Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
54979534
label
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher – Study
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
54979534
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher – Study
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)
Margy Waller's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
54979534
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7367483-20140224F-007-007-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
b69b27666aaebdb6
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2014-0224-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Domestic Policy Council
Series/Staff Member:
Margy Waller
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
21597
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher - Study
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
98
6
2
2
"Kathryn L. Greenspan" <[email protected]>
12/20/2000 08:47:30 AM
Record Type:
Record
To:
Margy Waller/OPD/EOP
CC
"Patricia S. Arnaudo" <[email protected]>
Subject: Urban Institute WtW Voucher Report
You should be able to get the expected publication date of the Urban Institute's
WtW Voucher Early Implementation Assessment from Jennifer Stoloff or Kevin
Neary. Jennifer's number is (202) 708-3700, X5723; Kevin's number is (202)
708-0574, X5704.
Report to Congress
WELFARE TO WORK
HOUSING VOUCHER PROGRAM:
EARLY IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Policy Development and Research
Prepared By:
Robin Smith
Jennifer E. H. Johnson
The Urban Institute
Washington, DC
December 2000
why in quotes?
FOREWORD
Welfare to Work (WtW) Housing Vouchers are a bold and creative initiative
designed to help welfare recipients tackle the barriers they face when trying to move
from "welfare" to work. WtW vouchers increase the supply of housing subsidies to
those in our country who need assistance the most, as well as targeting this assistance
to a population that can use that help as a way to make the transition from welfare toclintor to
work.
should
After welfare reform was enacted in 1996 the Department sought ways to help
role of The Administation moroadly!
former and current TANF recipients obtain self sufficiency. WtW vouchers enable
WHIT OMB
Housing Agencies across the nation to offer incentives to families to pursue work. This
faight hard
mese
presents a unique challenge to Housing Agencies that have traditionally provided one
Jachers
distinct service-housing. This program calls on Housing Agencies to expand the way
they usually do business, to work with other service providers to build partnerships and
find a way to best serve the families who are eligible to receive welfare assistance.
WtW vouchers were awarded to 121 Housing Agencies in 35 states in October
1999 on a competitive basis. This study is part of a two-stage effort. The current report
is a preliminary look at the early phase of the study. Programs that were getting
underway quickly were purposively sampled in order to get the most complete picture of
the program in action. An in-depth study, already underway, involving a random
assignment strategy will compare out comes for people who receive the WtW voucher
and those who receive a normal housing choice voucher. The next study will be a
longer term and will give more definitive answers about the success of the program.
The results of this early study are encouraging. Several of the sites included in
this report are engaging in creative and true partnerships with other agencies. The
jointly administered program in Everett City and Snohomish County, Washington has an
innovative approach to partnerships. Over ten community-based social service
agencies provide services to the WtW clients and monitor them regularly, reporting
back to the Housing Authority. In Loudoun County Virginia the development of a
priority ranking system of clients was developed in cooperatively by Loudoun County
Housing Services and the Loudoun County Department of Social Services. Finally, in
Tampa, Florida, WtW clients are connected to a local public-private coalition that
provides employment and training to all TANF recipients through the contracted
services of Goodwill Industries. All case management is provided by Goodwill. All of
the Housing Agencies that were part of this study had made initial contacts with other
service providers and, eventually, may develop those contacts into useful
collaborations.
cald add oneline
bestay, e
Susan M. Wachter
"In Jan 1998,
Assistant Secretary for Policy
Pres. clenton unverled
Development and Research
a propros al to Bollish
vachess for families
50, wo new having
maing from welf. to
Jh The Admin.
Serve
in
wanced wanc /Congress to
the FY 1929 budjot."
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In preparing this report on early implementation of the Welfare to Work Voucher
Program: Robin Smith served as Project Director; Jennifer Johnson acted as Deputy Director;
and Susan Popkin offered guidance as Task Order Leader. Robin Smith and Jennifer Johnson
are the primary authors of the final report.
A particularly important role was played by Jennifer Stoloff who served as HUD
Government Technical Representative. The authors would like to thank her for insightful
comments and helpful direction throughout the field work and report writing portions of this
project.
This report builds on information collected during site visits to WtW Voucher Programs
throughout the country. The authors gratefully thank the field team, Mary Cunningham, Laura
Harris, Robin Koralek, Kathy Pettit, Susan Popkin, and Robin Redford for conducting site visits
and writing the summaries for their respective sites with skill, patience, and good humor.
Special thanks are due to four reviewers who greatly shaped the form and content of the
final report: Marty Abravanel, Susan Popkin, Mary Cunningham, and Stefan Freiberg. Thanks
also to Marge Turner for her advice and counsel.
And finally, this report would not have been possible without the help and cooperation of
staff in multiple organizations in the study sites We hope this report accurately reflects the
experiences and decisions made by these individuals and their organizations. To them we
extend our deepest appreciation and thanks. They represent the WtW Voucher Programs of:
Housing Authority of Walker County
San Bernardino Housing Authority
San Joaquin County Housing Authority
Tampa Housing Authority
Grand Rapids Housing Commission
Albany Housing Authority
Aiken Housing Authority
Chattanooga Housing Authority
Austin Housing Authority
Texoma Council of Governments
Virginia Housing Development Authority
Housing Services of Loudoun County
Prince William County Office of Housing and Community Development
Everett City and Snohomish County Housing Authorities
Responsibility for errors of commission or omission, of course, resides with the authors.
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program:
Early Implementation Assessment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program
In October 1999, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
competitively awarded $280 million in tenant-based rental assistance through the Welfare to
Work (WtW) Voucher Program. These awards funded 121 applications from housing agencies
in 35 states and targeted the assistance to 50,000 families making the transition from welfare to
work. Under WtW, housing agencies are required to coordinate their program with local welfare
and workforce development agencies. By connecting local welfare and workforce development
systems with a federal housing assistance system, this program is the first to attempt to
coordinate housing assistance with welfare reform efforts.
The WtW Voucher Program differs from the Fair Share Section 8 Housing Choice
Voucher Program in several ways. Unlike Fair Share vouchers, WtW vouchers are awarded
competitively to local housing agencies that are required to coordinate with the local agency
providing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the Department of Labor
Welfare-to-Work grantee. Whereas Fair Share Vouchers can serve low-income families in
general, WtW vouchers are intended to support low-income families moving from welfare to
work. In both Fair Share and WtW, most vouchers are meant to be used by families with
extremely low incomes who only lose their as: stance when they commit lease violations or
other related program prohibitions. However, housing agencies operating a WtW Voucher
Program may request exceptions from income targeting requirements and may terminate
assistance for violation of obligations under the WtW voucher program including work
requirements.
iv
Comparison between Fair Share and Welfare to Work Vouchers
Fair Share
Welfare to Work-
Program
Section 8 Housing Choice
Welfare to Work Housing
Voucher Program
Voucher Program
Allocation method
Formula
Competitive
Local partner participation
Not required
Required
Eligibility
All very low-income families
Very low-income families who
are eligible to receive,
receiving, or who have
received in past 2 years
assistance or services funded
under the TANF program, and
for whom housing assistance
is critical to the family's ability
to successfully obtain or
retain employment
Targeting
75% of vouchers to extremely
Same, but exception possible
low income families
Termination of assistance
Mainly for housing-related
Same, plus additional locally
reasons and program
defined termination policies
noncompliance. May also
possible (including work
terminate for fraud, eviction,
requirements)
drug dealing, and deliberate
and persistent program abuse
The Urban Institute's Early Implementation Study
HUD contracted with the Urban Institute to document early activity in a small group of
WtW Voucher Program sites. HUD was partic larly interested in learning about the eligibility
criteria that were being established, the nature of the partnerships that were being formed, and
the types of program structures that were evolving.
This report is based on information collected during field visits to 13 administering
housing agencies in ten states, conducted approximately two to three months after the start of
local WtW Programs. In selecting the sample, emphasis was placed on identifying sites that
began issuing their WtW vouchers very soon after they had been awarded. Within this
category, a diverse group of agency types, program sizes, and geographic regions was chosen.
Although neither randomly selected nor necessarily representative of the full range of WtW
Voucher Program sites, the formative experiences of these early starters provide valuable
information about program progress and likely direction.
V
The Field Visit Sites
The sampled sites include both public housing authorities and other types of housing
agencies, as detailed below. Included are six city agencies, four county agencies, three regional
consortia, and one state program. Programs with large and small numbers of vouchers are
equally represented.
Field Visit Sites for Urban Institute Early Implementation Study
State
Agency Administering. Local W Voucher Program
Alabama
Housing Authority of Walker County
California
San Bernardino Housing Authority
San Joaquin County Housing Authority
Florida
Tampa Housing Authority
Michigan
Grand Rapids Housing Council
New York
Albany NY Housing Authority
South Carolina
Aiken Housing Authority
Tennessee
Chattanooga Housing Authority
Texas
Austin Housing Authority
Texoma Council of Governments
Virginia
Virginia Housing Development Authority (State Program)
Housing Services of Loudoun County
Prince William County Housing Agency
Washington
Everett City and Snohomish County Housing Authorities
Early Implementation Findings
Eligibility. In addition to standard Section 8 criteria, WtW eligible families must either
currently receive assistance or services funded under TANF, have received TANF assistance or
services in the past two years, or be eligible for, but not receiving TANF assistance or services.
Housing assistance must also be seen as critical to the family's ability to obtain or retain
employment. Some study sites took the opportunity provided by WtW to develop more targeted
eligibility criteria within the framework of the TANF categories. Several included a work
requirement in addition to TANF status, or targeted hard-to-serve populations of interest to local
service providers. Beyond eligibility verification, few of the WtW study sites are involved in
defined WtW assessment activities specifically related to identifying employment barriers and
using housing assistance to address those barriers. There are several notable exceptions to
vi
this trend, particularly in sites which rely on partner agencies to identify and assess a significant
portion of their WtW participants.
Program Design. Most sites developed a WtW system where core program activities are
conducted by the housing agency and partners perform discrete tasks such as eligibility
verification or referrals. However, the study sites include three programs that substantially
integrated their existing systems with partners' programs in order to create a new program for
WtW. The remaining ten are either modeled on the Section 8 program (three sites) or follow a
Section 8 with Family Self Sufficiency (FSS, model (seven sites).
Partnerships. All of the study sites have a working partnership with their welfare agency
and/or organizations in the local workforce development system. Eight of the thirteen have
partners that are highly involved in their WtW programs through either program integration or
significant influence on program design.
WtW in Study Sites
Partnerships. Although most of the study sites had relationships with their partners prior
to WtW, they were confident that their local WtW Program had a positive influence on their
partnerships with local service providers. This view is supported by the eight local programs
who either developed an integrated service system or jointly designed a major feature of their
WtW program (such as eligibility criteria or termination policies). Depending on the depth of
prior partnerships, the WtW Voucher Program encouraged sites to 1) contact their welfare office
and develop a method to verify TANF status, 2) work with local consortia on eligibility and other
WtW Voucher Program policies, and/or 3) incorporate local services and resources into the day-
to-day operations of WtW. WtW partnerships were encouraged by the flexibility of the program,
the provision of additional housing assistance, and the ability of local agencies to jointly craft a
program incorporating welfare and workforce development objectives with housing assistance.
Local Approaches. Local WtW sites reviewed for this report developed various policies
and structures, reflecting the flexibility in WtW design guidelines. Housing agencies connected
with different local actors, developed an array of site-specific program policies, and incorporated
a range of local resources. As a result, policies, such as eligibility criteria, reflect different
philosophies about the importance of work, participation in local programs, and areas of need.
Comprehensive Service Delivery. WtW supported steps toward comprehensive service
delivery in some of the study sites. Three of the 13 sites developed WtW Voucher Programs
that are intimately integrated with other area service systems. The influx of vouchers plus the
freedom to target the assistance to a specific population allowed these housing agencies to offer
immediate assistance to local partners and fill a gap in service. For sites that are not attempting
vii
an integrated approach to program design, it is too early to tell whether their case management
and service provision will meaningfully incorporate other local providers.
Housing Agency Role in Local Innovation Efforts. In many of the study sites, housing
agency staff participated in local reform coalitions of service providers along with staff from the
welfare and workforce development agencies prior to WtW. However, receipt of WtW vouchers
enabled housing agency staff to bring a valuable, immediately available commodity to serve
local needs. By bringing targeted housing assistance to the welfare and workforce development
agencies, some housing agencies reported increased legitimacy and leverage in local service
delivery systems and a stronger position in coordinated efforts to help low-income families move
from welfare to work.
Coordination with Welfare Reform Goals. By coordinating the WtW voucher program
with local welfare and workforce development efforts, housing assistance is more likely to be
integrated into the employment goals of welfare reform. This coordination is furthered in some
of the WtW sites visited, which include work requirements in their housing contracts with
participants.
Housing Need. Staff at both WtW housing agencies and partner organizations believed
that low-income families needed stable, affordable housing in order to get and keep jobs. While
some sites established mechanisms to target those families for whom such assistance was
necessary, these criteria were usually based on traditional housing need measures, such as
rent burden. There was little evidence from the early site activities that WtW vouchers were
being used explicitly to address locational barriers to employment, such as proximity to jobs, interestin
child care, or transportation. However, it is also the case that very few recipients had leased-up
at the time of the field visits.
Challenges to Implementation
Lease-up Schedule. For most study sites to meet a 12 month lease-up schedule, local
activities had to start soon after receiving the WtW award. Activities such as participant
identification and voucher issuance seemed to take precedence over developing new program
models. Schedule pressure discourages time-intensive activities, such as overcoming
institutional hurdles to cost sharing, staff exchange, or joint policy development.
Assessment of Need. WtW sites use eligibility criteria, such as TANF status, to
determine a person's need for housing assistance to get or keep a job. In most sites, individual
assessments of need are not defined beyond traditional indicators of rent burden or other
economic constraints. We found little evidence of sites conducting assessments of employment
barriers and then using WtW vouchers to help participants move to areas with greater
employment opportunity. However, field visits were conducted early in program operations and
viii
some evidence exists that sites may make program changes, such as staff additions and case
management practices, to more fully address this issue.
Local Housing Markets. Staff at several housing agencies expressed concern about
their ability to lease all WtW vouchers within a 12 month period because of the pressures of their
local rental market. In these sites, eligible families in need of assistance were plentiful, but
affordable housing units that meet their needs W re not. It was unclear as of the time of the site
visits whether outreach efforts to landlords would overcome such market constraints.
Program Recommendations
Policy Development. Additional guidance from HUD in the areas of client eligibility,
,
portability, reporting, and termination enforcement would be helpful to sites and would address
current confusion.
Reporting and Tracking. The development of a consistent reporting system that
what
encourages sites to record relevant progra n and client data could provide a framework for
reporting
future program analysis as well as provide administrative agencies with a valuable management
require
ments
tool. Such a system is best implemented at the beginning of a program in order to consistently
have
they
put
gather information for all clients and avoid both missing data and the effort involved in collecting
in
place
information on completed activities. The window of opportunity to establish such a system in
WtW is closing fast.
Future Research. This study is an early implementation assessment and cannot report
on activities that have yet to occur, such as social service provision and case management or
the ultimate coordination between the housing agency and the welfare and employment
systems. In addition, it does not address the core question of the relationship between housing
assistance and the ability of a low-income person to get or keep a job. Such questions can only
be answered as the program evolves.¹
Conclusion
Although the study sites are early implementers and not representative of all WtW
grantees, their stories are relevant to policymakers and program administrators who seek to
understand how the WtW program is implemented. The flexibility in the program regulations
?
encouraged local housing agencies and their partners to design locally relevant programs by
allowing a variety of unique eligibility criteria, referral and intake procedures, and termination
policies. Housing agencies built on local strengths, philosophies, and service systems to design
1 HUD has contracted with Abt Associates for an ongoing evaluation of the WtW Voucher Program.
ix
programs that deliver tenant-based housing assistance which encourages work. While it is too
early in the implementation process to determine if the WtW Voucher Program will meet
legislative objectives such as supporting the employment efforts of low-income families and
linking housing assistance more closely with welfare reform, early activities in the study sites
suggest that WtW is influencing partner formation and encouraging some sites to develop
housing programs integrated with other local service providers.
(Theob pchues were primary set by meAdmin.)
- X
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
I.
INTRODUCTION
1
The Urban Institute's Early Assessment
1
Field Site Characteristics
3
II.
ELIGIBILITY
5
Implementation of the TANF Status Guidelines
5
Implementation of the Definition of Need
8
Factors Influencing Eligibility Criteria
8
III.
PROGRAM DESIGN
11
WtW Program Steps
11
WtW Program Models
13
Factors Influencing Program Design
1.9
IV.
PARTNERSHIPS
21
Key WtW Partner Organizations
2.1
Welfare Reform and Workforce Consolidation
23
Types of Partner Activities
24
Types of Partnerships
29
Factors Influencing Partnerships
3.1
V.
EARLY OUTCOMES
34
Factors Influencing Early Outcomes
35
VI.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
37
Influence of WtW in Study Sites
37
Participation Benefits for Housing Agencies
38
Challenges
39
Program Recommendations
39
Conclusion
40
Appendix A: Site Summaries
Appendix B: Discussion Guide
- xi
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
In October 1999, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
competitively awarded $280 million in tenant-based rental assistance through the Welfare to
Work (WtW) Voucher Program. These awards funded 121 applications that targeted the
assistance to 50,000 families making a transition from public assistance to self sufficiency. The
first significant new rental assistance in five years, these vouchers were directly tied to low-
income families' employment efforts that were being encouraged by welfare reform.
Policymakers envisioned low-income families using the vouchers to stabilize their housing
situations in order to obtain or retain employment, as well as to assist them in moving closer to
jobs, daycare, and public transportation.
The WtW Voucher Program allows housing agencies flexibility in designing local
programs to respond to local situations, but they must adhere to certain federal regulations.
WtW guidelines direct housing agencies to coordinate with their local welfare offices and
Department of Labor Welfare-to-Work grante S to develop programs that suit local needs,
resources, and objectives. By connecting with local welfare and workforce development
systems, the program is the first to attempt to coordinate federal housing assistance with the
goals of state welfare reform efforts.
Under the WtW Voucher Program, housing agencies are directed to target assistance to
families who are eligible to receive, are currently receiving, or have recently received assistance
or services funded under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. In
addition to receipt of TANF funded assistance or services, eligible families must demonstrate a
"critical need" for housing to be able to get or keep a job. Housing agencies must lease-up all
WtW vouchers within one year of the local WtW program start date.2 Program start dates differ
across local programs, ranging from November 1999 to January 2000.3
The Urban Institute's Early Assessment
2 In the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) applicants were directed to provide "a discussion of how
[the] application lays out a fully developed plan to ensure that all Welfare-to-Work vouchers are under
lease within a year of award." If this 12 month deadline is not reached, HUD states that any unspent
funds will be recaptured according to HUD's recapture formula as detailed in each housing agency's ACC
agreement.
3 HUD provided housing agencies with three possible start dates to choose from: November 1, 1999;
December 1, 1999; and January 1, 2000.
1
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
2
HUD contracted with the Urban Institute to document early program activities in a select
number of WtW sites. This report provides early information on how a small group of housing
agencies are tackling the welfare to work challenge. It is based on a process assessment
conducted in housing agencies at thirteen sites and presents a systematic description of the
changes, decisions, and relationships that participating housing agencies made to fulfill the
objectives of their local WtW Voucher Programs.
This report includes chapters on three major components of the WtW Voucher
Program-eligibility, program design, and partrerships-as well as a review of early outcomes
including WtW voucher issuance and lease-up. It concludes with a summary of challenges
faced by local housing agencies and specific policy recommendations and areas for
development.
The Urban Institute implementation report is based on information collected
during field visits to thirteen local WtW Voucher Program sites in ten states. To gather the most
detailed information on decision-making and program design during the field visits, HUD staff
asked the Urban Institute to target those sites that were most likely to have accomplished some
of their objectives (such as WtW voucher lease-ups) by the time of the field visit-approximately
two to three months after the local program start date. Thus, the sites visited for this
assessment are early implementers of the WtW Voucher Program.
Sites that implement WtW Voucher Programs early may not reflect the general
experience of all WtW housing agencies. For example, many of the sites visited for this
assessment had established relationships with their local TANF and/or workforce agency prior to
receiving Welfare to Work vouchers. Therefore, fast starters may be those with the ability to
build on an existing relationship.
While the implications and inherent biases of being an early implementer may influence
the information gathered across the field visits, the sites included in this assessment represent a
diverse group of agency types, program sizes, and geographic regions.4 The resulting group
4 In order to select sites, the research team reviewed applications, gathered recommendations, and
contacted housing agency staff. Based on the 121 applications and expert recommendations, 29 sites
were selected for further review. Research staff attempted to contact each of the 29 sites to verify their
start date, approximate date they expected to begin issuing vouchers, and willingness to participate in this
assessment. The 25 remaining sites were categorized as either recommended and alternate sites.
Those thirteen sites that were recommended were those planning the earliest issuance and loosely
representing the diversity of WtW grantees.
-2-
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
3
that participated in field data collection loosely follows the characteristics of the universe of WtW
housing agencies but is not representative of all Welfare to Work Voucher Program sites. The
range of sites provides a fertile group from which to learn about the differences in
implementation and how those differences may be influenced by program or regional
characteristics. However, results from this group are not generalizable to the Welfare to Work
Voucher Program at large.
Field Site Characteristics
The WtW sites visited for this study include six city agencies, four county agencies, three
regional or joint consortia, and one state program.⁵ Sites also reflect a wide range of WtW
program sizes, ranging from 25 to 700 vouchers. Study sites are evenly distributed between
programs with a relatively large or small number of vouchers. Sites were also selected from
across the country and include locations in in states. The following WtW Housing Voucher
Programs were visited for this study:
State
Administering Agency
WtW
Voucher
Award
Alabama
Housing Authority of Walker County
69
California
San Bernardino Housing Authority
700
California
San Joaquin County Housing Authority
700
Florida
Tampa Housing Authority
450
Michigan
Grand Rapids Housing Council
250
New York
Albany NY Housing Authority
497
South Carolina
Aiken Housing Authority
165
Tennessee
Chattanooga Housing Authority
650
Texas
Austin Housing Authority
700
Texas
Texoma Council of Governments
150
Virginia
Virginia Housing Development Authority
Housing Services of Loudoun County
25
Prince William County Housing Agency
450
Washington
Everett City & Snohomish County Housing Authorities
475
Urban Institute staff made field visits to WtW study sites that lasted an average of
- 3
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
4
two days each. While on site, staff conducted interviews with housing agency executive
directors and program coordinators for Welfare to Work, Section 8, and Family Self Sufficiency
(FSS) as well as staff involved in issuance, lease-up, and case management. In addition, we
interviewed key staff at the local TANF ragent J, workforce development office, and/or key
subcontractors at each site.
This early assessment of the WtW Voucher Program provides an opportunity to
document local implementation approaches and identify challenges faced by local housing
agencies as they attempt to use housing assistance to support broader welfare reform and
family self-sufficiency goals. Accordingly, this report describes the important steps housing
agencies took as they made decisions on eligibility and program design. It also details
partnership activities and levels of involvement with partner agencies. Although the findings are
not generalizable to the overall WtW program, they suggest possible trends and themes. Such
information is provided early in the WtW Voucher Program to be of use to both policymakers,
and federal and local program administrators.
5 Thirteen local sites were visited for this study. Two of the local sites are part of a state program. While
staff at the state-level program were interviewed, they are not considered one of the thirteen local
programs.
4
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
II.
ELIGIBILITY
The WtW Voucher Program requires families to meet certain eligibility guidelines in order
to receive a voucher. Although WtW housing % encies may develop more specific criteria within
the boundaries of these federal guidelines, all families must, at a minimum, meet certain
eligibility rules. They cannot currently be 10 Leiving tenant-based Section 8, must meet the
standard Section 8 eligibility requirements, and must be drawn from the Section 8 waiting list. In
addition, the family must meet one of three TANF-related requirements developed for the WtW
Voucher Program. They must:
be currently receiving assistance or services funded by the TANF program;
have received assistance or services funded by the TANF program in the past two years;
or
be eligible for, but not receiving assistance or services funded by the TANF program.⁶
For the sake of simplicity throughout this report, these three TANF-related requirements
will be referred to as the family's 'TANF status' and will refer to their eligibility to receive TANF
funded assistance and services.⁷
In addition to TANF status, the WtW voucher must be seen as critical to the family to
obtain or retain employment. Each WtW housing agency and its partner organizations are
responsible for defining what constitutes a critical need.
This section describes how the study sites interpreted these eligibility guidelines when
implementing their local WtW Voucher Proy ems. - It reviews typical TANF status-related
eligibility rules, discusses implementation priferia. used to determine housing need, and
describes factors that influenced these decis in the study sites.
Implementation of the TANF Status Guidelines
6 Funding Availability for the Welfare-to-Work Section 8 Tenant-based Assistance Program for Fiscal
Year 1999; Notice. Federal Register. vol. 64, no. 16, January 28, 1999. p 4497.
7 This refers to persons who are eligible to receive any TANF funded benefits or services. Most persons
who receive TANF funded services also receive, C. previously received, TANF funded cash assistance.
However, in some states, persons who are income eligible for TANF may receive one time services as
part of a diversionary or emergency assistance program rather than opening their cash grant.
or, services such as CC or transportation
organis
-5-
That are not considued "assistance"
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
6
Many of the study sites developed their eligibility criteria to reflect the guidelines listed
above. At these sites, families falling into all three TANF status groups-receiving, recently
received, or eligible to receive assistance or services funded by the TANF program-can
theoretically receive WtW voucher assistance. However, some local WtW programs apply more
targeted criteria than HUD's eligibility guidelines that deal with TANF status. Program systems
may be designed to identify possible participants through referral from the TANF agency and, in
effect, can only serve families who have worked with a TANF program (i.e., they are receiving or
have received TANF funded assistance or services). Other local WtW systems have more
specific eligibility criteria designed to target special populations. We describe these different
models below.
Strict Interpretation of the NOFA Guidelines. The majority of the programs included in
this study are designed to serve all three TANF status groups. In practice however, these
programs serve only the first two categories: those currently receiving assistance or services
funded under TANF or those who have received assistance or services funded under TANF in
the past two years. Staff at these sites maintain that these families can be readily identified,
since they are part of the TANF agency's database, and that their eligibility can be confirmed
using the local TANF agency's rolls. WtW staff often noted that, given the local need for
housing, all WtW vouchers would be used by the first two groups. Complicated outreach efforts
to identify the third, more elusive group of persons who are eligible for but not receiving TANF
funded assistance and services, therefore would not be necessary.⁸ If a family that was eligible
for but not receiving TANF funded assistance or services approached the housing agency, they
would be eligible for WtW housing assistance and could be served in the program.
Current or Former Recipients of TANF Funded Assistance or Services Only. Some WtW
housing agencies developed their program systems to admit all WtW voucher families through
their local TANF agency. For these sites, WAY voucher participants are identified through their
connection to the TANF agency, and there must be currently receiving TANF assistance or
services or have done so sometime in the past two years. Because families must come through
the partner agency, families that are not connected to the TANF agency, although they may be
eligible to receive TANF funded assistance or services, do not have access to the WtW
8 Partner agency staff in one WtW Voucher Program did offer a possible method for identifying persons
eligible for but not receiving TANF funded assistance or services. They suggested by identifying Medicaid
recipients who were not and had not been receiving TANF funded assistance or services because they
may have characteristics that make them eligible for TANF. However, staff have not implemented this
method of identifying families that are eligible for but not receiving TANF. Housing staff felt lease-up
could be accomplished by concentrating efforts On the first two TANF-defined groups.
6
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
7
voucher.9
Additional Regulations. Some study sites developed eligibility requirements to target a
subset of the federally-defined WtW popt lation Most frequently, these additional requirements
included a work component. However, they could also include a requirement designed to meet
a specialized local need. For example, the WtW Voucher Program in SanJoaquin includes both
criteria that require work and that address local needs for non-traditional hour childcare. San
Joaquin's WtW eligibility priorities are:
Usedas
1)
Persons who work for at least six continuous months and receive supplemental TANF
wanc
cash assistance; ?
incentive
2)
Persons who complete an approved CalWORKs activity and maintain a job for four or
more continuous months; or
3)
Persons who complete the in-home child care licensing process, demonstrate that
adequate housing is essential to the operation of their business, and contract to provide interesting
licensed in-home child care during non-t, aditional work hours for individuals transitioning
from welfare to work.
The joint WtW Voucher Program of Washington's Everett City and Snohomish County
also established local eligibility criteria to serve working families that left welfare for work. Like
San Joaquin, the program has an additional third category to further target a locally important
population. 10 Eligibility priorities include the following:
1)
TANF eligible families working at least 20 hours per week;
2)
Families currently enrolled in Work First or a similar training program but not yet
employed or working less than 20 hours; or
3)
Homeless and transitional housing residents; limited English proficiency; and disabled
persons.
but are mey receing or ligre fortant??
9 One of the sites that made this decision was the Aiken Housing Authority. They operate a local
Department of Labor Welfare-to-Work program called Work to Win to which the local TANF agency refers
clients. All WtW Voucher Program participants come through the Work to Win system. Local
policymakers made this decision in order to target WtW vouchers to their "hard-to-serve" population.
10 Both the nontraditional hour childcare component in San Joaquin and the targeting of homeless and
transitional persons in Everett/Snohomish were developed in response to local needs articulated in group
meetings between the housing agencies and local WtW partners.
7
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
8
Implementation of the Definition of Need
One eligibility guideline set forth by HUD-that the voucher be critical to getting and
keeping employment-was left to each ranted to further define and operationalize. Staff at
most study sites presumed that stable how sing was a necessary first step on the road to
obtaining and retaining employment and that, without the stability of a secure home, success in
the workplace would be rare. Thus, most study site staff asserted that low-income persons. by
definition, have a critical need for stable, affordable housing in order to obtain or retain
employment. In these sites, this need is not evaluated on a case-by-case basis; instead, the
need for housing to obtain and retain employment is assumed for all applicants.
In the few sites that did detail a method to measure critical need, they most often used
traditional housing-related criteria, such as inadequate housing, overcrowding, rent burden, or
other measures of economic strain. For instance, in Everett City/Snohomish County, the
referring agency is asked to certify that the family has rent in excess of 40 percent of the
family's income or is otherwise inadequately housed. Some of these sites combined traditional
measures of housing need with an attempt to understand how housing may be a barrier to
employment. For example, Loudoun County Housing Services in Virginia has its partner TANF
agency certify need according to the following criteria:
50 percent or more of the family's gross income is dedicated to shelter, day care, and
transportation;
residing in overcrowded housing situations causes the family to be unprepared for
employment requirements and/or risk of eviction;
the family resides in homeless shelters; or
case-by-case review for other employment-related extenuating factors.
Factors Influencing Eligibility Criteria
Leadership at the study sites looked not only to federal regulations when designing their
eligibility criteria: they also were influenced by 1) their current waiting list; 2) local partnerships;
and 3) assessment of need.
Current Waiting List. Some sites looked to their existing waiting list policies and the
characteristics of the families on the waiting list when designing eligibility criteria. WtW staff in
Chattanooga decided to use the three broad TANF status guidelines when formulating their
eligibility requirements, because of their current waiting list preference system. Chattanooga
- 8
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
9
already had waiting list preferences in place for families it considered 'in need' (involuntarily
displaced, in substandard housing, or working family). Because of these preferences, families in
need are at the top of the waiting list. As the Housing Authority moved down the waiting list to
determine which families are eligible for the WtW Voucher Program, they consequently
encountered families most in need first, due to eexisting waiting list preferences.
Other WtW housing agencies, such as Tampa Housing Authority, reviewed their current
?
waiting list and found no eligible families were currently on it, given federal guidelines. As a
response, they used referrals from the local workforce agency as an outreach tool for the WtW
Voucher Program. The local workforce agency had the capacity to refer only its clients, which
are current or former TANF families participating in the mandatory TANF employment program.
Thus, this referral process created a de facto eligibility standard that included only former or
current TANF recipients.
Local Partnerships. Partnerships played an important role in the development of some
site's eligibility standards. Many study sites use.., in varying degrees, partners and participation
in partners' programs to determine or verify eligibility. Without the cooperation of these partners,
eligibility determinations could not occur.
For example, some sites incorporated eligibility standards of partner organizations to
target specific populations served by the partner. For example, Aiken's WtW Voucher Program
serves families that are participating in the local Work to Win program. Work to Win is a
Department of Labor Welfare-to-Work funded program, and participating families are currently
what
abas
NCPs ?
receiving or have recently received TANF funded assistance or services. In addition to TANF
receipt, Work to Win eligibility guidelines include poor work history, substance abuse problems,
under old
Cuiteria
or lack of high school diploma. Staff at the Housing Authority believe that by targeting WtW
vouchers to Work to Win participants, they identify those persons in their community with
significant barriers to employment and for whom housing assistance is a critical need.
Partners in several sites assisted housing agencies in developing eligibility standards.
San Joaquin provides an interesting example. The San Joaquin Housing Agency developed
eligibility criteria to support families that had already made an early step from welfare to work
and had been working between four and six months. This decision to support such families
grew out of conversations with local partners, where it was determined that, due to local welfare
reform initiatives, significant numbers of previous recipients of TANF funded assistance or
services had already entered the workforce. A preference for working families supported and
rewarded these families' efforts, and offered an incentive for future recipients. In addition, local
service providers saw a serious need for nontraditional hour child care and hoped to use the
- 9
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
10
WtW voucher to expand available services and encourage persons leaving services and
assistance funded by TANF to form their own child care businesses.
Assessment of Need. Study sites also lc ked to the needs of their population when
developing criteria to assess need for hous ng to obtain or retain employment. Leadership at
almost all sites maintain that lack of housing is a major barrier to employment, and that anyone
who qualifies for assistance needs it in order. to get and keep a job. Most housing agency staff
clearly viewed the group of people eligible for WtW vouchers as "troubled" in addition to
?
financially constrained. Staff made these assumptions about the eligible population in general.
It was typical for housing agency staff when asked about the relationship between
housing and employment to assert that stable housing is a fundamental pre-requisite for low-
income persons to be able to get or keep a job. The rationale accompanying such statements
was usually based on anecdotal situations and the respondent's experience serving low-income
families. For example, specific examples would be offered such as "How can you keep a job if
you live in a car?" General statements also WO be made about the variety of pressures on
low-income families. In particular, comments were made on how overcrowding, doubling-up and
rent burden can increase the chaos and instability in the lives of low-income families and
consequently hinder efforts to get a job (such as not having an address or telephone number
from which messages can be reliably retrieved) or keep a job (such as contributing to poor work
habits like absenteeism).
Given the prevailing assumption among the study sites that low-income persons need
stable housing to get or keep a job, it is not surprising that most of the study sites did not
conduct an intensive case-by-case review for employment-related housing needs during the
initial eligibility screening. This decision was reinforced in some sites by the requirement to
lease all WtW vouchers within 12 months. Intensive individual assessments consume staff time
and resources and seem overwhelming to local program staff worried about timely lease-up.
Granting a WtW voucher to a family as a way of overcoming locational barriers to
employment, such as distance to jobs or child care, was much less common than providing the
voucher to everyone who qualified for access to decent, affordable, stable housing. Some WtW
program coordinators said that if a participant had an employment related housing need that
could be satisfied by moving, it could be identified and dealt with during housing search.
Housing search activities were not observed or discussed in detail in many study sites because
the field visits occurred early in program implementation and such activities were not yet
operating or were in early development stages.
10
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early implementation Assessment
11
III.
PROGRAM DESIGN
The WtW Voucher Program is intended to support the progress of families transitioning
from welfare to work. While HUD mandates that WtW housing agencies follow general
guidelines; federal regulations are broad and DW housing agencies to develop programs that
fit their jurisdictions' strengths, needs, and resources. Differences across these characteristics
are reflected in the variety of program systems observed in the thirteen study sites, each of
which developed a unique and different program.
One of the main differences in local program design is the role of partner agencies.
Although regulation requires that housing agencies coordinate with the local welfare and
workforce development systems, there is tremendous flexibility in what this coordination looks
like at the local level. Housing agency staff may choose to rely on their current structures and
programs (like Section 8 and FSS) as a foundation for the WtW Voucher Program and ask their
local welfare and workforce agencies to perfor discrete tasks related to WtW. Other housing
agencies integrate partners' programs in the day-to-day operations of WtW and develop a
system quite different from their current housing programs.
This section reviews how the study sites have responded to the design flexibility offered
under the WtW Voucher Program. It describes the typical activities undertaken in most WtW
Voucher Programs and offers three program models as illustrations of the methods used to
deliver these activities. In addition, factors are reviewed that influence how housing agency staff
and their partners design local WtW programs.
WtW Program Steps
Exhibit 3.1: Typical WtW Program Design
OUTREACH
INTAKE AND
AND
WAITLIST
ASSESSMENT
REFERRALS
HOUSING
BRIEFING/
SERVICE
SEARCH/
ISSUANCE
PROVISION
LEASE-UP
TERMINATION
After examining local factors, each study site developed an individualized WtW Voucher
- 11
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
Program. These designs cover identifying eligible families, awarding the vouchers, and providing
services. Varied as they may be, all program systems generally contain seven typical steps, as
illustrated in Exhibit 3.1.
1)
Client Outreach and Referrais. In t: 3 early stage of program development observed in
the field visits, sites generally had mi, al outreach efforts, Many agencies simply used
their existing waiting lists to draw elig ble families for the WtW Voucher Program and
anticipate no need for intensive outreach activities. Those without eligible families on
their waiting lists had more immediate out, each efforts, such as utilizing partner referrals.
Other WtW housing agencies issued vouchers only to families from the waiting list to
date, but anticipated they would not be able to lease up all available WtW vouchers
without recruiting more applicants. These sites had begun to debate outreach strategies,
including possible partner referrals or posting of public notices, but no firm plans had
been established.
2)
Intake and Eligibility Assessment.. Families who want a WtW voucher must first go
through an intake process that includes the completion of an application and the
certification of eligibility. At the time of the site visits, most sites had concentrated their
efforts on this step in the process to ensure that the vouchers are issued as quickly as
possible to certified, eligible clients. 11
do who participants have to usit?
3)
Waiting list. After the application is complete and submitted to the housing agency, the
family is placed on a Section 8 waiting list. For some of these housing agencies, the
WtW program changed the waiting list preferences to include WtW eligibility criteria,
particularly preferences for working families. Typically, however, the WtW Voucher
Program draws persons from the waiting list who meet WtW eligibility criteria, without
altering existing waiting list preferences.
4)
Briefing. Next, families attend a briefir.; Most study sites incorporated the WtW briefing
into their standard Section 8 briefing although a number of them initiated WtW-only
11 Sites chose a range of methods to conduct intake and eligibility assessment activities ranging from
group to one-on-one interviews. While the method of conducting these activities could reflect the housing
agencies' focus on lease-up or overcoming client barriers, the choice of different intake methods did not
correspond to consistent program models in the study sites. The majority of study sites conducted one-
on-one interviews (with exceptions such as the large group leasing fair in San Joaquin) which may be
more reflective of their small to medium size housing operation rather than their overall goals for the WtW
Voucher Program.
12
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
13
briefings. As in Section 8, WtW vouchers are generally issued to potential participants at
the briefing.
5)
Housing Search and Lease-up. Housing search and lease-up occurs as it does in the
standard Section 8 program: most sites visited did not provide additional services for
WtW clients at this stage in the program S implementation. A housing search assistance
component may be added to some programs as they become more developed. 12 For
instance, Tampa's TANF office is considering funding a housing counselor and a
landlord outreach specialist.
6)
Service Provision. Most study sites have created a plan for service provision, but few
had fully concentrated their efforts on this step by the time of the field visit. In most but
not all sites, non-housing services are provided by other local entities (such as the TANF
or workforce system or community based organizations) and are given to any family that
qualifies for the service. The family's WtW status does not motivate new or different
services from local agencies.
7)
Termination. By the time of the site visits, no local programs had terminated anyone
from the WtW Voucher Program. Most sites plan to use standard Section 8 termination
policies but others incorporated participant contracts requiring work in order to retain
WtW vouchers.
WtW Program Models
Although local WtW programs included each of the steps detailed above, each of the
thirteen WtW programs reviewed implemented a WtW Voucher Program that was unique, as
allowed by the flexible federal regulations. These programs differ on how each program step is
12 Likewise, few sites have engaged in extensive landlord outreach efforts to date. Again, as the program
matures and clients begin to encounter problems leasing up, some WtW grantees state they will
undertake more concerted landlord outreach efforts. A notable exception is San Joaquin which
conducted significant landlord outreach activities as part of a large "leasing fair." San Joaquin staff
contacted current landlords, potential landlords, and local management companies and encouraged them
to participate in the fair for voucher recipients. Landlords could have their units inspected by housing
agency staff, prior to the fair, in order to expedite the lease-up process.
13 Section 8 termination policies include prohibitions against fraud, eviction, drug dealing, and deliberate
and persistent program abuse.
13 -
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
14
executed, and by whom, but can be categorized into three general design models. WtW
programs either:
are structured like the grantee's existing Section 8 program (Model 1);
are structured like the grantee's existing Section 8 program with an FSS or FSS-like
component (Model 2); or
integrate the grantee's existing Section 8 system with partners' program systems (Model
3).
Exhibit 3.2 identifies typical management elements of each site's WtW Voucher
Program, and illustrates how these elements vary according to model type. By looking at these
management components, one can see how the models differ from one another in some
respects, such as partner management of a portion of the WtW program. One can also review
how some management factors, such as the hiring of new staff, is a strategy many sites have
employed, regardless of the model type. In the following discussion of each model type, these
management elements will be reviewed and interesting trends within each model type noted.
- 14
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
15
Exhibit 3.2:
WtW Management Elements by Program Model
WtW Management
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
A
G.D
S
t C 0 0 h t g n a A a a H
r d G i a d R n p S C H
W 0 y a I t k u C I n A H :
A HA y a b n
n
I'<
A
d O C y TO H
and P m W O:I10:00 e a
d n a n S a e B A o H
S J 0 a a H A
A A e n H k
/ t V t r e n e A O S 0 i E m h h H S S
A T m a a p H
0.00
Hire new staff
Dedicate housing staff for WtW
Work-related termination
In-house case management for WtW
Non-housing services provided by HA
Partner manages portion of program
Partner referral required
Requires FSS for WtW
* Although clients are informed they have 2 years in which to retain employment, Walker County Housing Authority
did not, as of the date of the site visit; have a formai procedure in place to enforce this work-related termination
policy.
Model 1: Section 8. One WtW Voucher Program model follows the grantee's existing
Section 8 program. Three study sites adopted this program model. All such sites had recently
hired new staff at least partially in response to receipt of the WtW vouchers, as illustrated in
Exhibit 3.2. New staff hires ranged from additional housing counselors, to intake personnel,
FSS caseworkers, and housing inspectors, not necessarily dedicated to the WtW Voucher
- 15 -
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
16
Program. In general, the housing agency manages the program in these sites. Any difference
between the WtW program and the Section 8 program generally is invisible to the participant
and occurs mainly in the outreach process, eligibility determination, or the grantee's record
keeping. Termination policy is generally aligned with the termination guidelines for the Section 8
program.
For example, Grand Rapids Housing Commission modified its outreach procedures for
identifying potential voucher recipients, in response to the addition of the WtW vouchers to its
voucher pool: In addition to contacting families on the housing agency's current waiting list,
families are added to the waiting list through referrals from the local workforce development
agency. Case managers at the workforce agency give families who need housing assistance an
application and tell them to go to the housing agency. These referrals do not certify WtW
eligibility and are not required for participation. But, they do provide a source of new applicants
who have a strong chance of being WtW eligible, given their connection to the workforce
agency.
Any remaining differences between WtW and Section 8 in Grand Rapids Housing
Commission's WtW Voucher Program are generally administrative. A potential WtW family
enters the same process as a family who will receive Section 8. All intake, assessment,
briefing, issuance, and housing search activities are identical to Section 8. The family is
classified as WtW only at the point of lease-up when their TANF status is checked. Those
persons who are receiving or have recently received TANF assistance or services, are
classified as WtW. The housing agency presumes a family connected to the TANF system is
receiving case management and does not offer additional case management services
specifically to WtW participants. Those WtW families who elect to participate in FSS receive
case management and a variety of supportive service form local service providers.
Model 2: Section 8 with FSS. Another program model adopted by seven of the study
sites evolves from the housing agency's basic Section 8 program, along with an FSS or FSS-like
component. In one of these sites, FSS participation is a requirement, while in most others it is
only encouraged. These sites may have developed their programs in close coordination with
their partner agencies and have partner involvement in WtW policy development, eligibility
verification, referrals, and service provision. However, much of the traditional housing activity
(intake, briefing, lease-up) is conducted by the housing agency, often by staff dedicated to the
WtW Voucher Program.
- 16
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
17
In order to be classified as a Model 2 site, local WtW Voucher Programs must either 1)
offer WtW participants FSS-like in-house case management or non-housing related services, or
2) have an enforceable work-related termination policy beyond regular Section 8 guidelines, that
is similar to FSS employment goals. In general, the non-housing services and case
management provided by these sites for WtW were based on housing agency activities prior to
the WtW Voucher Program and were not developed solely for WtW voucher holders. For
example, Albany Housing Authority runs a DSS-approved employment and training service
program for its public housing residents and neighbors. This program can now provide case
management and services to WtW clients, but was in existence prior to the WtW Voucher
Program. Similar to FSS, most of these programs require WtW voucher holders to sign a
contractual agreement stating they will meet certain goals, or can be terminated from the
program. These goals often include work requirements.
Texoma Council of Governments is an example of a housing agency that has designed a
program that can be categorized as Model 2. This housing agency does not require that all
WtW Voucher Program participants enroll in FSS. However, if a WtW voucher holder does not
enroll in FSS, they still receive FSS-like case management. This includes one-on-one meetings
with an FSS case worker and the deveiopment of an action plan contract with work
requirements. If services are needed to assist WtW voucher holders in meeting self-sufficiency
goals, then the FSS case manager refers the voucher holder to local service partners. In fact,
the only difference between WtW FSS clients and non-FSS clients is that non-FSS clients do not
have the FSS escrow account option. 14
Model 3: Integrated Program Design. A third program model involves the integration of a
significant portion of the WtW system into a local partner's program and applies to three
programs assessed in this study. In this model, housing agency staff are responsible for
providing traditional housing-related services, but a large portion of the WtW Voucher Program
system lies outside of the housing agency. Consequently, although two of the housing agencies
have hired new staff, these additions have not been specifically for the WtW Voucher Program
and instead represent more general staff hires.
14 Since WtW families were not interviewed as a part of this assessment, no information is available
regarding why a family would choose to enroll in the WtW Voucher Program and not the FSS program,
even when the only difference between the two programs is that the FSS program includes an escrow
account. Staff at one housing agency that strongly recommends WtW voucher holders enroll in the FSS
program, stated that the few WtW voucher holders not enrolled in FSS have not done so because they
are "afraid of the goals." Although the WtW and FSS programs have similar contractual agreements,
work requirements, and tracking procedures, FSS's perceived emphasis on setting and reaching goals
intimidated some WtW voucher holders at this one housing agency, according to agency staff.
17 -
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
18
In most cases, the housing agency is still responsible for many WtW-related functions,
such as the briefing and voucher issuance. However, partners undertake core WtW program
activities, which in these three study sites are intake and assessment. Housing agencies in
integrated systems rely on the partner agencies for assessing client need for the voucher to
obtain and retain employment and obtain the majority, if not all, of their clients from partner
referrals. Only one Model 3 site has a work-related termination policy.
The WtW Voucher Program operated by the Everett City and Snohomish County
Housing Authorities is an example of an integrated program design. In a sense, the WtW
program has become a new service tool embedded in the partner agency programs. Outreach,
intake, and eligibility certification are taken care of by the partner agencies, who 'nominate'
clients. Each partner agency has discretion over how it identifies potential nominees.
Consistency is enforced by the common action plan and application forms partner agencies
must use to nominate clients.
Briefing, issuance, and lease-up in Everett and Snohomish remain the housing agencies'
responsibilities. However, once the voucher is issued, that client's case returns to the partner
agency. The client's service provision and case management are then the responsibility of the
nominating partner: agency that reports back to the housing agency on the progress of WtW
participants.
- 18 -
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
19
Factors Influencing Program Design
Of the thirteen study sites, three follow Model 1, seven favor Model 2, and three
resemble Model 3 (see Exhibit 3.2).¹⁵ Most sites chose to keep WtW a housing agency
intensive program and rely on partners to perform discrete tasks such as eligibility verification or
limited referrals. However, some study sites include programs that substantially integrated their
existing systems with partners' programs in order to create a new program. Our analysis
indicates that the decisions surrounding prog am design and whether or not to incorporate with
other local organizations are based on the interaction of several factors, including 1) preexisting
partnerships with local service providers; 2) local services and needs; 3) leadership; 4) resource
constraints; and 5) local philosophies.
Partnerships. The strength of pre-existing partnerships between the housing agencies
and their partners can influence whether a program is operated independently of local service
providers or as an integrated system. All three integrated models had strong previous
relationships with local partners. The Aiken Housing Authority is a Department of Labor
Welfare-to-Work grantee and operates a local employment and training program. The Tampa
Housing Authority is closely aligned with the workforce contractor, Goodwill, as evidenced by an
on-site career center near the public housing and a plan to locate a workforce case manager in
the Tampa Housing Authority Resident Services' offices. Likewise, the Housing Authorities in
Everett City and Snohomish County have along standing history of close involvement with other
area agencies.
Local Services and Need. Families' needs and the availability of local services to meet
those needs affects the grantee's choice of program design. Across sites, housing agency staff
observed that the TANF program had moved a considerable amount of people from welfare to
work. Those families that remained eligible for the WtW Voucher Program were harder to serve,
with multiple barriers to self-sufficiency. Some localities have strong local services that target
these individuals. In cases like Grand Rapids, the Housing Commission chose to focus their
efforts on traditional housing-related services and leave case management and supportive
service provision to a sophisticated network of local service providers. Staff at other agencies
maintain that clients participate in programs at many agencies and are subsequently over-
15 It is unknown whether the distribution of the program models across the study sites is indicative of the
distribution across the WtW grantee population at large.
- 19
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
20
managed, since case management is provided by multiple service providers. Programs
operating in these localities refrained from designing a program with an in-house case
management component.
Resources. In most sites, resources-including staff time and funding for non-housing
services-are constrained. Housing agency staff assess their constraints when designing the
WtW Voucher Program locally. Some housi F agencies may be able to integrate their WtW
programs into their existing Section 3 programs with little or no additional staff, such asAiken.
Others may have resources that allow the to: provide in-house services or add more FSS
clients to the case load, as in San Dernand
Still others, such as San Joaquin, are able to
incorporate into WtW preexisting non-housing services provided by the Housing Authority at
Supportive Service Centers. The motivation behind service integration stems in part from a
desire to incorporate additional community resources into WtW.
Philosophy. The philosophical approach of a housing agency's leadership and the
environment this leadership creates affected the design of the WtW Voucher Program. Everett
City and Snohomish County Housing Authorities are led by executive directors that speak of
their activities as "the community's program." It is not surprising, that when these leaders and
their staffs thought about WtW, they reached out to the community and its local service
providers. These housing authorities developed a program that relies heavily on their partners'
programs and provides a housing-assistar:ce tool for partners to use to assist their clients obtain
self-sufficiency.
Most of the study sites do not have clearly defined written goals for their local WtW
Voucher Program. Instead, WtW housing agencies have a general philosophy of what they
hope the program, and its recipients, will achieve. The WtW philosophy in a given locality is
driven by the agency's overarching philosophy of their role as housing providers. Housing
agencies range from those that see themselves as providers and managers of housing, to those
agencies that envision themselves empowering participants towards self-sufficiency. Housing
agency staff who see themselves as providers of housing may stress lease-up as their WtW
Voucher Program goal and orient the program around this focus point, such as the programs in
Chattanooga and Walker County. Those agencies that have a primary goal of resident self-
sufficiency speak of a program designed to use housing as a means to achieve that goal.
These sites may stress FSS-like case management and require all WtW voucher holders be
enrolled in FSS or they may have active partner program integration with staff in multiple
agencies coordinating cases and services, as in Everett City and Snohomish County.
- 20 -
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
21
IV.
PARTNERSHIPS
Under the WtW Voucher Program, housing assistance is intended to be coordinated with
local welfare reform goals and program systems. Indeed, according to HUD's NOFA,
applications for WtW needed to include written support by both the local welfare agency
(provider of TANF funded assistance and services) and the local workforce development system
(as designated by the Department of Labor Welfare-to-Work program). In addition, applications
were to detail how housing agencies would.or llaborate with these local agencies in the
development and operation of their WtW program.
This chapter describes typical partner organizations for both welfare and workforce
systems and reviews the major activities of partners in the study sites. While the previous
chapter described program models as either "Section 8," "Section 8 with FSS," or "integrated
program design," these classifications do not reflect the full range of partner involvement in local
WtW Voucher Programs. Therefore, in this section partnership types are further classified and
described by level of partner involvement in the WtW Voucher Program. The chapter concludes
with a review of the factors contributing to partnership development in the WtW field visit sites.
Key WtW Partner Organizations
TANF Agency. Currently, the term "welfare" refers to a broad array of safety net
programs that support the needy, and may refer more specifically to cash assistance for
families. Prior to 1996, welfare referred to cash assistance and benefits provided under the Aid
to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. The Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 replaced AFDC, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills
Training Program (JOBS), and federal emergency assistance with the TANF Block Grant.
Under TANF, states have considerable discretion in designing cash assistance programs for
families with children, including establishing eligibility criteria, benefit levels, and time limits
within a federally established framework. The legislation intended to emphasize work over cash
assistance.
Typically, TANF funding is provided to recipients through local offices of a state health
and human services agency. The services provided, and how they are delivered, vary locally.
These services typically include individual client assessments, case management, and an array
of supportive services. In some localities, many activities are not carried out by the local office
but are contracted to other area providers, such as community based organizations. This is
- 21 -
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Impiementation Assessment
22
often the case for employment and training services. For example, Florida has a consolidated
employment and training effort for TANF recipients, called WAGES. In Tampa, the TANF
agency contracts with Goodwill Industries to perform intake, assessment, and case
management activities as well as offer employment and training services for WAGES
participants. In this local system, Goodwill, not the local welfare office, is the entity that makes
referrals to the housing agency for possible participation in the WtW Voucher Program.
To coordinate with the welfare system, Wt / Voucher Program sites may connect with
the local welfare office or their contracted sentrementividers. The flexibility of the WtW Voucher
Program allows sites to evaluate their and develop appropriate partnerships.
Reflecting the differences in local TAI .F systems, the study sites connect with a variety of TANF
partners using a variety of methods and me: S, which will be discussed later in this chapter.
Workforce Development System. The term "workforce development system" refers to a
broad range of employment and training services and programs designed to meet the needs of
all job seekers. One such program is the Department of Labor's Welfare-to-Work Program.
Following welfare reform legislation, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 authorized the
Department of Labor to allocate Welfare-to-Work formula and competitive grants to states and
local communities to support efforts to help the least employable welfare recipients and non-
custodial parents of recipient children move into work with the potential for upward mobility.
These grants fund employment and training services such as job search, job readiness training,
and basic skills training.
Formula Welfare-to-Work moneys are directed to local Private Industry Councils or
Workforce Investment Boards¹⁶ that coordinate the employment and training system in their
service delivery areas. Private Industry Councils and Workforce Investment Boards typically
contract with other local organizations to provide services, or may both provide services in-
house and contract with others for additional service provision. In addition, the Department of
Labor Welfare-to-Work grant program awards funds competitively to local communities for
similar activities. Therefore, in a given community there may be several organizations providing
employment and training services as part of the local workforce development system.
For the WtW Voucher Program, the workforce partner is identified as an organization
that is a designated formula or competitive Department of Labor Welfare-to-Work grantee.
16 Under the Workforce Investment Act, Private Industry Councils were replaced with Workforce
Investment Boards. However, local systems are still in transition and Private Industry Councils can be
found operating in different localities.
22
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
23
Which workforce development organization is involved in the WtW Voucher Program depends
on how the local workforce development system is organized and who is conducting activities
such as client assessments, case management, and provision of employment and training
services. A housing agency may work with an organizing entity like the Private Industry Council
or an active subcontractor with responsibility for employment and training services. In two of the
study sites, Aiken and Austin, the housing agency is a Department of Labor Welfare-to-Work
grantee.
Welfare Reform and Workforce Co solidation
The many changes in the welfare and workforce development systems that have taken
place since 1996 pose both an opportunity and a challenge for housing agencies seeking to
implement a WtW Voucher Program. The opportunity derives from the dynamism in local
systems that may foster an environment where innovation is desirable and potential partners are
looking for a new ways of doing business. Moreover, local coordination efforts may have
prompted coalitions of service providers, laying the groundwork for partnerships. With the rise in
collaboration in some areas, housing agencies may already be connected to coalitions of
service providers or serving on the local Workforce Investment Board.
However, recent changes in welfare and workforce development may have increased
the strain on local agencies as they struggle to meet new requirements and implement new
programs. Key actors may be in transition as employment and training service contracts are
granted to different agencies and power shifts from a Private Industry Council to a Workforce
Investment Board. Given the changes in local systems, there may well be confusion at local
housing agencies over who are appropriate, long term partners for the WtW Voucher Program.
For example, Walker County, Alabama, did not have an official workforce entity to partner with at
the time of the WtW application.
Coordination between the local welfare and workforce development agencies can
contribute to the ability of the WtW housing agency to connect with the broader social service
system. For example, in some communities, an organization or agency that provides
employment and training services does so under the auspices of a variety of different programs;
by connecting to them, a housing agency gains access to a wide array of services and funding
streams. In San Bernardino, the TANF employment and training effort (CalWORKs) and the
Department of Labor Welfare-to-Work program both are operated by the Jobs and Employment
Services Department. By establishing a connection to the Jobs and Employment Services
23
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
24
Department, San Bernardino Housing Authority can benefit from both TANF and Department of
Labor programs and services, without having to link to multiple agencies.
Types of Partner Activities
Across the study sites, there are six general types of activities in which welfare and
workforce partners engage: 1) program design; 2) client identification and referral; 3) eligibility
verification; 4) client assessment; 5) case management; and 6) service provision. The types of
activities undertaken by partners speak directiy $ J the nature of the partnerships formed for the
WtW Voucher Program. Much of the activity observed during the site visits related to
administrative tasks such as client identifica" on, referral, and eligibility verification. This is not
surprising given the timing of the field visits during the start-up phase of local programs.
However, partnerships in some sites already extended beyond administrative tasks to include
program management (particularly in sites with an integrated program design model) and may
include coordinated case management and service provision. 17
To better understand the level of partner involvement, it is helpful to review the types of
activities that partners undertook.
Program Design. In approximately : -thirds of the study sites, partner agencies were
involved in some aspect of program design and policy development for the WtW Voucher
Program by the time site visits were conducted. Contributions influenced the design of eligibility
criteria, referral procedures, verification mechanisms, and termination policies. The typical
forum for partner involvement in policy development was group meetings. In different sites,
these exchanges were called "focus groups", "board meetings", and "panel discussions", but
they all involved staff from the housing agency and other local service providers (most notably
the welfare and workforce development systems) meeting to discuss the WtW Voucher
Program.
Some of the most striking examples of such involvement have direct program results,
such as the development of specific policie 1 response to partner agency experience or goals.
The eligibility guidelines in San Joaquin (which 1. quire work and encourage nontraditional hour
child care providers), for example, grew out of partner concerns. Similarly, group meetings in
Albany between the Housing Authority and the TANF agency resulted in eligibility criteria that
17 When field visits were conducted, few sites had yet implemented case management or supportive
services.
24
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early implementation Assessment
25
favored participants in TANF's work programs. In San Bernardino, the WtW termination policy
reflects the desire of the Housing Authority and its partners to jointly and consistently promote
employment. Toward this end, the termination and sanctions policies of local agencies link
successful WtW voucher performance with TANF and workforce compliance, and vice versa.
Client Identification and Referral. In half of the study sites, partner agencies were
involved in identifying and referring clients to the WtW Housing Voucher Program at the time the
site visits were conducted. Identification of potential participants included a TANF office
reviewing the housing agency waiting list ar
tifying those persons who currently receive or
recently received TANF benefits or service edentification activities also involved a partner
agency proactively contacting their clients (in person, by mail, or by telephone) to tell them about
the availability of WtW vouchers.
An example of partner engagement in identification activities is Walker County, Alabama.
There, TANF staff sent letters about the WtW Voucher Program to current and former TANF
recipients and discussed the program with their clients during one-on-one visits with TANF case
workers.
Referral activities are similar to identification but include a mechanism to direct potential
participants to the office able to provide them with WtW Voucher assistance. Partner referral
activities span a wide spectrum of involvement in the WtW Voucher Programs study sites.
Several sites have mechanisms (usually referral forms) for partner referrals but expect many of
their WtW participants will be identified initially through their position on the pre-WtW housing
waiting list.
However, in sites with an integrated program design, partner referral activities are a
primary vehicle for identifying potential WtW participants. For example, in Aiken all WtW
voucher clients are participants in Work to Win (the Housing Authority's Department of Labor
Welfare-to-Work program) and referred by Work to Win case managers to the Section 8
program. In Tampa, case managers from Goodwill-WAGES (the employment and training
system for TANF recipients) are not the only referring entities but they must certify housing need
and TANF status for all persons and submit all WtW referrals to the Housing Authority. In
Everett/Snohomish, a variety of local service providers (including organizations in the TANF and
workforce systems) refer clients to the housing authorities for consideration under WtW and
local staff expect a significant portion of participants in the program will be referred from partner
agencies.
- 25 -
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
26
Eligibility Verification. The federal guidelines for the WtW Voucher Program tie a family's
eligibility for WtW Housing Vouchers to their TANF status. As a result, housing agencies with a
WtW Voucher Program must develop a way of verifying the TANF status of potential WtW
voucher recipients. This need then prompts interaction and coordination between the two
agencies.
Procedures for verifying TANF receipt include some that intentionally integrate TANF
agencies into the process and others that do not. For example, in Prince William County, the
housing agency coordinates with the TANF officers verify each applicant's TANF status. The
Housing Agency capitalized on being local the same building with the welfare office and
established a practice of having TANF staff eview a list from the Housing Agency to verify who
is currently receiving TANF or has received in the past two years. In other locations, the
potential client gets a form from the Housing Agency, takes it to the TANF office for verification
of assistance, and then returns it to the Housing Agency.
Client Assessment. Beyond eligibility verification, few of the WtW partners in the study
sites are involved in defined assessment activities specifically related to the WtW Voucher
Program but there are notable exceptions particularly among those programs with an integrated
program model. For example, partner agencies working with Everett City and Snohomish
County are responsible for assessing client need including housing related barriers to
employment. In other sites, partner agencies may conduct assessment activities for other
program purposes and use or share such information with WtW. Both TANF agencies and
organizations involved in the Department of Labor's Welfare-to-Work program are engaged in
formal assessment activities apart from WtW. In some sites, such as Texoma and San
Bernardino, the housing agencies have access to individual responsibility plans and/or
workforce assessments conducted by partner agencies and may incorporate portions of those
plans into a performance contract between the WtW voucher participant and the housing
agency.
Case Management. At the time of the visits, most sites were concentrating on identifying
eligible families and conducting intake and issuance activities. On average, seven percent of
the WtW vouchers had been awarded (units put under lease). Given that most WtW programs
offer case management and social services to families after lease-up, there had been little direct
experience with case management and service provision at the time of the site visits. While
sites were often building on previous partnerships and WtW staff had a general sense of how
services would be delivered, these plans were not in operation. Therefore, our discussion of
-26-
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
27
case management and service provision is based on the plans of WtW providers rather than
actual experiences.
Five of the seven Section 8 with FSS program model sites will provide in-house case
management for the WtW Voucher Program, often drawing on their experience and resources in
the FSS Program. The remaining housing agencies provide minimal in-house case
management for the WtW Voucher Program and rely on case management services their WtW
clients receive from partner agencies. However, this second group can be divided into two
distinct categories: Housing agencies that actively connect their WtW clients to other agencies
for case management (integrated program-design models and two Section 8 with FSS model
sites) and those that do not (Section 8 models). Integrated models in particular strategically
plug the voucher into a partner's service system. 18 While they may not conduct case
management activities with all or many of their clients, they have designed their systems so that
each participant receives case management at a partner agency and the housing agency
receives follow-up information on progress toward employment goals. On the other hand,
Section 8 models assume WtW participants receive case management from other service
providers (primarily TANF) and do not formalize connections to ensure these services or monitor
client progress.
Service Provision. While some housing agencies provide some non-housing services to
WtW participants (listed in Exhibit 3.2), most of the WtW study sites rely on partner
organizations to provide the majority of support services to WtW voucher clients within the
existing local service delivery framework. WtW applications and program plans include an
impressive array of service providers, and many housing agencies have become familiar with
such providers through activities in the FSS Program.
For the most part, services available to WtW participants are provided to any family that
qualifies for them, and a family's WtW status does not open doors to new or different services
from local agencies. However, given the welfare status of most WtW participants, they will likely
be eligible for many of the supportive services offered by area providers. What is yet to be
determined in many sites is how the WtW program will connect participants with the surrounding
social service network.
18 For example, all the integrated sites (Aiken, Everett/Snohomish, and Tampa) significantly incorporate
WtW into other local programs that have considerable responsibility for, and ownership of WtW.
27
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early implementation Assessment
28
Some study sites plan to access the service systems of their TANF and workforce
partners. Of those visited, different service hubs exist where users (WtW voucher holders and
others) can access services. TANF-sponsored employment and training programs-such as
CalWorks in California, WAGES in Florida, and VIEW in Virginia-try to coordinate local TANF
and workforce services ,and many are moving to "one stop shops" where clients can satisfy
multiple service needs in one place.
Other WtW sites plan to use in-house service delivery systems, such as their own
version of one-stop shops. The San Joaquin Housing Authority has Supportive Services
Centers in their public housing develo, ments with a number of different service providers on-
site. The Housing Authority hopes to cooro ate the service needs of some of their WtW
Voucher Program participants with these existing centers.
While most of the services in WtW V II be provided through existing programs, there is
one example of a partner agency developing a new service specifically for WtW voucher
holders. In Chattanooga, the Housing Authority worked closely with the TANF service provider
(Signal Centers) to develop a Renter Certification Program. The course includes modules on
financial management and how to be a good tenant. The program is intended to improve the
skills of WtW voucher holders and provide a certification that will encourage landlords to rent
their units to WtW voucher holders.
- 28
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
29
Types of Partnerships¹⁹
The previous chapter grouped the assessed WtW Programs by program system type
with three programs following a Section 8 model, seven following a Section 8 plus FSS model,
and three that had a highly integrated program design. While the discussion of program design
provides a helpful basis for understanding partner participation in the day-to-day activities of
local WtW Voucher Programs, it does not fully capture and characterize the involvement of
partners in various WtW Programs. Particularly, some sites characterized as a Section 8 with
FSS program model had significant partner inv Ivement in the development of their program.
For example, policies about eligibility and terminations may be developed in direct collaboration
with partner. agencies and respond to their concerns and goals.
To understand better the level of part erships, it is helpful to focus specifically on the
involvement of partners in the overall developm ent of local WtW programs. We have divided the
study sites into three categories based on the involvement of partners in WtW Voucher Program
development and operations. These are characterized as low, moderate, or high. Program
features corresponding to levels of partner involvement are presented in Exhibit 4.1.
Exhibit 4.1:
Characteristics of Partner Involvement Levels
Low Involvement
No or limited communication
WtW program decisions made by housing agency
No partner participation in WtW activities
Moderate Involvement
Frequent communication that may include WtW-related topics
Partner involved in client identification and referral
Partner involved in eligibility verification
High Involvement
Jointly designed major feature of WtW
Partner manages significant portion of WtW
Partner referrals mandatory for WtW participation
19 It is important to note that this is an early assessment of the WtW Voucher Program and partner
relationships may change over time. The distinctions used here (low, moderate, and high) rely heavily on
program policy and design features because these activities were undertaken by the time of the field
visits.
- 29 -
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
30
Exhibit 4.1:
Characteristics of Partner Involvement Levels
*If a local partnership includes any of these elements it is considered high involvement.
Low Involvement. While several sites have weak relationships with either their local
welfare or workforce agency, none of the study sites have a low level of partner involvement
from both the welfare and workforce partners in their WtW Program. 20 To be classified as
having low involvement, a site would need to have limited communication with the partner and
little to no conversation specific to the WtW Voucher Program. In addition, partner agencies
would not play a substantial role in decisions about WtW program design, policy, or procedures.
In sites where the previous relationship was tenuous, the need to verify TANF status for
eligibility purposes often prompted initial conversations that lead to a connection with the WtW
Voucher Program.
Moderate Involvement. Of the study sites, five have a WtW partnership characterized by
moderate involvement with either the welfare and/or workforce development agency. These
sites include the three programs with Section 8 models (Chattanooga, Grand Rapids, and
Walker County) as well as two Section 8 with FSS programs (Prince William County and
Texoma). These partnerships are characterized by frequent communication between multiple
levels of housing and partner agency staff (such as with both the executive directors and line
staff). Communication tends to be both unrelated to the WtW Program (such as contact during
meetings convened among area service providers) as well as generated by the WtW Voucher
Program (such as informational briefings about WtW vouchers). Partner agencies may be
involved in identifying potential and verifying eligibility (TANF status), but most WtW activities
take place at the housing agency. And, while, partners often categorize the relationships
between agencies as "good," "cooperative," and "cordial" there is no element of the WtW
Voucher Program that was crafted specifically because of partner involvement in the program.
High Involvement. Eight of the study sites have high involvement from local partners. In
these cases, WtW Programs have a program system or policy feature that was significantly
influenced by a local partner, such as jointly developed eligibility criteria or termination policies.
High involvement partnerships include the three integrated service delivery systems discussed
previously (Aiken, Everett/Snohomish, and Tampa) and five Section 8 with FSS sites (Albany,
Austin, Loudoun, San Bernardino, San Joaquin). In addition to activities like eligibility
verification and referrals, partners in the five Section 8 with FSS sites were strategically involved
20 Sites which had high involvement partnerships with one or both partners are discussed below.
30
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
31
in the local vision for the WtW Voucher Program. This involvement had tangible results. For
example:
Loudoun County: Loudoun County : lousing Services worked with the Loudoun County
Department of Social Services to jointly develop a priority ranking system for the receipt
of WtW vouchers.
San Bernardino: To receive a voucher and maintain housing assistance, applicants
must cooperate with three agencies: the Transitional Assistance Department (the TANF
agency); the Jobs and Employment Services Department (the local: workforce
development entity); and the Housing Authority Noncompliance with either&Section 8,
the TANF agency programs, or the employment and training agency programs can lead
to termination from WtW.
San Joaquin: The Housing Authority collectively established eligibility criteria with the
County Human Services Agency, the Private Industry Council, and a range of community
based organizations. These criteria target a more narrow clientele than those made
eligible in NOFA guidelines and reflect local needs and goals. This group continues to
meet to discuss WtW Voucher Program progress and service needs.
Factors Influencing Partnerships
The WtW Voucher Program required housing agencies to have the support of
organizations in both their local TANF and workforce systems. Across the study sites, the level
of involvement differs between sites and between partners, but all sites have a relationship with
the local TANF and/or workforce entity and in eight study sites local partners were highly
involved in the operation and/or design of local VIIIV Voucher Programs.
The majority of sites had relationships with their local partners prior to the WtW Voucher
Program. Moreover, in all of the high inv olvement partnerships, the housing agency had a
meaningful preexisting relationship with partner agencies, including experience with shared
staff, co-location, or funded programs. The preponderance of preexisting partnerships in the
study sites may not extend to the wider universe of WtW sites and may be influenced by the site
selection method of favoring sites who were able to quickly implement their WtW Voucher
- 31
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
32
Program. 21 However, two factors that influenced partnerships at these sites, (1) the dynamism
of working collaboratively in a flexible program and (2) the philosophy of the housing agency,
may speak more broadly to how partnerships are formed across sites.
Additional Vouchers in a New Program. Housing agency representatives in several study
sites said their position in the local service system was strengthened by both the receipt of new
vouchers and the ability to target those vouchers to a specific eligibility group. With the creation
of Workforce Investment Boards and other local collaboration groups, housing agencies in many
of the study sites had a "seat at the table" in m etings of local service providers prior to the WtW
Voucher Program. However, the WtW vouchers allowed them to come to the table with
additional housing assistance. While housing agencies previously brought valuable
commodities in their public housing and Section 8 programs, some also brought long waiting
lists and little immediate assistance for populatic as not currently housed.
Furthermore, with WtW the housing agency had additional assistance and the ability to
direct it to the population of interest to TANF and workforce development offices: persons
moving from welfare to work. In addition, the WtW Program gave local partner organizations the
opportunity to become involved in decisions about the allocation of local housing assistance by
participating in program design, decisions about eligibility criteria, and referral mechanisms.
This combination of additional assistance and program design opportunities proved an effective
lure to partners in some of the study sites. Even in high partner involvement sites, WtW housing
staff believed their partnerships were strengthened and deepened by activities undertaken for
the WtW Voucher Program.
Philosophy. Housing agencies may involve partner organizations in the WtW Voucher
Program for a variety of reasons. Some sites may want to coordinate housing with the "work
first" message of other public assistance programs and thus develop coordinated enforcement
mechanisms such as those seen in San Bernardino. Others may enlist partner resources as
part of an effort to meet a mission that goes beyond housing, such as Austin who state that their
primary goal is to "break the poverty cycle by serving as a catalyst for residents to become
economically self-sufficient." Still others may operate in a highly participatory service
environment that historically values the input of multiple actors, such as in Everett City and
Snohomish County.
21 This study does not discuss how relationships which pre-date WtW were forged. However, the site
summaries in Appendix A often detail the types of interaction partners had before WtW.
- 32
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
33
Conversely, sites with similar philosophies do not necessarily have the same types of
partnerships. A housing agency may view their role as one of resident empowerment. Such a
view could mean they directly provide non-housing services (such as in Austin and Aiken who
sought Department of Labor Welfare-to-Work grants to fund employment and training programs)
or it could mean they broker services from other providers (as seen in the Supportive Service
Centers established by San Joaquin in public housing developments) or it could result in
reliance on local service providers to provide support services (as promoted by the local board
of service providers in Texoma who are convened to promote service linkage in the FSS
program).
33
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
34
V.
EARLY OUTCOMES
As of May 1, 2000 (approximately fc or to five months after local program start dates), the
study sites had issued an average of 3 percent of their WtW vouchers and leased-up
approximately 11 percent (Exhibit 5.1 illustrates e range). The percentage of vouchers issued
ranges from five percent to 100 percent of a site's vouchers, while percent leased ranges from
one percent to almost half.
Exhibit 5.1:
Issuance and Lease Up Figures as of May 1, 2000
Number
Vouchers Issued
Vouchers
of
Leased Up
Vouch S
Awa ed:
Grantee,
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Aiken Housing Authority
165
50
30%
24
15%
Albany Housing Authority
497
27
5%
10
2%
Austin Housing Authority
700
286
41%
54
8%
Chattanooga Housing Authority
650
60
9%
5
1%
Everett/Snohomish Housing Authorities
1275
384
30%
181
14%
Grand Rapids Housing Commission
250
250
100%
119
48%
San Bernardino Housing Authority
700
331
47%
83
12%
San Joaquin Housing Authority
700
128
18%
44
6%
Tampa Housing Authority
450
98
22%
11
2%
Texoma Council of Governments
150
45
30%
21
14%
Virginia-Loudoun County
25
25
100%
5
20%
Virginia-Prince William
450
114
25%
20
4%
Walker County
69
4
6%
2
3%
- 34
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
35
Factors Influencing Early Outcomes²²
When the site visits were conducted, WtW housing agencies were in the very early
stages of implementing the WtW Voucher P ogram. 23 The primary focus of many sites, at the
time of the site visit, was voucher issuance and lease up. One site that achieved relatively high
issuance and lease-up rates was Grand Rapids Housing Commission; the WtW leadership
attributes part of their success to the high proportion of voucher holders who leased in place. In
contrast, Chattanooga Housing Authority has fewer vouchers leased-up than other programs
that may be influenced by their program design. All Chattanooga's WtW voucher holders must
first complete a Renter Certification Program before lease-up.
The leadership at many of the WtW study sites is encouraged by the early lease-up
figures, but remains cautious about their ability to lease all available WtW vouchers within a one-
year time frame. 24 Sites that are conce ed about timely lease-up maintain that the current
state of the housing market in their jurisdictions is one of the potential barriers to lease-up.
Local conditions include rising rental housing prices driven by an increase in demand for, and a
shortage of, quality, affordable housing.
Rental Demand. In some of the study jurisdictions, the strong economy has boosted
demand for housing. In the San Joaquin area, for example, housing prices have increased due
to the surge of demand for housing in the San Francisco Bay Area. Although an hour away, the
booming computer industry has drawn many people to the region and is having spillover effects
22 It is interesting to note that staff at the study sites did not cite new income targeting guidelines in the
Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act (QWRA) as influencing early lease-up outcomes. The
targeting requirements in QWRA state that 75 percent of new vouchers issued within a fiscal year must be
made available for families earning at, or below 30 percent of the median income. When asked directly
about the QWRA guidelines, housing agency staff had varying reactions ranging from those who had not
yet considered the effect of QWRA, those who speculated that such guidelines could be a hindrance to
lease-up in the future, to those who felt the guidelines would not be an issue because their WtW program
already focused on persons at or below 30 percent of the median income. The early date of the field visits
could have contributed to the lack of in-depth responses from housing agency staff concerning QWRA
and opinions may change once WtW programs are beyond the start-up phase and have more experience
with lease-up.
23 These averages have increased considerably from the time the site visits were conducted. Looking at
issuance and lease-up figures according to the date each site was visited, an average of 21 percent of the
vouchers had been issued and seven percent leased up. At that time, some sites had not yet begun
issuing WtW vouchers.
35
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
36
on San Joaquin County, a more rural area. Not all of the study sites are experiencing such
increases in rental demand, but similar experiences were mentioned by staff in Loudoun County,
Prince William County, and Austin.
Rental Supply. Some local areas have a small supply of rental housing units for low-
income families. Walker County, Alabama, for kample, has few affordable rental housing units
in the area, and those that are affordable have difficulty passing housing quality inspections. In
addition, San Joaquin's rental supply is decreasing as demand increases for single family
homes for purchase, which contributes to landlords selling former rental units.
As demand increases and supply remains constant or shrinks, rents invariably increase.
In some local markets (particularly those mentioned above) housing agency staff see local
housing prices exceeding Fair Market Rents.2 In some communities this will slow lease-up
efforts and could jeopardize a site's ability to meet the 12 month lease-up schedule. In an
attempt to prevent such circumstances, the Notice of Funding Availability directed applicants to
discuss "how [the] application lays oui a fully developed plan to ensure that all Welfare-to-
Work vouchers are under lease within a year of award" and directed field offices to determine if
the number of WtW vouchers the housing agency applied for could be leased-up within 12
months. However, sites like San Joaquin reported that their rents increased and supply
decreased more severely than they had anticipated.
In other communities, market changes are not expected to jeopardize the lease-up
schedule. Although housing staff in Loudoun County report that prices have increased thirteen
percent in the last year and that quality housing that used to be within the price range of lower-
and middle-income families is now priced for, and rented by, higher income renters, they only
requested 25 vouchers and anticipate lease-up within 12 months. Similarly, staff from the
Everett City and Snohomish County program assert that their rental market is perpetually
competitive but their efforts to monitor housing search and increase landlord outreach will allow
them to lease-up the 475 WtW vouchers within 12 months.
24 Site visits were conducted during the start-up of WtW and initial unease may significantly increase or
decrease as the program gets underway.
25 Including exception rents in some jurisdictions. This study did not gather systematic information on
Fair Market Rents (FMR) and cannot offer information on how agency staff in all study sites view FMR
levels.
36
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
37
VI.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This study provides information on decision-making and early activity in thirteen WtW
Programs. While the study sites are not representative of the universe of WtW housing
agencies, their experience is suggestive of the early accomplishments and challenges found in
the broader program. This chapter summarizes the influence of WtW in the study sites,
discusses the major benefits housing. agencies found in program participation, and presents
early challenges sites experienced in program implementation. It concludes with program
recommendations for the WtW Voucher Program.
Influence of WtW in Study Sites
Partnerships. Although most of the study sites had relationships with their partners prior
to WtW, they were confident that their loca' VtW Program had a positive influence on their
partnerships with local service providers. This view is supported by the seven local programs
who either developed an integrated service system or jointly designed a major feature of their
WtW program (such as eligibility criteria or termination policies). Depending on the depth of prior
partnerships, the WtW Voucher Program encouraged sites to (1) contact their welfare office and
develop a method to verify TANF status, (2) work with local consortia on eligibility and other
WtW Voucher Program policies, and/or (3) incorporate area services and resources into the
day-to-day operations of WtW. WtW partnerships were encouraged by the flexibility of the
program, the provision of additional housing assistance, and the ability of local agencies to
jointly craft a program incorporating welfare and workforce development objectives with housing
assistance.
Intent of Housing Assistance. By connecting with local welfare and workforce
development systems, WtW coordinates federal housing assistance with the goals of state
welfare reform efforts and embraces work as an expectation for recipients. The program does
this by connecting with TANF, a program transitioning families from public assistance to
employment. Some local sites go beyond general program connections and add work
requirements to WtW eligibility criteria and termination policies.
Local Approaches. Local WtW sites reviewed for this report developed various policies
and structures that reflect the flexibility in WtW design guidelines. Housing agencies connected
with different local actors, developed an array of site-specific program policies, and incorporated
37
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
38
a range of local resources. As a result, policies, such as eligibility criteria, reflect different
philosophies about the importance of work, participation in local programs, and areas of need.
Comprehensive Service Delivery. ! W encouraged steps toward comprehensive
service delivery in some of the study sites. Three of the thirteen sites developed WtW Voucher
Programs that are intimately integrated with other area service systems. The influx of vouchers
plus the freedom to target the assistance to a specific population allowed these housing
agencies to offer immediate assistance to local pariners and fill a gap in service. For sites that
are not attempting an integrated approach: to program design, it is too early to tell whether their
case management and service provision will meaningfully incorporate other local providers.
Participation Benefits for Housing Agencies
Additional Housing Assistance. For al! of the study sites, WtW vouchers were the first
new tenant-based housing vouchers received in five years. Given that many of them have
waiting lists with wait times of several years, they viewed the provision of new assistance as a
tremendous benefit of the WtW Voucher Program.
Enhances Housing Agency Legitimacy. In many of the sites visited, housing agency
staff participate in local coalitions of service providers along with staff from the welfare and
workforce development agencies. The receipt of WtW vouchers enabled housing agency staff
to bring a valuable, and immediately available, commodity to serve local needs. By bringing
housing assistance that could be targeted to the populations of interest to the welfare and
workforce development agencies, housing agencies gained legitimacy and leverage in some
local service delivery systems.
Assist Participants Toward Self Sufficiency. Some housing agencies were already
thinking about ways in that they could assist more of their public housing residents (particularly
those on welfare) to move toward self sufficiency. WtW vouchers enabled these agencies to
develop programs that use the availability of tenant based housing assistance as an incentive to
continue efforts toward work.
Flexibility. Housing agencies often cited the flexibility to develop local programs that fit
their strengths and service system structure as a positive component of the WtW Voucher
Program. In some sites, flexibility allowed housing agencies to jointly develop the WtW Program
with local partners to incorporate the services and staff of other agencies.
- 38
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
Raises Visibility of Housing Issues. By designing and operating the WtW Voucher
Program with other local agencies, some sites reported a greater awareness of housing issues
by staff at partner agencies. These issues include the difficulty of housing search and lack of
affordable housing opportunity in neighborhoods.
Challenges
Lease-up Schedules. In most study sites, housing agencies tended to design systems
that replicated housing programs already in operation (Section 8 and Family Self Sufficiency).
Housing agencies were encouraged in this tendency by the 12 month lease-up deadline that
staff in some sites said pressured local programs to start quickly in order to meet the required
lease-up schedule.
Local Rental Markets. Several hous g agencies expressed concern about their ability to
lease all WtW vouchers within the 12 month deadline because of pressures of their local rental
market. In these sites, eligible families neeting assistance are plentiful but affordable housing
units that meet their needs are not. In addition to a long standing lack of affordable housing in
some areas, this pressure is extending to markets that once had an adequate supply of low-
income housing but are experiencing an increase in rents and a decrease in rental stock.
Assessing Critical Need. WtW sites visited for this study are using eligibility criteria such
as TANF status to determine a person's need for housing assistance to get or keep a job. In
most sites, individual assessments of need are not defined beyond traditional indicators of rent
burden or other economic constraints, such as overcrowded housing conditions or residency in
a homeless shelter.
Program Recommendations
Hispanse?
7
Policy Development. Several of the study sites hoped further clarification was
forthcoming on program regulations dealing with eligibility, mobility, terminations, and reporting.
In the absence of such guidance, sites developed programs geared toward local specifications
or delayed implementation of some program elements. Key areas where sites requested
guidance from HUD on possible federal limitations or regulations include:
Eligibility and Targeting: Concerns stem from site decisions to target populations that
are a subset of those identified in the NOFA.
39 -
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
40
Portability: Some sites hope to restrict portability of the WtW vouchers in order to
maintain a close proximity to participants and the ability to deliver case management and
other supportive services. Other sites need information on how to port WtW vouchers to
non-WtW jurisdictions and what such activity does to lease-up rates in the WtW agency.
Termination Enforcement: Some of the study sites would like guidance on their ability to
tie continued receipt of WtW to employment Similarly, some sites would like to develop
FSS-like contracts with WtW particip ants, who could lose assistance if they were not
meeting stated goals, including goals agreed to in contracts with partner agencies.
Reporting: Study sites were anxious about the kind of information they should collect for
federal reporting purposes. Staff at the only state program reviewed in this study,
Virginia, were particularly interested in knowing what kinds of information they should be
monitoring for their local programs.
Reporting and Tracking. The development of a consistent reporting system that
encourages sites to record relevant program and client data could provide a framework for
future program analysis as well as provide admin strative agencies with a valuable management
tool. Such a system is best implemented at the beginning of a program in order to consistently
gather information for all clients and avoid both missing data and the effort involved in collecting
information on completed activities. The window of opportunity to establish such a system in
WtW is closing fast.
Future Research. This study is an early implementation assessment and cannot report
on activities that have yet to occur, such as social service provision and case management or
the ultimate coordination between the housing agency and the welfare and employment
systems. In addition, it does not address the core question of the relationship between housing
assistance and the ability of a low-income person to get or keep a job. Such questions can only
be answered as the program evolves. 26
Conclusion
26 HUD has contracted for a further study of the Welfare to Work program to include an experimental
design with control groups to address questions related to the relationship between WtW vouchers and
employment.
40
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
41
Although the study sites are early implementers and not representative of all WtW
housing agencies, their stories are relevant to policymakers and program administrators who
seek to understand how agencies implement the WtW program. The design flexibility in the
program regulations promoted local systems with a variety of unique eligibility criteria, referral
and intake procedures, and termination policies. Housing agencies built on local strengths,
philosophies, and service systems to design programs that deliver tenant-based housing
assistance that encourages work. While it is too early in the implementation process to
determine if the WtW Voucher Program will meet legislative objectives, such as supporting the
employment efforts of low-income families and linking housing assistance more closely with
welfare reform, early activities in the study sites suggest that WtW is influencing partner
formation and encouraging some sites to develop housing programs integrated with other local
service
providers.
-41-
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Early Implementation Assessment
1
APPENDIX A:
SITE SUMMARIES
- 1
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 1 Site Summaries
A-1
WtW Housing Voucher Program
Early Implementation Assessment
Model 1 Site Summary:
* Chattanooga
Chattanooga, Tennessee
WtW Voucher Program System
The Chattanooga Housing Authority received 650 Welfare to Work (WtW) housing
vouchers. It administers an additional 1,262 Section 8 vouchers and certificates. The WtW
Voucher Program in Chattanooga differs little from the regular Section 8 voucher program.
Clients come to the Housing Authority for an eligibility screening (based on the criteria in the
Notice of Funding Availability, or NOFA) and assessment for its newly developed Renter
Certification Program. Clients are issued a voucher after they attend the required classes at the
program. This program has two goals: (1) 10 help the recipients become better prepared to be
successful renters; and (2) to make accept is Section 8 more amenable to potential landlords
by preparing voucher recipients to be good tenants. WtW families are subject to Section 8
termination guidelines.
Partnerships
The Chattanooga Housing Authority does not rely heavily on the TANF agency
(Tennessee Department of Human Services) and the Department of Labor Welfare-to-Work
agency (the Southeast Tennessee Private Industry Council) for the operation of the WtW
Voucher Program. However, they do work with a subcontractor of the Department of Human
Services (Signal Centers). Most of the support services of the TANF agency, except case
management, are subcontracted to Signal Centers, which offer life skills classes and referrals
for job training services. The Chattanooga Housing Authority and Signal Centers have worked
very closely to develop and implement the Renter Certification Program, which is the
cornerstone of their WtW voucher program.
Eligibility
The WtW program differs from the Section 8 program in two ways. First, the
Chattanooga Housing Authority targets the three groups suggested in the NOFA: TANF
recipients, recent recipients, and those eligible for TANF but not currently receiving it. Second,
as part of the WtW program, the Chattanooga Housing Authority mandates attendance in a
newly developed Renter Certification Program.
1
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 1 Site Summaries
A-2
In order to find eligible families, the Chattanooga Housing Authority pulls families from
the top of its Section 8 waiting list, then sends those families letters briefly explaining the
program and the eligibility criteria (regarding the three TANF groups). In these letters, the
Chattanooga Housing Authority invites them to come in for a more thorough eligibility
assessment on a given day and time. When the families come to the Housing Authority, the
Chattanooga Housing Authority or Signal ( enter staff check their eligibility.
The housing authority believes that :.Il of the families that are eligible will benefit from
relocation, and its eligibility criteria are quite broad: "In order to establish the need for Section 8
vouchers in order to obtain or retain employment, the family must show that transportation, child
care or decent housing is not available where they are living" (Chattanooga Housing Authority
memorandum, March 2000). However, the HA is not utilizing any employment criteria in order
for eligible families to receive a WtW voucher.
The majority of the clients are African-Am.erican women with children. Most of the
families that have come in for assessment so : hav e been TANF recipients, though there have
been a few that are eligible but not receiving. Almost all of the families that are currently joining
the WtW program are working families; partly because of the current condition of their Section 8
waiting list, which is ordered by preference groups. The Chattanooga Housing Authority
believes that these families will likely move to improve proximity to their current jobs or to be
near a new job. As the Chattanooga Housing Authority moves down the waiting list, it
anticipates that it will have to reconsider whether the need for a voucher to obtain or retain
employment should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Issuance and Lease-up
As of March 2000, about 15 people had come in for their eligibility screening and were
assessed for the mandatory participation in the Renter Certification Program. The Chattanooga
Housing Authority and Signal Centers were scheduled to hold the first Renter Certification
Program classes during the last week of March. Vouchers are issued only after participants
have attended the classes that were assigned at their initial assessment. Consequently, no
households have been issued vouchers or have leased up as of March 2000.27
27 As of May 1, 2000, 60 vouchers had been issued and five families had leased up.
-2-
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 1 Site Summaries
A-3
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher
Early Implementation Assessment
Model 1 Site Summary:
Grand Rapids, Michigan
*
Grand Rapids
WtW Voucher Program System
The Grand Rapids Housing Commission administers the local WtW Voucher Program,
serving the population of Kent County, Michigan. The Commission received 250 WtW vouchers
and currently administers 1,581 Section 8 vouchers. The local rental market consists mostly of
single family rental housing. Most voucher recipients lease in place, easing the housing search
process.
In essence, the Commission has rolled the administration of the WtW Voucher Program
into the existing Section 8 program. Both Section 8 and WtW voucher holders receive similar
housing-related services from the Commission. The difference between the two programs lies
in the eligibility criteria for the WtW Voucher Program.
In October, the Commission began using the WtW Vouchers to serve its existing waiting
list. After the waiting list was depleted using WtW and regular Section 8 vouchers, the
Commission reopened the waiting list in February, 2000. It instructed partner agencies to refer
clients in need of housing assistance to the Housing Commission. These referrals are not
required for WtW Voucher Program participation- clients may also enter the program as walk-
ins without a referral. Section 8-eligible families are placed on the Housing Commission's open
waiting list for housing assistance. This waiting list includes a preference for the families that
have received or are currently receiving TANF funded services or assistance, which is the
eligibility requirement of the local WtW Voucher Program. 28 However, the recipient's WtW
status is not verified until time of lease-up. After lease-up, if a client can provide proof of WtW
eligibility, they are classified as a WtW voucher holder; if not, they receive a Section 8 voucher.
WtW voucher holders receive case management services from the local TANF and workforce
agencies, independent of the WtW Voucher Program. WtW families are subject to Section 8
termination guidelines.
28 Staff at the Housing Commission reported that they added this local waiting list preference as a result
of the WtW Voucher Program.
- 3
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 1 Site Summaries
A-4
Partnerships
The Grand Rapids Housing Commission has partnered with Michigan's Family
Independence Agency, the local TANF agency, and Area Community Services Employment and
Training, the local workforce agency. Staff of both agencies participate with Commission staff
and other supportive service agencies on the Commission's FSS Council, an emergency shelter
council, and a collaborative board addressir COI inuum of care for homelessness issues. The
Family Independence Agency subs lize -curi'' deposits for Section 8 and WtW voucher
participants, an arrangement made possible ¿y the rapport of the partners.
These collaborative efforts paved the way for the WtW Voucher Program relationships
and the informal planning meetings required for the implementation of the WtW Voucher
Program-relationships recently made formal through Memorandums of Understanding with
partner agencies. The Family Independence Agency and the Area Community Services
Employment and Training staff refer clients to the Housing Commission for housing assistance.
As of the time of the site visit, the Housing Commission had plans to coordinate with the Family
Independence Agency to allow line staff r nbers to verify eligibility directly. The agencies
provide case management and supportive service :S to any WtW voucher holder that is eligible to
receive services (independent of their WtW status).
Eligibility
Clients are eligible for the WtW voucher if they currently receive services from the Family
Independence Agency, or have so in the past two years. Housing vouchers are classified by the
Commission as WtW vouchers if, at the time of lease-up, clients are able to provide proof of
eligibility. The Commission has plans to set up a system in the future with the Family
Independence Agency to verify the client's status. If at the time of lease-up the client is found
ineligible for a WtW voucher, the voucher used for lease-up is classified as a regular Section 8
voucher instead.
Issuance and Lease-up
As of the site visit, the Commission had not determined the number of WtW vouchers
issued, since the voucher type is not decided until the time of lease-up. As of March 2000,
approximately 100 WtW voucher holders had leased up.²⁹ The majority of these clients are
currently receiving TANF and are employed, as per TANF requirements.
29 As of May 1, 2000, all 250 WtW vouchers had been issued and 119 families had leased up.
4
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 1 Site Summaries
A-5
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher
Early Implementation Assessment
*
Walker County
Model 1 Site Summary:
Walker County, Alabama
WtW Voucher Program System
The Housing Authority of Walker County received 69 vouchers to administer under the
Welfare to Work Voucher Program. Including these vouchers, it administers a total of 287
housing vouchers. At about the same time of the WtW voucher award, it received funding to
begin a FSS Program, which will be an additional service offered to the first 35 WtW voucher
holders who wish to enroll. WtW voucher recipients are offered the same services that regular
Section 8 voucher holders are eligible to receive: they are different only because of the eligibility
criteria that they must meet. WtW familie: are tok at the time of voucher issuance that they
must adhere to Section 8 guidelines and be employed within two years of voucher receipt or
face termination. However, the Housing Authority did not provide the WtW voucher holder a
binding, written agreement explaining the work requirement at the time of the site visit.
Partnerships
The Housing Authority is working with the Department of Human Services in Walker
County for assistance in recruiting and verifying eligibility for the WtW Voucher Program.
Caseworkers tell their clients about the program, and refer them to the Housing Authority if they
are interested. Additionally, after clients initially talk to housing authority staff, they are given a
form that must be signed by staff from the Department of Human Services to verify that they fall
into one of the three eligibility groups. Apart from these activities, the Housing Authority runs the
Welfare to Work Program itself, with little involvement by other local agencies on a daily basis.
Eligibility
The Housing Authority of Walker County is using the broad eligibility guidelines set forth
in the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), targeting three groups: (1) households currently
receiving TANF; (2) households not currently receiving TANF, but who have received TANF in
the past two years; and (3) those eligible for TANF but who not currently receiving it.
The Department of Human Services has made an effort to recruit eligible participants
from the first two groups by sending informational letters to everyone in these groups, using
5
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early implementation Assessment:
Model 1 Site Summaries
A-6
information from their records. The Housing Authority has placed notices in area newspapers
and placed flyers around town in an effort to recruit people who are eligible but do not receive
TANF currently. None of these efforts has been very successful in terms of the number of
people who have called or come to the Housing Authority to inquire about the program. The
Housing Authority plans to continue recruiting efforts through newspaper advertising.
Issuance and Lease-up
As of March 2000, the Housing Authority of Walker County had issued a total of four
WtW vouchers, and one had leased up³⁰. The first voucher was issued January 19, 2000.
30 As of May 1, 2000, four vouchers had been issued and two families had leased-up.
-6-
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 2 Site Summaries
A-7
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher
Early Implementation Assessment
Model 2 Site Summary:
*
Albany
Albany, New York
WtW Voucher Program System
The Albany Housing Authority adminis! the WtW Voucher Program in-house. The
497 WtW vouchers represent a 44 percent increase in the Housing Authority's Section 8
program. Families can apply for the WtW vouchers at the Housing Authority or through the
Department of Social Services' employment and training service providers. At the intake
interview at the Housing Authority, the applicants complete a declaration of their TANF and
employment status in addition to the standard documentation required for Section 8 applicants.
The applicants self-certify the need for housi to obtain or retain employment. A Department of
Social Services staff member in the Divisio Economic Security certifies the current or past
TANF receipt and the participation in an approve d work program. The applicant's employment
can be verified by the Department of Social Services or independently. The Section 8
coordinators verify the standard Section 8 requirements.
Once the application is approved, the Housing Authority invites the family to a briefing for
WtW voucher recipients. These briefings contain the same content as regular Section 8
briefings. The briefing coordinator issues the vouchers at the meetings and instructs the voucher
holders to search independently for a rental unit. 31 Once they are leased up, WtW voucher
holders have standard access to the Department of Social Services and the Housing Authority's
WAGE Center employment and training: services Case management for WtW families is
provided through the WAGE Center operat ed. by the Housing Authority, or through the local
Department of Social Services. WtW famili rare subject to Section 8 termination guidelines.
Partnerships
The Housing Authority and Department of Social Services have a long-standing tradition
of partnering to provide on-site services for Housing Authority residents. For example, the
Housing Authority runs a Department of Social Services-approved employment and training
31 In May 2000, the Albany Housing Authority and the Department of Social Services negotiated to
establish a Housing Counselor position to serve WtW voucher participants funded by the Department of
Social Services. The Housing Authority expects to have the position filled by July.
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 2 Site Summaries
A-8
program for residents and neighbors at the Working to Achieve Gainful Employment (WAGE)
center in the Steamboat Square public housing complex. The Housing Authority has also
collaborated with the Private Industry Council on various grant proposals for both agencies. The
Housing Authority has a reserved seat on the newly created Workforce Investment Board, which
is managing the transition of the workforce system from the Private Industry Council. The
Housing Authority also has strong ties with community-based service organizations, more than a
dozen of which have offices in the public housing complexes.
Eligibility
The Housing Authority requires the vvtW voucher applicants be employed for a
minimum of two months or enrolled in a Department of Social Services-approved employment
and training program. Although all three populations - those receiving TANF currently or
within the last two years and those qualifying for, but not receiving, TANF - are eligible, there
is no process in place yet for identifying or certifying people who are eligible but have never
received assistance. WtW Voucher Program participants will be required to make a "good faith"
effort to obtain or maintain employment, but the WtW coordinators are still developing the
mechanism for defining and enforcing this requirement.
Issuance and Lease-up
In March 2000, there were 1,500 people on the general Section 8 waiting list, about a
three-year wait. The Housing Authority is focusing first on inviting potentially eligible families
from this list to apply for the WtW vouchers. As of March 15, 2000, the Housing Authority had
invited the first 90 potentially qualified families from the waiting list to apply for the program. It
had issued 24 WtW vouchers, and four households had succeeded in leasing up. 32 Eight of the
24 voucher holders are currently receiving TANF, and 16 received TANF in the past two years.
32 As of May 1, 2000, 27 vouchers had been issued and ten families had leased-up.
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early implementation Assessment:
Model 2 Site Summaries
A-9
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher
Early Implementation Assessment
Model 2 Site Summary:
Austin
Austin, Texas
WtW Voucher Program System
The Housing Authority of the City of Austin's primary goal is to "break the poverty cycle
by serving as a catalyst for residents to become economically self-sufficient."33 The Housing
Authority has already taken many innovative steps toward meeting this end, especially in the
area of welfare-to-work. Currently, the Housing Authority is a Department of Labor Welfare-to-
Work grantee and administers funds in the amount of $1.7 million toward welfare-to-work
activities. The program - The Austin Works Together Project- employs a "work first" emphasis
that helps TANF recipients and other eligible individuals find jobs. To continue and expand on
the Housing Authority's accomplishments, t' 2 Authority applied for, and was awarded, 700 WtW
vouchers to assist low-income families in Austinthansition from welfare to work.
Housing Authority staff members sent notices to all families on the Section 8 waiting list
notifying them of the new program. Interested applicants then visited the Housing Authority for
an eligibility interview. At this meeting, case-workers verified eligibility and informed them of
program requirements.
The basic design of the WtW Voucher Program centers around work requirements for
participants, who have 12 months to become fully employed. The Housing Authority has
defined full employment as working 30 hours per week, being in a full-time training program, or
some combination of work and training that amounts to 30 hours per week. If participants lose
their employment at any time while on the program, they have 30 days to find a new job or they
will be terminated and will lose their Section 8 subsidy. WtW participants receive case
management, assistance preparing and searching for employment, and access to other social
services while participating in the program.
Partnerships
The WtW Voucher Program builds on already existing community partnerships
established through the Welfare-to-Work Coalition, a consortium of over 80 community-based
33 Housing Authority of the City of Austin's Mission Statement.
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 2 Site Summaries
A-10
organizations that focus on employment and housing issues for low-income families in Travis
County. Although the consortium is still in its early stages, its goals are ambitious and include
tracking all TANF recipients and the services they receive through one comprehensive
database.
Instead of hiring additional staff or creating new roles for case managers, the Housing
Authority established a working partnership with the Capital Area Workforce Board. The Capital
Area Workforce Board administers formula Department of Labor Welfare-to-Work grants to a
local subcontractor to provide a mar dated work first" employment program to TANF recipients
who have been receiving assistance for more than two years. This program, called CHOICES, is
currently run by Lockheed Martin. The Housir Authority works with staff from Lockheed Martin
to identify WtW voucher participants who eligible for the CHOICES program. Eligible
participants are referred to program staff, who ensure that WtW voucher holders receive case
management and job readiness training.
WtW voucher recipients who are not eligible for CHOICES are referred to either the
Housing Authority's Department of Labor Welfare-to-Work Program-the Austin Work Together
Project, or to the Housing Authority's FSS Program for case management. The Housing
Authority has also forged an administrative TE ationship with the local TANF Agency, which
verifies TANF eligibility for all WtW Voucher Program applicants.
Eligibility
To be eligible for the WtW Voucher Program, applicants must be currently receiving
TANF or have received TANF in the last two years and already be on the Section 8 waiting list.
Once the applicant is deemed eligible, a voucher is issued and the recipient searches for
housing. Additionally, the Housing Authority identifies those individuals "in need of housing to
obtain and retain employment" as those with a high proportion of housing costs to income,
meaning that they are paying a large percentage of their income toward housing costs. The
Housing Authority has not set any particular percentage of housing costs to income as a
baseline for need, but instead maintains that the determination of need is a subjective criterion
based on this ratio.
Issuance and Lease-up
At the time of the site visit (March 2000), 617 families on the Housing Authority Section 8
waiting list had been certified by the TANF agency as eligible for the WtW Voucher Program.
The Housing Authority had issued 286 vouchers and 54 families have identified units and
leased-up, as of May 1, 2000.
The Housing Authority's goal is to fill all WtW slots using applicants on the Section 8
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 2 Site Summaries
A-11
waiting list, in order to avoid reopening the waiting list. The Housing Authority did outreach to
applicants on the Section 8 waiting list in three waves with a good response. If the Housing
Authority is not able to lease-up all 700 WtW vouchers, they anticipate reopening the waiting list
in May.
Landlord outreach for the new program is underway. Landlords currently participating in
the Section 8 program have been sent a flyr announcing the new WtW vouchers, and Housing
Authority staff have been "getting 0'll 0' into community" in order to increase the number of
landlords willing to lease to voucher holder what is already a tight market for affordable
housing.
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 2 Site Summaries
A-12
Welfare To Work Housing Voucher
Early Implementation Assessment
Commonwealth
of
Model 2 Site Summary:
*
Virginia
Commonwealth of Virginia
WtW Voucher Program System
The Virginia Housing Development Authority administers the 860 WtW vouchers
awarded by HUD, using ten local housing agencies as its administrative agents. The Authority
allows each local housing agency to develop its own WtW Voucher Program, partnerships, and
eligibility guidelines, in response to its local housing market, employment market, and
population. These local agencies are responsible for issuing a fixed number of WtW vouchers,
as per their initial application request. Local agencies manage their own waiting lists, voucher
disbursement, and compliance monitoring. The Authority acts as the financial receiver for the
vouchers, issues the monthly checks to partici nating landlords, and monitors the functions of the
localities. Virginia Housing Development P thority, in exchange for these services, retains a
portion of the administrative fee HUD pays each voucher administrator.
State TANF Program
The state of Virginia mandates that all able bodied TANF recipients participate in a
workforce program run by the local Department of Social Service offices, called VIEW. This
program provides case management to assist with job search; the services provided vary with
each local office. After a participant either reaches their two-year time limit (five years lifetime)
or leaves TANF due to an increase in income, the participant receives transitional benefits for
two years. These benefits can include sportation subsidies, day care; mental health
services, and so on.
In order to better understand Virginia Housing Development Authority's WtW Voucher
Program, it is important to examine the local program specifications. We provide two examples
of local programs operated by Loudoun County Housing Services and the County of Prince
William Office of Housing and Community Development.
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 2 Site Summaries
A-13
Loudoun, Virginia
WtW Program System
The Loudoun County Housing Services WtW Voucher Program was awarded 25 WtW
vouchers to be administered throughout Loudoun County, as per its request. The goal of
Loudoun County Housing Services' program is to assist families in becoming self-sufficient, and
the program is similar to the county's existing FSS program. Program participants who meet
the housing agency's eligibility standards and ria for determination of need are taken off the
housing agency's waiting list in order of date O1 application, and brought to the Loudoun County
Housing Services for a brief overview of the program's requirements and a background check.
The participant signs a WtW contract that states the client will remain employed and will adhere
to all other program requirements. After all certifications are returned, the client is brought in for
a briefing and to receive the WtW voucher. Enrellment in the FSS program is stressed, although
not required. Each client must either remain employed full-time, or engage in some combination
of full time training and work; noncompliance will result in termination at the end of a 12-month
period.
If a client enrolls in the FSS program, the FSS case manager becomes their primary
case manager. The FSS work plan mirrors the an developed by TANF agency workers. The
FSS case manager and TANF case manager coordinate client management. If a client does not
enroll in FSS, the FSS case manager engages in only standard Section 8 rental assistance
functions, such as the family briefing, lease-up preparation, and Housing Quality Standards
inspection. The case management, in this case, is provided by the TANF case worker.
Partnerships
Loudoun County Housing Services has partnered with the local TANF agency, the
Loudoun County Department of Social Services, as its primary partner in the administration of
this program. In general, the Department of Social-Services provides TANF funded assistance
and services and VIEW-related services such as job search and training assistance. The
Department of Social Services also administers subsidized day care, food stamps, health care
assistance, and emergency supportive services.
The Loudoun County Department of Social Services has assisted Loudoun County
Housing Services in developing eligibility guidelines and priorities, as well as helping to confirm
the eligibility of families on the housing agency's waiting list. As clients lease up, Department of
Social Services and Loudoun County Housing Services anticipate they will conduct further
meetings to develop a plan for client case management.
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 2 Site Summaries
A-14
The Department of Social Services has previously worked with the housing agency in
developing Loudoun County Housing Services' Homeless Intervention Program, a cash
assistance loan program provided on a need basis. A representative from Department of Social
Services also sits on the housing agency's FSS council and the county's Coalition of Community
Service Providers. This coalition has assisted Loudoun County Housing Services in developing
partnerships with many local agencies, including the Department of Social Services, which in
turn has facilitated WtW partnerships.
Eligibility
Prior to application, Loudoun County Housing Services established eligibility criteria,
analyzed its waiting list to determine howernary families were eligible, and subsequently
requested a quantity of vouchers that directly corresponded to the number of eligible families on
the housing waiting list. Loudoun County Housing Services developed a ranked preference
order for its eligibility determination:
TANF transitional, no longer receiving TANF but are receiving transitional services;
currently on TANF and participating in VIEW, the mandatory work component of TANF;
currently on TANF and not in VIEW;
TANF within the preceding 2 years; or
TANF eligible but not receiving.
Those that met one of these criteria also had to meet one of four criteria that showed
need for housing. For example, 50 percent of more of income dedicated to shelter, day care,
and transportation costs. The Department of Social Services determines if the client meets one
of these criteria for need, based on its experience with the client and its case files.
Issuance and Lease-up
As of March 29, 2000, 19 families had been issued WtW vouchers. Seventeen of these
families had signed up for the agency's FSS program. Two families have leased up by this date,
only about a week after their briefing.34 Most of these families are currently working and are on
TANF.
34 As of May 1, 2000, 25 vouchers had been issued and 5 families had leased-up.
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early implementation Assessment:
Model 2 Site Summaries
A-15
Prince William , Virginia
WtW Voucher Program System
The County of Prince William Office of Housing and Community Development
administers 450 WtW vouchers in the county of Prince William, the largest allocation of
vouchers among the ten Virginia localities. Eligible families are identified from the Office of
Housing and Community Development's waiting list and a list of names is sent to the local
Department of Social Services to verify the clie: eligibility. Letters are sent to those families to
inform them they are eligible to receive the 10. ther and invite them to schedule a briefing. At
the briefing, Office of Housing and Community Development staff again verify eligibility for the
program, inform the families of the work requireme nt, have each family sign an Action Plan, and
issue the voucher. The Action Plan stipulates that the family must be employed within one year
from the date of voucher issuance, or face termination from the program. Case management
services are provided by the Department of Social Services and Cooperative Extension
Services, while the Office of Housing and Community Development provides all housing-related
services, including referrals to a mobility program.
Partnerships
Office of Housing and Community Development has partnered with the Prince William
Department of Social Services and Cooperative Extension Services in the development and
administration of the WtW program. Department of Social Services and Office of Housing and
Community Development have a strong working relationship, are located in the same building,
and have a signed Memorandum of Understanding. Two housing counselors on staff have been
dedicated to work with the WtW clients, and they share information with Department of Social
Services line staff to increase service provision to the client.
For the WtW Voucher Program, Prince. William Department of Social Services provides
eligibility certification and provides services clients that include a car referral program,
mental health referrals, and donated clothi! As in the rest of Virginia, all able-bodied TANF
recipients are required to participate in VIEW Prince William Department of Social Services has
contracted with Cooperative Extension Service ; to provide job readiness classes and job search
assistance for a number of VIEW participants, including those participating in the WtW Voucher
Program. Case management is provided by Cooperative Extension, as well as courses such as
food and nutrition, financial planning, and homeowner responsibilities.
Eligibility
Office of Housing and Community Development has defined eligibility, with the input of its
partner agencies, as any family that is a Prince William County Department of Social Services
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 2 Site Summaries
A-16
VIEW or TANF transitional program participant. Past TANF recipients are also eligible. Any
family selected must be drawn from Office of Housing and Community Development's waiting
list and must live and work in the state of Virginia. Office of Housing and Community
Development plans on later targeting the third NOFA group, eligible but not receiving TANF, if
program participation is low.
Issuance and Lease-up
As of March 17, 100 families were in vited to a briefing and 42 vouchers were issued. 35
Four clients have leased-up: two have lease ! in place, and two have ported out of Prince
William county.
35 As of May 1, 2000, 114 vouchers had been issued and 20 families had leased-up.
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 2 Site Summaries
A-17
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher
Early Implementation Assessment
Model 2 Site Summary:
San Bernardino, California
*
San Bernardino
WtW Voucher Program System
The Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino received 700 set-aside WtW
vouchers. The Housing Authority administers nearly 6,350 Section 8 vouchers and has a closed
waiting list of 8,400 families. Housing agency staff report that there is a tremendous lack of
affordable housing in San Bernardino County.
The WtW Voucher Program in San Bernardino County is based on two existing
programs-Section 8 and FSS. WtW vouchers are administered in the same manner as
Section 8 vouchers. Upon lease-up, WtW voucher recipients are required to participate in the
Housing Authority's FSS Program. To receive a voucher and maintain housing assistance,
applicants must cooperate with three agencies: the Transitional Assistance Department (the
TANF agency); the Jobs and Employment Services Department (the local workforce
development entity); and the Housing Authority. Voucher recipients continue to receive TANF
services and benefits and employment and training services from the other agencies.
Noncompliance with either Section 8, the TANF agency programs, or the employment and
training agency programs will lead to termination from WtW.
Partnerships
The partnership between the Housing Authority and the local employment and training
provider and the TANF agency is based on previously developed relationships. The Jobs and
Employment Services Department has traditionally provided all employment and training
services for TANF recipients in the county. Due to this relationship, they have access to the
TANF data system and can easily verify applicants' TANF status for Housing Authority staff.
The Jobs and Employment Services Department and the housing authority have been
coordinating on another project to provide employment and training opportunities for public
housing residents in the county.
Eligibility
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 2 Site Summaries
A-18
To be eligible to receive a WtW voucher, applicants must already be on the Section 8
waiting list. In addition, applicants must be either: (1) working and receiving TANF cash
assistance; (2) not working and receiving cash assistance; or (3) working and received TANF
cash assistance in the previous two years. Fill must be in good standing with the TANF agency
and the employment and training agency (i.e., must not be in a sanctioned status).
The Housing Authority of the County cf San Bernardino is culling its Section 8 waiting list
for applicants that meet HUD WtW vouchers eligibility criteria. It sent a letter to everybody on its
Section 8 waiting list and asked them to return a form self-certifying their TANF status.
After receiving these forms, Housing Authority staff asked the county employment and
training provider-the Jobs and Employment Services Department-to verify TANF participation
for applicants the Housing Authority believes meet their voucher criteria. Upon verification, the
Housing Authority sent a letter to eligible applicants inviting them to a voucher briefing.
Issuance and Lease-Up
The first vouchers were issued in December 1999. As of March 8, 2000, the housing
authority had issued 203 vouchers, and leased-up 26 households³⁶. Of the households who
had leased up, the majority are working. This high rate of employment is due, in part, to the fact
that the housing authority issued vouchers to individuals who were receiving TANF and were
working prior to issuing them to those who were receiving TANF and were not working. Thus,
as they issue more vouchers, the share of WtW participants who are working will likely
decrease. The Housing Authority plans to have all 700 vouchers leased-up by January 1, 2001.
36 As of May 1, 2000, 331 vouchers have been issued and 83 families had leased-up.
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 2 Site Summaries
A-20
Partnerships
The San Joaquin Housing Authority relied on established partnerships with the County
Human Services Agency, the Private Industry Council, and a range of community based
organizations to collectively establish the eligibility criteria and goals for the WtW Voucher
Program in San Joaquin County. Much of this planning and design work was done by the
Coordinating Council of the Housing Authority's Supportive Services Centers which meets
monthly and includes representatives frommany local agencies and service providers.
In addition to this organizational. body and informal connections between staff, local
partnerships are based on previous collaborations such as those forged during the development
of a Resident Construction Training Program in public housing. This program brought together
the Housing Authority, Human Services Agency, and Private Industry Council and resulted in the
Housing Authority receiving a grant of $100,000 from Human Services and their Supportive
Services Centers' upcoming designation as one-stop centers for the CalWORKs program.
Eligibility
Along with traditional Section 8 income standards, the San Joaquin Housing Authority's
WtW Voucher Program is designed to reward work. Individuals eligible for WtW vouchers in
San Joaquin County are listed below in order of priority:
(1)
Persons who work for at least six continuous months and receive supplemental TANF
cash assistance;
(2)
Persons who complete an approved CalWORKs activity and maintain a job for four or
more continuous months; and
(3)
Persons who complete the in-home child care licensing process, demonstrate that
adequate housing is essential to the operation of their business, and contract to provide
licensed in-home child care during non-traditional work hours for individuals transitioning
from welfare to work.
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 2 Site Summaries
A-21
Issuance and Lease-up
As of April 4, 2000, the San Joaquin Housing Authority had issued 114 WtW housing
vouchers and leased-up 18 units. 37
37 As of May 1, 2000, 128 vouchers had been issued and 44 families had leased-up.
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 2 Site Summaries
A-22
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher
Texoma Council
Early Implementation Assessment
of Governments
Model 2 Site Summary:
Sherman, Texas
WtW Voucher Program System
The Texoma Council of Governments in Sherman, Texas was awarded 150 WtW
vouchers to serve Fannin and Grayson counties. The program grows out of its current Section
8 and FSS Programs and was developed through a series of focus groups held by the Council
with area service providers, including staff from Workforce Texoma and the local offices of the
Texas Department of Human Services.
In consultation with its partners, the Texoma Council of Governments developed a WtW
referral form that area agencies and service providers can use to refer eligible clients to the
Council of Governments for consideration for the WtW Voucher Program. Clients referred to the
Council complete a Section 8 application and, if accepted into the program, participate in
briefing; issuance, and lease-up activities. Council staff expect most WtW Voucher holders to
receive case management through FSS Program but for those who do not participate in FSS,
case management will be offered by the Texoma Council of Governments staff and modeled on
FSS (without the option of an escrow account). These case management services are in
addition to case management services clients receive as participants in programs run by
Workforce Texoma. Supportive services are provided by area nonprofits and service agencies,
with referrals made by the Texoma Council of Governments and Workforce Texoma case
managers. All clients will be connected to Workforce Texoma for employment-related services.
The Council of Governments staff informs families that, like FSS, three to five years should be
an adequate time horizon to self-sufficiency. if a family is not self-sufficient within this time
frame, the Council of Governments will most likely move that family to standard Section 8 or
public housing, although this policy was not fully defined at the time of the site visit.
Partnerships
The Texoma Council of Governments was the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)
service provider prior to the federal reorganization of the employment and training system under
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 2 Site Summaries
A-23
the Workforce Investment Act. In the new system, Workforce Texoma is the designated
Department of Labor Welfare-to-Work formula grant recipient and employs several former
Council staff persons who operated its JTPA program. Given their previous link to the Council
of Governments, the Workforce Texoma staff are very familiar with the Council's programs and
seek opportunities to work together. For example, they partnered to bring employment and
training opportunities to participants in the Council's FSS Program by creating a self sufficiency
board and coordinating services.
TCOG has an established relationship with the local offices of the Texas Department of
Human Services (TANF agency). Representatives from the Department of Human Services
serve on the local self sufficiency board and participate in Texoma Council of Governments
activities.
Eligibility
To be eligible to receive a WtW voucher, applicants must not currently receive Section 8
assistance and must be on the Section 8 waiting list. They can be placed on the waiting list via
the WtW referral form and subsequent intake process. In addition, applicants must: 1) be
eligible to receive, currently receiving, or received TANF benefits in the last two years benefits;
and 2) have a critical need for housing assistance to obtain/retain employment. There is
currently no written definition of critical need for housing assistance.
Issuance and Lease-up
As of March 1, the Texoma Council of Governments WtW Voucher Program had issued
29 vouchers and leased-up 15 families. 38 Of these 15, nine were single mothers, one was a
single male head of household, and one was a married couple. Four of the fifteen were
employed when they were issued the voucher.
38 As of May 1, 2000, 45 vouchers had been issued and 21 families had leased-up.
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 3 Site Summaries
A-24
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher
Early Implementation Assessment
Model 3 Site Summary:
*
Aiken
Aiken, South Carolina
WtW Voucher Program System
The Aiken Housing Authority received 165 WtW vouchers and currently administers 330
Section 8 vouchers with an open waiting list that has between 600 and 1000 families at any one
time. Although housing staff report that the Aiken community is receptive to Section 8 housing,
they also assert that access to clean, safe, affordable housing is a barrier to work for many
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients in Aiken County.
The Housing Authority operates the Department of Labor Welfare-to-Work Program
under contract to the local Council of Governments. The local TANF agency (the Department of
Social Services) refers clients to the Housing Authority's Department of Labor Welfare-to-Work
program (known locally as "Work to Win"). Vork to Win staff refer their clients to Section 8 staff
to be put on the Section 8 waiting list. Housing assistance is offered to Work to Win clients in
tandem with job readiness and placement services. All activities are monitored by Work to Win
case managers. Voucher issuance is done Ly Section 8 staff during Section 8 briefings.
Housing search is facilitated by Work to Win case managers. WtW families are subject to
Section 8 termination guidelines.
Partnerships
WtW Housing Vouchers are only given to participants in Work to Win. The Aiken
Housing Authority operates the Work to Wir: F ogram in Aiken, so coordination between the
Department of Labor workforce effort and the WtW Voucher Program is virtually seamless.
Work to Win participants are referred by the Department of Social Services through an existing
referral system. Work to Win case managers go to the Department of Social Services office
once a week to discuss the program with new participants. The Department of Social Services
and Work to Win case managers have regular informal contact and formal meetings once a
month. The Department of Labor Welfare-to-Work and TANF funds pay for child care,
transportation, and supportive services for Work to Win clients. Case management is provided
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 3 Site Summaries
A-25
through Work to Win. WtW housing vouchers are used to pay for the housing assistance
provided to Work to Win clients (except where clients already have Section 8 assistance).
Eligibility
Only Work to Win participants are eligible for WtW housing vouchers (if they also meet
Section 8 criteria such as passing a criminal background check). Work to Win participants meet
the WtW housing voucher eligibility criteria because all are either on TANF or recently off of
TANF. However, participation in Work to Win means they have further barriers to employment
that meet the standard Department of Labor Weitare-to-Work eligibility criteria (such as no high
school diploma, poor work history, etc.). Local leaders feel this targets their hard-to-serve
population for strategic and comprehensive assistance.
Issuance and Lease-up
The first WtW housing vouchers were issued on December 3, 1999. As of March 1,
2000, the Aiken Housing Authority had issued 30 vouchers, and 13 households had leased
up.³⁹ More than half of the first lease-ups were already employed. However, the recipients who
comprise the lease-ups had all been participating in the Work to Win program for a period of
time prior to the start of the WtW Housing Voucher Program. The high employment rate at the
time of lease-up is expected to drop as people are issued housing assistance at the same time
they start job readiness and attachment activities.
39 As of May 1, 2000, 50 vouchers had been issued and 24 families had leased-up.
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 3 Site Summaries
A-26
Welfare To Work Housing Voucher
Early Implementation Assessment
Everett Cly\Snohomish County
Model 3 Site Summary:
Everett City and Snohomish County,
Washington
WtW Voucher Program System
The local WtW Voucher Program is dministered jointly by the Everett Housing Authority
and the Housing Authority of Snohomish County The goal of the program is to help families
move from welfare-to-work by providing case munagement and access to supportive services.
The Everett Housing Authority received 475 vouchers; the Housing Authority of Snohomish
County received 700. The new program will serve residents of Snohomish County.
The WtW Voucher Program is designed to aggressively encourage participants to move
from welfare-to-work. During the application process, each participant fills out an action plan for
self-sufficiency with their caseworker from the nominating partner agency. This plan outlines the
participant's goals for self-sufficiency. In addition to the participant's personal goals, the
program requires the following:
All participants must be working at least 20 hours a week by month six of the program;
All participants must be working at least 35 hours per week by month 12 of the program;
and
If there are two adults living in the household, combined they must be working at least 55
hours per week at one year.
Participants must maintain employment or will be terminated from the WtW voucher
Program.
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 3 Site Summaries
A-27
Partnerships
Over ten community-based organizations, including the local TANF and workforce
offices, provide services through the WtW Voucher Program. Each agency has signed a
Memorandum of Understanding with both Housing Authorities specifically outlining the services
they will provide to WtW voucher holders. Although each partner agency works under a
different service delivery model with differences in client/case manager ratio and intensity of
services provided, as a partner agency all agree to develop an action plan for all participants for
whom they are providing case management urther, they agree to monitor their progress
toward self-sufficiency at month three, mosth/six,and month 12. This information isrreported to
the Housing Authority.
Eligibility
The WtW Voucher Program in Snohomish County moves beyond the three eligible
groups outlined in the NOFA (eligible for TANF, receiving TANF, or received TANF in the last
two years). Both Housing Authorities are committed to moving their Section 8 families toward
self-sufficiency. In addition, the Housing Authorities are interested in targeting homeless and
transitional residents, residents with limited English proficiency, and disabled persons, because
they believe these particular populations are increasing in size and are currently under served.
Three major groups are eligible for WtW vouchers. These are:
TANF-eligible families working at least 20 hours weekly;
Families currently enrolled in Work First or a similar training program but not yet
employed or working less than 20 hours; and
Homeless and transitional housing residents; residents with limited English proficiency;
and disabled persons.
To ensure that the housing assistance is necessary for obtaining or retaining
employment for eligible participants, the Housing Authorities developed a systematic set of
criteria, which each recipient must meet. These criteria include: (1) the family is paying more
than 40 percent of its income for rent; (2) the family is without housing or is otherwise
inadequately housed; or (3) some other condition that is up to the nominating agency. The
nominating agency must determine that the family meets one of these conditions. These
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 3 Site Summaries
A-28
eligibility requirements are noted on the WtW Voucher application, which is turned in to the
appropriate Housing Authority.
Issuance and Lease-Up
Applicants are identified in two ways: either the Housing Authority identifies an eligible
participant through the waiting list and refers the.n to a partner agency or a partner agency may
identify an eligible participant who is currently in its program or eligible for its program (this
includes Work First and TANF agency relisied-programs). The process for identifying potential
participants differs across partner agencies. Most partner agencies hold group briefings to
introduce the program to potential participants; however, some also meet with potential
participants one-on-one.
Everett Housing Authority. At the time cf the site visit (March 2000) approximately 105
applicants had been referred by partner agencies to the Everett Housing Authority. Of that pool,
54 applicants were deemed eligible, 50 were issued vouchers, and 18 participants have found
housing and leased up.⁴⁰
Housing Authority of Snohomish County. The Housing Authority of Snohomish County
had received 253 applicants from nominating partner agencies, as of March, 2000.
Approximately 119 of those applicants have been issued vouchers and 65 have leased up.⁴¹
40 As of May 1, 2000, 154 vouchers had been issued and 89 families had leased-up.
41 As of May 1, 2000, 230 vouchers had been issued and 92 families had leased-up.
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 3 Site Summaries
A-29
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher
Early Implementation Assessment
Model 3 Site Summary:
Tampa
Tampa, Florida
WtW Voucher Program System
The WtW Voucher Program adds 450 vouchers to the 2,600 Section 8 vouchers
managed by the Tampa Housing Authority. The Housing Authority administers the WtW
Voucher Program as an extension of its Section 8 program by tapping into Florida's existing
comprehensive employment and training system for TANF recipients. This education and
training system is managed by the local WAGES coalition (Work and Gain Economic Self-
Sufficiency), a public-private board established by the state of Florida. The local (Hillsborough
County) WAGES Coalition in Tampa contracts with Goodwill Industries to act as the primary
local service provider and Lutheran Services to serve the special needs of refugees. Florida's
Department of Children and Families, which determines eligibility for cash assistance, refers all
TANF applicants to the WAGES contractors for skills assessment and case management.
If a Goodwill-WAGES case manager determines that housing is a significant barrier to a
client's maintaining or obtaining employment, the manager completes a WtW voucher referral
form certifying the client's housing need and TANF status. Other agencies in the city can refer
families to the WtW Voucher Program, but Goodwill-WAGES providers must certify all
applications. A Goodwill-WAGES "point person" collects the referrals and transfers them to the
Section 8 Housing Specialist at the Tampa Housing Authority. Eligible applicants attend a
general Section 8 briefing, where the vouchers are issued and caseworkers (for housing search)
are assigned. Although there is a three percent vacancy rate in Tampa, the Assisted Housing
Director does not foresee that finding housing will be a barrier for WtW voucher holders because
recent landlord outreach efforts and expansion of the service area have increased the
availability of affordable housing.
The Housing Authority does not impose any additional requirements on WtW families
beyond those for all Section 8 participants for retaining the WtW voucher. WtW voucher holders
can receive the same services from the Housing Authority, the Department of Children and
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Carly Implementation Assessment:
Model 3 Site Summaries
A-30
Families, and WAGES as any person eligible for WAGES assistance. WtW families are subject
to Section 8 termination guidelines.
Partnerships
The Housing Authority had previous clationships with the Department of Children and
Families through the Family Unification Program am and with Goodwill-WAGES through a career
center located at a public housing complex. At the time of the WtW Voucher Program
application, the Housing Authority had been werking with Goodwill-WAGES to ensure that their
public housing residents had access to Goodwill's services. As noted above, Goodwill-WAGES
case managers must complete a WtW vouc referral form certifying the client's housing need
and TANF status before a family can receive a WtW Voucher. Goodwill-WAGES providers must
certify all applications (even those from other area service providers) and transfer them to the
Tampa Housing Authority. Goodwill-WACES has a staff person designated as the WtW point of
contact with the housing authority. The partners communicate about the WtW Voucher Program
through contact between this point person and the Section 8 office as well as informal
communication and meetings on an as-needed basis as issues arise.
Eligibility
Families that are eligible for TANF benefits and services, that are currently receiving
TANF benefits or services, or that have received benefits in the past two years all qualify for the
WtW Voucher Program. However, there is no established system for the Tampa Housing
Authority or its partners to identify families that may qualify for TANF but have never had contact
with the public assistance system. Local preferences for displaced families and those who are
rent-burdened or in substandard housing will be applied if applications exceed the number of
vouchers.
There are 600 to 800 people on the Housing Authority's Section 8 waiting list-mostly
elderly and single people. A review of the waiting list revealed that no one on the list was
eligible for the WtW Voucher Program. The partners expect that WAGES case managers will
identify most of the WtW voucher applicants during initial WAGES assessment/intake interviews.
Based on clients' responses to intake and assessment questions, WAGES case managers will
ascertain whether housing is a critical need for the clients to obtain or maintain employment.
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Model 3 Site Summaries
A-31
Issuance and Lease-up
As of March 7, 2000, Goodwill and Lutheran Social Services had referred 220 families to
the Tampa Housing Authority for the WtW Voucher Program. Almost half of the referrals were
current TANF recipients. Another 13 percent were in the one-year period following the
termination of cash assistance and receiving transitional services from WAGES. The remaining
third were families that had received TANI 1 enefits in the past two years but had not received
any WAGES services. WAGES representatives we interviewed believed the majority of the
people referred were employed, since WAG focuses on getting clients into the workforce
immediately.
As of the date of the site visit (March 7, 2000) The Housing Authority had issued 46
vouchers. Seven referred clients were denied vouchers due to criminal history, and 68 families
were denied vouchers because they never returned the Section 8 application and the required
documentation. Housing Authority intake personnel were still processing the remaining referrals.
Only
one
person
had
leased
up. 42
42 As of May 1, 2000, 98 vouchers had been issued and 11 families had leased-up.
APPENDIX B:
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Discussion Guide
B-1
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program
Early Implementation Assessment
Discussion Guide
[Note: This guide serves as a foundation foredrafting more specific and applicable guides for
each WtW site in our sample.]
Introduction
First, I want to thank you for agreeing to participate in our study. We realize your time is
valuable and we really appreciate it!
As I mentioned previously, my name is [enter name] and I work for the Urban Institute. The
Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, which conducts public policy research
for government agencies and private foundations. I will leave you a copy of our annual report
and you can also see some of the work we do on our website, the address is listed in the report.
Currently, we're conducting a WtW voucher program implementation study with staff at the
public housing agencies who were awarded the WtW voucher program funding. This study is
sponsored by HUD and has the goal of better understanding the early implementation process
voucher agencies are going through, and to inform the policy debate in Washington DC this
spring. This study will also help HUD and Congress understand the process of implementation,
the different program designs, and the partnerships voucher agencies have established. Today
we would like to focus on your program. We'll be asking a series of questions including
background information on your PHA, key program characteristics, eligibility guidelines, and
other implementation topics. The interview should take approximately [enter time].
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Discussion Guide
B-2
We'll be taking notes during our discussion. Your name will not be used in our report but we
may quote something you say and attribute it to someone with your position. If you would like to
say something but do not want it to be directly quoted, please let me know. I appreciate your
willingness to speak openly and honestly and would like to foster that dialogue. Do you have
any questions before we start?
I.
Background Information
[Executive Director, Section 8 Director, WtW Coordinator]
I'd like to start by confirming background information / have about the PHA
[use information from the application to pre-code and ask for verification]
1. I understand you manage [INSERT UNIT NUMBERS] units of public housing. Is this
correct? Is your housing stock both conventional and scattered site housing? How is it
divided?
2. How many Section 8 certificates and vouchers does the PHA administer?
3. How many people does the PHA employ? (number of full time equivalent staff positions or
FTE's)
/ would like to talk briefly about the supportive service programs your agency offers. We could
spend quite a bit of time discussing your general programs but I'll try to keep this brief. / just
need enough information to understand the larger context of which your welfare to work housing
voucher program is a part?
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early lementation Assessment:
Discussion Guide
B-3
4. Generally, what types of supportive service programs does the PHA offer to public
housing residents and Section 8 tenants? Who funds these services?
5. Does the PHA have a waiting list for Section 8 vouchers? (or does the PHA use a lottery
system?) If so, how many people are on th waiting list?
Do you know how many of the pesplason.the waiting list are on TANF?
When was the waiting list last updated?
Is the waiting list currently open closed?
To further my knowledge about the general context of your operations, / have three questions
about broad influences and initiatives outside of your agency.
6. What should we know about conditions in local housing and employment markets to
understand your WtW voucher program? (for example, high/low vacancy rates, high/low
unemployment)
7. What elements of state and local weliare reform initiatives are most important for your WtW
program? (for example, time limits, work requirements)
8. Which organizations are the key local actors and institutions in welfare and employment
programs? (Use information from telephone conversations and application to refer directly to
partner organizations and ask them to confirm these are the major players. Determine if
other major players exist.)
9. Before we talk about the specifics of your WtW housing voucher program, I want to get a
better understanding of how this program was conceived and developed in your jurisdiction.
Could you please tell me about how you went about putting your WtW voucher program
together from the time someone found out about the possibility of funding, through the
application process, and the start-up of the program?
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Discussion Guide
B-4
What Agency first saw the NOFA and started the process?
What other organizations were contacted? When? Why? How?
What Agency (or consultant) had lead responsibility for the application?
Did other agencies have responsibilities for application? What?
When were decisions made about eligibility and target populations? By whom?
How were decisions made?
11. WtW Voucher Program Characteristics
[WtW Coordinator, Section 8 Director, TANF agency staff, Workforce staff]
1. How many WtW vouchers did the PHA receive? (offer the number listed in the application
and ask to verify) Did the PHA receive the number they applied for? If not, is the PHA
aware why not?
2. How many PHA staff members work on the WtW voucher program? How many only work
on the WtW voucher program?
/ want to understand how a WtW voucher program participant moves through the program. / am
going to ask you several questions and use your answers to diagram the flow of clients through
your system. At this point / just want to touch briefly on each major activity and we will discuss
each in depth afterward. (NOTE: for those sites who have a client flow diagram in their
applications, produce diagram and ask for it to be verified during the conversation)
Can you walk me through how WtW voucher holders move through your WtW voucher
program?
For example, how are clients identified for the program?
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early implementation Assessment:
Discussion Guide
B-5
Who assesses the client for participation in the WtW voucher program?
Who notifies client they are accepted into the WtW voucher program?
Who briefs and issues voucher to client? (intake)
Who provides any available supportive services supporting work activities?
Who monitors lease-up?
Who manages client case?
3. How are potential clients assessed for
acipation in the WtW voucher program? Is this
assessment part of a larger assessment for supportive services or is it specific to the WtW
voucher program?
4. Do staff from multiple agencies participate in this assessment? (NOTE: Clearly distinguish
between different stages and organizations in the screening process.)
5. Who makes the decision that housing assistance is needed for a person to find or keep a
job? How is this decision made?
6. If more than one organization is involved in the assessment process, what organization is
responsible for assessing client needs at the time the voucher is issued as part of the WtW
voucher program? (NOTE: is this process specific to or noted as connected to the WtW
voucher program or is it part of the Section 8 program in general?)
7. What does the initial WtW voucher program intake assessment include? Is there a form for
intake assessment? (If so, please ask for a copy)
/ would like to shift the conversation to talk about supportive services.
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Impiementation Assessment:
Discussion Guide
B-6
8. What kinds of local programs and services do residents of the assisted housing you
administer ordinarily use when preparing for work? (life skills, job training)
9. Are these services provided in-house by the PHA or by other agencies?
10. Who funds these services?
11. Are these services different from the types of services used by WtW voucher program
participants?
12. Do you have formal relationships with any agencies to offer services specifically to WtW
voucher participants?
13. Do WtW voucher program participants receive case management? If so, who is
responsible for providing this service? What does case management include? What are the
case manager/client ratios? Which agency is responsible for providing these services?
/ want to make sure / understand the employment activities we've discussed. (NOTE: reiterate
main points above or probe for more with following two questions)
14. What types of employment activities do WtW voucher program participants participate in?
Are these mandatory for participation in WtW? Which agency is responsible for providing
these services?
15. Do WtW voucher program participants participate in any job training, or educational
programs? If so, please describe these in detail. Which agency is responsible for providing
these services?
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Discussion Guide
B-7
16. Are there any requirements that the WtW voucher participants must fulfill to remain in the
program? Are there time limits for participation in the WtW program? What happens if
participants do not fulfill program requirements? (Are they terminated from the WtW housing
voucher program? Are they terminated from the Section 8 program?)
17. What role does the PHA play in the pro: sion of non-housing services? (case management,
employment services, etc.)
18. What are the goals and objectives of the program? (If the goals are written down, it would
be very helpful for our report to have a copy, could we have one?)
19. Are WtW voucher program participants tracked while they move through the program? If so,
how are they tracked (computer, hard copy files)? Who is responsible for performing this
task?
20. How does the PHA plan to measure the success of WtW voucher participants? How does
the PHA plan to measure the success of their WtW voucher program?
21. What would your organization consider a successful outcome of the WtW voucher program?
III.
WtW Voucher Eligibility Guidelines
[WtW Coordinator, Section 8 Director, TANF]
/ would like to talk more about the eligibility guidelines for your local WtW voucher program.
We spoke about this briefly before, let me see if I've missed any key points.
1. Which agencies were involved in designing the eligibility guidelines for the WtW voucher
program? When did this process take place?
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Discussion Guide
B-8
2. What are the eligibility criteria used by your agency's WtW voucher program? Are these
written down? If so, can I get a copy?
3. Are there any specific groups that are given priority under the WtW voucher program
eligibility guidelines? (For example, hc melo people ompeople who have jobs already?)
4. The NOFA for the WtW voucher pr am Sts three different groups that can be eligible for
WtW voucher assistance. As you kno.v these are "currently receiving TANF," "TANF
eligible," and "people who have received TANF in the last two years." Does your WtW
voucher program seek to serve all three of these groups? Why or why not? How is each
group targeted?
5. How does the PHA determine that housing assistance is "necessary" for obtaining or
retaining employment? (Is this part of the eligibility criteria for the WtW voucher program?
Does the eligibility criteria cast a broad assumption about the need for housing assistance
and it's connection to employment?)
6. Does the WtW voucher program necessitate any waiting list changes (income guideline
waivers, priority preferences, etc.). Do you plan to open or expand the waiting list?
7. Are the WtW voucher program eligibility guidelines significantly different from the eligibility
guidelines for regular Section 8 vouchers? If so, how are they different? Did the PHA have
to get a waiver for implementing any of the WtW voucher program eligibility criteria?
8. Does the PHA, the TANF agency, or the workforce agency identify eligible participants?
How does this work?
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Discussion Guide
B-9
9. How are eligible WtW voucher participants identified (waiting list, referrals, local
advertisements)?
IV.
Partnerships
[WtW Coordinator, Partner Agencies]
Let's shift the discussion to talking about : in if the key partner agencies that participate and
provide services for the WtW voucher program.
1. Which agencies are the key local partners involved in the PHA's WtW voucher program?
2. What services do local partners provide to WtW voucher participants? Are any of these
dedicated services meaning that the services are reserved for WtW voucher program
participants?
3. Did the PHA have previous partnerships with [name TANF organization]? If so, describe the
nature and extent of the relationship?
4. Did the PHA have a previous partnership with [name of Workforce organization]? If so,
describe the nature and extent of the relationship?
5. Did the PHA have previous partnerships with [name of other major players]? If so, describe
the nature and extent of the relationship. If not, how did the PHA choose the partner
organizations? After the organizations were selected, how did the PHA approach them?
6. When did the partners get involved with the WtW voucher program? Were the partners
involved in the design of the program? If so, how were the partners involved in the design of
the WtW voucher program?
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Discussion Guide
B-10
7. Which agencies does the PHA have a contractual relationship with for the WtW program?
(Probe for strength of relationship: Does the PHA have a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) or a contract with partner agencies? Again, do the partner agencies provide services
reserved for WtW or general services?)
8. Does the PHA monitor the performance in partner agencies? If so, how are the partner
agencies monitored?
9. How do the partners communicate with each other? (Do the partners have regular
meetings? Is there a central staff person responsible for coordination?)
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Discussion Guide
B-11
V.
Implementation
[WtW Coordinator, Section 8 Director, Partner Agencies]
We recognize in many cases, program start-up has just begun, however, we would like to get a
sense of where sites are in the process. Over the next few minutes we have some questions
about early implementation of the WtW voucher program.
1. Did the PHA or partner agencies have to I new staff for the WtW voucher program? If so,
how many?
2. What do you consider the start date of your local WtW voucher program? Please define
what you mean by start date.
3. When did the PHA start (or expect to start) issuing WtW vouchers? How many WtW
vouchers have been issued?
4. Have any WtW voucher holders leased up? If so, how many? What is the average time for
lease-up? Has anyone used their voucher to move outside your jurisdiction? If so, how far
did they move?
5. How do you plan to handle portability in the WtW voucher program?
6. In practice, how is the PHA's proposed lease-up schedule working for the WtW program?
7. Do you know how many WtW voucher holders are currently employed? If so, how many?
8. How many WtW voucher holders are receiving TANF assistance? How many are not
receiving TANF? Of those not receiving TANF, how many have received TANF in the last
two years? How many are eligible but not receiving TANF?
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early implementation Assessment:
Discussion Guide
B-12
9. In what ways does your WtW voucher program differ from how you expected it to work in
your original proposal?
10. Have the relationships between the PHA and the partner agencies changed from what they
were prior to the WtW program? If so, in what ways?
11. Were you able to implement your eligibiate criteria as planned? If not,why not? E
12. How do the recent income targeting changes ii. the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility
Act (QWRA) affect your program? (targeting requirements state that 75 percent of new
vouchers issued within a fiscal year must be made available for families earning at, or below
30 percent of the median income.)
13. If you were to write your application today, would you make any changes? (probe for goals,
eligibility, partnerships)
VI.
Wrap-Up [should be asked of all respondents]
1. What helped your design and implementation process for WtW move forward?
2. What were/are the major challenges during implementation?
3. What do you think is your organization's greatest accomplishment in the early
implementation of this program?
4. Do you have any advice for other PHA's implementing WtW voucher programs?
5. Are there aspects of your WtW program you might do differently in the future?
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Discussion Guide
B-13
6. Do you have any specific advice for HUD regarding the WtW voucher program? Are there
things HUD should do differently in 2001?
7. Is there anything you would like to add?
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early imple mentation Assessment:
Discussion Guide
B-14
Questions Tailored to Specialized Respondents
[These questions are in addition to those in the core guide. Respondents may be asked
relevant questions found in the core guide including queries about implementation and wrap-up.]
TANF Staff Module
[TANF Agency Staff]
A. TANF Assistance
1. What is the jurisdiction of the local TANF agency?
2. Could you briefly describe local policies regarding time limits and work requirements (hours
per week) for receipt of cash assistance (TANF)? What is the state's time limit on receipt of
assistance? [Pull information from background materials prior to interview and ask
interviewee to verify]
3. When was TANF implemented or when did the clock start ticking for those people on public
assistance in your jurisdiction?
4. How would you describe the need for affordable housing in your community?
5. How is housing assistance an important part of TANF recipients' finding or retaining
employment?
B. Partnership with the PHA
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Discussion Guide
B-15
1. How would you describe your agency's involvement in the WtW housing voucher program?
/ want to understand how the WtW voucher program took shape in this jurisdiction. What
agency first started the process of putting the WtW voucher program application together?
What Agency (or consultant) had lead responsibility for the application?
Did this agency have a role in putting logether the application?
2. Was the TANF agency involved in the desig 1 of the local WtW voucher program? How?
When?
3. Does the TANF agency have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or contract with the
PHA for services provided under the WtW housing voucher program?
4. For the WtW program, are there regular meetings between your agency and the housing
agency? Who participates in these meetings? What is the purpose of these meetings?
5. What type of staff in your agency are regularly in contact with staff at the housing agency
about the WtW program? How are they involved?
6. Is there a location where staff from the housing agency and your staff are co-located?
Where? What is the purpose of these staff persons? Do they participate in WtW activities?
7. Does the TANF agency partner with the PHA for other programs? If so, what are the
programs?
C. Services Provided for the WtW Voucher Program
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early plementation Assessment:
Discussion Guide
B-16
1. What is this organization's role in the WtW housing voucher program? What activities are
you engaged in? (for example, do they provide the list of eligibles or other data)
2. Do you provide any services to WtW housing voucher participants? If so, what are these
services and how provided? (for examp e. case management, referrals to job training, etc.)
3. Do WtW voucher program participants re reive the same services as other TANF-recipients
not in the voucher program?
4. If TANF agency provides case management to WtW voucher participants, Are the case
management services provided to WtW housing program participants different from those
provided for TANF recipients?
5. Are the WtW voucher program participar .3 tracked separately from other TANF recipients?
D. Implementation of the WtW Housing Voucher Program
1. What do you see as your early accomplishn in the WtW.voucher-program?
2. What aspects of your existing local TANF system made implementing the WtW housing
voucher program easier? More difficult?
Employment/Workforce Development Module
[PIC, SDA/ WIB, Employment Service non-profit]*
*There may be multiple E&T providers serving the TAN population in a single community.
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Discussion Guide
B-17
A. Employment and Training (E&T)
1. Who are the major local service providers in your employment and training system?
2. What are the major funding sources for these services? (Probe for services provided by
WtW grants, TANF employment, JIPA)
3. How are TANF recipients served by the Ic employment and training system? ---
4. Are WtW voucher participants served by the local employment and training system? If so,
how? Where?
5. Do WtW voucher program participants receive the same employment and training services
as other TANF recipients not in the voucher program? If different, how?
6. How would you describe the need for afforda le housing in your community?
7. Is receiving housing assistance an important part of a low income person finding or retaining
employment? Why?
B. Partnership with the Local Workforce Agency
1. How would you describe your agency's involvement in the WtW housing voucher program?
2. Was the [NAME OF LOCAL WORKFORCE AGENCY] involved in the design of the WtW
housing voucher program?
3. Was this agency involved in putting together the application for the WtW voucher program?
How?
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Discussion Guide
B-18
4. Does this agency have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or contract with the PHA
for services provided under the WtW housing voucher program?
5. For the WtW program, are there regular meetings between your agency and the housing
agency? Who participates in these med' What is the purpose of these meetings?
6. What type of staff in your agency are regularly in contact with staff at the housing agency
about the WtW program? How are / inv. 'ved?
7. Is there a location where staff from the housing agency and your staff are co-located?
Where? What is the purpose of these staff persons? Do they participate in WtW activities?
8. Does this agency partner with the PHA for other programs? If so, what are the programs?
C. Implementation of the WtW Housing Voucher Program
1. What do you see as your early accomplishments in the WtW voucher program?
2. What aspects of your existing employment and training system made implementing the WtW
voucher program easier? More difficult?
Other WtW Housing Program Partners
A. Agency Background
1. What is the mission of your organization?
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early implementation Assessment:
Discussion Guide
B-19
2. What are your organization's major activities?
3. How are WtW housing voucher program participants served by your organization?
4. How would you describe the need for affordable housing in your community?
5. Is receiving housing assistance an important 5 art of a low income personifinding or retaining
employment? Why?
B. Partnership with the Housing Agency
1. Was your organization involved in the design of the WtW housing voucher program?
2. Does your organization have an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or contract with the
PHA for services provided under the WtW housing voucher program?
3. How would you describe your agency's involvement in the WtW housing voucher program?
4. For the WtW program, are there regular meetings between your agency and the housing
agency? Who participates in these meetings? What is the purpose of these meetings?
5. What type of staff in your agency are regularly in contact with staff at the housing agency
about the WtW program? How are they involved?
6. Is there a location where staff from the housing agency and your staff are co-located?
Where? What is the purpose of these staff persons? Do they participate in WtW activities?
7. Does your organization partner with the PHA for other programs? If so, what are the
programs?
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Discussion Guide
B-20
C. Implementation of the WtW Housing Voucher Program
1. What do you see as your early accomplishments in the WtW voucher program?
2. What aspects of your existing organiz tonal: ucture or relationships made implementing
the WtW voucher program easier? More caficult?
FSS Program Staff Module
[FSS Coordinator, WtW Coordinator]
1. Does the PHA have an FSS program? [verify from application] Is the FSS program for
Section 8 tenants, public housing residents, or both?
2. Could you estimate what portion of your Section 8 holders participate in the PHA's FSS
program?
3. What types of services do FSS clients receive or participate in? (are these services offered
in-house or by referral other organizations?)
4. Is the FSS program part of the WtW voucher program design? If so, describe how FSS is
part of the design for WtW?
5. Do FSS and the WtW voucher program work together to provide services to WtW voucher
participants? If so, how?
6. Do clients for both the FSS program, and the WtW voucher program, participate in similar
activities? How are they different?
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early
:.)
piementation
Assessment:
Discussion Guide
B-21
Mobility Program Staff Module
[Mobility Coordinator, WtW Coordinator]
1. Does the PHA have a mobility proj' please describe. [This description tells you
how the PHA defines what a mobility programis]
2. What types of services do participants in the mobility program receive (probe for definitions
of housing search, counseling, and landlord outreach)?
3. Is the mobility program part of the WtW voucher program design? If so, describe how
mobility is part of the design for WtW?
4. Do clients for both the regular.mobility pre.. am, and the WtW voucher program,
participate in similar activities? How are ii, y different?
5. What are the goals of the mobility progr Are these goals the same for the WtW
voucher program? (For example, does 11. hobility program encourage certain types of
moves such as those to low-poverty areas, low minority areas, or areas closer: to work?)
6. Are WtW voucher holders encouraged to make moves to certain areas? If so, why, how,
and what areas? Are these different from those recommended to other mobility program
participants?
7. Do mobility services assist WtW voucher : ders in making housing choice decisions that
help them find or retain jobs? If so, how?
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program Early Implementation Assessment:
Discussion Guide
B-22
8. What portion of your Section 8 families participate in some aspect of the PHA's mobility
program? Do you expect a similar portion of WtW voucher holders to participate in the
mobility program? Why?
9. If some WtW participants have leased-up:
Do you have early results on the Issations chosen by WtW voucher participants?
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].
Welfare to Work Housing Voucher Program: Earl implementation Assessment
1
The interviewer may need to probe after the initial question. Helpful probes are listed in italics. Directions for
the interviewer and the appropriate potential respondents for groups of questions are noted in [brackets].