Monday, October 29, 2012

An Evaluation of Moving to Opportunity

The subject of this post is a 2001 study by Mark Shroder which explores the results of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Moving to Opportunity (MTO) program. The program is an experimental implementation of Chicago's Gautreaux Project on a national scale.



The intent of the Gautreaux Project was to allow families living in low income neighborhoods and public housing developments to relocate to higher income neighborhoods in an attempt to better their socioeconomic status. This was initiated after the 1966 court case Dorothy Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority ordered the Chicago Housing Authority to take steps to end segregation in public housing.



This project involved moving participating low income residents from inner-city areas to suburban areas, where neighborhood economic status and school quality were by nature higher because of the presence of higher income individuals and families.

The project found that the group that was relocated had an increased rate of employment and that the children of those that relocated had an increased percentage of high school graduation than those who did not.

MTO has been designed to further explore these findings, and established three classes of participants. A control group that received no housing assistance, a Section 8 comparison group, and a group which received special Section 8 vouchers usable only in areas with a poverty rate of less than 10%. Several cities were included in this experiment, thus eliminating any geographical bias to the results.

In all of these groups, the majority of subjects were African American. Less than 40% of total subjects were employed.



The study noted that most of the applicants had been, or had friends or relatives who had been, victims of crime and that this was their reason for applying to the program. Other reasons included the desire of better schools for children and for larger residences.

Because of these desires, it can be said that the group "self selected", in that those who expressed a desire to leave immediately took advantage of the program, making it difficult to study the effects of MTO on group dynamics and social networks.  



The study also noted that participants were widely dispersed once moved, pointing out that simply re-concentrating poverty in different areas would not solve any problems. It also detailed how not all of the families with the option to move to other areas did so.

Shroder's work then gives summaries of other studies done on the MTO program and attempts to make generalizations from those.

A study by Katz, Kling, and Liebman found that those who relocated felt safer, noticed less neighborhood drug use, had fewer domestic issues, and described themselves as increasingly healthy. This study did not examine poverty or employment.

A study by Ludwig, Duncan, and Pinkston found that those who had relocated were slightly less dependent on welfare than those who did not.
Finally, a study by Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn found that those who relocated had decreased instances of depression and anxiety, and that parenting skills had improved significantly.



Shroder notes that more studies will be needed to determine the effectiveness of the MTO program, but states that the initial research looks promising.

While MTO does seem at least initially to be successful, it comes at the price of disrupting the existing social networks between residents of public housing. Instead of moving low income residents out of a community, higher income residents should be moved in to under-occupied residences. These would allow existing social networks to be strengthened instead of being removed.

Lower income residents also have a stronger attachment to their residences than higher income individuals, as they have fewer options for replacement housing should they be forced to leave.



While Moving to Opportunity was successful at reducing individual poverty, it did little to help poor neighborhoods. This is something that needs to be examined closely, as strong neighborhoods are what allow social networks to develop and for information about job opportunities, educational opportunities, and political organization to be disseminated.

No comments:

Post a Comment