Selected Findings in Brief

Jobs-Plus Community Revitalization Initiative for Public Housing Families (MDRC):

Employment Experiences:

• The survey of residents revealed a more extensive and varied connection to the labor market than had been expected, given the very low rates of employment that characterized the public housing developments in the years prior to their selection for Jobs-Plus in the mid-1990s. Slightly more than 90 percent had worked at some point in their lives, and a majority were either currently employed or searching for work at the time of the survey.
• Many residents who worked did so only part time, and the majority were employed in low-wage jobs paying less than $7.75 per hour and offering no fringe benefits.
• Health status was the factor most clearly associated with residents’ engagement in the labor market. Survey respondents who described themselves as having health problems were less likely than others to have had recent work experience or to engage in job search activities.
• Even with extensive data, it is difficult to create statistical profiles that accurately differentiate survey respondents who can be characterized as easier to employ from those who are harder to employ. Across a wide range of measures — including demographic characteristics, incidence of domestic violence, and residents’ social networks — no consistent patterns emerged to distinguish which residents were most actively and least actively involved in the labor market.

Child-Related Outcomes:

• On some, but not all, measures of school and behavioral outcomes, a substantial proportion of children living in public housing exhibited negative outcomes. As expected, older children and boys were at greater risk than younger children and girls.
• When compared with data on other children receiving welfare in selected states, children in the Jobs-Plus developments were shown to be at only slightly greater risk of experiencing negative school and behavioral outcomes.
• Few associations were found between measures of the Jobs-Plus children’s well-being and their parents’ employment or welfare status.
• Parents’ mental health and experience with domestic abuse were associated with negative aspects of children’s schooling and behavior. However, contextual factors of the housing developments, such as the proportion of parents who had jobs, were not related to children’s outcomes.

Residential Mobility:

• A significant proportion of residents (29%) moved out of the Jobs-Plus developments within two years of completing the baseline interview in 1997. The tendency to move varied considerably across the five Jobs-Plus developments.
• Expectations of moving out ran very high among Jobs-Plus residents. Counter to the expectations, fewer than half of those intending to move were able to make that transition during the two-year follow-up period.
• On average, the typical "mover" had lived in a Jobs-Plus development for less than six years, and compared to residents who stayed, was less likely to report employment barriers, and was more likely to express dissatisfaction with the social and physical conditions in the development and the neighborhood at large. Movers were also more likely to report having experienced episodes of crime and violence.
• Economic self-sufficiency (that is, having access to savings and not receiving public assistance), concerns about keeping children engaged in constructive activities, and experiences of violence are key predictors of the probability of moving out.

Financial Incentives:

• The Jobs-Plus sites adopted either flat rents or lower income-based rents to allow working residents to keep more of their earnings. Some sites also used bonus savings accounts or rent credits as further inducements for job retention.
• Flat-rent plans were easier to implement than income-based plans, although both were feasible.
• Across the demonstration sites, the use of rent incentives was substantial. Nearly half the households targeted by the Jobs-Plus program took advantage of this benefit.
• The Jobs-Plus rent incentives may have done more to help to sustain and strengthen the work effort of residents who had jobs than to stimulate nonemployed residents to seek work.
• Rent incentives helped people who typically had very limited and often volatile incomes to purchase basic items and some durable goods and to build savings.
• Jobs-Plus staff publicized the EITC and sometimes advised or assisted residents in applying for it.

Moving to Opportunity Demonstration (HUD):

• A Synthesis of MTO Research on Self-Sufficiency, Safety and Health, and Behavior and Delinquency: Looking across several study sites on findings related to health, economic self-sufficiency, delinquency among youth, and other behavioral outcomes, it is found that, across the studies, moving to higher-income neighborhoods results in significant improvements in safety and child and parent physical and mental health.
• Social Dimensions of Moving to Opportunity: There is value of studying the social connections and social capital of families participating in MTO.
• Moving to Better Neighborhoods Improves Health and Family Life Among New York Families: At the New York site, it is found that self-sufficiency improved across the board, but especially among those families that moved to higher-income neighborhoods. Health and well-being also improved among the movers, and parenting practices changed as well. School involvement and juvenile delinquency were also examined.

Welfare to Work Voucher Program (HUD):

• For FY 1999, Congress appropriated $283 million for 50,000 new "welfare-to-work housing vouchers." The purpose of the program is to help eligible families make the transition from welfare to work by reducing some of the barriers that low-income families face as they move toward self-sufficiency.These barriers may include overcrowded, unstable, or unsafe housing; housing far from work, childcare, and public transportation; escalating rents; and working wages that are disproportionate to the rising cost of housing.
• The WtW voucher program has distinguishing characteristics that create both opportunities and challenges for PHAs managing the program. First, the program demands real, working partnerships with local supportive services agencies (such as TANF and DOL agencies), partners (including other government agencies, the business community, faith-based organizations, universities, non-profits and other supportive service providers) and employers.
• Second, the program offers a high degree of flexibility to design a program that meets local needs and priorities related to housing and welfare-to-work programming. This latitude in program design and implementation has resulted in a wide-range of program models; no two programs are alike.
• In all, the WtW Voucher Program proved to be an innovative, and successful program during its first year, promising to continue as a viable program.