\ 

i 

EXPANDING HOUSING CHOICES FOR HUD-ASSISTED FAMILIES: 

First Biennial Report to Congress 

Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration 

U.S. Department ofHousing and Urban Development 

Office of Policy Development and Research 

April 1996 

I 

FOREWORD 


am pleased to provide the first in a series of biennial reports 

to Congress on the status of the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) 

demonstration. MTO was authorized by Section 152 of the 1992 

Housing and Community Development Act. The Department of Housing 

and Urban Development has implemented a carefully controlled 

experimental design for this demonstration in order to evaluate 

the impacts of helping low-income families move from public and 

assisted housing in high-poverty inner-city neighborhoods to 

better housing, education, and employment opportunities in lowpoverty communities throughout a metropolitan area. 

Two years into the MTO demonstration, the five sites have all 

made substantial progress in implementing the MTO demonstration, 

and are expected to reach their placement targets by the end of 

1996. This success has been achieved through the close working 

relationships forged by public housing authorities and non-profit 

housing counseling agencies in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, New 

York, and Los Angeles. 

The Office of Policy Development and Research is committed to 

monitoring and evaluating the MTO demonstration over the longterm. Social, employment, and educational outcomes for 

demonstration participants will be systematically monitored and 

evaluated over a ten-year period, in order to definitively assess 

the impacts of housing mobility assistance. In addition, we have 

funded six university research teams to immediately examine 

changes in the lives of parents and children as they move to lowpoverty communities. This ongoing research and information 

gathering will enable HUD to develop more sensible and effective 

mobility strategies for recipients of tenant-based housing 

assistance in metropolitan areas throughout the nation. 

Expanding access for low-income families to housing opportunities 

throughout the metropolis is a priority for federal housing 

policy under the leadership of Secretary Henry G. Cisneros. The 

Moving to Opportunity demonstration is just one of several 

federal initiatives designed to ensure that poor people are not 

trapped and isolated in predo~inantly poor neighborhoods. Over 

the next ten years, this investment will yield a continuous 

stream of valuable evidence and insight about housing mobility 

and its impacts on families' self-sufficiency. 

~e A. Ste~gm~~~~~~ Assistant 	Secretary for Policy 

Development and Research 
------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Inspired by the Gautreaux housing mobility program in 

Chicago, Moving to Opportunity (MTO) is an experimental 

demonstration and research project designed to evaluate the 

impacts of helping low-income families move from public and 

assisted housing in high-poverty inner-city neighborhoods to 

better housing, education, and employment opportunities in lowpoverty communities throughout a metropolitan area. This is the 

first in a series of biennial reports to Congress on the status 

of the MTO demonstration. 

The Moving to Opportunity demonstration was authorized by Section 

152 of the 1992 Housing and Community Development Act. Section 

152 provides tenant-based rental assistance and supportive 

counseling services to test and evaluate the effectiveness of 

metropolitan area-wide efforts to: 

"assist very low-income families with children who 

reside in public housing or housing receiving projectbased assistance under Section 8 of the Housing and 

Community Development Act of 1937 to move out of areas 

with high concentrations of persons living in poverty 

to areas with low concentrations of such persons." 

Section 8 rental assistance for the MTO demonstration was 

appropriated at $20 million for Fiscal Year 1992 and $50 million 

for Fiscal Year 1993. In addition, up to $1 million was 

allocated to non-profit counseling agencies to provide partial 

support for their housing search and mobility counseling efforts. 

These funds are assisting approximately 1,300 low-income families 

at five HUD-selected demonstration sites -- Baltimore, Boston, 

Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York. 

HUD has implemented a carefully controlled experimental design 

for MTO in order to definitively answer questions about the 

immediate effectiveness of mobility counseling, and about the 

long-term impacts for families who move to low-poverty 

communities. Eligible participants in the demonstration are 

randomly assigned to three groups: 1) an MTO experimental group, 

which receives Section 8 certificates or vouchers usable only in 

tracts with less than 10 percent poverty, along with counseling 

assistance in finding a unit; 2) a Section 8 comparison group, 

which receives regular Section 8 certificates or vouchers, with 

no special geographical restrictions or counseling; and 3) an inplace control group, which continues to receive their current 

project-based assistance. This random-assignment experimental 

design is essential to achieve the statutory goals of MTO. 

Outcomes for all three groups will be systematically monitored 

and evaluated over a ten-year period, in order to fully assess 

the impacts of housing mobility assistance on families and 

children. 

i 
==------........---­

II. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MOVING TO OPPORTUNITY DEMONSTRATION 

In accordance with Section 152, HUD issued a Notice of Funding 

Availability (NOFA) in August 1993 for the competitive selection 

of cities for participation in MTO. PHAs from sixteen cities 

responded to this NOFA (Appendix A lists the eligible cities and 

those that applied for MTO). Secretary Cisneros reviewed and 

approved the selection of five MTO sites on March 17, 1994. 7 The 

selected demonstration sites are Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los 

Angeles, and New York City. 

In late May of 1994, a three-day, HUD-sponsored training 

conference brought the newly selected MTO agency staff together 

in Washington, D.C. to learn the operating rules of the 

demonstration. Site operations began in Baltimore just a month 

later, and by the end of February 1995 all five MTO sites were 

operational. To assist in the implementation of the MTO 

demonstration, HUD's Office of Policy Development and Research 

(PD&R) entered into a contractual arrangement with Abt 

Associates, a nationally recognized research, evaluation, and 

technical assistance firm. Abt provides technical assistance to 

all the demonstration sites to ensure accurate and consistent 

program operations, including random assignment, data collection, 

and long-term tracking. 

Each MTO site began its operations with outreach activities, 

identifying and notifying eligible families in the public and 

assisted housing developments targeted for the demonstration. 

Following meetings with residents, the PHAs received and 

processed applications from families who expressed an interest in 

participating in MTO. Each PHA created an MTO waiting list of 

eligible families and then began to call families from the list 

to come in for enrollment briefings. 

As part of the enrollment process, and in order to address the 

long-term evaluation issues raised by Congress, a baseline survey 

is administered to all families who enter the MTO demonstration 

program. Participating families also sign a consent form 

indicating their willingness to cooperate with the ongoing data 

collection and evaluation. The baseline survey collects 

information on each family's employment status, income, 

education, and neighborhood conditions. 

Once the enrollment process is completed and families are 

determined eligible for MTO, each site randomly assigns families 

to one of the three demonstration sub-groups using specially 

prepared computer software installed at each PHA. Families 

selected for the control group receive no Section 8 rental 

assistance but retain their current project-based assistance. 

The Section 8 comparison group receives the standard, 

geographically unrestricted Section 8 certificate or voucher and 

the standard briefing and search assistance provided by the PHA. 

6 

Families assigned to the MTO experimental group are sent to the 

non-profit counseling agency at their site for more intensive 

support and assistance. 

These non-profit organizations perform, at a minimum, four 

essential functions. First, they assist the local PHA in the 

selection and assignment of experimental families who will move 

to low-poverty areas. Second, they recruit owners of rental 

property in low-poverty areas to make units available to MTO 

families. Third, the non-profits assist MTO families in finding 

appropriate rental units in low-poverty areas. And finally, they 

provide short-term counseling assistance to help families adjust 

to their new housing locations. 

Recruiting owners and managers of rental properties in lowpoverty areas is one of the most critical tasks performed by the 

non-profit organizations in MTO. Landlord outreach and 

recruitment are conducted in person, by telephone, in writing, at 

meetings of landlord associations, and using special brochures. 

Recruitment of landlords is an ongoing process used to identify 

housing units that families in the MTO experimental group might 

wish to rent in low-poverty communities. 

After an MTO family has been certified as eligible for 

participation in the demonstration, and has received a Section 8 

rental certificate or voucher, the non-profit helps the family 

find a suitable unit in a low-poverty area. At group briefings 

for families assigned to the MTO experimental group, the nonprofits inform families about their responsibilities as private 

market tenants and about the responsibilities and expectations of 

private landlords. They describe the advantages and 

disadvantages of specific low-poverty communities throughout the 

metropolitan area, provide maps showing low-poverty 

neighborhoods, and teach effective housing search strategies. 

To maximize MTO families' chances of success in searching for 

housing, the non-profits also conduct credit checks. Because 

most rental property owners in low-poverty tracts require credit 

checks, it makes sense to identify credit problems ahead of time, 

and suggest ways in which families can correct credit problems 

before applying for a rental unit. Landlords often accept the 

credit checks performed in advance by the non-profits, thereby 

saving MTO families time and sometimes money. 

In addition, staff of the non-profit organizations visit MTO 

families in their homes to observe first-hand the condition of 

their current units, and to provide individual counseling on 

relocation to a low-poverty area, tailored to the needs of the 

individual family. In the process of individual counseling, the 

non-profit staff usually informs families about public 

transportation routes, public school systems, higher education 

and training opportunities for parents, hospital and public 

7 
health clinic locations, major industrial and retail employment 

facilities, and other potential job opportunities. 

The MTO non-profits teach demonstration participants how to look 

for housing independently, but also provide more active 

assistance in the housing search, depending on the families' 

needs and the success of landlord recruitment efforts. A nonprofit may show a small number of units in low-poverty tracts to 

groups of MTO families, or accompany individual families to units 

that seem well-matched to their needs and objectives. In 

transporting families to see specific units, staff of the nonprofits typically point out relevant community features and 

facilities, and introduce the family to landlords. The nonprofits also assist MTO families in leasing-up units and moving 

into the low-poverty neighborhoods. 

Following the move, the non-profits are required to contact MTO 

families within 90 days and offer any additional counseling or 

referrals they may need to make a successful adjustment to the 

new environment. And MTO families are assured of the ongoing 

availability of a supportive services counselor to help them if 

problems relating to their move should arise. Non-profit staff 

also contact the owner or manager of the family's new unit, 

notifying him or her of the availability of a supportive services 

counselor to help with any problems that may arise in the 

family's adjustment to the new environment. 

At each step in the MTO demonstration process, PHAs and nonprofits are required to keep systematic records to document how 

they implement the demonstration and whom they assist. Standard 

forms for data collection have been developed and agency 

personnel have been trained in their use so that the information 

will be comparable across the sites. Program-level forms record 

information about landlord outreach, participant progress, and 

the costs of MTO operations. Participant-level forms record 

information about the families at the time they enroll in MTO and 

about the counseling contacts between the non-profit staff and 

the MTO experimental group families. 

Over the next eight to ten years, HUD will assess the impacts of 

the MTO demonstration by comparing the experiences of families 

randomly assigned to the three treatment groups. Record-keeping 

and data collection forms will enable policy researchers to 

measure and analyze long-term changes in the lives of MTO 

families, including their social well-being, employment, ed~cation, and housing and neighborhood conditions. 8 

The pace of MTO implementation has varied significantly across 

the five demonstration sites. Exhibit 1 presents the number of 

families placed in the MTO experimental group and the Section 8 

comparison group, as of February 28, 1996. Altogether, almost 

half (47.9 percent) of the MTO experimental families and over one 

8 

Exhibit 1: 


Current Status of the MTO Demonstration 


Varies Across Sites 


(as of 2/28/96) 

MTO Section 8 

SITE Experimental Comparison 

Placed Placed 

Baltimore 143 98 142 68 

Boston 143 99 142 44 

143 18 142 33 

94 63 94 32 

fourth (28.9 percent) of the comparison group families had been 

placed at that time. All five sites are expected to reach their 

placement targets by the end of 1996. Section IV of this report 

provides more detail about the progress of implementation at each 

demonstration site. 

9 

III. MOVING TO OPPORTUNITY DEMONSTRATION APPLICANTS 

The MTO demonstration provides an opportunity for residents of 

public and assisted housing projects to move to better 

neighborhoods. What types of families pursue such an 

opportunity? What motivates them to leave the subsidized 

projects in which they live? The average MTO applicant is an 

African American or Hispanic woman, 37 years old, with two 

children (see Exhibit 2). Almost one in five MTO families have 

some employment income, and two thirds receive Aid to Families 

with Dependent Children (AFDC). 

Exhibit 2: 


Most MTO Applicants are Minority Women with Children 


MTO Applicants 

(N = 718) 

Racial Composition 

African American 72.0% 

Hispanic 21.2% 

Asian 1.1% 

Non-Hispanic White 3.5% 

Other 2.2% 

Household Composition 

Female-Headed 94.6% 

Median Family Size 3 

Mean Age of Head 37 

Sources of Income 

Employed 18.6% 

Receiving AFDC 67.1% 

MTO applicants may be slightly older and appear somewhat more 

likely to be working than other families in the projects where 

they live, based on comparisons of Baltimore MTO applicants to 

other MTO-eligible residents of their projects. Preliminary data 

show that almost one in four MTO applicants in Baltimore was 

working, compared to only 13 percent of non-applicants. However, 

statistical analysis of these differences suggests that they are 

very weak predictors of who will choose to participate in MTO.9 

10 

Although MTO applicants are ..;-", ',:::-,.::::':, '-'::-:-:-: ':::<:.-<;>..... _:::...,,';>;>:'" 

very much like their neighbors II'l'QApp1.:l.cpte' .... 'eari9rl••, in terms of demographic and Drugs, and Ga.ng" . socio-economic attributes, ',_.,-, , 

they do appear to differ in A.... Viet~am~se"~e~~caPJ.llpt;p~r one important respect -- fear oftl'll:e~YQll1:lgqtl~ldrell·..• $~i" of crime. Baseline survey Los Angeles .say,.t;ba.t..so... data indicate that crime lfdesperare·.tq.g~tpU~()~> ..... victimization rates among MTO public l'lOuBin.gbec;:~u.s~R~r.·.•.•.··•··.·•••. applicants are dramatically 

higher than among public crime ... ancic1.rogs ...>~ .. s~~~..< bullet .sl"1ateeredPEa~~~dtic)lt."•...•.... housing residents generally. on~nignt., •. and •. Ci.sfiJbe<.<> .... •· Nearly half of MTO applicants explaif).e(l .•...... "Oul:c;nilar~J:l~~e/ ..... (47.8 percent) said that they not safe·· atanytilneil1t,[fie .. had been a victim of crime project.s. 1I .

within the last six months. lO 

In contrast, a recent HOD A··child .froma.N'ewyoZ"}(rj'O survey found that only 5.4 family .came ··hom~fI:'gnt~qli9Ql.······· percent of residents in the recently ..with~P1.ll.:l.7t"li9~f!! ... · largest PHAsll reported being in .her..• backpa\ck;~llel'la.~<n.9t crime victims in the last six 

months .12 In New York City, :~~6t~::nth:Brie~~•••••••~h~~.~J}~t••••••·•

only 5.9 percent of all public inches .f#0ltl .. l1erp9tlY.~~X".·.·.·.·i·. housing residents interviewed SChool};)()Qks .f9~t:.Mtla~~J..Y'n ........... .
 reported being crime victims protected.• her.·.frpw-p.~~...· ..... . in the last six months, 

compared to 47.7 percent of 

MTO applicants. 

The fear of crime, and more significantly the experience of 

crime, appears to be a major factor in families' decisions to 

participate in the MTO demonstration. When asked why they wanted 

to move away from the projects in which they live, the vast 

majority of MTO applicants cited the fear of crime, gangs. and 

drugs. Exhibit 3 summarizes families' primary and secondary 

reasons for applying to participate in the MTO demonstration. 

More than half (54.8 percent) listed crime as their primary 

reason, and another 30.8 percent listed it as their secondary 

reason. 

Better housing conditions and better schools are also important 

reasons why families choose to participate in the MTO 

demonstration. More than half of the applicants (57.3 percent) 

said that moving to a better house or apartment was either their 

first or second reason for applying, and 39.3 percent said that 

they wanted better schools for their children. Only 6.5 percent

of MTO applicants said that a job-related concern was their 

primary or secondary reason for moving. Thus, the forces 

"pushing" families out of inner-city projects appear to be at 

least as important as the incentives "pulling" them toward lowpoverty neighborhoods. 

11 
Fear of Crime is the Main Reason 


Families Apply to MTO 


100 -­

r.n 

....... 


c: 

as 80

0

-

c. 

C. 60 ~ I «

'+­

0 

....... 40 


c: 

Q) 

0 

LQ) 20 

a.. 

o Crime Schools Family Donlt want to move 

Housing Jobs Other 

Main reason Second Reason 

g 

1-'­

CT' 

1-'­

rt" 

W 
IV. MOVING TO OPPORTUNITY DEMONSTRATION SITES 


The five sites have all made substantial progress in implementing 

the MTO demonstration. Although the initial start-up process 

took more time in some cities than originally anticipated, all 

five of the MTO non-profits are now successfully placing families 

in low-poverty neighborhoods. Exhibit 4 summarizes preliminary 

data on MTO placement rates and non-profit costs for the five 

demonstration sites. 

MTO non-profits are consistently achieving placement rates that 

are as high or significantly higher than the 25 percent average 

success rates typical of the Gautreaux demonstration. 13 

Preliminary data suggest that providing intensive counseling and 

search assistance to public and assisted housing families costs 

between $1,300 and $1,700 for every family assigned to the MTO 

experimental group. But because not all of these families are 

successful in finding housing in low-poverty neighborhoods, the 

cost per household moving to a low-poverty neighborhood is 

higher, averaging between $2,100 and $2,900. However, the cost 

data presented here should be regarded as preliminary and subject 

to revision. At the time these data were collected, only two of 

the five sites (Baltimore and Boston) had reached a "stable" 

point in their operations. As a result, expenditure patterns may 

be dominated by one-time start-up and enrollment costs, including 

program design, family enrollment, and initial landlord outreach 

activities. More reliable and comparable cost data will be 

available when all five sites have completed their MTO 

placements. The remainder of this section provides more 

information on each site's progress (Appendix B summarizes key 

data for all five sites). 

BALTIMORE 

The Housing Authority of Baltimore City (HABC) administers the 

Baltimore MTO demonstration in cooperation with the Community 

Assistance Network (CAN), a Baltimore County non-profit. HABC 

currently administers 18,000 public housing units and more than 

6,400 certificates and vouchers in its regular Section 8 program. 

CAN is a private, non-profit community action agency with over 30 

years of experience providing assistance to low-income people, 

including day care, housing counseling, weatherization, and selfsufficiency counseling. With HABC's approval, CAN's offices for 

MTO are housed in the same building as HABC's Section 8 offices. 

Five census tracts, with an average poverty rate of over 67 

percent, were targeted for Baltimore's MTO program. These five 

tracts contained a total of eight public housing projects (four 

low-rise and four high-rise family projects), which were home to 

a total of 3,807 households. Residents had an average household 

income of only $6,880, and 46 percent received public assistance. 

13 

Exhibit 4: 


MTO Sites are Achieving Relatively High Success Rates 


at Modest Costs per Pamily 


SITE MTO MTO Average MTO Cost 

Pamilies 

Placed 

Success 

Rate per 

family 

counseled 

per family 

placed 

Baltimore 98 60% $1,665 $2,844 

Boston 99 55% $1,569 $2,816 

Chicago 18 N/A N/A N/A 

Los 

Angeles 

63 62% $1,308 $2,111 

Hew York 41 25% $ 590 $2,501 

Note: These data are preliminary and subject to revision. Chicago's

MTO program is at such an early stage that meaningful cost data 

cannot be reported. 

Virtually all of the project residents were African-American 

(99.6 percent), and 84 percent were female-headed. 14 

As soon as the Baltimore MTO demonstration began operation, the 

BABC conducted an outreach effort by notifying resident 

associations and public housing managers of the targeted 

developments, as well as sending 2,300 letters to potentially 

eligible families. At the same time, CAN began landlord 

outreach. CAN and HAEC also initiated efforts to coordinate with 

the six other PHAs operating in the suburban counties of the 

metropolitan area, in anticipation of serving families who would 

consider moving outside the city. 

CAN's staff provides intensive counseling for roughly 30 to 40 

experimental group families per month. In the first 60 days 

after assignment to the experimental group, before housing search 

is initiated, Baltimore MTO families must attend seven training 

workshops. In addition, housing counselors spend considerable 

time providing individual assistance to each family. For 

example, CAN counselors average over 10 housing search trips per 

family, although MTO requires only three. CAN drives small 

groups of MTO families to outlying communities in a van, so that 

they can see areas where they might consider moving. Families 

who have leased-up in low-poverty communities participate in 

orientation classes for new MTO participants, and tell them about 

their experiences with the program. 

14 
opposition from community 

organizations and elected 

officials in one portion of 

the Baltimore suburbs delayed 

the early implementation of 

MTO in Baltimore. Efforts to 

allay community concerns 

required extensive outreach, 

and resulted in decisions to 

intensify CAN's screening and 

counseling services and to 

ensure that MTO does not 

create new clusters of poor 

families. 

HABC began to process 

applications for assignment to 

CAN in October 1994. By the 

end of February 1996, 222 

families had been randomly 

assigned to the MTO 

experimental group and, with 

CAN's assistance, 98 of these 

families had found and rented 

apartments in low-poverty 

areas throughout the Baltimore 

metropolitan area. About half 

of the MTO families moved to 

low-poverty neighborhoods within the City of Baltimore, 

with the remainder locating .in 

the surrounding suburbs, 

including Howard, Ann Arundel, 

and Harford Counties. The MTO 

lease-up rate in Baltimore is 

roughly 60 percent, 

dramatically higher then the 

25 percent lease-up rate 

experienced in Gautreaux, and 

relatively close to the leaseup rate of 71 percent for 

comparison group families. CAN's average operating cost is 

$1,665 per family served, or $2,844 per family leased up. 

BOSTON 

The Boston Housing Authority (BHA) and the Metropolitan Boston 

Housing Partnership (MBHP) administer the Boston MTO program. 

The BHA operates over 14,000 units of public housing and 

administers 6,300 certificates and vouchers in its regular 

Section 8 program, with approximately 800 in use outside the city 

15 
of Boston. MBHP is a regional organization which provides housing 

counseling, search assistance, and landlord outreach for the MTO 

experimental group families. MBHP has extensive housing program 

experience, including the Housing Opportunity Pilot Program and a 

family self-sufficiency program. MBHP also administers almost 

3,000 Section 8 certificates and vouchers for the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts in 34 cities and towns in the Boston area. 

Seven Boston census tracts 

containing eight public and 

assisted housing projects were 

targeted for the MTO 

demonstration. These tracts 

had an average poverty rate of 

nearly 50 percent (49.2), and 

the targeted projects served a 

total of 2,578 households with 

an average income of $10,230'. 

Almost three quarters (72 

percent) of project residents 

received public assistance. 

Half the project residents (51 

percent) were white, including 

Hispanics, and 45 percent were 

African American. 

MTO outreach efforts in Boston 

began in April 1994, with an 

informational meeting for 

managers of the targeted 

housing developments. After a 

series of family outreach 

meetings in late June and 

early July of 1994, BHA 

received more than a thousand 

valid applications, and random 

assignment began in October. 

MBHP's role includes providing 

MTO families with counseling and information to help them find 

housing in low-poverty areas. The "resource room" MBHP operates for MTO and other families in its programs contains information 

on schools, jobs, transportation, and services in city and 

suburban communities throughout the Boston region. MTO families 

come to the resource room to learn about unfamiliar communities, 

identify available housing units, and place calls to landlords. 

MBHP also shows units to families and works directly with 

landlords to facilitate placements. 

MTO lease-ups in Boston began in December 1994, so some families 

have already lived in their new units for more than a year. A 

total of 450 families have enrolled in the Boston MTO 

16 
demonstration; 225 have been assigned to the experimental group, 

and 99 families have leased apartments in low-poverty areas with 

MTO assistance. The lease-up rate for experimental group 

families is 55 percent, while 73 percent of comparison group 

families have leased up. MBHP's average cost per family assigned 

is $1,569; the cost per family leased up is $2,816. 

CHICAGO 

The Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) and the Leadership Council 

for Metropolitan Open Communities administer the Chicago MTO 

demonstration. CHA is a very large housing authority, 

administering more than 16,400 Section 8 certificates and 

vouchers in addition to over 40,000 units of conventional public 

housing. Due to severe and protracted management problems, HUD 

took over management of the CHA in the spring of 1995, and the 

Section 8 program has since been privatized. The private 

contractor, the Quadel Consulting Corporation, assumed 

responsibility for the administration of the CHA's tenant-based 

rental assistance program in December 1995 and now provides all 

necessary support for the MTO demonstration. 

The Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities provides 

counseling, search assistance, and referrals for MTO experimental 

group families in Chicago. Although the Leadership Council also 

administers the Gautreaux program, MTO's main precursor, the two 

programs are separately staffed and administered. The Leadership 

Council's primary mission is helping families find affordable 

housing in low-poverty neighborhoods inside and outside the city, 

so that they can become self-sufficient members of the community. 

The four Chicago census tracts targeted for MTO had an average 

poverty rate of 67 percent and contained six public and assisted 

housing developments, which housed a total of 2,197 households. 

The average income among residents of the six targeted projects 

was $7,114, and over 75 percent of residents received some form 

of public assistance. Virtually all of these households were 

African American (99.4) and 70 percent were female-headed. 

CHA began its initial MTO implementation steps in September 1994. 

CHA conducted informational meetings with tenant councils and 

mailed out nearly 3,000 applications to potentially eligible 

families. CHA also held two follow-up meetings for interested 

families. Progress was delayed by CHA's management problems, by 

HUD's takeover of the housing authority, and by the privatization 

of the Section 8 program, including the need for new staff to be 

identified and begin correcting CHA's former management problems. 

Since privatization of Chicago's Section 8 program, MTO is 

regaining momentum. 

A total of 351 families have entered the demonstration program in 

17 

Chicago, and 175 have been 


assigned to the MTO .........~.).•• ~~.~*~ .•.•.•.• .•••.•~~~q.~~........................................... 

experimental group. Because of 

delays and problems with the 

operation of the Chicago •.·•••.•·.·~· .••••ci~J.ca~~.····~~£~er.•••.••~~B~·••••• ~br~~.·.··.···················· Housing Authority only 18 MTO •.•..•••••:~~j;~~1.1.;I.~=~~:~•••••••~q·.·••.••·•·••·.... families have been leased-up ·••••.·.•. a .• i:lE!.~····.·~9P@~fj;a ••••••• ~p: •• J'a:~ij.~.··.··•.•......................•.
 to date, although more rapid 

progress is now being ··.. ··•..•!.~~.6ha~~~~tlli~fl~b:~!~~:I:················...... achieved. ·Qhil<it~b.~*pl.ay¢ut;§~~$· ..•.... . withoutblie....tteed·fforeOnstant ..... 

LOS ANGBLBS 

The Housing Authority of the 

<•• i;~I.,iUiEifr:~ii~:i.j •··••••·.~@ •••.• fE#P~~1llli~iq..·.·.in.·.¢a~gF~]i~A9'.·····•.•.•.• City of Los Angeles (HACLA) ••••..·.¢~d9*~g'liti+¥···.·.9'~aq*"t.~.~~t.(\ operates the MTO demonstration .. y.t:.~~yO'9.Ilg~1:~~~~~(jj~H< in cooperation with the Fair 


Housing Congress of Southern :~i~j!il:~~~~t~~~=~I~I~*y·<#g) California (FHC) and Beyond 

Shelter. HACLA administers 

over 41,000 Section 8 

certificates and vouchers, 10,000 of which are special disaster 

certificates issued after the Northridge earthquake. HACLA 

operates 21 developments with over 8,700 units of conventional 

public housing. 

The Fair Housing Congress is responsible for conducting landlord 

outreach and housing searches, preparing families to move, 

educating families about low-poverty neighborhoods, and providing 

relocation assistance to help place families into appropriate 

housing. Beyond Shelter, a non-profit agency which provides 

housing and supportive services to homeless and at-risk families, 

is responsible for providing comprehensive social services to 

help families stabilize in the new communities after they move. 

Services provided by Beyond Shelter include: budgeting education, 

family counseling, crisis intervention, liaison with schools, 

provision of furnishings and household items, and referrals to 

child care and job training. In short, FHC helps MTO families 

move, while Beyond Shelter helps them stabilize and achieve 

greater independence in their new communities. Both 

organizations participated in HUD's landlord outreach and 

mobility counseling effort in the aftermath of the Northridge 

earthquake. 

Nine high-poverty census tracts were designated as Los Angeles'

MTO target area, containing 11 projects and 3,634 eligible 

families. The average poverty rate in these tracts was 54 

percent. Residents in the targeted projects had an average 

yearly income of $9,607, and 61 percent received public 

assistance. Almost 60 percent of project residents (58.4 

percent) were Hispanic and just under 40 percent (38.5 percent) 

18 
were African American. 

MTO implementation in Los 

Angeles was initially delayed 

by the burden of administering 

the relief effort after the 

1994 Northridge earthquake and 

by the subsequent tight 

housing market conditions. 

Therefore, outreach efforts 

did not begin until October 

1994, when HACLA began to hold 

informational meetings in the 

targeted high-poverty tracts. 

HACLA also mailed out 

information flyers and preapplication forms to all 

potentially eligible families 

in the eleven targeted housing 

projects. HACLA began 

enrolling MTO families near 

the end of February 1995. To 

date, a total of 258 families 

have entered the MTO 

demonstration in Los Angeles 

and 128 families have been 

assigned to the MTO 

experimental group. Of these, 

63 have leased-up. The 

overall MTO lease-up rate is 

62 percent, compared to a 

success rate of 83 percent for 

comparison-group families. In 

Los Angeles, the non-profit 

costs per family assigned 

average $1,308, or $2,111 per 

family leased-up_ 

NBfi YORK CITY 

·········.JftQ.... ,...i1ies ·tx.••••~~••·Ang~l.es OneW~rlwhO . was <born ana· 

.:ra.l.sed .i.~L.A ../s~blic

l19:usingplf:Qj ect.sJ:ia.d .. traip,ed 

117*sel.f(~psleeg~hrol1;~h) .•••~~e 

n;9h~IY'$p.opt.i~SJs~.fights, .••..•.... ·~ri.(i:poli.qTlieli99:pt~r'~. ......:S'Ut 

·· •.•.•·.~;f •••••• fl!ie~-••G~o~i7=;:il::6!a•..·. 
 SOllliwh.9.<9B1.l~c1··tlot.evellp.se 

... i;a:~IBi~~!i}mdv. ···toalnidt11e"Cla,sS. ......•. .............••...... 
 n~i9'llbQ~ho()9-in'W"~St·L.~~,

Sh~.~.~~~e!'..tl'la~.·f.·.·•••..••~'·th~.•.•..k~dS ...... c~n.fJ'()~tsid~.no~la.ndJ:ny

sOn~lgraaeSh~l'egotten· 

bette:rr~<~"cmyS~nJtliseesan 

~!ls.i.g~tlt •••··.an.d.lLge;•.•...•a••.•·ca.J..l..." ···+iiu~~#.9'()~~n~I1~p,gf:r:om>the 

.... Qtp~~\rif,l~~r,.citY'l···!:iChopl.s·. " 

.L~~:~~~.·.~=r~pr$~~ ·~J..~asan~;ty.SUt'];!l:'.i.s~d.wit.h . ·.Qtllera§pectl!lofl'iernew

community .. suehas·the.. . . ......•.. ·9~QC~:ry~bpi~~r~'(Jnl.ike het: ·......~:t~ •• ···~~.~$'.brhPoa.; ••.••.. tJ:te stores <ar~ .... clE!~pa.nd'\tl~J.~_ s.toClf.eq •.. 

f~ltl_l!'l~fft 

The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) is the largest p~lic 

housing agency in the country, managing more than 156,000 un1ts 

of public housing. NYCHA also administers the largest Section 8 

program in the country, with over 68,000 certificates and 

vouchers. The non-profit organization implementing MTO i~ New 

York Northern Manhattan Improvement Corporation (NMIC), 1S a 

multi-service community-based organization providing services to 

the Washington Heights-Inwood community in Manhattan. NMIC has 

experience providing housing search assistance to homeless and 

formerly homeless families as well as community development and 

housing-related legal issues. 

19 

New York's MTO program targeted 14 public and 

assisted housing projects in 

12 census tracts, with an 

average poverty rate of 47.3 

percent. The targeted projects were home to 15,934 

households, with an average income of $11,771 and 32 

percent of residents receiving 

public assistance. Almost 

half of these project residents were Hispanic (45.2 

percent), and 57.5 percent 

were African American. 

NMIC works extensively with 

each family in the program. 

In addition to holding 

workshops on a variety of 

topics including fair housing, 

landlord/tenant relations, and 

finding an apartment in New 

York city, NMIC facilitates 

group sessions for families 

who have moved and for those who are actively looking. NMIC also 

works closely with each individual family on a variety of social 

and economic issues that affect their ability to move through 

MTO. 

The New York demonstration began its outreach in August 1994, 

when NYCHA mailed letters to about 2,000 potentially eligible families. After additional outreach was conducted, NMIC received 

its first families for counseling in December 1994. Enrollment 

has grown steadily since then, and 309 New York families have 

enrolled in the MTO demonstration to date. Of the 157 families 

assigned to the MTO experimental group, there have been 34 lease· 

ups. The lease·up rate in New York is 25 percent, while the rate 

in the comparison group is 16 percent. Previous research on the 

implementation of Section 8 tenant-based assistance in New York 

city consistently yields success rates significantly below the 

national average, due, at least in part, to the complex and tight rental housing market. u New York's MTO operating costs per assigned family average $590, or $2,501 per family leased-up. 

20 

V. THE MOVING TO OPPORTUNITY DEMONSTRATION 


AFTER TWO YEARS 


Two years into the MTO demonstration, all five sites have 

conducted family outreach, processed applications, created 

waiting lists, and enrolled families. Over 1,600 families have 

been randomly assigned to one of the three MTO groups. Out of 

the targeted 666 families scheduled to lease-up as part of the 

MTO experimental group, 319 (47.9 percent) are already living in 

their new homes in low-poverty communities. 

PHAs have forged close working relationships with the non-profit 

housing counseling agencies with whom they are working and these 

non-profits continue to counsel eligible families at all five 

sites. Some of the PHAs may consider contributing a limited 

number of their certificates and vouchers to the MTO 

demonstration in the next year, potentially increasing the 

demonstration's sample size and ensuring more useful and robust 

findings in the future. 

A large proportion of MTO experimental group families have been 

successful in obtaining rental housing in low-poverty communities 

with the Section 8 certificates and vouchers issued through the 

demonstration. Indeed, preliminary data currently show that MTO 

has been able to improve upon the accomplishments of Chicago's 

Gautreaux program, achieving higher rates of lease-ups in most of 

the sites. The high MTO lease-up rates are even more impressive 

given the difficulty facing families moving into low-poverty 

census tracts, which are often distant and unfamiliar. 

The MTO demonstration has already begun to return benefits as a 

source of reliable data and policy insights. Early baseline 

surveys provide useful information on the aspirations and needs 

of public housing families. And the experience of the five 

demonstration sites has expanded HUD's knowledge about the design 

and implementation of housing mobility counseling programs in 

different market environments. During the next two years HUD 

expects to publish findings on the content and costs of MTO 

mobility counseling programs, on differences between successful 

and unsuccessful MTO recipients, and on the characteristics of 

neighborhoods in which MTO families locate. In addition, the 

Office of Policy Development and Research has awarded eight small 

grants to university researchers who are examining the immediate 

social, employment, and educational impacts in the lives of the 

parents and children who moved into low-poverty communities 

(Appendix C lists these research projects and their principal 

investigators). Results from these studies will be published 

over the course of the next two years. This ongoing research and 

information gathering will enable HUD to develop more sensible 

and effective mobility strategies for recipients of tenant-based 

housing assistance in metropolitan areas throughout the nation. 

21 

Although it is too early to determine in quantitative terms what 

effects residential mobility is having upon MTO families, the 

demonstration has already helped numerous public housing 

families, formerly living in deeply poor, crime-ridden 

communities to escape inner-city isolation and find decent homes 

in low-poverty neighborhoods. Both parents and children report 

deep satisfaction at having escaped the fear and limited futures 

associated with their former developments. 

22 

APPENDIX A: ELIGIBLE CITIES AND APPLICANTS 


FOR THE MTO DEMONSTRATION 


The FY 1993 NOFA for the Moving to Opportunities for Fair 

Housing (MTO) demonstration was issued by the Office of Public 

and Indian Housing on August 16, 1993 and closed on November 15, 

1993. Twenty-one cities were eligible to apply: Baltimore, 

Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Fort Worth, 

Houston, Kansas City, MO, Long Beach, CA, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, 

New York, Ph~ladelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, San 

Jose, Seattle, and Washington, DC. Sixteen applications were 

submitted jointly by PHAs and non-profits: 

1. Baltimore/Community Assistance Network 

2. Boston/Metropolitan Boston Housing Partnership. 

3. Chicago/Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open 

Communities. 

4. Cleveland/Cuyahoga Plan of Ohio. 

5. Dallas/Dallas Urban League. 

6. Denver/No NPO selected. 

7. Detroit/Operation Get Down. 

8. Fort Worth/Housing Opportunities, Inc. 

9. Houston/Harris County Hospital. 

10. Kansas City, MO/Greater Kansas City Housing Information 

Center. 

11. Los Angeles/Fair Housing Congress/Beyond Shelter. 

12. New York/Northern Manhattan Improvement Corp. 

13. Philadelphia/Housing Association of Delaware Valley. 

14. San Diego Housing Commission/Fair Housing Council of San 

Diego. 

15. San Francisco/Catholic Charities, Project Homeward 

Bound. 

16. Washington, D.C./Apartment Improvement Program/Housing 

Counseling Services. 

23 
APPENDIX B: 


REFERENCE DATA ON M'l'O DEMONSTRATION SITES 


N 

~ 

Baltimore Boston Chicago Los Angeles New York 

Housing Authority Housing 

Authority of 

Baltimore 

City 

Boston 

Housing 

Authority 

Chicago 

Housing 

Authority 

Housing 

Authority of 

the City of 

Los Angeles 

New York 

City 

Housing 

Authority 

Non-Profit Community 

Assistance 

Network 

Metropolitan 

Boston 

Housing 

Partnership 

Leadership 

Council for 

Metropolit . 

Open Com. 

Fair Housing 

Congress and 

Beyond 

Shelter 

Northern 

Manhattan 

Improvement 

Corporation 

MTO Target Area 

# Census Tracts 5 7 4 9 12 

Avg. Poverty Rate 67% 49% 67% 54% 47% 

# Projects 8 8 6 11 14 

Progress to Date (2/28/96) 

# MTO Lease-Ups 

(% of Target Number) 

98 

(69%) 

99 

( 69%) 

18 

(13%) 

63 

(67%) 

41 

(29%) 

# Comparison Lease-Ups 

(% of Target Number) 

68 

(48%) 

44 

(31% ) 

33 

(23%) 

32 

(34%) 

14 

(10%) 

MTO Success Rate 60% 55% N/A 51% 25% 

Comparison Success Rate 71% 73% N/A 62% 16% 

Preliminary Costs 

Per Family Served $1,665 $1,569 N/A $1,308 $ 590 

Per Family Placed $2,844 $2816 N/A $2,111 $2,501 
N 

V1 

APPENDIX C: lITO SMALL RBSBARCB GRAHTS 

I RBSBARCIIBR------ l ~- ~--~---- - - - ~;~ ------- I 

Robert Crain (Columbia This study, focusing on African-American MTO 

University) participants, uses an existing survey instrument 

Joe Darden (Michigan State already in use in another community to examine the 

University) housing search strategies of MTO participants, the 

characteristics common to families that successfully 

adapt to an MTO move, and the effect of moving to a 

predominantly white neighborhood on teenaged 

New York participants' social, educational, and employment 

opportunities. 

Lawrence Katz (Harvard This study uses MTO baseline data and public data to 

University) give an aggregate overview of the extent to which MTO 

Jeffrey Kling (MIT) movers have increased opportunities in their new 

neighborhoods, and to investigate the various barriers 

Boston to mobility. 

Helen Ladd (Brookings This study uses participant interviews and census data 

Institution) to examine the actual and perceived changes in 

Jens Ludwig (Georgetown educational opportunities experienced by MTO movers. 

University) 

Baltimore 

Mark Matulef (Westat, Inc.) This study uses existing MTO databases, interviews with 

Manuel Pastor (Occidental program staff and focus groups to determine whether MTO 

College) participants who receive housing counseling and search 

services realize their locational, social, and economic 

objectives at a higher rate than participants who 

receive only conventional Section 8 briefings. 

Los Angeles 
J 


~ 

RESEARCHER - .~-. TOPIC ~.~ .­

Jeanne Brooks-Gunn (Columbia 

University) 

Phillip Thompson (Columbia 

University) 

II New York 

Nancy Denton (SUNY Albany) 

Chicago 

This study involves interviewing teenaged students and 

their parents who are MTO participants to describe the 

peer, family, school, neighborhood, and individual 

processes that might facilitate or restrict adaptation 

to the new setting. 

This study uses a survey of MTO and Section 8 families 

to identify the nature and extent of adjustment 

problems, and to pinpoint the differences in these 

problems based on the program in which the family is 

participating. 
RESEARCHER TOPIC 


Sara McLanahan (Princeton 


University) Maria Hanratty 


(Princeton University) 

Los Angeles 

Donald Norris (University of 

Maryland, Baltimore County) 

Baltimore 

This study uses several data sources, including a 

telephone survey of MTO participants to examine the 

factors that affect families' decisions to participate 

in the MTO program, and the determinants of 

participants' choice in housing location. 

This study investigates differences in MTO 

participants' housing search strategies, and examines 

the factors that influence their choices of residential 

'location, by interviewing counselors and conducting 

focus groups of MTO participants. 

N 

-..J 
BNDNOTBS 


1. Henry G. Cisneros, Regionalism: The New Geography of 

Qpportunity, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, 1995. 

2. William J. Clinton, National Urban Policy Report, Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1995. 

3. HUD actually obligated $68.5 million for MTO certificates and 

vouchers. 

4. Secretary Henry Cisneros approved the final selection of five 

MTO demonstration sites as recommended by the technical review 

panel on March 17, 1994. This report therefore marks the first two 

years of program implementation. 

5. For a description of existing mobility programs and their 

impacts, see John Goering et aI, Promoting Housing Choice in RUD's 

Rental Assistance Programs, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development: Washington, D.C., April, 1995. 

6. James Rosenbaum. 1992. "Black Pioneers -- Do Their Moves to 

the Suburbs Increase Economic Opportunity for Mothers and 

Children?" Housing Policy Debate. Volume 2, Issue 4, 1179-1213. 

7. Several of the PHAs that applied to participate in MTO were 

determined to be ineligible because of their poor management and 

performance records in meeting basic public housing and Section 8 

rental assistance requirements. 

8. Non- intrusive household tracking techniques to locate MTO 

families over the entire ten-year period of the demonstration are 

currently being developed. 

9. Regression analysis reveals that the determinant value of six 

combined demographic variables listed in the MTO baseline survey 

(race, head of household sex, household size, head of household 

age, employment, and AFDC collection) is statistically 

insignificant at the .05 level (R-square=.01921). 

10. Crime victimization results derived from survey data must be 

considered with a modicum of caution, due to the "telescoping" 

effect observed in some crime victimization studies (B. Penick, ed., 

Surveying Crime, (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 

1976, p. 43). Telescoping refers to the phenomenon whereby a survey 

respondent acknowledges an actual crime to the interviewer but 

reports the date of its occurrence inaccurately. This phenomenon 

can inflate crime victimization figures somewhat. However, the 

questions posed by the MTO baseline survey and the RTI instrument 

28 
are so similar that telescoping effects should be similar for both 

studies, or "a wash." Further, Penick, et. al., note that 

telescoping "does not necessarily affect estimates of victimization 

within a certain period" (p.45). 

11. Research Triangle Institute defines the "largest" PHAs as those 

authorities managing 4,000-49,000 units of public housing. 

12. R. Zelon, B. Rohe, S. Leaman, & S. Williams, Research Triangle 

Institute, Survey of Public Housing Residents; Crime and Crime 

Prevention in Public Housing, 1994. 

13. Placement rates, or success rates, are defined as the percent 

of all families who are able to find a housing unit in which they 

can use their Section 8 subsidy. Unsuccessful families are those 

who, despite housing search assistance, are unable to find a 

suitable unit and therefore do not receive tenant-based rental 

assistance. 

14. MTCS data on the characteristics of project residents is for 

December 1995. 

15. Section 8 Rental Voucher and Rental Certificate Utilization 

Study: Final Report, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, October 1994. 

29 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 


This report was prepared by John Goering, of HUD's Office of 

Policy Development and Research (PD&R), who is responsible for 

the implementation and ongoing evaluation of the Moving to 

Opportunity demonstration. He was assisted by Katherine 

Carnevale and Manuel Teodoro, both student interns in PD&R. 

Many other HUD staff have contributed to the design and 

implementation of MTO. These have included, most notably, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary Margery Turner who has taken MTO on as a 

project of particular importance and provided as many resources 

as possib~e to make it work. Jerry Benoit, Maddie Hastings, and 

Bill Murphy in HUD's Office of Public and Indian Housing provided 

a crash course on how to run a Section 8 demonstration, and their 

good will, patience, suggestions, and criticisms have kept the 

demonstration running smoothly. Joan Kraft, Garland Allen, Mark 

Shroder, Larry Pearl, and Pam Walsh have also provided useful 

advice and assistance at many key stages. 

At Abt Associates, Judith Feins, Anthony Phipps, Mary Joel Holin, 

Debri Magri McInness, Heather Doyle and, more recently, Susan 

popkin have been indispensable to the design and implementation 

demonstration. In addition, Mary Davis and Kale Williams 

provided invaluable training assistance and guidance in designing 

MTO. And, of course, Alexander Polikoff, executive director of 

Business and Professional People for the Public Interest, has 

played an indispensable role in both originating and supporting 

the MTO demonstration. 

But MTO could not possibly have gotten so far, so fast without 

the combined efforts of colleagues and friends at the five public 

housing authorities and non-profit organizations that have taken 

on the challenge of implementing MTO. All of the credit for 

changing the lives of so many families belongs to them. 

Specifically, the authors wish to thank Robert Gajdys and Ruth 

Crystal from the Community Assistance Network; Tanya Tull and 

Tracy Scruggs from Beyond Shelter; Michelle White, Cynthia Pullen 

and, more recently, Rose Wright from the Fair Housing Congress; 

Barbara LOWry and Laura Shubilla from Northern Manhattan 

Improvement Corporation; Aurie Pennick and Jonitia Epison from 

the Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities in 

Chicago; and Jennifer O'Neil, Sheri Williams and Jim Wessler from 

the Metropolitan Boston Housing Partnership. 

And at the five MTO housing authorities, the authors acknowledge 

the special contributions of Tom Santry and Theresa Imbruglia of 

the Boston Housing Authority; Gary Markowski, Floryne Howard, 

Reba Anderson-Graham, Estella Alexander and Commissioner Dan 

Henson of the Housing Authority of Baltimore City; Harold Sole 

and Alan Stone of the New York City Housing Authority; Denise 

Richardson of the Chicago Housing Authority and Steve Renahan, 

30 

Jennifer O'Neil, and Sheri Williams of Chicago's new Section 8 

contractor; and Steve Renahan, Mary Maher and Dawnette Gilkey of 

the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles. 

31 

----------------------------­