Skip to sections below

Share this intervention

PrintEmail

Summary

SUB aimed to provide housing stability for families as a means to improving their economic outcomes. This evaluation directly compared SUB with a separate intervention, CBRR, to better understand which of the two interventions might be more effective; the distinctive feature of SUB is that it provided permanent assistance with housing rental costs through state or local public housing agencies (PHAs).

SUB provided permanent assistance with housing rental costs through state or local PHAs. As long as families had at least one child age 15 or younger, met low-income criteria, had no drug-related convictions, and paid rent on time, they could continue to receive a housing subsidy indefinitely. Housing subsidies were typically provided as a housing choice voucher, which participants could use to rent housing that met the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Housing Quality Standards, and that had a rent that was deemed reasonable based on rental costs for comparable homes in a given housing market. The local PHA set housing choice voucher amounts, and if rental costs exceeded this limit, families were required to pay up to 30 percent of their unadjusted monthly income toward rental costs. The primary population for the subsides was families who spent at least seven days in an emergency homeless shelter and had at least one child age 15 or younger. The study took place in 12 locations in 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.

The effectiveness of SUB when compared with the effectiveness of CBRR indicates the effect of a set of services that includes those unique to SUB; the comparison indicates how much better SUB meets participants’ needs than CBRR. SUB provided permanent assistance to eligible families, whereas CBRR provided temporary housing and rental assistance for up to 18 months. This evaluation also studied Project-Based Transitional Housing.

25295.01-Study of Permanent h
Populations and employment barriers: Parents, Homelessness

Effectiveness rating and effect by outcome domain

Need more context or definitions for the Outcome Domain table below?
View the "Table help" to get more insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

View table help

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns

Outcome domain Term Effectiveness rating Effect in 2018 dollars and percentages Effect in standard deviations Sample size
Increase earnings Short-term No evidence to assess support
Long-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable $-1,611 per year -0.077 799
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase employment Short-term No evidence to assess support
Long-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable -2% (in percentage points) -0.053 799
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term No evidence to assess support
Long-term No evidence to assess support
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods No evidence to assess support
* This intervention was assessed as supported for this domain, meaning it achieved one or more statistically significant, favorable effects. However, the intervention has an average effect size that is unfavorable because the average includes all effects in this domain - both statistically significant and favorable effects and statistically insignificant but unfavorable effects.

Effectiveness rating key:

  • Well-supported Well-supported   
  • Supported  Supported   
  • Not supported  Not supported   
  • Mixed support  Mixed support   
  • Insufficient evidence  Insufficient evidence   
  • No evidence  No evidence
Effectiveness rating terms?

Studies of this intervention

Study quality rating Study counts per rating
High High 1
Back to top

Implementation details

Characteristics of research participants
Black or African American
41%
White, not Hispanic
22%
Unknown, not reported, or other
15%
Hispanic or Latino of any race
22%

The race and ethnicity categories may sum to more than 100 percent if the authors reported race and ethnicity separately; in these cases, we report the category White, rather than White, not Hispanic.

State(s) where implemented

AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY Canada

The Pathways Clearinghouse refers to interventions by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some intervention names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.

Back to top