Upward Communities Research
What existing district housing programs have delivered, what proved harder than expected, and the steps a district takes to test the idea against its own numbers. Where the evidence runs out, this report says so.
Buildings, at a documented scale, on a slow timeline. The best available evidence covers nine California developments delivering 50 to 144 units each, which took an average of 7.5 years from concept to occupancy. On retention, the outcome everyone wants to know about, exactly one district has published before-and-after figures.
The most rigorous public study of delivered projects is Housing California Educators: Insights from Nine Education Workforce Housing Developments, published in April 2025 by the Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley and cityLAB at UCLA. Its nine developments and unit counts are The Alameda at 50, Eastmoor Heights at 56, Casa del Maestro at 70, Sage Park at 90, The Acacia at 110, 1701 San Pablo at 110, 705 Serramonte at 122, Shirley Chisholm Village at 135, and The Sevens at 144. Buildings run from two to six storeys at densities of 18 to 141 dwelling units per acre.
On rents, the finding is unambiguous and worth quoting precisely: all of the developments' one-bedroom units are affordable to the respective district's entry-level teachers, at close to or below 30% of their annual income.
Jefferson Union High School District in Daly City opened 705 Serramonte in 2022. In its 2023-24 Local Control and Accountability Plan the district reported certificated staff retention of 85% before the housing opened and 90% the following year. That is a five point improvement, self-reported, for one district, across one year, with no control for other changes in that period.
It is also the strongest published evidence in the country, which tells you how thin this literature is. Beyond it, the Berkeley and UCLA researchers recorded that several districts provided anecdotal evidence in interviews that turnover had declined after their project opened and that housing availability was persuasive with candidates. One survey finding is sharper: every employee for whom housing was part of a hiring offer listed it as a main reason they accepted the position. That is a recruitment finding, not a retention finding, and the two should not be merged.
Three things, per the same study. Most developments had longer construction timelines than the district expected, delayed by COVID-19 cost increases and work slowdowns or by city permitting and inspections. Land use approval, not financing, was most often named as the single biggest obstacle. And affordability erodes: Casa del Maestro, the oldest project in the study, has moved from roughly 50% of market rent at opening to about 80% of market today. A rent that is attainable at delivery is not automatically attainable in year fifteen.
Residents were not uniformly satisfied either. In the tenant survey, 36% were dissatisfied with storage and only 25% were extremely satisfied with safety. Average commute time was cut in half, though 85% of respondents drove alone both before and after moving in, so the gain is drive time rather than a shift to transit.
Precedent in Texas and Florida is at an earlier stage, and that is a finding rather than a gap. What exists is a run of documented board decisions. Hays CISD in Texas voted to proceed with attainable housing for district employees, covered by KXAN, KUT News, Community Impact and Yahoo News between January 2025 and June 2026. Lockhart ISD trustees approved a housing partnership for staff, reported by KXAN in April and May 2026. In Florida, the Marion County school board was reported by the Ocala Gazette in August 2025 as treating the question as not if but when. A district in Taylor, Texas was reported by the Taylor Press in April 2026 to have the question under consideration.
These are approvals and proposals, not delivered units or occupancy figures. For a superintendent in Texas or Tennessee the honest summary is that the playbook is established in California and the decisions are now being taken closer to home, but nobody in these states can yet show you a stabilised building with published retention data.
Seven steps, in this order, with two points where a board should be willing to stop. The sequence matters: districts that run a land inventory before a demand analysis often end up designing for the site they have rather than the workforce they need to house.
Multiply the Learning Policy Institute figure for your size band by the number of teachers you replaced last year. This is the baseline every later decision is measured against, and it takes an afternoon.
Compare local market rent to 30% of your actual starting salary and your salary at ten years. If neither is cost burdened, housing is not your retention lever and you should stop here.
Survey staff on interest, household size, and what rent they would actually pay. Colorado's statewide survey found 58% of more than 3,200 educators interested in district housing, but your own number is the one that sizes the building.
Identify district-owned sites, then assess zoning, utilities and likely community response for each. Permitting is the step most often named as the biggest obstacle, so screen for it early rather than discovering it in year three.
Decide whether the district will carry debt, seek voter approval, pursue tax credits, or contribute land to a partner instead. Each route has a different timeline and a different consequence for your facilities capacity.
Who qualifies, for how long, what happens when someone leaves the district, who is the landlord of record, and who handles maintenance at 11pm. These questions are cheap to answer on paper and expensive to answer after occupancy.
Decide in advance how rents will escalate relative to market and to your salary schedule. Casa del Maestro moved from about 50% of market rent at opening to about 80% today, which is the failure mode to design against.
Expect the whole sequence to take years rather than months. The nine California developments averaged 7.5 years from concept to occupancy, and about five years from the point the district signed a contract with a developer to the point staff moved in.
Candour
In four places, and we would rather name them than write around them. Anyone telling you the retention case is settled is overselling a literature that currently rests on one district's annual report.
1. Retention outcomes are barely measured. One district, Jefferson Union, has published before-and-after retention figures. Everything else in the published record is anecdotal or is a recruitment finding presented as a retention finding. Nobody has run a controlled study.
2. Cost per unit is not public. The Berkeley and UCLA study of nine developments does not publish total development cost or cost per unit for any project. We could not find comparable published figures elsewhere. Any per-unit number you see quoted in this field deserves a source check.
3. Tenant satisfaction data is narrower than it looks. The resident survey in that study covered three of the nine developments, and the report does not state how many people responded. Satisfaction findings should not be generalised to all nine, and we have not done so above.
4. Long-run affordability has one data point and it is a warning. Casa del Maestro is the only project old enough to show a rent trajectory, and it moved from roughly 50% of market to about 80% over its life. One case is not a trend, but it is the only case there is.
We will update this page as better evidence appears, and the last-updated date at the top will change when we do. If you believe a figure here is wrong, tell us and we will correct it and note the change.
The published evidence is one district. Jefferson Union High School District reported certificated staff retention of 85% before its housing opened in 2022 and 90% the year after. Other districts have reported improvements anecdotally in interviews. No controlled study exists, so anyone claiming a settled retention effect is going beyond the evidence.
Nine California developments averaged 7.5 years from concept to occupancy, and about five years from the district signing a developer contract to staff moving in. That is comparable to other multifamily development in California. Land use approval, not financing, was most often named as the biggest obstacle.
Interest is high where housing costs are high. A 2025 Keystone Policy Center survey of more than 3,200 Colorado educators found 58% interested in affordable housing options through their district. Of those who answered a further question about the district acting as landlord, 70% said they would be comfortable with it, though the report notes it received limited responses to that specific question.
There are documented board decisions but not yet stabilised buildings with published outcomes. Hays CISD and Lockhart ISD in Texas have approved staff housing partnerships, and the Marion County board in Florida has publicly moved toward it, all reported by local news outlets between 2025 and 2026. California remains the only state with a body of delivered projects to study.
Sources
We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or in partnership with any organisation cited below.
Learning Policy Institute. (2017). What's the Cost of Teacher Turnover? Published 13 September 2017. Source for the more than $20,000 per new hire figure in urban districts, the 6 of 10 replacement figure, and the 20% beginning and 30% mid-career pay gap.
Learning Policy Institute. (2024). About 2024 Teacher Turnover Calculations. Published 17 September 2024. Source for $11,860, $16,450 and $24,930 per teacher replaced, in January 2024 dollars, and for the stated exclusion of student learning losses. Companion to 2024 Update: What's the Cost of Teacher Turnover?
Tan, T., Wei, W., Carver-Thomas, D., & García, E. (2026). Teacher Turnover in the United States: Who Moves, Who Leaves, and Why. Learning Policy Institute. Source for 15.1% turnover, the 8.0% and 7.1% split, 74% voluntary and non-retirement, and 20.1% against 14.7% by certification status.
Comai, S., Kemper Patrick, S., & Tan, T. (2025). 2025 Update: Latest National Scan Shows Teacher Shortages Persist. Learning Policy Institute blog, 15 July 2025. Source for 411,500 positions, 1 in 8, and more than 6 million students.
Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher Turnover: Why It Matters and What We Can Do About It. Learning Policy Institute. Source for the estimate that about 90% of annual national teacher demand is created by teachers leaving. Note this is a 2017 estimate.
Bowser, K. (2025). Priced Out: The Growing Challenge of Teacher Pay and Housing Costs. National Council on Teacher Quality, District Trendline, 8 May 2025. Source for home prices up 47%, rents up 51%, beginning salaries up 24% from 2019 to 2025; for the 72 district sample; for 39 of 72 and 34 of 72 unaffordable for beginning teachers; for 18 of 72 and 8 of 72 at ten years of experience; and for San Diego Unified at 45%.
Allegretto, S. (2025). The Teacher Pay Penalty Reached a Record High in 2024. Economic Policy Institute. Source for the 26.9% regression-adjusted weekly wage penalty and the 17.1% total compensation gap. These are weekly wages, not annual pay.
Hinkley, S., & Proussaloglou, E. (2025). Housing California Educators: Insights from Nine Education Workforce Housing Developments. Center for Cities + Schools, UC Berkeley, and cityLAB, UCLA. April 2025. Source for all nine unit counts, the 2 to 6 storey and 18 to 141 units per acre ranges, one-bedroom affordability at or below 30% of entry-level income, financing mechanism by project, the 7.5 year average concept to occupancy, the five year contract to move-in figure, the Jefferson Union 85% and 90% retention figures from that district's 2023-24 Local Control and Accountability Plan, the Casa del Maestro rent trajectory from about 50% to about 80% of market, the halved commute time, the 36% storage and 25% safety satisfaction figures, and the permitting and construction delay findings.
Gottlieb, A., Lagana, M., Spearman, K., & Schoales, V. (2025). We Can't Live Where We Teach: Teacher Perspectives. Keystone Policy Center, August 2025. Source for the survey of more than 3,200 Colorado educators, 58% interest in district housing, and the 70% comfortable with the district as landlord figure, which the report itself notes drew limited responses.
Texas and Florida board decisions reported by: Community Impact and KUT News on Hays CISD; KXAN on Lockhart ISD; Ocala Gazette on Marion County; Taylor Press on Taylor, Texas.
The first two steps in the process above take an afternoon and need nothing from us. If you would rather talk it through, or you want the affordability test run against your own salary schedule, we will do that.
Get in touch →Upward Communities develops workforce housing for public sector employees. We have a commercial interest in this subject and would rather say so here than have you find out later. Everything on this page is sourced so you can check it without taking our word for anything.
Monthly updates on Upward Communities.
Something went wrong. Please try again, or email info@upwardcommunities.com.
Communities
Insights
About
