, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 515–535 | Cite as

Reexamining the moving to opportunity study and its contribution to changing the distribution of poverty and ethnic concentration

  • William A. V. Clark


For the past decade and a half, a concerted effort has been undertaken to determine whether policy interventions in residential location can solve the problems of inner-city poverty and racial concentration. Studies based on data from the Gautreaux litigation and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)—sponsored Moving to Opportunity (MTO) program have provided an overall optimistic interpretation of the possibilities of improving inner-city lives via mobility vouchers and counseling. A reanalysis of the data from the MTO program, focusing specifically on African American households, suggests greater caution in the interpretation of the findings from either Gautreaux or the MTO program. No statistically significant difference exists between the percentage of poor or the percentage of African Americans in the current neighborhoods between MTO and Section 8 experimental groups. In some cases, there is no statistically significant difference between those who move with a voucher and those who move without any assistance at all. Although there is some evidence that MTO programs have brought specific gains for individual families, claims for the MTO program as a whole need to be treated with a great deal more caution than they have been to date.


Poverty Neighborhood Voucher Program Regular Section Opportunity Study Housing Voucher 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Briggs, X. 1998. “Brown Kids in White Suburbs: Housing Mobility and the Many Faces of Social Capital.” Housing Policy Debate 9:177–221.Google Scholar
  2. —, ed. 2005. The Geography of Opportunity: Race and Housing Choice in Metropolitan America. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  3. Clark, W.A.V. 2005. “Intervening in the Residential Mobility Process: Neighborhood Outcomes for Low-Income Populations.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102:15307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark, W.A.V. and F. Dieleman. 1996. Households and Housing: Choice and Outcomes in the Housing Market. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  5. Galster, G. 2007. “Neighborhood Social Mix as a Goal of Housing Policy: A Theoretical Analysis.” European Journal of Housing Policy 7:19–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Galster, G. and A. Zobel. 1998. “Will Dispersed Housing Programmes Reduce Social Problems in the US.” Housing Studies 13:605–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goering, J. 2005. “Expanding Housing Choice and Integrating Neighborhoods: The MTO Experiment.” Pp. 128–49 in The Geography of Opportunity: Race and Housing Choice in Metropolitan America, edited by X. Briggs. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  8. Goetz, E. 2003. Clearing the Way: Deconcentrating the Poor in Urban America. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  9. Grigsby, W.G. and S. Bourassa. 2004. “Section 8: The Time and Fundamental Program Change.” Housing Policy Debate 15:805–34.Google Scholar
  10. Johnson, M.P., H.F. Ladd, and J. Ludwig. 2002. “The Benets and Costs of Residential Mobility Programmes for the Poor.” Housing Studies 17:125–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Keels, M., G. Duncan, S. Deluca, R. Mendenhall, and J. Rosenbaum. 2005. “Fifteen Years Later: Can Residential Mobility Programs Provide a Long-Term Escape From Neighborhood Segregation, Crime and Poverty.” Demography 42:51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kling, J., J. Liebman, L. Katz, and L. Sanbonmatsu. 2004. “Moving to Opportunity and Tranquility: Neighborhood Effects on Adult Economic Self-Sufficiency and Health From a Randomized Housing Voucher Experiment.” Report. NBER and Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  13. Orr, L., J. Feins, R. Jacob, and E. Beecroft. 2003. “Moving to Opportunity: Interim Impacts Evaluation: Final Report.” Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  14. Reich, R. 1991. “Secession of the Successful.” New York Times Magazine, January 20, p. 42.Google Scholar
  15. Rosenbaum, J. 1995. “Changing the Geography of Opportunity by Expanding Residential Choice: Lessons From the Gautreaux Program.” Housing Policy Debate 6:231–69.Google Scholar
  16. Rosenbaum, J. and S. Popkin. 1991. “Employment and Earnings of Low-Income Blacks Who Move to Middle-Class Suburbs.” Pp. 342–56 in The Urban Underclass, edited by C. Jencks and P. Peterson. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  17. Tiebout, C. 1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” Journal of Political Economy 64:418–24.Google Scholar
  18. Varady, D. 2005. Desegregating the City: Ghettos, Enclaves and Inequality. Albany: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  19. Varady, D. and C. Walker. 2000. “Vouchering Out Distressed Subsidized Developments: Does Moving Lead to Improvements in Housing and Neighborhood Conditions?” Housing Policy Debate 11:115–62.Google Scholar
  20. —. 2003. “Using Housing Vouchers to Move to the Suburbs: How Do Families Fare?” Housing Policy Debate 14:347–82.Google Scholar
  21. Wolfe, A. 1998. One Nation After All. New York: Viking.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • William A. V. Clark
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUCLALos Angeles

Personalised recommendations