Abstract
This chapter provides a unique contribution to the neighbourhood effects literature by demonstrating that data from in-depth interviews is capable of revealing some of the mechanisms behind unexpected quantitative findings. Such a mixed methods approach is regarded a major step forward in neighbourhood effects research. The chapter describes and attempts to explain unexpected findings from the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) program (mental health improvements which were not originally anticipated); a weak ‘treatment’ effect for many families (initial and subsequent moves to segregated, economically declining areas instead of higher opportunity neighbourhoods); “null” findings where large effects on individual outcomes were expected instead (MTO was primarily designed to enhance the employment prospects of adults and to improve the educational outcomes of children, but no effects on employment and education were found); and a set of conflicting findings (moves to low poverty neighbourhoods were found to be beneficial to girls, but harmful for boys). The use of mixed methods has shown how the potential of MTO-based policy approaches is limited by structural barriers, and the dynamics of poor families’ beliefs, backgrounds and constraints.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
For a comprehensive review of the history of the Gautreaux lawsuit, the implementation of the program, and early research results, see Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum (2000).
- 2.
Starting in the mid-1990s, HUD began a massive public housing revitalization effort known as the HOPEVI program (see Popkin et al. 2004). Cities across the country have been using HOPEVI funding to demolish substandard public housing projects and replace them with a mixed income communities comprised of subsidized rental units and market rate home ownership units. In the process of redeveloping these communities, many original public housing project residents had to move from their apartments to other rental units in the private market using Section 8 vouchers. It is important to note that the moves families made through the Gautreaux and MTO programs are fundamentally different from the HOPEVI induced moves. First, Gautreaux and MTO were voluntary programs, while families in housing projects slated to be torn down were forced to relocate. Second, Gautreaux families and MTO experimental group families were given housing counseling and assistance to secure housing in higher opportunity neighborhoods, while HOPEVI residents were only given the traditional Section 8 voucher and no additional relocation assistance. Therefore, the results from the Gautreaux and MTO research cannot be generalized to the families who moved involuntarily because their project was being redeveloped under HOPEVI.
- 3.
Orr et al. (2003) is the official report. Other MTO papers using the interim data are listed on www.nber.org/mtopublic. See also the July, 2008 issue of the American Journal of Sociology for an exchange on the meaning of the interim MTO results.
- 4.
Gibson-Davis and Duncan (2005) make a similar argument for the value of mixed methods based on the evaluation of the New Hope work support program.
- 5.
In addition to early qualitative work conducted by Rosenbaum and colleagues (Rosenbaum et al. 2005; Rosenbaum et al. 2002), Mendenhall and Keels conducted interviews with a stratified subset in 2000–2001. A new round of Gautreaux moves began in 2001, with qualitative interviews conducted by a team led by Kathryn Edin.
- 6.
The Housing Choice Voucher covers the difference between 30% of the household’s monthly income and the locally determined payment standard for rent. (see: http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/hcv/about/fact_sheet.cfm).
- 7.
It should be noted that non-experimental estimates of mediation typically fail to provide arguably unbiased estimation of either of these two meditational components. And it is also the case that experiments such as MTO can be used to estimate instrumental variables models of the effects of mediators on outcomes (e.g., as in the Ludwig and Kling 2007 analysis of the effect of neighbourhood poverty on crime).
- 8.
For example, as it geared up to launch the MTO demonstration, HUD characterized MTO’s long term assessment goals as consisting of the “housing, educational, and employment outcomes of families assisted through the program.”
- 9.
- 10.
Popkin et al. (2001) interviewed 58 adults and 39 children, sampled across all five cities within the following strata: MTO Experimental Movers to Higher Poverty Areas, MTO Movers to Lower Poverty Areas, Section 8 Movers, and In Place Controls (families still located in their original public housing project).
- 11.
While the city/suburban difference was not important, neighborhood quality still appeared to matter somewhat: participants placed in Black segregated areas with the lowest level of community resources (safety, jobs, family income, and education) spent significantly less time (6–9%) employed and had lower earnings ($2,400 and $2,900 per year) when compared to participants placed in more integrated (11–60% Black) or predominantly White (0–10% Black) areas with higher levels of resources in both city and suburban neighborhoods.
- 12.
The Baltimore based qualitative studies described in this chapter are all derived from the same fieldwork period and sample. Interviews were conducted in 2003 and 2004, following the interim survey which was done in 2002. A stratified random subsample of 124 heads of household from all three treatment groups (experimental, Section 8 and control) were interviewed for the Baltimore study. The heads of household are all female and African-American, and many had low incomes at the time of the interim survey. Interviews lasted between 3 and 5 h, and covered a range of topics from family history and neighborhood issues to employment, welfare use and children’s schools. Refer to each individual paper for specific details on the analyses conducted.
- 13.
For additional qualitative research on the specific nature of MTO families’ social networks, as well as a consideration of the costs and benefits to these social ties, see Kissane and Clampet-Lundquist 2010.
- 14.
Prior Gautreaux qualitative research found that, while mothers did not mention getting direct job assistance from suburban neighbors, these acquaintances supported their efforts to find work by sharing cars, helping with child care and encouraging mothers’ efforts to go back to school (Rosenbaum et al. 2005).
- 15.
See Turney et al. 2006 for a detailed discussion of job mapping in Baltimore County.
- 16.
This number is slightly smaller than the number of tracts cited in the Rosenblatt and DeLuca (2010) study described above. The difference is due to the fact that the DeLuca and Rosenblatt (2010) paper analyzed only those families who had school aged children (6 years or older) at the time of random assignment.
- 17.
Keels’s (2009) qualitative interviews with Gautreaux families found similar results.
- 18.
In another paper, Clampet-Lundquist (2011) compared the mental health differences between the experimental and control males. While the interim evaluation did not show significant benefits for the boys in the experimental group relative to controls, she found that control boys demonstrated higher levels of anger in their interviews than their experimental counterparts. She also found that the types of stressors reported by control boys were more severe than those described by the experimental males.
- 19.
In the summer of 2010, Susan Clampet-Lundquist, Stefanie DeLuca and Kathryn Edin launched a 10 year qualitative follow up with young men and women In Baltimore (ages 15–24) whose families participated in MTO when they were children. This in depth study of over 150 young adults focuses on the long term consequences of neighbourhoods for young men and women, with an emphasis on the gender differences discovered in the Interim Evaluation. The study also explores the transition to adulthood for disadvantaged youth across important domains such as risk behaviour, family formation, transition to work and college, substance use and family relationships.
References
Borkan, J. M. (2004). Mixed methods studies: A foundation for primary care research. Annals of Family Medicine, 2(1), 4–6.
Clampet-Lundquist, S. (2011). Teens, mental health, and Moving to Opportunity. In E. Birch, H. Newburger, & S. Wachter (Eds.), Neighborhood and life chances: How place matters in modern America (pp. 204–220). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Clampet-Lundquist, S., Edin, K., Kling, J., & Duncan, G. J. (2011). Moving teenagers out of high-risk neighborhoods: How girls fare better than boys. American Journal of Sociology.
DeLuca, S., & Dayton, E. (2009). Switching social contexts: The effects of housing mobility and school choice programs on youth outcomes. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 457–491.
DeLuca, S., & Rosenblatt, P. (2010). Does moving to better neighborhoods lead to better schooling opportunities? Parental school choice in an experimental housing voucher program. Teachers College Record, 112(5), 1443–1491.
Elder, G. H. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69(1), 1–12.
Galster, G. (2011). The mechanism(s) of neighbourhood effects: Theory, evidence, and policy implications. In M. van Ham, D. Manley, N. Bailey, L. Simpson, & D. Maclennan (Eds.), Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
Gibson-Davis, C. M., & Duncan, G. J. (2005). Qualitative/quantitative synergies in a random assignment program. In T. Weisner (Ed.), Discovering successful pathways in children’s development: New methods in the study of childhood and family life(pp. 283–303). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Grogger, J. (2003). The effects of time limits, the EITC, and other policy changes on welfare use, work, and income among female-headed families. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(2), 394–408.
Katz, L., Kling, J., & Liebman, J. (2001). Moving to opportunity in Boston: Early results of a randomized mobility experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(2), 607–654.
Keels, M. (2009). Unpacking the null effects of relocating poor children into non-poor neighborhoods: Focus on school experiences. Working paper under review.
Kennedy, S. D., & Finkel, M. (1994). Section 8 rental voucher and rental certificate utilization study: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.
Kissane, R., & Clampet-Lundquist, S. (2010). Exploring the social ties and social capital of families after moving to opportunity. Working paper under review.
Kling, J., Liebman, J., & Katz, L. (2005). Bullets Don’t Got No Name: Consequences of fear in the Ghetto. In T. S. Weisner (Ed.), Discovering successful pathways in children’s development: Mixed methods in the study of childhood and family life (pp. 243–281). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kling, J., Liebman, J., & Katz, L. (2007). Experimental analysis of neighborhood effects. Econometrica, 75(1), 83–119.
Ludwig, J., Ladd, H. F., & Duncan, G. J. (2001). Urban poverty and educational outcomes. Brookings Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 2, 147–201.
Ludwig, J., Liebman, J. B., Kling, J. R., Duncan, G. J., Katz, L. F., & Kessler, R. C. (2008). Can we learn about neighborhood effects from the moving to opportunity experiment? American Journal of Sociology, 114(1), 107–143.
Mathews, J. (2007). Neighborhoods’ effect on grades challenged. Washington Post, August 14, 2007.
Mendenhall, R. (2004). Black women in Gautreaux’s housing desegregation program: The role of neighborhoods and networks in economic independence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.
Mendenhall, R., DeLuca, S., & Duncan, G. (2006). Neighborhood resources, racial segregation, and economic mobility: Results from the Gautreaux program. Social Science Research, 35(4), 892–923.
Orr, L., Feins, J., Jacob, R., Beecroft, E., Sanbonmatsu, L., Katz, L., et al. (2003). Moving to opportunity interim impacts evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development.
Popkin, S. J., Harris, L. E., & Cunningham, M. K. (2001). Families in transition: A qualitative analysis of the MTO experience. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Popkin, S. J., Katz, B., Cunningham, M. K., Brown, K. D., Gustafson, J., & Turner, M. A. (2004). A Decade of HOPE VI: Research findings and policy challenges. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute & The Brookings Institution. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411002_HOPEVI.pdf.
Popkin, S. J., Leventhal, T., & Weismann, G. (2010). Girls in the hood: How safety affects the life chances of low-income girls. Urban Affairs Review, 45(6), 715–744.
Popkin, S. J., Rosenbaum, J. E., & Meaden, P. M. (1993). Labor market experiences of low-income black women in middle-class suburbs: Evidence from a survey of Gautreaux program participants. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 12(3), 556–573.
Rosenbaum, J. E., DeLuca, S., & Tuck, T. (2005). Crossing borders and adapting: Low-income Black families in Suburbia. In X. de Souza Briggs (Ed.), The geography of opportunity: Race and housing choice in metropolitan America (pp. 150–175). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Rosenbaum, J. E., Reynolds, L., & DeLuca, S. (2002). How do places matter? The geography of opportunity, self-efficacy, and a look inside the black box of residential mobility. Housing Studies, 17(1), 71–82.
Rosenbaum, J. E., & Zuberi, A. (2010). Comparing residential mobility programs: Design elements, neighborhood placements and outcomes in MTO and Gautreaux. Housing Policy Debate, 20(1), 27–42.
Rosenblatt, P., & DeLuca, S. (2010). We don’t live outside, we live in here: Residential mobility decisions of low-income families. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta.
Rubinowitz, L. S., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2000). Crossing the class and color lines: From public housing to white suburbia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sanbonmatsu, L., et al. (2006). Neighborhoods and academic achievement: Results from the moving to opportunity experiment. The Journal of Human Resources, 41(4), 649.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Shroder, M. (2002). Locational constraint, housing counselling, and successful lease-up in a randomized housing voucher experiment. Journal of Urban Economics, 51, 315–38.
Small, M. L. (2011). How to conduct a mixed methods study: Recent trends in a rapidly growing literature. Annual Review of Sociology.
Small, M. L., & Feldman, J. (2011). Ethnographic evidence, heterogeneity, and neighbourhood effects after moving to opportunity. In M. van Ham, D. Manley, N. Bailey, L. Simpson, & D. Maclennan (Eds.), Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
Turney, K., Clampet-Lundquist, S., Edin, K., Kling, J. R., & Duncan, G. (2006). Neighborhood effects on barriers to employment: Results from a randomized housing mobility experiment in Baltimore. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 137–187.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
DeLuca, S., Duncan, G.J., Keels, M., Mendenhall, R. (2012). The Notable and the Null: Using Mixed Methods to Understand the Diverse Impacts of Residential Mobility Programs. In: van Ham, M., Manley, D., Bailey, N., Simpson, L., Maclennan, D. (eds) Neighbourhood Effects Research: New Perspectives. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2309-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2309-2_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2308-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2309-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)