The Second Generation of Jobs-Plus Programs: Implementation Lessons from San Antonio and the Bronx

“This report provides extensive implementation analyses of the early experiences (2011-2014) of the Jobs-Plus scale-up and replication under a grant from the Social Innovation Fund (SIF) of the Corporation for National and Community Service to the Mayor’s Fund to Advance New York City. This effort was conducted in partnership with the New York City Center for Economic Opportunity, which oversaw program implementation. Like the original Jobs-Plus Public Housing Revitalization Initiative (1998-2005), the SIF version of Jobs-Plus is designed to raise and sustain the level of employment and earnings among residents of public housing developments. Jobs-Plus has three parts: (1) employment services offered at on-site job centers, (2) changes in rent rules that provide financial incentives to work, and (3) community support for work through neighbor-to-neighbor conversations. The original demonstration was subject to a rigorous evaluation, which found that, implemented fully, Jobs-Plus boosted annual earnings by 16 percent relative to the earnings of residents in comparison developments, an effect that endured for seven years without abating” (p.ES-1).

This implementation study, published in October 2015, is guided by the following three research questions:

“1. How successful were local efforts to develop each of the components of the Jobs-Plus model? 2. How did providers innovate as they adapted Jobs-Plus to local conditions?

2. How did providers innovate as they adapted Jobs-Plus to local conditions?

3. What were the costs of implementation?”

(Abstractor: Author and Website Staff)

The report found that : • “Providers in the Bronx and in San Antonio were able to enroll substantial proportions of residents of very large housing developments. This represents a strong early indication of program ‘saturation,’ or offers of services. At the same time, providers found that the three components of Jobs-Plus — and especially their integration and coordination with each other — were difficult to manage in practice. Both providers generally placed residents in low-wage work, and struggled to find ways of helping residents who were already employed” (p.iii). • “In the SIF version of Jobs-Plus, neither the community-based organization nor the housing authority appeared to have a clear advantage in providing services. Instead, organizations’ ability to implement the program appeared to depend on their administrative flexibility, their front-line staff members’ ability to work as a team, their ability to tailor their strong workforce development experience to a variety of participants, their ability to conduct vigorous outreach and marketing, and the strength of their connection to property managers. • The Jobs-Plus ‘Collaborative,’ a support and accountability body made up of local city agencies involved in workforce services, income support, and other social services, emerged as an important entity promoting strong implementation in the Bronx” (p.iii). Based on these findings, the authors offer recommendations for providers and practitioners. These include: • “Focus on both the number and the quality of job placements. Providers should assess their existing relationships with employers, capitalize on those connections, and develop relationships with a wide array of new employers, particularly those that can offer living wages and opportunities for advancement. Public housing authorities should work with their contractors to generate job opportunities for Jobs-Plus members • Create training opportunities for residents who are already employed. While it can be challenging to create these relationships, it may be important to connect Jobs-Plus members with partners who can train people with limited education, as [San Antonio Housing Authority] did with a local community college. Otherwise Jobs-Plus may have little to offer residents who are already employed… • Allocate enough resources to support and train community coaches, and build close relationships with property managers” (p.ES-10). (Abstractor: Author and Website Staff)

• Last Updated:
• Created:
• Resource Publication Date: 2015
• Author(s): Greenberg, D. M.; Aceves, A.; Quiroz-Becerra, V.; Greenberg, D. H.; and Oppenheim, A.
• Organizational Author(s): MDRC
• Funding Source: Corporation for National and Community Service, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
• Resource Availability: Publicly available
• Posted by: Wesley Peterson
• Posted in: Workforce System Strategies