Excerpted from article by Anna Merod:

Every district-operated housing development, to some degree, uses rental income to cover any mortgage and other ongoing costs, said Sara Hinkley, California program manager at the University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Cities and Schools. The center tracks and analyzes the impact on teacher turnover from education workforce housing programs in the state. 

Still, when districts are involved, they’ll face gaps between the rental income they take in and the mortgage and other costs, Hinkley said. To fill that gap, districts can issue a general obligation bond, which is often used to pay for school facility projects, for voter approval since the bond is then repaid through a property tax levy. 

Districts can also tap into affordable federal and state housing initiatives, Hinkley said. One key example is through the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program, which is administered by state and local housing finance agencies. But these tax credits can be very competitive and come with income limits for those eligible to live in district housing, she said. Regardless, the tax credits can be braided with other funding streams.

Some districts in California have used green energy incentives to help with building affordable teacher housing, Hinkley said. Additionally, districts can partner with nonprofit organizations, like Habitat for Humanity or even for-profit affordable housing developers. Hinkley added that because these developers are familiar with affordable housing tax credits, it can be helpful for districts using the tax credits to work with them.

Meanwhile, as declining enrollment leads to school closures in some areas, Hinkley said that can bring an opportunity for districts to repurpose their property for teacher and staff housing. Hinkley said she’s noticed this has become a growing trend in California, which is struggling with enrollment declines statewide.

“There’s a lot of perception that, ‘Oh we’re going to close schools and then you’re going to give it all to charter schools or you’re going to sell it,’” Hinkley said. “And so for a lot of districts, it’s important to kind of have an alternative vision of how to use the properties and maintain district ownership.”

The challenge for districts

A key challenge with teacher housing is measuring the return on investment, both Hinkley and Coffey said. As a researcher, Hinkley said, it’s difficult to trace these housing initiatives to student outcomes and teacher quality. 

When it comes to gauging improvements to teacher recruitment and retention, Hinkley said that there are many factors at play, including salaries and the specific types of shortage areas.

“So it can be challenging to be able to say, you built this housing five years ago, is that why you’re having an easier time recruiting now?” said Hinkley.

For most districts, success is measured anecdotally based on what district leaders hear from staff benefiting from the workforce housing, she added.

If a district does want to seriously pursue staff housing developments, Hinkley said, it’s important to understand it will be a long process and there will often be board or superintendent turnover throughout. Districts also need to set concrete goals for what they’re trying to achieve with the project. 

Those goals should clearly outline who will benefit from the housing as well as how the project will fit in with the district’s overall education strategy, enrollment picture and facility needs, Hinkley said. Otherwise, she said, a district could get pulled into a project that’s not going to meet its goals — which should ultimately be based on educational needs.