Skip to sections below

Share this program

PrintEmail

Summary

PBTH was a housing initiative that gave families temporary, subsidized housing and case management, with the goal of helping them obtain permanent housing. This evaluation directly compared PBTH with a separate program, SUB, to better understand which of the two programs might be more effective; the distinctive feature of PBTH is that families received temporary subsidized housing.

Eligible families had spent at least one week in an emergency homeless shelter, had at least one child age 15 or younger, and had sufficient income to pay their share of rent or had the ability to seek employment. They received subsidized housing in agency-controlled housing units, along with intensive case management. Families paid 30 percent of their unadjusted monthly income toward housing costs. Case management services provided by PBTH were mainly intended to help families find permanent housing but included financial management, help coordinating public benefits, and employment and training services. PBTH programs provided 6 to 24 months of housing assistance along with case management. The program 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 PBTH with the effectiveness of SUB indicates how much better PBTH meets participants’ needs than SUB does. The distinctive feature of PBTH is that families received temporary, subsidized housing in a project-based housing unit and case management for 6 to 24 months, whereas SUB provided permanent assistance to eligible families. This evaluation also studied Community-Based Rapid Rehousing.

25295.02R-Study of Project-Bas
Populations and employment barriers: Parents

Effectiveness rating and effect by outcome domain

View table definitions

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

Outcome domain Term Effectiveness rating Effect in 2024 dollars and percentages Effect in standard deviations Sample size
Increase earnings Short-term Cannot assess support
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable $4,520 per year 0.124 471
Very long-term Cannot assess support
Increase employment Short-term Cannot assess support
Long-term Little evidence to assess support favorable 2% (in percentage points) 0.058 471
Very long-term Cannot assess support
Decrease benefit receipt Short-term Cannot assess support
Long-term Little evidence to assess support unfavorable $52 per year 0.015 415
Very long-term Cannot assess support
Increase education and training All measurement periods Cannot assess support

Effectiveness ratings

  • Well- supported
  • Supported
  • Mixed support
  • Not supported
  • Insufficient evidence
  • Cannot assess support

Studies of this program

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
20%
Asian
7%
More than one race
11%
Hispanic or Latino of any race
20%

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

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