Submitted to The MacArthur Foundation UI No. 07011-000-05 Contract No. 99-61174-HCD
The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
Background
Mobility Programs in Chicago
Purpose of the Study
Methodology
Limitations of This Research
Purpose of the Report
2. CHAC'S MOBILITY PROGRAM
Program Components
Process and Programmatic Issues
Administrative Data: Program Outcomes
Recent Changes
3. BASELINE SURVEY
Reasons for Moving, Respondent Characteristics, and Services Needed
Housing and Neighborhood Conditions
4. TWELVE-MONTH FOLLOW-UP SURVEY
Neighborhood Outcomes
Housing Quality and Perceived Changes in Neighborhood Quality
5. EARLY LESSONS
REFERENCES
1. INTRODUCTION
Background
Congress first created the Section 8 program in 1974.1 The program, which was recently renamed the Housing Choice Voucher Program, has grown tremendously since its inception. It currently serves approximately 1.7 million households (HUD 2000). Along with the increase in the number of vouchers available to low-income households, the importance of the program has grown as the emphasis of federal housing policy has shifted from project-based to tenant-based housing assistance.
The program is administered by state and local governments and funded by the federal government's Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Participants in the program typically pay 30 percent of their monthly income toward rent, with the voucher program making up the difference. Housing choice vouchers are tenant-based, which means that, unlike residents of public housing, voucher families have the option to move anywhere in the United States.
With approximately 26,000 vouchers, the Chicago Housing Authority's (CHA) Housing Choice Voucher Program is one of the largest in the country and is expected to grow over the next five years. The expiration of subsidy contracts with private developers has already shifted a significant number of families from project-based assistance to tenant-based assistance. In addition, changes in public housing in Chicago are expected to add thousands of families to the Housing Choice Voucher Program rolls (CHA Transformation Plan 2001).
Many policy analysts, practitioners, and housing advocates believe that the shift from project-based subsidies to tenant-based subsidies represents a positive change in housing policy. In some cities, the Housing Choice Voucher Program has shown promising results in providing more choice and expanding housing opportunities to families (Turner 1998). However, in Chicago, the results of this shift are not as clear. Voucher "clustering" appears to be a substantial problem both inside the city on the South Side and in bordering southern suburbs, where a majority of voucher recipients are located (Fischer 1999).
Mobility Programs in Chicago
Chicago has long been an innovator in developing mobility programs intended to offer opportunities to public housing residents. The most famous of these is the Gautreaux program, created in 1976 as the result of a public housing desegregation settlement.2 The settlement called for the provision of 7,100 certificates to current and former CHA residents to use in neighborhoods that were less than 30 percent African American. The Gautreaux program, which ran until 1998, provided counseling and support to families who chose to move to nonminority areas (Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum 2000). The Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities, a fair housing organization, administered the certificates. The Leadership Council has since been one of the contractors involved in relocating CHA residents. In 2001, the agency was commissioned to create a new Gautreaux-type program for people who wish to move to low-poverty neighborhoods.3 Another group—Housing Choice Services—administers a mobility program in the Cook County suburbs.
CHAC Inc., the private corporation that administers the Housing Choice Voucher Program in Chicago, has run several mobility initiatives since taking control of the program in September 1995. The agency first initiated a small mobility program in 1995 as part of its contract and administered the Chicago Moving to Opportunity demonstration from 1996 to 1998. In 1998, CHAC dramatically expanded its mobility efforts, requesting a waiver from HUD to convert funds from 250 vouchers to create an expanded mobility program. The result of this increased effort was CHAC's mobility program.
The program, geared to current voucher recipients who are moving with their vouchers, is one of the only mobility programs in the country that is run directly by a housing choice voucher program rather than a nonprofit contractor.4 The program uses a variety of methods—including individual counseling, life-skills training, landlord negotiation seminars, neighborhood tours, and a security deposit loan assistance program—to foster moves to low-poverty, low-minority neighborhoods. Given the imminent influx of voucher recipients in Chicago, and the potential impact on neighborhood stability and on recipients' quality of life, efforts such as CHAC's mobility counseling program are critical to the success of public housing transformation.
Purpose of the Study
The Relocation and Mobility Counseling Assessment has two components: an assessment of the counseling and relocation services provided to CHA relocatees and an assessment of services provided to participants in CHAC's mobility counseling program. An interim report on CHAC's mobility program was released in February 2002. In July 2002, the Urban Institute released a report on the first component of this study—counseling and relocation services to CHA relocatees.5 Our final CHA report was released in August 2002. This is our final report on the data we collected during the study.
The overall purpose of the study is to provide rapid feedback to CHAC as it implements its mobility program and grapples with the challenges of serving a rapidly changing population. Further, the study is meant to provide a systematic examination of CHAC's mobility program and how it influences neighborhood outcomes. To assess the effectiveness of the program, we tracked voucher holders who were interested in moving over a period of 12 months, beginning when they first received their "moving papers" in April-June 2000. The objectives of the study were to (1) understand the barriers voucher holders face in looking for housing in Chicago; (2) examine services offered to participants in CHAC's mobility program; and (3) identify short-term outcomes for participants in the program. Table 1 in Appendix A lists specific research questions.
The study is also intended to inform others who are concerned about the Housing Choice Voucher Program overall, including the Mayor's Office, Chicago Department of Human Services, and HUD. The study was funded by a grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and was conducted by the Urban Institute, a nonprofit policy research organization based in Washington, D.C., and its partner, the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Methodology6
Our study used a variety of methods, including a three-wave panel survey, interviews with administrative staff at CHAC, and observation of program activities. Finally, we analyzed administrative data available from CHAC. These methods are described below.
Three-wave panel survey. In April 2000, we surveyed a sample of 203 CHAC housing choice voucher recipients who had been in the Housing Choice Voucher Program for at least one year and were moving voluntarily, being evicted, or had to move because their unit failed the HUD Quality Standards (HQS) inspection. Data collection took place at CHAC directly following "transfer briefings" (described in section 2), which all movers are required to attend. All eligible participants were interviewed in separate areas of the briefing room. Baseline data collection took place from April through June 2000. The baseline survey lasted approximately 20 minutes, and each participant was paid $10 for completing the interview. The second survey was a follow-up wave of data collection with the same respondents between November and January 2001. The third and final survey began in May and was completed in September 2001.
Program observations and staff interviews. To answer research questions related to program operations, we conducted a process study of the counseling and mobility services provided by CHAC's mobility program. Research staff conducted group interviews with CHAC staff in January 2000 and held interviews and program observations from April through August 2000. They observed briefings and other program activities, such as van tours and workshops for tenants. They also conducted one-on-one interviews with program administrators and counselors. Project staff conducted interviews with program administrators in January and March 2001. Finally, follow-up interviews with program administrators and other key actors involved in the relocation process were conducted in the winter of 2001 and the spring of 2002.
Administrative data. CHAC provided administrative data for January 1, 2001, through May 31, 2002. Administrative data included information on all voucher participants who planned to move during that period. To provide a fuller picture of CHAC's mobility program, we analyzed these data and included the findings in our report.
Limitations of This Research
There has been some recent research on how neighborhood poverty levels influence outcomes for families with vouchers.7 However, to date there has been little systematic examination of how mobility programs operate, what makes them effective, and what components need to be strengthened.8 In addition, there has been little effort to examine neighborhood outcomes for households that move with vouchers.
This study attempts to fill the gap by providing meaningful data from a three-wave panel survey, program observations, interviews with administrative staff, and program administrative data. There are, however, a number of limitations inherent in our research design. First, we selected our sample from "second movers" who attended a transfer briefing between April 2000 and June 2000. Only housing choice voucher movers who were interested in participating in our study at the end of the transfer briefing were surveyed. Therefore, our sample may represent a population that is slightly more motivated than the rest of the households in the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
The second limitation is our heavy reliance on 1990 census data. These data are clearly outdated; however, 2000 poverty data for states and other localities will not be available until late 2002. We decided against using estimates provided by commercial carriers, because these data are historically inaccurate.
Despite these limitations, this study documents the experiences of a cohort of participants making incremental moves with housing choice vouchers. We hope the report provides information that can be used to inform CHAC's efforts to expand its mobility program.
Purpose of the Report
The purpose of this report is to provide feedback on the early implementation of CHAC's mobility program. The report focuses on the moving experiences of a cohort of housing choice voucher holders who have been receiving voucher assistance for at least one year as they proceed through the process of making a second move with a voucher. Some of the respondents in our sample enrolled in CHAC's mobility program, while others decided to move without mobility assistance. This report presents a descriptive analysis of the characteristics of our respondents, their reasons for moving, the problems they confronted during their search, and, for the respondents who moved, neighborhood outcomes.
It is important to note that CHAC's mobility program is very much a work in progress. Therefore, we highlight some of the changes CHAC has implemented to strengthen the program during the course of our study. Because our survey sample was first interviewed during May 1998 (during the early phases of the program), respondents who moved quickly were likely not affected by later changes to the program. However, our ongoing process study has documented many of the implementation challenges facing the program and CHAC's responses to these issues. Thus, in addition to a snapshot of program outcomes, our report offers important lessons for CHAC's ongoing efforts to improve and expand its mobility counseling services.
The remainder of this report consists of four sections. In Section 2, we provide a description of CHAC's mobility program, including program outcomes to date, how participants move through the program, and a description of the major program components. In Section 3, we present a descriptive analysis of respondent characteristics and their opinions on housing conditions and neighborhood quality. In Section 4, we present our data from the 12-month follow-up survey. These data focus on neighborhood differences between low-poverty movers and high-poverty movers and how CHAC's mobility program affects these outcomes. Finally, in Section 5, we draw on lessons learned to present recommendations to improve the program.
This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF), which many find convenient when printing.
Notes
1. The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 merged the Section 8 certificate and voucher programs into one to create the Housing Choice Voucher Program. We refer to this program throughout the report as "the voucher program" or "housing choice vouchers."
2. In the landmark Gautreaux case, the courts found that CHA and HUD had discriminated against black tenants, concentrating them in large-scale developments located in poor black neighborhoods. The decision against CHA in 1969 called for the creation of new public housing at "scattered sites" in nonminority communities. The case against HUD eventually moved to the Supreme Court and was settled in 1976 (Rubinowitz and Rosenbaum 2000).
3. For a full discussion of the Leadership Council's role in relocation, see Popkin and Cunningham 2001.
4. The only other large-scale program is the Housing Opportunities Program administered by the Dallas Housing Authority as part of its obligations under the Walker decree. See Popkin et al. 2001.
5. See Popkin and Cunningham July 2001 and August 2002.
6. See appendix A for a complete description of study methods.
7. See HUD's Moving to Opportunity demonstration.
8. The only study to date on counseling programs is a report on the initial counseling provided to Moving to Opportunity participants (Feins et al. 1997).
Latest Research
Browse by Topic:
PDF
Printer-friendly summary
