Many low-income families might desire to move into different neighborhoods—places that are safer, quieter, or have more resources in their schools. In fact, not many do relocate. But it turns out they are far more likely to move when someone is on hand to help them do it.
...
The randomized field experiment, set in the Seattle area, showed that the number of families using vouchers for new housing jumped from 15% to 53% when they had more information, some financial support, and, most of all, a navigator who helped them address logistical challenges.
"The question we were after is really what drives residential segregation," says Nathaniel Hendren, an MIT economist and co-author of the paper detailing the results. "Is it due to preferences people have, due to having family or jobs close by? Or are there constraints on the search process that make it difficult to move?" As the study clearly shows, he says, "Just pairing people with [navigators] broke down search barriers and created dramatic changes in where they chose to live. This was really just a very deep need in the search process."
The study's results have prompted U.S. Congress to twice allocate $25 million in funds, allowing eight other U.S. cities to run their own versions of the experiment and measure the impact.
...
The experiment included 712 families and two phases. In the first, all participants were issued housing vouchers worth a little more than $1,500 per month on average, and divided into treatment and control groups. Families in the treatment group also received the CMTO bundle of services, including the navigator.
In this phase, lasting from 2018 to 2019, 53% of families in the treatment group used the housing vouchers, while only 15% of those in the control group used the vouchers. Families who moved dispersed to 46 different neighborhoods, defined by U.S. Census Bureau tracts, meaning they were not just shifting en masse from one location to one other.
Families who moved were very likely to want to renew their leases, and expressed satisfaction with their new neighborhoods. All told, the program cost about $2,670 per family. Additional research scholars in the group have conducted about changes in income suggest the program's direct benefits are 2.5 times greater than its costs.
That's a very promising program and the differences between the control and treatment groups are very large. I wish they went into more detail about the income differences stemming from moving,...
That's a very promising program and the differences between the control and treatment groups are very large. I wish they went into more detail about the income differences stemming from moving, but overall it seems like money very well spent.
Housing vouchers are, in my opinion, one of the best things we could be doing to combat poverty and anything to make them more effective would be a huge win for society. Evicted by Matthew Desmond was a very good read in this area. It's what I think on every time I see rent control debates.
I'm happy to see a growing body of evidence that the best ROI when it comes to helping people is to fund them directly. It's bringing life changing positive impact for those families and their...
I'm happy to see a growing body of evidence that the best ROI when it comes to helping people is to fund them directly. It's bringing life changing positive impact for those families and their communities for several generations, with relatively little investment compared to more indirect means. This is how a government should be spending money - to maximize their ROI.
Well, sort of. The study shows that giving people guidance rather than just the vouchers makes a huge difference, so it’s not just funding people, it’s how you do it. Also, it doesn’t compare...
Well, sort of. The study shows that giving people guidance rather than just the vouchers makes a huge difference, so it’s not just funding people, it’s how you do it.
Also, it doesn’t compare housing vouchers with giving people cash.
The positive outcomes were that more people moved and they were happier after the move, which is good enough for me. But apparently their incomes didn’t change, and there’s no information on whether sending kids to better schools helped them. I guess it would be hard to measure since people moved to different places.
This study (here’s the PDF) isn’t about the outcomes for children from moving, but they cite other studies for that.
This is not a surprise at all, TBH. Coming from a less-than-privileged background, people who come from well-off families really don't understand the amount of implicit cultural knowledge that...
This is not a surprise at all, TBH. Coming from a less-than-privileged background, people who come from well-off families really don't understand the amount of implicit cultural knowledge that they possess, and how hard it is to navigate their world when you don't already have it. (Doubly so if you're neurodivergent.)
Also, gathering good information is itself a time- and energy-intensive task, and underprivileged people often do not have much of either quantity. (There's a reason that teaching is a profession that people get paid to do.)
From the article:
...
...
That's a very promising program and the differences between the control and treatment groups are very large. I wish they went into more detail about the income differences stemming from moving, but overall it seems like money very well spent.
Housing vouchers are, in my opinion, one of the best things we could be doing to combat poverty and anything to make them more effective would be a huge win for society. Evicted by Matthew Desmond was a very good read in this area. It's what I think on every time I see rent control debates.
I'm happy to see a growing body of evidence that the best ROI when it comes to helping people is to fund them directly. It's bringing life changing positive impact for those families and their communities for several generations, with relatively little investment compared to more indirect means. This is how a government should be spending money - to maximize their ROI.
Well, sort of. The study shows that giving people guidance rather than just the vouchers makes a huge difference, so it’s not just funding people, it’s how you do it.
Also, it doesn’t compare housing vouchers with giving people cash.
The positive outcomes were that more people moved and they were happier after the move, which is good enough for me. But apparently their incomes didn’t change, and there’s no information on whether sending kids to better schools helped them. I guess it would be hard to measure since people moved to different places.
This study (here’s the PDF) isn’t about the outcomes for children from moving, but they cite other studies for that.
This is not a surprise at all, TBH. Coming from a less-than-privileged background, people who come from well-off families really don't understand the amount of implicit cultural knowledge that they possess, and how hard it is to navigate their world when you don't already have it. (Doubly so if you're neurodivergent.)
Also, gathering good information is itself a time- and energy-intensive task, and underprivileged people often do not have much of either quantity. (There's a reason that teaching is a profession that people get paid to do.)