打印

作者

来源

HOUSING POLICY DEBATE,Vol.27,Issue3,P.419-448

语言

英文

关键字

HUD (U; S; Department of Housing and Urban Development); low-income housing; neighborhood; policy; underserved; rental housing; ADOLESCENT MENTAL-HEALTH; POVERTY-AREA RESIDENCE; COLLECTIVE EFFICACY; VOUCHER EXPERIMENT; NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS; CHILD

作者单位

[Nguyen, Quynh C.] Univ Utah, Dept Hlth Kinesiol & Recreat, Coll Hlth, Salt Lake City, UT USA. [Acevedo-Garcia, Dolores] Brandeis Univ, Inst Child Youth & Family Policy, Heller Sch Social Policy & Management, Boston, MA USA. [Schmidt, Nicole M.; Osypuk, Theresa L.] Univ Minnesota, Minnesota Populat Ctr, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA. [Osypuk, Theresa L.] Univ Minnesota, Sch Publ Hlth, Div Epidemiol & Community Hlth, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA. Osypuk, TL (reprint author), Univ Minnesota, Minnesota Populat Ctr, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA.; Osypuk, TL (reprint author), Univ Minnesota, Sch Publ Hlth, Div Epidemiol & Community Hlth, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA. E-Mail: tosypuk@umn.edu

摘要

We used the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) housing experiment to inform how Housing Choice Vouchers and housing mobility policies can assist families living in high-poverty areas to make opportunity moves to higher quality neighborhoods, across a wide range of neighborhood attributes. We compared the neighborhood attainment of the three randomly assigned MTO treatment groups (low-poverty voucher, Section 8 voucher, control group) at 1997 and 2002 locations (4-7years after baseline), using survey reports, and by linking residential histories to numerous different administrative and population-based data sets. Compared with controls, families in low-poverty and Section 8 groups experienced substantial improvements in neighborhood conditions across diverse measures, including economic conditions, social systems (e.g., collective efficacy), physical features of the environment (e.g., tree cover) and health outcomes. The low-poverty voucher group, moreover, achieved better neighborhood attainment compared with Section 8. Treatment effects were largest for New York, New York, and Los Angeles, California. We discuss the implications of our findings for expanding affordable housing policy.