Share this intervention

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, PBTH, 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 remained eligible (for example, met low-income criteria and had no drug-related convictions) and compliant (for example, paid rent on time), they could continue receiving the housing subsidy indefinitely. Housing subsidies were typically provided as a housing choice voucher, which intervention 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 30 percent of their unadjusted monthly income toward rental costs The primary population for the subsidies was families who spent at least seven days in an emergency homeless shelter and had at least one child age 15 or younger. The intervention 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.

Comparing the effectiveness of SUB with the effectiveness of PBTH indicates how much better SUB meets participants’ needs than PBTH does. The distinctive feature of SUB is that it provided permanent assistance to eligible families, whereas PBTH provided temporary housing and case management for 6 to 24 months. This evaluation also studied Community-Based Rapid Rehousing.

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 $-2,594 per year -0.124 471
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) -0.058 471
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term No evidence to assess support
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $-41 per year -0.015 415
Very long-term No evidence to assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods No evidence to assess support

Studies of this intervention

Study quality rating Study counts per rating
High High 1

Implementation details

Characteristics of research participants
Black or African American
36%
White, not Hispanic
22%
Unknown, not reported, or other
23%
Hispanic or Latino of any race
19%

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.