Study Details for:
Riccio, James (2010). Sustained earnings gains for residents in a public housing jobs program: Seven-year findings from the Jobs-Plus demonstration, MDRC policy brief, New York: MDRC.

Study URL: (Link not working?)

Evaluation: Jobs-Plus Community Revitalization Initiative for Public Housing Families

Program Studied: Jobs-Plus Community Revitalization Initiative for Public Housing Families
See Study Characteristics tab below for more information about this program.

Strength of Evidence: 1-High High (3 of 3)

Populations Targeted General low-income population
Setting Urban only
Services Provided Education, Financial incentives or sanctions, Job development/job placement, Occupational or sectoral training, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training, Work readiness activities
Outcome Domains Examined Long-term earnings


Toggle Long-term earningsLong-term earnings
Outcome Treatment Group Comparison Group Impact Findings Strength of Evidence Study Sample Sample Size Data Source and Timing
1 Author reported impact is statistically significant, but did not specify the significance level, nor whether the effect is significant at the p<.05 threshold used by this review.

Annual earnings, year 3, $1
Not reported Not reported 1,300 No Effect 1-High High (3 of 3) Dayton, Los Angeles, and St. Paul sites 2,297 public housing residents UI wage records, year 3

Study Characteristics

Toggle Participants & Program Details Participants & Program Details
Participant Detail Within each city, only large housing developments that met the following criteria could participate: at least 250 family-occupied units (not including those occupied by people age 62 years or older), no more than 30 percent of families could have an employed family member, and at least 40 percent had to be receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). The impact analysis focused on individuals between ages 21 and 61 who were not identified by the housing authority as disabled. The original study (Bloom et al. 2005) 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.
Program Services Jobs-Plus was an employment and training program with three core components: employment-related services and activities, including job search skills, soft skills training, job development, education and training, and child care and transportation assistance; financial incentives to work; and community support for work. For the 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.
Program Duration The program rolled out in 1998 through 2000 and operated through 2003; this study examined the effects of the program through 2006, after services had ended.
Comparison Services The comparison housing developments were treated as a business-as-usual condition (no Jobs-Plus services).
Toggle Study Design Study Design
Strength of Evidence Description High
Group Formation The study is a brief that describes the long-term effects of the program in three sites. The original study (Bloom et al. 2005) included six sites, which were selected after a national competition. Evaluators randomly assigned two or three housing developments in each city, one to the treatment and the other(s) to the control condition. The brief presents the effects, three years after the program ended, for three of the sites. The evaluation included a total of 15 housing developments.
Effect Calculation The effects reported by the authors and displayed on this site are the raw mean differences between the groups, adjusted for the follow-up period. The authors present the raw mean for the treatment group, and calculate the adjusted mean for the comparison group based on the calculated effect. The authors adjusted their analysis to account for the clustering of individual people into the randomly assigned neighborhoods.
Notes on Reported Outcomes The authors reported earnings outcomes for time points and subgroups that are not the focus of this review.
Subgroups Studied Dayton, Ohio; Los Angeles, California; St. Paul, Minnesota
Other Domains Examined None
Toggle Study Setting Study Setting
Setting Details The demonstration took place in selected public housing developments in six major cities: Baltimore, Maryland; Chattanooga, Tennessee; Dayton, Ohio; Los Angeles, California; St. Paul, Minnesota; and Seattle, Washington. This study focuses on the long-term outcomes in three sites: Dayton, Los Angeles, and St. Paul.
Timing of Study 1994 to 1998—Baseline
1998—Program was launched (random assignment)
1998 to beginning of 2000—Program (roll-out period)
Beginning of 2000 through 2003—Follow-up period, program still operating
2004 through 2006—Program no longer operating, follow-up period covered by this brief
Study Funding The Annie E. Casey Foundation funded this report. 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, Inc., Northwest Area Foundation, Stuart Foundation, BP, and Washington Mutual Foundation funded the original study.
Study URL