SUMMER / FALL 2018

Evidence Matters

Transforming Knowledge Into Housing and Community Development Policy 

HOUSING AND 

EMPLOYMENT

IN THIS ISSUE

Housing Assistance, Employment, and  

02 Self-Sufficiency

Jobs Plus: Self-Sufficiency in Public Housing

11

Programs Integrate Workforce and Housing 

16 Services

Photo Credit: Enterprise Community Partners/Michael Schoenfeld

Housing Assistance, Employment, 

HIGHLIGHTS

ture and Self-Sufficiency

n   Most recipients of HUD assistance are 

fea

H

elderly, children, disabled, or already 

UD provides rental subsidies 

and individuals experiencing home-

connected to the labor force, but many 

to 2 million nonelderly and 

lessness may face challenges specific 

who work earn insufficient income to af-

nondisabled households; of these, 57 

to homelessness in addition to these 

ford housing without a subsidy. 

percent reported some form of earned 

impediments. HUD has several pro-

n   HUD, local public housing agencies, 

income at the end of 2017. Having 

grams and local initiatives designed to 

and other stakeholders administer pro-

earned income, however, does not 

overcome these barriers.

grams aimed at helping HUD-assisted 

mean having enough income to afford 

households achieve self-sufficiency 

housing. The average monthly earned 

Barriers to Higher Earnings

through various supports such as 

income for tenants with earnings was 

HUD provides annual rental subsidies 

counseling, job training, child care, 

$1,664, whereas the average gross rent 

to 4.6 million households; approximately 

health services, transportation assis-

for housing was $1,230. To be able to 

42 percent of these are nonelderly 

tance, and savings incentives. 

afford housing without assistance, fami-

and nondisabled households. HUD’s 

n   Research has found that HUD’s 

lies need to have a consistent income, 

administrative data over a three-

Jobs Plus program, which consists 

more working hours, and higher wages. 

year period show that 80 percent of 

of employment services, financial 

Currently, many assisted tenants fre-

these 2 million households have had 

incentives, and community supports, 

quently enter and exit the labor force, 

earned income, with 40 percent having 

is associated with increased annual 

have part-time rather than full-time 

earned income in every quarter over 

earnings for nondisabled, working-age 

residents of public housing.

employment, and seldom earn more 

the three-year period. At any given 

than the minimum wage. Residents of 

time, approximately 60 percent are 

HUD-assisted housing face numerous 

employed. In other words, about 20 

consistently employed. Based on survey 

barriers to better employment, includ-

percent of these households have not 

data, HUD estimates that approximately 

ing chronic health problems, childcare 

worked during the previous three years, 

half of those who are working are em-

and other family care responsibilities, 

40 percent have been in and out of the 

ployed full time (more than 35 hours 

and a lack of skills and education, 

labor force, and 40 percent have been 

per week), with average hourly wages at 

Even when working full-time, it can be difficult to afford housing. Housing choice vouchers offer critical assistance and, when coupled with additional supports, can help households achieve self-sufficiency.

2

Editor’s Note

Fifty-seven percent of working-age, nondisabled recipients of housing assistance have earned income over the past year, and most people experiencing homelessness are working or wish to do so. Yet, because of insufficient wages, job churn, dependent care obligations, and other factors, many still are unable to afford housing without assistance. Federal, state, and local efforts to promote self-sufficiency among HUD-assisted households and individuals experiencing homelessness have shown mixed results in earnings and employment outcomes for participants. This issue of  Evidence Matters focuses on these efforts and related research that offer insight into promising practices and lessons for improving programs and supports aimed at fostering economic independence among HUD-assisted households.

The lead article, “Housing Assistance, Employment, and Self-Sufficiency,” discusses the barriers that can keep HUD-assisted households and individuals experiencing homelessness from achieving self-sufficiency; profiles programs administered by HUD, public housing agencies, and other stakeholders to help overcome those barriers; and surveys research findings on the effectiveness of such programs. The Research Spotlight, “Jobs Plus: Self-Sufficiency in Public Housing,” by Brian Stromberg, discusses the evolution and evaluations of HUD’s Jobs Plus program, which has successfully increased earnings of participating assisted residents. Finally, the In Practice article, “Programs Integrate Workforce and Housing Services,” discusses initiatives in Chicago and King County, Washington, that have helped participants improve basic skills and access job training and stable housing. 

We hope that this edition of  Evidence Matters provides a helpful overview of this critical topic. Our next issue will focus on landlords and HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher program. Please provide feedback on any of our issues at 

www.huduser.gov/forums.

— Rachelle Levitt,  Director of Research Utilization Division or near local minimum wage, and the 

Kentucky; Louisville, Kentucky; San 

was a barrier to employment, low educa-

same surveys indicate that only half of 

Antonio, Texas; and Washington, DC, 

tional attainment certainly contributes 

those who are working are employed 

asked detailed questions about likely 

to low wages. Of the families surveyed, 

for all 12 months in a year. 

barriers to employment and higher paid 

26 percent did not have a high school 

work. In total, 54 percent of respondents 

degree nor passed the general edu-

The economic upturn and falling 

reported having a barrier to work. The 

cational development test. Only 12 

unemployment rates nationally have 

most common barrier was health related.  percent had a college degree, and most 

increased employment for nonelderly 

Although none of the respondents were 

of those held only associate’s degrees. 

and nondisabled tenants from 50 

technically disabled, 28 percent reported 

Notably, 31 percent had a trade license 

percent in 2011 to 57 percent in 2017. 

that their physical health limited their 

or certificate, and 13 percent reported 

Although this uptick in employment 

ability to work, and 14 percent reported 

attending college or vocational school 

rates has improved the quality of life of 

facing limitations due to mental health.

at the time of the survey.1

many families, earned incomes remain 

low. The average monthly wage income 

Sixty-four percent of the surveyed 

Connecting HUD-Assisted 

for these workers was $1,394 in 2011 and 

households had children under 13, 

Residents to Employment

$1,664 in 2017. To put this in context, 

and for 21 percent of the respondents, 

HUD can and does influence rela-

full-time income at the federal minimum 

childcare costs were listed as a barrier 

tionships between housing and work 

wage of $7.25 an hour is approximately 

to employment. Approximately 16 

through its community development 

$1,208 per month.

percent of the households reported 

initiatives and investments that improve 

having limited ability to work because 

transit options, preserve and develop 

As part of the Rent Reform Demon-

they needed to care for a sick or dis-

affordable housing, and revitalize 

stration, a survey of 5,263 nonelderly 

abled family member.

neighborhoods; however, the agency 

and nondisabled tenants (average age 

has a special opportunity to deliver 

of 39) from 2015 to 2016 at 4 public 

Although the survey did not ask house-

employment opportunities and work-

housing agencies (PHAs) in Lexington, 

holds whether their level of education 

force development for individuals who 

3

live in HUD-assisted housing. Individu-

MDRC analyzed earnings data during 

goal-related expenses and receives 

als in HUD-assisted housing may face 

this period and for three years after 

the account in full after completing 

several barriers to employment that are 

the program ended. MDRC found that 

the program — meaning that they 

common among low-income earners. 

Jobs Plus “caused a 16 percent increase 

have secured employment and exited 

The supports and services needed to 

in average annual earnings over the full 

housing assistance without receipt of 

secure employment or increase wages 

seven years (an average gain of $1,300 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

vary considerably. For some, a bus pass, 

per year) for nondisabled, working-age 

(TANF) benefits.7 The program allows 

a childcare voucher, or some training is 

public housing residents.”4 

for considerable local variation, which 

sufficient to help secure and main-

makes evaluating the overall program 

tain employment, but others may need 

Building on these results and lessons, 

difficult. Evidence on the program’s 

intensive mental health services or 

New York City and the NYC Center 

effectiveness is mixed, especially for 

significant additional education before 

for Economic Opportunity began to 

those facing the most severe chal-

they can find employment.2 

replicate the Jobs Plus program. HUD 

lenges; only a small portion of FSS 

also has begun scaling up Jobs Plus. 

participants graduate and claim their 

These barriers and challenges, al-

Since 2014, HUD has awarded roughly 

escrow savings, although those who 

though daunting, can often be  

$62 million to 24 grantees.5 This effort 

did attained steady employment and 

overcome with sufficient effort and  

includes a process study of the first 9 

higher incomes.8 Some local programs 

targeted supports. Several past and  

grantees and an outcomes study of the 

have demonstrated limited success, 

present HUD programs have targeted 

first 24 grantees. Jobs Plus has provided 

however, justifying further experimen-

these barriers with varying degrees of 

the strongest available evidence to sup-

tation and study. A randomized trial of 

success. Evaluations of these programs 

port the success of a specific initiative. 

an FSS program in New York City that 

offer helpful insights on which strategies 

combined FSS with cash work incen-

work best and under what conditions 

tives, the Opportunity NYC – Work 

they could be applied to ongoing and 

Rewards demonstration, found consis-

The supports and 

future initiatives.

tent positive effects for those who were 

services needed to  not working at the time of enrollment. 

Jobs Plus.  HUD launched its original 

This intervention, however, did not re-

secure employment 

Jobs Plus demonstration in 1998 in 

duce participants’ poverty rates or their 

collaboration with The Rockefeller 

reliance on public benefits, nor did it 

or increase wages 

Foundation and MDRC as a random-

significantly change any outcomes for 

ized controlled trial. Jobs Plus is a 

vary considerably. 

those who were already working at the 

locally based, job-driven program to 

time of enrollment.9 HUD is currently 

increase earnings and advance employ-

undertaking a random assignment 

ment outcomes. The program creates 

(See “Jobs Plus: Self-Sufficiency in Pub-

study of FSS in 18 cities. 

incentives for employment through 

lic Housing,” p. 11, for a more detailed 

income disregards for working families 

discussion of the Jobs Plus program 

Resident Opportunities and Self Suf-

and through services designed to support 

and related evaluations.)

ficiency (ROSS) Grant Program.  The 

workers, including linkages to employers, 

ROSS program provides grants for 

job placement and counseling, edu-

Family Self-Sufficiency program. 

hiring service coordinators to empower 

cational advancement, and financial 

Established in 1990, the Family Self-

residents of public or Indian housing 

counseling. Ideally, these incentives 

Sufficiency (FSS) program allows PHAs 

to increase earned income and prog-

will saturate the developments, building 

to enter into a five-year contract (that 

ress toward economic independence 

a culture of work and making working 

PHAs can extend for two additional 

and housing self-sufficiency. HUD has 

families the norm. The Jobs Plus model 

years) with participating households 

an evaluation of the program underway.

consists of three components: employ-

to set goals and coordinate services 

ment services, such as help with job 

that help residents become self-suffi-

Section 3. Taking a somewhat different 

searches or high school equivalency 

cient. The program has three main 

approach to encourage employment 

classes for securing and maintaining 

components: an escrow account, case 

more directly, HUD’s Section 3 program 

jobs; financial incentives that reduce 

management, and referrals to supportive 

requires that grantees receiving cer-

or eliminate possible disincentives to 

services. If a participant’s income rises 

tain HUD funds, such as community 

work; and formal and informal com-

during the contract period, prompt-

development block grants and Public 

munity supports for work.3 

ing an increase in their required rent 

Housing Capital Fund grants, employ 

contribution, the PHA issues a credit 

low-income individuals, especially 

The original demonstration ran from 

into an escrow account.6 The partici-

recipients of housing assistance. Affected 

1998 through 2003. A 2010 report by 

pant can use the escrow account for 

entities include PHAs, states, local 

4

Photo by Dan Lynch, courtesy of the Boston Housing Authority

Recipients of HUD housing assistance have varied work situations and work readiness, so different levels of services are required to achieve self-sufficiency.

governments, and other grantees and 

found that agencies with active Section 

but not in increasing hours worked, 

subgrantees. Section 3 requires that 

3 programs have difficulty securing 

and it did not lead to households 

30 percent of new hires for projects 

employment for residents with crimi-

being able to exit public housing. The 

receiving HUD funds qualify as Section 3 

nal records.13

researchers caution against drawing de-

residents. Research indicates that some 

finitive conclusions from the research; 

agencies subject to Section 3 devote 

Moving to Work demonstration. HUD’s 

rather, they suggest that the topic 

staff and resources to proactively com-

Moving to Work demonstration pro-

needs more investigation and note that 

ply, but other efforts are insufficient.10 

gram gives PHAs greater flexibility 

the particular supports and policies 

Unruh and Dahlk interviewed local 

to design and test new programs and 

that the Charlotte Housing Authority 

leaders in five cities and found that 

strategies, which some have used to ex-

implemented may have influenced the 

officials believe that contractors make 

periment with work requirements. In 

outcomes found in the study.16 An Ur-

only superficial efforts to hire public 

2015, nine PHAs implemented some 

ban Institute overview of the programs 

housing and low-income residents 

type of work requirements for recipi-

estimates that the work requirements 

because of insufficient compliance 

ents of housing assistance.14 PHAs that 

apply to less than 10 percent of HUD-

enforcement. The leaders also note 

have implemented work requirements 

assisted renters and therefore would 

that workforce development officials 

have used various work thresholds, ex-

have only a small effect on overall work 

have to spend considerable time verify-

emptions, and supportive services, but 

output. More research and evaluation of 

ing hiring requirements for a relatively 

nearly all have offered case manage-

such programs is needed, particularly as 

small number of Section 3 hires.11 

ment.15 In one-third of the Charlotte 

a growing number of PHAs are designated 

HUD reports that from 2012 to 2015, 

Housing Authority’s 15 public housing 

as Moving to Work agencies and are 

the Section 3 program led to 110,500 

developments, for example, heads of 

likely to impose work requirements.17

jobs for new program employees and 

households are required to work a 

trainees and $4.8 billion in contracts 

minimum of 15 hours per week, and 

PHA initiatives. Local PHAs can imple-

awarded to 26,000 businesses, indicat-

those who fail to meet the requirement 

ment programs that promote employment 

ing great potential for the program 

face sanctions. An evaluation of the 

among residents in conjunction with 

with increased compliance.12 Research 

program finds that the requirement 

or independent of the HUD programs 

conducted by Walter, Caudy, and Ray 

was effective in increasing employment 

discussed above, particularly if they 

5

enjoy the flexibility afforded by the 

through PIC and hired Resident Service 

for graduates, and those who secured 

Moving to Work demonstration. For 

Coordinators to help residents navigate 

employment earned an average annual 

example, the Philadelphia Housing 

the services. BHA also partnered with 

income of more than $30,000.21 

Authority, through its preapprenticeship 

the city’s Office of Jobs and Community 

program, employs residents directly while 

Services (now known as the Mayor’s 

Home Forward is also one of four 

also training them to pursue employment 

Office of Workforce Development) 

PHAs (including Chicago, New York, 

in trades elsewhere. The PHA part-

to extend its workforce development 

and Washington, DC) to have worked 

ners with three unions to train laborers, 

services to more BHA residents.19 The 

with the Urban Institute on the Hous-

painters, and maintenance mechanics, 

partners have continued to build on 

ing Opportunity and Services Together 

who can then work for the PHA. The 

their work together; in 2015, HUD 

(HOST) demonstration, which tests 

PHA commits to having a quarter of its 

awarded BHA a Jobs Plus grant, and 

approaches centered on making housing 

workforce consist of residents. Residents 

the city of Boston allocated additional 

a platform for services and supports that 

gain experience and transferrable skills 

funds to promote work readiness for 

improve economic well-being. Building 

while benefiting their communities.18

families in the Charlestown public 

on the Chicago Family Case Manage-

housing development.20 In Portland, 

ment demonstration, which provided 

Many PHAs partner with local Work-

Oregon, Home Forward and Worksys-

wraparound case management to public 

force Investment Boards. In Boston, for 

tems, Inc., established the Bridges to 

housing residents, HOST takes a two-

example, the Boston Housing Authority 

Success program, which worked with 

generation, or whole-family, approach, 

(BHA) and the Boston Private Industry 

industries to provide tailored train-

providing intensive wraparound services 

Council (PIC) collaborated under a 

ing and education coupled with case 

to the most vulnerable families in public 

memorandum of understanding to 

management to help residents navigate 

housing. The HOST model tailors 

offer workforce development through 

various services provided by additional 

its services to an individual’s needs, 

training, job fairs, and other invest-

partnering stakeholders. The program 

recognizing that residents may need dif-

ments. BHA funded resident services 

achieved a 50 percent employment rate  ferent types and levels of supports. The 

Photo by Dan Lynch, courtesy of the Boston Housing Authority

HUD’s Jobs Plus program has successfully increased earnings among program participants.

6

demonstration keeps case managers’ 

experience of homelessness itself as well 

urges a similar emphasis on employment 

caseloads low to allow them more con-

as the lack of a fixed address, technology 

— “Employment First” — that prioritizes 

tact with families and to build trusted 

needed for job searches and applica-

the pursuit of employment in conjunc-

relationships with their clients.22

tions, and, often, transportation. As with 

tion with (not as a precondition for) 

the HUD-assisted population and the 

securing housing. In 2017, 69 program 

Another set of PHAs is working with 

low-income population generally, indi-

participants secured employment.30

MDRC to test a demonstration proj-

viduals experiencing homelessness have 

ect called MyGoals for Employment 

a considerable diversity of skills, experi-

Research Lessons

Success, which combines structured 

ences, and challenges and therefore have 

“The evidence base on what works is 

coaching with financial incentives to 

varied needs regarding work readiness.25

thin,” says MRDC policy area director 

help recipients of housing assistance 

James Riccio, pointing to the need to 

improve labor market outcomes. The 

HUD and other federal agencies have 

innovate and continue conducting 

approach is based on evidence that 

attempted to address the employ-

rigorous evaluations, including more 

the stresses associated with poverty can 

ment challenges for this population 

randomized controlled trials.31 To that 

weaken executive functioning skills. In 

through several approaches. The End-

end, MDRC and HUD are currently 

response, the program uses a highly 

ing Chronic Homelessness through 

evaluating the FSS program with a 

structured coaching method, based 

Employment and Housing initiative, 

randomized controlled trial, and an 

on behavioral psychology that helps 

a partnership between HUD and the 

evaluation of the ROSS program is also 

participants set goals and make and 

U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in 

underway. The positive outcomes of 

execute plans. In the process, coaches 

the early 2000s, combined permanent 

the Jobs Plus demonstration and the 

assist participants in addressing execu-

supportive housing with wraparound 

limited but illuminating findings from 

tive functioning challenges that may 

services and customized employment 

the Opportunity NYC – Work Rewards 

be getting in the way of their success in 

strategies developed with One-Stop 

demonstration, for example, point to 

work or training. The program offers a 

Career Centers. Customizing employ-

program components and principles 

stipend for remaining engaged in the 

ment situations allows the service 

worth replicating and that merit further 

coaching process and financial bonuses 

provider, the prospective employee, 

testing. In addition, PHAs, particularly 

for entering and sustaining employ-

and the employer to use the skills and 

those participating in the Moving to 

ment. MyGoals recognizes that voucher 

abilities of an employee to set appro-

Work demonstration, have the flexibility 

recipients may also need more than 

priate and productive expectations.26 

to experiment with various approaches 

just employment-specific supports, and 

An evaluation of the program’s Los 

that can then be evaluated. 

thus offers help with setting and achiev-

Angeles site found that participants 

ing financial goals, such as building 

were “significantly more likely to have 

Research to date offers some general 

credit and savings.23 

worked” than members of the study’s 

lessons and promising principles to 

comparison groups.27 

guide ongoing and future efforts to 

Connecting Individuals  

improve the employment outcomes 

Experiencing Homeless-

More recently, the Workforce Innova-

and earnings of low-income individuals, 

ness to Employment 

tion and Opportunity Act of 2014 aims 

including HUD-assisted households and 

Individuals experiencing or at risk of 

for better coordination of federal pro-

individuals experiencing homelessness. 

homelessness may also benefit from 

grams — including employment and 

HUD programs to promote self-suffi-

training for adults, dislocated workers, 

Mobility strategies show mixed impact. 

ciency. Stable housing plays an essential 

and youth — through DOL formula 

Based largely on the theory of spatial 

role in transitioning those experienc-

grants to states, adult education and 

mismatch, the Bridges to Work dem-

ing homelessness to work, but in many 

literacy programs, and state programs 

onstration of the mid- to late 1990s 

cases, additional services and supports 

administered by the U.S. Department 

attempted to match individuals with 

are needed to achieve the desired 

of Education to help individuals with 

jobs in suburbs and support their 

employment and earnings outcomes. 

disabilities obtain employment.28 For 

commute. The program struggled with 

Individuals experiencing homelessness 

example, Friendship Place, a nonprofit 

recruitment, developing partnerships, 

face a number of barriers to employ-

in the Washington, DC area, admin-

and sustaining transportation. Evalu-

ment. HUD’s Family Options Study 

isters a job matching program called 

ation of Bridges to Work found few 

finds that 83 percent of adult respon-

AimHire that typically secures employ-

statistically significant outcomes for 

dents surveyed had not worked during 

ment for participants within 90 days.29 

the treatment group compared with 

the previous week, and 45 percent had 

Citing the success of the Housing First 

the control group.32 Research on the 

not worked in the past year.24 Some of 

approach to ending homelessness, 

Moving to Opportunity demonstra-

the more prevalent barriers to employ-

president and chief executive officer of 

tion — a random assignment research 

ment for this population include the 

Friendship Place Jean-Michel Giraud 

effort designed to relocate low-income 

7

Chicago Housing Authority

HUD and its local partners offer various supports to help HUD-assisted residents achieve self-sufficiency.

voucher recipients to low-poverty, 

transportation or child care assistance.34 

many individuals eligible for housing 

high-opportunity neighborhoods — 

Other residents need more intensive 

assistance or experiencing homeless-

also shows the limits of using mobility 

supports to be prepared for employ-

ness, housing assistance alone is 

strategies alone to affect outcomes for 

ment. Initiatives such as HOST address 

likely to be insufficient for achieving 

adults; the program had no significant 

these needs through a tiered approach, 

economic independence. Evaluation of 

impacts on employment, earnings, or 

offering different levels of services 

the Welfare to Work voucher program, 

welfare receipt. Moving to lower-poverty 

according to need. Matching residents 

for example, in which recipients of 

neighborhoods, however, did correlate 

with the appropriate level of supports 

cash welfare in six cities were awarded 

with positive impacts on future earnings 

requires one-on-one attention and is 

housing vouchers but received few ad-

for children in the demonstration. One 

aided by the development of a trusted 

ditional services to help them obtain or 

study found that children in families 

relationship between service providers 

retain employment, found no evidence 

that used a voucher to move to a lower-

or coordinators and clients.

of improved labor outcomes. Instead, 

poverty neighborhood when they were 

the evaluation found reduced work 

13 or younger had an annual income 

Evaluation of DOL’s Ready to Work 

and earnings that faded over time until 

in their mid-20s that was 31 percent 

program, which prepares long-term 

at 3.5 years no statistically significant 

higher than the mean annual income 

unemployed people for jobs in high-

differences existed between the treat-

of the control group.33 These findings 

growth industries, likewise finds that in 

ment and control groups.36

support two-generation approaches 

addition to skills training and one-

that seek improved outcomes for youth 

on-one career coaching assistance, 

A study of a randomized waitlist lot-

as well as adults.

additional mental or behavioral health 

tery for housing vouchers in Chicago 

services might also be necessary.35

found that the use of housing vouch-

Employment readiness needs vary 

ers by households previously in the 

widely.  Most HUD-assisted residents 

Housing assistance alone is insufficient 

private market reduced labor force 

who can work are already attached to 

for many.  Stable, affordable housing, 

participation by 4 percentage points and 

the labor market, although many could 

which can be obtained through use 

reduced earnings among working-age, 

increase their earnings with additional 

of housing assistance, can be a plat-

able-bodied adults.37 Another study, 

training or other supports such as 

form for securing employment, but for 

however, points to “a large positive effect” 

8

of housing assistance on the future earn-

providers and are often essential. Ric-

it has expertise and refers clients for 

ings of teenage females, although the 

cio points out that public housing 

matters in which other partners have 

effects were not the same for males. 

residents are among the nation’s poor-

expertise.41 Such coordination is a 

The study estimates that young adult 

est people and may also interact with 

challenging but critical component  

females who had ever lived in voucher-

other federal programs such as TANF, 

of successful efforts to achieve stabil-

assisted housing earn 14 percent more 

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

ity in housing and employment. (For 

than the comparison group, and those 

Program, or Medicaid. Federal agen-

additional examples of cross-sector 

who had ever lived in public housing 

cies and their local offices that share 

collaboration, see “Programs Integrate 

earn 29 percent more than the com-

constituents with PHAs, he says, would 

Workforce and Housing Services,”  

parison group; moreover, these effects 

do well to collaborate and coordinate 

p. 16.)

increase with every year lived in assisted 

services and resources that can sup-

housing.38

port their efforts to work, which was 

Looking Forward:  

an important feature of the original 

EnVision Centers

Need for collaboration.  Because many 

Jobs Plus demonstration.39 Likewise, 

Building on lessons from previous 

people need more than just housing 

at the local level, increased collabora-

programs, HUD has recently launched 

to be well situated to increase earnings 

tion across workforce development and 

a new initiative — the EnVision Centers 

or find employment, housing provid-

housing and community development 

demonstration — to offer HUD-assisted 

ers often need to collaborate with 

silos could increase efficiency and 

families the tools to achieve self-suf-

other entities that provide a range of 

strengthen efforts to increase employ-

ficiency. Recognizing that financial 

additional services. Partner organiza-

ment and earnings among low-income 

assistance alone is insufficient for many 

tions can provide education, training, 

individuals.40 Based on its experience 

to realize long-term economic indepen-

and employment skills; in addition, 

with collaboration in Seattle, Build-

dence, the EnVision Centers serve as a 

other services and supports, including 

ing Changes suggests that cross-system  centralized hub to connect people to 

transportation, child care, and physical 

coordination, which does not happen 

supports in four main areas: economic 

and mental health care, are beyond the 

naturally, is most effective when each 

empowerment, educational advance-

typical purview and expertise of housing 

partner serves clients in areas in which  ment, health and wellness, and character 

Benning Terrace in Washington, DC, was a site of the Urban Institute’s Housing Opportunity and Services Together (HOST) demonstration, which tailors services and supports to an individual’s needs.

9

and leadership. The centers will bring in  6   U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

ment of Housing and Urban Development, Office of 

2016. “Fact Sheet: Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Pro-

Policy Development and Research, 8. 

a range of public, private, and non-

gram” ; Lalith de Silva, Imesh Wijewardena, Michelle 25   Butler Family Fund, U.S. Department of Housing and 

profit partners, including PHAs, to 

Wood, and Bulbul Kaul. 2011. “Evaluation of the 

Urban Development, U.S. Department of Labor, and 

efficiently and effectively coordinate 

Family Self-Sufficiency Program: Prospective Study,”  

U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness. 2015. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

“Partnership for Opening Doors: A summit on inte-

needed services and supports.42 In June 

Office of Policy Development and Research, vii.

grating employment and housing strategies to prevent 

2018, HUD announced the designation 

7   de Silva et al., vii. 

and end homelessness,” 11. 

of EnVision Centers in 17 communities 

8   Susan J. Popkin. 2018. “EnVision Centers: Insights 

26   Chronic Homelessness Employment Technical As-

from Research on Past Efforts to Promote Self-

sistance Center. 2006. “Rebuilding Lives…from the 

across the nation.43 In February, the 

Sufficiency among HUD-Assisted Households, ” Urban 

Streets to a Home and a Job.” 

Urban Institute released a brief that 

Institute, 4.

27   Martha R. Burt. 2007. “Evaluation of  LA’s HOPE: End-

included nine specific recommenda-

9   Nandita Verma, Edith Yang, Stephen Nunez, David 

ing Chronic Homelessness through Employment and 

Long, and Victoria Deitch. 2017. “Learning from the 

Housing — Final Report, ” Urban Institute,   vii. 

tions for EnVision Centers based on 

Work Rewards Demonstration: Final Findings from 

28   Butler Family Fund et al., 8. 

research on past programs, includ-

the Family Self-Sufficiency Study in New York City,” 

29      Jean-Michel Giraud. 2018. “Employment First: A 

MDRC, xi. 

ing setting realistic expectations and 

Powerful Tool for Ending Homelessness,” United 

10   Rebecca J. Walter, Michael Caudy, and James V. Ray. 

States Interagency Council on Homelessness blog, 26 

timelines for building assets, using a 

2016. “Revived and discouraged: Evaluating employ-

February  (www.usich.gov/news/employment-first-a-

trauma-informed approach for mental 

ment barriers for Section 3 residents with criminal 

powerful-tool-for-ending-homelessness).  Accessed 11 

records,”   Housing Policy Debate  26:2, 400–2.

health care, and using two-generation 

September 2018.

11   Rachel Unruh and Kira Dahlk. 2012.  “Building 

30   “AimHire Job Placement,” Friendship Place website 

strategies, among others.44 

Pathways to Employment in America’s Cities through 

(friendshipplace.org/programs-outreach/aimhire-job-

Integrated Workforce and Community Development,” 

placement/). Accessed 11 June 2016. 

National Skills Coalition, 1–3. 

Continuing evaluation of existing HUD 

31   Interview with James Riccio, 6 June 2018.

12   U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

32   Margery Austin Turner and Lynette A. Rawlings. 2005. 

programs to promote self-sufficiency 

ment. n.d. “Section 3: Connecting Low-Income 

“Overcoming Concentrated Poverty and Isolation: 

as well as evaluation of the EnVision 

Residents with Opportunity.”  

Lessons from Three HUD Demonstrations, ” Urban 13   Walter et al., 398–415.

Center demonstration should yield 

Institute, 19–23. 

14   Diane K. Levy, Leiha Edmonds, and Jasmine Siming-

33   Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence F. Katz. 

additional insights for shaping future 

ton. 2018. “Work Requirements in Public Housing 

2015. “The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighbor-

efforts. The hope remains that these 

Authorities: Experiences to Date and Knowledge 

hoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving 

Gaps,” Urban Institute, 1. 

programs can help HUD-assisted 

to Opportunity Experiment, ” Harvard University and 15   Ibid., 4–5. 

National Bureau of Economic Research, 1–2. 

families discontinue assistance on solid 

16   William M. Rohe, Michael D. Webb, and Kirstin 

34   Alicia Mazzara and Barbara Sard. 2018. “Chart Book: 

financial footing with long-term eco-

Frescoln. 2015. “Work Requirements in Public Hous-

Employment and Earnings for Households Receiving 

Federal Rental Assistance,” Center on Budget and nomic independence and stability in 

ing: Impacts on Tenant Employment and Evictions,”  

Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of 

Policy Priorities, 5 February. 

housing and employment. As families 

North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 19–21. 

35   Abt Associates and MEF Associates. 2017. “Evaluation 

exit assistance, they will free resources 

17   Levy et al., 8–10. 

of the Ready to Work Partnership Grant Program: 

Findings from the Implementation Study of Four 

for low-income families that until now 

18   “Pre-Apprenticeship Program,” Philadelphia Housing 

Authority website (www.pha.phila.gov/resident-servic-

Training Programs for Long-Term Unemployed Work-

have been unable to access housing 

es/career-training/pre-apprenticeship-program.aspx).  

ers, ” U.S. Department of Labor, vi, viii. 

assistance and the employment-related 

Accessed 11 June 2018.

36   James A. Riccio. 2007. “Subsidized Housing and 

Employment: Building Evidence About What Works to 

supports that target the HUD-assisted 

19   U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

ment and U.S. Department of Labor. 2014.  “From 

Improve Self-Sufficiency,” working paper, MDRC, 9. 

population. Ultimately, EnVision Centers, 

the Ground Up: Creating Sustainable Partnerships 

37   Brian A. Jacob and Jens Ludwig. 2012. “The Effects of 

like their programmatic antecedents, 

between Public Housing Authorities and Workforce 

Housing Assistance on Labor Supply: Evidence from 

Investment Boards, ” 19–22.  

a Voucher Lottery,”  American Economic Review  102:1, 

seek to help families flourish and 

272. 

20   “Boston Housing Authority awarded $2 Million from 

“climb the ladder of opportunity.”45 

HUD and more than $1 Million from City of Boston 

38   Fredrik Andersson, John C. Haltiwanger, Mark J. 

to increase economic independence for families at 

Kutzbach, Giordano Palloni, Henry O. Pollakowski, 

the Charlestown public housing development,” Bos-

and Daniel H. Weinberg. 2015. “Childhood Housing 

and Adult Earnings: A Between-Siblings Analysis of 

1   MDRC. 2017. “A New Way to Subsidize Housing Costs 

ton Housing Authority website (www.bostonhousing.

Housing Vouchers and Public Housing.” 

and Support Work: Launching the Rent Reform Dem-

org/en/News/Boston-Housing-Authority-awarded-$2-

onstration for Families with Housing Vouchers.”

Million-from-H.aspx).  Accessed 22 June 2018.

39   Interview with James Riccio.

2  Interview with Susan Popkin, 5 June 2018.

21   U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

40   Unruh and Dahlk, 1. 

and U.S. Department of Labor, 19–22.   

3   “JPI Jobs Plus Initiative Program,” U.S. Department of 

41   Building Changes. 2016. “Coordinating Employment 

Housing and Urban Development website (www.hud.

22   Susan J. Popkin and Marla McDaniel. 2013.  “HOST: 

and Housing Services: A Strategy to Impact Family 

gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/jpi). 

Can Public Housing be a Platform for Change?” 

Homelessness,” 12–3. 

Accessed 18 July 2018. 

Urban Institute, 6, 7, 11. 

42   “Envision Centers,” U.S. Department of Housing and 

4   James A. Riccio. 2010.  “Sustained Earnings Gains for 

23   MDRC. 2017. “Overview: MyGoals for Employment 

Urban Development website (www.hud.gov/envision-

Residents in a Public Housing Jobs Program: Seven-

Success: Combining Executive-Skills Workforce 

centers).  Accessed 25 June 2018.

Year Findings from the Jobs-Plus Demonstration,”  

Coaching with Financial Incentives to Improve Eco-

43   U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-

policy brief, MDRC, 1. 

nomic Mobility for Families with Housing Subsidies,” 

ment. 2018.  “Secretary Carson Kicks Off Envision 

1–3. Document provided by James A. Riccio.

5   Betsy L. Tessler, Nandita Verma, Jonathan Bigelow, 

Center Demonstration, ” 7 June press release.

Victoria Quiroz-Becerra, Kirstin P. Frescoln, William 

24   Daniel Gubits, Marybeth Shinn, Stephen Bell, Mi-

44   Popkin 2018, 2.

M. Rohe, Michael D. Webb, Amy T. Khare, Mark L. 

chelle Wood, Samuel Dastrup, Claudia D. Solari, Scott 

45   “Envision Centers,” U.S. Department of Housing and 

Joseph, and Emily K. Miller. 2017. “Scaling Up a Place-

R. Brown, Steven Brown, Lauren Dunton, Winston 

Urban Development website.

Based Employment Program: Highlights from the Jobs 

Lin, Debi McInnis, Jason Rodriguez, Galen Savidge, 

Plus Pilot Program Evaluation,” U.S. Department of and Brooke E. Spellman. 2015. “Family Options 

Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy 

Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing and Services 

Development and Research.  

Interventions for Homeless Families,” U.S. Depart-10

Jobs Plus: Self-Sufficiency  

HIGHLIGHTS

in Public Housing

n   Jobs Plus differs from other self-suffi-

ciency programs with its comprehensive 

spotlight

As an agency that serves millions of  offer households a more immediate  approach to encouraging employment ch 

low-income households across the 

benefit.4

and focus on entire public housing 

country, HUD is responsible for creat-

developments rather than individual 

ing effective programs that help those 

The goal of RRD is twofold: it makes 

households.  

households achieve self-sufficiency. 

certain changes to reduce PHAs’ ad-

n   An evaluation of the first implementa-

resear

The introduction of EnVision Centers 

ministrative burden, and it minimizes 

tion of Jobs Plus at six sites shows that 

is the most recent example of HUD’s 

the disincentive to increase earnings. 

participating households increased 

capacity to positively impact communi-

An evaluation of RRD is ongoing, with 

their earnings and employment rates. 

ties, but there are several others. One 

a baseline report released in 2017.5 The 

The impact was greater in sites with 

of these self-sufficiency programs, Jobs 

House of Representatives has proposed 

strong, well-implemented programs, 

Plus, has been shown to be both par-

legislation that will give PHAs more 

and the increase in earnings persisted 

after the program ended. 

ticularly effective and replicable. This 

flexibility in setting rents.6 However, 

article describes the basic structure of 

neither the demonstration program 

n   The third, ongoing iteration of Jobs 

Jobs Plus, its implementation, and the 

nor the proposed legislation include 

Plus preserves the structure of the 

evidence supporting its efficacy.

the employment services or community-

original program but also builds on 

building elements of Jobs Plus.

the successes and outcomes of the 

Introduction

previous phases.  

Jobs Plus has three components: 

MTW exempts participating PHAs 

onsite employment services, a finan-

from certain public housing and 

cial incentive to encourage work, and a 

voucher rules so they can develop 

Three Generations of  

community-based support network.1 

innovative programs that use federal 

Jobs Plus

The goal of the program is to make 

money efficiently, encourage self-suf-

Jobs Plus: 1998 to 2003. The first itera-

regular employment a “common 

ficiency, and increase housing choice. 

tion of Jobs Plus started in 1998 and ran 

aspect of life in public housing.”2 Jobs 

Nine of the PHAs that have this special 

until 2003. It was funded by a group of 

Plus is one of several self-sufficiency 

authority have used it to implement 

public and private organizations led by 

programs that HUD has introduced 

work requirements. Although none of 

HUD and The Rockefeller Foundation. 

over the years, including the Family 

these programs are exactly the same, 

This group included MDRC, which was 

Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program, the 

they all have some form of supportive 

involved in the program’s creation and 

Rent Reform Demonstration (RRD), 

services in place.7 The impact of work 

has provided technical assistance and 

and certain implementations of the 

requirements has also been studied in 

evaluations for each iteration of the pro-

Moving to Work (MTW) demonstra-

Charlotte, North Carolina, where the 

gram.9 To be eligible for participation, 

tion program in which participating 

PHA’s specific program has had mostly 

applicants were required to create a col-

public housing agencies (PHAs) have 

positive effects.8

laborative that included representatives 

used their special authority to insti-

from the PHA, public housing residents, 

tute work requirements.3 These three 

Although Jobs Plus is similar to other 

the local welfare department, and local 

programs have contributed to the 

self-sufficiency programs, it is distin-

workforce development organizations.

landscape of work-oriented policy in 

guished by its focus on a comprehensive 

slightly different ways.

approach to encouraging work rather 

The six sites chosen were Baltimore, 

than a single strategy. Jobs Plus also 

Maryland; Chattanooga, Tennessee; 

FSS, the program most explicitly 

supports entire developments rather 

Dayton, Ohio; Los Angeles, California; 

linked to self-sufficiency, is similar to 

than individual households, encourag-

St. Paul, Minnesota; and Seattle, Wash-

Jobs Plus in that it involves a collabo-

ing work throughout the community 

ington. Despite a carefully considered 

ration between PHAs and other local 

— a strategy known as saturation. 

selection process, only three of the sites 

service organizations. Households 

Jobs Plus is also notable for the body 

were able to achieve full implementa-

participating in FSS sign a contract 

of evidence showing its lasting positive 

tion of the program. Four of the six sites 

that outlines their plan to achieve self-

impact on earnings and employment 

were ultimately able to build “coherent 

sufficiency; their financial incentive 

rates in public housing communities. 

programs of reasonable quality,” and a 

consists of funds placed into an escrow 

Other programs have yet to demon-

disruption in one of those four late in the 

account. By contrast, the rent-based 

strate a comparable consistency in 

program’s implementation resulted in its 

incentives in the Jobs Plus program 

their impact.

exclusion from the final evaluation.10

11

Photo courtesy of Sean Pavone Photography

Following the promising findings of the original Jobs Plus demonstration, the Social Innovation Fund supported an expanded, large-scale implementation of the program in San Antonio and at three public housing sites in the Bronx.

These failures were not entirely due 

the Jobs Plus program led the PHA to 

Alliance in Queens, New York, adapted 

to shortcomings of the collaborators 

pursue only the financial incentives com-

the original program for the Queens-

themselves. In Seattle, many residents 

ponent of the program. Chattanooga’s 

bridge Houses. Soon after, the New York 

of the city’s Rainier Vista development 

departure from the program highlights 

City Center for Economic Opportunity 

were displaced by the demolition of 

how difficult it can be to implement 

funded a replication of Jobs Plus in a 

their units for a HOPE VI redevelop-

an initiative as comprehensive and col-

housing development in Harlem. These 

ment. The components of Jobs Plus 

laborative as Jobs Plus.

two small-scale implementations were 

were then integrated into the HOPE 

followed up by a larger implementa-

redevelopment (renamed “HOPE-

Seattle and Chattanooga each had dif-

tion in San Antonio, Texas, and three 

Plus”). However, the circumstances 

ficulty with different aspects of starting 

public housing sites in the Bronx. This 

of the Rainier Vista residents had 

the program. Some sites took more 

expansion was supported by the Social 

become too different from the resi-

than two years to implement the com-

Innovation Fund (SIF),13 a federally 

dents of the other three cities to keep 

munity component of Jobs Plus, and all 

administered, public-private partnership 

Seattle in the national demonstration. 

but one took at least a year to offer the 

funding program, and was administered 

The results of this combination of 

financial incentives.12

by the Mayor’s Fund to Advance New 

HOPE VI and Jobs Plus were evaluated 

York City and the NYC Center for Eco-

separately.11

MDRC evaluated this first implemen-

nomic Opportunity.14

tation of Jobs Plus, finding that the 

New leadership in the Chattanooga 

program helped to increase the earnings 

After these SIF-funded programs ran 

PHA, who arrived after site selection, 

and employment rate of households that 

their course, New York City’s Human 

decided to privatize the management 

participated. The impacts are discussed 

Resources Administration expanded 

of its developments. The strain of this 

in more detail later in this article.

the program to eight more sites in 

transition adversely affected the PHA’s 

New York City as part of the city’s 

implementation of Jobs Plus and made 

San Antonio and New York City: 2010 

Young Men’s Initiative. Jobs Plus is 

the service-heavy components of the 

to today.  The second iteration of Jobs 

currently active in 27 developments in 

program untenable. In 2002, concerns 

Plus arose independently of HUD. 

the city’s 5 boroughs through various 

about the capacity of the PHA to han-

Seven years after the first round of Jobs 

partnerships and reaches more than 

dle both the privatization effort and 

Plus ended, the East River Development 

4,000 residents.15

12

The Jobs Plus program in San Antonio 

low; an estimated 1 percent of work-

The Research

was developed in partnership with 

ing-age adults in the Bronx and 3 

What we know so far. Several reports 

the New York City agencies and served 

percent in San Antonio used it.19 San 

have been published that document 

residents at two of the city’s most impov-

Antonio eventually used their MTW 

the implementation process for Jobs 

erished public housing developments: 

status to convert the EID to a five-year 

Plus. As one of the organizations pri-

Alazan-Apache Courts and Mirasol 

benefit late in the implementation 

marily responsible for developing and 

Homes. These two developments have  

and saw an improvement in the take-

studying the program, MDRC has pub-

a combined 1,196 units.

up rate.

lished more than 20 articles, reports, 

and papers on Jobs Plus. The only 

A major difference between the first 

Scaling up the model: 2015 to today.

impact evaluations that have been pub-

generation of Jobs Plus and the SIF 

The third iteration of the Jobs Plus 

lished so far, however, are the MDRC 

implementation of the program was 

program expands the program 

papers and reports on the original six 

the lack of MTW authority at the sites 

through the Jobs Plus Pilot, which 

cities.23 The Jobs Plus programs that 

in the Bronx, which left them with 

began in fiscal year 2015 and is on-

followed either did not have impact 

less budgetary flexibility than the six 

going.20 To date, HUD has awarded 

evaluations as part of the implementa-

original Jobs Plus sites had.16 This 

roughly $62 million to 24 grantees to 

tion or have not yet had their evaluations 

restriction left the SIF programs with 

implement this version of the pro-

published.

limited options for financial incentives. 

gram, which builds on the previous 

The MTW agencies used either flat/

implementations and includes two 

Despite this limitation, the similarity 

stepped rents or a reduction in the 

parallel evaluations: a process study 

among the different iterations of Jobs 

percentage of income that went to rent 

and an outcomes study. The interim 

Plus suggests that the impacts reported 

as a financial incentive to encourage 

report from the process study was pub-

in the existing evaluations can be consid-

work. As an alternative financial incen-

lished in 2017, the final report from 

ered valid for the program in general.24 

tive, the SIF programs in San Antonio 

the process study is set to be published 

Indeed, the new features of the current 

and the Bronx turned to a little-known 

in 2018, and the final report from the 

iteration are based on lessons learned 

tool called the Earned Income Disal-

outcome study is due in 2021.

from the previous versions, suggest-

lowance (EID).

ing that the current round of Jobs Plus 

The scaled-up version of Jobs Plus 

implementations will demonstrate even 

The EID is a cumulative, 24-month, 

largely preserves the structure of the 

greater benefits.

once-in-a-lifetime disregard of in-

original program. One significant 

creased earnings in a household’s rent 

change is that the requirement to 

For the original Jobs Plus demonstra-

calculation.17 The tool allows PHAs to 

form a collaborative has been re-

tion, each of the six participating PHAs 

disregard 100 percent of a resident’s 

moved. Instead, the current program 

chose two or three similar develop-

increased income for the first 12 

simply encourages PHAs to build local 

ments to implement the program. The 

months of occupancy. In the second 12 

partnerships with public housing 

research team randomly selected one 

months, the disregard decreases to 50 

residents, local businesses, philan-

of these developments as the Jobs Plus 

percent. The EID is more limited than 

thropic organizations, nonprofits,  

site with the others as controls. The 

the rent incentives available to MTW 

or other organizations.21 This new 

earnings of residents in both the treat-

PHAs because it can be used only once 

flexibility resulted in different types  

ment and control groups were tracked 

in a tenant’s life, and it can be applied 

of partnerships with varying degrees  

over time and then compared. The 

for a total of only 24 months. In addi-

of formality.22

program implementation was slightly 

tion, PHAs rarely use the EID; most 

different in each city but had the same 

PHA staff and residents have little to 

Another difference from the origi-

general structure.25

no awareness of the tool or how to 

nal HUD program is the use of the 

implement it. PHA staff in the SIF 

newly created Jobs Plus EID (JPEID). 

The results of this evaluation show that 

programs had to develop the capacity 

Because not all of the Jobs Plus par-

Jobs Plus, when implemented well, has 

to implement and track the EID as well 

ticipants have MTW authority, HUD 

a positive impact on residents’ earn-

as inform residents about the tool’s 

added JPEID to the program to make 

ings.26 Across all six sites combined, the 

structure and benefits.

program benefits consistent across all 

average annual earnings of all residents 

sites. JPEID allows PHAs to disregard 

in the treatment developments increased 

According to MDRC, these limitations 

100 percent of a tenant’s rent increase 

by 6.2 percent (see chart on p. 14).

greatly decreased the effectiveness 

due to additional earnings for the  

of the financial incentive component 

duration of the Jobs Plus program, 

The impact of Jobs Plus was greater in 

of Jobs Plus in this second iteration.18 

unlike the EID, which limits the disre-

sites that had built stronger programs. 

Take-up for the incentive was very 

gard to a total of 24 months.

In Dayton, Los Angeles, and St. Paul, 

13

annual impacts averaged 14 percent 

In 2010, MDRC published a followup 

2006) ranged from 14 percent in 

per year and were accelerating through 

study to the 2005 evaluation.27 This 

Dayton to 19 percent in St. Paul. This 

the duration of the program (see chart 

study found that the increase in earn-

impact on earnings could be substan-

on p. 14).

ings for the participating households 

tial. For example, in St. Paul, the average 

had persisted after the program ended in 

cumulative earnings from 2000 to 2006 

By the time the program ended, resi-

2003. In the post-program period (2004 

were $13,181 greater than the earnings of 

dents of these three sites were earning 

to 2006), the earnings increase averaged 

residents in comparison developments.28

an average of $1,540 more per year 

$1,517 per year (see chart on p. 15).

than those in the comparison devel-

What we don’t know. Researchers don’t 

opments — an increase of nearly 20 

The cumulative earnings impact for 

yet know the outcomes for the current 

percent.

the entire extended period (2000 to 

Jobs Plus demonstration. The analyses 

of the two previous generations suggest 

that the implementation process was 

the largest hurdle for participants 

to overcome. Being able to draw on 

these previous experiences will poten-

tially strengthen the program moving 

forward. Evaluations of the third genera-

tion of Jobs Plus will provide researchers 

with a much better understanding of the 

impact of Jobs Plus on HUD residents, 

although the findings to date provide 

some of the most convincing evidence 

of a program’s effectiveness that HUD 

has ever produced.

Conclusion

Encouraging the self-sufficiency of 

families is one of HUD’s primary goals. 

Indeed, attaining this goal is the impetus 

behind all the programs discussed in 

this article, including the implementa-

tion of work requirements in MTW 

developments and the introduction of 

the EnVision Centers initiative. Current 

evidence suggests that Jobs Plus is one 

of HUD’s best options for advancing 

that goal. When implemented well, Jobs 

Plus can greatly improve the earnings 

of assisted households. In addition, the 

2010 followup study by MDRC suggests 

that these benefits continue after the 

end of the intervention. Although it’s 

possible that the current demonstration 

will have different outcomes than the 

previous iterations did, integrating the 

lessons learned from the previous pro-

grams into the current version increases 

the likelihood that those results will be 

replicated or improved upon, allowing 

HUD to further its mission of empower-

ing communities.     

Reprinted from Howard S. Bloom, James A. Riccio, and Nandita Verma,  Promoting Work in Public Housing: The Effectiveness of Jobs-Plus (New York: MDRC, 2005). Used with permission.

— Brian Stromberg,  HUD Staff

14

SOURCE: MDRC calculations using data from state Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage records. NOTES: Sample includes all working-age, nondisabled residents who lived in the Jobs-Plus or comparison developments in Dayton, Los Angeles, or St. Paul in October 1998. Trend lines show residents’ earnings pre- and post-October 1998, whether or not they were living in the developments before or after that time. The annual and cumulative earnings impacts for the period 2000-2006 

are statistically significant. 

Reprinted from James A. Riccio,  Sustained Earnings Gains for Residents in a Public Housing Jobs Program (New York: MDRC, 2010). Used with permission.

1   The original title of the program included a hyphen 

7   Diane K. Levy, Leiha Edmonds, and Jasmine Siming-

can be found at www1.nyc.gov/site/opportunity/index.

(Jobs-Plus) that has since been dropped. The most 

ton. 2018. “Work Requirements in Public Housing 

page and www1.nyc.gov/site/fund/index.page. 

recent spelling of the name is used throughout this 

Authorities: Experiences to Date and Knowledge 

15    See opportunitynycha.org/workforce-development/

report for consistency.

Gaps,” Urban Institute.

jobs-plus for more information on Jobs Plus in New 

2   James A. Riccio. 2010. “Sustained Earnings Gains for 

8   William M. Rohe, Michael D. Webb, and Kirstin 

York City, including specific site information.

Residents in a Public Housing Jobs Program,” MDRC.

Frescoln. 2016. “Work Requirements in Public Hous-

16   The San Antonio site did have MTW status at the time 

3   For an early review of self-sufficiency programs at 

ing: Impacts on Tenant Employment and Evictions,” 

of the evaluation but chose not to use it to keep the 

HUD, including FSS,  see: Amy S. Bogdon. 1999. “What 

Housing Policy Debate 26:6, 909–27.

programs the same at both sites.

Can We Learn from Previous Housing-Based Self-

9   Howard S. Bloom, James A. Riccio, and Nandita 

17   More information on the EID is available at www.

Sufficiency Programs?” in  The Home Front,  Sandra J. 

Verma. 2005. “Promoting Work in Public Housing: 

hudexchange.info/resources/documents/EID_Train-

Newman, ed. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 

The Effectiveness of Jobs-Plus,” MDRC. This is the final 

ing.pdf. 

149–74.

report on the first demonstration. A complete list of 

18   Greenberg et al.

4   Lalith de Silva, Imesh Wijewardena, Michelle Wood, 

Jobs Plus-related publications by MDRC is available at 

19   

and Bulbul Kaul. 2011. “Evaluation of the Family Self-

www.mdrc.org/project/jobs-plus-community-revitaliza-

Ibid.

Sufficiency Program: Prospective Study,” U.S. Depart-

tion-initiative-public-housing-families.

20   Tessler et al.

ment of Housing and Urban Development, Office of 

10   Bloom et al., 33.

21   Ibid., 15.

Policy Development and Research; Judy Geyer, Lesley 

11   The Seattle site also demonstrated benefits from 

22   Ibid., 17.

Freiman, Jeffrey Lubell, and Micah Villareal. 2017. 

Jobs Plus beyond an increase in earnings. The Seattle 

23   

“Evaluation of the Compass Family Self-Sufficiency 

Bloom et al; Riccio.

program’s community engagement component em-

Programs Administered in Partnership with Public 

24   

powered residents and gave them a more influential 

The interim process report for the current Jobs Plus 

Housing Agencies in Lynn and Cambridge, Massachu-

voice in the HOPE VI redevelopment process.  See: 

program suggests that lessons have been learned 

setts,” Abt Associates. Abt research is ongoing.

Edward B. Liebow, Carolina Katz Reid, Gabrielle E. 

from the previous iterations. Some sticking points in 

5   Betsy L. Tessler, Nandita Verma, Jonathan Bigelow, 

O’Malley, Scott Marsh, and Susan Blank. 2004. “Resi-

the implementation remain, such as PHA staff being 

Victoria Quiroz-Becerra, Kirstin P. Frescoln, William 

dent Participation in Seattle’s Jobs-Plus Program,” 

unfamiliar with JPEID and the difficulty of build-

M. Rohe, Michael D. Webb, Amy T. Khare, Mark L. 

MDRC.

ing and managing partnerships among large-scale 

Joseph, and Emily K. Miller. 2017. “Scaling Up a Place-

organizations.

12  Bloom et al.

Based Employment Program: Highlights from the Jobs 

25    See Liebow et al. for a discussion of the specifics of 

13   More information on SIF can be found at www.nation-

Plus Pilot Program Evaluation,” U.S. Department of 

the Seattle implementation. For descriptions of each 

alservice.gov/programs/social-innovation-fund. 

Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy 

city’s implementation,  see: Linda Yuriko Kato. 2003. 

Development and Research. 

14   David M. Greenberg, Aurelia Aceves, Victoria Quiroz-

“Participating in a Place-Based Employment Initia-

Becerra, David H. Greenberg, and Ari Oppenheim. 

6   A copy of the proposed bill, the “Promoting Resident 

tive,” MDRC, 119–26.

2015. “The Second Generation of Jobs-Plus Programs: 

Opportunity through Rent Reform Act of 2018,”is 

26   Bloom et al.

Implementation Lessons from San Antonio and the 

available at financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/

27   

Bronx,” MDRC.  See also www.saha.org/index.php/about-

Riccio.

bills-115_rossfl022_pih.pdf.

saha/jobs-plus; More information on these organizations 28   Ibid.

15

Programs Integrate Workforce  

HIGHLIGHTS

ctice and Housing Services

n   Strategies to better integrate work-

pra

force and housing systems, such as 

reducing system-specific jargon, shar-

in 

Housing and employment are  renovate or rebuild about 25,000 public 

inextricably linked, and families 

housing units in Chicago with mixed-

ing data, and colocating services, can 

vulnerable to homelessness rely jointly 

income housing.3 According to Mary 

help families achieve self-sufficiency.

on workforce and housing systems.1 

Howard, chief resident services officer 

n   Opportunity Chicago’s six workforce 

Often, however, providers in the two 

at CHA, the Plan included a commit-

pathways helped Chicago Housing 

systems operate independently of each 

ment to current tenants that they could 

Authority residents access job train-

other. Families receiving housing services 

return to the newly renovated mixed-in-

ing, explore careers, improve literacy, 

may have to search for employment 

come units provided that they complied 

develop basic skills, and enter the 

labor market. 

assistance on their own, and employers 

with their leases and met the criteria 

may have expectations that do not con-

established in each property’s Tenant 

n   The Rapid Re-Housing for Families 

sider the urgent situations of families 

Selection Plan, which included the 

Pilot in King County, Washington, 

experiencing homelessness. More 

requirement that all work-abled persons 

combined rapid rehousing and work-

force services to mitigate employment 

information sharing and collaboration 

over age 18 must be employed for at 

barriers and improve job stability 

across silos could help put households 

least 30 hours per week or enrolled in 

so that participants experiencing 

on the path to self-sufficiency.2 This 

job training or education programs. 

homelessness could afford long-term 

article discusses two programs that 

Although the Plan was designed to better 

housing costs after rapid rehousing 

successfully bridged workforce and 

integrate low-income residents into the 

supports ended.

housing services. Opportunity Chi-

broader socioeconomic dynamic of the 

cago identified and placed Chicago 

city, it lacked a strategy to help residents 

Housing Authority (CHA) residents 

satisfy this work requirement. To fill this 

partners also formed a Strategic Advis-

in more than 5,500 jobs in 5 years 

gap, a public-private partnership known 

ers Group that advised partners on best 

by enrolling them in different work-

as Opportunity Chicago was created in 

practices, evaluated the program’s ac-

force development initiatives such 

2006 to focus on workforce develop-

tivities, developed additional resources, 

as transitional jobs, bridge programs 

ment initiatives. Supported through 

and advocated for policy change.4

As a Moving to Work (MTW) public 

housing agency, CHA has the flexibility 

As a Moving to Work (MTW) public housing  to integrate workforce services into its 

programs and develop staff capacity. In 

agency, CHA has the flexibility to integrate  2009, CHA instituted a work require-

workforce services into its programs and 

ment for residents of traditional public 

housing stating that those between 

develop staff capacity.

the ages of 18 and 61 must work at 

least 20 hours per week or be actively 

engaged in activities that will lead to 

with City Colleges of Chicago (CCC), 

the Chicago Community Trust, 

work.5 Through a range of marketing 

and adult education classes. In King 

Opportunity Chicago included several 

strategies, Partnership for New Com-

County, Washington, the integration 

key partners, including the Partnership 

munities contractors reached out to 

of rapid rehousing and Employment 

for New Communities, CHA, the Chi-

CHA residents, and CHA also connected 

Navigator services helped improve the 

cago Jobs Council, the local workforce 

residents to workforce programs. CHA 

circumstances of families experiencing 

investment board, philanthropic orga-

residents often accessed employment 

homelessness. Both programs led to 

nizations, and city agencies. The goal of 

services through a case manager at 

positive outcomes for participants look-

the 5-year initiative was to help 5,000 

FamilyWorks, CHA’s case coordination 

ing to improve job skills and readiness 

low-skilled, low-income CHA residents 

program. Another common strategy 

for employment and stable, permanent 

attain employment and self-sufficiency. 

for recruiting residents, according to 

housing, and offer lessons that other 

The partners appointed the Chicago 

Howard, was for workforce and hous-

communities can build upon. 

Jobs Council — a nonprofit workforce 

ing providers to collaborate to identify 

development coalition composed of 

families waiting for new mixed-income 

Opportunity Chicago 

organizations, businesses, and indi-

housing and help them successfully 

In 2000, CHA adopted the 15-year 

viduals — to administer and facilitate 

meet the tenant requirements. Al-

Plan for Transformation (the Plan) to 

the program. Opportunity Chicago’s 

though the CHA work requirement 

16

came toward the end of the Opportu-

Chicago tested six different workforce 

fulfill the CHA work requirement, and 

nity Chicago initiative, the idea was to 

pathways: FamilyWorks, Transitional 

it had the largest participant enroll-

encourage residents to be prepared to 

Jobs (TJ), CCC, Workforce Investment 

ment out of the six program types. By 

meet the requirements of the Tenant 

Act (WIA) initiatives, Industry Skills 

the time Opportunity Chicago ended, 

Selection Plans in mixed-income hous-

Training, and Contextualized Literacy. 

a total of 4,532 residents had sought 

ing, Howard noted.6  

Although not every provider in these 

employment services from FamilyWorks 

workforce pathways was part of the 

or Service Connector, and 82 percent 

Fostering Positive  

Strategic Advisers Group, they met to 

of FamilyWorks participants were work-

Outcomes

share experiences and lessons learned. 

ing after exiting the program. With the 

More than 6,700 CHA residents par-

In addition, Opportunity Chicago 

overall goal of helping at least 1,000 

ticipated in Opportunity Chicago, and 

led to much broader collaboration 

CHA residents obtain unsubsidized 

more than 5,500 were placed in jobs, 

between city agencies that had never 

jobs, TJ was the next largest of the pro-

exceeding the initiative’s 5,000 goal. 

worked together, and CHA became more 

gram types, enrolling a total of 1,793 

A total of 77 percent of participants 

integrated with other agencies and orga-

individuals. TJ offered job training 

attained employment after exiting the 

nizations to better serve its residents.8 

and time-limited, subsidized employ-

program, and the number of partici-

ment placement to help residents with 

pants securing jobs increased each year. 

Central to Opportunity Chicago was 

minimal or no previous work experi-

Residents retained more than half 

the involvement of partners and pro-

ence enter the labor market.10 Over 

of the job placements for at least two 

viders around a clear and measurable 

the course of Opportunity Chicago, 

years, and more than half of the partici-

goal for a specific population.9 In 2008, 

1,260 (70%) of TJ participants worked 

pants reported wage increases.7 Vital to 

FamilyWorks replaced the previous 

in subsidized jobs earning an average 

these successes, according to Howard, 

Service Connector system to provide 

of $8.49 per hour. Of those placed in 

was testing different workforce models 

residents with more wraparound case 

subsidized jobs, 63 percent worked at 

that met people at various stages of 

management and job placement and 

least 30 hours per week, and 80 per-

employment readiness. By issuing con-

retention services. FamilyWorks was 

cent went on to secure unsubsidized 

tracts to service providers, Opportunity 

also instrumental in helping residents 

employment.11 

Chicago Housing Authority

Chicago Housing Authority residents living in traditional public housing are required to work a minimum of 20 hours per week or engage in activities that wil  lead to work.

17

Chicago Housing Authority

Transitional Jobs programs in Opportunity Chicago offered Chicago Housing Authority residents job training and time-limited, subsidized employment placement.

For residents striving to improve basic 

phased out because of lack of participa-

65.6 percent and 66.4 percent labor 

skills, Opportunity Chicago’s partner-

tion, Industry Skills Training prepared 

participation rate, respectively.15   

ship with CCC offered career bridge 

345 residents for high-demand fields 

programs and certificate, associate’s 

such as health care, manufacturing, 

Continued Progress 

degree, and general educational devel-

hospitality, information technology, 

At the end of the Opportunity Chicago 

opment (GED) and English as a second 

and eco-friendly enterprises.12 Part of 

initiative, partners were concerned 

language programs to prepare residents 

what made the Opportunity Chicago 

that its positive gains would dissipate. 

to enter the labor force. The bridge 

initiative a success was the partners’ 

As an MTW housing agency, however, 

programming helped residents learn 

willingness to reevaluate programs and 

CHA “continued the robustness [of 

the industry-specific vocabulary and 

make changes along the way. Recog-

Opportunity Chicago] … to make sure 

skills necessary to be successful in their 

nizing the learning styles of adults was 

that resident engagement in program-

chosen field. Through an agreement 

critical to tailoring programs to meet 

ming did not decline — and it hasn’t,” 

between CHA and CCC, public housing 

their needs.13 Opportunity Chicago 

Howard emphasized. CHA continues 

residents could enroll at no cost. A total 

added contextualized literacy after real-

to fund and operate FamilyWorks and 

of 1,403 residents participated in CCC 

izing that previous literacy programs 

CCC.16 Residents enrolled in bridge 

programs. Three additional workforce 

were not having the desired outcomes. 

programs had more interest in earning 

pathways — WIA, Industry Skills Train-

Because contextualized literacy began 

credits toward a degree than in pursu-

ing, and Contextualized Literacy — had 

later in Opportunity Chicago’s lifespan 

ing noncredit or certificate programs. 

lower enrollment numbers. Nearly 500 

(2008), it attracted only modest par-

After Opportunity Chicago concluded, 

residents accessed WIA services, which 

ticipation, with 64 residents enrolled.14 

CCC expanded its course offerings to 

included universal offerings such as 

Collectively, these workforce pathways 

improve career outcomes and earnings 

job listings, résumé and interview tips, 

contributed to the growth in the city 

potential and motivate participants to 

and career exploration tools; intensive 

of Chicago’s labor participation rate, 

pursue a 4-year degree.17 CHA and CCC 

services such as skills evaluation, case 

which is closely keeping pace with that 

created the Partners in Education Pro-

management, employment barrier miti-

of the state as a whole, Howard indicat-

gram, which provides CHA residents 

gation, and job retention resources; and 

ed. According to 2012–2016 American 

with the opportunity to take courses 

technical training through CCC and 

Community Survey 5-year estimates, 

toward a degree or attend professional 

other providers. Although it was later 

Illinois and the city of Chicago have a 

development classes to prepare for a 

18

specific industry or trade at little or 

employment.20 Case management 

mitigate this stigma. Opportunity 

no cost. The program covers typical 

services in the six workforce pathways 

Chicago worked to ensure that CHA 

out-of-pocket costs such as tuition, 

were vital to improving residents’ 

residents would be viewed the “same as 

fees, books, and work uniforms.18 In 

job readiness; however, 37 percent of 

the general service population.”22 

addition, CHA now offers its own TJ 

participants classified as “chronically 

programming and maintains an intergov-

unemployed” had major challenges 

Rapid Rehousing and  

ernmental agreement with the Chicago 

concerning substance abuse, mental 

Employment in King County 

Cook Workforce Partnership, the local 

and physical health, and literacy that 

For more than a decade, Building 

workforce investment board, to further 

required longer interventions than 

Changes — a nonprofit organization 

support residents who use American 

the partners could provide. In addi-

working to reduce homelessness 

Job Centers. Although its contract is not 

tion, younger residents tended to be 

in Washington state — has been 

programmatic, the Chicago Cook Work-

more educated and skilled than older 

developing and testing programs that 

force Partnership funds skills training 

adults, an age-skills mismatch that 

link workforce and housing services to 

for specific industries such as hospitality, 

further underscored the vital role that 

better meet the needs of vulnerable 

technology, and health care.19 

case management played in tailoring 

households.23 The King County Employ-

services to residents’ varied needs and 

ment Navigator is one such program 

Overcoming Challenges

skill sets.21 Opportunity Chicago priori-

that Building Changes funded and 

Critical to Opportunity Chicago’s suc-

tized engaging with potential employers 

implemented from 2013 to 2015 as part 

cess was a shared commitment among 

to ensure that its training programs 

of the overarching Rapid Re-Housing 

partners to reach the same goal. Nearly 

were keeping pace with demand in the 

for Families (RRHF) Pilot.24 The RRHF 

all unsubsidized transitional job place-

current labor market. Some employers 

Pilot, a joint initiative of city and county 

ments were retained for 30 days, but 

were hesitant to hire CHA residents, 

agencies and service providers in King 

long-term job retention was less suc-

which reduced opportunities for 

County, combined rapid rehousing 

cessful, indicating the need for longer 

employment. Executive-level discus-

components (short-term financial as-

postplacement retention services 

sions to establish partnerships with 

sistance and housing-related supports) 

to monitor and evaluate residents’ 

workforce centers and train residents 

with workforce services to help about 

reasons for remaining in or leaving 

for work in specific industries helped 

350 families experiencing homelessness 

Chicago Housing Authority

Through the Partners in Education Program, Chicago Housing Authority residents can enroll in degree and certificate programs at City Colleges of Chicago at little or no cost.

19

Chicago Housing Authority

Opportunity Chicago developed and maintained partnerships with area employers and workforce centers to ensure that Chicago Housing Authority residents were ad-equately trained to meet job requirements.

find and maintain housing.25 As the 

were put in place for income limits 

physical disabilities; mental health 

workforce component of the RRHF Pilot, 

and work, criminal, or substance abuse 

challenges; and lack of employment 

the Navigator program paired RRHF 

history.31 Families experiencing home-

history.34 

providers with workforce service provid-

lessness faced a number of barriers, and, 

ers to address barriers to employment 

according to Nick Codd, former senior 

Once families accepted rapid rehous-

and facilitate long-term housing and 

manager at Building Changes, “people 

ing assistance, case managers from five 

job stability for participants.26 Building 

were eager enough to get housed that 

rapid rehousing providers — Catholic 

Changes sought to demonstrate that em-

they were willing to try rapid rehous-

Community Services, Neighborhood 

ployment and an income were critical 

ing.” Coordinated Entry for All helped 

House, Wellspring Family Services, Solid 

to ensuring that families could pay for 

identify families that needed long-term 

Ground, and YWCA — referred them 

housing costs once the short-term rapid 

housing solutions and those willing to 

to Employment Navigators from three 

rehousing supports ended.27 

accept rapid rehousing assistance.32 

workforce service providers: Neighbor-

hood House Employment and Training 

Cross-Sector Team

Families who participated in the RRHF 

Services, YWCA Works, and King County’s 

King County’s Coordinated Entry for 

Pilot had been living in a homeless 

Career Connections program from the 

All helps anyone within the county 

shelter, in their cars, or in other situa-

Department of Community and Human 

who is facing homelessness find stable 

tions.33 Many of the families had either 

Services.35 These workforce service 

housing through needs assessments and 

income from Temporary Assistance for 

and housing providers had an existing 

connections to housing resources.28 As 

Needy Families (TANF) or no income 

track record of serving people facing 

part of the RRHF Pilot, Catholic Com-

at all. About 90 percent of the heads of 

employment and housing barriers. The 

munity Services — an outreach agency 

families were female, more than half 

family, Navigator, and rapid rehousing 

of the Catholic Church of Western 

were single parents, and their median 

case manager met to discuss employ-

Washington that provides shelters, case 

age at the start of the program was 34. 

ment resources, plans for increasing 

management, mental health services, 

Nearly one-third of program partici-

income, and goals for self-sufficiency. 

and employment services — led coor-

pants had not finished high school or 

Based on families’ circumstances, the 

dinated entry assessments for families 

attained a GED — a barrier to employ-

cross-sector team could also include 

within 11 shelters.29 Families were 

ment. In addition to lack of education, 

representatives from homeless shelters 

referred to RRHF directly from the 

participants also faced other barriers 

or the Washington State Department 

coordinated entry system.30 To increase 

such as debt obligations; eviction, 

of Social and Health Services, because 

participation, very few entry criteria 

domestic abuse, and ex-offender history; 

some participants were receiving TANF 

20

benefits. Members of this cross-sector 

(13%) participated in job training. 

information on families and individuals 

team held monthly “learning circles” to 

Codd explained that because partici-

experiencing homelessness that informs 

discuss progress, suggest best practices, 

pants knew that their rental subsidies 

local, state, and federal policymaking.42 

share data, and determine progressive 

would eventually end, they eagerly 

Under Washington state’s Employment 

engagement for clients.36

sought employment. Some participants 

Security Department, the Workforce 

were already employed at the time they 

Information and Technology Services 

The Employment Navigators played a 

enrolled in the program. Of those who 

(WITS) compiles data on employment, 

vital role in coordinating service deliv-

participated in the program, 58 percent 

income, and occupations for the state’s 

ery among the housing and workforce 

either retained employment or became 

WorkSource online dashboard.43 Al-

systems and helping participants find 

employed.39 Families could still receive 

though Building Changes attempted to 

employment, access job training, and 

one-time rental assistance within six 

adapt HMIS to the workforce sector, the 

explore career paths. During meetings 

months of exiting the RRHF Pilot and 

effort was unsuccessful. Collecting more 

with heads of families, the Navigators 

maintain contact with Employment 

data about housing status and earned 

worked to understand and mitigate the 

Navigators for up to two years.40

income at intake and program exit 

barriers preventing them from finding 

would have provided a more complete 

and keeping a job. To tailor services, 

Lessons and  

picture of participants’ circumstances. 

the Navigators paid attention to each 

Ongoing Support

Codd emphasized that workforce and 

family’s unique experience with home-

Several lessons emerged from King 

housing providers should begin prepar-

lessness and helped them become more 

County’s RRHF Pilot that may apply 

ing families early for the eventual end 

informed about available workforce 

to other localities developing similar 

of rapid rehousing assistance. Families 

programs and resources. The Navigators 

initiatives. Building Changes deter-

should also anticipate that an increase 

also worked to ensure that participants 

mined that workforce and housing 

in income may make them ineligible for 

could eventually “self-navigate” the 

service providers needed to improve 

public assistance programs.44 

workforce system.37 

cross-sector communication and 

information sharing while also avoid-

Although the RRHF Pilot and its related 

Retaining Employment  

ing system-specific jargon.41 Under the 

Employment Navigator services ended, 

and Housing

2009 Homeless Emergency Assistance 

the city of Seattle, King County, and the 

To find and keep a job, families ex-

and Rapid Transition to Housing Act, 

Seattle Housing Authority continue to 

periencing homelessness and those 

all communities must have a Home-

collaborate to fund housing services for 

at risk need assistance to resolve the 

less Management Information System 

families experiencing homelessness.45 

most pressing barriers to employment. 

(HMIS) — an online database with 

In November 2015, the city of Seattle 

Through private dollars, Building 

Changes provided flex funds to families 

to cover car maintenance, transporta-

tion, child care, or interview and work 

clothes. Flex funds could also be used to 

pay for employment-related fees, such as 

a food handler’s card or forklift training, 

as well as move-in costs and apartment 

application fees. Participants could not 

use flex funds to subsidize rent. Seventy 

percent of heads of families experienc-

ing homelessness received flex funds.38 

People who received assistance from an 

Employment Navigator were more likely 

to acquire permanent housing. After 

moving to permanent housing, families 

who had worked with an Employment 

Navigator did not return to homelessness 

during the two-year period following their 

move. Participants earned approximately 

$12 per hour, typically in entry-level 

Gary Matoso

jobs. The urgent need to attain em-

Employment navigators from YWCA Works helped reduce participants’ barriers to employment by providing job ployment meant that very few people 

search assistance and career exploration resources.

21

and King County each declared a state 

housing developments and integrating 

24   Building Changes 2016, 5; Email correspondence with 

of emergency to alert officials about the 

employment status into the housing 

Nick Codd, 22 May 2018.

25   King County. 2013. “Rapid Re-housing pilot launched 

rise in homelessness in the region and 

intake process.51 Identifying strategies 

to help homeless families,” 12 December press 

allocated about $7.3 million to fund 

to better unify the two systems, such as 

release.  

shelter beds, encampment outreach 

sharing data, reducing system-specific 

26   Building Changes 2016, 6; Interview with Nick Codd, 

11 May 2018; Email correspondence with Nick Codd, 

and cleanup efforts, rapid rehous-

jargon, and communicating regularly, 

22 May 2018 and 20 June 2018.

ing, and other services.46 The city also 

can improve services for vulnerable fami-

27   Interview with Nick Codd; Email correspondence with 

earmarked $60,000 in flex funds after 

lies.52 Although these programs have 

Nick Codd, 20 June 2018.

28   

learning how crucial they were in ad-

ended, Seattle and Chicago continue to 

“Coordinated Entry for All (CEA) Frequently Asked 

Questions,” King County website (www.kingcounty.

dressing families’ immediate needs.47  

ensure that positive gains are not lost by 

gov/depts/community-human-services/housing/

preserving partnerships with workforce 

services/homeless-housing/coordinated-entry/faqs.

aspx). Accessed 14 May 2018.

Building Changes chose King County 

and rapid rehousing providers, main-

29   Interview with Nick Codd; Catholic Community 

Career Connections, Neighborhood 

taining case management services, and 

Services and Catholic Housing Services of Western 

House, and YWCA Works as service 

continuing to provide job training and 

Washington. 2016. “2016 Annual Report”; “Shelter and Homeless Services,” Catholic Community Services 

providers because these organizations 

educational opportunities for vulner-

and Catholic Housing Services website (ccsww.org/

had additional funding from the county 

able households.    

get-help/shelter-homeless-services/). Accessed 15 

June 2018.

that could help sustain vital services 

30   King County. 2015. “The Rapid Re-housing for Fami-

after the program ended. Codd noted 

1   Butler Family Fund, U.S. Department of Housing and 

lies Pilot: Interim Evaluation Report.” 

that one way these organizations have 

Urban Development, and U.S. Interagency Council on 

31   Interview with Nick Codd; Butler Family Fund, 7.

continued to serve families experi-

Homelessness. 2015. “Partnerships for Opening Doors: 

32   Interview with Nick Codd. 

A summit on integrating employment and housing 

encing homelessness is through the 

33   Ibid. 

strategies to prevent and end homelessness, ” 3. 

34   

King County Homeless Employment 

Building Changes 2016, 6–7. 

2   Building Changes. 2016. “Coordinating Employment 

35   Ibid, 6; Email correspondence with Nick Codd, 20 

Program (HEP). Although this project 

and Housing Services: A Strategy to Impact Family 

Homelessness, ” 4. 

June 2018. 

largely focuses on people experiencing 

3   Rhae Parkes, Emily Holt, Kimary Lee, Nik Theo-

36   Interview with Nick Codd; Building Changes 2016, 

homelessness rather than those en-

dore, and David Cook. 2012. “Opportunity Chicago: 

8, 13. 

2006-2010 — Improving Access to Employment for 

37   

rolled in rapid rehousing, it represents 

Building Changes 2016, 6–8; Nick Codd. 2016. “Em-

Public Housing Residents in Chicago, ” 2; Opportu-

ployment Navigator Model.”  

an opportunity to sustain vital services.48 

nity Chicago. 2011. “A Partnership for Change: How 

38   Building Changes 2016, 8; Interview with Nick Codd.

As with the Employment Navigator 

Opportunity Chicago Helped Create New Workforce 

39   

Pathways for Public Housing Residents, ” 6, 8. 

Interview with Nick Codd.

program, the YWCA HEP helps reduce 

40   

4   Interview with Mary Howard, 16 May 2018; Parkes et 

King County 2015. 

barriers to employment through job 

al., 1, 3, 20. 

41   Building Changes 2016, 14. 

search assistance, mentorship, housing re-

5   Interview with Mary Howard; Joe Parilla and Brett 

42   “HMIS Requirements,” HUD Exchange website (www.

Theodos. 2010. “Moving “Hard to House” Residents 

hudexchange.info/programs/hmis/hmis-require-

sources, and other work-related supports.49 

to Work: The Role of Intensive Case Management,” 

ments/). Accessed 8 June 2018; “About King County Urban Institute, 3. 

HMIS, ” King County website (kingcounty.hmis.cc/

Looking Ahead

6   Interview with Mary Howard; Parkes et al., iii.

about-king-county-hmis/). Accessed 8 June 2018; HUD 

7   FSG. 2013. “Collective Impact Case Study: Opportunity 

Exchange. 2011. “Homeless Emergency Assistance 

The programs in Chicago and King 

Chicago, ” 3. 

and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH): Pro-

County demonstrated the positive 

posed Rule for HMIS Requirements,” HUD Exchange 

8   Interview with Mary Howard; Parkes et al., 4, 27.

website (www.hudexchange.info/resource/1967/

outcomes that can occur by integrating 

9   Interview with Mary Howard.

hearth-proposed-rule-for-hmis-requirements/). Ac-two siloed systems. Howard explained 

10   Parkes et al., 4–6, 14.

cessed 8 June 2018.

11   

43   

that “[CHA] residents are more than 

Kimary Lee, Nik Theodore, Rhae Parkes, Emily Holt, 

“WorkSource System Performance,” Washington 

David Cook, and Mirabai Auer. 2012. “The Promise 

State Employment Security Department website (esd.

interested and able to participate in job 

and Challenge of Transitional Jobs: Opportunity 

wa.gov/labormarketinfo/WorkSource-system-perfor-

training programs and in the labor mar-

Chicago’s Transitional Jobs Experience, ” 13. 

mance). Accessed 8 June 2018. 

12   

44   

ket,” but they need the tools to do so. 

Parkes et al., 6–8.

Building Changes 2016, 9, 16; Interview with Nick 

13   Interview with Mary Howard.

Codd.

Administrators of future initiatives can 

14   Parkes et al., 8. 

45   King County 2015.

learn from the successes and challenges 

15   Interview with Mary Howard; “Selected Economic 

46   City of Seattle Human Services Department. 2016. 

of these programs and their commit-

Characteristics: 2012–2016 American Community 

“Homeless State of Emergency Implementation Plan,”  

Survey 5-Year Estimates,” American FactFinder website 

6–7. 

ment to evaluate progress along the way; 

(factfinder.census.gov). Accessed 5 June 2018. 

47   Ibid, 12; Interview with Nick Codd. 

taking stock of challenges and making 

16   Interview with Mary Howard. 

48   Interview with Nick Codd. 

corrections while a program is under-

17   Parkes et al., 30–1; Interview with Mary Howard. 

49   “Homeless Employment Program,” YWCA Seattle 

way benefits participants much more 

18   “Partners in Education Program,” Chicago Housing 

| King | Snohomish website (www.ywcaworks.org/

Authority website (www.thecha.org/residents/part-

programs/homeless-employment-program). Accessed than waiting until a program ends.50 In 

ners-in-education-program/). Accessed 5 June 2018. 

18 May 2018. 

King County, the most successful rapid 

19   Interview with Mary Howard.

50   Interview with Mary Howard.

rehousing staff were those who became 

20   Parkes et al., 20; Lee et al., 13. 

51   Nick Codd and Debbie Patton. n.d. “Rapid Re-

“vocationalized” by inventing ways to 

21   Parkes et al., 25. 

Housing and Employment: Making the Connection,”  

22   

11, 13; Interview with Nick Codd. 

link housing and employment, such 

Interview with Mary Howard; Parkes et al., 24. 

52   

23   Building Changes 2016, 4–5; Building Changes. 2018. 

Interview with Mary Howard; Building Changes 2016, 

as colocating employment services in 

“What We Do. ” 

14.

22

Additional Resources

n   “Developing Inclusive Communities: Challenges and Opportunities for Mixed-Income Housing,” (2017), by Renée Lewis Glover, Ann Carpenter, and Richard Duckworth, discusses the benefits of mixed-income communities, including those related to employment such as an enhanced sense of security and expanded social connections. www.frbatlanta.org/-/

media/documents/community-development/publications/discussion-papers/2017/01-developing-inclusive-com-

munities-challenges-and-opportunities-for-mixed-income-housing-2017-06-07. aspx.

n   “Integrating Rapid Re-Housing & Employment: Program & Policy Recommendations for Enhancing Rapid Re-housing” 

(2017), by Caitlin C. Schnur, Chris Warland, Melissa Young, and Tara Maguire, explores the connections between homelessness and employment and suggests policies to help participants in rapid rehousing programs access employment and training. nationalinitiatives.issuelab.org/resources/27128/27128.pdf.

n   “The Drive to Work: The Relationship between Transportation Access, Housing Assistance, and Employment among Participants in the Welfare to Work Voucher Program” (2017), by Evelyn Blumenberg and Gregory Pierce, emphasizes the importance of access to a car for improved employment outcomes for very low-income adults. journals.sagepub.

com/doi/full/10.1177/0739456X16633501.

n   “The Role of Neighborhood Social Networks in Scattered-Site Public Housing Residents’ Search for Jobs” (2001), by Rachel Garshick Kleit, compares the ways dispersed residents and clustered residents use social networks in job search-

es. www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10511482.2001.9521418.

n   “An Analysis of Public Workforce Development Resources” (2012), by the Chicago Jobs Council, examines federal, state, and local funding for several workforce development programs in the metropolitan Chicago region. cjc.net/wp-

content/uploads/2012/05/Regional-final-4.25.20121.pdf. 

n   “Implementing Transitional Jobs Under the Workforce Innovation & Opportunity Act: Why & How Workforce Investment Boards Should Leverage WIOA Dollars for Transitional Jobs” (2016), by Caitlin Schnur, summarizes the transitional jobs 

model and presents strategies to help communities implement transitional jobs programs. nationalinitiatives.issuelab.

org/resources/23782/23782.pdf.

n   “Practice Guides for Employment and Training” (2014), by the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, presents best 

practices and resources for organizing job training and employment programs. www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/as-

set_library/Practice_Guides.pdf.

n   “Employment Program Models for People Experiencing Homelessness: Different approaches to program structure” 

(2012), by Nathan Dunlap, Amy Rynell, Melissa Young, Chris Warland, and Ethan Brown, presents several examples of programs offering transitional jobs, adult education, and job placement support to help people experiencing or at risk of 

homelessness develop employment skills. nationalinitiatives.issuelab.org/resources/16921/16921.pdf. 

For additional resources archive, go to www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/additional_resources_2018.html.

Evidence Matters

Editor: Rachelle Levitt 

Discuss this issue on the  Evidence Matters Forum at www.huduser.gov/

forums. You can subscribe to  Evidence Matters at www.huduser.gov/

Authors: Brian Stromberg (HUD) 

portal/evidence.html.

and Sage Computing staff

23

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

PRESORTED  

HUD User 

FIRST-CLASS MAIL

P.O. Box 23268 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

Washington, DC 20026—3268

HUD

PERMIT NO. G—795

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300

Return Service Requested

Scan here for past issues

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development  

Office of Policy Development and Research

www.huduser.gov  n  800.245.2691

Document Outline

Cover

Feature: Housing Assistance, Employment, and Self-Sufficiency

Research Spotlight: Jobs Plus: Self-Sufficiency in Public Housing

In Practice: Programs Integrate Workforce and Housing Services

Additional Resources