46coordinating.pdf

William

M.

Rohe

Michael

A.

Stegman

Historically,liberals

and

conservativeshavedisagreed overthecauses ofpoverty.Recently,however,their

attitudes

toward

existingpublic

programs

to assistthe

poor

have converged.Liberals

and

conservatives alike havecriticizedtheseprogramsforfailingto

move

people out ofpoverty.

More

specifically, public housing

and

other

programs

suchas

Aid

toFamilieswith

Dependent

Children

(AFDC)

have

been

faultedforhavingbuilt-in

incentives that discourage recipients

from

increasing

their incomes.

The

lack of coordination

among

the

varioussocialassistance

programs

hasalso

been

criti-cized.

A

person

may

receivejob training, forexample,

buthaveto

drop

outbecausechildcareisunavailable. Overall, thecurrentarrayofhousing

and

socialservices

has not effectively assisted

poor

families in attaining

self-sufficiency.

An

important goal ofhousing

and

social

programs

should

be

tohelpindividuals

and

familiesachieve

self-sufficiency. This notion is reflected in recent housing

andsocialservicelegislation,includingtheFamilySupport

Act

of1988

and

theNational Affordable

Housing Act

of 1990.

These

actsseektorestructurehousing

and

social

servicestoprovideincentives

and

supportfor

self-suffi-ciency, rather than simply maintaining recipients ata

minimum

standardofliving.

The Need

for Self-Sufficiency

Programs

There

are approximately 33.6 million people living

below

thepovertylevel inthe

United

States.This

repre-Willam

Rohe

is

on

the facultyofthe

Department

ofCity

and

RegionalPlanningatthe Universityof North Carolinaat

Chapel

Hill.

He

is_{co-author of Planning With}

Neighbor-hoods

and

a

number

ofarticles

on

housing

and community

development. Michael

Stegman

is

Chairman

ofthe

depart-ment

ofCity

and

Regional Planning

and

specializes in housingpolicy.

sents about 13.5 percent of the total population.

Al-though

thisrateislower thanthe1983 povertyrateof 15.2 percent, itremainssubstantially higherthan the 11.4 percent rate recorded in 1978.1

If transfer

pay-ments

suchaswelfare

and

food

stamps

aresubtracted

from

income, however,thepovertyratehas

showed

re-markable

stability

throughout

the seventies

and

eight-ies.

The

poverty rate

was

21.3 percent in 1965, 19 percentin 1973,

and

22.9percentin 1984.2Thus,

fed-eral

income maintenance programs

have reduced

pov-erty,butthey

do

not

seem

tohave reducedtheneedfor

publicassistance,theidealgoalforpublicprograms.

The

characteristicsofthoseinpoverty hasalsochanged overthelast

two

decades.

Over

halfofall

poor

families are

now

headed

by

women,

and

female-headed house-holds withchildrenaresixtimes

more

likelytobe

poor

than two-parent households. This suggests that the childcareresponsibilitiesofsingle-parenthouseholds can

be

a

major

obstacle to

employment

and

self-suffi-ciency.3In addition, a

combination

of

low

wages,

tem-porary

unemployment,

limited

work

hours

and

large families have kept

many

families

from moving

out of poverty. Close to halfofthe 6.8 million familyheads

who

were poor

in1988 heldjobs.

The

poor

todayare also

more

likelyto be concen-trated in central cities.

According

to a report by the National

Research

Council,"bettereducated

and

more

highlyskilledresidents,including minorities, are

mov-ingout ofthe centralcities,leavingbehinda

concentra-tionof disadvantagedresidents isolatedinpoverty neigh-borhoods. This

group

ofpersistently

poor

central-city residents,called

an

'underclass'by

some,

does not

par-ticipate inexpanding

economic

opportunities."4

More-over,thereisa

growing

imbalance

between

theskillsof

Strategies

for

Helping

the

Poor

Clearly,thereis

no

shortageof

programs

designedto

assistthepoor.

The

totalcostof

government programs

specificallydesigned to aid the

poor was

estimated at

S 165.2 billion in 1987.

The

federal

government

paid nearlythree-fourthsofthis

amount.

6

An

analysis

done

by theCongressional

Research

Service,however,

shows

that anti-poverty funds have

been

shifted

away from

programs

that offera

permanent

solution to poverty.

From

1968 to 1988, anti-poverty expenditures shifted from cash support

and

job training

programs

to the

direct provisionoffood

and

housing.

Inspiteof

many

anti-povertyprograms, poverty

per-sistsatunacceptably highlevels.

The

structureofpublic assistance

programs

and

thelackof coordination

among

them

arcpartiallytoblame.

A

criticismofwelfare

pro-grams

has

been

thatthey

undermine

the incentives for

work and

breed

dependence on

publicsubsidies.Until

recently,forexample,

AFDC

and Medicaid

were

linked

sothat ifrecipientsearned

enough

to

no

longerqualify

for

AFDC

they alsolosttheirMedicaidbenefits. Since

most

of these people held jobs that did not include medical benefits, they either

had

to

wager on

staying healthy or pay a large part oftheir salary formedical coverage.

The

fragmentation of service delivery has also

se-verely limited the effectiveness of anti-poverty pro-grams.

Poor

familiesoften have multiple

impediments

to

becoming

self-sufficient.7

These

include lackofbasic

skills,lackof transportationoptions,poor housingquality, poorhealth

and

sometimes

substance abuse problems.

There

istherefore a

need

for acoordinated package of

services to achieve self-sufficiency. Federal

and

state

governments

finance

more

than seventy

programs

de-signedspecifically forindividualswithlimitedincomes. Additional

programs

areofferedbylocal religious,

phil-anthropic

and

other private organizations.

These

pro-grams

have different eligibility requirements, are ad-ministered by different agencies

and

require different

application procedures.

As

a result, it

becomes

very

difficultforthe

poor

toobtainallthe services

needed

to

become

self-sufficient.

Families receiving

AFDC

payments, for example,

may

still live indilapidated or

overcrowded

housingor

may

not havethe basic skills to find

employment.

In a

recentstudy by

Newman

and

Schnare, 30 percent ofthe

3.5million families receiving

AFDC

were

foundtohave multiplehousing

problems

suchas

poor

housing

condi-tions

and

high housingcosts.Afull83 percent hadahigh

rent

burden

and

25 percent lived insubstandard hous-ing.8

Moreover,

limited housingchoices frequently af-fectafamily's ability to attain self-sufficiencyby curtail-ing mobility

and

obstructing the pursuit of

new

jobs,

education

and improved

social conditions.

Housing

conditions alsoaffectthe physical

and

mentalhealthof

individuals,

and

canindirectlyinfluenceanindividual's

jobperformance.

The

Logic of

Self-Sufficiency

Programs

Self-sufficiency

programs

aredesignedtoreducethe

incentives to

remain

in publicwelfare programs.

They

provide poor,

unemployed and under-employed

house-holdswithacoordinatedpackage ofservicesdesignedto

enable

them

to

become

self-sufficient. Individuals in

poor

families often

need

remedial education

and

job training to

become

self-sufficient.

They

may

also

need

other support services.

For

example, they

may

need

counsellingto help develop a set ofpersonal goals or childcare that allows

them

toparticipateintraining

and

employment

activities.

They

may

also

need

transporta-tion assistance

and

decenthousing.

Coordination of services is typically facilitated by boards oradvisory

committees

composed

of

representa-tives

from

theareasocialserviceagencies,including the

department

ofsocial services, the housing authority,

employment

and

trainingdepartment,

and

otherpublic

and

non-profit service providers.

These

boardsfacilitate

the delivery ofa coordinated

package

ofservices

and

overseetheprogressoftheprograms.

Self-sufficiency

programs

typically rely

on

case

man-agerstoassess thefullrange ofservices that participants need.

Case

managers

helpparticipantsapplyforservices

and

actasadvocates for

them

asthey dealwithvarious service agencies.

Case

managers

also provide

coun-sellingandgeneral

encouragement

throughoutthe

train-ingperiod

and

may

follow-upaftertheyhave obtaineda job. In

some

instances, the assessment ofclient needs

result inthe realization that

new

servicesare

needed

in

a

community,

orthatexistingservices

must

be expanded.

Experience with

Self-Sufficiency

Programs

The

Department

of

Housing and

Urban

Develop-ment

(HUD)

has

been

a leader in sponsoring

self-sufficiencyprograms.In1984,

HUD

introducedProject Self-Sufficiency(PSS)as

one

ofitsQuality ofLife Initia-tives. This demonstration project provided an

addi-tionalallocationofSection 8certificates to

communi-tiesthat

were

willingto

draw on

bothpublic

and

private sectorresourcestodevelopa

comprehensive

and

coor-dinated

program

ofjob training, remedial education, childcare,transportation

and

otherservicesdesignedto

breakthe cycleofpoverty.

HUD

alsoprovidedtechnical assistance to the participatingcommunities,but

com-munities

were

expected to rely

on

other sourcestopay

foradditionalservices.

In all, 155

communities

participated in PSS.

HUD

provided the participants with approximately 10,000 Section 8 certificates, totaling nearly S48 million in

parents

who

enteredtheprogram,42 percent

completed

it

and

eitherobtainedfull-timejobswith

growth

poten-tialorenrolled incollegedegree programs.10

The Bush

administration replacedProject

Self-Suffi-ciency withOperationBootstrap,whichisvirtually

iden-ticaltoitspredecessor.

On

October

4,1989,Jack

Kemp,

Secretaryof

Housing

and

Urban Development announced

S85.8 million in awards to 61 housing authorities to

implement Operation

Bootstrap.Thisrepresents atotal

of 2,842 Section 8 certificates.

Although

HUD

has

commissioned an

evaluation ofthisprogram,theresults

arenotavailableat this time.

The

Gonzales

Affordable

Housing

Act,passedinlate

1990, also creates several

new

self-sufficiencyprograms. TitleV, Section

554

ofthat act authorizes the Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program.

FSS

is similar to

PSS

and Operation

Bootstrap in that it seeks to

promote

In

spite

_of

many

anti-poverty

programs,

poverty

persists

at

unacceptable high

levels.

The

structure

of

public

assistance

programs

and

the

lack

of

coordination

among

them

are

partially

to

blame.

self-sufficiency by providing those receiving housing

subsidieswithacomprehensive, coordinated

package

of

social services.

These

servicesinclude family counselling, transportationassistance,daycare, literacy

and

job train-ing.Likeearlierprograms,itcallsforthe creationofa coordinating

body

composed

of representatives

from

the public housing authority

(PHA)

and

other local

public

and

privatesocialservice agencies.Italsocallsfor

the

development

of

an

actionplan tocoordinatethese

services;however,

no

new

fundsareprovidedtopayfor

them.

The

FSS

program

isdifferent

from

theearlier

pro-grams

inseveralways,however. Earlier

programs

were

voluntary,

whereas

this

program

is

mandatory

forfiscal year 1993

and

beyond. Specifically, local housing

au-thorities

must

haveself-sufficiency

programs

that

ac-commodate

the

number

ofparticipants equal to the

number

of

new

assistedhousingunitsprovided by

HUD.

For

example, ifin 1993

HUD

providesa citywithfifty vouchers

and

fiftypublichousingunits,theywillhaveto

accommodate

100participant's inaself-sufficiency pro-gram.

Housing

authorities that lack support for local

servicesoradministrative costs canbe

exempted from

theprogram, however.

The

second

major

difference is that participating families

who

receiveSection8certificatesor vouchers

can lose theirhousingassistanceifthey

do

not follow

through withtheprogram. Thisprovisiondoes not apply

topublichousingresidents,however.

Each

participant

must

sign a contractwith thesponsoring housing au-thority thatincludesthesupportservicesprovidedtothe family

and

theresponsibilitiesofthe

program

partici-pants.

These

responsibilitiesincludetaking partinjob trainingprograms, seeking

employment, and

other

ac-tivitiesthatlead toself-sufficiency.Furthermore, each participatingfamily

must

fulfillitsobligationunderthe contractwithinfiveyears.

At

the

end

offiveyears,orif

the familycannot

meet

theresponsibilitiesspecifiedin

the contract, the family loses its housing

voucher

or

certificate.Extensions

beyond

fiveyearscanbe granted

for

good

cause.

A

third difference is that the

FSS

program

has an escrow accountprovision.Thisprovision requires hous-ing authoritiesto set

up escrow

accountsforparticipants with

incomes below

80

percent of the area median.

When

afamily enterstheprogram,thebaserentisset at

30 percent of its income.

As

income

increases, the participantcontinues to pay

30

percent of household income, butthe difference

between

thebaserent

and

the

new

rentisputintoaninterest-bearingescrowaccount.

A

participatingfamily

may

withdraw

thefunds

from

this account onlyafterit

no

longerreceivesfederal, stateor otherpublichousingassistance.

The

other

major

self-sufficiency

program

authorized bythe National Affordable

Housing Act

is the Public

Housing

Family Investment Centers

program

(TitleV, Section515).Thisisacompetitivegrant

program

that

provides housing authorities with funds to

remodel

public housing

developments

or nearby buildings to

accommodate

resident training

and

support service programs.

The

grantfunds canbe usedtopayfor

up

to

15percent ofthe costofdeliveringthese services

and

to

hireservicecoordinators.Thisprogram,unlike the

FSS

program, providesatleast limitedfundingforthe

serv-ices.In addition,any

income

receivedinjobtraining or supportservice

programs

arenot consideredin

calculat-ingrentpayments.

Income

earnedinthefirstjob follow-ing participation in the

program

isalso excludedfrom rent calculationfor

an

18-month

period.Unfortunately, the recent Veterans Administration,

HUD

and

Inde-pendent

Agencies

Spending

Billdid not fundthis

sec-tionoftheact.

The

1990

Housing Act

also

changed

how

allrentsfor

federally assistedhousingare calculated.

The

actholds rentincreases to a

maximum

of 10 percenteachyearfor

three years after a previously

unemployed

household

member

finds

employment.

Thisisto increase the

incen-tivefor

unemployed

assisted housingresidents to find

employment.

Charlotte's

Gateway Housing

Program

The Gateway

Housing

Program

inCharlotte,

NC,

isa

good example

ofaself-sufficiencyprogram.It is

one

of thefirst

programs

ofitstypeinthenation

and

servedas

a

model

forthe

FSS

program.

The

objectiveofthe

Gateway

Housing program

isto

help very

low-income

families

become

socially and

by local officials in Charlotte to

enhance

the labor

market

skills ofparticipants sothat they can

become

home

owners and

move

out of public housing. This emphasis

on

home

ownership

is

meant

toprovidea clear

and

desirable goal for

program

participants.

Partici-pantsbeginlearning

about

qualifyingfor

home

owner-ship

and

theprocessofbuyinga

home

soon

afterthey are accepted intheprogram.

The

Charlotte

Housing

Authority

(CHA)

publicizes the

program

through newsletters

and

presentationsat

tenant council meetings.Families

must

earn lessthan $12,500 a year to qualify for the program.

There

is a separate

program

forfamilies

who

earn

more

than$12,500 peryear.Applicants

go

throughascreening processthat involvesaninitialinterviewwith

program

staff,a read-ing

and

occupational preference test,

and

checks for

criminal convictions, rent

and

credit history.

If a family is accepted, they enter into a mutually bindingcontractwiththe

CHA.

Thiscontractspecifies

the servicesthe housingauthority

and

othercity

agen-cies will provide.

These

services can include remedial

education, treatment for substance abuse, family

and

peercounseling,daycare

and

jobtraining.

The

contract,

which

isinthe

form

of

an

addendum

tothefamily's lease,

alsopermitsthe

CHA

toterminatethe leaseifthe family does not

meet

itsresponsibilities.

The

program

has a remedial stage

and

a transition

stage.

The

remedialstagebegins withaseriesof diagnos-ticsdesignedtoidentifya participant'seducational

and

vocational deficiencies.

These

tests,

which

are carried out by

CHA

staff

and

thecity's

Employment

and

Train-ing

Department,

areusedtoidentifyindividual barriers

toself-sufficiency

and

toprepareaplanfor

overcoming

them. This plantypically involvesremedialeducation, daycare assistance

and

job training.

Education

and

job trainingareprovided in

many

fields,includingmedical

services,

computer

operations

and automotive

repair.

A

participant

must complete

the remedial phase of the

Gateway

program

in

two

years.

CHA

does notaccept individuals it feels will

need

more

than

two

years of remedialservices.

During

thetwo-yearperiod,a

partici-pant's

maximum

rentisfrozenatthelevelhe or she

was

paid

when

entering theprogram.Moreover, other needs-based benefitssuch as

AFDC

or

Food

Stamps remain

constant, even

though

family

income

might improve. Thisprovision

was

authorized bya special sectionofthe

Housing Act

of1987. It alsorequired approval by the

state

and

countydivisionsofsocial services.

These

pro-visionsaredesignedtoeliminatethe disincentives asso-ciatedwith higher

incomes

and

permit participants to accumulatesufficient

income

to stabilize their financial situation.

The

transitionstageisdesignedtofurtherstrengthen

participants'

employment

skills

and

increase their

in-comes. Participants willalso receive

home

ownership

counseling,financialbudgetingtraining,

and

other

serv-icestohelp

them

make

the transition

from

public hous-ing to

home

ownership.Participantscan

remain

inthe transitionalstageofthe

program

for

up

tofiveyearsbut

many

are expected to graduate into their

own

homes

within a shortertimeperiod.

During

the transition phase, a familyinthe

Gateway

Program

spends

30

percentofits

income

for rent.

CHA

deposits the difference

between

actual rent

payments

and

theoperatingexpenses ofthe unit

and complex

in

which

the familylivesinto

an

escrow accountthatcanbe usedto

make

a

down

payment

on

a house.

As

family

income

increases,sodoesitsrent,butthe rentincrement accruestothefamily's

escrow

accountratherthantothe housingauthority.

At

thecompletion ofthe transitionphase,

CHA

helps the family find suitablehousing

on

theprivatemarket.

The

accumulated

savings

from

excess rentpayments,in

One

of

the extraordinary aspects

_of

the

Gateway

housing

program

is

the

commitment

that

Char-lotte's

social service

organizations

have

demon-strated to

the program...

It

remains

to

be

seen

whether

social service

providers

in

other

cities

can

cooperate

as well as those

in

Charlotte.

conjunction with

mortgage

assistance

from

the

North

Carolina

Housing

Finance

Agency

and

the Charlotte

Housing

Partnership,assure theavailability of afford-able

home

ownership

opportunities.

Gateway

is

managed

by

one

full-timestaff

member,

who

alsoacts as a case

manager

for

program

partici-pants.

The

Officeof

Employment

and

Training provides

staffto

do

theoccupationaltesting.

The

Department

of

Social Services assignsadditionalcase

workers

toeach of the

Gateway

participants receiving

AFDC.

Child

Care

Resources, a local nonprofit organization, pro-vides child careservices.

Gateway's

Effectiveness

As

of

October

1991, there

were

85participantsinthe

Gateway

program.

The

average

incomes

of those

who

had been

in the

program

at least 18

months

increased

from

$6,607 to $7,607.

The

average education level

increased

from

11.4 years to 12.2years.

The

percentage ofparticipantswithfull-timejobs

remained

stableat37 percent,but the

number

withpart-time jobs increased

from

17 percent to 35 percent. Several families have

moved

throughthe

program

more

quicklythan

antici-pated

and

are

now

in theprocessofbuying

homes.

At

the

same

time,24familieshaveeither

dropped

out or have

been

terminated

from

the program.

The

most

frequentreasonforterminationisthey didnotlive

up

to

their agreements to participate in remedial activities.

because ofdrug involvement or othercriminal behavior.

It isdifficult for the housingauthoritystaff to find

publichousingresidents

who

arebothinterestedin

and

qualifiedfortheprogram.

Out

of553applicants,only

160 qualified. This

number

includes the 85 current

participants,41 applicants

who

were

accepted butdid not

want

toparticipate intheprogram,

and

those that graduated or

withdrew from

the program.

The

major

reasonforrejecting applicants

was

thatit

would

require

more

than the

two

years of remedial education

and

trainingfor

them

to qualifyforjobs thatpayatleast57 per hour.

Many

applicants did not have high school degrees

and had

verylow readinglevels.

Conclusions

It istooearly to assessthefullimpacts ofthis

program

on

its participants.

Although

this

new

approach

to

coordinatinghousing

and

socialservices is promising,

there are several issues that deserve discussion. First,

self-sufficiency

programs

are small

and

include avery

small percentage of those

who

need

assistance. Last

year,

HUD's

Operation

Bootstrap involved less than

3,000 families nationally.

The

Gateway program

cur-rently involvesonly 100 ofthe nearly5,000 familiesin

Charlotte'spublichousing.

Although

the

new

housingactseekstogreatly

expand

theseprograms, expansionislimitedbylackoffunding

forsupportservices

and

program

staff.Self-sufficiency

programs

providevery little

new

funding for carrying out these programs,

and

existing staff

and

funds are

limited.Increasedfundingforthese

programs

is

neces-sary if they are to serve

more

than a handful of the familiesinneed.

Self-sufficiency

programs

depend on

cooperation

among

localserviceproviders.

One

oftheextraordinary aspectsofthe

Gateway

housing

program

isthe

commit-ment

thatCharlotte'ssocialserviceorganizationshave demonstratedtotheprogram.

The

DepartmentsofSocial

Services,

Employment

and

Training,

and

other organi-zationshavealteredtheirstandardprocedures

and

have dedicatedstaff

and

otherorganizationalresourcestothe program. It remains to be seen

whether

social service providersinothercitiescancooperateaswellasthosein

Charlotte.

A

number

ofearlierattemptsatcoordinating services have

been

undermined

by competition

and

conflict

among

localservice providers.

The

assumption

behind self-sufficiency

programs

is

that residents of public

and

subsidized housing are motivated to achieve self-sufficiency.

The

experience with the

Gateway

Housing

Program

suggests that this

may

notbethe casefora largeproportion ofresidents.

The

housingauthorityhasfounditverydifficultto find

100 residents thatareboth interested in

and

qualified

for the program.

The

program

staff

members

suggest that

many

residentsofpublichousing havegiven

up on

themselves.

They

lack the self-confidence

and

self-es-teem

to undertake educational

and

job training pro-grams.

Given

the limitedfundingfor social services, concen-tratingservices

on

familiesinvolved inself-sufficiency

programs

means

that other

needy

familieswill not be served.Agencies caneither distributefundstoallneedy

communities

ortargetfundsto

one

area,althoughthis does not havetobe

an

allornothingdecision.

Some

very basicsocial services (such as food assistance) can be offeredto thewidest group, whileothers (suchasjob training

and

daycare assistance)canbetargetedtothose

inself-sufficiencyprograms.

There

isacompellinglogictoconcentratingservices

on

a smaller

group

ifthis will leadto self-sufficiency.

Rather

than maintainingastateof poverty

and

depend-ence, self-sufficiency

programs

have the potential to

move

people out of poverty

and

off direct public

assis-tance.

As

program

participants

become

self-sufficient,

others can take advantage ofthe coordinated services

offeredbytheseprograms.

Finally,althoughtheseprograms appeartohavegreat

potential, the history ofattempts to assist the

poor

is

litteredwith

programs

that

had

greatpotential.

Data on

the

performance

of self-sufficiency

programs

is still

scant.

We

need

to followtheprogress ofthese

programs

carefullytoassesstheirperformance.

[Editor'snote:

The

authors, withassistance

from

theFord Foundation,areintheprocessofconducting

an

evaluation ofCharlotte's

Gateway

housingprogram.

Over

thenext

severalyears, theywillmonitortheprogress_ofthe

partici-pantsas they

move

throughthe

program and

will simulta-neously followacontrolgroup ofresidents

who

arenotin

theprogram.

The

authors

hope

that theycancontributeto thedevelopment

and

possibleexpansion ofthe

self-suffi-ciencyprograms.]

Notes

Is.Levitan,ProgramstoAidthePoor(Baltimore:TheJohns Hopkins

UniversityPress,1990).

^S.DanzigerandR. Plotnick,"PovertyandPolicy:Lessonsof the Past

Two

Decades,"inSocial Sen'iceReview60,(March1986). 3S.Levitanand1.Shapiro,WorkingButPoor(Baltimore:TheJohns

HopkinsUniversityPress,1987).

4_{M.McGearyandLLynn, UrbanChange andPoverty(Washington,}

DC:

NationalAcademyPress,1988).

5 J.Kasarda,Jobs, Migration, andEmerging Urban Mismatches, in

Urban Change and Poverty (McGeary and Lynn,

edilors)(Washinglon, D.C.: NationalAcademyPress,1988). 6_{Levitan 1990.}

7_{Levitan 1990.}

^ S.

Newman

andA. Schnare, SubsidizingShelter:TheRelationhip

Between Welfareand HousingAssistance(Washington, D.C:The UrbanInstitute,1988).

9_{U.S.DepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment,Project}

Self-Sufficiency^Summary(WashingtonD.C:Officeof Policy

Devel-opmentand Research,1988).

™

U.S.DepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment,Project Self Suffiency:An InterimReportonProgressandPerformance