Study Details | Pathways to Work

90004.01-Study of Moving to O

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition, suggesting the findings can be attributed to the program.

Program: Moving to Opportunity (MTO) Housing Vouchers for Use in Low-Poverty Neighborhoods Plus Mobility Counseling

Characteristics of study participants:

Parents, Public benefits recipients

Services provided:

Housing supports and subsidies

Setting: Urban only

Methods and Standards Protocol version used for review: Version 1.0

Learn about our protocol

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Public housing authorities in each city advertised the MTO program to potentially eligible families. Families that expressed interest in participating were placed on a waiting list in each program site. Waiting list families then received additional information about the study through a series of group orientation sessions, and if still interested in participating, the head of household completed a screener survey and formally consented to participate. MTO administrators reviewed these screeners to identify families eligible for participation (those with at least one child younger than 18 who were also eligible for Section 8 housing vouchers). Eligible families subsequently enrolled in the study and were randomly assigned to one of three program conditions; this review focuses on those families randomly assigned to housing vouchers and mobility counseling, and families randomly assigned to receive no program services. The proportion of families randomly assigned across conditions changed during the program to increase take-up of housing vouchers, which was lower than initially projected. The analyses adjust for changes in the probability of random assignment over time, using sampling weights equal to the inverse of the probability of random assignment to the program condition at the time a given participant was randomly assigned.

Time period of study:

Families were randomly assigned between 1994 and 1997. The final evaluation collected data in 2007.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase very long-term earnings, Increase very long-term employment, Decrease very long-term benefit receipt

Other outcome domains examined:

Housing status; housing assistance; housing and neighborhood conditions and safety; adult physical and mental health outcomes; household income; food security.

Study funded by:

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development was the primary sponsor of the MTO evaluation.

Results

View table definitions

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Program group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase very long-term earnings	Annual earnings	10–15 years	High	12,288.50	12,615.50	326.94	2009 dollars	2,493
Increase very long-term employment	Currently employed	10–15 years	High	53.00	52.00	-1.00	percentage points	2,610
Decrease very long-term benefit receipt	AFDC/TANF receipt during most recent month	10–15 years	High	16.00	17.00	1.00	percentage points	2,590
Decrease very long-term benefit receipt	Food Stamps receipt during most recent month	10–15 years	High	49.00	46.00	3.00	percentage points	2,585
Decrease very long-term benefit receipt	Medicaid receipt during most recent month	10–15 years	High	37.00	36.00	-1.00	percentage points	2,595
Decrease very long-term benefit receipt	SSI receipt during most recent month	10–15 years	High	29.00	30.00	1.00	percentage points	2,580

Short-term outcomes are those measured 18 months or fewer after participants are first offered services. Long-term outcomes are those measured between 18 months and 5 years after participants are first offered services. Very long-term outcomes are those measured 5 years or more after participants are first offered services.

Means are not displayed when not reported or not aligned with the impact estimates. For example, if the impact estimate is regression-adjusted but only unadjusted means are reported in the study, the unadjusted means are not displayed as they are not aligned with the adjusted impact estimate.

Impact estimates are not shown when the estimate units cannot be converted to natural units.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the program. We do not display findings that rate low.

Findings key:

A moderate-to-large favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large favorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that might be due to chance
A favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A favorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that might be due to chance
An unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
An unfavorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size or direction
A finding of no effect that might be due to chance

Favorable findings are impacts in a direction that is socially desirable. Statistical significance indicates the likelihood that a study finding is due to the program, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the program produced a sufficiently large change in the outcome. An impact receives this designation if the standardized effect size is equal to or greater than 0.25 or equal to or less than -0.25.

Sample characteristics

At the time of random assignment, all families in the study sample were eligible for Section 8 housing vouchers and had at least one child younger than 18. About 62 percent of the final evaluation sample was African American, and 31 percent was Hispanic or Latino of any race. Just 11 percent of sample members were married. Fifty-five percent of the baseline sample had at least a high school diploma or GED, although 72 percent were unemployed. Seventy-five percent of families received Aid to Families with Dependent Children/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and 80 percent received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. The average total household income was $12,872 annually. Nearly all adult baseline survey respondents (98 percent) were female.

Sex

Female	92%
Male	8%

Race and ethnicity

Black or African American	63%
White, not Hispanic	3%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	30%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	2%
Unknown, not reported, or other	2%

The race and ethnicity categories may sum to more than 100 percent if the authors reported race and ethnicity separately; in these cases, we report the category White, rather than White, not Hispanic.

Family status

Married	11%
Parents	100%

Employment and public benefit status

Were employed	28%
Were unemployed	72%
Public benefits recipients	100%
Had low incomes	100%
Cash assistance recipients	75%

Education

Had a high school diploma or GED	60%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	40%

Program implementation

Implementing organization:

State public housing authorities and nonprofit counseling organizations

Program history:

MTO began with the random assignment of the first program households in 1994. The program was authorized by the U.S. Congress in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992.

Program services:

Between 1994 and 1998, MTO offered Section 8 vouchers to families with low incomes in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York who (1) lived in public housing or private assisted housing projects in high-poverty neighborhoods (defined as census tracts with more than 40 percent of the population living below poverty) and (2) who had at least one child younger than 18. Private assisted housing projects are rental housing built by private owners through federal programs that required them to price some units to be affordable to people with low incomes. These vouchers subsidized the cost of renting private housing in low-poverty neighborhoods (defined as census tracts with less than 10 percent of the population living below the federal poverty line). Program participants also received counseling services and special assistance from local nonprofit counseling agencies to help them find and lease eligible private rental units. The program only required families to use their voucher in low-poverty areas for one year, after which families could use their subsidy to relocate without geographical restriction. Program condition families who relocated from their low-poverty communities within the first year of the program did not receive a new voucher in the second year. Program participants were required to observe Section 8 policies that limit the amount of time voucher recipients have to secure housing, require voucher recipients to contribute 30 percent of their adjusted income to rent, and prohibit illegal drug use or alcohol abuse.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

Families with low incomes in the comparison condition were offered neither Section 8 housing vouchers for private housing in low-poverty neighborhoods nor counseling services or special housing search assistance. Comparison group families were not prohibited from continuing to receive housing assistance for public or private assisted housing in high-poverty neighborhoods. Like families in the program condition, those in the comparison condition had at least one child younger than 18 when the program began.

Service receipt duration:

Families in the program condition who signed leases did so between December 1994 and March 1999. Program services were available for up to four years.

Program funding:

MTO was authorized by the U.S. Congress in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992.

Study publications

Gardiner, Karen, Karin Martinson, and Samuel Dastrup (2021). Instituto del Progreso Latino’s Carreras en Salud program: Three-year impact report, OPRE Report #2021-97, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/report/instituto-del-progreso-latinos-carreras-en-salud-program-three-year-impact-report.

Orr, Larry, Judith D. Feins, Robin Jacob, Erik Beecroft, Lisa Sanbonmatsu, Lawrence F. Katz, Jeffrey B. Liebman, and Jeffrey R. Kling (2003). Moving to Opportunity: Interim impacts evaluation, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Available at https://scholar.harvard.edu/lkatz/publications/moving-opportunity-interim-impacts-evaluation.

View the glossary for more information about these and other terms used on this page.

Pathways to Work refers to programs by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some program names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.

Study of Moving to Opportunity (MTO) Housing Vouchers for Use in Low-Poverty Neighborhoods Plus Mobility Counseling