Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submission
Evaluation of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Youth Homelessness Demonstration Project
OMB # 2528-XXXX
Describe (including a numerical estimate) the potential respondent universe and any sampling or other respondent selection methods to be used. Data on the number of entities (e.g., establishments, State and local government units, households, or persons) in the universe covered by the collection and in the corresponding sample are to be provided in tabular form for the universe as a whole and for each of the strata in the proposed sample. Indicate expected response rates for the collection as a whole. If the collection had been conducted previously, include the actual response rate achieved during the last collection.
This Information Collection Request (ICR) includes seven data collection instruments. All seven are attached to this Supporting Statement. They are:
Continuum of Care (CoC) web survey on community responses to youth homelessness and changes in youth homelessness over the four years of the study, to be administered in Years 1 and 4 to 400 CoCs who are not grant awardees or comparison sites
Lead agencies interview on the baseline status and program planning process, and about changes resulting from the implementation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program (YHDP) (for grantees) or changes in responses to youth homelessness resulting from community planning (for comparison sites), to be administered during site visits in Years 1, 2, and 4
Service provider interview on youth homeless services, coordinated entry, data, funding, and systems issues and how those change over time in the community, to be administered during site visits in Years 1, 2, and 4
Local government agency staff interview on services provided by the agency, status of the community’s youth homelessness system, coordinated entry in the community, data, systems issues, and context, to be administered during site visits in Years 1, 2, and 4
Technical Assistance (TA) provider interview on the community’s process to develop a YHDP plan, TA provided and its impact, challenges in planning and implementing the YHDP/youth homeless system, systems issues, and context, to be administered during site visits in Years 1, 2, and 4
Youth board member interview conducted with youth who have experience both with homelessness and with serving on a youth board, on the work of the board and the community’s homeless service system and its effectiveness, to be administered during site visits in Years 1, 2, and 4
Youth focus group discussion conducted with youth who have experience with homelessness, on their experience, services needed, services available, and what an ideal system would look like
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awarded funding to Youth Homelessness Demonstration Project (YHDP) applicants that demonstrated high levels of leadership capacity, current resource capacity, community need, capacity for innovation, collaboration, financial resources, and data and evaluation capacity (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2017a). The sites vary greatly in the degree to which they have developed a coordinated response to youth homelessness. Exhibit 1 lists the 10 YHDP sites.
Exhibit 1. YHDP Selected Sites
CoC |
Lead Agency |
Award Amount |
Catchment Area |
Urban Sites |
|||
CA-501: San Francisco |
Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing |
$2.9 Million |
City and County of San Francisco |
CA-508: Watsonville/Santa Cruz City/Santa Cruz County |
County of Santa Cruz Planning Department |
$2.2 Million |
Santa Cruz County |
CT-505: Connecticut BOS |
Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services |
$6.6 Million |
Entire CoC region: 7 of CT’s 8 counties |
OH-500: Cincinnati/Hamilton County |
Strategies to End Homelessness, Inc |
$3.8 Million |
City of Cincinnati and Hamilton County |
TX-503: Austin/Travis County |
Ending Community Homelessness Coalition, Inc |
$5.2 Million |
City of Austin and Travis County |
WA-500: Seattle/King County |
King County Department of Community and Human Services |
$5.4 Million |
City of Seattle and King County |
Rural Sites |
|||
AK-500: Anchorage |
Anchorage Coalition to End Homelessness |
$1.5 Million |
City of Anchorage |
KY-500: Kentucky BOS |
Kentucky Housing Corporation |
$1.9 Million |
8 counties in southeastern Kentucky (Bell, Clay, Harlan, Knox, Leslie, Letcher, Perry, and Whitley) |
MI-512: Grand Traverse, Antrim, Leelanau Counties |
Northwest Michigan Community Action Agency, INC |
$1.3 Million |
5 counties in Northwest Lower Michigan (Leelanau, Benzie, Manistee, Grand Traverse, and Wexford) |
OH-507: Ohio BOS |
State of Ohio |
$2.2 Million |
5 counties southeastern Ohio (Athens, Meigs, Vinton, Jackson, and Gallia) |
Longitudinal case studies will be conducted with three comparison communities in a manner as close as possible to that used with the YHDP communities. The comparison communities will be selected, in part, based on their “starting point” with respect to having a coordinated response to youth homelessness in place, as well as reflecting variations in overall community size, whether they are urban/rural, and the size of the population of youth experiencing homelessness relative to the demonstration communities.
To guide the selection, we first classified the 10 demonstration communities into three broad groupings based on their baseline youth homelessness system status. Sites with highly developed systems are those that prior to the YHDP had in place outreach services, coordinated entry systems aimed at or inclusive of youth populations, housing interventions specifically for youth, and availability of other assistance, including prevention, family interventions, employment, and/or other services. Those with “medium” starting points also have the core elements of outreach, coordinated entry systems, and housing interventions specifically for youth, but generally had fewer other services for youth experiencing or at risk of homelessness than highly developed sites. Those sites categorized as “early development” entered the demonstration with limited outreach services available, coordinated entry systems that are still to be developed or at the early stages of implementation, and few housing interventions specifically for youth.
We will identify possible comparison communities from the pool of over 60 applicant CoCs for the demonstration program that were not selected but met minimum eligibility criteria, using information from their applications as well as from the Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR), Housing Inventory Counts (HIC), data from the TA providers, and other existing data. We will identify 15 candidate sites, five within each broad grouping of “starting points” (highly developed, medium development, and early development). We will array the potential comparison sites within each category in order of the best possible match in their baseline status on responding to youth homelessness as well as in geography, urbanicity, the size of the youth homeless population, and other key characteristics. We will ultimately select one site within each grouping (for an eventual selection of three comparison sites), beginning with the best match in each group and eliminating any site that is selected for the new round of YHDP funding in 2018. We will include at least one rural site among the three selected comparison sites.
In 2016, the number of counted homeless youth at each of the YHDP sites varied from 31 in the Northwest Michigan site to 1,565 in San Francisco. Exhibit 2 shows the total sheltered and unsheltered homeless youth population (including both parenting and unaccompanied youth) by grantee, arranged by number of homeless youth from highest to lowest. The total number of homeless youth across the 10 YHP sites is 3,459, an average of 346 youth per site. Using that average to approximate the homeless youth population at three comparison sites, there will be a total of 4,497 homeless youth in all YHDP and comparison sites. We will track changes in these totals over the 4 years of the YHDP evaluation (YHDPE), using Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) data. In addition, we will supplement the HMIS data (which capture only a subset of youth) with other datasets that may capture information on youth who are not in HMIS. These may include child welfare data, education data, Voices of Youth Count data1, and integrated datasets where available (e.g., Seattle, San Francisco).
Source: HUD 2016 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs Homeless Populations and Subpopulations
Exhibit 2. Sheltered and Unsheltered Youth Experiencing Homelessness by Site
Site |
N |
% Sheltered |
% Unsheltered |
San Francisco |
1565 |
13 |
87 |
Seattle |
853 |
61 |
39 |
Ohio BOS |
204 |
94 |
6 |
Santa Cruz |
167 |
50 |
50 |
Kentucky BOS |
161 |
74 |
26 |
Austin |
150 |
71 |
29 |
Connecticut BOS |
140 |
87 |
13 |
Anchorage |
100 |
90 |
10 |
Cincinnati |
88 |
93 |
7 |
Northwest MI |
31 |
100 |
0 |
Describe the procedures for the collection of information including:
Statistical methodology for stratification and sample selection,
Estimation procedure,
Degree of accuracy needed for the purpose described in the justification,
Unusual Problems requiring specialized sampling procedures, and
Any use of periodic (less frequent than annual) data collection cycles to reduce burden.
The YHDPE will focus on assessing the system responses in the demonstration sites through longitudinal case studies and examining patterns of difference in these sites from the responses in three comparison communities as well as in the context of all CoCs. HUD has contracted with Westat to conduct the YHDPE. Westat, and its subcontractor and consultants (listed in Section B.5), are collectively referred to throughout this document as the YHDPE team. The YHDPE team will conduct all data collection activities directly with respondents. The data collection activities include a CoC web survey and site visits to include interviews with key stakeholders and focus groups with youth.
In Years 1 and 4 the team will collect data through a brief web survey with all 400 CoCs not in the demonstration and not selected as a comparison site. This is the full population of CoCs not included the evaluation and thus there will be no sampling procedures. The survey will focus on system developments occurring across the country and will provide a second comparative basis for understanding the demonstration communities. Before conducting the survey, the team will pilot test the survey with 2-3 of the communities.
In Years 1, 2, and 4 the team will conduct site visits to each YHDP and comparison community to obtain a deep understanding of the coordinated community responses under the YHDP. Each site visit will follow a semi-structured protocol to gather information about the history, context, baseline status, and implementation of the community response to youth homelessness. During the site visits, key informant interviews will be conducted with grantee staff, other youth homeless program administrators and providers, and other key stakeholders involved with youth homelessness or at-risk populations. An important part of the site visits will be to collect the perspectives and opinions of youth who are homeless or at risk of homelessness; the team will conduct interviews and focus groups with a range of youth.
Exhibit 3 summarizes the potential respondents and timing for each data collection activity.
Exhibit 3. Data Collection Activities, Potential Respondents, and Timing
Data Collection Activity |
Potential Respondents |
Timing |
CoC web survey |
|
Two times: in Years 1 and 4 |
Lead agency interviews in YHDP and comparison sites |
|
Three times: in Years 1, 2, and 4 |
Service provider interviews in YHDP and comparison sites |
|
Three times: in Years 1, 2, and 4 |
Local government agency interviews in YHDP and comparison sites |
|
Three times: in Years 1, 2, and 4 |
TA provider interviews in YHDP sites |
|
Three times: in Years 1, 2, and 4 |
Youth board member interviews in YHDP and comparison sites |
|
Three times: in Years 1, 2, and 4 |
Youth focus group discussions in YHDP and comparison sites |
|
Three times: in Years 1, 2, and 4 |
Describe methods to maximize response rates and to deal with issues of nonresponse. The accuracy and reliability of information collected must be shown to be adequate for intended uses. For collections based on sampling, a special justification must be provided for any collection that will not yield "reliable" data that can be generalized to the universe studied.
It is anticipated that 100 percent of the CoCs will respond to the survey. As a condition of receiving funds under a HUD NOFA, all recipients are required to cooperate with contractors performing research or evaluation studies funded by HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2017b). Several steps will be taken to maximize response rates and reduce non-response bias for all data collection efforts. The YHDPE team will conduct each data collection activity and will remain available to grantees and other respondents to answer questions and provide clarification or guidance whenever needed. Efforts to maximize response rates are presented here by type of data collection method.
Identifying respondents among participants. The YHDPE will work with each grantee’s and comparison CoCs project director to identify the appropriate people to interview. All respondents will be partners in the planning, implementation, and expansion of youth homelessness programs and will participate in the evaluation as part of the performance of their roles.
Scheduling interviews. The YHDPE will be flexible in scheduling interviews, provide a copy of the interview schedule ahead of time, and respect the specified time limits. To make the best use of informants’ time, the YHDPE will review available documents and perform web searches to collect publicly available information prior to the interview. To keep logistics and costs manageable, interviews will be conducted with individual informants by telephone, Skype, or video-conferencing when an in-person interview is not feasible.
Site liaison model. Individual YHDPE team members will serve as site liaisons to each YHDP and comparison community to facilitate communication in ways that the YHDPE anticipates will enhance response rates, data quality, and respondent motivation. In addition, the site liaison model will enable the YHDPE to understand the communities more comprehensively, which will be of value when interpreting findings.
Describe any tests of procedures or methods to be undertaken. Testing is encouraged as an effective means of refining collections of information to minimize burden and improve utility. Tests must be approved if they call for answers to identical questions from 10 or more respondents. A proposed test or set of test may be submitted for approval separately or in combination with the main collection of information.
The data collection protocols are newly developed specifically for the YHDPE, in consultation with experts who have research design expertise and familiarity with youth homelessness. The data collection activities proposed by this request will have been thoroughly tested before site visits begin to minimize burden and refine the collection of information. We will use cognitive testing for the interview protocols and web survey instrument. The CoC web survey will be pretested with CoC programs that are not in the YHDP, and the site visit protocols (interviews and focus groups) will be pretested with youth programs in the DC area. Feedback will be used to clarify individual questions and definitions of terms.
Provide the name and telephone number of individuals consulted on statistical aspects of the design and the name of the agency unit, contractors, grantees, or other person(s) who will actually collect or analyze the information for the agency.
HUD has contracted with Westat to conduct the evaluation. The following table lists those who were consulted on or will participate in the data collection effort, analyze the data, or prepare reports. The actual collection of Web survey data will be performed using a Web program that specializes in conducting Internet surveys. Exhibit 4 shows the names, affiliations, and contact information for those involved in the statistical design and the research. Dr. Debra J. Rog, Principal Investigator, is responsible for overseeing the entire evaluation, including all aspects of the design, data collection, and analysis.
Exhibit 4. YHDPE Team
Team Member |
Contact Information |
Area of Expertise |
Debra J. Rog, Ph.D., Principal Investigator |
Westat 1600 Research Boulevard, TB 356 Rockville MD 20850 (301) 279-4594 |
Content expert, research design expertise |
Paul Toro, Ph.D., Co-Principal Investigator, Expert Consultant |
Dept. of Psychology Wayne State University 4841 Cass Ave. 2155 Old Main Detroit MI 48201 (313) 577-0806 |
Content expert, research design expertise |
Mark Courtney, Ph.D., Expert Consultant |
School of Social Service Administration University of Chicago 969 East 60th St. Chicago IL 60637 (773) 702-1250 |
Content expert, research design, administrative data analysis |
Kathryn Henderson, Ph.D. |
Westat 1600 Research Boulevard, TB 362 Rockville MD 20850 (301) 610-4849 |
Content expert, statistical analysis |
Abram Rosenblatt, Ph.D. |
Westat 1600 Research Boulevard, RB 4129 Rockville MD 20850 (301) 517-4065 |
Youth mental health, evaluation design |
Clara Wagner, Ph.D. |
Westat 1600 Research Boulevard, TB 350 Rockville MD 20850 (301) 212-2171 |
Research methods, statistical analysis |
Liz Quinn, M.A. |
Westat 1600 Research Boulevard, RB 4128 Rockville MD 20850 (240) 314-2489 |
Data collection, analysis |
Chandria Jones, Ph.D. |
Westat 1600 Research Boulevard, RB 4107 Rockville MD 20850 (301) 251-4253 |
Data collection, analysis |
Preethy George, Ph.D. |
Westat 1600 Research Boulevard, RB 4114 Rockville MD 20850 (301) 738-3553 |
Data collection, analysis |
Jaymie Lorthridge, Ph.D. |
Westat 1600 Research Boulevard, RW 2564 Rockville MD 20850 (240) 314-5871 |
Data collection, analysis |
Tamara Daley, Ph.D. |
Westat 1009
Slater Road, Suite 110 (919) 474-8038 |
Data collection, analysis |
Subcontractor: Building Changes |
||
Helen Howell, Executive Director |
Building Changes 1200 12th Ave. S. #1200 Seattle WA 98144 (206) 805-6134 |
Youth homelessness, cross-system collaboration, working with CoCs |
Liza Burell, Director of Programs |
Building Changes 1200 12th Ave. S. #1200 Seattle WA 98144 (206) 805-6143 |
Youth homelessness, cross-system collaboration, working with CoCs |
Luanda Arai, Senior Manager |
Building Changes 1200 12th Ave. S. #1200 Seattle WA 98144 (206) 805-6135 |
Youth homelessness, cross-system collaboration, working with CoCs |
The HUD staff person responsible for receiving and approving contract deliverables is:
Sarah Zapolsky
Social Science Analyst
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
Office of Policy Development & Research
451 7th Street, SW Room 8120
Washington, DC 20410
Phone: (202) 402-3153
References:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2017a). Evaluation of the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program for HUD. RFP 17-233-SOL-00164.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2017b). General Section to HUD’s Fiscal Year 2017 Notice[s] of Funding Availability for Discretionary Programs (General Section), FR-6100-N-01. At https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/FY-2017-NOFA-Policy-Requirements-and-General-Section.pdf
Attachments:
CoC Web Survey
Lead Agency Interview YHDP and Comparison CoCs
Local Government Agency Interview
Service Provider Interview
TA Provider Interview
Youth Board Member Interview
Youth Focus Group Discussion
1 Voices of Youth Count includes partners in Austin, Kentucky, Ohio, and Seattle. See http://voicesofyouthcount.org/
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
| Author | Liz Quinn |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2021-01-21 |