- Log in to post comments
Subgroups
After a family with at least one child age 15 or younger had remained in an emergency homeless shelter for seven days, the evaluation team randomly assigned them to one of four possible intervention conditions. This review focuses on assignment to PBTH versus usual care. Although the evaluation team intended to randomly assign families to all intervention conditions with an equal probability, availability of slots, site-level implementation limitations, and unique eligibility requirements for families resulted in most families being randomly assigned to a restricted set of intervention conditions (474 of 2,282 families were randomly assigned across all four intervention options; most families—1,544—had three options available to them). This resulted in differing probabilities of assignment depending on which set of interventions was available to each family. Before random assignment, the evaluation team gathered informed consent, determined eligibility for available intervention slots, and conducted a baseline survey. Pairwise contrasts (in this review, PBTH relative to usual care) were only estimated on the sample of families who were eligible for both intervention conditions and randomized to one of them.
September 2010 to December 2014
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research
The following characteristics applied to participants who were eligible for both the PBTH and usual care conditions, and who were assigned to either. The average age of the head of household was about 32 at baseline, and 91 percent were female. About 42 percent were Black, 15 percent were Hispanic or Latino, 19 percent were White, non-Hispanic, and 25 percent were another race or multiple races or ethnicities. Thirty-two percent of eligible families were headed by married parents, and all families had at least one child younger than 15 at baseline. Thirty-nine percent of the baseline sample heads of household had no high school diploma or GED, and only 20 percent were employed at baseline.
Community-based public and private social services agencies, foundations, and faith-based organizations.
The PBTH intervention was offered through existing PBTH programs at participating sites. These programs were often funded through federal Supportive Housing Program grants, which first emerged in the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, though many were also funded through private grants and fundraising.
After spending at least seven days in an emergency homeless shelter, families with at least one child age 15 or younger were selected to receive intensive case management and other supportive services, as well as transitional housing in project-based facilities or housing units. Only a subset of families were eligible for PBTH because it required families to have enough income or the ability to obtain employment at program entry. PBTH first offered families individual apartments or private sleeping arrangements with shared kitchens or bathrooms. These living arrangements were subsidized by PBTH programs—in most cases, for costs exceeding 30 percent of each families' unadjusted monthly income—and the majority of program sites required families to save money while in program-provided housing. At intake, families worked with program staff to complete a needs assessment and a service plan to set goals for the adults in the household, and to help guide case management services. PBTH programs provided comprehensive case management and support services to families in the program. These services primarily focused on helping participants attain permanent housing but also emphasized family self-sufficiency through services such as financial management, coordination of public benefits, and employment and training services. A subset of programs provided additional support services, such as physical and mental health care referrals, life skills training, and help arranging child care and transportation. Services were provided by sites on-site or through partnerships with other programs in the community. Programs provided 6 and 24 months of housing assistance, during which participants received case management.
After spending at least seven days in an emergency homeless shelter, families with at least one child age 15 or younger who were assigned to the usual care comparison condition did not receive special referrals to housing assistance or supportive services programs. They also did not receive any additional assistance beyond what was typically provided in emergency homeless shelters. The evaluation team asked emergency shelter staff not to intentionally guide usual care condition families to the intervention programs (including PBTH), but if usual care families found their way into the intervention conditions, they were not denied services. Because emergency shelters are not uniformly regulated, the experiences of usual care participants in the shelters after random assignment were highly variable.
None
Participants in the PBTH condition received transitional housing supports and case management for 14 months, on average.
Many PBTH programs were funded by federal Supportive Housing Program grants provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. However, PBTH programs also frequently received other funding, including private foundation grants and proceeds from local fundraising efforts. Some PBTH programs were faith based, and many were entirely privately funded.
The Family Options Study took place in 12 sites across the United States: Alameda County, CA; Atlanta, GA; Baltimore, MD; Boston, MA; Connecticut; Denver, CO; Honolulu, HI; Kansas City, MO; Louisville, KY; Minneapolis, MN; Phoenix, AZ; and Salt Lake City, UT. PBTH programs served participants in temporary project-based housing with case management from publicly and privately funded community-based social services agencies.
Program use, housing stability, family preservation, and adult well-being