Study Details | Pathways to Work

26599-Family Self-Sufficie

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: Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program

Services provided:

Case management, Financial incentives

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Eighteen public housing agencies across seven states recruited and randomly assigned households receiving Housing Choice Voucher assistance to an intervention or a comparison condition from October 2013 to December 2014. Applicants were heads of household and were eligible if they were not currently participating in FSS, were age 18 or older, and were in good standing with the housing authority. Participants had either undergone annual or interim recertification in the 120 days before enrollment, or did a new certification at the time of enrollment. Interested individuals often attended orientation, enrolled, and could begin goal setting in the same day. Participants signed a contract of participation and completed an individualized plan at enrollment. A total of 2,656 households were randomly assigned to the intervention or comparison condition. Some households withdrew voluntarily, were determined to be ineligible for FSS, or had heads of household age 62 or older and were removed from the study, leaving 2,556 households (1,285 in the intervention group and 1,271 in the comparison group).

Time period of study:

The program was scheduled to be studied for five years. This study includes findings through Year 2.

Primary outcome domains examined:

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

Other outcome domains examined:

None

Study funded by:

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

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 short-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 1	High	12,142.00	11,966.00	-176.00	2015 dollars	2,548
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 2	High	14,038.00	14,168.00	130.00	2016 dollars	2,548
Increase short-term employment	Employed for four consecutive quarters	Year 1	High	47.90	47.10	-0.80	percentage points	2,548
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	62.10	63.40	1.30	percentage points	2,548
Increase long-term employment	Employed for eight consecutive quarters	Years 1–2	High	41.10	37.70	-3.40	percentage points	2,548
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 9	High	63.40	63.40	0.00	percentage points	2,548
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Amount of TANF, General Assistance, or Food Stamps or SNAP benefits, annual	7 to 18 months	High	2,355.00	2,288.00	-67.00	2016 dollars	2,551
Decrease short-term benefit receipt	Received TANF, General Assistance, or Food Stamps or SNAP	7 to 18 months	High	38.90	39.10	0.20	percentage points	2,551

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

Individuals involved in the study were heads of households receiving public housing assistance. Participants were between the ages of 19 and 61 and had an average age of 39. Most were female (91 percent); single (84 percent); and Black, not Hispanic (73 percent). About one-third had received a Housing Choice Voucher for 10 years or more, and only 5 percent had received a voucher less than a year ago.

Age

Mean age

39 years

Sex

Female	91%
Male	9%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	73%
White, not Hispanic	7%
Another race	4%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	16%

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

15%

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	56%
Had low incomes	100%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	72%
Had a high school diploma or GED	86%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	14%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Public housing authorities

Program history:

The FSS program was established in 1990 and operates at about 700 public housing agencies.

Intervention services:

Heads of Housing Choice Voucher households worked with case managers who helped participants set self-sufficiency goals, including at least one employment-related and one cash assistance goal, and get referrals to needed services such as employment, education, financial management, or counseling services. Families with housing vouchers paid 30 percent of any increases in earnings toward rent. For participants in the intervention condition, the increase in rent was credited to an escrow account that earns interest. If the head of household was employed and completes their goals, and no family members received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families for at least 12 months, participants received the amount in their escrow account; if participants exited the program without completing their goals, they did not receive the funds. Typically, goals had to be completed within five years.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

Individuals assigned to the comparison group could not participate in FSS or build escrow through FSS for three years after enrollment. They received information about community services.

Service receipt duration:

Participants typically received services for up to five years, with the possibility of extending for two additional years. When participants met their goals, they exited the program and received their escrow account funds, even if this was before five years had passed.

Intervention funding:

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Study publications

Verma, Nandita, Stephen Freedman, Betsy L. Tessler, Stephen Nunez, and Barbara Fink. (2019). Promoting work and self-sufficiency for housing voucher recipients: Early findings from the Family Self-sufficiency program evaluation. New York: MRDC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Promoting-Work-and-Self-Sufficiency-for-Housing-Voucher-Recipients.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 Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program

26599-Family Self-Sufficie

Study design

Design:

Study group formation:

Time period of study:

Primary outcome domains examined:

Other outcome domains examined:

Study funded by:

Results

Sample characteristics

Age

Sex

Participant race and ethnicity

Family status

Participant employment and public benefit status

Participant education

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Program history:

Intervention services:

Mandatory services:

Comparison services:

Service receipt duration:

Intervention funding:

Study publications