Integrated Services and 

Improved Financial Outcomes 

for Low-Income Households

Sarah Rankin

April, 2015

Building Sustainable

COMMUNITIES
Our Vision: 

Every low-income community has the 

chance to thrive.

Our Mission:

LISC equips struggling communities with 

the capital, program strategy and know-how 

to become places where people can thrive. 

Working with local leaders we invest in 

housing, health, education, public safety 

and employment - all basic needs that must 

be tackled at once so that progress in one 

is not undermined by neglect in another.

Sharing our expertise of 30-plus years, we 

bring together key local players to take on 

pressing challenges and incubate new solutions. With them, we help develop smarter 

public policy. Our toolkit is extensive. It 

includes loans, grants, equity investments 

and on-the-ground experience in some of 

America’s neediest neighborhoods. 

The Result: 

We help create good places to live, work, 

do business and raise children.

Acknowledgments: 

Thanks to Christopher Walker, Seung Kim, 

Jen McClain and Vicky Rodriguez for their 

contributions to the analysis and data behind 

this report and to the JPMorgan Chase 

Foundation for support of its preparation, 

publication and dissemination. 

We gratefully acknowledge the national 

funders whose support has helped to 

grow and sustain LISC’s overall network of 

76 Financial Opportunity Centers across 

the country: The Social Innovation Fund 

(Corporation for National and Community 

Service), Citi Foundation, MetLife 

Foundation, JPMorgan Chase, State Farm, 

Bank of America, Accenture, Walmart 

Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, The 

Annie E. Casey Foundation, The John D. and 

Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, U.S. 

Bank and Capital One.

Finally, we gratefully recognize the hard work 

and accomplishments of the staff and clients 

of each of the Financial Opportunity Centers.

Photos by: 

Kim Christensen, Marvin Shaouni, Eric Young 

Smith, Gordon Walek and LISC Archives
Building 

Sustainable 

Communities:

Integrated Services and 

Improved Financial Outcomes 

for Low-Income Households

Sarah Rankin

April, 2015

Sarah Rankin is a Senior Research Associate 

at the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, 

where she manages internal and external 

evaluations of LISC’s work and tracks the 

organization’s program activity. 

Message from the President & CEO

After decades of investing in blighted communities across the country, LISC knows that 

healthy neighborhoods rest as much on whether residents can earn a decent wage and 

build financial security as they do on good housing, strong schools and vibrant businesses. 

As part of our comprehensive strategy—Building Sustainable Communities—LISC is tackling 

this pressing need through an expansive network of Financial Opportunity Centers (FOCs) 

in dozens of communities nationwide. FOCs help clients find and maintain good jobs, stick 

to realistic budgets, improve their credit and save for the future. And they are located in 

the same neighborhoods where LISC is investing in housing and health, reducing crime, 

strengthening schools and re-energizing commercial corridors. 

As we developed the FOC program, we embedded a data tracking system to determine 

whether FOCs help disadvantaged residents stabilize their financial lives in ways they can 

sustain. Early indicators point to a dramatic shift for FOC clients. LISC researchers evaluated 

34 months of outcomes for 40,000 FOC clients, nearly all of whom are in the bottom 20 

percent of the nation’s household incomes. When they entered the program, typical FOC 

clients were making less than $800 per month and nearly two-thirds did not earn enough to 

cover their monthly expenses.

The research shows a direct relationship between the number and type of services accessed 

and the FOC clients’ ability to grow their earnings and secure their finances. For instance, 

those who spent the most time on all three bundled services offered by the FOCs (employment, coaching and public benefits) had the highest job placement rates and the highest 

job retention rates—a 74 percent placement rate and a 78 percent six-month retention rate. 

Clients who received both financial counseling and employment services had net income 

increases that were 89 percent higher than those receiving only financial or income support 

counseling.

We also learned that: 

• 76 percent of clients increased their net income.

• More than half increased their net worth.

• 60 percent either increased their credit score or acquired a credit score.

• 58 percent of those who started with zero or negative net income moved to positive 

net income.

Those percentages mean real spending power for some of the lowest-income people in the 

country—dollars that are quickly put back into local economies and catalyze growth.
What sets FOCs apart from traditional workforce development programs is the bundling 

of services. That’s at the core of the FOC model. The program combines soft skills training, 

vocational education, and job placement services with one-on-one financial coaching for as 

long as clients need it, as well as help accessing public benefits for which they are eligible.

We have been actively expanding the FOC program in the past five years and the results 

to date hold great promise for low-income people and places. LISC is continuing to build 

this network—with 76 FOCs now up and running—and to incorporate the FOC strategy into 

broader conversations with local partners about what works in communities. 

This report is the second in a series of new LISC research on the impact of comprehensive community development. The first report, Building Sustainable Communities: Initial 

Research Results, looked at data from 62 communities where LISC has made significant 

investments and found income and employment gains for residents—regardless of whether 

they were directly involved in the projects and programs LISC supported. FOCs are part of 

that effort and an innovative and effective tool for building more stable and comfortable 

lives for all residents. 

Michael Rubinger

Left: Food service job 

training session.
1

LISC’s Financial Opportunity Centers

At LISC, our mission is to help the low-income neighborhoods we serve become 

better places to live, work, play, and learn. 

Core to this mission is improving the 

economic prospects of residents of those 

neighborhoods. These residents may 

already have access to some workforce 

services: local governments and nonprofits offer an array of job skills training, soft 

employment skills training, vocational 

education, and job placement services. 

But placing chronically unemployed and 

underemployed people in decent-paying 

jobs that they will keep over a long period 

of time has always been a difficult task, and 

the long-term deterioration of employment 

prospects for lower-skilled workers makes it 

even more challenging.1 

Recognizing this reality, LISC has been supporting a program since 2005 that provides 

more than just employment services. At our 

FOCs, which are based on an innovative 

program model developed by the Annie E. 

Casey Foundation, clients have access to 

integrated (or bundled) services. The standard training and placement services are 

available, but alongside those are financial 

coaching services designed to help clients 

manage their money in the short and long 

term and income support counseling that 

ensures that clients are accessing the social 

supports for which they are eligible. Economic stability is not just a matter of having 

a job; it requires that a person’s income be 

enough to meet his or her expenses. Financial coaching helps clients make the most 

of their current income while they plan a 

course to increase their earnings prospects. 

The premise of FOCs is that these bundled 

services lead to better employment outAbove: FOC staff 

counseling client.
2

comes and to better long-term economic 

outcomes for low-income workers.

Because of the strong neighborhood ties 

of our national field network, LISC was 

well positioned to take this idea and scale 

it up in a way that reached low-income 

neighborhoods across the country while 

remaining faithful to the basic tenets of 

the model. Beginning with four centers in 

Chicago, over the past five years we have 

opened 76 FOCs across the country, in 20 

of the 30 metro areas where LISC has field 

offices. These centers were opened within 

existing community-based organizations 

that already offered some of the services 

in the FOC model—employment, financial, or income support counseling. Where 

possible, these were organizations that had 

partnered with LISC in the past and were 

located in LISC’s target neighborhoods, 

where we are working on multiple fronts to 

improve the quality of life for low-income 

residents. LISC brought clear expectations 

as to the key elements of the program model, some funding, and a data system tailored 

to the FOC program. The host organizations 

brought their connections to their community and expertise in program management. 

The data system mentioned above is a 

key element of program delivery and is 

the basis of this report. When FOC counselors work with clients, they capture a 

wide array of data. They create detailed 

budgets, recording information about the 

client’s income and expenses. They fill out 

balance sheets showing assets and debts. 

Counselors also check clients’ credit scores 

every six months to see if credit scores are 

improving. Together, the counselors and the 

client create detailed plans for what would 

constitute financial progress for that client, 

and they record incremental progress 

toward those goals. They also record when 

a client gets (or loses) a job. The FOC staff 

uses the data to help guide their work with 

individual clients. In aggregate, the data 

collection also represents a unique and 

valuable opportunity to think through how 

effective our program delivery is, how to 

make it better, and how best to benefit the 

clients we serve. To do this, we looked at 34 

months of program data for 39,491 clients 

in 62 FOCs in 15 cities or labor markets. 

This report presents some of what we have 

learned so far.2

Left: FOC clients learn 

about debt and personal budgeting.
3

FOC Clients and Program Delivery

Coordinating the provision of three different 

types of services is a complicated job that 

requires active management by FOC staff. 

The process varies somewhat across sites, 

but it begins with an orientation in which 

participants—who may be entirely new to 

the FOC’s host organization or may have 

participated in workshops or other organization services before coming to the FOC—

are introduced to the services that the 

FOC provides. The client can then make an 

appointment with FOC counselors—a financial coach, an employment coach, and an 

income support coach. The ideal procedure 

is to have the client see the financial coach 

first.3 At the initial visit with the financial 

coach, the client’s finances are thoroughly 

reviewed, and together the client and coach 

make plans for budgeting and improvement of credit. Referral to income support 

counseling occurs at this point. Next, the 

client can see the employment coach, as 

well as take advantage of other employment 

services, such as resume preparation, job 

readiness workshops, or specific educational or vocational programs. As clients 

progress toward their employment goals, 

they return to the financial coach to update 

their budget and continue to address their 

assets, debts, and credit. After the initial 

orientation, the process is client driven; resources are made available to the client, but 

each client schedules his or her own path 

through the available options. 

The dataset for our analysis covers 34 

months of FOC programming and includes 

participants who enrolled in the FOC at any 

point within that time frame. Once clients 

enroll, they stay in the dataset. Because 

the program model allows clients to return to the FOC when their financial or 

employment circumstances change, they 

are retained on the books as clients unless 

they violate FOC policies.4 In our dataset, 

the median enrollment time was 527 days, 

or a little more than a year and a half. More 

Above: FOC’s also 

include group counseling for clients to learn 

from one another.
4

than half of clients returned for additional 

services within two months of their initial 

FOC enrollment. 

Who are FOC clients? The backgrounds of 

FOC clients are important because they 

affect employment prospects. FOC clients 

are poor; 87 percent are in the bottom fifth 

of the US income distribution according to 

US Census figures.5 Most clients have only 

a high school degree or no degree at all. 

Across all sites, 7 percent of clients have a 

bachelor’s degree, 30 percent completed 

an associate’s degree or some college, 40 

percent have a high school degree, and 23 

percent have no diploma. At 50 of the 62 

sites, more than half of participants have no 

college at all. At 25 sites, more than a quarter of participants lack high school credentials. Participants are mostly unmarried; of 

all participants, 63 percent have never married, 18 percent are divorced or separated, 

and only 19 percent are currently married. 

The median age of clients is 39.

The demographic characteristics of FOC 

participants reflect the neighborhoods 

served by the centers (table 1). Clients are 

majority nonwhite. Of all individuals in this 

study, 57 percent are black and 23 percent 

are Hispanic. Race/ethnicity characteristics vary by site. The FOC with the highest 

percentage of black clients, a site in Chicago, is 98 percent black. The site with 

the lowest percentage of black clients (6 

percent) is also in Chicago—a 91 percent 

Hispanic site. Seven FOCs are majority 

white (one or more sites in Kentucky, Michigan, Rhode Island, Minnesota, and Indiana). 

One site in Houston is majority Asian. In 

our dataset, the characteristics that affect 

job placement most are age (older clients 

have fewer placements, with the placement 

rate dropping more quickly after age 50), 

household size (larger households are less 

likely to have placements), and education 

level (those with any college education 

had higher placement levels; those without 

a high school degree or GED had lower 

placement levels).

Left: FOC clients apply 

for jobs at the centers.
5

Female

Male

Single

Married

Divorced/separated

African American/black

Hispanic

Caucasian/white

Multiracial/other

Asian/Pacific Islander

American Indian/Alaska Native

Average

Median

Average

Median

English

Spanish

Other

Chinese

Arabic

No convictions

Felony

Misdemeanor

Homeless/rent free

Rent-subsidized

Non-rent-subsidized

Owned

No high school diploma 

High school/GED

Associates degree/some college

Bachelor’s or higher

All three programs 

EC + FC 

EC + ISC 

FC + ISC 

EC Only 

FC Only

ISC Only

57%

43%

63%

19%

18%

57%

23%

15%

3%

2%

1%

$18,918

$4,404 

39 

38 

83%

12%

4%

1%

0.4%

68%

23%

10%

27%

18%

38%

17%

23%

40%

30%

7%

33%

14%

7%

11%

13%

9%

13%

Table 1: FOC Client Characteristics

Gender

Marital Status

Race/Ethnicity

Annual Household 

Income (US$)

Age (years)

Primary Language

Criminal Convictions

Living Arrangement

Education Level 

FOC Program Mix

Note: EC = employment counseling; FC = financial counseling; 

ISC = income support counseling.
6

Client Financial Paths

How did things change for FOC participants’ financial lives over the course of their 

participation in the FOC? 

Net Income

Our analysis examined changes in net 

income for clients who received financial 

counseling and completed more than one 

budget as part of that program. Overall, participants’ net income gains were 

strong. Seventy-six percent of clients 

showed increases in net income. In their 

initial budgets, only 35 percent of participants had positive net income. In their 

final budgets, 70 percent of participants 

did. Of clients who started with zero or 

negative net income, 58 percent moved 

to positive net income during their time 

with the FOC program. 

A key part of FOC financial coaching sessions is working through the client’s income 

and expenses. In the first session, the coach 

works with the client to figure out their 

actual total income and expenses, broken 

down by budget categories such as housing, transportation, and child care. This step 

allows the client to understand his or her 

net income—that is, expenses subtracted 

from income. The FOC model considers net 

income to be a key indicator, because if a 

client’s net income is negative, he or she is in 

an unsustainable situation, falling farther and 

farther behind each month. If the client has 

Above: FOC clients 

also have access to 

computers and other 

technology resources.
7

a job, negative net income makes it harder—and less worthwhile—to keep that job. If 

net income is positive, even if total income is 

low, then the client is much better positioned 

to build on the current relative stability and 

make even more positive gains. 

Expense and income information is updated 

whenever something changes in the client’s 

financial situation: a new job, a change in 

living situation, or a change in the expense 

side, such as a reduction in debt payments. 

For our analysis, we looked at the differences between the initial income and expenses 

and the last income and expenses in our 

dataset. (We included only budgets that 

were recorded by the financial counselors 

or showed changes on both the income and 

expense side to make sure we were using 

the most accurate data.)

For this dataset, clients’ median monthly net 

income when they entered the program was 

$25. That means that more than half of our 

clients had negative net income at program 

entry. The median initial monthly income 

was $800, and the median initial expense 

was $924. By the time their last budget 

was recorded (median time between first 

and last budget was 204 days), 76 percent 

of clients showed increases in monthly net 

income; thus, their income grew relative to 

their expenses. Median net income for the 

final budgets was positive, at $266. For final 

budgets, median income was $1,425 and 

median expenses were $1,095. 

We are particularly interested in those clients who moved from negative to positive 

net income, because we believe that positive net income contributes to positive employment outcomes. In their initial budgets, 

only 35 percent of participants had positive net income. In their final budgets, 70 

percent of participants did. Of clients who 

started with zero or negative net income, 

58 percent moved to positive net income 

during their time with the FOC program.

Credit and Net Worth 

Net worth and credit outcomes take longer 

to move in a positive direction. Sixty percent of participants either showed a credit 

score increase or acquired a score. Eight 

percent moved from a lower FICO score 

Right: FOC coach 

and client.
8

to a score of 620 or higher. Slightly more 

than half of clients—53 percent—showed 

an increase in net worth. Twelve percent 

moved from negative net worth to positive 

net worth. 

An individual’s credit rating reflects his 

or her historical use of consumer credit 

products. Credit ratings matter to low-income clients because credit scores affect 

the availability and pricing of consumer 

debt, car loans or mortgages, and other 

contract-based purchases such as utilities 

and cell phone contracts. At FOCs, financial 

counselors pull clients’ credit reports6 and 

review the information with their clients. 

Together they address any erroneous information on the report—errors and fraudulent 

information on credit reports are common—and work on building credit. Many 

FOC clients do not have credit scores because they do not have enough open credit 

accounts with mainstream financial institutions to generate a score. Other clients 

have low scores because their payments on 

active accounts are late, or because they 

have credit accounts in collection. 

Clients with updated credit pulls showed 

modest credit increases. Of those who began with credit scores, 64 percent showed 

increases in their scores. Of those who 

began without scores, 41 percent became 

scored. Overall, 60 percent either showed a 

credit score increase or acquired a score. A 

smaller proportion, 8 percent, moved from 

having no score or a low credit score to 

having a FICO score above 620. For participants with FICO score increases, the average score increase was 35 points. Participants who were newly scored had a median 

score of 608; 43 percent of newly scored 

participants had a FICO score above 620. 

Net worth is a snapshot of an individual’s 

assets and liabilities at a given point in time. 

Clients’ net income numbers represent their 

month-to-month cash flows. Over time, 

these cash flows (as well as other financial 

decisions and the change in value of existing assets) translate into balance sheets for 

the client or their household. At the initial 

session, FOC staff members document the 

participant’s balance sheet, listing all of 

their financial assets and all of their debts. 

Assets include bank accounts, the value 

of any vehicles or real estate, and other financial holdings; liabilities include balances 

for mortgage loans, car loans, credit cards, 

and any other debt, as well as unpaid bills, 

collections, and judgments. Those balance 

sheets are updated at later financial coaching sessions. Net worth is calculated by 

subtracting liabilities from assets. Net worth 

status is expected to change more slowly 

than net income. Once clients have positive net income, they can begin saving or 

paying down debts, but it will take time to 

see those changes reflected in their balance 

sheets. Moreover, some financial choices 

that will eventually lead to positive outcomes, such as taking out a mortgage or 

a student loan, will have an initial negative 

impact on net worth.

The majority of FOC clients began and 

ended with negative net worth. However, 

the median net worth increase was positive, 

at $84, which means that slightly more than 

half of clients (53 percent) had an increase 

in net worth. Liabilities were more likely 

to change than assets, in both directions; 

whereas 29 percent of participants saw 

increased assets and 8 percent saw decreased assets, 48 percent of participants 

had increased liabilities and 41 percent had 

decreased liabilities. Twenty-four percent of 

participants started with positive net worth, 

29 percent ended with positive net worth, 

and 12 percent moved from negative to 

positive net worth.

Below: FOC staff 

assists clients with 

paperwork.
9

Because of our commitment to the integrated services model, we are very interested in 

the question of whether clients who receive 

the full bundle of services—employment 

counseling, financial counseling, and income 

support counseling — have better or worse 

outcomes than those who receive only 

some services. 

Integrated services

FOC clients who received more intensive 

bundled services had even more positive 

financial outcomes than participants as a 

whole. Clients receiving bundled financial, 

employment, and income support services 

were nearly twice as likely to achieve job 

placements as clients enrolled in only one 

service. Clients receiving bundled financial 

counseling and employment services had 

89 percent greater net income increases than those receiving only financial or 

income support counseling. Clients with 

the highest levels of time spent in all three 

The Impact of Integrated Services

services had the highest placement and job 

retention rates, which translated directly 

into increases in net income. Clients with 

employment placements were 30 percent 

more likely to have increases in net income, 

were twice as likely to reach positive net 

income, and had net income increases that 

were more than 2.5 times as large as those 

without placements. 

Employment

For job placements, the pattern in the 

numbers is clear. Clients who are enrolled 

in all three services have better placement 

rates and retention rates (figure 1). Clients 

who were enrolled in only the employment counseling program have a placement rate of 22 percent, whereas those 

enrolled in all three programs have a 

placement rate of 39 percent.7 The pattern continues as we look at retention 

rates. Clients with all three services have 

a six-month retention rate of 59 percent 

Above: Tax preparation services are also 

offered at many FOCs.
10

versus 45 percent for those enrolled only 

in employment counseling.8

These placement rates support our hypothesis that integrated services lead to better 

outcomes. If people receive only employment services, they get and retain jobs at 

lower rates; as we add the employment 

and financial counseling services, higher 

percentages of clients get jobs and keep 

them. This finding supports the idea that 

integrating financial and income support 

counseling helps clients make the most of 

their new jobs. If financial counseling and 

added income support are allowing clients 

to use their new income to create a more 

stable life for themselves—to find reliable 

transportation or better housing and to reduce the stresses that come from managing 

a budget with negative cash flows—then it 

makes sense that clients will be better able 

to secure jobs, perform well at those jobs, 

and to be motivated to keep them.

Comparing outcomes for program participants raises some concerns. The clients 

who use all three services instead of just 

one or two may have been more likely to 

Figure 1: Placement Rate, nonsubsidized jobs

Placement rates increase with bundled services

Employment 

Counseling 

Only

Bundled: 

Employment 

plus Income 

Supports

Bundled: 

Employment 

plus Financial

Bundled: 

All Three

22%

28%

34%

39%

obtain and keep jobs to begin with, perhaps 

because they are more highly motivated or 

have personal attributes that make them 

more employable. We cannot quantify client 

motivation, but we can look at attributes 

such as education, age, and household size 

that we know affect placement rates. Even 

after we take these attributes into account 

by including them in a logistic regression 

model, we find that integrated services 

boost employment outcomes. In our model, 

which controlled for demographic characteristics, clients with the full bundle of services were twice as likely as those receiving 

only employment services to obtain jobs 

and to retain them for six months.

Financial Outcomes

The effects of integrated services on the 

financial outcomes—net income, net worth, 

and credit score—are less clear from our 

program data.9 Individuals receiving either 

the financial and employment counseling 

services or the bundle of three services 

have better net income outcomes, both in 

the amount of change in net income and 

the likelihood of having an increase in net 
11

income. The mean net income change for 

individuals enrolled in financial counseling 

but not in employment counseling was $279, 

whereas for those enrolled in both programs 

it was $526. (See figure 2 for the breakout of 

net income change by each program combination.) However, credit outcomes, such as 

a score increase or becoming scored, were 

better for those who did not use bundled 

services—that is, for clients enrolled only in 

financial counseling. Bundling did not have 

much effect on net worth outcomes, with 

one exception (discussed later). Here the 

idea of sequenced outcomes is again helpful: 

net income changes more quickly after employment is attained, whereas credit building 

and net worth change more slowly.10

Some of the differences in financial outcomes by service bundle are probably due 

to differing characteristics across groups. 

Clients receiving only financial counseling 

and who enter the program with the highest 

incomes and are not looking for employment 

or income support help, may be starting 

the program farther along the path toward 

those downstream outcomes. The data 

clearly show that clients who were enrolled 

in both financial counseling and income 

support counseling but who were not receiving employment services did worse than the 

other groups on most financial outcomes. 

This may be due to the fact that different 

FOCs serve different client populations, and 

those with more income support clients who 

are not seeking workforce services may be 

serving a more challenging client population. 

Intensity of program contact

FOC clients are offered a bundle of services 

in the three FOC service areas, with different FOC sites having different versions 

of a typical client pathway through the 

program. After the orientation and initial 

counseling sessions, there is some variation 

in the services clients use and the amount of 

contact they have with the FOC over time. 

This means that we can look at outcome 

differences for clients with very different 

levels of program contact, defined as total 

time spent in each service, the number of 

times clients interact with a counselor, and 

the number of days and months they stay 

connected to the program.

Financial 

Counseling 

Only

Bundled: 

Financial 

plus Income 

Supports

Bundled: 

Financial plus 

Employment

Bundled: 

All Three

Figure 2: Average Net Income Change

Participants enrolled in both Financial and Employment Counseling have greater net income increases

$409

$228

$518 $528
12

What effect do different levels of program 

contact have on clients’ outcomes? And 

how do different mixes of program services 

affect outcomes? We looked at employment outcomes to see how they relate to 

program contact (see figures 3 and 4). For 

each of our measures of program delivery 

intensity—time spent on each service, days 

of program contact, and overall time spent 

attached to the program—the higher service 

levels were associated with higher rates of 

placement and retention. Within individual 

service areas, the same pattern held true: 

higher levels of employment services, financial counseling, and income support services were each separately associated with 

higher placement and retention rates. And 

even when we control for the fact that those 

getting more financial counseling services 

may be getting more employment services 

as well, we see that financial counseling 

continues to have a positive independent 

effect on employment outcomes.

Although in all instances, additional program 

delivery resulted in better outcomes regardAbove: FOC client at his 

new job.
13

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

All

Time Spent First Quartile Time Spent Third Quartile

Time Spent Second Quartile Time Spent Fourth Quartile

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Employment 

Counseling

Financial 

Counseling

Income 

Support 

Counseling

Figure 3: Placement Rate by Program Intensity Quartiles

Participants with more time spent have higher placement rates

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

All

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

70%

60%

80%

Employment 

Counseling

Financial 

Counseling

Income 

Support 

Counseling

Figure 4: 180-day Job Retention by Program Intensity Quartiles

Participants with more financial and employment counseling have higher retention rates

Time Spent First Quartile Time Spent Third Quartile

Time Spent Second Quartile Time Spent Fourth Quartile
14

All Participants Top Time Quartile, All Three Services

Figure 5: Placement and Retention by Bundling Intensity

Participants who spent the most time in each of the three services had 

higher placement and retention rates

33%

74%

56%

78%

less of the program being delivered—placement rates increased from 19 percent in the 

lowest quartile to 50 percent in the highest 

quartile—the effect of increased program delivery was even more marked when programs 

were combined (figure 5). Clients getting 

the highest intensity of services in all three 

domains had the best employment outcomes. 

Those in the highest quartile of time spent 

for all three bundled services had the highest 

placement rates and the highest retention 

rates by far—a 74 percent placement rate and 

a 78 percent 180-day retention rate for those 

in the highest quartile of time spent for all 

three services, compared with 33 percent and 

56 percent, respectively, for all clients.

These employment outcomes translate into 

increases in net incomes. Clients with employment placements were 30 percent more likely 

to have increases in net income, were twice 

as likely to reach positive net income, and had 

net income increases that were more than 2.5 

times as large as those without placements.

Left: Healthcare job 

training session.
15

Chronically unemployed people face many 

barriers to economic success. Our analysis 

of the FOC program data demonstrates a 

clear association between receiving bundled program services—particularly the 

combination of employment and financial 

counseling services—and having improved 

employment and financial outcomes. This 

is an extremely promising finding, and one 

that we can build on as we continue to 

build the evidence base for the FOC model, 

most immediately by releasing the results 

of our third-party quasi-experimental study 

of five FOCs in Chicago in the coming 

year. Meanwhile, we will keep supporting 

the core FOC program, working to ensure 

financial sustainability of our 75 FOCs. We 

are continuously refining and expanding 

the program to more completely meet the 

needs of our clients, as with our developConclusion

ment of services that prepare participants 

for occupational skills programs that can 

put them on career paths with opportunities for wage advancement. 

FOCs are an important component of 

LISC’s strategy of investing in housing 

affordability, health, education, safety, and 

economic advancement in low-income 

neighborhoods across the United States. 

We look forward to continuous improvement of the FOC program as we work to 

make integrated services available to more 

low-income Americans.

Above: FOC client and 

new owner of a carting 

business.
16

End Notes

1

 According to the Federal Reserve’s 2013 Survey of 

Consumer Finance, median incomes in the United 

States have been dropping since 2007, declining by 

12 percent in that period. Since 2010, median income 

for the bottom fifth of the income distribution has 

decreased by 3.5 percent. Erosion of income has hit 

nonwhite households particularly hard; median incomes 

for nonwhite households have declined 19 percent since 

2007 (or 9.4 percent since 2010). (Bricker, Jesse, et al. 

Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2010 to 2013: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances, Federal 

Reserve Bulletin, September 2014, with accompanying 

2013 SCF Chartbook.)

2 This analysis is based on in-program data, which have 

some limitations. Without a control group, we cannot make a direct comparison between the bundled 

services model we use in the FOCs and traditional 

workforce models. That is why we are also conducting 

an evaluation in which outside researchers collect data 

on outcomes for both FOC clients and similar individuals accessing traditional workforce services. That 

evaluation, which is part of LISC’s participation in the 

federal government’s Social Innovation Fund, is nearly 

complete, and its findings will be published next year.

3 This procedure is recommended, in part, because 

most clients are motivated by their desire to receive 

employment services; program staff members believe 

that clients are less likely to come back for financial 

counseling after receiving employment services than if 

they participate in counseling first.

4 Guidelines for dismissing clients are set by each FOC site.

5 Data are based on a threshold of $20,900, the bottom 

20 percent of household income was in 2013, which 

has the lowest threshold of the years 2011–2013. See 

https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/table_IE-1A2.pdf. 

6 Through an arrangement with the credit bureaus, 

FOCs can pull credit reports without changing clients’ 

credit information the way a normal score inquiry from 

a potential lender would. 

7 This portion of the analysis considers nonsubsidized 

placements. For all placements, the respective numbers 

are 26 percent and 46 percent.

8 The goal of the FOCs (and of most workforce programs) is not just to place individuals in jobs but to help 

them keep those jobs. The job retention rates we use 

are calculated by counting up the clients who we know 

have maintained continuous employment and dividing 

that total by the number of people who would be eligible for the retention period, given the date they started 

their jobs. Clearly, this is a very conservative way to calculate retention. If we include only participants whose 

status is known at each retention marker, the retention 

rates look much higher. We calculate retention rates for 

unsubsidized jobs because subsidized jobs are often 

time limited by design.

9 Part of this is because of a basic limitation in our dataset—we only have net income, credit, and net worth 

data for individuals who are enrolled in the financial 

counseling service, so we cannot look at the differences in financial outcomes between those enrolled only 

in employment services and those who get bundled 

employment and financial services. 

10 The other thing to keep in mind is that more than 

half of placement jobs pay less than $10 per hour, 

which is an income level that makes it difficult to reach 

significant changes in net worth in a short period of 

time. FOCs are now focused on developing their career 

ladder services to help clients gain more valuable job 

skills and move toward higher-paying jobs.

501 Seventh Avenue

7th Floor

New York, NY, 10018

212.455.9800

www.lisc.org