- Log in to post comments
Subgroups
Six cities were selected for the evaluation based on a national competition. Within each city, to qualify for the study, housing authorities needed to have at least two developments that met the following criteria: at least 250 family-occupied units (not including those occupied by people age 62 years or older), no more than 30 percent of families include an employed family member, and at least 40 percent of families receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children. The evaluation included a total of 15 housing developments. The authors randomly assigned housing developments to conditions when the program was launched in 1998. Each city included a matched cluster of two or three similar housing developments; one was selected to implement the intervention, and the other one or two housing developments were assigned to the comparison condition. The impact analysis focused on individuals between ages 21 and 61 who were not identified by the housing authority as disabled. The authors obtained data for up to six years before and six years after implementation of Jobs-Plus. The report presents findings for two cohorts (1998 and 2000). The 1998 cohort included residents of a Jobs-Plus or comparison site in 1998 when Jobs-Plus was launched; the 2000 cohort included residents of a Jobs-Plus or comparison site in 2000. The purpose of the 2000 cohort was to account for mobility within the 1998 cohort. (The 1998 cohort includes residents who moved out by 2000, whereas the 2000 cohort excludes these residents.) This review focused on the results from the 1998 cohort with all sites combined. All other contrasts, including all contrasts for the 2000 cohort, represent subgroups (individual sites or level of implementation) and are not eligible for this review.
The program was launched in 1998 (random assignment) and was rolled out from 1998 to 2000. The follow-up period was 2000 to 2006, although program services were only available until 2003.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Labor, Rockefeller Foundation, Joyce Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation, James Irvine Foundation, Surdna Foundation, Northwest Area Foundation, Stuart Foundation, BP, and Washington Mutual Foundation funded the study.
The study described the census tracts in which the housing developments were located as populated by people of color and characterized by single-parent-headed households, large numbers of adults without a high school diploma, large numbers of foreign-born residents, and a large proportion of residents living in poverty.
Jobs-Plus is implemented through a partnership between the public housing authority, resident representatives, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families agencies, and the local workforce development system.
Jobs-Plus did not exist before the start of the demonstration, though it was based on lessons learned from past employment initiatives.
Jobs-Plus is an employment and training program with three core components: employment-related services and activities, financial incentives to work, and community support for work. For this evaluation, Jobs-Plus was implemented in selected housing developments in six U.S. cities from 1998 through 1999. The program was delivered to all working-age, nondisabled residents living in the housing developments.
The comparison housing developments were treated as a business-as-usual condition (no Jobs-Plus services).
None.
The rollout period was a two-year period (1998 and 1999), and services were available through 2003.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; U.S. Department of Labor; Rockefeller Foundation; Joyce Foundation; Annie E. Casey Foundation; James Irvine Foundation; Surdna Foundation; Northwest Area Foundation; Stuart Foundation; BP; and Washington Mutual Foundation.
The demonstration took place in selected public housing developments in six major cities: Baltimore, Chattanooga, Dayton, Los Angeles, St. Paul, and Seattle.
Physical health, Criminal justice, Housing, Financial incentives, Child well-being