The Effect of the "What Works" Approach on Housing Instability, Incarceration, and Employment: An Evaluation of Bridge House’s Ready to Work Program

By Rochisha Shukla, Will Engelhardt, Krista White, Sam Tecotzky

The Urban Institute’s Justice and Safety Division conducted a 22-month, mixed-methods evaluation of the Ready to Work (RTW) program operated by Bridge House, a nonprofit organization with the mission to “respect and empower people who are experiencing homelessness.” The program “combines three elements—paid work in a Ready to Work social enterprise, dormitory housing at a Ready to Work House, and case management support,” which RTW refers to as its “three-legged stool” approach. Using RTW programmatic data, administrative data from the Colorado Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) and the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) on key outcomes, and data collected through stakeholder interviews, focus groups, program observations, and document reviews, Urban addressed the following objectives: (1) estimate the impact of program participation on housing, employment, and criminal justice outcomes; (2) identify the factors that appear to be associated with successful outcomes; (3) determine why and in what ways the program is able and/or unable to achieve its goals; (4) identify whether program activities have been implemented as intended; (5) calculate Ready to Work’s financial return on investment; and (6) recommend program improvements. Key Findings: The Overall Impact of the Program  Program graduates had a significantly lower likelihood of experiencing housing instability within 6 to 36 months after program completion compared with program dropouts and non-enrollees.  The impact of program completion on postprogram incarceration was not statistically significant; however, the results were in the expected direction, with program graduates showing a slightly lower rate of incarceration compared with the control groups across all follow-up periods.  Five percent of program graduates reported being employed at intake, and 64 percent reported having employment at or after program completion, a statistically significant increase. Additional analyses show that the odds of employment at or after program completion were lower among people who had been incarcerated.  The study also finds evidence of potential protective effects of the program, as participants who completed the program and who therefore engaged with it longer experienced improved housing stability and reduced incarceration compared with their matched controls during the program and immediately after completion. These effects may be associated with a sense of security or stability that comes with being enrolled in a structured program and early engagement with program services, like in-program housing and employment, mental health and substance use treatment, and vocational and educational assistance.  People who dropped out of the program showed consistently worse housing and incarceration outcomes compared with program graduates and non-enrollees. Descriptive statistics on pre-program factors and qualitative findings show that people who dropped out had significantly different needs than the other groups. Additionally, unmeasured effects, such as motivation to complete the program, could further explain the disparities between the groups.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2025. 77p.