In 2014, Tacoma Community College (TCC) and the Tacoma Housing Authority (THA) began a partnership to help housing-insecure students.
Funded through the U.S. Housing & Urban Development’s (HUD) Moving to Work program, the College Housing Assistance Program (CHAP) provided housing choice vouchers to subsidize rent for homeless and near-homeless TCC students. On average, that subsidy gave students a $450 discount in an area where the average monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment was $1,000.
Through TCC, program participants also received some support services, such as help navigating other social service programs.
How did CHAP work? That’s the focus of a seven-year study released Tuesday by non-profit Education Northwest. Researchers evaluated six cohorts – 422 students – who applied for the program between Fall 2017 and Spring 2019.
Researchers evaluated five things:
- How often in the program did students lease up?
- Did the program reduce use of homelessness services?
- Did the program increase academic success, including graduation rates?
- Did the program affect employment, public benefits, health and health services and criminal justice?
- How did leasing up relate to those outcomes?
Barriers to entry
During a webinar about CHAP and the evaluation results on Tuesday, Sara Goldrick-Rab, a senior fellow with Education Northwest, pointed out that getting students from the program application to becoming housed presented some challenges.
All homeless applicants were immediately accepted and became program participants (30% of program applicants were homeless). Because the number of housing vouchers was limited, administrators used a lottery to select near-homeless students for the program.
But only 25% of students admitted into the program actually leased up with a housing voucher. Sixty-three percent of homeless students in the program received a voucher, but only 24% were housed with a housing voucher. For near-homeless program participants, 56% received a voucher and 25% were housed using a voucher.
Originally, to even be considered for a housing voucher, students had to enroll full-time at TCC and have a cumulative GPA of at least 2.0. They also had to meet THA eligibility criteria for the program, including income level, a successful background check and proof of lawful residency.
These requirements restricted the number of people who could apply for the program. Eventually, the program dropped the full-time enrollment requirement as long as applicants registered for at least six credits. However, students were required to enroll for at least a term before applying to the program. While the GPA requirement remained, it only applied to continued program eligibility rather than initial eligibility.
In addition, the necessary paperwork students had to complete – particularly an extensive HUD application – was burdensome.
“Students regularly struggled with the bureaucracy,” Goldrick-Rab said.
Students who did receive housing vouchers were on their own for the housing search. Many struggled to find a landlord who would not only rent to a college student, but also accept the housing voucher.
If everything aligned and THA approved an inspection of the unit, students could lease up and become housed.
Positive outcomes
Based on data from the seven-year study, the students who managed to lease up did well in college and experienced other positive outcomes. Overall, “more than half of the students served by the program, and about two-thirds of those who were housed, completed a credential, transferred to university, and/or remained enrolled on track to a degree — despite an intervening pandemic,” according to the report.
In particular, homeless students who leased up had good academic outcomes: 70% completed a credential, transferred to university and/or remained enrolled on track to a degree.
Regardless of whether they leased up, 28% of homeless program participants who did not receive a voucher completed a credential, a rate that was 37% if they were vouchered but did not lease up.
About 65% of near-homeless participants graduated, transferred or remained enrolled by the end of the evaluation. The report’s authors note, however, that “there is some indication that students stayed enrolled in TCC — perhaps rather than graduating or transferring — to retain their housing.”
CHAP also helped improve students’ well-being even if they weren’t housed through the program. For example, CHAP participants were more likely to get help with other resources, such as applying for SNAP or TANF benefits, helping them become more food secure. And most near-homeless students who did not receive vouchers did get some housing support in the form of temporary assistance.
CHAP participation boosted workforce participation with no impact on wages or hours worked. Program participants also had improved health outcomes and, at least for homeless participants, were less likely to have interactions with the criminal justice system.
Lessons learned
THA decided to sunset the program in 2022, but the lessons learned from CHAP can help in planning other housing assistance programs.
TCC President Ivan Harrell spoke to that during the webinar.
“The work of addressing housing insecurity issues is difficult and complicated work,” he said.
Harrell advised that anyone entering into a partnership for a program like this needs to clearly delineate responsibilities. TCC, for example, couldn’t provide support during the rental process because “we aren’t a housing entity,” Harrell said. They thought THA would provide that, but THA didn’t have the support to do it, either.
Working within the confines of a government-funded program also meant there were some restrictions.
“The source of funding can have major impact on program design and implementation,” he said, noting the HUD application, for example, was a major barrier for some students.
TCC also had to become more flexible with its own eligibility requirements to help more students, such as allowing part-time students to apply. Also, for later CHAP cohorts, students could take the housing support with them if they transferred to the University of Washington-Tacoma.
Harrell said the college also learned quickly that it needed more staffing than originally thought. At the start of the program, one TCC staff member used part of their time to help implement the program. That wasn’t enough.
In addition, the college navigators working with applicants and participants required a different skill set than traditionally required in student services professionals. They needed some social work training, Harrell said. That, of course, would require funding.
They also needed funds to help students. In 2019, TCC established a $30,000-per-year fund to help students pay their security deposits and other moving costs.
Despite the end of CHAP, TCC has made it a priority to provide other housing resources for students.
“How can we meet our mission as community colleges if we do not do all we can to address what’s impacting our students?” Harrell said.
