1. Moving to Opportunity in Boston: early results of a randomized mobility experiment Lawrence F. Katz; Jeffrey R. Kling & Jeffrey B. Liebman Presented by Paul Lewin

2. Reference Katz, L., J.R. Kling, and J.B. Liebman. 2001. “Moving to Opportunity in Boston: Early Results of a Randomized Mobility Experiment.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 116(2): 607-654.

3. Contents 1. Background Information 2. The Research 3. Data & Method 4. Results & Conclusion

4. I. Background Information

5. A. Poverty 1970-1990 % poor persons in metro areas increased. Tracts w/ poverty rate +40% increased from 12% to 18% Federal housing policies contribute to this trend. Public housing development 1950s & 1960s Poorest eligible households 1980s Increase segregation by income & race

6. B. Neighborhoods effects Current well-being & Future opportunities Neighborhood characteristics: School quality, safety from crime Peers influence youth behavior Also, youth outcomes could reflect family background

7. C. Moving to Opportunity (MTO) Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles & New York Since 1994 (study was done 1996-1998) Eligible families: Children Reside in public housing or project-base Section 8 assisted housing Census (1990) tracts with poverty rate +40%

8. C. Moving to Opportunity (MTO) Programs groups (randomly assigned) Experimental group Restrictive housing voucher - $700/month Only can be used in low poverty area -under 10 poverty rate Counseling assistance -$1827/household To help families search for an apartment And adjust to a new neighborhood

9. C. Moving to Opportunity (MTO) Section 8 Comparison group Unrestricted housing voucher -$700/month No counseling assistance Control group 4-6 m. to submit a house, which must pass an inspection

10. II. The Research

11. A. Researchers’ Interest Comprehensive evaluation of impacts of the MTO Impacts of neighborhood attributes on Child human capital accumulation; Adult economic outcomes; Safety and adult mental health. They have a long-run effects on child outcomes and family well-being

12. Children Human Capital Accumulation Peer influence Educational choices, crime, delinquent behaviors Contagion effects (learning from peers) Stigma effects (declining of negative signals) Physical externalities (reduced chances to be arrested) Adult influence Human capital externalities: role models, enforcers public order Community resource Schools, recreational activities, labor market opportunities Reduce child problem behavior Increase perceived returns from education *

13. Adult Economic Outcomes Moving to a suburban neighborhoods: Increase access to employment opportunities Low poverty areas: Supportive of work & lower welfare usage Disrupt social support networks Child care, job referrals, labor market information The effect of moves become positive over time, but it is ambiguous in the short run

14. Safety and Adult Mental Health Families moving out of high poverty public housing should experience: Improved neighborhood safety Improved housing conditions Reduction in parental stress and anxiety Positive effects offset by social isolation *

15. Data & Methods

16. A. The Data Qualitative fieldwork Surveys MTO survey prior to enrollment MTO-Boston Follow-up Survey Administrative records Massachusetts Department of Revenue’s Longitudinal Data Base Welfare & employment impact

19. Eligible Families That Complete Application and Survey Experimental Treatment Group Section 8 Treatment Group Control Group Random Assignment to one of Three Groups Don’t Use Voucher Use Voucher Use Voucher Don’t Use Voucher Would Use Voucher Would not Use Voucher 1234 56 Z=0 Z=1 C=1

20. B. Method Treatment-on- Treated (TOT) Intent-to-Treat (ITT). Impact of being offered the opportunity to move with MTO Average effect of the treatment on those who actually receive the treatment

21. III. Results & Conclusion

22. g Difficult to find apartment Transportation cost Social isolation Census tracts restriction more important than the counselor Experimental group were much more likely to live outside the city Local areas in which treatment groups were living were different from the control Section 8 had smaller differences with control group Experimental group shows increase in school average reading and math score

23. (1- 3.5 years after)

24. Children in both treatment groups exhibit fewer behavior problems. Experimental group children have lower prevalence of injuries and asthma attack Changes in neighborhoods induced by MTO have no effect in adult economy self-sufficiency There are improvements in health status and mental health of household heads There are improvements in the perceived safety of treatment group

25. Housing Policies Housing vouchers improves the well-being Benefits from moving are large for children Vouchers generate positive intergenerational externalities Unknown impact of MTO on families left behind Vouchers are insufficient to overcome the labor market disadvantages of inner-city, single mothers

26. Questions Thank you