[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 96 (Thursday, May 19, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-12176]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 19, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Office of Administration
[Docket No. N-94-3771]

 

Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB

AGENCY: Office of Administration, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The proposed information collection requirement described 
below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for expedited review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The 
Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding 
this proposal. Comments must be received within seven (7) working days 
from the date of this notice. Comments should refer to the proposal by 
name and should be sent to: Joseph F. Lackey, Jr., OMB Desk Officer, 
Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay F. Weaver, Reports Management 
Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20410, Telephone (202) 708-0050. This is not a 
toll-free number. Copies of the proposed forms and other available 
documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Weaver.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    This notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development has submitted to OMB, for expedited processing, an 
information collection package with respect to the Moving to 
Opportunity for Fair Housing (MTO) demonstration. HUD is requesting a 
10-day OMB review of this information collection.
    This demonstration is authorized under the Housing and Community 
Development Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-550, approved October 28, 1992). 
HUD is requesting a 10-day OMB review of this information collection. 
The program is described in a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) 
published in the Federal Register on August 16, 1993 at page 43458.
    HUD will provide approximately $68,500,000 in Section 8 existing 
housing certificates and vouchers and approximately $500,000 in 
counseling funds under this NOFA, to assist very low-income families 
with children living in public housing and Section 8 project-based 
units located in high-poverty areas to move to low-poverty areas. The 
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has designated applicant 
public housing agencies (PHAs) and nonprofit organizations (NPOs) from 
Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York to administer 
these funds. The NOFA describes: (1) The nature and scope of eligible 
activities; (2) the application process and the factors HUD used in 
rating and ranking all applications; (3) the selection and approval 
process.
    The information collection request is for the purpose of carrying 
out HUD's responsibility to provide biennial interim reports to 
Congress evaluating the effectiveness of the demonstration and a final 
report to Congress no later than September 30, 2004, describing the 
long-term housing, employment, and educational achievements of the 
families assisted under the demonstration program. The package includes 
a baseline participant survey to be filled out by household heads, 
participant tracking forms to be filled out by PHAs and NPOs, monthly 
labor cost forms to be filled out by PHAs and NPOs, a counseling/
participant log to be filled out by NPOs, and a landlord outreach log 
to be filled out by NPOs.
    The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of 
information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35):
    (1) The title of the information collection proposal;
    (2) The office of the agency to collect the information;
    (3) The description of the need for the information and its 
proposed use;
    (4) The agency form number, if applicable;
    (5) What members of the public will be affected by the proposal;
    (6) How frequently information submission will be required;
    (7) An estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the 
information submission including numbers of respondents, frequency of 
response, and hours of response;
    (8) Whether the proposal is new or an extension, reinstatement, or 
revision of an information collection requirement; and
    (9) The names and telephone numbers of an agency official familiar 
with the proposal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.

    Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3507; Section 7(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    Dated: April 25, 1994.
Michael A. Stegman,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy Development and Research.

Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB

    Proposal: Data Collection Plan for the Moving to Opportunity for 
Fair Housing (MTO) Demonstration.
    Office: Office of Policy Development and Research.
    Description of the Need for the Information and its Proposed Use: 
This information collection is required in connection with the 
evaluation of the Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing (MTO) 
demonstration. MTO will provide housing subsidies and counseling to 
help very low-income families with children currently living in public 
or Section 8 project-based assisted housing in high-poverty areas to 
lease units in low-poverty areas.
    Form Number: None.
    Respondents: Applicants for housing assistance; public housing 
agencies (PHAs); nonprofit organizations (NPOs).
    Frequency of Submission: One time only for applicants; one per 
month for PHAs and NPOs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Number of                                                 Burden 
        Form              Respondent          respondents       Time to complete        Frequency        hours  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MTO Participant      Applicant..........  9,000..............  5 minutes.........  1.................        750
 Enrollment Form.                                                                                               
MTO Baseline         Applicant..........  9,000..............  40 minutes........  1.................      6,000
 Participant Survey.                                                                                            
Counseling/Particip  NPO................  5 (optional).......  20 hours..........  1 per month.......      2,400
 ant Log.                                                                                                       
Landford Outreach    NPO................  5..................  8 hours...........  1 per month.......        960
 Log.                                                                                                           
Monthly Program      NPO................  5..................  4 hours...........  1 per month.......        960
 Cost Forms.         PHA................  5..................                                                   
Participant          NPO................  5..................  40 hours..........  1 per month.......      4,800
 Tracking Forms.     PHA................  5                                                                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Burden Hours: 15,870.
    Status: New collection.
    Contact: John Goering, HUD (202) 708-3700, Joseph F. Lackey, Jr., 
OMB (202) 395-6880.

    Dated: May 9, 1994.

Part A Data Collection Plan

Introduction

    The Moving to Opportunity For Fair Housing (MTO) Demonstration 
program is an initiative on the part of Congress and the U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD or the Department) to 
explore ways to assist families now living in public housing or 
project-based Section 8 housing to move out of the high-poverty areas 
of large central cities. The demonstration will assist families by 
combining Section 8 rental assistance with intensive housing search and 
counseling services in order to facilitate relocation to low-poverty 
neighborhoods.\1\ MTO is modeled on court-ordered remedial programs of 
the past two decades, in which federal courts have required HUD to 
provide funding for rental assistance and housing counseling services 
in order to reduce racial segregation in publicly assisted housing.\2\ 
Jurisdictions in which court-ordered programs have been established 
include Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, and Dallas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\The Section 8 program for existing housing provides housing 
assistance through rental certificates or housing vouchers. In most 
places, local public housing agencies (PHAs) administer both the 
voucher and certificate programs. An applicant is income-eligible 
for Section 8 housing assistance if his/her household income level 
is less than 50 percent of the median income for the metropolitan 
area. Eligible applicants enrolled in the program are given two to 
four months to find acceptable housing in the private rental market. 
To qualify as ``acceptable,'' a unit must meet the program's housing 
quality and occupancy standards, and its owner must agree to 
participate in the program. Contracts are signed establishing the 
unit rent and the amounts of the tenant and housing assistance 
payments.
    \2\It is not a principal objective of MTO to reduce racial 
desegregation, but rather to move families living in high-poverty 
areas to low-poverty areas. It is to be expected, however, that 
given the characteristics of households living in high-poverty areas 
at selected demonstration sites, racial deconcentration will be an 
outcome of the MTO program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing (MTO) Demonstration was 
authorized in Section 152 of the Housing and Community Development Act 
of 1992, which set the following parameters for the program:

     Eligible families are very low-income families with 
children residing in public housing or project-based Section 8-assisted 
housing located in areas with high concentrations of poverty.
     Participating localities are restricted to no more than 
six very large cities with populations of at least 400,000 in 
metropolitan areas of at least 1.5 million people.
     Local programs are created via contracts between the 
Secretary of HUD and nonprofit organizations or NPOs (to provide 
counseling and services in connection with the demonstration) and 
public housing agencies or PHAs (to administer the Section 8 rental 
assistance). The NPOs will receive funding to help pay for the costs 
associated with counseling participating families, assisting them in 
finding appropriate units, and working with landlords to encourage 
their participation in the MTO program. Local programs must match 
federal counseling funds with funds from state or local public or 
private sources. PHAs will receive administrative funds for the 
increased number of Section 8 certificates or vouchers made available 
through the MTO program.
     In the short term, the demonstration will compare the 
costs and service differences between the MTO program and the routine 
implementation of the Section 8 tenant-based rental assistance program. 
HUD will report to Congress biennially on the effectiveness of the 
demonstration, including a report on who is served, the level of 
counseling and types of services provided, and updates on the 
employment records of families assisted under the program.
     In the long term, the demonstration will assess the 
housing, educational, and employment outcomes of families assisted 
through the program. A final report to Congress on program outcomes is 
due in 2004.
    Section 8 rental assistance for the MTO demonstration was approved 
at $50 million for FY 92 and $52.1 million for FY 93.\3\ In addition, 
up to $500,000 was set aside for counseling grants. These funds will 
assist approximately 1,300 low-income families at five HUD-selected 
sites: Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\The FY 92 funding was carried over to FY 93. Funding for both 
years was announced through a NOFA issued August 16, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For FY 94, Congress increased the demonstration appropriation by 
$164.5 million in rental assistance plus $7 million in housing 
counseling funds. These additional MTO resources will assist another 
2,000 or more families, bringing the total to around 3,300. Current 
plans call for including 1,800 of the 3,300 families in a three-way 
experimental design which is described later in this document.
    HUD has contracted with Abt Associates, Inc. (the Contractor) to 
assist in planning and implementing the MTO demonstration and 
developing a framework for reporting on the demonstration. Among Abt 
Associates' responsibilities are: (1) Developing forms and procedures 
so that standardized information can be collected across sites 
regarding participants, services and costs; (2) designing and assisting 
in the implementation of a three-way random assignment mechanism for 
the demonstration; and, (3) providing data collection assistance, 
technical assistance, and monitoring to local sites to ensure that the 
demonstration is implemented in an effective and standardized manner. 
Under a separate procurement, HUD intends to conduct an evaluation of 
the demonstration using a three-way experimental design, in order to 
answer policy questions about the long-term effects of the program on 
participants.
    This request for OMB clearance covers two distinct groups of 
instruments related to start-up and early implementation of the MTO 
demonstration program. The groups of instruments are based upon the 
identity of the respondent:

     Data collection forms with participant respondents'' 
Baseline data will be collected through a survey of participants. These 
data will be used initially to describe the participants served in the 
demonstration; eventually, they will form the foundation for the long-
term evaluation of the program's effects on participants.
     Data collection forms with agency respondents'' MTO 
program operation data will be routinely collected and maintained by 
PHAs and NPOS and periodically reported to HUD. These data will enable 
HUD to fulfill its monitoring responsibilities and meet Congressional 
reporting requirements.

    The forms proposed for these data collection activities are the 
Enrollment Form and Participant Baseline Survey (copies of these forms 
are provided in Appendix A), and the Participant Tracking Logs, 
Participant Counseling Log, Program Cost forms, and Landlord Outreach 
Log, (Appendix B).

A1  Circumstances That Make The Collection of Information Necessary

    The statutory language establishing the MTO demonstration specifies 
that HUD must report to Congress on the progress of the demonstration 
and the status of participants.\4\ Topics that are to be covered 
include: a comparison of the costs associated with implementing the MTO 
program (including the costs of counseling, supportive services, and 
housing assistance payments) with the costs of routine implementation 
of the Section 8 program; the number of persons served; the level of 
counseling and services provided under MTO; and updates on the 
employment records of families assisted under the program. The 
legislation also directs HUD to provide any other information that may 
be necessary in evaluating the demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\See Title I, Subtitle C, Section 152 (d)(1) and (2), Housing 
and Community Development Act of 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A final report to Congress is due in 2004. At that time, HUD is 
required to: (1) Report on the long-term housing, employment, and 
educational achievements of the families assisted under the 
demonstration; and (2) assess such achievements for a comparable 
population of Section 8 recipients not assisted under MTO.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\This request for OMB clearance focuses on the data collection 
forms used for the initial reporting and monitoring of the 
demonstration. With the exception of the Participant Baseline 
Survey, this request does not include data collection materials 
required for the long-term impact evaluation. Request for clearance 
of the remaining evaluation instruments will be made by HUD at a 
later date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MTO demonstration builds on several existing efforts designed 
to reduce racial segregation in publicly assisted housing and increase 
the mobility of families receiving Section 8 assistance.\6\ Court-
ordered programs in Chicago and Cincinnati, and a voluntary program in 
Hartford, Connecticut, have been the subject of recent studies.\7\ 
These studies suggest that a combination of Section 8 and housing 
counseling assistance can facilitate the movement of low- income 
families to areas of low minority concentration or low poverty, and 
ultimately increase their educational and employment opportunities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\While there has been no extensive research on where 
recipients of Section 8 assistance move, it is conventional wisdom 
that they tend to stay in their current neighborhoods or move to 
areas substantially similar in economic and racial composition. In 
particular, it is believed that these households tend to stay in 
neighborhoods with concentrations of the poor, and that those who 
are members of racial minorities tend to stay in racially 
concentrated neighborhoods.
    \7\See, among others: Mary Davis, ``The Gautreaux Assisted 
Housing Program,'' in Housing Markets and Residential Mobility, G. 
Thomas Kingsley and M. Turner, eds. (Washington, DC: The Urban 
Institute Press, 1993), pp. 243-253; Paul B. Fischer, ``Is Housing 
Mobility an Effective Anti-Poverty Strategy? An Examination of the 
Cincinnati Experience'' (Cincinnati, OH: The Stephen H. Wilder 
Foundation, 1991); Shaun Donovan, ``Moving to the Suburbs: Section 8 
Mobility and Portability in Hartford,'' unpublished Harvard 
University paper (May 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A study of the Gautreaux program in Chicago by James Rosenbaum of 
Northwestern University has received much recent attention.\8\ 
Rosenbaum studied the mothers and children of families who moved to 
suburban locations under the Gautreaux program, comparing their 
educational and employment status with those who moved to other in-city 
locations. He found that outcomes for adult suburban movers were very 
positive in terms of employment; suburban movers were 25 percent more 
likely than city movers to have a job after the move. Among the 
children of Gautreaux families, he found that children in suburban 
locations had higher satisfaction with teachers and better attitudes 
about schools. He also found that high school drop-out rates were much 
lower for suburban children--5 percent compared with 20 percent among 
those in city neighborhoods. It should be noted that Rosenbaum's work 
has been criticized for serious methodological problems. One of the 
most serious criticisms is that Rosenbaum's reference group was not a 
strict control group since it consisted of other Gautreaux participants 
placed in units within the City of Chicago. Thus, the selection of a 
suburban and urban location was partly voluntary rather than a matter 
of random assignment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\James E. Rosenbaum, Nancy Fishman, Alison Brett, and Particia 
Meaden. ``Can the Kerner Commission's Housing Strategy Improve 
Employment, Education, and Social Integration for Low-Income 
Blacks?''' North Carolina Law Review. 71 (June) 1993:1519-1556.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MTO demonstration differs from its predecessor programs in a 
number of ways. First, while the Gautreaux and Cincinnati programs 
focus on moving families to areas with low minority concentrations, MTO 
focuses on moving its participants to areas of low poverty. MTO 
participants must move to low-poverty census tracts (defined as tracts 
where fewer than 10 percent of the people had incomes below the poverty 
level in 1989, as measured by the 1990 Census). Second, the MTO 
demonstration is designed to serve a broad range of families, including 
those who may have difficulty making moves, notably larger families and 
those without automobiles. Third, the Section 8 certificates and 
vouchers will be allocated to the central city PHAs for the MTO 
demonstration; in other mobility programs, Section 8 assistance has 
been administered by the organizations that provide housing counseling 
services. The MTO demonstration requires collaboration between a PHA, 
to administer the Section 8 assistance, and a nonprofit agency to 
provide housing counseling, assist families in finding units, and work 
to develop landlord support for the program.
    Finally, to overcome the methodological problems associated with 
other research on mobility programs, HUD has embedded a randomized 
experiment in the MTO demonstration. Applicants for the program will be 
assigned randomly to one of three groups:

     An experimental group, which will receive a Section 8 
certificate or voucher plus special counseling and search assistance in 
order to locate and move to housing only in low-poverty areas;
     A Section 8 control group, which will receive a regular 
tenant-based Section 8 certificate or voucher (with no locational 
restrictions) plus regular briefing and assistance from the public 
housing agency; or
     An in-place control group, which will receive no tenant-
based assistance but which will remain initially in current public 
housing or Section 8 project-based housing.

    All these participants will be tracked over a ten-year period to 
assess the program's effects.\9\ By using three-way random assignment, 
HUD will be able to provide definitive answers to three key policy 
questions regarding mobility programs. First, do programs like MTO 
contribute to moves to low-poverty areas? Second, are these moves (and 
not other factors) the basis for positive employment and educational 
outcomes? Third, is the MTO approach more effective than the existing 
Section 8 program in producing such outcomes?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\The term ``participant'' is used to refer to a member of any 
of the three randomly assigned groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A2  How and By Whom the Data Will Be Used

    The information will be used by the Department to (1) monitor 
demonstration activities; (2) prepare biennial reports to Congress; and 
(3) establish baseline information about participants for a long-term 
evaluation of the program, the results of which will be reported in 
Congress in 2004. Much of the information collected under this request 
for clearance will also be used by local demonstration sites to manage 
the program locally.

A2.1  Consequences if the Information Was Not Collected

    Without this planned data collection effort, HUD would be unable to 
meet its short-term responsibilities with regard to program monitoring 
or Congressional reporting. In addition, without collecting baseline 
information about participants and their families, HUD would be unable 
to assess long-term effects of the program and to answer key policy 
questions about mobility programs.

A2.2  Description of the MTO Data Collection Plan

    This request for OMB clearance covers two distinct groups of 
instruments associated with the start-up and early implementation of 
the MTO demonstration program. The groups of instruments are based upon 
the identity of the respondent:

     Data collection forms with participant respondents--
Baseline data will be collected through a survey of participants. These 
data will be used initially to describe the participants served in the 
demonstration; they form the foundation for the long-term evaluation of 
the program's effects on participants.
     Data collection forms with agency respondents--MTO program 
operation data will be routinely collected and maintained by PHAs and 
NPOS and periodically reported to HUD. These data will enable HUD to 
fulfill its monitoring responsibilities and meet Congressional 
reporting requirements.

Each of the instruments in these two groups will be discussed in turn. 
Copies of the instruments can be found in the appendices.
A2.2.1  Data Collection with Participant Respondents
    Two data collection instruments have been developed for participant 
respondents: the MTO Enrollment Form and the Participant Baseline 
Survey. In addition, information about participants related to income, 
current residence and other items will be taken from HUD form 50058, 
which provides family-level data for households receiving assistance 
under the public housing and Section 8 programs. Copies of the 
instruments and the HUD 50058 form are found in Appendix A.
    Potential applicants are identified through outreach efforts 
conducted by the public housing agency. Families interested in 
participating contact the PHA by a certain date. The PHA makes a 
preliminary review and identifies those families that appear to be 
eligible for the program.\10\ A waiting list of screened families who 
are interested in participating in the program is developed by each 
PHA. Families are notified that they may be eligible to participate in 
the MTO program, and an appointment to verify eligibility is made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\Households must meet the following minimum criteria: (1) 
residence in a public housing or Section 8 project-based unit within 
high-poverty census tracts identified by the PHA; (2) very low-
income; (3) family with children
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a family comes to the PHA for the scheduled appointment, 
eligibility is reviewed by a PHA intake worker. Based on this in-person 
review, if the applicant is eligible for the program, he/she is 
requested to complete the Enrollment Form and MTO Baseline Participant 
Survey. While the baseline is a self-administered survey, a data 
collection assistant will be available at each site to answer questions 
and assist those that may have language or literacy problems.
    MTO Enrollment Form. The MTO Enrollment Form is completed by 
applicants (also referred to here as ``families'') who wish to 
participate in the program. The Enrollment Form will be presented to 
the applicants by PHA staff. This brief form advises the applicant of 
the demonstration requirements, including random assignment, forming 
the basis of informed consent. The applicant checks one of the two 
boxes on the form to indicate whether he/she is interested in 
participating in the MTO program. The form is signed and dated by the 
applicant. The PHA staff will be available to answer applicants' 
questions about the demonstration.
    MTO Participant Baseline Survey. The Participant Baseline Survey is 
completed by all those who sign the Enrollment Form for MTO and are 
determined eligible for Section 8 and the MTO program, whether or not 
they eventually receive assistance under MTO. In other words, the 
survey is completed by those who will ultimately be assigned to the 
experimental and both control groups. The survey is completed prior to 
random assignment, in order to avoid any effect that assignment to one 
group or another would have on participants' answers.
    The Participant Baseline Survey provides information necessary for 
an evaluation of the long-term effects of the program. Thus, the 
questions are focused on developing information that can help to 
explain outcomes--that is, data on particular characteristics or 
experiences of families that will help to explain why the program 
ultimately affected them as it did. The baseline survey is divided into 
three parts. Part I requests information about the following topics:

     Housing information: the participant's previous experience 
with the Section 8 program, the participant's mobility and prior 
housing, reasons for wanting to move, and condition of current housing.
     Neighborhood: participant's satisfaction with current 
neighborhood, safety and victimization, neighborhood conditions, and 
access to services.
     Neighbors: the participant's social network and social 
supports.
     Employment history: Current and recent employment, recent 
efforts to search for work, transportation to work.
     Benefits: receipt of AFDC, General Welfare/General Relief, 
food stamps, and other assistance.
     Outlook: the participant's self-efficacy relative to 
outcome of interest, such as ability to live in a low-poverty 
neighborhood or ability to get along with neighbors.
     Parent involvement: the participant's involvement with 
his/her children's schooling.
     Contact information: the names of three friends or 
relatives who do not live with the participant and will always know how 
to contact him/her. This information will be used for long-term 
tracking of the participants and follow-up survey work.

    Part II collects demographic information about every member of the 
participant's household. A cover sheet requests the full name of each 
member as well as basic demographic information, including birth date, 
sex, race, ethnicity. The second page contains a matrix in which 
information about adult household members is reported. This information 
includes relationship to applicant, school and work status, marital 
status, number of children, and the year first child was born.
    In addition, Part II includes two short surveys for children living 
in the household. One is for children five and younger, and the other 
is for children from six to eighteen years of age. The applicant 
completes a sheet for each child in the household. For younger 
children, basic information is requested about pre-school attendance, 
child care arrangements, general health and behavior. For children 6 to 
18, information includes school and grade, attendance in gifted or 
special education classes, general behavior and health, and child care 
arrangements.
A2.2.2  Data Collection with Agency Respondents
    At each of the demonstration sites, the public housing authorities 
and nonprofit organizations will routinely collect and update program 
data and submit them (initially to the Contractor, later to HUD) on a 
monthly basis during the demonstration period.\11\ These data will be 
used by HUD to monitor the progress of the demonstration (i.e., the 
number of people participating in the program, the number who have 
leased units), to identify differences in the program among the sites 
and reasons for these differences, to determine the costs associated 
with adding MTO counseling to the conventional Section 8 program, and 
to develop biennial reports to the Congress. It should be noted that 
the collection of the data is also useful to each of the sites, as they 
manage and monitor their own programs. The data collection instruments 
that have been designed for agency respondents are: the Participant 
Tracking Forms for PHAs and NPOs; the Participant Counseling Log for 
NPOs; the Program Cost Forms for PHAs and NPOs; and the Landlord 
Outreach Log for NPOs. These are discussed below and can be found in 
Appendix B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\During the first few months of the demonstration, this 
information will be reported to Abt Associates. Abt will review the 
information to ensure it is accurately recorded, discussed any 
deficiencies with the sites, and then pass this information on to 
HUD. After this start-up period, programs will submit these forms 
directly to HUD. HUD is also considering whether to issue a 
competitive procurement to obtain the services of a data tracking 
and monitoring firm to ensure that, in the long-term, information is 
properly gathered and reported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHA and NPO Participant Tracking Logs. Tracking logs provide a 
mechanism for monitoring the progress of participants from enrollment 
through lease-up of a new unit. Separate tracking logs have been 
developed for the PHAs and NPOs which they will update on an as-needed 
basis. Updated logs will be copied and submitted monthly (initially to 
the Contractor, later to HUD), so that the progress of demonstration 
enrollment, search, and lease-up can be monitored.
    The ``PHA tracking log'' requires PHA staff to record the name and 
social security number of all eligible applicants as they are enrolled 
in the program and the dates when key PHA-related activities occur. For 
example, PHA staff will record the date the Enrollment Form is signed, 
the date the Participant Baseline Survey is completed, and the outcome 
of random assignment. The log separately tracks participants in the 
experimental, Section 8 control, and in-place control groups. For 
experimental and Section 8 control group families, the log captures the 
date a certificate or voucher is issued and dates for search extension 
and expiration of the certificate or voucher. Once a participant finds 
a unit, the dates for the housing quality standards inspection, lease 
approval, and move-in are recorded.
    The ``NPO participant tracking log'', to be maintained by staff of 
the nonprofit agencies, applies only to experimental group 
participants. It is used to record the dates and results of NPO-related 
activities. These include a credit check, a visit to the participant's 
home, and accompanied visits to inspect up to three prospective units. 
When the participant finds a unit, the unit address and neighborhood 
are recorded, along with the date of a follow-up visit by NPO staff.
    After random assignment, tracking of the in-place control group 
members will not require a special data collection by the PHA. It will 
be accomplished using extracts from the electronic Form 50058 files 
that PHAs and Section 8 project managers maintain for periodic 
submission to HUD.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\It is assumed that there will be complete reporting of HUD 
50058 data by PHAs at the demonstration sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Participant Counseling Log. Part of the design of the MTO program 
is the provision of counseling to participants in the experimental 
group, from the time of receiving a Section 8 certificate or voucher, 
for as long as one year after they have leased a unit under MTO. This 
counseling--on search methods, community features, credit problems, and 
family adjustment--will be provided by the nonprofit organizations. NPO 
staff will be asked to record contacts with each participant, whether 
the contact is by phone or in person, as well as the purpose and 
duration of the contact. NPOs will retain this information; it will be 
submitted to HUD at the end of the intake period and one year later. 
NPOs may choose to substitute their own forms to collect this 
information, provided that the same information is contained on their 
forms.
    Program Cost Forms. HUD is required to identify the costs 
associated with operating the MTO demonstration in biennial reports to 
Congress. To do this, it will be necessary to document the staff costs 
associated with counseling MTO participants (including staff time and 
travel), the cost of conducting credit checks, identifying housing 
units, recruiting and working with landlords, as well as managing 
random assignment and general program administration. Separate forms 
have been developed for NPOs and PHAs, to report to HUD on a monthly 
basis all costs related to the program. The forms require documentation 
of the amount of staff time devoted to a range of program activities, 
including outreach, enrollment, random assignment, record-keeping, and 
counseling. The name and hourly wage of staff working on MTO during the 
month is to be reported, along with the total number of hours the staff 
person devoted to MTO that month. Non-staff costs associated with the 
demonstration are to be reported as well, including indirect labor 
costs and benefits, overhead expenses, subcontracts, and fees.
    In order to minimize the burden on participating agencies, data on 
staff time by activity will be collected for just two one-month periods 
during the demonstration intake period. Total costs will be reported in 
the other months.
    NPOs will also be required to document how matching funds are 
assigned to various program activities. In-kind services or other 
contributions supporting each activity will also be identified and will 
be assigned a dollar value.
    Landlord Outreach Log. HUD and the Congress have expressed an 
interest in learning about the level of landlord outreach that occurs 
through the program. It is the NPO's responsibility to recruit 
landlords to participate in the MTO program, particularly owners and 
managers of more than 500 units and those with large (3+ bedrooms) 
units. The log allows the NPO to keep a record of the names and 
addresses of landlords who are contacted, the types and location of 
units under their management, and the landlord's interest in 
participating in the program. Similarly, it provides a place to record 
contacts with property owner associations. The Landlord Outreach Logs 
are updated by the NPOs as necessary. Updated logs will be copied and 
sent to HUD at the end of each month for the intake period of the MTO 
demonstration.

A2.3  Research Objectives and Analysis Design

    The research objectives for the demonstration derive largely from 
the authorizing legislation, the Housing and Community Development Act 
of 1992. In the short term, the primary objective is to test whether 
the MTO program can lead to significantly more leasing in low-poverty 
areas than would have occurred if standard Section 8 procedures were 
employed. To do so, it is necessary to obtain evidence of the effects 
and costs of adding MTO housing search assistance services to the 
Section 8 rental assistance program. As noted above, information must 
be collected about standard Section 8 practices, which may vary 
considerably from site to site, and their associated costs at each of 
the demonstration sites. In addition, information must be collected 
about the rate at which participants are able to move to low-poverty 
areas, the level of special housing counseling provided by NPOs to 
assist these moves, as well as other program activities (i.e, landlord 
outreach) that facilitate movement to low-poverty areas. Through the 
agency data collection and the Contractor's monitoring and technical 
assistance activities, data will be provided to HUD that will enable a 
full account of the costs involved in adding search assistance to the 
Section 8 program and the number of families who were able to move to 
low-poverty areas as a result of this assistance.
    In the long term, the primary research objective of the MTO 
demonstration is to determine whether MTO placements have measurable 
impacts on the lives and opportunities of the families selected for the 
experimental group. A mandated report to Congress in 2004 will address 
the long-term effects of the demonstration. HUD has determined that the 
key methodological strategy for measuring long-term effects is through 
three-way random assignment of MTO program participants at the time of 
entry into the program, permitting a comparison of experimental and 
control group subjects for the final evaluation report. Experimental 
group participants will receive Section 8 assistance to move to low-
poverty areas, as well as special housing search and counseling 
assistance provided by NPOs at each of the demonstration sites. One 
control group of participants will receive the Section 8 assistance 
along with the standard Section 8 briefing and support provided by the 
PHAs. A second control group will receive no assistance under the MTO 
program but will retain current public housing or Section 8 project-
based housing. All three groups will be tracked by HUD for a period of 
ten years, through any moves or changes in assistance status that may 
occur.
    The analysis design for the long-term evaluation is under 
development by HUD and an outside experts group, which has been 
convened twice (in December 1993 and March 1994).\13\ To date, the 
group has focused its attention primarily on the experimental design 
(confirming the choice of three-way random assignment) and on the 
development of the baseline survey described in the previous section. 
Presumably, analysis plans and other data collection instruments (such 
as household follow-up surveys) will be needed to analyze the long-term 
impacts of MTO. The Department intends to pursue these through the work 
of the experts' group and through later procurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\The list of experts is found in Exhibit A.1 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A3  Use of Improved Technologies

    The potential for using improved information technology to reduce 
burden in this study has been reviewed. The study requires that 
information be gathered from the following sources:
     From families who enroll in the program--information that 
determines their eligibility for the program and baseline data about 
applicants and their families;
     From PHAs--documentation of MTO program operations and 
costs; information about the administration of the regular Section 8 
program; extracts of existing participant records; and
     From NPOs--documentation of MTO landlord outreach, 
counseling, program operations, and costs.

    Data on families will be gathered through the Participant Baseline 
Survey and use of an existing HUD form for public housing and Section 8 
tenants, HUD Form 50058.14 PHAs submit 50058 data monthly to the 
HUD Multifamily Tenant Characteristics System.15 Procedures will 
be developed to extract the same 50058 data for MTO families (from all 
three groups) as the basis for long-term tracking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\PHAs participating in the MTO demonstration will be asked to 
provide completed 50058 forms for all participants and to update 
this information regularly.
    \15\U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of 
Public and Indian Housing, Notice PIH 93-53(HA). Housing agencies 
with fewer than 100 units in management submit these forms 
quarterly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Except for Form 50058 data, it is expected that all information 
collected by PHAs and NPOs will be recorded on paper, copies of which 
will be submitted to HUD according to a pre-established schedule. HUD's 
decision to employ paper forms for this demonstration was made after 
careful consideration of the viability of automated data collection. 
The cost of developing automated versions of the forms would be 
prohibitive. The availability and type of computer equipment at NPOs 
and PHAs may vary considerably. No single automated version could be 
used in all demonstration sites; moreover, introduction of new software 
would require more training time for the PHA and NPO staff than 
instruction on the use of paper forms. If the PHAs and NPOs have 
existing software that enables them to record the requested information 
electronically, the Contractor will work with the agency or 
organization to arrive at a compatible electronic format for easier 
submission.

A4  Efforts to Avoid Duplication

    This data collection effort represents the only Federal effort to 
monitor and assess the Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing 
Demonstration. Existing data on applicants, to the extent they are 
available at the PHAs, will be used in lieu of new data collection. The 
primary source of existing data on applicants will be HUD 50058 forms, 
completed at admission or lease-up, at annual recertification, and at 
the end of participation for Section 8 assisted tenants and for public 
housing tenants.
    To differing degrees, PHAs already maintain data on the costs of 
administering traditional Section 8 programs. To the extent that these 
data are available, they will obviate the need to collect this 
information especially for the MTO demonstration.

A5  Why Similar Already-Available Data Cannot Be Used

    This data collection represents the first attempt to collect 
information about this new demonstration; no similar data are 
available. Because of the differences between MTO and other mobility 
programs,16 and particularly because of the experimental design 
(with random assignment to three groups), data must be collected 
directly about the characteristics of participants and their success in 
utilizing the MTO or regular Section 8 rental assistance. Wherever HUD 
has identified similar data on participants that will be useful, these 
data will be used and not duplicated in MTO instruments. Further, 
because of the unique nature of program operations under this 
demonstration, detailed data on agency practices must be gathered. For 
example, there are no systematic data available on the methods and 
costs of nonprofit landlord outreach or counseling in different cities. 
They must therefore be collected under the demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\Salient differences include a) the focus on changes from 
high-poverty to low-poverty areas (instead of the race-based 
definitions of court-ordered mobility programs); and b) eligibility 
restricted to current residents of public housing or Section 8 
project-based housing developments (not waiting list applicants).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A6  Efforts to Minimize the Burden for Small Entities

    Respondents for this data collection include MTO program 
participants, public housing authorities, and nonprofit organizations 
participating in the MTO demonstration. The PHAs are all very large 
agencies. However, some of the NPOs may qualify as small entities. 
Consequently, we have minimized the number of items that the NPOs will 
be required to collect. In addition, grantees were advised in the 
Notice of Funding Availability for the demonstration that they would be 
required to collect data for research purposes. HUD is assisting them 
with this responsibility, by providing the staff support of a data 
collection assistant at each site, who is hired by the Contractor to 
help the NPOs and PHAs with record-keeping and data collection.

A7  Consequences of Less Frequent Data Collection

    The data gathered from participants is a one-time collection for 
the intake phase. PHAs and NPOs are required to maintain records and 
report to HUD on a monthly basis for the intake phase. Any further 
follow-up will be conducted under a separate procurement and will be 
the subject of a separate clearance request.

A8  Circumstances Requiring Deviation from Guidelines in 5 CFR 
1320.6

    The data collection does not deviate from the guidelines in 5 CFR 
1320.6.

A9  Consultations Outside the Agency

    In developing these instruments, HUD has obtained input from a 
number of sources. First, the Department has hired Abt Associates Inc. 
to assist in the design of the data collection for the demonstration. 
Key staff from Abt Associates are: Dr. Judith Feins, Ms. Mary Joel 
Holin, Ms. Janine Sullivan, Mr. Antony Phipps, Dr. Susan Popkin, Dr. 
Larry Orr.
    Second, HUD has convened an experts' panel for the MTO 
demonstration. The members of the panel are shown in Exhibit A.1. 
Third, Contractor staff have consulted with staff and reviewed 
materials provided by the Gautreaux Program in Chicago. These include 
the Leadership Council's monthly reports to HUD, the information packet 
provided to potential Gautreaux participants, and Gautreaux program 
forms (such as the intake and credit check forms). The Contractor has 
also discussed with Gautreaux Program administrators their methods for 
tracking participants through the program. Fourth, an extensive review 
has been conducted of the research literature on mobility programs, to 
identify all the important areas where baseline data are needed for a 
long-term evaluation of MTO's effects.

                             Exhibit A.1.--Experts' Panel for the MTO Demonstration                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Member name                                        Institutional affiliation                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Susan E. Mayer....  School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago.                               
Prof. Peter Rossi.......  Dept. of Sociology, University of Massachusetts.                                      
Prof. David Greenberg...  Dept. of Economics, University of Maryland-Baltimore County.                          
Prof. Dean R. Lillard...  Dept. of Consumer Economics & Housing, Cornell University.                            
Dr. Cynthia Sipe........  The Center for Assistance in Policy Development.                                      
Dr. Howard Bloom........  Graduate School of Public Administration, New York University.                        
Prof. James Rosenbaum...  School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University.                       
Prof. Thomas Cook.......  Department of Sociology, Northwestern University.                                     
Prof. Paul Fischer......  Dept. of Politics, Lake Forest College.                                               
Mr. Alexander Polikoff..  Business and Professional People for the Public Interest.                             
Prof. Greg J. Duncan....  University of Michigan, Institute for Survey Research.                                
Prof. Jeanne Brooks-Gunn  Center for the Study of Young Children, Columbia University.                          
Prof. Robert Crain......  Teachers College, Columbia University.                                                
Mr. Fred Doolittle......  Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.                                          
Mr. Paul Leonard........  Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.                                               
Mr. Robert Embry........  Abell Foundation.                                                                     
Dr. Chester Hartman.....  Poverty and Race Research Action Council.                                             
Dr. Kristin A. Moore....  Child Trends, Inc.                                                                    
Dr. Sandra Newman.......  Johns Hopkins University.                                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A10  Arrangements and Assurances Regarding Confidentiality

    Program participants will be assured that the information they 
provide will be kept confidential and used only for the purposes of 
this research. No data will be released in a form that can be 
identified with individual participants. These assurances will be 
included in the Enrollment Form that is signed by all applicants during 
the intake process.

A11  Sensitive Questions

    There are no questions of a sensitive nature in this data 
collection effort.

A12  Estimated Cost to the Federal Government

    The cost to the Federal Government of the MTO demonstration is 
$69,661,760 ($18,979,085 for vouchers, $49,510,100 for certificates, 
$500,000 for counseling, and $672,575 for implementation assistance and 
evaluation). The cost of the data collection described in this 
Supporting Statement is $179,585.

A13  Respondent Burden

    The respondent burden calculations presented in Exhibit A.2 cover a 
period of two years (24 months) from the anticipated June 1, 1994 
start-up of the MTO demonstration. 

                                   Exhibit A.2.--Estimated Respondent Burden                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Number of                                                 Total  
        Form             Respondent         respondents (see    Time to complete        Frequency        burden 
                                                notes)                                                  (hours) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enrollment Form....  Eligible MTO         9,000..............  5 minutes.........  1 per respondent..        750
                      applicants.                                                                               
Participant          Experimental group.  9,000..............  40 minutes........  1 per respondent..      6,000
 Baseline Survey.    Section 8 control                                                                          
                      group                                                                                     
                     In-place control                                                                           
                      group                                                                                     
Participant          NPO staff..........  5 optional.........  20 hours..........  1 per month.......      2,400
 Counseling Contact                                                                                             
 Log.                                                                                                           
Landlord Outreach    NPO staff..........  5..................  8 hours...........  1 per month.......        960
 Log.                                                                                                           
Program Cost Forms.  NPO staff..........  5..................  4 hours...........  1 each per NPO,           960
                     PHA staff..........  5                                         PHA per month.              
Participant          PHA staff..........  5..................  40 hours..........  1 each per NPO,         4,800
 Tracking Forms.     NPO staff..........  5                                         PHA per month.              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Burden is calculated for the maximum number of participant respondents, under the most conservative      
  assumptions. See the discussion in Part B.                                                                    
One NPO in each site (thus 5 total) will be responsible for record-keeping and reporting, even though two sites 
  have additional NPOs as subcontractors.                                                                       

A14  Reasons for Changes in Burden

    This is an original submission of a Request for OMB Clearance for 
the data collection of the MTO demonstration. Therefore, this section 
is not applicable.

A15  Tabulation Plan, Statistical Analysis and Study Schedule

    Currently, the intake phase of the MTO demonstration is scheduled 
to begin in June 1994 and end in June 1995. Including the FY 94 Notice 
of Funding Availability, this intake phase may be extended through June 
1996.
    Immediate plans for tabulation or other analysis of the data 
collected under this request for clearance are limited to those of the 
Contractor, Abt Associates, and to the period from the start of 
demonstration site operations (scheduled for June 1, 1994) until 
February 1995. The Contractor's Final Report will combine documentation 
of the MTO demonstration characteristics (including random assignment, 
outreach, training, and monitoring) with description of PHA and NPO 
operating characteristics as they relate to the demonstration. It will 
compare the counseling and search assistance delivered to experimental 
group participants (within the observation period) by the NPOs with the 
standard Section 8 counseling and other services routinely offered by 
the PHAs to Section 8 certificate- and voucher-holders. While the 
report will not contain any presentation of early participant or cost 
data from the demonstration,\17\ it will amply document the design and 
early implementation of the MTO demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\Under the Contractor's schedule, there would at best be 7 
months of intake data available; it is unlikely that there would be 
much search or locational outcome data available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In preparation for the end of the Contractor's period of work, and 
for assumption of data collection and monitoring activities directly by 
HUD, Department staff will develop plans for the tabulation and 
reporting of participant and cost data to Congress, as required by the 
statute authorizing MTO.

Part B Statistical Methods

B1  Potential Respondent Universe

    The potential respondent universe for the Moving to Opportunity for 
Fair Housing Demonstration consists of two parts: the families that 
apply for Section 8 through the demonstration (including informed 
consent to enroll), and the agencies that are involved in the 
administration of the housing assistance and counseling program that 
form the demonstration. As indicated in Part A of this request, the 
instruments for which clearance is requested fall into two groups, by 
parts of the potential respondent universe, as follows:

     Data collection forms with participant respondents--the 
Enrollment Form and Participant Baseline Survey;
     Data collection forms with agency respondents--the 
Participant Tracking Forms, Participant Counseling log (optional), 
Program Cost Forms, and Landlord Outreach Log.

MTO Demonstration Participants

    MTO demonstration participants are those families that (a) respond 
to MTO outreach conducted by the site agencies, (b) receive information 
about MTO and about the different possible outcomes of applying (due to 
random assignment), and (c) agree to join the demonstration by signing 
the Enrollment Form. Such participants must be families with children 
currently receiving housing assistance (residing in either public 
housing or Section 8 project-based housing) in the high-poverty census 
tracts designated by the local housing authority for the demonstration.
    Based upon the applications submitted by the five successful sites 
in response to the MTO NOFA, the size of the potential participant 
respondent universe is shown in Exhibit B.1.

                                                              Exhibit B.1.--Size of the Potential Participant Respondent Universe                                                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Baltimore                    Boston                      Chicago                   Los Angeles                  New York         
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-Poverty Census Tracts..........................  34 (5 targeted)...........  14 (9 targeted)...........  182 (3+ targeted).........  40 (8 targeted)...........  275 (3 targeted).         
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Housing Developments in Targeted High-Poverty Census Tracts.                                                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project-Based Section 8.............................  11........................  20........................  2.........................  30........................  ..........................
Public Housing......................................  8 (plus 97 scattered-site   6.........................  4.........................  8.........................  5.                        
                                                       units).                                                                                                                                  
Eligible Families...................................  2,300.....................  4,500.....................  2,415.....................  3,990.....................  2,431.                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These participants are the potential respondents for the Enrollment 
Form and Participant Baseline Survey. The sites have confirmed to 
the Department that they will expand the targeted areas if it is 
necessary (for purposes of sufficient sample size) to attract more 
families to the demonstration.

MTO Demonstration Agencies

    There are 14 local agencies playing administrative roles in the MTO 
demonstration; they are listed in Exhibit B.2. Of the 14, 10 will be 
reporting entities and are the potential respondents for these data 
collection instruments: the Participant Tracking Forms, the Participant 
Counseling Log (optional), the Program Cost Forms, and the Landlord 
Outreach Log. More specifically, the Participant Counseling Log and 
Landlord Outreach Log will only be used by the NPOs; the other 
instruments will be completed by both types of agency. Note that 4 of 
the 9 nonprofits shown in the exhibit are subcontractors to other 
nonprofits; for purposes of discussing respondent burden, in Part A13 
above, it was indicated that data collection responsibilities lay with 
the prime nonprofit in each site.

                       Exhibit B.2.--Members of the Potential Agency Respondent Universe                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Baltimore            Boston            Chicago          Los Angeles         New York     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHA..............  Housing Authority  Boston Housing     Chicago Housing    Housing Authority  New York City    
                    of Baltimore       Authority (BHA).   Authority (CHA).   of the City of     Housing         
                    City (HABC).                                             Los Angeles        Authority       
                                                                             (HACLA).           (NYCHA).        
NPO..............  Community          Metropolitan       Leadership         Fair Housing       Northern         
                    Assistance         Boston Housing     Council for        Congress of        Manhattan       
                    Network (CAN).     Partnership Inc.   Metropolitan       Southern           Improvement     
                                       (MBHP).            Open Communities   California         Corporation     
                                                          (LC).              (FHCSC).           (NMIC)          
Sub(s)...........  Baltimore Urban    None.............  None.............  beyond shelter     None.            
                    League;                                                  (bs).                              
                    Neighborhood                                                                                
                    Intervention                                                                                
                    Strategies,                                                                                 
                    Inc.; Baltimore                                                                             
                    Neighborhoods,                                                                              
                    Inc.                                                                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B2  Statistical Methods

    This section contains five parts. B2.1 presents the MTO 
demonstration's stratification and sampling plans. Section B2.2 
discusses sampling procedures. B2.3 presents the justification of level 
of accuracy achieved by the sample sizes. Section B2.4 discusses any 
problems requiring specialized sampling procedures. Section B2.5 
addresses the topic of use of less frequent data collection cycles.

B2.1  Stratification and Sampling Plans

    The sample for the evaluation will consist of families who apply to 
the demonstration and are randomly assigned to one of three groups:

     The experimental group, which will receive geographically 
restricted certificates or vouchers, along with counseling and 
assistance in finding a private unit to lease;
     The Section 8 control group, which will receive regular 
Section 8 certificates or vouchers, which are geographically 
unrestricted; and
     The in-place control group, which will receive no 
certificates or vouchers, but will continue to receive project-based 
assistance.

    Exhibit B.3 shows the optimal allocation of the sample among these 
three groups. This allocation assumes:

     The Department is interested in estimating the difference 
in impacts between the MTO treatment and the regular Section 8 program 
(or, alternatively, the difference in impacts between living in the 
central city outside housing projects and living in the suburbs);
     The lease-up rate in the Section 8 group will be 70 
percent; and
     1,800 certificates or vouchers will be available for the 
demonstration, all of which can be used interchangeably as MTO 
certificates or vouchers or as regular Section 8 certificates or 
vouchers.

    The exhibit shows two alternative sample allocations (and total 
sample sizes), one based on an assumed lease-up rate of 20 percent in 
the experimental group and one based on an assumed lease-up rate of 40 
percent in that group.\18\ Because the certificates and vouchers issued 
to the experimental group participants can only be used in certain low-
poverty areas outside the neighborhoods where these families would 
ordinarily seek housing, we expect that even with special counseling 
and assistance their lease-up rate will be substantially lower than 
that of the regular Section 8 group. However, given the limited 
experience with this type of program, it is very difficult to predict 
what that rate will be. Therefore, we show sample allocations for 
lease-up rates that bracket the likely range of rates for this group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\The 20 percent estimate is based on the experience of the 
Gautreaux program in Chicago. The 40 percent lease-up rate was 
estimated by Professor Paul Fischer from his research on the 
Cincinnati mobility program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the assumption of a 20 percent lease-up rate, it will require 
4,500 families in the experimental group and 1,286 families in the 
Section 8 control group to produce 900 leased-up families in each, the 
optimal division of certificates or vouchers between the two groups. An 
additional 3,214 families will be required for the in-place control 
group, for a total sample size of 9,000 families. With a 40 percent 
lease-up rate in the experimental group, only 2,250 families would be 
needed in that group to produce 900 leased-up families. Under this 
assumption, the optimal number of in-place controls also falls to 964, 
for a total sample size of 4,500 families.

                           Exhibit B.3.--Optimal Sample Allocation, MTO Demonstration                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Experimental      Section 8       In-place                   
                                                    (MTO) group    control group  control group       Total     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Families assigned:                                                                                              
    20% MTO lease-up rate.......................           4,500           1,286           3,214           9,000
    40% MTO lease-up rate.......................           2,250           1,286             964           4,500
Families leased up..............................             900             900             N/A          1,800 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final sample size will be determined by the actual lease-up 
rate (i.e., the number of families actually required to exhaust the 
1,800 certificates/vouchers available) and the random assignment ratio. 
In the absence of reliable knowledge about the lease-up rate to be 
expected in the experimental group, the Contractor plans to take the 
conservative approach of setting the initial random assignment ratio 
based on the assumption of a 20 percent lease-up rate in this group. 
If, as the demonstration progresses, this group experiences a higher 
lease-up rate, the random assignment ratio can be adjusted accordingly.

B2.2  Sampling Procedures

    As specified in the authorizing legislation, the MTO demonstration 
will be targeted to very low-income families with children who reside 
in public housing or receive project-based Section 8 assistance in 
specific high-poverty areas of five large cities. Participating PHAs 
will notify all eligible families within the designated demonstration 
areas of the availability of assistance to move out of project-based 
housing.
    The first step in intake will be to determine the eligibility of 
applicant families. This involves verifying the applicant's family 
composition, income, and legal tenancy in public or project-based 
Section 8 housing in the designated high-poverty census tracts. At this 
stage, families will be reminded that, because demonstration slots are 
limited, not all eligible applicants can be accepted; those to be 
accepted will be chosen by a lottery. They will be asked to agree to 
participate in the study (i.e. provide any information or cooperation 
that is requested by the researchers) even if they are not chosen to 
receive demonstration assistance.
    At this point, after signing the Enrollment Form, baseline data for 
the experimental analysis will be collected. It is important that these 
data be collected before applicants are assigned to any specific 
assistance group, in order to ensure that their responses are not 
influenced by knowledge of the group to which they have been assigned.
    The next step in the intake process will be random assignment of 
applicant families to an experimental group that receives assistance 
under MTO, a control group that receives regular Section 8 
certificates/vouchers, or to an in-place control group that receives no 
certificates or vouchers.
    Families assigned to the regular Section 8 program will receive the 
standard PHA briefing and any other assistance the PHA would normally 
provide Section 8 enrollees. Since all applicants will have expressed 
an interest in moving out of project-based housing, it is assumed that 
virtually all will take the Section 8 certificates or vouchers and 
begin searching for acceptable housing. Those who are successful in 
finding units that pass PHA inspection will move; those who are 
unsuccessful will remain in their public or project-based housing.
    Families assigned to the experimental group will receive a standard 
briefing from the PHA and will be issued an MTO certificate/voucher. 
They will then be invited for a preliminary counseling session with the 
nonprofit organization (NPO) involved in the demonstration. Some of 
these families may decide not to search once they learn more about the 
MTO certificates/vouchers' restriction to use in low-poverty areas. 
Those who elect to continue will receive further NPO counseling and 
assistance in locating acceptable units in low-poverty areas.
    Families randomly assigned to the in-place control group will be 
informed that, because the number of applicants exceeded the number of 
certificates/vouchers available for this special demonstration, they 
will not receive assistance in moving. They will, however, continue to 
receive project-based assistance and could be wait-listed for Section 8 
existing program assistance.
    Random assignment will occur after collection of the baseline data 
and before any Section 8 briefing. It will be important that PHA staff 
determine each applicant's eligibility and collect baseline data prior 
to random assignment, to ensure that no ineligibles are included in the 
sample and that responses to the baseline instruments are not 
influenced by knowledge of the treatment to which the family has been 
assigned. It will also be important to ensure that, following random 
assignment, families receive a careful explanation of the nature and 
terms of the assistance they are being offered (or, if they are being 
offered no new assistance, that they remain eligible for their current 
assistance). To avoid confusion, briefings for the experimental and 
regular Section 8 control groups will be conducted separately.
    The fact that some intake activities must occur before random 
assignment and others must occur after, but perhaps within the same 
visit by the participant to the PHA office, means that random 
assignment must be capable of being conducted with very quick turn-
around. The most efficient way to accomplish this is for PHA staff to 
conduct random assignment on-site. To ensure that random assignment is 
conducted properly, and that staff cannot ``game'' the procedure, the 
Contractor has developed a computerized random assignment routine that 
can be run by local program staff on virtually any personal computer, 
with minimal training. Intake staff need only respond to on-screen 
prompts for the applicant's name, date of birth, and Social Security 
number;\19\ the random assignment routine will then automatically 
display the family's assignment on the screen and store it on the 
diskette containing the random assignment software.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\These identifiers are collected in order to ensure accurate 
linking of the family's random assignment status with data 
subsequently collected over life of the project. They are collected 
ordinarily on the PHAs' Section 8 applications and used on HUD Form 
50058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Demonstration staff will inform the applicants of their assignments 
and refer the MTO and regular Section 8 groups to their respective 
briefings. Those assigned to remain in-place will be informed that, 
because the number of applicants exceeded the number that could be 
assisted in this special demonstration, the PHA was not able to give 
them a certificate/voucher. They will be assured, however, that they 
will continue to receive their current project-based assistance. PHA 
staff will give applicants this information both orally and in writing, 
ensuring that all applicants in this group receive the same information 
and providing them a document to refer to if they have subsequent 
questions about their status.

B2.3 Justification of Level of Accuracy

    The precision of the impact estimates is measured by the size of 
the smallest program effect that could be detected as statistically 
significant at the .05 level with 80 percent power with a given sample. 
This is the ``minimum detectable effect.''
    Exhibit B.4 shows the minimum program effects on several different 
outcomes that would be detectable under the optimal sample allocation 
shown in Exhibit B.3.\20\ The top panel of the exhibit is based on the 
conservative assumption that the lease-up rate for the experimental 
group will be 20 percent; the bottom panel assumes a 40 percent lease-
up rate for this group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\The estimates in Exhibit B.4 assume an educational 
attainment rate of 50 percent and an employment rate of 70 percent 
in the absence of assistance. They also assume mean earnings of 
$7,488, with a standard deviation of $7,087 in the absence of 
assistance (based on the earnings of low-income adult women in the 
National JTPA Study sample), and 30 percent sample attrition between 
random assignment and follow-up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Exhibit B.4, if the lease-up rate for the experimental 
group turns out to be 20 percent, we can be confident of detecting a 
program-induced increase of 7 percentage points in the educational 
attainment rate of children in families who lease up in the Section 8 
control group--an increase of 14 percent in the proportion receiving a 
high school diploma or GED.\21\ A 6.4 percentage point increase in the 
employment rate of adults who lease up in the Section 8 control group 
would be detectable with 80 percent power, as would a $992 (13 percent) 
increase in their earnings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\The figures in Exhibit B.4 are minimum detectable effects on 
families who successfully lease up, not on the entire treatment 
group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because a much smaller proportion of the experimental group is 
expected to lease up successfully and receive assistance, effects on 
assistance recipients in this group must be much larger to be 
detectable. With a 20 percent lease-up rate, the minimum detectable 
effects on educational attainment and earnings are both about one-third 
of the control mean for this group. The smallest detectable effect on 
the employment rate of MTO assistance recipients will be about 16 
percentage points.
    The final column of Exhibit B.4's upper panel shows the minimum 
detectable differences between the impact on the regular Section 8 
group and the impact on the MTO group. If the MTO lease-up rate is 20 
percent, differences in impact in the 21 to 32 percent range would be 
detectable. 

 Exhibit B.4.--Minimum Detectable Program Effects on Recipients for Selected Outcomes, Under the Optimal Sample 
                                                   Allocation                                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    MTO lease-up rate = 20%1,800 certificates/      MTO lease-up rate = 40% 1,800 certificates/ 
                                     vouchers                                        vouchers                   
                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Impacts on                                      Impacts on                                  
     Outcome          regular     Impacts on MTO                      regular     Impacts on MTO                
                     section 8    (Experimental)   Difference in     section 8    (experimental)   Difference in
                     (control)      recipients        impacts        (control)      recipients        impacts   
                    recipients                                      recipients                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attainment of                                                                                                   
 high school                                                                                                    
 diploma or GED.            .070                                                                                
                         (14.0%)            .172                                                                
                                         (34.3%)            .157                                                
                                                         (31.4%)            .090                                
                                                                         (18.1%)            .143                
                                                                                         (28.6%)            .111
                                                                                                         (22.2%)
Employment rate.            .064                                                                                
                          (9.1%)            .157                                                                
                                         (22.4%)            .144                                                
                                                         (20.6%)            .083                                
                                                                         (11.8%)            .131                
                                                                                         (18.7%)            .102
                                                                                                         (14.6%)
Earnings........            $992                                                                                
                         (13.3%)          $2,430                                                                
                                         (32.5%)          $2,221                                                
                                                         (29.7%)           $1281                                
                                                                         (17.1%)           $2026                
                                                                                         (27.1%)          $1,569
                                                                                                         (21.0%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in the bottom panel of Exhibit B.4, substantially smaller 
effects will be detectable if the lease-up rate in the MTO group turns 
out to be 40 percent. In particular, differences in impact between the 
regular Section 8 group and the MTO group of 15 to 22 percent will be 
detectable if the lease-up rate is 40 percent.
    Minimum detectable effects for site-specific estimates will be 
about 2.24 times as large as those for the pooled five-site estimates. 
Therefore, only very large program impacts will be detectable within 
individual sites.
    The minimum detectable effects on employment rates estimated here 
for the pooled five-site sample (even for the more conservative lease-
up rate assumption) are of the same order of magnitude as the effects 
found by Rosenbaum and Fischer in their studies of mobility programs 
for public housing tenants and applicants, and the minimum detectable 
effects on educational attainment are similar to the effect Rosenbaum 
found for school dropout rates.\22\ This suggests that the 
demonstration sample will be adequate to detect effects of the size 
that are likely to occur. However, it must be borne in mind that those 
earlier studies may have been subject to selection bias that would 
inflate their estimates of program impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\See James E. Rosenbaum, ``Black Pioneers--Do Their Moves to 
the Suburbs Increase Economic Opportunity for Mothers and 
Children?'' Housing Policy Debate, Volume 2, Issues 4, 1991; and 
(again) Fischer, ``Is Housing Mobility an Effective Anti-Poverty 
Strategy?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The minimum detectable effects shown here are based on HUD's 
initial commitment of certificates and vouchers to the MTO experimental 
design, totalling 1,800. A further allocation of about 1,500 
certificates and vouchers is available in FY94.\23\ The proportion of 
these resources that will be devoted to the experimental evaluation of 
MTO has not yet been determined; some may be reserved for 
demonstrations of different MTO administrative models. However, Exhibit 
B.5 shows the minimum detectable effects that would be attainable if 
this entire allocation were used to increase the sample size for the 
experimental evaluation of MTO to 3,300 certificates and vouchers.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\The precise number of certificates and vouchers that can be 
supported with a given budget cannot be determined until sites are 
known, since the cost of certificate or voucher depends on the fair 
market rent in the local area.
    \24\Allocating additional certificates and vouchers to the 
experimental evaluation would almost certainly require either the 
selection of new sites or expansion of the target areas of the five 
existing sites, in order to obtain a sufficient number of eligible 
families to use the certificates and vouchers.

  Exhibit B.5--Minimum Detectable Program Effects on Recipients for Selected Outcomes, Under the Optimal Sample 
                                                   Allocation                                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    MTO lease-up rate = 20%3,300 certificates/      MTO lease-up rate = 40%3,300 certificates/  
                                     vouchers                                        vouchers                   
                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Outcome        Impacts on                                      Impacts on                                  
                     regular 8    Impacts on MTO   Difference in     regular 8    Impacts on MTO   Difference in
                     (control)    (experimental)      impacts        (control)    (experimental)      impacts   
                     recipents      recipients                       recipents      recipients                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attainment of                                                                                                   
 high school                                                                                                    
 diploma or GED.            .052                                                                                
                         (10.3%)            .127                                                                
                                         (25.4%)            .116                                                
                                                         (23.1%)            .066                                
                                                                         (13.3%)            .106                
                                                                                         (21.1%)            .081
                                                                                                         (18.8%)
Employment rate.            .047                                                                                
                          (6.8%)            .116                                                                
                                         (16.6%)            .106                                                
                                                         (15.2%)            .061                                
                                                                          (8.8%)            .097                
                                                                                         (13.8%)            .075
                                                                                                         (10.7%)
Earnings........            $733                                                                                
                          (9.8%)          $1,795                                                                
                                         (24.0%)          $1,640                                                
                                                         (21.9%)            $946                                
                                                                         (12.6%)          $1,496                
                                                                                         (20.0%)          $1,158
                                                                                                         (15.5%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This increase in the sample reduces the minimum detectable effects 
by about 25 percent. As can be seen in the exhibit, with this sample 
size, differences in impact in the range of 15 to 23 percent would be 
detectable if the MTO lease-up rate is 20 percent. Even smaller 
differences, in the 11 to 18 percent range, would be detectable if the 
MTO lease-up rate is 40 percent.

B2.4  Problems Requiring Specialized Sampling Procedures

    The data collection for the Moving to Opportunity demonstration 
does not require any specialized sampling procedures.

B2.5  Use of Less Frequent Data Collection Cycles

    The instruments covered in this request for OMB clearance have 
different collection cycles, as follows:

     The data collection forms with participant respondents--
the Enrollment Form and Participant Baseline Survey--are designed for 
one-time administration only.
     The data collection forms with agency respondents--the 
Participant Tracking Forms, the Participant Counseling log (optional), 
the Program Cost Forms, and the Landlord Outreach Log--are designed for 
periodic collection, described below.

Of the latter group of forms, the Participant Tracking Forms, the 
Program Cost Forms, and the Landlord Outreach Logs will be collected on 
a monthly basis during the period of MTO intake. Monthly collection of 
tracking forms is essential because of the likelihood that many of the 
participants will be moving as a result of receiving Section 8 
assistance; close tracking in the search and lease-up period will form 
the foundation of the long-term tracking effort designed to support 
measurement of program impacts over a ten-year period. Monthly 
collection of cost forms matches the typical accounting cycle of site 
agencies and is essential for meeting the Congressional mandate to 
compare MTO's costs with those of the regular Section 8 program. Thus, 
Congress's intent in creating MTO necessitates the use of monthly data 
collection cycles for these items. Finally, aggressive landlord 
outreach is expected to be important to the program's success. For this 
reason, it is essential to monitor NPO efforts in this area monthly.
    The Participant Counseling log (or local equivalent) will be 
collected only twice during the demonstration, at the mid-point and end 
of the Contractor's monitoring period. This form is primarily for NPO 
management of the demonstration, although its contents will be used in 
describing the efforts of the site agencies to counsel and support 
participants.

B3  Response Rate

B3.1  Procedures to Maximize Response Rate and Handle Nonresponse

    Concerns about maintaining a high response rate have been addressed 
by the Department by means of the following strategies. For the data 
collection forms to be completed by the site agencies, the Department 
has sought to ensure a high level of response by:

     Notifying the demonstration site applicants, as part of 
the Notice of Funding Availability, that participation in the record-
keeping and data collection of the demonstration is a mandatory 
component;
     Agreeing to provide an on-site assistant to help with the 
collection of data; and
     Involving the demonstration sites in the development of 
the data collection forms; and
     Contracting with Abt Associates to monitor and provide 
technical assistance to demonstration sites.

    For the forms to be completed by participants, The Department has 
sought to achieve a high response rate by (1) collecting the data 
during the Section 8 application process, and (2) using a ``guided 
self-administered'' mode to collect the data. The Enrollment Form and 
Baseline Survey are designed as self-administered forms. However, the 
site assistants hired by the Contractor to assist the demonstration, 
one in each city, will help the participants by reading the questions 
aloud while the participants are completing the forms and fielding any 
questions from participants who may have difficulty understanding the 
questions due to limited literacy or language skills.
    The site assistants will be hired and trained by Abt Associates, 
the Contractor. In addition, Abt will assign a field manager to provide 
ongoing training and supervision of the site assistants. The field 
manager and site assistants hired for this data collection will need 
the following qualifications, at a minimum:

     A proven track record conducting interviews with AFDC 
recipients and other low-income populations;
     Experience working with local agencies and their record-
keeping systems; and
     A sufficient understanding of the MTO demonstration and 
the operational and research goals motivating the data collection.

Abt Associates has extensive experience in the collection of data on-
site. The field manager and site assistant positions will be staffed 
from Abt's national network of experienced field interviewers.
    Just prior to the beginning of the data collection, Abt will bring 
the field data collection team together for an intensive, two-day 
training session. Using a combination of written training materials and 
role-playing, the site assistants will be briefed on the participant 
instruments. They will also be thoroughly oriented to the agency data 
collection forms. In addition, the site assistants will receive a 
comprehensive discussion of the demonstration and its data collection 
needs.
    The field manager will have responsibility for maintaining the 
quality and flow of the data collection at each site. To accomplish 
this, the field manager will attend the full three-day training session 
for staff from the five MTO sites. The field manager will also visit 
each site early in the data collection period, to become familiar with 
the MTO staff and operations at each PHA and NPO and work with the site 
assistant to provide the most effective support for the demonstration 
at the site. Throughout the data collection period, the field manager 
will maintain regular contact with the site assistants (no less 
frequently than once a week) and the MTO staff at the sites. The field 
manager in turn, will report to the data collection director at Abt on 
the progress of the data collection, any problems that arise, and 
potential solutions.

B3.2  Expected Response Rate

    Because completion of the Enrollment Form and Baseline Survey is 
part of the process of applying for the MTO demonstration, and due to 
the assistance described in Section B3.1 above, response rates of 
virtually 100 percent are expected from participant respondents.
    With regard to agency respondents, all PHAs and NPOs applying for 
the MTO demonstration in response to the NOFA have signed statements 
agreeing to cooperate with the special record-keeping and data 
collection requirements of the demonstration. There may be further 
special language to this effect in the grant agreements governing the 
award of counseling funds from HUD to the NPOs. These requirements, in 
combination with the assistance provided by the Contractor, should 
produce extremely high response rates on all instruments to be 
completed by the site agencies.

B4  Tests of Procedures or Methods/Results of Pre-testing

    The Department's Contractor, Abt Associates, developed the data 
collection forms for this submission. Abt has consulted the PHAs and 
NPOs involved in MTO; staff from these organizations reviewed draft 
versions of the program operation forms (the Participant Tracking Logs, 
Participant Counseling Log, Program Cost Forms, and Landlord Outreach 
Logs) and provided feedback on their design and feasibility.
    In developing the Baseline Survey, the Contractor also reviewed 
numerous existing instruments and consulted with the Department's 
experts' panel. To the greatest extent possible, the MTO baseline 
survey uses tested questions from prior studies. Below is a list of the 
major topic areas included in the survey and the sources consulted for 
each area:
    Mobility: The Gautreaux studies, James Rosenbaum and Susan Popkin, 
Northwestern University; Cincinnati Special Mobility program study, 
Paul Fischer, Lake Forest College; Greg Duncan, University of Michigan.
    Housing preference/attitudes toward living in white/mixed 
communities: Detroit Area Study, Reynolds Farley, University of 
Michigan; Robert Crain, National Study of Black Americans, Columbia 
University; the Gautreaux studies.
    Housing quality: National Housing Survey; Chicago Hardship Study, 
Christopher Jencks and Susan Mayer, Northwestern University/University 
of Chicago.
    Motivation to move: the Gautreaux studies, Cincinnati Special 
Mobility Program study.
    Fear of crime and victimization: the Gautreaux studies.
    Neighborhood condition: African-American Youth Behavior Project, 
Brian Flay, University of Illinois Chicago; Philadelphia Family 
Management Study, Frank Furstenburg and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, University 
of Pennsylvania; Susan Mayer, University of Chicago.
    Neighborhood resources: Philadelphia Family Management Study, Frank 
Furstenburg; Susan Mayer, University of Chicago.
    Social integration and social support: the Gautreaux studies; 
African-American Youth Behavior Project; Philadelphia Family Management 
Study.
    Education and employment: Abt Associates' evaluation of the Job 
Training Partnership Act, for the Department of Labor; Panel Study of 
Income Dynamics, Greg Duncan, University of Michigan; Gautreaux 
studies; Susan Mayer, University of Chicago.
    Welfare recipiency: recent Abt studies; Greg Duncan; Susan Mayer; 
Gautreaux studies.
    Self-efficacy: Brian Flay, University of Illinois Chicago; 
Philadelphia Family Management Study; Gautreaux studies.
    Children: ongoing Abt studies of the Comprehensive Child 
Development Program for the Department of Education and the evaluation 
of programs supported by the Commission on National and Community 
Service; the Philadelphia Family Management study; Behavior Problems 
Index; Person Maturity Scale; HOME scale; Gautreaux studies; Kristen 
Moore, Child Trends; Jeanne-Brooks Gunn, Columbia University.

B5  Statistical Consultation and Information Collection Agents

    Individuals consulted on the sampling design and its statistical 
properties were: Dr. Larry Orr, Abt Associates; Dr. Stephen Kennedy, 
Abt Associates; Prof. David Greenberg, Dept. of Economics, University 
of Maryland-Baltimore County; Prof. Peter Rossi, Dept. of Sociology, 
University of Massachusetts; Prof. Greg J. Duncan, University of 
Michigan; Mr. Fred Doolittle, Manpower Demonstration Research 
Corporation.

BILLING CODE 4210-01-P

TN19MY94.004


TN19MY94.005


TN19MY94.006


TN19MY94.007


TN19MY94.008


TN19MY94.009


TN19MY94.010


TN19MY94.011


TN19MY94.012


TN19MY94.013


TN19MY94.014


TN19MY94.015


TN19MY94.016


TN19MY94.017


TN19MY94.018


TN19MY94.019


TN19MY94.020


TN19MY94.021


TN19MY94.022


TN19MY94.023


TN19MY94.024


TN19MY94.025


TN19MY94.026


TN19MY94.027


TN19MY94.028


TN19MY94.029


TN19MY94.030


TN19MY94.031


TN19MY94.032


TN19MY94.033


TN19MY94.034


TN19MY94.035


TN19MY94.036


TN19MY94.037


TN19MY94.038


TN19MY94.039


TN19MY94.040


TN19MY94.041


TN19MY94.042


TN19MY94.043


TN19MY94.044


TN19MY94.045


TN19MY94.046


TN19MY94.047


TN19MY94.048


TN19MY94.049


TN19MY94.050


TN19MY94.051


TN19MY94.052


TN19MY94.053


TN19MY94.054


TN19MY94.055


TN19MY94.056


[FR Doc. 94-12176 Filed 5-18-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-01-C