Mobility and Choice with Tenant Based Vouchers

Transcription

1 Mobility and Choice with Tenant Based Vouchers MaryAnn Russ Jim Armstrong

2 There Is a Difference Choice: The standard since the initiation of the program Families find the housing they want As long as it meets payment standards And Housing Quality Standards

3 There Is a Difference Mobility: It typically involves some coercion for families to select housing in better, more expensive neighborhoods MTO: Required some families to move to low poverty neighborhoods Potential to prioritize families willing to move to low poverty neighborhoods Mobility counseling encourage housing selection in low poverty neighborhoods

4 But First, A Little Statistics Significance and importance Significant results can be very small and probably fairly unimportant Significant results can be very large and probably very important So outcomes should be both significant and big enough to have some impact.

5 But First, A Little Statistics Significance of outcomes How likely would outcomes have occurred due to random operations.01 very good there s 1 chance in 100 that outcomes were random.05 OK there s 1 chance in 20 that outcomes were random More than that usually means outcomes are insignificant.

6 Recent Research Raises Mobility Again MTO found little or no positive impacts from requiring households to move to low income neighborhoods Raj Chetty has recently reanalyzed that data and added other datasets Chetty claims to have found positive outcomes not found before.

7 The Moving to Opportunity Demonstration 4,600 public housing residents volunteered and were assigned to one of 3 groups Control group remained in public housing Section 8 group received a standard voucher (Choice) Experimental group received a voucher but had to locate housing in a census tract that had a poverty rate that was < 10% (Mobility)

8 The Moving to Opportunity Demonstration Findings were disappointing No significant economic or educational benefits for the experimental group. Significant but modest reductions in obesity Significant reductions in risky behavior by adolescent girls but increases for boys Many qualitative findings were positive (e.g. feeling safer, experiencing less stress, being more satisfied)

9 The Moving to Opportunity Demonstration Sources of this disappointment Families self-selected to participate in MTO After 1 year some families moved to poorer neighborhoods. Some families were in neighborhoods that became poorer around them. MTO did not last long enough to demonstrate outcomes.

10 What Did Raj Chetty Do? Took MTW dataset covering 1994 to 1998 Merged it with IRS data on incomes, college enrollement, location and parental status Asked 2 questions: Does moving to low poverty neighborhoods improve long term economic outcomes for younger? Do improvements decline with increasing children s age at their first move?

11 What Did Raj Chetty Find Confirmed the MTO findings that there were no significant outcomes for adults in the experimental or Section 8 groups.. Confirmed that there were no significant positive outcomes for children over 13 at the beginning of the MTO demonstration. Found significant, large effects for younger children in the experimental group

12 What Did Raj Chetty Find I Increased Income Adults who were young children in MTO had incomes of $14,747 Section 8 group: $12,894 Control group: $11,270. But: National poverty rate for a 2 person household is $15,930 HUD data: Average annual income for voucher households is $13,377.

13 What Did Raj Chetty Find II College Attendance Experimental group younger children were more likely later to attend college. 21.5% of those people attended college compared to 16.5% of people who were in the MTO control group. But: The BLS reports that in 2014, 68.4% of all high school graduates attended college.

14 What Did Raj Chetty Find III Neighborhood Poverty Adults in the experimental group as younger children lived in neighborhoods with poverty rates 36% below the poverty rate of neighborhoods where control group participants live (about 50%) That is still 16%, 6 percentage points above the poverty threshold required of MTO experimental group participants

15 What Did Raj Chetty Find IV Marriage As adults, younger experimental group children married as young adults 1.6 percentage points more often than control group members (3.4 percent were married) The effect was smaller for older children as young adults (0.129 percentage points)

16 What Did Raj Chetty Find V Births Experimental group younger girls were points less likely to become teenage mothers than girls in the control group (19.9 percent became pregnant) In this case, the effect was larger for older children (0.947 points lower)

17 These Benefits Raise Questions All of these variables measured significant benefits for the experimental group in the MTO demonstration. Are these benefits large enough to warrant implementation of national policy changes for voucher administration?

18 Policy Alternatives Target vouchers to larger families with younger children Build public housing in low-poverty areas Reform exclusionary zoning laws. Enforce fair housing rules. Invest in infrastructure to address often inaccessible neighborhoods of opportunity. Promote school choice.

19 Complicating Research Moving homes or schools and educational performance: young children who move perform more poorly than children who did not move

20 Complicating Research Chetty (yup, same guy) et. al. on economic mobility Predicted income at 26 of children raised in families in the 20th income percentile Found dramatic differences in different communities

21 Complicating Research

22 The Dallas Mobility Experience Moving Families to Lower Poverty Neighborhoods Using Small Area Fair Market Rents

23 What s a Housing Authority To Do The right thing Expand options for voucher holders Avoid harm for applicant groups Include place based solutions Housing development in higher income census tracts Revitalization and redevelopment in low income census tracts Diversify inventory: LIHTC, HOPE and HOME, PBRA, PBHCV, RAD

24 What s a Housing Authority To Do Help policy makers understand a complicated policy. No simple causal connections No simple cookie cutter solutions Local policies can help deconcentrate assisted housing from predominantly low income neighborhoods

25 What s a Housing Authority To Do Balance policies at cross purposes Without funding, using higher cost neighborhoods will mean fewer families assisted Encouraging movement may adversely affect low income neighborhoods Fair housing concerns: familial status, age, disability

26 What s a Housing Authority To Do Keep your eyes peeled Implementation of Small Area FMRs (SAFMRs) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing and the Assessment of Fair Housing Tool The Obama administration may pursue an MTO like policy that requires or incentivizes moving to lower income, higher cost neighborhoods, or prioritize assistance for families with more younger children.

27 Questions and Answers