Families, primarily female-headed minority households with children, living in highpoverty public housing projects in five U.S. cities were offered housing vouchers by lottery in the Moving to Opportunity program. Four to seven years after random assignment, families offered vouchers lived in safer neighborhoods that had lower poverty rates than those of the control group not offered vouchers. We find no significant overall effects of this intervention on adult economic self-sufficiency or physical health. Mental health benefits of the voucher offers for adults and for female youth were substantial. Beneficial effects for female youth on education, risky behavior, and physical health were offset by adverse effects for male youth. For outcomes exhibiting significant treatment effects, we find, using variation in treatment intensity across voucher types and cities, that the relationship between neighborhood poverty rate and outcomes is approximately linear.JEL classifications: H43, I18, I38, J38. Keywords: social experiment; housing vouchers, neighborhoods, mental health, urban poverty 1 This paper integrates material previously circulated in , Liebman et al. (2004). Support for this research was provided by grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the National Institute of Child Health and Development (NICHD) and the National Institute of Mental Health (R01-HD40404 and R01-HD40444), the National Science Foundation (9876337 and 0091854), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Russell Sage Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the W.T. Grant Foundation, and the Spencer Foundation. Additional support was provided by grants to Princeton University from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and from NICHD (5P30-HD32030 for the Office of Population Research), by the Princeton Industrial Relations Section, the Bendheim-Thomas Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, the Princeton Center for Health and Wellbeing, and the National Bureau of Economic Research. We are grateful to Todd Richardson and Mark Shroder of HUD; to Eric Beecroft, Judie Feins, Barbara Goodson, Robin Jacob, Stephen Kennedy, Larry Orr, and Rhiannon Patterson of Abt Associates; to our collaborators Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Alessandra Del Conte Dickovick, Greg Duncan, Tama Leventhal, Jens Ludwig, Bruce Psaty, Lisa Sanbonmatsu, and Robert Whitaker; to our research assistants Ken Fortson, Jane Garrison, Erin Metcalf, and Josh Meltzer; and to numerous colleagues and three anonymous referees for valuable suggestions. Any findings or conclusions expressed are those of the authors. 1The residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods fare substantially worse on a wide range of socioeconomic and health outcomes than do those with more affluent neighbors. Economic models of residential sorting --partially motivated by these observed associations between neighborhood characteristics and individual outcomes --suggest that inefficient equilibria can arise when individual outcomes are influenced by neighbors and ind...

Families, primarily female-headed minority households with children, living in highpoverty public housing projects in five U.S. cities were offered housing vouchers by lottery in the Moving to Opportunity program. Four to seven years after random assignment, families offered vouchers lived in safer neighborhoods that had lower poverty rates than those of the control group not offered vouchers. We find no significant overall effects of this intervention on adult economic self-sufficiency or physical health. Mental health benefits of the voucher offers for adults and for female youth were substantial. Beneficial effects for female youth on education, risky behavior, and physical health were offset by adverse effects for male youth. For outcomes exhibiting significant treatment effects, we find, using variation in treatment intensity across voucher types and cities, that the relationship between neighborhood poverty rate and outcomes is approximately linear.JEL classifications: H43, I18, I38, J38. Keywords: social experiment; housing vouchers, neighborhoods, mental health, urban poverty 1 This paper integrates material previously circulated in , Liebman et al. (2004). Support for this research was provided by grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the National Institute of Child Health and Development (NICHD) and the National Institute of Mental Health (R01-HD40404 and R01-HD40444), the National Science Foundation (9876337 and 0091854), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Russell Sage Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the W.T. Grant Foundation, and the Spencer Foundation. Additional support was provided by grants to Princeton University from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and from NICHD (5P30-HD32030 for the Office of Population Research), by the Princeton Industrial Relations Section, the Bendheim-Thomas Center for Research on Child Wellbeing, the Princeton Center for Health and Wellbeing, and the National Bureau of Economic Research. We are grateful to Todd Richardson and Mark Shroder of HUD; to Eric Beecroft, Judie Feins, Barbara Goodson, Robin Jacob, Stephen Kennedy, Larry Orr, and Rhiannon Patterson of Abt Associates; to our collaborators Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Alessandra Del Conte Dickovick, Greg Duncan, Tama Leventhal, Jens Ludwig, Bruce Psaty, Lisa Sanbonmatsu, and Robert Whitaker; to our research assistants Ken Fortson, Jane Garrison, Erin Metcalf, and Josh Meltzer; and to numerous colleagues and three anonymous referees for valuable suggestions. Any findings or conclusions expressed are those of the authors. 1The residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods fare substantially worse on a wide range of socioeconomic and health outcomes than do those with more affluent neighbors. Economic models of residential sorting --partially motivated by these observed associations between neighborhood characteristics and individual outcomes --suggest that inefficient equilibria can arise when individual outcomes are influenced by neighbors and ind...

No abstract

o xcq uo bi1bp2 w pc dnoicq iiiponr cxbjcii bcuijou bLoAqGq qrn njj ccq © IÔÔ P Wq E!2 uq 1W B r'Icpumw VII LGUkCT 2P°' 2CCfOIJ2 O CX UO ECOUOUJC JG2GLCJJ lJGCG229LIJ) LJQCi fIG AJQfit2 O fIG 4IOIJf 2CICIJCG jonuqpou OL fIG J4IPOUJ Oj coucjrl2rou2 OL LGCOWWGUOU2 ccbI22cq ju ipz bthcL i.c o, qc wupoL2 uq qo uo bbcL 12 thailAG EGJcI!1J nqX HC!JCL 1!UJ H!UG2 Qn!qo IWPGU2 IU K B4UG V14VIJ UIJ JAG 91G LCLfIJ O Q9L?t CP"PIW ATq crqci1 D°EI"°'4. Dy" GCUPCL 9WII IITUC cpq NV oix TOO J22Cfl2GU2 VAGURG wfnoMvr BflKEVI1 OL ECO]40N1C !E2EVICH JAOLpIJ J,thGL J40 ?J28 B !PUJU 4ffq9 E!22 EVKI.IED II4GONE IVX CIEDLL FVBOI 2IThbr'A IE2bO142E 10 IHE ViBEK JAOKKII4O bVbEK 2EIIE2 uq ViBEK BGLJCGIC? CV 4O flIJ!AQ12! O C.°'!' BLJICA cwpq iw Jg EAffU2 HTI K00W 3j ffJJL flIJ!ACL2UA bm.iwcu 0j ECOUOUJ!C jcbuwui o cououic Wq E! B F!P lpQ JLQ a)ajCU? flJC ELLC ibbI2 w bLoqncG ThUJC 0I40U 0 N0LJC JIJCGUAC JUJC 110UJC1J /Aflp CpiqIU !1JJ0 !iCLG uJLcqA UJ ipc JOL jOLCC GowbJIcq 10 OIJJCL CJGWGU2wo pjccjX cxbJ9uou jAG juq uo cjcc o ipc ac cxb9u2!ou ou qc p01112 o MOLJC o uq coucjnq iprg 1J Jôg QxbrU2I0IJ o ELLC uq c op bwJ2iou2 o jjçgQ LQ JJQ 2!uJQ iiowcu iiiqjon cprqtcu j cxbjoz.c UIWpCL o bonipjc cxbJnrnpou2 jOL pi jucpu pGft J0L o1.cc brucibpou pA j bci.ccuw bo!u1 (pow pc o j bci.ccui) LGJTAc io jjc uq lp9 CMGGU jg-jg uq gg-jg ujc iiowu w iucw9cq 0j UJG JAOUJGU RUJJOfl1 CJJIJI.GU cowb lpG cjrnuc !u jpoi. nbbjX o iu iiowcu tip cpjqicu ro pc cpmic Ju jrpoi. 2nbbJA ou i.jwic jpo nbbjA orncow 01, UJG /,0wcu Mirji uq qJonr cprjqwu JJQL0LG oj poncpojq jji u.c bLCqCrQq pA GCOUOUJTC rPGOLA 10 AG LGU0LCC ic UJJbC 0j PG ELLC iu ipc ijnc o qcbcuqGu Gxcwbou miq rpG jc !ucLc2c u JG wuqrq qqncrou oi. pcq OU JIJ0jJCL L0Ithe 2!IJJG MOUJGU M!iJJOIU CpflqT.w OIIJCL jGWLC 0j JJ VXQe 2flCJJ 2 JJG UCLG2G u cijA iqcujpjc onb ujc MOWGU 'rp cpJqi.cu pnr bLcqcrcq ro pvc pq uo CCCV ELLC ou j0L oJ.cc barc!b ou vuq pom. oj oqc jji GxbuJou oj rpc cLcqr ccrcq QxuJuC rpc iuJb,cr o jx gqouiJ vcr o jg (jr) Np!cJJ !ucjnqcq u cxbmjou o pGcouic cup.j baj oj pc jpquq oicujwur u-boiuA pi rpj bbGL !ic pi uc oj urnloL CXbI1JJou2 II4!U !' JÔ8X lV Lucq !ucowc x cLcq (Euc) vuaLgYci EVB1#IED II4CONE LVX CKEDLL FVBOK 2fIbbr'A BF2bOM2E 10 IHE lrluc MBEI jA0LJUIJ bbQL AiqGuc rnJGdrn/ocJJA 2JJ0M2 1P VhDC bLoLw GUGL9LG U01JfL!A!I MOLJC qieiuciiri,, (b j AjOj,JU (j) q Du!L ci i mgi 2rILAcA Ipe cwbiucj prcL(rTLc I'!°U!11 /AL!iC2 JP 1I1 D!CJLi c j (j) uq QiuuLcJJi uq 2IGflLIC (j) oi. qicniou o ccciiic wL!uI rix LC LOW tpc ji.c uq ix cui cc LGL ci j jgy ipe cLeqil '-r!I1?' !ucL M!tJJ nJcouJ bLoqncJu ojcuiu rncomc uq nptunqou cijcci ou POIII2 CLCU LflCC2 jJC IJIIWPCL O J0f1L MOLJCcq pA wot cpJpjc igxbAcL Lc1qA iu pc JPOL OLCC pic pccnc tJJC jj i A!JJJc oujA to trxbAcL2 ''!tP Lucq JIJCOIJJC BflI IPCOLA J0 bLcqiCi tpi ipe 2nbbJA rpcoi.A qoc ruqccq bLcqicl ijrni tpc EIIC "!I1 UC0flLS IP0L jOLC bLiicrbitiow JJJI2 OCCIU2 .LP ELLC ccic coubjcrcq uq uJpinon GI o jpo nbbjA JIJC6U/2 tuqq IPOL C1JC0flL J0L IoLcc biuicibctiou nbbjA tpu i cncq pA otpc cjcujcur o rpc MCJISLG Atcur iu bLricnj&V tpc cLequ 12...

, and three anonymous referees for their suggestions. MOVING TO OPPORTUNITY IN BOSTON: EARLY RESULTS OF A RANDOMIZED MOBILITY EXPERIMENT ABSTRACTWe examine short-run impacts of changes in residential neighborhoods on the well-being of families residing in high-poverty public housing projects who received Section 8 housing vouchers through a random lottery. Households offered vouchers experienced improvements in multiple measures of well-being relative to a control group, including increased safety, improved health among household heads, and fewer behavior problems among boys. There were no significant shortrun impacts of vouchers on the employment, earnings, or welfare receipt of household heads.Children in households offered vouchers valid only in low poverty neighborhoods also had reduced likelihood of injuries, asthma attacks, and victimizations by crime.1 Black [1999] provides convincing evidence of parents' willingness to pay for higher public school quality by comparing house prices for comparable homes in the same neighborhoods on different sides of the borders between adjacent elementary school attendance districts for suburban areas in Massachusetts.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract