Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Participants were randomized to treatment conditions. However, No description of random sequence generation was provided.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No description of allocation concealment was provided.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)	High risk	Blinding of participants and personnel was not possible due to the nature of the intervention and study design.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)	Unclear risk	No description of blinding of outcome assessment was provided.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)	High risk	“Hispanics had higher follow‐up rates than the other groups…persons classified as an employment problem, however, were more likely to have received a 10‐month follow‐up interview…a higher percentage of Group 1 clients received follow‐up interviews, compared to members of the other groups; members of Group 2 had the lowest follow‐up rates”.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No evidence of reporting outcomes selectively was detected.
Other bias	High risk	“The only exception to the randomization process was that after two women were randomly assigned to the nonhoused control group a decision was made to randomize all subsequent female participants to one of the housed groups”.