Study Details | Pathways to Work

25295.02R-Study of Project-bas

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a low-attrition randomized controlled trial with no known issues that suggest the findings cannot be attributed to the intervention.

Intervention: Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH) (as compared with Permanent Housing Subsidy [SUB])

Population and employment barriers:

Parents, Specific employment barriers (Homelessness)

Services provided:

Case management, Financial education, Health services (Physical health services, Substance use disorder treatment and mental health services), Soft skills training, Work readiness activities (Job search assistance)

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

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 SUB. 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 SUB) were only estimated on the sample of families who were eligible for both intervention conditions and randomized to one of them.

Time period of study:

September 2010 to December 2014

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase long-term earnings, Increase long-term employment, Decrease long-term benefit receipt

Other outcome domains examined:

Program use, housing stability, family preservation, and adult well-being

Study funded by:

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Policy Development and Research

Results

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

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

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Intervention group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase long-term earnings	Estimated annual earnings	Month 37	High	6,539.00	8,292.00	1,753.00	2014 dollars	407
Increase long-term earnings	Total earnings over follow-up period	Quarters 11 to 14	High	5,508.00	6,391.00	883.00	2015 dollars	471
Increase long-term employment	Currently employed	Month 37	High	37.60	39.60	2.00	Percentage points	415
Increase long-term employment	Employed at any time in follow-up period	Quarters 11 to 14	High	54.80	57.40	2.60	Percentage points	471
Increase long-term employment	Number of months employed since random assignment	Month 37	High	12.50	13.60	1.10	Months	409
Increase long-term employment	Number of quarters employed in follow-up period	Quarters 11 to 14	High	1.60	1.70	0.10	Quarters	471
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received SNAP in past month	Month 37	High	79.10	80.80	1.70	Percentage points	415
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received SSDI in past month	Month 37	High	7.00	7.00	0.00	Percentage points	415
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received SSI in past month	Month 37	High	14.50	12.70	-1.80	Percentage points	415
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received TANF in past month	Month 37	High	28.20	26.90	-1.30	Percentage points	415
Decrease long-term benefit receipt	Received WIC in past month	Month 37	High	26.30	31.50	5.20	Percentage points	415

Short-term outcomes are those measured 18 months or fewer after participants are first offered services. Long-term outcomes are those measured between 18 months and 5 years after participants are first offered services. Very long-term outcomes are those measured 5 years or more after participants are first offered services.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the intervention. We do not display findings that rate low.

Findings key:

A moderate-to-large favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large favorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that might be due to chance
A favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A favorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that might be due to chance
An unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
An unfavorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size or direction
A finding of no effect that might be due to chance

Favorable findings are impacts in a direction that is socially desirable. Statistical significance indicates the likelihood that a study finding is due to the intervention, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the intervention produced a sufficiently large change in the outcome. An impact receives this designation if the standardized effect size is equal to or greater than 0.25 or equal to or less than -0.25.

Sample characteristics

The following characteristics applied to participants who were eligible for both the SUB and PBTH conditions, and who were assigned to either. The average age of the head of household was about 31 at baseline, and 92 percent were female. About 36 percent were Black, 19 percent were Hispanic or Latino, 22 percent were White, non-Hispanic, and 23 percent were another race or multiple races or ethnicities. Thirty-one percent of eligible families were headed by married parents, and all families had at least one child younger than 15 baseline. Thirty percent of the baseline sample heads of household had no high school diploma or GED, and only 16 percent were employed at baseline.

Age

Mean age

31 years

Sex

Female	92%
Male	8%

Participant race and ethnicity

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

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.

Family status

Married	31%
Parents	100%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	16%
Were unemployed	84%

Participant education

Had a high school diploma or GED	70%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	30%

Specific employment barriers

Were experiencing homelessness

100%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Community-based public and private social services agencies, foundations, and faith-based organizations.

Program history:

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.

Intervention services:

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. PBTH programs subsidized these living arrangements—in most cases, for costs exceeding 30 percent of each family's 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 to 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 to 24 months of housing assistance, during which participants received case management.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

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 a SUB and housing search assistance. The SUB intervention provided permanent assistance with housing rental costs through state or local public housing agencies (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 to receive the housing subsidy indefinitely. Housing subsidies were typically provided as a housing choice voucher, which intervention participants could use to rent housing that met HUD's Housing Quality Standards and 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. In addition to receiving a housing subsidy, intervention participants in a minority of sites (serving about 20 percent of SUB participants) were eligible to receive supportive services to help locate housing. An even smaller percentage of SUB participants received assistance through the PHA to address topics such as learning how to maintain their home or resolve conflicts with landlords.

Service receipt duration:

Participants in the PBTH condition received transitional housing supports and case management for 14 months, on average.

Intervention funding:

Many PBTH programs were funded by federal Supportive Housing Program grants also provided by HUD. However, PBTH also frequently receive other funding, including private foundation grants and proceeds from local fundraising efforts. Some PBTH programs were faith based, and many were entirely privately funded. PHAs received funding from the Housing Choice Voucher Program funded through HUD.

Study publications

Gubits, Daniel, Marybeth Shinn, Michelle Wood, Scott Brown, Samuel Dastrup, and Stephen Bell (2018). What interventions work best for families who experience homelessness? Impact estimates from the Family Options Study, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 27(4): 835-866. Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6168747/pdf/nihms970065.pdf

Gubits, Daniel, Marybeth Shinn, Michelle Wood, Stephen Bell, Samuel Dastrup, Claudia Solari, Scott Brown, Debi McInnis, Tom McCall, and Utsav Kattel (2016). Family Options Study: Three-year impacts of housing and services interventions for homeless families, Washington, DC: U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/family-options-study-full-report.pdf

Gubits, Daniel, Marybeth Shinn, Stephen Bell, Michelle Wood, Samuel Dastrup, Claudia Solari, Scott Brown, Steven Brown, Lauren Dunton, Winston Lin, Debi McInnis, Jason Rodriguez, Galen Savidge, and Brooke Spellman (2015). Family Options Study: Short-term impacts of housing and services interventions for homeless families, Washington, DC: U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. Available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/familyoptionsstudy_final.pdf

Walton, Douglas, Samuel Dastrup, and Jill Khadduri (2018). Employment of families experiencing homelessness, OPRE Report #2018-56, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://acfmain-dev.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/opre_employment_brief_06_15_2018_508.pdf

View the glossary for more information about these and other terms used on this page.

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.

Study of Project-Based Transitional Housing (PBTH) versus Permanent Housing Subsidy (SUB)