Martha M. Galvez WA State DSHS Research & Data Analysis WCPC Seminar, November 14, 2011

1. Who really cares about “mobility?” Testing assumptions about Housing Choice Voucher holders’ neighborhood preferences Martha M. Galvez WA State DSHS Research & Data Analysis WCPC Seminar, November 14, 2011

2. Overview • Background • Methods and theoretical framework • Results • Implications for policy and research • Questions and comments

3. Voucher program background • HCV program pays part of private market rent • Serves more than 2 million very low-income households • 2,500 local Public Housing Authorities (“PHAs”)

4. Voucher program background • Response to isolation & concentrated poverty in public housing • Passive “mobility” expectations • Portability, choice expected to allow low income households to reach high quality neighborhoods

5. Disappointing location outcomes • 20-25% don’t move at all • Few signs of improved neighborhood quality Source: Census 2000; HUD HCV data, 2004; HUD LIHTC data, 2004

6. Motivating questions • What’s driving these outcomes? • Housing market constraints alone can’t explain locations • Pendall 2000; Devine et al., 2003; Galvez, 2011 • Voucher holders find their own housing • Why are they choosing these areas? • Is “mobility” actually a goal?

7. Overview • Background and policy context • Methods and theoretical framework • Results • Implications for policy and research • Questions and comments

8. Methods • Tracking moves & preferences for 243 Seattle HCV holders • Survey data matched to administrative data • Asking: • Move preferences on the day they received a voucher? • Did outcomes appear to reflect day 1 preferences? • Do some common assumptions about preferences & behavior hold?

9. Survey constructs Basic move preference • New unit, neighborhood? • Prioritize “mobility”?

10. Understanding move preferences • Expect voucher income to trigger a move • Expect preferences for new neighborhoods • Expect stronger preferences for clients in low quality areas

11. Survey constructs: “push/pull” factors Basic move preference • New unit, neighborhood? • Prioritize “mobility”? • Perceived alternatives • Place attachment/ dependence Neighborhood satisfaction

12. Understanding move preferences • Place attachments/Place dependence • Relationships with place • Family/social networks (Manzo, 2003; Fried, 2000; Charles, 2005; Dawkins, 2006; Kleit, 2007; Stokols & Schumacher, 1981; Pretty, Chipuer, & Bramston, 2003 ) • Reliance on services • Community ties

13. Understanding move preferences • Perceived constraints on options • Housing availability • Personal finances • LL Discrimination • Knowledge of rules (Charles, 2005; Popkin & Cunningham, 2000)

14. Understanding move preferences • Explains choice to remain despite “better” options w/ a voucher • Explains choices to remain despite dissatisfaction with NH • Are voucher holders dissatisfied with their neighborhoods?

15. Understanding move preferences • MTO/HOPE VI does suggest neighborhood dissatisfaction • Relocating from from highest poverty public housing • MTO avg. poverty rate > 50% in 1990 • HOPE VI avg. > 40% • High poverty rates expected to reflect physical distress (Smith et al., 2002; Popkin & Cunningham, 2000; Clampet-Lundquist, 2004)

16. Understanding neighborhood decisions • Typical HCV context somewhat different • Poor in MSAs avg. approx 20% • HCV average approx. 20% • Little research on quality of life in moderate poverty areas • Exiting history of poverty, instability may influence perceptions (DeLuca & Rosenblatt, 2010; Briggs et al., 2010; Teske et al., 2007) • Do assumptions hold for “typical” HCV mover?

17. Survey constructs Basic move preference • New unit, neighborhood? • Prioritize “mobility”? • (3) Perceived alternatives • Housing availability • Personal finances • LL Discrimination • Knowledge of rules • (1) Place attachment/ (2) Place dependence • Reliance on services • Social network • Community ties (4) Neighborhood satisfaction

18. Overview • Background and policy context • Methods and theoretical framework • Results • Implications for policy and research • Questions and comments

20. Highly mobile, but without improvements • 73% of successful moved (60% of full sample) • More likely to live in a low-opportunity neighborhood • More concentrated into fewer neighborhoods

21. Most remained in similar areas • Most common outcome was no change • “Unsuccessful” in higher-quality areas • About 1/3 saw improvements

22. Moves mirrored basic preferences N=243 • 75% wanted a new unit; 57% also open to a new neighborhood • “Mobility” not the main goal • Actual moves mirrored basic preferences

23. Place attachments did not appear binding How many friends/family live in your neighborhood (but not with you)?

24. Place attachments did not appear binding No significant relationship with place attachment measures • Social network size • Sense of community • Knowing neighbors • Length of time in unit, neighborhood

25. Dependence important, but in unexpected ways As expected: • Service-dependent more likely to prefer to remain in pre-program housing unit & neighborhood, and do so (p<1%) • But only 18% of full sample dependent on services

26. Dependence important, but in unexpected ways • Housing-dependent more likely to prefer to move to new units and neighborhoods, and to do so (p.<1%)

27. Perceptions did not appear constrained Neutral to positive perceptions, as opposed to constrained

28. Most were satisfied with pre-program areas • Average satisfaction score high (4.6 of 7; cronbach .72) • Satisfaction not correlated with neighborhood quality measures

29. Preferences & outcomes vary by satisfaction **=p. <.05; ***=p.<.01

30. Results • Assumptions of move behavior appear to hold: • Most wanted new units • Dependent households less likely to want to move or actually move • Neighborhood satisfaction important to preferences and outcomes

31. Results Assumptions of move preferences do not: • Place dependence/attachment not the norm • Dissatisfaction not the norm • Neighborhood quality was a poor predictor of preferences/outcomes or satisfaction • Passive “mobility” expectations may be unrealistic

32. Overview • Background and policy context • Methods and theoretical framework • Results • Implications for policy and research • Questions and comments

33. Policy implications • Focus on households in highest poverty areas • Direction for counseling & mobility services • Passive counseling programs may not be effective • Self-selecting, information-based services may not be effective • More intensive counseling may be needed • Shift focus onto perceptions and expectations of neighborhoods • Longer relationship with voucher holders

34. Directions for research • Which models work to talk about “mobility” goals? • What types of communication, information resonate? • How do poor HHs experience & perceive neighborhoods? • What about the income effects of vouchers? • Housing and financial stability • Decreased stress, improved mental health • Income for non-housing spending

35. Thanks • HUD/DDRG • Seattle Housing Authority • Poverty & Race Research Action Council

36. Overview • Background and policy context • Methods and theoretical framework • Results • Implications for policy and research • Questions and comments

37. Atlanta waitlist opening 2010