An interim report on the Family Options Study (formerly the Study of the Impact of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families), finds that several project-based homeless interventions are unable to shift resources based on need, program eligibility requirements often exclude many families in shelters in need of assistance, homeless families are highly motivated to pursue permanent housing subsidies, and finally, low participation rates may suggest a gap between program services and what options families value. The HUD-sponsored study measures and compares the impacts of four interventions commonly used to help families experiencing homelessness: community based rapid re-housing (CBRR), project-based transitional housing (PBTH), permanent housing subsidies (SUB), and the usual care (UC) emergency shelters. This report, the second of three expected reports on the study, provides baseline characteristics of study participants and preliminary data on intervention take-up (participation). The four interventions differ in terms of type of housing, length of support, and degree of related services; these differences could affect both the probability of participation and the extent of impact. CBRR provides temporary, private market rental assistance for 2-6 months (with potential renewals up to 18 months) and limited case management focused on housing and income. PBTH provides temporary housing in agency-controlled buildings for 6-12 months, on average, and intensive support services. SUB (usually in the form of a housing voucher) provides permanent, private market rental assistance with no case management once leased-up. UC provides emergency shelter services, including extensive case management services, for a median length of 30 to 90 days. Between September 2010 and January 2012, 2,307 families across twelve communities enrolled in the study. In order to be eligible for the study, families had to have been in emergency shelters for at least seven days, have at least one child under the age of 15 at the time of enrollment, and provide informed consent. The study sites include Alameda County, Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Bridgeport/New Haven, Denver, Honolulu, Kansas City, Louisville, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, and Minneapolis (including surrounding Hennepin County). Each provider of CBRR, PBTH, and SUB had its own eligibility requirements, with some stricter than others, so to be part of the study families also had to meet local program eligibility criteria for at least two interventions offered. Families were then randomly assigned to one of the interventions locally available. Comparing baseline surveys and the most recent Annual Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR), the report finds that participants are very similar to the U.S. homeless population as a whole. The typical family size is 3.29 people (comparable to 3.37 persons in AHAR’s 2010 data), headed by an adult female of about 29 years old with one to two children. Thirty-one percent of families had more than one adult at the baseline. Across all twelve sites, racial characteristics were similar to those of homeless families nationwide: 41% of the study participants are African-American and 20% are Hispanic. Study participants reported that they either had a poor rental history (26% had been evicted) or that they had never been a leaseholder at all (35%). Responding to eligibility questions, 14% reported that at least one adult in the family had been convicted of a felony for drugs or other offenses. As each intervention is voluntary and participation in the intervention on its own is expected to affect families, participation is a critical component of the overall study. Compared to the other interventions, PBTH had the lowest participation rate, at 29%. Some families interviewed said that location of housing relative to support networks, employment, transportation, and children’s schooling were important, suggesting that location choice was a factor in take-up. Families receiving PBTH assistance must move into agency locations and do not have private market choices like those receiving SUB and CBRR assistance. The participation rate for the CBRR intervention, about 46%, is substantially less than that for the SUB intervention (72%). Qualitative interviews with study participants show that the opportunity to have permanent housing (only in SUB) was highly motivating and that most of the sub-group families were able to pass the subsidy program’s eligibility criteria. A final report on the study is expected in 2014. This report will provide an impact analysis of the interventions and their costs, utilizing administrative data and participant surveys 18 months after enrollment. The Family Options Study will thus provide substantive longitudinal data to help determine which of these homeless interventions best address homelessness among families, from housing stability to well-being and self-sufficiency. Access the report at http://bit.ly/17O56mW.