	Introduction

Choice and mobility are key aspects of the of the nation's largest federal housing assistance program, the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV, or voucher) program. The choice aspect of the program—that eligible families can use their federal subsidies to rent the housing they choose in the private market—differentiates it from the other major federal housing assistance programs, including public housing and project-based Section 8 rental assistance. However, these aspects of the program may be of greater interest to policymakers going forward, as new research findings have questioned the effectiveness of current policies in promoting mobility and improving family well-being. This report explores the concept of choice and mobility in federal housing policy, particularly in the Section 8 HCV program. It begins by describing the origins of choice and mobility in federal housing policy, followed by a discussion of choice and mobility in today's Section 8 HCV program. The report then provides an overview of relevant research on the effects of choice and mobility policies. It concludes with a discussion of considerations for policymakers. However, many public housing developments, particularly in urban areas, remained racially segregated. The other is to promote racial desegregation and poverty deconcentration, by providing low-income families with the option to move to low-poverty and racially integrated areas. This is a particularly relevant consideration in recent years, when funding for per-voucher administrative fees has been at reduced levels. (4) Aspects of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program and the way it is administered may facilitate families' choices to stay in areas with concentrated poverty . Review of Mobility Research

While the hypotheses and research discussed in the previous section of this report consider what choices families make given the options and constraints of the HCV program, another set of studies have considered what happens when families' choices are explicitly constrained for the purpose of promoting poverty deconcentration and racial desegregation. Taken together, the research to-date has not shown convincing evidence that programs designed to move low-income families to neighborhoods with lower concentrations of poverty and lower concentrations of minority households have resulted in families remaining in low-poverty communities. Studies have shown that families given vouchers with mobility goals have struggled to make initial moves to areas that would be considered "areas of opportunity," (i.e., those with very low concentrations of poverty or racial/ethnic minorities). Further, with the exception of the first Gautreaux program, those families that did initially relocate to lower-poverty and more racially integrated neighborhoods, over time and with subsequent moves, often ended up living in neighborhoods with higher concentrations of poverty and less racial integration than the lower-poverty neighborhoods to which they had initially moved. Looking beyond locational outcomes, the studies have not found evidence that mobility moves have had major positive impacts on families' economic and children's educational outcomes. Among those families that stayed in lower-poverty neighborhoods (Gautreaux), initial limited employment and earnings impacts were found and impacts were mixed regarding children's outcomes, although later research has called those findings into question. Some positive impacts were found in MTO around health, housing and neighborhood satisfaction, and perceived safety, but in other areas of interest to policymakers, such as family economic well-being, employment, and children's educational outcomes, positive impacts have not been found. The resulting Gautreaux Assisted Housing Program was active from 1976 until 1998. Implications and Policy Considerations

The HCV program is designed to offer program participants choice about where they live. A study of the moves of families participating in Chicago's Section 8 program found that, when controlling for differences between families, mobility assistance (which included a wide array of services such as housing search counseling and unit referrals, free credit reports and budget counseling, transportation to view units in opportunity neighborhoods, post-move support, and a security deposit loan fund) did help families move to "opportunity" neighborhoods (defined as neighborhoods with poverty rates less than 23.9%) by approximately 6%; the researchers concluded that targeting the mobility assistance to economically stable families may have increased moves to opportunity neighborhoods. There have been several housing policy initiatives intended to invest in disadvantaged communities. To the extent other program outcomes—such as promoting affordability or serving more families—are of primary concern to policymakers, they may choose not to make changes to increase mobility and choice in the HCV program, particularly if such changes lead to increased costs that could come at the expense of, for example, providing vouchers to additional families. Some of the findings from the MTO demonstration point to positive impacts for families of receiving voucher in terms of physical and mental health improvements and increased satisfaction, perceived safety, and self-reported well-being. Much of the growth in the program in recent years is attributable to decisions by policymakers to replace other forms of housing assistance with vouchers, in part because of the choice and mobility aspects of the program. One question is the extent to which choice and mobility continue to be among the primary goals of federal housing assistance. If they are, then how can the existing suite of federal housing assistance programs, including the Housing Choice Voucher program, be improved to better promote these goals?
As is evidenced by the name of the program, "choice" is one of the key components of the nation's largest federal housing assistance program, the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV, or voucher) program. The choice aspect of the program—that eligible families can use their federal subsidies to rent the housing they choose in the private market—differentiates it from the other major federal housing assistance programs, including public housing and project-based Section 8 rental assistance, which offer assistance tied to specific units of housing. Those programs have long been criticized for isolating and concentrating poor families, particularly minority families, in high-poverty communities with limited opportunities, particularly in urban areas. Thus, the HCV program was designed, in part, to promote "mobility," or make more areas accessible to low-income families and encourage them to move to areas with greater opportunities. Further, courts have directed communities to use vouchers as a remedy for racial segregation in public housing.
Despite these goals, most families participating in the Section 8 HCV program live in racially segregated communities that have medium or high levels of poverty. There is little consensus on why this occurs, as the housing choice a family makes may reflect the many constraints a family faces in using its voucher, the understanding the family has of the choices to be made, and/or the family's own preferences.
A number of demonstrations and studies have looked at how vouchers can be used to deconcentrate poverty and the effects of moving families out of areas of concentrated poverty. Taken together, the research to-date has not shown convincing evidence that programs designed to move low-income families to neighborhoods with low-poverty and racially/ethnically integrated neighborhoods have resulted in families successfully and permanently moving to such communities. Most studies have shown that families given vouchers with mobility goals have struggled to make initial moves to areas that would be considered "areas of opportunity" (i.e., those with very low concentrations of poverty). Further, those families that did initially relocate to low-poverty and more racially integrated neighborhoods, over time and with subsequent moves, often ended up living in neighborhoods with higher concentrations of poverty and less racial integration than the low-poverty neighborhoods to which they had initially moved.
Researchers have also looked beyond families' locational outcomes at the effects of moving on various measures of family well-being. While one of the motivating goals behind these mobility policies and demonstrations has been to improve families' economic well-being and their children's educational outcomes, studies have not found evidence that the tested mobility policies have had major positive impacts in these areas. Early studies found some initial employment and earnings impacts and some mixed findings regarding children's outcomes, although later research has called those initial findings into question. Some positive impacts were found in the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) demonstration involving physical and mental health, housing satisfaction, neighborhood satisfaction, perceived safety, and overall perceived well-being. But in other areas of interest to policymakers, such as family economic well-being—employment and children's educational outcomes—no impacts were found from MTO.
The fact that many families with vouchers continue to live in high or medium-poverty, racially segregated neighborhoods, paired with the research findings to-date about the limited impacts of tested mobility programs, leads to several questions and considerations policymakers may choose to explore. One question is whether policy changes to the voucher program, or to other federal assisted housing programs, could help to better achieve the goals of poverty deconcentration and reducing racial or ethnic segregation. Another question is whether these goals are of the same, greater, or less importance than other program goals, such as promoting affordability and housing stability. The way policymakers choose to answer these questions could have implications for the direction of federal housing policy.
These questions are particularly relevant now for several reasons. One reason is the current fiscal climate. In a constrained budget environment, policymakers face difficult tradeoffs in funding federal programs. In determining priorities for limited federal funding, the effectiveness and efficiency of all federal housing assistance programs, including the largest—the HCV program—may be reexamined. In fact, reforms to the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program have been considered every year for at least the last decade. While the choice and mobility aspects of the program have not been a primary driver of those reform efforts, these aspects of the program may receive more attention, especially given recently-released research findings. The results of the final evaluation of the MTO demonstration have only been published in the last couple of years and are being considered and debated by social science researchers as well as housing policy advocates.
This report explores the concept of choice and mobility in federal housing policy, particularly in the Section 8 HCV program. It begins by describing the origins of choice and mobility in federal housing policy, followed by a discussion of choice and mobility in today's Section 8 HCV program. The report then provides an overview of relevant research on the effects of choice and mobility policies. It concludes with a discussion of options and considerations for policymakers.