcomes would be measured except those based on direct child 

assessments (verbal ability, math ability, and executive functioning) and the child survey 

(anxiety, fears, substance use, goal-oriented thinking, and school effort in the past month).

• Self-sufficiency: details of current employment, income, food security, and economic stressors 

would be measured. Recent work history and training experiences would likely also be measured, 

but outcomes that measure employment and training since random assignment would likely not 

be measured (due to the difficulty of recall during a multi-year period).

5.2 Assessment of Feasibility of Another Followup Survey

The Family Options Study sample is viable for a future study because the study team had success in 

locating the sample or establishing viable leads to pursue. The study team completed interviews with 48.7

percent of the sample and confirmed location data for another 10.6 percent, resulting in confirmed 

locations for nearly 60 percent of the sample. In addition, after reviewing the pending cases with the 

interviewers, the study team is confident that reliable contact information was obtained for an additional 

15.7 percent of the sample. In total, 75 percent of the sample was determined to still be viable.

16 As noted 

16 Currently, 41 of the family heads have been identified as deceased. This finding means that a future full sample 

followup survey would attempt to collect information from 2,241 family heads. Of these remaining family 
18

in Section 2.3, although 25 percent of the sample were unable to be located for the 78-month survey, the 

study team believes that it would be possible to locate some portion of this group in a future followup 

data collection effort. The experience with the 78-month survey offers evidence of this claim—roughly 5 

percent of the households interviewed at 78-months were not interviewed at 37-months. Thus, there is 

reason to expect that some portion of the unlocated sample from the 78-month survey could be located in 

the future. 

The study team’s experiences on prior waves of data collection were also considered when making this 

assessment. Exhibit 5-1 shows the completion rates to all the prior tracking surveys and the followup 

surveys at 20- and 37-months. 

Exhibit 5-1. Completion Rates to Prior Tracking Interviews

Sample (N) Cases Completed (N) Response Rate (%)

6-Month Tracking 2,282 1,671 73.2

12-Month Tracking 2,282 1,632 71.5

20-Month Followup 2,282 1,857 81.4

27-Month Tracking 1,863* 1,159 62.2

37-Month Followup 2,282 1,784 78.2

78-Month Tracking 2,282 1,103 48.3**

*Not all participants were released for the 27-month tracking interview. Initially, the data collection was delayed as the 

household roster information was processed after the 20-month data collection. To shorten the field period for the 37-

month followup, the last few enrollment cohorts were released prior to their 36-month anniversary. The combination 

of the delay due to household roster processing and the early release for those cohorts left insufficient time to 

conduct the 27-month tracking effort for some families. 

**Note—the response rates shown in exhibit 5-1 are based on the full sample (N=2,282). Thus, the response rate 

percentage shown in this exhibit for the 78-month tracking survey is 48.3 percent, compared with 48.7 percent 

previously reported for all cases eligible for the 78-month survey (N=2,264).

Sources: Family Options Study Followup survey data and 78-month tracking data

The exhibit shows that the completion rates declined over time, with an 11-percentage-point drop 

between the 6-month tracking (73.2 percent response) and the 27-month tracking (61.7 percent). This 

drop in response rates occurred during a 21 month period—a shorter period than the time elapsed between 

the last contact with families and the start of the 78-month tracking data collection. The 6-, 12-, and 27-

month tracking surveys occurred during a period when interviewers were in frequent contact with study 

participants due to the overall study data collection schedule. As families completed one data collection 

activity, interviewers informed participants about when to expect the next contact. That frequency of 

contact helped to keep families engaged in the study. 

Although both the drop in response over time and the lack of recent frequent contact suggested that a 

substantially lower response rate to the 78-month tracking survey compared with the 27-month tracking 

survey might be expected, the drop was not as steep as anticipated. An 11-percentage-point drop

heads, 1,676 (74.8 percent) either completed the 78-month survey, were located during the 78-month effort, or 

have contact information that the team has determined is still viable. The 1,676 family heads represent 73.4 

percent of the original sample of 2,282.
19

occurred, however, during a 21-month period when frequent contact was maintained with the study 

participants. The drop between the 27 – and 78-month tracking surveys was only 13.9 percentage 

points—slightly under a 3-percentage-point drop during an additional 3 years. Allowing interviewers to 

work these cases longer—in a manner similar to the followup survey efforts—helped to minimize the 

drop-off in response. 

While the study team believes that a long-term followup survey is feasible, the team suspects that the 

number of interviewer hours required to obtain a completed survey might be higher than was the case 

during the 37-month effort. The hours per complete in the 78-month effort were slightly higher than 

initially estimated (4 hours per complete by phone versus 3; 5.8 hours per complete in-person versus 5.5). 

Some sites were substantially higher—Phoenix averaged 8.2 hours per complete, Boston averaged 10.5, 

and Hawaii averaged 7.4. 

As discussed in previous chapters, no single response rate threshold will determine whether a future 

followup data collection can provide data for a robust impact analysis. The assessment of whether an 

impact analysis would deliver robust results will need to be based on the expected composition of the 

respondent sample and the non-response bias implied by that expected composition. Given the success of 

the 78-month survey effort at finding families and updating contact information with nearly one-half of 

the sample, a response rate to a future followup data collection could potentially exceed 70 percent. Given 

that impact analysis could potentially be supported with a response rate of roughly 40 percent (according 

to WWC standards), it seems likely that a followup effort of similar scale to the 20- and 37-month efforts 

would yield data that would support the calculation of internally valid impact estimates. 

5.3 Receipt of Housing Assistance

During the course of the 78-month followup period, Abt collected data from HUD’s PIC and TRACS data 

systems to measure receipt of assistance from public housing, the Housing Choice Voucher Program, and 

the project-based voucher program.17 The survey data collection team also used the addresses available in 

the PIC/TRACs extracts to augment the contact information available for the sample. To the extent that 

study families continue to receive housing assistance in the future, PIC/TRACS is expected to continue to 

be a valuable source of contact information for any future data collection activity. 

This section examines the receipt of housing assistance measured in PIC and TRACS from December 

2013 through March 2019. Specifically, this longitudinal analysis provides information on the proportion 

of families in each of the four study groups who received public housing, Housing Choice Vouchers, or 

project-based voucher assistance at four times: December 2013, December 2015, December 2017, and 

March 2019. 

17 In the 20- and 37-month impact analyses, the study team constructed program usage data files using information 

from PIC and TRACS as well as HMIS and participants’ surveys. The program usage data files measured 

receipt of other types of long-term rent assistance such as permanent supportive housing and a range of other 

assistance. The analysis presented here uses only records from PIC and TRACs on receipt of public housing 

assistance, Housing Choice Vouchers, and project-based vouchers. 
20

Exhibit 5-2. Receipt of Housing Assistance over Time by Assignment Group 

Assignment 

Group

Full 

Sample

Receiving housing 

assistance as 

recorded in 

December 2013 PIC 

and TRACS extracts

Receiving housing 

assistance as 

recorded in 

December 2015 PIC 

and TRACS extracts

Receiving housing 

assistance as 

recorded in 

December 2017 PIC 

and TRACS extracts

Receiving housing 

assistance as 

recorded in 

March 2019 PIC 

and TRACS extracts

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

CBRR 569 108 19.0 120 21.1 145 25.5 141 24.8

PBTH 368 52 14.1 72 19.6 65 17.7 74 20.1

SUB 599 409 68.3 356 59.4 310 51.8 286 47.7

UC 746 140 18.8 166 22.3 179 24.0 194 26.0

Total 2,282 709 31.1 714 31.3 699 30.6 695 30.5

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. PIC = Office of Public and 

Indian Housing (PIH) Information Center. SUB = subsidy. TRACS = Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System. 

UC = usual care. Note: Families were counted as receiving housing assistance if they were matched to extracts, and 

the type of effective action field indicated housing assistance receipt.

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

Overall, about one-third of the study sample received HUD housing assistance, and the proportion held 

steady during the time period examined. The proportion of families assigned to the subsidy (SUB) group 

who received housing assistance is higher than in other assignment groups at each point, but the 

proportion declines over time. As of December 2013, 68 percent of families assigned to the SUB group 

were receiving housing assistance, but only 48 percent were receiving housing assistance by March 2019. 

On the other hand, while the proportion of families in the other groups who receive housing assistance is 

substantially lower than for SUB families (because families in the other assignment groups did not 

receive priority access to a long-term rent subsidy), the proportion in the other groups increases over time. 

For example, 19 percent of families assigned to community-based rapid re-housing (CBRR) were 

receiving housing assistance in December 2013, and this proportion increased to 25 percent by March 

2019. Similar patterns hold for families assigned to project-based transitional housing (PBTH) and usual 

care (UC). 
21

Exhibit 5-3 shows the percentage of families receiving housing assistance, as reported in four PIC and 

TRACS extracts by intervention group.

Exhibit 5-3: Percentage of Households Receiving HUD Housing Assistance (PIC/TRACS) 

Over Time

PIC = Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Information Center. TRACS = Tenant Rental Assistance 

Certification System. Note: Families were counted as receiving housing assistance if they were matched to extracts 

and the type of effective action field indicated housing assistance receipt. 

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

through March 2019. 

5.4 Conclusion

A future followup survey could provide more information on outcomes such as homelessness and 

doubling up, housing quality, family separations and reunifications, adult and child well-being, 

employment and income, and food security. Given that 75 percent of the sample for a future survey was 

located or determined to have viable contact information during the 78-month effort, the likelihood of 

achieving an overall response rate between 65 to 75 percent (or higher) seems high. A response rate in 

that range would allow for valuable longitudinal analysis of family outcomes and likely would support 

impact analysis.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

2013 2015 2017 2019

PERCENTAGE RECEIVING HOUSING ASSISTANCE

PIC/TRACS EXTRACT DATE

CBRR

PBTH

SUB

UC

Total
22

6. Descriptive Analysis of the 78-Month Survey Sample 

In this chapter, the 78-month survey data is used to describe the 1,103 respondents. Housing stability and 

employment outcomes for this group of respondents are examined 78 months after study enrollment. The 

analysis also examines three key outcomes for this group—homeless or doubled up in past 6 months, 

living in own housing, and employment status—at enrollment and at each followup point. The raw 

frequencies for each variable are provided in the 78-month survey in appendix E. 

6.1 Who Responded to the 78-Month Survey?

Interviewers completed a 78-month tracking interview with 1,103 study families. This section includes an 

overview of who responded to the survey and the proportion of respondents who replied to the other 

followup survey efforts 20 and 37 months after randomization. Interviewers were able to complete 

interviews with families in all sites and in all intervention groups. Exhibit 6-1 shows the distribution of 

the 1,103 families by site and by intervention group. 

Exhibit 6-1. 78-Month Tracking Survey Results by Site and Intervention Group

Characteristics of 78-Month Respondents Number of Respondents

Total Respondents 1,103

Site

Alameda 124

Atlanta 96

Baltimore 25

Boston 75

Connecticut 110

Denver 100

Honolulu 99

Kansas City 82

Louisville 58

Minneapolis 95

Phoenix 113

Salt Lake City 126

Intervention Group

CBRR 272

PBTH 162

SUB 328

UC 341

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

SUB = subsidy. UC = usual care.

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

The team also looked at the proportion of the 78-month respondents who completed interviews during 

previous survey efforts. Exhibit 6-2 shows how many of the 1,103 78-month respondents were also 

respondents to the 20- and 37-month surveys.
23

Exhibit 6-2. Response Patterns of the 78-Month Survey Respondents

Responded to 

20-Month Survey

Responded to 

37-Month Survey

Responded to 

Both Surveys

N Percent N Percent N Percent

78-Month Survey Respondents: Overall

78-Month Respondents (N=1,103) 1,024 92.8 1,048 95.0 987 89.5

78-Month Survey Respondents: UC Group Only

78-Month Respondents in the UC Group Only (N=341) 316 92.7 321 94.1 300 88.0

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

78-Month Respondents in the SUB Group Who Ever Used 

SUB (N=275)

263 95.6 268 97.5 256 93.1

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

78-Month Respondents in the CBRR Group Who Ever 

Used RR (N=174) 159 91.4 162 93.1 152 87.4

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

78-Month Respondents in the PBTH Group Who Ever Used 

TH (N=98) 92 93.9 94 95.9 90 91.8

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

UC = usual care.

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

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

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

percent responded to the 37-month survey, and 89.5 percent responded to all three surveys. Looking only

at the 78-month respondents in the usual care group, 92.7 percent responded to the 20-month survey, 94.1 

percent responded to the 37-month survey, and 88.0 percent responded to all three surveys. Among the 

three intervention groups that were offered priority access, the response rate over time for those who 

actually used their assigned intervention was examined.

18 Among 78-month respondents in the subsidy 

(SUB) group, who used their long term rental assistance—93.1 percent responded at both, the 20- and 37-

month followup. Of the 78-month respondents in the community-based rapid re-housing (CBRR) group 

who used rapid re-housing, 87.4 percent also responded to both the 20- and 37-month surveys, as did 91.8 

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

As noted in Section 3.1, the 78-month tracking survey collected data necessary to measure a small 

number of housing and employment outcomes measured in previous surveys. This section provides some 

descriptive statistics separately for all 78-month respondents and for those 78-month respondents in the 

usual care (UC) group. 

As discussed in Section 3.2, it is beyond the scope of the current project to construct the nonresponse 

weights and conduct the analysis necessary to determine whether the respondents to the 78-month survey 

can be weighted to represent the entire study sample. This descriptive summary of 78-month outcomes, 

therefore, cannot be compared with baseline, 20- and 37-month followup characteristics of the full study 

sample or the full UC group. 

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

assigned.
24

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

assignment groups who actually took-up the intervention to which they were assigned by 37 months after 

random assignment. That is, for those 78-month respondents in the SUB group, the outcomes for the 

subset who actually used long-term rent assistance are described. The same set of descriptive statistics for 

those who took up their assigned PBTH or CBRR interventions are presented. These descriptions provide 

some insight into the outcomes of a particular group of families who used the assistance to which they 

were assigned. Any differences in outcomes across the groups of families cannot be interpreted as 

evidence of a causal impact of the use of one type of assistance over another, however. Because the use of 

SUB, CBRR, or PBTH was not randomly assigned, comparisons are fundamentally subject to selection 

bias.19

The descriptive summaries focus on the following outcomes: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

survey respondents:

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

month survey? 

a. Have they participated in any housing programs? 

2. What are the housing status and current living situation of families in the usual care group only 

who responded to the 78-month survey? 

a. Have they participated in any housing programs? 

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

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

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

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

In Section 6.2, these key outcomes are described at the time of the 78-month survey for all 78-month 

survey respondents and separately for those families in the UC group. The families in the UC group were 

19 In this situation, “selection bias” means that the families who used the SUB assistance offered to them were 

different at baseline from the families who used the CBRR assistance offered to them and the families who used 

the PBTH assistance offered to them. The SUB 78-month respondent families who used SUB are (295/595 =) 

46 percent of all SUB families. The CBRR 78-month respondent families who used CBRR are (174/563=) 31 

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

percent of all PBTH families. Because these sets of families were different from each other when random 

assignment took place, it is not known whether differences in outcomes at 78 months after random assignment 

are due to the different interventions offered at random assignment, pre-existing differences, or a combination 

of the two.
25

not given priority access to any particular type of assistance, so their outcomes are not influenced by any 

extra help to use any particular program. As noted previously, this information is also provided for 78-

month respondents in the other three intervention groups if they took up their assigned intervention at any 

point in the first 37 months post-randomization. In Section 6.3, these outcomes are presented for the same 

subsets of participants at four points in time: (1) baseline; (2) the 20-month followup; (3) the 37-month 

followup; and (4) the 78-month survey. 

6.2 How Are the 78-Month Respondents Doing Overall?

This section describes the housing status of the families who responded to the 78-month survey— first, 

housing stability is considered and then housing independence. In Section 6.2.3, the employment status of 

the 78-month survey respondents is described. 

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

This section focuses on two components of housing status for the 78-month survey respondents: housing 

stability and housing independence. The housing stability of the 78-month survey respondents specifically 

looks at those 78-month respondents who reported that they experienced homelessness or were doubled 

up in the 6 months prior to the 78-month interview. Respondents are considered to have independent 

housing if they rented or owned their own housing at the time of the survey. 

Housing Stability 

Those families “who have experienced homelessness or were doubled up” are defined here as those 

families who reported having spent at least 1 night in the 6 months before the followup survey either 

staying in a shelter or a place not meant for human habitation, or living with friends or relatives because 

they could not find or afford a place of their own. 

The following exhibit 6-3 shows the housing stability outcomes for all 78-month survey respondents by 

whether or not they reported at baseline that they had previously experienced homelessness and whether 

they had experienced homelessness as a child. 

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

night in the 6 months prior to the 78-month survey. During this same period, 15.3 percent of respondents 

reported being doubled up for at least 1 night, and 19.5 percent of respondents reported being either 

homeless or doubled up for at least 1 night. These measures were examined for correlations with any 

homelessness prior to baseline and experience of homelessness as a child. The measures of homeless in 

the last 6 months and homeless or doubled up in the last 6 months were both positively correlated with 

any homelessness prior to baseline. None of the measures were correlated with an experience of 

homelessness as a child. 
26

Exhibit 6-3. Cross-Tabulations of Homeless, Doubled-up, and Homeless or Doubled-up in Last 

6 Months with (i) Previous Experience of Homelessness in Lifetime at Baseline and 

(ii) Family Head’s Experience of Homelessness as a Child (Under Age 18), for All 

78-Month Survey Respondents

Homeless in Last 6 months at 78-

Month Survey (%)

Total Previously Experienced 

Homelessness in Lifetime at 

Baseline (%) **

Experienced Homelessness as a 

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

No Yes No Yes

No 88.3 33.7 54.6 71.9 16.4

Yes 11.5 3.0 8.5 9.5 2.0

Refused 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0

Don't Know 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 36.7 63.3 81.6 18.4

Doubled-up in Last 6 months at 

78-Month Survey (%)

Total Previously Experienced 

Homelessness in Lifetime at 

Baseline (%)n.s.

Experienced Homelessness as a 

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

No Yes No Yes

No 84.5 31.6 52.9 68.4 16.1

Yes 15.3 5.1 10.2 13.2 2.2

Refused 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0

Don't Know 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1

Total 100.0 36.7 63.3 81.6 18.4

Homeless or Doubled-up in Last 

6 Months at 78-Month Survey (%)

Total Previously Experienced 

Homelessness in Lifetime at 

Baseline (%)*

Experienced Homelessness as a 

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

No Yes No Yes

No 80.5 30.7 49.6 64.9 15.4

Yes 19.5 6.0 13.5 16.5 3.0

Refused/Don't Know 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0

Total 100.0 36.7 63.3 81.6 18.4

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

significant at the .05 level. 

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

significance levels are from chi-squared tests that excluded refused/don’t know responses (due to small cell counts). 

Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. The homeless or doubled-up in the last 6 months prior to the 

interview is less than the sum of those who reported that they were homeless plus those who were doubled-up. This

variance is because some participants reported that they were both homeless and doubled-up. 

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

The homeless or doubled up status for those 78-month respondents in the UC group only was also 

examined. As shown in exhibit 6-4, 14.7 percent of UC respondents reported being homeless for at least 1 

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

respondents reported being doubled up for at least 1 night, and 23.8 percent of UC respondents reported 

being either homeless or doubled up for at least 1 night. No correlations with any homelessness prior to 

baseline or experience of homelessness as a child were statistically significant among this smaller sample.
27

Exhibit 6-4. Cross-Tabulations of Homeless, Doubled-up, and Homeless or Doubled-up in Last 

6 Months with (i) Previous Experience of Homelessness in Lifetime at Baseline and 

(ii) Family Head’s Experience of Homelessness as a Child (Under Age 18), for 78-

Month Survey Respondents in Usual Care Group

Homeless in Last 6 Months at 78-

Month Survey (%)

Total Previously Experienced 

Homelessness in Lifetime at 

Baseline (%)n.s.

Experienced Homelessness as a 

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

No Yes No Yes

No 85.0 32.3 52.8 68.6 16.4

Yes 14.7 4.4 10.3 10.3 4.4

Refused 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0

Don't Know 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 36.7 63.3 79.2 20.8

Doubled-up in Last 6 Months at 

78-Month Survey (%)

Total Previously Experienced 

Homelessness in Lifetime at 

Baseline (%)n.s.

Experienced Homelessness as a 

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

No Yes No Yes

No 80.9 30.8 50.2 63.6 17.3

Yes 18.5 5.9 12.6 15.3 3.2

Refused 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0

Don't Know 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3

Total 100.0 36.7 63.3 79.2 20.8

Homeless or Doubled-up in Last 

6 Months at 78-Month Survey (%)

Total Previously Experienced 

Homelessness in Lifetime at 

Baseline (%)n.s.

Experienced Homelessness as a 

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

No Yes No Yes

No 76.0 29.6 46.3 60.4 15.5

Yes 23.8 7.0 16.7 18.5 5.3

Refused/Don't Know 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0

Total 100.0 36.7 63.3 79.2 20.8

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

significant at the .05 level. 

Notes: All 341 Usual Care respondents to the 78-month survey were also respondents to the baseline survey. The

statistical significance levels are from chi-squared tests that excluded refused/don’t know responses (due to small cell 

counts). Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

Source: Family Options Study baseline and 78-month surveys. 
28

Finally, the homeless, doubled-up, and homeless or doubled-up status was examined for those 78-month 

survey respondents who were offered priority access to one of the other three intervention groups—SUB, 

CBRR, or PBTH—and who took up the assistance offered to them within the first 37 months after 

random assignment. 

As discussed in Chapter 3, additional work that is beyond the scope of the current project is needed to 

create weights to adjust the 78-month survey sample for non-response. Additional work is also needed to

determine whether, once weighted for non-response, the 78-month survey sample can support impact 

analysis. Within the scope of this project, there were not sufficient resources available to determine the 

feasibility of conducting impact analysis with the 78-month survey sample, nor (even if feasible) were 

there resources available to carry out such analysis. Thus, the unweighted 78-month survey data were 

used to describe outcomes for all 78-month survey respondents and all 78-month survey respondents 

assigned to the UC group. To describe outcomes for other groups of survey respondents, the focus was on 

respondents who were assigned to SUB, CBRR, and PBTH, who actually used the assigned assistance.

These participants who took up their assigned assistance were the focus because even unweighted, their 

outcomes have clear interpretation and are not confounded by outcomes for participants who did not use 

the assigned intervention. 

As shown in exhibit 6-5, of the 78-month respondents assigned to the SUB group who used a long-term 

rent subsidy, 6.9 percent reported being homeless for at least 1 night in the 6 months prior to the 78-

month survey. During this same period, 10.9 percent of respondents assigned to SUB who ever used a 

long-term rent subsidy reported being doubled up for at least 1 night, and 13.5 percent of them reported 

being either homeless or doubled up for at least 1 night. None of the measures were correlated with any 

homelessness prior to baseline or experience of homelessness as a child.
29

Exhibit 6-5. Cross-Tabulations of Homeless, Doubled-up, and Homeless or Doubled-up in 

Last 6 Months with (i) Previous Experience of Homelessness in Lifetime at 

Baseline and (ii) Family Head’s Experience of Homelessness as a Child (Under 

Age 18), for 78-Month Survey Respondents in SUB Group Who Ever Used SUB

Between Random Assignment and the 37-Month Followup Survey 

Homeless in Last 6 Months at 78-

Month Survey (%) Total

Previously Experienced 

Homelessness in Lifetime at 

Baseline (%)n.s.

Experienced Homelessness 

as a Child (Under Age 18)

(%)n.s.

 No Yes No Yes

No 93.1 34.9 58.2 74.9 18.2

Yes 6.9 2.2 4.7 6.2 0.7

Refused 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Don't Know 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 37.1 62.9 81.1 18.9

Doubled-up in Last 6 Months at 

78-Month Survey (%) Total

Previously Experienced 

Homelessness in Lifetime at 

Baseline (%)n.s.

Experienced Homelessness 

as a Child (Under Age 18)

(%)n.s.

 No Yes No Yes

No 89.1 32.7 62.9 71.6 17.5

Yes 10.9 4.4 6.6 9.5 1.5

Refused 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Don't Know 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 37.1 62.9 81.1 18.9

Homeless or Doubled-up in Last 

6 Months at 78-Month Survey (%) Total

Previously Experienced 

Homelessness in Lifetime at 

Baseline (%)n.s.

Experienced Homelessness 

as a Child (Under Age 18)

(%)n.s.

 No Yes No Yes

No 86.6 32.4 54.2 69.5 17.1

Yes 13.5 4.7 8.7 11.6 1.8

Refused/Don't Know 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 37.1 62.9 81.1 18.9

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

Notes: All 275 SUB user respondents to the 78-month survey were also respondents to the baseline survey. The 

statistical significance levels are from chi-squared tests that excluded refused/don’t know responses (due to small cell 

counts). Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

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

As shown in exhibit 6-6, of the 78-month respondents assigned to the CBRR group who had ever used 

rapid re-housing, 9.2 percent reported being homeless for at least 1 night in the 6 months prior to the 78-

month survey. During this same period, 13.2 percent of the respondents assigned to CBRR who had ever 

used rapid re-housing, reported being doubled up for at least 1 night, and 17.2 percent of them reported 

being either homeless or doubled up for at least 1 night. The measure of homeless in the past 6 months

was positively correlated with any homelessness prior to baseline. None of the other measures were 

positively correlated with experiences of homelessness prior to baseline or homelessness as a child.
30

Exhibit 6-6. Cross-Tabulations of Homeless, Doubled-up, and Homeless or Doubled-up in Last 

6 Months with (i) Previous Experience of Homelessness in Lifetime at Baseline and 

(ii) Family Head’s Experience of Homelessness as a Child (Under Age 18), for 78-

Month Survey Respondents in CBRR Group Who Ever Used RR Between Random 

Assignment and the 37-Month Followup Survey

Homeless in Last 6 Months at 78-Month Survey 

(%) Total

Previously Experienced 

Homelessness in 

Lifetime at Baseline (%)*

Experienced 

Homelessness as a 

Child (Under Age 18)

(%)n.s.

 No Yes No Yes

No 90.2 35.1 55.2 75.9 14.4

Yes 9.2 1.2 8.1 8.6 0.6

Refused 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0

Don't Know 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 36.2 63.8 85.1 14.9

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

(%) Total

Previously Experienced 

Homelessness in 

Lifetime at Baseline 

(%)n.s.

Experienced 

Homelessness as a 

Child (Under Age 18)

(%)n.s.

 No Yes No Yes

No 86.8 31.6 55.2 73.6 13.2

Yes 13.2 4.6 8.6 11.5 1.7

Refused 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Don't Know 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 36.2 63.8 85.1 14.9

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

Month Survey (%) Total

Previously Experienced 

Homelessness in 

Lifetime at Baseline 

(%)n.s.

Experienced 

Homelessness as a 

Child (Under Age 18)

(%)n.s.

 No Yes No Yes

No 82.2 31.6 50.6 69.0 13.2

Yes 17.2 4.6 12.6 15.5 1.7

Refused/Don't Know 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0

Total 100.0 36.2 63.8 85.1 14.9

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

significant at the .05 level. 

Notes: All 174 CBRR user respondents to the 78-month survey were also respondents to the baseline survey. The 

statistical significance levels are from chi-squared tests that excluded refused/don’t know responses (due to small cell 

counts). Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

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

As shown in exhibit 6-7, of the 78-month respondents assigned to the PBTH group who had ever used 

transitional housing program assistance, 7.1 percent reported being homeless for at least 1 night in the 6 

months prior to the 78-month survey. During this same period, 10.2 percent of the respondents assigned 

to the PBTH group who had ever used transitional housing assistance reported being doubled up for at 

least 1 night, and 14.3 percent of them reported being either homeless or doubled up for at least 1 night. 

None of the measures was positively correlated with any homelessness prior to baseline or homelessness 

as a child.
31

Exhibit 6-7. Cross-Tabulations of Homeless, Doubled-up, and Homeless or Doubled-up in Last 

6 Months with (i) Previous Experience of Homelessness in Lifetime at Baseline and 

(ii) Family Head’s Experience of Homelessness as a Child (Under Age 18), for 78-

Month Survey Respondents in PBTH Group Who Ever Used TH Between Random 

Assignment and the 37-Month Followup Survey

Homeless in Last 6 Months at 78-Month Survey 

(%) Total

Previously Experienced 

Homelessness in 

Lifetime at Baseline 

(%)n.s.

Experienced 

Homelessness as a 

Child (Under Age 18)

(%)n.s.

 No Yes No Yes

No 92.9 37.8 55.1 70.4 22.5

Yes 7.1 2.0 5.1 7.1 0.0

Refused 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Don't Know 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 39.8 60.2 77.6 22.5

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

(%) Total

Previously Experienced 

Homelessness in 

Lifetime at Baseline 

(%)n.s.

Experienced 

Homelessness as a 

Child (Under Age 18)

(%)n.s.

 No Yes No Yes

No 89.8 33.7 56.1 68.4 21.4

Yes 10.2 6.1 4.1 9.2 1.0

Refused 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Don't Know 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 39.8 60.2 77.6 22.5

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

Month Survey (%) Total

Previously Experienced 

Homelessness in 

Lifetime at Baseline 

(%)n.s.

Experienced 

Homelessness as a 

Child (Under Age 18)

(%)n.s.

 No Yes No Yes

No 85.7 32.7 53.1 64.3 21.4

Yes 14.3 7.1 7.1 13.3 1.0

Refused/Don't Know 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 39.8 60.2 77.6 22.5

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

significant at the .05 level. 

Notes: All 98 PBTH ever user respondents to the 78-month survey were also respondents to the baseline survey. The 

statistical significance levels are from chi-squared tests that excluded refused/don’t know responses (due to small cell 

counts). Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

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

Housing Independence. 

Exhibit 6-8 shows the percentage of families who reported living in their own house or apartment

regardless of whether or not they were receiving housing assistance. The exhibit shows the housing status

for all 78-month survey respondents and for 78-month respondents in the UC group only. 
32

Exhibit 6-8. Housing Independence of 78-Month Survey Respondents

Outcome

All 78-Month 

Respondents 

78-Month Respondents 

in the Usual Care 

Group Only

Total Respondents: 1,103 341

Housing status Percent of 78-Month 

Respondents Overall

Percent of 78-Month 

Respondents Usual Care 

Group Only

A house or apartment that you own or rent 83.0 79.5

Your partner’s (boy/girlfriend’s/fiancé’s, significant other’s) place 1.4 1.8

A friend or relative’s house or apartment, and paying part of the rent 5.3 6.2

A friend or relative’s house or apartment, but not paying part of the rent 4.3 4.4

Hotel or motel you pay for yourself 0.5 0.9

A permanent, transitional, or treatment program 2.1 1.5

Emergency shelter or voucher hotel or motel 1.6 3.2

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

outside)

1.3 1.8

Other 0.6 0.9

Source: Family Options Study 78-month survey.

Exhibit 6-8 shows that 83.0 percent of all 78-month respondents were living in a house or apartment that 

they owned or rented. This proportion was 79.5 percent among those respondents in the UC group. 

Exhibit 6-9 shows the same housing independence information as in exhibit 6-8, except exhibit 6-9 shows

the 78-month respondents assigned to the SUB, PBTH, and CBRR groups who used the intervention to 

which they were assigned.
33

Exhibit 6-9. Housing Independence of 78-Month Survey Respondents Who Used the 

Intervention to Which They Were Randomly Assigned Priority Access

Outcome

78-Month 

Respondents in 

the SUB Group 

Who Ever 

Used SUB

78-Month Respondents 

in the CBRR Group Who 

Ever Used RR

78-Month Respondents 

in the PBTH Group Who 

Ever Used TH

Sample Size: 275 174 98

Housing Status

Percent 78-Month 

Respondents in 

the SUB Group 

Who Ever 

Used SUB

Percent of 78-Month 

Respondents in the 

CBRR Group Who Ever 

Used RR

Percent of 78-Month 

Respondents in the 

PBTH Group Who Ever 

Used TH

A house or apartment that you own 

or rent

89.5 81.6 83.7

Your partner’s 

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

other’s) place

0.4 1.7 1.0

A friend or relative’s house or 

apartment, and paying part of the rent

2.9 8.1 4.1

A friend or relative’s house or 

apartment, but not paying part of

the rent

2.2 5.2 6.1

Hotel or motel you pay for yourself 0.4 0.6 0.0

A permanent, transitional, or 

treatment program

2.6 0.6 1.0

Emergency shelter or voucher hotel 

or motel

1.1 1.2 1.0

A place not meant for human 

habitation (car, abandoned building, 

or outside)

1.1 0.6 1.0

Other 0.0 0.6 2.0

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

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

Source: Family Options Study 78-month survey.

The exhibit shows that 89.5 percent of all 78-month respondents assigned to SUB who used a longterm rent subsidy were living in a house or apartment that they owned or rented. This proportion was 

81.6 percent among those respondents assigned to the CBRR group who used rapid re-housing (RR), 

and 83.7 percent for those who were assigned to the PBTH group and who ever used transitional housing 

assistance (TH). 

A series of four items (a5, a6, a6a, and a6b)20 on the 78-month tracking survey asked about the current 

use of housing programs. While verifying the responses to these items with the Office of Public and 

Indian Housing (PIH) Information Center (PIC) and the Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System

(TRACS) data has not been attempted, nor checked for consistency between program name (a6a) and 

program type (a6b), about one-half of the 1,103 respondents reported that they were currently receiving 

20 See Appendix B for the 78-month Tracking Survey Instrument
34

some type of housing assistance at the time of the 78-month survey response.21 The survey also asked 

about the use of programs prior to the current living situation within the past 6 months. Exhibit 6-10 

shows that 3.0 percent of all respondents used a program prior to their current living situation within the 

past 6 months. This proportion was 4.1 percent for the UC respondents. Again, these data were examined 

for those 78-month respondents assigned to the SUB group who used a long-term rent subsidy, those 

assigned to the CBRR group who used rapid re-housing, and those assigned to the PBTH group who used 

transitional housing assistance. Of those assigned to SUB who used a long-term subsidy, 1.8 percent 

reported having used a program prior to the survey. The proportion for the rapid re-housing user group 

was 1.7 percent, and 1.0 percent for the transitional housing user group. 

21 There were 536 affirmative responses to item a5 and an additional 29 affirmative responses to item a6, yielding 

555 respondents who reported they were receiving some type of assistance at the time of the survey. This total 

is about one-half of the 1,103 respondents.
35

Exhibit 6-10. Any Receipt of Additional Housing Assistance in 6 Months Prior to the 78-Month 

Survey for 78-Month Survey Respondents

Program Type Used in Last 6 Months NOT Including Place Living at Time of Interview

Yes (%) No (%) Refused/Don't 

Know (%)

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

Shelter 1.2 98.5 0.4

Permanent supportive housing 0.7 98.8 0.5

Transitional housing program 0.8 98.7 0.5

Rapid re-housing (temporary rental assistance) 0.6 98.9 0.5

Long-term rent subsidy 1.1 98.4 0.5

Other housing assistance 0.6 98.8 0.5

Any type of program or assistance 3.0 97.0 0.0

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

Shelter 2.4 97.7 0.0

Permanent supportive housing 1.2 98.8 0.0

Transitional housing program 1.2 98.8 0.0

Rapid re-housing (temporary rental assistance) 1.2 98.8 0.0

Long-term rent subsidy 0.6 99.1 0.3

Other housing assistance 0.3 99.7 0.0

Any type of program or assistance 4.1 95.9 0.0

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

Shelter 0.7 99.3 0.0

Permanent supportive housing 0.7 99.3 0.0

Transitional housing program 0.7 99.3 0.0

Rapid re-housing (temporary rental assistance) 0.4 99.6 0.0

Long-term rent subsidy 1.1 98.9 0.0

Other housing assistance 0.7 98.9 0.4

Any type of program or assistance 1.8 98.2 0.0

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

Shelter 0.6 99.4 0.0

Permanent supportive housing 0.0 100.0 0.0

Transitional housing program 1.2 98.9 0.0

Rapid re-housing (temporary rental assistance) 0.0 100.0 0.0

Long-term rent subsidy 1.2 98.9 0.0

Other housing assistance 0.0 100.0 0.0

Any type of program or assistance 1.7 98.3 0.0

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

Shelter 0.0 100.0 0.0

Permanent supportive housing 0.0 99.0 1.0

Transitional housing program 0.0 99.0 1.0

Rapid re-housing (temporary rental assistance) 0.0 99.0 1.0

Long-term rent subsidy 0.0 99.0 1.0

Other housing assistance 1.0 98.0 1.0

Any type of program or assistance 1.0 99.0 0.0

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

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

Source: Family Options Study 78-month survey.
36

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

In addition to housing status and housing independence, the team also collected data to measure 

employment for the 78-month survey respondents. Exhibit 6-11 shows that 51.5 percent of all 78-month 

respondents were working for pay in the week before the survey compared to only 17.8 percent who were 

working at baseline. The study team found a statistically significant correlation between employment at 

baseline and employment at 78 months. The results for the UC 78-month respondents were very similar.

An analysis of the 78-month respondents in the other three groups who used their assigned intervention

yields similar results. Among the respondents in the SUB group who used a long-term rent subsidy, 49.1 

percent were working for pay in the week before the survey compared with 15.3 percent who were 

working at baseline. The study team found a statistically significant correlation between employment at 

baseline and employment at 78-months for those who used a long-term subsidy. Among CBRR group 

respondents who used rapid re-housing, 58.1 percent were employed at the 78-month survey compared 

with 19.5 percent at baseline. The proportions for PBTH respondents who used transitional housing were 

55.1 percent employed at 78 months and 15.3 percent employed at baseline. There was no statistically 

significant correlation between employment at baseline and employment at 78 months for those CBRR 

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

housing. 
37

Exhibit 6-11. Cross-Tabulations of Working for Pay at 78 Months with Working for Pay at 

Baseline for 78-Month Survey Respondents

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

Random Assignment (Baseline) 

(%)

Yes No

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

Yes 51.5 13.1 38.4

No 48.3 4.7 43.6

Refused 0.2 0.0 0.2

Don't Know 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 17.8 82.2

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

Yes 50.4 15.3 35.2

No 49.6 5.0 44.6

Refused 0.0 0.0 0.0

Don't Know 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 20.2 79.8

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

Yes 49.1 12.0 37.1

No 50.9 3.3 47.6

Refused 0.0 0.0 0.0

Don't Know 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 15.3 84.7

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

Yes 58.1 10.9 47.1

No 42.0 8.6 33.3

Refused 0.0 0.0 0.0

Don't Know 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 19.5 80.5

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

Yes 55.1 11.2 43.9

No 43.9 4.1 39.8

Refused 1.0 0.0 1.0

Don't Know 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100 15.3 84.7

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

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

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

level for all 78-month respondents, those in the UC group, and those in the SUB group who used a long-term 

subsidy. The statistical significance levels are from chi-squared tests that excluded refused/don’t know responses 

(due to small cell counts). 

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

not add to totals due to rounding. 

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

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

The study team also looked at how connected the 78-month respondents were to the internet. As shown in 

exhibit 6-12, most respondents (93.3 percent) had internet access by computer, phone, or tablet. Access 

through a phone or tablet was much more common than access through a home computer. Of the 
38

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

or tablet. 

Exhibit 6-12. Internet Access of 78-Month Survey Respondents 

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

through your phone or an iPad or tablet device?

Yes No Refused/

Don’t Know

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

Own computer has internet access 39.8 60.2 0.0

Phone or tablet has internet access 91.9 8.1 0.0

Internet access by computer, phone, or 

tablet 

93.3 6.7 0.0

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

Own computer has internet access 35.5 64.5 0.0

Phone or tablet has internet access 91.2 8.8 0.0

Internet access by computer, phone, or 

tablet (Either C3 or C4)

92.4 7.6 0.0

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

Own computer has internet access 41.8 58.2 0.0

Phone or tablet has internet access 94.2 5.8 0.0

Internet access by computer, phone, or 

tablet 94.9 5.1 0.0

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

Own computer has internet access 42.0 58.1 0.0

Phone or tablet has internet access 93.1 6.9 0.0

Internet access by computer, phone, or 

tablet 95.4 4.6 0.0

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

Own computer has internet access 49.0 51.0 0.0

Phone or tablet has internet access 86.7 13.3 0.0

Internet access by computer, phone, or 

tablet 87.8 12.2 0.0

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

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

Source: Family Options Study 78-month survey.

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

respondents who used rapid re-housing, 95.4 percent reported that they had internet access with phone or 

tablet as the primary internet source. The proportion of respondents assigned to the PBTH group who 

used transitional housing that reported internet access by computer, phone, or tablet was 87.8 percent. 

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

The study team also looked at values of three key outcomes for the 78-month survey respondents at four

followup points: baseline, 20, 37, and 78 months after random assignment. Exhibit 6-13 shows these 

outcomes for all 78-month survey respondents and for all 78-month respondents who are in the UC group 
39

only. The table then shows the same outcomes for those respondents in the other three intervention groups 

(SUB, CBRR, and PBTH) who used their assigned intervention.22 

Because all study participants completed the baseline survey, the number of cases reported for the 

baseline and the 78-month followup survey are identical—that is, both reflect the number of 78-month 

respondents. The number of cases for the 20- and 37-month followups, however, are lower for each 

respondent group because not all 78-month respondents responded to the 20- and 37-month followup

surveys. Thus, the number of cases in exhibit 6-13 is 1,103 for baseline and 78-month followup but drops 

to 1,024 at 20-months and 1,048 at 37-months. 

Exhibit 6-13 shows that, for all 78-month respondents, the percentage that spent at least 1 night homeless 

or doubled-up in the 6 months prior to the interview steadily decreased over time, from 29.2 percent at the 

20-month followup to 19.5 percent at the 78-month followup. Similar trends can be seen for the 78-month 

respondents in the UC group and those in the CBRR and PBTH groups who used rapid re-housing and 

transitional housing, respectively. The trend is different for those in the SUB group who used a long-term 

rent subsidy; for that group, 8.8 percent had reported spending at least 1 night homeless or doubled-up in 

the 6 months prior to the 20-month survey, but the percentage increased to 13.5 percent by the 78-month 

followup survey. 

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

increased steadily over time for all 78-month respondents in the SUB, CBRR, and PBTH groups who 

actually used their assigned intervention. Looking at employment trends over time for each respondent 

group, the study team also observed steady increases in the percentage of respondents who were working. 

22 The comparisons shown in exhibit 6-13 are based on the participants who responded to the 78-month survey, 

and their response to previous surveys. Non-respondents to the 78-month survey are excluded from exhibit 6-

13. 
40

Exhibit 6-13. Three Key Outcomes at Four Time Points, for 78-Month Survey Respondents

All 78-Month Survey Respondents

Outcome Baseline 

(N=1,103)

20-Month Followup

(N=1,024)

37-Month Followup

(N= 1,048)

78-Month 

Followup

(N=1,103)

At least 1 night homeless or doubled up in past 

6 months (%)

N/A 29.2 27.8 19.5

Living in own house or apartment at followup 

(%)

N/A 63.1 75.6 83.0

Work for pay in week before survey (%) 17.8 32.4 40.4 51.5

All 78-Month Survey Respondents—UC Group Only

Outcome Baseline 

(N=341)

20-Month Followup

(N= 316)

37-Month Followup

(N= 321)

78-Month 

Followup

(N=341)

At least 1 night homeless or doubled up in past 

6 months (%)

N/A 37.0 31.8 23.8

Living in own house or apartment at followup 

(%)

N/A 58.5 72.3 79.5

Work for pay in week before survey (%) 20.2 30.7 39.9 50.4

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

Outcome Baseline

(N-275)

20-Month Followup

(N=263)

37-Month Followup

(N= 268)

78-Month 

Followup

(N=275)

At least 1 night homeless or doubled up in past 

6 months (%) N/A 8.8 7.8 13.5

Living in own house or apartment at followup 

(%) N/A 79.5 88.8 89.5

Work for pay in week before survey (%) 15.3 25.1 38.8 49.1

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

Outcome Baseline 

(N-174)

20-Month Followup

(N= 159)

37-Month Followup

(N=162)

78-Month 

Followup

(N=174)

At least 1 night homeless or doubled up in past 

6 months (%) N/A 35.2 37.7 17.2

Living in own house or apartment at followup 

(%) N/A 67.9 70.4 81.6

Work for pay in week before survey (%) 19.5 41.5 46.3 58.1

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

Outcome Baseline

(N=98)

20-Month Followup 

(N=92)

37-Month Followup

(N= 94)

78-Month 

Followup (N=98)

At least 1 night homeless or doubled up in past 

6 months (%) N/A 26.1 35.1 14.3

Living in own house or apartment at followup 

(%) N/A 42.4 67.0 83.7

Work for pay in week before survey (%) 15.3 41.3 44.7 55.1

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

SUB = subsidy. UC = usual care.

Notes: All percentages are unweighted. Comparisons between samples are biased by self-selection into programs and

nonresponse to the 78-month survey. The number of cases in the 20- and 37-month samples varies from baseline and 

78-month followup because they are sensitive to response to those prior survey efforts.

Source: Family Options Study baseline, 20-, 37- and 78-month surveys.
41

7. Longer-Term Analysis of Employment and Earnings Impacts 

The National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) maintained by the Office of Child Support Enforcement 

(OCSE) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) contains quarterly wage 

information for all states.23 In the Three-Year Impacts Report, the study team analyzed earnings and 

employment outcomes from the NDNH for the full study sample for the 11th to 14th calendar quarters 

after the calendar quarter of random assignment. In this report, the analysis is extended through the 27th

quarter after random assignment.24

Exhibit 7-1 shows the percent of the full usual care (UC) group who have positive earnings in each 

calendar quarter from the 11th to 27th quarters after random assignment. This percent rises from 42 

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

Exhibit 7-1. UC Employment by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment

RA = random assignment. UC = usual care. 

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

24 As of June 2019, the final quarter of data available from the NDNH was the fourth quarter of 2018. The Family 

Options Study enrolled its last cohort of families in the first quarter of 2012. The fourth quarter of 2018 

represents the 27th quarter after the quarter of random assignment for this last cohort. The study enrolled its 

earliest cohort of families in the third quarter of 2010. For this earliest cohort, the fourth quarter of 2018 

represents the 33rd quarter after random assignment.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Percent Employed

Quarter after RA
42

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

Exhibit 7-2 shows the average earnings of the full UC group in each calendar quarter from the 11th to 

27th quarters after random assignment. The average earnings increase from about $1,600 in the 11th

quarter to about $2,400 in the 27th quarter. These average earnings include those family heads with no 

earnings in the quarter. Because the employment level in each quarter is roughly one-half, the average 

earnings just for those families who have positive earnings is roughly twice the amounts shown here.

Exhibit 7-2. UC Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment

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

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

Exhibit 7-3 shows average earnings, percent of the sample employed, and number of quarters employed 

for the UC group over four, sequential one-year periods of time beginning with the 11th quarter after 

random assignment. The exhibit also includes outcomes for the most recent year of data available (the 

24th to 27th quarters after random assignment), as well as the entire period for which data are available 

(the 11th to 27th quarters after random assignment). The average earnings for the UC group have 

increased from about $6,700 per year to about $9,500 per year during the period of time spanning from 

quarter 11 through quarter 27. The percent of the sample that are employed in any year has increased 

from 60.1 percent to 63.1 percent over the four-year time period. During the entire period of observation 

(from quarter 11 to 27 after RA), 79.4 percent of family heads had earnings in at least one quarter (i.e., 

had any employment). On average, family heads had positive earnings (i.e., had any employment) in 8 of 

the 17 calendar quarters.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Earnings (2018Q4$)

Quarter after RA
43

Exhibit 7-3. Mean Earnings and Employment Outcomes for UC Group

 UC

Outcome N Mean (SD)

Earnings (2018Q4$)

 Quarters 11 to 14 after RA 692 $6,684 $10,787

 Quarters 15 to 18 after RA 692 $8,061 $12,057

 Quarters 19 to 22 after RA 692 $9,386 $13,301

 Quarters 23 to 26 after RA 690 $9,437 $12,743

 Quarters 24 to 27 after RA 691 $9,487 $12,805

 Quarters 11 to 27 after RA 690 $35,615 $46,021

Any Employment (%)

 Quarters 11 to 14 after RA 692 60.12 49.00

 Quarters 15 to 18 after RA 692 61.85 48.61

 Quarters 19 to 22 after RA 692 64.45 47.9

 Quarters 23 to 26 after RA 690 62.90 48.34

 Quarters 24 to 27 after RA 691 63.10 48.29

 Quarters 11 to 27 after RA 690 79.42 40.46

Number of Quarters With Any Employment

 Quarters 11 to 14 after RA 692 1.7 1.7

 Quarters 15 to 18 after RA 692 1.9 1.7

 Quarters 19 to 22 after RA 692 2.0 1.7

 Quarters 23 to 26 after RA 690 2.0 1.8

 Quarters 24 to 27 after RA 691 2.0 1.7

 Quarters 11 to 27 after RA 690 8.1 6.3

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

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

Exhibits 7-4 to 7-9 present impact results for the six pairwise comparisons for the same set of outcomes 

shown for the UC group in exhibit 7-3. Some evidence was found that priority access to a long-term 

subsidy (SUB) continued to reduce the percent of family heads who are employed compared with UC

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

reduced earnings, the percent of family heads who are employed, and the number of quarters employed 

compared with priority access to short-term subsidies (community-based rapid re-housing [CBRR]). The 

study team did not find any statistically significant results for other pairwise comparisons. 

Exhibit 7-4 compares employment and earnings outcomes between the SUB and UC groups. As shown in 

the exhibit, there was no impact on earnings detected for any time period. There were negative impacts of 

about 5 percentage points on percent employed during the 11th to 14th quarters, 19th to 22nd quarters, 
44

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

for any time period.

Exhibit 7-4. SUB Versus UC: Earnings and Employment 

SUB UC ITT Impact

Outcome N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Effect 

Sizea

Earnings (2018Q4$)

 Quarters 11 to 14 after RA 554 $6,331 $(9,728) 499 $6,126 $(10,059) $205 $(614) 0.02

 Quarters 15 to 18 after RA 553 $7,326 $(10,892) 499 $7,787 $(11,709) $-462 $(702) -0.04

 Quarters 19 to 22 after RA 553 $8,856 $(12,495) 499 $9,252 $(12,912) $-396 $(785) -0.03

 Quarters 23 to 26 after RA 553 $9,437 $(13,441) 498 $9,424 $(12,852) $13 $(806) 0.00

 Quarters 24 to 27 after RA 553 $9,832 $(13,758) 499 $9,524 $(12,903) $308 $(818) 0.02

 Quarters 11 to 27 after RA 553 $34,618 $(44,485) 498 $34,872 $(45,540) $-254 $(2,781) -0.01

Any Employment (%)

 Quarters 11 to 14 after RA 554 54.3 (49.9) 499 59.5 (49.1) -5.2* (3.1) -0.11

 Quarters 15 to 18 after RA 553 58.3 (49.4) 499 61.7 (48.7) -3.4 (3.0) -0.07

 Quarters 19 to 22 after RA 553 59.3 (49.2) 499 64.5 (47.8) -5.2* (3.0) -0.11

 Quarters 23 to 26 after RA 553 58.9 (49.3) 498 61.7 (48.6) -2.8 (3.0) -0.06

 Quarters 24 to 27 after RA 553 60.5 (49.0) 499 62.0 (48.6) -1.5 (3.0) -0.03

 Quarters 11 to 27 after RA 553 74.6 (43.6) 498 79.8 (40.1) -5.3** (2.6) -0.13

Number of Quarters With Any Employment 

 Quarters 11 to 14 after RA 554 1.6 (1.7) 499 1.7 (1.7) -0.1 (0.1) -0.04

 Quarters 15 to 18 after RA 553 1.7 (1.7) 499 1.9 (1.7) -0.2 (0.1) -0.09

 Quarters 19 to 22 after RA 553 1.9 (1.8) 499 2.0 (1.7) -0.1 (0.1) -0.05

 Quarters 23 to 26 after RA 553 1.8 (1.8) 498 1.9 (1.8) -0.1 (0.1) -0.06

 Quarters 24 to 27 after RA 553 1.9 (1.8) 499 1.9 (1.7) -0.1 (0.1) -0.03

 Quarters 11 to 27 after RA 553 7.6 (6.4) 498 8.0 (6.3) -0.4 (0.4) -0.06

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

= usual care.

*/**/*** Impact estimate is significantly different from 0 at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, using a two-tailed t-test. a Effect size column shows standardized effect sizes, which were calculated by dividing impact by standard deviation 

for the entire UC group.

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

Exhibits 7-4a and 7-4b show the pairwise comparisons of the average quarterly earnings and average 

employment rates, respectively, for participants in the SUB and UC groups. The exhibits showing the 

impact on earnings and employment status by calendar quarter, with 95-percent confidence for all 

pairwise comparisons, are shown in appendix I. 

25 Gubits et al. (2016, Exhibit 3-13) reported a 5.5-percentage-point reduction in percent employed during quarters 

11 to 14. The result here of 5.2 percentage points differs from that result for two reasons: (1) this result reflects 

corrected quarterly wage records that states have submitted to the NDNH since June 2016, and (2) the 

correction of an error in data cleaning made during the previous analysis. In the previous analysis, the study 

team incorrectly set the earnings of 25 SUB family heads and 18 UC family heads with missing NDNH data 

(due to non-verified name-SSN combinations) to $0 when they should have been set to missing. The current 

analysis corrects this error.
45

Exhibit 7-4a. SUB vs. UC: Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment

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

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

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

0.00

500.00

1,000.00

1,500.00

2,000.00

2,500.00

3,000.00

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Earnings (2018Q4$)

Quarter after RA

SUB UC
46

Exhibit 7-4b. SUB vs. UC: Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment

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

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

Pairwise comparisons of the SUB and CBRR groups are presented in exhibit 7-5. The exhibit shows a 

negative impact on earnings of $1,643 during the 15th to 18th quarters, in which the SUB households had 

significantly lower earnings than the CBRR households. No impacts on earnings were detected during 

other time periods examined. Negative impacts on the percent of participants employed were observed, 

showing a 7.7 percentage point difference between the SUB and CBRR households during the 19th to 

22nd quarters and a 6.1 percentage point difference during the 11th to 27th quarters. A negative impact on 

the number of quarters in which participants were employed was also shown (0.2 quarters) during the 

15th to 18th quarters. There were no impacts detected related to the number of households that were 

employed during the other time periods examined.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Percent Employed (pp)

Quarter after RA

SUB UC
47

Exhibit 7-5. SUB Versus CBRR: Earnings and Employment 

SUB CBRR ITT Impact

Outcome N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Effect 

Sizea

Earnings (2018Q4$)

 Quarters 11 to 14 after RA 409 $6,188 $(9,566) 362 $6,929 $(11,157) $-741 $(775) -0.07

 Quarters 15 to 18 after RA 408 $7,287 $(10,935) 362 $8,930 $(12,568) $-1,643* $(881) -0.14

 Quarters 19 to 22 after RA 408 $9,066 $(12,873) 361 $9,824 $(13,728) $-758 $(990) -0.06

 Quarters 23 to 26 after RA 408 $9,600 $(14,059) 360 $10,151 $(13,754) $-551 $(1,034) -0.04

 Quarters 24 to 27 after RA 408 $9,984 $(14,388) 359 $10,364 $(13,707) $-380 $(1,039) -0.03

 Quarters 11 to 27 after RA 408 $34,791 $(45,353) 359 $37,698 $(47,507) $-2,907 $(3,485) -0.06

Any Employment (%)

 Quarters 11 to 14 after RA 409 53.6 (49.9) 362 58.5 (49.4) -4.8 (3.7) -0.10

 Quarters 15 to 18 after RA 408 57.9 (49.4) 362 63.5 (48.3) -5.6 (3.6) -0.12

 Quarters 19 to 22 after RA 408 58.5 (49.3) 361 66.3 (47.5) -7.7** (3.6) -0.16

 Quarters 23 to 26 after RA 408 58.1 (49.4) 360 60.6 (48.9) -2.5 (3.6) -0.05

 Quarters 24 to 27 after RA 408 59.6 (49.2) 359 61.0 (48.8) -1.4 (3.6) -0.03

 Quarters 11 to 27 after RA 408 73.3 (44.2) 359 79.4 (40.7) -6.1* (3.1) -0.15

Number of Quarters With Any Employment

 Quarters 11 to 14 after RA 409 1.6 (1.7) 362 1.7 (1.7) -0.1 (0.1) -0.04

 Quarters 15 to 18 after RA 408 1.7 (1.7) 362 1.9 (1.7) -0.2* (0.1) -0.13

 Quarters 19 to 22 after RA 408 1.9 (1.8) 361 2.1 (1.8) -0.2 (0.1) -0.12

 Quarters 23 to 26 after RA 408 1.8 (1.8) 360 2.0 (1.8) -0.1 (0.1) -0.07

 Quarters 24 to 27 after RA 408 1.9 (1.8) 359 2.0 (1.8) -0.1 (0.1) -0.07

 Quarters 11 to 27 after RA 408 7.5 (6.4) 359 8.1 (6.4) -0.6 (0.5) -0.09

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

standard deviation. SE = standard error.

*/**/*** Impact estimate is significantly different from 0 at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, using a two-tailed t-test. a Effect size column shows standardized effect sizes, which were calculated by dividing impact by standard deviation 

for the entire UC group.

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

Exhibits 7-5a and 7-5b show the pairwise comparisons of the average quarterly earnings and average 

employment rates, respectively, for participants in the CBRR and UC groups.
48

Exhibit 7-5a. CBRR vs. UC: Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment

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

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

0.00

500.00

1,000.00

1,500.00

2,000.00

2,500.00

3,000.00

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Earnings (2018Q4$)

Quarter after RA

CBRR UC
49

Exhibit 7-5b. CBRR vs. UC: Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment 

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

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

Exhibits 7-6 through 7-9 show similar findings for the following pairwise comparisons: CBRR vs. UC,

PBTH vs. UC, SUB vs. PBTH, and CBRR vs. PBTH, respectively. Exhibits 7-6a through 7-9b depict the 

average earnings and employment rates by quarter for the same pairwise comparisons. Specifically, these 

comparisons show no impact on earnings or percent employed detected for any time period, nor was any 

impact on the number of quarters employed detected for any time period. 

Exhibit 7-6. CBRR Versus UC: Earnings and Employment 

CBRR UC ITT Impact

Outcome N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Effect 

Sizea

Earnings (2018Q4$)

 Quarters 11 to 14 after RA 544 $7,156 $(11,308) 539 $6,723 $(10,658) $433 $(679) 0.04

 Quarters 15 to 18 after RA 544 $8,693 $(12,785) 539 $8,278 $(12,485) $416 $(789) 0.03

 Quarters 19 to 22 after RA 543 $9,845 $(13,862) 539 $9,853 $(13,821) $-8 $(857) 0.00

 Quarters 23 to 26 after RA 542 $10,028 $(13,836) 537 $9,767 $(12,879) $261 $(834) 0.02

 Quarters 24 to 27 after RA 541 $10,206 $(13,725) 538 $9,724 $(12,841) $482 $(829) 0.04

 Quarters 11 to 27 after RA 541 $37,765 $(48,864) 537 $36,622 $(46,792) $1,144 $(2,988) 0.02

Any Employment (%)

 Quarters 11 to 14 after RA 544 59.0 (49.3) 539 60.3 (48.9) -1.2 (3.0) -0.02

 Quarters 15 to 18 after RA 544 61.4 (48.8) 539 61.8 (48.6) -0.4 (3.0) -0.01

 Quarters 19 to 22 after RA 543 65.6 (47.7) 539 65.2 (47.5) 0.4 (2.9) 0.01

 Quarters 23 to 26 after RA 542 60.6 (49.0) 537 64.9 (47.7) -4.3 (3.0) -0.09

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Percent Employed (pp)

Quarter after RA

CBRR UC
50

CBRR UC ITT Impact

Outcome N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Effect 

Sizea

 Quarters 24 to 27 after RA 541 60.8 (48.9) 538 64.5 (47.8) -3.6 (3.0) -0.08

 Quarters 11 to 27 after RA 541 79.3 (40.8) 537 78.9 (40.5) 0.4 (2.5) 0.01

Number of Quarters With Any Employment

 Quarters 11 to 14 after RA 544 1.7 (1.7) 539 1.7 (1.7) 0.0 (0.1) 0.01

 Quarters 15 to 18 after RA 544 1.9 (1.7) 539 1.9 (1.7) 0.0 (0.1) -0.02

 Quarters 19 to 22 after RA 543 2.0 (1.7) 539 2.0 (1.7) 0.0 (0.1) 0.02

 Quarters 23 to 26 after RA 542 1.9 (1.8) 537 2.0 (1.7) -0.1 (0.1) -0.05

 Quarters 24 to 27 after RA 541 2.0 (1.8) 538 2.0 (1.7) 0.0 (0.1) -0.02

 Quarters 11 to 27 after RA 541 8.1 (6.4) 537 8.2 (6.3) -0.1 (0.4) -0.02

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

= standard deviation. SE = standard error.

*/**/*** Impact estimate is significantly different from 0 at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, using a two-tailed t-test. a Effect size column shows standardized effect sizes, which were calculated by dividing impact by standard deviation 

for the entire UC group.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires. 
51

Exhibit 7-6a. PBTH vs. UC: Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment

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

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

0.00

500.00

1,000.00

1,500.00

2,000.00

2,500.00

3,000.00

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Earnings (2018Q4$)

Quarter after RA

PBTH UC
52

Exhibit 7-6b. PBTH vs. UC: Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment

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

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Percent Employed (pp)

Quarter after RA

PBTH UC
53

Exhibit 7-7. PBTH Versus UC: Earnings and Employment 

PBTH UC ITT Impact

Outcome N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Effect 

Sizea

Earnings (2018Q4$)

 Quarters 11 to 14 after RA 342 $7,047 $(10,853) 304 $6,307 $(10,499) $740 $(838) 0.07

 Quarters 15 to 18 after RA 342 $8,933 $(12,547) 304 $7,468 $(10,904) $1,465 $(913) 0.12

 Quarters 19 to 22 after RA 341 $9,728 $(13,206) 304 $8,848 $(12,360) $880 $(998) 0.07

 Quarters 23 to 26 after RA 340 $9,850 $(13,640) 303 $9,318 $(12,910) $532 $(1,049) 0.04

 Quarters 24 to 27 after RA 340 $9,686 $(13,372) 304 $9,439 $(13,126) $247 $(1,046) 0.02

 Quarters 11 to 27 after RA 339 $36,310 $(44,054) 303 $34,148 $(45,236) $2,162 $(3,516) 0.05

Any Employment (%)

 Quarters 11 to 14 after RA 342 57.3 (49.5) 304 58.9 (49.3) -1.6 (3.9) -0.03

 Quarters 15 to 18 after RA 342 64.1 (48.1) 304 59.8 (49.1) 4.3 (3.8) 0.09

 Quarters 19 to 22 after RA 341 63.6 (48.2) 304 63.2 (48.3) 0.3 (3.8) 0.01

 Quarters 23 to 26 after RA 340 63.0 (48.4) 303 61.0 (48.8) 1.9 (3.8) 0.04

 Quarters 24 to 27 after RA 340 62.0 (48.6) 304 60.9 (48.9) 1.2 (3.8) 0.02

 Quarters 11 to 27 after RA 339 77.9 (41.6) 303 78.2 (41.3) -0.4 (3.3) -0.01

Number of Quarters With Any Employment

 Quarters 11 to 14 after RA 342 1.7 (1.7) 304 1.8 (1.7) 0.0 (0.1) -0.02

 Quarters 15 to 18 after RA 342 2.0 (1.7) 304 1.9 (1.8) 0.1 (0.1) 0.08

 Quarters 19 to 22 after RA 341 2.0 (1.8) 304 2.0 (1.7) 0.1 (0.1) 0.04

 Quarters 23 to 26 after RA 340 2.1 (1.8) 303 1.9 (1.8) 0.2 (0.1) 0.09

 Quarters 24 to 27 after RA 340 2.0 (1.8) 304 1.9 (1.7) 0.1 (0.1) 0.05

 Quarters 11 to 27 after RA 339 8.3 (6.5) 303 8.0 (6.4) 0.3 (0.5) 0.04

 

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

standard error. UC = usual care. 

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

a

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

UC group. 

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires. 
54

Exhibit 7-7a. SUB vs. CBRR: Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment

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

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

0.00

500.00

1,000.00

1,500.00

2,000.00

2,500.00

3,000.00

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Earnings (2018Q4$)

Quarter after RA

SUB CBRR
55

Exhibit 7-7b. SUB vs. CBRR: Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment 

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

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Percent Employed (pp)

Quarter after RA

SUB CBRR
56

Exhibit 7-8. SUB Versus PBTH: Earnings and Employment 

SUB PBTH ITT Impact

Outcome N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Effect 

Sizea

Earnings (2018Q4$)

 Quarters 11 to 14 after RA 234 $6,153 $(9,214) 228 $6,859 $(10,435) $-706 $(933) -0.07

 Quarters 15 to 18 after RA 234 $7,340 $(10,202) 228 $8,648 $(11,946) $-1,309 $(1,056) -0.11

 Quarters 19 to 22 after RA 234 $8,566 $(11,548) 228 $9,437 $(13,112) $-871 $(1,160) -0.07

 Quarters 23 to 26 after RA 234 $9,233 $(12,590) 227 $9,488 $(13,300) $-255 $(1,232) -0.02

 Quarters 24 to 27 after RA 234 $9,593 $(12,684) 227 $9,380 $(12,931) $213 $(1,215) 0.02

 Quarters 11 to 27 after RA 234 $33,920 $(40,377) 227 $35,991 $(44,479) $-2,070 $(4,034) -0.04

Any Employment (%)

 Quarters 11 to 14 after RA 234 56.4 (49.7) 228 57.9 (49.4) -1.5 (4.6) -0.03

 Quarters 15 to 18 after RA 234 60.7 (49.1) 228 64.0 (47.8) -3.3 (4.5) -0.07

 Quarters 19 to 22 after RA 234 60.8 (49.1) 228 62.1 (48.3) -1.3 (4.6) -0.03

 Quarters 23 to 26 after RA 234 63.2 (48.5) 227 60.8 (48.7) 2.4 (4.5) 0.05

 Quarters 24 to 27 after RA 234 63.7 (48.4) 227 61.6 (48.5) 2.1 (4.5) 0.04

 Quarters 11 to 27 after RA 234 78.7 (41.4) 227 78.8 (40.6) 0.0 (3.8) 0.00

Number of Quarters With Any Employment

 Quarters 11 to 14 after RA 234 1.7 (1.7) 228 1.7 (1.7) 0.0 (0.2) -0.02

 Quarters 15 to 18 after RA 234 1.8 (1.7) 228 2.0 (1.7) -0.2 (0.2) -0.09

 Quarters 19 to 22 after RA 234 1.9 (1.8) 228 1.9 (1.8) 0.0 (0.2) -0.01

 Quarters 23 to 26 after RA 234 1.9 (1.7) 227 2.0 (1.8) -0.1 (0.2) -0.05

 Quarters 24 to 27 after RA 234 2.0 (1.7) 227 2.0 (1.8) 0.0 (0.2) -0.02

 Quarters 11 to 27 after RA 234 7.9 (6.2) 227 8.1 (6.4) -0.2 (0.6) -0.04

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

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

*/**/*** Impact estimate is significantly different from 0 at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, using a two-tailed t-test. a Effect size column shows standardized effect sizes, which were calculated by dividing impact by standard deviation 

for the entire UC group.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires. 
57

Exhibit 7-8a. SUB vs. PBTH: Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment

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

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

0.00

500.00

1,000.00

1,500.00

2,000.00

2,500.00

3,000.00

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Earnings (2018Q4$)

Quarter after RA

SUB PBTH
58

Exhibit 7-8b. SUB vs. PBTH: Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment

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

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Percent Employed (pp)

Quarter after RA

SUB PBTH
59

Exhibit 7-9. CBRR Versus PBTH: Earnings and Employment 

CBRR PBTH ITT Impact

Outcome N Mean (SD) N Mean (SD) Impact (SE)

Effect 

Sizea

Earnings (2018Q4$)

 Quarters 11 to 14 after RA 218 $6,760 $(11,517) 222 $5,705 $(9,838) $1,055 $(1,024) 0.10

 Quarters 15 to 18 after RA 218 $8,246 $(11,857) 222 $7,178 $(11,159) $1,068 $(1,101) 0.09

 Quarters 19 to 22 after RA 217 $9,032 $(12,723) 221 $7,669 $(11,317) $1,362 $(1,123) 0.10

 Quarters 23 to 26 after RA 217 $9,182 $(12,812) 221 $8,327 $(12,272) $855 $(1,239) 0.07

 Quarters 24 to 27 after RA 217 $9,527 $(12,846) 221 $8,146 $(12,130) $1,381 $(1,232) 0.11

 Quarters 11 to 27 after RA 217 $34,864 $(43,919) 220 $29,384 $(37,365) $5,480 $(3,932) 0.12

Any Employment (%)

 Quarters 11 to 14 after RA 218 56.2 (49.7) 222 53.0 (50.0) 3.2 (4.8) 0.07

 Quarters 15 to 18 after RA 218 60.6 (49.0) 222 60.3 (49.0) 0.2 (4.7) 0.00

 Quarters 19 to 22 after RA 217 62.5 (48.6) 221 58.1 (49.4) 4.5 (4.7) 0.09

 Quarters 23 to 26 after RA 217 59.3 (49.3) 221 58.5 (49.3) 0.8 (4.8) 0.02

 Quarters 24 to 27 after RA 217 59.9 (49.2) 221 57.1 (49.6) 2.8 (4.8) 0.06

 Quarters 11 to 27 after RA 217 80.5 (39.6) 220 74.2 (43.9) 6.3 (4.0) 0.16

Number of Quarters with Any Employment

 Quarters 11 to 14 after RA 218 1.6 (1.7) 222 1.6 (1.7) 0.1 (0.2) 0.04

 Quarters 15 to 18 after RA 218 1.8 (1.7) 222 1.8 (1.7) 0.0 (0.2) -0.03

 Quarters 19 to 22 after RA 217 1.9 (1.7) 221 1.8 (1.7) 0.1 (0.2) 0.07

 Quarters 23 to 26 after RA 217 1.9 (1.8) 221 1.9 (1.8) 0.0 (0.2) 0.01

 Quarters 24 to 27 after RA 217 1.9 (1.8) 221 1.8 (1.8) 0.1 (0.2) 0.07

 Quarters 11 to 27 after RA 217 7.7 (6.0) 220 7.4 (6.5) 0.2 (0.6) 0.04

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

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

*/**/*** Impact estimate is significantly different from 0 at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, using a two-tailed t-test. a Effect size column shows standardized effect sizes, which were calculated by dividing impact by standard deviation 

for the entire UC group.

Source: Quarterly wage records from the National Directory of New Hires. 
60

Exhibit 7-9a. CBRR vs. PBTH: Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment 

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

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

0.00

500.00

1,000.00

1,500.00

2,000.00

2,500.00

3,000.00

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Earnings (2018Q4$)

Quarter after RA

CBRR PBTH
61

Exhibit 7-9b. CBRR vs. PBTH: Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment 

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

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Percent Employed (pp)

Quarter after RA

CBRR PBTH
A-1

Appendix A: Summary of the Passive and Active Tracking Approach

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

A.1-A3. 

Exhibit A-1. 78-Month Tracking and Re-Engagement Activity Flowchart

Update Sample 

Management 

Database

•Append final 

household roster

•Append address 

information

Passive Tracking--

Full Sample

•PIC and TRACS 

Updates

•Other Database 

Updates

Passive Tracking 

Round 2--Case 

Specific

•Identify hardest to 

locate cases

•Submit them for 

individualized passive 

tracking

78-Month 

Tracking Effort--

Phase 1

•Mail FOS Study 

Update and 

contact 

information 

request form

•Process results 

78-Month Tracking 

Effort--Phase 2a

•Begin telephone 

locating

•If located:

•Obtain informed 

consent

•Complete tracking 

survey

•Obtain consent to 

release PII to HUD

•Document Locating 

Efforts

78-Month Tracking 

Efforts-Phase 2b

•Begin in-person 

locating efforts

•Obtain informed 

consent if located

•Complete tracking 

survey if located

•Document locating 

results

Analyze tracking 

information

•Review tracking 

results

•Prepare analysis 

memo summarizing 

the 78-month 

tracking results and 

assessment of 

feasibility of future 

data collection by 

HUD

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

Rental Assistance Certification System.

A.1 Updating the Sample Management Database 

The survey team updated the sample management database prior to starting any tracking efforts. The team 

made updates to reflect the following information: 

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

month followup survey effort. 

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

• The address history and secondary contact information collected during all the prior surveys and 

tracking data collection efforts. 

• The randomization set size flag created for the 37-month data collection effort. This flag indicates 

the “hierarchy” or “analytic priority” for each case—because families with larger randomization 
A-2

set values can be used in more of the pairwise impact comparisons. Thus, as the survey team 

prioritized certain cases, the randomization set size flag was a key criterion. 

A.2 Passive Tracking Efforts

Once the sample tracking database was updated, the team began passive tracking efforts—comprised of 

activities that do not require Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. As shown in exhibit A1, the first rounds of passive tracking activities were conducted for the full study sample.

Step 1 was to collect and process new Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) Information Center 

(PIC) and Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (TRACS) data from the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and provide information to the survey team to append to the 

sample database. HUD provided the team with four rounds of PIC and TRACS data, in October 2016, 

December 2016, August 2017, and January 2018. The survey team processed the results and appended the 

new information into the sample management database. After the first two extracts were appended to the 

database, the team created an extract containing the current or last known address. The study team

submitted this extract to Accurint, a proprietary vendor. 

The tracking strategy used two stages of Accurint passive tracking—the first was conducted prior to the 

active data collection; the second was done during the active data collection. 

• Accurint Full Sample Processing: The study team first sent the full sample for batch processing 

to identify any address or phone updates that were available from sources such as the U.S. Post 

Office’s National Change of Address (NCOA) service and public phone listings, and to identify 

any new deceased cases using public death records. The study team appended updates received to 

the sample tracking database.

• Accurint Individual Searches: The study team conducted an additional Accurint search during 

the active survey effort and reviewed the status of all pending cases periodically to identify cases 

where interviewers had exhausted efforts with all the contact information available in the study

records. The study team submitted these cases through a more detailed search of proprietary 

databases—where field staff members conduct individual searches for an updated address and 

phone data on a case-by-case basis. These proprietary databases contain public records such as 

driver’s license, vehicle registration, voter registration, and other consumer records. The study 

team provided any results obtained during these individual searches directly back to the field 

interviewers so they could attempt to locate and interview the participant. 
A-3

A.3 Active Tracking Efforts

The final activity—the 78-month Tracking Survey—had three components—each involving direct contact 

with study participants (and therefore subject to OMB approval). 

78-Month Tracking Survey: Interviewers began the 78-month tracking survey in October 2017 and 

worked the cases through the end of March 2018. Unlike prior data collection rounds, which included 

monthly sample releases, the full sample of 2,264 families was released at the start of the field period. 

Releasing the full study sample at the beginning of the effort maximized the amount of time interviewers 

had to contact each family and doubled the length of the time window used in previous tracking surveys. 

Having a longer time window to contact each family proved helpful in completing data collection during 

the 20- and 37-month data collection efforts and was vital for this study given the long period without 

contact. 

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

• Step 1: Family Options Study Update. 

• Step 2: Phone locating and interviewing. 

• Step 3: In-person locating and interviewing. 

Step 1: Family Options Study Update: One month prior to the start of the tracking interviews (September 

2017), the study team mailed all study participants the Family Options Study Update. This update (i) 

thanked participants for their prior cooperation with the study; (ii) provided a summary of key highlights 

about the study (including links to the short-term and 3-year impact reports), and (iii) described the 78-

month tracking survey. This letter also included the study toll-free number and instructions for how 

participants could update their contact information or schedule an interview appointment. 

Because this letter was the first point of contact with study participants, it was a priority to make it as 

convenient as possible for them to respond. Participants were given three response options: 

1. Mail: Participants could return the completed form by mail, using an enclosed prepaid 

envelope. 

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

update their information. 

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

their information that way. 

The study team mailed packages to 2,166 study participants (those with no contact since baseline, 

confirmed deceased, and those with no current address were not sent letters). See exhibit A-2 Family 

Options Study Update for more details.

Step 2: Phone Locating and Interviewing: Abt interviewers first called all phone numbers for the adult 

respondent. If they reached the participant, they attempted to obtain informed consent and complete the 

survey. If they couldn’t complete the survey at that time, they attempted to schedule a call-back 

appointment. 

• If interviewers did not reach the adult respondent by phone after several attempts, they 

sent an email to explain the purpose of the contact. The email contained the study’s tollfree number for participants to call with questions or to schedule an appointment. 
A-4

 If a participant returned a call directly to the interviewer, the interviewer 

attempted to complete the survey. If the participant called into the study hotline, 

the staff took the updated contact information and passed it on to the interviewer 

to schedule an appointment or ideally complete the interview. 

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

 Attempted to contact secondary contacts to gain updated information or at least 

pass on a request for the participant to call the study’s toll-free number. 

 Mailed study flyers and “sorry I missed you” cards to participants in an effort to 

encourage them to call the study’s toll-free number to complete the survey or 

schedule an interview appointment. 

 Repeated efforts to contact the respondent via email or text. 

• At any point in the phone locating efforts, if an interviewer spoke to a participant on the 

phone, the interviewer would immediately attempt to complete the 78-month tracking 

survey. If that was not possible, they scheduled a call-back appointment. Interviewers

completed 72.3 percent of the completed tracking surveys by telephone.

• Originally the team planned to assess the quality of the contact and secondary contact 

information after all phone efforts were exhausted. The team decided more frequent 

assessment of the phone effort was necessary, however. 

 On a weekly basis, the field management team met with the survey director to 

review the status of each case, discuss the locating steps taken to date, and 

determine the best course of action going forward. 

 The team reviewed pending cases by site, by assignment group, by hierarchy 

based on analytic priority, and by disposition to determine the most efficient way 

to maximize efforts going forward. 

 Once it was clear that all phone efforts were exhausted for a case, the team 

assessed the quality of the contact information for both respondents and 

secondary contacts and the analytic priority to determine which cases were good 

candidates for in-person followup. 

• The study team put a priority on maximizing the location status for all 

pending cases, with particular emphasis placed on those with higher 

analytic priority. These are cases with hierarchy values of 4, indicating 

the case was a family that had been eligible of all four interventions at 

the time of random assignment. These cases can be used in the highest 

number of analytic comparisons are thus the cases with the highest 

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

prioritized. Priority was also given to non-complete cases in sites where 

the overall location rate was lower. 
A-5

Step 3: In-Person Locating and Interviewing: The survey director authorized interviewers to work a 

small percentage of cases in person. In-person efforts included traveling to the participant’s home to 

attempt to confirm the address—and, if possible, to complete the interview. Interviewers also travelled to 

the homes of secondary contacts looking for the study participant. Interviewers were able to leave 

personalized messages on the survey flyer or “sorry I missed you” cards behind for respondents. 

• During the in-person locating and interviewing stage, interviewers were still able—and 

encouraged—to also continue their phone efforts. That is, very often, an active attempt at 

in-person locating results in a return phone call, email, or letter. Interviewers responded 

to any incoming requests and completed the interview wherever possible. As with the 

phone effort, once an interviewer located the participant, an immediate attempt was made 

to complete the interview. 

A.3.1.1 Incentives

The study team provided modest incentives to participants that responded to requests for updated contact 

information or the tracking survey. Once all updates from the re-engagement mailing were processed and 

recorded in the sample database, participants who updated their contact information received a $5 

incentive. This incentive was provided in the form of a Visa gift card. Adult participants that completed 

the 78-month tracking effort received a $25 Visa gift card. 
A-6

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

 
B-1

Appendix B: 78-Month Tracking Survey Instrument

OMB Clearance Number: 2528-0259 Expires: 08/31/2020 

Introduction

Hello, my name is [ ]. I work for a company called Abt Associates. You might remember meeting 

with me or one of my colleagues a while back. At that time, I talked to you about a study that we are doing 

to find out about what kind of housing is best for families who experienced homelessness. This study is 

often referred to as the Family Options Study. Abt Associates is an independent research company, and we 

are helping the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to do this study. 

When we last talked to you, I mentioned that I’d be getting in touch with you again to find out about your 

housing experiences. I’d like to ask you some questions now. The survey will take about 15 minutes to 

complete. You can stop the interview at any time. You can choose not to answer any question. The 

information you provide will be kept confidential and only used for research purposes. The collection of 

this information was approved by the Office of Management and Budget. At the end of the interview, I will 

give you $25, as a token of our appreciation. 

PRA Burden Statement and Privacy Statement

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this 

information collection is 2528-0259. The time required to complete this information collection is about 15 minutes per response, 

including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection of information.
B-2

Section A: Current Housing, Homelessness Since Previous Interview, Housing 

Program Participation 

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

A1. Can you please confirm the address of where you are living/staying now? [CAPI: PRE-FILL 

WITH ADDRESS WHERE INTERVIEW IS TAKING PLACE. INTERVIEWER; 

CONFIRM THAT INFORMATION IS CORRECT AND UPDATE AS NEEDED. PROBE 

FOR BUILDING NAME IF APPLICABLE]

A1a. Is there a complex/building name? 

A1b. Is there an apartment number? 

A1c. What city do you live in? 

A1d. What state do you live in? 

A1e. What is the zip code?

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

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

A2. Is [A1 ADDRESS] the best address to reach you at?

YES ................................................................................................ 1 (SKIP TO A2f)

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

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

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

What is the best address to reach you at?

Street Address: 

A2a. Is there a complex/building name? 

A2b. Is there an apartment number? 

A2c. In what city? 

A2d. In what state? 

A2e. What is the zip code? 
B-3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A2i. What is your email address?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DON’T KNOW .............................................................................. 8 
B-4

A3. Which of the following best describes your current living situation? 

Would you say you are living/staying in...

CAPI: SKIP TO A4 WHEN YES RESPONSE IS GIVEN YES NO REF DK

A3a. A house or apartment that you own or rent. THIS DOES NOT 

INCLUDE YOUR PARENT’S or GUARDIAN’S HOME OR 

APARTMENT

1 2 7 8 

A3b. Your partner’s (boy/girlfriends/fiancé, significant other’s) place. 1 2 7 8 

A3c. A friend or relative’s house or apartment, and paying part of the rent

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

HOUSE OR APARTMENT OR OTHER FRIEND OR RELATIVE’S 

APARTMENT]

1 2 7 8 

A3d. A friend or relative’s house or apartment, but not paying part of the rent 

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

HOUSE OR APARTMENT OR OTHER FRIEND OR RELATIVE’S 

APARTMENT]

1 2 7 8 

A3e. A permanent housing program with services to help you keep your 

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

PROGRAM: <A3E_1_OTHER> _____ __________THEN SKIP 

TO A4

1 2 7 8 

A3f. A transitional housing program IF YES COLLECT NAME OF 

PROGRAM: <A2F_1_OTHER>

___________________________________ THEN SKIP TO A4

1 2 7 8 

A3g. A domestic violence shelter IF YES: SKIP TO A4 1 2 7 8 

A3h. An emergency shelter IF YES COLLECT NAME OF PROGRAM: 

<A3H_1_OTHER>

___________________________________ THEN SKIP TO A4

1 2 7 8 

A3i. A voucher hotel or motel IF YES: SKIP TO A4 1 2 7 8 

A3j. A hotel or motel you pay for yourself IF YES: SKIP TO A4 1 2 7 8 

A3k. A residential drug or alcohol treatment program IF YES: SKIP TO 

NOTE BEFORE A4

1 2 7 8 

A3l. Jail or prison IF YES: SKIP TO NOTE BEFORE A4 1 2 7 8 

A3m. A car or other vehicle IF YES: SKIP TO A4 1 2 7 8 

A3n. An abandoned building IF YES: SKIP TO A4 1 2 7 8 

A3o. Anywhere outside [PROBE: STREETS, PARKS, ETC.] IF YES: SKIP 

TO A4

1 2 7 8 

A3p. OTHER  SPECIFY: <A3P_1_OTHER>: ______________________

IF YES, NO, DK OR: SKIP TO A4

1 2 7 8 

CAPI: IF A3k or A3l=YES STOP INTERVIEW AND DISPLAY THE FOLLOWING SCRIPT:
B-5

I’m sorry, but I am having difficulty calling up your record. I will resolve this issue with my supervisor. I 

will try to reschedule this appointment at that time.

BASE: ALL

A4. How long have you lived in this place? You can tell me this answer in days, weeks, or months, 

whichever is easiest for you. [INTERVIEWER/CAPI: RECORD NUMBER OF DAYS, WEEKS, 

MONTHS. IF 0, RECORD THAT AS WELL. 

<A4A1> NUMBER OF DAYS____________ 

<A4A2> NUMBER OF WEEKS 

<A3A3> NUMBER OF MONTHS 

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

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

A5. Do you currently receive any governmental housing assistance, such as through public housing or 

Section 8 or Housing Choice Voucher? 

YES ................................................................................................ 1 (SKIP TO A6a)

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

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

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

A6. Are you paying lower rent because the Federal, state, or local government is paying for part of 

your rent? 

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

NO .................................................................................................. 2 (SKIP TO A7)

REFUSED ...................................................................................... 7 (SKIP TO A7)

DON’T KNOW .............................................................................. 8 (SKIP TO A7)

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

A6a. What is the name of the program that provides your housing assistance? This could be the 

place where you live or the program that helps you with your rent. 

RECORD VERBATIM

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

 DON’T KNOW 8 

<A6B> BASE: A5=1 OR A6=1
B-6

A6b. Is this assistance a Section 8 or Housing Choice Voucher, or is the building you live in a 

public housing or a Section 8 project or some other type of assistance? 

CAPI: ACCEPT ONE RESPONSE ONLY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A7. Now, I’d like you to think about the last six months—that is, since [MONTH/YEAR SIX 

MONTHS PRIOR TO INTERVIEW]. Were there any times when you were homeless in the last 

six months? By homeless, I mean times when you didn’t have a regular place to live and you 

were living in a homeless shelter or temporarily in an institution because you had nowhere else to 

go. 

Homeless can also include living in a place not typically used for sleeping such as on the street, in 

a car, in an abandoned building, or in a bus or train station in the past six months. 

Please do not include any time when you may have stayed with friends or relatives because you 

did not have your own place to stay. Please do not include times when you lived in a transitional 

housing program or a permanent housing program. 

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

NO .................................................................................................. 2 (SKIP TO A9)

REFUSED ...................................................................................... 7 (SKIP TO A9)

DON’T KNOW .............................................................................. 8 (SKIP TO A9)

A8. How many times were you homeless in the last six months? 

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

NUMBER OF TIMES ____________________________________ 

REFUSED ..................................................................................... -1 (SKIP TO A9)

DON’T KNOW ............................................................................. -2 (SKIP TO A9)

BASE: A8≥1 
B-7

A8a. Thinking about all of the times you have been homeless in the past 6 months], What would 

you say is the total number of days, weeks, or months that you have been homeless in the past 

6 months? 

<A8a1>NUMBER OF DAYS____________ 

<A8A2> NUMBER OF WEEKS 

 <A8A3> NUMBER OF MONTHS 

REFUSED -2

DON’T KNOW -1 

A9. Again, please think about the last six months—that is, since [MONTH/YEAR SIX MONTHS 

PRIOR TO INTERVIEW]. Were there any times when you were living with a friend or relative 

because you could not find or afford a place of your own? 

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

NO .................................................................................................. 2 (SKIP TO A11)

 REFUSED .................................................................................................... 7 (SKIP TO A11)

 DON’T KNOW ............................................................................................. 8 (SKIP TO A11)

A10. Altogether, how much time in the past six months, would you say you spent living with a friend 

or relative because you could not find or afford a place of your own? You can tell me this answer 

in days, weeks, or months, whichever is easiest for you. [INTERVIEWER/CAPI: RECORD 

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

<A10a1>NUMBER OF DAYS____________ 

<A10A2> NUMBER OF WEEKS 

<A10A3> NUMBER OF MONTHS 

REFUSED -2

DON’T KNOW -1 

A11. Again, please think about the past six months —that is, since [MONTH/YEAR SIX MONTHS 

PRIOR TO INTERVIEW] and today, have you participated in any housing programs other than 

where you are living now? This could be a housing program where you lived or a program that 

helped you pay some or all of the rent in your own apartment or house. 

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

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

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

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

A12. During the past six months, that is between [MONTH/YEAR SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO 

INTERVIEW] and today, we are interested in knowing if you participated in any of the following 
B-8

types of programs. When answering these questions, please do not include the place you are 

living now. During the past six months, did you... 

Program Type YES NO REFUSED DON’T KNOW

a. Spend at least one night in a shelter 

because you did not have your own place to 

stay?

b. Participate in a permanent supportive 

housing program—a program that offered 

both housing and services?

c. Spend at least one night in a transitional 

housing program?

d. Spend any time living in a place where you 

received assistance paying your rent with 

temporary rental assistance. This temporary 

assistance could be a rapid re-housing or 

the HPRP program.

e. Spend any time living in a place where your 

rent was partially covered by a rent subsidy 

such as public housing, Section 8 or a 

Housing Choice Voucher?

f. Receive any other form of housing 

assistance? Please Specify:

_____________
B-9

Section B: Family Composition 

Now I’d like to ask you about the people in your family. I’ll ask you about people who are living with you 

now and your spouse/partner or children who are in your family but are not staying with you now. 

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

RESPONDENT AT TIME OF LAST INTERVIEW] were living with you/staying with you: 

Can you please tell me if each of them are staying with you now? If not, please tell me where 

they are currently staying, and how long they’ve been staying there. 

LINES WILL BE ADDED TO THE TABLE AS NEEDED. 

List of 

family 

members 

with 

Responden

t at last 

interview

B2. Is [B1a...B1e], who was born in 

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

<B2_X> (X=1-9)

IF DOB=MISSING: Is [B1a...B1e], 

who is about [AGE] years old, staying 

with you now?

IF DOB AND AGE=MISSING:

Is [B1a...B1e], who is an [adult/child] 

staying with you now?

B3. IF NO TO 

B2 FOR ANY 

FAMILY 

MEMBER ASK: 

How long has it 

been since [B1a] 

lived/stayed with 

you?

<B3_1_X> 

Days 

<B3_2_X> 

Weeks

<B3_3_X> 

Months

(X=1-9)

B4. IF NO TO B2 FOR ANY 

FAMILY MEMBER ASK: Where is 

[B1a] living/staying now?

(SINGLE RESPONSE)

NOTE TO FIELD INTERVIEWER: 

PROBE FOR THE PLACE THE PERSON 

SPENDS MOST OF THE TIME. 

NOTE TO PROGRAMMER: IF 

AGE=MISSING/ DK, DISPLAY FULL 

ANSWER LIST

<HHMAGE_X> Age Calculation (0= 

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

<B4_X> Where living/Staying now?

<B4_6_OTHER_X> How long foster 

care

<B4_95_OTHER_X> B4 Other Specify 

(X=1-9)

B1a YES (Ask B2A/B2B then SKIP TO 

NEXT PERSON) ... 1 

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

Refused...........................................

7 

Don’t 

Know.......................................8 

_____Days

_____Weeks

_____Month

s 

REFUSED -1 

DK -2 

IF B1d IS AN ADULT >15?

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

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

IF Bd IS A CHILD <15?

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

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

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

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

 How long in foster care? _________

Refused.....................................7 

Don’t 

Know.......................................8 

OTHER: _______________ ...........95
B-10

List of 

family 

members 

with 

Responden

t at last 

interview

B2. Is [B1a...B1e], who was born in 

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

<B2_X> (X=1-9)

IF DOB=MISSING: Is [B1a...B1e], 

who is about [AGE] years old, staying 

with you now?

IF DOB AND AGE=MISSING:

Is [B1a...B1e], who is an [adult/child] 

staying with you now?

B3. IF NO TO 

B2 FOR ANY 

FAMILY 

MEMBER ASK: 

How long has it 

been since [B1a] 

lived/stayed with 

you?

<B3_1_X> 

Days 

<B3_2_X> 

Weeks

<B3_3_X> 

Months

(X=1-9)

B4. IF NO TO B2 FOR ANY 

FAMILY MEMBER ASK: Where is 

[B1a] living/staying now?

(SINGLE RESPONSE)

NOTE TO FIELD INTERVIEWER: 

PROBE FOR THE PLACE THE PERSON 

SPENDS MOST OF THE TIME. 

NOTE TO PROGRAMMER: IF 

AGE=MISSING/ DK, DISPLAY FULL 

ANSWER LIST

<HHMAGE_X> Age Calculation (0= 

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

<B4_X> Where living/Staying now?

<B4_6_OTHER_X> How long foster 

care

<B4_95_OTHER_X> B4 Other Specify 

(X=1-9)

B1b YES (Ask B2A/B2B then SKIP TO 

NEXT PERSON) ... 1 

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

Refused...........................................

7 

Don’t 

Know.......................................8 

_____Days

_____Weeks

_____Month

s 

REFUSED -1 

DK -2 

IF B1d IS AN ADULT >15?

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

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

IF Bd IS A CHILD <15?

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

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

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

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

 How long in foster care? _________

Refused..................................7 

Don’t 

Know.......................................8 

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

B1c YES (Ask B2A/B2B then SKIP TO 

NEXT PERSON) ... 1 

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

Refused...........................................

7 

Don’t 

Know.......................................8 

_____Days

_____Weeks

_____Month

s 

REFUSED -1 

DK -2 

IF B1d IS AN ADULT >15?

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

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

IF Bd IS A CHILD <15?

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

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

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

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

 How long in foster care? _________

Refused.....................................7 

Don’t 

Know.......................................8 

OTHER: _______________ .......9595
B-11

List of 

family 

members 

with 

Responden

t at last 

interview

B2. Is [B1a...B1e], who was born in 

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

<B2_X> (X=1-9)

IF DOB=MISSING: Is [B1a...B1e], 

who is about [AGE] years old, staying 

with you now?

IF DOB AND AGE=MISSING:

Is [B1a...B1e], who is an [adult/child] 

staying with you now?

B3. IF NO TO 

B2 FOR ANY 

FAMILY 

MEMBER ASK: 

How long has it 

been since [B1a] 

lived/stayed with 

you?

<B3_1_X> 

Days 

<B3_2_X> 

Weeks

<B3_3_X> 

Months

(X=1-9)

B4. IF NO TO B2 FOR ANY 

FAMILY MEMBER ASK: Where is 

[B1a] living/staying now?

(SINGLE RESPONSE)

NOTE TO FIELD INTERVIEWER: 

PROBE FOR THE PLACE THE PERSON 

SPENDS MOST OF THE TIME. 

NOTE TO PROGRAMMER: IF 

AGE=MISSING/ DK, DISPLAY FULL 

ANSWER LIST

<HHMAGE_X> Age Calculation (0= 

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

<B4_X> Where living/Staying now?

<B4_6_OTHER_X> How long foster 

care

<B4_95_OTHER_X> B4 Other Specify 

(X=1-9)

B1d YES (Ask B2A/B2B then SKIP TO 

NEXT PERSON) ... 1 

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

Refused...........................................

7 

Don’t 

Know.......................................8 

_____Days

_____Weeks

_____Month

s 

REFUSED -1 

DK -2 

 

IF B1d IS AN ADULT >15?

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

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

IF Bd IS A CHILD <15?

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

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

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

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

 How long in foster care? _________

Refused........................................

7 

Don’t 

Know.......................................8 

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

B1e YES (Ask B2A/B2B then SKIP TO 

NEXT PERSON) ... 1 

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

Refused...........................................

7 

Don’t 

Know.......................................8 

_____Days

_____Weeks

_____Month

s 

REFUSED -1 

DK -2 

IF B1d IS AN ADULT >15?

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

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

IF Bd IS A CHILD <15?

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

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

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

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

 How long in foster care? _________

Refused.....................................7 

Don’t 

Know.......................................8 

OTHER: _______________ .........955
B-12

We would like to know if there are any other people living with you now, whom we haven’t talked about 

yet. We are especially interested in people that you consider part of your family. By part of your family, 

we mean those people who would go with you if you were to move. 

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

whom we haven’t talked about? 

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

NO ....................................................................................................... 2 SKIP TO C1

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

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

B5a. How many of the people who we haven’t talked about yet, but are living with you right 

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

<B5A1> NUMBER OF ADULTS ______________

<B5A2> NUMBER OF CHILDREN __________________ 

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

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

B6. Please tell me the first names of the adults who are living with you now whom we haven’t talked 

about. By adults, I mean people 18 years old or older. Do not include yourself. 

<B6_X> (X=1-10) 

B6a. 

B6b. 

B7. Please tell me the first names of the children who are living with you now whom we haven’t 

talked about. By children, I mean people 17 years old or younger. Please do not include children 18 

years old or older.

<B7_X> (X=1-10)

B7a. 

B7b. 

B7c. 

B7d. 
B-13

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

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

FAMILY MEMBERS WHO HAVE JOINED THE FAMILY SINCE THE LAST INTERVIEW

FAMILY MEMBER 1 (B6a-X) FAMILY MEMBER 3 (B7a-X)

B8.What is 

[B6a/B7a]’s 

relationship to you? 

<B8_X> (X=1-7) 

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

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

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

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

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

CHILD OF LOVER/PARTNER 6 

SON- OR 

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

MOTHER OR FATHER .... 8 

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

MOTHER- OR FATHER-IN-LAW 

OR PARTNER'S PARENT10 

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

BROTHER OR SISTER ... 12 

BROTHER- OR

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

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

OTHER RELATIVE ........ 15 

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

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

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

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

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

CHILD OF LOVER/PARTNER 6 

SON- OR 

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

MOTHER OR FATHER ..... 8 

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

MOTHER- OR FATHER-IN-LAW 

OR PARTNER'S PARENT10 

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

BROTHER OR SISTER ... 12 

BROTHER- OR

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

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

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

B9 Is [B6a/B7a] 

male or female?

<B9_X> (X=1-7) 

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

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

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

DON’T KNOW .................. 8 

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

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

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

DON’T KNOW ................... 8 
B-14

FAMILY MEMBER 1 (B6a-X) FAMILY MEMBER 3 (B7a-X)

B10 What is 

[B6a/B7a]’s Date of 

Birth?

<B10M_X> Month 

<B10D_X> Day 

<B10Y_X> Year 

(X=1-7) 

<B10AGE_X> 

Added 

variable/Used to 

Calculate age of 

DOB For B11. 

(0=less than year, -

1=Don’t know, -2 

refused)

IF REFUSED OR 

DON’T KNOW 

ASK B10a: 

B10a: How old is 

[NAME] now?

___/___/_____ 

MM DD YYYY

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

DON’T KNOW ................. -1 

_____________Age 

___/___/_____ 

MM DD YYYY 

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

DON’T KNOW ................. -1 

_____________Age 
B-15

Section C: Employment Status and Internet Usage:

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

C1. Last week, did you do any work for pay? 

YES 1 (SKIP TOC3)

NO 2

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

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

C2. When was the last time (month/year) that you worked for pay?

___/___/_____ 

MM DD YYYY

REFUSED ... -2 

DON’T KNOW -1 

C3. Do you have a computer with internet access in in the place you are living now? 

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

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

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

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

C4. Do you have access to the internet through your phone or an iPad or tablet device?

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

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

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

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

C5. How often do you access the internet?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DON’T KNOW ..................................................................... 8 
B-16

Section D: Contact Information

SECONDARY CONTACT 

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

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

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

To help us be able to get back in touch with you in the future, we would also like to review the names, 

telephone numbers and addresses of two people we talked about last time we spoke who will always know 

how to reach you. This information will be kept strictly confidential and will only be used if we are unable 

to contact you. 

D1. When we last spoke on [you said that [CONTACT X] was a person who would always know where you are 

and how to reach you. Is [CONTACTX] still a person who does not live with you and will always know how to 

contact you? 

Yes................................................................................................................ 1 SKIP TO D3

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

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

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

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

contact you? 

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

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

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

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

D2a. What is his/her first name? 

D2b. What is his/her middle name? 

D2c. What is his/her last name? 

D2d. Does his/her name have a suffix? 

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

DISPLAY FULL INFORMATION FROM THE SAMPLE FOR CONTACT 1

IF CONTACT #X IS NEW ASK: What is (his/her) street address?

FIELD INTERVIEWER NOTE: PLEASE PROBE TO GET A FULL ADDRESS

Street address: 

D12a. Is there a complex/building name? 

D12b. Is there an apartment number? 

D12c. In what city? 

D12d. In what state? 

D12e. What is the zip code? 
B-17

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

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

□ NO HOME NUMBER AVAILABLE

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

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

□ NO CELL NUMBER AVAILABLE

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

□ NO EMAIL ADDRESS AVAILABLE

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much for your time today. We will mail your $25 incentive payment. You should receive 

it within two-four weeks. Remember, we want to be able to reach you again in the future. If you move or 

change your phone number, please let us know. You can call 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX and leave a message 

with your PIN [FAMILYID]. 
C-1

Appendix C: Additional Results of Long-Term Tracking

Exhibit C-1. Re-Engagement Letter and Contact Update Request Results by Site

Site Re-Engagement Letters Contact Updates

Total 

Letters 

Sent

Delivered 

(%)

Undeliverable 

(%)

Total 

Updates 

(%)

By Web 

(%)

By Mail 

(%)

Alameda 252 8.1 3.6 0.8 0.3 0.5

Atlanta 183 4.5 3.9 0.5 0.2 0.3

Baltimore 52 1.5 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0

Boston 178 5.2 3.0 0.3 0.0 0.3

Connecticut 204 4.4 5.0 0.4 0.0 0.3

Denver 165 4.1 3.5 0.5 0.1 0.4

Honolulu 213 5.4 4.5 0.3 0.0 0.3

Kansas City 153 3.4 3.6 0.3 0.1 0.2

Louisville 102 2.6 2.1 0.4 0.1 0.3

Minneapolis 177 3.4 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

Phoenix 263 5.5 6.6 0.3 0.2 0.1

Salt Lake City 224 5.1 5.3 0.3 0.1 0.2

Total 2,166 53.2 46.8 4.2 3.0 1.2

Notes: All percentages based on the total number of letters sent out (2,166), not the total sample (2,264). Families 

with incomplete or missing addresses were excluded from the mailing. 

Source: Abt Associates tracking data. 
C-2

Exhibit C-2. 78-Month Tracking Survey Case Status by Site

Sites Sample Completed 

(%)

Located 

(%)

Determined 

Viable (%)

Unlocatable 

(%)

Sum of 

Completed, 

Located and 

Viable (%)

Alameda 257 48.2 8.9 9.3 33.5 66.5

Atlanta 187 51.3 10.2 16.0 22.5 77.5

Baltimore 57 43.9 21.1 1.8 33.3 66.7

Boston 181 41.4 28.2 17.7 12.7 87.3

Connecticut 214 51.4 10.3 10.7 27.6 72.4

Denver 170 58.8 6.5 31.2 3.5 96.5

Honolulu 216 45.8 9.3 19.4 25.5 74.5

Kansas City 172 47.7 12.8 14.0 25.6 74.4

Louisville 109 53.2 5.5 6.4 34.9 65.1

Minneapolis 181 52.5 14.4 22.7 10.5 89.5

Phoenix 276 40.9 6.5 17.0 35.5 64.5

Salt Lake City 244 51.6 4.5 12.7 31.1 68.9

Total 2,264 48.7 10.6 15.7 25.0 75.0

Source: Abt Associates 78-month tracking data. 
D-1

Appendix D: Outcomes Measured in 78-Month Survey Data

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

Exhibit D-1. 37-Month Outcomes Measured in 78-Month Survey Data: Housing Stability

Outcome Measured at 78

Months

Homelessness or Doubled Up during the Followup Period

At least 1 night homeless or doubled up (past 6 mo.) or in shelter in past 12 months (%) [Confirmatory] NO

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

At least 1 night homeless in past 6 months (%) YES 

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

Any stay in emergency shelter in past 6 months (%)

[Program Usage Data]

NO

Any stay in emergency shelter in months 21 to 32 after RA (%) [Program Usage Data] NO

Number of days homeless or doubled up in past 6 months YES 

Number of days homeless in past 6 months YES 

Number of days doubled up in past 6 months YES 

Housing Independence

Living in own house or apartment at followup (%) YES 

Living in own house or apartment with no housing assistance (%) YES 

Living in own house or apartment with housing assistance (%) YES 

Number of Places Lived

Number of places lived in past 6 months NO

Housing Quality

Persons per room NO

Housing quality is poor or fair (%) NO
D-2

Exhibit D-2. 37-Month Outcomes Measured in 78-Month Survey Data: Family Preservation

Outcome Measured at 78 

Months

Current or Recent Separations of Family Members Present at Baseline

Family has at least one child separated in past 6 months (%) YES 

Family has at least one foster care placement in past 6 months (%) YES 

Spouse/partner separated in past 6 months, of those with spouse/partner present at RA (%) YES 

Reunification of Family Members Reported as Separated at Baseline

Family has at least one child reunified, of those families with at least one child absent at RA (%) YES 

Spouse/partner reunified, of those with spouse/partner absent at RA (%) YES 

RA = random assignment.

Exhibit D-3. 37-Month Outcomes Measured in 78-Month Survey Data: Adult Well-Being

Outcome Measured at 78 

Months

Adult Physical Health

Health in past 30 days was poor or fair (%) NO

Adult Mental Health

Goal-oriented thinking NO

Psychological distress NO

Adult Trauma Symptoms

 Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in past 30 days (%) NO

Adult Substance Use

Alcohol dependence or drug abuse (%) NO

Alcohol dependence (%) NO

Drug abused (%) NO

Experience of Intimate Partner Violence

Experienced intimate partner violence in past 6 months (%) NO
D-3

Exhibit D-4. 37-Month Outcomes Measured in 78-Month Survey Data: Child Well-Being

Outcome Measured at 78 

Months

Child Education

Number of schools attended since RA NO

Grade completion (not held back) (%) NO

School grades NO

Child Physical Health

Poor or fair health in past 30 days (%) NO

Well-child checkup in past year (%) NO

Child has regular source of health care (%) NO

Sleep problems NO

Child Behavioral Strengths and Challenges

Behavior problems NO

 Prosocial behavior NO

CHILD WELL-BEING DEVELOPMENTAL OUTCOMES

Ages 2 to 5 Years 

Preschool or Head Start enrollment (%) NO

Child care or preschool absences in past month NO

Positive child care or preschool experiences NO

Positive child care or preschool attitudes NO

Child care or preschool conduct problems (%) NO

Ages 2 Years to 5 Years, 6 Months

Met developmental milestones (%) NO

Ages 3 Years, 6 Months to 7 Years

Verbal ability NO

Math ability NO
D-4

Outcome Measured at 78 

Months

Executive functioning (self-regulation) NO

Ages 5 to 17 Years 

School enrollment (%) NO

School absences in past month NO

Positive school experiences NO

Positive school attitudes NO

School conduct problems (%) NO

Ages 8 to 17 Years

Anxiety NO

Fears NO

Substance use (%) NO

Goal-oriented thinking NO

School effort in past month NO

Arrests or police involvement in past 6 months (%) NO

RA = random assignment.
D-5

Exhibit D-5. 37-Month Outcomes Measured in 78-Month Survey Data: Self-Sufficiency

Outcome Measured at 78 Months

Employment Status

Work for pay in week before survey (%) YES 

Any work for pay since 20-month survey (%) YES 

Months worked for pay since 20-month survey NO

Any work for pay since RA (%) YES 

Months worked for pay since RA NO

Hours of work per week at current main job NO

Income Sources and Amounts

Annualized current earnings ($) NO

Total family income ($) NO

Anyone in family had earnings in past month (%) NO

Anyone in family received TANF in past month (%) NO

Anyone in family received SSDI in past month (%) NO

Anyone in family received SSI in past month (%) NO

Anyone in family received SNAP/Food Stamps in past month (%) NO

Anyone in family received WIC in past month (%) NO

Education and Training

Participated in 2 weeks or more of any school or training since RA (%) NO

Number of weeks in school/training programs since RA NO

Participated in 2 weeks or more of school since RA (%) NO

Participated in 2 weeks or more of basic education since RA (%) NO

Participated in 2 weeks or more of vocational education since RA (%) NO

Food Security 

Household is food insecure (%) NO

Food insecurity scale NO

Economic Stressors

Economic stress scale NO
D-6

RA = random assignment. TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SSDI = Social Security 

Disability Insurance. SSI = Supplemental Security Income. WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
E-1

Appendix E: Frequencies from the 78-Month Tracking Survey

A2iRFDK What is your Email Address: No EMAIL/Refused/Don’t Know

A2IREFDK_1 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

No Email 184 92.46 184 92.46

Refused 8 4.02 192 96.48

Don't Know 7 3.52 199 100.00

Frequency Missing = 904

A2J_1 What is the best way for us to reach you for future data collection efforts?: Email

A2J_1 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Email 410 100.00 410 100.00

Frequency Missing = 693

A2J_2 What is the best way for us to reach you for future data collection efforts?: Home Phone

A2J_2 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Home Phone 45 100.00 45 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,058

A2J_3 What is the best way for us to reach you for future data collection efforts?: Text

A2J_3 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Text 491 100.00 491 100.00

Frequency Missing = 612

A2J_4 What is the best way for us to reach you for future data collection efforts?: Cell Phone

A2J_4 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Cell Phone 702 100.00 702 100.00

Frequency Missing = 401

A2J_7 What is the best way for us to reach you for future data collection efforts?: Refused

A2J_5 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Refused 0 N/A 0 N/A

Frequency Missing = 1,103
E-2

A2J_8 What is the best way for us to reach you for future data collection efforts?: Don’t Know

A2J_6 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Don't Know 4 100.00 4 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,099

A3a Current living situation: A house or apartment that you own or rent.

A3A Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 915 82.96 915 82.96

No 188 17.04 1103 100.00

Frequency Missing = 0 

A3b Current living situation: Your partner's place.

A3B Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 15 7.98 15 7.98

No 173 92.02 188 100.00

Frequency Missing = 915

A3c Current living situation: A friend or relative's house or apartment and paying part of the rent.

A3C Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 58 33.53 58 33.53

No 115 66.47 173 100.00

Frequency Missing = 930

A3d Current living situation: A friend or relative's house or apartment, BUT NOT paying part of the rent.

A3D Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 47 40.87 47 40.87

No 68 59.13 115 100.00

Frequency Missing = 988

A3e Current living situation: A permanent housing program with services to help you keep your housing (on site or coming to you).

A3E Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 11 16.18 11 16.18

No 56 82.35 67 98.53

Don't Know 1 1.47 68 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,035
E-3

A3e Current living situation: Other (specify) name of permanent housing program.

A3E_1_OTHER Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Bridge to Permanency 1 9.09 1 9.09

Bridgeport SUB transferred from MA 1 9.09 2 18.18

Hawaii Public Housing 1 9.09 3 27.27

Kansas City Housing Authority 1 9.09 4 36.36

Kansas City, KS Housing Authority 1 9.09 5 45.45

Keuiokalani 1 9.09 6 54.55

New Haven Housing Authority 1 9.09 7 63.64

Public Housing 1 9.09 8 72.73

Section 8 2 18.18 10 90.91

Shelter Care Plus 1 9.09 11 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,092

A3f Current living situation: A transitional housing program.

A3F Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 12 21.05 12 21.05

No 45 78.95 57 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,046

A3f Current living situation: Other (specify) name of transitional housing program.

A3F_1_OTHER Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Community Link 1 8.33 1 8.33

Community Teamwork Inc. (CTI) in Lowell, MA 1 8.33 2 16.67

Family Shelter 1 8.33 3 25.00

Hone Inc. Transitional Housing 1 8.33 4 33.33

Loving 1 8.33 5 41.67

Maililand 1 8.33 6 50.00

Matilda Cleveland 1 8.33 7 58.33

Ohana Ola 1 8.33 8 66.67

Onemalu 1 8.33 9 75.00

RAPID RE-HOUSING 1 8.33 10 83.33

YWCA Transitional Living Center 1 8.33 11 91.67

Serenity House 1 8.33 12 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,091
E-4

A3g Current living situation: A domestic violence shelter.

A3G Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 3 6.67 3 6.67

No 42 93.33 45 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,058

A3h Current living situation: An emergency shelter.

A3H Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 14 33.33 14 33.33

No 27 64.29 41 97.62

Refused 1 2.38 42 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,061

A3h Current living situation: Other (specify) emergency shelter.

A3H_1_OTHER Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

CASS 1 7.14 1 7.14

Civic Center 1 7.14 2 14.29

GRIP 1 7.14 3 21.43

Gateway 1 7.14 4 28.57

Harrison House 1 7.14 5 35.71

Midvale Family Road Home Shelter 1 7.14 6 42.86

Midvale Road Home 1 7.14 7 50.00

Salvation Army 2 14.29 9 64.29

Sunrise Village 1 7.14 10 71.43

Waianae Civic Center 1 7.14 11 78.57

adult shelter 1 7.14 12 85.71

che'el 1 7.14 13 92.86

human trafficking 1 7.14 14 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,089

A3i Current living situation: A voucher hotel or motel.

A3I Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 4 14.29 4 14.29

No 24 85.71 28 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,075
E-5

A3j. Current living situation: A hotel or motel you pay for yourself.

A3J Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 5 20.83 5 20.83

No 18 75.00 23 95.83

Don't Know 1 4.17 24 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,079

A3k Current living situation: A residential drug or alcohol treatment program.

A3K Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

No 19 100.00 19 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,084

A3l Current Living situation jail or prison.

A3L Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

No 19 100.00 19 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,084

A3m Current Living situation: A car or other vehicle.

A3M Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 7 36.84 7 36.84

No 12 63.16 19 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,084

A3n Current living situation: An abandoned building.

A3N Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

No 12 100.00 12 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,091

A3o Current living situation: Anywhere outside.

A3O Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 7 58.33 7 58.33

No 5 41.67 12 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,091
E-6

A3P Current living situation: Somewhere else?

A3P Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 4 80.00 4 80.00

No 1 20.00 5 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,098

A3P Current living situation: Somewhere else other (specify)?

A3P_1_OTHER Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

couch surfing 1 25.00 1 25.00

homeless shelter 1 25.00 2 50.00

school dorm 1 25.00 3 75.00

supportive housing 1 25.00 4 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,099

A4A1 How long have you lived in this place: Number of days

A4A1 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Refused 1 0.09 1 0.09

Don't Know 2 0.18 3 0.27

0 1070 97.01 1073 97.28

1 13 1.18 1086 98.46

2 4 0.36 1090 98.82

3 3 0.27 1093 99.09

4 3 0.27 1096 99.37

6 1 0.09 1097 99.46

7 1 0.09 1098 99.55

10 2 0.18 1100 99.73

12 1 0.09 1101 99.82

17 1 0.09 1102 99.91

23 1 0.09 1103 100.00

Frequency Missing = 0 
E-7

A4A2 How long have you lived in this place: Number of weeks

A4A2 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Refused 1 0.09 1 0.09

Don't Know 2 0.18 3 0.27

0 1014 91.93 1017 92.20

1 25 2.27 1042 94.47

2 23 2.09 1065 96.55

3 23 2.09 1088 98.64

4 2 0.18 1090 98.82

5 4 0.36 1094 99.18

6 1 0.09 1095 99.27

8 3 0.27 1098 99.55

9 1 0.09 1099 99.64

10 1 0.09 1100 99.73

11 2 0.18 1102 99.91

51 1 0.09 1103 100.00

Frequency Missing=0
E-8

A4A3 How long have you lived in this place: Number of months

A4A3 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Refused 1 0.09 1 0.09

Don’t Know 2 0.18 3 0.27

0 56 5.08 59 5.35

1 27 2.45 86 7.80

2 38 3.45 124 11.24

3 41 3.72 165 14.96

4 31 2.81 196 17.77

5 35 3.17 231 20.94

6 42 3.81 273 24.75

7 20 1.81 293 26.56

8 23 2.09 316 28.65

9 21 1.90 337 30.55

10 17 1.54 354 32.09

11 16 1.45 370 33.54

12 97 8.79 467 42.34

13 11 1.00 478 43.34

14 11 1.00 489 44.33

15 10 0.91 499 45.24

16 6 0.54 505 45.78

17 1 0.09 506 45.87

18 37 3.35 543 49.23

19 5 0.45 548 49.68

20 11 1.00 559 50.68

22 5 0.45 564 51.13

23 1 0.09 565 51.22

24 99 8.98 664 60.20

25 2 0.18 666 60.38

26 4 0.36 670 60.74

27 3 0.27 673 61.02

28 5 0.45 678 61.47

29 4 0.36 682 61.83

30 18 1.63 700 63.46

33 2 0.18 702 63.64

34 7 0.63 709 64.28

35 3 0.27 712 64.55

36 84 7.62 796 72.17

37 1 0.09 797 72.26

38 3 0.27 800 72.53

39 1 0.09 801 72.62

40 3 0.27 804 72.89
E-9

A4A3 How long have you lived in this place: Number of months

A4A3 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

42 14 1.27 818 74.16

43 1 0.09 819 74.25

45 9 0.82 828 75.07

46 3 0.27 831 75.34

47 4 0.36 835 75.70

48 55 4.99 890 80.69

49 1 0.09 891 80.78

50 6 0.54 897 81.32

52 4 0.36 901 81.69

53 1 0.09 902 81.78

54 14 1.27 916 83.05

55 1 0.09 917 83.14

56 2 0.18 919 83.32

58 3 0.27 922 83.59

60 58 5.26 980 88.85

62 2 0.18 982 89.03

63 12 1.09 994 90.12

64 1 0.09 995 90.21

65 2 0.18 997 90.39

66 2 0.18 999 90.57

67 2 0.18 1001 90.75

69 1 0.09 1002 90.84

70 6 0.54 1008 91.39

71 4 0.36 1012 91.75

72 43 3.90 1055 95.65

73 2 0.18 1057 95.83

74 2 0.18 1059 96.01

75 1 0.09 1060 96.10

76 2 0.18 1062 96.28

78 3 0.27 1065 96.55

80 4 0.36 1069 96.92

81 3 0.27 1072 97.19

82 3 0.27 1075 97.46

84 17 1.54 1092 99.00

86 1 0.09 1093 99.09

92 1 0.09 1094 99.18

96 9 0.82 1103 100.00

Frequency Missing = 0 
E-10

A5. Do you currently receive any governmental housing assistance such as through Public Housing, Section 8, or Housing Choice Voucher?

A5 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 536 48.59 536 48.59

No 564 51.13 1100 99.73

Refused 1 0.09 1101 99.82

Don't Know 2 0.18 1103 100.00

Frequency Missing = 0 

A6. Are you paying lower rent because the Federal, State, or local government is paying for part of your rent?

A6 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 29 5.11 29 5.11

No 535 94.36 564 99.47

Refused 1 0.18 565 99.65

Don't Know 2 0.35 567 100.00

Frequency Missing = 536
E-11

A6a. What is the name of the program that provides your housing assistance?

A6A Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

ABC Housing 1 0.18 1 0.18

Alameda Point Collaborative 1 0.18 2 0.36

Allegany County Section 8 1 0.18 3 0.54

Allen Hill Apartments 1 0.18 4 0.73

Allen Hills Apartments 1 0.18 5 0.91

Alliance St Lutheran Social Services 1 0.18 6 1.09

Atlanta Children Shelter 1 0.18 7 1.27

Atlanta Housing Authority 5 0.91 12 2.18

Atlanta Public Housing 1 0.18 13 2.36

Atlanta Section A 1 0.18 14 2.54

Austin SUB 1 0.18 15 2.72

BOSTON HOUSING 14 2.54 29 5.26

BOSTON HOUSING - Transfer 1 0.18 30 5.44

BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY 7 1.27 37 6.72

BRIDGEPORT HOUSING 1 0.18 38 6.90

Baltimore County Shelter 1 0.18 39 7.08

Barkley Homes 1 0.18 40 7.26

Bash Housing Program 1 0.18 41 7.44

Boston Housing 23 4.17 64 11.62

Boston Housing - Georgetowne Development 1 0.18 65 11.80

Boston Housing Authority 1 0.18 66 11.98

Bridge to Permanency Program 1 0.18 67 12.16

CASS 1 0.18 68 12.34

COC housing Road Home 1 0.18 69 12.52

COC road home housing 1 0.18 70 12.70

CSB COBB SHELTER PLUS CARE 1 0.18 71 12.89

Charlestown Housing Authority 1 0.18 72 13.07

City of Mesa HUD Housing Program 1 0.18 73 13.25

City of Phoenix SUB 3 0.54 76 13.79

Coalition 1 0.18 77 13.97

Colorado Coalition 1 0.18 78 14.16

Community Housing Resources - Lottery 1 0.18 79 14.34

Community Links 1 0.18 80 14.52

County 1 0.18 81 14.70

Cowley County Housing Authority 1 0.18 82 14.88

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 1 0.18 83 15.06

DHCD 1 0.18 84 15.25

DeKalb County Housing Authority 1 0.18 85 15.43

DeKalb Housing Authority 1 0.18 86 15.61

Denver Housing 1 0.18 87 15.79
E-12

A6a. What is the name of the program that provides your housing assistance?

A6A Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Douglas County Housing Authority 1 0.18 88 15.97

Englewood Housing 1 0.18 89 16.15

Everett Housing Authority 1 0.18 90 16.33

Family Service 1 0.18 91 16.52

Family Tree 2 0.36 93 16.88

Family Unification Program 1 0.18 94 17.06

Farmer's Program 1 0.18 95 17.24

Fulton County 1 0.18 96 17.42

Fulton County Housing Authority 1 0.18 97 17.60

GOLD MARK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 1 0.18 98 17.79

GRH 1 0.18 99 17.97

Georgia Housing 1 0.18 100 18.15

Glendale Public Housing 1 0.18 101 18.33

Glendour group- new haven housing authority 1 0.18 102 18.51

Gulf Breeze 1 0.18 103 18.69

HAWAI PUBLIC HOUSING 1 0.18 104 18.87

HOPE ATLANTA 1 0.18 105 19.06

HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER 1 0.18 106 19.24

HPH 4 0.73 110 19.96

HPHA 1 0.18 111 20.15

HSP Program, but expiring in 5 days so potentially homeless again 1 0.18 112 20.33

HUD 12 2.18 124 22.50

HUD Housing Leavenworth, KS 1 0.18 125 22.69

HUD Reduced Rent 1 0.18 126 22.87

HUD VASH 1 0.18 127 23.05

Haverhill Housing 1 0.18 128 23.23

Hawaii Housing Authority 1 0.18 129 23.41

Hawaii Public Housing 1 0.18 130 23.59

Hawaii Public Housing Authority 4 0.73 134 24.32

Hawthorne Low Income Rent 1 0.18 135 24.50

Home Inc. 1 0.18 136 24.68

Homes with Hope 1 0.18 137 24.86

Housing Authority 2 0.36 139 25.23

Housing Authority of New Mexico 1 0.18 140 25.41

Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles 1 0.18 141 25.59

Housing Choice Voucher 1 0.18 142 25.77

Housing Choice Voucher 1 0.18 143 25.95

Housing Choice Voucher DHA 1 0.18 144 26.13

Housing Choice Voucher 1 0.18 145 26.32

Housing Choice Voucher 1 0.18 146 26.50
E-13

A6a. What is the name of the program that provides your housing assistance?

A6A Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Housing: Section 8 - Voucher 1 0.18 147 26.68

Indiana Housing Authority 1 0.18 148 26.86

J D’Amelia 1 0.18 149 27.04

KAHILI Valley Homes 1 0.18 150 27.22

KAM IV 1 0.18 151 27.40

KAM IV Housing 1 0.18 152 27.59

KPT Housing 1 0.18 153 27.77

KPT Housing Authority 1 0.18 154 27.95

KTA Housing Authority, Kalihi Valley Homes 1 0.18 155 28.13

Kalihi Valley Authority 1 0.18 156 28.31

Kam IV 1 0.18 157 28.49

Kansas City Housing Authority 3 0.54 160 29.04

KeyStone Apartments 1 0.18 161 29.22

Kuhio Park Terrace 1 0.18 162 29.40

Kuhio Park Terrace B 1 0.18 163 29.58

LAWRENCE HOUSING 1 0.18 164 29.76

Leading the Way to Housing - Boston 1 0.18 165 29.95

Liberty Housing Authority 1 0.18 166 30.13

Low Income Housing 1 0.18 167 30.31

Low Income 1 0.18 168 30.49

MADISON PARK HOUSING 1 0.18 169 30.67

MSHDA 1 0.18 170 30.85

Mandela Gateway Apartments 1 0.18 171 31.03

Marian House 1 0.18 172 31.22

Maricopa County SUB 1 0.18 173 31.40

Maricopa SUB 4 0.73 177 32.12

Maricopa SUB 1 0.18 178 32.30

Marks Development 1 0.18 179 32.49

Mayor Wright Hawaii Public Housing 1 0.18 180 32.67

Mayor Wrights 1 0.18 181 32.85

Metro HRA 1 0.18 182 33.03

Metro Housing 1 0.18 183 33.21

Metro West 1 0.18 184 33.39

Modern Rehab Housing 1 0.18 185 33.58

Nanakuli Public Housing 1 0.18 186 33.76

Native American Connection SUB Housing 1 0.18 187 33.94

New Haven Housing 1 0.18 188 34.12

OACAC 1 0.18 189 34.30

Oakland Housing Authority, Public Housing 1 0.18 190 34.48

Onemalu Transitional Shelter 1 0.18 191 34.66
E-14

A6a. What is the name of the program that provides your housing assistance?

A6A Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

PK Management-Subsidized Housing 1 0.18 192 34.85

PPL 1 0.18 193 35.03

Palolo Housing 1 0.18 194 35.21

Palolo Project 50 1 0.18 195 35.39

Palolo Section 8 1 0.18 196 35.57

Palolo Valley Housing 1 0.18 197 35.75

Perkins Homes 1 0.18 198 35.93

Phoenix Section 8 1 0.18 199 36.12

Phoenix Sub 1 0.18 200 36.30

Pinal County Housing Department 1 0.18 201 36.48

Pololo Housing 1 0.18 202 36.66

Prichard Housing Board 1 0.18 203 36.84

Project Base 1 0.18 204 37.02

Project Base Voucher 1 0.18 205 37.21

Public Housing 2 0.36 207 37.57

Public Housing Authority Subsidy Program 1 0.18 208 37.75

Public Housing on School St. 1 0.18 209 37.93

Puuwai Momi Housing 1 0.18 210 38.11

R said she is waiting for Section 8 1 0.18 211 38.29

RAP 1 0.18 212 38.48

RAPID RE-HOUSING 1 0.18 213 38.66

Renaissance 88- under HUD 1 0.18 214 38.84

Road Home Palmer Court Section 8 Housing 1 0.18 215 39.02

Road House Continuum Care Housing 1 0.18 216 39.20

Rowan Homes 1 0.18 217 39.38

SECTION 8 1 0.18 218 39.56

Section 8 New Haven Housing Authority 1 0.18 219 39.75

SL County Section 8 Housing, SL County Public Housing 1 0.18 220 39.93

Salt Lake County Housing 2 0.36 222 40.29

Salt Lake County Section 8 1 0.18 223 40.47

Salt Lake County Section 8 Voucher 1 0.18 224 40.65

Salt Lake County Section 8 voucher 1 0.18 225 40.83

Scattered Sites 1 0.18 226 41.02

Section 8 41 7.44 267 48.46

Section 8 Arlington Housing Authority 1 0.18 268 48.64

Section 8 Beaumont Housing 1 0.18 269 48.82

Section 8 Choice Voucher 1 0.18 270 49.00

Section 8 HUD 1 0.18 271 49.18

Section 8 Housing 2 0.36 273 49.55

Section 8 Voucher 2 0.36 275 49.91
E-15

A6a. What is the name of the program that provides your housing assistance?

A6A Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Section 8 Shelter Plus 1 0.18 276 50.09

Section 8 Voucher Kansas City Housing Authority 1 0.18 277 50.27

Section 8-Choice Voucher-Salt Lake County 1 0.18 278 50.45

Section A Housing 1 0.18 279 50.64

Section House Choice Voucher 1 0.18 280 50.82

Shelter Care Plus 1 0.18 281 51.00

Shelter Care Voucher 1 0.18 282 51.18

Shelter Plus 2 0.36 284 51.54

Shelter Plus Care 2 0.36 286 51.91

TANF like cal works (gets $ & pays the rent) 1 0.18 287 52.09

TMC Voucher 1 0.18 288 52.27

The Georgia Department of Community Affairs 1 0.18 289 52.45

The Oklahoma City Housing Authority 1 0.18 290 52.63

Tide Water Apartments 1 0.18 291 52.81

Utah Housing-Road Home 1 0.18 292 52.99

Villages of Moa’e-Ku Low Income 1 0.18 293 53.18

Voucher 1 0.18 294 53.36

Voucher Cambrahill Townhomes 1 0.18 295 53.54

WELLESLEY HOUSING 1 0.18 296 53.72

Waima8a Housing 1 0.18 297 53.90

Waipahu Housing 1 0.18 298 54.08

Wellesley Housing Authority 1 0.18 299 54.26

Women Housing Coalition 1 0.18 300 54.45

Affordable Permanent 1 0.18 301 54.63

Alameda City Section 8 1 0.18 302 54.81

Barton Village 1 0.18 303 54.99

Beechwood Gardens 1 0.18 304 55.17

Berkeley Food & Housing 1 0.18 305 55.35

Berkley Housing 1 0.18 306 55.54

Cal WORKS 1 0.18 307 55.72

Catholic Charities 1 0.18 308 55.90

Eden Housing 1 0.18 309 56.08

Eden, RHP 1 0.18 310 56.26

Elm City 1 0.18 311 56.44

Elm City Community 1 0.18 312 56.62

Family Centers 1 0.18 313 56.81

Federal Housing 1 0.18 314 56.99

Federal Housing Based on Income 1 0.18 315 57.17

Field Fee Continuing with Care 1 0.18 316 57.35

Hawaii Public Housing Kaneohe 1 0.18 317 57.53
E-16

A6a. What is the name of the program that provides your housing assistance?

A6A Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Home Inc. 1 0.18 318 57.71

Housing Authority 2 0.36 320 58.08

Housing Choice Voucher 1 0.18 321 58.26

Housing Choice Voucher Section 8 1 0.18 322 58.44

Housing Choice Voucher Section 8 1 0.18 323 58.62

HUD 1 0.18 324 58.80

HUD Housing 1 0.18 325 58.98

HUD vas 1 0.18 326 59.17

ImmaCare 1 0.18 327 59.35

insperica 1 0.18 328 59.53

J D’Amelia and Assoc. 1 0.18 329 59.71

Jordan's House 1 0.18 330 59.89

Long Term Support of Housing, Shelter Care Plus 1 0.18 331 60.07

Low Income Housing 1 0.18 332 60.25

Low Market Rate 1 0.18 333 60.44

New Haven Housing 1 0.18 334 60.62

New Housing Authority 1 0.18 335 60.80

Norwalk housing authority 1 0.18 336 60.98

Norwalk Housing Authority 1 0.18 337 61.16

Project Base Housing 1 0.18 338 61.34

Project Based Section 8 1 0.18 339 61.52

Public Housing 8 1.45 347 62.98

Public Housing Punchbowl Homes 1 0.18 348 63.16

Public Program 1 0.18 349 63.34

RAP 1 0.18 350 63.52

RAP Program 1 0.18 351 63.70

ReStart 1 0.18 352 63.88

Road Home Section 8 Housing 1 0.18 353 64.07

Salt Lake County Housing 2 0.36 355 64.43

Salt Lake County Authority Section 8 1 0.18 356 64.61

Scatter Site Section 8 1 0.18 357 64.79

Season of Sharing 1 0.18 358 64.97

Section 8 1 0.18 359 65.15

Section 8 1 0.18 360 65.34

Section 8 1 0.18 361 65.52

Section 8 3 0.54 364 66.06

Section 8 159 28.86 523 94.92

Section 8 HUD 1 0.18 524 95.10

Section 8 House choice voucher 1 0.18 525 95.28

Section 8 So. NV Regional Housing Authority 1 0.18 526 95.46
E-17

A6a. What is the name of the program that provides your housing assistance?

A6A Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Section 8 Alameda City HA 1 0.18 527 95.64

Section 8 Alameda City Housing 1 0.18 528 95.83

Section 8 Alameda Housing 1 0.18 529 96.01

Section 8 Voucher 1 0.18 530 96.19

Section 8 Contra Costa Housing 1 0.18 531 96.37

Section 8 Housing 1 0.18 532 96.55

Section 8 of West Valley 1 0.18 533 96.73

Section 8 1 0.18 534 96.91

Shelter + Care 4 0.73 538 97.64

Shelter Care Plus 1 0.18 539 97.82

Shelter Plus Care 2 0.36 541 98.19

Shelter Plus Care- Road Home 1 0.18 542 98.37

St Stevens 1 0.18 543 98.55

Supportive Housing 1 0.18 544 98.73

The Connection 1 0.18 545 98.91

Through Daughter’s School - They Help Pay for Some of It 1 0.18 546 99.09

Trumbull Gardens 1 0.18 547 99.27

Trumbull Gardens 1 0.18 548 99.46

Voucher 1 0.18 549 99.64

Waterbury Housing Authority 1 0.18 550 99.82

Youth Continuum 1 0.18 551 100.00

Frequency Missing = 552

A6ARFDK. What is the name of the program that provides your housing assistance?: Refused /Don’t Know

A6AREFDK_1 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Don't Know 14 100.00 14 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,089
E-18

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

A6B Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Public Housing 97 17.17 97 17.17

Section 8/Housing Voucher 335 59.29 432 76.46

Section 8/HVC Project 33 5.84 465 82.30

Transitional Housing 9 1.59 474 83.89

Low Income Housing 47 8.32 521 92.21

HomeBASE 5 0.88 526 93.10

Other Housing Assistance 27 4.78 553 97.88

Don't Know 12 2.12 565 100.00

Frequency Missing = 538
E-19

A6b Is this assistance a Section 8 or Housing Choice Voucher, or is the building you live in a public housing or a Section 8 Project, or some other assistance?:

Other type specify

A6B_95_OTHER Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

HSP 1 3.70 1 3.70

HUD 1 3.70 2 7.41

HUD Voucher 1 3.70 3 11.11

Holmeinc 1 3.70 4 14.81

Mental Health 1 3.70 5 18.52

PPL 1 3.70 6 22.22

Shelter Plus Care 1 3.70 7 25.93

TANF (Then Pays for Rent) 1 3.70 8 29.63

Temporary Assistance Income Based that Phases Out 1 3.70 9 33.33

Truman Medical Center Voucher Program 1 3.70 10 37.04

Woman Housing Coalition 1 3.70 11 40.74

Affordable Housing 1 3.70 12 44.44

Shelter + Care 1 3.70 13 48.15

Cheaper Rent 1 3.70 14 51.85

Daughter’s School 1 3.70 15 55.56

Group Residential Housing 1 3.70 16 59.26

Housing Plus Utilities 1 3.70 17 62.96

Local HUD Program 1 3.70 18 66.67

Low-Income 1 3.70 19 70.37

Mom's House 1 3.70 20 74.07

Reduced Rent According to Income (R has been in program for 5 years) 1 3.70 21 77.78

Rent goes 100 percent to Landlord 1 3.70 22 81.48

Shelter + Care 1 3.70 23 85.19

Shelter Plus Care 1 3.70 24 88.89

Subsidized Housing 1 3.70 25 92.59

Supportive Housing 1 3.70 26 96.30

Shelter + Care 1 3.70 27 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,076

A7. Were there any times you were homeless in the last 6 months?

A7 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 127 11.51 127 11.51

No 974 88.30 1101 99.82

Refused 2 0.18 1103 100.00

Frequency Missing = 0 
E-20

A8. How many times were you homeless in the last 6 months?

A8_1 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Don’t Know 4 3.15 4 3.15

1 94 74.02 98 77.17

2 14 11.02 112 88.19

3 4 3.15 116 91.34

4 5 3.94 121 95.28

5 1 0.79 122 96.06

6 5 3.94 127 100.00

Frequency Missing = 976

A8A. What would you say is the total number of days, weeks, or months you have been homeless in the past 6 months.: Days

A8A_1 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Refused 1 0.81 1 0.81

Don’t Know 2 1.63 3 2.44

0 111 90.24 114 92.68

1 1 0.81 115 93.50

120 1 0.81 116 94.31

13 1 0.81 117 95.12

3 1 0.81 118 95.93

30 1 0.81 119 96.75

4 1 0.81 120 97.56

5 1 0.81 121 98.37

60 2 1.63 123 100.00

Frequency Missing = 980
E-21

A8A. What would you say is the total number of days, weeks, or months you have been homeless in the past 6 months.: Weeks

A8A_2 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Refused 1 0.81 1 0.81

Don't Know 2 1.63 3 2.44

0 105 85.37 108 87.80

1 4 3.25 112 91.06

2 6 4.88 118 95.93

3 2 1.63 120 97.56

5 1 0.81 121 98.37

6 1 0.81 122 99.19

8 1 0.81 123 100.00

Frequency Missing = 980

A8A. What would you say is the total number of days, weeks, or months you have been homeless in the past 6 months.: Months

A8A_3 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Refused 1 0.81 1 0.81

Don't Know 2 1.63 3 2.44

0 21 17.07 24 19.51

1 20 16.26 44 35.77

12 1 0.81 45 36.59

18 1 0.81 46 37.40

2 10 8.13 56 45.53

3 14 11.38 70 56.91

4 8 6.50 78 63.41

5 4 3.25 82 66.67

6 36 29.27 118 95.93

60 1 0.81 119 96.75

8 2 1.63 121 98.37

9 2 1.63 123 100.00

Frequency Missing = 980

A9. Were there any times in the past 6 months when you were living with a friend or relative because you could not afford a place of your own?

A9 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 169 15.32 169 15.32

No 932 84.50 1101 99.82

Refused 1 0.09 1102 99.91

Don't Know 1 0.09 1103 100.00

Frequency Missing = 0 
E-22

A10. Altogether, how may days, weeks, or months did you spend living with a friend or relative in the past 6 months?: Days

A10_1 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Refused 4 2.37 4 2.37

0 156 92.31 160 94.67

1 1 0.59 161 95.27

10 2 1.18 163 96.45

120 1 0.59 164 97.04

2 2 1.18 166 98.22

3 1 0.59 167 98.82

70 1 0.59 168 99.41

9 1 0.59 169 100.00

Frequency Missing = 934

A10. Altogether, how may days, weeks, or months did you spend living with a friend or relative in the past 6 months?: Weeks

A10_2 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Refused 4 2.37 4 2.37

0 151 89.35 155 91.72

1 1 0.59 156 92.31

2 8 4.73 164 97.04

3 3 1.78 167 98.82

4 1 0.59 168 99.41

6 1 0.59 169 100.00

Frequency Missing = 934
E-23

A10. Altogether, how may days, weeks, or months did you spend living with a friend or relative in the past 6 months?: Months

A10_3 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Refused 4 2.37 4 2.37

0 13 7.69 17 10.06

1 11 6.51 28 16.57

12 7 4.14 35 20.71

14 1 0.59 36 21.30

18 1 0.59 37 21.89

2 16 9.47 53 31.36

24 4 2.37 57 33.73

3 26 15.38 83 49.11

36 1 0.59 84 49.70

4 17 10.06 101 59.76

48 1 0.59 102 60.36

5 17 10.06 119 70.41

6 46 27.22 165 97.63

8 2 1.18 167 98.82

9 2 1.18 169 100.00

Frequency Missing = 934

A11. In the past 6 months have you participated in any housing program other than where you are living now?

A11 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 34 3.08 34 3.08

No 1065 96.55 1099 99.64

Refused 3 0.27 1102 99.91

Don't Know 1 0.09 1103 100.00

Frequency Missing = 0 

A12A. In the past 6 months did you participate in any of the following types of program: Spend at least one night in a shelter?

A12_1 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 13 34.21 13 34.21

No 25 65.79 38 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,065
E-24

A12B. In the past 6 months did you participate in any of the following types of program: In a permanent supportive housing program?

A12_2 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 8 21.05 8 21.05

No 29 76.32 37 97.37

Refused 1 2.63 38 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,065

A12C. In the past 6 months did you participate in any of the following types of program: At least one night in a transitional housing program?

A12_3 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 9 23.68 9 23.68

No 28 73.68 37 97.37

Refused 1 2.63 38 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,065

A12D. In the past 6 months did you participate in any of the following types of program: In a place where you received temporary rental assistance?

A12_4 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 7 18.42 7 18.42

No 30 78.95 37 97.37

Refused 1 2.63 38 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,065

A12E. In the past 6 months did you participate in any of the following types of program: In a place where you received a rent subsidy?

A12_5 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 12 31.58 12 31.58

No 24 63.16 36 94.74

Refused 2 5.26 38 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,065

A12F. In the past 6 months did you participate in any of the following types of program: Received any other form of housing assistance?

A12_6 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 7 18.42 7 18.42

No 29 76.32 36 94.74

Refused 1 2.63 37 97.37

Don't Know 1 2.63 38 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,065
E-25

A12F In the past 6 months did you participate in any of the following types of program: Received any other form of housing assistance: Please specify?

A12O Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Exido Housing 1 14.29 1 14.29

Some type of program that help you get a place, but it wasn't housing. 1 14.29 2 28.57

Travis L Williams Family Services 1 14.29 3 42.86

Utility alliance 1 14.29 4 57.14

Various churches help pay for motel room 1 14.29 5 71.43

church 1 14.29 6 85.71

shelter Safe House 1 14.29 7 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,096

Household Size

HHSIZE Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

1 136 12.33 136 12.33

10 17 1.54 153 13.87

11 9 0.82 162 14.69

12 2 0.18 164 14.87

13 1 0.09 165 14.96

14 1 0.09 166 15.05

15 1 0.09 167 15.14

17 1 0.09 168 15.23

2 222 20.13 390 35.36

3 227 20.58 617 55.94

4 176 15.96 793 71.89

5 142 12.87 935 84.77

6 81 7.34 1016 92.11

7 40 3.63 1056 95.74

8 28 2.54 1084 98.28

9 19 1.72 1103 100.00

Frequency Missing = 0 

C1. Last week, did you do any work for pay?

C1 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 568 51.50 568 51.50

No 533 48.32 1101 99.82

Refused 2 0.18 1103 100.00

Frequency Missing = 0 
E-26

C2 When was the last time you worked for pay?: Month

C2MM Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Never worked for pay 18 3.72 18 3.72

Don't Know 3 0.62 21 4.34

1 73 15.08 94 19.42

2 25 5.17 119 24.59

3 26 5.37 145 29.96

4 26 5.37 171 35.33

5 41 8.47 212 43.80

6 40 8.26 252 52.07

7 20 4.13 272 56.20

8 44 9.09 316 65.29

9 26 5.37 342 70.66

10 54 11.16 396 81.82

11 45 9.30 441 91.12

12 43 8.88 484 100.00

Frequency Missing = 619
E-27

C2 When was the last time you worked for pay?: Year

C2YY Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Never worked for pay 18 3.72 18 3.72

Don't Know 2 0.41 20 4.13

1980 1 0.21 21 4.34

1992 1 0.21 22 4.55

1994 1 0.21 23 4.75

1995 1 0.21 24 4.96

1997 2 0.41 26 5.37

1998 2 0.41 28 5.79

2000 2 0.41 30 6.20

2002 3 0.62 33 6.82

2003 2 0.41 35 7.23

2004 3 0.62 38 7.85

2005 2 0.41 40 8.26

2006 5 1.03 45 9.30

2007 12 2.48 57 11.78

2008 17 3.51 74 15.29

2009 15 3.10 89 18.39

2010 14 2.89 103 21.28

2011 12 2.48 115 23.76

2012 11 2.27 126 26.03

2013 14 2.89 140 28.93

2014 20 4.13 160 33.06

2015 43 8.88 203 41.94

2016 71 14.67 274 56.61

2017 187 38.64 461 95.25

2018 23 4.75 484 100.00

Frequency Missing = 619

C3. Do you own a computer with internet access in the place you are living now?

C3 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 439 39.80 439 39.80

No 664 60.20 1103 100.00

Frequency Missing = 0 
E-28

C4. Do you have access to the internet through your phone or an iPad or tablet device?

C4 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 1014 91.93 1014 91.93

No 89 8.07 1103 100.00

Frequency Missing = 0 

C4a. Do you have access to the internet outside of the place where you are living now?

C4A Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Yes 46 62.16 46 62.16

No 27 36.49 73 98.65

Don't Know 1 1.35 74 100.00

Frequency Missing = 1,029

C5. How often do you access the internet?

C5 Frequency Percent

Cumulative

Frequency

Cumulative

Percent

Every day 810 73.44 810 73.44

4-5 Days Per Week 71 6.44 881 79.87

2-3 Days Per Week 111 10.06 992 89.94

Once A Week 31 2.81 1023 92.75

Less Than Once A Week 40 3.63 1063 96.37

Never 38 3.45 1101 99.82

Don't Know 2 0.18 1103 100.00

Frequency Missing = 0 
F-1

Appendix F: Balance of Baseline Characteristics for Full Sample

Table F-1. Equivalence at Baseline of Full Sample within Three Pairwise Comparisons (SUB 

versus UC, CBRR versus UC, and PBTH versus UC)

Characteristic (percent) SUB UC pvalue CBRR UC pvalue PBTH UC pvalue 

Number of families 599 540 569 575 368 339

Age of family head at RA 

Less than 21 years old 8.0 8.3 0.798 9.0 8.0 0.078 * 8.7 5.6 0.403

21–24 years 21.4 21.1 18.8 20.3 15.5 17.7

25–29 years 23.0 25.0 23.2 23.7 25.5 22.7

30–34 years 19.5 16.3 19.2 15.1 20.9 19.5

35–44 years 19.9 21.1 24.1 23.0 21.5 24.8

45 years and older 8.2 8.1 5.8 9.9 7.9 9.7

Gender 

Female 92.8 92.6 0.882 91.2 93.2 0.201 88.9 92.0 0.154

Male 7.2 7.4 8.8 6.8 11.1 8.0

Marital status 

Single (never marr./wid./sep./div.) 73.5 69.4 0.135 73.6 73.0 0.818 67.1 66.4 0.834

Married or marriage-like situation 26.5 30.6 26.4 27.0 32.9 33.6

Race/ethnicity 

Black/African American, not Hispanic 35.2 37.6 0.634 46.6 43.0 0.439 39.7 39.8 0.978

White, not Hispanic 22.0 22.8 19.0 20.3 20.4 19.2

Hispanic 23.7 23.3 18.1 21.2 15.2 15.9

Other 19.0 16.3 16.3 15.5 24.7 25.1

Educational attainment 

Less than high school diploma 35.6 41.7 0.092 * 33.0 39.1 0.040 ** 36.4 43.1 0.190

High school diploma/GED 38.6 33.7 39.0 32.5 36.1 31.6

More than high school diploma 25.9 24.6 27.9 28.3 27.4 25.4

Number of adults in family 

1 adult 72.3 68.3 0.145 70.7 71.8 0.657 66.3 64.6 0.636

2 or more adults 27.7 31.7 29.3 28.2 33.7 35.4 

Spouse/partner in shelter 25.5 29.6 0.124 26.7 26.4 0.914 30.7 32.2 0.680 

Spouse/partner not present in shelter 10.2 8.7 0.396 10.5 11.1 0.748 10.6 9.4 0.610

Number of children in shelter with family 

1 child 45.1 42.8 0.935 43.4 44.2 0.432 39.9 42.2 0.478

2 children 30.9 31.9 30.6 29.7 28.8 28.3

3 children 15.0 15.2 12.8 15.7 19.0 18.0

4 children or more 9.2 10.2 13.4 10.4 12.2 11.5

Child under age 1 in shelter 15.2 15.7 0.799 16.3 15.0 0.514 17.9 15.9 0.480 

Child ages 1 to 5 in shelter 64.4 64.8 0.895 64.3 61.0 0.247 67.7 61.1 0.068 * 

Child under 18 living elsewhere 25.4 23.1 0.383 23.2 23.7 0.855 24.5 23.9 0.862 

Pregnant at baseline 10.0 8.7 0.449 7.4 8.0 0.692 11.4 10.3 0.644 

Worked for pay last week 13.4 15.4 0.334 18.8 19.3 0.828 19.3 21.2 0.522 

Not worked in past 6 months 58.9 61.5 0.381 54.1 56.2 0.483 56.3 57.8 0.676 

Not worked in past 24 months 31.9 35.0 0.267 27.4 32.0 0.087 * 27.2 32.4 0.127 

Family annual income 

Less than $5,000 32.7 35.0 0.800 30.2 32.9 0.189 28.8 31.3 0.709
F-2

Characteristic (percent) SUB UC pvalue CBRR UC pvalue PBTH UC pvalue 

$5,000–9,999 32.2 30.9 31.8 26.4 27.7 26.5

$10,000–14,999 16.5 17.0 18.5 16.5 19.0 16.5

$15,000–19,999 7.3 8.1 8.8 10.4 12.8 10.9

$20,000–24,999 5.7 4.4 4.4 6.3 6.5 7.7

$25,000 or more 5.5 4.4 6.3 7.5 5.2 7.1

Ever been homeless before 63.6 64.1 0.870 63.4 62.4 0.721 61.7 62.8 0.754 

Ever been doubled up before 84.5 86.7 0.295 85.9 85.7 0.922 82.3 84.4 0.472

Childhood experiences of family head 

Experienced homelessness 16.4 17.4 0.638 15.5 16.2 0.740 16.6 15.6 0.735

In foster care, group home, or institution 28.7 23.5 0.047 ** 26.9 24.5 0.355 31.3 21.5 0.004

**

* 

Experienced intimate partner violence

 as an adult 49.6 48.7 0.768 48.7 50.4 0.549 47.0 49.0 0.605 

Health at baseline 

Any health problems 59.8 61.7 0.513 59.1 64.3 0.063 * 50.8 57.2 0.089 * 

Disability that limits working for pay 22.9 23.0 0.971 20.4 22.1 0.478 20.7 20.4 0.922

Serious psychological distress 23.0 23.0 0.976 18.3 24.9 0.006 *** 20.4 23.3 0.349

PTSD symptom criteria are met 21.9 22.6 0.770 20.9 24.3 0.161 22.6 24.2 0.609

Substance abuse problem (drug/alcohol) 18.9 22.8 0.105 20.7 18.3 0.286 24.5 22.1 0.466 

Past eviction, lease violation, or 

 problems with a landlord 44.6 44.1 0.866 40.6 46.4 0.044 ** 43.5 46.6 0.406 

Ever convicted of a felony 11.5 10.7 0.678 11.4 10.4 0.588 11.4 14.2 0.276

Site 

Alameda County 12.7 13.1 N/A 9.8 8.9 N/A 13.3 13.0 N/A

Atlanta 0.0 0.0 12.8 13.0 11.1 11.5

Baltimore 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.1 4.6 4.1

Boston 10.7 11.9 9.3 9.0 0.0 0.0

Connecticut 7.8 7.8 12.8 12.2 4.9 3.5

Denver 12.7 8.5 1.4 8.2 6.3 6.8

Honolulu 7.2 8.1 7.7 6.6 17.9 19.2

Kansas City 8.8 9.1 5.3 4.7 11.4 10.9

Louisville - 1st RA regime 2.2 2.6 0.7 2.1 2.7 1.8

Louisville - 2nd RA regime 3.2 3.7 2.5 3.1 3.8 3.2

Minneapolis 10.4 11.3 9.1 9.0 1.1 0.0

Phoenix 11.9 12.8 10.9 8.0 17.7 18.3

Salt Lake City - 1st RA regime 10.7 9.1 11.8 9.6 4.3 6.5

 Salt Lake City - 2nd RA regime 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.4 0.8 1.2 

F-test on all characteristics except site F value 

= 0.78 0.840 

F value 

= 1.41 0.044 **

F value 

= 0.94 0.584 

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

UC = usual care.

Notes: F-tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups (using the GLM procedure 

in the SAS statistical package, Type I sum of squares). The F-test reported in the bottom row tests the joint significance 

of all listed characteristics except site in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression uses all listed 

characteristics and site indicators as predictors.

*/**/*** Difference between assignment groups is statistically different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, 

using an F-test.

Source: Family Options Study baseline survey.
F-3

Table F-2. Equivalence at Baseline of Full Sample within Three Pairwise Comparisons (SUB 

versus CBRR, SUB versus PBTH, and CBRR versus PBTH)

Characteristic (percent) SUB CBRR pvalue SUB PBTH pvalue CBRR PBTH pvalue 

Number of families 435 382 256 240 232 239

Age of family head at RA 

Less than 21 years old 8.3 11.0 0.311 6.6 8.3 0.289 5.2 8.4 0.469

21–24 years 19.8 18.6 24.2 17.5 16.4 13.8

25–29 years 24.1 22.5 21.1 27.5 27.6 23.8

30–34 years 20.0 20.2 19.1 20.8 21.1 23.0

35–44 years 18.9 22.0 19.1 18.3 24.1 22.6

45 years and older 9.0 5.8 9.8 7.5 5.6 8.4

Gender 

Female 93.6 90.8 0.138 92.6 88.3 0.107 89.7 89.1 0.850

Male 6.4 9.2 7.4 11.7 10.3 10.9

Marital status 

Single (never marr./wid./sep./div.) 74.5 73.3 0.696 69.9 67.9 0.630 65.1 70.3 0.224

Married or marriage-like situation 25.5 26.7 30.1 32.1 34.9 29.7

Race/ethnicity 

Black/African American, not Hispanic 37.5 40.1 0.758 32.4 34.6 0.311 44.4 43.1 0.902

White, not Hispanic 23.4 23.8 22.3 25.4 16.8 19.2

Hispanic 22.8 19.9 21.5 15.0 13.4 13.8

Other 16.3 16.2 23.8 25.0 25.4 23.8

Educational attainment 

Less than high school diploma 36.3 34.6 0.866 31.6 31.3 0.940 31.5 39.3 0.094 * 

High school diploma/GED 39.1 40.1 41.0 40.0 38.8 30.1

More than high school diploma 24.6 25.4 27.3 28.8 29.7 30.5

Number of adults in family 

1 adult 72.9 70.4 0.429 67.2 66.7 0.902 62.1 69.9 0.072 * 

2 or more adults 27.1 29.6 32.8 33.3 37.9 30.1 

Spouse/partner in shelter 25.3 27.7 0.418 29.7 30.8 0.782 35.8 28.0 0.070 * 

Spouse/partner not present in shelter 11.0 10.2 0.698 10.2 9.6 0.831 9.9 9.6 0.915

Number of children in shelter with family 

1 child 46.2 45.5 0.223 43.8 39.6 0.312 40.9 40.6 0.791

2 children 31.3 31.2 32.8 30.0 30.6 28.5

3 children 13.6 10.7 16.8 20.0 14.7 17.2

4 children or more 9.0 12.8 7.0 10.4 13.8 13.8

Child under age 1 in shelter 15.2 17.3 0.407 17.2 17.1 0.976 16.8 16.3 0.885 

Child ages 1 to 5 in shelter 63.7 66.0 0.487 65.6 70.8 0.214 66.8 65.7 0.796

Child under 18 living elsewhere 26.4 22.5 0.186 27.0 21.7 0.171 28.4 24.7 0.353 

Pregnant at baseline 9.4 8.4 0.594 11.3 12.5 0.688 6.0 10.5 0.079 * 

Worked for pay last week 12.6 16.0 0.167 17.6 15.8 0.604 25.0 22.2 0.468 

Not worked in past 6 months 59.1 56.5 0.456 56.3 56.3 1.000 49.6 55.2 0.216 

Not worked in past 24 months 32.0 28.5 0.280 30.1 27.1 0.462 26.7 28.0 0.749 

Family annual income 

Less than $5,000 34.0 31.7 0.404 31.3 29.6 0.345 27.6 25.9 0.908

$5,000–9,999 30.6 32.5 32.8 29.2 29.7 28.9

$10,000–14,999 17.0 17.8 16.8 19.2 19.4 19.2
F-4

Characteristic (percent) SUB CBRR pvalue SUB PBTH pvalue CBRR PBTH pvalue 

$15,000–19,999 6.2 8.6 7.0 12.1 10.3 13.8

$20,000–24,999 6.2 3.7 6.6 6.7 6.0 6.3

$25,000 or more 6.0 5.8 5.5 3.3 6.9 5.9

Ever been homeless before 64.1 65.2 0.751 64.5 62.5 0.652 61.6 60.3 0.756 

Ever been doubled up before 83.9 86.1 0.368 85.2 81.3 0.245 86.2 83.7 0.441

Childhood experiences of family head 

Experienced homelessness 16.8 17.0 0.928 15.2 15.0 0.942 10.3 15.5 0.095 * 

In foster care, group home, or 

institution 29.9 28.5 0.667 27.0 33.8 0.100 * 25.0 29.7 0.250

Experienced intimate partner violence

 as an adult 48.0 48.4 0.911 50.8 49.6 0.790 40.9 46.4 0.227 

Health at baseline 

Any health problems 58.6 60.2 0.639 58.2 51.3 0.121 53.4 48.5 0.283

Disability that limits working for pay 23.4 21.5 0.491 19.9 22.5 0.483 21.1 20.9 0.957

Serious psychological distress 23.4 18.3 0.068 * 21.5 21.7 0.961 16.8 19.7 0.420

PTSD symptom criteria are met 20.9 20.2 0.784 19.1 22.5 0.358 17.7 21.3 0.313

Substance abuse problem (drug/alcohol) 21.4 21.7 0.902 18.4 24.6 0.092 * 20.7 25.1 0.251 

Past eviction, lease violation, or 

 problems with a landlord 45.5 40.3 0.127 46.1 44.2 0.667 42.2 42.7 0.923 

Ever convicted of a felony 11.7 11.8 0.980 13.3 12.1 0.690 11.2 11.7 0.862

Site 

Alameda County 11.0 13.4 N/A *** 17.2 20.0 N/A 13.4 10.9 N/A

Atlanta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 17.2

Baltimore 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 6.3

Boston 12.2 13.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Connecticut 10.1 10.7 3.1 2.9 4.3 6.7

Denver 11.7 1.3 13.7 8.3 0.9 5.4

Honolulu 3.9 6.0 16.8 16.7 19.0 16.3

Kansas City 6.9 7.9 16.8 17.5 8.2 7.5

Louisville - 1st RA regime 2.8 1.0 1.2 2.9 0.4 2.5

Louisville - 2nd RA regime 4.1 3.4 4.3 5.4 3.4 4.6

Minneapolis 11.7 12.8 0.4 1.3 0.4 1.7

Phoenix 9.7 11.8 19.5 21.3 16.4 14.6

Salt Lake City - 1st RA regime 13.3 14.9 6.6 3.3 9.5 5.0

 Salt Lake City - 2nd RA regime 2.5 2.9 0.4 0.4 1.3 1.3 

F-test on all characteristics except site F value 

= 0.74 0.888 

F value 

= 0.83 0.774 

F value 

= 1.02 0.448 

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

UC = usual care.

Notes: F-tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups (using the GLM procedure in 

the SAS statistical package, Type I sum of squares). The F-test reported in the bottom row tests the joint significance of 

all listed characteristics except site in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression uses all listed 

characteristics and site indicators as predictors.

*/**/*** Difference between assignment groups is statistically different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, 

using an F-test.

Source: Family Options Study baseline survey.
G-1

Appendix G: Balance of Baseline Characteristics for 78-Month 

Respondent Sample

Table G-1. Equivalence at Baseline of 78-Month Survey Sample within Three Pairwise 

Comparisons (SUB versus UC, CBRR versus UC, and PBTH versus UC)

Characteristic (percent) SUB UC pvalue CBRR UC pvalue PBTH UC pvalue 

Number of families 328 245 272 271 162 152

Age of family head at RA 

Less than 21 years old 7.6 9.4 0.770 7.7 8.9 0.194 12.3 4.6 0.263

21–24 years 24.4 19.6 17.3 19.6 14.8 16.4

25–29 years 24.4 26.5 26.1 25.5 25.3 27.6

30–34 years 16.2 16.3 16.9 13.7 19.8 18.4

35–44 years 20.1 19.6 26.1 21.4 18.5 21.1

45 years and older 7.3 8.6 5.9 11.1 9.3 11.8

Gender 

Female 94.5 93.9 0.746 94.1 95.2 0.568 92.6 93.4 0.776

Male 5.5 6.1 5.9 4.8 7.4 6.6

Marital status 

Single (never marr./wid./sep./div.) 74.7 70.2 0.229 76.5 73.4 0.407 66.0 71.7 0.282

Married or marriage-like situation 25.3 29.8 23.5 26.6 34.0 28.3

Race/ethnicity 

Black/African American, not Hispanic 38.1 38.4 0.551 52.6 41.0 0.038 ** 38.9 41.4 0.964

White, not Hispanic 20.1 22.9 18.4 22.9 ** 22.8 21.1

Hispanic 21.0 22.4 14.3 20.3 ** 14.2 14.5

Other 20.7 16.3 14.7 15.9 ** 24.1 23.0

Educational attainment 

Less than high school diploma 33.5 39.2 0.073 * 28.7 36.2 0.066 * 29.6 44.1 0.027 **

High school diploma/GED 40.2 31.0 40.4 31.7 38.3 28.3

More than high school diploma 26.2 29.8 30.9 32.1 32.1 27.6

Number of adults in family 

1 adult 74.4 70.2 0.263 72.4 71.2 0.751 66.0 70.4 0.411

2 or more adults 25.6 29.8 27.6 28.8 34.0 29.6 

Spouse/partner in shelter 24.4 28.2 0.305 25.0 27.7 0.473 30.2 28.3 0.705 

Spouse/partner not present in shelter 11.0 8.6 0.338 8.8 10.3 0.544 8.6 7.9 0.812

Number of children in shelter with family 

1 child 47.9 42.9 0.762 41.9 43.5 0.101 40.1 40.8 0.576

2 children 31.7 33.9 30.9 35.4 31.5 27.6

3 children 12.5 14.3 12.1 12.9 15.4 18.4

4 children or more 8.2 9.0 15.4 8.1 13.0 13.2

Child under age 1 in shelter 14.3 16.3 0.507 16.9 13.7 0.284 15.4 11.8 0.359 

Child ages 1 to 5 in shelter 64.0 64.5 0.908 60.7 63.5 0.494 67.3 60.5 0.216

Child under 18 living elsewhere 22.9 22.0 0.814 21.3 22.1 0.815 18.5 21.7 0.485 

Pregnant at baseline 12.2 8.6 0.161 7.0 7.7 0.730 14.2 8.6 0.119 

Worked for pay last week 14.6 18.4 0.228 19.5 20.7 0.728 16.0 27.0 0.019 **

Not worked in past 6 months 56.1 58.4 0.585 52.9 55.4 0.568 53.7 52.6 0.851 

Not worked in past 24 months 29.6 34.7 0.190 28.7 31.7 0.431 25.9 33.6 0.142 
G-2

Characteristic (percent) SUB UC pvalue CBRR UC pvalue PBTH UC pvalue 

Family annual income 

Less than $5,000 33.8 36.7 0.923 31.6 35.4 0.573 30.9 35.5 0.652

$5,000–9,999 31.7 29.8 29.4 24.7 28.4 23.7

$10,000–14,999 16.2 15.5 19.5 17.0 16.7 17.1

$15,000–19,999 7.9 8.6 8.5 11.8 12.3 11.8

$20,000–24,999 6.1 4.5 4.4 4.8 7.4 4.6

$25,000 or more 4.3 4.9 6.6 6.3 4.3 7.2

Ever been homeless before 64.0 64.5 0.908 63.6 62.4 0.761 61.1 63.8 0.625 

Ever been doubled up before 85.1 89.0 0.169 88.6 86.3 0.420 80.9 86.8 0.155

Childhood experiences of family head 

Experienced homelessness 17.7 21.6 0.234 15.1 20.3 0.106 20.4 20.4 0.996

In foster care, group home, or institution 28.0 25.3 0.461 25.0 27.7 0.473 34.6 18.4 0.001 ***

Experienced intimate partner violence

 as an adult 50.9 51.0 0.980 49.6 52.0 0.571 49.4 55.3 0.301 

Health at baseline 

Any health problems 61.6 68.2 0.102 62.9 71.2 0.035 ** 52.5 66.4 0.012 **

Disability that limits working for pay 22.3 23.7 0.688 16.9 22.9 0.077 * 20.4 25.0 0.332

Serious psychological distress 21.3 23.3 0.581 16.9 25.8 0.010 *** 23.5 23.0 0.929

PTSD symptom criteria are met 20.4 22.4 0.556 21.3 22.1 0.815 22.8 24.3 0.756

Substance abuse problem (drug/alcohol) 20.7 21.2 0.885 18.8 18.1 0.838 19.1 17.1 0.644 

Past eviction, lease violation, or 

 problems with a landlord 44.5 51.4 0.098 * 43.0 51.7 0.041 ** 42.6 49.3 0.234 

Ever convicted of a felony 12.5 11.4 0.695 9.6 10.3 0.760 10.5 11.8 0.707

Site 

Alameda County 14.3 10.6 N/A * 9.9 8.1 N/A 13.0 10.5 N/A

Atlanta 0.0 0.0 15.8 11.8 13.0 10.5

Baltimore 0.0 0.0 2.9 2.6 4.3 4.6

Boston 8.2 11.8 7.0 9.6 0.0 0.0

Connecticut 10.1 7.3 14.3 9.2 4.9 3.3

Denver 13.1 10.6 1.5 10.0 9.3 10.5

Honolulu 7.0 8.6 7.4 7.0 16.0 19.7

Kansas City 8.2 7.8 4.4 4.8 14.2 8.6

Louisville - 1st RA regime 1.2 4.1 0.7 3.0 2.5 3.3

Louisville - 2nd RA regime 1.8 6.5 2.6 4.8 5.6 5.9

Minneapolis 11.6 11.4 9.9 8.9 0.0 0.0

Phoenix 11.3 9.8 8.8 8.1 12.3 13.8

Salt Lake City - 1st RA regime 10.7 8.6 11.4 8.5 4.3 6.6

 Salt Lake City - 2nd RA regime 2.4 2.9 3.3 3.7 0.6 2.6 

F-test on all characteristics except site F value 

= 

0.87 0.707 

F value 

= 

1.34 0.082 * 

F value 

= 

1.56 0.021 **

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

subsidy. UC = usual care. 

Notes: F-tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups (using the GLM procedure in 

the SAS statistical package, Type I sum of squares). The F-test reported in the bottom row tests the joint significance of all 

listed characteristics except site in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression uses all listed characteristics 

and site indicators as predictors.

*/**/*** Difference between assignment groups is statistically different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, 

using an F-test.

Source: Family Options Study baseline survey.
G-3

Table G-2. Equivalence at Baseline of 78-Month Survey Sample within Three Pairwise 

Comparisons (SUB versus CBRR, SUB versus PBTH, and CBRR versus PBTH)

Characteristic (percent) SUB CBRR pvalue SUB PBTH pvalue CBRR PBTH pvalue 

Number of families 231 174 143 110 116 104

Age of family head at RA 

Less than 21 years old 6.5 9.2 0.344 6.3 12.7 0.317 4.3 12.5 0.255

21–24 years 23.8 16.7 25.2 17.3 14.7 12.5

25–29 years 24.2 25.9 25.9 26.4 29.3 24.0

30–34 years 16.5 17.8 15.4 20.0 18.1 21.2

35–44 years 20.3 24.7 18.2 14.5 26.7 21.2

45 years and older 8.7 5.7 9.1 9.1 6.9 8.7

Gender 

Female 94.8 93.7 0.626 93.7 91.8 0.562 93.1 93.3 0.961

Male 5.2 6.3 6.3 8.2 6.9 6.7

Marital status 

Single (never marr./wid./sep./div.) 74.5 77.6 0.465 69.9 68.2 0.765 67.2 68.3 0.870

Married or marriage-like situation 25.5 22.4 30.1 31.8 32.8 31.7

Race/ethnicity 

Black/African American, not Hispanic 39.4 46.6 0.229 38.5 34.5 0.154 51.7 41.3 0.329

White, not Hispanic 22.1 24.7 16.1 27.3 12.9 20.2

Hispanic 19.9 14.9 22.4 16.4 12.1 11.5

Other 18.6 13.8 23.1 21.8 23.3 26.9

Educational attainment 

Less than high school diploma 32.9 30.5 0.871 32.2 26.4 0.563 27.6 32.7 0.526

High school diploma/GED 42.0 43.7 41.3 42.7 39.7 32.7

More than high school diploma 25.1 25.9 26.6 30.9 32.8 34.6

Number of adults in family 

1 adult 73.6 75.3 0.698 67.8 68.2 0.953 62.9 69.2 0.322

2 or more adults 26.4 24.7 32.2 31.8 37.1 30.8 

Spouse/partner in shelter 25.5 23.0 0.552 30.1 27.3 0.626 34.5 29.8 0.456 

Spouse/partner not present in shelter 11.3 9.2 0.499 13.3 10.0 0.422 10.3 6.7 0.337

Number of children in shelter with family 

1 child 48.9 45.4 0.287 46.9 40.9 0.318 43.1 42.3 0.838

2 children 30.3 31.0 35.0 31.8 25.9 29.8

3 children 11.7 9.8 14.0 17.3 14.7 12.5

4 children or more 9.1 14.4 4.9 10.0 16.4 15.4

Child under age 1 in shelter 14.3 19.0 0.205 13.3 16.4 0.491 18.1 13.5 0.344 

Child ages 1 to 5 in shelter 62.3 62.6 0.950 65.7 71.8 0.300 58.6 65.4 0.299

Child under 18 living elsewhere 23.4 20.7 0.518 26.6 13.6 0.012 ** 25.0 18.3 0.225 

Pregnant at baseline 10.8 7.5 0.250 14.0 16.4 0.599 6.0 14.4 0.036 **

Worked for pay last week 13.9 16.1 0.528 17.5 10.0 0.089 * 23.3 20.2 0.578 

Not worked in past 6 months 57.1 57.5 0.947 52.4 57.3 0.443 50.9 51.9 0.874 

Not worked in past 24 months 30.7 31.6 0.850 28.0 30.0 0.723 28.4 26.9 0.799 

Family annual income 

Less than $5,000 35.5 33.9 0.567 32.2 31.8 0.984 31.0 28.8 0.716

$5,000–9,999 30.3 31.6 32.2 29.1 25.0 29.8

$10,000–14,999 16.9 19.5 17.5 17.3 19.8 15.4
G-4

Characteristic (percent) SUB CBRR pvalue SUB PBTH pvalue CBRR PBTH pvalue 

$15,000–19,999 6.1 6.9 7.0 9.1 11.2 15.4

$20,000–24,999 6.1 2.3 7.7 9.1 6.0 6.7

$25,000 or more 5.2 5.7 3.5 3.6 6.9 3.8

Ever been homeless before 64.5 65.5 0.831 65.7 60.0 0.347 66.4 61.5 0.452 

Ever been doubled up before 85.3 90.8 0.093 * 83.9 81.8 0.659 89.7 79.8 0.038 **

Childhood experiences of family head 

Experienced homelessness 18.6 16.7 0.610 16.8 18.2 0.771 11.2 22.1 0.027 **

In foster care, group home, or 

institution 28.6 24.1 0.315 25.9 36.4 0.072 * 23.3 33.7 0.085 * 

Experienced intimate partner violence

 as an adult 48.9 51.1 0.655 51.0 53.6 0.683 41.4 46.2 0.473 

Health at baseline 

Any health problems 61.5 61.5 0.996 60.8 52.7 0.194 57.8 51.0 0.307

Disability that limits working for pay 24.2 18.4 0.156 18.9 22.7 0.452 18.1 19.2 0.829

Serious psychological distress 22.1 16.7 0.173 21.0 25.5 0.401 18.1 23.1 0.357

PTSD symptom criteria are met 19.0 20.1 0.788 15.4 24.5 0.066 * 20.7 19.2 0.786

Substance abuse problem (drug/alcohol) 23.4 20.1 0.430 20.3 20.0 0.956 19.8 17.3 0.630 

Past eviction, lease violation, or 

 problems with a landlord 45.0 41.4 0.462 45.5 46.4 0.885 43.1 39.4 0.577 

Ever convicted of a felony 13.0 10.3 0.413 15.4 11.8 0.415 12.1 10.6 0.726

Site 

Alameda County 11.7 15.5 N/A 19.6 18.2 N/A 11.2 8.7 N/A

Atlanta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.1 20.2

Baltimore 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 5.8

Boston 10.0 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Connecticut 13.4 12.1 2.8 5.5 6.0 6.7

Denver 11.7 1.7 14.7 11.8 0.9 7.7

Honolulu 4.8 6.3 16.1 14.5 17.2 15.4

Kansas City 5.6 6.9 16.8 20.9 6.9 10.6

Louisville - 1st RA regime 1.7 1.1 0.7 2.7 0.0 1.9

Louisville - 2nd RA regime 2.2 3.4 2.1 7.3 4.3 7.7

Minneapolis 13.0 14.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Phoenix 9.1 10.3 19.6 17.3 13.8 8.7

Salt Lake City - 1st RA regime 13.4 12.6 7.0 1.8 12.1 5.8

 Salt Lake City - 2nd RA regime 3.5 4.6 0.7 0.0 0.9 1.0 

F-test on all characteristics except site F value 

= 

0.83 0.773 

F value 

= 

1.14 0.274 

F value 

= 

0.89 0.668 

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

subsidy. UC = usual care.

Notes: F-tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups (using the GLM procedure in 

the SAS statistical package, Type I sum of squares). The F-test reported in the bottom row tests the joint significance of all 

listed characteristics except site in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression uses all listed characteristics 

and site indicators as predictors.

*/**/*** Difference between assignment groups is statistically different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, 

using an F-test.

Source: Family Options Study baseline survey.
H-1

Appendix H: Balance of Baseline Characteristics for Consent-to-UsePII Sample

Table H-1. Equivalence at Baseline of Consent-to-Use-PII Sample within Three Pairwise 

Comparisons (SUB versus UC, CBRR versus UC, and PBTH versus UC)

Characteristic (percent) SUB UC pvalue CBRR UC pvalue PBTH UC pvalue 

Number of families 478 390 434 422 286 258

Age of family head at RA 

Less than 21 years old 8.2 9.2 0.924 9.9 8.5 0.201 9.8 5.4 0.241

21–24 years 22.4 20.8 18.2 20.4 14.0 16.7

25–29 years 22.8 24.1 23.7 22.5 25.9 20.9

30–34 years 18.2 16.2 18.7 15.2 20.6 21.7

35–44 years 20.5 21.0 23.0 22.7 20.6 24.8

45 years and older 7.9 8.7 6.5 10.7 9.1 10.5

Gender 

Female 93.5 92.6 0.583 92.4 93.4 0.578 90.2 93.0 0.241

Male 6.5 7.4 7.6 6.6 9.8 7.0

Marital status 

Single (never marr./wid./sep./div.) 74.1 69.5 0.136 75.3 73.9 0.631 69.6 68.6 0.807

Married or marriage-like situation 25.9 30.5 24.7 26.1 30.4 31.4

Race/ethnicity 

Black/African American, not Hispanic 36.0 37.4 0.948 48.6 42.2 0.299 41.6 41.1 0.965

White, not Hispanic 21.8 22.3 18.4 20.9 19.6 18.2

Hispanic 23.8 22.8 18.0 20.4 14.0 14.3

Other 18.4 17.4 15.0 16.6 24.8 26.4

Educational attainment 

Less than high school diploma 34.9 41.8 0.057 * 31.1 38.9 0.023 ** 36.4 42.2 0.372

High school diploma/GED 39.7 32.6 39.9 32.0 36.0 32.2

More than high school diploma 25.3 25.6 29.0 29.1 27.6 25.6

Number of adults in family 

1 adult 73.2 68.5 0.124 71.7 71.6 0.975 68.5 67.1 0.714

2 or more adults 26.8 31.5 28.3 28.4 31.5 32.9 

Spouse/partner in shelter 24.9 29.7 0.110 25.8 26.8 0.745 28.0 30.2 0.564 

Spouse/partner not present in shelter 9.8 9.2 0.764 9.7 11.4 0.414 9.8 10.9 0.685

Number of children in shelter with family 

1 child 44.8 42.6 0.955 41.7 43.6 0.314 40.9 42.2 0.640

2 children 32.4 32.3 30.9 31.8 29.0 27.5

3 children 14.2 15.6 13.8 15.4 17.8 19.0

4 children or more 8.8 9.5 13.8 9.2 12.2 11.2

Child under age 1 in shelter 14.6 15.9 0.609 16.6 14.5 0.384 18.2 15.5 0.407 

Child ages 1 to 5 in shelter 64.4 65.6 0.711 63.8 62.8 0.752 66.8 60.5 0.127

Child under 18 living elsewhere 24.7 21.8 0.317 22.4 22.0 0.912 23.8 23.3 0.887 

Pregnant at baseline 11.5 8.2 0.107 6.9 8.5 0.370 12.2 9.7 0.346 

Worked for pay last week 13.4 16.9 0.146 18.7 20.6 0.468 17.5 23.3 0.095 * 

Not worked in past 6 months 58.4 59.5 0.739 53.7 54.5 0.809 55.9 57.0 0.809 

Not worked in past 24 months 30.3 34.6 0.179 27.9 31.0 0.305 28.0 32.2 0.288 
H-2

Characteristic (percent) SUB UC pvalue CBRR UC pvalue PBTH UC pvalue 

Family annual income 

Less than $5,000 32.0 35.6 0.844 30.0 33.6 0.121 29.0 31.4 0.925

$5,000–9,999 33.5 29.7 31.8 24.9 27.6 26.4

$10,000–14,999 16.5 16.4 19.8 17.8 19.2 17.1

$15,000–19,999 7.9 8.7 8.5 10.7 12.6 12.4

$20,000–24,999 4.8 4.4 3.7 5.9 6.6 6.2

$25,000 or more 5.2 5.1 6.2 7.1 4.9 6.6

Ever been homeless before 63.2 65.4 0.500 63.4 64.2 0.793 62.9 65.9 0.474 

Ever been doubled up before 84.9 86.2 0.613 87.8 85.8 0.381 82.5 84.1 0.621

Childhood experiences of family head 

Experienced homelessness 14.6 16.9 0.358 15.2 16.8 0.515 15.7 13.6 0.478

In foster care, group home, or institution 28.9 23.6 0.079 * 25.1 25.4 0.935 31.8 21.3 0.006 ***

Experienced intimate partner violence

 as an adult 50.0 49.0 0.764 47.9 51.4 0.302 48.6 51.2 0.552 

Health at baseline 

Any health problems 60.5 62.1 0.632 59.7 66.4 0.041 ** 49.3 58.9 0.025 **

Disability that limits working for pay 23.2 22.8 0.889 18.9 22.3 0.216 21.3 20.9 0.910

Serious psychological distress 22.4 23.1 0.809 16.4 25.4 0.001 *** 21.7 24.4 0.450

PTSD symptom criteria are met 21.1 22.8 0.549 20.7 24.9 0.144 23.4 25.6 0.561

Substance abuse problem (drug/alcohol) 18.8 22.8 0.148 20.3 19.2 0.688 25.9 22.5 0.359 

Past eviction, lease violation, or 

 problems with a landlord 45.6 45.4 0.948 41.9 48.1 0.067 * 44.1 46.1 0.630 

Ever convicted of a felony 11.7 10.5 0.576 10.1 10.7 0.799 10.8 13.6 0.333

Site 

Alameda County 14.4 12.3 N/A 9.0 8.3 N/A 14.0 12.0 N/A

Atlanta 0.0 0.0 12.7 12.8 10.8 12.0

Baltimore 0.0 0.0 4.4 3.8 3.8 5.0

Boston 10.3 12.3 10.1 10.4 0.0 0.0

Connecticut 7.9 6.9 12.2 10.2 4.5 3.1

Denver 12.8 9.2 1.6 8.5 7.0 8.1

Honolulu 7.3 10.0 8.8 7.8 18.5 21.7

Kansas City 8.8 8.7 5.1 4.7 12.2 9.7

Louisville - 1st RA regime 2.1 3.1 0.7 2.4 2.1 1.9

Louisville - 2nd RA regime 2.1 4.4 2.3 3.6 4.5 4.3

Minneapolis 10.5 12.1 9.9 9.7 1.0 0.0

Phoenix 11.1 10.8 10.6 7.3 16.8 14.7

Salt Lake City - 1st RA regime 10.9 7.7 10.4 7.3 4.2 5.8

 Salt Lake City - 2nd RA regime 1.9 2.6 2.3 3.1 0.3 1.6 

F-test on all characteristics except site F value 

= 0.76 0.868 

F value 

= 1.44 0.037 **

F value 

= 0.92 0.620 

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

subsidy. UC = usual care.

Notes: F-tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups (using the GLM procedure in 

the SAS statistical package, Type I sum of squares). The F-test reported in the bottom row tests the joint significance of all 

listed characteristics except site in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression uses all listed characteristics 

and site indicators as predictors.

*/**/*** Difference between assignment groups is statistically different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, 

using an F-test.

Source: Family Options Study baseline survey.
H-3

Table H-2. Equivalence at Baseline of Consent-to-Use-PII Sample within Three Pairwise 

Comparisons (SUB versus CBRR, SUB versus PBTH, and CBRR versus PBTH)

Characteristic (percent) SUB CBRR pvalue SUB PBTH pvalue CBRR PBTH pvalue 

Number of families 343 288 203 195 182 181

Age of family head at RA 

Less than 21 years old 8.5 12.2 0.459 6.9 9.7 0.281 6.6 9.4 0.608

21–24 years 20.4 18.1 24.6 15.9 15.9 12.2

25–29 years 23.3 22.2 21.2 26.2 28.0 25.4

30–34 years 19.0 19.4 18.2 21.0 20.9 22.7

35–44 years 19.8 21.9 19.2 18.5 22.5 21.0

45 years and older 9.0 6.3 9.9 8.7 6.0 9.4

Gender 

Female 93.6 92.0 0.439 92.1 89.2 0.323 90.7 91.2 0.868

Male 6.4 8.0 7.9 10.8 9.3 8.8

Marital status 

Single (never marr./wid./sep./div.) 74.9 75.7 0.822 69.5 69.7 0.951 64.8 73.5 0.074 * 

Married or marriage-like situation 25.1 24.3 30.5 30.3 35.2 26.5

Race/ethnicity 

Black/African American, not Hispanic 38.5 43.1 0.565 35.0 37.4 0.277 46.2 43.6 0.959

White, not Hispanic 23.0 23.6 20.2 24.6 16.5 17.7

Hispanic 23.0 20.1 22.2 14.9 11.5 12.7

Other 15.5 13.2 22.7 23.1 25.8 26.0

Educational attainment 

Less than high school diploma 35.6 34.0 0.919 31.0 31.3 0.863 29.1 39.2 0.080 * 

High school diploma/GED 39.9 41.0 42.4 40.0 38.5 29.3

More than high school diploma 24.5 25.0 26.6 28.7 32.4 31.5

Number of adults in family 

1 adult 73.2 71.9 0.711 67.5 69.7 0.629 62.1 72.4 0.036 **

2 or more adults 26.8 28.1 32.5 30.3 37.9 27.6 

Spouse/partner in shelter 25.1 26.0 0.778 30.0 27.2 0.528 35.7 25.4 0.033 **

Spouse/partner not present in shelter 10.5 9.0 0.532 10.8 10.8 0.983 10.4 8.3 0.481

Number of children in shelter with family 

1 child 45.5 43.4 0.291 43.3 40.5 0.360 41.2 42.5 0.785

2 children 32.7 31.9 34.5 30.8 29.1 26.0

3 children 12.8 11.5 16.3 18.5 14.3 16.6

4 children or more 9.0 13.5 6.4 10.3 15.4 14.9

Child under age 1 in shelter 15.2 18.4 0.270 15.8 16.4 0.861 17.0 16.6 0.907 

Child ages 1 to 5 in shelter 63.0 65.3 0.543 66.5 70.3 0.422 65.9 65.2 0.882

Child under 18 living elsewhere 25.4 20.1 0.116 28.1 21.5 0.132 28.0 22.7 0.239 

Pregnant at baseline 10.8 8.0 0.226 13.3 13.3 0.992 6.6 11.6 0.096 * 

Worked for pay last week 13.1 16.0 0.304 16.3 12.8 0.333 23.6 21.5 0.635 

Not worked in past 6 months 58.3 54.9 0.378 56.7 56.9 0.956 50.5 54.1 0.492 

Not worked in past 24 months 30.3 29.2 0.749 28.6 28.2 0.936 29.7 28.2 0.753 

Family annual income 

Less than $5,000 33.8 31.3 0.481 29.6 30.3 0.596 26.9 27.6 0.854

$5,000–9,999 32.4 33.3 33.5 28.7 29.7 29.3

$10,000–14,999 16.9 19.4 17.7 19.0 21.4 18.2
H-4

Characteristic (percent) SUB CBRR pvalue SUB PBTH pvalue CBRR PBTH pvalue 

$15,000–19,999 6.4 8.3 7.4 11.8 10.4 13.3

$20,000–24,999 5.0 2.4 6.9 7.2 4.4 6.1

$25,000 or more 5.5 5.2 4.9 3.1 7.1 5.5

Ever been homeless before 63.8 64.2 0.918 65.5 62.1 0.473 64.3 62.4 0.713 

Ever been doubled up before 84.5 88.2 0.180 84.7 81.5 0.396 90.1 83.4 0.059 * 

Childhood experiences of family head 

Experienced homelessness 14.6 17.0 0.396 14.3 14.4 0.983 11.0 16.0 0.159

In foster care, group home, or institution 29.4 26.0 0.336 27.6 33.8 0.177 23.6 31.5 0.093 * 

Experienced intimate partner violence

 as an adult 48.1 48.3 0.968 50.2 49.7 0.920 41.2 48.1 0.188 

Health at baseline 

Any health problems 59.2 60.1 0.819 59.6 51.3 0.095 * 52.7 45.9 0.187

Disability that limits working for pay 23.9 19.8 0.208 20.2 23.6 0.414 19.2 21.0 0.675

Serious psychological distress 22.7 16.3 0.041 ** 21.2 22.6 0.740 14.8 22.1 0.073 * 

PTSD symptom criteria are met 19.2 20.1 0.775 18.7 24.1 0.191 17.6 22.1 0.279

Substance abuse problem (drug/alcohol) 21.3 21.2 0.975 18.7 27.7 0.034 ** 20.9 25.4 0.304 

Past eviction, lease violation, or 

 problems with a landlord 46.6 41.3 0.174 44.8 46.2 0.791 44.0 41.4 0.627 

Ever convicted of a felony 11.7 11.1 0.826 14.3 11.8 0.463 11.0 11.0 0.985

Site 

Alameda County 12.0 12.8 N/A *** 19.7 20.0 N/A 11.0 11.0 N/A

Atlanta 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.7 17.1

Baltimore 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 5.5

Boston 12.2 15.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Connecticut 10.5 10.1 1.5 2.6 4.9 6.6

Denver 11.1 1.4 14.3 8.7 0.5 5.5

Honolulu 4.7 6.9 17.2 16.4 20.9 18.2

Kansas City 6.4 7.6 17.7 17.9 7.7 7.7

Louisville - 1st RA regime 2.6 1.0 1.5 2.6 0.5 1.7

Louisville - 2nd RA regime 2.6 3.1 3.0 6.2 2.7 6.1

Minneapolis 12.2 14.2 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.7

Phoenix 9.6 11.8 18.2 21.5 15.9 13.3

Salt Lake City - 1st RA regime 13.4 12.5 5.9 3.1 9.3 5.0

 Salt Lake City - 2nd RA regime 2.6 3.1 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.6 

F-test on all characteristics except site F value 

= 0.80 0.808 

F value 

= 0.83 0.770 

F value 

= 1.05 0.388 

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

subsidy. UC = usual care.

Notes: F-tests are used to test for significant differences in the proportions between groups (using the GLM procedure in the 

SAS statistical package, Type I sum of squares). The F-test reported in the bottom row tests the joint significance of all listed 

characteristics except site in a regression predicting assignment group. The regression uses all listed characteristics and site 

indicators as predictors.

*/**/*** Difference between assignment groups is statistically different from zero at the .10/.05/.01 levels, respectively, using 

an F-test.

Source: Family Options Study baseline survey.
I-1

Appendix I: NDNH Impacts on Earnings and Employment by 

Calendar Quarter 

Exhibit I-1. SUB vs. UC: Impact on Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random 

Assignment, with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

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

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

-12.0%

-10.0%

-8.0%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Impact on Percent Employed (pp)

Quarter after RA
I-2

Exhibit I-2. SUB vs. UC: Impact on Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment, 

with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

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

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

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Impact on Earnings (2018Q4$)

Quarter after RA
I-3

Exhibit I-3. CBRR vs. UC: Impact on Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random 

Assignment, with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

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

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

-12.0%

-10.0%

-8.0%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Impact on Percent Employed (pp)

Quarter after RA
I-4

Exhibit I-4. CBRR vs. UC: Impact on Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment, 

with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

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

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

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Impact on Earnings (2018Q4$)

Quarter after RA
I-5

Exhibit I-5. PBTH vs. UC: Impact on Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random 

Assignment, with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

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

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

-16.0%

-14.0%

-12.0%

-10.0%

-8.0%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Impact on Percent Employed (pp)

Quarter after RA
I-6

Exhibit I-6. PBTH vs. UC: Impact on Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment, 

with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

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

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

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Impact on Earnings (2018Q4$)

Quarter after RA
I-7

Exhibit I-7. SUB vs. CBRR: Impact on Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random 

Assignment, with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

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

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

-16.0%

-14.0%

-12.0%

-10.0%

-8.0%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Impact on Percent Employed (pp)

Quarter after RA
I-8

Exhibit I-8. SUB vs. CBRR: Impact on Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random 

Assignment, with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

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

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

-1200

-1000

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Impact on Earnings (2018Q4$)

Quarter after RA
I-9

Exhibit I-9. SUB vs. PBTH: Impact on Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random 

Assignment, with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

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

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

-16.0%

-14.0%

-12.0%

-10.0%

-8.0%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Impact on Percent Employed (pp)

Quarter after RA
I-10

Exhibit I-10. SUB vs. PBTH: Impact on Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random Assignment, 

with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

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

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

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Impact on Earnings (2018Q4$)

Quarter after RA
I-11

Exhibit I-11. CBRR vs. PBTH: Impact on Percent Employed by Calendar Quarter after Random 

Assignment, with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

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

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

-16.0%

-14.0%

-12.0%

-10.0%

-8.0%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Impact on Percent Employed (pp)

Quarter after RA
I-12

Exhibit I-12. CBRR vs. PBTH: Impact on Earnings by Calendar Quarter after Random 

Assignment, with 95-Percent Confidence Interval

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

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

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Impact on Earnings (2018Q4$)

Quarter after RA
J-1

Appendix J: Statistics Related to Balance of Baseline Characteristics

Exhibit J-1. Summary of Statistics Related to Baseline Balance Characteristics and Attrition

 Full Sample 78-Month Survey Sample Consent-to-Use-PII Sample

Statistic

SUB 

versus

UC

CBRR 

versus

UC

PBTH 

versus

UC

SUB 

versus

UC

CBRR 

versus

UC

PBTH 

versus

UC

SUB 

versus

UC

CBRR 

versus

UC

PBTH 

versus

UC

Omnibus F-statistic p-value 0.840 0.044 0.584 0.707 0.082 0.021 0.868 0.037 0.620

Largest positive difference (pp) 5.2 6.5 9.7 9.2 11.6 16.1 7.2 7.9 10.5

Largest negative difference (pp) -6.1 -6.6 -6.7 -6.9 -8.9 -14.4 -6.9 -9.0 -9.6

Average absolute difference (pp) 1.5 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.8 3.4 1.8 2.1 2.2

Median absolute difference (pp) 1.2 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.6 2.9 1.3 1.8 2.1

Pct of chars <2% difference 62% 58% 56% 48% 40% 36% 62% 54% 46%

Avg. abs. diff from full sample diff (pp) 1.6 2.1 3.1 0.9 1.2 0.9

Med. abs. diff from full sample diff (pp) 1.4 1.8 2.5 0.8 1.2 0.6

WWC standard Not meet Low meet Low meet Low meet High meet High meet

Overall response rate (%) 50.3 47.5 44.4 76.2 74.8 76.9

Differential attrition (%) -9.4 -0.7 0.8 -7.6 -2.9 -1.6

 

Statistic SUB 

versus

CBRR

SUB 

versus

PBTH

CBRR 

versus

PBTH

SUB 

versus

CBRR

SUB 

versus

PBTH

CBRR 

versus

PBTH

SUB 

versus

CBRR

SUB 

versus

PBTH

CBRR 

versus

PBTH

Omnibus F-statistic p-value 0.888 0.774 0.448 0.773 0.274 0.668 0.808 0.770 0.388

Largest positive difference (pp) 5.2 7.0 8.7 7.1 12.9 10.4 6.4 8.7 10.3

Largest negative difference (pp) -3.9 -6.8 -7.9 -7.2 -11.2 -10.9 -4.6 -9.0 -10.3

Average absolute difference (pp) 1.6 2.2 2.4 2.3 3.2 3.5 1.8 2.4 3.1

Median absolute difference (pp) 1.9 2.1 2.5 2.5 3.1 3.8 1.7 2.5 2.6

Pct of chars <2% difference 52% 46% 46% 42% 34% 30% 52% 38% 40%

Avg. abs. diff from full sample diff (pp) 2.2 2.9 3.1 1.0 1.3 1.5

Med. abs. diff from full sample diff (pp) 1.8 2.5 2.9 0.9 1.1 1.2

WWC standard Not meet Not meet Not meet High meet High meet High meet

Overall response rate (%) 49.6 51.0 46.7 77.2 80.2 77.1

Differential attrition (%) -7.6 -10.0 -6.5 -3.5 2.0 -2.7

CBRR = community-based rapid re-housing. PBTH = project-based transitional housing. SUB = subsidy. UC = usual care. WWC = What Works Clearinghouse. 
146

8. References 

Deke, J., E. Sama-Miller, and A. Hershey. 2015. “Addressing Attrition Bias in Randomized Control Trials: 

Considerations for Systematic Evidence Reviews.” OPRE Report 2015-72. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, 

Administration for Children and Families. https://homvee.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2019-

06/HomVEE-Attrition-White_Paper-7-2015.pdf

Groves, R. M. 2006. “Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys,” Public Opinion 

Quarterly 70 (5): 646–675. 

Groves, R. M., and E. Peytcheva. 2008. “The Impact of Nonresponse Rates on Nonresponse Bias: A MetaAnalysis,” Public Opinion Quarterly 72 (2): 167–189. 

Gubits, Daniel, Marybeth Shinn, Michelle Wood, Stephen Bell, Samuel Dastrup, Clauide D. Solari, Debi 

McInnis, Tom McCall, and Ustav Kattel. 2016. Family Options Study: Three Year Impacts of Housing 

and Services Intervenions for Homeless Families. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Washington, D.C.: Government 

Printing Office. 

Gubits, Daniel, Brooke Spellman, Lauren Dunton, Scott Brown, and Michelle Wood. 2013. Interim Report: 

Family Options Study. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Policy Development and Research. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Education. 2017. What Works Clearinghouse 4.0 Standards Handbook. 

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/wwc_standards_handbook_v4.pdf.
Abt Associates Family Options Study: Wave 1 Analysis Memo ▌pg. J-2