Housing Mobility Counseling Programs, FHACt April 2015
1. 36th Annual
FHACt
Fair
Housing
Conference
April 23, 2015
PROVIDING CHOICE:
HOUSING MOBILITY
COUNSELING PROGRAMS
QUADEL
Consulting
Presented by Erin Boggs, Esq.
Open Communities Alliance
Mobility expertise and slides, in major, part prepared by
Jennifer O’Neil of Quadel Consulting
2. 2
TENANT-BASED HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS
Housing Choice Voucher Holders by Location and Minority Status (by tracts)
Voucher Holder Race/Ethnicity % Voucher Holders in Disproportionately
Minority Areas
% Voucher Holders in High Poverty Areas
Geographical Area of the State 5.8% 10.5%
All Voucher Holders 83% 79%
Minority Voucher Holders 92% 85.5%
Non-Hispanic White Voucher Holders 62% 65%
Minority Voucher Holders
White Voucher Holders
3. Low income families shouldn’t be
restricted to struggling neighborhoods
because they can’t afford alternatives.
Families should be able to live in the
communities where they work.
Federal housing policies should
ensure that families using federal
subsidy programs have a choice to live
outside of distressed neighborhoods
that can undermine their health, their
employment prospects, and their kids’
school success.
WHY HOUSING MOBILITY PROGRAMS?
4. When families move to
higher opportunity
neighborhoods they
experience:
Better health
Greater stability
Safer neighborhoods
Access to better schools
WHAT THE RESEARCH SHOWS
5. Dramatic health gains - reduction in rates of obesity, anxiety,
and depression
MTO families that live for longer periods in lower poverty
achieve better employment outcomes
Youth living in lower-poverty neighborhoods achieve higher
English and math test scores
WHAT THE MTO RESEARCH SHOWS
6. DeLuca and Rosenblatt –
Baltimore
Students proficient or better in math
went from 44.8% to 68.9% in
opportunity neighborhood school
Students proficient or better in
reading went from 54.2% to 76% in
opportunity neighborhood school
Schwartz – Montgomery County,
Maryland
Children in public housing benefitted
academically from merely living in
low-poverty neighborhoods
WHAT THE RESEARCH SHOWS
7. De-concentration (poverty/ race)
Fair housing (overcoming barriers/
informed choice)
Improved quality of life for families
(safety, quality of housing &
neighborhood, education, health,
employment)
Support Employment and Self-
Sufficiency (economic & racial
diversity)
KEY COMPONENT: MISSION
8. Poverty
Racial Segregation
School Performance
Safety/Crime
Employment
Opportunity index
KEY COMPONENT:
REASONABLE THRESHOLDS
10. Gautreaux – Chicago 1976-1998 (more than 25,000
families over 22 years)
The MTO Demonstration 1994 (over 850 families)
Baltimore (Thompson) 1994 (over 2500 families)
Dallas (Walker) 1990 (1367 families)
Voluntary programs - Chicago and others (mid 1990’s to the
present) (Chicago - 3500 families)
WORK IN PROGRESS
11. Broaden the definition of opportunity
Counseling
Quality
Group vs individual
Measure incremental success
Post-move support
Fair housing enforcement
Making housing mobility an integral part
of voucher program operations
WHAT WE’VE LEARNED
12. CT has had a mobility counseling program since 2002.
It has helped many families, but not produced the integration
results associated with strong mobility counseling programs.
This is largely due to lower funding levels and outdated
definitions of a successful move.
MOBILITY IN CT
Mobility Participants Remaining in
Town of Origin
City % Participants Staying
Bridgeport 88%
Hartford 68%
New Haven 82%
89% of CT mobility
moves are to areas that
are disproportionately
minority (30% minority
or greater).
13. Expanding Choice: Practical Strategies for Building a
Successful Housing Mobility Program (2013)
New Homes, New Neighborhoods, New Schools - A Progress
Report on the Baltimore Housing Mobility Program (2009)
The full reports can be downloaded at the Poverty &
Race Research Action Council website: www.prrac.org
RESOURCES
Editor's Notes
There is now enough research to indicate that there are clear benefits to helping families move to better neighborhoods.
Outcomes are positive for communities as well - socio-economically diverse neighborhoods are healthier neighborhoods. Not an either/or situation – efforts must continue to improve and redevelop the neighborhoods where there are high concentrations of poverty.
While initial reports did not show gain in employment and there was some indication that especially teen boys may have encountered problems, longer term research and a closer look at the data indicates that families that stayed in lower poverty areas do achieve better employment outcomes. Many children of MTO families continued to attend the same schools; but those who attended schools in their new opportunity neighborhoods have achieved higher English and math scores.
Given the positive outcomes of housing mobility, the next few slides cover the key components of mobility counseling programs and then we’ll talk a little about best practices.
The first order of business is always the mission – being clear about the purpose of your program. These are the four most typical. Programs may be broad and generally want to achieve all these while others are very focused and may concentrate on one key element – education for example.
The next key component is establishing reasonable thresholds for the outcomes the program seeks to achieve. So, for example, how will you define poverty – using what geographic boundaries (census tracts, zip codes, etc.) and what poverty rate to define opportunity. Or, if it’s school performance, will you look at feeder schools (elementary and middle) or high schools, will you determine opportunity by test scores, drop out rates, the percentage of children eligible for meals programs. …
Finally, what services do you want to provide and what services can you afford to offer? And how intensive will the services be? Will housing search assistance include providing transportation to view available units? Will post-move counseling include several home visits? Will the program include partnerships with community based organizations to assist?
Housing mobility counseling continues to evolve. It all began with the Gautreaux lawsuit and consent decree in Chicago which involved only a minimal research component. HUD then followed with the Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing . Demonstration in the 90’s. Two other major programs that came out of litigation were in Baltimore and Dallas. In addition, there have been numerous voluntary programs around the country, the largest and longest running in Chicago. Much has been learned from all of these.
While poverty and race were the measures of opportunity in all the legal cases, many housing agencies have found it helpful to broaden the definition to include other quality of life characteristics.
The quality of counselors is critical to success – where the counselors live and their buy-in to the program’s mission is essential. We have also learned a great deal about how much families can do on their own and the benefits of providing services in group settings.
Not all families are prepared to make a dramatic move. It is beneficial to accept that and track the incremental successes. Anecdotally, families often make a move to a somewhat better neighborhood and then a move to a high opportunity neighborhood, or a second move may be a return to a more impacted area but better than the original neighborhood.
Fair housing enforcement continues to be key. Often mobility counselors, in an effort to persuade landlords to lease to voucher holders are hesitant to encourage or file complaints. The laws still need to be enforced.
Finally, it is cost efficient and more effective if housing mobility is part of the everyday activities of all housing authority program staff – inspectors, receptionists, housing specialists, etc. and not a stand alone boutique program. (provide info, encourage, etc.
These are resources where you can find one program’s data and outcomes and a “how to” manual for mobility counseling programs. Quadel participated in the production of both and is also available to assist.