Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program: Review of Research Findings and Considerations for Policymakers
Congressional research reportNov 21, 2012
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice
Voucher Program: Review of Research
Findings and Considerations for Policymakers
(name redacted)
Specialist in Housing Policy
(name redacted)
Research Associate
November 21, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R42832
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
Summary
As is evidenced by the name of the program, “choice” is one of the key components of the
nation’s largest federal housing assistance program, the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV,
or voucher) program. The choice aspect of the program—that eligible families can use their
federal subsidies to rent the housing they choose in the private market—differentiates it from the
other major federal housing assistance programs, including public housing and project-based
Section 8 rental assistance, which offer assistance tied to specific units of housing. Those
programs have long been criticized for isolating and concentrating poor families, particularly
minority families, in high-poverty communities with limited opportunities, particularly in urban
areas. Thus, the HCV program was designed, in part, to promote “mobility,” or make more areas
accessible to low-income families and encourage them to move to areas with greater
opportunities. Further, courts have directed communities to use vouchers as a remedy for racial
segregation in public housing.
Despite these goals, most families participating in the Section 8 HCV program live in racially
segregated communities that have medium or high levels of poverty. There is little consensus on
why this occurs, as the housing choice a family makes may reflect the many constraints a family
faces in using its voucher, the understanding the family has of the choices to be made, and/or the
family’s own preferences.
A number of demonstrations and studies have looked at how vouchers can be used to
deconcentrate poverty and the effects of moving families out of areas of concentrated poverty.
Taken together, the research to-date has not shown convincing evidence that programs designed
to move low-income families to neighborhoods with low-poverty and racially/ethnically
integrated neighborhoods have resulted in families successfully and permanently moving to such
communities. Most studies have shown that families given vouchers with mobility goals have
struggled to make initial moves to areas that would be considered “areas of opportunity” (i.e.,
those with very low concentrations of poverty). Further, those families that did initially relocate
to low-poverty and more racially integrated neighborhoods, over time and with subsequent
moves, often ended up living in neighborhoods with higher concentrations of poverty and less
racial integration than the low-poverty neighborhoods to which they had initially moved.
Researchers have also looked beyond families’ locational outcomes at the effects of moving on
various measures of family well-being. While one of the motivating goals behind these mobility
policies and demonstrations has been to improve families’ economic well-being and their
children’s educational outcomes, studies have not found evidence that the tested mobility policies
have had major positive impacts in these areas. Early studies found some initial employment and
earnings impacts and some mixed findings regarding children’s outcomes, although later research
has called those initial findings into question. Some positive impacts were found in the Moving to
Opportunity (MTO) demonstration involving physical and mental health, housing satisfaction,
neighborhood satisfaction, perceived safety, and overall perceived well-being. But in other areas
of interest to policymakers, such as family economic well-being—employment and children’s
educational outcomes—no impacts were found from MTO.
The fact that many families with vouchers continue to live in high or medium-poverty, racially
segregated neighborhoods, paired with the research findings to-date about the limited impacts of
tested mobility programs, leads to several questions and considerations policymakers may choose
to explore. One question is whether policy changes to the voucher program, or to other federal
Congressional Research Service
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
assisted housing programs, could help to better achieve the goals of poverty deconcentration and
reducing racial or ethnic segregation. Another question is whether these goals are of the same,
greater, or less importance than other program goals, such as promoting affordability and housing
stability. The way policymakers choose to answer these questions could have implications for the
direction of federal housing policy.
These questions are particularly relevant now for several reasons. One reason is the current fiscal
climate. In a constrained budget environment, policymakers face difficult tradeoffs in funding
federal programs. In determining priorities for limited federal funding, the effectiveness and
efficiency of all federal housing assistance programs, including the largest—the HCV program—
may be reexamined. In fact, reforms to the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program have been
considered every year for at least the last decade. While the choice and mobility aspects of the
program have not been a primary driver of those reform efforts, these aspects of the program may
receive more attention, especially given recently-released research findings. The results of the
final evaluation of the MTO demonstration have only been published in the last couple of years
and are being considered and debated by social science researchers as well as housing policy
advocates.
This report explores the concept of choice and mobility in federal housing policy, particularly in
the Section 8 HCV program. It begins by describing the origins of choice and mobility in federal
housing policy, followed by a discussion of choice and mobility in today’s Section 8 HCV
program. The report then provides an overview of relevant research on the effects of choice and
mobility policies. It concludes with a discussion of options and considerations for policymakers.
Congressional Research Service
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Background on Choice and Mobility in Assisted Housing .............................................................. 1
The Housing Choice Voucher Program ........................................................................................... 3
Program Elements ..................................................................................................................... 3
Families’ Moves in the Section 8 HCV Program ...................................................................... 6
Review of Mobility Research .......................................................................................................... 9
Summary of Research and Findings .......................................................................................... 9
Gautreaux ................................................................................................................................ 11
Gautreaux II ............................................................................................................................. 13
Moving to Opportunity (MTO) ............................................................................................... 14
HOPE VI and Chicago’s Plan for Transformation .................................................................. 17
Implications and Policy Considerations ........................................................................................ 20
Expanding Choice ................................................................................................................... 20
Increasing Information to Promote Informed Choice.............................................................. 21
Investing in Disadvantaged Communities ............................................................................... 22
Locating Assisted Housing in Areas of Opportunity ............................................................... 23
Constraining Choice to Achieve Deconcentration Goals ........................................................ 24
Reevaluating Goals .................................................................................................................. 25
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 26
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 27
Congressional Research Service
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
Introduction
Choice and mobility are key aspects of the of the nation’s largest federal housing assistance
program, the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV, or voucher) program. The choice aspect
of the program—that eligible families can use their federal subsidies to rent the housing they
choose in the private market—differentiates it from the other major federal housing assistance
programs, including public housing and project-based Section 8 rental assistance. It is, in part,
because of the choice and mobility aspects of the program that it has grown to largely replace
other forms of housing assistance.
Congress has been considering reforms of the HCV program for the past decade, although
legislation has not been enacted. Thus far, choice and mobility have not been the centerpiece of
these efforts. However, these aspects of the program may be of greater interest to policymakers
going forward, as new research findings have questioned the effectiveness of current policies in
promoting mobility and improving family well-being.
This report explores the concept of choice and mobility in federal housing policy, particularly in
the Section 8 HCV program.1 It begins by describing the origins of choice and mobility in federal
housing policy, followed by a discussion of choice and mobility in today’s Section 8 HCV
program. The report then provides an overview of relevant research on the effects of choice and
mobility policies. It concludes with a discussion of considerations for policymakers.
Background on Choice and Mobility in
Assisted Housing
Originally, federal housing assistance programs did not offer families much choice about where
they were to live if they wished to receive assistance. Families seeking assistance would apply to
the local public housing authorities (PHAs) that administered federal housing assistance programs
(i.e., public housing) and if a subsidized unit became available, it would be offered to the family.
It is well documented that for the first several decades of the public housing program, families
were directed to specific public housing developments based on their race.2 The housing
developments to which black families were directed were generally in less-desirable geographic
areas and of poorer physical condition than those to which white families were directed.3
This systematic racial segregation was eventually outlawed and several large PHAs were subject
to court-ordered desegregation strategies (e.g., the Gautreaux Fair Housing program, discussed
later in this report). However, many public housing developments, particularly in urban areas,
remained racially segregated. These same housing developments have been characterized by
severe distress, both physical and social, offering challenging circumstances and limited
1
Because the focus of this report is on federal policy, it does not discuss local mobility initiatives.
See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Development, Discrimination in Federally Assisted Housing Programs, Part 1 & 2, 99th Cong., 2nd sess.,
November 21, 1985, 99-83 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1986).
3
Margery Austin Turner, Susan J. Popkin, and Lynette Rawlings, eds., Public Housing and the Legacy of Segregation
(The Urban Institute Press, 2009), Chapter 1.
2
Congressional Research Service
1
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
opportunities for the families that reside in them.4 The problems have been most acute in urban
areas, where public housing helped contribute to the concentration of extreme poverty in innercity, primarily black communities, and where joblessness, crime, and myriad other social
problems were growing.5
It is against the backdrop of this history that “choice” has come to be considered a critical
component in today’s assisted housing policy. The concept of choice in federal housing policy is
driven by two policy goals, neither of which the traditional public housing program appeared to
have accomplished. One is to support the autonomy of individual families and their right to
choose where they wish to live.6 The other is to promote racial desegregation and poverty
deconcentration, by providing low-income families with the option to move to low-poverty and
racially integrated areas.7 Both implicit and explicit in this goal is the desire to improve families’
well-being, particularly their economic well-being.8
Encouraging moves to low-poverty neighborhoods is premised on the idea that low-poverty
neighborhoods create better life outcomes, particularly for children. The disparities in health,
education, exposure to violence, and employment outcomes between high-poverty and lowpoverty neighborhoods are well documented.9 However, beyond a general agreement that
individuals benefit from living in low-poverty neighborhoods, there are many unresolved
questions. Researchers have not concluded why, how, and how much neighborhoods matter,10 and
4
See National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing, The Final Report, (GPO, 1992).
For background on the role of public housing in promoting concentrations of poverty, see Alexander Polikoff,
Waiting for Gautreaux: A Story of Segregation, Housing, and the Black Ghetto (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University
Press, 2006). For background on the causes and effects of extreme concentrated poverty in black urban communities,
see William Julius Wilson, The Truly Disadvantaged (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987).
6
For example, the President’s Commission on Housing, which was created by an executive order by President Reagan,
used as one of its guiding principles that the government’s role in housing should “emphasize individual freedom of
choice. Thus, housing aid to the disadvantaged ought to take the form of a consumer-oriented housing payments
program to the household with the wherewithal to make its own housing decisions.” The Report of the President’s
Commission on Housing, Established by President Ronald Reagan [Executive Order 12310], Full Report, April 1982.
The findings of this commission helped to influence the establishment of the precursor voucher program to today’s
Housing Choice Voucher program.
7
Promoting racial desegregation has been a goal of federal housing policy since the Fair Housing Act was enacted as
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act in 1968 (P.L. 90-184). The law requires HUD to act affirmatively to promote the
goals of the act in the programs it administers, which has been interpreted to mean that HUD must act to end
segregation in federally assisted housing (for example, see Otero v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 484 F.2d 1122, 1134 (2d Cir.
1973) (holding under Title VIII “[a]ction must be taken to fulfill, as much as possible, the goal of open, integrated
residential housing patterns and to prevent the increase of segregation, in ghettos, of racial groups whose lack of
opportunities the Act was designed to combat”). The concept of deconcentrating poverty has evolved from that goal
and was made an explicit policy goal in 1998 (P.L. 105-276, discussed later in this section of the report).
8
For example, the most touted findings from an early housing mobility and desegregation program (the Gautreaux
program, discussed later in this report), were education and employment impacts. Further, the Moving to Opportunity
for Fair Housing Demonstration, which is discussed later in this report, was explicitly designed to report on economic
and education outcomes for families. Additionally, social science research has long suggested that residential
segregation is negatively correlated with families’ economic well-being. For example, see Douglas S. Massey,
Gretchen A. Condran, and Nancy A. Denton, “The Effect of Residential Segregation on Black Social and Economic
Well-Being,” Social Forces, vol. 66, no. 1 (1987), pp. 29-56.
9
For example, see the review of studies shown in J. Sampson, Jeffrey D. Morenoff and Thomas Gannon-Rowley
“Assessing ’Neighborhood Effects’: Social Processes and New Directions in Research,” Annual Review of Sociology,
vol. 28, (2002), pp. 443-478 and William Julius Wilson, “Afterward: Reflections on Responses to the Truly
Disadvantaged,” in The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy, 2nd ed. (Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 2012).
10
Ibid.
5
Congressional Research Service
2
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
researchers continue to debate which differences in neighborhoods (e.g., differences in resources,
social networks, role models, civic engagement, etc.) lead to differences in neighborhood features
(e.g., school quality or crime levels).11
Congress included among the stated goals of today’s largest federal housing assistance program,
the Housing Choice Voucher program, the promotion of choice and mobility and the
deconcentration of poverty. The Quality Housing and Work Opportunity Act of 1998 (P.L. 105276), which created the modern HCV program, identified public housing as plagued by a series of
problems, including the concentration of extremely poor people in extremely poor
neighborhoods, and it included among its purposes:
•
“facilitating mixed income communities and decreasing concentrations of
poverty in public housing”; and
•
creating the voucher program as “a market-driven program that will assist in
making tenant-based rental assistance under such section more successful at
helping low-income families obtain affordable housing and will increase housing
choice for low-income families.”
While few observers argue against the concept of providing low-income families with housing
choice, there have been criticisms of the way that choice is provided through the Housing Choice
Voucher program. Similarly, while there is little disagreement that systematic segregation is
untenable and that areas of highly concentrated poverty with limited economic opportunity are
undesirable, there is disagreement about how necessary racial and/or economic integration is to
individual and family well-being.
The Housing Choice Voucher Program
Program Elements
The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, administered by the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), is arguably the federal government’s largest housing
mobility program, serving roughly 2 million low-income families.12 While choice and mobility
are among the goals of the program, another primary goal is to make decent housing affordable to
low-income families. This section of the report describes the program’s structure and the ways in
which that structure shapes the choices of the program participants. It also describes the design
elements that have been incorporated into the program’s structure to allow for and encourage
families’ moves to low-poverty and racially integrated neighborhoods.
The Section 8 HCV program provides eligible low-income families with subsidies that they can
use to rent the housing of their choice from private market landlords. Families are generally
eligible to receive a voucher if they are very low-income (earning 50% or less of the local area
11
Xavier de Sousa Briggs, “Traps and Stepping Stones: Neighborhood Dynamics and Family Well-being,” Kennedy
School of Government Working Paper, March 2004.
12
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Housing Choice Vouchers Program Guidebook. pg. 2-2.
Accessed at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/hcv/forms/
guidebook.
Congressional Research Service
3
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
median income) or if they are low-income (earning 80% or less of the local area median income)
and meet other special criteria such as being elderly or having disabilities.13 The program is fully
federally funded, but it is administered by local Public Housing Authorities (PHAs). Eligible
families apply directly to PHAs for housing vouchers. Families that receive a housing voucher
must find a unit that meets the program’s housing quality standards (HQS)14 and is considered to
have a reasonable rent when compared to similar units in the local market and on the premises.
Families have a limited amount of time to search for a unit, as determined by the PHA, but which
must be 60 days at minimum. Landlord participation in the program is voluntary, so families must
not only find units that meet their needs and the program standards, but also units with landlords
willing to accept their vouchers.15
The amount of assistance available to a household is based on the local area’s Fair Market Rent
(FMR). FMR is determined by HUD and is equal to the 40th or 50th percentile of the distribution
of an area’s rents, depending on the affordability of the local area.16 In setting maximum benefit
levels in each community, PHAs have the discretion to apply a ratio between 90% and 110% to
the FMR according to the conditions of the local market. The resulting “payment standard” varies
by bedroom size and serves as the basis for setting a household’s subsidy amount. A household’s
voucher benefit is calculated as the PHA’s payment standard, less the household’s rent
contribution, which is generally equal to 30% of the household’s income.17 The 30% contribution
is the standard for what is considered “affordable” for a low-income family to pay towards
housing costs.18 A household may choose to spend up to 40% of its income for rent within the
first year of participation and more than 40% of its income on rent after the first year of
participation.
The structure of the program thus specifies the minimum quality of the unit and the maximum
cost to the household to ensure that decent housing is made affordable to low-income families.
The housing quality standards guarantee that subsidized families live in decent, safe, and sanitary
housing19 and capped tenant contributions prevent participating families from having a high rent
13
See the CRS Report RL32284, An Overview of the Section 8 Housing Programs: Housing Choice Vouchers and
Project-Based Rental Assistance, by (name redacted) for further information on the Section 8 HCV program.
14
HQS are established by HUD regulation (24 C.F.R. Part 982) and cover 13 key aspects of quality: sanitary facilities,
food preparation and refuse disposal, space and security, thermal environment, illumination and electricity, structure
and materials, interior air quality, water supply, lead-based paint, access, site and neighborhood, sanitary condition; and
smoke detectors.
15
No systematic research has been conducted on the willingness of landlords to accept vouchers, although various
studies that have looked at families’ experiences in the voucher program have noted the difficulty families can have
finding landlords willing to accept vouchers.
16
PHAs determine the amount of housing assistance provided to each voucher holder based upon the Fair Market Rents
(FMRs) provided by HUD for each metropolitan area and non-metropolitan county area. The FMR for any given area
equates to between 40 and 50 percent of the area’s average rent for a standard unit. HUD sets the FMR at the 50th
percentile in metropolitan areas in which voucher holders are concentrated in particular neighborhoods due to a lack of
affordable units throughout the metropolitan area.
17
The actual tenant contribution is actually somewhat more complicated. Families must pay the higher of 30% of their
adjusted income, 10% of their gross income, or the welfare rent (if applicable). For more information about income and
rent policies, see CRS Report R42734, Income Eligibility and Rent in HUD Rental Assistance Programs: Responses to
Frequently Asked Questions, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
18
For background and history of the 30% affordability standards, see Ibid.
19
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Housing Choice Vouchers Program Guidebook. pg. 10-25.
Accessed at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/hcv/forms/
guidebook.
Congressional Research Service
4
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
burden. On the other hand, these specifications do limit the units that are available to program
participants. HUD’s flexibility in setting the FMR, PHAs’ flexibility in setting payment standards,
and families’ flexibility in determining the amount of their income to be contributed to rent can
serve to make more expensive units, potentially including those in low-poverty neighborhoods,
more available to low-income families. These features, however, may result in more expensive
federal subsidies or higher rent burdens for families.
Other program features, such as portability requirements and other deconcentration policies, are
specifically intended to support and encourage the mobility of low-income families.
Portability
Portability is a key feature of the current Section 8 HCV program. Portability allows families to
move from one PHA’s jurisdiction to another PHA’s jurisdiction without an interruption of
housing assistance.
Portability has limits, however. PHAs have the ability to prohibit some families (those that
are not residents in the PHA’s jurisdiction) from making portability moves during their first
year of participation in the program. PHAs may also deny portability moves if they do not
have sufficient funding to support the move.20 Families that are able to make portability
moves also face restrictions. The family’s income must fall within the income limits of the
receiving PHA and the family is subject to the receiving PHA’s voucher payment standards,
subsidy standards, search time policies for the portability move, and may be subject to
rescreening for eligibility.21 HUD advises that families should “pay close attention to
portability requirements at both PHAs” in order to avoid complications during a portability
move.22
Required PHA Policies to Promote Poverty Deconcentration Efforts
The HCV program regulations require that PHAs inform families of their housing choices and
implement policies that expand the housing choices of families. Each PHA is required to provide
families living in high-poverty areas with information on the benefits of moving to a low-poverty
area.23 Each PHA must also have a written policy that explains how the PHA encourages the
participation of landlords in low-poverty areas.24 In addition, HUD encourages PHAs to provide
families with information about areas inside and outside of the PHA’s jurisdiction that have low
rates of poverty and that are racially integrated, but it does not require PHAs to do so.25 The
annual performance rating (through the Section 8 Management Assessment Program) of PHAs
located in metropolitan areas is partially based on PHAs’ expansion of housing opportunities.
This is demonstrated by actions such as meeting the required regulations, performing analysis of
20
PHAs may only deny portability moves due to insufficient funding if the PHA would otherwise be unable to avoid
terminating voucher assistance for current participants. See HUD Notice PIH 2011-3 (HA), “Housing Choice Voucher
Family Moves with Continued Assistance.”
21
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Housing Choice Voucher Program Guidebook, 13-4.
22
Ibid., 13-2.
23
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Housing Choice Voucher Program. pg. 2-2.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
5
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
the opportunities families have to rent in low-poverty and racially integrated areas, and including
landlords with units located in high-poverty areas in the list of landlords willing to lease to
voucher holders that is provided to program participants.26 These PHAs can also receive bonus
points for their annual performance rating based on the number of families with children living in
low-poverty areas.27
PHAs are provided with fees for administering the HCV program; however, they do not receive
dedicated funding for promoting mobility (e.g., intensive search assistance and mobility
counseling), so the cost of any additional mobility efforts a PHA may wish to make will have to
be weighed against the costs of the other administrative needs of the program. This is a
particularly relevant consideration in recent years, when funding for per-voucher administrative
fees has been at reduced levels.28
Families’ Moves in the Section 8 HCV Program
As discussed previously, families participating in the Section 8 HCV program are responsible for
obtaining housing with their vouchers. After receiving the voucher, families must find a unit that
meets the price and quality constraints of the program and may do so with varying levels of
search and housing location support.29
According to the most recent study, published in 2000, approximately 31% of families issued
vouchers were unable to use the voucher to successfully lease housing.30 While the “success rate”
may have increased or decreased since 2000 due to policy changes or external factors, long-term
trends in the program suggest that the inability of all families to use their vouchers to lease units
continues to be an issue.31
Families that are able to successfully enter into leases with their vouchers are not necessarily
moving to low-poverty neighborhoods. According to a recent study, approximately 51% of
voucher holders live in medium-poverty neighborhoods (with poverty rates between 10% and
30%).32 Another 21% of voucher holders live in high-poverty neighborhoods (with poverty rates
greater than 30%).33 Only about 27% of voucher holders live in low-poverty neighborhoods (with
poverty rates that are 10% or less).34
In general, this distribution of vouchers across neighborhoods of varying poverty concentrations
is comparable to the distribution of other HUD project-based housing units (e.g., public housing
26
Ibid. pgs. 2-2:2-3.
Ibid. pg. 2-4.
28
For example, see Public Housing Authorities Director’s Association, “HCV Administrative Fees: Breaking Point for
Voucher Program,” Issue Brief, available at http://www.phada.org/pdf/HCV_Admin_Fees_Issue_Brief.pdf.
29
Stefanie DeLuca, “How Housing Policy Affects the Lives of Poor Families.” Presented at HUD 7/23/2012.
30
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Study on
Section8 Voucher Success Rates: Volume 1 Quantitative Study of Success Rates in Metropolitan Areas, November
2001, pg. i.
31
Ibid.
32
Kirk McClure, “The Prospects for Guiding Housing Choice Voucher Families to High-Opportunity Neighborhoods,”
Cityscape: A Journal of Housing and Community Development, vol.12 no. 3 (2010) p. 112.
33
Ibid.
34
Ibid.
27
Congressional Research Service
6
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
and project-based Section 8 properties) in terms of low-poverty neighborhoods, but not in terms
of high-poverty neighborhoods.35 High-poverty neighborhoods had greater proportions of projectbased housing units than Section 8 vouchers. This suggests that while Section 8 HCV participants
are less likely to be living in high-poverty neighborhoods compared to those who live in other
forms of assisted housing, they are no more likely to live in low-poverty neighborhoods.36
Another research study showed that voucher holders are increasingly moving to suburbs;
however, the majority of suburban voucher holders are not living in high-income, job-rich
suburbs. Approximately 49% of families receiving vouchers lived in suburbs in 2008. This may
reflect the program’s strategies to encourage mobility, or may reflect the general trend in the
suburbanization of poor families.37 However, it should be noted that while almost half of voucher
recipients lived in suburban areas in 2008, approximately 48% of these voucher recipients lived
in low-income suburbs. Of the remaining voucher recipients living in suburban areas,
approximately 38% lived in moderate-income suburbs and slightly more than 14% lived in highincome suburbs. Similarly, roughly 29% of voucher recipients lived in suburbs with high job
accessibility.38
Although the Section 8 HCV program has program design features that allow program
participants to live in any area of their choice and that encourage program participants to select
low-poverty areas, only approximately one in four voucher families live in areas with poverty
rates lower than 10%.39 There are several hypotheses that may help explain why voucher holders
do not live in low-poverty areas, which are presented below. While there is at least some evidence
to support each of these hypotheses, more research may be useful in order to gain a better
understanding of how families make their housing decisions and where and why they move and
thus inform the debate about how best to encourage moves to low-poverty neighborhoods.
(1) The size of the subsidy may prevent families from moving to low-poverty areas. Although there
are program design features that attempt to adjust the amount of housing assistance available to
families to reflect local conditions, the program provides a subsidy for units that are generally at
or below the area’s average rent. Low-income housing advocates have criticized the FMRs for
“steering families with housing vouchers to low rent, more segregated neighborhoods that too
often lack good schools and other opportunities.”40 Further, ethnographic research has indicated
that FMRs may only be high enough to allow families to afford the lowest quality or least
desirable units in lower-poverty neighborhoods, units that may not be able to consistently pass
physical quality inspections.41 HUD is currently implementing a study of more localized FMRs,
35
Ibid., pg. 113. Project-based housing includes public housing, multifamily, and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
units.
36
Ibid., pg. 113.
37
See Kevin Covington, Lance Freeman, and Michael A. Stoll. “The Suburbanization of Housing Choice Voucher
Recipients,” Brookings Institute, October 2011, pg. 4. Note that approximately 1.7 million of the 3.4 million of the
people benefitting from Section 8 HCV vouchers live in suburban areas – this statistic does not summarize families, but
individuals.
38
The percentage growth of voucher recipients living in suburbs with high job accessibility has increased more than
that of the overall poor population between 2000 and 2008. Ibid.
39
Kirk McClure, “The Prospects for Guiding Housing Choice Voucher Families to High-Opportunity Neighborhoods,”
Cityscape: A Journal of Housing and Community Development, vol.12 no. 3 (2010) pg. 109.
40
For example, see Philip Tegeler, et al. Letter to Shaun Donovan. April 8, 2011. Accessed at http://prrac.org/pdf/
Civil_rights_Small_Area_FMR_delay-%204-8-11.pdf.
41
Kathryn Edin, Stefanie DeLuca, and Ann Owens, “Constrained Compliance: Solving the Puzzle of MTO’s Lease-Up
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
which are meant to better target FMRs such that families may have more choices regarding where
they can live with their vouchers.
On the other hand, there are millions of units that fall within the price constraints of the program
and are located in neighborhoods with poverty rates of less than 10%.42 That is, a national
estimate of the number of units with rents below their area’s FMR found that there were
approximately 5 million units available in neighborhoods with poverty rates of less than 10% in
2008, but that only 27% of voucher holders lived in these neighborhoods. However, many of
these lower-rent units in low poverty neighborhoods may not be available to voucher holders if
owners decide not to participate in the program or have a preference for non-subsidized renters.
(2) Residential segregation may prevent African-American and Hispanic families from moving to
low-poverty neighborhoods, which are frequently predominantly white. Residential segregation
may affect the moves of families in two ways: (1) African-American and Hispanic families may
feel uncomfortable living in predominantly white, non-Hispanic neighborhoods, and (2) owners
may be less likely to rent to African-American and Hispanic families, especially those that
participate in the Section 8 HCV program. HUD’s most recent study on housing discrimination
(published in 2005) found that significant housing discrimination against African-American and
Hispanic renters remains.43
(3) Families may have personal preferences for their selections, and may regard their original
neighborhood as having important resources, such as cultural communities, social networks, and
support systems. Although negative attributes associated with high-poverty neighborhoods, such
as high levels of violence, are well known, ethnographic research portrays a more complicated
view of life in high-poverty neighborhoods. Despite their challenges, these neighborhoods may
also have rich social networks that provide support and identity.44 Further, research has shown
that services for low-income families are concentrated in high-poverty areas.45 Therefore, a move
to a low-poverty neighborhood can be a move away from family, friends, and important
community resources.46 However, it is difficult to generalize about the preferences of individual
families, given that they can vary significantly from family to family.47
(4) Aspects of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program and the way it is administered may
facilitate families’ choices to stay in areas with concentrated poverty. As noted earlier, families
(...continued)
Rates and Why Mobility Matters,” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, vol. 14, no. 2 (2012).
42
Kirk McClure, “The Prospects for Guiding Housing Choice Voucher Families to High-Opportunity Neighborhoods,”
Cityscape: A Journal of Housing and Community Development, vol.12 no. 3 (2010) pg. 110.
43
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: National
Results from Phase I of The Housing Discrimination Study 2000,” accessed at http://www.huduser.org/portal/
publications/hsgfin/hds.html.
44
Stephen Steinberg, “The Myth of Concentrated Poverty,” in The Integration Debate: Competing Futures for
American Cities, ed. Chester Hartman and Gregory D. Squires (Routledge, 2010).
45
Ibid.
46
Anita Zuberi, “Limited Exposure: Children’s Activities and Neighborhood Effects in the Gautreaux Two Housing
Mobility Program,” Journal of Urban Affairs, vol. 32, no. 4, p. 405-423.
47
For example, the complicated interests and needs of families with vouchers participating in the Moving to
Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration are discussed in Kathryn Edin, Stefanie DeLuca, and Ann Owens,
“Constrained Compliance: Solving the Puzzle of MTO’s Lease-Up Rates and Why Mobility Matters,” Cityscape: A
Journal of Policy Development and Research, vol. 14, no. 2 (2012).
Congressional Research Service
8
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
can only use their vouchers to lease units that meet minimum quality standards, have costs within
the limits of their subsidies, and for which the landlord is willing to accept the voucher. All of
these factors may serve to limit the choices available to low-income families. Additionally, recent
ethnographic research observing a subset of families in their housing searches suggests that the
rules associated with the use of the Section 8 vouchers, as well as limited information available to
families in the search process, may contribute to families selecting units in high-poverty
neighborhoods.48 This research observed that families often did not plan their moves, and instead
made moves under distress. For instance, some families moved to new units because their current
units would no longer meet the program’s housing quality standards and they were afraid that
they would lose their voucher. Families making unplanned moves also had difficulty finding
high-quality units in high-quality neighborhoods during the search period. Families participating
in the research frequently did not have the time and resources (e.g., access to transportation and
child care) necessary for the housing search. Instead, families relied upon the lists of landlords
accepting Section 8 vouchers provided by the PHAs, and these lists mostly contained units
located in high-poverty neighborhoods.49 Although this limited research is not conclusive, it does
suggest that families might make different housing choices if they had more time and support.
Review of Mobility Research
While the hypotheses and research discussed in the previous section of this report consider what
choices families make given the options and constraints of the HCV program, another set of
studies have considered what happens when families’ choices are explicitly constrained for the
purpose of promoting poverty deconcentration and racial desegregation. In these initiatives,
families must generally move to low-poverty or more racially integrated areas as a condition of
receiving housing vouchers.
Summary of Research and Findings
The current research on mobility can be tracked back to the outcomes of the Gautreaux litigation,
a public housing desegregation case in the city of Chicago.50 When that litigation was settled in
the mid-1970s, the Chicago Housing Authority and HUD were found to be administering the
federal public housing program in a discriminatory manner and were ordered by the courts to
pursue desegregation strategies, including providing mobility vouchers to public housing
residents. Researchers used this court-ordered desegregation solution as an opportunity to study
how moves to mostly-white suburban neighborhoods can affect poor, predominantly minority
families that had been living in public housing. Initial findings from Gautreaux indicated that
such moves had some positive earnings and educational outcomes for families, although later
research called into question the extent of those initial findings. A second, smaller version of
Gautreaux was begun in 2002. Results to-date of Gautreaux II have been limited. With the initial
Gautreaux findings in mind, Congress authorized HUD in the early 1990s to conduct a similar,
48
DeLuca, Stefanie. “How Housing Policy Affects the Lives of Poor Families.” Presented at HUD 7/23/2012 and
Stefanie DeLuca, Peter Rosenblatt and Holly Wood. 2011, “Why Poor People Move (and Where They Go): Residential
Mobility, Selection and Stratification,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological
Association, Las Vegas, NV, and provided by the author to CRS.
49
Ibid.
50
Dorothy Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority and Hills v. Gautreaux.
Congressional Research Service
9
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
but more methodologically robust, study to test the effects of moving poor families living in
project-based housing into low-poverty neighborhoods with vouchers. The results from this
Moving to Opportunity (MTO) demonstration have not indicated any earnings or children’s
education impacts, although they have shown some positive adult health and mental health
impacts.
Additional research on the effects of relocating poor families has come out of the HOPE VI
public housing revitalization program, particularly Chicago’s Plan for Transformation. While
lacking the controls and research design of MTO, observations about the experiences of lowincome families displaced by public housing demolition and revitalization have added to the
conversation about housing mobility.
Taken together, the research to-date has not shown convincing evidence that programs designed
to move low-income families to neighborhoods with lower concentrations of poverty and lower
concentrations of minority households have resulted in families remaining in low-poverty
communities. Studies have shown that families given vouchers with mobility goals have
struggled to make initial moves to areas that would be considered “areas of opportunity,” (i.e.,
those with very low concentrations of poverty or racial/ethnic minorities). Further, with the
exception of the first Gautreaux program, those families that did initially relocate to lowerpoverty and more racially integrated neighborhoods, over time and with subsequent moves, often
ended up living in neighborhoods with higher concentrations of poverty and less racial integration
than the lower-poverty neighborhoods to which they had initially moved.
Looking beyond locational outcomes, the studies have not found evidence that mobility moves
have had major positive impacts on families’ economic and children’s educational outcomes.
Among those families that stayed in lower-poverty neighborhoods (Gautreaux), initial limited
employment and earnings impacts were found and impacts were mixed regarding children’s
outcomes, although later research has called those findings into question. Some positive impacts
were found in MTO around health, housing and neighborhood satisfaction, and perceived safety,
but in other areas of interest to policymakers, such as family economic well-being, employment,
and children’s educational outcomes, positive impacts have not been found.
These limited findings have raised questions about the extent to which neighborhood matters in
influencing the life outcomes of poor families, particularly in terms of economic and children’s
educational outcomes. However, the issues of low lease-up51 and of families’ subsequent moves
in particular have made it difficult to fully assess the impacts of moving to lower-poverty or more
racially diverse neighborhoods. It is speculated that these factors may have served to mask
positive outcomes that could have been achieved with different program design. Similarly, the
fact that many relocating families initially moved to neighborhoods that were only somewhat less
disadvantaged than their original neighborhoods may also have weakened the outcomes. This
may be particularly relevant when assessing children’s educational outcomes, as research has
shown that many relocated families stayed within the same school district.52 Finally, it is
important to note that, of this research, only the experimental MTO research is able to fully
control for selection bias. Since families were not randomly assigned to participate in any of these
51
“Lease-up” is a term used to describe when families enter into a lease with their vouchers. Not all families who are
awarded vouchers are able to find a unit to lease-up.
52
Xavier de Souza Briggs et. al., Why did the moving to opportunity experiment not get young people into better
schools?, Housing Policy Debate ,Vol. 19, Iss. 1, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
10
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
studies besides MTO, it is impossible to know if some unobserved family characteristics are
actually driving differences in outcomes.
The following section of the report briefly describes Gautreaux, MTO, Gautreaux 2, and HOPE
VI/Plan for Transformation, the findings to-date, and related considerations.
Gautreaux
The Gautreaux assisted housing program was developed in response to a series of class action
lawsuits filed by Chicago public housing tenants and their advocates in 1966 against the Chicago
Housing Authority (CHA) and HUD alleging systematic racial discrimination in the siting and
assignment of public housing.53 In 1969, the district court ruled for the plaintiffs in the CHA case
and ordered the housing authority to build future public housing in white communities.54 The
eventual settlement agreement between HUD and the plaintiffs required HUD to provide housing
vouchers to residents of public housing.55 The resulting Gautreaux Assisted Housing Program was
active from 1976 until 1998.
Program Design56
The Gautreaux program offered rental vouchers to families living in public housing developments
in Chicago. However, the vouchers had limitations. They had to be used in predominantly white
suburban areas or certain areas of the city that were deemed to be improving.57 Between 1976 and
1981, the vouchers had to be used in neighborhoods with less than a 30% concentration of black
families. After 1981, the vouchers could be used in areas with higher concentrations, if the
neighborhood was considered to be revitalizing.
The program was voluntary and families entered knowing that the voucher would limit where
they could live. Families living in public housing or on the wait list for public housing were
eligible to participate; however, families that had histories of poor housekeeping or bad debts
were screened out of the program, as were large families (those with more than four children).
The program was administered by a nonprofit organization in Chicago, which contracted with
rental agencies to identify units that met the criteria and offered them to families on a mostly
first-come, first-served basis. Later, in the early 1990s, the program was changed to provide
families with vouchers and housing counseling instead of directing them to specific units.
53
Gautreaux vs. Chicago Housing Authority et al.
Specifically, the next 700 units and three quarters of units thereafter were required to be built in predominately white
communities. Alexander Polikoff, “Racial Inequality and the Black Ghetto,” Northwestern Journal of Law and Social
Policy, vol. 1, no. 1 (Summer 2006).
55
The district court initially ruled against the plaintiffs in the HUD case, but that ruling was overturned. The scope of
the remedy eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court’s order to provide
“desegregative” housing opportunities. Alexander Polikoff, Waiting for Gautreaux: A Story of Segregation, Housing,
and the Black Ghetto (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2006).
56
This summary is based on information provided in Leonard S. Rubinowitz and James E. Rosenbaum, Crossing the
Class and Color Lines: From Public Housing to White Suburbia (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000) and
Stefanie DeLuca, Greg Duncan, Ruby Mendenhall and Micere Keels, “Gautreaux Mothers and Their Children: An
Update,” Housing Policy Debate, vol. 20, 2010, p. 7-25.
57
Ibid, Deluca et. al.
54
Congressional Research Service
11
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
Residential Mobility Outcomes
More families applied to participate than the number of vouchers that were made available. Of the
families that were selected (on a first-come, first-served basis), only about 20% moved with
vouchers (a total of about 6,000 families).58
More than half of the roughly 6,000 participating families moved to suburban locations. The other
families remained in Chicago.59 The majority of families settled in low-poverty, majority-white
communities in the suburbs, but about one-fifth of the families settled in high-poverty, highminority-concentration neighborhoods within the city.60
Research looking at families more than 15 years after their initial moves found that most families
who moved to low-poverty neighborhoods have, in subsequent moves, stayed in low-poverty
neighborhoods.61 This is true for both mothers and their children who have since formed their
own separate households. The same is not true in terms of minority concentration. Families who
initially moved to neighborhoods with higher concentrations of whites made subsequent moves to
neighborhoods having higher minority concentrations. However, the neighborhoods to which
families subsequently moved still had lower minority concentration than the public housing
neighborhoods from which they originally came.62
Other Family Outcomes
Initial research on Gautreaux compared families that initially relocated within the city (where
minority concentrations were higher) to families that relocated to the suburbs (which were
predominantly white). Researchers conducted interviews with these families and found that
children of suburban movers were more likely to finish high school, attend college, and find
employment,63 and that their mothers were more likely to be employed than their city-moving
counterparts.64
More recent research has compared Gautreaux families that relocated to low-poverty, lowminority-concentration neighborhoods to those that relocated to high-poverty and high-minority58
Leonard S. Rubinowitz and James E. Rosenbaum, Crossing the Class and Color Lines: From Public Housing to
White Suburbia (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), pp. 67-68.
59
Ibid.
60
As noted earlier, after 1981, vouchers could be used in areas within the city with higher concentrations of minorities.
Stefanie DeLuca, Greg Duncan, Ruby Mendenhall and Micere Keels, “Gautreaux Mothers and Their Children: An
Update,” Housing Policy Debate, vol. 20, 2010, p. 7-25.
61
Families moved from neighborhoods with a 42% poverty rate to neighborhoods with a 17% poverty rate and they are
now living in neighborhoods with a 16% poverty rate. Micere Keels, Greg J. Duncan, Stefanie DeLuca, Ruby
Mendenhall, and James E. Rosenbaum, “Fifteen Years Later: Can Residential Mobility Programs Provide a Permanent
Escape from Neighborhood Crime and Poverty?” Demography vol. 42 no. 1 (2005), p. 51-73.
62
Families moved from neighborhoods that were originally over 80% African American to communities that were less
than 30% African American and they are now living in neighborhoods with populations just under 50% African
American. Ibid.
63
Leonard S. Rubinowitz and James E. Rosenbaum, Crossing the Class and Color Lines: From Public Housing to
White Suburbia (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), chapter 9.
64
Susan J. Popkin, James E. Rosenbaum and Patricia M. Meaden, “Labor Market Experiences of Low-Income Black
Women in Middle-Class Suburbs: Evidence from a Survey of Gautreaux Program Participants,” Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, vol. 12, no. 3 (Summer, 1993), pp. 556-573.
Congressional Research Service
12
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
concentration neighborhoods, regardless of whether they relocated to the city or suburbs, in
addition to comparing city and suburban placements. Further, this research has used
administrative records in addition to interviews. This newer research did not confirm the positive
economic and employment outcomes of the earlier Gautreaux research. Instead, it found that
employment and earnings rates were about the same for mothers in suburban locations versus city
locations.65 In terms of children, this more recent research looked at criminal involvement and
found that boys relocated to low-poverty or suburban communities had less involvement with the
criminal justice system in terms of both arrests and convictions; conversely, girls relocated to
low-poverty or suburban locations appeared to have no difference in terms of arrests, but higher
rates of convictions.66 Different research found lower mortality rates among boys who moved to
neighborhoods whose residents have higher education and employment levels.67
Considerations
Gautreaux was not designed as an experimental study with an experimental group and a control
group. Researchers have exploited features of the program to test various theories, but even with
robust methodologies, the possibility of selection bias remains, meaning unobserved
characteristics may drive the observed differences in family outcomes.
Gautreaux II
In 2001, the Chicago Housing Authority began a second version of the Gautreaux program,
referred to as Gautreaux II. This program also resulted from ongoing litigation and also involved
providing location-restricted mobility vouchers to families living in public housing who
volunteered to receive them.68 It is smaller than the original Gautreaux and there has been less
research on its impacts.
Program Design
Under Gautreaux II, residents living in public housing were eligible to apply for a Housing
Choice Voucher. The vouchers were restricted from use in areas with 24.5% or more residents
living in poverty and areas with higher than 30% black residents. Families who received
Gautreaux II vouchers gave up their right to return to public housing. After one year, families
were free to move with their vouchers without restriction.
Residential Mobility Outcomes
In 2002, the program began to accept applicants and over 1,100 families expressed interest, and
just fewer than 700 were deemed eligible to participate. Of those families, 450 completed all of
65
Stefanie DeLuca, Greg Duncan, Ruby Mendenhall and Micere Keels. 2010. “Gautreaux Mothers and Their Children:
An Update.” Housing Policy Debate, vol. 20, p. 7-25.
66
Ibid.
67
Mark E. Votruba and Jeffrey R. Kling, “Effects of Neighborhood Characteristics on the Mortality of Black Male
Youth: Evidence from Gautreaux,” National Poverty Center Working Paper Series, available at http://www.nber.org/
mtopublic/491.pdf.
68
Jennifer Pashup, Kathryn Edin, Greg J. Duncan, and Karen Burke, “Participation in a Residential Mobility Program
from the Client’s Perspective: Findings from Gautreaux Two,” Housing Policy Debate, vol. 16, no. ¾ (2005).
Congressional Research Service
13
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
the orientation and qualification steps and commenced housing searches. As of 2003, about 200
families had successfully found a unit with their voucher, or leased-up (36% of eligible
families).69
Researchers looking at a sample of families found that the majority of families made subsequent
moves away from their first-move locations in low-poverty, racially integrated neighborhoods to
neighborhoods that were poorer and more racially segregated shortly after the expiration of the
one-year restriction.70
Other Outcomes
Other qualitative research found that Gautreaux II has had little or no impact on most
participants’ employment situations.71
Considerations
As with the first Gautreaux, there was no random assignment component to the Gautreaux II
program, so families self-selected to participate, making the findings from this research subject to
selection bias. Further, the ability to move without restriction after one year, and the fact that so
many families chose to move to higher-poverty, higher-minority-concentration neighborhoods
after the restriction ended, may have diluted any effects associated with living in low-poverty,
more racially integrated communities.
Moving to Opportunity (MTO)
The Moving to Opportunity Fair Housing Demonstration was created by Congress in 1992 to
build on and further test the experiences of Gautreaux. Specifically, the authorizing legislation
sought to
Assist very low-income families with children who reside in public housing [ ... ] to move
out of areas with high concentrations of persons in poverty to areas with low concentrations
of such persons.72
It provided funding for both tenant-based rental assistance (vouchers) and supportive counseling
services for families living in public housing who wished to participate. Congress also provided
funding to study the outcomes of the demonstration. The law required HUD to provide a final
report that described the long-term housing, employment, and educational achievements of the
families assisted under the demonstration.
69
Ibid.
Researchers found that 53% of families in their sample made a subsequent move, and, of those families, 81% moved
to “non-opportunity area” (i.e. areas outside of the program guidelines).Melody Boyd, Kathryn Edin, Susan ClampetLundquist, and Greg J. Duncan, “The Durability of Gains from the Gautreaux Two Residential Mobility Program: a
Qualitative Analysis of Who Stays and Who Moves from Low-Poverty Neighborhoods,” Housing Policy Debate, vol.
20, (2010), p. 119-146.
71
Joanna M. Reed, Jennifer Pashup, and Emily K. Snell, “Voucher Use, Labor Force Participation, and Life Priorities:
Findings from the Gautreaux Two Housing Mobility Study,” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and
Research, vol. 8, no. 2, (2005), pp. 219-239.
72
P.L. 102-550, Section 152.
70
Congressional Research Service
14
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
Notably, unlike the Gautreaux intervention, the MTO study focused on moving families to lowpoverty neighborhoods, regardless of the neighborhood’s racial composition.
Program Design73
Congress restricted MTO to no more than six large cities; five cities were ultimately selected in
1994 and the program was fully implemented in 1999.
Within cities, specific public housing developments were selected for participation. Eligible
developments (either public housing or project-based Section 8) had to be located in
neighborhoods where at least 40% of the population was poor, and eligible families had to have at
least one child under the age of 18 and be income-eligible for the program.
Within eligible developments, families who volunteered to participate were randomly assigned to
one of three groups:
•
An MTO treatment group, which received Section 8 subsidies that could only be
used initially in low-poverty areas (areas with 10% or less of the population
living below the poverty line). These families received counseling and assistance
in finding units. After a family’s initial move, the voucher no longer had location
restrictions.
•
A Section 8 comparison group, which received regular Section 8 vouchers
without any unique geographic restrictions or additional counseling.
•
A control group, which received no vouchers, but continued to receive their
public housing assistance.
Among those who applied to the program, over 4,600 were found eligible to participate. About
1,800 were assigned to the treatment group, 1,350 were assigned to the Section 8 comparison
group, and 1,440 were assigned to the control group.74
Mobility Findings
Overall, of the over 3,000 families assigned vouchers (experimental and Section 8 control group),
just over half were able to find somewhere to lease with their vouchers. The experimental group,
which could only use vouchers to lease units in low-poverty neighborhoods, had a lower lease-up
rate (47%) than did the Section 8 comparison group (62%).75 Thus, both the Section 8 group and
the experimental group contain families who did not successfully lease-up with their vouchers.
Participating families were very mobile. By 2002, more than 70% of all participating families
(control, experimental, and regular Section 8) had moved from their initial locations.76 Looking
73
Summary of design is taken from HUD, Office of Policy Development and Research, “Moving to Opportunity for
Fair Housing Demonstration Program: Current Status and Initial Findings,” September 1999.
74
Ibid.
75
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration
Program: Interim Impacts Evaluation,” HUD, Washington, DC, September 2003, p. 26. (Hereinafter, Interim MTO
Evaluation.)
76
Ibid, p. 33.
Congressional Research Service
15
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
specifically at the experimental group, over 70% of families had moved; of those experimental
group families who had successfully leased-up in low-poverty neighborhoods, 66% had moved,
again.77
On average, experimental group families who made initial moves to low-poverty areas
subsequently moved to neighborhoods with higher poverty rates than those to which they had
initially relocated. Experimental group movers who successfully leased-up in low-poverty
neighborhoods initially lived in neighborhoods with average poverty rates of just under 11%.78 By
2002, they were living in neighborhoods with average poverty rates of about 20%,79 and by 2008,
they were living in neighborhoods with an average poverty rate of over 21%.80
These neighborhoods are less poor than the neighborhoods of the control group (by about 8% for
all experimental group households; about 18% for those experimental group households who
made initial low-poverty moves)81 but their poverty rates are about twice those of the low-poverty
neighborhoods to which they had originally relocated.
The low-poverty neighborhoods initially chosen by families in the experimental group who
successfully leased-up had an average minority population of about 51%.82 By 2002,
experimental families who had leased-up were living in neighborhoods with minority
concentrations of over 75%; among those families who had subsequently moved, the average
percentage was over 79%.83 By 2008, the families in the experimental group who had leased-up
continued to live in areas with significant minority concentration (about 76%).84 However, these
families did end up in lower-poverty areas with lower minority concentration than did control
group families (by about 13%).
Other Findings
In terms of parental employment and earnings and children’s education, two areas in which
Congress directed HUD to focus its study, no statistically significant differences were found
77
Ibid, Exhibit C3.2.
Ibid, Exhibit 2.3.
79
Ibid, Exhibit 2.5.
80
Lisa Sanbonmatsu, et. al., “Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration Program: Final Impacts
Evaluation,” HUD, Washington, DC, October 2011, Exhibit 2.6. (Hereinafter, Final MTO Evaluation.)
81
Ibid. Note that additional research indicates that part of the narrowing in the gap between the experimental and
control groups in terms of neighborhood poverty may be attributable not only to the moves of relocating families to
higher-poverty communities, but also to changes in the neighborhoods of control group families that resulted in their
poverty rates declining. Jens Ludwig, “Guest Editor’s Introduction,” Cityscape; A Journal of Policy Development and
Research, vol. 14, no. 2 (2012), p. 8.
82
Interim MTO Evaluation, p. 36.
83
Interim MTO Evaluation, Exhibit 2.6.
84
Final MTO Evaluation, p. 57.
78
Congressional Research Service
16
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
between families in the experimental group (those that received a location-restricted voucher)85
and the control group (those families who did not receive a voucher).86
The MTO experimental group did have some statistically significant findings in other areas. In
terms of health, families with experimental vouchers had adults with lower rates of extreme
obesity, diabetes and psychological distress than those in the control group.87 They also reported
feeling safer and more satisfied with their neighborhoods and housing units than families in the
control group.88 Families that received experimental vouchers also reported higher levels of selfreported well-being.89 In terms of youth mental health outcomes, the findings were limited and
mixed, with some limited positive findings for female youth and some limited negative findings
(related to risky behavior) for boys.90
Considerations
As noted earlier, MTO’s experimental design prevents selection bias from influencing the
findings. However, it is important to note that many families who were assigned to the
experimental group did not lease-up. Among those who did, many moved to low-poverty
neighborhoods initially but subsequently moved to higher-poverty neighborhoods. While still
lower poverty than the neighborhoods of the control group, the neighborhoods in which
experimental families ended up were still high poverty, and many children remained in lowperforming schools.91 Given the mobility of both the experiment and control groups, researchers
have raised questions about whether the treatment was robust enough to fully test the effects of
living in low-poverty neighborhoods.
HOPE VI and Chicago’s Plan for Transformation
The HOPE VI Revitalization of Severely Distressed Public Housing program was created by
Congress in 1992. The intent of the program, as evidenced by its name, was to fund the
revitalization of the nation’s most troubled public housing. That revitalization has generally taken
the form of demolition and reconstruction, typically with fewer units of public housing being
rebuilt than were demolished. During construction, displaced families are generally relocated to
other public housing developments or with vouchers, although in some circumstances, families
can remain on-site during phased reconstructions. The replacement public housing that is built is
frequently mixed-income housing and not all original residents are necessarily able to return. One
85
There were also no statistically significant findings when comparing the control group to just those families in the
experimental group that successfully initially leased-up in low-poverty neighborhoods. Note that even if there had been
findings in this comparison, those findings would have been subject to selection bias (i.e. attributable to unobserved
characteristics).
86
Final MTO Evaluation, Chapter 5.
87
Final MTO Evaluation, Chapter 3.
88
Final MTO Evaluation, Chapter 2.
89
Jens Ludwig, Greg J. Duncan, and Lisa A. Gennetian, et al., “Neighborhood Effects on the Long-Term Well-Being
of Low-Income Adults,” Science, vol. 337 no. 6101, (September 21, 2012), pp. 1505-1510.
90
Lisa A. Gennetian, Lisa Sanbonsmatsu, and Lawrence F. Katz et al. “The Long-Term Effects of Moving to
Opportunity on Youth Outcomes,” Cityscape; A Journal of Policy Development and Research, vol. 14, no. 2 (2012).
91
Lisa Sanbonmatsu, Jeffrey R. Kling, Greg J. Duncan, and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, “Neighborhoods and Academic
Achievement: Results from the MTO Experiment,” Journal of Human Resources, vol. 41, no. 4 (Fall 2006), p. 649691.
Congressional Research Service
17
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
result of HOPE VI, therefore, has been the transfer of tens of thousands of families from
distressed public housing to the Housing Choice Voucher program.
While many PHAs across the country have participated in HOPE VI, the Chicago Housing
Authority’s (CHA) use of HOPE VI and related authorities to completely transform its public
housing inventory is unique. Chicago’s Plan for Transformation, which was approved by HUD in
2000, called for the demolition or substantial rehabilitation of over 25,000 units of public housing
over about a 10-year period, resulting in the relocation of about 56,000 public housing residents.92
Only about a quarter of the demolished units were slated to be replaced with new public housing
units, which means that a large number of Chicago public housing residents have been relocated
using vouchers. Influenced by the requirements of the Gautreaux settlement, Chicago has a long
history of providing mobility counseling and support for mobility moves for voucher holders.
While the Plan for Transformation was not designed as an experiment to test mobility and
locational outcomes for poor families using vouchers, researchers have studied HOPE VI and the
Plan for Transformation to try to understand how the switch from public housing to vouchers has
affected families. Specifically, some of their research has compared the outcomes of those who
have moved into private market housing using vouchers to those who remained in or relocated to
other public housing developments.
Program Design
Under the Plan for Transformation, families facing displacement from public housing that was
being demolished or rehabilitated entered into a relocation contract with the housing authority
that offered them the right to return as long as they remained lease compliant. Families were able
to choose to relocate to other public housing units or with Housing Choice Vouchers and also to
indicate whether or not they wished to return to any rebuilt mixed income public housing.93
Families that chose vouchers were provided with mobility counseling, although researchers have
indicated that the quality of that counseling varied over the course of the multiyear relocation
process.94
Mobility Findings
Of the original 25,000-plus families who were living in CHA public housing when the Plan for
Transformation began in 2000, fewer than half were still assisted by CHA as of 2010.95 Of those
families still participating by 2010, about 18% were seniors who lived in renovated senior public
housing developments. Of the remaining families, just over one-fifth lived in redeveloped mixed
92
Robert J. Chaskin, Mark L. Joseph, and Sara Voelker, et al., “Public Housing Transformation and Resident
Relocation: Comparing Destination and Household Characteristics in Chicago,” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy
Development and Research, vol. 14, no. 1 (2012), p. 184.
93
Note that, over time, CHA added restrictions to some public housing properties (such as enhanced background
checks and drug testing) that may have served to limit resident’s ability to return to their units.
94
Lawrence J. Vale and Erin Graves, “The Chicago Housing Authority’s Plan for Transformation: What Does the
Research Show So Far?,” Final Report Prepared for the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, June 8,
2010, pg. 19-20.
95
Figures calculated by CRS based on data provided in Lawrence J. Vale and Erin Graves, “The Chicago Housing
Authority’s Plan for Transformation: What Does the Research Show So Far?,” Final Report Prepared for the John D.
and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, June 8, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
18
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
income public or assisted housing, about 36% lived in public housing, and about 43% rented
private market units with HCV subsidies.96
Currently, all relocated families appear to live in neighborhoods that have lower poverty than the
extremely high-poverty, public housing neighborhoods they lived in prior to relocation. However,
their lower-poverty neighborhoods still have relatively high poverty rates, and there appear to be
differences in poverty rates based on the type of subsidized housing families used to relocate.97
Families relocated with vouchers live in lower-poverty neighborhoods than families relocated to
traditional public housing developments; however, families with vouchers live in higher-poverty
neighborhoods than those families relocated to non-traditional, scattered-site public housing.98 In
terms of racial composition, families who relocated with vouchers ended up in neighborhoods
that were more racially segregated than the neighborhoods of those families that relocated to
traditional public housing, scattered-site public housing, and mixed-income housing.99
Other Findings
Overall, research on relocated families has found improvement in families’ perceptions of the
quality of their housing and the safety of their neighborhoods following relocation.100 However,
there has not been consistent evidence that families relocated with vouchers have fared better in
terms of employment and children’s education outcomes than those relocated to public
housing.101 There has been some evidence that those families relocated with vouchers have had
more financial challenges than other relocatees, although it is unclear whether this is attributable
to characteristics of the individuals who received vouchers or due to the structure of the voucher
program.102
96
Lawrence J. Vale and Erin Graves, “The Chicago Housing Authority’s Plan for Transformation: What Does the
Research Show So Far?,” Final Report Prepared for the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, June 8,
2010.
97
Robert J. Chaskin, et al., “Public Housing Transformation and Resident Relocation: Comparing Destination and
Household Characteristics in Chicago,” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, vol. 14, no. 1
(2012).
98
Among all relocated households, the neighborhood poverty rate averaged just under 32%. For those relocated to
mixed-income housing it averaged 29%, with vouchers it averaged 29%, to scattered site public housing, 24%, and
traditional public housing, 40%. Ibid, p. 193. Note that this research uses percent of households with children in
poverty as a measure of neighborhood poverty.
99
Families relocated with vouchers ended up in neighborhoods that averaged just under 85% African American,
compared to 71% for those relocated to mixed income housing, 37% for scattered-site public housing, and 78% for
traditional public housing. Ibid, p. 193.
100
For example, see Vale and Graves (2010), and Larry Buron and Susan J. Popkin, “Transformed Housing: Major
Improvements in CHA Residents’ Quality of Life,” Urban Institute Policy Brief, No. 2, August 2010, and Lawrence J.
Vale and Erin Graves, “The Chicago Housing Authority’s Plan for Transformation: What Does the Research Show So
Far?,” Final Report Prepared for the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, June 8, 2010.
101
Lawrence J. Vale and Erin Graves, “The Chicago Housing Authority’s Plan for Transformation: What Does the
Research Show So Far?,” Final Report Prepared for the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, June 8,
2010, Section 5.
102
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
19
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
Considerations
To the extent families self-selected into relocation housing types, their individual preferences and
characteristics may have influenced the different outcomes they experienced. Further, families’
decisions between relocation options were likely influenced by the fact that different
requirements were placed on different types of relocation housing. For example, the Chicago
Housing Authority implemented a work requirement for families wishing to relocate to
redeveloped public housing. Similarly, mixed income developments in some cases adopted
stricter screening criteria, such as mandatory drug tests.
Implications and Policy Considerations
The HCV program is designed to offer program participants choice about where they live. The
goal of this choice is to promote individual autonomy, as well as to promote increased poverty
deconcentration, which is thought to improve family well-being. However, the success of this
policy in achieving these goals remains unproven. It can be argued that the HCV program
participants face significant constraints on their choices. Further, the findings from
demonstrations to-date present mixed findings regarding whether the program results in increased
poverty deconcentration and racial integration to the extent anticipated by those who designed the
initiatives. Given these findings, when debating the future of the Housing Choice Voucher
program, policymakers might consider a range of policy options, discussed below. As noted
earlier, interest in this topic may be especially high because of (1) ongoing interest in reforming
assisted housing programs, (2) budget constraints leading to an increased interest in ensuring that
programs are adequately targeted and meeting their goals, and (3) the recent release of final MTO
research findings.
Expanding Choice
While the HCV program is designed to provide families with choices about where to live, as
described earlier in this report, those choices are constrained by the design of the program.
Maximum subsidy levels, combined with caps on how much tenants can contribute toward rent,
work together to limit the universe of units that can be rented by families. Units with rents that
are higher than the maximum subsidy level plus the tenant contribution are unavailable, and in
some communities, that may mean units in low-poverty and/or racially integrated communities
are unavailable. One option to expand family choice, and potentially promote mobility, would be
to increase subsidy levels. However, that comes at increased federal costs for each subsidy. At a
time when the federal budget is under intense scrutiny and the program serves only a fraction of
those eligible,103 it may be difficult to advocate for such an increase. Another option would be to
eliminate caps on tenant contributions towards rent. However, that comes at the expense of
potentially increased rent burdens on families, while reducing such rent burdens is one of the
primary goals of the program, as well as the current income-based rent structure.
Interviews conducted with some MTO families found that many who did not move with their
vouchers wanted to live in areas with greater opportunities and lower poverty, but they had
103
Barry L. Steffen, Keith Fudge, Marge Martin, Maria Teresa Souza, David A. Vandenbroucke, and Yung Gann
David Yao, “Worst Case Housing Needs 2009: Report to Congress.” Washington, DC: HUD (2011).
Congressional Research Service
20
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
difficulty finding units within their price range and with willing landlords. This same research
found that families who initially moved to low-poverty neighborhoods but subsequently moved to
higher-poverty neighborhoods did so because they had problems with their unit (such as passing
quality inspections) or their landlord (such as raising rent). The authors of the research note that
families moving to low-poverty neighborhoods with cost-constrained vouchers are likely to live
in the lowest cost housing—and hence poorest quality housing—in the community, whereas if
they were to live in a higher-poverty community where rents are lower, they may have access to
better quality housing.104
Another way to expand tenant choices is to require landlords to accept vouchers. Participation in
the voucher program is voluntary for landlords, except in those communities that have adopted
so-called “source of income discrimination” prohibitions that apply to housing assistance.105
Requiring landlords to accept vouchers will likely increase success rates and make more units
available for voucher holders to choose from. However, local property owners are often opposed
to source of income policies, arguing that they limit an owner’s choice not to participate in a
program they may view as administratively cumbersome and therefore costly.
Instead of requiring landlords to take vouchers, there might be ways to encourage PHAs to
increase their landlord outreach. A HUD study on costs and utilization in the voucher program
found that PHAs that concentrated more heavily on outreach to landlords and better service to
owners of rental housing had better utilization rates (i.e., higher rates of vouchers under lease).106
However, as noted earlier, providing enhanced support requires the administrative resources of
PHAs; the decline in administrative fees paid to PHAs in recent years may limit them from
providing such additional support.107
Increasing Information to Promote Informed Choice
It is possible that with more information, support, and incentives, low-income families may
choose to move to and stay in low-poverty neighborhoods. A study of the moves of families
participating in Chicago’s Section 8 program found that, when controlling for differences
between families, mobility assistance (which included a wide array of services such as housing
search counseling and unit referrals, free credit reports and budget counseling, transportation to
view units in opportunity neighborhoods, post-move support, and a security deposit loan fund)
did help families move to “opportunity” neighborhoods (defined as neighborhoods with poverty
rates less than 23.9%) by approximately 6%; the researchers concluded that targeting the mobility
assistance to economically stable families may have increased moves to opportunity
neighborhoods.108 More so, researchers stressed the variation in families’ readiness to make
104
Kathryn Edin, Stefanie DeLuca, Ann Owens, “Constrained Compliance: Solving the Puzzle of MTO’s Lease-Up
Rates and Why Mobility Matters,” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, vol. 14, no. 2 (2012),
p.163-178.
105
For more information, see CRS Report R42151, Possible Legal Issues Facing Landlords Who Choose Not to Accept
Federal Housing Vouchers, by (name redacted).
106
Meryl Finkel, Costs and Utilization in the Housing Choice Voucher Program, Abt Associates, Prepared by HUD,
Cambridge, MA, July 2003, http://www.huduser.org/Publications/PDF/utilization.pdf.
107
HUD is currently conducting a study to get a better understanding of how much funding is needed to adequately
fund the HCV program’s administrative costs. For more information, see http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/
program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/hcv/adminfee.
108
Mary Cunningham and Noah Sawyer. “Moving to Better Neighborhoods with Mobility Counseling,” Urban
Institute, Brief No. 8, March 2005.
Congressional Research Service
21
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
mobility moves and recommended that services be tailored to offer families necessary support to
make and maintain their moves.109
Other research has also shown that mobility assistance (e.g., counseling, search assistance,
education) may be effective at helping families move to low-poverty neighborhoods.110 HUD’s
cost-effectiveness analysis for the Moving to Opportunity program found that the measurable
health benefits outweighed the additional costs of mobility assistance programs in comparison to
the traditional voucher program, when assuming a family’s participation in any housing
assistance program may last between 10 and 15 years.111 The upfront cost for mobility assistance
services in the MTO program was approximately $4,500 per person; this cost would be in
addition to the rent differential between high- and low-poverty communities.112 However, the
upfront costs of mobility counseling may be difficult to cover in the current budget environment,
especially if they come at the cost of providing vouchers to additional families or maintaining
vouchers for current families. Further, mobility counseling may not be able to overcome
structural barriers to mobility such as unavailable units.
Investing in Disadvantaged Communities
Would it be more effective to direct resources to poor neighborhoods rather than direct poor
people to neighborhoods with resources?
Political Scientist David Imbroscio has been especially critical of mobility initiatives, such as
Gautreaux and Moving to Opportunity, because of what he sees as their failure to result in
economic opportunity for low-income families. Imbroscio contends that mobility has been
prioritized over “placemaking” (investing in the communities, particularly black communities),
and that mobility has become place-destroying. He, and other critics of mobility initiatives, point
out that mobility initiatives can result in the loss of social networks, cultural ties, and political
constituencies—all of which have value for low-income communities. He contends that instead of
focusing on moving low-income families from areas of concentrated poverty, urban policy should
be focused on creating affordable housing in inner cities, enhancing economic opportunities for
residents through strategic economic development, and addressing directly the provision of goods
and services to black neighborhoods.113
The National Low-Income Housing Coalition, one of the largest groups advocating for more
affordable housing for low-income families, has also recently released a publication that grapples
with the tension between mobility and investing in existing communities. Following a review of
mobility research and interviews with stakeholders (including residents of low-income housing),
109
Ibid.
Judith Feins, Debra McInnis, and Susan Popkin, “Counseling in the Moving to Opportunity Demonstration
Program,” prepared by Abt. Associates for HUD in October 1997.
111
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration
Program – Final Impacts Evaluation,” October 2011.
112
Ibid.
113
For more information, see David Imbroscio, “Beyond Mobility: The Limits of Liberal Urban Policy,” Journal of
Urban Affairs, Volume 34, No. 1, (February 2012) p. 1-20; 2012. For a critique of Imbroscio and a defense of mobility
policies, see Stefanie Deluca, “What is the Role of Housing Policy? Considering Choice and Social Science Evidence”;
and Gregory D. Squires, “Beyond the Mobility Versus Place Debate,” both published in Journal of Urban Affairs,
Volume 34, No. 1 (February 2012).
110
Congressional Research Service
22
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
the NLIHC reached several conclusions, including that, while the HCV program should be
modified to enhance family choice, “policy should err on the side of preservation” and that “U.S.
housing policy should not be based on the belief that it is problematic for too many poor people
or too many people of color to live near one another.”114
There have been several housing policy initiatives intended to invest in disadvantaged
communities. For example, the HOPE VI program, and its recent replacement, the Choice
Neighborhoods program, are both designed to invest in the redevelopment of severely distressed
neighborhoods. Similarly, the Obama Administration’s Promise Neighborhoods initiative is
designed to invest more resources into poor schools and their surrounding communities. Congress
has also enacted, but not funded, a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund to support the
construction of additional units of affordable housing.115
Some studies that have looked at communities that have undergone HOPE VI redevelopments
have found decreases in crime and some improved outcomes for residents, although it is not
possible to determine how much of these changes are attributable directly to the public housing
redevelopment relative to other changes that may be taking place in the community. However,
since the way the HOPE VI program has been implemented has led to an overall reduction in
public housing units and the relocation of former tenants with vouchers, families who were
displaced from public housing may not have fully benefited from positive improvements that may
have come from the reinvestment. Further, critics contend that HOPE VI may have been
detrimental for some displaced families. These concerns, among others, have led to calls for
reform of HOPE VI to minimize its displacement effect, and some of those reforms have been
integrated into the new Choice Neighborhoods program.116 Additional research on the
effectiveness and cost of place-based investments would be necessary to thoroughly evaluate
them relative to mobility options.
Locating Assisted Housing in Areas of Opportunity
Some have argued that providing assisted housing in low-poverty, high-resource neighborhoods
would be a cost-effective way to improve the life outcomes of low-income families, particularly
in terms of children’s educational outcomes. Recent studies of the children living in assisted
housing in low-poverty communities (Mount Laurel, NJ, and Montgomery County, MD) have
found large increases in educational achievement due to the children’s attendance at higherquality schools in these neighborhoods.117 In the Montgomery County study, the researcher was
able to delineate between the effects of neighborhood quality and school quality on student
achievement (which many studies are unable to do) and found that the neighborhood quality also
improved educational outcomes, but not as much as attendance at a high-quality school.118
114
For more information, see Sheila Crowley and Danilo Pelletiere, “Affordable Housing Dilemma: The Preservation
vs. Mobility Debate,” National Low Income Housing Coalition, May 2012.
115
For more information, see CRS Report R40781, The Housing Trust Fund: Background and Issues, by (name redacted).
116
For example, see National Low Income Housing Coalition, “Advocates Praise One-for-One Replacement
Requirements in Latest Choice Neighborhoods Initiative Award,” Press Release, September 7, 2011.
117
Rebecca Casciano and Douglas S. Massey, “School Context and Educational Outcomes: Results from a QuasiExperimental Study,” Urban Affairs Review, vol. 48, no. 2, (2012), p.180-204, and Heather Schwartz, “Housing Policy
is School Policy: Economically Integrative Housing Promotes Academic Success in Montgomery County, Maryland,”
The Century Foundation, 2010.
118
Heather Schwartz, “Housing Policy is School Policy: Economically Integrative Housing Promotes Academic
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
23
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
One advantage of locating “hard” units in low-poverty communities is that when a family accepts
this housing assistance, they are guaranteed housing in a low-poverty community, while a family
receiving a voucher may not be able to obtain a unit in a low-poverty area. Another advantage of
locating assisted housing in low-poverty neighborhoods is that these units may allow families
more stability than a voucher, which may allow the educational and neighborhood benefits to
accrue over time. On the other hand, providing assisted housing units in low-poverty
neighborhoods offers families less choice than the Section 8 HCV program. Further, recent
research has helped illuminate how areas of concentrated poverty shift over time, meaning
housing located in today’s areas of opportunity may be located in tomorrow’s high-poverty
communities.119 Finally, given that low-poverty neighborhoods often have higher housing costs,
locating affordable housing units there is likely to be more expensive than locating them in
higher-poverty neighborhoods. However, no cost analysis is available to determine if scatteredsite assisted housing integrated into a low-poverty community would be more cost-effective than
providing vouchers or vouchers and mobility assistance in terms of meeting poverty
deconcentration goals.
Constraining Choice to Achieve Deconcentration Goals
Some proposals have been made to expand the premises underlying the Gautreaux program and
the MTO demonstration on a wider scale. For example, the lawyer who represented the lead
plaintiff in the original Gautreaux litigation, Alexander Polikoff, has proposed an expanded
voucher program modeled on Gautreaux and intended to be made available to low-income
African-Americans living in inner cities with the goal of fostering racial integration and greater
opportunity.120 Similar proposals have been discussed to expand the principles of MTO to limit
the use of some vouchers in high-poverty areas or areas with high concentrations of voucher
holders.121 Another court-ordered desegregation effort modeled on Gautreaux was ordered in
Baltimore. In the Baltimore remedy, 2,000 vouchers were awarded for residents to use only in
neighborhoods that are less than 30% African-American, that are less than 10% poor, and with
less than 5% of residents living in public housing, with recipients receiving mobility counseling
to help them use their vouchers.122
These types of locational restrictions, as long as they are enforced, can achieve the goal of
moving poor families to areas that are less poor or have lower proportions of minorities. The
early Gautreaux findings would indicate that accomplishing this goal may be enough to improve
the outcomes for some families with children. However, later studies of Gautreaux, Gautreaux II,
and MTO have raised questions about how assured positive outcomes are, particularly in the
(...continued)
Success in Montgomery County, Maryland,” The Century Foundation, 2010.
119
Mark D. Shroder and Larry L. Orr, “Moving to Opportunity: Why, How, and What Next?,” Cityscape: A Journal of
Policy Development and Research, vol. 14, no. 2 (2012).
120
Alexander Polikoff, “Racial Inequality and the Black Ghetto,” Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy, vol.
1, no. 1 (2006).
121
The broader discussion of the idea is referenced in Kirk McClure, “The Prospects for Guiding Housing Choice
Voucher Families to High-Opportunity Neighborhoods,” Cityscape: A Journal of Housing and Community
Development, vol.12 no. 3 (2010).
122
For more information, see Lora Engdahl, “New Homes, New Neighborhoods, New Schools: A Progress Report on
the Baltimore Housing Mobility Program,” Baltimore Regional Housing Commission and Poverty and Race Research
Action Council, October 2009.
Congressional Research Service
24
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
areas of employment and children’s education. Additionally, the low lease-up rates in all of these
programs highlight the difficulties poor families face in finding units that meet program
standards. Further, social theorists have been critical of the idea of the necessity of mobility,
arguing, in part, that the social capital formed in poor communities and communities of color has
value for families that has been discounted in conversations about mobility.123
Reevaluating Goals
The steady growth in the size of the Section 8 HCV program, the effects of HOPE VI, and the
introduction of pilot programs, such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD),124 have
served to further move federally assisted housing towards a choice-based model of assistance,
largely modeled on the Section 8 HCV program. However, current research findings suggest that
the Section 8 HCV program, in its current form, may not offer families full choice or necessarily
lead to wide mobility or improved economic well-being. Given this, as noted in the policy
considerations already presented, policymakers may wish to make changes to the Section 8 HCV
program to increase choice and mobility. However, these options all assume that choice and
mobility continue to be among the primary objectives of federal housing policy. In a time of
constrained federal budgets, policymakers may instead choose to reevaluate the various goals of
federal housing assistance programs. To the extent other program outcomes—such as promoting
affordability or serving more families—are of primary concern to policymakers, they may choose
not to make changes to increase mobility and choice in the HCV program, particularly if such
changes lead to increased costs that could come at the expense of, for example, providing
vouchers to additional families. Conversely, if policymakers decide that pursuing other social
goals (such as health or education) is of equal or greater importance, they may choose to
reevaluate the program, and its mobility potential, based on its ability to achieve those
other goals.
The HCV program does appear to effectively meet policy goals such as increasing housing
affordability, and preventing homelessness. For instance, research based on HUD administrative
data found that in 2002, approximately 62% of families participating in the program paid 30% or
less of their income towards housing, meeting the program’s definition of affordability.125
Providing a housing voucher to a family at risk of homelessness has also proven an effective
strategy to preventing homelessness; this is notable because families at risk of homelessness
appear to be as successful in the use of housing vouchers as families with fewer barriers.126
In terms of comparing the HCV program to other forms of housing assistance intended to meet
the same affordability goals, research from the early 2000s found that assisted housing production
costs were, on average, higher than the long-term cost of providing families with vouchers.127
123
For example, see David Imbroscio, “Beyond Mobility: The Limits of Liberal Urban Policy,” Journal of Urban
Affairs, vol. 34, no. 1, (2011), p. 1-20.
124
RAD is an Obama administration initiative designed to test the conversion of public housing and project-based rent
assisted housing to a Section 8-type assistance, featuring a mobility option. For more information, see HUD’s RAD
website: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/RAD.
125
Kirk McClure, “Rent Burden in the Housing Choice Voucher Program,” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy
Development and Research, vol. 8, no. 2, (2005).
126
Jill Khadduri, “Housing Vouchers Are Critical for Ending Family Homelessness,” Homeless Research Institute,
National Alliance to End Homelessness, January 2008.
127
GAO, Federal Housing Assistance: Comparing the Characteristics and Costs of Housing Programs, January 2002;
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
25
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
However, these studies are more than a decade old now, so additional research would be needed
to fully compare cost-effectiveness today.
Some of the findings from the MTO demonstration point to positive impacts for families of
receiving voucher in terms of physical and mental health improvements and increased
satisfaction, perceived safety, and self-reported well-being. Few of these outcomes are explicit
goals of current housing policy, but some are goals of other social policies. Further research on
the ability of the Section 8 HCV program to meet varying goals, particularly when compared to
other models of providing housing assistance, may be useful to provide direction on how federal
resources might best be allocated, and on the future of federally assisted housing.
Conclusion
Choice and mobility are defining features of the nation’s largest and primary housing assistance
program, the Housing Choice Voucher program. Much of the growth in the program in recent
years is attributable to decisions by policymakers to replace other forms of housing assistance
with vouchers, in part because of the choice and mobility aspects of the program.
However, there is some evidence that the current structure of the Housing Choice Voucher
program may limit families’ choices and their mobility. These program constraints serve to
contain the cost of the program as well as ensure the quality of families’ housing. However, they
may also serve to prevent families from living in low-poverty areas of opportunity. In fact, the
majority of voucher holders do not live in low-poverty communities.
Policymakers, including various Presidential administrations, Members of Congress, and judges,
have expressed a desire to see poor families live in low-poverty communities, believing such
communities can give these families a hand-up in terms of economic opportunity and their
children’s education. Thus, they have developed various demonstrations and other policy
remedies designed to foster families’ moves to areas with lower poverty rates and higher rates of
racial integration using Housing Choice Vouchers. It was hoped that these mobility interventions
would have large impacts on families’ lives, and some positive impacts have been found in areas
of health, housing and neighborhood satisfaction, and perceived wellbeing. However, the findings
to-date in areas of heightened interest—employment and children’s education—have been
limited, and disappointing to many advocates. Perhaps the findings are due to limitations in the
design and implementation of the programs and demonstrations themselves, or perhaps they are
evidence that while neighborhood matters, it does not always matter as much as other factors in
influencing families’ life outcomes.
Thus, policymakers are left with several important questions to resolve as they consider the future
of federal housing policy. One question is the extent to which choice and mobility continue to be
among the primary goals of federal housing assistance. If they are, then how can the existing suite
of federal housing assistance programs, including the Housing Choice Voucher program, be
improved to better promote these goals? If they are not, then is the Housing Choice Voucher
program, which is designed expressly to support choice and mobility, the most effective and
efficient means of providing federal housing assistance that meets other policy goals, such as
(...continued)
and HUD, Targeting Housing Production Subsidies: Literature Review, December 2003.
Congressional Research Service
26
Choice and Mobility in the Housing Choice Voucher Program
affordability? These difficult questions lack consensus among researchers, advocates,
practitioners, or policymakers.
Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Specialist in Housing Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
(name redacted)
Research Associate
27
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.