|
Guide
to Effective Programs
for Children and Youth |
OVERVIEW
Moving to Opportunity (MTO) is a program that enables
disadvantaged families with dependent children to move into better,
lower-poverty neighborhoods. Participating
families are given rental housing vouchers and counseling during this
transition. The study is
experimental and longitudinal in its design and has as its goal “reducing
concentrations of poverty and moving public housing families to self-sufficiency
in better neighborhoods” (Goering et al., 1999, foreword).
Experimental evaluations of MTO indicate that the program has positive
impacts on the physical and mental health of young participants, but mixed
findings according to age on academic/educational and behavior problem outcomes.
DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM
Target population:
Moving to Opportunity (MTO) is a demonstration project
designed to move families with dependent children into lower-poverty, more
advantaged neighborhoods. This
project has been implemented by the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) in five large cities:
· Number of Children/Teens/Families in Program: 4,610 families.
· Length: Families will be tracked for 10 years.
· Service Delivery Mode: Provision of Section 8 rental vouchers that can only be used in areas with less than 10 percent of residents below the poverty line; counseling in finding a unit to lease.
EVALUATION(S) OF
PROGRAM
Goering, J., Kraft, J., Feins, J., McInnis, D., Holin, M.
J. & Elhassan, H. (1999). Moving
to
Evaluated population: 4,610 families with children between 6 and 18 years of age. This included 1,820 families in the experimental group, 1,350 families in the Section 8 comparison group and 1,440 families in the control group. Fifty-four percent of participants were African-American and 39 percent were Hispanic. Ninety-three percent of households were female-headed, with a mean age of 35. The average number of children under 18 in each household was 2.5. Seventy-five percent of families were participating in welfare programs, and 22 percent of parents were employed. There were some significant differences between families who joined MTO and those who did not (that is, families living in the same areas who did not volunteer to participate in MTO). MTO families were more often female-headed, and the mothers were younger and less likely to be Hispanic. MTO families also had lower incomes, were less likely to be employed and participated more in welfare programs. Compared to the general public housing population, MTO families were more disadvantaged.
Approach: The 4,610 families who had volunteered were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (a) experimental group, which received Section 8 rental vouchers that could be used only in areas with less than 10 percent of the population below the poverty line; families also received counseling in finding a house/apartment to lease; (b) Section 8 comparison group, which received Section 8 rental vouchers with no restrictions on where they could be used, plus typical Public Housing Authority assistance; or (c) control group, which continued in their current project-based housing. Families’ outcomes will be tracked for about 10 years.
Results: By spring 1999, 1,676 families had leased new homes—48 percent of the experimental group and 60 percent of the Section 8 comparison group. The type of counseling offered to the experimental group varied. Some agencies used a case management model, in which counselors helped families with a variety of needs, not just housing. Other agencies used a specific services model, limiting their assistance to families’ housing needs. Regardless of the model used, it appeared that counselors were highly successful in helping families obtain housing in low-poverty areas. Ninety percent of experimental group families relocated to low-poverty areas farther from the center of the city (10 percent moved to areas with greater than 10 percent below poverty due to problems in the agencies or errors in checking on the units). In contrast, Section 8 comparison group families were more likely to choose apartments near the center of the city close to their original homes. Twelve percent moved to low-poverty areas, while three-quarters chose areas with poverty rates between 10 and 39 percent.
Initial anecdotal findings were that the moves made to low-poverty areas reduced families’ fear of crime and that parents perceived that their children were now in better schools. However, there was no evidence of increased wages in the experimental group.
Ludwig, J., Ladd, H. F. & Duncan, G. J. (2001).
The effects of urban poverty on
educational outcomes: Evidence from a randomized experiment.
Evaluated population: 1,243 MTO children from 1993 to 1999. Children were between 6 and 18 years old at the time of random assignment.
Results: The authors found that experimental group children (ages 6 to 11) significantly outperformed control group children on reading and math. The Section 8 comparison group outperformed the control group on reading but not on math. There were no significant group differences in special education placements, absences, grade retention or disciplinary problems. Teens (ages 12 and older) in the experimental and Section 8 comparison groups experienced increased grade retention when compared to the control group. The experimental group teens (but not teens in the Section 8 comparison group) also evidenced a greater number of suspensions and expulsions. The authors note, however, that such findings may be due to more stringent standards in teens’ new schools. Thus, MTO had several positive effects for young children’s education and several potentially negative effects for teens.
Leventhal, T. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2001).
Moving to
Evaluated population: 293 MTO families in New York
Approach: Researchers conducted a
three-year follow-up of 293 families with 407 children (out of a total of 794 MTO families in
Results: They found that experimental group families were living in improved neighborhoods (i.e., higher income, lower unemployment rates, greater residential stability), while Section 8 comparison group families were not. However, Section 8 comparison group parents perceived their new neighborhoods as being better than their old neighborhoods. Both experimental and Section 8 comparison group parents found work and left public assistance in significantly greater numbers than control group parents. Increases in income were also found, but the differences were not significant. In addition, experimental group parents were in much greater physical and mental health than the control group; the difference for the Section 8 comparison group was not significant. The findings for 8- to 18-year-old participants’ physical and mental health mirrored those of the parents. In addition, both experimental and Section 8 comparison group children had significantly less behavior problems than control group children. In the area of parenting, the experimental and Section 8 comparison groups had less harsh parent-child relationships than the control group, and the experimental group parents showed more structure and routine in the care of their children. Finally, there were no differences between groups in problem behaviors (e.g., delinquency and substance use) for teens ages 11 to 18.
Del Conte, A. & Kling, J. (2001, January/February). A synthesis of MTO research on self-sufficiency, safety and health, and behavior and delinquency. Poverty Research News, 5(1), 3-6.
Another paper on the impacts of this program suggested
significant, positive effects of moving to a higher income neighborhood, such as
improved child and parent mental health (e.g., depression and anxiety) as well
as lower rates of youth delinquency and problem behaviors. In
SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION
References:
Del Conte, A. & Kling, J. (2001, January/February). A synthesis of MTO research on self-sufficiency, safety and health, and behavior and delinquency. Poverty Research News, 5(1), 3-6.
Goering, J., Kraft, J., Feins, J., McInnis, D., Holin, M.
J. & Elhassan, H. (1999). Moving
to
Leventhal, T. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2001).
Moving to
Ludwig, J., Ladd, H. F. & Duncan, G. J. (2001).
The effects of urban poverty on
educational outcomes: Evidence from a randomized experiment.
Website: www.wws.princeton.edu/~kling/mto
Website: http://www.hud.gov/progdesc/mto.cfm
Program also discussed in the following Child Trends publication(s):
SUMMARY & CATEGORIZATION
Program categorized in this guide according to the
following:
Evaluated participant ages: 6-18 / Program age ranges in the Guide: 6-11, 12-14, 15-21
Program components: community/media
Measured outcomes: education/cognitive, physical health, behavioral problems, mental health
Program information last updated 3/15/07
|
|
© Child Trends 2003 |