Jobs-Plus had three core components. First, Jobs-Plus provided public housing residents with employment and training services to help them find paid employment quickly. These services included individual job search assistance such as employment counselors and job developers, help preparing for and attending job interviews, soft skills instruction, short-term basic education, and vocational skills training. Residents also received assistance overcoming immediate barriers to employment, including child care coordination, assistance with transportation, and referrals to other community services. Second, Jobs-Plus changed public housing rent policies in the following ways: residents paid less than 30 percent of their earned income in rent, rents did not increase as their earnings increased, and residents received information about their eligibility for other federal financial supports. Third, Jobs-Plus created small groups of residents in each participating housing facility who served as coaches and information sources for their neighbors. These residents received a small stipend and were overseen by Jobs-Plus staff. Residents were eligible for services for as long as they lived in the housing community. Jobs-Plus was delivered to all working-age, nondisabled residents living in the public housing developments in which it was implemented. Jobs-Plus was implemented in Baltimore, MD; Chattanooga, TN; Dayton, OH; Los Angeles, CA; St. Paul, MN; and Seattle, WA.
- 0.04,5.00
Summary
Jobs-Plus was an employment and training program implemented in public housing developments to help residents increase their earnings and improve their quality of life.
Effectiveness rating and effect by outcome domain
Need more context or definitions for the Outcome Domain table below?
View the "Table help" to get more insight into terms, measures, and definitions.
Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns
| Outcome domain | Term | Effectiveness rating | Effect in 2018 dollars and percentages | Effect in standard deviations | Sample size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Increase earnings | Short-term | 
|
$293 per year
|
0.014 | 4774 |
| Long-term | 
|
$753 per year
|
0.036 | 4774 | |
| Very long-term |  |
||||
| Increase employment | Short-term |
|
1% (in percentage points)
|
0.020 | 4774 |
| Long-term |
|
0% (in percentage points)
|
0.002 | 4774 | |
| Very long-term | |
||||
| Decrease benefit receipt | Short-term | |
|||
| Long-term | |
||||
| Very long-term | |
||||
| Increase education and training | All measurement periods | |
Effectiveness rating key:
-
Well-supported
-
Supported
-
Not supported
-
Mixed support
-
Insufficient evidence
-
No evidence
Studies of this intervention
| Study quality rating | Study counts per rating |
|---|---|
 High
|
1 |
Implementation details
Dates covered by study
The Jobs-Plus research demonstration project launched in 1998 and provided services until 2003. The study used administrative data that extended six years before and after study launch (from 1992 through 2003) for the impact analysis and survey data collected in 1998 and 2003. The study also examined outcomes through 2006 for the Dayton, Los Angeles, and St. Paul sites.
Organizations implementing intervention
Local collaboratives in six demonstration cities implemented Jobs-Plus in their respective communities: Baltimore, MD; Chattanooga, TN; Dayton, OH; Los Angeles, CA; St. Paul, MN; and Seattle, WA. Each collaborative included four mandatory partners—the local public housing authority, resident representatives, the welfare agency, and the workforce development system—plus several other public and provide local institutions, which varied by site.
Populations served
Jobs-Plus served residents of selected housing developments in the demonstration cities; participants were working age and did not have a disability. To be eligible for the demonstration, the housing developments had to have at least 250 units occupied by families with at least 1 working-age adult (that is, younger than 62). Of these families, no more than 30 percent could have any employed member at the time the study began. At least 40 percent of these families had to be receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children. The study randomly assigned housing developments, not individual residents. The study sample consisted of residents of eligible housing developments who were ages 21 to 61 without a disability classification. The population demographics below refer to these sample members, whether they engaged in Jobs-Plus activities or not.
The demonstration sites had populations with varied demographics and characteristics. For example, in Baltimore, Chattanooga, and Dayton, 94 percent or more of the Jobs-Plus residents (referred to in this brief as residents) were Black, non-Hispanic, whereas sample residents in Los Angeles were mainly Hispanic (79 percent) or Southeast Asian (12 percent). In Seattle, the highest proportion of residents was Black, non-Hispanic (32 percent), followed by Asian or Pacific Islander (28 percent). In St. Paul, the highest proportion of residents was Asian or Pacific Islander (56 percent), followed by Black, non-Hispanic (21 percent). Sample households in Los Angeles, St. Paul, and Seattle had high proportions of immigrant families; for example, 56 percent of families in St. Paul were Hmong or other Southeast Asian immigrants. In Seattle, demonstration residents spoke 22 different languages.
Across the selected developments in the demonstration, 58 percent of residents were Black, non-Hispanic; 16 percent were Asian or Pacific Islander; and 14 percent were Hispanic. Forty percent of residents lived in a household with 2 or more adults, and about 75 percent of households included at least 1 child. More than three-fourths of residents were female.
The baseline survey administered to household heads in the study sample found that the majority of them (69 percent) had some employment experience in the 12 months before the start of the study; about 51 percent said they had worked in a full-time job, and 18 percent said they had worked in a part-time job. Less than half of those household heads surveyed (44 percent) had a high school diploma or equivalent.
Description of services implemented
The Jobs-Plus program consisted of three main components: employment-related services, financial and rent-based incentives, and community support for work. Case managers helped provide various services for residents. Services were intended for all working-age residents not listed as disabled in public housing authority records who lived in the selected housing demonstrations, and residents could receive rent-based incentives even if they did not engage in other Jobs-Plus employment services.
Employment-related services included:
- Work readiness activities. Job developers and employment counselors helped nonworking residents find work through job search assistance and interview preparation. Some sites referred demonstration residents to job clubs in which residents learned job-searching and interview techniques.
- Soft skills training. Jobs-Plus provided instruction related to workplace behavior and employers’ expectations. Some sites provided this directly, and others referred residents to external organizations.
- Education. Though less used or sought by demonstration residents, three programs (Chattanooga, Los Angeles, and St. Paul) offered short-term basic education and certain vocational training courses (such as certified nurse assistant training) on site.
- Supportive services. Jobs-Plus provided supportive services on site or by referral. These services included child care and transportation assistance, referrals to substance abuse treatment, health services, family counseling, life skills classes, financial management workshops, and driver’s education. Sites with larger immigrant populations provided specific services for immigration-related challenges, such as helping demonstration residents complete applications or documentation required by government programs.
Financial and rent-based incentives included:
- Financial incentives. Jobs-Plus introduced two rent policies that allowed employed residents to pay less than the standard 30 percent of household income for rent in public housing; demonstration sites chose one of the two policies to implement. The first policy was a flat rental payment that increased in stages over time. The second policy reduced rent payments to less than 30 percent of household income. Some sites offered additional financial incentives to help with rent, such as awarding credits toward a free month of rent to residents employed for a specific length of time. Residents with at least one working member of their household were eligible for rent-based incentives.
- Financial literacy. Jobs-Plus focused on marketing the rent incentives, but all Jobs-Plus sites were expected to provide some information to residents on the earned-income tax credit. Jobs-Plus also asked sites to provide resources on additional work supports for families with low incomes, such as child care subsidies and the child tax credit.
Community support for work included:
- Neighbor-to-neighbor outreach and support. All sites except for Chattanooga implemented strategies in which residents of the housing development helped Jobs-Plus staff share information about the Jobs-Plus program, rent incentives, job opportunities, and other services offered through the program.
- Informal supports. The Jobs-Plus offices were located on site at the housing developments, so staff had many opportunities to informally interact with residents. The programs also hosted events with and for the residents where they could share more about the Jobs-Plus program and employment opportunities.
All the sites launched employment-related services first, then added the financial incentives and community support for work components. The rent-based financial incentives were delayed about two years after site selection in most sites because of budgeting coordination at the federal level. In addition, the employment services were more concrete than community support, so sites tended to implement employment services before solidifying their community support strategies.
The programs in Chattanooga and Seattle changed significantly during the demonstration in ways that deviated substantially from the original model. Chattanooga evolved toward a program that mostly emphasized the financial incentives component, and Seattle received a separate grant that required demolition of the development and relocation of residents a few years after the demonstration began.
Service intensity
Because rent incentives were delayed for about two years after site selection, the authors considered the program not to be fully implemented until those incentives were in place, along with the other program features. Implementation study findings distinguished three sites as fully or strongly implementing the model (Dayton, Los Angeles, and St. Paul).
Sixty-two percent of residents were personally enrolled in Jobs-Plus activities or belonged to households receiving rent incentives. This rate varied from 50 percent in Baltimore and Chattanooga to 85 percent in St. Paul. Forty percent of residents received rent incentives across all the developments, ranging from 12 percent in Baltimore to 67 percent in St. Paul.
Residents who lived in the developments between 1998 and 2000 received job referrals and engaged in job searches more than other activities (28 percent across all developments). The second most common activity was soft skills training (18 percent), followed by vocational training (12 percent).
Comparison conditions
The Jobs-Plus demonstration used a clustered randomized controlled trial in which two or three similar housing developments in each city were identified as eligible to operate the Jobs-Plus program, with one then randomly selected to implement it, and the remaining one or two developments continuing with business as usual.
Partnerships
Each Jobs-Plus site was operated by a collaborative that included the local public housing authority, the agency administering public benefits, and the workforce development systems. Sites also worked with community partners for various services, such as employment service organizations providing job search and job readiness assistance, nonprofits serving survivors of domestic and sexual violence, local vocational schools for job-specific training, local educational institutions offering GED preparation and computer literacy classes, and health organizations offering assessments and referrals. Some partners provided services on site, and some residents received referrals to external services.
Staffing
Each demonstration site had a similar core staffing structure, and staff were located at Jobs-Plus offices at the developments:
- One project director managed daily operations.
- Case managers or job counselors helped residents prepare for, find, and maintain jobs, as well connect them to other relevant services.
- Job developers identified job openings for residents and helped build connections with local employers.
Employees from the housing authorities and collaborating agencies held these positions. Some sites also hired residents into these positions. In addition, residents of the developments could be resident liaisons, who recruited other residents to engage with Jobs-Plus and received a small stipend. Jobs-Plus staff oversaw the resident liaisons.
Along with this core staff, some sites had additional staff to provide various supports. For example, the Baltimore site had a community outreach coordinator who helped recruit residents to Jobs-Plus services and track financial incentives; the Dayton site had a youth coordinator who provided activities for youth living in the development; and the Seattle site had a community builder who organized events and celebrations for residents.
The study authors did not include information about the staff training, degrees, or certifications.
Fidelity measures
The study did not discuss any tools to measure fidelity to the intervention model.
Funding source
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Rockefeller Foundation led a consortium of public and private funders who sponsored the Jobs-Plus demonstration.
Cost information
The study did not include a formal analysis of costs and benefits. However, study authors estimated a high-end estimate of the cost to operate the on-site features of Jobs-Plus, which they found could total about $150 per resident per month (in current dollars at the time of program operation). This estimate includes costs incurred by the housing authorities (i.e., rent incentives) and partner agencies. Cost estimates are based on budget information sites provided to study authors. The study did not discuss a comparison of costs and benefits.
State(s) where implemented
The Pathways Clearinghouse refers to interventions by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some intervention names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.