Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB

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