[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 96 (Thursday, May 19, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-12176]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: May 19, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Office of Administration
[Docket No. N-94-3771]
Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB
AGENCY: Office of Administration, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described
below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for expedited review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The
Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding
this proposal. Comments must be received within seven (7) working days
from the date of this notice. Comments should refer to the proposal by
name and should be sent to: Joseph F. Lackey, Jr., OMB Desk Officer,
Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay F. Weaver, Reports Management
Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20410, Telephone (202) 708-0050. This is not a
toll-free number. Copies of the proposed forms and other available
documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Weaver.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and
Urban Development has submitted to OMB, for expedited processing, an
information collection package with respect to the Moving to
Opportunity for Fair Housing (MTO) demonstration. HUD is requesting a
10-day OMB review of this information collection.
This demonstration is authorized under the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-550, approved October 28, 1992).
HUD is requesting a 10-day OMB review of this information collection.
The program is described in a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)
published in the Federal Register on August 16, 1993 at page 43458.
HUD will provide approximately $68,500,000 in Section 8 existing
housing certificates and vouchers and approximately $500,000 in
counseling funds under this NOFA, to assist very low-income families
with children living in public housing and Section 8 project-based
units located in high-poverty areas to move to low-poverty areas. The
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has designated applicant
public housing agencies (PHAs) and nonprofit organizations (NPOs) from
Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York to administer
these funds. The NOFA describes: (1) The nature and scope of eligible
activities; (2) the application process and the factors HUD used in
rating and ranking all applications; (3) the selection and approval
process.
The information collection request is for the purpose of carrying
out HUD's responsibility to provide biennial interim reports to
Congress evaluating the effectiveness of the demonstration and a final
report to Congress no later than September 30, 2004, describing the
long-term housing, employment, and educational achievements of the
families assisted under the demonstration program. The package includes
a baseline participant survey to be filled out by household heads,
participant tracking forms to be filled out by PHAs and NPOs, monthly
labor cost forms to be filled out by PHAs and NPOs, a counseling/
participant log to be filled out by NPOs, and a landlord outreach log
to be filled out by NPOs.
The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of
information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35):
(1) The title of the information collection proposal;
(2) The office of the agency to collect the information;
(3) The description of the need for the information and its
proposed use;
(4) The agency form number, if applicable;
(5) What members of the public will be affected by the proposal;
(6) How frequently information submission will be required;
(7) An estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the
information submission including numbers of respondents, frequency of
response, and hours of response;
(8) Whether the proposal is new or an extension, reinstatement, or
revision of an information collection requirement; and
(9) The names and telephone numbers of an agency official familiar
with the proposal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.
Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3507; Section 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Dated: April 25, 1994.
Michael A. Stegman,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy Development and Research.
Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB
Proposal: Data Collection Plan for the Moving to Opportunity for
Fair Housing (MTO) Demonstration.
Office: Office of Policy Development and Research.
Description of the Need for the Information and its Proposed Use:
This information collection is required in connection with the
evaluation of the Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing (MTO)
demonstration. MTO will provide housing subsidies and counseling to
help very low-income families with children currently living in public
or Section 8 project-based assisted housing in high-poverty areas to
lease units in low-poverty areas.
Form Number: None.
Respondents: Applicants for housing assistance; public housing
agencies (PHAs); nonprofit organizations (NPOs).
Frequency of Submission: One time only for applicants; one per
month for PHAs and NPOs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Burden
Form Respondent respondents Time to complete Frequency hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MTO Participant Applicant.......... 9,000.............. 5 minutes......... 1................. 750
Enrollment Form.
MTO Baseline Applicant.......... 9,000.............. 40 minutes........ 1................. 6,000
Participant Survey.
Counseling/Particip NPO................ 5 (optional)....... 20 hours.......... 1 per month....... 2,400
ant Log.
Landford Outreach NPO................ 5.................. 8 hours........... 1 per month....... 960
Log.
Monthly Program NPO................ 5.................. 4 hours........... 1 per month....... 960
Cost Forms. PHA................ 5..................
Participant NPO................ 5.................. 40 hours.......... 1 per month....... 4,800
Tracking Forms. PHA................ 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Estimated Burden Hours: 15,870.
Status: New collection.
Contact: John Goering, HUD (202) 708-3700, Joseph F. Lackey, Jr.,
OMB (202) 395-6880.
Dated: May 9, 1994.
Part A Data Collection Plan
Introduction
The Moving to Opportunity For Fair Housing (MTO) Demonstration
program is an initiative on the part of Congress and the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD or the Department) to
explore ways to assist families now living in public housing or
project-based Section 8 housing to move out of the high-poverty areas
of large central cities. The demonstration will assist families by
combining Section 8 rental assistance with intensive housing search and
counseling services in order to facilitate relocation to low-poverty
neighborhoods.\1\ MTO is modeled on court-ordered remedial programs of
the past two decades, in which federal courts have required HUD to
provide funding for rental assistance and housing counseling services
in order to reduce racial segregation in publicly assisted housing.\2\
Jurisdictions in which court-ordered programs have been established
include Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, and Dallas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The Section 8 program for existing housing provides housing
assistance through rental certificates or housing vouchers. In most
places, local public housing agencies (PHAs) administer both the
voucher and certificate programs. An applicant is income-eligible
for Section 8 housing assistance if his/her household income level
is less than 50 percent of the median income for the metropolitan
area. Eligible applicants enrolled in the program are given two to
four months to find acceptable housing in the private rental market.
To qualify as ``acceptable,'' a unit must meet the program's housing
quality and occupancy standards, and its owner must agree to
participate in the program. Contracts are signed establishing the
unit rent and the amounts of the tenant and housing assistance
payments.
\2\It is not a principal objective of MTO to reduce racial
desegregation, but rather to move families living in high-poverty
areas to low-poverty areas. It is to be expected, however, that
given the characteristics of households living in high-poverty areas
at selected demonstration sites, racial deconcentration will be an
outcome of the MTO program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing (MTO) Demonstration was
authorized in Section 152 of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1992, which set the following parameters for the program:
Eligible families are very low-income families with
children residing in public housing or project-based Section 8-assisted
housing located in areas with high concentrations of poverty.
Participating localities are restricted to no more than
six very large cities with populations of at least 400,000 in
metropolitan areas of at least 1.5 million people.
Local programs are created via contracts between the
Secretary of HUD and nonprofit organizations or NPOs (to provide
counseling and services in connection with the demonstration) and
public housing agencies or PHAs (to administer the Section 8 rental
assistance). The NPOs will receive funding to help pay for the costs
associated with counseling participating families, assisting them in
finding appropriate units, and working with landlords to encourage
their participation in the MTO program. Local programs must match
federal counseling funds with funds from state or local public or
private sources. PHAs will receive administrative funds for the
increased number of Section 8 certificates or vouchers made available
through the MTO program.
In the short term, the demonstration will compare the
costs and service differences between the MTO program and the routine
implementation of the Section 8 tenant-based rental assistance program.
HUD will report to Congress biennially on the effectiveness of the
demonstration, including a report on who is served, the level of
counseling and types of services provided, and updates on the
employment records of families assisted under the program.
In the long term, the demonstration will assess the
housing, educational, and employment outcomes of families assisted
through the program. A final report to Congress on program outcomes is
due in 2004.
Section 8 rental assistance for the MTO demonstration was approved
at $50 million for FY 92 and $52.1 million for FY 93.\3\ In addition,
up to $500,000 was set aside for counseling grants. These funds will
assist approximately 1,300 low-income families at five HUD-selected
sites: Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\The FY 92 funding was carried over to FY 93. Funding for both
years was announced through a NOFA issued August 16, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For FY 94, Congress increased the demonstration appropriation by
$164.5 million in rental assistance plus $7 million in housing
counseling funds. These additional MTO resources will assist another
2,000 or more families, bringing the total to around 3,300. Current
plans call for including 1,800 of the 3,300 families in a three-way
experimental design which is described later in this document.
HUD has contracted with Abt Associates, Inc. (the Contractor) to
assist in planning and implementing the MTO demonstration and
developing a framework for reporting on the demonstration. Among Abt
Associates' responsibilities are: (1) Developing forms and procedures
so that standardized information can be collected across sites
regarding participants, services and costs; (2) designing and assisting
in the implementation of a three-way random assignment mechanism for
the demonstration; and, (3) providing data collection assistance,
technical assistance, and monitoring to local sites to ensure that the
demonstration is implemented in an effective and standardized manner.
Under a separate procurement, HUD intends to conduct an evaluation of
the demonstration using a three-way experimental design, in order to
answer policy questions about the long-term effects of the program on
participants.
This request for OMB clearance covers two distinct groups of
instruments related to start-up and early implementation of the MTO
demonstration program. The groups of instruments are based upon the
identity of the respondent:
Data collection forms with participant respondents''
Baseline data will be collected through a survey of participants. These
data will be used initially to describe the participants served in the
demonstration; eventually, they will form the foundation for the long-
term evaluation of the program's effects on participants.
Data collection forms with agency respondents'' MTO
program operation data will be routinely collected and maintained by
PHAs and NPOS and periodically reported to HUD. These data will enable
HUD to fulfill its monitoring responsibilities and meet Congressional
reporting requirements.
The forms proposed for these data collection activities are the
Enrollment Form and Participant Baseline Survey (copies of these forms
are provided in Appendix A), and the Participant Tracking Logs,
Participant Counseling Log, Program Cost forms, and Landlord Outreach
Log, (Appendix B).
A1 Circumstances That Make The Collection of Information Necessary
The statutory language establishing the MTO demonstration specifies
that HUD must report to Congress on the progress of the demonstration
and the status of participants.\4\ Topics that are to be covered
include: a comparison of the costs associated with implementing the MTO
program (including the costs of counseling, supportive services, and
housing assistance payments) with the costs of routine implementation
of the Section 8 program; the number of persons served; the level of
counseling and services provided under MTO; and updates on the
employment records of families assisted under the program. The
legislation also directs HUD to provide any other information that may
be necessary in evaluating the demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\See Title I, Subtitle C, Section 152 (d)(1) and (2), Housing
and Community Development Act of 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A final report to Congress is due in 2004. At that time, HUD is
required to: (1) Report on the long-term housing, employment, and
educational achievements of the families assisted under the
demonstration; and (2) assess such achievements for a comparable
population of Section 8 recipients not assisted under MTO.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\This request for OMB clearance focuses on the data collection
forms used for the initial reporting and monitoring of the
demonstration. With the exception of the Participant Baseline
Survey, this request does not include data collection materials
required for the long-term impact evaluation. Request for clearance
of the remaining evaluation instruments will be made by HUD at a
later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MTO demonstration builds on several existing efforts designed
to reduce racial segregation in publicly assisted housing and increase
the mobility of families receiving Section 8 assistance.\6\ Court-
ordered programs in Chicago and Cincinnati, and a voluntary program in
Hartford, Connecticut, have been the subject of recent studies.\7\
These studies suggest that a combination of Section 8 and housing
counseling assistance can facilitate the movement of low- income
families to areas of low minority concentration or low poverty, and
ultimately increase their educational and employment opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\While there has been no extensive research on where
recipients of Section 8 assistance move, it is conventional wisdom
that they tend to stay in their current neighborhoods or move to
areas substantially similar in economic and racial composition. In
particular, it is believed that these households tend to stay in
neighborhoods with concentrations of the poor, and that those who
are members of racial minorities tend to stay in racially
concentrated neighborhoods.
\7\See, among others: Mary Davis, ``The Gautreaux Assisted
Housing Program,'' in Housing Markets and Residential Mobility, G.
Thomas Kingsley and M. Turner, eds. (Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute Press, 1993), pp. 243-253; Paul B. Fischer, ``Is Housing
Mobility an Effective Anti-Poverty Strategy? An Examination of the
Cincinnati Experience'' (Cincinnati, OH: The Stephen H. Wilder
Foundation, 1991); Shaun Donovan, ``Moving to the Suburbs: Section 8
Mobility and Portability in Hartford,'' unpublished Harvard
University paper (May 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A study of the Gautreaux program in Chicago by James Rosenbaum of
Northwestern University has received much recent attention.\8\
Rosenbaum studied the mothers and children of families who moved to
suburban locations under the Gautreaux program, comparing their
educational and employment status with those who moved to other in-city
locations. He found that outcomes for adult suburban movers were very
positive in terms of employment; suburban movers were 25 percent more
likely than city movers to have a job after the move. Among the
children of Gautreaux families, he found that children in suburban
locations had higher satisfaction with teachers and better attitudes
about schools. He also found that high school drop-out rates were much
lower for suburban children--5 percent compared with 20 percent among
those in city neighborhoods. It should be noted that Rosenbaum's work
has been criticized for serious methodological problems. One of the
most serious criticisms is that Rosenbaum's reference group was not a
strict control group since it consisted of other Gautreaux participants
placed in units within the City of Chicago. Thus, the selection of a
suburban and urban location was partly voluntary rather than a matter
of random assignment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\James E. Rosenbaum, Nancy Fishman, Alison Brett, and Particia
Meaden. ``Can the Kerner Commission's Housing Strategy Improve
Employment, Education, and Social Integration for Low-Income
Blacks?''' North Carolina Law Review. 71 (June) 1993:1519-1556.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MTO demonstration differs from its predecessor programs in a
number of ways. First, while the Gautreaux and Cincinnati programs
focus on moving families to areas with low minority concentrations, MTO
focuses on moving its participants to areas of low poverty. MTO
participants must move to low-poverty census tracts (defined as tracts
where fewer than 10 percent of the people had incomes below the poverty
level in 1989, as measured by the 1990 Census). Second, the MTO
demonstration is designed to serve a broad range of families, including
those who may have difficulty making moves, notably larger families and
those without automobiles. Third, the Section 8 certificates and
vouchers will be allocated to the central city PHAs for the MTO
demonstration; in other mobility programs, Section 8 assistance has
been administered by the organizations that provide housing counseling
services. The MTO demonstration requires collaboration between a PHA,
to administer the Section 8 assistance, and a nonprofit agency to
provide housing counseling, assist families in finding units, and work
to develop landlord support for the program.
Finally, to overcome the methodological problems associated with
other research on mobility programs, HUD has embedded a randomized
experiment in the MTO demonstration. Applicants for the program will be
assigned randomly to one of three groups:
An experimental group, which will receive a Section 8
certificate or voucher plus special counseling and search assistance in
order to locate and move to housing only in low-poverty areas;
A Section 8 control group, which will receive a regular
tenant-based Section 8 certificate or voucher (with no locational
restrictions) plus regular briefing and assistance from the public
housing agency; or
An in-place control group, which will receive no tenant-
based assistance but which will remain initially in current public
housing or Section 8 project-based housing.
All these participants will be tracked over a ten-year period to
assess the program's effects.\9\ By using three-way random assignment,
HUD will be able to provide definitive answers to three key policy
questions regarding mobility programs. First, do programs like MTO
contribute to moves to low-poverty areas? Second, are these moves (and
not other factors) the basis for positive employment and educational
outcomes? Third, is the MTO approach more effective than the existing
Section 8 program in producing such outcomes?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\The term ``participant'' is used to refer to a member of any
of the three randomly assigned groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A2 How and By Whom the Data Will Be Used
The information will be used by the Department to (1) monitor
demonstration activities; (2) prepare biennial reports to Congress; and
(3) establish baseline information about participants for a long-term
evaluation of the program, the results of which will be reported in
Congress in 2004. Much of the information collected under this request
for clearance will also be used by local demonstration sites to manage
the program locally.
A2.1 Consequences if the Information Was Not Collected
Without this planned data collection effort, HUD would be unable to
meet its short-term responsibilities with regard to program monitoring
or Congressional reporting. In addition, without collecting baseline
information about participants and their families, HUD would be unable
to assess long-term effects of the program and to answer key policy
questions about mobility programs.
A2.2 Description of the MTO Data Collection Plan
This request for OMB clearance covers two distinct groups of
instruments associated with the start-up and early implementation of
the MTO demonstration program. The groups of instruments are based upon
the identity of the respondent:
Data collection forms with participant respondents--
Baseline data will be collected through a survey of participants. These
data will be used initially to describe the participants served in the
demonstration; they form the foundation for the long-term evaluation of
the program's effects on participants.
Data collection forms with agency respondents--MTO program
operation data will be routinely collected and maintained by PHAs and
NPOS and periodically reported to HUD. These data will enable HUD to
fulfill its monitoring responsibilities and meet Congressional
reporting requirements.
Each of the instruments in these two groups will be discussed in turn.
Copies of the instruments can be found in the appendices.
A2.2.1 Data Collection with Participant Respondents
Two data collection instruments have been developed for participant
respondents: the MTO Enrollment Form and the Participant Baseline
Survey. In addition, information about participants related to income,
current residence and other items will be taken from HUD form 50058,
which provides family-level data for households receiving assistance
under the public housing and Section 8 programs. Copies of the
instruments and the HUD 50058 form are found in Appendix A.
Potential applicants are identified through outreach efforts
conducted by the public housing agency. Families interested in
participating contact the PHA by a certain date. The PHA makes a
preliminary review and identifies those families that appear to be
eligible for the program.\10\ A waiting list of screened families who
are interested in participating in the program is developed by each
PHA. Families are notified that they may be eligible to participate in
the MTO program, and an appointment to verify eligibility is made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Households must meet the following minimum criteria: (1)
residence in a public housing or Section 8 project-based unit within
high-poverty census tracts identified by the PHA; (2) very low-
income; (3) family with children
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a family comes to the PHA for the scheduled appointment,
eligibility is reviewed by a PHA intake worker. Based on this in-person
review, if the applicant is eligible for the program, he/she is
requested to complete the Enrollment Form and MTO Baseline Participant
Survey. While the baseline is a self-administered survey, a data
collection assistant will be available at each site to answer questions
and assist those that may have language or literacy problems.
MTO Enrollment Form. The MTO Enrollment Form is completed by
applicants (also referred to here as ``families'') who wish to
participate in the program. The Enrollment Form will be presented to
the applicants by PHA staff. This brief form advises the applicant of
the demonstration requirements, including random assignment, forming
the basis of informed consent. The applicant checks one of the two
boxes on the form to indicate whether he/she is interested in
participating in the MTO program. The form is signed and dated by the
applicant. The PHA staff will be available to answer applicants'
questions about the demonstration.
MTO Participant Baseline Survey. The Participant Baseline Survey is
completed by all those who sign the Enrollment Form for MTO and are
determined eligible for Section 8 and the MTO program, whether or not
they eventually receive assistance under MTO. In other words, the
survey is completed by those who will ultimately be assigned to the
experimental and both control groups. The survey is completed prior to
random assignment, in order to avoid any effect that assignment to one
group or another would have on participants' answers.
The Participant Baseline Survey provides information necessary for
an evaluation of the long-term effects of the program. Thus, the
questions are focused on developing information that can help to
explain outcomes--that is, data on particular characteristics or
experiences of families that will help to explain why the program
ultimately affected them as it did. The baseline survey is divided into
three parts. Part I requests information about the following topics:
Housing information: the participant's previous experience
with the Section 8 program, the participant's mobility and prior
housing, reasons for wanting to move, and condition of current housing.
Neighborhood: participant's satisfaction with current
neighborhood, safety and victimization, neighborhood conditions, and
access to services.
Neighbors: the participant's social network and social
supports.
Employment history: Current and recent employment, recent
efforts to search for work, transportation to work.
Benefits: receipt of AFDC, General Welfare/General Relief,
food stamps, and other assistance.
Outlook: the participant's self-efficacy relative to
outcome of interest, such as ability to live in a low-poverty
neighborhood or ability to get along with neighbors.
Parent involvement: the participant's involvement with
his/her children's schooling.
Contact information: the names of three friends or
relatives who do not live with the participant and will always know how
to contact him/her. This information will be used for long-term
tracking of the participants and follow-up survey work.
Part II collects demographic information about every member of the
participant's household. A cover sheet requests the full name of each
member as well as basic demographic information, including birth date,
sex, race, ethnicity. The second page contains a matrix in which
information about adult household members is reported. This information
includes relationship to applicant, school and work status, marital
status, number of children, and the year first child was born.
In addition, Part II includes two short surveys for children living
in the household. One is for children five and younger, and the other
is for children from six to eighteen years of age. The applicant
completes a sheet for each child in the household. For younger
children, basic information is requested about pre-school attendance,
child care arrangements, general health and behavior. For children 6 to
18, information includes school and grade, attendance in gifted or
special education classes, general behavior and health, and child care
arrangements.
A2.2.2 Data Collection with Agency Respondents
At each of the demonstration sites, the public housing authorities
and nonprofit organizations will routinely collect and update program
data and submit them (initially to the Contractor, later to HUD) on a
monthly basis during the demonstration period.\11\ These data will be
used by HUD to monitor the progress of the demonstration (i.e., the
number of people participating in the program, the number who have
leased units), to identify differences in the program among the sites
and reasons for these differences, to determine the costs associated
with adding MTO counseling to the conventional Section 8 program, and
to develop biennial reports to the Congress. It should be noted that
the collection of the data is also useful to each of the sites, as they
manage and monitor their own programs. The data collection instruments
that have been designed for agency respondents are: the Participant
Tracking Forms for PHAs and NPOs; the Participant Counseling Log for
NPOs; the Program Cost Forms for PHAs and NPOs; and the Landlord
Outreach Log for NPOs. These are discussed below and can be found in
Appendix B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\During the first few months of the demonstration, this
information will be reported to Abt Associates. Abt will review the
information to ensure it is accurately recorded, discussed any
deficiencies with the sites, and then pass this information on to
HUD. After this start-up period, programs will submit these forms
directly to HUD. HUD is also considering whether to issue a
competitive procurement to obtain the services of a data tracking
and monitoring firm to ensure that, in the long-term, information is
properly gathered and reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHA and NPO Participant Tracking Logs. Tracking logs provide a
mechanism for monitoring the progress of participants from enrollment
through lease-up of a new unit. Separate tracking logs have been
developed for the PHAs and NPOs which they will update on an as-needed
basis. Updated logs will be copied and submitted monthly (initially to
the Contractor, later to HUD), so that the progress of demonstration
enrollment, search, and lease-up can be monitored.
The ``PHA tracking log'' requires PHA staff to record the name and
social security number of all eligible applicants as they are enrolled
in the program and the dates when key PHA-related activities occur. For
example, PHA staff will record the date the Enrollment Form is signed,
the date the Participant Baseline Survey is completed, and the outcome
of random assignment. The log separately tracks participants in the
experimental, Section 8 control, and in-place control groups. For
experimental and Section 8 control group families, the log captures the
date a certificate or voucher is issued and dates for search extension
and expiration of the certificate or voucher. Once a participant finds
a unit, the dates for the housing quality standards inspection, lease
approval, and move-in are recorded.
The ``NPO participant tracking log'', to be maintained by staff of
the nonprofit agencies, applies only to experimental group
participants. It is used to record the dates and results of NPO-related
activities. These include a credit check, a visit to the participant's
home, and accompanied visits to inspect up to three prospective units.
When the participant finds a unit, the unit address and neighborhood
are recorded, along with the date of a follow-up visit by NPO staff.
After random assignment, tracking of the in-place control group
members will not require a special data collection by the PHA. It will
be accomplished using extracts from the electronic Form 50058 files
that PHAs and Section 8 project managers maintain for periodic
submission to HUD.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\It is assumed that there will be complete reporting of HUD
50058 data by PHAs at the demonstration sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Participant Counseling Log. Part of the design of the MTO program
is the provision of counseling to participants in the experimental
group, from the time of receiving a Section 8 certificate or voucher,
for as long as one year after they have leased a unit under MTO. This
counseling--on search methods, community features, credit problems, and
family adjustment--will be provided by the nonprofit organizations. NPO
staff will be asked to record contacts with each participant, whether
the contact is by phone or in person, as well as the purpose and
duration of the contact. NPOs will retain this information; it will be
submitted to HUD at the end of the intake period and one year later.
NPOs may choose to substitute their own forms to collect this
information, provided that the same information is contained on their
forms.
Program Cost Forms. HUD is required to identify the costs
associated with operating the MTO demonstration in biennial reports to
Congress. To do this, it will be necessary to document the staff costs
associated with counseling MTO participants (including staff time and
travel), the cost of conducting credit checks, identifying housing
units, recruiting and working with landlords, as well as managing
random assignment and general program administration. Separate forms
have been developed for NPOs and PHAs, to report to HUD on a monthly
basis all costs related to the program. The forms require documentation
of the amount of staff time devoted to a range of program activities,
including outreach, enrollment, random assignment, record-keeping, and
counseling. The name and hourly wage of staff working on MTO during the
month is to be reported, along with the total number of hours the staff
person devoted to MTO that month. Non-staff costs associated with the
demonstration are to be reported as well, including indirect labor
costs and benefits, overhead expenses, subcontracts, and fees.
In order to minimize the burden on participating agencies, data on
staff time by activity will be collected for just two one-month periods
during the demonstration intake period. Total costs will be reported in
the other months.
NPOs will also be required to document how matching funds are
assigned to various program activities. In-kind services or other
contributions supporting each activity will also be identified and will
be assigned a dollar value.
Landlord Outreach Log. HUD and the Congress have expressed an
interest in learning about the level of landlord outreach that occurs
through the program. It is the NPO's responsibility to recruit
landlords to participate in the MTO program, particularly owners and
managers of more than 500 units and those with large (3+ bedrooms)
units. The log allows the NPO to keep a record of the names and
addresses of landlords who are contacted, the types and location of
units under their management, and the landlord's interest in
participating in the program. Similarly, it provides a place to record
contacts with property owner associations. The Landlord Outreach Logs
are updated by the NPOs as necessary. Updated logs will be copied and
sent to HUD at the end of each month for the intake period of the MTO
demonstration.
A2.3 Research Objectives and Analysis Design
The research objectives for the demonstration derive largely from
the authorizing legislation, the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1992. In the short term, the primary objective is to test whether
the MTO program can lead to significantly more leasing in low-poverty
areas than would have occurred if standard Section 8 procedures were
employed. To do so, it is necessary to obtain evidence of the effects
and costs of adding MTO housing search assistance services to the
Section 8 rental assistance program. As noted above, information must
be collected about standard Section 8 practices, which may vary
considerably from site to site, and their associated costs at each of
the demonstration sites. In addition, information must be collected
about the rate at which participants are able to move to low-poverty
areas, the level of special housing counseling provided by NPOs to
assist these moves, as well as other program activities (i.e, landlord
outreach) that facilitate movement to low-poverty areas. Through the
agency data collection and the Contractor's monitoring and technical
assistance activities, data will be provided to HUD that will enable a
full account of the costs involved in adding search assistance to the
Section 8 program and the number of families who were able to move to
low-poverty areas as a result of this assistance.
In the long term, the primary research objective of the MTO
demonstration is to determine whether MTO placements have measurable
impacts on the lives and opportunities of the families selected for the
experimental group. A mandated report to Congress in 2004 will address
the long-term effects of the demonstration. HUD has determined that the
key methodological strategy for measuring long-term effects is through
three-way random assignment of MTO program participants at the time of
entry into the program, permitting a comparison of experimental and
control group subjects for the final evaluation report. Experimental
group participants will receive Section 8 assistance to move to low-
poverty areas, as well as special housing search and counseling
assistance provided by NPOs at each of the demonstration sites. One
control group of participants will receive the Section 8 assistance
along with the standard Section 8 briefing and support provided by the
PHAs. A second control group will receive no assistance under the MTO
program but will retain current public housing or Section 8 project-
based housing. All three groups will be tracked by HUD for a period of
ten years, through any moves or changes in assistance status that may
occur.
The analysis design for the long-term evaluation is under
development by HUD and an outside experts group, which has been
convened twice (in December 1993 and March 1994).\13\ To date, the
group has focused its attention primarily on the experimental design
(confirming the choice of three-way random assignment) and on the
development of the baseline survey described in the previous section.
Presumably, analysis plans and other data collection instruments (such
as household follow-up surveys) will be needed to analyze the long-term
impacts of MTO. The Department intends to pursue these through the work
of the experts' group and through later procurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\The list of experts is found in Exhibit A.1 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A3 Use of Improved Technologies
The potential for using improved information technology to reduce
burden in this study has been reviewed. The study requires that
information be gathered from the following sources:
From families who enroll in the program--information that
determines their eligibility for the program and baseline data about
applicants and their families;
From PHAs--documentation of MTO program operations and
costs; information about the administration of the regular Section 8
program; extracts of existing participant records; and
From NPOs--documentation of MTO landlord outreach,
counseling, program operations, and costs.
Data on families will be gathered through the Participant Baseline
Survey and use of an existing HUD form for public housing and Section 8
tenants, HUD Form 50058.14 PHAs submit 50058 data monthly to the
HUD Multifamily Tenant Characteristics System.15 Procedures will
be developed to extract the same 50058 data for MTO families (from all
three groups) as the basis for long-term tracking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\PHAs participating in the MTO demonstration will be asked to
provide completed 50058 forms for all participants and to update
this information regularly.
\15\U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of
Public and Indian Housing, Notice PIH 93-53(HA). Housing agencies
with fewer than 100 units in management submit these forms
quarterly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except for Form 50058 data, it is expected that all information
collected by PHAs and NPOs will be recorded on paper, copies of which
will be submitted to HUD according to a pre-established schedule. HUD's
decision to employ paper forms for this demonstration was made after
careful consideration of the viability of automated data collection.
The cost of developing automated versions of the forms would be
prohibitive. The availability and type of computer equipment at NPOs
and PHAs may vary considerably. No single automated version could be
used in all demonstration sites; moreover, introduction of new software
would require more training time for the PHA and NPO staff than
instruction on the use of paper forms. If the PHAs and NPOs have
existing software that enables them to record the requested information
electronically, the Contractor will work with the agency or
organization to arrive at a compatible electronic format for easier
submission.
A4 Efforts to Avoid Duplication
This data collection effort represents the only Federal effort to
monitor and assess the Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing
Demonstration. Existing data on applicants, to the extent they are
available at the PHAs, will be used in lieu of new data collection. The
primary source of existing data on applicants will be HUD 50058 forms,
completed at admission or lease-up, at annual recertification, and at
the end of participation for Section 8 assisted tenants and for public
housing tenants.
To differing degrees, PHAs already maintain data on the costs of
administering traditional Section 8 programs. To the extent that these
data are available, they will obviate the need to collect this
information especially for the MTO demonstration.
A5 Why Similar Already-Available Data Cannot Be Used
This data collection represents the first attempt to collect
information about this new demonstration; no similar data are
available. Because of the differences between MTO and other mobility
programs,16 and particularly because of the experimental design
(with random assignment to three groups), data must be collected
directly about the characteristics of participants and their success in
utilizing the MTO or regular Section 8 rental assistance. Wherever HUD
has identified similar data on participants that will be useful, these
data will be used and not duplicated in MTO instruments. Further,
because of the unique nature of program operations under this
demonstration, detailed data on agency practices must be gathered. For
example, there are no systematic data available on the methods and
costs of nonprofit landlord outreach or counseling in different cities.
They must therefore be collected under the demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Salient differences include a) the focus on changes from
high-poverty to low-poverty areas (instead of the race-based
definitions of court-ordered mobility programs); and b) eligibility
restricted to current residents of public housing or Section 8
project-based housing developments (not waiting list applicants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A6 Efforts to Minimize the Burden for Small Entities
Respondents for this data collection include MTO program
participants, public housing authorities, and nonprofit organizations
participating in the MTO demonstration. The PHAs are all very large
agencies. However, some of the NPOs may qualify as small entities.
Consequently, we have minimized the number of items that the NPOs will
be required to collect. In addition, grantees were advised in the
Notice of Funding Availability for the demonstration that they would be
required to collect data for research purposes. HUD is assisting them
with this responsibility, by providing the staff support of a data
collection assistant at each site, who is hired by the Contractor to
help the NPOs and PHAs with record-keeping and data collection.
A7 Consequences of Less Frequent Data Collection
The data gathered from participants is a one-time collection for
the intake phase. PHAs and NPOs are required to maintain records and
report to HUD on a monthly basis for the intake phase. Any further
follow-up will be conducted under a separate procurement and will be
the subject of a separate clearance request.
A8 Circumstances Requiring Deviation from Guidelines in 5 CFR
1320.6
The data collection does not deviate from the guidelines in 5 CFR
1320.6.
A9 Consultations Outside the Agency
In developing these instruments, HUD has obtained input from a
number of sources. First, the Department has hired Abt Associates Inc.
to assist in the design of the data collection for the demonstration.
Key staff from Abt Associates are: Dr. Judith Feins, Ms. Mary Joel
Holin, Ms. Janine Sullivan, Mr. Antony Phipps, Dr. Susan Popkin, Dr.
Larry Orr.
Second, HUD has convened an experts' panel for the MTO
demonstration. The members of the panel are shown in Exhibit A.1.
Third, Contractor staff have consulted with staff and reviewed
materials provided by the Gautreaux Program in Chicago. These include
the Leadership Council's monthly reports to HUD, the information packet
provided to potential Gautreaux participants, and Gautreaux program
forms (such as the intake and credit check forms). The Contractor has
also discussed with Gautreaux Program administrators their methods for
tracking participants through the program. Fourth, an extensive review
has been conducted of the research literature on mobility programs, to
identify all the important areas where baseline data are needed for a
long-term evaluation of MTO's effects.
Exhibit A.1.--Experts' Panel for the MTO Demonstration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member name Institutional affiliation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Susan E. Mayer.... School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago.
Prof. Peter Rossi....... Dept. of Sociology, University of Massachusetts.
Prof. David Greenberg... Dept. of Economics, University of Maryland-Baltimore County.
Prof. Dean R. Lillard... Dept. of Consumer Economics & Housing, Cornell University.
Dr. Cynthia Sipe........ The Center for Assistance in Policy Development.
Dr. Howard Bloom........ Graduate School of Public Administration, New York University.
Prof. James Rosenbaum... School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University.
Prof. Thomas Cook....... Department of Sociology, Northwestern University.
Prof. Paul Fischer...... Dept. of Politics, Lake Forest College.
Mr. Alexander Polikoff.. Business and Professional People for the Public Interest.
Prof. Greg J. Duncan.... University of Michigan, Institute for Survey Research.
Prof. Jeanne Brooks-Gunn Center for the Study of Young Children, Columbia University.
Prof. Robert Crain...... Teachers College, Columbia University.
Mr. Fred Doolittle...... Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
Mr. Paul Leonard........ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Mr. Robert Embry........ Abell Foundation.
Dr. Chester Hartman..... Poverty and Race Research Action Council.
Dr. Kristin A. Moore.... Child Trends, Inc.
Dr. Sandra Newman....... Johns Hopkins University.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A10 Arrangements and Assurances Regarding Confidentiality
Program participants will be assured that the information they
provide will be kept confidential and used only for the purposes of
this research. No data will be released in a form that can be
identified with individual participants. These assurances will be
included in the Enrollment Form that is signed by all applicants during
the intake process.
A11 Sensitive Questions
There are no questions of a sensitive nature in this data
collection effort.
A12 Estimated Cost to the Federal Government
The cost to the Federal Government of the MTO demonstration is
$69,661,760 ($18,979,085 for vouchers, $49,510,100 for certificates,
$500,000 for counseling, and $672,575 for implementation assistance and
evaluation). The cost of the data collection described in this
Supporting Statement is $179,585.
A13 Respondent Burden
The respondent burden calculations presented in Exhibit A.2 cover a
period of two years (24 months) from the anticipated June 1, 1994
start-up of the MTO demonstration.
Exhibit A.2.--Estimated Respondent Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Total
Form Respondent respondents (see Time to complete Frequency burden
notes) (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enrollment Form.... Eligible MTO 9,000.............. 5 minutes......... 1 per respondent.. 750
applicants.
Participant Experimental group. 9,000.............. 40 minutes........ 1 per respondent.. 6,000
Baseline Survey. Section 8 control
group
In-place control
group
Participant NPO staff.......... 5 optional......... 20 hours.......... 1 per month....... 2,400
Counseling Contact
Log.
Landlord Outreach NPO staff.......... 5.................. 8 hours........... 1 per month....... 960
Log.
Program Cost Forms. NPO staff.......... 5.................. 4 hours........... 1 each per NPO, 960
PHA staff.......... 5 PHA per month.
Participant PHA staff.......... 5.................. 40 hours.......... 1 each per NPO, 4,800
Tracking Forms. NPO staff.......... 5 PHA per month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Burden is calculated for the maximum number of participant respondents, under the most conservative
assumptions. See the discussion in Part B.
One NPO in each site (thus 5 total) will be responsible for record-keeping and reporting, even though two sites
have additional NPOs as subcontractors.
A14 Reasons for Changes in Burden
This is an original submission of a Request for OMB Clearance for
the data collection of the MTO demonstration. Therefore, this section
is not applicable.
A15 Tabulation Plan, Statistical Analysis and Study Schedule
Currently, the intake phase of the MTO demonstration is scheduled
to begin in June 1994 and end in June 1995. Including the FY 94 Notice
of Funding Availability, this intake phase may be extended through June
1996.
Immediate plans for tabulation or other analysis of the data
collected under this request for clearance are limited to those of the
Contractor, Abt Associates, and to the period from the start of
demonstration site operations (scheduled for June 1, 1994) until
February 1995. The Contractor's Final Report will combine documentation
of the MTO demonstration characteristics (including random assignment,
outreach, training, and monitoring) with description of PHA and NPO
operating characteristics as they relate to the demonstration. It will
compare the counseling and search assistance delivered to experimental
group participants (within the observation period) by the NPOs with the
standard Section 8 counseling and other services routinely offered by
the PHAs to Section 8 certificate- and voucher-holders. While the
report will not contain any presentation of early participant or cost
data from the demonstration,\17\ it will amply document the design and
early implementation of the MTO demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Under the Contractor's schedule, there would at best be 7
months of intake data available; it is unlikely that there would be
much search or locational outcome data available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In preparation for the end of the Contractor's period of work, and
for assumption of data collection and monitoring activities directly by
HUD, Department staff will develop plans for the tabulation and
reporting of participant and cost data to Congress, as required by the
statute authorizing MTO.
Part B Statistical Methods
B1 Potential Respondent Universe
The potential respondent universe for the Moving to Opportunity for
Fair Housing Demonstration consists of two parts: the families that
apply for Section 8 through the demonstration (including informed
consent to enroll), and the agencies that are involved in the
administration of the housing assistance and counseling program that
form the demonstration. As indicated in Part A of this request, the
instruments for which clearance is requested fall into two groups, by
parts of the potential respondent universe, as follows:
Data collection forms with participant respondents--the
Enrollment Form and Participant Baseline Survey;
Data collection forms with agency respondents--the
Participant Tracking Forms, Participant Counseling log (optional),
Program Cost Forms, and Landlord Outreach Log.
MTO Demonstration Participants
MTO demonstration participants are those families that (a) respond
to MTO outreach conducted by the site agencies, (b) receive information
about MTO and about the different possible outcomes of applying (due to
random assignment), and (c) agree to join the demonstration by signing
the Enrollment Form. Such participants must be families with children
currently receiving housing assistance (residing in either public
housing or Section 8 project-based housing) in the high-poverty census
tracts designated by the local housing authority for the demonstration.
Based upon the applications submitted by the five successful sites
in response to the MTO NOFA, the size of the potential participant
respondent universe is shown in Exhibit B.1.
Exhibit B.1.--Size of the Potential Participant Respondent Universe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore Boston Chicago Los Angeles New York
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-Poverty Census Tracts.......................... 34 (5 targeted)........... 14 (9 targeted)........... 182 (3+ targeted)......... 40 (8 targeted)........... 275 (3 targeted).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing Developments in Targeted High-Poverty Census Tracts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project-Based Section 8............................. 11........................ 20........................ 2......................... 30........................ ..........................
Public Housing...................................... 8 (plus 97 scattered-site 6......................... 4......................... 8......................... 5.
units).
Eligible Families................................... 2,300..................... 4,500..................... 2,415..................... 3,990..................... 2,431.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These participants are the potential respondents for the Enrollment
Form and Participant Baseline Survey. The sites have confirmed to
the Department that they will expand the targeted areas if it is
necessary (for purposes of sufficient sample size) to attract more
families to the demonstration.
MTO Demonstration Agencies
There are 14 local agencies playing administrative roles in the MTO
demonstration; they are listed in Exhibit B.2. Of the 14, 10 will be
reporting entities and are the potential respondents for these data
collection instruments: the Participant Tracking Forms, the Participant
Counseling Log (optional), the Program Cost Forms, and the Landlord
Outreach Log. More specifically, the Participant Counseling Log and
Landlord Outreach Log will only be used by the NPOs; the other
instruments will be completed by both types of agency. Note that 4 of
the 9 nonprofits shown in the exhibit are subcontractors to other
nonprofits; for purposes of discussing respondent burden, in Part A13
above, it was indicated that data collection responsibilities lay with
the prime nonprofit in each site.
Exhibit B.2.--Members of the Potential Agency Respondent Universe
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore Boston Chicago Los Angeles New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHA.............. Housing Authority Boston Housing Chicago Housing Housing Authority New York City
of Baltimore Authority (BHA). Authority (CHA). of the City of Housing
City (HABC). Los Angeles Authority
(HACLA). (NYCHA).
NPO.............. Community Metropolitan Leadership Fair Housing Northern
Assistance Boston Housing Council for Congress of Manhattan
Network (CAN). Partnership Inc. Metropolitan Southern Improvement
(MBHP). Open Communities California Corporation
(LC). (FHCSC). (NMIC)
Sub(s)........... Baltimore Urban None............. None............. beyond shelter None.
League; (bs).
Neighborhood
Intervention
Strategies,
Inc.; Baltimore
Neighborhoods,
Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B2 Statistical Methods
This section contains five parts. B2.1 presents the MTO
demonstration's stratification and sampling plans. Section B2.2
discusses sampling procedures. B2.3 presents the justification of level
of accuracy achieved by the sample sizes. Section B2.4 discusses any
problems requiring specialized sampling procedures. Section B2.5
addresses the topic of use of less frequent data collection cycles.
B2.1 Stratification and Sampling Plans
The sample for the evaluation will consist of families who apply to
the demonstration and are randomly assigned to one of three groups:
The experimental group, which will receive geographically
restricted certificates or vouchers, along with counseling and
assistance in finding a private unit to lease;
The Section 8 control group, which will receive regular
Section 8 certificates or vouchers, which are geographically
unrestricted; and
The in-place control group, which will receive no
certificates or vouchers, but will continue to receive project-based
assistance.
Exhibit B.3 shows the optimal allocation of the sample among these
three groups. This allocation assumes:
The Department is interested in estimating the difference
in impacts between the MTO treatment and the regular Section 8 program
(or, alternatively, the difference in impacts between living in the
central city outside housing projects and living in the suburbs);
The lease-up rate in the Section 8 group will be 70
percent; and
1,800 certificates or vouchers will be available for the
demonstration, all of which can be used interchangeably as MTO
certificates or vouchers or as regular Section 8 certificates or
vouchers.
The exhibit shows two alternative sample allocations (and total
sample sizes), one based on an assumed lease-up rate of 20 percent in
the experimental group and one based on an assumed lease-up rate of 40
percent in that group.\18\ Because the certificates and vouchers issued
to the experimental group participants can only be used in certain low-
poverty areas outside the neighborhoods where these families would
ordinarily seek housing, we expect that even with special counseling
and assistance their lease-up rate will be substantially lower than
that of the regular Section 8 group. However, given the limited
experience with this type of program, it is very difficult to predict
what that rate will be. Therefore, we show sample allocations for
lease-up rates that bracket the likely range of rates for this group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\The 20 percent estimate is based on the experience of the
Gautreaux program in Chicago. The 40 percent lease-up rate was
estimated by Professor Paul Fischer from his research on the
Cincinnati mobility program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the assumption of a 20 percent lease-up rate, it will require
4,500 families in the experimental group and 1,286 families in the
Section 8 control group to produce 900 leased-up families in each, the
optimal division of certificates or vouchers between the two groups. An
additional 3,214 families will be required for the in-place control
group, for a total sample size of 9,000 families. With a 40 percent
lease-up rate in the experimental group, only 2,250 families would be
needed in that group to produce 900 leased-up families. Under this
assumption, the optimal number of in-place controls also falls to 964,
for a total sample size of 4,500 families.
Exhibit B.3.--Optimal Sample Allocation, MTO Demonstration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experimental Section 8 In-place
(MTO) group control group control group Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Families assigned:
20% MTO lease-up rate....................... 4,500 1,286 3,214 9,000
40% MTO lease-up rate....................... 2,250 1,286 964 4,500
Families leased up.............................. 900 900 N/A 1,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final sample size will be determined by the actual lease-up
rate (i.e., the number of families actually required to exhaust the
1,800 certificates/vouchers available) and the random assignment ratio.
In the absence of reliable knowledge about the lease-up rate to be
expected in the experimental group, the Contractor plans to take the
conservative approach of setting the initial random assignment ratio
based on the assumption of a 20 percent lease-up rate in this group.
If, as the demonstration progresses, this group experiences a higher
lease-up rate, the random assignment ratio can be adjusted accordingly.
B2.2 Sampling Procedures
As specified in the authorizing legislation, the MTO demonstration
will be targeted to very low-income families with children who reside
in public housing or receive project-based Section 8 assistance in
specific high-poverty areas of five large cities. Participating PHAs
will notify all eligible families within the designated demonstration
areas of the availability of assistance to move out of project-based
housing.
The first step in intake will be to determine the eligibility of
applicant families. This involves verifying the applicant's family
composition, income, and legal tenancy in public or project-based
Section 8 housing in the designated high-poverty census tracts. At this
stage, families will be reminded that, because demonstration slots are
limited, not all eligible applicants can be accepted; those to be
accepted will be chosen by a lottery. They will be asked to agree to
participate in the study (i.e. provide any information or cooperation
that is requested by the researchers) even if they are not chosen to
receive demonstration assistance.
At this point, after signing the Enrollment Form, baseline data for
the experimental analysis will be collected. It is important that these
data be collected before applicants are assigned to any specific
assistance group, in order to ensure that their responses are not
influenced by knowledge of the group to which they have been assigned.
The next step in the intake process will be random assignment of
applicant families to an experimental group that receives assistance
under MTO, a control group that receives regular Section 8
certificates/vouchers, or to an in-place control group that receives no
certificates or vouchers.
Families assigned to the regular Section 8 program will receive the
standard PHA briefing and any other assistance the PHA would normally
provide Section 8 enrollees. Since all applicants will have expressed
an interest in moving out of project-based housing, it is assumed that
virtually all will take the Section 8 certificates or vouchers and
begin searching for acceptable housing. Those who are successful in
finding units that pass PHA inspection will move; those who are
unsuccessful will remain in their public or project-based housing.
Families assigned to the experimental group will receive a standard
briefing from the PHA and will be issued an MTO certificate/voucher.
They will then be invited for a preliminary counseling session with the
nonprofit organization (NPO) involved in the demonstration. Some of
these families may decide not to search once they learn more about the
MTO certificates/vouchers' restriction to use in low-poverty areas.
Those who elect to continue will receive further NPO counseling and
assistance in locating acceptable units in low-poverty areas.
Families randomly assigned to the in-place control group will be
informed that, because the number of applicants exceeded the number of
certificates/vouchers available for this special demonstration, they
will not receive assistance in moving. They will, however, continue to
receive project-based assistance and could be wait-listed for Section 8
existing program assistance.
Random assignment will occur after collection of the baseline data
and before any Section 8 briefing. It will be important that PHA staff
determine each applicant's eligibility and collect baseline data prior
to random assignment, to ensure that no ineligibles are included in the
sample and that responses to the baseline instruments are not
influenced by knowledge of the treatment to which the family has been
assigned. It will also be important to ensure that, following random
assignment, families receive a careful explanation of the nature and
terms of the assistance they are being offered (or, if they are being
offered no new assistance, that they remain eligible for their current
assistance). To avoid confusion, briefings for the experimental and
regular Section 8 control groups will be conducted separately.
The fact that some intake activities must occur before random
assignment and others must occur after, but perhaps within the same
visit by the participant to the PHA office, means that random
assignment must be capable of being conducted with very quick turn-
around. The most efficient way to accomplish this is for PHA staff to
conduct random assignment on-site. To ensure that random assignment is
conducted properly, and that staff cannot ``game'' the procedure, the
Contractor has developed a computerized random assignment routine that
can be run by local program staff on virtually any personal computer,
with minimal training. Intake staff need only respond to on-screen
prompts for the applicant's name, date of birth, and Social Security
number;\19\ the random assignment routine will then automatically
display the family's assignment on the screen and store it on the
diskette containing the random assignment software.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\These identifiers are collected in order to ensure accurate
linking of the family's random assignment status with data
subsequently collected over life of the project. They are collected
ordinarily on the PHAs' Section 8 applications and used on HUD Form
50058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demonstration staff will inform the applicants of their assignments
and refer the MTO and regular Section 8 groups to their respective
briefings. Those assigned to remain in-place will be informed that,
because the number of applicants exceeded the number that could be
assisted in this special demonstration, the PHA was not able to give
them a certificate/voucher. They will be assured, however, that they
will continue to receive their current project-based assistance. PHA
staff will give applicants this information both orally and in writing,
ensuring that all applicants in this group receive the same information
and providing them a document to refer to if they have subsequent
questions about their status.
B2.3 Justification of Level of Accuracy
The precision of the impact estimates is measured by the size of
the smallest program effect that could be detected as statistically
significant at the .05 level with 80 percent power with a given sample.
This is the ``minimum detectable effect.''
Exhibit B.4 shows the minimum program effects on several different
outcomes that would be detectable under the optimal sample allocation
shown in Exhibit B.3.\20\ The top panel of the exhibit is based on the
conservative assumption that the lease-up rate for the experimental
group will be 20 percent; the bottom panel assumes a 40 percent lease-
up rate for this group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\The estimates in Exhibit B.4 assume an educational
attainment rate of 50 percent and an employment rate of 70 percent
in the absence of assistance. They also assume mean earnings of
$7,488, with a standard deviation of $7,087 in the absence of
assistance (based on the earnings of low-income adult women in the
National JTPA Study sample), and 30 percent sample attrition between
random assignment and follow-up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Exhibit B.4, if the lease-up rate for the experimental
group turns out to be 20 percent, we can be confident of detecting a
program-induced increase of 7 percentage points in the educational
attainment rate of children in families who lease up in the Section 8
control group--an increase of 14 percent in the proportion receiving a
high school diploma or GED.\21\ A 6.4 percentage point increase in the
employment rate of adults who lease up in the Section 8 control group
would be detectable with 80 percent power, as would a $992 (13 percent)
increase in their earnings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\The figures in Exhibit B.4 are minimum detectable effects on
families who successfully lease up, not on the entire treatment
group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because a much smaller proportion of the experimental group is
expected to lease up successfully and receive assistance, effects on
assistance recipients in this group must be much larger to be
detectable. With a 20 percent lease-up rate, the minimum detectable
effects on educational attainment and earnings are both about one-third
of the control mean for this group. The smallest detectable effect on
the employment rate of MTO assistance recipients will be about 16
percentage points.
The final column of Exhibit B.4's upper panel shows the minimum
detectable differences between the impact on the regular Section 8
group and the impact on the MTO group. If the MTO lease-up rate is 20
percent, differences in impact in the 21 to 32 percent range would be
detectable.
Exhibit B.4.--Minimum Detectable Program Effects on Recipients for Selected Outcomes, Under the Optimal Sample
Allocation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MTO lease-up rate = 20%1,800 certificates/ MTO lease-up rate = 40% 1,800 certificates/
vouchers vouchers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impacts on Impacts on
Outcome regular Impacts on MTO regular Impacts on MTO
section 8 (Experimental) Difference in section 8 (experimental) Difference in
(control) recipients impacts (control) recipients impacts
recipients recipients
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attainment of
high school
diploma or GED. .070
(14.0%) .172
(34.3%) .157
(31.4%) .090
(18.1%) .143
(28.6%) .111
(22.2%)
Employment rate. .064
(9.1%) .157
(22.4%) .144
(20.6%) .083
(11.8%) .131
(18.7%) .102
(14.6%)
Earnings........ $992
(13.3%) $2,430
(32.5%) $2,221
(29.7%) $1281
(17.1%) $2026
(27.1%) $1,569
(21.0%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in the bottom panel of Exhibit B.4, substantially smaller
effects will be detectable if the lease-up rate in the MTO group turns
out to be 40 percent. In particular, differences in impact between the
regular Section 8 group and the MTO group of 15 to 22 percent will be
detectable if the lease-up rate is 40 percent.
Minimum detectable effects for site-specific estimates will be
about 2.24 times as large as those for the pooled five-site estimates.
Therefore, only very large program impacts will be detectable within
individual sites.
The minimum detectable effects on employment rates estimated here
for the pooled five-site sample (even for the more conservative lease-
up rate assumption) are of the same order of magnitude as the effects
found by Rosenbaum and Fischer in their studies of mobility programs
for public housing tenants and applicants, and the minimum detectable
effects on educational attainment are similar to the effect Rosenbaum
found for school dropout rates.\22\ This suggests that the
demonstration sample will be adequate to detect effects of the size
that are likely to occur. However, it must be borne in mind that those
earlier studies may have been subject to selection bias that would
inflate their estimates of program impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\See James E. Rosenbaum, ``Black Pioneers--Do Their Moves to
the Suburbs Increase Economic Opportunity for Mothers and
Children?'' Housing Policy Debate, Volume 2, Issues 4, 1991; and
(again) Fischer, ``Is Housing Mobility an Effective Anti-Poverty
Strategy?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The minimum detectable effects shown here are based on HUD's
initial commitment of certificates and vouchers to the MTO experimental
design, totalling 1,800. A further allocation of about 1,500
certificates and vouchers is available in FY94.\23\ The proportion of
these resources that will be devoted to the experimental evaluation of
MTO has not yet been determined; some may be reserved for
demonstrations of different MTO administrative models. However, Exhibit
B.5 shows the minimum detectable effects that would be attainable if
this entire allocation were used to increase the sample size for the
experimental evaluation of MTO to 3,300 certificates and vouchers.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\The precise number of certificates and vouchers that can be
supported with a given budget cannot be determined until sites are
known, since the cost of certificate or voucher depends on the fair
market rent in the local area.
\24\Allocating additional certificates and vouchers to the
experimental evaluation would almost certainly require either the
selection of new sites or expansion of the target areas of the five
existing sites, in order to obtain a sufficient number of eligible
families to use the certificates and vouchers.
Exhibit B.5--Minimum Detectable Program Effects on Recipients for Selected Outcomes, Under the Optimal Sample
Allocation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MTO lease-up rate = 20%3,300 certificates/ MTO lease-up rate = 40%3,300 certificates/
vouchers vouchers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outcome Impacts on Impacts on
regular 8 Impacts on MTO Difference in regular 8 Impacts on MTO Difference in
(control) (experimental) impacts (control) (experimental) impacts
recipents recipients recipents recipients
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attainment of
high school
diploma or GED. .052
(10.3%) .127
(25.4%) .116
(23.1%) .066
(13.3%) .106
(21.1%) .081
(18.8%)
Employment rate. .047
(6.8%) .116
(16.6%) .106
(15.2%) .061
(8.8%) .097
(13.8%) .075
(10.7%)
Earnings........ $733
(9.8%) $1,795
(24.0%) $1,640
(21.9%) $946
(12.6%) $1,496
(20.0%) $1,158
(15.5%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This increase in the sample reduces the minimum detectable effects
by about 25 percent. As can be seen in the exhibit, with this sample
size, differences in impact in the range of 15 to 23 percent would be
detectable if the MTO lease-up rate is 20 percent. Even smaller
differences, in the 11 to 18 percent range, would be detectable if the
MTO lease-up rate is 40 percent.
B2.4 Problems Requiring Specialized Sampling Procedures
The data collection for the Moving to Opportunity demonstration
does not require any specialized sampling procedures.
B2.5 Use of Less Frequent Data Collection Cycles
The instruments covered in this request for OMB clearance have
different collection cycles, as follows:
The data collection forms with participant respondents--
the Enrollment Form and Participant Baseline Survey--are designed for
one-time administration only.
The data collection forms with agency respondents--the
Participant Tracking Forms, the Participant Counseling log (optional),
the Program Cost Forms, and the Landlord Outreach Log--are designed for
periodic collection, described below.
Of the latter group of forms, the Participant Tracking Forms, the
Program Cost Forms, and the Landlord Outreach Logs will be collected on
a monthly basis during the period of MTO intake. Monthly collection of
tracking forms is essential because of the likelihood that many of the
participants will be moving as a result of receiving Section 8
assistance; close tracking in the search and lease-up period will form
the foundation of the long-term tracking effort designed to support
measurement of program impacts over a ten-year period. Monthly
collection of cost forms matches the typical accounting cycle of site
agencies and is essential for meeting the Congressional mandate to
compare MTO's costs with those of the regular Section 8 program. Thus,
Congress's intent in creating MTO necessitates the use of monthly data
collection cycles for these items. Finally, aggressive landlord
outreach is expected to be important to the program's success. For this
reason, it is essential to monitor NPO efforts in this area monthly.
The Participant Counseling log (or local equivalent) will be
collected only twice during the demonstration, at the mid-point and end
of the Contractor's monitoring period. This form is primarily for NPO
management of the demonstration, although its contents will be used in
describing the efforts of the site agencies to counsel and support
participants.
B3 Response Rate
B3.1 Procedures to Maximize Response Rate and Handle Nonresponse
Concerns about maintaining a high response rate have been addressed
by the Department by means of the following strategies. For the data
collection forms to be completed by the site agencies, the Department
has sought to ensure a high level of response by:
Notifying the demonstration site applicants, as part of
the Notice of Funding Availability, that participation in the record-
keeping and data collection of the demonstration is a mandatory
component;
Agreeing to provide an on-site assistant to help with the
collection of data; and
Involving the demonstration sites in the development of
the data collection forms; and
Contracting with Abt Associates to monitor and provide
technical assistance to demonstration sites.
For the forms to be completed by participants, The Department has
sought to achieve a high response rate by (1) collecting the data
during the Section 8 application process, and (2) using a ``guided
self-administered'' mode to collect the data. The Enrollment Form and
Baseline Survey are designed as self-administered forms. However, the
site assistants hired by the Contractor to assist the demonstration,
one in each city, will help the participants by reading the questions
aloud while the participants are completing the forms and fielding any
questions from participants who may have difficulty understanding the
questions due to limited literacy or language skills.
The site assistants will be hired and trained by Abt Associates,
the Contractor. In addition, Abt will assign a field manager to provide
ongoing training and supervision of the site assistants. The field
manager and site assistants hired for this data collection will need
the following qualifications, at a minimum:
A proven track record conducting interviews with AFDC
recipients and other low-income populations;
Experience working with local agencies and their record-
keeping systems; and
A sufficient understanding of the MTO demonstration and
the operational and research goals motivating the data collection.
Abt Associates has extensive experience in the collection of data on-
site. The field manager and site assistant positions will be staffed
from Abt's national network of experienced field interviewers.
Just prior to the beginning of the data collection, Abt will bring
the field data collection team together for an intensive, two-day
training session. Using a combination of written training materials and
role-playing, the site assistants will be briefed on the participant
instruments. They will also be thoroughly oriented to the agency data
collection forms. In addition, the site assistants will receive a
comprehensive discussion of the demonstration and its data collection
needs.
The field manager will have responsibility for maintaining the
quality and flow of the data collection at each site. To accomplish
this, the field manager will attend the full three-day training session
for staff from the five MTO sites. The field manager will also visit
each site early in the data collection period, to become familiar with
the MTO staff and operations at each PHA and NPO and work with the site
assistant to provide the most effective support for the demonstration
at the site. Throughout the data collection period, the field manager
will maintain regular contact with the site assistants (no less
frequently than once a week) and the MTO staff at the sites. The field
manager in turn, will report to the data collection director at Abt on
the progress of the data collection, any problems that arise, and
potential solutions.
B3.2 Expected Response Rate
Because completion of the Enrollment Form and Baseline Survey is
part of the process of applying for the MTO demonstration, and due to
the assistance described in Section B3.1 above, response rates of
virtually 100 percent are expected from participant respondents.
With regard to agency respondents, all PHAs and NPOs applying for
the MTO demonstration in response to the NOFA have signed statements
agreeing to cooperate with the special record-keeping and data
collection requirements of the demonstration. There may be further
special language to this effect in the grant agreements governing the
award of counseling funds from HUD to the NPOs. These requirements, in
combination with the assistance provided by the Contractor, should
produce extremely high response rates on all instruments to be
completed by the site agencies.
B4 Tests of Procedures or Methods/Results of Pre-testing
The Department's Contractor, Abt Associates, developed the data
collection forms for this submission. Abt has consulted the PHAs and
NPOs involved in MTO; staff from these organizations reviewed draft
versions of the program operation forms (the Participant Tracking Logs,
Participant Counseling Log, Program Cost Forms, and Landlord Outreach
Logs) and provided feedback on their design and feasibility.
In developing the Baseline Survey, the Contractor also reviewed
numerous existing instruments and consulted with the Department's
experts' panel. To the greatest extent possible, the MTO baseline
survey uses tested questions from prior studies. Below is a list of the
major topic areas included in the survey and the sources consulted for
each area:
Mobility: The Gautreaux studies, James Rosenbaum and Susan Popkin,
Northwestern University; Cincinnati Special Mobility program study,
Paul Fischer, Lake Forest College; Greg Duncan, University of Michigan.
Housing preference/attitudes toward living in white/mixed
communities: Detroit Area Study, Reynolds Farley, University of
Michigan; Robert Crain, National Study of Black Americans, Columbia
University; the Gautreaux studies.
Housing quality: National Housing Survey; Chicago Hardship Study,
Christopher Jencks and Susan Mayer, Northwestern University/University
of Chicago.
Motivation to move: the Gautreaux studies, Cincinnati Special
Mobility Program study.
Fear of crime and victimization: the Gautreaux studies.
Neighborhood condition: African-American Youth Behavior Project,
Brian Flay, University of Illinois Chicago; Philadelphia Family
Management Study, Frank Furstenburg and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, University
of Pennsylvania; Susan Mayer, University of Chicago.
Neighborhood resources: Philadelphia Family Management Study, Frank
Furstenburg; Susan Mayer, University of Chicago.
Social integration and social support: the Gautreaux studies;
African-American Youth Behavior Project; Philadelphia Family Management
Study.
Education and employment: Abt Associates' evaluation of the Job
Training Partnership Act, for the Department of Labor; Panel Study of
Income Dynamics, Greg Duncan, University of Michigan; Gautreaux
studies; Susan Mayer, University of Chicago.
Welfare recipiency: recent Abt studies; Greg Duncan; Susan Mayer;
Gautreaux studies.
Self-efficacy: Brian Flay, University of Illinois Chicago;
Philadelphia Family Management Study; Gautreaux studies.
Children: ongoing Abt studies of the Comprehensive Child
Development Program for the Department of Education and the evaluation
of programs supported by the Commission on National and Community
Service; the Philadelphia Family Management study; Behavior Problems
Index; Person Maturity Scale; HOME scale; Gautreaux studies; Kristen
Moore, Child Trends; Jeanne-Brooks Gunn, Columbia University.
B5 Statistical Consultation and Information Collection Agents
Individuals consulted on the sampling design and its statistical
properties were: Dr. Larry Orr, Abt Associates; Dr. Stephen Kennedy,
Abt Associates; Prof. David Greenberg, Dept. of Economics, University
of Maryland-Baltimore County; Prof. Peter Rossi, Dept. of Sociology,
University of Massachusetts; Prof. Greg J. Duncan, University of
Michigan; Mr. Fred Doolittle, Manpower Demonstration Research
Corporation.
BILLING CODE 4210-01-P
TN19MY94.004
TN19MY94.005
TN19MY94.006
TN19MY94.007
TN19MY94.008
TN19MY94.009
TN19MY94.010
TN19MY94.011
TN19MY94.012
TN19MY94.013
TN19MY94.014
TN19MY94.015
TN19MY94.016
TN19MY94.017
TN19MY94.018
TN19MY94.019
TN19MY94.020
TN19MY94.021
TN19MY94.022
TN19MY94.023
TN19MY94.024
TN19MY94.025
TN19MY94.026
TN19MY94.027
TN19MY94.028
TN19MY94.029
TN19MY94.030
TN19MY94.031
TN19MY94.032
TN19MY94.033
TN19MY94.034
TN19MY94.035
TN19MY94.036
TN19MY94.037
TN19MY94.038
TN19MY94.039
TN19MY94.040
TN19MY94.041
TN19MY94.042
TN19MY94.043
TN19MY94.044
TN19MY94.045
TN19MY94.046
TN19MY94.047
TN19MY94.048
TN19MY94.049
TN19MY94.050
TN19MY94.051
TN19MY94.052
TN19MY94.053
TN19MY94.054
TN19MY94.055
TN19MY94.056
[FR Doc. 94-12176 Filed 5-18-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-01-C
