Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing

An Evidence-Based Practice

This practice has been Archived and is no longer maintained.

Description

In 1994, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) implemented the Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration (MTO) program, in 5 sites (Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City).

The goal of the program was to exert positive influences on behavior and lifestyle changes by replacing the neighborhood environments. Specifically, it aimed at changing neighborhoods characteristics such as peer group influences, school quality, and the availability of supervised after school activities.

The MTO offered participating families with children who lived in public housing in high-poverty neighborhoods Section 8 housing vouchers that could be used only in a low-poverty neighborhood (poverty rate ≤10%). The participants also received counseling from local nonprofit agencies that helped them find and lease units in qualifying neighborhoods.

Goal / Mission

The goal of MTO was to impact behavior and lifestyle choices by changing neighborhood environments.

Results / Accomplishments

The program was evaluated by a randomized social experiment that used a comparison group (that was offered geographically unrestricted Section 8 housing vouchers) and a control group (that did not receive vouchers but remained eligible for public housing).

The study found better health outcomes among members of the MTO group and, in some instances, the comparison group compared to members of the control group. Adult obesity was reduced by 11% in the experimental group (p<.05). MTO increased perceived safety, with 55% of individuals in the control group reporting feeling safe at night in their neighborhoods compared with 71% and 85% in the Section 8 group and the experimental group respectively (p<.05). Girls aged 12 to 19 years in the experimental group and reported improved mental health, including reduced psychological distress, depression, and generalized anxiety disorder (p<.05). Girls aged 15 to 19 years in the experimental group also had better health behaviors, such as lower rates of smoking and marijuana use (p<.05).

About this Promising Practice

Organization(s)
US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development & Research
Primary Contact
Joan Kraft
451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410
(202) 708-4504, x109
http://portal.hud.gov/portal/page/portal/HUD/progr...
Topics
Economy / Housing & Homes
Health / Prevention & Safety
Community / Social Environment
Organization(s)
US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development & Research
Date of publication
Jun 2003
Date of implementation
Jun 1994
Geographic Type
Rural
Location
Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and New Y
For more details
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/mto.html#:~:text=Th...
Target Audience
Children, Teens, Adults

Related Promising Practices

  1. Health Equity: Tenant-Based Housing Voucher Programs
  2. Interfaith Housing of Western Maryland
  3. Pathways to Housing, Inc.
  4. Social Determinants of Health: Permanent Supportive Housing with Housing First (Housing First Programs)
  5. Housing for Health Permanent Supportive Housing Program
  6. Kentucky Mountain Housing Development Corporation (KMHDC)

More

Related Content for: Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing

An Evidence-Based Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes at a minimum: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program implementation steps, and outcomes that have demonstrated program success in achieving the program goal in one or more localities.
  2. The results from an evaluation of the program include quantitative measures showing improvement in the outcome(s) of interest after the implementation of the program (i.e. increase in smoking cessation, not just the delivery of a smoking cessation program). The outcome measure(s) is/are compared at relevant time periods before and after the intervention or program implementation. Alternatively, the evaluation study compares the outcome(s) between an intervention group and an appropriate control group.
  3. The study is of peer-review quality and presents numbers in a scientific manner; measurements of precision and reliability are included (e.g. confidence intervals, standard errors), results from statistical tests show a significant difference or change in the outcome measure(s), and relevant point estimates and p-values are presented. Note: if the results from an evaluation of a program are presented in a scientific manner and the outcome measure is improved compared to the baseline measurement or the control group but the difference is not statistically significant, the practice is classified as effective and not evidence-based.