You asked about model programs that provide housing centered, comprehensive services to families moving from welfare to work.

An earlier OLR Report (2005-R-0128) describes a New York City program that provides transitional housing and support services to homeless children and their families.

SUMMARY

The notion that housing stability is key to economic self sufficiency, and vice versa, has formed the basis for a number of programs, some of which target families moving from welfare to work. At least one of these offers everything at a single site.

Supportive housing programs, which have traditionally focused on individuals with mental illness or substance abuse problems, is one such “model. ” They recognize that the individuals they serve have significant barriers to becoming and remaining self sufficient and provide a variety of supports to ensure that housing remains a stable part of their lives. When broadened to help families, these programs have been found to be effective.

In 1999, the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) began offering special housing vouchers to families moving from welfare to work. These programs required local housing agencies to work in partnership with welfare and workforce development agencies to ensure that families got the necessary supports to move from welfare to work. Although the program's phase out began in 2004, HUD identified a number of promising practices.

An older HUD program remains but may be underutilized. Since 1990, it has offered families the option of participating in Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) programs, asset building programs in which households living in public housing or receiving HUD housing vouchers sign contracts with housing agencies to pursue goals that will lead to their leaving assistance relatively quickly. In return, the agencies contribute to escrow accounts for participants as income rises and help ensure that families have access to necessary work supports. Some states have coordinated their Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and housing agencies to expand their FSS programs to the TANF population.

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING MODEL

Permanent Supportive Housing Initiative

In 2005, the Urban Institute and Harder+Company Community Research released an evaluation of The Family Permanent Supportive Housing (FPSH) initiative. This initiative, two programs from which are described below, offers an innovative approach to meeting the long-term care needs for formerly homeless families living in permanent supportive housing.

The researchers interviewed 100 families residing at seven FPSH sites in the San Francisco Bay area. They found that that majority of mothers appeared to be maintaining residential stability in their programs. The researchers determined the families' homelessness histories, as well as examined their income and food security. Mothers generally relied on several sources of cash income, and most relied on non-cash public benefits, such as Medicaid and Food Stamps. These findings led the researchers to conclude that significant housing and service support for long periods, which is the premise of FSHI programs, were critical to family stability and increasing levels of independence.

Canon Barcus Community House. This newly constructed building opened in March 2002. Formerly homeless families occupy 47 of its 48 units; a resident manager occupies the last unit. Forty four families with 122 children occupy the units. Half are headed by single mothers, with almost half headed by two parent families.

It is located in a busy intersection in San Francisco's South of Market neighborhood, surrounded by other supportive housing programs. It is near various modes of public transportation and in walking distance to Market Street, a main downtown thoroughfare.

Episcopal Community Services (ECS) partnered with numerous organizations to sponsor the program, which provides on-site supportive services. A separate nonprofit corporation manages the property.

The supportive services, which are optional, include:

1. on-site mental health services for children and families,

2. family literacy;

3. parenting skills training;

4. an on-site medical clinic operated by St. Luke's Medical Center;

5. partnerships with the YMCA for youth recreational activities; and

6. collaborations with other service providers to offer residents additional services such as substance abuse treatment, mental health support, and job skills training.

Client services staff include a director of services for primary school-age children, a case manager working with teenagers, four case managers working with families, and a case coordinator who manages community outreach and engagement with residents. (Half of the staff were previously homeless, making them more understanding of client issues. )

A tenant council provides input into program changes and ensures an ongoing dialogue, including a weekly coffee hour where tenants and staff informally interact.

The program evaluators point to the critical, strong partnership between Mercy Services Corporation (a nationally-recognized property management company) and ECS. The two work closely on many aspects of the program, including conducting entry interviews—the property management staff determines if the family meets the criteria to live in the building, while the ECS tenant client services staff determine what kind of services the family needs to achieve housing stability.

The evaluators reported both strengths and weaknesses. A service provider felt that family stability, reunifying families, and education services were strong successes. Tenants most liked the tenant services and private, personal space, while a lack of play space for children, lack of child supervision, and curfews were the least-liked aspects of the program.

Cecil Williams House. Another new construction site, Cecil Williams House, opened in the Tenderloin neighborhood of San Francisco. This 52 “mixed” unit building was originally built as permanent supportive housing for families, but an initial high vacancy rate forced it to open it to formerly homeless single adults receiving Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS or Shelter Plus Care benefits.

Tenants pay 30% of total household income for rent; their rental subsidies come from Shelter Plus Care, Section 8, and the AIDS program.

Like Canon Barcus, Cecil Williams House uses a separate property manager, while house staff work directly with families to provide support services. The facility contains a community room, a solarium, an outdoor communal area, access to a rooftop garden, support services offices, and private counseling rooms. Security is provided 24 hours a day.

Some program highlights include a tenant-initiated “Breakfast Club” where families cook and eat a meal together, with the help of program staff. Support services include an orientation and discussion of programs and services (which are voluntary).

On-site services include:

1. medical and mental health—a drop-in medical clinics, access to a family nurse practitioner, and women's support group;

2. weekly produce drops, farmers' market food bank, food vouchers;

3. community building activities such as game nights, book club, spiritual empowerment evenings;

4. after-school tutoring, youth services, summer youth intern program, teen rap group;

5. substance abuse help from nurse practitioner and smoking cessation program;

6. money management classes; and

7. adult tutoring, GED/literacy guidance, and work entry/re-entry programs.

Four staff serve as the main service providers for residents, three of whom focus primarily on families. Staff are trained in several areas, including cultural competency.

Tenants are encouraged to take on leadership roles, but complicated schedules have limited their ability to do this in some instances. Staff provide mentoring services to the children; work on socialization skills; and help them face serious issues in the household, such as substance abuse and domestic violence.

One provider offered that a big achievement has been the “community” taking responsibility for itself. Challenges include getting residents to take advantage of the supportive services without feeling like a failure (although the program survey found that those mothers taking advantage of the services liked it more than other aspects of the program), as well as tenants' criminal records and inadequate basic skills, which make employment difficult.

TANF-Funded Programs

The Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) in 2001 identified Minnesota as the only state that had initiated a TANF-funded program that combined housing with case management and an array of services. Its Hearth Connection provided subsidies, case management, and other services to homeless and at-risk families. Rental assistance was provided until Section 8 became available. Families had to be on cash assistance when the program began, but were expected to leave once their six-month subsidy expired.

HUD PROGRAMS

Welfare to Work Vouchers

In 1999, HUD began awarding additional housing choice vouchers to housing agencies through its Welfare to Work Voucher demonstration program. (Housing Choice vouchers, created in 1999 for “extremely low income families (30% or less of area median income) were a fusing of the traditional Section 8 voucher and certificate programs. ) These new vouchers were targeted at families that had a critical housing need in order to obtain or keep viable employment. Its architects believed combining these vouchers with HUD's Family Self Sufficiency model (see below), greatly improved the likelihood of success.

The welfare-to-work voucher required local housing agencies to develop plans in partnership with welfare and workforce development agencies to ensure that housing assistance was combined with job training, child care, and other services families needed to make the transition from welfare to work.

HUD identified a number of promising models as a result of the program. For example, through informal needs assessments, New Hampshire's Housing Finance Agency identified its voucher clients' greatest needs and tailored programs accordingly. Some of the components included:

1. SMART accounts, which were Individual Development Accounts to help clients save money;

2. computer leases, which offered low-cost, refurbished computer equipment for home use;

3. virtual classrooms, which provided free, on-line skill building to families with transportation, child care, and scheduling barriers;

4. low-interest loans and grants; and

5. vehicle ownership through the Wheels to Work Collaboration.

HUD began phasing out these vouchers in 2004.

Family Self Sufficiency (FSS) Program

Recognizing that the key to housing stability was economic stability, Congress created the FSS program in 1990 to help households access education, job training, case management, and support services. Participating households and the public housing agency must identify the steps each will take to help the families become financially independent. FSS program services can include child care, transportation, education, job training and employment counseling, substance abuse treatment and counseling, household skill training, and homeownership counseling. Families must be receiving Housing Choice vouchers to participate.

Participating families must sign a contract that specifies the rights and responsibilities of both the families and the housing agency, including developing a five-year training and services plan. The contract also specifies goals and services for each family member. And it requires that the family (1) comply with the lease, (2) become independent from welfare, and (3) head seeks and maintains suitable employment. Sanctions are imposed for noncompliance.

Asset building is the critical element of FSS. As a family's earnings rise, so does its rent (but stays at 30% of income). But the PHA deposits an amount roughly equal to the rent increase into an escrow account, which the household receives when it successfully graduates from the program (that is, the head of household is employed and free of cash welfare for at least 12 months, and all family members substantially achieve their plan goals). Housing agencies are reimbursed by HUD to cover any lost rent.

HUD released the first evaluation of FSS in October 2005. It found that participants (1) increased their incomes and decreased welfare dependence much faster than non-FSS participants and (2) experienced substantial asset growth. (The evaluation can be found at http: //www. huduser. org/publications/econdev/selfsufficiency. html

A 2004 National Housing Institute report suggests that FSS programs are ideally suited for cash welfare families making the transition to work. But it cautions that the necessary coordination between housing and welfare agencies (the latter provides the case management), who are already sharing many of the same clients, needs to occur. Alaska; Fresno, California; and Montgomery County, Maryland have tried this, according to the report.

A 2004 Finance Project (a social services policy and practice information clearinghouse that has reported extensively on promising welfare-to-work programs) report highlighted San Mateo, California's Housing Opportunities Program, which is part of its FSS program. The 12-month program paid 60% of the rent for the first six months and 30% for the remaining six months. The program targeted families who were more likely to become self sufficient—they had to be enrolled and have completed 50% of an education or vocational goal, be employed or have a source of income, or have a well-planned educational or vocational goal that would enable them to achieve self-reliance within the program's short timeframe. In addition to the housing subsidy, families were connected to mentors and received case management and life-skills training.

RC: dw