Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration Program

General Information

View a brief abstract of this project.

View a complete, printer-friendly profile of this project.

Evaluator(s) Abt Associates, Inc.
Investigator(s) Larry Orr (Abt Associates, Inc.)
Joan Kraft (US Department of Housing and Urban Development)
Jeffrey Kling (Princeton University)
Judith Feins (Abt Associates, Inc.)
Margery Austin Turner (Urban Institute)
Susan Popkin (Urban Institute)
Jeanne Brooks-Gunn (Columbia University Teachers College)
Greg Duncan (MDRC)
Lawrence Katz (National Bureau of Economic Research)
Jeffrey Liebman (Harvard University)
Sponsor(s) US Department of Housing and Urban Development
Funder(s) US Department of Housing and Urban Development
Smith Richardson Foundation
William T. Grant Foundation
Russell Sage Foundation
Local Housing Authorities
Subcontractor(s) Urban Institute
National Bureau of Economic Research
 
Domain Income Security/TANF
Child/Family
Community/Neighborhood
Status Operational with Findings
Duration Apr 1994 - Apr 2004
Type Research and/or Program Evaluation
Goal To measure the impact of neighborhood location and amenities on very low-income, public housing families with children.

To measure the effectiveness of the Section 8 program, combined with mobility, counseling, in fostering de-concentration among participating families.

To determine whether geographically restricted rental assistance combined with counseling provides an effective means of bringing families and children into better learning and working environments, leading to economic and social self-sufficiency.

Program/Policy Description Moving to Opportunity (MTO) treatment program involves receiving section 8 certificates or vouchers useable only in low-poverty areas (areas with less than 10% of the population below the poverty line), along with counseling and assistance in finding a rental unit.

MTO programs were established in each city as partnerships between local public housing authorities (PHAs) and one or more local, nonprofit, counseling organizations (NPOs). The PHAs administered the Section 8 rental assistance and the NPOs received funding to help pay the costs associated with counseling, helping find rental units, and working with landlords. Each local program had to provide some degree of match for the Federal counseling funds.

Notes Visit the project website.
 
Last Updated 08/24/04
Type of Summary Reviewed
External Reviewer(s) Jeffrey Kling (Princeton University)
Todd Richardson (US Department of Housing and Urban Development)
Contact(s) Jeffrey Kling (kling@princeton.edu)
Princeton University
Firestone A-16-J, One Washington Road
Princeton University
(T) (609) 258-6153
(F) (609) 258-2907
Todd Richardson (Todd_M._Richardson@HUD.gov)
US Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 Seventh Street S.W.
(T) (202) 708-3700 Ext. 5706
(F) not reported
Submitter(s) Research Forum Staff (info@researchforum.org)
National Center for Children In Poverty
215 West 125th St, 3rd Fl
(T) (646)284-9600
(F) not reported

Populations Studied

Target Population Recipients/participants/clients
Social/Community service agencies
Low-income households
Subgroups Analyzed Children 1-6
Local government
Caseworkers/managers/administrators
Children younger than 1 (infants)
Children 7-18
Low-income households
Minority populations
Sample Size and Unit 4,610 families who volunteered for MTO were randomly assigned into one of three groups:

MTO treatment group, (N=1,8203,170) which received section 8 certificates or vouchers useable only in low-poverty areas (areas with less than 10% of the population below the poverty line), along with counseling and assistance in finding a rental unit. 860 families (48%) successfully leased units in low-poverty neighborhoods.

Section 8 comparison group, (N=1,6501,350) which received regular section 8 certificates or vouchers (geographically unrestricted) and whatever briefings and assistance Section 8 certificate and voucher recipients would normally receive from the housing authority. 816 families (60%) successfully leased units.

In-place control group, (N=1,440) which received no certificates or vouchers but continued to receive project-based assistance.

NOTE: MTO was designed as a major social science improvement over earlier research that failed to address the problem of self-selection bias: that if only the most motivated families are included or selected to join a program, their experiences will not be typical of the eligible population and will confound or confuse outcomes. MTO addresses the self-selection issue buy randomly assigning families who volunteered for the MTO program into one of the three groups.

Execution Reported response rate: 92%

Sites Studied

Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York