Evaluation of the Family Unification Program

Last registered on June 02, 2025

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Evaluation of the Family Unification Program
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0004670
Initial registration date
January 21, 2020

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
January 21, 2020, 1:48 PM EST

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Last updated
June 02, 2025, 2:28 PM EDT

Last updated is the most recent time when changes to the trial's registration were published.

Locations

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Urban Institute

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
University of Chicago
PI Affiliation
Urban Institute

Additional Trial Information

Status
Completed
Start date
2019-04-03
End date
2025-03-31
Secondary IDs
HHSP233201500064I_HHSP23337014T
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
The Family Unification Program (FUP), which is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), provides child welfare–involved families with permanent Housing Choice Vouchers. The program provides vouchers to families for whom the lack of adequate housing is a primary factor in (a) the imminent placement of the family’s child, or children, in out-of-home care or (b) the delay in the discharge of the child, or children, to the family from out-of-home-care. The program aims to prevent children’s placement in out-of-home care, promote family reunification for children placed in out-of-home care, and decrease new reports of abuse and neglect.

The goal of the evaluation is to determine whether FUP increased family preservation and reunification for families receiving vouchers and associated services, document how the program is implemented across the sites, and identify how the variations in implementation across sites might explain impact differences across sites. This evaluation has two main components, an implementation study and an impact study. The impact study examines the effect that the program had on outcomes, using quantitative data collection and analysis. The impact study will employ a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 6 sites across the United States. The evaluation will randomly assign families to be referred either to receive a FUP voucher or to receive services as usual. The study will follow all randomized families in the sites in the evaluation. The implementation study examines how the program is executed, the context of FUP within each site's child welfare and housing policies and practices, and the successes and challenges faced by the child welfare and housing agencies.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Pergamit, Michael, Mark Courtney and Devlin Hanson. 2025. "Evaluation of the Family Unification Program ." AEA RCT Registry. June 02. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.4670-3.0
Sponsors & Partners

Sponsors

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
The primary intervention provided by the Family Unification Program is a voucher providing a permanent housing subsidy. The family generally pays 30 percent of their income toward rent and utilities, and the voucher makes up the difference—up to a locally defined rent cap. The voucher is permanent as long as the family continues to meet the eligibility requirements and complies with other requirements (e.g., recertification of income eligibility).
Intervention (Hidden)
The FUP program is designed to serve families where lack of adequate housing is a primary factor in the imminent removal of a child from the household, or where it is a barrier to reunification, and families are deemed eligible by the Public Housing Agency for a Housing Choice Voucher. Typically, families are identified by child welfare case workers as meeting the child welfare criteria and then referred to the public housing authority to verify eligibility for the voucher. The minimum eligibility criteria for a housing choice voucher are that the family has inadequate housing, has an income below 30 percent of the area median income, there is no adult sex offender living in the household, and no adult living in the household has been convicted of producing methamphetamines in public housing. Public housing authorities may have additional eligibility requirements around criminal history or housing history (e.g., no felonies in the last three years, the family does not owe arrears to the public housing authority). The additional criteria are often complicated allowing for appeals and exceptions.

The primary service provided by FUP is a housing voucher. The family generally pays 30 percent of their income toward rent and utilities, and the voucher makes up the difference—up to a locally defined rent cap. The voucher is permanent as long as the family continues to meet the eligibility requirements and complies with other requirements (e.g., recertification of income eligibility).

Other services that comprise the FUP program may include case management; housing search assistance, especially in low-poverty census tracts; financial assistance; post-move counseling; and HUD’s Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program, or a comparable self-sufficiency program. Sites are highly encouraged to provide case management by HUD. Per the HUD 2018 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), case management must include, at a minimum, “…a needs assessment to identify all of a family’s needs including housing-related needs and non-housing-related needs (such as behavioral health, physical health, employment, child care, and other services needed), referrals to services to address the family’s needs, and regular contact (based on need) with the family to follow up on these referrals and provide new referrals as necessary” (HUD 2018 NOFA, p. 32.). While not all families will receive case management, among those that do the length of time during which the family receives case management services typically varies from 6 to 12 months. Housing search assistance must include, but is not limited to, “…providing participants with a current list of other organizations that can help families find units in low-poverty census tracts, and at least one of the following activities: neighborhood tours, unit viewings, landlord introductions in low-poverty census tracts, or financial assistance to participants for moving costs (such as security and utility deposits).” Prior research shows that some FUP sites will offer assistance not mentioned in the NOFA such as help obtaining documents, filling out applications, transportation aid, and landlord advocacy (Cunningham, Pergamit, Baum, and Luna, 2015). Financial assistance may include, but is not limited to, “…moving cost assistance, security deposit assistance, and utility startup (including utility arrears).” Post-move counseling must include “…at least one of the following: budget counseling, credit counseling (including credit restoration counseling), periodic check-ins, subsequent-move counseling if the family…decides to move a second time, or landlord-tenant mediation.”
Intervention Start Date
2019-04-03
Intervention End Date
2024-06-30

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
1. Child removals into out-of-home care
2. Child reunifications with family from out-of-home care
• Time to reunification
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Child removals will be measured as the probability that a child who is in the home at the time of randomization has been removed at all at 1 year and 2 years post randomization. Child reunification will be measured as the probability that a child who is out of the home at the time of randomization is reunited with their parents within 1 year and within 2 years of randomization. We will measure time to reunification as the number of days from randomization to reunification. Primary outcomes will be measured from child welfare administrative data.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
- Child welfare case closures
- Time to child welfare case closure
- New child maltreatment reports
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
We will measure case closures as whether the child’s case was closed at 1 year and 2 years post randomization for the full sample as well as whether the child’s case had closed within 1 year and 2 years of randomization. We will measure time to case closure as the number of days from randomization to case closure. While we believe that removal and investigation data will be available in all sites, case-related data, such as dates cases are opened and closed, varies widely in definition, quality and availability. For case-related outcomes, we may have to analyze the results for a subset of sites that have high-quality case-related data.

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
The evaluation will employ a household level randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 6 sites. The evaluation will select sites where the target population for the FUP program includes many more families eligible for the program than can be accommodated by the program’s limited number of vouchers. Within each site, the evaluation will allocate the limited program vouchers by randomly assigning families to be referred either to receive a FUP voucher or services as usual.
Experimental Design Details
The evaluation will employ a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 6 sites. The evaluation will select sites where the target population for the FUP program includes many more families eligible for the program than can be accommodated by the program’s limited number of vouchers. Within each site, the evaluation will allocate the limited program vouchers randomly assigning families to be referred either to receive a FUP voucher or services as usual.

The evaluation has selected sites based on having a sufficient number of vouchers for families, having excess demand for the vouchers, and being willing and able to participate in a randomized controlled trial. Other considerations included whether the site was not too geographically dispersed and whether referrals could be controlled effectively when a single PCWA was the partner of multiple PHAs.
Randomization Method
The specific referral and randomization strategy across the sites is for caseworkers to identify cases eligible either through a screening tool or caseworker judgment. Eligible cases are then referred to a central person (either at Urban or at the public child welfare agency), who randomizes the family into either treatment or control. All sites use a customized online randomization tool, designed by the Urban Institute. The randomization tool collects the family’s identification number, whether they are preservation or reunification, and their referral form and determines whether a family is to be referred to FUP or services as usual. Five out of six sites are using a one-to-one randomization ratio, with one family randomized to treatment for every control family. One site is using a two-to-one ratio, with two families randomized to treatment for every control family.
Randomization Unit
Randomization takes place at the household level.
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
N/A
Sample size: planned number of observations
With six total sites, our goal is 1034 households: 445 treatment and 413 control (see Table 1B).
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Total Sample: 372 control households, 406 treatment households
Reunification Sample: 210 control households, 223 treatment households
Preservation Sample: 162 control households, 183 treatment households

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
To determine the appropriate sample size, we estimated Minimum Detectable Effect (MDE) sizes for both Intent-to-Treat (ITT) and Treatment-on-the-Treated (TOT) estimates. The MDE for reunification outcomes is
Supporting Documents and Materials

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Urban Institute IRB
IRB Approval Date
2018-10-04
IRB Approval Number
00000189
Analysis Plan

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Yes
Data Collection Completion Date
April 03, 2024, 12:00 +00:00
Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization)
812 families randomized; 423 allocated to treatment; 389 allocated to services as usual;
269 of treatment referrals were treated;
Was attrition correlated with treatment status?
No
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations
1628 children; 731 families
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms
384 treatment families; 347 control families; 836 children in treatment families; 792 children in control families;
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
No
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials

Description
Results report
Citation
Hanson, Devlin A. Michael Pergamit, Jaclyn Chamber and Mark E. Courtney (2025). Evaluation of the Family Unification Program, OPRE Report #2025-044, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services.