The typical family entering the MTO program consisted of a minority woman and her three children:
1) Almost two-thirds were African American, almost one-third Hispanic; 2) Over 90 percent were single-parent families; 3) Three-quarters were primarily dependent on welfare benefits for income; 4) Roughly 20 percent were employed at baseline.
The families who joined the MTO are significantly different than the general public housing population in several ways. MTO household heads are slightly younger, more often female, and more likely to be Hispanic. MTO families also have slightly lower incomes, are less likely to be employed, and have higher rates of welfare usage than the general public housing population, suggesting that MTO has not taken only the most successful public housing families.

The main motivations for wanting to move were crime and fear:
1) Over three-quarters of the applicants said getting away from drugs and gangs was the most important reason for wanting to move, and they reported high rates of criminal victimization; 2) Nearly half of those interviewed mentioned getting a bigger or better apartment or having better schools for their children as a reason for moving, but these were clearly less important motivating factors.

Impact of MTO on Housing Moves
MTO treatment families who moved were significantly more likely to move to low-poverty neighborhoods than were families in the Section 8 group. Yet they also had lower lease-up rates, meaning that more MTO families remained in their (high-poverty) origin neighborhoods than those families receiving standard Section 8 vouchers.

As Table 7 from the 1999 HUD report below shows, the impacts of MTO (as opposed to standard Section 8 vouchers) on the destination neighborhoods of those participants who chose to move are dramatic. The vast majority (90.5%) of MTO treatment group families who moved went to neighborhoods with poverty rates of less than 10 percent, while none moved to tracts with poverty levels above 40%. In contrast, those families receiving standard Section 8 vouchers tended to move to moderate- (70.2%) or high- (10%) poverty neighborhoods.

The 1997 canvassing effort by HUD and Abt Associates garnered a 92% response rate, though the sample size was smaller than in the data on initial moves (See Report Table 10 below). The later effort showed that 72% of the MTO treatment group families who moved between 1994 and the end of 1996 were still in low poverty neighborhoods in 1997. Very few (2.6%) had moved to high-poverty areas, while about a quarter had moved to areas that were between 10 and 40 percent poor. Among Section 8 families, the percentage living in areas between 10 and 40 percent poor was virtually the same as in the data on initial moves. However, a slightly higher percentage of those living in low-poverty areas and a slightly lower percentage in high-poverty areas indicates some dynamism in this group over time.

Though the lease-up rates for MTO families were significantly higher than the 25% rate documented in the Gautreaux program, MTO families were still less likely to lease up than the Section 8 group.

Impacts of Counseling
1) Counseling services significantly improved a family's ability to lease-up under MTO; 2) Families' demographic and socioeconomic characteristics influenced both the likelihood that they would pursue counseling and the effect of counseling on lease-up rates. For example, on average having only one child made it easier for a mother to find and lease-up a unit, while a higher income decreased chances of leasing-up; 3) Though site and market conditions affected a family's chance of leasing up through MTO, the positive impacts of counseling on leasing-up remained significant even when these characteristics were taken into account; 4) A question for future studies involves whether the counseling costs are offset by reductions in the use of public funds for housing assistance and welfare payments among experimental group families.

Opposition to the Program
Though there was some community opposition in Baltimore suburban communities to lease-ups by MTO families, there have not been any other documented indications of concern by residents of the low-poverty MTO destination neighborhoods.

• MTO had substantial, positive effects on the mobility of families in the experimental and Section 8 groups and on the characteristics of the neighborhoods in which they lived.
• By the time of the interim evaluation, these differentials in poverty rates had narrowed somewhat, in part because of subsequent moves by the experimental families and in part because of changes over time in neighborhood poverty rates, but they had by no means disappeared.
• It is noteworthy that even those families who moved to low-poverty areas did not necessarily move to predominantly white or racially integrated areas.
• Mobility patterns resulted in a number of significant improvements in the environment in which experimental group families lived and lesser improvements for Section 8 group families.
• Changes in the neighborhood environment substantially increased the chances that adults in experimental group families would have college educated friends or friends earning $30,000 or more. There was no significant effect on these outcomes for adults in Section 8 families.
• Families who moved with program vouchers markedly improved their neighborhood conditions, reporting large reductions in the presence of litter, trash, graffiti, abandoned buildings, people “hanging around,” and public drinking, relative to the control group.
• MTO substantially improved the quality of housing occupied by the families who moved with program vouchers.
• Estimation of MTO’s impacts on these outcomes and on measures of smoking, drinking, and general physical health revealed one significant impact on adults’ physical health: a large reduction in the incidence of obesity among both experimental and Section 8 families.
• Improvements in mental health among adults in the experimental group families: a reduction in psychological distress, a reduction in depression (statistically significant on one measure of depression though not on the other), and an increase in feelings of calm and peacefulness.
• There were no significant mental health improvements among those on Section 8.
• Among children, the significant effects of MTO on health were confined to mental health measures— a moderately large reduction in psychological distress for girls in the experimental group; a substantial decrease in the incidence of depression among girls in the Section 8 group; and very large reductions in the incidence of generalized anxiety disorder among girls in both treatment groups.
• Participation in MTO resulted in a large reduction in the proportion of girls age 15 to 19 in the Section 8 group who had ever been arrested for violent crimes.
• There was a significant increase in self reported behavior problems among boys ages 12 to 19 in both treatments groups.
• No evidence was found that MTO reduced public assistance receipt or increased average household income, income relative to poverty, or food security. No evidence was found that any of the subgroups examined experienced reductions in welfare benefits relative to controls. The few statistically significant impacts indicated increases in welfare receipt.