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

Table of Contents

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